USA CUN13 SOIL Strawberry Fruit Open Field Page 1 of 15

NOMINATING PARTY: The United States of America

FILE NAME: USA CUN13 SOIL STRAWBERRY FRUIT Open Field 

BRIEF DESCRIPTIVE TITLE OF NOMINATION:

Methyl Bromide Critical Use Nomination for Preplant Soil Use for Strawberry Fruit Grown in 

Open Fields (Submitted in 2011 for the 2013 Use Season)

CROP NAME (OPEN FIELD OR PROTECTED): Strawberry Fruit Open Field

QUANTITY OF METHYL BROMIDE NOMINATED:

TABLE 1: QUANTITY OF METHYL NOMINATED

Year NOMINATION AMOUNT 

2013 531,737 kg

NOMINATING PARTY CONTACT DETAILS:

Contact Person: John Thompson

Title: Division Director

Address: Office of Environmental Policy

U.S. Department of State

2201 C Street, N.W. Room 2658

Washington, D.C. 20520

U.S.A.

Telephone: (202) 647-9799

Fax: (202) 647-5947

E-mail: thompsonje2@state.gov

Following the requirements of Decision IX/6 paragraph (a)(1) The United States of America has determined that the 

specific use detailed in this Critical Use Nomination is critical because the lack of availability of methyl bromide for 

this use would result in a significant market disruption. . ■ Yes  No

Signature Name Date

Title: 

(Details on this page are requested under Decision Ex. I/4(7), for posting on the Ozone Secretariat website under 

Decision Ex. I/4(8).) 

This form is to be used by holders of single-year exemptions to reapply for a subsequent year’s exemption (for 

example, a Party holding a single-year exemption for 2005 and/or 2006 seeking further exemptions for 2007). It 

does not replace the format for requesting a critical-use exemption for the first time.

In assessing nominations submitted in this format, TEAP and MBTOC will also refer to the original nomination on 

which the Party’s first-year exemption was approved, as well as any supplementary information provided by the 

Party in relation to that original nomination. As this earlier information is retained by MBTOC, a Party need not 

re-submit that earlier information. 
USA CUN13 SOIL Strawberry Fruit Open Field Page 2 of 15

CONTACT OR EXPERT(S) FOR FURTHER TECHNICAL DETAILS:

Contact/Expert Person: Jack Housenger

Title: Director

Address: Biological and Economic Analysis Division

Office of Pesticide Programs

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Mailcode 7503P

Washington, D.C. 20460

U.S.A.

Telephone: (703) 308-8200

Fax: (703) 308-7042

E-mail: Housenger.Jack@epa.gov

LIST OF DOCUMENTS SENT TO THE OZONE SECRETARIAT IN OFFICIAL NOMINATION PACKAGE:

1. PAPER DOCUMENTS: 

Title of paper documents and appendices

No. of pages Date sent to Ozone 

Secretariat

USA CUN13 SOIL STRAWBERRY FRUIT Open Field 14

2. ELECTRONIC COPIES OF ALL PAPER DOCUMENTS: 

*Title of each electronic file (for naming convention see notes above)

No. of 

kilobytes 

Date sent to Ozone 

Secretariat

USA CUN13 SOIL STRAWBERRY FRUIT Open Field 

* Identical to paper documents
USA CUN13 SOIL Strawberry Fruit Open Field Page 3 of 15

METHYL BROMIDE CRITICAL USE RENOMINATION FOR 

PREPLANT SOIL USE (OPEN FIELD OR PROTECTED ENVIRONMENT)

STRAWBERRY FRUIT

1. SUMMARY OF THE NEED FOR METHYL BROMIDE AS A CRITICAL USE 

This nomination is for the critical use of methyl bromide for the production of strawberries in 

California (Table 1). Strawberry growers have been replacing methyl bromide and reducing its 

use rates in all production areas, but a critical need remains for areas where alternatives are not 

effective, have not been tested, or not allowed due to regulatory restrictions.

California growers have a critical need for methyl bromide to treat fields where alternatives are 

not available due to regulations or to complete a fumigation program that includes a once per 

three year treatment with methyl bromide to manage two new diseases. Alternative fumigants 

include 1,3-D/chloropicrin and iodomethane (methyl iodide), which has been newly registered in 

California (as of December, 2010). Use of methyl bromide has been reduced over the years 

(approximately one-third of strawberry land was treated with methyl bromide in 2006 (NASS, 

2007; Table 2). 

The U.S. Government (USG) has reviewed all factors affecting transition rates in this sector. 

Based on this assessment the transition rate has been greatly increased for this sector. For the 

area covered in this nomination, the USG believes that the narrative discussion included in this 

document is technically valid. The USG has nominated amounts of methyl bromide based only 

on those sub-sectors that cannot transition away from methyl bromide at the accelerated rate.

2. SUMMARIZE WHY KEY ALTERNATIVES ARE NOT FEASIBLE

Alternatives are considered not feasible where 1) they have not been sufficiently tested or 

protocols have not been sufficiently developed for their use, 2) costs are excessive, 3) application 

difficulties exist due to such factors as hilly terrain or equipment requirements, 4) areas of 

environmental sensitivity or characteristics reduce their efficacy, 5) regulatory restrictions 

prevent their use, 6) pest pressure is to such an extent that alternatives are not effective. 

Approximately two-thirds of strawberry land in California use alternatives to methyl bromide 

(Table 2). In California, township caps currently restrict the use of the most thoroughly studied 

alternative, 1,3-D. Restrictions could affect approximately 40-62% of total strawberry land 

(California Strawberry Commission, 2008). Township caps restricting the use of 1,3-D (Trout, 

2005) may affect between 5,700 and 9,000 hectares by 2011 (California Strawberry

Commission, 2008, see Appendix JJ.11). 

Now that iodomethane has been registered in California, it may help to relieve township cap 

overages of 1,3-D. However, iodomethane has not been tested extensively on large-scale 

production land at the low rates specified on the California label. Furthermore, California 
USA CUN13 SOIL Strawberry Fruit Open Field Page 4 of 15

requires much larger buffer zones (5 to 10 times those on the federal label). Research using 

higher rates (comparable to those on the federal label) generally indicates good efficacy (see 

“Research” section below). The new fumigant should be available in several formulations with 

chloropicrin, but impacts of buffer restrictions and use rate efficacy in California will be unclear 

until experience with the formulations and its activity against various pests is known. 

3. IS THE USE COVERED BY A CERTIFICATION STANDARD?

There is no certification standard for strawberry fruit production.

4. PROPORTION OF CROP USING METHYL BROMIDE 

TABLE 2. PROPORTION OF CROP USING METHYL BROMIDE

REGION WHERE METHYL 

BROMIDE USE IS REQUESTED

TOTAL CROP 

AREA (HA)

AREA NOMINATED 

FOR METHYL 

BROMIDE USE IN 

2012 (HA)

PROPORTION1 OF TOTAL 

CROP AREA TO BE TREATED 

WITH METHYL BROMIDE (%)

California 14,5002

4,856 33

1 Based on the amount of methyl bromide nominated for the 2012 use season for strawberry fruit production.

2 NASS, 2007. 2006-season data.

3 Based on estimates from various recent extension publications of states associated with the requesting consortium.

5. IF PART OF THE CROP AREA IS TREATED WITH METHYL BROMIDE, 

INDICATE THE REASON WHY METHYL BROMIDE IS NOT USED IN THE OTHER 

AREA, AND IDENTIFY WHAT ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES ARE USED TO 

CONTROL THE TARGET PATHOGENS AND WEEDS WITHOUT METHYL 

BROMIDE THERE.

The USG has reviewed all factors affecting transition rates in this sector. Based on this 

assessment the transition rate has been greatly increased for most portions of this sector. For the 

area covered in this nomination, the USG believes that the narrative discussion included in this 

document is technically valid. The USG has nominated amounts of methyl bromide based only 

on those sub-sectors that cannot transition away from methyl bromide at the accelerated rate.

Pest problems vary, and therefore, no one strategy is appropriate for the variety of pests and 

growing conditions in strawberry production. Alternatives are used on two-thirds of strawberry

production land in California. For example, “Methyl bromide is often being used in rotation 

with alternative fumigants. Many growers will use alternative fumigants for 2-3 years then 

rotate back to methyl bromide to clean up emerging weed and disease problems. While, in some 

locations, local permit conditions may not allow the use of methyl bromide due to the proximity 

of sensitive sites such as schools or housing, thus alternative fumigants such a s Inline are used. 

In these locations, growers may accept lower returns over time due to higher weeding costs and 

reduced yields or they will cease growing strawberries in those fields if soil borne disease losses 

and weed density gets too high” (California Strawberry Commission, 2008). 
USA CUN13 SOIL Strawberry Fruit Open Field Page 5 of 15

Furthermore, in California, the choice of fumigant “is influenced by a number of factors 

including the regulatory situation for a particular ranch, their financial situation—can they 

afford methyl bromide, the type of crop they are producing (summer plantings typically do not 

use methyl bromide because they have a short production season while growers in the northern 

district are more likely to use methyl bromide since they have a very long season), the 

prevalence of disease or weed problems, etc...” (Legard, personal communication, 2008). Land 

currently requiring methyl bromide may be able to transition to iodomethane, but it is unclear 

how much, if any, fruit production will be affected.

6. WOULD IT BE FEASIBLE TO EXPAND THE USE OF THESE METHODS TO 

COVER AT LEAST PART OF THE CROP THAT HAS REQUESTED USE OF 

METHYL BROMIDE? WHAT CHANGES WOULD BE NECESSARY TO ENABLE 

THIS?

In California, expansion of alternative methods to critical areas may be likely with the 

registration of iodomethane, but it is not clear what might be the impact of iodomethane on the 

emergence of charcoal rot (Macrophominia phaseolina) and Fusarium wilt (F. oxysporum)—two 

diseases that have caused problems in fields not exposed to methyl bromide in recent years. 

However, research with virtually and totally impermeable films in California suggests that 

sequential treatments of fumigants such as iodomethane, 1,3-D and metam potassium could 

provide effective pest management and acceptable yields (Othman et al., 2009). 

The California Strawberry Commission has funded Farming Without Fumigants Initiative whose 

goal is to develop strawberry fruit production methods that can avoid the complexities of highly 

regulated fumigants. This research includes collaboration with the University of California and 

USDA (see section “Summary of Recent Research” below).

7. SUMMARY OF RECENT RESEARCH 

1) There was no significant difference in the mean of strawberry yield from soil treated with 

methyl bromide and soil treated with DMDS + chloropicrin (Othman et al., 2010). Efficacy

against Pythium and problem weeds, such as annual grasses and pigweed, were also 

comparable to methyl bromide treatments.

2) Macrophimina and Fusarium have been said to be increasing in incidence in recent years 

(personal communication, 2008). Outbreaks of both pathogens have been associated with 

wilting, stunting, and dying plants in coastal and inland strawberry production areas (Koike et 

al., 2009). Some growers have returned to using a methyl bromide treatment after two years 

treatment with alternatives in order to “clean-up” the soil contaminated with both emerging 

pathogens and weeds. Koike et al. (2009) found cultivar differences in susceptibility to the 

two diseases. 
USA CUN13 SOIL Strawberry Fruit Open Field Page 6 of 15

3) Norton (2008) reported that excellent weed and disease control have been achieved with dripapplied 1,3-D/chloropicrin (InLine) followed 5-8 days later by metam-sodium. Weed control 

was highly dependent on optimal fumigant placement, which has not always been applied. 

4) Research continued regarding steam treatment of soils (Fennimore and Samtani, 2010). 

Estimated costs for labor, fuel, and equipment are $3848/acre. While efficacy and flexibility

appear to make steam worthy of further research, disadvantages include high consumption of 

fuel, carbon emissions, the need for large numbers of expensive steam applicators, and water 

treatments. Results suggests that some treatments with steam manage various weed 

populations comparably to methyl bromide soil treatments and yields after steam treatments 

are similar to yields after methyl bromide (Gilbert et al., 2009; Daugovish et al., 2009; 

Fennimore et al., 2009; Fennimore and Goodhue, 2009). Field demonstrations were used to 

demonstrate the latest in experiments in fumigation and non-fumigation methods for 

strawberry production (Fennimore et al., 2009). Treatments also included various low- or 

non-permeable tarps. Steam was the only non-chemical fumigant that had comparable weed 

control compared to methyl bromide. Costs of steam treatments were discussed by Fennimore 

and Goodhue (2009) with regard to orchard replant and ornamental nursery beds. Yellow 

nutsedge was more successfully managed with steam in fall treatments (Daugovish et al., 

2009). Physical barriers (paper and plastic mulches) appeared to reduce populations of 

nutsedge. A combination of steam and physical barriers may be effective. Work is 

continuing on steam treatment for strawberry production.

5) Methods of strawberry production were conducted to test the efficacy of production with nonsoil substrates (Fennimore and Samtani, 2010; Fennimore et al., 2010; Wang et al., 2010). 

Advantages are comparable or higher yields compared to fumigated soils and the lack of need 

for fumigants. Disadvantages are limitations in the volume of material (such as coir and peat) 

necessary for production, and the need for in-place irrigation and sensors making crop rotation 

with vegetables difficult. Small-scale plots tested various substrates including peat and peat 

with perlite or rice hulls, and coconut coir used with green mulch or skunk mulch (Gabriel et 

al., 2009; Wang et al., 2009). Initial results indicated that most of the soilless treatments 

provided greater yields than the field soil-grown strawberry plants and water use, while 

variable, might be within acceptable parameters. Pathogen populations of Verticillium 

dahliae, Phytophthora cactorum, and Colletotrichum spp. were apparently affected by various 

treatments, but results were inconclusive at the early stages of testing (Gerik et al., 2009). 

6) Anaerobic soil disinfestation is being studied as a possible means of soil pest management 

(Shennan et al., 2010). This involves creating anaerobic conditions through solarization, soil 

amendment with organic matter, and high soil moisture to impede the growth of aerobic 

organisms. Initial experiments in pots indicate that Verticillium dahliae populations 

decreased significantly in some experiments. However, the level of control was not consistent 

among all studies and treatments.

7) Ongoing field demonstration trials (Noling et al., 2010c; Noling, 2009a; Noling 2009b) in 

Florida indicate generally positive results regarding alternatives. In the trials, “most 

alternative fumigants evaluated produced yields which were statistically equivalent to that of 

methyl bromide chloropicrin, and are being recommended to growers, with caveat, as viable 
USA CUN13 SOIL Strawberry Fruit Open Field Page 7 of 15

alternatives to methyl bromide.” One caveat, however, is that application problems with some 

alternatives resulted in significant yield declines compared to methyl bromide treatments. 

Treatments included chisel applied 50:50 and 67:33 methyl bromide:chloropicrin, 79:21 

DMDS:chloropicrin, Pic Clor 60, Telone C35 + herbicide. In addition, drip applications were 

provided with Pic Clor 60 and Telone InLine.

8) Sting nematode infestation of strawberry fields impacts approximately 40% of Florida fields, 

resulting in plant stunting if left uncontrolled (Noling et al., 2010b). Remote sensing 

technology was used to compare strawberry yields with plant size and relate plant size to 

fumigant treatments. Relative yields determined from the ground truth survey of plant sizes 

were correlated with remote sensing information of canopy cover. Nematode-induced crop 

losses were derived from end of season plant size assessments and remote sensing. This 

information is provided to growers to assess methyl bromide alternatives for nematode 

management.

9) Trials with Pic Clor 60, Telone C35, and DMDS + chloropicrin at two locations in Florida 

resulted in comparable yields to methyl bromide-treated soils (Noling, 2010b). While VIF 

film retained fumigants significantly more than LDPE film, yield improvement was not 

observed.

10) The USDA Areawide project for large-scale field demonstrations in Florida evaluated 

several drip fumigants for efficacy, yield, and risk mitigation to reduce buffer zone distances

that (Noling, 2010a). The feasibility of using two drip tapes per bed was examined. In 

addition, there was an examination of the feasibility of double cropping strawberries by dripapplied fumigant through previous year’s plastic film. Impacts of double cropping were not 

evaluated due to unseasonable cold winter weather in 2009-2010. In general, two drip tapes 

likely increased plant density suggesting a higher yield. 

11) Experiments examining fumigant diffusion and soil retention of fumigants were conducted 

within various moisture gradients (Noling et al., 2010a). In 2008, no differences in gas 

concentrations were observed for Telone C35 or iodomethane (50:50) with VIF, while in 

2009, significant differences in soil gas concentrations, plant size distributions, and 

strawberry yield were observed with Pic Clor 60 and Telone C35. 

12) During the 2009 growing season in Florida, refinements were made in soil application 

technologies for 1,3-D to address inconsistent soil application. In addition, integrated 

methods are being phased-in as growers learn to take a broad view of pest management 

strategies. Transition to alternatives requires growers to integrate new fumigant application 

methods, and new tillage and irrigation practices to reduce emissions. (Noling, 2009b).

13) Trials with TIF and various alternative fumigants continued in North Carolina (Welker et al., 

2010). In addition, activities for outreach to growers are helping communicate new 

information. Mustard seed-amended soil was tested to determine its efficacy to suppress 

weed populations and provide acceptable yields (Deyton et al., 2010). The latest results from 

ongoing experiments indicate that mustard seed meal provided greater yield than water 

sealed plots. In addition, mustard seed meal gave similar weed control to dazomet.
USA CUN13 SOIL Strawberry Fruit Open Field Page 8 of 15

14) At a research station in North Carolina, various rates of iodomethane were tested (Poling et 

al., 2009). MIDAS (iodomethane:chloropicrin) at 200 kg/ha of 50:50 with standard tarps and 

at 135 kg/ha with virtually impermeable film had the highest marketable yields in the study

and statistically similar to methyl bromide at 196 kg/ha with virtually impermeable film. The 

MIDAS rate of 135 kg/ha provided greater yields than higher rates of the product under 

virtually impermeable film. Researchers concluded that “the net benefit of using Midas 

50:50 at 120 lb/A [135 kg/ha] with VIF could easily exceed $10,000 per acre in extra profits 

for the grower compared to no fumigation. This much economic benefit from fumigation 

would not likely be observed on sites where good crop rotation is possible, but on sites where 

rotation is not possible, a serious crop reduction may occur for growers who do not 

fumigate.”

15) In the southeast area-wide USDA-funded trials, researchers reported (Welker et al., 2009) 

“we have had great success with the alternatives and yield data has shown comparable yields 

to methyl bromide fumigation from at least one alternative.” However, the trials showed that 

“alternatives are not nearly as forgiving as methyl bromide under less than ideal 

environmental conditions.”

8. ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY OF ALTERNATIVES 

In this study net revenue is calculated as gross revenue minus operating costs. This is a good 

measure to describe the direct losses of income that may be suffered by the users. The net 

revenue does not represent net income to the users. Net income, which indicates profitability of

an operation of an enterprise, is gross revenue minus the sum of operating and fixed costs. Net 

income should be smaller than the net revenue measured in this study. Fixed costs were not 

included because it is often difficult to measure and verify.

Summary of Economic Feasibility

The economic analysis of strawberry fruit production compared data on yields, crop prices, 

revenues and costs using methyl bromide and using alternative pest control regimens in order to 

estimate the loss of methyl bromide availability. For California, the primary alternative is 1,3-

D/chloropicrin followed by metam sodium. 

The economic factors that drive the feasibility analysis for fresh market strawberry fruit use of 

methyl bromide are increased production costs, which may be due to the higher-cost of using an 

alternative, additional pest control requirements, and/or resulting shifts in other production or 

harvesting practices and yield losses.

Crop budgets were analyzed for pre-plant sectors to determine the likely economic impact if 

methyl bromide were unavailable. Various measures were used to quantify the impacts, 

including the following: 
USA CUN13 SOIL Strawberry Fruit Open Field Page 9 of 15

(1) Loss per Hectare. For crops, this measure is closely tied to income. It is relatively easy to 

measure, but may be difficult to interpret in isolation.

(2) Loss per Kilogram of Methyl Bromide. This measure indicates the value of methyl 

bromide to crop production.

(3) Loss as a Percentage of Gross Revenue. This measure has the advantage that gross 

revenues are usually easy to measure, at least over some unit, e.g., a hectare of land or a storage 

operation. However, high value commodities or crops may provide high revenues but may also 

entail high costs. Losses of even a small percentage of gross revenues could have important 

impacts on the profitability of the activity.

(4) Loss as a Percentage of Net Operating Revenue. Net cash revenues are defined as gross 

revenues minus operating costs. This is a very good indicator of the direct losses of income that 

may be suffered by the owners or operators of an enterprise. However, operating costs can often 

be difficult to measure and verify.

(5) Operating Profit Margin. Operating profit margin is defined as net operating revenue 

divided by gross revenue per hectare. This measure would provide the best indication of the 

total impact of the loss of methyl bromide to an enterprise. Again, operating costs may be 

difficult to measure and fixed costs even more difficult, therefore fixed costs were not included 

in the analysis.

These measures represent different ways to assess the economic feasibility of methyl bromide 

alternatives for strawberry fruit producers. Because producers (suppliers) represent an integral 

part of any definition of a market, the threshold of significant market disruption is met if there is 

a significant impact on commodity suppliers using methyl bromide. The economic measures 

provide the basis for making that determination. 

For California strawberry producers, there is no change in impacts from the previous year

estimates as iodomethane is not yet registered. The loss to gross revenue for growers using 

alternatives to methyl bromide is estimated to remain about 14% as compared to the use of 

methyl bromide. Table 3 illustrates the 2008 economic impact assessment for California 

strawberry fruit growers.

Now that iodomethane (trade name Midas) is available for California strawberry producers, there 

is a change in impacts from the previous year estimates. Iodomethane is used in combination 

with chloropicrin in 33/67 formulation at a rate of 224 kg/ha. The loss to gross revenue for 

growers using alternatives to methyl bromide is estimated to range from 6 - 14% as compared to 

the use of methyl bromide. Table 3 illustrates the 2010 economic impact assessment for 

California strawberry fruit growers.
USA CUN13 SOIL Strawberry Fruit Open Field Page 10 of 15

TABLE 3. CALIFORNIA : ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF METHYL BROMIDE ALTERNATIVES

CALIFORNIA METHYL 

BROMIDE

IODOMETHANE PIC +

MB

1,3 D +

PIC

PRODUCTION LOSS (%) 0% 0% 15% 14%

 PRODUCTION PER HECTARE 49,410 49,410 41,999 42,475

* PRICE PER UNIT (US$) $ 1.37 $ 1.37 $ 1.37 $ 1.37

= GROSS REVENUE PER HECTARE (US$) $ 67,537 $ 67,537 $ 66,020 $ 58,057

- OPERATING COSTS PER HECTARE (US$)** $ 66,849 $ 71,426 $ 57,432 $ 66,100

= NET REVENUE PER HECTARE (US$) $ 688 $ (3,889) ($ 8,614) ($ 8,042)

*LOSS MEASURES *

1. LOSS PER HECTARE (US$) $ 0 $ 4,576 $ 9,302 $ 8730

2. LOSS PER KILOGRAM OF METHYL BROMIDE 

(US$) $ 0 $ 22.81 $ 46.36 $ 43.51

3. LOSS AS A PERCENTAGE OF GROSS REVENUE 

(%) 0% 7% 14% 13%

4. LOSS AS A PERCENTAGE OF NET OPERATING 

REVENUE (%) 0% 685% 1352% 1269%

5. OPERATING PROFIT MARGIN (%) 4% -6% -15% -14%

**Note that the measures in the tables above must be interpreted carefully. Operating costs do not include fixed 

costs and net revenue equals gross revenue minus operating costs.
USA CUN13 SOIL Strawberry Fruit Open Field Page 11 of 15

9. RESULTANT CHANGES TO REQUESTED EXEMPTION QUANTITIES

The USG has applied an aggressive transition rate, which is reflected in the nomination amount 

and detailed in Table 4. 

TABLE 4. NOMINATION AMOUNT: 

SECTOR

STRAWBERRY FRUIT

California 

Strawberry 

Commission 

Sector Total / Average 

Quantity Requested for 

2012: Amount (kgs) 751,596 

 

751,596 

Quantity Recommended by 

MBTOC/TEAP for 2012 : Amount (kgs) 673,085 

 

673,085 

Quantity Approved by 

Parties for 2012:

Amount (kgs) 

673,085 

 

673,085 

Area (ha) 

4,421 

 

4,421 

Rate 

152 

 

152 

Transition from 2012 

Baseline Adjusted Value

Percentage 

(%) -21% -21%

Quantity Required for 

2013 Nomination:

Amount (kgs) 531,737 531,737

Area (ha) 4406 4406

Rate 170 170

CITATIONS

Boyd, V. 2010. New soil-borne pest control. Citrus and Vegetable. Sept-Oct 2010. 

http://www.citrusandvegetable.com/PastIssues/ArticleLanding/tabid/70/Default.aspx?tid=1

&cid=839107&issueid=792

California Strawberry Commission. 2008. Request for a critical use exemption for methyl

bromide on strawberries for the 2011 use season.

Daugovish, O., Mochizuki, M., and Fennimore, S. 2009. Yellow nutsedge management with 

chemical, physical and thermal treatments. International Research Conference on Methyl

Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions (2009). 

http://www.mbao.org/2009/Proceedings/014DaugovishOSummaryNutsedge.pdf

Deyton, D. E., Sams, C. E., Kopsell, D. A., and Cummins, J. C. 2010. Using mustard seed meal 

to biofumigate strawberry soil. International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide 

Alternatives and Emissions Reductions (2010). ; 

http://www.mbao.org/2010/Proceedings/079SamsC.pdf

Fennimore, S. and Samtani, J. 2010. Strategies to sustainably produce strawberry without 

fumigants. International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and 
USA CUN13 SOIL Strawberry Fruit Open Field Page 12 of 15

Emissions Reductions (2010). International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide 

Alternatives and Emissions Reductions (2010). 

http://www.mbao.org/2010/Proceedings/078FennimoreSsteamposter.pdf.

Fennimore, S., Ajwa, H., Subbarao, K., Daugovish, O., Martin, F., Browne, G., Samtani, J., 

Serohijos, R., Wang, D., Sjulin, T., Greene, I., Legard, D. 2010. facilitating adoption of 

alternatives to methyl bromide in California strawberries. 

http://mbao.org/2010/Proceedings/032FennimoreSAreawidestrawberry.pdf

Fennimore, S., Ajwa, H., Subbarao, K., Martin, F., Browne, G., and Samtani, J. 2009. 

Facilitating adoption of alternatives to methyl bromide in California strawberries. 

International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions 

Reductions (2009). 

http://www.mbao.org/2009/Proceedings/016FennimoreSprogressreportstrawberryAWP8170

9.pdf

Fennimore, S. and Goodhue, R. 2009. Estimated costs to disinfest soil with steam. Annual 

International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions 

Reductions (2009). 

http://www.mbao.org/2009/Proceedings/003FennimoreSMBAOAbstractSteambusiness.pdf

Gabriel, M. Z., Wang, D., Gerik, J., and Gartung, J. 2009. Strawberry production in soil-less 

substrate troughs—plant growth. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl

Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions (2009). 

http://www.mbao.org/2009/Proceedings/098GabrielMMBAO2009MagdalenaRaBetplants.p

df

Gerik, J., Wang, d., Gabriel, M. Z., and Gartung, J. 2009. Strawberry production in soil-less 

substrate troughs—pathology. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl 

Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions (2009). 

http://www.mbao.org/2009/Proceedings/099GerikJMBAO2009Pathology.pdf

Gilbert, C., Fennimore, S., Subbarao, K., Hanson, B., Rainbolt, C., Goodhue, R., Weber, J. B., 

and Samtani, J. 2009. Systems to disinfest soil with heat for strawberry and flower 

production. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and 

Emissions Reductions (2009). 

http://www.mbao.org/2009/Proceedings/015FennimoreSMBAOAbstractSteamSolar82809.p

df

Gilreath, J., Santos, B., Mirusso, J., Noling, J., and Gilreath, P. 2005c. Application 

considerations for successful use of VIF and metalized mulches with reduced fumigant rates 

in tomato. U. Florida Extension publ. HS287. 

http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/HS/HS27000.pdf
USA CUN13 SOIL Strawberry Fruit Open Field Page 13 of 15

Koike, S., Gordon, T., Ajwa, H., Daugovish, O., Bolda, M., Legard, D. 2009. Fumigant and 

strawberry variety evaluations in Macrophomina and Fusarium fields. 

http://www.mbao.org/2009/Proceedings/013DaugovishOSummaryPathogens.pdf

Legard, D. 2008. Personal communication, email 24 September, 2008.

NASS (National Agriculture Statistics Service), 2007. Agricultural Chemical Usage 2006 

Vegetable Summary. 

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/AgriChemUsVeg/AgriChemUsVeg-07-25-

2007_revision.pdf)

Noling, J. W. 2010a. USDA ARS areawide project: Large scale field demonstrations in Florida 

strawberry 2009-10. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide 

Alternatives and Emissions Reductions (2010). 

http://www.mbao.org/2010/Proceedings/036NolingJAreaWide.pdf

Noling, J. W. 2010b. USDA CSREES: Methyl bromide transitions in Florida strawberry 2008-

10. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and 

Emissions Reductions (2010). 

http://www.mbao.org/2010/Proceedings/042NolingJTranistionsFloridaStrawberry.pdf

Noling, J. W., Thomas, J., and Cody, M. 2010a. VIF mulches, optimized irrigation and tillage 

practices for fumigant use in Florida strawberry. Annual International Research 

Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions (2010). 

http://www.mbao.org/2010/Proceedings/016NolingJVIFMoistureCompaction.pdf

Noling, J. W., Schumann, A. W., and Cody, M. 2010b. Assessing field distribution, crop impact 

and sting nematode management in Florida strawberry. Annual International Research 

Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions (2010). 

http://www.mbao.org/2010/Proceedings/046NolingJRemoteSensing.pdf

Noling, J. W., Botts, D. A., and MacRae, A. W. 2010c. Alternatives to methyl bromide soil 

fumigation for Florida vegetable production. University of Florida Publ. SP170-23. May, 

2010. http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/CV/CV29000.pdf.

Noling, J. W. 2009a. Large scale field demonstration validation trials in Florida strawberry. 

Individual research program, CSREES-USDA grant, FLA-LAL-04553; 

http://ars.usda.gov/research/projects/projects.htm?ACCN_NO=411977&fy=2009)

Noling, J. W. 2009b. Grower field demonstration trialing of gas impermeable plastic mulches, 

reduced rates of soil fumigants, and optimized irrigation and cultural practices. CSREESUSDA grant, FLA-LAL-04776. 

http://www.reeis.usda.gov/web/crisprojectpages/215116.html)

Norton, J. A. 2008. Metam combinations as alternatives to methyl bromide in US-grown 

strawberries and mulched vegetables. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl
USA CUN13 SOIL Strawberry Fruit Open Field Page 14 of 15

Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions (2008). 

http://www.mbao.org/2008/046Norton.pdf

Othman, M., Ajwa, H., Fennimore, S., Martin, F., Subbarao, K., and Hunzie, J. 2010. Dimethyl 

disulfide plus chloropicrin as methyl bromide alternative for strawberry production. Annual 

International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions 

Reductions (2010). http://www.mbao.org/2010/Proceedings/004OthmanM.pdf; 

http://mbao.org/2010/4Othman.pdf

Othman, M., Ajwa, H. A., Fennimore, S., Martin, F., Subbarao, K., Browne, G., and Hunzie, J. 

2009. Strawberry production with reduced rates of methyl bromide alternatives applied 

under retentive film. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide 

Alternatives and Emissions Reductions (2009). 

http://www.mbao.org/2009/Proceedings/055OthmanMAbstract2009Strawberryproductionwi

thReducedRatesofMethylBromideAlternatives.pdf

Poling, E. B., Schiavone, R., and Franck, C. T. 2009. Influence of MIDAS 50:50 and MIDAS 

98:2 on strawberry plasticulture yields in North Carolina. Annual International Research 

Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions (2009). 

http://mbao.org/2009/Proceedings/113PolingBsummary.pdf

Poling, E. B. and Schiavone, R. 2008. Strawberry plasticulture research with MIDAS 50:50 and 

MIDAS 98:2 in North Carolina, 2007-2008 (Central Crops Research Station, Clayton). 

http://ncsu.edu/enterprises/strawberries/files/2009/09/poling-report2007_2008.pdf

Shennan, C., Muramoto, J., Koike, S., Bolda, M., Daugovish, O., Mochizuki, M., Rosskopf, E. 

N., Kokalis-Burelle, N., Butler, D. 2010. Optimizing anaerobic soil disinfestations for 

strawberry production in California. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl 

Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions (2010). 

http://www.mbao.org/2010/Proceedings/023ShennanC.pdf

Trout, T. 2005. Impact of township caps on Telone use in California. Annual International 

Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions (2005). 

http://mbao.org/2005/05Proceedings/127TroutT%20mb-pest-use-telone-rpt05-mbao.pdf

Wang, D., Gerik, J., Gartung, J., Sjulin, T., Fennimore, S., Rowe, D., Greene, I, Legard, D. 2010. 

Yield and water assessment of strawberry production in raised-bed troughs. Annual 

International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions 

Reductions (2010). 

http://www.mbao.org/2010/Proceedings/041WangDStrawberryRaisedBeds.pdf).

Wang, Gartung, J., Vaughan, P., Gerik, J., Gabriel, M. Z., and Legard, D. 2009. Strawberry

production in soilless substrate troughs—water management. Annual International Research 

Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions (2009). 

http://www.mbao.org/2009/Proceedings/017WangDMBAO2009RaBetwater.pdf
USA CUN13 SOIL Strawberry Fruit Open Field Page 15 of 15

Welker, R. M., Driver, J. G., Rivard, C. L., Louws, F. J. 2010. Outreach and new approaches for

methyl bromide alternatives through the USDA areawide project. Annual International 

Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions (2010). 

http://www.mbao.org/2010/Proceedings/040LouwsF.pdf

Welker, R. M., Driver, Rivard, C. L., and Louws, F. J. 2009. Research and extension efforts to 

enable successful transition away from methyl bromide fumigation. Annual International 

Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions (2009). 

http://www.mbao.org/2009/Proceedings/041WelkerRMBAOProceedings2009.pdf

Welker, R. M., Driver, J. G., Smith, J. P., Schiemann, C. A., and Louws, F. J. 2008. On-farm 

research and extension activities to implement MB alternatives: an area wide initiative 

update. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and 

Emissions Reductions (2008). 

http://www.mbao.org/2008/Proceedings/009WelkerRMBAOAREAWIDEFJL.pdf