Alternatives to Methyl Bromide

Transcription

Sourcebook of
Technologies for Protecting
the Ozone Layer:
Alternatives to
Methyl Bromide
United Nations Environment Programme
Division of Technology, Industry and Economics
OzonAction Programme
Sourcebook of Technologies for Protecting the Ozone Layer:
Alternatives to Methyl Bromide
Acknowledgments
This publication was produced by the United Nations Environment Programme Division of Technology, Industry and
Economics (UNEP DTIE) as part of its OzonAction Programme under the Multilateral Fund.
The team at UNEP DTIE that managed this publication was:
Jacqueline Aloisi de Larderel, Director, UNEP DTIE
Rajendra Shende, Chief, Energy and OzonAction Unit, UNEP DTIE
Cecilia Mercado, Information Officer, UNEP DTIE
Corinna Gilfillan, Associate Programme Officer, UNEP DTIE
Susan Ruth Kikwe, Programme Assistant, UNEP DTIE
Project Administration: The Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences
Author: Dr Melanie Miller, Member of MBTOC
Editor: Velma Smith
Technical reviewers: Dr Jonathan Banks, Dr Tom Batchelor, Prof Rodrigo Rodríguez-Kábana
Editorial reviewers: Mr Jorge Leiva, Ms Jessica Vallette
Design and layout: ampersand graphic design, inc.
UNEP DTIE would like to thank the following individuals and organisations for contributing technical information and/or contact addresses: Dr Jonathan Banks, Mr Marten Barel, Dr Tom Batchelor, Dr Antonio Bello, Mr F Benoit, Prof Mohamed Besri, Dr
Clyde Elmore, Dr Peter Förster, Mr Jan van S Graver, Prof ML Gullino, Dr Volkmar Haase, Dr Saad Hafez, HortResearch,
International Institute of Biological Control, Prof Jaacov Katan, Dr Jürgen Kroschel, Dr López, Dr Gerhard Lung, Mr Henk
Nuyten, Ms Marta Pizano, Prof Rodrigo Rodríguez-Kábana, Eng. Rafael Sanz, Ms Velma Smith, Dr Anne Turner, and other specialists and agricultural suppliers in many countries.
This document is available and will be periodically updated on the UNEP OzonAction website at:
www.uneptie.org/ozonaction.html
© 2001 UNEP
This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educational or non-profit purposes without special
permission from the copyright holder, provided acknowledgement of the source is made. UNEP would appreciate receiving a
copy of any publication that uses this publication as a source.
No use of this publication may be made for resale or for any other commercial purpose whatsoever without prior permission in
writing from UNEP.
The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion
whatsover on the part of the United Nations Environment Programme concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city
or area or of its authorities, or concerning delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Moreover, the views expressed do not
necessarily represent the decision of the stated policy of the United Nations Environment Programme, nor does citing the trade
names or commercial processes constitute endorsement.
UNITED NATIONS PUBLICATION
ISBN: 92-807-1974-2
Sourcebook of
Technologies for Protecting
the Ozone Layer:
Alternatives to
Methyl Bromide
Disclaimer
This document has followed the general format for other Sourcebooks of ozone protection technologies developed by the United Nations Environment Programme Division of Technology, Industry and Economics (UNEP DTIE).
UNEP, its consultants and reviewers of this document and their employees do not endorse the performance,
worker safety or environmental acceptability of any of the technical options described in this document.
While the information contained herein is believed to be accurate, it is of necessity presented in a summary and
general fashion. The decision to implement one of the alternatives presented in this document is a complex one
that requires careful consideration of a wide range of situation-specific parameters, many of which may not be
addressed by this document. Responsibility for this decision and all of its resulting impacts rests exclusively with
the individual or entity choosing to implement the alternative.
UNEP, its consultants and reviewers of this document and their employees do not make any warranty or representation, either express or implied, with respect to its accuracy, completeness or utility; nor do they assume any liability for events resulting from the use of, or reliance upon, any information, material or procedure described
herein, including but not limited to any claims regarding health, safety, environmental effects, efficacy, performance or cost made by the source of the information.
The lists of vendors provided in this document are not comprehensive. Mention of any company, association or
product in this document is for informational purposes only and does not constitute a recommendation of any
such company, association or product, either express or implied, by UNEP, its consultants, the reviewers of this
document or their employees.
The reviewers listed in this document have reviewed one or more interim drafts of this document but have not
reviewed this final version. These reviewers are not responsible for any errors that may be present in this document or for any effects that may result from such errors.
Table of Contents
List of tables, boxes and figures ................................................................................................vi
Foreword...................................................................................................................................1
1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................3
Methyl Bromide...................................................................................................................3
Purpose of the Sourcebook .................................................................................................4
Contents of the Sourcebook................................................................................................4
How to use this Sourcebook................................................................................................7
2. Guidance for selecting non-ODS technologies ..............................................................9
Selecting and evaluating alternatives ..................................................................................9
Organisational considerations .............................................................................................9
Technical considerations ...................................................................................................10
Economic considerations ..................................................................................................10
Regulatory considerations .................................................................................................11
Health and safety considerations ......................................................................................12
Market and consumer considerations ...............................................................................13
Environmental considerations ...........................................................................................13
4. Alternative techniques for controlling soil-borne pests .............................................29
4.1 IPM and cultural practices......................................................................................29
Importance of IPM and combined techniques ............................................................29
Components of IPM ..................................................................................................29
Cultural practices ......................................................................................................30
Hygienic practices ......................................................................................................30
Crop rotation.............................................................................................................31
Resistant varieties and grafting ..................................................................................33
Mulches and cover crops ...........................................................................................33
Nutrient management ...............................................................................................33
Time of planting ........................................................................................................33
Trap crops..................................................................................................................33
Table of Contents
3. Control of soil-borne pests ...........................................................................................15
MB-based control .............................................................................................................18
Overview of alternative pest control techniques ...............................................................18
Examples of alternatives in commercial use ......................................................................19
Uses without alternatives .................................................................................................19
Strategies for controlling pests .........................................................................................21
Crops and crop production systems ..................................................................................25
Identifying suitable alternatives ........................................................................................26
i
Sourcebook of Technologies for Protecting the Ozone Layer: Alternatives to Methyl Bromide
4.2
ii
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
Water management...................................................................................................35
Specialists and information resources.........................................................................35
Biological controls ..................................................................................................38
Advantages and disadvantages .................................................................................38
Technical description .................................................................................................38
Current uses ..............................................................................................................42
Variations under development ...................................................................................42
Material inputs ..........................................................................................................42
Factors required for use .............................................................................................42
Pests controlled .........................................................................................................42
Yields and performance.............................................................................................44
Other factors affecting use ........................................................................................44
Registration and regulatory restrictions ......................................................................45
Suppliers of products and services .............................................................................46
Fumigants and other chemical products ..............................................................51
Current uses ..............................................................................................................55
Material inputs ..........................................................................................................55
Soil amendments and compost .............................................................................61
Current uses ..............................................................................................................64
Material inputs ..........................................................................................................65
Solarisation .............................................................................................................70
Current uses ..............................................................................................................74
Material inputs ..........................................................................................................75
Steam treatments ...................................................................................................79
Current uses ..............................................................................................................82
Material inputs ..........................................................................................................82
4.7 Substrates................................................................................................................87
Current uses ..............................................................................................................90
Material inputs ..........................................................................................................91
6. Alternative techniques for controlling pests in commodities and structures .........107
6.1 IPM and preventive measures .............................................................................107
Pest management for durables and structures .........................................................107
Preventive measures for perishable commodities......................................................108
Specialists and suppliers of IPM services...................................................................111
6.2 Cold treatments and aeration .............................................................................112
Advantages and disadvantages................................................................................112
Technical description................................................................................................112
Current uses ............................................................................................................113
Material inputs ........................................................................................................114
Factors required for use ...........................................................................................114
Pests controlled .......................................................................................................114
Other factors affecting use ......................................................................................115
Suppliers of products and services ...........................................................................119
6.3 Contact insecticides ..............................................................................................120
Table of Contents
5. Control of pests in commodities and structures..........................................................97
Types of commodities and structures .................................................................................97
Durable products .......................................................................................................97
Perishable commodities .............................................................................................97
Structures ..................................................................................................................97
Pests in durable commodities ............................................................................................97
Pests in perishable commodities ........................................................................................99
Pests in structures............................................................................................................100
Overview of alternatives ..................................................................................................100
Commercially available alternatives..................................................................................101
Uses without alternatives.................................................................................................102
Identifying suitable alternatives........................................................................................104
iii
6.4
iv
6.5
6.6
6.7
Current uses ............................................................................................................123
Variations under development .................................................................................123
Material inputs ........................................................................................................123
Controlled and modified atmospheres ...............................................................127
Material inputs ........................................................................................................129
Current uses ............................................................................................................130
Heat treatments....................................................................................................135
Current uses ............................................................................................................137
Material inputs ........................................................................................................138
Suppliers and specialists...........................................................................................141
Inert dusts .............................................................................................................143
Current uses ............................................................................................................145
Material inputs ........................................................................................................145
Phosphine and other fumigants..........................................................................150
Current uses ............................................................................................................155
Material inputs ........................................................................................................156
Annex 1
About the UNEP DTIE OzonAction Programme ..................................................163
Annex 2
Glossary, acronyms and units.............................................................................167
Annex 3
Chemical safety data sheets ..............................................................................171
Annex 4
Steps for identifying appropriate alternatives.....................................................201
Annex 5
Information resources........................................................................................207
Annex 6
Address list of suppliers and specialists in alternatives........................................215
Annex 7
References, websites and further information....................................................257
Annex 8
Index .................................................................................................................307
Annex 9
Contacts for Implementing Agencies .................................................................316
Table of Contents
A Word from the Chief of UNEP DTIE Energy and OzonAction Unit ..................inside back cover
v
List of Tables, Boxes and Figures
Table 1.1
Table 1.2
Figure 1.1
Figure 1.2
Table 3.1
Table 3.2
Table 3.3
vi
Table
Table
Table
Table
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
Table 3.8
Table 3.9
Table 3.10
Table 3.11
Table
Table
Table
Table
3.12
3.13
3.14
3.15
Table 3.16
Table 4.1.1
Table 4.1.2
Box 4.1.1
Box 4.1.2
Box 4.1.3
Table 4.1.4
Table 4.1.5
Table 4.2.1
Table 4.2.2
Table 4.2.3
Major applications of MB fumigant ......................................................................3
Montreal Protocol control schedules for MB phase out .........................................4
Breakdown of MB applications .............................................................................5
Using the Sourcebook...........................................................................................8
Soil-borne nematode pests controlled by MB in various regions of the world .....16
Soil-borne fungal pests controlled by MB in various regions of the world ...........16
Soil-borne bacteria and virus pests controlled by MB in various
regions of the world ...........................................................................................17
Soil-borne insect pests controlled by MB in various regions of the world ............17
Weeds controlled by MB in various regions of the world ....................................17
Range of soil-borne pests controlled by MB and alternative techniques ..............18
Overview of efficacy and timing of pest control techniques and
examples of appropriate combinations of techniques .........................................20
Summary of Techniques in widespread use in some countries.............................21
Cucurbits: melons, watermelons, courgettes (zucchini), cucumbers:
examples of alternatives in commercial use.........................................................21
Tomatoes and peppers: examples of alternatives in commercial use....................22
Strawberries (runner and fruit production): examples of alternatives
in commercial use...............................................................................................22
Cut flowers: examples of alternatives in commercial use.....................................23
Roses: examples of alternatives in commercial use ..............................................23
Tobacco seedlings: examples of alternatives in commercial use ...........................23
Nursery crops (vegetables and fruit): examples of alternatives in
commercial use...................................................................................................24
Perennial crops such as banana, orchard trees, vines (re-plant):
examples of alternatives in commercial use.........................................................24
Examples of crops for which IPM systems are used commercially ........................30
Efficacy and timing of various cultural practices ..................................................31
Examples of preventive practices for soil-borne pests: nematode
management ......................................................................................................31
Examples of preventive practices for soil-borne pests: disease
management ......................................................................................................32
Examples of preventive practices for soil-borne pests: weed
management ......................................................................................................32
Examples of suppliers of resistant varieties, rootstocks for grafting and
disease-free planting materials............................................................................34
Examples of specialists and consultants in preventive methods and
integrated management of soil-borne pests........................................................36
Examples of commercial use of biological controls (normally combined
with other techniques)........................................................................................39
Examples of biological control agents and formulations
for soil-borne diseases ........................................................................................40
Characteristics of several groups of biological controls........................................41
Table 4.2.6
Table 4.2.7
Table 4.3.1
Table 4.3.2
Table 4.3.3
Table 4.3.4
Table 4.3.5
Table 4.4.1
Table 4.4.2
Table 4.4.3
Table 4.4.4
Table 4.5.1
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
4.5.2
4.5.3
4.5.4
4.5.5
4.5.6
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
4.5.7
4.5.8
4.6.1
4.6.2
4.6.3
4.6.5
4.7.1
4.7.2
4.7.3
4.7.4
4.7.5
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
Examples of nematode pests controlled or suppressed by biological controls .........42
Examples of soil-borne fungi and bacteria controlled or
suppressed by biological controls ........................................................................43
Examples of insect pests (soil-dwelling larvae and pupae) controlled or
suppressed by biological controls ........................................................................44
Examples of companies that supply biological control products and services ..........46
Comparison of technical characteristics of selected fumigants ............................52
Efficacy of fumigants and pesticides ...................................................................53
Examples of commercial use of fumigants ..........................................................54
Examples of yields from fumigants and pesticides...............................................56
Examples of fumigants producers and specialists ................................................59
Mechanisms in the control of Verticillium dahliae in soil following the
addition of nitrogen-rich amendments................................................................61
Examples of commercial use of soil amendments (normally used with
other techniques)................................................................................................63
Comparison of yields from soil amendments and other techniques
versus MB...........................................................................................................64
Examples of companies that supply products and services for soil
amendments and compost .................................................................................67
Length of solarisation treatment required to kill 90 to 100% of
Verticillium dahliae sclerotia at various soil depths in Israel..................................70
Examples of commercial use of solarisation ........................................................71
Nematodes controlled by solarisation, California, USA ........................................72
Fungi and bacteria controlled by solarisation, California USA..............................72
Weeds controlled by solarisation, California USA ................................................73
Examples of nematodes, weeds and fungi and bacteria that are not
controlled effectively by solarisation....................................................................74
Examples of yields from solarisation and MB.......................................................74
Examples of suppliers of solarisation products and services.................................77
Comparison of steam techniques for greenhouses..............................................80
Examples of commercially used steam treatments...............................................80
Examples of steam treatments required to kill soil-borne pests ...........................81
Examples of suppliers of products and services for steam and heat treatments .......85
Characteristics of various substrate materials ......................................................87
Comparison of two substrate systems ................................................................89
Examples of commercial use of substrates ..........................................................90
Examples of yields from substrates......................................................................91
Examples of suppliers of products and services for substrates .............................94
Principal pests of cereal grains and similar durable commodities .........................98
Examples of quarantine pests found on perishable commodities.........................99
Examples of pests fumigated with MB in structures ..........................................100
Effective techniques for pest suppression and pest elimination (disinfestation)
in commodities and structures ..........................................................................101
Table of Contents
Table 4.2.4
Table 4.2.5
vii
Table
Table
Table
Table
5.5
5.6
5.7
6.1.1
Table 6.1.2
Table 6.1.3
viii
Table 6.2.1
Table 6.2.2
Table 6.2.3
Table 6.2.4
Table 6.2.5
Table 6.3.1
Table 6.3.2
Table 6.3.3
Table 6.4.1
Table 6.4.2
Table 6.4.3
Table 6.4.4
Table 6.5.1
Table 6.5.2
Table 6.5.3
Table 6.5.4
Table 6.5.5
Table 6.6.1
Table 6.6.2
Table 6.6.3
Table
Table
Table
Table
6.7.1
6.7.2
6.7.3
6.7.4
Table 6.7.5
Table 6.7.6
Examples of alternatives used for durable commodities ...................................102
Examples of quarantine treatments approved for perishable commodities........103
Examples of alternative techniques used for structures ....................................104
Examples of pest-free zones that are accepted instead of
quarantine treatments .....................................................................................109
Examples of combined alternative treatments for commodities
and structures..................................................................................................110
Examples of specialists, consultants and suppliers of services for IPM and
preventive pest management techniques .........................................................111
Examples of commercial use of cool and cold treatments ................................114
Comparison of aeration, cold treatments and freezer treatments.....................115
Examples of quarantine treatment schedules utilising cold treatments .............116
Products where cold treatments are approved as quarantine treatments ..........117
Suppliers of products and services for cold treatments .....................................119
Comparison of contact insecticides with fumigants..........................................122
Examples of commercial use of contact insecticides .........................................123
Examples of suppliers of products and services for contact insecticides ............126
Comparison of hermetic storage, nitrogen and carbon dioxide treatments..........129
Carbon dioxide disinfestation schedules for stored grain in Japan ....................131
Examples of commercial use of controlled and modified atmospheres .............131
Examples of specialists and suppliers of products and services for
controlled and modified atmospheres ..............................................................134
Examples of commercial use of heat treatments ..............................................137
Temperatures for killing pests of stored products and structures ......................138
Examples of heat treatments approved for quarantine purposes for
durable commodities and artifacts, USA ..........................................................139
Examples of heat treatments approved for quarantine purposes for
perishable commodities, USA...........................................................................139
heat treatments ...............................................................................................142
Examples of commercial use of inert dusts.......................................................145
Pests that can be controlled by certain DE formulations – examples
from USA.........................................................................................................147
inert dusts........................................................................................................149
Physical and chemical properties of various fumigants compared with MB...........153
Comparison of suitability of MB and various fumigants for grain .....................154
Examples of commercial use of fumigants .......................................................155
Minimum treatment time for phosphine fumigation of various stored
product pests (all stages)..................................................................................157
Approved quarantine treatments for durable commodities –
examples from USA (USDA-APHIS)...................................................................158
Examples of specialists and suppliers of products and services for fumigants ...160
Foreword
Methyl bromide, a potent pest control chemical, was identified as an ODS in 1992. In
1997, countries agreed to the Montreal
Amendment to the Protocol that established
a global schedule to eliminate methyl bromide use and production. Developed countries will phase out MB by 2005 while
developing countries are committed to eliminate it by 2015.
The phase out of this toxic chemical - widely
used in agriculture and other sectors by both
large and small enterprises - presents a special challenge. To replace methyl bromide,
many users around the world must have
access to reliable and useful technical information on non-ozone-depleting alternatives.
They must learn how to select appropriate
options and be able to identify and locate
worldwide suppliers of information, equipment and products. Some will also require
additional technical and/or financial assistance made possible by the Protocol’s
Multilateral Fund, which was specifically created to help developing countries fulfill their
obligations to eliminate ODS use.
UNEP is committed to continue its efforts to
enable developing countries to meet these
challenges with funding from the Multilateral
Fund. Because of the nature of methyl bromide use, many activities to control consumption will be related to knowledge building
and training. Accordingly, UNEP considers the
methyl bromide phase out to be a priority.
UNEP has prepared this Sourcebook to provide critical technical descriptions of the
range of methyl bromide alternatives, data on
cost and efficacy, and an outline of advantages and disadvantages of each option.
Extensive tables, reference lists, and annexes
provide readers with practical information,
including names and addresses of businesses
and individuals who are experts, as well as
vendors of products and services related to
methyl bromide alternatives.
This publication is part of a package of
resources (videos, awareness-raising
brochures, policy and training manuals, etc.)
developed by UNEP to promote the methyl
bromide phase out. Using this sourcebook,
current users of methyl bromide will be able
to carefully and thoroughly assess many available alternatives and decide on the best
option for their situation. Collectively, these
informed decisions can promote a rapid and
successful phase out of methyl bromide,
thereby protecting the earth’s ozone layer,
agricultural production and, importantly, the
economic interests of methyl bromide users.
Jacqueline Aloisi de Larderel
Director,
Division of Technology, Industry
and Economics
UNEP
Foreword
The threats of a depleted ozone layer and the
binding Montreal Protocol have stirred
unprecedented action around the world.
Already, industries and manufacturers around
the world are replacing many ozone depleting substances (ODS) with less damaging substances and practices. However, more remains
to be done. The ozone layer is not yet healed.
1
2
1
Introduction
Methyl Bromide
In many parts of the world, methyl bromide
(MB) helps to control a wide range of pests,
such as soil nematodes and insects in stored
products. It is used mainly in the production
of high value crops like strawberries and
tomatoes, while lesser amounts are used for
grains and traded commodities (Table 1.1).
In 1997, global production of MB was about
71,400 tonnes, with an estimated 68,650
tonnes used for agricultural and related purposes, and the remaining 2,750 tonnes used
as a feedstock for chemical synthesis. Sale
and consumption of MB around the globe
increased at a rate of about 3,700 tonnes per
year between 1984 and 1992.
MB is a versatile pesticide that is effective
against a broad spectrum of pests. It is relatively easy to use and penetrates into soil,
commodities and structures, reaching the
more inaccessible pests. Effective against
most pests at moderate concentrations, MB
provides a relatively rapid treatment.
On the downside, MB can alter the colour
and smell of certain commodities; it produces
bromide ion residues - a cause of concern if
they accumulate in food or water; and it is
highly toxic to humans, requiring special
training and equipment (MBTOC 1994).
MB is also a powerful ozone depletor, and in
1992 it was added to the list of ozonedepleting substances (ODS) controlled by the
Montreal Protocol, an international agreement aimed at protecting the earth’s ozone
layer. In 1997, governments around the world
established a global phase-out schedule for
MB: industrialised countries will phase out
MB by 2005, while developing countries will
phase it out by 2015 (see Table 1.2).
Soil
Pre-plant: fumigation
prior to planting crops eg.
strawberries, tomatoes,
peppers
Re-plant: fumigation
prior to re-planting
perennial crops eg.
fruit trees, vines
Seedbeds and
nurseries: fumigation
prior to planting seeds
& propagation materials
Durable Products
Storage: fumigation of
stored products eg.
grains, dried fruits
Export/import and
quarantine: fumigation
of traded commodities)
eg. grains, logs
Perishable Products
Quarantine:
fumigation of traded
perishable commodities
eg. fresh fruits
Structures &
Transport
Structures: fumigation
of buildings eg. food
processing facilities,
flour mills
Transport: fumigation
of transport vessels
eg. ships aircraft,
freight containers
Section 1: Introduction
Table 1.1 Major applications of MB fumigant
3
MB used for quarantine and pre-shipment
(QPS) purposes is exempt from Protocol controls. However, Denmark phased out QPS
uses of MB by 1998, and the European Union
has decided to restrict QPS consumption.
Experts estimate that global QPS consumption
has increased (TEAP 1999), and QPS may
become controlled by the Protocol in the
future. A decision under the Protocol in 1999
makes it mandatory for governments to report
data on the amount of MB used for QPS.
4
Technically feasible MB alternatives have been
identified for more than 90% of MB applications. These include a variety of chemical and
non-chemical measures and carefully selected
combinations of several techniques linked
together in an approach called Integrated
Pest Management or IPM.
Table 1.2 Montreal Protocol control
schedules for MB phase out
Developed countries
1991: base level
1995: freeze (1)
1999: 75% of base
2001: 50% of base
2003: 30% of base
2005: phase out (2)
Developing countries
1995-98 average:
base level
2002: freeze (1)
2003: review of
reductions
2005: 80% of base
2015: phase out (2)
(1) QPS applications — as defined by the Protocol —
are currently exempt from reductions and phase out.
(2) Limited exemptions may be granted for ‘critical’
and ‘emergency’ uses.
Purpose of the Sourcebook
The aim of this Sourcebook is to assist MB
users to phase out their use of the fumigant
by providing:
Information about major technical
options, particularly techniques that are
in commercial use.
Questions for users to consider when
selecting alternatives.
Addresses of experts and product
suppliers.
Sourcebook information is based on the alternatives identified by UNEP’s Methyl Bromide
Technical Options Committee (MBTOC)
(MBTOC 1994, 1998). Specialist information
and technical details were compiled by contacting scientists and extension specialists in
the relevant areas of agricultural technology.
In addition, surveys were conducted in many
countries to identify suppliers of alternative
products and services.
Contents of the Sourcebook
MB is used primarily as a soil fumigant to
control soil-borne pests such as nematodes,
fungi and weeds. It is also used for controlling stored product pests and quarantine
pests in import/export commodities, such as
grain and timber. To a lesser extent it is
applied to buildings and transport, such as
food storage facilities and ships. The major
applications of MB are broken down in Figure
1.1. The Sourcebook divides MB uses into
two major groups:
Soil uses.
Stored products, traded commodities,
structures and transport.
For each of the two groupings, the
Sourcebook covers the following areas:
General guidance for selecting non-ODS
techniques.
Importance of pest identification and
management.
Description of major alternative
techniques.
Efficacy, uses and limitations of each
alternative technique.
Lists of material inputs and suppliers.
Questions to consider when selecting
specific alternatives.
Sources of further information.
Tobacco
Forest trees
Turf
Nursery
Plants
Citrus
Coffee, tea
Potting
Media
Cut flowers
Tomatoes
Peppers
Eggplant
Melons
Cucumber,
Zucchini
Strawberries
Root crops
Herbs
Vines
Pomefruit
trees
Stonefruit
trees
Nut trees
Banana
plants
Golf courses
Flowers,
e.g., roses
Grains
Pulses, Beans
Seeds for
planting
Nuts
Dried Fruit
Spices, Herbs
Tea, Coffee
Cocoa
Tobacco
Logs
Wood
products
Artifacts
Packaging
Fresh fruit
Vegetables
Cut flowers
Bulbs
Propagation
Materials
Storage, processing
facilities
Storage
facilities
Food facilities
Flour & feed
mills
Buildings
Transportation
Freight
containers
Ships, Aircraft
Other
transport
Seedbeds,
nursery beds
Soil
Fumigation
Soil-borne
pests
Greenhouses,
plastic tunnels
Field crops
Perennial crops
Fixed facilities, e.g.,
chambers, stores
Durable
Commodities
Stored product
pests, quarantine pests
Temporary facilities,
e.g., docksides
In transport vessels,
e.g., barges, ships
Perishable
Commodities
Quarantine
pests primarily
Fixed fumigation
chambers
Tarpaulins,
temporary facilities
Structures and
transport
Stored product
pests, wood &
quarantine pests
Figure 1.1 Breakdown of MB applications
5
The information is arranged in the following
sections:
Section 2 provides general guidance for
selecting non-ODS techniques. It outlines
the criteria to be considered when evaluating
alternative options and offers a framework
for organising the wealth of information that
might be considered for selection of MB
alternatives.
6
Section 3 discusses generally the control of
soil-borne pests. It identifies the main
groups of soil pests, outlines the major strategies for controlling pests and provides steps
for identifying effective alternatives for a
given situation. It also provides examples of
alternatives that are in commercial use in
diverse countries.
Section 4 describes the major alternatives
for soil-borne pests. After a description of
IPM and cultural practices (Section 4.1), it
describes the following techniques in alphabetical order:
Biological controls (Section 4.2).
Fumigants and other chemical products
(Section 4.3).
Soil amendments and compost
(Section 4.4).
Solarisation (Section 4.5).
Steam treatments (Section 4.6).
Substrates (Section 4.7).
currently available and recommends steps to
be used in identifying suitable alternatives. It
also provides examples of alternatives which
are in commercial use in various countries.
Section 6 describes the major alternatives
for stored products, traded commodities
and structures. It starts with a brief description of IPM and preventive measures
(Section 6.1). This section includes examples
of practical activities which prevent pest populations thriving. The following techniques
are described in more detail:
Cold treatments and aeration
(Section 6.2).
Contact insecticides (Section 6.3).
Controlled and modified atmospheres
(Section 6.4).
Heat treatments (Section 6.5).
Inert dusts (Section 6.6).
Phosphine and other fumigants
(Section 6.7).
For each, it outlines suitable applications and
provides examples of companies that supply
alternative products, as well as specialists and
sources of further information.
The Annexes provide additional information,
including references and addresses:
Information about the UNEP DTIE OzonAction Programme (Annex 1).
Glossary, acronyms and units (Annex 2).
For each, it outlines suitable applications and
provides examples of companies that supply
alternative products, as well as specialists and
sources of further information.
Chemical safety data sheets (Annex 3).
Steps for identifying appropriate
alternatives (Annex 4).
Information resources (Annex 5).
Section 5 discusses generally the control of
pests in commodities and structures. It
identifies the main groups of commodities
and structures and their principal pests. It
provides an overview of the range of alternatives to disinfest and protect commodities
and structures from pest damage, notes the
MB uses for which alternatives are not
Address list of suppliers and specialists in
alternatives (Annex 6).
References, websites and other sources
of information (Annex 7).
Index (Annex 8).
Safety aspects.
The flowchart labeled Figure 1.2 can serve as
a guide for using the Sourcebook.
Environmental impacts.
The recommended approach is to begin with
Section 2, which offers general guidance on
selecting non-ODS techniques.
Questions to ask about the system.
From there you may decide whether you are
interested in controlling pests in soil, stored
products, traded commodities or structures
(see Figure 1.2).
For soil and pre-plant uses of MB,
read Sections 3 and 4 for information
about alternatives.
For stored products, traded
commodities, such as grain, and
structures, read Sections 5 and 6 for
information about alternatives.
For each major alternative technique covered,
the Sourcebook provides information on the
following topics:
The pests it controls.
Current uses.
A brief technical description.
Main equipment and materials required.
Information on efficacy and
performance.
Suitable climates and crops.
Regulatory and market issues.
Cost considerations.
Lists of suppliers of relevant services
and products.
Other useful contacts.
References (provided in Annex 7).
It is recognised that the alternatives often
have to be adapted when applied to new
regions and situations.
When you have read the relevant alternative
techniques section, make a note of the
options that seem to hold promise for your
situation and draw up a list of information
you already have and questions that need to
be answered. You may find it useful to work
through the tables in Annex 4, which contain
detailed steps for evaluating options and
selecting the most appropriate technique for
a given situation.
When you have identified areas for which
you need more information, read the tables
of specialists and suppliers, and review the
references and other information resources
listed in Annex 5. The addresses of companies and specialists are listed alphabetically in
Annex 6.
How to use this Sourcebook
7
Figure 1.2
Using the Sourcebook
Start
Read Section 2 and the Disclaimer.
8
In which sector is your application of methyl bromide?
Durable products, perishable
products or structures
?
Soil uses — pre-plant,
re-plant, seedlings or nurseries
Read Sections 5 and 6
Read Sections 3 and 4
?
Consider the information provided
on alternatives.
Collect additional information about pests,
materials and costs from the information
sources and suppliers listed
for each section.
Consider the issues and questions about
selecting appropriate alternatives. Annex 4
provides additional guidance.
No
Select the
appropriate
alternative for
demonstration
and/or adaptation
and adoption
Do you require additional information?
Yes
Contact further suppliers and specialists
using the address lists
Yes
Do you require additional information?
No
2 Guidance for Selecting
Non-ODS Techniques
This Sourcebook is a tool for assisting in that
effort and provides detailed information and
references for individual MB users to draw
upon. This Section offers a broad framework
for decision-makers to use in selecting and
organising information relevant to their own
situation. In addition, Annex 4 includes a
step-wise guide for evaluation and selection
of alternative techniques.
Selecting and evaluating alternatives
Growers and others trying to identify suitable
replacement options for MB must gather a
good deal of information - not only about
the technical efficacy and requirements of a
single, promising approach - but also about
other options, costs, secondary impacts and
compatibility with overall goals and operations. There are numerous trade-offs that
must be considered when evaluating the pest
control options.
In general, the factors that decision-makers
must review can be grouped into seven broad
categories:
Organisational.
Technical.
Economic.
Regulatory.
Health and safety.
Market and consumer.
Environmental.
Applicable to most MB users, these factors
are discussed in turn below. It will be difficult
for many MB users to envisage life without
MB. But the experience of phasing out other
ODS which were once seen as essential has
highlighted the necessity of ‘thinking outside
the square’ and the importance of leadership
by innovative individuals and companies.
Organisational considerations
Decision-makers in farms and other MB-using
enterprises need to consider the relationship
between an organisation’s phase-out efforts
and its other activities and priorities.
Competing or conflicting elements must be
recognised and reconciled in a fashion appropriate to the organisation in question.
Important organisational factors are listed
below.
Commitment by decision-makers
Clearly, an enterprise’s phase out of ODS is
greatly facilitated when key managers and
decision-makers throughout the organisation
are fully committed to achieving such a goal.
Programmes to build support within an
organisation will be an important part of an
alternative strategy.
Company policies on pest control,
environmental issues or other matters
Some enterprises may have specific policies
on pest management, including policies that
favour or even require the use of MB fumigation. They may have corporate policies that
Section 2: Guidance for Selecting Non-ODS Techniques
A successful and timely transition away from
ozone-depleting MB rests upon sound decision-making by many thousands of growers
and pest control managers in diverse settings
around the globe. In order to control harmful pests successfully without using this traditional fumigant, each user must carefully
consider and weigh a complex array of factors unique to his or her situation, ultimately
choosing an alternative that fits their particular circumstances.
9
address particular residues, air emissions,
quantity of waste generation, recycling, or
other factors that may be relevant to MB or
certain alternatives. An important step is to
review existing policies and practices, in order
to amend any policies that encourage use of
MB, inhibit the adoption of alternatives, or
otherwise impede the transition away from
MB. It is also desirable to examine relevant
policies of the company’s suppliers and
purchasers.
10
Production methods and schedules
Changing the pest control system for an
operation normally requires changes in other
activities, such as management and daily
practices on the farm or enterprise. Some
alternatives may require higher levels of skill,
and higher or lower labour inputs, for example. Successful adoption of a non-ODS alternative may therefore require adjustments to
management, the organisation of work,
staffing levels, staff selection, and/or training.
Early consideration and planning to address
these changes will ease the transition to new
pest control practices.
Availability of resources
Access to technical and financial resources
may be the factor that has the single greatest
impact on the selection of MB alternatives,
particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises with limited resources. Often a a company has to re-prioritize its existing resources,
and draw on external resources for technical
expertise, advice, information or training. The
Multilateral Fund of the Montreal Protocol
was created to address this problem in developing countries, by providing essential equipment and training for enterprises and farms.
Technical considerations
The selected alternative must be technically
effective in controlling the pest problems in
your local climate and circumstances. MB is
one of many pest control methods, but few
can control the same very wide range of
pests that MB controls. In most cases, MB
must be replaced by a combination of several
techniques which, together, will control the
range of pests likely to be encountered.
Integrated Pest Management (IPM), is based
on pest identification, monitoring, establishment of pest injury levels and a combination
of strategies to prevent and manage pest
problems in an environmentally sound and
cost-effective manner (MBTOC 1998). It
offers a useful overall approach for selecting
and implementing effective, workable alternatives for a wide range of MB uses. Many
specialists around the world recommend this
general approach for dealing with pest problems, and IPM is being used on a wide scale
in some sectors, generally for controlling
pests found on the stems and leaves of crops.
Some IPM programmes have been developed
for soil-borne pests and stored product pests.
The careful tailoring of pest management
practices to a specific situation is fundamental
to the IPM approach. Each application of IPM
involves its own combination of several techniques selected from biological, cultural,
physical, mechanical and chemical control
methods. Formulating and applying a successful IPM programme, therefore, requires
information, analysis, planning, and much
more know-how than does the use of MB.
Sections 3, 4, 5, and 6 give further information about IPM practices and important technical factors to consider in the evaluation of
alternative pest control methods.
Economic considerations
Operating costs and profitability, like access
to capital, are critical factors in the selection
of alternatives. Initial costs associated with an
MB alternative may include capital costs of
equipment, additional costs associated with
handling that new equipment, costs of new
permits or licenses, and costs of training personnel in new systems and methods.
Operating costs may include ongoing costs
for materials and supplies, labour, maintenance or servicing of equipment, or energy
and transportation costs.
What’s more, an assessment of costs alone
does not provide a complete picture.
Alternatives which have higher operating
costs can be as profitable as MB if they give
higher crop yields or raise the market value of
products. Likewise, an alternative that results
in reduced yields can be as profitable as MB if
the costs are sufficiently lower, as found with
solarisation for example. So the profitability
or net revenue needs to be examined.
In future, the price of alternatives will
become more favourable when the inputs
become widely available and the techniques
are optimised. The cost of MB itself will be
much less attractive in future because the
prices of MB will tend to rise as supplies
dwindle. While traditional economic evaluation is very important, it is also necessary to
recognise that an MB reduction programme is
justified on the basis of environmental protection and the need to reduce ‘externalised
costs’ in agriculture.
Finally, the economic analysis could also consider the possibility of accessing funds from
the Montreal Protocol’s Multilateral Fund. The
fund was established to provide financial and
technical assistance for ODS users in developing countries who wish to adopt alternative
techniques.
Funds for MB projects have been made available in the last few years. By the end of 2000
the Multilateral Fund had approved about
100 MB projects, including information materials, workshops and projects to demonstrate
alternatives. In 1999 the Fund decided to give
priority to projects that will phase out MB in
specific sectors, via investment, training and
policy development.
The national ozone protection offices of governments are normally able to provide information about the procedures for applying for
this assistance. Alternatively, the Multilateral
Fund Secretariat website provides information. (See Information Resources in Annex 5.)
Regulatory considerations
Pesticides and fumigants, like MB, normally
have to be registered by the government
authorities responsible for pesticide safety, so
the availability of particular chemicals will vary
from country to country or even within different regions of a country. For example, phosphine, an alternative fumigant for stored
grains, is registered in many countries, while
some other chemical alternatives are registered in only a few countries. Biological controls and soil amendments also require
registration in some countries.
Prospective users of alternative chemicals will
usually find that official approval or registration of a chemical product is accompanied by
diverse safety requirements which limit the
way a product can be applied. The use of
registered pesticides is normally restricted to
specific crops and operations; the application
rates (doses) may be limited; and there are
special conditions on sales, safety equipment,
training and disposal of waste chemicals and
containers. In many instances, restrictions are
set on the levels of pesticide residues that
may remain in foods. Some chemical alternatives, such as sulphuryl fluoride, are not permitted for treating food products at present.
The process of applying for a new pesticide
registration is very expensive, and this task is
normally carried out by companies that wish
to sell the product in countries where they
expect to gain a large market.
To find out whether a product is registered
for use in your country and for your type of
crop or application, it is best to contact the
In evaluating these points, it will be important
to consider the long-term cost package. At
first glance some alternatives may appear
unreasonably costly because they require a
large initial investment in training, equipment, etc. But when costs over the long term
are considered, the same alternatives can
actually be cost-effective.
11
government authority responsible for pesticide safety and registration - often found in
the Ministry of Agriculture or Health. Local
agricultural product suppliers are normally
able to give information on registered products and uses, although their information
may not be up-to-date or completely reliable.
Under international guidelines, registered
products are supposed to carry labels that
inform users on approved uses, application
rates and safety precautions.
12
On the other hand, many non-chemical alternatives, such as steam, substrates and solarisation, are not subject to registration and,
therefore, are accessible immediately to users.
In addition to issues related to the registration
and use of chemical alternatives, there may
be other regulatory issues that affect choices.
Local, state or national regulations may govern emissions, wastes generated or other
aspects of agriculture for example. Exporters
also need to be aware of relevant regulations
in the countries to which they export.
Health and safety considerations
Worker health and safety should be considered in the selection of an MB alternative.
MB itself has high acute toxicity, and in a
number of countries can be used only by
licensed, trained fumigators. Many chemical
alternatives require significant safety precautions as well. In contrast, many non-chemical
alternatives have little or no toxicity, although
a few pose risks of dust or other physical
hazards.
The following are among the health and safety factors that should be examined as part of
the selection process.
Toxicity. The potential for problems of
acute toxicity — resulting from exposure
to significant levels of toxic compounds
over short periods — or chronic toxicity
— resulting from low dose exposure over
longer periods — must be carefully considered for any pest control product. As
with MB, pest control managers should
establish safety management procedures
for avoiding worker exposure and keeping within the safety limits set by health
agencies. It is also necessary to provide
adequate safety training, safety equipment, protective apparel and health
monitoring.
Flammability. Fire and explosion risks
should be evaluated, and preventive
measures instituted if required.
Dust. Workers must be protected from
dusts that can irritate lungs and eyes in
the short-term or lead to lung disease
over the long term.
Suffocation. Certain alternatives, such
as controlled atmospheres, have the
potential to present suffocation hazards
if managed improperly. In considering
these alternatives, safety measures and
training are required to ensure that
workers are not exposed to an environment with insufficient oxygen.
Extreme heat or cold. In adopting an
MB alternative that employs extreme
heat or cold, appropriate measures must
be taken to assure that accidental exposures to extreme temperatures do not
cause injury to workers.
Mechanical hazard. Poorly designed
equipment, lack of safety guards on
moving parts, or worker unfamiliarity
with new equipment can lead to injury.
The need for special training, safety
equipment or other measures to protect
workers must be factored into the selection of MB alternatives.
Problems can be avoided by selecting alternatives free from these problems. Where this is
not possible, safety management is important. This means having a plan and procedures
in place to ensure that safety precautions are
Market and consumer
considerations
Agricultural products have to be acceptable
to purchasers. Visual appearance and commercial grade standards are significant factors, particularly for supermarkets, and
alternatives must provide products that meet
these standards.
Purchasers of agricultural products, from
supermarkets to individual consumers, are
becoming increasingly concerned about pesticide residues and the environmental impacts
of agriculture. Supermarkets in northern
Europe are requiring fruit and vegetable producers to introduce IPM and other production
methods with reduced environmental
impacts. These trends and consumer concerns
will affect the long-term market acceptability
of chemical alternatives, and of MB itself.
Environmental considerations
Like MB, certain alternatives pose risks to
human health or the environment. In the
context of the Montreal Protocol we take a
step forward when we replace an ODS with a
non-ODS. But it also makes sense, from both
marketing and environmental perspectives, to
select alternatives that do not contribute significantly to other environmental problems.
Issues to consider include those listed below.
Ozone depletion and global
warming. Each alternative must be evaluated for its contribution to global
warming and ozone depletion. It would
generally be considered undesirable to
replace an ozone-depleting chemical like
MB with a non-ozone-depleting chemical that has a significant global warming
potential.
Use of non-renewable sources of
energy and materials. Wherever possible, MB should be replaced with alterna-
tives that conserve energy. In some situations it may be feasible to use renewable
sources of energy or waste heat from
local industries. It can also be feasible to
use renewable waste materials as soil
amendments or substrates, for example.
Air pollution. Many pesticides and
other chemicals create fine mists that
pollute the local environment and in
some cases travel thousands of miles to
pollute other regions. Selection of alternatives should seek to avoid or minimise
all forms of air pollution.
Water contamination (surface and
groundwater). Some agricultural practices result in residues and breakdown
products that leach into water, impacting plants and animals that live in the
ponds, rivers and seas. The vulnerability
of water to contamination from everyday
operations and/or accidents should be
considered.
Soil contamination. Some pest control
techniques - notably pesticides - leave
residues and breakdown products in soil
and crop debris, affecting beneficial soil
organisms and non-target plants and
animals. Although active ingredients may
break down quickly, some breakdown
products can persist for long periods.
Food contamination. Some pesticides
can leave undesirable residues and
breakdown products in food, creating
potential problems for consumers, especially young children, or leading to products being rejected by markets.
Increasingly, supermarkets favour pest
control methods that avoid the risk of
food residues.
Solid waste. Waste containers, plastic
and other materials can litter the countryside or fill up large areas of landfill
sites. Where possible, it is advisable to
avoid generating waste, to reduce the
introduced, workers are trained and workplace
practices are carried out safely.
13
14
use of items that create waste, and/or to
set up local recycling schemes.
Identify the environmental impacts
resulting from your operations.
Habitat and biodiversity. Some agricultural practices reduce the diversity of
plants or animals, often by destroying
their habitats. Broad-spectrum treatments like MB, fumigants and steam
sterilisation destroy much of the biodiversity in the soil. Where possible, it is
desirable to use methods which foster
local habitat development, wildlife, and
organisms that benefit crop production.
Consider the entire life cycle of inputs,
including their extraction, transportation,
use and disposal.
The following steps can help to avoid or mitigate potential environmental problems:
Where possible, modify practices to
avoid or reduce negative impacts.
Monitor the efficacy of changes.
Carry out regular reviews, so that the
enterprise’s environmental performance
can be continuously improved.
3 Control of Soil-borne Pests
The five main categories of soil-borne pests
are as follows:
Nematodes. Tiny worm-like creatures
that live in the soil, nematodes vary in
size from microscopic to about 5 millimetres in length. Some species are agricultural pests, while others are actually
advantageous to agriculture. Pest nematodes, generally called plant parasitic
nematodes, feed in or on the roots of
crops. Root knot nematodes for example, cause large swellings in plant roots.
These root galls drain a plant’s energy
resources and limit the uptake of water
and nutrients, thus reducing crop
growth and yields (Strand et al 1998).
Some nematodes transmit harmful viruses or leave open wounds that allow
pathogenic fungi to enter roots.
Fungi. Certain soil-dwelling fungi (such
as species of Fusarium, Verticillium and
Phytophthora) attack plant roots or the
base of stems, causing diseases in the
plants and reducing crop yields.
Bacteria and viruses. A number of soilborne bacteria and viruses are also
harmful (pathogenic) and cause diseases
in crops. As with nematodes and fungi,
the soil contains some beneficial bacteria
that help to protect plant health.
Soil insects. Certain soil-dwelling
insects, such as cutworms and false
wireworms, damage plants by eating
roots or infecting them with fungi or
bacteria. Some of the insects that eat or
damage plant leaves and fruit spend certain stages of their lives in the soil, typically as larvae or pupae.
Weeds. A range of weeds and weed
seeds cause problems by competing with
crops for root space, nutrients, water
and sunlight. These include annual and
perennial broadleaf weeds, grasses and
sedges. A few weeds, such as broomrape, are actually parasitic on crops.
Though it is capable of controlling many
pests (see Table 3.1 through 3.5), MB is often
applied to control just one or two groups of
pests or used as general insurance against the
broad range of soil pest problems. Frequently,
farmers who use MB do not know which
pests are present in soil. Thus some MB is
applied when it is not actually necessary.
Though sometimes portrayed as the perfect
pest control tool, MB does not control all
pests. For example, MB has only limited effect
in controlling the disease caused by
Phomopsis sclerotioides in cucumber
(Gyldenkaerne et al 1997). Likewise, corms
and seeds of weeds such as horseweed, mallow and legumes, and many bacteria are not
effectively controlled by MB (Klein 1996).
There are other disadvantages as well. MB
kills many of the soil organisms that benefit
agricultural production. It is highly toxic;
some forms of application are rather complicated; it may leach into water in some areas;
Section 3: Control of Soli-borne Pests
Soil-borne pests can cause substantial crop
damage and economic losses. This is particularly true in intensive agriculture where crops
are planted in the same place year after year,
creating conditions that foster pest populations in the soil.
15
Table 3.1
16
Soil-borne nematode pests controlled by MB in various regions of the world
Pests
Nematodes
Aphelenchoides spp.
Ditylenchus spp.
Globodera spp.
Heterodera spp.
Longidorus spp.
Meloidogyne spp.
Nacobbus sp.
(seedbeds only)
Paratrichodorus spp.
Pratylenchus spp.
Rotylenchulus spp.
Xiphinema spp.
Africa
Mediterranean
South America
Japan
USA
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Sources: MBTOC 1994, 1998
Table 3.2
Soil-borne fungal pests controlled by MB in various regions of the world
Pests
Fungi
Alternaria spp.
Armillaria spp.
Clitocybe spp.
Colletotrichum spp.
Cylindrocladium spp.
Fusarium spp.
Glomus spp.
Macrophomina spp.
Mucor spp.
Phoma spp.
Phymatotrichum
Phytophthora spp.
Plasmodiophora spp.
Pyrenochaeta spp.
Pythium spp.
Rhizoctonia spp.
Rhizopus spp.
Rosellinia spp.
Sclerotinia spp.
Sclerotium rolfsii
Thielayiopsis spp.
Verticillium spp.
Africa
Mediterranean
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
South America
•
Japan
•
•
USA
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Table 3.3 Soil-borne bacteria and virus pests controlled by MB
in various regions of the world
Pests
Bacteria and viruses
Agrobacterium spp.
Clavibacter spp.
Cucumber mosaic
Erwinia spp.
Grape fanleaf
Pseudomonas spp.
Streptomyces spp.
Tobacco mosaic
Tomato spotted wilt
Xanthomonas spp.
Africa
Mediterranean
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
South America
Japan
USA
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Table 3.4 Soil-borne insect pests controlled by MB in various regions of the world
Mediterranean
South America
•
•
•
Japan
USA
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Table 3.5 Weeds controlled by MB in various regions of the world
Pests
Weeds
Cyperus spp.
Orobanche spp.
Broad leaf
(perennial and annual)
Grasses
Sedges
Africa
Mediterranean
South America
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Japan
USA
•
•
•
•
•
•
Pests
Africa
Insects
Agrotis spp. (cutworms) •
Frankliniella occidentalis
Lyriomyza trifolii
Mole crickets
Otiorhynchus spp.
Root weevils
•
Symphylans
Termites
•
Tetranychus urticae
•
White grubs
•
Wireworms
•
17
andbromide residues may accumulate in
crops (Katan 1999).
MB-based control
One of many pest control methods, MB is
versatile and effective against a broad spectrum of pests, including weeds. (See Tables
3.1 through 3.5.) It is effective at relatively
low temperatures and penetrates soil well,
reaching pests in different areas and soil
depths.
18
Decades of accumulated experience in some
regions of the world have allowed farmers to
make optimal use of MB while avoiding situations in which it is not effective or has severe
local side effects (Katan 1999). As a result,
MB has become highly acceptable and popular with many farmers. Still, around the world
many crops are also produced successfully
without MB (MBTOC 1998).
Overview of alternative pest
control techniques
The techniques identified by the Methyl
Bromide Technical Options Committee
(MBTOC) for controlling soil-borne pests
(MBTOC 1994, 1998) can be divided into the
two broad categories listed below. Each technique is further described in Section 4.
Non-chemical methods
Cultural practices, such as crop rotation,
resistant varieties, grafting, mulching,
cover crops, ploughing, tillage, hygienic
practices or sanitation, and water management.
Biological controls, i.e. beneficial soil
organisms that control or suppress pests.
Soil amendments and compost.
Solarisation.
Table 3.6 Range of soil-borne pests controlled by MB and alternative techniques
Spectrum of soil pests that can be controlled
Nematodes
Fungi
Weeds
Insects
Non-chemical techniques
Biological controls
Crop rotation
Grafting
Resistant varieties
Soil amendments
Solarisation
Steam
Substrates (soil substitutes)
Chemical treatments
MB
Chloropicrin
Dazomet
1,3-dichloropropene
Metam sodium
MITC
Nematicides
Fungicides
Herbicides
Key:
• narrow range of pest species
•
••
•
•
••
•••
•••
•••
•
••
•
•
••
••
•••
•••
•
•
•
•
•
•••
•••
•••
•
••
•••
•••
•••
••
••
•••
••
••
•••
•••
•••
•••
•
•••
•••
•••
••
••
•
•••
•••
•••
••
••
••
••
••
•••
•••
•• intermediate range
••• wide range
Steam heat.
Substrates or soil substitutes.
Chemical methods
Fumigants, such as chloropicrin,
dazomet, 1,3-dichloropropene, MITC,
metam sodium.
Non-fumigant pesticides, primarily
nematicides, fungicides and herbicides.
While steam treatments control the same
broad spectrum of pests as MB, most other
techniques control a smaller range of pest
species. Table 3.6 illustrates the range or
spectrum of soil pests controlled by chemical
and non-chemical techniques.
cover diverse climatic regions of the world,
including Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia,
Egypt, Germany, Japan, Jordan, Malawi,
Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, Spain, USA
and Zimbabwe.
Tables 3.9 through 3.16 provide, for each
major crop, examples of countries in which
MB alternatives are in commercial use. The
tables specify whether such uses is widespread (W) or limited (L). Data is provided for
the following crops:
Cucurbits- melons, courgettes (zucchini),
cucumbers (Table 3.9).
Tomatoes and peppers (Table 3.10).
Strawberries (Table 3.11).
Cut flowers (Table 3.12).
Table 3.7 provides a comparative overview of
the efficacy of different techniques, examples
of techniques that are compatible in combination, and information on timing of applications (see also Section 4).
Examples of alternatives in
commercial use
MBTOC has identified a wide variety of cases
in which alternative techniques are being
used commercially for control of one or more
soil-borne pests (MBTOC 1998). Table 3.8
provides a summary of the main techniques
known to be in widespread commercial use in
some countries. (See Section 4 for additional
detail on each technique.) The countries
Roses (perennials) (Table 3.13).
Tobacco seedbeds (Table 3.14).
Nurseries (vegetables and fruit)
(Table 3.15).
Perennial crops, e.g., orchard trees,
banana plants (Table 3.16).
Uses without alternatives
MBTOC noted that there is no single crop
that cannot be produced successfully without
MB (MBTOC 1998). However, MBTOC identified a limited number of pests and specific
situations where it is currently difficult to
achieve control without MB, and these
include the following (MBTOC 1994, 1998):
Certain soil-borne viruses that affect a
few specific crop situations.
Deep fumigation of almond groves for
root rot in the USA.
Replant problems in areas where limited
land is available.
Some certified pest-free propagation
materials.
MBTOC has estimated that these difficult
uses account for less than 5% of the MB
Where a narrow range of pests is present,
one technique may give sufficient control.
However, in situations involving a wide spectrum of pests, it is often necessary to replace
MB with a combination of several techniques.
So a combination might comprise, for example, a fumigant or solarisation to control certain nematodes, fungi and weeds, plus a
second technique to control a problematic
nematode species, and a third technique to
manage problem weeds. Identifying suitable
combinations is the key to developing effective MB alternatives.
19
Table 3.7 Overview of efficacy and timing of pest control techniques and
examples of appropriate combinations of techniques
Techniques
Efficacy
Non-chemical techniques
Biological
Suppression of
controls
certain species of
fungi and nematodes
20
Examples of
compatible techniques
Solarisation, substrates, cover
crops, other cultural practices
Timing
of treatment
Before and
during crop
production
Crop rotation
Leads to decline in certain
types of pathogens; not
effective against pathogens
with wide host range
Fumigants, solarisation, biological Crop cycle of
controls, resistant varieties,
at least 3 years
grafting, other cultural practices
Grafting and
resistant
varieties
Middle to high against specific
pathogens, depending on
rootstock and conditions
Fumigants, solarisation, trap
crops, other cultural practices
Soil
amendments
and compost
Good suppression of fungi and Solarisation, biofumigation,
some nemaodes; not effective biological controls, resistant
against most weeds and insects varieties, other cultural practices
Applied 2 weeks
to several months
before planting
Solarisation
Effective against many
fungi, nematodes and
weeds, except weeds with
deeply buried structures
Fumigants, biofumigation,
biological controls, resistant
varieties, grafting, crop rotation,
other cultural practices
4 - 7 week
treatment prior
to planting
Steam
Highly effective against many
fungi, nematodes and weeds,
provided treatment is taken
to sufficient soil depth
Resistant varieties, grafting,
biological controls, other IPM
methods
20-minute to
8-hour treatment
immediately
before planting
Biological controls
No treatment
required for
clean substrates
Substrates
Highly effective
(soil substitutes)
At planting time
Chemical treatments
MB
Highly effective against
many fungi, nematodes
and weeds
Biological controls applied after
fumigation
7 -14 days
before planting
Chloropicrin
Highly effective against fungi
and some arthropods;
nematicide; weak herbicide
Fumigants, pesticides, resistant
varieties, grafting, cultural
practices
At least 14
days before
planting
Dazomet
Satisfactory against fungi
weeds, and certain
nematodes
Fumigants, pesticides,
solarisation, resistant varieties,
grafting, cultural practices
10 - 60 days
before planting
1,3Effective nematicide,
dichloropropene suppresses some fungi
and weeds (limited)
Fumigants, pesticides, resistant
varieties, grafting, cultural
practices
7 - 45 days
before planting
Metam sodium Highly effective against
fungi; effective against
arthropods; controls
some weeds and certain
nematodes
Fumigants, pesticides,
solarisation, resistant varieties,
grafting, cultural practices
About 14 - 50
days before
planting
Compiled from: Lung et al 1999, MBTOC 1998
Table 3.8 Summary of techniques in widespread use in some countries
Techniques
Biological controls
Crop rotation, fallow
Grafting
Fumigants other than MB
Resistant varieties
Solarisation
Steam
Substrates
Crops or uses
Tobacco seedlings, citrus trees
Cucurbits, strawberries, cut flowers, nursery crops
Cucurbits, open field tomatoes and peppers, nursery crops, pip and
stone fruit trees, nut trees, perennial vines
Cucurbits, open field tomatoes and peppers, strawberries
Cucurbits, open field tomatoes and peppers, strawberries,
cut flowers
Cucurbits, protected tomatoes and peppers, cut flowers,
nursery crops
Cucurbits, protected tomatoes and peppers, cut flowers,
protected nursery crops
Cucurbits, protected tomatoes and peppers, tobacco seedlings,
strawberries, cut flowers, protected nursery crops, banana plants
Compiled from: MBTOC 1998
Table 3.9 Cucurbits: melons, watermelons, courgettes (zucchini), cucumbers:
examples of alternatives in commercial use
Solarisation
Steam
Biological controls
Biofumigation
Substrates
Crop rotation
Fumigants
Countries
Developing countries (W), developed countries (W)
Egypt (L), developed countries (L-W), Jordan (L), Lebanon (L),
Morocco (L), Spain (W), Tunisia (L)
Developed countries (L), Jordan (L-W)
Europe (W)
Brazil (L), Europe (L)
Developed countries (L)
Europe (W)
Universal (W)
Costa Rica (L-W), Egypt (L-W), Honduras (L-W), developed countries
(L-W), Jordan (L-W), Mexico (L-W), Morocco (L-W), Zimbabwe (L)
Key: W - Widespread commercial use L - Limited commercial use
Compiled from: MBTOC 1998, Rodríguez-Kábana 1999
used for soil-borne pest control around the
world.
implemented prior to planting. In addition,
some form of continued protection during
crop production is desirable.
Strategies for controlling pests
Some pest control techniques are primarily
curative and applied after a pest has become
established in the soil. Others aim to prevent
pest populations from building up and thus
avoid the need for curative treatments. After
a plant has become infected, control of many
soil-borne diseases becomes difficult. So, tactics to control diseases must normally be
Examples of curative treatments include fumigants, fungicides, herbicides and steam treatments. Preventive techniques include hygienic
practices, crop rotation (i.e. planting crops in
a planned sequence to disrupt pest life
cycles), use of substrates with inherent pestsuppressive properties, and application of soil
amendments to create an environment antagonistic to specific pests, such as a change in
Alternative techniques
Resistant varieties
Grafting
21
Table 3.10 Tomatoes and peppers: examples of alternatives in commercial use
Protected cultivation
Steam
Solarisation
Substrates
Fumigants
22
Open field
Solarisation
Substrates
Resistant varieties
Grafting
Fumigants
Countries
Belgium (W), Netherlands (W), UK (L)
Japan (L), Jordan (W), Morocco (L)
Belgium (W), Canada (L), Denmark (W), Morocco (L),
Netherlands (W), Spain (L), UK (L)
Egypt (L), Europe (L-W), Jordan (L), Lebanon (L), Morocco (L),
Tunisia (L)
Israel (L-W), Japan (L), USA (L)
Canary Islands (L)
Universal (L-W)
Developing countries (W), Japan (W), Spain (W), USA (W)
Japan (W)
Australia (W), Brazil (W), Costa Rica (W), Egypt (W), Europe (L-W),
Japan (L), Jordan (W), Lebanon (W), Mexico (W), Morocco (W),
Spain (W), Tunisia (W), USA (L-W), Zimbabwe (W)
Table 3.11 Strawberries (runner and fruit production):
Countries
Substrates
Organic amendments,
composts, etc.
Resistant varieties
Fumigants
Indonesia (L), Malaysia (L), Netherlands (W), UK (L)
Universal (W)
Solarisation
Biocontrols
Universal (W)
Denmark (W), Japan (L)
Egypt (L), Japan (L), Jordan (L), Lebanon (L), Morocco (L-W),
Netherlands (W), Spain (W), Tunisia (L-W), UK (L)
Japan (L)
soil pH. Some preventive techniques can also
be used as curative treatments in certain circumstances.
vulnerable to other treatments and to control
by beneficial microorganisms in the environment (Katan 1999).
Combining several ”weaker” methods of pest
control can give sufficient control of pests.
When a pathogen is exposed to a sub-lethal
treatment, it is not killed immediately but is
damaged and weakened, becoming more
The approaches for controlling soil-borne
pests can be categorised in two broad
groups:
a)
Sterile or near-sterile conditions.
Table 3.12 Cut flowers: examples of alternatives in commercial use
Countries
Protected cultivation
Steam
Solarisation
Substrates
Organic amendments,
composts, etc.
Resistant varieties
Colombia (W), Europe (W)
Developed countries (L), Lebanon (L-W)
Brazil (L), Canada (W), Europe (W)
Universal (W)
Universal (W)
Universal (L-W)
Open field cultivation
Fumigants
Brazil (L), Colombia (L-W), Costa Rica (L), developed countries (L-W),
Morocco (L-W), Zimbabwe (L)
Organic amendments,
composts etc.
Solarisation
Resistant varieties
Universal (W)
Universal (W)
Universal (L-W)
Countries
Resistant varieties
Grafting
Substrates
Biological controls
Fumigants
Steam (protected
cultivation)
Solarisation
Universal (L-W)
Universal (L-W)
Belgium (W), Denmark (W), Netherlands (W)
Morocco (L), USA (L)
Morocco (L), Spain (L), Tunisia (L), others (L)
Belgium (W), Netherlands (W)
Israel (W)
Table 3.14
Tobacco seedlings: examples of alternatives in commercial use
Countries
Fumigants
Biocontrols (Trichoderma)
Biofumigation
Substrates
Brazil (L-W), Japan (L-W), USA (L-W)
Malawi (W), Zambia (L), Zimbabwe (W)
South Africa (L), USA (L), Zimbabwe (L)
Brazil (L-W), South Africa (L-W), USA (L-W)
Table 3.13 Roses: examples of alternatives in commercial use
23
Table 3.15 Nursery crops (vegetables and fruit):
Steam
Solarisation
Biocontrols
Substrates (protected
cultivation)
24
Soil amendments,
composts, etc.
Resistant varieties
Grafting
Biofumigation
Countries
For protected cultivation: Many countries (W)
For open fields: Denmark (L)
Widespread countries (L-W)
Canada (L), Germany (L), Israel (L), Mauritius (L), Netherlands (L),
Switzerland (L), UK (L)
Brazil (W), Canada (W), Chile (W), Denmark (W), Germany (W),
Israel (W), Mexico (W), Morocco (W), Netherlands (W), Spain (W),
Switzerland (W), UK (W), USA (W), Zimbabwe (W)
Widespread countries (W)
Widespread countries (L), including Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon,
Morocco, Tunisia
Brazil (L), Israel (L), Mexico (L), USA (L)
Table 3.16 Perennial crops such as banana, orchard trees, vines (re-plant):
Countries
Apple, pear, stone fruit trees
Biological controls
USA (specific pests, L)
Grafting
Universal (specific pests, L-W)
Fumigants
Spain (L-W), USA (L-W) (stone fruit only)
Banana plants
Soil amendments
Universal (L-W)
Substrates
Canary Islands (W)
Fumigants
Costa Rica (L-W)
Citrus trees
Biological controls
Florida USA (root weevil, W)
Fumigant
Florida USA (L), Spain (L)
Nut trees
Grafting
Universal (pest specific, W)
Perennial vines
Substrates
Canary Islands (L)
Grafting
Universal (pest specific, W)
Tolerable levels of pests.
Sterile conditions: here, the aim of soil
treatment is to kill or eliminate most organisms in the soil in order to create a semi-sterile or sterile medium in which to grow
seedlings, greenhouse crops or very intensive
field crops. MB and other broad-spectrum
treatments fall into this category.
Other techniques in this category include certain combinations of fumigants and pesticides, inert substrates, steam treatments and
solarisation combined with fumigants. A
drawback of creating near-sterile conditions is
that if pathogens enter the system they can
spread rapidly in the absence of natural predators. However, the addition of beneficial soil
organisms to the sterile medium after treatment can help to reduce this problem.
Tolerable levels of pests: in this approach,
key soil pests are reduced to economically
acceptable levels in order to obtain a profitable crop. The aim is not to kill all pests but
to suppress pest activity and reduce pest
numbers to tolerable levels. This approach
relies heavily on the identification and monitoring of pests and is often referred to as an
IPM approach. Methods used in this approach
may include a combination of cultural practices along with mechanical, physical, biological and pest-specific chemical techniques.
In practice, IPM approaches and techniques
vary greatly from one farm or region to the
next. At one end of the spectrum, farmers
may focus heavily on preventive methods,
working, for example, to create soil conditions that suppress pests. Other IPM users
may rely more on curative treatments, such
as target-specific chemicals.
There are many cases in which a broad spectrum of pest control is not required, because
particular pests are absent or below damage
thresholds. When deciding which pest control
techniques to use, therefore, it is always
desirable to first identify the pests present in
soil and then to select the combination of
techniques appropriate for those particular
pests. This identification of pests and selection of targeted control methods is fundamental to the IPM approach.
Crops and crop production
systems
The general techniques available for replacing
MB are broadly similar for most crops, as
shown by the examples given in Tables 3.9
through 3.16. Horticultural crops, however,
can be classified into groups that tend to
have different production problems and
needs:
Vegetables, such as tomatoes, peppers
and courgettes (zucchini).
Soft fruit, such as strawberries.
Orchard trees and vines.
Annual ornamentals.
Perennial ornamentals, such as roses.
Tobacco.
Turf and golf courses.
The spectrum of techniques suitable for each
crop and variety varies, as does the opportunity to intervene and control soil-borne pests.
Different varieties or strains of the same crop
can have very different susceptibilities to
pests. This means that changing from one
variety to another may be part of a transition
away from MB.
The details of each pest control technique
must vary according to the production
system:
Seedbeds, propagation beds and nurseries generally require a high degree of
freedom from pests. This is particularly
true for certified propagation materials.
Alternatives which provide this level of
pest freedom include substrates and efficient steam techniques.
Greenhouses tend to need a high degree
of pest control.
b)
25
Open field crops tend to tolerate slightly
lower levels of pest control, except in
very intensive systems.
The needs of re-planted crops vary
greatly from site to site.
26
Alternatives therefore need to be selected
and adapted to suit the specific crop system,
and to fit the timing of crop production
cycles. For example, if two or more crops are
produced each season, a grower must either
use a technique that fits with the double- or
multi-cropping pattern, or alter the cropping
pattern to accommodate a new approach.
Likewise, for growers who aim to meet particular market windows, it is important to
find techniques which enable the harvest to
be ready when market prices are high.
Identifying suitable alternatives
As noted earlier, MB is effective against a
broad range of pests. In making a transition
away from this fumigant, therefore, many MB
users will find that while a variety of alternative control methods are available, simple
substitution is generally not possible. As
explained above, a mix of alternatives will
often be required.
The selection of appropriate combinations of
alternatives is inherently more complicated
than the traditional use of MB, but the selection process can be simplified and made
manageable by organising information and
following a step-wise decision-making
process.
The key to identifying an alternative for a
specific field or greenhouse is to start by listing the soil-borne pests of the crop or area,
and then list the alternative methods that
could be used to control each pest. Working
from a list of techniques effective for the specific pests, it is possible to identify combinations of techniques that would be effective
for the precise range of pests.
The next stage involves gathering information
about the profitability, advantages and drawbacks of the main combinations. Only with
this sort of information in hand is it possible
to select the most appropriate approach for a
given situation.
For guidance in using this selection approach
along with the information in this
Sourcebook, consider the steps listed below
and review the templates for decision-making
provided in Annex 4.
1.
Identify problem pests at your site.
In addition to current pests, list the pest
problems that existed prior to any use of
MB.
2.
Determine the level of control
required.
3.
For each pest you have listed, write
down the control methods that
would be technically effective.Table E
in Annex 4 provides a template: list your
key pests in column 1, and list effective
controls in column 2.
4.
Use the lists prepared for each pest
to identify combinations of techniques that would control your full list
of pests. (Annex 4: Table E, column 3).
Once you have identified combinations that
would be technically effective in controlling
all relevant pests, the next stage is to identify
and evaluate the advantages, disadvantages,
profitability and suitability of these combinations for your situation. The following steps
are suggested:
5.
List the technical advantages and
disadvantages of each alternative
combination identified in the previous stage.
6.
Consider the following issues for
each alternative combination in turn
(refer to Section 2):
Organisational.
Health and safety.
Market and consumer, including
acceptability to purchasers, market
requirements and opportunities..
Environmental.
7.
Find the following information:
Sources of materials and expertise.
Short and long-term costs, including
capital costs, operating costs, yields,
profitability and pay-back period.
Ways in which costs could be
reduced.
Ways in which the system could be
improved.
Steps or changes that would make
adoption possible.
Annex 4 contains templates for all these
steps, while Annex 5 lists many useful
sources of information. Contact addresses,
listed alphabetically, are provided in Annex 6.
Regulatory – present and future.
27
28
4 Alternative Techniques for
Controlling Soil-borne Pests
Importance of IPM and combined
techniques
As discussed in Section 3, few alternatives
control the wide range of soil pests controlled
by MB, and MB replacement normally
requires a combination of several practices
to achieve a similar level of control. An IPM
approach — which identifies the problem
pests and uses several targeted control
techniques, is therefore important in
replacing MB.
Increasingly recommended as a modern
means of controlling pests, IPM has been
defined in many different ways. MBTOC
describes it as a system ”based on pest monitoring techniques, establishment of pest
injury levels and a combination of strategies
and tactics to prevent or manage pest problems in an environmentally sound and costeffective manner” (MBTOC 1998). Treatment
programmes are site-specific and combine
two or more techniques selected from biological, cultural, physical, mechanical and chemical methods.
This sub-section provides a brief introduction
to the principles of IPM and the major types
of cultural practices that can be utilized for
pest control as part of an IPM approach.
Additional sub-sections discuss the many control techniques that fall under the remaining
categories of biological, physical, mechanical
and chemical methods. As is emphasized
throughout the Sourcebook, virtually all of
these options are best used as part of a wellthought out, comprehensive IPM approach.
Components of IPM
Typical components or steps in an IPM programme may include:
Identification of soil pests and possible
beneficial soil organisms.
A determination of the level of pests
that can be tolerated before treatment is
used. This threshold level is based on the
amount of economic damage that can
be tolerated, the size of the populations
of pests and beneficial organisms, the
time in the growing season, and the life
stage of key organisms and their hosts.
Regular monitoring and record-keeping
on the types and levels of pests and beneficial organisms.
A system of practices to prevent pests
from building up or spreading, such as
cleaning and hygienic practices in greenhouses, and removal of diseased crop
residues.
Application of treatments, as necessary,
to control specific target pests, selecting
treatments that avoid or minimise health
risks to humans, the environment and
beneficial organisms.
Evaluation of the results of practices and
improvements in the system as
necessary.
In IPM programmes, treatments should not
be applied according to a calendar schedule.
Instead, they are applied only when monitoring indicates that the pest will cause
unacceptable damage. Treatments are
restricted to the particular area or spot where
pest problems occur.
Section 4: Alternative Techniques for Controlling Soil-borne Pests
4.1 IPM and cultural
practices
29
IPM approaches are knowledge-based,
because they require growers and their advisers to recognise key pests and beneficials and
to know about effective techniques of prevention and target-specific control. The development and establishment of IPM systems
therefore requires significant effort for local
adaptation and the training of technicians
and growers.
30
IPM systems are used commercially by at least
some growers in many countries. Table 4.1.1
provides examples of crops for which IPM is
used to control soil-borne pests.
Cultural and preventive practices for managing fungal diseases, for example, include the
use of disease-free seeds and resistant varieties, cleaning of tools after use to avoid
spreading pathogens, and removal of dead
and diseased crop debris. Table 4.1.2 provides
a brief overview of the timing and effectiveness of several cultural practices for controlling pests. All of these are discussed in more
detail below. Boxes 4.1.1 through 4.1.3 give
other examples of preventive practices that
assist in the management of nematodes, diseases and weeds.
Hygienic practices
Table 4.1.1 Examples of crops
for which IPM systems
are used commercially
Crops
Containerised
conifer nurseries
Fresh market
tomatoes
Cut flowers
Flower bulbs
Strawberries
Vegetables
Tomatoes, peppers
Countries
Canada
Northern Florida
Colombia
Australia
Germany
Netherlands
Spain
Source: MBTOC 1998, Ketzis 1992
Cultural practices
In general, the most reliable way to deal with
pest problems is to anticipate and avoid them
(Strand et al 1998), and a wide variety of
standard cultural practices can be used for
this purpose. Selection of fields, sequence of
crops, soil preparation, planting method, timing of planting, choice of variety, fertiliser
application and water management can all be
manipulated to minimise the chances of pest
damage (Strand et al 1998). None of these
techniques on their own can replace MB, but
all can contribute to IPM systems.
Good standards of hygiene and cleanliness
are fundamental to avoiding or reducing the
need for curative treatments such as MB.
Such practices prevent pests from entering or
spreading within the cropping system by
removing sources of pests and preventing
new pathogen inoculum from entering fields
and greenhouses. Many seedling pests, for
example, can be controlled by preventive hygienic practices such as those listed below:
Cleaning tools, equipment and greenhouses thoroughly after use.
Removing infected plant residues from
the previous crop.
Ensuring that contaminated soil or
equipment is not brought into the system or transferred from one greenhouse
or production area to another.
Restricting access to greenhouses,
seedbeds and other areas, to prevent visitors and non-essential personnel from
transferring pathogens on footwear or
clothing.
Using pathogen-free transplants, seeds
and bulbs to avoid introducing new
pathogens into the soil.
Ensuring that irrigation water is free
from pathogens and, if necessary, using
gravel-bed filters or other methods to
clean water before irrigation.
Table 4.1.2 Efficacy and timing of various cultural practices
Techniques
Crop rotation
Cover crops and
living mulches
Nutrient management
Resistant cultivars
and grafting
Trap crops and
enemy plants
Water management
Efficacy
Can be high, depends on the pathogen.
Not effective against pathogens with
wide host range.
Low for fungal pathogens; trap crops
are highly effective against some
nematodes; possible control of weeds
Middle effect; necessary for good crop
management, promoting tolerance to
pathogens
Middle to high for very specific pests,
depending on rootstock and conditions
Effective against certain fungi and
nematodes
Timing of treatment
Cycles cover a minimum of
3 years
Low to middle efficacy, depends on soil
type and pests
Before and during crop
production
Can be grown with crop,
or for 2-3 months in
off season
Before and during crop
production
No waiting period before
planting
Can be grown with crop,
or for 2-3 months in off
season
Box 4.1.1 Examples of preventive practices for soil-borne pests:
nematode management
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Establish local certification schemes to prevent the importation of nematodes on
planting materials.
Before use, check manure and other materials that may harbour nematodes.
Avoid the introduction or spread of nematodes in irrigation water.
Clean equipment and tools before moving them.
Monitor nematode populations and estimate future populations.
Examine the possible use of other high-value crops for rotation.
Where available, use resistant varieties or grafted rootstock.
Remove weeds that are hosts to nematodes or act as reservoirs of infection.
Compiled from: Department of Nematology University of California website, Peet 1995, Strand et al 1998
In a number of cases disease-free planting
materials are commercially available; some of
these are certified and regulated. Table 4.1.4
provides a few examples of companies that
supply certified disease-free planting materials. To identify suppliers of certified diseasefree planting materials, contact the relevant
government department (normally the
Ministry or Department of Agriculture) for
information about approved suppliers.
Crop rotation
Rotation involves planting a succession of different crops, each selected for its ability to
withstand or suppress pests that are likely to
have built up during the previous crop’s
growing season. Pathogens that attack only a
few crop species can be controlled by rotation, but rotation is not suitable for
pathogens that remain in soil for a long time
or affect a wide range of crops. Rotation is an
ancient and reliable method, but rotations
Compiled from: Lung et al 1999
31
Box 4.1.2 Examples of preventive practices for soil-borne pests:
disease management
32
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Use disease-free seeds or planting material.
Avoid old or poor quality seeds.
Where available, use resistant varieties or grafted plants with resistant rootstock.
Select planting sites so that susceptible crops are not planted in heavily infested fields.
Use transplants where feasible, because damping-off fungi rarely attack established seedlings.
Clean tools and equipment after use to avoid spreading pathogenic organisms.
Clean footware before entering greenhouses and seedbed areas.
Remove diseased crop residues.
Rotate to non-host crops where feasible. (Various guides are available for choosing rotations
of vegetables according to disease problems, e.g. Peet 1995.)
Be aware of the impact of organic matter. Soils high in organic matter may have higher populations of damping-off fungi, but they can also increase the activity of beneficial microorganisms that suppress pathogenic fungi.
Manage water and drainage to keep soil around roots from becoming waterlogged, because
root rots and damping-off occur in areas with poor drainage.
Avoid practices that encourage damping-off, including deep planting, planting into cold, wet
or poorly prepared soil and inadequate soil nutrition.
Balance watering and fertiliser applications carefully, because excess water and nitrogen
encourage certain pathogens.
Avoid under-nutrition, because stressed plants that are low in potassium and calcium are
more vulnerable to diseases.
Avoid too much fertiliser, because the salts may damage roots, opening the way for secondary infections by opportunistic pathogens.
Control virus-transmitting insects very early in the season, using oils, soaps and baits, for
example.
Remove and destroy weeds that transmit viruses, such as solanaceous weeds.
Compiled from: Department of Nematology University of California website; Peet 1995; Strand et al 1998
Box 4.1.3 Examples of preventive practices for soil-borne pests: weed management
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Identify weed species and map their location and populations in each field.
Update the weed map two to three times each year.
Note features such as wet areas, well-drained areas, pH and field borders that may increase
or inhibit weed growth.
Determine the critical weed-free period, that is, the length of time during which the crop
should be practically weed-free to avoid reductions in yield or quality.
Make sure that crop seed and mulches do not contain weed seeds.
Mow around the field borders to remove sources of weed seeds.
Prevent weeds from producing seeds by removing them before seeds develop, for example.
Band fertilisers five to ten centimetres from the plants, rather than broadcasting.
Rotate crops where feasible.
Compost any manure before use to reduce weed seeds.
Compiled from: Department of Nematology University of California website, Peet 1995.
Resistant varieties and grafting
Some varieties are resistant to specific pests,
and resistant varieties are widely used in
Spain, Portugal, Greece, Morocco, France,
Israel, Italy and Colombia to help substitute
for soil fumigation (MBTOC 1998). The range
of resistant varieties is limited to specific
pests. In some varieties the resistance can
break down under certain conditions, such as
high soil temperatures or saline water. Target
pests must be identified before the appropriate resistant or partly resistant cultivar can be
selected. Table 4.1.4 lists examples of companies that supply resistant varieties.
Grafting plants onto resistant rootstock has
traditionally been used for fruit trees, citrus
trees and grape vines, but is now being used
for annual crops such as tomatoes, cucumber
and melon. This practice is increasingly popular in countries such as Morocco, Tunisia,
Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan and Cyprus. The
watermelon crop in Almería (Spain), for
example, is raised from grafted plants, eliminating use of MB (Tello 1998). In some
regions of China, cucumber and watermelon
are grafted onto Cucurbita moschata rootstock because it is resistant to Fusarium oxysporium f.sp. cucumerinum (Tang 1999).
Grafting can be done mechanically by nurseries or specialised farms. It can also be done
by small farmers using simple equipment
such as clean, sharp blades, sticky tape and
small tubes or clips to stabilise the joined
stems (Lung 1999). Table 4.1.4 lists examples
of companies who supply grafted plants and
rootstock for grafting. See Annex 6 for an
alphabetical listing of suppliers, specialists
and experts. See also Annex 5 and Annex 7
for additional information resources.
Mulches and cover crops
Mulches are materials that cover the soil,
helping to suppress weeds and certain other
pests. For example, opaque black plastic or a
thick layer of waste material can exclude or
reduce the light that triggers weed seed germination. The use of cover crops to smother
weeds is a long-established and widely used
cultural practice that can also contribute to
the management of diseases and nematodes
(Peet 1995).
Cover crops must be correctly selected and
managed to compete with weeds for
resources, and preferably to possess chemical
or allelopathic properties that reduce weed
growth. Certain grasses have been used to
suppress Sclerotinia sclerotiorum, for example
(Ferraz et al 1996). Living mulches composed
of miniature brassicas or clovers grown with
the main crop can also suppress weeds and
reduce insect pests without reducing yields in
some cropping systems (Thurston et al 1994).
Nutrient management
Manipulation of plant nutrition and fertilisation can reduce or suppress some soil-borne
pathogens and nematodes by stimulating
antagonistic microorganisms, increasing
resistance of host plants, and/or other mechanisms (Cook and Baker 1983).
Time of planting
Selection of a planting time that coincides
with environmental conditions unfavourable
to pest activity can reduce problems with
some diseases (Heald 1987, Trivedi and Barker
1986). For example, relatively high temperatures do not favour Verticillium spp., while relatively low temperatures do not favour
Fusarium spp. Selecting the appropriate planting time can also help to control root-knot
nematodes in some regions (Bello 1998).
Trap crops
Some plants kill or suppress specific pests.
Tagetes, a type of marigold, for example, suppresses specific nematode species, and can be
have traditionally included lower value crops
that do not suit MB users. New rotations
involving only high-value crops are now being
developed. For example, a three-year rotation
including melon, hot pepper, peas, cucumber,
tomato and squash is used with metam sodium as part of an IPM system in Morocco
(Besri 1997).
33
Table 4.1.4 Examples of suppliers of resistant varieties, rootstocks for grafting
and disease-free planting materials
Plant materials
Grafted plants
Tomato and cucurbits –
resistant varieties,
resistant rootstock
for grafting
34
Flowers – resistant
varieties
Disease-free planting
materials
Specialists, advisory
services and consultants
in the use of resistant
varieties and/or grafting
Examples of companies
Grow Group International Nursery SARL, Morocco
Hishtil Ashkelon Nursery Ltd, Israel
Vivaio Leopardi, Italy
De Ruiter Seeds, Netherlands
INRA, France
Novartis Seeds, Netherlands
Rijk-Zwaan, Netherlands
Sluis & Groot, Netherlands
SPIROU Co, Greece
Tézier, France
American Rose Society, USA
High Country Roses, USA
Hortica Inc, Canada
Jackson & Perkins, USA
P Kooij & Zonen, Netherlands
Santamaria, Colombia and Italy
SB Talee, Colombia
Selecta Klemm, Colombia, Germany and Israel
Suata Plants SA, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador and Mexico
Yoder Brothers, USA
Aplicaciones Bioquímicas SL, Spain
Empresa Colombiana de Biotecnología, Colombia
Hishtil Ashkelon Nursery Ltd, Israel
Propagar Plantas SA, Colombia
Rancho Tissue Technologies, USA
CCMA, CSIC, Madrid, Spain
GTZ IPM project, Egypt
GTZ IPM project, Morocco
HortiTecnia, Colombia
P Kooij & Zonen, Netherlands
Santamaria, Italy
Selecta Klemm, Germany
Statewide IPM Project, University of California, USA
Suata Plants, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador and Mexico
Van Staaveren BV, Netherlands and Colombia
Dr M Besri, Institut Agronomique et Vétérinaire Hassan II, Morocco
Dr Ron Cohen, Dept of Vegetable Crops, Ramat Yishay, Israel
Dr M Eddauodi, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Morocco
Dr Gerhard Lung, University of Hohenheim, Germany
Dr E Paplomatas, Benaki Phytopathological Institute, Athens, Greece
Dr Gerson Reis, Estaçao Agronomica Nacional, Oeiras, Portugal
Dr J Tello, University of Almería, Spain
Dr D Vakalounakis, Plant Protection Institute, Heraklion, Greece
Prof Tang Wenhau, China Agricultural University, Beijing, China
Note: Contact information for these companies are provided in Annex 6.
Water management
Excessive water creates conditions that favour
infection by some soil-borne fungi, such as
Phytophthora root rot and damping-off diseases in tomato or root and crown diseases in
strawberry (Strand 1994, Strand et al 1998).
Too little water, on the other hand, stresses
plants and may also make them more vulnerable to attack. Proper water management
contributes to disease control in vegetables in
southeastern Spain and USA (MBTOC 1998).
In areas where excess water is available at
appropriate times of the year, temporary
flooding or flooding alternated with dry soil
can be used to suppress insects or weeds.
Specialists and information
resources
Table 4.1.5 provides a list of specialists and
consultants in preventive methods and integrated management of soil-borne pests. See
Annex 6 for an alphabetical listing of suppliers, specialists and experts. See also Annex 5
and Annex 7 for additional information
resources.
useful if combined with other techniques.
Tagetes patula decreases the populations of
Pratylenchus spp., Meloidogyne arenaria,
Meloidogyne hapla and Meloidogyne
javanica, but it does not suppress
Meloidogyne incognita. (See Lung 1997 for a
comparison of the efficacy of four species of
Tagetes against 14 different species of nematodes.) In Morocco, Tagetes patula and
Tagetes erecta have given good results when
planted as green manure after tomato harvesting and then incorporated into the soil
after 6 to 8 weeks (Kaack 1999). The efficacy
of trap crops varies according to the method
and timing of application.
35
Table 4.1.5 Examples of specialists and consultants in preventive methods
and integrated management of soil-borne pests
36
Admagro Ltda, Colombia
Africa Program, Asian Vegetable Research and Development Centre, Tanzania
Agrindex Consulting and Project, Israel
Agriphyto, Perpignan, France
Asistec, Ecuador
Asociación Colombiana de Exortadores de Flores (ASOCOLFLORES), Colombia
Biocaribe SA, Colombia
BPO Research Station for Nursery Stock, Netherlands
Cenibanano Banana Research Center, Colombia
CIAA Agricultural Research and Consultancy Center, Colombia
Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Denmark
Department of Nematology, University of California, Davis, USA
DLV Horticultural Advisory Service, Netherlands
Empresa Colombiana de Biotecnología, Colombia
Escuela Agricola Panamericana, Honduras
FHIA Foundation for Agricultural Research, Honduras
FPO Fruit Research Centre, Netherlands
FUSADES Foundation for Economic and Social Development, El Salvador
GTZ IPM projects, Argentina, Benin, Costa Rica, Egypt, Fiji, Jordan, Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi,
Morocco, Panama, Tanzania
Indian Agricultural Research Institute, India
International Institute for Biological Control, Malaysia
Jordanian-GTZ IPM programme, Jordan
PBG Research Station for Floriculture and Glasshouse Vegetables, Netherlands
Spectrum Technologies Inc, USA
Statewide IPM Project, University of California, USA
Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program, University of California, USA
University of Bonn, Germany
Vegetable Research and Information Center, University of California, USA
Dr Miguel Altieri, University of California, USA
Dr Antonio Bello and colleagues, CCMA, CSIC, Madrid, Spain
Prof Mohamed Besri, Institut Agronomique et Vétérinaire Hassan II, Rabat, Morocco
Dr Robert Bugg and Dr Chuck Ingels, SAREP, University of California, USA
(cover crops and cultural practices)
Dr G Cartia, Universita di Reggio Calabria, Italy
Mr Dermot Cassidy, Geest, South Africa
Dr V Cebolla, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Agrarias, Spain
Dr Dan Chellemi, USDA-ARS, USA
Dr Angelo Correnti, ENEA Departimento Innovazione, Italy
Dr FV Dunkel, Montana State University, USA
Dr Mohamed Eddauodi, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Morocco
(nematode control)
Dr Clyde Elmore, Vegetable Crops Department, University of California, USA
continued
Dr J Fresno, INIA, Spain (IPM for vineyards)
Dr Walid Abu Gharbieh, University of Jordan, Jordan
Dr A López García, FECOM, Spain (IPM for cut flowers)
Dr Roberto García Espinosa, Colegio de Postgraduados en Ciencias Agricolas IFÍT, Mexico
Dr Raquel Ghini, EMBRAPA/CNPMA, Brazil
Mr Zoraida Gutierrez, Cultivos Miramonte, Colombia
Dr Thaís Tostes Graziano, Instituto Agronomico de Campinas, Brazil
Prof M Lodovica Gullino, University of Turin, Italy
Dr Saad Hafez, University of Idaho, USA
Dr Tim Herman, Crop and Food Research, New Zealand
Dr Seizo Horiuchi, National Research Institute of Vegetables, Ornamental Plants & Tea, MAFF, Japan
Prof Jaacov Katan, Hebrew University, Israel
Dr Nancy Kokalis-Burelle, Horticultural Research Laboratory, USDA-ARS, USA
Dr Jürgen Kroschel, University of Kassel, Germany (parasitic weeds)
Dr Alfredo Lacasa, CIDA, Spain
Dr Leonardo de León, Dirección General de Servicios Agrícolas, Uruguay
Dr Gerhard Lung, University of Hohenheim, Germany
Dr Nahum Marbán Mendoza, Universidad Autónoma de Chapingo, Mexico
Ing Juan Carlos Magunacelaya, Chile
Dr Nicholas Martin, Crop and Food Research, New Zealand
Dr Mark Mazzola, Tree Fruit Research Laboratory, USDA-ARS, USA (fruit trees)
Prof Keigo Minami, ESALQ, University of São Paulo, Brazil
Ing Camilla Montecinos, Centro de Educacion y Tecnologia, Santiago, Chile (vegetables)
Dr Peter Ooi, FAO Integrated Pest Control Intercountry Programme, Philippines
Ms Marta Pizano, HortiTecnia, Colombia (cut flowers)
Dr Ian Porter, Agriculture Victoria, Australia
Dr William Quarles, Bio-Integral Resource Center, USA
Dr Gerson Reis, Estaçao Agronomica Nacional, Portugal
Dr Rodrigo Rodríguez-Kábana and Dr Joseph Kloepper, Department of Plant Paghology, Auburn
University, USA
Dr F Romero, Centro de Investigación Las Torres, Spain
Dr Yitzhak Spiegel, Agricultural University, Israel
Dr James Stapleton, Kearney Agricultural Center, Univerisity of California, USA
Dr Donald Sumner, Dept Plant Pathology, University of Georgia, USA
Dr J Tello, University of Almería, Spain
Prof Franco Tognoni, Dipartemento di Biologia delle Plante Agrarie, Italy
Dr Anne Turner, Agricultural consultant, Zimbabwe
Mr Peter Wilkinson, Xylocopa, Zimbabwe
Dr Peter Workman, Crop and Food Research, New Zealand
Note: Contact information for these specialists and consultants is provided in Annex 6.
Please refer also to the specialists listed in Sections 4.2 through 4.7. Additional specialists can be identified in
resources such as the National IPM Network (www.reeusda.gov/agsys/nipmn), the Agriculture Network
Information Center (www.agnic.org), and the OzonAction Programme’s Inventory of Technical and Institutional
Resources for Promoting Methyl Bromide Alternatives (www.unepie.org/ozat/tech/main.html#mebrinvent).
Table 4.1.5 continued
37
4.2 Biological controls
Generally safe for non-target species and
not toxic to humans.
Inducing systemic resistance in crops,
i.e., improving the plants’ own defense
systems, enabling them to resist pest
attacks more effectively.
Improve soil biodiversity.
Stimulating crop growth.
Advantages
Some biological controls promote plant
growth.
38
around crop roots and protecting them
against infection.
Do not produce undesirable residues in
food.
Can lead to antagonistic activity in the
soil for long periods.
Disadvantages
Target specific pests, so must be combined with other techniques.
Not compatible with conventional pesticides, since pesticides kill or inactivate
the organisms.
Must be applied regularly in order to
establish populations of biological organisms in the soil.
Normally require a certain range of pH,
temperature and moisture to be active.
Often need to be registered as pesticide
products, which may initially delay their
availability.
Technical description
Biological control involves the use of living
organisms, such as fungi, bacteria or beneficial nematodes, to control or inhibit pest populations. Biological control agents can act
against pests in diverse ways, including those
listed below:
Eating or feeding on pests.
Parasitising or living in pests.
Repelling pests.
Competing with pests for space and
nutrients.
Establishing a kind of ‘biological shield’
Biological controls are normally highly specific, which means that each organism or agent
acts against a narrow range of pests —
typically between one and a dozen pest
species (Table 4.2.2). Generally, biological
controls cannot, of themselves, replace MB.
Rather they must be used as part of an IPM
system that includes other practices, such as
resistant cultivars, soil amendments, solarisation or alternative pesticide products.
Biological controls are effective only when
present in sufficient numbers in the root
zone, so success depends on selecting the
appropriate method of delivery, establishing
an environment in which the organisms can
thrive, or re-applying the organisms at regular
intervals. They are often most effective when
applied as seed dressings and root dips or
applied to the soil regularly via irrigation
pipes.
Biological control products are made commercially or, in some cases, on-farm.
Commercially produced biological controls
can be categorized as follows:
Fungi or bacteria
Fungi or bacteria are primarily soil-dwelling
organisms that prey upon or out-compete
some of the pathogenic fungi that attack
plants. Examples of commercial products
include the following:
Beauveria spp. – a fungus (commercial
products in Colombia and Switzerland).
Fusarium oxysporum (nonpathogenic) – a fungus (commercial
product in France, Hungary, Italy).
Table 4.2.1 Examples of commercial use of biological controls
(normally combined with other techniques)
Crop
Various crops
Various crops
Sweet potato
Various crops
Cut flowers
Greenhouse tomatoes
Greenhouse tomatoes
and cucumber
Turf
Biological control agents
Streptomyces lydicus
Streptomyces griseoviridis strain K61
Non-pathogenic Fusarium spp.
PGPR bacteria
Paecilomyces lilacinus, Trichoderma spp.,
Beauveria bassiana, Bacillus popilliae,
Metarhizium anisopliae, microbial broths
Trichoderma applied regularly in
irrigation water
PGPR bacteria (seed coating)
Beauveria bassiana, Metarhizium anisopliae,
PGPR bacteria (seed coating)
Country
USA
USA
Japan
China, Germany, USA
Colombia, Germany,
Netherlands
New Zealand
Germany
Germany, Switzerland
Compiled from: MBTOC 1998, Cherim 1998, Gutierrez 1997, Lung 1999
Paecilomyces lilacinus – a fungus (commerical products in Colombia).
Pseudomonas spp. – beneficial bacteria
(commercial products in China,
Germany, USA).
Trichoderma spp. – various species of
fungi (commercial products in China,
UK, USA, Zimbabwe and many other
countries).
Steinernema spp. – beneficial nematode
(commercial products in USA).
Biological controls come in a wide variety of
formulations such as wettable powders, granules, pellets and suspensions. They can be
applied as top dressings, sprays, drenches,
seed coatings or root-dips prior to planting.
They can also be applied via sprinklers, drip
lines and injection equipment, or can be
mixed with substrates (potting mixes or
growth media) prior to filling nursery trays
or bags.
Nematodes
Nematodes are soil-dwelling animals that
look like microscopic worms. Some predatory
nematodes prey upon root-knot nematodes
while other types of nematodes act as parasites and destroy the larve and pupae of
insects (Table 4.2.3). Examples of commercial
products include:
Heterorhabditis bacteriophora – beneficial nematode (commercial products in
USA).
Mononchus sp. – beneficial nematode
(commercial product in USA).
Phasmarhabditis hermaphrodita – beneficial nematode (commercial product in UK).
Seed coatings and root dips are effective
methods of application, because they allow
the beneficial organisms to become established in the root zone from the earliest
stages. Depending on the pest pressure and
situation, it may be necessary to create a soil
environment that fosters the biological control agent and provides appropriate nutrients
for it, or it may be necessary to re-inoculate
the soil with the organisms at regular intervals. An effective way to ensure that organisms remain present during the entire
growing season is to apply them regularly
through the irrigation pipes (using special
valves that will not become blocked).
Gliocladium virens – a fungus (commercial products in USA).
39
Table 4.2.2 Examples of biological control agents and formulations
for soil-borne diseases
Biological
control agent
Agrobacterium
radiobacter
Type of
organism
Bacteria
Ampelomyces
Fungi
quisqualis isolate
40
Soil-borne
pests and diseases
Crown gall disease caused by
Agrobacterium tumefaciens
Formulations
Culture or suspension, applied
to seeds, seedlings and cuttings,
or as soil drench or spray
Water-dispersible granules
for spray
Granule or powder, for seed
treatment, dip, hopper box,
soil drench or spray
Powdery mildew, Oidium spp.
Bacillus subtilis
Bacteria
Rhizoctonia solani, Fusarium
spp., Alternaria spp., Sclerotinia
spp., Verticillium spp., Streptomyces scabies, Aspergillus spp.
that attack roots
Burkholderia
cepacia
Bacteria
Rhizoctonia spp., Pythium spp.,
Fusarium spp. and others
Powder and aqueous suspension
for seed treatment or drip
irrigation
Candida
oleophila
Fungi
Botrytis spp.
Wettable powder
Coniothyrium
minitans
Fungi
Sclerotinia sclerotiorum,
Sclerotinia minor
Water dispersible granule
for spray
Fusarium
oxysporum
non-pathogenic
Fungi
Fusarium oxysporum, Fusarium
moniliforme for seed treatment
Dust and alginate granule
or soil incorporation etc.
Gliocladium
virens
Fungi
Damping-off and root rot
Granules, liquid
pathogens especially Rhizoctonia
solani and Pythium spp.
Gliocladium
catenulatum
Fungi
Pythium spp., Rhizoctonia solani, Wettable powder, liquid
Botrytis spp., Didymella spp
Phlebia
gigantea
Fungi
Heterobasidium annosum
Powder
Pseudomonas
cepacia
Bacteria
Rhizoctonia solani,
Fusarium spp.,
Pythium sp.
Wettable powder or suspension
for spray
Pythium
oli-gandrum
Fungi
Pythium ultimum
Granule and powder for seed
treatment or soil incorporation
Streptomyces
griseoviridis
Bacteria
Fusarium spp., Alternaria brassi- Powder for drench, spray or
cola, Phomopsis spp., Botrytis
irrigation system
spp., Pythium spp., Phytophthora
spp. that cause seed, root and
stem rot and wilt disease
Trichoderma
Fungi
harzanium,
Trichoderma
polysporum and
other Trichoderma
species
Sclerotinia spp., Phytophthora
spp., Rhizoctonia solani, Pythium
spp., Fusarium spp., Verticillium
spp., Sclerotium rolfsii
Granules, wettable powder for
seed treatments, dips, soil incorporation, injection, or irrigation
systems
Compiled from: Fravel 1999, Lung 1999
Table 4.2.3 Characteristics of several groups of biological controls
Examples
of organisms
Gliocladium virens
Type of
organism
Soil fungi
Mycorrhizae
Glomus brasilianum, Soil fungi
Glomus clarum,
Gigaspora margarita
Parasitic
nematodes
Target pests
Damping-off diseases,
particularly those
caused by Pythium and
Rhizoctonia; seed rot
diseases
Promote root health,
increase plant’s ability
to resist some diseases
Mode of action
Parasitises some organ
isms (e.g., R. solani) and
suppress-es by competition, exclusion and
excretion of substances
Form symbiotic relationship with crop roots,
aiding uptake of water
and nutrients especially
Larvae and pupae of
Enter insect larvae and
insects; certain cutworm snails/slugs as parasites;
species; snails and slugs their metabolites kill
these organisms
Nematodes:
Heterorhabditis
Heterohabditis, bacteriophora,
Phasmarhabditis Phasmarhabditis
& Steinernema hermaphrodita,
Steinernema
carpocapsae
Nematodes:
Mononchus
Mononchus
aquaticus Coetzee
Predatory
nematodes
Root-knot
nematodes
Prey on root-knot
nematodes
Plant growth- Rhizobacteria spp.
promoting
Rhizobacteria
Bacteria
living in
roots
Certain pests and
pathogens
Create a biological shield
around roots, preventing
or delaying invasion of
pest or pathogen;
promote plant growth
Steptomyces
Streptomyces
lydicus,
Streptomyces
griseoviridis
Soil-dwelling Certain pathogenic
bacteria
fungi
Trichoderma.
Trichoderma
harzianum,
Trichoderma
polysporum,
Trichoderma viride
Fungi
Certain pathogenic
fungi, e.g., Pythium,
Rhizoctonia Fusarium
Out-compete several
pathogens; some create
protective mycelia layer
around roots or excrete
metabolites that inhibit
fungi
Create a biological shield
around roots, promoting
plant growth and
preventing growth of
pathogenic fungi
Compiled from: MBTOC 1998, Cherim 1998, Lung 1999, commercial product information
Users need to be knowledgeable about
appropriate conditions. As living organisms,
most biological control agents are active
within a certain range of temperatures and
soil conditions. For example, Trichoderma
needs a soil temperature of at least 10°C and
a soil pH that is neutral to slightly acidic. The
beneficial nematode Steinernema needs
slightly moist soil and temperatures of 4.5 to
32°C, with optimum temperatures of 15.5
to 21°C.
Normally biocontrols will be killed or deactivated by pesticides. A notable exception,
however, is the bacteria Pseudomonas, which
has tolerance against some fungicides. In
general biological controls are best suited for
use with non-chemical techniques such as
grafting, substrates or solarisation.
Group of
organisms
Gliocladium
41
Table 4.2.4 Examples of nematode pests controlled
or suppressed by biological controls
Nematode pests
Meloidogyne spp.
Meloidogyne incognita
Pratylenchus spp.
Various nematode species
42
Paecilomyces lilacinus
Pasteuria penetrans
Mononchus aquaticus
Paecilomyces lilacinus
Myrothecium verrucaria
Pleurotus ostreatus
Efficacy comments
Slow effect; best results in
2nd or 3rd years
Parasitises eggs of nematodes
Effective nematicide
Compiled from: MBTOC 1998, Cherim 1998, Gutierrez 1997, Kwok 1992, Lung 1999, Warrior 1996,
commercial product information
Current uses
Biological controls are used commercially in a
number of countries, normally as one part of
a comprehensive IPM or non-chemical system. Table 4.2.1 provides examples of biological control agents in commercial use.
Variations under development
Additional species with pest control effects
are being identified. Studies of the microbial
communities of roots in undisturbed ecosystems where major diseases rarely occur can
assist in determining the key microorganisms
that play a role in plant health (Linderman
1998). Improved formulations and delivery
systems are also under development.
Material inputs
Biological control organisms —
purchased or made on-farm.
Mechanism for conveying or incorporating biological controls into the soil.
Equipment, such as irrigation pipes,
sprayers, or fertiliser injectors, is often
already available on farms.
Factors required for use
Know-how and training. Users must first
identify biological controls that will be
effective in the region. They must also
be knowledgeable about pest and
predator life cycles, appropriate timing
of treatments, temperature, irrigation,
soil types, application methods and optimal storage of products.
In some countries official registration by
pesticide authorities is required before
products can be marketed.
Users must be able to control or manipulate soil temperature, acidity and/or
moisture to be within the appropriate
range for activation.
Biological controls are not compatible
with some pesticide treatments. Steam
treatments and fumigants also kill biocontrols, unless the biological controls
are applied after the other treatment.
Pests controlled
Biological controls can suppress or control
specific species of nematodes, fungi and soildwelling stages of insect pests. They are normally highly specific and cannot replace MB
on their own, so they are best used as one
part of a combined system.
Tables 4.2.4 through 4.2.6 provide examples
of biological agents that can be used for control of nematodes, fungi, and bacteria and
insects, respectively. Certain biological control
agents can be applied together to increase
the range of pests controlled. They can be
used curatively to reduce an existing infestation and/or as maintenance treatments to
Table 4.2.5 Examples of soil-borne fungi and bacteria
controlled or suppressed by biological controls
Agrobacterium radiobacter strain 84
Bacillus subtilis
Trichoderma harzianum, Trichoderma viride
Trichoderma harzianum
Trichoderma spp.
Pseudomonas fluorescens
Trichoderma spp.
Gliocladium catenulatum
Pseudomonas fluorescens A506
Fusarium oxysporum non-pathogenic
Botrytis spp.
Collectotrichum spp.
Damping off diseases (fungi)
Didymella spp.
Erwinia amylovora
Fulvia fulva
Fusarium oxysporum,
Fusarium moniliforme
Fusarium spp.
Heterobasidium annosum
Monilia laxa
Phomopsis spp.
Phytophthora spp.
Powdery mildew
Pseudomonas solanacearum
Pseudomonas tolassii
Pythium ultimum
Pythium spp.
Pythium sp.
Rhizoctonia solani
Rhizoctonia spp.
Sclerotinia homeocarpa
Sclerotinia sclerotiorum and Sclerotinia minor
Sclerotinia sclerotiorum and other
Sclerotinia species
Sclerotinia spp.
Sclerotium rolfsii
Verticillium spp.
Bacillus subtilis
Burkholderia cepacia type Wisconsin
Gliocladium sp.
Pseudomonas cepacia
Phlebia gigantea
Ampelomyces quisqualis
Pseudomonas solanacearum non-pathogenic
Pseudomonas fluorescens
Pythium oligandrum
Gliocladium virens, Gliocladium catenulatum
Pseudomonas cepacia
Bacillus subtilis
Gliocladium virens, Gliocladium catenulatum
Pseudomonas cepacia
Trichoderma spp.
Coniothyrium minitans
Trichoderma harzianum and certain other
species of Trichoderma
Bacillus subtilis
Trichoderma spp.
Trichoderma spp.
Bacillus subtilis
Trichoderma spp.
Compiled from: MBTOC 1998, Fravel 1999, Gutierrez 1997, Lung 1999
Pathogenic fungi and bacteria
Alternaria brassicicola
Alternaria spp.
Armillaria spp.
Botryosphaeria spp.
Botrytis cinerea
43
Table 4.2.6 Examples of insect pests (soil-dwelling larvae and pupae)
controlled or suppressed by biological controls
Insect pests
Agrotis ipsilon (cutworms)
Bradysia spp. (a)
Lycoriella mali (a)
Peridroma sauci (cutworms)
44
Popillia japonica (a)
Sciara spp. (a)
Various armyworms
Various beetle larvae
Various cutworms
Fruit borer species (a)
Biological controls
Heterorhabditis bacteriophora
+ Steinernema carpocapsae
Steinernema carpocapsae
+ Steinernema carpocapsae
Steinernema carpocapsae,
Steinernema feltiae
Bacillus popilliae
Beauveria bassiana
Metarhizium anisopliae
Steinernema feltiae
Steinernema carpocapsae,
Steinernema feltiae
(a) Soil-dwelling larvae and/or pupae
Compiled from: Gutierrez 1997, Cherim 1998, commercial product information
provide ongoing protection from pests.
Predatory nematodes can act swiftly, while
other nematodes have a slow effect, so efficacy can vary according to the type of biological control agent, the type of pest, the
original level of infestation and soil conditions
such as temperature.
Yields and performance
Biological controls need to be combined with
other techniques in order to give efficacy and
yields equal to MB fumigation.
Other factors affecting use
Suitable crops and uses
Biological control products have been
approved in some countries for many horticultural crops, nurseries, trees, turf, mushrooms and other crops. They can be used in
greenhouses, seedbeds, nurseries and open
fields. However, the appropriate applications
vary greatly from one product to the next, so
it is important to check local suitability before
purchasing products. They are suitable for
single, double- and multi-cropping systems.
Suitable climate and soil types
Biological controls need to be selected to suit
the temperature range of the area where
they will be used, because each organism has
an optimum range for biological activity. They
can be used in many soil types, although this
may vary with the specific organism. The soil
pH (acidity or alkalinity) can enhance or limit
some biological controls.
Toxicity and health risks
Approved biological controls are generally
safe for humans because they act against
selected soil organisms. However, it is desirable to avoid breathing dusts or spray formulations, because dust in general is a health
hazard and there is a possibility of allergic or
intolerant reactions to foreign protein.
Safety precautions for users
Approved biological controls are generally
considered safe to users and rural communities, because their action is confined to specific soil pests. Special safety training is not
required for registered products. Protective
equipment should be used with formulations
that generate dust or spray particles.
Residues in food and environment
Biological controls make a positive contribution to the soil environment. Approved
organisms do not leave undesirable residues
in food or the environment.
Registration and regulatory
restrictions
Regulatory approval is required in some countries. In the past, some biological controls
(e.g. cane toads in Australia) have been
released without adequate scrutiny, leading
to problems for indigenous species. For some
years there has existed an international code
of practice on the introduction of non-native
organisms into new regions, and this is
applied in many cases. Quality assurance
schemes are necessary for manufacturers
who produce biological controls.
Cost considerations
Approved biological controls are not toxic to
crops. Some actively promote crop growth.
Impact on beneficial organisms
Use of biological controls increases the population of beneficial organisms and generally
increases biodiversity and antagonistic activity
in the soil. Some predatory nematodes, however, may prey on certain beneficial organisms as well as pests.
Material costs of biological controls are
lower than MB.
Labour costs for applying biological controls would be similar to the cost of a
conventional pesticide spray or top
dressing; application via irrigation systems entails negligible labour.
Since biological controls need to be used
as part of a combined system, it is necessary to calculate the cost of the other
components before comparing to MB.
Ozone depletion
Biological controls are not listed as ODS.
Global warming and energy
consumption
Manufacturing of biological controls uses less
energy than does production of MB. Tractor
application requires use of fuel, similar to
mechanised MB application; application via
irrigation water does not.
Other environmental considerations
Product packaging produces small amounts
of solid waste.
Acceptability to markets and consumers
Biological controls are very acceptable to
supermarkets, purchasing companies and
consumers because they enhance biological
diversity and are seen to be a positive
replacement for pesticides.
Questions to ask when selecting the
system
Which soil pests need to be controlled?
What degree of pest control is needed?
Which biological controls will control
these pests? To what degree?
What practices are required to ensure
that the biological control agent reaches
the roots, thrives and is effective in the
soil?
What is the most effective form in which
to apply the organism?
What amount needs to be applied and
how often?
What measures need to be taken to control other key pests (IPM system)?
Phytotoxicity
45
What are the costs and profitability of
this system compared to other options?
Availability
Biological control products are produced in a
number of countries, including China, Czech
Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary,
Italy, Jordan, Mexico, New Zealand, UK and
USA.
46
Suppliers of products and services
Table 4.2.7 gives examples of suppliers of biological control products and services. See
resources. Note that this table does not provide a complete list, and additional products
can be identified by contacting your local agricultural supplier. It is always wise to consult
independent sources of information in addition
to commerical information about products.
Table 4.2.7 Examples of companies that supply biological
control products and services
Products or services
Agrobacterium radiobacter
Ampelomyces quisqualis
Bacillus spp.
Beauveria spp.
Burkholderia cepacia
Candida oleophila
Coniothyrium minitans
Fusarium spp.
Gliocladium spp.
Examples of companies (product name)
AgBioChem Inc, USA (Galltrol-A)
Bio-Care Technology Pty Ltd, Australia (Nogall, Diegall)
New BioProducts Inc, USA (Norbac 84C)
Ecogen Inc, USA (AQ10)
Ecogen Inc, Israel (AQ10)
AgraQuest Inc, USA (Serenade)
Bayer Vital GmbH, Germany (FZB24)
Gustafson Inc, USA (Kodiak, Epic)
Helena Chemical Co, USA (System 3)
KFZB Biotechnik GmbH, Germany (Rhizo-Plus)
Lipha Tech, USA
Microbial Solutions Ltd, South Africa
Plant Health Care, USA
Rincon-Vitova Insectaries Inc, USA (Activate)
Minfeng Industrial Co, China (Miankangning)
Biological Control Products Pty Ltd, South Africa
CV Solanindo Duta Kencana, Indonesia
AgroSolutions, USA (Deny)
Ecogen Inc, Israel and USA (Aspire)
Bioved Ltd, Hungary (KONI)
Prophyta Biologischer Pflanzenschutz GmbH, Germany (Contans)
Agrifutur, Italy
ICC-SIAPA, CER, Italy
Natural Plant Protection, France (Fusaclean)
SIAPA, Italy (Biofox)
AgBio Development Inc, USA (PreStop, Primastop)
Harmony Farm Supply, USA (SoilGard)
Hyrdo-Gardens, USA (Gliomix)
Kemira Agro Oy, Finland (PreStop, Primastop)
continued
Gliocladium spp.
(continued)
Heterorhabditis sp.
Mycorrhizae mixtures, e.g.,
Glomus brasilianum,
Glomus clarum,
Gigaspora margarita
and others
Myrothecium spp.
Paecilomyces spp.
Phlebia spp.
Pseudomonas spp.
Steinernema spp.
Streptomyces spp.
Thermo-Trilogy, USA (SoilGard)
WR Grace & Co, USA
ARBICO, USA
BioLogic, USA
E-Nema, Germany (Nemagreen)
Green Spot Ltd, USA
Hydro-Gardens Inc, USA
ARBICO, USA (BioTerra Plus Mycorrhizae Inoculant; BioBlend
Root Dip, Power Organics)
BioOrganic Supply, USA
BioScientific, USA
BioTerra Technologies Inc, USA (BioTerraPlus Mycorrhizae
Inoculant)
EcoLife Corporation, USA
Green Releaf, USA
SouthPine Inc, USA
Abbott Laboratories, USA (DiTera)
BioPre, Netherlands
Kemira Agro Oy, Finland (Rotstop)
Hydro-Gardens Inc, USA (Rotstop)
BioGreen Technologies, USA (BioReleaf)
CCT Corporation, USA (Deny)
EcoScience Inc, USA (Bio-save)
EcoSoil, USA (BioJect system)
Green Releaf, USA
Mauri Foods, Australia (Conquer)
Minfeng Industrial Co, China (Miankangning)
Natural Plant Protection, France (PSSOL)
Plant Health Technologies, USA (BlightBan)
Soil Technologies Corp, USA (Intercept)
Sylvan Spawn Laboratory, USA (Conquer, Victus)
All Natural Pest Control Co, Canada
Apply Chem (Thailand) Ltd, Thailand
ARBICO, USA
BioLogic, USA
Green Spot Ltd, USA
Hyrdo-Gardens Inc, USA (Guardian nematodes)
Johnny’s Selected Seeds, USA
Nitron Industries Inc, USA
Thermo Trilogy, USA
AgBio Development Inc, USA (Mycostop)
Green Spot Ltd, USA
continued
47
Streptomyces spp.
(continued)
Trichoderma spp.
48
Other products and
microbial antagonists
(various formulations)
Harmony Farm Supply, USA
Kemira Agro Oy, Finland (Mycostop)
Peaceful Valley Farm Supply, USA
Rincon-Vitova Insecctaries Inc, USA;
San Jacinto, USA (Actinovate)
Abbott Laboratories, USA (Trichodex)
Agricola Mas Viader, Spain
Agrimm Technologies Ltd, New Zealand (Trichoflow-T,
Trichodowels, Trichopel, Trichoject, Trichoseal)
Al Baraka Farms Ltd, Jordan (Bio Cont-T)
Bio-Innovation AB, Sweden (Binab T)
Biotechnology Research Unit for Estate Crops, Indonesia
(Greemi-G)
BioWorks Inc, USA (Rootshield, Bio-Trek T-22G, T-22 Planter Box)
Borregaard and Reitzel, Denmark (Supresivit)
CV Solanindo Duta Kencana, Indonesia (Bio-Job T01)
De Ceuster Meststoffen nv, Belgium;
Fruitfed Supplies Ltd, New Zealand (Trichoflow-T)
FUNDASES Foundation, Colombia
Green Spot Ltd, USA
Grondortsmettingen DeCeuster nv, Belgium (Bio-Fungus)
Henry Doubleday Research Association Sales, UK
Jörgen Reitzel, Denmark
Makhteshim Chemical Works Ltd, Israel (Trichodex)
Makhteshim Ltd, USA (Trichodex)
Minfeng Industrial Co, China (Biocon-Tk)
Mycontrol Ltd, Israel (Trichoderma 2000)
NOCON SA de CV, Mexico (Control TL-2N)
Plant Health Care,USA
Wilbur Ellis, USA (Bio-Trek)
Abbott Laboratories, USA, Malaysia (DiTera)
ARBICO, USA
Arbolan-PHC, Spain
Asistec, Ecuador
Bioma Agro Ecology, Switzerland
Colegío de Posgraduados en Ciencias Agrícolas, Mexico
Consejo Nacional de Agroinsumos Bioracionales, Mexico
Eden BioScience, USA
Fenic Co Inc, USA (F-68 Plus)
Fruitfed Supplies Ltd, New Zealand (SC27)
continued
Other products and
microbial antagonists
(various formulations)
(continued)
Specialists and consultants
on the selection and use of
biological controls
Laverlam, Colombia
Megafarma SA de CV, Mexico
Min Feng Shi Ye Company, China
Mycor Plant, Spain
Natural Plant Protection, France (Phagus)
NOCON SA de CV, Mexico
Qingzhou Sheng Hua Zhi Pin Factory, China
Rincon-Vitova Insectaries Inc, USA
San Jacinto, USA (MicroGro)
Triton Umweltschutz GmbH, Germany
Biocontrol of Plant Diseases Laboratory, US Department of
Agriculture, USA
Biological Control Institute, Auburn University, USA
Bio-Integral Resource Center, USA
Consejo Nacional de Agroinsumos Bioracionales, Mexico
Cornell University, USA
EMBRAPA Biological Control Information System, Brazil
GTZ Integrated Pest Management project, Jordan
Indian Agricultural Research Institute, India
International Institute of Biological Control, Kenya, Malaysia and UK
International Mycological Institute, UK
International Organisation of Biological Control, Malaysia,
Trinidad & Tobago, France, UK, Pakistan, Kenya
National IPM Network, USA
PBG Research Station for Floriculture and Glasshouse Vegetables,
Netherlands
University of California IPM Program, USA
Dr Keith Davis, Rothamstead Experimental Station, UK
Dr Mahomed Eddauodi, Institut National de la Recherche
Agronomique, Morocco
Dr Ronald Ferrera-Cerrato, Instituto de Recursos Naturales,
Mexico
Dr D Fravel, Biocontrol of Plant Diseases Laboratory, USDA, USA
Dr Roberto García Espinosa, Colegio de Postgraduados en
Ciencias Agricolas IFÍT, Mexico
Dr Robert Hill, HortResearch, New Zealand
Prof Harry Hoitink, Department of Plant Pathology, Ohio State
University, USA
Dr TA Jackson, AgResearch, New Zealand
Dr Joseph Kloepper, University of Auburn, USA
Dr Robert Linderman, Horticultural Crops Research Laboratory,
USDA-ARS, USA
continued
49
on the selection and use of
biological controls
(continued)
Dr Gerhard Lung, Institute of Phytomedicine, University of
Hohenheim, Germany
Dr Yitzhak Spiegel, Agricultural University, Israel
Prof Alison Stewart, Lincoln University, New Zealand
Prof Tang Wenhau, China Agricultural University, China
Prof Gerhard Wolf, Institut für Pflanzenpathologie, Germany
Note: Contact information for these companies is provided in Annex 6.
50
Advantages
Fumigants generally control a relatively
wide range of pests.
Fumigants and pesticides can be as
effective as MB, if several techniques are
combined.
Some products are widely used, so
materials and information are
accessible.
Application methods, equipment and
pest control approaches are more akin to
MB fumigation than are other types of
alternatives.
Disadvantages
Most products are toxic to humans and
non-target organisms.
Many leave residues or breakdown products in water, air, soil, wildlife and/or
crops, thus leading to concerns about
environmental polution.
Correct application techniques vary from
product to product and are very important for efficacy.
Products are not registered in some
countries, restricting availability.
Many require waiting periods longer
than MB.
Use requires safety equipment and compliance with safety restrictions.
Fumigants are volatile chemicals that exist as
gases or are converted into gases under typical field conditions. In contrast to other
chemical products, which are normally active
in solid or liquid form, fumigants move
through the soil principally as a gas or
vapour.
Both types of products control pests because
they are highly toxic to pests or because they
generate toxic substances. To be effective
they have to be present in sufficient concentrations to kill the target pests. Alternative
fumigants and other chemical products do
not kill the same wide range of pests as MB.
Therefore, they are best used with other
treatments or practices and/or employed
selectively within an IPM system.
Depending on the formulation, chemicals can
be injected, sprayed on the soil surface,
mechanically incorporated or distributed via
irrigation pipes. Products to control nematodes are normally applied before planting, in
the case of fumigants, or at the time of
planting, in the case of pesticides. To prevent
re-contamination of soil, hygienic practices,
such as cleaning equipment before moving it
and avoiding infected seeds and contaminated irrigation water, should be followed.
Fumigants are often supplied in liquid form
and require a minimum temperature of about
5 to 7°C. They include two groups:
True fumigants, such as 1,3-dichloropropene and chloropicrin, which are
volatile and able to move through the
soil airspaces as gases or vapours.
“Non-true” fumigants, such as metam
sodium and dazomet, which act more
like contact pesticides.
For non-true fumigants, water is very important in moving the chemical through the soil
to target pests. So in general soil should be
quite moist when applying non-true fumigants and rather dry when applying true
fumigants (Hafez 1999). True fumigants are
often described as better nematicides than
non-true fumigants, but non-true fumigants
can be effective nematicides if applied in
ways that ensure they reach target pests.
Most are not effective against weed seeds
4.3 Fumigants and
other chemical
products
51
but can control weeds if they are germinated
by irrigation prior to the fumigation.
Table 4.3.1 compares the characteristics of
some major fumigants. Table 4.3.2 shows the
categories of pests controlled by fumigants
and pesticides. Fumigants registered in some
or many countries include the following:
52
Chloropicrin or trichloronitromethane is
a liquid, which is injected into the soil,
typically to a depth of 15 to 28 cm. The
soil is subsequently covered with plastic
or sealed. It diffuses well through soil
but needs to be combined with other
techniques to fully control weeds and
nematodes. The acute toxicity and noxious smell of chloropicrin may limit its
use in some areas.
Dazomet’s primary ingredient is tetrahydro-3,5-dimethyl-2H-1,3,5-thiadiazine-2thione. It is registered or approved for
use in many countries and formulated as
a solid material in granular form, making
it easier to handle than other fumigants.
It is generally incorporated into the soil
by roto-tilling. To aid distribution of
dazomet, soil needs to be prepared prior
to application, finely cultivated, above
Table 4.3.1 Comparison of technical characteristics of selected fumigants
Physical
Active
Fumigant form
ingredient
1,3-D
Liquid and 1,3-dichloroemulsion
propene
Application Application Time before
method
rates
planting
Injected into soil, 100 - 620
About 7-45
then sealed or
L/ha
days before
covered with
planting
sheets; or via
drip irrigation
ChloroColourless Trichloronitro- Injected into soil, 165 - 560
More than 14
picrin
liquid
methane
covered with
kg/ha
days before
plastic; or via
planting
drip irrigation
Dazomet Granules
TetrahydroMechanical
190 - 590
10 - 60 days
3,5,-dimethyl- distribution in
kg/ha
before
2H-1,3,5soil
planting
thiadiazine-2thione
(produces MITC)
MB
Gas
Methyl
Injected into soil 100 - 975
About 7 - 14
bromide
or released on
kg/ha
days before
soil surface,
planting
under sheets
Metam
Liquid
Sodium
Applied on
375 - 700
About 14 - 50
sodium
methyl-dithio- soil, injected
L/ha
days before
carbamate
or via drip
planting
(produces
inrrigation
MITC)
Comments
Soil temp
5 - 25°C; at
least 10 15°C in
wetter soils
Optimum
soil temp
15 - 30˚C
Not suitable
for soil temp
below 6°C;
soil must not
be too wet or
too dry
Optimum soil
temp 5 25°C
Efficacy depends on
application
method. Soil
temp 5 - 32°C;
moisture at
least 50 - 75%
of field
capacity
10°C and moist; soil covering is not necessary. Dazomet generates a fumigant
gas called methyl isothiocyanate (MITC)
and other fumigant breakdown products, such as carbon bisulphide and
formaldehyde (MBTOC 1994). The soil
persistence of these is influenced by
temperature and moisture. If application
conditions are sub-optimal, such as cool
and wet, a longer waiting period before
planting crops may be necessary to avoid
phytotoxicity (toxicity to crops).
Metam sodium consists of sodium
methyl-dithiocarbamate, which generates MITC in the soil. Formulated as a
liquid, it may be applied to the soil by
injection or drip irrigation or sprayed
onto the soil surface prior to tilling. The
soil must be prepared and free from
clods before application. Metam sodium
does not distribute easily in the soil and
can give variable pest control depending
on soil temperature, texture, organic
matter, moisture, pH and distribution.
Water is essential for good movement in
the soil. With improved application techniques and better surface sealing,
metam sodium can give results equal to
MB fumigation (MBTOC 1998). It can be
combined with solarisation or other pesticides for greater efficacy. Metam sodium is registered in many countries and
has been used for more than four
decades in California USA for the production of tomato, strawberry and
pepper crops.
1,3-dichloropropene (1,3-D) is a halogenated hydrocarbon. It is formulated as
a liquid and injected into soil, followed
by sealing of the soil surface with a
roller, water or plastic to trap the gas.
Newer formulations can be applied via
drip irrigation pipes under impermeable
plastic sheets. The soil may be moist
before application and the temperature
should be at least 10°C. The toxicological profile of 1,3-D may limit its use in
some areas.
Methyl isothiocyanate (MITC) is a liquid that is injected into soil. It is mostly
used in combination with 1,3-D to
enhance nematode control. A waiting
period of up to eight weeks may be
Table 4.3.2 Efficacy of fumigants and pesticides
Fungal
Pathogens
1,3-D
Chloropicrin
Dazomet
MB
Metam sodium
MITC
Fungicides
Herbicides
Insecticides
Nematicides
++
++++
+++
+++
+++
+++
+++
Nematodes
++++
+++
+++
+++
+++
+++
Soil
Insects
Weeds
Bacteria
+++
+++
+++
+++
+++
+++
++
++
+++
+++
+++
+++
++
++++
+++
+++
++
++
+++
+++
+++
Adapted : Porter 1999
Key: MITC-methylisothiocyanate 1,3-D-1,3-dichloropropene
++++ high degree of pest control +++ good control ++ some control + little control
required for MITC and MITC-generators,
such as metam sodium and dazomet.
Problems with product stability and corrosion have limited the use and distribution of MITC (MBTOC 1994).
53
Table 4.3.3 Examples of commercial use of fumigants
54
Chemical
Metam sodium
Crop
Cucurbits (cucumber, melon, etc.)
Metam sodium
Metam sodium
Strawberries
Open field tomatoes and peppers
Dazomet
Dazomet
Dazomet
Chloropicrin
1,3- dichloropropene
Strawberries
Tobacco seedlings
Cucurbits, tomatoes
Stone fruit
Metam sodium +
Cut flowers, flower bulbs
Examples of countries
Costa Rica, Egypt, Jordan,
Mexico, Morocco
Netherlands, Morocco, Spain
Australia, Costa Rica, Egypt,
Mexico, Morocco, Spain,
Zimbabwe
Europe, Japan
Netherlands, Spain
Brazil, USA
Japan, Zimbabwe
Spain, USA
Costa Rica, Honduras, Italy,
Japan, Mexico, Spain, USA
Netherlands
Mixtures of soil fumigants provide a
spectrum of pest control similar to MB.
Mixtures of 1,3-D and chloropicrin, for
example, are registered in some regions.
Soil may be pre-irrigated to stimulate
nematode development to active forms
and then allowed to become fairly dry
by the time the fumigant product is
applied. The liquid is often applied
mechanically by soil injection to a depth
of about 46 cm, with the soil surface
sealed. The soil should usually be left
undisturbed for at least 7 days and
planting should be delayed for 21 days
or more if conditions have been cold
and wet.
The efficacy of fumigants depends greatly on
the preparation and application method,
because many factors influence efficacy,
including the pest species, degree of infestation, type of fumigant, soil preparation, soil
type, pH, organic matter, presence of crop
residues, soil depth, soil temperature, application rate and application method. Soil pests
should be identified before selecting the
appropriate fumigant and co-treatments.
Good soil preparation (e.g., producing a fine
tilth) is normally important for helping fumigants to diffuse through the soil and reach
the pests. Finer soil textures with a high percentage of silt and clay have smaller pore
sizes, and this characteristic tends to block
the movement of fumigants. So these soils
generally require higher application rates.
Debris from the previous crop may harbour
pests and should be chopped up and incorporated into the top 10 cm of soil and
allowed to decompose before fumigation.
Fumigants are generally most effective when
the soil temperature is 21 to 27°C at a depth
of 20 cm, although fumigation can be carried
out when soil temperatures are 7 to 30°C at
20 cm depth (Hafez 1999).
All fumigants and pesticides are normally
required to carry instructions for application
methods and safety precautions, and these
instructions should be followed in all cases.
In general, deep placement of a fumigant in
the soil (e.g. injecting it to 38 to 46 cm
depth) gives better pest control than with
shallow placement (e.g. 15 to 23 cm depth).
A number of factors influence the rate at
which fumigants become active. For example,
clay soils tend to slow the conversion of 1,3D with chloropicrin to the gas phase, while
they increase the rate at which metam sodium is converted to MITC. A higher soil pH
and available copper, iron or manganese in
the soil can speed up the conversion of
metam sodium to MITC. Raised soil temperatures also increase the rate of conversion of
metam sodium to MITC and the conversion
of 1,3-D + chloropicrin to the gas phase
(Hafez 1999).
Pesticide products
Pesticide products are chemicals with toxic
properties. They are available as liquids, granules or powders. Their modes of action vary;
for example, some kill by contact and others
by systemic action. They tend to be effective
against specific sub-groups or groups of
pests. Some control a wide range of species,
while others control a very limited range, so
soil pests must be identified before appropriate products can be selected. The names of
the main groups of pesticides indicate the
types of pests that they control:
Nematicides control nematodes.
Current uses
Both fumigants and non-fumigant pesticides
are used commercially. The fumigant metam
sodium is used in many countries, including
Israel, Italy, Morocco, Spain, southern France
and USA, while dazomet is used in regions
such as Argentina, Australia, Europe and
Japan (MBTOC 1998). Mixtures of 1,3dichloropropene with methylisothiocyanate
and 1,3-dichloropropene with chloropicrin
have been used for many years on a variety
of crops in North America (MBTOC 1994).
Table 4.3.3 provides more examples of the
commercial use of fumigants.
Some potential fumigants are being examined in trials, including:
Methyl iodide.
Ozone.
Sodium tetrathiocarbonate.
Anhydrous ammonia.
Furfuraldehyde.
Material inputs
Fumigant or pesticide products.
Equipment for injecting, spreading or
distributing the products into soil.
Fungicides control fungi.
Equipment to seal the soil surface or
plastic sheets to cover the soil.
Herbicides control weeds.
Safety equipment.
Insecticides control insects.
These groups are not discussed in detail,
because the available pesticide products vary
greatly from country to country, depending
on the approved formulations. Relevant information can be obtained from agricultural
suppliers and the government departments
responsible for pesticide registration.
Fumigants and pesticides should only be
used where government registration of
the chemical has been given for the specific crop/situation in question. This will
vary markedly from one country to the
next, and even from state to state in
some countries. To determine the registration status and permitted uses of
products, contact the national or state
Likewise, applying the fumigant to the entire
field area is more effective than placing it
only along the rows where crops will be
planted.
55
Table 4.3.4 Examples of yields from fumigants and pesticides
56
Yields from
chemical treatments
4.3 - 4.4 kg/m2
4.1 kg/ m2
Yields from MB
4.5 - 4.8 kg/ m2
4.5 - 4.8 kg/ m2
Crop/Region
Tomatoes in Florida
Treatment
1,3-D + oxamyl (trial)
Tomatoes in Florida
dazomet + pebulate
herbicide (trial)
Tomatoes in Florida
metam sodium +
chloropicrin + pebulate
herbicide (trials, various rates)
33.0 - 42.0 kg/plot
44.5 kg/plot
Tomatoes in Florida
1,3-D + pebulate herbicide
(trial, various rates)
35.7 - 45.2 kg/plot
44.5 kg/plot
Tomatoes Olympic
cultivar
metam sodium or 1,3-D
with chloropicrin
86.4 t/ha
87.1 t/ha
Tomatoes Sunny
cultivar
metam sodium or
1,3-D with chloropicrin
70.5 t/ha
67.5 t/ha
Cucurbits in Spain
metam sodium (trials)
1,928 kg/plot
1,991 kg/plot
Strawberries in Spain
chloropicrin (trials)
796 g/plant
768 g/plant
Strawberries in Spain
1,3-D + chloropicrin (trials)
779 g/plant
768 g/plant
Strawberries in Florida
1,3-D + chloropicrin (trials)
3,333 - 3,620 flats/ha
3,511 - 4,131
flats/ha
Strawberries in Florida
chloropicrin (trials)
3,311 - 4,040 flats/ha
3,511 - 4,131
flats/ha
Strawberries in
California
dazomet + chloropicrin
+ 1,3-D
4.4 kg/plot (av.)
4.6 kg/plot (av.)
Compiled from: MBTOC 1998, Dickson et al 1995, Dickson et al 1998, Locascio et al 1999, López-Aranda
1999, McGovern 1994, Sanz et al 1998, Webb 1998
authority responsible for pesticide registration, which is often located in the
Ministry of Agriculture or Health.
Know-how is important for proper application of the products, since efficacy
depends greatly on good distribution in
the soil. Most fumigants need a particular soil temperature range, soil texture
and moisture level for even distribution.
Fumigants and pesticides require knowledge of safety measures.
Pests controlled
Fumigants and other pesticides vary in the
range and efficacy with which they kill pests.
In general, they do not kill as wide a range of
pests as MB, so they are best used with other
treatments as part of an IPM system. Table
4.3.2 indicates the main pest groups controlled by available chemicals:
Chloropicrin is highly effective for the
control of soil-borne fungi, about 20
times more effective than MB in this
respect (Desmarchelier 1998). It controls
germinated weeds and some arthropods.
It is a weak nematicide and does not kill
dormant or non-germinating weed seeds
(MBTOC 1998).
Dazomet provides control of soilborne fungi, some weeds and certain
nematodes.
1,3-dichloropropene provides effective
control of nematodes but little control of
diseases and weeds (Johnson and
Mixtures of 1,3-dichlorpropene and
chloropicrin are effective in controlling
nematodes, deep-rooted perennial
weeds and soil-borne insects.
MITC is highly effective for controlling a
wide range of soil-borne fungi, arthropods, some weeds and limited species of
nematode species (MBTOC 1998).
Metam sodium provides effective control of fungal pathogens, arthropods,
certain weeds and a limited number of
nematode species (MBTOC 1998).
Nematicides control nematodes or specific types of nematodes, and some soil
insects.
Fungicides control specific fungi or
groups of fungi.
Herbicides can control a narrow or
wide range of weeds, depending on the
specific product.
As mentioned previously, efficacy can be
affected greatly by soil type, soil preparation
and application methods. The efficacy of
fumigants against nematodes and weeds
can be improved by pre-irrigation to encourage nematode development and weed
germination.
Additional information on the types of pests
that specific products will control can be
obtained from approved product labels and
extension authorities. Regional information is
also available on extension websites, such as
the University of California Pest Managment
Guidelines (see list of websites included in
Annex 7).
Yields can be lower than, equal to, or higher
than those achieved using MB, depending on
the chemical and application method. Table
4.3.4 provides some examples of yields.
Fumigants and pesticides can be used for the
horticultural crops for which they are registered in a country or state. It is feasible to use
them in open fields, greenhouses, tunnels,
seedbeds, nurseries. However, the permitted
applications will vary greatly from country to
country. They can be used in single and double-cropping systems.
Suitable climates and soil types
Most fumigants work within certain temperature ranges and require a minimum of about
5 - 7°C. Some chemicals are not effective if
the climate or soil is too wet or too dry.
Efficacy also varies with the soil type, particle
size, pH and percentage of organic matter.
Lighter soils generally require lower fumigant
application rates, while heavier soils generally
require higher application rates. Additional
information on appropriate conditions can be
obtained from product labels or extension
agencies.
Fumigants and pesticides are designed to be
toxic to living organisms. The main hazard to
field workers is during mixing and handling,
but they can also drift to neighbouring farms
and communities, posing risks to human
health, crops and wildlife. Fumigants and
some pesticides are acutely toxic, i.e. exposure to sufficient concentrations can rapidly
produce symptoms of poisoning or ill health.
Others may be associated with chronic toxicity, i.e. symptoms of ill health may develop a
long time after exposure has occurred. Annex
3 gives data sheets for the major fumigants.
Safety equipment and training is necessary
for users and for the protection of local communities. All safety instructions given by
product labels and health authorities must be
followed.
Feldmesser 1987, Rodríguez-Kábana et
al 1977).
57
Many fumigants and pesticides leave undesirable residues and metabolites in air, soil,
crops and food. Some residues can move into
surface or groundwater, and some persist in
the environment for a long time and may
accumulate in the tissues of living organisms.
Phytotoxicity
58
Fumigants often leave phytotoxic residues,
but this problem is normally overcome with a
waiting period of about two to three weeks
or longer before planting.
Fumigants generally kill many beneficial
organisms in the soil, while pesticides kill certain groups of organisms. For example, fungicides often kill or suppress beneficial fungi.
Ozone depletion
Commercially available fumigants such as
metam sodium and 1,3-D are not ODS.
Methyl iodide has a low ODP.
consumption
As with MB, energy is used in the production,
transportation, use and disposal of fumigants
and pesticides and related equipment, such
as application machinery and plastic sheets.
Some fumigants and pesticides are manufactured from non-renewable resources such as
oil. After use, chemical residues do not disappear but are converted into metabolites and
other residues, some of which are harmful to
wildlife and the environment. Empty containers contain toxic residues and pose a special
waste problem, which some regions are
addressing with waste collection
programmes.
Consumers have concerns about undesirable
pesticide residues in food, water and the
environment. Purchasing companies generally
accept the use of fumigants and pesticides
where they meet the regulatory requirements
for application and residues. However, some
major supermarkets are demanding minimal
residues and reduced reliance on pesticides.
Registration and regulatory restrictions
Fumigants and other pesticides have to be
registered (approved and permitted) by
national and/or state pesticide regulation
authorities, and regulation may restrict sale,
use and disposal. Authorities normally specify
the crops for which particular products can
be used, the maximum application rates, and
other conditions that may limit their use.
To find out whether a fumigant or pesticide is
registered for your crop/application, contact the
pesticide registration authority at the appropriate national or state level. Agrochemical suppliers can also provide information on the
regulatory status of chemicals, but the information may not be up to date or reliable.
The sale of pesticides is also restricted by a
number of international agreements. An
international code of practice developed by
the Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations provides guidelines for the
marketing and use of pesticides. Certain pesticides are subject to the Rotterdam
Convention, an international agreement that
requires Prior Informed Consent or PIC procedures to be followed before import. A new
agreement will limit specific Persistent
Organic Pollutants (POPs); international trade
and disposal of pesticides is subject to the
Basel Convention on hazardous wastes.
Examples of chemical costs per hectare in the
USA (UCD Dept Nematology 1999, EPA
1997):
MB with plastic sheets
MB without sheets
Chloropicrin
Dazomet
1,3-dichloropropene
Metam sodium
Nematicides
US$ 1,410 - 2,985
US$ 690 - 1,000
US$ 1,600 - 2,965
US$ 1,792 - 2,990
US$ 250 - 1,235
US$ 370 - 1,000
US$ 125 - 615
In practice, overall costs may be higher than
with MB, because several treatments or combinations are often required to replace MB.
Where specially adapted machinery is necessary, capital costs will be higher. Labour costs
vary and can be higher than MB if additional
soil preparation is necessary.
system
Which registered fumigants or pesticides
would control those specific pests?
What other components would need to
be used in an IPM system?
What is the optimal application method
and equipment?
What safety equipment and/or training is
required?
Will the residues fall within regulatory
and market requirements?
What is the cost and profitability of the
system compared to other options?
Availability
Some fumigants and a range of non-fumigant pesticides are available in most countries. The precise list will vary from one
country or state to the next, depending on
regulatory and marketing policies.
Table 4.3.5 lists manufacturers of major fumigants and gives examples of specialists. A
detailed list is not provided, because the
available products vary so greatly from one
country to the next. In most cases your local
agricultural supplier can provide information
about products available locally, while permitted uses can be checked with the pesticide
registration authority at the national or state
level. See Annex 6 for an alphabetical listing
of suppliers, specialists and experts. See
also Annex 5 and Annex 7 for additional
information resources.
Table 4.3.5 Examples of fumigants producers and specialists
Products and services
1,3-dichloropropene
Chloropicrin
Dazomet
Metam sodium
Nematicides
Companies
DowAgroScience, USA
Refer to local agrochemicals suppliers
Great Lakes Chemical Corp, USA
BASF, Germany
Amvac Chemical Corp, USA
Agriphyto, France
Asociación Colombiana de Exortadores de Flores (ASO
COLFLORES) Colombia
Danish Institute of Agricultural Science, Denmark
continued
Cost considerations
59
(continued)
60
Companies
Department of Nematolody, University of California at Davis,
USA – for nematode management information
DLV Advisory Service, Netherlands
FMC Foret Grupo Agroquimicos, Spain
PBG Research Station for Floriculture and Glasshouse
Vegetables, Netherlands
Statewide Integrated Pest Managment Project, University of
California, USA – for management of a wide range of pests
and diseases
Dr Antonio Bello and colleagues, CCMA, CSIC, Spain
Dr Mohamed Besri, Institut Agronomique et Vétérinaire
Hassan II, Morocco
Dr William Carey, Auburn University, USA
Dr G Cartia, Universita di Reggio Calabria, Italy
Mr Dermot Cassidy, Geest, South Africa
Dr Vincent Cebolla, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones
Agrarias, Spain
Dr Dan Chellemi, USDA-ARS, USA
Dr Don Dickson, University of Florida, USA
Dr John M Duniway, University of California, USA
Dr Clyde Elmore, Weed Science Program, University of
California, USA
Dr J Fresno, INIA, Spain (vineyards)
Dr Abraham Gamliel, Institute of Agricultural Engineering, Israel
Dr A López García, FECOM, Spain
Dr James Gilreath, IFAS, University of Florida, USA
Prof M Lodovica Gullino, University of Turin, Italy
Dr A Minuto, University of Turin, Italy
Dr Saad Hafez, University of Idaho, USA
Dr Seizo Horiuchi, National Research Institute of Vegetables,
Ornamental Plants & Tea, MAFF, Japan
Dr Steven Fennimore, Department of Vegetable Crops,
University of California, USA (weeds)
Prof Jaacov Katan, Hebrew University, Israel
Dr Nancy Kokalis-Burelle, Horticultural Research Laboratory,
USDA-ARS, USA
Dr Kirk Larson, University of California, USA
Dr Michael McKenry, University of California, USA
Dr Robert McSorley, Department of Nematology and
Entomology, USA
Dr Peter Ooi, FAO Integrated Pest Control Intercountry
Programme, Philippines
Ms Marta Pizano, Hortitecnia, Colombia (cut flowers)
Dr Ian Porter, Knoxfield Research Station, Australia
Dr Rodrigo Rodríguez-Kábana, Univeristy of Auburn, USA
Dr Lim Guan Soon, International Institute of Biological
Control, Malaysia
Dr Donald Sumner, Dept. Plant Pathology, University of
Georgia, USA
Dr J Tello, Dpto Biología, University of Almería, Spain
Dr Thomas Trout, USDA-ARS, USA
Dr Husein Ajwa, USDA-ARSUSA
Mr Peter Wilkinson, Xylocopa, Zimbabwe
Note: Contact information for these producers and specialists is provided in Annex 6.
Advantages
Soil amendments stimulate the activity
of beneficial soil organisms and lead to
other soil changes that directly or indirectly reduce or suppress pests.
Pest suppression can continue for several
seasons.
Organic matter improves soil texture,
providing crop nutrients and reducing
fertiliser costs.
Raw materials that are suitable as soil
amendments are often non-toxic and do
not require special safety training.
A wide range of waste materials can be
used as amendments.
Disadvantages
Amendments suppress specific
pathogens and nematodes and do not
control weeds and insects, so they need
to be combined with other techniques.
Amendments are normally applied in
large quantities.
Use may be limited to localities where
materials are readily available, otherwise
transport costs may be unacceptable.
It is necessary to have quality controls
and to avoid materials that may be contaminated with undesirable components
such as heavy metals or weed seeds.
Know-how is required for effective use;
efficacy varies with the type of soil and
type of amendment.
Soil amendments are organic materials, such
as crop residues and waste materials from
forestry and food processing industries.
These amendments decompose when they
are added to soil, supporting and promoting
the activity of beneficial soil microorganisms
that suppress certain pathogenic fungi and
nematodes.
While MB kills pathogens very quickly,
amendments and composts typically suppress
or eradicate pathogens slowly over a long
period of time (Cohen et al 1998, De Ceuster
and Hoitink 1999). Amendments, therefore,
must be applied well before pathogens reach
populations capable of causing losses, and
this requires more management. Use of soil
Table 4.4.1 Mechanisms in the control of Verticillium dahliae in soil
following the addition of nitrogen-rich amendments
Factor
Minimum lethal concentration
(24 hours)
Location
Type of amendment
NH3 mechanism
> 170 ppm (N) in solution
HNO2 mechanism
> 2ppm (N) in solution
Soil solution or atmosphere
Soil solution or gas
Organic-N products (> 8% N),
urea, anhydrous NH3
Organic-N products, fertiliser N (not NO3)
Rate of application
> 1,600 kg N/ha or > 20 t/ha
organic-N product
> 400 kg N/ha or > 20 kg
NO2---N/ha
Determining soil properties
Organic matter
pH < 6.0, poor acid buffering
ability, rapid nitrification
Time after amendment
4 - 14 days
2 - 6 weeks
Phytotoxicity
Planting delayed 1 - 2 months
Not evident
Source: Tenuta and Lazarovits 1999
4.4 Soil amendments
and compost
61
amendments requires careful monitoring for
particular pest problems, with greater attention to pest biology. To replace MB, amendments generally need to be used with other
control techniques as part of an IPM system.
62
Amendments are incorporated into the soil in
substantial quantities, normally in excess of
30 t/ha. Use of locally available waste materials can keep transport costs at an acceptable
level. Soil amendments should be derived
from materials that are free from plant pests
and pathogens, or they should be composted
at temperatures that kill pathogens. They
must also be free from contaminants that
could cause phototoxicity (toxicity to plants)
or undesirable food residues.
Substances that can be used as soil amendments include the following:
Compost made from a wide variety of
waste materials, e.g. crop residues and
animal manure.
Composted sewage sludge, if it is free
from pathogenic organisms and heavy
metals.
Mushroom industry waste.
Animal manures and wastes from meat,
dairy and poultry production.
Green manures, i.e. crops that are specially grown and incorporated into the
soil while they are still green.
Oil cakes or oilseed meals such as cottonseed meal or soy meal.
By-products from food processing, e.g.
fruit skin, pulp and culls.
By-products from fish processing, e.g.
fishmeal, fish emulsion, shellfish waste,
and chitin from the pulverised shells of
crabs and lobsters.
By-products from the forest and paper
industries, e.g. waste wood, bark, sawdust and paper mill digests.
When amendments are added to soil, they
are decomposed by microorganisms. This
stimulates microbial activity and increases the
total number of soil fungi and bacteria by
100- to 1000-fold, while decreasing the number of pathogens (Lazarovits et al 1997, Anon
1997). The chemical composition and physical
properties of the amendments determine the
types of microorganisms involved in decomposition and hence their efficacy.
Certain nitrogen-rich amendments are
capable of being converted in the soil to
nitrate or yielding nitrous acid directly. Such
amendments can kill the microsclerotia of
Verticillium dahliae and other soil-borne
pathogens, providing an effective broad-spectrum alternative to MB for certain soils
(Tenuta and Lazarovits 1999). Examples of
these amendments include poultry manure,
soy meal and feather meal. Soil pH values
above 8.5 are required for the ammonia
mechanism, while pH values below 5.5 are
required for the nitrous acid mechanism
(Tenuta and Lazarovits 1999). The more successful nitrogen-rich amendments are reported to be ones that raise soil pH temporarily
above 8.5 for a few weeks, allowing ammonia to be effective, and then falling back to a
pH below 5.5, allowing the action of nitrous
acid for 2 to 6 weeks (Table 4.4.1).
Composting of organic materials speeds up
the rate at which they decompose. Compost,
used for centuries to maintain plant health
(Hoitink et al 1997), can be made from many
types of organic waste, provided the wastes
are free from harmful contaminants or diseased crop residues. Each type of compost
has its own characteristics.
A compost pile, typically several metres wide,
is made of layers of crop residues and animal
manure, kept slightly moist but not wet. The
site must be protected from sun and windblown seeds. Raw organic material is converted into compost, decomposed by the action
of bacteria and fungi. Temperatures in the
centre of the pile can reach 60 to 70°C,
Compost is widely used in the Colombian cut
flower industry and is typically made in four
to five months. Production time is reduced by
several practices:
Cutting raw materials in small pieces
(< 4 cm long).
Selecting raw materials to provide a
carbon/nitrogen ratio of about 30:1.
Adding material containing beneficial
microorganisms, such as old compost
or manure.
Controlling pH and moisture.
Turning the pile frequently.
Disease-suppressive compost is also used
by some cut flower producers in Colombia,
where a microbial broth is made on-farm and
added to the compost pile to increase the
variety and numbers of beneficial soil
microorganisms. The resulting compost helps
to suppress many soil-borne pathogens, provides nutrients and improves soil texture.
A number of factors must be controlled for
consistent effects. These include the composition of the organic matter; the type of
composting process, if any; the stability or
maturity of the material; available plant nutrients; application rates; and time of application. Some important issues to consider are
outlined below:
Large quantities of amendments are
required. This makes them expensive,
unless cheap or waste materials are
available locally.
Because the effectiveness of nitrogenrich amendments varies from one soil to
another, amendments can give inconsistent control of pathogens from field to
field. Scientists in Ontario have developed a pre-application soil test that will
test the suitability of a specific amendment for the field (Tenuta and Lazarovits
1999).
The composition and quality of raw
materials varies greatly and must be
managed with quality control systems.
Amendments and composts prepared
from manures may contain high
amounts of sodium and chlorides.
Application of such materials well ahead
Table 4.4.2 Examples of commercial use of soil amendments
(normally used with other techniques)
Crops
Tomatoes
Tomatoes, cucurbits
Watermelons
Cut flowers
Cut flowers
Nurseries
Vineyards
Various crops
Soil amendments
Cattle manure
Farm-made compost
Manure
Farm-made compost from mixed wastes
Farm-made compost
Compost from municipal waste
Manure
Various soil amendments
Morocco
Egypt
Mexico
Mexico
Colombia
USA (California)
Spain
Many countries
Compiled from: MBTOC 1998, Batchelor 1999
killing some weed seeds and pathogens.
Pests in cooler sections of the pile are not
killed, but many pathogens will be killed if
the compost is turned or mixed frequently
and thoroughly. Turning also prevents the
development of undesirable ‘sour’ compost
and offensive odours. Composting time can
vary from three weeks to many months,
depending on the method.
63
of planting time, however, can alleviate
problems with these materials.
The level of plant nutrients may vary
from batch to batch, so crop fertilisers
must be adjusted to compensate.
Excessive nitrogen can be a problem
with manures, while nitrogen deficiency
is a danger with wood residues. In some
cases, amendments need to be diluted
by mixing with other types of
amendments.
64
The level of decomposition of amendments and composts affects pest control.
Fresh organic matter does not support
beneficial microorganisms, even when
inoculated with the best strains. High
concentrations of free nutrients, such as
glucose or amino acids, in fresh crop
residues repress the production of
enzymes required for beneficial organisms such as Trichoderma. Composts
must therefore be stabilised well enough
and colonised to the degree that they
support microbial activity (De Ceuster
and Hoitink 1999).
The variability of amendments and composts can make them difficult for farmers to use successfully, but this can be
addressed by introducing quality controls
on production and establishing guidelines for the use of specific formulations
(De Ceuster and Hoitink 1999).
In addition to suppressing pests, soil amendments provide the major advantages of
improving soil texture and structure and pro-
viding a range of nutrients for plants, which
can save fertiliser costs.
Current uses
Soil amendments were traditionally used as a
method of controlling soil-borne pests and
are now receiving renewed attention.
Compost, for example, has reduced or eliminated MB use in a number of large commercial nurseries in California (Quarles and
Grossman 1995). In Morocco, cattle manure
reduces the incidence of Fusarium and
Verticillium wilts in tomatoes (Besri 1997).
Other examples of commercial use of soil
amendments are provided in Table 4.4.2.
Biofumigation is another recently developed
alternative, employing specific types of
amendments that produce fumigant gases
when they decompose (Kirkegaard et al
1993, Mathiessen and Kirkegaard 1993, Bello
1998, Bello et al 1997, 1998 and 1999).
Brassica crop residues, for example, produce
volatile chemicals such as methyl isothiocyanate and phenethyl isothiocyanate
(Gamliel and Stapleton 1997). Biofumigation
stimulates soil microbial activity and increases
populations of nematodes that feed on bacteria or fungi and populations of benefical
predatory nematodes (MBTOC 1998).
Biofumigation is more effective when combined with solarisation, because the plastic
traps gases and raises soil temperatures (Bello
et al 1998). It has been used successfully in
the production of bananas, tomatoes, grapes,
melons, peppers and other vegetables (Bello
et al 1999, Sanz et al 1998).
Table 4.4.3 Comparison of yields from soil amendments
and other techniques versus MB — examples
Yields from soil amendments
Crop/country
combined with other techniques
Watermelons, Mexico
45 tonnes/hectare
Cut flowers, Mexico
10,800 stems/160 m2
Carnations, Colombia
10.5 bunches/ m2
Chrysanthemums (Fuji), Colombia
5.8 bunches/ m2
Yields from MB
20 tonnes/hectare
8,400 stems/160 m2
10.5 bunches/ m2
5.8 bunches/ m2
Compiled from: Batchelor 1999
Research on how amendments work in different types of soil is currently underway, and
improved understanding in this area could
increase efficacy and reduce application rates
and related costs.
Material inputs
Organic materials (30 - 100t/ha).
Transport for bringing material to the
farm and equipment for incorporating
amendments into the soil.
For biofumigation, plastic sheets laid
mechanically or by hand.
Local sources of cheap organic matter,
such as wastes or by-products.
Quality control to ensure that harmful
contaminants are avoided.
For compost: adequate space and wellaerated areas, careful sorting of residues
and regular turning and management.
Good management to ensure the
efficacy of disease-suppressive compost.
Know-how, training and careful
management.
Pests controlled
Soil amendments do not control weeds and
soil insects, but until the 1930s, organic
amendments consisting of animal and green
manures were among the principal methods
of controlling soil-borne diseases. The following are among the soil-borne fungi and
nematodes that can be controlled or suppressed by various types of soil amendments:
Blood or fishmeal incorporated into the
soil at 10 tonnes per acre has been
shown to completely inhibit Verticillium
infection in tomatoes (Anon 1997).
Poultry manure, urea, soy meal and
other amendments that can be convert-
ed to nitrate or HNO2 in the soil can kill
the microsclerotia of Verticillium dahliae
(Tenuta and Lazarovits 1999).
Composted softwood and hardwood
bark reduce pathogens such as Pythium
ultimum.
Composted bark amendments control
Pythium and Phytophthora root rots
most effectively in container media
(Hardy and Sivasithamparam 1991,
Ownley and Benson 1991); however the
physical and chemical properties of the
mixes must be ideal for this to occur.
A composted pine bark mix fortified
with Flavobacterium balustinum and
Trichoderma hamatum is very effective in
controlling Fusarium wilt of cyclamen
and Rhizoctonia diseases as well as
Pythium and Phytophthora root rots in
potted greenhouse crops (Krause et al
1997).
Rhizoctonia solani is not normally controlled in the first few weeks after applying amendments but can be controlled
by well-cured composts or by incorporating composts in the fields well ahead of
planting (Kuter et al 1988, Tuitert et al
1998).
Fusarium crown rot of Chinese yam is
suppressed in sandy soil amended with
composted larch bark, replacing MB if a
spray of benomyl is also applied to the
soil at planting (Sekiguchi 1977).
Chitin increases populations of beneficial
actinomycetes and other microorganisms
and suppresses some plant-parasitic
nematodes (MBTOC 1998, Chaney et al
1992).
Cattle manure application (>60t/ha) has
been shown to reduce incidence of
Fusarium and Verticillium wilts in tomato
in Morocco (Besri 1997).
Disease-suppressive compost used in
Colombia helps to suppress many soilborne pathogens in cut flower production (Batchelor 1999).
65
The action of amendments can be relatively
rapid. Nitrogen-rich amendments, for example, kill microsclerotia within 7 to 10 days (at
7 to 24°C) when the soil pH is high (Tenuta
and Lazarovits 1999).
66
Organic amendments need to be combined
with other techniques in order to give yields
equal to MB fumigation. Repeated trials in
nurseries producing Douglas fir and ponderosa pine in Oregon and Idaho USA found
that bare fallow with sawdust soil amendments resulted in seedling quality and quantity comparable to fumigation (USDA 1999).
Other examples of yields from soil amendments used in combination with other techniques are provided in Table 4.4.3.
Suitable crops
Soil amendments can be used for most horticultural crops, although some materials, such
as municipal compost, may be suitable only
for non-food crops. Amendments and compost can be used in open fields, greenhouses,
seedbeds and nurseries. They can be used for
single and double cropping.
The use of soil amendments is restricted to
climates and times of year when temperatures are conducive to biological activity. Soil
amendments can be used with many different types of soil, but some materials need to
be matched to specific types of soil. They
improve the texture of poor soils.
Soil amendments are not normally toxic in
themselves, although materials like sewage
sludge can contain organisms that are pathogenic to humans and undesirable for use with
crops. Certain amendment materials could
generate noxious substances if improperly
handled. There are no risks of toxicity if
amendments are selected and used properly.
Safety training is desirable for anyone handling animal wastes. Materials that contain or
generate contaminants must be avoided. For
example, sewage is not suitable as a soil
amendment if it contains heavy metals or
pathogenic microorganisms.
Provided soil amendments are properly selected, there will be no undesirable residues in
food or the environment.
Phytotoxicity
A waiting period of approximately two to
four weeks may be necessary before planting
crops. For certain types of amendments and
crops the waiting period may be substantially
longer. Compost must be produced under
quality control standards to exclude unsuitable raw materials, maintain aerobic conditions, and prevent the compost from
producing certain acids that can be toxic to
plants.
Soil amendments have a positive effect on
beneficial organisms.
Ozone depletion
Soil amendments are not ODS.
consumption
The energy use associated with transportation
of organic amendments can be minimised by
using local supplies.
Soil amendments normally come from renewable resources. Use of soil amendments does
not generate waste. On the contrary, it provides an opportunity to use waste materials
constructively.
Soil amendments are very acceptable to consumers because they are seen as natural
treatments. They are increasingly acceptable
to companies that purchase fresh produce,
provided that quality controls are used.
Soil amendments do not require registration
as pesticides. However, it is desirable that
health authorities place restrictions on the
types of materials that can be used as
amendments to prevent use of materials containing undesirable contaminants or dangerous microorganisms. The US California
Department of Food and Agriculture, for
example, regulates the manufacture, labeling
and marketing of amendments in the state.
system
What sources of clean, cheap, waste
organic materials are available locally?
Which available materials will control
these pests?
What amounts needs to be applied and
how?
What is the most effective time to apply
the amendments?
What other measures need to be taken
to control the pests?
Availability
Costs depend mainly on the source of
the amendment and its transportation.
To be cost-effective, soil amendments
generally need to be waste materials or
by-products from local sources.
Material costs can be similar to or
cheaper than MB if amendments are
waste products; the costs are likely to be
higher than those associated with MB if
amendments are specially manufactured.
Organic waste materials are available in
most areas.
Table 4.4.4 provides examples of suppliers
and specialists in soil amendments, composts
and biofumigation. See Annex 6 for an
Labour costs may be slightly higher for
incorporating organic amendments into
soil; a study in Spain found that labour for
biofumigation was US$ 584/ha compared
to $478/ha for MB (Bello et al 1999).
Table 4.4.4 Examples of companies that supply products and services
for soil amendments and compost
Soil amendments such as
nitrogen-rich materials,
chitin-protein products,
composts
Abonos Naturales Hnos Aguado SL, Spain
Agro-Shacam SL, Spain
ARBICO, USA
BioComp Inc, USA
continued
Cost considerations
67
Soil amendments such as
nitrogen-rich materials,
chitin-protein products,
composts
(continued)
68
Compost inoculants
Compost maturity test kit,
thermometers, etc.
Biofumigation products
and specialists
Specialists, advisory services
and consultants
Calmax, USA
Cántabra de Turba Coop Ltda, Spain
CETAP/Antonio Matos Ltda, Portugal
Comercial Projar SA, Spain
De Baat BV, Netherlands
DIREC-TS, Spain; Earthgro, USA
IFM, USA
Igene Biotechnology Inc, USA
Italoespañola de Correctores SL, Spain
Lombricompuestos de la Sabana, Colombia
Louisiana Pacific, USA
Megafarma SA de CV, Mexico
New Era Farm Service, USA
OM Scotts and Sons, USA (Hyponex)
Paygro, USA
Peaceful Valley, USA (ClandoSan)
Planet Natural, USA
Prodeasa, Spain
Pro-Gro Products Inc, USA
Reciorganic Ltda, Colombia
RECOMSA Reciclado de Compost SA, Spain
Rexius Forest Products, USA
Sonoma Composts, USA
Turbas GF, Spain
ARBICO, USA (Compost Tea, Bio-Dynamic Compost Inoculant)
NOCON SA de CV, Mexico
ARBICO, USA (Compost Thermometer)
Woods End Research Laboratory, USA (Solvita maturity test kit)
Wrightson Seeds, Australia and New Zealand (BQMulch,
BioQure)
Dr Abraham Gamliel, Institute of Agricultural Engineering,
Israel
Dr JA Kirkegaard, CSIRO, Australia
Dr James Stapleton, University of California, USA
Dr J Tello, Dpt Biología, University of Almería, Spain
Agrocol Ltda, Colombia
Agroshacam SL, Spain
Asociación Colombiana de Exortadores de Flores (ASO
COLFLORES) Colombia
Calmax, USA
Comité Jean Pain, Belgium
De Ceuster NV, Sint-Katelijne-Waver, Belgium
Demeter Guild, Darmstadt, Germany
continued
and consultants
(continued)
École Nationale Supérieure de Technologie, Université Cheikh
Anta Diop, Senegal
Ing. Sergio Trueba Castillo, NOCON SA, Mexico
Dr Michael Dann, Penn State University, USA
Dr Roberto García Espinosa, Colegio de Postgraduados en
Ciencias Agricolas IFÍT, Mexico
Ing. Zoraida Gutierrez, Cultivos Miramonte, Colombia
Prof Harry Hoitink, Department of Plant Pathology, Ohio State
Universiy, USA
Dr George Lazarovits, Pest Management Research Centre,
Canada
Dr Mario Tenuta, Pest Management Research Centre, Canada
Dr Frank Louws, North Carolina State University, USA
Dr Nahum Marban Mendoza, Universidad Autónoma de
Chapingo, Mexico
Dr Klaus Merckens, Egyptian Biodynamic Association, Egypt
Ing. Marta Pizano, Hortitecnia, Colombia
Dr Rodrigo Rodríguez-Kábana, Department of Plant Pathology,
Auburn University, USA
Dr Yitzhak Spiegel, Agricultural Research Organisation, Israel
Dr J Tello, Dpt Biología, University of Almería, Spain
Prof Tang Wenhau, China Agricultural University, China
Note: Contact information for these companies and specialists is provided in Annex 6.
69
4.5 Solarisation
Advantages
Relatively simple application procedures.
Cheaper than MB.
Non-toxic treatment; no health or safety
problems for users.
Registration is not required.
70
Promotes beneficial microorganisms in
the soil.
Tends to increase soil fertility; increases
soluble nitrogen (NO3, NH4), calcium,
magnesium and potassium.
Long-term beneficial effects on disease
control.
Disadvantages
Requires time for treatment, with land
typically taken out of production for four
to seven weeks.
Limited to regions with sufficient solar
radiation.
Does not control all soil-borne pests, so
may need to be combined with other
techniques.
Needs to be adapted to the local crop
production systems.
Like MB fumigation, it generates plastic
waste.
In solarisation treatments, transparent plastic
sheets are placed on the soil to trap heat
from the sun and raise the soil temperature
to levels that kill or suppress pests. The thin
sheets are made of UV-resistant polyethylene
about 30 to 100 microns thick. Treatment is
carried out prior to planting crops and can
also be applied as a post-plant treatment in
orchards and vineyards.
The soil is normally prepared by disking, rototilling or otherwise turning to break up clods.
Large rocks, weeds or other debris that may
raise or puncture the plastic sheets are
removed. The land surface is smoothed so
the plastic can rest directly on the soil, since
air pockets reduce the heating effect. The
sheets are then placed on the soil by hand or
machine; several techniques are described in
Grinstein and Hetzroni (1991) and Elmore et
al (1997). Care must be taken to avoid
stretching or tearing the plastic. If holes or
tears do occur they must be patched with
clear plastic tape, otherwise solarisation will
not be effective.
The sheets may cover an entire field or greenhouse floor or be placed only along the strips
or rows where crops will be planted. Sheet
edges are sealed with UV-resistant glue or
buried and covered with soil. Thermometers
can be placed in the soil at specific depths to
record soil temperatures during the treatment. Typically, the plastic sheets remain in
place for four to seven weeks. Treatment
Table 4.5.1 Length of solarisation treatment required to kill 90 to 100%
of Verticillium dahliae sclerotia at various soil depths in Israel
Soil depth (cm)
10
30
40
50
60
70
Time to kill 90 to 100% of sclerotia (days)
3-6
14 - 20
20 - 30
30 - 42
35 - 60
35 - 60
Source: Katan and DeVay 1991.
The aim of solarisation is to ensure that soil
at the depth below root level reaches at least
about 40°C for the required number of days.
Many soil pests are killed at temperatures
above 33°C, although others require significantly higher temperatures (Elmore et al
1997). In general, good results can be
achieved if soil temperatures of 47, 45, 43
and 39°C are achieved at soil depths of 10,
15, 20 and 30 cm, respectively (Katan 1996,
1999).
Adequate soil moisture is important for conducting the heat through the soil and to
make weed seeds and pathogens vulnerable
to heat. At the start of the treatment, the soil
should be saturated to at least 70% of field
capacity in the upper layers and moist to
depths of 60 cm (Elmore et al 1997). If soil
moisture drops to less than 50% of field
capacity, or if the soil is well drained, it may
be necessary to irrigate during the solarisation treatment. Over-watering, however, must
be avoided because it cools the soil and
reduces the efficacy of solarisation.
When removing sheets, care must be taken
to ensure that untreated soil does not contaminate treated soil. If laid manually and
handled carefully, sheets may be used for
more than one season.
As noted earlier, there are several major variations of solarisation:
Complete cover of the area
Plastic sheets are laid in a continuous surface,
covering the entire field or greenhouse floor.
Edges may be joined with UV-resistant glue
or by overlapping and burying the edges. If
beds are formed after solarisation, deep
tillage must be avoided because it may bring
untreated soil to the surface. After solarisation the sheets are removed and crops are
planted as normal. Complete cover is recommended where the soil is heavily infested
with pathogens, because it is more effective
than strip solarisation.
Strip solarisation
Beds are formed in the soil and plastic sheets
are laid along them, forming strips on the
field. Wide strips are more effective than narrow strips, because pathogens are not controlled in the uncovered soil between strips. It
is recommended that strips be a minimum of
75 cm wide, but beds up to 1.5 m wide are
more effective and allow several crop rows to
be planted on each bed (Elmore et al 1997).
When solarisation has finished, the plastic
Table 4.5.2 Examples of commercial use of solarisation
Crops
Greenhouse tomatoes and other vegetables
Southern Italy, Greece, Jordan,
Morocco
Open-field winter tomatoes
USA (Florida)
Peppers, eggplant, onions
Israel
Vegetable nurseries, musk melons
Mexico, Caribbean, South America
Greenhouse crops
Japan
Containerised nursery soil
USA
Stakes for supporting plants
Morocco
Orchards of stone fruit, citrus, olives, nuts and avocado USA (California)
Vineyards
USA (California)
times may be shorter, however, for certain
susceptible pests or for crops with very shallow roots. Solarisation of containerised substrates or growth media and closed
greenhouses may take only a few days during
strong summer heat (Elmore et al 1997).
71
Compiled from: Elmore et al 1997, MBTOC 1998, Katan 1996, Katan 1999, Batchelor 1999
Table 4.5.3 Nematodes controlled by solarisation in California USA
72
Nematodes
Criconemella xenoplax
Ditylenchus dipsaci
Globodera rostochiensis
Helicotylenchus digonicus
Heterodera schachtii
Meloidogyne hapla
Meloidogyne javanica
Pratylenchus hamatus
Pratylenchus penetrans
Pratylenchus thornei
Pratylenchus vulnus
Tylenchulus semipenetrans
Xiphinema spp.
Common names
Ring nematode
Stem and bulb nematode
Potato cyst nematode
Spiral nematode
Sugarbeet cyst nematode
Northern root knot nematode
Javanese root knot nematode
Pin nematode
Lesion nematode
Lesion nematode
Lesion nematode
Citrus nematode
Dagger nematode
Source: Elmore et al 1997
Table 4.5.4 Fungi and bacteria controlled by solarisation in California USA
Fungi
Didymella lycopersici
Fusarium oxysporum f.sp.conglutinans
Fusarium oxysporum f.sp.fragariae
Fusarium oxysporum f.sp.lycopersici
Plasmodiophora brassicae
Phoma terrestris
Phytophthora cinnamomi
Phytophthora lycopersici
Pythium ultimum, Pythium spp.
Rhizoctonia solani
Sclerotinia minor
Sclerotium cepivorum
Sclerotium rolfsii
Thielaviopsis basicola
Verticillium dahliae
Disease caused
Didymella stem rot
Fusarium wilt
Fusarium wilt
Fusarium wilt
Club root
Pink root
Phytophthora root rot
Corky root
Seed rot or seedling disease
Seed rot or seedling disease
Drop
White rot
Southern blight
Black root rot
Verticillium wilt
Crops
Tomatoes
Cucumbers
Strawberries
Tomatoes
Cruciferae
Onions
Many crops
Tomatoes
Many crops
Many crops
Lettuce
Garlic, onions
Many crops
Many crops
Many crops
Bacteria
Clavibacter michiganensis
Streptomyces scabies
Disease caused
Crown gall
Canker
Scab
Crops
Many crops
Tomatoes
Potatoes
may be painted and left on the soil to serve
as a mulch. Strip solarisation is generally
cheaper than complete cover. It is effective
against certain weeds, but long-term control
of fungi and nematodes may not be suffi-
cient, because pests in the untreated soil can
spread to treated areas. Strip solarisation is
not recommended for soil that is heavily
infested.
Weeds
Abutilon theophrasti
Amaranthus albus
Amaranthus retroflexus
Amsinckia douglasiana
Avena fatua
Brassica nigra
Capsella bursa-pastoris
Chenopodium album
Claytonia perfoliata
Convolvulus arvensis (seed)
Conyza canadensis
Cynodon dactylon (seed)
Digitaria sanguinalis
Echinochloa crus-galli
Eleusine indica
Lamium amplexicaule
Malva parviflora
Orobanche ramosa
Oxalis pes-caprae
Poa annua
Portulaca oleracea
Senecio vulgaris
Sida spinosa
Solanum nigrum
Solanum sarrachoides
Sonchus oleraceus
Sorghum halepense (seed)
Stellaria media
Trianthema portulacastrum
Xanthium strumarium
Common names
Velvetleaf
Tumble pigweed
Redroot pigweed
Fiddleneck
Wild oat
Black mustard
Shepherd’s purse
Lambsquarters
Minerslettuce
Field bindweed
Horseweed
Bermuda grass
Large crabgrass
Barnyard grass
Goose grass
Henbit
Cheeseweed
Branched broomrape
Bermuda buttercup
Annual bluegrass
Purslane
Common groundsel
Prickly sida
Black nightshade
Hairy nightshade
Sawthistle
Johnson grass
Common chickweed
Horse purslane
Common cocklebur
Space solarisation
This technique is used in greenhouses to kill
pests surviving in crop debris in the structure
of a greenhouse. If the greenhouse surface is
dusty, it must be washed before the treatment begins, to allow solar radiation to penetrate. The greenhouse is then closed during
summer time, so that inside air temperatures
reach 60 to 70°C. Equipment such as tomato
stakes or canes can also be disinfested in
closed greenhouses.
The treatment time for solarisation varies
according to the target organisms, soil condi-
tions and temperature. Under Mediterranean
conditions, for example, a period of 30 to 40
days between June and September is suitable
for solarization for many purposes (Katan
1999). As a general rule, the longer the solarisation period, the deeper the effect in the
soil. See Table 4.5.1 for examples.
The best control of pests is usually achieved
in the upper 10 to 30 cm of soil. The efficacy
of solarisation can be increased and/or treatment time reduced by using a double layer of
plastic or by combining solarisation with one
of the following:
Table 4.5.5 Weeds controlled by solarisation in California USA
73
Biological antagonists such as
Trichoderma (as used in Jordan, for
example).
Current uses
Reduced doses of fumigants such as
metam sodium.
Certain organic amendments, such as
chicken manure or brassica residues, that
release volatile compounds and provide
a biofumigation treatment.
74
Solarisation is used commercially for a variety
of crops in warm climates. For example, solarisation has been used for more than a decade
in California USA for field, vegetable and
flower crops and in orchards, vineyards,
greenhouses and landscapes (Elmore et
al 1997). Other examples are given in
Table 4.5.2.
Table 4.5.6 Examples of nematodes, weeds and fungi and bacteria
that are not controlled effectively by solarisation
Nematodes
Meloidogyne incognita
Monosporascus spp.
Common names
Southern root knot nematode
Sudden wilt of melon
Weeds
Convolvulus arvenis (plant)
Cynodon dactylon (plant)
Cyperus esculentus
Cyperus rotundus
Eragrostis sp.
Malva niceansis
Melilotus alba
Sorghum halepense (plant)
Common names
Field bindweed (plant)
Bermuda grass (plant)
Yellow nutsedge
Purple nutsedge
Lovegrass
Bull mallow
White sweetclover
Johnson grass (plant)
Fungi and bacteria
Fusarium oxysporum f.sp. pini
Macrophomina phaseolina
Pseudomonas solanacearum
Disease caused
Fusarium wilt
Charcoal rot
Bacterial wilt
Crops
Pines
Many crops
Several crops
Source: Elmore et al 1997, Strand 1998 1998, Katan 1999
Table 4.5.7 Examples of yields from solarisation and MB
Crops
Open-field pepper
Open-field eggplant
Greenhouse pepper
Greenhouse tomato
Greenhouse cucumber
Greenhouse eggplant
Greenhouse strawberry
Country
Israel
Israel
Israel
Jordan
Jordan
Jordan
Israel
Jordan
Yields from solarisation
40 -50 t/ha
60 - 80 t/ha
120 - 150 t/ha
144 - 184 t/ha
153 - 200 t/ha
162 t/ha
100 - 120 t/ha
35 - 40 t/ha
Yields from MB
Similar
Similar
Similar
144 - 180 t/ha
145 - 200 t/ha
Similar
Similar
Similar
Compiled from: Katan 1999, Batchelor 1999, Vickers 1995
Sprayable mulches.
Biodegradable covers (mulches or
plastic).
Double-layer plastic.
Wavelength-selective mulch films that
are translucent, photo-selective and
transmit infrared light.
Material inputs
Water.
Transparent UV resistant polyethylene
sheets, normally 40 to 100 microns thick.
Thermometers to measure soil temperatures at root depth.
For mechanical application:
tractor and sheet layer
For large areas laid by hand:
mechanical trencher
Sufficient sunlight hours and daily temperatures to attain necessary soil temperatures.
A time period, typically four to seven
weeks, when field or greenhouse is not
used for crops.
Training and know-how.
Pests controlled
Solarisation can control many soil-borne pests
such as fungi, weeds, insects and mites
(Katan and DeVay 1991, DeVay et al 1991).
In addition, solarisation frequently promotes
the growth of beneficial soil microorganisms
that reduce populations of soil pests during
the growing season. Tables 4.5.3, 4.5.4 and
4.5.5 give examples of nematodes, fungi,
bacteria and weeds controlled by solarisation
in California, USA. Some of these results have
been verified in other countries, such as
Israel, Jordan, Greece and southern Italy
(Katan 1996). The technique must be adapted to different climatic regions and cropping
systems.
Certain pathogens, such as Verticillium fungi
and Ditylenchus nematodes, are sensitive to
solarisation and are more easily controlled by
it. Solarisation controls many annual weeds
effectively but does not control perennial
weeds that have deeply buried roots or rhizomes, unless the heat penetrates to those
levels. In some areas solarisation does not
adequately control root-knot nematodes and
heat-resistant pests, such as nutsedge weeds
and certain fungi. To control these pests,
solarisation should be combined with other
techniques or used as part of an IPM system.
Table 4.5.6 gives examples of nematodes,
fungi, bacteria and weeds that are not controlled, or are not controlled reliably, by solarisation.
Where the technique is applied properly in
the appropriate climate, solarisation results in
yields similar to those achieved with MB fumigation (see Table 4.5.7).
Solarisation leads to changes in the physical
and chemical features of soil, often improving
the growth and development of plants. It
releases soluble nutrients such as nitrogen,
calcium, magnesium, potassium and fulvic
acid, making them more available to crops
(Elmore et al 1997).
Solarisation is suitable for all horticultural
crops, including orchards and vineyards. For
perennial crops solarisation can be applied as
a post-plant treatment. It can be used in
open fields, greenhouses, tunnels, seedbeds
and nurseries. Solarisation can also be used
to control pests in substrates, containers or
cold frames. In these cases, the soil or substrates can be placed in bags or flats covered
with transparent plastic or in layers that are
75
7.5 to 22.5 cm wide sandwiched between
two sheets of plastic (Elmore et al 1997).
The US California Department of Agriculture
has approved a protocol for using solarisation
to kill nematode and fungal pests in soil and
containers used for raising clean nursery
stock. The soil temperature must be raised by
solarisation to 70°C for at least 30 minutes.
76
Use of solarisation is often limited to production systems that allow a downtime of four
to seven weeks for the treatment, unless
combined with other treatments.
Solarisation is suitable for many soil types,
although water must be applied during treatment in sandy soils. Its use is limited to geographical regions that have sufficient solar
radiation to achieve high temperatures in the
soil. Highest soil temperatures are attained
when days are long, air temperatures are
high, skies are clear, and there is no wind
(Elmore et al 1997). Clouds and wind diminish the heating effect. Solarisation is most
effective in warm, sunny locations. It has also
been used successfully in cooler areas during
periods of high air temperatures and clear
skies. In cooler climates, solarisation of greenhouses, nurseries, seedbeds and containerised
soil or substrates is more effective than solarisation of fields (Katan et al 1998).
Solarisation treatments do not pose any safety risks to users or local communities.
Safety measures are not required. No safety
training or safety equipment is required.
Solarisation does not produce undesirable
chemical residues in air, water or food.
However, plastic waste may remain in soil and
the surrounding environment, as is the case
with MB fumigation sheets.
Phytotoxicity
The treatment does not normally produce
toxicity problems for crops.
Many beneficial soil organisms recolonise the
soil rapidly after solarisation. Solarised soil
frequently becomes more pest-suppressive
due to the establishment of fluorescent
pseudomonads (Katan 1996). Solarisation
shifts the soil population in favour of beneficial organisms and makes it more resistant to
pathogens than non-solarised or fumigated
soil (Elmore et al 1997).
Ozone depletion
Solarisation does not use ODS.
consumption
Energy is used for production of plastic
sheets, any mechanical application used and
recycling of plastic, where available. Energy
consumption is less than that with MB
fumigation.
Like MB, solarisation sheets generate significant quantities of waste plastic. In a few
regions, including parts of Brazil, Italy and
Greece, agricultural plastic recycling schemes
have been established.
Solarisation is very acceptable to markets and
consumers, because it is a non-chemical
treatment and does not leave undesirable
residues in food.
Solarisation does not require regulatory
approval.
Strip solarisation is cheaper than complete cover but less effective.
Material costs are lower than for MB.
Plastic sheets that are 50 microns thick
are generally cheaper than 100-micron
sheets, although the thicker sheets may
be re-used.
Manual application allows re-use of plastic, whereas mechanised application precludes re-use.
Labour is about 10 to 20 man-days for
manual cover of 1 ha with continuous
sheets, about 3 man-days/ha for
mechanical application, or about 0.5
man-days/ha for mechanical strip
application.
The total cost of solarisation is normally
less than MB application.
system
Which soil-borne pests need to be
controlled?
What depth will crop roots grow to?
Is the sunlight/temperature sufficient to
heat soil to the required temperature
and depth?
What method will be used to check that
soil depths have reached sufficient temperature?
Does solarisation need to be combined
with another technique to control the
full range of soil pests?
Does the production system allow sufficient time for treatment? If not, can the
system be amended to accommodate
the treatment?
Can solarisation be combined with
another technique to reduce treatment
time?
What are the costs and benefits of solarising the entire area versus strips?
Will the plastic sheets be re-used?
What type and thickness of plastic
sheets would be cost-effective?
Availability
Materials are available in many countries.
Table 4.5.8 provides examples of suppliers of
products and services related to solarisation.
Please refer to local agricultural suppliers for
additional names of manufacturers and suppliers. See Annex 6 for an alphabetical listing
of suppliers, specialists and experts. See also
Annex 5 and Annex 7 for additional information resources.
Table 4.5.8 Examples of suppliers of solarisation products and services
Sheets for solarisation
AEP Industries Inc, USA
Agrocomponentes SL, Spain
Agroplas SA de CV, Mexico
Dura Green Marketing, USA
LS Horticultura España SA, Spain
Plastigómez SA, Ecuador
Cost considerations
77
continued
Sheets for solarisation
(continued)
in solarisation
Plastic recycling services
or equipment
Plastilene SA, Ecuador and Colombia
Plastlit – Plásticos del Litoral, Ecuador
Polyon Inc, Israel
Poly West, USA
Productos Químicos Andinos, Colombia and Ecuador
Solplast, Spain
Sotrafa, Spain
CCMA, CSIS, Spain
DI.VA.P.R.A. – Patologia Vegetale, University of Torino, Italy
FHIA Foundation for Agricultural Research,Honduras
Dr Walid Abu Gharbieh, University of Jordan, Jordan
Dr Bassam Bayaa, Aleppo University, Syria
Prof Mohamed Besri, Institut Agronomique et Vétérinaire
Hassan II, Morocco
Dr G Cartia, University of Reggio Calabria, Italy
Dr Jean-Pierre Caussanel, Centre de Recherches de Dijon,
France
Dr Vincent Cebolla, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones
Agraria, Spain
Dr Dan Chellemi, Florida Horticultural Research Laboratory,
USDA-ARS, USA
Dr Angelo Correnti, ENEA Departimento Innovazione, Italy
Prof James DeVay, University of California, USA
Dr Clyde Elmore, University of California, USA
Dr A Gamliel, Agricultural Research Organization, Israel
Dr Raquel Ghini, EMBRAPA/CNPMA, Brazil
Prof Ludovica Gullino, University of Torino, Italy
Dr Volkmar Hasse, GTZ-Jordanian IPM project, Jordan
Dr Barakat Abu Irmalieh, Univeristy of Jordan, Jordan
Dr Florencio Jiménez Díaz, INIFAP Instituto Nacional de
Investigaciones Forestales, Agricolas y Pecuarias, Mexico
Prof R Jiménez Díaz, CSIC Córdoba, Spain
Prof Jaacov Katan, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel
Dr Franco Lamberti, Instituto di Nematologia Agraria CNR,
Italy
Dr Hülya Pala, Plant Protection Research Institute, Turkey
Dr Satish Lodha, Central Arid Zone Research Institute, India
Mr C Martin, Agriphyto, France
Dr Abdur-Rahman Saghir, NCSR, Lebanon
Prof M Satour, Agricultural Institute, Egypt
Prof E Tjamos, Agricultural University of Athens, Greece
Prof James Stapleton, Kearney Agricultural Center, University
of California, USA
Kennco
RECOMSA Reciclado de Compost SA, Spain
Contact local government authorities to find out if there is a
local recycling scheme for plastic waste
Note: Contact information for these suppliers and specialists are provided in Annex 6.
78
4.6 Steam treatments
Advantages
Modern techniques are highly effective.
utes at 72°C). This lower temperature controls most pests but does not eliminate all the
organisms in the soil. Steam treatments are
fast and there is no waiting time because
crops can be planted as soon as the soil has
cooled.
Controls the same range of pests as MB.
Treatment time is rapid compared to MB
and other alternatives.
Crops may be planted immediately after
treatment.
Some steam methods are easy to use.
Negative pressure and fink systems can
provide deep soil treatments.
Disadvantages
Significant initial capital investment,
unless a boiler is hired.
Consumes more energy than does MB.
Requires a supply of water at treatment
time.
Some older methods are complicated to
apply.
High-temperature methods (above 82°C)
can produce phytotoxicity.
Sterilization method (90 to 100°C) creates a ‘biological desert’ in the soil, like
MB.
Boilers can be difficult to transport on
poor roads.
When the soil temperature is raised to at
least 65°C for 30 minutes, heat kills many
pathogenic fungi, bacteria, nematodes and
weed seeds. Steam treatments are traditionally conducted at temperatures between 60
and 100°C. Soils may be sterilised at high
temperatures for short periods (a few minutes
at 90 to 100°C) or pasteurised at lower temperatures for longer periods (such as 30 min-
The soil is prepared for steam treatment by
removing clods and covering with material
such as insulated sheets. A conventional boiler or steam generator provides the steam.
Steam can be released onto the soil surface,
ploughed or raked into the soil, but it is normally more effective to inject steam into the
soil or to pull steam through the soil by negative pressure. The efficacy of the treatment
requires an application method that distributes steam evenly through the soil and carries
it to sufficient depths to kill pests. As with
other techniques, steam treatments require
know-how and attention to detail during
application.
Steam may be applied alone or mixed with
air. Aerated steam has the advantage of
being cooler (e.g. 72°C), moving faster and
more uniformly through soil and, in some
cases, reducing energy consumption.
Available boilers range in capacity from about
65 kg/hour to at least 4,500 kg/hour for
treating larger areas. Large areas are treated
in batches, one plot at at time. Boilers can be
fixed in one place or moved from one area to
another. In some countries, companies provide mobile steam boilers as a contracted
service for many greenhouses.
The following are among the many varieties
of steam treatment:
Sheet steaming
The traditional method of steaming is to
cover the soil with sheets, seal the edges and
release steam under the sheets for about 4 to
8 hours. This method provides a shallow
treatment and is very inefficient in energy
use. It does not control pests reliably unless
carried out with great care and skill.
Does not entail the use of toxic
chemicals.
79
Table 4.6.1 Comparison of steam techniques for greenhouses
Treatment
Factor
Equipment
80
Negative
pressure
Drainpipes buried
in soil; sheets laid
on surface
Treatment depth 50 - 60 cm
Treatment time
3 - 5 hours
Energy/area
115 MJ/m2
Energy efficiency Efficient
Labour for treat- 75 hours
ing area of
1,000 m2
Comments
Fixed system for
deep soil treatment
Sheet
Sheets laid on soil
surface
Hood
Hood pressed
onto soil surface
Fink
Vertical pipes in
soil; pipe grid and
sheets on surface
15 - 30 cm
15 cm
50 cm
4 - 8 hours
<1 hour
5 - 6 hours
100 - 200 MJ/m2
46 MJ/m2
115 MJ/m2
Highly inefficient
Efficient
Efficient
40 - 80 hours
5 - 10 hours
75 hours
Variable results unless Rapid, shallow
applied with skill
treatment
and attention to detail
Portable system
for deep soil
treatment
Table 4.6.2 Examples of commercially used steam treatments
Crops
Greenhouse tomato
Greenhouse lettuce, celery
Greenhouse vegetables
Cut flowers and ornamentals
Various protected crops
Used substrates, pots, trays etc.
Plant materials
Countries
UK
UK
USA, many other countries
Colombia, Italy, Netherlands, UK,
USA and many other countries
Germany
Belgium, Netherlands, Norway
Norway
Compiled from: MBTOC 1998, Barel 1999, Ketzis 1992, Gullino 1992, Ellis 1991, USDA 1997
Negative pressure method
This fixed system is generally preferable to
older techniques because it is more energyefficient and disperses steam more evenly in
soil. Perforated drain pipes are laid in the soil
at intervals of 1.6 to 3.2 m, depending on
the density of the soil structure. Normally, a
drainage pit is constructed for collecting
excess water. A cover is placed on the soil
surface and steam is introduced beneath it. A
simple fan is placed at the end of the drainpipe network to create a negative pressure,
pulling the steam down through the soil and
raising the temperature to 70 to 80°C, even
at the deepest levels. Steam is applied for
one to two hours at a high rate and then
reduced to a low rate for several hours. The
treatment typically takes four to five hours.
Fink method
This method uses principles similar to those
of the negative pressure system. Rubber pipes
are inserted vertically into the soil and a pipe
grid is laid on the surface, under sheets. A
fan creates suction in the pipes, allowing
steam to penetrate to about 50 cm depth.
The Fink method takes about five to six hours
and has similar advantages to the negative
pressure system. In addition, it can be moved
around to treat other plots.
Hood or metal box method
In this method a shallow, inverted aluminum
or steel box is pressed into the soil surface.
The large box may cover an area of approximately 6 x 2.5 m. Steam is applied inside the
box for 20 to 25 minutes, so that the top 20
to 25 cm of soil reaches about 80°C. In automated systems, a winch moves the machine
along the bed, and the box is raised and lowered by pneumatics. This type of system may
be operated by one labourer and can treat
field areas of up to 2,000 m2 in 10 hours. It
is more energy efficient but provides a shallow treatment suitable only for certain crops
and pests.
Steam chambers
Airtight chambers or steam boxes provide
rapid steam treatments for soil, substrates
and agricultural equipment. In some nurseries, soil is placed in containers and forklifted into steam boxes for treatment. In a
few countries mobile steam chambers —
trucks fitted with boilers and large air-tight
chambers — serve many greenhouses in a
locality. Substrates are removed from plastic
wraps or containers and placed inside the
chamber. Steam from the mounted boiler is
introduced into the sealed chamber, until the
substrates have reached the required temperature. After cooling, the substrates are reused in the greenhouse.
Steam ploughs
Negative pressure steam chambers
Super-heated steam, up to 160°C, is forced
through material in a chamber, and negative
pressure sucks out condensed steam. Heating
time is very short, approximately five minutes.
This system can be used for substrates, peat,
pots, trays and certain plants. At present
there are about 12 chambers operating in
Belgium and the Netherlands, each with the
capacity to treat about 2.5 hectares of substrate in 24 hours. A smaller-scale negative
pressure chamber is used for nursery equipment, trays and plants in Norway.
Table 4.6.3 Examples of steam treatments required to kill soil-borne pests
Soil-borne pests
Nematodes
Rhizoctonia solani, Sclerotium and
Sclerotinia sclerotiorum
Botrytis grey mould
Most plant pathogenic fungi and most
plant pathogenic bacteria
Soil insects
Virtually all plant pathogenic bacteria
and most plant viruses
Most weed seeds
Tomato mosaic virus in root debris
A few species of resistant weed seeds
and resistant plant viruses
Lethal soil temperature and duration
49°C for 30 minutes in moist conditions
54.5°C for 30 minutes in moist conditions
60 - 71°C for 30 minutes in moist conditions
90°C for more than 10 minutes
Compiled from: Ellis 1991, Agrelek 1995
Various forms of steam ploughs are available.
The “NIAE” mobile grid, for example, has a
transverse leading blade, which breaks up the
soil across the width of the grid, enabling
steam to spread sideways from perforated
pipes. The motion of soil over the transverse
blade encourages steam penetration, forming
a bow wave that opens up the soil vertically.
The NIAE grid moves at 7 to 8 m per hour,
treating a width of about 1.7 m and a depth
of 40 to 45 cm of soil.
81
82
In general, negative pressure and fink steaming are preferable to traditional sheet steaming, because they disperse steam more evenly
in the soil, give better results and use less
energy. Hood and chamber methods are also
efficient for specialist applications. Older
techniques can take soil temperatures too
high, sterilising soil and releasing heavy metals and phytotoxic materials. They also give
uneven results or fail to reach sufficient
depth. Negative pressure methods give better
results than traditional sheet methods on clay,
peat, loam and sandy soils (Ellis 1991). See
Table 4.6.1 for a comparison of some greenhouse methods.
Current uses
Steam is widely used for greenhouses, nurseries, bulk soil, containerised soil and substrates. It is also used in a limited number of
small-scale fields. In the Netherlands, up to
10% of cucurbit production utilises negative
pressure steaming (De Barro 1995), for example, and in the USA small portable steam
generators have been used successfully in
greenhouses for more than 20 years (USDA
1997). Table 4.6.2 provides other examples of
commercial uses.
Improved versions of steam ploughs.
Automated equipment that lifts the top
layer of soil and moves it through a
steam bed for open field applications.
Material inputs
Sheet steaming requires:
Water.
Boiler or steam generator and fuel.
Heat resistant pipes to distribute steam
over soil surface.
Heat resistant insulated sheets to cover
soil.
Thermocouple to monitor soil temperature.
Negative pressure steaming requires:
Equipment listed above.
Perforated pipes (preferably polypropylene pipes of about 60 mm diameter)
buried permanently under the soil.
Fan with a capacity of 1,800 m3/hour for
an area of 2,500 m2; capacity of 1,000
m3/hour for an area of 1,000 m2.
Pump and sump.
Supply of water at the time of year
when steam treatments are carried out.
Capital for initial investment.
Roads suitable for transporting heavy
boiler equipment.
Know-how and training.
Pests controlled
Steam treatments control a wide range of
soil-borne pests, including nematodes, fungal
pathogens, weeds and insects. Some steam
methods control a wider range of pests than
MB. It is necessary to select a steam delivery
method that will control pests to the required
depth.
Few organisms can withstand a moist soil
temperature of 65°C maintained for ten minutes (Ellis 1991). Nematodes, insects, many
fungi, weed seeds and many bacteria are
killed at even lower temperatures (Table
4.6.3), but higher temperatures are recommended to deal with heat-tolerant pests and
cool patches that occur in soil. Efficacy
depends mainly on the soil temperature,
treatment duration and application method
to provide a thorough distribution of heat in
the soil. In the Netherlands, for example, a
temperature of 70°C maintained for 30 minutes is generally recommended to control
soil-borne pathogens (Runia 1983, Ellis 1991).
Lower temperatures could be applied for a
longer time or higher temperatures for a
shorter time.
Where the technique is properly applied,
yields are equal to those achieved with MB.
Steam can be used in greenhouses, seedbeds
and small-scale field nurseries, for containerised soil, substrates (e.g. perlite, rockwool,
polyurethane foam, rice hulls, compost), nursery tools, pots and surfaces that are contaminated with pathogens. Steam can be
economically viable for high value crops such
as ornamental bedding plants, potted foliage,
flowering house plants, fresh cut flowers and
greens, bulbs, container perennials, and
greenhouse vegetables (EPA 1997). Steam
treatments are particularly suitable for multicropping, because treatment is rapid and
waiting periods can be avoided.
Steam can be used in all climates, from cool
temperate to tropical. UNIDO has carried out
effective demonstrations of steam in regions
as diverse as Argentina, China, Guatemala,
Syria and Zimbabwe (Castellá 1999). Steam
treatments are suitable for clay, loam, sand
and substrates. Steam-treating peat is difficult
but feasible.
Steam is not toxic. The associated heat, however, can pose a risk of burns if handled
improperly or if accidents occur, so boilers
and operating procedures must meet safety
standards. Steam treatments do not pose
risks to the health of local communities or
farm workers in fields next to the treatment
areas.
Measures need to be taken to prevent users
from coming into contact with steam. In
addition, safety training and safety equipment are needed for the use of boilers.
Steaming to high temperatures (about 100°C)
can lead to undesirable levels of ammonia
and nitrite in soils that have been fertilised or
have a high content of organic matter. This
problem can be avoided by keeping the soil
temperature below 82°C.
Phytotoxicity
When certain soils are heated to about
100°C, manganese, ammonia and nitrites
may be released. Excess manganese can produce problems of phototoxicity in crops, but
this problem is normally avoided by keeping
treatment temperatures below 82°C.
Like MB, steam has a significant negative
impact on beneficial organisms in the soil. If
soil is heated to 100°C, virtually all organisms
are killed, creating a biological desert. The
impact is reduced if lower temperatures are
used and the soil is pasteurised rather than
sterilised.
Ozone depletion
Steam is not an ODS.
consumption
Steam generation normally consumes more
energy than does MB fumigation. Negative
pressure systems are generally considered
energy-efficient steaming methods, because
they use less than half the energy of traditional sheet steaming (Ellis 1991). In some
cases it is possible to use alternative fuel
sources, such as methane from landfills, biogas, hot water from electric power stations,
sawdust, wind or geothermal vents (EPA
1997, Davis 1994).
Some steam techniques use significant
amounts of water, making them unsuitable
for areas with limited water supplies.
83
Steam is very acceptable to supermarkets,
purchasing companies and consumers,
because it is a non-chemical treatment and
does not leave pesticide residues in food.
Registration and regulatory approval are not
required for steam treatments for soil.
However, boilers must meet all necessary
safety standards.
84
Cost considerations
often cheaper. Labour time for treating
1000 m2 can vary from 5 to 80 hours,
depending on the steaming method.
Questions to ask when selecting
the system
What area needs to be treated?
What soil depth does the treatment
need to reach?
What is the best method for distributing
steam evenly and to the necessary
depth?
The initial capital cost of steam is substantially higher than the cost of MB.
Depending on capacity, a boiler may cost
from about US$ 4,000 to more than US$
100,000. A boiler with an output of 90
kg steam per hour costs approximately
US$ 5,700 in the USA. A portable electric boiler with the same capacity costs
about US$ 4,665 in South Africa.
What boiler size is required?
In the USA, a farm that usually fumigates 12 hectares per year can recover
the capital costs of steam in 1 year
(Quarles 1997).
What are the costs and benefits of different methods of steam treatment?
Where investment capital is not available, growers could consider hiring a
boiler instead of purchasing it (Ellis
1991).
Operating costs of steam can be similar
to MB in northern Europe (De Barro
1995), while the operating costs for
steam treatments in the USA are less
than the typical cost of US$ 1,000 to
1,500 per acre for MB fumigation
(Quarles 1997).
In the Netherlands, the annual cost of
using steam in greenhouses is in the
same range as the cost of MB fumigation (De Barro 1995).
Labour costs for manual steaming are
generally higher than the costs of MB,
while labour for automated steaming is
In the long-term, is it cost-effective to
hire a boiler or to buy one?
Is a fixed or movable steam system more
appropriate?
How will measurements be taken to
assure that sufficient temperature has
been reached at the required depth?
Availability
Boilers are manufactured in many countries,
so it is normally possible to purchase one
locally. The materials for negative pressure
and Fink systems are simple and readily available, while steam ploughs and hood systems
involve specialist equipment and are not yet
widely available.
Examples of suppliers of steam equipment
and services are given in Table 4.6.5. See
resources.
Steam boilers, steam
generators, related
equipment, and steam
treatment services
Steam / heat chambers
for sterilising substrates,
agricultural equipment
and plants etc.
in steam treatments
Bast Co, Germany
Bel Import 2000 SL, Spain
Boverhuis Boilers BV, Netherlands
Celli SpA, Italy
Colmáquinas SA, Colombia
Crone Asme Boilers, Netherlands
De Ceuster, Belgium
Egedal, Denmark
Exportserre-Excoserre SRL, Italy
Hans Dieter Siefert GmbH, Germany
HKB, Netherlands
Ingauna Vapore, Italy
Marshall Fowler, South Africa
Marten Barel Beheer BV, Netherlands
Metalúrgica Manllenense SA, Spain
Saskatoon Boiler Manufacturing, Canada (boilers only)
Sioux Steam Cleaner Corp, USA
Steamist Company, USA
Thermeta, Netherlands
Tur-Net, Netherlands
Aquanomics International, New Zealand
De Ceuster BV, Belgium
Marten Barel BV, Netherlands
Ole Myhrene, Norway
Thermo Lignum, Austria, Germany and UK
Quarantine Technologies International, New Zealand
Dr Bill Brodie, Department of Plant Pathology, Cornell
University, USA
Agrelek, South Africa
DVL Advisory Office, Netherlands
FUSADES Foundation for Economic and Social Development,
El Salvador
Marten Barel Beheer BV, Netherlands
PBG Research Station for Floriculture and Glasshouse
Vegetables, Netherlands
Quarantine Technologies International, New Zealand
Sino Dutch Training and Demonstration Centre, China
Weyerhaeuser Corporation, USA
Dr Leigh Molys, Department of Agriculture, Canada
Table 4.6.5 Examples of suppliers of products and services
for steam and heat treatments
85
continued
Hot water soil
treatments and electric
heat soil sterilizers
Heat equipment for
weed control, including
flamers and hot water
systems
86
Aqua Heat, USA
Gempler’s Inc, USA
Great Lakes IPM, USA
Olson Products Inc, USA
Aqua Heat, USA
Ben Meadows, USA
Flame Engineering Inc, USA
Harmony Farm Supply, USA (Red Dragon)
Planet Natural, USA
Waipuna International Ltd, New Zealand and USA (Waipuna
System)
Note: Contact information for these suppliers and specialists is provided in Annex 6.
entails costs for recycling or disposing of
substrate materials.
4.7 Substrates
Advantages
Often give higher yields than MB.
Increase opportunities for extending the
growing season and harvesting at times
when prices are better.
Produce more uniform fruit and
vegetables.
Non-toxic to farm workers and local
communities.
Can be adapted to suit a wide variety of
economic situations, ranging from lowcapital systems that are simple to use, to
capital-intensive systems that require
substantial management.
Substrates replace soil by providing a clean
medium for plants to grow in. Substrate
materials can be taken from a wide variety of
sources, if the sources are free from pests and
pathogens and free from contaminants that
could cause crop toxicity or undesirable food
residues. Substrates also need to have pore
spaces and other characteristics that allow
good retention and movement of nutrients,
water and air for the plant roots. Where necessary, several materials can be mixed together to create a substrate with optimum
characteristics. If the raw materials are not
free from pathogens, they can be treated
with steam (see Section 4.6) or solarised (see
Section 4.5) prior to use.
Water-based hydroponic systems require
specialist know-how and may fail if not
well managed.
Water-based systems generate nutrient
solution waste which must be managed
or cleaned and re-circulated.
Inert substrates need to be disposed of
at the end of their useful life, and this
Substrate materials differ in their physical
properties, providing different conditions for
root growth, transport of water, nutrients and
air, and consequently for crop yield.
Substrates with low water-holding capacity
need frequent watering. The acidity/alkalinity,
salt content and other characteristics of the
chosen substrate materials need to suit the
Table 4.7.1 Characteristics of various substrate materials
Organic
substrates
Bagasse
Bark
Coir dust
Peat sphagnum
Rice hulls
Sawdust
Inert substrates
Sand
Vermiculite
Key:
Bulk density
(weight)
Water-holding
capacity
Air
content
Electrical
conductivity
Decomposition
rate (carbon:
nitrogen)
+++
+++
+++
+++
+++
+++
+++
++
+++
+++
+
+++
+
+++
+++
+++
+++
++
++
+++
++
+++
+++
+++
+
++
++
++
+
+
+
+++
++
+++
+++
++
+
+
+++
+++
+ undesirable, +++ desirable characteristics
Adapted from: Johnson (undated),
Kipp & Weaver 2000
Disadvantages
87
88
requirements of specific crops. For example,
strawberries grow very successfully on peat,
while some flowers and vegetables grow successfully on coconut fibre. The PBG Research
Station for Floriculture and Glasshouse
Vegetables in the Netherlands has published
a handbook on the physical and chemical
characteristics of a variety of substrate materials and suitable crops (Kipp et al 1999, 2000).
Rice hulls (waste from grain milling).
In general, desirable characteristics include
low weight, high water-holding capacity,
medium porosity and low cation exchange
capacity. A low carbon:nitrogen decomposition rate is desirable for hydroponic production. See Table 4.7.1 for information on the
characteristics of various substrate materials.
For detailed technical information on the
characteristics of a range of substrate materials refer to Kipp et al (1999, 2000).
Mushroom industry waste.
Substrate materials can be divided into two
broad types:
Organic substrates
Organic substrates are made from agricultural
products or dead organic matter. Many are
biologically active and have a high carbon:
nitrogen ratio, which means they are broken
down during the growing season by microorganisms, changing texture, pH and nutrients.
Organic substrates are not suited for hydroponic systems, but they are very effective for
crop production when used like potting mixes
in bags, pots, trenches or other containers.
The biologically active nature of organic substrates helps to provide a buffer if pathogens
are accidentally introduced into the system.
Some organic substrates strongly suppress
pathogens. For others, biological controls can
be added to give pest-suppressive properties.
Sources of organic substrate materials include
the following:
Coconut plant fibres or coir.
Composted plant residues or agricultural
waste.
Bagasse or sugarcane waste.
Peat and past substitutes.
Reed fibres.
Pine bark, sawdust and other waste
from the forest industry.
Straw bales.
Some of these materials must be mixed with
others to achieve successful substrate textures
and characteristics. Bagasse, for example, has
low porosity and high water-holding capacity,
which would lead to poor aeration for plant
roots if used alone . Sawdust also has a high
water-holding capacity that can lead to poor
aeration. Rice hulls, in contrast, have low
water-holding capacity and high pore space,
so plants would be vulnerable to water stress
if rice hulls were used alone (Johnson undated).
Each of these materials, however, can be useful
as one component of a substrate mixture.
Certain materials need to be treated before
use. Coconut, for example, sometimes has a
high salt content which makes it unsuitable for
strawberries unless it is washed before use.
Inert substrates
Inert substrates are made from materials such
as rocks or polyurethane. They do not have
the ability to suppress the spread of
pathogens introduced accidentally, so they
demand a high degree of sanitation and
hygiene. Some growers now add biological
controls such as Trichoderma (see Section 4.2)
to inert substrates to give them pest-suppressive properties. Inert substrates normally
require a high degree of water/nutrient management, because the plant gets all its nutrients from the delivered nutrient solution.
When selecting materials, weight is a consideration because heavy materials like gravel or
sand are more difficult for growers to move
around. Lightweight materials, such as pumice
or vermiculite, can be moved more readily.
Table 4.7.2 Comparison of two substrate systems
Equipment
Infrastructure
Capital
Know-how
Minimal
Low capital input
Some know-how required
Water system
Conventional drip irrigation pipes
Soil pest control
during growing
season
Biological controls may be added
via irrigation system once a month
Examples of inert substrates include the
following:
Expanded clay granules
Glass wool, rock wool (fibres of melted
basalt, limestone, granite and silica).
Gravel (small stones or pebbles).
Perlite, pumice (volcanic rock).
Vermiculite (expanded mica).
Recycled polyurethane foam.
Slag from steel mill operations.
In practice, substrates are used with a wide
variety of irrigation systems, from simple
punctured hoses to fully computerised, recirculated systems. Substrate systems can be
divided into two broad groupings listed
below. (See Table 4.7.2 for a comparison.)
Potting mixes
Substrates are used in a similar way to containerised soil or potting mix, held in some
Hydroponic system: rockwool
substrate in controlled greenhouse
Manufactured substrate wrapped in
plastic sleeves
Greenhouse, plastic cover on floor (or
tables to hold substrate and nutrient
solution), irrigation system, water
management equipment, meters for
measuring pH and electrical conductivity
High level of management and control
High capital input
Substantial know-how required; technical
consultant visits regularly to advise on
nutrients and other aspects of the system
System for circulating, cleaning and
recirculating water
Strict hygiene and application of
fungicides if necessary or suppressive
biological controls
form of container, such as bags, buckets,
pots, lined beds (with wood, concrete or
brick sides), lined trenches in the soil, plastic
sleeves, hand-made tubes laid along the
greenhouse floor, or other simple devices. To
stop soil pests from migrating into the substrate, a barrier or space is needed to separate the drainage holes of the container from
the soil below. Examples of barriers include a
plastic sheet or thick layer of drainage gravel.
As with soil in pots or bags, water is applied
to the top surface of the substrates or via irrigation pipes or sprinklers. Any excess water
drains from the base of the containers and is
not re-circulated.
Some but not all of these systems require a
high capital investment and substantial knowhow. They can give high yields with low risk,
provided that suitable substrate materials are
used. Their use is increasingly common in
greenhouses and tunnels around the world.
They are also used in open fields in a few
cases.
Substrate
Potting mix system: coconut
substrate in plastic bags
Local waste material placed in
farm-made plastic bags
Plastic tunnel, plastic cover on floor
(to separate substrate bags from soil),
irrigation pipes; meters for ph
and electrical conductivity
89
Table 4.7.3 Examples of commercial use of substrates
Crop
Protected tomatoes on various substrate materials
Protected cucurbits on various substrates
Protected vegetables on various substrates
Strawberries – normally on peat or peat + coconut
Protected cut flowers
90
Carnations on scoria beds
Roses on coconut and other substrates
Nursery crops (vegetables and fruit)
Tobacco seedlings
Bananas
Various protected crops on gravel substrates
Countries
Spain, Belgium, Germany, Netherlands, UK
Belgium, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco,
Netherlands, UK, USA
Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Morocco,
Netherlands, UK, USA (Florida)
Belgium, Indonesia, Malaysia, Netherlands, UK
Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, Belgium,
Netherlands, USA
Australia
Australia, Belgium, Denmark, Netherlands
Brazil, Canada, Chile, Germany, Israel, Mexico,
Morocco, Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland, UK,
USA, Zimbabwe
Brazil, Argentina, USA
Canary Islands
South Africa and some other countries in Africa
Compiled from: MBTOC 1998, MHSPE 1997, Environment Australia 1998, Gyldenkaerne 1997, Batchelor 1999,
Peter van Luijk BV 1999, Nuyten 1999, Benoit and Ceustermans 1996, Benoit 1999
Water-based and hydroponic systems
Hydroponic means “water working,” and
in these systems water is the principal
constituent. Substrates such as rock wool or
polyurethane foam provide support for the
plants, retaining nutrients and water.
Hygiene, water circulation and nutrient levels
are critical parts of the system and need to be
carefully controlled.
Hydroponic systems generally require significant capital investment, infrastructure and a
high degree of know-how and management.
The Nutrient Flow Technique (NFT) is one type
of hydroponic system in which a shallow
depth of nutrient solution is recirculated by
pump, through a series of narrow channels
where the plants sit. Water-based systems
can produce very high yields but have a high
risk of failure if not properly managed. They
are common in northern Europe and Canada,
and are used increasingly in many other
countries.
It is important to keep substrate systems free
from contamination by pathogens. Accidental
introduction of pathogens can be avoided by
using the following techniques:
Good standards of hygiene, such as
cleaning equipment after use.
Use of pathogen-free plant materials.
Placing substrates in many separate containers (e.g. pots or bags) rather than
one continuous container, to prevent the
spread of pathogens if contamination
occurs.
Use of clean water (e.g. filtering water
prior to use).
After use, organic substrate materials can be
disposed of by spreading them on fields to
improve soil texture. Some organic and inert
substrates can be re-used after being cleaned
with steam or solarisation. Substrates can be
solarised in bags or flats covered with transparent plastic or in layers 7.5 to 22.5 cm
wide sandwiched between two sheets of
plastic (Elmore et al 1997). In sunny areas
(e.g., warmer parts of California) substrates
inside black plastic sleeves can reach 70°C,
achieving effective solarisation within a week.
Current uses
Substrates are extensively used in greenhouses and nursery operations in many countries
and to a limited extent for open-field production. They are used for numerous crops,
including tomatoes, strawberries, cut flowers,
melons, cucurbits, bananas, nursery-grown
vegetable transplants and tobacco seedlings
(MBTOC 1998). Table 4.7.3 provides examples of commercial uses.
Additional source materials from waste
materials.
Improved disease-suppressive substrates.
New mixtures, giving optimal textures
for specific crops.
Additional inputs for water-based and hydroponic systems are as follows:
Container for water bed beneath the
substrates.
Equipment for managing water supply.
If water is re-circulated, equipment for
cleaning water.
Meters for measuring pH and electrical
conductivity.
Specialist technical know-how.
For low cost systems:
Inputs for potting mix types of substrates
Substrate material.
Containers such as plastic-lined trenches,
beds, plastic bags, plastic tubes or pots
for holding substrate and providing a
barrier between the substrates and soil
floor.
Local source of cheap substrate (e.g.
clean waste material).
For hydroponic systems:
Secure supply of water to prevent plants
from drying out.
Normal irrigation or manual watering.
Attention to detail and very regular
monitoring and management.
Clean planting materials (especially if
inert substrates are used).
Substantial technical know-how and
training.
Table 4.7.4 Examples of yields from substrates
Crop/country
Strawberry, Italy
Type of substrate
Natural substrate
Yields from substrates
4.8 kg/m2
9 kg/m2
double cropping
22,000 kg/ha
double-cropping
50 kg/m2
Yields from MB
3 kg/m2
4 kg/m2
Protected strawberry,
Netherlands
Peat
Protected strawberry,
Scotland
Peat or peat + coconut
Protected tomato,
New Zealand
Sawdust + Trichoderma
Tomato, Belgium
Polyurethane foam or
rock wool
52 kg/m2 normally
double cropping
30 - 35 kg/m2
Melon, Netherlands
Rock wool
20 kg/m2
double cropping
10 kg/m2
Protected cucumber,
Netherlands
Rock wool
68 kg/m2
triple cropping
27 - 38 kg/m 2
15,000 kg/ha
Similar yields
Compiled from: De Barro 1995, Vickers 1995, Benoit and Ceustermans 1991,
Benoit and Ceustermans 1995, Batchelor 1999
Material inputs
91
Pests controlled
92
Clean substrates are normally free from soilborne pests such as nematodes, pathogens,
weeds and insects, thus avoiding the need to
control these pests. Control with clean substrates is generally comparable to control
achieved with MB. Some natural substrates
(e.g. composted pine bark) also have the ability to suppress certain pathogens, reducing
risks if pathogens are introduced accidentally
by irrigation water or plant material.
Yields from substrates are equal to, and frequently higher than production with MB (see
Table 4.7.4), particularly because substrates
give a longer cropping period and allow double cropping or multi-cropping (Benoit &
Ceustermans 1991, 1995; Nordic Council
1993; Gyldenkaerne et al 1997). In addition,
substrates allow more control of harvest time
(such as earlier harvests) to meet more profitable market windows. Yields are generally
similar for the different types of inert substrates. Yields from organic substrates can be
more variable if they are used in systems with
unsophisticated management.
Substrates can be adapted for all types of
horticultural crops. They are most appropriate
for greenhouses, seedbeds and nursery containers, but they are also used to a limited
extent for open field production. However,
different substrates with different physical
and chemical characteristics are required for
different types of crops and uses. Substrates
are very suitable for double cropping and
multi-cropping.
Substrates are used in virtually all climates,
from the arctic to the tropics. They are suitable for all types of soils, because the soil
itself becomes irrelevant.
Farm workers can normally handle substrates
safely because they are composed of nontoxic materials. However, if substrate materials form dusts or fine particles, normal
precautions should be taken to prevent exposure to the dust while the substrate is being
laid out or moved.
Substrates do not normally require special
safety precautions, so safety training and
safety equipment are generally not required.
However, substrates that form dusts require
safety equipment to protect the lungs and
respiratory system. In some cases protective
clothing is desirable when the substrates are
lifted at the end of the season.
Substrates do not pose safety risks to consumers of fruits and vegetables, provided that
the quality and composition of substrates are
controlled to ensure that potentially toxic or
phytotoxic contaminants are excluded from
the raw materials.
Phytotoxicity
Commercially available substrate materials are
not phytotoxic to crops. If farmers make their
own substrates from locally available materials, they must avoid raw materials that may
cause phytotoxicity problems.
Substrates sit on top of the soil and are separated from it, so they do not have a direct
effect on beneficial organisms in the soil. If
disease-suppressive substrates are spread on
fields after their useful life, however, they
contribute beneficial organisms to the soil.
Substrates are compatible with the use of
beneficial organisms, and many substrate systems benefit from the addition of biological
control agents.
Substrates are not ODS.
consumption
Substrates in themselves do not have globalwarming potential, but like MB they require
energy for extraction, manufacture and transport. Some preliminary energy balances have
been carried out to compare MB and some
types of substrates. Available information
indicates that rock wool and polyurethane
foam substrates consume much more energy
in their manufacture than pumice and peat.
Natural substrates composed of waste materials consume the least energy, although this
depends on the distance that the substance is
transported.
In general, the energy required for production
using substrates is less than MB when measured per kg of produce. Low-technology systems have minimal use of energy, while
high-tech systems such as heated glasshouses
can use substantial amounts of energy.
Nevertheless, in northern Europe, for example, greenhouses that use MB and soil normally use more energy for heating than
greenhouses that use substrates.
Substrates made from rock (e.g. mica, volcanic pumice) and peat are extracted from
the natural environment and can damage
natural habitats such as wetlands.To avoid
this problem, it is desirable to consider other
source materials for substrates.
Water consumption in substrate systems
depends largely on the design and management of the system. Tomatoes grown in border soil or substrate systems can use the
same amount of water (Gyldenkaerne et al
1997). The wastewater can easily lead to
water pollution, if it is allowed to leach into
watercourses. Where there is concern about
run-off, organic substrates are preferable to
inert ones because they retain more nutrient
solution (Hardgrave and Harrimann 1995).
Various systems, such as those that clean and
re-circulate water, reduce water consumption
and minimise any pollution.
After use, organic substrates can often be
disposed of by spreading them on fields,
helping to improve soil texture. Inert substrates normally create problems with solid
waste, although collection and recycling
schemes exist for certain substrates (e.g. rock
wool) in certain countries. Most inert substrates can be cleaned and re-used. For example, polyurethane foam is treated with steam
in portable lorry-mounted chambers in
Belgium and can be re-used for 10 to 15 years.
Substrates are normally highly acceptable to
consumers. Supermarkets often prefer crop
production on substrates, because the products are generally more consistent and uniform in quality.
Normally, substrates do not have to be
approved and registered in the same fashion
as pesticides. Some countries have codes of
practice for ensuring quality control of substrate materials. Such controls are highly
desirable to ensure that substrates perform
consistently and are free from pathogens,
weed seeds and undesirable contaminants.
Cost considerations
In the case of hyrdoponic and recirculated systems, initial capital costs are
generally high or very high, compared
to MB.
In Denmark, the payback period for a
capital-intensive system is normally two
to four years (Gyldenkærne et al 1997).
Material costs are normally more expensive than MB, except where cheap or
waste materials are used as substrates.
Labour costs may be slightly higher.
Overall, substrate systems are often
more profitable than systems using MB,
Ozone depleting potential
93
because they allow longer production
periods or multi-cropping. In the
Netherlands, substrate systems increased
farmers’ incomes by 10 to 20% on average over previous MB systems (MHSPE
1997). In Florida (USA), the cost of producing greenhouse hydroponic vegetables ranges from US$ 2 to 15 per square
foot, but the costs are offset by higher
production (up to 10 times higher than
field-grown produce) (Hochmuth 1999).
What types of watering systems are
appropriate?
the system
What are the necessary substrate
characteristics for the selected crops
or seedlings?
Availability
What sources of clean, pathogen-free,
cheap, waste materials are available
locally?
Are the substrates free from contaminants that may cause undesirable
residues or phytotoxicity?
What systems can be used for quality
control?
What are the cheapest options for vessels or containers to hold the substrates?
What methods are available to monitor
and control the water quality and
nutrients (pH and electrical conductivity)?
What local sources of know-how are
available?
What is the payback period for a lowcost system versus a more capitalintensive system?
Manufactured substrate materials are available in many countries. Waste materials that
can be used as substrates are available in all
countries.
Examples of suppliers of substrate products
and services are given in Table 4.7.5. See
resources.
Table 4.7.5 Examples of suppliers of products and services for substrates
Organic substrate
materials,
e.g.coconut,
coconut fibre,
composted bark,
peat, peat substitutes,
stabilised composts
and disease-suppressive
substrates
Abonos Naturales Hnos Aguado SL, Spain
A-M Corporation, Korea (Cocovita)
Arrow Ecology Ltd, Israel
Asthor Agricola Mediterranean SA, Spain
BioComp Inc, USA
Berger Peat Moss, Canada
Cántabra de Turba Coop Ltda, Spain
Coco Hits, Spain
Compañia Argentina Holandesa SA, Argentina
Compo, Belgium (Cocovita)
Cosago Ltda, Colombia
De Baat BV, Netherlands
DIREC-TS, Spain
94
continued
Inert substrates,
e.g.,
polyurethane foam,
rock fibre, pumice,
vermiculite,
perlite
Durstons, UK (Composted Bark, Earth Friendly Peat Substitutes, CoconutMulti-Purpose)
Dutch Plantin, Netherlands
Earthgro, USA
Eucatex Agro Ltda, Brazil (Plantmax, Rendmax)
Fabricaciones Vignolles, Spain
Floragard GmbH, Germany (Floragard)
Floratorf Produckte, Spain
Francisco Domingo SL, Spain
Hollyland New-Tech Dev Co Ltd, China (Cocopress)
Industrias Químicas Sicosa SA, Spain
Inferco SL, Spain
Italoespañola de Correctores SL, Spain
Jiffy Products, Colombia
José Maria Pérez Ortega, Spain
Klasmann-Deilmann, Germany (Klasmann)
Lombricultura Técnica Mexicana, Mexico
Louisiana Pacific, USA
Melcourt Industries Ltd, UK (Sylvafibre, Potting Bark)
Neudorff GmbH, Germany (Kokohum)
Nico Haasnoot, Netherlands
OM Scotts and Sons, USA (Hyponex)
Paygro Co, USA
Peter van Luijk bv, Netherlands (Cocopress)
Pindstrup Mosebrug SAE, Spain and Scandinavia
Prodeasa, Spain
Pro-Gro Products Inc, USA
Rexius Forest Products, USA
Sonoma Composts, USA
Southern Importers, USA (Southland)
Torfstreuverband GmbH, Germany
Intertoresa AG, Germany (Toresa)
Turbas GF, Spain
Turco Silvestro e Figli SnC, Italy
See also Table 4.4.4 for companies producing composts; some composts
may have the correct composition for substrates
Agglorex SA, Belgium (Aggrofoam)
Aislantes Minerales SA de CV, Mexico
CIA Ibérica de Paneles Sintéticos SA, Spain
Cosago Ltda, Colombia, Ecuador
Eucatex Agro Ltda, Brazil
Grodan, Netherlands, Spain and France (Grodan)
Grodania AS, Denmark (Grodan)
Guohua Soilless Cultivation Tech Co Ltd, China
Hortiplan, Belgium (Rockwool)
Morse Growers Supplies, Canada
Nordflex AB, Sweden (Recfoam)
Peter van Luijk BV, Netherlands (Oxygrow, perlite, pumice, Oasis)
Prodeasa, SpainRecticel, France, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, UK (Recfoam)
Rockwool International AS, Denmark (Rockwool)
Torfstreuverband GmbH, Germany
Compañia Argentina Holandesa SA, Argentina
continued
Organic substrate
materials,
e.g., coconut,
coconut fibre,
composted bark, peat,
peat substitutes,
stabilised composts
and disease-suppressive
substrates
(continued)
95
Sleeves, bags, trays and
other containers for
holding substrates
96
services
and consultants
Collection and/or
recycling of inert
substrates
Fabricaciones Vignolles, Spain
Francisco Domingo SL, Spain
HerkuPlast-Kubern GmbH, Germany and Netherlands (Quick Pot)
Hollyland New-Tech Dev Co Ltd, China (Jiffy)
Hortiplan, Belgium
Jiffy Products, Colombia
Panth Produkter AB, Sweden (Starpot, Panth Seedling Tray)
Peter van Luijk BV, Netherlands (Jiffy, Peval)
Plásticos Solanas SL, Spain
Poliex SA, Spain
Polygal Plastic Industries Ltd, Israel (Polygal Plant Beds)
Transplant Systems, Australia and New Zealand
Agricultural Demonstration Centre, China
Breda Experimental Garden, Netherlands
Canadian Climatrol Systems, Canada
Compañía Española de Tabaco SA, Spain
Danish Institute of Agricultural Science, Denmark
DLV Horticultural Advisory Service, Netherlands
European Vegetable R&D Centre, Belgium
FUSADES Foundation for Economic and Social Development, El Salvador
Harrow Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
HortiTecnia, Colombia
INTA Famailla, Túcúman, Argentina (tobacco float systems)
Lombricultura Técnica Mexicana, Mexico
National Research Centre for Strawberries, Belgium
Pacific Agriculture Research Centre, Canada
PBG Research Station for Floriculture and Glasshouse Vegetables,
Netherlands
Peter van Luijk BV, Netherlands
PTG Glasshouse Crop Research Station, Netherlands
Reciorganica Ltda, Colombia
SIDHOC Sino Dutch Horticultural Training and Demonstration Centre, China
Technisches Bericht Forschungsanstalt Geisenheim – Gemüsebau, Germany
Vegetable Research and Information Center, University of California,
Davis, USA
VLACO, Belgium
Dr Antonio Bello, CCMA, CSIC, Spain (float tray systems)
Ing. R Sanz, CCMA, CSIC, Spain (float tray systems)
Ing. I Blanco, CETARSA, Cáceres, Spain (tobacco)
Dr Bob Hochmuth, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University
of Florida, USA
Prof Keigo Minami, ESALQ, University of São Paulo, Brazil
Mr Henk Nuyten consultant, Netherlands
Dr Tom Papadopoulos, Greenhouse and Processing Crops Research
Centre, Canada
Prof Rolf Röber, Institut für Zierpflanzenbau, Germany
Also refer to the list of experts on composts and soil amendments
in Table 4.4.4
Rockwool-Industries, Denmark (Rockwool)
5 Control of Pests in
Commodities and Structures
MB has been in widespread use as a fumigant for stored grains and import/export
commodities for more than 50 years because
of its high toxicity to a wide range of pests,
good penetration of products and rapid
action. The commodities and structures that
are fumigated with MB can be divided into
three main groups (refer to Figure 1.1):
a) Durable products
Durables are commodities with low moisture
content that, in the absence of pest attack,
can be safely stored for long periods. They
include foods such as grains, pulses, nuts,
dried fruits, herbs, spices, dried medicinal
plants and beverage crops along with nonfoods such as tobacco and seeds for planting.
They also include logs, sawn timber, wood
products, cane and bamboo ware, craft products, museum artifacts, items of historical significance, packaging materials and wooden
pallets.
Many durable products are stored and traded
globally without the need for MB fumigation,
but MB is used in a number of situations for
controlling stored product pests and quarantine pests. Fumigations are carried out in storage and transport areas such as grain stores,
warehouses, docksides and harbours, making
use of enclosures such as fumigation sheets,
silos, freight containers, railway box cars, ship
holds, barges and, in some cases, fixed
chambers.
b) Perishable commodities
Perishables are fresh commodities that generally decay quickly unless they are stored in
conditions such as cool storage that prolong
their shelf-life. They include fresh fruit, fresh
vegetables, cut flowers and ornamental
plants. Many of these commodities are traded
internationally without the need for fumigation, but MB is required in a number of cases
for the control of quarantine pests.
Fumigations are carried out in fumigation
chambers or under fumigation sheets at
places such as specialised farms, packhouses,
ports and airports. MB fumigations are carried out either in the country of origin before
export or in the importing country if products
are found to contain quarantine pests.
c) Structures
Structures include entire buildings and portions of buildings such as food processing
facilities, flour mills, feed mills, storage facilities and warehouses. This group also includes
transport vehicles such as ship holds, aircraft
and freight containers.
MB is sometimes used for controlling stored
product pests, wood-destroying organisms,
rodents or quarantine pests in such structures, particularly when a rapid full-site treatment is needed.
Pests in durable commodities
Pest control for durable products is necessary
to prevent insects from eating or damaging
commodities with a resultant loss of product
or reduction in market value. In some cases, it
is only necessary to manage and suppress
pests to levels that do not cause significant
damage. In other cases, it is necessary to disinfest commodities to entirely eliminate pests
to meet commercial demands for products
that are pest-free or to meet official preshipment requirements. Disinfestation is also
Section 5: Control of Pests in Commodities and Structures
Types of commodities and
structures
97
required for officially controlled quarantine
pests to reduce the risk of introducing or
spreading pest species to geographical
regions where they are not established.
According to MBTOC, MB plays a relatively
small but significant role in the disinfestation
and protection of durables. This use adds up
to an estimated 13% of worldwide MB consumption or around 19% in developing countries, making durables the second largest use
of MB after soil fumigation.
98
MB’s rapid action and reliability have led to its
continued use as the treatment of choice in
several specialised situations:
Rapid disinfestation of bulk grain to
meet commercial, phytosanitary (plant
health) or quarantine requirements at
the point of import or export.
Quarantine treatments against specific
pests, particularly khapra beetle, the
house longhorn beetle and various
snails.
Table 5.1 Principal pests of cereal grains and similar durable commodities
Common Name
Dried bean beetle
Flour mite
Cowpea beetle
Cowpea beetle
Groundnut borer
Rice moth
Rust-red grain beetle
Tropical warehouse moth
Tobacco moth
Mediterranean flour moth
Broad horned flour beetle
Booklice, psocids
European grain moth
Yellow spider beetle
Saw-toothed grain beetle
Indian meal moth
White-marked spider beetle
Australian spider beetle
Lesser grain borer
Granary weevil
Rice weevil
Maize weevil
Angoumois grain moth
Drug store beetle
Yellow mealworm
Cadelle
Rust red flour beetle
Confused flour beetle
Khapra beetle
Mexican bean beetle
Key: ✇ - major pest
Scientific Name
Acanthoscelides obtectus ✇
Acarus siro
Callosobruchus chinensis ✇
Callosobruchus maculatus ✇
Caryedon serratus
Corcyra cephalonica
Cryptolestes ferrugineus ✇
Ephestia cautella
Ephestia elutella
Ephestia kuehniella ✇
Gnatocerus cornutus
Liposcelis spp. ✇
Nemapogon granellus
Niptus hololeucus
Oryzaephilus surinamensis ✇
Plodia interpunctella ✇
Ptinus fur
Ptinus tectus
Rhyzopertha dominica ✇
Sitophilus granarius ✇
Sitophilus oryzae ✇
Sitophilus zeamais ✇
Sitotroga cerealella ✇
Stegobium paniceum ✇
Tenebrio molitor
Tenebroides mauretanicus
Tribolium castaneum ✇
Tribolium confusum ✇
Trogoderma granarium ✇
Zabrotes subfasciatus
Source: MBTOC 1998, Banks 1999
Common name
Mexican fruit fly
Scientific name or family
Anastrepha ludens (Lw.)
Rhagoletis cerasi (L.)
Common commodities
Citrus, other tropical and subtropical fruits
Tropical and sub-tropical fruits
Deciduous, sub-tropical and
tropical fruits
Cucurbits, tomato, many other
fleshy fruits
Most fleshy fruits or vegetables
Deciduous, sub-tropical and
tropical fruits
Cherry, Lonicera spp.
Caribbean fruit fly
Mediterranean fruit
fly
Melon fly
Anastrepha suspensa (Loew)
Ceratitis capitata (Wied.)
Oriental fruit fly
Queensland
fruit fly
European Cherry
fruit fly
Cherry fruit fly
Apple maggot fly
Mealy bugs
Codling moth
Mango seed weevil
Red-legged earth
mite
Thrips
Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel)
Bactrocera tryoni (Froggatt)
Rhagoletis cingulata (Lw.)
Rhagoletis pomonella (Walsh)
Pseudococcidae
Cydia pomonella (L.)
Stemochaetus mangiferae (Fab.)
Halotydeus destructor (Tucker)
Cherry, Prunus spp.
Apple, blueberry
Fruit, cut flowers, nursery plants
Apple, pear, peach, Prunus spp.
Mango
Leafy vegetables
Thysanoptera spp.
Leafy vegetables, fruit and cut
flowers
Leafy vegetables, cut flowers
Fruit, vegetables, cut flowers
Nursery plants, fruit
Aphids
Mites
Scale insects
Aphididae
Many species
Hemiptera
Bactrocera cucurbitae (Coq.)
Sources: Based on Paull and Armstrong 1994, with additions from Batchelor 1999b
Disinfestation of stacks of bagged grain,
particularly in Africa, including food aid
at the point of import.
Protection and disinfestation of dried
vine fruit, some other dried fruit and
nuts in storage and prior to sale.
Although the use of MB to control pests in
stored grains has largely been replaced by
other techniques in developed countries, the
practice is still widely used for this purpose in
a number of developing countries.
Most of the target pests of durables are
insects and, to a lesser extent, mites. Certain
commodities have other target pests, such as
fungi in unsawn timber and nematodes in
seeds for planting. MB is sometimes specified
as a quarantine treatment for ticks and snails
that occur as incidental contaminants of
durable foods or timber. Table 5.1 provides a
list of the principal pests of cereal grains and
similar durable commodities.
Pests in perishable commodities
Fresh fruit, fresh vegetables and cut flowers
can carry a wide range of pests, such as fruit
flies and mites, and many of these are the
subject of quarantine restrictions for
import/export commodities (Table 5.2). MB
treatments to kill pests in perishable commodities are estimated to account for about
9% of MB consumption worldwide
(MBTOC 1998).
Treatments for controlling quarantine pests
have to be approved by the quarantine
authorities of importing countries for individ-
Table 5.2 Examples of quarantine pests found on perishable commodities
99
Table 5.3 Examples of pests fumigated with MB in structures
Type of structure
Food production and storage facilities,
e.g., food processing plants, mills, warehouses
Non-food facilities,
e.g., museums
100
Wood within structures,
e.g., dwellings, commercial premises,
historical buildings, museums
Pest groups
Stored product insects
Beetles
Cockroaches
Mites
Psocids
Rodents
Silverfish
Stored product insects
Cigarette beetles
Clothes moths
Cockroaches
Dermestid beetles
Drugstore beetles
Rodents
Cigarette beetles
Clothes moths
Dermestid beetles
Drugstore beetles
Drywood termites
Furniture beetles
Long horned beetles
Powder post beetles
Wood boring beetles
Source: Adapted from MBTOC 1998
ual commodity/pest combinations. This normally requires scientific data to demonstrate
that the treatment is virtually 100% effective
in killing the target quarantine pest, as well
as a process of bilateral negotiations.
Historically the process of gaining approval
for quarantine treatments for perishables has
been very slow, taking from 3 years to well
over 10 years. Pressure from companies and
governments to phase out QPS uses of MB is
likely to speed up the approval process in
some areas. Quarantine issues are discussed
in detail in the reports of MBTOC (1998) and
TEAP (1999).
Pests in structures
Pests that infest durable commodities often
become established in the fabric of buildings
or structures where food is stored. Wooddestroying insects can also infest the wooden
beams and wooden parts of buildings. Table
5.3 lists major pest groups that are the tar-
gets of MB fumigation in structures. MBTOC
estimates that these uses account for about
3% of MB use worldwide (MBTOC 1998).
Overview of alternatives
A wide variety of measures can be incorporated into an integrated system to disinfest
and protect commodities and structures from
damage by pests (MBTOC 1998). The following major techniques are described in
Section 6:
IPM and preventive measures.
Cold treatments and aeration.
Contact insecticides.
Controlled and modified atmospheres.
Heat treatments.
Inert dusts.
Phosphine and other fumigants.
Table 5.4 Effective techniques for pest suppression and
pest elimination (disinfestation) in commodities and structures
Pest Suppression
Effective for suppressing pests;
used increasingly for durable
commodities and structures
Effective for stored grains, other
durable products or structures
where cold air is readily available
Pest Elimination
IPM does not provide disinfestation but can
reduce the need for disinfestation treatments
in all types of commodities and structures
Cold treatments
Certain treatments are effective for artifacts,
and aeration
historical items, high value durable
commodities, and perishable commodities
such as citrus and temperate fruit
Contact insecticides Effective for stored grains, other Where registered, dichlorvos is effective for
and other pesticides durable products, wood products bulk grain; pesticides can be effective for
and some structures
certain pests in logs, wooden pallets,
timber, wood in buildings and aircraft
Controlled and
Effective for grain and durables
Specific treatments can be effective for
modified
stored for long periods
disinfesting stored products, artifacts and
atmospheres
perishable commodities
Heat treatments
Effective for some mills and
Specific treatments can be effective for
food processing facilities
grains, logs, timber, tobacco and many
durable commodities; and for quarantine
treatments in perishable products such as
mango, grapefruit, tomato and bell peppers
Inert dusts
Effective in assisting with pest
Not effective
management in stored grain
and structures
Phosphine and
Effective for durable commodities Phosphine is effective for bagged and bulk
other fumigants
and diverse uses — generally
grains, in-transit ship treatments where
used for disinfestation
permitted, logs and a wide variety of other
durable commodities; it is not generally
suitable for perishable commodities.
Sulphuryl fluoride is effective for non-food
items and structures where registered.
Compiled from: MBTOC 1998, TEAP 1999
All techniques listed above can suppress
pests, but some can also be applied to provide disinfestation in certain commodities,
allowing them to meet commercial, preshipment and quarantine requirements for
pest-free products. Table 5.4 provides an
overview of the types of commodities and
structures for which alternative techniques
can be effective.
None of the techniques, however, can be used
for all of the applications for which MB is
used. Each alternative has different advantages and disadvantages and must be selected
for the appropriate commodity or structure
and circumstances. Section 6 covers the
advantages, limitations and suitability of
alternatives for different situations and
climates.
Commercially available alternatives
Many alternatives have been developed to
the commercial level. Some techniques are
used by a small number of enterprises or in a
few countries, while others, such as phosphine, have widespread adoption. Examples
of alternatives used for grain and other
stored products are given in Table 5.5, for
Techniques
IPM
101
Table 5.5 Examples of alternatives used for durable commodities
Durable commodities
Stored grains, pulses,
oilseeds
102
Examples of countries where
alternatives used commercially
Treatments
Phosphine
Germany, Philippines, Thailand, UK,
Zimbabwe and many other developed
and developing countries
Australia, Indonesia, Philippines, Vietnam
Australia
Europe, USA
Carbon dioxide
In-transit carbon dioxide
In-transit phosphine
Phosphine mixed with
carbon dioxide or nitrogen
Nitrogen
Gas-flushed retail packs
Hermetic storage
Heat treatment
Cold treatments
Freezing
Inert dusts
Other food products,
e.g., coffee, cocoa beans,
black pepper, dried fruits,
most types of nuts, coconut
products, pet foods
Tobacco
Wood and wooden items
Artifacts, museum items
Australia, Cyprus and Germany
Australia, Germany
Thailand
Cyprus, Israel, Philippines
Australia (prototype)
Mediterranean, USA
Europe (for premium grains)
Australia, Canada, Germany
Phosphine
Nitrogen and low temperature
Carbon dioxide and pressure
Carbon dioxide
Phosphine
Steam conditioning
Methoprene
Nitrogen or carbon dioxide
Kiln drying, heat treatments
Phosphine
Sulphuryl fluoride,
Borate or bifluorides
Heat treatment with
controlled humidity
Heat treatment
Nitrogen
Used in many countries
Australia
France, Germany
Australia (commercial trials)
Zimbabwe, Philippines and many
other countries
Many countries
Used in some countries
Germany
UK, Denmark, Germany, Austria, USA
Routine use in some countries
Routine use in some countries
Germany, USA
Austria, Germany, UK
Denmark
Germany
Compiled from: MBTOC 1997, Prospect 1997, GTZ 1998, USDA-APHIS 1993, Batchelor 1999a
perishable commodities in Table 5.6, and for
structures in Table 5.7.
These examples are intended to illustrate the
diversity of techniques available, but it is
important to note that each technique is suitable for different and specific situations. For
example, a slow-acting nitrogen treatment is
not suitable for a situation where a rapid
treatment is required. Likewise, cold treatments cannot be used for cold-sensitive commodities that could be damaged by cold.
Uses without alternatives
There is a limited number of commodities
and uses for which MB alternatives have not
Treatment
Cold treatments
Heat treatments
Certified pest-free zones
or pest-free periods
Systems approach
Pre-shipment inspection
and certification
Inspection on arrival
Physical removal of pests
Controlled atmospheres
Pesticides, fumigants,
aerosols
Combination treatments
Approved quarantine applications
Apples from Australia, Chile, Ecuador, France, Israel, Italy, Jordan,
South Africa and Zimbabwe to USA
Cherries from Argentina, Chile and Mexico to USA
Grapes from Chile to Japan
Grapes from Brazil, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, India
and South Africa to USA
Citrus from Australia, Florida (USA), Israel, South Africa, Spain,
Swaziland and Taiwan to Japan
Mangoes from Australia, Philippines, Taiwan and Thailand to Japan
Papaya from Hawaii to Japan
Tomato, bell pepper, zucchini, eggplant, squash, mango, pineapple,
papaya and mountain papaya to USA
Orange, grapefruit, clementine, mango from Mexico to USA
Mountain papaya from Chile to USA
Citrus, papaya, lychee, from Hawaii to mainland USA
Papaya from Belize to USA
Mango from Taiwan to USA
Ear corn to USA
Orchids, plants and cuttings to USA
Chrysanthemum cuttings to USA
Plant materials unable to tolerate MB fumigation to USA
Banana roots for propagation to USA
Many bulbs and tubers to USA
Narcissus bulbs to Japan
Melons from a region of China and from the Netherlands to Japan
Squash, tomatoes, green pepper, eggplant from Tasmania
(Australia) to Japan
Cucurbits to Japan and USA
Nectarines from USA to New Zealand
Immature banana to Japan
Some avocado exports
Citrus from Florida to Japan
Certain cut flowers from Netherlands and Colombia to Japan
Apples from Chile and New Zealand to USA
Garlic from Italy and Spain to USA
Nectarines from New Zealand to Australia
Green vegetables to many countries
Small batches of seeds for propagation to USA
Root crops are accepted by many countries if all soil is removed
Hand removal of certain pests from cut flowers to USA
Propagative plant materials unable to tolerate MB fumigation to USA
Apples from Canada to California
Cut flowers from New Zealand to Japan
Asparagus to Japan
Cut flowers from Thailand and Hawaii to Japan
Bulbs to Japan
Tomatoes from Australia to New Zealand
Propagative plant material to USA
Certain ornamental plants to USA
Soapy water and wax coating for cherimoya and limes from Chile to USA
Warm soapy water and brushing for durian and other large fruit to USA
Vapor heat and cold treatment for litchi from China and Taiwan to Japan
Pressure water spray and insecticide for certain cut flowers to USA
Hand removal and pesticide for certain ornamental plants, Christmas
trees and propagative plant materials to USA
Heat treatment + removal of pulp from seeds for propagation to USA
Compiled from: MBTOC 1998, USDA-APHIS 1998
Table 5.6 Examples of quarantine treatments approved for perishable commodities
103
Table 5.7 Examples of alternative techniques used for structures
Treatments
Heat treatments
Heat treatments + IPM
Phosphine + carbon dioxide + heat
Sulphuryl fluoride
Intensive monitoring + IPM
Cold treatment (freeze-out)
Structures
Historic buildings and mills in Scandinavia
Food processing facilities and mills in Canada, USA
Food processing facilities and mills in USA
Wooden constructions, domestic buildings
and railcars in USA
Food warehouses in Hawaii, USA, UK
Food facilities in Canada.
Compiled from: Mueller 1998, GTZ 1998, MBTOC 1998, Batchelor 1999a
104
been identified. MBTOC recently reviewed
alternatives and failed to identify existing
alternatives for the following quarantine and
pre-shipment uses of MB for durable commodities and structures (MBTOC 1998, TEAP
1999):
Disinfestation of fresh walnuts for immediate sale.
Disinfestation of fresh chestnuts.
Disinfestation of oak logs with oak wilt
fungus.
Elimination of seed-borne nematodes in
alfalfa and some other seeds for
planting.
Control of organophosphate resistant
mites in traditional cheese stores.
Mills and food processing facilities where
IPM systems have not been implemented
successfully.
Some cases of aircraft disinfestation.
Worldwide, these uses are unlikely to exceed
50 tonnes of MB per year in total (MBTOC
1998).
For perishable commodities, MBTOC failed to
identify approved quarantine treatments to
replace MB in the following commodities and
situations:
Apples potentially infested with codling
moth and exported from New Zealand
and USA to Japan.
Stonefruit (peaches, plums, cherries,
apricots, nectarines) potentially infested
with codling moth and exported to
countries free from codling moth.
Grapes potentially infested with
Brevipalpis chilensis mites exported from
Chile to the USA.
Grape exports from USA to countries
that require MB fumigation.
Berryfruit (strawberry, raspberry, blueberry and blackberry) exports from countries
such as Australia, Brazil, Canada,
Colombia, Israel, New Zealand, South
Africa, USA and Zimbabwe.
Root crop exports (carrot, cassava, garlic,
ginger, onion, potato, sweet potato, taro
and yam) where infested with quarantine pests.
While viable alternatives are not available for
the above uses today, it should be noted that
MBTOC (1994, 1998) has identified many
potentially effective alternatives that will
require additional research and development
for application to these specific commodities
and pests.
Identifying suitable alternatives
The identification of a technique appropriate
for a specific situation can be complex,
because it requires consideration of a wide
range of technical, economic, market, regulatory, safety, environmental and organisational
factors (see also Section 2). The process may
be simplified by following the five steps outlined below:
2.
3.
4.
Develop a thorough understanding
of the pest problems by identifying the
pests and learning about their life
stages, habits, preferences and the factors that keep them from thriving.
Be clear about the market and regulatory requirements for pest control.
What degree of pest control is needed?
Will pest suppression suffice or is virtual
elimination of pests necessary? What
practices could be introduced to prevent
pest populations from building up and
to reduce the frequency of disinfestation
treatments?
List the techniques that would be
effective in controlling the pests in your
commodity/structure. Initially, focus solely on technical issues and be sure to
make a full list of all possible options.
You could start by making a list of all
pests that affect the commodity or structure. For each pest, identify all the remedial treatments and preventive practices
that would control each pest to a satisfactory level. Then use the list to identify
the different combinations of techniques
that could control the full range of pests
you will encounter. Annex 4 provides
template tables to guide you through
these steps.
Evaluate the suitability of each technical option for your situation. For
each option, list the technical requirements, advantages and disadvantages,
and consider the relevant issues, such as
staff requirements, logistics, equipment
and materials, costs, regulatory requirements and safety and environmental
issues. (Refer to Section 2 for a brief discussion of these issues.) You may find it
useful to summarise the information in a
table format, as shown in Annex 4.
Specific questions relating to your commodity
and situation can include the following:
Which pest species and life stages need
to be controlled?
What degree of pest control is required?
What are the habits and preferences of
these pests? Which factors favour or discourage their presence, stage development and reproduction? Where and
when is each pest species vulnerable?
Which procedures and treatments are
technically capable of controlling the
pests?
What steps can be taken to prevent the
entry of pests, prevent the build-up of
pest populations, and reduce the need
for disinfestation treatments?
How much time is available for carrying
out treatments?
Where time is a problem, can commodities be managed differently to allow
more time for treatments to be carried
out? For example, can treatments be
carried out at an earlier stage of storage
and handling, or while in transit?
Which treatments can the commodity or
structure safely withstand without damage or effects on commercial quality?
Would residues or other effects present
a problem for companies that purchase
the products?
Which treatments do pesticide safety
authorities already permit? Which treatments do not need to be registered?
What safety measures need to be taken
to protect staff, local communities and
the environment?
Which treatments and practices will
allow staff continuous access to commodities and working areas?
What facilities, equipment and staff skills
are currently available?
What changes in equipment, materials
and staff skills would be required by the
alternatives?
What changes in management and
working procedures would be
necessary?
1.
105
What activities or steps would have to
be carried out to introduce each alternative?
What are the capital and set-up costs,
operating costs, profitability and payback
period for each alternative system?
How can the alternatives be adapted
and improved to better suit local
circumstances?
106
5.
Develop a plan. Once you have chosen
the most promising techniques, identify
the main steps and activities that adop-
tion of the technique(s) will require. Try
to talk with specialists and suppliers to
find ways to adapt systems to your
needs, to make change feasible, to
improve efficacy and to reduce costs. For
assistance, refer to the information in
Sections 6.1 through 6.7, consult the
specialists and suppliers listed toward the
end of each Section and the reading
material listed in the corresponding section of Annex 7. See Annex 6 for an
alphabetical listing of supplier names
and contact information.
6.1 IPM and preventive
measures
In order to replace a particular use of MB, it is
often necessary to combine several different
alternatives in IPM or Integrated Commodity
Management (ICM). In most situations with
stored products and structures, it is possible
to avoid or minimise pest infestation so that
”clean up” with MB is not needed. This type
of pest management is not just a replacement for MB but often avoids the need for
MB or other remedial treatments.
The term IPM is used to describe diverse combinations of treatments and practices to control pests. Development of an IPM system
starts with the identification of existing and
potential pests and an understanding of the
causes of their presence, the factors that
allow them to thrive, and their vulnerabilities.
Prevention is a major component of IPM and
involves activities such as the removal of pest
refuges, regular cleaning of storage areas,
and use of physical barriers to prevent pests
from entering products. Products and structures are monitored regularly for insects, and
action is taken if an ”action threshold” is
exceeded. The threshold notion involves
determining the level of pest activity that can
be tolerated without significant product loss
or damage. Such a threshold is based on the
amount of economic damage that can be tolerated as well as the size and life stage of the
populations of pests — detailed informaiton
about IPM approaches for stored products
can be found in Subramanyam and Hagstrum
1996.
The components of an IPM system will vary
greatly from one situation to another,
because the system and practices are tailored
to a specific location. Some IPM systems
require constant maintenance in order to succeed, and occasional full-site or curative treatments may be required to supplement IPM
systems. An IPM system for grain stored in
bulk or bags, for example, may include cleaning, pest detection procedures, insecticide
sprays, stock rotation and control of the storage environment.
IPM requires knowledge about the interactions between stored products, the storage
environment and the insects associated with
the products. It requires significantly more
know-how than does MB use, and substantial
effort needs to be put into training technicians and commodity managers.
Pest management for durables and
structures
Three important components of pest management for stored products include prevention, monitoring and control (Mueller 1998).
a) Prevention
For an IPM programme to succeed, the
largest proportion of time and effort (about
75%) should go into the tasks of preventing
pests from entering storage areas and products, where possible, and preventing them
from thriving and accumulating. These aims
require changes in commodity management
practices, adaptations to the physical environment of storage areas, and the introduction
of measures to ensure high levels of
cleanliness. Typical prevention activities
Section 6: Alternative Techniques for Controlling Pests in Commodities and Structures
6
Alternative Techniques for
Controlling Pests in Commodities
and Structures
107
Changing farm practices, where possible, so that products are kept in clean
conditions as soon as they are harvested.
Using physical barriers (e.g., insect-proof
storage containers, insect screens on
windows and openings) to prevent
insects from entering structures or gaining access to products.
108
Removing articles and altering storage
areas to eliminate crevices and places
that could provide refuge for pests, both
inside and outside the storage facility.
Drawing up a work programme for frequent cleaning (including sweeping and
vacuuming) of all parts of the storage
premises, to assure that they are free
from food residues and debris that
attract insects and rodents.
Maintaining a 45-cm (18-inch) gap
between stored products and interior
walls, to assist cleaning.
Keeping outside areas clean of food
residues that might attract pests.
Cleaning all empty commodity receptacles before re-filling, so that no insects
remain.
Establishing procedures to verify that
new batches of products are free from
pests and only clean products are
brought into stores. Such procedures
would include inspecting incoming products and packaging materials for pests
and placing contaminated products into
separate holding areas until they have
been disinfested.
Keeping products cool and/or aerated,
where feasible.
Keeping moisture levels low.
b) Monitoring
About 20% of the time and effort of an IPM
system involves monitoring for pests and carrying out inspections to ensure that prevention practices are properly implemented.
Diligent monitoring allows for early action
when pests are found. Common activities
Using effectively designed insect and
rodent traps with correct pheromone or
bait for attracting target pests.
Having the correct number (density) and
placement of traps.
Inspecting batches visually.
Examining samples of incoming products
and stored batches of products.
Using records to identify old stock, since
pest outbreaks often start from pallets of
old products that have not been rotated
or monitored.
Maintaining records and rotating stock.
Checking moisture, temperature and
other conditions that favour or discourage pests.
Inspecting premises regularly to ensure
that cleaning has been done thoroughly.
c) Control
If prevention and monitoring are carried out
effectively,then less than 5% of time and
effort will go into treatments to eliminate
pest infestations. Curative treatments become
necessary if pest populations become established, often an indication that prevention
and monitoring have not been thorough.
In contrast to the approach outlined above,
enterprises generally put most effort into disinfestation treatments and put little effort
into prevention and monitoring. MBTOC
points out that many MB alternatives are not
direct replacements for MB; rather they are
measures designed to avoid the need for MB
(MBTOC 1998).
Preventive measures for perishable
commodities
For perishable commodities, some measures
can be introduced in the field and after harvest to avoid the need for MB fumigation or
other quarantine treatments. This is an
Table 6.1.1 Examples of pest-free zones that are accepted
instead of quarantine treatments
Countries
Exports from Tasmania
(Australia) to Japan
Quarantine pests
Tobacco blue mold
(Peronospora tabacina),
Mediterranean fruit fly (Ceratitis
capitata), Queensland fruit fly
(Bactrocera tryoni)
Melon fly (Bactrocera cucurbitae
Coq.)
Melons
Exports from Hsingchang
Uighur Autonomous Region
in China to Japan
Strawberries, grapes, melons,
tomatoes, peppers,
cucumbers, aubergine
and squash
Exports from the Netherlands
to Japan
Mediterranean fruit fly
(Ceratitis capitata)
Grapes, kiwifruit and other
products
Exports from Chile to Japan
Mediterranean fruit fly (Ceratitis
capitata)
Compiled from: MBTOC 1998 (See Riherd et al 1994 for further examples.)
advantage, because MB and other treatments
can reduce the shelf life and market quality
of perishable commodities. Examples include:
a) Inspection and certification
In some circumstances, it is feasible to establish a system for inspecting and certifying that
products are free from target pests before they
are exported. For example, Japanese quarantine officials inspect cut flowers in the
Netherlands and Colombia prior to shipment;
this reduces the need for inspection and disinfestation treatments on arrival in Japan.
Inspection is labour intensive and needs to be
carried out by personnel who are well trained
and accepted as competent and independent
by the importing country. Inspection may
become simpler in the future with the
development of automatic equipment to scan
products and detect pests. For example,
chemical sensors may be designed to detect
or “smell” specific compounds emitted by
pests.
b) Pest-free zones
Some countries have certain geographic
regions that are free from quarantine pests of
concern, even though the pest is established
in other parts of the country (Shannon 1994).
Where regions can be proven and certified as
pest-free zones, products can be exported
from them without a quarantine treatment.
A substantial amount of scientific survey data
is required to demonstrate that an area is free
from the target pest. In addition, regulatory
measures are required to keep the area
pest-free, and on-going surveillance must
be carried out. Pest-free zones have been
established in a number of countries, including Australia, China, the Netherlands and
Chile. Further examples of approved pest-free
zones can be found in Table 6.1.1 and in
Riherd et al (1994).
c) Systems approach
For certain commodities and pests it is feasible to set up procedures on farms and after
harvest to ensure that many small steps eliminate quarantine pests. Examples of measures
Planting commodities that are not the
preferred host of the quarantine pest
(Armstrong 1994a).
Harvesting when the commodity is not
susceptible to attack by the pest.
Perishable commodities
Capsicum, aubergine
(eggplant) and tomatoes
109
Table 6.1.2 Examples of combined alternative treatments
for commodities and structures
Commodities or structures
Treatments
Countries
Durable commodities and structures
Grains for export
IPM + nitrogen treatment
Food processing facilities
Phosphine + carbon dioxide + heat
Approved quarantine treatments for perishable commodities
Cherimoya and limes
Soapy water + wax coating on fruit
Cut flowers (robust types)
Pressured water spray + insecticide
110
Australia
USA
Exports from Chile to USA
Exports from various
countries to USA
Durian and other large fruit
Warm soapy water + brushing
countries to USA
Litchi fruit
Vapour heat + cold treatment
Exports from China and
Taiwan to Japan
Ornamental plants (certain
types), Christmas trees and
propagative materials
Removal of pests by hand +
pesticide treatment
Exports from various countries to USA
Seeds for propagation
Heat treatment + removal of pulp
countries to USA
Compiled from: MBTOC 1994, MBTOC 1998, Batchelor 1999a, USDA-APHIS 1998
Harvesting when the pest is not active.
Covering picked fruit to avoid
”hitchhiker” pests.
The systems approach for achieving quarantine security has been described by Jang and
Moffitt (1994) and includes the following
steps:
Consistent and effective management
for reducing pest populations in farm
fields.
Preventing the commodity from becoming contaminated with pests after harvest and during shipping.
Culling in the pack house.
Monitoring, inspecting and certifying the
critical parts of the system.
The systems approach can achieve or even
exceed the level of quarantine security
required by an importing country (Moffitt
1990, Vail et al 1993). It depends heavily on
knowledge of the pest-host biology and life
cycles, well-trained staff and implementation
of effective management systems.
Among the cases of commercial application
(MBTOC 1997, MBTOC 1998), is the export
of avocados from Mexico to 19 Northeastern
states in the USA. Products protected in this
manner are certified free from avocado seed
weevil, avocado seed moth, avocado stem
weevil, fruit fly and other hitchhiker pests,
based on field surveys, trapping, field treatments, field sanitation, host resistance, postharvest safeguards, pack house inspection,
fruit culling, shipping only in winter, and
inspection on arrival in the importing country
(Firko 1995, Miller et al 1995). Other examples of the systems approach for quarantine
purposes include citrus exported from Florida
USA to Japan and apples exported from USA
to Brazil.
d) Combined treatments
Combined treatments can be very useful in
replacing MB for perishable commodities,
because they allow several narrow-spectrum
Items
Durable commodities
and structures
Perishable commodities
Canadian Grain Commission, Canada
Canadian Pest Control Association, Canada
Cereal Research Station, Canada
CSIRO, Canberra, Australia
Cyprus Grain Commission, Cyprus
Food Protection Services, USA
Fumigation Services and Supply Inc, USA
Grainco Australia Ltd, Australia
Grainsmith Pty, Australia
GTZ, Germany
HortResearch Natural Systems Group, New Zealand
Insects Limited Inc, USA
Natural Resources Institute, UK
Rentokil, Germany
Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station,
Forest Service USDA, USA
For information and examples of commercial application:
Quaker Oats Canada Ltd, Canada
Crop & Food Research, New Zealand
HortResearch Market Access Group, New Zealand
Dr Jack Armstrong and Dr Eric Jang, Tropical Fruit and
Vegetable Research Laboratory, USDA, USA
Dr Arnold Hara, University of Hawaii, USA
Dr Robert Hill, HortResearch, Ruakura, New Zealand
Dr Adel Kader, Dr Elizabeth Mitcham, Pomology Dept,
University of California, USA
Dr Michael Lay-Yee, HortResearch, New Zealand
Prof Eugenio López L, Universidad Católica de Valparaiso,
Chile
Dr Robert Mangan, Subtropical Agriculture Research
Laboratory, USDA, USA
Dr Lisa Neven and Dr Harold Moffitt, Yakima Agricultural
Research Laboratory, USDA, USA
Dr Jennifer Sharp, Dr Walter Gould and Dr Guy Hallman,
Subtropical Horticulture Research Station, USDA, USA
or less effective techniques to attain a cumulative impact equivalent to MB. There are several cases where combined treatments have
been used commercially for products and
have been approved for quarantine purposes.
Examples are given in Table 6.1.2.
Technical information about alternative techniques is found later in this Section.
Specialists and suppliers of IPM
services
Table 6.1.3 provides examples of specialists,
consultants and suppliers of services related
to IPM and preventive practices in pest management. See Annex 6 for an alphabetical
listing of suppliers, specialists and experts.
See also Annex 5 and Annex 7 for additional information resources.
Table 6.1.3 Examples of specialists, consultants and suppliers of services for IPM
and preventive pest management techniques
111
6.2 Cold treatments
and aeration
Advantages
No residues left in food.
High consumer acceptance.
Safe for workers.
Relatively easy to use.
112
used to prevent damage, pest multiplication
and reinvasion, and a high mortality of stored
product pests can be achieved if grain is kept
below 5°C for at least four months (MBTOC
1994). Ambient cold air — such as cool, dry
night air — is fed into the stored commodity
through an aeration system, typically consisting of ventilation ducts, fans and a control
system. Cooling can also be achieved by
transferring commodities from one bin to
another in cold weather, exposing them to
the cold air.
Cold storage extends shelf-life.
Some cold treatments provide
disinfestation.
Disadvantages
Relatively long treatment times (with
some exceptions).
Relatively expensive.
Consumes energy.
Not suitable for products that cannot
withstand cold temperatures.
Cold treatments can be used for stored products as part of an IPM system, and can also
be used for disinfestation to meet QPS
requirements. Below about 10°C insect reproduction ceases and the populations of most
pests of durable products slowly decline.
Temperatures of -15°C for a few days control
most pest species in durable commodities.
Temperatures around 0°C kill certain quarantine pests of perishable commodities, particularly fruit fly species.
Several cold treatment techniques may be
used:
Aeration
Aeration is used in many temperate regions
with the aim of cooling grain soon after harvest to a temperature low enough to prevent
the development of major insect species (typically less than 14°C). Aeration is typically
Aeration must be combined with other techniques to give control equivalent to repeated
fumigations with MB, but of itself can give
sufficient insect control to meet the requirements of some markets. Well-controlled aeration and cooling result in negligible grain
losses due to insect pests.
Refrigerated cooling
If cool, dry ambient air is not available for
aerating grain, it is feasible to use refrigeration units to chill and dehumidify incoming
air, even in humid sub-tropical environments.
Many grain silos in the Mediterranean and
sub-tropical regions use this technique
(MBTOC 1998). Other durable products can
be held at refrigeration temperatures (preferably less than 5°C) to delay the development
of pests.
Cold treatments
Cold storage at temperatures down to about
0°C is suitable for long-term protection of
certain types of durable products, such as
prunes, dried pears, nuts and beverage crops.
Commodities can be stored in cold stores and
other warehouse facilities equipped for refrigeration. Cold treatments in the range of -1 to
+2°C are important quarantine treatments for
certain perishable commodities, such as citrus
fruit, and a number of different treatment
schedules have been approved by quarantine
authorities. These vary with the type of fruit,
target pest and destination country. Table
6.2.3 provides examples of quarantine cold
treatment schedules. Cold treatments can
Freezer treatments
All common stored grain insect pests can be
controlled when grain is exposed for 2 weeks
to temperatures lower than -18°C (MBTOC
1998). Such freezer treatments are used for
the disinfestation of small batches of high
value grain, including special seed stocks and
organically grown rice. Exposure to -10°C for
about 11 hours disinfests dates, for example.
This treatment is particularly effective when
combined with a brief exposure to 2.8% oxygen or to low pressure, which causes insects
to leave the centre of the fruit and become
vulnerable to the cold (Donahaye et al 1991,
Donahaye et al 1992).
While freezer treatments are effective for certain types of durables, they are sometimes
only practicable for treating small quantities
in batches. Freezing cannot normally be used
for perishable commodities, because such
commodities have a high moisture content
and fragile cell walls that make them vulnerable to severe damage.
For quarantine purposes, freezer temperatures are typically required to eliminate pests
sufficiently in durable products. In the case of
perishable commodities, quarantine treatments are based on higher temperatures, typically -1°C to +2°C, although the exact
temperature and duration depends on the
susceptibility of the target pest and the commodity’s tolerance of cold.
Cold temperatures have to be carefully selected to kill target pests while avoiding damage
to products, particularly those of tropical origin, which are more sensitive to cold. In some
cases it is possible to prevent damage by
using two-stage treatments (Houck et al
1990a, Aung et al 1997).
Many commodities, such as grain, are poor
thermal conductors and provide pests with
some protection against the cold, so it is necessary to ensure that cold temperatures are
achieved within the commodities, not simply
in the air spaces between them. The required
treatment times vary greatly according to the
following factors:
Temperature.
Rate at which the commodity conducts
the cold.
Pest species and pest life stage.
A treatment period of between 12 and 24
days at about 0°C is generally required to disinfest perishable commodities of fruit flies,
while a 2-week treatment below -18°C is
required to disinfest grain of common pests.
On the other hand, some cold treatments are
considerably faster than this and faster than
MB fumigation. For example, a treatment to
disinfest dates requires 10.5 hours of exposure to -10°C or only 2.25 hours exposure at
-18°C (Donahaye et al 1991).
Where feasible, it is desirable to carry out
cold treatments as part of the normal cool
storage or handling of products. Cold treatments can sometimes be carried out in refrigerated shipping containers while products are
in transit to markets. One of the advantages
of cold treatments is that staff members have
continued access to commodities at all times.
This contrasts with MB fumigation, during
which staff cannot enter the commodity area
for safety reasons.
Current uses
Diverse types of cold treatments are used
commercially for a wide range of products in
both warm and cool climates (Table 6.2.1).
Cold treatments are used as part of IPM systems for grain in the Mediterranean region,
North America, Australia and other areas.
Cold treatments are also used where cold
storage warehouses are part of a storage system, for example for prunes in the USA and
France.
only be used for perishable and durable commodities that tolerate cold temperatures
without suffering quality damage.
113
Table 6.2.1 Examples of commercial use of cool and cold treatments
Products
Stored grains in temperate climates
114
Grain in silos in the Mediterranean
and sub-tropical regions
High-value grains for export,
e.g., organically grown rice
Small volumes of seeds
Dehydrated raisins in the USA.
prunes and dried pears
Museum objects
Fresh apple and pear exports to the USA
Table grapes exported from Chile to Japan
Grapefruit and other citrus fruit exported
from many countries to Japan
Warehouses or grain stores in
countries with low winter temperatures
such as Canada
Treatments
Aeration to slow down insect
development
Refrigerated aeration to delay insect
development
Freeze treatment for disinfestation
Freeze treatment for disinfestation
Cold storage (below 1°C) for longterm protection from pests
Cold treatments for disinfestation
Cold treatments for quarantine
“Freeze-outs” as structural or
space treatments
Freezer treatments are used for disinfestation
of durable commodities in a few cases, such
as museum objects, small quantities of seed
and high value grain products. Cold treatments are also used as quarantine treatments
for perishable commodities, such as citrus
and fruit from temperate climates.
Material inputs
For aeration: ducts, fans and control systems in storage structures.
Additional electrical services.
Refrigeration treatments require the use
of a cool store or cold storage warehouse, or require refrigeration equipment to be fitted to the storage or
shipping containers.
Freezer treatments require the use of
premises with freezer storage, or require
freezer equipment to be fitted to storage
or shipping containers.
Equipment to monitor and control temperatures and in some cases humidity.
For ambient air aeration: cool or cold
ambient air during day or night, with
low or moderate humidity.
Where disinfestation is required, sufficient time during storage or transportation to allow a treatment to kill all target
pests at all life stages.
Pests controlled
Cool temperatures provide pest management,
while freezing temperatures are normally necessary for disinfestation. If grain is held at less
than 5°C for several months, most of the
immature stages of stored product pests die
off, although some adult pests may survive.
Cool temperatures (below about 10-15°C)
generally do not kill insects but stop their
feeding and reproduction, with a resulting
slow decline of most pest populations in
durable products. Temperatures of -15°C for
a few days control most pests (Chauvin and
Vannier 1991, Fields 1992).
All stages of Sitophilus granarius,
Callosobruchus rodesianus, Ephestia cautella
and Ephestia kuehniella are killed at -18°C for
In general eggs are more cold-sensitive, while
adults and larvae are often more tolerant of
cold. Species of tropical origin, such as
Sitophilus oryzae, Sitophilus zeamais,
Tenebroides mauritanicus and Lasioderma serricorne, tend to be cold sensitive, although
some important pests including Cryptolestes
spp., bruchids, mites and some Lepidoptera
species are very tolerant of cold temperatures
(Armitage 1987, Lasseran and Fleurat-Lessard
1991, Fields 1992). The diapausing moth
larva is highly resistant to cold, requiring
more than 14 days at -10°C or 1 day at
-15°C; the adult rusty grain beetle, on the
other hand, requires 8 weeks at a grain
temperature of -5°C, 6 weeks at a grain
temperature of -10°C, or 2 weeks at a grain
temperature of -15°C (Banks and Fields
1995). Some species of insects have the ability to acclimatise to cold and may become tolerant to temperatures that would normally be
lethal. Rapid cooling may be necessary to prevent such adaptation.
Product quality
Cool and cold treatments for stored grain
give grain quality that is the same as or better
than MB fumigation. Cool storage maintains
the quality and extends the shelf life of perishable products. Cold temperatures down to
about 0°C can be tolerated by a number of
perishable commodities, but in some cases a
pre-conditioning treatment, such as exposure
to 15°C, is necessary to prevent damage to
products.
Table 6.2.2 Comparison of aeration, cold treatments and freezer treatments
Suitable products
Stored grains,
pulses, oilseeds
Equipment
Ventilation ducts,
fans and control
system
Cold treatments
-1 to +2°C
Disinfestation or pest
suppression
Quarantine pests (mainly
fruit flies) in perishable
commodities; stored
product pests in durables
Certain perishable
commodities such as
citrus, carambola,
kiwifruit and grapes;
certain stored products,
such as prunes and nuts
Refrigerated warehouse
or storage area; refrigerated shipping container
Treatment time
Cool
temperature
maintained
continuously
throughout the
storage period
For perishable products,
about 12 - 24 days.
For durables, cool
temperature maintained
throughout the storage
period
Temperatures
Degree of
pest control
Pests
Aeration
< 5-15°C
Pest
suppression
Stored product
pests
Freezer treatments
-15 to -19 °C
Disinfestation
Stored product pests
and quarantine pests
High-value durable
products such as
organically grown
rice, special seeds
and museum objects
Freezer chamber or
warehouse; storage
area for frozen foods
or meat
From 2 hours to 2
weeks, depending on
the pest, treatment
temperature and rate
at which cold is
conducted through
the treated objects
5 hours in wheat, maize and soy bean
(Dohino et al 1999). Woollen artifacts can be
disinfested from clothes moths by exposure
to -18°C for a few days (Brokerhof et al
1993). Additional information on the effects
of cold treatments on various pest species
can be found in Johnson and Valero (1999).
115
Temperatures around 0°C can be tolerated by
many durable products but leads to quality
degradation in others. For example, longterm storage can lead to crystallisation of
fruit sugars in processed sultanas. A disinfestation treatment of -18°C for 5 hours has no
observable effect on the quality of wheat,
maize and soybean (Dohino et al 1999).
Freezer temperatures are acceptable for the
quality of some durable products, such as
rice, but would normally destroy perishable
commodities.
limited mainly to high-value products, such as
organic products. Cold treatments are suitable as part of an IPM system for cold storage
warehouses or for structures, particularly in
countries with low ambient winter temperatures.
Table 6.2.4 provides examples of products
where cold treatments have been approved
for quarantine purposes.
Suitable climates and conditions
Cold treatment aeration of stored products is
suitable for temperate climates and warm climates with cool, dry night air. It can also be
used in hot or humid climates, if the air is
conditioned by refrigeration systems. Cold
and freezer treatments are feasible in any
location where refrigeration is available.
Suitable products and uses
Cool and cold treatments can be applied to
grains and a wide variety of durable products
and artifacts – any item that can withstand
cold temperatures without suffering quality
damage. Due to cost, freezing treatments are
Table 6.2.3 Examples of quarantine treatment schedules utilising cold treatments
Commodities and countries
Carambola exported from Florida USA to Japan
Carambola exported from Hawaii to mainland USA
Carambola shipped from Florida to California USA
Citrus exported from Australia to Japan
Citrus exported from Florida USA to Japan
Citrus exported from Israel to Japan
Citrus exported from Mexico or Central America
to USA
Citrus exported from South Africa and
Swaziland to Japan
Citrus exported from Spain to Japan
Citrus exported from Taiwan to Japan
Grapes exported from Chile to Japan
Kiwifruit exported from Chile to Japan
Items that carry insects in soil on importation
into the USA
Quarantine treatment schedule
1.1°C for 15 days to control
Caribbean fruit fly
0.6 - 1.1°C for 12 days to control
fruit flies
1.1°C for 15 days
1°C for 14-16 days to control
Mediterranean fruit fly and
Queensland fruit fly (B. tryoni)
2.2°C for 17-24 days to control
Caribbean fruit fly (Anastraeptha
suspensa)
0.5 - 1.5°C for 13-16 days
0.6°C - 1.7°C for 18-22 days to
control Mexican fruit fly (treatment
not used commerically)
-0.6°C for 12 days to control
Mediterranean fruit fly (C.capitata)
2.0°C for 16 days to control
1°C for 14 days to control Oriental
fruit fly (B. dorsalis)
0°C for 12 days to control
0°C for 14 days to control
-17.7°C for 5 days
116
Compiled from: MBTOC 1998, USDA-APHIS 1993, 1998
Commodities
Examples of approved quarantine applications
Cold treatments for perishable commodities
Apple
From Mexico, Chile, South Africa, Israel, Argentina, Brazil, Italy, France,
Spain, Portugal, Jordan, Lebanon, Australia, Hungary, Uruguay, Ecuador,
Guyana and Zimbabwe to USA
Cherry
From Mexico, Chile and Argentina to USA
Grape
From Chile to Japan
From South Africa, Brazil, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Peru,
Uruguay, Venezuela and India to USA
Citrus
From Australia, Florida USA, Israel, South Africa, Spain, Swaziland and
Taiwan shipped to Japan
From South Africa (Western Cape) and 23 countries to USA
Orange
From Israel, Mexico, Spain, Morocco, Costa Rica, Colombia, Bolivia,
Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Panama, Guatemala, Venezuela,
Guyana, Belize, Trinidad & Tobago, Suriname, Bermuda, Italy, Greece,
Turkey, Egypt, Algeria, Tunisia and Australia to USA
Interstate USA
Clementine
From Israel, Spain, Morocco, Costa Rica, Colombia, Guatemala, Honduras,
Ecuador, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Panama, Venezuela, Suriname, Trinidad &
Tobago, Algeria, Tunisia, Greece, Cyprus and Italy to USA
Interstate USA
Tangerine
From Mexico, Australia and Belize to USA
Interstate USA
Grapefruit
From Israel, Mexico, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador,
Nicaragua, Panama, Colombia, Bolivia, Venezuela, Italy, Spain, Tunisia,
Australia, Suriname, Trinidad & Tobago, Belize, Bermuda, Cyprus, Algeria
and Morocco to USA
Interstate USA
Peach
From Mexico, Israel, Morocco, South Africa, Tunisia, Zimbabwe, Uruguay and
Argentina to USA
Nectarine
From Israel, Argentina, Uruguay, Zimbabwe and South Africa to USA
Apricot
From Mexico, Israel, Morocco, Zimbabwe, Haiti and Argentina to USA
Plum
From Mexico, Israel, Morocco, Colombia, Argentina, Uruguay, Guatemala,
Algeria, Tunisia, Zimbabwe and South Africa to USA
Plumcot
From Chile to USA
Kiwifruit
From Chile to Japan
From Chile, Italy, France, Greece, Zimbabwe and Australia to USA
Pear
From Israel, Chile, South Africa, Morocco, Italy, France, Spain, Portugal,
Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Uruguay, Argentina, Zimbabwe and Australia to USA
Persimmon
From Israel, Italy and Jordan to USA
Pomegranate
From Israel, Colombia, Argentina, Haiti and Greece to USA
Lychee
From China, Israel and Taiwan to USA
Loquat
From Chile, Israel and Spain to USA
Quince
From Chile and Argentina to USA
Carambola
From Hawaii, Belize and Taiwan to USA
Pummelo
From Israel to USA
Mountain papaya From Chile to USA
Ya pear
From China to USA
Ethrog
From Israel, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua,
Panama, Morocco, Spain, Italy, France, Greece, Portugal, Tunisia, Syria,
Turkey, Albania, Algeria, Belize, Bosnia, Macedonia, Croatia, Libya, Corsica
and Cyprus to USA
Durian
To USA
Avocado (Sharwill) From Hawaii to mainland USA
Freezer treatments
Items carrying
To USA
soil with insects
Compiled from: MBTOC 1998 and USDA-APHIS 1998
Table 6.2.4 Products where cold treatments are approved as quarantine treatments
117
Cold treatments do not involve the use of
toxic fumigants. Exposure to cold temperatures can present a health hazard for staff
who do not have appropriate clothing and
training. Cooling and refrigeration equipment
must be properly maintained, and certain
refrigerants (e.g., ammonia) pose a risk of
toxicity, if equipment is not properly maintained.
118
consumers, because they are non-chemical
treatments. Some cold treatments give products of better quality than those with MB
fumigation.
There is no regulatory approval required for
aeration or cold treatments. However, any
treatments to be used for quarantine purposes need to be approved by the importing
country. (See Table 6.2.3 for examples).
Safety training is necessary for working in
cold temperatures and handling cold
products.
None.
Ozone depletion
Many refrigeration units and freezers contain
ODS, so it is highly desirable to select equipment that does not, whenever possible.
consumption
For aeration, moderate amounts of energy
are consumed in the operation of fans. The
operation of refrigeration units and freezers
requires substantially more energy, and some
refrigeration equipment contains HFCs, which
are greenhouse gases (GHG). The selection of
GHG-free equipment with reasonable energyefficiency ratings can help to mitigate these
undesirable impacts. In some situations, it
may be possible to use local renewable
sources of energy.
If refrigeration equipment is not properly
maintained, refrigerants may leak out. In general the equipment has a very long life, and
theoretically many of the component parts
could be re-used.
Cold treatments are highly acceptable to
Cost considerations
In the case of aeration, the capital costs
can be less than the cost of one year’s
application of MB. Bulk grain aeration
needs ductwork similar to MB fumigation, as well as a control system and fans.
Labour costs of aeration are probably
cheaper than MB, because automatic
controls are normally used.
For cool and cold treatments, the capital
costs are higher than MB, while labour
costs are similar.
The cost of cold treatments for durables
may be too high in regions with high
ambient temperatures, although cold
treatments for perishable commodities
can be economic where products have
to be chilled in any case to extend
shelf life.
the system
What level of pest control needs to be
achieved?
What temperatures can the product
withstand without damage?
Can the commodity be treated while in
storage or in transit, or does it need a
special, rapid treatment?
Is sufficient cool air available during the
day or night?
Would aeration fit into the present commodity management system?
Table 6.2.5 Suppliers of products and services for cold treatments
Equipment for cold treatments, e.g.
industrial refrigeration and freezer units,
heat pumps
Company name
Agridry Rimik, Australia
AllSize Perforating Ltd, Canada
Avonlea, Canada
Other suppliers of aeration controllers can
be found on the Internet.
Contact local cool storage and freezer
facilities (e.g. frozen food and meat storage
facilities) to ask about surplus capacity or
local sources of equipment.
Specialists, advisory services and consultants
on cold treatments for durable commodities
and structures
CSIRO Stored Grain Research Laboratory,
Australia
Insects Limited, USA
Dr Jonathan Donahaye and Dr Shlomo
Navarro, Volcani Institute, Israel
Dr Paul Fields, Cereal Research Centre,
Canada
Dr Judy Johnson, HCRL Fresno, USDA, USA
Specialists, advisory services and consultants
treatments for perishable commodities
American President Lines, USA
Crop and Food Research, Postharvest
Disinfestation Programme, New Zealand
TransFresh, USA
Dr Jack Armstrong, Tropical Fruit and
Vegetable Reserach Laboratory, USDA,
Hawaii
Dr Walter Gould, Subtropical Horticulture
Research Station, USA
Dr Michael Lay-Yee, HortResearch, New
Zealand
Dr Robert Mangan and Dr Krista Shellie,
Subtropical Agriculture Research Laboratory,
USA
Dr Lisa Neven, YARL, USDA, USA
What changes can be made to the commodity management system to enable a
cold treatment to be used?
Is there un-used cool store or freezer
capacity in local food warehouses, meatprocessing facilities, etc.?
different types of cold treatment?
Availability
Equipment for aeration, cold and freezer
treatments are very widely available.
Table 6.2.5 provides examples of suppliers of
products and services for cold treatments, as
well as specialists in these techniques. See
resources.
Type of equipment or service
Equipment for grain aeration, e.g.
ventilation ducts, fans and aeration
control systems
119
6.3 Contact insecticides
Advantages
Long-lasting protection against pests.
Require less skill than application of MB.
Gas-tight enclosures not needed.
Relatively quick application time.
Disadvantages
120
Cannot replace MB entirely; normally
need to be combined with other
practices.
Can be used only for products and uses
for which they are registered or officially
permitted.
Slow action against pests, except for
dichlorvos.
Poor penetration of commodities.
Insect populations can develop resistance
to insecticides.
Many insecticides are toxic to humans,
animals and the environment.
Residues in food.
Contact insecticide is a term that covers a
wide range of chemical products toxic to
pests. Contact insecticides act against insects
in different ways, depending on the nature of
the particular chemical. Most are directly toxic
to pests, but some work by disrupting normal
insect processes. As a group, they are effective in controlling a relatively wide range of
pests, but they act slowly and need to be
used with other treatments or practices.
For stored grain, insecticides can provide a
useful means of avoiding the circumstances in
which fumigation becomes necessary. Where
permitted, they can be applied directly to
grain, storage buildings, transport vehicles,
artifacts, wood products and non-edible perishable commodities. Contact insecticides are
not normally registered for use on processed
foods.
Application time for contact insecticides is relatively short. Unlike fumigants, they do not
readily penetrate bagged or bulk grain, but
they can provide persistent protection against
infestation, lasting from less than 1 month to
24 months, depending on factors such as the
active ingredient, pest species, temperature
and humidity (GTZ 1996). This persistence is
an advantage in products stored for long
periods but a disadvantage if significant
residues remain when products are sold.
After continued use, insects may develop
resistance to particular insecticides or groups
of insecticides, so resistance management
strategies are necessary. In a number of situations, resistance can be managed by using
different treatments in rotation.
Contact insecticides are toxic not only to target pests but also to humans, animals and the
environment (see Annex 3), so they are subject to a number of regulatory controls and
should be used only by trained personnel. As
with other pesticides, insecticides have to be
registered for specific commodities and purposes, and their use varies widely with the
country, market preference and local regulations. In part because they leave residues in
food, some countries have been moving away
from this method of pest control.
Commercial formulations contain one or
more active ingredients as well as carriers and
special additives. The active ingredients are
the chemicals that act against pests; additives
and carriers improve adhesion, act as synergists or otherwise affect performance. The
main groups of active ingredients are as follows:
Organophosphate (OP) compounds
OPs, such as chlorpyrifos methyl, dichlorvos,
fenitrothion, malathion and pirimiphos
methyl, are used in many countries. They can
be effective against many of the storage
Concern with the toxicity of OPs may lead to
additional restrictions in the USA and other
countries. Dichlorvos differs from other OPs in
its rapid action against pests and volatility on
grain. Where permitted, it can be sprayed
onto bulk grain during grain turning a few
days prior to export to disinfest a cargo. In
some cases it can replace MB directly.
Pyrethroids
Pyrethroids, such as permethrin, cypermethrin, cyhalothrin and deltamethrin, are
chemicals based on the active ingredient of
pyrethrum. They are particularly effective
against bostrichid and dermestid beetles.
Some pyrethroids are very stable on grain and
their insecticidal activity may persist up to
two years (Snelson 1987). Their activity is
much less sensitive to temperature than that
of the OPs, but they are relatively expensive.
Most pyrethroids have low acute toxicity to
human beings.
Insect growth regulators (IGRs)
IGRs are not normally directly toxic to adult
pests but disrupt or interfere with the life
cycle or development of pests. Methoprene,
for example, is an analogue of a juvenile hormone. IGRs are considered to be more pestspecific than conventional contact
insecticides. One disadvantage is their long
persistence on foodstuffs, which may limit
their use to non-food products like stored
tobacco. IGRs tend to have low toxicity to
vertebrates (Menn et al 1989 in MBTOC
1994). They are relatively expensive.
Borates
Borates, such as boric acid and disodium
octaborate tetrahydrate, are inorganic compounds based on boron. When ingested by
pests, borates are effective against many
wood-destroying organisms and cockroaches.
They can be used as remedial treatments for
timbers, artifacts and wood in structures
(Lloyd et al 1997, Dickson 1996). They have
low toxicity to humans (Olkowski et al 1991).
Combined products
Combined products are also available in some
cases, providing a broader spectrum insecticide. Examples of OPs mixed with pyrethroids
include pirimiphos methyl with permethrin
and fenitrothion with cyfluthrin.
Insecticide products are available in a variety
of formulations, including:
Dusts – ready for use, for mixture with
commodities or surface treatments.
Emulsifiable concentrates – mixed
with water, mainly for surface treatments.
Wettable powders – mixed with water
for surface treatments.
Flowable concentrates – for surface
treatments.
Hot fogging concentrates – ready for
use or diluted with diesel or kerosene for
space treatments.
Application of insecticides varies as well. The
following are the primary methods of
application:
Admixture with commodities. Where
registered, insecticides can be applied
directly to grain during handling, e.g.
prior to bagging or on grain conveyors
and elevators.
Surface treatments. Insecticides can be
sprayed onto the surfaces of bagstacks,
walls and floors of empty structures,
transport vehicles, artifacts and timber.
In general, contact insecticides work bet-
pests, but most OPs have limited efficacy
against bostrichids. The stability of their
deposits on grain varies widely according to
the formulation and ambient conditions, particularly temperature and moisture. For
example, dichlorvos typically acts quickly and
degrades within a few days; malathion takes
several weeks to degrade; and pirimiphos
methyl degrades over many months
(MBTOC 1998).
121
ter on clean, smooth surfaces than they
do on dirty or rough ones; they persist
better on surfaces such as metal, wood
and polypropylene packaging than they
do on concrete, bricks, alkaline paint,
whitewash and jute bags (GTZ 1996).
Repeated surface spraying can lead to
the development of pest resistance.
122
Space treatments. Spaces of structures
can be treated by “fogging” or spraying
with small particles (often less than 50
microns in size). This treatment assists in
the control of flying pests but usually has
to be combined with other practices or
treatments, because it does not penetrate between stacked bags and fails to
control many hidden insects.
Aerosol formulations. Aerosol formulations of insecticides, such as dichlorvos
and permethrin, are used on cut flower
exports as a quarantine treatment in
limited cases (i.e., New Zealand and
Hawaii). They do not penetrate as well
as MB and require long exposures, from
3 to 16 hours (MBTOC 1998,
Hara 1994).
Chemical dips. Certain perishable commodities can be dipped in insecticide
solutions to control pests. Insecticide
dips can provide an effective treatment
for some cut flowers (Hara 1994).
Application techniques and safety precautions
for contact insecticides are described in publications such as GTZ (1996) and the instructions or manuals of product manufacturers.
Instructions should always be followed, and
products should only be used where they are
registered.
Table 6.3.1 Comparison of contact insecticides with fumigants
Physical
Time to kill pests
Application manner
Pest protection
Pests controlled
Pest resistance
Duration of effect
Commodity range
Personnel
Insecticides
Liquids or powders
Longer period, because insects in
pre-adult stages are not affected
until they develop into adults
Commodity normally has to be
moved to apply insecticide
Pest suppression mainly
Individual products are selectively
effective against different insect
species or groups
With continued use most insect
pests develop resistance to
particular insecticides or groups
of insecticides
Long-lasting pest control
Products which will be processed,
and non-food products
Semi-skilled operators
Fumigants
Gases
2 - 15 days, depending on
temperature, pest stages and
sealing of enclosure
Normally treated in-situ; bulk
grains can be treated
Disinfestation mainly
Generally effective against many
insect species
No incidence of significant
MB tolerance is known, but
development of resistance to
phospine is a concern
Short-lived control
Most products
Skilled, certified personnel
Table 6.3.2 Examples of commercial use of contact insecticides
Spot treatments of wood in structures
in many countries
Wooden pallets in Australia infested
with wood pests
Cut flowers in Hawaii and Thailand
Fresh tomatoes exported from Australia to
New Zealand
Treatments
OPs, pyrethroids or IGRs
Methoprene (an IGR)
Pyrethroids or OPs
Cyphenothrin
Borates
Borates
Water immersion + insecticide
quarantine treatment
OPs, pyrethroids or borates
Insecticide mixtures applied under
pressure
Malathion dip
Dimethoate dip
Compiled from: MBTOC 1998, Olkowski et al 1991
Current uses
A variety of contact insecticides are in commercial use. (See Table 6.3.2.) OPs, for example, are used on stored grain and storage
structures. Insecticides are used in food production plants in many countries. In some
cases they have been approved as quarantine
treatments; Japan, for example, has approved
a combination treatment where logs are
immersed in water and an insecticide mixture
is applied to the exposed surface (MBTOC
1998). Insecticide dips provide a common
post-harvest treatment for cut flowers (Hara
1994). However, the use of insecticides is
restricted to the products and countries
where they are registered.
Botanical insecticides derived from
plants, e.g., azadirachtin.
Additional types of IGRs (MBTOC 1994).
Material inputs
Pesticide product.
Application equipment appropriate for
the product, e.g., dusters, sprayers, fogging machines.
Safety equipment, such as protective
overalls, face shield or respirator, goggles, gloves and boots.
Personnel monitoring devices for safety.
Appropriate temperature and moisture
range for the formulation.
Products that are registered for the specific commodity or use.
Pests controlled
Insecticides are effective against selected
groups of stored product pests. Where registered, some can contribute to an IPM programme for pest suppression. Over longer
periods some can achieve disinfestation when
the immature pests in the product develop
into adults and are killed by the insecticide.
Commodities/uses
Stored grains in many countries
Stored tobacco
Artifacts in museums and repositories
Museum items, artifacts, books and antiques
in Japan
Wood preservation in Germany, Australia
and New Zealand
Sawn timber in USA and Japan
Logs imported into Japan
123
Organophosphate compounds can be
effective against a wide range of stored
product pests although higher doses are
necessary for certain pest groups such as
bostrichids. Dichlorvos acts rapidly.
Pyrethroids are effective against
bostrichid and dermestid beetles at a
much lower dosage than that required
for most other insect pests (MBTOC
1998, Snelson 1987).
124
IGRs can be pest-specific, but methoprene is effective against many stored
product pests including Lasioderma serricorne, Ephestia cautella, Oryzaephilus
surinamensis, Plodia interpunctella,
Rhyzopertha dominica and Trogoderma
granarium. It is not very effective against
Sitophilus spp. (Mkhize 1986, Snelson
1987).
Borates are effective against many
wood-destroying organisms (Carr 1959,
Barnes et al 1989, Dickinson and
Murphy 1989, Drysdale 1994, Nunes
1997, Manser and Lanz 1998). Higher
application rates are required for controlling termites (Lloyd et al 1998). Boric
acid dusts control cockroaches in 5 to10
days, as well as silverfish, carpet beetle
and certain other insects (Olkowski et
al 1991).
Product quality
Insecticide residues remaining in food products can reduce the market value in some
countries. Purchasers increasingly demand
commodities with negligible residues.
Suitable commodities and uses
Insecticides can be used on a wide range of
durable products, artifacts and structures.
Some formulations are only suitable for nonfood products. The approved uses of
insecticides vary greatly from one country to
the next, but regulatory authorities and
product labels should provide the relevant
information.
Insecticides are effective in most climates,
although the rate at which they degrade normally increases with temperature and moisture. They can be used in bulk bins, silos,
bags, stacks or structures, provided they can
be applied at an appropriate stage, such as
when grain is being moved.
Pesticides, designed to kill living organisms,
are by definition toxic substances. Most are
acutely toxic, while some also pose chronic
health risks (see pesticide data sheets in
Annex 3). The mixing and application of pesticides can pose health and safety risks to
applicators and staff. Empty containers and
improperly stored pesticides pose health risks
to local communities. Accumulated residues
in food can pose risks to consumers.
Handling of pesticides requires thorough safety training, safety equipment and appropriate
management and emergency procedures.
Product labels and safety instructions must be
followed.
Pesticides can leave undesirable residues in
products, water and other parts of the environment, particularly when applications are
repeated or where pesticide containers
are dumped.
Ozone depletion
None of the insecticides listed in this chapter
are known to be ODS.
consumption
These insecticides are not known to be greenhouse gases. Pesticide products require energy for their manufacture and distribution.
Some insecticides are derived from nonrenewable materials. Empty product containers can be a source of environmental
pollution and must be disposed of properly.
There is increasing concern about insecticide
use and residues. In general, consumers do
not like chemical treatments for food products, and supermarkets increasingly favour
residue-free foods.
Normally, insecticide products can only be
marketed, if the government authorities that
control pesticide registration have approved
them. In addition, food or health authorities
normally limit residues in food products.
Pesticide use is normally restricted to specific
products and applications. Most governments
also place restrictions on pesticide marketing,
labels, disposal and other aspects of pesticide
use.
Cost considerations
Insecticides are typically cheaper than MB,
although some of the new insecticide products are more expensive. The labour costs
associated with insecticides are often less
than those associated with MB, because they
require semi-skilled personnel rather than
skilled, certified personnel.
the system
achieved?
Which pests need to be controlled, and
which insecticides would control them?
If disinfestaton is required, will there be
sufficient time to achieve it?
Is there a suitable stage of product
handling during which insecticides can
be applied?
Can the product-handling procedures
be changed to accommodate pesticide
applications?
Which formulations are permitted for
the commodity and situation?
What residue limits apply to the
commodity?
Will customers or supermarkets be
concerned about residues or use of
toxic substances?
What safety procedures, equipment and
training would be required?
What precautions can be taken against
pest resistance?
Availability
Contact insecticides are available in many
countries.
Examples of specialists and consultants are
given in Table 6.3.3. Since the permitted pesticide products vary greatly from one country
to another, individual suppliers are not listed.
Contact with local pest control product suppliers is recommended, as is verification of
registration information with national or state
pesticide authorities. See Annex 6 for an
125
Table 6.3.3 Examples of suppliers of products and services for contact insecticides
OPs
IGRs
Borates
126
Safety equipment
and consultants
Organization or company
Approved formulations vary from country to country; refer to local pest control product suppliers.
Refer to local pest control product suppliers.
Borax Europe Ltd, UK
NISUS Corp, USA
Permachink Systems, USA
Remmers, Germany
Sashco Sealants, USA
Seabright Laboratories, USA (cockroach traps)
Van Waters & Rogers, USA
US Borax Inc, USA (TIM-BOR wood treatment)
Cereal Research Centre, Canada
CSIRO Stored Grain Research Laboratory, Australia
GTZ, Germany
Mission de Coopération Phytosanitaire, France
Natural Resources Institute, UK (stored products)
Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation, Netherlands
Timber Technology Research Group, Department
of Biology, Imperial College, UK (timber)
Urban Pest Control Research Center, Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University, USA
Dr Jonathon Banks, Piallaigo, Australia (stored
products)
Dr Brad White, University of Washington, Seattle
WA, USA (timber treatments)
Dr LH Williams, USDA Forest Experimental Station,
USA. (timber)
Advantages
Effectively controls a wide range of pests
including rodents.
Most methods pose relatively few safety
issues and normal work can continue
near treatment areas.
Nitrogen and carbon dioxide do not
leave undesirable residues in food.
Treatments can be carried out in-transit.
Can be tolerated by all durable
commodities.
Disadvantages
Treatments are normally slow, unless
combined with pressure or heat.
Most methods require good sealing.
Treatments do not kill fungal pests.
Because insects need oxygen to breathe and
survive, the percentage of oxygen in storage
containers can be reduced to levels at which
insects stop feeding and reproducing.
Normally air contains 21% oxygen, but if
oxygen levels are held below 1% for 2 to
3 weeks, most insect species are killed.
Rodents are killed when oxygen is reduced
to about 5%.
Controlled and modified atmospheres are
normally used as part of an IPM system for
managing stored product pests or for disinfestation. When used in well-sealed stores, a
single treatment gives a high level of protection against pests, because it controls pests
already in the commodity and the seal prevents re-invasion. It is suitable for bagged or
bulk grain and other durable commodities,
where it is feasible to arrange treatments of
more than two weeks (MBTOC 1998).
Oxygen is reduced passively in the case of
modified atmospheres and hermetic storage,
for example, by putting grain in sealed storage units so that insects slowly use up the
available oxygen and cease activity or die.
Alternatively, high levels of carbon dioxide or
nitrogen gas can be pumped into storage
containers or sealed sheets. The objective is
either to provide a level of carbon dioxide
toxic to insects (more than 60% in air) or to
reduce oxygen levels to less than 1%. Some
of these techniques are approved quarantine
treatments.
Treatment times for disinfestation can vary
from one to four weeks or up to eight weeks
in the case of artifacts and museum items,
depending on the insect species, its life stage,
temperature, commodity, and the method
used. Treatment times can be reduced substantially by adding pressure or heat. There
are several techniques for creating controlled
or modified atmospheres described below
(see Table 6.4.1 for summary).
Hermetic storage
Hermetic storage involves sealing products in
air-tight containers or enclosures with minimal air-space, so that insects slowly use up
the oxygen and many die (Annis and Banks
1993, Navarro et al 1984, Navarro et al 1993,
Varnava et al 1994). Once the unit has been
properly sealed, no further treatment is necessary, but the container must be checked
regularly to ensure it remains sealed and oxygen remains low. If the initial number of
insects is low and the container allows some
air leakage, however, pest populations may
survive indefinitely at very low levels. In
regions with significant temperature fluctuations, it is normally necessary to place a thick
layer of absorbent waste material, such as
maize cobs, on top of the grain so that
moulds do not produce mycotoxins in the
stored product. Hermetic storage is best done
6.4 Controlled and
modified
atmospheres
127
underground to reduce gas losses and keep
termperatures stable.
Hermetic storage systems can include:
Concrete platforms, bunkers and silos.
Portable cocoons.
Vacuum-sealed retail packs; sealed packs
(up to 50kg) containing sachet of oxygen-remover e.g. activated iron powder.
128
Nitrogen storage
Products are sealed in silos, containers or
inside well-sealed, gas-tight fumigation
sheets (Banks and Annis 1997, Cassells et al
1994, Hill 1997). Nitrogen, an inert gas, is
released into the container and pushes out
the air, with the aim of reducing oxygen levels to less than 1%. The gas must be topped
up from time to time to ensure oxygen levels
remain at the desired level. Nitrogen can be
supplied as a liquefied gas in cylinders from
commercial suppliers or made on site with
machines that remove oxygen from the air
and deliver a gas stream containing about
0.5% oxygen.
The treatment time for total disinfestation
depends heavily on the temperature of the
commodity but is typically one to four weeks.
Nitrogen storage is most effective when grain
is more than 20°C; at lower temperatures a
very long treatment time is needed for complete disinfestations if tolerant pests and
stages (such as Sitophilus pupae), are present
(Banks 1999). Nitrogen systems are effective
in reducing mould growth in higher storage
moistures (16 to 18% moisture), but anaerobic fermentation can take place at moisture
levels above this. A major export terminal in
Australia regularly treats bins of grain (2,000tonne capacity) with nitrogen, requiring
about 1m3 of nitrogen per tonne of grain
(Batchelor 1999).
Carbon dioxide storage or treatment
Effective treatments involve the release of carbon dioxide gas into well-sealed enclosures.
The gas displaces the air, with a typical initial
target atmosphere of more than 60% carbon
dioxide. In some cases, 80% carbon dioxide is
required (Banks et al 1991). Depending upon
the target pest, carbon dioxide concentration
should not fall below 40 or 50% in the first
10 days of treatment. At 25°C the total treatment period should be at least 15 days
(MBTOC 1998). Carbon dioxide works faster
than nitrogen because it has a direct toxic
effect on insects. The gas may have to be
topped up to keep carbon dioxide levels high.
The treatment time for disinfestation of grain
is typically two to three weeks. An in-transit
treatment is used for groundnuts shipped
from Australia.
Carbon dioxide and pressure
The combination of carbon dioxide and pressure (e.g., about 25 bar) can reduce the disinfestation time to less than 3 hours (Caliboso
et al 1994, Reichmuth and Wohlgemuth
1994, Prozell and Reichmuth 1991, Prozell et
al 1997). Treatments are typically conducted
in pressure-proof chambers with 20 mm steel
walls. The equipment has a high capital cost
but provides a very rapid quarantine treatment for high value durable products.
For all of the modified atmosphere treatments discussed above, the air-tightness of
stores or containers is an important factor for
effective control. Some existing structures can
be adapted. In the case of silo bins, the level
of sealing required for carbon dioxide or
nitrogen is greater than the level of sealing
typically used for MB fumigations in developing countries but similar to the level of sealing required for MB for safety reasons in a
number of developed countries.
Where systems provide a continuous flow of
gas, such as with a gas burner, the use of
somewhat less gas-tight enclosures is feasible
as well (Bell et al 1993, 1997a). Certain conditions, such as a large difference between
the grain and ambient air temperatures, can
cause moisture to migrate to the grain surface. Precautions to prevent or ameliorate
moisture migration are required for long-term
storage.
Improved application systems to reduce
cost and increase convenience.
A wide range of techniques has been developed for bulk or bagged commodities held in
different types of structures.
Material inputs
Carbon dioxide and nitrogen systems can
include:
Fixed bunkers and silos.
Portable cocoons.
For nitrogen treatments: gas-tight containers or fumigation sheets sealed with
gas-tight glues; supply of nitrogen gas in
cylinders, or equipment for extracting
nitrogen from air; monitoring device.
Fumigation under sealed sheets.
Retail packs.
In-transit treatments for export products.
Port-side treatments prior to export.
For carbon dioxide treatments: gas-tight
containers or fumigation sheets sealed
with gas-tight glues; source of carbon
dioxide; monitoring device.
Carbon dioxide, however, may be unsuitable
for concrete structures such as grain silos,
because the gas can cause corrosion in concrete (Taylor et al 1998).
For in-transit systems: as above, plus a
system for topping up the carbon dioxide concentration to replace losses from
leakage.
Hermetic store with vacuum pump for
rapid disinfestation (GrainPro).
For retail pack systems: barrier film plastics for making packs; adaptation of
Table 6.4.1 Comparison of hermetic storage, nitrogen and
carbon dioxide treatments
Atmosphere
Degree of
pest control
Pests
Hermetic
Low oxygen,
preferably less
than 1%
Pest management;
disinfestation in
long-term storage
Storage pests
Nitrogen
Less than 1% oxygen
Carbon dioxide
More than 60%
carbon dioxide
Pest management;
disinfestation is feasible
Pest management
and disinfestation
Storage pests
Storage and quarantine pests
Very well sealed
containers, carbon
dioxide gas and
applicator
2 weeks
Equipment
Very well sealed
containers
Very well sealed containers,
nitrogen gas and applicator
Typical
treatment
times
Suitable
products
4 weeks or more
3 weeks
Stored products
Stored products,
museum objects
Stored and export
products, museum
objects
For hermetic storage: gas-tight containers, e.g., semi-underground bunkers,
plastic (PVC) sheets, PVC cocoons; waste
material to place on top layer of grain;
reflective sheet or cover for top of container to reduce moisture migration.
129
packing system to allow gas flushing and
good sealing when packages are filled.
For hermetic storage: a long period for
treatment, e.g., storage period of more
than four weeks.
130
For nitrogen treatments: a cheap source
of nitrogen gas; several weeks for treatment if long-term storage is required
subsequently.
For carbon dioxide treatments: a cheap
source of carbon dioxide gas, preferably
captured from a local industrial process;
at least two weeks for carrying out treatment if long-term storage is required.
Pests controlled
Oxygen levels of less than 1% for at least 2
weeks (at > 20ºC) kill most stored product
insects, but the response of different species
to low oxygen levels varies widely. Many are
killed in a day or less at 25°C, but certain
stages of some tolerant pests (such as grain
weevils) may survive for 2 weeks or more.
Low temperatures protect insects against the
effect of low oxygen atmospheres, extending
the necessary treatment period. In general,
hermetic storage is suitable for pest suppression, while carbon dioxide and nitrogen can
be used successfully for pest suppression or
disinfestations. Specific examples of pest control include the following:
High carbon dioxide atmospheres (above
60% CO2) control most stored product
pests in 2 to 3 weeks at 25 to 30°C. As
an extreme case, Trogoderma granarium
in diapause stage requires exposures
longer than 17 days (at 30°C or less)
(Spratt et al 1985).
Carbon dioxide concentrations of 40 80% (depending on the species) provide
disinfestation in warehouses and silos
for a number of stored grain pests.
Necessary exposure periods vary from
5 to 35 days depending on the pest
species and temperature (Table 6.4.2)
(Soma et al 1995, Kishino et al 1996,
Kawakami 1999).
Humidified nitrogen in gas-tight enclosures can control all stages of museum
insect pests, if oxygen levels are less than
1% for up to 30 days (Strang 1996).
Exposure to carbon dioxide and pressure
of 30 kg/cm2 kills all insects including
immature stages (Caliboso et al 1994,
Reichmuth and Wohlgemuth 1994).
Controlled atmospheres can control
some pest species in perishables, such as
thrips, aphids and beetles (Anon 1993b,
Kader 1985, 1994).
In general, hermetic storage is suitable for
pest management, while carbon dioxide and
nitrogen can be used for both disinfestation
and pest management. Table 6.4.2 provides
examples of carbon dioxide disinfestation
schedules developed in Japan for major pests
of stored grain. Additional data on exposure
times for controlling many species and stages
of stored product pests under specific conditions can be found in Annis (1987), Banks
and Annis (1990), Bell and Armitage (1992),
Bell (1996), Kishino et al (1996), Navarro
(1978), Soma et al (1995) and Storey (1975).
Data on exposures to control pest species of
perishable products can be found in Kader
(1985, 1994), Shellie (1999) and Hallman
(1994).
Current uses
Controlled atmospheres have been used for
disinfesting some dried fruits and beverage
crops for many years. Carbon dioxide treatment is used on a large scale in Indonesia for
long-term storage of bagged milled rice
stocks (Nataredja and Hodges 1990,
Suprakarn et al 1990). Hermetic storage, carbon dioxide and nitrogen treatments are used
commercially for diverse products (Table
6.4.3). Hermetic systems are used for storing
grains for periods of three months to several
years in Cyprus (Varnava and Mouskos 1996,
Batchelor 1999). Various hermetic systems
Table 6.4.2 Carbon dioxide disinfestation schedules for stored grain in Japan
Rice weevil
Small rice weevil
Red flour beetle
Cigarette beetle
Lesser grain borer
Indian meal moth
Mediterranean flour moth
Almond moth
CO2 concentration
40 - 80%
40 - 80%
More than 50%
More than 50%
Temperature
20 - 25°C
25°C or above
20 - 25°C
25 - 30°C
20 - 25°C
25°C or above
30°C or above
20 - 25°C
25°C or above
Duration
35 days
21 days
21 days
14 days
14 days
10 days
10 days
7 days
5 days
Source: Kawakami 1999.
Table 6.4.3 Examples of commercial use of controlled and modified atmospheres
Products
Stored grains in Israel and Cyprus
Carry-over stocks of rice in long-term
storage in Indonesia
Groundnuts exported from Australia
Premium grains exported from Thailand
Various grains exported from Australia
Artifacts and museum items in Germany
and UK
Beverage crops and spices in Germany
Apples exported from Canada to
California state, USA
Treatment
Hermetic storage has been used for more
than a decade for bulk grains
Carbon dioxide treatment is used
routinely for pest management
In-transit carbon dioxide treatment is
applied while products are being shipped
Retail packs are flushed with carbon dioxide for disinfestation and protection
Nitrogen treatment (with IPM) is applied at
port terminal prior to export
Controlled atmospheres are increasingly
used for insect control
Carbon dioxide + pressure provide a rapid
disinfestation treatment
A controlled atmosphere treatment has
been approved for quarantine purposes
Compiled from: MBTOC 1998, GrainPro Inc 1999
have been successfully tested or used in
diverse climates, including China, India, Israel,
Ethiopia, Brazil and USA.
Product quality
If the correct concentration, temperature and
duration are chosen, product quality is not
diminished by the use of controlled atmospheres. On the contrary, the quality of rice
stored for long periods has been found to be
significantly better using carbon dioxide
rather than MB, probably because repeated
fumigations with MB reduce grain quality and
produce bromide residues. Unlike MB, controlled atmospheres do not affect the viability
of dry grains such as malting barley.
Suitable commodities and uses
Hermetic storage and modified atmospheres
are suitable for stored durable products.
Controlled atmospheres are suitable for pest
management and disinfestation of grains,
nuts, dried fruits, beverage crops, herbs,
spices, other durable commodities, artifacts
and museum items where time allows.
Pests
Granary weevil
131
Structures may be treated only if they can be
well sealed and closed for several weeks. Intransit controlled atmospheres and refrigeration can be used for perishable commodities
to reduce the need for quarantine treatments
on arrival in the importing country (Gay
1995, EPA 1997).
132
Carbon dioxide and nitrogen can be used in
temperate to tropical climates. Hermetic storage can be used in a wide variety of climates
provided that one of two conditions is met:
Either the grain is initially sufficiently infested
to assure that insects in the storage area use
up all the available oxygen or the moisture
content is in the range of 13 to 18%.
Precautions against moisture migration are
needed in climates where temperatures
fluctuate.
Hermetic storage does not involve the use of
toxic substances and poses no health risk
(except those normally found at any grain
storage area). Nitrogen is inert and not toxic
in itself, while carbon dioxide is toxic at higher concentrations. Controlled atmosphere
silos and containers lack sufficient oxygen for
humans to breathe. There is no risk of flammability with controlled atmospheres.
Hermetic storage does not require special
safety precautions, but precautions and training are required for use of nitrogen and carbon dioxide gas.
Nitrogen and carbon dioxide do not leave any
undesirable residues in food products. For
hermetic storage and situations where moisture migration may occur, suitable steps must
be taken to prevent mould affecting food
products.
Ozone depletion
Carbon dioxide and nitrogen are not ODS.
consumption
Nitrogen is not a greenhouse gas; but carbon
dioxide is. The impact of using carbon dioxide
may be mitigated to some extent by using
gas captured from local industries, such as
smelters and distilleries. Nitrogen treatments
require energy for generating the nitrogen
gas and for transporting cylinders (if the gas
is not extracted from air on-site). Carbon
dioxide requires energy for the generation or
capture of gas and transportation of cylinders. Hermetic storage does not consume
energy.
Controlled and modified atmospheres do not
normally generate waste products. Gas cylinders are generally re-used.
These treatments are regarded as non-chemical by consumers and are very acceptable to
purchasing companies.
Regulatory approval is not normally required
for hermetic storage. It may be required for
nitrogen and carbon dioxide treatments.
Cost considerations
For hermetic storage the initial capital
costs may be higher than one year’s
application of MB, while the labour and
operating costs are similar. In Cyprus, for
example, the total capital and operating
costs for a hermetic storage platform
system for 4,000 tonnes of grain is
about $4,500 for 1-year storage, $6,500
for 2 years storage and $8,400 for 3
years storage. This works out at about
$1.12 per tonne/year for grain stored for
1 year, and $0.80 per tonne/year for
grain stored for 2 years. (Batchelor
1999).
Can the store be made adequately
gas-tight?
Converting existing grain bins for nitrogen treatments involves a small capital
outlay. The operating cost depends primarily on the source of nitrogen gas.
Licensed fumigators and expensive safety
measures are not needed. A typical
3-week nitrogen treatment, using gas
supplied in cylinders, in Newcastle
Australia, for example, costs about
$0.39 per tonne of grain for materials
and labour. This compares with about
$0.35 per tonne for one MB treatment
(Batchelor 1999).
Can the commodity be treated while
in storage or does it need a special,
rapid treatment?
In general, nitrogen and carbon dioxide
treatments have capital costs lower than
MB, while operating costs may be similar, cheaper or more expensive, depending mainly on the source of the gas.
Finding a cheap source of gas can
reduce the cost substantially.
What changes need to be made to the
commodity management system?
the system
Which pests need to be controlled?
What degree of control is necessary?
Would in-transit treatments or retail
packing be feasible and useful?
Is a cheap source of nitrogen or carbon
dioxide available locally?
Do temperature and commodity moisture affect the treatment choices?
Availability
Materials and equipment are widely available.
Table 6.4.4 provides examples of specialists
and suppliers of products and services. See
resources.
For storage periods of about one year or
longer, carbon dioxide and nitrogen are
often cheaper than MB.
Can logistical changes accommodate a
longer treatment period?
133
Table 6.4.4 Examples of specialists and suppliers of products and services for
controlled and modified atmospheres
Containers and systems for hermetic
storage
Containers and gas-tight sheets for
nitrogen and carbon dioxide treatments
Equipment for generating nitrogen on-site
e.g., nitrogen membrane systems
134
Suppliers of nitrogen gas and
carbon dioxide gas
Controlled atmosphere treatments a wide variety of contract services
Specialists, advisory services and
consultants
CSIRO, Australia
GrainPro Inc, USA
Haogenplast, Israel
GrainPro Inc, USA
Power Plastics, UK
Rentokil, Germany, UK
Gas Process Control, Australia
Oxair Australia Pty, Australia
There are many other suppliers, typically gas
companies
BOC Gases, most countries
Consolidated Industrial Gases Inc, Philippines
Industrial Oxygen Inc, Malaysia
IMS Gas and Equipment Pte Ltd, Singapore
Island Air Products Corp, Philippines
Malaysia Oxygen Berhad, Malaysia
Praxair Canada Inc, Canada
PT Aneka Gases, Indonesia
Thai Industrial Gases Ltd, Thailand
Also contact local gas suppliers
American President Lines Ltd, USA
Fumigation Services and Supply, USA
GrainPro Inc, USA
Permea Inc, USA
SiberHegner Lenersan Poortman BV, Netherlands
Rentokil, Germany and UK
Thermo Lignum, Germany and UK
TransFresh Corp., USA
CSIRO Stored Grain Research Laboratory,
Australia
Cyprus Grain Commission, Cyprus
Federal Biological Research Centre for
Agriculture and Forestry, Germany
GrainPro Inc, USA
GTZ, Germany
Home Grown Cereals Authority, UK
HortResearch, New Zealand
Dr Jonathon Banks, Pialligo, Australia
Dr John Conway, Natural Resources Institute,
Chatham Maritime, UK
Dr Jonathan Donahaye, Volcani Institute, Israel
Dr Shlomo Navarro, Volcani Institute, Israel
Dr Adel Kader, University of California, USA
Dr Fusao Kawakami, MAFF Yokohama Plant
Protection Station, Japan
Dr Krista Shellie, USDA-ARS, USA
Dr Thomas Phillips, Oklahoma University, USA
Advantages
Very rapid treatment, often faster than
MB fumigation.
No undesirable residues in food
products.
Effective for disinfestation, including
control of khapra beetle.
Requires less sealing than MB for
durable commodities.
Safe for users and local communities.
Does not require access restrictions
near site.
Disadvantages
Not suitable for commodities that are
damaged by heat.
Not available for large grain terminals
that handle more than 500 tonnes of
grain per hour.
Consumes substantial energy and may
cost more than MB.
Heat can be used to manage or kill a wide
range of pests by inducing dehydration
and/or coagulating proteins and destroying
enzymes in organisms. Stored product pest
insects, for example, can be eradicated by
exposing them to temperatures of about
50°C. In general, commodities are heated to
temperatures ranging from 43 to 100°C, with
treatment times varying from one minute to
several days depending on the commodity,
pest and situation (see Tables 6.5.2).
During treatments, the temperature needs to
be monitored and achieved within the commodity itself, not simply in the air spaces.
Both the temperature and time need to be
controlled to kill the target pests yet avoid
damage to products from excessive heat, loss
of moisture or other changes due to heat.
The speed of treatment is generally determined by the rate at which heat penetrates
thick objects or commodity bulks, not by the
intrinsic speed at which heat kills insects.
The heat for treatments is normally generated
using conventional means such as oil, electricity or gas, although in some situations it is
feasible to use waste heat from other
processes. Numerous techniques are available
for delivering heat to durable commodities,
including hot air, fluid beds and kiln drying.
Steam treatments are specialised and suitable
only for durable items that can sustain high
humidity, such as dunnage, logs and some
types of wood. In the case of perishable commodities, hot water dips, vapour heat and
hot forced air techniques are in use. The
many diverse techniques can be divided into
the following broad groups:
Heated air
Air heated to a temperature of approximately
90°C is used to heat grain briefly to above
65°C. In the case of cereal grain processing
plants, the typical target temperature is 50 to
55°C for 20 to 30 hours for controlling
insects (Dowdy 1997). Heat applied in the
process of kiln drying disinfests sawn timber
and actually adds value to it. Convection
heaters or existing air ducts applying temperatures above 50°C for 20 to 30 hours are
used in some structures for controlling most
pests except cockroaches (Heaps 1998,
MBTOC 1998). Target temperatures must be
achieved in places where insects may be hidden, such as ducts, voids and pipe work.
Structural heat treatments are normally combined with IPM and applied several times a
year.
Fluid bed system
High-speed “fluid bed” systems for treating
bulk grain have been built and developed to
commercial prototype stage and successfully
handle up to 150 tonnes of grain per hour
(Sutherland et al 1987, Evans et al 1983,
6.5 Heat treatments
135
Thorpe et al 1984, Fleurat-Lessard 1985).
Typical temperatures are 65°C within the
commodity for about one minute. Installation
of large-scale treatment facilities, however, is
likely to be capital intensive. There are currently no heat installations of the size
required to meet the typical handling speeds
of large modern grain terminals, which often
handle 500 tonnes/hour or more on one belt.
Heat treatments with controlled
humidity
136
Artifacts and durable commodities normally
lose moisture during heating, but monitoring
and maintaining the moisture content of
items at the same level throughout the heating and cooling process can prevent this.
Artifacts and durable commodities can be
treated in chambers or other containers, or
the treatment may be applied as a space or
structural treatment. This process is more
expensive than heat alone but is very suitable
for historical objects and other delicate
artifacts that would normally be damaged
by heat.
For certain perishable commodities, such as
grapefruit, papaya and mango, high temperature forced air (HTFA) treatments have been
approved for quarantine. After loading commodities into a chamber, humidified air (typically 40 to 80% relative humidity) at 40 to
50°C is forced over fruit surfaces to raise the
internal temperature. The temperature and
relative humidity are controlled precisely to
prevent condensation inside the treatment
area and on commodities, protecting fruit
from desiccation and scalding (Gaffney and
Armstrong 1990, Sharp et al 1991).
Certain perishable commodities are given
vapour heat treatments that are broadly similar to HTFA, except that the relative humidity
is kept above 80%. Information on HTFA and
vapour heat treatments can be found in the
Textbook of Vapour Heat Disinfestation of
Japan (Anon. 1996), UDSA-APHIS (1998),
Armstrong (1994), Hallman and Armstrong
(1994), Sharp (1994) and Williamson and
Winkelman (1994).
Hot water immersion
Water is inherently more effective than humid
air as a heat transfer medium, and provides a
uniform temperature profile if properly circulated through the load of commodities
(Couey 1989). Hot water dips can be used to
control fungi as well as insects and snails in
wood and timber (MBTOC 1998). Depending
on the pest and commodity, quarantine treatments for specific perishables may be accomplished with submersion in hot baths, often
at temperatures between 43 and 47°C for
periods from 35 to 90 minutes (MBTOC
1998, Hara et al 1994). Such treatment provides the additional benefit of control of
post-harvest microbial diseases, such as
anthracnose and stem end rot (Couey 1989,
McGuire 1991).
In-transit steaming
In the USA, a method of in-transit steam
heating has been developed for bulk timber
and wood chips, allowing large cargoes (up
to 35,000 m3) to be treated hold by hold.
Low-pressure steam and/or hot water at 65
to 90°C is provided by a boiler, heating the
centre of the timber to at least 56°C for 30
minutes or more (Seidner 1997).
Combination treatments
Heat can be successfully combined with other
treatments, such as controlled atmospheres
and phosphine. Heat often acts as a synergist, increasing the diffusion and distribution
of gases and their powers of penetration; it
reduces the physical sorption of gases and
increases the toxicity or level of stress to target pests (Mueller 1998).
To avoid damage by heat, some durable
products need to be rapidly cooled to room
temperature after treatment. Delicate
artifacts and antiques can withstand heat
if their internal humidity is monitored and
maintained at the same level throughout the
Because they are susceptible to heat damage,
perishable commodities require heat treatments specially tailored for each variety.
Perishables that can tolerate certain heat
treatments for quarantine include tomato,
pepper, aubergine (eggplant), melon,
cucumber, papaya, some citrus fruits, litchi,
mango and cut flowers (Paull and Armstrong
1994).
nectarines, avocados or leafy vegetables
(MBTOC 1994, Couey 1989).
Current uses
Heat treatments were once widely used in
warm climates for disinfestation of commodities, such as grain in Australia and cotton and
cotton seed in Egypt, with large tonnages
being treated (Banks 1999). In some countries
heat has been routinely used to control
wood-boring pests in wooden buildings for
many years. Heat is also used commercially
for some wood products (Table 6.5.1). Heat
treatments are increasingly being adopted as
part of IPM systems for food processing facilities and mills in Canada. More than 75 commercial heat facilities have been built for
quarantine treatments for perishable commodities in Mexico and other countries of
Latin America (EPA 1996).
Computer-controlled heating techniques
allow greater control and shorter treatment
periods. Treatment times can also be reduced
with engineering improvements that move
hot air faster and more uniformly through the
commodity (Paull and Armstrong 1994). The
gradual heating of perishables is generally
preferable to rapid heating, and a pretreatment may increase the commodity’s
tolerance. Heat is unsuitable for highly
perishable products, such as asparagus,
Other sources of heat, such as
microwaves, radio frequency heating,
dielectric heating and infrared.
Pre-treatments and lower temperature
treatments to reduce commodity stress,
allowing a wider range of commodities
to be treated with heat.
Improvements in the energy-efficiency of
treatments.
Table 6.5.1 Examples of commercial use of heat treatments
Products
Wood products
Wood products
Food processing facilities and mills in
Canada and the Netherlands
Artifacts and museum items in Germany,
Austria and UK
Mangoes exported from the Caribbean Basin,
Latin America, Australia
Papaya exported from Hawaii to mainland
USA, and from the Cook Islands to New Zealand
Treatment
Kiln drying
Steam heat
Hot air treatments + IPM
Heat with controlled humidity
Hot water immersion – quarantine
treatment for fruit fly
Treatment with vapour heat or forced
hot air – quarantine treatment for
fruit fly
Compiled from: MBTOC 1998, Batchelor 1999, Paull and Armstrong 1994
treatment. Some structures cannot tolerate
the stresses caused by the rapid change in
temperature and the differential expansion of
structural components such as concrete and
steel. Sensitive electrical equipment and other
heat-sensitive items must be temporarily
removed from structures or modified to
avoid damage. Some types of grease are liquefied by heat and have to be re-applied
after a treatment.
137
Material inputs
Equipment for generating heat.
Fuel.
Containment or insulated sheets to place
around the commodity.
Temperature gauges and monitoring
probes to insert in different parts of the
commodity load or structure.
138
Where humidity is important, probes and
equipment for monitoring and controlling humidity.
Products, structures and equipment
that can withstand heat without being
damaged by it.
Lethal temperatures for insects and fungal
pests of perishable commodities can be
found in Jang (1986), Yokoyama et al (1987,
1991) and Moss and Jang (1991). Insect mortality due to heat varies according to factors
such as the species, insect stage, insect age,
availability of oxygen, pH, previous temperatures, and general energy status of the insect
(Moss and Jang 1991).
Heat treatments can be used for pest suppression and disinfestation purposes. There
are a number of heat treatments approved by
quarantine authorities for particular products,
and examples of these are listed in Table
6.5.3 and Table 6.5.4. Heat is effective in
replacing MB for some quarantine disinfestations targeted at Trogoderma granarium, an
important quarantine pest of grain (MBTOC
1998). Heat is one of the few treatments that
is effective at disinfesting bulk grain from live
snails (Cassells et al 1994).
Pests controlled
All stages of stored product pest insects can
be eradicated in less than one minute if
they are exposed to a temperature of 65°C.
Temperatures above 47°C for longer exposures are also lethal for many stored product
pests (Barks & Fields 1998). Tables 6.5.2 show
the temperatures and exposure times necessary to kill pests in certain commodities.
Further examples can be found in Forbes and
Ebling, Banks & Fields (1998).
Product quality
Depending on the temperature, the quality of
some grains may be affected by heat, thus
limiting the application to grains that will be
processed. Under good process control there
is no damage to the end-use qualities of cereals, such as bread-making wheat or rice, and
malting quality of barley (Fleurat-Lessard
1985, Sutherland et al 1987). However, the
Table 6.5.2 Temperatures for killing pests of stored products and structures
Pests and commodities
Cigarette beetle (Lasioderma
serricorne, all stages)
All tobacco pests
Wide range of fungi in timber
Dry wood termites
Commodity temperature
and exposure time
50°C for 24 hours kills all
stages
Vacuum steam conditioning at
60°C for 3 minutes
Steam treatment held at 66°C
for 1.25
Heating to above 44°C
Further information
Meyer 1980,
Banks & Fields 1998
Ryan 1995
Chidester 1991,
Miric and Willeitner
1990, Newbill and 1991
Lewis and Haverty 1996
Table 6.5.3 Examples of heat treatments approved for quarantine purposes
for durable commodities and artifacts, USA
Corn (maize) ears not for propagation
Rice straw novelties and articles
Niger seeds with soil or Khapra beetle
Steam treatments
Niger seeds with soil or Khapra beetle
Seeds not for propagation
Steam treatments with pressure
Rice straw and hulls, straw mats
Rice straw novelties
Novelties and articles from broomcorn
Vacuum steam flow process
Leaf tobacco for export
Blended strip tobacco for export
Hot water dips
Bulbs with Ditylenchus nematodes
Lily bulbs with Aphelenchoides nematodes
Senecio with Aphelenchoides nematodes
Narcissus bulbs with bulb scale mite
Certain tubers with Meloidogyne spp.
Horseradish root with golden nematode
Banana roots
Sugarcane
Temperature and duration
65.5°C for 7 minutes
70°C for 2 hours
100°C for 1 hour
54.4°C for 14 hours
or 60°C for 7 hours
75.5°C for 2 hours
82.2°C for 2 hours
100°C for 15 minutes
100°C for 15 minutes
100°C
30 minutes
30 minutes
30 minutes
24°C for 2 hours and 43.3°C for 4 hours
38.8°C
43.3°C for 1 hour
43.3°C for 1 hour
43.4°C for 30 minutes and 48.9°C for
60 minutes
43.3°C for 4 hours
Compiled from: USDA-APHIS 1993, 1998
Table 6.5.4 Examples of heat treatments approved for quarantine purposes
for perishable commodities, USA
Perishable commodities (1)
Grapefruit infested with Caribbean fruit fly
Mango infested with Caribbean fruit fly
Papaya, pineapple, tomato, zucchini, squash,
aubergine (eggplant) and bell peppers infested
with Mediterranean, Oriental or melon fruit flies
Temperature and duration
Vapour heat at 43.3 - 43.7°C for 5 hours
Hot water at 46.1 - 46.7°C for 75 minutes to 2 hours, depending on variety
or cultivar
Vapour heat at 44.4°C for 8.75 hours
(1) The approved treatments relate to specific varieties or cultivars in some cases
Compiled from: Paull and Armstrong 1994
Treatments and commodities
Heat treatments
Any durable commodity that can tolerate
heat to control Khapra beetle
Feeds & milled products for processing
Bagasse/sugarcane
Bags for seeds
Lumber (3" thick) with wood borers
139
margin of error is small and slight excesses in
treatment can adversely affect the product.
High temperatures lead to detrimental colour
changes or rancidity in many dried fruit
and nuts.
140
If humidity is carefully controlled throughout
the treatment, heat damage from moisture
loss can be avoided, even in many delicate
museum objects. Heat damage and protection measures for perishable commodities are
outlined in Paull and Armstrong (1994), Sharp
and Hallman (1994) and Lay-Yee (1994). Heat
treatments can also have beneficial effects on
quality, such as reducing susceptibility to chilling injury in persimmons or increasing firmness in apples and pears (Lay-Yee 1994,
Neven and Drake 1998).
Heat treatments at moderate temperatures
are suitable for durable products, artifacts
and structures that can withstand heat without damage to their market quality. The
range of suitable products can be extended
substantially if heat is combined with controlled humidity, because this prevents or
reduces heat damage in many situations.
Heat is not suitable for highly perishable
products, such as asparagus, nectarines, avocados or leafy vegetables (Couey 1989) or for
seeds that will be germinated (GTZ 1996).
Heat treatments do not leave undesirable
residues in treated products.
Ozone depletion
Heat treatments do not use ODS.
consumption
Heat treatments use energy for heat generation. The problem of carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels can be addressed by
using renewable sources of energy or local
sources of waste heat, where possible. A
Danish project has recently improved the
energy efficiency of heat treatments for
wood-boring beetles, reducing energy consumption by up to 50% (Host Rasmussen
1998). Computer-control of heat treatments
often allows improved energy efficiency.
Surplus heat is the main waste product.
Where possible, it is desirable to capture this
for other constructive purposes.
Properly conducted heat treatments are very
acceptable to supermarkets and purchasing
companies. They are highly acceptable to
consumers, because they are traditional, nonchemical treatments.
Heat treatments are not limited by climate
and can be conducted in a wide range of
regions from temperate to tropical.
Heat treatments do not involve the use of
toxic substances. Heat itself, however, can
present an occupational hazard, so proper
safety management is required.
Registration is not normally required for heat
treatments for general pest control. Prior
approval is required for heat treatments to be
used as quarantine treatments. Examples of
approved quarantine treatments for durables
are given in Table 6.5.3, while examples for
perishable commodities are given in Table
6.5.4. Normal safety restrictions apply to the
use of heating appliances in workplaces.
It is necessary to have safety training for
workers.
Cost considerations
Heat treatments normally require a high
capital investment and, in some cases,
Kiln drying of softwood (e.g., Douglas
fir) in the USA costs about US$ 85 to
155 per 1,000 bd. foot, while steam
treatments cost US$ 35 to 60 per 1,000
bd. ft. For hardwoods (e.g., oak, cherry),
kiln drying costs about US$ 100 to 200,
while steam treatments cost about US$
41 to 77 per 1,000 bd.ft. In contrast,
MB fumigation costs only US$ 1 to 3 per
1,000 bd. ft. However, the heat treatments add 30 to 50% extra value to
timber, so the net cost of heat treatments can be zero (US EPA 1996).
For perishable products, heat treatments
generally cost more than MB fumigation
(Paull and Armstrong 1994). The capital
cost of a hot water immersion system
varies from less than US$ 8,000 to more
than $ 200,000. For forced air and
vapour heat systems, the capital costs
vary from US$ 20,000 to about 200,000,
while the capital and operating costs are
estimated to be about US$ 29.40 per
tonne of commodity compared to about
US$ 4.37 per tonne for MB (US EPA
1996). The cost of heat treatment equipment has been reduced in recent years,
however (Williamson 1999).
Structural heat treatments (e.g., for food
facilities) cost approximately 75 to 200%
of the cost of MB fumigation (Mueller
1998), depending on the size of the
treatment area, the source of heat and
the temperature/time equation. If a company already owns heaters, heat treatments are less expensive than MB (Heaps
1998). Otherwise a significant capital
investment is required: One 250,000
BTU platform steam convection heater,
for example, costs about US$ 2,300 in
the USA (Heaps 1998). The operating
cost of heat treatments at a US food
processing plant is US$ 747 to 830 per
1 million cubic feet compared to US$
2,000 to 4,500 for MB (US EPA 1995).
the system
achieved?
What temperatures are required to control the target pests?
What time is available to conduct the
treatment?
What temperature/exposure can be tolerated by the commodity or structure
and equipment?
Is there an available source of ”waste”
heat or steam, for example, from local
food-processing operations?
What changes could be made to the
commodity management system to
accommodate heat treatments?
Availability
General heating equipment, such as steam
boilers and convection heaters, are widely
available. Special equipment, such as heat
units for perishable treatments, is available in
some countries.
Suppliers and specialists
Examples of specialists and suppliers of products and services are listed in Table 6.5.5. See
resources.
involve relatively high fuel costs. Over
several years, however, costs can be similar to MB in some applications.
141
Table 6.5.5 Examples of specialists and suppliers of products and
services for heat treatments
Equipment for various types of
heat treatments
142
Consultants, specialists and advisory
services for durable commodities,
timber, structures
Consultants, specialists and
advisory services for perishable
commodities
Aggreko Inc, USA
Boverhuis Boilers BV, Netherlands
Department of Agricultural Engineering, University of
Hawaii, USA
FibreForm Wood Products Inc, USA
HKB, Netherlands
Ole Myhrene Krike, Norway
Thermeta, Netherlands
Topp Construction Services Inc, USA (Safe-Heat)
Quarantine Technologies, New Zealand
Contact neighbouring factories and food processing
facilities to ask if they generate surplus heat or steam
For other suppliers of steam boilers refer to Table 4.6.5
Copesan Services Inc, USA
FibreForm Wood Products Inc, USA
Fumigation Services and Supply, USA
HortResearch, New Zealand
Quaker Oats Canada Ltd, Canada
Dr Bill Brodie, USDA-ARS, Department of Plant
Pathology, Cornell University, Ithaca NY, USA
Dr Alan Dowdy, Grain Marketing and Production
Research Center, USDA-ARS, Kansas, USA
Ole Myhrene Krike, Norway (propagation plants)
Dr Jack Armstrong, Tropical Fruit and Vegetable
Research Laboratory, USDA-ARS, USA
Dr Eric Jang, Tropical Fruit and Vegetable Research
Laboratory, USDA-ARS, USA
Dr Arnold Hara, University of Hawaii, USA (cut flowers)
Dr K Jacobi, Department of Primary Industry,
Indooroopily, Australia
Dr Michael Lay-Yee and colleagues, HortResearch,
New Zealand
Dr Robert Mangan, Subtropical Agriculture Research
Dr Krista Shellie, Subtropical Agriculture Research
Laboratory, USDA-ARS, Weslaco TX, USA
Dr Harold Moffitt, Yakima Agricultural Research
Dr Jennifer Sharp, Subtropical Horticulture Research
Station, USDA-ARS, USA
Dr Guy Hallman, Dr WP Gould, Subtropical
Horticulture Research Station, USDA-ARS, Miami FL,
USA
Dr Michael Williamson, Quarantine Technologies,
New Zealand
Advantages
Little or no capital equipment required.
Relatively non-toxic.
Generally simple to apply.
Provide continued protection against
insects.
Repeated treatments are not necessary.
Do not affect the baking characteristics
of grains.
Disadvantages
Effective for a much smaller range of
commodities and uses compared to
other techniques.
Not a rapid treatment.
Adversely affects handling qualities of
grain, e.g., decreased flowability,
reduced bulk density.
Dusts have to be separated from grain
before human consumption.
Visible residues in grain affect grading
and market quality.
Can cause excessive wear (abrasion) in
grain-handling machinery.
Do not control Trogoderma.
Historically, inert dusts such as clays and
ashes have been applied to grain to protect
against insect attack (Ebeling 1971, Golob
and Webley 1980, Quarles 1992a,b). More
recent versions of dusts are generally more
effective and require much lower application
rates. Inert dusts can be divided into three
main groups:
a) Traditional materials
Traditional materials include clays, sands,
ashes, earths, phosphate and lime. Some are
used as a protective layer on top of stored
seed, while others are mixed with grain. To
be effective, ashes and dusts generally had to
be mixed with grain at extremely high rates,
such as 40% or more (GTZ 1996).
b)Diatomaceous earth (DE)
DE dusts are composed mainly of silicon dioxide with small amounts of other minerals.
They are produced from the fossilised remains
of diatoms, microscopic single-celled aquatic
plants that have fine shells made of amorphous hydrated silica. They have abrasive and
sorptive properties and are effective against a
wide range of pests when mixed with grain
at rates of 1 kg per tonne (MBTOC 1994). DE
adheres to insect bodies, damaging the protective waxy layer of the insect cuticle or
outer coat by sorption and, to a lesser
degree, by abrasion. Water is lost from the
insect, resulting in death. DE is also known to
repel insects (Korunic 1999).
c) Silica aerogels
Silica aerogels are very light, non-hygroscopic
powders or gels that are formed by a reaction
of sodium silicate and sulfuric acid. They are
chemically inert, non-abrasive and effective at
slightly lower doses than DE formulations.
Modern formulations of inert dusts are typically composed of DE, sometimes combined
with silica aerogels. Formulations differ in
their characteristics and efficacy against
insects. Additives can give improved properties: ammonium fluosilicate, for example,
improves adhesion to treated surfaces and
insects. Certain sources of DE have naturally
higher levels of insecticidal activity, while
some formulations can be activated or
enhanced, for example by heat treatment.
Activated formulations are generally more
effective than untreated DE (Golob 1997,
McLaughlin 1994).
Modern DE formulations used as part of an
IPM system can provide effective pest control
for several years in dry grain and structures.
The application time for DE is short, normally
6.6 Inert dusts
143
less than one day, and DE can control adult
insects in about seven days in favourable conditions (MBTOC 1994). DE dusts remain
effective for years if they are kept in sealed,
dry conditions, but they become ineffective in
moist or humid conditions. Successful use of
DE as part of an IPM system requires knowlege of factors such as grain moisture content,
grain temperature, amount of dockage (chaff,
weed seeds) and broken kernels, grain type
and quality, and insect species and numbers
(Korunic 1999).
144
DE is not suitable for heavily infested commodities. It provides a protective, prophylactic
treatment to prevent pest build-up, so it is
best used as part of an IPM system or as follow-up to another treatment such as aeration
(Section 6.2) or phosphine flow fumigation
(Section 6.7).
Inert dusts are suitable for a relatively small
range of products and uses. There are four
main application areas:
Admixture with stored grains
In several countries, specific formulations of
DE have been approved for admixture with
stored grains, such as wheat, corn, barley,
buckwheat, oats, pea, sorghum, seed, rye,
soybeans, peanuts, cocoa beans and feed
grains. In this technique, DE dust is mixed
with grain when it is bagged or loaded into
silos, bulk bins or bunkers. Enhanced DE is
applied at the rate of about 100 g per tonne
of grain and must be distributed evenly in the
bulk. The moisture content of grain is critical:
Less than 12% prior to storage is recommended (Banks pers. comm.). One application of DE can provide protection from
infestation for several years, because the dust
continues to exert its effects on insects.
When the grain is milled, the dust is removed
along with the grain husks. However, remaining particles in grain can reduce its market
value. Inert dusts can have adverse effects on
the handling qualities of grain, decreasing its
flowability and its bulk density and causing
excessive wear to grain handling machinery.
While some technical problems have been
overcome by new DE formulations (Korunic et
al 1996), these problems tend to prevent the
use of inert dusts in large-scale grain facilities.
Admixtures are considered more appropriate
for stored seed (for planting), smaller-scale
farm storage of animal feed and organic
grains (MBTOC 1994).
Grain surface treatments
DE can be applied to the surface layer of bulk
grain to kill insects in the top layer where
they tend to congregate. This treatment is
best applied as a protective measure for grain
that is already free from insects, after cooling
or flow-through phosphine fumigation, for
example (Bridgeman 1998). When combined
with aeration in a silo, at least 300 mm of DE
is applied on top of the bulk. Moisture content needs to be less than 12% when the
grain is put into storage, and grain temperatures need to be kept below 20°C. In this situation, DE controls immigrant insects as well
as those herded to the top of the silo by the
cooling front (Bridgeman 1998).
Structural treatments
In the USA, certain formulations of DE have
been approved for insect control in structures, such as food handling establishments,
warehouses, restaurants, office buildings,
homes, motels, hotels and schools. These formulations are used on wall and floor surfaces, in cracks, crevices, hiding and running
areas, and under and behind appliances.
DE is used commercially with IPM as a treatment for grain storage facilities in dry regions
of Australia. Normal formulations of DE can
pose a dust hazard to workers applying it to
walls, but this problem can be overcome by
using DE slurries. Although DE is normally
deactivated by moisture, slurries are special
formulations that can be mixed with water
and become reactivated on drying. In this
treatment, empty grain stores are cleared of
debris and thoroughly washed and cleaned.
A slurry of 0.1 kg DE per litre of water is
Spot treatments in structures
DE can provide long-lasting insect control in
cracks and crevices of structures. For example, dusts can be applied inside electrical panels, control panels and “dead” spaces behind
walls before they are closed up, providing
lasting control in locations that are normally
inaccessible (MBIGWG 1998). Spot treatments have been used in this way by a
Canadian flour mill.
Current uses
Inert dusts such as ash and lime have had a
long history of use for grain protection. Use
of modern formulations has increased significantly in the last decade (Bridgeman 1998).
DE is in widespread use for controlling insects
in storage facilities in Australia and is used
commercially for structures in Brazil, Canada,
Europe and the USA (Batchelor 1999). Table
6.6.1 provides examples of commercial uses
of inert dusts. A combination of DE with heat
has been trialled successfully in a Canadian
flour mill (Fields et al 1998).
New formulations to minimise abrasive
properties and protect grain-handling
machinery, such as conveyors, and to
enhance desiccant properties of DE by
promoting its ability to selectively absorb
the waxes of insect cuticles.
New methods of application (Fields et al
1997, Korunic et al 1996).
Trials in damp climates such as the UK
(Cook, Armitage and Collins 1999).
Enhanced DE combined with heat or
in various combinations with heat and
phosphine to achieve higher pest
mortality (Fields et al 1997).
Material inputs
DE product.
Application equipment.
Table 6.6.1 Examples of commercial use of inert dusts
Products
Stored grains in Australia
Stored grains in eastern Australia
Stored animal feed and seeds in Australia
Wheat and empty wheat bins in parts
of Canada
Organic grains
Storage facilities (structures) for grains,
pulses and oilseeds in Australia
Spot treatments for inaccessible spaces in
flour mill in Canada
Treatment
Aeration + DE on surface layer of
grain
Phosphine flow fumigation + DE cap
on surface layer of grain
DE mixed with commodity
DE mixed with commodity or
applied to walls of bins
Inert dusts of various types
IPM + DE slurry applied to walls
IPM + DE
Compiled from: MBTOC 1998, Batchelor 1999, Bridgeman 1998, MBIGWG 1998, Nickson et al 1994
sprayed onto the walls of the storage facility
with a high pressure pump, giving an application rate of about 6 g a.i. per m2. It takes
about 20 minutes to apply the slurry to a
structure that holds 5,000 tonnes of grain
(Bridgeman 1998). One treatment lasts several years and is very effective in controlling
pests in drier regions with relative humidity
below 70% (Batchelor 1999).
145
Examples of equipment for slurry applications
in structures:
Rice weevil, Sitophilus oryzae (L.)
High pressure slurry pump and hose —
available off the shelf with minor
modifications.
Lesser grain borer, Rhyzopertha
dominica F.
Small motor (e.g., 3.5 horse power).
Red flour beetle, Tribolium castaneum
(Herbst).
Water tank for mixing slurry (e.g., 180to 220-litre tank for a 5,000-tonne
grain store).
Larger grain borer, Prostephanus
truncatus (Horn).
Safety dust mask for mixing.
146
Granary weevil, Sitophilus granarius (L.)
For grain admixtures:
Dry grain (moisture content below about
12%) and low humidity (normally below
about 70% relative humidity).
Grain-handling machinery that can withstand abrasion and different flow properties in grain.
Purchasers who will accept dust particles
in grain.
For slurry applications in facilities:
Further information on pest species affected
by inert dusts can be found in Korunic (1999)
and Cook, Armitage and Collins (1999). Table
6.6.2 gives examples of stored grain insects
and other pests that are controlled by certain
DE formulations in the USA.
There is also a significant variation in the efficacy of DE in different types of commodities
against the same insect species. The commodities, in order of highest to lowest doses
for LD50 (dose required for killing 50% of
insects) are (Korunic et al 1997):
Rice.
Corn.
Low humidity (normally below about
70% relative humidity).
Oats.
Low moisture content in grain or other
stored commodities.
Wheat.
Pests controlled
Inert dusts, particularly when used as part of
an IPM programme, can effectively manage
insects and mites. DE can act quite rapidly
under favourable dry conditions, achieving
complete mortality of adult insects within
seven days (MBTOC 1994). DE does not
effectively control some pests, notably
Trogoderma. Insect species vary in their susceptibility to DE as follows (most susceptible
to least susceptible):
Rusty grain beetle, Cryptolestes
ferrugineus (Stephens).
Saw toothed grain beetle, Oryzaephilus
surinamensis (L.)
Barley.
Product quality
Admixing inert dusts with grain alters the
angle at which individual grains sit, changing
the way grain flows and making it more difficult to handle. Admixing can also leave visible
dust particles in grain, reducing its market
grade and value. Structural treatments do not
normally suffer from these problems. DE is
odourless and does not stain grain, nor does
it affect the germination and baking properties of grains.
While DE is technically effective for most
stored products, its use is limited by humidity,
dust residue and the handling problems
Formulations for stored grain insects
Exposed stages of pests
Angoumois grain moths
Cigarette beetle
Flat grain beetle
Granary weevil
Larger grain borer
Lesser grain beetle
Lesser grain borer
Mediterranean flour moths
Merchant grain beetle
Red flour beetle
Rice weevil
Rusty grain beetle
Sawtoothed grain beetle
Newly-hatched larvae
Indian meal moth
Red flour beetle
Sawtoothed grain beetle
Formulations for other purposes
Indoor and outdoor crawling insects
Ants
Bedbugs
Boxelder bugs
Carpet beetles
Centipedes
Cockroaches
Earwigs
Fleas
Millipedes
Scorpions
Silverfish
Slugs
Ticks
Compiled from: EPA, ARBICO
described above. It is suitable for admixture
with stored seeds that will be used for planting and for smaller scale storage of animal
feed. Some formulations of DE are permitted
for certified organic grains. Surface treatments and structures also offer suitable uses.
Inert dusts are not used for perishable
commodities.
DE treatments are suitable for many geographical regions, provided the relative
humidity in the facility is normally less than
about 70%.
DE has low or no toxicity to mammals and is
widely used as a permitted food additive. As
with any dust, dust from DE is a potential
health hazard to lungs and eyes. Certain
geological sources of DE contain crystabolite,
which is also a hazard to lungs in dusty
conditions.
Precautions and safety equipment are necessary against dust exposure. For structures it is
often feasible to apply DE as a slurry rather
than a powder to minimise the dust.
When DE is admixed with grain, some dust
may remain in the commodity. This does not
pose a health risk to consumers and animals.
DEs are permitted food additives.
Ozone depletion
DE is not an ODS.
consumption
DE is not a greenhouse gas. Like MB, it
requires some energy for extraction, formulation and transportation. Application normally
uses little energy.
Table 6.6.2 Pests that can be controlled by certain DE formulations
– examples from USA
147
DE is extracted from geological deposits in
the ground, so there is a risk of destroying
natural habitats, as with MB extraction from
lakes like the Dead Sea.
148
Mixing DE with grain is not acceptable to
many grain handlers and markets, although
certain milling companies favour its use
(MBIGWG 1998). Structural and surface treatments are often preferable. Consumers find
DE treatment acceptable in that it is a nonchemical treatment.
DE often requires registration. Certain DE formulations are registered as insecticides in
Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Croatia,
Germany and USA (Batchelor 1999). It is
desirable to limit the amount of crystabolite
allowed in products, as is done in Australia.
Cost considerations
For admixtures, little capital equipment is
required. The material costs for one
treatment are normally higher than the
cost of MB, costing approximately US$
8.80 per tonne of grain in some countries (GTZ 1998).
For structures such as grain stores, the
capital cost of a high pressure pump for
slurry applications is about US$ 4,200 in
Australia, but the pay-back period is
rapid. Over 2 years, the total average
annual cost (capital and operating) is
US$ 3,200 for DE slurry treatment compared to US$ 5,150 for MB fumigation
(Batchelor 1999).
the system
What level of infestation exists?
achieved?
Will DE control the target pest species
sufficiently?
What is the normal humidity range of
the air and commodities in the facility?
Is there an opportunity to mix inert
dusts with products when being
bagged or loaded?
If DE is admixed, will handling machinery
have to be adapted?
Will purchasing companies accept the
dust or its residues?
For structures, can a slurry formulation
be used to minimise dust?
What time is available for achieving
pest control?
Which types of DE would be most
suitable and effective?
What types of IPM systems or
co-treatments are feasible?
Availability
Products are available in some countries, such
as Australia, Canada and USA.
Examples of specialists and suppliers of products and services are listed in Table 6.6.3. See
resources. Note that some DE products (such
as Dryacide, Insecto, PermaGuard D10 and
Protect-It) are formulated for grain and grain
insects, while others are targeted at other
types of insects.
Inert dusts – different formulations
for stored products and structures
Specialists, advisory services and
consultants
ARBICO, USA
CR Minerals Corp, USA (Diafil)
Dryacide Australia Pty Ltd, Australia (Dryacide)
Eagle Picher Minerals Inc, USA (Crop Guard)
Entosol, Australia (Dryacide)
Green Spot Ltd, USA
Hedley Technologies Inc, Canada (Protect-It)
JT Eaton & Co Inc, USA
Natural Insect Control, Canada
Natural Insecto Products, USA (Insecto)
Nature’s Control, USA
Nitron Industries Inc, USA
Organic Plus, USA
PermaGuard Inc, USA (PermaGuard D10)
Pristine Products, USA (Perma Guard D10)
White Mountain Natural Products Inc, USA
WholeWheat Enterprises, USA (PermaGuard D10)
Entosol, Australia
Grain Marketing Production and Research Center,
USDA-ARS, USA
Dr Jonathan Banks, Pialligo, Australia
Mr Barry Bridgeman, Grainco Australia Ltd,
Australia
Dr Paul Fields, Cereal Research Station, Agriculture
and Agri-Food Canada, Canada
Dr P Golob, Tropical Products Institute, UK
Dr Zlatko Korunic, Hedley Technologies Inc,
Mississauga, Canada
SM Lazzari, institute, Brazil
Table 6.6.3 Examples of specialists and suppliers of products
and services for inert dusts
149
6.7 Phosphine and
other fumigants
Advantages
General technique and pest control
approach akin to MB fumigation.
Effective against a broad range of pests
including rodents.
150
Fumigants diffuse well in commodities
to reach pests.
Phosphine is available worldwide.
Some fumigants provide rapid
treatments.
Fumigants can provide a direct replacement for MB in some situations.
Disadvantages
tions. Fumigants are highly toxic to humans,
other mammals and insects. Their use is generally controlled under regulations covering
pesticides, hazardous substances and occupational health and safety. Properly conducted
fumigations are complex procedures that
should be carried out only by trained fumigators in situations where they are able to work
to high safety standards.
In applying a fumigant, the aim is to ensure
that a certain concentration of gas is kept in
the commodity or space for sufficient time to
kill the target pests. The appropriate concentration, exposure time and manner of application will depend on a number of factors
including those listed below (ASEAN 1989,
Graver and Annis 1994, MAFF 1999):
Nature of infestation (e.g., pest species,
stage of life cycle, position in
structure).
Phosphine involves long treatment time
compared to MB.
Nature and quantity of commodity and
commodity packaging — or nature and
volume of structure.
Like MB, fumigants provide no on-going
protection against pests after the
treatment.
Temperature and humidity of commodity
and treatment areas.
Fumigants can only be used in the countries and for the commodities and situations for which they have been
registered.
Fumigants are highly toxic, requiring
trained personnel, special safety precautions and equipment.
Like MB, fumigants can leave undesirable residues in commodities or affect
the quality of certain commodities or
materials.
Fumigants are toxic chemicals that act against
pests while in a gaseous state, though they
may be applied in liquid or solid formulations
(Bond 1984, Price 1985, Stark 1994). They
have relatively low molecular weight and are
generally capable of diffusing rapidly through
commodities and buildings to reach infesta-
Degree of sealing.
Wind velocity.
Potential for undesirable residues,
corrosion or other undesirable effects
in commodities, structures and contents
of structures.
Properties of the fumigant.
Measures for ensuring adequate distribution of the gas.
Necessary safety precautions for operators, site staff and the public.
Monitoring systems.
Fumigants approved for such purposes can be
very effective for pest management and disinfestation for official QPS purposes.
Fumigations can be carried out in commodities or structures enclosed in gas-tight sheets
or in places (such as silos, buildings, ship
When applying phosphine to a bag stack, for
example, the stack is covered with gas-tight
fumigation sheets and sealed around the
base with sand snakes or similar devices.
Tablets of aluminium phosphide are placed
within the enclosure, releasing phosphine
gas. After the necessary treatment period
(5 to 15 days), the stack is aerated and the
sheets removed.
Fumigants control the pests present in the
commodity or structure at the time of fumigation, but they do not provide on-going protection against pests. Thus, it is necessary to
use some other protective measures or to refumigate after three to six months.
Phosphine is the only fumigant other than
MB that is registered in many countries for
disinfestation of durable commodities.
Sulphuryl fluoride is registered in several
countries for structures and a few other
applications. Other fumigants have very limited registration, and are described briefly
below.
Phosphine
Phosphine (hydrogen phosphide or phosphorus trihydride, PH3) is a colourless gas with a
characteristic odour. It is used extensively for
durable commodities, principally stored cereals and legumes, and is approved for some
quarantine applications (Table 6.7.5).
Normally phosphine is generated from solid
formulations of aluminium phosphide (e.g.,
pellets, tablets or sachets) that decompose on
contact with water vapour in the air to
release phosphine gas inside the fumigation
enclosure. Adequate temperature and humidity are required; the equilibrium relative
humidity produced by the commodity should
be more than 30%. Solid formulations based
on magnesium phosphide release phosphine
faster and can be used at lower temperatures, e.g. 5˚C.
More recently developed phosphine-generating equipment, such as the Horn generator,
has allowed rapid production of phosphine
gas on site and is being used in several countries, including Chile and Argentina (Horn
1997, Horn and Luzaich 1998, Kawakami
1998). Phosphine gas in pressurised cylinders
as a 2% phosphine mixture with carbon dioxide propellant is widely used in Australia, and
a similar formulation is in the process of registration in the USA (Winks 1990, Winks
1993, Mueller 1998). Phosphine with nitrogen gas in cylinders has been developed in
Germany (Böye 1998). When phosphine is
supplied as a gas it can be released at lower
temperatures, and doses can be precisely
administered.
For phosphine, a commodity temperature of
at least 15°C is recommended, but certain
pests are susceptible down to 5°C with long
exposures (MBTOC 1998). Effective exposure
periods are typically 5 to 15 days, depending
on the temperature, target species and developmental stages of pests. Use of phosphine
supplied as a gas may allow a slight reduction
in the treatment times.
Phosphine has the following characteristics:
Good penetration into stored products
(better than MB).
Effective against a broad range of insect
pests, although resistance has developed
in several species.
Disperses well in enclosed spaces.
Rapidly disperses on ventilation after
fumigation.
Can leave residues in food commodities
or affect marketable qualities in certain
cases (e.g., taint and colour change in
walnuts).
Generally no negative effects on the germination of treated seeds.
holds, gas-tight shipping containers and specially designed chambers) provided the
required gas concentrations can be maintained for sufficient time to kill pests.
151
Forms an explosive mixture with air if the
concentration exceeds 1.8% by volume
at normal atmospheric pressure; this
level is not reached in normal fumigation
practice.
152
Reacts with noble metals, such as copper, silver and gold, corroding items such
as electric cables, electrical equipment,
telephones, sprinkler heads and computers. Measures can be taken to avoid or
lessen these effects (Brigham 1998,
Brigham 1999, Mueller 1998).
Insect populations can develop resistance to
phosphine relatively easily (Chaudhry 1997)
due to problems such as insufficient treatment times and low concentrations caused by
leaky enclosures. Presently resistance can be
managed by longer exposure periods and
improved gas-tightness. Important steps for
resistance management are described in
Taylor and Gudrups (1997). Codes of practice
and descriptions of the application methods
for phosphine for durable products can be
found in many sources (ASEAN 1989, Banks
1986, Bond 1984, Degesch America 1997,
Graver and Annis 1994, GTZ 1996). New
phosphine formulations and techniques are
also outlined in numerous documents (Taylor
and Harris 1994, Reichmuth 1994,
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada 1996,
Horn 1997, Horn and Luzaich 1998, Mueller
1998, Fields and Jones 1999).
Sulphuryl fluoride
Sulphuryl fluoride or sulfuryl fluoride (F2SO2)
is an inorganic, colourless, odourless gas supplied as a liquid in pressurised cylinders. In
several countries, including the USA, Sweden
and China, it is registered for specific uses,
such as structures where food is not present
or wood products. It is used primarily to kill
termites and wood-damaging insects in structures, such as residences and non-food facilities, and is suitable for wood and wood
products. It is approved in some countries as
a quarantine treatment for certain non-food
durables (Table 6.7.5).
Sulphuryl fluoride requires a short fumigation
period of approximately 24 hours and has a
6- to 8-hour aeration period (MBTOC 1998).
Application rates are determined by factors
such as target pests, their life stages, temperature at the pest site, volume of fumigation
space, degree of sealing/leakiness and target
exposure period. High doses (up to 10 times
the normal rate for adult termites) are
required to kill the egg stage of many
insects and can lead to high chemical
residues (Bell et al 1998, Taylor et al 1998).
Longer exposure periods and good sealing
techniques allow for use of lower doses.
The characteristics of sulphuryl fluoride
Volatilises readily, giving good penetration and distribution.
Effective against a broad range of pests.
Short treatment time (similar to MB).
Faster aeration than MB.
Low sorption to materials.
No objectionable odours or colours in
treated materials.
Does not react with materials normally
found in structures.
Non-flammable.
Not registered for use where food, feed
and medicinal products are present,
because it can leave residues; permitted
residue levels (food tolerances) have not
been established.
Descriptions of the procedures for using sulphuryl fluoride in structures can be found in
DowElanco (1995) and treatments for quarantine in USDA-APHIS (1998).
Other fumigants
Fumigants that have been used commercially
and are available and registered in certain
countries include the following:
Carbon bisulphide or carbon disulfide
(CS2) is used in parts of Australia and
Carbon dioxide (CO2). Refer to information on Controlled and modified
atmospheres in Section 6.4.
Ethyl formate (C3H6O2) is now restricted to dried fruit and processed cereal
products. It was formerly used as a grain
fumigant, but registration has lapsed in
most countries. It acts rapidly (Hilton and
Banks 1997) but is highly sorbed by
commodities. Adequate distribution can
be difficult.
Ethylene oxide (C2H4O) is used in
some countries to reduce microbial contamination in food commodities such as
spices, and provides insect control coincidentally. It was widely used for insect
control on grain and dates in the past,
but has been withdrawn in many countries because it is carcinogenic in animal
tests and can produce potentially carcinogenic residues (NIEHS 1991). It is
more appropriate for non-food uses such
as artifacts and archive materials
(MBTOC 1998). Ethylene oxide is flammable, so it is normally supplied in mixtures with inert diluents such as carbon
dioxide or HCFCs.
Hydrogen cyanide (HCN) is currently
registered in a few countries for specific
uses, such as treating aircraft in France.
It was previously widely used as a fumigant for durable commodities, mills and
other structures. It provides a rapid treatment against rodents, where permitted.
It can be lethal to humans by skin
absorption alone at the concentrations
Table 6.7.1 Physical and chemical properties of various fumigants compared with MB
Properties
Chemical formula
Molecular weight
Boiling point (°C)
Specific gravity
(air = 1.0)
Physical description
Flammability rating:
0 = none/very low
4 = high
Toxicity
Carbon
dioxide
CO2
44
-78.5
1.5
Carbon
bisulphide
CS2
76
46.5
1.3
Colourless,
odourless gas
Colourless
or pale liquid,
sweet etherlike odour
Flammable
3
Nonflammable
0
Toxic at high
concentrations
Occupational
9000 mg/m3
exposure limits (timein USA
weighted average)
Methyl
bromide
CH3Br
95
3.6
3.3
Phosphine
PH3
34
-87.0
1.2
Colourless
Colourless
and odour- gas with odour
less gas
like fish or garlic
Flammable in
Flammable
presence of
4
high-energy
ignition sources
1
Highly toxic
Highly toxic
Highly toxic
gas
gas
gas
3
3 mg/m
Varies from
0.4 mg/m3
3
in USA
20 mg/m in
in USA
USA to 1 mg/m3
in the Netherlands
Sulphuryl
fluoride
F2SO2
102
-19.4
Colourless
odourless
gas
Nonflammable
0
Highly toxic
gas
20 mg/m3
in USA
Compiled from: data sheets in Annex 3
China for small lots (about 50 tonnes) of
grain in farm storage. It was once widely
used as a fumigant for bulk and bagged
grain, but application to large bulk storage is limited by the potential fire hazard. In most countries its use has been
discontinued and registration has lapsed.
153
normally used (Bell 1998). International
Codex Alimentarius limits for hydrogen
cyanide residues in grain and flour have
lapsed due to lack of government
support.
In-transit fumigation
154
Where regulations permit, fumigation of bulk
and bagged commodities can take place on
board ship while commodities are in transit.
In-transit carbon dioxide treatments are
carried out on groundnuts exported from
Australia. In-transit fumigation with phosphine is a well-developed technology (Davis
1986, Leesch et al 1978, Redlinger et al
1979, Semple and Kirenga, Zettler et al
1982) but requires ships of appropriate
design and stringent safety precautions
(Snelson and Winks 1981, IMO 1996). In this
method the slow action of phosphine does
not interfere with the flow of trade through
export ports and thus presents a feasible
alternative to some rapid on-shore MB treatments (MBTOC 1998).
Table 6.7.2 Comparison of suitability of MB and various fumigants for grain
Fumigant
Carbon dioxide
Situations where fumigant
may be suitable
For storage of more than 15 days,
especially long-term storage
Where freedom from residues is valued
Where other fumigants are not accepted
by markets
Where a rapid kill of rodents is desirable
Where treatments are carried out close
to work areas and habitations
Methyl bromide
When a treatment must be completed
in 4 days or less; in this situation, rapid
alternatives such as heat and pressure
should be examined
When it is the only treatment allowed
by quarantine authorities
Phosphine
In well-sealed systems
When a treatment time of 7-16 days
is feasible
When treating seeds which will be
germinated eventually
When Trogoderma granarium is present
To avoid residues by repeated MB
fumigations
Situations where fumigant
is not suitable
When the treatment must be completed
in less than 15 days
In enclosures that are not well sealed
Where Trogoderma species are
present
When seed viability and germination are
important
When there is no trained, qualified fumigation team
On seed required for planting or malting
In poorly sealed enclosures
On commodities that are very absorbent
or contain fat/oils, e.g., expeller cake,
oilseeds and oily nuts
On commodities previously fumigated
with MB (residue problem)
Where there is no trained, qualified and
properly protected fumigation team
In areas immediately adjacent to workspaces and habitations
If inadequate sealing or treatment time
will not allow control of resistant insects
At temperatures below 15°C (although
there are exceptions)
When treating flour, fishmeal, cottonseed, linseed
When there is no trained, qualified and
properly protected fumigation team
In areas immediately adjacent to works
areas and habitations
Compiled from: ASEAN 1989
To overcome some of the disadvantages of
traditional fumigants, a combination of heat,
phosphine and carbon dioxide has been
developed (McCarthy 1996, Agriculture and
Agri-Food Canada 1996, Mueller 1996,
1998). Carbon dioxide at high pressure is
used to treat beverage crops, nuts and spices
(Gerard et al 1988, Prozell and Reichmuth
1991, Prozell et al 1997).
Current uses
Phosphine is registered in most countries and
widely used for bulk and bagged grain and
other durable commodities, such as herbs,
spices and tobacco. It is also used for fumigating wooden objects, paper and other
durable materials of vegetable origin.
Sulphuryl fluoride has been used for many
years in the USA, principally to control wooddestroying termites in structures (Table 6.7.3).
Use of other fumigants is restricted to the
countries and commodities/uses for which
they are officially permitted or “registered”
for use as pesticides.
Carbonyl sulphide is being considered
for registration for durables, including
timber (MBTOC 1998, Banks et al
1993a, Plarre and Reichmuth 1996,
Zettler et al 1998).
Other potential fumigants under investigation include cyanogen, methyl isothiocyanate, methyl phosphine, ozone, and
propylene oxide (MBTOC 1998, Griffith
1999).
New formulations of phosphine are
being tested to overcome normal phytoxicity to perishable comodities
(Kawakami 1999).
The manufacturer of sulphuryl fluoride is
investigating the possibility of extending
the registration to cover food commodities and other uses (Chambers and
Millard 1995, Schneider and Williams
1999).
Additional work is being conducted to
develop combination treatments.
Table 6.7.3 Examples of commercial use of fumigants
Products
Stored grains and legumes worldwide
Grains in Australia
Export grains, where permitted
Groundnuts exported from Australia
Dried fruits, peanuts and tree nuts in USA
Dried vine fruit in Australia and South Africa
(at time of packing)
Exports of cotton seeds, coconut products,
handicrafts and other durables from the
Philippines
Tobacco disinfestation in USA and many countries
Disinfestation of logs in USA
Wooden products from Malaysia, the Philippines
and Vietnam
Wood products and artefacts exported from China
Buildings infested with termites in USA
Fumigants
Phosphine
Phosphine gas with carbon dioxide
propellent
In-transit phosphine treatment
In-transit carbon dioxide treatment
Phosphine
Ethyl formate
Phosphine
Phosphine
Sulphuryl fluoride
Phosphine
Sulphuryl fluoride
Sulphuryl fluoride
Compiled from: MBTOC 1998, Mueller 1998, Taylor et al 1998, UNDP 1995
Combination treatmens
155
Material inputs
Fumigant.
Gas-tight enclosure, e.g., gas-tight fumigation sheets with tear resistance, UVresistance and low weight.
Application equipment appropriate for
the fumigant formulation.
Safety equipment, e.g., respiratory
protection.
156
Monitoring devices, e.g., fumigant gas
detector.
Sufficient temperature and humidity for
the fumigant to work effectively.
Sufficient sealing and treatment time to
kill pests and ensure that pest resistance
does not increase.
Fully trained fumigation personnel.
Robust system of safety practices and
monitoring.
Pests controlled
Fumigants, like MB, can control a wide range
of pests. Some are approved as quarantine
treatments for specific pests/commodities
(Table 6.7.5).
Phosphine
With sufficient temperature and adequate
exposure period, phosphine is effective in
controlling major stored product pests, such
as confused flour beetle, granary weevil,
Indian meal moth, khapra beetle, lesser grain
borer, Mediterranean flour moth, rice weevil,
rust-red grain beetle and saw-toothed grain
beetle (MBTOC 1998). Table 6.7.4 shows the
treatment times for various pests. As indicated in the table, phosphine is highly effective
against all stages of khapra beetle
(Trogoderma granarium) in grain, but this
treatment has not been approved for quarantine purposes (Bell et al 1984, 1985, MBTOC
1998). Phosphine is effective in controlling
bark beetles, wood-wasps, longhorn beetles
and platypodids at 15°C or more, but it is not
typically effective against seed-infesting
nematodes (MBTOC 1998).
The tolerance of the developmental stages of
insects to phosphine varies considerably. Eggs
and pupae are much more tolerant of phosphine than larvae or adults, so fumigation
must be continued long enough for the more
tolerant eggs and pupae to continue their
development to larvae and adults (ASEAN
1989). Control of mite eggs is difficult, but
for certain commodities control can be
achieved by carrying out a second fumigation
after the eggs have been allowed to hatch
(an interval of 2 weeks at 20°C or 6 weeks at
10°C) (Bowley and Bell 1981). Information on
phosphine’s efficacy against pest species and
life stages can be found in Phillips (1998).
Sulphuryl fluoride
Sulphuryl fluoride is effective against major
insect pests of timber, including bark beetles,
wood-wasps, longhorn beetles, powderpost
beetles and dry wood termites, and pests
commonly found in structures such as wooddestroying beetles, furniture and carpet beetles, clothes moths, cockroaches and rodents
(MBTOC 1998). It is toxic to the post-embryonic stages of insects, but the eggs of many
species are tolerant especially at low temperatures. Information on the efficacy of sulphuryl
fluoride against a range of pest species and
stages is provided in Bond and Monro (1961),
Kenaga (1957), Mizobuchi et al (1996),
Reichmuth et al (1996), Thoms and
Scheffrahn (1994), Dow Agrosciences.
Carbon dioxide
Refer to information given in Section 6.4.
Product quality
Phosphine can leave residues in food products and can taint certain commodities such
as walnuts, herbs and spices. Normal formulations of phosphine are phytotoxic to perish-
able commodities. Phosphine is less phytotoxic than MB to seeds, so it can be used where
germination is important. Sulphuryl fluoride
does not normally affect the quality of materials found in structures, but leaves residues in
food commodities.
such as timber, wood products and artifacts.
Examples of some approved quarantine uses
are given in Table 6.7.5.
Fumigants must only be used for the commodities and uses for which they have been
officially permitted, and pesticide registration
authorities should be able to provide up-todate information relating to your country or
state. Fumigants can be effective in bulk bins,
silos, bags, stacks, chambers, structures and
transportation, provided sufficient sealing and
exposures can be achieved.
Phosphine is effective for a wide range
of grains and durable commodities
including oilseeds, expeller cake, meal,
flour and seeds for germination and
wooden items. It is also suitable for
structures in cases where corrosion will
not be a problem.
Sulphuryl fluoride is suitable for structures that do not contain food or feed,
as well as vehicles, railcars, furnishings
and non-edible durable commodities,
Fumigants can generally be used in temperate to tropical climates. However, temperatures of more than 15°C are desirable for
phosphine use, while relative humidity greater
than about 30% is necessary for aluminium
phosphide use.
Fumigants are by nature highly poisonous.
They pose acute toxicity risks if mis-handled,
and some pose chronic health risks. (Toxicity
data sheets are given in Annex 3.)
The occupational Permissible Exposure
Limit (PEL) for phosphine is 0.3ppm
(0.4 mg/m3) in the USA. Chronic poisoning symptoms from significant exposure
include anemia and potentially fatal pulmonary edema, while exposure to higher
concentrations can cause renal and liver
failure, coma and death (NTP 1990).
Table 6.7.4 Minimum treatment time for phosphine fumigation of various
stored product pests(a) (all stages)
Minimum exposure period(b)
10 - 20°C
20 - 30°C
Acanthoscelides obtectus
Dried bean beetle
8 days
5 days
Caryedon serratus
Groundnut borer
10 days
8 days
Cryptolestes pusillus
Flat grain beetle
5 days
4 days
Ephestia cautella
Tropical warehouse moth
10 days
5 days
Lasioderma serricorne
Cigarette beetle
5 days
5 days
Oryzaephilus surinamensis
Saw-toothed grain beetle
3 days
3 days
Sitophilus granarius
Grain/granary weevil
16 days
8 days
(c)
Trogoderma granarium
Khapra beetle
5 -10 days
3
(a) Based on a phosphine concentration of 1.0 g/m in gas-tight conditions
(b) At temperatures of 30°C or more, many species are controlled by a 4-day exposure.
(c) At temperature above 15°C.
Pest species
Common name
157
Table 6.7.5 Approved quarantine treatments for durable commodities
– examples from USA (USDA-APHIS)
158
Commodities
Fumigants
Wooden items with wood borers
Phosphine
Wooden items with wood borers
Sulphuryl fluoride
Wood products, containers with termites
Sulphuryl fluoride
Tobacco for export
Phosphine
Cotton, cotton waste and cotton products
Phosphine
in bulk – against boll weevil etc.
Bales of hay
Phosphine
Non-plant articles infested with ticks
Sulphuryl fluoride
Seeds of cotton, packaged or bulk
Phosphine
Seeds and dried pods, okra, kenaf, etc.
Phosphine
(a) Duration of treatment can vary according to temperature and dose.
Typical duration(a)
72 hours
24 hours
24 hours
96 hours
120 hours
72 hours
24 hours
120 hours
120 hours
Compiled from: USDA-APHIS 1993, 1998
The occupational Permissible Exposure
Limit for sulphuryl fluoride is 5 ppm (y
mg/m3) in the USA. Chronic exposure to
significantly higher levels than the PEL
may result in fluorosis of teeth and
bones, while short-term inhalation exposure to high concentrations may cause
respiratory irritation followed by pulmonary edema, numbness and central
nervous system depression (NTP 1990).
The toxicity of sulphuryl fluoride to
mammals by inhalation is similar to that
of MB (Bond 1984).
The emissions of fumigant gases after treatment can pose safety risks to staff and
neighbouring communities. Some fumigant
formulations are flammable.
Handling of fumigants requires full safety
training, safety equipment and implementation of appropriate management and emergency procedures. Occupational safety
authorities have set exposure limits and can
provide guidance on safety procedures and
equipment for registered fumigants.
Fumigants should only be handled by fully
trained personnel. Other safety controls and
requirements include:
Respiratory protection.
Detailed safety equipment.
Training and licensing.
Personal monitors.
Regular medical check-ups.
Fumigant chemicals should be stored in
appropriate conditions in special locked areas.
Information on safety procedures can be
found in HSE (1996a, 1996b) and IMO (1996).
Fumigants leave residues in food products.
Unless precautions are taken, phosphine
tablets or pellets can leave powdery residues
on commodities that are likely to contain
unreacted metal phosphides (MAFF 1999).
The Codex Alimentarius Commission of the
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and
the World Health Organization (WHO) has
established maximum residue limits for some
fumigant residues in specific foods. Residues
are also generally controlled under pesticide
residue regulations at national or state levels.
The fumigants in this section are not known
to be ODS. However, carbon disulfide has
been noted as a catalyst for ozone depletion
if the gas reaches the upper atmosphere
(WMO 1991).
consumption
Fumigants described in this section are not
known to be greenhouse gases, except for
carbon dioxide. Like MB, the products consume energy during their manufacture and
transport. Some formulations consume energy during use.
After a fumigation has finished, the unused
gases are released to the air, contributing to
local air contamination. Some durable commodities will desorb or slowly release fumigants for a long period after fumigation.
Waste from solid phosphine formulations can
be a source of environmental pollution; it is
normally deactivated in water and detergent
and then placed in landfill sites. Large cylinders
containing fumigants are normally re-used.
Phosphine is widely used for food commodities and well accepted by supermarkets and
purchasing companies. Sulphuryl fluoride is
likewise well accepted by customers for structural treatments and non-food commodities.
Consumers in general do not like chemical
treatments for food products, however, and
there is increasing public concern about safety issues for communities near fumigation
sites.
All fumigants have to be registered as permitted pesticides for specific commodities and
uses. Phosphine is registered in many countries, while the other fumigants are registered
in some cases. Registration may be the
responsibility of the government authorities
that control pesticides and, in some cases,
the authorities responsible for food, grain and
quarantine. The storage, sale, use and/or
transportation of fumigants are often restricted by regulations on hazardous substances
and occupational safety and may also be
restricted by local by-laws. In-transit fumigations are subject to shipping regulations and
codes of the International Maritime
Organisation (IMO 1996).
Cost considerations
Phosphine generally requires less equipment than does MB, but the chemical
products often cost more than MB. In
Zimbabwe, for example, the chemical
costs were approximately US$ 0.14 per
tonne of grain for phosphine, compared
to about $ 0.09 for MB. In Indonesia the
chemical cost was about US$ 0.20 to
0.29 for phosphine and about $0.09 for
MB. For six months of grain storage in
Indonesia, the equipment and operating
costs were about US$ 0.61 to 0.79 per
tonne for phosphine, compared to
$ 0.50 for MB (Sidik 1995, Miller 1996).
For six months of grain storage in the
Philippines, the total fixed and variable
costs were about US$ 7.17 per tonne for
phosphine and about $ 6.30 per tonne
for MB (NAPHIRE 1995, Miller 1996).
When longer phosphine treatment is
involved, additional fumigation sheets
may be required, and those additional
sheets add to costs. In Zimbabwe, for
example, each additional sheet would
cost approximately US$ 2,330 (Miller
1996).
The chemical cost of sulphuryl fluoride is
higher than MB, for example, about US$
0.75 to 1.37 per ft2 for sulphuryl fluoride compared to $ 0.69 to 1.37 for MB
for eliminating drywood termites in a
large commercial structure (EPA 1996).
Ozone depletion
159
the system
Which pest species and life stages are
present?
achieved?
What time is available to conduct the
treatment?
160
Can improved sealing or a combination
of a fumigant with another treatment,
such as heat, reduce treatment times?
What is the temperature and humidity
of structures and commodities?
Which fumigants are effective in these
conditions?
Is the fumigant registered for this
commodity/use?
What degree of sealing is necessary?
What other regulatory restrictions are
placed on fumigant use and storage?
Will customers or supermarkets be
concerned about residues or quality
changes?
What safety management systems,
safety equipment and training are
required?
What other equipment and materials
are required?
Availability
Phosphine is available in many countries.
The other fumigants are available only in
the countries where they are registered.
Examples of specialists and suppliers of
fumigant products and services are given in
Table 6.7.6. See Annex 6 for an alphabetical
listing of suppliers, specialists and experts.
See also Annex 5 and Annex 7 for additional information resources. Information about
fumigant products and services can also be
obtained from local agrochemical and pest
control suppliers and from national pesticide
registration authorities.
Table 6.7.6 Examples of specialists and suppliers of products and
services for fumigants
Type of equipment
or service
Phosphine-generating
products and equipment
Organization or company (product name)
Adalia Services Ltd, Canada
Ag Pesticides (Private) Ltd, Pakistan (Agtoxin)
Beyer (M) Sdn. Bhd., Malaysia
Casa Bernado Ltda, Brazil (Gastoxin, Phostek)
Degesch America Inc, USA (Phostoxin, Magtoxin)
Degesch de Chile Ltda, Chile (Horn generator)
Detia Degesch GmbH, Germany (Phostoxin)
Excel Industries Ltd, India (Celphos)
Fumigation Service and Supply Inc, USA
Gardex Chemicals, Canada
Hoechst Far East Marketing Corp, Philippines
MC Solvents Co Ltd, Thailand
Pawa International Sales Agency PL, Thailand
PT Elang Laut, Indonesia
PT Petrokimiya Kayaku, Indonesia
PT Sarana Agropratama, Indonesia
continued
Type of equipment
or service
Phosphine + carbon
dioxide and phosphine +
nitrogen mixtures
Sulphuryl fluoride
manufacturers
Fumigation services
(contract services)
In-transit phosphine
fumigations
(contract services)
Fumigation sheets and
enclosures
Safety equipment
and consultants
SGS Far East Ltd, Thailand
United Phosphorus, India (Quickphos)
Westco Agencies (M) Sdn. Bhd., Malaysia
BOC Gases, Australia
CIG Ltd, Australia (Phosfume)
CSIRO Stored Grain Research Laboratory, Australia (Siroflo,
Sirocirc)
Cytec Canada Inc, Canada (Siroflo, ECO2FUME)
Fumigation Services and Supply Inc, USA (ECO2FUME)
S&A GmbH, Germany (Frisin)
Dow AgroSciences, USA (Vikane, ProFume)
Note: This fumigant is registered in only a few countries
Fumigation Services and Supply Inc, USA
Food Protection Services, Hawaii, USA
Igrox Ltd, UK
Pest Control Services Inc, Philippines
S&A GmbH, Germany
SCC Products, USA
International Maritime Fumigation Organisation, UK
Austral Cathay, Australia
Commodity Storage, Australia
GrainPro, USA
Haogenplast, Israel
Power Plastics, UK
PT Abdi Ishan Medel General Trading, Indonesia
PT Sarana Utama Jaya, Indonesia
Refer to government authorities responsible for occupational
safety and to pest control product suppliers.
Department of Agriculture, Bangkok, Thailand
ASEAN Food Handling Bureau, Malaysia
Central Science Laboratory, York, UK
Cereal Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada,
Canada
Department of Stored Products, The Volcani Center, Israel
Fumigation Service and Supply Inc, USA
GTZ, Germany
Food Protection Services, Hawaii, USA
Home Grown Cereals Authority, London, UK (procedures for phosphine)
HortResearch, Natural Systems Group, Ruakura, New Zealand
Institute of Plant Quarantine, Ministry of Agriculture, Beijing, China
continued
161
UNEP Sourcebook of Technologies for Protecting the Ozone Layer: Methyl Bromide
Type of equipment
or service
162
Instituto de Tecnologia de Alimentos, Campinas SP, Brazil
National Postharvest Institute for Research and Extension, the
Philippines
Natural Resources Institute, UK
SCC Products, USA
Dr Jonathon Banks, Pialligo, Australia
Mr Patrick Ducom, Laboratoire Dendrées Stockées, France
Dr Paul Fields, Cereal Research Centre, Canada
Dr Fusao Kawakami, MAFF Yokohama Plant Protection Station,
Japan
Dr Geoffry Kirenga, Dar es Salaam University, Dar es Salaam,
Tanzania
Dr Thomas Phillips and Dr Ronald Noyes, Department of
Entomology, Oklahoma State University, USA
Dr. Elmer Schmidt, Department of Wood Science, University of
Minnesota, USA
Dr Bob Taylor, Natural Resources Institute, UK
Dr Brad White, University of Washington, USA (timber treatments)
Dr Larry Zettler, USDA-ARS, Horticultural Crops Research
Laboratory, USA
Annex 1
About the UNEP DTIE
The UNEP Division of Technology,
Industry and Economics
The mission of the UNEP Division of
Technology, Industry and Economics is to help
decision-makers in government, local authorities, and industry develop and adopt policies
and practices that:
Chemicals (Geneva), which promotes
sustainable development by catalysing
global actions and building national
capacities for the sound management of
chemicals and the improvement of
chemical safety world-wide, with a priority on Persistent Organic Pollutants
(POPs) and Prior Informed Consent (PIC,
jointly with FAO).
Make efficient use of natural resources.
Ensure adequate management of
chemicals.
Incorporate environmental costs.
Reduce pollution and risks for humans
and the environment.
The UNEP Division of Technology, Industry
and Economics (UNEP DTIE), with its head
office in Paris, is composed of one centre and
four units:
The International Environmental
Technology Centre (Osaka), which
promotes the adoption and use of environmentally sound technologies with a
focus on the environmental management of cities and freshwater basins, in
developing countries and countries in
transition.
Production and Consumption (Paris),
which fosters the development of cleaner and safer production and consumption patterns that lead to increased
efficiency in the use of natural resources
and reductions in pollution.
Energy and OzonAction (Paris), which
supports the phase-out of ozone depleting substances in developing countries
and countries with economies in transition, and promotes good management
practices and use of energy, with a focus
on atmospheric impacts. The UNEP/RISØ
Collaborating Centre on Energy and
Environment supports the work of the
Unit.
Economics and Trade (Geneva), which
promotes the use and application of
assessment and incentive tools for environmental policy and helps improve the
understanding of linkages between trade
and environment and the role of financial institutions in promoting sustainable
development.
UNEP DTIE activities focus on raising awareness, improving the transfer of information,
building capacity, fostering technology cooperation, partnerships and transfer, improving
understanding of environmental impacts of
trade issues, promoting integration of environmental considerations into economic policies, and catalysing global chemical safety.
Annex 1: About the UNEP DTIE OzonAction Programme
Are cleaner and safer.
163
The OzonAction Programme
164
Nations around the world are taking concrete
actions to reduce and eliminate production
and consumption of CFCs, halons, carbon
tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, methyl bromide and HCFCs. When released into the
atmosphere these substances damage the
stratospheric ozone layer — a shield that protects life on Earth from the dangerous effects
of solar ultraviolet radiation. Nearly every
country in the world — currently 172 countries — has committed itself under the
Montreal Protocol to phase out the use and
production of ODS. Recognizing that developing countries require special technical and
financial assistance in order to meet their
commitments under the Montreal Protocol,
the Parties established the Multilateral Fund
and requested UNEP, along with UNDP,
UNIDO and the World Bank, to provide the
necessary support. In addition, UNEP supports
ozone protection activities in Countries with
Economies in Transition (CEITs) as an implementing agency of the Global Environment
Facility (GEF).
Since 1991, the UNEP DTIE OzonAction
Programme has strengthened the capacity of
governments (particularly National Ozone
Units or “NOUs”) and industry in developing
countries to make informed decisions about
technology choices and to develop the policies required to implement the Montreal
Protocol. By delivering the following services
to developing countries, tailored to their individual needs, the OzonAction Programme has
helped promote cost-effective phase-out
activities at the national and regional levels:
Information Exchange
Provides information tools and services to
encourage and enable decision makers to
make informed decisions on policies and
investments required to phase out ODS. Since
1991, the Programme has developed and disseminated to NOUs over 100 individual publications, videos, and databases that include
public awareness materials, a quarterly
newsletter, a web site, sector-specific technical publications for identifying and selecting
alternative technologies and guidelines to
help governments establish policies and
regulations.
Training
Builds the capacity of policy makers, customs
officials and local industry to implement
national ODS phase-out activities. The
Programme promotes the involvement of local
experts from industry and academia in training workshops and brings together local
stakeholders with experts from the global
ozone protection community. UNEP conducts
training at the regional level and also supports
national training activities (including providing
training manuals and other materials).
Networking
Provides a regular forum for officers in NOUs
to meet to exchange experiences, develop
skills, and share knowledge and ideas with
counterparts from both developing and
developed countries. Networking helps
ensure that NOUs have the information, skills
and contacts required for managing national
ODS phase-out activities successfully. UNEP
currently operates 8 regional/sub-regional
Networks involving 109 developing and 8
developed countries, which have resulted in
member countries taking early steps to implement the Montreal Protocol.
Refrigerant Management Plans
(RMPs)
Provide countries with an integrated,
cost-effective strategy for ODS phase-out in
the refrigeration and air conditioning sectors.
RMPs have to assist developing countries
(especially those that consume low volumes
of ODS) to overcome the numerous obstacles
to phase out ODS in the critical refrigeration
sector. UNEP DTIE is currently providing specific expertise, information and guidance to
support the development of RMPs in 60
countries.
Support the development and implementation of national ODS phase-out strategies
especially for low-volume ODS-consuming
countries. The Programme is currently assisting 90 countries to develop their Country
Programmes and 76 countries to implement
their Institutional-Strengthening projects.
For more information about these services
please contact:
Mr. Rajendra Shende, Chief
Energy and OzonAction Unit
UNEP Division of Technology, Industry
and Economics
39-43, quai André Citroën
75739 Paris Cedex 15 France
Email: [email protected]
Tel: +33 1 44 37 14 50
Fax: +33 1 44 37 14 74
Annex 1: About the UNEP DTIE OzonAction Programme
Country Programmes and
Institutional Strengthening
165
166
Annex 2
Glossary, Acronyms and Units
Term
Description
Allelopathy
APHIS
Use of plant materials (e.g., exudates, residues) to benefit crop health.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, the USA’s regulatory agency responsible
for quarantine.
A developing country whose annual per capita ODS consumption is less than 0.3
kg per capita.
Amendment of soil with organic matter that releases gases that eliminate or
control pests.
Living organisms or insects used to control pests and diseases.
Article 5(1)
Biofumigation
Biological
controls
Controlled
atmosphere
Typically, low-oxygen and high-carbon-dioxide atmospheres that are externally
controlled. Used for extending the life of fresh and durable products. Some
atmospheres have pesticidal qualities. Also know as modified atmosphere(s).
Compost
Decomposed waste plant or animal materials.
Crop rotation
Growing different crops each year in a field in a sequence that helps to interrupt
the life cycles of pests.
ct-product
The product of the fumigant concentration multiplied by the time or duration of
application. This figure is often used as a guide in calculating correct doses for
fumigation treatments.
Damping off
Plant diseases caused by certain pathogens such as Rhizoctonia solani.
Diatomaceous
Abrasive, fossilised remains of diatoms consisting mainly of silica with small
earth (DE)
amounts of other minerals that cause damage mainly to arthropod pests.
Double-cropping Production of two crops per year in a greenhouse or field.
Drip irrigation
Watering system comprised of pipes laid along crop rows with drippers to supply
water to the soil.
Durables
Products with low moisture content that, in the absence of pest attack, can be
safely stored for long periods.
Fungal wilts
Plant diseases caused by certain species of fungi.
Grafting
Use of resistant rootstocks to protect susceptible annual and perennial crops against
soil-borne pathogens.
Heat treatment Use of heat to kill insect and/or other pests.
Hermetic storage Sealed storage containers where insects perish from lack of oxygen.
Hydroponics
Soil substitute system where the substrates sit on a bed of water and water
circulation is carefully managed.
Integrated
Management of stored products to minimise environmental and health impacts.
Commodity
It includes the use of Integrated Pest Management (IPM).
Management
(ICM)
Annex 2: Glossary, Acronyms and Units
Glossary of terms used in this report
167
Insect Growth
Regulator (IGR)
Integrated Pest
Management
(IPM)
Modified
atmosphere(s)
Multi-cropping
Nematodes
168
Organic
amendments
Pathogens
Perishables
Permeability
Pest-free zone
pH
Pheromone
Phosphine
Phytotoxic,
phytotoxicity
Quarantine
and preshipment (QPS)
Resistant
varieties
Sanitation
Specific chemical that disrupts the life cycle of a pest.
Pest monitoring techniques, establishment of pest injury levels and a combination of
strategies and tactics to prevent or manage pest problems in an environmentally
sound and cost-effective manner.
See controlled atmosphere(s).
Production of two or more crops per year in a greenhouse or field.
Microscopic worms that live in soil; some are pests while others are advantageous
to agriculture.
Organic materials added to the soil to improve texture, nutrition and/or assist in
controlling pests.
Organisms that cause damage or disease.
Fresh fruit and vegetables, cut flowers, ornamental plants, fresh root crops and
bulbs that generally have limited storage life.
The degree to which a gas can move through a thin membrane or sheet.
Establishment of a certified area where a regulated quarantine pest does not exist.
Degree of acidity or alkalinity.
A chemical produced by one member of a species that is externally transmitted
and influences the behaviour or physiology of other members of the same species.
Phosphorus trihydride (hydrogen phosphide), a fumigant gas.
A substance or activity that is toxic to plants.
Uses of methyl bromide that are defined by the Montreal Protocol as “quarantine”
and “pre-shipment” and are exempt from Protocol controls.
Plant varieties that are able to resist attack by specific pests.
Activities to prevent the introduction or spread of pathogen inoculum or pest
sources, such as removing infected plant residues before planting.
Soil
Organic materials added to the soil to improve texture, nutrition and/or assist in
amendments
controlling pests.
Soil-less culture A method in which plant growth substrates provide an anchoring medium that
allows nutrients and water to be absorbed by plant roots.
Solarisation
When heat from solar radiation is trapped under clear plastic sheeting to elevate
the temperature of moist soil to a level lethal to soil-borne pests, including
pathogens, weeds, insects and mites.
Steam treatment Use of steam (water vapour) to kill pests.
Strip solarisation Solarisation carried out on the strips or rows where crops will be planted.
Substrates
Materials or growth media that provide an anchoring medium to replace the soil
and allow nutrients and water to be absorbed by plant roots.
Systems
Combines biological knowledge with scientifically derived, quantifiable operational
approach
actions that together act as multiple safeguards. In the context of quarantine, a
systems approach may be applied in the country of export and results in a consignment meeting the requirements of the importing country.
Acronyms
Acronym
Meaning
APHIS
ATSDR
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Dept Agriculture, USA
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Department of Health and
Human Services, USA
Controlled atmosphere
Diatomaceous earth
Department of Health and Human Services, USA
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Greenhouse Gas
International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organisation
Integrated Commodity Management
Insect growth regulator
International Programme on Chemical Safety, World Health Organisation and
International Labour Organisation, Switzerland
Integrated Pest Management
Modified atmosphere
Methyl bromide
Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee of UNEP and the Montreal Protocol
Multilateral Fund of the Montreal Protocol
National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, USA.
National Toxicology Program, USA
Ozone-depleting substance
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Department of Labor, USA
Quarantine and pre-shipment uses of methyl bromide
United Nations
Department of Transportation, USA
CA
DE
DHHS
FAO
GHG
IARC
ICM
IGR
IPCS
IPM
MA
MB
MBTOC
MF
NIOSH
NTP
ODS
OSHA
QPS
UN
US DOT
LC50
LD50
LCLo
LDLo
TCLo
TDLo
Concentration which killed 50% of test population in animal tests.
Dose which killed 50% of test population in animal tests.
Lowest lethal concentration.
Lowest lethal dose.
Lowest toxic concentration.
Lowest toxic dose.
Annex 2: Glossary, Acronyms and Units
Toxicological acronyms
169
Units and conversions
Unit
area of 10,000 square metres (m2)
or 2.47 acres
Micron
thickness (length) of 0.001 millimetre (mm)
or 0.000089 inches
Metre, m
length of 100 centimetres (cm)
or 39.37 inches
or 3.28 feet
Square metre,
area measuring 1 metre long by 1 metre wide
m2
or 1.19 square yards
or 10.76 square feet
Cubic metre, m3 volume measuring 1 metre long by 1 metre wide by 1 metre high
or 1 kilolitre
or 264.17 US gallons (219.97 UK gallons)
Litre, l
capacity (volume) of 0.035 cubic feet
or 2.11 US pints (1.76 UK pints)
or 0.26 US gallons (0.22 UK gallons)
Millilitre, ml
capacity (volume) of 0.001 litre (l)
Gram, g
weight of 0.032 ounces
Kilogram, kg
weight of 1000 grams (g)
or 2.21 pounds
or 32.15 ounces
Tonne, t
weight of 1000 kilograms (kg)
or 2204.62 pounds
°C
temperature measured in degrees Celsius or degrees centigrade
0°C equals 32°F (degrees Fahrenheit)
15°C equals 59°F
37°C equals 98.6°F
60°C equals 140°F
100°C equals 212°F
Hectare, ha
170
Meaning
Annex 3
Chemical Safety Data Sheets
This Annex provides chemical
safety data sheets for:
Methyl Bromide
Boric acid, borates
Carbon dioxide
Carbon bisulphide
Chloropicrin
Dazomet
1,3-Dichloropropene
Dichlorvos
Ethyl formate
Ethylene oxide
International Programme on Chemical
Safety (IPCS) of World Health
Organisation and International Labour
Organisation, Switzerland.
JT Baker, Mallinckrodt Baker Inc, New
Jersey, USA.
National Institute of Occupational Safety
and Health (NIOSH), USA.
National Toxicology Program (NTP),
National Institutes of Health, USA.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Department of Labor, USA.
Useful sources of health and
safety information
Hydrogen cyanide
Metam sodium
Methyl iodide
Nitrogen
Phosphine
Sulphuryl fluoride
Information in the data sheets in this Annex
was taken from material safety data sheets
and toxicological information published by:
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry (ATSDR), Department of Health
and Human Sciences, USA.
American Conference of Governmental
Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), USA.
Cornell University, USA.
Fisher Scientific, Canada.
Websites
One easy starting point is a website called
Where to Find Material Safety Data Sheets on
the Internet hosted by Interactive Learning
Paradigms Incorporated; it explains toxicological terminology and gives hotlinks to many
websites:
http://www.ilpi.com/msds/index.html
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry (ATSDR), Department of Health
and Human Services, USA:
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov
American Conference of Governmental
Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), USA:
http://www.acgih.org
Fisher Scientific, Canadian web page with
material safety data sheets: http://www.fishersci.ca/msds.nsf
Health and Safety Executive, UK:
http://www.hse.gov.uk
Annex 3: Chemical Safety Data Sheets
Malathion
171
International Programme on Chemical
Safety (IPCS) of the United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP), the World
Health Organisation (WHO)and the
International Labour Organisation:
http://www.unep.org/unep/partners/un/ipcs
Health Organisation, (WHO) and the
International Labour Organisation:
http://www.unep.org/unep/partners/un/ipcs
172
National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health (NIOSH), USA:
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh
National Toxicity Program (NTP) of the
Department of Health and Human
Services, USA: http://ntp-server.niehs.nih.gov
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, Department of Labor,
USA: http://www.osha.gov
Pesticide Management Education
Program, Cornell University, New York,
USA: http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu
Organisations
You can ask the following types of organisations for safety information:
Government bodies responsible for:
Occupational safety.
Human health, public health and
community safety.
Environmental protection, air pollution and water pollution.
Pesticide registration and regulation.
Transportation and disposal of hazardous substances and wastes.
Fire prevention.
Professional organisations and research
departments in the areas of:
Occupational safety.
Public health, human health and
community hazards.
Environmental protection, air
pollution and water pollution.
Plant protection products, agriculture.
Transportation of hazardous substances and wastes.
Fire brigade, fire prevention.
Poison information centers.
Chemical product manufacturers and
suppliers.
NGOs working on pesticides, health
issues, environmental issues.
References on use of fumigants and
pesticides
ASEAN 1989. Suggested Recommendations for
the Fumigation of Grain in the ASEAN Region.
Part 1: Principles and General Practice. ASEAN
Food Handling Bureau, Kuala Lumpur and
CSIRO and ACIAR, Canberra, Australia.
GASCA 1996. Risks and Consequences of the
Misuse of Pesticides in the Treatment of Stored
Products. Technical Leaflet 2. Group for
Assistance on Systems relating to Grain After
Harvest. CTA, Wageningen, Netherlands.
MAFF 1999. Fumigation Guidelines. Ministry of
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, London, UK.
Disclaimer
Note that the information given about chemicals in this Annex represents the information
available from the organisations listed above.
We cannot assure the accuracy of that information, so users must make their own investigations to determine the latest information
and suitability of chemicals for their particular
purposes. You should examine safety information provided by chemical manufacturers,
consult safety authorities for detailed and
up-to-date information, identify the safer
options, and comply fully with all safety
precautions.
Occupational exposure limits and recommended safety precautions are subject to
change, so it is important to find out the latest information and national or state requirements and recommendations.
Methyl bromide
Chemical formula: CH3Br
CAS number: 74-83-9 UN number: 1062
Synonyms: bromomethane, monobromomethane, halon 1001.
Hazard classification:
Highly toxic gas.
Occupational hazard rating (IPCS): Highly toxic gas.
Health rating (NFPA): 3
Transportation hazard class (US DOT): hazard class 2, division 2.3, Poison gas.
Exposure limits:
Occupational exposure limits: (USA NIOSH, UK, Australia): 20 mg/m3 TWA, skin.
Bulgaria, Hungary: 10 mg/m3. Netherlands: 1 mg/m3 time-weighted average, skin.
Permissible exposure limit (OSHA): 5 ppm (20mg/m2) time-weighted average, skin.
Physical description:
Odourless and colourless gas. Liquid below about 4°C.
Molecular weight: 95
Boiling point: 4°C (38°F)
Specific gravity: 1.73
Melting point: -94°C
Vapour pressure: 1420 mm Hg at 20°C
Vapour density: 3.3 (air = 1)
Solubility in water: 16-18 g/litre at 25°C
Fire hazard: flammable gas only in presence of a high energy ignition source. On heating or burning
produces toxic or corrosive fumes including hydrogen bromide, bromine and carbon oxybromide.
Explosion limits: 8.6 - 20 vol%. Flammability rating (NFPA): 1
Potential health effects and symptoms:
Eyes: severe irritant, exposure symptoms include redness, pain, blurred vision, temporary blindness.
Skin: exposure symptoms include tingling, itching, burning sensation, redness, blisters, pain. Can be
absorbed through the skin causing systemic toxicity with symptoms similar to inhalation (below) and
can be fatal (IPCS). Risk of frostbite if contact with liquid.
Inhalation: exposure symptoms include dizziness, headache, abdominal pain, vomiting, weakness,
hallucinations, lack of coordination, laboured breathing, possibly convulsions, coma, death.
Ingestion: highly irritant to mucous membranes and extremely poisonous if ingested.
Short-term exposure: irritation to eyes, skin, respiratory tract; inhalation may cause long edema; may
cause effects on central nervous system, kidneys and lungs; exposure to high concentrations may result
in death (IPCS); effects may be delayed. Acute poisoning is characterised by marked irritation of respiratory tract, which in severe cases may lead to pulmonary edema; high concentrations may damage
the liver, kidneys and central nervous system.
Long-term or repeated exposure (IPCS): long-term exposure to low concentrations may affect central nervous system – signs include mental confusion, lethargy, inability to focus eyes, lack of coordination and muscle weakness. May have effects on kidneys, heart muscle, liver, nose and lungs; may
cause genetic damage; may impair male fertility.
Incompatibilities and reactivities: avoid open flames; risk of fire and explosion on contact with aluminum, zinc or magnesium. Reacts with strong oxidisers, attacks many metals in presence of water,
some plastics, rubber and coatings. Reactivity rating (NFPA): 0.
173
174
Toxicity profile:
TDLo skin: human 40 g/m3/40M-C.
LC50 inhalation: rabbit 28900 mg/m3/30M; rat 302 ppm/8H; mouse 1540 mg/m3/2H.
TCLo inhalation: human 35 ppm.
LCLo inhalation: human 1583 ppm/10-20H (6.2 mg/l); human7890 ppm/1.5H (30.9mg/l); chd 1
g/m3/2H.
LD50 oral: rat 04 - 214 mg/kg.
Human non-fatal poisoning (IPCS): from exposures as low as 100 ppm (389 mg/m3).
Carcinogenicity (IARC): group 3, limited evidence in animals; inadequate evidence in humans .
Teratogenicity/ reproductive effects: insufficient information.
Mutagenicity/genetic toxicology: positive in Ames test, salmonella and micronucleus tests.
Neurotoxicity: Neurotoxic effects.
Environment: hazardous to environment: ozone depleting substance. Hazardous to mammals, insects,
aquatic animals, plants, soil organisms.
Protective measures:
Follow all safety instructions precisely.
Do not breathe or inhale fumes, prevent contact with skin, eyes and clothing. Wear safety goggles,
face shield or supplied - air breathing apparatus. Wear loose-fitting clothing because MB permeates
many materials). Do not wear gloves, contact lenses, rings or adhesive bandages. Refer to safety recommendations. Special disposal for waste chemical and packaging.
First aid:
Contact medical assistance immediately.
Eye: irrigate immediately for at least 20 minutes, medical attention.
Skin: remove contaminated clothing, wash immediately for at least 15 minutes, medical attention.
Inhalation: respiratory support, medical attention.
Ingestion: medical attention immediately.
Sources: Chemical data sheets of NIOSH, NTP, IPCS, Cornell University, Great Lakes Chemical Corp.
Boric acid (borates)
Chemical formula: H3BO3 and Na2B4O7.10H2O
CAS number: 10043-35-3 and 1303-96-4
UN number: -
Synonyms: borax, sodium borate, boracic acid, orthoboric acid. Information below is for boric acid only.
Hazard classification for boric acid:
Harmful if swallowed or if dust is inhaled.
Occupational hazard rating (OSHA): no information
Health rating (NFPA): 1 = slight.
Transportation hazard class (US DOT): not regulated.
Exposure limits:
Occupational exposure limit (ACGICH, California OSHA): 10mg/m2 (inhalable particulate)..
Permissible exposure limit (OSHA): 15 mg/m3 total dust, 5 mg/m3 respirable fractions for
nuisance dusts.
Odourless crystals or white powder.
Molecular weight: 61.8
Boiling point: decomposes
20°CSpecific gravity: 1.5 Melting point: 170°C (336°F)
Vapour pressure: 2.6 mm Hg at
Vapour density: no information
Solubility in water: 5.6g/100mL
Fire hazard: not flammable, not a fire hazard. Flammability rating (NFPA): 0 = none.
Incompatibilities and reactivities: incompatible with potassium, alkalis, hydroxides. In moist conditions can be corrosive to iron. Reactivity rating (NFPA): 0 = none.
Toxicity profile:
LD50 skin: rabbit > 2000 mg,kg.
LC50 inhalation: rat > 2 mg/L.
LD50 oral: rat 2660 mg/kg.
Carcinogenicity: not known carcinogen.
Teratogenicity/ reproductive effects: at high exposures.
Mutagenicity: not reported.
Neurotoxicity: no information.
Environment: can be harmful to aquatic life.
Avoid breathing dust, contact with eyes, skin and clothing. Wear safety goggles/glasses, protective
gloves, clothing to prevent skin contact; if dust use supplied-air respirator or similar – refer to safety
instructions. Special disposal for waste chemical and packaging.
First aid:
Eye: irrigate immediately for at least 15 minutes and get medical attention.
Skin: soap wash.
Inhalation of dust: remove to fresh air, seek medical attention if symptoms.
Ingestion: drink water and seek medical attention.
Sources: Chemical data sheets of NIOSH, Fisher, NTP, IPCS, Baker, US Borax Inc., Anachemica
Eyes: irritation, redness.
Skin: irritation; not significantly absorbed through intact skin; prevent all contact with broken skin.
Inhalation: irritation to mucous membranes and respiratory tract.
Ingestion: harmful if swallowed, may affect fertility.
Chronic: prolonged exposure to high concentrations may cause weight loss, vomiting, diarrhea, skin
rash, convulsions and anaemia; susceptibility of liver and kidneys.
175
Carbon dioxide
Chemical formula: CO2
CAS number: 124-38-9
UN number: 1013
Synonyms: carbonic acid gas, carbonic anhydride; normal constituent of air (about 300 ppm).
Normal component of air, but toxic at high concentrations.
Occupational hazard rating (OSHA): no information.
Health rating (NFPA): no rating.
Transportation hazard class (UN): class 2.2.
176
Exposure limits:
Occupational exposure limit (NIOSH): 5000 ppm (9000 mg/m3) time-weighted average.
Permissible exposure limit (OSHA): 5000 ppm (9000 mg/m3) time-weighted average.
Colourless, odourless gas – compressed and liquefied. Free-flowing liquid condenses to form dry ice.
Boiling point: -79°C
Vapour pressure: 5900 kPa at 21°C
Melting point:: -79°C (-109°F) Vapour density: 1.5
sublimes
Solubility in water: 88ml/100ml at 20°C
Fire hazard: non-flammable gas. Flammability rating (NFPA): 0 = none.
Incompatibilities and reactivities: reacts with strong bases, alkali and several metal dusts eg. magnesium, aluminium. Reactivity rating (NFPA): no rating.
Eyes: frostbite if contact with liquid CO2 (dry ice).
Skin: frostbite if skin contact with liquid CO2 (dry ice).
Inhalation: high concentrations cause dizziness, headache, elevated blood pressure, tachycardia; vomiting, coma, asphyxiation; lack of sufficient oxygen in the air can lead to unconsciousness, suffocation.
Ingestion: no information.
Chronic: target organs of high concentrations are respiratory system and cardiovascular system.
Toxicity profile:
LD50 skin: no information.
LC50 inhalation: no information.
LD50 oral: no information.
Carcinogenicity: no information.
Teratogenicity/ reproductive effects: no information.
Mutagenicity: no information.
Neurotoxicity: raised concentrations affect central
nervous system.
Environment: global-warming gas.
Prevent contact with liquid and dry ice. Do not enter areas where there is risk of exceeding exposure
limit, unless wearing mask with positive pressure airline, or breathing apparatus - refer to safety
instructions.
First aid:
Eye contact with liquid: irrigate immediately for several minutes, medical attention.
Skin frostbite: rinse with water, medical attention.
Inhalation: fresh air, respiratory support if necessary, medical attention.
Sources: Chemical data sheets of NIOSH, IPCS
Carbon bisulphide
Chemical formula: CS2
CAS number: 75-15-0
UN number: 1131
Synonyms: carbon disulfide, carbon disulphide, carbon bisulfide, carbon sulfide.
Highly toxic; highly flammable.
Transportation hazard class (US DOT): Poison 3
Exposure limits:
Occupational exposure limit (NIOSH): 1 ppm (3 mg/m3) time-weighted average
Permissible exposure limit (OSHA): 20 ppm time-weighted average
Mobile, volatile, colourless to faint-yellow liquid with sweet ether-like odour, although impure grades
have unpleasant odour like rotting radishes.
Boiling point: 46.5°C (116°F)
Melting point: -111°C
Vapour density: 2.64
Solubility in water: 0.2 g/100g at 20°C
Fire hazard: Highly flammable - vapours may be ignited by contact with ordinary light bulb or hot
steam pipes. Flash point: -30°C (-22°F). Autoignition temperature: 90°C (194°F). Explosive limits: 1-50
vol% in air. Flammability rating (NFPA): 4. Class 1B Flammable Liquid. Gives off irritating or toxic fumes
in a fire.
Eyes: irritation, redness, pain.
Skin: can be absorbed through the skin; may cause burning pain, erythema and exfoliation.
Inhalation: irritant to nose and throat; may damage nervous system, liver and kidneys, may exacerbate coronary heart disease; convulsions, coma.
Ingestion: harmful if swallowed, may cause effects similar to inhalation.
Chronic: chronic exposure may lead to hallucinations, tremors, auditory disturbances, visual disturbances, weight loss and blood dyscrasias; may damage liver, CNS; possible effects on fertility and
foetus.
Symptoms: exposure symptoms may include narcotic effects, anxiety, depression and excitability leading to unconsciousness, eye irritation, central nervous system damage, failure of vision, mental disturbances and paralysis. Acute poisoning symptoms include irritation, nausea, vomiting, convulsions,
unconsciousness, coma, death.
Toxicity profile:
LC50 inhalation: rat 25 g/m3/2H; mouse 10 g/m3/2H.
LCLo inhalation: human 2000 ppm/5M; mammal 2000 ppm/5M.
LD50 oral: rabbit 2550 mg/kg; rat 3188 mg/kg; mouse 2780 mg/kg.
Carcinogenicity: not identified as a carcinogen by IARC, NIOSH, NTP.
Teratogenicity/ reproductive effects: reproductive effects in animal tests (inhalation and oral routes).
Mutagenicity: possibly mutagenic.
Neurotoxicity: severe neurobehavioural effects, neurotoxic to humans and animals.
Environment: hazardous to wildlife; classed as hazardous substance under US Clean Water Act.
Incompatibilities and reactivities: strong oxidisers, chemically active metals such as sodium, potassium and zinc; azides; rust; halogens; amines. Reactivity rating (NFPA): 0.
177
Do not breathe or inhale fumes, prevent contact with skin, eyes and clothing. Wear face shield,
protective gloves, loose-fitting clothing; preferably supplied-air respirator or similar – refer to safety
instructions. Special disposal for waste chemical and packaging.
First aid:
Skin: wash immediately for at least 15 minutes, medical attention.
178
Sources: Chemical data sheets of NIOSH, Fisher, NTP, IPCS, ATSDR
Chloropicrin
Chemical formula: CCl3NO2
CAS number: 76-06-2
UN number: 1580
Synonyms: nitrochloroform, nitrotrichloromethane, trichloronitromethane
Highly toxic gas.
Hazard rating (OSHA): Highly hazardous
Transportation hazard class (US DOT): 6.1, poison inhalation hazard zone B.
Exposure limits:
Occupational exposure limit (NIOSH, Germany, UK, Philippines, Japan and several other countries):
0.1 ppm (0.7 mg/m3) time-weighted average.
Permissible exposure limit (OSHA): 0.1 ppm (0.7 mg/m3) time-weighted average.
Colourless to faint-yellow, oily liquid with intensely irritating tear gas odour.
Vapour pressure: 24 mm 25°C
Freezing point: -64°C (-93°F)
Solubility in water: 0.2 g/100g
Fire hazard: non-combustible liquid. When heated decomposes violently and emits various toxic substances. Avoid temperatures above 60°C. Flammability rating (NFPA): 0
Eyes: causes severe irritation, lachrymation (tears); injury to cornea, possible blindness.
Skin: causes severe irritation, may cause sensitisation by skin contact, skin burns, possible death.
Inhalation: causes irritation of mucous membrane and upper respiratory tract; inhalation may cause
anemia, weak and irregular heart, recurrent asthma attacks, bronchitis, pulmonary oedema; fatal if
inhaled in sufficient concentration; may cause asthmatic attacks due to allergic sensitisation.
Ingestion: Harmful if swallowed; causes gastrointestinal irritation with nausea, vomiting and diarrhea;
ingestion may cause death.
Chronic: Chronic inhalation may cause effects similar to acute inhalation.
Symptoms: Irritates eyes, skin, respiratory system; lacrimation (discharge of tears); cough, pulmonary
edema; nausea, vomiting.
Toxicity profile:
LD50 skin: rabbit 62 mg/kg.
LC50 inhalation: mouse 66 mg/m3/4H; rat 11.9 ppm/4H; rabbit 800 mg/m3/20M.
LCLo inhalation: human 2000 mg/m3/10M. TCLo inhalation: human 2 mg/m3
Carcinogenicity (ACGIH): insufficient data, not classifiable as a human carcinogen (group A4).
Teratogenicity/ reproductive effects: Rat: decrease in live birth rate, increase in spontaneous abortions.
Mutagenicity: Mutation and chromosomal abnormalities in several test systems; inconclusive in others.
Neurotoxicity: No information available.
Environment: highly toxic to wild animals, fish, plants.
Incompatibilities and reactivities: reacts violently with aniline, sodium methoxide, propargyl bromide. Reacts with strong oxidisers. Attacks some forms of plastics, rubber and coatings. Corrosive to
iron, zinc some other metals. Avoid excess heat. Reactivity rating (NFPA): 3
179
Do not breathe or inhale fumes, prevent contact with skin, eyes and clothing. Wear face shield, loosefitting clothing; preferably supplied-air respirator or similar – refer to safety instructions.
First aid:
Contact medical help immediately.
Eye: irrigate immediately for at least 30 minutes.
Skin: soap wash immediately for at least 15 minutes.
Inhalation: respiratory support
Ingestion: medical attention immediately
180
Sources: Chemical data sheets of NIOSH, Fisher, NTP, IPCS, Dow AgroSciences, Great Lakes Chemical Corp.
Dazomet
Chemical formula: C5H10N2S2
UN number: 8027
Synonyms: 3,5-dimethyl-1,3,5-thiadiazine-2-thione; tetrahydro-3,5-dimethyl-1,3,5-thiadiazine-2thione; dimethylformocarbothialdine.
Toxic.
Health rating (NFPA): 2.
Transportation hazard class: 9. UN hazard class: 6.1.
Exposure limits:
Occupational exposure limit: no information.
Permissible exposure limit (OSHA): no information.
White or colourless crystals, pungent acrid odour. Pesticide formulation is different.
Boiling point: N/A
Vapour pressure: 2.77 mm Hg at 20°C
Density: 1.30 g/mL at 20°C Melting point: 104°C
Vapour density: 5.6
Solubility water: 100 mg/mL at 18°C
Fire hazard: combustible under specific conditions; on heating decomposes to give toxic fumes.
Flammability rating (NFPA): 3.
Incompatibilities and reactivities: reacts with moisture to produce toxic gases such as methyl isothiocyanate, formaldehyde, hydrogen sulphide. Reactivity rating (NFPA): no information.
Toxicity profile:
LD50 skin: rabbit 7 g/kg.
LC50 inhalation: rat 8.4 mg/L /4H.
LD50 oral: rabbit 120 mg/kg; rat 320 mg/kg; mouse 180 mg/kg.
Carcinogenicity: No information.
Teratogenicity/ reproductive effects: N/A.
Mutagenicity: weakly positive in salmonella test.
Neurotoxicity: no information.
Environment: decomposes to toxic gases that are hazardous to animals, fish, crustacea and plants.
Avoid contact. Wear chemical goggles/glasses, protective gloves, protective clothing. Supplied air respirator if dust or fumes. Special disposal for waste chemical and packaging.
First aid:
Eye: irrigate immediately 30 minutes and seek medical attention.
Skin: soap wash immediately for several minutes. If redness & irritation develop, seek medical attention.
Ingestion: rinse mouth, medical attention.
Sources: Chemical data sheets of NTP, IPCS
Eyes: causes severe irritation.
Skin: mild primary skin irritant; moderately toxic if enters broken skin.
Inhalation: product decomposes to release highly toxic gas (methyl isothiocyanate).
Ingestion: toxic; may be fatal if swallowed.
Chronic: little information; may damage liver kidney.
Symptoms: wheezing, coughing, shortness of breath, burning in mouth or throat or chest.
181
1,3-Dichloropropene
Chemical formula: C3H4Cl2
UN number: 2047
Synonyms: 1,3-D; DCP; 3-chloroallyl chloride; 1,3-dichloro-1-propene; 1,3-dichloropropylene.
(Normally mixtures of cis- and trans- isomers.)
Highly toxic; flammable liquid, possible carcinogen.
Occupational hazard rating (NIOSH): potental occupational carcinogen.
Transportation hazard class (US DOT): 3
182
Exposure limits:
Occupational exposure limit (NIOSH): 1 ppm (5 mg/m3) time weighted average, skin.
Permissible exposure limit (OSHA): 1 ppm (5 mg/m3) time-weighted average, skin.
Colourless to straw-coloured liquid with sharp, sweet, irritating chloroform-like odour.
Boiling point: 104-108°C (266°F) Vapour pressure: 28 mm Hg at 25°C
Melting point: -84°C (-119°F)
Solubility in water: 100 mg/mL at 20°C
Fire hazard: flammable Liquid (class IC). Flash point around 27-35°C (80°F). When heated it decomposes to irritating or toxic gases. Flammability rating (NFPA): 3
Incompatibilities and reactivities: reacts with oxidising materials, aluminum, magnesium, halogens,
acids, thiocyanates, etc. But stabilisers can be added. Corrodes some alloys. Reactivity rating (NFPA): 0
Eyes: causes eye irritation; may cause chemical conjunctivitis and corneal damage.
Skin: causes skin irritation; can be absorbed through the skin, sufficient exposure can be lethal; in animal tests significant skin exposure led to bleeding from lungs and stomach.
Inhalation: harmful, causes irritation; may lead to pulmonary edema, may be fatal.
Ingestion: harmful if swallowed; may produce CNS depression, damage to stomach lining, lung congestion, effects on liver and kidneys.
Chronic: long-term exposure can damage the nose and lung tissues, central nervous system, liver and
kidneys; potential carcinogen.
Symptoms: irritated eyes, skin, nose, throat; lacrimation (tears); coughing, nausea, headache; fatigue.
Toxicity profile:
LC50 inhalation: mouse 4650 mg/m3/2H; rat 500 ppm.
LD50 oral: rat 170 mg/kg; mouse 640 mg/kg.
LD50 skin: rabbit 504 mg/kg; rat 775 mg/kg.
Carcinogenicity classification: IARC: possible human carcinogen (Group 2B carcinogen). NIOSH: potential occupational carcinogen. NTP: anticipated human carcinogen. ACGIH: A3 animal carcinogen.
Teratogenicity/ reproductive effects: insufficient information.
Mutagenicity: positive in some test systems, negative in others.
Neurotoxicity: affects central nervous system.
Environment: may reach underground water, listed as Hazardous Substance and Priority Pollutant
under US Clean Water Act; hazardous to wildlife.
Do not breathe or inhale fumes, prevent contact with skin, eyes and clothing. Wear full-face respirator,
safety, protective gloves and clothing to prevent skin contact; preferably supplied-air respirator or similar – refer to safety instructions. Special disposal for waste chemical and packaging.
First aid:
Eye: irrigate immediately, medical attention.
Skin: soap flush immediately, medical attention.
Ingestion: medical attention.
Sources: Chemical data sheets of ATSDR, NIOSH, Fisher, NTP
183
Dichlorvos
Chemical formula: (CH3O)2P(O)OCH=CCl2
CAS number: 62-73-7
UN number: 3018
Synonyms: DDVP, 2,2-dichlorovinyl dimethyl phosphate, 2,2-dichloroethenyl phosphoric acid
dimethylester
Highly toxic; animal carcinogen.
Occupational hazard rating (OSHA): highly toxic.
Transportation hazard class (US DOT): class 6.1, poison.
184
Exposure limits:
Occupational exposure limit (Australia, Denmark, France, Germany, India, Netherlands, UK): 0.1 ppm
(1 mg/m2) time-weighted average, skin.
Permissible exposure limit (OSHA): 0.1 ppm (1 mg/m2) time-weighted average, skin.
Colourless to amber liquid with mild, chemical odour. Insecticide formulation may mixed with a dry
carrier.
Boiling point: 140°C
Melting point: 84°C
Vapour density: N/A
Solubility in water: 10-50 mg/mL at 20°C
Fire hazard: combustible liquid Class III; flash point of 79.4°C. Flammability rating (NFPA): 1.
Incompatibilities and reactivities: incompatible with strong acids and bases; corrosive to iron and
mild steel. Reactivity rating (NFPA): 0.
Eyes: harmful.
Skin: harmful, readily abosorbed through skin; inhibits cholinesterase.
Inhalation: harmful, main effects are on the nervous system.
Ingestion: may cause nausea, vomiting, restlessness, sweating and muscle tremors; large doses may
cause coma, inability to breathe, death; main effects are on the nervous system.
Chronic symptoms: include weakness, headache, nausea, vomiting, abdominal cramps, blurred
vision, salivation, dizziness, muscular twitching, tightness in chest, heart irregularities, fever, coma,
cyanosis, pulmonary oedema; inhibits cholinesterase.
Acute symptoms: as for chronic symptoms, also lachrymation (tears), convulsions, unconsciousness,
death in extreme cases.
Toxicity profile:
LD50 skin: rabbit 107 mg/kg.
LC50 inhalation: rat 15 mg/m3/4H, mouse 13 mg/m3/4H.
LD50 oral: rabbit 10 mg/kg; rat 25 mg/kg, mouse 61 mg/kg.
Carcinogenicity: IARC: class 2B, sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in animal tests and inadequate
evidence in humans; NTP: some evidence of carcinogenicity in animal tests. DHHS: reasonably anticipated to be a carcinogen. California: Proposition 65 carcinogen list.
Teratogenicity/ reproductive effects: EU: possible fertility and reproductive effects.
Mutagenicity: possible mutagen; positive results in some test systems, negative in others.
Neurotoxicity: affects nervous system.
Environment: hazardous to wildlife.
Do not breathe or inhale fumes, prevent contact with skin, eyes and clothing. Wear face shield, protective gloves, protective clothing to prevent skin contact - refer to safety instructions. Special disposal
for waste chemical and packaging.
First aid:
Eye: irrigate immediately, medical assistance.
Skin: soap wash immediately, medical assistance.
Inhalation: breathe fresh air, medical assistance.
Ingestion: medical attention immediately. May need atropine antidote for cholinesterase inhibitor.
Sources: Chemical data sheets of NIOSH, NTP, ATSDR, Sigma-Aldrich
185
Ethyl formate
Chemical formula: CH3CH2OCHO
UN number: 1190
Synonyms: ethyl ester of formic acid, ethyl methanoate.
Highly toxic, extremely flammable.
Transportation hazard class (US DOT): 3
186
Exposure limits:
Occupational exposure limit (US NIOSH and several other countries): 100 ppm (300 mg/m3) timeweighted average.
Permissible exposure limit (OSHA): 100 ppm (300 mg/m3) time-weighted average
Water-white liquid with pleasant, aromatic, fruit odour.
Freezing point: -80°C (-113°F)
Solubility in water: 9 g/100mL at 18°C
Fire hazard: extremely flammable liquid and vapour, flash point -20°C (-4°F). Flammability rating
(NFPA, Baker): 3 = severe. Class IB Flammable Liquid.
Incompatibilities and reactivities: incompatible with heat, ignition sources, nitrates, strong oxidisers,
strong acids, strong bases. Decomposes slowly in water to form ethyl alcohol and formic acid.
Reactivity rating (NFPA): 0. Reactivity rating (Baker): 1 = slight.
Eyes: may cause severe irritation, redness, pain and possible burns.
Skin: may cause severe irritation and possible burns, especially if skin is wet or moist.
Inhalation: may cause severe irritation of respiratory tract with possible burns; vapours may cause
dizziness or suffocation; high concentrations can produce central nervous system depression, narcotic
effects, drowsiness, unconsciousness.
Ingestion: harmful if swallowed, may cause severe gastrointestinal tract irritation with nausea, vomiting and possible burns; may affect central nervous system
Chronic: may damage central nervous system.
Toxicity profile:
LD50 skin: rabbit >20 mL/kg.
LC50 inhalation: no information.
LD50 oral: rabbit 2075 mg/kg; rat 1850 mg/kg.
Mutagenicity: no information.
Neurotoxicity: affects nervous system.
Do not breathe or inhale fumes, prevent contact with skin, eyes and clothing. Wear face shield, protective gloves, protective clothing to prevent skin contact – refer to safety instructions. Special disposal
for waste chemical and packaging.
First aid:
Skin: soap wash immediately for at least 15 minutes, medical attention.
Inhalation: fresh air, respiratory support, medical attention.
Ingestion: rinse mouth, drink water, medical attention immediately.
Sources: Chemical data sheets of NIOSH, Fisher, Baker
187
Ethylene oxide
Chemical formula: C2H4O
CAS number: 75-21-8
UN number: 1040
Synonyms: 1,2-epoxy ethane, oxirane, dimethylene oxide.
Highly toxic; flammable; reproductive hazard, suspected occupational carcinogen.
Occupational hazard rating (OSHA): highly hazardous, cancer hazard, reproductive hazard.
Transportation hazard class (UN): 2.3 Poison gas.
188
Exposure limits:
Occupational exposure limit (NIOSH): less than 0.1 ppm (< 0.18 mg/m3) time-weighted average Ca; 5
ppm (9 mg/m3) for 10 minutes/day.
Permissible exposure limit (OSHA): 1 ppm time-weighted average.
Colourless gas or liquid with ether-like odour.
Melting point: -111°C (-170°F)
Vapour pressure: 146 kPa 20°C
Vapour density: 1.5
Solubility in water: miscible
Fire hazard: flammable gas; gas/air mixtures can be explosive; explosive limits: 3-100 vol% in air. Flash
point -20°C. Flammability rating (NFPA): 4. Flammable Gas Class IA Flammable Liquid.
Incompatibilities and reactivities: strong acids, alkalis and oxidisers; chlorides of iron, aluminium
and tin; oxides of iron and aluminum; water and a number of other compounds. Reactivity rating
(NFPA): 3.
Eyes: symptoms include irritation, pain, blurred vision; contact may lead to development of cataract.
Skin: symptoms include redness, dry skin, burning sensation, pain, blisters; may be absorbed through
moist skin. Water solutions may cause skin burns. Contact with liquid can cause frostbite.
Inhalation: symptoms include cough, dizziness, drowsiness, headache, nausea, sore throat, vomiting,
weakness; high concentrations cause lung edema; symptoms may be delayed after exposure.
Ingestion: harmful if swallowed; may cause severe irritation, vomiting, collapse, coma.
Chronic exposure: repeated or prolonged contact may affect nervous system, kidney, liver; occupational carcinogen (IPCS); may cause heritable genetic damage (IPCS); reproductive disorders.
Symptoms: Irritates
Toxicity profile:
LC50 inhalation: rat 800 ppm/4H; mouse 836 ppm/4H.
Carcinogenicity: IARC: 2A, probably carcinogenic to humans (limited evidence in humans, sufficient
evidence in animal tests). NTP: 2A, reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen. OSHA: cancer
hazard.
Teratogenicity/ reproductive effects: reproductive disorders, may affect foetus; OSHA: reproductive hazard.
Mutagenicity: mutagenic; ICPS: may cause heritable genetic damage.
Neurotoxicity: may affect nervous system.
Environment: harmful to wildlife, aquatic organisms.
Do not breathe or inhale fumes, prevent contact with skin, eyes and clothing. Wear face shield, protective gloves, protective clothing to prevent skin contact; preferably supplied-air respirator or similar –
refer to safety instructions. Special disposal for waste chemical and packaging.
First aid:
Inhalation: medical attention, respiratory support.
Ingestion: drink water, immediate medical attention.
Sources: Chemical data sheets of Fisher, NTP, IPCS
189
Hydrogen cyanide
Chemical formula: HCN
CAS number: 74-90-8
UN number: 1051
Synonyms: hydrocyanic acid, formonitrile, prussic acid.
Highly toxic; flammable.
Transportation hazard class (US DOT): 6.1, poison hazard, flammable
190
Exposure limits:
Occupational exposure limit (NIOSH): 4.7 ppm (5 mg/m3) 10 minute period, skin.
Permissible exposure limit (OSHA): 10 ppm (11 mg/m3) time-weighted average, skin.
Colourless or pale blue liquid or gas with a bitter, almond-like odour.
Vapour pressure: 750 mm Hg
25°C
Melting point: -13°C (7°F)
Solubility in water: miscible
Fire hazard: flash point around -18°C (0°F). Explosive limits: 6-41 vol% in air. Flammability rating
(NFPA): 4. Class IA Flammable Liquid Flammable Gas.
Incompatibilities and reactivities: amines, oxidisers, acids, sodium hydroxide, calcium hydroxide,
sodium carbonate, water, caustics, ammonia. Reactivity rating (NFPA): 2.
Eyes: can be absorbed through eyes; red eyes; optic nerve damage; high exposures can be fatal.
Skin: can be adsorbed through skin; dissiness, nausea, altered respiration, drowsiness, may be fatal.
Inhalation: can affect central nervous system, cardiovascular system, thyroid, blood pressure; high
exposure can cause unconsciousness, respiratory arrest, death.
Ingestion: pink or blue skin colour, symptoms as below.
Chronic: symptoms as below.
Symptoms: asphyxia; weakness, headache, confusion; nausea, vomiting; increased rate and depth of
respiration or respiration slow and gasping; changes in blood and thyroid; symptoms of cyanide poisoning.
Toxicity profile:
LD50 skin: rabbit 6.9 mg/kg
LD50 eye: rabbit 1.1 mg/kg
LC50 inhalation: rat 63 ppm / 40 min.
Carcinogenicity: not listed as carcinogen.
Teratogenicity/ reproductive effects: no informa
tion.
Mutagenicity: positive in one test system, negative
in others.
Neurotoxicity: can affect nervous system.
Environment: highly toxic to wildlife, aquatic life.
Do not breathe or inhale fumes, prevent contact with skin, eyes and clothing. Wear self-contained
breathing apparatus and full protective gear – refer to safety instructions. Special disposal for waste
chemical and packaging.
First aid:
Contact medical assistance immediately. First aid treatment for cyanide poisoning.
Skin: remove contaminated clothes, soap wash immediately for at least 15 minutes, medical attention.
Inhalation: fresh air, medical attention, respiratory support.
Sources: Chemical data sheets of NIOSH, IPCS, DuPont
191
Malathion
Chemical formula: C10H19O6PS2
UN number: 3082
Synonyms: S-[1,2-bis(ethoxycarbonyl) ethyl]O,O-dimethyl-phosphorodithioate, diethyl
(dimethoxyphosphinothioylthio) succinate.
Highly toxic.
Occupational hazard rating (OSHA): no information.
Health rating (NFPA): no information.
Transportation hazard class (US DOT): 6.1. (UN): 9.
192
Exposure limits:
Occupational exposure limit (NIOSH): 10 mg/m3 time-weighted average, skin.
Permissible exposure limit (OSHA): 10 mg/m3 time-weighted average, skin, total dust.
Deep-brown to yellow, clear liquid with garlic-like odour; solid below 37°F.
Mellting point: 3°C (37°F)
Solubility in water: 100 mg/mL at 22°C
Fire hazard: Classified as Class IIIB Combustible Liquid, but may be difficult to ignite. Gives off irritating or toxic fumes in a fire. Flammability rating (NFPA): no information.
Incompatibilities and reactivities: strong oxidisers, magnesium, alkaline materials; corrosive to metals; attacks some plastics, rubber and coatings. Starts to decompose at 49°C. Reactivity rating (NFPA):
no information.
Eyes: irritation, lachrymation (tears), blurred vision.
Skin: readily absorbed through skin; irritant; symptoms below.
Inhalation: symptoms include dizziness, pupillary constriction, muscle cramp, excessive salivation,
sweating, laboured breathing, unconsciousness; symptoms may be delayed. Cholinesterase inhibitor;
acute exposure can affect the nervous system, may result in convulsions, respiratory failure, death.
Ingestion: harmful if swallowed; symptoms include abdominal cramps, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting
and symptoms similar to inhalation exposure.
Chronic: cholinesterase inhibitor; may affect respiratory system, liver, blood cholinesterase, central
nervous system, cardiovascular system, gastrointestinal tract.
Symptoms: irritation in eyes, skin; miosis, aching eyes, blurred vision, lacrimation (discharge of tears);
salivation, anorexia, nausea, vomiting, abdominal cramps, diarrhea, giddiness, confusion, ataxia;
headache; chest tightness, wheezing, laryngeal spasm.
Toxicity profile:
LD50 skin: rabbit 4100 mg/kg; mouse 2330 mg/kg.
LCLo inhalation: cat 10 mg/m3/4H.
LD50 oral: rabbit 250 mg/kg, rat 290 mg/kg; mouse 190 mg/kg.
LCLo oral: women 246 mg/kg.
Carcinogenicity: not identified as carcinogenic in animal tests.
Teratogenicity/ reproductive effects: reproductive effects in some animal tests; possible impaired fertility.
Mutagenicity: some chromosome aberrations in tests.
Neurotoxicity: can affect nervous system.
Environment: hazardous to wildlife; toxic to aquatic organisms.
Prevent generation of mists or airborne particles. Do not breathe or inhale fumes, prevent contact with
skin, eyes and clothing. Wear safety face shield, chemical resistant gloves, protective clothing to prevent skin contact; preferably supplied-air respirator or similar – refer to safety instructions.} Special disposal for waste chemical and packaging.
First aid:
Inhalation: fresh air, medical attention.
Ingestion: rinse mouth, medical attention.
Sources: Chemical data sheets of NIOSH, NTP, IPCS
193
Metam sodium
UN number: 3082
Synonyms: sodium methyldithiocarbamate. Decomposes to form methyl isothiocyanate.
Toxic.
Transportation hazard class (US DOT): class 9, toxic.
194
Exposure limits:
Occupational exposure limit (NIOSH): no information.
Permissible exposure limit (OSHA): no information.
Light yellow liquid with strong sulphur-like odour.
Molecular weight: N/A
Specific gravity: 1.16-1.18
Melting point: 0°C
Vapour density: no information.
Solubility in water: miscible.
Fire hazard: not classed as flammable; may support combustion in a fire,decompose to give toxic or
flammable materials. Flammability rating (NFPA): 0.
Incompatibilities and reactivities: corrosive to aluminum, brass, copper, zinc. If acidified, may form
toxic hydrogen sulphide. Decomposes to form toxic gases. Reactivity rating (NFPA): 0.
Eyes: irritation, blurred vision.
Skin: severely irritant, corrosive, may be fatal if absorbed through skin.
Inhalation: decomposes to release toxic gases; symptoms below, high exposure may be fatal.
Ingestion: Harmful if swallowed.
Chronic: symptoms below, also conjunctivitis, weight loss, weakness, blurred vision.
Symptoms: salivation, sweating, fatigue, dizziness, nausea, breathing difficulties.
Toxicity profile:
LD50 skin MITC: rabbit 33-202 mg/kg.
LC50 inhalation MITC: rat 1.9 mg/L/1H.
LD50 oral MITC: rat 55-220 mg/kg.
Carcinogenicity: some effects in lab tests.
Teratogenicity/reproductive effects: some effects in
lab tests.
Mutagenicity: limited evidence, inconclusive.
Neurotoxicity: effects from gaseous products.
Environment: toxic to fish and wildlife.
Do not breathe or inhale fumes, prevent contact with skin, eyes and clothing. Wear safety face shield,
protective gloves and clothing to prevent skin contact; preferably supplied-air respirator or
similar – refer to safety instructions. Special disposal for waste chemical and packaging.
First aid:
Skin: wash with plenty of water for at least 15 minutes, medical attention.
Ingestion: drink water, medical attention.
Sources: Chemical data sheets of NTP, Amvac Chemical Corp.
Methyl iodide
Chemical formula: CH3I
CAS number: 74-88-4
UN number: 2644
Synonyms: iodomethane, monoiodomethane, halon 10001
Highly toxic, suspected carcinogen.
Transportation hazard class (US DOT): hazard class 6.1, poison hazard zone B.
Exposure limits:
Occupational exposure limit (USA NIOSH, Australia, Netherlands): 2 ppm (10 mg/m3) time-weighted
average. Denmark, Sweden: 1 ppm (5.6 mg/m3) time-weighted average.
PEL (OSHA): 5 ppm (28 mg/m3) time-weighted average, skin.
Colourless, transparent liquid with sweetish odour.
Freezing point: -66°C (- 88°F)
Solubility in water: 14 g/100g at 20°C
Fire hazard: noncombustible liquid. Flammability rating (NFPA): 1
Eyes: irritant; causes redness and pain; if splashed in eye causes conjunctivitis.
Skin: irritant; may cause irritation with pain, redness and stinging. Can be absorbed through the skin;
high exposure can be fatal.
Inhalation: causes respiratory tract irritation; may cause damage to lungs, spleen and liver. Initial
symptoms include lethargy, drowsiness, slurred speech, ataxia, lack of muscular coordination, visual
disturbances. May progress to convulsions, coma and death. Other symptoms include giddiness, diarrhea, sleepiness, irritability, vomiting, pallor, muscular twitching; effects on liver and kidney.
Ingestion: harmful if swallowed; aspiration hazard; may cause similar effects to those for inhalation.
Chronic: may affect central nervous system and may cause effects similar to those of acute inhalation.
Toxicity profile:
LDLo skin: rat 800 mg/kg.
LC50 inhalation: rat 1300 mg/m3/4H.
LCLo inhalation: rat 3790 ppm/15M.
LDLo oral: rat 76 mg/kg.
Carcinogenicity (NIOSH): sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in animals, potential occupational carcinogen. IARC: limited evidence in animals (group 3). TDLo subcutaneous: rat 50 mg/kg.
Teratogenicity/ reproductive effects: No information.
Mutagenicity: positive in some tests, possible mutagen.
Neurotoxicity: may damage central nervous system.
Incompatibilities and reactivities: incompatible with strong oxidisers. Reactivity rating (NFPA): 0.
Reactivity rating (Baker): 1 = slight.
195
Do not breathe or inhale fumes, prevent contact with skin, eyes and clothing. Wear face shield, protective gloves and loose clothing to prevent skin contact; full-face chemical cartridge respirator or similar – refer to safety instructions. Special disposal for waste chemical and packaging.
First aid:
Eye: irrigate immediately for at least 20 minutes and get medical assistance.
Skin: remove contaminated clothing, soap wash immediately and get medical assistance.
Inhalation: take deep breaths of fresh air and contact medical assistance.
Ingestion: get medical aid.
196
Sources: Chemical data sheets of NIOSH, Fisher, NTP, IPCS, Baker.
Nitrogen
Chemical formula: N2
UN number: 1066
Synonyms: gaseous nitrogen, azote. The information below relates to nitrogen gas.
Inert gas, normal component of air. Hazardous in higher concentrations due to lack of oxygen.
Occupational hazard rating (OSHA): not established.
Health rating (NFPA): 3 for liquid nitrogen; 1 for nitrogen gas.
Transportation hazard class (UN): 2.2, nonflammable gas.
Exposure limits:
Occupational exposure limit (NIOSH): not established.
Permissible exposure limit (OSHA): not established.
Colourless, odourless, flavourless compressed gas.
Boiling point: -196°C (-321°F) Vapour pressure: Specific gravity: 0.97
Melting point: -210°C (-345°F) Vapour density: 0.97
Solubility in water: very slight
Fire hazard: not combustible. Flammability rating (NFPA): 0.
Incompatibilities and reactivities: inert gas, in presence of sparks reacts with oxygen and hydrogen;
combines with lithium. Non corrosive. Reactivity rating (NFPA): 0.
Toxicity profile:
LD50 skin: N/A
LC50 inhalation: N/A
LD50 oral: N/A
Carcinogenicity: not a listed carcinogen.
Teratogenicity/reproductive effects: none known.
Mutagenicity: not mutagenic.
Neurotoxicity: not inherently neurotoxic.
Environment: not hazardous.
Check oxygen concentration before entering area. Wear breathing apparatus if treatment area needs
to be entered while oxygen concentration remains low – refer to safety instructions.
First aid:
Inhalation: fresh air, respiratory support if necessary, medical attention.
Sources: Chemical data sheets of IPCS, AGA Gas
Eyes: effects only at high concentrations due to absence of oxygen.
Skin: not absorbed via skin.
Inhalation: high concentrations of nitrogen in the air cause a deficiency of oxygen, with the risk of
dizziness, weakness, unconsciousness, suffocation due to lack of oxygen.
Ingestion: no effect at normal exposures.
Chronic: nitrogen is non-toxic, but in confined spaces it can displace the oxygen necessary for life.
Symptoms: effects due to lack of oxygen.
197
Phosphine
Chemical formula: PH3
UN number: 2199
Synonyms: hydrogen phosphide, phosphorated hydrogen, phosphorus hydride, phosphorus trihydride.
Highly toxic gas. Flammable.
Transportation hazard class (US DOT): 2, poison gas, flammable gas.
198
Exposure limits:
Occupational exposure limit (NIOSH): 0.3 ppm (0.4 mg/m3) time-weighted average
Permissible exposure limit (OSHA): 0.3 ppm (0.4 mg/m3) time-weighted average
Colourless gas with fish- or garlic-like odour. Shipped as a liquefied compressed gas, or more commonly generated on-site from aluminium phosphide or magnesium phosphide.
Boiling point: -88°C (-126°F)
Vapour pressure: >1 atm at 20°C
Freezing point: -134°C (-209°F) Vapour density: 1.17 at BP
Solubility in water: 0.04 g/100g at
20°C
Fire hazard: may ignite spontaneously on contact with air. Flammability rating (NFPA): 4, Flammable
Gas.
Incompatibilities and reactivities: air, oxidisers, chlorine, acids, moisture, halogenated hydrocarbons,
copper. Hazardous decomposition products. Reactivity rating (NFPA): 2.
Eyes: contact with liquid (compressed gas) can cause frostbite.
Skin: contact with liquid can cause frostbite.
Inhalation: acute effects include headache, dizziness, neurological effects; vomiting, diarrhea, gastrointestinal effects; shortness of breath, pulmonary edema, cardiac arrest, respiratory abnormalities;
lung and liver congestion; in extreme cases coma and death.
Ingestion: harmful.
Chronic: chronic exposure is reported to cause anorexia, anaemia, pulmonary edema.
Symptoms: nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, diarrhea, thirst, chest tightness, dyspnea (breathing difficulty), muscle pain, chills; stupor; pulmonary edema; liquid: frostbite. Target organs: respiratory system.
Toxicity profile:
LC50 inhalation: rat 11 ppm/4H.
LCLo inhalation: human 1000 ppm/5M; rabbit 2500 ppm/20M; mouse 380 mg/m3/2H.
LD50 oral: no information.
Mutagenicity: increase in chromosome aberrations in human study; mutagenic in Drosophila test.
Neurotoxicity: affects central nervous system.
protective gloves, protective clothing to prevent skin contact; preferably supplied-air respirator or
First aid:
Skin: cold wash immediately for at least 15 minutes, medical attention.
Inhalation: fresh air, medical attention.
Sources: Chemical data sheets of NIOSH, NTP, OSHA
199
Sulphuryl fluoride
Chemical formula: SO2F2
UN number: -
Synonyms: sulfuryl fluoride, sulfur difluoride dioxide.
Highly toxic gas.
Occupational hazard rating (OSHA): hazardous chemical
Transportation hazard class (US DOT): no information
200
Exposure limits:
Occupational exposure limit (NIOSH): 5 ppm (20 mg/m3) time-weighted average
Permissible exposure limit (OSHA): 5 ppm (20 mg/m3) time-weighted average
Colourless, odourless gas; shipped as liquefied compressed gas.
Boiling point: -55°C (-68°F)
Vapour pressure: 1.52 atmos at 20°C
Specific gravity: 1.8 at -80ºC Freezing point: -137°C (-212°F) Vapour density: 14.3g at 20ºC
Solubility in water: practically insoluble
Fire hazard: non-flammable gas. Flammability rating (NFPA): 0
Incompatibilities and reactivities: strong bases. Reactivity rating (NFPA): 1
Eyes: contact with liquid can cause frostbite.
Skin: contact with liquid can cause frostbite.
Inhalation: target organs are respiratory system, central nervous system, kidneys.
Ingestion: harmful if swallowed.
Chronic: no information.
Symptoms: include conjunctivitis, rhinitis, pharyngitis, paresthesia; Liquid: frostbite. In animals: narcosis, tremor, convulsions, pulmonary edema, kidney injury.
Toxicity profile:
LC50 inhalation: rat 991 ppm/4H
LD50 oral: rat 100 mg/kg
Carcinogenicity: not reported carcinogenic
Teratogenicity/reproductive effects: no information.
Mutagenicity: negative
Neurotoxicity: central nervous system depressant
protective gloves, protective clothing to prevent skin contact; preferably supplied-air respirator or
First aid:
Skin: wash immediately for min. 15 minutes, medical attention.
Inhalation: fresh air, respiratory support, medical attention.
Ingestion: medical attention.
Sources: Chemical data sheets of NIOSH, Dow Agrosciences
Annex 4
Steps for Identifying
Appropriate Alternatives
This Annex provides tables to help methyl bromide users to identify suitable alternatives. Refer
to Section 1, 2 or 5 for further discussion of the steps below.
Steps for each specific crop/use
Collect background information about available alternatives:
1.
List alternatives used in various countries – complete Table A.
2.
List suppliers of alternative techniques in your region – complete Table B.
3.
List sources of relevant expertise in your region – complete Table C.
1.
List soil-borne pests that need to be controlled – complete Table D.
2.
For each pest, list effective pest control methods – complete column 2 of Table E.
3.
List combinations of techniques that would control all the pests – complete column 3 of
Table E.
4.
For each combination, identify technical and other advantages and disadvantages –
complete Table F.
5.
Select the best combination – compare and consider the information in Table F.
Table
A
Alternatives used in various countries
To complete this table, refer to Sections 4.1 through 4.7 or Sections 6.1 through 6.7, MBTOC
report 1997 and other sources of information in Annexes 5,6 and 7.
Name of crop/use___________________________________________________________________
Protected or open-field? _____________________________________________________________
Examples of alternatives used elsewhere
__________________________________________
Country and climate
_____________________________________
__________________________________________
_____________________________________
__________________________________________
_____________________________________
__________________________________________
_____________________________________
__________________________________________
_____________________________________
Annex 4: Steps for Identifying Appropriate Alternatives
Identify suitable pest control methods:
201
Table
B
Companies supplying alternative products or services
To complete this table refer to the end of each section (4.1 through 4.7 or 6.1 through 6.7) to
read the tables of companies. You could also carry out a survey locally. Remember to include
non-chemical options.
202
Company
________________________
Services & products
Pest(s) controlled
__________________________ ______________________________
________________________
__________________________ ______________________________
________________________
__________________________ ______________________________
________________________
__________________________ ______________________________
________________________
__________________________ ______________________________
Table
C
Sources of relevant expertise
The aim is to identify extension personnel, agricultural researchers, farmers, etc. who have at
least several years of experience of working successfully with alternatives. You may identify some
relevant experts by looking at the reference lists in Annex 7, in the tables of “suppliers” in
Sections 4.1 through 4.7 and in Sections 6.1 through 6.7, and in UNEP’s Inventory of Technical
and Institutional Resources for Promoting Methyl Bromide Alternatives.
Specialist
________________________
Areas of expertise
Contact information
__________________________ ______________________________
________________________
__________________________ ______________________________
________________________
__________________________ ______________________________
________________________
__________________________ ______________________________
________________________
__________________________ ______________________________
________________________
__________________________ ______________________________
________________________
__________________________ ______________________________
________________________
__________________________ ______________________________
________________________
__________________________ ______________________________
________________________
__________________________ ______________________________
________________________
__________________________ ______________________________
________________________
__________________________ ______________________________
Table
D
Soil-borne pests requiring control
Complete this table for each specific crop/use in question.
Pest group
Nematodes
List key pest species that need to be controlled
________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
Pathogenic fungi
___________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
Soil-borne insects
____________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
Others ______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
Weeds, weed seeds ___________________________________________________________________
203
Table
204
E
Effective pest control methods for each pest
Step 1:
Complete column 1 by taking the pest names from Table D and writing one in
each cell. Add more cells if necessary.
Step 2:
Complete column 2, using information from experts (Table C), technical literature, experiences in other countries (Table A) and from the information in
Sections 4.1 through 4.7 or Sections 6.1 through 6.7. Include treatments that
were used prior to the introduction of MB and note improvements that could be
made to increase their efficacy.
Step 3:
Complete column 3 by identifying combinations of techniques in column 2 that
would control all the pests. Write down each combination in turn.
Column 1: Pest
name (pest species)
Column 2:
Effective control methods
Column 3: Combinations that
would control all the pests
1.
2.
A
3.
4.
5.
B
6.
1.
2.
3.
C
4.
5.
6.
D
1.
2.
3.
4.
E
5.
6.
1.
F
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
G
Table
F
Review of alternative techniques
Photocopy the table below and complete one for each combination of techniques that was
identified in column 3 of Table E.
Combination:
Issues
Countries where techniques are used
Give data or factual descriptions
Regulatory constraints
Health and safety of operators
Environmental impacts
Acceptability to purchasers
Advantages of system
Disadvantages of system
Health & safety of community
and consumers
205
Steps that would improve techniques
Typical yields of
a) new system
b) optimised system
Materials required
206
Labour required
Material + labour costs
a) short-term
b) long-term
Profits from:
a) new system
b) optimised system
Pay-back period
Scope for reducing costs
or improving profits
Steps that would be needed
to adopt the system
Other issues
Annex 5
Information Resources
UNEP DTIE complementary resources
UNEP DTIE OzonAction Programme, Paris, France
Contact for publications: [email protected] • fax +331 44 37 14 74
Website for OzonAction Programme: www.uneptie.org/ozonaction.html
Website for subscribing to Regular Update on Methyl Bromide Alternatives (RUMBA)
newsletter and forum: www.uneptie.org/ozat/forum/rumba.html
Website for RUMBA archives: www.uneptie.org/ozat/pub/rumba/main.html
RUMBA - Email forum and newsletter. UNEP DTIE OzonAction Programme
Sourcebook of Technologies for Protecting the Ozone Layer: Alternatives to Methyl
Bromide. UNEP DTIE 2001
Case Studies on Alternatives to Methyl Bromide: Technologies with Low Environmental
Impact. UNEP DTIE 2000
Inventory of Technical and Institutional Resources for Promoting Methyl Bromide
Alternatives. UNEP DTIE 1999
Methyl Bromide Phase-out Strategies: A Global Compilation of Laws and Regulations.
UNEP DTIE 1999
Towards Methyl Bromide Phase-out: A Handbook for National Ozone Units. Handbook
for developing action plans. UNEP DTIE 1999
Methyl Bromide: Getting Ready for the Phase out. Brief overview of issues. UNEP IE 1998
Healthy Harvest: Alternatives to Methyl Bromide. Video. UNEP IE 1999
Other information resources
Agriculture & Agri-Food Canada and Environment Canada, Ottawa, Canada
Contact for publications: [email protected]
Website for Methyl Bromide Compliance Guide: www.ec.gc.ca/ozone/mbrfact.htm
Website for Canadian Environmental Solutions: http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/ces
Improving Food and Agriculture Productivity - and the Environment: Canadian
Leadership in the Development of Methyl Bromide Alternatives. Environment Canada
1995
Heat, Phosphine and CO2 Collaborative Experimental Structural Fumigation. Agriculture
and Agri-Food Canada 1996
Annex 5: Information Resources
Public Service Announcement on methyl bromide. Video. UNEP IE 1998
207
Improving Food and Agriculture Productivity – and the Environment: Canadian Initiatives
in Methyl Bromide Alternatives. Government of Canada 1998
Integrated Pest Management in Food Processing: Working Without Methyl Bromide.
Sustainable Pest Management Series S98-01, Pest Management Regulatory Authority
1998
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC), Berkeley, California, USA
Contact: fax +1 510 524 1758
Website: www.birc.org
208
IPM Alternatives to Methyl Bromide. A compilation of articles from The IPM Practitioner.
BIRC. Quarles & Daar (eds) 1996
The IPM Practitioner. Newsletter on integrated pest management. Includes articles on
alternatives to methyl bromide, such as Alternatives to Methyl Bromide in Florida
Tomatoes and Peppers. Vol XX, No4, April 1998
CSIRO Entomology Division, Stored Grain Research Laboratory, Canberra, Australia
Contact for publications: [email protected]
Website: www.csiro.au
Agricultural Production Without Methyl Bromide - Four Case Studies. CSIRO Division of
Entomology for UNEP IE. Banks (ed) 1995
Carbon Dioxide Fumigation of Bag-Stacks Sealed in Plastic Enclosures: An Operations
Manual. ASEAN Food Handling Bureau, Australian Centre for International Agricultural
Research. Annis and van Graver 1991
Phosphine Fumigation of Bag-stacks Sealed in Plastic Enclosures: An Operations Manual.
ASEAN Food Handling Bureau, Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research.
Van Graver & Annis 1994
Resource Centre and library of publications on treatments for durable products
Centro de Ciencias Medioambientales, CSIC, Madrid, Spain
Contact: [email protected] fax +34 91 564 0800 (Attn: Dr Antonio Bello)
Website: www.ccma.csic.es
Alternatives to Methyl Bromide for the Southern European Countries. Proceedings of
International Workshop, April 1997. Bello et al (ed) 1997
Alternatives to Methyl Bromide for the Mediterranean Region. Proceedings of
International Workshop, May 1998. Bello et al (ed) 1999
Alternativas al Bromuro de Metilo en Agricultura. Proceedings of International Seminar,
April 1996. Bello et al (ed) 1997
Danish Environmental Protection Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark
Contact for publications: fax +45 33 92 76 90
Production of Flowers and Vegetables in Danish Greenhouses: Alternatives to Methyl
Bromide. Environmental Review No 4, Danish EPA. Gyldenkaerne & Hvalsoe 1997
ENEA, Italian Committee of Innovation Technology, Energy and Environment,
Rome, Italy
Contact: fax +39 06 30 48 42 67 (Attn Prof L Triolo, Dr A Correnti)
Attivit dell’ENEA nell’ambito degli interventi per la salvaguardia igienico sanitaria del lage
di Bracciano. Sviluppo di attivit agricole compatibili nei territori prospicienti il lago.
Technical Report ENEA. Correnti and Di Luzio 1994 (soil alternatives to methyl bromide
for Bracciano region)
Environment Australia, Canberra, Australia
Contact at Environment Australia: [email protected]
Institute for Horticultural Development: [email protected]
Website: www.environment.gov.au/epg/ozone/textonly/downloads/mebrhorticulturalstrategydownloadtext.htm
National Methyl Bromide Update. Newsletter about MB phase-out and alternatives
National Methyl Bromide Response Strategy. Methyl Bromide Consultative Group, June
1998
EPAGRI, Itajaí, Santa Catarina, Brazil
Contact: [email protected]
La Reunião Brasileira sobre Alternativas ao Brometo de Metila na Agricultura. 21-23
October, Florianópolis, Brazil, Muller (ed) 1996 (Proceedings of First Brazilian Meeting on
Alternatives to Methyl Bromide in Agricultural Systems)
Proceedings of other Brazilian meetings on alternatives to methyl bromide
European Commission, DGXI, Brussels, Belgium
Contact: Unit D4, DGXI • fax +322 296 9557
Prospect Background Report on Methyl Bromide. B7-8110/95/000178/MAR/D4, Prospect
Consulting and Services, 1997
European Vegetable Research & Development Centre, Sint-Katelijne-Waver, Belgium
Soil Solarization and Integrated Pest Management. Plant Production and Protection
Paper. FAO 1998
Contact for information: fax +32 15 553 061
Soil Solarization. Plant Production and Protection Paper 109. FAO 1991
209
Economic aspects of ecologically sound soilless growing methods. European Vegetable
R&D Centre. Benoit 1990
A decade of research on ecologically sound substrates in Acta Horticulturae 408, 17-29.
Benoit & Ceustermans 1995
Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), Rome, Italy
Contact for publications: [email protected] • fax +3906 570 533 60
Website: www.fao.org/library/
Friends of the Earth, Washington DC, USA
Contact: International program, [email protected] • fax +1 202 783 0444
Website: www.foe.org
The Technical and Economic Feasibility of Replacing Methyl Bromide in Developing
Countries: Case Studies in Zimbabwe, Thailand and Chile. Research report. FoE 1996
Reaping Havoc: The True Cost of Using Methyl Bromide on Florida’s Tomatoes. FOE-USA
1998
Global IPM Facility, Food and Agriculture Organisation, Rome, Italy
Contact: [email protected] • fax +3906 5225 6347 (attn: Room B757)
210
Website: www.fao.org Clearinghouse for integrated pest management (IPM) resources
GTZ Proklima bilateral agency, Eschborn, Germany
Contact: [email protected] • fax +49 6196 796 318 and fax +264 61 253 945
Websites: www.gtz.de/proklima and www.gtz.de/home/english/index.html
Methyl Bromide Substitution in Agriculture: Objectives and Activities of the Federal
Republic of Germany concerning the Support to Article 5 Countries of the Montreal
Protocol. GTZ 1998
Proklima Yearbook 1999. GTZ 1999
Manual on the Prevention of Post-harvest Grain Losses. GTZ 1996
Integrated Pest Management Guidelines. No 249, GTZ 1994
HortiTecnia, Santafé de Bogotá, Colombia
Contact: [email protected] • fax +571 617 0730
Case studies on successful IPM systems used in Colombia cut flower industry.
HortiTecnia. Pizano 1998
Insects Limited, Inc and Fumigation Services & Supply, Inc, Indianapolis, USA
Contact: [email protected] • fax +1 317 846 9799
Website: www.insectslimited.com
Fumigants and Pheromones. Newsletter for the pest management industry
Stored Product Protection. Insects Limited. Mueller 1998
International Institute for Biological Control, Selangor, Malaysia
Contact: [email protected] • fax +603 942 6490
Review of methyl bromide alternatives and non-chemical soil pest control methods for
horticultural crops in Asia. IIBC. Vos & Soon 1997
International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives
and Emissions Reductions
Available on website: www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr/mbrpro97.html
Proceedings of Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide
Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. 1994 - 1998
Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee (MBTOC) of UNEP, Montreal Protocol
Website: www.teap.org/html/methyl_bromide.html
MBTOC progress report on alternatives to methyl bromide in TEAP 2000 report.
UNEP 2000
MBTOC 1998 Assessment of Alternatives to Methyl Bromide. UNEP 1998
MBTOC progress report in TEAP April 1997 report. volume II, UNEP 1997
MBTOC Assessment Report 1995. UNEP 1994
MBTOC report on quarantine and pre-shipment in TEAP 1999 report. Volume II,
UNEP 1999
Ministry of Agriculture Extension Service and Hebrew University, Israel
Contact: fax +972 3 6971 649 (Attn Mr A Tzafrir)
Soil Solarization. Video. Ministry of Agriculture Extension Service, video No 6127, available in English, French, Spanish, Italian, Portugese, Hebrew, Arabic
Natural Resources Institute, Chatham Maritime, Kent, UK
Contact for publications: fax +44 1491 829 292
Alternative Methods for the Control of Stored-Product Insect Pests: A Bibliographic
Database. NRI. Rees, Dales & Golob (eds) 1993
Using Phosphine as an Effective Commodity Fumigant. NRI. Taylor & Gudrups 1996
Contact: Dept for Information, VROM, PO Box 20951, The Hague, Netherlands
Good Grounds for Healthy Growth. Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the
Environment, 1997. (Explains how methyl bromide phase-out boosted technical innovation and alternatives in horticulture)
Good Grounds for Healthy Growth. Video
Netherlands Ministry of the Environment, The Hague, Netherlands
211
Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen, Denmark
Contact for publications: fax +45 33 14 35 88
Alternatives to Methyl Bromide: IPM in Flour Mills; Comparison of a Norwegian and
Danish Mill. TemaNord 2000.
Alternatives to Methyl Bromide - Control of Rodents on Ship and Aircraft. TemaNord
1997:513. Nordic Council 1997
Alternatives to Methyl Bromide. TemaNord 1995:574. Nordic Council 1995
Methyl bromide in the Nordic Countries - Current Use and Alternatives. Nord 1993:34.
Nordic Council 1993
212
Pesticide Action Network (PANNA), San Francisco, California, USA
Website: www.panna.org/panna/
Alternatives to Methyl Bromide: Excerpts from the UN Methyl Bromide Technical Options
Committee 1995 Assessment. PANNA, San Francisco 1995
Funding a Better Ban: Smart Spending on Methyl Bromide in Developing Countries.
PANNA 1997
The Secretariat of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation
of the Montreal Protocol
Contact: [email protected] • fax +1 514 282 1122
Website: www.unmfs.org
US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC, USA
Contact: fax +1 202 233 9637 (Attn Methyl Bromide Program)
Websites: www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr/mbrqa.html
Alternatives to Methyl Bromide Ten Case Studies - Soil, Commodity and Structural Use.
430-R-95-009. EPA 1995
Alternatives to Methyl Bromide Ten Case Studies - Soil, Commodity and Structural Use Volume Two. 430-R-96-021. EPA 1996
Alternatives to Methyl Bromide Ten Case Studies - Soil, Commodity and Structural Use Volume Three. 430-R-97-030. EPA 1997
US Department of Agriculture, USA
Contact for newsletter: ARS Information Staff fax +1 301 705 9834
Contact for APHIS Quarantine Treatment Manual: Distribution dept. fax +1 301 734 8455
Website for methyl bromide research: www.ars.usda.gov/is/mb/mebrweb.htm
Website for Methyl Bromide Alternatives Newsletter:
www.ars.usda.gov/is/np/mba/mebrhp.htm
Website for National Agricultural Library: www.nal.usda.gov
Website for Alternative Farming Systems Information Center: www.nal.usda.gov/afsic
Website for the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Information Program’s Sustainable
Agriculture Network: www.sare.org
Methyl Bromide Alternatives. USDA newsletter
Plant Protection and Quarantine Treatment Manual. USDA Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS), 1998 (Lists alternative quarantine treatments approved for
specific products)
National Agricultural Library. Information on pest management, including Alternative
Farming Systems Information Center (AFSIC)
UNEP Ozone Secretariat, Nairobi, Kenya
Websites: www.unep.org/ozone
For MBTOC reports: www.teap.org
Reports of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol
Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee (MBTOC) progress report on alternatives
to methyl bromide in TEAP 2000 report. UNEP 2000
MBTOC 1998 Assessment of Alternatives to Methyl Bromide. UNEP 1998
MBTOC progress report in TEAP April 1997 report. Volume II, UNEP 1997
MBTOC Assessment Report 1995. UNEP 1994
MBTOC report on quarantine and pre-shipment in TEAP 1999 report. Volume II,
UNEP 1999
213
214
Annex 6
Address List of Suppliers and
Specialists in Alternatives
This list includes companies that manufacture and/or supply alternatives to methyl bromide, specialists, consultants
and advisory services.
A
Africa Program, Asian Vegetable Research
and Development Centre
Abbott Laboratories
Arusha, Tanzania
Tel +255 57 8491
Fax +255 57 4270
Web: www.avrdc.org.tw
Contact: Dr R Nono-Womdin
17683 Avenue 6
Madera, California 93637, USA
Tel +1 209 661 6308
Fax +1 209 661 6316
www.abbott.com
Contact: Mr Gary Kirfman
(Malaysia) Sdn Bhd, Shah Alam, Selangor
Malaysia
Email [email protected]
Contact: Boon Liang Tay
3 Fleetwood Court
Orinda, California 94563, USA
Tel +1 530 527 8028
Tel +1 510 254 0789
Fax +1 530 527 6288
Abonos Naturales Hnos Aguado SL
AgBio Development Inc
Calle Molino s/n
La Torre de Esteban Hambrán
Toledo 45920, Spain
Tel +34 925 795 463
Fax +34 925 795 483
9915 Raleigh Street
Westminster, Colorado 80030, USA
Tel +1 303 469 9221
Fax +1 303 469 9598
www.agbio-inc.com
Adalia Services Ltd
8685 Lafrenaie, St-Leonard
Quebec PQ H1P 2B6, Canada
Tel +1 514 852 9800
Fax +1 514 852 9809
Contact: Mr Denis Bureau
Agglorex SA
Industriepark-Kerkhoven
3920 Lommel, Belgium
Tel +32 11 542 532
Fax +32 11 545 792
Aggreko Inc
Admagro Ltda
Transversal 49 No. 96 – 84
Santafé de Bogotá, Colombia
Tel +571 617 6000
Fax +571 613 3240
Contact: Mr Juan José Buenahora
AEP Inc.
14000 Monte Vista Ave
Chino, California 91710, USA
Tel +1 909 465 9055
3732 Magnolia Street
Pearland TX 77584, USA
Tel +1 713 512 6787
Fax +1 713 512 6788
Ag Pesticides (Private) Ltd
18 P.N. Fleet Club
Karachi, Pakistan
Fax +92 21 778 1635
Agrelek
Eskom Advisory Service for Agriculture
Private Bag X3087
Worcester 6850, South Africa
Tel +27 231 223 94
Tel +27 152 930 398
Fax +27 152 930 399
Annex 6: Address List of Suppliers and Specialists in Alternatives
AgBio Chem Inc
Abbott Laboratories
215
216
Agricola El Sol
Agrocol Ltda
30 Calle 11-41, zona 12
Guatemala City, Guatemala
Tel +502 760 496
Fax +502 760 496
Cerrera 10 No. 24 – 76 Of. 701
Tel +571 28 160 69 or 441 96
Fax +571 28 417 34
Agricola Mas Viader
Agrocomponentes SL
Mas Viader 7, Casa de la Selva
17724 Girona, Spain
Tel +349 7246 0415
Fax +349 7246 0415
Carretera Los Alcázares km 2
Torre Pacheco, Murcia 30700, Spain
Tel +34 968 585 776
Fax +34 968 585 770
Agricultural Demonstration Centre, China,
SIDHOC
Agroplas SA de CV
No.2, Zhen Dong Lu, Nanhui County
Shanghai 201303, China
Email: [email protected] or
[email protected]
Contact: Wim Weerdenburg
Sebastián del Piombo No. 55-B
Depto 701
Colonia Lardizábal Mixcoac
CP 03700 México D.F. Mexico
Tel +52 5 598 6243 or 611 2431
Fax +52 5 598 6243 or 611 2431
Agridry Rimik
14 Molloy Street, Toowoomba
Queensland 4350, Australia
Tel +617 4631 4300
Fax +617 4631 4301
www.arpl.com.au
Agro-Shacam SL
Calle Cañas 6 (Administración)
Madrid 28043, Spain
Tel +34 914 159 881
Fax +34 914 159 881
Contact: Ing. Rafael Ortega
Agrifutur
Via Campagnole 8
25020 Alfianello
Brescia, Italy
Tel +39 030 993 4776
Fax +39 030 993 4777
AgroSolutions
PO Box 818
San Marcos, California 92079, USA
Tel +1 760 591 3102
Fax +1 760 591 4891
Agrotex SL
PO Box 13-254, Christchurch
New Zealand
Tel +643 366 8671
Fax +643 365 1859
Contact: Dr John Hunt
Hermán Cortés 36
Jaraíz de la Vera
Cáceres 10400, Spain
Tel +34 927 461 311
Fax +34 927 460 150
Contact: Ing. Gregorio Bermejo
Agrindex Consulting and Projects
AgraQuest Inc
Katzenelson 70a
Gyvatayim 53276, Israel
Tel +972 3571 4762
Fax +972 3571 0243
Contact: Lic. Shoshana Rymon
1105 Kennedy Place
Davis, California 95616-1272, USA
Tel +1 530 750 0150
Fax +1 530 750 0153
Agrimm Technologies Ltd
Agrium Inc
Agriphyto
19 Av de Grand Bretagne
Perpignan, France
Tel +33 4 68 35 74 12
Fax +33 4 68 34 65 44
Contact: Mr Christian Martin
402 - 15 Innovation Boulevard, Saskatoon
Saskatoon S7J 5B7, Canada
Tel +1 306 975 3843
Fax +1 306 975 3750
Aislantes Minerales SA de CV
A-M Corporation
Descartes # 104
Colonia Nueva Azures
11590 México DF, Mexico
Tel +52 5 155 0822
Fax +52 5 203 4739
403 Renaissance Building
1598-3 Socho-Dong
Socho-Ku 137-070, Korea
Tel +82 2 598 2292
Fax +82 2 598 2293
Contact: Mr Sunny MH Cho
Dr Husein Ajwa
Water Management Research Laboratory
USDA-ARS
2021 S. Peach Ave
Fresno, California 93727, USA
Tel +1 559 453 3105
American President Lines
Al Baraka Farms Ltd
American Rose Society
PO Box 866
Amman 11118, Jordan
Tel +962 6 591 102 or 109
Fax +962 6 591 100
Contact: Dr Ali Behadli
PO Box 30000
Shreveport, Louisiana, USA
Tel +1 318 938 5402
Fax +1 318 938 5405
1111 Broadway, 9th floor
Oakland, California 94607, USA
Tel +1 510 272 8241
Fax +1 510 272 8655
Contact: Technical Services
4449 Ontario St
Vancouver, British Columbia
VSB 3H2 Canada
Tel +1 604 263 2250
AllSize Perforating Ltd
Box 2670, Highway 32 South
Winkler, Manitoba R6W 4CS, Canada
Tel +1 204 325 9457
Fax +1 204 325 9998
Al. Masri Agricultural Co
PO Box 922004
Amman 11192, Jordan
Tel +962 6 566 9061
Fax +962 6 568 6605
Dr Miguel Altieri
Associate Professor
Division of Insect Biology
215 Mulford Hall
University of California
Berkeley, California 94720-3114, USA
Tel +1 510 642 9802
Fax +1 510 642 7428
Calle Bell 3, Poligono El Montalvo
Carbajosa de la Sagrada
Salamanca 37008, Spain
Tel +34 923 190 240
Fax +34 923 190 239
Contact: Ing. Alejandro Martínez Peña
Apply Chem (Thailand) Ltd
1575 / 15 Phaholyothin Road 15
Samsenni, Payathi
Bangkok 10400, Thailand
Tel +662 279 2615 or 278 1343
Fax +662 278 1343
Aqua Heat
8030 Main Street NE
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55432, USA
Tel +1 612 780 4116
Fax +1 612 780 4316
Aquanomics International
Hawaii, USA & New Zealand
PO Box 1030, Queenstown
New Zealand
Tel +643 441 8173
Fax +643 441 8174
Contact: Dr Michael Williamson
ARBICO
PO Box 4247 CRB
Tucson, Arizona 85738, USA
Tel +1 520 825 9785
Fax +1 520 825 2038
Aplicaciones Bioquímicas SL
All Natural Pest Control Co
217
Arbolan-PHC
Austral Cathay
Zritzola – Txiki, Urnieta
Guipúzcoa 20130, Spain
Tel +34 943 552 214
Fax +34 943 331 130
89 Old Pittwater Road, Brookvale
New South Wales 2100, Australia
Tel +612 905 7857
Fax +612 905 5966
Australian Grain Co
Dr Jack Armstrong
218
Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center
USDA-ARS
PO Box 4459
Hilo, Hawaii 96720, USA
Tel +1 808 959 4336
Fax +1 808 959 4323
Arrow Ecology Ltd
PO Box 25175
Haifa 31250, Israel
Tel +972 4841 2599
Fax +972 4841 2586
www.arrowecology.com
Contact: Mr Boaz Zadik
ASCO Co
PO Box 8345
Amman 11121, Jordan
Tel +962 6 534 3692
Fax +962 6 534 7246
ASEAN Food Handling Bureau
Level 3, G14 & G15
Damansara Town Centre
Kuala Lumpur 50490, Malaysia
PO Box 136, Toowoomba
Tel +617 4639 9443
Fax +617 4639 9359
Contact: Mr Barry Bridgeman
Avonlea
PO Box 45, Domain
Manitoba ROG OMO, Canada
Tel +1 204 736 2893
Fax +1 204 736 2785
B
Dr Jonathan Banks
Stored products consultant
10 Beltana Rd, Pialliago
Canberra ACT 2609, Australia
Tel +612 62 489 228
BASF
APM/FB Li 555, PO Box 220
D-6703 Limburgerhof, Germany
Tel +49 621 600 770
Fax +49 621 602 7014
Contact: Mr Jorn Tidow
Bast Co
Asistec
Salazar 441 y La Coruña
Quito, Ecuador
Tel +593 2526 770
Fax +593 2230 655
Contact: Ing. Ramiro Eguiguren
Asociación Colombiana de Exortadores de
Flores (ASOCOLFLORES FLORVERDE)
Carrera 9A # 90-53
Tel +571 257 9311
Fax +571 218 3693
[email protected]
Contact: Mr Juan Carlos Isaza
Hamburg, Germany
Tel +49 40 894 125
Fax +49 40 895 495
Dr Bassam Bayaa
Faculty of Agriculture
Aleppo University
Aleppo, Syria
Bayer (M) Sdn. Bhd
19th & 20th floors, Wisma MPSA
Persiaran Perbandaran
PO Box 7252, 40708 Shah Alam
Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia
Tel +60 3 550 2818
Fax +60 3 550 2704
Asthor Agricola Mediterranean SA
Calle Emilio Zurano 5, Pulpi-Almería
Almería 04640, Spain
Tel +34 968 480 468
Fax +34 968 480 013
Bayer Vital GmbH
Geschäftsbereich Pflanzenschutz
Gebäude D 162, Leverkusen
D-51368, Germany
www.agrar.bayervital.de
Bel Import 2000 SL
Biobest NV Biological Systems
La Campana 66, Lorca
Murcia 30813, Spain
Tel +34 950 464 468
Fax +34 950 464 013
Ilse Velden 18
B-2260 Westerlo, Belgium
Tel +32 14 257 980
Fax +32 14 257 982
www.biobest.be
Contact: Marc Mertens
Dr Antonio Bello and colleagues
Dpto Agroecologia
Centro de Ciencias Medioambientales
CCMA - CSIC
Serrano, 115 dpdo.
28006 Madrid, Spain
Tel +34 9 1562 5020 x 208 or 249
Fax +34 9 1564 0800
Biocaribe SA
Calle 19 No. 18-63
La Ceja, Antioquia Colombia
Tel +574 553 7870
Fax +574 553 3330
Bio-Care Technology Pty Ltd
Ben Meadows Company
P.O. Box 20200
Canton, Georgia 30114, USA
Tel +1 770-479-3130 or 1-800-241-6401
Fax 1-800-628-2068
or +1 770-479-3133 for faxes outside US
Email: [email protected] or [email protected] for international
RMB 1084, Pacific Highway
Somersby NSW 2250, Australia
BioComp Inc
2116-B BioComp Drive
Edenton, North Carolina 27932, USA
Tel +1 252 482 8528
Fax +1 252 482 3491
Contact: Dr Frank Regulski
121 R.R. # 1, St. Modeste
QC GOL 3W0, Canada
Tel +1 418 862 4462
Fax +1 418 867 3929
www.tberger.qc.ca
Contact: Mr Yves Gauthier
Prof Mohamed Besri
Institut Agronomique et Vétérinaire Hassan II, BP 6202
– Instituts
Rabat, Morocco
Tel +212 7 675 188
Fax +212 7 778 135
Biocontrol of Plant Diseases Laboratory
USDA, Agricultural Research Service
Bldg, 011A, Rm. 275, BARC-West
10300 Baltimore Avenue
Beltsville, Maryland 20705-2350, USA
Tel +1 301-504-5678
Fax +1 301-504-5968
www.barc.usda.gov/psi/bpdl/page5.html
Contact: Dr Deborah Fravel
BioGreen Technologies
31324 Meadowlark
Springville, California 93265, USA
Tel +1 209 539 6000
Fax +1 209 539 7000
Binab Bio-Innovation AB
Bio-Innovation AB
Bredholmen, Box 56
Algaras S-545 02, Sweden
Tel +46 50 642 005
Fax +46 50 642 072
Bredholmen, Box 56
S-545 02, Algaras, Sweden
Tel +46 506 42005
Fax +46 506 42072
BioAgri AB
Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC)
PO Box 914, Uppsala
SE-751 09, Sweden
Tel +46 1867 4900
Fax +46 1867 4901
www.bioagri.se
PO Box 7414
Berkeley, California 94707, USA
Tel +1 510 524 2567
Fax +1 510 524 1758
Website www.igc.apc.org/birc
Contact: Sheila Daar
Berger Peat Moss
219
BioLogic
Biotechnology Research Unit for Estate Crops
PO Box 177
Willow Hill, Pennsylvania 17271, USA
Tel +1 717 349 2789
Fax +1 717 349 2789
Jl. Taman Kencana No. 1
Bogor 16151, Indonesia
Tel +62 251 324 048
Fax +62 251 328 516
Biological Control Institute
Auburn University
209 Life Sciences Building
Auburn AL 36849, USA
Tel +1 334 844 4000
Fax +1 334 844 1948
Biological Crop Protection
220
Occupation Road, Wye, nr Ashford
Kent TN25 5EN, UK
Tel +44 1233 813 240
Fax +44 1233 813 383
Bioma Agro Ecology
Via Luserte 6, Quartino
CH-6572, Switzerland
Tel +41 91 840 1015
Fax +41 91 840 1019
BioOrganics Inc
31324 Meadowlark
Springville, California 93265, USA
Tel +1 881 332 7676
Fax +1 805 389 3773
BioOrganic Supply
3200 Corte Malpaso No. 107
Camarillo, California 93012, USA
Tel +1 880 604 0444
Bio Pre
Geerweg 65, 2461 TT Langeraar
Netherlands
Tel +31 172 539 333
Fax +31 172 537 859
BioQuip Products Inc
17803 LaSalle Avenue
Gardena, California 90248, USA
Tel +1 310 324 0620
Fax +1 310 324 7931
BioScientific Inc
4405 S Litchfield Road
Avondale, Arizona 85323, USA
Tel +1 602 932 4588
Fax +1 602 925 0506
BioTerra Technologies Inc
9491 West Pioneer Avenue
Las Vegas, Nevada 89117, USA
Tel +1 702 256 6404
Fax +1 702 255 2266
www.bioterra.com
Bioved Ltd
Ady Endre u. 10
2310 Szigetszentmiklos, Hungary
Tel +36 24 441 554
BioWorks Inc
122 N Genesee Street
Geneva, New York 14456, USA
Tel +1 315 781 1703
Fax +1 315 781 6572 or 1793
Ing. I Blanco, CETARSA
Finca la Cañalera, Ctra.
Santa Maria de las Lomas km 3.5
10310 Talayuela, Cáceres, Spain
Tel +34 927 578 230
Fax +34 927 578 263
BOC Gases
Private Bag 93300, Otahuhu
Auckland, New Zealand
Tel +649 525 5600
Fax +649 579 2934
University of Bonn
Soil-Ecosystem Phytopathology and Nematology, Institut
für Pflanzenkrankheiten
University of Bonn
Nussallee 9
D-53115 Bonn, Germany
Tel +49 228 732 439
Fax +49 228 732 432
Contact: Prof Richard Sikora
Borax Europe Ltd
170 Priestley Road
Guildford GU2 5RQ, UK
Tel +44 1483 242 034
Fax +44 1483 242 097
Borregaard and Reitzel
Helsingforsgade 27 B, Aarhus N
DK-8200, Denmark
Boverhuis Boilers BV
C
Beatrixlaan 22, 3941 EE Doorn
Netherlands
PO Box 118, 2770 AC
Boskoop, The Netherlands
Tel +31 172 236 700
Fax +31 172 236 710
www.bib.wau.nl/boskoop
Contact: Ing. RB Oosting
Breda Experimental Garden
Heilaarstraat 230
Breda, Netherlands
Tel +31 76 144 382
Fax +31 76 202 711
Contact: Henk Nuyten
Mr Barry Bridgeman
Research & Development Manager
Grainco Australia Ltd
Tel +617 4639 9443
Fax +617 4639 9359
Dr Bill Brodie
USDA-ARS, Department of Plant Pathology Cornell
University
Ithaca, New York 14853, USA
Tel +1 607 255 7845
Brokaw Nursery
PO Box 4818
Saticoy, California 93007, USA
Tel +1 805 647 2262
Dr Robert Bugg
Sustainable Agriculture Research
and Education Program (SAREP)
One Shields Avenue
Davis, California 95616, USA
Tel +1 530 754 8549
Fax +1 530 754 8550
BULOG National Food Logistics Agency,
Badan Urusan Logistik
Jl. Gatot Subroto 49
Jakarta, Indonesia
Tel +6221 525 0075
Fax +6221 520 4334 or 830 2533
Contact: Dr Mulyo Sidik
IPM Project
Kearney Agricultural Center
9240 S. Riverbend Avenue
Parlier, California 93648, USA
Tel +1 209 646 6000
Fax +1 209 646 6015
www.ipm.ucdavis.edu
Department of Nematology
One Shields Avenue
Tel +1 530 752 1011
Calmax
8800 Cal Center Drive MS #23
Sacramento, California
95826-3268, USA
Tel +1 916-255 2369
Fax +1 916 255 4580
Canadian Climatrol Systems
3060 D Spring Street, Port Moody
British Colombia V3H 1Z8, Canada
Tel +1 604 469 9119
Fax +1 604 469 0099
Canadian Grain Commission
800 - 269 Main Street, Winnipeg
Manitoba R3C 1B2, Canada
Tel +1 204 983 2788
Fax +1 204 984 5138
www.cgc.ca
Contact: Infestation Control and Sanitation Co-ordinator
Canadian Pest Control Association
208 Glen Castle Road, Kingston
Ontario K7M 4N6, Canada
Tel +1 613 384 0898
Fax +1 613 389 3849
Contact: Mr Dean Stanbridge
Cántabra de Turba Coop Ltda
B° del Cerezo 21, Torrelavega
Cantabria 39300, Spain
Tel +34 942 891 025
Fax +34 942 891 025
Dr William Carey
Auburn University
108 M White Smith Hall
Auburn, Alabama 36849-5418, USA
Tel +1 334 844 4998
Fax +1 334 844 4873
BPO Research Station for Nursery Stock
221
Dr G Cartia
Celli SpA
Dept Agrochimica e Agrobiologia
Universita di Reggio Calabria
Piazza S. Francesco di Sales 2
89061 Gallina, Italy
Via Masetti 32
47100 Forli, Italy
Tel +39 0543 794 711
Fax +39 011 794 747
Contact: Mr Alfredo Celli
Casa Bernado Ltda
Caixa Postal 365, CEP 11346-300,
Samarita - Sao Vincente
Sao Paulo, Brazil
Tel +55 132 601 212
Fax +55 132 601 318
Cenibanano Banana Research Center
Carrera 7 No. 32 – 33
Tel +57 48 786 608 or 09 or 10
Fax +57 48 786 606
Contact: Dr Gonzolo A Mejia
Mr Dermot Cassidy
222
Geest,
Pretoria, South Africa
Fax +27 12 809 0867
Ing. Sergio Trueba Castillo
NOCON SA, Apartado Postal 333
San Simón, Texcoco, Mexico
Tel +52 595 41576
Fax +52 595 41576
Dr Jean-Pierre Caussanel
Centre de Recherches de Dijon
UMR INRA/UNIVERSITE BBCE-IPM
CMSE-INRA, BP 86510
F-21065, Dijon, France
Tel +333 80 69 31 67
Fax +333 80 69 37 53
CCMA, CSIC
Central Science Laboratory
Sand Hutton, York YO41 1LZ, UK
Tel +44 1904 462 634
Fax +44 1904 462 252
Contact: Dr Chris Bell
Centre for Agriculture and Biosciences
International, Central Office
International Institute of Biological Control (CAB
International)
Silwood Park, Buckhurst Road, Ascot
Berks SL5 7TA, UK
Tel +44 1344 872 999
Fax +44 1344 872 901
Email: [email protected] or [email protected]
Contact: Dr Jeff Waage or Dr Garry Hill
Centre for Agriculture and Biosciences
International, Regional Office for Africa
Dpto Agroecologia
Serrano, 115 dpdo.
28006 Madrid, Spain
Tel +34 9 1562 5020 x 208 or 249
Fax +34 9 1564 0800
Contact: Dr Antonio Bello
PO Box 76520, Nairobi, Kenya
Tel +254 2 747 329
Fax +254 2 747 337
Contact: Dr Brigette Nyambo or Dr Sarah Simons
CCT Corporation
Serrano, 115 dpdo.
28006 Madrid, Spain
Tel +34 9 1562 5020
Fax +34 9 1564 0800
Contact: Dr Antonio Bello, Dpto Agroecologia
5115 Avenida Encinas, Suite A
Carlsbad, California 92008, USA
Tel +1 619 929 9228
Fax +1 619 929 9522
Centro de Ciencias Medioambientales CCMA CSIC
Dr Vincent Cebolla
Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Agrarias
Carretera de Moncada a Naquera
46113 Moncada, Valencia, Spain
Tel +34 961 391 000
Fax +34 961 390 240
www.ivia.es
Cereal Research Centre
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
195 Dafoe Rd, Winnipeg
MB R3T 2M9, Canada
Tel +1 204 983 1468
Fax +1 204 983 4604
http://res2.agr.ca/winnipeg/home.html
Contact: Dr Paul Fields
CeRSAA
Climate Control Systems Inc
Regione Rollo, 98
17031 Albenga, SV, Italy
Tel +39 018 255 4949
Fax +39 018 255 4949
Contact: Dr Giovanni Minuto
509 Highway #77, RR #5, Leamington
Ontario N8H 3V8, Canada
Tel +1 519 322 2515
Fax +1 519 322 2215
CETAP/Antonio Matos Ltda
Coco Hits SL
Guimbra Anta. Apdo 60
Espinho Codex P-4501, Portugal
Tel +35 173 132 42
Fax +35 173 414 64
San Juan Bosco, 4 DE Polo 6° B
Marbella, Málaga 29600, Spain
Tel +34 952 771 503
Fax +34 952 771 503
Dr Ron Cohen
982 North Bishop Road, Kentville
Nova Scotia B4N 3V7, Canada
Tel +1 902 678 4497
Fax +1 902 678 0067
Contact: Charles Keddy
Dr Dan Chellemi, USDA-ARS
Horticultural Research Laboratory
2199 South Rock Road
Ft. Pierce, Florida 34945, USA
Tel +1 561 467 3877
Fax +1 561 460 3652
CIA Ibérica de Paneles Sintéticos SA
CIPASI, Carretera de Naquera 100
Massamagrell, Valencia 46130 Spain
Tel +34 961 440 311
Fax +34 961 441 433
CIAA Agricultural Research and Consultancy
Center
PO Box 140296
Chía, Colombia
Tel +571 865 0219
Fax +571 865 0127
www.utadeo.edu.co
Contact: Ms Rebecca Lee
Deptartment of Vegetable Crops
Newe Ya’ar Research Center
Agricultural Research Organization
PO Box 1021
Ramat Yishay 30095 Israel
Tel +972 4953 9516
Fax +972 4983 6936
Colegío de Posgraduados
en Ciencias Agrícolas
Area de Microbiología
Instituto de Recursos Naturales
Km 35.5 Carretera México-Texcoco
Montecillo 56230, Estado de México
Mexico
Tel + 52 595 11600 x 1124
Fax +52 595 11593
or [email protected]
Contact: Maria Encarnación Lara
or Dr Ronald Ferrera-Cerrato
Colmáquinas SA
Carrera 50 # 16-21
Tel +571 260 1300
Fax +571 290 0703
Contact: Ing. Juan de los Ríos
Comercial Projar SA
Plant Protection Division
PO Box 18300
Greensborough, North Carolina 27419, USA
Tel +1 919 632 6000
Calle La Pineta s/n
Valencia 46930, Spain
Tel +34 961 920 061
Fax +34 961 920 250
Contact: Angeles Pérez Giner
CIG Ltd, Australia
Comité Jean Pain
Chatswood
New South Wales, Australia
Fax +613 6447 2331
Avenue Princesse Elisabeth 18
1030 Brussels, Belgium
Ciba-Geigy
Charles Keddy Farms Ltd
223
Commodity Storage
Copesan Services Inc
PO Box 434, Riverstone
New South Wales 2765, Australia
Tel +612 838 1677
Fax +612 838 1680
3490 N. 127th St.
Brookfield, Wisconsin 53005, USA
Tel 1 800 COPESAN or +1 262 783 6261
Fax +1 262 783 6267
[email protected]
www.copesan.com/
Tel +1 414 783 6261
Fax +1 414 783 6224
Compañia Argentina Holandesa SA
Fraga 1125 – 1427
Buenos Aires, Argentina
Tel +541 555 1010
Fax +541 555 6420
Compañía Española de Tabaco SA
224
CETARSA, Carretera de Navalmoral a Jarandilla, km 12
Talayuela
Tel +34 927 578 280
Fax +34 927 551 291
Contact: Ing. Francisco Arroyo
Cornell University
Agricultural Experimental Station
Tel +1 607 255 2000
Contact: Dr Gary Harman
Dr Angelo Correnti
ENEA Departimento Innovazione
Settore Biotecnologie e Agricoltura
Casaccia, Rome, Italy
Tel +3906 3048 3607
Fax +3906 3048 4267
Compo BV
Filliersdreef 14
B-9800 Deinze, Belgium
Tel +329 381 8383
Fax +329 386 7713
Compo GmbH
Gildenstrasse 38
D-48157 Münster, Germany
Tel +49 251 32 770
www.compo.de
Consejo Nacional de Agroinsumos
Bioracionales, Mexico
Tel +52 714 50 694
Fax +52 714 50 694
Contact: Ing. Félix A Farías
Consolidated Industrial Gases Inc
CIGI Building, Sheridan Cor.
Pioneer Street, Mandaluyong
Metro Manila, Philippines
Tel +63 2 773 761
Fax +63 2 631 5083
Dr John Conway
Natural Resources Institute
Central Avenue, Chatham Maritime
Kent ME4 4TB, UK
Tel +44 1634 880 088
Fax +44 1634 880 066
Cosago Ltda
Carrera 38 No. 136 – 40
PO Box 85324, Bogatá, Colombia
Tel +571 633 0050
Fax +571 633 0049
Contact: Mr Hernando Gomez
Cosago Ltda (Ecuador)
Av. A No. 673 y Calle N
Urbanización el Condado
Quito, Ecuador
Tel +59 32 491 523 or 492 355
Fax +59 32 491 523
CR Minerals Corp
14142 Denver West Parkway
Suite 101
Golden, Colorado 80401, USA
Tel +1 303 278 1706
Fax +1 303 278 7729 or 279 3772
Crone Asme Boilers
Postbus 51, Nieuwerkerk Ijssel
2910 AB, The Netherlands
Tel +31 180 632 922
Fax +31 180 632 678
Contact: TGM Kleijweg
Crop & Food Research
Postharvest Disinfestation Program
Private Bag, Kimberly Road
Levin, New Zealand
Contact: Dr Alan Carpenter
CSIRO Division of Entomology
De Baat BV
Stored Grain Research Laboratory
GPO Box 1700, Canberra
ACT 2601, Australia
Tel +6126 246 4183 or 4201
Fax +6126 246 4202
Contact: Dr Jane Wright, Dr Jonathan Banks, Dr Peter
Annis, Mr Jan van S Graver
Marconiweg 6
7740 AB Coevorden, Netherlands
Tel +31 524 515 631
Fax +31 524 515 663
Jl. Katelia II NO. 15
Taman Yasmin, Bogor 16310
Indonesia
Tel +62 251 376 309
Fax +62 251 347 970
Cyprus Grain Commission
PO Box 1777, Nicosia, Cyprus
Tel +3572 762 131
Fax +3572 752 141
Cytec Canada Inc
PO Box 240, Niagara Falls
Ontario L2E 6T4, Canada
Tel +1 905 374 5828
Fax +1 905 374 5939
Contact: Mr Roger Cavasin
Fortsesteenweg 30
B-2860 Sint-Katelijne-Waver
Belgium
Tel +32 15 31 22 57
Fax +32 15 31 36 15
Degesch America Inc
PO Box 116, 275 Triange Drive
Weyers Cave, Virginia 24486, USA
Tel +1 504 234 9281
Fax +1 504 234 8225
Contact: George Luzaich
Degesch de Chile Ltda
Camino Antiguo a Valparaiso #1321
Padre Hurtado
Santiago, Chile
Demeter Guild
D
Brandschneise 2
D-64295 Darmstadt, Germany
Tel +49 6155 846 90
Fax +49 6155 846 911
www.demeter.net
Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences
Department of Agriculture
PO Box 50, DK-8830 Tjele
Slagelse, Denmark
Tel +45 8999 1900
Fax +45 8999 1919
Stored Products Laboratory
Chatuchak, Bangkok, Thailand
Tel +662 579 8576
Fax +662 579 8535
Dr Michael Dann
Department of Agriculture
Penn State University
114 Tyson Building
University Park, Pennsylvania 16802, USA
Tel +1 814 863 7721
Division of Entomology and Zoology
Bangkhen, Bangkok 9, Thailand
Tel +662 579 8541
Fax +662 561 5014
Dr Keith Davis
Rothamstead Experimental Station
IACR-Rothamstead
Harpenden, Herts Al5 2JQ, UK
Tel +44 1582 763 133
Fax +44 1582 760 981
One Shields Avenue
Tel +1 530 752 1011
Department of Stored Products
DA Wiersma Research Corp Technologies
6840 East Broadway Boulevard
Tucson, Arizona 85710, USA
Tel +1 602 296 6400
The Volcani Center, PO Box 6
Bet-Dagan, Israel
Tel +972 3 968 3587
Fax +972 3 960 4428
Contact: Dr Shlomo Navarro,
Dr Jonathan Donahaye
CV Solanindo Duta Kencana
De Ceuster nv
225
De Ruiter Seeds Holland
Dr Don Dickson
PO Box 1050, Bergschenhoek
2660 BB, The Netherlands
Tel +31 1052 92222
Fax +31 1052 92400
University of Florida
PO Box 110620, Bldg 970
Surge Area Drive
Gainesville, Florida 32611-0620, USA
Tel +1 352 392 1901 x 135
Fax +1 352 392 0190
Desinsekta
Schönberger Weg 3
D-60488 Frankfurt am Main
Germany
Tel +49 69 763 040
Fax +49 69 768 1036
www.desinsekta.de
226
Detia Degesch GmbH
Dr Werner Freyberg Strasse 11
Postfach 6947, Laudenbach-Bergstrasse, Germany
Tel +49 6201 7080
Fax +49 6201 708 402
Contact: Mr Gunter Engel
Dr James Desmarchelier
Stored Grain Research Laboratory
CSIRO Entomology
16 Guilfoyle Street
Yarralumla 2600
Phone: + 614 1302 0958
Fax: + 612 6246 4202
Internet: http://www.ento.csiro.au
DIREC-TS
Badal, 19 - 21 B Entol 1°
Barcelona 08014, Spain
Tel +34 933 312 753
Fax +34 933 315 289
www.sustratos.com
DI.VA.P.R.A. – Patologia Vegetale, University
of Torino
Via Leonardo da Vinci 44
10095 Grugliasco, Torino, Italy
Tel +39 011 670 8539
Fax +39 011 670 8541
Contact: Dr ML Gullino, Dr A Minuto
DLV Horticultural Advisory Service
PO Box 6207, Horst
5960 AE, The Netherlands
Tel +31 77 398 7500
Fax +31 77 398 6682
Prof James DeVay
Department of Plant Pathology
One Shields Avenue
Tel +1 530 752 7310
Fax +1 530 752 5674
Dr Florencio Jiménez Díaz
INIFAP Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales,
Agricolas y Pecuarias
Apartado Postal 247, CP 27000
Torreón, Coahuila, Mexico
Tel +52 176 202 02
Fax +52 176 207 14 or 15
Prof Rafael Jiménez Díaz
Institute of Sustainable Agriculture
Dept of Crop Protection
CSIC, Alameda del Obispo s/n
Apartado 4084
14080 Córdoba, Spain
Tel +34 957 499 221
Fax +34 957 499 252
Dr Jonathan Donahaye
Agricultural Research Organisation
PO Box 6, Bet-Dagan, Israel
Tel +972 3 968 3585
Fax +972 3 960 4428
Dow AgroSciences
9330 Zionsville Road
Indianapolis, Indiania 46268-1054, USA
Tel +1 317 337 4582
Fax +1 317 337 4567
Contact: Michael W Melichar
Dr Alan Dowdy
Grain Marketing and Production
Research Center
USDA-ARS
Manhatten, Kansas 66502, USA
Tel +1 913 776 2719
Dryacide Australia Pty Ltd
1/20 Rye Lane Street
Maddington 6109
Western Australia
Tel +619 459 9849
Fax +619 493 2329
E
Eagle Picher Minerals Inc
6110 Plumas St
Reno, Nevada 89509, USA
Tel +1 880 366 7607
Fax +1 702 824 7694
Dryacide USA
3536 Emerson Street, San Diego
California 92106, USA
Tel +1 619 222 1680
Fax +1 619 523 1713
Earthgro
Mr Patrick Ducom
École Nationale Supérieure de Technologie,
Université Cheikh Anta Diop
Dr John M Duniway
One Shields Ave
Tel +1 530 752 0324
Fax +1 530 752 5674
Dr Florence V Dunkel
Department of Entomology
Montana State University
324 Leon Johnson Hall
Bozeman, Montana 59717, USA
Tel +1 406 994 5065
Fax +1 406 585 5608
Dura Green Marketing
PO Box 1486
Mount Dora, Florida 32756-1486, USA
Tel +1 352 383 8811
Durstons
Durston Garden Products
Sharpham, Street, Somerset, BA16 9SE.
Tel +44 1458 442688
Fax +44 1458 448327
Dutch Plantin
De Vlonder 3, PO Box 13
5427 ZG Boekel, Netherlands
Tel +31 492 32 4291
Fax +31 492 32 4637
www.dutchplantin.com
BP 5005, Dakar-Fann, Senegal
Tel +221 825 7528
Fax +221 825 3724
Ecogen Inc
2005 Cabot Boulevard West
Langhorne, Pennsylvania 19047, USA
Tel +1 215 757 1590
Fax +1 215 757 2956
Ecogen Inc
P. O. Box 4309
Jerusalem, Israel
Tel +972 2 733 212
Fax +972 2 733 265
EcoLife Corp.
PO Box 2008
Thousand Oaks, California 91358, USA
Tel +1 805 230 2511
Fax +1 805 694 1108
EcoScience Corp
Produce Systems Division
PO Box 3228
Orlando, Florida 32802-3228, USA
Tel +1 407 872 2224
Fax +1 407 872 2261
Eco-Soil Systems
10890 Thornmint Road, Suite 200
San Diego, California 92127, USA
Tel +1 619 675 1660
Fax +1 858 675 1662
www.ecosoil.com
Dr Mohamed Eddaoudi
Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique,
Domaine Malk Al Zahar Agadir, Morocco
Fax +212 8 24 23 52
Laboratoire Dendrées Stockées,
Chemin d’Artigues
Cenon 33150, France
Tel +33 556 326 220
Fax +33 556 865 150
PO Box 143, Route 207
Lebanon, Connecticut 06249, USA
Tel +1 203 642 7531
227
Eden BioScience
Dr Roberto García Espinosa
11816 Northcreek Parkway North
Bothell, Washington 98011, USA
Tel +1 425 806 7300
Fax +1 425 806 7400
Colegio de Postgraduados en Ciencias Agricolas, IFÍT
Instituto de Fitosanidad, Montecillos
Texcoco 56230, Mexico
Tel +52 595 102 20 or 115 80
Fax +52 595 102 20 or 115 80
Dr Clyde Elmore, Vegetable Crops
Department, University of California
One Shields Avenue
Tel +1 530 752 0612
Empresa Colombiana de Biotecnologia SA
228
Carrera 50 # 17 - 65
Tel +571 414 3851
Fax +571 414 3879
Contact: Mr Mauricio Lleras
ENEA Departimento Innovazione, Settore
Biotecnologie e Agricoltura
Casaccia, Rome, Italy
Tel +3906 3048 3607
Fax +3906 3048 4267
Contact: Prof Lucio Triolo, Dr Angelo Correnti
E-Nema
Gesellschaft für Biotechnologie und Biologischen
Pflanzenschultz GmbH
Klausdorfer Strasse 28-36
D-24223 Raisdorf, Germany
Tel +49 4307 829 50
Fax +49 4307 829 514
www.e-nema.de
Entosol, Australia
Tel +612 9718 3380
Fax +612 8587 5872
Contact: Mr Roger Allanson
EPAGRI
Rural de Santa Catarina SA
Rodovia Antonio Heil
km 6 CP 277, Fone, Brazil
Tel +55 47 346 5244
Fax +55 47 346 5255
Contact: Juarez José Vanni Müller
Escuela Agricola Panamericana
Apartado Postal 93
Tegucigalpa, Honduras
Tel +504 776 6140
Fax +504 776 6242
Contact: Ing. Carlos Rogelio T.
Eucatex Mineral Ltda
Rua Jussara, 1273-V Tamboré
Barueri São Paulo
06465-070 SP, Brazil
Tel +55 11 3049 2233
Tel +55 11 7295 1411
Fax +55 11 7295 1411
Contact: JE Aquino
European Vegetable R&D Centre
Binnenweg 6, B-2860
Sint-Katelijne-Waver, Belgium
Tel +32 15 552 771
Fax +32 15 553 061
Contact: Prof F Benoit or Mr N Ceustermans
Excel Industries Ltd, India
184/87 Swami Vivekanand Road, Jogeshwari
Bombay 400 102, India
Tel +91 22 628 8258
Fax +91 22 620 3657
Exportserre-Excoserre SRL
Via Mazzini 79
Alassio 17021, Italy
Tel +39 018 258 9045
Fax +39 018 258 9898
F
Fabricaciones Vignolles
Calle Genaro Cajal 3 3° C
Navalmoral de la Mata
Tel +34 927 535 216
Fax +34 927 534 836
Contact: Ing. Jean Vignolles
FAO Integrated Pest Control
Intercountry Programme
FAO Regional Office, PO Box 3700
MCPO, 1277 Metro Manila
Philippines
Tel +632 818 6478 or 813 4229
Fax +632 812 7725 or 810 9409
Contact: Dr Peter Ooi
Federal Biological Research Centre for
Agriculture and Forestry
Königin-Luise-Strasse 19
14195 Berlin, Germany
Tel +49 308 3041 or 261
Fax +49 308 304 2503 or 2002
Contact: Dr Christoph Reichmuth
Flame Engineering Inc
PO Box 577
LaCrosse, Kansas 67548, USA
Tel +1 880 255 2469
Fax +1 785 222 3619
www.flameeng.com
Floragard GmbH
Fenic Co Inc
PO Box 1500
Mercedes, Texas 78570, USA
Tel +1 956 565 6120
Fax +1 956 514 1712
Gerhard-Stalling-Strasse 7
D-26135 Oldenburg, Germany
Tel +49 441 20 920
Fax +49 441 20 922 92
www.floragard.de
Floratorf Produckte
Dr Steven Fennimore
Department of Vegetable Crops
1636 East Alisal Street
Salinas, California 93905, USA
Tel +1 831 755 2896
Fax +1 831 755 2814
Calle Real 38, Alhendín
Granada 18620, Spain
Tel +34 958 558 288
FMC Foret Grupo Agroquimicos
Barcelona, Spain
Tel +34 934 167 400
Instituto de Recursos Naturales
Colegio de Posgraduados en Ciencias Agricolas, Apt
Postal 264
Montecillo 56230, Mexico
Tel +52 595 116 00
Fax +52 595 115 93
FHIA Foundation for Agricultural Research
PO Box 2067
San Pedro Sula, Honduras
Tel +504 668 2809
Fax +504 668 2313
Contact: Dr Dale Krigsvold
FibreForm Wood Products Inc
1999 Ave. of the Stars, Ste. 250
Los Angeles, California 90067-6024, USA
Tel +1 310 203 5401
Fax +1 310-203-5421
Contact: Mr Marc A Seidner
Dr Paul Fields
Cereal Research Centre
195 Dafoe Rd, Winnipeg
MB R3T 2M9, Canada
Tel +1 204 983 1468
Fax +1 204 983 4604
www.res2.agr.ca/winnipeg/stored.htm
95-715 Hinali Street
Milliani, Hawaii 96789, USA
Tel +1 808 625 1599
Fax +1 808 625 1599
Contact: Mr Lawrence Pierce
Forestry Suppliers Inc
205 West Rankin Street
P. O. Box 8397
Jackson, Mississippi 39284-8397, USA
Tel +1 601 354 3565
Fax +1 601 292 0165
www.forestry-suppliers.com
Marshall Fowler
Randfontein, South Africa
Tel +27 11 412 1130
Fax +27 11 693 4024
Contact: Mr Peter Holton
FPO Fruit Research Centre
Brugstraat 51, 4475 Wilhelminadorp
The Netherlands
Tel +31 488 473 700
www.agro.nl/fpo
Contact: JA Jobsen
Francisco Domingo SL
Carretera Montehermoso km 1.400
Coria, Cáceres 10800, Spain
Tel +34 927 500 861
Fax +34 927 500 756
Contact: Ing. Francisco Domingo
Food Protection Services
Dr Ronald Ferrera-Cerrato
229
Dr Deborah Fravel
Dr A López García
Biocontrol of Plant Diseases Laboratory USDA-ARS
Building 011A Rom 275
BARC-West
Beltsville, Maryland 20705, USA
Tel +1 301 504 5080
Fax +1 301 504 5968
FECOAM, c/Levante 5
Murcia 30008, Spain
Tel +34 968 246 562
Fax +34 968 234 565
Ctra de la Coruña km 7.5
28080 Madrid, Spain
Tel +34 91 347 6889
Fax +34 91 357 3107
7 Meridian Road, Etobicoke
Ontario M9W 4Z6, Canada
Tel +1 416 675 1638
Fax +1 416 798 1647
www.gardexinc.com
Contact: Ms Karen Furgiuele
Fruitfed Supplies Ltd
Gas Process Control
PO Box 2116
Tel +649 525 0420
Fax +649 525 0443
16 Jessie Street
Seacliffe Park, SA 5049, Australia
Tel +618 8298 2932
Fax +618 8298 8553
Dr J Fresno, INIA
230
Gardex Chemicals Ltd
Fumigation Service & Supply Inc
10540 Jessup Boulevard
Indianapolis, Indiana 46280-1451, USA
Tel +1 317 846 5444
Fax +1 317 846 9799
Website http://www.insectslimited.com/ Contact: David
K Mueller or John Mueller
Gempler’s Inc, IPM Supplies
PO Box 270
Belleville, Wisconsin 53508, USA
Tel +1 608 437 4883
Fax +1 608 437 6941
www.gemplers.com
Dr Walid Abu Gharbieh
FUNDASES Foundation for Consultancy of the
Rural Sector
Calle 83A # 72 – 24
Tel +571 430 8987
Fax +571 430 8997
Contact: Mr Amilcar Salgado
FUSADES Foundation for Economic and Social
Development
Edificio FUSADES, Vlvd. Y Urb. Santa Helena, Antiguo
Cuscatlán, La Libertad, San Salvador
El Salvador
Tel +503 278 336
Fax +503 278 3369
Contact: Ing. Boris Corpeño
G
University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan
Tel +962 6 534 3555 x 2530
Dr Raquel Ghini
EMBRAPA/CNPMA, Caixa Postal 69
13820-000 Jaguariuna
São Paulo, Brazil
Tel +55 19 867 8762
Fax +55 19 867 5225
Dr James Gilreath
Gulf Coast Research & Education Center 5007 60th
Street East
Bradenton, Florida 34203-9425, USA
Tel +1 941 751 7636
Fax +1 941 751 7639
Dr Abraham Gamliel
Institute of Agricultural Engineering
PO Box 6, Bet Dagan 50250, Israel
Tel +972 3 968 3452
Fax +972 3 960 4704
Dr P Golob
Tropical Products Institute
London, UK
Tel +44 20 7636 8636
Dr Walter Gould
Great Lakes Chemical Corporation
Research Entomologist
Subtropical Horticulture Research Station ARS-USDA
13601 Old Cutler Road
Miami, Florida 33158, USA
Tel +1 305 254 3623
Fax +1 305 238 9330
One Great Lakes Boulevard
West Lafayette, Indiana 47906, USA
Tel +1 765 497 6100
Fax +1 765 497 6123
1001 Yosemite Drive
Milpitas, California 95035, USA
Tel +1 880 492 8255
Grainco Australia Ltd
Tel +617 4639 9443
Fax +617 4639 9359
Contact: Mr Barry Bridgeman
Grain Marketing Production and Research
Center, USDA-ARS
1515 College Avenue
Manhattan, Kansas 66502, USA
Tel +1 785 776 2783
Fax +1 785 776 2792
Contact: Dr Frank H Arthur
10220 Church Road NE
Vestaburg, Michigan 48891, USA
Tel +1 517 268 5693 or 5911
Fax +1 517 268 5311
Green Oasis Co
PO Box 930151
Amman 11193, Jordan
Tel +962 6 560 5191
Fax +962 6 560 5190
Green Releaf
2100 Corporate Square Blvd, Suite 201
Jacksonville, Florida 32216, USA
Tel +1 904 723 0002
Fax +1 904 723 5250
Green Spot Ltd
93 Priest Road
Nottingham, New Hampshire 03290-6204, USA
Tel +1 603 942 8925
Fax +1 603 942 8932
GrainPro Inc, USA
200 Baker Avenue, Suite 309
Concord, Massachusetts 01742, USA
Tel +1 978 371 7118
Fax +1 978 371 7411
www.grainpro.com
Griffith Laboratories
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Tel +1 880 263 4476 or +1 416 288 3050
www.griffithlabs.com/home.html
Grodan
10 Beltana Road, Pialliago
Canberra, ACT 2609, Australia
Tel +612 62 489 228
PO Box 1160, 6040 KD Roermond
The Netherlands
Tel +31 475 353 010
Fax +31 475 353 594
www.grodan.com
Grasso Products BV
Grodan (Med)
PO Box 343
5201 AH-Hertogenbosch
The Netherlands
Tel +31 73 6203 911
Fax +31 73 6214 320
www.grasso.nl
Avda de los Principes de España
116 Venta del Olivo
Paraje Simon Aciën
04700 El Ejido, Spain
Tel +34 950 489 709
Fax +34 950 489 703
Grainsmith Pty, Australia
Dr Thaís Tostes Graziano
Instituto Agronomico de Campinas
Caixa Postal 28, 13001-970
Campinas, SP Brazil
Tel +55 19 241 9091
Grodania AS
Hovedgaden 501
2640 Hedehusene, Denmark
Tel +45 46 560 400
Fax +45 46 561 211
www.grodan.com
WR Grace & Co
Great Lakes IPM
231
Grondortsmettingen DeCeuster nv
Guohua Soilless Cultivation Tech Co Ltd
Fortsesteenweg 30, B-2860
Tel +32 15 31 22 57
Fax +32 15 31 36 15
Beijing 100022
China
Tel +86 10 6515 9568
Grow Group International Nursery SARL
Route de Tiznit km 39
Tin Mansour, Chtouka Ait Baha
Agadir, Morocco
Tel +212 8 209 007 or 08
Fax +212 8 209 006
Contact: Mr Pierre Boniol
232
Grow Group Netherlands
Plantenkwekweij GNM Grootscholten BV, Postbus 118
Naaldwijk AC 2670, Netherlands
Tel +31 174 625 377
Contact: Mr Jan Mulder
Gustafson Inc
1400 Preston Road, suite 400
Plano, Texas 75003, USA
Tel +1 972 985 8877
Fax +1 972 985 1696
Mr Zoraida Gutierrez
Cultivos Miramonte, CR 43 C # 1-75
Apto 903, Medellin, Colombia
Tel +574 553 2050
Fax +574 553 3167
H
Dr Saad Hafez
GTZ Germany
Proklima, Postfach 5180
65756 Eschborn, Germany
Tel +49 6196 79 1350
Fax +49 6196 796 318
Contact: Ms Sylvia Ullrich
University of Idaho
29603 University of Idaho Lane
Parma, Idaho 83660, USA
Tel +1 208 722 6701 x 237
Fax +1 208 722 6708
GTZ IPM project, Jordan
Dr Guy Hallman
PO Box 926238
Amman, Jordan
Tel +962 6 472 6682
Fax +962 6 472 6683
Contact: Dr Volkmar Hasse
Kika De La Garza
Subtropical Agricultural Research Center USDA-ARS
2413 E. Hwy 83 Bldg 200
Weslaco, Texas 78596, USA
Tel +1 956 447-6313
Fax +1 956 447-6345
GTZ IPM project, Morocco
BP 43 Yacoub El Mansour
10053 Rabat, Morocco
Tel +212 7 690 670
Fax +212 7 690 670
GTZ IPM project, Egypt
c/o GTZ office, 3rd floor
4d El Gezira Street
Zamalek, Cairo 11211, Egypt
Tel +202 335 3349
Fax +202 360 3972
Haogenplast
Kibbutz Haogen 42880, Israel
Tel +9729 898 2108
Fax +9729 894 7758
www.haogenplast.co.il
Contact: Mr Tom de Bruin
Hans Dieter Siefert Machinen und
Apparatbau
Umwelttechnik, Ostrasse 7
D-7640 Kehl/Rhein, Germany
Tel +49 785 175 840
Prof M Lodovica Gullino
Dr Arnold Hara
DI.VA.P.R.A. – Patologia Vegetale
University of Turin
Grugliasco 10095, Torino, Italy
Tel +39 011 670 8539
Fax +39 011 670 8541
University of Hawaii
461 W Lanikaula Street
Tel +1 808 974 4105
Fax +1 808 974 4110
Harmony Farm Supply
Helena Chemical Co
3244 Gravenstein Highway, No B
Sebastopol, California 95472, USA
Tel +1 707 823 9125
Fax +1 707 823 1734
www.harmonyfarm.com
6075 Poplar Avenue, Suite 500
Memphis, Tennessee 38119, USA
Tel +1 901 761 0050
Harrow, Ontario NOR 1GO, Canada
Tel +1 519 738 2251 x 423
Fax +1 519 738 2929
Contact: Dr Tom Papadopoulos
Dr Volkmar Hasse
GTZ-Jordanian IPM project
PO Box 926238, Amman, Jordan
Tel +96 26 47 26 682
Fax +96 26 47 26 683
Department of Agricultural Engineering
3050 Maile Way
Honolulu, Hawaii 96822, USA
Contact: Dr P Winkelman
Ryton on Dunsmore, Coventry
CV8 3LG, UK
Tel +44 24 7630 3517
Fax +44 24 7663 9229
www.hdra.org.uk
HerkuPlast-Kubern GmbH
94140 Ering-Inn, Germany
Tel +49 85 73 960 30
Fax +49 85 73 960 370
HerkuPlast-Kubern GmbH (export)
PO Box 501, 4870 AM Etten-Leur
Netherlands
Tel +31 76 50 17 402
Fax +31 76 50 36 645
Dr Tim Herman
Crop and Food Research
Tel +649 849 3660
Beaumont Agricultural Research Center
Tel +1 808 974 4105
Fax +1 808 974 4110
Contact: Dr Arnold Hara
High Country Roses
9122 E Highway 40
PO Box148
Jensen, Utah 84035, USA
Tel +1 435 789 5512
Fax +1 435 789 5517
Dr Robert Hill
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Dept of Plant Pathology
Faculty of Agriculture, PO Box 12
Rehovot 76100, Israel
Tel +972 8 948 9217
Fax +972 8 946 6794
Contact: Prof Jaacov Katan
Hedley Technologies Inc
Head office: 1540,
800 West Pender Street
Vancouver, BC, V6C 2V6, Canada
Tel +1 604 685 1247
Fax +1 604 685 6039
Winnipeg office (for contact):
Tel +1 204 942 3770
Fax +1 204 942 3779
www.hedleytech.com
Contact: Chris Van Natto (Winnipeg office)
HortResearch, Ruakura
New Zealand
Tel +64 78 58 4775
Fax +64 78 58 4702
Hishtil Ashkelon Nursery Ltd
PO Box 360
78102 Ashkelon, Israel
Tel +972 7 734 464
Fax +972 7 738 831
Contact: Menni Shadmi
HKB
Ankerkade 6, Venlo
5928 PL, The Netherlands
Tel +31 77 387 2424
Harrow Research Centre
Henry Doubleday Research Association
233
Dr Bob Hochmuth
Hortiplan
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS)
PO Box 7580
County Road 136
Live Oak, Florida 32060-7434, USA
Tel +1 904 362 1725
Fax +1 904 362 3067
Drevendaal 1, B-2860
Tel +32 15 31 67 02
Fax +32 15 31 41 38
Contact: Mr Bogairts
Hoechst Far East Marketing Corp Philippines,
Hoechst House
234
Legaspi Village, Makati
Metro Manila 3117, Philippines
Tel +63 2 850 646 or 654
Fax +63 2 817 794
Prof Harry Hoitink
Department of Plant Pathology and Env. Graduate
Studies Program
The Ohio State University
211 Selby Hall
1680 Madison Avenue
Wooster, Ohio 44691-4096, USA
Tel +1 330 263 3848
Fax +1 330 263 3841
Hollyland New-Tech Dev Co Ltd
Rr. 408-410 Ourdike Building No. 38
You Yi Road, Hexi District,
Tianjin 300061, China
Tel +86 22 281 391 92
Fax +86 22 281 391 10
www.peval.nl
Hortiplan (Italy)
Via Cramsci 254
40014 Crevalcore BO, Italy
Tel +39 51 680 0236
Fax +39 51 680 0238
HortiTecnia Ltd
Carrera 19 No. 85 – 65 piso 2
Santafé de Bogotá DC, Colombia
Tel +571 621 8108
Fax +571 617 0730
Contact: Marta Pizano
HortResearch Natural Systems Group
Ruakura Research Centre
Private bag 3123
Hamilton, New Zealand
Tel +64 7 838 5052
Fax +64 7 838 5903
Contact: Dr Robert Hill
HortResearch Post-harvest Science
Private bag 92169, Mount Albert
Tel +64 9 815 4217
Fax +64 9 849 3660
Contact: Dr Michael Lay-Yee
Home Grown Cereals Authority
223 Pentonville Rd
London N1 9HY, UK
Tel +44 207 520 3926
Fax +44 20 7520 3958
www.hgca.co.uk
HortResearch Pathology Group
PO Box 1401, Havelock North
Hawke’s Bay, New Zealand
Tel +64 6 877 8196
Fax +64 6 877 4761
Contact: Science Manager
Dr Seizo Horiuchi, National Research Institute
of Vegetables, Ornamental Plants & Tea
Hydro-Gardens Inc
MAFF
Morioka
Iwate 020-0123, Japan
Tel +81 196 41 2031
Fax +81 196 41 6315
Email: hrucs:nivot-m.affrc.go.jp
PO Box 25845
Colorado Springs, Colorado 80936, USA
Tel +1 719 495 2266
Fax +1 719 531 0506
Website www.hydro-gardens.com
Hortica Inc
Hy-Veld Seed Co
RR 1, 723 Robson Rd
Waterdown, Ontario
Canada LOR 2H1
Tel +1 905 689 6984
Fax +1 905 689 3002
Private Bag 2008, Ruwa, Zimbabwe
Tel +26 373 2684 or 2685
Fax +26 373 2658
Contact: Trevor Hedges
I
ICC-SIAPA, CER
Via Vittorio Veneto 7
S. Vincenzo di Galliera
Bologna 40010, Italy
Contact: Claudio Aloi
Ingauna Vapore
Di Enrico De Carli & C.
Regione Cianea
Castelbianco, SV Italy
Tel +39 0182 77 108
Fax +39 0182 77 088
Dr Chuck Ingels
333 Ohme Gardens Rd
Wentatchee, Washington 98801, USA
Tel +1 880 332 3179
Fax +1 509 662 6594
Igene Biotechnology Inc
9110 Red Branch Rd
Columbia, Maryland 21045, USA
Tel +1 410 997 2599
Fax +1 410 730 0540
Igrox Ltd
Worlingworth, Woodbridge
Suffolk IP13 7HW, UK
Tel +44 1728 628 424
Fax +44 1728 628 247
Contact: Mr Chris Watson
Sustainable Agriculture Research
and Education Program (SAREP)
4145 Branch Center Road
Sacramento CA 95827-3898, USA
Tel +1 916 875 6913
Fax +1 916 875 6233
INRA Institut National de la Recherche
Agronomique
147 rue de l’Université
75338 Paris cedex 07, France
Tel +331 4275 9000
Fax +331 4705 9966
www.jouy.inra.fr
Insects Limited
Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI)
10540 Jessup Boulevard
Indianapolis, Indiana 46280-1451, USA
Tel +1 317 846 5444 or 896 9300
Tel (800) 992 1991 (only when phoning from North
America)
Fax +1 317 846 9799
Website www.insectslimited.com
Contact: David K Mueller
KS Krishnau Marg
New Delhi 110012, India
Institute of Biocontrol
Industrial Oxygen Incorporated Berhad
BBA, Darmstadt, Germany
Tel +49 6151 407 227
www.bba.de
IMS Gas and Equipment (PTE) Ltd
38 Lokyang Way, Jurong Town
Singapore 2262, Singapore
Tel +65 268 0847 or 265 8788
Fax +65 265 7628
Jalan Pengisir 15/9, PO Box 77
Shah Alam
Selangor, Malaysia
Tel +60 3 591 0069
Fax +60 3 591 059
Industrias Químicas Sicosa SA
Cami de Sant Roc s/n, Vilablareix
Girona 17180, Spain
Tel +34 972 405 095
Inferco SL
Playa Almarda, Poligono 56
Sagunto, Valencia 46500, Spain
Tel +34 962 608 856
Fax +34 962 609 024
Institute of Plant Quarantine
Ministry of Agriculture, Building 241
Hui Xin Li, Chaoyang District
Beijing 100029, China
Tel +86 10 6492 1084
Fax +86 10 6492 1084
Institute of Sustainable Agriculture
Dept of Crop Protection
CSIC, Alameda del Obispo s/n
Apartado 4084
14080 Córdoba, Spain
Tel +34 957 499 221
Fax +34 957 499 252
Contact: Prof Rafael Jiménez Díaz
IFM (Integrated Fertility Management)
235
Instituto de Tecnologia de Alimentos
Caixa Postal 139
CEP 13073-001 Campinas
São Paulo, Brazil
Fax +55 192 41 5034
Contact: Dr Maria Regina Sartori
International Institute of Biological Control,
Regional Office for Africa
PO Box 633
Nairobi, ICRAF Complex, Kenya
Tel +254 2 521 450
Fax +254 2 521 001 or 522 150
INTA Famailla
Túcúman, Argentina
Tel +54 3863 610 48
Fax +54 3863 615 46
Contact: Ing. Alejandro Valeiro
236
International Maritime Fumigation
Organisation
International Forest Tree Seed Co
PO Box 2022
London W1A 5A, UK
Tel +44 207 637 2131
Fax +44 207 637 2151
www.imfo.com
Odenville, Alabama 35120, USA
Tel +1 205 629 6461
International Mycological Institute
Regional Office for Asia
IIBC Station, PO Box 210
43409 UPM Serdang
Selangor, Malaysia
Tel +603 942 6489
Fax +603 942 6490
Contact: Dr Janny Vos or Dr Lim Guan Soon
International Institute of
Biological Control
Office for Caribbean & Latin America
Gordon Street, Curepe
Trinidad & Tobago
Tel +1 809 662 4173
Fax +1 809 663 2859
Central Office
Institute of Centre for Agriculture and Biosciences
International (CAB International), Silwood Park
Buckhurst Road, Ascot
Berks SL5 7TA, UK
Tel +44 1344 872 999
Fax +44 1344 872 901
Contact: Dr Jeff Waage, Director or
Dr Garry Hill, Director of Programme Development
Pakistan Station
PO Box 8, Rawalpindi, Pakistan
Tel +92 51 842 347 or 423 210
Fax +92 51 842 347
Telex 55948/5949 PCORP PK BIOCONTROL
Bakeham Lane, Egham
Surrey TW2O 9TY, UK
Tel +44 1784 470 111
Fax +44 1784 470 909
International Organisation of Biological
Control
Royal Veterinary & Agricultural University
Bulowsvej 13, Frederiksberg C
DK-1870, Denmark
Intertoresa AG
Baslerstrasse 42
CH-4665 Oftringen, Switzerland
Tel +41 627 892 800
Fax +41 627 892 801
Dr Barakat Abu Irmalieh
Univeristy of Jordan
Amman, Jordan
Tel + 962 6 534 3555
Island Air Products Corp
170 Virata Street, Pasay City
Tel +63 2 833 0771 or 0773
Italoespañola de Correctores SL
Coso, N° 100, 6° Oficina 5a
Zaragoza 50001, Spain
Tel +34 976 234 143
Fax +34 976 226 683
J
Dr TA Jackson
AgResearch, PO Box 60
Lincoln, New Zealand
Tel +643 325 6900
Fax +643 325 2946
Jackson & Perkins
Jordanian-GTZ IPM programme
1 Rose Lane
Medford, Oregon 97501, USA
www.jackson-perkins.com
PO Box 926238
Amman, Jordan
Tel +96 26 47 26 682
Fax +96 26 47 26 683
Contact: Dr Volkmar Hasse
Department of Primary Industry,
Indooroopily, Brisbane
Queensland, Australia
Dr Eric Jang
Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center
P. O. Box 4459
Tel +1 808 959 4340
Jelirapest
PO Box 225, UPM Post Office
43400 Serdang
Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia
Tel +603 948 7802
Fax +603 948 7802
Contact: Mohd. Azmi Ab. Rahim
JH Biotech Inc
4951 Olivas Park Drive
Ventura, California 93003, USA
Tel +1 805 650 8933
Fax +1 805 650 8942
Jiffy Products
Calle 72 # 57 – 33 piso 4
Barranquilla, Colombia
Tel +575 358 1043
Fax +575 358 2875
www.jiffyproducts.com
Contact: Mr Gunnar Ostbye
Johnny’s Selected Seeds
310 Foss Hill Road
Albion, Maine 04910, USA
Tel +1 207 437 4301
Fax +1 207 437 2165
Jörgen Reitzel A/S
Lerhoj 3A, Bagsvaerd
DK 2880, Denmark
Tel +45 4444 4012
Fax +45 4444 4019
José Maria Pérez Ortega
Avenida de Anaga 45
Santa Cruz de Tenerife 38001, Spain
Tel +34 922 259 931
Fax +34 922 261 228
JT Eaton & Co Inc
1393 E Highland Rd
Twinsburg, Ohio 44087, USA
Tel +1 216 425 7801
Fax +1 216 425 8353
K
Dr Adel Kader
Pomology Department
One Shields Avenue
Tel +1 530 752 0909
Prof Jaacov Katan
Dept of Plant Pathology
Hebrew University, PO Box 12
Rehovot 76100, Israel
Tel +972 8 948 9217
Fax +972 8 946 6794
Dr Fusao Kawakami
Dr Judy Johnson
USDA-ARS
Horticultural Crops Research Laboratory (HCRL)
2021 S. Peach Ave
Tel +1 559 453 3030
MAFF Research Division
Yokohama Plant Protection Station
1-16-10 Shinymashita, Naka-Ku
Yokohama 231-0801, Japan
Tel +81 45 622 8892
Fax +81 45 621 7560
Kemira Agro Oy
Porkkalankatu 3, PO Box 330
Helsinki 00101, Finland
Tel +358 10 861 1511
Fax +358 10 862 1384
Dr K Jacobi
237
Kennco Manufacturing
Koppert (Colombia)
PO Box 1158
Ruskin, Florida 33570, USA
Tel +1 813 645 2591
Fax +1 813 645 7801
http://members.aol.com/kenncomfg/index.ht
Carrera 39 No. 128A – 40
Tel +571 633 0111
Fax +571 627 0635
www.koppert.nl
Contact: Mr Juan Camilo Hoyos
KFZB Biotechnik GmbH
Glienicker Weg 185
D-12489 Berlin, Germany
Tel +49 30 670 570
Fax +49 30 670 57233
238
Dr Geoffry Kirenga
Dar es Salaam University, PO Box 35091
Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
Tel +255 22 241 05008
www.udsm.ac.tz
Koppert (Mexico)
Andrómeda 47 1er piso
Colonia Prado Churubusco
México DF 14230, Mexico
Tel +52 5 532 5900
Fax +52 5 532 5660
Contact: Ing. Maria Eugenia Lee
Koppert
CSIRO Division of Plant Industries
GPO Box 1600
Canberra 260, ACT, Australia
Veilingweg 17, PO Box 155
2650 AD Berkel en Rodenrijs
The Netherlands
Tel +31 105 140 444
Fax +31 105 115 203
www.koppert.nl
Klasmann-Deilmann GmbH
Dr Zlatko Korunic
Georg-Klasmann-Strasse 2-10
Geeste-Gross Hesepe
D-49744, Germany
Tel +49 5937 31 230
Fax +49 5937 31 238
www.klasmann-deilmann.com
Director of Research
Hedley Technologies Inc
2600 Skymark Ave, Bldg 4
Suite 101, Mississauga
Ontario L4W 5B2, Canada
Tel +1 519 821 3764
Fax +1 519 821 3764
Dr JA Kirkegaard
Dr Joseph Kloepper
Auburn University
Auburn, Alabama 36849, USA
Tel +1 334 844 4714
Fax +1 334 844 1948
Knowzone Solutions Inc
288 Mill Road, Unit C32, Etobicoke
Ontario M9C 4X7, Canada
Tel +1 416 622 7920
Fax +1 416 622 6723
Contact: Errick Willis
Dr Nancy Kokalis-Burelle
US Horticultural Research Laboratory
USDA-ARS
2199 S. Rock Road
Ft. Pierce, Florida 34945, USA
Tel +561 467 6029
Fax +561 467 6062
Dr Jürgen Kroschel
University of Kassel
Institute for Crop Science
Steinstrasse 19, Witzenhausen
D-37213, Germany
Tel +49 55 42 98 13 11
Fax +49 55 42 98 12 30
L
Dr Alfredo Lacasa
CIDA, Estación Sericícola
La Alberca, Murcia, Spain
Tel +34 968 366 777
Fax +34 968 366 793 or 92
Dr Franco Lamberti
Instituto di Nematologia Agraria CNR
70126 Bari, Italy
Dr Kirk Larson
Lipha Tech
Irvine, California 92697, USA
Tel +1 714 857 0136
3600 W Elm Street
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53209, USA
Tel +1 414 351 1476
Fax +1 414 351 1847
Laverlam
Lockheed Martin Idaho Technologies Co
Carrera 5 No. 47 – 165
A. A. 9985, Cali, Colombia
Tel +572 447 4411
Fax +572 447 4409
www.laverlam.com.co
Contact: Ing. Carlos Delgado
PO Box 1625
Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415-3805, USA
Tel +1 208 526 2695
Fax +1 208 526 0953
Contact: William J Inman
Pest Management Research Centre
1391 Sandiford Street
London, Ontario N5V 4T3, Canada
Tel +1 519 663 3099
Fax +1 519 663 3454
Dr Michael Lay-Yee and colleagues,
HortResearch,
Mount Albert
Tel +649 815 4200
Fax +649 815 4207
Dr Leonardo de León
Dirección General de Servicios Agrícolas Avenida Millán
4703
Montevideo CP12900, Uruguay
Tel +598 2 600 0404
Fax +598 2 628 3552
Central Arid Zone Research Institute
Jodhpur 342003, India
Lombricompuestos de la Sabana
Calle 166 # 45 – 65 Of. 523
Tel +571 671 2965
Fax +571 678 7874
Lombricultura Técnica Mexicana
Iturbide s/n, Esq Calle del Río
San Diego, Texcoco
Edo de México CP 56200, Mexico
Tel +52 595 451 95 or 464 20
www.citsatex.com.mx
Contact: Ing. Claudia Martinez Cerdas
Louisiana Pacific
111 SW 5th Avenue
Portland, Oregon 97204, USA
Tel +1 503 221 0800
Dr Frank Louws
Linde AG Refrigeration
Abraham-Lincoln-Strasse 21
65189 Wiesbaden, Germany
Tel +49 611 7700
Fax +49 611 770 269
www.linde.de
North Carolina State University
PO Box 7616
Raleigh, North Carolina 27695, USA
Tel +1 919 515 6689
LS Horticultura España SA
Dr Robert Linderman
Horticultural Crops Research Laboratory, USDA-ARS
3420 NW Orchard Avenue
Corvallis, Oregon 97330, USA
Tel +1 541 750 8760
Fax +1 541 750 8764
Lindig Corporation
Steam equipment
PO Box 130130
Roseville MN 55113, USA
Carretera Pinatar 95, San Javier
Murcia 30730, Spain
Tel +34 968 190 812
Fax +34 968 191 709
Prof M Ludovica Gullino
University of Torino
Via Leonardo Da Vinci 44
Grugliasco 10095, Torino, Italy
Tel +39 011 670 8539
Fax +39 011 670 8541
Dr George Lazarovits
Dr Satish Lodha
239
Dr Gerhard Lung
Dr Nicholas Martin
University of Hohenheim
Institute of Phytomedicine, 360c
D-70599 Stuttgart, Germany
Tel +49 711 459 0, ext 2405
Tel +649 849 3660
Fax +649 815 4201
M
Ing. Juan Carlos Magunacelaya
240
Avda. Brasil 2950
Valparaiso 4059, Chile
Tel +56 2 678 5821
Fax +56 2 678 5700
Makhteshim-Agan of North America, Inc
551 Fifth Ave, Suite 1100
New York, NY 10175, USA
Tel +1 212 661 9800
Fax +1 212 661 9043 or 9038
Mauri Foods
67 Epping Road
North Ryde, Australia
or: Sylvan Spawn Laboratory
West Hills Industrial Park
Kittanning, Pennsylvania 16201, USA
Tel +1 412 543 2242
Dr Mark Mazzola
Tree Fruit Research Laboratory
USDA-ARS
1104 N. Western Ave
Wenatchee Washington 98801, USA
Tel +1 509 664 2280
Fax +1 509 664 2287
Makhteshim Chemical Works Ltd,
PO Box 60 Industrial
Beer-Sheva 84100, Israel
Tel +972 3 517 9351
Tel +972 7 629 6615
Fax +972 7 628 0304 or 6280364
Dr Robert McGovern
Malaysia Oxygen Berhad
Dr Michael McKenry
13 Jalan 222, Petaling Jaya
PO Box 633
Kuala Lumpur 01-02, Malaysia
Tel +60 3 554 233
Fax: +60 3 7566389
Telex MA 37663
9240 South Riverbend Avenue
Tel +1 559 646 6500
Fax +1 559 646 6593
Dr Robert Mangan
MC Solvents Co Ltd
Kika De La Garza Subtropical Agricultural Research
Center
USDA-ARS
2413 E. Hwy 83 Bldg 200
Tel +1 956 447 6316
Fax +1 956 447 6345
180-184 Rajawongge Road
5th floor Metro Building
Tel +66 2 223 1294
Fax +66 2 224 9839
Marten Barel Beheer BV
Roskam 22, 5505 JJ
Veldhoven, The Netherlands
Tel +31 40 253 2726
Fax +31 40 253 9565
Contact: Mr Marten Barel
Mr C Martin, Agriphyto
Av. de Grande Bretagne
66025 Perpignan, France
Tel +334 68 35 74 12
Fax +334 68 34 65 44
Gulf Coast Research and Education Center
5007 60th Street East
Bradenton, Florida 34203, USA
Tel +1 941 751 7636
Dr Robert McSorley
Dept. Nematology & Entomology
PO Box 110620
Gainesville, Florida 32611-0620, USA
Tel +1 352 392 1901
Ben Meadows Company
P.O. Box 20200
Canton, Georgia 30114, USA
Tel +1 770-479-3130 or 1-800-241-6401
Fax + 1-800-628-2068
or +1 770-479-3133 for faxes outside US
Email: [email protected] or [email protected] for international contact
Medak
Minfeng Industrial Co
Andhra Pradesh, India
Tel +91 8458 794 74
Min Feng Shi Ye Company
Hua Yuan Road 136
Jinan 250100, China
Tel +86 531 891 9285
Fax +86 531 825 0100
Narcisco Mendoza No. 15
Col. Manuel A. Camacho
Mexico DF
Tel +525 589 5144
Fax +525 293 1184
Contact: Ing. Rosa María Rocha
Melcourt Industries Ltd
Eight Bells House, Tetbury
Gloucestershire GL8 8JG, UK
Tel +44 166 650 2711 or 3919
Fax +44 166 650 4398
www.melcourt.co.uk
Dr A Minuto
University of Torino
10095 Grugliasco, Torino, Italy
Tel +39 0182 554 949
Fax +39 011 670 8541
Miqdadi Co
PO Box 431
Amman 11118, Jordan
Tel +962 6 566 8973
Fax +962 6 567 8973
Dr Nahum Marbán Mendoza
Mission de Coopération Phytosanitaire
Universidad Autónoma de Chapingo,
Estado de México, Mexico
Tel +52 595 422 00 x 180
Fax +52 595 496 92
BP 7309, 34184 Montpellier
Cedex 4, France
Tel +33 467 753 090
Fax +33 467 031 021
Dr Elizabeth Mitcham
Dr Klaus Merckens
Egyptian Biodynamic Association
PO Box 1535, Alf Maskan
ET 11777, Cairo, Egypt
Tel +202 281 8886
Fax +202 281 8886
www.sekem.com
Microbial Solutions Ltd
PO Box 103, Kya Sand
2163, South Africa
Tel +27 11 462 2408 or 18
Fax +27 11 462 2296
Contact: Mr Graham Limerick
Mikro-Tek Labs
PO Box 2120, Timmons
Ontario P4N 7X8, Canada
Tel +1 705 268 3536
Fax +1 705 268 7411
Prof Keigo Minami
Horticulture Department
ESALQ, University of São Paulo
Piracicaba, SP, Brazil
One Shields Avenue, Wickson Hall
Tel +1 530 752 7512
Fax +1 530 752 8502
Metalúrgica Manllenense SA
Fontcuberta 32 – 36, Manlleu
Barcelona 08560, Spain
Tel +34 938 511 599
Fax +34 938 511 645
Dr Harold Moffitt
Yakima Agricultural Research Laboratory, USDA-ARS
3706 W. Nob Hill Boulevard
Yakima, Washington 98902, USA
Ing Camilla Montecinos
Director
Centro de Educacion y Tecnologia
Santiago, Chile
Fax +56 22 337 239
Megafarma SA de CV
241
Morse Growers Supplies Inc
Natural Insecto Products
50 Hazelton Street, Box 33
Leamington, Ontario
N8H 3W1, Canada
Tel +1 519 326 9037
Fax +1 519 326 5861 or 9290
Contact: Mr Kelly Devaere
Orange, California 92856-0915, USA
Tel +1 880 332 2002
Fax +1 949 548 4576
www.insecto.com
Mycontrol Ltd
242
Alon Hagalil M.P.
Nazereth Elit 17920, Israel
Tel +972 4986 1827
Fax +972 4986 1827
Mycor Plant
General Pardiñas 99 4°D
Madrid 28006, Spain
Tel +34 91 561 6907
Fax +34 91 561 7961
Contact: Angel Baron
N
Nabat Agricultural & Trading Co
PO Box 926160
Amman 11110, Jordan
Tel +962 6 581 5812
Fax +962 6 586 3813
National IPM Network
Contact: Ron Stinner
Chairman of the NIPMN Coordinating Committee
Tel +1 919 515 1648
http://PlantProtection.org/nipmn/index.html
National Post-harvest Institute for Research
and Extension
3rd floor, ATI Building, Elliptical Road, Diliman
Quezon City, Philippines
Tel +63 2 927 4019 or 4029
Fax +63 2 926 8159
National Research Centre for Strawberries
Proefbedryf der Noorderkempen
Voort 71, 2328 Meerle, Belgium
Tel +32 33 157 052
Fax +32 33 150 087
Natural Insect Control (NIC)
RR #2, Stevensville
Ontario LOS 1S0, Canada
Tel +1 905 382 2904
Fax +1 905 382 4418
www.natural-insect-control.com
Natural Plant Protection
Route d’Artix BP 80
Nogueres 6450, France
Tel +33 559 84 10 45
Fax +33 559 84 89 55
Chatham Maritime, Chatham
Kent ME4 4TB, UK
Tel +44 163 488 3778
Fax +44 163 488 0066
Contact: Robert Taylor
Nature’s Alternative Insectary Ltd
Box 19, Dawson Road, Nanoose Bay
British Colombia V0R 2R0, Canada
Tel +1 250 468 7911
Fax +1 250 468 7912
Contact: Angela Hale or Harland Culford
Nature’s Control
PO Box 35
Medford, Oregon 97501, USA
Tel +1 541 899 8318
Fax +1 541 899 9121
Dr Shlomo Navarro
PO Box 6, Bet-Dagan
AL, 50250, Israel
Tel +972 3 968 3585
Fax +972 3 968 3587
Neudorff GmbH
Postfach 1209
D-31857 Emmerthal, Germany
Tel +49 5155 6240
Fax +49 5155 6010
Dr Lisa Neven
USDA-ARS-YARL
5230 Konnowac Pass Road
Wapato, Washington 98951, USA
Tel +1 509 454 6556
New BioProducts Inc
O
4737 NW Elmwood Dr
Corvallis, Oregon 97330, USA
Tel +1 541 752 2045
Fax +1 541 754 3968
Ole Myhrene Krike
New Era Farm Service
Olson Products Inc
Nico Haasnoot bv
Zaltbommel, Netherlands
Tel +31 418 515 253
Fax +31 418 515 821
Contact: Mr Toon Melis
NISUS Corp
215 Dunavant Dr
Rockford, Tennessee 37853, USA
Tel +1 423 577 6119
Fax +1 618 797 0212
Nitron Industries Inc
PO Box 1447
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72702, USA
Tel +1 501 587 1777
Fax +1 501 587 0177
NOCON Sa de CV
Avenida Juárez S/N CP 56200
Apartado postal 333, San Simón
Texcoco, Edo de México, Mexico
Tel +52 595 415 76
Fax +52 595 415 76
Contact: Ing. Sergio Trueba
Nordflex AB
Box 507, S – 332 28
Gislaved, Sweden
Tel +46 371 845 00
Fax +46 371 108 10
Novartis Agro Benelux BV
Postbus 1048, Roosendaal
4700 BA, The Netherlands
Fax +31 228 312 818
PO Box 1043
Medina, Ohio 44258, USA
Tel +1 330 723 3210
Fax +1 330 723 9977
OM Scotts and Sons
14111 Scotts Lawn Road
Marysville, Ohio 43041, USA
Tel +1 937 644 0011
Fax +1 937 644 7509
Dr Peter Ooi
FAO Integrated Pest Control
Intercountry Programme
FAO Regional Office
Tel +632 818 6478 or 813 4229
Fax +632 812 7725 or 810 9409
Organic Plus
7050 Highway 123S
Seguin, Texas 78155, USA
Tel +1 210 372 3300
Fax +1 323 937 0123
P
Pacific Agriculture Research Centre
4200 Highway 97, Summerland
British Colombia VOH 1ZO, Canada
Tel +1 250 494 6355
Fax +1 250 494 0755
Pacific Southwest Forest and Range
Experiment Station
Forest Service USDA
1960 Addison St
Berkeley, California 94701, USA
Contact: Dr Jacqueline Roberton
Dr Ronald Noyes
Oklahoma State University
Stillwater, Oklahoma 11008, USA
Mr Henk Nuyten
Horticultural consultant
Meidoormstraat 116
4814 KG Breda, Netherlands
Tel +31 76 520 9461
Fax +31 76 520 9461
Dr Hülya Pala
Plant Protection Research Institute
Ministry of Agriculture
Adana, Turkey
Tel +90 322 321 1958
Fax +90 322 322 4820Email: [email protected]
Contact: Dr Seral Yücel
23004 Rd 140
Tulare, California 93274, USA
Tel +1 200 686 3833
Fax +1 209 686 1453
3410 Sylling, Norway
Fax +46 776 1285
243
Panth Produkter AB
Perma-Guard Inc
Fabriksvägen 7
742 34 Östhammar, Sweden
Tel +46 173 12617
Fax +46 173 213 27
www.panth.se
PO Box 25282
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87125, USA
Tel +1 505 873 3061
Dr Tom Papadopoulos
244
Greenhouse and Processing Crops Research Centre,
Research Branch
Agriculture & Agri-Food Canada
Harrow, Ontario
NOR 1GO, Canada
Tel +1 519 738 2251 x 423
Fax +1 519 738 2929
www.res.agr.ca/harrow
Permea Inc
11444 Lackland Road
St Louis, Missouri 63146, USA
Tel +1 314 995 3440
Fax +1 314 995 3500
Contact: Marketing Manager Controlled Atmospheres
Pest Control Services Inc
Unit 101-102, G/F Don Raul Building, 77 Kamuning
Road
Dilliman, Philippines
Tel +63 2 922 8815 or 4618
fax +63 2 813 3683
Contact: Mr Didi T Gonzalez
Dr E Paplomatas
Benaki Phytopathological Institute
8 S. Delta Street, 145 61 Kifissia
Athens, Greece
Pawa International Sales Agency PL
1063/3 951 Phachatipok Road
Tel +66 2 437 8952
Fax +66 2 437 8952
Peter van Luijk bv
Langewateringkade 35b
2295 RP Kwintsheul
The Netherlands
Tel +31 174 292 662
Fax +31 174 298 443
www.peval.nl
Dr Thomas Phillips
PayGro Co
PO Box W
S Charleston, Ohio 45368, USA
Tel +1 937 462 8358
Fax +1 937 462 7180
PBG Research Station for Floriculture and
Glasshouse Vegetables
Linnaeuslaan 2a, Aalsmeer
1431 JV, The Netherlands
Tel +31 297 352 525
Fax +31 297 352 270
www.agro.nl/pbg/
Oklahoma State University
127 Noble Research Center
Stillwater, Oklahoma 74078, USA
Tel +1 405 744 9408
Fax +1 405 744 6039
Philom Bios
318-111 Research Drive, Saskatoon
Saskatchewan S7N 2X8, Canada
Tel +1 306 668 8220
Fax +1 306 975 1215
Pindstrup Mosebrug SAE
PO Box 2209
Grass Valley, California 95945, USA
Tel +1 530 272 4769
Fax +1 530 272 4794
Carretera Burgos – Santander
km 11.700, Sotopalacios
Burgos 09140, Spain
Tel +34 947 441 000
Fax +34 947 441 003
Perma-Chink Systems, Inc
Ms Marta Pizano
1605 Prosser Road
Knoxville, Tennessee 37914, USA
Tel +1 865 524 7343
Fax +1 865 528 9471
www.permachink.com/
HortiTecnia
Carrera 19 No. 85 – 65 piso 2
Tel +571 621 8108
Fax +571 617 0730
Peaceful Valley Farm Supply
P Kooij & Zonen BV
Plastor Hazorea
PO Box 341, Aalsmer
1430 AH, The Netherlands
Tel +31 297 382038
Fax +31 297 382020
Kibbutz Hazorea
30060 Israel
Tel +972 4 959 8800
Fax +972 4 989 4250
Poliex SA
Planet Natural
PO Box 3146
Bozeman, Montana 59772, USA
Tel +1 406 587 5891
Fax +1 406 587 0223
Polígono Industrial s/n, Castalla
Alicante 03420, Spain
Tel +34 966 560 500
Fax +34 966 560 504
Polygal Plastic Industries Ltd
Plant Health Care
440 William Pitt Way
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15238, USA
Tel +1 412 826 5488
Ramat Hashofet 19238, Israel
Tel +972 4959 6222
Fax +972 4959 6281
www.polygal.com
Plant Health Technologies
926 E. Santa Ana
Tel +1 209 226 7032
Fax +1 209 226 7032
Polyon Inc, Israel (PolyWest)
4883 Ronson Court, Ste. R
San Diego, California 92111, USA
Tel +1 619 279 6393
Fax +1 619 279 6394
Plásticos Solanas SL
Plastigomez C Ltda
Avenida Vaca de Castro 164 y
Avenida de la Prensa
Quito, Ecuador
Tel +593 2 53 1053
Fax +593 2 591 774
Contact: Mr Danilo Jaramillo
Dr Ian Porter
Agriculture Victoria, Knoxfield
Private Bag 15 SE
Victoria VIC 3176, Australia
Tel +613 9210 9217
Fax +613 9800 3521
Power Plastics
Station Road, Thirsk
York YO7 1PZ, UK
Tel +44 1845 525 503
Fax +44 1845 525 485
Plastilene SA
Pristine Products
Km 8 Autopista Sur
Zona Industrial Cazucá
PO Box 11556
Tel +571 775 0800
Fax +571 778 0700
Contact: Mr Felipe Herrera
2311 E Indian School Road
Phoenix, Arizona 85016, USA
Tel +1 602 955 7031
Plastlit - Plásticos del Litoral
Edificio Banco La Previsora
Naciones Unidas y Amazonas Torre B 3er piso, Quito, Ecuador
Tel +593 2 460485
Fax +593 2 462 749
Prodeasa
Cami de Sant Roc s/n, Vilablareix
Girona 17180, Spain
Tel +34 972 241 929
Fax +34 972 231 659
www.prodeasa.es
Productos Químicos Andinos
Parque Industrial Manizales, T6 L8
Apartado Aéreo 2792
Manizales, Colombia
Tel +57 68 74 7626
Fax +57 68 74 2055
Contact: Luisa Escobar
Constitución 30 B, Cuarte
Zaragoza 50410, Spain
Tel +34 976 503 092
Fax +34 976 504 530
245
246
Productos Químicos Andinos Ecuador
PT Elang Laut
Panamericana Norte Km 10
Sector Carretas Lote 7
Quito, Ecuador
Tel +593 2 425 054 or 425 055
Fax +593 2 425 050
Adi Persada Building, Jalan Raden Saleh 45, PO Box
4688
Jakarta 10330, Indonesia
Tel +62 21 310 1764 or 1765
Fax +62 21 310 1766
Pro-Gro Products Inc
PTG Glasshouse Crops Research Station
841 Pro-Gro Drive, PO Box 1945
Elizabeth City, North Carolina 27909, USA
Tel or Fax +1 252 338 5128
PO Box 8, Naaldwijk, Netherlands
Tel +31 174 036 700
Fax +31 174 036 835
Propagar Plantas SA
PT Petrokimiya Kayaku
Laboratorio de Cultivo de Tejidos
Av Suba No 106A-28 Of. 701
Santafé de Bogatá, Colombia
Tel +571 91 675 1002
Tel +571 825 8652
Fax +571 825 8651
Contact: Ing. Rodolfo La Rota
Jalan Jend A Yani, Kotak Pos 107
Gresik 61101, Surabaya, Indonesia
Tel +62 31 981 815 or 831
Fax +62 31 981 830
Prophyta Biologischer Pflanzenschutz GmbH
Intelstrasse 12
D-23999 Malchow-Poel, Germany
Tel +49 384 25 230
Fax +49 384 25 2323
www.prophyta.com
Praxair Canada Inc
1 City Centre Drive, Suite 1200
Mississauga, Ontario L5B 1M2, Canada
Tel +1 514 856 7300
Fax +1 514 335 0677
www.praxair.com
Contact: Talaat Girgis
Premier Enterprises Ltd
326 Main Street
Red Hill, Pennsylvania 18076, USA
Tel (800) 424 2554
Fax +1 215 679 4119
PT Abdi Inshan Medal General Trading
Jalan Taman Sari IX No 15
Jakarta, Indonesia
Tel +62 21 629 0416 or 669 8937
PT Aneka Gas
Jalan Minangkabu 60
Jakarta, Indonesia
Tel +62 21 829 6108
Telex 48362 AKGAS IA
PT Sarana Agropratama
Cabang Pulo Mas, Jalan Jendral A Yani No 2, PO Box
285/JAT
Jakarta 13001, Indonesia
Tel +62 21 489 8118 x 211
Fax +62 21 489 2464
PT Sarana Utama Jaya
Jalan Kelapa Lilin IV, Ng 9/3
Kelapa Gading Permal
Jakarta, Indonesia
Tel +62 21 451 2342
Fax +62 21 451 242
Q
Qingzhou Sheng Hua Zhi Pin Factory
Qingzhou City 262519
Zhang Mu County, China
Tel +86 5469 681 117
Fax +86 5469 262 519
Quaker Oats Canada Ltd
34 Hunter Street West, Peterborough
Ontario K9J 7B2, Canada
Tel +1 705 743 6330 x 4219
Fax +1 705 876 4113
Contact: Mr Livingston Clarke
Quarantine Technologies
New Zealand
Tel +643 441 8173
Fax +643 441 8174
Contact: Dr Michael Williamson
Dr William Quarles
Remmers (borates) GmbH
Bio-Integral Resource Center
PO Box 7414
Berkely, California 94707, USA
Tel +1 510 524 2567
Fax +1 510 524 1758
www.igc.apc.org/birc/
PO Box 12 55, Löningen
D-49624, Germany
Tel +49 5432 83187
Fax +49 5432 83399
www.remmers.de
Contact: Mr HJ van Dijken
Rancho Tissue Technologies
PO Box 1138, Rancho
Santa Fe, California 92067, USA
Tel +1 619 756 6785
Fax +1 619 756 0894
Contact: Ms Heather May
Reciorganic Ltda
Diagonal 108A No. 6-2
Tel +571 218 7565
Fax +571 213 4234
Contact: Mr Gerardo Uribe
Recticel Ltd
Bluebell Close, Clover Nook
Industrial Park, Alfreston
Derbyshire DE55 4RD, UK
Tel +44 1773 835 721
Fax +44 1773 835 563
Recticel SA
Boulevard du General Leclerc 6
92115 Clichy, France
Tel +331 45 19 22 00
Fax +331 45 19 22 01
RECOMSA Reciclado de Compost SA
Carretera Quintanar-Casas Simarro 5, Quintanar del Rey
Cuenca 16220, Spain
Tel +34 967 571 041
Fax +34 967 571 041
Contact: Ing. Jose Gabriel Checa
Dr L Reis
Estaçao Agronomica Nacional
Quinta do Marques
2780 Oeiras, Portugal
Tel +35 11 441 6855
Fax +35 11 441 6011
Rentokil Germany
Wahlerstrasse 4, Düsseldorf
D-40472, Germany
Tel +49 211 9658 6101
Fax +49 211 6528 46
www.rentokil.de
Contact: Bio Team
Rentokil UK
Felcourt, East Grinstead
West Sussex RH19 2JY, UK
Tel +44 115 960 2551
Fax +44 134 232 6229
Contact: D Norton
Research Station for Floriculture
Linnaeuslaan 2A, Aalsmeer
1431 JV, The Netherlands
Tel +31 297 752 525
Fax +31 297 752 270
Rexius Forest Products
750 Chambers Street
PO Box 2276
Eugene, Oregon 97402, USA
Tel +1 503 342 1835
Fax +1 541 343 4802
Rijk Zwaan Nederland BV
Postbus 40
2678 ZG De Lier, Netherlands
Tel +31 174 532 300
Fax +31 174 515 334
www.rijkzwaan.nl
Rincon-Vitova Insectaries Inc
PO Box 1555
Ventura, California 93002, USA
Tel +1 805 643 5407
Fax +1 805 643 6267
Prof Rolf Röber
Institut für Zierpflanzenbau
Am Staudengarten 8
D-85350 Freising, Germany
Tel +49 8161 71 3363
Fax +49 8161 71 5106
www.fh-weihenstephan.de/va/
R
247
Rockwool-Industries AS
Ing. R Sanz, CCMA
Hovedgaden 584
SK-2640 Hedehusene, Denmark
Tel +45 46 560 300
Tel +45 46 563 311
www.rockwool.sk
Dpto Agroecologia, Centro de Ciencias
Medioambientales CCMA
CSIC, Serrano, 115 dpdo.
28006 Madrid, Spain
Tel +34 91 562 5020
Tel +34 981 564 0800
Dr Rodrigo Rodríguez-Kábana
248
Auburn University
209 Life Sciences Building
Auburn, Alabama 36849, USA
Tel +1 334 844 4714
Fax +1 224 844 1948
Dr F Romero
Centro de Investigación Las Torres, 41200 Alcalá del
Rio, Sevilla, Spain
Tel +34 5 565 0808
Fax +34 5 565 0373
Rose Exterminator Co
1025 Huntly Road
Niles, Michigan 49120, USA
Tel +1 616 683 9129
Fax +1 616 683 9249
Ruffneck Heaters
2827 Sunridge Blvd NE
Calgary, AB, T1Y 6G1, Canada
Tel +1 403 291 5488
Fax +1 403 291 7042
www.ruffneckheaters.com
Contact: Mr Alan LeBrun
S
S&A GmbH (Frisin)
Bahnhofstrasse 25
D-27419 Sittensen, Germany
Fax +49 2764 4400
Dr Abdur-Rahman Saghir
NCSR, Beirut
Lebanon
Sashco Sealants
10300 E 107th Place
Brighton, Colorado 80601, USA
Tel +1 880 767 5656
Western USA Contact: Melani Torrez
Eastern USA Contact: Karyn Nostrum
www.sashco.com/log/
Santamaria
Carrera 19 # 85 – 85
Tel +571 636 5937
Fax +571 636 5514
Contact: Mr German Salazar
Santamaria
Via San Rocco 19
Bevera di Ventimiglia
IM, Italy
Tel +39 184 21 0026
Fax +39 184 21 0242
Contact: Mr Sergio Santamaria
Sanyo Aircon & Refrigeration Div
Street 1-1 Sakata 1-chome
Oizumi-cho District
Ora-gun City 370-05
Gumma Country, Japan
Tel +81 276 618 111
Fax +81 276 918 838
Saskatoon Boiler Manufacturing
2011 Quebec Avenue, Saskatoon
Saskatchewan S7K 1W5, Canada
Tel +1 306 652 7022
Fax +1 306 652 7870
Prof M Satour
San Jacinto Environmental Supplies
2221-A West 34th Street
Houston, Texas 77018, USA
Tel +1 880 444 1290
Fax +1 713 957 0707
Contact: Mr Peter Cangelosi
Agricultural Institute
Cario, Egypt
Fax +202 384 4899 or 5723 146
SB Talee
SGS Far East Ltd
Calle 82 No. 11 – 83 Of 501
Tel +571 256 8640
Fax +571 218 4864
Contact: Mr Celiar Noreña
994 Soi Thonglor, Sukhumvit Road 55
Prakanong, Bangkok 10110, Thailand
Tel +66 2 392 1066
Fax +66 2 381 2022
2641 W. Woodland Drive
Anaheim, California 92801, USA
Tel +1 714 761 3292
Contact: Mr John Sansone
Dr Elmer Schmidt
Department of Wood and Paper Science
University of Minnesota
203 Kaufert Lab, 2004 Folwell Avenue
St. Paul, Minnesota 55108, USA
Tel +1 612 624 4792
Fax +1 612 625 6286
Scotts Company
Marysville, Ohio 43041, USA
Tel +1 513 644 0011
www.scottscompany.com
Scotts-Sierra
PO Box 4003
Milpitas, California 95035, USA
Tel +1 880 492 8255
Seabright Laboratories
4067 Watts Street
Emeryville, California 94608-3604, USA
Tel +1 880 284 7363
Fax +1 510 654 7982
www.seabrightlabs.com
Subtropical Horticulture Research Station, USDA-ARS
13601 Old Cutler Road
Miami, Florida 33158, USA
Dr Krista Shellie
Center
USDA-ARS
2413 E. Hwy 83 Bldg 200
Tel +1 956 447 6312
Fax +1 956 447-6345
[email protected]
SIAPA
Via Vitorio Veneto 1 Galliera
Bologna 40010, Italy
Tel +39 051 815 508
Fax +39 051 812 069
SiberHegner Lenersan Poortman BV
PO Box 889, Dordrecht
3300 AW, The Netherlands
Tel +31 78 622 06 22
Fax +31 78 622 06 08
Contact: Mr PKD de Vries
SIDHOC Sino Dutch Horticultural Training and
Demonstration Centre
No.2, Zhen Dong Lu, Nanhui CountyShanghai 201303,
China
[email protected]
Selecta Klemm
Prof Richard Sikora
Carrera 9 No. 80 – 15 Of. 1002
Tel +571 255 9048
Fax +571 255 7596
Contact: Mr Camilo Santamaria
University of Bonn
Nussallee 9
Tel +49 228 732 439
Fax +49 228 732 432
Selecta Klemm
Hanfäcker 10
70378 Stuttgart, Germany
Tel +49 711 9532 50
Fax +49 711 9532 540
Sino Dutch Training and Demonstration
Centre, SIDHOC
No.2, Zhen Dong Lu, Nanhui County
Shanghai 201303, China
[email protected]
SCC Products
Dr Jennifer Sharp
249
Sioux Steam Cleaner Corp
Southern Importers
One Sioux Plaza
Beresford, South Dakota 57004, USA
Tel +1 605 763 3333
Fax +1 605 763 3334
www.siouxsteam.com
PO Box 8579
Greensboro, North Carolina 27419, USA
Tel +1 336 292 4521
Fax +1 336 852 6397
www.southernimporters.com
Contact: Ms Georgia Kinney
Sluis & Groot
Postbus 26, 1600 AA
Enkhuizen, Netherlands
Dr Edwin Soderstrom
250
USDA-ARS
Horticultural Crops Research Laboratory
2021 Smith Peach Avenue
Tel +1 209 453 3029
Soil Technologies Corp.
2103 185th Street
Fairfield, Iowa 52556, USA
Tel +1 515 472 3963
Fax +1 515 472 6189
Solplast
Murcia, Spain
Tel +34 967 461 311
www.solplast.es
South Pine Inc
PO Box 530127
Birmingham, Alabama 35253, USA
Tel +1 205 879 1099
Spectrum Technologies Inc
23839 W. Andrew Rd
Plainfield, Illinois 60544, USA
Tel +1 880 248 8873
Fax +1 815 436 4460
www.specmeters.com
Contact: Mr Kevin M Thurow
Dr Yitzhak Spiegel
Institute of Plant Protection
PO Box 6, Bet-Dagan 50250, Israel
Tel +97 23 968 3437
Fax +97 23 960 4180
Sonoma Composts
550 Meacham Road
Petaluma, California 94952, USA
Tel +1 707 664 9113
Fax + 1 707 664 1943
www.sonomacompost.com
Dr Lim Guan Soon
International Institute of Biological Control, Regional
Office for Asia
IIBC Station, PO Box 210, 43409 UPM Serdang
Selangor, Malaysia
Tel +603 942 6489
Fax +603 942 6490
Sotrafa
Carretera Nacional 340, km 416,4
El Ejido, Almería 04700, Spain
Tel +34 950 580 442
Fax +34 950 580 233
Contact: Ing. Carlos López García
SPIROU Co
S Marconi Street
142 22 Athens, Greece
Sprague Pest Solutions
PO Box 2222
Tacoma, Washington 98401-2222, USA
Tel +1 253-272-4400
Fax +1 253-272-9676
Contact: Mr Jeff Weier
Dr James Stapleton
Univerisity of California
Tel +1 209 646 6536
Fax +1 209 646 6593
Statewide IPM Project
Parlier, CA 93648, USA
Tel +1 209 646 6000
Fax +1 209 646 6015
www.ipm.ucdavis.edu
Steamist Company
Subtropical Agriculture Research Laboratory,
PO Box 1171
275 Veterans Blvd
Rutherford, New Jersey 07070, USA
Tel +1 201 933 0700
Fax +1 201 933 0746
www.steamist.com
Contact: John Duggan
Center
USDA-ARS
2413 E Hwy 83, Bldg 200
Weslaco, Texas78596, USA
Contact: Dr Robert Mangan, Dr Krista Shellie
Prof Alison Stewart
Plant Science Department
Lincoln University, Canterbury
New Zealand
Tel +643 325 2811
Stine Microbial Products
6613 Haskins
Shawnee, Kansas 66216, USA
Tel +1 913 268 7504
Fax +1 913 268 7504
Sukhtian Co
PO Box 1027
Amman, Jordan
Tel +962 6 568 8888
Fax +962 6 560 1568
Sulzer GmbH
Refrigeration Division
Kemptener Strasse 11-15
88131 Lindau
Germany
Tel +49 838 270 62 59
Fax +49 838 273 202
Adel, Iowa 50003, USA
Tel +1 515 677 2605
Suata Plants (Chile)
Casilla 60 Lampa
Santiago, Chile
Tel +562 243 1611 or 842 6071
Fax +562 243 3030
Suata Plants SA (Colombia)
Calle 124 No. 35 – 15 Of 202
PO Box 54399
Tel +571 619 8491
Fax +571 215 9988
www.suataplants.com.co
Contact: Mr Julio Piñeros
Suata Plants SA (Ecuador)
Antonio Navarro 148 y Whimper
Quito, Ecuador
Tel +593 222 6045 or 970 6451
Fax +593 222 6045
Suata Plants SA (Mexico)
Heroes del 14 Septiembre No. 20
Estado de México CP, Mexico
Tel +52 714 600 34 or 67
Fax +52 714 600 67
University of Georgia
Coastal Plain Station
PO Box 748
Tifton, Georgia 31793, USA
Tel +1 912 386 3370
Fax +1 912 386 7285
Sustainable Agriculture Research and
Education Program (SAREP)
One Shields Avenue
Tel +1 530 752 7556
Fax +1 530 754 8550
Sustane Corp
PO Box 19
Cannon Falls, Minnesota 55009, USA
Tel +1 507 263 3003
Fax +1 507 263 3029
Sylvan Spawn Laboratory
West Hills Industrial Park
Kittanning, Pennsylvania16201, USA
Tel +1 412 543 2242
T
Tallon Termite and Pest Control
5702 Pioneer
Bakersville, California 93306, USA
Tel +1 805 366 0516
Fax +1 805 366 0573
Dr Donald Sumner
Stine Seed Co
251
Dr Bob Taylor
The Green Spot Ltd
Cental Avenue, Chatham Maritime
Chatham, Kent ME4 4TB, UK
Tel +44 1634 88 3778
Fax +44 1634 88 3567
93 Priest Road, Nottingham
NH 03290-6204, USA
Tel +1 603 942 8925
Fax +1 603 942 8932
Thermeta
Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural
Co-operation
Postbus 380, Wageningen
6700 AJ, The Netherlands
Tel +31 317 467 100
Fax +31 317 460 067
252
Westlandse weg 14
14 Wateringen, Netherlands
Thermo Lignum UK
Technisches Bericht Forschungsanstalt
Geisenheim – Gemüsebau
Unit 19, Grand Union Centre
West Row, London W10 5AS, UK
Tel +44 181 964 3964
Fax +44 181 964 2969
Contact: Ms Karen Roux, Director
Von-Lade-Strasse 1
D-6222 Geisenheim/Rh., Germany
Thermo Lignum Germany
Dr Javier Tello
Dpto Producción Vegetal
Biología Vegetal y Ecología
Universidad de Almería
Canada S Urbano s/n 04120
Almería, Spain
Tel +34 950 215 527
Fax +34 950 215 519
Dr Mario Tenuta
Pest Management Research Centre
1391 Sandiford Street
London, Ontario N5V 4T3, Canada
Tel +1 519 663 3099
Fax +1 519 663 3454
Maschinen-Vertriebs GmbH
Landhausstrasse 17
D-6900 Heidelberg, Germany
Tel +49 6221 163 466
Fax +49 6221 200 81
Contact: Mr H-W v Rotberg
Thermo Trilogy
9145 Guilford Road, suite 175
Tel +1 301 604 7340
Fax +1 301 604 7015
Timber Technology Research Group
Department of Biology
Imperial College, London SW2, UK
Fax +44 20 7873 2486
Tézier rootstock
Prof Eleuterios Tjamos
Boite postal 34A
Tézier, France
Fax +334 75 53 83 52
Dpt of Plant Pathology
Agricultural University of Athens
Votanikos 11855
Athens, Greece
TGT Inc
122 North Genesee Street
Tel +1 315 781 1703
Fax +1 315 781 1793
Thai Industrial Gases Ltd
22/26 Poochaosmingprai Road, PO Box 1026
Smutprakarn 10130
Bangkok, Thailand
Tel +66 2 394 4219
Thai Department of Agriculture
Stored Products Laboratory
Chatuchak, Bangkok, Thailand
Tel +662 579 8576
Fax +662 579 8535
Tobacco Research Board
Kutsaga Research Station
PO Box 1909
Harare, Zimbabwe
Tel +26 34 575 289/94
Fax +26 34 575 288
Contact: Dr Gareth Thomas
Prof Franco Tognoni
Dipartemento di Biologia delle Plante Agrarie, Viale
delle Piagga 23
58124 Pisa, Italy
Tel +39 050 570 420
Fax +39 050 570 421
Topp Construction Services Inc
Turbas GF
PO Box 467
Media, Pennsylvania 19063, USA
Tel 1 800 892 TOPP (in North America only)
Website www.safeheat.com
Carretera de Segura s/n, Idiazábal
Cuipúzcoa 20213, Spain
Tel +34 943 187 567
Fax +34 943 187 311
Turco Silvestro e Figli SnC
Bioherfelder Strasse 39
Oldenburg D-2900, Germany
Tel +49 441 700 30
Fax +49 441 720 01
Via Dalmazia 95
17031 Albegna, SV, Italy
Tel +39 0182 513 88
Fax +39 0182 540 548
Contact: Mr Biagio Turco
TransFRESH Corp
Dr Anne Turner
Salinas, California 93902, USA
Tel +1 408 772 7269
Contact: Susan Ajeska
For more information:
Contact: Gwen Peake
Fineman Associates
San Francisco, California, USA
Tel +1 415 777 6933
Agricultural consultant
OPPAZ
PO Box 34465
Lusaka, Zambia
Transplant Systems Ltd
U
PO Box 295, Berwick
Victoria 3806, Australia
Tel +613 9769 9733
Fax +613 9769 9722
Tur-Net
Ringoven 20, Veldhoven
5502 DB, The Netherlands
UNIFERT Co
PO Box 6965
Amman, Jordan
Tel +962 6 568 1331 or 1332
Fax +962 6 568 2465
Transplant Systems Ltd
Box 29-074, Christchurch
New Zealand
Tel +643 348 2823
Fax +643 348 2824
United Phosphorus
167 Dr Annie Bezant Road, Worli
Bombay 400 018, India
Tel +91 22 493 0681 or 0560
Fax +91 22 493 826
Triton Umweltschutz GmbH
Zoebiger Strasse 24-25
D-06749 Bitterfeld, Germany
Tel +49 349 373 509
Fax +49 349 373 909
www.umwelt-triton.de
Universidad Autónoma de Chapingo
Tropical Fruit and Vegetable Research
Laboratory
University of Bonn
USDA Agricultural Research Service
PO Box 4459
Tel +1 808 959 9138
Fax +1 808 959 5470
Dr Thomas Trout
USDA-ARS
Water Management Research Laboratory
2021 S. Peach Ave
Tel +1 559 453 3101
Fax +1 559 453 3122
Estado de México, Mexico
Tel +52 595 422 00 x 180
Fax +52 595 496 92
Contact: Dr Nahum Marbán Mendoza
University of Bonn
Nussallee 9
Tel +49 228 732 439
Fax +49 228 732 432
Contact: Prof Richard Sikora
Torfstreuverband GmbH
253
Van Staaveren BV (Colombia)
IPM Project
Tel +1 209 646 6000
Fax +1 209 646 6015
www.ipm.ucdavis.edu
PO Box 89477
Tel +571 864 0804
Fax +571 864 0776
Contact: Mr Alvaro Velasco
One Shields Avenue
Tel +1 530 752 1011
254
Department of Agricultural Engineering
3050 Maile Way
Honolulu, Hawaii 96822, USA
Contact: Dr P Winkelman
Department of Entomology, Beaumont Agricultural
Research Center
Tel +1 808 974 4105
Fax +1 808 974 4110
Contact: Dr Arnold Hara
University of Zimbabwe
Van Staaveren BV
PO Box 265, Aalsmeer
Lavendelweg 15, Rijsenhout
1430 AG, The Netherlands
Tel +31 297 387 000
Fax +31 297 387 070
Web www.vanstaaveren.nl
Van Waters and Rogers
P.O. Box 34325
Seattle, Washington 98124-1325, USA
Tel +1 425 889 3400
Fax +1 425 889 4100
www.vwr-inc.com
Vegetable Research and Information Center,
c/o Kearney Agricultural Center
9240 South Riverbend Avenue
Tel +1 209 646 6000
Fax +1 209 646 6015
Crop Science Department
PO Box MP 167, Mount Pleasant
Harare, Zimbabwe
Tel +26 34 303 211
Fax +26 34 333 407
Victory Upholstery and Canvas Store
Urban Pest Control Research Center
Vilter Manufacturing Corp
672 Gandara Street, Santa Cruz
Tel +63 2 492 766 or 495 701
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
and State University
Blacksburg, Virginia 24061-0319, USA
Tel +1 315 540 231
5555 South Packard Avenue
PO Box 8904
Cudahy, Wisconsin 53110-8904, USA
Tel: +1 414 744 0111
Fax: +1 414 744 3483
US Borax Inc
Vivaio Leopardi
26877 Tourney Road
Valencia, California 91355-1847, USA
Tel +1 661 287 5400
Di Leopardi e C.
Osimo, AN, Italy
http://noria.ba.cnr.it/tepore/Convegno_innesto.htm
V
VLACO VZW
Dr D Vakalounakis
N.AG.RE.F, Plant Protection Institute
Heraklion, Crete, Greece
Kan. De Deckerstraat 22-26
2800 Mechelen, Belgium
Tel +32 15 208 320
Fax +32 15 218 335
Vortus BV
Wilbur-Ellis
Olivier van Noortstraat 4
3142 LA Schiedam, Netherlands
Tel +31 10 471 2858
Fax +31 10 471 3158
PO Box 1286
Tel +1 209 442 1220
Fax +1 209 442 4089
W
Mr Peter Wilkinson
PO Box 62-140, Mount Wellington
Tel +649 276 5840
Fax +649 276 0330
www.waipuna.com
Waipuna USA Inc
701 West Buena #3
Chicago, Illinois 60613, USA
Tel +1 773 255 8355
Fax +1 773 348 0516
Dr Vern Walter
WAW Inc, PO Box 465
Leakey, Texas 78873, USA
Tel +1 830 232 5834
Prof Tang Wenhau
Dept. Plant Pathology
China Agricultural University
Beijing 100094, China
Tel +86 10 628 930 37
Fax +86 10 628 910 25
Weyerhaeuser Corporation, USA
Weyerhaeuser Company
CH 1K35C
P.O. Box 9777
Federal Way, Washington 98063-977, USA
Tel +1 253 924 2345
www.weyerhaeuser.com
Westco Agencies (M) Sdn. Bhd
52C Jalan SS 22/25, Damansara Jaya
47409 Petaling Jaya
Selangor, Malaysia
Tel +60 3 719 1617
Fax +60 3 719 1617
WholeWheat Enterprises
6598 Bethany Lane
Louisville, Kentucky 40272, USA
Tel +1 502 935 8692
Fax +1 502 935 9236
www.permaguard.com
IPM consultant, Xylocopa
PO Box 1011, Borrowdale
Harare, Zimbabwe
Tel +263 488 2094
Fax +263 488 3936
Dr LH Williams
USDA Forest Experimental Station
New Orleans, LA, USA
Tel +1 880 4565 7100
Dr Michael Williamson
Quarantine Technologies
New Zealand
Tel +643 441 8173
Fax +643 441 8174
Prof Gerhard Wolf
Institut für Pflanzenpathologie
Georg-August Universität
Grisebachstrasse 6
D-37077, Göttingen, Germany
Tel +49 551 393 783
Fax +49 551 394 187
Woods End Research Laboratory
PO Box 297
Mt Vernon, Maine 04352, USA
Tel +1 207 293 2457 or 1-800-451-0337
Fax +1 207 293 2488
www.woodsend.org
Dr Peter Workman
Tel +649 849 3660
Fax +649 815 4201
WR Grace & Co, USA
7500 Grace Drive
Tel +1 410 531 4000
Fax: +1 410 531 4367
Waipuna International Ltd
255
256
Wrightson Seeds
Z
Melbourne, Australia
Tel +613 9360 9910
Fax +613 9360 9940
Contact: Mr Rod Way
Zeneca
X
Syngenta, Schwarzwald allee 215
CH-4002 Basel, Switzerland
Tel +41 61 697 1111
www.zeneca.com
Xylocopa Systems PL
Dr Larry Zettler, USDA-ARS
PO Box 1011, Borrowdale
Harare, Zimbabwe
Tel +26 34 882 094
Fax +26 34 882 094
Contact: Peter Wilkinson, IPM consultant
Y
York International GmbH
Postfach 100465
D-68004 Mannheim
Germany
Tel +49 621 4680
Fax +49 621 468 654
Horticultural Crops Research Laboratory
2021 S Peach Ave
Fresno CA 93727, USA
Tel +1 559 453 3023
Fax +1 559 453 3088
University of Zimbabwe
Crop Science Department
PO Box MP 167, Mount Pleasant
Harare, Zimbabwe
Tel +26 34 303 211
Fax +26 34 333 407
Zip Research
PO Box CY301, Causeway
Harare, Zimbabwe
Tel +26 34 726 911
Contact: Dr Sam Page
Annex 7
References, Websites and
Further Information
EEP 1998. Environmental Effects of Ozone Depletion: 1998 Assessment. Environmental Effects Panel.
United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.
Le Prestre PG et al 1998. Protecting the Ozone Layer: Lessons, Models and Prospects. Kluwer Academic
Publishers, Norwell, Massachusetts, USA and Dordrecht, Netherlands.
MBTOC 1994. Report of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee. United Nations Environment
Programme, Nairobi, Kenya. 303pp. Available on website: http://www.teap.org
MBTOC 1998. Assessment of Alternatives to Methyl Bromide: Report of the Methyl Bromide Technical
Options Committee. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya. 354pp. Available on website: http://www.teap.org
TEAP 1999. The Quarantine and Pre-Shipment Exemption of Methyl Bromide. In Report of the Technology
and Economic Assessment Panel, April 1999. Vol. 2. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi,
Kenya.
SORG 1996. Stratospheric Ozone 1996. UK Stratospheric Ozone Review Group. Department of the
Environment, London, UK.
WMO 1994. Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 1994. Global Ozone Research and Monitoring
Project, Report No. 37. World Meteorological Organisation, Geneva, Switzerland.
WMO 1998. Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 1998. Global Ozone Research and Monitoring
Project, Report No. 44. World Meteorological Organisation, Geneva, Switzerland.
Section 2 Guidance for selecting non-ODS techniques
No references cited in this Section.
Section 3 Control of soil-borne pests
Gyldenkaerne S, Yohalem D & Hvalsøe E 1997. Production of Flowers and Vegetables in Danish
Greenhouses: Alternatives to Methyl Bromide. Danish Environmental Protection Agency, Copenhagen,
Denmark.
Katan J 1999. The methyl bromide issue: problems and potential solutions. Journal of Plant Pathology 81,
3, p.153-159.
Klein L 1996. Methyl bromide as a soil fumigant. In Bell CH, Price N and Chakrabarti B (eds) 1996. The
Methyl Bromide Issue. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, UK.
Lung G et al 1999. Demonstration of available alternative technologies to methyl bromide in different
crop systems: GTZ demonstration project in Egypt. GTZ, Eschborn, Germany.
Programme, Nairobi, Kenya. 303pp. Available on website: www.teap.org
Rodríguez-Kábana R 1999. Personal communication.
Annex 7: References, Websites and Further Information
Section 1 Introduction
257
Section 4 Alternative techniques for controlling soil-borne pests
Section 4.1 IPM and cultural practices
258
Anon 1978 to present. Grower’s Weed Identification Handbook. Publication 4030. Division of Agriculture
and Natural Resources, University of California, Oakland, California, USA.
Anon undated. List of information, products and publications from Alternative Farming Systems
Information Center. National Agriculture Library, Beltsville, Maryland, USA.
Anon 1993. Cultural Weed Control in Vegetable Crops. Video. Division of Agriculture and Natural
Resources, University of California, Oakland, California, USA.
Altieri MA 1990. Agroecology. Westview Press, Colorado, USA.
ATTRA undated. Sustainable Turf Care. Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas, Fayetteville,
Arkansas, USA. Available on website: http://www.attra.org
ATTRA undated. Sustainable Small-Scale Nursery Production. Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural
Areas, Fayetteville, Arkansas, USA.
ATTRA undated. Manures for Vegetable Crop Production. Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas,
Fayetteville, Arkansas, USA.
ATTRA undated. Alternative Nematode Control. Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas,
ATTRA undated. Companion Planting. Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas, Fayetteville,
Arkansas, USA.
ATTRA undated. Strawberries: Organic and IPM Options. Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas,
ATTRA undated. Organic Tomato Production. Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas, Fayetteville,
Arkansas, USA.
ATTRA undated. Alternative Soil Testing Laboratories. Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas,
ATTRA undated. Farm-Scale Composting Resource List. Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas,
ATTRA undated. Overview of Cover Crops and Green Manures. Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural
Areas, Fayetteville, Arkansas, USA.
Bello A 1998. Biofumigation and integrated crop management. In Bello A et al (eds). Alternatives to
Methyl Bromide for the Southern European Countries. European Commission DGXI, Brussels, Belgium and
CSIC Madrid, Spain. p.99-126.
Benbrook C et al 1996. Pest Management at the Crossroads. Consumers Union, Yonkers, New York, USA.
Available at website: http://www.pmac.net
Besri M 1997a. Integrated management of soil-borne diseases in the Mediterranean protected vegetable
cultivation. In Albajes R and Camero A (eds). Integrated Control in Protected Crops in the Mediterranean
Climate. International Organisation for Biological Control, IOBC Bulletin 20, 4, p.45-57.
Besri M 1997b. Alternatives to methyl bromide for preplant protected cultivation of vegetables in the
Mediterranean developing countries. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide
Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. 3-5 November, San Diego, California, USA.
Bugg RL et al 1991. The Cover Crops Database. Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program,
University of California, Davis, California, USA.
Coleman E 1989. The New Organic Grower: A Master’s Manual of Tools and Techniques. Chelsea Green,
White River Junction, Vermont USA. 269pp.
Cook RJ and Baker KF 1983. The Nature and Practice of Biological Control of Plant Pathogens. American
Phytopathological Society, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA. 539pp.
Diver S and Sullivan P 1991. Cover Crops and Green Manures. Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural
Areas, Fayettesville, Arkansas, USA.
Heald CM 1987. Classical nematode management practices. In Veech JA and Dickson DW (eds). Vistas on
Nematology. Society of Nematologists, Hyattsville, Maryland, USA.
Herman T 1995. IPM for Processing Tomatoes. IPM Manual No. 5. Crop and Food Research, Auckland,
New Zealand.
Hornby D 1990. Biological Control of Soil-Borne Plant Pathogens. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.
496pp.
Ingels C et al 1998. Cover Cropping in Vineyards: A Grower’s Handbook. Publication 3338. Division of
Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California, Oakland, California, USA.
James RL et al 1994. Alternative technologies for management of soilborne diseases in bareroot forest
nurseries in the United States. In Landis TD (ed). Proceedings: Northeastern and Intermountain Forest and
Conservation Nursery Associations. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-243. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range
Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA. p.91-96.
Julien MH and Griffiths MW 1998. Biological Control of Weeds: A World Catalogue of Agents and Their
Target Weeds. 4th edition. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. 240pp.
Kaack H 1999. Personal communication. GTZ IPM project, Rabat, Morocco.
Karlen OL et al 1994. Crop rotations for the 21st century. In Sparks DL. Advances in Agronomy. Vol 53.
Academic Press, San Diego, California, USA and London, UK. p.1-45.
Katan J 1999. The methyl bromide issue: problems and solutions. Journal of Plant Pathology 81, p.153159.
Ketzis J 1992. Case studies of the virtual elimination of methyl bromide soil fumigation in Germany and
Switzerland and the alternatives employed. Proceedings of the International Workshop on Alternatives to
Methyl Bromide for Soil Fumigation. 19-23 October 1992, Rotterdam, Netherlands and Rome/Latina, Italy.
Lanini WT and LeStrange M 1991. Low input management of weeds in vegetable fields. California
Agriculture. 45,1, p.11-13.
DLV 1995. De Teelt Van Aardbeien [How to Grow Strawberries]. DLV Horticultural Advisory Service, Horst,
Netherlands.
DLV 2000. Aardbeienteelt In De Vollegrond [Growing Strawberries in the Open Field]. DLV Horticultural
Advisory Service, Horst, Netherlands (in press).
DLV 2000. Teelttechniek Glasaardbeien [Growing Techniques for Greenhouse Strawberries]. DLV
Horticultural Advisory Service, Horst, Netherlands (in press).
Dreistadt SH 1994. Pests of Landscape Trees and Shrubs: An Integrated Pest Management Guide.
Publication 3359. Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California, Oakland,
California, USA.
Evans K, Trudgill DL and Webster JM (eds) 1993. Plant Parasitic Nematodes in Temperate Agriculture. CAB
International, Wallingford, UK. 656pp.
Ferraze LL et al 1996. Materia orgânica cobertura morta e outros fatores fisicos que influenciam na forma
ao de appotécios de Sclerotinia sclerotiorum em solos de cerrado. In Pereira RC and Nasser LCB (eds).
Annais do VIII Simpósio Sobre o Cerrado. Brasilia, Brazil. p.297-301.
Flint ML 1990. Pests of the Garden and Small Farm: A Grower’s Guide to Using Less Pesticide. Publication
No. 3332. Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California, Oakland, California,
USA.
Frankel SJ et al 1996. Alternatives to fumigation in forest nurseries in the western United States. Annual
International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. Methyl
Bromide Alternatives Outreach, Fresno, California, USA.
Grubinger V 1990. Living Mulch for Vegetable Production. Extension Service, University of Vermont,
Wyndham County, Vermont, USA. 13 pp.
GTZ 1999. Demonstration of Available Alternative Technologies to Methyl Bromide in Different Crop
Systems. GTZ IPM project, Cairo, Egypt.
GTZ 1994. Integrated Pest Management Guidelines. GTZ, Eschborn, Germany.
259
260
Liebman M and Dyck E 1993. Crop rotation and intercropping strategies for weed management.
Ecological Applications 3, p.92-122.
Luc M, Sikora RA and Bridge J 1990. Plant Parasitic Nematodes in Subtropical and Tropical Agriculture.
CAB International, Wallingford, UK. 648pp.
Luna J and Rutherford S 1989. A minimum tillage no-herbicide production system for transplanted vegetable crops using winter-annual legume cover crops. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
Blacksburg, Virginia, USA.
Lung G 1997. Biological control of nematodes with the enemy plant Tagetes spp. Integrated Production
and Protection. International Symposium, 6-7 May 1997.
Lung G 1999. Grafting system in vegetable crops. University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany.
Lung G et al 1999. Demonstration of available alternative technologies to methyl bromide in different
crop systems: GTZ demonstration project in Egypt. PN 98.2018.4-113.01. GTZ, Eschborn, Germany.
Martin N 1996. IPM for Outdoor Roses. IPM Manual No.9. Crop and Food Research, Auckland, New
Zealand.
Martin N 1995. IPM for Greenhouse Tomatoes. IPM Manual No.1. Crop and Food Research, Auckland,
New Zealand.
Martin N (ed) 1994. IPM for Greenhouse Capsicums. IPM Manual No. 7. Crop and Food Research,
Auckland, New Zealand.
Martin N (ed) 1993. IPM for Greenhouse Cucumbers. IPM Manual No.3. Crop and Food Research,
Martin N and Workman P 1994. IPM for Greenhouse Roses. IPM Manual No.8. Crop and Food Research,
McGuire WS and Hannaway DB 1984. Cover and green manure crops for Northwest nurseries. In Duryea
ML and Landis TD (eds). Forest Nursery Manual: Production of Bareroot Seedlings. Martinus Nijhoff, The
Hague, Netherlands and D W Junk, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. p.87-91.
Peet M 1995. Sustainable Practices for Vegetable Production in the South. Extension report. North
Carolina State University, Focus Publishing, Newburyport, Massachusetts, USA.
Pesticides Trust 1999. Progressive Pest Management: Controlling Pesticides and Implementing IPM. The
Pesticides Trust, Brixton, London, UK. Available on website: http://www.gn.apc.org/pesticidestrust
Power JF 1994. Overview of green manures/cover crops. In Landis TD (ed). Proceedings: Northeastern and
Intermountain Forest and Conservation Nursery Associations. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-243. Rocky Mountain
Forest and Range Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA. p.47-50.
Quarles W 1997. Alternatives to methyl bromide in forest nurseries. The IPM Practitioner 19, 3, p.1-14.
Quarles W and Daar S 1996. IPM Alternatives to Methyl Bromide. Bio-Integral Resource Center, Berkeley,
California, USA.
Reis LGL 1998. Alternatives to methyl bromide in vegetable crops in Portugal. In Bello A et al (eds).
Alternatives to Methyl Bromide for the Southern European Countries. European Commission DGXI,
Brussels, Belgium and CSIC, Madrid, Spain. p.43-52.
Reuveni R (ed) 1995. Novel Approaches to Integrated Pest Management. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton,
Florida, USA. 369pp.
Rodale Institute 1992. Managing Cover Crops Profitably. 1st edition. Sustainable Agriculture Research and
Education Program, US Dept. Agriculture, USA. 114 pp.
SAN 1997. Steel in the Field: A Farmers Guide to Weed Management Tools. Sustainable Agriculture
Network, USA. 128pp. Available on website: http://www.sare.org
SAN 1998. Managing Cover Crops Profitably. Sustainable Agriculture Network, USA. Available on website:
http://www.sare.org
UC 1991. Establishing IPM Policies and Programs. Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University
of California, Oakland, California, USA. 10pp.
Shaw D and Larson K 1996. Relative performance of strawberry cultivars from California and other North
American sources in fumigated and non-fumigated soils. Journal of American Society of Horticultural
Science 121, 5, p.764-767.
South DB 1986. A look back at mechanical weed control. In Schroeder RA (ed). Proceedings of the
Southern Forest Nursery Association. Southern Forest Nursery Association, Pensacola, Florida, USA.
Strand LL 1994. Integrated Pest Management for Strawberries. Publication 3351. Division of Agriculture
and Natural Resources, University of California, Oakland, California, USA. 142pp. (also listed under UC
publications below).
Strand LL et al 1998. Integrated Pest Management for Tomatoes. Publication 3274. Division of Agriculture
and Natural Resources, University of California, Oakland, California, USA. 118pp. (also listed under UC
publications below).
Stauder AF 1994. The use of green overwinter mulch in the Illinois state nursery program. In Landis TD
(ed). Proceedings: Northeastern and Intermountain Forest and Conservation Nursery Associations. Gen.
Tech. Rep. RM-243. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service, Fort
Collins, Colorado, USA.
Tang W 1999. Personal communication. China Agricultural University, Beijing, China.
Tello J 1998. Crop management as an alternative to methyl bromide in Spain. In Bello A et al (eds).
Alternatives to Methyl Bromide for the Southern European Countries. European Commission DGXI,
Brussels, Belgium and CSIC Madrid, Spain.
Tjamos EC, Papavizas GC and Cook RJ 1992. Biological Control of Plant Diseases: Progress and Challenges
for the Future. Plenum Press, New York, USA. 462pp.
Thurston HD et al 1994. Slash/Mulch: How Farmers Use It and What Researchers Know About It. Cornell
Institute for Food, Agriculture and Development, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA. 302pp.
Trivedi PC and Barker KR 1986. Management of nematodes by cultural practices. Nematropica 16, p.213236.
UC 1999. Integrated Pest Management for Apples and Pears. Division of Agriculture and Natural
UC 1999. Integrated Pest Management Guidelines for Floriculture. Division of Agriculture and Natural
UC 1998. Integrated Pest Management for Tomatoes. Publication 3274. Division of Agriculture and
Natural Resources, University of California, Oakland, California, USA. 120pp.
UC 1998. Cover Cropping in Vineyards: A Grower’s Handbook. Publication 3338. Division of Agriculture
and Natural Resources, University of California, Oakland, California, USA. 168pp.
UC 1998. Grower’s Weed Identification Handbook. Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources,
University of California, Oakland, California, USA. 272pp.
UC 1996. Cultivos de Cobertura para la Agricultura de California. Division of Agriculture and Natural
UC 1995. Compost Production and Utilization: A Growers’ Guide. Division of Agriculture and Natural
UC 1995. Biological Control in the Western United States. Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources,
University of California, Oakland, California, USA. 366pp.
UC 1994. Integrated Pest Management for Strawberries. Publication 3351. Division of Agriculture and
UC 1993. Integrated Pest Management for Walnuts. Publication 3270. Division of Agriculture and Natural
Resources, University of California, Oakland, California, USA. 96pp.
UC 1992. Organic Soil Amendments and Fertilizers. Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources,
University of California, Oakland, California, USA. 32pp
UC 1992. Beyond Pesticides: Biological Approaches to Pest Management in California. Division of
Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California, Oakland, California, USA. 48pp.
261
262
UC 1991. Diseases of Temperate Zone Tree Fruit and Nut Crops. Division of Agriculture and Natural
UC 1989. Covercrops for California Agriculture. Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources University of
California, Oakland, California, USA. 24pp.
UC 1981. Chrysanthemum Cultivars Resistant to Verticillium Wilt and Rust. Division of Agriculture and
Natural Resources, University of California, Oakland, California, USA.
UC 1981. General Recommendations for Nematode Sampling. Division of Agriculture and Natural
UC 1979. Resistance or Susceptibility of Certain Plants to Armillaria Root Rot. Division of Agriculture and
Wagger MG 1989. Winter annual cover crops. In Cook MG and Lewis WM (ed) Conservation Tillage for
Crop Production in North Carolina. Cooperative Extension AG-407, North Carolina, USA.
Waibel H, Fleischer G, Kenmore PE and Feder G (eds) 1998. Evaluation of IPM Programs – Concepts and
Methodologies. Pesticide Policy Project paper No 8. University of Hannover and GTZ, Eschborn, Germany.
Whitehead AG 1997. Plant Nematode Control. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. 448pp.
Zimdahl RL 1999. Fundamentals of Weed Science. Second edition. Academic Press, San Diego, California,
USA.
Websites on IPM and Cultural Practices
Agriculture Network Information Center (AgNIC) for IPM information and directories of specialists:
http://www.agnic.org
Agroecology/Sustainable Agriculture Program, University of Illinois USA: http://www.aces.uiuc.edu/~asap
Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas, USA for booklets on techniques of IPM and sustainable
agriculture: http://www.attra.org
Biocontrol of Plant Diseases Laboratory, US Department of Agriculture USA:
http://www.primenet.com/~scottm/bpdl.html
Biocontrol Network on biological controls and IPM: http://www.biconet.com
Bio-Integral Resource Center, Berkeley, California, USA for articles on MB alternatives:
http://www.epa.gov/oppbppd1/PESP/p&s_pages/birc.htm
Biological Control Virtual Information Center: http://ipmwww.ncsu.edu/biocontrol/biocontrol.html
BPO Research Station for Nursery Stock, Netherlands: http://www.bib.wau.nl/boskoop/
CAB International for information, publications and research on IPM and biological methods:
http://www.cabi.org/
College of Agricultural Sciences, Oregon State University for information on cover crops and vegetable
production: http://agsci.orst.edu/
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR): http://www.cgiar.org/
Department of Nematology, University of California, Davis, California, USA, for information about recognition and management of plant parasitic nematodes: http://ucdnema.ucdavis.edu/
Ecological Agriculture Projects, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada for scientific and extension
information: http://eap.mcgill.ca
EDIS, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA for extension materials, pest management guidelines
and publications database: http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu
EMBRAPA extension and research stations, Brazil: http://www.embrapa.br or
http://www.embrapa.br/english
Escola Superior de Agricultura Luiz de Queiroz (ESALQ) and information center (CIAGRI), University of São
Paulo, Brazil: http://www.esalq.usp.br and http://www.ciagri.usp.br
Faculty Outreach, North Carolina State University, North Carolina, USA for information on IPM production
techniques for vegetables, including management of diseases and weeds: http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/sustainable/peet
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Rome website on sustainable agriculture:
http://www.fao.org/sd/index_en.htm and http://www.fao.org/ag/
FPO Fruit Research Centre, Netherlands: http://www.agro.nl/fpo
Institute for Crop Science, University of Kassel Germany for information on parasitic weeds:
http://www.uni-hohenheim.de/~www380/parasite
IPM Program, Cornell University, New York, USA: http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/ipmnet/ny/vegetables
Koppert biological control manufacturer for information on IPM practices: http://www.koppert.nl
Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee reports, Technology and Economic Assessment Panel:
http://www.teap.org/html/methyl_bromide.html
National Agricultural Library, US Department of Agriculture, USA: http://www.nal.usda.gov or
http://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic for the Alternative Farming Systems Information Center
National Biological Control Institute, US Department of Agriculture, USA:
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/nbci
National IPM Network USA: http://ipmwww.ncsu.edu/ipmproject/ipminfo.html
North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service and State University, North Carolina, USA for plant disease
clinic and extension materials: http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/ent/clinic and
http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/sustainable/peet
Ohio State University, Ohio, USA, Farming the Net, Integrated Pest Management: http://www.ag.ohiostate.edu/~farmnet/links/ipm.html
Oklahoma State Agriculture Resources, Oklahoma, USA, Ag-Related Web Sites:
http://www.okstate.edu/OSU_Ag/agedcm4h/bobslist.htm
Organic Farming Research Foundation: http://www.ofrf.org
PBG Research Station for Floriculture and Glasshouse Vegetables, Netherlands: http://www.agro.nl/pbg
Pest Management at the Crossroads for information on principles of IPM: http://www.pmac.net
Plant Pathology Internet Guide Book, Universities of Bonn and Hannover, Germany: http://www.ifgb.uniSoil Quality Institute, Iowa State University, Iowa, USA for information on soil quality evaluation:
http://www.statlab.iastate.edu/survey/SQI
Statewide IPM Project, University of California, California, USA, for IPM publications, comprehensive
extension materials and scientific information: http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu
Sustainable Agriculture Network, US Department of Agriculture, USA: http://www.sare.org
Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program, University of California, California, USA for
database on cover crops and other cultural practices: http://www.sarep.ucdavis.edu and
http://www.sarep.ucdavis.edu/ccrop
University of Bonn for information on IPM and sustainable agriculture research:
http://www.uni-bonn.de/iol
US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, USA for research on alternatives to methyl
bromide: http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/mb/mebrweb.htm
Vegetable Research and Information Center, University of California, California, USA:
http://vric.ucdavis.edu
Virginia Cooperative Extension, Virginia, USA: http://www.ext.vt.edu/resources
Section 4.2 Biological controls
Arndt W and Buchenauer H 1997. Enhancement of biological control by combination of antagonistic fluorescent Pseudomonas strains and resistance inducers against damping off and powdery mildew in cucumber. Zeitschrift f. Pfl. Krankh 3, p.272-280.
Arndt W, Kolle C and Buchenauer H 1998. Effectiveness of fluorescent pseudomonads on cucumber and
tomato plants under practical conditions and preliminary studies on the mode of action of antagonists.
Zeitschrift f. Pfl. Krankh 2, p.198-215.
hannover.de/extern/ppigb/ppigb.htm
263
264
Batchelor TA (ed) 1999. Case Studies on Alternatives to Methyl Bromide: Technologies with Low
Environmental Impact. United Nations Environment Programme, Division of Technology, Industry and
Economics (DTIE), Paris, France.
Belarmino LC et al (eds) 1994. Control Biológico en el Cono Sur. EMBRAPA/CPACT, Pelotas, RS, Brazil.
149pp.
Borrás V 1998. The use of mycorrhizae in forest nurseries. In Bello A et al (eds). Alternatives to Methyl
Bromide for the Southern European Countries. European Commission DGXI and CSIC, Madrid, Spain.
Buschena CA, Ocamb CM and O’Brien J 1995. Biological control of Fusarium diseases. In Landis TD and
Cregg B (eds). National Proceedings: Forest and Conservation Nursery Associations. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-365. Pacific Northwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Portland, Oregon, USA. p.131-135.
Chen G, Dunphy GB and Webster JM 1994. Antifungal activity of two Xenorhabdus species and
Photorhabdus luminescens, bacteria associated with the nematodes Steinernema species and
Heterorhabditis megidis. Biological Control 4, p.157-162.
Cherim 1998. The Green Methods Manual: The Original Bio-control Primer. Green Spot Ltd, Nottingham,
New Hampshire, USA. 238pp.
Chet I 1987. Innovative Approaches to Plant Disease Control. John Wiley and Sons, New York, USA.
372pp.
Chet I 1993. Biotechnology in Plant Disease Control. Wiley-Liss, New York, USA.
Cohen R, Chefetz B and Hadar Y 1998. Suppression of soil-borne pathogens by composted municipal
solid waste. In Brown S et al (eds). Beneficial Co-Utilization of Agricultural, Municipal and Industrial ByProducts. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands. p.113-130.
Cook RJ and Baker KF 1983. The Nature and Practice of Biological Control of Plant Pathogens. American
Phytopathological Society, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA. 539pp.
De Ceuster TJJ and Hoitink HAJ 1999. Prospects for composts and biocontrol agents as substitutes for
methyl bromide in biological control of plant diseases. Compost Science and Utilization 7, 3, p.6-15.
Duchesne LC 1994. Role of ectomycorrhizal fungi in biocontrol. In Pfleger FL and Linderman RG (eds).
Mycorrhizae and Plant Health. APS Press, St. Paul Minnesota, USA. 344pp.
Fravel D 1999. Commercial biocontrol products for use against soiborne crop diseases. US Department of
Agriculture, USA. Available on website: http://www.barc.usda.gov/psi/bpdl/bpdlprod/bioprod.html
Gomis MD et al 1996. Control biologico de Acremonium cucurbitacearum en cultivos de melon: seleccion
de antagonistas. Actas del VIII Congreso de la SEF. Cordoba, Spain. p.211.
Gullino ML 1995. Use of biocontrol agents against fungal diseases. Proceedings of Conference on
Microbial Control Agents in Sustainable Agriculture. Saint Vincent. p.50-59.
Gutierrez Z 1997. The Colombian experience in cut-flower production. In Report of Sensitization
Workshop on Existing and Potential Alternatives to Methyl Bromide Use in Cut-Flower Production in
Kenya.13-16 October, Nairobi. Health and Environment Watch, Nairobi, Kenya and PANNA, San Francisco,
California, USA.
Hall R 1996. Principles and Practice of Managing Soilborne Plant Pathogens. APS Press, St. Paul, Minnsota,
USA. 330pp.
Hallman JA et al 1997. Bacterial endophytes in agricultural crops. Canadian Journal of Microbiology 43,
p.859-914.
Hoitink HAJ and Fahy PC 1986. Basis for the control of soilborne plant pathogens with composts. Annual
Review of Phytopathology 24, p.93-114.
Hoitink HAJ and Grebus ME 1994. Status of biological control of plant diseases with composts. Compost
Science and Utilization 2, 2, p.6-12.
Hoitink HAJ, Stone AG and Han DY 1997. Suppression of plant diseases by composts. HortScience 32,
p.184-187.
Hong LW (ed) 2000. Biological Control in the Tropics. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. 155pp (in
press).
Hornby D 1990. Biological Control of Soil-Borne Plant Pathogens. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.
496pp.
Hunt JS and Gale DS 1998. Use of beneficial microorganisms for improvement in sustainable monoculture
of plants. Combined Proceedings of the International Plant Propagators Society 48, p.31-35.
Julien MH and Griffiths MW 1998. Biological Control of Weeds: A World Catalogue of Agents and Their
Target Weeds. 4th edition. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. 240pp.
Kloepper JW 1998. Biological control: an alternative to methyl bromide. In Bello A et al (eds) Alternatives
to Methyl Bromide for the Southern European Countries. European Commission DGXI, Brussels, Belgium
and CSIC, Madrid, Spain. p.245-250.
Kwok OCH et al 1992. A nematicidal toxin from Pleurotus ostreatus NRRL 3526. Journal of Chemical
Ecology 18, 2, p.127-135.
Linderman RG 1998. Managing soilborne disease by managing root microbial communities. Paper 18.
1998 Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions
Reductions. Available on website: http://www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr/mbrpro98.html
Liu L, Kloepper JW and Tuzun S 1995. Introduction of systemic resistance in cucumber against Fusarium
wilt by plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria. Phytopathology 85, p.695-698.
López-Robles J, Otto AA and Hague NGM 1997. Evaluation of entomopathogenic nematodes on the beet
cyst nematode Heterodera schachtii. Annals of Applied Biology 128, p.100-101.
Lung G 1999. Personal communication. University of Hohenheim, Germany.
Lung G and Eddauodi M 1999. Biological control of nematodes with the enemy plant Tagetes spp. GTZ
demonstration project: alternatives to methyl bromide in Egypt and Morocco. International Workshop on
Alternatives to Methyl Bromide. European Commission, Brussels, Belgium and Ministry of Agriculture,
Athens, Greece.
Options Committee. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya. p.44-48 Available on website: http://www.teap.org
McInroy JA and Kloepper JW 1995. Survey of indigenous bacterial endophytes from cotton and sweet
corn. Plant and Soil 173, p.337-342.
McPherson D and Hunt JS 1995. The commercial application of Trichoderma (beneficial fungus) in New
Zealand horticulture. Combined Proceedings of the International Plant Propagators Society 45, p.348-353.
Minuto A, Migheli Q and Garibaldi A 1995. Evaluation of antagonistic strains of Fusarium spp. in the biological and integrated control of Fusarium wilt of cyclamen. Crop Protection 14, p.221-226.
Murata A, Inoue M and Nagai Y 1989. Studies on practical use of C-1421, an attenuated isolate of pepper strain of tobacco mosaic virus on sweet pepper. Bulletin of Chiba Agricultural Experimental Station 30,
p.81-89.
Ocamb CM, Buschena CA and O’Brien J 1996. Microbial mixtures for biological control of Fusarium diseases of tree seedlings. In Landis TD and South DB (eds). National Proceedings: Forest and Nursery
Conservation Associations. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-389. Pacific Northwest Research Station, USDA
Forest Service, Portland, Oregon, USA.
Ogawa K 1988. Studies on Fusarium wilt of sweet potato. Bulletin of National Agricultural Research
Center 10, p.1-127 (in Japanese with English summary).
Ogawa K and Komada H 1984. Biological control of Fusarium wilt of sweet potato by non-pathogenic
Fusarium oxysporum. Annals of Phytopathology Society of Japan 50, p.1-9.
Ogawa K and Watanabe K 1992. Formulation of biocontrol agent, Fusarium oxysporum, for commercial
use. Shokubutsu-boeki [Plant Protection] 46, p.378-381 (in Japanese).
Postma J and Rattink H 1992. Biological control of Fusarium wilt of carnation with a nonpathogenic isolate of Fusarium oxysporum. Canadian Journal of Botany 70, p.1199-1205.
Quarles W 1993. Alternatives to methyl bromide: Trichoderma seed treatments. The IPM Practitioner 15,
9, p.1-7.
Quimby PC and Birdsall JL 1995. Fungal agents for biological control of weeds: classical and augmentative
approaches. In Reuveni R (ed). Novel Approaches to Integrated Pest Management. Lewis Publishers, Boca
Raton, Florida, USA. p.293-308.
265
266
Reuveni R (ed) 1995. Novel Approaches to Integrated Pest Management. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton,
Florida, USA.
Rodríguez-Kábana R, Morgan-Jones G and Chet Y 1987. Biological control of nematodes: soil amendments and microbial antagonists. Plant and Soil 100, p.237-247.
Stirling GR, Sullahide SR and Nikulin A 1995. Management of lesion nematode (Pratylenchus jordannensis)
on replant apple trees. Australian Journal of Exp. Agriculture 35, p.247-258.
Tan SH et al 1997. Molecular analysis of the genome of an attenuated strain of cucumber green mottle
mosaic virus. Annals of Phytopathology Society of Japan 63, p.470-474.
Tjamos EC and Fravel DR 1997. Distribution and establishment of the biocontrol fungus Talaromyces
flavus in soil and on roots of solanaceous crops. Crop Protection 16, p.135-139.
Tjamos EC and Niklis N 1990. Synergism between soil solarization and Trichoderma preparations in controlling Fusarium wilt of beans in Greece. Proceedings of 8th Congress of Mediterranean Phytopathology
Union. Agadir, Morocco.
for the Future. Plenum Press, New York, USA. 462 pp.
Tjamos EC and Paplomatas EJ 1988. Long-term effect of soil solarization in controlling Verticillium wilt of
globe artichokes in Greece. Plant Pathology 37, p.507-515.
Tzortsakakis EA and Gowen SR 1994. Evaluation of Pasteuria penetrans alone and in combination with
oxamyl, plant resistance and solarization for control of Meloidogyne spp. on vegetables grown in greenhouses in Crete. Crop Protection 13, p.455-462.
Unestam T and Damm E 1994. Biological control of seedling diseases by ectomycorrhizae. Diseases and
Insects in Forest Nurseries. Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA). p.173-178.
Warrior P 1996. DiTera® – a biological alternative for suppression of plant nematodes. Annual
International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. Methyl
Bromide Alternatives Outreach, Fresno, California, USA.
Websites on Biological Controls
Alternative Farming Systems Information Center, National Agricultural Library, US Department of
Agriculture, USA: http://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic
Biocontrol Network for information on biological controls and IPM: http://www.biconet.com
Biocontrol of Plant Diseases Laboratory, US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, USA
for information and list of commercially available biological control products:
http://www.barc.usda.gov/psi/bpdl/bpdl.html
Biological Control Virtual Information Center: http://ipmwww.ncsu.edu/biocontrol/
BioWorks biological control manufacturer website: http://www.bioworksbiocontrol.com
California Department of Pesticide Regulation, USA for list of suppliers of beneficial organisms in North
America: http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/ipminov/bensuppl.htm
Cornell University, Integrated Pest Management in the Northeast, USA:
http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/ipmnet
European Biological Control Laboratory for Bibliography on Formulations of Fungal Entomopathogens:
http://www.cirad.fr
Hannover University: http://www.gartenbau.uni-hannover.de/ipp
Insect Biocontrol Laboratory, US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, USA:
http://www.barc.usda.gov/psi/ibl/ibl.htm
International Institute of Biological Control: http://www.cabi.org
National Agricultural Library, US Department of Agriculture: http://www.nal.usda.gov or
http://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic for the Alternative Farming Systems Information Center
National Biological Control Institute, Animal and Plant Health Service, US Department of Agriculture, USA
for information on biological controls and regulations: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/nbci
List of Retail Suppliers of Beneficial Organisms, Nebraska Cooperative Extension, University of Nebraska
Lincoln, USA: http://www.ianr.unl.edu/pubs/insects/nf182.htm
Plant Pathology Internet Guide Book for a wide range of information resources, Universities of Bonn and
Hannover, Germany: http://www.ifgb.uni-hannover.de/etern/ppigb
Statewide IPM Project, University of California, USA: http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu
University of Bonn, Germany for information on sustainable agriculture: http://www.uni-bonn.de/iol
University of Nebraska, USA for site on nematodes as biological control agents:
http://nematode.unl.edu/wormhome.htm
IPPC organisation at ORST university for list of Internet Resources on Microbial Control of Pests:
http://www.ippc.orst.edu/cicp/tactics/microbcontrol.htm
Section 4.3 Fumigants and other Chemical Products
Aguirre JI 1997. Chemical alternatives to MB in perennial crops. In Bello A, González JA, Arias M and
Rodríguez-Kábana R (eds) Alternatives to Methyl Bromide for the Southern European Countries. European
Commission, Brussels, Belgium and CSIC, Madrid, Spain. p.279-284.
Ben-Yephet Y, Melero-Vera JM and DeVay JE 1988. Interaction of soil solarization and metam-sodium in
the destruction of Verticillium dahliae and Fusarium oxysporum f.sp. vasinfectum. Crop Protection 7,
p.327-331.
Besri M 1997. Integrated management of soilborne diseases in the Mediterranean protected vegetable
cultivation. In Albajes R and Carnero A (eds). International Organisation for Biological Control, IOBC
Bulletin 20, 4, p.45-57.
Besri M 1997. Alternatives to methyl bromide for preplant protected cultivation of vegetables in the
Mediterranean developing countries. 1997 Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide
Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. Available on website: http://www.epa.gov/docs/ozone/mbr/mbrCartia G, Greco N and Di Primo P 1997. Experience acquired in Southern Italy in controlling soilborne
pathogens by soil solarization and chemicals. Proceedings of Second International Conference on Soil
Solarization and Integrated Management of Soilborne Pests. 16-21 March. Aleppo, Syria.
Cebolla V et al 1999. Two years effect of some alternatives to methyl bromide on strawberry crops. 1999
Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions.
Available on website: http://www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr/mbrpro99.html
Chellemi D 1998. Alternatives to methyl bromide in Florida tomatoes and peppers. The IPM Practitioner.
4, p.1-6.
Csinos AS et al 1997. Alternative fumigants for methyl bromide in tobacco and pepper transplant production. Crop Protection. 16, 6, p.585-594.
Daguenet G and Schroeder M 1994. Perméabilité des plastiques au composants de Basamid G, utilisations
practiques de Basamid G. ANPP Quatr. Conference International Maladies Plantes. Bordeaux, France.
p.819-834.
Desmarchelier JM 1998. Determination of effective fumigant concentrations of different soil types for
methyl bromide and other soil fumigants. Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation,
Australia.
Dickson DW 1997. Fumigants and non-fumigants for replacing methyl bromide in tomato production.
Reductions. Available on website: http://www.epa.gov/docs/ozone/mbr/mbrpro97.html
Dickson DW et al 1995. Evaluation of methyl bromide, alternative fumgiants and nonfumigants on tomato. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions.
Methyl Bromide Alternatives Outreach, Fresno, California, USA.
Dickson DW et al 1998. Evaluation of methyl bromide alternative fumigants on tomato under polyethylene mulch in 1998. 1998 Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and
Emissions Reductions. Available on website: http://www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr/mbrpro98.html
pro97.html
267
Duniway JM, Gubler WD, Xiao CL 1997. Response of strawberry to some chemical and cultural alternatives to methyl bromide fumigation of soil under California production conditions. 1997 Annual
International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. Available on
website: http://www.epa.gov/docs/ozone/mbr/mbrpro97.html
Eitel J 1995. The effectiveness of dazomet as influenced by the use of plastic sheeting. Acta Horticulturae
382, p.104-109.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Pesticide Management Unit, Pesticide
Management Guidelines. Available on website:
http://www.fao.org/waicent/FaoInfo/Agricult/AGP/AGPP/Pesticid
268
Fenólio LG 1997. Basamid alternative product for soil fumigation. In Müller JJV (ed). Brasilian Meeting on
Alternatives to Methyl Bromide in Agriculture. EPAGRI, Florianópolis, Brasil. p.291-293.
Fritsch HJ and Huber R 1995. Basamid granular, a halogen-free soil disinfectant. Acta Horticulturae 382,
p.76-85.
Gabarra R and Besri M 1997. Implementation of IPM: Case studies: Tomato. In Albajes R, Gullino ML, van
Lenteren JC and Elad Y (eds) Integrated Pest and Disease Management in Greenhouse Crops. Kluwer
Academic, Netherlands.
Gilreath JP, Noling JW and Gilreath PR 1997. Field validation of 1,3-dichloropropene and chloropicrin and
pebulate as an alternative to methyl bromide in tomato. 1997 Annual International Research Conference
on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. Available on website:
http://www.epa.gov/docs/ozone/mbr/mbrpro97.html
Gilreath JP, Noling JW, Gilreath PR and Jones JP 1997. Field validation of 1,3-dichloropropene and
chloropicrin and pebulate as an alternative to methyl bromide in tomato. Proceedings of Florida State
Horticultural Society. 110, p.273-276.
Hafez S 1999. Personal communication, Univeristy of Idaho, Idaho, USA.
Hafez S 1999b. Alternatives to methyl bromide for the fruit tree replant problem. Proceedings of
International Workshop on Alternatives to Methyl Bromide for the Southern European Countries. 7-10
December, Heraklion. European Commission DGXI and Agriculture Ministry, Athens, Greece.
Hamm PB 1997. The comparison of methyl bromide, metam sodium (Vapam) and Telone-17 soil fumigants with watermelon and tomato in the Columbia Basin of Oregon. 1997 Annual International Research
Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. Available on website:
Harris DC 1990. Control of Verticillium wilt and other soil-borne diseases of strawberry in Britain by chemical soil disinfestation. Journal of Horticultural Science. 65, p.401-408.
Johnson AW and Feldmesser J 1987. Nematicides – a historical review. In Veech JA and Dickson DW (eds).
Vistas on Nematology. Society of Nematologists, Hyattsville, Maryland, USA. p.448-454.
Laita J 1997. El metam sodio como alternativa al bromuro de metilo en cultivos horticolas. In Bello A et al
(eds) Alternativas al Bromuro de Metilo en Agricultura. Congresos y Jornadas. 44/97. Consejería de
Agricultura y Pesca, Junta de Andalucía. p.99-101.
Leistra M 1972. Diffusion and adsorption of the nematicide 1,3-dichloropropene in soil. PhD thesis.
Centre for Agricultural Publishing and Documentation, Wageningen, Netherlands. 105pp.
Locascio SJ, Gilreath JP, Dickson DW, Kucharek TA, Jones JP and Noling JW 1997. Fumigant alternatives to
methyl bromide for polyethylene and mulched tomato. HortScience. 32, p.1208-1211.
Locascio SJ et al 1999. Strawberry production with alternatives to methyl bromide fumigation. 1999
López-Aranda JM 1999. The Spanish national project on alternatives to MB: the case of strawberry. 1999
Mappes D 1995. Spectrum of activity of dazomet. Acta Horticulturae [Soil Disinfestation] 382, p.96-103.
Websites on Fumigants and Pesticides
Options Committee. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya. p.50-55. Available on website: http://www.teap.org
McGovern R 1994. Integrated management of Fusarium crown and root rot of tomato in Florida. 1994
Methyl Bromide Alternatives Outreach 1994 – 2000. Proceedings of Annual International Research
Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. San Diego, California and Orlando,
Florida, USA. Available on website: http://www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr
Pesticides Trust 1999. Progressive Pest Management: Controlling Pesticides and Implementing IPM.
Brixton, London, UK. Available on website: http://www.gn.apc.org/pesticidestrust
Pocino S 1998. Metham sodium an alternative to methyl bromide in Almería. In Bello A et al (eds)
Alternatives to Methyl Bromide for the Southern European Countries. European Commission, Brussels,
Belgium and CSIC, Madrid, Spain. p.95-98.
Rabasse JM 1998. Improved application techniques for metham sodium. In Bello A et al (eds). Alternatives
to Methyl Bromide for the Southern European Countries. European Commission, Brussels, Belgium and
CSIC, Madrid, Spain. p.201-204.
Rodríguez-Kábana R and Walters G 1992. Method of treatment of nematodes in soil using furfural. US
Patent Office No. 5084477 (granted 28 January 1992).
Rodríguez-Kábana R, Backman PA and Curl EA 1977. Control of seed and soilborne plant diseases. In
Siegel MR and Sisler HD (eds). Antifungal Compounds. Vol 1. Marcel Dekker, New York, USA.
Rodríguez-Kábana R, Shelby RA, King PS and Pope MH 1982. Combinations of anhydrous ammonia and
1,3-dichloropropene for control of root-knot nematodes in soybean. Nematropica 12, p.61-69.
Sanz R et al 1998. Alternatives to methyl bromide for root-knot nematode control in cucurbits. In Bello A
et al (eds). Alternatives to Methyl Bromide for the Southern European Countries. European Commission,
Brussels, Belgium and CSIC, Madrid, Spain. p.73-84.
UCD Department of Nematology 1999. Guidelines on Nematode Management. University of California,
Davis, California, USA.
US EPA 1995. Alternatives to Methyl Bromide Ten Case Studies – Soil, Commodity and Structural Use.
EPA430-R-95-009. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA. Available on website:
Bio-Integral Resource Center for publications on least-toxic pesticides: http://www.igc.apc.org/birc
269
http://www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr/
US EPA 1996. Alternatives to Methyl Bromide Ten Case Studies – Soil, Commodity and Structural Use –
Volume Two. EPA430-R-96-021. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA. Available on
website: http://www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr/
US EPA 1997. Alternatives to Methyl Bromide Ten Case Studies – Soil, Commodity and Structural Use –
Volume Three. EPA430-R-97-030. . Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA. Available on
USDA 1997. DiTera®: controlling nematodes biologically. In Methyl Bromide Alternatives. 3, 1, p.8. US
Department of Agriculture, Beltsville, Maryland, USA. Available on website:
http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/np/mba/jan97/ditera.htm
Webb R 1998. Unique use of basamid in combination with other fumigants in California strawberries.
Willhelm SN and Westerlund FV 1994. Chloropicrin – A Soil Fumigant. California Strawberry Commission,
Watsonville, California, USA.
Yucel S 1995. A study on soil solarization combined with fumigant application to control Phytophthora
crown blight (Phytophthora capsici Leonian) on peppers in the East Mediterranean region of Turkey. Crop
Protection 14, p.653-655.
BPO Research Station for Nursery Stock, Netherlands: http://www.bib.wau.nl/boskoop
College of Agricultural Sciences, Oregon State University, USA for information on vegetable production:
http://agsci.orst.edu/
270
Department of Nematology, University of California, Davis, USA. Website on management of plant parasitic nematodes: http://ucdnema.ucdavis.edu/
EDIS, University of Florida, USA for extension materials, pest management guidelines and publications
database: http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu
Faculty Outreach, North Carolina State University, USA, for information on IPM production techniques for
vegetables, including management of diseases and weeds: http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/sustainable
FPO Fruit Research Centre, Netherlands: http://www.agro.nl/fpo/
GTZ Pesticide Projects, Germany: http://www.gtz.de/proklima
Institute for Crop Science, University of Kassel Germany: http://www.uni-hohenheim.de
IPM Program, Cornell University, USA: http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/ipmnet/ny/vegetables/
Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee reports, United Nations Environment Programme
Technology and Economic Assessment Panel: http://www.teap.org/html/methyl_bromide.html
National Agricultural Library, US Department of Agriculture, USA: http://www.nal.usda.gov or
http://www.nal.usda.gov.afsic for Alternative Farming Systems Information Center
National IPM Network, USA: http://ipmwww.ncsu.edu/ipmproject/ipminfo.html
North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service and State University, USA for plant disease and insect clinic
and extension materials: http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/ent/clinic and http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/sustainable/peet/
Oklahoma State Agriculture Resources, USA: http://www.okstate.edu/OSU_Ag/agedcm4h/bobslist.htm
Pesticides Trust for information on IPM and pesticide issues: http://www.gn.apc.org/pesticidestrust
Statewide Integrated Pest Management Project, University of California, USA. Website on pest identification and pest management guidelines for horticultural crops: http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG
University of Nebraska-Lincoln, USA: http://www.ianr.unl.edu/ianr/csas
US Department of Agriculture research on alternatives to methyl bromide:
http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/mb/mebrweb.htm
Virginia Cooperative Extension, USA: http://www.ext.vt.edu/resources/
Section 4.4 Soil Amendments and Compost
Allison FE 1973. Soil Organic Matter and Its Role in Crop Production. Developments in Soil Science No 3.
Elsevier Scientific Publishing, New York, USA. 637pp.
Anon 1986. Compendium of Research Reports on Use of Non-Traditional Methods for Crop Production.
NCR-103 and Supplement 1. CES, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, USA.
Anon 1997. Soil amendments instead of methyl bromide? In Methyl Bromide Alternatives 3, 1, p.4-5. US
Department of Agriculture, Beltsville, Maryland, USA. Available on website:
http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/np/mba/jan97/amend.htm
ATTRA undated. Farm-scale Composting. Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas, Fayetteville,
Arkansas, USA. Available on website: http://www.attra.org
ATTRA undated. Sources for Organic Fertilizers and Amendments. Appropriate Technology Transfer for
Rural Areas, Fayetteville, Arkansas, USA. Available on website: http://www.attra.org
ATTRA undated. Manures for Vegetable Crop Production. Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas,
Fayetteville, Arkansas, USA. Available on website: http://www.attra.org
ATTRA undated. Compost Teas for Plant Disease Control. Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas,
ATTRA undated. Alternative Soil Testing Laboratories. Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas,
Bello A 1998. Biofumigation and integrated pest management. In Bello A et al (eds). Alternatives to
Methyl Bromide for the Southern European Countries. European Commission DGXI, Brussels, Belgium and
CSIC, Madrid, Spain.
Bello A et al 1997. Biofumigación, nematodos y bromuro de metilo en el cultivo de pimiento. In López A
and Mora JA (eds). Posibilidad de Alternativas Viables al Bromuro de Metilo en Pimiento de Invernadero.
Consejería de Medioambiente, Agricultura y Agua, Murcia, Spain.
Bello A et al (eds) 1997. Alternativas al Bromuro de Metilo en Agricultura. Congresos y Jornadas 44/97.
Junta de Andalucía, Spain. 192pp.
Bello A et al 1998. Biofumigation and organic amendments. Proceedings of Regional Workshop on
Methyl Bromide Alternatives for North Africa and Southern European Countries. 27-29 May, Rome.
European Commission, Brussels, Belgium and CSIC, Madrid, Spain.
Bello A, González JA and Tello JC 1997. La biofumigación como alternativa a la desinfección del suelo.
Horticultura Internacional 17, p.41-43.
Bello A et al 1999. Biofumigation and local resources as methyl bromide alternatives. International
Workshop on Alternatives to Methyl Bromide for the Southern European Countries. 7-10 December,
Heraklion. European Commission DGXI and Agriculture Ministry, Athens, Greece.
Besri M 1997. Integrated management of soil-borne diseases in the Mediterranean protected vegetable
cultivation. In Albajes R and Carnero A (eds). Integrated Control in Protected Crops in the Mediterranean
Climate. International Organisation for Biological Control, IOBC Bulletin 20, 4, p.45-57.
Bewick MWM (ed) 1980. Handbook of Organic Waste Conversion. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York,
USA.
Branson RL, Martin JP and Dost WA 1979. Decomposition rate of various organic materials in soil.
International Plant Propagators Proceedings 27, p.94-96.
Bugg RL et al 1991. The Cover Crops Database. Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program,
Canullo GH, Rodríguez-Kábana R and Kloepper JW 1992. Changes in populations of microorganisms
associated with the application of soil amendments to control Sclerotium rolfsii Sacc. Plant and Soil 144,
p.59-66.
Chaney DE, Drinkwater LE and Pettygrove SG 1992. Organic Soil Amendments and Fertilizers. Publication
21505. Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California, Davis, California, USA.
Chang AC, Page AL and Warneke JE 1991. Land application of municipal sludge – benefits and constraints. In Urbanization and Agriculture: Competition for Resources. Proceedings 1991 California Plant
and Soil Conference. California Chapter, American Society of Agronomy, USA. p.92-94.
Chen Y and Inbar Y 1993. Chemical and spectroscopic analysis of organic matter transformations during
composting in relation to compost maturity. In Hoitink HAJ and Keener HM (eds). Science and Engineering
of Composting: Design, Environmental, Microbiological and Utilization Aspects. Renaissance Publications,
Worthington, Ohio, USA. p.551-600.
Chung YR, Hoitink HAJ and Lipps PE 1988. Interactions between organic matter decomposition level and
soilborne disease severity. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 24, p.183-193.
Cohen R, Chefetz B and Hadar Y 1998. Suppression of soil-borne pathogens by composted municipal
solid waste. In Brown S et al (eds). Beneficial Co-Utilization of Agricultural, Municipal and Industrial ByProducts. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, Netherlands. 430pp.
Coleman E 1989. The New Organic Grower: A Master’s Manual of Tools and Techniques. Chelsea Green,
White River Junction, Vermont USA. 269 pp.
Cook RJ and Barker KF 1983. The Nature and Practice of Biological Control of Plant Pathogens. American
Phytopaghological Society, St Paul, Minnesota, USA. 539pp.
Craft CM and Nelson EB 1996. Microbial properties of composts that suppress damping-off and root rot
of creeping bentgrass caused by Pythium graminicola. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 62, p.1550-1557.
Culbreath AK, Rodríguez-Kábana R and Morgan-Jones G 1985. The use of hemicellolosic waste matter for
reduction of the phytotoxic effects of chitin and control of root-knot nematodes. Nematropica 15, p.49-75.
271
272
D’Addabbo T 1995. The nematicidal effect of organic amendments: a review of the literature, 1982-1994.
Nematol. Medit. 23, p.299-305.
Daft GC, Poole HA and Hoitink HAJ 1978. Composted hardwood bark: a substitute for steam sterilization
and fungicide drenches for control of Poinsettia crown and root rot. HortScience 14, p.185-187.
Dost WA 1965. Wood Residue Used in the California Pine Region. Bulletin 817. Division of Agricultural
Sciences, Univerisity of California, Berkeley, California, USA.
Elberson LR, McCaffrey JP and Tripepi RR 1997. Use of rapeseed meal to control black vine weevil larvae
infesting potted rhododendron. Journal of Environmental Horticulture 15, p.173-176.
Escuer M, García S and Bello A 1998. La biofumigación como alternativa para el control de nematodos en
frutales. 30th Reunión de ONTA, 11-16 October. Mendoza, Argentina.
Gamleil A and Stapleton JJ 1993. Characterizaton of antifungal volatile compounds evolved from solarized
soil amended with cabbage residues. Phytopathology 83, p.99-105.
Hall R 1996. Principles and Practice of Managing Soilborne Plant Pathogens. APS Press, St Paul,
Minnesota, USA. 330pp.
Hallman JA, Rodríguez-Kábana R and Kloepper JW 1998. Chitin-mediated changes in bacterial communities of the soil, rhizosphere and internal roots of cotton in relation to nematode control. Soil Biology and
Biochemistry 31, p.551-560.
Hardy GE and Sivasithamparam 1991. Suppression of Phytophthora root rot by a composted Eucalyptus
bark mix. Australian Journal of Botany 39, p.153-159.
Hoitink HAJ 1997. Disease suppressive composts as substitutes for methyl bromide. 1997 Annual
Hoitink HAJ and Fahy PC 1986. Basis for the control of soilborne plant pathogens with composts. Annual
Review of Phytopathology 24, p.93-114.
Hoitink HAJ, Inbar Y and Boehm MJ 1991. Status of compost-amended potting mixes naturally suppressive to soilborne disease of floricultural crops. Plant Disease 75, p.869-873.
Hoitink HAJ and Keener HM (eds) 1993. Science and Engineering of Composting: Design, Environmental,
Microbiological and Utilization Aspects. Renaissance Publications, Worthington, Ohio, USA. 728pp.
Hoitink HAJ, Stone AG and Han DY 1997. Suppression of plant diseases by composts. HortScience 32,
p.184-187.
Huang JW and Kuhlman EG 1991. Formulation of a soil amendment to control damping-off of slash pine
seedlings. Phytopathology 81, p.163-170.
Kim KD, Nemec S and Musson G 1996. Control of Phytophthora stem rot of pepper with compost and
soil amendments in the greenhouse. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide
Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. Methyl Bromide Alternatives Outreach, Fresno, California, USA.
Kim KD, Nemec S and Musson G 1996. Effect of compost and soil amendment on soil microflora and
Phytophthora stem rot of pepper. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide
Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. Methyl Bromide Alternatives Outreach, Fresno, California, USA.
Kirkegaard JA et al 1993. Biofumigation using Brassica species to control pests and diseases in horticulture
and agriculture. In Wrather N and Mailer R (eds). Proceedings of 9th Australian Research Assembly on
Brassicas. Wagga Wagga, Australia. p.77-82.
Krause MS, Musselman CA and Hoitink HAJ 1997. Impact of sphagnum peat decomposition level on biological control of Rhizoctonia damping-off of radish induced by Flavobacterium balustinum 299 and
Trichoderma hamatum 382. Phytopathology 87, p.S55.
Kuter GA, Hoitink HAJ and Chen W 1988. Effects of municipal sludge compost curing time on suppression of Pythium and Rhizoctonia diseases of ornamental plants. Plant Disease 72, p.751-756.
Lazarovits G, Conn K and Kritzman G 1997. High nitrogen containing organic amendments for the control of soilborne plant pathogens. 1997 Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide
Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. Available on website: http://www.epa.gov/docs/ozone/mbr/mbrLópez-Fando C and Bello A 1997. Efecto de los sistemas de laboreo en la biología del suelo. In L García
Torres et al (eds). Agricultura de Conservación: Fundamentos Agronómicos, Medioambientales y
Económicos. Asociación Española de Laboreo de Conservación, Córdoba, Spain. p.202-223.
Marull J, Pinochet J and Rodríguez-Kábana R 1997. Agricultural and municipal compost residues for control of root-knot nematodes in tomato and pepper. Compost Science and Utilization 5, p.6-15.
Mathiessen JN and Kirkegaard JA 1993. Biofumigation, a new concept for a clean and green pest and disease control. Potato Grower October, p.14-15.
Programme, Nairobi, Kenya, p.70-71. Available on website: http://www.teap.org
Options Committee. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya, p.39-41, 44-48. Available
on website: http://www.teap.org
McAllister J 1987. A Practical Guide to Novel Soil Amendments. Rodale Press, Emmaus, Pennsylvania,
USA.
Mendoza NM and Bustamente AV. Alcolchada y riego por goteo. Tácticas agronómicas para mejorar la
producción de sandía en la Mixteca Poblana. Dpt de Parasitología, Universidad Autónoma de Chapingo,
Chapingo, Mexico.
Meyer JL and Pritchard TL 1981. Land Application Systems for the Utilization of Fruit and Vegetable
Processing Effluent. Leaflet 21252. Division of Agricultural Sciences, Berkeley, University of California,
Oakland, California, USA.
Mian IH and Rodríguez-Kábana R 1982. Organic amendments with high tannin and phenolic contents for
control of Meloidogyne arenaria in infested soil. Nematropica 12, p.221-234.
Mian IH and Rodríguez-Kábana R 1982. Survey of the nematicidal properties of some organic materials
available in Alabama as amendments to soil for control of Meloidogyne arenaria. Nematropica 12, p.235246.
Mian IH and Rodríguez-Kábana R 1982. Soil amendment with oil cakes and chicken litter for control of
Meloidogyne arenaria. Nematropica 12.
Michaud M 1993. Les bois raméaux fragmentés: un amendement organique pour les sols en production
horticole. 4th International Conference on Ramial Wood. 1-3 Sept, Université LAVAL, Québec, Canada.
Miller PR et al 1989. Covercrops for California Agriculture. Leaflet 21471. Division of Agriculture and
Natural Resources, University of California, Oakland, California, USA.
Ownley BH and Benson DM 1991. Relationship of matrix water potential and air-filled porosity of container media to development of Phytophthora root rot of rhododendron. Phytopathology 81, p.936-941.
Ownley BH, Benson DM and Bilderback TE 1990. Physical properties of container media and relation to
severity of Phytophthora root rot of rhododendron. Journal of American Horticultural Science 115, p.564570.
Parnes R 1990. Fertile Soil: A Grower’s Guide to Organic and Inorganic Fertilizers. AgAccess, Davis,
California, USA. 190pp.
Quarles W and Grossman J 1995. Alternatives to methyl bromide in nurseries – disease-suppressive media.
The IPM Practitioner 12, 8, p.1-12.
Reed AD et al 1973. Soil recycling of cannery wastes. California Agriculture 27, p.6-9.
Rodale Institute (ed) 1992. Managing Cover Crops Profitably. Sustainable Agriculture Research and
Education Program, US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, USA.
Renkow M, Safley C and Chafin J 1994. A cost analysis of municipal trimmings composted. Compost
Science and Utilization Spring, p.22-34.
Rodríguez-Kábana R 1986. Organic and inorganic nitrogen amendments to soil as nematode suppressants. Journal of Nematology 18, p.129-135.
Rodríguez-Kábana R, Morgan-Jones G and Chet Y 1987. Biological control of nematodes: soil amendments and microbial antagonists. Plant and Soil 100, p.237-247.
pro97.html
273
274
Rose R 1994. An overview of the role of organic amendments in forest nurseries. In Landis TD (ed).
National Proceedings: Northeastern and Intermountain Forest and Conservation Nursery Associations.
Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-243. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service, Fort
Collins, Colorado, USA.
Rÿckeboer JK, Deprins K and Coosemans 1998.Compost onderdrukt de kiemplantenschimmels Pythium
ultimum en Rhizoctonia solani: Veredele compost doet beter! Vlacovaria 3, p.20-26.
Seck MA 1993. Essais de fertilisation organique avec les bois raméaux fragments de filao. 4th
International Conference on Ramial Wood. 1-3 Sept, Université LAVAL, Québec, Canada.
Segall L 1995. Marketing compost as a pest control product. BioCycle. May, p.63-67.
Sekiguchi A 1977. Control of Fusarium wilt on Chinese yam. Ann. Rep. Dep. Plant Pathol. Entomol.
Vegetable and Floriculture Experimental Station, Nagana, Japan. 1, p.10-11.
Skow D and Walters C 1991. Mainline Farming for Century 21. Acres USA, Kansas City, Missouri, USA.
204pp.
Soltani N and Lazarovits G 1998. Effects of ammonium lignofulfonate on soil microbial populations,
Verticilllium wilt and potato scab. 1998 Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide
Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. Available on website:
http://www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr/mbrpro98.html
Spiegel Y, Cohn E and Chet I 1986. Use of chitin for controlling plant-parasitic nematodes. I. Direct effects
on nematode reproduction and plant performance. Plant and Soil 95, p.87-95.
Spiegel Y, Chet I and Cohn E 1987. Use of chitin for controlling plant-parasitic nematodes. II. Mode of
action. Plant and Soil 98, p.337-345.
Spiegel Y et al 1988. Use of chitin for controlling plant-parasitic nematodes. III. Influence of temperature
on nematicidal effect, mineralization, and microbial population buildup. Plant and Soil 109, p.251-256.
Sterling GR 1991. Biological Control of Plant Parasitic Nematodes: Progress, Problems and Prospects. CAB
International, Wallingford, UK. 282pp.
Swanson GR, Dudley EG and Williamson KJ 1980. The use of fish and shellfish waste as fertilizers and
feedstuffs. In Bewick MWM (ed). Handbook of Organic Waste Conversion. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New
York, USA. p.253-267.
Tate RL 1987. Soil Organic Matter: Biological and Ecological Effects. John Wiley and Sons, New York, USA.
291pp.
Tenuta M and Lazarovits G 1998. Mechanisms of action for control of soilborne pathogens by high nitrogen-containing soil amendments. 1998 Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide
Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. Available on website:
Tenuta M and Lazarovits G 1999. Nitrogen transformation products eliminate plant pathogens in soil.
for the Future. Plenum Press, New York, USA. 462pp.
Tuitert G, Szczech M and Bollen GJ 1998. Suppression of Rhizoctonia solani in potting mixes amended
with compost made from organic household waste. Phytopathology 88, p.764-773.
UC 1992. Organic Soil Amendments and Fertilizers. Agriculture and Natural Resources Communication
Services, University of California, Oakland, California, USA. 32pp.
UC 1995. Compost Production and Utilization: A Growers’ Guide. Agriculture and Natural Resources
Communication Services, University of California, Oakland, California, USA.
USDA 1979. Improving Soils with Organic Wastes. US Department of Agriculture, USA. US Government
Printing Office 0-623-484/770.
USDA 1999. Progress towards alternatives to methyl bromide fumigation in bareroot forest nurseries in
the United States. Methyl Bromide Alternatives 5, 3, p.11. US Department of Agriculture, Beltsville,
Maryland, USA. Available on website: http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/np/mba/july99/bareroot.htm
Vegetable Research and Information Center (undated). Making and Using Compost and Composting.
Factsheets. Vegetable Research and Information Center, University of California, California, USA. Available
on website: http://vric.ucdavis.edu
Vitosh ML (undated). Biological Inoculants and Activators: Their Value to Agriculture. Extension Publication
168. North Central Region, USA.
Wildman WE and Brandon DM 1968. Rice Hull Soil Incorporation Studies. Progress report. Agronomy and
Range Science, University of California Cooperative Extension, UC Davis, California, USA.
Wilson LL and Lemieux PG 1980. Factory canning and food processing wastes as feedstuffs and fertilizers.
In Bewick MWM (ed). Handbook of Organic Waste Conversion. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, USA.
p.253-267.
Windust A 1997. Worm Farming Made Simple. Allscape, Manduring, Victoria, Australia. ISBN-0-64632664-3.
You MP and Sivasithamparam K 1994. Hydrolysis of fluorescein diacetate in an avocado plantation mulch
suppressive to Phytophthora cinnamomi and its relationship with certain biotic and abiotic factors. Soil.
Biol. Biochem. 26, p.1355-1361.
Websites on Soil Amendments and Compost
Agroecology/Sustainable Agriculture Program, University of Illinois, USA:
http://www.aces.uiuc.edu/~asap
Alternative Farming Systems Information Center, National Agricultural Library, US Department of
Agriculture, USA: http://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic
Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas, Fayetteville, Arkansas, USA: http://www.attra.org
Biocontrol Network on biological controls and IPM: http://www.biconet.com
Biological Control Virtual Information Center: http://ipmwww.ncsu.edu/biocontrol
Ecological Agriculture Projects, McGill University, Canada for scientific and extension information:
Henry A Wallace Institute for Alternative Agriculture, Maryland, USA: http://www.hawiaa.org
Hannover University, Germany: http://www.gartenbau.uni-hannover.de/ipp
Integrated Pest Management in the Northeast, Cornell University, New York, USA:
http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/ipmnet
Leopold Center for sustainable agriculture, and Soil Quality Institute, Iowa State University, Iowa, USA:
http://www.ag.iastate.edu/centers/leopold and http://www.statlab.iastate.edu/survey/SQI
Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee reports, United Nations Environment Programme,
Technology and Economic Assessment Panel: http://www.teap.org/html/methyl_bromide.html
National Agricultural Library, US Department of Agriculture, USA: http://www.nal.usda.gov and
http://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic
National IPM Network, USA: http://ipmwww.ncsu.edu/ipmproject/ipminfo.html
North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service and State University, USA for plant disease clinic and extension materials: http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/ent/clinic and
http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/sustainable/peet/ and http://ipmwww.ncsu.edu/biocontrol
Organic Farming Research Foundation: http://www.ofrf.org
Plant Pathology Internet Guide Book for a wide range of information resources, Universities of Hannover
and Bonn, Germany: http://www.ifgb.uni-hannover.de/extern/ppigb
Soil Quality Institute, Iowa State University, USA for information on soil quality evaluation:
http://www.statlab.iastate.edu/survey/SQI
Statewide IPM Project, University of California, USA for IPM publications, comprehensive extension materials and scientific information: http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/IPMPROJECT
Center for Sustainable Agricultural Systems, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, USA:
http://www.ianr.unl.edu/ianr/csas
University of Bonn, Germany for information on sustainable agriculture: http://www.uni-bonn.de/iol
http://eap.mcgill.ca
275
Vegetable Research and Information Center, University of California, USA for factsheets on composting:
Section 4.5 Solarisation
276
Antoniou PP, Tjamos EC and Panagopoulos CG 1995. Use of soil solarization for controlling bacterial
canker of tomato in plastic houses in Greece. Plant Pathology 44, p.438-447.
Antoniou PP et al 1993. Effectiveness, mode of action and commercial application of soil solarization for
control of Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. michiganensis of tomatoes. Acta Horticulturae 382, p.119128.
Economics, OzonAction Programme, Paris, France.
Bello A et al 1999. Biofumigation and local resources as methyl bromide alternatives. International
Workshop on Alternatives to Methyl Bromide for the Southern European Countries, 7-10 December,
Heraklion. European Commission DGXI and Agriculture Ministry, Athens, Greece.
Bourbos VA and Skoudridakis MT 1996. Soil solarization for the control of Verticillium wilt of greenhouse
tomato. Phytoparasitica 24, p.277-280.
Cartia G 1997. Solarization in integrated management systems for greenhouses – experiences in commercial crops in Sicily. Proceedings of Second International Conference on Soil Solarization and Integrated
Management of Soilborne Pests. 16-21 March, Aleppo, Syria.
Chellemi DO et al 1997. Adaptation of soil solarization to the integrated managment of soilborne pests of
tomato under humid conditions. Phytopathology 87, p.250-258.
Chellemi DO et al 1997. Application of soil solarization to fall production of cucurbits and peppers.
Proceedings of Florida State Hort. Society 110, p.333-336.
Chellemi DO et al 1997. Field validation of soil solarization for fall production of tomato. Proceedings of
Florida State Hort. Society 110, p.330-332.
Coelho L, Chellemi DO and Mitchell DJ 1997. Efficacy of soil solarization and cabbage amendment for the
control of Phytophthora spp. in north Florida. Phytopathology 87, p.S20.
DeVay J, Stapleton J and Elmore C (eds) 1991. Soil Solarization. Plant Production & Protection Paper 109,
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome, Italy.
Elmore C, Stapleton J, Bell C and DeVay J 1997. Soil Solarization: A Nonpesticidal Method for Controlling
Diseases, Nematodes, and Weeds. Publication 21377, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources,
University of California, USA.
Gamliel A and Stapleton J 1993. Effect of chicken compost or ammonium phosphate and solarization on
pathogen control, rhizosphere organisms and lettuce growth. Plant Disease 77, p.886-891.
Gamliel A and Stapleton J 1997. Improvement of soil solarization with volatile compounds generated from
organic amendments. Phytoparasitica 25.
Ghini R 1997. Solarização do solo. In Goto R and Wilson Tivelli S (eds). Produção de Hortaliças em
Ambiente Protegido: Condições Subtropicais. UNESP Fundacão, São Paulo, Brazil.
Ghini R 1993. A solar collector for soil disinfestation. Netherlands Journal of Plant Pathology 99, p.45-50.
Ghini R et al 1992. Desinfestacao de substratos com a utilizaco de colector solar. Bragantia Campinas 51,
p.85-93.
Grinstein A 1992. Introduction of a new agricultural technology – soil solarization – in Israel.
Phytoparasitica 20 supplement, p.127S-131S.
Grinstein A and Hetzroni A 1991. The technology of soil solarization. In Katan J and DeVay JE (eds). Soil
Solarization. CRC Publications, Boca Raton, Florida, USA. p.159-170.
Grossman J and Liebman J 1995. Alternatives to methyl bromide – steam and solarization in nursery
crops. The IPM Practitioner 17, 7, p.1-12.
Hartz TK, DeVay JE and Elmore CL 1993. Solarization is an effective soil disinfestation technique for strawberry production. HortScience 28, 2, p.104-106.
Websites and Audio-visual Materials on Solarization
GTZ Proklima website for information and photographs of the GTZ technology transfer project on solarisation in Jordan: http://www.gtz.de/proklima
International Workgroup on Soil Solarization and Integrated Management of Soilborne Pests, Kearney
Agricultural Center, University of California, USA: http://www.uckac.edu/iwgss
Soil Solarization Home, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel: http://agri3.huji.ac.il/~katan
Principles of Soil Solarization and Application of Soil Solarization. Video cassette made in 1990. Available
in English, Arabic, Spanish, Portugese, French, Hebrew, Italian. Extension Service, Ministry of Agriculture &
Rural Development, D N Bet Shear 10900, Israel. (Contact Mr. A Tzafrir, fax +972 3 6971 649.)
Section 4.6 Steam Treatments
Agrelek 1995. Soil Heat Treatment. Technical Information. Agrelek electricity advisory service for agriculture, South Africa.
Anon 1995. Mobile steam sterilizer. Greenhouse Management and Production. 14, 2, p.75.
Horowitz J, Regev Y and Herzlinger G 1983. Solarization for weed control. Weed Science 31, p.170-179.
Katan J 1999. Personal communication.
Katan J 1996. Soil Solarization: Integrated Control Aspects. In Hall R (ed). Principles and Practice of
Managing Soilborne Pathogens. APS Press, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA.
Katan J and DeVay J 1991. Soil Solarization. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, USA.
Katan J, Grinstein A and Gamliel A 1998. Highlights on recent studies and progress in soil solarization.
Available on website: http://agri3.huji.ac.il/~katan/highlight.html
Le Bihan B et al 1997. Evaluation of soil solar heating for control of damping-off fungi in two forest nurseries in France. Biol. Fertil. Soils 25, p.189-195.
Options Committee. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya. p.48-49. Available on website: http://www.teap.org
Minuto A, Migheli Q and Garibaldi A 1995. Integrated control of soilborne plant pathogens by solar heating and antagonistic microorganisms. Acta Horticulturae [Soil Disinfestation] 382, p.138-143.
Stapleton JJ 1996. Fumigation and solarization practice in plasticulture systems. HortTechnology 6, p.189192.
Stapleton JJ and Ferguson L 1996. Solarization to disinfest soil for containerized plants in the inland valleys of California. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and
Emissions Reductions. 4-6 Nov, Orlando, Florida, USA.
Stapleton JJ, Paplomatus E, Wakeman R and DeVay J 1993. Establishment of apricot and almond trees
using soil mulching with transparent (solarization) and black polyethylene film: effects on Verticillium wilt
and tree health. Plant Pathology 42, p.333-338.
Strand LL et al 1998. Integrated Pest Management for Tomatoes. Publication 3274. Division of Agriculture
and Natural Resources, University of California, Oakland, California, USA. 118pp.
Thicoipán JP 1994. Production Technique: La Solarisation. Infos-CTIFL No. 104. Centre Technique
Interprofessionnel des Fruits et Légumes, Paris, France.
Tjamos EC and Paplomatas EJ 1988. Long-term effect of soil solarization in controlling Verticillium wilt of
globe artichokes in Greece. Plant Pathology 37, p.507-515.
Tjamos EC 1998. Solarization an alternative to methyl bromide for the Southern European Countries. In
Bello A et al (eds) Alternatives to Methyl Bromide for the Southern European Countries. European
Commission DGXI, Brussels, Belgium and CSIC, Madrid. p.127-150.
Vickers RT 1995. Tomato production in Italy without methyl bromide. In Banks HJ (ed). Agricultural
Production Without Methyl Bromide – Four Case Studies. CSIRO Division of Entomology, Canberra,
Australia.
277
278
Baker KF 1957. The UC System for Producing Healthy Container-Grown Plants. Manual 23. Agricultural
Experimental Station, University of California, Berkeley, California, USA.
Barel M 1999. Personal communication, Netherlands.
Barel M 1992. Negative pressure steaming. Proceedings of the International Workshop on Alternatives to
Methyl Bromide for Soil Fumigation. October. Rotterdam, Netherlands and Rome, Italy.
Bartok JW 1993. Steaming is still the most effective way of treating contaminated media. Greenhouse
Manager 110, 10, p.88-89.
Bartok JW 1994. Steam sterilization of growing media. In Landis TD and Dumroese RK (eds). National
Proceedings: Forest and Conservation Nursery Association. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-257, Rocky Mountain
Forest and Range Experiment Station, Forest Service, US Department of Agriculture Fort Collins, Colorado,
USA. p.163-165.
Belker N 1989. Soil Disinfection by Steaming. Fachinformation No. 4/3/89, Horticultural Section, Chamber
of Agriculture, Westfalen-Lippe, Germany.
Brodie BB 1999. Using steam to replace methyl bromide in the golden nematode control program. 1999
Methyl Bromide Alternatives Outreach, Fresno, California, USA. Available on website:
Castellá G 1999. Lessons learned during UNIDO’s project implementation in the methyl bromide sector.
Reductions. Methyl Bromide Alternatives Outreach, Fresno, California, USA. Available on website:
Davis T 1994. If you know where to look, potential heat sources are virtually everywhere. Greenhouse
Manager. 13, 6, p.60-63.
De Barro P 1995. Cucurbit production in the Netherlands without methyl bromide. In Banks HJ (ed).
Agricultural Production without Methyl Bromide – Four Case Studies. CSIRO Division of Entomology,
Canberra, Australia.
Ellis RG 1991. A Review of Sterilisation of Glasshouse Soils. Horticultural Development Council Research
Report PC/34, Petersfield, UK.
EPA 1997. Steam as an alternative to methyl bromide in nursery crops. In Environmental Protection
Agency. Alternatives to Methyl Bromide Ten Case Studies – Soil, Commodity and Structural Use – Volume
Three. EPA430-R-97-030. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA. Available on website:
Grossman J and Liebman J 1996. Alternatives to methyl bromide – steam and solarization in nursery
crops. In Quarles W and Daar S (eds) 1996. IPM Alternatives to Methyl Bromide. Bio-Integral Resource
Center, Berkeley, California, USA.
Gullino ML 1992. Methyl bromide and alternatives in Italy. Proceedings of International Workshops on
Alternatives to Methyl Bromide for Soil Fumigation. 19-23 October, Rotterdam, Netherlands and
Rome/Latina, Italy.
Karsky R 1996. Steam Treating Soils: An Alternative to Methyl Bromide Fumigation. Technical report No.
9624-2818-MTDC, Missoula Technology & Development Center, US Dept Agriculture Forest Service,
Missoula, Montana, USA.
Ketzis J 1992. Case studies of the virtual elimination of methyl bromide soil fumigation in Germany and
Switzerland and the alternatives employed. Proceedings of International Workshops on Alternatives to
Methyl Bromide for Soil Fumigation. 19-23 October, Rotterdam, Netherlands and Rome/Latina, Italy.
Lawson RH and Horst RK 1982. Upset with diseases? Let off some steam. Greenhouse Manager 1982,
p.51-54.
Norberg G et al 1997. Vegetation control by steam treatment in boreal forests: a comparison with burning and soil scarification. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 27, p.2026-2033.
Quarles W 1997. Steam – the hottest alternative to methyl bromide. American Nurseryman 15 August,
p.37-43.
Quarles W 1997. Alternatives to methyl bromide in forest nurseries. The IPM Practitioner 19, 3, p.1-14.
Runia WT 1983. A recent development in steam sterilization. Acta Horticulturae [Soil Disinfestation] 152,
p.195-200.
USDA 1997. Portable unit sterilizes soil. Methyl Bromide Alternatives. US Department of Agriculture
newsletter 3, 3, p.4-5. Available on website: http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/np/mba/july1997/
Websites on Steam/Heat Treatments
Waipuna International weed control equipment manufacturer: http://www.waipuna.com
ATTRA undated. Organic Potting Mixes. Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas, Fayetteville,
Arkansas, USA. Available on website: http://www.attra.org/
ATTRA undated. Disease Suppressive Potting Mixes. Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas,
Fayetteville, Arkansas, USA. Available on website: http://www.attra.org/
ATTRA undated. Sustainable Small-scale Nursery Production. Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural
Areas, Fayetteville, Arkansas, USA. Available on website: http://www.attra.org/
ATTRA undated. Farm-Scale Composting Resource List. Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas,
ATTRA undated. Compost Teas for Plant Disease Control. Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas,
Batchelor TA 1999. Case Studies on Alternatives to Methyl Bromide: Technologies with Low Environmental
Impact. United Nations Environment Programme, Division of Technology, Industry and Economics,
OzonAction Programme, Paris, France.
Bauerie 1984. Bag culture productivity of greenhouse tomatoes. Special Circular 108. Ohio State
University, Ohio, USA.
Benoit 1992. Practical Guide for Simple Soilless Culture Techniques. European Vegetable R&D Centre, SintKatelijne-Waver, Belgium.
Benoit 1999. Personal communication. European Vegetable R&D Centre, Belgium.
Beniot F and Ceustermans N 1991. Umweltfreundliche erdelose Anbauweisen. Deutscher Gartenbau 45,
25, p.1572-1577.
Benoit F and Ceustermans N 1995. Horticultural aspects of ecological soilless growing methods. Acta
Horticulturae 396, p.11-24.
Benoit F and Ceustermans N 1995. A decade of research on ecologically sound substrates. Acta
Benoit F and Ceustermans N 1996. Polyurethane ether foam (PUR) an ecological substrate for soilless
growing. Polymer Recycling 2, 2, p.109-116.
Boehm MJ and Hoitink HAJ 1992. Sustenance of microbial activity in potting mixes and its impact on
severity of Pythium root rot of poinsettia. Phytopathology 82, p.259-264.
Böhme M 1995. Evaluation of organic, synthetic and mineral substances for hydroponically grown cucumber. Acta Horticulturae 401, p.209-217.
Bunt AC date. Media and Mixes for Container-Grown Plants. Unwin Hyman, London, UK.
CTIFL 1984. Cultures Légumières sur Substrats. Centre Technique Interprofessionnel des Fruits et Légumes,
Paris, France.
Cooper A 1988. The ABC of NFT. Grower Books, London, UK.
De Barro P 1995. Strawberry production in the Netherlands without methyl bromide; and Cucurbit production in the Netherlands without methyl bromide. In Banks HJ (ed). Agricultural Production Without
Methyl Bromide – Four Case Studies. CSIRO Division of Entomology, Canberra, Australia.
Section 4.7 Substrates
279
280
De Kreij C 1995. Latest insight into water and nutrient control in soilless cultivation. Acta Horticulturae
[Soil Disinfestation] 408, p.47-61.
DLV 2000. Aardbeienteelt Op Substraat [Growing Strawberries on Substrates]. DLV Horticultural Advisory
Service, Horst, Netherlands (in press).
Elmore C, Stapleton J, Bell C and DeVay J 1997. Soil Solarization: A Nonpesticidal Method for Controlling
Diseases, Nematodes, and Weeds. Publication 21377, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources,
Environment Australia 1998. National Methyl Bromide Response Strategy. Part I Horticultural Uses.
Environment Australia, Canberra, Australia.
FAO 1990. Soilless Culture for Horticultural Crop Production. Plant Production and Protection Paper 101.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome, Italy.
FAO 1990. Popular Hydroponic Gardens. Technical manual and audiovisual course. United Nations
Development Programme and Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Regional
Office for Latin America and the Caribbean, Santiago, Chile.
Gartner JB, Still SM and Klett JE 1973. The use of hardwood bark as a growing medium. Proceedings of
International Plant Propagation Society 23, p.222-230.
Gunnlaugsson B and Adalsteinsson S 1995. Pumice as environment-friendly substrate – a comparison with
rockwool. Acta Horticulturae 401, p.131-136.
Gyldenkaerne S, Yohalem D & Hvalsøe E 1997. Production of Flowers and Vegetables in Danish
Greenhouses: Alternatives to Methyl Bromide. Danish Environmental Protection Agency, Copenhagen,
Denmark.
Hardgrave M 1995. An evaluation of polyurethane foam as a reuseable substrate for hydroponic cucumber production. Acta Horticulturae 401, p.201-208.
Hardgrave M and Harriman M 1995. Development of organic substrates for hydroponic cucumber production. Acta Horticulturae 401, p.219-224.
Hochmuth R 1999. Personal communication.
Hoitink HA, Inbar Y and Boehm MJ 1991. Status of compost-amended potting mixes naturally suppressive
to soilborne disease of floricultural crops. Plant Disease 75, p.869-873.
Johnson H (undated). Soilless Culture of Greenhouse Vegetables. Vegetable Research and Information
Center, University of Calfornia, Davis, California, USA. 12pp.
Johnson H 1980. Hydroponics: A Guide to Soilless Culture. Leaflet 2947. Division of Agriculture and
Natural Resources, University of California, Berkeley, California, USA.
Johnson H and Hickman GW 1984. Greenhouse cucumber production. Leaflet 2775. Division of
Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California, Berkeley, California, USA.
Jones JB 1983. A Guide for the Hydroponic and Soilless Culture Grower. Timber Press, Portland, Oregon,
USA.
Kampf AN and Jung M 1991. The use of carbonized rice hulls as a horticultural substrate. Acta
Kipp JA, Wever G and de Kreij C (eds) 1999. Substraat: Analyse, Eigenschappen, Advies. Elsevier Press,
Doetinchem, Netherlands (in Dutch).
Kipp JA, Wever G and de Kreij C (eds) 2000. Guidelines for the Application of Growing Media in
Horticulture Based on CEN Methods. Elsevier Press, Doetinchem, Netherlands (in press).
Lunt HA 1955. The use of wood chips and other wood fragments as soil amendments. Bulletin 593.
Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
Maher MJ and Prasad M 1995. Comparison of substrates, including fractioned peat, for the production of
greenhouse cucumbers. Acta Horticulturae 401, p.225-233.
MHSPE 1997. Good Grounds for Healthy Growth. VROM 97580/h/9-97. Ministry of Housing, Spatial
Planning and the Environment, The Hague, Netherlands.
Miller JH and Jones N 1995. Organic and Compost-Based Growing Media for Tree Seedling Nurseries.
Technical Paper 264, Forestry Series. World Bank, Washington, DC, USA. 75pp.
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 1994. Greenhouse Vegetable Production Guide for Commercial
Growers. Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food, British Columbia, Canada.
Nordic Council 1993. Methyl Bromide in the Nordic Countries – Current Uses and Alternatives. Nordic
Council of Ministers, Copenhagen, Denmark. Nord 1993:34. Nuyten H 1999. Personal communication,
Breda, Netherlands.
Papadopoulos AP and Khosla S 1994. Growing greenhouse seedless cucumbers in soil and in soilless
media. Publication 1902E. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ontario, Canada.
Quarles W and Grossman J 1995. Alternatives to methyl bromide in nurseries – disease suppressive media.
The IPM Practitioner 17, p.1-13.
Schwartz D, Schroder FG and Kuchenbuch R 1996. Balance sheets for water, potassium and nitrogen for
tomatoes grown in two closed circulated hydroponic systems. Gartenbauwissenschaft 61, 5, p.249-255.
Vickers RT 1995. Tomato production in Italy without methyl bromide. In Banks HJ (ed). Agricultural
Production Without Methyl Bromide – Four Case Studies. CSIRO Division of Entomology, Canberra,
Australia.
Wallach R, da Silva FF and Chen Y 1992. Unsaturated characteristics of composted wastes, tuff and their
mixtures. Soil Science 153, p.434-441.
Zengerle and Hartmann HD 1988. Grundlagen für eine optimale kulturführung von tomaten unter glas.
Technisches Bericht Forschungsanstalt Geisenheim – Gemüsebau, Geisenheim, Germany.
Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas, Arkansas, USA for booklets on potting mixes and substrates for nurseries: http://www.attra.org
BioCycle magazine for information on commercial composts: http://www.jgpress.com
Compost Science and Utilization Journal website: http://www.jgpress.com/compost.htm
Floragard substrate supplier’s website: http://www.floragard.de
Greenhouse & Processing Crops Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada:
http://res.agr.ca/harrow
Melcourt Industries Ltd substrate supplier’s website: http://www.melcourt.co.uk
Panth Produkter AB suppliers of seedling trays for forestry and nurseries: http://www.panth.se
Peter van Luijk BV substrate supplier’s website: http://www.peval.nl
Ultimate Site on Hydroponics for commercial products and suppliers:
http://www.agrodynamics.com/hydroponics
Vegetable Research and Information Center, University of California, Davis, California, USA:
Section 5 Control of Pests in Commodities and Structures
Batchelor TA 1999a. Case Studies on Alternatives to Methyl Bromide: Technologies with Low
Economics, OzonAction Programme, Paris, France.
Batchelor TA 1999b. Co-chair of MBTOC. Personal communication.
GTZ 1998. Methyl Bromide Substitution in Agriculture. GTZ, Eschborn, Germany. 159pp.
Websites on Substrates
281
282
Mueller DK 1998. Stored Product Protection...A Period of Transition. Insects Limited, Indianapolis, Indiana,
USA. 347pp.
Paull RE and Armstrong JW 1994. Insect Pests and Fresh Horticultural Products: Treatments and
Responses. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. 360pp.
Prospect 1997. Methyl Bromide Background Report. B7-8110/95/000178/MAR/D4 report for the European
Commission. Prospect C&S, Brussels, Belgium. 207pp.
TEAP 1999. The quarantine and pre-shipment exemption of methyl bromide. In Report of the Technology
and Economic Assessment Panel, April 1999. Volume 2, part I, p.1-104. United Nations Environment
Programme, Nairobi, Kenya
USDA-APHIS 1993. Treatment Manual: Plant Protection and Quarantine. US Department of Agriculture,
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Hyattsville, Maryland, USA.
USDA-APHIS 1998. Treatment Manual: Plant Protection and Quarantine. Interim edition. Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service, US Department of Agriculture, Hyattsville, Maryland, USA.
Websites on Integrated Commodity Management
Cereal Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada website:
CSIRO Department of Entomology, Australia website: http://www.ento.csiro.au/research/storprod/storprod.html
Dept. Stored Products, Agricultural Research Organisation, Israel website:
http://www.agri.gov.il/Depts/StoredProd
Natural Resources Institute, UK, website: http://www.nri.org
Section 6 Alternative Techniques for Controlling Pests in Commodities and
Structures
Section 6.1 IPM and Preventive Measures
Durable products and structures
AIB 1979. Basic Food Plant Sanitation Manual. American Institute of Baking, Manhattan, Kansas, USA.
AIB 1990. Consolidated Standards for Food Safety (inspection and sanitation rating system for food facilities). American Institute of Baking, Manhattan, Kansas, USA.
Bahr I 1991. Reduction of stored product insects during pneumatic unloading of ships cargoes. In FleuratLessard F and Ducom P (eds.) Proceedings of the 5th International Working Conference on Stored-product
Protection 9-14 September, Bordeaux, France. Vol III, p.1135-1144.
Banks J and Fields P 1995. Physical methods for insect control in stored-grain ecosystems. In Jayas DS et al
(eds.) Stored-grain Ecosystems. Marcel Dekker Inc, New York, USA. p.353-409.
Economics (DTIE), Paris, France.
Bennett GW, Owens JM and Corrigan RM (eds) 1997. Truman’s Scientific Guide to Pest Control
Operations. Fifth edition. Purdue University. Advanstar Communications, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Bergen R 1997. Evolution of quality and insect control in a flour mill. Paper 77. 1997 Annual International
Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. Available on website:
Burkholder WE 1985. Pheromones for monitoring and control of stored-product insects. Annual Review of
Entomology 30, p.257-272.
Canadian Methyl Bromide Industry Government Working Group 1998. Integrated Pest Management in
Food Processing: Working without Methyl Bromide. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Ottawa, Canada.
Caubel G. 1983. Epidemiology and control of seed-borne nematodes. Seed Science and Technology 11,
p.989-996.
Cline LD and Press JW 1990. Reduction in almond moth (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) infestations using commercial packaging of foods in combination with the parasitic wasp, Bracon hebetor (Hymenoptera:
Braconidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America. 83, p.1110–1113.
Dobie P et al 1991. Insects and Arachnids of Tropical Stored Products: Their Biology and Identification.
TDRI, Slough, UK. 273pp.
Donahaye E et al (ed) 1997. Proceedings of the International Conference on Controlled Atmosphere and
Fumigation in Stored Products. April. Printco Ltd, Nicosia, Cyprus.
Ebeling W 1975. Urban Entomology. University of California Press, Berkeley, California, USA. 695pp.
EPA 1995. Alternatives to Methyl Bromide Ten Case Studies – Soil, Commodity and Structural Use.
FDA 1991. Ecology and Management of Food Industry Pests. Technical bulletin No. 4, Food and Drug
Administration, Washington, DC, USA.
Fields P et al 2000. Canadian Grain Storage. CD-ROM. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, University of
Manitoba, Canadian Grain Commission. Available on website: http://www.cgc.ca/main-e.htm
Fields P and Muir W 1995. Physical control. In Subramanyam B and Hagstrum D (eds.) Integrated
Management of Insects in Stored Products. Marcel Dekker, New York, USA.
Fleurat-Lessard F 1987. Control of stored insects by physical means and modified environmental conditions. Feasibility and applications. In Lawson TJ (ed). Stored Products Pest Control. BCPC Monograph 37,
p.209-218.
GTZ 1984. Tables de Détermination des Principaux Ravageurs des Denrées Entreposées dans les Pays
Chauds. GTZ, Eschborn, Germany. 148pp.
GTZ 1996. Manual on the Prevention of Post-harvest Grain Losses. GTZ, Eschborn, Germany. 330pp.
GTZ 1998. Methyl Bromide Substitution in Agriculture. GTZ, Eschborn, Germany. 159pp.
Hall DS 1990. Pests of Stored Products and Their Control. Belhaven Press, London, UK.
Highley E, Wright EJ, Banks HJ and Champ BR (eds) 1994. Stored Product Protection. CAB International,
Wallingford, UK. 1274 pp.
Imholte TJ 1984. Engineering for Food Safety and Sanitation. Technical Institute of Food Safety, North
America, Medfield, Massachusetts, USA.
Jayas DS, White NDG and Muir WE 1994. Stored-Grain Ecosystems. Marcel Dekker Inc, New York, USA.
784 pp.
Jin Zuxun et al (eds) 1999. Stored Product Protection. Proceedings of 7th International Working
Conference on Stored-product Protection, Beijing. Vols 1,2. Sichuan Publishing House of Science and
Technology, Chengdu, China. 2003pp.
Kenkel P et al 1994. Stored product integrated pest management. Food Reviews International 10, 2,
p.177-193.
Kristensen M 1997. Alternatives to Methyl Bromide - Control of Rodents on Ship and Aircraft. TemaNord
1997:513, Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Leaper S 1997. HACCP: A Practical Guide. Campden & Chorleywood, UK. 51pp.
Lewis VR and Haverty MI 1996a. Evaluation of six techniques for control of the western drywood termite
(Isoptera: Kalotermitidae). Journal of Economic Entomology 89, p.922-934.
Lewis VR and Haverty MI 1996b. Long awaited non-chemical alternative to drywood termite control study
completed. The Voice of PCOC. Summer, p.20-29.
283
284
Mallis A 1997. Handbook of Pest Control: The Behaviour, Life History, and Control of Household Pests.
Eighth edition. Franzak & Foster, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Manzelli AM 1987. Control of the cigarette beetle in stored and processed tobacco. Tobacco Journal
International 6, p.373-378.
Mayer MS and McLaughlin JR 1990. Handbook of Insect Sex Pheromones. CRC Press. Boca Raton, Florida,
USA. 1083pp.
MBIGWG 1998. Integrated Pest Management in Food Processing: Working Without Methyl Bromide.
Methyl Bromide Industry Government Working Group. Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Health
Canada, Ottawa, Canada.
McCarthy B 1998. The future without methyl bromide: a focus on IPM. PCO Services Inc. Presentation to
Association of Operative Millers. October. Kitchener, Ontario, Canada.
Mills R and Pederson J 1990. A Flour Mill Sanitation Manual. Eagan Press, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA.
164pp.
Moulton JL (ed) 1988. Preservation and Storage of Grains, Seeds and Their By-products. Lavoisier
Publishing Inc, New York, USA. 1095pp.
USA.
Muller DK, Pierce LH et al 1991. Practical application of pheromone traps in food and tobacco industry.
Journal of the Kansas Entomology Society 63, 4, p.548-553.
Nickson P, Wright JE and Rees DP 1998. Mating disruption in a food processing plant: the first Australian
demonstration of a biological pest control technique with general application in food processing and distribution. In Banks HJ et al (eds) Stored Grain in Australia. SGRL, CSIRO, Canberra, Australia.
Nielsen PS 2000. Alternatives to Methyl Bromide: IPM in Flour Mills. TemaNord 2000:510. Nordic Council
of Ministers, Copenhagen, Denmark. 35pp.
Olkowski W, Daar S and Olkowski H 1991. Common-Sense Pest Control. Taunton Press, Newtown,
Connecticut, USA.
Pierce LH 1994. Using pheromones for location and suppression of phyctid moths and cigarette beetles in
Hawaii – a five-year summary. In Highley E et al (eds). Proceedings of 6th International Working
Conference on Stored Product Protection. Vol I, p.439-443. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.
Pierce LH 1999. Food warehouses in Hawaii: integrated pest management. In Batchelor TA (ed) 1999.
Case Studies on Alternatives to Methyl Bromide: Technologies with Low Environmental Impact. United
Nations Environment Programme, Division of Technology, Industry and Economics (DTIE), Paris, France.
Pinniger DB 1991. New developments in the detection and control of insects which damage museum collections. Biodeterioration Abstracts 5, p.125-130.
Rees D and Banks HJ 1999. The khapra beetle, Trogoderma granarium Everts (Coleoptera: Dermestidae) a
quarantine pest of stored products. Review of biology, distribution, monitoring and control. Technical
Report, CSIRO, Canberra, Australia.
Rees D and Wright EJ 1998. Using pheromone traps to monitor pest populations. In Banks HJ et al (eds).
Stored Grain in Australia. SGRL, CSIRO, Canberra, Australia.
Ryan L 1995. Post-harvest Tobacco Infestation Control. Chapman and Hall, London, UK and New York,
New York, USA. 155pp.
Sauer DB (ed) 1992. Storage of Cereal Grains and Their Products. 4th ed. American Association of Cereal
Chemists, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA. 615pp.
Scheffrahn RH and Su Y 1994. Control of drywood termites (Isoptera: Kalotermitidae). In WH Robinson
(ed). Proceedings of the National Conference on Urban Entomology. Atlanta, Georgia, USA. 139pp.
Schöller M et al 1997. Towards biological control as a major component of integrated pest management
in stored product protection. Journal of Stored Product Research 33, 1, p.81-97.
Sinha RN and Watters FL 1985. Insect Pests of Flour Mills, Grain Elevators and Feed Mills and Their
Control. Publication 1776E, Research Branch, Agriculture Canada, Government Publication Centre,
Canada.
Skadedyrcentralen Danmark 1999. Alternatives to Methyl Bromide: IPM in Danish Flour Mills: General
Guideline. Danish Environmental Protection Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark. 55pp.
Smith EH and Whitman RC 1992. NPCA Field Guide to Structural Pests. National Pest Control Association,
Dunn Loring, Virginia, USA.
Stanbridge D 1998. Pest control becomes a team effort in food plants. Pest Control May, p.50-52.
Strang T 1996. Museum Pest Management. Seminar notes. Canadian Conservation Institute, Department
of Canadian Heritage, Government of Canada, Quebec, Canada.
Subramanyam B and Hagstrum DW (eds) 1996. Integrated Management of Insects in Stored Products.
Marcel Dekker Inc, New York, USA. 426pp.
Subramanyam B and Hagstrum DW (eds) 2000. Alternatives to Pesticides in Stored-Product IPM. Kluwer
Academic, Hingham. Massachusets, USA. 456pp.
Trematerra P 1994a. Control of Ephestia kuehniella Zell. by sex pheromones in flour mills. Anzeiger
Schädlingskunde Pflanzenschutz, Umweltschutz 67, p.74-77.
Trematerra P 1994b. The use of sex pheromones to control Ephestia kuehniella Zeller (Mediterranean flour
moth) in flour mills by mass trapping and attracticide (lure and kill) methods. In Highley E et al (eds)
Stored-Product Protection: Proceedings of the 6th International Working Conference on Stored-product
Protection 17-23 April, Canberra, Australia, pp.375-382.
University of California 1991. Residential, Industrial, and Institutional Pest Control. Publication 3334,
Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California, Oakland, California, USA. 214pp.
University of California 1992. Wood Preservation. Publication 3335. Division of Agriculture and Natural
Vail PV et al 1993a. Quarantine treatments: A biological approach to decision-making for selected hosts
of codling moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Journal of Economic Entomology 86, p.70–75.
White DG, Jayas DS and Demianyk CJ 1997. Movement of grain to control stored product insects and
mites. Phytoprotection 78, p.75-84.
Anon 1988. MAFF Notification. No. 183. Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Japan.
Armstrong JW 1994. Commodity resistance to infestation by quarantine pests. In Sharp JL and Hallman GJ
(eds). Quarantine Treatments for Pests of Food Plants. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado, USA and
Oxford, UK & IBH Publishing, New Delhi, India. p.199-212.
Armstrong JW et al 1983. Resistance of ‘Sharwil’ avocados at harvest maturity to infestation by three fruit
fly species in Hawaii. Journal of Economic Entomology 76, p.119-121.
Chew V 1994. Statistical methods for quarantine treatment data analysis. In Sharp JL and Hallman GJ
(eds). Quarantine Treatments for Pests of Food Plants. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado, USA and
Oxford, UK & IBH Publishing, New Delhi, India. p.33-46.
Firko MJ 1995. Importation of avocado fruit (Persea americana) from Mexico. Supplemental pest risk
assessment. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, US Department of Agriculture, Hyattsville, USA.
Gonzalez J 1997. Wax treatments meeting Probit 9 requirements for controlling Brevipalpus chilensis in
cherimoyas and citrus. 1997 Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives
and Emissions Reductions. Available on website: http://www.epa.gov/docs/ozone/mbr/mbrpro97.html
Greany PD 1994. Plant host status and natural resistance. In Paull RE and Armstrong JW (eds). Insect Pests
and Fresh Horticultural Products: Treatments and Responses. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. p.37-46.
Jang EB 1990. Fruit fly disinfestation of tropical fruits using semi-permeable shrinkwrap films. Acta
Jang EB and Moffitt HR 1994. Systems approaches to achieving quarantine security. In Sharp JL and
Hallman GJ (eds). Quarantine Treatments for Pests of Food Plants. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado, USA
and Oxford, UK & IBH Publishing, New Delhi, India. p.225-238.
Hansen JD, Archer JR and Moffitt HR 1997. The systems approach to quarantine security for Northwest
tree fruits: a practical alternative. 1997 Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide
Perishable Commodities (Systems approach)
285
Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. Available on website: http://www.epa.gov/docs/ozone/mbr/mbr-
pro97.html
286
Hennessay MK et al 1992. Absence of natural infestation of Caribbean fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) in
commercial Florida ‘Tahiti’ lime fruits. Journal of Economic Entomology 85, p.1843-1845.
Honiball F et al 1979. Mechanical control of red scale Aoinidiella auranti (Mask.) on harvvested oranges.
Citrus and Subtropical Fruit Journal 519, p.17-18.
Miller CE et al 1995. A systems approach for Mexican avocado. Risk management analysis. Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service, US Department of Agriculture, Hyattsville, Maryland, USA.
Moffitt HR 1990. A systems approach for meeting quarantine requirements for insect pests of deciduous
pests. Proceedings Washington State Horticultural Association. 85, p.223-225.
Neven LG 1994. CATTS: a unique research chamber for the development of non-chemical quarantine
treatments. Proceedings of 19th Annual Meeting of Washington State Horticultural Association. 90,
p.124-126.
Riherd C, Nguyen R and Brazzel JR 1994. Pest free areas. In Sharp JL and Hallman GJ (eds). Quarantine
Treatments for Pests of Food Plants. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado, USA and Oxford, UK & IBH
Publishing, New Delhi, India. p.213-224.
Robertson JL et al 1994a. Statistical concept and minimum threshold concept. In Paull RE and Armstrong
JW (eds). Insect Pests and Fresh Horticultural Products: Treatments and Responses. CAB International,
Wallingford, UK. p.47-68.
Robertson JL et al 1994b. Statistical analyses to estimate efficacy of disinfestation treatments. In Sharp JL
and Hallman GJ (eds). Quarantine Treatments for Pests of Food Plants. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado,
USA and Oxford, UK & IBH Publishing, New Delhi, India. p.47-66.
Shetty K et al 1989. Individual shrink-wrapping: a technique for fruit fly disinfestation of tropical fruits.
HortScience 24, 2, p.317-319.
Vail PV et al 1993. Quarantine treatments: a biological approach to decision making for selected hosts of
codling moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Journal of Economic Entomology 86, 1, p.70-75.
Worner SP 1994. Predicitng the establishment of exotic pests in relation to climate. In Sharp JL and
Hallman GJ (eds). Quarantine Treatments for Pests of Food Plants. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado, USA
and Oxford, UK & IBH Publishing, New Delhi, India. p.11-32.
Section 6.2 Cold treatments and Aeration
Armitage DM 1987. Controlling insects by cooling grain. In Lawson TJ (ed). Stored products pest control.
BPCA Monograph No.37, p.219-228.
Armitage DM, Wilkin PR and Cogan PM 1991. The cost and effectiveness of aeration in the British climate. In Fleurat-Lessard F and Ducom P (eds). Proceedings of the 5th International Working Conference
on Stored-product Protection. 9-14 September, Bordeaux, France. III, p.1925-1933.
Banks J and Fields P 1995. Physical methods for insect control in stored-grain ecosystems. In Jayas DS,
White NDG and Muir WE (eds). Stored-grain Ecosystems. Marcel Dekker Inc, New York, USA. p.353-409.
Berhaut P and Lasseran JC 1986. Conservation du blé par la ventilation. Perspectives Agricoles 97, p.32-39.
Bond EJ 1975. Control of insects with fumigants at low temperatures: response to methyl bromide over
the range 25ºC to 6.7ºC. Journal of Economic Entomology 68, p.539-542.
Brokerhof AW, Morton R and Banks HJ 1993. Time-mortality relationships for different species and developmental stages of clothes moths (Lepidoptera: Tineidae) exposed to cold. Journal of Stored Products
Research 29, p.277-282.
Brunner H 1987. Cold preservation of grain. In Donahaye E and Navarro S (eds.) Proceedings of the 4th
International Working Conference on Stored-product Protection, 21-26 September, 1986, Tel Aviv, Israel.
p.219-226.
Burges HD and Burrell NJ 1964. Cooling bulk grain in the British climate to control storage insects and to
improve keeping quality. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 15, p.32-50.
Perishable Commodities (Cold treatments)
Armstrong JW 1994. Heat and cold treatments. In Paull RE and Armstrong JW (eds). Insect Pests and Fresh
Horticultural Products: Treatments and Responses. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. p.103-120.
Armstrong JW et al 1995. Quarantine cold treatments for Hawaiian carambola fruit infested with
Mediterranean fruit fly, melon fly and oriental fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) eggs and larvae. Journal of
Economic Entomology 88, p.683-687.
Batchelor TA, O’Donnell RL and Roby JJ 1985. The efficacy of controlled atmosphere coolstorage in controlling leafroller species. Proceedings of 38th New Zealand Weed and Pest Control Conference. 13-15
August, Rotorua, New Zealand. p.53-56.
Benshoter CA 1987. Effects of modified atmospheres and refrigeration temperatures on the survival of
eggs and larvae of the Caribbean fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) in laboratory diet. Journal of Economic
Entomology 80, 6, p.1223-1225.
Chervin C et al 1997. A high temperature/ low oxygen pulse improves cold storage disinfestation.
Postharvest Biology and Technology 10, 3, p.239-245.
Gould WP 1994. Cold storage. In Sharp JL and Hallman GJ (eds). Quarantine Treatments for Pests of Food
Plants. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado, USA and Oxford, UK & IBH Publishing, New Delhi, India.
p.119-132.
Gould WP 1996. Cold treatment, the Caribbean fruit fly, and carambolas. In McPherson BA and Steck GJ
(eds). Fruit Fly Pests: A World Assessment of Their Biology and Management. Delray Press, Florida, USA.
586pp.
Chauvin G and Vannier G 1991. La résistance au froid et à la chaleur: deux données fondamentales dans
le contrôle des insectes de produits entreposés. In Fleurat-Lessard F and Ducom P (eds). Proceedings of the
5th International Working Conference on Stored-product Protection. 9-14 September, Bordeaux, France.
Vol II, p.1157-1165.
Champ BR and Highley E (eds) 1995. Preserving grain quality by aeration and in-store drying. ACIAR
Proceedings No 15.
Dohino TS et al 1999. Low temperature as an alternative to fumigation for disinfesting stored products.
Research Bulletin Plant Protection Japan 35, p.5-14.
Donahaye E, Navarro S and Rindner M 1991. The influence of low temperatures on two species of
Carpophilus (Col. Nitidulidae). Journal of Applied Entomology 111, p.297-302.
Fields P and Muir W 1995. Physical control. In Subramanyam B and Hagstrum D (eds). Integrated
Johnson JA and Valero KA 1999. Response of navel orangeworm and Indianmeal moth eggs to low temperature storage. Paper 65. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives,
USA.
Johnson JA, Bolin HR, Guller G and Thompson JF 1992. Efficacy of temperature treatments for insect disinfestation of dried fruits and nuts. Walnut Research Reports 1992. USA. p.156-171.
Lasseran JC and Fleurat-Lessard F 1991. Aeration of grain with ambient or artificially cooled air: a technique to control weevils in temperate climates. In Fleurat-Lessard F and Ducom P (eds). Proceedings of the
II, p.1221-1231.
Navarro S and Calderon M. 1982. Aeration of grain in subtropical climates. FAO Agricultural Services
Bulletin No 52. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome, Italy. 120pp.
Academic, Hingham, Massachusetts, USA. 456pp.
Worden GC 1987. Freeze-outs for insect control. AOM Bulletin January, p.4903-4904.
287
288
Houck LG et al 1990. Holding lemon fruit at 5 or 15°C before cold treatment reduces chilling injury.
HortScience 25, 9, p.1174.
Houck LG and Jenner JF 1997. Postharvest response of lemon fruit to hot water immersion, quarantine
cold or methyl bromide fumigation treatments depends on preharvest growing temperature. Annual
International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. MBAO, USA
Lester PJ et al 1997. Postharvest disinfestation of diapausing and non-diapausing two-spotted spider mite
(Tetranychus urticae) on persimmons: hot water immersion and coolstorage. Entomologia Experimentalis
et Applicata. 83, 2, p.189-193.
McDonald RE and Miller WR 1994. Quality and condition maintenance. In: JL Sharp and GJ Hallman (eds).
Quarantine Treatments for Pests of Food Plants. Westview Press, Boulder, USA and Oxford & IBH
Neven LG and Drake SR 1997. Develoopment of combination heat and cold treatments for postharvest
control of codling moth in apples and pears. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl
Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. MBAO, USA
Shellie KC and Mangan RL 1998. Decay control during refrigerated, ultra-low oxygen storage for disinfestation of Mexican fruit fly. Paper 60. 1997 Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide
Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. Available on website: http://www.epa.gov/docs/ozone/mbr/mbrpro97.html
Thompson JF 1996. Forced air cooling. Perishables Handling Newsletter 88, p.2-11.
Section 6.3 Contact Insecticides
Beavis C, Simpson P, Syme J and Ryan C 1991. Chemicals for the protection of fruit and nut crops.
Department of Primary Industries, Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Benezet HJ 1989. Chemical control of pests in stored tobacco. Proceedings of 43rd Tobacco Chemist’s
Research Conference 15, p.1-25.
Champ BR and Highley E 1985. Pesticides and Humid Tropical Grain Storage Systems. ACIAR Proceedings
14. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, Canberra, Australia. 364pp.
Codex Alimentarius Commission 1992. Codex maximum limits for pesticides residues in food. World
Health Organization/ Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.
Dickson DJ 1996. Remedial treatment: in situ treatments of historic structures. In First Annual Conference
on Wood Protection with Diffusible Preservatives and Pesticides. Forest Products Society, Madison,
Wisconsin, USA. p.87-90.
Drysdale 1994. Boron Treatments for the Preservation of Wood – A Review of Efficacy Data for Fungi and
Termites. IRG/WP 94-30037. International Research Group on Wood Preservation.
FAO 1985. Manual of Pest Control for Food Security Reserve Grain Stock. FAO Bulletin 63, Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome, Italy.
GASCA 1996. Risks and Consequences of the Misuse of Pesticides in the Treatment of Stored Products.
Group for Assistance on Systems relating to Grain After Harvest. CTA, Wageningen, Netherlands. 19pp.
Golob P and Webley DJ 1980. The use of plants and minerals as traditional protectants of stored products. Tropical Products Institute, London, UK. G138, 32 pp.
Grace JK 1997. Review of recent research on the use of borates for termite prevention. In Second Annual
Conference on Wood Protection with Diffusible Preservatives and Pesticides. Forest Products Society,
Madison, Wisconsin, USA. p.85-92.
GTZ 1994. Recommendations for the choice of insecticides to protect stored products in the topics. Post
harvest project, GTZ, Eschborn, Germany.
GTZ 1996. Manual on the Prevention of Post-harvest Grain Losses. J Gwimmer, R Harnisch and O Mück.
GTZ, Eschborn, Germany. 330pp.
Gwimmer J, Harnisch R and Mück O 1990. Manuel sur La Manutention et la Conservation des Grains
après Récolte. GTZ, Eschborn, Germany.
pro97.html
Silhacek DL, Dyby S and Murphy C 1994. Use of IGRs for protection of stored commodities from Indian
meal moth. 1994 Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and
Emissions Reductions. Available on website: http://www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr/mbrpro94.html
Snelson JT 1987. Grain Protectants. ACIAR Monograph 3. Australian Centre for International Agricultural
Research, Canberra, Australia. 448pp.
Thiessen J-G and Pierrot R 1994. Food Crop Protection in West and Central Africa. Mission de
Coopération Phytosanitaire, Montpellier, France. 525pp.
White BR et al 1997. Field-testing phytosanitation treatments on Chilean radiata pine. Paper 91. 1997
Available on website: http://www.epa.gov/docs/ozone/mbr/mbrpro97.html
Williams LH 1997. Laboratory and field testing of borates used as pesticides. Second Annual Conference
on Wood Protection with Diffusible Preservatives and Pesticides. Forest Products Society, Madison,
Wisconsin, USA. p.14-19.
Perishable Commodities (Insecticides)
Forney CF and Houck LG 1994. Chemical treatments: Product physiological and biochemical response to
possible disinfestation procedures. In Paull RE and Armstrong JW (eds). Insect Pests and Fresh Horticultural
Products: Treatments and Responses. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. p.139-162.
Hardy JP 1997. Practical application of diffusible preservatives by pest control operators to various types of
structures. In Second Annual Conference on Wood Protection with Diffusible Preservatives and Pesticides.
Forest Products Society, Madison, Wisconsin, USA. p.20-22.
Lloyd JD 1993. The mechanisms of action of boron-containing wood preservatives. PhD thesis. Imperial
College, University of London, UK. Lloyd JD, Schoeman MW and Stanley R 1998. Remedial timber treatment with borates. reference. p.415–423
Manser GE and Lanz B 1998. Water-based wood preservatives for curative treatment of insect-infested
spruce constructions. 29th Annual Meeting of the International Research Group on Wood Preservation.
14-19 June, Maastricht, Netherlands.
Monconduit H and Mauchamp B 1998. Effects of ultralow doses of fenoxycarb on juvenile hormone-regulated physiological parameters in the silkworm, Bombyx mori L. Archives of Insect Biochemistry and
Physiology 37, p.178-189.
Mueller DK 1998. Stored Product Protection...A Period of Transition. Insects Limited, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.
Murphy RJ 1998. Outdoor exposure of Tim-bor treated scotts pine. Timber Technology Research Group,
Department of Biology, Imperial College, London, UK.
Nunes LMR 1997. The effect of boron-based preservatives on subterranean termites. PhD thesis. Imperial
College, University of London, UK.
Oberlander H, Silhacek DL, Shaaya E and Ishaaya I 1997. Current status and future perspectives of the use
of insect growth regulators for the control of stored product insects. Journal of Stored Products Research
33, p.1-6.
Samson PR, Parker RJ and Hall EA 1990. Efficacy of the insect growth regulators methoprene, fenoxycarb
and diflubenzuron against Rhyzopertha dominica (F.) (Coleoptera : Bostrichidae) on maize and paddy rice.
Journal of Stored Products Research 26, p.215-221.
Scheffrahn RH, Su Y and Busey P 1997. Laboratory and field evaluations of selected chemical treatments
for control of drywood termites (Isoptera: Kalotermitidae). Journal of Economic Entomology 90, p.492-592.
Shaaya E et al 1997. Phyto-oils as alternatives to methyl bromide for the control of insects attacking
stored products and cut flowers. 1997 Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide
289
290
Hansen JD, Hara AH and Tenbrink VT 1992. Insecticidal dips for disinfesting tropical cut flowers and
foliage. Tropical Pest Management 38, p.245-249.
Hata TY et al 1992. Pest management before harvest and insecticidal dip after harvest as a systems
approach to quarantine security for red ginger. Journal of Economic Entomology 85, p.2310-2316.
Hata TY et al 1993. Field sprays and insecticidal dips after harvest for pest management of Frankliniella
occidentalis and Thrips palmi in orchids. Journal of Economic Entomology 86, 5, p.1483-1489.
Heather NW 1994. Pesticide quarantine treatments. In Sharp JL and Hallman GJ (eds). Quarantine
McDonald RE and Miller WR 1994. Quality and condition maintenance. In Sharp JL and Hallman GJ (eds).
Quarantine Treatments for Pests of Food Plants. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado, USA and Oxford, UK
& IBH Publishing, New Delhi, India. p.249-278.
Shaaya E et al 1997. Phyto-oils as alternatives to methyl bromide for the control of insects attacking
stored products and cut flowers. 1997 Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide
Section 6.4 Controlled and Modified Atmospheres
Annis PC 1987. Toward rational controlled atmosphere dosage schedules: a review of current knowledge.
In Donahaye E and Navarro S (eds.) Proceedings of the 4th International Working Conference on StoredProduct Protection 21-26 September, Tel Aviv, Israel. p. 128-148.
Annis PC and Banks JH 1993. In Corey SA et al (eds). Pest Control and Sustainable Agriculture. CSIRO,
Melbourne, Australia. p.479-482.
ASEAN 1991. Suggested Recommendations for the Fumigation of Grain in the ASEAN Region. Part 2.
Carbon Dioxide Fumigation of Bag-stacks Sealed in Plastic Enclosures: An Operations Manual. ASEAN
Food Handling Bureau, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, CSIRO and ACIAR, Canberra, Australia.
ASEAN 1995. Suggested Recommendations for the Fumigation of Grain in the ASEAN Region. Part 4. InTransit Disinfestation with Carbon Dioxide in Freight Containers: An Operations Manual. ASEAN Food
Handling Bureau, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, CSIRO and ACIAR, Canberra, Australia.
Banks HJ 1988. Disinfestation of durable foodstuffs in ISO containers using carbon dioxide. Australian
Centre for International Agricultural Research, Canberra, Australia. ACIAR Proc. No.23, p.45-54.
Banks HJ and Annis PC 1990. Comparative advantages of high CO2 and low O2 types of controlled
atmospheres for grain storage. In Calderon M and Barkai-Golon R (eds). Food Preservation by Modified
Atmospheres. CRC Press, Roca Baton, Florida, USA. p.93-122.
Banks HJ and Annis PC 1977. Suggested procedures for controlled atmosphere storage of dry grain.
CSIRO Australian Divivision of Entomology. Technical Paper No. 13, p.1-23.
Banks HJ and Annis PC 1997. Purging grain bulks with nitrogen: plug flow and mixing processes observed
under field conditions. In Donahaye J, Navarro S and Varnava A (eds.) Proceedings of Internatioal
Conference on Controlled Atmosphere and Fumigation in Stored Products. April 1996, Nicosia, Cyprus.
Printco Ltd. p. 273-285.
Banks HJ, Annis PC and Rigby GR 1991. Controlled atmosphere storage of grain: the known and the
future. In Fleurat-Lessard F and Ducom P (eds.) Proceedings of the 5th International Working Conference
on Stored-Product Protection 9-14 September, Bordeaux, France. p. 695-706.
Banks HJ and McCabe JB1988. Uptake of carbon dioxide by concrete and implications of this process for
grain storage. Journal of Stored Products Research 24, p.183-192.
Banks HJ, Hilton SJ, Tarr CR and Thorn B 1993. Demonstration of carbon dioxide disinfestation of containerised dried vine fruit in export cartons. CSIRO Division of Entomology. Report No. 54, 9pp.
Bell CH, Chakrabarti B, Conyers ST, Wontner-Smith TJ and Llewellin BE 1993. Flow rates of controlled
atmospheres required for maintenance of gas levels in bolted metal farm bins. In Navarro S and Donahaye
E (eds.) Proceedings International Conference on Controlled Atmosphere and Fumigation in Grain Storage,
Winnipeg. June 1992. Caspit Press, Jerusalem, Israel. p.315-325.
Bell CH, Conyers ST and Llewellin BE 1997a. The use of on-site generated atmospheres to treat grain in
bins or floor stores. In Donahaye EJ, Navarro S and Varnava A (eds.) Proceedings International Conference
on Controlled Atmosphere and Fumigation in Stored Products, Nicosia, Cyprus. April 1996. Printco Ltd,
Cyprus. p.263-271.
Calderon M et al 1989. Wheat storage in a semi-desert region. Tropical Science 29, p.91-110.
Cassells J, Banks HJ and Allanson R 1994. Application of pressure-swing absorption (PSA) and liquid nitrogen as methods for providing controlled atmospheres in grain terminals. In Highley et al (eds.) Stored
Product Protection: Proceedings of the 6th International Working Conference on Stored-product
Protection. 17-23 April, 1994, Canberra, Australia. p.56-63.
Conway JA, Mitchell MK, Gunawan M and Faishal Y 1989. Cost-benefit analysis of stock preservation systems. A comparison of controlled atmosphere and the use of conventional pesticides under operational
conditions in Indonesia. In Champ BR et al (eds) Fumigation and Controlled Atmosphere Storage of Grain.
Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR), Canberra, Australia. p.228-236.
Donahaye E et al 1992. Artificial feeding site to investigate emigration of Nitidulid beetles from dried
fruits. Stored-Product Entomology 85, 5, p.1990-1993.
Donahaye E et al 1991. Storage of paddy in hermetically sealed plastic liners in Sri Lanka. Tropical Science
31, p.109-121.
Donahaye E, Navarro S, Rindner M and Azrieli A 1998. Quality preservation of stored dry fruit by carbon
dioxide enriched atmospheres. Paper 89. 1998 Annual International Research Conference on Methyl
Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. Available on website:
Fleurat-Lessard F and Le Torc’h JM 1987. Disinfestation of wheat in a harbour silo bin with an exothermic
inert gas generator. In Donahaye E and Navarro S (eds). Proceedings of the 4th International Working
Conference on Stored-product Protection. 21-26 September, 1986, Tel Aviv, Israel. p.208-217.
Gerard D, Kraus J and Quirin KW 1988. Control of stored product insects and mites with carbon dioxide
under pressure. Pharmacologie und Industrie 50, p.1298.
Gilberg M 1991. The effects of low oxygen atmospheres on museum pests. Studies in Conservation 36,
p.93-98.
Gotto M, Kishino H, Imamura M, Hirose Y and Soma Y 1996. Responses of the Pupae of Sitophilus granarius L., Sitophilus zeamais and Sitophilus oryzae L. to phosphine and mixtures of phosphine and carbon
dioxide. Research Bulletin Plant Protection Japan 32, p.63-67.
Hill JF 1997. Silo Storage Development for Almonds. HRDC Project NT300. Rural Solutions, Primary
Industries, Loxton, South Australia. 26pp.
Conference on Stored-product Protection, Beijing. Vols 1, 2. Sichuan Publishing House of Science and
Kawakami F 1995. Plant quarantine treatment for stored grains by carbon dioxide. Plant Protection 49,
10, p.18-20.
Kawakami F 1999. Current research of alternatives to methyl bromide and its reduction in Japanese plant
quarantine. Research Bulletin Plant Protection Japan 35, p.109-120.
Kawakami F et al 1996. Disinfestation tests for stored grains in commercial silos by carbon dioxide.
Kishino H, Goto M, Imamura M and Oma Y 1996. Responses of stored grain insects to carbon dioxide to
Sitophilus granarius, Rasioderma serricorne, Plodia interpunctella, Ephestia cautella and Ephestia kuehniella. Research Bulletin Plant Protection Japan 32, p.57-61.
Mann DD, Jayas DS, White NDG and Muir WE 1997. Sealing of welded-steel hopper bins for fumigation
with carbon dioxide. Canadian Agricultural Engineering 39, p.91-97.
Mbata GN and Phillips TW 2000. Temperature mediated mortality of stored-product insects exposed to
low pressure. Journal of Economic Entomology. In press.
291
292
McCabe JB and Champ BR 1981. Earth-Covered Bunker Storage: Manual of Operations. Division of
Entomology, CSIRO, Canberra, Australia.
Nakakita H and Kawashima K 1994. A new method to control stored-product insects using carbon dioxide
with high pressure followed by sudden pressure loss. In Highley E et al (eds). Stored-Product Protection:
Proceedings of the 6th International Working Conference on Stored-product Protection. 17-23 April,
Canberra, Australia. p.126-129.
Nataredja YC and Hodges RJ 1989. Commercial experience of sealed storage of bag stacks in Indonesia.
In Champ BR et al (eds). Fumigation and Controlled Atmosphere Storage of Grain. Australian Centre for
International Agricultural Research (ACIAR), Canberra, Australia. p.197-202.
Navarro S et al 2000. Insect control using vacuum or CO2 in transportable flexible liners. 2000 Annual
Navarro S et al 1998. Disinfestation of nitidulid beetles from dried fruits by modified atmospheres. Paper
68. 1998 Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions
Navarro S et al 1997. Outdoor storage of corn and paddy using sealed-stacks in the Philippines.
Proceedings of 18th ASEAN Seminar on Grains Postharvest Technology, 11-13 March, Manila, Philippines.
p.225-236.
Navarro S et al 1984. Airtight storage of wheat in PVC-covered bunker. In Ripp BE et al (eds). Controlled
Atmosphere and Fumigation in Grain Storages. Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands. p.601-614.
Navarro S, Donahaye E, Dias R and Jay E 1989. Integration of modified atmospheres for disinfestation of
dried fruits. Final Report 62-68. Project 1-1095-86. The United States - Israel Binational Agricultural
Research and Development Fund (BARD), Bet Degan, Israel.
Navarro S, Varnava A and Donahaye E 1993. Preservation of grain in hermetically sealed plastic liners with
particular reference to storage of barley in Cyprus. In Navarro S and Donahaye E (eds). Proceedings of
International Conference on Controlled Atmosphere and Fumigation in Grain Storages. Caspit Press Ltd,
Jerusalem, Israel. p.223-243.
Newton J, Abey-Koch M and Pinniger DB 1996. Controlled atmosphere treatment of textile pests in
antique curtains using nitrogen hypoxia - a case study. In Wildey KB (ed). Proceedings of the 2nd
International Conference on Insect Pests in the Urban Environment. BPC Wheatons Ltd, Exeter, UK.
p.329-339.
Prozell S and Reichmuth C 1991. Response of the Granary weevil Sitophilus granarius (L.) to controlled
atmospheres under high pressure. In Fleurat-Lessard F and Ducom P (eds). Proceedings of the 5th
International Working Conference on Stored-product Protection. 9-14 September, Bordeaux, France. II,
p.911-918.
Prozell S, Reichmuth C, Ziegleder G, Schartmann B, Matissek R, Kraus J, Gerard D and Rogg S 1997.
Control of pests and quality aspects in cocoa beans and hazel nuts and diffusion experiments in compressed tobacco with carbon dioxide under high pressure. In Donahaye EJ, Navarro S and Varnava A (eds)
1996. Proceedings International Conference on Controlled Atmosphere and Fumigation in Stored
Products. Printco Ltd, Nicosia, Cyprus. p.325-333.
Reichmuth C et al 1993. Nitrogen-flow fumigation for the preservation of wood, textiles, and other
organic material from insect damage. In: S Navarro and E Donahaye (eds). Proceedings of the
International Conference on Controlled Atmosphere and Fumigation in Grain Storage. June, Winnipeg.
Caspit Press, Jerusalem, Israel.
Ripp BE, Banks HJ, Bond EJ, Calverley DJ, Jay EG and Navarro S (eds) 1984. Controlled Atmosphere and
Fumigation in Grain Storages. Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands. 798 pp.
Rust MK 1996. The Feasibility of Using Modified Atmospheres to Control Insect Pests in Museums.
Restaurator 17, p.43-60.
Sabio GC et al 2000. Control of storage pests in the tropics using sealed storage. 2000 Annual
Shellie KC and Rodde K 1999. Semi-commercial scale ultra-low oxygen storage for disinfestation. Paper
Soderstrom EL et al 1984. Economic cost evaluation of a generated low-oxygen atmosphere as an alternative fumigant in the bulk storage of raisins. Journal of Economic Entomology 77, p.457-461.
Soderstrom EL and Brandl DG 1984. Modified atmospheres for postharvest insect control in tree nuts and
dried fruits.
Soma Y et al 1995. Responses of stored grain insects to carbon dioxide. 1. Effects of temperature, exposure period and oxygen on the toxicity of carbon dioxide to Sitophilus zeamais, Sitophilus granarius L. and
Tribolium confusum. Research Bulletin Plant Protection Japan 31, p.25-30.
Sukprakarn C, Attaviriyasook K, Khowchaimaha L, Bhudhasamai K and Promsatit B 1990. Carbon dioxide
treatment for sealed storage of bag stacks of rice in Thailand. In Champ BR, Highley E and Banks HJ (eds.)
Fumigation and Controlled Atmosphere Storage of Grain, ACIAR Proceedings. Australian Centre for
International Agricultural Research (ACIAR), Canberra, Australia, No 25, p.188-196.
Tarr C, Hilton SJ, van S Graver J and Clingeleffer PR 1994. Carbon dioxide fumigation of processed dried
vine fruit (sultanas) in sealed stacks. In Highley E et al (eds). Stored Product Protection: Proceedings of the
6th International Working Conference on Stored-product Protection. 17-23 April, 1994, Canberra,
Australia. p.204-209.
Ulrichs C 1994. Effects of different speed of build up and decrease of pressure with carbon dioxide on the
adults of the tobacco beetle Lasioderma serricorne (Fabricius) (Coleoptera: Anobiidae). In Highley E et al
(eds). Stored Product Protection: Proceedings of the 6th International Working Conference on Storedproduct Protection. 17-23 April, 1994, Canberra, Australia. p.214-216.
USEPA 1995. Alternatives to Methyl Bromide Ten Case Studies – Soil, Commodity and Structural Use.
Van Graver JE 1995. An introduction to sealed bag-stack technology for grain storage. Regional
Workshop on Methyl Bromide for English-Speaking Africa. Harare. United Nations Environment Program,
Division of Technology, Industry and Economics, Paris, France.
Varnava A 1999. Stored grains in Cyprus: hermetic storage. In Batchelor TA (ed) 1999. Case Studies on
Alternatives to Methyl Bromide: Technologies with Low Environmental Impact. United Nations
Environment Programme, Division of Technology, Industry and Economics (DTIE), Paris, France. p.58-61.
Varnava A, Navarro S and Donahaye E 1994. Long-term hermetic storage of barley in PVC-covered concrete platforms under Mediterranean conditions. Journal of Postharvest Biol. Technology 6, p.177-186.
Varnava A and Mouskos C 1996. 7-year results of hermetic storage of barley under PVC liners: losses and
justification for further implementation of this method for grain storage. In Donahaye E et al (eds).
Proceedings of International Conference on Controlled Atmosphere and Fumigation in Stored Products.
Printco Ltd, Nicosia, Cyprus.
Perishable Commodities (Controlled atmospheres)
Batchelor TA, O’Donnell RL and Roby JJ 1985. The efficacy of controlled atmosphere coolstorage in controlling leafroller species. Proceedings of 38th New Zealand Weed and Pest Control Conference. 13-15
August, Rotorua, New Zealand. p.53-56.
Benshoter CA 1987. Effects of modified atmospheres and refrigeration temperatures on the survival of
eggs and larvae of the Caribbean fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) in laboratory diet. Journal of Economic
Entomology 80, 6, p.1223-1225.
Carpenter A and Potter M 1994. Controlled atmospheres. In Sharp JL and Hallman GJ (eds). Quarantine
Carpenter A et al 1995. Pre-commercial evaluation of a hypercarbic warm controlled atmosphere for the
disinfestation of perishable crops. Science and Technology for the Fresh Food Revolution: Proceedings of
Australian Postharvest Horticultural Conference. 18-22 September. Melbourne, Australia. p.345-349.
293
294
Chervin C et al 1997. A high temperature/ low oxygen pulse improves cold storage disinfestation.
Postharvest Biology and Technology 10, 3, p.239-245.
Gay R et al 1994. Pacific Surface Initiative and Produce Shipment Losses to Guam. DSRPAC Report,
Defense Logistics Agency, Defence Subsistence Region Pacific, Alameda, California, USA. 219pp.
Hallman GJ 1994. Controlled atmospheres. In Paull RE and Armstrong JW (eds). Insect Pests and Fresh
Jang EB 1990. Fruit fly disinfestation of tropical fruits using semi-permeable shrinkwrap films. Acta
Kader AA 1985. A summary of CA requirements and recommendations for fruits other than pome fruits.
In Blakenship SM (ed). Controlled Atmospheres for Storage and Transport of Perishable Agricultural
Commodities: Proceedings of 4th National Controlled Atmosphere Research Conference. 23-26 July,
Raleigh, North Carolina, USA. p.445-492.
Kader AA and Dangyang K 1994. Controlled atmospheres. In Paull RE and Armstrong JW (eds). Insect
Pests and Fresh Horticultural Products: Treatments and Responses. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.
p.223-236.
Kader AA and Thompson JF 1991. Postharvest handling systems: Tree nuts. In Postharvest Technology of
Horticultural Crops. Special Publication 3311. University of California, Davis, California, USA. p.253-259.
Kawakami F 1999. Current research on alternatives to methyl bromide and its reduction in Japanese plant
quarantine. Research Bulletin Plant Protection Japan 35, p.109-120.
Mitcham EJ et al 1995. Development of a carbon dioxide quarantine treatment for omniviorous leafroller,
western flower thrip, Pacific spider mite and grape mealybug on table grapes. Annual International
Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. Methyl Bromide
Alternatives Outreach, Fresno, California, USA.
Mitcham EJ et al 1996. Controlled atmospheres as a quarantine treatment for various arthropod pests.
Methyl Bromide Alternatives Outreach, Fresno, California, USA.
Neven LG and Drake SR 1998. A quarantine treatment that improves quality?! Development of combination heat and CA treatments for apples and pears. Paper 65. 1998 Annual International Research
Sharp JL 1990. Mortality of Caribbean fruit fly immatures in shrink-wrapped grapefruit. Florida
Shellie KC and Mangan RL 1998. Decay control during refrigerated, ultra-low oxygen storage for disinfestation of Mexican fruit fly. Paper 60. 1998 Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide
Shellie KC and Rodde K 1999. Semi-commercial scale ultra-low oxygen storage for disinfestation. Paper
Simmons GF and Hansen JD 1999. Modified atmosphere packing to meet quarantine security requirements for sweet cherries. Paper 68. 1999 Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide
Zhou S and Mitcham EJ 1997. Controlled atmosphere treatments for postharvest control of two-spotted
spider mites (Tetranychus urticae). 1997 Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide
Section 6.5 Heat Treatments
Banks HJ 1998. Prospects for heat disinfestation. Proceedings of the Australian Postharvest Technical
Conference. Canberra, Australia, May, 1998. (in press).
Brodie BB 1997. Decontamination of golden nematode infested equipment with steam heat. Paper 71.
Chauvin G and Vannier G 1991. La résistance au froid et à la chaleur: deux données fondamentales dans
le contrôle des insectes de produits entreposés. In Fleurat-Lessard F and Ducom P (eds.) Proceedings of the
Vol II, p.1157-1165.
Chidester S 1991. Temperatures necessary to kill fungi in wood. Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Meeting
of the American Wood-Preservers’ Association. p.316-324.
Clarke LW 1996. Heat treatment for insect control. Proceedings of the Workshop on Alternatives to
Methyl Bromide, 30-31 May, Toronto, Canada. p.59-65.
Dowdy AK 1997. Distribution and stratification of temperature in processing plants during heat sterilization. Paper 72. 1997 Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and
Emissions Reductions. Available on website: http://www.epa.gov/docs/ozone/mbr/mbrpro97.html
Dowdy AK 1998. Poster 113. 1998 Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide
Dowdy AK and Fields PW 1998. Heat plus diatomaceous earth treatment for stored-product insect management in flour mills. Paper 71. 1998 Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide
Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. Available on website: http://www.epa.gov/docs/ozone/mbr/mbrEbeling W 1994. The thermal pest eradication system for structural pest control. IPM Practitioner XVI, 2,
p.1-7.
Evans DE, Thorpe GR and Sutherland JW 1983. Large scale evaluation of fluid-bed heating as a means of
disinfesting grain. Proceedings of the Third International Working Conference on Stored-product
Entomology. 23-28 October, Manhattan, Kansas, USA. p.523-530.
Fields PG 1992. The control of stored-product insects and mites with extreme temperatures. Journal of
Stored Products Research 28, p.89-118.
Fields P and Muir W 1995. Physical control. In Subramanyam B and Hagstrum D (eds). Integrated
Fleurat-Lessard F 1984. Désinsectisation du blé tendre par un choc thermique en lit fluidisé. Aspects entomologiques, microbiologiques et technologiques. Les ATP de l’INRA No 1 La conservation des Céréales en
France. Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA). INRA éditions, Versailles, France. p.150166.
Fleurat-Lessard F 1985. Les traitements thermiques de désinfestation des céréales et des produits
céréaliers: possibilité d’utilisation pratique et domaine d’application. OEPP/EPPO Bulletin. 15, p.109-119.
European Plant Protection Organisation, Paris, France.
Fleurat-Lessard F 1987. Control of stored insects by physical means and modified environmental conditions. Feasibility and applications. In Lawson TJ (ed). Stored Products Pest Control. BCPC Monograph 37,
p.209-218.
Forbes CF and Ebling W 1987. Use of heat for elimination of structural pests. The IPM Practitioner 9, 8,
p.1-5. Bio-Integral Resource Center, Berkeley, California, USA.
Heap JW and Black T 1994. Using Portable Rented Electric Heaters to Generate Heat and Control Stored
Product Insects. Association of Operative Millers, Bulletin July. p.6408-6411.
Hoch AL, Topp D, Zeichner BC and Mehr Z 1998. Evaluation of a recirculating ‘Safe-Heat’ thermal pest
eradication chamber to control commodity pests. Poster 122. 1998 Annual International Research
pro98.html
295
296
Johnson JA, Bolin HR, Guller G and Thompson JF 1992. Efficacy of temperature treatments for insect disinfestation of dried fruits and nuts. Walnut Research Reports, USA. p.156-171.
Miric M and Willeitner H 1990. Lethal temperature for some wood-destroying fungi with respect to eradication by heat treatment. Institute of Wood Biology and Wood Preservation, Hamburg, Germany. 24 pp.
Mueller DK 1998. Stored Product Protection...A Period of Transition. Insects Limited, Indianapolis, USA.
Newbill MA and Morrell JJ 1991. Effects of elevated temperatures on survival of Basidiomycetes that colonize untreated Douglas-fir poles. Forest Products Journal 41, p.31-33.
Seidner MA 1995. Method for heat-treating wood and wood products. United States Patent 5,447,686. 5
September.
Seidner MA 1996. Shipboard apparatus for heat-treating wood and wood products. United States Patent
5,578, 274. 26 November.
Seidner MA 1997. Method for heat-treating wood and wood products: the clean kill. Paper 82. 1997
Stein Norstein 1996. Heat Treatment in the Scandinavian Milling Industry – Heat Treatment as an
Alternative to Methyl Bromide. Norwegian Pollution Control Authority, Oslo, Norway. 38pp.
Strang TJK 1992. A review of published temperatures for the control of pest insects in museums.
Collection Forum 8, p.41-67.
Sutherland JW, Evans DE, Fane AG and Thorpe GR 1987. Disinfestation of grain with heated air.
Proceedings of the 4th International Working Conference on Stored-Product Protection, Tel Aviv, Israel.
p.261-274.
Thorpe GR, Evans DE and Sutherland JW 1984. The development of a continuous-flow fluidized-bed hightemperature grain disinfestation process. In Ripp BE et al (eds). Controlled Atmosphere and Fumigation in
Grain Storages. Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands. p.617-622.
USDA-APHIS 1993. Plant Protection and Quarantine Treatment Manual. Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, US Department of Agriculture, Hyattsville, Maryland, USA.
USEPA 1995. Temperature Control for Stored Product Insect at Pillsbury. In Environmental Protection
Agency. Alternatives to Methyl Bromide Ten Case Studies – Soil, Commodity and Structural Use. EPA430R-95-009. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA. Available on website:
USEPA 1996. Alternatives to Methyl Bromide Ten Case Studies: Soil, Commodity, and Structural Use –
Volume Two. EAP430-R-96-021. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC, USA. Available on
Perishable Commodities (Heat treatments)
Anon 1990. Hot water dip treatments for mangoes. Federal Register 55, p.5433-5436 and p.3913239134. Washington, DC, USA.
Anon 1996. Textbook for Vapor Heat Disinfestation. Japan Fumigation Technology Association and
Okinawa International Center, Japan International Cooperation Society, Japan.
Anon 1997. High temperature forced air treatment for fruit fly contol on mango, papaya and eggplant
exported from Fiji to New Zealand. Import Health Standard Commodity Sub-class: Fresh fruit/vegetables
eggplant, Solanum melongena from Fiji. Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Wellington, New Zealand.
Armstrong JW 1994. Heat and cold treatments. In Paull RE and Armstrong JW (eds). Insect Pests and Fresh
Armstrong JW 1998. Case history: Heat disinfestation treatments for papaya in Hawaii. In Assessment of
Alternatives to Methyl Bromide: Report of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee. United
Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya. 354pp. Available on website: http://www.teap.org
Armstrong JW et al 1989. High-temperature, forced air quarantine treatment for papaya infested with
tephritid fruit flies. Journal of Economic Entomology 82, 6, p.1667-1674.
Economics (DTIE), Paris, France. p.68-70.
Carpenter A et al 1995. Pre-commercial evaluation of a hypercarbic warm controlled atmosphere for the
disinfestation of perishable crops. Science and Technology for the Fresh Food Revolution: Proceedings of
Australian Postharvest Horticultural Conference. 18-22 Sept. Melbourne, Australia. p.345-349.
Couey HM and Hayes 1986. A quarantine system for papayas using fruit selection and a two-stage hotwater treatment. Journal of Economic Entomology 79, p.1307-1314.
Couey M et al 1989. Heat treatment for control of postharvest diseases and insect pests of fruits.
HortScience 24, 2, p.198-202.
Denlinger DL and Yocum GD 1998. Physiology of heat sensitivity. In Hallman GJ and Denlinger DL (eds).
Thermal Sensitivity in Insects and Application in Integrated Pest Management. Westview Press, Boulder,
Colorado, USA.
Dentener PR et al 1996. Hot air treatment for disinfestation of lightbrown apple moth and longtailed
mealy bug on persimmons. Postharvest Biology & Technology 8, p.148-152.
Hallman GJ and Armstrong JW 1994. Heated air treatments. In Sharp JL and Hallman GJ (eds). Quarantine
Treatments for Pests of Food Plants. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado, USA and Oxford, UK and IBH
Hallman GJ and Sharp JL 1990. Hot-water immersion quarantine treatment for carambolas infested with
Caribbean fruit fly. Journal of Economic Entomology 83, p.1471-1474.
Houck LG and Jenner JF 1997. Postharvest response of lemon fruit to hot water immersion, quarantine
cold or methyl bromide fumigation treatments depends on preharvest growing temperature. 1997 Annual
Gould WP 1995. Mortality of Toxotrypana curvicauda (Diptera: Tephritidae) in papayas exposed to forced
hot air. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions
Reductions. MBAO, USA.
Gould WP and McGuire R 1998. Hot water treatment for mealybugs on limes. Poster 120. 1998 Annual
Gould WP and Sharp JL 1992. Hot-water immersion quarantine treatment for guavas infested with
Caribbean fruit fly. Journal of Economic Entomology 85, p.1235-1239.
Lester PJ et al 1997. Postharvest disinfestation of diapausing and non-diapausing two-spotted spider mite
(Tetranychus urticae) on persimmons: hot water immersion and coolstorage. Entomologia Experimentalis
et Applicata 83, 2, p.189-193.
Lester PJ and Greenwood DR 1997. Pretreatment induced thermotolerance in lightbrown apple moth
(Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) and associated heat shock protein synthesis. Journal of Economic Entomology
90, 1, p.199-204.
Mangan RL and Ingle SJ 1994. Forced hot-air quarantine treatment for grapefruit infested with Mexican
fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae). Journal of Economic Entomology 87, 6, p.1574-1579.
Mangan RL and Shellie KC 1997. Commodity independent heat treatment parameters for disinfestation
from Anastrepha fruit flies. Paper 80. 1997 Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide
pro97.html
297
Neven LG and Drake SR 1998. A quarantine treatment that improves quality?!? development of combination heat and CA treatments for apples and pears. Paper 65. 1998 Annual International Research
Neven LG and Drake SR 1997. Development of combination heat and cold treatments for postharvest
control of codling moth in apples and pears. Paper 81. 1997 Annual International Research Conference
298
Paull RE and McDonald RE 1994. Heat and cold treatments. In Paull RE and Armstrong JW (eds). Insect
Pests and Fresh Horticultural Products: Treatments and Responses. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.
p.191-222.
Petry R 1998. Technology transfer: training in developing nations for commercial HTFA quarantine export
operations – the Cook Islands success story. Poster 126. 1998 Annual International Research Conference
Sharp JL 1990. Immersion in heated water as a quarantine treatment for California stone fruits infested
with the Caribbean fruit fly. Journal of Economic Entomology 83, p.1468-1470.
Sharp JL 1992. Hot air quarantine treatment for mango infested with Caribbean fruit fly. Journal of
Economic Entomology 85, p.2302-2304.
Sharp JL 1994. Hot water immersion. In Sharp JL and Hallman GJ (eds). Quarantine Treatments for Pests
of Food Plants. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado, USA and Oxford, UK and IBH Publishing, New Delhi,
India. p.133-148.
Sharp JL and Hallman GJ 1992. Hot-air quarantine treatment for carambolas infested with Caribbean fruit
fly. Journal of Economic Entomology 85, p.168-171.
Sharp JL and Picho-Martinez H 1990. Hot-water quarantine treatment to control fruit flies in mangoes
imported into the United States from Peru. Journal of Economic Entomology 83, p.1940-1943.
Sharp JL et al 1989. Hot-water quarantine treatment for mangoes from Mexico infested with Mexican
fruit fly and West Indian fruit fly. Journal of Economic Entomology 82, p.1657-1662.
Simmons GF and Hansen JD 1998. Methods which may prove beneficial to maintaining sweet cherry quality after quarantine treatments. Paper 66. 1998 Annual International Research Conference on Methyl
Thomas DB and Mangan RL 1997. Modeling thermal death in the Mexican fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae).
Journal of Economic Entomology 90, 2, p.527-534.
Williamson MR and Winkelman P 1994. Heat treatment facilities. In Paull RE and Armstrong JW (eds).
Insect Pests and Fresh Horticultural Products: Treatments and Responses. CAB International, Wallingford,
UK. p.249-274.
Section 6.6 Inert Dusts
Durable commmodities and structures
Aldryhim YN 1990. Efficacy of amorphous silica dust, Dryacide, against Tribolium confusum Duv. and
Sitophilus granarius (L.) (Coleoptera; Tenebrionidae and Curculionidae). Journal of Stored Products
Research 26, p.207-210.
Allen S and Desmarchelier J 1998. Preliminary comparison of the efficiency of the inert dusts: Australian
Dryacide, Insecto, PermaGuard, Mt Sylvia Diatomite and Protect-It as structural treatments. 1998 Meeting
of the Working Party on Grain Protection. Item 32.1. Canberra, Australia.
pro98.html
Ebeling W 1971. Sorptive dusts for pest control. Annals Review Entomology. 16, p.123-158.
Feldhege M 1996. Mit silikatstaub gegen vorratsschädlinge. Ernährungsdienst. Deutsche Getreidezeitung.
Fachbeitrag 11, 4pp.
Fields PG, White N, MacKay A and Korunic Z 1996. Efficacy assessment of Protect-It. Cereal Research
Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Winnipeg, Canada. 35pp.
Fields PG et al 1997. Diatomaceous earth combined with heat to control insects in structures. Paper 73.
Fields PG et al 1997. Structural Pest Control: the Use of an Enhanced Diatomaceous Earth Product
Combined with Heat Treatment for the Control of Insect Pests in Food Processing Facilities. Agriculture
and Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa, Canada. Website: http://res.agr.ca/winn/home.html
Giga DP and Chinwada P 1994. Efficacy of an amorphous silica dust against bean bruchids. In Highley E
et al (eds). Proceedings of the 6th International Working Conference on Stored Product Protection. April.
Canberra, Australia. Vol 2, p.631-632.
Golob P 1997. Current status and future perspectives for inert dusts for control of stored product insects.
Journal of Stored Products Research 33, 1, p.69-80.
Arthur FH 1999. Evaluation of a new diatomaceous earth (DE) formulation to control stored product beetles. Poster 101. 1999 Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and
Emissions Reductions. Available on website: http://www.epa.gov/docs/ozone/mbr/mbrpro99.html
Barbosa A, Golob P and Jenkins N 1994. Silica aerogels as alternative protectants of maize against
Prostephanus truncatus (Horn) (Coleoptera:Bostrichidae) infestations. In Highley E et al (eds). Proceedings
of the 6th International Working Conference on Stored Product Protection. April. Canberra, Australia.
Vol 2, p.623-627.
Economics (DTIE), Paris, France. p.62-64.
Bell CH, Price N and Chakrabarti B (eds) 1996. The Methyl Bromide Issue. John Wiley and Sons,
Chichester, UK.
Bridgeman BW 1991. Structural Treatment Dryacide Manual. Grain Protection Services, Grainco Australia
Ltd, Queensland, Australia.
Bridgeman BW 1992. Efficacy of amorphous silica in bulk grain storages. Internal Report. Grainco
Australia Ltd, Queensland, Australia.
Bridgeman BW 1994. Structural treatment with amorphous silica slurry: an integral component of GAL’s
IPM strategy. In Highley E et al (eds). Proceedings of the 6th International Working Conference on Storedproduct Protection. 17-23 April, Canberra. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. Vol 2, p.628-630.
Bridegmen BW 1998. Application technology and usage patterns of diatomaceous earth in stored product
protection. Proceedings of the 7th International Working Conference on Stored-product Protection. 11-20
October, Beijing, China.
Contessi A and Mucciolini G 1997. Prove comparative insetticida di polveri silicee a base di zeoliti e di farina fossile diatomee. Report Regione Emilia Romagna. Servizio Fitosanitario, Ravenna, Italy. 11pp.
Cook DA, Armitage DM and Collins DA 1999. Diatomaceous earths as alternatives to organophosphorus
(OP) pesticide treatments on stored grain in the UK. Postharvest News and Information 10, p.39N-43N.
CSIRO. 2000. Stored Grain Australia. Newsletter of the Stored Grain Research Laboratory. August 2000.
CSIRO, Canberra, Australia.
Desmarchelier JM and Dines J 1987. Dryacide treatment on stored wheat: its efficacy against inseccts and
after processing. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 27, p.309-312.
Dowdy AK and Fields PW 1998. Heat plus diatomaceous earth treatment for stored-product insect management in flour mills. Paper 71. 1998 Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide
299
300
Hamel D 1997. The efficacy of Protect-It (diatomaceous earth) on stored-product pests – applying it by
dusting. Proceedings of Seminar ZUPP ’97. Korunic, Zagreb, Croatia. p.89-94 (in Croatian, summary in
English).
Jackson K and Webley D 1994. Effects of Dryacide on the physical properties of grains, pulses and
oilseeds. In Highley E et al (eds). Proceedings of the 6th International Working Conference on Stored
Product Protection. April. Canberra, Australia. Vol 2, p.635-637.
Korunic Z 1998. Diatomaceous earth, a group of natural insecticides. Journal of Stored Product Research
34, 2/3, p.87-97.
Korunic Z 1999. Enhanced diatomaceous earth, a component of integrated pest management, as an
alternative to methyl bromide. Hedley Technologies Inc, Mississauga, Canada.
Korunic Z and Fields PG 1995. Diatomaceous Earth Insecticidal Composition. Canadian Patent Pending
1995; USA Patent No 5,773,017.
Korunic Z, Fields PG, Kovacs MIP, Noll JS, Lukow OM, Demianyk CJ and Shibley KJ 1996. The effect of
diatomaceous earth on grain quality. Postharvest Biology and Technology 9, p.373-387.
Mason L 1997. Activity of Protect-It in empty granaries against two stored-product pests. Report submitted to Hedley Technologies Inc, Department of Entomology, Food and Pest Management, Purdue
University, Indiana, USA. 4pp.
MBIGWG 1998. Integrated Pest Management in Food Processing: Working without Methyl Bromide.
Methyl Bromide Industry Government Working Group. Pest Management Regulatory Authority,
Sustainable Pest Management Series S98-01. Health Canada, Ottawa, Canada. Available on website:
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/pmra-arla/
Options Committee. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya. p.111-112. Available on
website: http://www.teap.org
McLaugnlin A 1994. Laboratory trials on dessicant dust insecticides. In Highley E et al (eds). Proceedings
of the 6th International Working Conference on Stored Product Protection. Canberra, Australia. Vol 2,
p.638.
Nickson P, Desmarchelier JM and Gibbs P 1994. Combination of cooling with surface application of
Dryacide to control insects. In Highley E et al (eds). Proceedings of the 6th International Working
Conference on Stored Product Protection. Canberra, Australia. Vol 2, p.646.
Quarles W and Winn PS 1996. Diatomaceous earth and stored product pests. The IPM Practitioner 18,
5/6, p.1-10.
Rupp MMM, Lazzari FA and Lazzari SMN 1999. Insect control on stored malting barley with diatomaceous
earth in Southern Brazil. Proceedings of 7th International Working Conference on Stored-product
Protection. 14-19 October 1988, Beijing, China.
Zeng L, Qin Z and Korunic Z 1999. Field and laboratory experiments with Protect-It, enhanced diatomaceous earth, in PR China. Proceedings of 7th International Working Conference on Stored-product
Protection. 14-19 October 1988, Beijing, China.
Section 6.7 Phosphine and other Fumigants
ACIAR 1990. Fumigation and Controlled Atmosphere Storage of Grain. ACIAR Proceedings 25. Australian
Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR), Canberra, Australia.
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada 1996. Heat, Phosphine and CO2 Collaborative Experimental Structural
Fumigation. Canadian Leadership in the Development of Methyl Bromide Alternatives. Agriculture and
Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa, Canada.
ASEAN 1989. Suggested Recommendations for the Fumigation of Grain in the ASEAN Region. Part I.
Principles and General Practice. ASEAN Food Handling Bureau, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia and ACIAR,
Canberra, Australia.
Carbon Dioxide Fumigation of Bag-stacks Sealed in Plastic Enclosures: An Operations Manual. ASEAN
Food Handling Bureau, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia and ACIAR, Canberra, Australia.
Phosphine Fumigation: An Operations Manual. ASEAN Food Handling Bureau, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
and ACIAR, Canberra, Australia.
ASEAN 1995. Suggested Recommendations for the Fumigation of Grain in the ASEAN Region. Part 4. InTransit Disinfestation with Carbon Dioxide in Freight Containers: An Operations Manual. ASEAN Food
Handling Bureau, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia and ACIAR, Canberra, Australia.
Banks HJ 1986. The application of fumigants for the disinfestation of grain and related products.
Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR). ACIAR Proceedings. 14, 291-298.
Banks HJ, Desmarchelier JM and Ren YL 1993. Carbonyl sulphide fumigant and method of fumigation.
International Patent No WO93/13659. World Intellectual Property Organization. 43pp.
Bell CH, Hole BD and Wilson SM 1985. Fumigant doses for the control of Trogoderma granarium. EPPO
Bulletin 15, p.9-14. European Plant Protection Organisation, Paris, France.
Bell CH, Savvidou N 1998. The toxicity of Vikanel (sulfuryl fluoride) to age groups of eggs of the
Mediterranean flour moth Ephestia kuehniella. Journal of Stored Products Research 35, p.233-247
Bell CH, Wilson SM, Banks HJ and Smith RH 1984. An investigation of the tolerance of stages of Khapra
beetle (Trogoderma granarium Everts) to phosphine. Proceedings of the 3rd International Working
Conference on Stored-Product Protection, Manhattan, Kansas, USA. 23-28 October. p.375-390.
Bond EJ 1984. Manual of Fumigation for Insect Control. Plant Production and Protection Paper 54. Food
and Agriculture Organisation, Rome, Italy.
Bond EJ, Dumas T and Hobbs S 1984. Corrosion of metals by the fumigant phosphine. Journal of Stored
Products Research 20, p.57- 63.
Bowley CR and Bell CH 1981. The toxicity of twelve fumigants to three species of mites infesting grain.
Journal of Stored Products Research 17, p.83-87.
Böye J 1998. Personal communication. S&A GmbH, Sittensen, Germany.
Brigham RJ 1998. Corrosive Effects of Phosphine, Carbon Dioxide, Heat and Humidity on Electronic
Equipment. Canadian Leadership in the Development of Methyl Bromide Alternatives. Agriculture and
Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa, Canada. Available on website: http://www.agr.ca/policy/environment
Brigham RJ 1999. Corrosive Effects of Phosphine, Carbon Dioxide, Heat and Humidity on Electronic
Equipment: Phase II. Canadian Leadership in the Development of Methyl Bromide Alternatives. Agriculture
and Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa, Canada. Available on website: http://www.agr.ca/policy/environment
Carmi Y, Kostyukovsky M, Golani Y, Frandji H 1998. Improving phosphine penetration into deep grain bin
by aid of carbon dioxide. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and
Emissions Reductions. MBAO, USA. paper 61.
Chakrabarti B 1994. Methods of distributing phosphine in bulk grain. Home Grown Cereals Authority
Research Review 27, London, UK. 44 pp.
Chaudhry MQ 1997. A review of the mechanisms involved in the action of phosphine as an insecticide
and phosphine resistance in stored-product insects. Pesticide Science. 49, p.213-228.
Chaudhry MQ, MacNicholl AD, Mills KA and Price NR 1997. The potential of methyl phosphine as a fumigant for the control of phosphine-resistant strains of four species of stored-product insects. Proceedings
International Conference on Controlled Atmosphere and Fumigation in Stored Products. April 1996.
Printco Ltd, Nicosia, Cyprus. p.45-57.
Codex Alimentarius Commission 1992. Codex maximum limits for pesticides residues. World Health
Organization (WHO)/ Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome, Italy.
CSIRO. 2000. Stored Grain Australia. Newsletter of the Stored Grain Research Laboratory. August 2000.
CSIRO, Canberra, Australia.
301
Davis R 1986. Fumigation of Ships. In GASCA Seminar on Fumigation Technology in Developing Countries.
TDRI Storage Department, Slough, UK. p.24-34.
Degesch America 1997. Applicators Manual for Degesch Phostoxin pellets or Tablets-R. Form 17828.
Degesch America Inc, Weyers Cave, Virginia, USA. Available on website:
http://www.degeschamerica.com/downloads/TabletPelletManualUSA0299.pdf
302
Desmarchelier JM 1994. Carbonyl sulphide as a fumigant for control of insects and mites. In Highley E et
al (eds). Stored-Product Protection. Proceedings of the 6th International Working Conference on Storedproduct Protection. 17-23 April, Canberra, Australia. p.78-82.
DowElanco 1995. Vikane Gas Fumigant Structural Fumigation Manual. DowElanco, Indianapolis, Indiana,
USA.
EPPO 1984. Phosphine fumigation of stored products. EPPO Bulletin 14, p.598-599. European Plant
Protection Organisation, Paris, France.
EPPO 1993. EPPO Bulletin 23, p.207-208. European Plant Protection Organisation, Paris, France.
Fields P and Jones S 1999. Efficacy of three fumigant methods for empty ship holds against stored product insect adults and eggs. Paper 58. 1999 Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide
Fields P et al 2000. Canadian Grain Storage. CD-ROM. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, University of
University of Manitoba, Canadian Grain Commission. Available on website:
http://www.cgc.ca/main-e.htm
Geneve R, Ducom P, Branteghem V and Delon R 1986. Désinsectisation d’un entrepôt de tabac de
220,000 m3 par le phosphure d’hydrogène. Annales du Tabac 20, p.93-104.
Goto M, Kishino H, Imamura M, Hirose Y and Soma Y 1996. Responses of the Pupae of Sitophilus granarius L., Sitophilus zeamais and Sitophilus oryzae L. to phosphine and mixtures of phosphine and carbon
dioxide. Research Bulletin Plant Protection Japan 32, p.63-67.
Graver JS van and Annis PC 1994. Suggested Recommendations for the Fumigation of Grain in the
ASEAN Region. Part 3. Phosphine Fumigation: An Operations Manual. ASEAN Food Handling Bureau,
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia and ACIAR, Canberra, Australia.
Griffith T 1999. Propylene oxide, a registered fumigant, a proven insecticide. Paper 71. 1999 Annual
Hilton SJ and Banks HJ 1997. Ethyl formate as a fumigant of sultanas: sorption and efficacy against six
insect pests. In EJ Donahaye, S Navarro and A Varnava (eds). Proceedings of the International Conference
on Controlled Atmosphere and Fumigation in Stored Products. April 1996. Printco Ltd, Nicosia, Cyprus.
p.409-422.
Horn F 1997. The horn phosphine generator and fumigation methods with this new tool for space, stored
products and fruits. Paper 88. 1997 Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide
Horn FK and Luzaich GB 1998. The Horn generator Magtoxin granules system. Annual Paper 91. 1998
HSE 1996a. Control of Substances Hazardous to Health in Fumigation Operations. COSHH L86, Health
and Safety Executive, London, UK.
HSE 1996b. HSE Guidance Notes on Fumigation. Guidance Note CS22. Health and Safety Executive,
London, UK.
IMO 1996. Recommendations on the Safe Use of Pesticides in Ships. International Maritime Organisation.
29pp.
Kostjukovsky M, Carmi Y, Atsmi S and Shaaya E 1997. Evaluation of methyl iodide and carbon disulfide as
alternatives to methyl bromide for the control of stored product insects. Paper 57. 1997 Annual
Leesch JG, Redlinger LM, Gillenwater HB, Davis R and Zehner JM 1978. An in-transit ship-board fumigation of corn. Journal of Economic Entomology 71, p.928-935.
Leesch JG, Davis R, Zettler JL, Sukkestad DR, Zehner JM and Redlinger LM 1986. Use of perforated tubing
to distribute phosphine during the in-transit fumigation of wheat. Journal of Economic Entomology 79,
p.1583-1589.
Matthews M and Shaheen D 1999. Fumigation of an empty shiphold using the Horn generator Magtoxin
granules system. Annual paper 59. 1999 Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide
Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. Available on website: http://www.epa.gov/docs/ozone/mbr/mbrMizobuti M, Matsuoka I, Soma Y, Kishino H, Yabuta S, Imamura M, Mizuno T, Hirose Y and Kawakami F
1996. Susceptibility of forest insect pests to sulfuryl fluoride. Research Bulletin of Plant Protection Japan
32, p.77-82.
Mizobuchi M et al 1996. Susceptibility of forest insect pests to sulphuryl fluoride. 2. Ambrosia beetles.
Monro HAU 1956. The history of the use of recirculation method for applying fumigants in grain storage.
Down to Earth 11, p.19-21.
Monro HAU 1969. Manual of Fumigation for Insect Control. FAO Agri. Stud. 79. Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome, Italy.
USA.
Mueller JM 1994. Grain Bin Fumigation. Phostoxin application. Fumigation Service and Supply Inc,
Indianapolis, Indiana, USA. 8pp.
Nelson HD 1970. Fumigation of natural raisins with phosphine. US Department of Agriculture. Marketing
Research Report 886. 8pp.
NIEHS 1991. Ethylene oxide CAS No. 75-21-8. In Eigth Annual Report on Carcinogens. NIEHS, National
Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA.
Noyes RT, Phillips TW and Cuperus GW 1997. Application of ECO2FUME fumigant gas to stored wheat in
sealed steel bins. Paper 75. 1997 Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide
NTP 1990. Phosphine: Executive summary of safety and toxicity information. National Toxicology Program,
National Institute of Health, USA.
Oogita T et al 1998. Mortality tests for forest insect pests by phosphine fumigation. Research Bulletin
Plant Protection Japan 33, p.17-20.
Phillips TW 1998. Cylinder-based phosphine for control of postharvest insect pests. Paper 86. 1998
Phillips TW et al 1997. Mortality of stored-product insects exposed to ECO2FUME fumigant gas. Paper 76.
Plarre R and Reichmuth C 1996. Effects of carbonyl sulfide (COS) on Sitophilus granarius, Fusarium avenacaeum and Fusarium culmorum and possible corrosion of copper. Nachrich. Deutsch. Pflanzen 48,
p.105-112.
Rajendran S and Narasimhan KS 1994. Phosphine resistance in the cigarette beetle Lasioderma serricorne
(Coleoptera: Anobiidae) and overcoming control failures during fumigation of stored tobacco.
International Journal of Pest Management 40, p.207-210.
pro99.html
303
304
Reichmuth C 1994. A new phosphine releasing product. In Highley E et al (eds). Stored Product
Protection: Proceedings of the 6th International Working Conference on Stored Product Protection. 17-23
April, Canberra, Australia. p.153-156.
Reichmuth C, Schöller M., Dugast J-F and Drinkall MJ 1996. Sulfuryl fluoride to control stored product
pest insects. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions
Reductions. MBAO, USA. Paper 77.
Schmidt EL 1997. Penetration of fumigants into logs for pest eradication and stain prevention. Paper 90.
Schmidt EL et al 1997. Sulfuryl fluoride fumigation of red oak logs eradicates the oak wilt fungus. Holz als
Roh-und Werkstoff 55.
Schneider BM and Williams RE 1999. Sulfuryl fluoride research and development update. Paper 64. 1999
Semple RL and Kirenga GI (eds) undated. Facilitating Regional Trade of Agricultural Commodities in Easter,
Central and Southern Africa: Phytosanitary standards to restrict the further rapid spread of the Larger
Grain Borer (LGB) in the region. Technical Data Sheet # 14. Dar es Salaam University Press, Dar es Salaam,
Tanzania.
Shaheen JM 1961. Prevention of fire or explosion in storage and use of fumigants. Pest Control 29, 7,
p.34-38.
Shurdut BA, Beard KK and Murphy PG 1996. Assessment of potential exposures and risk following structural fumigation with sulfuryl fluoride gas fumigant. 211th American Chemical Society National Meeting,
March, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA. Abstract AGRO 155.
Snelson JT and Winks RG 1981. In transit fumigation of large grain bulks in ships. In The appropriate use
of pesticides for the control of stored product pests in developing countries. GASGA Seminar. Tropical
Development and Research Institute, Slough, UK. p.119-130.
Soma Y et al 1996. Susceptibility of forest insect pests to sulfuryl fluoride. Research Bulletin Plant
Protection Japan 32, p.69-76.
Soma Y et al 1997. Susceptibility of forest insect pests to sulfuryl fluoride. 3. Susceptibility to sulfuryl fluoride at 25°C. Research Bulletin Plant Protection Japan 33, p.25-30.
Soma Y, Oogita T, Misumi T and Kawakami F 1998. Effect of gas mixtures of sulfuryl fluoride and phosphine on forest insect pests. Research Bulletin Plant Protection Japan 34, p.11-14.
Taylor R et al 1998. New controls on methyl bromide: UK impact study. Project C1092. DETR and MAFF,
London, UK.
Taylor RWD and Harris AH 1994. The fumigation of bag-stacks with phosphine under gas-proof sheets
using techniques to avoid the development of insect resistance. In Highley E et al (eds). Stored Product
Protection. Proceedings of the 6th International Working Conference on Stored Product Protection, 17-23
April 1994, Canberra, Australia. p.210-213.
Thompson RH 1970. Specifications recommended by the UK Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
for the fumigation of cereals and other foodstuffs against pests of stored products. EPPO Bulletin, Ser. D.
No.15, p.9-25. European Plant Protection Organisation, Paris, France.
Thoms EM and Scheffrahn RH 1994. Control of pests by fumigation with Vikane gas fumigant (sulfuryl
fluoride). Down to Earth 49, 2, p.23-30.
USEPA 1995. Case Study. Structural Fumigation Using a Combined Treatment of Phosphine, Heat and
Carbon Dioxide. In Environmental Protection Agency. In Alternatives to Methyl Bromide Ten Case Studies –
Soil, Commodity and Structural Use. EPA430-R-95-009. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
DC, USA. Available on website: http://www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr/
USEPA 1996. Alternatives to Methyl Bromide Ten Case Studies: Soil, Commodity, and Structural Use –
Volume Three. EAP430-R-97-030. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC, USA.
Van Graver JE 1995. An introduction to sealed bag-stack technology for grain storage. Regional
Workshop on Methyl Bromide for English-Speaking Africa. Harare. UNEP IE, Paris, France.
White BR et al 1997. Field-testing phytosanitation treatments on Chilean radiata pine. Paper 91. 1997
Williams RE and Schneider BM 1999. Enhanced fumigation efficacy as a methyl bromide alternative: case
studies with sulfuryl fluoride. Paper 63. 1999 Annual International Research Conference on Methyl
Winks RG 1990. Recent developments in fumigation technology, with emphasis on phosphine. In Champ
BR et al (eds). Fumigation and controlled atmosphere storage of grain. ACIAR Proceedings No.25, p.144157. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, Canberra, Australia.
Winks RG 1993. The development of Siroflo® in Australia. In Navarro S and Donahaye E (eds). CAF
Proceedings of an International Conference on Controlled Atmosphere and Fumigation in Grain Storages.
Caspit Press, Jerusalem, Israel. p.399-410.
Winks RG and Russell GF 1994. Effectiveness of Siroflo in vertical silos. In Highley E et al (eds).
Proceedings of the 6th International Working Conference on Stored Product Protection. Canberra,
Australia. Vol 2, p.646.
Zettler JL et al 1982. In-transit shipboard fumigation of corn on tanker vessel. Journal of Economic
Zettler JL, Leesch JG, Gill RF and Mackey BE 1998. Toxicity of carbonyl sulfide to stored product insects.
Journal of Economic Entomology 90,3.
Zettler JL, Leesch JG, Gill RF and Tebbets 1998. Chemical alternatives for methyl bromide and phosphine
treatments for dried fruits and nuts. Proceedings of 7th International Working Conference on Stored
Product Protection. 15-18 October, Beijing, China.
Anon 1998. The Manual for the Operation of the Plant Quarantine Treatment. Theory and Application of
Fumigation. Japan Technical Fumigation Association. Plant Protection Division, Ministry of Agriculture and
Fisheries, Japan. 190pp.
Bond EJ 1984. Manual of Fumigation for Insect Control. Plant Production and Protection Paper 54. Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome, Italy.
Carpenter A and Stocker A 1992. Envirosols as postharvest fumigants for asparagus and cutflowers.
Proceedings of New Zealand Plant Protection Conference. p.21-26.
Forney CF and Houck LG 1994. Chemical treatments: Product physiological and biochemical response to
possible disinfestation procedures. In Paull RE and Armstrong JW (eds). Insect Pests and Fresh Horticultural
Products: Treatments and Responses. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. p.139-162.
McDonald OC and Mills KA 1995. Investigations into the use of phosphine for the quarantine treatment
of plant cuttings. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and
Emissions Reductions. MBAO, USA. Paper 95.
Soma Y, Ikeda T and Kawakami F 1997. Phytotoxic responses of several apple varieties to methyl bromide,
phosphine and methyl isothiocyanate fumigation. Research Bulletin Plant Protection Japan 33, p.61-64.
Stark JD 1994. Chemical fumigants. In Paull RE and Armstrong JW (eds). Insect Pests and Fresh
Vincent Le and Lindgren DL 1972. Hydrogen phosphide and ethyl formate: fumigation of insects infesting
dates and other dried fruits. Journal of Economic Entomology 65, 6.
Yokoyama VY 1994. Fumigation. In Sharp JL and Hallman GJ (eds). Quarantine Treatments for Pests of
Food Plants. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado, USA and Oxford, UK & IBH Publishing, New Delhi, India.
p.67-88.
Perishable Commodities (Fumigants)
305
Websites on Post-harvest Pest Control
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, case studies of alternatives: http://www.agr.ca/policy/environment
Annual International Research Conferences on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions,
USA, proceedings for 1994, 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000 available online:
http://www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr/mbrqa.html
Canadian Food Inspection Agency: www.cfia-acia.agr.ca/english/toce.shtml
Canadian Grain Commission: http://www.cgc.ca/main-e.htm
Canadian Wheat Board technical information: http://www.cwb.ca
Central Science Laboratory, Ministry of Food and Agriculture, UK: http://www.csl.gov.uk/navf.htm
Cereal Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada website:
306
Crop & Food Research, New Zealand, research on perishable commodity treatments:
http://www.crop.cri.nz
CSIRO Division of Entomology, Australia website: http://www.ento.csiro.au/
Environment Canada, case studies on alternatives: http://www.ec.gc.ca/ozone/mbrfact.htm
Environmental Protection Agency, USA, case studies on methyl bromide alternatives:
http://www.epa.gov/docs/ozone/mbr/mbrqa.html
Fumigants and Pheromones newsletter for pest control practitioners: http://www.insectslimited.com
Grain Marketing and Production Research, US Department of Agriculture, USA, information on storage of
cereals: http://bru.usgmrl.ksu.edu
Health Canada, Pest Management Regulatory Agency: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/pmra-arla
HortResearch, New Zealand, research on perishable commodity treatments:
http://www.hortresearch.co.nz/
Information Network on Post-Harvest Operations (InPhO): http://www.fao.org/inpho/index-e.htm
National Agricultural Library, US Department of Agriculture: http://www.nal.usda.gov and
http://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic
Dept. Stored Products, Agricultural Research Organisation, Israel website:
http://www.agri.gov.il/Depts/StoredProd
Natural Resources Institute, UK website for information on stored product pests and control methods:
http://www.nri.org
Purdue University, Post Harvest Grain Quality & Stored Product Protection Program, information on grain
and extensive links to other websites: http://pasture.ecn.purdue.edu/~grainlab/
Stanford University, Department of Entomology for information on pest control in artifacts, museums and
institutions: http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/byorg/chicora/chicpest.html
The Internet has many other websites that provide research data and practical information on post-harvest pest
control methods and products; search using key words for species of pests, specific techniques, equipment,
products or applications of interest (eg. Khapra beetle + phosphine). It is generally best to search for key words
that are unique or specific to the topic of interest; for example, search for “grain aeration controllers” rather
than a general term like “grain technology.”
Technical information can also be found on websites of companies and suppliers; refer to tables in each Section and
the corresponding contact information in the Annex, or search the Internet for the names of specific companies.
For websites on health and safety, toxicity and exposure limits, refer to the introduction in Chemical Safety Data
Sheets in the Annex.
In following any web addresses provided here, keep in mind that many sites undergo frequent reorganization. If
the address listed is not working, it may be useful to try again using only part of the address. For example, if
the page listed as http://www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr/mbrqa.html does not work, try
http://www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr or http://www.epa.gov/ozone. You may also try abbreviating the web
address to take you to an organization’s main home page, such as http://www.epa.gov. From there, you can
often run a search for the topic of interest or locate the appropriate link.
A
B
Acanthoscelides – also refer to stored product
pests, 98, 157
Acarus – also refer to stored product pests, 98
Aeration, 101, 112-118
Africa, 16, 17, 23, 36, 46, 47, 48, 49, 60, 84, 85,
90, 99, 103, 104, 116, 117, 155
Agrobacterium biological controls, 40, 43, 46
Agrobacterium pathogens, 17, 40, 43, 72
Albania, 117
Algeria, 117
Alternaria - also refer to fungal pathogens, 16,
40, 43
Amendments for soil, 20, 22, 23, 24, 61-69, 280286
Ampelomyces biological controls, 40, 43, 46
Animal feed, 144, 145
Ants, 147
Aphelenchoides - also refer to nematodes, 16,
139
Aphids, 99, 130
Apples, 24, 99. 103. 104, 110, 131, 140, 271,
298, 308, 307
Apricots, 104, 117, 287
Argentina, 36, 55, 83, 90, 94, 95, 96, 103, 117,
151
Armillaria - also refer to fungal pathogens, 16, 43,
272
Army worm, 44
Artifacts, 5, 97, 101, 102, 115, 116, 120, 121,
123, 124, 137, 139, 140, 153, 157, 315, 316
Asparagus, 103, 137, 140, 315
Aubergine, eggplant, 5, 71, 74, 103, 109, 137,
139, 306
Australia, 22, 30, 37, 45, 46, 47, 54, 55, 60, 68,
90, 96, 102, 103, 104, 109, 111, 113, 116, 117,
119, 123, 126, 128, 131, 133, 134, 137, 142,
144, 145, 148, 149, 151, 152, 154, 155, 161,
162
Austria, 85, 102, 137, 142
Avocado, 71, 103, 110, 137, 117, 140, 295, 296
Bacteria, 15, 17, 38, 39, 40, 43, 72, 74
Bacillus biological controls, 39, 40, 43, 44, 46
Bactrocera - also refer to fruit flies, 99, 109
Bagasse substrates, 87, 88, 139
Banana, 5, 19, 21, 24, 36, 64, 90,103, 139
Bark amendments and substrates, 62, 65, 87, 88,
92, 94, 95, 107, 290, 282
Barley - also refer to grains, 131, 138, 144, 146,
290, 310, 303
Beans - also refer to legumes, 12, 98, 102, 115,
116, 144, 309
Beauveria biological controls, 38, 39, 44, 46
Beetles, 44, 98, 100, 115, 121, 128, 130, 131,
135, 138, 139, 140, 146, 147, 156, 157, 294,
301, 302, 303, 309, 313
Belgium, 22, 23, 48, 68, 80, 81, 85, 90, 91, 93,
94, 95, 96
Belize, 103, 117
Benin, 36
Bermuda, 73, 74, 117
Berryfruit, 3, 22, 47, 65, 91, 99, 104, 109, 268,
269, 271, 277, 278, 279, 287, 290
Beverage crops, 5, 97, 112, 130, 131, 155
Biofumigation, 20, 21, 23, 24, 64, 65, 67, 68, 74,
268, 281, 282, 283, 286
Biological controls, 18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 38-50, 88,
89, 210, 268, 269, 271, 273-277, 284, 285, 294
Bolivia, 117
Borates, borax, 102, 121, 123, 124, 126, 175,
298, 299
Bosnia, 117
Brazil, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 37, 49, 54, 76, 78, 90,
95, 96, 103, 104, 110, 117, 131, 145, 148, 149,
160, 162
Bruchids, 115, 309
Buildings - also refer to structures, 3, 5, 97, 100,
101, 104, 121, 120, 137, 144, 150, 155
Bulbs, 5, 30, 54, 72, 83, 103, 139
Burkholderia biological controls, 40, 43, 46
By-products used as substrates and soil amendments, 61, 62, 63, 65, 66, 67, 88, 89, 93, 94,
274, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 291
Annex 8: Index
Annex 8
Index
307
C
308
California, 31, 32, 34, 36, 37, 49, 53, 56, 57, 60,
63, 64, 67, 68, 71, 76, 78, 90, 96, 103, 111, 116,
131, 134
Callosobruchus, cowpea beetle - also refer to
stored product pests, 98, 114
Canada, 19, 22, 23, 24, 30, 34, 47, 55, 69, 85,
90, 94, 95, 96, 102, 103, 104, 111, 113, 114,
119, 126, 131, 134, 137, 142, 145, 148, 149,
152, 155, 160, 161, 162
Canary Islands, 22, 24, 90
Carambola, 115, 116, 117, 297, 307, 308
Carbon bisulphide, 152, 177
Carbon dioxide treatments, 102, 104, 110, 127134, 140, 151, 153, 154, 176, 208, 300-304, 311
Caribbean, 71, 99, 116, 137, 139
Caribbean fruit fly, 99, 116, 139, 296, 297, 303,
304, 307, 308
Carpet beetle, 124, 147, 156
Caryedon – also refer to stored product pests, 98,
157
Cherries, 99, 117, 103, 104, 304, 308
Chile, 19, 24, 34, 37, 90, 103, 104, 109, 110,
114, 116, 117, 151, 160
China, 33, 34, 39, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 69, 83, 85,
90, 95, 96, 103, 109, 110, 117, 131, 148, 152,
153, 155, 161
Chitin, 62, 65, 67, 282, 284
Chloropicrin, 18, 20, 51-60, 179, 278, 279
Cigarette beetle, 100, 131, 138, 147, 157, 294,
313
Citrus, 5, 21, 24, 33, 71, 72, 99, 101, 103, 110,
111, 114, 115, 116, 117, 137, 295, 296
Climate, 44, 57, 66, 75, 76, 83, 113, 114, 116,
131, 132, 137, 140, 147, 157, 296, 297
Clothes moth, 100, 115, 156, 296
Cocoa - also refer to beverage crops, 5, 102, 144,
302
Coconut substrate, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 94, 95
Cocoons for product storage, 128, 129
Cockroach, 100, 121, 124, 135, 147, 156
Codling moth, 99, 104, 295, 296, 298, 308
Coffee - also refer to beverage crops, 5, 102
Cold storage, 112, 114, 116, 297
Cold treatments, 101, 102, 103, 110, 112-119,
296-298, 307, 308
Colletotrichum – also refer to fungal pathogens
Colombia, 19, 23, 30, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 46,
47, 48, 49, 59, 60, 63, 64, 65, 67, 68, 69, 78, 80,
85, 90, 94, 95, 96, 103, 104, 109, 117
Combination treatments, 10, 19, 26, 29, 103,
107, 123, 128, 136, 145, 155, 276, 279, 293,
298, 304, 308, 310
Commodity management, 107, 133
Commodity treatments, 97-162, 291-316
Companies who supply alternatives, 34, 46-49,
59, 67-68, 77-78, 85-86, 94-96, 119, 126, 134,
142, 149, 160-161, 215-266
Compost, 20, 22, 23, 24, 32, 61-69, 84, 88, 92,
94, 95, 268, 271, 274, 281-286, 289-291
Concentration-time product, 167
Confused flour beetle - also refer to Tribolium,
stored product pests, 98, 156
Consumer acceptability, 13, 27, 45, 58, 67, 76,
84, 93, 112, 118, 125, 132, 140, 148, 159
Contact insecticides, 101, 120-126, 298-300
Controlled atmospheres, 103, 127-134, 136, 293,
297, 300-304
Controlled humidity, 102, 137
Cook Islands, 137, 308
Cool storage, 97, 112-119, 296-299
Corn, maize - also refer to grains, 98, 115, 116,
127, 139, 144, 146, 275, 302, 313, 315, 316
Corsica, 117
Cost considerations, 10-11, 29, 45, 59, 67, 77,
84, 91, 93, 118, 125, 132, 140, 148, 159
Costa Rica, 21, 22, 23, 24, 36, 45, 54, 59, 91, 93,
117, 118, 125, 132, 140, 141, 148, 159
Côte d’Ivoire
.00
Cotton products, 137, 155, 158, 275, 272
Cover crops, 18, 30, 31, 33, 36, 75, 101, 120,
268, 269, 270, 271, 272, 273, 283
Cowpea beetle - also refer to stored product
pests, 98, 114
Croatia, 117, 148
Crop rotation, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 30, 31, 32,
33, 269, 270
Cryptolestes, 98, 115, 146, 157
Cucumber - also refer to cucurbits, 5, 15, 17, 21,
33, 39, 54, 72, 74, 91, 109, 137, 270, 273, 274,
275, 276, 289, 290, 291
Cucurbits, 5, 15, 17, 19, 21, 25, 33, 34, 39, 54,
56, 63, 64, 71, 72, 74, 82, 90, 91, 99, 103, 109,
137, 139, 270, 273, 274, 275, 276, 278, 279,
286, 288, 289, 290, 291, 297
Cultural practices, 18, 20, 25, 29-37, 268-273
Cut flowers, 21, 23, 30, 34, 37, 39, 54, 60, 63,
64, 65, 74, 80, 83, 90, 97, 99, 103, 109, 110,
122, 123, 137, 142, 208, 210, 274, 299, 300,
304, 315
Cut worms, 15, 17, 41, 44
Cuttings, 40, 103, 315
Cydia, 99
D
Damping-off diseases, 32, 35, 40, 41, 43, 273,
282, 287
Data sheets on chemical safety, 171 - 200
Dates - also refer to dried fruit, 113, 153, 315
Dazomet, 18, 20, 51-60, 181, 278, 279
Denmark, 22, 23, 24, 36, 48, 59, 85, 90, 93, 95,
96, 102, 208, 212
Diatomaceous earth, DE, 143-149, 308-310
1,3-dichloropropene, 1,3-D, 18, 20, 51-60, 182,
277-280
Didymella - also refer to fungal pathogens, 40,
43, 72
Disease suppressive substrates and composts, 63,
65, 92, 94, 282, 283, 289
Ditylenchus - also refer to nematodes, 16, 72, 75,
139
Dominican Republic, 103, 117
Dried bean beetle - also refer to stored product
pests, 98, 157
Dried fruit, 3, 5, 97, 99, 102, 130, 131, 140, 153,
155, 297, 301, 302, 303, 306, 315, 316
Duration of treatments, 52, 61, 70, 73, 79, 80,
81, 82, 105, 113, 115, 120, 122, 128, 130, 131,
138, 139, 150, 151, 157, 158, 167
Durian, 103, 110, 117
E
Ecuador, 34, 36, 48, 77, 78, 95, 103, 117
Egg stages of pests, 42, 115, 152, 156, 297, 303,
311, 312
Eggplant, aubergine, 5, 71, 74, 103, 109, 137,
139, 306
Egypt, 19, 21, 22, 24, 33, 34, 36, 54, 63, 69, 78,
90, 117, 137
El Salvador, 36, 85, 96, 117
Energy consumption, 13, 45, 58, 66, 76, 79, 80,
81, 82, 83, 93, 118, 124, 132, 140, 147, 159
Environmental impacts, 3, 13-14, 45, 51, 58, 66,
76, 83, 93, 118, 125, 132, 140, 148, 159, 207
Ephestia - also refer to Mediterranean flour moth,
tobacco moth, tropical warehouse moth, stored
product pests, 98, 114, 124, 157, 295, 301, 311
Equipment, 7, 10, 11, 30, 32, 42, 45, 55, 65, 75,
82, 91, 114, 123, 129, 138, 145, 156
Erwinia, 17, 40, 43
Ethiopia, 131
Ethylene oxide, 153, 188, 313
Ethyl formate, 153, 155, 186, 312, 315
Europe, 13, 21, 22, 23, 54, 55, 84, 90, 93, 102,
126, 145
Export commodities, 4, 6, 7, 99, 101, 103, 109,
110, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 123, 131, 136,
137, 139, 155, 156, 158, 291-316
F
Fallow, 21, 22, 23, 24, 66
Field crops, 21, 22, 23, 26, 54, 71, 72, 74, 82, 90,
92, 269
Fiji, 36
Fink steam treatment, 79, 80, 82, 84
Finland, 46, 47, 48
Floating seed-trays, float system, 87-96, 289-291
Florida, 24, 30, 56, 60, 71, 78, 90, 94, 96, 103,
110, 116, 117, 208, 210, 272, 277, 278, 279,
280, 286, 296, 304
Flour mills - also refer to structures, 3, 5, 97, 100,
101, 104, 137, 145, 153, 212, 292, 293, 294,
295, 305, 309
Flowers, 21, 23, 30, 34, 37, 39, 54, 60, 63, 64,
65, 74, 80, 83, 90, 97, 99, 103, 109, 110, 122,
123, 137, 142, 208, 210, 274, 299, 300, 304,
315
Fluid bed systems, 135, 305
Food processing facilities - also refer to structures,
5, 100, 101, 104, 110, 137, 141, 142, 147, 148,
208, 285, 293, 294, 309, 310
Food warehouses - also refer to structures, 5, 97,
98, 100, 104, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 119, 130,
157, 294
Forced hot air treatments - also refer to heat treatments, 136, 307, 308
France, 33, 34, 36, 38, 46, 47, 49, 55, 59, 78, 90,
95, 102, 103, 113, 117, 126, 153, 162
Freezing, freezer treatments, 102, 112-119, 297
Fruit flies, 99, 109, 110, 112, 113, 115, 116, 117,
137, 139, 295-298, 303-308
Fumigants, 4, 11, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 51-60, 150162, 310-316, 277-280,
Fungal pathogens of soil, 15, 16, 18, 20, 32, 40,
41, 43, 53, 56, 57, 62, 65, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 81,
82, 92, 267-291
Fungal pests of commodities, 99, 104, 127, 136,
138, 298, 305, 306, 315, 316
Fungi, beneficial - also refer to biological controls,
18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 38-50, 88, 89, 210, 268, 269,
271, 273-277, 284, 285, 294
Fungicides, 18, 19, 21, 41, 53, 55, 57, 58, 89
Fusarium biological controls, 38-46, 274-277
Annex 8: Index
Cyprus, 33, 102, 111, 117, 130, 131, 132, 134,
302, 303
Czech Republic, 46
309
Fusarium pathogens - also refer to fungal
pathogens, 16, 33, 40, 41, 43, 64, 65, 72, 74,
274, 275, 276, 277, 279, 284, 313
G
310
Garlic, 72, 103, 104
Germany, 19, 24, 30, 34, 36, 37, 39, 46, 47, 49,
50, 59, 68, 80, 85, 90, 95, 96, 102, 111, 123,
126, 131, 134, 137, 142, 148, 151, 160, 161,
269, 273, 277, 280, 285, 286
Gliocladium biological controls, 39, 40, 41, 43, 46
Global warming, 45, 58, 66, 76, 83, 93, 118,
124, 132, 140, 147, 159, 176
Globodera - also refer to nematodes, 16, 72
Glomus biological controls, 41, 47
Glomus pathogens - also refer to fungal
pathogens, 16
Glossary, 167-168
Grafting, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 33, 34, 41, 270
Grain silos, 97, 112, 114, 124, 128, 129, 130,
144, 150, 157, 301, 315, 316
Grain stores, 97, 107, 114, 120, 128, 144, 146,
148, 293, 298, 300, 309
Grains, 4, 5, 97-160, 291-316
Granary/grain weevils - also refer to stored product pests, 98, 131, 147, 130, 156, 157, 302
Grapefruit, 101, 103, 114, 117, 136, 139, 304,
307
Grapes, 5, 33, 64, 99, 103, 104, 109, 114, 115,
116, 117, 155, 300, 303, 304
Grasses - also refer to weeds, 15, 17, 33, 73, 74
Gravel substrates, 88, 89, 90
Greece, 33, 34, 71, 75, 76, 78, 117, 276, 286,
287
Greenhouses, 5, 25, 26, 30, 31, 39, 44, 57, 65,
66, 70-77, 79-84, 87-94, 267, 269, 270, 276,
278, 282, 286, 288, 289, 290, 291
Groundnut, peanut - also refer to nuts, 98, 131,
144, 154, 155, 157
Guatemala, 83, 117
Guyana, 117
H
Haiti, 117
Handicrafts - also refer to artifacts, 155
Hawaii, 103, 104, 111, 116, 117, 122, 123, 137,
142, 161, 294, 295, 307
Health, 12, 29, 44, 51, 57, 66, 70, 76, 83, 92,
118, 124, 132, 140, 147, 150, 157, 158, 171200, 205
Heat treatments for commodities and structures,
101, 102, 103, 104, 110, 135-142, 145, 155,
305-308
Heat treatments for soil, 70-78, 79-86, 288-289
Herbicides, 18, 20, 53, 55, 56, 57, 270
Herbs, 5, 97, 131, 155, 156
Hermetic storage, 102, 127-134, 300-304
Heterodera - also refer to nematodes, 16, 72, 275
Heterorhabditus biological controls, 39, 41, 44,
47, 274
Honduras, 21, 36, 54, 78, 117
Hood steam treatments, 80, 81, 82, 84
Horn generator, 151, 152, 146, 160, 312, 313
Hot water treatments, 79-86, 135-142, 288-289,
305-308
Humidity, 102, 114, 116, 120, 130, 135, 136,
137, 138, 140, 144, 146, 150, 151, 156, 286,
298, 311
Hungary, 38, 46, 117
Hydrogen cyanide, 153, 154, 190
Hydroponic systems, 87-96, 289-291
Hygienic practices, sanitation, 18, 21, 29, 30-31,
51, 88, 89, 90, 110
I
Identifying appropriate alternatives, 9-14, 26-28,
104-106, 201-206
India, 36, 49, 78, 103, 117, 131, 160, 161
Indian meal moth - also refer to Plodia, stored
product pests, 98, 131, 147, 156, 299
Indonesia, 22, 46, 48, 90, 102, 130, 131, 134,
159, 160, 161
Inert dust, 143-149, 308-310
Insect growth regulators (IGRs), 121, 123, 124,
126, 299
Insect pests of commodities and structures, 97106, 107-162, 112, 113, 114, 291-316
Insect pests of soil, 15, 17, 18, 20, 33, 35, 39, 41,
44, 53, 57, 61, 75, 81, 92, 276, 277, 280
Insecticides, 53, 101, 107, 110, 120-126, 148,
171-200, 298-300, 310, 311, 312
Inspection, 103, 108, 109, 110, 292, 316
Integrated commodity management, ICM, 107111
Integrated pest management, IPM, 10, 13, 25,
29-37, 38, 51, 56, 61, 75, 101, 104, 107-111,
112, 123, 127, 131, 135, 137, 144, 145, 208,
209, 210, 212, 268-273, 291-296
In-transit treatments, 101, 102, 127, 128, 129,
131, 136, 154, 155, 159, 161, 313, 315, 316
Israel, 22, 23, 24, 33, 34, 36, 37, 46, 48, 50, 55,
60, 68, 69, 70, 71, 74, 75, 78, 90, 94, 96, 102,
J
Japan, 16, 17, 19, 22, 23, 37, 39, 54, 55, 60, 71,
103, 104, 109, 110, 114, 116, 117, 123, 130,
131, 134, 136, 162, 119, 275, 276, 295, 284,
296, 301, 303, 304, 306, 312, 313, 314, 315
Jordan, 19, 21, 22, 24, 33, 36, 37, 46, 48, 54, 71,
74, 75, 78, 90, 103, 117, 287
K
Kenya, 36, 49, 213, 274
Khapra beetle, Trogoderma, 98, 124, 130, 135,
138, 139, 143, 146, 154, 156, 157, 294, 311
Kiln drying - also refer to heat treatments, 102,
135, 137, 141
Kiwifruit, 109, 115, 116, 117
Korea, 94
L
Larvae, 15, 39, 41, 44, 115, 128, 147, 156, 282,
297, 301, 303
Lasioderma, 115, 124, 138, 157, 303, 313
Latin America - also refer to individual countries,
137, 290
Lebanon, 21, 22, 23, 24, 33, 78, 90, 117
Legumes, 15, 128, 151, 155, 270
Lepidoptera, 115, 293, 295, 296, 307
Lesser grain borer - also refer to Rhyzopertha,
stored product pests, 98, 131, 146, 147, 156
Lethal temperatures, 70, 71, 76, 79, 81, 82, 135,
138, 139, 306
Lettuce, 72, 80, 286
Litchee, litchi, 103, 110, 137
Logs - also refer to timber, 5, 97, 101, 104, 123,
135, 139, 155, 314
Longhorn beetle, 98, 156
Lumber, timber, wood, 3, 4, 5, 62, 65, 97, 99,
100, 101, 102, 104, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124,
126, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142,
152, 155, 156, 157, 158, 162, 290, 295, 298,
299, 302, 305, 306, 314
M
Macedonia, 117
Macrophomina - also refer to fungal pathogens,
16, 74
Madagascar, 36
Maize, corn - also refer to grains, 98, 103, 115,
116, 127, 139, 144, 146
Malawi, 19, 23, 36
Malaysia, 22, 36, 48, 49, 60, 90, 134, 155, 160,
161
Manure, 31, 32, 35, 61-69, 74, 268, 270, 280286
Market acceptability, 13, 27, 45, 58, 67, 76, 84,
93, 112, 118, 125, 132, 140, 148, 159
Material inputs, 7, 10, 11, 30, 32, 42, 45, 55, 65,
75, 82, 91, 114, 123, 129, 138, 145, 156
Mauritius, 24
Mealy bug, 99, 304, 307
Mediterranean, 16, 17, 73, 94, 95, 96, 98, 99,
102, 109, 112, 113, 114, 116, 131, 139, 147,
156, 208, 268, 276, 277, 279, 281, 295, 297,
303, 311
Mediterranean flour moth - also refer to Ephestia,
stored product pests, 98, 131, 147, 156, 295, 311
Mediterranean fruit fly - also refer to fruit flies,
109, 116, 297
Meloidogyne - also refer to nematodes, 16, 35,
42, 72, 74, 139, 276, 283
Melon fly - also refer to fruit flies, 99, 109, 297
Melons - also refer to cucurbits, 5, 21, 33, 54, 63,
64, 71, 74, 90, 91, 99, 103, 109, 137, 139, 274,
278, 297
Merchant grain beetle – also refer to stored product pests, 147
Metam sodium, metham sodium, 18, 20, 33, 5160, 74, 194, 277-280
Methoprene, 102, 121, 123, 124, 299
Methyl isothiocyanate, MITC, 18, 52, 53, 55, 57,
41
Mexican fruit fly - also refer to fruit flies, 99, 116,
298, 304, 307, 308
Mexico, 19, 21, 22, 24, 34, 37, 46, 48, 49, 54,
63, 64, 68, 69, 71, 77, 78, 95, 96, 103, 110, 116,
117, 137, 283, 295, 308
Mills, food processing - also refer to structures, 3,
5, 97, 100, 101, 104, 137, 145, 153, 212, 292,
293, 294, 295, 305, 309
Mites, 3, 75, 99, 100, 104, 115, 139, 146, 156,
295, 298, 301, 304, 305, 307, 311, 312
Modified atmospheres, 127-134, 297, 300-304
Monitoring, 10, 25, 29, 31, 62, 91, 104, 107,
108, 110, 114, 135, 136, 150, 156, 292, 294
Mononchus, 39, 41, 42
Montreal Protocol, 1, 3, 4, 10, 11, 164, 210, 211,
212, 213
Morocco, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 33, 34, 35, 36, 49,
54, 55, 60, 63, 64, 65, 71, 78, 90, 117, 275, 276
Moths, 98, 99, 100, 104, 110, 115, 124, 131,
147 156, 157, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298,
299, 307, 308, 311
Annex 8: Index
104, 116, 117, 119, 131, 134, 161, 286, 287,
301, 302
Italy, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 46, 54, 55, 60, 71, 75,
76, 78, 80, 85, 91, 95, 103, 117
311
Mulch, 18, 30, 31, 32, 33, 72, 75, 269, 271, 278,
285, 287
Multilateral Fund of the Montreal Protocol, 1, 10,
11, 164, 212
Municipal waste, 63, 66, 274, 281, 283
Museum artifacts, 97, 100, 102, 114, 115, 123,
127, 129, 130, 131, 137, 140, 294, 295, 301,
302, 306, 316
Mycorrhizae, 41, 47, 274, 276
N
312
Natural substrates, 93
Nectarine, 103, 104, 117, 137, 140
Negative pressure steam treatment, 79-86, 288
Nematicides, 18, 19, 20, 42, 51, 53, 55, 56, 57,
59, 278
Nematodes - biological controls, 38-50, 64, 274277
Nematodes - pathogens,15, 16, 18, 20, 31, 34,
35, 36, 40, 41, 42, 51, 52, 53, 54, 57, 60, 61, 72,
74, 75, 76, 79, 81, 92, 99, 104, 13, 156, 203,
268, 269, 270, 271, 272, 275, 279, 280, 282,
283, 284, 286, 288, 293, 305
Netherlands, 19, 22, 23, 24, 30, 34, 36, 39, 47,
49, 54, 60, 68, 80, 81, 82, 84, 85, 88, 90, 91, 94,
95, 96, 103, 109, 126, 134, 137, 142, 153, 272,
273, 280, 288, 290
New Zealand, 37, 39, 46, 48, 49, 50, 68, 85, 86,
91, 96, 103, 104, 111, 119, 122, 123, 134, 137,
142, 161, 269, 270, 275, 297, 306, 315, 316
Nicaragua, 117
Nitrogen treatments - post-harvest, 102, 110,
127-134, 151, 161, 197, 300-303
Non-food products, 100, 121, 152, 153, 159
Norway, 80, 81, 85, 142
Nurseries, nursery plants, 5, 8, 21, 24, 25, 30, 39,
44, 57, 63, 64, 66, 71, 75, 76, 81, 82, 83, 90, 92,
99, 267-291
Nutrient management, 18, 31, 32, 33, 88
Nuts, nut trees, 5, 21, 24, 71, 87, 92, 97, 99,
102, 104, 112, 115, 131, 140, 144, 151, 154,
155, 156, 271, 272, 297, 298, 302, 303, 304,
306, 315
O
Oilseed, 62, 145, 154, 157, 310
Onion, 71, 72, 104
Open-field crops, 21, 22, 23, 26, 54, 71, 72, 74,
82, 90, 92, 269
Orchards, tree fruit, 3, 5, 19, 21, 24, 25, 33, 37,
44, 70, 71, 74, 75, 103, 110, 155, 269, 272, 275,
276, 278, 287, 291, 295, 304, 305
Oriental fruit fly, 99, 116, 139, 297
Ornamental plants, 25, 37, 60, 80, 83, 97, 103,
110, 283
Orobanche, broomrape, 15, 17, 73
Oryzaephilius - also refer to stored product pests,
98, 124, 146, 157
Oxygen, 113, 127, 128, 129, 130, 132, 138, 297,
298, 301, 303, 304
OzonAction Programme, 6, 163, 207
Ozone depletion, 3, 9, 13, 45, 58, 66, 76, 83, 93,
118, 124, 132, 140, 147, 159, 163, 174, 267
P
Paecilomyces biological controls, 39, 42, 47
Pakistan, 49, 160
Panama, 36, 117
Papaya, 103, 117, 136, 139, 306, 307
Pathogenic fungi, 15, 16, 18, 20, 32, 40, 41, 43,
53, 56, 57, 62, 65, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 81, 82, 92,
267-291
Pathogenic nematodes, 15, 16, 18, 20, 31, 34,
35, 36, 40, 41, 42, 51, 52, 53, 54, 57, 60, 61, 72,
74, 75, 76, 79, 81, 92, 99, 104, 13, 156, 203,
268, 269, 270, 271, 272, 275, 279, 280, 282,
283, 284, 286, 288, 293, 305
Peach, 99, 104, 117
Peanut, groundnut - also refer to nuts, 98, 131,
144, 154, 155, 157
Pear, 24, 99, 112, 114, 117, 140, 271, 298, 304,
308
Peat substrate, 81, 82, 83, 87-95, 289-291
Pepper, 33, 53, 74, 102, 103, 137, 275, 277, 282,
283
Perennials, 5, 15, 17, 19, 21, 24, 33, 57, 64, 75,
83, 277
Perishable commodities, 3, 5, 8, 97, 99, 100, 101,
102, 103, 104, 108, 109, 110, 112-119, 120,
122, 130, 132, 135-142, 147, 155, 295-300,
303-304, 306, 308, 315-316
Persimmon, 117, 140, 298, 307
Peru, 117
Pest free zones, 103, 109
Pest monitoring, 10, 25, 29, 31, 62, 91, 104, 107,
108, 110, 114, 135, 136, 150, 156, 292, 294
Pest trapping, 30, 31, 33, 34, 108, 110, 294, 295
Pesticide, 3, 11, 12, 13, 20, 38, 45, 51-60, 120128, 150-160, 277-280, 298-300, 310-316
Pests of commodities and structures, 97-160, 291316
Pests of soil, 15-94, 267-291
Pheromones, 108, 210, 292, 294, 295, 316
Phoma – also refer to fungal pathogens, 16, 72
Phomopsis, 15, 40, 43
Q
Quarantine pests, 5, 97, 99, 104, 109, 112, 115,
129, 137, 138, 139, 158, 211, 294, 295
Quarantine schedules, 112, 116, 139, 152, 158
Quarantine treatments, 3, 4, 97, 100, 101, 103,
104, 109-111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117,
122, 123, 127, 128, 129, 131, 132, 136, 137,
138, 139, 140, 152, 158, 211, 212, 213, 294,
295-316
Queensland fruit fly - also refer to fruit flies, 109,
116
R
Raisin, 114, 303, 313
References and publications about commodities
and structures, 291-316
References and publications about soil treatments,
267-292
Residues, 3, 11, 13, 18, 45, 58, 66, 76, 83, 92,
118, 124, 132, 140, 147, 158
Resistant varieties, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 31,
32, 33, 34, 272
Retail packaging, 102, 128, 129, 131
Rhizoctonia - also refer to fungal pathogens, 16,
40, 41, 43, 65, 72, 81, 282, 283, 284
Rhyzopertha - also refer to lesser grain borer,
stored product pests, 98, 124, 146, 299
Rice - also refer to grains, 98, 113, 114, 116, 130,
131, 138, 139, 146, 147, 156, 299, 303
Rice hull substrates, 83, 87, 88, 139, 285, 290
Rice weevil - also refer to Sitophilus, stored product pests, 98, 131, 146, 147, 156
Rockwool, stonewool substrates, 87-96, 289-292
Rodents, 97, 100, 108, 127, 150, 153, 154, 156,
212, 293
Root crops, 103, 104, 168
Root-knot nematodes - also refer to nematodes,
15, 33, 39, 41, 72, 74, 75, 279, 282, 283
Roses, 5, 23, 25, 34, 90, 270
Rotylenchulus – also refer to nematodes, 16
Rust red flour beetle – also refer to stored product
pests, 98
S
Safety precautions, 11, 12, 45, 57, 66, 76, 83, 92,
105, 113, 118, 122, 124, 126, 132, 140, 147,
150, 154, 156, 158, 159, 161, 171-200
Sanitation, hygienic practices, 18, 21, 29, 30-31,
51, 88, 89, 90, 110
Sawdust, 62, 66, 83, 87, 88, 91
Scandinavia, 95, 104, 306
Sclerotinia - also refer to fungal pathogens, 16,
33, 40, 43, 72, 81, 269
Sclerotium - also refer to fungal pathogens, 16,
40, 43, 72, 81, 281
Scotland, 91
Seeds - also refer to grains, 5, 110, 113, 114,
137, 139, 140, 143, 144, 145, 151, 154, 155,
156, 157, 158, 293, 294, 310
Seedbeds, seedlings - also refer to nurseries, 5,
16, 21, 23, 25, 30, 32, 40, 44, 54, 56, 57, 66, 72,
75, 76, 83, 90, 91, 92, 96, 270, 275, 276, 282,
291
Annex 8: Index
Phosphine, 11, 101, 102, 104, 110, 136, 144,
145, 150-162, 198, 207, 208, 211, 301, 310-316
Philippines, 37, 60, 102, 103, 134, 155, 159, 160,
161, 162, 302
Phytophthora - also refer to fungal pathogens, 16,
35, 40, 43, 65, 72, 279, 282, 283, 285, 286
Phytotoxicity, 45, 58, 61, 66, 76, 82, 83, 92, 156157, 168, 282, 315
Pineapple, 103, 139
Plant material, 19, 25, 34, 80, 90, 92, 103, 110,
139, 142
Plodia - also refer to Indian meal moth, stored
product pests, 98, 124, 301
Plum, 104, 117
Portugal, 33, 34, 37, 68, 77, 94, 117, 270
Post-harvest treatments, 107-162, 291-316
Potting media, 5, 39, 87-96, 282, 284, 289-291
Pratylenchus - also refer to nematodes, 16, 35,
42, 72, 276
Pre-conditioning treatments, 115, 137
Pre-shipment, 4, 97, 101, 103, 104, 168, 211
Pressure, 79, 80, 81, 102, 103, 110, 113, 123,
127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 136, 139, 145, 148,
152, 154, 155, 288, 301, 302, 303
Preventive methods of pest control, 21, 22, 25,
30, 31, 32, 35, 36, 41, 105, 107-111, 268-273,
292-296, 298
Propagation material, 19, 25, 34, 80, 90, 92, 103,
110, 139, 142
Protected crops, 5, 25, 26, 30, 31, 39, 44, 57, 65,
66, 70-77, 79-84, 87-94, 267, 269, 270, 276,
278, 282, 286, 288, 289, 290, 291
Prunes, 112, 113, 114, 115
Pseudomonas biological controls, 39, 40, 41, 43,
47, 273
Pseudomonas pathogens, 17, 43, 74
Pumice substrate, 88, 89, 93, 95, 290
Pupae, 15, 39, 41, 44, 115, 128, 147, 156, 282,
297, 301, 303
Pythium - also refer to fungal pathogens, 16, 40,
41, 43, 65, 72, 282, 283, 284, 289
313
314
Selection of appropriate alternatives, 9-14, 26-28,
104-106, 201-206
Senegal, 68
Shipping containers, ships, 3, 4, 5, 97, 98, 101,
113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 119, 128, 131, 138,
150, 151, 154, 159, 292, 293, 300, 304, 306,
311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316
Silica, 89, 143-149, 167, 308-310
Silos, 97, 114, 124, 128, 129, 130, 144, 150,
157, 301, 315, 316
Silverfish, 100, 124, 147
Singapore, 134
Sitophilus - also refer to rice weevil, stored product pests, 98, 114, 115, 124, 128, 146, 157, 301,
302, 303, 308, 312, 313
Slugs, 41, 147
Snails, 41, 98, 99, 136, 138
Soil amendments, 6, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 38,
61-69, 74, 96, 168, 271, 276, 280-286, 290
Soil substitutes, substrates, 6, 12, 18, 19, 20, 21,
22, 23, 24, 25, 39, 71, 75, 76, 80, 81, 82, 83, 85,
87-96, 289-291
Soil treatments, 15-96, 267-291
Solarisation, 6, 12, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 38, 41,
53, 64, 70-78, 90, 168, 286-287
South Africa, 23, 36, 46, 47, 48, 49, 60, 84, 85,
90, 103, 104, 116, 117, 155, 288
South America - also refer to individual countries,
16, 17, 71
Spain, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 30, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37,
48, 49, 54, 55, 56, 59, 60, 63, 67, 68, 69, 77, 78,
85, 90, 94, 95, 96, 103, 116, 117, 268, 271, 274,
277, 279, 281, 283
Specialists in commodities and structures, 111,
125-126, 133-134, 141-142, 148-149, 160-161,
316
Specialists in soil pest control, 35-37, 46-50, 5960, 67-69, 77-78, 84-86, 94-96
Spices, 5, 97, 131, 153, 155, 156
Spot treatments, 29, 30, 123, 145
Squash, 33, 103, 109, 139
Steam plough, 81, 82
Steam treatments for commodities and structures,
135-142, 305-308
Steam treatments for soil, 6, 12, 18, 20, 21, 22,
23, 24, 25, 42, 79-86, 90, 93, 287, 288, 289
Stonefruit, 5, 21, 24, 54, 71, 104, 117, 308
Storage facilities, 97, 107, 114, 120, 128, 144,
146, 148, 293, 298, 300, 309
Stored products, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 97-162, 291-316
Stored product pests, 4, 5, 11, 97-100, 101-162,
291-316
Strawberry, 3, 5, 21, 22, 30, 35, 53, 54, 56, 72,
74, 88, 90, 91, 96, 104, 109, 268, 269, 271, 277,
278, 279, 287, 290
Structures, structural treatments, 4, 5, 6, 8, 97,
100, 101, 104, 105, 107, 110, 111, 114, 116,
119, 121, 122, 123, 124, 128, 129, 132, 135,
136, 137, 138, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145,
146, 148, 149, 150, 152, 155, 156, 157, 159,
207, 279, 291-316
Substrates, soil substitutes, 6, 12, 18, 19, 20, 21,
22, 23, 24, 25, 39, 71, 75, 76, 80, 81, 82, 83, 85,
87-96, 289-291
Sulphuryl fluoride, sulfuryl fluoride, 101, 102,
104, 150-162, 310-316
Suppliers of alternatives, 34, 46-49, 59, 67-68,
77-78, 85-86, 94-96, 119, 126, 134, 142, 149,
160-161, 215-266
Swaziland, 103, 116, 117
Sweden, 48, 95, 96, 152
Switzerland, 24, 38, 39, 48, 90, 269
Syria, 78, 83, 117
T
Taiwan, 103, 110, 116, 117
Tanzania, 36, 162
Tea - also refer to beverage crops, 5, 37, 60
Termites, 17, 100, 124, 138, 152, 155, 156, 158,
159, 293, 294, 298, 299
Thailand, 47, 102, 103, 123, 131, 134, 160, 161,
303
Thrips, 99, 130, 300, 304
Ticks, 99, 147, 158
Timber, lumber, wood, 3, 4, 5, 62, 65, 97, 99,
100, 101, 102, 104, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124,
126, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142,
152, 155, 156, 157, 158, 162, 290, 295, 298,
299, 302, 305, 306, 314
Timing of planting, 33
Tobacco post-harvest treatments, 5, 98, 101, 102,
109, 121, 123, 138, 139, 155, 158, 294, 298,
302, 303, 313
Tobacco seedlings, seedbeds, 3, 5, 17, 19, 21, 23,
25, 54, 90, 91, 96, 97, 277
Tomato - post-harvest treatments, 99, 101, 103,
109, 123, 137, 139
Tomato - soil treatments, 5, 17, 19, 21, 22, 30,
33, 34, 35, 39, 53, 54, 56, 63, 64, 65, 71, 72, 73,
74, 80, 81, 90, 91, 93, 210, 268, 269, 270, 271,
274, 277, 278, 279, 283, 286, 287, 289, 291
Toxicity, 3, 12, 15, 38, 44, 51, 53, 55, 57, 58, 61,
66, 70, 76, 79, 83, 87, 92, 97, 118, 120, 121,
124, 132, 136, 140, 143, 147, 150, 153, 157158, 171-200, 280, 313
Trap crops, 30, 31, 33-35
U
UK, 22, 24, 39, 46, 48, 49, 59, 80, 85, 90, 95,
102, 111, 126, 131, 134, 137, 142, 145, 149,
161, 162, 267
UNEP DTIE, 6, 163, 207
Uruguay, 37, 117
USA, 16, 17, 19, 22, 23, 24, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39,
46, 47, 48, 49, 53, 54, 55, 59, 60, 63, 66, 67, 69,
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 80, 82, 84, 85, 86,
90, 94, 95, 96, 102, 103, 104, 110, 111, 113,
114, 116, 117, 119, 121, 123, 126, 131, 134,
136, 137, 139, 141, 142, 144, 145, 146, 147,
148, 149, 151, 152, 153, 155, 157, 159, 160,
162
V
Vacuum, 129, 138, 139, 302
Vapour heat - also refer to heat treatments, 110,
135, 136, 137, 139, 141
Vegetables - also refer to cucurbits, tomato, 5, 24,
30, 32, 64, 71, 83, 88, 90, 92, 94, 97, 99, 103,
137, 140, 208, 268, 273, 276, 277, 280, 290,
306
Venezuela, 117
Vermiculite, 87, 88, 89, 95
Verticillium - also refer to fungal pathogens, 16,
33, 40, 43, 61, 62, 64, 65, 70, 72, 75, 272, 276,
277, 278, 286, 287
Vietnam, 102, 155
Vines, vineyards, 5, 21, 24, 25, 33, 37, 60, 63,
70, 71, 74, 75, 269, 271
Vine fruit, 5, 33, 64, 99, 103, 104, 109, 114, 115,
116, 117, 155, 300, 303, 304, 313
W
Warehouses - also refer to storage facilities, 5, 97,
98, 100, 104, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 119, 130,
144, 157, 294
Waste products as substrates and soil amendments, 61, 62, 63, 65, 66, 67, 88, 89, 93, 94,
274, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 291
Water management, 18, 30, 31, 35, 89
Watermelon - also refer to cucurbits, 21, 33, 63,
64, 278
Websites on post-harvest treatments, 171, 207213, 292, 316
Websites on soil pest control, 6, 57, 171, 207213, 272-273, 276-277, 280, 285-286, 287, 289,
291
Weeds, 4, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35,
37, 51, 52, 53, 56, 57, 60, 61, 63, 65, 70, 71, 72,
73, 74, 75, 79, 81, 82, 86, 92, 262, 268, 269,
270, 271, 272, 273, 275, 276, 280, 286, 287,
289
Weevils, 17, 24, 98, 99, 110, 130, 131, 146, 147,
156, 157, 158, 282, 297, 302
Wheat - also refer to grains, 115, 116, 138, 144,
145, 146, 301, 302, 309, 313, 316
Wire worms, 15, 17
Wood, wood products, timber, 3, 4, 5, 62, 65, 97,
99, 100, 101, 102, 104, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124,
126, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142,
152, 155, 156, 157, 158, 162, 290, 295, 298,
299, 302, 305, 306, 314
Wood-damaging pests, 97, 100, 121, 123, 124,
137, 140, 152, 155, 156, 306
Wood products - also refer to wood, artifacts,
101, 120, 136, 137, 142, 152, 155, 157, 158,
306
X
Xiphinema – also refer to nematodes, 16, 72
Z
Zambia, 23
Zimbabwe, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 37, 39, 54, 60, 83,
90, 102, 103, 104, 117, 159
Zucchini, courgette - also refer to cucurbits, 5, 19,
21, 25, 103, 139
Annex 8: Index
Traps for pests, 30, 31, 33, 34, 108, 110, 294,
295
Treatment duration, 52, 61, 70, 73, 79, 80, 81,
82, 105, 113, 115, 120, 122, 128, 130, 131, 138,
139, 150, 151, 157, 158, 167
Trees, treefruit, 3, 5, 19, 21, 24, 33, 37, 44, 103,
110, 155, 269, 272, 275, 276, 278, 287, 291,
295, 304, 305
Tribolium - also refer to stored product pests, 98,
146, 303, 308
Trichoderma biological controls, 23, 38-50, 64,
65, 74, 88, 91, 273-277
Trinidad and Tobago, 49, 117
Trogoderma, khapra beetle, 98, 124, 130, 135,
138, 139, 143, 146, 154, 156, 157, 294, 311
Tropical warehouse moth - also refer to Ephestia,
stored product pests, 98, 114, 124, 157
Tubers, 103, 139
Tunisia, 21, 22, 23, 24, 33, 117
Turf, 5, 25, 39, 44, 268
Turkey, 78, 117, 279
315
Annex 9
Contacts for Implementing Agencies
The Multilateral Fund of the Montreal Protocol has been established to provide technical and
financial assistance for developing countries to phase out ozone-depleting substances such as
methyl bromide. For further information please contact the Implementing Agencies and
Secretariats listed below.
Implementing Agencies
Annex 9: Contacts for Implementing Agencies
Mr Frank Pinto, Principal Technical Adviser and
Chief
Montreal Protocol Unit
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
1 United Nations Plaza
United Nations
New York, N.Y. 10017
United States
Tel: (1) 212 906 5042
Fax: (1) 212 906 6947
www.undp.org/seed/eap/montreal
316
Mr Rajendra M Shende, Chief
(UNEP DTIE)
39-43, quai Andre Citroën
75739 Paris Cedex 15
France
Tel: (33 1) 44 37 14 50
Fax: (33 1) 44 37 14 74
Mrs. H. Seniz Yalcindag, Chief
Industrial Sectors and Environment Division
United Nations Industrial Development
Organization (UNIDO)
Vienna International Centre
P.O. Box 300
A-1400 Vienna
Austria
Tel: (43) 1 26026 3782
Fax: (43) 1 26026 6804
www.unido.org
Mr. Steve Gorman, Unit Chief
Montreal Protocol Operations Unit
World Bank
1818 H Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20433
United States
Tel: (1) 202 473 5865
Fax: (1) 202 522 3258
www-esd.worldbank.org/mp/home.cfm
Multilateral Fund Secretariat
Dr. Omar El Arini, Chief Officer
Secretariat of the Multilateral Fund for the
Montreal Protocol
27th Floor, Montreal Trust Building
1800 McGill College Avenue
Montreal, Quebec H3A 6J6
Canada
Tel: (1) 514 282 1122
Fax: (1) 514 282 0068
www.unmfs.org
UNEP Ozone Secretariat
Mr. Michael Graber
UNEP Ozone Secretariat
PO Box 30552
Nairobi
Kenya
Tel: (254 2) 623 855
Fax: (254 2) 623 913
www.unep.org/ozone/home.htm
A Word from the Chief of UNEP DTIE’s
Much of the Montreal Protocol’s success can be attributed to its ability to evolve over time to
reflect the latest environmental information and technological and scientific developments.
Through this dynamic process, significant progress has been achieved globally in protecting the
ozone layer.
As a key agency involved in the implementation of the Montreal Protocol, UNEP DTIE’s
OzonAction Programme promotes knowledge management in ozone layer protection through
collective learning. There is much that we can learn from one another in adopting effective
alternatives to methyl bromide.
Sourcebook of Technologies for Protecting the Ozone Layer: Alternatives to Methyl Bromide,
which provides technical information on a range of alternative technologies to replace methyl
bromide, is neither comprehensive nor exhaustive. Technologies will emerge or be further
refined as countries move ahead with methyl bromide phase out.
I encourage you to share information on methyl bromide alternatives with the OzonAction
Programme so that we can inform others involved in this issue about available technologies and
how they can be adopted. Send us an e-mail, fax or letter about new technologies in this sector
and your experiences in replacing methyl bromide. We will consider it as an important part of
collective learning.
Based on the feedback and information received, UNEP will update this sourcebook on a periodic basis to reflect the latest technological developments. We will also disseminate this information through a variety of channels, including the OzonAction Newsletter and the OzonAction
Programme’s website (www.uneptie.org/ozonaction.html). If we use the information you provide, we will send you a free copy of one of our videos, publications, posters or CD-ROMs as
thanks for your cooperation.
So take a pen and write to us. Let us learn collectively to protect the ozone layer.
Rajendra M Shende, Chief
UNEP DTIE Energy and OzonAction Unit

Alternatives to Methyl Bromide

Transcription

Similar documents

the program brochure

electrical products

The meeco Group

the brochure.

Tidland exapnds Air Chuck offering with NimCor

FEA TURES - Dedicated Micros

NEW SOLUTION

The Telco Report

Models, Optimality, Experts and Alternatives

PRICE TOTAL $ FIBA Shot Clock *pair