Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0122-0026
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2005-10-18T04:00Z

USA,
Ornamentals,
Response
to
June
2004
Questions
Page
1
NOMINATING
PARTY:
The
United
States
of
America
BRIEF
DESCRIPTIVE
TITLE
OF
NOMINATION:
Methyl
Bromide
Critical
Use
Nomination
for
Preplant
Soil
Use
for
Ornamentals
Grown
in
Open
Fields
or
in
Protected
Environments
DOCUMENT
NUMBER
CUN
2003/,
Us56N8
DATE
August
12,
2004
CRITICAL
NEED
FOR
METHYL
BROMIDE
TABLE
1.
REGION,
KEY
PESTS,
AND
SPECIFIC
REASON
FOR
METHYL
BROMIDE
IN
ORNAMENTALS
REGION
WHERE
METHYL
BROMIDE
USE
IS
REQUESTED
KEY
DISEASE(
S)
AND
WEED(
S)
TO
GENUS
AND,
IF
KNOWN,
TO
SPECIES
LEVEL
SPECIFIC
REASONS
WHY
METHYL
BROMIDE
NEEDED
California
and
Florida
All
soil
borne
diseases,
weeds,
and
nematodes.
Includes
Fusarium
spp.,
Rhizoctonia
spp.,
Phytoplithora,
Stromatinia,
Pythium
spp.,
and
most
soil
nematodes
i.
e.
Meliodogyne
spp.,
and
previous
crop
propagules.
Specific
pest
problems
vary
by
individual
crop
and
variety.
See
Appendix
C
for
more
detailed
information.
Due
to
the
diversity
and
complexity
of
the
cut
flower
and
foliage
industry,
alternatives
have
not
been
found
for
all
species.
Some
of
the
alternatives
that
have
been
found
for
other
crops
have
not
yet
been
demonstrated
to
be
feasible
for
floriculture
because
of
high
cost,
difficulties
with
quickly
treating
and
replanting
fields
for
multi­
cropping,
township
caps,
and
buffer
zone
requirements
(
Elmore
et
al.,
2003a).

AMOUNT
OF
METHYL
BROMIDE
NOMINATED
TABLE
2.
AMOUNT
OF
METHYL
BROMIDE
NOMINATED*
BY
THE
U.
S.
IN
2005
AND
2006.
2005
(
KG)
2006
(
KG)
DESCRIPTION
210,849
162,817
The
U.
S.
imposed
a
reduction
in
the
requested
use
rate
on
one
applicant.
There
was
one
new
CUE
(
CA
Cut
Flower
Commission)
application.
One
applicant
from
2005,
Yoder
Brothers,
has
not
to
date
submitted
a
2006
application.
One
applicant,
California
Rose
Growers
was
moved
to
the
Fruit,
Nut
and
Flower
Nursery
CUE.
*
2005
Nomination
includes
2005
Supplemental
Requested
nomination
amount.
USA,
Ornamentals,
Response
to
June
2004
Questions
Page
2
FIGURE
1.
U.
S.
TOTAL,
REQUESTED,
AND
NOMINATED
HECTARES
OF
ORNAMENTALS
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
Ornamentals
Total
Requested
by
applicants
Nominated
by
U.
S.

Footnote:
Total
hectares,
based
on
United
States
Department
of
Agriculture
Statistics,
are
national
acreage
in
production
for
this
sector.
The
requested
hectares
are
sum
total
of
all
areas
in
the
CUE
applications.
The
nominated
hectares
reflect
reductions
of
the
requested
hectares
to
ensure
that
no
double­
counting,
growth,
etc.
were
included
and
that
the
amount
was
only
sufficient
to
cover
situations
(
key
pests,
regulatory
requirements,
etc.)
where
alternatives
could
not
be
used.
Total
pounds
of
methyl
bromide
nominated
by
the
United
States
government
for
this
sector
are
based
on
these
nominated
hectares.
See
the
accompanying
spreadsheet
2006
Bromide
Usage
Numerical
Index
or
"
BUNI"
(
Filename:
USA
2006
BUNI
 
Refined
Nomination
Package.
xls)
for
more
detailed
information
on
how
the
nominated
amount
was
determined.

ECONOMIC
IMPACTS
The
U.
S.
conducted
an
economic
assessment
to
evaluate
converting
to
metam
sodium,
1,3­
dichloropropene,
or
dazomet.
When
evaluating
the
loss
per
hectare,
loss
per
kilogram
of
methyl
bromide,
loss
as
a
percent
of
gross
revenue,
and
loss
as
a
percent
of
net
revenue
it
was
determined
that
the
alternatives
were
not
economically
feasible.

The
economic
factors
that
most
influence
the
feasibility
of
methyl
bromide
alternatives
for
fresh
cut
flower
production
are:
(
1)
yield
losses,
referring
to
reductions
in
the
quantity
produced,
(
2)
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
(
3)
missed
market
windows
due
to
plant
back
time
restrictions,
which
also
affect
the
quantity
and
price
received
for
the
goods.
In
this
sector,
no
alternatives
were
found
to
be
both
technically
and
economically
feasible
for
the
particular
circumstances
nominated
for
the
CUE.

RESPONSE
TO
QUESTIONS
Background
In
the
United
States
cut
flowers,
cut
foliage
and
bulb
crops
are
grown
in
open
fields
and
under
cover
(
including
glass,
poly,
and
saran).
There
are
three
basic
systems
in
place
for
ornamentals.
USA,
Ornamentals,
Response
to
June
2004
Questions
Page
3
Annuals
are
shallow
rooted
crops
that
represent
50
to
60
percent
of
the
industry.
They
are
often
planted
to
a
depth
of
6
to
8
inches.
Fumigants
can
be
shanked
into
the
preformed
beds
or
dripapplied
from
drip
tapes
placed
on
tops
of
beds
under
plastic
mulch.
Bulb
crops
represent
about
30
percent
of
the
industry.
Fumigants
are
applied
on
the
flat
by
deep
shanking.
Bedding
up
generally
occurs
after
planting
the
bulbs.
Perennials
are
deep­
rooted
multi­
year
crops
and
represent
10
to
20
percent
of
the
industry
in
California.
Fumigation
needs
to
penetrate
to
a
depth
of
2
to
3
feet
and
may
require
multi­
level
shanking.

The
diversity
of
the
cut
flower,
foliage,
and
bulb
industry
makes
finding
methyl
bromide
alternatives
for
each
crop
species
complex,
time
consuming
and
costly.
A
single
grower
in
California
may
grow
as
many
as
100
species
and/
or
varieties
in
a
single
year.
Growers
must
find
methyl
bromide
alternatives
that
will
control
previous
crops
grown
on
the
site,
as
well
as
a
diversity
of
key
pests,
which
vary
for
each
crop
variety.
One
of
the
key
pests
is
plant
material
from
the
previous
crop,
such
as
residual
tubers,
bulbs,
and
seeds.
This
plant
material
acts
as
reservoirs
for
nematodes
and
soil
pathogens
and
are
weeds
themselves,
as
they
are
off­
variety.
Both
yield
and
quality
losses
may
occur
from
these
pests.

The
fumigation
situation
and
need
for
methyl
bromide
varies
by
species.
Additional
research
is
needed
before
the
transition
to
methyl
bromide
alternatives
is
complete.
One
major
difficulty
is
that
market
desires
require
a
high
degree
of
flexibility
in
scheduling
certain
species
and
new
cultivars.
Therefore,
the
information
on
the
sensitivity
of
each
crop
to
fumigant
alternatives
as
well
as
the
pests
is
not
known
until
crops
have
been
in
production
for
several
cycles.
Along
with
these
issues,
there
are
concerns
about
phytotoxicity
and
registration
with
alternative
chemicals
(
Schneider,
2003;
Elmore
et
al.,
2003b).

The
recent
U.
S.
registration
experience
with
iodomethane
indicate
that
new
chemistries
can
take
several
years
to
be
registered
by
the
U.
S.
EPA
and
the
state
regulatory
agencies,
such
as
California
Department
of
Pesticide
Regulation.
In
addition,
township
caps
in
California
restrict
the
amount
of
1,3­
Dichloropropene,
and
thus
1,3­
D
+
chloropicrin,
that
can
be
used
in
a
given
area
(
Trout,
2001).
Buffer
zones
may
also
limit
the
adoption
of
alternatives.

Some
of
the
alternatives
that
have
been
found
for
other
crops
are
not
be
feasible
for
some
floriculture
crops
because
of
high
cost,
difficulties
with
quickly
treating
and
replanting
fields
for
multi­
cropping,
and
buffer
zone
requirements
(
Elmore,
2003a).
Although
some
alternatives
have
shown
potential
to
replace
methyl
bromide
use
in
some
situations,
the
in­
field
feasibility
of
the
alternatives
for
each
of
the
major
species
of
ornamentals
grown
in
the
U.
S.
remains
to
be
demonstrated.
The
industry
has
made
progress
in
reducing
the
use
of
methyl
bromide
and
additional
research
is
ongoing.
Because
the
ornamentals
industry
is
complex
(
numerous
species,
each
with
its
own
pests
and
implementation
issues),
time
is
needed
to
determine
methyl
bromide
alternatives
for
all
species
and
varieties
grown,
including
determining
whether
there
are
any
phytotoxicity
issues
from
using
methyl
bromide
alternatives
(
Schneider,
2003).
Ornamentals
have
a
high
value;
as
a
result
many
manufacturers
now
avoid
registering
materials
for
ornamental
crops
because
of
liability
due
to
potential
phytotoxicity
issues.
USA,
Ornamentals,
Response
to
June
2004
Questions
Page
4
RESPONSE
TO
QUESTIONS
MBTOC
Question
A
­
The
CUN
states
that
time
is
required
to
transition
to
non­
MB
technologies
in
some
subsectors
of
this
nomination,
but
there
is
no
decrease
in
nomination
between
2005
and
2006.

US
Response
­
The
nomination
request
has
remained
similar
ame
between
2005
and
2006
because
the
applicants
are
still
conducting
tests
to
determine
if
the
registered
alternatives
are
technically
and
economically
feasible.
Because
there
can
be
over
100
species
grown
in
an
ornamental
operation,
the
U.
S.
government
recognizes
that
a
great
deal
of
work
will
be
required
to
find
a
suitable
alternative,
despite
the
ongoing
research.
Significant
research
has
been
conducted
with
methyl
iodide
(
currently
undergoing
registration
review
in
the
U.
S.),
which
diverted
resources
from
other
alternatives.
It
is
not
currently
known
which,
if
any,
of
the
alternatives
will
be
able
to
replace
the
remaining
uses
of
methyl
bromide.
It
is
anticipated
that
methyl
bromide
use
will
decrease,
but
due
to
the
uncertainty
involved,
the
U.
S.
has
maintained
the
amount
requested
until
suitable
alternatives
have
been
found.

MBTOC
Question
B
 
In
order
for
MBTOC
to
be
able
to
assess
the
need
for
MB
under
this
CUN
appropriately,
Party
is
requested
to
disaggregate
this
CUN
by
region
(
California,
Florida,
Michigan)
as
conditions,
principal
crops,
amounts
and
application
rates
arte
different
and
to
give
at
least
the
principal
crops
for
which
MB
is
nominated.

US
Response
­
The
U.
S.
is
actively
involved
in
locating
the
requested
information
through
discussions
with:
the
applicants,
USDA/
NASS
(
National
Agricultural
Statistics
Service),
state
governments,
and
marketing
organizations.
The
U.
S.
is
continuing
to
seek
this
information
to
provide
it
to
MBTOC.
This
CUN
included
ornamental
crops
in
California
and
Florida
but
did
not
include
crops
from
Michigan.
Table
3
provides
a
partial
list
of
common
ornamental
crops
and
some
of
their
key
pests.

MBTOC
Question
1
­
Production
of
caladiums
in
Florida
uses
flat
fumigation
with
high
rates
of
MB.
There
would
appear
to
be
substantial
potential
for
reduction
of
the
quantity
used
through
adoption
of
barrier
films
and
strip
fumigation
in
this
industry.
Clarification
is
requested
on
the
barriers
if
any
to
adopting
this
approach
while
continuing
research
and
deployment
of
alternatives?

US
Response
­
Production
of
caladiums
in
Florida
does
use
flat
fumigation.
HDPE
barrier
film
is
used
and
a
solid
tarp
is
needed
to
do
this.
The
limitations
to
adopting
VIF
are
described
below
in
the
response
to
Question
2.

There
are
also
additional
barriers
to
adopting
strip
fumigations.
Caladiums
are
not
cultivated
in
discrete
rows
that
might
allow
strip
fumigation.
Caladiums
are
field
grown
in
flat
beds
varying
in
width
from
54"
to
72".
There
are
from
65
to
150
beds
in
a
block
of
caladiums
depending
on
the
grower.
The
length
of
the
fields
ranges
from
800
feet
to
2500
feet
(
244
 
762
meters).
Caladiums
are
planted
in
rows,
with
4,
5,
or
6
rows
per
bed,
utilizing
seed
hoppers
with
pick
up
chains
and
chutes
for
the
chips
to
fall
through
as
the
planter
moves
down
the
field.
They
are
grown
in
the
field
for
up
to
11
months.
Further,
they
are
irrigated
by
flooding
from
underground
USA,
Ornamentals,
Response
to
June
2004
Questions
Page
5
sources,
utilizing
mole
drains.
These
drains
both
drain
excess
water
and
provide
underground
water
to
wick
up
for
irrigation
purposes.
This
technique
is
widely
used
by
essentially
all
caladium
growers.
The
water
is
ground
water
supplied
by
a
series
of
ditches
flowing
generally
from
a
large
surface
of
water
(
lake).
Nematode
spread
from
a
non­
fumigated
strip
to
a
fumigated
strip
with
irrigation
water
would
be
a
serious
problem.
The
movement
of
nematodes
would
likely
negate
many
of
the
benefits
of
fumigating
(
Chase,
2004).

Finally,
recent
air
monitoring
work
in
California
suggests
that
strip
treatments
have
higher
rates
of
methyl
bromide
emission
than
flat
fumigation.
When
the
air
monitoring
work
is
complete,
the
emission
implications
of
strip
treatments
will
be
evaluated.

MBTOC
Question
2
­
The
Party
states
that
HDPE
is
used
by
some
growers
as
a
cover
film
in
the
fumigations
and
that
some
change
from
98:
2
to
67:
33
MB/
Pic
formulations
has
taken
place.
What
is
limiting
further
adoption
of
barrier
film
technology
and
further
reduction
in
MB
use
through
adoption
of
MB/
Pic
50:
50
fumigation
mixtures?

US
Response
­
There
are
limitations
to
using
VIF.
There
has
been
quite
a
bit
of
data
developed
regarding
use
of
VIF
that
shows
that
in
some
situations
it
does
work
well
to
lower
overall
poundage
of
MB
applied.
However,
the
quality,
availability
and
methods
of
application
of
VIF
films
have
not
been
standardized
or
developed.
New
glues
have
been
developed
to
fix
one
sheet
to
another
but
testing
has
not
been
completed
to
verify
their
effectiveness.
These
problems
have
generally
hampered
acceptance
and
use
by
growers
in
both
California
and
Florida.

Work
is
being
conducted
to
determine
if
VIF
is
feasible
in
the
U.
S.
from
a
technical
standpoint
(
e.
g.,
does
it
hold
up
physically
in
field
conditions,
can
it
be
glued
to
acceptable
specifications,
can
the
used
film
be
disposed
of
properly,
etc.)
and
economically
feasible
(
e.
g.,
cost
of
material,
cost
of
application).
However,
the
efficacy
of
VIF
for
U.
S.
agriculture
may
be
different
than
that
for
Europe
(
Federal
Register,
1998).

The
limitation
to
using
50:
50
MB/
Pic
fumigation
mixtures
is
that
it
would
not
effectively
destroy
caladium
tubers
or
pieces
left
in
the
field
from
the
previous
crops,
and
in
addition
would
not
eliminate
several
of
the
weeds
that
can
be
suppressed
by
the
67:
33
MB/
Pic
mixture
(
Chase,
2004
and
Elmore,
2003b).
While
chloropicrin
has
excellent
disease
controlling
properties
it
is
not
ideally
suited
as
an
herbicidal
agent.
Similar
issues
are
expected
for
other
ornamental
crops,
especially
those
with
underground
crop
material
left
in
the
field,
such
as
tubers
or
bulbs.

MBTOC
Question
3
­
A
listing
is
requested
of
the
major
ornamental
crops
still
requiring
MB
in
some
form,
tonnage
nominated
and
reasons
why
MB
is
critical.
This
listing
is
for
both
2005
and
2006
nominations.
USA,
Ornamentals,
Response
to
June
2004
Questions
Page
6
US
Response
­
A
listing
of
all
of
the
specific
crops
and
pounds
of
MB
needed
by
each
crop
is
not
available.
For
example,
California
requires
records
of
pesticide
application,
but
even
these
mandatory
records
do
not
segregate
one
use
from
another
in
the
broad
spectrum
of
field­
grown
cut
flowers
and
cut
greens.
However,
key
crops
include
gladiolus,
calla
lily,
Ranunculus,
Rhamnus,
myrtle,
snapdragons,
stock,
Asiatic
and
oriental
lilies,
and
many
more.
Several
crops
were
also
included
in
the
CUN
with
information
on
the
key
pests
(
see
Table
3
below).

The
following
list
is
not
comprehensive,
but
is
intended
to
demonstrate
the
complexity
of
the
industry.
In
addition
to
the
diseases
and
nematodes
listed
below,
there
are
numerous
weed
species
that
are
major
problems
in
cut
flower
production.
These
weed
species
include
the
bulbs,
tubers,
or
cormlets
from
a
previous
crop,
yellow
nutsedge
(
Cyperus
esculentus),
little
mallow
(
Malva
parviflora),
and
common
sow
thistle
(
Sonchus
oleracea).

TABLE
3.
DISEASES
&
NEMATODES
OF
CUT
FLOWER
CROPS
CURRENTLY
CONTROLLED
WITH
METHYL
BROMIDE.
CROP
KEY
PESTS
SCIENTIFIC
NAME
Nematodes
Belanolaimus
longidorus,
Criconomella
spp.,
Dolichodorus
heterocephalus
Antirrhinum
Pythium
root
rot
Pythium
irregulare
(
documented
resistance
to
mefenoxam
is
25­
50%)
Erwinia
soft
rot
Erwinia
carotovora
Calla
lily
Pythium
root
rot
Pythium
spp.
(
resistance
to
mefenoxam
suspected
to
be
widespread
Delphinium
Sclerotinia
stem
rot
Sclerotinia
spp.
Dianthus
Fusarium
wilt
Fusarium
oxysporum
fsp.
Dianthii
Eustoma
Fusarium
wilt,
root
rot,
and
stem
rot
Fusarium
oxysporum,
F.
solani,
and
F.
avenaceaum
Freesia
Fusarium
wilt
Fusarium
spp.
Fusarium
wilt
Fusarium
oxysporum
fsp.
Gladioli
Gladiolus
Stromatinia
neck
rot
Stromatinia
gladioli
Helianthus
Downy
mildew
Plasmopara
halstedii
(
this
is
a
soil­
borne
pathogen)
Root
knot
nematode
Meloidogyne
spp.
Hypericum
Pythium
root
rot
Pythium
spp.
Iris
Fusarium
wilt
Fusarium
oxysporum
fsp.
Iridis
Larkspur
Sclerotinia
stem
rot
Sclerotinia
sclerotiorum
Liatris
spicata
Sclerotinia
stem
rot
Sclerotinia
sclerotiorum
Lilium
Pythium
root
rot
Pythium
spp.
Sclerotinia
stem
rot
Sclerotinia
sclerotiorum
Matthiola
Xanthomonas
leaf
spot
Xanthomonas
campestris
pv.
Campestris
Pythium
root
rot
Pythium
spp.
Ranunculus
Xanthomonas
leaf
spot
Xanthomonas
campestris
Competition
has
caused
the
ornamentals
industry
to
become
more
diversified
than
in
the
recent
past.
The
US
submitted
the
nomination
for
multiple
species
but
used
two
species
as
examples:
caladiums
and
ranunculus.
The
use
of
these
two
species
is
intended
to
demonstrate
the
complexity
of
issues
in
the
cut
flower
industry.
The
cut
flower
industry
is
complex
and,
as
noted
above,
there
is
no
record
of
the
specific
crop
species
using
MB.
Therefore,
the
United
States
is
not
able
to
provide
the
tonnage
required
by
each
species,
especially
since
the
species
planted
varies
depending
on
market
demands.
USA,
Ornamentals,
Response
to
June
2004
Questions
Page
7
The
United
States
collected
pesticide
usage
data
for
nursery
and
floriculture
operations
in
a
small
number
of
states
in
2000.
The
survey
may
not
have
included
all
of
the
species
in
the
CUN;
therefore
the
amounts
discussed
should
be
used
as
an
indicator
of
the
amount
of
MB
used,
and
not
an
absolute
amount.
For
example,
it
is
not
clear
if
data
on
caladiums
or
ranunculus
were
collected.
However,
methyl
bromide
is
only
used
on
a
small
percentage
of
the
nursery
and
floriculture
operations.
For
all
nursery
and
floriculture,
in
California,
MB
was
used
in
6
percent
of
the
operations,
and
in
Florida
MB
was
used
on
1
percent
of
the
operations.
Out
of
the
states
surveyed,
a
total
of
2
percent
of
the
operations
used
MB.
For
only
floriculture
operations,
the
numbers
were
similar,
with
6
percent
of
the
operations
using
MB
in
California,
less
than
1%
in
Florida,
a
total
of
2%
for
all
states
surveyed.
For
cut
flowers,
12
percent
of
operation
in
CA
and
9
percent
over
all
surveyed
states
used
MB.
An
insufficient
number
of
reports
were
submitted
for
Florida,
so
this
information
is
not
available.
Total
amount
applied
in
the
surveyed
states
for
cut
flowers
was
352,700
lb
(
159,982
kg)
(
USDA,
2002).
This
amount
does
not
include
cut
foliage
and
may
not
include
certain
cut
flower
species.
This
data
is
not
all­
inclusive
but
is
an
indication
of
the
way
MB
is
being
used
in
the
industry.

The
industry
is
working
to
reduce
the
amount
of
methyl
bromide
it
uses.
Usage
data
from
California
demonstrates
the
decrease
in
methyl
bromide
use.
In
1998,
approximately
514,000
pounds
of
methyl
bromide
were
applied,
whereas
in
2001,
approximately
208,000
pounds
of
methyl
bromide
were
applied.
Over
the
same
period
of
time,
the
acreage
has
remained
stable.
Therefore,
between
the
use
of
alternatives
and
reducing
the
rate
of
methyl
bromide
in
MB/
Pic
mixtures,
the
industry
has
been
able
to
greatly
reduce
methyl
bromide
consumption.

MB
is
critical
because
without
it,
some
growers
will
suffer
both
yield
and
quality
losses.
In
addition,
growers
who
rotate
several
species
of
ornamentals
on
a
particular
field
need
to
kill
crop
residue,
such
as
tubers,
from
previous
crops
to
eliminate
contamination,
as
well
as
control
other
weeds
and
pathogens.
The
crop
residue
may
act
as
a
reservoir
for
nematodes
and
pathogens.
Due
to
the
diversity
and
complexity
of
the
cut
flower
and
foliage
industry,
alternatives
have
not
yet
been
found
for
all
species.
Some
of
the
alternatives
that
have
been
found
for
other
crops
may
not
be
feasible
for
floriculture
in
general
because
of
high
cost,
difficulties
with
quickly
treating
and
replanting
fields
for
multi­
cropping,
and
buffer
zone
requirements.
In
addition,
township
caps
limit
the
use
of
1,3­
Dichloropropene,
and
thus
1,3­
D/
Pic,
in
California.
Other
alternatives
provide
inconsistent
control
or
have
restrictions
that
limit
their
use
at
this
time.
Growers
also
need
time
to
transition
to
the
alternatives
that
become
available
through
new
registrations.

In
this
industry,
the
fumigation
situation
and
need
for
methyl
bromide
varies
by
species.
Despite
research
conducted
so
far,
there
is
not
enough
grower
experience
and
research
to
on
the
technical
and
economic
feasibility
of
the
alternatives
to
enable
users
to
switch
to
alternatives
by
the
2006
growing
season.

MBTOC
Question
4
­
The
Party
reports
that
dazomet
is
effective
for
chrysanthemums
and
carnations.
How
much
of
the
CUN
could
be
replaced
using
this
alternative
on
these
crops
either
alone
or
in
combination
with
other
practices?

US
Response
­
In
the
CUN,
the
discussion
on
dazomet
was
intended
to
show
that
research
is
being
conducted
with
dazomet
and
that
there
has
been
some
success.
Dazomet
is
being
used
USA,
Ornamentals,
Response
to
June
2004
Questions
Page
8
with
one
or
more
of
the
other
alternatives,
which
has
allowed
the
industry
to
reduce
overall
MB
consumption
over
the
past
ten
years.

The
effectiveness
of
dazomet
in
the
question
refers
to
the
following
from
the
CUN
(
included
for
reference):

In
some
cut
flowers
(
carnation
and
chrysanthemum)
dazomet
was
effective
against
Fusarium,
Rhizoctonia,
Erwinia,
and
Pseudomonas.
Appropriate
aeration
times,
which
are
dependent
on
soil
temperature,
are
needed
to
avoid
phytotoxicity
(
Semer,
1987).
In
addition,
plant
back
restrictions
may
cause
some
growers
to
be
able
to
grow
fewer
crops
in
a
year.

However,
there
are
limitations
to
dazomet
being
used
on
other
ornamental
crops
in
addition
to
those
mentioned
above.
The
formulation
available,
a
fine
powder,
is
difficult
to
apply
and
marginally
effective
under
the
varied
growing
conditions.
Finally,
the
manufacturer
of
the
product
recently
sold
rights
to
another
company
and
that
company
has
yet
to
determine
the
target
markets
within
the
U.
S.
Therefore,
while
Dazomet
is
used
by
some
growers
it
is
uncertain
when
a
newer,
more
reliable,
application­
friendly
product
will
be
available
so
that
its
use
may
become
more
widespread.

It
is
not
expected
that
the
MB
requested
in
this
CUN
will
be
used
for
chrysanthemums
and
carnations.
In
Florida,
where
cutting
of
mums
are
propagated
for
use
around
the
world,
the
applicant
is
in
the
process
of
converting
to
steam.
Also,
many
of
the
cut
flowers
of
chrysanthemums
and
carnations
are
being
imported
from
South
America.
Therefore,
dazomet
use
on
these
crops
is
not
expected
to
reduce
the
amount
of
MB
nominated.

Dazomet
cannot
be
used
on
caladiums
since
the
fields
do
not
have
any
overhead
irrigation
and
water
sealing
the
product
is
not
possible
under
these
conditions.
This
crop
is
irrigated
by
flooding
from
underground
sources
of
water
in
most
instances
(
described
above
in
the
response
to
Question
1).
USA,
Ornamentals,
Response
to
June
2004
Questions
Page
9
REFERENCES
2006
Bromide
Usage
Numerical
Index
(
BUNI)
 
Refined
Nomination
Package.
Attached
to
U.
S.
Response
to
Questions
as
an
Excel
Spreadsheet.

Chase,
Ann.
Chase
Research
Gardens.
June
and
July
2004.
Personal
communication.

Elmore,
C.,
J.
MacDonald,
H.
Ferris,
I.
Zasada,
S.
Tsjvold,
K.
Robb,
C.
Wilen,
L.
Bolkin,
L.
Yahaba,
J.
Roncoroni,
2003a,
Alternatives
to
Methyl
Bromide
for
Control
of
Weeds,
Nematodes,
and
Soil­
Borne
Fungi,
Bacteria
in
Coastal
Ornamental
Crops
 
Draft.

Elmore,
C.,
J.
Roncoroni,
K.
Robb,
C.
Wilen,
and
H.
Ajwa,
2003b,
Preplant
Pest
Production
in
Ranunculus
Production,
Proceeding
from
the
2003
Annual
International
Research
Conference
on
Methyl
Bromide
Alternatives
and
Emissions
Reductions,
Web
address:
www.
mbao.
org
Federal
Register,
February
5,
1998,
40
CFR,
part
82.
Control
of
methyl
bromide
emissions
through
use
of
tarps.
Web
address:
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
fedrgstr/
EPAAIR
1998/
February/
Day­
05/
a2875.
htm
Schneider,
S.,
E.
Rosskopf,
J.
Leesch,
D.
Chellemi,
C.
Bull,
and
M.
Mazzola,
2003,
United
States
Department
of
Agriculture
 
Agricultural
Research
Service
Research
on
Alternatives
to
Methyl
Bromide:
Pre­
plant
and
Post­
harvest,
Pest
Manag
Sci
59:
814­
826.

Semer,
C.
R.
IV,
1987,
Basamid
and
Methyl
Bromide
Compounds
as
Fumigants
in
Carnation
and
Chrysanthemum
Production
in
Selected
Propagation
Media,
Proc
Fla
State
Hort
Soc
100:
330­
334.

Trout,
T.,
2001,
Impact
of
Township
Caps
on
Telone
Use
in
California.

USDA,
April
2002.
Agricultural
Chemical
Usage
2000
Nursery
and
Floriculture
Summary.