Crop Protection Research Institute
The Importance of Soil Fumigation:
California Tree and Vine Crops
CropLife Foundation
1156 15th Street, NW #400 Washington, DC 20005
Phone 202-296-1585 www.croplifefoundation.org
Fax 202-463-0474
Introduction
Tree and vine crops accounted for four of the five most valuable fruit and nut crops in the U.S. in 2012
[1]. Grapes are the most valuable of the tree and vine crops, with a value of $4.9 billion in 2012,
followed by almonds ($4.3 billion), apples ($3.1 billion) and oranges ($2.3 billion) [1]. This category
includes the highest consumed fruit in the U.S.: oranges (61.21 lbs/capita/year), grapes (52.09
lbs/capita/year) and apples (42.37 lbs/capita/year) [2]. This category also includes three of the four
highest consumed nuts, all behind peanuts: almonds (1.81 lbs/capita/year in 2011), walnuts (0.46
lbs/capita/year) and pistachios (0.35 lbs/capita/year) [2][3].
The U.S. is the world’s largest producer of almonds, pistachios and raisins and the second largest
producer of grapefruit, fresh oranges, orange juice and walnuts. The U.S. is among the top five
producers for apples, cherries, lemons/limes and peaches/nectarines. Table 1 shows the U.S. ranking
and share of global production for tree and vine crops. The leading tree and vine crop exports in terms
of value are almonds ($2.5 million), grapes-fresh and dried ($1.1 million), oranges-fresh and juice ($1.1
million), walnuts ($1.0 million), apples ($1.0 million) and pistachios ($0.8 million) [13]. Exports account
for the largest share of domestic supplies for pistachios (61%), walnuts (56%), almonds (50%), and
raisins (44%). Table 2 shows the exported share of domestic supplies for tree and vine crops.
The U.S. is a net fruit importer, with nearly half of fresh fruit, two-fifths of canned fruit and about onethird of fruit juice consumed in the U.S. coming from imports [12]. Significant suppliers of tree and vine
fruits are Chile (grapes and stonefruit), Brazil (orange juice), and Mexico (limes, tangerines and grapes)
[12].
The U.S. has over 4 million acres in tree and vine crops. Grapes are grown on the largest area, with
nearly 962,000 bearing acres in 2012, followed by almonds (780,000 acres), oranges (619,200 acres),
apples (327,800 acres) and walnuts (245,000 acres). (See Table 3.)
California accounts for over half of the total US acreage in tree and vine crops, with 2.4 million acres in
2011 [14]. (See Table 4.) For several of the tree and vine crops, California produces over 90% of the US
total: almonds, apricots, nectarines, pistachios, plums and walnuts. Grapes and almonds occupy the
largest acreage of the tree and vine crops and are the second and third most valuable agricultural
products in California, after milk and cream [14].
California Production Areas
The majority of California’s tree and vine crops are grown in the San Joaquin Valley [14]. Major almond,
apple, apricot, cherry, raisin grape, table grape, nectarine, orange, peach, pistachio plus and tangerine
production is located in the San Joaquin Valley. The leading wine grape producing counties are located
in the North Coast. Walnut production is located in the northern San Joaquin and Sacramento Valleys.
Major citrus growing areas are also located in the Desert and South Coast regions. Dried plum
2
production is primarily located in the Sacramento Valley region. Table 5 shows the leading California
counties for tree and vine crops.
Cultural Practices
For orchards and vineyards that are being replanted, site preparation begins in the summer or fall with
removal of old trees and vines, any irrigation pipes and trellises. The site may then be left fallow or
planted to grains, particularly if pest nematodes are present [61]. The ground is then typically ripped to
several feet to break up hardpan soils and pull up remaining tree roots. The field is disked and may be
laser levelled if needed. Pre-plant fumigant is performed in the fall if needed, and may be done
broadcast or in strip treatment of the planting rows, depending on the species of nematode present, soil
type and rootstock used [61]. Planting may begin in January for almonds, cherries, nectarines and
peaches, February for walnuts, as late as March for plums and in April for wine grapes. Planting sites are
marked by surveying or GPS. Trees may be planted by hand, then headed, trimmed, painted and
wrapped or otherwise covered to protect from sunburn, rodent damage and herbicide drift. A small
proportion of trees may require replanting in the second year, at which time the replant sites are
backhoed, fumigated and replanted. Harvest starts in the third year for almonds, grapes, nectarines,
peaches, pears and plums and in the fourth or fifth year for cherries and walnuts
[31][32][33][34][35][36][37]. Stonefruit orchards have a useful economic life of 15-20 years, grape for
20-35 years and almond for 22-25 years.
Major Target Pests
Replant Problem
Prior to the 1950’s, farmers of tree and vine crops had plenty of new land available as an alternative to
replanting land that had previously been in production. However, with growing population, increased
land values and increased demand for fresh fruits and nuts, a greater proportion of fruit and nut
production has been on land where older orchards or vineyards have been removed [29]. Farmers of
tree and vine crops frequently encounter growth problems when they replant on sites within several
years of removing the previous orchard or vineyard, which is referred to as the replant problem. The
replant problem includes plant stunting and leaf yellowing in an uneven pattern across a field and varies
by region, field, cropping history, soil type and even from row to row. Symptoms may be clearly visible
by early summer in the first season of growth. In severe situations, plants will die, especially if a young
field is overwatered. A short-term replant effect may disappear in 6 months to a year, while a long-term
replant effect may be apparent even decades after planting [25].
The replant problem has at least four distinct but related components: the rejection component, and
soil physical and chemical component, the soil pathogens and pests component and the initial
3
nutritional needs component. Not all components are necessarily present at any site with the replant
problem, causing the appearance of replant problems to vary.
The rejection component may be the result of microbes surviving on old roots, or the result of activities
and defense mechanisms of the entire soil ecosystem related to high volumes of root exudate in the soil
from such microbes as pin and ring nematodes, which cause root leakage. The soil physical and
chemical component includes chemical barriers such as accumulated salts, herbicide residues or other
chemicals, and physical barriers such as hardpans, plow pans or soil lenses. The soil pathogens and
pests component include nematodes, phylloxera and soil borne diseases. The fourth component relates
to the initial nutrient needs of young trees and vines [25].
While some replant problems result from abiotic causes, most replant problems have strong microbial
components. Even in the absence of known pests and pathogens, however, young trees of Prunus spp.
tend to lag in growth and productivity in a replant situation. The terms “replant disorder” and “replant
disease” have been coined to distinguish between replant problems resulting primarily from abiotic and
biotic causes, respectively [30]. It is estimated that Prunus replant disease incidence is nearly universal
in Prunus planted after Prunus, though severity varies greatly [53].
Land area planted to almond has roughly quadrupled in the last 30 years in California, and the risk of
almond replant problems is expected to increase as the growing districts age [30].
Oak Root Fungus
Oak root fungus is caused by Armillaria mellea. Infected trees develop pale faoliage with small leaves, a
lack of new growth, and a thin canopy, usually followed by sudden death when the first hot weather of
early summer arrives. The fungus survives on dead roots. It spreads from one tree to another through
close contact of diseased roots with healthy roots. Wet soil conditions resulting from heavy rainfall or
excessive irrigation can exacerbate the disease [61]. Satellite photos of sites treated over thirty years
ago show that methyl bromide was effective at eradicating Armillaria mellea [It is estimated that 5-10%
of California almond acreage is infested with oak root fungus [68].
Nematodes
Plant parasitic nematodes are microscopic roundworms that feed on plant roots of most plants. They
live in soil or within the cortical tissues of the roots. The extent of the damage caused by nematodes
depends largely on the density of the nematode populations, soil conditions and rootstock selection.
The major nematode pests of tree and vine crops in California are root-knot nematode, ring nematode,
lesion nematode and dagger nematode. Root-knot nematode (Meloidogyne spp.) is the most common
plant parasitic nematode worldwide and is most damaging in sandier soils. Root-knot nematodes
penetrate roots, causing a gall. An adult female can produce hundreds to more than a thousand eggs.
The ring nematode (Mesocriconema xenoplax) only develops to high populations within soils of high
4
porosity, including sands and well-structured clay loam soils. Ring nematodes do not penetrate roots,
but extract nutrients from the roots using their long spears. The root lesion nematode (Pratylencus
vulnus) does best in loam textured soils. Root lesion nematode may extract its food from outside the
root or by penetrating the root. Of the tree and vine crops, root lesion nematode develops best on
walnut, reaches moderate populations on peach and plum and generally does not reach very high
population levels on citrus or grape. The dagger nematode (Xiphinema americanum) is common
through California and across the U.S., reaching highest populations in undisturbed areas and in zones
where soil oxygen levels are high. Dagger nematode has a wide host range and can build to high
populations in any soil texture. Dagger nematode builds to highest levels in crops that do not host too
many other nematodes, such as pistachio, certain grape rootstocks and apples [26]. Table 6 shows
nematode species common to California tree and vine crops and the proportion of cropland affected.
Phylloxera
Grape phylloxera (Daktulosphaira vitifoliae) damages grapevines by feeding on roots, causing vines to
become stunted, produce less fruit and eventually die. Phylloxera is most severe in the coastal areas,
but is also present in the heavier soils of the San Joaquin Valley. Phylloxera adults are wingless and
reproduce without males, laying up to several hundred eggs per female [24].
Phytophthora
Phytophthora spp. are among the most serious soilborne pathogens for many horticultural crops in
California [27]. Phytophthora fungi are present in almost all citrus orchards. Phytophthora root rot
destroys feeder roots of susceptible rootstocks causing a slow decline of trees. The leaves turn light
green or yellow and may drop, depending on the severity of infection. The pathogen infects the root
cortex, which turns soft and separates from the stele, or central cylinder of vascular root tissue. If the
destruction of feeder roots occurs faster than their regeneration, the uptake of water and nutrients will
be limited. The trees will grow poorly and production decline [18].
Bacterial canker
Bacterial canker is a serious disease caused by the bacterium Pseudomonas syringae that affects
apricots, prunes, plums, peaches, almonds and cherries. The bacterium attacks trees stressed by ring
nematode, poor soil drainage, cold temperature, rain or other general stresses. Over one million acres
of these susceptible crops are grown in California [28]. Bacterial canker affects scaffolds and smaller
branches, and may kill buds and shoot tips. Young trees are most severely affected, with limbs or entire
trees that succumb to the disease, particularly in Prunus species orchards.
5
Fumigant Use and Restrictions
Soil fumigation was developed in the 1800’s in France to control phylloxera on grape roots using carbon
disulfide. Chloropicrin was recognized as an effective soil fumigant after World War I in pineapple
growing areas. In the 1940’s, scientists developed a mixture of 1,2-dichloropropane (1,2-D) and 1,3dichloropropene (1,3-D) for preplant nematode control. Ethylene dibromide (EDB) was found to be
effective in controlling nematodes and soilborne insects, and was found to be useful for crops such as
carrots in central California. In the late 1940’s, DBCP (1,2 dibromo 3 chloropropane) was patented as a
plant growth stimulator and was used to prolong the productive life of perennial crops such as citrus,
grapes, deciduous fruits and nuts. Methyl bromide came into use around the same time [57] [58].
Most tree and vine growers shifted to soil fumigation with methyl bromide (MB) after use of Telone
(1,3-D) soil fumigant was suspended in 1990. Prior to the suspension, 1,3-D was the preferred soil
fumigant with MB a distant second choice because of its higher cost and associated nutritional
problems. Vapam (a methyl isothiocyanate liberator) is not widely used due to its inconsistent
performance. This product is not a true fumigant and is a poor root penetrant [25].
A series of regulatory actions at the federal and state levels has curtailed the use of fumigants, and
additional regulatory measures are under consideration that are expected to further limit the use of
fumigants.
In 1992, parties to the Montreal Protocol, an international treaty limiting the production and
consumption of ozone-depleting substances, added methyl bromide to the list of class-I ozone depletors
that are required to be phased out. As a party to the Protocol, the U.S. amended the Clean Air Act in
1998 to align with the phase-out schedule for methyl bromide as agreed by the parties to the Montreal
Protocol, which required a 25% reduction in production and consumption from 1991 levels in 1999, 50%
in 2001, 70% in 2003 and a total phase-out beginning in 2005 with allowable exemptions for critical uses
and quarantine and pre-shipment [38][39]. The U.S. has made annual requests for critical use
exemptions for specific uses for each year since 2005. The U.S. made nominations for methyl bromide
use in orchard replant for every year through 2013.
In 2000, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation announced field soil fumigation use
requirements for methyl bromide to control volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions and toxic
exposure. The DPR requirements included: the establishment of buffer zones around treated areas of
at least 50 feet where no one is allowed to enter except for transit or to perform fumigation activities
for 36 hours following fumigation (inner buffer), at least 60 feet where no occupied residences or
occupied onsite employee housing, schools, convalescent homes or hospitals (outer buffer); a
requirement that when a school property is located within 300 feet of the perimeter of the outer buffer,
fumigation must be completed at least 36 hours prior to times when students would attend classes;
delineation of fumigation methods with associated maximum application rates; a maximum block size
of 40 acres; notification requirements and limited work hours for pesticide workers [40]. In 2013, CDPR
revised methyl bromide zone determinations to align with EPA. The revisions did not change buffer
zone distances, but did increase buffer zone durations for most fumigations [41].
6
The use of 1,3-dichloropropene (1,3-D) was suspended in California in April 1990 after monitoring
detected levels above air quality standards in Merced County [42]. Its use was reinstated in 1995 with
restrictions including reduced application rates, buffer zones, and lengthened reentry intervals.
Restrictions were subsequently modified to limit total 1,3-D use within 36-square mile areas, known as
townships, to 90,250 lbs per year, with lower limits if any applications were made at a depth of less than
18 inches or during December or January. Through 2001, 1,3-D use was limited to 90,250 lbs per year in
all but five townships where DPR authorized an increased allocation due to the methyl bromide
phaseout which made methyl bromide unavailable to growers in some areas. The increased allocations
were made only in areas where 1,3-D use was below the 90,250 lbs per year cap. In 2002, DPR
formalized an alternative management plan that would allow 1,3-D use above the 90,250 lbs township
limit, up to 180,500 lbs per year to the extent that use since 1995 in that township was under the 90,250
lbs annual limit [43].
Regulatory restrictions on the use of methyl-isothiocyanate generating pesticides (metam sodium,
metam potassium and dazomet) were announced in November 2010, with the publication of
recommended permit conditions for the County Agricultural Commissioners who grant permits for
application of restricted use pesticides, which included buffer zones, maximum application rates and
block sizes and notification requirements [44].
In 2009, EPA issued Amended Reregistration Eligibility Decisions for the soil fumigant pesticides,
chloropicrin, dazomet, metam sodium/potassium and methyl bromide. The RED’s included safety
measures intended to increase protection for agricultural workers and bystanders, and have been
implemented in two phases. The phase one changes went into effect on December 31, 2010, including
respiratory protection for agricultural workers handling fumigants, tarp handling requirements, an
entry-restricted period, training, and restrictions on application methods and rates. Phase 2 changes
went into effect on December 1, 2012, including buffer zones around treated fields, credits for reduced
buffer distances for the use of high-barrier tarps, signage around fumigation sites, and site-specific
management plans [45].
On May 15, 2013, the DPR proposed new risk mitigation measures for chloropicrin. Compared to the
EPA mitigation measures, DPR is generally proposing the following: longer buffer zones, extended time
period between applications with overlapping buffer zones, and eliminating some buffer zone credits
based on a more protective approach for estimating flux (off-site air concentrations) for different
application methods [46]. The US EPA phase two labels establish buffers depending on application
method, block size and rate, then gives buffer zone credits of up to 80% that reduce the size of the
buffer zone for the following factors: tarp type, organic matter, clay content, soil temperature,
Symmetry System, potassium thiosulfate (KTS), and water seal applied over the tarp. The DPR mitigation
measures may differ from the US EPA approach, particularly with respect to factors allowed in the
calculation of credits [45].
Additional restrictions on the use of fumigants have been put into place to reduce emissions of volatile
organic compounds (VOC’s) from field fumigants in five ozone nonattainment areas (NAA’s), under
California’s State Implementation Plan for the Clean Air Act. The five NAA’s affected by the VOC
7
regulations are Sacramento Metro, South Coast, San Joaquin Valley, Southeast Desert, and Ventura. In
the Sacramento and South Coast NAA’s, where pesticide VOC’s have already been reduced below
emission targets, only certain standardized fumigant application methods can be used between May 1
and October 31. In the San Joaquin Valley, Southeast Desert and Ventura NAA’s, only low-emission
methods can be used between May 1 and October 31. These methods are expected to be sufficient to
achieve required VOC reductions in the San Joaquin Valley and Southeast Desert NAA’s, but fumigant
limits have been established in Ventura County [47]. In order to ensure that fumigant use does not
exceed the limits established by DPR, may impose an allowance system [48].
In April 2013, DPR granted interim approval for the use of TIF tarp methods in the NAA’s, with emissions
ratings for certain TIF tarp application methods which reduce emissions potentially allowing growers to
use desired rates that might otherwise not be allowed if emission allowances go into effect [49].
The use of fumigants in tree and vine crops will fluctuate from year to year as current orchards and
vineyards reach the end of their productive lives, and also in reaction to market conditions which may
result in growers increasing or decreasing planting. In particular, almonds are expected to be replanted
on increasingly larger areas in the coming years, based on historic planting rates. In 2011, almonds,
walnut, grape and cherry had the largest acreage treated with fumigants (Table 7). Figures 1-8 show
acreage treated with fumigants for California tree and vine crops that had more than 100 acres treated
with fumigants in 2011.
Alternatives to Fumigants
The long-term viability of soil fumigants has been questioned due to rising costs, limited efficacy and use
restrictions. Here we discuss the efficacy, yields and costs of several potential alternatives to currently
used soil fumigants in California tree and vine crop production.
Starve and Switch
The starve and switch strategy has been developed to address replant problems in Prunus species. For
sites that are free of certain nematode species, trees are cut down after the final harvest, and the trunks
are treated with a systemic herbicide such as glyphosate, which destroys old roots. The roots of trees
planted on Nemaguard rootstock (a commonly used rootstock which is resistant to most common and
injurious root knot nematodes) are 95% killed within 60 days of treatment. This approach will cause
root knot nematodes to die off with the roots, though root lesion nematodes can survive for two years.
Following herbicide treatment, the acreage is fallowed for a full year to “starve” surviving pests and
destroy 85% of the biology of the rejection component of the replant problem. For almond, replanting a
site previously planted to Nemaguard rootstock with a rootstock having a different parentage, such as
Hansen 536, has been shown to result in trees that were uniform in development as compared to
replanting with Nemaguard [50]. It is estimated that this approach could solve the rejection component
of Prunus replant problems in 65% of sites, as only 35% of Prunus replants in California are infested with
nematodes [51]. The costs associated with starve and switch are believed to be no higher than the
8
current cost of fumigation, but the availability of suitable rootstocks with adequate resistance and
tolerance is certainly lacking [56].
The starve and switch approach is also being developed for grape. A procedure includes a glyphosate
treatment to cut trunks in February-March, followed by drenching the soil with a nematicide such as
fosthiazate, NatureCur, Enzone or metam soil during the summer and replanting the following spring on
rootstocks with broad nematode resistance plus tolerance to the rejection component of the replant
problem where available [60].
Steam
Steam has been used since the 1880’s to kill soilborne pests including fungi, weeds, nematodes, and
insects [54]. Steam soil treatments that raise the temperature to 70⁰ C for 20 minutes kills most soil
pathogens and weed propagules.
Field trials were initiated in 2010, 2011 and 2012 in Central Valley orchards with a high risk of replant
problems to evaluate a steam injection auger system for management of almond replant problems.
Preliminary results at the site with the oldest trials comparing steam treatments, a backhoe treatment
and an untreated control indicate increases in trunk diameter similar to the untreated control for all
treatments except the backhoe treatment which resulted in significantly higher tree growth than the
untreated control. At three other sites, increases in trunk diameter were similar across all treatment.
No differences in disease ratings were found for any treatments at any site and trunk diameter [55].
In two large plot fumigant trials, tree growth was compared for steam treatments and conventional
fumigant treatments. The early growth data from this trial suggest that tree site steam disinfestation
with a 36” injection auger does not provide acceptable control of the almond replant problems in these
sandy soils [55].
Resistant Rootstocks
Rootstocks with resistance to nematodes may be useful in managing replant problems. However, in
crops such as kiwifruit, olive, apple, boysenberry and fig, no sources of resistance to major nematode
pests have been identified. Nemaguard rootstock provides excellent resistance to root knot nematode
in peach, nectarine and almond, but is highly susceptible to root lesion and ring nematodes. Plum and
prune rootstocks resistant to root knot and tolerant of root lesion nematodes are highly susceptible to
ring nematode and associated bacterial canker complex. Black walnut rootstocks have resistance to
root knot nematode but are highly susceptible to root lesion nematodes [58]. In grapes, a search for
broad and durable resistance to Meloidogyne species has resulted in the finding of multiple resistance
mechanisms in RS-E, RS-9, 10-23B and 10-17A rootstocks. These rootstocks possess tolerance because
they have several resistance mechanisms [71].
Less is known concerning tolerance of different almond rootstocks to replant disease [30]. In trials
comparing three different rootstocks (Marianna 2624, Lovell and Nemaguard), almond developed
replant disease on all three rootstocks, while trees on Marianna 2624 were the most severely affected
9
[30]. In an evaluation of 22 clonal rootstocks to Prunus replant disease, all rootstocks were at least
partially susceptible to the complex in the first growing season [55]. Researchers believe that the results
of trials evaluating rootstocks for resistance to Prunus replant disease suggest that judicious
development and selection of rootstocks will contribute strongly to the management of the disease and
reduce dependence on soil fumigation [59]. Researchers caution that reliance on rootstocks to correct
replant problems requires knowledge of rootstock trade-offs against various pest and disease settings to
ensure predictability of performance [56].
All stone fruit rootstocks are susceptible to Armillaria root rot. The plum rootstock Marianna 2624 is the
most resistant to the fungus, but it is not immune. Use of this rootstock is the only practical alternative
if almonds are to be grown in soils where Armillaria has infected roots and killed trees on other
rootstocks [61].
Fallowing
A long-term fallow period has traditionally been viewed as an alternative to soil fumigation. Fallowing
for at least four years may be done to eliminate old roots and associated soil-dwelling pests [59].
However, most growers specializing in perennial crops are not willing to leave land out of production for
such an extended period due to losses associated with foregone production [25]. Recently, microplot
replant trials were conducted to explore the potential of fallowing and crop rotation to remediate
prunus replant disease. With respect to fallowing, an extra 5 months of preplant fallowing alone did not
significantly improve growth of trees planted on Nemaguard rootstock compared to the nonfallowed,
nonfumigated control [59].
Fungicides
Sodium tetrathiocarbonate is recommended for the control of Armillaria mellea. However, the UC Pest
Management Guidelines also say that the only treatment is fumigation [61].
Organic Production
In order to be eligible for USDA organic certification, growers must farm on land to which no synthetic
fertilizers or pesticides have been applied for a minimum of three years. Organic growers employ a
range of practices such as crop rotation, cover crops and organic soil amendments to build soil fertility
and manage pests.
Organic production does not preclude the use of fumigation in the establishment of an orchard or
vineyard. It is possible for organic growers to fumigate prior to planting then transition to organic
production before the first year of harvesting a crop [63].
Some organic growers may choose to forego fumigation. For Prunus orchards, organic growers are
advised to plant alfalfa after tree removal, keeping the area weed free for at least the first two years. A
three year period would ensure that Pratylenchus vulnus would no longer be present. If ring nematode
is prevalent in a site with potential for Bacterial Canker, infestations can be reduced without causing a
biological vacuum by growing sorghum x sudan for one full year [52].
10
Estimated Benefits of Soil Fumigants
California tree and vine growers currently have very limited options if soil fumigants were no longer
available. Here we estimate the benefits of soil fumigants in the crops where fumigation continues to
be the most widely used: almonds, walnuts, grapes, cherry, peach, and prunes.
For almonds, cherries, peaches, and prunes, it is assumed that 35% of replanted acreage is infested with
plant parasitic nematodes. For that 35% of acreage, growers are assumed to switch to a four year fallow
period with no change in yields and cost savings from no longer fumigating. For the other 65% of
acreage, growers are assumed to use the starve and switch strategy, with similar costs and yields to
fumigation, but a one year delay in planting. For walnuts, all growers are assumed to switch to a four
year fallow period with no yield loss and cost savings from no longer fumigating. For grapes, all growers
are assumed to adopt the starve and switch strategy with equivalent costs and yields to fumigation, but
with a one year delay in planting. Estimated benefits of fumigation for California tree and vine crops are
provided in Table 8.
11
References
1. USDA NASS, 2013, Crop Values 2012 Summary,
http://usda01.library.cornell.edu/usda/current/CropValuSu/CropValuSu-02-15-2013.pdf.
2. USDA ERS, 2012, Fruit and Nut Tree Yearbook Spreadsheet Files (89022),
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1377.
3. USDA ERS, 2013, Food Availability (Per Capita) Data System, http://www.ers.usda.gov/dataproducts/food-availability-(per-capita)-data-system.aspx#.UcyZ8PmIOQs.
4. USDA NASS, 2013, Noncitrus Fruits and Nuts 2012 Preliminary Summary,
http://usda01.library.cornell.edu/usda/current/NoncFruiNu/NoncFruiNu-01-25-2013.pdf.
5. USDA NASS, 2012, Citrus Fruits 2012 Summary,
http://usda01.library.cornell.edu/usda/current/CitrFrui/CitrFrui-09-20-2012.pdf.
6. USDA FAS, 2012, Citrus: World Markets and Trade,
http://usda01.library.cornell.edu/usda/current/citruswm/citruswm-01-24-2013.pdf.
7. USDA FAS, 2013, Tree Nuts: Pistachios World Markets and Trade,
http://usda01.library.cornell.edu/usda/current/treenutwm/treenutwm-02-15-2013.pdf.
8. USDA FAS, 2012, Tree Nuts: World Markets and Trade,
http://usda01.library.cornell.edu/usda/fas/treenutwm//2010s/2012/treenutwm-10-262012.pdf.
9. USDA FAS, 2012, Stone Fruit: World Markets and Trade,
http://usda01.library.cornell.edu/usda/current/stonewm/stonewm-09-13-2012.pdf.
10. USDA FAS, 2012, Raisins: World Markets and Trade,
http://usda01.library.cornell.edu/usda/current/raiswm/raiswm-09-14-2012.pdf.
11. USDA FAS, 2013, Fresh Deciduous Fruits (Apples, Grapes, & Pears): World Markets and Trade,
http://usda01.library.cornell.edu/usda/current/decidwm/decidwm-06-21-2013.pdf.
12. USDA ERS, 2012, Fruit and Tree Nuts: Trade, http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/fruit-treenuts/trade.aspx#.Uc3Bx_mIOQt.
13. USDA ERS, 2013, Fruit and Nut Tree Data: Data by Commodity, http://www.ers.usda.gov/dataproducts/fruit-and-tree-nut-data/data-by-commodity.aspx#.Uc3a7fmIOQs.
14. California Department of Food and Agriculture, 2013, California Agricultural Statistics Review
2012-2013, http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/Statistics/PDFs/2013/FinalDraft2012-2013.pdf.
15. USDA, 1998, Crop Profile for Walnuts in California, http://ucce.ucdavis.edu/files/datastore/39147.pdf.
16. USDA, 1999, Crop Profile for Almonds in California, http://ucce.ucdavis.edu/files/datastore/39112.pdf.
17. USDA, 1999, Crop Profile for Apples in California, http://ucce.ucdavis.edu/files/datastore/39169.pdf.
18. USDA, 2003, Crop Profile for Citrus in California, http://ucce.ucdavis.edu/files/datastore/391261.pdf.
19. USDA, 2001, Crop Profile for Nectarines in California,
http://ucce.ucdavis.edu/files/datastore/391-418.pdf.
20. USDA, 1999, Crop Profile for Peaches in California, http://ucce.ucdavis.edu/files/datastore/391419.pdf.
21. USDA, 1999, Crop Profile for Plums in California, http://ucce.ucdavis.edu/files/datastore/391420.pdf.
12
22. USDA, 1999, Crop Profile for Prunes in California, http://ucce.ucdavis.edu/files/datastore/391444.pdf.
23. USDA, 1999, Crop Profile for Grapes (Raisins) in California,
http://ucce.ucdavis.edu/files/datastore/391-316.pdf.
24. USDA, 1999, Crop Profile for Grapes (Table) in California,
http://ucce.ucdavis.edu/files/datastore/391-315.pdf.
25. McKenry, Michael V., 1999, The Replant Problem and Its Management,
http://www.kare.ucanr.edu/programs/Nematodes/The_Replant_Problem/?editon=0.
26. University of California, 2013, Nematode Overview,
http://kare.ucanr.edu/programs/Nematodes/Nematode_overview/.
27. Browne, G.T., G.H. McGranahan, M.R. Vazquez, J.R. McKenna, 1997, “Walnut Rootstock
Selection for Resistance to Phytophthora Spp.,” 1997 Methyl Bromide Alternatives Outreach
Conference, http://mbao.org/1997airc/034browne.pdf.
28. Southwick, Steven, Bruce Kirkpatrick, Becky Westerdahl, 1995, “Relationship between
Fertilization and Bacterial Canker Disease in French Prune,”
http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/is/docs/Southwick95.pdf.
29. McKenry, Michael, 2000, “Y2K and Beyond without MeBr Fumigation for Orchard and Vineyard
Lands?” Plant Protection Quarterly, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 1-2.
30. Browne, G.T., J.H. Connell, and S.M. Schneider, 2006, “Almond Replant Disease and Its
Management with Alternative Pre-Plant Soil Fumigation Treatments and Rootstocks,” Plant
Disease, vol. 90, no. 7, pp. 869-876.
31. Duncan, Roger A., Paul S. Verdegaal, Brent A. Holtz, David A. Doll, Karen A. Klonsky and Richard
L. De Moura, 2011, Sample Costs to Establish an Orchard and Produce Almonds: San Joaquin
Valley North Microsprinkler Irrigation, University of California Cooperative Extension,
http://coststudies.ucdavis.edu/files/AlmondSprinkleVN2011.pdf.
32. Grant, Joe A., Janet L. Caprile, William C. Coates, Kathy Kelly Anderson, Karen M. Klonsky, and
Richard L. De Moura, Sample Costs to Establish an Orchard and Produce Sweet Cherries: San
Joaquin Valley North Microsprinkler Irrigation, University of California Cooperative Extension,
http://coststudies.ucdavis.edu/files/CherryVN2011.pdf.
33. Day, Kevin R., Karen M. Klonsky and Richard L. De Moura, 2009, Sample Costs to Establish and
Produce Nectarines (Fresh Market): July and August Harvested Varieties San Joaquin ValleySouth, University of California Cooperative Extension,
http://coststudies.ucdavis.edu/files/nectarinevs09.pdf.
34. Day, Kevin R., Karen M. Klonsky and Richard L. De Moura, 2009, Sample Costs to Establish and
Produce Plums (Fresh Market): San Joaquin Valley-South Furrow Irrigation, University of
California Cooperative Extension, http://coststudies.ucdavis.edu/files/plumvs09.pdf.
35. Norton, Maxwell, Janine Hasey, Roger Duncan, Karen M. Klonsky and Richard L. De Moura, 2011,
Sample Costs to Establish and Produce Processing Peaches (Cling and Freestone Late Harvested
Varieties): Sacramento Valley and San Joaquin Valley, University of California Cooperative
Extension, http://coststudies.ucdavis.edu/files/PeachesLateSV2011.pdf.
36. Grant, Joseph A., Janet L. Caprile, David A. Doll, Kathleen Kelly Anderson, Karen M. Klonsky and
Richard L. De Moura, 2013, Sample Costs to Establish a Walnut Orchard and Produce Walnuts:
San Joaquin Valley North (Late Leafing—Lateral Bearing), University of California Cooperative
Extension, http://coststudies.ucdavis.edu/files/2012/WalnutVN2013.pdf.
13
37. Elkins, Rachel B., Karen M. Klonsky and Kabir P. Tumber, 2012, Sample Costs to Establish and
Produce Pears (Green Bartlett): North Coast Region (Lake and Mendocino Counties), University
of California Cooperative Extension,
http://coststudies.ucdavis.edu/files/2012/PearsNC2012.pdf.
38. 105th Congress of the U.S., 1998, “1999 Omnibus Consolidated Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act,” Public Law 105-277.
39. US EPA, 1999, “Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Incorporation of Montreal Protocol
Adjustment for a 1999 Interim Reduction in Class I, Group VI Controlled Substances,” Federal
Register, volume 64, no. 104, pp. 29240-29245.
40. California Department of Pesticide Regulation, 2000, Methyl Bromide Field Fumigation, DPR
Regulation #00-001, http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/legbills/calcode/1.pdf.
41. California Department of Pesticide Regulation, 2013, Methyl Bromide Field Soil Fumigation
Buffer Zone Determination,
http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/methbrom/buffer_determination.pdf.
42. Carpenter, J, L. Lynch and T. Trout, 2001, “Township limits on 1,3-D will impact adjustment to
methyl bromide phase-out,” California Agriculture, vol. 55, no. 3, pp. 12-18.
43. California Department of Pesticide Regulation, 2002, California Management Plan: 1,3Dichloropropene, January 30,
http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/methbrom/telone/mgmtplan.pdf.
44. California Department of Pesticide Regulation, 2010, Recommended Permit Conditions for
Metam Sodium, Metam Potassium and Dazomet, November 5,
http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/county/cacltrs/penfltrs/penf2010/2010022.htm.
45. US Environmental Protection Agency, 2012, Soil Fumigant Mitigation Factsheet:
Implementation Schedule, Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA-735-4-12-005,
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/soil_fumigants/factsheets/sfm-implementationsched-2012.pdf
46. California Department of Pesticide Regulation, 2013, Chloropicrin Mitigation proposal: Control
of Resident and Bystander Acute Exposure from Soil Fumigant Application, May 15,
http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/whs/pdf/dpr_chloropicrin_mitigation_proposal_and_app_13.pdf.
47. California Department of Pesticide Regulation, 2008, Reducing Smog-Producing Emissions from
Field Fumigants, http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/dept/factshts/voc_rules_11_08.pdf.
48. California Department of Pesticide Regulation, 2011, Letter to Henry Gonzales, Ventura County
Agricultural Commissioner,
http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/vocs/vocproj/ventura_naa_cvrltr_041511.pdf.
49. California Department of Pesticide Regulation, 2013, In the Matter of the Environmental
Monitoring Branch, Request for Approval of Reduced VOC Emissions Field Fumigation Method,
April 29, signed by Brian R. Leahy, Director,
http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/vocs/vocproj/decision_voc_tif_042913.pdf.
50. Bryant, Dan, 2008, “’Starve and Switch’ Tree Fumigation Alternative Described,” Western Farm
Press, December 20, pp. 8-9.
51. McKenry, Mike, Tom Buzo and Stephanie Kaku, 2006, “Replanting Stone Fruit Orchards Without
Soil Fumigation,” Methyl Bromide Alternatives Outreach,
http://www.mbao.org/2006/06Proceedings/028McKenrySummary2006.pdf.
14
52. McKenry, Michael, 2002, “IPM-Based Guidelines for Replanting Prunus Orchards in 2002 without
Methyl Bromide,” http://ucce.ucdavis.edu/files/datastore/391-450.pdf.
53. Browne, Greg, David Doll, Leigh schimidt, Bruce Lampinen, Brent Holtz, Shrini Upadhyaya, Dan
Kluepfel, Dong Wang, Suduan Gao, Brad Hanson, Nancy goodell, Mike McKenry, Karen Klonsky
and Dan Neves, 2007, “Integrated Pre-Plant Alternatives to MB for Almonds and Other Stone
Fruits,” Methyl Bromide Alternatives Outreach,
http://www.mbao.org/2007/Proceedings/008BrowneGmbao2007.pdf.
54. Samtani, J.B., C. Gilbert, J.B. Weber, K.V. Subbarao, R.E. Goodhue and S.A. Fennimore, 2012,
“Effect of Steam and Solarization Treatments on Pest Control, Strawberry Yield, and Economic
Returns Relative to Methyl Bromide Fumigation,” HortScience 47(1), pp. 64-70.
55. Johnson, A.J., G.T. Browne, D.A. Doll, S.A. Fennimore, R. Wiemer and B.D. Hanson, 2013,
“Evaluation of a steam injection auger for management of almond replant problems,” Methyl
Bromide Alternatives Outreach, http://www.mbao.org/2013/Proceedings/12JohnsonB.pdf.
56. McKenry, Michael and Tom Buzo, 2009, “Evaluation of ‘Starve & Switch’ Approach to Replanting
Trees,” Methyl Bromide Alternatives Outreach,
http://www.mbao.org/2009/Proceedings/048McKenryMMBAO09.pdf.
57. Wilhelm, Stephen, 1966, “Chemical treatments and inoculum potential of soil,” Annual Review
of Phytopathology, vol. 4, pp. 53-78.
58. Radewald, John D., Michael V. McKenry, Philip A. Roberts, Becky B. Westerdahl, 1987, “The
importance of soil fumigation for nematode control,” California Agriculture, Nov-Dec., pp. 1617.
59. Browne, Greg T., Bruce D. Lampinen, Brent A. Holtz, David A. Doll, Shrinivasa K. Upadhyaya,
Leigh S. Schmidt, Ravindra G. Bhat, Vasu Udompetaikul, Robert W. Coates, Bradley D. Hanson,
Karen M. Klonsky, Suduan Gao, Dong Wang, Matt Gillis James S. Gerik and R. Scott Johnson,
2013, “Managing the almond and stone fruit replant disease complex with less soil fumigant,”
California Agriculture, vol. 67, no. 3.
60. McKenry, M.V., T. Buzo and S. Kaku, 2007, “Replanting vineyards without soil fumigation,”
Methyl Bromide Alternatives Outreach,
http://www.mbao.org/2007/Proceedings/050McKenryMReplantVineyardswoutsoifumigMBAO2007.pdf.
61. McKenry, M.V., 2009, UC IPM Pest Management Guidelines: Almond, UC ANR Publication 3431,
http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/r3200111.html.
62. California Department of Pesticide Regulation, 2013, Pesticide Use Annual Summaries,
http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/purmain.htm.
63. US EPA, 2007, Assessment of the Benefits of Soil Fumigation with Methyl Bromide, Chloropicrin,
and Metam Sodium in Grape Production (DP#337490).
64. Freeman, Mark W., Mario A. Viveros, Karen M. Klonsky, and Richard L. De Moura, 2008, Sample
Costs to Establish an Almond Orchard and Produce Almonds: San Joaquin Valley South, MicroSprinkler Irrigation, http://coststudies.ucdavis.edu/files/almondvs08sprink.pdf.
65. McGourty, Glenn T., Karen M. Klonsky, Richard L. De Moura, 2008, Sample Costs to Establish a
Vineyard and Produce Winegrapes: White Varieties—Sauvignon Blanc: North Coast—Lake
County: Crush District 2,” http://coststudies.ucdavis.edu/files/grapewinewhitenc2008.pdf.
66. Buchner, Richard P., Joseph H. Connell, Franz J. Niederholzer, Carolyn J. DeBuse, Karen M.
Klonsky, Richard L. De Moura, 2012, Sample Costs to Establish a Prune Orchard and Produce
15
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
Prunes (Dried Plums): Sacramento Valley: French Variety and Low-Volume Irrigation,
http://coststudies.ucdavis.edu/files/2012/PruneSV2012.pdf.
Day, Kevin R., Karen M. Klonsky, and Richard L. De Moura, 2009, Sample Costs to Establish and
Produce Peaches: Fresh Market: July and August harvest Varieties: San Joaquin Valley—South,
http://coststudies.ucdavis.edu/files/peachesvs09.pdf.
Almond Hullers and Processors Association, 2013, 2011 Application for Critical Use Exemption of
Methyl Bromide for Pre Plant Use in the United States in 2014.
McKenry, Michael, 2013, “Orchard replant alternatives for MB ignore deeper pathogens,”
Methyl Bromide Alternatives Outreach,
http://www.mbao.org/2013/Proceedings/24McKenryM.pdf.
McKenry, Michael, 2013, “EPA analysis: MB alternatives for orchard replants are adequate if
you ignore medium to fine textured soils and deep-dwelling pathogens,” Methyl Bromide
Alternatives Outreach.
Bettiga, Larry J. (ed.), 2013, Grape Pest Management, Third Edition, University of California,
Agriculture and Natural Resources #3343.
Cover photo credits: Prunus replant disease-affected rootstocks in nonfumigated replant soil and
healthy rootstocks grown in fumigated soil from [59]. Summer tree death due to oak root fungus from
[70].
16
Table 1. U.S. Ranking and Share of Global Production of Tree and Vine Crops 2012/13
Crop
Ranking
Share
Almonds
1
83%
Apples
3
6%
Cherries
3
15%
Grapefruit
2
20%
Grapes, Fresh
7
5%
Grapes, Raisins
1
26%
Lemons/Limes
4
12%
Oranges, Fresh
2
16%
Oranges, Juice
2
30%
Peach/Nectarine
3
6%
Pistachio
1
37%
Tangerines/Mandarins, Fresh
6
3%
Walnuts
2
28%
Sources: [6][7][8][9][10][11]
17
Table 2. Most export-dependent fruit and tree nut crops 2008-2010
Crop
Average percentage of domestic supplies
exported
Fresh Fruit
Grapefruit
39%
Plums
31%
Oranges
31%
Pears
27%
Apples
26%
Processed Fruit
Canned Sweet Cherries
72%
Raisins
44%
Prunes
34%
Dried Figs
31%
Canned Tart Cherries
26%
Tree Nuts
Pistachios
61%
Almonds
50%
Walnuts
56%
Pecans
28%
Macadamias
8%
Source: [12]
18
Table 3. U.S. Fruit and Nut Production 2012
Crop
Bearing acreage
Yield per acre
(tons fresh
equivalent)
Utilized
production (1000
tons fresh
equivalent)
Value of utilized
production (1000
dollars)
Almonds (CA)
780,000
2.2
1,730
4,347,200
Apples
327,800
13.8
4,498
3,088,915
Apricots
12,150
5.0
61
40,879
Cherries, Sweet
86,790
4.9
418
843,311
Cherries, Tart
36,500
1.2
43
50,520
Citrus
804,300
11,737
3,443,289
Grapes
962,100
7.6
7,337
4,911,335
Nectarines
26,400
7.2
189
144,906
Peaches
112,880
8.7
965
631,223
Pistachios (CA)
178,000
1.6
276
1,113,020
Plums (CA)
25,000
4.6
115
79,940
Prunes (CA)
55,000
2.3
395
156,250
Prunes and Plums
(ID, MI, OR, WA)
2,780
4.8
12
6,552
Walnuts (CA)1
245,000
1.9
461
1,336,900
1
Estimates for 2011.
Sources: [1][2]
19
Table 4. California Tree and Vine Crop Production 2011
California Share
of U.S.
Production
Acres Harvested
Total Value (1000
dollars)
99%
760,000
3,866,880
3%
17,500
57,975
5,088
3,313
Apricots
94%
10,800
53,103
4,917
Sweet Cherries
20%
29,000
197,250
6,802
Grapefruit
14%
9,400
49,134
5,227
Grapes, Raisin
99%
205,000
864,860
4,219
Grapes, Table
85,000
835,152
9,825
Grapes, Wine
506,000
2,160,519
4,270
Crop
Almonds
Apples
Value/Acre
($/acre)
Lemons
89%
45,000
352,154
7,826
Nectarines
96%
27,000
129,800
4,807
Oranges
29%
180,000
656,338
3,646
Peaches
72%
47,500
289,197
6,088
Pears
26%
14,000
97,805
6,986
Pistachios
98%
153,000
879,120
5,746
Plums
97%
26,000
64,320
2,474
Plums, Dried
99%
58,000
164,400
2,834
Tangerines1
68%
33,000
183,037
5,547
Walnuts
99%
245,000
1,323,070
5,400
2,451,200
$12,224,114
Totals
1
Includes mandarins, tangelos and tangors.
Source: [14]
20
Table 5. Leading California Counties for Tree and Vine Crops
Crop
Leading Counties
Almonds
Fresno, Kern, Stanislaus, Merced, Madera
Apples
San Joaquin, Kern, Santa Cruz, Fresno, Stanislaus
Apricots
Stanislaus, Kings, Fresno, Kern, San Joaquin
Cherries, Sweet
Kern, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Tulare, Fresno
Grapefruit
Riverside, Tulare, San Diego, Kern, Imperial
Grapes, Raisin
Fresno, Madera, Kern, Tulare, Kings
Grapes, Table
Kern, Tulare, Fresno, Riverside
Grapes, Wine
Napa, Sonoma, Fresno, San Joaquin, Monterey
Lemons
Ventura, Riverside, Tulare, San Diego, Kern
Nectarines
Fresno, Tulare, Kings, Kern, Madera
Oranges
Tulare, Kern, Fresno, Ventura, Madera
Peaches
Fresno, Tulare, Stanislaus, Sutter, Kings
Pistachios
Kern, Fresno, Tulare, Madera, Kings
Plums
Fresno, Tulare, Kings, Kern, Madera
Plums, Dried
Sutter, Butte, Tehama, Yuba, Glenn
Tangerines1
Kern, Fresno, Tulare, Madera, Riverside
Walnuts
San Joaquin, Butte, Stanislaus, Sutter, Tulare
1
Includes madarins, tangelos and tangors.
Source: [14]
21
Table 6. Plant parasitic nematodes in California tree and vine crops
Crop
Nematode Species
Almond
Lesion nematode (Pratylenchus vulnus)
Ring nematode (Criconemella xenoplax)
Root knot nematode (Meloidogyne spp.)
Apple
Lesion nematode (Pratylenchus vulnus)
Dagger nematode (Xiphinema americanum)
Root knot nematode (Meloidogyne spp.)
Citrus
Citrus nematode (Tylenchulus semipenetrans)
Sheath nematode (Hemicycliophora arenaria)
Nectarine
Root knot nematode (Meloidogyne spp.)
Ring nematode (Criconemella xenoplax)
Lesion nematode (Pratylenchus vulnus)
Dagger nematode (Xiphinema americanum)
Peach
Root knot nematode (Meloidogyne spp.)
Ring nematode (Criconemella xenoplax)
Lesion nematode (Pratylenchus vulnus)
Dagger nematode (Xiphinema americanum)
Plum
Root knot nematode (Meloidogyne spp.)
Ring nematode (Criconemella xenoplax)
Lesion nematode (Pratylenchus vulnus)
Dagger nematode (Xiphinema americanum)
Prune
Lesion nematode (Pratylenchus vulnus)
Ring nematode (Criconemella xenoplax)
Southern root knot nematode (Meloidogyne incognita)
Grape, Raisin Root knot nematode (Meloidogyne spp.)
Ring nematode (Criconemella xenoplax)
Dagger nematodes (Xiphinema americanum and X. index)
Lesion nematode (Pratylenchus vulnus)
Citrus nematode (Tylenchulus semipenetrans)
Walnut
Lesion nematode (Pratylenchus vulnus)
Ring nematode (Criconemella xenoplar)
Root knot nematode (Meloidogyne spp.)
1
Crop acreage infested with at least one nematode species.
Sources: [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25]
22
Proportion of
Cropland Affected1
35%
75%
35%
60% of cling
35% of fresh
35%
60%
85%
Table 7. Fumigant Use in California Tree and Vine Crops 2011
Almonds
Cherry
Grapes
Wine Grapes
Oranges
Peach
Plum
Prunes
Walnut
1,3-D
Chloropicrin
3,631
252
3,707
1,625
180
1,014
261
717
1,763
11,621
1,246
35
3
Dazomet
Metam
Sodium
Acres Treated
1
53
30
Methyl
Bromide
11,262
2,358
361
9
86
465
46
142
6,300
26
96
Source: [62]
23
73
303
6
31
9,067
Table 8. Estimated Benefits of Soil Fumigation for California Tree and Vine Crops
Crop
Alternative
Acres
Revenue Loss
Per Acre
Cost Change
Per Acre
Total
Almond
Starve and
Switch
9,914
$2,891.22
$0
$28,663,555
4-year Fallow
5,338
$10,914.62
-$216
$57,109,233
Starve and
Switch
1,697
$6,861.82
4-year Fallow
914
$36,788.76
Grape
Starve and
Switch
4,122
Wine Grape
Starve and
Switch
1,664
$2,111.88
$3,514,168
Peach
Starve and
Switch
961
$3,708.62
$3,563,984
4-year Fallow
518
$14,000.39
Starve and
Switch
575
$2,404
4-year Fallow
309
$9,075.33
-$1350
$2,387,127
4-year Fallow
10,999
$13,525.57
-$1400
$133,369,144
Cherry
Prune
Walnut
$11,644,508
-$900
-$2000
$32,802,326
$6,216,202
$1,382,300
Total acres for each crop calculated as sum of the area fumigated with all fumigants in 2011, less the
area treated with either chloropicrin or methyl bromide, whichever was smaller, to avoid double
counting. Yields from UC Cooperative Extension Cost Studies [64] [32][65][66][67]. Prices from [14] [32]
[65][67]. Revenue loss is the difference in the net present value of revenues over the lifetime of the
orchard or vineyard of fumigated compared to non-fumigated assuming a discount rate of 4%.
24
Figure 1. Fumigant Use in California Almonds
30,000
Acres Treated
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
1,3-D
chloropicrin
dazomet
metam sodium
methyl bromide
Source: [62]
Figure 2. Fumigant Use in California Cherries
4,500
4,000
Acres Treated
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
1,3-D
chloropicrin
dazomet
metam sodium
Source: [62]
25
methyl bromide
Figure 3. Fumigant Use in California Grapes
5,000
4,500
Acres Treated
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
1,3-D
chloropicrin
dazomet
metam sodium
methyl bromide
Source: [62]
Figure 4. Fumigant Use in California Wine Grapes
4,000
3,500
Acres Treated
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
1,3-D
chloropicrin
dazomet
metam sodium
Source: [62]
26
methyl bromide
Figure 5. Fumigant Use in California Oranges
1,600
1,400
Acres Treated
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
1,3-D
chloropicrin
dazomet
metam sodium
methyl bromide
Source: [62]
Figure 6. Fumigant Use in California Peaches
3,500
3,000
Acres Treated
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
1,3-D
chloropicrin
dazomet
metam sodium
Source: [62]
27
methyl bromide
Figure 7. Fumigant Use in California Plums
450
400
Acres Treated
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
1,3-D
chloropicrin
dazomet
metam sodium
methyl bromide
Source: [62]
Figure 8. Fumigant Use in California Prunes
3,500
3,000
Acres Treated
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
1,3-D
chloropicrin
dazomet
metam sodium
Source: [62]
28
methyl bromide
Figure 8. Fumigant Use in California Walnuts
20,000
18,000
Acres Treated
16,000
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
1,3-D
chloropicrin
dazomet
metam sodium
Source: [62]
29
methyl bromide