Crop Protection/Pest Management Report

California Women for Agriculture
Crop Protection/Pest Management Report
January 2010
Sara Savary, Issue Director

Invasive Pests

“New grape pest threatens North Coast (from Western Farm Press)

Since the discovery of the European grapevine moth, Lobesia botrana, last month in Napa County, local agricultural officials have been working with the USDA, the California Department of Food and Agriculture and industry groups to better understand this invasive pest and how best to respond to this latest threat to the state’s grape industry and other fruit producers.

“Our biggest challenge is developing and implementing pest management strategies that will lead to its eradication,” says Greg Clark, Napa County’s Assistant Agricultural Commissioner.

These efforts include the help of the Napa Valley Grape Growers Association, Napa Valley Vintners, Napa Sustainable Wine Growing Group, Napa Valley Vineyard Technical Group and Napa County Farm Bureau.”

“QUARANTINE EXPANDS FOR ASIAN CITRUS PSYLLID
New portions of four counties recently added

SACRAMENTO, November 24, 2009 —  Recent detections of the Asian citrus psyllid in Imperial, San Diego and Los Angeles counties have resulted in the expansion of quarantines. Because the finds occurred close to county lines, there also are implications for Riverside and San Bernardino counties.
The Asian citrus psyllid quarantine has expanded into Riverside County because of three distinct adjoining areas: a roughly five-mile-long arc due north of Valley Center, in San Diego County, where a psyllid was recently detected; all of the Coachella Valley, following a detection in the northwestern corner of Imperial County; and the northwestern corner of Riverside County, following a detection in Pomona, which is in Los Angeles County.
 
The Pomona detection also resulted in portions of west San Bernardino County being placed under quarantine. The Valley Center detection also resulted in an additional 977 square miles of San Diego County under quarantine.”

“Little pests are a big problem for agriculture
Posted: Tuesday, Jul 28th, 2009
BY: John E. Eiskamp

As you may have seen in the news recently, the light brown apple moth has not gone away and, in fact, is here in greater numbers than ever before. Since I am a caneberry (raspberries and blackberries) grower as well as president of the Santa Cruz County Farm Bureau, I have had the opportunity to speak with the press on several occasions regarding recent finds of LBAM in caneberry fields.

In one instance, an organic blackberry field in our valley not only had large numbers of LBAM present, but actual damage to the crop was observed, up to 20 percent. This was the first instance of the invasive species causing economic damage to a food crop, and the media jumped on the news with enthusiasm. I received calls from several television and newspaper reporters who wanted to see the crop devastated by LBAM and in one case, a reporter from a Bay Area TV station left me a voice mail that he was “on my way and must film this blackberry field and can you show it to me?” Fortunately, the affected field was not mine, nor could I lead a herd of reporters to another grower’s field. Most of them seemed disappointed, but settled on interviewing me on one of my ranches where there is no sign of LBAM.

Because we are farming in a quarantined area as a result of LBAM, all agricultural products being shipped out must be inspected by U.S. Department of Agriculture personnel. Because of the large number of individual ranches growing berries in the valley, inspections at each cooler facility take place every 30 days. At this time, fruit from every ranch shipping through that cooler must be inspected. If a single LBAM of any life stage, typically the larva, is found, the ranch indicated is put on hold until a positive identification of the pest can be made.”

So, do you sense a pattern here? What do all these stories have in common? Have you seen the commercials on TV warning of the dangers of invasive pests? The website www.hungrypests.com has a lot of good information for the public on what invasive pests are and why they need to be managed. Seems like new infestation are popping up all over, with new pests and new spots. Are we losing the battle? Maybe, maybe not. Is it time to rethink our reaction to how we deal with these threats? Could be. With all the moving around our society is doing these days it is hard to imagine this problem going away and even harder to imagine it not getting worse. We complain about the public bringing in infested fruit and plant products all the time but in the new situation with the European Grapevine Moth in Napa, it is pretty much guaranteed that a grower brought that in with plant material that was not declared. Many of these new pests are devastating to our crops mainly because they transmit diseases (Vine Mealybug, Citrus Psyllid, Glassywinged Sharpshooter to name a few) and have been moved around the state through agriculture related activities. Many cause issue mainly because they create exporting issue to other countries. Whatever the concern is, these pest are going to continue to one of the issue our industry must stay on top of. Of major concern and most worthy of attention is funding for the various projects and agencies that deal with these pest.

Pesticide Safety News
Updated regulations regarding the notifications of pesticide applications - effective 9/12/09. This action clarifies the notification requirements prior to, and after, a pesticide application, including who is to be notified and the persons responsible for providing such notification; revises the requirements for application-specific information for fieldworkers; and clarifies the specific activities allowed during the restricted entry interval (REI) and the requirements employers must meet in order to send fieldworkers into the field during the REI.. To view complete regulations changes go to:
http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/legbills/rec_adopted/rei/text_final.pdf

Pending Legislation to follow
AB 622, as amended, Swanson. Pesticides: aerial application.
This bill would require, with respect to aerial applications of a pesticide, the observance of a safety zone of no less than 3.3 miles from the aerial application for residential areas, including known sensitive sites, as specified. The bill would exempt from these provisions the State Department of Public Health, local vector control agencies, and mosquito abatement and vector control districts, as provided.

There is expected to be a hearing in January 2010 on the bill.  See attached coalition letter.

SB 759, as amended, Leno. Federal state of emergency: aerial spraying of pesticide: inert ingredients: information.

This bill would, in the event of aerial spraying of a pesticide as a result of a state of emergency declared an emergency exemption from registration pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), or a Federal Domestic Quarantine Order issued by the United States Department of Agriculture, prohibit the use of a pesticide in aerial application within or near residential or sensitive areas sites, as specified, where humans are likely to become exposed to the pesticide unless the manufacturer of the pesticide has previously and voluntarily made the complete ingredient list, including, but not limited to, all inert ingredients,…………

Editorial note: Basically an over reaction to the LBAM spraying in the Santa Cruz/Bay area. No treatment by air in these situations and all ingredients of the product must be made available. This is what happens when you plow forward and not take into consideration the concerns of others. Did we learn a lesson here? Let’s hope so.

Surface and Groundwater issues
(Excerpts from publications)

Groundwater and farm nutrients received the most attention in public meetings held this past winter and spring between the Regional Water Board, agriculture coalitions and public interest groups. With the existing Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program (ILRP) set to expire in 2011, the Regional Board is asking for input from stakeholders on how the next program should look.

In comments sent to the Regional Water Board in mid-2009, watershed coalitions and other agricultural interests suggested using a multifaceted approach to regulate groundwater the Central Valley. The basic principles include:
Reliance on local agencies (irrigation districts, county agencies, etc.) to be responsible for determining the need for groundwater quality protection requirements, using Integrated Regional Groundwater Management Plans, AB1938 or AB3030 plans as the basis;
Relying on a third-party entity (watershed coalition, commodity group, etc.) to develop groundwater quality management plans for areas where problems have been identified. Farmers in those areas would need to adopt practices should crop inputs be the source (fertilizer or pesticides).

Whichever program is ultimately adopted, ample opportunity still exists for public input. The final program goes to the Water Board for a vote in Summer 2011. (for full text of article go to http://www.curesworks.org/WCNWin-Sum09.pdf)

EIR To Examine Alternatives for Regulating Water Quality

Agricultural groups and watershed coalition managers got their first look this summer at what may be the future of groundwater regulations for agriculture in the Central Valley. In mid-September, five alternative approaches for regulating ground and surface water began a six to eight month environmental review process that will put a price tag – for farmers and state regulators alike – on each of the programs. The five alternatives being examined range from slightly more than status quo to comprehensive farm nutrient management plans and extensive groundwater monitoring.

Exactly what will be in the staff recommended program won’t be known until spring 2010. But the five alternatives that now are being examined give an idea of the range of approaches being considered by Regional Water Board staff. The five alternatives were developed by a multi interest “workgroup” made up of local government, industry, agricultural and environmental coalitions from the Central Valley. (for full text and summary of alternatives go to http://www.curesworks.org/WCNGround09.pdf)

Agricultural Council of California
CalChamber
California Agricultural Aircraft Association
California Association of Pest Control Advisers
California Association of Wheat Growers
California Association of Winegrape Growers
California Citrus Mutual
California Cotton Ginners Association
California Cotton Growers Association
California Farm Bureau Federation
California Grain and Feed Association
California Grape and Tree Fruit League
California Pear Growers
California Seed Association
California State Floral Association
California Women for Agriculture
Family Winemakers of California
Nisei Farmers League
Sacramento Valley Landowners’ Association
Western Agricultural Processors Association
Western Growers
Western Pistachio Association
Western Plant Health Association

December 17, 2009

The Honorable Cathleen Galgiani, Chair
Assembly Agriculture Committee
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814

RE: AB 622 (Swanson) – OPPOSED

Dear Assembly Member Galgiani:

We are opposed to AB 622 (Swanson) that would require the aerial application of pesticides to have a minimum three and three tenths mile buffer zone from residential areas, schools, hospitals, day care centers, senior citizen centers, residential care homes and farm labor camps.

We understand the premise for the 3.3-mile buffer zone was based on detection of pheromones after abatement spraying conducted for the light brown apple moth. Abatement is done at high-altitudes to insure as much dispersal as possible; while aerial applications are performed 10 to 20 feet from the top of the crop, with techniques and equipment designed for minimal dispersal. To use an agricultural adage, this is comparing apples and oranges. We believe this comparison is misleading and does not reflect common aerial treatment practices based on laws and regulations that require the safe application of pesticides that prevent pesticide drift or exposure.

The California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) reports that 68,015,168 total acres were treated with pesticides in 2007. Approximately 20% of those were aerial applied. If a 3.3-mile buffer zone were applied, a drastic reduction would occur in the ability of agricultural crop protection tools to be applied in a timely manner. Agricultural commissioners already have existing authority to condition, restrict or eliminate pesticide applications. The current regulatory framework is adequate to protect individuals from pesticide exposure and imposes severe penalties to deal with any situation if pesticides are applied illegally.

California’s aerial applicators are fully licensed by CDPR and receive continuing education to maintain their understanding of current laws and regulations and awareness of application technology and protocols They use the latest technology including Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) software and drift management techniques to prevent exposure to people and sensitive sites.

Aerial applications are often used when it is too wet to get ground equipment into fields and timing is of the essence to prevent disease or pests. If pest and disease problems are prevented or abated at the right time, it prevents the needs for more pesticide use later.

We ask you to vote ‘No’ on AB 622 when it is heard in the Assembly Agriculture Committee on January 6, 2010.

Cc: Members, Assembly Agriculture Committee
The Honorable Sandre Swanson