AgNet DEMO

Author: Robinson

  • Strategies for Sourcing Approved Inputs

    Products approved by the Organic Materials Review Institute will have an OMRI seal on the packaging.

    By Sarah Bostick

    Access to approved inputs is a challenge in states with few certified organic farms. Agricultural supply stores in these states often don’t have enough demand to keep approved products in stock. But with a little creativity, you can get your hands on all the inputs you need.

    WHERE TO LOOK

    Two independent groups determine if an input is approved for use on certified organic farms: The Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI) and Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA). OMRI maintains the largest list, with over 7,500 approved inputs. These inputs include fertilizers, sprays, inoculants, sanitizers, compost, potting mix and more.

    On OMRI’s website (omri.org), you can download and print the annual “OMRI Products List” (currently, 375 pages) for free or purchase a copy.

    OMRI-approved products will have an OMRI seal on the packaging. A product labeled “organic” or “natural” that does not have an OMRI or WSDA seal is not an approved input. Using these products can result in losing your organic certification.

    MANURE AND MANURE-BASED COMPOST

    Manure and compost are common inputs on organic farms but can be complicated to navigate. Before making or purchasing compost or using manure, read these two publications:

    • Tip Sheet: Compost (www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/Compost_FINAL.pdf)
    • Tip Sheet: Manure in Organic Production Systems (www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/Manure%20in%20Organic%20Production%20Systems_FINAL.pdf)

    Manure used on organic farms does not have to come from certified organic livestock. However, if you use manure or compost containing manure from a conventional operation, it is a good idea to send a sample to a laboratory for herbicide testing. Certain persistent pesticides used on pastures and hay fields do not break down in the digestive system of livestock or in well-managed composting systems.

    SEEDS AND PLASTIC MULCH

    Two categories of inputs not found in the “OMRI Products List”are seeds and plastic mulch. Single-use plastic mulch is a synthetic material that is allowed on certified organic farms. Biodegradable plastic mulch, however, is currently not allowed because it does not meet the criteria for use on organic farms. For now, stick to the fully synthetic plastic mulches.

    Certified organic seed is widely available. Here are three seed companies that carry a broad selection: High Mowing Seed, Johnny’s Selected Seeds and Southern Exposure Seed Exchange. For a much longer list, visit ATTRA’s online Directory of Organic Seed Suppliers (attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/organic_seed).

    Certified organic, hybrid seed varieties are widely used by organic farmers. GMO seed, however, is never allowed. Some seed varieties are available with an approved pelleting material. This is typically described in seed catalogs as “available with NOP-compliant pelleting.”

    CONCLUSION

    The first step in sourcing approved inputs is knowing what is approved. If you are unsure, contact your certifier before using a product. Plan ahead and be creative about how you access the inputs you need to successfully manage your certified organic farm.

  • Alabama: A session unlike any other

    Photo credit: © Rex Wholster / Adobe Stock

    Alabama: A session unlike any other

    By Ashley Robinson

    Alabama lawmakers have never seen a legislative session like the one that took place this year. The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic forced lawmakers to end Alabama’s 2020 legislative session early, causing several issues to fall by the wayside.

    Legislators took a nearly two-month break during the COVID-19 outbreak, returing to Montgomery on May 4to pass state budgets and a few other bills before the regular session concluded May 18. Wearing masks and sitting apart, lawmakers gathered without lobbyists in the hallways or members of the public filling the galleries.

    “Once lawmakers came back, the building was not open to the public … which was pretty unusual, especially taking on something as important as the budgets,” says Leigha Cauthen, Alabama Agribusiness Council executive director.

    FUNDING FOR AGRICULTURE
    Due to the shortened timeframe, Education Trust Fund and General Fund budgets and local legislation were lawmakers’ top priorities.

    The General Fund budget, at almost $2.4 billion, will greatly benefit the state’s agriculture industry. Under the proposed plan, the Alabama Department of Agriculture and Industries (ADAI) will receive almost $15 million, including $100,000 in new appropriations for the North Alabama Agriplex, $130,000 for the industrial hemp program and $120,000 allocated to the Farm to School program. In addition, the new Sweet Grown Alabama state agricultural brand received $250,000.

    Sweet Grown Alabama, which launched on March 13, is a non-profit organization that connects farmers in the state to retailers and consumers. Growers can market their produce anywhere in the state. The online database allows consumers to find farmers in their area. Farmers’ profiles include their location, products grown, social media links, website links and how consumers can buy their products.

    In addition, the Soil and Water Conservation Committee will receive $2.9 million, including more than $81,000 in matching funds for the Regional Conservation Partnership Program to increase on-farm irrigation.

    “I think the ADAI was pleased with this year’s funding. At the beginning of the session we were all optimistic about the budgets, but as COVID-19 unfolded, the budgets fell back to the same funding levels as last year,” Cauthen said. “But, some new money made its way to the ag department, so that’s great that those needs were met even as the budget was being scaled back.”

    BILLS LEFT HANGING IN THE BALANCE
    Unfortunately, none of the bills that were of particular interest to Alabama agriculture were passed by the Legislature during the session.

    “We lost a couple of good bills that were left hanging in the balance, but it also kept some bills from passing that could have been detrimental to the agriculture industry,” said Cauthen.

    She expects special sessions later this summer or into the fall to take up additional important issues of the state. But, for the most part, she expects to see the bills she was tracking reintroduced during next year’s session.

    For a complete list of the bills being tracked by the Alabama Agribusiness Council, visit www.alagribusiness.org.

  • UF/IFAS sees success

    Florida House Representative Randy Fine meets with UF/IFAS leaders, including Dean of Extension Nick Place, Director of Governmental Affairs Mary Ann Hooks and Associate Vice President Jeanna Mastrodicasa to discuss budget requests during the 2020 legislative session.

    By Mary Ann Hooks

    After several disappointing budget years, the 2020 legislative session will go on record as one of the most successful for the University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (UF/IFAS). The UF/IFAS priority this year was to increase our base budget. We submitted an appropriation request for a workload increase to make up for losses over recent years and fill critical positions in research and Extension. 

    Budget conference negotiations were the traditional UF/IFAS rollercoaster as we were down, then up, then down and then up in a really big way.

    Negotiations were delayed as the struggle to make sure money was available to offset the expected economic impacts of COVID-19 was added to the other outstanding budget issues. 

    The late nights and lost weekend paid off. At midnight on Friday, March 13, the House offered a total of $2,586,078 for workload and the Senate accepted the offer. On Saturday afternoon, during the final Conference Committee meeting, an additional $1,213,922 was added to workload, meeting our initial request and bringing us a total of $3.8 million.

    In addition, a bill that regulates, conforms and adds new specialty licenses plates and deletes under-performing plates included a Florida 4-H tag. This will provide some additional funding for the 4-H program.

    Also, to our great relief, the House accepted the Senate position to maintain full funding for the quarantine facility that establishes biological controls for invasive species in Fort Pierce and for the statewide Lake Watch program. Both programs had been written out of the House budget bill.

    The Legislature included $300 million in the $93.2 billion budget to provide for the resulting economic losses due to the COVID-19 virus. In addition, given the state’s heavy reliance on tourism, it included $3.9 billion in reserve funding, in expectation of a loss of revenues. At this point, there is no way to know if that will be adequate to make up for losses, even with the addition of federal emergency funds.

    We don’t expect the budget to be finalized until June, as the impacts to the economy are still a moving target. Gov. DeSantis and the Legislature are waiting to see how things play out so state economic and budget experts will have more information to base revenue estimates.

    We are working closely with the governor’s staff to provide information on UF/IFAS statewide work and how through the pandemic, our service continues to support the agriculture and natural resources industry. Budget vetoes are going to be different than they would have been a month ago and are yet to be determined. We don’t know what that will mean to our budget, but what we do know is that everyone will be impacted. 

    These are interesting times indeed.

    Mary Ann Hooks is director of UF/IFAS governmental affairs

  • Florida: Funding and policy progress

    In preparation for the 2020 legislative session, more than 200 Florida Farm Bureau members traveled to Tallahassee in December to advocate on behalf of Farm Bureau’s legislative agenda.

    By Adam Basford

    On March 19, the Florida Legislature wrapped up the 2020 legislative session after a six-day extension caused by a delay in budget negotiations. Clearly, the COVID-19 outbreak has created significant uncertainty about Florida’s economy and there may be a need for the Legislature to meet again to revise the budget based on updated revenue forecasts. However, for now, Farm Bureau has had a successful session both with funding agricultural priorities as well as in the policy arena.

    Over the course of the session, two policy priorities emerged as being vitally important. Because of recent blue-green algae outbreaks and Governor DeSantis’ focus on environmental issues, water quality was a key issue. The governor also sought to fulfill a campaign promise to pass a bill that would ensure that employers were hiring legal workers using the E-Verify system.

    WATER QUALITY

    SB 712 was the comprehensive water quality bill that largely incorporated the recommendations from the governor’s Blue-Green Algae Taskforce. It passed both chambers unanimously and was sponsored by Sen. Debbie Mayfield. The House companion was sponsored by Rep. Bobby Payne and Rep. Blaise Ingoglia.

    The bill transfers the regulation of septic tanks from the Florida Department of Health to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, creates a water-quality grant program to assist in the transition from septic tanks to central sewer and requires water management districts to update stormwater permit requirements. It also reinforces the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services’ (FDACS) authority to conduct best management practices (BMPs) implementation verification.

    For Farm Bureau, the most important aspects of the bill add credibility to the agricultural BMP program through the two-year verification process and support additional research by FDACS and the University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences to develop new BMPs.

    SB 712 passed by unanimous votes in both chambers and received broad, bipartisan praise.

    “It is a fantastic beginning and a giant step forward for our state, for our environment, for our water quality,” said Rep. Toby Overdorf, a republican from Palm City.

    “This bill actually advances water quality in Florida in a real, substantive way,” said Rep. Margaret Good, a democrat from Sarasota.

    “This is going to be a piece of legislation that we’re going to talk about decades from now as the starting point where we shifted gears and proved to people that we, as a state, are prepared to take on these big environmental issues,” said Rep. Ingoglia, a republican from Spring Hill. “Make no mistake about it, this is an historic piece of legislation.”

    RIGHTS OF NATURE

    Recently, activist groups around the state have been pushing petitions for so called “rights of nature” county charter amendments. These amendments would grant legal rights to specific rivers, water bodies and other natural features. These amendments would give citizens a broad standing to sue governments or businesses who “interfere or infringe” on those rights. The organization leading this charge is the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, which so far has proposals in Alachua, Brevard, Lee, Orange and Osceola counties.

    Rep. Ingoglia and Sen. Ben Albritton sponsored bills that contained language ultimately passed in SB 712 that preempts these types of initiatives. This provision will prevent frivolous lawsuits that could harm businesses and hamper the ability of local governments to issue permits.

    E-VERIFY

    The E-Verify bill (SB 664) sponsored by Sen. Tom Lee passed both chambers and is headed to the governor’s desk. However, the Senate bill was amended during the last days of session by the House and was passed including the provisions in HB 1265 by Rep. Cord Byrd.

    Throughout the session, the chambers took different approaches to the issue. Generally, the Senate’s approach was to mandate the use of E-Verify for both public and private employers with certain exemptions for private employers. The House approach allowed all private employers to verify the employment eligibility of their workers by using E-Verify or by utilizing the federal I-9 verification process.

    Farm Bureau believes that any immigration legislation should be done at the federal level. But during the session, we strongly preferred the House position because it allows employers to continue using the federally authorized system and because it does not create an additional regulatory burden.

    FDACS BUDGET

    The FDACS budget ended up much better than where it started. The Fresh from Florida program will be fully funded at $5.9 million. The initial House proposal included a $3.7 million cut. The Rural and Family Lands Protection Program will receive $8.7 million this year after being zeroed out in 2019. The Office of Agricultural Water Policy also received funding for eight additional staff that will be integral to implementing provisions of SB 712 that call for BMP verifications.

    SUCCESSFUL SESSION

    At the close of the 2020 session, it was clear that it was a successful one for Florida Farm Bureau and its partners in the agricultural community. Successful outcomes for top priorities this year were essential, and Farm Bureau appreciates its members and the Legislature for their hard work.

    Adam Basford is director of state legislative affairs for Florida Farm Bureau Federation.

  • Georgia: Ag bills still in play when session paused

    Georgia State Capitol Building in Atlanta, Georgia, USA. Photo credit: © f11photo / Adobe Stock

    By Will Bentley

    It’s a surreal moment in Georgia politics as two years of policy work hangs in the balance after lawmakers pressed the pause button on the 2020 legislative session due to the coronavirus pandemic. Before turning our full attention to working with state and federal leaders to navigate through the heath crisis, the Georgia Agribusiness Council (GAC) was actively engaged with legislators. Several bills of importance were still in play when things came to a halt.

    Much of the early talk in the Capitol centered on Georgia’s budget as Gov. Brian Kemp called for across-the-board cuts to government agencies and programs. Debate was intense behind the scenes as everyone fought for their piece of the budget pie. Led by Chairman Terry England in the House and the late Senator Jack Hill in the Senate, Georgia agriculture fared relatively well. We were pleased to see many areas of importance, such as the department of ag and University of Georgia Extension specialists, saved from the deep cuts that first seemed imminent at the beginning of the session.

    Many of the budget discussions are now irrelevant with lawmakers presented with a completely different scenario for budgeting for the 2021 fiscal year after a shutdown of the state and national economies.

    RIGHT TO FARM ACT
    Georgia Agribusiness Council’s Jake Tench and Will Bentley present Gov. Brian Kemp with a pair of Georgia-grown Wrangler jeans. Also pictured are Rep. Gerald Greene and House Ag Chairman Tom McCall.

    After flying through the Georgia House of Representatives during the 2019 session, the Georgia Right to Farm Act (HB 545) remained tabled in the Senate as lawmakers continued to be badgered with misinformation from several environmental activist groups. The Right to Farm Act would provide added protections for Georgia’s farmers against frivolous “nuisance” lawsuits and would provide these protections evenly across all segments of agriculture, including fruits and vegetables.

    This bill is vitally important to close loopholes in our current law and is supported by Gov. Kemp and leaders from both the House and Senate. If and when lawmakers resume the 2020 session, the final vote will be extremely close.

    DISASTER PAYMENTS AND TAXES

    HB 105 by Rep. Sam Watson, a South Georgia produce and cattle farmer, would exempt Hurricane Michael disaster payments from state income taxes. The bill passed through the House in 2019 and passed through the Senate shortly before crossover day. The main sections of the bill exempt payments from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) directly related to Hurricane Michael from state income taxes.

    However, lawmakers in the Senate used the bill as a vehicle and attached additional language that deals with the taxation of ride share services in Georgia. While we often use Uber and other ride-sharing platforms to get around Atlanta during the legislative session, we focused our support on the portions of the bill that will have real impacts on agribusiness in Georgia. This bill moved far enough prior to the shutdown to make its way to the governor’s desk for final signature.

    HEMP LEGISLATION

    Georgia’s hemp program was a hot topic all year and lived up to the hype during the session. We worked to ensure loopholes in Georgia’s laws were removed and also worked to secure much needed funding for the program to be properly administered. This legislation primarily focuses on five key changes to last year’s legislation that was signed into law. These changes include:

    1. Cleaning up the language within the bill to include and align with the rules and regulations that were released by USDA last year.
    2. Allowing colleges and universities within the state to do on-farm research and to have a contractual agreement with third parties for this research.
    3. Adding language to allow greenhouse growers to sell plants to other growers and to also allow for growers to sell to processors in other states that have a USDA-approved plan.
    4. Increasing processor permit fees to $25,000 for the first calendar year and a $50,000 permit fee for renewal every year thereafter. This aims to make the regulatory program self-sustainable.
    5. Codifing transportation requirements to call for documentation of the load.

    The department of ag has already begun working with hemp growers and processors, and we are excited to see if this new crop option will provide a boost to agribusiness in the state like it has been touted to do.

    TAX EXEMPTIONS FOR FOOD BANKS

    A bill by Rep. Houston Gaines that now has added significance is HB 882, which would extend tax exemptions for food banks. This bill would eliminate the sunset period for the exemption from state and certain local sales taxes for the sale of food to qualified food banks. It would also expand the exemption for the use of food donated to qualified nonprofit agencies to include disaster relief. With food banks playing a large role in the coronavirus relief efforts, we hope that this bill will be considered in the Senate as soon as lawmakers return to conclude the session.

    AG STRUCTURE EXEMPTIONS

    HB 690, by Rep. James Burchett, passed the House with a vote of 169-1. This bill aims to exempt agribusinesses from having to pay full permit and inspection fees on agriculture buildings and structures. While the bill will still require these structures to get inspected and permitted, the fees for these services will be capped at $500.

    The bill will only apply to those producers who qualify for a GATE (Georgia Agriculture Tax Exemption) card through the Georgia Department of Agriculture. The structures that qualify for this legislation must be used directly for the commercial production or processing of agriculture commodities and will also include farm labor camps and housing for migrant workers.

    Dozens of other bills that have impacts on Georgia’s specialty crop industry have seen action throughout the session. We have no way of knowing when lawmakers will return to complete the 2020 legislative session, but GAC will be there when they do. We will continue to advocate relentlessly for the best interests and priorities of Georgia agriculture.

    Will Bentley is president of the Georgia Agribusiness Council.

  • Meeting meat demand with plant proteins

    By Jaya Joshi

    As the world population keeps growing, so does the pressure to feed everyone without increasing carbon footprints. By 2050, the world population is predicted to increase to 9 billion people, and the demand for meat is expected to rise by 73 percent. Meeting this demand would require an additional 160 million tons of meat per year. 

    Are we ready to keep up with the demand? No! For more meat, we need more land, water and processing plants. This would result in less land for crop production, more methane production from livestock, more demand for animal feed and more health concerns. Augmenting western diets with sustainable protein sources from plants is a good option to reduce meat demand and mitigate climate change.

    There is rising interest in plant-based protein among consumers who want to eat less meat and dairy and more vegetables and fruits without compromising their protein intake. The global plant-based protein market is growing rapidly. With a projected compound annual growth rate of 15 percent for 2020–2024, this industry is expected to be worth $24 billion by 2024.

    Most plant proteins come from fat- and protein-rich seeds of legumes such as soybeans, peas and many other bean varieties.

    SOY, PEA AND POTATO

    Soy protein has captured a large share of the global plant-based protein market in a very short time. Soy protein is on a par with animal protein in terms of quality and may have health benefits that include reducing cholesterol levels and improving bone mineral density. Examples of successful soy protein meat-substitute products are the burgers and meatballs from ImpossibleTM Foods, now widely available.

    Although soy is the best-known meat alternative, peas do everything that soy, wheat and corn don’t. Pea is considered the most sustainable source of plant protein, and its texturing properties and high digestibility make it a popular additive in the “mock-meat” industry. Beyond Meat® is an example of pea-based protein.

    Pea protein has many other applications but is perhaps gaining greatest acceptance as a dairy replacement. One such example is Ripple® milk, which is a good source of essential amino acids and calcium. In 2018, DuPont Nutrition & Health released TRUPRO TM 2000 pea protein for beverages, made from North American yellow peas.

    Potato is another vegetable that has potential in the plant-based protein market. The contents of essential amino acids such as methionine and lysine are lower in most plant proteins than in animal proteins, but potato protein is an exception. The essential amino acid content of potato protein is comparable to both the milk protein casein and egg protein.

    OTHER OPTIONS

    Soy, pea and potato proteins are just the beginning. There are many other animal-protein alternatives breaking into the market, including peanuts, lupin beans, jackfruit and oilseeds, as well as non-plant sources like mushrooms and algae.

    As it ranks second in the United States for vegetable and fruit production, Florida has an edge in growing for the plant-based protein market. Florida farmers already grow potatoes, snap beans and peanuts. Given the fact that Florida is one of the only states that can grow produce year-around, plant-based protein farming could have a bright future in Florida.

    DEMAND AND INNOVATION

    Despite the recent surge in demand, plant-based proteins are still a niche market rather than a staple in American diets due to their perceived lack of variety, quality, taste and texture. But this is changing fast. A burst of innovation is emerging, bolstered by collaboration between agriculture and the exciting new field of synthetic biology.

    Synthetic biology seeks to build upon and reimagine nature’s designs. Scientists are beginning to understand the factors behind meat products’ textures and flavors, and synthetic biologists can incorporate these qualities when designing new protein products. Plant-protein products are now available that are a match for their animal protein counterparts. For example, the famous plant-based ImpossibleTM burger contains engineered heme, a protein originally derived from soy plant roots that gives the burger its meat-like flavor, color and texture.

    There is even more to learn from plants: Recently, the U.S. Department of Agriculture launched an initiative called MP3 (“more proteins, more peas, more profits”) to understand the genetics of pea protein’s digestibility and desirable texture. In the future, combining convent­ional breeding with genome editing and synthetic biology could further strengthen the ability to produce high-quality, appealing plant proteins economically and sustainably.

    The coming years are likely to see a substantial market shift toward plant protein-based meat and dairy substitutes. The plant-based protein initiative has gained the attention of major players such as the World Wide Fund for Nature, the Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition and the confectionery manufacturer Hershey, who have started the Protein Challenge 2040 project. The goals of the project are to promote plant-based protein consumption, scale up sustainable feed and reduce protein waste. Future partnerships between growers, scientists, govern­ments, and the private sector have the potential to ramp up plant-protein production to address the surging demand of proteins in an eco-friendly way.

  • Hemp interest still strong in the Southeast

    By Clint Thompson

    The Southeast is primed to ramp up its hemp production. Alabama is ready for its second year of production, while Georgia and Florida are just getting started.

    If the number of grower applications is any indication, interest in hemp is extremely high in all three states.

    Hemp drew 166 grower applicants and eight applications for processor permits in Georgia, according to Mike Evans, director of plant industries at the Georgia Department of Agriculture, who oversees the hemp program.

    “There’s just so much interest in hemp, not only in the state but nationwide. You have this interest, but if you followed the news last year, you saw in Tennessee and some of the other states where growers were having trouble, once the crop was harvested, to try to find a producer. There’s been some change in prices,” says Evans. “I was expecting to get a couple of hundred applications. We’re well on our way to getting to that number.”

    He says any permits or licenses issued will expire at the end of the year and must be renewed.

    The number of Florida farmers interested in producing hemp exceeded Georgia’s.

    According to Jeff Greene, director of business development for the Florida Hemp Council, over 1,500 farmers submitted their names and email addresses to the Florida Department of Agriculture to express their interest in growing the crop. “I know that we’ve got in the Florida Hemp Council over 800 that have expressed interest,” says Greene.

    And it’s not just a single sector that has expressed interest in the Sunshine State.

    “I think we’re looking at it from all different levels. We’ve got tomato farmers in Homestead, Florida. The sugar industry is looking at it. The citrus industry is looking at it. The tree farmers up in the Panhandle are looking at it. Everybody’s looking at it,” Greene says.

    CORONAVIRUS IMPACTS

    In Alabama, Extension specialist Katelyn Kesheimer says there were 150 licensed growers with 10,000 acres approved last year, though only about half were farmed.

    She estimates that there are approximately 500 official licensed growers in the state this year. However, because the economy has crashed amidst rising unemployment due to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, the market may not be as enticing as it once was.

    “My prediction is a lot of people who maybe were going to grow it, might just eat the license fee and not grow it,” says Kesheimer. “There’s so much uncertainty in the economy right now. Folks that aren’t making money and don’t have jobs aren’t going to spend money on CBD oil products. They’re going to spend it on actual necessities.”

    Many potential hemp farmers filled out applications long before COVID-19 became a global problem. Greene believes the current crisis will impact hemp production in the Southeast.

    “I think it’ll do more damage to the folks that may be in the business for six months to a year, people that may have invested a large amount of money and were looking to recoup their investment over the next six months. I think those that are just putting their money for the first time over the next six months will potentially hit the right timeline,” Greene says. “I think that’s one of the benefits potentially of COVID-19 is if this stimulus package is rolled down to the hemp industry, it could be a boon to kick an industry off. A tremendous amount of shovel-ready projects could be boosted by the stimulus package.”

    RULES AND FEES

    Each state has specific rules and regulations for producing hemp.

    Evans says the Georgia Hemp Farming Act mandates that a Georgia producer can only sell to a Georgia processor. Out-of-state sales are not permitted.

    “Growers are only allowed to sell to processors,” says Evans. “There’s no grower-to-grower sales.”

    The license fee for growers is $50 per acre and is capped at $5,000. The cost is $25,000 for a processor’s permit.

    Unlike in Georgia, the Florida Department of Agriculture does not require a licensing fee for farmers in Florida to produce hemp. However, a background check is required.

    “As long as you have not been convicted of a drug-related crime in the last 10 years, you are approved to grow hemp in Florida,” Greene says.

    In Alabama, it costs $1,000 to grow hemp and $2,000 to process it. Kesheimer emphasizes the fees are for each hemp site.

    “If you have multiple farms that are separated by a substantial distance, you have to submit multiple applications and pay $1,000 per site,” Kesheimer says. “If you’re a processor and you have multiple processing handling sites, then you have to pay that fee multiple times.”

    Background checks are required, as well as GPS coordinates for where the hemp will be produced.

  • Managing Diamondback Moth Larvae

    Diamondback moth larvae

    By Hugh Smith

    Diamondback moth (Plutella xylostella) larvae only feed on plants in the crucifer family, including cabbage, broccoli, kale, mustards, radish, turnips, watercress and Brussels sprouts.

    Diamondback moth adult

    Diamondback moth larvae are small green caterpillars with a pair of prolegs on their posterior end that form a V shape. This helps distinguish them from other caterpillars commonly found attacking crucifers, including imported cabbage worm and cabbage looper. It takes about four weeks from egg to emergence of adult from the pupa for this pest.

    In Florida, diamondback moth is primarily a problem in green cabbage and Napa cabbage. Young diamondback moth larvae feed on the surface of the leaf, producing “windowpane” type damage. There are many weeds in Florida in the crucifer family that serve as hosts for diamondback moth, including yellow rocket, shepherd’s purse, pepperweed and wild radish.

    There are at least three types of parasitic wasp in Florida that attack either the larval or pupal stage of diamondback moth. Early-season reliance on Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) products does not interfere with the activity of these natural enemies and can offset the severity of infestations.

    Diamondback moth develops resistance to insecticides easily, particularly pyrethroids. Rotation of insecticide modes of action and avoidance of pyrethroids are important for managing diamondback moth. Resistance develops when successive generations of diamondback moth are treated with the same modes of action. A way to avoid or delay the development of resistance in diamondback moth is to group insecticides by mode of action in time intervals that correspond to the 30-day life cycle of the pest.

    EFFICACIOUS INSECTICIDES

    Table 1 lists some of the insecticides that demonstrated efficacy against diamondback moth collected from Florida cabbage fields in the spring of 2019. The mode of action number for each group is indicated in the central column. Insecticides with the same mode of action group can be applied more than once within a 30-day treatment interval, which starts when the first application of a given mode of action is made. Distinct modes of action should be used for each 30-day interval once insecticide applications are initiated.

    The diamide insecticides (mode of action group 28) are important for management of diamondback moth larvae. If cabbage is being planted when diamondback moth populations are known to be present, the grower should consider a transplant tray treatment of Verimark (cyantraniliprole) or an at-plant treatment of Verimark or Coragen (chlorantraniliprole). At-plant treatments in cabbage would typically be applied with a water cart.

    Verimark and Coragen can also be applied near the root zone via shank injection. However, this is not optimal because these two insecticides are not highly mobile in the soil. Application via drip tape is another option, but the use of drip tape in cabbage is not common.

    Diamondback moth damage on cabbage

    Diamide insecticides that can be applied to the foliage are Coragen, Exirel and Harvanta 50SL (cyclaniliprole). The active ingredient in Exirel is cyantraniliprole, the same as in Verimark, which can only be applied via transplant tray or in the soil. Consult the insecticide labels for specific rates and instructions and remember applications of diamides should be confined to a 30-day interval, after which distinct modes of action should be used.

    Bt remains a useful tool for controlling young diamondback moth larvae. It is advised that application of products with the aizawai strain of Bt (Agree WG or XenTari DF) be alternated with products formulated with the kurstaki strain of Bt (Biobit HP, Crymax WDG, DiPel DF or Javelin WG).

    Other insecticides that have proven effective against diamondback moth larvae in Florida include Radiant (spinetoram, mode of action group 5), Proclaim (emamectin benzoate, mode of action group 6, a restricted-use insecticide), Torac (tolfenpyrad, mode of action group 21A) and Avaunt (indoxacarb, mode of action group 22A).

    Florida diamondback moth populations tested in 2019 were not very susceptible to pyrethroids (mode of action group 3A) or Lannate (methomyl, mode of action group 1A).

    MORE INFORMATION

    For a fuller list of insecticides registered for management of caterpillars in brassicas, see the 2019–2020 Vegetable Production Handbook of Florida. For additional information on diamondback moth, including images and links to help distinguish it from imported cabbage worm and cabbage looper, visit http://entnemdept.ufl.edu/creatures/veg/leaf/diamondback_moth.htm.

  • Keeping Spotted-Wing Drosophila Under Control

    Figure 1. Male and female spotted-wing drosophila

    By Ashfaq Sial

    Since its first detection in 2008, spotted-wing drosophila (SWD) has emerged as a devastating pest of berry and cherry crops throughout the United States.

    IDENTIFICATION AND DEVELOPMENT

    Male SWD have dark spots on the outer margins of their wings. Female SWD have saw-like ovipositors used to cut the skin of ripe or ripening fruit and deposit eggs inside the fruit (Figure 1).

    Figure 2. Spotted-wing drosophila damage progression in blueberry

    Larvae feed inside the berries and develop through three stages within the fruit, causing it to degrade (Figure 2). Larger larvae are visible to the naked eye, and if they are detected in the fruit, distributors may reject contaminated loads of fruit. SWD injury also increases the risk of damage by other pests and fungal infections.

    In regions with mild winter climates (e.g., Georgia, Florida and California), SWD adults can be captured in traps year-round and can infest ripe fruit. Females lay over 300 eggs that develop to adult flies in eight to 10 days during the growing season, completing several generations per year (Figure 3). High populations build up over a short period of time. A wide host range, fast generation time, ability to lay eggs directly into the fruit, and larvae being sheltered from insecticide applications while feeding inside the fruit make this pest a challenge to manage.

    Figure 3. Spotted-wing drosophila life cycle
    CONTROL COMPONENTS

    A multi-regional team of researchers I lead has investigated behavioral, cultural, biological and chemical strategies to effectively control SWD. This team was funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture National Institute of Food and Agriculture through the Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative (Project # 2015-51300-24154 and 2018-51300-28434). Based on the team’s findings, SWD control programs should consist of three major components: 1) monitoring and identification, 2) preventative tactics such as exclusion, sanitation, frequent harvest intervals, pruning, mulching and resistant varieties and 3) curative tactics such as the judicious use of insecticides.

    While a number of insecticides provide good SWD control in conventional production systems, organic management of SWD is really challenging. However, the research team developed a list of National Organic Program-approved insecticides that can be used to control SWD. Although insecticides are typically needed to maintain fruit quality on commercial farms, organic growers should integrate cultural, physical, behavioral and biological tactics into their SWD management programs as much as possible to help ensure effective control and prevent insecticide resistance development.

    10 TIPS

    Based on research findings, implementation of the following strategies is recommended to effectively control SWD and protect fruit.

    1. Planting regionally appropriate early-ripening varieties and varieties with thicker-skinned fruit can help decrease the chances of SWD infestation.
    2. SWD adults are very sensitive to desiccation (drying out) and do not perform well at high temperatures and low humidity. Heavy pruning of blueberries will allow more light to penetrate through the canopy, which may lower humidity and increase temperature leading to less SWD infestation.
    3. SWD larvae often emerge from fruit to pupate in a suitable protected place, usually under the soil surface. Using black plastic weed mat as mulch on the ground provides an effective barrier that prevents larvae from pupating underneath the soil surface, reducing SWD survival in the field.
    4. Physically excluding SWD from the crop is very effective in preventing SWD infestation. Timely installation of insect netting to high tunnel infrastructure (side walls and ends of tunnels) provides a physical barrier to SWD.
    5. Over-ripe and damaged fruit act as a reservoir for SWD and other pests in the field. Do not leave waste piles of fruit in the open. They should be bagged, burned or frozen. If bagging the fruit, use a clear trash bag and leave it in the sun for at least 48 hours to kill the larvae.
    6. SWD has a broad host range and will infest other non-crop plants, especially those that produce small fruits. A list of plants that can serve as SWD hosts is available at https://bit.ly/2JeVDwd. If these alternate plant hosts are present on the edge of the field, removing them could decrease the onset and severity of the SWD infestation.
    7. Ripe berries serve as a strong attractant for SWD. Frequent harvesting of the ripe fruit will decrease risk of SWD infestation in the fruit.
    8. Once SWD is detected in traps, insecticide applications need to be made to protect fruit from SWD infestation. Conventional management programs rely on the frequent use of pyrethroid, spinosyn, organophosphate, carbamate or diamide insecticides. Of these chemical classes, only the spinosyn insecticide spinosad is approved for use in organic systems. This means that other non-chemical control measures must be implemented to control SWD in organic berries. Among the organic insecticides, Entrust (spinosad) is the most effective but must be rotated with other insecticides to decrease resistance development and meet current label requirements. Products that can be used in a rotation program with Entrust include Pyganic, Grandevo, Venerate and Azera. Agricultural sanitizers such as Jet-Ag and OxiDate 2.0 used in tank-mix or rotation with insecticides also show some promise for use in organic integrated pest management programs.
    9. Spray coverage and timing of applications are critical to achieving good control. Sprayers should be calibrated at least annually, and appropriate spray volumes used to achieve excellent coverage. Initial research suggests that SWD are more active in the field during cooler parts of the day, in the morning and at dusk. Targeting sprays during these times may increase efficacy. When bees are present in the crop, avoid insecticide applications. If control is needed, use insecticides less toxic to bees and do not spray when they are active.
    10. After harvest, cool fruit as soon as possible to maintain quality. Cooling the fruit to 35°F for three days has been shown to kill SWD larvae. If fruit is sold directly to consumers, advise them to keep it in the refrigerator. Freezing the fruit will kill eggs and larvae of SWD.
    SUMMARY POINTS

    In a nutshell, controlling SWD requires a rigorous, persistent and diverse management plan. Using as many control techniques as possible will help to reduce SWD infestation. Continue to evaluate your management program by monitoring SWD populations. Sample ripe and ripening fruit regularly to determine whether your management program is working and respond in a timely manner if needed. Always stay informed of your regional SWD pressure and new management techniques by contacting your local research and Extension personnel and utilizing the resources recommended by them.

  • Cover Crops for Summer Nematode Management

    Figure 1. Roots of blue lupin (left) and sunn hemp (right) are infected with Meloidgyne arenaria root-knot nematode and stained with acid fuchsin. Nematode galls and egg masses are visible on blue lupin, indicating its susceptibility to the nematode. In contrast, sunn hemp-infected roots are gall-free with a few egg masses, suggesting that it is a poor host for M. arenaria.

    By Abolfazl Hajihassani and Josiah Marquez

    Multiple cover crops are excellent candidates for vegetable growing systems in the southern United States due to their ability to fix nitrogen, build and maintain soil organic matter, and suppress soilborne pathogens, nematodes and weeds. In addition, cover crops can be a valuable strategy for improving microbial diversity and soil health when properly implemented.

    There is plenty of evidence in scientific literature to support positive effects of certain cover crops in management of plant-parasitic nematodes. The key to success is understanding the factors that drive variation. Though suppressive cover crops will not eliminate nematodes from soil, they may reduce their population densities enough to allow proper production of susceptible vegetable crops in infested fields.

    In Georgia, multiple root-knot nematodes (Meloidogyne spp.) are widely dispersed in the southern part of the state where they cause severe yield losses particularly in cucurbits, eggplant, tomato and pepper. During a survey in 2018 for nematodes in commercial vegetable-growing regions in southern Georgia, root-knot nematodes were found in approximately 67 percent of fields.

    In the Southeast, chemical control is the most predominant approach for managing Meloidogyne spp. in intensive cultivation systems of vegetables.

    However, certain summer cover crops, including sunn hemp (Crotalaria juncea), sorghum-sudangrass (Sorghum bicolor x S. sudanense) and velvetbean (Mucuna pruriens) have been implicated in reducing population densities of root-knot nematodes in soil. In Georgia, despite long growing seasons, the practice of growing two to three crops on the same piece of land often leaves a narrow window for the use of cover crops.

    COVER CROP CULTIVAR CONSIDERATIONS

    Many summer cover crops are susceptible to nematodes, resulting in an undesired population increase in soil during the growth of crops. To avoid this, cover crop species or cultivars that are poor hosts (resistant) to nematodes should be recognized.

    In an attempt to find alternatives for control of root-knot nematodes in vegetable production systems, a series of greenhouse experiments was conducted in 2019 at the University of Georgia Tifton campus. The goal was to identify cover crop species/cultivars with potential to prevent the reproduction of M. javanica, M. incognita and M. arenaria. The cover crop susceptibility/resistance was characterized by evaluating root galling and egg-mass index.

    Results exhibited that different cover crops respond differently to infection by root-knot nematodes. For example, certain nematode-infected cover crops produce both galls and egg masses on roots, whereas others may only induce either galls or egg masses (Figure 1). M. javanica, M. incognita and M. arenaria aggressively reproduced on blue lupine (Lupinus perennis), hairy vetch (Vicia villosa) and cowpea (Vigna unguiculata). These plants were highly susceptible to these nematode species.

    Cover crops that were highly resistant across all three Meloidogyne species include velvetbean, marigold (Tagetes sp.) and sesame (Sesamum indicum). Resistance to parasitic nematodes is characterized as the ability of a plant species to prevent root-knot nematode development or reproduction.

    The reproduction of these nematode species on sorghum-sudangrass and sunn hemp varied from susceptible (good host) to highly resistant (nonhost) plants. For example, an unspecified cultivar of sunn hemp was susceptible to M. arenaria and resistant to both M. javanica and M. incognita.

    KEY POINTS

    In summary, proper selection of a cover crop plays a key role in control of root-knot nematodes. It is important to note that a cover crop species may not provide resistance to all species of root-knot nematodes. In addition, all cultivars of the same cover crop may not create equal levels of nematode control.

    Figure 2. University of Georgia researchers are studying the effects of sunn hemp and tillage practices on soilborne diseases, nematodes and weeds. Sunn hemp is harvested and chopped followed by tilling the residue into the soil.

    Special attention to the presence of other plant-parasitic nematodes in soil is also necessary when planting a cover crop. Past research has suggested that Meloidogyne-resistant cover crops may support the reproduction of other nematode types in the soil. If vegetable growers think they are having issues with nematodes, soil samples can be analyzed at nematode diagnostic services to determine the types/species of nematodes and their population density for proper selection and management of cover crops to meet goals.

    Other key factors to get the optimal benefits of cover crops are planting time, seeding rates and termination (mowing) times. Currently, field research (Figure 2) is being conducted in southern Georgia to determine the effect of spring and summer planting of sunn hemp for optimal biomass production and its influence on nematodes, weeds and soilborne diseases. The goal is to examine the effects of cover crops alone or in combination with tillage practice or chemical control approaches for effective management of plant-parasitic nematodes.