Comparative yield efficiencies of methyl bromide substitute fumigants and mulching systems for pepper production in the Southeast

• Autorzy: Fonsah E. , Yu Y. , Escalante C. , Culpepper S. , Deng X.

Warianty tytułu

PL

Efekt substytucji bromku metylu (mb) w fumigacji w siewie bezpośrednim w uprawie pieprzu na południowym wschodzie

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Methyl Bromide (MB) is one of the most effective and widely used commercial chemicals in agriculture and non-agricultural sectors respectively. The decision to phaseout MB by 2005 set the stage for scientists to come up with a non-less-toxic replacement alternative or combinations thereof. This study focused on comparing yield efficiencies of different MB substitute fumigants and mulching systems for pepper production in the Southeast. Results of this study depicted that pepper production is potentially maximized under the tel-pic-vap treatment which is the only fumigation method that yielded significant differences relative to at least one other alternative approach.

PL

Bromek metylu (MB) jest jedną z najbardziej skutecznych i powszechnie stosowanych substancji chemicznych w rolnictwie i niektórych sektorach pozarolniczych. Decyzja w sprawie wycofania MB do 2005 roku zainspirowała naukowców do wynalezienia mniej toksycznych alternatyw dla tej substancji. Niniejsze opracowanie koncentruje się na porównywaniu efektywności fumigantów różnych alternatyw MB.

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Journal of Agribusiness and Rural Development
• Rocznik: 2010
• Numer: 01[15]
• Opis fizyczny: p.55-65,ref.

Twórcy

autor

Fonsah E.

• Department of Ag and Applied Economics, University of Georgia, P.O. Box 1209, 15 RDC Rd, Tifton, GA 31793, USA

autor

Yu Y.

autor

Escalante C.

autor

Culpepper S.

autor

Deng X.

Bibliografia

• Boatright S.R., McKissick J.C., 2006. 2005 Georgia farm gate vegetable college of agricultural and environmental sciences. University of Georgia, Athens, Survey Report. SR 06-04.
• Byrd M.M., Escalante C.L., Fonsah E.G., Wetzstein M.E., 2007. Feasible fumigant-herbicide system alternatives to methyl bromide for bell pepper producers. J. Agribus. 25 (1), 31-45.
• Byrd M.M., Escalante C.L., Fonsah E.G., Wetzstein M.E., 2006. Financial efficiency of methyl bromide alternatives for Georgia Bell Pepper Industries. J. Am. Soc. Farm Manag. Rural Appraisers 69 (1), 31-39.
• Carpenter J., Gianessi L., Lynch L., 2000. The economic impact of the scheduled U.S. Phase-out of Methyl Bromide. National Center for Food & Agricultural Policy, Washington DC.
• Culpepper A.S., Langston D., 2005. Time to start incorporating methyl bromide alternatives into your plasticulture programs. Proceedings of the 2005 Southeast Regional Vegetable Conference, Sponsored by Georgia Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association and The University of Georgia, Cooperative Extension Service, 64-66.
• Culpepper A.S., Langston D., 2006. Methyl bromide alternative being identified. Proceedings of the 2006 Southeast Regional Vegetable Conference. Sponsored by Georgia Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association and The University of Georgia. Cooperative Extension Service, 52-55.
• Fonsah E.G., 2008. Georgia Vegetable, Fruit and Nut Situation and Outlook, Georgia ag 2008 forecast. Department of Agriculture and Applied Economics, College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, University of Georgia, 26-28.
• Fonsah E.G., 2006. Production cost. In: Commercial Pepper Production Handbook. Eds E.G. Fonsah, A.N. Sparks. Univ. Ga. Coop. Ext. Ser. Bul. 1309, 51-55.
• Gilreath J.P., Santos B.M., 2004. Efficacy of methyl bromide alternatives on purple nutsedge control (Cyperus rotundus) in tomato and pepper. Weed Technology 18, 141-145.
• Haire B., 2003. Vegetable growers get methyl bromide reprieve. Georgia Faces. College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, University of Georgia.
• Kelley W.T., 2009. How much methyl bromide is available for 2009?. Proc. 2009 Southeast Regional Vegetable Conference, Savannah International Trade & Convention Center, Jan. 10, 33.
• Kelley W.T., Boyhan G., 2006. Commercial pepper production handbook. The University of Georgia, College of Agricultural and Environmental Service, Bulletin 1309. http://pubs.caes. uga.edu/caespubs/pubcd/B1309.htm [accessed: 20.10.2008].
• Lucier G., Jerardo A., 2006. Vegetables and melons outlook. USDA VGS-318. www.ers.usda. gov/publications/vgs/2006/12dec/vgs318.pdf [accessed: 15.04.2008].
• Lucier G., Pollack S., Ali M., Perez A., 2007. Fruit and vegetable backgrounder. USDA VGS- 313-01.
• Quick Stats. 2008. United State Department of Agriculture/National Agricultural Statistics Service.http://www.nass.usda.gov/QuickStats/PullData_US.jsp [accessed: 18.04.2008].
• The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. 1998. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), United Nations, New York.
• United States Standards for Grades of Pepper. 2007. United States Department of Agriculture – Agricultural Marketing Service (USDA-AMS). http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile? dDocName=STELPRDC5051220 [accessed: 20.01.2009.]
• Vegetables and Melons Outlook Report. 2001. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (USDA/ERS). Washington, DC. http://www.ers.usda. gov/publications/so/ view.asp?f=/specialty/vgs-bb/ [accessed: 15.01.2009.].

Uwagi

PL

Rekord w opracowaniu.