Assessment of National Program 308: Methyl Bromide Alternatives Gary L. Obenauf

1. Assessment of National Program 308: Methyl Bromide Alternatives Gary L. Obenauf Agricultural Research Consulting (559) 449-9035 gobenauf@agresearch.nu Visit us at: http://mbao.org/

2. NP 308 Review • Overarching Review • Not OSQR Review • Accomplishment 2000-2005 Report • NP 308 Action Plan • Publications • Databases • Professional Knowledge • 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 • Environmentally Acceptable • Practical • Economically Feasible • Sustainable (Preplant only) • Effective • Outreach • 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 • Recovery Technology Improving but Needs Improvement • 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 • Report Relative to Goals • Limitations/Problems • Lot not Reported at MBAO Conference/Biannually Plus Written Off Years • Use Figures on MB should be Used to Help Prioritize Research

10. Constructive Comments 3 • Progress Reports not Easy to Find/List Server Interested Parties Also Identify Parts of NP308 Results if not Listed as NP 308 Project • Lack Of Extension Service Activity • 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/Heat, 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