Title: Berry/vegetable times
ALL VOLUMES CITATION PDF VIEWER THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00087388/00062
 Material Information
Title: Berry/vegetable times
Physical Description: Serial
Language: English
Creator: Gulf Coast Research and Education Center, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
Publisher: Gulf Coast Research and Education Center
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: June-July 2009
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00087388
Volume ID: VID00062
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

BVT0609 ( PDF )


Full Text




jJIUNIVERSITY of IFAS EXTENSION
UFIFLORIDA IFAS EXTENSION



SBerry/Vegetable Times

June-July 2009


Calendar of Events

July 14 & Aug. 11 Pesticide
License Testing. Hillsborough
County Extension Office, Seffner.
9 am. For more information call
Mary Beth Henry at 813-744-5519
ext. 103.

Aug. 1 & 2 Florida Small Farms
Alternative Enterprises Conference,
Osceola Heritage Park, Kissimmee
Fl. For more information go to
http://smallfarms.ifas.ufl.edu.

Aug. 18 & 19 2009 Florida
Strawberry Growers Association
Agritech Educational Session &
Trade Show, Trinkle Building,
HCC Campus, Plant City.
For more information and to
register contact the Florida
Strawberry Growers Association at
813-752-6822.

Sept. 9 The 2009 Tomato Institute,
Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Naples, Fl.





f1LOImD A Exp
October 28, 2009 is the date for the
next Florida Ag Expo at
GCREC Balm.
A University ofFlorida/IFAS and Florida
Cooperative Extension Service newsletter
Hillsborough County, 5339 CR 579
Seffner, FL 33584
(813) 744-5519
Joe Pergola, County Extension Director
Alicia Whidden, Editor
Gulf Coast Research & Education Center
14625 County Road 672,
Wimauma, FL 33598
(813) 634-0000
Christine Cooley, Layout and Design
Craig K Chandler, Co-Editor
Jack Rechcigl, GCREC Center Director
htp ///gcrec ifas ufl edu


From Your Agent...
Change Comes To the Berry/Vegetable Times

We all know the economy is in a recession and have
felt the hard times in our personal finances. Now the hard
times have hit the Berry/Vegetable Times. The Extension
office has used bulk mail postage to mail the
newsletter. (Bulk mail rates are much cheaper than regular
mail rates.) Also, we have been able to produce paper copies
of the newsletter, complete with color photos, because of the
generous financial support of GCREC strawberry
researchers. Now, due to budget cuts, UF has eliminated bulk
mail, so starting this October we will no longer be mailing out
newsletters. If you are currently receiving a paper copy of the
newsletter and would like to continue receiving the
information it contains, please contact me and give me your
fax number or e-mail address. Of course, with fax copies,

(Continued on page 2)

The University of Florida/IFAS
and Gulf Coast Research and .
Education Center are pleased to
announce that Dr. Vance
Whitaker has accepted the
position as the new strawberry
breeder for GCREC. Dr. Whitaker
will be replacing Dr. Craig Chandler
who plans to retire in 2010. Dr.
Whitaker grew up on a 20-acre farm
in rural North Carolina and began his
horticultural career in grade school
running a produce business and working as a landscaper in the
summers. He received two bachelor degrees from NC State
University, one in Horticultural Science and another in
Agricultural Economics. Dr. Whitaker earned both his MS
and PhD from the University of Minnesota focusing on
applied plant science. He will be starting his new position as
Assistant Professor of Horticulture in August.

1


IFAS is an Equal Employment OpportunityAffirmative Action Employer authorized to provide research, educational formation and other services only to individuals and institutions that
function without regard to race, color, sex, age, handicap, or national origin U S Department ofAgriculture, Cooperative Extension Service, University of Flonda, IFAS, Florida A & M
University Cooperative Extension Program, and Boards of the County Commissioners Cooperating









photos will be printed in black and white. I
am sorry that the mailing of the newsletter
must end.

Have a safe and fun summer,

Alicia Whidden
Hillsborough County Extension
813-744-5519 ext. 134
awhidden@ufl.edu




UF DIAGNOSTIC LABS TO
CHARGE FOR SERVICES
Jim Mertely and Natalia Peres

On July 1, 2009, the Plant Diagnostic
Labs in Balm, Homestead, and Quincy, as
well as the main Extension Plant Disease
Clinic in Gainesville, will begin charging a
fee of $40 per sample. Previously, charges
for standard samples ranged from $0 to $20
each. In the future, labs located in Apopka
and Immokalee will make visual assessments
only; samples requiring more complete
diagnostics will be sent to Gainesville
accompanied by a check made out to the
University of Florida. This decision was
taken by the Office of Dean for Extension,
after a series of meetings with the heads of
the various Diagnostic Labs and Clinics. As
a result of this action, plant diagnostic fees
will become more equitable throughout the
university system. In addition, plant clinics
will become more self-supporting in the face
of university-wide budget cuts.
Like other clinics, the Plant
Diagnostic Lab at the Gulf Coast Research
and Education Center (GCREC-Balm) will
begin charging on July 1. After that date,
clients visiting the lab will be asked to fill
out the sample submission form and to pay
$40.00 per sample by check made out to the
University of Florida. Samples sent through


the mail should also be accompanied by a
submission form and payment. The
submission form is available in the lab and on
the internet at http://strawberry.ifas.ufl.edu/
DiagnosticLab/diagnosticpage.htm.
Regular clients may decide to pay for
multiple samples in advance. Checks for
individual samples would then not be required.
We welcome this procedure, since it will save
time and paperwork for the university and the
client alike.
The decision to charge clients was
made after considerable discussion and some
trepidation. It is our hope that UF plant
diagnostic facilities will be patronized as in the
past, and recognized for the compelling
economic value they represent.

GCREC Diagnostic Lab is open
Monday through Thursday
8 a.m. to 4 p.m.
Samples are not accepted on
Friday.


Please remember...
The use of trade names in this publication is
solely for the purpose of providing specific
information. It is not a guarantee or
warranty of the products named and does
not signify that they are approved to the
exclusion of others of suitable composition.
Use pesticides safely. Read and follow
directions on the manufacturer's label.









Requiem Insecticide No longer
Available in Strawberries
James F. Price

Requiem 25EC, a formulation of
Chenopodium ambrosioides extract,
manufactured by AgraQuest, Inc., was
available for use in strawberry culture during
the past production cycle to control spider
mites and some other pests. Folks at
AgraQuest now have decided to remove
strawberries from the label. Their decision
regarding strawberries does not affect the
product's availability on other crops.



'Florida Elyana': First Florida-Bred
Cultivar Recommended Specifically
for Tunnel and Greenhouse
Production
Craig K. Chandler, Bielinski M. Santos, and Natalia A.
Peres

Introduction
There are two predominant strawberry
production systems throughout the world:
Open-field cultivation and production under
protective structures (e.g. high-tunnels and
greenhouses). In California and Florida,
strawberry is produced predominately under
open-field conditions, whereas in Japan and in
parts of Europe, such as Spain, France and
Italy, the latter system is widely utilized.
Because of the environmental differences
between these two systems, it is necessary to
select cultivars that are adapted to each
specific situation. 'Florida Elyana' is the first
Florida-bred cultivar recommended
specifically for tunnel and greenhouse
production. It is a short-day plant and
produces flavorful fruit. 'Florida Elyana'
produces larger fruit than 'Strawberry
Festival', which is the predominant cultivar in
Florida and it holds a significant market share
in Spain, Morocco, and Egypt.


Origin
'Florida Elyana' strawberry originated
from a 2000 cross between FL 96-114 and FL
95-200. FL 96-114 resulted from a cross
between 'Sweet Charlie', a 1992 University of
Florida release, and 'Cuesta' (U.S. Plant
Patent 8,662), a Univ. of California cultivar
released in the early 1990s. FL 95-200 is a
result of a cross between FL 93-46 and FL 93-
66, both of which have a number of cultivars
in their complex pedigree, including 'Rosa
Linda' and 'Pajaro'.
Based on the desirable appearance and
firmness of 'Florida Elyana' fruit, it was
included in randomized complete block trials
at the Gulf Coast Research and Education
Center of the University of Florida at Dover
and Balm, Fla., respectively, during the 2004-
05 and 2006-07 seasons. Ripe fruit were
harvested, graded, counted, and weighed
twice a week from December through March.
For post-harvest quality analysis, sensory
panels were conducted at the Gulf Coast
Research and Education Center two times
during 2006 and three times during 2007. At
least 50 untrained panelists participated in
these panels, and rated fruit for appearance,
texture, and flavor. Panelists were asked to
taste the berries following the codes written
on their ballot sheets and answer the questions
on the ballots. Presentation was randomized
across panelists and serving order was
balanced so that each sample was tested in
each station. Panelists were asked to rate
samples for appearance, flavor and texture on
a 9-point hedonic scale (1 = dislike extremely
and 9 = like extremely). A line for comments
was provided after each question. Fresh fruit
were analyzed for soluble solids content
(SSC) and titratable acidity (TA). Fruit were
analyzed for surface color using a colorimeter
(Konica Minolta Sensing, Inc., Japan), and
firmness using a penetrometer (Instron, Model
4411, Canton, Mass.).
Description
(Continued on page 4)









(Continued from page 3)
'Florida Elyana' is a short-day
cultivar. It is smaller and a lower stature
plant than 'Strawberry Festival'. This habit,
along with fruit that are attached to long
pedicels, makes the fruit easy to harvest (Fig.
1). 'Florida Elyana' produces larger fruit
than 'Strawberry Festival'. It has a mean
fruit weight in west central Florida of
between 24 and 27 g, compared to between
17 and 21 g for 'Strawberry Festival' (Tables
1 and 2). Fruit are mostly medium conic to
wedge shaped, with the wedge shaped fruit
often showing a longitudinal crease on the
broad sides of the fruit (Fig. 2). 'Florida
Elyana' fruit are quite susceptible to surface
cracking, which is due to exposure to free
moisture. Thus we are not recommending
this cultivar for open-field culture where
there is a high likelihood of multiple rain or
dew events during the fruiting season.
External fruit color is a bright red, and
internal color is a light orange red. The
calyx is generally medium in size and
attractive. Fruit texture is firm (Table 3), and
the flavor is usually sweet with a pleasant
aroma. The soluble solid content of 'Florida
Elyana' fruit is as high as or higher than that
of 'Strawberry Festival' (Table 4), and its
SSC/TA ratio is consistently higher than that
of 'Strawberry Festival'.
Fig. 1. Plants of 'Florida Elyana' strawberry in


Performance
'Florida Elyana' is as productive as
'Strawberry Festival' in December and
January, but not as productive later in the
season (Tables 1 and 2). This could be due to
the fact that 'Florida Elyana' plants stay
relatively small throughout the season, whereas
'Strawberry Festival' plants are more vigorous
in terms of producing new branch crowns.
However, in a high tunnel trial at the Gulf
Coast Research and Education Center in the
2006-07 season, total season yield for 'Florida
Elyana' was not significantly different from
that of 'Strawberry Festival'. Growers may be
able to increase the productivity of 'Florida
Elyana' on a per unit area basis by planting
this cultivar at a higher than standard density.
'Florida Elyana' is moderately resistant to the
two most serious disease problems on
strawberry in Florida: Botrytis fruit rot (caused
by Botrytis cinerea [de Bary] Whetzel) and
anthracnose fruit rot (caused by Colletotrichum
acutatum Simm.). In an unsprayed trial during
the 2007-08 season, only 3% of the 'Florida
Elyana' fruit harvested from mid-February to
mid-March showed symptoms of anthracnose
fruit rot, compared to 53% for 'Treasure', the
susceptible control. 'Florida Elyana' also
appears to have resistance to wilts which are
most likely caused by C. gloeosporioides
(Penz.) Penz. and Sacc. and Phytophthora spp.


E~r .; .~ <


Fig. 2. Fruit of 'Florida Elyana' strawberry.
Spain. (Continued on page 5)










(Continued from page 4)


In summary, 'Florida Elyana' is recommended for winter and spring production areas where
strawberries are grown in tunnels or greenhouses.

Availability
Information on nurseries licensed to propagate 'Florida Elyana' can be obtained from
the Florida Foundation Seed Producers, Inc. (http://ffsp.net).


Table 1. Performance of strawberry cultivars at Dover, Fla. during the 2004-05 season in open-
field culture.
Marketable fruit yield
December January February March Total
Cultivar (g/plant) (g/fruit)
Florida Elyana 76 a 108 b 178 a 353 a 715 a 27.1 a
Strawberry Festival 37 b 144 a 155 b 592 a 928 b 20.6 b
Significance (P<0.05) NS *
z Mean fruit weight was determined by dividing total marketable fruit yield per plot by total
marketable fruit number per plot.
Y Means based on four replications of 10 plants each. Mean separation within columns by
Fisher's protected LSD test, P<0.05


Table 2. Performance of strawberry cultivars at Dover, Fla. during the 2006-07 season in high-
tunnel culture.

Marketable fruit yield
December January February March Total
Cultivar (g/plant) (g/fruit)
Florida Elyana 46 ay 99 a 159 b 322 a 626 a 24.4 a
Strawberry Festival 65 a 94 a 218 a 459 a 836 a 17.3 b

Significance (P<0.05) NS NS *


Mean fruit weight was determined by dividing total marketable fruit yield per plot by total
marketable fruit number per plot.
Y Means based on four replications of 10 plants each. Mean separation within columns by
Fisher's protected LSD test, P<0.05









Table 3. Mean acceptance scores (9-point hedonic scale) for appearance, texture, and flavor of
'Florida Elyana' and 'Strawberry Festival' strawberry evaluated over two harvest seasons.

Feb. 06 Mar. 06 Jan. 07 Feb. 07 Mar. 07
Appearance
Florida Elyana 6.6 bz 7.5 a 5.9 a 6.4 b 6.0 a
Strawberry Festival 7.8 a 6.8 b 6.2 a 7.2 a 6.3 a

Texture
Florida Elyana 7.4 a 7.1 a 6.9 a 6.9 a 6.2 a
Strawberry Festival 7.5 a 6.6 a 6.4 a 6.8 a 6.2 a

Flavor
Florida Elyana 7.3 a 7.0 a 6.5 a 6.7 a 6.2 a
Strawberry Festival 7.3 a 6.2 b 5.9 b 6.9 a 5.1 b

zMean separation within columns by Fisher's protected LSD test, P < 0.05.


Table 4. Soluble solid content (SSC) and titratable acidity (TA) of'Florida Elyana' and
'Strawberry Festival' strawberry evaluated over two harvest seasons.

Feb. 06 Mar. 06 Jan. 07 Feb. 07 Mar. 07
SSC (Brix)
Florida Elyana 10.2 az 8.2 a 7.7 a 9.6 a 7.3 a
Strawberry Festival 7.5 b 7.5 b 6.9 b 9.8 a 6.2 b

TA (%)
Florida Elyana 0.82 a 0.58 a 0.78 b 0.71 b 0.69 a
Strawberry Festival 0.75 b 0.63 a 0.91 a 0.87 a 0.73 a

zMean separation within columns by Fisher's protected LSD test, P < 0.05.








FLOfIVDA Ag EXpo

Wednesday October 28, 2009
Gulf Coast Research and Education Center
Registration is Free. For details and information visit the Ag Expo Website.
http://flagexpo.ifas.ufl.edu










Industry Impacts from the new
EPA's Reregistration Eligibility
Decisions
Joseph W. Noling and Alicia Whidden

Over the past few years, the U.S.
EPA has been in the process of reregistering
soil fumigants. As you all can testify, it's
been a long time in the coming and we've
suffered a fair amount of anxiety over it.
Well, on June 3, 2009, EPA released the final
and revised Re-registration Eligibility
Decisions (RED) for methyl bromide,
chloropicrin, metam sodium (Vapam) and
metam potassium (Kpam). They are
decisions because only after successfully
passing through the technical health and
safety screen and public review and
comment process does EPA decide whether
the fumigants are eligible for re-registration
and grower use. In many regards, the new
RED's turned out not to be as bad as
expected. In apparent response to new soil
emissions data and a 'bunch' of critical
comments from industry and agriculture,
EPA has significantly downgraded many of
its original demands. Don't be mislead, these
new RED's clearly enumerate a number of
very significant regulatory changes that are
still forthcoming. With completion of the
RED's, these new changes which will be
mandated to appear on the fumigant pesticide
label within two years will include
requirements for buffer zones, posting and
notification, respiratory protection including
OSHA training, fit testing and medical
certification, good agricultural practices,
fumigant management plans, fumigant site
air monitoring, and emergency response
plans among others. We do not have the
liberty in this newsletter article but to only
highlight a few of the more significant
changes. Table 1 attempts only to provide
broad overview. Growers are encourage to
visit the various online EPA website


addresses found at the bottom of Table 2 to
learn more about the new risk mitigation
measures being imposed by EPA for use of soil
fumigants in Florida.

Buffer Zones: Based on the final RED's, it
would appear that buffers are no longer a
significant issue for typical use rates of
chloropicrin, vapam, or kpam, particularly if
some attempt is made to take advantage of
buffer zone reducing credits offered by EPA.
For example, EPA provides a buffer zone
reducing "credit" of 60% when growers
combine use of virtually impermeable plastic
mulches (VIF) to reduce fumigant use rates
and emissions from soil. In the newly amended
RED's, there appears to no longer be a direct
benefit to reducing buffer zone distance
requirements by applying the fumigant via drip
rather than shank or chisel application. For
example, EPA will only mandate a buffer zone
of 25 to 36 feet for chloropicrin use rates
within the range of 100 to 150 lbs per acre ( a
gracious plenty) and treating as many as 5 to
40 acres per day (Table 1.). In addition to
Chloropicrin, Table 1 documents buffer zone
distances for typical applications of Telone,
Metam sodium (Vapam), Metam potassium
(Kpam), methyl iodide (Midas), and methyl
bromide. One of our new problems in
strawberry is how to effectively use a Telone
product, when to do so will require a buffer
setback of 100 feet from any occupied
structure. Since Telone was reregistered in
1998, none of the new buffer zone reducing
credits apply. EPA has also determined that
buffer zones may overlap as long as 12 hours
has elapsed since the end of one day's
application until the start of the next
application. Air monitoring of the field
periphery of the buffer zone is still required,
with growers expected to determine and record
a sensory perception (smell test) of whether
pungent odors exists 4 times a day for the
duration of the buffer (ie., 6am, 12 noon, 6pm,
12 midnight). EPA has also indicated that for









fumigation scenarios where a buffer of less
than 300 feet is required, then fumigant
applications will be permitted within 1/8th of
a mile (660 feet) of schools, licensed day
care centers, nursing homes, assisted living
facilities, hospitals, clinics or prisons.
For anyone who has read the new
fumigant RED's, they know that the real
impact from EPA's fumigant re-registrations
will go well beyond buffer zones, with the
need for Fumigant Management Plans
(FMP), posting and notification, emergency
response, and requirements for medical
certification, safety training, and fit testing of
workers to satisfy EPA respirator
requirements when and if needed in the field.

Fumigant Management Plan (FMP): EPA
still believes that the FMP is necessary to
reduce worker risks and to confirm that
growers are complying with fumigant labels.
Let there be no mistake about this new
requirement for the FMP, it will be a royal
and costly pain to collect and record the data,
and then to archive the reports for 2 years.
To refresh your memory, the FMP requires
the certified applicator supervising the
application must develop a site-specific FMP
for each application block he or she
fumigates on a daily basis. A simplified list
of the elements that must be addressed in the
FMP and provided upon request to workers
or other local, state, federal agency include:

general site information (location,
map, proximities to residences, etc.)
applicator information (name,
address, license numbers, training,
etc.)
authorized personnel present
application procedures(products,
rates, equipment, calibration, mulch,
etc)
measurements taken to verify
compliance with good application
practices,


how buffers were determined,
Worker protection information,
procedures for air monitoring,
Posting,
training of applicators supervising
fumigations,
communication among key parties,
hazard communication,
Record keeping,
site-specific response and management
activities,
emergency plans,
procedures for controlling fumigant
releases in case of problems during or
after the application.

Within 30 days of completing the application
portion of the fumigation process, the certified
applicator supervising the application must also
complete a post fumigation application
summary that describes any deviations from the
FMP that occurred, measurements taken to
comply with Good Agricultural Practices
(GAPs), as well as any complaints and/or
incidents that have been reported to him/her.
This summary must again include the actual
date of the application, application rate, and size
of application block fumigated for that day.

Respiratory Protection and Air Monitoring:
Many current fumigant labels require handlers
(field workers) to use respirators outright or
only when air concentrations in the area where
they are working reach certain action levels. In
general, the new RED's will not initially require
any formal air monitoring with expensive
colorimetric tubes to determine if the action
levels have been reached in the field. The new
fumigant labels will however require certified
applicators or handlers to either stop work or
put on respirators if they experience sensory
irritation, ie. if they smell any strong, pungent,
irritating odors. Thus, growers are no longer
required to initially monitor fumigant
concentrations with the colorimetric tubes
during application but must rely upon sensory




































irritation of workers as the trigger to determine
whether a respirator is required. Workers can
only resume work without respirators if and
when two consecutive breathing-zone samples
taken 15 minutes apart with the colorimetric
tubes show levels of the fumigant have decreased
below the specified threshold level.
Additionally, EPA is still requiring that if
a respirator is to be worn, then they must be on-
hand and available when needed, and that
handlers be:
fit-tested to ensure respirators will
provide the protection they are designed
to provide;
OSHA standard trained in how to
properly use a respirator; and
determined to be physically fit enough to
wear the respirator to ensure they have
no health problems such as a heart
condition that could make use of the
respirator dangerous.
With all of this now said, the question becomes:
Where do we stand and where do we go from
here? In general, if a buffer zone distance is
unacceptable, then the optimizing strategy is to
reduce the buffer zone requirement by using a
high barrier or VIF mulch to take advantage of
the 30 to 60% buffer zone reducing credit. The
high barrier mulch will allow reduced rates of


application, with the added costs of the mulch likely
to be offset somewhat by the increasing cost we're
seeing in fumigant pricing. It also seems reasonably
clear to us that worker protections and grower
responsibilities and liabilities for noncompliance
with these new EPA fumigant use standards
significantly increasing. Not only must growers
carry the burden of the increased liability, but they
must formally document their daily measures and
procedures used to mitigate bystander and worker
risks. With this in mind, we are still of the belief that
use of drip fumigation rather than soil (shank)
injection treatment is a much preferred path to
reduce grower liabilities in the long run. This is
however, not something that has to be decided or
transitioned to overnight. We probably have as
much as two years to figure it out before the new
fumigant pesticide labels make there official
appearance. Methyl bromide, on the other hand, is
not likely to be around at that time so we better start
developing a plan as soon possible. You should also
be aware that EPA has announced it will begin the
next round of fumigant re-registration in 2013, and
heaven only knows how much more stringent the
regulation may become after they finish. In total,
changes required to respond to and implement the
new RED's will be complex and comprehensive,
adding a new burden of grower responsibility and
cost.
(Continued on page 10)


Table 1. Modifications from 2008 to 2009 Amended Soil Fumigant Re-registration Eligibility Decisions.

Mitigation Measure Change from 2008 to 2009
-New data support smaller buffers for some fumigants chloropicrinn) and
Buffers larger buffers for others (methyl bromide).

New data support buffer zone reducing credits of
Buffer Credits as much as 80%, i.e., use VIF mulch reduce buffer 60%
Permission from local authorities to include roadways within buffer is
Rights of Way only required when sidewalk is present

Buffers may overlap but only when field applications are separated by at
Buffer Overlap least 12 hours

Restrictions for Maintain mile restriction but allow a reduced restricted area of 1/8 mile
Difficult-to-Evacuate Sites for fumigant applications when buffer zones of less than 300 feet are
mandated.
-Allow sensory irritation (smell test) properties of the fumigants to trigger
additional measures for respiratory protection with MITC and chloropicrin
Respiratory Protection application.
Respirators will be required for methyl bromide formulations with <20%
chloropicrin content (80/20;98/2)
Same basic measures
-Monitoring of buffers required only during peak emission times of the
Emergency Response and Preparedness day; irritation acceptable trigger for MITC and chloropicrin in lieu of de-
vices; methyl bromide requires devices








Table 1. Strawberry: The range of buffer zone distances without credits derived from the
appropriate 2009 EPA Fumigant Re-registration Eligibility documents for use of various methyl
bromide alternative fumigants used on Florida crops. The table provides the range in buffer zone
distances, measured to the property line, for a range of different application rates (expressed as rates
of active ingredient per acre (treatments occurring only within 62% of an entire acre) and a range of 5
to 40 acres treated per day.
Buffer Zone 1
Per Acre Use Rates Acres treated
Fumigant Distance
(lb ai./acre) Per day Range (ft)
Range (ft)
CHISEL APPLICATIONS-Bed Treatments
Chloropicrin 100 150 5 to 40 25 36
80 5 to 40 25 50
Metam Sodium 100 5 to 40 25 57
or
Metam Potassium 160 5 to 40 25 -75
200 5 to 40 38-163
1,3 dichloropropene 94-140 1 to 40 100 2
(Telone)
5 to 10 50

Methyl Iodide 88 Ib ai./treated acre 10 to 20 150
20 to 40 250

5 69 275
10 127 454
Methyl Bromide 100 200215 696
20 215 696
40 338 -1071

DRIP APPLICATIONS
Chloropicrin EC 100- 150 5 40 30 40
80 5-40 25-75
Metam Sodium 100 5 40 25 82
or
Metam Potassium 160 5 40 25-100
200 5-40 38-125
1,3 dichloropropene 94-140 1to 40 1002
(Telone EC)

With the exception of 1,3-D, up to 80% reduced buffer zone distances are possible with EPA
approved credits. Examples of buffer zone reducing credits include: high barrier tarps (up to
60%); use of potassium thiosulfate (15%); high organic soils (10-30%).
For 1,3-D, Buffer zones are measured to occupied structure and not property line
All information used to produce this table was derived from the following EPA Re-registration Elgibility Documents (REDs):
http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrdl/REDs/chloropicrin-red-amended.pdf for chloropicrin.

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetail&d=EPA-HQ-OPP-
2005-0125-0519 for Vapam and Kpam.

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetail&d=EPA-HQ-OPP-
2005-0123-0716 for methyl bromide.




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs