New UF/IFAS study says benefits of state citrus canker eradication program outweigh costs

March 17, 2005

LAKE ALFRED, Fla. — While the state’s citrus canker eradication program has been mired in controversy and legal action – resulting in a stop-and-go approach to removing infected trees – a new University of Florida study indicates the benefits of the eradication program outweigh the costs eight to one.

“Without the eradication program, citrus canker will become widely established in Florida, with serious long-term consequences for the state’s $9.1 billion citrus industry,” said Ron Muraro, a professor with UF’s Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. “It would jeopardize our position in the world market.”

If citrus canker were to become endemic in Florida, exports of fresh fruit to Europe would likely cease, he said. Over the long run, the economic loss due to an endemic canker problem would be nearly $2.5 billion.

The bacterial disease, which causes lesions on the leaves, stems and fruit of citrus trees, weakens citrus trees, causing a loss in yields and higher production costs. Removal and burning of infected or exposed trees is the only way to stop the disease.

According to the study, the canker eradication program saves producers $169.2 million annually in production costs for items such as extra bactericide sprays in groves, and processing steps at packinghouses to grade out blemished fruit and disinfect clean fruit for foreign and domestic markets. The eradication program also helps the citrus industry avoid $84.9 million per year in lost revenues that would be caused by lower fruit yields and unmarketable fruit. By contrast, the annual cost of the eradication program in 2005 is estimated to be $44 million.

“When the annual impacts are extrapolated over time, the cost to the industry would exceed $2.5 billion, and the disease would be well on its way to destroying the Florida citrus industry,” Muraro said.

Total cost of the current eradication program, which began in 1995, is estimated to be $477 million, which includes the destruction of infected or exposed trees and compensation to homeowners for lost trees. In 2004, producers received approximately $28.4 million in compensation from state and federal agencies for production lost to canker or exposure. The eradication program is administered by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Muraro, based at the UF/IFAS Citrus Research and Education Center in Lake Alfred, said specialty fruit would be the only segment of the citrus industry that might experience a net gain in revenue associated with endemic citrus canker. The disease would reduce shipments of certain fresh fruit varieties, thereby boosting the market price of fruit harvested from canker-free groves. The net gain in prices for specialty fruit would reduce the benefits associated with the canker eradication program by $44.5 million. Nevertheless, he said, an endemic citrus canker situation would still have an overall negative impact on revenue for the industry.

The two-year study, funded by USDA, was conducted by Muraro and Tom Spreen, professor and chairman of the UF/IFAS food and resource economics department in Gainesville. Marisa Zansler, an economist at USDA’s Animal Plant Health Inspection Services in Washington, D.C., contributed to the study.

The economic analysis of the citrus canker eradication program was developed using the predicted values of the benefits and the costs associated with the program. The summary reports, FE 531 and FE 532, are available on the UF/IFAS Electronic Document Information Source Web site: http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/.

Spreen said the study did not measure changes in consumer demand that might occur if the citrus disease is not eradicated. “Although citrus canker will not adversely affect human health, the mere image of consuming a product that is visually unappealing may have a negative impact on the demand for Florida citrus,” he said.

“Opponents say Florida should abandon the current eradication program and learn to live with the citrus canker problem,” Muraro said. “They contend that the citrus industry will not incur losses that are big enough to outweigh the cost of the eradication program, but our research clearly indicates that this would not be the case.”

The study also shows that the current, expanded-phase eradication program, which ramped up with renewed state and federal funding in 2000, could have removed all trees infected or exposed to the disease by the end of this year. However, because of legal challenges that halted tree removal in Miami-Dade and Broward counties, the eradication program will have to continue until January 2008, the report says.

Spreen said the 2004 hurricane season “throws another unknown into the equation” because the disease is spread by rain-driven wind.

“Our cost estimates for concluding the eradication program in 2008 were developed in June 2004 before the storms passed through the state,” Spreen said. “Now we are beginning to see new outbreaks of citrus canker in Southwest Florida and the Indian River area, which means the program may have to continue beyond 2008.”

Jim Graham, a professor of soil microbiology at the Lake Alfred center who is studying the pathology of the disease and evaluating various control methods, said decisive action is the best policy when canker threatens the Florida citrus industry. Outbreaks of the disease have plagued the industry since the early 1900s, but have been throttled by eradication efforts in earlier campaigns. Previous programs eradicated canker from the state in 1933 and 1994.

“If another outbreak should occur after Florida has been certified canker-free, a policy will probably remain in place for immediate eradication,” Graham said. “Stopping the disease as quickly as possible minimizes the considerable costs of residential and grove surveillance for canker and the removal infected and exposed trees to Floridians, the federal government and the citrus industry.”

Tim Schubert, a plant pathologist with the state agriculture department’s Division of Plant Industry in Gainesville, said the expansion of international travel and trade increases the risk of invasive pests and disease such as citrus canker. Additional resources are needed to detect and guard against these exotic pests and pathogens that threaten agriculture natural resources in Florida and the United States, he said.