Alabama Organics

Local vs. Organic? What about both?

2012-01-21T13:59:00.000-08:00

Which is best: to eat locally grown or organic? This question is often put forth as a choice that the consumer must make. It is a false dichotomy similar to the choice that is often fabricated between the environment or the economy. The truth is that they are usually both possible; in fact neither is a good choice without the other.

There are many advantages to eating locally grown. It is good for your health in that the food is usually much fresher and therefore higher in nutrients. It is good for the economy of the community because it keeps food dollars in the local economy rather than exporting them to other parts of the country or even the world. It is better for the environment because it does not have the footprint of transporting food from far away places and because small farmers, such as most of the produce farmers of Alabama, usually are better stewards of the land than large farmers. They do not usually spray their fields aerially, contaminating large areas, non-target organisms, and bodies of water with pesticides. They do not plow and leave bare large fields. They usually do not use genetically modified seed, which has the potential of contaminating their neighbors' crops.

There are also many advantages of eating organic. It is good for your health because there is no danger from pesticide residues on your produce. Read: "Three Studies Confirm Bad News About Insecticide Exposures" on the Georgia Organics website. There are no worries about the effects of consuming antibiotics and hormones in your meat.

Rather than choose between buying from your local farmer or going to Wal-mart to buy certified organic produce why not just ask your local farmer to grow organic? The major obstacle to the availability of locally grown organic produce is the lack of consumer demand, which can be attributed to the lack of consumer education.

It is often not just a matter of peeling your conventionally grown produce or washing it to remove pesticides. According to The Organic Center:

"About 20% of currently registered pesticides are called systemics. Systemic pesticides move into the plant through the root system, travel throughput the plant via its vascular system (plant blood, in effect), and move into surface tissues, where they either stop viral pathogens from growing or kill or repel insects. Some pesticides are 100% systemic, others are partially systemic." Systemic pesticides are not only passed on to the human consumer, but also kill many pollinators, such as honeybees and butterflies.

The indiscriminate use of antibiotics to fatten food animals (cows, pigs, and chickens) and grow them faster favors the evolution and spread of antibiotic resistant bacteria, a serious threat to public health.

Beef cattle are implanted with hormones at the feed lot, and often on family farms as well, in order to fatten them up in record time and increase profits. Dairy cows are given growth hormones to increase milk production. Though the scientific verdict on the safety of consuming these hormones by humans is still out, the European Union has banned the production and import of hormone-treated meat, allowing only imports certified as produced without the use of hormones. This has caused an on-going and acrimonious trade dispute between the U.S. and the European Union. See: The U.S.-EU Beef Hormone Dispute. The U.S. maintains that there is no scientific evidence that growth promoting hormones fed to food animals pose any danger to the consumer. However, the EU maintains that scientific data on the safety of growth hormones is inadequate, and therefore further studies were needed; that controls necessary to ensure safe administration of the hormones were not in place in the US; that the ban was justified by the EU’s historical use of the “precautionary principle”, a simple belief that any potential risk to human health warrants caution. The EU approaches risk assessment differently than the US. See: "The Beef-Hormone Dispute and its Implications for Trade Policy".

The United States is the only developed nation to permit humans to drink milk from cows given artificial growth hormone.^[2] Posilac was banned from use in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and all European Union countries (currently numbering 27), by 2000 or earlier 1.

The American Public Health Association policy statement on rbGHUse in Dairy Production: Since 1994,recombinant bovine growth hormone, also known as rbGH or rbST, has beeninjected into dairy cows to increase milk production; the hormone typicallyincreased production by an average of 11 to 15%.36 rbGH was developed andmarketed by Monsanto and sold to Elanco, a division of Eli Lilly, in October2008. Although approved by the FDA in a November 1993 decision, both Canada andthe European Union in 1999 refused to approve the drug’s use, officially citingharm to cows’ health. No significantscientific studies since then have led these bodies to reconsider their stance.Australia, New Zealand, and Japan have also prohibited the drug’s use.

Although some studies (including several funded by Monsanto)have failed to demonstrate that rbGH harms dairy cows, virtually allindependent analyses of the data reached a different conclusion. In addition tothe Canadian and European studies, the FDA’s analysis of the data submitted byMonsanto demonstrated that use of rbGH increases the incidence of 16 differentharmful conditions in cows, including birth disorders, hoof problems, heatstress, diarrhea, increased somatic cell count, and mastitis, a painful udderinfection. On the basis of this evidence, the FDA requires these risks belisted on rbGH package inserts, but not on finished dairy products. Virtuallyall animal-welfare organizations, including the Humane Society of the UnitedStates and the Humane Farming Association, oppose the use of rbGH.

The use of rbGH presents an additional risk to human healthin the form of antibiotic resistance. As more cows develop mastitis caused byrbGH use, farmers necessarily increase their use of antibiotics to treat theudder infections. There is now a consensus among scientists that antibiotic usein farm animals increases antibiotic resistance, which can then be transmittedback to humans through food or in the environment. Reducing rbGH use wouldserve to reduce antibiotic use in dairy cattle.

Scientific committees for Health Canada and the EuropeanCommission have also raised concerns about the potential effects of rbGH oncancer. Insulin-like Growth Factor-1 (IGF-1) is a necessary growth hormonepresent and identical in both cows and humans. However, elevated IGF-1 levelsin human blood are associated with higher rates of colon, breast, and prostatecancers. On the basis of data submitted by Monsanto, FDA determined that rbGHuse raises levels of IGF-1 in cow’s sera and cow’s milk. These data also showthat IGF-1 survives pasteurization. Animal models show that most IGF-1 in cow’smilk survives digestion, reaching the bloodstream where it may promote cancer.The United Nations’ main food safety body, the Codex Alimentarius Commission,determined in 1999 that rbGH could not be declared safe for human health.

More and more US public health organizations have takenformal stances opposing the drug, including Oregon Physicians for SocialResponsibility, Health Care Without Harm, and the American Nurses Association.In the last 3 years, more than 260 US hospitals have signed a pledge committingto serve rbGH-free dairy products.

A 2008 national poll showed that more than 90% of consumersfavor labeling of rbGH-free products. Responding to this concern, many largeretail establishments—including Wal-Mart—have phased out their milk brandsproduced using rbGH. Milk and many other dairy products from cows not treatedwith rbGH are now widely available; rbGH use fell from 22% of US farms in 2003to 15% in 2007. Use of the synthetic hormone is still common practice on manylarge dairy operations, however. In 2007, nearly 43% of large herds weretreated with rbGH.

In February 2007, Monsanto appealed unsuccessfully to theFDA and the Federal Trade Commission to restrict the labeling of rbGH-freemilk. Since then, policymakers in 8 states have attempted to ban or restrictthe labeling of rbGH-free dairy products through bills or administrative rules.All failed except in Ohio, where the proposed rules are being challenged incourt.

Medical authorities and foreign governments have documentedscientific public health concerns associated with rbGH use. As long as the FDAallows rbGH to remain on the market, consumers should have the right to know ifit is present or absent in dairy products they consume. This right to knowabout hazardous or controversial substances has been defended in APHA Policy2002-5.65

Growth hormones are illegal for use in poultry production. Antibiotics and arsenic are often fed to increase growth, but the rapid growth in today's chickens is attributed to selective breeding, improved nutrition, and protection from environmental stresses.

These growth hormones, antibiotics, and chemicals, such as arsenic often end up in the environment. When they contaminate bodies of water, and adverse affects on fish populations.

If you have never watched some of the movies that describe the lives of animals that live in cafos (confined animals feeding operations), you should. Food, Inc. is a good one.

The link between pesticide ingestion and elevated cancer occurrences are often hard to establish because of the time required for the cancer to develop and the many other factors involved. Pesticide residues are often found in drinking water supplies and ground water. Many pesticides are known to be lethal or harmful to pollinators, such as honeybees and butterflies, and to other non-target organisms as well. According to EPA’s most recent Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) data, across the U.S. in 2010, 3.93 billion pounds of toxic chemicals were released into the environment, a 16 percent increase from 2009. The U.S. is rated 36th among 194 nations in longevity. Obesity, stress, and toxic chemical exposure are among the factors responsible for the relative low rating.

By choosing organic, you are not contributing to this massive loading of our environment with toxic chemicals. Locally grown organic is the best choice, not only for your health, but also for the environment.

Why is organic usually more expensive? It is because of the higher cost of seed, soil amendments, and other farming inputs. Also, organic requires more labor and labor is the most expensive aspect of farming. Whereas conventional farmers can use chemicals to control weeds and pests, organic farmers must do many of these things by hand. Organic farmers may also have more blemished produce that is unmarketable. Consumers demand perfect-looking produce. Why not demand naked produce instead? Naked produce is that produced without the use of any synthetic chemicals. It is chemical-free produce.

The NY Times recently published an article titled: Organic Agriculture may be Outgrowing its Ideals. It cited several examples of unsustainable organic agriculture. By purchasing locally grown organic food you will avoid contributing to these unsustainable practices. So vote with your food dollars: buy locally grown organic or better yet, grow your own. If you have space in your yard, plant a garden. It is a good way to get exercise, sunshine, entertainment, and education, as well as good food. If you have a patio, plant in boxes or pots. If you don't have space in your yard, join or start a community garden. Then you can add "make friends" to your list of benefits of gardening.

Growing Organics in Alabama: Results of Organic Workshop at Tuskegee University on October 28 & 29, 2011

2012-01-21T09:43:00.000-08:00

Results of Organic Workshop at TuskegeeUniversity on October 28 & 29, 2011

The land grant universities of Alabama collaborated on an organicworkshop at Tuskegee University titled: Identifying the Challenges and Constraintsto Growth of the Organic Produce Industryin Alabama. Partners in thisworkshop included: Tuskegee University, Auburn University, and Alabama A&M Universitytogether with Alabama Sustainable Agriculture Network (ASAN) and The Federationof Southern Cooperatives/LAF. Over 100 farmers,researchers, marketers, chefs, local food system advocates, healthy foodenthusiasts, educators, agricultural service providers, organic advocacyrepresentatives of other states attended this workshop and provided input.

The purpose of the workshop was to identify marketing, policy,production, consumption, and research needs and propose options for promotingthe organic food industry in Alabama. Thisinformation will be developed into a proposal for the USDA Organic Research andExtension Initiative Grant Program.

The motivation for this workshop was that nationally, organics is thefastest growing sector of the food industry, yet Alabama has the fewest numberof certified organic farmers per capita of any state in the nation. A recent story by NPR described Alabama asbeing “anti-organic”. Consumer demandfor organic produce is increasing in this state, as evidenced by the recentaddition of three Earth Fare health food supermarkets and a Whole FoodsMarket. Also, the grocery store chainsin AL are now offering organic produce.

Organic production represents an untapped opportunity for growers inthis state. The purpose of this workshopwas to bring together members of all parts of the food system to investigatewhy AL has so few organic producers and to determine what we could do about it.

The workshop was organized into three panels the first day: a farmers’ panel, a marketing panel, and anorganic food system panel. These panelsprovided opportunities for groups of stakeholders to provide insights into theissues involved in developing the AL organic food industry from their uniqueperspectives. At the end of the day, theworkshop participants divided into smaller groups for further discussion of theissues discussed during the day.

Following are summaries of the different discussion groups as well aspriorities set on the second day of the workshop.

Summary of Panel 1: the Farmers’ Panel:

Several farmers, certified organic, non-certified organic, andnon-organic discussed why there were not more certified organic farmers inAlabama. These are some of thechallenges that they identified:

1. Theexpense of certification, inputs, and production à more expense for the consumer.

There is not much customer demand –consumers need to be educated about the benefits of consuming fresh, locally grown organic fruits and vegetables.
Farmers need help marketing – farm to school programs, for example
Infrastructure is needed – a way for farmers to pool produce for retailers such as Walmart that need a lot of product. Facilities, such as cooperatives, are needed to house large quantities of produce that could be sold as a group, and that could serve as drop off points to enable farmers to place bulk orders for seeds, soil amendments, and other inputs to make them available at lower prices. Also infrastructure is needed for value-added products.
The lack of affordable and available labor.
Farmers need more collaboration with land grant institutions – research and extension
There is no certifying agency in AL.
Some farmers are concerned about perceived government control or oversight of their operation and don’t want to be involved in any government programs.

Key Points:

Farmers’ Challenges to Organic Production:

They need:

Customer Education – to stimulate demand.
Infrastructure – farm to school programs,cooperatives, collaborative marketing, certifying agency
Research, extension

The model for the small scale “organic” farmer in AL is one that sellsdirectly to customers through farmers markets, CSAs, on-farm sales through the LocalHarvest website, etc. Even chefs preferto buy locally grown over organic. Mostcustomers that choose locally grown do not demand certified organic. There are not many opportunities for farmersto market organic (or even locally grown) produce to grocery stores.

Many farmers in AL call themselves organic and their customers probablybelieve that they grow food without chemicals. There are 43 AL “organic” farmers listed on the Local Harvest website, butonly 8 of these are actually certified organic. Consequently, consumers really don’t know whatthey are getting unless the produce is certified organic or naturally grown.

Summary of Panel 2: Obstacles to Marketing Organic Produce in AL:

This panel included a couple of chefs, an owner of a collaborative marketingbusiness, and the State of AL Farmers’ Market authority.

Their perceived challenges:

The demand for organic produce is very low in AL – need consumer education
The major demand from chefs is for locally grown produce rather than organic.
Locally grown is much easier to get than organic; most farmers in AL are old and want to grow conventionally.
The necessary infrastructure is lacking and is needed. Crop plans, cooperative marketing – organization and cooperation.
It is difficult for producers to obtain loans.
Liability Insurance is expensive, but needed for marketing to retail markets.
It is important for farmers to market directly to consumers.
Farmers need mentoring where experienced farmers help new farmers learn organic farming methods.
Farmers need information on farming systems.
Farmers need market research, transportation, cooperation.

Key Points:

Marketing Challenges: (Some of the challenges identified inthis marketing session could more appropriately be classified as challenges toproduction).

These things are needed:

1. ConsumerEducation – Consumers need to be educated about the benefits of consumingorganic produce.

2. Infrastructure– The infrastructure for producing and marketing organic produce does not existin AL. We need cooperatives,collaborative marketing, suppliers of organic inputs, seeds, organic inspector,liability insurance, etc.

3. Research,extension, training – information on organic farming systems. Farmer mentoring

Panel 3: The Organic Food System: The Role of Organic Advocacy Groups inPromoting Organics:

Representatives of 4 southeastern state organic advocacy groupsparticipated in this panel to discuss their organizations:

Marty Mesh – Florida Organic Growers’ Association (FOG)

Jonathan Tescher – Georgia Organics (GO)

Tony Kleese – former executive director of Carolina Farm StewardshipAssociation (CFSA)

Karen Wynne – form executive director of Alabama SustainableAgriculture Network (ASAN).

Summary of Panel 3: The Role of Organic Advocacy Groups inPromoting Organics:

Connect farmers and consumers
Promote farmers through events, such as Killer Tomato festival (Georgia Organics event).
Get information to people – train farmers through farmer mentoring, workshops, conferences
Educate consumers
Organize and unite organic producers and consumers so that they can have a stronger voice in policy issues.
Unite to create a strong demand for organic information from extension and other state agricultural service providers.
Embrace consumers. That’s what makes the organic system different from the conventional system; all key players are represented. It’s not just about farmers.

Key Points:

Role of Organic Advocacy Groups in Promoting Organics:

EducateConsumers
Connect different components of the food system: farmers, consumers, researchers, educators, extension
Help develop infrastructure
Provide farmer training through field days, workshops, and conferences.
Support farmers through promotional events.

Summary of Panel Discussions:

The key challenges and constraints to the growth of the organic foodindustry in AL were repeatedly identified as:

Lack of consumer education
Lack of infrastructure
Lack of extension, research support
Lack of farmer training

The small breakout sessions provided more opportunity for everyone toshare their thoughts and opinions.

Summary of Small Breakout sessions conclusions:

Challenges:

I. Farmers Need Education on Organic Certification

A. There are many misconceptions surrounding requirementsof the National Organic Program

(NOP) certification process:

1. Manyfarmers believe it is very difficult to gain organic certification.

2. Manyfarmers think organic certification is very expensive.

3. Manyfarmers believe the “government” will gain undue control over their farms ifthey

become certified organic.

B. Inspector training is needed – for inspectorsplus educators to understand the process and

regulations.

C. Inspection support/information is needed inorder to understand process and get over the fear

of certification.

D. Outreach is needed on the cost shareprogram. Few farmers are aware of it.

II. Production and Marketing Research is Needed:

A. Alabama-specific information on the demand fororganic produce.

B. Case studies with financial information,especially for new and beginning farmers

C. Organic census and marketing study - There is aneed to show farmers that a market demand

exists, identify the demand and available/existinginfrastructure, and assist farmers in linking

resources available to them.

D. Producers need to address and manage multipleproduction and marketing issues – they need

information on designing diversifiedintegrated farming systems.

III. Education of Agricultural Service Providersis Needed:

A. NRCS – get information on input costs

B. Extension – training needed – allow for time totrain alone, and some with farmers

IV. Infrastructure is needed– not just organicissue

A. Inputs

B. Processing issues – need to send cattle to MO orCO for organic processing

C. Farmers must be in control of product distribution.

D. Collaborative marketing needed, especially forfarmers located far from metropolitan areas.

E. Cooperatives needed to help farmers reduce input costs through bulk ordering.

F. Information on liability insurance. It may not be as expensive as believed.

G. Map of Assets: North Carolina and Virginia developed the Community Food System

Explorer(CFSE) which we could use as a model in developing the organic industry in

Alabama. [CFSE provides “an assessment of public policies, economic conditions,and

social structures that affect community food systems across” NC and VA

(www.cfse.ext.vt.edu)].

V. Advocacy is Needed:

a. ASAN and other advocacy groups should beprepared to negotiate regulatory policies favorable to producers by minimizinghindrances. They could also assist by developing and conducting feasibilitystudies, business plans for processors at the local scale, and mappingresources for the industry. They must fill in information gaps for farmers and,while doing so, create cluster of jobs for the community.

VI. ConsumerEducation is Needed:

A. Organic farmers need to educate the consumerabout the food they sell so they will

understand the true cost of food.

B. Backyard gardens (also alternative installationsources)

C. Public gardens

D. Demonstration farm sites

E. Broad age range of education – seniors, youth,mix them up to learn from each other

F. Oral histories – what was done in the past,include in part of workshops

G. Understanding links between diet and health

VII. Factors Limiting Low-Income Citizens’ access toSustainable and Organic Produce

A. Many low-income citizens do not have access tosustainable and organic produce due to

lack of transportation.

B. Prices of organic produce are determined byincome levels of the communities where it is

sold.

C. Many citizens of all socio-economic levels areprice sensitive when purchasing food and will

always tend to buy food based onits price.

D. Many low-income people want to buy organicproduce but can’t find it in their local

communities. Most local farmersmarkets do not currently have certified organic vendors.

E. Consumers should consider growing some of theirown food in coming years as a way to

reduce food expenses.

F. Farm to school programs needed

G. School gardens, community gardens

Opportunities for Farmers

I. Governmental Agencies (NRCS, RC&D’s, SARE,etc.) provide cost-sharing grants to help farmers transition to organic status.Several practices that organic farmers can take advantage are currently funded,but may be eliminated or funding for them reduced in the proposed Agriculturebill.

A. Farmers transitioning to organic certificationcan receive up to 75% of the cost of obtaining certification from the NRCS.

B. Beginning farmers can often obtain help fromestablished farmers.

C. NRCS Alabama official, Alice Love, can helpfarmers apply for government grants. Call her at (334) 887-4550.

II. New and beginning farmers

A. Lots of new retired farmers

B. Internships (beginning farmer and rancher mentorprogram)

III. Focus on promising products

A. Grass finished beef

B. Very little acreage in veggies (less than19,000) vs cattle (about 12 million)

Vegetables: Georgia has 129,000 acres, Florida has 266,000, NorthCarolina has 119,000

Obstacles in Alabama

1. Resistance to change

2. Organic is a personal/ psychological approach,requires a different mindset

a. Impact of economic history of Deep South (cottoneconomy) “rural but not agricultural”

b. Distrust of government: There is a need to educate farmers on therole of USDA, NRCS and other government agencies and on the benefits of beingcertified.

3. Banks/lenders don't understand small scale farm financialmodels, making it harder to access money.

Priorities Identified on the second day of the workshop:

The second day of the workshop the priorities were listed on flip charts and participants voted for the their top three choices. Votes were tallied and priorities were ranked according to votes. The photos below show the flip charts.

Marketing Priorities

Research Priorities

Extension Priorities

Overall top priorities

Pesticide Residues on Food (EWG's Shopping Guide)

2012-01-11T05:53:00.000-08:00

Pesticide Residues on FoodThe Environmental Working Group has published a list of the "dirty dozen", which is the top pesiticide contaminated foods that you should buy organic if you want to limit your pesticide exposure. http://www.ewg.org/foodnews/summary/EWG's Shopper's Guide to Pesticides in Produce:The Dirty Dozen: Buy these products organic 1. Apples 2. Celery 3. Strawberries 4. Peaches 5. Spinach 6. Nectarines (Imported) 7. Grapes (Imported) 8. Sweet bell peppers 9. Potatoes 10. Blueberries (domestic) 11. Lettuce 12. Kale/collard greens The Clean Dozen (Lowest Amount of Pesticide residues)1. Onions2. Sweet corn3. Pineapples4. Avocado5. Asparagus6. Sweet peas7. Mangoes8. Eggplant9. Cantaloupe (domestic)10. Kiwi11. Cabbage12. Watermelon13. Sweet potatoes14. Grapefruit15. MushroomsThe best way to avoid pesticide residues on your food is to grow your own. In the southeast, all of the dirty dozen can be grown, except for perhaps nectarines. Peaches are very difficult but if you really like peaches enough to take the time and spend the energy to care for the trees, and if you don't mind cutting off bad spots and worm holes, then you can grow some peaches for your family. Grapes in this area of the country are limited to muscadines and scupernongs. Concords may be grown, but probably not commerically. The other crops are easy enough to grow in your home garden without a lot of special attention and pest and disease problems. Make sure to choose apple varieties that are suited for this climate. Many of the "clean dozen" are also easy to grow in the southeast so why not try some of them while you are at it? If you can't grow your own, the next best thing is to buy from a local farmer that you trust. Ask the farmer about his/her farming practices. Don't assume that locally grown equals pesticide-free. Buying organic from the supermarket is the least sustainable way to get pesticide free produce. If you make sure to eat seasonally available produce then you should be able to find it locally. If you are near Macon County, AL, check out Sunbright Organics: www.sunbrightfarm.com.

Making the Case for Using Organic Seeds

2012-01-11T04:44:00.000-08:00

The Case for Using Certified Organic Seeds in “Sustainable” Crop Production

Sometimes I hear the comment that it is more sustainable to just go down to your local feed store and purchase seed than to order organic seed from other areas of the country and have it shipped. It is certainly cheaper to do this. Certified organic seed not only costs more than conventionally grown, but there are few sources of organic seed in Alabama, especially for cover crop seed and other bulk amounts. This means that the grower must not only pay more for the seed, but must also pay freight for having it shipped which is often as much or more than the price of the seed.
An organic grower is required to use organic seed if it is available, if not, then the grower must document at least 3 different attempts to buy organic seed. Growers who are not certified are free to use whatever seed they choose, but before you buy, make sure the seed is not treated.

Most treated seed is dyed for easy recognition and prevention of ingestion by humans and wildlife. So, if your seed is pink, it has been treated with chemicals, usually fungicides to keep the seed from rotting in wet soil. When using untreated seed, just make sure the soil is warm enough for germination to occur. Some seed are treated with systemic insecticides. These pesticides are taken up by the plant as it grows and are transported throughout the plant body, into the leaves, pollen, flowers, and fruit, meaning that the consumer is dosed as well as any insect that lands on the plant. Some, like those discussed below, are known to be toxic to honeybees and other pollinators.

Clothianidin is an insecticide developed by Takeda Chemical Industries and Bayer AG. It is in a class of compounds called neonicotinoids because they are similar to the naturally occurring chemical, nicotine. Clothianidin is absorbed by plants and then released in pollen and nectar to kill pests. It is highly toxic to bees. This chemical is commonly used to treat corn and canola seed. As bees forage on the canola flowers they become poisoned and take the poisoned pollen back to the hives, poisoning the whole colony. Though corn is wind pollinated, bees become poisoned by landing and resting on the leaves which have been contaminated from water transpired by the plant. Germany banned the pesticide after an incident in 2008 in which clothianidin was widely used as a corn seed treatment to control rootworm. Shortly after the seed was planted, 330 million bees abruptly died. Research determined that the dead bees were contaminated with clothianidin. The German government and Bayer CropScience compensated the beekeepers. France, Italy, and Slovenia also banned the chemical.

Clothianidin was first given conditional registration for use as a pesticide by the United States Environmental Protection Agency in April of 2003[1], pending the completion of additional study of its safety to be done by December of 2004 (later extended to May of 2005). The study wasn't completed until August of 2007. Clothianidin was granted an unconditional registration for use as a seed treatment for corn and canola on April 22, 2010.[2] However, in November 2010 after a review of the studies supplied by the manufacturer (Bayer), the EPA released a memo in which they stated that the studies were flawed.

The mode of action of neonicotinoids is similar to the natural insecticide nicotine, which acts on the central nervous system.[1] In insects, neonicotinoids cause paralysis which leads to death, often within a few hours. However, they are much less toxic to mammals and under the WHO / EPA classification these compounds are placed toxicity class II or class III. Because the neonicotinoids block a specific neural pathway that is more abundant in insects than warm-blooded animals, these insecticides are selectively more toxic to insects than mammals. As a group, they are effective against sucking insects, but also chewing insects such as beetles and some Lepidoptera, particularly cutworms. All neonicotinoid products are classified as general use and have been registered under EPA's Conventional Reduced Risk Program due to their favorable toxicological profiles.

Acetamiprid is for use against sucking insects, such as aphids and whiteflies, on leafy vegetables, cole crops, citrus, cotton, ornamentals, and fruiting vegetables. Ready-to-use formulations are available in addition to wettable powders and water-dispersible granules.

Clothianidin was registered in 2003 by Bayer initially for corn and canola seed treatment use. Additional approved sites include grapes, pome fruit, rice, tobacco, and turf and ornamentals.

Imidacloprid was first registered for use in the U.S. in 1992 and is possibly the most widely used insecticide of the group. It has a wide range of target pests and sites, including soil, seed, structural, pets, and foliar treatments in cotton, rice, cereals, peanuts, potatoes, vegetables, pome fruits, pecans, and turf. It is a systemic with long residual activity and particularly effective against sucking insects, soil insects, whiteflies, termites, turf insects, and Colorado potato beetle. Products are available in dusts, granules, seed dressings as flowable slurry concentrates, soluble concentrates, suspension concentrates, and wettable powders. The application rates for neonicotinoid insecticides are much lower than older, traditionally used insecticides.

The most available toxicity data of the neonicotinoids is with imidacloprid. These data indicate that it is less toxic when absorbed by the skin or when inhaled compared to ingestion. It causes minor eye reddening, but is non-irritating to the skin. Signs of toxicity in rats include lethargy, respiratory disturbances, decreased movement, staggering gait, occasional trembling, and spasms. There are no accounts of human poisoning, but signs and symptoms of poisoning would be expected to be those similar for rats. A chronic toxicity study showed that rats fed up to 1,800 ppm resulted in a No Observable Effect Level (NOEL) of 100 ppm. The EPA categorizes imidacloprid as a “Group E” (no evidence of carcinogenicity). In animals and humans, imidacloprid is quickly and almost completely absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract, and eliminated via urine and feces within 48 hours. Of the neonicotinoids, imidacloprid is the most toxic to birds and fish. Both imidacloprid and thiamethoxam are highly toxic to honeybees. Mammalian toxicities for neonicotinoid pesticides registered in Florida are shown in Table 1. Table 2 lists the toxicities to wildlife by the common name of the neonicotinoid pesticide. Table 3 provides a cross listing of many of the trade names that these products are registered and sold by in Florida.
Note: Clothianidan is also highly toxic to bees.

From the EPA:
The fate and disposition of clothianidin in the environment suggest a compound that is a systemic insecticide that is persistent and mobile, stable to hydrolysis, and has potential to leach to ground water, as well as runoff to surface waters.

Clothianidin is highly toxic to honey bees on an acute contact basis (LD50
> 0.0439 µg/bee). It has the potential for toxic chronic exposure to honey bees, as well as other nontarget pollinators, through the translocation of clothianidin residues in nectar and pollen. In honey bees, the effects of this toxic chronic exposure may include lethal and/or sub-lethal effects in the larvae and reproductive effects in the queen.

This product is toxic to aquatic invertebrates. Clothianidin has properties and characteristics associated with chemicals detected in ground water. Contain any product spills or equipment leaks and dispose of wastes according to disposal instructions on this label. Do not contaminate water when disposing of equipment washwaters.

For updates on the efforts of beekeepers to have these pesticides banned, visit:
http://www.beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/?cat=157
(Beyond Pesticides, January 11, 2012) On January 10, beekeepers from across the country gathered at a national conference, with environmental organizations at their side, to draw attention to the growing plight facing their industry –the decline of honey bees, a problem that has far reaching implications for the U.S. economy. The disappearance of the bees [...]

Posted in Agriculture, Clothianidin, Imidacloprid, Pollinators, Thiamethoxam | No Comments »
References:
1. http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pi117#TABLE_1
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoid
3. http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/factsheets/clothianidin.pdf
4. http://www.beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/?cat=157

Time to Think About Planting Fall Cover Crops

2011-08-26T15:02:00.000-07:00

Time to Think About Planting Fall Cover Crops
Why plant cover crops? Cover crops have several important benefits: they improve soil structure and fertility by adding organic matter, nitrogen (legumes), taking up, storing, and then releasing plant nutrients, thereby keeping them from leaching or washing away, and by covering the soil and preventing erosion. Growing fall cover crops that overwinter and produce a lot of plant material is a method of growing your mulch in place, saving the grower from needing to import and apply as much during the following growing season. In addition to producing weed suppressing mulch, cover crops can serve other purposes as well, such as providing food and habitat for beneficial insects, and enhancing soil microbial activity. To achieve maximum benefits from cover cropping, it is often recommended that at any one point in time, at least 1/3 to ½ of the grower’s field should be planted to cover crops and they should be incorporated into the crop rotation scheme. Some good resources on how to incorporate cover crops into your crop rotations include: Crop Rotation on Organic Farms: A Planning Manual. (http://www.southernsare.org/Educational-Resources/Books/Crop-Rotation-on-Organic-Farms), and A Truly Regenerative Agriculture (http://newfarm.rodaleinstitute.org/features/1204/nordell/index.shtml).

When to Plant Fall Cover Crops: Fall cover crops should generally be planted from mid-September through mid-November in AL. In mid-September there will be more competition from any grass or weeds currently growing in the field. Tillage may be needed in order to give the cover crop a good start. Later in this planting window, toward mid-November, there is less competition from weeds and grass and the grower may be able to establish a good cover crop stand by broadcasting the cover crop seed onto the soil surface and then mowing the standing vegetation to cover the seed. Another consideration is rainfall. October is generally a dry month in AL, but in November we generally get more rain. So, a cover crop planted before the end of October may suffer from drought. If the cover crop seed is broadcast, it may require more than one seeding to get a good stand established, depending on the rainfall. A good practice is to broadcast your seed before rain is forecast, especially if there is more than one rain forecast for the next few days. Once the plants have sprouted and established roots, they are hardier. As in most aspects of farming there is a delicate balance to be achieved and some seasons are more conducive to success than others. Though it may be good to wait until the rains come in November, this must be balanced with the fact that the sooner the cover crop is seeded before cold weather arrives, the more growth there will be.

How to Choose Your Fall Cover Crop: What cover crop should you grow? The best choice depends upon what the grower’s plans are for the following season. For summer row crops, rye is a very good choice. It will produce a lot of residue for weed suppression if left on the soil surface the following season. One drawback, however, is that grass cover crops can tie up nutrients that the next crop needs. A solution is to mulch the plant rows with compost when planting the cash crop in the spring if practicing no-till, otherwise, till in the cover crop at least 2 weeks before planting the next crop and much of it will have decomposed by planting time.
If you plan to plant early spring crops, such as salad greens, brassicas (kale, turnips, broccoli, collards) or potatoes, then a legume cover crop such as Austrian winter peas may be a good choice. Rye needs to complete its life cycle so that regrowth will not occur. If it is cut or rolled down before flowering, it will probably grow right back to interfere with the early spring crop. Clover, canola, and hairy vetch will also regrow if cut too early, if these cover crops are tilled in, this is not a problem. Austrian winter pea can be terminated early without re-growth. The disadvantage to Austrian winter pea is that the nitrogen rich residue will decompose rapidly and leave the next crop without any mulch to suppress weeds. Again, if you are tilling in the residue, then early release of nitrogen and nutrients will make them available to the next crop when it most needs it. The disadvantage to tilling in the cover crop is that the cover crop residue breaks down so quickly that by the end of the growing season most gains to soil organic matter content will have burned up in CO2. This is another example where a delicate balance is needed: the need to conserve soil organic matter must be balanced with the need to control weeds and provide nutrients to subsequent crops. For more information on choosing a good cover crop visit the SARE website and read: Managing Cover Crops Profitably (http://www.southernsare.org/Educational-Resources/Books/Managing-Cover-Crops-Profitably-3rd-Edition).

Attracting Beneficial Insects: For attracting beneficial insects, all of these cover crops are very good. Rye attracts lady beetles and other types of beneficials, clover attracts bees, butterflies, and pollinators, as do the other legumes. For more information on attracting beneficial insects read: Farmscaping to Enhance Biological Control, (https://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/summaries/summary.php?pub=145).