***
Fri Dec 17,12:01 AM ET
 White House - AP

By JOHN HEILPRIN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration announced new rules Thursday to allow U.S. farmers who grow tomatoes, strawberries and other crops to continue using methyl bromide, an ozone-depleting pesticide that had been scheduled to be phased out worldwide next year.

The United States was among a dozen nations that won continued "critical use" exemptions from the phase-out at negotiations in Prague, Czech Republic last month. International negotiators granted the United States request to continue using the popular killer of insects and weeds at a rate of 37 percent, or 5,550 tons, of the 15,000 tons used in 1991.

The new rules take effect on Jan. 1 and allow most of the methyl bromide to be used by producers and importers of crops, with the rest allotted to distributors and other users.

Agency officials said in a statement the rules they were putting in place represent "the most simple and least burdensome option."

But in 2006, the United States may have to scale back to 27 percent, or 4,050 tons, at the insistence of international negotiators for meeting the goals of the United Nations (news - web sites)' 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.***

And from a NCTimes article.....

***...Methyl bromide is sprayed into the soil to kill various viruses and pests.

The fumigant can be expensive. For example, the total cost of acquiring and applying methyl bromide is about $2,500 per acre, Mellano said.

The United States is one of the largest users of the fumigant, according to the EPA, historically accounting for about 40 percent of the world's methyl bromide usage. That figure dropped to less than 25 percent in the last few years as growers began moving away from the chemical, according to the agency.

Because the fumigant depletes part of the ozone layer, the amount produced and imported in the United States was to be reduced incrementally with a complete phase-out by Jan. 1.

EPA officials have acknowledged that for some crops, there are no alternatives that are viable, affordable and acceptable from a public health standpoint. For that reason, the agreement and the U.S. Clean Air Act allow for some exemptions.

Efforts are being made by the agriculture industry, particularly on part of the California Strawberry Commission, to find alternative substances, said Simone Hardy, deputy agriculture commissioner for San Diego County.

"I think there are alternatives out there that will meet all of the requirements," Hardy said. "I don't think we're at that point yet. But the industry is making a good effort in the search."

Michael Anthony Mellano, another vice president of Mellano & Co. and a third-generation grower, said there are some alternative pesticides awaiting approval for use from state officials.

"Hopefully, we can get those alternatives into a few growing cycles once they are approved, and learn about what positive or negative effects they have," Michael Mellano said.

Meanwhile, Margaret Reeves, a staff scientist at the San Francisco-based Pesticide Action Network-North America, said she is not happy with the 2005 exemption. Reeves said she thinks growers should take their cues from organic growers.

"Look at the burgeoning organic industry in this country," Reeves said in a telephone interview Friday. "It says people can find alternatives. Organic growers have been using alternatives (to methyl bromide) successfully all around the world."

One of the organic farming practices used as an alternative to methyl bromide involves applying a combination of manures and recycled yard materials to the beds or fields, according to the federal Agricultural Research Service.

The flower beds or fields are wetted down before they get covered with a clear plastic. The added manure and recycled material mix encourages the buildup of beneficial microbes. When it heats up, the compost-soil mix produces gases that displace soil oxygen. That renders weeds unable to germinate.

"We do not just bang farmers over the head with the call to get rid of pesticides," Reeves added. "We recognize it involves a transition into alternatives."

Michael Anthony Mellano said adopting the practices of organic crop growers just isn't practical, particularly for large-scale farming operations.

"That's really a pie-in-the-sky idea," Michael Mellano said Friday. "The cost of producing crops as organic farmers do is more expensive. It requires more hand labor. It leads to a lower yield per acre, and generally the fruit or flower is smaller. And smaller products generally bring in less money."...
***

( I find that last most fascinating - the CA organic berries & tomatoes we get here - sold @ premium prices too - are unblemished, very large & very tasty)

They sell the best stuff at a premium. It's not economical to ship substandard produce out of state, so it gets sold to smaller organic markets that naturally charge more because of low sales volume (at larger chains like Whole Foods you can actually pay less).

Don't get me started on methyl bromide, every late summer/early fall the citizens of Camarillo come down with "the Camarillo Crud" brought to us courtesy of the strawberry fields surrounding us. It's obnoxious, but the growers were here before me.

Since the government interferes with the free market through farm subsidies (paying farmers to not cultivate land forces market prices up), I wonder what effect their meddling has had on the production of organic food?

Ryan

Aside from problems with nematodes and other root and crown pests, weeds germinating under the clear plastic are the most serious concern. The clear plastic serves as a greenhouse to raise soil temperature and maintain maximum moisture control during the winter month.

Organic grower rely on black plastic or IRT plastics that suppress weed growth. Also growers often bed up, then water up weeds exposed to germinating conditions, then knife off the seedlings, finally tarping with plastic. Often this process is enough to limit subsequent weed pressure.

I've done maybe a dozen certification inspection of conventional growers with small organic operations. They've been mostly successful in producing good crops with good profits. The cultural problems are more related to mite pressure and sustaining adequate nutrients during colder winter conditions. Another concern is the need to follow a rotational system to avoid build up of diseases and pests. Few have ever complained about weed pests or labor costs in a business heavily labor-intensive. A major complaint has been the lack of organic transplants of varieties best adapted to organic culture. Most of the modern varieties are developed to prosper under conventional management and to have long shelf life. Try the Camarosa variety and you will understand.

This product was organic in nature and consisted of hot peppers, mustard, and such to kill fungi and weed seeds. I tried it but don't believe it was very effective, particurily.

My understanding is that growers can more intensely grow their crops with fumigation to kill off adverse fungi, adverse nemitodes, and weed seeds.

& FL tomato growers are big providers to Taco Bell....

Yes, I am overstating the situation. Carolb's posting focuses on the intensive fruit and vegetable agronomic systems where high returns are offset, often, by high management costs, where every effort is made to maximize marketable yield. Similar situations exist from animal producers; thus, the vast confinement facilities.

Elsewhere farmers practice low- and no-till management in the interests of maintaining organic content, soil nutrients, and protecting from soil erosion. OTOH, pesticides are applied over these vast acreages in response to anticipated and perceived threats from those other organisms. The total volume of pesticides applied are much greater in the vast hinterlands of agriculture than in those areas using methyl bromide and other fumigants.

As long as the bottom line rules, most anything will be accepted in the interest of ever-increasing yields. Much of the world has been willing to give up methyl bromide, the US has resisted for more than a decade.

I support organic growers. But in Florida, those are few and far between. If the large-scale, conventional tomato growers in my state go broke, who am I supposed to convert to organic practices and make any real impact? It would have been merciless to force them to base their next crop entirely on methods with which they have little experience. Locally grown, organic produce is the goal, not eliminating competion at every opportunity.

I understand that there is an on-going history behind this issue and I certainly can't condone the use of an ozone-depleting substance; however, I say that the best approach is to support your local growers first and then clue them in to the fact that you would pay a higher price for an organic product. Educate, educate, educate your local public and let simple economics take care of the rest. This approach eliminates a multitude of problems all at once rather than attacking each individual problem seperately. Besides, you catch more flies with sugar than with vinegar.

How embarassing that our country is lagging behind the rest of the world on this issue. But I will not let embarassment guide my reaction to this any more than I would if my child embarassed me at the grocery.

Locally grown, organic food is the goal.

-----
Encouraging results have also been observed in strawberries, Poppe says. In 1998, greenhouse trials showed that strawberry daughter plants would root through wool mulch. Field trials last year confirmed the finding.

"Wool created an environment that was great for producing daughter plants," Poppe says. In the Morris research plots, "the wool mulch had the highest number of rooted daughter plants," he says. "Plants appeared vigorous and healthy when compared to the standard herbicide treatment."

Wool also controlled weeds in his strawberries, says Jacobson, who is running duplicate trials. "We didn’t have to apply any herbicide at all on the wool mulch," he says. The mats also eliminated the need for hand hoeing. "The number of weeds was exactly zero where the mulch was."
-----

Sylvia, giving up methyl bromide does not mean forcing the growers into organic production. The focus on organic alternatives comes from the facts that organic producers already grow the same crops without methyl bromide and that researchers and cooperating organic farmers seek alternatives rather than defend the conventional status quo. Farming, like life (if not current politics), does not come down to "you're either doing it one way or the other way." I am always amazed about the diversity of agronomic practices among organic farmers, from the purist using nothing imported onto the farm to those practicing conventionally but substituting USDA-allowed materials.

I have friends who farm or used to farm organically in Florida and Texas with great struggles. I know Hawaiian organic farmers whose stories about the ravaging pests and diseases make me glad to be farming here in south coastal California.

The exemptions [from the Montreal Procols] granted to some countries concerning methyl bromide for 2005 could endanger the cutoff time [2010] for poorer countries concerning CFC.

Sure, local gardeners with access to wool mulches might find the idea attractive, if not the smell of moldering wet wool. :)

Just for the record, I know that growing organically is possible in Florida. I have the evidence in my backyard.

No apologies necessary.

The average annual amount of marketable wool produced in the US is @ 50 million lbs. If only 1/4 of the the weight of raw wool is classifed as waste, not useful for textiles or other standard uses, we have @ 12 million lbs of raw waste wool, or roughly 6 million lbs of scoured waste. These estimates only include wool from sheep grown for the fiber, although most can be eaten as well.

For farmers who raise sheep primarily for meat or milk, the wool is a waste product that has no market value -- some pay to have it hauled away. This fiber along with the raw waste noted above and the post-manufacturing waste is a tremendous amount of wasted wool. Sorry I can't offer any solid numbers for these last categories of waste. As noted in the posted links, availabitily isn't so much of a problem as developing a collection & manufacturing process that makes wool mulch affordable.

The wool is scoured so there shouldn't be an odor problem. It would likely attract moths though.

6 million pounds of wool waste won't cover much even if we assume that all waste is directed into gardening mulches. Let's use 25 pounds/thousand sq.ft as highest number, or slightly less than 1,100 pounds/acre. So there is enough wool waste to cover less than 5,500 acres at best. A tightly matted fabric would extend the waste coverage but would then be competing with similar landscape fabrics.

We could also add the wool from meat and milk animals, assuming that the collection and processing are practical. Are these animals raised separately from wool sheep raised on range or do substantial part of our lamb come from these range populations? Would we also promote importation of foreign wool for our purpose?

Most sheep can be raised for both meat & fleece, some breeds having a high quality meat, others for higher quality fleece. Most US sheep are dual purpose and are raised according to market demands, ie, if lamb prices are high, there is less wool to market. Niche market farmers specialize their herds to serve one or the other. WY, TX & CA have the largest sheep industries, which provide a portion of the lamb for the US. A significant portion of lamb is from New Zealand and Australia where they have promoted grass fed, free range lamb. This is superior to US which relies on first stage grazing on marginal land then finishing on grain, similar to the beef industry.

A significant amount of wool, primarily for the garmet industry is already imported from Australia & New Zealand. It could cost less to import waste wool along with the prime since the shipping costs would be covered. I wouldn't promote importation of foreign waste wool unless it can be shown that collection efforts here are not possible.

The cost of even prime wool is so low as a result of having to compete with synthetics, if a manufacturing process and market for felted landscape fabric can be developed, those in the business may not have to focus on locating the least expensive & lowest quality raw material.

I was under the impression that sheep used for wool production were unsuitable for consumption because of high levels of lanolin which gives the meat an "off" flavor.

Ryan

The mystery meat was cooked to death, then covered with a thin insipid gravy, and served with the mint jello on the side. Add mashed potatoes and overcooked canned vegetables... I still shudder 45-50 years later.

Now Marshall, why did you have to write that? I think I'm going to be...

I don't mind lamb and usually eat some 2 or 3 times a year at Greek restaurant where it is well seasoned. Otherwise, I agree vgkg. There is a big difference between using seasoning to enhance flavor and masking otherwise impalatable food.

My stance however, is the same as Althea and Vgkg. If you have to season the food to be able to eat it, get something else. Seasonings are supposed to enhance the flavors, not disguise them.

On a side note, buffalo and ostrich are actually quite good, especially buffalo.

There are a lot of food that likely improved over time but needed a lot of help being palatable earlier. Phaseous (beans) come to mind. Wild beans are tough-podded with seed with anti-nutritional properties. Wild potatoes are totally inedible through normal food preparation. That said, one would expect sheep (a very early domesticate) to have become more palatable. Maybe the ingenious ways of hiding the flavor represent major advances in civilization! Or maybe wild sheep have been jumping the domesticated does.

(≈ Laughing too much to comment on Marshall's logical inquiry. ≈)

At least the Gods appreciated sacrificial lambs.

We should also note, the Gods only metaphorically consumed the mutton.

That would often be mankind.

Bush Administration Oks Pesticide Use The Bush administration has announced it will allow U.S. farmers to continue using an ozone-depleting pesticide even though it had been scheduled to be phased out around the world on Jan. 1. The Natural Resources Defense Council criticized the Bush administration for the decision. David Doniger said "More methyl bromide means more ozone depletion and higher risks of skin cancer, cataracts, and immune diseases for millions of Americans."

Related Links:
Organic Consumers Association: EPA Violates International Treaty in Allowing Massive Increase of Methyl Bromide Pesticide Use

A number of years ago I tried to convience DH about an issue I was reasearching, he humored me until he finally read it in Scientific America, he panicked and as if it was his own idea he came around to my way of thinking for himself. My anology here was to humbly try to support your lead posting and support the findings with yet another resource that is validating these statements.

My hope is more holistic measures in our ag department. My fears are out weighing the hopes...

....so back to the drawing board....

I will try to only post new news to your posts in the future Marshall. Hopefully it will be encouraging news!

Cheers-
G4

PS you are the best poster....error- one of the many best here :)

I have been researching the MeBr phaseout and have found alot of interesting facts/bs in different places.

In carols leading post it states:

"International negotiators granted the United States request to continue using the popular killer of insects and weeds at a rate of 37 percent, or 5,550 tons, of the 15,000 tons used in 1991. "

That is not actually true instead that only 30% of new MB can be produced with and additional 5% from old stock produced prior to Jan 1,2005. An additional 2.5% of the baseline was more recently authorized for 2005 critical use.

I only mention this because it is suppose to limit the production of "new" in this equation by 5% of the baseline.I just wonder who and how all this will be monitored to meet the correct amounts legally?!

Also, I found out that in a fact sheet by the EPA that MeBr was listed as "an odorless gas, that is used to control a variety of pests in many different situations. Methyl Bromide has been used in a wide variety of agricultural and commodity applications ( for example:growing strawberries and tomatoes and fumigating flour mills) across the U.S.

There was no mention of any other negative or mutative charateristics of the chemical behavior except that it is "a powerful ozone depleting substance."
http://www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr/CueFRfactssheet.html

What I did find out about the chemical combination of MeBr:
Other than caused a number of health problems with exposure was...

A newly proposed rule by the Dept of Agriculture would demand that methyl bromide fumigation for nearly all imported raw wood packaging ( instead of heat methods).

The use of imported treated raw wood packaging would not be controlled or regulated before shipment abroad. This increase could be a very significant increase. It would not be limited to just packaging material, but all wood products.

As well as being a ozone-depleting agent, MeBr is also classified as a class 1 acute toxin by the EPA.
It has been used for over 50 years to sterilize soils prior to planting as a herbicide and pesticide(strawberies, tomatoes, peppers, eggplant, tobacco, and ornamental).
Its also used to fumigate for pests strawberries, coffee beans,tomatoes, ginger, sweet patatoes,fruits, vegetables,dried nuts,and grains before they are sent to market (to control insects) and then again later to fumigate homes, warehouses and grain elevators. And golf courses turfs.
I found that info from:
PR 95-4 Regulatory Status of Methyl Bromide and Priority Review of Methyl Bromide Alternatives

There is alot of rumors about political contribution amounts in the agribusiness the strategy to keep MeBr going as Marshall implied.
Of course these rants I would need to validate the other claims as many political names and chemical companies were thrown around.

One author, of an article about how the Agribusiness is very happy, ends his article on the thought that if the Montreal Protocol parties fails to control the USA in regards to MeBr and methyl bromide stays on the market how terrible it would be "or at least until the ozone fails."

The link below is on 2 laborers who were applicators of methyl Bromide in California as reported by the sierra club.

Other than that the only other thing of interest I found was that in 2002 when the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee translated documents for the United Nations Environment Programme

there was a note by the Secretariat that states in outline the following:
"1. This note is prepared pursuant to agenda ithem number 12 of the twenty-forth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol and in consideration of a request made during the 24th meeting of the Open-ended Working Group (see the report f that meeting, UNEP.Ozl.Pro.WG.1/24/9, paragraph 174 to 177) that the Secretariat translate into the official United Nations Languages, and publish in those languages, the assessment reports prepared by the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee (MBTOC) on altenatives to methyl bromide. The Secretariat deems it necessary to cirulate the information on translationof documents issued by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) and it technical options committees along with the information onthe cost implications of the translation of MBTOC documents.

2. As stimpulated in paragraph 3.1 of the TEAP terms of reference ( annex V to the report of the eighth Meeting of the Parties, UNEP/Ozl.Pro.8/12), which the Meeting of the Parties approved in its decision VIII/19 on the organization and functioning of TEAP, the stipulated language of TEAP meetings is English, and reports of the panel are produced in English. The Secretariat has thereforealways circulated all the reports of the panel and its committees only in English.
3. Notwithstanding the provison in the terms of reference, and in accordance with the request of the Open-ended Working Group made at its 24th meeting to forward the draft decision on this siisue to the Sixteenth Meeting of the Parties, the Secretariat wishes to inform the Parties that the cost of translating the 2002 MBTOC assessment report, which consists of 184,618 words, at $90 per standard page of 330 words, is $50,350 per language. The total cost of the translation of the MBTOC assessmentreport from English into five other United Nations languages therfore will be $251,750."

UNEP/Ozl.Pro.16/INF/4 11 nov 2004

what seems problematic is that other countries may bulk at their commitment looking to the USA as a role model.Perhaps seeing the USA as not a serious player in phasing out a chemical that is not only a mutagen and a cancer causing compound but also is effecting our ozone layer and is used too closely in our foods and environment.

Some millers believe that because of methly bromide that the need to sift flour is no longer needed. That the purpose of sifting flour was merely to get the bugs out.
Personally, I would rather eat a missed bug of protein in sifting than eat the residue of chemicals that will hurt me or my family. Of course, I dont want to sit down to a plate of insects by any means. But if food were fresher, if there were more small farms to accomidate local people's needs.....yah I know IF and if and if....so thats why we are here discussing all this.

thank you for the eye opener Marshall in regards to how limiting the UN is.

http://aje.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/157/9/800

I understand that chlorine is not that healthy to drink....maybe better than typhus and such, though. Actually 8 times more chlorine is absorbed through the skin in showering than by drinking!

http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/programs/programs.htm?NP_CODE=308