Hostname: page-component-5db58dd55d-pjp64 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-06-02T12:40:00.787Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Retrospective evaluation of costs associated with methyl bromide critical use exemptions for open field strawberries in California

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 April 2015

Ann Wolverton
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

Methyl bromide (MBr) has been widely used as a fumigant to control pests in the agricultural sector, but it is also an ozone depleting substance. After 2005, methyl bromide could only be produced when a critical use exemption was agreed to by the signatories to the Montreal Protocol. This paper examines how the EPA’s ex ante cost analyses for open field fresh strawberries in California for the 2006–2010 seasons compare to an ex post assessment of costs. A key input into the ex ante cost analysis is the assumed yield loss associated with methyl bromide alternatives. The EPA used conservative assumptions given the wide range of estimates in the literature at the time, but it appears that a number of viable MBr alternatives – either new fumigants or new ways of applying existing fumigants – may have become available more quickly and resulted in lower yield loss than initially anticipated. Likewise, it appears that farmers who substituted away from methyl bromide did so without imposing large negative impacts on production in prime California strawberry growing areas. Ex post evaluation also confirms the effect of California regulatory restrictions in limiting the use of various economically competitive alternatives. It is worth noting that unanticipated complications after switching away from methyl bromide, such as new diseases, slowed the transition to MBr alternatives.

Keywords

cost analysismethyl bromideopen-field strawberriesretrospective study

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis , Volume 5 , Issue 2: Special Issue: Retrospective Analysis of the Costs of EPA Regulations , June 2014 , pp. 225 - 257
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis 2014

References

Bolda, M., Tourte, L., Klonsky, K., & De Moura, R. (2010). Sample costs to produce strawberries. Central Coast Region: Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties. University of California Cooperative Extension.Google Scholar
California Strawberry Commission. (2005). Strawberry review: 2005 acreage survey results.Google Scholar
California Strawberry Commission. (2006). Strawberry review: 2006 acreage survey.Google Scholar
California Strawberry Commission. (2009). California strawberry revised 2009 acreage survey.Google Scholar
California Strawberry Commission. (2012a). Strawberry review: 2012 acreage survey.Google Scholar
California Strawberry Commission. (2012b). The facts about methyl bromide.Google Scholar
Carpenter, J., Gianessi, L., & Lynch, L. (2000). The economic impact of the scheduled U.S. phaseout of methyl bromide. National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy.Google Scholar
Carpenter, J., Lynch, L., & Trout, T. (2001). Township limits on 1,3-D will impact adjustment to methyl bromide phase-out. California Agriculture, 55(3), 12–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, C., Chalfant, J., Goodhue, R., Groves, K., & Simon, L. (2004). Impacts of pesticide regulation on the California strawberry industry. Working Paper.Google Scholar
Carter, C., Chalfant, J., Goodhue, R., Han, F., & DeSantis, M. (2005a). The methyl bromide ban: economic impacts on the California strawberry industry. Review of Agricultural Economics, 27(2), 181–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, C., Chalfant, J., Goodhue, R., & McKee, G. (2005b). Costs of 2001 methyl bromide rules estimated for California strawberry industry. California Agriculture, 59(1), 41–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dara, S., Klonsky, K., & De Moura, R. (2011). Sample costs to produce strawberries. South Coast Region: Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Counties: University of California Cooperative Extension.Google Scholar
Daugovish, O., Klonsky, K., & De Moura, R. (2011). Sample costs to produce strawberries. South Coast Region: Ventura County. University of California Cooperative Extension.Google Scholar
DuPois, E., & Gareau, B. (2008). Neoliberal knowledge: the decline of technocracy and the weakening of the Montreal Protocol. Social Science Quarterly, 89(5), 1212–1229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fennimore, S., & Ajwa, H. (2011). Totally impermeable film retains fumigants, allowing lower application rates in strawberry. California Agriculture, 65(4), 211–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, W., & Yee, J. (1997). Phasing out registered pesticide uses as an alternative to total bans: A case study of methyl bromide. Journal of Agribusiness, 15(1), 69–84.Google Scholar
Goodhue, R., Fennimore, S., & Ajwa, H. (2003). Economic feasibility of methyl bromide alternatives: field-level cost analysis. White Paper.Google Scholar
Goodhue, R., Fennimore, S., Klonsky, K., & Ajwa, H. (2004). After methyl bromide: the economics of strawberry production with alternative fumigants. Working Paper. Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics.Google Scholar
Goodhue, R., Fennimore, S., & Ajwa, H. (2005). The economic importance of methyl bromide: does the California strawberry industry qualify for a critical use exemption from the methyl bromide ban? Review of Agricultural Economics, 27(2), 198–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hueth, B., McWilliams, B., Sunding, D., & Zilberman, D. (2000). Analysis of an emerging market: can methyl iodide substitute for methyl bromide? Review of Agricultural Economics, 22(1), 43–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kopits, E., McGartland, A., Morgan, C., Pasurka, C., Shadbegian, R., Simon, N., Simpson, D., & Wolverton, A. (2014). Retrospective cost analyses of EPA regulations: a case study approach. Journal of Benefit Cost Analysis, 5(2), 173–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayfield, E., & Norman, C. (2012). Moving away from methyl bromide: political economy of pesticide transition for California strawberries since 2004. Journal of Environmental Management, 106(15), 93–101.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Noling, J. (2005). Reducing methyl bromide field application rates with plastic mulch technology. Paper ENY046. Institute of Food and Agricultural Science, University of Florida.Google Scholar
Noling, J., & Botts, D. (2010). Transitioning to methyl bromide alternatives: a current U.S. assessment. White Paper. Available at: http://mbao.org/2009/Proceedings/002NolingJBottsDMBAO2009TransitioningtoMethylBromideAlternatives.pdf.Google Scholar
Noling, J., Botts, D., & MacRae, A. (2010). Alternatives to methyl bromide soil fumigation for Florida vegetable production. Vegetable Production Handbook. University of Florida, IFAS Extension.Google Scholar
Norman, C. (2005). Potential impacts of imposing methyl bromide phaseout on U.S. strawberry growers: a case study of a nomination for a critical use exemption under the Montreal Protocol. Journal of Environmental Management, 75, 167–176.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Othman, M., Ajwa, H., Fennimore, S., Martin, F., Subbarao, K., Browne, G., & Hunzie, J. (2009). Strawberry production with reduced rates of methyl bromide alternatives applied under retentive film. Proceedings for 2009 Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emission Reductions.Google Scholar
Perez, A., Plattner, K., & Baldwin, K. (2011). Fruit and tree nuts outlook. FTS-347. National Agricultural Statistical Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.Google Scholar
Porter, I., Trinder, L., & Partington, D. (2006). Validating the yield performance of alternatives to methyl bromide for pre-plant fumigation. Special report commissioned by the Methyl Bromide Technology Options Committee, Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, UNEP.Google Scholar
Rubin, S. (2012). Arysta to pull methyl iodide from U.S. Monterey County Weekly. March 22.Google Scholar
Samtani, J., Ajwa, H., Weber, J., Browne, G., Klose, S., Hunzie, J., & Fennimore, S. (2011). Evaluation of non-fumigant alternatives to methyl bromide for weed control and crop yield in California strawberries. Crop Protection, 30(1), 45–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sances, F. (2000). Conventional and organic alternatives to methyl bromide on California strawberries. Working paper. Presented at Methyl Bromides Alternatives Conference.Google Scholar
Sydorovych, O., Safley, C., Ferguson, L., Poling, E., Fernandez, G., Brannen, P., Monks, D., & Louws, F. (2006). Economic evaluation of methyl bromide alternatives for the production of strawberries in the southeastern United States. HortTechnology, 16(1), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Takele, E., Klonsky, K., & De Moura, R. (2006). Sample costs to produce strawberries. South Coast Region: Santa Barbara County, Santa Maria Valley. University of California Cooperative Extension.Google Scholar
UNEP (United Nations Environmental Programme). (2006). Handbook for the Montreal Protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer. 7th Edition, United Nations.Google Scholar
UNEP. (2010). 2010 Report of the methyl bromide technical options committee.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2000). Economic implications of the methyl bromide phaseout. Economic research service. Agriculture Information Bulletin, 756.Google Scholar
U.S. EPA. (2004–2013). Methyl bromide critical use nomination for preplant soil use for strawberries grown for fruit in open fields. Submitted for 2006–2015 seasons.Google Scholar
VanSickle, J., Brewster, C., & Spreen, T. (2000). Impact of a methyl bromide ban on the U.S. vegetable industry. University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Science. Bulletin 333.Google Scholar
VanSickle, J., & NaLampang, S. (2002). The impact of the phase out of methyl bromide on the U.S. vegetable industry. Policy Brief 02-1. University of Florida. International Agricultural Trade and Policy Center.Google Scholar