Score the Spray & Spare the Land

The EIQ is a single value, developed by Kovach and colleagues at Cornell University's New York State IPM Program, that summarises a pesticide active ingredient's environmental impact. It averages three components: toxicity to the farm worker (applicator and picker), to the consumer (dietary and groundwater), and to the ecology (fish, birds, bees and beneficial insects). A lower EIQ means a lower-impact chemistry. Glyphosate, for example, has an EIQ near 15, while bifenthrin is near 45.

The field-use rating (FUR) is what you actually compare between programs. The formula is FUR = EIQ × (% active ingredient ÷ 100) × rate of formulated product applied per acre. So a 41% glyphosate product at 1.5 quarts per acre gives 15.3 × 0.41 × 1.5 ≈ 9.4. Summing the FUR of every product in a spray program gives the program's total environmental load.

There is no fixed pass/fail line because it depends on the crop and number of passes, but the rating is a relative tool: use it to compare two programs that achieve the same control and pick the lower one. A single low-impact product applied at a modest rate may rate under 10, while a high-EIQ pyrethroid or a copper fungicide at a high rate can rate 40 or more. The calculator bands the program total as low, moderate, high or very high to give you a quick read.

No — that is the key insight. EIQ measures environmental impact, not efficacy. Many soft chemistries (for example chlorantraniliprole or spinosad on caterpillars) match or beat harsh broad-spectrum products on the pest while carrying a far lower EIQ. The greener-swap suggestion in this tool only proposes an alternative within the same pest group, so it preserves the job the product was doing.

In the dataset below, the pyrethroid bifenthrin (≈ 44.5), copper hydroxide (≈ 33.5) and the organophosphate chlorpyrifos (≈ 36.5) are among the highest, driven largely by their ecological component (toxicity to fish, bees and beneficials). The lowest include Bacillus thuringiensis (≈ 12), glyphosate (≈ 15) and sulfur (≈ 17). The full table lists each ingredient's total EIQ and its worker, consumer and ecology sub-scores.

In the Kovach model the ecological component is weighted heavily because it sums impacts on fish, birds, bees and beneficial arthropods, and persistent or highly toxic compounds score badly on several of these at once. That is why pyrethroids and organophosphates, which are broadly toxic and sometimes persistent, show a large green (ecology) band in the stacked bar even when their worker and consumer components are moderate.

Three levers move it. First, substitute a lower-EIQ active ingredient that controls the same pest — the single biggest win, shown by the greener-swap card. Second, reduce the rate or % AI where the label allows, since the field-use rating scales linearly with both. Third, drop a pass entirely by using scouting thresholds and IPM so you only spray when needed. The tool recalculates the total live as you change any input.

Yes, the EIQ is product-agnostic — it rates the active ingredient regardless of certification. Some organic-approved materials, such as copper or sulfur fungicides, actually carry a meaningful EIQ, while several conventional reduced-risk chemistries rate very low. Running both programs through the calculator gives an apples-to-apples environmental comparison rather than relying on the organic label alone.

Enter the amount of formulated product you apply per acre in whatever unit your label uses (quarts, pints, pounds, fluid ounces) — the rating is a relative index, so the unit you choose is consistent across the products you compare. Keep the % active ingredient as the figure printed on the product label. For a true comparison, rate all products in the program on the same per-acre basis.

No. The signal word (Caution, Warning, Danger) reflects acute human toxicity only. The EIQ is broader: it folds in chronic toxicity, persistence, leaching potential, plant-surface half-life and impacts on multiple non-target organisms. A product can carry a mild signal word yet have a high EIQ because of its ecological persistence, which is exactly why the field-use rating is a more complete stewardship metric.

No. The EIQ is a planning and stewardship aid built on the Cornell NYS IPM database. The product label remains the legal authority for rates, restrictions and personal protective equipment, and local regulations may impose buffer zones or use limits. Use this tool to choose lower-impact programs, then follow the label and any state or regional rules when you spray.