No abstract

The Florida tomato industry is facing challenges of increased production costs and decreased yields resulting from the methyl bromide (MBr) phase-out under the Montreal Protocol for environmental concerns. MBr and several accepted alternative soil fumigant systems are analyzed in this study from an economic perspective. This article focuses on identifying optimal fumigant systems by analyzing the cost effectiveness and economic risk associated with MBr and several other commercially available soil fumigant systems using data collected from scientific field trials. The results obtained show that a 67:33 formulation of MBr: chloropicrin is the most cost-effective treatment, and no alternative fumigant systems investigated can substitute MBr cost-effectively in Florida tomato production. The analysis indicated that switching from MBr (67:33) to the new industry standard PicChlor 60 approximately resulted in a loss of $3,569 per acre in gross revenue and $1,656 per acre in profit using market prices in the 2013/14 season. Higher market prices would further increase the loss.

The U.S. nursery and greenhouse industry is facing twin challenges of reduced water availability and increased pressure to mitigate pollution from horticultural production. Water-recycling technology (WRT) has been adopted by some nursery producers to improve crop water productivity and to enhance water supply security. This study estimated the economic feasibility of WRT adoption if producers received some portion of retail price premiums for eco-labeled products. Three annual bedding plants, Geraniums (Pelargonium spp.), Petunias (Petunia spp.), and Chrysanthemums (Chrysanthemum spp.) and three broadleaf evergreen plants, Azaleas (Rhododendron spp.), Holly (Ilex spp.), and Boxwood (Buxus spp.) were analyzed based on their sales in the study region of Virginia (VA), Maryland (MD), and Pennsylvania (PA). Of the eight case study nurseries and two synthesized nurseries examined, five showed increased net costs with recycling. However, in almost all cases for which at least a portion of a retail consumer premium was returned to growers, the premium was adequate to compensate for recycling investment costs.

No abstract

No abstract