 |
 |
Michigan Organic News Listserv Note info included in this listserv is not endorsed by MSU or any of its employees. Sept 7, 2011 This month there are many jobs included in this MichOrganic News. If you or a friend is seeking employment in the agriculture or food systems area you should be sure to check out the "Employment" section. Feel free to pass this along to any of your friends who are seeking employment. Some top stories included: Organic Cost share deadline is coming up-Oct 1 Sign on with Secretary Vilsack NOW! if you want to express your concern for safe management of GMOs (by Thursday at 8 pm) I wish you all a good week and a VERY SAFE harvest. Vicki Morrone ([log in to unmask]) Organic News and Information 2011 Organic Cost Share Program is OPEN-DEALINE is Oct 1, 2011- No late applications accepted! The Cost Share Program is now open for 2011. DEADLINE is OCT 1, 2011. Your application must be received by this date. No late applications will be accepted!! It is time to get your paperwork in order. If you do not have your organic certification certificate dated between Oct 1, 2010 and Sept 1, 2011 contact your certifying agency now. This program will reimburse you with up to 75% of the cost of your certification for USDA NOP certification. Note the cap is $750 each year. You are eligible to apply for cost share each year that it is offered. To calculate the amount of cost share include the cost for inspection, cost of certification and any user fees you paid during this time period. Complete all forms and mail to address indicated in documents. You may have received this in the mail if you were USDA NOP certified last year. This is the SAME program. This program is supported by the USDA 2008 Farm Bill. Include the following in your application (visit www.michiganorganic.msu.edu<http://www.michiganorganic.msu.edu> if you need the application) * Completed application * Photocopy of organic certification certificate dated between Oct 1, 2010 and Sept 30, 2011. * Photocopy of your receipt of payment (note that you are NOT eligible to apply if you are not paid in full to your certifier. Mail all information and completed form to : Michigan Department of Ag and Rural Development, PPOM Division Attn: Jeanette Towsley, PO Box 30017, Lansing MI, 48909 Let Secretary Vilsack Know YOU WANT Responsible Regulation of GE Crops! ***Please sign your organization on to this letter to Secretary Vilsack NOW! DEADLINE is TODAY AT 8pm EST*** The USDA is poised to issue new genetically engineered (GE) crop regulations. Congress and the biotech industry are pressuring the USDA to weaken its GE regulations, which would make it even easier for GE crops to be approved. USDA is operating old regulations that are out-of-date and that fail to protect non-GE farmers, companies, and consumers from contamination and loss. The proposed new regulations may make things even worse. * One proposal would allow companies to determine whether GE crops need to be regulated at all. * Another would legalize contamination of conventional/organic supplies with experimental GE field trial crops. This is a crucial moment for organic, sustainable, and non-GE agriculture. The biotech industry has mounted a full-court press on USDA and Congress to gut the current regulatory system. We must send a strong message to USDA now, before it is too late. This letter (pasted below and attached as a PDF) calls for USDA to implement strong and fair regulations. It also identifies six main points for strengthening the regulations. Please ACT NOW by emailing your organization name and primary contact name to: [log in to unmask] Please Cc [log in to unmask] to let us know you signed on. Feel free to contact us with any questions or comments. Thank you! The Honorable Thomas Vilsack Secretary of Agriculture U.S. Department of Agriculture 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20250 Re: Responsible Regulation of Genetically Engineered Crops Dear Secretary Vilsack: On behalf of the undersigned organizations that represent American farmers, consumers, and retailers, we ask you to implement your authority under the Plant Protection Act of 2000 (PPA) to fully protect the public health, the environment, and the economic interests of the United States. This authority should be implemented through responsible, fair, and comprehensive regulations to help prevent further damage to lucrative and important U.S. and international markets, to ensure farmer profitability and rural economic development, and to support environmental protection and consumer choice. The USDA is currently relying on biotechnology regulations first established almost twenty-five years ago in 1987. Since then, the use of genetically engineered (GE) crops has become widespread, and GE crops and associated traits have become more complex. In 2000, Congress passed the PPA, recognizing the need for a more robust and modern regulatory framework governing the assessment and release of GE crops into the environment and the food supply. USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has been working on regulations to implement the PPA since 2004. However, to date the Agency has yet to issue these critical regulations. We support the promulgation of a comprehensive rule implementing the PPA that uses the statute's broad statutory authority in a responsible, balanced way. The needed rule must: 1. Regulate all GE crops. APHIS must retain oversight of genetically engineered crops as the technology progresses. While not perfect, process-based regulations offer the best way to ensure responsible control of an ever-changing technology. There simply is not the knowledge to determine which crops are safe (and thus can be exempted from regulation) prior to a safety review. In addition, it has become clear that familiar GE crops once regarded as unobjectionable are having serious, unforeseen impacts that require proper assessment. As noted by the National Academy of Sciences in its 2002 report, The Environmental Effects of Transgenic Plants: Scope and Adequacy of Regulation, the use of genetic engineering as the trigger for regulation does not conflict with a commitment to a case-by-case, risk-based approach to regulation of this technology. 2. Broadly interpret USDA's "noxious weed" authority under the PPA. APHIS should broadly interpret the PPA's noxious weed authority to fully mitigate or prevent all adverse effects of GE crops on agriculture, the environment, and public health, with specific focus on the economic harms from GE contamination, herbicide-resistant weeds, threats to public health, and the protection of biodiversity. 3. Implement a two-tiered permitting system. APHIS should clarify that it retains authority to monitor and regulate GE crops throughout the field-testing phase and after commercialization so that it can address adverse impacts and contamination issues as they emerge. APHIS should require permits both for field trials and commercial cultivation of GE crops. Both kinds of permits should be conditioned on the appropriate compensation of growers whose crops are contaminated through violation of permit requirements. 4. Not incorporate the Low Level Presence policy. APHIS' Low Level Presence (LLP) policy is unscientific and fatally flawed. It allows unlimited levels of experimental GE crop material contaminating commercial food, feed, or seed to be deemed "non-actionable," rendering the "low-level" appellation meaningless. The policy would also undermine prospects for co-existence by reducing the incentives of GE crop field-trial operators to prevent contamination in the first place. For coexistence to be feasible, the regulations must "establish scientifically valid and proven isolation and containment distances," as mandated in the 2008 Farm Bill (Sec. 10204(C)(1)(c)). The regulations must also clarify that it is the responsibility of the developer and the grower of GE crops to establish and maintain appropriate isolation distances and other gene containment measures to minimize the potential for contamination. 5. Prohibit the introduction of pharmaceutical and industrial GE crops. APHIS should use its noxious weed authority to prohibit the outdoor cultivation of plants engineered as biofactories for the production of drugs or industrial chemicals, and all cultivation of any pharmaceutical or industrial food crops. These crops produce compounds that may pose risks to human health and the environment, and in the event of inadvertent contamination can lead to huge costs throughout the supply chain. 6. Apply sound science to the regulation of GE crops. In the past, APHIS has relied too heavily on applicant-provided research and unreliable information from biotech industry sources. In some cases, APHIS has given such information greater credence than conflicting data and analyses from its own sister agencies, such as the National Agricultural Statistics Service, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the Agricultural Research Service. Sound scientific assessment of the use, risks, and impacts of genetically engineered crops is impossible without solid, unbiased data. APHIS should not cherry-pick science but instead employ sound scientific principles, as required under the Plant Protection Act and the Obama Administration's Memorandum on Scientific Integrity. The Memorandum stipulates that "[s]cience and the scientific process must inform and guide decisions of my Administration," with the "highest level of integrity in all aspects of the executive branch's involvement with scientific and technological issues." We respectfully urge you to implement our recommendations as you move to promulgate final comprehensive rules implementing the PPA. This is a pivotal moment. Unless these new rules are strong and protective, the coming generation of genetically engineered crops will put at risk our health, our environment, and some of the most promising sectors of our agricultural economy. Sincerely, Udi Lazimy, National Policy Organizer Organic Farming Research Foundation 303 Potrero St. #29-203 Santa Cruz, CA 95060 p: (831) 426-6606 x 109 c: (303) 579-8592 f: (831) 426-6670 [log in to unmask] www.ofrf.org Join the Organic Farmers Action Network today! For more info, visit: Organic farming shows long-term profitability http://westernfarmpress.com/management/organic-farming-shows-long-term-profitability American Society of Agronomy Sep. 1, 2011 11:03am Organic farming is known to be environmentally sustainable, but can it be economically sustainable, as well? The answer is yes, according to new research in the Sept.-Oct. issue of the Agronomy Journal. In an analysis of 18 years of crop yield and farm management data from a long-term University of Minnesota trial, an organic crop rotation was consistently more profitable and carried less risk of low returns than conventional corn and soybean production, even when organic price premiums were cut by half. Previous research has almost universally found the same thing: Organic farming practices can compete economically with conventional methods, says the current study's leader, Timothy Delbridge, a Univ. of Minnesota doctoral student in agricultural economics. However, these conclusions are mostly based on findings from short-term trials in small plots. What sets the Minnesota study apart is both the large size of its experimental farm plots (165 feet by 92 feet) and the trial's longevity. "Doing an economic study like this, it's important to get as complete a picture of the yield variability as we can," Delbridge says. "So, the length of this trial is a big asset. We're pretty confident that the full extent of the yield variability came through in the results." What gave organic production the edge wasn't higher crop yields, however; instead it was organic price premiums. In their absence, the net return from a 2-yr, conventional corn-soybean rotation averaged $342 per acre, compared to $267/ac for a 4-yr organic rotation (corn-soybean-oat/alfalfa-alfalfa), and $273/ac for its 4-yr conventional counterpart. When a full organic premium was applied, though, the average net return from organic production rose to $538/ac, significantly outperforming the conventional systems both in terms of profitability and risk. And organic production was still more profitable when the price premium was reduced by 50 percent. Organic price premiums are often the main reason why farmers think about switching to organic production, Delbridge explains, which means they also often wonder what would happen if the premiums declined. It's for this reason that the researchers considered different premium levels (full, half, and none) in their analysis-not because they necessarily expect the premiums to go away anytime soon, he notes. The cost of production was also a factor: The conventional 2-yr rotation had higher production costs on average ($198/ac) than either the 4-yr conventional rotation ($164/ac) or the organic one ($166/ac). The difference primarily came in weed management, Delbridge says. The price of purchasing chemical herbicides in the 2-yr conventional rotation exceeded the cost of controlling weeds mechanically in the organic system, leading to higher overall production costs in the conventional rotation, even though organic production involved more field operations, Delbridge adds. Delbridge cautions that the analysis relied on organic yields from an experimental trial that sometimes exceeded the average yields actually achieved by organic corn and soybean producers in Minnesota. It also didn't consider the overhead and fixed costs of farming. He's now involved in a second project that is comparing the economics of organic and conventional production in a whole-farm system. More importantly, he adds, "What we're looking at here are results between an established organic and an established conventional system. This research doesn't take into consideration the issue of the transition itself: how difficult or costly that may be." Still, if growers can successfully weather the transition, the study offers convincing new evidence that the change will be a lucrative one over the long haul. The full article is available for no charge for 30 days following the date of this summary. View the abstract at https://www.agronomy.org/publications/aj/view/103-5/aj10-0371-pub.pdf. Production News and Information Have you estimated your dry bean yields yet? With dry bean harvest approaching, here's how to estimate potential harvest yield. Published August 30, 2011 Bob Battel, Michigan State University Extension Growers can estimate dry bean yields by determining the average number of plants per acre, the average number of pods per plant and the average number of seeds per pod. If a seed or pod will not mature, it should not be counted. Start with counting the total plants per 1/1000th acre to determine plant population. Make at least three counts in separate sections of the field, calculate the average of these samples, then multiply this number by 1,000. Use the table below to determine the length of row you'll need to measure, depending on your row width. Row width (inches) Length of single row to equal 1/100th of an acre 15 34' 10" 22 23' 9" 30 17' 5" 36 14' 6" Within a representative and uniform plant stand, randomly select five plants each from at least five randomly selected locations in the field. Pull and count the pods from each plant and then count the seeds per pod to determine average seeds per pod for all five replications. You may choose to count a randomly selected number of pods, say 25 pods from each location. But, remember, a more complete count will lead to a more accurate estimate. This information is combined with the average number of plants per 1/1000th acre, using the calculations at the end of this article. The final piece of information you will need is the average number of seeds per pound, depending upon the class of bean grown. You can use the table below, but seeds per pound can vary for different varieties within a bean class. Ideally, you should use reported estimates for seed number per pound for your variety. Bean class Average number of seeds per pound Navy/Black 3,000 Small Red/Pink 1,600-2000 Kidney 900-1,000 Pinto 1,400 Great Northern 1,600-1,800 The accuracy of yield estimate can be improved by counting seeds and pods from at least 10 plants per replication. Calculations 1. (Average seeds per pod) x (average pods per plant) equals average seeds per plant. 2. (Average seeds per plant) x (plants per 1/1000th of an acre) x (1000) divided by seeds per pound of the variety equals yield in pounds per acre. The "End of Season Corn Stalk Test" was developed to evaluate if growers were using the proper amounts of nitrogen for corn production. This is determined by the amounts of nitrate - nitrogen present in the lower portion of the corn stalk shortly after the plant reaches physiological maturity. Using this test consistently from year to year can be a valuable tool when adjusting N rates. Since the development of this test, nitrogen prices have increased substantially, increasing the need for sound nitrogen management. In addition, nitrogen in ground and surface waters can be a major environmental concern. From both an environmental and an economic perspective, any tool that can help a grower manage nitrogen usage should be seriously considered. SAMPLING GUIDELINES Samples should be collected between 1 and 3 weeks after black layer has formed on 80% of the kernels of most ears. Field test areas should not be larger than 10 acres. Collect 15 stalks and remove an 8" segment between 6" and 14" above the soil. Place in paper bag (not plastic). Refrigerate if delay in shipping is one or more days. Do not freeze. For more information on the "End of Season Corn Stalk Test", please refer to our factsheet #19, available at http://www.algreatlakes.com/PDF/factsheets/ALGLFS19_End_of_Season_Cornstalk_Test.PDF. A&L Great Lakes Laboratories, Inc. 3505 Conestoga Dr. Fort Wayne, IN 46808 phone: (260) 483-4759 e-mail: [log in to unmask] web: www.algreatlakes.com Cover crops are everywhere in Michigan A few phone calls to seed dealers around the state, confirms that farmers are planting significantly more cover crops. Published August 24, 2011 Dale R. Mutch, Michigan State University Extension The use of cover crops in Michigan and the Midwest is growing rapidly. Recently I called several seed dealers across Michigan to ask them about cover crops. Below are some of their statements. In the Thumb region of Michigan, Star of the West said that cover crop use has significantly increased over the last two years. They mentioned that frost seeding red clover into wheat has increased 50 percent. All the pickle ground is being seeded to cereal rye or oilseed radish unless it is going into wheat. No-till corn farmers are putting in cereal rye after corn harvest. Overall, they feel cover crop acreage in the Thumb has increased 25 percent. Cisco Seeds mentioned their cover crop sales have tripled this year and farmer interest is tremendous. They expect to sell two million pounds of cover crop seed this year that will cover 100,000 acres. In the Thumb alone, Cisco sent two additional semi loads of red clover seed this year totaling 90,000 lbs., which would seed 15,000 acres at 6 lbs./A frost seeding rate. Eastern Michigan Grain said that cover crop interest is up 200 percent over last year. Sweeny Seed mentioned a 10 to 15 percent or a 10,000 acre increase this year. A consultant in Indiana told me they were going to aerial seed 30,000 acres this year of mostly annual ryegrass plus crimson clover. If you haven't planned on using cover crops this year, but want to learn more, we will be offering field days, workshops, and, of course, you can use our on-line Cover Crop Selection tool. To see: Copy and paste: http://www.mccc.msu.edu/SelectorTool/2011CCSelectorTool.pdf Updated software for greenhouses: Virtual Grower 3.0 is now available Virtual Grower 3.0 is a great tool for greenhouse operations that are planning on expanding or making structural changes, or even determining energy consumption based on scheduling of your crop. Published August 26, 2011 Jeanne Himmelein, Michigan State University Extension Virtual Grower 3.0<http://www.ars.usda.gov/services/software/download.htm?softwareid=309> is a decision-support tool for greenhouse growers. Users can build a greenhouse with a variety of materials for roofs and sidewalls, design the greenhouse style, schedule temperature set points throughout the year, and predict heating costs for over 500 sites (over 250 new sites for the new version) within the United States. Different heating and scheduling scenarios can be predicted with few inputs. This computer software was developed by Jonathan Frantz and colleagues at the USDA Agricultural Research Service<http://www.ars.usda.gov/main/main.htm>, with help from the American Association of University Professors<http://www.aaup.org/aaup>' research-based information. MSU Department of Horticulture<http://www.hrt.msu.edu/>'s Erik Runkle<http://www.hrt.msu.edu/erik-runkle/> has contributed data that associates with crop timing, temperature, lighting and energy consumption based on heating regimes. This software is designed for individuals that are new to greenhouse production and seasoned operations. The components focus on scheduling, assessing baseline and savings opportunities, grant opportunities, and evaluating the environmental footprint of the operation. Virtual growers can also test your intuition on decisions you have made. Virtual Grower 3.0 is available as a download<http://www.ars.usda.gov/services/software/download.htm?softwareid=309> free of charge onto your PC or Mac computer. Copy and paste the following address in your internet browser: http://www.ars.usda.gov/services/software/download.htm?softwareid=309 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) www.MichiganOrganic.msu.edu<http://www.michiganorganic.msu.edu/> If you would like to access previous postings to the Mich-Organic listserv you can copy and paste the following URL into your browser address bar http://list.msu.edu/archives/mich-organic.html