Michigan Organic News Listserv
June 3, 2011
Note this information if for you to learn, think and share. It is not necessarily the view of Michigan State University
or the C.S. Mott Group For Sustainable Food
Ag News for Michigan’s Organic Farmers
Prevented Planting Row Crop Acres – Which cover crops can help?
By Dave Robinson, on May 27th, 2011
http://plantcovercrops.com/2011/05/27/prevented-planting-row-crop-acres-what-can-cover-crops-help/
In 2010 there were wet spots in fields that were never planted, so some ingenious farmers planted cover crops in those spots after they dried out. Now in 2011 there are several entire
fields that may not be planted to cash crops at all. I have heard from two friends in Ohio that are working on plans to help northwest Ohio farmers know what to use on their prevented acres.
Maybe this is not an issue where you live. I hope you never have to face a spring like this year in the Eastern Corn Belt, where many producers in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan
are struggling to get their crops in the ground. The forecast is for many more days of rain to finish out the month of May.
For wet spots in fields there are many good options like these cover crop radishes that were planted later in the season in a field of sweet corn.
For prevented planting the cover crops may not be harvested until after November 1st.
So what are the options for planting cover crops in the prevented planted fields? Below I will list the options with a few of their benefits and also some disadvantages.
Advantages
Disadvantages
Austrian Winter Peas and cover crop radishes were planted into prevented planting acres in Michigan in 2010. These peas were producing nitrogen for the 2011 crop while fields that were
sprayed or tilled for weed control had no such benefit.
Advantages
Disadvantages
Advantages
Disadvantages
Advantages
Disadvantages
Other crops to consider:
Berseem Clover,
Fava Beans, and others.
For further information, please read
this excellent article
by Barry Fisher, NRCS Agronomist from Indiana, who wrote on this very topic in 2009. Go to (copy and paste in browser)
http://plantcovercrops.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Cover-Crops-for-Prevented-Plantingfinal-6_30_09-1.pdf
Be on the look- out for Late Blight on Tomatoes and other similar crops
Late blight is a disease that most commonly affects potatoes, but can affect tomatoes in some years. When the weather is favorable as it has been this year, late blight can be especially troublesome.
This disease is being reported in Michigan this year from homeowners and organic growers. Growers practicing IPM are not reporting this disease since the fungicides they are likely using for Alternaria, Septoria, and Anthracnose are also providing adequate
protection against late blight. LATE BLIGHT SYMPTOMS include blighting on all aboveground parts of
the tomato plant. Lesions on leaves often appear dark and oily with production of spores occurring on the undersides of the leaves resulting in a purplish appearance especially when conditions are wet and humid. Blackened lesions on the stems also occur
and are unique to late blight disease. Late blight affects green and ripened tomato fruit. The blighting on fruit appears as dark, greasy areas that enlarge rapidly encompassing the entire fruit. During wet and humid conditions, white threads (mycelium)
can be seen on the fruit.
Between cropping seasons, the fungus survives on volunteer and abandoned potato and tomato plants in fields, cull piles, and homeowner gardens. Cool nights, moderately warm days, and weather that keep foliage/fruit wet for several hours are ideal for
late blight development. The spores can be carried from diseased plants to nearby healthy plants via wind.
Control measures include eliminating all potato/tomato cull piles in the vicinity of tomato plantings and destroying volunteer potato plants that grow from overwintered tubers. All tomato varieties are susceptible to late blight. There are several highly
effective fungicide sprays that can be used to protect tomato plants from late blight.
To see photos of the disease symptoms visit Dr. Mary Hausbeck’s site:
http://veggies.msu.edu/TomatoLB.html
Major weather changes – finally
Expect warm and dry conditions over the weekend and early next week.
Published June 1, 2011
Jeff Andresen, Michigan State University Extension, Department of Geography
http://expeng.anr.msu.edu/news/article/major_weather_changes_finally
The astronomical calendar may suggest that summer is still a few weeks away, but summerlike weather has developed recently across Michigan and the Great Lakes region thanks to the development of
a large upper air ridge across the region. In general, this pattern is expected to continue for the next one to two weeks, finally resulting in a major break for spring fieldwork and planting activities. In the short term, a frontal system will approach the
state Thursday (June 2), bringing the chance for shower and thunderstorms late Thursday into Friday. Rainfall totals generally in the 0.25 to 0.50 inch range are expected, with limited and scattered areal coverage across southern and central Michigan, increasing
to more widespread coverage across the north.
Relatively warm and dry conditions are expected statewide this weekend into early next week. Temperatures during the next several days are expected to gradually warm from the 60s north to mid-70s
south Thursday to the low 70s to low 80s this weekend. Medium range forecast guidance currently suggests a continuation of upper air troughing across the western United States with a ridge across central sections. Both the 6 to 10 and 8 to 14 day outlooks
(covering June 6-10 and June 8-14) call for normal to above normal precipitation totals and for near normal to above normal mean temperatures. My personal guess is that precipitation totals during the next week or more will remain in the normal or even below
normal category.
Long lead outlook
New NOAA Climate Prediction Center Long Lead outlooks for June and the June through August periods suggest the persistence of the cooler and wetter than normal pattern of the past couple of months
across large areas of the northern Great Plains and Upper Midwest as far east as western Michigan. Expectations are that the heavy winter and spring precipitation totals and wetter than normal soils in those areas lead to relatively large amounts of the energy
solar and sensible energy available to the regional landscape being consumed in evaporation/ evapo-transpiration (versus direct sensible heating) during the next couple of months. In addition, the extra evapo-transpiration will also serve as a source of water
vapor for precipitation.
Further east, including much of Michigan, mean temperatures and precipitation totals are forecast to remain in the equal chances category (i.e., near equal chances of below-, near-, and above normal
categories). Elsewhere, warmer and drier than normal weather is expected to continue across large sections of the south and southeast.
Extreme fire blight risk in northwest Michigan-for fruit farmers
http://expeng.anr.msu.edu/news/article/extreme_fire_blight_risk_in_northwest_michigan
With epiphytic infection potential levels well over 200 in the north and severe weather forecast for later today (May 31), the risk of fire blight infection is great.
Published May 31, 2011
George W. Sundin and Erin Lizotte, Michigan State University Extension, Department of Plant Pathology; Michigan State University Extension
We are experiencing a period of extreme fire blight risk in northwest Michigan for apple growers for the period of May 31-June 7. Maryblyt epiphytic infection potential (EIP) values are well above
200 today (May 31) and predicted to remain high for the next week. The EIP addresses risk in orchards with
open bloom or where potential trauma may occur (severe weather is predicted the afternoon of May 31). At this time, streptomycin remains the bactericide of choice for controlling fire blight in the northwest, however, if you are located in Grand Traverse
County and have streptomycin resistance, Kasumin may be applied. See George Sundin’s article,
Section 18 Special Exemption Lable for Kasumin for Fire Blight Control In 2011, for more information on Kasumin use.
The most important next control measure is to use Apogee (prohexadione calcium) for shoot blight management. Apogee is a growth inhibitor that provides excellent control of shoot blight. The first
timing for an Apogee spray is at king bloom petal fall. In northwest Michigan, we will likely be there this week in most locations and varieties. Apogee is shoot specific, i.e. the effect is only observed if the shoot is covered; thus excellent coverage is
essential. The “Apogee effect” on fire blight begins approximately 10 to 14 days after application, and research from my lab suggests that it is associated with cell wall thickening in apple shoots.
Most growers prefer to space Apogee applications out using three to four applications (once every two weeks.) This strategy is effective for shoot growth control and fire blight management under
low and moderate disease pressure. However, under very high disease pressure such as what we are experiencing this year, use of a higher rate application provides better shoot blight control than lower rates.
There are two management strategies that can help growers combat fire blight in the coming days: use Apogee and do not miss the king bloom petal fall timing; and growers in extreme risk areas should
increase the rate used for their first application by at least 50 percent and consider doubling the rate for the first application. Return to the usual rate of Apogee used in the second and third applications. For example, growers that use rates of 8 oz/A,
8 oz/A, and 8 oz/A for their three Apogee applications in typical years should go 12 to 16 oz /A, 8 oz/A, and 8 oz/A this year. (See page 216 of MSU Extension’s 2011
Michigan Fruit Management Guide for more information on Apogee rates and usage).
Apogee must be used with an organo silicone surfactant and an equal weight of spray grade ammonium sulfate should be applied. Do not use Apogee on “Empire” or “Winesap” because of the potential
for fruit cracking.
Dr. Sundin’s work is funded in part by
MSU’s AgBioResearch.
GMO Foods and Identifying Food Labels
As many of us know, GMO ingredients are in 70-80% of packaged foods, and they are not labeled in any way. (In fact, efforts to get the consumer
protection of labeling have been quashed over and over.) But Michigan is one of the lucky states to have some direct voting; if we can get 250,000 registered voters to sign petitions saying that we want GMO labeling on the ballot, then it will be up to Michiganders
to decide in November 2012. We have a website: http://gmolabeling.webs.com/ and a Facebook group (Michigan GMO Labeling Campaign). If you're concerned about GMO in the food supply, please consider visiting the
website, getting in touch with me ([log in to unmask]), joining the cause, or at least passing the information to your family, friends, neighbors, CSA shareholders, customers, etc.
Because each signature can be no more than 180 days old, we can't start collecting signatures until December -- not the best time to begin an outdoor campaign. So what we're doing now is collecting the names and contact info of anyone who'd be interested in
signing the petition, or getting more information to make an informed decision, so that we can find you come December. Please email me at
[log in to unmask] with any questions, concerns, requests for more information, ideas for spreading the word, your interest in becoming part of the campaign, or with you and/or your colleagues' interest in signing the petition.
Thanks very much.
Sincerely,
Joy Arbor
Concerned Citizen and Lover of Local Organic Food
--
*************
Joy Arbor, PhD
[log in to unmask]
Remember the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) that passed last year?
By: National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition
http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/5735/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=4109
We won a hard fought battle, securing appropriate food safety rules for small-to-midsized farms and processors producing fresh and healthy food for local and regional markets.
Now, out of left field, a marketing agency – the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) -- has issued a proposed national food safety rule for spinach, lettuce, and cabbage, despite the fact that AMS does not have food safety jurisdiction or staff.
And the protections for the small and medium sized farms that make up our nations vibrant local food system? …. Not there.
The most powerful “Big Ag” players in the leafy green industry are pushing the National Leafy Greens Marketing Agreement (NLGMA) and
there is little trust among small-to-medium, diversified, and organic farmers that this will serve them well. The sellers, processors, or distributors that sign on to the rule will compel farmers they purchase from to comply with its standards. The
rule adds a second and conflicting layer of food safety standards and audits on top of FDA food safety rules.
This confusing and duplicative rule could effectively shut small and mid-sized farmers out of the leafy greens market.
Tell the AMS to withdraw their unnecessary and confusing rule
Also here is a report on the Leafy Green agreement from Veg Growers News Magazine
http://vegetablegrowersnews.com/index.php/magazine/article/national-leafy-greens-agreement-moves-forward
National leafy greens agreement moves forward
A proposed National Leafy Greens Marketing Agreement (NLGMA) has advanced another step.
In April, USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) announced it was seeking public comment on the creation of a voluntary marketing agreement for the leafy
greens industry. The proposed agreement has caused some controversy within the industry. Shortly after USDA made its announcement, the Produce Marketing Association released a statement in support.
"PMA believes the structure set forth by the voluntary marketing agreement will help the industry's leafy green producers continue to reduce the risk of foodborne
illness. The produce industry has already seen the success of the California and Arizona leafy greens marketing agreements," according to PMA's statement.
The Ohio Produce Growers & Marketers Association (OPGMA), however, has been opposed to NLGMA since it was first proposed. Even though the agreement is voluntary,
if customers were to require Ohio growers to adhere to it, they would be forced to "meet California-style food safety standards." Those standards would adversely impact Ohio's small and medium-sized producers, according to OPGMA's website.
To better reflect concerns raised during public hearings, USDA made adjustments to the initial proposal. The leafy greens agreement was first proposed to USDA
in June 2009 by a group of 14 organizations (including PMA) representing a cross-section of producers and handlers from the fresh produce industry. USDA conducted seven public hearings across the country about the proposal, and received hundreds of letters
and comments.
For example, to reflect the different climates, production practices and markets handling leafy green produce, USDA proposed that there be eight regional zones.
Representatives from those zones, appointed by the secretary of agriculture, would form a board to manage the proposed agreement. The board would include 26 representatives: 12 handlers, 10 farmers (at least two of which must be small farmers), one importer,
one retailer, one food service representative and one member of the public, according to USDA.
The secretary of agriculture would also appoint a technical review committee to assist the board in the development of Good Agricultural Practices, Good Handling
Practices and Good Manufacturing Practices. The committee members would be one producer, one handler and one food safety expert from each of the eight zones. At least one of the eight producers must be a small farmer and one must be a certified organic farmer,
according to USDA.
"We are asking for extensive public participation with input from farmers and handlers, as well as the public, to develop a comprehensive, voluntary agreement
that will meet the needs of everyone," said AMS Administrator Rayne Pegg at the end of April. "This agreement is a proposal at this point, and we encourage your comments over the next 90 days. We will analyze the comments and decide how or whether to proceed
with an agreement."
Visit the AMS website at
http://www.ams.usda.gov for more information or to comment on the proposed marketing agreement.
By Matt Milkovich
Response letter from The Michigan Environmental Council to Senator Debbie Stabenow
Last Monday in East Lansing, Senator Stabenow (Michigan) and Senator Roberts (Kansas) presented the first of several hearings on the upcoming Farm
Bill. There were over a dozen different spoke-persons on behalf of a wide range of agricultural sectors including cherry and apple growers, field crop farmers, organic certification organizations, farm credit institutions, land grant university research and
extension educators, dairy, forestry and specialty crops (AKA vegetables). Each presented how the Farm Bill is of value and has impacted his or her business in the past. The two senators then asked follow up questions, mostly about which programs that are
supported by the Farm Bill are of greatest value to their business. As a result of this conversation (and a very large audience listening) the Michigan Environmental Council put forth the following letter to address some of their priorities within the Farm
Bill. I have not included the entire letter here but you may see the complete document at
www.Michiganorganic.msu.edu and click on left tab that says “Farm Bill”
From: Chris Kolb, Michigan Environmental Council
517-487-9539 or email: [log in to unmask]
To: Senator Debbie Stabenow
RE: Recommendations for the 2012 Farm Bill
Date: May 27, 2011
Expert from Letter from MEC
Dear Senator Stabenow,
On behalf of the Michigan Environmental Council (MEC), I want to thank you for hosting this session on the 2012 Farm Bill. We are providing this
document to supplement what I expect to be a very robust discussion with other state and local leaders about the opportunity to develop a shared vision that supports a 21st
Century approach to America’s food, farms and natural resources.
The Michigan Environmental Council – a 501c3 charitable organization – is a coalition of 70 organizations created in 1980. With our member groups
and partners — including many conservation, public health and food justice groups — MEC promotes public policies to ensure that Michigan families will enjoy clear waters, clean beaches, beautiful landscapes and healthy
communities for years to come. MEC combines deep environmental policy expertise with close connections to key state and federal decision makers,
decades of experience getting things done in the political process, and an ability to rally broad and powerful alliances in support of reforms. There are overarching needs that we feel should drive a comprehensive review and reformation of the Farm Bill for
the 2012 rewrite. These include:
1.
Local and nutritious food. The country needs a more diverse food system that offers and subsidizes more vegetables, fruits and other foods that are nutritious and accessible closer to home. These should not be minimized as “specialty crops”; they are
food and should necessarily take a much larger role in U.S. agricultural policy.
2.
Diverse and resilient food systems. The country needs to facilitate a more robust
agricultural system that can safely weather a warmer, more volatile climate; overcome
ever increasing energy prices; and minimize risks from crop infestations and food-borne
diseases. We should move away from high-intensity monoculture and concentrated
animal operations and instead find innovative ways to create local food systems that rely on a wider variety of crops so that the loss of one growing
season or one crop type will not be disastrous.
3.
Protective and reliable land stewardship. Many of the land and resource conservation
practices in previous versions of the Farm Bill should, by now, have been
institutionalized as best practices. Erosion control, buffer strips, habitat protection,
windbreaks, crop rotation, wetland restoration and other conservation practices are
beneficial to the land and farmer as well as society at large. Rather than paying farmers to
implement these practices every year—and often losing ground when crop prices rise or
rental agreements expire—some aspects of the conservation title should be revised to
ensure that best practices are followed, and that investments in conservation and land
protection are made more permanent.
4.
Sustainable and organic farming practices. The food of the future must rely less on
pesticides, antibiotics and energy-intensive fertilizers than today’s commodity-driven,
fast-growth food system. Therefore we propose that sustainable practices be subsidized
and rewarded for careful practices that prove that farming can provide the country with
food while also improving soil quality, providing healthier meat and produce that is not
chemically dependent; and be accountable to future generations.
5.
Responsible energy choices. America faces tremendous challenges related to energy. Our agriculture and food sectors have developed a heavy reliance on fossil fuels that
threatens our long-term security and diverts enormous wealth to other countries. U.S.
agriculture consumes huge amounts of energy, and transitioning to another model could
offer important potential benefits to rural communities that deliver cleaner forms of
energy to society. Efficiency will be critical, as wasteful energy consumption will cause
increasing economic damage as fossil fuels become more expensive. And perhaps most vital to our future prosperity, continued emission of carbon
dioxide from burning fossil fuels and threatens to alter Earth’s climate in ways that make the planet less habitable to future generations.
Organic Agriculture.
Organic agriculture is continuing to grow in popularity among consumers
and organic products are continuing to gain in market share of agricultural products. According to a recent study by the Organic Trade Association, 73% of American families buy organic
products at least occasionally. Illustrating a very interesting trend, the study says that 3 in 10 families actually bought more organic
foods last year compared to the previous year, with many parents deciding to reduce spending in other areas before cutting purchases of organic foods. 6 In a similar study done in 2008, the Hartman Group found that about 69% of U.S. adult consumers buy organic
products at least occasionally and about 19% of U.S. adults use organic
products weekly. In fact, despite tough economic times, in 2009, organic food sales grew 5.1% compared to the previous year, while total
U.S. food sales grew only 1.6%.
In 2008, Michigan farmer’s organic product sales totaled over $71,000,000, according to the U.S. Census of Agriculture’s
2008 Organic Production Study. Organic agriculture has an economic momentum that is affecting Michigan’s economy in a positive way.
Therefore, we recommend that the 2010 Farm Bill:
1. Continue to fund the Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative (OREI).
Administered by USDA’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture, OREI is USDA’s
flagship competitive grants program dedicated to organic research and extension
activities. OREI funds research projects on organic agricultural systems, ranging from
improving weed management and developing organic seed to enhancing environmental
sustainability and carbon sequestration on organic farms. This type of research is
essential in ensuring that Michigan’s organic farms become ever-more efficient in their
production and effective in their environmental stewardship.
2. Continue to fund the National Organic Certification Cost-share Program (NOCCSP).
This cost-share program helps certified organic farmers and handlers offset the costs of
certification by providing a small reimbursement of up to $750 per year. In 2010,
Michigan Environmental Council member group, Michigan Organic Food and Farm
Alliance (MOFFA), administered Michigan’s Cost Share Program. MOFFA
administered this program because the Michigan Department of Agriculture would not.
MOFFA distributed grants to 120 organic farms to help offset their organic certification
costs.
3. Continue to fund the Organic Production and Market Data Initiatives (ODI). A small but significant initiative, ODI received $5 million
over five years in the last farm bill to fund basic USDA data collection on the organic sector.
4. Continue to fund the Environmental Quality Incentives Program Organic Initiative (EQIP
OI) and Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP). USDA National Resource
Conservation Programs that provide financial incentives for farmers to conserve land for
environmental benefits and to implement practices, such as organic agricultural methods, that are environmentally sustainable.
5. Continue to fund the National Organic Program (NOP). NOP enforces the national
organic program standards, accredits certifiers, develops equivalency agreements,
handles complaints – in essence, NOP ensures the integrity of the organic seal.
Thank you for considering these ideas and recommendations. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to develop these concepts into
specific policies in the 2012 Farm Bill. Please contact our office anytime for further discussion or elaboration.
Sincerely,
Chris Kolb, President
Michigan Environmental Council
119 Pere Marquette Suite 2A
Lansing MI 48912
Ph. 517-487-9539
Fax. 517-487-9541
Email:
[log in to unmask]
Website:
www.environmentalcouncil.org
IPM and mating disruption in the age of brown marmorated stink bug
While tracking continues for the brown marmorated stink bug, fruit growers are asked not to abandon their integrated pest management programs and to avoid using extreme control
measures.
Published May 31, 2011
Anne Nielsen, Matt Grieshop, and Larry Gut, Michigan State University Extension, Department of Entomology
Currently, only four confirmed specimens of the brown marmorated stink bug have been found in Michigan. Researchers at
MSU and cooperating universities are currently tracking the distribution and spread of brown marmorated stink bug in
Michigan and surrounding states. This effort is to establish an understanding of the areas at highest risk for population growth. Once locations are identified, we can employ appropriate management tactics. We are working on management tactics suitable for
the growing conditions in Michigan, work that is strengthened by research conducted on the East Coast.
Fruit growers
should not
abandon IPM programs, including mating disruption for codling moth and oriental fruit moth in anticipation of brown marmorated stink bug problems. We do not know the extent of the population
in Michigan and extreme control measures such as organophosphate insecticide applications should not be considered at this point. If populations are detected, growers should continue with current IPM programs and we will make suggestions regarding brown marmorated
stink bug control. We will update the MSU IPM webpage at
http://www.ipm.msu.edu/bmsb.htm with information about population locations and densities throughout the growing season as well as report to the
MSUE News for Agriculture site at
news.msue.msu.edu.
If you suspect or see brown marmorated stink bug on your farm or house, please collect specimens and send them to
MSU Diagnostic Services:
MSU Diagnostic Services
101 Integrated Plant Systems
East Lansing, MI 48824-1311
Be sure to include a note with your contact information including your email address or phone. Digital photos may be sent to:
[log in to unmask]Please save the specimen after you take the photo for potential further identification.
Dr. Grieshop’s and Dr. Gut’s work is funded in part by
MSU’s AgBioResearch
Vicki Morrone
C. S. Mott Group for Sustainable Food Systems
Outreach Specialist for Organic Vegetable and Field Crops
303 Natural Resources
East Lansing, MI 48824
517-353-3542/517-282-3557 (cell)
517-353-3834 (Fax)