With the growth of the organic pasture-raised beef market, consumer demand for dairy products from pasture cows is also growing. Producers are responding, and dairy products based on organic pastures account for a larger share of the dairy industry in the western region.

Organic production systems are not without problems and challenges. According to Dr. Blair Waldron of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), because milk production has fallen by 32%, dairy products that use the most forage (between 75% and 100% of the diet) have the lowest net return/Agricultural Research Services (ARS) . He pointed out that reducing dry matter intake (DMI) through grazing cows is one of the main factors limiting milk production. To complicate matters further, dairy cattle breeds are picky herbivores, resulting in lower DMIs for traditional pasture species (such as tall fescue).

In addition, nutrient-rich pastures may reduce pregnancy rates and cause additional difficulties for producers.

Waldron heard these concerns directly from producers in Utah and Idaho. As previous studies have shown, a mixture of tall fescue, legumes containing concentrated tannins, and bird's foot clover (BFT) can improve beef performance. Blair and his manufacturer partners asked whether there is a grass-BFT mixture that can improve the performance of beef. Increasing tannins and energy, what is their synergistic effect on the performance of dairy cows?"

Research Waldron formed a team to study this problem, including three producers at Utah State University, animal scientists, agronomists, and a nutrition management expert. The research was funded by the USDA-Western SARE program, and used university and farm experiments to evaluate dairy cow heifer DMI, growth performance, reproductive health, heifer replacement economics, and the influence of various proteins on the nitrogen cycle of the grazing grass-BFT mixture , Energy, preference and tannin level. The research will identify pasture blends that can improve the sustainability of organic pasture dairy products.

Although the team is still reviewing the data, the project has shown sufficient results and each of the three producers has changed their forage. As a result of preliminary research, they planted new pastures, and other producers have also noticed this.

"We like our high-energy grass and BFT new pastures. Milk production has risen and milk composition has remained the same, which is rare. Basically, this means more money in the bank," Frank Te, one of the producers Said Frank Turnbow.

Changes in ingredient milk pricing During the course of this project, organic milk companies changed their ingredient pricing-paying less for liquid milk, but paying more for high-component milk fat and, to a lesser extent, protein. Since feed affects these ingredients to a large extent, these farmers have more reason to seek more data on forage.

Waldron said: "We are constantly discovering that people who produce organic milk are more and more interested in grazing being such an important factor."

Other findings When a Utah State University graduate student in the team completed his data analysis, an important discovery was that adding BFT to the pasture can promote the growth and development of replacement heifers. He found that mixed pastures using BFT may be a sustainable alternative to feeding total mixed rations (TMR) in a closed environment to achieve full growth of cows.

The research that led to this discovery produced data related to the growth, health, and reproductive capacity of heifers for more than two years. These measurements include body weight, hip height, blood urea nitrogen (BUN) and insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) serum concentrations, conception rate, and fecal parasite load. More in-depth analysis will look at and explain differences and trends.

Research to date Research to date has shown that heifers using different grass-BFT mixtures gain more weight than heifers cultivated with their respective pure grass monocultures. The weight gain of heifers grazing PR+BFT, MB+BFT, and OG+BFT is equivalent to that of heifers receiving a traditional total mixed diet.

The blood urea nitrogen (BUN) and the closely related milk urea nitrogen (MUN) values ​​can be used to monitor the protein efficiency of dairy cows. According to Waldron, high BUN can affect fertility. The team is measuring the BUN values ​​of heifers receiving different feed treatments. Heifers that ate pastures containing BFT had higher (P <0.01) BUN at all time points (Figure 1), indicating that the protein/nitrogen intake of these animals increased, but the BUN level never exceeded the level considered to be Concentrations harmful to reproduction (ie, 20 mg/dL).

Further research results show that high-sugar perennial ryegrass has more energy than other grasses, while high-sugar garden grasses usually do not. All grass-BFT mixtures have greater energy than their respective grass monocultures.

Waldron and his team will continue to summarize the performance of heifers; determine which forage properties (eg protein, energy, tannins, etc.) have the greatest impact on the performance of heifers; conduct economic analysis to observe the effects of grazing on the nitrogen cycle.

As the project may have an impact on the dairy industry based on organic farms, Waldron and his team attach great importance to outreach activities. They devised an innovative plan to enhance communication among producers, processors, marketers, researchers, and promoters by establishing an interactive multi-state communication network facilitated by e-Organic. This will include printed materials, webinars, web pages, and videos that all interested parties can use.

Of all the issues concerning the formulation of organic standards in the 1990s, the most controversial may be the use of modern biotechnology and genetic engineering techniques. Early efforts to introduce genetically modified organisms (GMO) and their products into organic farming and food systems around the world were not well received. In the United States, the newly established National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) had a heated debate on this issue and finally recommended not to accept the technology. In 1997, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) proposed to allow specific applications of genetic engineering and solicited public comments on a package of subsidies. In response, public comments were overwhelmingly opposed to allowing recombinant DNA technology and the release of genetically modified organisms on organic farms. In 2000, the final National Organic Program (NOP) rules banned genetic engineering in the form of "exclusion methods."

Since then, organic agriculture and biotechnology have continued to develop. In recent years, new technologies for manipulating genetic information have been developed and are now in the process of commercialization. Many new technologies do not transfer genetic information from one species to another-this process is called "transgenic"-many new technologies rely on modifying the existing genetic structure within the species. These include editing, deleting, proliferating or manipulating gene sequences, and new technologies for inducing mutations. Proponents of gene editing describe the technology as more precise than previous methods of genetic modification.

One of the new technologies that CRISPER has received attention is called CRISPR, which stands for "Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats". Cas9 is CRISPR-associated protein 9, which is an enzyme that can be used to recognize sequences, cut and splice them into different parts of the cell genome. This technique can also be used to silence (turn off) genes, delete them completely, or copy them. Some people claim that because the technology does not involve the transfer of genetic material between species, at least in theory, random mutations may naturally produce the same modifications.

Another genome editing technology is called TALEN, which stands for transcription activator-like effector nuclease. Although commercial applications have been limited so far, due to the potential of new technologies to replace traditional breeding technologies, these technologies have received a lot of attention, capital, and investment in academic and industrial environments. The organic community raised a question as to whether there are any applications of gene editing technology compatible with organic farming systems.

Exclusion method In April 2016, the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) of the United States Department of Agriculture identified several gene editing and targeted gene modification technologies, including CRISPR-Cas, zinc finger nuclease (ZFN) mutagenesis and oligonucleotide targeting Mutagenesis (ODM) is excluded. NOSB's findings and recommendations also include gene silencing, reverse breeding, synthetic biology, cloned animals and offspring, and plastid transformation.

Cisgenesis, endogenous and agricultural penetration were later added to the NOSB's list of exclusion methods in November 2017. These are widely accepted as exclusion methods in organic production and processing systems, and it is recommended that the USDA issue clarifications. The NOSB noted that unanimous public comments supported the addition of these three technologies to the list of exclusion methods. The United States Department of Agriculture did the same with cell fusion technology in 2013. The USDA has not yet responded to these NOSB recommendations. Those who participated in the response to the first proposed rule found themselves in familiar territory. "I see history repeat itself," said former NOSB chairman Michael Sligh. "Regardless of the promise of the new technology, given the lack of a holistic approach and the bigger issues of who owns the technology, who decides how to apply it, and who pays when something goes wrong, they are unlikely to reach their potential."

Mandatory labeling The United States Department of Agriculture has also formulated mandatory labeling regulations for bioengineered foods. The current status of foods developed using these new technologies is still an open question. If foods can be developed through conventional breeding techniques or found in nature, they are not restricted. Similarly, foods where bioengineering technology cannot be found are also exempt. However, it is currently unclear whether new foods that are not found in nature and developed using these new technologies can be developed using conventional technologies. Different laboratories have stated that if the reference material has the "fingerprint" of bioengineered food, the ability to detect foods made with new technologies will become possible. Laboratories and certification agents accredited by the U.S. Department of Agriculture believe that companies that develop such foods may use markings or identification sequences to protect their intellectual property before commercial release of such products.

Gene editing academics and industry professionals claim that gene editing has many advantages over earlier recombinant DNA (rDNA) technologies, such as accuracy and predictability. However, these advantages are not obvious to various farmers, seed companies, and others involved in the organic community, who expressed skepticism in public comments. Companies that introduced early technology made similar claims, but the results proved to be inaccurate, at least in some cases. Although some organic farmers believe that there may be potential benefits one day, no known existing applications have been accepted. As before, proponents claim to be equivalent to existing classical breeding, while distinguishing it from classical breeding in terms of novelty, speed, and ability to modify organisms to obtain certain characteristics. Among plant breeders, the difference between the two methods is even more obvious.

International impact New technologies are expected to have an international impact. The European Court of Justice ruled in July 2018 that CRISPR-Cas is a form of genetic engineering and the food it produces is subject to the European Union (EU) GE Food Labeling Law. The international organic network IFOAM-Organics International has published a position paper on the compatibility of organic systems breeding technology. The paper records that the release of this technology may lead to new gene disruption. As in the United States, the subject of the use of genetic engineering technology has always been the subject of polarizing debate. One of the authors of the position paper, Monika Messmer, a plant breeder at the Swiss Institute of Organic Agriculture, said in an email: "Organic breeders are very opposed to mutagenesis and any type of genetic engineering. ; Traditional breeders claim that they need the latest tools to deal with climate change and [a] a growing population."

One exception to marker-assisted breeding is the use of marker-assisted breeding. Traditional plant breeders have found that genetic maps are useful tools for selecting varieties suitable for organic farming conditions. Through a deeper understanding of plant genomes and the use of classical breeding, the development of varieties compatible with organic farming systems can be accelerated. NOSB recommends not to treat marker assisted selection as an exclusion method.

The use of these new technologies as diagnostic tools is not just for plant breeding. More applications are related to human health and drug research. It is conceivable that CRISPR and other related technologies can be useful to organic farmers as a soil health diagnostic tool. "We know more about the surface of the moon than we know about life in the soil a few inches below our feet," said organic farmer Klaas Martens. "CRISPR and [other genomic tools] can provide us with insights to better manage these ecosystems."

There are several ethical, health and environmental issues in using cisgenic technology to change animal traits. However, animal cloning is considered not to meet the current organic standards, at least the NOSB and the certification body recognized by the US Department of Agriculture agree. Other applications may involve the use of gene editing to achieve greater restrictions and higher stocking densities in restricted animal feeding operations (CAFO). An exception to the exclusion method in the organic regulations is the use of animal vaccines. Although the regulation allows the use of genetically modified vaccines, the status of specific vaccines is unclear.

Gene drive has introduced another new technology since the first rule was gene drive, which uses gene editing technology to delete functional genes and manipulate wild populations to carry uniform or single alleles. This technology can be used to introduce pests or weeds, which will produce sterile or non-viable offspring or seeds, which may replace local populations within a few generations. What is worrying is that gene drive technology will permanently and irreversibly change the ecosystem. Once released, the gene-driven organism can no longer be controlled and may become the pest or weed it wants to replace. Organic farmers worry that the existence of gene-driven organisms will migrate to organic farms and destroy the stable and resilient system of ecological pest and weed management.

Long-term impact Some sources interviewed for this report raised questions about the long-term and broader ecological impact of new biotechnologies. Organic agriculture is an overall system, and biotechnology technology is based on reductionist methods. Take single-gene resistance as an example. When pathogens evolved to overcome plant immunity, vertical resistance breeding-based on complete immunity of a single gene-failed. Multi-gene or horizontal resistance may not provide absolute immunity for single-gene resistance, but resistant varieties will be more resistant to subsequent mutations and the evolution of pathogen strains that overcome the plant immune system. Another aspect that is not understood is how the new technology will affect the soil biome.

Proponents of the technology admit that there is a risk, but claim that the risk is small and does not require any additional supervision. Others are skeptical and point out how the government has assured the public over the years that regulatory oversight has prevented the commercial release of genetically modified organisms' risks into the environment. Off-target effects may take years to discover. "We have seen the unintended consequences of these new technologies," Sliger said.

On June 5, 2019, the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC), which oversees the entire Federal Crop Insurance Program, announced that due to the legislation passed in the 2018 Farm Bill, a major adjustment to the whole farm income protection (WFRP) policy has been made. Since 2008, our National Appropriate Technology Center (NCAT) has been committed to supporting and improving the entire farm income method that provides insurance for farms and ranches. The National Sustainable Agriculture Alliance and many other organizations have also helped. After years of hard work, there is now a national policy to ensure the income of the entire farm, not just the income of a single product.

Since the formulation of a part of the Farm Bill in 2014, except for 2018, the use of WFRP has shown an overall upward trend, as shown in Table 1.

In addition to providing income protection for the entire farm, the WFRP also provides a way to provide a certain degree of subsidized crop insurance protection for farms of all sizes and any type of crop or livestock products. In addition, since the coverage is based on the adjusted total income of the farm's history, the organic value of the farm's production is protected. Although limited to farms with a total income of less than $10 million, the WFRP program now provides the largest federal crop insurance coverage for all types of organic farmers in the history of the federal crop insurance program. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the WFRP is the first agricultural insurance policy to provide substantial premium discounts to people who grow more than three crops or livestock products. It is an ideal product for organic and sustainable agricultural operations.

The latest changes in WFRP can be understood and demonstrated in the following example, which comes from real world data from an organic field crop farm in my hometown of Montana.

The organic farmers providing this sample data are Doug and Anna Jones Crabtree of Vilicus Farms, located 50 miles north of Harvard, Montana, very close to the Canadian border. Doug and Anna will plant more than eight different types of grains, oilseeds and beans on 7,400 acres in any given year. Many of their crops are very specialized, such as edim wheat.

In essence, the recent changes in WFRP explained below will significantly increase the reach of those who use this policy.

The key change in smoothing historical income is to "smooth" the effects of historically high levels of income fluctuations experienced by many farmers who use WFRP. These changes are modeled after the same "adjustment" of farmers' "actual production history" (APH) in the single crop income policy used by most major organic and non-organic commodity farmers. The difference is that the adjustment is for historical income instead of insuring the historical yield of a single crop. This example is based on Vilicus Farms data and applied to a hypothetical 3,000 acre organic field farm in Hill County, Montana. This is the same county where Doug and Anna's farm are located. The insurance year is 2018. Although hypothetical, these estimates are roughly based on realistic expectations of the income history of organic grain farmers. Table 2 shows the historical experience of the adjusted total income of organic food farmers in 5 years.

The expected total income for the 2018 insurance year is USD 1 million, which in this example has previously been approved by the farmer’s crop insurance agent. In this example, 2017 is a “leap year”, which is typical because the grower does not yet have the final tax return data. According to the current policy rules, the premium will be based on an average level of US$594,000, and within 85% of the coverage, farmers can pay up to US$504,900 in income during the insurance year. This means that farmers will not receive any insurance compensation until their income is less than US$504,900. This is called the "trigger" point.

In view of the historical variability of the farm’s income, the “average value” does not meet the realistic expectation of farmers to obtain a total income of USD 1 million in 2018. It can be said that farmers are "underinsured" in this case, or at least a high deductible policy. Doug and Anna assured me that this fluctuation in total income is a reality for many farms in Montana, and that the situation may get worse as the climate further deteriorates. There are three expected changes in the method of determining total income after average historical adjustments*. These "historical smoothing options" are:

*These changes to WFRP policy were approved by the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) in June 2019. FCIC is the regulatory agency for all crop insurance in the United States. As of the publication date of this article, the USDA Risk Management Agency has not officially released the implementation details of these policy changes.

So the adjustment to this example is:

Bottom line Given the high variability of farmers' income (whether organic or not), these changes will make WFRP a better product in the long run. The total premium cost of this newly adjusted WFRP policy is US$103,923. With federal subsidies, farmers need to pay $37,571, which is not a trivial expense. However, it is important to note that many of the highly specialized organic crops grown and used in this example, such as dumer wheat and camu wheat, are very valuable and cannot be insured in any other way. In addition, it is important to realize that this unique policy provides some protection against revenue reduction, not just losses due to production losses. Income is price X income, and both have risks. In some geographic locations, there are usually yield risk policies for unusual specialty organic crops, but these income policies are rare. For example, I tried to grow fresh market tomatoes in the beautiful Butte, Montana, but apart from the WFRP policy, I could not guarantee the price and yield risks.

Upcoming attractions: Regulations specific to hemp WFRP will allow industrial hemp production to cover the 2020 crop year, with the following restrictions:

Jeff Schahczenski is an agricultural and natural resource economist at the National Center for Appropriate Technology (NCAT). NCAT also implements ATTRA, the National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service, through a cooperation agreement with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Commercial Cooperative Services. ATTRA's website www.attra.ncat.org provides information on sustainable and organic production of crops and livestock, as well as updated versions of Biochar and sustainable agriculture. ATTRA operates two toll-free numbers that growers can call to ask any questions about organic or sustainable agriculture (800-346-9140 and Spanish toll-free 800-411-3222).

Source: ATTRA. www.attra.ncat.org, toll free 800-346-9140 (Spanish: 800-411-3222) ATTRA Crop Insurance Documentation and Record Keeping for Whole Farm Revenue Protection (WFRP) provides particularly useful publications, videos and podcasts

National Sustainable Agriculture Alliance (NSAC) http://sustainableagriculture.net/ Vilicus Farms. https://www.vilicusfarms.com/ USDA Risk Management Agency (RMA) www.rma.usda.gov/

This site is an excellent resource for all RMA plans, specific policies, and general risk management tools. Here are some important links within the website:

Most organic fertility programs start with soil-building practices that increase organic matter through cover crops, compost, and fertilizer materials that slowly mineralize over time, resulting in a sufficient and stable supply of nutrients. Sometimes you may need to improve soil fertility to stimulate plant growth, because existing procedures cannot provide the substances that plants may need. Some reasons:

It is not just fertilizers in organic farming systems, you need to have a healthy microbiome in the soil, because microorganisms usually have to convert existing plant and animal residues into usable nutrients through microbial digestion. Generally, most organic fertilizers are not easy to leach out, because nutrients will combine into more complex organic molecules, which will be broken down by microorganisms. Therefore, the soil needs to be conducive to microbial activity. Things needed:

Strategies for fertilizing with concentrated organic fertilizer

Final thoughts Concentrated organic fertilizers are expensive, so they are best viewed as a supplement to standard soil organic fertility programs based on compost and cover crops. If your plants need additional nutritional supplements during key periods such as flowering and fruit growth, it is entirely appropriate to consider using some additional nutrients to promote growth. Keep records, always leave some unfertilized areas, and see if the materials you apply really make a difference.

The traditional agriculture used in modern agriculture is mostly based on monoculture and heavily relies on the use of external chemical inputs (for example: pesticides and fertilizers) (Figure 1). Although these systems provide valuable agronomic benefits, they can lead to the decline of local and regional biodiversity, soil erosion, pesticide resistance options, greenhouse gas emissions and eutrophication (consumption of oxygen in the water). In view of the impact of traditional agriculture on the environment, it is necessary to explore and develop alternative agricultural systems that are more environmentally sensitive and flexible. In California and other states, there is an increasing amount of research on diversified organic and ecological agricultural systems (Figure 2). Although many organic farms are used to control pest populations, maintain soil fertility, and prepare fields for planting. Inputs of machinery (such as tillage and planting equipment) have negative effects on the environment, such as soil erosion and nutrient loss, but diversified organic agriculture helps To enhance biodiversity and ecosystem services (see Box #1). Although beneficial organisms provide various ecosystem services, enhancing biodiversity is both beneficial and detrimental to our crop production. However, by focusing on proper agro-ecosystem management, such as habitat management for beneficial organisms, the biome can be kept away from the advantages of pest species. Following these ecosystem dynamics can reduce the need for farmers to intervene or use any synthetic external inputs.

Box #1: What are ecosystem services? Ecosystem services are the direct or indirect services or benefits provided by ecosystems to humans. Ecosystem services can be divided into four categories: (1) Supply: food, fiber, fuel and genetic resources; (2) Regulation and mitigation: pollination services, pest control, water quality, soil reclamation, climate stabilization and greenhouse gas mitigation; ( 3) Support: nutrient and water cycle, soil fertility, soil quality; (5) Aesthetics and culture: the spiritual and recreational benefits brought by rural scenery and landscape [1]. Despite the difficulties, it is possible to estimate the economic value of these services, showing us the profit or loss that can be obtained or lost by adopting diversified organic and ecological methods or adhering to a more corporate model and its existing financial risks. For example, in terms of monetary value, global pollination services exceed US$200 billion per year [2]. In the United States alone, this figure exceeds 70 billion U.S. dollars [3]. If we monetize all ecosystem services, their total value will exceed our imagination.

What are the advantages of a diversified system? Diversified or biologically diverse ecosystems are structurally more complex and stable than simplified single cultivation systems, and they can resist external disturbances, including species invasions, diseases, and other disturbances. Different species have unique responses to any disturbance, so at least one species is more likely to be highly productive to external disturbances. If all niches in an ecosystem have been occupied, external species cannot easily invade. Similarly, a more diverse ecosystem contains many species with similar functions (called functional redundancy), which is essential to provide ecosystem stability. For example, in a biodiversity ecosystem, if one species disappears, another species can perform the same function (called the insurance effect), which helps to avoid ecosystem degradation and minimize the risk of future agricultural production. This robustness of wild ecosystems echoes the resilience of crops encountered in diverse farming landscapes. In addition, many species can coexist to promote each other's growth while sharing resources. In addition, communities with high biodiversity may be able to use resources more efficiently because different species have different resource acquisition strategies.

How to increase ecosystem services through diversified organic agriculture? Farmers can manage their farmland to support biodiversity and enhance the ecosystem services provided by biodiversity. One of several examples of increasing biodiversity in these systems is intercropping. In intercropping, farmers choose crops that do not compete fiercely with each other and can at least benefit one of the crops. Intercropping may be beneficial because it helps to improve the soil with nitrogen fixers. Some deep-rooted species can benefit other species by bringing nutrients and water to the soil layer. One species can provide shade, support or nursery for other species. . A popular traditional example of intercropping is growing corn, beans, and pumpkin together. Corn plants provide support for beans, which can fix atmospheric nitrogen and supply the soil that corn also uses. Similarly, corn and beans together provide shade and humidity for pumpkins, thereby suppressing weeds, and are also good for corn and beans. Crop rotation is often used to break the life cycle of many agricultural pests, which also increases the biodiversity of farmland. Studies have shown that, compared with conventional farms based on monoculture, there are more beneficial soil microbial communities that support soil health in diversified organic farms [4]. Mulch planting is another good way to diversify our planting system. It helps to enhance soil health (for example, enhance soil nutrients, soil structure, organic matter and soil microbial communities), reduce soil erosion, suppress weeds, and break Pests cycle, while supporting beneficial insects such as pollinators and natural enemies. Similarly, the biodiversity in nearby patches of uncultivated or semi-natural habitats also provides ecosystem services for cultivated land. The plant diversity in these patches can support beneficial organisms such as pollinators, predators, and parasitic wasps by providing food and shelter. In addition, many studies have reported on the positive role of hedges and native wildflowers around farmland in supporting beneficial organisms. In addition to diversifying field crops, farmers should also consider restoring semi-natural areas and planting native plant belts and trees in agricultural landscapes to increase crop yields and other ecosystem services.

Honeybees are part of biodiversity and an important pollinator of crops, but agricultural intensification, habitat fragmentation, exposure to pesticides, parasites and pathogens, and reduced flower resources have led to a decline in honeybee biodiversity (Figure 3). California has a variety of crops, such as almonds, apples, cherries, strawberries, tomatoes, walnuts, etc., as well as many crops that benefit from pollination. But how can we support these pollinators through diversified organic agriculture? This is our study in Montana on how the agricultural system affects the adaptability of the bee colony and the bee-flower interactive network.

First, we placed 60 bee colonies (i.e. beehives) on six regular and six organic spring wheat farms during the two growing seasons (2014-2015) in Great Sandy, Montana, USA (Figure 4; see [5) ]). We found that the growth rate of bee colonies, hive cells (eggs/larvae/pupas) and nectar storage (honey storage tanks in the colony) of organic farms were higher than those of traditional farms in these two years (Figures 5 and 6). Our results show that by increasing the success rate of bee colonies, more flower resources in organic farms (see box #2-4) can provide better biodiversity-based ecosystem services even in highly simplified agricultural landscapes . Second, we evaluated the impact of the agricultural system on the bee-flower network (ie, the interaction between bees and flowers: the more the better) of nine traditional farms and nine organic farms. Our results show that, compared with traditional farms, diversified organic farms have more connections (should be more stable) and complex bee-flower interactive networks (Figure 7; see [6] for details).

In another study, we also assessed whether the agricultural system has an impact on the infestation and parasitism of pests (the wheat stem wasp: a serious pest in the wheat system in the northern Great Plains). We collected winter wheat samples from 9 nearby organic farms and 9 conventional farms, and compared the infestation of wheat stem sawfly and subsequent parasitism across agricultural systems. Our results show that the wheat stem leaf wasp pests on organic farms are 75% lower than that of traditional farms. This is due to the fact that the number of parasitic wasps in organic farms is significantly higher than that of traditional farms. These results indicate that by increasing plant diversity to enhance alternative sources of pollen and nectar, organic farms support more beneficial insects, such as parasitic wasps, and strengthen pest control or ecosystem services (see [7-8] for details).

Box #2: Are weeds always harmful? Weeds are well known as one of the key limiting factors in organic production. Some traditional growers may even accuse organic growers of raising more weeds on their farms, which may also cause problems for their neighboring traditional growers. Although organic growers have been using several weed management methods such as mulching, weed fabrics, soil insolation, farming, organically approved herbicides, steam treatment, burning, mowing or weeding, mechanical weeding or hand pulling, But there will always be some weeds left on the farm. If the weeds are at a level of economic damage (that is, without reducing crop yield) and are non-invasive, we don't need any expensive tools to control weeds. In addition, weeds at the level of economic damage can actually provide flower resources for beneficial insects such as bees, parasitic wasps, and all-round predators (see [5-8]). In return, bees provide pollination services for crops, vegetables and wildflowers, while parasitic bees provide pest control services by controlling crop pests. In addition, because diversified organic agriculture is related to crop rotation, cover crops, and multiple cropping, farmland biodiversity is increased so that we can benefit from biodiversity-based ecosystem services (that is, pollination and pest control).

What is the relationship between agricultural sustainability and diversified organic agriculture? Agricultural sustainability can be defined as an environmentally safe, ecologically balanced, economically feasible and socially acceptable food and fiber production method that can provide possible ecosystem services without affecting its availability to support future generations. In order to achieve the sustainability goals of the agricultural system, it is necessary to recognize and promote the existing ecological processes of the system, such as the nutrient/water cycle and energy flow within and between the trophic level (ie plants, herbivores and carnivores), and integrate farmers Experience and knowledge of agricultural ecology to create a diversified agricultural system. Continuously improve farm management strategies by learning from past experience, making diversified organic agriculture more flexible and therefore more sustainable. Resilience is defined as the tendency of a system to maintain its organizational structure and productivity after any external disturbances. For example, crop diversification can improve ecosystem resilience and agricultural sustainability in a variety of ways, such as by enhancing pest control and reducing pathogen transmission. These benefits indicate the value of adopting diversified organic agriculture to increase the sustainability of agriculture, but adoption has been slow in many places in California and other regions.

Box #3: Worried about declining crop yields? As a traditional farmer who relies heavily on synthetic inputs, if you choose to adopt a diversified organic system, you may initially suffer yield losses. However, in the long run, this is not the case. The crop yield and farm profit of the diversified system of mixing and crop rotation with less external input may be similar or higher than that of the traditional management system with higher agricultural chemical input [9]. In many cases, farmers report that mixed crop yields are too high and then plant a single crop. Most importantly, the other ecosystem services provided by the diversified system (see Box #1) are higher than the services provided by the intensive monoculture system [10].

Box #4: Who else can/should help growers adopt diversified organic agriculture? The public can also obtain the benefits and services provided by the ecosystem managed by the growers. Federal/state agencies and university extensions can help growers and other stakeholders understand why and how to adopt diversified organic agriculture and produce important ecosystem services. For example, the federal government compensates farmers through its Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and similarly supports diverse organic growers. The public has also shown willingness to pay high or premium prices for organic products, whether they come from monoculture or diversified agriculture. For example, we are well aware that local farmers’ markets are becoming more and more popular, although their prices are higher compared to grocery stores. However, for this, the public should also be aware of the ecosystem services they have always taken for granted.

Summary: Compared with traditional systems based on monoculture, diversified organic farming systems do not use synthetic pesticides and herbicides and generally support greater plant species diversity. These agricultural ecosystems also support pollinators and pests to regulate the abundance and species richness of beneficial insects (such as predators and parasitic wasps), and ultimately provide better ecological services for farmers and the public [9-11] . Therefore, with diversified agriculture, you can minimize future risks in agricultural production, because even if one of your crops is completely damaged due to an outbreak of pests, you still have some crops to harvest.

Diversified organic agriculture is different from ecological agriculture, but it is close to ecological agriculture. Ecological-based agriculture is an agricultural method that relies on enhancing or strengthening ecological processes to provide the functions needed for continuous production, thereby helping to reduce the excessive use of external chemical and mechanical inputs. Examples of ecologically diversified agricultural practices include integrated crop-livestock production, crop rotation, mixed planting, biological control of diseases and pests, reduced or no-tillage, and cover planting. Ecologically based diversified agriculture aims to provide food production, economic well-being, environmental benefits, and important ecosystem services (such as pollination, natural pest control, nutrient and water cycles, increased soil organic matter, pollution control, and erosion control. Although all Diversified organic agriculture may not be able to provide these ecosystem services, but most do.

To adopt diversified organic agriculture, you can follow the steps below:

Finally, you don’t need to start converting all your land into diversified organic land right away, but you can start adopting some of these elements. Gradually, you can learn from your own experiments or experience and decide whether to pursue diversified organic agriculture and strengthen ecosystem services for sustainable agricultural development.

Acknowledgements: The projects mentioned in this article are mainly funded by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Organic Research and Extension Program (OREI) to FD Menalled, and partly funded by OCIA-International to S. Adhikari.

S oil is a reservoir for weeds, pathogens and nematodes, and if not controlled, it may destroy crop yields. If the level of pathogens, nematodes, or weeds rises to a level that is economically destructive, growers must use soil pest control technology to kill soil-borne organisms. Historically, traditional growers used soil-borne fumigants to disinfect the soil, especially in high-value crops such as strawberries. However, as the most widely used fumigant, methyl bromide has been eliminated and banned in most parts of the world due to its emissions of chlorofluorocarbons that deplete the ozone layer. This has inspired a lot of research on non-toxic alternative soil pest control technologies, many of which can be used in organic systems. The following article will focus on some organic soil pest control techniques that can be used to control weeds, soil-borne pathogens and other soil-borne pests.

Soil sun exposure is an organic method that has shown effective control of weeds, pathogens and nematodes. It involves placing a transparent, thin (1-3 mil) low-density polyethylene tarp on the irrigated soil, and it generates lethal temperatures for pathogens, pests and weeds. Generally speaking, the temperature range generated during soil exposure is 104-158°F. The tarp will stay on the soil for four to eight weeks, depending on the resulting soil temperature. Insolation relies on solar radiation to heat the soil, and is most effective during the peak solar radiation periods in June and July. Effective temperatures can still be reached in May, August, and September, depending on the location. The soil sun is dependent on sunny and sunny weather, so it is not suitable for soil sun in the areas with foggy or frequent thunderstorms in summer. It is most effective in areas with hot and sunny summers, such as California's Central Valley and desert areas.

Sun exposure can control most annual weeds that appear in California's growing system. The time required to kill the cold-season one-year species (i.e. annual mustard) is shorter than that of the warm season one-year species (i.e. red root quinoa). Purslane, which is common in the warm season, is difficult to kill in the sun because it sprouts at temperatures as high as 113°F. Other annual species that require higher temperatures to kill are those with hard seeds or thick seed coats (Figure 2, T. Jacobs, unpublished data). Common hard-seed weeds are legumes, bur clover and ryegrass, malvaceae species, small mallow and velvet grass, and Erodium spp. (movie). Perennial weeds such as field bindweed and nuts are also difficult to control through the sun. For example, nut tubers will not die until exposed to temperatures of 122°F or higher (Webster 2006). In order to control perennial and hard seed weeds, a maximum temperature of 122°F or higher needs to be reached every day for at least 4 weeks (T. Jacobs, unpublished data).

Soil sun exposure can reduce the incidence of many pathogens to an economically controllable level. Sun exposure can only control the first 8-12 inches of soil. Therefore, the control of some pathogens located deep in the soil (such as large leaf vein disease in lettuce) is limited (Iwamoto and Aino 2008). In addition, moving native organisms can re-colonize the root zone of plants after sun exposure. This makes it difficult to control soil-borne insects such as garden sympathetic insects through the sun. Before using soil solarization, growers should determine the pathogens and other pests in the soil, and consult experts on whether soil solarization is an effective technology for soil-borne organisms.

Sun exposure increases the yield of many crops. Potential reasons for increased yields caused by sun exposure are the reduction of pathogens and weed populations, the increased availability of heat-soluble nutrients such as ammonia, and changes in plant physiology (Candido et al., 2011). The cost of solarization varies with the price of plastic, but in general, the cost of plastic is between US$150-300 per acre (Stapleton et al., 2008). The cost of application will depend on the method of application (machine application or manual application. However, due to increased yield and reduced weeding time, sun exposure is usually worthwhile, and then some, especially in overgrown or seriously diseased fields.

There are many kinds of plastics that can be used for soil solarization. The best plastics are transparent/transparent, with a thickness of 1-3 mils, and can inhibit ultraviolet rays to prevent decomposition in the sun. Most agricultural plastic retailers have solar plastics available. For smaller scale projects, thin (<3mil) greenhouse plastic or painter plastic (found in most hardware stores) can be used. Greenhouse plastics are generally more durable and reusable, but are much more expensive (US$2,000-3,000 per acre), so they are not suitable for large-scale use. In addition, the painter’s plastic will decompose in the sun and can only last for four to six weeks before it can be removed. Thinner plastic leads to higher temperatures, but is easier to tear. Therefore, thicker plastics should be used in windy areas.

The steps to bask in the sun are as follows: (Elmore et al. 1997)

For more information about soil insolation, UC ANR has some great resources at http://ipm.ucanr.edu/PMG/PESTNOTES/pn74145.html

Biological fumigation is another soil disinfection technique that can be used by organic growers. Biofumigation uses decomposed plant and animal residues to release biocidal gas to reduce the number of soil organisms (Youssef 2015). Cruciferous plants, especially mustard (Brassica and mustard) are the most popular biological fumigants because they release secondary plant compounds called glucosinolates (Earlywine et al., 2012). Glucosinolates are decomposed into isothiocyanate gases, which are phytotoxic and can reduce the viability of soil organisms. Green manure for mustard cover crops can be added to release these biocidal chemicals. Alternatively, mustard seed meal products can be purchased and mixed into the soil for biological fumigation. Mustard seed meal is made from the residue of canola seeds and is used as oil, biofuel, or flavoring (Meyer et al., 2015).

Residues from plant materials other than the cruciferous family have been tested for effectiveness as a biological fumigant. Sorghum Gramineae and other members of the Gramineae family have shown potential for use as biofumigants (Stapleton et al., 2010). Sorghum contains dhurrin, which decomposes into hydrogen cyanide gas during the decomposition process. The addition of sorghum. Green manure has been shown to suppress root-knot nematode and Verticillium wilt populations (MacGuidwin et al., 2012)) Other potential green manures, such as buckwheat, rapeseed and Australian winter peas, can reduce the inoculation density of pathogens at different levels (Ochiai et al. People, 2008; Wiggins and Kinkel, 2004).

In order to use green manure to control soil-borne organisms, it is important to remember that the chemicals used as natural fumigants are 1) released as a defense mechanism when plants are damaged, and 2) extremely volatile. Since plants release chemicals after damage, a flail mower should be used to trim cover crops before incorporation to activate the release of the compounds. The plants should be merged as soon as possible after mowing, because 80% of the biofumigant gas can be volatilized within 20 minutes. In order to prevent biological fumigation gas from escaping, the soil should be cultivated and packed or spread with tarpaulin after adding green manure. Any agricultural plastics are sufficient, including plastics used for soil solarization. After the residue is mixed into the soil, the field needs to be irrigated to reach the field water holding capacity to promote the decomposition of secondary plant compounds into biocidal gases. The details of biological fumigation, including the seeding rate, the time to terminate the cover crop, and the method of planting the cover crop, will vary depending on the type of cover crop.

Soil solarization and biological fumigation involve similar techniques, including spreading tarpaulins and irrigating the soil to reach field capacity. Combining soil solarization with biological fumigation can improve the effectiveness of these two technologies. This is called biological solarization, which includes adding organic modifiers (ie, compost, green manure) to the plastic under the sun, and exposing the organic modifiers to the high temperatures generated by the sun. A number of studies have shown that the addition of organic modifiers can improve the effect of sun exposure. This happens through multiple mechanisms.

Many studies have proved that when organic additives are used in combination with sun exposure, pathogens can be successfully controlled at sublethal sun temperatures (30-40°C) (Blok et al., 2000, Coelho et al., 2001, Núñez) -zofío et al., 2011, Tjamos and Flavel 1995). This can expand the use of sun exposure to temperate regions, where sun exposure usually does not produce temperatures that are fatal to soil-borne pests. The climate where solarization may have the greatest impact is in the northern climate where solar radiation is weak and coastal areas where summer is often foggy and low in temperature.

The corrections that have been effectively used in the sun include Green Manure Brassica, Cabbage and Sorghum. Other green manures combined with sun exposure may also produce effective control, but they have not been tested. Other organic amendments that are effectively used in the sun are food processing by-products tomato residue and olive residue, various animal manures or compost (including sheep, pigs, chickens), and carbon-rich materials used for anaerobic soil disinfection (wheat bran, Rice bran, molasses).

More research on biosolarization is needed to determine the appropriate levels and types of organic additives and their use in different growing systems. However, biological solarization can improve the effectiveness of soil solarization, making it suitable for use in colder areas or in late spring or early autumn, because soil solarization leads to lower temperatures.

Soil solarization and biological solarization can effectively disinfect the soil, reducing pathogens and weed populations to levels acceptable to organic growers. Some problems still need to be solved, such as the treatment of plastics, but these technologies are cheaper, non-toxic, and can provide excellent soil biological control for high-value specialty crops, berries, and vegetable crops.

Blok WJ, Lamers JG, Termorshuizen AJ, Bollen GJ (2000) Control soil-borne plant pathogens by combining fresh organic amendments and oil cloth. Phytopathology 90: 253–259

Candido V, D'addabbo T, Miccolis V, Castronuovo D (2011) Different plastic films in lettuce respond to weed control and yield in the soil insolation. Sci Hortic (Amsterdam) 130: 491–497

Coelho L, Mitchell DJ, Chellemi DO (2001) The effect of soil moisture and cabbage modifiers on the inactivation of Phytophthora tobacco. European Journal of Plant Pathology 107:883–894

Earlywine DT, Smeda RJ, Teuton TC, Sams CE, Earlywine DT, Smeda RJ, Teuton TC, Sams CE, Xiong X (2010) Evaluation of Oriental Mustard (Brassica juncea) Seed Powder for Weed Inhibition on American Lawn Stable Website: http: //www.jstor.org/stable/40891279 Weed Management-Other Crops/Regions-Evaluation of Oriental Mustard (Brassica júncea) Seed Meal f Supp. Weed Technology 24: 440–445

Elmore CL, Stapleton JJ, Bell CE (1997) Non-insecticidal methods of soil solarization to control diseases, nematodes and weeds, Agriculture and Natural Resources Department. Page University of California: Vegetables and Information Center. 1-17 people

Gamliel A, Austerweil M, Kritzman G (2000) Non-chemical methods of soil-borne pest management-organic amendments. Crop Protection 19: 847–853

Gamliel A, Stapleton JJ (1993) Effects of chicken compost or ammonium phosphate and sun exposure on pathogen control, rhizosphere microorganisms and lettuce growth

Iwamoto Y, Aino M (2008) The effect of soil sun and supplementary materials on the occurrence of large leaf vein disease in commercial lettuce. Soil Microbe 62: 15–19

MacGuidwin AE, Knuteson DL, Connell T, Bland WL, Bartelt KD (2012) Use green manure correction and sunlight to influence potato yield to manipulate the inoculation density of Verticillium dahliae and Pratylenchus penetrans. Phytopathology 102:519–527

Meyer SLF, Zasada IA, Rupprecht SM, Vangessel MJ, Hooks CRR, Morra MJ, Everts KL (2015) Mustard seed meal 4461 for the management of root-knot nematodes and weeds in tomato production

Núñez-zofío M, Larregla S, Garbisu C (2011) In temperate climates, the application of organic amendments and soil plastic mulch reduced the incidence of Phytophthora capsici in pepper crops. Crop Protection 30:1563–1572

Ochiai N, Powelson ML, Crowe FJ, Dick RP (2008) The effect of green manure on soil quality is related to the suppression of potato verticillium wilt: 1013–1023

Peachey ARE, Pinkerton JN, Ivors KL, Miller ML, Moore LW (2001) The effects of soil sun, cover crops and Metham on the emergence and survival of buried annual bluegrass (Poa annua) in the field. Weed Technology 15:81–88

Simmons CW, Guo H, Claypool JT, Marshall MN, Perano KM, Stapleton JJ, VanderGheynst JS (2013) manage compost stability and soil amendments to enhance soil heating during soil insolation. Waste Management 33: 1090–1096

Simmons CW, Higgins B, Staley S, Joh LD, Simmons BA, Singer SW, Stapleton JJ, VanderGheynst JS (2016) The effect of organic matter modifier levels on soil heating, organic acid accumulation, and bacterial community development in sun-dried soil. Applied Soil Ecology 106: 37–46

Stapleton JJ, Molinar RH, Lynn-Patterson K, McFeeters SK, Shrestha A (2008) Methyl bromide alternatives...soil solarization provides weed control for organic growers with limited resources in warm climates. California Agriculture 59: 84–89

Stapleton JJ, Summers CG, Mitchell JP, Prather TS (2010) The harmful activity of cultivated grasses (Gramineae) and the residues of soil-borne fungi, nematodes and weed pests. Plant Parasitism 38: 61–69

Tjamos EC, Fravel DR (1995) The adverse effects of sublethal heating and Talaromyces flavum on the microsclerotia of Verticillium dahliae

Webster TM (2006) High temperature and exposure time will reduce the viability of nut (Cyperus spp.) tubers. Weed Science 51: 1010–1015

Wiggins BE, Kinkel LL (2004) Green manure and crop sequence affect potato disease and pathogen inhibitory activity of native Streptomyces

Youssef MMA (2015) Biological fumigation as a promising tool for the management of plant parasitic nematodes. review. Science Agriculture 10: 115–118

Is it really possible that soil analysis is accurate enough to provide specific answers to soil fertility needs?

What is the purpose of soil testing? Some people think that soil testing should only be considered to point out a general direction for the farmer or his agronomist. Others use it as a crutch to prove whether or not fertilization is really needed to increase a certain yield. Still others use soil analysis to assess nutrient content and nutrient requirements to meet the needs of the organisms in the soil and the crops to be planted. Organic growers should promote and practice the third point of this set of principles.

But is it really possible that soil analysis is accurate enough to provide specific answers to soil fertility needs? Many people claim not to. What is more difficult to determine is that there are multiple ways to test and report the nutrient value in the soil test. Is there any evidence that real numbers have practical meaning when used in a properly performed soil analysis?

When considering the accuracy and value of soil testing, a very common assumption can cause some people to conclude that there are big errors. The assumption is that the numbers provided by soil tests from different soil laboratories all mean the same thing. First, some laboratories choose to express all or part of their measured nutrient levels in ppm (parts per million), while others use pounds per acre. Outside the United States, laboratories usually use kilograms per hectare (kg/ha) and milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg, which is actually the same as parts per million) instead of pounds and ppm. This is the part that is easy to grasp and understand in terms of soil test differences.

What seems more difficult for many people to understand is that a number in one soil test does not necessarily have the same meaning as the same number in another soil test. Those who believe that they are always like this often make some very serious mistakes.

For example, farmers and growers who require our company to conduct soil tests suggest that calcium should account for 60-70% of the soil cation exchange capacity. There are other laboratories that use the same guidelines, but some laboratories recommend a calcium (Ca) saturation of 65-75% in soil analysis. Our ideal target on medium-heavy soils is 68%. But the same soil sent to the other three laboratories will not reach 68%. Someone will report it as 64%. Another report is 74%. Another shows 80%. However, all four laboratories are considered to be within the allowable range for measuring and reporting the calcium content of the soil.

The lesson here is to learn and follow the instructions based on the numbers of the laboratory you use, rather than tests from other laboratories, the numbers of these laboratories may vary greatly, leading to wrong conclusions. Sometimes, the soil testing laboratory only provides Ca, Mg (magnesium) and K (potassium) as 100% of the total soil nutrient saturation, while in some other laboratory tests, sodium and other alkalis also account for the total soil nutrient saturation Therefore, the farmer can tell everyone on the field day that the calcium content in his field must reach 80% in order to achieve the highest yield. If the intention at the time was to make the soil reach 80% that the farmer thinks would be beneficial, be sure to send it to the same laboratory for analysis, and then decide how much it will cost to reach that percentage. If soil tests from different laboratories show 68% calcium saturation, and the laboratory used by farmers shows 80%, then buying and applying the calcium required to reach 80% of the test shows 68, which may be a costly The percentage of errors.

Potassium is another example, which illustrates that differences in numbers on test reports can be misleading. In order to grow crops most effectively in the tests we used, the potassium content should be at least 2% and the highest should be 7.5% to avoid problems caused by too little or too much. For example, based on the tests we use, farmers are advised not to increase the potassium content above 7.5%, as this will limit the availability of boron, and above this level will increase the pressure on the weeds in the field. Farmers and growers can see this happening in their crops and fields. However, when another very well-known soil laboratory tested the same soil, they reported that the soil contained 8.5% potassium. For those who think that 7.5% in one test means the same in tests in other laboratories, this is now a point of contention, claiming that the soil test numbers are unreliable. If the test used by the farmer recognizes the same result at 8.5%, and another test recognizes the same result at 7.5%, then the numbers in the test must be reliable. All you have to learn is the user's ability to interpret these results.

However, in an effort to educate farmers and growers about the value of using soil testing, the difference described in the above paragraph can cause complications. Another problem with high potassium is that when combined with the percentage of sodium, the sum of the two is 10% or higher, which will cause the plant to obstruct the absorption of manganese, even when it shows an excellent manganese content. The same is true on the soil. But this is not the case for soils that show a potassium content of 8.5%, because the soil must have been at least 11.00% before and this is assuming the same sodium content reported in the two tests, which may not be either real. If the farmer wants to use a different test, he will have to work hard to find the right percentage or find someone he can trust to do it for him.

Magnesium seems to be the best example for testing the accuracy of soil testing and demonstrating the accuracy of soil testing when used to determine the true fertility of the soil. In agriculture, a little-known, little-known, and extremely costly condition is how excessive magnesium in the soil can lead to magnesium deficiency in food and feed crops—even those that are grown organically. According to the soil testing method used by Dr. William Albrecht in the early to mid-century, this is well proven.

In addition, Dr. Albrecht taught that the soil should contain at least 10% magnesium to ensure that plants can absorb enough magnesium from the soil. He insisted that any soil with a magnesium content of less than 10% would only grow magnesium-deficient plants. This applies to any soil test that matches the test capabilities he uses to determine the magnesium content in the soil. But again, some soil laboratories measure magnesium differently. Compared with the test used by Dr. Albrecht, these soil tests show 8% magnesium, while the test he uses shows 10%. Also, due to the difference in measurement, some people still think that the magnesium test is not that useful.

But there is a way to show how accurate the 10% figure actually is. When determining it, use the same method as Dr. Albrecht, and then apply it to the magnesium content required for carrot production. This has been proven time and time again since he taught how to measure and interpret the magnesium content in the soil. In carrots grown in the United States and Canada from the east coast to the west coast and in between, those who grow carrots can be counted on. In any part of the field where magnesium availability is less than 10%, if the test used accurately reflects the effect of the test used by Dr. Albrecht, the top of the carrot will die prematurely in the field. If the test gave another answer, then when sampling and analyzing according to the same procedure used by Dr. Albrecht, the magnesium content in the soil was less than 10%.

Some people still claim that soil testing only points farmers in the right direction and cannot be used for specific measurements. If so, they used the wrong soil test, or didn't teach them correctly how to understand and interpret a really effective soil test.

Remember one thing, the recommendations for soil testing are as accurate as collecting and sending samples for analysis. As long as the soil samples are collected in a way that accurately represents the soil in each field, the soil test will provide the correct information needed to show what needs to be done. If done and explained correctly, soil testing is like a reliable road map. Accurate soil testing shows the path needed to reach the soil fertility point that the farmer or grower needs to reach.

You can only manage things that can be measured correctly. Make sure that the soil test you use tells you the knowledge you need to achieve superior yield and superior quality.

Neal Kinsey is the owner and president of Kinsey Agricultural Services, a consulting company that specializes in restoring and maintaining balanced soil fertility to achieve high yields while growing highly nutritious food and feed crops on the land. Please call 573-683-3880 or visit www.kinseyag.com for more information.

At the California Certified Organic Farmer (CCOF) annual meeting, the business opportunities for organic food production brought a long list of benefits.

The growers, processors and marketers of organic agricultural products attended the Fresno gathering in February, where the CCOF Foundation’s first earnings report was introduced.

The CCOF Foundation reports that organic food is the fastest-growing sector in the U.S. food industry, valued at nearly US$50 billion. This sector also grew by 6% in 2017, while the growth rate of all food grains in the United States was 1%. Their statistics show that 82% of households in the United States buy organically grown or processed foods.

In addition to demand, organically grown crops and livestock also support the viability of producers, whose prices are usually 20% higher.

The organic food industry also created approximately 1.4 million jobs in the United States and 407,400 jobs in California. The report pointed out that organic farms tend to create more full-time job opportunities for farm workers throughout the year. The goal set out at the meeting is to have 10% of California's farmland certified organic by 2030.

Morris Grassfed Beef spokesperson Joe Morris, High Ground Organics' Steve Pederson and CCOF researcher Laetitia Benador delved into the new report.

Bernardo said that this earnings report is to show policymakers that the organic industry has a clear plan to advance and propose sustainable food production solutions.

"We have evidence of the benefits of expanding organic food production," Bernardo told the audience. She pointed out that all the claims made in the report are supported by rigorous scientific research.

Bernardo did not ask if organic producers can feed the world's population, but said that it is important to go beyond production and focus on maintaining natural resources through better land management.

As for the nutritional benefits of eating organically grown foods, Benador cited meta-analysis, which uses statistical methods to aggregate and detect potential trends in hundreds of nutrient research data that affect human health. She said that six-eighths of peer-reviewed meta-analysis concluded that organically grown food contains higher levels of certain nutrients than traditionally grown food, and the two studies found no consistent nutritional differences.

She said that in general, meta-analysis and comparative studies of individual crops show that organically grown fruits and vegetables can provide consumers with a higher level of a range of nutrients.

The environmental benefits of organic production are also included. Organic crop production practices can improve soil quality and structure and reduce soil erosion. These soil amendments, in turn, can retain moisture and prevent leaching of fertilizers and pesticides. The biodiversity in the soil helps them better adapt to extreme weather conditions. The report pointed out that when organic farmers build long-term soil fertility and use diversified practices including crop rotation and multi-cropping strategies, yields are comparable to traditional yields. When growers learn better weed management techniques, yields usually increase.

Pedersen grows vegetables and strawberries two miles from the California coast. He said the environmental benefits of organic production are important to help comply with regulations. He is reducing the impact of climate change by increasing carbon storage in farmland, using less energy, and reducing nutrient leaching to protect the quality of groundwater.

Joe Morris, who has been operating Morris Grassfed Beef since 1991, said that as farmers and ranchers seek to improve their land management, the "big picture" report is a resource for the entire farming community.

Arnott Duncan, a conference speaker and one of the largest producers of organic green leafy vegetables, said that growers need to be willing to understand consumer needs.

"You need to listen to the signal, the buyer asks for certain products, the time period. The challenge is to meet this demand," Duncan said.

He also talked about the problems between small organic producers and large organic producers, and pointed out that it is incorrect for large growers to try to exclude small organic producers from the market. Local agricultural groups may also find it difficult to include organic growers as a threat.

"If there is distrust between large and small producers, it is not easy to move forward. This is a bridge we need to build," he pointed out. Duncan said that large producers did not monopolize the market. They really opened the door for organic products and created derivative opportunities for all organic producers.

Duncan owns more than 8,000 acres of certified organic land in Arizona and California, and he said that learning organic farming was a humble experience for him.

"You must be willing to learn, work hard in challenges, and learn how to respond. Don't cheat."

Maintaining a strong labor force in organic food production is a challenge for producers. Matt Rogers, founder of AgSocio, a Bay Area company that provides full-service farm labor, points out that in recent years, securing labor has become more urgent, and labor may be the biggest cost in production.

As more labor-intensive practices are adopted in organic production, the demand for skilled farm labor is increasing. A 2018 study of organic farming employment in 10 counties in Washington and California found that compared with traditional farms, more workers are hired per acre and more jobs are provided throughout the year. More full-time, year-round employment will help provide a livable wage for California farm workers.

Arnott said that the emergence of new technologies will reduce the demand for many non-technical jobs, but he believes that the next generation of organic farmers will come from other industries and apply their technical knowledge to the farm.

"They would think organic production is cool, fun, collaborative and challenging," Arnott said.

According to the earnings report, organic farmers use more labor-intensive practices to manage weeds, pests and diseases than traditional farmers. Organic systems also include more diverse crops, requiring more skilled labor.

Jenny Ramirez, director of human resources at Harvesters Inc., a farm worker support system, said that the treatment of workers, including the provision of safe workplaces, is essential to retaining the workforce. Ramirez said that workers who think they are being treated well by their employers tend to stay on that farm.

Meeting the export demand of organically grown food is an opportunity for California growers. The welfare report pointed out that Canada and Mexico are the largest export markets for organically grown foods, but more than 104 different countries are also buying California products.

The opportunity for organic production is attracting the next generation of American farmers. Compared with traditional farms, more and more new farmers and new farmers—those who have been main farm operators for ten years or less—are starting organic farms. In California, 32% of organic farmers are novices, compared with 26.5% of traditional production. Novice farmers are also unlikely to need non-agricultural income from the organic system, even if they tend to cultivate less land.

The full earnings report can be read online at ccof.org/roadmap.

Spinach (Spinacia oleracea) is a green leafy plant, quick-ripening, cool seasonal vegetable crop. Most traditional and organic spinach fields are irrigated by fixed or manual sprinklers. However, when other conditions such as temperature are favorable, overhead irrigation may lead to the speed and severity of downy mildew epidemics in the field. Downy mildew on spinach is a widespread and extremely devastating disease in California. It is the most important disease in spinach production. In all spinach-producing areas, crop losses can be significant. In the low-lying deserts of California, spinach downy mildew usually occurs between mid-December and the end of February. Although fungicides can be used to control downy mildew in conventional production systems, there are no products with similar efficacy in organic production. Therefore, additional strategies are needed to reduce disease pressure, including irrigation management.

It is speculated that new irrigation management techniques and practices in spinach production may have a major economic impact on the green leafy vegetable industry by controlling downy mildew. In addition to reducing the losses caused by plant pathogens, the new irrigation methods can also reduce food safety risks (risks caused by overhead application of irrigation water). For example, the use of drip irrigation in high-density spinach cultivation may be a possible solution to reduce downy mildew losses, increase crop productivity and quality, and increase crop water and fertilizer use efficiency. Currently, no one is drip irrigation for spinach, and there is a lack of information on the feasibility of spinach drip irrigation technology. The project aims to evaluate the feasibility of drip irrigation for organic spinach production and its impact on spinach downy mildew management.

Field trials were conducted in two crop seasons (Fall 2018 and Winter 2019) at the University of California Desert Research and Extension Center in Holtville, California (Figure 1). The distance between two drip irrigation lines (three and four drip lines per 80 inch bed) and sprinkler irrigation as a control treatment were studied. A comprehensive data collection was conducted to fully understand the differences between irrigation treatments. Untreated Viroflay spinach seeds are planted in both seasons. True 6-6-2 (homogeneous granular fertilizer) and True 4-1-3 (liquid fertilizer) are applied as pre-planting fertilizer and supplementary fertilizer through injection into the irrigation system, respectively. The nozzle spacing on the drip irrigation line is 8 inches, the nominal flow rate is 0.13 gph (gallons per hour), and the pressure is 8 psi (pounds per square inch). The bed is 80 inches wide and 200 feet long. The experiment adopts a random complete block design and is repeated four times. All treatments are germinated by spray nozzles. In the winter experiment, drip irrigation (4 drip irrigation lines per 80-inch bed) was used to germinate and irrigate 6 spinach beds throughout the crop season to evaluate the possibility of drip irrigation throughout the crop season (including plant establishment).

In the autumn test, the average fresh biomass yield of the nozzle treatment was 12,406 lbs/acre (lbs/acre), which was about 9% higher than the 4-dripline bed treatment (Table 1). In the winter test, the average fresh yield of sprinkler treatment was 13,281 lb/ac, which was about 7% higher than 4-dripline treated in bed. Statistical analysis shows that in the autumn and winter experiments, the overall impact of the irrigation system on the fresh yield of spinach is very powerful. Although we did not find a significant difference in spinach biomass yield between sprinklers and 4 drip irrigation treatments per bed in the winter experiment, the yield difference between sprinkler irrigation and 3 drip irrigation treatments was statistically significant in this experiment. Figure 2 shows the visual comparison of drip irrigation and sprinkler irrigation 38 days after planting.

The yield difference between drip irrigation and sprinkler irrigation is between 7% (4 drops per bed and sprinkler treatment in the winter test) and 13% (3 drops per bed and autumn sprinkler treatment). The yield difference may be caused by the irrigation and nutrient management conditions of the drip irrigation treatment. Since spinach is the first trial of drip irrigation, follow-up trials need to be planned and improved in many ways. However, the 7% yield difference between drip irrigation treatment (4 drip irrigation tubes per bed) and sprinkler irrigation treatment shows that drip irrigation has profit potential in spinach production. This yield difference can be reduced by optimizing system design and better drip irrigation system irrigation and nutrient management practices.

Table 1. The average fresh spinach yield value of each irrigation treatment in each autumn and winter experiment. Through Tukey's test, the yields with different letters are significantly different (p <0.05).

Downy mildew was not observed in the autumn test, but downy mildew was found in the winter test on March 5, 2019 (Figure 3). On March 11, 2019, the incidence of downy mildew was low, with only two beds with an incidence above 0.1%. The average incidence of downy mildew in plots irrigated by spraying water after emergence of seedlings was about 3 to 11 times higher than that of drip irrigation treatment after emergence. Statistical analysis shows strong evidence for the overall effect of irrigation treatment on downy mildew.

The most likely mechanism for the change in the incidence of spinach downy mildew is the drop in leaf moisture under drip irrigation, which is crucial for the infection and sporulation of downy mildew pathogens. For example, data from the leaf moisture sensor showed that during the 12-day period of the autumn test, the crop canopy under spray irrigation remained moist for 24.3% longer than the crop canopy under drip irrigation (Figure 4).

Other observations and lessons

In the winter test, a germination rate test was performed 10 days after planting to evaluate the germination rate of sprinkler irrigation (sprinkler irrigation) and drip irrigation germinated beds. Although the plots sprouted by drip irrigation have not been fully replicated, nor have they been randomly allocated among the plots of other treatments, for future experiments, it is worthwhile to have a preliminary idea of ​​sprouted spinach with drip irrigation. Compared with the sprouted plots, the spinach under drip irrigation germinated about three days later. The spinach germination rate of drip irrigation bed was 3% lower than that of sprinkler irrigation bed on average.

The well-developed canopy crop curve shows that the leaf density of drip irrigation (sprinkler irrigation) is slightly behind that of sprinkler irrigation in time (1-4 days, depending on the irrigation treatment and crop season).

In late November 2018, more differences were observed between the treatments of several hospital beds, mainly due to the yellowing of leaves between drip irrigation lines (especially 3 drip irrigation lines per bed treatment). One possible reason may be that fertilization under irrigation does not move nitrogen between drip irrigation lines. The values ​​of plant total nitrogen content and leaf chlorophyll content indicate that the nitrogen absorption of drip irrigation treatment is not as effective as sprinkler irrigation treatment, especially in autumn experiments. The combination of nutrient management and water management in spinach drip irrigation may be a key issue that we need to solve. At the same time, it may affect the adoption rate and feasibility of drip irrigation in spinach production.

Drip irrigation has demonstrated the potential for producing organic spinach, saving water, improving water efficiency, and reducing downy mildew. Statistical analysis of the collected data shows that the overall changes in the fresh biomass yield of spinach and the incidence of downy mildew in the irrigation system are strong evidence. The lower spinach yield may be caused by the irrigation and nutrient management conditions under drip irrigation at this time. This is the first attempt. When drip irrigation is used, practice can be improved to optimize the follow-up drip irrigation test of the spinach production test. Likewise, the yield difference between drip irrigation and sprinkler irrigation of spinach can be reduced by optimizing system design and better irrigation and nutrient management practices in drip irrigation systems. The results also proved the overall effect of irrigation treatment on downy mildew, in which the incidence of downy mildew was lower in the drip-irrigated plots after emergence compared with spraying.

Further work is needed to comprehensively evaluate the feasibility of using drip irrigation, especially the impact of optimizing system design, irrigation and nitrogen management practices on various soil types and climates, and strategies to maintain spinach productivity and economic feasibility. Drip irrigation that evaluates the entire crop season, germination, and the rest of the crop season may be another research interest, because spinach is a short-season crop, and combining sprinklers (for crop germination) and drip irrigation in such a short period of time may cause some Practical problems.

Acknowledgements: This research was supported by the California Green Leafy Vegetable Research Council.

Farmers and ranchers make decisions about production and processing, marketing methods, and certification plans in the context of real-life people, locations, and environments every day. Your farm and ranch business depends on the agricultural market, consumer preference trends, trade policies, regional infrastructure, and the quality of life of your family and community. The organic certification of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) organic regulations is a practical choice, which lays a solid foundation for a healthier production system and a prosperous business. Agricultural systems are diverse in terms of crop and livestock production systems, treatment or processing options, marketing strategies, import and export policies, and other applicable regulations. The organic planting system includes various combinations of annual vegetables, small fruits and berries, perennial fruit and nut crops, mushrooms and bean sprouts, herbs and flowers, fiber crops, grains and beans, fodder and forage, pasture and pasture. The livestock industry produces a range of food and fiber, eggs and meat, milk and honey from many different species and varieties of insects, poultry, pigs and ruminants. Whether your organic crop and animal husbandry business is an independent production company or a diversified and integrated business with processing, storage or distribution, your agricultural business elements are all subject to the organic regulations of the United States Department of Agriculture.

The following questions involve how to find regulations, the feasibility of certification, cost-benefit analysis, and the evaluation of alternative and free plans for market access and regulatory compliance. They are designed to guide you in your decision to obtain organic certification under the US Department of Agriculture's organic regulations and to help you navigate the certification process. These considerations and the reference materials and resources provided will help you determine whether organic certification is suitable for your operation and whether this is the right time to start.

The USDA Organic Regulations describe the practices and records necessary to represent farms, ranches, or processing/processing facilities and their products as organic certified. These regulations are found in Part 205 of Chapter 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), which specifies the production standards for crop and/or livestock production and the processing (processing) of agricultural products. They also stipulate the procedures for the establishment, accreditation and operation of certification bodies. To make it easier to find and read the parts of the regulations that directly apply to producers and processors (and browse the administrative, certification body certification and procedure requirements), the National Appropriate Technology Center (NCAT)’s ATTRA Sustainable Agriculture Program has developed a set of Excerpts from the main regulations related to production, animal husbandry production and handling (processing) activities. Common requirements for all types of organic certification operations include the development of a written organic production and processing system plan (Organic System Plan, or OSP), and record keeping requirements. Each of these publications contains verbatim excerpts from crop, livestock, or process certification requirements. Although abstract interpretations (including this article) may provide useful introductions and overviews, and guidance documents provide legal interpretations and explanations, they are not a substitute for direct quoting of legal texts. View references

The feasibility of complying with U.S. Department of Agriculture regulations

Is your farm or ranch capable of complying with applicable USDA organic regulations? Can you show three years of land use history without prohibited materials? Do you use crop rotation to protect the soil, build organic matter, manage pests and nutrients, break the pest cycle, and enhance biodiversity? Are you committed to finding and using organic seeds and planting materials unless you can prove their lack of commercial availability? Does your pest management rely on preventive measures, biological, mechanical, and physical controls, and only use permitted materials with appropriate restrictions when all other efforts are insufficient?

Do adaptable livestock come from compliant sources? Do they accept 100% organic feed and permitted supplements? Are animal health practices preventive and only use permitted vaccinations, biological agents, and drugs? Do the living conditions of livestock include ruminants entering the pasture, all animals entering the outdoors (any justified confinement), fresh air, clean water, direct sunlight, shade, shelter, bedding, and natural comfort behaviors suitable for the species? Can you describe the way you maintain or improve the natural resources you operate?

Do you have a record keeping system that includes a clear audit trail to track the entire process from harvesting, storage, transportation, processing and sales? During the production process and after harvest, have you taken appropriate measures to prevent contamination by prohibited materials, heavy metals, nutrients and pathogens?

Are there major obstacles to organic compliance in your operations? Does your production system face any major challenges, such as pests and diseases, which cannot be solved by compliant preventive measures and materials allowed for organic production? For example, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s organic regulations prohibit the use of antibiotics on organic livestock, but require livestock producers to treat sick animals humanely, even if it means the use of illegal drugs. This means that the processed individual animals have lost their organic status, but as long as there is a proper system to identify and isolate the organic animal group, the rest of the operations can maintain organic certification. In this case, your organic system plan must list antibiotics and also include a description of the procedures to be followed when treating animals.

Although organic certification requires record keeping and audit trail files, tracking products from seed or animal sources, through production practices and final product sales, record keeping is also a good business practice. Most of the records required for organic certification are good for any agricultural business, regardless of certification status. Organic records can facilitate the completion of tax declarations, corporate cash flow budgets, and loan applications. In addition, organic record keeping can supplement and strengthen regulatory requirements related to environmental health and food safety laws. For example, the Food and Drug Administration's Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) requires traceability of vegetables, and the United States Department of Agriculture's inspection, grading, and labeling requirements for livestock products. According to your overall business management, you can develop a record-keeping system for multiple purposes at the same time. Manufacturers and processors both talked about how the records they keep for organic certification enable them to track practices, ingredients or products; identify patterns, follow correlations, clarify reasons, make it easier to solve problems, or replicate and extend success. The multiple benefits of record keeping are discussed in several articles on NCAT/ATTRA communication issues, focusing on this topic: http://attra.ncat.org/newsletter/attranews_1105.html.

Organic regulations require certified operations to develop and maintain a record-keeping system suitable for the business, fully disclose all activities and transactions, and demonstrate compliance with regulations in a sufficiently detailed manner to facilitate understanding and auditing. They must be available for inspection and stored for 5 years after creation. Records can be in written, visual or electronic form. There is no specific format required for record keeping. Many sources, including organic certification bodies, NCAT/ATTRA, and NOP, can use or adjust organic record keeping forms or templates. Document forms for producers of organic crops and livestock. The introduction describes the three main components of record compliance: OSP description plans, documents showing transactions between companies, and records that track farm activities. Example forms can be found in: Crop Document Form and Livestock Document Form. Many commercial record keeping programs are also available. The California Certified Organic Farmer (CCOF) Foundation, Ann Baier on August 20, 2018, and Thea Rittenhouse in September 2018 reviewed several types of record-keeping strategies in an organic record-keeping webinar series for crop producers https://www.ccof. org/blog/organic-recordkeeping-webinar-series-growers. Consider whether an organization can help simplify the record keeping and review process for multiple certifications at once.

Will it drop the pencil? Accessibility and affordability of organic production

How does the economics of organic production of my crops and/or livestock work? The Organic Market Overview of the Economic Research Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/natural-resources-environment/organic-agriculture/organic-market-overview and the Organic Trade Association show the sales of organic food , Fiber and other products have been growing steadily year by year since 2005, with high price premiums, and organic consumers have increasingly become the mainstream. The demand and price prospects for organic products appear to be strong, so higher organic input and management costs may be offset by the price premium of certified organic products. If your operations previously relied on materials that were banned in organic production, the transition period may be an obstacle. The U.S. Department of Agriculture requires a three-year transition period from the last use of prohibited materials to the sale of certified organic crops. During this period, the learning curve is steep. Organic management and input costs are high; sales prices remain conventional (transition crops rarely receive premiums). Although the market benefits began to appear after three years, the realization of the biological benefits of organic management is a process of continuous improvement. Many states have cost-sharing programs that can reimburse part of the organic certification costs. The Natural Resources Conservation Agency (NRCS) has developed standards of practice to support the transition to organic.

Over the past few decades, suppliers of inputs allowed for organic production have expanded their product range, leading the Washington State Department of Agriculture’s Organic Materials Review Institute to review a long list of materials for compliance with U.S. Department of Agriculture regulations. A certification body recognized by the Bureau of Conservation and the United States Department of Agriculture. In some areas, and for certain types of crop or livestock inputs, there may be more choices for inputs. At least in areas where organic farms are highly concentrated, there are increasingly developed and knowledgeable input supply companies. Certified manufacturers and processors always need to ensure the compliance of their inputs by including them in their organic system plans and having their certification bodies approve their intended use. This process is further described in the publication "Organic Material Compliance" of the ATTRA Sustainable Agriculture Program.

In order to discern the feasibility of your operations, you need to study the supply and affordability of inputs. Sharpen a pencil or pull out a spreadsheet, and consult some corporate budget or cost research and current price reports. Run multiple cost-benefit analyses for your farm based on different marketing scenarios, product pricing, and additional estimated costs associated with record maintenance and expenses for each certification program. Consider seed and planting stocks, fertility and pest management materials, and livestock feed. Since feed is not only the daily need of livestock producers (organic livestock must consume all organic feed), it is also the main expense of livestock producers, so assess whether there is a reliable and cost-effective supply of organic feed to provide your animals with enough feed Vital. The whole life cycle, is it through your own production or supplementary feed that can be purchased locally? Does your current customer base provide a reliable premium for your organic products, enough to offset the increased costs of organic production? How do you strike an appropriate balance between pricing and sales volume to ensure that your business is economically viable?

How does the certification process work?

To help producers familiarize themselves with the organic certification process, the "reasonable and wise" plan of the National Organic Program provides resources to match the different milestones in the certification process. Steps include deciding whether to start and what the scope is-crop production, wild crops, livestock production and/or processing; choose a certification body recognized by the USDA; develop an organic system plan and submit it to you along with your application and fees The selected certification body prepares organic inspections and keeps records and annual updates. Many excellent resources on this website include a set of organic standards reminders that explain the regulations and ask contextual questions about many types of crop and livestock production systems. In order to help you familiarize yourself with the inspection process and prepare for your own inspection, the International Association of Organic Inspectors has prepared two very useful videos, titled "What Happens When You Are Inspected". Simulated inspection of food. Producer-one is a vegetable crop and the other is a livestock producer.

What about market access opportunities and free certification?

Livestock producers’ records follow a similar pattern, focusing on feed and animals entering the farm; management activities such as feeding, medical care and livestock living conditions, outdoor activities and/or grazing (depending on the species), and livestock and/or livestock product.

Choose a certification body recognized by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and seek organic certification

You can find information about accredited certification bodies on the USDA’s NOP website at https://www.ams.usda.gov/services/organic-certification/certifying-agents

Although there are currently 80 certification bodies on this list, you can usually filter the options into a few practical options that are suitable for your location and scope of business (crops, livestock, and/or processing). To help you choose the certification body that best meets your needs, please ask your potential buyers and other organic farmers in your area to find out which certification body they prefer.

Once you have identified a certification agency (ACA) recognized by the US Department of Agriculture, please submit your application and the organic system plan. Your ACA will review the application, evaluate the possibility of compliance, and send an inspector to conduct an on-site inspection. Inspectors verify that land use history, production management practices, materials, pollution prevention measures, and record keeping are in compliance with the National Organic Program regulations of the United States Department of Agriculture. ACA reviews the inspection report and makes a certification decision.

Although all organic certification agencies recognized by the United States Department of Agriculture conduct inspections in accordance with the same regulations, they can create their own certification forms (application and OSP) and procedures, and require their certification customers to provide the United States Department of Agriculture's organic regulations in this format. The form of information. Some people asked about using different organic system plan (OSP) templates. Please note that most certification agencies prefer (if not needed) customers to use their own OSP templates. Therefore, before you fill out any specific OSP form, please make sure that your organic certification body approves the use of the form, because unless your certification body accepts and approves its use, filling out any OSP template is a waste of your time.

Who can help farmers and ranchers navigate the certification process?

Although there are many things to learn, there are many resources to help you move forward. Producers who have completed the organic certification process find it worth trying.

If you need more information about specific aspects of this topic that apply to your operations, please refer to the resources listed.

You can also contact NCAT's ATTRA sustainable agriculture program by calling 1-800-346-9140 (English-Spanish bilingual hotline (800) 411-3222) or emailing your questions to askanag@ncat.org. ATTRA is a program developed and managed by the National Appropriate Technology Center (NCAT). Most of ATTRA's funding comes from cooperation agreements with the United States Department of Agriculture's Rural Commercial Cooperative Service. We also get part of the funding through the sale and subscription of some ATTRA materials and the contributions of friends and supporters. We are committed to providing high-value information and technical assistance to farmers, ranchers, extension workers, educators, and others involved in sustainable agriculture in the United States.

ATTRA services are available to farmers, ranchers, market gardeners, extension workers, researchers, educators, farm organizations, and other people engaged in agriculture, especially those who are economically disadvantaged or belong to traditionally underserved communities . NCAT strives to provide our information to everyone who needs it. If you are a farmer with limited access or low income and find that one of our publications is not within your budget, please call 800-346-9140.

The National Center for Appropriate Technology (NCAT) is a private non-profit organization founded in 1976. It manages a series of projects to promote self-reliance and sustainable lifestyles through the wise use of appropriate technology. Its projects involve sustainable and renewable energy, energy conservation, resource-efficient housing, sustainable community development and sustainable agriculture. The National Center for Appropriate Technology (NCAT) launched ATTRA in 1987. NCAT is headquartered in Butte, Montana, and has five regional offices.

How do I find an organic farming community or network?

Organic farmers and processors often get new ideas and reasonable advice from others who are engaged in similar jobs. Recognizing this, many organic certification agencies and farm organizations across the country have provided learning and exchange activities or forums, whether through breakfast meetings, seminars or informal discussions on site visits to visit experienced organic production The operation of a manufacturer or processor, as well as webinars or conferences. It is also helpful for organic producers to have the opportunity to connect with others in the supply chain (from processors and processors to retailers). If you are interested in organic production or processing, please look for groups that provide educational activities or networking opportunities near you. Some non-profit organizations, university projects, and regional and national centers contribute to mutual learning, which can be found under "Other Resources" on the NCAT website: http://attra.ncat.org/other/, and the Sustainable Development Database Agriculture Organization and publication https://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/sustainable_ag/. Several organizations are listed on the website of the National Sustainable Agriculture Alliance: http://sustainableagriculture.net/about-us/members/. If you are considering organizing a network on your own, there is also a guide: Seek support through the farmer-to-farmer network https://extension.oregonstate.edu/finding-support-through-farmer-farmer-networking. Joining a network that can provide useful information, advice and support is invaluable as you embark on a new journey.

Publication of NCAT's ATTRA Sustainable Agriculture Program

A concise description of the organic certification process and how to prepare for the organic inspection can be found in the following ATTRA publications:

https://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/viewhtml.php?id=163

Preparing for organic inspection: steps and checklist

https://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/summaries/summary.php?pub=165

www.attra.org/attra-pub/download.php?id=157

Document forms for crop and livestock producers

https://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub-summaries/?pub=358

The same document can be found in Part I of the NOP Planning Manual, which is divided into three parts: Introduction, Crop and Livestock Document Form.

Several articles on the NCAT/ATTRA newsletter issue discuss the multiple benefits of good records, with a focus on record keeping: http://attra.ncat.org/newsletter/attranews_1105.html.

Organic standards for all organic operations

https://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/download.php?id=158

Organic Standards for Crop Production: Extract from the National Organic Program Regulations of the United States Department of Agriculture https://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/summaries/summary.php?pub=100

Organic Standards for Livestock Production: Extract from the National Organic Program Regulations of the United States Department of Agriculture https://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/summaries/summary.php?pub=159

Organic Treatment Standards: Excerpts from the National Organic Program Regulations of the United States Department of Agriculture

https://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/summaries/summary.php?pub=160

A detailed overview of organic certification for your operation:

Organic crop production guide

https://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/summaries/summary.php?pub=67 or

http://www.ams.usda.gov/publications/content/guide-organic-crop-production

Organic Livestock Producer's Guide

https://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/summaries/summary.php?pub=154 or

http://www.ams.usda.gov/publications/content/guide-organic-livestock-producers

https://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/summaries/summary.php?pub=407 or

http://www.ams.usda.gov/publications/content/guide-organic-processors

Resources provided by the US Department of Agriculture NOP and SARE websites:

Organic certification https://www.ams.usda.gov/services/organic-certification/certification provides many useful introductory articles and links, such as the benefits of organic certification and organic standard tips

Organic regulations https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/organic

National Organic Program Handbook; accredited certification agent and certification operation guide and instructions https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/organic/handbook includes three parts: A. Standards (guidance documents)

https://www.ams.usda.gov/reports/sound-sensible

A guide for traditional farmers to transition to organic certification

https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/10%20Guide%20to%20Transitional%20Farming%20FINAL%20RGK%20V2.pdf

Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE)

Based on work supported by the National Food and Agriculture Research Institute of the United States Department of Agriculture, four regional offices provide outreach services for the program. https://www.sare.org/content/search?SubTreeArray=2%2C2003%2C4528&SearchText=organic This website provides many organic guidelines, including: transition to organic, certification, marketing, conservation, farming, seed and animal systems.