Alternatives to Methyl Bromide - DTIE

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 




OzonAction Programme

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 

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 

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 

iTable of Contents

Sourcebook of Technologies for Protecting the Ozone Layer: Alternatives to Methyl Bromide 

ii 

Water management...................................................................................................35 

Specialists and information resources.........................................................................35 

4.2 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 

4.3 Fumigants and other chemical products ..............................................................51 



Current uses..............................................................................................................55 








4.4 Soil amendments and compost .............................................................................61 



Current uses..............................................................................................................64 








4.5 Solarisation .............................................................................................................70 



Current uses..............................................................................................................74 








4.6 Steam treatments ...................................................................................................79 

Advantages and disadvantages .................................................................................79


Current uses..............................................................................................................82 








4.7 Substrates................................................................................................................87 



Current uses..............................................................................................................90 








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 

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 



iii



Current uses............................................................................................................123 

Variations under development .................................................................................123 






6.4 Controlled and modified atmospheres ...............................................................127 







Current uses............................................................................................................130 



6.5 Heat treatments....................................................................................................135 



Current uses............................................................................................................137 






Suppliers and specialists...........................................................................................141 

6.6 Inert dusts .............................................................................................................143 



Current uses............................................................................................................145 







6.7 Phosphine and other fumigants..........................................................................150 



Current uses............................................................................................................155 







iv

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 

Annex 5 

Annex 6 

Annex 7 

Steps for identifying appropriate alternatives.....................................................201 

Information resources........................................................................................207 

Address list of suppliers and specialists in alternatives........................................215 

References, websites and further information....................................................257 

Annex 8 Index .................................................................................................................307 

Annex 9 

Contacts for Implementing Agencies.................................................................316 

A Word from the Chief of UNEP DTIE Energy and OzonAction Unit ..................inside back cover 

vTable of Contents


vi 

List of Tables, Boxes and Figures 

Table 1.1 Major applications of MB fumigant ......................................................................3 

Table 1.2 Montreal Protocol control schedules for MB phase out .........................................4 

Figure 1.1 Breakdown of MB applications .............................................................................5 

Figure 1.2 Using the Sourcebook...........................................................................................8 

Table 3.1 Soil-borne nematode pests controlled by MB in various regions of the world .....16 

Table 3.2 Soil-borne fungal pests controlled by MB in various regions of the world ...........16 

Table 3.3 Soil-borne bacteria and virus pests controlled by MB in various 

regions of the world ...........................................................................................17 

Table 3.4 Soil-borne insect pests controlled by MB in various regions of the world ............17 

Table 3.5 Weeds controlled by MB in various regions of the world ....................................17 

Table 3.6 Range of soil-borne pests controlled by MB and alternative techniques ..............18 

Table 3.7 Overview of efficacy and timing of pest control techniques and 

examples of appropriate combinations of techniques .........................................20 

Table 3.8 Summary of Techniques in widespread use in some countries.............................21 

Table 3.9 Cucurbits: melons, watermelons, courgettes (zucchini), cucumbers: 

examples of alternatives in commercial use.........................................................21 

Table 3.10 Tomatoes and peppers: examples of alternatives in commercial use....................22 

Table 3.11 Strawberries (runner and fruit production): examples of alternatives 

in commercial use...............................................................................................22 

Table 3.12 Cut flowers: examples of alternatives in commercial use.....................................23 

Table 3.13 Roses: examples of alternatives in commercial use..............................................23 

Table 3.14 Tobacco seedlings: examples of alternatives in commercial use ...........................23 

Table 3.15 Nursery crops (vegetables and fruit): examples of alternatives in 

commercial use...................................................................................................24 

Table 3.16 Perennial crops such as banana, orchard trees, vines (re-plant): 

examples of alternatives in commercial use.........................................................24 

Table 4.1.1 Examples of crops for which IPM systems are used commercially ........................30 

Table 4.1.2 Efficacy and timing of various cultural practices ..................................................31 

Box 4.1.1 Examples of preventive practices for soil-borne pests: nematode 

management ......................................................................................................31 

Box 4.1.2 Examples of preventive practices for soil-borne pests: disease 

management ......................................................................................................32 

Box 4.1.3 Examples of preventive practices for soil-borne pests: weed 

management ......................................................................................................32 

Table 4.1.4 Examples of suppliers of resistant varieties, rootstocks for grafting and 

disease-free planting materials............................................................................34 

Table 4.1.5 Examples of specialists and consultants in preventive methods and 

integrated management of soil-borne pests........................................................36 

Table 4.2.1 Examples of commercial use of biological controls (normally combined 

with other techniques)........................................................................................39 

Table 4.2.2 Examples of biological control agents and formulations 

for soil-borne diseases ........................................................................................40 

Table 4.2.3 Characteristics of several groups of biological controls........................................41

Table 4.2.4 Examples of nematode pests controlled or suppressed by biological controls .........42 

Table 4.2.5 Examples of soil-borne fungi and bacteria controlled or 

suppressed by biological controls........................................................................43 

Table 4.2.6 Examples of insect pests (soil-dwelling larvae and pupae) controlled or 

suppressed by biological controls........................................................................44 

Table 4.2.7 Examples of companies that supply biological control products and services ..........46 

Table 4.3.1 Comparison of technical characteristics of selected fumigants ............................52 

Table 4.3.2 Efficacy of fumigants and pesticides ...................................................................53 

Table 4.3.3 Examples of commercial use of fumigants ..........................................................54 

Table 4.3.4 Examples of yields from fumigants and pesticides...............................................56 

Table 4.3.5 Examples of fumigants producers and specialists ................................................59 

Table 4.4.1 Mechanisms in the control of Verticillium dahliae in soil following the 

addition of nitrogen-rich amendments................................................................61 

Table 4.4.2 Examples of commercial use of soil amendments (normally used with 

other techniques)................................................................................................63 

Table 4.4.3 Comparison of yields from soil amendments and other techniques 

versus MB...........................................................................................................64 

Table 4.4.4 Examples of companies that supply products and services for soil 

amendments and compost .................................................................................67 

Table 4.5.1 Length of solarisation treatment required to kill 90 to 100% of 

Verticillium dahliae sclerotia at various soil depths in Israel..................................70 

Table 4.5.2 Examples of commercial use of solarisation ........................................................71 

Table 4.5.3 Nematodes controlled by solarisation, California, USA ........................................72 

Table 4.5.4 Fungi and bacteria controlled by solarisation, California USA..............................72 

Table 4.5.5 Weeds controlled by solarisation, California USA ................................................73 

Table 4.5.6 Examples of nematodes, weeds and fungi and bacteria that are not 

controlled effectively by solarisation....................................................................74 

Table 4.5.7 Examples of yields from solarisation and MB.......................................................74 

Table 4.5.8 Examples of suppliers of solarisation products and services.................................77 

Table 4.6.1 Comparison of steam techniques for greenhouses..............................................80 

Table 4.6.2 Examples of commercially used steam treatments...............................................80 

Table 4.6.3 Examples of steam treatments required to kill soil-borne pests ...........................81 

Table 4.6.5 Examples of suppliers of products and services for steam and heat treatments .......85 

Table 4.7.1 Characteristics of various substrate materials ......................................................87 

Table 4.7.2 Comparison of two substrate systems ................................................................89 

Table 4.7.3 Examples of commercial use of substrates ..........................................................90 

Table 4.7.4 Examples of yields from substrates......................................................................91 

Table 4.7.5 Examples of suppliers of products and services for substrates .............................94 

Table 5.1 Principal pests of cereal grains and similar durable commodities .........................98 

Table 5.2 Examples of quarantine pests found on perishable commodities.........................99 

Table 5.3 Examples of pests fumigated with MB in structures ..........................................100 

Table 5.4 Effective techniques for pest suppression and pest elimination (disinfestation) 

in commodities and structures ..........................................................................101 


vii


viii 

Table 5.5 Examples of alternatives used for durable commodities ...................................102 

Table 5.6 Examples of quarantine treatments approved for perishable commodities........103 

Table 5.7 Examples of alternative techniques used for structures ....................................104 

Table 6.1.1 Examples of pest-free zones that are accepted instead of 

quarantine treatments .....................................................................................109 

Table 6.1.2 Examples of combined alternative treatments for commodities 

and structures..................................................................................................110 

Table 6.1.3 Examples of specialists, consultants and suppliers of services for IPM and 

preventive pest management techniques .........................................................111 

Table 6.2.1 Examples of commercial use of cool and cold treatments ................................114 

Table 6.2.2 Comparison of aeration, cold treatments and freezer treatments.....................115 

Table 6.2.3 Examples of quarantine treatment schedules utilising cold treatments .............116 

Table 6.2.4 Products where cold treatments are approved as quarantine treatments..........117 

Table 6.2.5 Suppliers of products and services for cold treatments.....................................119 

Table 6.3.1 Comparison of contact insecticides with fumigants..........................................122 

Table 6.3.2 Examples of commercial use of contact insecticides .........................................123 

Table 6.3.3 Examples of suppliers of products and services for contact insecticides ............126 

Table 6.4.1 Comparison of hermetic storage, nitrogen and carbon dioxide treatments..........129 

Table 6.4.2 Carbon dioxide disinfestation schedules for stored grain in Japan....................131 

Table 6.4.3 Examples of commercial use of controlled and modified atmospheres .............131 

Table 6.4.4 Examples of specialists and suppliers of products and services for 

controlled and modified atmospheres ..............................................................134 

Table 6.5.1 Examples of commercial use of heat treatments ..............................................137 

Table 6.5.2 Temperatures for killing pests of stored products and structures ......................138 

Table 6.5.3 Examples of heat treatments approved for quarantine purposes for 

durable commodities and artifacts, USA ..........................................................139 

Table 6.5.4 Examples of heat treatments approved for quarantine purposes for 

perishable commodities, USA...........................................................................139 


heat treatments ...............................................................................................142 

Table 6.6.1 Examples of commercial use of inert dusts.......................................................145 

Table 6.6.2 Pests that can be controlled by certain DE formulations – examples 

from USA.........................................................................................................147 


inert dusts........................................................................................................149 

Table 6.7.1 Physical and chemical properties of various fumigants compared with MB...........153 

Table 6.7.2 Comparison of suitability of MB and various fumigants for grain .....................154 

Table 6.7.3 Examples of commercial use of fumigants .......................................................155 

Table 6.7.4 Minimum treatment time for phosphine fumigation of various stored 

product pests (all stages)..................................................................................157 

Table 6.7.5 Approved quarantine treatments for durable commodities – 

examples from USA (USDA-APHIS)...................................................................158 

Table 6.7.6 Examples of specialists and suppliers of products and services for fumigants ...160

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. 

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. 

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 

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 

1Foreword


2

1 Introduction 


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). 

Table 1.1 Major applications of MB fumigant 

Structures & 

Soil Durable Products Perishable Products Transport 

Pre-plant: fumigation Storage: fumigation of Quarantine: Structures: fumigation 

prior to planting crops eg. stored products eg. fumigation of traded of buildings eg. food 

strawberries, tomatoes, grains, dried fruits perishable commodities processing facilities, 

peppers eg. fresh fruits flour mills 

Re-plant: fumigation Export/import and Transport: fumigation 

prior to re-planting quarantine: fumigation of transport vessels 

perennial crops eg. of traded commodities) eg. ships aircraft, 

fruit trees, vines eg. grains, logs freight containers 

Seedbeds and 

nurseries: fumigation 

prior to planting seeds 

& propagation materials 

3Section 1: Introduction


4 

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. 

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 Developing countries 

1991: base level 1995-98 average: 

1995: freeze (1) base level 

1999: 75% of base 2002: freeze (1) 

2001: 50% of base 2003: review of 

reductions 

2003: 30% of base 2005: 80% of base 

2005: phase out (2) 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.

Figure 1.1 Breakdown of MB applications 

Seedbeds, 

nursery beds 

Tobacco 

Forest trees 

Turf 

Nursery 

Plants 

Citrus 

Coffee, tea 

Potting 

Media 

Soil 

Fumigation 

Soil-borne 

pests 

Greenhouses, 

plastic tunnels 

Field crops 

Cut flowers 

Tomatoes 

Peppers 

Eggplant 

Melons 

Cucumber, 

Zucchini 

Strawberries 

Root crops 

Herbs 

Perennial crops 

Vines 

Pomefruit 

trees 

Stonefruit 

trees 

Nut trees 

Banana 

plants 

Golf courses 

Flowers, 

e.g., roses 

Durable 

Commodities 

Stored product 

pests, quarantine 

pests 

Fixed facilities, e.g., 

chambers, stores 

Temporary facilities, 

e.g., docksides 

In transport vessels, 

e.g., barges, ships 

Grains 

Pulses, Beans 

Seeds for 

planting 

Nuts 

Dried Fruit 

Spices, Herbs 

Tea, Coffee 

Cocoa 

Tobacco 

Logs 

Wood 

products 

Artifacts 

Packaging 

Perishable 

Commodities 

Structures and 

transport 

Quarantine 

pests primarily 

Stored product 

pests, wood & 

quarantine pests 

Fixed fumigation 

chambers 

Tarpaulins, 

temporary facilities 

Storage, processing 

facilities 

Transportation 

Fresh fruit 

Vegetables 

Cut flowers 

Storage 

facilities 

Food facilities 

Freight 

containers 

Ships, Aircraft 

Bulbs 

Propagation 

Materials 

Flour & feed 

mills 

Buildings 

Other 

transport 



6 

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. 

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 


Solarisation (Section 4.5). 

Steam treatments (Section 4.6). 

Substrates (Section 4.7). 

For each, it outlines suitable applications and 

provides examples of companies that supply 

alternative products, as well as specialists and 

sources of further information. 

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 

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 


Contact insecticides (Section 6.3). 

Controlled and modified atmospheres 


Heat treatments (Section 6.5). 

Inert dusts (Section 6.6). 

Phosphine and other fumigants 


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 Ozon- 

Action Programme (Annex 1). 

Glossary, acronyms and units (Annex 2). 

Chemical safety data sheets (Annex 3). 

Steps for identifying appropriate 

alternatives (Annex 4). 

Information resources (Annex 5). 

Address list of suppliers and specialists in 

alternatives (Annex 6). 

References, websites and other sources 

of information (Annex 7). 

Index (Annex 8).

How to use this Sourcebook 

The flowchart labeled Figure 1.2 can serve as 

a guide for using the Sourcebook. 

The recommended approach is to begin with 

Section 2, which offers general guidance on 

selecting non-ODS techniques. 

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. 

Safety aspects. 

Environmental impacts. 

Regulatory and market issues. 

Questions to ask about the system. 

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. 


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 

Read Sections 5 and 6 Read Sections 3 and 4 

No 

Select the 

appropriate 

alternative for 

demonstration 

and/or adaptation 

and adoption 

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. 

Do you require additional information? 

Yes 

Soil uses — pre-plant, 

re-plant, seedlings or nurseries 

Yes 

Contact further suppliers 

and specialists 

using the address lists 

Do you require additional 

information? 

No

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. 

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 

9Section 2: Guidance for Selecting Non-ODS Techniques


10 

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. 

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.

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. 

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 

Section 2: Guidance for Selecting Non-ODS Techniques 

11


12 

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. 

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

introduced, workers are trained and workplace 

practices are carried out safely. 

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 alternatives 

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 

Section 2: Guidance for Selecting Non-ODS Techniques 

13

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. 

The following steps can help to avoid or mitigate 

potential environmental problems: 

Consider the entire life cycle of inputs, 

including their extraction, transportation, 

use and disposal. 

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. 

14

3 Control of Soil-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. 

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 

15

Table 3.1 Soil-borne nematode pests controlled by MB in various regions of the world 


16 

Pests Africa Mediterranean South America Japan USA 

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. • • • • 

• 

Sources: MBTOC 1994, 1998 

Table 3.2 Soil-borne fungal pests controlled by MB in various regions of the world 


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. • • 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Sources: MBTOC 1994, 1998

Table 3.3 Soil-borne bacteria and virus pests controlled by MB 

in various regions of the world 


Bacteria and viruses 

Agrobacterium spp. • • 

Clavibacter spp. • • 

Cucumber mosaic 

• 

Erwinia spp. • • • 

Grape fanleaf 

• 

Pseudomonas spp. • • • • • 

Streptomyces spp. 

• 

Tobacco mosaic • • 

Tomato spotted wilt 

• 

Xanthomonas spp. 

• 


Table 3.4 Soil-borne insect pests controlled by MB in various regions of the world 


Insects 

Agrotis spp. (cutworms) • • • • 

Frankliniella occidentalis 

• 

Lyriomyza trifolii 

• 

Mole crickets • • 

Otiorhynchus spp. 

• 

Root weevils • • • 

Symphylans 

• 

Termites 

• 

Tetranychus urticae • • • 

White grubs • • • 

Wireworms • • • 


Table 3.5 Weeds controlled by MB in various regions of the world 


Weeds 

Cyperus spp. • • • • 

Orobanche spp. • • • 

Broad leaf 

(perennial and annual) • • • • • 

Grasses • • • • • 

Sedges • • • • 



17


18 

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. 

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 

Non-chemical techniques 

Spectrum of soil pests that can be controlled 

Nematodes Fungi Weeds Insects 

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. 

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. 

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 

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). 

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 


19

Table 3.7 Overview of efficacy and timing of pest control techniques and 

examples of appropriate combinations of techniques 


Examples of 

Timing 

Techniques Efficacy compatible techniques of treatment 

Non-chemical techniques 

Biological Suppression of Solarisation, substrates, cover Before and 

controls certain species of crops, other cultural practices during crop 

fungi and nematodes 

production 

Crop rotation Leads to decline in certain Fumigants, solarisation, biological Crop cycle of 

types of pathogens; not controls, resistant varieties, at least 3 years 

effective against pathogens grafting, other cultural practices 

with wide host range 

Grafting and Middle to high against specific Fumigants, solarisation, trap At planting time 

resistant pathogens, depending on crops, other cultural practices 

varieties rootstock and conditions 

Soil Good suppression of fungi and Solarisation, biofumigation, Applied 2 weeks 

amendments some nemaodes; not effective biological controls, resistant to several months 

and compost against most weeds and insects varieties, other cultural practices before planting 

Solarisation Effective against many Fumigants, biofumigation, 4 - 7 week 

fungi, nematodes and biological controls, resistant treatment prior 

weeds, except weeds with varieties, grafting, crop rotation, to planting 

deeply buried structures other cultural practices 

Steam Highly effective against many Resistant varieties, grafting, 20-minute to 

fungi, nematodes and weeds, biological controls, other IPM 8-hour treatment 

provided treatment is taken methods immediately 

to sufficient soil depth 

before planting 

Substrates Highly effective Biological controls No treatment 

(soil substitutes) 

required for 

clean substrates 

Chemical treatments 

MB Highly effective against Biological controls applied after 7 -14 days 

many fungi, nematodes fumigation before planting 

and weeds 

Chloropicrin Highly effective against fungi Fumigants, pesticides, resistant At least 14 

and some arthropods; varieties, grafting, cultural days before 

nematicide; weak herbicide practices planting 

Dazomet Satisfactory against fungi Fumigants, pesticides, 10 - 60 days 

weeds, and certain solarisation, resistant varieties, before planting 

nematodes 

grafting, cultural practices 

1,3- Effective nematicide, Fumigants, pesticides, resistant 7 - 45 days 

dichloropropene suppresses some fungi varieties, grafting, cultural before planting 

and weeds (limited) 

practices 

Metam sodium Highly effective against Fumigants, pesticides, About 14 - 50 

fungi; effective against solarisation, resistant varieties, days before 

arthropods; controls grafting, cultural practices planting 

some weeds and certain 

nematodes 

20 

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 

Alternative techniques 

Countries 


Developing countries (W), developed countries (W) 

Grafting 

Egypt (L), developed countries (L-W), Jordan (L), Lebanon (L), 

Morocco (L), Spain (W), Tunisia (L) 

Solarisation 

Developed countries (L), Jordan (L-W) 

Steam 

Europe (W) 

Biological controls Brazil (L), Europe (L) 

Biofumigation 

Developed countries (L) 

Substrates 

Europe (W) 

Crop rotation 

Universal (W) 

Fumigants 

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 

used for soil-borne pest control around the 

world. 

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 

Compiled from: MBTOC 1998, Rodríguez-Kábana 1999 

implemented prior to planting. In addition, 

some form of continued protection during 

crop production is desirable. 

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 


21

Table 3.10 Tomatoes and peppers: examples of alternatives in commercial use 


22 

Alternative techniques Countries 

Protected cultivation 

Steam 

Belgium (W), Netherlands (W), UK (L) 

Solarisation 

Japan (L), Jordan (W), Morocco (L) 

Substrates 

Belgium (W), Canada (L), Denmark (W), Morocco (L), 

Netherlands (W), Spain (L), UK (L) 

Fumigants 

Egypt (L), Europe (L-W), Jordan (L), Lebanon (L), Morocco (L), 

Tunisia (L) 

Open field 

Solarisation 

Israel (L-W), Japan (L), USA (L) 

Substrates 

Canary Islands (L) 

Crop rotation, fallow Universal (L-W) 


Developing countries (W), Japan (W), Spain (W), USA (W) 

Grafting 

Japan (W) 

Fumigants 

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) 



Substrates 

Organic amendments, 

composts, etc. 



Fumigants 

Solarisation 

Biocontrols 

Table 3.11 Strawberries (runner and fruit production): 


soil pH. Some preventive techniques can also 

be used as curative treatments in certain circumstances. 

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 

Countries 

Indonesia (L), Malaysia (L), Netherlands (W), UK (L) 

Universal (W) 

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) 




vulnerable to other treatments and to control 

by beneficial microorganisms in the environment 

(Katan 1999). 

The approaches for controlling soil-borne 

pests can be categorised in two broad 

groups: 

a) Sterile or near-sterile conditions.


Protected cultivation 

Steam 

Solarisation 

Substrates 





Open field cultivation 

Fumigants 


composts etc. 


Solarisation 


Table 3.12 Cut flowers: examples of alternatives in commercial use 

Countries 

Colombia (W), Europe (W) 

Developed countries (L), Lebanon (L-W) 

Brazil (L), Canada (W), Europe (W) 

Universal (W) 

Universal (W) 

Universal (L-W) 

Brazil (L), Colombia (L-W), Costa Rica (L), developed countries (L-W), 

Morocco (L-W), Zimbabwe (L) 

Universal (W) 

Universal (W) 





Table 3.13 Roses: examples of alternatives in commercial use 




Grafting 


Substrates 

Belgium (W), Denmark (W), Netherlands (W) 

Biological controls Morocco (L), USA (L) 

Fumigants 

Morocco (L), Spain (L), Tunisia (L), others (L) 

Steam (protected 

cultivation) 

Belgium (W), Netherlands (W) 

Solarisation 

Israel (W) 



Table 3.14 Tobacco seedlings: examples of alternatives in commercial use 


Fumigants 

Brazil (L-W), Japan (L-W), USA (L-W) 

Biocontrols (Trichoderma) Malawi (W), Zambia (L), Zimbabwe (W) 

Biofumigation 

South Africa (L), USA (L), Zimbabwe (L) 

Substrates 

Brazil (L-W), South Africa (L-W), USA (L-W) 




23

Table 3.15 Nursery crops (vegetables and fruit): 



24 


Steam 

Solarisation 

Biocontrols 

Substrates (protected 

cultivation) 

Soil amendments, 




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): 



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) 



Compiled from: MBTOC 1998

) 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. 


25


26 

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. 

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.

Regulatory – present and future. 

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. 


27


28

4 Alternative Techniques for 

Controlling Soil-borne Pests 

4.1 IPM and cultural 

practices 

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 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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 

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. 

30

Table 4.1.2 Efficacy and timing of various cultural practices 

Techniques Efficacy Timing of treatment 

Crop rotation Can be high, depends on the pathogen. Cycles cover a minimum of 

Not effective against pathogens with 3 years 

wide host range. 

Cover crops and Low for fungal pathogens; trap crops Can be grown with crop, 

living mulches are highly effective against some or for 2-3 months in 

nematodes; possible control of weeds off season 

Nutrient management Middle effect; necessary for good crop Before and during crop 

management, promoting tolerance to production 

pathogens 

Resistant cultivars Middle to high for very specific pests, No waiting period before 

and grafting depending on rootstock and conditions planting 

Trap crops and Effective against certain fungi and Can be grown with crop, 

enemy plants nematodes or for 2-3 months in off 

season 

Water management Low to middle efficacy, depends on soil Before and during crop 

type and pests 

production 

Compiled from: Lung et al 1999 

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 


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.

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). 

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 


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 

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 

34 

Note: Contact information for these companies are provided in Annex 6.

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. 

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. 


35


36 

Table 4.1.5 Examples of specialists and consultants in preventive methods 

and integrated management of soil-borne pests 

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

Table 4.1.5 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). 


37


38 

4.2 Biological controls 

Advantages 

Generally safe for non-target species and 

not toxic to humans. 

Improve soil biodiversity. 

Some biological controls promote plant 

growth. 

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’ 

around crop roots and protecting them 

against infection. 

Inducing systemic resistance in crops, 

i.e., improving the plants’ own defense 

systems, enabling them to resist pest 

attacks more effectively. 

Stimulating crop growth. 

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 Biological control agents Country 

Various crops Streptomyces lydicus USA 

Various crops Streptomyces griseoviridis strain K61 USA 

Sweet potato Non-pathogenic Fusarium spp. Japan 

Various crops PGPR bacteria China, Germany, USA 

Cut flowers Paecilomyces lilacinus, Trichoderma spp., Colombia, Germany, 

Beauveria bassiana, Bacillus popilliae, Netherlands 

Metarhizium anisopliae, microbial broths 

Greenhouse tomatoes Trichoderma applied regularly in New Zealand 

irrigation water 

Greenhouse tomatoes PGPR bacteria (seed coating) Germany 

and cucumber 

Turf Beauveria bassiana, Metarhizium anisopliae, Germany, Switzerland 

PGPR bacteria (seed coating) 

Compiled from: MBTOC 1998, Cherim 1998, Gutierrez 1997, Lung 1999 

Gliocladium virens – a fungus (commercial 

products in USA). 

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). 


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). 

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. 

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). 


39

Table 4.2.2 Examples of biological control agents and formulations 

for soil-borne diseases 


40 

Biological Type of Soil-borne 

control agent organism pests and diseases Formulations 

Agrobacterium Bacteria Crown gall disease caused by Culture or suspension, applied 

radiobacter Agrobacterium tumefaciens to seeds, seedlings and cuttings, 

or as soil drench or spray 

Ampelomyces Fungi Powdery mildew, Oidium spp. Water-dispersible granules 

quisqualis isolate 

for spray 

Bacillus subtilis Bacteria Rhizoctonia solani, Fusarium Granule or powder, for seed 

spp., Alternaria spp., Sclerotinia treatment, dip, hopper box, 

spp., Verticillium spp., Strepto- soil drench or spray 

myces scabies, Aspergillus spp. 

that attack roots 

Burkholderia Bacteria Rhizoctonia spp., Pythium spp., Powder and aqueous suspension 

cepacia Fusarium spp. and others for seed treatment or drip 

irrigation 

Candida Fungi Botrytis spp. Wettable powder 

oleophila 

Coniothyrium Fungi Sclerotinia sclerotiorum, Water dispersible granule 

minitans Sclerotinia minor for spray 

Fusarium Fungi Fusarium oxysporum, Fusarium Dust and alginate granule 

oxysporum moniliforme for seed treatment or soil incorporation etc. 

non-pathogenic 

Gliocladium Fungi Damping-off and root rot Granules, liquid 

virens 

pathogens especially Rhizoctonia 

solani and Pythium spp. 

Gliocladium Fungi Pythium spp., Rhizoctonia solani, Wettable powder, liquid 

catenulatum 

Botrytis spp., Didymella spp 

Phlebia Fungi Heterobasidium annosum Powder 

gigantea 

Pseudomonas Bacteria Rhizoctonia solani, Wettable powder or suspension 

cepacia Fusarium spp., for spray 

Pythium sp. 

Pythium Fungi Pythium ultimum Granule and powder for seed 

oli-gandrum 

treatment or soil incorporation 

Streptomyces Bacteria Fusarium spp., Alternaria brassi- Powder for drench, spray or 

griseoviridis cola, Phomopsis spp., Botrytis irrigation system 

spp., Pythium spp., Phytophthora 

spp. that cause seed, root and 

stem rot and wilt disease 

Trichoderma Fungi Sclerotinia spp., Phytophthora Granules, wettable powder for 

harzanium, spp., Rhizoctonia solani, Pythium seed treatments, dips, soil incor- 

Trichoderma spp., Fusarium spp., Verticillium poration, injection, or irrigation 

polysporum and spp., Sclerotium rolfsii systems 

other Trichoderma 

species 

Compiled from: Fravel 1999, Lung 1999

Table 4.2.3 Characteristics of several groups of biological controls 

Group of 

organisms 

Examples 

of organisms 

Type of 

organism Target pests Mode of action 

Gliocladium Gliocladium virens Soil fungi Damping-off diseases, Parasitises some organ 

particularly those isms (e.g., R. solani) and 

caused by Pythium and suppress-es by compet- 

Rhizoctonia; seed rot ition, exclusion and 

diseases 

excretion of substances 

Mycorrhizae Glomus brasilianum, Soil fungi Promote root health, Form symbiotic relation- 

Glomus clarum, increase plant’s ability ship with crop roots, 

Gigaspora margarita to resist some diseases aiding uptake of water 

and nutrients especially 

Nematodes: Heterorhabditis Parasitic Larvae and pupae of Enter insect larvae and 

Heterohabditis, bacteriophora, nematodes insects; certain cutworm snails/slugs as parasites; 

Phasmarhabditis Phasmarhabditis species; snails and slugs their metabolites kill 

& Steinernema hermaphrodita, these organisms 

Steinernema 

carpocapsae 

Nematodes: Mononchus Predatory Root-knot Prey on root-knot 

Mononchus aquaticus Coetzee nematodes nematodes nematodes 

Plant growth- Rhizobacteria spp. Bacteria Certain pests and Create a biological shield 

promoting living in pathogens around roots, preventing 

Rhizobacteria roots or delaying invasion of 

pest or pathogen; 

promote plant growth 

Steptomyces Streptomyces Soil-dwelling Certain pathogenic Out-compete several 

lydicus, bacteria fungi pathogens; some create 

Streptomyces 

protective mycelia layer 

griseoviridis 

around roots or excrete 

metabolites that inhibit 

fungi 

Trichoderma. Trichoderma Fungi Certain pathogenic Create a biological shield 

harzianum, fungi, e.g., Pythium, around roots, promoting 

Trichoderma Rhizoctonia Fusarium plant growth and 

polysporum, 

preventing growth of 

Trichoderma viride 

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. 


41

Table 4.2.4 Examples of nematode pests controlled 

or suppressed by biological controls 

Nematode pests Biological control agents Efficacy comments 

Meloidogyne spp. Paecilomyces lilacinus Slow effect; best results in 

Pasteuria penetrans 

2nd or 3rd years 

Meloidogyne incognita 

Mononchus aquaticus 

Pratylenchus spp. Paecilomyces lilacinus Parasitises eggs of nematodes 

Various nematode species Myrothecium verrucaria Effective nematicide 

Pleurotus ostreatus 


42 

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 

Pathogenic fungi and bacteria 

Biological control agents 

Agrobacterium tumefaciens Agrobacterium radiobacter strain 84 

Alternaria brassicicola 

Streptomyces griseoviridis strain K61 

Alternaria spp. 

Bacillus subtilis 

Armillaria spp. 

Trichoderma harzianum, Trichoderma viride 

Botryosphaeria spp. 


Botrytis cinerea 

Trichoderma harzianum 

Trichoderma spp. 

Botrytis spp. 


Collectotrichum spp. 


Damping off diseases (fungi) 

Pseudomonas fluorescens 


Didymella spp. 

Gliocladium catenulatum 

Erwinia amylovora 

Pseudomonas fluorescens A506 

Fulvia fulva 


Fusarium oxysporum, 

Fusarium oxysporum non-pathogenic 

Fusarium moniliforme 

Fusarium spp. 


Burkholderia cepacia type Wisconsin 

Gliocladium sp. 

Pseudomonas cepacia 



Heterobasidium annosum 

Phlebia gigantea 

Monilia laxa 


Phomopsis spp. 


Phytophthora spp. 



Powdery mildew 

Ampelomyces quisqualis 

Pseudomonas solanacearum 

Pseudomonas solanacearum non-pathogenic 

Pseudomonas tolassii 

Pseudomonas fluorescens 

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. 

Pythium oligandrum 


Gliocladium virens, Gliocladium catenulatum 





Gliocladium virens, Gliocladium catenulatum 





Coniothyrium minitans 

Trichoderma harzianum and certain other 

species of Trichoderma 






Compiled from: MBTOC 1998, Fravel 1999, Gutierrez 1997, Lung 1999 


43

Table 4.2.6 Examples of insect pests (soil-dwelling larvae and pupae) 

controlled or suppressed by biological controls 


44 

Insect pests 

Agrotis ipsilon (cutworms) 

Bradysia spp. (a) 

Lycoriella mali (a) 

Peridroma sauci (cutworms) 

Popillia japonica (a) 

Sciara spp. (a) 

Various armyworms 

Various beetle larvae 

Various cutworms 

Fruit borer species (a) 

(a) Soil-dwelling larvae and/or pupae 

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 

Biological controls 

Heterorhabditis bacteriophora 

+ Steinernema carpocapsae 

Steinernema carpocapsae 



+ Steinernema carpocapsae 



Steinernema carpocapsae, 

Steinernema feltiae 

Bacillus popilliae 

Beauveria bassiana 

Metarhizium anisopliae 


Steinernema carpocapsae, 



Compiled from: Gutierrez 1997, Cherim 1998, commercial product information 

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. 

Phytotoxicity 

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. 

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. 

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 

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. 

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)? 


45


46 

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. 

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. 




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 


Hyrdo-Gardens Inc, USA (Guardian nematodes) 

Johnny’s Selected Seeds, USA 

Nitron Industries Inc, USA 

Thermo Trilogy, USA 

AgBio Development Inc, USA (Mycostop) 


continued 


47


48 



(continued) 


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 


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 


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 


(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

4.3 Fumigants and 

other chemical 

products 

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 


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: 

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 tetrahy- 

dro-3,5-dimethyl-2H-1,3,5-thiadiazine-2- 

thione. 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 Application Application Time before 

Fumigant form ingredient method rates planting Comments 

1,3-D Liquid and 1,3-dichloro- Injected into soil, 100 - 620 About 7-45 Soil temp 

emulsion propene then sealed or L/ha days before 5 - 25°C; at 

covered with planting least 10 - 

sheets; or via 

15°C in 

drip irrigation 

wetter soils 

Chloro- Colourless Trichloronitro- Injected into soil, 165 - 560 More than 14 Optimum 

picrin liquid methane covered with kg/ha days before soil temp 

plastic; or via planting 15 - 30˚C 

drip irrigation 

Dazomet Granules Tetrahydro- Mechanical 190 - 590 10 - 60 days Not suitable 

3,5,-dimethyl- distribution in kg/ha before for soil temp 

2H-1,3,5- soil planting below 6°C; 

thiadiazine-2- 

soil must not 

thione 

be too wet or 

(produces MITC) 

too dry 

MB Gas Methyl Injected into soil 100 - 975 About 7 - 14 Optimum soil 

bromide or released on kg/ha days before temp 5 - 

soil surface, planting 25°C 

under sheets 

Metam Liquid Sodium Applied on 375 - 700 About 14 - 50 Efficacy desodium 

methyl-dithio- soil, injected L/ha days before pends on 

carbamate or via drip planting application 

(produces inrrigation method. Soil 

MITC) 

temp 5 - 32°C; 

moisture at 

least 50 - 75% 

of field 

capacity 

52

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). 

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 

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). 

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. 

Pathogens Nematodes Insects Weeds Bacteria 

1,3-D ++ ++++ +++ ++ ++ 

Chloropicrin ++++ +++ +++ ++ ++++ 

Dazomet +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ 

MB +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ 

Metam sodium +++ +++ +++ +++ ++ 

MITC +++ +++ +++ +++ ++ 

Fungicides +++ 

Herbicides +++ 

Insecticides +++ 

Nematicides +++ 

Adapted : Porter 1999 

Key: MITC-methylisothiocyanate 1,3-D-1,3-dichloropropene 

++++ high degree of pest control +++ good control ++ some control + little control 

Soil 


53

Table 4.3.3 Examples of commercial use of fumigants 


54 

Chemical Crop Examples of countries 

Metam sodium Cucurbits (cucumber, melon, etc.) Costa Rica, Egypt, Jordan, 

Mexico, Morocco 

Metam sodium Strawberries Netherlands, Morocco, Spain 

Metam sodium Open field tomatoes and peppers Australia, Costa Rica, Egypt, 

Mexico, Morocco, Spain, 

Zimbabwe 

Dazomet Open field tomatoes and peppers Europe, Japan 

Dazomet Strawberries Netherlands, Spain 

Dazomet Tobacco seedlings Brazil, USA 

Chloropicrin Cucurbits, tomatoes Japan, Zimbabwe 

1,3- dichloropropene Stone fruit Spain, USA 

1,3- dichloropropene Open field tomatoes and peppers Costa Rica, Honduras, Italy, 

Japan, Mexico, Spain, USA 

Metam sodium + Cut flowers, flower bulbs Netherlands 

1,3- dichloropropene 

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).

Likewise, applying the fumigant to the entire 

field area is more effective than placing it 

only along the rows where crops will be 

planted. 

A number of factors influence the rate at 

which fumigants become active. For example, 

clay soils tend to slow the conversion of 1,3- 

D 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. 

Fungicides control fungi. 

Herbicides control weeds. 

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. 

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 1,3- 

dichloropropene 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. 


Fumigant or pesticide products. 

Equipment for injecting, spreading or 

distributing the products into soil. 

Equipment to seal the soil surface or 

plastic sheets to cover the soil. 

Safety equipment. 


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 


55

Table 4.3.4 Examples of yields from fumigants and pesticides 


56 

Yields from 

Crop/Region Treatment chemical treatments Yields from MB 

Tomatoes in Florida 1,3-D + oxamyl (trial) 4.3 - 4.4 kg/m 2 4.5 - 4.8 kg/ m 2 

Tomatoes in Florida dazomet + pebulate 4.1 kg/ m 2 4.5 - 4.8 kg/ m 2 

herbicide (trial) 

Tomatoes in Florida metam sodium + 33.0 - 42.0 kg/plot 44.5 kg/plot 

chloropicrin + pebulate 

herbicide (trials, various rates) 

Tomatoes in Florida 1,3-D + pebulate herbicide 35.7 - 45.2 kg/plot 44.5 kg/plot 

(trial, various rates) 

Tomatoes Olympic metam sodium or 1,3-D 86.4 t/ha 87.1 t/ha 

cultivar 

with chloropicrin 

Tomatoes Sunny metam sodium or 70.5 t/ha 67.5 t/ha 

cultivar 

1,3-D with chloropicrin 

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 dazomet + chloropicrin 4.4 kg/plot (av.) 4.6 kg/plot (av.) 

California 

+ 1,3-D 

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. 


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

Feldmesser 1987, Rodríguez-Kábana et 

al 1977). 

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. 


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. 


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. 


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. 

58


Examples of chemical costs per hectare in the 

USA (UCD Dept Nematology 1999, EPA 

1997): 

MB with plastic sheets US$ 1,410 - 2,985 

MB without sheets US$ 690 - 1,000 

Chloropicrin US$ 1,600 - 2,965 

Dazomet US$ 1,792 - 2,990 

1,3-dichloropropene US$ 250 - 1,235 

Metam sodium US$ 370 - 1,000 

Nematicides 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 


59


60 




(continued) 


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.

4.4 Soil amendments 

and compost 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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 NH 3 mechanism HNO 2 mechanism 

Minimum lethal concentration > 170 ppm (N) in solution > 2ppm (N) in solution 

(24 hours) 

Location Soil solution or atmosphere Soil solution or gas 

Type of amendment Organic-N products (> 8% N), Organic-N products, fertiliser - 

urea, anhydrous NH 3 N (not NO 3 ) 

Rate of application > 1,600 kg N/ha or > 20 t/ha > 400 kg N/ha or > 20 kg 

organic-N product 

NO -- 2 -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 


61


62 

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. 

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 


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,

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. 

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 Soil amendments Examples of countries 

Tomatoes Cattle manure Morocco 

Tomatoes, cucurbits Farm-made compost Egypt 

Watermelons Manure Mexico 

Cut flowers Farm-made compost from mixed wastes Mexico 

Cut flowers Farm-made compost Colombia 

Nurseries Compost from municipal waste USA (California) 

Vineyards Manure Spain 

Various crops Various soil amendments Many countries 

Compiled from: MBTOC 1998, Batchelor 1999 


63

of planting time, however, can alleviate 

problems with these materials. 

In addition to suppressing pests, soil amendments 

provide the major advantages of 

improving soil texture and structure and providing 

a range of nutrients for plants, which 

can save fertiliser costs. 


64 

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. 

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). 

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 Yields from MB 

Watermelons, Mexico 45 tonnes/hectare 20 tonnes/hectare 

Cut flowers, Mexico 10,800 stems/160 m 2 8,400 stems/160 m 2 

Carnations, Colombia 10.5 bunches/ m 2 10.5 bunches/ m 2 

Chrysanthemums (Fuji), Colombia 5.8 bunches/ m 2 5.8 bunches/ m 2 

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. 


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. 


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 converted 

to nitrate or HNO 2 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


66 

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). 


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. 


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. 


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? 




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. 

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). 

Availability 

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 




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 


67


68 


Soil amendments such as 

nitrogen-rich materials, 

chitin-protein products, 

composts 

(continued) 

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) 

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


70 

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. 

Promotes beneficial microorganisms in 

the soil. 

Tends to increase soil fertility; increases 

soluble nitrogen (NO 3 , NH 4 ), 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) 

Time to kill 90 to 100% of sclerotia (days) 

10 3 - 6 

30 14 - 20 

40 20 - 30 

50 30 - 42 

60 35 - 60 

70 35 - 60 

Source: Katan and DeVay 1991.

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). 

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 

Open-field winter tomatoes 

Peppers, eggplant, onions 

Vegetable nurseries, musk melons 

Greenhouse crops 

Containerised nursery soil 

Stakes for supporting plants 

Orchards of stone fruit, citrus, olives, nuts and avocado 

Vineyards 

Examples of countries 

Southern Italy, Greece, Jordan, 

Morocco 

USA (Florida) 

Israel 

Mexico, Caribbean, South America 

Japan 

USA 

Morocco 

USA (California) 

USA (California) 

Compiled from: Elmore et al 1997, MBTOC 1998, Katan 1996, Katan 1999, Batchelor 1999 


71

Table 4.5.3 Nematodes controlled by solarisation in California USA 


72 


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 



Citrus nematode 

Dagger nematode 

Source: Elmore et al 1997 

Table 4.5.4 Fungi and bacteria controlled by solarisation in California USA 

Fungi Disease caused Crops 

Didymella lycopersici Didymella stem rot Tomatoes 

Fusarium oxysporum f.sp.conglutinans Fusarium wilt Cucumbers 

Fusarium oxysporum f.sp.fragariae Fusarium wilt Strawberries 

Fusarium oxysporum f.sp.lycopersici Fusarium wilt Tomatoes 

Plasmodiophora brassicae Club root Cruciferae 

Phoma terrestris Pink root Onions 

Phytophthora cinnamomi Phytophthora root rot Many crops 

Phytophthora lycopersici Corky root Tomatoes 

Pythium ultimum, Pythium spp. Seed rot or seedling disease Many crops 

Rhizoctonia solani Seed rot or seedling disease Many crops 

Sclerotinia minor Drop Lettuce 

Sclerotium cepivorum White rot Garlic, onions 

Sclerotium rolfsii Southern blight Many crops 

Thielaviopsis basicola Black root rot Many crops 

Verticillium dahliae Verticillium wilt Many crops 

Bacteria Disease caused Crops 

Agrobacterium tumefaciens Crown gall Many crops 

Clavibacter michiganensis Canker Tomatoes 

Streptomyces scabies Scab 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 sufficient, 

because pests in the untreated soil can 

spread to treated areas. Strip solarisation is 

not recommended for soil that is heavily 

infested.

Table 4.5.5 Weeds controlled by solarisation in California USA 

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 

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. 

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 


The treatment time for solarisation varies 

according to the target organisms, soil conditions 

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: 


73

Biological antagonists such as 

Trichoderma (as used in Jordan, for 

example). 

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. 

Current uses 

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 


Meloidogyne incognita 

Monosporascus spp. 

Weeds 

Convolvulus arvenis (plant) 

Cynodon dactylon (plant) 

Cyperus esculentus 

Cyperus rotundus 

Eragrostis sp. 

Malva niceansis 

Melilotus alba 

Sorghum halepense (plant) 

Common names 

Southern root knot nematode 

Sudden wilt of melon 

Common names 

Field bindweed (plant) 

Bermuda grass (plant) 

Yellow nutsedge 

Purple nutsedge 

Lovegrass 

Bull mallow 

White sweetclover 

Johnson grass (plant) 

Fungi and bacteria Disease caused Crops 

Fusarium oxysporum f.sp. pini Fusarium wilt Pines 

Macrophomina phaseolina Charcoal rot Many crops 

Pseudomonas solanacearum Bacterial wilt Several crops 

Source: Elmore et al 1997, Strand 1998 1998, Katan 1999 

Table 4.5.7 Examples of yields from solarisation and MB 

Crops Country Yields from solarisation Yields from MB 

Open-field pepper Israel 40 -50 t/ha Similar 

Open-field eggplant Israel 60 - 80 t/ha Similar 

Greenhouse pepper Israel 120 - 150 t/ha Similar 

Greenhouse tomato Jordan 144 - 184 t/ha 144 - 180 t/ha 

Greenhouse cucumber Jordan 153 - 200 t/ha 145 - 200 t/ha 

Greenhouse eggplant Jordan 162 t/ha Similar 

Israel 100 - 120 t/ha Similar 

Greenhouse strawberry Jordan 35 - 40 t/ha Similar 

74 

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. 


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. 


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


76 

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. 

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. 


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). 


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 

continued 


77



78 


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.

4.6 Steam treatments 

Advantages 

Modern techniques are highly effective. 

Controls the same range of pests as MB. 

Does not entail the use of toxic 

chemicals. 

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 minutes 

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. 

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. 


79

Table 4.6.1 Comparison of steam techniques for greenhouses 


80 

Treatment 

Negative 

Factor pressure Sheet Hood Fink 

Equipment Drainpipes buried Sheets laid on soil Hood pressed Vertical pipes in 

in soil; sheets laid surface onto soil surface soil; pipe grid and 

on surface 

sheets on surface 

Treatment depth 50 - 60 cm 15 - 30 cm 15 cm 50 cm 

Treatment time 3 - 5 hours 4 - 8 hours

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 m 2 in 10 hours. It 

is more energy efficient but provides a shallow 

treatment suitable only for certain crops 

and pests. 

Steam ploughs 

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. 

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. 

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 


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 


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. 


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 m 3 /hour for 

an area of 2,500 m 2 ; capacity of 1,000 

m 3 /hour for an area of 1,000 m 2 . 

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. 


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. 


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. 


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


84 


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. 


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. 

In the USA, a farm that usually fumigates 

12 hectares per year can recover 

the capital costs of steam in 1 year 

(Quarles 1997). 

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 

often cheaper. Labour time for treating 

1000 m 2 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? 

What boiler size is required? 

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? 

What are the costs and benefits of different 

methods of steam treatment? 



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.

Table 4.6.5 Examples of suppliers of products and services 

for steam and heat treatments 


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 


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 

continued 


85




Hot water soil 

treatments and electric 

heat soil sterilizers 

Heat equipment for 

weed control, including 

flamers and hot water 

systems 


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. 

86

4.7 Substrates 

entails costs for recycling or disposing of 

substrate materials. 

Organic 

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. 

Disadvantages 

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 


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. 

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 

Decomposition 

substrates Bulk density Water-holding Air Electrical rate (carbon: 

(weight) capacity content conductivity nitrogen) 

Bagasse +++ +++ + ++ + 

Bark +++ ++ +++ +++ ++ 

Coir dust +++ +++ +++ ++ ++ 

Peat sphagnum +++ +++ +++ +++ ++ 

Rice hulls +++ + +++ +++ + 

Sawdust +++ +++ ++ +++ + 

Inert substrates 

Sand + + + ++ +++ 

Vermiculite +++ +++ +++ +++ ++ 

Key: + undesirable, +++ desirable characteristics 

Adapted from: Johnson (undated), 

Kipp & Weaver 2000 


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). 

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). 

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. 

Rice hulls (waste from grain milling). 

Bagasse or sugarcane waste. 

Peat and past substitutes. 

Reed fibres. 

Pine bark, sawdust and other waste 

from the forest industry. 

Straw bales. 

Mushroom industry waste. 

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 

Potting mix system: coconut 

Hydroponic system: rockwool 

substrate in plastic bags 

substrate in controlled greenhouse 

Substrate Local waste material placed in Manufactured substrate wrapped in 

farm-made plastic bags 

plastic sleeves 

Equipment Plastic tunnel, plastic cover on floor Greenhouse, plastic cover on floor (or 

(to separate substrate bags from soil), tables to hold substrate and nutrient 

irrigation pipes; meters for ph solution), irrigation system, water 

and electrical conductivity 

management equipment, meters for 

measuring pH and electrical conductivity 

Infrastructure Minimal High level of management and control 

Capital Low capital input High capital input 

Know-how Some know-how required Substantial know-how required; technical 

consultant visits regularly to advise on 

nutrients and other aspects of the system 

Water system Conventional drip irrigation pipes System for circulating, cleaning and 

recirculating water 

Soil pest control Biological controls may be added Strict hygiene and application of 

during growing via irrigation system once a month fungicides if necessary or suppressive 

season 


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 

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. 


89

Table 4.7.3 Examples of commercial use of substrates 


90 

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 

Carnations on scoria beds 

Roses on coconut and other substrates 

Nursery crops (vegetables and fruit) 

Tobacco seedlings 

Bananas 

Various protected crops on gravel substrates 

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: 

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 

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. 


Inputs for potting mix types of substrates 


Substrate material. 

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: 

Local source of cheap substrate (e.g. 

clean waste 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. 

Normal irrigation or manual watering. 

Clean planting materials (especially if 

inert substrates are used). 

For hydroponic systems: 

Secure supply of water to prevent plants 

from drying out. 

Attention to detail and very regular 

monitoring and management. 

Substantial technical know-how and 

training. 

Table 4.7.4 Examples of yields from substrates 

Crop/country Type of substrate Yields from substrates Yields from MB 

Strawberry, Italy Natural substrate 4.8 kg/m 2 3 kg/m 2 

Protected strawberry, Peat 9 kg/m 2 4 kg/m 2 

Netherlands 

double cropping 

Protected strawberry, Peat or peat + coconut 22,000 kg/ha 15,000 kg/ha 

Scotland 

double-cropping 

Protected tomato, Sawdust + Trichoderma 50 kg/m 2 Similar yields 

New Zealand 

Tomato, Belgium Polyurethane foam or 52 kg/m 2 normally 30 - 35 kg/m 2 

rock wool 


Melon, Netherlands Rock wool 20 kg/m 2 10 kg/m 2 


Protected cucumber, Rock wool 68 kg/m 2 27 - 38 kg/m 2 

Netherlands 

triple cropping 


Compiled from: De Barro 1995, Vickers 1995, Benoit and Ceustermans 1991, 

Benoit and Ceustermans 1995, Batchelor 1999 

91


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. 


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.

Ozone depleting potential 

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. 


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, 


93


94 

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). 


the system 

What are the necessary substrate 

characteristics for the selected crops 

or seedlings? 

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? 

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 

What types of watering systems are 

appropriate? 

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? 



Availability 

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. 


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 

continued



Durstons, UK (Composted Bark, Earth Friendly Peat Substitutes, Coconut- 

Multi-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 



Organic substrate 

materials, 

e.g., coconut, 

coconut fibre, 

composted bark, peat, 

peat substitutes, 

stabilised composts 

and disease-suppressive 

substrates 

(continued) 

Inert substrates, 

e.g., 

polyurethane foam, 

rock fibre, pumice, 

vermiculite, 

perlite 


95 

continued



Sleeves, bags, trays and 

other containers for 

holding substrates 


services 


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) 

96 

Note: Contact information for these suppliers and specialists is provided in Annex 6.

5 Control of Pests in 

Commodities and Structures 

Types of 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 

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. 

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 

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 

98 

Key: ✇ - major pest Source: MBTOC 1998, Banks 1999

Table 5.2 Examples of quarantine pests found on perishable commodities 

Common name Scientific name or family Common commodities 

Mexican fruit fly Anastrepha ludens (Lw.) Citrus, other tropical and subtropical 

fruits 

Caribbean fruit fly Anastrepha suspensa (Loew) Tropical and sub-tropical fruits 

Mediterranean fruit Ceratitis capitata (Wied.) Deciduous, sub-tropical and 

fly 

tropical fruits 

Melon fly Bactrocera cucurbitae (Coq.) Cucurbits, tomato, many other 

fleshy fruits 

Oriental fruit fly Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) Most fleshy fruits or vegetables 

Queensland Bactrocera tryoni (Froggatt) Deciduous, sub-tropical and 

fruit fly 

tropical fruits 

European Cherry Rhagoletis cerasi (L.) Cherry, Lonicera spp. 

fruit fly 

Cherry fruit fly Rhagoletis cingulata (Lw.) Cherry, Prunus spp. 

Apple maggot fly Rhagoletis pomonella (Walsh) Apple, blueberry 

Mealy bugs Pseudococcidae Fruit, cut flowers, nursery plants 

Codling moth Cydia pomonella (L.) Apple, pear, peach, Prunus spp. 

Mango seed weevil Stemochaetus mangiferae (Fab.) Mango 

Red-legged earth Halotydeus destructor (Tucker) Leafy vegetables 

mite 

Thrips Thysanoptera spp. Leafy vegetables, fruit and cut 

flowers 

Aphids Aphididae Leafy vegetables, cut flowers 

Mites Many species Fruit, vegetables, cut flowers 

Scale insects Hemiptera Nursery plants, fruit 

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 

Sources: Based on Paull and Armstrong 1994, with additions from Batchelor 1999b 

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- 


99

Table 5.3 Examples of pests fumigated with MB in structures 


100 

Type of structure 

Food production and storage facilities, 

e.g., food processing plants, mills, warehouses 

Non-food facilities, 

e.g., museums 

Wood within structures, 

e.g., dwellings, commercial premises, 

historical buildings, museums 

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). 

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 

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 targets 

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. 

Source: Adapted from MBTOC 1998 

Phosphine and other fumigants.

Table 5.4 Effective techniques for pest suppression and 

pest elimination (disinfestation) in commodities and structures 

Techniques Pest Suppression Pest Elimination 

IPM Effective for suppressing pests; IPM does not provide disinfestation but can 

used increasingly for durable reduce the need for disinfestation treatments 

commodities and structures in all types of commodities and structures 

Cold treatments Effective for stored grains, other Certain treatments are effective for artifacts, 

and aeration durable products or structures historical items, high value durable 

where cold air is readily available 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. 

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 

Compiled from: MBTOC 1998, TEAP 1999 

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 


101

Table 5.5 Examples of alternatives used for durable commodities 


102 

Examples of countries where 

Durable commodities Treatments alternatives used commercially 

Stored grains, pulses, Phosphine Germany, Philippines, Thailand, UK, 

oilseeds 

Zimbabwe and many other developed 

and developing countries 

Carbon dioxide 

Australia, Indonesia, Philippines, Vietnam 

In-transit carbon dioxide Australia 

In-transit phosphine Europe, USA 

Phosphine mixed with 

carbon dioxide or nitrogen Australia, Cyprus and Germany 

Nitrogen 

Australia, Germany 

Gas-flushed retail packs Thailand 

Hermetic storage 

Cyprus, Israel, Philippines 

Heat treatment 

Australia (prototype) 

Cold treatments 

Mediterranean, USA 

Freezing 

Europe (for premium grains) 

Inert dusts 

Australia, Canada, Germany 

Other food products, 

e.g., coffee, cocoa beans, Phosphine Used in many countries 

black pepper, dried fruits, Nitrogen and low temperature Australia 

most types of nuts, coconut Carbon dioxide and pressure France, Germany 

products, pet foods Carbon dioxide Australia (commercial trials) 

Tobacco Phosphine Zimbabwe, Philippines and many 

other countries 

Steam conditioning 

Many countries 

Methoprene 

Used in some countries 

Wood and wooden items Nitrogen or carbon dioxide Germany 

Kiln drying, heat treatments UK, Denmark, Germany, Austria, USA 

Phosphine 

Routine use in some countries 

Sulphuryl fluoride, 

Routine use in some countries 

Borate or bifluorides Germany, USA 

Artifacts, museum items Heat treatment with Austria, Germany, UK 

controlled humidity 

Heat treatment 

Denmark 

Nitrogen 

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

Table 5.6 Examples of quarantine treatments approved for perishable commodities 

Treatment 


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 


103

Table 5.7 Examples of alternative techniques used for structures 

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:

1. 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. 

2. 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? 

3. 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. 

4. 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? 


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? 

5. Develop a plan. Once you have chosen 

the most promising techniques, identify 

the main steps and activities that adoption 

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. 

106

6 

Alternative Techniques for 

Controlling Pests in Commodities 

and Structures 

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 

107


108 

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. 

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 

Perishable commodities Countries Quarantine pests 

Capsicum, aubergine Exports from Tasmania Tobacco blue mold 

(eggplant) and tomatoes (Australia) to Japan (Peronospora tabacina), 

Mediterranean fruit fly (Ceratitis 

capitata), Queensland fruit fly 

(Bactrocera tryoni) 

Melons Exports from Hsingchang Melon fly (Bactrocera cucurbitae 

Uighur Autonomous Region Coq.) 

in China to Japan 

Strawberries, grapes, melons, Exports from the Netherlands Mediterranean fruit fly 

tomatoes, peppers, to Japan (Ceratitis capitata) 

cucumbers, aubergine 

and squash 

Grapes, kiwifruit and other Exports from Chile to Japan Mediterranean fruit fly (Ceratitis 

products 

capitata) 

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 

Compiled from: MBTOC 1998 (See Riherd et al 1994 for further examples.) 

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. 


109

Table 6.1.2 Examples of combined alternative treatments 

for commodities and structures 


110 

Commodities or structures Treatments Countries 

Durable commodities and structures 

Grains for export IPM + nitrogen treatment Australia 

Food processing facilities Phosphine + carbon dioxide + heat USA 

Approved quarantine treatments for perishable commodities 

Cherimoya and limes Soapy water + wax coating on fruit Exports from Chile to USA 

Cut flowers (robust types) Pressured water spray + insecticide Exports from various 

countries to USA 

Durian and other large fruit Warm soapy water + brushing Exports from various 


Litchi fruit Vapour heat + cold treatment Exports from China and 

Taiwan to Japan 

Ornamental plants (certain Removal of pests by hand + Exports from various countypes), 

Christmas trees and pesticide treatment tries to USA 

propagative materials 

Seeds for propagation Heat treatment + removal of pulp Exports from various 


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 

Compiled from: MBTOC 1994, MBTOC 1998, Batchelor 1999a, USDA-APHIS 1998 

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

Table 6.1.3 Examples of specialists, consultants and suppliers of services for IPM 

and preventive pest management techniques 

Items 

Durable commodities 


Perishable commodities 

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. 


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 


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. 


111


112 

6.2 Cold treatments 

and aeration 

Advantages 

No residues left in food. 

High consumer acceptance. 

Safe for workers. 

Relatively easy to use. 

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 

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. 

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 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

only be used for perishable and durable commodities 

that tolerate cold temperatures 

without suffering quality damage. 

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. 


113

Table 6.2.1 Examples of commercial use of cool and cold treatments 


114 

Products 

Stored grains in temperate climates 

Freeze treatment for disinfestation 

Cold storage (below 1°C) for long- 

term protection from pests 

Cold treatments for disinfestation 

Cold treatments for quarantine 



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 

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. 


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. 


Treatments 

Aeration to slow down insect 

development 

Refrigerated aeration to delay insect 

development 

Freeze treatment for disinfestation 

“Freeze-outs” as structural or 

space treatments 



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. 


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

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). 

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 

Aeration Cold treatments Freezer treatments 

Temperatures < 5-15°C -1 to +2°C -15 to -19 °C 

Degree of Pest Disinfestation or pest Disinfestation 

pest control suppression suppression 

Pests Stored product Quarantine pests (mainly Stored product pests 

pests fruit flies) in perishable and quarantine pests 

commodities; stored 

product pests in durables 

Suitable products Stored grains, Certain perishable High-value durable 

pulses, oilseeds commodities such as products such as 

citrus, carambola, organically grown 

kiwifruit and grapes; rice, special seeds 

certain stored products, and museum objects 

such as prunes and nuts 

Equipment Ventilation ducts, Refrigerated warehouse Freezer chamber or 

fans and control or storage area; refrig- warehouse; storage 

system erated shipping container area for frozen foods 

or meat 

Treatment time Cool For perishable products, From 2 hours to 2 

temperature about 12 - 24 days. weeks, depending on 

maintained For durables, cool the pest, treatment 

continuously temperature maintained temperature and rate 

throughout the throughout the storage at which cold is 

storage period period conducted through 

the treated objects 


115


116 

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. 

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 

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. 

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 

Mediterranean fruit fly 

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 

Compiled from: MBTOC 1998, USDA-APHIS 1993, 1998

Table 6.2.4 Products where cold treatments are approved as quarantine treatments 

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 


Tangerine From Mexico, Australia and Belize to 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 


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 


117


118 


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. 


Safety training is necessary for working in 

cold temperatures and handling cold 

products. 


None. 


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 


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). 


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 

Type of equipment or service 

Equipment for grain aeration, e.g. 

ventilation ducts, fans and aeration 

control systems 

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 


Specialists, advisory services and consultants 

treatments for perishable commodities 

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? 




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 

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 


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. 


119

6.3 Contact insecticides 

not normally registered for use on processed 

foods. 


120 

Advantages 

Long-lasting protection against pests. 

Require less skill than application of MB. 

Gas-tight enclosures not needed. 

Relatively quick application time. 

Disadvantages 

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 

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

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). 

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). 

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. 

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- 


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. 

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 

Insecticides 

Fumigants 

Physical Liquids or powders Gases 

Time to kill pests Longer period, because insects in 2 - 15 days, depending on 

pre-adult stages are not affected temperature, pest stages and 

until they develop into adults sealing of enclosure 

Application manner Commodity normally has to be Normally treated in-situ; bulk 

moved to apply insecticide grains can be treated 

Pest protection Pest suppression mainly Disinfestation mainly 

Pests controlled Individual products are selectively Generally effective against many 

effective against different insect insect species 

species or groups 

Pest resistance With continued use most insect No incidence of significant 

pests develop resistance to MB tolerance is known, but 

particular insecticides or groups development of resistance to 

of insecticides 

phospine is a concern 

Duration of effect Long-lasting pest control Short-lived control 

Commodity range Products which will be processed, Most products 

and non-food products 

Personnel Semi-skilled operators Skilled, certified personnel 

122

Table 6.3.2 Examples of commercial use of contact insecticides 

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 

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 

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). 


Pesticide product. 

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 

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. 


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. 


123


124 

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). 

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). 



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. 


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. 


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 

Safety equipment 



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) 


126

6.4 Controlled and 

modified 

atmospheres 

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 


127


128 

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. 

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 (2,000- 

tonne capacity) with nitrogen, requiring 

about 1m 3 of nitrogen per tonne of grain 


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. 

Carbon dioxide and nitrogen systems can 

include: 

Fixed bunkers and silos. 

Portable cocoons. 

Fumigation under sealed sheets. 

Retail packs. 

In-transit treatments for export products. 

Port-side treatments prior to export. 

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). 


Hermetic store with vacuum pump for 

rapid disinfestation (GrainPro). 


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. 

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. 

For carbon dioxide treatments: gas-tight 

containers or fumigation sheets sealed 

with gas-tight glues; source of carbon 

dioxide; monitoring device. 

For in-transit systems: as above, plus a 

system for topping up the carbon dioxide 

concentration to replace losses from 

leakage. 

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 

Hermetic Nitrogen Carbon dioxide 

Atmosphere Low oxygen, Less than 1% oxygen More than 60% 

preferably less 

carbon dioxide 

than 1% 

Degree of Pest management; Pest management; Pest management 

pest control disinfestation in disinfestation is feasible and disinfestation 

long-term storage 

Pests Storage pests Storage pests Storage and quarantine 

pests 

Equipment Very well sealed Very well sealed containers, Very well sealed 

containers nitrogen gas and applicator containers, carbon 

dioxide gas and 

applicator 

Typical 4 weeks or more 3 weeks 2 weeks 

treatment 

times 

Suitable Stored products Stored products, Stored and export 

products museum objects products, museum 

objects 


129


130 

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. 

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. 


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 


High carbon dioxide atmospheres (above 

60% CO 2 ) 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/cm 2 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 

Pests CO2 concentration Temperature Duration 

Granary weevil 40 - 80% 20 - 25°C 35 days 

25°C or above 21 days 

Rice weevil 40 - 80% 20 - 25°C 21 days 

Small rice weevil 25 - 30°C 14 days 

Red flour beetle More than 50% 20 - 25°C 14 days 

Cigarette beetle 25°C or above 10 days 

Lesser grain borer 30°C or above 10 days 

Indian meal moth More than 50% 20 - 25°C 7 days 

Mediterranean flour moth 25°C or above 5 days 

Almond moth 

have been successfully tested or used in 

diverse climates, including China, India, Israel, 

Ethiopia, Brazil and USA. 



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 

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 

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. 


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). 


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. 


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. 


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 

132

grain stored for 2 years. (Batchelor 

1999). 

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 


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. 

For storage periods of about one year or 

longer, carbon dioxide and nitrogen are 

often cheaper than MB. 


the system 

Which pests need to be controlled? 

What degree of control is necessary? 

Can the store be made adequately 

gas-tight? 

Can the commodity be treated while 

in storage or does it need a special, 

rapid treatment? 

Can logistical changes accommodate a 

longer treatment period? 

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? 

What changes need to be made to the 

commodity management system? 



Availability 

Materials and equipment are widely available. 


Table 6.4.4 provides examples of specialists 

and suppliers of products and services. See 




resources. 


133


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 

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 


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 


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 


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 

134 


6.5 Heat treatments 

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, 


135


136 

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 

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 m 3 ) 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

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. 

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). 

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, 

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). 


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 

137



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. 

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. 



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). 

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). 



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 Commodity temperature Further information 

and exposure time 

Cigarette beetle (Lasioderma 50°C for 24 hours kills all Meyer 1980, 

serricorne, all stages) stages Banks & Fields 1998 

All tobacco pests Vacuum steam conditioning at Ryan 1995 

60°C for 3 minutes 

Wide range of fungi in timber Steam treatment held at 66°C Chidester 1991, 

for 1.25 

Miric and Willeitner 

1990, Newbill and 1991 

Dry wood termites Heating to above 44°C Lewis and Haverty 1996 

138

Table 6.5.3 Examples of heat treatments approved for quarantine purposes 

for durable commodities and artifacts, USA 

Treatments and commodities 

Temperature and duration 


Any durable commodity that can tolerate 

65.5°C for 7 minutes 

heat to control Khapra beetle 

Feeds & milled products for processing 


Bagasse/sugarcane 

70°C for 2 hours 

Bags for seeds 

100°C for 1 hour 

Lumber (3" thick) with wood borers 

54.4°C for 14 hours 

or 60°C for 7 hours 

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 100°C 

Steam treatments with pressure 

Rice straw and hulls, straw mats 

30 minutes 

Rice straw novelties 

30 minutes 

Novelties and articles from broomcorn 

30 minutes 

Vacuum steam flow process 

Leaf tobacco for export 


Blended strip tobacco for export 


Hot water dips 

Bulbs with Ditylenchus nematodes 

24°C for 2 hours and 43.3°C for 4 hours 

Lily bulbs with Aphelenchoides nematodes 

38.8°C 

Senecio with Aphelenchoides nematodes 

43.3°C for 1 hour 

Narcissus bulbs with bulb scale mite 

43.3°C for 1 hour 

Certain tubers with Meloidogyne spp. 


Horseradish root with golden nematode 


Banana roots 

43.4°C for 30 minutes and 48.9°C for 

60 minutes 

Sugarcane 


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 

139


140 

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. 

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 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. 


It is necessary to have safety training for 

workers. 


Heat treatments do not leave undesirable 

residues in treated products. 


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. 


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. 


Heat treatments normally require a high 

capital investment and, in some cases,

involve relatively high fuel costs. Over 

several years, however, costs can be similar 

to MB in some applications. 

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. 


141


142 

Table 6.5.5 Examples of specialists and suppliers of products and 

services for heat treatments 


Equipment for various types of 

heat treatments 

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 


6.6 Inert dusts 

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 


143


144 

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). 

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 


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

sprayed onto the walls of the storage facility 

with a high pressure pump, giving an application 

rate of about 6 g a.i. per m 2 . 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). 

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, 

Products 

Stored grains in Australia 

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). 


DE product. 

Application equipment. 

Table 6.6.1 Examples of commercial use of inert dusts 

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 


145


146 

Examples of equipment for slurry applications 

in structures: 

High pressure slurry pump and hose — 

available off the shelf with minor 

modifications. 

Small motor (e.g., 3.5 horse power). 

Water tank for mixing slurry (e.g., 180- 

to 220-litre tank for a 5,000-tonne 

grain store). 

Safety dust mask for mixing. 


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: 

Low humidity (normally below about 

70% relative humidity). 

Low moisture content in grain or other 

stored commodities. 


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.) 

Granary weevil, Sitophilus granarius (L.) 

Rice weevil, Sitophilus oryzae (L.) 

Lesser grain borer, Rhyzopertha 

dominica F. 

Red flour beetle, Tribolium castaneum 

(Herbst). 

Larger grain borer, Prostephanus 

truncatus (Horn). 

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 LD 50 (dose required for killing 50% of 

insects) are (Korunic et al 1997): 

Rice. 

Corn. 

Oats. 

Barley. 

Wheat. 



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

Table 6.6.2 Pests that can be controlled by certain DE formulations 

– examples from USA 

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 

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. 

Formulations for other purposes 

Indoor and outdoor crawling insects 

Ants 

Bedbugs 

Boxelder bugs 

Carpet beetles 

Centipedes 

Cockroaches 

Earwigs 

Fleas 

Millipedes 

Scorpions 

Silverfish 

Slugs 

Ticks 


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. 


DE is not an ODS. 

Compiled from: EPA, ARBICO 


consumption 

DE is not a greenhouse gas. Like MB, it 

requires some energy for extraction, formulation 

and transportation. Application normally 

uses little energy. 


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. 


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. 


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 



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. 

148

Table 6.6.3 Examples of specialists and suppliers of products 

and services for inert dusts 


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) 



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 



149


150 

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. 

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 

Phosphine involves long treatment time 

compared to MB. 

Like MB, fumigants provide no on-going 

protection against pests after the 

treatment. 

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 infestations. 

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). 

Nature and quantity of commodity and 

commodity packaging — or nature and 

volume of structure. 

Temperature and humidity of commodity 

and treatment areas. 

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

holds, gas-tight shipping containers and specially 

designed chambers) provided the 

required gas concentrations can be maintained 

for sufficient time to kill pests. 

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, PH 3 ) 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. 


151


152 

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. 

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 or sulfuryl fluoride (F 2 SO 2 ) 

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

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. 

Carbon dioxide (CO 2 ). Refer to information 

on Controlled and modified 

atmospheres in Section 6.4. 

Ethyl formate (C 3 H 6 O 2 ) 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 (C 2 H 4 O) 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 

Carbon Carbon Methyl Sulphuryl 

Properties dioxide bisulphide bromide Phosphine fluoride 

Chemical formula CO 2 CS 2 CH 3 Br PH 3 F 2 SO 2 

Molecular weight 44 76 95 34 102 

Boiling point (°C) -78.5 46.5 3.6 -87.0 -19.4 

Specific gravity 1.5 1.3 3.3 1.2 - 

(air = 1.0) 

Physical description Colourless, Colourless Colourless Colourless Colourless 

odourless gas or pale liquid, and odour- gas with odour odourless 

sweet ether- less gas like fish or garlic gas 

like odour 

Flammability rating: Non- Flammable Flammable in Flammable Non- 

0 = none/very low flammable 3 presence of 4 flammable 

4 = high 0 high-energy 0 

ignition sources 

1 

Toxicity Toxic at high Highly toxic Highly toxic Highly toxic Highly toxic 

concentrations gas gas gas gas 

Occupational 9000 mg/m 3 3 mg/m 3 Varies from 0.4 mg/m 3 20 mg/m 3 

exposure limits (time- in USA in USA 20 mg/m 3 in in USA in USA 

weighted average) USA to 1 mg/m 3 

in the Netherlands 


Compiled from: data sheets in Annex 3 

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 

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 

Situations where fumigant 

Situations where fumigant 

Fumigant may be suitable is not suitable 

Carbon dioxide 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 

Phosphine 

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 

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 

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 

154

Combination treatmens 

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. 

Products 

Stored grains and legumes worldwide 

Grains in Australia 


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 

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 


Phosphine 



Compiled from: MBTOC 1998, Mueller 1998, Taylor et al 1998, UNDP 1995 


155


156 


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. 

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. 


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 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. 


Refer to information given in Section 6.4. 



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. 


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, 

such as timber, wood products and artifacts. 

Examples of some approved quarantine uses 

are given in Table 6.7.5. 


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/m 3 ) 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) 

Pest species Common name 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 

Trogoderma granarium Khapra beetle 5 -10 days (c) 

(a) Based on a phosphine concentration of 1.0 g/m 3 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. 



157

Table 6.7.5 Approved quarantine treatments for durable commodities 

– examples from USA (USDA-APHIS) 


158 

Commodities Fumigants Typical duration (a) 

Wooden items with wood borers Phosphine 72 hours 

Wooden items with wood borers Sulphuryl fluoride 24 hours 

Wood products, containers with termites Sulphuryl fluoride 24 hours 

Tobacco for export Phosphine 96 hours 

Cotton, cotton waste and cotton products Phosphine 120 hours 

in bulk – against boll weevil etc. 

Bales of hay Phosphine 72 hours 

Non-plant articles infested with ticks Sulphuryl fluoride 24 hours 

Seeds of cotton, packaged or bulk Phosphine 120 hours 

Seeds and dried pods, okra, kenaf, etc. Phosphine 120 hours 

(a) Duration of treatment can vary according to temperature and dose. 

The occupational Permissible Exposure 

Limit for sulphuryl fluoride is 5 ppm (y 

mg/m 3 ) 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 

Compiled from: USDA-APHIS 1993, 1998 

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). 


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 ft 2 for sulphuryl fluoride 

compared to $ 0.69 to 1.37 for MB 

for eliminating drywood termites in a 

large commercial structure (EPA 1996). 


159


160 


the system 

Which pest species and life stages are 

present? 


achieved? 

What time is available to conduct the 

treatment? 

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? 

Type of equipment 

or service 

Phosphine-generating 

products and equipment 

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 

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


or service 

Phosphine + carbon 

dioxide and phosphine + 

nitrogen mixtures 


manufacturers 

Fumigation services 

(contract services) 

In-transit phosphine 

fumigations 

(contract services) 

Fumigation sheets and 

enclosures 

Safety equipment 





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 


or service 



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 


162

Annex 1 

About the UNEP DTIE 

OzonAction Programme 

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: 

Are cleaner and safer. 

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. 

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). 

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 

163


164 

The OzonAction Programme 

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.

Country Programmes and 

Institutional Strengthening 

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 

OzonAction Programme 

39-43, quai André Citroën 

75739 Paris Cedex 15 France 

Email: ozonaction@unep.fr 

Tel: +33 1 44 37 14 50 

Fax: +33 1 44 37 14 74 


Annex 1: About the UNEP DTIE OzonAction Programme 

165


166

Annex 2 

Glossary, Acronyms and Units 

Term 

Glossary of terms used in this report 

Description 

Allelopathy Use of plant materials (e.g., exudates, residues) to benefit crop health. 

APHIS 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, the USA’s regulatory agency responsible 

for quarantine. 

Article 5(1) A developing country whose annual per capita ODS consumption is less than 0.3 

kg per capita. 

Biofumigation Amendment of soil with organic matter that releases gases that eliminate or 

control pests. 

Biological Living organisms or insects used to control pests and diseases. 

controls 

Controlled Typically, low-oxygen and high-carbon-dioxide atmospheres that are externally 

atmosphere 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 

167


Insect Growth 

Regulator (IGR) 

Integrated Pest 

Management 

(IPM) 

Modified 

atmosphere(s) 

Multi-cropping 


Organic 

amendments 

Pathogens 

Perishables 

Permeability 

Pest-free zone 

pH 

Pheromone 

Phosphine 

Phytotoxic, 

phytotoxicity 

Quarantine 

and preshipment 

(QPS) 

Resistant 

varieties 

Sanitation 

Soil 

amendments 

Soil-less culture 

Solarisation 

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. 

Organic materials added to the soil to improve texture, nutrition and/or assist in 

controlling pests. 

A method in which plant growth substrates provide an anchoring medium that 

allows nutrients and water to be absorbed by plant roots. 

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 

approach 

Combines biological knowledge with scientifically derived, quantifiable operational 

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. 

168

Acronyms 

Acronym 

APHIS 

ATSDR 

CA 

DE 

DHHS 

FAO 

GHG 

IARC 

ICM 

IGR 

IPCS 

IPM 

MA 

MB 

MBTOC 

MF 

NIOSH 

NTP 

ODS 

OSHA 

QPS 

UN 

US DOT 

Meaning 

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 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 

Toxicological acronyms 

LC50 

Concentration which killed 50% of test population in animal tests. 

LD50 

Dose which killed 50% of test population in animal tests. 

LCLo 

Lowest lethal concentration. 

LDLo 

Lowest lethal dose. 

TCLo 

Lowest toxic concentration. 

TDLo 

Lowest toxic dose. 

Annex 2: Glossary, Acronyms and Units 

169


Unit 

Units and conversions 

Meaning 

Hectare, ha area of 10,000 square metres (m 2 ) 

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 

m 2 

or 1.19 square yards 

or 10.76 square feet 

Cubic metre, m 3 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 



170

Annex 3 

Chemical Safety Data Sheets 

This Annex provides chemical 

safety data sheets for: 


Boric acid, borates 


Carbon bisulphide 

Chloropicrin 

Dazomet 

1,3-Dichloropropene 

Dichlorvos 

Ethyl formate 

Ethylene oxide 

Hydrogen cyanide 

Malathion 

Metam sodium 

Methyl iodide 

Nitrogen 

Phosphine 


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. 

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 

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 

171


172 

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 

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.


Chemical formula: CH 3 Br 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/m 3 TWA, skin. 

Bulgaria, Hungary: 10 mg/m 3 . Netherlands: 1 mg/m 3 time-weighted average, skin. 

Permissible exposure limit (OSHA): 5 ppm (20mg/m 2) time-weighted average, skin. 

Physical description: 

Odourless and colourless gas. Liquid below about 4°C. 

Molecular weight: 95 Boiling point: 4°C (38°F) Vapour pressure: 1420 mm Hg at 20°C 

Specific gravity: 1.73 Melting point: -94°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 

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. 

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. 


173


Toxicity profile: 

TDLo skin: human 40 g/m 3 /40M-C. 

LC50 inhalation: rabbit 28900 mg/m 3 /30M; rat 302 ppm/8H; mouse 1540 mg/m 3 /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/m 3 /2H. 

LD50 oral: rat 04 - 214 mg/kg. 

Human non-fatal poisoning (IPCS): from exposures as low as 100 ppm (389 mg/m 3 ). 

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. 

174

Boric acid (borates) 

Chemical formula: H 3 BO 3 and Na 2 B 4 O 7 .10H 2 O 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. 


Occupational exposure limit (ACGICH, California OSHA): 10mg/m 2 (inhalable particulate).. 

Permissible exposure limit (OSHA): 15 mg/m 3 total dust, 5 mg/m 3 respirable fractions for 

nuisance dusts. 


Odourless crystals or white powder. 

Molecular weight: 61.8 Boiling point: decomposes Vapour pressure: 2.6 mm Hg at 

20°CSpecific gravity: 1.5 Melting point: 170°C (336°F) 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. 


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. 


LD50 skin: rabbit > 2000 mg,kg. 

Teratogenicity/ reproductive effects: at high exposures. 

LC50 inhalation: rat > 2 mg/L. 

Mutagenicity: not reported. 

LD50 oral: rat 2660 mg/kg. 

Neurotoxicity: no information. 

Carcinogenicity: not known carcinogen. 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 


175


Chemical formula: CO 2 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. 


Occupational exposure limit (NIOSH): 5000 ppm (9000 mg/m 3 ) time-weighted average. 

Permissible exposure limit (OSHA): 5000 ppm (9000 mg/m 3 ) time-weighted average. 


Colourless, odourless gas – compressed and liquefied. Free-flowing liquid condenses to form dry ice. 

Molecular weight: 44.0 Boiling point: -79°C Vapour pressure: 5900 kPa at 21°C 

Specific gravity: 1.65 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 CO 2 (dry ice). 

Skin: frostbite if skin contact with liquid CO 2 (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. 


LD50 skin: no information. 

Teratogenicity/ reproductive effects: no information. 

LC50 inhalation: no information. 

Mutagenicity: no information. 

LD50 oral: no information. 

Neurotoxicity: raised concentrations affect central 

Carcinogenicity: no information. 

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. 

176 

Sources: Chemical data sheets of NIOSH, IPCS

Carbon bisulphide 

Chemical formula: CS 2 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 


Occupational exposure limit (NIOSH): 1 ppm (3 mg/m 3 ) 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. 

Molecular weight: 76.1 Boiling point: 46.5°C (116°F) Vapour pressure: 300 mm Hg at 20°C 

Specific gravity: 1.26 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. 

Incompatibilities and reactivities: strong oxidisers, chemically active metals such as sodium, potassium 

and zinc; azides; rust; halogens; amines. Reactivity rating (NFPA): 0. 


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. 



LC50 inhalation: rat 25 g/m 3 /2H; mouse 10 g/m 3 /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. 


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. 




Sources: Chemical data sheets of NIOSH, Fisher, NTP, IPCS, ATSDR 

178

Chloropicrin 

Chemical formula: CCl 3 NO 2 CAS number: 76-06-2 UN number: 1580 

Synonyms: nitrochloroform, nitrotrichloromethane, trichloronitromethane 



Hazard rating (OSHA): Highly hazardous 


Transportation hazard class (US DOT): 6.1, poison inhalation hazard zone B. 


Occupational exposure limit (NIOSH, Germany, UK, Philippines, Japan and several other countries): 

0.1 ppm (0.7 mg/m 3 ) time-weighted average. 

Permissible exposure limit (OSHA): 0.1 ppm (0.7 mg/m 3 ) time-weighted average. 


Colourless to faint-yellow, oily liquid with intensely irritating tear gas odour. 

Molecular weight: 164.4 Boiling point: 112°C (234°F) Vapour pressure: 24 mm 25°C 

Specific gravity: 1.67 Freezing point: -64°C (-93°F) Vapour density: 5.67 

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 

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 


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. 


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/m 3 /10M. TCLo inhalation: human 2 mg/m 3 

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. 


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 


Sources: Chemical data sheets of NIOSH, Fisher, NTP, IPCS, Dow AgroSciences, Great Lakes Chemical Corp. 

180

Dazomet 

Chemical formula: C 5 H 10 N 2 S 2 CAS number: 533-74-4 UN number: 8027 

Synonyms: 3,5-dimethyl-1,3,5-thiadiazine-2-thione; tetrahydro-3,5-dimethyl-1,3,5-thiadiazine-2- 

thione; dimethylformocarbothialdine. 


Toxic. 

Health rating (NFPA): 2. 

Transportation hazard class: 9. UN hazard class: 6.1. 


Occupational exposure limit: no information. 

Permissible exposure limit (OSHA): no information. 


White or colourless crystals, pungent acrid odour. Pesticide formulation is different. 

Molecular weight: 162.3 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. 


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. 


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 


181

1,3-Dichloropropene 

Chemical formula: C 3 H 4 Cl 2 CAS number: 542-75-6 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 


Occupational exposure limit (NIOSH): 1 ppm (5 mg/m 3 ) time weighted average, skin. 

Permissible exposure limit (OSHA): 1 ppm (5 mg/m 3 ) time-weighted average, skin. 


Colourless to straw-coloured liquid with sharp, sweet, irritating chloroform-like odour. 

Molecular weight: 111 Boiling point: 104-108°C (266°F) Vapour pressure: 28 mm Hg at 25°C 

Specific gravity: 1.21 Melting point: -84°C (-119°F) Vapour density: 3.83 

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. 


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. 

182



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: (CH 3 O) 2 P(O)OCH=CCl 2 CAS number: 62-73-7 UN number: 3018 

Synonyms: DDVP, 2,2-dichlorovinyl dimethyl phosphate, 2,2-dichloroethenyl phosphoric acid 

dimethylester 


184 


Highly toxic; animal carcinogen. 

Occupational hazard rating (OSHA): highly toxic. 


Transportation hazard class (US DOT): class 6.1, poison. 


Occupational exposure limit (Australia, Denmark, France, Germany, India, Netherlands, UK): 0.1 ppm 

(1 mg/m 2) time-weighted average, skin. 

Permissible exposure limit (OSHA): 0.1 ppm (1 mg/m 2 ) time-weighted average, skin. 


Colourless to amber liquid with mild, chemical odour. Insecticide formulation may mixed with a dry 

carrier. 

Molecular weight: 221 Boiling point: 140°C Vapour pressure: 0.012 mm Hg at 20°C 

Specific gravity: 1.41 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. 


LD50 skin: rabbit 107 mg/kg. 

LC50 inhalation: rat 15 mg/m 3 /4H, mouse 13 mg/m 3 /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: CH 3 CH 2 OCHO CAS number: 109-94-4 UN number: 1190 


Synonyms: ethyl ester of formic acid, ethyl methanoate. 


Highly toxic, extremely flammable. 



Transportation hazard class (US DOT): 3 


Occupational exposure limit (US NIOSH and several other countries): 100 ppm (300 mg/m 3 ) timeweighted 

average. 

Permissible exposure limit (OSHA): 100 ppm (300 mg/m 3 ) time-weighted average 


Water-white liquid with pleasant, aromatic, fruit odour. 

Molecular weight: 74.1 Boiling point: 54°C (130°F) Vapour pressure: 194 mm Hg at 20°C 

Specific gravity: 0.92 Freezing point: -80°C (-113°F) Vapour density: 2.56 

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. 


LD50 skin: rabbit >20 mL/kg. 


LC50 inhalation: no information. 

Mutagenicity: no information. 

LD50 oral: rabbit 2075 mg/kg; rat 1850 mg/kg. Neurotoxicity: affects nervous system. 


Environment: hazardous to wildlife. 




gloves, protective clothing to prevent skin contact – refer to safety instructions. Special disposal 


186

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: C 2 H 4 O CAS number: 75-21-8 UN number: 1040 


188 

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. 


Occupational exposure limit (NIOSH): less than 0.1 ppm (< 0.18 mg/m 3 ) time-weighted average Ca; 5 

ppm (9 mg/m 3 ) for 10 minutes/day. 

Permissible exposure limit (OSHA): 1 ppm time-weighted average. 


Colourless gas or liquid with ether-like odour. 

Molecular weight: 44.1 Boiling point: 11°C (51°F) Vapour pressure: 146 kPa 20°C 


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 



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.




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 


Occupational exposure limit (NIOSH): 4.7 ppm (5 mg/m 3 ) 10 minute period, skin. 

Permissible exposure limit (OSHA): 10 ppm (11 mg/m 3 ) time-weighted average, skin. 


Colourless or pale blue liquid or gas with a bitter, almond-like odour. 

Molecular weight: 27.0 Boiling point: 20°C (78°F) Vapour pressure: 750 mm Hg 

25°C 

Specific gravity: 0.69 Melting point: -13°C (7°F) Vapour density: 0.95 

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. 


LD50 skin: rabbit 6.9 mg/kg 

Teratogenicity/ reproductive effects: no informa 

LD50 eye: rabbit 1.1 mg/kg 

tion. 

LC50 inhalation: rat 63 ppm / 40 min. 

Carcinogenicity: not listed as carcinogen. 

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. 

190

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: C 10 H 19 O 6 PS 2 CAS number: 121-75-5 UN number: 3082 


192 

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. 


Occupational exposure limit (NIOSH): 10 mg/m 3 time-weighted average, skin. 

Permissible exposure limit (OSHA): 10 mg/m 3 time-weighted average, skin, total dust. 


Deep-brown to yellow, clear liquid with garlic-like odour; solid below 37°F. 

Molecular weight: 330.4 Boiling point: 156°C (140°F) Vapour pressure: 0.00004 mm Hg at 20°C 

Specific gravity: 1.21 Mellting point: 3°C (37°F) Vapour density: 11.4 

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. 


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 


First aid: 




Inhalation: fresh air, medical attention. 

Ingestion: rinse mouth, medical attention. 

Sources: Chemical data sheets of NIOSH, NTP, IPCS 


193

Metam sodium 

CAS number: 137-42-8 UN number: 3082 


194 

Synonyms: sodium methyldithiocarbamate. Decomposes to form methyl isothiocyanate. 


Toxic. 


Transportation hazard class (US DOT): class 9, toxic. 


Occupational exposure limit (NIOSH): no information. 

Permissible exposure limit (OSHA): no information. 


Light yellow liquid with strong sulphur-like odour. 

Molecular weight: N/A Boiling point: 112°C (234°F) Vapour pressure: 24 mm Hg at 25°C 

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. 


LD50 skin MITC: rabbit 33-202 mg/kg. 

Teratogenicity/reproductive effects: some effects in 

LC50 inhalation MITC: rat 1.9 mg/L/1H. 

lab tests. 

LD50 oral MITC: rat 55-220 mg/kg. 

Mutagenicity: limited evidence, inconclusive. 

Carcinogenicity: some effects in lab tests. 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: CH 3 I 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. 


Occupational exposure limit (USA NIOSH, Australia, Netherlands): 2 ppm (10 mg/m 3 ) time-weighted 

average. Denmark, Sweden: 1 ppm (5.6 mg/m 3 ) time-weighted average. 

PEL (OSHA): 5 ppm (28 mg/m 3 ) time-weighted average, skin. 


Colourless, transparent liquid with sweetish odour. 

Molecular weight: 142 Boiling point: 42°C (108°F) Vapour pressure: 400 mm Hg at 25°C 

Specific gravity: 2.28 Freezing point: -66°C (- 88°F) Vapour density: 4.89 

Solubility in water: 14 g/100g at 20°C 

Fire hazard: noncombustible liquid. Flammability rating (NFPA): 1 

Incompatibilities and reactivities: incompatible with strong oxidisers. Reactivity rating (NFPA): 0. 

Reactivity rating (Baker): 1 = slight. 


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. 


LDLo skin: rat 800 mg/kg. 

LC50 inhalation: rat 1300 mg/m 3/4H. 

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. 



195




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. 


Sources: Chemical data sheets of NIOSH, Fisher, NTP, IPCS, Baker. 

196

Nitrogen 

Chemical formula: N 2 CAS number: 7727-37-9 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. 


Occupational exposure limit (NIOSH): not established. 

Permissible exposure limit (OSHA): not established. 


Colourless, odourless, flavourless compressed gas. 

Molecular weight: 28 Boiling point: -196°C (-321°F) Vapour pressure: - 


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. 


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. 


LD50 skin: N/A 

Teratogenicity/reproductive effects: none known. 

LC50 inhalation: N/A 

Mutagenicity: not mutagenic. 

LD50 oral: N/A 

Neurotoxicity: not inherently neurotoxic. 

Carcinogenicity: not a listed carcinogen. 

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 


197

Phosphine 

Chemical formula: PH 3 CAS number: 7803-51-2 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. 


Occupational exposure limit (NIOSH): 0.3 ppm (0.4 mg/m 3 ) time-weighted average 

Permissible exposure limit (OSHA): 0.3 ppm (0.4 mg/m 3 ) 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. 

Molecular weight: 34.0 Boiling point: -88°C (-126°F) Vapour pressure: >1 atm at 20°C 

Specific gravity: 0.75 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. 



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. 


198




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


Chemical formula: SO 2 F 2 CAS number: 2699-79-8 UN number: - 


Synonyms: sulfuryl fluoride, sulfur difluoride dioxide. 



Occupational hazard rating (OSHA): hazardous chemical 


Transportation hazard class (US DOT): no information 


Occupational exposure limit (NIOSH): 5 ppm (20 mg/m 3 ) time-weighted average 

Permissible exposure limit (OSHA): 5 ppm (20 mg/m 3 ) time-weighted average 


Colourless, odourless gas; shipped as liquefied compressed gas. 

Molecular weight: 102.1 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. 



Teratogenicity/reproductive effects: no information. 

LC50 inhalation: rat 991 ppm/4H 

Mutagenicity: negative 

LD50 oral: rat 100 mg/kg 

Neurotoxicity: central nervous system depressant 

Carcinogenicity: not reported carcinogenic Environment: hazardous to wildlife. 




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. 

200 

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. 

Identify suitable pest control methods: 

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 

__________________________________________ 

_____________________________________ 

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. 

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 

________________________ __________________________ ______________________________ 

________________________ 

________________________ 

________________________ 

________________________ 

________________________ 

________________________ 

________________________ 

________________________ 

________________________ 

__________________________ ______________________________ 

__________________________ ______________________________ 

__________________________ ______________________________ 

__________________________ ______________________________ 

__________________________ ______________________________ 

__________________________ ______________________________ 

__________________________ ______________________________ 

__________________________ ______________________________ 

__________________________ ______________________________ 

202 

________________________ 

________________________ 

__________________________ ______________________________ 

__________________________ ______________________________

Table D Soil-borne pests requiring control 

Complete this table for each specific crop/use in question. 

Pest group 

List key pest species that need to be controlled 


________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

Pathogenic fungi 

___________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

Weeds, weed seeds ___________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

Soil-borne insects ____________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

Others ______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 


203

Table E Effective pest control methods for each pest 

Step 1: 

Step 2: 

Complete column 1 by taking the pest names from Table D and writing one in 

each cell. Add more cells if necessary. 

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. 


204 

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 Column 2: Column 3: Combinations that 

name (pest species) Effective control methods would control all the pests 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

A 

B 

C 

D 

E 

F 

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 

Health & safety of community 

and consumers 

Environmental impacts 

Acceptability to purchasers 

Advantages of system 

Disadvantages of system 


205

Steps that would improve techniques 

Typical yields of 

a) new system 

b) optimised system 

Materials required 


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 

206

Annex 5 

Information Resources 

UNEP DTIE complementary resources 

UNEP DTIE OzonAction Programme, Paris, France 

Contact for publications: ozonaction@unep.fr • 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 

Public Service Announcement on methyl bromide. Video. UNEP IE 1998 

Other information resources 

Agriculture & Agri-Food Canada and Environment Canada, Ottawa, Canada 

Contact for publications: epspubs@ec.gc.ca 

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 CO 2 Collaborative Experimental Structural Fumigation. Agriculture 

and Agri-Food Canada 1996 

Annex 5: Information Resources 

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 


208 

Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC), Berkeley, California, USA 

Contact: fax +1 510 524 1758 

Website: www.birc.org 

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: yvonneh@ento.csiro.au 

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: evbv305@ccma.csic.es 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: ozone@ea.gov.au 

Institute for Horticultural Development: ian.j.porter@nre.vic.gov.au 

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: jmuller@epagri.rct-sc.br 

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 

Contact for information: fax +32 15 553 061 

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: publications-sales@fao.org • fax +3906 570 533 60 

Website: www.fao.org/library/ 

Soil Solarization and Integrated Pest Management. Plant Production and Protection 

Paper. FAO 1998 

Soil Solarization. Plant Production and Protection Paper 109. FAO 1991 


209

Friends of the Earth, Washington DC, USA 

Contact: International program, foedc@igc.apc.org • 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: global-ipm@fao.org • fax +3906 5225 6347 (attn: Room B757) 

Website: www.fao.org Clearinghouse for integrated pest management (IPM) resources 

GTZ Proklima bilateral agency, Eschborn, Germany 

Contact: gtzproklima@compuserve.com • 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: hortitec@unete.com • 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: insectsltd@aol.com • 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: L.SOON@cabi.org • 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 

210

International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives 

and Emissions Reductions 

Contact: gobenauf@concentric.net 

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 

Netherlands Ministry of the Environment, The Hague, Netherlands 

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 


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 

Contact: panna@panna.org 

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: secretariat@unmfs.org • 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 

Abbott Laboratories 

17683 Avenue 6 

Madera, California 93637, USA 

Tel +1 209 661 6308 

Fax +1 209 661 6316 

www.abbott.com 

Contact: Mr Gary Kirfman 

Abbott Laboratories 

(Malaysia) Sdn Bhd, Shah Alam, Selangor 

Malaysia 

Email bl.tay@abbott.com 

Contact: Boon Liang Tay 

Africa Program, Asian Vegetable Research 

and Development Centre 

Arusha, Tanzania 

Tel +255 57 8491 

Fax +255 57 4270 

Email: avrdc-arp@cybernet.co.tz 

Web: www.avrdc.org.tw 

Contact: Dr R Nono-Womdin 

AgBio Chem Inc 

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 

Calle Molino s/n 

La Torre de Esteban Hambrán 

Toledo 45920, Spain 

Tel +34 925 795 463 

Fax +34 925 795 483 

Adalia Services Ltd 

8685 Lafrenaie, St-Leonard 

Quebec PQ H1P 2B6, Canada 

Tel +1 514 852 9800 

Fax +1 514 852 9809 

Email: adalia@videotron.ca 

Contact: Mr Denis Bureau 

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 

AgBio Development Inc 

9915 Raleigh Street 

Westminster, Colorado 80030, USA 

Tel +1 303 469 9221 

Fax +1 303 469 9598 

Email: agbio-l@indra.com 

www.agbio-inc.com 

Agglorex SA 

Industriepark-Kerkhoven 

3920 Lommel, Belgium 

Tel +32 11 542 532 

Fax +32 11 545 792 

Aggreko Inc 

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 

215

Agricola El Sol 

30 Calle 11-41, zona 12 

Guatemala City, Guatemala 

Tel +502 760 496 

Fax +502 760 496 

Agricola Mas Viader 

Mas Viader 7, Casa de la Selva 

17724 Girona, Spain 

Tel +349 7246 0415 

Fax +349 7246 0415 

Agrocol Ltda 

Cerrera 10 No. 24 – 76 Of. 701 


Tel +571 28 160 69 or 441 96 

Fax +571 28 417 34 

Agrocomponentes SL 

Carretera Los Alcázares km 2 

Torre Pacheco, Murcia 30700, Spain 

Tel +34 968 585 776 

Fax +34 968 585 770 


216 

Agricultural Demonstration Centre, China, 

SIDHOC 

No.2, Zhen Dong Lu, Nanhui County 

Shanghai 201303, China 

Email: sidhoc@uninet.com.cn or 

wimweerd@uninet.com.cn 

Contact: Wim Weerdenburg 

Agridry Rimik 

14 Molloy Street, Toowoomba 

Queensland 4350, Australia 

Tel +617 4631 4300 

Fax +617 4631 4301 

Email: mail@arpl.com.au 

www.arpl.com.au 

Agrifutur 

Via Campagnole 8 

25020 Alfianello 

Brescia, Italy 

Tel +39 030 993 4776 

Fax +39 030 993 4777 

Email: agfrkm@winrete.it 

Agrimm Technologies Ltd 

PO Box 13-254, Christchurch 

New Zealand 

Tel +643 366 8671 

Fax +643 365 1859 

Email: j.hunt@agrimm.co.nz 

Contact: Dr John Hunt 

Agrindex Consulting and Projects 

Katzenelson 70a 

Gyvatayim 53276, Israel 

Tel +972 3571 4762 

Fax +972 3571 0243 

Email: rymon@albar.co.il 

Contact: Lic. Shoshana Rymon 

Agriphyto 

19 Av de Grand Bretagne 

Perpignan, France 

Tel +33 4 68 35 74 12 

Fax +33 4 68 34 65 44 

Email: agriphyt@aol.com 

Contact: Mr Christian Martin 

Agroplas SA de CV 

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 

Email: agroplas@ri.redint.com 

Agro-Shacam SL 

Calle Cañas 6 (Administración) 

Madrid 28043, Spain 

Tel +34 914 159 881 

Fax +34 914 159 881 

Email: agroshacam@mx3.redestb.es 

Contact: Ing. Rafael Ortega 

AgroSolutions 

PO Box 818 

San Marcos, California 92079, USA 

Tel +1 760 591 3102 

Fax +1 760 591 4891 

Agrotex SL 

Hermán Cortés 36 

Jaraíz de la Vera 

Cáceres 10400, Spain 

Tel +34 927 461 311 

Fax +34 927 460 150 

Email: agrotex@interbook.net 

Contact: Ing. Gregorio Bermejo 

AgraQuest Inc 

1105 Kennedy Place 

Davis, California 95616-1272, USA 

Tel +1 530 750 0150 

Fax +1 530 750 0153 

Email: info@agraquest.com 

Agrium Inc 

402 - 15 Innovation Boulevard, Saskatoon 

Saskatoon S7J 5B7, Canada 

Tel +1 306 975 3843 

Fax +1 306 975 3750

Aislantes Minerales SA de CV 

Descartes # 104 

Colonia Nueva Azures 

11590 México DF, Mexico 

Tel +52 5 155 0822 

Fax +52 5 203 4739 

Email: rolan3@ibm.net 

Dr Husein Ajwa 

Water Management Research Laboratory 

USDA-ARS 

2021 S. Peach Ave 

Fresno, California 93727, USA 

Tel +1 559 453 3105 

Email: hajwa@asrr.arsusda.gov 

A-M Corporation 

403 Renaissance Building 

1598-3 Socho-Dong 

Socho-Ku 137-070, Korea 

Tel +82 2 598 2292 

Fax +82 2 598 2293 

Email: sunnymh@unitel.co.kr 

Contact: Mr Sunny MH Cho 

American President Lines 

1111 Broadway, 9th floor 

Oakland, California 94607, USA 

Tel +1 510 272 8241 

Fax +1 510 272 8655 

Contact: Technical Services 

Al Baraka Farms Ltd 

PO Box 866 

Amman 11118, Jordan 

Tel +962 6 591 102 or 109 

Fax +962 6 591 100 

Email: nabresco@go.com.jo 

Contact: Dr Ali Behadli 

All Natural Pest Control Co 

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 

Email: allsize@escape.ca 

Al. Masri Agricultural Co 

PO Box 922004 


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 

Email: agroeco3@nature.berkeley.edu 

American Rose Society 

PO Box 30000 

Shreveport, Louisiana, USA 

Tel +1 318 938 5402 

Fax +1 318 938 5405 

Email: ars@ars-hq.org 

Aplicaciones Bioquímicas SL 

Calle Bell 3, Poligono El Montalvo 

Carbajosa de la Sagrada 

Salamanca 37008, Spain 

Tel +34 923 190 240 

Fax +34 923 190 239 

Email: a-bioquimicas@helcom.es 

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 

Email: qtiiwill@queenstown.co.nz 

Contact: Dr Michael Williamson 

ARBICO 

PO Box 4247 CRB 

Tucson, Arizona 85738, USA 

Tel +1 520 825 9785 

Fax +1 520 825 2038 


217


218 

Arbolan-PHC 

Zritzola – Txiki, Urnieta 

Guipúzcoa 20130, Spain 

Tel +34 943 552 214 

Fax +34 943 331 130 

Email: vipagola@sarenet.es 

Dr Jack Armstrong 

Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center 

USDA-ARS 

PO Box 4459 

Hilo, Hawaii 96720, USA 

Tel +1 808 959 4336 

Fax +1 808 959 4323 

Email: jarmstrong@pbarc.ars.usda.gov 

Arrow Ecology Ltd 

PO Box 25175 

Haifa 31250, Israel 

Tel +972 4841 2599 

Fax +972 4841 2586 

Email: boazz@arrowecology.com 

www.arrowecology.com 

Contact: Mr Boaz Zadik 

ASCO Co 

PO Box 8345 


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 

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: juan@asocolflores.org 

Info@asocolflores.org 

Contact: Mr Juan Carlos Isaza 

Asthor Agricola Mediterranean SA 

Calle Emilio Zurano 5, Pulpi-Almería 

Almería 04640, Spain 

Tel +34 968 480 468 

Fax +34 968 480 013 

Austral Cathay 

89 Old Pittwater Road, Brookvale 

New South Wales 2100, Australia 

Tel +612 905 7857 

Fax +612 905 5966 

Australian Grain Co 

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 

Email: apples@dynamite.com.au 

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 

Hamburg, Germany 

Tel +49 40 894 125 

Fax +49 40 895 495 

Dr Bassam Bayaa 

Faculty of Agriculture 

Aleppo University 

Aleppo, Syria 

Email: B.Bayaa@cgnet.com 

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 

Bayer Vital GmbH 

Geschäftsbereich Pflanzenschutz 

Gebäude D 162, Leverkusen 

D-51368, Germany 

www.agrar.bayervital.de

Bel Import 2000 SL 

La Campana 66, Lorca 

Murcia 30813, Spain 

Tel +34 950 464 468 

Fax +34 950 464 013 

Email: bulbopulpi@futurnet.es 

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 

Email: evbv305@ccma.csic.es 

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: mail@benmeadows.com or export@benmeadows.com 

for international 

Berger Peat Moss 

121 R.R. # 1, St. Modeste 

QC GOL 3W0, Canada 

Tel +1 418 862 4462 

Fax +1 418 867 3929 

Email: tberger@tberger.gc.ca 

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 

Email: besri@acdim.net.ma 

Binab Bio-Innovation AB 

Bredholmen, Box 56 

Algaras S-545 02, Sweden 

Tel +46 50 642 005 

Fax +46 50 642 072 

BioAgri AB 

PO Box 914, Uppsala 

SE-751 09, Sweden 

Tel +46 1867 4900 

Fax +46 1867 4901 

www.bioagri.se 

Biobest NV Biological Systems 

Ilse Velden 18 

B-2260 Westerlo, Belgium 

Tel +32 14 257 980 

Fax +32 14 257 982 

Email: info@biobest.be 

www.biobest.be 

Contact: Marc Mertens 

Biocaribe SA 

Calle 19 No. 18-63 

La Ceja, Antioquia Colombia 

Tel +574 553 7870 

Fax +574 553 3330 

Email: bioca@epm.net.co 

Bio-Care Technology Pty Ltd 

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 

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 

Bio-Innovation AB 

Bredholmen, Box 56 

S-545 02, Algaras, Sweden 

Tel +46 506 42005 

Fax +46 506 42072 

Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC) 

PO Box 7414 

Berkeley, California 94707, USA 

Tel +1 510 524 2567 

Fax +1 510 524 1758 

Email: birc@igc.apc.org 

Website www.igc.apc.org/birc 

Contact: Sheila Daar 


219


220 

BioLogic 

PO Box 177 

Willow Hill, Pennsylvania 17271, USA 

Tel +1 717 349 2789 

Fax +1 717 349 2789 

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 

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 

Email: vam@ocsnet.net 

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 

Biotechnology Research Unit for Estate Crops 

Jl. Taman Kencana No. 1 

Bogor 16151, Indonesia 

Tel +62 251 324 048 

Fax +62 251 328 516 

Email: briec@indo.net.id 

BioTerra Technologies Inc 

9491 West Pioneer Avenue 

Las Vegas, Nevada 89117, USA 

Tel +1 702 256 6404 

Fax +1 702 255 2266 

Email: info@bioterra.com 

www.bioterra.com 

Bioved Ltd 

Ady Endre u. 10 

2310 Szigetszentmiklos, Hungary 

Tel +36 24 441 554 

Email: boh8457@helka.iif.hu 

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 


Nussallee 9 

D-53115 Bonn, Germany 

Tel +49 228 732 439 

Fax +49 228 732 432 

Email: rsikora@uni-bonn.de 

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 

Beatrixlaan 22, 3941 EE Doorn 

Netherlands 

BPO Research Station for Nursery Stock 

PO Box 118, 2770 AC 

Boskoop, The Netherlands 

Tel +31 172 236 700 

Fax +31 172 236 710 

Email: boskoop@bpo.agro.nl 

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 

Email: bbb2@cornell.edu 

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 

Email: rbugg@ucdavis.edu 

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 

C 


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 



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 

Email: elite1@kingston.net 

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 


108 M White Smith Hall 

Auburn, Alabama 36849-5418, USA 

Tel +1 334 844 4998 

Fax +1 334 844 4873 

Email: carey@forestry.auburn.edu 


221


Dr G Cartia 

Dept Agrochimica e Agrobiologia 

Universita di Reggio Calabria 

Piazza S. Francesco di Sales 2 

89061 Gallina, Italy 

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 

Mr Dermot Cassidy 

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 

Email: Caussanel@epoisses.inra.fr 

CCMA, CSIC 

Dpto Agroecologia 



Tel +34 9 1562 5020 x 208 or 249 

Fax +34 9 1564 0800 


Contact: Dr Antonio Bello 

CCT Corporation 

5115 Avenida Encinas, Suite A 

Carlsbad, California 92008, USA 

Tel +1 619 929 9228 

Fax +1 619 929 9522 

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 

Email: vcebolla@ivia.es 

www.ivia.es 

Celli SpA 

Via Masetti 32 

47100 Forli, Italy 

Tel +39 0543 794 711 

Fax +39 011 794 747 

Contact: Mr Alfredo Celli 

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 

Central Science Laboratory 

Sand Hutton, York YO41 1LZ, UK 

Tel +44 1904 462 634 

Fax +44 1904 462 252 

Email: c.bell@csl.gov.uk 

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: g.hill@cabi.org or j.waage@cabi.org 

Contact: Dr Jeff Waage or Dr Garry Hill 

Centre for Agriculture and Biosciences 

International, Regional Office for Africa 

PO Box 76520, Nairobi, Kenya 

Tel +254 2 747 329 

Fax +254 2 747 337 

Email: cabi-roaf@cabi.org 

Contact: Dr Brigette Nyambo or Dr Sarah Simons 

Centro de Ciencias Medioambientales CCMA - 

CSIC 



Tel +34 9 1562 5020 

Fax +34 9 1564 0800 

Contact: Dr Antonio Bello, Dpto Agroecologia 


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 

Email: Pfields@em.agr.ca 

http://res2.agr.ca/winnipeg/home.html 

Contact: Dr Paul Fields 

222

CeRSAA 

Regione Rollo, 98 

17031 Albenga, SV, Italy 

Tel +39 018 255 4949 

Fax +39 018 255 4949 

Contact: Dr Giovanni Minuto 

Climate Control Systems Inc 

509 Highway #77, RR #5, Leamington 

Ontario N8H 3V8, Canada 

Tel +1 519 322 2515 

Fax +1 519 322 2215 

Email: 102471.2570@compuserve.com 

CETAP/Antonio Matos Ltda 

Guimbra Anta. Apdo 60 

Espinho Codex P-4501, Portugal 

Tel +35 173 132 42 

Fax +35 173 414 64 

Email: cematos@mail.telepac.pt 

Charles Keddy Farms Ltd 

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 

Email: dchellemi@ushrl.ars.usda.gov 

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 

Email: cipasi@vlc.servicom.es 

CIAA Agricultural Research and Consultancy 

Center 

PO Box 140296 

Chía, Colombia 

Tel +571 865 0219 

Fax +571 865 0127 

Email: ciaa@andinet.com 

www.utadeo.edu.co 

Contact: Ms Rebecca Lee 

Ciba-Geigy 

Plant Protection Division 

PO Box 18300 

Greensborough, North Carolina 27419, USA 

Tel +1 919 632 6000 

CIG Ltd, Australia 

Chatswood 

New South Wales, Australia 

Fax +613 6447 2331 

Coco Hits SL 

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 

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 

Email: ronico@netvision.net.il 

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 

Email: melara@colpos.colpos.mx 

or ronaldfc@colpos.colpos.mx 

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 

Calle La Pineta s/n 

Valencia 46930, Spain 

Tel +34 961 920 061 

Fax +34 961 920 250 

Email: projar@projar.es 

Contact: Angeles Pérez Giner 

Comité Jean Pain 

Avenue Princesse Elisabeth 18 

1030 Brussels, Belgium 


223


224 

Commodity Storage 

PO Box 434, Riverstone 

New South Wales 2765, Australia 

Tel +612 838 1677 

Fax +612 838 1680 

Compañia Argentina Holandesa SA 

Fraga 1125 – 1427 

Buenos Aires, Argentina 

Tel +541 555 1010 

Fax +541 555 6420 

Email: cahce@overnet.com.ar 

Compañía Española de Tabaco SA 

CETARSA, Carretera de Navalmoral a Jarandilla, km 12 

Talayuela 


Tel +34 927 578 280 

Fax +34 927 551 291 

Email: cetarsa-id@teleline.es 

Contact: Ing. Francisco Arroyo 

Compo BV 

Filliersdreef 14 

B-9800 Deinze, Belgium 

Tel +329 381 8383 

Fax +329 386 7713 

Email: walter.stevens@skynet.be 

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 

Email: felixdl@dfl.telmex.net.mx 

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 

Email: gasca@nri.org 

Copesan Services Inc 

3490 N. 127th St. 

Brookfield, Wisconsin 53005, USA 

Tel 1 800 COPESAN or +1 262 783 6261 

Fax +1 262 783 6267 

info@copesan.com 

www.copesan.com/ 

Tel +1 414 783 6261 

Fax +1 414 783 6224 

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 

Cosago Ltda 

Carrera 38 No. 136 – 40 

PO Box 85324, Bogatá, Colombia 

Tel +571 633 0050 

Fax +571 633 0049 

Email: cosago@inter.net.co 

Contact: Mr Hernando Gomez 

Cosago Ltda (Ecuador) 

Av. A No. 673 y Calle N 

Urbanización el Condado 


Tel +59 32 491 523 or 492 355 

Fax +59 32 491 523 

Email: saymaco@yahoo.com 

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 

Email: info@crone.nl 

Contact: TGM Kleijweg 

Crop & Food Research 

Postharvest Disinfestation Program 

Private Bag, Kimberly Road 

Levin, New Zealand 

Contact: Dr Alan Carpenter

CSIRO Division of Entomology 

Stored Grain Research Laboratory 

GPO Box 1700, Canberra 

ACT 2601, Australia 

Tel +6126 246 4183 or 4201 

Fax +6126 246 4202 

Email: jane.wright@ento.csiro.au 

Contact: Dr Jane Wright, Dr Jonathan Banks, Dr Peter 

Annis, Mr Jan van S Graver 

CV Solanindo Duta Kencana 

Jl. Katelia II NO. 15 

Taman Yasmin, Bogor 16310 

Indonesia 

Tel +62 251 376 309 

Fax +62 251 347 970 

Email: solanindo@hotmail.com 

Cyprus Grain Commission 

PO Box 1777, Nicosia, Cyprus 

Tel +3572 762 131 

Fax +3572 752 141 

Email: cy.grain@cytanet.com.cy 

Cytec Canada Inc 

PO Box 240, Niagara Falls 

Ontario L2E 6T4, Canada 

Tel +1 905 374 5828 

Fax +1 905 374 5939 

Email: roger_cavasin@we.cytec.com 

Contact: Mr Roger Cavasin 

D 

Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences 

PO Box 50, DK-8830 Tjele 

Slagelse, Denmark 

Tel +45 8999 1900 

Fax +45 8999 1919 

Dr Michael Dann 

Penn State University 

114 Tyson Building 

University Park, Pennsylvania 16802, USA 

Tel +1 814 863 7721 

Dr Keith Davis 

Rothamstead Experimental Station 

IACR-Rothamstead 

Harpenden, Herts Al5 2JQ, UK 

Tel +44 1582 763 133 

Fax +44 1582 760 981 

DA Wiersma Research Corp Technologies 

6840 East Broadway Boulevard 

Tucson, Arizona 85710, USA 

Tel +1 602 296 6400 

De Baat BV 

Marconiweg 6 

7740 AB Coevorden, Netherlands 

Tel +31 524 515 631 

Fax +31 524 515 663 

De Ceuster nv 

Fortsesteenweg 30 

B-2860 Sint-Katelijne-Waver 

Belgium 

Tel +32 15 31 22 57 

Fax +32 15 31 36 15 

Email: dcm@dcmpronatura.com 

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 

Brandschneise 2 

D-64295 Darmstadt, Germany 

Tel +49 6155 846 90 

Fax +49 6155 846 911 

Email: info@demeter.de 

www.demeter.net 

Department of Agriculture 

Stored Products Laboratory 

Chatuchak, Bangkok, Thailand 

Tel +662 579 8576 

Fax +662 579 8535 

Department of Agriculture 

Division of Entomology and Zoology 

Bangkhen, Bangkok 9, Thailand 

Tel +662 579 8541 

Fax +662 561 5014 





Tel +1 530 752 1011 

Department of Stored Products 

The Volcani Center, PO Box 6 

Bet-Dagan, Israel 

Tel +972 3 968 3587 

Fax +972 3 960 4428 

Email: vtshlo@netvision.net.il 

Contact: Dr Shlomo Navarro, 

Dr Jonathan Donahaye 


225


De Ruiter Seeds Holland 

PO Box 1050, Bergschenhoek 

2660 BB, The Netherlands 

Tel +31 1052 92222 

Fax +31 1052 92400 

Desinsekta 

Schönberger Weg 3 

D-60488 Frankfurt am Main 

Germany 

Tel +49 69 763 040 

Fax +49 69 768 1036 

www.desinsekta.de 

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 

Email: julie.carter@ento.csiro.au 

Internet: http://www.ento.csiro.au 

Prof James DeVay 

Department of Plant Pathology 




Tel +1 530 752 7310 

Fax +1 530 752 5674 

Email: jedevay@ucdavis.edu 

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 

Email: agljidir@uco.es 

Dr Don Dickson 

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 

Email: dwd@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu 

DIREC-TS 

Badal, 19 - 21 B Entol 1° 

Barcelona 08014, Spain 

Tel +34 933 312 753 

Fax +34 933 315 289 

Email: direc-ts@sct.ichnet.es 

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 

Email: gullino@agraria.unito.it 

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 

Dr Jonathan Donahaye 

Agricultural Research Organisation 

PO Box 6, Bet-Dagan, Israel 

Tel +972 3 968 3585 

Fax +972 3 960 4428 

Email: jondon@netvision.net.il 

Dow AgroSciences 

9330 Zionsville Road 

Indianapolis, Indiania 46268-1054, USA 

Tel +1 317 337 4582 

Fax +1 317 337 4567 

Email: info@dowagro.com 

Contact: Michael W Melichar 

Dr Alan Dowdy 

Grain Marketing and Production 

Research Center 

USDA-ARS 

Manhatten, Kansas 66502, USA 

Tel +1 913 776 2719 

Email: dowdy@crunch.usgmrl.edu 

226

Dryacide Australia Pty Ltd 

1/20 Rye Lane Street 

Maddington 6109 

Western Australia 

Tel +619 459 9849 

Fax +619 493 2329 

Dryacide USA 

3536 Emerson Street, San Diego 

California 92106, USA 

Tel +1 619 222 1680 

Fax +1 619 523 1713 

E 

Eagle Picher Minerals Inc 

6110 Plumas St 

Reno, Nevada 89509, USA 

Tel +1 880 366 7607 

Fax +1 702 824 7694 

Earthgro 

PO Box 143, Route 207 

Lebanon, Connecticut 06249, USA 

Tel +1 203 642 7531 

Mr Patrick Ducom 

Laboratoire Dendrées Stockées, 

Chemin d’Artigues 

Cenon 33150, France 

Tel +33 556 326 220 

Fax +33 556 865 150 

Email: ducom@easynet.fr 

Dr John M Duniway 


One Shields Ave 


Tel +1 530 752 0324 

Fax +1 530 752 5674 

Email: jmduniway@ucdavis.edu 

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 

Email: ueyfd@montana.edu 

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 

Email: durstons@uc-garden.co.uk 

Dutch Plantin 

De Vlonder 3, PO Box 13 

5427 ZG Boekel, Netherlands 

Tel +31 492 32 4291 

Fax +31 492 32 4637 

Email: info@dutchplantin.com 

www.dutchplantin.com 

École Nationale Supérieure de Technologie, 

Université Cheikh Anta Diop 

BP 5005, Dakar-Fann, Senegal 

Tel +221 825 7528 

Fax +221 825 3724 

Email: info@ucad.sn 

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 


227


Eden BioScience 

11816 Northcreek Parkway North 

Bothell, Washington 98011, USA 

Tel +1 425 806 7300 

Fax +1 425 806 7400 

Dr Clyde Elmore, Vegetable Crops 

Department, University of California 



Tel +1 530 752 0612 

Email: clelmore@vegmail.ucdavis.edu 

Empresa Colombiana de Biotecnologia SA 

Carrera 50 # 17 - 65 


Tel +571 414 3851 

Fax +571 414 3879 

Email: mlleras@colomsat.net.co 

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 

Email: entosol@hotmail.com 

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. 

Dr Roberto García Espinosa 

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 

Email: rogar@colpos.colpos.mx 

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 

Email: ipm-manila@cgnet.com 

Contact: Dr Peter Ooi 

228

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 

Fenic Co Inc 

PO Box 1500 

Mercedes, Texas 78570, USA 

Tel +1 956 565 6120 

Fax +1 956 514 1712 

Email: fenic@hiline.net 

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 

Email: safennimore@ucdavis.edu 

Dr Ronald Ferrera-Cerrato 

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 

Email: ronaldfc@colpos.colpos.mx 

FHIA Foundation for Agricultural Research 

PO Box 2067 

San Pedro Sula, Honduras 

Tel +504 668 2809 

Fax +504 668 2313 

Email: dinvest@simon.intertel.hn 

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 

Email: marc@fibreform.com 

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 

Email: Pfields@em.agr.ca 

www.res2.agr.ca/winnipeg/stored.htm 

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 

Gerhard-Stalling-Strasse 7 

D-26135 Oldenburg, Germany 

Tel +49 441 20 920 

Fax +49 441 20 922 92 

www.floragard.de 

Floratorf Produckte 

Calle Real 38, Alhendín 

Granada 18620, Spain 

Tel +34 958 558 288 

FMC Foret Grupo Agroquimicos 

Barcelona, Spain 

Tel +34 934 167 400 

Food Protection Services 

95-715 Hinali Street 

Milliani, Hawaii 96789, USA 

Tel +1 808 625 1599 

Fax +1 808 625 1599 

Email: fps@gte.net 

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 

Email: jobsen@pfw.agro.nl 

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 


229


Dr Deborah Fravel 

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 

Email: dfravel@asrr.arsusda.gov 

Dr J Fresno, INIA 

Ctra de la Coruña km 7.5 


Tel +34 91 347 6889 

Fax +34 91 357 3107 

Email: jfresno@inia.es 

Fruitfed Supplies Ltd 

PO Box 2116 


Tel +649 525 0420 

Fax +649 525 0443 

Fumigation Service & Supply Inc 

10540 Jessup Boulevard 

Indianapolis, Indiana 46280-1451, USA 

Tel +1 317 846 5444 

Fax +1 317 846 9799 

Email: insectslimited@aol.com 

Website http://www.insectslimited.com/ Contact: David 

K Mueller or John Mueller 

FUNDASES Foundation for Consultancy of the 

Rural Sector 

Calle 83A # 72 – 24 


Tel +571 430 8987 

Fax +571 430 8997 

Email: omdfrdses@impsat.net.co 

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 

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 A López García 

FECOAM, c/Levante 5 


Tel +34 968 246 562 

Fax +34 968 234 565 

Email: fecoam@forodigital.es 

Gardex Chemicals Ltd 

7 Meridian Road, Etobicoke 

Ontario M9W 4Z6, Canada 

Tel +1 416 675 1638 

Fax +1 416 798 1647 

Email: kfurgiuele@gardexinc.com 

www.gardexinc.com 

Contact: Ms Karen Furgiuele 

Gas Process Control 

16 Jessie Street 

Seacliffe Park, SA 5049, Australia 

Tel +618 8298 2932 

Fax +618 8298 8553 

Email: yandbnagle@picknow1.com.au 

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 

University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan 

Tel +962 6 534 3555 x 2530 

Email: snober@ju.edu.jo 

Dr Raquel Ghini 

EMBRAPA/CNPMA, Caixa Postal 69 

13820-000 Jaguariuna 

São Paulo, Brazil 

Tel +55 19 867 8762 

Fax +55 19 867 5225 

Email: raquel@cnpma.embrapa.br 

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 

Email: drgilreath@aol.com 

Dr P Golob 

Tropical Products Institute 

London, UK 

Tel +44 20 7636 8636 

230

Dr Walter Gould 

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 

Email: miawg@ars-grin.gov 

WR Grace & Co 

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 

Email: arthur@usgmrl.ksu.edu 

Contact: Dr Frank H Arthur 


200 Baker Avenue, Suite 309 

Concord, Massachusetts 01742, USA 

Tel +1 978 371 7118 

Fax +1 978 371 7411 

Email: pvillers@gc.org 

www.grainpro.com 

Grainsmith Pty, Australia 

10 Beltana Road, Pialliago 

Canberra, ACT 2609, Australia 

Tel +612 62 489 228 

Email: apples@dynamite.com.au 

Grasso Products BV 

PO Box 343 

5201 AH-Hertogenbosch 


Tel +31 73 6203 911 

Fax +31 73 6214 320 

www.grasso.nl 

Dr Thaís Tostes Graziano 

Instituto Agronomico de Campinas 

Caixa Postal 28, 13001-970 

Campinas, SP Brazil 

Tel +55 19 241 9091 

Great Lakes Chemical Corporation 

One Great Lakes Boulevard 

West Lafayette, Indiana 47906, USA 

Tel +1 765 497 6100 

Fax +1 765 497 6123 

Great Lakes IPM 

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 


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 

Email: GrnSpt@internetMCI.com 

Griffith Laboratories 

Toronto, Ontario, Canada 

Tel +1 880 263 4476 or +1 416 288 3050 

www.griffithlabs.com/home.html 

Grodan 

PO Box 1160, 6040 KD Roermond 


Tel +31 475 353 010 

Fax +31 475 353 594 

Email: info@grodan.com 

www.grodan.com 

Grodan (Med) 

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 

Email: info@grodan.com 

Grodania AS 

Hovedgaden 501 

2640 Hedehusene, Denmark 

Tel +45 46 560 400 

Fax +45 46 561 211 

Email: Info@grodan.com 

www.grodan.com 


231


232 

Grondortsmettingen DeCeuster nv 

Fortsesteenweg 30, B-2860 


Tel +32 15 31 22 57 

Fax +32 15 31 36 15 

Email: dcm@dcmpronatura.com 

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 

Grow Group Netherlands 

Plantenkwekweij GNM Grootscholten BV, Postbus 118 

Naaldwijk AC 2670, Netherlands 

Tel +31 174 625 377 

Contact: Mr Jan Mulder 

GTZ Germany 

Proklima, Postfach 5180 

65756 Eschborn, Germany 

Tel +49 6196 79 1350 

Fax +49 6196 796 318 

Contact: Ms Sylvia Ullrich 

GTZ IPM project, Jordan 

PO Box 926238 

Amman, Jordan 

Tel +962 6 472 6682 

Fax +962 6 472 6683 

Email: gtzipm@go.com.jo 

Contact: Dr Volkmar Hasse 

GTZ IPM project, Morocco 

BP 43 Yacoub El Mansour 

10053 Rabat, Morocco 

Tel +212 7 690 670 

Fax +212 7 690 670 

Email: gtz-pest@mtds.com 

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 

Email: ipm@idsc.gov.eg 

Prof M Lodovica Gullino 

DI.VA.P.R.A. – Patologia Vegetale 

University of Turin 


Grugliasco 10095, Torino, Italy 

Tel +39 011 670 8539 

Fax +39 011 670 8541 


Guohua Soilless Cultivation Tech Co Ltd 

Beijing 100022 

China 

Tel +86 10 6515 9568 

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 

Email: cultivmt@supernet.com.co 

H 

Dr Saad Hafez 

University of Idaho 

29603 University of Idaho Lane 

Parma, Idaho 83660, USA 

Tel +1 208 722 6701 x 237 

Fax +1 208 722 6708 

Email: shafez@uidaho.edu 

Dr Guy Hallman 

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 

Email: ghallman@weslaco.ars.usda.gov 

Haogenplast 

Kibbutz Haogen 42880, Israel 

Tel +9729 898 2108 

Fax +9729 894 7758 

Email: tomdb@netvision.net.il 

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 

Dr Arnold Hara 


University of Hawaii 

461 W Lanikaula Street 


Tel +1 808 974 4105 

Fax +1 808 974 4110 

Email: arnold@hawaii.edu

Harmony Farm Supply 

3244 Gravenstein Highway, No B 

Sebastopol, California 95472, USA 

Tel +1 707 823 9125 

Fax +1 707 823 1734 

Email: info@harmonyfarm.com 

www.harmonyfarm.com 

Harrow Research Centre 


Harrow, Ontario NOR 1GO, Canada 

Tel +1 519 738 2251 x 423 

Fax +1 519 738 2929 

Email: papadopoulost@em.agr.ca 

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 



Beaumont Agricultural Research Center 



Tel +1 808 974 4105 

Fax +1 808 974 4110 

Email: arnold@hawaii.edu 

Contact: Dr Arnold Hara 

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 

Email: gamliel@agri.huji.ac.il 

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 

Email: hedcvn@ibm.net 

www.hedleytech.com 

Contact: Chris Van Natto (Winnipeg office) 

Helena Chemical Co 

6075 Poplar Avenue, Suite 500 

Memphis, Tennessee 38119, USA 

Tel +1 901 761 0050 

Henry Doubleday Research Association 

Ryton on Dunsmore, Coventry 

CV8 3LG, UK 

Tel +44 24 7630 3517 

Fax +44 24 7663 9229 

Email: enquiry@hdra.org.uk 

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 

Email: quickpot@wxs.nl 

Dr Tim Herman 

Crop and Food Research 


Tel +649 849 3660 

High Country Roses 

9122 E Highway 40 

PO Box148 

Jensen, Utah 84035, USA 

Tel +1 435 789 5512 

Fax +1 435 789 5517 

Email: roses@easilink.com 

Dr Robert Hill 

HortResearch, Ruakura 

New Zealand 

Tel +64 78 58 4775 

Fax +64 78 58 4702 

Email: rhill@hort.cri.nz 

Hishtil Ashkelon Nursery Ltd 

PO Box 360 

78102 Ashkelon, Israel 

Tel +972 7 734 464 

Fax +972 7 738 831 

Email: hishtil@netvision.net.il 

Contact: Menni Shadmi 

HKB 

Ankerkade 6, Venlo 

5928 PL, The Netherlands 

Tel +31 77 387 2424 


233


234 

Dr Bob Hochmuth 

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 

Email: bobhoch@ufl.edu 

Hoechst Far East Marketing Corp Philippines, 

Hoechst House 

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 

Email: hoitink.1@osu.edu 

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 

Email: peval@public.tpt.tj.cn 

www.peval.nl 

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 

Dr Seizo Horiuchi, National Research Institute 

of Vegetables, Ornamental Plants & Tea 

MAFF 

Morioka 

Iwate 020-0123, Japan 

Tel +81 196 41 2031 

Fax +81 196 41 6315 

Email: hrucs:nivot-m.affrc.go.jp 

Hortica Inc 

RR 1, 723 Robson Rd 

Waterdown, Ontario 

Canada LOR 2H1 

Tel +1 905 689 6984 

Fax +1 905 689 3002 

Hortiplan 

Drevendaal 1, B-2860 


Tel +32 15 31 67 02 

Fax +32 15 31 41 38 

Contact: Mr Bogairts 

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 

Email: hortitec@unete.com 

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 

Email: rhill@hort.cri.nz 

Contact: Dr Robert Hill 

HortResearch Post-harvest Science 

Private bag 92169, Mount Albert 


Tel +64 9 815 4217 

Fax +64 9 849 3660 

Email: mlay-yee@hort.cri.nz 

Contact: Dr Michael Lay-Yee 

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 

Hydro-Gardens Inc 

PO Box 25845 

Colorado Springs, Colorado 80936, USA 

Tel +1 719 495 2266 

Fax +1 719 531 0506 

Email: hgi@usa.net 

Website www.hydro-gardens.com 

Hy-Veld Seed Co 

Private Bag 2008, Ruwa, Zimbabwe 

Tel +26 373 2684 or 2685 

Fax +26 373 2658 

Email: thedges@mango.zw 

Contact: Trevor Hedges

I 

ICC-SIAPA, CER 

Via Vittorio Veneto 7 

S. Vincenzo di Galliera 

Bologna 40010, Italy 

Contact: Claudio Aloi 

IFM (Integrated Fertility Management) 

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 

Email: igrox@aol.com 

Contact: Mr Chris Watson 

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 

Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI) 

KS Krishnau Marg 

New Delhi 110012, India 

Industrial Oxygen Incorporated Berhad 

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 

Email: sicosa@ea.ictnet.es 

Inferco SL 

Playa Almarda, Poligono 56 

Sagunto, Valencia 46500, Spain 

Tel +34 962 608 856 

Fax +34 962 609 024 

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 

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 

Email: caingels@ucdavis.edu 

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 

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 

Email: insectslimited@aol.com 

Website www.insectslimited.com 

Contact: David K Mueller 

Institute of Biocontrol 

BBA, Darmstadt, Germany 

Tel +49 6151 407 227 

Email: e.koch.biocontrol.bba@t-online.de 

www.bba.de 

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 

Email: agljidir@uco.es 

Contact: Prof Rafael Jiménez Díaz 


235


236 

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 

INTA Famailla 

Túcúman, Argentina 

Tel +54 3863 610 48 

Fax +54 3863 615 46 

Email: avaleiro@inta.gov.ar 

Contact: Ing. Alejandro Valeiro 

International Forest Tree Seed Co 

Odenville, Alabama 35120, USA 

Tel +1 205 629 6461 

International Institute of Biological Control, 

Regional Office for Asia 

IIBC Station, PO Box 210 

43409 UPM Serdang 


Tel +603 942 6489 

Fax +603 942 6490 

Email: cabi-iibc-malaysia@cabi.org 

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 

Email: g.hill@cabi.org or j.waage@cabi.org 

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 


Regional Office for Africa 

PO Box 633 

Nairobi, ICRAF Complex, Kenya 

Tel +254 2 521 450 

Fax +254 2 521 001 or 522 150 

Email: arc@cabi.org 

International Maritime Fumigation 

Organisation 

PO Box 2022 

London W1A 5A, UK 

Tel +44 207 637 2131 

Fax +44 207 637 2151 

www.imfo.com 

International Mycological Institute 

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 

Email: iteco@iteco.es 

J 

Dr TA Jackson 

AgResearch, PO Box 60 

Lincoln, New Zealand 

Tel +643 325 6900 

Fax +643 325 2946 

Email: jacksont@agresearch.cri.nz

Jackson & Perkins 

1 Rose Lane 

Medford, Oregon 97501, USA 

www.jackson-perkins.com 

Dr K Jacobi 

Department of Primary Industry, 

Indooroopily, Brisbane 

Queensland, Australia 

Email: k.jacobi@dpi.qld.gov.au 

Dr Eric Jang 

Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center 

P. O. Box 4459 


Tel +1 808 959 4340 

Email: ejang@pbarc.ars.usda.gov 

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 

Email: roscoltd@latino.net.co 

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 

Dr Judy Johnson 

USDA-ARS 

Horticultural Crops Research Laboratory (HCRL) 



Tel +1 559 453 3030 

Email: jjohnson@asrr.arsusda.gov 

Jordanian-GTZ IPM programme 

PO Box 926238 

Amman, Jordan 

Tel +96 26 47 26 682 

Fax +96 26 47 26 683 


Contact: Dr Volkmar Hasse 

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 

Email: ortegajm@arrakis.es 

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 




Tel +1 530 752 0909 

Email: aakader@ucdavis.edu 

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 

Email: gamliel@agri.huji.ac.il 

Dr Fusao Kawakami 

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 

Email: jdr01717@niftyserve.or.jp 

Kemira Agro Oy 

Porkkalankatu 3, PO Box 330 

Helsinki 00101, Finland 

Tel +358 10 861 1511 

Fax +358 10 862 1384 


237


238 

Kennco Manufacturing 

PO Box 1158 

Ruskin, Florida 33570, USA 

Tel +1 813 645 2591 

Fax +1 813 645 7801 

Email: KenncoMfg@aol.com 

http://members.aol.com/kenncomfg/index.ht 

KFZB Biotechnik GmbH 

Glienicker Weg 185 

D-12489 Berlin, Germany 

Tel +49 30 670 570 

Fax +49 30 670 57233 

Dr Geoffry Kirenga 

Dar es Salaam University, PO Box 35091 

Dar es Salaam, Tanzania 

Tel +255 22 241 05008 

Email: caco@admin.udsm.ac.tz 

www.udsm.ac.tz 

Dr JA Kirkegaard 

CSIRO Division of Plant Industries 

GPO Box 1600 

Canberra 260, ACT, Australia 

Email: j.kirkegaard@pi.csiro.au 

Klasmann-Deilmann GmbH 

Georg-Klasmann-Strasse 2-10 

Geeste-Gross Hesepe 


Tel +49 5937 31 230 

Fax +49 5937 31 238 

Email: limbers@klasmann-deilmann.de 

www.klasmann-deilmann.com 

Dr Joseph Kloepper 



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 

Email: nburelle@saa.ars.usda.gov 

Koppert (Colombia) 

Carrera 39 No. 128A – 40 


Tel +571 633 0111 

Fax +571 627 0635 

Email: jhoyos@latino.net.co 

www.koppert.nl 

Contact: Mr Juan Camilo Hoyos 

Koppert (Mexico) 

Andrómeda 47 1er piso 

Colonia Prado Churubusco 

México DF 14230, Mexico 

Tel +52 5 532 5900 

Fax +52 5 532 5660 

Email: cmexflor@mexred.net.mx 

Contact: Ing. Maria Eugenia Lee 

Koppert 

Veilingweg 17, PO Box 155 

2650 AD Berkel en Rodenrijs 


Tel +31 105 140 444 

Fax +31 105 115 203 

Email: info@koppert.nl 

www.koppert.nl 

Dr Zlatko Korunic 

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 

Email: hedzk@ibm.net 

Dr Jürgen Kroschel 

University of Kassel 

Institute for Crop Science 

Steinstrasse 19, Witzenhausen 


Tel +49 55 42 98 13 11 

Fax +49 55 42 98 12 30 

Email: kroschel@wiz.uni-kassel.de 

L 

Dr Alfredo Lacasa 

CIDA, Estación Sericícola 

La Alberca, Murcia, Spain 

Tel +34 968 366 777 

Fax +34 968 366 793 or 92 

Email: alacasa@forodigital.es 

Dr Franco Lamberti 

Instituto di Nematologia Agraria CNR 

70126 Bari, Italy 

Email: istnema@area.ba.cnr.it

Dr Kirk Larson 


Irvine, California 92697, USA 

Tel +1 714 857 0136 

Email: kdlarson@ucdavis.edu 

Lipha Tech 

3600 W Elm Street 

Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53209, USA 

Tel +1 414 351 1476 

Fax +1 414 351 1847 

Laverlam 

Carrera 5 No. 47 – 165 

A. A. 9985, Cali, Colombia 

Tel +572 447 4411 

Fax +572 447 4409 

Email: laverlam@laverlam.com.co 

www.laverlam.com.co 

Contact: Ing. Carlos Delgado 

Dr George Lazarovits 

Pest Management Research Centre 

1391 Sandiford Street 

London, Ontario N5V 4T3, Canada 

Tel +1 519 663 3099 

Fax +1 519 663 3454 

Email: lazarovitsg@em.agr.ca 

Dr Michael Lay-Yee and colleagues, 

HortResearch, 

Mount Albert 


Tel +649 815 4200 

Fax +649 815 4207 

Email: mlay-yee@hort.cri.nz or bwaddell@hort.cri.nz 

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 

Email: ldeleon@chasque.apc.org.uy 

Linde AG Refrigeration 

Abraham-Lincoln-Strasse 21 

65189 Wiesbaden, Germany 

Tel +49 611 7700 

Fax +49 611 770 269 

www.linde.de 

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 

Email: ROBERT.LINDERMAN@usda.gov 

Lindig Corporation 

Steam equipment 

PO Box 130130 

Roseville MN 55113, USA 

Lockheed Martin Idaho Technologies Co 

PO Box 1625 

Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415-3805, USA 

Tel +1 208 526 2695 

Fax +1 208 526 0953 

Contact: William J Inman 

Dr Satish Lodha 

Central Arid Zone Research Institute 

Jodhpur 342003, India 

Email: cazri@x400.nicgw.nic.in 

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 

Email: lombriz@citsatex.com.mx 

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 

North Carolina State University 

PO Box 7616 

Raleigh, North Carolina 27695, USA 

Tel +1 919 515 6689 

Email: frank_louws@ncsu.edu 

LS Horticultura España SA 

Carretera Pinatar 95, San Javier 


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 



239


240 

Dr Gerhard Lung 

University of Hohenheim 

Institute of Phytomedicine, 360c 

D-70599 Stuttgart, Germany 

Tel +49 711 459 0, ext 2405 

Email: glung@uni-hohenheim.de 

M 

Ing. Juan Carlos Magunacelaya 

Avda. Brasil 2950 

Valparaiso 4059, Chile 

Tel +56 2 678 5821 

Fax +56 2 678 5700 

Email: edelahoz@aixi.ucv.cl 

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 

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 

Malaysia Oxygen Berhad 

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 

Dr Robert Mangan 

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 

Email: rmangan@weslaco.ars.usda.gov 

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 

Email: agriphyt@aol.com 

Dr Nicholas Martin 



Tel +649 849 3660 

Fax +649 815 4201 

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 

Email: mazzola@tfrl.ars.usda.gov 

Dr Robert McGovern 

Gulf Coast Research and Education Center 

5007 60th Street East 

Bradenton, Florida 34203, USA 

Tel +1 941 751 7636 

Dr Michael McKenry 


9240 South Riverbend Avenue 


Tel +1 559 646 6500 

Fax +1 559 646 6593 

Email: mckenry@uckac.edu 

MC Solvents Co Ltd 

180-184 Rajawongge Road 

5th floor Metro Building 


Tel +66 2 223 1294 

Fax +66 2 224 9839 

Dr Robert McSorley 

Dept. Nematology & Entomology 


PO Box 110620 

Gainesville, Florida 32611-0620, USA 

Tel +1 352 392 1901 

Email: rmcs@grv.ifas.ufl.edu 

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: mail@benmeadows.com or export@benmeadows.com 

for international contact

Medak 

Andhra Pradesh, India 

Tel +91 8458 794 74 

Email: somphyto@hotmail.com 

Megafarma SA de CV 

Narcisco Mendoza No. 15 

Col. Manuel A. Camacho 

Mexico DF 

Tel +525 589 5144 

Fax +525 293 1184 

Email: geolife@megafarma.com.mx 

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 

Email: mail@melcourt.co.uk 

www.melcourt.co.uk 

Minfeng Industrial Co 

Min Feng Shi Ye Company 

Hua Yuan Road 136 

Jinan 250100, China 

Tel +86 531 891 9285 

Fax +86 531 825 0100 

Dr A Minuto 


University of Torino 


10095 Grugliasco, Torino, Italy 

Tel +39 0182 554 949 

Fax +39 011 670 8541 

Email: labfito@netscape.net 

Miqdadi Co 

PO Box 431 


Tel +962 6 566 8973 

Fax +962 6 567 8973 

Dr Nahum Marbán Mendoza 

Universidad Autónoma de Chapingo, 

Estado de México, Mexico 

Tel +52 595 422 00 x 180 

Fax +52 595 496 92 

Email: nmarbanm@fc.camoapa.com.mx 

Dr Klaus Merckens 

Egyptian Biodynamic Association 

PO Box 1535, Alf Maskan 

ET 11777, Cairo, Egypt 

Tel +202 281 8886 

Fax +202 281 8886 

Email: ebda@sekem.com 

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 

Email: microsol@iafrica.com 

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 

Email: celia@carpa.ciagri.usp.br 

Mission de Coopération Phytosanitaire 

BP 7309, 34184 Montpellier 

Cedex 4, France 

Tel +33 467 753 090 

Fax +33 467 031 021 

Dr Elizabeth Mitcham 


One Shields Avenue, Wickson Hall 


Tel +1 530 752 7512 

Fax +1 530 752 8502 

Email: ejmitcham@ucdavis.edu 

Metalúrgica Manllenense SA 

Fontcuberta 32 – 36, Manlleu 

Barcelona 08560, Spain 

Tel +34 938 511 599 

Fax +34 938 511 645 

Email: metmann@lix.intercom.es 

Dr Harold Moffitt 

Yakima Agricultural Research Laboratory, USDA-ARS 

3706 W. Nob Hill Boulevard 

Yakima, Washington 98902, USA 

Email: HAROLD.MOFFITT@usda.gov 

Ing Camilla Montecinos 

Director 

Centro de Educacion y Tecnologia 


Fax +56 22 337 239 

Email: adm@cet.mic.cl 


241


Morse Growers Supplies Inc 

50 Hazelton Street, Box 33 

Leamington, Ontario 

N8H 3W1, Canada 

Tel +1 519 326 9037 

Fax +1 519 326 5861 or 9290 

Email: morse@mnsi.net 

Contact: Mr Kelly Devaere 

Mycontrol Ltd 

Alon Hagalil M.P. 

Nazereth Elit 17920, Israel 

Tel +972 4986 1827 

Fax +972 4986 1827 

Email: mycontro@netvision.net.il 

Mycor Plant 

General Pardiñas 99 4°D 

Madrid 28006, Spain 

Tel +34 91 561 6907 

Fax +34 91 561 7961 

Email: mycorplant@tsyt.net 

Contact: Angel Baron 

N 

Nabat Agricultural & Trading Co 

PO Box 926160 


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 

Email: cipm@ncsu.edu 

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 Insecto Products 

Orange, California 92856-0915, USA 

Tel +1 880 332 2002 

Fax +1 949 548 4576 

Email: info@insecto.com 

www.insecto.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 

Email: bob.taylor@nri.uk 

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 

Email: nai@bcsupernet.com 

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 

Email: navarro@qnis.net 

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 

Email: neven@yarl.gov 

242

New BioProducts Inc 

4737 NW Elmwood Dr 

Corvallis, Oregon 97330, USA 

Tel +1 541 752 2045 

Fax +1 541 754 3968 

New Era Farm Service 

23004 Rd 140 

Tulare, California 93274, USA 

Tel +1 200 686 3833 

Fax +1 209 686 1453 

Nico Haasnoot bv 

Zaltbommel, Netherlands 

Tel +31 418 515 253 

Fax +31 418 515 821 

Contact: Mr Toon Melis 

O 

Ole Myhrene Krike 

3410 Sylling, Norway 

Fax +46 776 1285 

Olson Products Inc 

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 

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 

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 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 

Email: ipm-manila@cgnet.com 

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 

Email: parc@em.agr.ca 

Pacific Southwest Forest and Range 

Experiment Station 

Forest Service USDA 

1960 Addison St 

Berkeley, California 94701, USA 

Contact: Dr Jacqueline Roberton 

Dr Hülya Pala 

Plant Protection Research Institute 

Ministry of Agriculture 

Adana, Turkey 

Tel +90 322 321 1958 

Fax +90 322 322 4820Email: h.pala@ppri.ad.tk 

Contact: Dr Seral Yücel 


243


Panth Produkter AB 

Fabriksvägen 7 

742 34 Östhammar, Sweden 

Tel +46 173 12617 

Fax +46 173 213 27 

Email: kontakt@panth.se 

www.panth.se 

Dr Tom Papadopoulos 

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 

Email: papadopoulost@em.agr.ca 

www.res.agr.ca/harrow 

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 

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 

Email: info@pbg.agro.nl 

www.agro.nl/pbg/ 

Peaceful Valley Farm Supply 

PO Box 2209 

Grass Valley, California 95945, USA 

Tel +1 530 272 4769 

Fax +1 530 272 4794 

Perma-Chink Systems, Inc 

1605 Prosser Road 

Knoxville, Tennessee 37914, USA 

Tel +1 865 524 7343 

Fax +1 865 528 9471 

Email: pcsmail@ricochet.net 

www.permachink.com/ 

Perma-Guard Inc 

PO Box 25282 

Albuquerque, New Mexico 87125, USA 

Tel +1 505 873 3061 

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 

Peter van Luijk bv 

Langewateringkade 35b 

2295 RP Kwintsheul 


Tel +31 174 292 662 

Fax +31 174 298 443 

Email: info@peval.nl 

www.peval.nl 

Dr Thomas Phillips 


Oklahoma State University 

127 Noble Research Center 

Stillwater, Oklahoma 74078, USA 

Tel +1 405 744 9408 

Fax +1 405 744 6039 

Email: tomp@okway.okstate.edu 

Philom Bios 

318-111 Research Drive, Saskatoon 

Saskatchewan S7N 2X8, Canada 

Tel +1 306 668 8220 

Fax +1 306 975 1215 

Pindstrup Mosebrug SAE 

Carretera Burgos – Santander 

km 11.700, Sotopalacios 

Burgos 09140, Spain 

Tel +34 947 441 000 

Fax +34 947 441 003 

Ms Marta Pizano 

HortiTecnia 

Carrera 19 No. 85 – 65 piso 2 


Tel +571 621 8108 

Fax +571 617 0730 

Email: hortitec@unete.com 

244

P Kooij & Zonen BV 

PO Box 341, Aalsmer 

1430 AH, The Netherlands 

Tel +31 297 382038 

Fax +31 297 382020 

Email: carnation@kooij.nl 

Planet Natural 

PO Box 3146 

Bozeman, Montana 59772, USA 

Tel +1 406 587 5891 

Fax +1 406 587 0223 

Plant Health Care 

440 William Pitt Way 

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15238, USA 

Tel +1 412 826 5488 

Plant Health Technologies 

926 E. Santa Ana 


Tel +1 209 226 7032 

Fax +1 209 226 7032 

Plásticos Solanas SL 

Constitución 30 B, Cuarte 

Zaragoza 50410, Spain 

Tel +34 976 503 092 

Fax +34 976 504 530 

Plastigomez C Ltda 

Avenida Vaca de Castro 164 y 

Avenida de la Prensa 


Tel +593 2 53 1053 

Fax +593 2 591 774 

Email: cgomez@gye.satnet.net 

Contact: Mr Danilo Jaramillo 

Plastilene SA 

Km 8 Autopista Sur 

Zona Industrial Cazucá 

PO Box 11556 


Tel +571 775 0800 

Fax +571 778 0700 

Email: plastilene@colomsat.net.co 

Contact: Mr Felipe Herrera 

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 

Plastor Hazorea 

Kibbutz Hazorea 

30060 Israel 

Tel +972 4 959 8800 

Fax +972 4 989 4250 

Poliex SA 

Polígono Industrial s/n, Castalla 

Alicante 03420, Spain 

Tel +34 966 560 500 

Fax +34 966 560 504 

Polygal Plastic Industries Ltd 

Ramat Hashofet 19238, Israel 

Tel +972 4959 6222 

Fax +972 4959 6281 

Email: sales@polygal.co.il 

www.polygal.com 

Polyon Inc, Israel (PolyWest) 

4883 Ronson Court, Ste. R 

San Diego, California 92111, USA 

Tel +1 619 279 6393 

Fax +1 619 279 6394 

Dr Ian Porter 

Agriculture Victoria, Knoxfield 

Private Bag 15 SE 

Victoria VIC 3176, Australia 

Tel +613 9210 9217 

Fax +613 9800 3521 

Email: ian.j.porter@nre.vic.gov.au 

Power Plastics 

Station Road, Thirsk 

York YO7 1PZ, UK 

Tel +44 1845 525 503 

Fax +44 1845 525 485 

Pristine Products 

2311 E Indian School Road 

Phoenix, Arizona 85016, USA 

Tel +1 602 955 7031 

Prodeasa 

Cami de Sant Roc s/n, Vilablareix 

Girona 17180, Spain 

Tel +34 972 241 929 

Fax +34 972 231 659 

Email: prodeasa@ea.ichnet.es 

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 

Email: pqa@emtelsa.multi.net.co 

Contact: Luisa Escobar 


245

Productos Químicos Andinos Ecuador 

Panamericana Norte Km 10 

Sector Carretas Lote 7 


Tel +593 2 425 054 or 425 055 

Fax +593 2 425 050 

Pro-Gro Products Inc 

841 Pro-Gro Drive, PO Box 1945 

Elizabeth City, North Carolina 27909, USA 

Tel or Fax +1 252 338 5128 

PT Elang Laut 

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 

PTG Glasshouse Crops Research Station 

PO Box 8, Naaldwijk, Netherlands 

Tel +31 174 036 700 

Fax +31 174 036 835 


Propagar Plantas SA 

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 

Email: propagar@impsat.net.co 

Contact: Ing. Rodolfo La Rota 

Prophyta Biologischer Pflanzenschutz GmbH 

Intelstrasse 12 

D-23999 Malchow-Poel, Germany 

Tel +49 384 25 230 

Fax +49 384 25 2323 

Email: info@prophyta.com 

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 


Tel +62 21 629 0416 or 669 8937 

PT Aneka Gas 

Jalan Minangkabu 60 


Tel +62 21 829 6108 

Telex 48362 AKGAS IA 

PT Petrokimiya Kayaku 

Jalan Jend A Yani, Kotak Pos 107 

Gresik 61101, Surabaya, Indonesia 

Tel +62 31 981 815 or 831 

Fax +62 31 981 830 

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 


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 

246

Dr William Quarles 

Bio-Integral Resource Center 

PO Box 7414 

Berkely, California 94707, USA 

Tel +1 510 524 2567 

Fax +1 510 524 1758 

Email: birc@igc.apc.org 

www.igc.apc.org/birc/ 

R 

Rancho Tissue Technologies 

PO Box 1138, Rancho 

Santa Fe, California 92067, USA 

Tel +1 619 756 6785 

Fax +1 619 756 0894 

Email: rttinc@aol.com 

Contact: Ms Heather May 

Reciorganic Ltda 

Diagonal 108A No. 6-2 


Tel +571 218 7565 

Fax +571 213 4234 

Email: guribega@latino.net.co 

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 

Email: jcheca@interbook.net 

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 

Email: ean@mail.tel.epac.pt 

Remmers (borates) GmbH 

PO Box 12 55, Löningen 


Tel +49 5432 83187 

Fax +49 5432 83399 

www.remmers.de 

Contact: Mr HJ van Dijken 

Rentokil Germany 

Wahlerstrasse 4, Düsseldorf 


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 

Email: jackh@rexius.com 

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 

Email: bugnet@west.net 

Prof Rolf Röber 

Institut für Zierpflanzenbau 

Am Staudengarten 8 

D-85350 Freising, Germany 

Tel +49 8161 71 3363 

Fax +49 8161 71 5106 

Email: zierpflanzenbau.va@fh-weihenstephan.de 

www.fh-weihenstephan.de/va/ 


247


Rockwool-Industries AS 

Hovedgaden 584 

SK-2640 Hedehusene, Denmark 

Tel +45 46 560 300 

Tel +45 46 563 311 

www.rockwool.sk 

Dr Rodrigo Rodríguez-Kábana 



209 Life Sciences Building 

Auburn, Alabama 36849, USA 

Tel +1 334 844 4714 

Fax +1 224 844 1948 

Email: rrodrigu@acesag.auburn.edu 

Dr F Romero 

Centro de Investigación Las Torres, 41200 Alcalá del 

Rio, Sevilla, Spain 

Tel +34 5 565 0808 

Fax +34 5 565 0373 

Email: cifatorr@cap.caan.es 

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 

Email: alanl@ruffneckheaters.com 

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 

Email: consult@cnrs.edu.lb 

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 

Ing. R Sanz, CCMA 

Dpto Agroecologia, Centro de Ciencias 

Medioambientales CCMA 

CSIC, Serrano, 115 dpdo. 


Tel +34 91 562 5020 

Tel +34 981 564 0800 

Email: rsanz@ccma.csis.es 

Sashco Sealants 

10300 E 107th Place 

Brighton, Colorado 80601, USA 

Tel +1 880 767 5656 

Email: info@sashco.com 

Western USA Contact: Melani Torrez 

Email: mtorrez@sashco.com 

Eastern USA Contact: Karyn Nostrum 

Email: knostrum@sashco.com 

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 

Agricultural Institute 

Cario, Egypt 

Fax +202 384 4899 or 5723 146 

248

SB Talee 

Calle 82 No. 11 – 83 Of 501 


Tel +571 256 8640 

Fax +571 218 4864 

Email: sbcol@anditel.andinet.lat.net 

Contact: Mr Celiar Noreña 

SCC Products 

2641 W. Woodland Drive 

Anaheim, California 92801, USA 

Tel +1 714 761 3292 

Email: sansone@pacbell.net 

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 

Email: eschmidt@cnr.umn.ed 

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 

Email: stikem@seabrightlabs.com 

www.seabrightlabs.com 

Selecta Klemm 

Carrera 9 No. 80 – 15 Of. 1002 


Tel +571 255 9048 

Fax +571 255 7596 

Email: selklemm@aol.com 

Contact: Mr Camilo Santamaria 

Selecta Klemm 

Hanfäcker 10 

70378 Stuttgart, Germany 

Tel +49 711 9532 50 

Fax +49 711 9532 540 

Email: office@selectaklemm.de 

SGS Far East Ltd 

994 Soi Thonglor, Sukhumvit Road 55 

Prakanong, Bangkok 10110, Thailand 

Tel +66 2 392 1066 

Fax +66 2 381 2022 

Dr Jennifer Sharp 

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 

kshellie@weslaco.ars.usda.gov 

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 




Prof Richard Sikora 




Nussallee 9 


Tel +49 228 732 439 

Fax +49 228 732 432 


Sino Dutch Training and Demonstration 

Centre, SIDHOC 

No.2, Zhen Dong Lu, Nanhui County 

Shanghai 201303, China 





249


250 

Sioux Steam Cleaner Corp 

One Sioux Plaza 

Beresford, South Dakota 57004, USA 

Tel +1 605 763 3333 

Fax +1 605 763 3334 

Email: sioux@bmtc.net 

www.siouxsteam.com 

Sluis & Groot 

Postbus 26, 1600 AA 

Enkhuizen, Netherlands 

Dr Edwin Soderstrom 

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 

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 


Tel +603 942 6489 

Fax +603 942 6490 

Email: cabi-iibc-malaysia@cabi.org 

Sotrafa 

Carretera Nacional 340, km 416,4 

El Ejido, Almería 04700, Spain 

Tel +34 950 580 442 

Fax +34 950 580 233 

Email: sotrafa@mundivia.es 

Contact: Ing. Carlos López García 

Southern Importers 

PO Box 8579 

Greensboro, North Carolina 27419, USA 

Tel +1 336 292 4521 

Fax +1 336 852 6397 

Email: sales@southernimporters.com 

www.southernimporters.com 

Contact: Ms Georgia Kinney 

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 

Email: specmeters@aol.com 

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 

Email: vpspigl@netvision.net.il 

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 

Email: jweier@spraguepest.com 

Contact: Mr Jeff Weier 

Dr James Stapleton 


Univerisity of California 



Tel +1 209 646 6536 

Fax +1 209 646 6593 

Email: jim@uckac.edu 

Statewide IPM Project 




Parlier, CA 93648, USA 

Tel +1 209 646 6000 

Fax +1 209 646 6015 

www.ipm.ucdavis.edu

Steamist Company 

PO Box 1171 

275 Veterans Blvd 

Rutherford, New Jersey 07070, USA 

Tel +1 201 933 0700 

Fax +1 201 933 0746 

Email: steamist@worldnet.att.net 

www.steamist.com 

Contact: John Duggan 

Prof Alison Stewart 

Plant Science Department 

Lincoln University, Canterbury 

New Zealand 

Tel +643 325 2811 

Email: stewarta@lincoln.ac.nz 

Stine Microbial Products 

6613 Haskins 

Shawnee, Kansas 66216, USA 

Tel +1 913 268 7504 

Fax +1 913 268 7504 

Stine Seed Co 

Adel, Iowa 50003, USA 

Tel +1 515 677 2605 

Suata Plants (Chile) 

Casilla 60 Lampa 


Tel +562 243 1611 or 842 6071 

Fax +562 243 3030 

Email: mabiggi@entelchile.net 

Suata Plants SA (Colombia) 

Calle 124 No. 35 – 15 Of 202 

PO Box 54399 


Tel +571 619 8491 

Fax +571 215 9988 

Email: suatap@colomsat.net.co 

www.suataplants.com.co 

Contact: Mr Julio Piñeros 

Suata Plants SA (Ecuador) 

Antonio Navarro 148 y Whimper 


Tel +593 222 6045 or 970 6451 

Fax +593 222 6045 

Email: eorjuela@accesinter.net 

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 

Email: coxflor@mail.dsinet.com.mx 

Subtropical Agriculture Research Laboratory, 


Center 

USDA-ARS 

2413 E Hwy 83, Bldg 200 

Weslaco, Texas78596, USA 

Contact: Dr Robert Mangan, Dr Krista Shellie 

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 

Dr Donald Sumner 


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) 




Tel +1 530 752 7556 

Fax +1 530 754 8550 

Email: sarep@ucdavis.edu 

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 


251


252 

Dr Bob Taylor 


Cental Avenue, Chatham Maritime 

Chatham, Kent ME4 4TB, UK 

Tel +44 1634 88 3778 

Fax +44 1634 88 3567 

Email: r.w.taylor@greenwich.ac.uk 

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 

Technisches Bericht Forschungsanstalt 

Geisenheim – Gemüsebau 

Von-Lade-Strasse 1 

D-6222 Geisenheim/Rh., 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 

Email: tenutam@em.agr.ca 

Tézier rootstock 

Boite postal 34A 

Tézier, France 

Fax +334 75 53 83 52 

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 

The Green Spot Ltd 

93 Priest Road, Nottingham 

NH 03290-6204, USA 

Tel +1 603 942 8925 

Fax +1 603 942 8932 

Email: GrnSpt@internetMCI.com 

Thermeta 

Westlandse weg 14 

14 Wateringen, Netherlands 

Thermo Lignum UK 

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 

Thermo Lignum Germany 

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 

Prof Eleuterios Tjamos 

Dpt of Plant Pathology 

Agricultural University of Athens 

Votanikos 11855 

Athens, Greece 

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 

PO Box 467 

Media, Pennsylvania 19063, USA 

Tel 1 800 892 TOPP (in North America only) 

Email: topp@dca.net 

Website www.safeheat.com 

Torfstreuverband GmbH 

Bioherfelder Strasse 39 

Oldenburg D-2900, Germany 

Tel +49 441 700 30 

Fax +49 441 720 01 

TransFRESH Corp 

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 

Turbas GF 

Carretera de Segura s/n, Idiazábal 

Cuipúzcoa 20213, Spain 

Tel +34 943 187 567 

Fax +34 943 187 311 

Turco Silvestro e Figli SnC 

Via Dalmazia 95 

17031 Albegna, SV, Italy 

Tel +39 0182 513 88 

Fax +39 0182 540 548 

Contact: Mr Biagio Turco 

Dr Anne Turner 

Agricultural consultant 

OPPAZ 

PO Box 34465 

Lusaka, Zambia 

Tur-Net 

Ringoven 20, Veldhoven 

5502 DB, The Netherlands 

Transplant Systems Ltd 

PO Box 295, Berwick 

Victoria 3806, Australia 

Tel +613 9769 9733 

Fax +613 9769 9722 

Email: transplant@moreinfo.com.au 

Transplant Systems Ltd 

Box 29-074, Christchurch 

New Zealand 

Tel +643 348 2823 

Fax +643 348 2824 

Triton Umweltschutz GmbH 

Zoebiger Strasse 24-25 

D-06749 Bitterfeld, Germany 

Tel +49 349 373 509 

Fax +49 349 373 909 

Email: triton@tpnet.de 

www.umwelt-triton.de 

Tropical Fruit and Vegetable Research 

Laboratory 

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 



Tel +1 559 453 3101 

Fax +1 559 453 3122 

Email: ttrout@asrr.arsusda.gov 

U 

UNIFERT Co 

PO Box 6965 

Amman, Jordan 

Tel +962 6 568 1331 or 1332 

Fax +962 6 568 2465 

United Phosphorus 

167 Dr Annie Bezant Road, Worli 

Bombay 400 018, India 

Tel +91 22 493 0681 or 0560 

Fax +91 22 493 826 

Universidad Autónoma de Chapingo 

Estado de México, Mexico 

Tel +52 595 422 00 x 180 

Fax +52 595 496 92 

Email: nmarbanm@fc.camoapa.com.mx 

Contact: Dr Nahum Marbán Mendoza 





Nussallee 9 


Tel +49 228 732 439 

Fax +49 228 732 432 


Contact: Prof Richard Sikora 


253



IPM Project 




Tel +1 209 646 6000 

Fax +1 209 646 6015 

www.ipm.ucdavis.edu 





Tel +1 530 752 1011 


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 

Email: arnold@hawaii.edu 

Contact: Dr Arnold Hara 

University of Zimbabwe 

Crop Science Department 

PO Box MP 167, Mount Pleasant 


Tel +26 34 303 211 

Fax +26 34 333 407 

Urban Pest Control Research Center 


Virginia Polytechnic Institute 

and State University 

Blacksburg, Virginia 24061-0319, USA 

Tel +1 315 540 231 

US Borax Inc 

26877 Tourney Road 

Valencia, California 91355-1847, USA 

Tel +1 661 287 5400 

V 

Dr D Vakalounakis 

N.AG.RE.F, Plant Protection Institute 

Heraklion, Crete, Greece 

Email: vakalounakis@nefeli.imbb.forth.gr 

Van Staaveren BV (Colombia) 

PO Box 89477 


Tel +571 864 0804 

Fax +571 864 0776 

Email: info@vanstaaveren.nl 

Contact: Mr Alvaro Velasco 

Van Staaveren BV 

PO Box 265, Aalsmeer 

Lavendelweg 15, Rijsenhout 

1430 AG, The Netherlands 

Tel +31 297 387 000 

Fax +31 297 387 070 

Email: info@vanstaaveren.nl 

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 

Victory Upholstery and Canvas Store 

672 Gandara Street, Santa Cruz 


Tel +63 2 492 766 or 495 701 

Vilter Manufacturing Corp 

5555 South Packard Avenue 

PO Box 8904 

Cudahy, Wisconsin 53110-8904, USA 

Tel: +1 414 744 0111 

Fax: +1 414 744 3483 

Vivaio Leopardi 

Di Leopardi e C. 

Osimo, AN, Italy 

http://noria.ba.cnr.it/tepore/Convegno_innesto.htm 

VLACO VZW 

Kan. De Deckerstraat 22-26 

2800 Mechelen, Belgium 

Tel +32 15 208 320 

Fax +32 15 218 335 

254

Vortus BV 

Olivier van Noortstraat 4 

3142 LA Schiedam, Netherlands 

Tel +31 10 471 2858 

Fax +31 10 471 3158 

Wilbur-Ellis 

PO Box 1286 


Tel +1 209 442 1220 

Fax +1 209 442 4089 

W 

Waipuna International Ltd 

PO Box 62-140, Mount Wellington 


Tel +649 276 5840 

Fax +649 276 0330 

Email: wil@waipuna.com 

www.waipuna.com 

Waipuna USA Inc 

701 West Buena #3 

Chicago, Illinois 60613, USA 

Tel +1 773 255 8355 

Fax +1 773 348 0516 

Email: mhaver2857@aol.com 

Dr Vern Walter 

WAW Inc, PO Box 465 

Leakey, Texas 78873, USA 

Tel +1 830 232 5834 

Email: vwalter@hctc.net 

Prof Tang Wenhau 

Dept. Plant Pathology 

China Agricultural University 

Beijing 100094, China 

Tel +86 10 628 930 37 

Fax +86 10 628 910 25 

Email: tangwh@public.east.cn.net 

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 


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 

Email: info@wholewheat.com 

www.permaguard.com 

Mr Peter Wilkinson 

IPM consultant, Xylocopa 

PO Box 1011, Borrowdale 


Tel +263 488 2094 

Fax +263 488 3936 

Email: xylocopa@utande.co.zw 

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 

Email: gwolf@gwdg.de 

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 

Email: weblink@woodsend.org 

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 


255

Wrightson Seeds 

Melbourne, Australia 

Tel +613 9360 9910 

Fax +613 9360 9940 

Contact: Mr Rod Way 

X 

Z 

Zeneca 

Syngenta, Schwarzwald allee 215 

CH-4002 Basel, Switzerland 

Tel +41 61 697 1111 

www.zeneca.com 


Xylocopa Systems PL 

PO Box 1011, Borrowdale 


Tel +26 34 882 094 

Fax +26 34 882 094 

Email: xylocopa@utande.co.zw 

Contact: Peter Wilkinson, IPM consultant 

Y 

York International GmbH 

Postfach 100465 

D-68004 Mannheim 

Germany 

Tel +49 621 4680 

Fax +49 621 468 654 

Dr Larry Zettler, USDA-ARS 

Horticultural Crops Research Laboratory 

2021 S Peach Ave 

Fresno CA 93727, USA 

Tel +1 559 453 3023 

Fax +1 559 453 3088 

Email: lzettler@qnis.net 

University of Zimbabwe 

Crop Science Department 

PO Box MP 167, Mount Pleasant 


Tel +26 34 303 211 

Fax +26 34 333 407 

Zip Research 

PO Box CY301, Causeway 


Tel +26 34 726 911 

Contact: Dr Sam Page 

256

Annex 7 

References, Websites and 

Further Information 

Section 1 Introduction 

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 

257


Section 4 Alternative techniques for controlling soil-borne pests 

Section 4.1 IPM and cultural practices 

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. 

258

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. 

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.153- 

159. 

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. 


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, 


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

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.213- 

236. 

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. 

UC 1991. Establishing IPM Policies and Programs. Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University 

of California, Oakland, California, USA. 10pp. 


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.unihannover.de/extern/ppigb/ppigb.htm 

Soil 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. 


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. PNW- 

GTR-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 By- 

Products. 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, 


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: 


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/mbrpro97.html 

Cartia 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. 


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 


267


268 

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 

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. 


Programme, Nairobi, Kenya. 303pp. Available on website: http://www.teap.org


Options Committee. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya. p.50-55. Available on website: 


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: 

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. 

Websites on Fumigants and Pesticides 

Bio-Integral Resource Center for publications on least-toxic pesticides: http://www.igc.apc.org/birc 


269


270 

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/ 

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, 

Fayetteville, Arkansas, USA. Available on website: http://www.attra.org 

ATTRA undated. Alternative Soil Testing Laboratories. Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas, 

Fayetteville, Arkansas, USA. Available on website: http://www.attra.org

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 By- 

Products. 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


López-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.235- 

246. 

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.564- 

570. 

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. 


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-0-646- 

32664-3. 

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: 

http://eap.mcgill.ca 

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 


275

Vegetable Research and Information Center, University of California, USA for factsheets on composting: 



276 

Section 4.5 Solarisation 

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.119- 

128. 



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.

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: 


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.189- 

192. 

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. 

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. 


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 

Section 4.7 Substrates 

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, Sint- 

Katelijne-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. 


279




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. 

280




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. 

Websites on Substrates 

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. 


281


282 


Programme, Nairobi, Kenya. 303pp. Available on website: http://www.teap.org 




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 Fleurat- 

Lessard 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: 

http://www.epa.gov/docs/ozone/mbr/mbrpro97.html

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. 

Perishable Commodities (Systems approach) 

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 


285


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.

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. 

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. 


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 


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.

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 


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. 


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 Stored- 

Product 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. In- 

Transit 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. 


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 


website: http://www.epa.gov/docs/ozone/mbr/mbrpro00.html

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


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 


294

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 


Ebeling 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.150- 

166. 

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 


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. EPA430- 

R-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.39132- 

39134. 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 



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 



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. 

298

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 


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. 


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. In- 

Transit 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


302 

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 

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. 



Technology, Chengdu, China. 2003pp.

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 


Mizobuti 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. 


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.144- 

157. 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. 

Perishable Commodities (Fumigants) 

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. 


305


306 

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: 


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.

Annex 8 

Index 

A 

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, 280- 

286 

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 

B 

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 

307


308 

C 

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, 127- 

134, 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

Cyprus, 33, 102, 111, 117, 130, 131, 132, 134, 

302, 303 

Czech Republic, 46 

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, 150- 

162, 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 


309


310 

Fusarium pathogens - also refer to fungal 

pathogens, 16, 33, 40, 41, 43, 64, 65, 72, 74, 

274, 275, 276, 277, 279, 284, 313 

G 

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, 171- 

200, 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, 97- 

106, 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, 107- 

111 

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,

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 

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, 280- 

286 

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, 51- 

60, 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 


311


312 

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 

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, 274- 

277 

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, 120- 

128, 150-160, 277-280, 298-300, 310-316 

Pests of commodities and structures, 97-160, 291- 

316 

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

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, 156- 

157, 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 

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 


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, 59- 

60, 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, 157- 

158, 171-200, 280, 313 

Trap crops, 30, 31, 33-35

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 

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, 207- 

213, 292, 316 

Websites on soil pest control, 6, 57, 171, 207- 

213, 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 


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. 

Annex 9: Contacts for Implementing Agencies 

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 

Email: frank.pinto@undp.org 

www.undp.org/seed/eap/montreal 

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 

Email: ozonaction@unep.fr 


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 

Email: adambrosio@unido.org 

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 

Email: sgorman@worldbank.org 

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 

Email: secretariat@unmfs.org 

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 

Email: ozoneinfo@unep.org 

www.unep.org/ozone/home.htm 

316

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 - DTIE

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?