IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/ajagec/v78y1996i5p1424-1433.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Cost Analysis of Alternatives for Methyl Bromide for Postharvest and Quarantine Treatment of Apples and Cherries

Author

Listed:
  • Holly C. Nelson

Abstract

Methyl bromide is currently the only accepted quarantine treatment for temperate fruit worldwide. Recent environmental issues and laws have created the need for an alternative to methyl bromide for postharvest and quarantine treatment of fruits and vegetables due to methyl bromide being classified as a Class I ozone-depleting substance and subject to being withdrawn from production, importation, and use in the United States by the year 2001. The objective of this project was to analyze alternatives with capabilities equal to those achieved by methyl bromide for postharvest and quarantine treatment of apples and cherries. Published literature and personal interviews were used to develop partial budgets for the following scenarios: (1) benchmark—methyl bromide, (2) irradiation, (3) controlled atmosphere storage, and (4) cold treatments. Total operating and depreciation costs for apples for scenario 1 were $431,759.23 compared to $862,505.48 for scenario 2, and $607,744.02 for scenario 3. For the treatment of cherries, scenario 1 totaled $37,564.00 compared to scenario 2's $144,000.00. Scenario 3 is not applicable for cherries. With the loss of methyl bromide, cherries have a potential of $6,700,000 in lost revenues. Copyright 1996, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Holly C. Nelson, 1996. "A Cost Analysis of Alternatives for Methyl Bromide for Postharvest and Quarantine Treatment of Apples and Cherries," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 78(5), pages 1424-1433.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:ajagec:v:78:y:1996:i:5:p:1424-1433
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.2307/1243528
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:ajagec:v:78:y:1996:i:5:p:1424-1433. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.