The Persistent Problem of the Boll Weevil: Pest Control in Principle and in Practice

Insecticides have played the dominant role in attempts to control the boll weevil. In 1971 cotton producers applied nearly one-half of all the insecticides used on farms in America (Table I); and, despite a marked increase in the application of organophosphates, producers continue to rely on organochlorines, notably toxaphene and DDT. Cotton farmers have, therefore, been particularly vulnerable to public demands, expressed most forcefully in the decade following the publication of Silent Spring, for an accounting of the externalities associated with the use of chemical insecticides and for a review of federal policies governing the registration of pesticides. In particular the 1972 ban on DDT created major problems for producers in those areas where DDT, in combination with toxaphene and methyl parathion, still provided control over a broad spectrum of pests. While cotton farmers continue to challenge this ban, a special committee established by the National Cotton Council to review all boll weevil control measures has recently concluded that is technically and operationally possible to eliminate the boll weevil as an economic pest in the United States by the use of techniques that are ecologically acceptable.3 Once again cotton producers are convinced that a final solution to the problem of boll weevil control is possible and through the National Cotton Council are urging a national campaign aimed at eradicating the boll weevil within ten years. The continuing debate over pesticide policies and practices provides the critical frame of reference for this paper. In it I examine the development of pest-control strategies within the cotton ecosystem in terms of the aims, the methods, and the decision criteria applied by producers. I will show that the growing dependency upon chemical methods of pest control was profoundly influenced and reinforced by overly optimistic assessments of the technical effectiveness of each new generation of in* I should like to express my thanks to my colleagues, Donald Brand and Robin Doughty, for their