1 / 47

Assessment of National Program 308: Methyl Bromide Alternatives Gary L. Obenauf Agricultural Research Consulting (559)

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/. NP 308 Review. Overarching Review Not OSQR Review Accomplishment 2000-2005 Report NP 308 Action Plan

jedidiah
Download Presentation

Assessment of National Program 308: Methyl Bromide Alternatives Gary L. Obenauf Agricultural Research Consulting (559)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  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

More Related