Transferring Technology of Methyl Bromide Alternatives From Lab to Field

“For California strawberry growers to use methyl bromide alternatives, they must overcome or adopt many cultural, economic, political, regulatory, and training issues,” said Christopher Winterbottom. “For growers, the bottom line is profit, and an unproven alternative poses a risk that is hard to take without assurance of success.”

Winterbottom, who is with the California Strawberry Commission in Watsonville, discussed technology transfer of methyl bromide alternatives at the 1998 Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. It was held in Orlando, Florida, December 7–9, 1998.

“Effective research should eventually produce a product,” Winterbottom stated. “However, right now much of the research on methyl bromide alternatives is still in the basic, or demonstration, stage. This means that the research is not yet ready to be turned into proven practices or products that form or fit into a cropping system.”

He said that the process of transferring information from the lab to the grower is done in five stages: technology discovery or innovation, development and evaluation, demonstration and confirmation, communication and marketing, and adoption.

Discovery

Scientists from private firms, the University of California, and USDA are searching for alternatives to methyl bromide. The private firms include agrochemical companies like pesticide application firms, contract research firms, large strawberry operations with research personnel, and many others. This is the brainstorming stage.

Development and Evaluation

After the ideas are born, they must be expanded for further action. The core group is investigating preplant soil fumigants and application methods, biocontrol agents, crop rotation practices, and soil amendments on small plots at test stations. They’re also testing potential alternatives in a limited number of small, on-farm field trials.

“It’s at this stage that economics come into play,” said Winterbottom. “Some of the economics must be figured out before we even get a potential alternative to the demonstration field. If we come up with something that works, we must also consider whether or not it would be a viable product for growers to use.”

For example, he said that while crop rotation with strawberries might be helpful in some instances, there is no market mechanism to do so. Or, a company could screen 500 pesticides and get perhaps one that might be potentially viable. Would this pesticide really be used by the farmer? What about registration—is it feasible?

Demonstration and Confirmation

Researchers seek cooperative growers to test their potential alternatives, Winterbottom said. The success of a particular alternative often depends on many variables such as a grower’s level of skill. For instance, one grower may manage operations differently or more efficiently than another, or have a different level of skill in working with equipment. There can also be significant differences in the level of capital that growers have available. All of these factors affect the way growers treat a prospective alternative to methyl bromide.

“A viable alternative must work for most growers, not just a select few,” Winterbottom explained. “So because of these variables, there is not one alternative to methyl bromide. Growers must mix and match, according to their own abilities, capabilities, and circumstances, such as trying host resistance plus chemicals plus biocontrol to form a cohesive, functional cropping system.”

And the potential alternatives must be tried on the farm. In the 1993–94 growing season at Watsonville, University of California’s John Duniway set up an on-farm trial using the most promising methyl bromide alternatives. He repeated the trial during the 1994–95 season.

Because of the high cost and logistics connected with growing strawberries statewide, testing potential alternatives must be a collaborative effort. Therefore, USDA’s Agricultural Research Service provided some funds and the California Strawberry Commission, along with Tri-Cal, in Hollister, California, and interested farmers, set up five on-farm trials to demonstrate the effectiveness of potential alternatives.

“We conducted trials in four of California’s strawberry production regions, beginning with the 1996–97 growing season,” Winterbottom reported. “The test plots were large, about half an acre or more, and were fumigated with the most promising methyl bromide alternatives available.”

Then in the 1997–98 growing season, they established nine on-farm demonstration trials, with at least one in each production region.

“We have set up eight field trials in the 1998–99 growing season,” said Winterbottom. “They will demonstrate the performance of the best-available methyl bromide alternatives to the grower. This exercise will help us identify problems that could arise when the alternative is used on a larger scale and exposed to actual strawberry farming conditions such as various soils, microclimates, pest and disease pressures, and varying farming abilities.”

Communication and Marketing

Winterbottom said that transferring the technology in order to implement alternatives to methyl bromide is like a jigsaw puzzle, with all of the aforementioned pieces fitting together to make a complete picture. “And, they’re all intricately interwoven. One of the most important pieces of that puzzle is communicating information about the alternatives to growers.”

The California Strawberry Commission (CSC) regularly publishes information on alternatives in a newsletter called the Pink Sheet, which is distributed to Commission members. CSC also holds farmer workshops and field days in each of the strawberry production districts and encourages direct contact between the grower and CSC-funded scientists who are doing research on strawberries.

Scientists from CSC, the University of California, and the Agricultural Research Service present their research results at professional meetings and publish them in scientific journals. ARS also publishes this newsletter, the quarterly Methyl Bromide Alternatives, which can also be obtained in hard copy. This newsletter is written for a nonscientific audience and covers national and international news from all aspects of the methyl bromide issue. Its purpose is to report research progress on finding alternatives to methyl bromide and to serve as a link between researchers and agricultural producers, marketers, and consumers.

Adoption

Winterbottom said that the bottom line is viability and profitability. Growers need something that is effective against strawberry pests, is consistent, and will work now. “Growers don’t have the time or the money to figure out variables in the field. They need something that has been tried and tested to reduce their risk.”

He said that growers’ rate of adoption of an alternative or a set of technologies will depend on the following characteristics:

• Relative advantage—how is it superior to others?
• Compatibility—how does it fit or work within the current cropping system?
• Complexity—how difficult is it to understand and use?
• Divisibility—can it be tried on a limited basis?
• Communicability—are its results readily apparent and easily described to others?

Divisibility is being addressed through current on-farm trials and the results are being communicated to the scientific community and to other growers. The first three characteristics need to be understood, for each alternative, on a field-by-field basis before the grower decides which alternative to adopt for a given field.

“To date, no methyl bromide alternative has been adopted on a large scale for strawberry production in California,” Winterbottom reported. “There are a number of methyl bromide alternatives, but no replacements.”

Last Updated: January 12, 1999