|
Farmers Hope to Buy Time With Methyl Bromide Exemptions
Auburn,
February 11, 2003
--- The future of many Southern fruit and vegetable growers may ride
on whether the Bush administration succeeds in persuading an
international committee to stop the total phaseout of a
controversial pesticide by 2005 – one that many growers say they
simply cannot do without.
Farmers say the pesticide, methyl bromide, used since the 1960s,
provides them with the only effective way to deal with many common
problems – soilborne fungal diseases, insects, nematodes and even
some weeds.
Some
scientists, on the other hand, say use of the chemical is helping
punch a hole in the ozone. And until now, their views have
prevailed.
A
15-year-old pact known as the Montreal Protocol calls for the total
phaseout of methyl bromide in developed countries by 2005. And
even though researchers have worked round the clock to find
alternatives to the pesticide, the pickings are slim. This has left
farmers with two very stark alternatives: either they bite the
bullet and find some way to get by without methyl bromide or they
lobby for critical use exemptions, which will enable them –
hopefully, at least -- to carry on until more viable alternatives to
methyl bromide are developed.
With
little hesitation, most producers have opted for the latter option,
because without these exemptions many fear they may be forced out of
farming altogether.
“Right now, the problem has been finding a single replacement for
methyl bromide,” says Dr. Joe Kemble, an Alabama Cooperative
Extension System horticulturist who works closely with fruit and
vegetable growers. “Researchers are looking at several compounds as
replacements, but many of these are
toxic, both from the standpoint of long-term exposure and the
immediate risk it poses to the applicator.”
Complicating matters is that applying these chemical alternatives
often requires specialized equipment
that, in many cases, costs a lot of money – money that must be paid
out of already strained farm budgets. One added complication is
that what works in one state doesn’t always work in another, due to
differences in soil types and other factors.
One
nonchemical alternative is soil solarization, a method of heating
soil by covering it with transparent plastic sheeting during hot
periods to control soilborne diseases. Unfortunately for Deep South
producers, growing conditions in the region are not well suited for
the practice.
“It
would only provide a limited effect,” Kemble says. “And down here,
it would require you to be out of production during July and August
– the hottest times of year and typically our most productive period
in terms of fruits and vegetables. For most farmers, it would be
just too big a hit on their pocketbooks.”
Yet
another option is rotation. But, again, there’s a hitch: many
farmers face the challenge of finding additional land to rotate to,
since all of their land is tied up in cultivation.
Newly developed less permeable plastic mulches, which trap methyl
bromide for longer periods, allowing it to break down into its
component parts before release into the atmosphere, is an option for
some farmers. It may even help them get by with less use of the
chemical. But yet again, the issue is cost.
“Margins have gotten tighter and tighter for farmers, especially in
the fruit and vegetable industry -- margins that get even tighter
when another expense is added,” Kemble observes. “It comes down to
a question of survival.”
Fifty-six requests for two-year exemptions for methyl bromide use
beyond the 2005 deadline were filed with EPA, including appeals from
strawberry and melon growers in Alabama and Florida. Early in
February, the Bush administration announced that some of these
requests, including those for strawberries and melons, have been
submitted to the Ozone Secretariat of the United Nations, charged by
the Montreal Protocol with the final decision.
For
growers, the two-year extensions are just a way of buying time –
time for researchers to develop adequate alternatives for methyl
bromide. Without them, many face the end of their farming careers.
“There’s no
doubt that without these exemptions for adequate alternatives, many
growers are going out of business,” Kemble says. “I even wonder now
why some of them are staying in business, because they’re not making
any money, or they’ve just paid off their bank note.”
“Even now, many
just stick with it because they believe it’s in their blood, and
there’s a purpose to what they do.”
(Source:
Dr. Joseph M. Kemble,
Extension Horticulturist, 334-844-3050)
Article in MS Word
Article in Text
|
