Organic Farmer December 2021 January 2022

JAN 5, 2022 

December 2021 / January 2022 

See page 25 


PECAN 

DAY 

WCNGG.COM/PECAN-DAY 

Integrating Chicken and Vegetable 

Production in Organic Farming 

Considering Soil Compaction Problems for 

Maximizing Organic Production 

Managing Arthropod Pests in Organic 

Vegetable Crops 

JAN 13-14, 2022 

Insect Ranching: Are Mealworms the Food 

of the Future? 

WCNGG.COM/CWC 

Volume 4: Issue: 6 

(Photo by Claire Weissbluth)

Scan to Download 

ily News Report 

Subscribe at MyAgLife.com or 

Download the MyAgLife App to Play in Your Vehicle

4 

10 

14 

18 

IN THIS ISSUE 

Integrating Chicken and 

Vegetable Production in 

Organic Farming 

Considering Soil 

Compaction Problems 

for Maximizing 

Organic Production 

Managing Arthropod 

Pests in Organic Vegetable 

Crops 

Insect Ranching: Are 

Mealworms the Food of 

the Future? 

14 

PUBLISHER: Jason Scott 

Email: jason@jcsmarketinginc.com 

EDITOR: Marni Katz 

ASSOCIATE EDITOR: Cecilia Parsons 

Email: article@jcsmarketinginc.com 

PRODUCTION: design@jcsmarketinginc.com 

Phone: 559.352.4456 

Fax: 559.472.3113 

Web: www.organicfarmingmag.com 

CONTRIBUTING WRITERS 

& INDUSTRY SUPPORT 

Rob Bennaton 

UCCE Bay Area Urban 

Ag Advisor 

Danita Cahill 

Contributing Writer 

Taylor Chalstrom 

Assistant Editor 

Surendra K. Dara 

UCCE Entomology 

and Biologicals 

Advisor 

Faye Duan 

Graduate Student 

Researcher, UC Davis 

Joseph R. Heckman 

Ph.D., Soil Fertility 

Extension Specialist, 

Rutgers University 

Neal Kinsey 

Kinsey Ag Services 

Dave Peck 

Manzanita Berry Farms, 

Santa Maria 

Peter Ruddock 

California Policy and 

Implementation Director, 

COOK Alliance 

22 

28 

32 

Efficacy of Biological 

Fungicides in Managing 

Gray Mold in Strawberry 

Soil Nitrogen Fertility 

for Organic Sweet Corn 

Production 

New Urban Ag Ordinance 

Cultivates Growing Food 

Together 

18 

UC COOPERATIVE EXTENSION 

ADVISORY BOARD 

Surendra Dara 

UCCE Entomology and 

Biologicals Advisor, San Luis 

Obispo and Santa Barbara 

Counties 

Kevin Day 

County Director/UCCE 

Pomology Farm Advisor, 

Tulare/Kings Counties 

Elizabeth Fichtner 

UCCE Farm Advisor, 

Tulare County 

Katherine Jarvis-Shean 

UCCE Area Orchard Systems 

Advisor, Sacramento, 

Solano and Yolo Counties 

Steven Koike 

Tri-Cal Diagnostics 

Jhalendra Rijal 

UCCE Integrated Pest 

Management Advisor, 

Stanislaus County 

Kris Tollerup 

UCCE Integrated Pest 

Management Advisor, 

Parlier 

Mohammad Yaghmour 

UCCE Area Orchard Systems 

Advisor, Kern County 

36 

Growing Clean Hemp 

for a Sustainable 

Environment 

36 

The articles, research, industry updates, 

company profiles, and advertisements in this 

publication are the professional opinions of 

writers and advertisers. Organic Farmer does 

not assume any responsibility for the opinions 

given in the publication. 

December 2021/January 2022 www.organicfarmermag.com 3

Integrating Chicken and Vegetable 

Production in Organic Farming 

By FAYE DUAN | Graduate Student Researcher, UC Davis 

Chicken and tomatoes are a tasty 

duo beloved by many in popular 

dishes like chicken tikka masala and 

chicken cacciatore. This combination, 

delightful in the culinary sense, is also 

the subject of a recent integrated farming 

experiment. This fall, researchers at UC 

Davis harvested the first crop of tomatoes 

from a 1-acre experimental field 

and successfully processed the second 

flock of 130 broiler chickens. This acre is 

part of a tri-state experiment also taking 

place at University of Kentucky and Iowa 

State University. Funded by the Organic 

Research and Extension Initiative 

grant from USDA, this research aims 

to produce science-based learnings and 

best practices for organic agricultural 

systems that integrate rotational production 

of crop and poultry together on the 

same land. 

Potential of Integrated Production 

While the idea of chickens alongside 

crops evokes an image of “traditional 

farming”, these systems 

are relatively rare in North 

America today. Integrated 

farms have the potential to 

help organic farmers create 

a more resource-efficient 

“closed-loop” system. For 

vegetable farmers looking 

to start an integrated 

system, chickens require 

the lowest startup costs as 

compared with other livestock. This 

type of diversified production may be 

especially promising given the growing 

consumer demand for more sustainably 

and humanely produced chicken. 

However, there are many beliefs that 

remain unconfirmed and questions 

that remain unanswered by scientific 

research when it comes to integrating 

poultry production into vegetable 

cropping. For instance, at what extent 

does manure deposited by poultry on 

the farm reduce the need for off-farm 

soil fertility inputs? What benefits can 

we observe when crop residue is used 

to supplement the diets of the chickens? 

What stocking rate is the most advantageous 

in these systems? What types 

of crops and breeds of chicken work 

the best in such integrated systems 

across the country? And is it feasible to 

squeeze in a successful yield of broiler 

production into the transition window 

between different crop seasons? Finally, 

can all this be done effectively from a 

food safety perspective and economically 

from both a farmer and consumer 

level? 

Potential benefits 

Control insect pests 

Improve chicken welfare 

and nutrition 

Reduce reliance on off-farm 

soil fertility inputs 

Reduced costs, more 

diversified income and 

more efficient land use for 

producers 

Potential drawbacks 

Reduce beneficial insect populations 

Outdoor flocks face higher exposure to 

wildlife disease vectors and greater 

inefficiency in converting feed to carcass 

weight 

Increased risk of Salmonella contamination 

of vegetables due to poultry production 

Increased costs, uncertainty and learning 

curve for producers 

Study Design 

To better understand and evaluate the 

potential to integrate poultry with crop 

farming from multiple perspectives, 

the research objectives focused on 

evaluating growth yields, quality of 

agricultural outputs, food safety risks, 

agroecological impacts on soil and 

pests, and economic feasibility of such 

systems. 

In this experiment, broilers were raised 

on pasture starting at around 4 weeks 

Table 1. Some potential benefits and drawbacks of integrated poultry-vegetable production. 

Continued on Page 6 

4 Organic Farmer December 2021/January 2022

The Grower’s Advantage 

Since 1982 

Effective Plant Nutrients and Biopesticides 

to Improve Crop Quality & Yield 

ORGANIC 

® 

ORGANIC 

® 

® 

APPROVED FOR USE ON ALL CROPS 

PLANT NUTRIENTS & ADJUVANTS 

HERBICIDE EC 

Botector ® 

BIOFUNGICIDE 

® 

GARGOIL 

INSECT, MITE & DISEASE CONTROL 

SPREADER-STICKER 

® 

Blossom Protect 

BIOPESTICIDE 

For more information, call (800) 876-2767 or visit www.westbridge.com

Continued from Page 4 

of age to graze on crop residue. In the 

California iteration of this experiment, 

we raised two flocks per year in 

between rotations of vegetable crops 

in the summer and cover crops in the 

winter (Figure 1a, see page 7). Rather 

than remaining in a fixed location, the 

pastured broilers are stocked in mobile 

chicken coops, commonly referred to 

as “chicken tractors”, which are moved 

to a fresh plot of land every day for 

rotational grazing. Four subplots distributed 

across the field are grazed by 

chickens after tomatoes are harvested 

in the fall (treatment A), and another 

four subplots are grazed by chickens 

before the cover crop is terminated in 

the spring (treatment B). 

The impact of introducing chickens 

through the two treatments is being 

compared to a third control treatment 

of only cover crops and vegetables 

(treatment C), while the impacts of 

rotational grazing on poultry welfare 

and meat production are compared to 

an indoor control flock. 

Collaborating researchers in Iowa and 

Kentucky are also collecting weed 

and insect diversity data to better 

understand the impacts on crop pests 

and how poultry affect the integrated 

farmland. Additional studies on animal 

welfare for the chickens as well as 

cultivar trials on the success of different 

vegetables like broccoli, butternut 

squash and spinach tested in combination 

with poultry are being conducted. 

Challenges Identified 

and Lessons Learned 

As the study is still underway, we 

cannot make any conclusions without 

testing and re-testing experimental 

results to confirm their repeatability 

and statistical significance across more 

than one growing season. So far, based 

on prelimiary data, we’ve collected a 

great deal of initial learnings on our 

integrated systems. 

Figure 2. A mobile chicken coop, commonly called a “chicken tractor”, houses the broilers 

while allowing for rotational grazing. Each chicken tractor is 50 square feet in area and is 

stocked with 29 birds in the California experiment. 

Soil Fertility 

Organic farmers know that soil 

amendments, such as chicken manure, 

release nitrogen slowly to crops 

over time. Factors related to timing of 

application, precipitation and temperature 

affect how soil microbes process 

organic material to ultimately impact 

the soil quality. In California, although 

our tomato crop received sufficient 

subsurface drip irrigation, we suffered 

low yield and tomato end rot across 

the treatments. This was due to the fact 

that our experimental plot was previously 

conventionally managed and very 

nutrient depleted, an issue which we attempted 

to manage by applying organic 

compost and liquid fertilizer to the 

entire field to supplement the manure 

deposited by the chickens. In addition, 

severe drought during and after the 

period of manure deposition may have 

hindered soil microbial activity and, in 

turn, retarded the decomposition of our 

cover crop residue and chicken manure 

into the soil. 

Meat Production 

Additional data remains to be collected 

on subsequent flocks and statistical 

analysis on the findings have yet to be 

conducted before conclusions can be 

drawn. Preliminary results from meat 

quality analysis indicate that the pas- 


ture-raised chicken yielded less drumstick 

meat than the indoor control and 

breast meat was darker and less yellow 

in color. They also yielded redder thigh 

meat and less moist breast meat than 

the indoor chicken when cooked. So 

far, broilers in California that grazed 

on cover crops in the spring reached a 

higher average market weight relative 

to indoor control, while broilers grazed 

on tomato crop residue in the fall 

reached a lower average market weight 

relative to the indoor control. 

Food Safety 

No presence of Salmonella has been 

detected thus far in the soil nor on the 

poultry produced in the California 

experiment. Collaborators in Iowa and 

Kentucky report that persistence of 

Salmonella associated with the poultry 

producing soil has not been observed to 

persist into the harvest period. While 

these results are promising, it should 

Figure 1a. Seasonal timing of integrated production in the California research 

station experiment. 

be noted that Salmonella are relatively 

common in poultry. Ideally, best practices 

can be identified that reduce the 

risk of Salmonella persisting in the soil 

environment while crops are grown 

following chicken grazing. 

To Be Continued…. 

Many other anecdotal findings have 


APPLY HUMATE WITH YOUR POST-HARVEST SOIL AMENDMENTS 

400 S 200 E, EMERY, UT 84522 | (435) 286-2222 | (800) 846-2817 

CALL ERNIE AT (661) 304-2676 



emerged: In Iowa, a farmer collaborating 

with researchers to conduct 

their own on-farm iteration of the 

experiment has noted positive results 

from the poultry treatment on 

their spinach crop; our collaborating 

researchers also found evidence 

that chickens are eating the insects 

in their fields, and will proceed to 

investigate whether those consumed 

are beneficial or harmful 

insects in their agricultural system. 

In California, we are realizing the 

impact the design of the chicken 

tractors has on labor demands. Our 

5 x 10 ft-wide wheeled coop was 

more difficult to move in a tomato 

production system with raised beds 

and loose soil as compared to a relatively 

more even and firm ground 

in a pasture. It seems apparent that 

engineering considerations such as 

wheel type, coop material and coop 

weight will influence the user adoption 

of poultry and crop integrations. 

Careful timing and planning 

is yet another labor consideration 

when it comes to transitioning 

successfully between cropping and 

poultry husbandry that we encountered. 

Eagerly, we await to gather 

more information in the next year 

until additional conclusions to our 

research questions can be drawn 

after the study concludes in 2022. 

Samples Collected 

Soil 

Boot cover swabs 

Tomato fruit yield and quality 

Cover crop biomass 

Chicken meat and tissue 

Percent cover of 

tomato plants 

Input Costs 

Analysis 

Changes in soil macro and micronutrient 

and other chemical and physical properties; 

impacts on soil microbial activity 

Presence or absence of Salmonella 

In the soil quality and therefore vegetable 

production as a result of chicken manure 

fertigation 

Crop growth as a result of chicken 

fertigation 

Meat yield, quality (color, fat, and 

moisture content etc.), and Salmonella 

presence on poultry, compared between 

pastured and indoor chickens 

Crop growth as a result of chicken 

fertigation 

Cost-effectiveness of integrated 

production 

Table 2. A non-exhaustive list of the data being collected and analyzed for the integrated 

poultry-vegetable farming study. 

Additional Resources 

Nair, A. & Bilenky, M., (2019) 

“Integrating Vegetable and Poultry 

Production for Sustainable Organic 

Cropping Systems”, Iowa State University 

Research and Demonstration 

Farms Progress Reports 2018(1). 

Comments about this article? We want 

to hear from you. Feel free to email us at 

article@jcsmarketinginc.com 

Figure 1b. Diagram of experimental treatments applied on the one-acre field located at the 

UC Davis Research Ranch. 


WE WILL PUMP YoU UP 

with our mycorrhizal products 

POWER UP YOUR PLANTS 

Ask us about our other soil care products. 

• BACTERIAL Inoculants • Soil Products • Biological Food Products 

• Micro Nutrients • Foliar Nutrients 

Contact Us Today at 1-800-279-9567 

callnrg.com

CONSIDERING SOIL COMPACTION PROBLEMS 

FOR MAXIMIZING ORGANIC PRODUCTION 

By NEAL KINSEY | Kinsey Ag Services 

One way to physically break up a claypan or plow layer is by use of some type of deep tillage implement, such as a subsoiler or chisel plow. 

Soil compaction can be a far 

greater limitation, even on organic 

farms and gardens, than many 

growers tend to suspect. To optimize 

production capabilities on any type 

of land, building up needed nutrients 

and eliminating compaction must both 

be considered as essential with the 

effectiveness of each being dependent 

upon the other. Though many who 

are concerned with compaction never 

associate that the nutrient levels matter, 

this article will help focus on why such 

should be the case. 

Reasons for Compaction 

An old rule of thumb is that when there 

is 300 pounds of pressure per square 

inch of soil, it is so hard that plant roots 

will have difficulty penetrating it. Compaction 

is closely associated with the 

formation of a hardpan, claypan, plow 

pan or plow layer, which hinders root 

penetration. But even impediments to 

the movement of water through the soil 

can cause compaction problems. When 

conditions are present in any soil which 

causes even slight resistance to water 

movement, that signals the beginning 

of problems with too much soil compaction. 

Dr. Al Trouse, who worked at the 

National Tillage Machinery Laboratory 

in Auburn, Ala., used to illustrate 

compaction problems by using soil pits 

which he would dig in cornfields. He 

would then use a trowel and a brush to 

show where any type of compression 

had caused resistance in that soil. Not 

only could he pick out the problems 

made by a moldboard plow, or a disk, 

or a chisel plow, he showed where even 

the press wheel of the planter left its 

imprint by visibly compacting the soil. 

In the most serious situations, the use 

of a soil penetrometer, soil compaction 

tester, tiling rod or soil probe can help 

identify if, when and where compaction 

problems exist in each field or area 

in question. When a soil has enough 

moisture present to keep it sufficiently 

wet, including the soil compaction 

layer, roots can more easily penetrate 

that soil. But so can whatever instrument 

you choose to use to determine 

to what extent any compaction may 

exist. On the other hand, when the 

soil is extremely dry, it becomes much 

harder for the roots to break through 

any compaction layer, and the same is 

true for the use of any tools used for 

trying to measure it. So, it is best to test 

for compaction problems under normal 

growing conditions. 

Working soil when it is too wet presses 

out needed pore space. That required 

porosity would normally most benefit 

the crop by helping provide the proper 

amounts of needed air and water for 

use by the plants growing there. The 

best approach is to find and eliminate 

any form of compaction by working the 

soil when it is dry enough to tolerate 

such treatment without adversely compacting 

it in some way. 

Though not a good idea, at times, crops 

planted in fields that are worked wet 

seem to do better than those where 

growers waited for the right conditions 

to plant, but then got worse results. 

When the compaction layer stays moist 

for long enough that roots can penetrate 

and get through it when there is 

sufficient moisture, then any additional 

water and nutrients provided below the 

layer will aid the crop, and as such, may 

provide a short-term advantage. 

When the soil is so tight that water is 

not able to move freely through the top- 


soil and into the subsoil, this is not only 

causing the loss of whatever moisture 

that should have gotten into that soil, 

but the distribution of plant nutrients 

is also affected. Such cases can often be 

detected by the inordinate accumulation 

of specific soil nutrients where this 

problem exists. 

When the levels of sodium, sulfur and/ 

or boron continue to accumulate in a 

soil, this tends to indicate there is some 

type of a compaction problem. Each 

of these elements, when being applied 

either alone or in some type of combination, 

are found to be consistently 

high in compacted soils. This causes an 

impediment to water movement and 

an accumulation of those elements that 

would normally move with the water. 

Fixing Compaction 

Once a compaction layer has been detected, 

what is the best way to deal with 

it? Too often, the solution is given via a 

set of generalities that do not apply in 

every case. The goal is to break up any 

impediment or compaction layer in the 

soil and prevent its return for as long as 

possible. 

That goal may be accomplished in one 

of three ways. You can physically break 

up a claypan or plow layer by use of 

some type of deep tillage implement, 

such as a subsoiler or chisel plow. 

Another method, which has long been 

used by farmers, ranchers and growers, 

is considered as more of a biological 

approach for dealing with compaction 

using deep-rooted legumes, such as 

alfalfa or sweet clover, whose root systems 

can penetrate hardpan layers that 

other plants cannot. Finally, there are 

various forms of soil conditioners that 

employ the use of soil chemistry to help 

water and plant roots break through a 

hardpan. 

Any of these three methods will work 

if the rules for their use are correctly 

understood and followed. For certified 

organic growers, the use of soil 

chemistry may be questionable due 

to finding properly certified materials 

that can help eliminate a plow pan at 9 

to 12 inches deep. There are a number 

of products that claim to provide such 

benefits, but few who manufacture and 

sell them seem willing to expend the 

time and money even to dig pits and 

show what can consistently be expected 

from use of such products. 

These materials have special merit in 

certain circumstances. For example, a 

golf course would not normally be able 

to use a deep ripper or grow alfalfa for 

several seasons to deal with a compaction 

problem. Use of a material that can 

soften the soil as a topsoil application 

may be the only consideration for solving 

the problem. 

Working as a consultant in a company 

that does not sell products, we find that 

some materials work well in one type of 

situation but not necessarily in others, 

depending on the specific circumstances. 

All of those differences cannot be 

dealt with in an article of this length. 

Often, those looking for answers are 

most interested in a quick fix and not 

the time and expense it requires to determine 

the truth of 

each situation and get 

the job done right. 

The use of legumes for 

breaking up a compaction 

layer should 

be straightforward 

enough for those who 

are able to incorporate 

them into their 

crop rotation. Just 

consider that those 

who must use heavy 

equipment for planting 

or harvesting will 

generally find that 

compaction problems 

will become an issue 

about every three 

years, especially for 

those who feel they 

must get on fields 

before they have sufficiently 

dried first. 

The use of a subsoiler 

or chisel plow to 

physically control 

compaction has some 

general guidelines 

that would apply in 

every case. For example, determine the 

depth of the compaction layer and plan 

to go just deep enough to break it up. 

The goal is to allow plant roots to get 

through that tighter soil to gain the use 

of moisture and nutrients below it. 

Once the depth is determined, then 

select what implement will be used. In 

many cases, a chisel plow can do all 

that is needed. Whether a deep ripper 

or a chisel plow is used, these additional 

rules should be considered. 

Use narrow shanks and set them at 

least 30 to 40 inches apart, and no matter 

how many or how few that may be, 

always assure that the speed through 

the field can be at least 4.5 miles per 

hour. The goal is to shatter the soil just 

deep enough to eliminate the compacted 

layer. If you go deeper and keep 

doing the same things that have been 

done in the past, the next compaction 



Working soil when it is too wet presses out needed pore space. That required porosity would normally most benefit the crop by helping provide the 

proper amounts of needed air and water for use by the plants growing there. 


layer will be at the new depth to which 

you ripped that soil. 

Next, be sure your soil has a sufficient 

level of calcium before trying to deal 

with a hardpan or plow pan. On the 

soil test we use, that should be at least a 

60% base saturation of calcium. If less 

than that and you rip the soil in the 

autumn under otherwise ideal circumstances, 

with adequate winter rainfall, 

that soil will run right back together by 

spring and be just as tight as it was before 

because it did not shatter properly. 

A word of caution here: For spring 

crops, it is usually best to subsoil in the 

autumn to allow time for the soil to 

settle, otherwise there can be so much 

porosity that it dries out and loses 

moisture that could otherwise be used 

for the crop. The same would be true 

when more than one trip is made at a 

time. The problem is that the soil dries 

out too quickly. 

One client whose farm was extremely 

sandy experimented with using a chisel 

plow to subsoil as compared to the use 

of a moldboard plow in both fall and 

spring on a farm that had no irrigation. 

He saw his crops had the least moisture 

stress where he used the chisel as a 

subsoiler in the autumn, but they did 

better where he used the moldboard 

plow for spring tillage. Using the chisel 

as a subsoiler in the spring did not 

allow the soil to settle sufficiently. This 

resulted in too much air space, and the 

soil and crop suffered from an excessive 

loss of needed moisture. 

Be sure the soil has sufficiently dried 

so that when you pull through the field, 

the soil is shattered just as deep halfway 

between the shanks as it is right where 

they are ripping. If there is not a sufficient 

level of calcium, the soils will not 

shatter as they should. To be sure, take 

a soil compaction tester, a tiling rod or 

a soil probe and test the depth halfway 

between each set of shanks. 

If the subsoiling was done properly, 

that soil halfway between the shanks 

should be shattered to the same depth 

as where the shanks ran. If the soil 

is too wet, it will not shatter, but will 

smear the soil on each side where the 

shanks were pulled through. When the 

soil has less than 60% base saturation 

of calcium or when it is too dry, the 

soil halfway between where the shanks 

run will not shatter as deeply as it does 

where the shanks ran. 

Nutrition Factors in, Too 

What else is needed to keep the soil 

open to maximize porosity and eliminate 

the conditions that tend to cause 

compaction? Correcting the calcium, 

magnesium, potassium and sodium 

base saturation percentages are always 

necessary to achieve the best 

results in correctly dealing with compacted 

soils. 

For example, in desert soils that are affected 

by excessive salt levels, compaction 

can be contributing to the problem. 

When there is a high level of sodium 

chloride in the water, this may or may 

not be the problem. The way to tell is by 

first measuring how much is present in 

the water. Then test the soil by running 

a complete soil analysis, including 

sodium, salts and chlorides. If using 

salty water and the sodium is high but 

not the chlorides, this indicates the 

soil should be sufficiently porous to 

allow releasing and leaching out of any 

unneeded sodium once the base saturation 

of calcium is 60% or higher. 

In soils where the chlorides are low, but 

the sodium that remains is attached 

to the soil colloids, it indicates the 

need for increased porosity before it is 

possible to leach any excess sodium out 

of that soil. That is why building soil 

fertility and reducing compaction are 

both requirements that organic growers 

need to deal with because only then is 

it possible to remove the detrimental 

effects of soils with an extreme excess 

of one or more nutrients. 

When the fertility of the soil is sufficiently 

supplied, including the correct 

proportions of calcium, magnesium, 

potassium and sodium, and any compaction 

layer is eliminated, this makes 

it possible for organic growers to deal 

with excesses and the detrimental effects 

they will have on the soil and the 

crops to be grown there. 

Neal Kinsey is owner and President of 

Kinsey Agricultural Services, a consulting 

firm that specializes in restoring 

and maintaining balanced soil fertility 

for attaining excellent yields while 

growing highly nutritious food and 

feed crops on the land. Please call (573) 

683-3880 or see www.kinseyag.com for 

more information. 





® 

IMAGINATION 

INNOVATION 

SCIENCE IN ACTION

Managing 

Arthropod 

Pests in 

Organic 

Vegetable 

Crops 

By TAYLOR CHALSTROM | Assistant Editor 

Organic and conventional vegetable 

crops have similar pests. 

Common pest species of vegetables 

include coleoptera (e.g. click beetle, 

Colorado potato beetle); diptera (e.g. 

cabbage maggot, leafminers); hemiptera 

(e.g. aphids, psyllids); lepidoptera 

(e.g. Diamondback moth, leafrollers); 

thysanoptera (e.g. thrips); and acarina 

(e.g. spider mites, bulb mites) as 

well as symphylans and spotted snake 

millipedes. These pests have different 

methods of damaging vegetable plants, 

including but not limited to chewing, 

boring, rasping/scraping and piercing 

and sucking. They prefer to feed on 

surfaces or bored plant tissues (leaves, 

roots, stems or fruits), mines, rolls, 

folds, etc. 

Control options for arthropod pests 

in vegetables are based on multiple 

factors, including pest biology, feeding 

behavior/habitat, mode of action of the 

pesticide option, prevention/curative 

and environmental conditions. These 

factors all need to be taken into consideration 

in order to develop an integrated 

pest management (IPM) plan for an 

organic field. 

IPM of Utmost Importance 

Surendra Dara, an entomology and 

biologicals farm advisor for San Luis 

Obispo and Santa Barbara counties, 

said that while both organic and conventional 

vegetables use similar management 

techniques and that IPM is 

important for all systems, a good IPM 

plan is even more crucial in organic 

production. 

“In organic crop production, the choice 

of pesticides can be limited, leading 

to their repeated use and potential 

resistance problems,” he said. “Cultural, 

mechanical, microbial, biological and 

behavioral control options are critical 

components of IPM and complement 

control with pesticide applications.” 

Cultural Options 

Dara outlined multiple cultural options 

that growers have at their fingertips, 

including the use of resistant host 

plants, sanitation and modification of 

agronomic practices, in a University 

of California webinar. Starting with 

clean material, managing alternative/ 

weed hosts, removing and destroying 

infested plants and managing crop 

residue are all facets of good sanitation 

in the field, he said. Planting time, 

plant density, crop rotation, trap crops 

and mixed cropping as well as good 

nutrient and irrigation management 

can also play a role. 

Biological Options 

A biological approach can be especially 

important in an organic setting. 

Biologicals include natural enemies, 

microbial control agents and biostimulants. 



JAN 13-14, 2022 

wcngg.com/CWC 

Multiple management options, including behavioral 

options like this wing trap in Brussels sprouts, are key 

to an integrated pest management approach in both 

organic and conventional vegetable production. 

Diamondback moth feeding damage on cauliflower. Infestations of the pest are growing in 

some areas in both organic and conventional fields, according to UCCE’s Surendra Dara (all 

photos by S. Dara.) 

Helping Farmers Grow NATURALLY Since 1974 

FEATURING: 

Office: 559-686-3833 Fax: 559-686-1453 

2904 E. Oakdale Ave. | Tulare, CA 93274 

newerafarmservice.com 



“[Biologicals] play a significant role in 

IPM in improving crop health, providing 

natural control, reducing the reliance 

on synthetic or other pesticides, 

minimizing environmental and human 

risk, and promoting sustainable food 

production,” Dara said. 

One PCA at a Santa Maria-based produce 

operation also noted the importance 

of biologicals. “It is important to 

have some biological control present,” 

she said. “We try to promote beneficials 

by planting cilantro or alyssum 

in the field; when the pest pressure is 

high, this is less effective, but it does 

help some.” 

Chemical Options 

IN ORGANIC CROP PRODUCTION, THE 

CHOICE OF PESTICIDES CAN BE LIMITED, 

LEADING TO THEIR REPEATED USE AND 

POTENTIAL RESISTANCE PROBLEMS. 

– SURENDRA DARA, UCCE 

If pesticides need to be used on an organic 

vegetable field, Dara recommends 

botanical pesticides, microbial or 

microbial metabolite-based pesticides, 

and/or pesticides containing diatomaceous 

earth, fatty acids and minerals. 

Pesticides will need to be chosen based 

on arthropod behavior and habitat (i.e. 

chewing vs. sucking insects, surface 

feeders vs. borers/miners/rollers, underground 

vs. aboveground, life stage 

of insect, etc.) Active ingredients for 

pesticides with organic labels in- 

“ 

clude pyrethrins, spynosyns, avermectins, 

azadirachtin and botanical 

extracts/oils. 

Mechanical Options 

Dara recommends use of row covers, 

screens, sticky tapes and reflective material 

as well as ultraviolet light. 

Behavioral Options 

Depending on the type of arthropod 

species, Dara recommends baits/traps 

and mating disruption. 

In a recent study on diamondback 

moth (DBM) management in Brussels 

sprouts, Dara examined the efficacy 

of a sprayable pheromone to evaluate 

the potential enhancement that mating 

disruption could provide in an IPM 

program. What he found was that 

mating disruption (in this case, Check- 

Mate DBM-F), when combined with 

larval-suppressing pesticide applications, 

“will significantly enhance the 

current IPM practices by reducing pest 

populations, contributing to insecticide 

resistance management and reducing 

pest management costs,” according to 

Dara in the March/April 2021 edition 

of Progressive Crop Consultant. 

Organic vs. Conventional 

Except for using the products that do 

not have organic registration, Dara said 

organic and conventional vegetable 

production systems use the same strategies 

for pest management. He also said 

that there aren’t any new pests specific 

to organic vegetables at the moment, 

but DBM infestations are growing in 

some areas in both organic and conventional 

fields. 

The Santa Maria-based PCA noted that 

more acreage is sometimes required 

depending on losses that certain organic 

crops can experience. “Sometimes 

when the population gets really bad, we 

actually do nothing as far as pesticides 

go because it’s just impossible to control 

it,” she said. 




“ 


Organic 

Almonds 

Made Easy 

With the Super High Density Hedged System 

Harvest Direct From 

the Tree at Hull Split! 

This reduces the amount 

of time hulls are open and 

will potentially eliminate 

aflatoxins and crop 

damage due to pest and 

diseases. 

Eliminate the Need for 

Weed Control! 

By harvesting off the 

ground, weed management 

becomes less 

important making it easier 

to grow Organic Almonds 

Super High Density 

Almond Advantages 

TOTAL MECHANIZATION 

From the moment of planting 

HARVEST OFF THE TREE 

1 pass using over-the-row harvester! 

HIGH YIELD FOR GROWERS 

EARLY ENTRY INTO PRODUCTION 

(Almost full production in Year 3) 

LESS LABOR 

LESS WATER NEEDED TO GROW 

ALMONDS 

MEETS 

Current 800 acre SHD Almond orchard 

being planted in Kern County! 

(Picture taken January 2021) 

The SHD Hedged System is grown on size a controlling rootstock called Rootpac 20. 

Scan to Watch Our Video 

For more information, please contact: 

Grower Relations Manager 

Grower Relations Representative 

Melissa Steidlmayer 

Serving Stanislaus to North Counties 

(530) 812-3398 

msteidlmayer@agromillora.com 

Omar Navarro 

Serving Merced to South Counties 

(559) 470-4914 

onavarro@agromillora.com

INSECT RANCHING 

Are Mealworms the Food of the Future? 

By DANITA CAHILL | Contributing Writer 

Dried mealworms supply protein to commercially raised poultry, swine and fish 

(all photos by D. Cahill) 

The mealworm beetle was once 

known only as a pest that ruined 

stored grains, but the lowly mealworm 

is currently having its moment in 

the positive spotlight as a high-protein 

sustainable food source. Not only are 

mealworms fed to backyard chickens, 

wild birds and pets, such as reptiles and 

captive birds, but they are also a protein 

source fed to commercially raised swine, 

poultry and farmed fish. 

Humans eat farmed fish, and the parts 

that we don’t eat, the fish byproduct, 

are dried and crushed into fishmeal 

and fed to swine and poultry as well 

as back to farmed fish. Fishmeal is 

also used as a fertilizer to grow fruits, 

vegetables and nuts. So, the mealworm 

already plays a role in our food supply 

chain. 

As with mealworms, fishmeal is a 

high-protein food source, but it may 

contain heavy metals or other contaminants. 

When organic farmers 

raise mealworms, they can control the 

insects’ feed and environment to eliminate 

chemicals and contaminants. 

Mealworms aren’t actually a worm 

at all. They are the larvae of Tenebrio 

molitor, a species of darkling beetle. 

The beetle has four life stages: egg, 

larva, pupa and adult beetle. The larvae 

go through several instar, or developmental 

stages, before reaching a final 

length of 2.5 cm to 3 cm. Adults are 

shorter in length, about 1.25 cm to 

1.8 cm. Adult beetles live for several 

months. The females lay around 500 

eggs in their lifetime. 

In the wild, mealworms eat vegetation, 

dead insects and their own skin 

casings from all those developmental 

molts. In captivity, mealworms eat 

food waste. 

Mealworm Business Model 

One northwest company, Beta Hatch, 

in collaboration with Indiana University, 

is taking the future of mealworms 

a step further with a genetic 

breeding program to produce bigger, 

better bugs. The new Beta Hatch flagship 

hatchery in Cashmere, Wash. is in 

the final stages of construction. 

“It’s the largest facility for mealworm 

farming in North America,” said Aimee 

Rudolph, Beta Hatch vice president 

of business development. “We are currently 

in the process of amplifying our 

mealworm population and insects have 

begun moving into their new grow 

rooms. We expect to be online and at 

full capacity in March 2022.” 

By 2023, Beta Hatch expects to start 

contracting with a network of insect 

ranchers. 

Mealworms are part of the four- to 

five-billion-dollar annual animal food 

market. 

“We are using a hub-and-spoke approach 

to production and expansion,” 

Rudolph said. “The facility in 

Cashmere is designed to operate as a 

hatchery. Eggs will be shipped to insect 

ranches. These ranches will be co-located 

with feedstocks for the insects, 

finished feed producers, end users for 

the frass or other key steps in the supply 

chain. In this way, we can further 

reduce the environmental impact of 

food production.” 

Beta Hatch’s flagship hatchery is 



The professionals’ top choice 

coast to coast for all root 

and foliar applications.


designed to support at least a dozen 

ranches and is already looking at ways 

to expand. Besides dried mealworms, 

Beta Hatch also sells frass. The mealworms’ 

frass (insect excrement) is a 

2-3-2 fertilizer and soil amendment 

certified organic by USDA. It’s also 

OMRI listed. 

Raising Mealworms 

Mealworms are raised in a sustainable 

way. Besides eating agricultural 

waste byproducts, mealworms require 

minimal water and grow at 500 times 

the acre yield of soy, according to Beta 

Hatch’s website (soy produces an average 

of 50 bushels per acre.) 

Mealworms are a popular treat for backyard chickens, pet birds and reptiles. 

“The larval stage is when we use the 

mealworms for feed. It’s also the life 

stage which produces frass, a natural 

fertilizer,” Rudolph said. “We have this 

beautiful, circular system in which the 

insects eat byproducts from industries 

like fruit harvesting and grain processing. 

The entire insect is then utilized as 

a feed ingredient with feed production 

mirroring the way it works in nature. 

“Insect ranching can be a steady source 

of revenue,” Rudolph pointed out. “You 

don’t have seasonality with mealworms. 

It’s a year-round predictable income to 

complement a diverse crop portfolio.” 

Food Revolution 

Humans eat the chickens, swine and 

fish that have been fed mealworms, but 

what if we skipped the middleman and 

went straight to eating the grubs? 

Many other cultures already eat insects. 

The act of humans consuming insects 

even has a name: entomophagy. In 

Brazil, queen ants take flight during 

October and November. The ants have 

a minty flavor and are often dipped 

in chocolate. In China, bee larvae are 

available as an appetizer. Chinese street 

vendors sell assorted insects skewered 

on sticks. In Denmark, ginger root 

and blended grasshoppers are mixed 

with apple juice for a special drink. In 

Ghana, up to 60% of the protein in 

rural Africans’ diet comes from insects; 

Darkling beetle (grown mealworm). 

termites are an important survival food. 

Japanese chefs whip up fancy dishes 

using fried silk moth pupae and fried 

grasshoppers. Insects in Mexico can 

satisfy a sweet tooth, either fried and 

dipped in chocolate or added to candy. 

Some Mexican cooks soak ant eggs in 

butter before serving them up. In Thailand 

bars, customers can snack on stirfried 

crickets, grasshoppers and grubs 

while enjoying their favorite alcoholic 

beverage. In the U.S., there’s a California-based 

company called Hotlix, 

which offers insect novelty edibles, such 

as suckers with scorpions embedded 

inside and snack-size packages of fried 

mealworms and crickets in assorted 

flavors, including bacon and cheddar, 

Mexican spice and salt and vinegar. 

For those interested in growing a sustainable 

protein source in their home or 

office, Livin Farms based out of Austria 

and Hong Kong supplies desktop mealworm 

hives. The hive looks somethings 

like a plastic tote with drawers. Mealworms 

are raised inside the drawer 

compartments, fed daily and harvested 

weekly. 

Mealworms are over 50% protein and 

about 25% fat and can live on food 

scraps, such as those the home gardener 

might toss into their compost 

bin or feed to their backyard hens. 

Scraps such as fruits and vegetables, 

and grains such as oats and bread, will 

keep mealworms growing and thriving 

in the Livin Farms mealworm hives. 

Worms in the hives shouldn’t be fed 

greasy or spicy foods, liquid foods, such 

as soup, or anything rotten or moldy. 

Dry and moist foods must be balanced 

to keep smells at bay. 

Optimum temperature for mealworms 

in captivity is around 82 degrees F. 


Plastic Eaters 

In 2015, it was discovered that mealworms will eat two types of plastics: polystyrene, 

such as Styrofoam coffee cups, containers and packing materials, and 

polyethylene, which is the most widely used type of plastic found in many items 

from bottles to bags. 

Mealworm stages of development. 

They need around 60% humidity. After 

harvesting the worms when they are 

about 3 cm long, they can be humanely 

killed by freezing them. They are then 

ready to fry, bake or grind into protein 

powder for human consumption. 

Besides being high in protein, insects 

have a minimal impact on the environment. 

The question is: Will Americans 

ever be able to get past the ‘ick’ factor 

and willingly eat insects as anything 

other than a novelty? Only time will 

tell. 




The mealworms’ penchant for poly is not an instant fix to the earth’s plastics 

problem, unfortunately, since it takes 3,000 to 4,000 mealworms about a week 

to devour a single Styrofoam coffee cup. Besides the mass quantities of larvae it 

would take to digest enough plastics to really help, there’s also the problem of the 

chemicals within the plastics. Do those chemicals stay inside the mealworms? 

As far as a flame retardant that’s manufactured into some of the poly, the mealworms 

defecate that out, leaving none in their guts. So, at least in theory, those 

worms could be fed to livestock without the fear of chemicals transferring to 

humans. Researchers found that half of the plastics that the worms ate were excreted 

as carbon dioxide, the gas used by plants to produce carbohydrates during 

photosynthesis, and some were excreted as partially digested plastic particles. 

That leads to further concerns about microplastics in our food chain. 

Scientist have isolated the powerful bacteria in the mealworms’ guts that breaks 

down the plastics and have successfully grown it in the lab. It takes a larger 

quantity of the bacteria outside of the mealworms than it takes the mealworms 

themselves to break down the same amount of plastics. But researching and 

understanding the mealworms’ biology may lead to future ways to deal with the 

plastics that humans have introduced into the environment. 

Contact us to see how we can help! 

(559)584-7695 or visit us as www.superiorsoil.com 

Serving California since 1983 


Interested 

in similar 

articles? 

SUBSCRIBE TO 

at progressivecrop.com/subscribe 

Although removal of infected plant material and debris can reduce the source of inoculum in the field, regular fungicide applications are typically 

necessary for managing botrytis fruit rot (all photos by S.K. Dara.) 

BIOLOGICAL SOLUTIONS 

FOR MANAGING BOTRYTIS 

FRUIT ROT IN STRAWBERRY 

By SURENDRA K. DARA | UCCE Entomology and Biologicals Advisor 

and DAVE PECK | Manzanita Berry Farms, Santa Maria 

Botrytis fruit rot or gray mold 

caused by Botrytis cinerea is a common 

fungal disease of strawberry 

and other crops damaging flowers and 

fruits. This pathogen has more than 200 

plant species as hosts producing several 

cell-wall-degrading enzymes, toxins 

and other compounds and causing 

the host to induced programmed cell 

death (Williamson et al. 2007). As a 

result, soft rot of aerial plant parts in 

live plants and postharvest decay of 

fruits, flowers and vegetables occurs. 

Pathogen survives in the plant debris 

and soil and can be present in the plant 

tissues before flowers form. Infection is 

common on developing or ripe fruits 

as brown lesions. Lesions typically 

appear under the calyxes but can be 

seen on other areas of the fruit. As 

the disease progresses, a layer of gray 

spores forms on the infected surface. 

Severe infection in flowers results in the 

failure of fruit development. Cool and 

moist conditions favor botrytis fruit 

rot development. Sprinkler irrigation, 

rains or certain agricultural practices 

can contribute to the dispersal of fungal 

spores. 

Although removal of infected plant 

material and debris can reduce the 

source of inoculum in the field, regular 

fungicide applications are typically 

necessary for managing botrytis fruit 

rot. Since fruiting occurs continuously 

for several months and fungicides are 

regularly applied, botrytis resistance to 

fungicides is not uncommon. Applying 

fungicides only when necessary, avoiding 

continuous use of fungicides from 

the same mode of action group and exploring 

the potential of biological fungicides 

to reduce the risk of resistance 

development are some of the strategies 

for effective botrytis fruit rot management. 

In addition to several synthetic 

fungicides, several biological fungicides 

continue to be introduced into the 

market offering various options for the 

growers. Earlier field studies evaluated 

the potential of various biological 

fungicides and strategies for using 

them with synthetic fungicides against 

botrytis and other fruit rots in strawberry 

(Dara 2019; Dara 2020). This 

study was conducted to evaluate some 

new and soon-to-be-released fungicides 

in fall-planted strawberry to support 

the growers, ag input industry and to 

promote sustainable disease management 

through biological and synthetic 

pesticides. 

Methodology 

This study was conducted on a conventional 

strawberry field at Manzanita 

Berry Farms, Santa Maria in strawberry 

variety 3024 planted in October 


2020. Treatments included fungicides 

containing captan and cyprodinil + 

fludioxinil as synthetic standards along 

with a variety of biological fungicides 

of microbial, botanical and animal 

sources at various rates and different 

combinations and rotations. Products 

and active ingredients evaluated in this 

study included captan 38.75%, cyprodinil 

37.5% + fludioxinil 25%, potassium 

carbonate 58.04% + thyme oil 1.75%, 

botanical extract 100 g AI/L, giant 

knotweed extract 5%, protein 15-20%, 

cinnamon oil 15% + garlic oil 20%, 

caprylic acid 41.7% + capric acid 28.3%, 

Pseudomonas chlororaphis strain 

AFS009 50%, Bacillus subtilis strain 

AFS032321 100%, P. chlororaphis strain 

AFS009 44.5% + azoxystrobin 5.75%, 

Banda de Lupinus albus doce – BLAD 

(a polypeptide from sweet lupine) 20% 

with chitosan 2.3% or pinene (polyterpenes) 

polymers, petrolatum, alkyl 

amine ethxylate (spreader/sticker) 

100%, thyme oil 20% and a thyme oil 

blend. 

Excluding the untreated control, the 

rest of the 24 treatments can be divided 

into synthetic fungicides, a fungicide 

with synthetic + biological active 

ingredients (a formulation with two application 

rates), synthetic fungicides alternated 

with biological fungicides and 

various kinds of biological fungicides 

(Table 1). Treatments were applied at a 

7- to 10-day interval between April 22 

and May 17, 2021. Berries for pre-treatment 

disease evaluation were harvested 

on April 19, 2021. Each treatment had 

a 5.67’ x 15’ plot replicated four times 

in a randomized complete block design. 

Strawberries were harvested three 

days before the first treatment and 

three to four days after each treatment 

for disease evaluation. On each sampling 

date, marketable-quality berries 

were harvested from random plants 


LET MILLER’S ORGANICS BOOST 

YOUR PRODUCE PERFORMANCE 

CITOLEAF ® 

TM 

BioVive 

Non-ionic adjuvant designed to 

improve the contact, wetting 

and adhesion of agrochemicals 

onto the plant surface 

Proprietary blend of organic acids 

that sequester and release soil 

nutrients while leaching sodium 

away from the root rhizosphere 

Natural sea plant extract fertilizer 

which is fortified with proprietary 

yeast extract to strengthen crop 

plant resistance or recovery 

Unique balanced profile blend 

of vegetable derived amino 

acids designed to improve root 

development and crop protection 

BENEFITS OF MILLER’S ORGANIC COMPLIANT SYSTEM 

ENHANCES INITIAL PRODUCT 

DEPOSITION AND COVERAGE 

IMPROVES EFFICACY OF CROP 

PROTECTION PROGRAMS 

BRINGING QUALITY AMERICAN FORMULATED PRODUCTS TO THE FARMING COMMUNITY FOR OVER 80 YEARS 

MILLERCHEMICAL.COM 

INFO@MILLERCHEMICAL.COM 

800.233.2040 

MILLERCHEMICAL 

@MILLERCHEMICAL 

MILLERCHEMICALFERTILIZER 

Always read and follow label directions. Not all products are registered in all states. Check registration in your state before using. THERE ARE NO IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR 

PURPOSE. Refer to the Miller Chemical & Fertilizer, LLC Standard Conditions of Sale for the only express warranties applicable to Miller Chemical & Fertilizer, LLC products. Products incorporating Miller Chemical & Fertilizer, 

LLC products are not warranted by Miller Chemical & Fertilizer, LLC. Nu-Film ® , CITOLEAF ® , BioVive and C.F.O. are used, applied for, or registered as trademarks of Miller Chemical & Fertilizer, LLC. 


Table 1 

Treatments and rates per acre 

Category 1st spray 2nd spray 3rd spray 4th spray 

1 Untreated control Untreated control Untreated control Untreated control 

2 Cyprodinil+fludioxinil 14 oz Captan 80 fl oz Cyprodinil+fludioxinil 14 oz Captan 80 fl oz 

Synthetic 3 Cyprodinil+fludioxinil 14 oz Cyprodinil+fludioxinil 14 oz Cyprodinil+fludioxinil 14 oz None 

4 Cyprodinil+fludioxinil None Cyprodinil+fludioxinil None 

Synthetic+ 

Biological 

Synthetic 

rotated 

with 

Biological 

Biological 

5 Potassium carbonate+thyme oil 48 oz Potassium carbonate+thyme oil 48 oz Potassium carbonate+thyme oil 48 oz Potassium carbonate+thyme oil 48 oz 

6 Potassium carbonate+thyme oil 80 oz Potassium carbonate+thyme oil 80 oz Potassium carbonate+thyme oil 80 oz Potassium carbonate+thyme oil 80 oz 

7 Cyprodinil+fludioxinil 14 oz Cyprodinil+fludioxinil 14 oz Botanical extract 27.4 fl oz Botanical extract 27.4 fl oz 

8 Cyprodinil+fludioxinil 14 oz Cyprodinil+fludioxinil 14 oz Botanical extract 41.1 fl oz Botanical extract 41.1 fl oz 

9 Cyprodinil+fludioxinil 14 oz Botanical extract 27.4 fl oz Cyprodinil+fludioxinil 14 oz Botanical extract 27.4 fl oz 

10 Cyprodinil+fludioxinil 14 oz Cyprodinil+fludioxinil 14 oz Giant knot weed extract 64 fl oz Giant knot weed extract 64 fl oz 

11 Cyprodinil+fludioxinil 14 oz Giant knot weed extract 64 fl oz Cyprodinil+fludioxinil 14 oz Giant knot weed extract 64 fl oz 

12 Cyprodinil+fludioxinil 14 oz Protein 48 oz Captan Protein 48 oz 

13 Botanical extract 41.1 fl oz Botanical extract 41.1 fl oz Botanical extract 41.1 fl oz Botanical extract 41.1 fl oz 

14 Protein 48 oz Protein 48 oz Protein 48 oz Protein 48 oz 

15 Cinnamon oil+garlic oil 1% Cinnamon oil+garlic oil 1% Cinnamon oil+garlic oil 1% Cinnamon oil+garlic oil 1% 

16 Caprylic acid+capric acid 0.2% Caprylic acid+capric acid 0.2% Caprylic acid+capric acid 0.2% Caprylic acid+capric acid 0.2% 

17 Caprylic acid+capric acid 0.35% Caprylic acid+capric acid 0.35% Caprylic acid+capric acid 0.35% Caprylic acid+capric acid 0.35% 

Pseudomonas chlororaphis strain AFS009 Pseudomonas chlororaphis strain AFS009 Pseudomonas chlororaphis strain AFS009 Pseudomonas chlororaphis strain AFS009 

18 80 oz 

80 oz 

80 oz 

80 oz 

19 

Banda de Lupinus albus doce – BLAD 43 fl 

oz 


oz 


oz 


oz 

20 BLAD 43 fl oz + Chitosan 30 fl oz BLAD 43 fl oz + Chitosan 30 fl oz BLAD 43 fl oz + Chitosan 30 fl oz BLAD 43 fl oz + Chitosan 30 fl oz 

21 BLAD 43 fl oz + Pinene polymers … 8 fl oz BLAD 43 fl oz + Pinene polymers … 8 fl oz BLAD 43 fl oz + Pinene polymers … 8 fl oz BLAD 43 fl oz + Pinene polymers … 8 fl oz 

22 Bacillus subtilis strain AFS032321 48 oz Bacillus subtilis strain AFS032321 48 oz Bacillus subtilis strain AFS032321 48 oz Bacillus subtilis strain AFS032321 48 oz 

23 

P. chlororaphis strain 

AFS009+azoxystrobin 44.8 oz 







24 Thyme oil 128 fl oz Thyme oil 128 fl oz Thyme oil 128 fl oz Thyme oil 128 fl oz 

25 Thyme oil blend 40 fl oz Thyme oil blend 40 fl oz Thyme oil blend 40 fl oz Thyme oil blend 40 fl oz 


within each plot during a 30-second 

period and incubated in paper 

bags at outdoor temperatures under 

shade. Number of berries with botrytis 

infection were counted on three 

and five days after harvest (DAH) and 

percent infection was calculated. This 

is a different protocol than previous 

years’ studies where disease rating 

was made on a 0 to 4 scale. Treatments 

were applied with a backpack 

sprayer equipped with hollow cone 

nozzle using 90 gpa spray volume at 45 

PSI. Water was sprayed in the untreated 

control plots. A surfactant with methyl 

esters of C16-C18 fatty acids was used 

at 0.125% for treatments that contained 

protein P. chlororaphis alone and in 

combination with azoxystrobin, B. 

subtilis, thyme oil and thyme oil blend. 

Research authorization was obtained 

for some products and crop destruction 

was implemented for products that did 

not have California registration. 

Percent infection data were arcsine-transformed 

before subjecting to 

the analysis of variance using Statistix 

software. Significant means were 

separated using the least significant 

difference test. 


Pre-treatment infection was very low and occurred only in some treatments with no 

statistical difference (P > 0.05). Infection levels increased for the rest of the study period. 

Infected Berries 

10% 

5% 

0% 


40% 

30% 

20% 

10% 

0% 

Pre-treatment Botrytis infection 

3 DAH 3 DAH 

1 2 3 8 22 23 4 5 9 6 10 25 7 24 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 

Botrytis infection after 1 spray 

3 DAH 3 DAH 

UTC 

Switch 

Switch 

Switch 

NSTKI-14-L 

NSTKI-14-H 

Switch 

Switch 

Switch 

Switch 

Switch 

Switch 

A22613-H 

EXP14 

Gargoil 

Dart 0.2 

Dart 0.35 

Howler 

ProBlad Verde 

ProBlad V+ Kiplant 

ProBlad V+ Nu Film P 

Theia 

Esendo 

Agricell Fun Thyme 

AS-EXP Thyme 


In conjunction with 

REGISTER AT 

wcngg.com/NVNC 

Glenn County Fairgrounds 

January 5th, 2022 

Time 7:00 AM to 1:00 PM 

221 E Yolo St, Orland, CA 95963 

Free Event 

Live Trade Show 

Continuing Education Offered 

Industry Tri-Tip Lunch included 

Topics Covering: 

IPM 

Irrigation 

Varieties 

Rootstock 

and more!


Results 

Pre-treatment infection was very low 

and occurred only in some treatments 

with no statistical difference (P > 

0.05). Infection levels increased for the 

rest of the study period. There was no 

statistically significant difference (P > 

0.05) among treatments for disease 

levels three or five days after the first 

spray application. Differences were 

significant (P = 0.0131) in disease five 

DAH after the second spray application 

where 13 treatments from all categories 

had significantly lower infection than 

the untreated control. After the third 

spray application, infection levels were 

significantly lower in eight treatments 

in three DAH observations (P = 0.0395) 

and 10 treatments in five DAH observations 

(P = 0.0005) compared to the 

untreated control. There were no statistical 

differences (P > 0.05) among treatments 

for observations after the fourth 

spray application or for the average of 

four applications. However, there were 

numerical differences where infection 

levels were lower in several treatments 

than the untreated control plots. 



60% 

40% 

20% 

0% 

50% 

40% 

30% 

20% 

10% 

0% 

Botrytis infection after III spray 

3 DAH 3 DAH 

P = 0.0395 

P = 0.0005 

a 

a 

ab 

abcd 

ab ab 

abc 

ab ab 

abcde abcd 

abc abcde 

abcde 

abcdef abcde 

bcdef 

bcde 

bcdef 

def 

cdef 

ef 

ef 

ef 

a 

abcde 

abcde 

abcde 

abcde abcd 

abcde abcde 

abcd ab 

f 

ab 

abc abc 

a abc 

abcde 

e de 

abcde 

de de de de 

bcde cde 

UTC 

Switch 

Switch 

Switch 

NSTKI-14-L 

NSTKI-14-H 

A22613-L 

A22613-H 

Switch 

Regalia 

Switch 

Captan 

A22613-H 

EXP14 

Gargoil 

Dart 0.2 

Dart 0.35 

Howler 

ProBlad Verde 

ProBlad V+ Kiplant 

ProBlad V+ Nu Film P 

Theia 

Esendo 

Agricell Fun Thyme 

AS-EXP Thyme 

Botrytis infection after four spray applications 

3 DAH 3 DAH 

In general, the efficacy of both synthetic 

and biological fungicides varied 

throughout the study period among 

the treatments. When the average 

for post-treatment observations was 

considered, infection was numerically 

lower in all treatments regardless of 

the fungicide category. Since the rates, 

rotations and combinations were all 

experimental, additional studies can 

help determine optimal use strategies 

for these active ingredients. Multiple 

biological fungicide treatments either 

alone or in rotation with synthetic 

fungicides appeared to be as effective as 

synthetic fungicides. These biological 

fungicides can be an important part of 

integrated disease management, especially 

for the botrytis fruit rot that has 

frequent resistance problems. 

Thanks to AgBiome, AgroSpheres, Biotalys, 

NovaSource, Sym-Agro, Syngenta, 

and Westbridge for funding and Chris 

Martinez for his technical assistance. 

Multiple biological fungicide treatments either alone or in rotation with synthetic fungicides 

appeared to be as effective as synthetic fungicides. 

References 

Dara, S. K. 2019. Five shades of gray 

mold control in strawberry: evaluating 

chemical, organic oil, botanical, 

bacterial, and fungal active ingredients. 

UCANR eJournal of Entomology 

and Biologicals. https://ucanr.edu/ 

blogs/blogcore/postdetail.cfm?postnum=30729 

Dara, S. K. 2020. Evaluating biological 

fungicides against botrytis and other 

fruit rots in strawberry. UCANR 

eJournal of Entomology and Biologicals. 

https://ucanr.edu/blogs/blogcore/ 

postdetail.cfm?postnum=43633 

Williamson, B., B. Tudzynski, P. 

Tudzynski, and J.A.L. van Kan. 2007. 

Botrytis cinerea: the cause of grey mold 

disease. Mol. Plant Pathol. 8: 561-580. 





Blu t o Bttr Oan Pdun 

BET O PGE: 

Stiti so cogim 

Los, in il fe w 

Redon riz eqe 

Acit he moto pt ede 

an cus ehm 

Ines at ta cat so 

Benfia t so y an mit 

Opiz uton h an, d 

gos ror o ste 

MORZE 

PEGI 

ACTE 

BET O MRZA: 

Plas es t 

Plas es riz 

Stite t ow 

Imov sin o fl o des 

Imov rut ra 

Red tasn h 

Imov al roh 

Imov il rre 

Sol on esto d tito 

BET O CAT 

Fre in mos pet nede 

Aci fal g n un bos 

Nitn fiig nis 

Hum ran 

PO: 559-564-1236 

w.MyoAdCo.c 

Cal y o 20% Dist o Y ex Ode 


SOIL NITROGEN FERTILITY 

FOR ORGANIC SWEET CORN 

PRODUCTION 

By JOSEPH R. HECKMAN | Ph.D., Soil Fertility Extension Specialist, Rutgers University 

To sample for the “End-of-Season Stalk N Test”, 

collect stalk segments at 6 and 14 inches above the 

ground (all photos courtesy J. Heckman.) 

Sweet corn is a heavy feeder on soil 

nitrogen (N). A full-season sweet 

corn variety may uptake about 125 

lbs. N per acre in the stover, and about 50 

lbs. N is removed by harvest of marketable 

ears. Thus, before organic growers 

crop a field to sweet corn, they should 

build up the capacity of the soil to supply 

N. 

Because there are no cheap and readily 

available approved N sources for supplying 

supplemental N during the early 

growing season, it is important to design 

an organic farm plan that will minimize 

the need to apply sidedress N fertilizer for 

production of organic sweet corn. Crop 

rotations, legume cover crops, manures 

and compost are commonly used organic 

methods and inputs to achieve a goal of 

soil N sufficiency. 

Help the Crop Early On 

At the time of planting, a small amount of 

an organic fertilizer may be placed near 

the seed row. This strategic placement is 

intended to get the crop off to an early 

start when the root system is limited. 

Once the corn plants are about six inches 

tall, it is the beginning of a very rapid 

vegetative growth phase where the crop 

has a high daily uptake demand for N. 

The peak uptake rate for N may exceed 

3 lbs. N per acre per day. During this 

critical period of rapid growth, the soil 

under organic farming management must 

have the capacity to supply sufficient N to 

match the needs of the crop. 

One way to access the soil N availability 

Collect stalk samples on same day as harvest of the sweet corn crop. 

at this critical growth stage is to test the 

soil for nitrate-N in the surface 12 inches 

of soil. This soil test method is commonly 

referred to as the Pre-Sidedress Soil 

Nitrate Test (PSNT). The concept behind 

the test was first developed on grain and 

silage corn, but research has demonstrated 

that this soil test can be applied effectively 

to sweet corn and a wider range of 

annual vegetable crops such as cabbage. 

The PSNT is a soil test where the soil 

sampling is performed during the early 

growing season. It is most useful in fields 

where one might expect, based on good 

soil building cultural practices, that the 

soil can be predicted to supply sufficient 

N to take the crop to maturity. Thus, the 

purpose of this early season soil test for 

N is to make predictions about projected 

N availability for the remainder of the 

growing season. 

If the PSNT soil test finds a 25-ppm-orhigher 

level of nitrate-N in the soil, the 

field is considered adequate and no supplemental 

or sidedress N fertilizer would 

be recommended. When growers test and 

find this level of available soil N early in 

the growing season, it gives confidence to 

growers that their N fertility program is 

on target. 

On the other hand, if the PSNT soil test 

finds less than 25 ppm of nitrate-N in the 

soil, the field is considered deficient and 

sidedress N fertilizer would be recommended. 

Hopefully this is not a common 

occurrence for organic sweet corn growers, 

but if it happens, they may sidedress 

with pelleted poultry manure or some 

other approved N fertilizer. 

Conceptually, the PSNT soil test is a 

good diagnostic tool use for organic crop 

production. Under good organic farming 

management, the PSNT is useful to 

measure and hopefully confirm that the 

soil has the capacity to supply sufficient 

N and produce a good crop yield of sweet 

corn. This gives the organic grower confidence 

in their soil building and cultural 

management practices. 

On low-organic-matter-content soils 

and where farming systems neglect to 




use soil fertility building practices as well 

as where there is not a strong focus on 

building up a healthy biological capacity 

to supply N to crops, it is generally a 

waste of time to use the PSNT soil test. 

This is because such fields will almost 

invariably have low soil test values as 

measured by the PSNT, and this can be 

predicted without performing a PSNT 

soil test. 

In most cases under good organic 

farming management, the PSNT soil test 

should find 25 ppm or above for nitrate 

nitrogen. As previously stated, if the 

PSNT soil test finds less than 25 ppm, the 

grower can still apply some supplemental 

N fertilizer. A situation where N deficient 

soils might be found is where a heavy 

leaching rain washes available N from 

the soil before the PSNT soil sample was 

collected. 

Occasionally, an organic grower might, 

when using the PSNT soil test, find 

exceptionally high levels (greater than 50 

ppm) of nitrate-N. In this hopefully rare 

instance, this may be interpreted as a sign 

that the organic grower used a combination 

of manures, composts and legume 

rotations to supply excess N. The grower 

can learn from this experience and adjust 

their soil fertility building program accordingly 

in future growing seasons. 

Carrying Out a PSNT Soil Test 

Details on how to carry out the PSNT soil 

test are available by web search for a fact 

sheet at Rutgers New Jersey Agriculture 

Experiment Station: “Soil Nitrate Testing 

as a Guide to Nitrogen Management for 

Vegetable Crops”. 

Briefly, for sweet corn, soil samples are 

collected when plants are about six inches 

tall by collecting soil cores between the 

rows. The soil sample probe for this 

special test needs to be able to collect the 

soil sample cores from the 0- to 12-inch 

depth (note that this is a deeper sampling 

depth than for a traditional soil fertility 

test.) Collect about 15 cores from the field 

area of interest. The soil sample needs to 

be dried shortly after collection to stop 

soil metabolism which could otherwise 

change nitrate-N concentrations. Soil 

samples can be dried quickly in an oven 

The PSNT soil test can be used for several vegetable crops besides sweet corn. In this 

instance, the PSNT soil samples are being collected from a field on cabbage early in 

the growing season about two weeks after transplanting. Note that the soil sample 

probe depth for this special soil test is taken from the first 0 to 12 inches of soil, which 

is deeper than typically done for regular soil testing. 

Corn plants exhibiting N deficiency. A “V”-shaped pattern of yellowing and leaf necrosis 

is a sign of severe N deficiency on corn. The symptoms are most prominent on the lower 

leaves. 

or overnight by placing the soil in a thin 

layer in pan inside of a warm greenhouse. 

Send the sample off to a soil testing 

laboratory that can report results back to 

the grower quickly. A fast turnaround for 

reporting is needed because if by chance 

the soil test finds that N is deficient, the 

grower will want to immediately take 

corrective action by adding supplemental 

N fertilizer. 

Soil test kits for nitrate, designed for use 

on the farm, may be used as an alternative 

to sending soil samples out to a 

laboratory. 

Note that interpretations for the PSNT 

may vary slightly among states, so check 

with your local state extension service. 

Nevertheless, there is good consensus 

among researchers that the critical PSNT 

soil test level is near 25 ppm nitrate-N for 

field corn, sweet corn and cabbage. 

Unique Organic Fertility 

Another point of consideration is the 

unique fertility situation of soils under 

organic management. Approaches to 

building soil fertility, the nutrient sources 

and the tillage systems are often quite 

different for organic versus conventional 

production systems. After long-term 

management under the contrasting systems, 

especially because of organic matter 

accumulation, the soils may become 

more biologically active and different 

enough that agronomic test results may 

need reconsideration. Soil fertility test interpretations 

as developed from research 

conducted under conventional farming 

are generally assumed to be transferable 

for use in organic systems. However, most 

soil testing standards were developed 

under non-organic farm management, 

and that is about the only database we 

currently have until more soil fertility test 

research is conducted on certified organic 

farms. 

Another indicator of when corn is provided 

with excessive amounts of N from soil 

or fertilizer is by use of a stalk tissue test. 

Corn plants typically have good green 

color just as should be expected for optimally 

fertilized corn. However, excessive 

N supply and N uptake are not so easy 

to visually diagnose by crop appearance 

alone. A good diagnostic test for excess N 

fertilization of sweet corn is the “End-of- 

Season Stalk N Test”. This plant tissue test 

is performed at harvest time. At this stage, 

it is too late to take corrective action 

during the current growing season; how- 


ever, a grower can learn from experience if year after year they 

are providing excessive N. With this “report card” information 

about their production practices, they can learn to adjust their 

fertility program in subsequent growing seasons. 

In the case of N deficiency, stalk N testing in sweet corn is not 

useful because the symptoms of N deficiency in corn (yellowing 

of the older leaves and small ear size) are readily apparent 

without performing a test. Classic symptoms for N deficiency 

appear first on lower leaves as yellowing and in severe cases 

as a dead tissue with a V-shaped pattern from the leaf tip to 

midvein. 

To perform the corn stalk tissue test, collect samples of stalk 

tissue by cutting and collecting segments of the stalk at harvest 

time. Do not delay sample collection; sampling must be performed 

on the same day as sweet corn ear harvest. Cut stalk 

segments at 6 and 14 inches above the ground. Remove outer 

leafy plant tissue and collect about ten or more stalk segments 

from the field area of interest. Dry the samples and send them 

to a lab for analysis for total N concentration. 

Interpret results as follows: sweet corn stalk samples with 1.6% 

to 2.2% N are regarded to be in the optimum range, and stalk 

samples testing above 2.2% N are regarded as having too much 

N and are a sign of overfertilization. 

Details on how to use this tissue test are 

available by web search at Rutgers New Jersey 

Agriculture Experiment Station: “Sweet 

Corn Crop Nitrogen Status Evaluation by 

Stalk Testing”. 

Other Nutrients 

Besides N, sweet corn needs a proper balance 

of all essential plant nutrients. Fields 

intended for sweet corn should be sampled 

and tested to ensure that P and K fertility 

levels are at or near optimum levels. The 

target soil pH level for sweet corn is 6.5. 

Applications of limestone as recommended 

by soil test reports should supply any 

needed calcium (Ca) or magnesium (Mg). 

Sulfur (S) is an important nutrient for both 

yield and enhancement of sweet corn flavor. 

Fields with very sandy soils are most likely 

to be S deficient. Organic growers who 

frequently apply manures or compost will 

generally have enough S fertility from the 

soil. The need for micronutrients can be 

assessed from soil tests. Boron (B) is an important 

nutrient for pollination and good 

kernel fill at the ear tip. Manganese (Mn) 

deficiency sometimes occurs on sandy soils. 

Foliar applications of manganese sulfate (1 

lb. Mn/acre) can correct a Mn deficiency. 

Amount of nutrient removal by crop 

harvest is a useful indicator for sustainable 

nutrient management. For sweet corn, we have data to show 

how much macro and micronutrients are removed with every 

harvest of sweet corn. Depending on whether sweet corn is 

grown for direct marketing, wholesale or processing, growers 

may use different units to express yield. Thus, the nutrient 

removal values can be expressed both in units of ear number 

and weight. 

A crate typically consists of 50 ears as a market unit. Whether 

expressed as per 1,000 ears, hundredweight (100 lbs. = 1 cwt), 

or crate (50 ears), nutrient management planners can scale 

nutrient removal values up to a yield goal per unit land area 

by multiplication. As an example, for nutrient removal data 

we will assume a typical full season variety of sweet corn. And 

assume the yield level = 150 cwt/acre (or about 18,396 ears/ 

acre or about 368 crates). (This example assumes weight of 

a one typical fresh sweet corn ear of market size with green 

husk included equals 0.815 pounds.) This full-season variety of 

18,396 ears harvested fresh would be projected to remove in lbs. 

per acre: N, 51; P, 9.1; K, 34; S, 3.7; Ca, 2.0; Mg, 3.9; B, 0.024; 

Cu, 0.014; Fe, 0.09; Mn, 0.044; and Zn, 0.072. Nutrient removal 

values would be somewhat less for a shorter season sweet corn 

variety. 

Comments about this article? We want to hear from you. Feel 

free to email us at article@jcsmarketinginc.com 

Post-Harvest Fertilization 

Feeding the soil microbiome after harvest helps build humus. 

Soon the soil life won’t be fed from the plants’ photosynthesis. 

So apply a carbon-based fertilizer like Pacific Gro. 

Soil tilth will improve, soil life will continue to grow, and 

Next year’s crop will enjoy a faster, vigorous start. 

Provides calcium, salmon oil, amino acid nitrogen and 

chitin in a liquid foliar and soil fertilizer. 

O Helps microbes feed and defend the crop 

O Builds healthy fungal populations 

O Delivers plant-available calcium 

Produced by Creative AG Products Inc. 

www.pacificgro.com 503-867-4849 


NEW BERKELEY URBAN AG 

ORDINANCE CULTIVATES 

GROWING FOOD TOGETHER 

By ROB BENNATON | UCCE Bay Area Urban Ag Advisor 

and PETER RUDDOCK | California Policy and Implementation Director, COOK Alliance 

Recent Berkeley Urban Ag Ordinance zoning changes cultivate growing food together by allowing adaptive city farm production and programming 

in backyard, community garden and vertical farm settings, setting precedent for other cities (photo by Claire Weissbluth.) 


The little-known recent Berkeley 

Urban Ag Ordinance zoning 

changes cultivate growing food 

together by allowing adaptive city 

farm production and programming in 

backyard, community garden and vertical 

farm settings, setting precedent 

for other cities, thanks to the Berkeley 

Food Policy Council, the Berkeley 

Community Garden Collaborative 

and Slow Food East Bay. The Oakland 

Food Policy Council before them had 

successfully advocated for the “Right 

to Grow Food” citywide in 2014. In 

fact, urban and peri-urban food policy 

councils have been organizing food 

system changes for more equitable 

food access, with nearly 300 councils 

in the U.S. as of 2021, each with goals 

of more nutritious, affordable and 

local food, many in communities with 

limited fresh food access. Both the 

zoning changes and groups organizing 

them are catalysts for the kinds of cooperative, 

community-based food and 

ag business and nonprofit efforts that 

can keep cities diverse, and support 

homegrown current-resident-based 

micro-economic development, with 

minimal start-up costs. 

Zoning Changes 

In 2018, the Berkeley City Council 

adopted a newly revised Urban Ag 

Zoning Ordinance to further allow 

citywide food growing, provide 

criteria for city agricultural land use 

intensity, set local food sales/crops 

parameters and provide guidance 

for associated agricultural education 

opportunities. For years, growing 

food on a Berkeley vacant lot was a 

rabbit hole complicated by incomplete 

agricultural land use zoning guidance. 

This ambiguity left city staff and residents 

to self-interpret statutes, despite 

increasing interest in urban farming 

that could bring neighborhood 

residents closer together. The Berkeley 

Food Policy Council, Berkeley Community 

Garden Collaborative plus the 

Ecology Center actively advocated for 

the new Ordinance, along with the 

Berkeley Climate Action Coalition. 

Previously, the Berkeley Residential 

and Manufacturing Districts Zoning 

included statutes allowing some 

“urban ag” in residential areas, but food 

growing as an agricultural land use 

was minimally referred to and mostly 

undefined by City of Berkeley’s Zoning 

Ordinance criteria. 

That older ordinance allowed for commercial 

farming/gardening in residentially 

zoned lands as an accessory to a 

residential use. This meant a residential 

property with a house or apartment 

building on it could have a backyard 

garden supplying food to the neighborhood 

by sale or donation. Even an 

occasional produce stand was allowed, 

however, they were not permitted in 

other city zones, even on rare, residentially 

zoned-vacant lots, excepting 

Manufacturing (M) and Mixed Manufacturing 

(MM) districts. In zoning 

statutes for those districts, minimal 

language specified ag land use limits, 

except for permit types based on land 

area occupied. In fact, the Berkeley 

City Zoning Ordinance defined neither 

“Farms” nor “Agricultural Uses” in any 

of its statutes before the amendment; 

thus, the new ordinance is more comprehensive 

and helpful. 

Urban Farms and 

Community Gardens 

The difference between the two urban 

agricultural land use intensity levels 

revolves around thresholds for: 

• Parcel size: (less than or greater than 

7,500 sq. ft. co-determines designation 

as an LIUA vs. HIUA land use). Greater 

than 7,500 sq.ft. requires an Administrative 

Use Permit (AUP). 

• Lot coverage with accessory structures: 

(


• Hours of farm and activity operation(s): 

8am to 8pm, 7 days/ week. An 

AUP is required for operations outside 

of these times. 

• Group classes and workshops: Up to 

20 participants allowed, up to three 

times per week. Classes and workshops 

meeting more often than three times 

per week would also require an AUP. 

• Pesticide use is set as a defining 

threshold-criteria for HIUA designation, 

fostering public notification and 

review through a corresponding AUP 

review process. 

• Cannabis cultivation and small animal 

husbandry exclusion in Berkeley 

city farming, as covered under other 

regulatory statutes, and are not considered 

allowed urban agricultural land 

uses. 


PECAN 

DAY 

Yuba-Sutter Fairgrounds 

The City Council referred two distinct 

2016 zoning revision matters to the 

Planning Commission, one on urban 

ag and the other on community gardens. 

Both sought clarity in defining 

city farmland uses, products, permitting 

and accessory structures, and by 

setting food-growing land use limits 

based on intensity of production and 

use. Prior Berkeley city farming regulations 

allowed limited sales of “non-processed 

edibles” without clear definition 

of allowable crops that could be sold 

or guidance related to minimizing 

nuisance-causing agricultural activities 

(like manure smells and 

machine noises.) The Planning 

Commission streamlined 

inner city food growing 

regulations, recognizing 

urban ag’s social, economic 

and environmental benefits as 

contributing to the development of 

vibrant, multicultural, livable cities. 

Although the 2016 zoning revision 

issues were referred to separately, the 

Commission chose not to separate 

urban farms and community gardens 

by definition, but by site criteria based 

on land use extent in production, size 

and intensity. 

As a progressive policy, this combined 

category upholds urban farms and 

community gardens as potential community 

agricultural education centers 

where neighborhood residents can 

also learn, for example, the benefits 

of locally grown produce, or how to 

save seeds for the next crop. Amended 

urban ag zoning added statutes on 

urban farming operations and recognized 

farming as an activity aligned 

with the Berkeley Climate Action Plan, 

fueling zoning reform. Mayor Arreguin 

had been on City Council when 

initiating the Council’s two referrals 

for ordinance revision back to the 

Planning Commission for review, and 

collectively, the Planning Commission 

recommended urban ag be an allowable 

citywide land use in summer 2018. 

A Low-Intensity Urban Agriculture 

(LIUA) designation includes community 

gardens or yards where small 

amounts of food are sold and food is 

allowed to be grown by right with a 

Zoning Certificate citywide without 

being subject to review hearings and 

excessive fees. Conversely, High-Intensity 

Urban Agriculture (HIUA) 

includes urban food-growing land uses 

requiring higher levels of regulation 

and/or community input due to greater 

extent of scale, production for sales and 

possible needs for increased regulation 

addressing food safety. 

By the end of 2020, the first year of the 

COVID-19 pandemic, 288 food policy 

councils nationwide were conducting 

needed work on food and agricultural 

legislative changes at local, municipal, 

county and state levels, comprising 

extensive policy, program and partnership 

achievements. In 2021, the Johns 

Hopkins Center for a Livable Future’s 

For years, growing food on a Berkeley vacant 

lot was a rabbit hole complicated by incomplete 

agricultural land use zoning guidance (photo 

courtesy Berkeley Basket CSA.) 

Food Policy Networks project organized 

a national Power of Food Forum 

with support from a national design 

team, which brought together over 525 

people from 167 food policy councils 

and similar groups advocating for policies 

that create equitable and sustainable 

food systems (Santo et.al., 2021). 

While local urban food growing has 

been increasing in popularity to the 

point of recent U.S. Farm Bill establishment 

of a USDA Office of Urban 

Agriculture and Innovative Production, 

globally, >55% of the world’s population 

lives in cities, with projected 

increases to 68% by 2050 (United 

Nations Dept of Economic and Social 

Affairs’ 2018 Revision of World Urbanization 

Prospects). Currently, projected 

food production increases are at 60% 

by 2066 to feed the growing population, 

795 million of whom experience regular 

hunger or malnutrition, and these 

kinds of model zoning ordinances are 

one of many tools that can help meet 

those needs in your communities, too, 

and food policy councils can give voice 

towards those goals. 




Register today at 

34 wcngg.com/PecanDay 

Organic Farmer December 2021/January 2022

Growing Clean Hemp for a 

Sustainable Environment 

By DANITA CAHILL | Contributing Writer 

Watering in new transplants (all photos courtesy 

C. Maffey.) 

Hemp is one of the oldest 

crops farmed by man. It’s been 

grown since 8,000 BCE, the 

very beginning of human agriculture. 

Archeologists found traces of hemp 

in what is now Taiwan and China. 

As for hemp history in the U.S., the 

plant is as American as apple pie. It 

was first grown in the U.S. in Jamestown, 

Va. and was a crop the colonists 

were required to grow. George 

Washington and Thomas Jefferson 

both grew hemp. Pioneers used hemp 

to make wagon coverings. 

Hemp uses less water, chemical 

fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides 

than many other crops. It’s efficient 

at sequestering carbon dioxide from 

the atmosphere, making it a lower 

footprint crop than many others. 

One acre of hemp will take in 10 to 

15 tons of CO 2 

in a growing season, 

which is equivalent to the average 

amount of CO 2 

contributed by one 

person in a year. 

As far as eco-friendly fibers and fabrics 

go, hemp is up on the list along 

with jute and organically grown cotton, 

flax (linen) and bamboo. Hemp 

seed can be used for animal feed 

and the stem fiber as insulation and 

animal bedding. 

Hemp is also good for the soil. A 

farmer will get more corn yield from 

a field if it was first planted in hemp. 

Wheat and barley are also good crops 

to plant following a hemp harvest. 

With all of its potential ecological 

benefits, some growers are looking to 

make inroads into organic certification 

for hemp and cannabis production. 

Going Organic 

Cassandra Maffey is the vice president 

of cultivation at Hava Gardens, an 

organic cannabis growing operation 

in De Beque, Colo. and the largest living-soil 

cultivation of cannabis in the 

state. Although Hava Gardens is a new 

business (they bought their greenhouse 

and revamped it in 2020 and harvested 

their first crop in 2021), Maffey has 20 

years of regulated cannabis growing 

experience in both the U.S. and Europe. 

Maffey said she learned about organic 

growing through trial and error. “I 

tried synthetic. I tried aeroponics and a 

couple different styles of hydroponics. I 

was never as happy with the quality as 

when I went organic.” 

Hava Gardens grows their plants in 

a greenhouse, but even under cover, 

Maffey is still a big believer in growing 

plants in soil teeming with life. 

“Living soil is rich in organic matter 

and probiotic microorganisms. Living 

soil is really just mimicking what exists 

in nature. Soil isn’t meant to be used 

once for a crop and then thrown away,” 

Maffey said. 

She prefers to create an environment 

that will slowly consume what she’s 

putting into the soil. “At Hava Gardens, 

we create a great ecosystem in soil for 

organisms to thrive.” 

Maffey likes to use organic kelp and alfalfa 

meal, along with various crushed 

minerals, testing the soil periodically 

for nutrients and micronutrients. She 

uses dry bulk material—dried kelp, for 

example, instead of kelp extract. The 

kelp meal is minimally processed. It 

acts as a slow-release fertilizer in the 

soil, naturally. With kelp meal, the fermentation 

process can be done by the 


Cassandra Maffey, vice president of 

cultivation at Hava Gardens, said it is 

important not to let pests get a foothold 

in organic production. 

Soil for new transplants at Hava includes peat moss and 

worm castings to create a biodynamic environment for 

young plants. 

Plants are transplanted into living soil at Hava 

Gardens. 

soil. With kelp extract, the fermentation 

is done by the nutrient manufacturer. 

By purchasing kelp meal, a grower isn’t 

paying to basically ship a lot of water, 

Maffey noted. 

Living Soil Produces Less Waste 

“If you use your soil one time and then 

throw it out, that’s several tons of waste 

that would go directly to a landfill in 

many cases,” Maffey said. 

In the best-case scenario, the used soil is 

going to an industrial composting facility, 

but it takes fossil fuels to get it there, 

Maffey points out, and could mean extra 

trips up to five or six times a year. 

Maffey starts with a soil mix that includes 

materials such as peat moss and 

worm castings. So, how do the microorganisms 

get into the soil? 

“Oftentimes, there are mycorrhizal fungi 

in the soil mix. A lot of that soil food 

web gets introduced passively,” she said, 

citing nematodes as an example. “There 

are nematodes covering everything all 

over the world. Our broad-spectrum 

inoculant is worm castings. Everything 

that the worms consume is introduced 

into the soil.” 

Sometimes, a little more boost in microorganisms 

is warranted. “We have some 

inoculants that we can use from time to 

time to make sure we have a pretty diverse 

microsystem,” Maffey said. “A lot of 

people have wound up spending a whole 



Organic production requires more “eyes on the 

plants.” 

Pruning a plant at Hava Gardens. 


lot of money on microorganisms that 

maybe only live for a couple of days.” 

Growing in a Greenhouse 

Growing plants in a greenhouse leaves a 

smaller carbon footprint than growing 

indoors, said Maffey. When you’re growing 

in a greenhouse, you use less HVAC 

(heating, ventilation and air conditioning) 

and lighting than you would growing 

in an indoor facility where growers 

have to provide 100% of the light. 

Maffey likes to use organic kelp and alfalfa meal, along with various crushed minerals, 

testing the soil periodically for nutrients and micronutrients at Hava Gardens in Colorado. 

“Lights create heat, so then you have to 

supply 50% to 80% more HVAC,” said 

Maffey. For cooling, Hava Gardens uses a 

wet wall to water cool the growing environment. 

“We’re not using refrigerant.” 

Growing cannabis in a greenhouse won’t 

work in every location. “In western Pennsylvania 

or the Midwest, for example, 

where it’s cloudy and damp for a month 

at a time, it can be really challenging 

to pull off a great cannabis crop in a 

greenhouse in the winter,” said Maffey. 

“You always have to be compensating for 

weather.” 

It’s important to choose your greenhouse 

location; someplace warm and dry with 

lots of sunlight, Maffey notes. 

Eyes on the Plant 

You can’t let pests get a foothold. Hiring 

more people will help with that. 

“I think if you’re aspiring to be an organic 

cultivator, one of the most important 

things is integrated pest management. 

You need more people, more eyes on 

the plants to be looking for pests. More 

pruning to allow air to move through the 

canopy,” Maffey said. 

Employee training is also important. “In 

an organic facility, you need to make 

sure your people are really well trained. 

Then they might say, ‘You’ve got Pythium 

in the third bay.’ As long as it hasn’t gone 

too far, you can go ahead and address 

that right away,” said Maffey. 

With synthetic methods, a grower might 

let an issue go too long and then try to 

correct it with heavy doses of chemical 

sprays. 

Sustainable-Growing Certifications 

In the cannabis world, two California 

farms are the first to become OCal 

certified cannabis farms. The certification 

comes through California Certified 

Organic Farmers (CCOF). OCal’s 

standards closely mirror the USDA’s 

National Organics Program (NOP). It’s 

hailed as “Comparable-to-Organic.” The 

certification goes to Sensibolt Organics 

out of Humboldt County and The Highland 

Canopy at Sonoma Hills Farm out 

of Sonoma County. Sonoma Hills Farm’s 

pasture was also recently certified organic 

along with their flower and vegetable 

crops. 

The process to become OCal certified 

involves filling out an application, a 

review, an inspection, a compliance 

review and, finally, certification. OCal 

is a California-specific program, but if 

cannabis becomes legal at the federal level, 

the USDA would likely offer a similar 

organic certification to qualifying farms 

across the nation. 

Sonoma Hills Farm and Sensibolt Organics 

are both also Sun+Earth certified. 

That certification process is different than 

OCal. Sun+Earth is a non-profit certification 

for regenerative organic hemp 

and cannabis small-scale family farmers 

that grow their crops outdoors under the 

sun. Sun+Earth not only looks at a farm’s 

sustainable growing practices but also 

considers how a farm treats its employees 

and how involved the farm is in the 

community. Examples of community 

involvement include helping to organize 

farmers markets, taking part in CFA or 

even picking up litter along rural roads. 





#KLR_1 aka “Cherry Limeade Hemp” 

Equatorial Champion 

Cultivated in Jamaica, Haiti, Colombia, 

Hawaii, Mexico, Thailand, and all of 

North America 

High Heat/High Humidity Survivability 

Boutique Smokeable Flower 

Global Provider since 2017 

High CBD 

Minor Cannabinoid CBG 

Disease/Insect Resistant 

High Yield for Biomass/Extraction 

Certified Organic OTCO 

Buy seeds at www.klrfarms.com Check us out at @KLR_Farms 

Pictured: KLR#1 flower on October 18, Albany, Or.

INCREASE 

YIELD 

WITH A 

25% LIQUID 

ORGANIC 

CALCIUM 

SCAN ME 

SUSTAINABLE. COMPATIBLE. PLANT AVAILABLE. 

480-361-1300 | WWW.FERTICELLUSA.COM

Organic Farmer December 2021 January 2022

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?