Organic Workgroup Plenary: Minutes and
Meeting Notes
November 13, 2002
Rec Pool Lodge, UC Davis
Meeting Agenda
| 8:00 | Registration / breakfast, coffee and tea (organic menu) |
| 8:20 |
Welcome and Introduction, organic stats update, workgroup projects funded
2002-2003 |
| 8:45 |
Desert Organic Vegetable Production Research |
| 9:10 |
Salinas Valley Organic Cover Crop Research |
| 9:35 |
National Organic Program Update panel |
| 10:00 |
Break |
| 10:20 |
Pesticide Residues in Conventional and Organic foods: 3 U.S. Data Sets |
| 10:45 |
Challenges of Organic Pest Control Research in Vegetable Crops |
| 11:15 |
Breakout groups on possible research collaborations (1. Pest Management,
2. Soil Management, 3. Social, Markets and Economics Analyses) |
| 11:45 |
Lunch (organic menu)
|
| 12:45 |
Washington State University Organic Agriculture Research |
| 1:30 |
The Political Economy of Organic Production in California: Findings and
Reflections |
| 2:00 |
SAREP/County UCCE Organic & Sustainable Programs Panel |
| 3:10 |
Planning for additional workgroup/County-level/statewide organic farming research and extension activities (group discussion) |
| 4:00 | Meeting Evaluation, Adjourn |
MEETING NOTES/MINUTES
SAREP activities
Update on statistics: COPAC Regulatory rules for CA become effective Jan 1,
2003. Rick Melnicoe and Sean are working on stats for this entity. Organic represents
1-2% of irrigated acres in CA (~197,000 acres registered)
Milt McGiffen, UC Riverside
- SARE and SAREP sponsored organic research in Southern California in the desert areas. They are also one of the recipients of block grant money to develop an organic production manual.
- Cost differences between conventional and organic farms: It is hard to find the information on the cost differences. McGiffen is working on an article for American Vegetable Grower magazine with several contributors. If anyone is interested in contributing to that, see Milt.
- This is the Organic Decade: acreage has increased, consumer interest has increased, etc.
- What happens when you simply start adding organic matter to soils? (Midwest 5% organic matter in soils, but not true in CA.)
- Coachella Valley is a desert environment, very hot. Never cools down to freezing. Can deplete soils fast, but on the other hand, when amending with organic matter, soil breaks down very fast.
- Function of organic matter in soil:
- aggregate stability; low water
- soil holds the plant—accepts, holds & releases water and nutrients
- soils acts as a buffer—promotes root growth
- maintains soil diversity; responds well to management (can change varieties when soil is built up)
- resists degradation
- This has been called the “Organic Effect,” but it is not well quantified. We see positive changes after several years; improvement of soil and in the soil structure. Summer time usually goes fallow, but we had a cover crop on one trial.
Nitrogen content:
- Yields: Organic trial evened out after the first year. “The Organic effect” Still able to maintain yield. Soil density is lower; saturation is better; there was no effect on lettuce yield. However, these correlations do not correspond with the treatments. Soil physical properties are a result of random variation in the fields themselves, not treatments. It is more related to the response of the crops to the soil physical properties. The effect is not from treatments they did in these years, but rather changes in soil long term.
- Microbial respiration is relatively high with organic management. It seems related to how much organic matter is being added to the soil.
- How many years? Plots have been in existence for five years, and the study began after 3rd year.
- LTRAS showed positive yield over 9 years. When they did side by side comparisons, it showed identical yields between 1st year conventional and 6th year organic. We would expect a higher yield in the 6th year, so we are somewhat skeptical about the effects of organic.
Eric Brennan, Salinas Valley USDA-ARS
- Recent cover cropping research and new project just funded. There has been an increase in Monterey Co. in organic sales. They have a 170 acre research plot in Salinas. An organic grower is farming it commercially and it doubles as a research plot.
- Heirloom Organic Garden Inc. + CAFF + USDA collaboration allows Heirloom to grow for profit, but also can supply the land for research purposes.
The work initially focused on cover crops.
- Eric showed his new "toy" --a tractor that gives tight control over seeding rates through seed cones. They can do small plots—can look at variety, seeding rate, etc. ($34K for the tractor)
- The research project started last year: looking at effect on three different cover crops plus weed suppression during the cover cropping period and following incorporation. How well does it suppress during the cover crop season?
- Planted three types of cover crop: Looked at biomass and weed production. [March 6 was the incorporation date (seeded October; wet day November)]
- Mustard produced canopy rather quickly compared to oats legume/oat mixture.
No difference between biomass total at end of season, but mustard gave higher
biomass earlier in the cycle.
- Nettle Biomass production under cover crops: They didn’t suppress weeds equally. Under the mustard, very small (viable weeds/ft2), whereas about 10x as much under the soilmax.
- Philosophies: one group wants legumes for nitrogen fixing; other group is concerned about the weed bank. Issue is not so much the cover crop itself, but the seeding rate (of legume). Eric thinks this is an important part of organic systems.
- Mowed and incorporated and let weeds come up: Showed the most weeds in soilmax, and less with mustard, and oats. (how much is due to N fixation?) But in terms of number of plants that emerged, much less under mustard. Not sure why exactly. Mustard is a biofumigant? Coverage?
- There is a new study funded by SAREP with different seeding rates for four different trials, also high and low fertilization on each trial.
Questions:
Any other weeds besides nettle? No, too predominated by nettle.
Size of study plots too small? Plots were too narrow in first study. This year the plots are wider (newly funded study) about 4 acres. Also in the organic plot they have a diversity of weeds, not just nettle.
National Organic Program Update
Stacey Carlsen, Marin County Ag Commissioner
Ray Green, CA State Organic Program
Speaking on compliance issues. Implementation of national rule is now being
enforced. CA Organic Program (CDFA) is home for federal regulatory program with
Ray Green.
Marin County is an official certification organization.
Materials review is being done in the SAREP office. Anyone can also get onto the web site to determine if a material is allowable.
Questions to discuss
- What is a state organic program?
- Why a state program when a national program?
- Where will a prospective organic grower go?
- Registration and umbrella certification
- Will farmers have to register to certify?
- How will office deal with exports?
- What about ability of standards to change with technology etc.?
- What will having two layers do re: costs for farmers?
| 1. | National Organization Program is a program to register organic. It’s an international program, also; any product must meet the standards. A government to government negotiation of an equivalency agreement determines acceptability. The other option is to grant approval when a product comes in. (There are no equivalency agreements yet). This is not a front line enforcement program. It sets up and approves accredited certifiers. Growers do not interact with USDA. They interact with certifiers. USDA can give and remove certification. State of CA has had a program since 1992. When CA becomes official, will replace the NOP. It will be the enforcement arm. Currently must go through the regulatory process to change the standards. There will be changes over time. National Standards Board, etc. Advantage is that growers have protection of constitution for example if there are problems between a grower and a certifier.CA will be the intermediary. CA will be the NOP of California.
|
| 2. | Multiple layers: State registration plus certification. State organic registration program has the ability to monitor all certifiers. They do spot inspections. This ensures consumer confidence. To be certified, growers pay a fee to certifier. To be registered, they pay a fee to state (used for education, etc.) Growers must register with Ag Commissioner (same as state). Two way: oversight of local registrations by the county; state has oversight of local programs. County does inspections, and compliance with three year transition period. They do on sight inspections to make sure growers are growing what they say and complying with requirements. Registration is just a declaration that you are organic (necessary but not sufficient for “certified organic”). Everyone will be required to be certified but registration just gets you into the system. (Some are exempt based on income). In CA you have to be both registered and certified in order to make any claim about being organic. Registration gives county and state a benchmark to follow who is coming into the organic business. Registration is required for anyone who claims to be organic. Prior to the sale of food/crop, you must be registered. You don’t have to be registered or certified while you are transitioning. Procedural part of the program is not the issue. The way the person is growing being consistent with organic practices is the critical part—the process. How we document that process, is the most important part. Marinhad to develop criteria for documenting the process.What is the motivation for the Ag Commissioner to be a certifier? Interested in the process. There was a groundswell in Marin, and collaborative participation in the issue. It has been an evolution of a program. In Marin, they inspect farmers markets, pesticide use. They are a local service agent for the program. Cost efficiency to the grower is very good. The County can charge a nominal fee. Board of Supervisors of County is very supportive. Funding is to do marketing program for growers, support farm advisor. Cost analysis at the county level is about 8:1 benefit to growers; not really cost effective from the county’s point of view, but that’s OK. It’s a collective effort.
|
| 3. | Conflict of interest? Enforcement officer and certifier at same time? County has been in enforcement business for a long time. Also have offered certification. Stacy does not see a conflict here.
|
| 4. | Now growers have to pay two fees. Is that adjusted? Ray says, “Yes, it’s higher now.” Most growers have been paying both state registration and certifiers. Certification has come down somewhat to be competitive.
|
| 5. | What about the concentration issue? Only 2% of growers grow about 75% of the product. Ray: there are ways for growers to cut costs, e.g., umbrella groups. For example, Marin Organic works as a collective group Growers are certified individually, but they work together to enhance efficiency.
|
| 6. | CCOF takes something off a grower’s gross with their certification. That seems a conflict of interest too. A:Marin County is just looking to help their growers. It’s based on a food delivery system that serves the local markets. They are trying to promote a local sustainable system. Marin is trying for a lager, more sustainable vision and they have attached additional standards to their application to become a certifier, which the federal government didn’t like. The feds didn’t want them to have standards higher than the USDA. But they wanted something more.
|
| 7. | Are we seeing people dropping out of the organic program altogether? Yes, some are dropping the organic claim altogether, and each is for a different reason. However, there doesn’t seem to be a mass exodus.Some drop for philosophical reasons, some for costs, some because they don’t like the record keeping. Rgreen@cdfa.ca.gov |
Brian Baker
Worked with Chuck Benbrook doing pesticide work. Also works with Consumers Union (Karen Lutz Benbrook)
Study Objectives:
- Does organic food have fewer pesticides? If so, by how much? How does it stack up against food with other claims?
- Looked at three data sets: USDA Pesticide Data Program; CA EPA Marketplace Surveillance program; Consumers’ Union. Each data set differs.
- USDA analyzes food as it is consumed. Targeted to diets of small children; six years; risk assessment purposes; FQPA, long term risks, chronic effects: how much is being consumed on a regular basis?
- Consumers Union: Used similar sampling methods to USDA
- CDFA: Didn’t care so much about having low limits of detection. Not a random sample; least precise re: LOD
Results:
- 7% of all organic produce has 2 or more residues compared to 48% of non-organic;
- Label Claim about 30% of no claim having pesticide residues compared to 6% for organic (having one or two residues) so 94% has no residue. (confused here…)
- Statistically significant.
Many residues in organics were due to persistent DDT.
- Concerns for human health
- Chemical Interaction
- Synergistic effects
- Cumulative exposure underestimated
Based on diets of infants and children, reason to believe that risks are underestimated
for above reasons. So organic foods are less likely to have pesticides, but
are the pesticides lower? In 69% of cases residues were lower in crop samples
(converse also, higher in 31%). But a lot of the residue was for pesticide not
registered for that crop (due to drift?). (Comment: the 31% is not ADDED by
organic farmers, but rather there inadvertently.)
Apples Azinphos methyl residues about 10x higher in “no claim”
crops studied.
Pre-plant herbicides in the foggy areas drift and disperse to other, including
organic, plots.
Legal limit for organic is 20x stricter for organic than for conventional (5%). Compliance level for conventional is higher.
Consumer Union data set is in between primary and secondary data. Would like to do more primary studies, but it’s a funding issue.
Bill Chaney, Farm Advisor, UCCE Monterey County
Challenges of Organic Pest Control Research in Vegetable Crops
Are organic, IPM and conventional production systems different from a researcher’s standpoint (other than pesticide choices)?
How do we define organic (Federal standards; CA standards; Private certification?)
Definitions:
Division between “philosophic organic” vs. “economic
organic”
- Very much of a difference between these two groups.
- Economic: meets criteria for organic with materials and sprays, but is it what
we want with organic? “just a different set of tools.”
- Philosophic: “A different way of farming”
- Can a “conventional” researcher do “organic” research?
- Organic research must be done on (certified) organic land. Little research is being done in US on organic land. There is little organic land under the control of researchers.
No materials can be applied on organic land that are not already OMRI approved.
Problem is that there is an economic risk for growers to apply materials not
already approved. This is also a problem, then, for research.
Negative results are not readily accepted by organic community. “You didn’t do it right” or “It works on my farm” or “there’s more to it than that.” It’s different with conventional growers. They will tend to believe the researchers more. Sean asks if the level of skepticism is different. Chaney says he does see a difference.
Organic fields are always “treated,” i.e., there are no untreated
controls, so it’s hard to make comparisons.
Conventional: Which sledgehammer to use; how much do I spray when; silver bullet
Organic: How to manage the system to control problems; whole systems approach
Research? Why do many conventional researchers avoid organic research?
Funding difficulties; and multiple years needed for experiments.
Hard to publish, no credit (especially in UC system). UC people get the most credit for fast publications.
Why do it? NEED for it; more interesting; more funding is becoming available; responsibility to do it.
What Bill Chaney and Franklin Dlott are working on:
- Biological control of lettuce aphid by hoverfly larvae biology and insectary
plantings
- Screening of OMRI approved pesticides
- Needs? Cucumber beetles, flea beetles, aphids, soil pests.
Chaney is now getting more support from commodity boards.
- Most of the “economic” organic growers are also growing conventionally. Maybe they are subsidizing organic with their conventional crops.
Benny Fouche does work on small plots, but it’s hard because you don’t
get the beneficials. This “system” makes it harder.
Chaney does not see his role as giving a grower a finished product that they
can use in the field. Sees his role as giving them tools. He wants to go to
land that has been organic for a long time and do trials in that environment
(works with grower cooperaters).
Even large “economic” organic growers are losing money ($ per acre).
David Granatstein, Washington State Univ. Cooperative Extension
Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources, Wenatchee, WA
- He is looking at institutional issues & change
- Reviewed history of research on organic production systems beginning with Holland and Kraten in 1977 (initiated by energy crisis)
- Papendick – USDA Organic Farming Report 1980
- First symposium at professional society meeting – 1981 Bezdicek – ASA Symposium on Organic Farming
- Early 90’s – sustainable ag focus, organic downplayed due to political environment
- Late 90’s – growth of organic production elicited response in university research
- Major change in 2001 at WSU to focus on organic research – encouraged by university administration and funds available from federal govt. for land grants
- They use the term “BIOAg”
- To have impact on the ground, we need to be broader than just “organic”, not exclusively organic. Gives room to maneuver to the future without being boxed in.
- Huge change by stepping carefully and cautiously.
- New steps – proposed organic farming B.S.degree. First organic farming and gardening class – attended by several students outside of the college as well.
- John Reganold shows that you can get published on organic data.
- Hard to generate statistics on statewide organic farming…there wasn’t a system…their state ag statistics office did not separate data for organic farming. He uses transition acres in his statistics. Tree fruit has shown the most increase, then grapes and berries.
- Major organic crop is apples. New technology – pheromone mating disruption– came on in 95. Organic growers were the first adopters. Mating disruption was developed as a result of the whole trend towards softer chemicals…not specifically to address needs of organic growers. Yet it had a major affect on organic growers’ ability to grow apples.
- Transition to organic apples peaked in 2001 as the price premiums started to drop. We need to be able to provide this information to growers to help them make decisions.
- Best region to grow apples is in the desert where there is also irrigation available – central Washington. Economic organic growers…can be sure they are also using what they have learned on their conventional acreage as well.
- There are several other “biointensive” ag trends in WA as well:
- Mustard green manure in potato rotations
- Direct seeding increase
- Wetland restoration
- Use of compost (25% of farms using compost ...though he can't quite believe this result)
- Their program just produced “ Sustainable Agriculture in Washington - A Look at Baseline Indicators” in response to legislative mandate. This sustainability trends report is available on line (funded by EPA).
- The industry also responds to this trend – creating formulations that will be approved for organic. And research as well is responding to needs of bioag (and organic). Achilles heel of cover crops is rodents.
Recent Activities
- Now have first certified organic WSU research land.
- They have established a Northwest Organic Working Group.
- Proposed BIOAg Program (dependent on grass roots support)
- He is interested in “Beyond Organic.”
Questions:
1. Did you purposefully avoid the term “sustainability?” Yes, he thought it was worn out…every one has their own definition of sustainability.
Julie Guthman,UC Berkeley
Political Economy of Organic Production in Calif: Findings and Reflections
The structure of the organic farming sector
- Mixed growers
- Micro gowers
- Revenue concentration
- Oligopsony (def: A market condition in which purchasers are so few that the actions of any one of them can materially affect price and the costs.)
- Looked at databases (pesticide use permits, etc.) to find out about the organic sector
- N=150 growers (more than 10% of the organic growers at the time) over the course of 1.5 years
- (1997) –median size = 5 acres, but data is misleading on size
- Industry growers vs Movement growers
- Stratified the info based on many variables
- Own or lease land?
- How long?
- Labor?
- Vertically integrated?
- Movtivation?
- How chose certifier?
- The data looked at in these reports is only organic acreage within many huge farms.
- There are also small growers (micro growers). About 80% of organic growers are “small.” But these still don’t fit our idea of small farmers. Many are people who have residential real estate with orange groves on them. They didn’t have a marketing outlet so 3 or 4 organic packers approached them. They could care less about organic, but wanted an outlet for the tax write-offs. These “growers” are very tied into buyers (packers). They are portrayed as small growers, but under the system they work in with packers and many with the same packer, they function as a large grower.
- Organic revenue is highly concentrated (in about 2% of the organic growing population).
- A lot of the money to be made is in packing and shipping.
- Oligopsony = concentration of buyers.
- These big players (who grew up within the ranks of the organic movement) do not want to work with the organic farmers of yesteryear. They are recruiting laborers on concessionary contracts. Paid to grow organic. Want “professional” growers who can deliver on time, etc., not “hippy” growers. We are getting two different marketing systems, major wholesale system, and then the direct (CSAs, FMs, small retail).
- Whole farm conversion? Brian found that if that is imposed, the corporation just forms two different operations.
- If you are looking at these two different product streams, how do you assess overseas market, which has different standards? Growers who want to meet export standards have to put “for export only” on their boxes. The growers can’t have a mixed system if they want to export.
- Research question: The way we’ve regulated ourselves works as a barrier to entry. Huge growth has industry people saying it’s good to provide people with more healthy food. But the higher price acts as a protection to the industry. Extra cost shouldn’t be borne by consumers. It seems we need some other kind of way to subsidize organic. We need a cropping system that smoothes out labor costs. Also, questions about our food system persist: we overproduce. Price premium has an effect on land values. In that case, organic farming is undermining its original philosophy/purpose.
- Scale: There’s a presumption that small scale produces. It’s not the scale, but the enfranchisement, the tools, the ways we regulate.
- Question of whether we undermine the food industry overall by emphasizing organic (denigrating other food). Answer: We have huge subsidies for ag, but not for sustainability. How can these subsidies be restructured? It’s a policy issue.
Panel of County Organic Farm Advisors:
Steve Quirt, UCCE Marin County
Annie Eicher, UCCE Humboldt County
Oleg Daugovish UCCE, Ventura County
Ventura, Oleg Daugovish
- Strawberry and vegetable crops. Ventura County is very much an urban/ag interface. Very aware of being organic or close.
- 50+ growers, fruit trees, vegs, strawberries. Much organic research comes through UC Hansen Trust (they provide land). Growers identified research needs and marketing needs (certification, Farm to school, organic farming market)
- Research on cover crops-found that some worked better than others, e.g., mustards worked the best for weed suppression. Legumes best for beneficial insects.
- Waipuna hot foam treatment for weed control: Heated organic foam plus coconut syrup. Slow application process. But didn’t work well for bermuda grass.
- Yardwaste mulch: survival of pests and pathogens. What happens to disease & death when thrown into yard piles? Most pathogens were killed within 2 weeks. Weeds were a bit tougher. Nematodes and GWSS, Olive fruit fly, killed between 2-5 days. They didn’t turn the piles. Temperature was the main factor.
- Bio-fumigation potential of mustards. Worked for Australia. First, break the cells. Trap and hydrolyze; split-plot and cover with black plastic.
- Nematodes controlled. Sclerotinia inhibited in the field, dead in the lab. Weed seed, no effect in the field, dead in the lab. Improved vigor. Can mustard be a reliable bio-fumigant? As cover crop, as seed meal, as extract?
Marin, Steve Quirt
- Challenges in Marin: increased competition; high land prices; large family farms; hilly land, marginal water; farming on the edge (population on one side of county and other side completely protected by easements); increasing regulations.
- Advantages: Very affluent consumers in the region. Also educated. Niche markets are a big opportunity for farmers. Marin county population has a high appreciation for organic practices. Unique combination of ngos and alliances of groups: MALT, etc. Support agencies for farmers.
- Another unique aspect: 80% of production is animal agriculture. This presents a huge challenge to convert to organic. 50% of crop report is in row crops. Some grass-fed beef.
- There is a real need for farmers to diversify. Marin had 200 dairies in 1950, now they have 36. Smaller diversified farms might be the way for the farmers to make it.
- The county has packaged Marin Grown program so they can go around and present it. They do a newsletter (soon to be a monthly column) to get the issues the farmers face out to consumers. They did a survey of producers and discovered 40% are interested in transitioning to organic. They are doing workshops—current marketing opportunities, examples from farmers & specialists—which they offer every six weeks. These provide networking and diversification—workshops are varied.
- Individual Farm Crop Trial Partners: MOCA, UCCE, Marin Organic, UCCE Specialty Crop Advisor. When organic transitions are happening, they try to keep it public, so people will know about it. They are doing field trials it’s the first year, mostly educational).
- They plan to create a workgroup on the farm products distribution issue. Distribution is a large issue.
- Next steps: Identify producers who have interest in transitioning.; Identify high value specialty crops and young farmers.
Annie Eicher Humboldt County Organic Farm Advisor
Profile of Humboldt County organic farmers
- 31 in 1992 up to 74 in 2001. These represent registrations. Of these 17 are certified.
- Small farms: only 1% are greater than 20 acres.
- 50% less than $5000/year. 1% greater than $100,000/year
- Mostly vegetables.
- Farms nestled in native habitat. Forested slopes and Eel River. Riparian forest abuts some farms.
- Outreach
- Farmers market Assn meeting
- Farm visits
- Farmers’ markets
- Questionnaire
- Newsletters
1. Research Projects in 2002
- Fish fertilizer kelp trials (straw Cantal potatoes)
- Alfalfa farmer transitioning to organic
- Pathogens in dairy manure
- Will continue fish fertilizer. Kelp
- Expand alfalfa transition
- Symphylans, organic control
- Dahlia (juice from the tubers)
- Corn earworm
2. Education
- Newsletters
- ATTRA Publications
- Workshops on organic certification and soil fertility management
3. External Funding
- EcoNutrients (donation to fish fertilizer study)
- DANR Lab Grant (labcosts for fish fertilizer study)
- County of Humboldt for workshop
- SAREP funded soil fertility workshop
- Alfalfa (applying)
Dave Chaney on Organic Workgroup Activities
Potential Funding Sources for Organic Research
- Possible research collaborations:
- NRI 2004 Several categories (proposals begin 10-01-03)
- OFRF Ongoing (Jan 15, July 15 deadlines)
- Organic Research new program through 2002 Farm Bill Funds approved for
FY 2003-04 ($3m for next 5 years, nationally) no RFP yet
- Western Region SARE (pre-proposals due in June)
- Western IPM (due Dec)
- NRI 2004 Several categories (proposals begin 10-01-03)
1. Pursue workgroup ratification?
- Pursue idea of a continuing conference?
- Consolidation of BIFS/Organic or cooperating with Small Farm program?
- Advantage to ratification is that it’s approved for five years. Unsure of DANR’s reason for not ratifying workgroup; they may not want to ratify this workgroup no matter how well justified it is.
- Steering Committee:
- Current group includes: Broome, Eicher, R. Farmer, Giraud, Gliessman, McGiffen, Molinar, Moratorio, Quirt, Rilla, Swezey
- No new volunteers.
NOTES FROM BREAKOUTS GROUPS (11:15 SESSION ON POSSIBLE RESEARCH COLLABORATIONS)
Brainstorm/Idea Lists
Group 1: Pest Management Topics
- Symphylan Research (conventional or organic)
- New Cover Crop Varieties Breeding
- Tree Crops- Pheromone use in organics- what formulations? Carriers for inerts that are organically certifiable
- Biofungicidal seed treatment for damping off (Rhizoc., etc.)
- Lygus (biocontrol by Peristenas Anaphes) & other seed bugs for seed production, transplant production
- Compost teas in combo w/ serenade, other microbials, plant extracts, synergists (e.g. botanicals)
- Olive Fly- Zalom, Van Steenwyk
- Walnut Husk Fly
- Pierce’s Disease. & Vectors
- Southern Fire Ant
- Soil-borne Pests of Nursery Stock
- Cabbage Whitefly
- Leafminer (Lep.) in Veg. Crops
- DIABROTICA
Pest Mgmt- Collaborators
- Symphylans- Eicher, Van Horn, Bill Chaney, Fouche, McGiffen, Brennan, L.
Yee
- Biofungicidal Seed Treatments- R. Simas, Agraquest, Seeds of Change, Brennan,
Koike, Gustafson, Stine, J.H. Biotech McGiffen J. Devay
- Pheromones & Inerts & Carriers- J. Hasey, S. Swezey, J. Caprile, P.
Vossen
- Organic Amendments for Pest Mgmt.- McGiffen, P. Vossen, Agraquest, J. Broome, D. Gubler
Group 2: Social, Market, and Economics Analysis
- Labor
- Cropping regimes that have positive effects
- Applications of materials
- Do consumers want this to be considered? ISSUE
- Cooperative Marketing
- Transparency in marketplace
- Pricing- geography, SKU analysis
- Statistics- market analysis
- Analysis of O.F. “process”
- Systems approach
- Profiling of attitudes, perceptions towards NOP
- Julie has baseline data for growers 98-99--Go back to same growers
- Dynamics of organic research
- Researchers attitudes, perceptions, responses
- Researchers vs. growers = different methodology -- reductionist vs. systems
- Organic: Evaluate policy differences (U.S.- E.U.), i.e. policies directed at consumer; and policies related to society as a whole.
- Concentration Issue
- Alternatives but not just organic- conventional issue
- Update organic cost studies
- Taking “true value” + externalities into account
- Growth potential for organics and how can we make it happen
- Advantages- promote more than just “no pesticides”
- Comparison of systems org. growers vs input substitution
Group 3: Soil Management
Cover Crops: Breeding cover crops to produce forms of organic matter
that persist in
The soil. To improve the physical properties of soil. Applicable to conventional
as well as organic growers.
Collaborators: breeders, biochemists
- USDA basic researchers
- NSF seed companies (eventually)
Cover Crops:
- Combinations of C.C. for different purposes
- Research/test various mixes
- Look at several parameters: % vetch (legume), Mustard, bell bean
- Long Term Fertility
- Weed/seed dynamics
- Soil borne diseases & pests in soil
- Research into soil microbiology testing systems (identify bogus methods/scams?)
- Nitrate Leaching
- Alternative Organic Fertilizers (seaweed, fish)
- Chilean Nitrate
- (5 research priorities identified by NOSB as needing to be addressed)