Organic Farmer - August/September 2019 by JCS Marketing, Inc.

August/September 2019 Adopting Diversified Organic Farming to Increase Ecosystem Services A Preliminary Evaluation of Using Drip Irrigation in Organic Spinach Production Using Concentrated Organic Fertilizers

SEPTEMBER 26-27, 2019

September 26th | 1:00PM - 9:00PM September 27th | 7:00AM - 1:00PM See page 25-29 for agenda details

PUBLICATION

Volume 2 : Issue 4

ORGANIC

Plant Nutrients & Adjuvants

Contains Auxiliary Soil & Plant Substances

Botector Biofungicide

DART Fungicide EC

Effective Plant Nutrients and Biopesticides

Herbicide EC

Blossom Protect™ Bactericide

Now EPA Approved! State Registrations Pending

For more information, call (800) 876-2767 or visit www.westbridge.com

Organic FARMER

PUBLISHER: Jason Scott Email: jason@jcsmarketinginc.com EDITOR: Kathy Coatney ASSOCIATE EDITOR: Cecilia Parsons Email: article@jcsmarketinginc.com PRODUCTION: design@jcsmarketinginc.com Phone: 559.352.4456 Fax: 559.472.3113 Web: www.organicfarmingmag.com

IN THIS ISSUE 4

Adopting Diversified Organic Farming to Increase Ecosystem Services A Preliminary Evaluation of Using Drip Irrigation in Organic Spinach Production

CONTRIBUTING WRITERS & INDUSTRY SUPPORT Subodh Adhikari

Cooperative Extension Specialist, UC PhD, Postdoctoral Researcher, University Riverside of Idaho

Western SARE

Glenn McGourty

Lauren Snyder

Contributing Writer

Stacie Clary

Using Concentrated Organic Fertilizers

Protecting the Whole Organic Farm Just Got Better

Organic Agriculture and the New Biotechnology

Pasture Mixes to Improve the Sustainability of Organic Pasture-based Dairy

Winegrower & Plant Science Advisor, UCCE Mendocino and Lake counties

Ali Montazar

Irrigation & Water Management Advisor, UCCE Imperial and Riverside Counties Michael Cahn, Irrigation & Water Resources Advisor, UCCE Monterey County Alexander Putman, Assistant

Education and Research Program Manager, Organic Farming Research Foundation

Jeff Schahczenski

Agricultural and Natural Resource Economist, with the National Center for Appropriate Technology (NCAT) Rex Dufour, NCAT Agriculture Specialist

UC COOPERATIVE EXTENSION ADVISORY BOARD Kevin Day

Emily J. Symmes

Steven Koike

Kris Tollerup

County Director and UCCE IPM Advisor, UCCE Pomology Farm Sacramento Valley Advisor, Tulare/Kings County

Transforming Agriculture from a Problem into a Solution—Sustainable Water Management in a Changing Climate Importance of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in Managing Arthropod Pests in Organic Nut Production in California

Jhalendra Rijal

UC Cooperative Extension & Statewide IPM Program, Northern San Joaquin Valley

Brian Baker

Director, TriCal Diagnostics

38 August/September 2019

UCCE Integrated Pest Management Advisor, Parlier, CA

The articles, research, industry updates, company profiles, and advertisements in this publication are the professional opinions of writers and advertisers. Organic Farmer does not assume any responsibility for the opinions given in the publication.

www.organicfarmermag.com

ADOPTING DIVERSIFIED ORGANIC FARMING TO INCREASE ECOSYSTEM SERVICES By SUBODH ADHIKARI, PHD | Postdoctoral Researcher, University of Idaho, subodha@uidaho.edu

ONVENTIONAL FARMING adopted in modern agriculture are mostly monoculture-based, relying heavily on the use of external chemical (for example: pesticides and fertilizers) inputs (Figure 1). While these systems provide valuable agronomic benefits, they could result in declines of local and regional biodiversity, soil erosion, selection of pesticide resistance, greenhouse gas emissions, and eutrophication (depletion of oxygen in the water). Given the environmental impact of conventional agriculture, it is necessary to explore and develop alternative, more environmentally sensitive and resilient agricultural systems. There is a growing body of research regarding diversified organic and ecologically-based farming systems in California and other states (Figure 2). Although the mechanical (for example: tilling and planting equipment) inputs used to control pest populations, maintain soil fertility, and prepare fields for planting in many organic farms have negative environmental effects such as soil erosion and nutrient loss, diversified organic farming helps by enhancing biodiversity and ecosystem services (see Box #1). While the beneficial organisms provide a variety of ecosystem services, enhancing biodiversity can be both beneficial and detrimental to our crop productions. However, by focusing proper agroecosystem management such as habitat management for beneficial organisms can shift biotic communities away from pest species dominance. Following these ecosystem dynamics can reduce the need for farmer intervention or use of any synthetic external inputs.

Organic Farmer

Figure 1. Monoculture based industrialized farming in California (https://nature.berkeley.edu/kremenlab). These large-scale farmlands are covered by a single crop for many years providing a potential risk of pest outbreaks, ecosystem instability, and reduced ecosystem services (see text for the details). Photo courtesy of Kremen lab.

Box # 1: What are ecosystem services? Ecosystem services are the direct or indirect services or benefits that ecosystems provide to humankind. Ecosystem services can be divided into four major categories: (1) provisioning: food, fiber, fuel, and genetic resources; (2) regulating and mitigating: pollination services, disease and pest regulations, water quality, soil reclamation, climate stability, and greenhouse gas mitigation; (3) supporting: nutrient and water cycling, soil fertility, soil quality; and (5) aesthetic and cultural: spiritual and recreational benefits from rural views and landscapes [1]. Although difficult, the economic value of these services can be estimated, showing us the profit or loss that can be gained or lost from incorporating diversified organic and ecologically-based methods or adhering to a more corporate model with its incumbent financial risks. For example, global pollination services, in terms of monetary value, are more than $200 billion, annually [2]. In the US only, it is more than $70 billion [3]. If we monetize all the ecosystem services, the total value would be beyond our imagination.

What Are the Advantages of Diversified Systems? Diversified or biodiverse ecosystems are more structurally complex and stable than the simplified monoculture-based systems, and they are resistant to external disturbances including species invasions, diseases, and other disturbances. Different species respond uniquely towards any disturbance, so there is a higher chance that at least one species is highly productive against external disturbances. If all niches are already occupied in an ecosystem, external species cannot invade easily. Similarly, more diverse ecosystems contain many species with similar

August/September 2019

function (known as functional redundancy) which is crucial in providing the stability in the ecosystems. For

Figure 2. Diversified organic farming in California (https://nature.berkeley.edu/kremenlab). Studies have shown that growing more than one crop could be more profitable than a single crop. Additionally, small-scale farmlands covered by many crops and wildflowers provide food and habitat to the beneficial organisms that help to support better ecosystem services (see text for the details). Photo courtesy of Rebecca Chaplin-Kramer.

South Valley Nut & Citrus Conference November 20,2019 | 7:00AM - 1:00PM | Tulare, CA

example, in biodiverse ecosystems, if one species disappears, another species can perform the same function (known as the insurance effect) which helps to avoid ecosystem degradation and minimize future risk to agricultural production. This robustness in wild ecosystems is echoed in the crop resilience encountered in diversified farmed landscapes. Also, many species can coexist to facilitate each other’s growth while sharing resources. Furthermore, highly biodiverse communities may be able to tap resources more effectively because different species differ in strategies for resource acquisition.

How can Ecosystem Services Be Increased Through Diversified Organic Farming? Farmers can manage their agricultural lands to support biodiversity and enhance the ecosystem services that biodiversity provides. One of several examples to increase biodiversity in these systems is intercropping. In intercropping, farmers select crops that do not compete strongly with each other and can benefit at least one of the crops. Intercropping can be beneficial since it helps to improve soils with nitrogen fixers, some deeprooted species can benefit others by bringing nutrients and moisture up at the soil layers, and one species can provide shade, support, or nursery to others. One popular traditional example of intercropping is planting corn, beans, and pumpkin together. Corn plants provide support to beans, which fixes atmospheric nitrogen and supplies to soil that corn also uses. Similarly, both corn and bean together provide shade and humidity to pumpkin, which suppresses weeds and benefits to corn and beans, too. Crop rotation is commonly used to break the lifecycle of many agricultural pests, which also increase farmland biodiversity. Studies have shown that beneficial soil microbial communities that support soil health is also greater in diversified organic farms, compared to

monoculture-based conventional farms [4]. Cover cropping is another great way to diversify our cropping systems that helps to enhance soil health (e.g., enhance soil nutrients, soil structure, organic matter, and soil microbial community), reduce soil erosion, suppress weeds, and break pest cycles, while also supporting beneficial insects such as pollinators and natural enemies. Similarly, biodiversity in nearby uncultivated or semi-natural habitat patches also provides ecosystem services to cultivated fields. The plant diversity in these patches may support beneficial organisms like pollinators, predators, and parasitoids, by providing food and shelter. In addition, many studies have reported the positive role of hedgerows and native wildflowers around cropland to support beneficial organisms. In addition to crop diversification at field levels, farmers should consider the restoration of semi-natural areas and planting of native plant strips and trees within agricultural landscapes to enhance crop yield and other ecosystem services.

August/September 2019

Figure 3. A honey bee foraging on alfalfa flowers. Alfalfa, a perennial plant that has deep rooting and outcompetes many weeds, can be included by organic farmers in their crop rotation schemes. Photo courtesy of Subodh Adhikari.

Bees, that are part of biodiversity, are important crop pollinators but, agricultural intensification, habitat fragmentation, exposure to pesticides, parasites and pathogens, and reduced floral resources have contributed in declining bee biodiversity (Figure 3).

Continued on Page 6

www.organicfarmermag.com

Continued from Page 5 California has several crops such as almonds, apples, cherries, strawberries, tomatoes, walnuts, and many more that are benefited from pollination. But, how can we support these pollinators through diversified organic farming? Here is our study from Montana on how farming systems affect bee colony fitness and bee-flower interaction networks. First, we put 60 bee colonies (i.e., hives) at six conventional and six organic spring wheat farms over two growing seasons (2014-2015) in Big Sandy, Montana, USA (Figure 4; see details in [5]). We found that bee colony growth rate, bee brood cells (eggs/larvae/ pupae), and nectar stores (honey storing pots in bee colonies) were all greater in organic farms in both years, than in conventional farms (Figure 5 & 6, see page 8 & 9). Our results suggested that by increasing bee colony success, the greater floral resources (Box #2-4, see page 6 & 8) in organic farms provide better biodiversity-based ecosystem services even in the highly simplified agricultural landscapes. Second, we assessed the extent to which farming systems impact bee-flower networks (i.e., interactions between bees and flowers: more the better) on nine conventional and nine organic farms. Our results indicated that diversified organic farms had more connected (that are supposed to be more stable) and complex bee-flower interaction networks (Figure 7 see page 8; see details in [6]), compared to those of conventional farms. In a separate study, we also assessed whether farming systems have a role on pest (wheat stem sawfly: a serious pest in Northern Great Plains wheat systems) infestation and parasitism. We collected winter wheat samples from adjacently located nine organic and nine conventional farms and compared infestation by wheat stem sawfly and subsequent parasitism across farming systems. Our results showed that organic farms had 75 percent lower wheat stem sawfly pest infestation than in conventional farms, which was due

Organic Farmer

to a significantly higher number of parasitoids present in organic farms than in conventional farms. These results indicate that, by enhancing alternative sources of pollen and nectar via increased plant diversity, organic farms support more beneficial insects such as parasitoids and enhance pest regulation or ecosystem services (see details in [7-8]). Box # 2: Are weeds always bad? Weeds are universally known as one of the key limiting factors in organic production. While organic growers have been using several weed management practices such as mulching, weed fabric, soil solarization, tillage, organic approved herbicides, steam treatment, flaming, mowing or hoeing, mechanical weeding or hand pulling, there are always some weeds left in the farms. If the weeds are under economic injury level (i.e., not reducing crop yield) and non-invasive, we shouldn’t need any expensive tool to control weeds. And, the weeds under economic injury level, can in fact provide floral resources to beneficial insects such as bees, parasitoids, and generalists predators (see [5-8]). In return, bees provide pollination services to crops, vegetables, and wild flowers, whereas parasitoids provide pest regulation services by controlling crop pests. Additionally, since diversified organic farming is associated with crop rotation, cover cropping, and multiple cropping, farmland biodiversity is increased so that we can reap the benefits of biodiversity-based ecosystem services (i.e., pollination and pest regulation).

viable, and socially acceptable, providing possible ecosystem services without compromising its availability to support future generations. To attain the goal of sustainability in farming systems it is required to recognize and promote the system’s existing ecological processes like nutrient/ water cycling and energy flow within and between trophic levels (i.e., plants, herbivores, and predators) and incorporating farmers’ experiences and agro-ecological knowledges to create a diversified farming system. Continuously improving farm management strategies by learning from past experiences makes diversified organic farming more resilient and therefore more sustainable. Resilience is defined as a tendency of a system to retain its organizational structure and productivity following any external disturbances. For example, crop diversification can improve ecosystem resilience and agricultural sustainability in a variety of ways such as by enhancing pest suppression and reducing pathogen transmission. Such benefits point toward value of adopting diversified organic farming to improve agricultural sustainability, yet adoption has been slow in many parts of California and outside.

Continued on Page 8

How Is Agricultural Sustainability Related to Diversified Organic Farming? Agricultural sustainability can be defined as an approach to food and fiber production that it is environmentally safe, ecologically balanced, economically

August/September 2019

Figure 4. A bee hive placed in a conventional wheat field in Montana. Sixty bee hives were used to compare bee colony success between conventional and organic farms. Photo courtesy of Subodh Adhikari.

Navel Orangeworm Control!

Mating disruption product for conventional and organic California tree nuts!!

THE THIRD FLIGHT IS HERE & HULL SPLIT IS UPON US!

IT’S NOT TOO LATE!

™

Navel Orangeworm, Amyelois transitella

• Up to 80% or more potential reduction in damage vs. current insecticide program • Season-long control through post-harvest • Easy application with ready-to-use carrier pack • No moving parts, no batteries, no gummy deposits • Removal not required ®

INCORPORATED INSECT PHEROMONE & KAIROMONE SYSTEMS

Your Edge – And Ours – Is Knowledge.

MATING DISRUPTION PRODUCT FOR NAVEL ORANGEWORM IN ALMONDS, PISTACHIOS & WALNUTS

Contact your local supplier and order now!

Visit our website: www.trece.com or call: 1- 866-785-1313.

Summary

Continued from Page 6

Organic Farmer

Diversified organic farming is not the same as ecologically-based farming but

Nectar stores

0 100 200 300 400 500

Brood cells 0 50 100 200

Conventional Organic d

Conventional Organic

a d

Halictus rubicundus Salsola kali

Lasioglossum sisymbrii

Agapostemon spp. Brassica napus

Sinapis arvensis

Megachile spp. Agapostemon virescens Melissodes agilis Melissodes lupina Agapostemon femoratus Helianthus annus

Lasioglossum (Dialictus)

Apis melifera Medicago sativa

Bombus spp.

Melissodes spp.

Apidae Lasioglossum spp. Melilotus officinalis

Halictus spp. Carthamus tinctorius

Halictus ligatus

Bombus nevadensis Thalaspi arvense

Lasioglossum paraforbesii Pisum sativum

Descruneria pinnata

Medicago sativa

Bombus rufocintus Megachile dentitarsus Bombus impatiens

2014 2015 2015 Year Year Figure 6. Effects of conventional and organic farming on number of brood cells (left) and nectar stores (right) of bee colonies. Both brood cells (i.e., future offspring) and nectar stores (i.e., food storage) were greater in organic farms than in conventional farms. 2014

Lasioglossum sp. Halictus sp. Halictus rubicundus Bombus impatiens Halictus ligatus Bombus sp.

Box #4: Who else can/should help growers adopting diversified organic farming? The public can also reap the benefits and services provided by the ecosystems that the growers manage. Federal/state agencies and university extensions can help growers and other stakeholders on why and how to adopt diversified organic farming and produce vital ecosystem services. For example, the federal government compensates farmers through its conservation reserve program (CRP), and in similar ways can support to diversified organic growers. The public has also demonstrated a willingness to pay a high price or premium for the organic products whether they are produced from monoculture or diversified farming. As an example, we are well-aware that local farmer’s markets are increasingly popular, despite their higher prices compared to the grocery stores. However, for this, the public should also be aware of the ecosystem services that they have been continuously taking for granted.

Diversified organic farming systems, compared to monoculture-based conventional systems, do not use synthetic insecticides and herbicides and often support a greater diversity of plant species. These agroecosystems also support greater abundance and higher species richness of pollinators and pest regulating beneficial insects like predators and parasitoids, ultimately providing greater ecological services to farmers as well as to the public [9-11]. Hence, following diversified farming, you can minimize future risk in your agricultural production since you will have some crops left to harvest even if one of your crops is completely damaged by a pest outbreak.

Sisymbrium altissimum Helianthus annus

Box # 3: Fear of lower crop yield? As a conventional farmer enjoying a good yield with heavy reliance on synthetic inputs, if you choose to adopt diversified organic systems you may suffer from yield loss initially. However, in the long run, this will not be the case. The crop yield and farm profit of diversified systems that follows mixed and rotational cropping with fewer external inputs could be either similar to, or greater than, those in the conventionally managed systems that follows higher agrochemical inputs [9]. In many cases farmers report an over-yield from the mixed crops, then growing a single crop. Most importantly, other ecosystem services (see box #1, page 4) provided by diversified systems are higher than those provided by intensified monoculture systems [10].

close to it. Ecologically-based farming is an approach to agriculture that relies on augmenting or intensifying ecological processes to provide the functions necessary for sustained production, thus helping to reduce excessive use of external chemical and mechanical inputs. Examples of ecologically-based diversified farming practices include integrated crop-livestock production, crop rotations, mixed cropping, biological control of pests, reduced or no-tillage, and cover cropping. Ecologically-based diversified farming aims to be multi-beneficial by providing food production, economic well-being, environmental benefits, and important ecosystem services such as pollination, natural pest control, nutrient and water cycling, increased soil organic matter, pollution control, and erosion control. While all diversified organic farming may not provide these ecosystem

Figure 7. Bee-flower networks in conventional and organic farms. Conventional farms relying on herbicides with no crop rotation had lower plant diversity supporting less bee-flower interactions, compared to those of organic farms. In the landscapes with high plant diversity, even if we lose a few species for some reasons, we still have other plants left to support pollinators.

August/September 2019

services, majority of them do. To adopt diversified organic farming, you can follow these steps: • Consult with university extension researchers, federal/state employees, and county extension agents. • Consult with other farmers inside and outside the state/country who have already adopted and benefited from the diversified organic systems. • Reduce excessive use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides and replace them with cover crops and crop rotation to enhance soil fertility and break pest cycles. • Start mix cropping, intercropping, and integrated crop-livestock production whenever possible. • Plant hedgerows, trees, and native wild flowers and apportion uncultivated land around your farm, to provide food and habitat for the beneficial organisms at your agricultural landscape. Finally, you do not need to start converting all your land into diversified organic at once, but you can begin adopting some of its elements. Gradually, you can learn from your own experiments or experiences and decide whether you want to pursue the quest of diversified organic farming and enhance ecosystem services for the agricultural sustainability.

Acknowledgements

0.08 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.00

Colony growth rate (g/wk)

The projects mentioned in this article were funded mainly by United States

Conventional Organic

c 2014

Year

Department of Agriculture (USDA) Organic Research and Extension Initiative (OREI) to F. D. Menalled, Montana State University, and partly by OCIAInternational to S. Adhikari.

References 1. Assessment, M. 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: wetlands and water. World Resour. institute, Washington DC. 2. Gallai, N., Salles, J.M., Settele, J., Vaission, B.E. 2009. Economic valuation of the vulnerability of world agriculture confronted with pollinator decline. Ecol. Econ. 68: 810–821. 3. USDA. 2007. Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns addressed the problem of honeybee colony collapse disorder. USDA Satellite News Feed July 5, 2007. 4. Ishaq SL, Johnson SP, Miller ZJ, Lehnhoff EA, Olivo S, Yeoman CJ, et al. 2017. Impact of cropping systems, soil inoculum, and plant species identity on soil bacterial community structure. Microb Ecol. 73: 417–434. 5. Adhikari, S.; Burkle, L.A.; O’Neill, K.M.; Weaver, D.K.; Menalled, F.D. 2019. Dryland organic farming increases floral resources and bee colony success in highly simplified agricultural landscapes. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 270–271: 9–18

Partially Offsets Negative Effects of Highly Simplified Agricultural Landscapes on Forbs, Bees, and Bee–Flower Networks. Environ. Entomol. doi:10.1093/ee/nvz056. 7. Adhikari, S., Seipel, T., Menalled, F.D., Weaver, D.K. 2018. Farming system and wheat cultivar affect infestation of, and parasitism on, Cephus cinctus in the Northern Great Plains. Pest Manag. Sci. 74: 2480–2487. 8. Adhikari, S., Adhikari, A., Weaver, D.K, Bekkerman, A, Menalled, F.D. 2019. Impacts of agricultural management systems on biodiversity and ecosystem services in highly simplified dryland landscapes. Sustainability, 11, 3223. 9. Davis, A.S., Hill, J.D., Chase, C.A., Johanns, A. M., Liebman, M. 2012. Increasing cropping system diversity balances productivity, profitability and environmental health. PLoS ONE, 7 p. e47149. 10. S.P. Syswerda, G.P. Robertson. 2014. Ecosystem services along a management gradient in Michigan (USA) cropping systems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 189: 28–35. 11. Kremen, C. Iles, A. and Bacon, C.M. (2012). Diversified Farming Systems: An agroecological, systems-based alternative to modern industrial agriculture. Ecol. Soc. 17(4): 44.

6. Adhikari, S.; Burkle, L.A.; O’Neill, K.M.; Comments about this article? We want Weaver, D.K.; Delphia, C.M.; Menalled, to hear from you. Feel free to email us at F.D. 2019. Dryland Organic Farming article@jcsmarketinginc.com

SAVE THE DATE October 24, 2019

7:00am - 1:00pm Kern County Fairgrounds

wcngg.com/events/

2015

Growers, Applicators, PCAs, CCAs, and Processors welcome!

Figure 5. Effects of conventional and organic farming on bee colony (hive) growth rate. Colony growth rate was higher in organic farm than in conventional farm in both wetter and cooler 2014 and drier and hotter 2015.

Free Event Cash Prizes Networking CE Credits Offered

1142 S P St, Bakersfield, CA 93307

August/September 2019

Seminars & Workshops Free Industry Lunch

www.organicfarmermag.com

A Preliminary Evaluation of Using Drip Irrigation in

Organic Spinach Production By ALI MONTAZAR | Irrigation & Water Management Advisor, UCCE Imperial and Riverside Counties MICHAEL CAHN |Irrigation & Water Resources Advisor, UCCE Monterey County ALEXANDER PUTMAN | Assistant Cooperative Extension Specialist, UC Riverside

PINACH (SPINACIA OLERACEA) is a leafy green quick-maturing, cool-season vegetable crop. Most conventional and organic spinach fields are irrigated by solid-set or hand-move sprinklers. However, overhead irrigation could contribute to the speed and severity of downy mildew

epidemics within a field when other conditions such as temperature are favorable. Downy mildew on spinach is a widespread and very destructive disease in California. It is the most important disease in spinach production, in which crop losses can be significant in all areas where spinach is produced.

In the low desert of California, spinach downy mildew typically occurs between mid-December and the end of February. Although fungicides are available for the control of downy mildew in conventional production systems, products with similar efficacy are not available for

Figure 1. A view of baby spinach trial under drip irrigation (80-inch bed). All photos courtesy of Ali Montazar.

Organic Farmer

August/September 2019

Continued on Page 12

NON-GMO

100% Water Soluble

80%+ Amino Acids

Pure Protein Dry

Immediate Availability

15-1-1

Fish Protein Hydrolysate

Effective for all crops _ conventional and organic

• Calculate application rates in lbs of PPD/acre/season vs. Units of N/acre/season • 1lb PPD = 5 Gallons Liquid Fish

Apply as a foliar spray or through irrigation • Will not clog emitters, micro sprinklers • Compatible with other nutrient •

• 1lb PPD = 5-8lbs Soy Protein • Save on freight by not shipping water

and pest control products Apply with Compost Teas • Use with Pure Kelp Dry 0-0-20 •

• Nit Nitrogen derived from Fish Protein, will not leach

Visit OrganicAGProducts.com To see our PPD Based blends • 7.5-1-25 • 5-7-14 • 11-8-8 - insecticides & herbicide products

August/September 2019

www.organicfarmermag.com

Fall 2018

Irrigation treatment Sprinkler 4-dripline per bed 3-dripline per bed

Fresh yield (lb/ac) 12,406 a 11,378 b 10,950 b

Winter 2019 Irrigation treatment Fresh yield (lb/ac) Sprinkler 1.5D-4B 1.5D-3B

13,281 a 12,414 ab 12,116 b

Table 1. Mean spinach fresh yield values of each irrigation treatment in each of the fall and winter experiments. Yields with different letters significantly differ (p < 0.05) by Tukey’s test.

Figure 2. Visual comparison of the drip treatments versus the sprinkler treatment 38 days after planting in the fall experiment.

Continued from Page 10 organic production. Therefore, additional strategies are needed to reduce disease pressure, including irrigation managements. It is postulated that new irrigation management techniques and practices in spinach production may have a significant economic impact to the leafy greens industry through the control of downy mildew. In addition to reducing losses from plant pathogens, new irrigation practices could reduce risks to food safety (risks caused by overhead application of irrigation water). For instance, adapting drip irrigation for high density spinach plantings could be a possible solution to reduce losses from downy mildew, improve crop productivity and quality, and improve crop water and fertilizer use efficiency. Currently, no one uses drip irrigation for spinach, and there is a lack of information on the viability of drip irrigation technology in spinach. This project aims

Organic Farmer

to evaluate the viability of drip irrigation for organic spinach production and assess its impact on the management of spinach downy mildew.

Field Experiment The field experiment was conducted over two crop seasons (fall 2018 and winter 2019) at the University of California Desert Research and Extension Center in Holtville, California (Figure 1, see page 10). Two dripline spacings (three and four driplines per 80-inch bed) was studied versus sprinkler irrigation as control treatment. A comprehensive data collection was carried out to fully understand the differences between the irrigation treatments. Untreated Viroflay spinach seeds were planted in both seasons. True 6-6-2 (a homogeneous pelleted fertilizer) and True 4-1-3 (a liquid fertilizer) were applied as pre-plant fertilizer and as complementary fertilizer through injection

August/September 2019

into irrigation systems, respectively. The emitter spacing on the dripline was 8-inch with nominal flow rate of 0.13 gph (gallons per hour) at 8 psi (pounds per square inch). The beds were 80-inch wide by 200 feet long. The experiment was arranged in a randomized complete block design with four replications. All treatments were germinated by sprinklers. In the winter trial, 6-spinach bed was germinated and irrigated using drip irrigation (four driplines per 80-inch bed) the entire crop season to evaluate the possibility of using drip throughout crop season including plant establishment.

Fresh Biomass Yield In the fall trial, mean fresh biomass yield for the sprinkler treatment was 12,406 lb/ac (pound/acre), approximately 9 percent more than the 4-dripline in bed treatment (Table 1). In

Continued on Page 14

Bio With Bite.

"However, the 7 percent yield difference between the drip treatment (4-dripline per bed) and the sprinkler treatment demonstrates the potential of drip irrigation for a profitable spinach production." Continued from Page 12 the winter trial, mean fresh yield in the sprinkler treatment was 13,281 lb/ac, approximately 7 percent more than the 4-dripline in bed treatment. Statistical analysis showed very strong evidence for an overall effect of irrigation system on spinach fresh yield in both the fall and winter trials. While we couldn’t find a significant difference between the sprinkler and the 4-dripline per bed

treatment on spinach biomass yield in the winter trial, there was statistically significant yield differences between the sprinkler and the 3-dripline irrigation treatments in this trial. Figure 2 (see page 12) shows a visual comparison of the drip treatments versus the sprinkler treatment 38 days after planting. The yield difference between drip

November 20th, 2019 Tulare Fairgrounds

215 Martin Luther King Jr Ave, Tulare, CA 93274

ent Free Evrizes P Cash its Offaned Prroceesdsors welcome! d CEwerCs, Arppelicators, PCAs, CCAs,Workshops Gro ars & Semin ng rki Netwo stry Lunch du nuts Free In e & Do e ff o C Free at: ow

N /events/ .c g g wcn om

SAVE THE DATE

7:00 AM to 1:00 PM

irrigation treatments and the sprinkler irrigation ranged between 7 percent (the 4-dripline per bed treatment against the sprinkler treatment in the winter trial) and 13 percent (the 3-dripline per bed treatment against the sprinkler treatment in the fall trial). The yield difference may have likely been caused by irrigation and nutrient management conditions of the drip treatments. Since drip irrigation was tested for the first time for spinach, subsequent trials need to plan for improvements and be conducted in different aspects. However, the 7 percent yield difference between the drip treatment (4-dripline per bed) and the sprinkler treatment demonstrates the potential of drip irrigation for a profitable spinach production. This yield difference could be reduced through optimal system design and a better irrigation and nutrient management practices for drip system.

Downy Mildew Downy mildew was not observed in the fall trial but detected in the winter trial on March 5, 2019 (Figure 3, see page 16). Downy mildew disease incidence was low on March 11, 2019, with only two beds exhibiting incidences above 0.1 percent level. Mean downy mildew incidence in sprinkler irrigated plots following seedling emergence was approximately 3 to 11 times higher than treatments irrigated with drip following emergence. Statistical analysis indicated strong evidence for an overall effect of irrigation treatment on downy mildew.

Continued on Page 16

Organic Farmer

August/September 2019

Figure 3. Spinach plants infested by downy mildew at the sprinkler treatment in the winter trial.

Other Observation and Lessons Learned

Continued from Page 14 The most likely mechanism for variations in spinach downy mildew incidences is the reduction in leaf wetness under drip irrigation, which is critical for infection and sporulation by the downy mildew pathogen. For instance, the data of leaf wetness sensors revealed that sprinkler irrigated crop canopies remained wet for 24.3 percent more time than crop canopies under the drip treatment at a period of 12 days over the fall season experiment (Figure 4).

Probe output (row counts)

1100

irrigation + dew

At the winter trial, a germination rate test was conducted 10 days after planting to evaluate the germination rate of the sprinkler irrigation (germinated by sprinkler) and beds germinated by drip irrigation. Although plots germinated by drip were not sufficiently replicated and were not randomized among plots with other treatments, it was worth-while to have an initial idea of germinating spinach with drip irrigations for future experiments. Spinach germination under drip irrigation was

irrigation

Sprinkler

900

The developed canopy crop curves showed that the leaf density of drip irrigation treatments (germinated by sprinkler) was slightly behind (1-4 days depending upon the irrigation treatment and crop season) that of sprinkler irrigation treatment in time. In late November 2018, more

Drip (4-Dripline)

rain

dew

700

approximately three days late compared to the plots germinated by sprinkler irrigation. Spinach germination rate for the beds drip irrigated was averaging 3 percent lower than the sprinkler irrigated beds.

500 300 26-Nov

28-Nov

30-Nov

2-Dec

4-Dec

6-Dec

Figure 4. The row counts of leaf wetness sensors at the sprinkler and 4-dripline treatments over a 12-day period in the fall crop season.

Organic Farmer

August/September 2019

8-Dec

Kern County Ag Day

October 24, 2019 | 7:00AM - 1:00PM | Bakersfield, CA

differences were observed among the treatments in several of the beds, mainly yellowing of leaves in between driplines (especially the 3-dripline per bed treatment). A possible reason may be that the fertigation did not move the nitrogen between the driplines. The values of total plant nitrogen content and leaf chlorophyll content demonstrated that nitrogen uptake at the drip treatments was not as effective as the sprinkler treatment, particularly in the fall experiment. Nutrient management issue in spinach drip irrigation in combination with water management is likely a critical issue that we need to address, while it may affect the adoptability and viability of drip for spinach production.

the impacts of irrigation and nitrogen management practices in various soil types and climates, and strategies to maintain productivity and economic viability of spinach. Assessing drip irrigation for the entire crop season, germination and remainder of crop season, could be another research interest since spinach is a short season crop and combining sprinkler (for crop

Conclusions

Acknowledgement: This research was supported by the California Leafy Greens Research Board. Comments about this article? We want to hear from you. Feel free to email us at article@jcsmarketinginc.com

Miticide, Insecticide, Fungicide

Drip irrigation demonstrated the potential to be used to produce organic spinach, conserve water, enhance the efficiency of water use, and reduce downy mildew disease incidences. Statistical analysis of the data collected indicated a strong evidence for overall variation in irrigation system on spinach fresh biomass yield and downy mildew disease incidences. A lower spinach yield could be likely caused by irrigation and nutrient management conditions under the drip irrigation at this point, where it is tried for the first and initial time. Subsequent drip irrigation trials for spinach production trials can be optimized with improved practices when using drip irrigation. Similarly, yield difference between drip and in sprinkler irrigated spinach could be reduced through optimal system design and better irrigation and nutrient management practices in drip irrigation system. The results also demonstrated an overall effect of irrigation treatment on downy mildew, in which downy mildew incidence was lower in plots irrigated by drip following emergence when compared to sprinkler. Further work is needed to comprehensively evaluate the viability of utilizing drip, specifically optimal system design,

germination) and drip for such a short period might cause some practical issues.

• Fast, high efficacy results • Powdery mildew, botrytis, rust – knockdown & curative • Mites, controls all life stages and eggs • Scale, mealy bug, aphid and more • Safe on beneficial predators • Multi-site activity – no known resistance • Tank mix compatible with sulfur • Excellent crop safety

www.sym-agro.com 541-607-5097 Info@Sym-Agro.com

0-Hour REI 0-Day PHI No MRL

August/September 2019

www.organicfarmermag.com

Using Concentrated Organic Fertilizers By GLENN MCGOURTY | Winegrower & Plant Science Advisor, UCCE Mendocino and Lake counties

OST ORGANIC FERTILITY programs start with soil building practices that increase organic matter with cover crops, compost and fertilizer materials that mineralize slowly over time so that there is an adequate and steady supply of nutrients. There are times when you may need to boost the soil fertility to stimulate plant growth when existing programs aren’t providing what the plants may need. Some reasons: • Soils are cool. • The crop that you are growing is simply not finding enough minerals needed for sufficient growth through the existing supply in the soil. • Compost or cover crops simply didn’t have sufficient nutrients in it to supply the crop that you want to grow. • Routine soil and tissue tests show that you are deficient in nutrients for your crop and you need to take action to remedy any problems.

It Is Not Just the Fertilizers In organically farmed systems, you need to have a healthy functioning microbiome in the soil as the microorganisms generally have to convert existing plant and animal residues into useable nutrients through microbial digestion.

Generally, most organic fertilizers do not leach readily as the nutrients are bound into more complex organic molecules that are broken down by microbes. Because of this, the soil needs to be favorable for microbial activity. Things that are required: • Favorable pH: microbes grow best when the soil is near pH 7 as this is near ideal for the mineralization of most plant nutrients. Acid soils need to be amended with calcium (such as lime) and alkaline soils need to be acidified with sulfur. These actions may take time. It is useful to have amendment materials blended into your compost if possible to simplify application and there are no doubt synergies to mineralizing and releasing both calcium and sulfur into the soil that you are applying the material to. • Moisture: microbes don’t grow in dry soil. You have to time your compost applications and incorporation of cover crops at a time of the year when there is sufficient moisture in the soil to allow microbes to do their work. Fall applications of compost prior to working up soil for seeding winter cover crops is very favorable for starting the nutrient cycling process. If you are going to turn under cover crops in the spring, it is best to do so when the cover crops are flowering

and there is still moisture in the soil. If you are applying concentrated organic fertilizers, you also want to make sure that they end up in an area that will have sufficient moisture to mineralize and work. • Warmth: Microbes won’t grow well in cold soil. Most decomposers need temperatures of at least 60 degrees F to grow. Applying concentrated fertilizers to cold soil won’t work effectively until the soil is around 70 degrees F. • Air: While the soil microbes need moisture, they won’t perform very well under water logged conditions when there is no oxygen in the soils. Under these conditions, denitrification of organic fertilizers can occur releasing NO 2 which is a potent greenhouse gas. If nitrates are present just ahead of a long irrigation, they may get leached right through the root zone, ending up in the water table where they are causing contamination. It is important to irrigate following fertilization in a way that provides for the needs of the plant but doesn’t leach nutrients beyond the root zone.

Strategies for Fertilizing with Concentrated Organic Fertilizers • Foliar sprays: These materials are

Continued on Page 20

Organic Farmer

August/September 2019

California Organic Fertilizers, Inc. Producing Organic Fertilizers for over 28 Years

We are available to help you develop an agronomy based fertility plan including Nitrogen Budgeting, food safety planning and/or crop quality improvement. We are Certified Crop Advisors and are very skilled in organic crop nutrition. If you are experiencing low yields, poor crop quality, soil health issues, excessive nitrogen usage or costs, or plant disease problems, give us a call. We can help. COFI offers free consultations, custom nutrient planning and in-field evaluations for all crops from alfalfa to zucchini.

10585 Industry Ave., Hanford, Ca 93230 ♦ 800.269-5690 ♦ www.organicag.com ♦ info@organicag.com

August/September 2019

www.organicfarmermag.com

Continued from Page 18 expensive and usually are used at key times like flowering, pre-veraison or other periods where you think you need a boost of some key nutrients. They are usually water soluble. Boron, potassium and calcium are often used, frequently applied with wettable sulfur sprays around bloom time on grapes to help set a crop. There are numerous proprietary mixes that many growers put on as a kind of insurance policy. They can make a difference in fruit set, particularly if you are farming on low fertility soils. Long term, roots are much better adapted to absorbing nutrients and working through the soil is the most cost effective way to fertilize. Fish protein applied to the leaves also can be a quick way to green up foliage but use it early in the season so that there is no residual tastes or smells. • Concentrated dry (and usually pelletized) fertilizers: Almost all of the nitrogen fertilizers are plant and animal residue based. Most have pretty low analysis of under 10 percent nitrogen and less that 1 percent phosphorus or potassium. They are functionally time release fertilizers since they need to be digested by microbes and then will eventually release nitrate ions for uptake. Depending on the source, this can take from 2 to 12 weeks. Plant sources include alfalfa meal and cotton seed meal. Feather meal, bone meal and other animal by products are used, often mixed with plant derived fertilizers as well. To work effectively they need to be placed into the soil. If the vineyard is drip irrigated, a shallow hole should be made beneath drippers, the fertilizer placed in it and then covered back up. Another effective way is put the fertilizer beneath the dripper and then throw a shovel full of compost or mulch over it. If you leave it uncovered, it is likely to be a pretty ineffective application and a great treat for passing wild life since any animal proteins are attractive to everything from birds to dogs. • Fertigation: Most organic fertilizers are not truly soluble and have to

Organic Farmer

August/September 2019

form a fine suspension in the irrigation water in the drip tubes during fertigation and then pass through the emitters. A few key points: make sure the material is suited for this application method. It should be able to pass through a 200 mesh screen. Also, inject the material before your irrigation system’s filters to avoid accidental clogging. Start the system up and run water into it 10 or 15 minutes to pressurize everything and get water flowing. Then inject the material required, running for enough time after the material is injected to send it out through the end of the system completely followed with enough water to get it into the soil. This may require as much as an hour or more after injection depending on how your system is set up. Besides nitrogen, solution grade potassium fertilizers can be used (potassium sulfate) and usually extra water is required to insure that all of the material goes through the system. Be careful with any phosphorus materials—they can permanently clog your system if you have high calcium water. Best to use soil applied materials for that task. If you are making stock solutions, use everything up as organic fertilizers will become a microbial soup if left sitting around and could be a health risk if you are applying it to anything that might be consumed uncooked.

Final Thoughts Concentrated organic fertilizers are expensive so they are best viewed as a supplement to standard soil organic fertility programs based on compost and cover cropping. If your plants need an additional nutritional boost at key times such as bloom and fruit growth, it is totally appropriate to consider using some additional nutrients to improve growth. Keep records, always leave a few spots unfertilized to see if the material that you applied actually made a difference.

Comments about this article? We want to hear from you. Feel free to email us at article@jcsmarketinginc.com

clean

NO Compromise - Organic Nutrition

Don’t settle when it comes to your organic nutrition program – choose AGRO-K and see the difference CLEAN delivers on your farm. Focused efforts on combining the “5R’s” of crop nutrition – Right Nutrient, Right Time, Right Form, Right Mix, Right Place – in the plant will deliver the highest quality, highest marketable yield and highest return on investment. Agro-K’s certified organic CLEAN™ line of foliar nutrients and soil biological products are manufactured to ensure maximum uptake and biological activity. We integrate our superior formulations with our deep knowledge of plant physiology and peak nutrient demand timing to build complete, high efficiency, cost effective nutrient programs that provide better value to organic crop production. The CLEAN line is specifically designed to address the nutritional needs of organically grown fruit crops. Our formulations are soft on plant tissue, rapidly taken up, highly bio-available and compatible with most organic crop protection products. CLEAN nutrition helps fruit growers meet peak nutrient demand timing and address nutrient deficiencies quickly while easily being integrated into crop protection programs. Fruit quality has many different components: size, color, visual appeal, internal texture, storability, shelf-life, reduced shrinkage & bruising. All these factors, are directly affected by nutrition and influence ultimate crop quality and marketable packout. Agro-K has a 40 year track record of helping growers increase profitability.

fast uptake and high availability so critical peak nutrient demand timings are not missed, preventing yield drag and quality issues. CLEAN SYMSPRAY – A seaweed based foliar nutrient designed to complement a support plant growth and function. CLEAN Symspray is also an excellent tool to prevent and/or reduce both environmental and physiological stress, leading to higher quality fruit at harvest. CLEAN CALCIUM – An organic foliar calcium designed to increase calcium levels in both tissue and fruit while improving the nitrogen to calcium ratio. Higher calcium levels in the crop helps build stronger more disease tolerant cell walls. Thicker more durable fruit cells generate higher yields, less bruising, less shrinkage and longer shelflife – in short better quality and increased grower returns. CLEAN BIOMAX – A fermentation derived food source for beneficial soil borne bacteria and fungi. Designed to increase nutrient cycling of compost and other organic matter while also maximizing plantavailable nutrients in the rhizosphere. Increasing soil available nutrients is the basis for increased crop quality and higher yields. If you’re looking to increase marketable yield in your organic farm talk to Agro-K today about tailoring a nutrient management program to improve results and deliver higher economic returns.

CLEAN ZN, MG, MN, FE, CU, B – Organic micronutrients - zinc, magnesium, manganese, iron, copper and boron designed for keep white space around the seal equal to 25% the size of the seal

AGRO-K CORpORAtiOn 8030 Main Street, NE • Minneapolis, MN 55432 800-328-2418 • www.agro-k.com

PROTECTING THE WHOLE ORGANIC FARM JUST GOT BETTER By Jeff Schahczenski | an Agricultural and Natural Resource Economist, with the National Center for Appropriate Technology (NCAT) Rex Dufour | NCAT Agriculture Specialist

N JUNE 5, 2019 THE Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC), which oversees the entire federal crop insurance program, announced important changes to the Whole Farm Revenue Protection (WFRP) policy as a result of legislation passed in the 2018 Farm Bill. We at the National Center for Appropriate Technology (NCAT) have been working since 2008 to support and improve the whole farm revenue approach to insuring farms and ranches. The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition and many others have also helped and after these many years of effort there is now a nationwide policy to insure the revenue from the whole farm and not just a single product. Since its creation as part of the 2014 Farm Bill, there has been a general upward trend in the use of WFRP with the exception of 2018 as can be seen in Table 1.

Though limited to farms with less than $10 million dollars in gross revenue, the WFRP program now provides the greatest extension of federal crop insurance coverage to all types of organic farmers in the history of the federal crop insurance program. Finally and perhaps most importantly, WFRP is the first agriculture insurance policy that provides substantial premium discounts for those who grow more than three crop or livestock products. It is a product ideal for organic and sustainable farming operations. Understanding and demonstrating the recent change in WFRP can be seen in the following example drawn from real world data of an organic field crop farm in Montana, my home state. The organic farmers who provided this example data are Doug and Anna Jones Crabtree of Vilicus Farms, 50 miles north of Havre, Montana very near the Canadian border.

In addition to providing whole farm revenue protection, WFRP offers a means to provide some level of subsidized crop insurance protection for Doug and Anna in any given year will farms of all sizes and any type of crop grow over eight different types of grains, or livestock product. Also, because oilseeds and legumes on 7,400 acres. coverage is based on the farm’s historic Many of their crops are very specialized adjusted gross revenue, the organic val- like for instance, emmer wheat. Policies Liabilities Total Premiums ue of the farm’s production is protected. Essentially, the recent change in WFRP Sold (millions $) (millions $)

2015

2015 2016 2016 2017 2017 2018 2018 2019* 2019*

Liabilities Total Premiums Policies (millions $) Sold 1122 (millions $)$1,146.0

11222198 2198 2740 2740 24962496 17991799

$1,146.0 $2,327.3$53.0 $2,327.3 $118.3 $2,842.5 $2,842.5 $143.0 $2,686.2 $2,686.2 $139.3 $2,054.6 $2,054.6$145.2

Table 1. WFRP History.

Organic Farmer

Smoothing Historic Revenue The critical change made has been to “smooth” the impact of historic high-levels of revenue variability that many farmers experience who use WFRP. These changes are modelled after the same “adjustments” that are made to a farmer’s “actual production history” (APH) in single crop revenue policies that most major organic and non-organic commodity farmers use. The difference is that the adjustments are made to historic revenue rather than the historic yields of a single crop being insured. This example is based on Vilicus Farms data and applied to a hypothetical 3,000 acre organic field farm in Hill County, Montana. This is the same county where Doug and Anna farm. The year of insurance is 2018. Though hypothetical, the estimates are roughly based on a realistic expectation of what an organic grain farmer’s revenue history could be. Table 2 (see page 23) is the organic grain farmers’ five years’ adjusted gross revenue history experience.

Indemnity

Pay Outs $53.0 (millions $)

$70.0 $118.3 $172.7 $143.0 $153.5 $139.3 $25.9 $0 $145.2 *Preliminary

August/September 2019

explained below will significantly improve coverage for those using this policy.

Doug and Anna, Vilicus Farms, “Big Sky” Montana. Photo courtesy of Vilicus Farms.

2018 Insurance Year Gross Revenue 2012 $ 850,000.00 2013 $ 20,000.00 950,000.00 2014 $ 1,100,000.00 2015 $ 50,000.00 2016 $ $ Totals 2,970,000.00 Average $ 594,000.00 Year

Table 2. Organic Farm Historic Adjusted Gross Revenue: Hill County, Montana.

The expected gross revenue for the insurance year, 2018, is $1 million dollars, which in this example, has been previously approved by the farmer’s crop insurance agent. In this example, 2017 is a “skip year”, which is typical due to the grower not yet having the final figures of gross revenue from tax returns. Under current policy rules, the premium would be based on the $594,000 average, and at an 85 percent coverage level, the farmer could cover up to $504,900 of revenue in the insurance year. What this means is that the farmer would not receive any insurance indemnity until revenue drops below $504,900. This is called the “trigger” point.

from the same set of years, with gross revenue figures for 2013 and 2016 replaced with $356,400 (60 percent of $594,000). Using these figures the average gross revenue will be $722,560. 2. The lowest historic revenue year will be dropped and the average will be based on the remaining four years of adjusted gross income. This calculation would result in an average gross revenue of $737,500. It’s not clear at this time which average calculations (#1 or #2) will take precedence. 3. The approved, insurable revenue for the insurance year (in this case, 2018) will be at least 90 percent of the previous years. This prevents producer’s insurance guarantee from dropping dramatically year-to-year. These changes to the WFRP policy have been approved by the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) in June of 2019. The FCIC is the governing

body for all crop insurance in the US. Details of implementation of these policy changes have not been officially released by United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Risk Management Agency as of publication date of this article. So the adjustments to this example would be: • 60 percent of 594,000 is $356,400 and therefore this replaces the values in 2013 and 2016. The new, recalculated average with $356,400 replacing the 2013 and 2016 figures is $722,560. So, at an 85 percent coverage level, the trigger point, or the revenue level at which insurance indemnity kicks in is when revenue drops below $722,560 X .85=$614,176 instead of $504,900, as currently calculated. The bottom line is that more revenue is insured.

Continued on Page 24

FREE online ag resources

publications, podcasts, videos, and more

Given the historic variability of the revenue of this farm, the “average” does not come very close to covering the realistic expectation of the farmer to obtain $1 million dollars in gross revenue in 2018. One could say the farmer is “under-insured” in this case or at least it is a high-deductible policy. Doug and Anna assured me that this kind of volatility in gross revenue is a realistic situation for many farms in Montana and may become even worse with further climate disruptions. There are three expected changes to how the average historic adjusted gross income will be determined. These “history smoothing options” are:

How can ATTRA help you?

Trusted technical assistance for your ag challenges Call toll-free 800-346-9140 or 800-411-3222 (español)

1. Each year that the historic revenue is below 60 percent of the producers’ average historic revenue will be replaced with the average revenue, calculated

August/September 2019

www.organicfarmermag.com

Continued from Page 23

• Hemp must be grown under a marketing contract.

• The approved revenue for the insurance year is $1 million dollars, 90 percent of that is $900,000. “Approved revenue” is the level of revenue that has been approved for revenue insurance by the farmer’s crop insurance agent. Keep in mind that the highest level of revenue insurance offered under WFRP is 85 percent, so the insurable revenue in this case is $900,000, but the trigger point would be 85 percent of that figure: $900,000 X .85= $765,000.

• No replant payments will be offered at this time.

Bottom Line These changes will make WFRP a better product over the longer-term given the often high degree of variability of a farmer’s income, whether organic or not. The total premium cost for this new adjusted WFRP policy would have been $103,923 dollars. With the federal subsidy the farmer pays $37,571 dollars, not an insignificant cost. However, it is important to note that many of the highly specialized organic crops grown and used in this example, such as emmer wheat and kamut, are very valuable and uninsurable in any other way. Also, it is critical to recognize that this unique policy provides some protection against revenue reductions, and not just losses attributed only to yield loss. Revenue is price X yield and both are at risk. Often there are yield risk policies for unusual specialty organic crops in some geographic locations, but rarely are these revenue policies. For example, I try to grow fresh market tomatoes in beautiful Butte, Montana but except for a WFRP policy, I would be unable to insure from price and yield risks. Coming Attractions: Provisions Specific to Hemp. WFRP will allow coverage for industrial hemp production for the 2020 crop year with the following restrictions: • Hemp must be produced in compliance with applicable plan (State, Tribal, or Federal).

Organic Farmer

• “Hot” hemp will not be considered an insurable loss at this time. Hot hemp occurs when THC concentrations spike above 0.3 percent due to crop stress and cross-pollination. Jeff Schahczenski, is an Agricultural and Natural Resource Economist, with the National Center for Appropriate Technology (NCAT). NCAT also implements ATTRA, the National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service through a cooperative agreement with the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Rural Business-Cooperative Service. ATTRA’s website, www. attra.ncat.org, has information about sustainable and organic production of crops and livestock, as well as an updated version of Biochar and Sustainable Agriculture. ATTRA runs two toll-free lines which growers can call to ask any question related to organic or sustainable agriculture (800-346-9140, and Spanish toll-free, 800-411-3222).

Resources ATTRA. www.attra.ncat.org, toll free lines 800-346-9140 (Spanish: 800-4113222) Particularly helpful publications, videos, podcasts are available at ATTRA Crop Insurance Documentation and Record Keeping for Whole Farm Revenue Protection (WFRP) https://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub-summaries/?pub=612

“

These changes will make WFRP a better product over the longer-term given the often high degree of variability of a farmer’s income, whether organic or not.

USDA Risk Management Agency (RMA) www.rma.usda.gov/

”

This site is an excellent resource for all RMA programs, specific policies, and general risk-management tools. The following are some important links within the website: • Basic description of policy types www.rma.usda.gov/policies/ • State profiles of policies offered and their use www.rma.usda.gov/pubs/state-profiles. html • Maps detailing policies that are offered in particular counties https://prodwebnlb.rma.usda.gov/apps/MapViewer/ index.html • Premium Cost Estimator for all polices https://ewebapp.rma.usda.gov/apps/ costestimator/ • Crop insurance agent locator https:// www3.rma.usda.gov/tools/agents/companies/ • Whole-Farm Revenue Protection Policy https://www.rma.usda.gov/policies/ wfrp.html

National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) http://sustainableagriculture.net/

• Requesting insurance not available in your county www.rma.usda.gov/pubs/rme/requestinginsurance.pdf

Vilicus Farms https://www.vilicusfarms.com/

Comments about this article? We want to hear from you. Feel free to email us at article@jcsmarketinginc.com

August/September 2019

PCA Hours:

Bringing

7.5

Crop Consultants

9.0

CCA Hours:

Together

ONLY $100

per person

Workshops and Seminars Mixer & Networking Meals Included

(Breakfast, Lunch and Snacks)

Full Gala Dinner Live Entertainment

PUBLICATION

(Jason Bird, Magician and Illusionist)

Over 50 Exhibits Prizes September 26th 1:00PM - 9:00PM September 27th 7:00AM - 1:00PM

September 26th-27th Visalia Convention Center

303 E. Acequia Ave. Visalia, CA 93291

See pages 25-29 for the Agenda and Application. FOR MORE DETAILS OR TO PRE-REGISTER ONLINE VISIT

progressivecrop.com/conference

Agenda Sponsor

Lanyard Sponsor

Indoor Sponsor

Coffee Break Sponsor

Indoor Sponsor

Mixer Sponsor

Breakfast Sponsor

Mixer & Tote Bag Sponsor

Indoor Sponsor

CE Credit Sponsor

AG MARKETING SOLUTIONS

Thursday September 26

6:30PM

4:00PM

Navigating Fungal Diseases Themis Michailides , Professor and Plant Pathologist UC Davis

1:00PM

Registration Getting the Most out of Your Soil Richard Kreps, CCA

CE Credits: 30 Minutes; Other

Paraquat Closed Transfer System (New EPA Guidelines for 2020) Charlene Bedal, West Coast Regional Manager, HELM AGRO US

2:30PM

How to Optimize IPM and Nutrient Management using Aerial Drone Technology Mark Dufau, Director of Business Development for AeroVironment

CE Credits: 30 Minutes; L & R

5:00PM Mixer/Trade Show

CE Credits: 30 Minutes; Other

3:00PM

One of the most innovative and prolific minds in the magic industry, Jason continuously advances the boundaries of magic, while powerfully connecting with his audiences.

Gabriel Torres, UCCE Farm Advisor, Tulare County

CE Credits: 30 Minutes; Other

3:30PM

The Latest in HLB and Asian Citrus Psyllid Management Greg Douhan, UCCE Area Citrus Advisor for Tulare, Fresno, and Madera Counties

CE Credits: 30 Minutes; Other

6:00PM Dinner

August/September 2019

7:00PM Jason Bird

Magician and Illusionist

Managing Botrytis in a Challenging Year

Organic Farmer

Speaker TBD

4:30PM

2:00PM

Future of Agriculture Chemicals in California

Jason Bird will perform small group illusions during the trade show / mixer from 5-6PM

*PRE-REGISTER TO BE ENTERED TO WIN A TRAEGER PRO SERIES GRILL powered by:

Attendee Registration

PUBLICATION

September 26th-27th Visalia Convention Center

Do you wish to receive/continue receiving our free monthly Publicatons? West Coast Nut Progressive Crop Consultant Organic Farmer Yes No

Yes No

PCA Hours:

7.5

CCA Hours:

9.0

$100 per attendee September 26th-27th Visalia Convention Center

303 E. Acequia Ave. Visalia, CA 93291

Workshops Seminars Drink Ticket on Us Mixer Networking Meals Included

Attendee Tickets cost $100 per person. Please list the full name of each attendee as you want it to appear on your name badge.

PRE-REGISTER TO BE ENTERED TO WIN A TRAEGER PRO SERIES 780 PELLET GRILL

(Gala Dinner, Lunch, Breakfast, and snacks)

Prizes

By checking yes, you agree to give JCS Marketing permission on a

Yes No monthly basis to mail industry related updates, third party emails and newsletters via email.

OVER $1,000 VALUE FOR MORE DETAILS OR TO REGISTER ONLINE VISIT

progressivecrop.com/conference

Internal Use Only:

CSH___

CC___

CHK___

INT___

Please Mail Applications and make checks payable to JCS Marketing, Inc. P.O. Box 27772 Fresno, CA 93729

2-Day Agenda

VISALIA CONVENTION CENTER 303 E Acequia Ave, Visalia, CA 93291

7.5 Hours of PCA Credit

Workshops and Seminars Mixer & Networking Meals Included (Breakfast, Lunch and Snacks)

Full Gala Dinner Live Entertainment

Other: 5.75 Laws and Regulations: 1.75

9.0 Hours of CCA Credit

(Jason Bird, Magician and Illusionist)

Over 50 Exhibits

(Tentative Agenda/Pending CE Approval)

Prizes

Friday September 27

8:00AM

Label Update

CE Credits: 50 Minutes; L & R

8:50AM

Evaluation of Mating Disruption as Part of an IPM Program Chuck Burks USDA Dani Casado, Ph.D. in Applied Chemical Ecology, Sutterra Peter McGhee, Ph.D., Research Entomologist Pacific Biocontrol Corp

7:00AM

CE Credits: 40 Minutes; Other

Breakfast / Going Above and Beyond for Your Grower – Keeping them Compliant Patty Cardoso, Director of Grower Compliance for Gar Tootelian, Inc.

10:30AM

Trade Show

CE Credits: 30 Minutes; Other

11:00AM

Panel—Top Insects Plaguing California Specialty Crops— BMSB, Mealy Bugs/NOW Spotted Wing Drosophila David Haviland (Mealy Bugs/NOW) UC Cooperative Extension, Kern County, Kent Daane (SWD) Cooperative Extension Specialist, UC Berkeley, Jhalendra Rijal (BMSB) UCCE IPM Advisor for northern San Joaquin Valley

CE Credits: 60 Minutes; Other

9:30AM

Regulatory Impacts on California Crop Protection Industry Matthew Allen, Director, California Government Affairs, Western Growers

7:30AM

CE Credits: 30 Minutes; L & R

CE Credits: 30 Minutes; Other

10:00AM

Trade Show

Break

August/September 2019

12:00PM Lunch

12:15PM

A New Approach to IPM Surendra Dara, Entomology and Biologicals Advisor, University of California Cooperative Extension

CE Credits: 30 Minutes; Other

1:00PM Adjourn

www.organicfarmermag.com

Organic Agriculture and the New Biotechnology By BRIAN BAKER | Contributing Writer

F ALL THE QUESTIONS that were up for debate in the development of organic standards in the 1990s, the most contentious was likely the use of modern biotechnology and genetic engineering techniques. Early efforts to introduce genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and their products to organic farming and food systems throughout the world were not well received. In the United States, the question was hotly debated by the thennew National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) and culminated in a recommendation not to accept the technology. In 1997, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) proposed allowing specific applications of genetic engineering and asked for public comment on a blanket allowance. Public comments in response overwhelmingly opposed allowing recombinant DNA techniques and the release of GMOs on organic farms. In 2000, the final National Organic Program (NOP) rule prohibited genetic engineering in the form of “excluded methods”.

include editing, deletion, multiplication or manipulation of genetic sequences as well as new techniques to induce mutations. The proponents of the gene editing describe the technology as being more precise than previous methods of genetic modification.

CRISPR

Transgenics

One of the new techniques that has received attention is known as CRISPR, which is short for “Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats”. Cas9 is the CRISPR-associated protein 9, which is an enzyme that can be used identify sequences, cut and splice them into different sections of a cell’s genome. The technique can also be used to silence (turn off) genes, delete them entirely, or duplicate them. Some claim that, because the technique does not involve the transfer of genetic material between species, the same modifications could result naturally from random mutation, at least in theory.

Since that time, both organic agriculture and biotechnology have continued to develop. New techniques to manipulate genetic information have been developed in recent years and are now in the process of being commercialized. Instead of transferring genetic information from one species to another—a process known as “transgenics”—many of the new techniques rely on modifying the existing genetic structure within the species. These

Another genome editing technique is known as TALEN, which stands for Transcription Activator-Like Effector Nucleases. While commercial applications thus far are limited, the technologies are receiving a lot of attention, funding and investment in academic and industrial settings because of the perceived potential for the new technology to replace classical breeding techniques. The question has come up in the organic

Organic Farmer

August/September 2019

community as to whether there might be any applications of gene editing technology that would be compatible with organic farming systems.

Excluded Methods In April 2016, the USDA’s National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) determined several gene editing and targeted genetic modification techniques, including CRISPR-Cas, zinc finger nuclease (ZFN) mutagenesis and oligonucleotide directed mutagenesis (ODM) to be excluded methods. Gene silencing, reverse breeding, synthetic biology, cloned animals and offspring, and plastid transformation were also included in the NOSB’s findings and recommendations. Cisgenesis, intragenesis, and agro-infiltration were later added to the NOSB’s list of excluded methods in November 2017. These are widely accepted to be excluded methods in organic production and handling systems and recommended that the USDA issue a clarification. The NOSB noted unanimous public comment that supported adding these three techniques to the excluded methods list. The USDA did the same for cell fusion techniques in 2013. The USDA has not yet responded to these NOSB recommendations. Those who were involved in responding to the first proposed rule find themselves in familiar territory. “I see history repeating itself,” said former NOSB Chair Michael Sligh. “Whatever

promises the new technologies have, they are unlikely to reach their potential given the lack of a holistic approach and the larger issues of who owns the technology, who decides how it will be applied and who pays when it goes awry.”

are considered by laboratories and USDA Accredited Certifying Agents to be likely to use a marker or identifying sequence to be able to protect their intellectual property before they commercially release such products.

Mandatory Labeling

Gene Editing

The USDA has also developed mandatory labeling regulations for bioengineered foods. The status of foods developed using these new techniques is still an open question. If the foods can be developed through conventional breeding technique or are found in nature, then they are not subject. Similarly, foods where bioengineering techniques cannot be discovered are also exempt. However, it is currently unknown whether novel foods not found in nature and developed with these new technologies could be developed with conventional techniques. Different laboratories indicate that the ability to detect foods made from the new techniques will be possible given reference material that has the “fingerprint” of the bioengineered food. Companies that develop such food

Academic and industry sources claim that gene editing has several advantages over earlier recombinant DNA (rDNA) techniques, such as precision and predictability. However, such advantages are not obvious to various farmers, seed companies, and others involved in the organic community, who have expressed skepticism in their public comments. The companies that introduced the earlier techniques made similar claims that turned out to be inaccurate, at least in some cases. While there are some organic farmers who think that there may be potential benefits someday, no known existing applications are accepted. As before, the proponents claim equivalency with existing classical breeding, while at the same time distinguishing it from clas-

sical breeding in terms of novelty, speed, and ability to modify the organisms to get certain specific traits. Among plant breeders, the distinction between the two approaches is starker.

International Implications The new technology is expected to have international implications. The European Court of Justice ruled in July of 2018 that CRISPR-Cas is a form of genetic engineering and food produced by it is subject to the European Union’s (EU) GE food labeling law. The international organic network IFOAM-Organics International published a position paper on the Compatibility of Breeding Techniques in Organic Systems. The paper documents the potential for new genetic disruption caused by the release of the technology. As in the US, the subject of the use of genetic engineering techniques has been the subject of a polarizing debate. Monika Messmer of the Research Institute for Organic Agriculture in Switzerland,

Continued on Page 32

Essential Minerals For Certified Organic Farms

Continued on Page 31

Higher Yields. All Natural. Better Quality.

Call 1.800.451.2888 or learn more at intrepidtrio.com

August/September 2019

www.organicfarmermag.com

Continued from Page 31 a plant breeder who is one of the authors of the position paper, said in an email, “Organic breeders are very much against mutagenesis and any type of genetic engineering; conventional breeders claim that they need the newest tool to combat climate change and [a] growing population.”

Other Applications One exception is the use of marker-assisted breeding. Classical plant breeders find the gene mapping to be a useful tool in the selection of varieties suitable for organic farming conditions. By having a greater understanding of plant genomes and using classical breeding, it would be possible to accelerate the development of varieties that are compatible with organic farming systems. The NOSB has recommended that marker-assisted selection not be considered an excluded method. These new techniques are applied to more than plant breeding. More applications are related to human health and pharmaceutical research. CRISPR and other related technologies could conceivably be useful to organic farmers as diagnostic tools for soil health. “We know more about the surface of the moon than we do about life in the soil inches beneath our feet,” said organic farmer Klaas Martens. “CRISPR and [other genomic tools] could give us insights to better manage these ecological systems.” The use of cisgenic techniques in the

Organic Farmer

modification of animal traits has several ethical, as well as health and environmental concerns. However, animal cloning is not considered compatible with the current organic standards, at least by consensus of the NOSB and USDA’s Accredited Certifying Agents. Other applications may involve the use of gene editing to enable greater confinement and higher stocking densities in Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs). One exception to excluded methods in the organic regulation is the use of animal vaccines. While the regulation allows for the use of genetically modified vaccines, the status of specific vaccines is unclear. Another new technology that has been introduced since the first proposed rule is the gene drive, which uses gene editing techniques to delete functional genes and manipulate a wild population to carry a uniform or single allele. The technique may be used to introduce insect pests or weeds that would produce sterile or otherwise non-viable offspring or seed, potentially displacing the native population in a few generations. The concern is that gene drive technology permanently and irreversibly alters ecological systems. Once released, a gene drive organism can no longer be controlled and has the potential to become a pest or weed that it is intended to displace. Organic farmers are concerned that the presence of gene drive organisms will can migrate to organic farms and undermine stable and resilient systems of ecological pest and weed management.

August/September 2019

Long Term Implications Several of the sources interviewed for this story raised questions about the longterm and broader ecological implications of the new biotechnology. Organic agriculture is a holistic system, and biotechnology techniques are based on reductionist methods. Single-gene resistance is used as one example. Breeding for vertical resistance—complete immunity based on a single gene—fails when the pathogen evolves to overcome that plant’s immunity. Multi-gene or horizontal resistance may not provide the absolute immunity of single gene resistance, but the resistant variety will be more resilient against subsequent mutations and the evolution of strains of the pathogen that overcomes the plant’s immune system. Another aspect that is not understood is what effects the new technology will have on the soil biome. Proponents of the technology acknowledge that risks are involved, but claim they are minimal and do not warrant any additional regulatory oversight. Others are skeptical and point to how the government has reassured the public for years that regulatory oversight has prevented risky applications of GMOs from being commercially released into the environment. Off-target effects may take years to discover. “We are already seeing unintended consequences from these new technologies” said Sligh. Comments about this article? We want to hear from you. Feel free to email us at article@jcsmarketinginc.com

Providing the Gold Standard for Fertility Programs in Agriculture, Since 1980

“NATURE’S

Are You Haunted By Problems In Your Field?

ENERGY

Are You Defining Your Soil Fertility Or Is A Fertilizer Program Driving You?

AT WORK!”

Are Your Fields Plagued With Insects & Diseases?



ORGANIC PRODUCTS  Bacterial Inoculum Products

• Activates - 1005, 2004, 2005, PMSLA, NF

Mycorrhizae Products

• Endo Maxx • UltraFine ENDO • Granular ENDO

Soil Food Products

• NRG's Nature's Solution • Wake Up Organo • True 315 • Ferti Nitro Plus

Rock Mineral Products • Azomite • Kelzyme

Humic & Fulvic Products

• Power K • Soluble Fulvic Acid (by Ferti Organic)

Seaweed Products

• Ferti Organic Soluble Seaweed Extract

info@callnrg.com 17612 Ave. 232 Tel: 559.564.1236 CA 93247 Fax: 559.564.1238 August/September 2019 Lindsay, www.organicfarmermag.com www.callnrg.com 33

Fat (%)

ME (Mcal/kg)

NEg (Mcal/kg)

Treatment

NFC (%)

PR+BFT MB+BFT OG+BFT TF+BFT PR MB OG TF Trmt. Type Mixture Monoculture

29.2a 19.1cd 18.7d 19.6c 27.3b 19.0cd 17.8e 18.9cd

1.26a 2.1g 2.85a 8.4b e bc cd 1.19bc 2.5 2.75 6.4 are ccourtesy of 2.75 Blair cWaldron, USDA-ARS. 1.19c 6.3c All photos2.7 g d d 1.07d 2.2 2.59 6.0 b a b 2.9 11.0 1.21b 2.78 d d cd 1.07d 2.5 2.59 6.3 a 3.0 6.3cd 1.06d 2.58d f e cd 0.98e 2.3 2.48 6.3

21.7a 20.8b

6.8b 7.5a

WSC (%)

Pasture Mixes to Improve the Sustainability of Organic Pasture-based Dairy 2.4b 2.7a

2.73a 2.61b

1.17a 1.08b

By STACIE CLARY | Western SARE

The Organic Production System This production system is not without its problems and challenges. Dairies such as these that use the most pasture forage—anywhere between 75 to 100 percent of diet—have the lowest net returns due to a 32 percent decrease in milk production, according to Dr. Blair Waldron, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)/Agricultural Research Service (ARS). He notes that reduced dry matter intake (DMI) by grazing dairy cows is one of the major factors limiting milk production.

that mixtures of tall fescue and the condensed-tannin Pasture:containing P < 0.01legume, 19 Day: birdsfoot trefoil P (BFT), improved beef < 0.01 steer performance, Blair andPhis producPasture* Day: < 0.01 17 er-partners asked “are there grass-BFT mixtures 15 that increase both tannins and energy, and what will be their synergistic effect13on dairy cattle performance?”

BUN Concentration (mg/dL)

S THE MARKET FOR organic pasture-raised beef has grown, so has consumer demand for dairy products from pasture-based cows. Producers are responding, with organic pasture-based dairies making up a larger share of the Western region dairy sector.

Complicating matters more, dairy cattle breeds are finicky-grazers, resulting in even lower DMI of traditional pasture species like tall fescue. Additionally, nutrient-rich pastures may reduce pregnancy rates, creating additional difficulties for the producer. Waldron heard these concerns directly from Utah and Idaho producers. As previous research had demonstrated

Organic Farmer

Research

9 Waldron assembled a team to look at this7 question, including the three producers, animal scientists, agron5 omists, and a nutrient management 0 35 specialist from Utah State University. Days The research is funded by the USDA-Western

Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) program and uses university and on-farm trials to assess dairy heifer DMI, growth performance, reproductive health, heifer-replacement economics, and impact on nitrogen cycling in response to grazing grass-BFT mixtures containing various protein, energy, preference, and tannin levels. MONO The research will identify pasture mixturesMIX that can improve the sustainability of organic pasture-based dairy. While the team is still reviewing the data, the 70project has shown 105 enough results that each of the three producers has altered their forages. They have planted new

Treatments1

BW gain (kg)

ADG (kg/day)

PR+BFT TMR OG+BFT MB+BFT TF+BFT OG PR MB TF Monoculture Mixture

69.8a,2 69.2a 63.9ab 63.0ab 57.2bc 56.6bc 53.6c 52.0c 40.8d 50.7b 63.6a

0.67a 0.66a 0.61ab 0.60ab 0.54bc 0.54bc 0.51c 0.50c 0.39d 0.48b 0.61a

1Treatments include: Meadow Bromegrass (MB), Meadow Bromegrass + BFT (MB+BFT) Orchard

Table 1. Effect of(OG), different treatments heifer Perennial body weight (BW) the 105 day grazing Grass Orchard Grass + BFTon (OG+BFT), Ryegrass (PR),for Perennial Ryegrass + BFT period. Mixed Bromegrass Ration (TMR), and as the mean of the grass monocultures grass-BFTOrchard Grass 1Treatments(PR+BFT), include: Total Meadow (MB), Meadow Bromegrass + BFT and (MB+BFT) mixtures. (OG), Orchard Grass + BFT (OG+BFT), Perennial Ryegrass (PR), Perennial Ryegrass + BFT (PR+BFT), 2 Means within each column that have a different superscript are different from one another (P < Total Mixed 0.05) Ration (TMR), and as the mean of the grass monocultures and grass-BFT mixtures. 2Means within each column that have a different superscript are different from one another (P < 0.05)

August/September 2019

The research that led to this finding produced data relative to growth, health, and reproductive capacity of the heifers over two years. These measurements include, weight, hip height, serum concentrations of blood urea nitrogen (BUN) and insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1), conception rates, and fecal parasite load. More in-depth analysis will look at and explain differences and trends.

Research to Date The research so far demonstrates that heifers on different grass-BFT mixtures had greater weight gain than with their respective grass-only monocultures. The weight gain of heifers grazing PR+BFT, MB+BFT, and OG+BFT was equivalent to heifers receiving a traditional total mixed ration. Blood Urea Nitrogen (BUN) and the closely related Milk Urea Nitrogen (MUN) values can be used to monitor protein efficiency in cows. According to Waldron, high BUN impacts fertility. The team is measuring BUN values in the heifers undergoing different feed treatments. Heifers that consumed pasture that included BFT had a higher (P NAAIC field tour.

Continued on Page 36

pastures due to preliminary results of study, and other producers are taking note. “We love our new pasture of high-energy grass and BFT. Milk production went up and milk components stayed the same, which is rare. Basically that means more money in the bank,” states Frank Turnbow, one of the producers.

Changes to Component Milk Pricing During the course of this project, the organic milk company changed their component pricing—paying less for fluid milk, but more for high components of butterfat and, to a lesser extent, protein. Since the feed largely influences these components, there is even more reason these farmers are looking to more data on forages. “We continually find more and more interest from those in organic milk production where grazing is such a big factor,” says Waldron.

d-LIMONENE ADJUVANT

As one of the Utah State University graduate students on the team completed analyzing his data, an important finding was that the addition of BFT to pasture increases growth and development of replacement heifers. He found that mixed pastures with BFT may be a sustainable alternative to feeding a total mixed ration (TMR) in a confined setting in order to achieve adequate growth of dairy heifers.

100% Active Ingredient!

Spreader-Activator with Citrus Extract

R-Agent DL® dramatically boosts performance.

Use R-Agent DL with and without oil on agricultural, turf, ornamental, and non-cropland sites.

Additional Finding

Bring the heat on hard-to-kill weeds and insects with

Distributed by

Chemurgic Agricultural Chemicals, Inc. P.O. Box 2106 • Turlock, CA 95381

For more information: email: tom@chemurgic.net Tom Kelm: 559 696-6558

• Adjuvants • Nutrients • Organics • Formulation Services

www.chemurgic.net

August/September 2019

www.organicfarmermag.com

6.8b 7.5a

21.7a 20.8b

Mixture Monoculture

2.4b 2.7a

2.73a 2.61b

1.17a 1.08b

Figure 1. Effect of Pasture on heifer BUN over the 105 d period. Pastures include: Monoculture pastures without BFT (MONO), mixed pastures with BFT (MIX).

BUN Concentration (mg/dL)

Pasture: P < 0.01

Demo RPM at Pasture Field day.

19 Day: P < 0.01 17

Pasture* Day: P < 0.01

15 13 MONO MIX

11 9 7 5

Continued from Page 35 < 0.01) BUN at all time points (Figure 1), indicating an increased intake of protein/ nitrogen in those animals, but BUN levels never surpassed concentrations thought to be detrimental to reproduction (i.e., 20 mg/dL). Further findings illustrate that the highsugar perennial ryegrass had greater energy than the other grasses, whereas, the high-sugar orchard grass often did not. All grass-BFT mixtures had greater energy than their respective grass monocultures. Waldron and his team will continue summarizing heifer performance; determine which herbage traits (e.g., protein, energy, tannins, etc.) are having the biggest effect on heifer performance; conduct economic analysis, and look at the effect grazing on the nitrogen cycle. Due to the impact this project could have on the organic pasture-based dairy industry, Waldron and his team place a strong emphasis on outreach. They have designed an innovative plan to enhance communication among producers, processors, marketers, researchers, and extension personnel by building an interactive multi-state communications network facilitated by e-Organic. This will include printed materials, webinars, webpages, and video available to everyone interested. Comments about this article? We want to hear from you. Feel free to email us at article@jcsmarketinginc.com

Organic Farmer

105

Treatments1

BW gain (kg)

ADG (kg/day)

PR+BFT TMR OG+BFT MB+BFT TF+BFT OG PR MB TF Monoculture Mixture

69.8a,2 69.2a 63.9ab 63.0ab 57.2bc 56.6bc 53.6c 52.0c 40.8d 50.7b 63.6a

0.67a 0.66a 0.61ab 0.60ab 0.54bc 0.54bc 0.51c 0.50c 0.39d 0.48b 0.61a

1Treatments include: Meadow Bromegrass (MB), Meadow Bromegrass + BFT (MB+BFT) Orchard Grass (OG), Orchard Grass + BFT (OG+BFT), Perennial Ryegrass (PR), Perennial Ryegrass + BFT (PR+BFT), Total Mixed Ration (TMR), and as the mean of the grass monocultures and grass-BFT mixtures. 2 Means within each column that have a different superscript are different from one another (P < 0.05) Estimates of energy in the herbage from the different pasture treatments: Non-fibrous

Table 2. carbohydrates (NFC), water-soluble carbohydrates (WSC), fat, metabolizable energy (ME), and Net energy for gain (NEg).

ME (Mcal/kg)

NEg (Mcal/kg)

Treatment

NFC (%)

WSC (%)

Fat (%)

PR+BFT MB+BFT OG+BFT TF+BFT PR MB OG TF Trmt. Type Mixture Monoculture

29.2a 19.1cd 18.7d 19.6c 27.3b 19.0cd 17.8e 18.9cd

8.4b 6.4cd 6.3c 6.0d 11.0a 6.3cd 6.3cd 6.3cd

2.1g 2.5e 2.7c 2.2g 2.9b 2.5d 3.0a 2.3f

2.85a 2.75bc 2.75c 2.59d 2.78b 2.59d 2.58d 2.48e

1.26a 1.19bc 1.19c 1.07d 1.21b 1.07d 1.06d 0.98e

21.7a 20.8b

6.8b 7.5a

2.4b 2.7a

2.73a 2.61b

1.17a 1.08b

¹Treatments include: Meadow Bromegrass (MB), Meadow Bromegrass + BFT (MB+BFT) Orchard Grass (OG), Orchard Grass + BFT (OG+BFT), Perennial Ryegrass (PR), Perennial Ryegrass + BFT (PR+BFT), and as the mean of the grass monocultures and grass-BFT mixtures. ²Means within each column that have a different superscript are different from one another (P < 0.05)

August/September 2019 Pasture: P < 0.01 19 Day: P < 0.01 )

Days

COMPOST

100% Fully Composted Dairy Manure The Leaders in Dairy Compost Manufacturing

Custom B

Gypsum

le b a l i a v A lending

u f l u S e n - Limesto

HAU E W , L L A YOU C

Servicing the Valley since 1925

559-686-5707

What can Cain do for you?

Ask us about our Dust Control and Fertilizer Products.

August/September 2019

www.organicfarmermag.com

Transforming Agriculture from a Problem into a Solution—

Sustainable Water Management in a Changing Climate By LAUREN SNYDER | Education and Research Program Manager, Organic Farming Research Foundation

Hay in flooded area.

Organic Farmer

August/September 2019

HE LATEST REPORT FROM the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts substantial changes in precipitation patterns around the globe, which has major implications for freshwater resources. Reduced rainfall and water scarcity are likely consequences of climate change in many regions. For example, desertification—an irreversible reduction in the productivity of land that was once arable—is a growing problem in Africa where water is already a scarce resource and food insecurity an overwhelming issue. In many places around the globe, water is rapidly becoming a precious resource, and the amount of land suitable for agricultural production is shrinking. However, a lack of water is just one piece of the climate change puzzle we must solve.

cipitation patterns in many areas of the world were once relatively predictable, allowing farmers to plan planting and harvesting times. Yet, these patterns are becoming increasingly erratic. As a result, growers must be ready to respond to rapidly fluctuating weather patterns, which makes it harder for them to plan

Emissions While the Earth’s climate has changed many times over the millennia, the rate

Continued on Page 40

Enhanced Codling Moth Larval Control! For conventional and organic California walnuts!!

LIGHT THEM UP & SUPER-CHARGE YOUR INSECTICIDE!

ENHANCE CODLING MOTH KILL

On the other end of the spectrum, more intense and frequent rainfall is presenting another obstacle to food production. This year, the Midwest experienced record flooding, affecting millions of people and taking a huge toll on U.S. agriculture. In Nebraska alone, crop and livestock losses are expected to exceed $1 billion. Given that extreme weather events are predicted to become the new norm, we will likely need to strengthen relief programs currently in place to ensure farmers and ranchers are adequately compensated for their losses. While no single weather event can be attributed to climate change, the increased incidence of unexpected and extreme weather events over time is indicative of a changing climate. Whether rainfall is too scarce or too plentiful, unpredictable precipitation patterns have major consequences for agricultural producers. On one hand, water scarcity can stunt crop growth and increase vulnerability to pests and diseases. On the other hand, too much water can wash away freshly sown seeds; heavy rains can damage crops, reducing marketable yields. Heavy rainfall early in the growing season can also waterlog soils and delay planting, which can have serious economic implications for growers, particularly those working with a short growing season or trying to time deliveries with a particular market. Pre-

and increases their vulnerability to production risks.

Data supports: 40% Average Reduction Compared to Insecticide Alone

Simply tank mix with insecticide application

Available in 10, 20 and 40 acre container sizes!

MICRO-ENCAPSUL ATE SPRAYABLE!

CIDETRAK® DA MEC™ contains a novel, patented kairomone in a micro-encapsulated liquid formulation that influences the behavior of adult and larval Codling Moth, resulting in significant enhancement of the control of Codling Moth larvae when tank mixed with various insecticides. Additionally, Codling Moth adult control is significantly enhanced when mixed indirectly with airborne Codling Moth pheromone applied as a mating disruption treatment. • What it does: Disrupts oviposition. Changes larval behavior: Stops/delays locating walnut; stops/delays walnut entry and reduces damage. • How to use it: Simply tank mix with each insecticide application. • Longevity: More than 14 days following application. ®

ENHANCED CODLING MOTH CONTROL INCORPORATED INSECT PHEROMONE & KAIROMONE SYSTEMS

Your Edge – And Ours – Is Knowledge.

Contact your local supplier and order now! Visit our website: www.trece.com or call: 1-866-785-1313.

PLEASE: ALWAYS READ THE LABEL *Based on USDA analysis global data base.

August/September 2019

www.organicfarmermag.com

Furrow irrigation in organic tomatoes at Park Farming Organics, Meridian, California. Photo courtesy of Scott Park.

Continued from Page 39 of change we are currently witnessing is much greater than anything nature has previously experienced. Shifts in climate that would normally occur over geological time scales are happening within a human lifetime; a clear indication we do not have the luxury of continuing business as usual. While many human activities produce the greenhouse gases largely responsible for climate change (carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane), mainstream agricultural practices are a major contributor of the latter two, which happen to be the most potent greenhouse gases. Interestingly, the rate of nitrous oxide and methane emissions from agriculture is influenced in part by soil moisture levels. For example, spikes of nitrous oxide emissions tend to occur when soil moisture levels are high. Therefore, we can expect emissions of these greenhouse gases to

1) Keep soil covered 2) Diversify crops 3) Maintain living roots 4) Minimize disturbance

fluctuate alongside changing precipitation patterns. Given these changes, it is essential we support the adoption of agricultural management practices that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase resilience to the effects of climate change we are already experiencing.

vices: 1) keep soil covered, 2) diversify crops, 3) maintain living roots, and 4) minimize disturbance. However, implementing practices that achieve these principles—such as conservation tillage to reduce soil disturbance—can be at odds with other production goals, such as weed management. Moreover, there are a number of different ways growers can implement each of these principles. For example, maintaining crop diversity can be achieved by planting polycultures, implementing diversified crop rotations, and/or growing cover crops. Growers need to understand the benefits and challenges associated with each of these strategies, and under what conditions these practices are most likely to succeed. To overcome these implementation challenges, OFRF funds innovative research on organic soil health management so organic producers have the knowledge they need to confidently select strategies that make sense for them.

Healthy Soils

Research by OFRF

Enter the Organic Farming Research Foundation (OFRF), a national non-profit committed to improving organic production systems and supporting the success of organic growers. Through national surveys of organic producers and analyses of the latest agricultural research, OFRF identified soil health as a key management strategy that can help farmers and ranchers mitigate and adapt to the effects of climate change. A large body of research clearly indicates healthy soils provide a number of valuable services that can help farmers adapt to changes in water availability. For example, healthy soils have greater water holding capacity compared to degraded soils, which means healthy soils are better at retaining water when it is scarce and absorbing excess moisture when it is abundant.

Recently, OFRF funded a project exploring the potential for soil health practices to improve a farm’s resilience to water shortages, research that could help growers adapt to shifts in water availability associated with climate change. The project was led by Dr. Amélie Gaudin at the University of California, Davis in collaboration with Scott Park, an organic grower in the Sacramento Valley. A primary goal of the project was to empirically test how healthy soil practices, such as diverse crop rotations, cover cropping, and conservation tillage, affected water use efficiency in tomato crops. Given the water restrictions many California farmers experienced during the recent multi-year drought, it is critical to develop new irrigation strategies that reduce water inputs while maintaining product quality. Specifically, the project tested a standard irrigation schedule (irrigation terminated 30 days before harvest) against a deficit irrigation

The Natural Resources Conservation Service has identified four key soil health principles that support these ser-

Continued on Page 42

Organic Farmer

August/September 2019

Helping Farmers Grow

Naturally Since 1974

Helping Farmers Grow NATURALLY Since 1974 www.newerafarmservice.com

Organic Products & Services • Compost • Custom Blends • VitazymeTM • Gypsum • Limestone • Root Stimulants • Liquid Fish Fertilizers • Mycorrhizae Fungi • Leaf Test

• AcadiamTM Seaweed Extract • Liquid Compost • Liquid R/S • Foliar Nutrients • Liquid Potassium • Humic Acid • Yucca Saponin Extract • Soil Test

Certified Crop Advisors on Staff

Contact Us Today! Doug Graham Certified Crop Advisor License #329563 Tel 559-686-3833 doug@newerafarmservice.com 2904 East Oakdale Ave. Tulare, CA 93274

August/September 2019

www.organicfarmermag.com

Continued from Page 40 schedule (irrigation terminated 45 days before harvest) on organic farm fields under sustainable soil management, and on conventional fields characterized by lower soil health metrics. The study demonstrated that fields

under long-term organic management experienced no significant loss in yield when water inputs were reduced. Yield losses on conventional fields were also not significantly affected by deficit irrigation. However, conventional fields under deficit irrigation experienced

The study demonstrated that fields under long-term organic management experienced no significant loss in yield when water inputs were reduced.

an 8.6 percent yield loss, while tomato yield in organic fields was only reduced by 3.6 percent when water inputs were reduced. While neither of these losses are statistically significant, they have practical significance for growers. Overall, the findings of this study suggest terminating irrigation slightly earlier in the growing season is a viable strategy, particularly for organic tomato growers, to cope with irrigation water shortages without harming their yields. Moreover, organic fields exhibited significantly better water holding capacity compared to conventional fields, which suggests that healthy soil practices could also benefit farmers in situations where water is too plentiful. Further research in this area would be particularly useful in light of the predictions for increased flooding due to climate change. Traditionally, agriculture has been viewed as a major contributor to environmental problems, such as climate change. However, research such as that conducted by Dr. Gaudin and Scott Park highlights the opportunity to innovate farming practices that ameliorate these issues and demonstrates that we do not have to accept business as usual. OFRF’s Soil Health and Organic Farming series of guidebooks and webinars and all results from OFRF-funded research projects are available for free at ofrf.org. Comments about this article? We want to hear from you. Feel free to email us at article@jcsmarketinginc.com

Organic Farmer

August/September 2019

www.organicfarmermag.com

Importance of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in Managing Arthropod Pests in Organic Nut Production in California By JHALENDRA RIJAL | UC Cooperative Extension & Statewide IPM Program, Northern San Joaquin Valley

HE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT of Agriculture’s (USDA) National Organic Standards Board defines organic food as the food that is produced without the use of conventional pesticides, petroleum-based fertilizers, sewage-sludge-based fertilizers, herbicides, genetic engineering (biotechnology), antibiotics, growth hormones, or irradiation. The land that produces organic food should not have the prohibited substances used for at least three years before the harvest of an organic crop. The demand for organic foods, including tree nuts, has been on the rise in the United States, and elsewhere. Based on the survey data published by USDA-NASS (National Agricultural Statistics Service) in 2017, California is the number one producer of the organic food from 2,713 certified organic farms covering 1.1 million acres of the land which accounts for ~21 percent of total U.S. certified organic land. Based on survey, there have been over 150 farms with ~15000 acres of total nut crop production in California (5897 acres walnut, 5954 acres almond, and 1520 acres pistachio) with crop value exceeding ~65 million dollars (See Figure), and this figure has likely increased in the past four years or so.

Major Arthropod Pests of Tree Nuts A variety of insect and mite species infest nut crops in California. These include worm pests (lepidopterans: navel orangeworm, oriental fruit moth, codling moth, peach twig borer, leafrollers), several species of webspinning (two-spotted spider mites, Pacific spider mites) and nonwebspinning mite species (brown mite, European red mite). In addition, several species of large and small plant and stink bug species often pose a threat

Organic Farmer

“ Based on the survey data published by USDA-NASS

(National Agricultural Statistics Service), California is the number one producer of the organic food from 2,713 certified organic farms covering 1.1 million acres of the land which accounts for ~21 percent of total U.S. certified organic land.

Total organic nut production and crop value in California

”

Production (million lbs.)

Crop Value (million $)

25 20 15 10 5 0

Almonds

Walnuts

Pistachios

Figure courtesy of USDA NASS 2017.

and certainly, has been the case in managing major pests in the nut crop production systems in California. IPM is the pest management strategy that involves decision making by utilizing the knowledge about the particular pest and its phenology, economic thresholds, and utilize preventative, and curative control measures. The goal of IPM is to IPM in Organic Orchards manage the pest populations before it Integrated pest management (IPM) has hits the economically damaging level by been a ‘mantra’ to manage crop pests, integrating all suitable and compatible to almond and pistachio growers with substantial damage in some years and areas of the Central Valley. A few species of aphids, mealybugs, ants and scale insects are prevalent in nut crop orchards and need attention in many respects.

August/September 2019

Available Pest Control Tools and Research Gaps

practices (winter sanitation, early harvest) and newer options such as mating disruption technique available. Removal of the last year’s nuts which carry overwintering NOW larvae, from the trees and orchard floor during the winter has been a proven strategy in reducing the in-season navel orangeworm population. This practice should be the most critical for organic production as in-season insecticides are not very reliable and limited in number. Also, harvesting the nuts before the late generation’s egg laying is another cultural strategy to minimize the navel orangeworm damage.

Navel orangeworm (NOW) is the most damaging pest across three major nut crops grown in California. Female moths lay eggs on susceptible nuts (i.e., split nuts, and nuts that are damaged by other causes) and larvae burrow into the fruit and eventually to the nutmeat and cause direct damage. There are well established cultural

Mating disruption is a proven and noninsecticidal method for NOW control in nut crops. It is a behavioral control in which the mate-finding by male moth is disrupted by applying a large quantity of synthetic pheromone to the orchard. The goal is to reduce the population gradually over the generations, and years, although growers can be

control options, including cultural, biological, and chemical control as a last resort. The success of IPM in nonorganic production systems is often due to availability of efficacious synthetic chemical pesticides. However, due to the limited availability of allowable and efficacious active ingredients in an organic production system, it is imperative to follow other pest management tactics carefully, and more often so that the pest population has not reached to the extreme level.

benefited from one season application as well. At least two commercial mating disruption products are currently available for organic use. Consult your pest control advisor (PCA) and local farm advisor for further information on this. For the insecticide control, there are a few organically acceptable insecticides available to use in addition to other IPM practices described earlier for NOW control. Examples include spinosad-based, pyrethrinbased insecticides. There are several newer organic insecticides in the market, but we do not have enough research based information yet for any recommendations. Navel orangeworm is unpredictable, and difficult pest to manage, it is highly recommended to utilize a combination of available monitoring tools (i.e., pheromone and oviposition-based traps, harvest

Continued on Page 46

MARK YOUR CALENDAR

Date TBD (Orland, CA)

For These Industry Events

January 10, 2020 (Yuba City, CA)

OFAC Seminar Series August 8th 2019 (Tulare, CA) November 14th 2019 (Tulare, CA)

June 5, 2019 (Turlock, CA)

June 19-21, 2019 (Monterey, CA)

www.organicfertilizerassociation.org/seminars

June 12, 2019 (Fresno, CA)

September 26-27 (Visalia, CA)

November 20, 2019 (Tulare, CA)

AG MARKETING SOLUTIONS

October 24, 2019 (Bakersfield, CA)

@jcsmarketing

JCS Marketing Inc.

@jcs_marketing

For more info visit: www.wcngg.com/events

August/September 2019

www.organicfarmermag.com

Continued from Page 45 samples) to track insect and damage activities in the orchard and use this information for in-season management. The second major group of the insect pests of concern is true bugs, mainly leaffooted bug and a few species of the stink bugs. These bugs have piercing and sucking type (i.e., straw-like) mouthparts and attack on developing fruits. The feeding can cause a substantial crop loss due to the nut abortion early in the season and by producing defect kernels at harvest from mid-to-late season infestations. Visual and trap-based monitoring of the orchard regularly is essential to detect bugs while they are moving into the orchard from their overwintering habitat early in the season. Plant and stink bugs are difficult to control with other practices except for the use of broad-spectrum insecticides, and the insecticides for organic use are not very effective. General practice is to apply pyrethrin-based insecticide, some neem-based products, and this is the area where there has been a significant lag in terms of efficacy trials looking at various insecticides for organic use. Now, with the spread of the new invasive stink bug species, brown marmorated stink bug (BMSB) to crops including damage to almond, there is a desperate need for exploring some new tools to control these bugs, especially in organic production systems. The third group of the arthropod pests of the nut crops is spider mites. Spider mites can effectively be controlled by following the IPM practices in nut crop orchards. Predatory mites and other mite predators are active along with spider mites in nut crop orchards. In recent years, we have seen the surge of six-spotted thrips and spider mite destroyer beetle (i.e., Stethorus beetle), both are effective predators, throughout the Central Valley almond orchards, and there have been examples that these predators keeping mite population under control in San Joaquin Valley almond orchards. The caveat is that growers and PCAs need to follow the available monitoring and sampling practices to understand the phenology of the pest and predators, plus apply the pest management program that is not disruptive to these natural enemies. Some cultural practices such as a drier

Organic Farmer

orchard environment can foster the mite population, and practices that reduce these conditions can reduce the mite population. If needed, oil-based miticides are effective and available to use against mites should they reach the thresholds. See a recent article about mite control in organic production by David Haviland, UCCE Kern (https:// bit.ly/31IJIAu). The fourth group of insects is relatively small sucking insect pests such as aphids, mealybugs, scale insects. These insects often have a robust natural enemy complex in the orchard. In most cases, they are capable of keeping the population below the threshold levels. It is also critical to remember; these pestnatural enemy interactions are often in a delicate balance situation which is likely to be disrupted easily when using broad-spectrum insecticide, especially early in the season. Conducting regular monitoring and sampling is highly recommended to track the insect pest, and predator dynamics population in orchards. UCIPM has published protocols for sampling scale and mites in almond, walnut, pistachio during the dormant season. The sampling can be done by examining pest and natural enemy presence and abundance in fruit spurs, scaffolds, branches, fruiting woods, and recording the abundance.

Adult spider mite destroyer, Stethorus picipes, feeding on a mite. Photo by Jack Kelly Clark, courtesy University of California Statewide IPM Program.

Photo by Jack Kelly Clark, courtesy University of California Statewide IPM.

Almond: http://ipm.ucanr.edu/PMG/ C003/m003dcdmtspursmpl.html Walnut: https://www2.ipm.ucanr. edu/agriculture/walnut/DormantMonitoring/ Pistachio: https://www2.ipm.ucanr.edu/ agriculture/pistachio/Soft-Scales/ For San Jose scale and non-webspinning mites (brown and European red mites) infestation in almonds can be treated with the dormant oil (6-8 gallons/acre) during the delayed dormant timing

Summary Although demand and acreage for organic crops have been rising, effective tools for organic pest management are limited. Organic growers need to deploy available pest management tools strategically that includes utilizing monitoring tools, cultural practices, biological control, any other preventative options available as much

August/September 2019

Sticky panel trap with BMSB lure installed in an almond orchard to monitor BMSB activity.

as feasible. Organic growers should not solely rely on insecticides as they are costly, and the majority of them may not be very effective compared to the chemical insecticides used in conventional orchards. Comments about this article? We want to hear from you. Feel free to email us at article@jcsmarketinginc.com

Multi-Target Navel Orangeworm Monitoring Systems for conventional and organic tree nuts

FOUR STAR – 2020 LINE UP! WE ARE READY TO SUPPORT YOUR NOW MONITIORING NEEDS! MONITORING SYSTEMS

Male Attractant System: PHEROCON ® NOW L2 Lure

Female Attractant System: PHEROCON ® IV NOW

PHEROCON VI Delta Trap

NOW L2 High Pheromone Lure

NEW! Multi-Gender Attractant System: PHEROCON ® NOW PPO ™ Lure

PHEROCON IV NOW Egg Trap

NOW L2 Low Pheromone Lure

• Male NOW Attractant High/LowRelease Pheromone Lures

NEW! Predator Detection System: PHEROCON ® PREDATOR ™ Trap

• Female NOW – Oviposition – Attractant, Concentrated, Stabilized lures

• Detect mite predators, such as the Six-spotted thrips and Stethorus beetles • Based on the Great Lakes IPM trap • Used in recent university trials • May be used as a treatment threshold indicator • Contains easy hanger

PHEROCON 1C Trap

• Male/Female NOW Attractant, High-Release PPO Microporous Gel™ Peelable Kairomone Lure More information below

Note: Apply miticides based on UC-IPM Guidelines

• Male/Female NOW Attractant, High-Release PPO Microporous Gel™ Peelable Kairomone Lure • Duplicates USDA release rate • Ready-to-Use, peelable backing standard vial at 100 mgs per day • 12 weeks field longevity • Easy to use; ready-to-use barrier pack

® NEW! System:PHEROCON® PHEROCONPPO™ NOWLure PPO ™ Lure NEW!Multi-Gender Multi-GenderAttractant Attractant System:

Controls the release of more volatile molecules while allowing release of less volatile molecules. • Volatile molecules Precision - multicomponent release •

• Less volatile molecules

Higher capture rates • Earlier detection •

• Greater longevity *Patent pending

Contact your local supplier and order now! Visit our website: www.trece.com or call: 1- 866-785-1313.

INCORPORATED INSECT PHEROMONE & KAIROMONE SYSTEMS

Organic Farmer

August/September 2019