California raisin growers were poised to enjoy a beautiful, high quality crop this year due to ideal spring and summer growing conditions. Stormy weather at harvest, however, followed by a cool spell, dampened their great expectations. American Vineyard Magazine Editor Matthew Malcolm met with raisin growers Nick Melkonian and Doug Benik in an unharvested raisin vineyard to assess the situation. This year’s tragedy has also shed some light on a major gap in USDA RMA insurance coverage, impacting up to half of the raisin industry today. Watch this brief interview and learn more in the coming issue of American Vineyard Magazine.
Category: News
-
New Pilot Program for Walnut Inspections Could be a Game-Changer for Entire Tree Nut Industry
California walnut growers have been wanting to see more consistency on incoming inspections, and DFA of California has been leading the charge to deliver on that. Brendan O’Donnell, President of DFA of California met with Matthew Malcolm on California Ag Network to share details on a new pilot program in walnuts that has been implemented this season that could be a game changer for the entire tree nut industry. Watch the interview and read more about it in Pacific Nut Producer Magazine.
-
Whole Lotta Shakin’ Going on at Fresno State, Thanks to Pistachio Harvester Partnership with OXBO
Thanks to a collaborative partnership with OXBO, Fresno State ag students have hands-on access to state-of-the-art pistachio harvesting equipment. During the thick of pistachio harvest, Pacific Nut Producer Editor Matthew Malcolm met with Ag instructor John Williams, Jordan College of Agriculture Dean Rolston St. Hilaire, and OXBO Fruit Division President Robert Huckaby out in the Fresno State pistachio orchard to explain the collaborative nature of this partnership and how it stands to benefit the future of the pistachio industry. Watch this brief interview and learn more in Pacific Nut Producer Magazine.
-
Fact vs. Fiction: Correcting Myths About California Dairy Methane Reduction Efforts
Dairy Cares — Over the past eight years, California’s dairy farms have collectively achieved an annual reduction of 5 million metric tons of methane (CO2e) and counting. This is important, as scientists agree that reductions in methane emissions are critical to slowing global warming. The world-leading effort has drawn some well-deserved attention. Unfortunately, there are several common myths and misconceptions about California dairy’s methane reduction programs. Let’s explore the misnomers and the facts.

Myth #1: California’s methane reduction efforts are focused on digesters.
One common misconception is that digesters are the primary strategy being deployed to reduce dairy methane emissions in California. There are in fact several strategies being deployed, which are all equally important to ensuring success across all dairy farms, large and small. Here are the main strategies in no particular order:
Strategy #1: Methane Avoidance – California dairy farms are avoiding the creation of methane via alternative manure management projects. This includes manure separators, compost pack barns, manure scrape and vacuum systems, conversion to pasture-based operations, and other practices. Through its Alternative Manure Management (AMMP) and Dairy Plus programs, the state has funded a total of 209 alternative manure management (methane avoidance) projects, more than the 142 state-funded digester projects. Estimated total annual reductions from alternative manure management projects operating to date are 252,000 MTCO2e, according to the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA).
Strategy #2: Methane Capture and Utilization – California has 168 dairy digesters operating with about 75 more projects in development. 142 of these projects received funding from the state via the Dairy Digester Research and Development Program (DDRDP). Digesters capture methane from manure storage and put it to productive use as carbon-negative transportation fuel or other renewable energy needs. Estimated total annual reductions from operating California dairy digester projects to date are 2.53 million MTCO2e, according to information from CDFA and digester developers.
Strategy #3: Milk Production Efficiency/Herd Attrition – California dairy farms continue to shrink their environmental footprint by producing more milk (or consistent total milk volume) with fewer cows. Milk production efficiencies continue to be gained in many ways, including improved animal nutrition, selective breeding, and enhanced animal care and comfort. Overall, while total milk production has remained relatively stable, the number of dairy cows in California has continued to shrink since 2008, resulting in far fewer emissions. Estimated total annual reductions achieved to date are 2.13 million MTCO2e, based on herd numbers from the California Air Resources Board’s California Dairy and Livestock Database. These reductions are from both manure management and enteric methane (methane emitted directly from cows).
Strategy #4: Methane-Reducing Feed Ingredients – Additionally, a newer strategy is now also being deployed to directly address enteric methane emissions. On a growing number of farms, methane reducing feed ingredients are included in feed rations, helping reduce enteric methane emissions.
Strategy #5: Ongoing Research – Perhaps the most important strategy continues to be research. The California dairy sector supports ongoing research efforts to validate practices and identify additional strategies for further reducing methane emissions.
Myth #2: California’s methane reduction policies are encouraging dairy farms to grow larger.
Another harmful myth is that California’s methane reduction programs are incentivizing farms to grow larger. While it’s true that digester projects are more financially viable on larger dairies (including those that have experienced consolidation), the financial benefits of having a digester do not incentivize growth. This myth is based on the flawed assumption that dairies receive all revenue generated by a digester and therefore increase cows to increase revenues. In practice, digesters are substantial capital investments that are not financed, operated, and owned by the dairy farm. Most digesters are owned by specialized companies and investors that have access to capital, technology, and current natural gas infrastructure.
A 2024 analysis performed by ERA Economics found there is no evidence that digesters cause consolidation. Additionally, econometric analysis of county- and state-level farm digester data provides empirical evidence that digesters are not causing consolidation. While the California dairy sector has consolidated over the last several decades, the underlying drivers for consolidation are broad and pre-date digesters. The report from ERA Economics confirms analysis performed by the California Air Resources Board, which shows no linkage between digesters and herd growth on dairy farms.
Myth #3: CA policies encourage the creation of more methane for digester capture.
A similar myth is that digesters encourage dairy farms to create more methane so that more energy can be created and sold. This claim is counter to how California’s digesters are designed and operated. Nearly all California dairy digesters have a covered lagoon design. On a dairy with this kind of digester, manure is collected via flushing barn floors with recycled water that is sent to a storage lagoon before being used to irrigate forage fields. Manure stored without oxygen (in wet conditions) creates methane, which is why a plastic tarp is used to cover the lagoon, capturing methane for use as an energy source.

As solid separator (right) removes much of the manure solids before the stream enters covered-lagoon digester. For best maintenance outcomes, there is a critical step that occurs before the stream enters the lagoon: separating out much of the solids via a manure separator. Installation of a mechanical separator is typically part of every farm’s digester project investment. Reducing the amount of solids that enter the lagoon reduces the amount of methane that is created and available for capture. However, it also helps prevent solids from building up in the lagoon, reduces odors, and minimizes the need for costly lagoon cleanouts. Therefore, digester projects technically use both the methane avoidance and methane capture strategies, to most effectively manage manure and reduce emissions.
Myth #4: California dairy farms operate without regulation.
A final myth is one that is sometimes claimed by opponents of dairy farming or uniformed media outlets: that California’s dairies operate with little to no regulation. This could not be further from the truth. California dairies operate under the strictest environmental regulations in the nation and must comply with the nation’s most stringent air quality protection rules. Dairies are already subject to multiple environmental permits and regular inspections by regional water quality authorities, regional air agencies, and county land use authorities. Each California dairy and cattle operation submits extensive, detailed reports on their operations to state authorities on an annual basis. While California’s dairies are not currently directly regulated for methane emissions, they are doing their part to voluntarily meet the state’s target for a 40% reduction by 2030. The state’s dairy methane reduction programs (DDRDP, AMMP, and Dairy Plus) are persistently over-subscribed with farm applications.
Fact: Despite misrepresentations, dairy farmers remain dedicated.
Dairy farmers continue to participate in important conversations about the environment, and more importantly, they continue to take action to reduce emissions. By correcting misinformation and busting harmful myths, their world-leading efforts can be better understood and supported. Achieving the full 40% reduction in dairy methane emissions by the 2030 target is within reach if additional funding is made available to continue the state’s successful programs.
California’s dairy farmers are committed to doing their part to reduce methane in ways that benefit local communities.
-
CAPCA on the Rise & Role of Biologicals in Crop Protection
Crop protection tools are becoming more and more regulated and limited in California. Biostimulants, biopesticides and biofertilizers offer more options for growers. How they fit into conventional and organic farming systems is still being investigated and how the California Department of Pesticide Regulation should treat and classify them is still in debate. The California Association of Pest Control Advisers (CAPCA) has been actively involved in the conversation though, advocating for tools for sustainable pest management. At their annual Conference, Malcolm Media Editor-in-Chief Matthew Malcolm sat down with CAPCA State Board Vice President Adam Tavares from AMVAC Chemical as he shared his perspective on where their at and priorities for the future.Please thank this video’s sponsor Simplot Grower Solutions for their industry support.
-
What is California Grown? New Board Chair Shares Perspective
What is California Grown, its Mission, and what it means to the hundreds of agricultural commodities it represents? Malcolm Media Editor-in-Chief Matthew Malcolm met with the new Chair of the organization, Kiaran Locy from the California Prune Board to find out. Watch this video if you love agriculture and want to learn more.
Please thank this video’s sponsor Simplot Grower Solutions for their industry support.
-
Western Brassica Growers Troubled by Diamondback Moth Insecticide Resistance
When a prevalent pest like Diamondback Moth develops insecticide resistance, pest management costs can rise astronomically for farmers and can even lead to food shortages. California Fruit & Vegetable Editor-in-Chief Matthew Malcolm met with CAPCA Board Member Kyle Kuechel from Syngenta to discuss the gravity of the situation, what growers can do to manage resistance issues, and what hope can be offered looking to the future.
Please thank this video’s sponsor Simplot Grower Solutions for their industry support.
-
2025 Results of Pre-Emergent Herbicide Demonstration Trial for Walnut
The 2025 UCCE walnut pre-emergent herbicide demonstration trial is completed, and the results show strengths and weaknesses of 19 different herbicide treatments, applied either in February or March.
Takeaways:
1. All treatments were applied with a strong post-emergent mix, but hairy fleabane and white clover were not adequately controlled with post-emergent treatments alone. Control was dependent on the addition of an ALS inhibitor herbicide (products like Craze, Matrix, or Mission).
2. Summer annual weeds were best controlled by products with long residuals (products like Alion, Chateau, Brake On! (not registered in CA), and Prowl.
3. Yellow nutsedge was controlled by treatments with Zeus or Craze.
4. Conclusion: Pre-emergent treatments in late winter must account for winter annual weeds that have already emerged and perennial weeds while also maintaining good residual control further into the summer.
Introduction
Winter pre-emergent herbicide applications are critical to get right if yearly weed management operations are going to be successful in walnut orchards. Poor selection of herbicides or missed timing could make the difference between good control and battling an overwhelming infestation of weeds. In walnut orchards I have regularly heard two comments concerning pre-emergent herbicide applications in walnut orchards:
1. Those who apply pre-emergent herbicides in the fall, just after harvest, tend to have the cleanest orchards.
2. February or March are the most common times to apply pre-emergent herbicides in walnut orchards.
Maybe my perception is incorrect, but these weed control strategies seem to be at odds. When it comes to winter annual weeds, it is likely safest to apply pre-emergent herbicides before germination due to several common weed species with herbicide resistance issues (hairy fleabane, Italian ryegrass, annual bluegrass). Applications later in the winter will have to deal with emerged weeds, potentially resulting in more escapes and misses.
However, herbicide treatments in February or March are common, and many growers have been successful with these treatments. Why is this, and what is the key to achieving good control later in the winter? Success at later timings depends on how much post-emergent activity you are getting out of your tank mix. Some pre-emergent herbicides can contribute to your post-emergent activity. Common pre-emergent herbicides like Goal, Chateau, Matrix, Pindar, and others add some extra post-emergent activity to tank mixes when used in winter months. Dr. Brad Hanson (UCCE Weed Specialist at UC Davis) discussed this topic when he addressed tank mixes of Alion and Matrix in his UC Weed Science Blog article (linked here). My recent work with rimsulfuron on established johnsongrass also explored this subject (linked here). These prior discussions focused on rimsulfuron products as tank mix partners for pre-emergent applications, but I wanted test a broader range of products applied in February and March. This year’s walnut preemergent herbicide demonstration made some progress toward that goal.
I will discuss my findings next, and at the end of this article I have included results tables. All products except one are currently labeled for use in walnut orchards, though with some restrictions on orchard age. The one unlabeled product in this study was Brake On!, manufactured by SePRO, currently pending registration in CA. This is not an exhaustive list, and the data provided here does not constitute a recommendation of any product.
Trial design
In 2025, I arranged my pre-emergent demonstration trial to evaluate individual products and tank mixes for weed control efficacy when applied in February and March. This trial was installed in the Loybas Hill region of Tehama County, in a 4-year-old walnut orchard with Tehama silt loam soil. A post-emergent mix of 2 qt/A Roundup Powermax 3 and 2 qt/A Rely 280 was added to every plot in February, and pre-emergent herbicides were applied either in the mix, or one month later in March. The tables at the end of this article show the full list of treatments and when they were applied. The first table represents weeds that were present at application, hairy fleabane and white clover. The second represents weeds that grew to be prominent in May and June, so their control depended on residual activity from my herbicide treatments lasting long into the summer.
Results overview
White Clover and Hairy Fleabane (Table 1): Both weeds were controlled by all three group 2 herbicides tested: Craze, Revolt, and Mission. Revolt was weaker on fleabane while Craze was weaker on clover and these differences also showed up in the tank mix treatments with both products applied with Prowl. February and March treatments with these three herbicides produced very similar results. The 12 fl oz/A rate of Chateau also effectively suppressed both species.
Summer annual weeds (Table 2): The primary weeds in the categories recorded here were grass weeds (jungle rice and large crabgrass) and broadleaf weeds (prostrate knotweed, spurge, and pigweed). Many herbicides provided good control until June (3-4 months after treatment) but only Alion, Brake on! (not currently labeled for CA), and March-applied Mission maintained “good” control of broadleaves through July. Only Alion and Prowl maintained “good” control of grasses through July.
Yellow Nutsedge (YNS; Table 2): Zeus was the best tested product for nutsedge control, but Craze also showed some effects in July by keeping nutsedge coverage low. Rimsulfuron products like Matrix and Revolt are also labeled for YNS control, but labels suggest sequential applications, and the application timings used in this trial may not have been ideal to target YNS with this product.
Summary and cautions:
This is a single trial only representing one weed population and one soil type, so results may vary by location. However, hopefully this demonstrates the importance of tank mixing to control emerged weeds as well as future emergence. Group 2 herbicides like Revolt, Mission, and Craze can provide good post-emergent control in addition to their pre-emergent activity. But be cautious, this herbicide group is notorious for herbicide resistance. Do not overuse this class of herbicides or you will likely start seeing weeds escaping your treatments.
Look through the following tables if you are interested in seeing more information on efficacy in these trials. To see weed coverage data, view the report on the UCCE Tehama website here. Thanks to the California Walnut Commission for supporting this work. For any questions or additional information, contact Ryan Hill at 530-527-3101 or rjahill@ucanr.edu. — By Ryan Hill, UCCE Agronomy and Weed Science Advisor, Tehama County
Weed control tables:
Control was determined by calculating % reduction in weed coverage, relative to the plot with the worst infestation. Control is summarized by four categories. These categories may not represent each grower’s threshold of tolerance for weed control, but they can still provide relative comparisons between the products tested.
Poor control is indicated by a “p”, representing control between 0 and 50%.
Moderate control is indicted by an “m”, representing control between 50 and 70%.
Good control is indicated by a “g” and highlighted light green, representing control between 70 and 90%.
Excellent control is indicated by an “e” and highlighted dark green, representing control between 90 and 100%.
Table 1: The effect of different pre-emergent herbicides on two weeds that were present at application, hairy fleabane and white clover.

Table 2: The effect of different pre-emergent herbicides on weeds that germinated or sprouted in summer. Summer annual broadleaves included prostrate spurge, knotweed, and pigweed and summer annual grasses were primarily crabgrass and jungle rice.

-
AI Tool to Help Farmers Measure Real-Time Crop Health from the Field
Leaf Monitor, a new mobile tool backed by artificial intelligence and predictive modeling, could revolutionize how farmers monitor crops and make decisions by providing real-time nutrition and leaf trait information in the field.
“Having this information is very valuable for the farmers,” said Alireza Pourreza, associate professor of Cooperative Extension and director of the Digital Agriculture Laboratory in the Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering at the University of California, Davis. “In five seconds, they can have a sense of how much nutrition they have in a leaf.”
Development of the AI model was funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture’s HiRes Vineyard Nutrition multistate project and its Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, as well as the California Table Grape Commission.
Maha Afifi, director of viticulture research at the California Table Grape Commission, said the tool could be a game changer for the table grape industry if it leads to faster decision-making about fertilizer use. The right amount typically leads to healthier vines that produce more grapes with optimal size, weight and color.
“The evaluation of vine nutrient status is one of our top priorities,” Afifi said. “At the same time, exploring new technology tools like this project is a high priority for us because they will be important to the future of the table grape industry.”
Field testing
The Leaf Monitor tool uses a handheld spectrometer to measure leaf reflectance beyond the range of light visible to the human eye.
Once a leaf is scanned, its spectral data is uploaded to a cloud-based machine learning system designed to predict leaf traits and nutrient content. This algorithm was developed and trained by the Digital Agriculture Laboratory over five years using a dataset of thousands of leaf samples collected from California’s specialty crops, primarily grapevines and almonds. The samples were chemically analyzed to determine nutrient levels and structural leaf traits, providing the data needed to build an accurate prediction model.
“Nutrient deficiencies in plants often go unnoticed until late in the season, by which point the damage is already irreversible,” said graduate student Parastoo Farajpoor, who is running the project. “This is why early detection is essential. Spectrometry provides a rapid and reliable way to identify these deficiencies before visible symptoms appear.”
After a recent demonstration, Bulleseye Farms Irrigation Manager Geoff Klein said the tool could help save money and improve yields. Bullseye grows walnuts, pistachios, tomatoes, corn, wheat, rice and sunflowers in Yolo and Solano counties.
Tailored crop management
Currently, farmers typically take leaf samples, dry them, grind them up and send the samples off to a lab for testing, which can take up to two weeks to return results. Bullseye samples leaf tissues about three times a year.
“Right now, it doesn’t really make sense to go out and take tissues in every single corner just because it’s expensive,” Klein said. “It’d be really cool if I could just walk out there and test a couple of different places.”
The Leaf Monitor tool helps farmers tailor management decisions to specific areas rather than an entire field. Calibrating fertilizer use to real-time data can prevent overuse and nitrogen runoff, a financial and environmental challenge that many growers face.
“I feel like there’s a lot of times we do need to put less [fertilizer] on, where we end up putting more, because that’s what the nitrogen removal formula says,” Klein said. “But with this app we can use less because we know the actual conditions at the time. I think it opens a lot of doors in terms of getting data back in real time and also utilizing the level of control we have with the data.”
The app can also aggregate the scans and map out spatial patterns over a large area.
“What we know is every field has variability that is not necessarily visible to the farmer’s eye,” Pourreza said.
The prototype Leaf Monitor tool is free and included in a set of tools that can be downloaded on the Digital Agriculture Laboratory website. A web-based version of the tool will follow while the team continues to feed new data into the algorithm to refine the predictions. On average, it achieves about 65% accuracy across all traits, with predictions for certain nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorus, performing better than the overall average. Users will need to pair it with a spectrometer.
“We need to produce more food while using less resources so we need to have some kind of monitoring system to give us precise and accurate feedback on our management practice,” Pourreza said. “This technology is growing very fast.” — By Emily Dooley, UC Davis