Methyl bromide regulation: All crops should not be treated equally
Authors AffiliationsCherisa Yarkin is Graduate Student, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, UC Berkeley; David Sunding is Visiting Assistant Professor, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, UC Berkeley; David Zilberman is Professor, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, UC Berkeley; Jerry Siebert is Economist, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
Hilgardia 48(3):10-15. DOI:10.3733/ca.v048n03p10. May 1994.
Over the next 7 years, all agricultural uses of methyl bromide (MBr) will be phased out, in compliance with mandates from the US. Environmental Protection Agency and the UN Environment Programmed. This compound has been widely applied as a soil fumigant, and its loss will be felt throughout the state, though more in some crops and regions than in others. Research shows that the heaviest economic loss will be sustained by strawberry growers in the Central and South Coast regions and by nursery operations statewide. A phase-out beginning with the low-value uses of MBr would avert some of the inefficiencies implied by canceling all agricultural uses at once.
Also in this issue:Impact of the desert pupfish, Cyprinodon macularius, and Gambusia affinis affinis on fauna in pond ecosystems
Pesticides: Risk, regulation and research
Science briefs: Fatal injuries to children on farms
Science briefs: New whitefly named as species
Science briefs: Researchers to investigate spider eating habits
Science briefs: Farm advisor unravels oak mystery
Research update: Economists calculate research payoff, effect of cuts
After methyl bromide: No easy answers
Cancelling methyl bromide for postharvest use to trigger mixed economic results
Soil fumigants provide multiple benefits; alternatives give mixed results
Growth regulator gives earlier harvest in artichokes
Cutting off irrigation early may reduce almond hull rot
Screens deny specific pests entry to greenhouses