Assessment of National Program 308: Methyl Bromide Alternatives

1
Assessment of National Program 308 Methyl
Bromide Alternatives Gary L. Obenauf Agricultural
Research Consulting [phone] gobenauf_at_agre
search.nu Visit us at http//mbao.org/
2
NP 308 Review

1. Overarching Review
2. Not OSQR Review
3. Accomplishment 2000-2005 Report
4. NP 308 Action Plan
5. Publications
6. Databases
7. Professional Knowledge
8. Short Time Frame

3
NP 308 Panel

• Gary Obenauf, ARC, Panel Chair
• Mike Aerts, FFVA
• Dan Legard, CSC
• Jim Bair, NAMA
• Bill Chism, EPA-OPP
• Larry Zettler, USDA-APHIS

4
Assessment Criteria

1. Environmentally Acceptable
2. Practical
3. Economically Feasible
4. Sustainable (Preplant only)
5. Effective
6. Outreach
7. Potential Impact

5
Positive Comments

• NP 308 Stay Stand Alone Program
• Significant Progress/Lot of Work Remains
• Good Variety of Approaches
• High Quality Research
• Responsive to Stakeholders/ComplimentsStakeholder
  Funded Research

6
Positive Comments 2

• 6. Communication of Results
• MBAO
• Quarterly Research Bulletins
• Grower/Industry Meetings
• Information for CUE Program
• 7. Significant Success Application, Films Lower
  Rates but Additional Research Needed

7
Positive Comments 3

1. Recovery Technology Improving but Needs
   Improvement
2. Projects Completed and New Research Started

8
Constructive Comments

• Summary Only Selected Projects
• Overall Impacts of All Research Projects
• Matrix Crops-sites-pests-technologies
• Lack of Information in Report/Better Organization
  of Plan
• Economic Feasibility not Addressed but was a Key
  Criterion set by ARS

9
Constructive Comments 2

1. Report Relative to Goals
2. Limitations/Problems
3. Lot not Reported at MBAO Conference/Biannually
   Plus Written Off Years
4. Use Figures on MB should be Used to Help
   Prioritize Research

10
Constructive Comments 3

1. Progress Reports not Easy to Find/List Server
   Interested Parties Also Identify Parts of NP308
   Results if not Listed as NP 308 Project
2. Lack Of Extension Service Activity
3. More Emphasis Short Term Research to Meet Phase
   Out of Montreal Protocol

11

• PrePlant 1a Chemical Controls
• Rating High
• Inconsistency of Data Years Locations
• Highest Probability of Success Needs Additional
  Support

12

• PrePlant 1a Virtually Impermeable Films
• Rating High
• Low Emission Films
• Disposal Needs Additional Work
• Need Summary of Progress to Date

13

• PrePlant 1a Alternative Chemistry-Annuals
• Rating High
• Propargyl Bromide?
• Technical Economic Safety Limitations Needs to
  be Identified
• Regulatory Restrictions

14

• PrePlant 1a Alternative Chemistry-Perennials
• Rating High
• Limitations of Alternatives-Townships Caps, etc

15
PrePlant 1a Application

• Rating High
• Some Excellent Results in Area-Drip Appl.
• Not All Appl. Equipment Effective or Practical
• Remote Sensing?
• Questions about Power-Tiller Use/Limitations
• More on Reduced Rates of Fumigants

16

• PrePlant 1b Biorationals
• Rating Low
• High Risk, Long Term but Needed with Much Less
  Emphasis
• Lack of Progress and Other Areas Way Under-funded
  

17

• PrePlant 1b BioControl Plant Pathogens
  Nematodes
• Rating Low
• Research Results have not easily fit into
  Production Agriculture
• Limited Potential as Replacement for MB

18

• PrePlant 1b BioControl Weeds
• Rating Low
• Research Results have not easily fit into
  Production Agriculture
• Limited Potential as Replacement for MB

19

• PrePlant 1b BioControl Ecological Evaluations
• Rating Low
• Too Long Term for Short Term Demands of MB Phase
  Out

20

• PrePlant 1b BioControl Molecular Traits
• Rating Very Low
• Even when Identified, Implementing into Practical
  Use seems Problematic
• High Risk not likely to Solve Problems to Other
  Areas of Research

21

• PrePlant 1c Cultural Controls
• Rating Medium
• Long Term Relative to Chemical Controls but
  Shorter than Biorationals
• Limited Success to Date
• Like to Become More Important as Other Fumigants
  Face Increased Regulatory Restrictions

22

• PrePlant 1c Host Resistance for Disease
  Management
• Rating Medium
• Long Term
• Limited Specific Host/Pest
• Will do Little to Meeting Phase Out Schedule

23

• PrePlant 1c Crop Rotation, Fallow and
  Solarization
• Rating Medium
• Limited Cases with Viable Fit
• Not Practical or Economically Viable
• Like to have Limited Impact

24

• Postharvest IIa Stored Durables-Heat/Cold
• Rating High
• Will probably have a Limited Fit

25

• Postharvest IIa Stored Durables-Biological
• Rating Low
• Too Narrow Host Range
• Limited Use

26

• Postharvest IIa Stored Durables-Pheromone
• Rating High
• Effective Monitoring Tool-not Direct Replacement
• Can Reduce Number of Treatments
• Combine with IId (Phys. Chem. Det.)

27

• Postharvest IIa Stored Durables- Alternative
  Fumigants
• Rating High
• Most Promise for Alternatives to MB
• All Potential Alternatives Need to be Evaluated
  i.e. Sulfuryl Fluoride

28

• Postharvest IIb Quarantine for Export
• Rating High
• Research Emphasis has not been High
• Need a Viable Alternative for every Quarantine
  Treatment
• ARS APHIS need to Prioritize Research, may need
  Help from FAS, ERS Stakeholders

29

• Postharvest IIb Quarantine for Export-Systems
  Approach
• Rating High
• Limited Use to Date
• Specific Pest/Commodity/Location/Time of Year

30

• Postharvest IIb Quarantine for Export-Methyl
  Bromide
• Not Rated
• Cited Research was not Appropriate as an
  Alternative to MB

31

• Postharvest IIb Quarantine for Export-Alternative
  Fumigants
• Rating High
• Greatest Potential as Alternative
• All Potential Alternatives need to be Evaluated
  i.e. Sulfuryl Fluoride

32

• Postharvest IIb Quarantine for Export-Controlled
  Atmospheres
• Rating Medium
• Has Potential with Use Cited for Lettuce but even
  then Limited Use
• Will not Work Well with Most Commodities

33

• Postharvest IIb Quarantine for Export-Combination
  Systems
• Not Rated
• Combine with Controlled Atmospheres

34

• Postharvest IIb Quarantine for Export-Physical/Hea
  t, Cold Irradiation
• Rating High
• Limited Use
• Concerns with Irradiation
• Costs can be an Issue

35

• Postharvest IIc Capture/Recycle
• Rating High
• Limited Use to Date
• Need to Improve Costs, Recovery Efficiencies
  make Applicable to Large Fumigations
• May be Requirement for Continued Use of MB
• Does not Address Structural/Processing Facilities
  to date

36

• Postharvest IId Physical or Chemical Detection
  Systems
• Rating Low
• Combine with Pheromone Attractiveness and
  Trapping
• Not Alternative Treatment but may delay Treatment

37

• Postharvest IIe Processing Food Storage
  Facilities
• Rating Medium

38

• Postharvest IIe Processing Food Storage
  Facilities-Aerosol
• Not Rated
• Not Alternative but could Delay Treatment
• No Technology Developed Since 2000
• No Literature References

39

• Postharvest IIe Processing Food Storage
  Facilities-Contact Insecticides
• Rating Medium
• Not Replacement but could Delay Treatment

40

• Postharvest IIe Processing Food Storage
  Facilities-Heat
• Rating Medium
• Few Processing Facilities will Withstand
  Treatment
• Some Newer Mills have been able to Use because of
  Newer Construction
• Methods of Using Heat Economically not Available

41

• Postharvest IIf Movement of Commodities out of
  Quarantine Areas
• Rating High
• Important Area
• Need Additional Alternatives

42

• Postharvest IIf Movement of Commodities out of
  Quarantine Areas-Behavioral
• Rating High
• Limited Impact-Specific Pest/Host

43

• Postharvest IIf Movement of Commodities out of
  Quarantine Areas-Physical
• Rating High
• Has Potential but Limited Use
• Case given is Incorrect in that Olive Fruit Fly
  is in Major Production Areas

44

• Postharvest IIg Prevent Quarantine Pest into and
  within U.S.
• Rating High
• Important Area but Limited Research to Date

45

• Postharvest IIg Prevent Quarantine Pest into and
  within US-Sterile Insect
• Rating High
• Will not Replace Need for Control of Current
  Pests
• Can Limit Outbreaks
• Not all Pests of Concern in Sterile Program

46

• Postharvest IIg Prevent Quarantine Pest into and
  within US-Insecticide Baits
• Rating High
• Make Bait Applications More Acceptable
• Important to Prevent Outbreaks
• Will not Replace need for Control of Current Pests

47

• Postharvest IIg Prevent Quarantine Pest into and
  within US-Prohibition of Imports
• Rating High
• Can be Effective
• Limited Use as most Exotic Pests like Med Fly
  have a Wide Host Range