Application Of Agricultural Chemicals Research Articles

The Sources and Rates of Productivity Gains in Japanese Agriculture, as Compared with the U.S. Experience

the century that has elapsed since her modernization process began in 1868. It is well known that this increase in output has been accomplished with remarkably small demands on the scarce resources, land and capital, in the framework of small-scale agriculture. Given the constraints of her resource endowment, the key theme in the growth of agricultural productivity in Japan has been that of increasing the yields of land.1 To be sure, there is clear evidence that labor productivity has also increased as output per acre increased at about the same man-land ratio. This is quite evident, especially since the 1950's, when the land reform programs were completed and the spectacular growth of the Japanese economy got under way. The newly created owner-farmers, on one hand supported by the rise in real incomes and on the other prodded by the increasing real wage levels both on the farm and elsewhere, took the initiative in mechanizing field operations.2 Moreover, the use of agricultural chemicals which substitute for labor, particularly insecticides, spread to all agricultural enterprises and especially to rice cultivation. The processes of mechanizing field operations and of increasing the application of agricultural chemicals are the prima facie evidence of a gradual shift of emphasis from the land-productivity growth to the labor-productivity growth in Japanese agriculture. Nonetheless, in comparison with the U.S. experience, it seems safe to say that the shift is not yet complete and that the

Problems Relating to Application of Agricultural Chemicals and Resulting Drift Residues

The very first use of agricultural chemicals for pest control probably re­ sulted in undesirable residues on nearby households, persons or animals, wild life areas, or adjacent crops. The extent of these early drift problems was, of course, proportionate to the limited methods of application. A man carrying a sack of Paris green dust which he shook over each tomato plant would not cause drift problems as extensive as those created by his modern counterpart operating a powered ground-duster or an aircraft pilot discharging dust at 300 to 500 pounds per minute-a crop cover-rate 1000 times that of the man with a hand sack. Multiply a single aircraft by the many that frequently work in a crop area, and some dimension of the drift potential can be seen. Drift damage can result in lawsuits being filed against applicators, farmers, and chemical manufacturers. As early as 1927, California enacted regulations on agricultural chemical residues (1). The number of such chem­ ical formulations remained small except for the arsenicals. During the 1945-46 season large amounts of calcium arsenate were used on tomatoes, and the drift of this chemical caused the death of several dairy animals fed with hay from an adjacent alfalfa field. This damage resulted in the enact­ ment of county ordinances related to drift damage (2). However, with the discovery of the hormone herbicides (2,4-D, and similar formulations) and their resulting widespread use, drift problems be­ came acute, causing at least nine crop-dusting cases to reach appellate courts during 1952-53 (3). The cases filed in lower courts must have been numerous to have so many reach the higher court. Regulations on chemical application now began to increase. California, for example, put limitations on hormone herbicides in two ways: (a) through the older hazardous-chemical sections of the regulations; and (b) in a new regulation governing application in so-called hazardous areas (4). The new regulation was enacted as the result of widespread damage to cotton and grapes from 2,4-D used on nearby cereal grains. Through the Civil Aero­ nautics Administration (now FAA), the Federal Government banned the use of 2,4-D dust (5), but the benefits to farmers from hormone herbicides could not be ignored and spray applications increased in spite of threats in several states to ban 2,4-D because of possible damage to cotton. Susceptible crops such as grapes, cotton, tomatoes, and many other broad­ leaf plants are unquestionably damaged by 2,4-D. Under specific weather conditions, the drift from a large sprayed area could produce symptoms on