California Ag Network

Category: Non-Video

  • Wine Institute Urges Preserving Long-Standing Guidance on Alcohol Consumption in U.S. Dietary Guidelines

    Wine Institute submitted formal comments today to the U.S. Departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services urging them to preserve the long-standing guidance on alcohol consumption contained in the U.S. Dietary Guidelines (DGA). Since 1990, the DGA have recommended that adults who choose to consume alcohol should do so in moderation and defined this as no more than one drink per day for women and two drinks per day for men. Last month, the 2020 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee recommended a significant change to the guidance on consumption for men, changing the guidance to no more than one drink per day.

    “The current recommendation in the Dietary Guidelines should be preserved based on the strength of the current body of scientific evidence supporting that recommendation,” said Bobby Koch, President and CEO of Wine Institute. “The Advisory Committee report clearly fails to establish the preponderance of evidence needed to change this guidance which has been in place for thirty years.”

    The agencies are in the process of drafting the 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA) and will issue the final recommendations later this year

    A copy of Wine Institute’s comments can be found here.

    Wine Institute is the public policy advocacy group of more than 1,000 California wineries and affiliated businesses. California is the fourth largest wine producer worldwide and accounts for 95 percent of U.S. wine exports.

  • Nathan Carlson Reflects on a Decade with Center of Effort Wines

    After a decade of working with Center of Effort Wine, time seems to have passed quickly. “As I think back, we have accomplished so much in that time. Our wines have found a rhythm, we understand the estate and the land, and we have begun to make adjustments based on deep knowledge of this place,” explains Nathan.

    Nathan Carlson joined Center of Effort in late June of 2010, when the winery had been under the new ownership of Bill and Cheryl Swanson.  At his previous job, he oversaw winemaking for multiple brands in multiple facilities, and sourced grapes from growers from Lake County to Santa Barbara.

    Center of Effort presented an opportunity to get back into the Edna Valley, a place that Nathan knows well.  This new opportunity gave me the chance to be involved nearly from the beginning with a new winery, owners who were committed to quality and to connecting with their customers. Most importantly, after years of working broadly with vineyards and growers across the state, this was clearly an opportunity to develop a deep understanding of one single estate location; maximizing quality and efficiency from the existing vines and implementing solutions that made sense in our circumstances.

    There were challenges ahead, and new wineries can be filled with uncertainty. “I had experience working with fruit from the established vines on this property. I knew that there was potential for excellence here, if the details were attended to carefully.  And in particular I knew that there would be growth and learning for me by working for someone like Bill Swanson,” says Carlson.

    Early meetings with Mr. Swanson made it clear that he was direct, fair and that he had vast experience managing tens of thousands of people as the President and CEO of Raytheon. He approached and thought about things on a different scale than most people.

    While working with the vineyards and wines, Nathan tried to understand what exists naturally, and draw on that strength rather than imposing any particular style on the fruit.  The existing vines were planted in 1997, according to production standards of that time.  From that first summer, the company paid close attention to soil, aspect and growth patterns.

    In 2012 we implemented a major replanting of 8 acres to very high-density, high quality planting of additional Pinot Noir clonal selections, increasing the diversity of fruit available to our winemaking program.

    From 2011, they enrolled in an audited sustainability program (SIP) that has been a useful metric to measure our longer-term goals for the vineyard and the business. They use very safe methods of crop protection, plant cover crops to minimize erosion and to feed the soil, return compost to the vines each winter to build organic matter in the soil, and track water use.  Canopy management is a major quality and vine health issue in a cool foggy region, and they retrofitted the vineyard to make shoot management and leaf pulling easier for the crews.  It is amazing to watch the soil come back to life; where it was previously a lifeless crust directly under the vines it now holds water and earthworms and smells clean and earthy.

    “Our wines have been fortunate to receive acclaim right from the beginning.  Our inaugural release of the Estate Pinot Noir was rated 95 points by a major wine publication, and that praise has been a consistent part of our story ever since.  We have always made our mailing list customer/members our main focus, and present offers of the wines to them upon release and prior to the winter holidays. When we began to sell the wines in distribution, it was initially through our neighbor Lorraine Alban’s wine company – she and her team have been wonderful stewards of our wines, sharing them with businesses in our region and being mindful of what is best for us in the longer term,” says Nathan.

    Over the past decade, CEOE has been constantly building and developing.  Wells, water infrastructure, vineyard redevelopment, a solar field to provide all winery power, upgrading facility and winery equipment, additional fermentation and storage tanks, all-new presses, and high-quality grape receiving equipment all happened largely in the background, but boosted the efficiency and quality of their wines and vineyards.

    Since 2016, the company undertook a multi-million-dollar wholesale renovation of the winery and grounds.

    Prior to launching this renovation, COE didn’t have a comfortable place to host visitors to the winery. “I want COE to have a place that matches the wine quality” Bill Swanson, Owner of COE said many times during meetings.

    “We thought about the design of the public spaces from the desire to provide genuine hospitality and ease to our guests, with small semi-private spaces to sit comfortably, large outdoor patios and gardens for events and winery parties, and all of it open to our unmatched views of the Santa Lucia mountains.  The open kitchen with Chef’s bar has been a wonderful way to share culinary experiences with small groups of our members.  There truly is not another property like this in the region, and it is a special privilege to come to work here every morning,” adds Nathan.

    COE is now an authentic ambassador for the Edna Valley. It is a magnificent place on the Pacific coast.  Nathan started as the only employee of the business. “We had contractors and outside service providers, but it took time to assemble the right crew of people.  And over time, we have had contributions from many amazing human beings who have built their experience with us at COE and eventually transitioned out into the larger world of our industry,” says Carlson.

    COE’s close connection with California Polytechnic University and their Wine and Viticulture department has grown and bloomed to become a development ground for amazing talent that is moving into the industry.

    “The Edna Valley AVA is a fairly small region; and because of that our voice may not have been as loud as others.

    The wines from the Edna Valley tend toward elegance and longevity at their best, not bombast and hedonism, which tends to attract more attention.  But members of our industry who have a broad understanding of the world of wine appreciate the quality potential and ascendency of the wines. I am ultimately looking forward to developing Center of Effort’s special strengths and to telling their unique story,” says Nathan.

  • Emergency Mortality Disposal Advisory Update

    As an update to outdated information shared last week, the following has been provided from a variety agencies including CDFA, RB-5, CalRecycle, various county agricultural commissioners and divisions of environmental health and rendering companies. It represents our best understanding of current requirements, but these may change without notice.

    Summary

      The current heat event has strained the state’s rendering capacity.

      Some producers have carcasses that have not been picked up and have deteriorated

    beyond the point at which they can be processed at the rendering plant. These carcasses

    will likely never be retrieved by a dead hauler.

      CDFA directs producers with such decomposed carcasses to contact their local landfill

    and inquire if they are receiving emergency mortalities. If they are, the carcasses may be transported to the landfill by either the producer or licensed dead hauler. Contact information for local landfills is provided in a chart below.

      If the local landfill is not accepting emergency mortalities, producers may temporarily store them in compost piles on the dairy. CDFA, in consultation with CalRecycle and regional board, will provide guidance in the near future as to the final disposition of the composted material, meaning either landfill or land application.

    Background

    Since mid-August California has experienced an unusually intense and protracted heat event, with temperatures significant enough for the Governor to proclaim a State of Emergency. In addition to an increase in heat-related animal mortalities, the situation has been exacerbated by a mechanical issue at one rendering plant and a landfill temporarily closed due to wildfire smoke in another. All three of the state’s rendering companies that process deadstock have implemented mitigation measures including diversion of non-carcass material to other plants, increasing route frequency and augmenting transfers from collection centers. In spite of these efforts however, rendering capacity has been strained and some carcass stranded at the farm have deteriorated to the point they can no longer be handled by rendering machinery.

    What should producers with decomposed carcasses do?

    If a renderer or dead hauler service refuses to retrieve certain decomposed carcasses, the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) advises producers to take following action:

    Contact the local county landfill – Use the table below to identify which county landfill might accept animal carcasses. Landfill availability is very fluid right now, with new facilities receiving permission to accept carcasses daily. If the local landfill is accepting livestock carcasses, either the producer or a licensed dead hauler can transport them to the landfill during working hours. Producers should CALL FIRST before transporting the carcasses to the local landfill, to avoid being turned around at the gate. Producers transporting their own fresh mortalities to a local landfill are cautioned not to have liquid or solid organic matter spill onto the roadway, which could result in fine by local law enforcement. Alternatively producer might choose to engage services of a licensed dead hauler. A list of haulers that provide services to dairies in the past also appears below.

    Compost mortalities on the dairy – If the local landfill is not currently accepting carcasses they may be temporarily stored on-site at the dairy in a composting pile. This mitigates the immediate nuisance problem of decomposing carcasses by the roadside, kills common human and animal pathogens and creates a more manageable material for landfills. After the composting process is complete and no later than six (6) months from starting the composting process, the composted materials will be required to be disposed of. CDFA will provide guidance in the near future as to the final disposition of the composted material, meaning either transportation to a landfill or used for land application. The Central Valley Water Board requires that a 2-page notice of intent be filed within 30 days of starting the composting. Producers may contact their trade organization for assistance in filling this out.

    What are acceptable practices for on-site composting?

    Several guides for composting cattle mortalities are available on-line including USDA and Extension Bulletins from Michigan State and New Mexico State. Research by the University of California suggests dairy manure (either dry-lot scraping or screened manure solids having a moisture content ranging from 25% to 70% is an effective composting feedstock. In California the date, number and identity of cows composted and subsequently transported to landfill should be documented to answer any future regulatory inquiries. An impervious layer such as a concrete pad or a waterproof liner should be used to protect groundwater from infiltration. Adult carcasses should be placed on a 3-footbed of dairy manure and covered with 3 feet of the same material. The site of the temporary piles should be protected from inundation, washout, runoff, ponding, and scavenging wild animals. The temporary pile should be at least 50 feet from any domestic well. Be sure to keep and maintain records to document that the composted material was taken to a landfill within 6 months. RB-5 staff will be looking for evidence of bones and carcasses that have been left for more than 6 months and checking for landfill disposal records during future inspections.

    Burial on the farm?

    Producers in any Central Valley county may NOT permanently bury mortalities on farm unless they obtain a permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Such a permit includes a copy of the county’s emergency declaration, an annotated map, photographs and management plan for the site. The current fee for such a permit is approximately $4,000 dollars.

    Records

    Both CDFA and RB5 require that producers record the final disposition of each carcass not sent to rendering. This will help protect producers from regulatory confusion and potential fines. Records must be maintained for at least five years.

  • Shannon Ridge Acquires Steele Wines, Welcoming New Family of Wine

    Effective August 17th, Shannon Ridge Family of Wines announced the acquisition of Steele Wines, of Finley, California. Shannon Ridge has purchased the Lake County winery facilities and their diverse portfolio of brands and trademarks, including Shooting Star, Stymie, and Writer’s Block.

    “This merger represents the perfect solution for both parties,” says Shannon Ridge founder and President, Clay Shannon. “Strategically, the increased production capacity and storage space allows us to continue our expansion goals while providing the Steele Wines family of brands a local partner to further their market distribution.” Shannon Ridge can now easily surpass its 310,000 annual case volume and continue to champion 21st-century winemaking methods for high-elevation varietals.

    Beyond strategic value, the acquisition of Steele Wines epitomizes the pioneering spirit of Clay Shannon. His mission since 1996 has been to promote Lake County as a premier wine-producing region in California, combined with an unwavering commitment to sustainable operations. To underscore this point: only 45% of the winery’s 2500 acres have been converted to vineyards, preserving the rest of the property for natural wildlife to pass through peacefully.

    Shannon Ridge plans to use the newly acquired facilities not only for the increased winemaking capacity and storage – 2,500 tons and 6,000 barrels, respectively – but also for introducing a new on-site property experience, ‘Shannon Mercantile,’ at the current Steele tasting room in Kelseyville. In addition to the Shannon Ridge and Steele wine portfolios, the planned Lake County establishment will offer the ranch’s grass-fed lamb, farm eggs, and other home goods and merchandise. Shannon remarked, “We aim to make Shannon Mercantile a family-friendly destination where folks can enjoy their wine with a picnic lunch on the lawn, movie nights on warm summer evenings, and festivities to celebrate various holidays throughout the year.” Shannon aims to make the mercantile a go-to destination in Lake County and is tentatively scheduled to open in spring 2021.

    Steele Wines celebrated its 28th anniversary in 2020 and has spent nearly the last three decades specializing in producing high-quality, small-batch, (under 1,000 cases), varietals sourced from the finest vineyards in Lake and Mendocino Counties. After 50 years of winemaking in California, founder Jed Steele will assume a supporting role in the winery, assisting in the production of Steele Wines and enjoying retirement at his properties in Lake County, Montana, and Florida. Shannon ridge was advised in this transaction by former and now retired Shannon Ridge CFO, Don Chase of Don Chase Wine Industry Management Services.

    About Shannon Ridge Family of Wines: Shannon Ridge was founded in 1996 in Lake County, CA, and has been dedicated ever since to making top-quality wines at affordable prices. Their high-elevation vineyard sites are sustainably farmed to preserve the natural habitats of local wildlife. The Shannon Ridge Family of Wines portfolio includes Buck Shack, Clay Shannon, High Valley, Old Pearl, OVIS, Pistol Grip, Playtime, Urgency, Vigilance, Shannon Ridge, and Shannon Reserve. For more information on Shannon Ridge Family of Wines, please visit ShannonRidge.com or call 707.994.9656.

  • Emergency Mortality Disposal Advisory from CDFA

    Disclaimer: The guidance below is only applicable during an emergency declared by the Governor, county agricultural commissioner, or other authorized government entity. Once the emergency situation is over, disposal of mortalities on-site or through landfill without proper CDFA permit will be considered by California Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RB-5) to be a violation of the Dairy General Order, and a violation of California Food and Agricultural Code (FAC) 19348.

    This is our best understanding of the current situation. We will provide updates if the situation changes and more information becomes available.

    Background: The regional heat wave expected over the next few days has resulted in higher than normal animal mortality rates in the Central Valley areas. This advisory was created to give necessary guidance to impacted producers regarding alternative carcass disposal methods.

    Disposal Options: Currently, there are four alternative carcass disposal methods that include: 1. Direct transport to alternative rendering facilities; 2. Direct transport to permitted landfills; 3. Temporary on-farm storage for later transport to rendering or permitted landfills; and, 4. On-farm composting for later transport to landfill or on-farm land application for non-agricultural purposes.

    The four options listed below are provided as general guidance describing all potentially viable alternative disposal methods during the heat event. Please be aware that some counties may have some specific guidance/requirements on how to dispose of stockpiled animal carcasses during such events. It is the producer’s responsibility to check with their local enforcement agencies (LEA) and follow their guidance and requirements.

    Option #1. Direct transport to alternative rendering facility.

    The preferred carcass disposal option is direct transport to an alternative rendering facility with available capacity to process the carcasses. Rendering is recycling and it provides the best beneficial use of the carcass materials. However, the condition of the carcasses is critical, as rendering plants have requirements regarding the acceptable levels of carcass decomposition. If this option is pursued, coordination is critical among CDFA’s Meat, Poultry and Egg Safety (MPES) Branch, the alternative CDFA licensed rendering facility, licensed collection centers, and licensed dead animal haulers. Mr. Michael Koewler, Chairman of CDFA’s Rendering Industry Advisory Board (RIAB) is the lead for coordination among rendering facilities. Mr. Koewler is also President of Sacramento Rendering Company and can be reached at 916-363-4821. Please contact Mr. Koewler for the coordination of transportation among the alternative rendering facilities, dead animal haulers, and collection centers. 

    • CDFA Licensed Renderers and Collection Centers: A link to the map showing the location and contact phone number for licensed renderers and collection centers can be found here.

    • CDFA Licensed Dead Animal Haulers: A list of 2020 CDFA licensed dead animal haulers with their contact phone number can be found here.

    • CDFA MPES Branch Contacts:
      Paula Batarseh, 916-900-5059, Paula.Batarseh@cdfa.ca.gov Han Lai, 916-204-4438, han.lai@cdfa.ca.gov

      Option #2. Direct transport to permitted landfill

      If Option 1 is not available, producers may be able to locate a landfill that will accept animal carcasses. The first step in evaluating this option is to contact local landfills regarding their acceptance of animal carcasses. The second step is to consult with your LEA and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) before transporting carcasses to a landfill. The RWQCB recommends that animal carcasses should only be disposed of in landfills with permitted leachate management systems to prevent potential water quality contamination. There are many more landfills in the Central Valley that lack leachate management systems than those that do. Therefore, it is critical to work closely with the LEA and RWQCB to determine which landfills will be allowed to accept carcasses during heat events. Once a landfill has been identified, remember landfill operators should also be provided with a copy of the CDFA Carcass Disposal Quarantine Notice.

      Local Landfill Map: A comprehensive interactive map listing local landfills is available on-line from CalRecycle.

      LEA Directory. A directory link with contact information for the LEAs can be found at: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/LEA/Directory/

      Central Valley RWQCB Contact: Doug Patteson, (559) 445-5577
      Option #3. Temporary storage on-farm for later transport to a rendering facility or

      permitted landfill.

      If Option 1 and 2 are not available, carcasses may be temporarily stored on-site at the farm. There are two temporary storage options.

      1. 3.1  On-Site Cold Storage. Holding carcasses in a temperature-controlled storage unit is preferred as it retards decompositions and may hold the carcass in a condition that will allow rendering at a later date.

      2. 3.2  Temporary Piling. Carcasses can be piled on or above the ground surface and covered with soil. In either case, the pile needs to be on an impervious layer to protect groundwater from leachate infiltration, e.g. a waterproof liner is required to be placed underneath the pile. During an extended heat event, storage in ambient temperatures will result in accelerated decomposition where the final disposition will be transport to a permitted landfill. Producers should contact the landfill prior to storing carcasses onsite and before transporting the material to ensure the facility is permitted and has the capacity to accept carcasses. Producers should also consult with the county LEA and RWQCB before pursuing with the temporary storage option for ultimate landfill disposal. 

        Note: Always consider control measures for insects, other fomites, and vectors during temporary carcass storage. Stored material must be removed from the farm within one month following the creation of the temporary pile. If any storage is done below grade (buried), prior notification to the RWQCB is required to avoid enforcement action. Be sure to keep and maintain records to document that the material was taken to a landfill within one month. Also maintain final landfill disposal records for inspection.

        Option #4. On-farm Composting

        As a last resort, if the animals died on the owner’s property they may be composted on-farm. If done correctly, composting can: mitigate the immediate issue of decomposing animal carcasses by the roadside, control common human and animal pathogens, and create a more manageable material that may be more acceptable for landfilling. Compost must always be performed in a controlled manner by trained and experienced personnel. Proper site security measures such as fencing should be installed to protect the compost piles from predators, vermin, or other unwanted animals. After the composting process is complete and no later than six (6) months from starting the composting process, the composted materials will be required to be disposed of through:

        4.1 Landfill. Composted materials can be disposed of at permitted landfills. The producers should confirm that there is a landfill available that will accept compost material before beginning the composting process. Producers should consult with the landfill operator, LEA, and RWQCB before starting the composting process and/or sending the composted material to the landfill. The date, number and identity of cows composted and subsequently transported to landfill should be documented to address any future regulatory inquiries.

        4.2 Land Application on Owner’s Property for Non-Agricultural Purpose. Land application is an option but only with the approval of the RWQRB and is for non- agricultural use only. Producers should consult with the RWQCB before starting the composting process and inquire about requirements for land application. It is likely that land application will require a management plan with monitoring and testing that shows the composted material will not be a threat to water quality. The producers should plan for the possibility that the only disposal option for the composted material is landfill. Be aware that the maximum allowed time for composting on-farm is six (6) months. In addition, outside material cannot be brought on site to be composted, and the compost materials cannot be transported off-site (other than to a landfill as presented under option 4.1) or sold and/or land applied at other locations. Bones should be removed and properly disposed of prior to land applying the compost materials.

        Composting resources: Several guides for composting cattle mortalities are available on-line including USDA and Extension Bulletins from Michigan State and New Mexico State. Research by the University of California suggests dairy manure (either dry-lot scraping or screened manure solids) having a moisture content ranging from 25% to 70% and is an effective composting feedstock. An impervious layer such as a concrete pad or a waterproof liner should be used to protect groundwater from infiltration. Adult carcasses should be placed on a 3-foot bed of dairy manure and covered with 3 feet of the same material. The site of the temporary piles should be protected from inundation, washout, runoff, ponding, and scavenging wild animals. The temporary pile should be at least 50 feet from any domestic well. 

        Recordkeeping Requirements

        Producers are required to record the final disposition of each carcass not sent to rendering. This will help protect them from regulatory confusion and potential fines. Records must be maintained for at least three years.

        Please reach out to CDFA MPES Sacramento Headquarter if you have any general questions or need additional assistance.

        California Department of Food and Agriculture
        Animal Health and Food Safety Services: Meat, Poultry and Egg Safety Branch 1220 N Street
        Sacramento, California 95814
        Telephone: (916) 900-5004
        Fax: (916) 900-5334
        or send an email to: cdfa.mpes_feedback@cdfa.ca.gov 

  • Protecting Workers from Unhealthy Air Due to Wildfire Smoke

    Cal/OSHA is reminding employers that California’s protection from wildfire smoke standard is still in effect, and they must take steps to protect their workers from harmful exposure to unhealthy air due to wildfire smoke.

    “Employers are obligated to protect their outdoor workers and must evaluate the health hazards posed by wildfire smoke,” said Cal/OSHA Chief Doug Parker. “If employers cannot move operations indoors where air is adequately filtered and they do not have access to respiratory protection, they may need to halt operations until the outdoor air quality improves.”

    Smoke from wildfires contains chemicals, gases and fine particles that can harm health. The greatest hazard comes from breathing fine particles in the air (called PM2.5), which can reduce lung function, worsen asthma or other existing heart and lung conditions, and cause coughing, wheezing and difficulty breathing. These types of respiratory conditions also make the effects of COVID-19 more severe.

    If employers move operations indoors or into enclosed spaces, they should be sure to follow guidelines for prevention of COVID-19 transmission in the workplace.

    When wildfire smoke affects a worksite, employers must monitor the air quality index (AQI) for PM2.5. Employers can monitor the AQI using the following websites:

    If the AQI for PM2.5 is 151 or greater, employers must take the following steps to protect employees:

    • Communication – Inform employees of the AQI for PM2.5 and the protective measures available to them.
    • Training and Instruction – Provide effective training and instruction to all employees on the information contained in section 5141.1 Appendix B.
    • Modifications – Implement modifications to the workplace, if feasible, to reduce exposure. Examples include providing enclosed structures or vehicles for employees to work in, where the air is filtered.
    • Changes – Implement practicable changes to work procedures or schedules. Examples include changing the location where employees work or reducing the amount of time they work outdoors or exposed to unfiltered outdoor air.
    • Respiratory protection – Provide proper respiratory protection equipment, such as disposable respirators, for voluntary use.
      • To filter out fine particles, respirators must be labeled N-95, N-99, N-100, R-95, P-95, P-99, or P-100, and must be labeled as approved by the US National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).

    “Cal/OSHA is working diligently to identify viable available temporary alternatives that would provide workers with an acceptable alternative to a compliant respirator such as an N-95 mask,” added Chief Parker.

    CalOES and the California Department of Food and Agriculture are working in partnership to provide approximately one million N-95 masks to help protect farmworkers from wildfire smoke. County Agricultural Commissioners in affected counties will distribute the masks.

    If the AQI for PM2.5 exceeds 500, respirator use is required. Employers must ensure employees uses respirators and implement a respiratory protection program as required in California’s respiratory standard. For information or help on developing a respiratory protection program, see Cal/OSHA’s Respiratory Protection Fact Sheet.

    Guidance for employers and workers on working safely in conditions with smoke caused by the wildfires is available on Cal/OSHA’s web page, including information for protecting outdoor workers, details on how to protect indoor workers from outdoor air pollution, and frequently asked questions about N95 masks.

    Information on current wildfires is available from CalFire and the Incident Information System website.

    Cal/OSHA helps protect workers from health and safety hazards on the job in almost every workplace in California. Employers and workers who have questions or need assistance with workplace health and safety programs can call Cal/OSHA’s Consultation Services Branch at 800-963-9424.

    Complaints about workplace safety and health hazards can be filed confidentially with Cal/OSHA district offices. Employees with work-related questions or complaints may contact DIR’s Call Center in English or Spanish at 844-LABOR-DIR (844-522-6734).

  • Insect-Deterring Sorghum Compounds May be Eco-Friendly Pesticide

    Compounds produced by sorghum plants to defend against insect feeding could be isolated, synthesized and used as a targeted, nontoxic insect deterrent, according to researchers who studied plant-insect interactions that included field, greenhouse and laboratory components.

    For this study, at the University’s Russell E. Larson Agricultural Research Center, researchers grew two nearly identical lines of sorghum — alike except that one, a mutant, did not possess the functional gene responsible for producing the flavonoids that essentially poison corn leaf aphids. Then researchers compared how the lines were faring.

    The researchers examined the role of sorghum chemicals called flavonoids —specifically 3-deoxyflavonoid and 3-deoxyanthocyanidins — in providing resistance against the corn leaf aphid, a tiny blue-green insect that sucks sap from plants. To defend against pests like the aphids, sorghum has evolved defenses that includes biosynthesis of secondary metabolites, including flavonoids to poison the pests.

    A previous Penn State study showed that in sorghum, accumulation of these flavonoids is regulated by a gene called yellow seed1 that controls responses to stresses such as fungal pathogens, noted Surinder Chopra, professor of maize genetics, Penn State. His research group in the College of Agricultural Sciences led both studies.

    In the current research carried out at the University’s Russell E. Larson Agricultural Research Center, researchers grew two nearly identical lines of sorghum — one with a functional y1 gene that produced flavonoids, and the other a mutant called null y1, which did not possess the functional yellow seed1 gene responsible for producing the flavonoids.

    The flavonoids are not present in the phloem — vascular tissue in plants that conducts the sugars aphids seek — but are in the epidermal cells that form the outermost layer of defense. When aphids repeatedly probe and puncture the epidermal cells with their stylets, or beaks, they take up the flavonoids that lead to their demise.

    When they compared the two lines of plants, researchers found that a significantly higher number of adult corn-leaf aphids colonized null y1 plants compared to the plants with functional y1 gene that produced flavonoids. The aphids actively fed on the null y1 plants to where some of them showed signs of stress with yellowed leaves. The functional sorghum plants that produced the flavonoids had much lower aphid numbers and showed no ill effects from aphid feeding.

    Greenhouse experiments with similar potted sorghum plants demonstrated that the aphids clearly preferred to feed and reproduce on null y1 plants, and the adults produced many more nymphs.

    In a companion laboratory experiment, researchers fed two groups of adult aphids diets of sorghum leaf tissues — but to one they added an extract containing the flavonoids. After a few days, most of the aphids that fed on the flavonoid-enriched leaf tissue died and reproduction was curtailed — none of those aphids had nymphs before they succumbed.

    On sorghum that didn’t have the functional gene to produce the flavonoids, researchers found that a significantly higher number of adult corn leaf aphids colonized on them and fed actively to the point that some of the plants showed signs of stress with yellowed leaves.

    Perhaps surprisingly, Chopra explained, the flavonoids are not present in the phloem — vascular tissue in plants that conducts the sugars aphids seek — but are in the epidermal cells that form the outermost layer of defense. When aphids repeatedly probe and puncture the epidermal cells with their stylets, or beaks, they take up the flavonoids that lead to their demise.

    The findings, published online in the Journal of Chemical Ecology, indicate flavonoids can potentially be deployed as potent insect deterrents to protect crops, Chopra suggested.

    “Sorghum plants have evolved to precisely emit compounds offering defenses against harmful predatory insects that threaten them, and yet these chemicals in their defenses don’t hurt beneficial insects,” said Chopra. “If we could develop nontoxic insecticides, it would be a game changer — given that the toxicity of synthetic pesticides is of great concern, and they are considered to be dangerous to human health.”

    Chopra, supported by Penn State, has applied for a patent on using flavonoids as insect deterrents. He pointed out that while much more research needs to be done, the most important consideration is that flavonoids are natural plant products that do not cause any pollution and are not harmful to human or animal health.

    several varieties of Sorghum

    This research may be an early step toward developing new phytochemicals for crop defenses, Chopra believes. “How well the flavonoids work against other herbivores is being researched, but we know with corn leaf aphids they are very, very potent,” he said.

    Also involved in the research at Penn State were postdoctoral fellows Iffa Gaffoor and Sampurna Sattar, and Cullen Dixon, an undergraduate student, all in the Department of Plant Science; Nadia Frock and Juliet Moen, students in the Department of Entomology; and Associate Dean of Research Gary Thompson, professor of plant science. The team included Consuelo De Moraes and Mark Mescher, Department of Environmental System Science, ETH Zurich; and Rupesh Kariyat, Department of Biology, University of Texas Rio Grande Valley.

    The research was supported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture. — By Jeff Muhollem, Penn State University

  • Improved Method to Test for Mycotoxin in Feed

    California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) Center for Analytical Chemistry (CAC) scientists Bahar Nakhjavan, Nighat Sami Ahmed, and Maryam Khosravifard were recently published in an academic journal after developing an improved method to test for mycotoxin in feed. Their article, “Development of an Improved Method of Sample Extraction and Quantitation of Multi-Mycotoxin in Feed by LC-MS/MS,” details their research of evaluating the three most popular sample preparation techniques for determination of mycotoxins, then selecting the best method and optimizing it.

    Mycotoxins are the most common contaminants in agricultural crops produced by several species of mold and fungi. During growth, maturity, harvest, storage and processing of food and animal feed products, the fungus produces mycotoxins and other secondary metabolites. Mycotoxin-contaminated food and feed threaten human and animal health even at very low concentration.

    Nakhjavan, Ahmed and Khosravifard work in CDFA’s CAC Environmental Safety Laboratory. Testing for mycotoxin in food and animal feed in the Regulatory Analysis Laboratory is part of their job of preventing contaminated food and feed from being consumed by humans, livestock and poultry in California. CAC uses state-of-the-art equipment and processes to test fruits, vegetables, nuts, animal feed, milk, water and air to ensure that pesticide and chemical levels are within the safety range established by national and international standards. Additional CAC staff who contributed to the work discussed in this published paper include Sally Henandez, Jose Salazar and Sarva Balachandra.

    Click here to read “Development of an Improved Method of Sample Extraction and Quantitation of Multi-Mycotoxin in Feed by LC-MS/MS,” by CAC scientists Nakhjavan, Ahmed and Khosravifard.

    (L-R) CDFA scientists Bahar Nakhjavan, Nighat Sami Ahmed and Maryam Khosravifard.

  • National Milk Producers Federation Scholarships Announced

    The National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) announced the recipients of its 2020 National Dairy Leadership Scholarship awards. The awards, presented by the NMPF Board of Directors, support the next generation of dairy leaders and researchers and are open to qualified graduate students who are actively pursuing dairy-related fields of study.

    NMPF this year awarded scholarships to:

    • Ellen Lai, Ph.D. Integrative Genetics and Genomics whose research at the University of California – Davis focuses on improving production and welfare by providing genetic tools to reduce lameness caused by foot warts and sole ulcers;
    • Conor McCabe, M.S. Animal Science at Purdue University in Indiana, whose current research focuses on evaluating tissue mobilization in transition dairy cows; and
    • Mateus Peiter, Ph.D. Animal Science at the University of Minnesota, whose research focuses on the use of automated technologies to improve animal health and herd management on dairy farms.

    NMPF also sponsors student awards through the American Dairy Science Association. The Richard M. Hoyt Award was created to recognize research efforts with direct application to the problems of the U.S. dairy industry. This year’s winner, Erin Horst, received her Ph.D. from Iowa State University with a research focus on the consequences of immune activation on energetic and calcium homeostasis and its relevance to transition cow disorders.

    Carsten Walker and Robert Dwight Matson received first-place recognition as part of the NMPF Graduate Student Paper Presentation Contest in Dairy Production in Ph.D. and M.S. divisions, respectively. Walker is a second-year Ph.D. student in the Meadow Brook Endowed Immunology Laboratory at Michigan State University whose research focuses on abrogating dysfunctional inflammation associated with coliform mastitis. Matson is a graduate student at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada conducting research on dairy health and production in herds using automated milking systems.

  • Organic Ag Takes on Climate Change

    The threat that climate change poses to our world, our ecosystem and our health demands bold policy solutions, and, as the devastating impacts of a warming Earth mount, the push for the development of robust and comprehensive federal climate policy is gaining traction. Organic agriculture can be a part of the solution and help tackle climate change through its ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, store away huge amounts of carbon, and enable farmers to be resilient in an evolving climate.

    The Organic Trade Association on Thursday released a major report on organic and its ability to mitigate climate change, identifying policy opportunities to elevate the role of organic in the climate change discussion, support organic farmers and encourage transition to organic farming. Reflecting close dialogue with organic stakeholders and the association’s membership, the white paper, “Advancing Organic to Mitigate Climate Change,”  incorporates the key principles identified by the Organic Trade Association Board of Directors to achieve meaningful climate policy solutions.

    The trade association also recently announced the launch of a Climate Task Force, open to all Organic Trade Association members. The task force will amplify the Organic Trade Association’s voice in climate policy discussions by advocating for policies that address the association’s core principles and sharing recommendations with lawmakers and key stakeholders.

    “Our climate crisis is real, is immediate, and affects us all. It is clear that urgent action is needed to help us mitigate and adapt to this crisis,” said Avi Garbow, Organic Trade Association Board member and Environmental Advocate for Patagonia Works. “While the nation’s conventional agricultural sector’s emissions and practices contribute to our worsening climate, there is a time-tested climate solution that regenerates our soils, nourishes our communities, and safeguards our environment from harmful synthetic chemicals: organic agriculture.”

    Garbow, a nationally recognized environmental leader who served as the General Counsel at the Environmental Protection Agency from 2013-2017, added, ”The Organic Trade Association, through the work of its members, the Climate Task Force and its research and analysis, will ensure that organic is well-positioned to play a leading and cost-effective role in stemming and ultimately reversing the effects of our changing climate.”

    Organic Priorities in the Climate Change Fight
    Organic agriculture provides a critical opportunity to mitigate climate change and at the same time create economic, environmental and health benefits for all those involved in our food system–from the grower and the processor, to the distributor and the consumer. But although public and private initiatives to support organic as a climate mitigation tool exist, stronger federal support is needed for organic to reach its full potential to fight against climate change.

    The Organic Trade Association’s Board of Directors early this year determined that organic had to be elevated in the climate change policy discussions that are increasingly taking place in the halls of Congress, in government offices, in corporate boardrooms. The Board also agreed that the Organic Trade Association, as the leading voice in the nation for the organic sector, should spearhead the effort to advance organic as a solution to climate change and to protect organic from the risk of climate change. A climate task force consisting of seven Board members was formed with the goal of developing principles for good climate policy to guide organic’s engagement in climate policy discussions.

    In June at the association’s annual meeting, the Board unanimously endorsed ten principles for climate policy. 

    The Organic Trade Association will engage in smart climate policy solutions that:

    1. Advance organic agriculture. Any policy that addresses the role of climate change in food and agriculture should advance the opportunity for organic to be a climate change solution, allow organic to be successful, and not undermine organic.

    2. Are science-based, data-driven and verifiable. Policy solutions should be based on and supported by science and data, with strong verification measures to meaningfully reduce agriculture’s impact on climate change.

    3. Focus on outcomes and continuous improvement. Policies should reward the outcomes of good agricultural practices and enable a system of continuous improvement that achieves specific positive outcomes over time.

    4. Promote soil health and carbon sequestration.  Improving soil health is an important and central component in addressing agriculture’s role in climate change. Policies should include provisions for advancing soil health and carbon sequestration. .

    5. Lower the use of fossil-fuel based chemicals. Chemical fertilizers and pesticides are a key source of greenhouse gas emissions in agriculture. Climate policies should minimize the use of and eliminate the dependency on fossil-fuel based inputs, especially synthetic nitrogen fertilizers.

    6. Provide solutions for mitigation and adaptation. Policies should provide the resources to not only mitigate the impacts of climate change but also help the agricultural sector adapt to a changing climate. 

    7. Incentivize farmers and businesses. Farmers should not have to bear the brunt when making transformational changes. Public and private sector programs should provide tools and resources to achieve outcomes through market-based incentives or financial payments that encourage conservation practices or ecosystem services.

    8. Decarbonize the economy. Policies that increase greenhouse gas emissions or rollback progress in decarbonizing the economy and reducing emissions should be opposed.

    9. Foster agricultural diversity and innovation. Climate policies should foster diversity and innovation in farming systems, and provide incentives for increasing diversity in cropping systems.

    10. Address equity and inclusion. Policies should address the environmental and economic inequities caused by climate change, and include ways to support disadvantaged communities in adapting to climate change.

    “Among the many threats posed by the climate crisis, perhaps the greatest is the potential it has to impact food production.  The good news is that organic farmers are already focused on building soil health and eliminating the use of synthetic fertilizers, two steps that can help agriculture shift from being a source of greenhouse gas emissions to being a net sink,” said Britt Lundgren, Director of Organic and Sustainable Agriculture at Stonyfield Farm and member of the association’s Board. “At Stonyfield we are excited to be working with the Organic Trade Association’s Climate Change Task Force on advancing organic agriculture as a climate change solution. The climate change principles adopted by the association provide a roadmap for how federal policy can support climate mitigation and adaptation in agriculture.”

    Recommendations to Support Organic’s Battle on Climate Change
    Incorporating the Organic Trade Association’s guiding principles to fight climate change, the new white paper offers specific recommendations for policymakers to support organic farmers and encourage transition to organic farming as a key strategy for climate change mitigation.

    “As a company that has made organic food for over 30 years, Amy’s has witnessed firsthand the inherent benefits of organic agriculture on the health of the planet. The Organic Trade Association’s Climate Change White Paper, through scientific research, provides a practical set of policy recommendations to make organic agriculture a bigger and more meaningful part of the climate change solution. We look forward to seeing the positive impact of this important work,” said Paul Schiefer, Senior Director of Sustainability at Amy’s Kitchen and member of the association’s Board of Directors.

    Specific policy recommendations in the white paper include:

    •Elevating organic as a key voice in climate-smart agricultural policy;

    •Establishing a national program to support transitioning organic farmers by reducing financial risks, improving market infrastructure development and increasing access to land;

    •Developing a competitive grant program to provide technical services to organic and transitioning farmers to create better access to information about organic production methods that sequester greenhouse gases and improve crop yields;

    •Creating a federal Healthy Soils pilot program, based on existing programs at USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service and the California Healthy Soils Initiative.

    “Extreme weather variability, caused by climate change, is the greatest challenge facing farmers,” said Doug Crabtree, Montana organic farmer and member of the Organic Trade Association Board of Directors. “The (over)use of synthetic nitrogen fertilizers is agriculture’s most egregious contribution to climate change. Organic farmers demonstrate that farming systems can be productive, profitable and a significant part of the solution to climate change by avoiding synthetic nitrogen, building soil organic matter and sequestering carbon in the soil. I am proud that our trade association is taking the lead on illustrating the key role of organic food and farming in managing climate change.”

    “U.S. communities, economies and ecosystems are under threat from climate change,” said Laura Batcha, CEO and Executive Director of the Organic Trade Association. “Federal policies can help advance organic as a key solution by encouraging the adoption of organic practices and maximizing benefits for mitigating climate change. The Organic Trade Association and our members stand ready to engage and support federal lawmakers in advancing these recommendations.”

    To download the white paper and for more information on the association’s new Climate Task Force see OTA.com/climate.

    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.