Home
Calendar
Search
Contact Us
Webmaster
 

 

MEASURING IMPACTS OF BIFS ON CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURE

In addition to the BIFS Board assessments of the annual and final reports of the BIFS projects, UC SAREP has worked closely with the BIFS projects, the BIFS Program Advisory Review Board, and with other researchers and consultants to evaluate the impacts of the program. This has involved staff collecting information over the life of the program on acreage under BIFS management, subcontracting with specialists in survey design and implementation as well as in analysis of the California Pesticide Use Report database, and compiling information on publications that have resulted from the BIFS projects. We review here some of the preliminary results of this work. The BIFS projects set ambitious goals of changing grower behavior and attempting to measure and assess any changes through surveys and pesticide use analysis. Even though each project is supported for at least three years, many have come to recognize that more time—about five to ten years—is needed to have the statewide impact desired. Therefore, program impact analysis is still in the preliminary stages but some interesting data has come to light and will be reported here.


Acreage Under Management by BIFS Farmers
One indicator of the impact of the BIFS program is the number of acres managed by enrolled BIFS farmers (Table 4). Enrolled BIFS farmers demonstrate BIFS practices on their land and lead by example. Typically, enrolled BIFS farmers use BIFS practices on a portion of their acreage, fine-tuning them before converting the entire farm. By taking risks on their own land, talking with friends and neighbors, and sharing information, enrolled BIFS farmers are leading the way to economically sound reduced-chemical farming practices. In many cases, BIFS farmers (and/or PCAs and consultants who work with them) also farm in other commodities, meaning that commodity specific BIFS projects may be having impacts beyond the specific crop. For example, the total acres farmed by BIFS prune farmers is 21,871, representing 12,560 acres over and above the prune acres. Similarly, Citrus BIFS farmers farm 22,449 total, almost 18,000 acres more than citrus alone. Many other farmers attend field days and receive BIFS newsletters but are not enrolled in the BIFS projects. It is unknown how many acres they have or the adoption rate of BIFS practices on these farms. During 2001-2002, UC SAREP conducted surveys in two BIFS crops, rice and walnuts, to determine adoption rates for non-enrolled farmers (see Grower Practices and Attitudes Surveys section below).

By 2025, we predict that at least 20 percent (and perhaps as much as 60 percent) of California cropland will be under alternative BIFS or organic production systems (Swezey & Broome 2000). In 2000, we found approximately 7.1 percent of California commodity acreage had the direct potential to be served by BIFS if participating growers adopted their practices on all their acreage. In 2002, with acreage increases in most participating commodities such as winegrapes, almonds, walnuts, and a few acreage reductions in commodities such as apples, we find that still 7.1 percent of the acres are linked through participating growers with BIFS practices. Greater adoption may in fact be occurring and further survey work will confirm or deny this.

Table 4. Total cumulative acreage served by the BIFS projects from 1996—2002.

BIFS Project
Acres in BIFS and BIFS-like alternative practices demonstrations
Acres farmed
by BIFS farmers in the commodity
Total bearing acres in California**
Percent acreage
impacted by BIFS†
Almonds*
(from BIOS for Almonds project 1993)
19,277
33,820
525,000
6.4%
Walnuts*
BIOS for Walnuts (1994)
BIFS (from Final Report 3/02)
510
407
900
3,009
196,000
2.0%
Winegrapes*
(from LWWC Final Report 12/98)
(from CCVT Annual Report 11/02)
2,370 (Lodi-Woodbridge)
5,147 (Central Coast VT)
30,000 (Lodi-Woodbridge)
21,000 (CCVT)
458,000
11.1%
Cotton
(from BIFS Westside Project Final Report 3/99)
1,653
90,000
846,150
10.6%
Prunes*
(from Final Report, 3/02)
874 (total IPFP/BIFS)
9,311
86,000
10.8%
Rice
(from Final Report, 3/02)
3,323
12,200
550,000
2.2%
Citrus
(from Final Report 8/02)
223
4,669
194,500
2.4%
Strawberries
(from Final Report 6/02)
39
700
700
27,600
Dairy/Forage crops
(from Semi-Annual Report 5/02)
510
8,449
Data not available
Data not available
Apples*
(from Final Report 10/01)
653 (total IAP/BIFS)
1,540
31,000
5.0%
SUBTOTAL ACRES
34,986
207,149 (excl. dairy)
2,914,250
7.1%

* Indicates combined project funding from UC SAREP/BIFS and other granting agencies.
** From: California Agriculture Statistics Resource Directory 2001: cdfa.ca.gov/docs.ResourceDirectory01.pdf (2000 statistics)
† Calculated by dividing “Acres farmed by BIFS farmers in the commodity” by “Total bearing acres in California”


Grower Attitudes and Practices Surveys
UC SAREP has conducted two grower surveys to measure the impact of BIFS projects on grower practices (including agricultural chemical use as well as cultural practices) and attitudes about alternative practices. The Lodi-Woodbridge Winegrape Commission (LWWC) conducted a similar grower survey at the completion of their BIFS project in 1998 (Dlott 1998). These surveys have evaluated participating growers as well as regional or commodity-wide target audiences of growers on their level of adoption of these alternative farming systems. The results of these surveys also identify opportunities for further outreach efforts and inform the direction of current BIFS projects. It is likely that there will be further adoption of the alternative practices demonstrated in BIFS projects after the projects’ end. The data gathered in these surveys can be used as a baseline against which further progress can be measured.

To date, three large-scale studies of the broader target audience of growers have been conducted, in rice over eight counties, in walnuts in San Joaquin County, and earlier with winegrapes in San Joaquin County (Table 5). Results of the winegrape survey were included in past reports. In this report, we present results of the rice and walnut surveys. UC SAREP has begun the development of statewide surveys of prune growers and dairy producers to be conducted in 2003.

Table 5. Status of BIFS mail-out grower surveys as of November 2002

Project Date
# sent out
Response Rate
Winegrape BIFS 1998
608
47%
Rice BIFS 2001
900
25%
Walnut BIFS 2002
722
51%
Prune BIFS 2003 Survey in design & pre-testing phase
Dairy BIFS 2003 Survey in design phase

Rice Growers Survey
(The following summary is based on an article printed in the UC SAREP Newsletter (October 2001) by Barzman, Mutters, Eckert, & Broome. See Attachment C for the full article.)

California rice growers were surveyed in the winter of 2001. A four-page questionnaire was mailed to 900 rice growers in nine counties. Of those, 213 valid responses were received. Short telephone interviews with 53 non-respondents showed that non-respondents were not statistically different from the 213 respondents in their age or farm size distribution. A comparison of the location of survey respondents to acreage figures from the California Agricultural Statistics Service (2000) showed that our sample was geographically representative of the state’s rice growing population.

Weed management
Nearly all California rice growers depend on herbicides. The extent of this dependence is evident in the results where 98 percent of respondents use herbicides. The respondents use herbicides on an average of 95 percent of their acreage. Even though most growers do not find herbicides affordable (68 percent), most find them reliable (71 percent). The 29 percent of growers who do not find herbicides reliable may reflect the increased problems with weed resistance to herbicides. Pesticide inputs account for 15 percent to 20 percent of production costs and most of these costs are from herbicides. The large percentage of growers who do not find herbicides affordable indicates that there are opportunities to promote cheaper reliable alternatives should they become available. However, the study results show that most growers consider non-herbicide weed control methods neither affordable (72 percent) nor reliable (88 percent).

UC trials demonstrated that watergrass was effectively controlled with increased water depth (Williams et al., 1990). The BIFS project demonstrated in several field trials that deeper water often controlled weeds often without affecting yields. As reported in the BIFS in rice 2000 annual report, long-term deepwater control of watergrass will select for biotypes capable of emerging through 8 to 10 inches of water. Thus, alternative nonchemical control tactics will lose their efficacy if continually employed as sole control measures.

In addition to deep water/dry down, other non-herbicide weed management methods are available. Even though they may not be appropriate to all farming systems, the study found a number of growers using these methods on some of their acreage. Respondents reported practicing crop rotation (24 percent), summer fallow flood then plow down (9 percent), and drill or dry seed with dry down (4 percent).

Straw management coupled with reduced nitrogen input
Straw management is a long-standing challenge for California rice growers. In 1991, due to air quality concerns, the California Legislature enacted the Rice Straw Burning Reduction Act, which mandated a scheduled phase-down in rice straw burning. The California Air Resources Board (2001) reports that the rice acreage burned in the Sacramento Valley has decreased from 303,000 acres in 1992 to 139,000 acres in 2000. The study showed that in the 2000 season at least 44 percent of respondents burned straw over an average of 36 percent of their acreage (Table 6). Starting in 2001, rice growers complied with a straw burning limit of 25 percent of each individual grower’s fields with a cumulative total of 125,000 acres basinwide. Burning is permitted only if the disease levels in the field are determined by inspection to reduce yields.

Incorporating straw into the soil is the most common alternative to burning, even though the cost of this practice is estimated at $43 per acre, compared to approximately $3 per acre for burning (California Air Resource Board, 2001). In the study, a large majority (89 percent) reported incorporating straw during the 2000 season on an average of 80 percent of their rice acreage, while only 11 percent did not incorporate any straw (Table 6).

Table 6. Straw management techniques used by study respondents.

Technique practiced by grower on at least some acreage
Total number
of valid responses
for this question
Percent of respondents in this category
Of those who used this method, avg. % of acres on which they used the method
Burning
213
44%
36%
Straw incorporation
204
89%
80%
Straw incorporation with winter flooding
204
78%
59%
Straw incorporation without winter flooding
183
12%
46%
No straw incorporation
193
11%
N/A
Straw incorporation + reduced- nitrogen application
196
33%
61%
Straw incorporation + reduced- nitrogen application in past, but did not repeat in 2000 season
131
11%
N/A

 

A large percentage of respondents (78 percent) reported following soil incorporation with winter flooding on at least some of their acreage, while 12 percent reported not flooding any of their acreage after soil incorporation, and 11 percent reported not incorporating any straw. Among other benefits, flooding rice fields during the winter creates habitat for wildlife. The University of California has encouraged this practice for at least 10 years (Brouder & Hill, 1995). In this study, 73 percent of growers reported using winter flooding as a way to enhance wildlife habitat.

The majority of respondents (i.e., the 78 percent who incorporate straw and flood) have the potential to reduce synthetic nitrogen input. This benefit may be realized after three to four years of continuous straw incorporation with winter flood. During the 2000 season, 33 percent of respondents reported reducing their nitrogen application on at least some of their acreage in combination with incorporating straw and flooding. A few respondents (11 percent) reported having used this practice in the past but chose not to repeat it this last season.

Only 12 percent and 7 percent of the respondents considered stem rot and aggregate sheath spot, respectively, to be major disease problems, while 68 percent and 65 percent of the respondents indicated that stem rot and aggregate sheath spot were a concern. The grower community in large part felt that the phase out of straw burning would lead to extreme level of disease. It should be noted that during the first year of the field inspections (2001) for conditional burn permits, virtually all of the inspected fields qualified. Essentially without exception, inspected fields had disease levels that would be expected to reduce yields.


Walnut Growers Survey
(The following summary is based on an article printed in the UC SAREP Newsletter (Fall 2002) by Ransom, Grant & Broome. See Attachment D for the complete article.)

San Joaquin County walnut growers were surveyed in the winter of 2002. A nine-page questionnaire was mailed to all 722 county walnut growers. Growers received the questionnaires in early January 2002. Of those mailed, 322 completed questionnaires were received, representing a 51 percent response rate after deleting growers from the original list who reported not growing walnuts in 2001. Brief telephone interviews with 24 randomly selected non-respondents showed that non-respondents were not statistically different from the 322 respondents in their age or answers to seven questions on crop practices. However, the non-respondents did tend to have significantly fewer walnut acres than the respondents, indicating that growers with fewer walnut acres may have been less likely to participate in this survey than growers with larger walnut acreage. In comparing survey data to figures from the California Agricultural Statistics Service (Nelson, 2002) it was determined that survey respondents farm a total of 21,245 acres of bearing walnuts, which is 74 percent of the total bearing walnut acres in the county.

Orchard floor management and fertility practices
Reducing supplemental nitrogen fertilizer applications to levels more consistent with actual demand would save walnut growers money and reduce the potential for leaching and groundwater degradation. BIFS project growers demonstrated that they were able to use less nitrogen fertilizer yet maintain good soil fertility by using leaf tissue analysis to monitor nitrogen status, and calculating a “nitrogen budget” to estimate fertilizer needs. Almost 40 percent of respondents said that they used the concept of nitrogen budgeting to estimate fertilizer needs, and 35 percent of respondents said they used leaf analysis (Table 7). Other alternative practices demonstrated in the BIFS project, such as chipping or shredding orchard prunings in field and the use of compost or manure for fertilizer, were used by a small percentage of growers (17 percent and 8 percent respectively).


Table 7. Orchard floor management and fertility practices used on bearing walnut acres in 2001. (n ranges from 294 to 311)

PRACTICE
Number of respondents
Percent of Respondents
Nitrogen management
Calculation of a "nitrogen budget" to estimate fertilizer needs
120
39%
Leaf analysis for nitrogen
106
35%
Chipping or shredding orchard prunings in field
52
17%
Use of compost or manure for fertilizer
23
8%
Cover Crops
Cover Crops (either new planting or self-reseeded)
63
21%
Weed Control and Tree Rows
Use of RoundUp or Paraquat
289
95%
Use of pre-emergence herbicides (for example Surflan, Simarzine, Karmex)
195
63%
Use of spot treating only around trees
107
36%

Pest management practices
BIFS project growers managed codling moth, the key insect pest for walnut growers, by experimenting with the use of pheromone mating disruption and reduced risk pesticides. They also conducted frequent monitoring for pests and beneficial insects. Survey results show that the use of pheromone mating disruption as an alternative method to control codling moth in walnuts is in its infancy. Although 80 percent of respondents reported that they had heard of using mating disruption to control codling moth in walnuts, only 32 percent reported knowing how to use it. Only 18 respondents (6 percent) used mating disruption in 2001; 11 of these were BIFS growers (Table 8).

Survey results confirmed that BIFS growers found that mating disruption works: 100 percent of BIFS project growers agreed with the statement: “The use of mating disruption is effective to control codling moth.” However, 70 percent of all other respondents responded “Don’t know” to this statement, pointing to the importance of, and opportunities for, future outreach efforts to inform walnut growers about the effectiveness of pheromone mating disruption in walnuts.

Several BIFS project growers demonstrated habitat restoration and enhancement practices including setting up owl or bat nesting boxes and insectary plantings along farm borders or waste areas. Although 21 percent of respondents reported using owl boxes or bat houses, only 2 percent used insectary hedgerow plantings to attract beneficial insects. Space limitations and a general lack of perceived potential benefits of insectary plantings may limit growers’ interest in planting insectary hedgerows (Table 8).

Table 8. Pest management practices used on bearing walnut acres in 2001. (n ranges from 291 to 304)

PRACTICE
Number of Respondents
Percent of Respondents
Organophosphate insecticide sprays (for example Gution, Lorsban, Imidan to control codling moth
201
67%
Miticide spray to control mites
181
61%
Relied only on beneficial insects to control mites
64
22%
Use of owl boxes or bat houses
63
21%
Pheromone mating disruption (Isomate C+ or Checkmate) for codling moth
18
6%
Insectary hedgerow plantings to attract benefical insects
7
2%

Attitudes
The survey questionnaire included several statements that growers were asked to state their level of agreement with. Fifty-seven percent of respondents agreed (either strongly or somewhat) that “It’s worth using practices that reduce my overall chemical and fertilizer use even when it might take a little more time or expense” showing that a majority of growers are willing to go to some effort or cost to reduce their agricultural chemical use. Sixty-four percent of respondents reported they did try to reduce their use of pesticides during the 2001 walnut-growing season. As might be expected, 71 percent of these respondents reported that “cost” was the most important reason for their efforts to reduce the use of pesticides. Environmental concerns, health concerns, and protecting beneficial insects were also frequently mentioned as one of, if not the most important, reason to reduce pesticide use.

Forty-six percent of respondents reported they were interested in experimenting with new management practices. BIFS projects provide the funding for many growers to experiment and demonstrate the use of alternative practices and then, through organized field days and other events, show what they have learned to other growers.

Project outreach and key sources of information
A key element of the Walnut BIFS project was outreach to other walnut growers in the region. Survey results show that almost half of the survey respondents were exposed to the project in some way. Twelve respondents (4 percent) were enrolled as BIFS growers in the project. Excluding these BIFS growers, 53 percent of survey respondents reported that they had “heard of the Walnut BIFS program;” 39 percent had read the Walnut BIFS project newsletter; 21 percent had talked with a BIFS grower or project management team member; and 15 percent had attended at least one Walnut BIFS field day.

Respondents were asked to identify the three most important sources of information from a list of 19 different choices. PCAs were most often identified as one of the three most important information sources (53 percent). This highlights the importance of the involvement of PCAs in BIFS projects. “Results of monitoring/inspecting orchard” was identified as one of the three most important information sources by 38 percent of respondents. Many BIFS projects support intensive monitoring, recognizing the information intensive nature of biologically integrated farming. And finally, “other walnut farmers” were identified by 32 percent of respondents as one of the three most important information sources. Results from a similar survey of Lodi-Woodbridge winegrape growers, conducted at the conclusion of a three-year BIFS project, also found that PCAs and other growers were most often identified as important information sources (Dlott & Haley, 1998). BIFS projects frequently provide many opportunities for growers to share their experience with other growers as well as researchers.

Conclusion
In addition to serving as baseline data for future studies, the results of this survey help to identify opportunities for further extension efforts geared toward enhancing and extending the impact of the walnut BIOS project. In summary, these results indicate that of the walnut growers who participated in this survey, the majority:


PESTICIDE USE ANALYSIS OF BIFS COMMODITIES AND PROJECTS
In California, we have access to the most complete pesticide use information in the world, through the Pesticide Use Reporting (PUR) system (http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/purmain.htm). Farmers in California are required to report all pesticide applications. This data is compiled by the State and is made available for analysis. UC SAREP has contracted with Dr. Minghua Zhang, UC Davis Department of Land, Air, and Water Resources Agricultural GIS lab to conduct pesticide use report (PUR) analysis of BIFS project crops. We will present preliminary analyses of the PUR:

The most recent data available, 2001, was just released in October. As a result, some of this analysis runs through 2001 and for other commodities only through 2000. Most of the projects started in 1999. Therefore, it is still early to expect to see any major influences due to project activities. However, we can look at county trends prior to the projects and early into the projects. In addition, we can look at how BIFS growers’ pre-project to early-project years may relate to the rest of the county. Most of the funding for this analysis has been provided by US-EPA (Region 9) Agricultural Initiative as well as some funds from the University of California BIFS workgroup. This analysis is still preliminary and will undergo further work. In this report we present the results for prunes, walnuts, rice, and apples.

Each project working with UC SAREP provided a list of active ingredients of interest, either because the project was trying to reduce the use of this material, it was an alternative material to one that was being targeted for use reduction, or it was a material that might be considered a reduced risk replacement for the material of concern. The projects also supplied the unique grower identification (ID) number and the unique site location ID number for the particular fields involved in the demonstration project. However, the PUR in general does not allow us to distinguish the BIFS alternative treatment plots from their side-by-side comparison conventionally managed plots. BIFS alternative and conventional plots might be 20-40 acres in size, which is large by grower standards in terms of showing meaningful real world comparisons, but the PUR is not able to distinguish between them. Therefore, the comparisons using the PUR of BIFS growers may not show as great a difference as might actually exist. In addition, other acreage outside the BIFS program entirely may also be included in the reported site usage.

The UC Davis researchers searched the PUR database and extracted total pounds applied, acres treated, acres planted, and the number of applications for each active ingredient of interest for the years 1992-2000 (2001). Then they calculated three additional variables that enable better comparisons by grower category or by region which show the percent of acres treated with this material and also the amount used per acre, that is, variables that show better the degree of reliance on particular materials. These calculated variables include: cumulative acres treated (all acres treated multiple times/acres planted), maximum acres treated (maximum of the acres treated/acres planted), and intensity (pounds of active ingredient per acre planted). We will present most of the data in the following pages as total pounds of active ingredient applied, followed by the percent of maximum acres treated to allow, which controls for increases in acreage that might influence use trends if we only looked at total pounds applied.

Use of the PUR, however, is complex and interpretation of the data must be conducted with caution. Especially when attempting to look for project impacts these may be overshadowed by larger influences of weather, prices for agricultural chemicals, prices for commodities, pest pressure, etc.

Walnut BIOS Project
The key pest for this project is codling moth. County use trends from 1992 through 2001 show that chloropyrifos (Lorsban“) and phosmet (Imidan“) use has been decreasing over the past nine and five years, respectively. Methyl parathion (Penncap-M“), which was only re-registered in 1996 in California, appears to be replacing those materials (Figure 1). The mating disruption material E, E-8, 10 (CheckMate“, Isomate“) is not being used much by the San Joaquin County walnut growers to date. This demonstration project was established to evaluate its potential use in walnut orchards. It should be noted that the BIFS growers were using a Research Authorization product of this active ingredient, not yet registered, so their use does not show up in the PUR at all.

Figure 1. Total pounds applied of active ingredient and the percent of acres treated (max.) with insecticides use to control codling moth on walnuts in San Joaquin County from 1992-2001. (1999 was the first year of the project.)

After looking at the whole county use trends, we compared cooperating BIFS growers use of some codling moth insecticides of environmental or human health concern and compared this use to the rest of the country growers (Figure 2 a, b, c). It must be noted that the project was initiated in 1999 so much of the use shown in these figures is prior to project initiation. Methyl parathion is applied to only as much as 10 percent of BIFS acreage whereas up to 35 percent the rest of the county walnut acres are receiving applications of this insecticide. BIFS growers prior to the project initiation in 1999 had been using azinphos methyl (Guthion®) on just over 40 percent of their acreage in 1997, more than the rest of the county growers, but since then their use along with that of the rest of the county has dropped down significantly and its use eliminated in 2001 by BIFS growers and the rest of the county was at 5 percent. In addition, chloropyrifos (Lorsban®) was used on about 60 percent of BIFS growers acreage in 1992 and 1994 but is now being applied to only 30 percent, the rest of the county acreage is being similarly treated.

Figure 2 a, b, c. Organophosphate insecticides used for codling moth control on walnuts in San Joaquin County from 1992 through 2001 by BIFS growers (n=9) as compared to the rest of the county growers (n=489). (1999 was the first year of the project.)

The overall county use trends for some important acaricides (pesticides against mites) shows that propargite (Omite“) is the most heavily used in this commodity (and in many others) and that other newer materials have not been that readily adopted (Figure 3). BIFS growers however are using less of this material – approximately 15 percent of their acreage is treated with it compared to 40 percent of the rest of the county acreage (Figure 3). The BIFS project promoted the use of cover crops in walnuts as well as releases of beneficial organisms. The Walnut BIFS project did not find a statistically significant difference in mite pressure but there were trends in that direction, it is thought that using cover crops and fewer broad-spectrum pesticides may contribute to lower mite pressure. The BIFS fields were not treated with hardly any of these disruptive materials. More analysis is needed to understand these complex interactions.

Figure 3 a and b. Key acaricides (against mites) used in walnuts in San Joaquin County from 1992 through 2001: a) whole county trends, and b) by BIFS growers (n=9) as compared to the rest of the county growers (n=489). (1999 was the first year of the project.)

Butte County Rice BIFS
Modified excerpt from the BIFS in rice final report, Objective III. Documentation and evaluation.

Total rice production in Butte County fluctuates between 80,000 to 95,000 acres depending on the year. An increase in herbicide-resistant weed populations accounted for the recent downward trend in use of molinate (Figure 4). The associated loss of efficacy, consequently, contributed to the increased use of another grass herbicide, thiobencarb (Bolero“), during the same period. Herbicide resistance has been documented in broadleaf species, as well, resulting in a decline in the use of bensulfuron (Londax“). The rise in use of new herbicides (e.g., triclopyr, Grandstand“) attests to the growers’ efforts to replace those chemicals, which are becoming ineffectual due to herbicide resistance (Figures 4). Phenoxy compounds were once a mainstay of broadleaf control in rice and have also declined in use. Because herbicide injury to off-target crops in recent years resulted in application restrictions and a loss of availability due to legal concerns. Thus, the decline in their use (Figure 4) will continue as the quantities of phenoxy compounds in storage dwindle. Pesticide use trends on Butte County rice farms for grass and broadleaf herbicides parallels valley wide use. Molinate use peaked in 1996 followed by a subsequent decline with a parallel increase in propanil and thiobencarb use to combat herbicide resistant water grass (Figure 4). Comparatively, herbicide resistant broadleaf weeds resulted in less use of bensulfuran and an associated increase in triclopyr in Butte County (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Percent of acres treated with various herbicides in the rice growing counties of the Sacramento Valley. Source: DPR Pesticide Use Reporting database. (Appears at Figure 4 in Rice BIFS Final Report, March 2002)

Rice water weevil (Lissorhoptrus oryzophilus) is the principal insect pest in California rice fields and has been controlled until recently with carbofuran (Furadan®). However, the EPA withdrew registration of carbofuran use in rice, effective in 2000. The small number of acres treated with carbofuran in 2000 reflects the growers using remaining inventory. Newly registered compounds for weevil control (Dimilin® and Warrior®) first appeared in pesticide use data for the year 1998 (Figure 5). An insecticide for weevil control is applied once per season and routinely on only 35 percent of the rice acreage in Butte County. Importantly, rice water weevil infestations in Butte County are the highest among all rice producing counties (personal communication, L. Godfrey, Entomologist, UCD). Consequently, insecticide use in other rice counties is often less. Compared to many other crops, rice production is a small user of insecticides.

Figure 5. Acres of rice in Butte County treated with insecticides and fungicides from 1995 to 2000. (Appears at Figure 7 in Rice BIFS Final Report, March 2002)

Copper sulfate is used to control algae and tadpole shrimp. It is routinely applied on over 60 percent of the rice fields (Figure 5). The use rate is typical for much of the Sacramento Valley. Noteworthy, copper sulfate is registered for use and is widely used in organic rice fields.

Rice blast (Pyricularia grisea) was identified in California for the first time in 1996, which resulted in increased use of fungicides since 1997 (Figure 5). Environmental conditions determine the severity of blast infections once an inoculum level is established in an area. Thus the incidence of the disease can vary dramatically between years. Since 1996, blast has spread to all of the major rice growing counties. The enlarged area of infection assures the expanded use of azoxystrobin (Quadris“) in coming years if the weather is conducive for infection. Moreover, fungal diseases have become more prevalent, because law prohibits rice growers from burning more than 25 percent of the acres planted. Consequently, the reduction in burning may well lead to a greater use of fungicides.

While pesticide use numbers (referencing grower and location) may apply to an area larger than an individual field (some of which may be in two different sections), and may not relate to the on-farm field designation used by the grower, we were able to distinguish use patterns on some key herbicides of environmental concern. It appears that BIFS growers are using less of propanil and molinate than the rest of the county growers (Figure 6).

Figure 6. Percent acres treated by propanil and molinate use on BIFS fields (n=14-20) as compared to the rest of the county (n=1000).

Contra Costa County Apple BIFS.
This project focused on the key pest of apples, codling moth through the demonstration and subsidizing of mating disruption materials. Overall county use trends for major insecticides used on apples show 80 to 90 percent of the acreage being treated with azinphos methyl (Guthion) from 1992-1997 but then a major drop in use in 1998 followed by an increase back to this material. Methyl parathion use suddenly increased around 1998 potentially replacing the azinphos methyl use and then falling back down. Phosmet (Imidan) use appears to fluctuate between about 20 and 60 percent of the acres being treated. The use of mating disruption in the county as a whole peaked in 1999, the first year of the BIFS project, but then appears to have remained at about 20 percent of the acres being treated (Figure 7). However, BIFS growers since 1999 are using the mating disruption material on as much as 70 percent of their acres in 2000 which has dropped back down by 2001 to about 40 percent. The rest of the county growers are only treating about 10 percent of their acres (Figure 8).

Figure 7. Total Pounds of active ingredient applied and the percent of acres treated (max.) for key insecticides in apples in Contra Costa County 1992-2001. (2000 was the first year of the BIFS project.)

Figure 8. Mating disruption active ingredient used for codling moth control on apples in Contra Costa County 1992 through 2001 by BIFS growers (n=12) as compared to the rest of the county growers (n=52). (2000 was the first year of the BIFS project.)

Prunes (Dried Plums) in California
This project’s main environmental challenge is dormant season use of organophosphate insecticides to control peach twig borer and the additional control that practice provides for control of secondary pests like aphids and mites. In addition, the project has developed several protocols for fungal disease management, specifically for brown rot and rust. The project is active in eight counties. However, we will only present results from one of the top counties in terms of pesticide use, Sutter County, due to the preliminary nature of the data analysis and space limitations. Overall county use trends show that diazinon use has been reduced since 1992; however, still about 30 percent of the acres are receiving an application of this surface water contaminating insecticide (Figure 9). The fungicides captan and iprodione are also being applied on about 20 to 40 percent of the prune acres (Figure 9).

Figure 9. Total pounds applied of active ingredient and the percent of acres treated (max.) with this active ingredient of selected pesticides on prunes in Sutter County from 1992-2001. (1999 was the first year of the project.)

The use of surface water contaminating organophosphate insecticides by Prune BIFS growers is actually much less. In fact by 2000, only about three percent of their acreage was being treated with diazinon (Figure 10), whereas 30 percent of the rest of the county orchards received an application of this material. However, earlier in the decade, BIFS growers were much more reliant on this material treating 45 percent of their acreage.

Figure 10. Diazinon used for peach twig borer, aphids, and mites on prunes from 1992-2001 by BIFS growers (n=11) in Sutter County as compared to the rest of the county growers (n=460). (1999 was the first year of the BIFS project.)

The Prune BIFS project developed several protocols for testing for presence of fungal pathogens and promoted using fungicides only when thresholds were reached. The brown rot model, ONFIT, used testing of young fruit for incipient infections and using this information in later treatment decisions. And the prune rust model tested for presence of the rust and date relative to harvest to determine if treatments were needed. The use of iprodione (Rovral®) and captan appear to differ between the BIFS orchards and the rest of the county (Figure 11). Between 30 and 40 percent of the county are treating using captan whereas only 5 to 10 percent of the BIFS plots were treated. From 10 to15 percent of the county treated with iprodione, whereas during the years of the project almost no iprodione was used (Figure 11).

Figure 11. Captan and iprodione used for brown rot control on prunes from 1992 through 2001 by BIFS growers (n=11) as compared to the rest of the county growers (n= 460). (1999 was the first year of the BIFS project.)

Publications from BIFS Projects
The BIFS program is mainly focused on changing grower practices in the field through on-farm demonstrations and outreach and educational activities geared towards growers and consultants. However, many of the projects do not have a complete system developed and include important research on either the whole farming system or components of it. Once research is conducted it must be peer-reviewed and then published so that others can learn about the results and adapt relevant results to their farm or new research efforts. Nine peer reviewed publications, eleven abstracts, and several conference proceedings have been published that present results of BIFS projects or related research. Publications have ranged from Andrews et al. 2002, a landmark study in cotton that describes the development of a soil quality index for use by researchers, educators and growers to understand how on-farm practices effect soil quality and yields (see attachment E) to the (in press) paper by Grant et al. 2003 that outlines the pest management practices and achievements of the walnut BIFS project.

Peer Reviewed Publications
Andrews, S.S., C.B. Flora, J.P. Mitchell and D.L. Karlen. (in press) Farmers perceptions and acceptance of soil quality indices. Geoderma.

Andrews, S.S., J.P. Mitchell, R. Mancinelli, D.L. Karlen, T.K. Hartz, W.R. Horwath, G.S. Pettygrove, K.M. Scow and D.S. Munk. 2002. On-farm assessment of soil quality in California’s Central Valley. Agronomy Journal. 94:1 pp.12-23.

Bull, C. T., Shetty, K. G., and Subbarao K. V. 2002. Interactions between myxobacteria, plant pathogenic fungi, and biological control agents. Plant Disease. 86:889-896.

F.N. Martin and C.T. Bull. 2002. Biological approaches for control of root pathogens of strawberry. Phytopathology. 92:1356-1362.

Bull, C. T. 2000. Biological Control. In: Encyclopedia of Plant Pathology. Maloy and T. Murray, Eds. John Wiley & Sons Inc. Hoboken, NJ. pp.130-135.
Grant, Joseph A., W. Bentley, C. Pickel, J.C. Groh. (in press - tentative July 2003) BIOS Approach tested for managing pests in San Joaquin Valley walnut orchards. California Agriculture.

Mitchell, Jeffrey P., P.B. Goodell, et.al. 2001. Innovative Agricultural Extension Partnerships in California's Central San Joaquin Valley, Journal of Extension, December 2001, 39:6.

Swezey, Sean L., and J.C. Broome. 2000. Growth predicted in biologically integrated and organic farming. California Agriculture. 54:4 pp.26-35.

van Groenigen, J.W., R.G. Mutters, W.R. Horwath, C. vanKessel. 2002, NIR and DRIFT-NIR spectrometry of soils predicting soil and crop parameters in a flooded field. In press. Plant & Soil.

Abstracts
Bull, C. T. 1999. BIOS, BIFS, BASIS-OASIS: acronyms for success in agricultural research partnerships. Proceedings of the 2nd National Small Farms Conference, November 1999. pp. 73-75.

Bull, C.T. 2000. Participatory research for the dynamic California strawberry industry. In Sustainable Agriculture…Continuing to Grow: A Proceedings of the “Farming and Ranching for Profit, Stewardship & Community” Conference. Western Region SARE, March 2000. p. 25.

Bull, C. T. 2000. Research Models for Maximizing the Impact of Organic Research Conducted with Limited Resources. in Proceedings of the 13th International IFOAM Scientific Conference. T. Alfoldi, W. Lockeretz, U. Niggli (eds.). p. 712.

Bull, C. T., Joel Stryker, Steven T. Koike, and Carol Shennan. 2000. Use of mycorrhizal inoculants in organic production of strawberries. in Proceedings of the 13th International IFOAM Scientific Conference. T. Alfoldi, W. Lockeretz, U. Niggli (eds.). p. 272.

Eagle, A.J., R.J. Zasoski, E.S. Littlefield, G.S. Pettygrove, and M.C. Mathews. 2000. Determination of ammonium and organic N in dairy waste pond water. Annual Meeting Abstracts. Nov. 5-9, 2000. Minneapolis, MN. ASA-CSSA-SSSA. Madison, WI.

Eagle, A.J., S.C. Mueller, D.H. Putnam, and G.S. Pettygrove. 2002. Successful use of liquid dairy manure applied by border check irrigation to alfalfa. Annual Meeting Abstracts. Nov. 11-14, 2002. Indianapolis, IN. ASA-CSSA-SSSA. Madison, WI.

Eagle, A.J., M.J. Arana, C.A. Frate, M.C. Mathews, D.M. Meyer, and S.C. Mueller, G.S. Pettygrove, and D.H. Putnam. 2002. Improved dairy manure nutrient management systems for irrigated forage crops. Annual Meeting Abstracts. Nov. 11-14, 2002. Indianapolis, IN. ASA-CSSA-SSSA. Madison, WI.

Grant, Joe. 2000. Extending the Biologically Integrated Orchard Systems (BIOS) model to northern San Joaquin Valley walnut orchards. In Sustainable Agriculture…Continuing to Grow: A Proceedings of the “Farming and Ranching for Profit, Stewardship & Community” Conference. Western Region SARE, March 2000. p. 26.

Mutters, R.G. and J.W. Eckert. 2000. Biologically Integrated Farming Systems (BIFS) in California rice. In Sustainable Agriculture…Continuing to Grow: A Proceedings of the “Farming and Ranching for Profit, Stewardship & Community” Conference. Western Region SARE, March 2000. p. 27.

Obenauf, Gary L. 2000. Biologically Integrated Farming Systems (BIFS) for California prunes: dormant organophosphates, secondary pests and participants. In Sustainable Agriculture…Continuing to Grow: A Proceedings of the “Farming and Ranching for Profit, Stewardship & Community” Conference. Western Region SARE, March 2000. p.28.

Ohmart, Clifford P. 2000. Lodi-Woodbridge Winegrape Commission’s Biologically Integrated Farming System for Winegrapes. In Sustainable Agriculture…Continuing to Grow: A Proceedings of the “Farming and Ranching for Profit, Stewardship & Community” Conference. Western Region SARE, March 2000. p.28.

Conference Proceedings and Other Publications
Eagle, A.J. and G.S. Pettygrove. 2001. The Dairy BIFS project: Building partnerships for improved manure nutrient management.p.137-142. In D. Chaney, L. Halprin, and E. Dabbs (ed.). Proceedings: Partnerships for Sustaining California Agriculture: Profit, Environment and Community. (March 27-28, 2001, Woodland) University of California, ANR, Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program. Davis, CA.

Goodell, Peter B. and J.W. Eckert. 1998. Using buffer crops to mitigate Lygus migration in San Joaquin Valley cotton. 1998 Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Production Research Conferences. 2:1192-1194.

Goodell, Peter B. 1999. Returning to more biological reliance in cotton IPM. Proceedings 1999 California Plant and Soil Proceedings. Visalia, CA. January 20-21, 1999. pp.52-57.
Mitchell, Jeff P. 2001. Use of Organic Amendments in Soil Nutrient and Quality Management: Evaluations and Impacts of On-Farm Studies in California’s Central Valley. p.221-226. In D. Chaney, L. Halprin, and E. Dabbs (ed.). Proceedings: Partnerships for Sustaining California Agriculture: Profit, Environment and Community. (March 27-28, 2001, Woodland) University of California, ANR, Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program. Davis, CA.

Ohmart, Clifford P. 2001. Lodi-Woodbridge Winegrape Commission’s Sustainable Farming Program and Agriculture Partnership. p.37-43. In D. Chaney, L. Halprin, and E. Dabbs (ed.). Proceedings: Partnerships for Sustaining California Agriculture: Profit, Environment and Community. (March 27-28, 2001, Woodland) University of California, ANR, Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program. Davis, CA.

Pettygrove, S. and A. Eagle. 2001. Happy cows, happy environment: It’s the Manure. Integrating dairy manure water nutrient use with forage production. 2001. p. 117-121 In Proceedings, 31st California Alfalfa & Forage Symposium (Dec. 12-13, 2001, Modesto, CA). Department of Agronomy and Range Science, University of California, Davis.

Pickel, C., B. Olson, R. Buchner, K. Krueger, W. Reil, and S. Sibbett. 2002. Predicting damage in french prunes caused by obliquebanded leafroller with larval monitoring, in-season fruit inspection and pheromone trapping. UC Plant Protection Quarterly. Vol. 12, Number 4, October 2002.

NEXT STEPS IN THE BIFS PROGRAM

1 Continued support by the U.S.EPA Region 9 Regional Initiative for the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) has enabled the continuation of the UC SAREP BIFS competitive grants program. Funds have been provided since 1995 through 2002 that total $961,000. Continued funding support to UC SAREP from U.S. EPA Region 9 is anticipated. Ideally this would result in a call for proposals in 2004 for funding BIFS projects beginning in 2005.
2.

California Specialty Crop Block Grant. UC SAREP’s BIFS program has been awarded a California Specialty Crops block grant in the amount of $100,000 for two years (2002-2003) for a project titled “Increasing the Adoption of Biologically Integrated Farming Systems (BIFS) in California Specialty Crops: Farmer-to-Farmer Outreach of Environmentally Sound and Economically Viable Practices.” The goal of the project is to assist California producers of prunes, walnut, citrus and forage crops in adopting selected economically and environmentally sound agricultural practices through three main objectives: 1) implement a farmer-to-farmer outreach initiative that relies on the experience of a core group of farmers in biologically integrated farming system practices; 2) create and refine key educational tools and documents that will facilitate the farmer-to-farmer outreach program; and 3) improve outreach efforts based on results of walnut, dairy, and dried plum grower surveys.


3. Consortium for On Farm Conservation Biology and Restoration Ecology. The expansion of agriculture has often been at the expense of wildlands, native plants, and wildlife, yet farms and ranches can be managed in such a way that the impact is lessened, both in fields and on edges. California comprises 99,822,720 acres, of which 27,800,000 acres (28 percent) are devoted to agriculture. By contrast, 14,400,000 acres are wilderness, and 32,600,000 are forest, with some overlap between these two categories. Only 54,720 acres are included in National Wildlife Reserves. These numbers indicate the potential value of incorporating on-farm conservation and restoration strategies and wildlife-friendly farming practices, because a large proportion of California's land surface, about 28 percent, would be addressed. Our review of the literature, as well as first hand research experience, indicates that strategies and tactics for accomplishing this are still in the formative stage and lack a strong scientific foundation. Based on this strategic overview, UC SAREP personnel decided to facilitate a multi-researcher planning process and proposals on this theme. It was decided that winegrape vineyards would be the first farming system addressed as winegrape vineyards present both challenges and opportunities so far as conservation biology and restoration ecology are concerned. The winegrape industry in California has expanded rapidly in the past decade, and vineyards have replaced oak woodland, rangeland, orchards, and field crops in many areas. Vineyard expansion has been blamed for destruction of vernal pools, loss of connectivity of native vegetation, for destruction of native riparian vegetation in the name of disease reduction, and for increased run-off and sedimentation in streams, putting native fish, including anadromous species, at risk. However, opportunities arise in that winegrapes can be grown with a wide range of cover cropping options, including the use of native perennial bunch grasses and wildflowers. This raises the possibility of using such plants to sustain wildlife while stabilizing soils. Many winegrape vineyards have irrigation water impoundments (farm ponds) that could be managed for native plant and wildlife enhancement. All these options will require research to ensure that conservation and restoration efforts are on the best footing. Fifteen individuals have participated in research planning sessions including USDA ARS scientists, faculty from the University of California and from California State University. We intend to submit a multi-state proposal (involving Oregon and Washington) to the USDA Initiative for Future Agricultural and Farming Systems (IFAFS) and to approach philanthropic foundations interested in California environmental research and conservation work.


LITERATURE CITED


----------, FIRST CUT: IPM Innovators, California Farmer, January 2000.

Barzman, Marco et. al. “Project Update: BIFS rice survey Status of straw and weed management, opportunities for input reduction in rice” Sustainable Agriculture Newsletter. Vol 13, No. 3, Winter 2001.

Brouder, S.M. and J.E. Hill. 1995. Winter flooding of ricelands provides waterfowl habitat. California Agriculture. 49(6):58-64.

Bull, Carolee T. PhD., Research Plant Pathologist, USDA/ARS, Principal Investigator. Strawberry BIFS Annual Report – June 17, 2002.

California Air Resources Board. June 2001. Report to the Legislature. Progress Report on the Phase Down and the 1998-2000 Pause in the Phase Down of Rice Straw Burning in the Sacramento Valley Air Basin.

California Agricultural Statistics Service. 2000. California Agricultural Statistics 1990-1999, A ten-year report.

Caprile, Janet. UC Cooperative Extension, Contra Costa County, Principal Investigator. Apple BIFS Final Report October 26, 2001 and Progress Report, July 2002

Chao, C. Thomas, PhD. Assistant Extension Horticulturist, Principal Investigator. Citrus BIFS, Annual Report, 2001-2002.

Daane, Kent. 2000. AVF Annual Report. Project v.111- “Biological Control of Obscure Mealybug, Pseudococcus viburni, in the North and Central Coast Regions” Available at http://www.avf.org/reports/9900v111.html.

Dlott, Jeff, & Jean Haley. Lodi-Woodbridge Winegrape Commission Grower and PCA Feedback Questionnaire - Report of Results. December 1998.

Geiger, C.A. and Daane, K.M 2001. “Seasonal Movement and Distribution of the Grape Mealybug (Homoptera: Pseudoccoccidae): Developing a Sampling Program for San Joaquin Vineyards” Journal of Econ. Entomology 94(1): 291-301.

Grant, Joseph A. Farm Advisor, UC Cooperative Extension, Principal Investigator. Walnut BIFS Year-End and Final Report, February 15, 2002.

Hill, J.E., S.R. Roberts, D.M. Brandon, S.C. Scardaci, J.F. Williams, and R.G. Mutters. 1997. Rice production in California. UC Davis Rice Project web site: http://agronomy.ucdavis.edu/ucce/index.htm.

Mitchell, Jeffrey P., P.B. Goodell, et.al. 2001. Innovative Agricultural Extension Partnerships in California's Central San Joaquin Valley. Journal of Extension. December 2001, 39:6.

Mutters, R. Cass. Farm Advisor, University of California Cooperative Extension, Principal Investigator. Rice BIFS, Biologically Integrated Farming Systems in Rice Final Report, March 29, 2002.

Nelson, Gary, California Agricultural Statistics Service, per phone conversation on Sept. 27, 2002

Obenauf, Gary L. Consultant to the California Dried Plum Board, Principal Investigator. Prune BIFS Final Report 1999-2001, March 1, 2002.

O’Connor, Kris, M.S., Executive Director, Central Coast Vineyard Team, Principal Investigator. CCVT Winegrape BIFS, 2002 Annual Report, November 1, 2002.

Pettygrove, G. Stuart. Extension Specialist, Land Air and Water Resources, UC Davis, Principal Investigator. Dairy BIFS, Integrating forage production with dairy manure management in the San Joaquin Valley—Annual Report, May 29 2002

Ransom, Bev, et. al., Walnut BIFS project: San Joaquin County Walnut Growers Survey, Sustainable Agriculture Newsletter, Vol. 14, No. 3, Winter 2002.

Swezey, Sean, and J.C. Broome. 2000. Growth predicted in biologically integrated and organic farming. California Agriculture. 54:4 pp.26-35.

U.S. EPA. 1997. Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/laws/fqpa/

Walnut BIOS Notes, Newsletter of the Walnut BIOS Projects in San Joaquin and Stanislaus Counties, UC ANR, UCCE and CAFF, April/May 2001.

Williams, J.F., S.R. Roberts, J.E. Hill, S.C. Scardaci, G. Tibbits. 1990. Managing water for weed control in rice. California Agriculture. 44 (5): 7-10.

Zhang, Minghua, Report to UC SAREP on PUR Analysis of the BIFS program, September 2002.

Literature Consulted

UC SAREP, Conference Proceedings from Partnerships for Sustaining California Agriculture: Profit, Environment and Community, March 27-28, 2001

USDA Crop Pest Profile for California Walnuts, http://pestdata.ncsu.edu/cropprofiles/docs/cawalnuts.html

USDA Crop Pest Profile for California Apples, http://pestdata.ncsu.edu/cropprofiles/docs/caapples.html

USDA Crop Profile for California Prunes, http://pestdata.ncsu.edu/cropprofiles/docs/caprunes.html

USDA Crop Pest Profile for California Winegrapes, http://pestdata.ncsu.edu/cropprofiles/docs/cagrapes-wine.html


ATTACHMENTS

A. California Assembly Bill 3383 (AB 3383)
B. California Assembly Bill 1998 (AB 1998)
C. Walnut BIOS Notes, Newsletter of the Walnut BIOS Projects in San Joaquin and Stanislaus Counties, UC ANR, UCCE and CAFF, April/May 2001.
D. California Dried Plum Board, Integrated Prune Farming Practices, IPFP NEWSLETTER No. 125 June 2002, “Integrated Prune Farming Practices.”
E. Andrews, S.S., J.P. Mitchell, R. Mancinelli, D. K. Karlen, T.K. Hartz, W.R. Horwath, G. S. Pettygrove, K.M. Scow, and D.S. Munk, 2002. On-FarmAssessment of Soil Quality in California’s Central Valley, Agronomy Journal 94:12-23. Available on-line at http://agron.scijournals.org/cgi/reprint/94/1/12.pdf
F. Barzman, Marco et. al. “Project Update: BIFS rice survey, Status of straw and weed management, opportunities for input reduction in rice,” Sustainable Agriculture Newsletter, Vol. 13, No. 3, Winter 2001.
G. Ransom, Bev, et. al., “Walnut BIFS project: San Joaquin County walnut growers survey,” Sustainable Agriculture Newsletter, Vol. 14, No. 3, Winter 2002.
H. Arounsack, S. Steve and Minghua Zhang, “Differentiating Pesticide Use Trends in San Joaquin County.” Agricultural Geographic Information Systems (AGIS) Lab, UC Davis.

 

Back to Table of Contents

Home | Search | Calendar | Contact Us | Webmaster | Copyright Notices