From the ARS Administrator

We are devoting this issue of the newsletter to selected reports from the Second Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reduction, held November 5-8 in San Diego, California.

The general consensus was that although no big breakthroughs were reported, we are making progress on finding alternatives for methyl bromide. It is universally felt that there is no single method or single combination of chemical and nonchemical methods that is likely to replace methyl bromide and more research is necessary.

A remark made by a grower at one of the late-night discussions during the conference bears repeating. He said he'd be willing to change his practices if only he knew how the change could occur and be implemented without compromising his economic survival. We're working to give him answers.

At the conference, we met with our research customers and partners to discuss plans for a $750,000 increase in funds appropriated by Congress for methyl bromide work in FY 1996. Of this amount, $200,000 will be used to increase our research efforts to capture and recycle methyl bromide for postharvest uses. The rest will go toward establishing projects to field-test preplant methyl bromide alternatives. Thomas Trout, with the ARS lab in Fresno, California, and David Patterson, at Fort Pierce, Florida, will coordinate the field tests with our university and industry partners.

The major thrust will be to validate in the field, on as large a scale as possible, potential alternatives to methyl bromide. We plan to use cultural practices, alternative chemicals, biological control agents, and any viable combination.

Initially in California, we'll look at strawberries, with perennial and tree crops to follow. We're working with the Strawberry Commission and the University of California, using strawberry fields in the Watsonville area of central California. We'll be looking at 1,3-D (Telone) as a possible chemical alternative and will seek grower cooperation. Since environmental conditions vary, we're also seeking a site in southern California, possibly in the vicinity of Oxnard.

Field sites have not yet been identified in Florida, but we're meeting with our cooperators from industry, the University of Florida, and the Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association in January to discuss whether to use growers' fields or experiment station lands. We're also seeking their input on what pests and what fruit and vegetable crops to target.

Lastly, as you may know, the parties to the United Nations' Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer reached an agreement at their 7th meeting, held in Vienna, Austria, December 5-7, 1995, that will eliminate use of methyl bromide in industrialized countries in 2010. This phaseout date will be preceded by a 25-percent cut in 2001 and a 50-percent cut in 2005. Under the agreement, developing countries will freeze methyl bromide consumption in 2002. These actions will have no bearing on the total phaseout date for the U.S., which is January 1, 2001.

Floyd P. Horn
Administrator
Agricultural Research Service

[January1996 Table of Contents] [Newsletter Issues Listing] [Methyl Bromide Home Page]
[ARS Home Page] [USDA Home Page]

Last Updated: October 2, 1998