Don’t Fear Pesticide Residues

New Report Seeks to Reassure Consumers, Calm Unwarranted Safety Fears re: Pesticide

This time of year, food becomes a primary focus of conversation as we turn our thoughts to colder weather, cozy family dinners and the holidays.  Food should be a source of fun, healthiness and good flavors – it should not be a source of fear.  But, when it comes to fruits and vegetables, some groups actively promote inaccurate messaging designed to evoke fear in an effort to promote one farming method over others.

Study after study and government sampling programs repeatedly confirm the safety of produce.  Decades of studies also show the significant health benefits of a diet rich in fruits and vegetables, including the prevention of diseases and increased lifespan.  Yet these groups continue promoting disparaging messaging and have even increased the veracity of their statements in recent promotional efforts.

Even more concerning is this is done in light of peer reviewed research which is showing that when consumers are exposed to inaccurate messaging about “high” residues, they state they are less likely to purchase any produce – organic or conventionally grown.  With only one in 10 Americans eating enough produce each day, registered dietitians and nutritionists have a hard enough time working with clients and consumers on overcoming barriers to consumption, now they also have to counter safety fears?  Doesn’t seem right.

Now a new report seeks to reassure consumers by describing how information from complex risk assessments can be misinterpreted in news stories and by certain groups. “Consumers should feel confident, rather than uncomfortable, when purchasing fruits and vegetables,” says Dr. Carl K. Winter, Cooperative Extension Food Toxicology Specialist Emeritus at the University of California, Davis, and chair author of the Council of Agriculture Science and Technology publication. Continue reading blog post.

2019-10-31T20:56:16-07:00November 7th, 2019|

List of SGMA GSAs and GSPs

 

SGMA Update

GSAs Must Develop GSPs

By Don Wright, California Ag Today Contributor

SGMA uses Department of Water Resources Bulletin 118 to define basins and sub basins and assign them numbers. The San Joaquin Valley Basin is number 5-22. Within it are sub basins with their numbers following a decimal. Each sub basin one Groundwater Sustainability Agency or several, but DWR will only recognize one representative GSA per sub basin. Each GSA must develop a Groundwater Sustainability Plan on its own or as a contribution to an overarching GSP as again, DWR will only deal with one GSP per sub basin.

SGMA

Don Wright

Many of the sub basins with multiple GSAs are combining each of the GSAs’ GSPs into one overarching GSP. Most of the GSAs have released public drafts of their GSPs for review and comment. The following is a list of GSP links. When possible the links go directly to the GSP but many of the links take you to a page that has additional links to the GSPs. Some of them I haven’t found.

Merced Sub Basin 5-22.04

The Merced Sub Basin has formed three Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs): the Merced Irrigation-Urban Groundwater Sustainability Agency, the Merced Sub Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency, and the Turner Island Water District Groundwater Sustainability Agency.

GSP https://www.mercedsgma.org/assets/pdf/gsp-sections/Merced-Subbasin-GSP-Draft-Report-Executive-Summary_2019-07-30.pdf

 

Chowchilla Sub Basin 5-22.05

The Chowchilla Sub Basin has four GSAs: Chowchilla WD, Triangle T WD, Madera County and Merced County

GSP https://www.maderacountywater.com/chowchilla-subbasin/

 

Madera Sub Basin 5-22.06

The Madera Sub Basin has seven GSAs: Madera County GSA, City of Madera GSA, Madera Irrigation District, Root Creek Water District, Madera Water District, Gravelly Ford Water District, New Stone Water District.

GSP https://www.maderacountywater.com/madera-subbasin/

 

Delta Mendota Sub Basin 5-22.07

The Delta Mendota Sub Basin has 24 GSAs: the Counties of Merced, Madera and Fresno, the Cities of Dos Palos, Firebaugh, Gustine, Los Banos, Mendota, Newman and Patterson, San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority, Turner Island WD, Ora Loma WD, DM-II, Northwestern Delta Mendota, Patterson ID, West Stanislaus ID, Widren WD, Central Delta Mendota Regional Multi-Agency, Farmers WD, Aliso WD and Grasslands.

GSP http://deltamendota.org

 

Kings River Sub Basin 5-22.08

The Kings River Sub Basin has seven GSAs: James ID, North Kings, McMullin Area, Kings River East, Central Kings, North Fork Kings and South Kings.

GSP

North Kings https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CgjQ4-oY3AVaKXOexcJnyi3gaVhk5DPM/view

 

Westside Sub Basin 5-22.09

The Westside Sub Basin has one GSA: Westlands WD

https://wwd.ca.gov/draft-gsp/

 

Kaweah River Sub Basin 5-22.11

The Kaweah River Sub Basin has three GSAs: Eastern Kaweah, Mid Kaweah and Greater Kaweah.

GSP East Kaweah

https://ppeng.sharefile.com/share/view/sd08385c0b564a85a/fo4153c4-8351-4fc2-ae23-87be2dbeb1f0

Mid Kaweah https://www.midkaweah.org/documents

Greater Kaweah http://greaterkaweahgsa.org/resources/groundwater-sustainability-plan/

 

Tulare Lake Sub Basin 5-22.12

The Tulare Lake Sub Basin has seven GSAs; South Fork Kings, Mid Kings, Alpaugh ID, El Rico, Mid Kings River, South Fork Kings and Tri County WA

https://southforkkings.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/2019-0906-tulare-lake-subbasin-gsp-prelim-draft_for-upload.pdf

 

Tule River Sub Basin 5-22.13

The Tule River Sub Basin has six GSAs: Alpaugh, Delano-Earlimart, Lower Tule River, Pixley, Eastern Tule and Tri-County

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1P1M5tayhYI0Jc0-8Tm1o832nQ8WBBibj

 

Kern Sub Basin 5-022.14

The Kern Sub Basin went from two GSAs to 11 since SGMA began.

Kern River http://www.kernrivergsa.org/?page_id=966

Buena Vista WSD http://bvh2o.com/BVGSA-GSP-DRAFT.pdf

Kern Groundwater Authority http://www.kerngwa.com/gsp.html

Semitropic WSD

Olcese WD https://olcesewaterdistrict.org/sgma/West Kern WD

 

Arvin Edison WSD http://www.aewsd.org/

Tejon Castaic WD

Wheeler Ridge Maricopa WD

 

2019-11-01T16:36:48-07:00November 5th, 2019|

California Hemp Industry in the Making

California Hemp Growth Registrations Skyrocketed in 2019

By Robert W. Selna, Califonia Ag Today Contributor

California hemp growth registrations skyrocketed in 2019 due to federal decriminalization and a nationwide demand for hemp-derived products. A full-fledged statewide hemp industry has not quite arrived however, due to new regulations and limitations placed on hemp-based CBD products.

Hemp is defined as cannabis with extremely low concentrations of THC (not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis). The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) prohibits CBD in food, beverages and cosmetics, regardless of whether the CBD is derived from cannabis that includes THC (the psychoactive constituent of cannabis) or from hemp.

California Hemp Field

On Oct. 29, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) released its long-awaited interim rule for domestic hemp production, which is a key step in implementing the 2018 Farm Bill and allows the USDA to approve hemp production plans developed by individual states. California is in the process of creating such a plan, and once it is approved, the state’s hemp industry is expected to expand.

Federal and State Laws

During the past year, California’s fledgling hemp businesses have waited patiently for the federal interim rule and closely monitored two bills that state legislators introduced to take advantage of a vast new hemp business opportunity. As the legislative session came to a close, results on the bills were mixed.

In mid-October, Governor Gavin Newsom approved SB 153, which modified California hemp regulations so that they would align with the anticipated interim rule. In contrast, state lawmakers failed to decide on AB 228, which would have legalized the statewide manufacture and sale of food, beverages and cosmetics that include hemp-derived CBD. The bill died in the Senate Appropriations Committee without a vote.

Following the lead of a handful of other states, including Colorado and Oregon, California Assemblymember Cecilia Aguiar-Curry (D-Winters) tried to address the federal CBD disconnect through AB 228. AB 228 contradicted the FDA, which deems products with CBD as “adulterated,” and prohibits them from being introduced into interstate commerce.

The FDA’s position is based on its decision to approve CBD as an active ingredient in the pharmaceutical drug Epidiolex, which treats a rare form of epilepsy. In turn, the FDA deems CBD to be like all other active drug ingredients, which may not be added to food and dietary supplements. Aguiar-Curry vowed to bring back AB 228 in early 2020.

Thus far, the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) has followed the FDA’s restrictions on CBD. Meanwhile, one can find hemp-derived CBD wellness products in small health food stores, as well as large chain supermarkets, which has caused confusion among consumers statewide.

The FDA and CDPH prohibition is seen by many as inconsistent with the spirit of the 2018 Farm Bill, which generally approved the production and sale of hemp, as well as the interstate commercial transfers of hemp and hemp products, including hemp-derived CBD. The Farm Bill decriminalized hemp by removing it from the Controlled Substances Act, but the bill did not remove marijuana. The federal government has long described marijuana as cannabis that includes more than trace amounts of THC. California, however, regulates a commercial cannabis industry separate from hemp.

Representatives in Congress are starting to awaken to issues surrounding the FDA’s CBD prohibition. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has taken baby steps to resolve the problem. In mid-September, McConnell introduced a bill that could result in the FDA adopting a more lenient framework for hemp-derived CBD products. Specifically, the legislation directs the FDA to issue “an enforcement discretion policy” that would give the agency latitude and possibly lead to recognition that CBD products are safe.

Industry Growth

Legislative hiccups and regulatory confusion aside, the California hemp industry is gaining momentum. Q3 statistics from the California Department of Food and Agriculture show that the number of registered hemp growers in California increased from 74 in June 2019 to 292 as of August 26. In addition, there are now at least 629 registered hemp cultivation sites and 17,571 acres associated with growers and seed breeders.

Under the 2018 Farm Bill, counties may only allow limited cultivation pilot programs until the USDA confirms that their state’s hemp plan conforms with federal rules. However, until the USDA’s interim rule issuance on Oct. 29, there was a chicken-and-egg problem. California and other states have struggled to draft federally compliant hemp plans not knowing exactly what to expect in the interim rule. As a result, at least half of California countries have temporary bans or restrictions on hemp cultivation.

The federal interim rule clarifies states’ hemp regulation responsibilities, including practices for record keeping, methods for testing hemp to ensure that it is below the legal THC limit, and plans for the proper disposal of non-compliant hemp. In addition, the interim rule makes it clear that states and Native American tribes may not prohibit the interstate transport of hemp that has been legally grown under federal and state laws.

California is said to now be working on its hemp conformance plan. SB 153 aids that effort by adding testing, enforcement, and other administrative provisions and extending the state’s deadline for completing a federal hemp conformance plan from Jan. 31, 2020 to May 1, 2020.

Despite an evolving legal landscape, the California hemp industry is gearing up for a big 2020. The publication of the interim rule and support for legalizing hemp-derived CBD products should propel the California hemp industry closer to a wide-open market.

Rob Selna an attorney for Wendel Rosen, with offices in Oakland an Modesto. He  is  an active member of the firm’s Land Use, Real Estate, and Cannabis practices, and represents clients in a wide range of transactional and regulatory matters. He chairs the firm’s Cannabis practice group and frequently writes and speaks on related legal issues.

2021-05-12T11:05:01-07:00November 4th, 2019|

Kincaid Fire Hurts Many Ag Operations

Kincaid Fire Destroys Several Wineries and Cattle Ranches

By Patrick Cavanaugh, Editor

The Kincaid Fire, which focused on Sonoma County, did cause much damage to agricultural operations.

“Sonoma County is very familiar with fires, and I wish that were something we couldn’t say. But this fire was a little bit different than the one that hit us in 2017,” said Tawny Tesconi. Executive Director of the Sonoma County Farm Bureau.

The Kincaid fire burned a little bit differently, in the sense that in actuality impacted more of our small cattle ranches, this time around. Tragically in the previous fire, it was a lot of homes that were burned.

Other Ag operations have been impacted, as well. “Several wineries that have been confirmed as burned is Soda Rock, and then, also Fieldstone. And I don’t want to say any others because I haven’t been able to confirm those,” said Tesconi. “There might be a few other actual winery structures that have burned, and it did hit our vineyards as well. Some of those vineyards are seeing some end post structure damage

However, Tesconi said that vineyards are very excellent firebreaks. Many of the homes that are surrounded by vineyards were able to make it through the fire. “I think any structures that burned came from flying embers,” she said.

There was a severe wind in the Kincaid fired, and it was part of the worst of two worlds hitting at the same time due to the PG&E shutoffs. “But luckily, Sonoma County is very grassroots and very community-based. We’re all helping each other out, and we’re very strong. And so, we’ll come through this one too, like we did the last one, but it’s just a little too close for comfort as far as timing goes.”

This fire was initially caused by PG&E equipment failure. “But I have to say, one thing that I have to shout out and recognize is the effort of our local sheriff and our county administrators and staff. They started doing the necessary evacuations of communities early on. And that can be tough in our county with 500,000 people,” she said.

The evacuation was focused on about 190,000 people. And officials were very organized, in that they evacuated different areas at different times. But even then, it took some four hours to go 10 miles. “So if there’s anything we learned and other communities can learn from this is that we all complained about having to be evacuated when we didn’t think we were in any danger, but it was the safest thing. Lives were saved. No lives were lost on this fire,” Tesconi said.

Some Cabernet Sauvignon vineyards had not been harvested yet. And with grapes are hanging and subjected to smoke—it can cause smoke taint grapes, which leaves them unusable. “We still are trying to get that figured out. The one great thing that our sheriff allowed us to do is that he was allowing our vineyard managers in and pick grapes, even in areas that had been in the evacuation zones because we know about smoke taint,” said Tesconi. “We don’t want to see smoke taint. So our guys got on it. People were helping with the harvest. One vineyard that had already finished harvesting for the year would send their staff over to help get the grapes off a neighbors vine.

One ranch that was the hardest hit was the LaFranchi Angus Ranch, which is up in Knights Valley, right on the Sonoma/Napa line. The family has been ranching for the last 107 years. And they lost seven houses. They lost most of their barn structures. They lost all of their hay, and they don’t know if they lost any animals yet, they’re still trying to assess that. “We’ve been doing a hay drive here at Sonoma County Farm Bureau to get them a couple of loads of hay to get them through the next couple of weeks,

“I’ve got word that there’s another cattle ranch up on the Geyser Ridge. They lost a lot of structures. They lost all their fencing,” said Tesconi. “They’re trying to keep 200 cow/calf pairs on the ranch without any fencing. So I’m sure that’s a challenge.”

“We’re still reaching out to our members, trying to asses all the damages because we have tons of support coming in. We were just notified that American AgCredit is donating a $25,000 matching grant for a program we’re running through Sonoma County Farm Bureau for people to help our farmers that are in trouble,” noted Tesconi. “If anybody wants to donate to that, they can go to our Facebook page, Sonoma County Farm Bureau. So, the awful thing is that we’re going through the tragedy. The good thing is that we’re extremely well supported by all of Sonoma County in our Ag industry.”

2019-11-01T16:42:23-07:00November 4th, 2019|

Early UC Hemp Research Already Yielding Results

Understanding the Best Cultural Practices for Industrial Hemp

For the first time ever, UC Agriculture and Natural Resources (UC ANR) researchers harvested an industrial hemp crop at one of its nine research and extension centers this fall.

“It’s an interesting crop,” said UC Cooperative Extension specialist Bob Hutmacher. “We don’t have a lot of experience in UC ANR with hemp at this time. There is a tremendous amount of research that can be done to understand its growth and best cultural practices, optimal planting dates either by seed or transplants, irrigation and fertilization management, and, particularly, to address pest and disease management.”

Bob Hutmacher

Industrial hemp can be produced for grain and fiber, however, many growers currently consider the most profitable component of the crop to be cannabidiol, or CBD, and related compounds. CBD is valued for its purported health benefits. It is said to reduce inflammation, pain, nausea, depression and anxiety, among other conditions.

Hutmacher said he and colleagues around the state are interested in learning about industrial hemp production opportunities, and feel there is a place for UC ANR research to support the fledgling industry. Already, there are some observations coming out of these small trials.

“Some people believe that hemp is a pest- and disease-free plant. That’s not what we found,” Hutmacher said. “In the absence of suitable measures for control, corn ear worms seemed to thrive in hemp, and did an astounding amount of damage to cultivars in our small plots.”

The scientists were forced to use a pesticide to control the pest and reduce damage to developing buds. The hemp produced in the trial will be destroyed after harvest data has been collected. The experience with corn ear worm and other pest issues demonstrate that pest control will require significant study, particularly if a goal is to produce the crop organically.

“Markets for some industrial hemp products may require low pesticide residues. If hemp is produced organically, some preliminary observations this year suggest farmers will have to put a big effort into pest and disease control,” he said.

Plant breeding can be another area of UC research. Hemp’s natural genetic variations produce plants that vary widely in growth habit, size, response to day length, and time to maturity. There are hemp cultivars that mature when the plant is 18 inches tall and others that shoot up 12 feet high at maturity. Hemp grown for CBD production from seed or as transplants can vary greatly in size and other characteristics, such as amount of branching and the number of fruiting forms per plant. Multiple plant and production system factors also will influence options for mechanical versus hand harvesting.

Another breeding concern for growers is producing a crop with economic levels of CBD or other compounds of commercial interest, while staying within regulatory limits for THC (tetrahydrocannabinol), the psychoactive compound found in marijuana, a related plant. According to the California Department of Food and Agriculture, an industrial hemp crop grown in the state may have no more than 0.3% THC when plant samples are analyzed.

“You don’t want to risk too high a THC level,” Hutmacher said. “Farmers must test to make sure THC is at a level to meet regulations. If it’s too high, CDFA regulations would require the crop be destroyed.”

Working with UC breeders, integrated pest management scientists, agronomists, irrigation specialists and agricultural engineers, there should be good opportunities to finesse hemp production at UC ANR’s network of research and extension center system across California.

Research center locations stretch from Holtville, in the low desert at the California-Mexico border, to Tulelake, just south of the Oregon border. Other centers ideal to answer hemp research questions include the UC Davis campus, the Hopland REC in Mendocino County, the Hansen REC in Ventura County, and the South Coast REC in Orange County.

2019-10-29T17:51:23-07:00November 2nd, 2019|

Ag Leaders Support Farm Workforce Modernziation Act

New Farm Workforce Act Would Be Big Step to Immigration Reform

Noting that California farmers and ranchers have long sought reforms and improvements to immigration laws that would enhance the lives of agricultural employees and their families, the California Farm Bureau Federation said it supports a bipartisan bill introduced today.

The Farm Workforce Modernization Act of 2019, introduced by Reps. Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose, and Dan Newhouse, R-Wash., would improve agricultural visa programs and accommodate immigrant agricultural employees already in the United States, while assuring border security.

“This comprehensive legislation contains key elements that address current and future workforce needs for agricultural employers and employees in California and throughout the nation,” CFBF President Jamie Johansson said. “The reforms in the Farm Workforce Modernization Act of 2019 will provide much-needed solutions for agricultural employers and employees.”

The act would allow immigrant agricultural employees in the United States to earn legal status through continued agricultural employment.

“We need to deal fairly with the existing agricultural workforce and their immediate families,” Johansson said. “The people who work on farms and ranches are valued members of rural communities. Their contributions to our communities and our food system should be recognized by allowing them a chance to gain legal status.”

The bill would also modernize and streamline the existing H-2A agricultural visa program, to provide more flexibility for employers and ensure critical protections for foreign employees.

“Improvements to the H-2A program would make it much more flexible and valuable to California farm employers and employees,” Johansson said. “For example, a pilot program in the bill would allow H-2A employees to move from farm to farm for employment, a portability option California producers have long sought. And, for the first time, the bill would accommodate guestworker visas for year-round operations such as dairies and nurseries.”

The California Farm Bureau Federation works to protect family farms and ranches on behalf of nearly 36,000 members statewide and as part of a nationwide network of nearly 5.6 million Farm Bureau members.immigration reform

From California Citrus Mutual

It is with great excitement that California Citrus Mutual announces our support for the “Farm Workforce Modernziation Act” introduced today by Congresswomen Zoe Lofgren, chair of the Judiciary Committee.

“We applaud Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren and members of the California congressional delegation that provided leadership on this critical issue,” states California Citrus Mutual President Casey Creamer. “The Farm Workforce Modernization Act creates a pathway to securing a legal workforce now and in the future while also providing stability and security to our employees and their families.

“This legislation is critical to the sustainability of the fresh produce industry and our continued ability to grow fresh and healthy citrus products in California. The existing system is out-of-date and does not meet the needs of employers or employees. We must put aside political differences and create a reasonable solution. California Citrus Mutual remains committed to working with our partners, Representative Lofgren, and members of Congress to resolve outstanding concerns and reach a deal that can supported in the United States Senate and signed by the President,” continues Creamer.food safety

From Western Growers Association

“On behalf of Western Growers members, farmers across the country who depend on an adequate supply of labor for their livelihoods, and American consumers who prefer a safe and secure domestic food supply, we wish to thank Representatives Zoe Lofgren and Dan Newhouse for approaching the agricultural labor crisis in a thorough, practical and bipartisan manner.

 

“The Farm Workforce Modernization Act addresses two critical needs for American agriculture – to retain existing, experienced workers and to ensure a reliable future flow of guest workers. Furthermore, after a satisfactory transition period, the bill includes E-Verify for agricultural employers, demonstrating the commitment our industry has made toward a long-term labor solution.

“The introduction of this bill, which is the product of many months of dedicated work and careful negotiation between legislators, staff, and key stakeholders, constitutes an agreement that few thought was possible. However, this is just the beginning. What lies ahead is a very important process that will require the support of both political parties and the President.

“The Farm Workforce Modernization Act has the resounding support of the agriculture community, and contains principles that have historically received backing on both sides of the aisle. We, along with our Congressional champions and partners in the Agriculture Workforce Coalition, commit ourselves to moving the Farm Workforce Modernization Act forward this legislative session.”

2019-10-30T18:25:24-07:00October 31st, 2019|

Preemergent Herbicides Pay off

Preemergent Herbicides will Insure Clean Berm This Spring

By Patrick Cavanaugh, Editor

While the tree crops are completing their harvest, it will be time on preemergent weed control. Kurt Hembree is a UCANR Weed Management Farm Advisor in Fresno County.

“For nut crop growers particularly, as the rains may approach, this is an opportunity to make sure your spray rig in in operation at its strongest point Make sure there are no leaks and that it has been calibrated,” Hembree said. “Pay attention to the spray nozzles. Have your guys check them and replace them if they are worn. If they are damaged, they do not do you any good on the spray rig.”

Good maintenance will help not only in the coverage standpoint, trying to get the herbicides to the ground to weeds where they need it. It will also reduce some of the drift potential.

Hembree also recommended the appropriate combination of herbicides. “It needs to include two different chemistries and modes of action in the tank. This will help starve off weed resistance on some of the tough weeds. And you tend to get more weed when you have more modes of action in the tank,” he said.

“If you need a postemergent herbicides at the time the preemergents go out then it must go into the tank this time of year as we go into winter,” Hembree said.

If growers want a clean berm come springtime, you need to start it out clean by getting the appropriate mixes in the tank. “Growers should target the toughest weeds that you know you have to battle,” noted Hembree.

2021-05-12T11:01:45-07:00October 22nd, 2019|

New Water Year Brings Surplus!

Surplus for New Water Year Will Help Farmers in 2020

By Patrick Cavanaugh, Editor

The Oct. 1 new water year, has brought the state a surplus— with statewide reservoir storage 128% of average.

“The wet 2017 was needed for our reservoirs to refill after an extended drought, and we’re hopeful that the upcoming water year will be generous,” said Mike Wade, Executive Director of the California Farm Water Coalition based in Sacramento.

The coalition educates consumers and others in the state about the importance of water for farms

“One of the things that we’re concerned about is allocations that have not seemed to keep up with the water supply, but we do understand there’s some question about environmental practices and enough water held over for stream flows, and those questions are something that we’ll have to contend with in the future,” said Wade.

With the carryover water that we have, we know that we’ll be in better shape going into this coming year than we have in some years in the past. But one of the things that are going to be helpful is if the Governor’s voluntary agreements get implemented regarding the State Water Resources Control Board’s Bay-Delta Plan on the Tuolumne River. “We have more reliability and understanding about how water is going to be used from year to year and how much will be available for water supply reliability, as well as the important environmental projects that are going on around the state,” he said.

“In December 2018, when the state Water Board adopted their Unimpaired Flow Plan, there was a lot of concern that that was going to take a lot of water. It would have taken a million or 2 million acre-feet of water potentially out of the available water that we have from year to year,” said Wade.

“The voluntary agreements represent a generational change in how we manage water and environmental projects in the state. I will provide more local control, more input from water users, and the ability to build the kinds of projects and do the kinds of stream restoration that not only help restore our ecosystem, but it makes water supply more reliable for farms, homes, and businesses around the state,” he said.

 

2019-10-10T19:42:02-07:00October 14th, 2019|

CA Table Grapes Projects 109 Million Boxes in Volume into January 2020

Normal Volume Projected for California Table Grape Crop, Supplies into January

The California Table Grape Commission recently assessed crop volume and projected a final total of 109 million 19-pound boxes with shipments continuing into January. With 40 to 50 percent of the California table grape crop typically shipping after October 1, Kathleen Nave, president of the commission, notes that grapes are very definitely a fall and early winter fruit.

“Grapes from California are stunningly beautiful, full of flavor and phytonutrients, and are both a healthy, anytime snack and a simple, awe-inspiring ingredient,” said Nave. Suggesting that fall is the time to search out new uses and try varieties that are unfamiliar, Nave recommends checking out the extensive collection of traditional and on-trend usage ideas at www.grapesfromcalifornia.com.

In speaking about the crop, Nave noted that in July California table grape growers thought they had the third-largest crop in history hanging in their vineyards but, recent assessments indicate the crop is in the normal range of 109 million 19-pound boxes, similar in size to the crops of 2014 through 2017.

Noting that there comes a point when retailers can offer imported grapes to their customers instead of sticking with California-grown grapes, Nave said the commission will continue working with retailers to promote the crop and will encourage them to carry California grapes into January.

2019-10-09T16:57:48-07:00October 9th, 2019|

Seeking a Better Understanding Regarding Cannabis Production

Survey Helps UC  Understand Cannabis Production Challenges in State

By Patrick Cavanaugh, Editor

Results from a UC Cooperative Extension survey of registered and unregistered marijuana (cannabis) growers in California will help researchers, policy makers and the public better understand growing practices since cannabis sales, possession and cultivation first became legal for recreational use.

“This survey is a starting point from which UC scientists could build research and extension programs, if possible in the future,” said lead author Houston Wilson, UCCE specialist with UC Riverside. A report on the survey results was published in the July-December 2019 issue of California Agriculture journal, the research publication of UC Agriculture and Natural Resources.

Houston Wilson, UC Riverside Entomologist

The idea of the online survey, during the summer of 2018, was to characterize broadly the production practices that were being employed,” said Wilson

Wilson noted that since he is an entomologist, there were certainly questions about pest management, so the survey was more broad. “It included questions about style of production, plant density, harvest frequency, water use, diseases, and even labor and licensing,” Wilson said.

The survey was conducted by a collaborative group of scientists. Project co-authors were UC Berkeley visiting scholar Hekia Bodwitch, Nature Conservancy senior scientist Jennifer Carah, UCCE biocontrol specialist Kent Daane, UCCE natural resources specialist Christy Getz, UCCE climate and water specialist Theodore Grantham and UCCE land use science specialist Van Butsic. Daane, Getz, Grantham and Van Butsic are affiliated with UC Berkeley.

The survey went to numerous growers via large grower organizations that are present in California. There were more than 100 respondents, and the researchers were able to use that data to characterize some of the production practices.

“As an entomologist, I was interested in the pest management aspects, and we got a kind of array of different insects that growers are dealing with and how they’re dealing with it,” said Wilson.

UC is Restricted To Help Cannabis Growers

The big limitation that’s on the university right now is it’s ability to actually physically visit farms, and talk to growers, and collect insects and sample plant materials. It’s not legal for research institution because of the federal support that the university receives. “So a remote online survey, was the best approach that we found to do this, at least at this stage,” said Wilson.

We’ve shown the data to the grower groups that we’re in contact with, and for the most part they’ve agreed that that it matches what they’re seeing. “We don’t think it’s a really skewed dataset, but we certainly need more detail in each of those areas of emphasis,” said Wilson. “What I’d like to do now is figure out a way to actually collect insects from some of these cannabis operations to confirm or deny the pest species that were indicated by the survey.”

One way to do that is find some opportunities with grower collaborators to have them collect the insects themselves and then bring that back to researchers. “We’re allowed to handle the insects, but we certainly can’t have any plant material on campus right now,” Wilson said.

“Like any cropping system you’re going to have insect problems. Generally speaking, cannabis production takes place indoor and outdoor, and those are in and of themselves going to have different pest complexes and different management options available to them,” noted Wilson. “But again, this similarly applies to other crops that are grown in or outdoors. So there’s kind of gray literature or white literature, whatever you want to call it, about cannabis production and pest management in particular.”

There is cannabis production information in books and online forums that have been published by non-university personnel. “There’s some good information, and there’s a lot of misinformation. However many of these growers have a lot of experience as they they’ve been growing, in some of these areas, for over 40 years,” Wilson said.

Ironically, cannabis is seen as new crop for university researchers, as if it’s a new type of apple. “So in that regard, we’re just trying to characterize how the crop is produced, and find out what are some of the basic agronomic features of it, what are the pest pressures, and how would you manage that,” said Wilson.

“The fact that it’s been this underground production model for so long is that when we come into the situation, and in my interactions with growers to date, I immediately acknowledge that I understand that they have a lot of experience with this crop. And I think these growers have a lot of knowledge about agronomic features, including the entomology aspects of it,” said Wilson.

As for the future UC work in the cannabis world—it’s to be determined.It certainly a secondary if not tertiary objective for me, he said.I work in perennial orchards and vineyard, so cannabis is very much outside what I am focused on, he said.But there was an opportunity to do a survey and so we did it.

The article in the UC California Agriculture journal is comprehensive look at who is doing what in the state right now with cannabis production. “Our production survey was certainly front and center in there as a background piece. And there were other articles that were getting into a specific issue with labor, or licensing, or other areas. Water use is a huge issue, as it is with any crop in California,” said Wilson.

Wilson noted that if cannabis were to become legal at the federal level, you might envision a future where UC creates a position that includes cannabis or is even specifically focused on that in terms of agronomic issues.

Highlights of Survey Findings

  • Growing outdoors in open air with sunlight was the most common practice (41%). Twenty-five percent of growers combined outdoor and greenhouse production. Just 10% said they grow the crop entirely within greenhouses.
  • Total yield per plant varied by growing location. Outdoor crops yielded on average 2.51 pounds per plant (about 40 ounces per plant), greenhouse crops yielded about 10 ounces per plant, while plants grown indoors with artificial light averaged about 3 ounces per plant.
  • The average growing season for outdoor growers was 190 days and they harvested one crop per year.
  • In the fall of 2017, the average cannabis sales price was $853 per pound for flowers and $78 per pound for leaves and other non-flower parts.
  • The respondents reported using no synthetic pesticides in their cultivation of the crop, suggesting reliance on organic pesticides, biologicals and biocontrol.
  • Most growers reported that groundwater was their primary water source for irrigation. Of those, 97% of the water extraction happened from June to October. Many growers said adding water storage was either cost prohibitive or limited by regulatory constraints.
  • Growers reported using more than 30 different soil amendments and foliar nutrient sprays. The most common was organic fertilizer, followed by composts and various animal manures and meals, compost tea and worm castings.
  • Growers are dealing with 14 different insect pests, 13 diseases and nine vertebrate pests, including gophers, mice, rats, deer and wild boars.
  • Powdery mildew was the most commonly reported disease, and mites, thrips and aphids were the most commonly reported insect pests.
  • Growers who hired laborers for harvest paid a per-pound piece rate from $50 to $200. The growers who hired seasonal hourly workers offered a starting pay of $15 to $20 per hour.

2021-05-12T11:01:46-07:00October 7th, 2019|
Go to Top