Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-l4ctd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-10-07T05:55:14.020Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Analysis of the Impact of a Ban of Methyl Bromide on the U.S. Winter Fresh Vegetable Market

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

M. S. Deepak ,
Thomas H. Spreen  and
John J. VanSickle
M. S. Deepak
Affiliation:
Food and Resource Economics Department, University of Florida, Gainesville
Thomas H. Spreen
Affiliation:
Food and Resource Economics Department, University of Florida, Gainesville
John J. VanSickle
Affiliation:
Food and Resource Economics Department, University of Florida, Gainesville
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study evaluates the economic impact of a ban on methyl bromide on the U.S. winter fresh vegetable market for six major crops: tomatoes, green peppers, cucumbers, squash, eggplant, and watermelons. Florida is the primary domestic supplier of these products. Mexico and Texas are the competing suppliers of the five vegetable crops and peppers, respectively. Leontief technologies represent both monocrop and double-crop production systems; linear inverse demand functions represent four demand regions in the U.S. and Canada. By increasing production costs and reducing yields, a ban on methyl bromide decreases Florida's FOB revenues by 54% and increases those of Mexico by 65%. Price increases to U.S. fresh vegetable consumers range from near zero to over 10%, depending upon the commodity and location.

Keywords

fresh vegetablesmethyl bromidepesticidequadratic programmingspatial equilibrium
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 28 , Issue 2 , December 1996 , pp. 433 - 443
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

AUTOMAP, Inc. AUTOMAP software program. Bellvue WA: AUTOMAP, Inc., 1995.Google Scholar
Ferguson, W., and Padula, A.. “Economic Effects of Banning Methyl Bromide for Soil Fumigation.” Agr. Econ. Rep. No. 677, USDA/Economic Research Service, Washington DC, March 1994.Google Scholar
Florida Agricultural Statistics Service (FASS). Vegetable Summary. FASS, Orlando FL. Various issues, 1980-81 through 1992-93.Google Scholar
Florida Tomato Committee. Annual Report. FTC, Orlando FL. Various issues, 1980-81 through 1992-93.Google Scholar
Hazell, P.B.R. and Norton, R.. Mathematical Programming for Economic Analysis in Agriculture. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1986.Google Scholar
McCarl, B.A., and Spreen, T.H.. “Price Endogenous Mathematical Programming Models as a Tool for Sector Analysis.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 62(1980):87–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pesticide Action Network of North America, Updates Service (PANUPS). “Case Studies Document Successful Alternatives to Methyl Bromide.” PANUPS, San Francisco, 8 April 1996.Google Scholar
Peters, M.A., and Spreen, T.H.. “Price Endogenous Mathematical Programming Models and Inte-grability: An Alternative Approach.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 71(1989):1342.Google Scholar
Scott, S.W. “International Competition and Demand in the United States Fresh Winter Vegetable Industry.” Unpublished M.S. thesis, University of Florida, 1991.Google Scholar
Smith, S.A., and Taylor, T.G.. “Production Costs for Selected Florida Vegetables, 1991-1992.” Circ. No. 1064, Florida Coop. Ext. Ser v., Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, 1993.Google Scholar
Takayama, T., and Judge, G.G.. Spatial and Temporal Price and Allocation Models. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Co., 1971.Google Scholar
Texas Cooperative Extension Service. “Cost of Producing Peppers.” Texas A&M University, College Station, 1993.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service. Weekly Vegetable Market Report. USDA/AMS, Fruit and Vegetable Div., Market News Branch, Washington DC. Various issues, 1989-92.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. Agricultural Chemical Usage. Bull. No. Ag-Chl(96), USDA/NASS/Economic Research Service, Washington DC, July 1996.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1990 Census of the Population: General Population Characteristics, U.S. Summary. Washington DC: Government Printing Office, 1993.Google Scholar
VanSickle, J.J., Belibasis, E., Cantliffe, D., Thompson, G., and Oebker, N.. “Competition in the Winter Fresh Vegetable Industry.” Agr. Econ. Rep. No. 691, USDA/Economic Research Service, Washington DC, 1994.Google Scholar
Yarkin, C., Sunding, D., Zilberman, D., and Siebert, J.. “Methyl Bromide Regulation: All Crops Should Not Be Treated Equally.” California Agr. 48,3(1994):10–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar