by University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Agricultural Experiment Station in Gainesville, FL .
Written in English
Includes bibliographical references (p. 13-14).
|Statement||John J. VanSickle, Charlene Brewster and Thomas H. Spreen.|
|Series||Bulletin ;, 333, Bulletin (University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station) ;, 333.|
|Contributions||Brewster, Charlene., Spreen, Thomas H., University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station.|
|LC Classifications||SB952.B75 V36 2000|
|The Physical Object|
|Pagination||27 p. ;|
|Number of Pages||27|
|LC Control Number||00328294|
By increasing production costs and reducing yields, a ban on methyl bromide decreases Florida’s FOB revenues by fit~. and increases those of Mexico by increases to U.S. fresh vegetable. elimination of methyl bromide will have significant impacts on U.S. growers of fruit and vegetables that rely on methyl bromide for soil fumigation purposes. The schedule for eliminating methyl bromide has resulted in a 50% decline in methyl bromide availability and has resulted in significant increases in the price of methyl bromide. The vegetable. impact a ban on methyl bromide will have on U.S. growers of fresh vegetables and strawberries. New technologies that reduce yield impacts and control costs will be significant in mitigating these impacts. LIMITATIONS OF THE ANALYSIS The model used in this analysis included those crops that use methyl bromide in. This study evaluates the economic impact of a ban on methyl bromide on the U.S. winter fresh vegetable market for six major crops: tomatoes, green peppers, cucumbers, squash, eggplant, and watermelons. Florida is the primary domestic supplier of these products.
Methyl Bromide Ban Will Have Huge Impact on Turfgrass Industry. KEY POINTS. • No single alternative is available for methyl bromide as the government prepares to ban it. • As a fumigant, methyl bromide kills tough perennial weeds, pathogens, insects and nematodes before turfgrass is established. A mathematical programming model of the North American vegetable market indicates that the elimination of methyl bromide will have significant impacts on U.S. growers of fruit and vegetables that rely on methyl bromide for soil fumigation purposes. historically been small, the major impact of a methyl bromide ban on the Florida citrus industry is that no viable alternative exists as a post harvest control for fruit fly. Thus, a ban on methyl bromide is likely to result in the loss of markets in other citrus producing states, namely California, Hawaii, Arizona, and Texas. Methyl Bromide (Bromomethane) Hazard Summary Methyl bromide is used as a fumigant and pesticide. Exposure may occur during fumigation activities. Methyl bromide is highly toxic. Studies in humans indicate that the lung may be severely injured by the acute (short-term) inhalation of methyl bromide.
Use of Methyl Bromide and the Economic Impact of Its Proposed Ban on the Florida Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Industry. Agricultural Experiment Station, Technical Bulletin No. , Food and Resource Economics Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL (November).Cited by: 1. Methyl bromide is a toxic substance. Because it dissipates rapidly to the atmosphere, it is most dangerous at the fumigation site. Human exposure to high concentrations of methyl bromide can cause central nervous system and respiratory system failures and can harm the lungs, eyes, and skin. Methyl bromide damages the ozone layer. A cooperative ERS/University of Florida study, assuming a complete ban on production uses of methyl bromide for annual fruit and vegetable crops, estimated that Florida and California initially would each lose about $ million annually in gross shipping point revenues, which represented about percent of estimated revenues from treated commodities in each State. Despite widespread use of methyl bromide, this fumigant has been found to cause stratospheric ozone layer depletion and to be associated with serious health effects. Methyl bromide has also been associated with effects to soil biodiversity and groundwater contamination [ 2 ]. In response to these findings, Cited by: