REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

 

Research to Develop Alternatives to Methyl Bromide for Pre-Plant Soil Fumigation and Postharvest Treatment of Commodities

 

Pre-Proposals Due: December 11, 1998

Full Proposals Due: February 19, 1999

 

The UC Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program (SAREP) has received $1,000,000 from the California legislature for research and implementation of alternatives to methyl bromide. SAREP is soliciting new proposals for a range of projects for development, evaluation, and/or demonstration of alternatives to methyl bromide as a pre-plant soil fumigant or postharvest commodity treatment.

---

INTRODUCTION

Methyl bromide is a broad-spectrum fumigant that is widely used to control insect, pathogen, nematode, weed and rodent pests. Approximately 90% of the methyl bromide use in California is for pre-plant soil fumigation to control soil-borne pathogens and pests principally in strawberries, nursery crops, grapes, and tree fruits and nuts. Postharvest commodity treatment accounts for about 5-10% of the methyl bromide use and is directed largely at insects of nuts, cherries, grapes, raisins, and imported materials. Some commodities are treated multiple times in storage or shipment, and treatment with methyl bromide may be part of the quarantine requirements of an importing country. Structural fumigation accounts for most of the remainder of the methyl bromide use in California.

Methyl bromide has been identified as an ozone-depleting substance, with an ozone-depleting potential of 0.6. Under the Clean Air Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has prohibited the production and importation of methyl bromide starting January 1, 2005. In addition, the United States has joined 140 other nations in signing the Montreal Protocol, which in 1994 froze production and importation of methyl bromide at 1991 levels, and which requires use to be reduced in developed countries by 25% in 1999, 50% in 2001, 70% in 2003 and 100% in 2005.

Thus, this widely used pesticide for the production and export of high value crops and commodities in California will be lost within the next few years. Several potential chemical and non-chemical alternatives to methyl bromide have been identified nationally and internationally. Some of the known alternatives are currently being evaluated in California. However, none of the alternatives known at this time have been adequately shown to be as effective or economical as methyl bromide within California farming systems. Therefore, there is an urgent need to develop and evaluate effective, economical alternatives to the agricultural use(s) of methyl bromide as a pre-plant soil fumigant and postharvest commodity and quarantine treatment.

---

TOPICS AND APPROACHES

Projects are encouraged that focus on non-chemical alternatives to the use of pre-plant soil fumigation and postharvest commodity treatments with methyl bromide. Any chemical alternatives that are to be investigated should reduce overall pesticide use and risk of exposure. Therefore, proposals should emphasize non-chemical alternatives, such as biological and cultural practices that mitigate the crop production-limiting effects of soil-borne plant pathogens or controlled atmospheres for management of postharvest insect pests.

Proposals should focus on strawberries, grapes, nursery crops, tree fruits and nut crops, vegetables, and ornamentals where methyl bromide is relied upon extensively or exclusively to manage important crop pathogens, weeds, and/or insect pests in California.

Proposed projects should involve producers/farmers and may include demonstration acreage to evaluate methyl bromide alternatives. The projects should help foster critical links between producers, regulatory agencies/personnel, and consumers who are increasingly involved in finding solutions to the impending loss of methyl bromide. Proposed projects should build upon existing, or establish new, collaborative partnerships between scientists, producers/farmers, extension agents, and industry personnel. This kind of collaboration will increase the sharing of information and facilitate the adaptation of methyl bromide alternatives to local conditions.

Alternatives to pre-plant soil fumigation

Proposals should focus on the development of practical alternatives to methyl bromide but can also further our understanding of basic soil ecology as it relates to soil-borne pest problems. Alternatives for pre-plant soil fumigation may include, but not necessarily be limited to:

• pathogen/pest-free planting stock
• novel or improved host resistance (i.e., that goes beyond established breeding programs)
• use of suppressive soils
• improved water management
• crop rotation
• biological pathogen and pest control
• organic and/or other methods of soil management
• solarization or other methods of heat treating soil
• integration of multiple tactics into an alternative farming system

Alternatives to postharvest commodity treatments

Alternatives for postharvest commodity treatments may include, but not necessarily be limited to:

• controlled atmospheres
• biological control
• heat/hot water treatment systems
• novel or improved host resistance (i.e., that goes beyond established breeding programs)

---

CRITERIA

Each of the following criteria is equally important and will be used to evaluate proposals:

1. Is (Are) current crop production and pest management strategy(ies) threatened by the loss of methyl bromide as a pre-plant soil fumigant or postharvest commodity treatment?
2. Does the proposal target a high value crop or large acre usage of methyl bromide?
3. Will the proposed research enable producers/farmers to economically function without methyl bromide and reduce reliance on other chemical fumigants? Will the proposed research potentially fit into existing crop management systems?
4. Are the objectives of the proposal clearly stated?
5. Is the research approach technically sound? Do the principal investigators and cooperators have the expertise needed and have they presented a clear experimental and educational plan with responsibilities defined for the participants?
6. Is there interest and support from producers/farmers, appropriate commodity groups, and extension personnel for the proposed research? Has any documentation been provided to support this?
7. Does the proposed project have a clear plan for education and outreach? If appropriate, does it include demonstration of the developed alternatives?
8. Does the proposal provide evidence that the funds requested are reasonable and would be used in a cost-effective manner? Are there any matching funds or in-kind services included?

---

ELIGIBILITY

Only individuals and institutions based in California may receive funding. The following people or groups are eligible to apply as principal investigator: faculty of any accredited institution of higher learning in California; University of California Cooperative Extension Farm Advisors and Specialists; farmers and other private individuals; both for-profit and non-profit corporations, including commodity boards and Resource Conservation Districts; USDA Agricultural Research Service and Natural Resources Conservation Service employees.

SAREP staff and members of SAREP’s Public Advisory and Technical Advisory Committees are not eligible to participate as principal investigator, investigator, or cooperator on any project. Proposals will be rejected if they include investigators or cooperators who are on SAREP’s staff or Public Advisory Committee (PAC) or Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). Current members are: PAC – Ron Alves, Robert Bornt, Cynthia Cory, Frank Dawley, Debra Denton, Leonard Diggs, Jeff Dlott, James Liebman, Tim O’Neill, An Peischel, Jim Rider, Michael Straus, Brock Taylor, and Beth von Gunten; TAC - Edith Allen, Ernst Biberstein, Steve Blank, Caroline Bledsoe, Holly Brown-Williams, Robert Gottlieb, Blaine Hanson, Tim Hartz, Donald Klingborg, Craig Kolodge, Rachel Mabie, Janet Savage, Paul Siri, Doreen Stabinsky, Caroline Stull, Rob Thayer, Joanna Wheatley, and Joan Wright.

---

FUNDING

Several projects will be funded for up to three years. Projects will be awarded up to $100,000 per year. Annual renewal of funding will be based on project evaluation and available funds. Project evaluation will be based on written reports and presentations by the principal investigator.

---

PRE-PROPOSAL

Submit a two page pre-proposal to SAREP by 5 P.M. December 11, 1998. The pre-proposal will be reviewed and feedback provided to assist principal investigators in developing a full proposal that most effectively fulfills the criteria of the program. Pre-proposals are not required in order to submit a full proposal. Pre-proposals should be sent via electronic mail to baransom@ucdavis.edu or via surface mail in a printed format and on a disk. The pre-proposal should include the following:

Format Requirements

1. Contact Information. The names, affiliations, address, phone number and email addresses of the principal investigators and cooperators. The project location, principal crops involved, and main target pests.
2. Justification. A justification for the project including the importance of methyl bromide to the cropping system and whether the proposed alternatives have been shown, through scientific studies, to effectively and economically control plant pathogens and/or pests? Will the proposed research potentially fit into existing crop management systems?
3. Methodology. General overview of the research approach, and potential for implementation. Will the proposed research enable producers/farmers to economically function without methyl bromide and reduce reliance on other chemical fumigants?
4. Industry Support. Is there interest and support from producers/farmers, appropriate commodity groups, and extension personnel for the proposed research? Has any documentation been provided to support this?

---

FULL PROPOSAL

Submittal and Review Schedule

A signed original plus 20 copies (double-sided preferred) of the proposal must be received by 5:00 P.M. February 19, 1999. Proposals received after the deadline will not be reviewed. Faxed proposals will not be accepted. Proposals should be typed, single-spaced with 10 pt. font or larger. Proposals, along with a copy on disk, should be sent to:

UC Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program (SAREP)
University of CA
One Shields Avenue
Davis, CA 95616-8716

The physical location for delivery services is: SAREP, DANR Building, Hopkins Road (off Hutchison Road west of Highway 113).

Proposals will be evaluated and ranked by members of the Public and Technical Advisory Committees of UC SAREP as well as experts on alternatives to methyl bromide. Successful applicants will be notified of awards by early April 1999. Applicants from outside of the University of California should be aware that additional time is required to initiate a contract in order to award grant funds.

Format Requirements

The body of the proposal (Sections B-G) must not exceed 8 single-spaced typewritten pages. Other required sections include cover page, budget, other grant support, literature cited, signatures, and resumes.

1. Cover Page
   Use the cover page provided, or an exact duplicate of it, for the requested information. The summary should be 200 words or less and may be continued on a separate page if necessary. The proposal should be approved and cosigned by the principal investigator and an official representative of the investigator’s organization.
2. Objectives
   A clear, concise, and complete statement of each specific research or educational objective.
3. Justification
   Describe the importance of the proposed research, and how it addresses the stated criteria. Indicate the project’s potential for measurable progress toward the development of alternatives to methyl bromide. Describe how the project results might be implemented in California. Cite prior research and/or the results of other related projects or activities that provide a foundation for your project.
4. Procedures
   For each objective clearly define and describe the research or educational methods you propose to employ. Indicate data to be gathered and analyses to be used.
5. Education and Outreach
   Describe the educational uses of the project. State when information resulting from this project will be ready for implementation, and what avenues of outreach will be used.
6. Evaluation
   Describe how you will evaluate the impact of the project.
7. Time Table
   Outline your timetable for initiating various phases of research and education, and estimate the completion date(s). Identify delivery date(s) of all milestones and products, including field days and other outreach activities. Due to our funding cycle, the first budget year can begin as early as April 1999.
8. Budget
   Prepare a budget table for each year for up to three years, in the following format. Show amounts and sources of matching funds from the host institution or other sources. If the proposed project is part of a larger project that is seeking funds from other sources, describe briefly the related project(s) and proposed funding source(s). Matching funds are not required, but projects that show substantial matching funds or in-kind services are desirable.

	Requested Funds	Matching Funds (4)	Source of Matching Funds
Personnel: Name and/or payroll title and % time
Employee Benefits
Supplies and Expenses (1)
Permanent Equipment (2)
Travel (3)
TOTALS

(1) List by major category, with costs, and justification for categories over $500. Reimbursement of growers for potential crop loss is not allowed.

(2) List specific items, their cost, and justification for each item. Equipment requests are scrutinized carefully, and are generally not approved unless the equipment is crucial to the project and access is not available by means other than purchase.

(3) Indicate destination(s), estimate number of trips and cost of each.

(4) Include in-kind contributions.

10. Other Grant Support
    Use the following format to identify support for all current and pending projects of the principal investigator(s), not just those pertaining to this proposal. Where listed grant support overlaps or complements the proposal, the tie between existing and/or pending support and the proposal must be explained. How will the total support package tie together? All current research to which principal investigator(s) have committed a portion of their time must be listed, whether or not salary is included in the budgets of the various projects. Provide analogous information for all proposed research which is being considered by, or which will be submitted in the near future to, other possible sponsors. Describe how you will evaluate the impact of the project.

     

    Title of Project	Supporting Agency	Total $ Amount	Effective & Expiration Dates	% of P.I. Time Committed
    Current: Pending:

11. Literature Cited
12. Required Signatures
    Provide a brief summary of each investigator’s and cooperator’s role in the project. All investigators should include the percentage of their time that will be committed to the project. A signature is required from each investigator and cooperator to indicate their willingness to participate in this project as described. (This requirement could be fulfilled by a letter of intent from each cooperator.)
13. Resumes
    Attach a one-page resume (no more than one page) for each investigator.
14. Mailing Label for Notification
    If you wish to be notified that we have received your proposal, please include a self-addressed mailing label on top of your proposal packet.

---

Further Information

If you have any questions, please call Bev Ransom, grants manager, at (530) 754-8546 (email: baransom@ucdavis.edu).

 

 

The University of California, in accordance with applicable Federal and State law and University policy, does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability, age, medical condition (cancer-related), ancestry, marital status, citizenship, sexual orientation, or status as a Vietnam-era veteran or special disabled veteran.

Inquiries regarding the University’s nondiscrimination policies may be directed to the Affirmative Action Director, University of California, Agriculture and Natural Resources, 1111 Franklin St., 6th Floor, Oakland, CA 94607. (510) 987–0096.

---

 

 

 

 

Cover Page- UC SAREP 1999 Methyl Bromide Research Proposals

Attach a completed copy of this page to each copy of your proposal.

Project Title:______________________________________________________________________________________________

County(ies) project would be conducted in: ____________  Crop(s): _________________________

Principal Investigator (main contact):
Name _______________________ College/University or non-profit org. ___________________

Mailing Address ________________________________________________________________________

Telephone __________________ Email ___________________ FAX_____________________

Other Investigators:
Name & Affiliation                        Mailing  Address                         Telephone                         Email

 

Cooperators:
Name & Affiliation                        Mailing  Address                         Telephone                          Email

 

 

Budget Totals: (Total requested from SAREP)

Year 1:_______________          Year 2:_______________          Year 3:____________________

Summary: (200 words or less; continue on a separate page if necessary):

Approvals:

___________________________      ___________________________________________
Principal Investigator                          Office of Research/Representative of Organization

                            ___________________
for University P.I.s:   Department Chair

                             _________________              __________________________
 for UC Coop:             County Director           &       Regional Director