- Author: Ben Faber
Earthworms are commonly associated with “healthy” soils and in many cases they are good indicators. See a previous blog: http://ucanr.edu/blogs/blogcore/postdetail.cfm?postnum=23945
In a recent blog, Michigan State University is telling a different story: http://msue.anr.msu.edu/news/the_dirt_about_earthworms
The popular view of earthworms – beneficial creatures that aerate the soil, feed robins and make good fishing bait – may be true in our gardens and tilled farm fields, but in forests it is a different matter.
Earthworms are not native to Michigan and the Great Lakes region, at least not since before glaciers covered the region; they were brought here during European settlement in the 1800s or possibly earlier. Plants, wildlife and forests evolved without any of these creatures around. They are now an invasive species that harms forests.
In gardens and agricultural fields, earthworms help improved soil structure and fertility, but in forests their effects are much different. Hardwood forests without earthworms have a thick layer of slowly decomposing leaves, or “duff” that promotes a rich community of wildflowers, tree seedlings and small animals. Earthworms change that environment dramatically by essentially consuming the duff, thereby destroying habitat and reducing fertility. In contrast to their effect in gardens, earthworms cause forest soils to become more compacted. As a result of habitat loss, fertility declines and soil compaction, these forests may be less productive and have poorer new tree regeneration in the long run.
If that wasn't bad enough, research shows that the combination of excessive browsing by deer (another serious threat to Michigan forests) and high earthworm populations in an area can have a worse effect than either one alone. Also, other invasive species, such as buckthorn, may have an easier time getting established in earthworm-infested areas. Without a diverse forest floor and new seedlings, the long term health of woodlands is threatened.
The connection between climate change and earthworms is complex. A warmer climate and longer growing season may hasten earthworm migration to previously worm-free forests. Introduction of earthworms make them more vulnerable to other climate-related stresses, such as more frequent and longer droughts. Although earthworms may reduce the amount of carbon entering the atmosphere through their soil action, on balance these creatures are a bad deal for northern forests.
Earthworm populations are not the same throughout Michigan forests – some areas have dense populations, others have few or none. They get from place to place very slowly. People, however, can transport them much more quickly on muddy tires, soil moved from place to place, and discarded fishing bait. There is no way to eliminate earthworms once they become established in woodlands.
In California, we have some native species of earthworms, but in many cases, non-native introduced species have come to dominate. The predominant native species belong to the Argilophilus and Diplocardia while many of the non-native are of European in origin in the Lumbricidae family. Many of these non-natives were probably introduced by settlers bringing plants from home, which had soil containing the worms. A survey of California earthworms by the US Forest Service can be found at:
https://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr142/psw_gtr142.pdf
This is a wonderful description of earthworm biology and their occurrence in the California landscape.
- Author: Ben Faber
So, I got the question of what a carton of ‘Meyer' lemons weighs
Because different types of fruit are different sized, but usually the container in which it is sold stays the same, the product is going to have a different weight for the same volume. Big fruited pummelos fit fewer fruit and weigh less in a given volume than little kumquats will. However, some varieties are also sold by the weight. California ‘Valencia' oranges for some reason used to weigh 37.5 pounds per carton until 2010 when it was restandardized to 40 pounds. That kind of makes sense.
A local tangerine packer/grower says that they have always packed into half-bushel “cartons” which are 38-pound cartons. More and more the “Cuties” and “Halos” go into 5-pound equivalent cartons.
A California carton is different from a Florida carton which is 4/5 of a bushel box or a ½ field box. There a field box is 1 3/5 bushel or a 2-compartment open-top wooden container equivalent to 90 pounds of oranges or 85 pounds grapefruit or 95 pounds tangerines.
From Google:
A bushel (abbreviation: bsh. or bu.) is an imperial and US customary unit of weight based upon an earlier measure of dry capacity. The old bushel was equal to 2 kennings , 4 pecks or 8 gallons.
The name comes from the Old French boissiel and buissiel, meaning "little box". It may further derive from Old French boise, meaning "little butt".[
The butt was a measure of liquid volume equaling two hogsheads. This equated to 108 imperial gallons (490 l) for ale or 126 imperial gallons (570 l) for wine (also known as a pipe), although the Oxford English Dictionary notes that "these standards were not always precisely adhered to".[1][2]
The butt is one in a series of English wine cask units, being half of a tun.
The tun (Old English: tunne, Latin: tunellus, Middle Latin: tunna) is an English unit of liquid volume (not weight), used for measuring wine,[1] oil or honey. Typically, a large vat or vessel, most often holding 252 wine gallons, but occasionally other sizes (e.g. 256, 240 and 208 gallons), was also used.
So that's what a carton of ‘Meyer' lemons weighs.
Avocados are usually packed into lugs which weigh 25 pounds and can hold a variety of different sized fruit, but they all fit into the same sized carton.
- Author: Ben Faber
7th VENTURA COUNTY SPRAY SAFE EVENT
MARCH 20, 2018
VENTURA COUNTY FAIRGROUNDS
I. Registration (7:30–8:30 a.m.)
II. Opening Session (8:30–8:55 a.m.)
1. Welcoming Remarks and Introductions — Brian Benchwick, Chairman, Ventura County Spray Safe Planning Committee
2. Ventura County Spray Safe Overview — John Krist, Chief Executive Officer, Farm Bureau of Ventura County
3. The Importance and Value of Compliance — Eric Lauritzen, Policy Advisor, California Department of Pesticide Regulation
III. Morning Speakers (8:55–10:10 a.m.)
- How Water Quality Regulations Address Pesticide Use and Safety— Jenny Newman, TMDL Unit Chief, Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board
- Understanding the Pesticide Registration Process — Debbie Stubbs, Regulatory Product Manager, Syngenta Crop Protection
- Protecting Schools Near Farms — Colleen Robertson, Principal, Somis School
IV. Station Training Sessions(10:15 – 11:50 a.m.) Attendees will be divided into four groups, which will rotate through the stations, with 20 minutes per station and 5 minutes of move time per rotation.
1. Improving Water Quality Through Pesticide BMPs — Nancy Broschart, Farm Bureau
2. Drift Avoidance and Safety — Kevin Miskel, Aspen Helicopters; Danny Pereira, Rio Farms
3. Spray Rig Calibration — Marianna Castiaux, California Strawberry Commission
4. Field Inspection and Worker Safety Compliance — County Agricultural Commissioner
V. Buffet Lunch (11:50 a.m. – 12:45 p.m.) — Marshall's Bodacious BBQ
VI. Closing Session (12:45 – 1:30 p.m.)
1. Speaker Introductions — Brian Benchwick
2. Statewide Regulatory Perspectives and Issues — Brian Leahy, Director, California Department of Pesticide Regulation
3. Closing Remarks — William Terry, Vegetable Grower, Terry Farms
Attendance is free, but advance registration is
required. Fax (805) 987-3874 or email
spraysafe@farmbureauvc.com
/h2>/h2>/h2>/h2>/h2>/h2>/h2>/h2>/h2>/h2>/h1>/h2>/h2>/h2>/h1>/h1>
- Author: Ben Faber
Growers are faced with an ever-changing list of commercial “tools”, each with the promise of providing some advantage to the farmer. Frequently, these are new fertilizer mixes presented as proprietary cocktails promoted and dispensed with promises of a multitude of profitable (yet improbable) benefits to the buyer. With the large number of new products available, and the number of salespeople promoting them, it is often difficult for growers to distinguish between products likely to provide real benefit, and those that may actually reduce the profitability of the farm.
In all situations when a company approaches the University or a commodity research board with a new product or technology for sale to California growers, these institutions act as grower advocates. They are charged with sorting through the available information; asking the right questions; getting the necessary research done if the available information warrants this pursuit; disseminating accurate information on these new technologies and products, and doing all that can help maximize grower profits now and in the future. When approached with a new product or technology it is obligatory to challenge claims with the following questions:
Is there some basic established and accepted scientific foundation on which the product claims are made?
Language that invokes some proprietary ingredients or mysterious formulations, particularly in fertilizers mixes registered in the State of California, raises red flags. A wide range of completely unrelated product benefit claims (such as water savings, pesticide savings, increased earlier yield) raises more red flags. Product claims that fall well outside of any accepted scientific convention generally mean the product is truly a miracle, or these claims are borderline false to entirely fraudulent. Some of the water treatment products on the market fall into this category and can easily be checked against some of the studies found at this site: http://www.chem1.com/CQ/index.html
Has the product undergone thorough scientific testing in orchards?
Frequently, products are promoted based on testimonials of other growers. While testimonials may be given in good faith, they are most often not backed up by any real scientific testing where a good control was used to compare orchard returns with and without the product.
A “test” where a whole block was treated with a product and which has no reliable untreated control does not meet accepted standards for conducting agricultural experiments. Also, a treated orchard cannot reliably be compared to a neighboring untreated orchard; and a treated orchard cannot be compared to the same orchard that was untreated the previous crop year. Even a test with half a block of treated trees and half untreated is not considered dependable by any known scientific standard of testing.
Only a well designed, statistically replicated, multi-year trial allows for direct comparison of untreated versus treated trees with statistical confidence. Verifiable data from tests that meet acceptable standards of scientific design, along with access to raw baseline (before treatment) yield data from the same trees (preferably for the two years prior) should be used to determine the validity of test results provided.
Are the test results from a reliable source?
If the testing were not done by a neutral party, such as university scientists, agency, or a reputable contract research company using standard scientific protocols, this raises red flags. If the persons overseeing the tests have a financial interest in seeing positive results from the product, it raises red flags.
Does the product have beneficial effects on several unrelated farm practices?
A product that increases production of trees, makes fruit bigger, reduces pests, reduces water use, and reduces fertilizer costs, is more than a little suspicious. In reality, if such a product really existed, it would not need any testing at all because its benefits would be so obviously realized by the grower community that it would spread rapidly by word of mouth and embraced by the entire grower community.
Are other standard and proven farm products put down in the new product sales delivery?
If a new product vendor claims that their product is taken up 15 times faster than the one growers are currently using, or is 30 times more efficient, it probably costs 15 to 30 times more per unit of active ingredient than the standard market price. Growers should always examine the chemical product label to see what active ingredient they are buying. There has to be a very good reason to pay more for an ingredient where previously there had been no problem supplying the same ingredient at a cheaper price to trees in the past.
So what is a grower to do ?
New products come and go. Snake oil products often disappear rapidly, when their efficacy fails to materialize after application. Products that confound their purported results with fertilizers or growth stimulators can persist, but eventually they too fail to live up to expectations at some point and will fade from popularity. Try to obtain some kind of consensus with university‐based research or other peer reviewed research reports, field efficacy trials that you run for yourself, and not on the testimonials of others. If you decide to conduct your own trials, they must be replicated and statistically analyzable, otherwise they are little more than anecdotal observations that have little value in quantifying the effects of a product or practice. For more help with trials, seek out University Extension advisors and specialists. This is their job, and they are willing partners in field research. After awhile, you will be able to ascertain the nature of the “oil” before you purchase it.
- Author: Ben Faber
Mandarins, also known as “zipper skins” and “easy peelers” can have very fragile peels/skins/rinds/exocarp that make them easily subject to more damage than most oranges and lemons. Some are a bit tougher skinned than others, but some are so fragile that any rough handling often prevents them from going through conventional packing operations.
These skins were recently put to the test in the recent fires in Ojai. There was a mix of different varieties - ‘Pixie', ‘Gold Nugget', ‘W. Murcott', ‘Yosemite Gold', ‘Tahoe Gold' and others. Some of them were more sensitive than others, some were closer to the fire, all were affected by smoke to some degree. In Matilija Canyon where smoke was present for many more days than in the east of the Ojai Valley and possibly more ash, the trees have started flowering sooner. That might be temperature difference, either cooler or warmer, so it is hard to say how much effect the smoke has had versus, the ash and/or heat. Smoke has many different gasses in it, one of which is ethylene which is a naturally occurring ripening agent. Smoke not only has gasses, but it occludes the sun so less or more or altered light might have an effect on these fruit. It's not a controlled experiment, so some little scientist is going to have to come along and wriggle out these different effects. Whatever. Fire and smoke have an effect on mandarins as we have seen in other crops, such as cherimoya, avocados and other citrus.
Heat damage. Fruit facing the fire.
Ash effects on fruit coloring. Fruit was covered with ash for several days until rain washed it off. Might be a pH effect (ash is alkaline), temperature effect, uneven light radiation, or other…….
Same sort of uneven coloring, that actually looks like an ashy color, but the ash has washed off the cluster by rain
And here's something interesting where fruit facing the fire is much lighter colored than fruit facing away from the fire. Here are two pieces of fruit, one from the side directly facing the fire, and the other from the other side of the tree. The side of that fruit facing the fire was also lighter colored. So, it had an effect through the canopy (small tree). The canopy was otherwise intact, unaffected heat or flames.
Oh yeah, and there is the characteristic fruit drop from either the heat, smoke gases, water stress or ….
And then there's the fruit that looks like it had actual embers on the skin.
If the tree survives and keeps its green leaves, sometimes the fruit is affected in ways that don't appear for a while. The peel may be affected, but in many cases the fruit is just as sweet as it could be. It just looks terrible. That might even be a selling point. "Here have a wonderous piece of history that braved the horror of the Ojai fires."