Reducing Near-field Agricultural Fumigant Emissions Through Efficacious Changes in Regional Application Practices

Transcription

1 Reducing Near-field Agricultural Fumigant Emissions Through Efficacious Changes in Regional Application Practices Vincent Hebert: WSU Entomology Dennis Johnson: WSU Plant Pathology Phil Hamm: Oregon State University Hermiston Experimental Research and Extension Center Don Horneck: Oregon State University Hermiston Experimental Research and Extension Center

2 South Franklin County; Washington State

3 Over 90% of pre-plant soil fumigations performed by center pivot chemigation 3

4 Pacific Northwest Field Fumigations S SṈa+ N - N C S H metam sodium methyl isothiocyanate (sodium methyl dithiocarbamate) (gas) Efficacious and cost effective fumigant for control of soil borne pathogens, nematode suppression Over 11 million pounds used in Washington State in 2009 as a pre-plant soil fumigant (NASS)

5 Reducing Near-field Agricultural Fumigant Emissions Through Efficacious Changes in Regional Application Practices Is there a MITC inhalation exposure concern in residential air and for bystanders? If so, can changes in fumigation field application methods reduce MITC air emissions? Will alternative ti practices to current chemigation practices be efficacious for soil-borne pathogen control?

6 WSU Franklin County MITC Residential Air Monitoring Program: September October, one mile 6

7 Franklin County MITC Residential Air Monitoring Program 4 Hour Time Weighted Averaged MITC Air Concentrations: October 13 October 18, fold greater than the EPA LOC 150 MITC (ppb) S7-R EPA Level of Concern (LOC) = 22 ppb S6 S5 S4 S3-R S2 S1 10/13/08 6:30 AM 10/13/08 10:36 AM 10/13/08 2:34 PM 10/13/08 6:32 PM 10/13/08 10:34 PM 10/14/08 2:32 AM 10/15/08 6:34 AM 10/15/08 10:37 AM 10/15/08 2:34 PM 10/15/08 6:25 PM 10/15/08 10:30 PM 10/16/08 2:28 AM 10/17/08 6:38 AM 10/17/08 10:32 AM 10/17/08 2:31 PM 10/17/08 6:35 PM 10/17/08 10:30 PM 10/18/08 2:27 AM 0 Date & Time of Interval Start S3-R Site S7-R 7

8 Reducing Near-field Agricultural Fumigant Emissions Through Efficacious Changes in Regional Application Practices Is there a bystander MITC inhalation exposure concern? If so, can changes in fumigation field application methods reduce MITC air emissions? Will alternative ti practices to current chemigation practices be efficacious for soil-borne pathogen control?

9 2007 Comparative Surface Chemigation-Soil Incorporated Shank MITC Emission Evaluation Solid stream low boom height delivery Low pressure center pivot WindFlow and no end gun Shank Injection 8-9 inch blade depth with compaction Crop Production Services

10 2008 Franklin County Reduced Field Fumigant Volatilization Assessment Low drift solid stream 2.4 Acre Plot 122 Acre Circle Shank 2.4 Acre Plot Applications were performed using Sectagon 42 10

11 2008 Franklin County Reduced Field Fumigant Volatilization Assessment 48% Sectagon was loss in air 12% Sectagon was loss in air 11

12 Reducing Near-field Agricultural Fumigant Emissions Through Efficacious Changes in Regional Application Practices In 2012, there will be a greater move by growers to shank injection soil fumigation From: EPA Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) for Methyldithiocarbamate Salts Metam Sodium/Potassium and MITC: Revised March 2009 Low drift buffer High release center pivot Shank buffer 120 acre Franklin County circle. Prepared by WA-Dept. of Health

13 WSU-OSU Efficacy Focus Will alternative practices to current chemigation practices be efficacious for soil-borne pathogen control? Compare plant disease and tuber yield/quality from commercially applied side-by-side-by-side Sectagon 42 treatments using: 1. Traditional low pressure center pivot chemigation 2. Solid stream (drizzle boom) center pivot system 3. Soil incorporated shank injection

14 Multiple Rate Efficacy Demonstration 148 Acre Eight Tower with Corner Catchment Water run D E F Shank Di Drizzle Boom Control Application rate (Sectagon 42) A B C G H I J A = 60 GPA F = 60 GPA B = 40 GPA G = 40 GPA C = 20 GPA H = 20 GPA D = 20 GPA I = 40 GPA E = 60 GPA J = non treated

15 Multiple Rate Efficacy Demonstration (October 2009)

16 Multiple Rate Efficacy Demonstration August 2010 Infrared photo taken ca. 1 week before field harvest DB DB WR DB WR S S WR S 40 GPA Sectagon Wedge

17 Multiple Rate Efficacy Demonstration Grade and Yield Harvest Tuber Data September 2010 TREATMENT Ave. Total Yield 40 GPA Solid 40 GPA 40 GPA Control 41 tons per acre 40 tons per acre 36 tons per acre 33 tons per acre

18 Reducing Near-field Agricultural Fumigant Emissions Through Efficacious Changes in Regional Application Practices Is there a bystander MITC inhalation exposure concern? If so, can changes in fumigation field application methods reduce MITC air emissions? Will alternative fumigation practices be efficacious for soil-borne pathogen control?

19 Funding Sources Washington State Department of Health Administered State Legislative Funding ( South Franklin Co. WA residential air monitoring) EPA Region 10-Farm Land Trust (2008 residential air and MITC field flux evaluations) Washington State Potato Commission ( field flux, and field efficacy demonstrations) Oregon Potato Commission (2010 efficacy demonstration) ti Washington State Commission Pesticide Registrations ( field flux and field efficacy demonstrations)

20 In-kind Support Schneider Farms Wind Flow Fertilizer Crop Production Services Sullivan Environmental Consulting TKI