California Ag Network

Category: Ag Legislation

  • Study Verifies Low Food-Safety Risk at CA Farmers Markets

    A new study by University of California, Davis, researchers finds a low risk of contamination of foodborne pathogens on produce and meat at Northern California certified farmers markets, but still finds cause for some concern.

    The study, published in the Journal of Food Protection, examined the prevalence of Salmonella on meat and produce, as well as the prevalence of generic E. coli on produce. Samples were taken from 44 certified Northern California farmers markets, including in the Sacramento region and Bay Area. Less than 2 percent (1.8 percent) of animal products sampled, including beef, pork and poultry, tested positive for Salmonella, while all produce samples tested negative. Slightly more than 30 percent (31.3 percent) of produce tested positive for generic E. coli. Generic E. coli is an indication of fecal contamination, but not all E. coli is harmful. This study didn’t test for pathogenic E. coli.

    “Based on this data, I think it’s safe to consume meat and produce from farmers markets,” said lead author Alda Pires, a UC Cooperative Extension specialist and research scientist in the UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine. “That’s a low risk of contamination of foodborne pathogens, especially Salmonella.”

    While the prevalence of generic E. coli may seem relatively high, the concentrations were low. Pires said that’s especially so compared to previous studies of contamination at farmers markets elsewhere in the United States. The prevalence of Salmonella in meat sampled from Northern California farmers markets is also much lower than what previous studies have found in grocery stores.

    Among the produce sampled, leafy greens had the highest prevalence of E. coli, followed by root vegetables.

    Consumers should still be cautious

    Consumers and farmers should still be aware that produce and meat were not free from contamination. Consumers need to make sure the foods they prepare from farmers markets follow the good hygiene practices recommended by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Consumers should also keep produce separate from meat to avoid cross-contamination. 

    “The study raises awareness that it’s not just very large farms that can have contamination,” said co-author Michele Jay-Russell, with the Western Center for Food Safety at UC Davis. “Farmers need to pay attention to everything they’re doing, from planting to storage, to avoid contamination.”

    While certified farmers markets are inspected for food hygiene, microbiological quality is not explored. Smaller farms, those making less than $25,000 a year, are also exempt from certain food-safety provisions of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Food Safety and Modernization Act. Foodborne illness costs the U.S. economy more than $15 billion annually.

    Other co-authors include James Stover, Esther Kukielka, Viktoria Haghani, Peiman Aminabadi and Thais De Melo Ramos of UC Davis. Research support came from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. — By Amy Quinton, UC Davis

  • Organic Produce Members Team Up with New National Produce Council

    The American organic produce sector is big and complex. It accounts for more sales than any other organic sector, and its production regions stretch across the United States reaping a dizzying array of fruits and vegetables. The issues facing organic produce growers, processors and distributors are equally wide-ranging: food safety, labor issues, labeling/packaging issues, climate change.
     
    Driven by the desire for the sector to collaboratively work together to address its most urgent challenges, inspired by the success of other sector councils at the Organic Trade Association, and wanting to take advantage of the association’s deep knowledge and expertise in organic, leading produce members initiated a drive earlier this year that has resulted in the trade association’s Board of Directors’ official approval to establish an Organic Produce Council.

    “We whole-heartedly welcome the formation of this sector council and look forward to problem-solving and collaborating with our colleagues throughout the organic produce supply chain,” said Board member Ben Diesl of Grimmway Farms. “This council will give Organic Trade Association member companies that are involved in the organic industry an organized opportunity to benefit from the association’s expertise, to network with diverse stakeholders and to influence the overall agenda of the association. We invite other produce members to join.”
     
    “The new Produce Council, as with all of our sector councils, will be supported by the Organic Trade Association’s expert staff,” said Laura Batcha, CEO and Executive Director of the trade association. “Our staff has deep expertise in organic standards, food safety, farm policy, government advocacy and international marketing. Today’s organic produce sector is robust and thriving, but it faces many challenges. We are thrilled that our produce members are coming together and tapping into their association’s bank of knowledge to help them deal with those challenges.”
     
    Organic produce sales hold the top position in the U.S. marketplace. In 2019, organic fruit and vegetable sales reached $18 billion, as the category continued to be the star of the organic sector. Organic produce currently makes up almost a third of all organic food sales, and organic fruits and vegetables, including fresh, frozen, canned and dried, have now captured 15 percent of the total fruits and vegetable market in the U.S.
     
    The produce sector has been profoundly tested by COVID-19 as it has struggled to keep its workers in the fields, plants and trucks safe, and at the same time meet exploding demand. Wanting to hear how the pandemic was affecting their businesses, Organic Trade Association’s Farm Policy Director Johanna Mirenda and Diesl of Grimmway Farms earlier this year convened produce members for a COVID-19 listening session. Everything from how to keep workers safely socially distanced and maintain planting and harvesting schedules to keeping processing lines filled and store deliveries on time were discussed.

    Working together to address challenges

    “Our members taking part in this discussion found it very valuable to connect with other of our produce members” said Mirenda, who is staff liaison for the new council. “Since then, individual members have come forward with other organic produce issues–such as food safety–that could serve as work plan projects for the new council to take on.” The interest from members was significant enough that the trade association hosted an exploratory meeting in early September to highlight the opportunity for a new sector council among all Organic Trade Association produce members. Nearly two dozen members attended. 
     
    Produce stakeholders said that besides food safety, they are interested in working together, with the support of the trade association’s regulatory and legislative staff, to advance outcomes relating to other key issues in organic produce, such as: implementing the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s new rule on strengthening organic enforcement, guaranteeing workforce safety and availability, supporting development of organic seeds and planting stock, and identifying tools for measuring and promoting biodiversity. Establishing organic labeling and packaging best practices, adapting to and mitigating climate change and developing resources on market data and research information were also identified as key needs.
     
    Members also indicated the following priorities for their engagement:

    • Amplifying the needs of the produce community within the trade association
    • Developing and sharing information resources among those in the organic produce industry
    • Learning about emerging regulatory issues that impact organic produce
    • Networking with other organic produce businesses across the value chain
    • Creating opportunities for leadership development opportunities

    Sector Councils within the trade association build community among groups of like members to provide ongoing opportunities for networking, leadership development, education, information development, and sharing. They are not policy-setting groups. The trade association previously has established such entities as its Farmers Advisory Council, Dairy Council, Dietary Supplements Council, Fiber Council, Grains Council, and Retailer Council.
     
    Initial companies signing up for this council include Ag. Valles del Sur SpA, Awe Sum Organics, Bolthouse Farms, Bridges Organic Produce, Cal-Organic/Grimmway Farms, Charlie’s Produce, Columbia Marketing International/CMI Orchards, Duncan Family Farm, Earl’s Organic Produce, Heath & Lejeune, Homegrown Organic Farms, Jacobs Farm/Del Cabo, Munger Farms, Naturesweet, Naturipe, Organically Grown Company, Organic Produce Network, Page’s Organics, Taylor Farms, Thermiculture Management, Vitalis Organic Seeds and Wholesum Family Farms.
     
    The first meeting of the council is scheduled for December 8.
     
    Other members of the trade association in this sector are encouraged to join. The council’s membership will be diverse. The technical scope of membership for the council will be very inclusive – vegetables, fruit, mushroom, herbs, tree nuts, floriculture and other horticultural crops.
     
    For more information on the council, contact Johanna Mirenda.

    The Organic Trade Association (OTA) is the membership-based business association for organic agriculture and products in North America. OTA is the leading voice for the organic trade in the United States, representing over 9,500 organic businesses across 50 states. Its members include growers, shippers, processors, certifiers, farmers’ associations, distributors, importers, exporters, consultants, retailers and others. OTA’s Board of Directors is democratically elected by its members. OTA’s mission is to promote and protect ORGANIC with a unifying voice that serves and engages its diverse members from farm to marketplace. The Organic Trade Association does not discriminate on the basis of age, disability, national origin or ancestry, race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, marital status, political affiliation or military status. Persons with disabilities who require alternate means for communication of program information can contact us at info@ota.com.

  • Compound from Soil Bacterium Gets Reboot as Antibiotics Super Booster

    USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS) scientists and their collaborators continue garnering success in their tests of a compound that could bolster the potency of beta-lactam antibiotics, potentially reducing the dosages required and helping stave off resistance in the germs they’re meant to kill.

    According to Neil Price, a chemist with the ARS National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research (NCAUR) in Peoria, beta-lactams are a class of antibiotics widely used in human health, veterinary medicine and agriculture. Many are penicillin- and cephalosporin-based. However, some germs have developed resistance to the drugs, threatening their continued effectiveness in fighting infection and preventing illness. Indeed, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates antibiotic-resistant germs infect at least 2.8 million people in the United States each year. Of that total, 35,000 people die as a result.

    For his part, Price has partnered with a team of ARS scientists to bolster the potency of these antibiotics with a rebuilt version of a compound called tunicamycin. In nature, certain types of bacteria secrete tunicamycin in an act of chemical warfare to keep competing microbes from reaching choice resources. Unfortunately, tunicamycin also blocks the activity of a key protein in human and animal cells. To overcome this problem, the team reconfigured tunicamycin with a pair of hydrogen atoms, blunting its harm to human and animal cells but not germs.

    In the first round of laboratory trials, mixing the modified tunicamycin with oxacillin and other penicillin-based drugs made them 32 to 64 times more potent. Since then, the team has expanded the list of beta-lactam antibiotics that are synergized by one of two modified tunicamycins: TunR1 and TunR2.

    For example, 11 beta-lactams showed a two- to 256-fold increase in potency against Bacillus subtilis bacteria—including a Penicillin-G-resistant strain—when combined with TunR2 in microtiter plate tests. Additionally, Cefquinome (a fourth-generation cephalosporin-based antibiotic commonly used to treat bovine respiratory illness in cattle and ailments in swine) showed a 500-fold increase in potency against B. subtilis when combined with TunR2.

    “That synergistic effect is important for both overcoming pathogen resistance to Cefquinome and achieving a potential cost savings from needing 500 times less of it,” said Price, who co-authored a paper published in the August 2019 issue of the Journal of Antibiotics. ARS has also established a Material Transfer Research Agreement with Cayman Chemicals Company of Ann Arbor, Michigan, to scale-up the compounds’ production so that other research groups can evaluate their antibiotic-bolstering effects, especially in the biomedical field.

    The Agricultural Research Service is the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s chief scientific in-house research agency. Daily, ARS focuses on solutions to agricultural problems affecting America. Each dollar invested in agricultural research results in $20 of economic impact.

  • 2020 Grape Crush Report Survey & Smoke Affected Wine Grapes

    California Association of Winegrape Growers — Many California winegrape growers in areas affected by wildfire smoke may wonder how grape prices and tonnage will be reported for the 2020 Grape Crush Report. All California processors who crush grapes should have received a Grape Crush Report questionnaire, which was mailed in October by the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA)-Division of Marketing Services-Agricultural Statistics Branch.

    For some processors, filling out this year’s questionnaire may be more complicated due to wildfires and smoke affected grapes. Some processors who were uncertain about the quality status of smoke affected winegrapes worked with growers to adjust terms for delivery, crush and payment. These transactions may differ from historical practice and processors may have questions about how to report tonnage and prices paid.

    In situations involving smoke affected winegrapes, processors should refer to CDFA’s frequently asked questions (FAQ) document – How to Report Smoke Affected Grapes. The FAQs address various scenarios processors may have encountered in dealing with potentially smoke affected fruit. The document and other information related to the Grape Crush Report can be found at https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/mkt/grapecrush.html.

    “The Grape Crush Report is extraordinarily important to growers and wineries, and it’s essential that information from the 2020 crush is reported timely and accurately,” California Association of Winegrape Growers (CAWG) President John Aguirre said.

    CAWG urges every processor of winegrapes to complete and return their survey promptly. Completed questionnaires are due back to CDFA no later than Jan. 8, 2021.

     

  • Is COVID-19 Aid Reaching Farmers?

    The second iteration of the Coronavirus Food Assistance Program (CFAP-2) developed by USDA to help compensate farmers for losses due to the coronavirus pandemic is working much better and reaching more farmers than the first round of aid launched earlier this year. Since CFAP-2 opened to farmers on September 21, 2020 participation has been brisk and as the program application window has only one month left (closing December 11, 2020), it is time to revisit how the program is benefitting farmers, questions and concerns that have arisen, and if there are any lessons to draw upon for future aid to farmers as the pandemic continues to spread unchecked through most parts of the country.

    This blog will highlight some elements of CFAP-2 but for a far more authoritative treatment, please see the Farmers’ Guide to Coronavirus Food Assistance Program 2recently published by our colleagues at the Farmers’ Legal Action Group (FLAG).

    Who Is Benefitting?

    The original CFAP-1 program had severe shortcomings but one in particular limited its utility for many farmers. CFAP-1 had a single payment option – the price loss payment – where farmers received a formula payment based on the national average price decline of a crop or commodity. The payment rates were extremely low and the number of commodities that were eligible was limited. While some payment rates were increased and the list of eligible commodities expanded over time, the basic formula remained.

    Because the formula employed a national average price decline to calculate payment rates, the checks farmers received did not necessarily reflect what they would have earned in their own market. This was especially true for farmers and ranchers that sold directly to their customers – restaurants, institutions, schools, and everyone at local farmers markets – as they often earn a price premium on these products. So too for producers of organic farm goods or any other products, such as pasture raised meats, that typically command a higher price compared to conventional products.

    By the time the CFAP-1 program ran its course, 651,099 farmers had received more than $10 Billion in payments, but it was widely acknowledged that the primary beneficiaries were cattle producers ($4.3 Billion) while diversified specialty crop growers ($834 Million) came up short.

    This is where CFAP-2 is a marked improvement over CFAP-1. While CFAP-2 retains the price loss payment for some commodities (a major problem for producers that are still required to take this payment option because of the crops they grow) it also includes two new payment options for farmers – the flat rate and the sales commodities payment. The flat rate payment option pays $15 per acre and is targeted to a wide variety of small grains and other similar non-commodity row crops. This opened the program to many diversified small grain growers and oil seed producers who were excluded from CFAP-1.

    The more significant change was the addition of the sales commodity payment, which is open to producers of specialty crops, nursery crops, tobacco, some minor livestock species, and aquaculture products. This payment is based on a producer’s revenue derived from those farm products in 2019 and mirrors the revenue based payment program proposed in the Local and Regional Farmer and Market Support Act (Local Farmer Act), that was developed with support of NSAC and Coalition member the Carolina Farm Stewardship Association. This payment option has been especially important for diversified growers, farmers who grow organic or otherwise higher valued farm products, and producers who sell directly to their customers. Payments based on historic revenue, rather than wholesale price declines, better reflect farmers’ real losses due to market disruptions.

    Nearly all crops and products not covered under the other two payment options are eligible for the sales commodity payment and although the payment rates are relatively modest (approximately 10%) they have been well received by diversified growers and specialty crop and livestock producers. With nearly a month left to sign up for the program, CFAP-2 has already paid 576,399 farmers more than $9.5 Billion in payments, well ahead of the CFAP-1 program during the same time period.

    What is more telling is the distribution of those payments. While row crop and cattle producers continue to derive the greatest payments, specialty crop and specialty livestock payments have increased from $833 Million under CFAP-1 to $1.2 Billion under CFAP-2 and the rate of payments to farmers for eligible sales commodities continues to grow even as claims for other payments slow. This is particularly remarkable given that early projections of CFAP-2 payments anticipated that specialty crops would likely receive only $313 million in payments.

    Are there problems with CFAP-2?

    Yes, but there is progress. In the process of helping farmers understand CFAP-2 through webinars and developing supporting materials, a number of questions and concerns have been raised about the structure and administration of the program. NSAC has worked with USDA to get answers to some of the farmer questions which are summarized below.

    1. Will farmers be required to obtain an FSA number to apply for CFAP-2?

    Yes. An acreage report is required for the acreage-based assistance, which includes both price-trigger and flat rate payments. To file an acreage report, a farm must be established with FSA. 

    • Is there any reservation of funding, or other mechanism, to ensure that farmers who apply late in the application cycle will receive the payment for which they are eligible?

    No. The funding allocated for CFAP-2 is based on USDA’s rigorous analysis of the impacts of market disruptions and associated costs caused by COVID-19 (farmers.gov/cfap) and is anticipated to meet the applications submitted by farmers and ranchers. However, there is no contingency in place if demand exceeds existing funding. 

    • What material will be accepted as documentation of 2019 sales from farmers who are subject to a USDA ‘spot check’?

    The USDA CFAP-2 handbook contains several examples. If selected for spot check, participants will be required to provide documentation to support their certification. The Department recognizes available documentation will vary significantly by commodity as well as method of sale and will work with participants, as appropriate, on any concerns with documentation to support certifications.

    • How will USDA determine which farmers will be ‘spot checked?’ Will this selection process be random, a set percentage of applications made to each program payment option, or based on payment amounts, familiarity of the FSA office staff with the farmer/applicant, or on a perceived risk of fraudulent activity? There is a serious concern that any selection criteria used by the agency be uniform and that the standards applied not increase the probability that small, diversified operations are audited or that applications submitted by historically underserved farmers, including Black, indigenous, and producers of color, are reviewed at higher rates than the total pool of applicants reviewed.

    Spot checks will be based on a statistically-sound, random sample with additional selections identified to ensure a sufficient sample of all types of commodities is completed to meet program integrity requirements.

    • Who will conduct the ‘spot checks’ of program eligibility? What is the role of FSA field staff and central office staff in identifying cases for review or in conducting the reviews? There is a serious concern that the review of eligibility by agency staff be uniform and equitable.

    The national office outlines and oversees the spot check process. Spot checks will be completed by FSA staff, which may be the local office staff, regional staff, or staff from within the state and/or neighboring state.

    • When will USDA make Spanish language versions of all CFAP-2 application materials (including supporting documents CCC-902, AD-1026, etc.) available and will both online and paper forms be available? In what other languages will the application documents be available?

    Translations for the CFAP 2 application (AD-3117) and CCC-902I (for individuals) will be available soon. The CCC-902E (for entities) is available in Spanish, as is the CCC-902 Continuation. The AD-1026 is currently available in Spanish, Chinese, Russian, and Vietnamese.

    • What is the process that USDA will use to inform producers that their CFAP-1 and CFAP-2 applications were denied or that the amount of the payment for which they were approved was “adjusted” by USDA, and is therefore different from that on the farmer’s application? Has USDA sent any denial letters to farmers for either CFAP-1 or CFAP-2?

    If an application is disapproved or any information on the application is adjusted from what is certified by the applicant, the local FSA office provides written notification to the applicant and provides appeal rights. This is the process with CFAP-1, CFAP-2, and all other programs administered by FSA. 

    • Producers that do not have current records on file at their FSA offices will likely need to demonstrate their conservation compliance when applying for CFAP-2 through the submission of Form AD-1026 “Highly Erodible Land Conservation (HELC) and Wetland Conservation (WC) Certification.” Is there a process in place to ensure that farmers that need NRCS determinations of HELC and WC can receive them quickly so that their applications can be submitted and considered before the program closes on December 11th?

    CFAP payments will be processed in advance of the determination being completed for any producer certifying in compliance with the highly erodible land and wetland provisions. The determination will still need to be completed but will not result in delaying issuance of payments.

    How can future coronavirus aid work better for farmers?

    At this moment, the prospects for another coronavirus response bill are dim until the new Congress convenes in January. Control of the Senate is still outstanding, pending runoff elections in Georgia, and the transition between the Trump and Biden Administrations is more fraught than any in living history. This makes the bipartisan work necessary to craft a coronavirus aid package that could help farmers during this difficult year extremely hard to achieve. However, this dynamic is likely to change in the next Congress as rates of coronavirus continue to increase and the spread into rural communities changes the political calculus of some legislators.

    In a future coronavirus package (C4), there are a number of actions that could help across all Americans across the entire food system and NSAC recently wrote to Congressional leadership to detail these priorities. In addition to those urgent needs, the next version of CFAP direct farmer aid should be improved by:

    • Opening the sales commodity payment program to all direct marketing farmers and other producers who grow products that command a price premium such as organic, pasture raised, or similar.
    • Making contract producers eligible for payments CFAP payments.
    • Increasing the payment rates for the sales commodity payment program and including a mechanism for farmers to demonstrate – and be eligible to be compensated for – costs they have incurred to adapt to marketing their commodities during the pandemic.
    • Ensuring greater training and resources – particularly farmer oriented materials in a variety of languages – for FSA fields staff so that they can better serve all farmers and expand outreach efforts to ensure that all eligible farmers – particularly Black, Indigenous, and Farmers of Color – understand the program and how to apply for assistance.
    • Conducting a rigorous analysis of the farmers who applied for, received, or were deemed ineligible to receive assistance under CFAP-1 and -2 to ensure that the programs were administered equitably and that any future program actively counters any bias or discriminatory practices that may be discovered.

    The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition remains committed to ensuring that any future coronavirus response supports farmers, farmworkers, food system workers and all who rely on them for healthy, safe, nutritious food and that it align with the long term goal of creating a more just, equitable, and sustainable food system. — By National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition

  • New Tehachapi Mountains American Viticultural Area

    Effective December 21, 2020, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau’s (TTB) will establish the Tehachapi Mountains American Viticultural Area (AVA). Spanning approximately 58,000 acres, this will allow local vintners to use the “Tehachapi Mountains” appellation of origin on bottle labels for wine produced in the Tehachapi Mountains AVA.  Congressman Kevin McCarthy (R-Bakersfield) applauded the mid-November announcement from TBB with the following statement:

    “This announcement is welcome news for our community, which has been working to establish the Tehachapi Mountains AVA for several years and is something I have strongly supported and urged the Administration to finalize. Tehachapi joins other AVAs such as Napa Valley, Sonoma Valley, and the Central Coast as an official wine region. Tehachapi wines can now compete with other well-known AVAs in our state, further cementing California’s position as the top wine-producing state in the nation.

    “Not only will the Tehachapi Mountains AVA encompass approximately 58,000 acres, it will be at one of the highest elevations in the country, making it truly unique. This AVA designation will also help stimulate the local economy by further putting Tehachapi wines on the map, thereby increasing awareness of our fast-growing winemaking region.  

    “I want to thank President Trump, Treasury Secretary Mnuchin, and TTB Administrator Ryan for finalizing this important AVA designation, and I look forward to seeing the Tehachapi Mountains AVA become a top wine production and tourist spot in California.” 

    Community leaders issued the below statements:

    “I am excited that the Tehachapi Mountains American Viticultural Area has been approved. This means a lot for the Tehachapi Wine Growers, the Greater Tehachapi Area, and Kern County. In addition to being known as ‘The Land of 4 Seasons,’ Tehachapi will become known as an exceptional wine growing region tucked away in the Tehachapi Mountains.” – Jim Arnold, Triassic Vineyards owner and President of Tehachapi Wine Growers Commission

    “High altitude, yet warm conditions truly make the Tehachapi area unique, providing winegrowers a setting to grow and fully ripen quality wine grapes, which require both warm, sunny days and cool nights to develop the subtle flavors necessary to make outstanding wines. Establishment of the Tehachapi Mountains AVA will give Tehachapi area winegrowers the ability to develop and market their wine based on the reputation of the Tehachapi area for producing high quality wine grapes. On behalf of the Tehachapi winegrowers, I would like to thank Congressman Kevin McCarthy for his substantial efforts in support of the Tehachapi Mountains AVA that ensured our petition successfully navigated the approval process. I would also like to thank those in the community who submitted letters or comments in support of the AVA, as well as Karen Thornton of the TTB without whose patient guidance this AVA would not have come to pass.”  – Julie Bell, Tehachapi Mountains AVA petition author

    “Our Tehachapi Wine Growers are now recognized with an AVA designation which makes me so proud of how hard they worked, the designation ‘Tehachapi Mountains’ will be seen on every bottle of wine produced from our community.”  – The Honorable Susan Wiggins, Tehachapi Mayor

    “The successful effort to establish the AVA of ‘Tehachapi Mountains’ provides an important economic development tool for our regional vineyards, wineries and tasting rooms, undoubtedly increasing sales and tourism. I congratulate the Tehachapi Wine Grower’s Commission and the Greater Tehachapi Economic Development Council who have worked so hard to bring this important designation to our beautiful region.”  – The Honorable Zack Scrivner, 2nd District Kern County Supervisor

    “The Greater Tehachapi Economic Development Council is proud of the new American Viticultural Area designation for our Tehachapi Valley Wine Growers. Under the umbrella of the GTEDC, the Tehachapi Wine Growers Association worked very hard and diligently towards achieving the AVA designation for our mountain community. We look forward to new tourism and economic growth for our County of Kern.”  – Lydia Chaney, President of the Greater Tehachapi Economic Development Council (GTEDC)

    “Without the dedication of our Tehachapi Wine Growers Association, Greater Tehachapi Economic Development Council and our Congressman Kevin McCarthy we would not see the words ‘Tehachapi Mountains’ on the wine produced right here in Tehachapi. It shows the true power of collaboration and now our wine industry can grow and be recognized.”  – Greg Garrett, Tehachapi City Manager

    “Today we celebrate the Tehachapi area wine growers and our mountain community. The Tehachapi Wine Growers Association along with many others have worked diligently for several years to bring the designation of a American Viticultural Area (AVA) known as the ‘Tehachapi Mountains’ to fruition. This designation will showcase the Greater Tehachapi area and define our cherished wine industry.”  – Ida Perkins, President, Tehachapi Chamber of Commerce

    Background

    • In 2018, Tehachapi area vineyard owners filed a petition with the TTB to establish an AVA in the region. It was accepted as perfected and ready for rule-making later that year.
    • On June 26, 2020, the TTB published Notice No. 191 in the Federal Register proposing to establish the Tehachapi Mountains AVA.
    • On August 20, 2020, Congressman McCarthy sent a letter to TTB Administrator Ryan in support of establishing the Tehachapi Mountains AVA.
    • There are currently 251 AVAs in the United States, including 140 in California like the Napa Valley AVA, the Sonoma Valley AVA, the Central Coast AVA, and multiple Paso Robles AVAs.
    • Establishment of the Tehachapi Mountains AVA allows regional vintners to label wine produced in this region with the “Tehachapi Mountains” appellation of origin instead of the generic “California” designation.
    • Wine grape growing and winemaking started in the Tehachapi region in 2006, and has now grown to seven vineyards and two wineries.
    • The Tehachapi Mountains AVA will become effective 30 days following publication of the final rule in the Federal Register.

  • Model Filter System Removes Antibiotics from Wastewater

    A model for an economical filter system that can remove antibiotics from wastewater has been designed by Agricultural Research Service (ARS) and University of California-Riverside (UCR) collaborators.

    Microbiologist Mark Ibekwe with the ARS Agricultural Water Efficiency and Salinity Research Unit in Riverside, California, and UCR soil chemist Daniel Ashworth constructed the prototype system using four layers of natural materials: gravel, sand, soil, and biochar in a column 50-cm tall and 12-cm diameter.

    They used the laboratory-scale model to remove four antibiotics: amoxicillin, cefalexin, sulfadiazine, and tetracycline at various levels of efficiency. These four antibiotics were selected for testing in the scale model because they are among the most common in wastewater treatment plant effluent. Conventional wastewater treatment plant systems are relatively effective at removing nutrients and bacteria but can be somewhat ineffective at removing antibiotics.

    The effectiveness of the laboratory-scale system varied with the antibiotic being evaluated. It successfully removed 98 percent of the tetracycline, followed by 91 percent of cefalexin, 81 percent of amoxicillin and 51 percent of sulfadiazine. The antibiotics had initial concentrations of 10 ppb, comparable to levels that have been seen in municipal wastewater.

    Amoxicillin and cefalexin removal were largely controlled by chemical degradation in the gravel layer, while sulfadiazine was largely removed by a combination of chemical and microbial degradation in the soil mixed with a biochar layer. Tetracycline was primarily removed by chemical reactions with water (hydrolysis) in the gravel layer.

    “These results show the importance of using layers of different materials to target different antibiotics rather than expecting one layer and material will be able to do the job.” said Ibekwe.

    Increasing the time it takes for the water stream to pass through the column also improved removal efficiency, especially for amoxicillin and cefalexin. In this design, the simulated wastewater enters at the bottom of the column to saturate the bottom layer and then is pumped up through the column to flow out through the top.

    A “full-size” scale-upped version of the researchers’ filter system—one that might serve a small-town wastewater treatment plant—would be about 2 meters tall and 50 cm in diameter, according to Ashworth. Of course, you could use multiples of the columns to serve a larger need and the footprint would still be relatively small, which is one of the powerful features of this system, Ashworth added.

    There are some existing systems that can remove antibiotics from wastewater, but these tend to be very expensive or require much more space. This research was published in the Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering.

    The Agricultural Research Service is the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s chief scientific in-house research agency. Daily, ARS focuses on solutions to agricultural problems affecting America. Each dollar invested in agricultural research results in $20 of economic impact.

  • Prop 15 Defeated By California Voters

    Proposition 15, the largest property tax increase in California history, was defeated today by a margin of more than 550,000 votes, ending a challenge by Service Employees International Union, California Teachers Association, California State Parent Teacher Association and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to dismantle major portions of Proposition 13, the greatest tax protection measure left in the highest taxed state in the country overwhelmingly passed by voters more than 40 years ago.

    “From day one, we knew that if voters understood the harm this deeply flawed tax hike would impose on California’s economy and its families, farmers and small businesses, voters would reject this ill-advised effort,” said Rob Lapsley, president of the California Business Roundtable and co-chair of the No on Prop 15 campaign. “Today’s victory should send a clear message to the proponents and warn all politicians that voters will continue to reject attempts to dismantle Prop 13.”

    “California voters understood the very real threat Proposition 15 presented to small businesses, farmers and consumers,” said Allan Zaremberg, president and CEO of the California Chamber of Commerce. “Voters in California smartly recognized that enacting the largest tax hike in California history would have been devastating to jobs, our economy and California’s future competitiveness.”

    The robust opposition effort to defeat Prop 15 included a broad and diverse coalition which came together to educate voters about Prop 15’s many flaws and real-world impacts of an $11.5 billion per year tax increase. The main No on Prop 15 committee was led by the California Business Roundtable, the California Business Properties Association, the California Chamber of Commerce and the California Taxpayers Association.  The bipartisan coalition, one of the most diverse coalitions ever assembled, also included social justice and civil rights organizations including the California State Conference of the NAACP, California State National Action Network, Latino groups, veterans, local chambers of commerce, private-sector labor unions and hundreds of small businesses across California.

    “Across California, voters in the vast majority of counties cast their ballots in opposition to Prop 15,” added Rob Gutierrez, president of the California Taxpayers Association. “What’s clear from the data so far is Prop 15 lost in 43 of California’s 58 counties. Democrats, Republicans and independents understood the importance of protecting jobs and keeping consumer costs down, and joined together to reject this measure.”

    Rex Hime, president and CEO of the California Business Properties Association added, “Small businesses and property owners now have the opportunity to focus on making ends meet instead of formulating plans to close their doors. I am optimistic that Californians are getting wise to the game of being told that a tax does not impact them.  Every tax gets passed along or increases the cost of everyday goods and services.  And that was certainly the case with Prop. 15.”

    Additional opposition efforts were organized by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, Family Farmers Against Prop 15, led by the California Farm Bureau Federation, Agricultural Council of California and Western Growers Association, as well as The Alliance of California’s Farmers and Ranchers, an association of commodity groups including dairies and the rice industry.

    “Farmers can breathe a little easier this evening knowing their hard work made the difference to turn back the largest property tax increase in California history which would have created havoc for family farmers and ranchers across our state,” added California Farm Bureau Federation president Jamie Johansson, which formed the Family Farmers Against Prop 15 coalition. “For months we’ve said Prop 15 would hurt farmers, ranchers and ultimately all families through higher prices. What’s clear from these results is that more than 8 million California voters recognized this reality and agreed with our efforts to stop this ill-advised initiative.”

    Prop 15 also suffered from significant flaws that could destabilize the entire property tax administration system, leading the California Assessors’ Association that represents the local elected officials charged with implementing many of Prop 15’s provisions to oppose the measure.

    “Prop 15 was a direct assault on Prop 13’s protections that have provided certainty and stability to property owners throughout California. Prop 15’s proponents, many of the same special interest groups that opposed Prop 13 in 1978, should think long and hard about targeting property owners in the future,” concluded Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, which has spent decades promoting and protecting Prop 13.

  • Microbes Escape Wildland Fires on Smoke Particle ‘Life Rafts’

    Where there’s smoke, there’s fire — and also lots of microorganisms, according to a new study from the University of Florida.

    For the first time, researchers have measured the number of microbes in smoke from fires in wilderness areas, also known as wildland fires. The researchers also found that a surprisingly high percentage of microbes survive the blazes and are lofted into the air.

    Smoke analyzed for the study contained five times more microbes than smoke-free air, said Rachel Moore, a UF/IFAS College of Agricultural and Life Sciences graduate who led the study as part of her doctoral work.

    The researchers also found that the percentage of microbes still alive in the smoke was the same as that found in ambient air.

    “When you look at the smoke particles under a microscope, it’s as if the particles are life rafts for the microbes,” said Moore, who is now a postdoctoral researcher at Georgia Tech University. “Just how many microbes there were and how many were viable was a big surprise.”

    Brent Christner, Moore’s dissertation advisor and one of the authors of the study, said he was also surprised, but for an additional reason.

    Prescribed fire at the UF/IFAS Ordway-Swisher Biological Station.

    “Common sense would tell you that fire would just kill and incinerate microbes when it burns through vegetation, but our findings show that’s not the case,” said Christner, an associate professor in the UF/IFAS department of microbiology and cell science.

    Rachel Moore collecting smoke samples at the UF/IFAS Ordway-Swisher Biological Station.

    While smoke poses a health risk to people, the microbes identified in the study aren’t harmful to humans on their own.

    “The microbes released in these fires are similar to the kinds that live on plants. The results of this study indicate that fires may be an important way for these organisms to distribute in the environment, which is of ecological interest,” Christner said.

    How microbes survive wildland fires is still unclear.

    “The processes that aerosolize microbes during combustion of vegetation are clearly not as destructive as they’ve been presumed to be,” Christner said.

    For the study, researchers analyzed smoke sampled during eight prescribed fires at the UF/IFAS Ordway-Swisher Biological Station, located about 20 miles east of the university’s main campus in Gainesville. With thousands of acres of wilderness, the station is a living outdoor laboratory where scientists can do experiments in the natural environment.

    During each fire, Moore set up instruments called volumetric samplers downwind from the blaze. These machines sucked air and smoke from the fire through special filters that trapped the particles.

    “Think of the filter on your vacuum cleaner that traps dust. These machines are essentially powerful vacuums with very fine filters that catch particles as small as 1 micrometer,” Christner said. For context, the width of a human hair is about 75 micrometers.

    Smoke particles captured on filters.

    After sampling, Moore took the filters back to the lab, where she used various lab techniques to remove the particles from the filters and calculate the total number of microbes in the sample. She also used a special staining technique that makes living microbes appear green under the microscope, allowing her to estimate the percentage of viable organisms.

    Smoke particle “life raft” with microbes stained green. Credit Rachel Moore

    Moore and Christner also wanted to know if burning dead vegetation emitted more microbes than living vegetation. To find out, they teamed up with scientists at the Idaho Fire Initiative for Research and Education at the University of Idaho, who burned samples sent from Florida on a specially designed laboratory burn table. The researchers found that smoke from dead vegetation contained more microbes than smoke from living vegetation.

    The study’s authors note that the prescribed fire used in the experiment was far smaller and less intense than the massive wildfires that have burned millions of acres in the Western United States. over the last few months.

    “We think the huge fires out West are emitting even more microbes than what we found in our experiments,” Moore said.

    The study is published in “The International Society for Microbial Ecology Journal.” — By Samantha Murray, University of Florida Communications

  • Farmer’s Inspiration Leads to Squash Donation to Central CA Food Bank

    West Side farmer John Diener had flash of inspiration. Why not plant butternut squash?

    Diener is a long-time research cooperator with UC Cooperative Extension specialist Jeff Mitchell, who has studied innovative, sustainable farming practices for 21 years at the UC West Side Research and Extension Center under four different treatments: no-till plus cover crops, no-till with no cover crops, conventionally tilled with cover crops and conventionally tilled without cover crops.

    Since it was established, the research plots have been managed in an annual rotation of cotton, processing tomatoes and, more recently, sorghum, garbanzo beans and melons. When trying to decide what crop to bring into the rotation for 2020, Diener thought of butternut squash, a relatively large, thick-skinned squash that has little pest and disease problems and a long-shelf life. He suggested the squash could be donated to the Central California Food Bank and made available to local families in time for Thanksgiving and Christmas.

    CCFB provides food to more than 220 agencies in Fresno, Madera, Kings, Kern and Tulare counties, serving more than 280,000 people each month. Last year, CCFB supplied over 40 million pounds of food in all.

    Diener arranged for butternut squash seed to be donated by David Bodine of AgSeeds. He generously paid for several days of labor to harvest the crop. Diener contacted family friend Joan Minasian, who serves on the Food Bank board, to make arrangements for delivering 101 bins of squash – more than 70,000 pounds – to the food bank’s Fresno distribution center.

    The front entrance to the Central California Food Bank in Fresno

    “The Central Valley Food Bank is working on diversifying the food we offer in meal boxes and distributions,” Minasian said. “I’m really proud of the food bank’s efforts to increase healthy foods. We’re always looking for farmers to partner with.”

    Butternut squash, a winter squash, has a 90-day shelf life without refrigeration. It is grown in the summer; the name is derived from the fact that the mature vegetable can be stored for winter eating.

    In addition to supporting farmers with research and advice, UC Cooperative Extension offers nutrition education programs to low-income Californians. Deepa Srivastava – UCCE nutrition, family and consumer sciences advisor for Kings and Tulare counties – manages two programs that extend information to families on healthy eating, food safety, food resource management, gardening, physical activity and youth engagement.

    Srivastava said butternut squash is a nutritious addition to family diets. The vegetable is a good source of vitamin A and vitamin C, and also supplies vitamin B-6, protein, fiber, magnesium, potassium and iron.

    The squash’s buff exterior protects golden flesh that is nutty and sweet. It can be baked, boiled or grilled whole or chopped. Cooked squash can be pureed for soup or baby food, added to casseroles, pies, salads and stuffing. The cooked flesh adds beautiful fall color to everyday meals or holiday spreads.

    Roasted butternut squash

    One easy way to prepare butternut squash is roasting in the oven. Preheat the oven at 350 degrees. Carefully cut the squash in half and scrape out seeds and strings with a spoon. Place cut side up in an oven-safe pan, then brush the flesh lightly with olive oil. Season to taste with salt, pepper, cayenne pepper, fresh or dried herbs and spices. Bake for one hour, or until it can be easily pierced with a fork. — By Jeannette Warnert, UCANR Communications Specialist