Recent Blog Posts
Sales of foliar fertilizers have skyrocketed in the last several years, particularly among organic dairy farmers. Foliar products are readily available, easy to store, and many products are approved for organic use and formulated to provide humates, microbiological products, micronutrients, and other popular treatments. Advocates of these products say they offer an environmentally friendly, efficient, and cost-effective way to apply fertilizers. Yet much of the recent research done on foliar feeding has been unable to reliably document benefits to production.
Louceline Fleuridor has spent the last two years studying foliar feeding as part of her Ohio State master’s degree program. She partnered with organic dairy farmers to measure the response of forage and soils to post-cutting foliar fertilization on 19 on-farm sites. As with previous studies in Ohio, Fleuridor found no consistent evidence of benefits from using foliar feeding products.
"In foliar feeding, you apply fertilizer through the leaves, which is contrary to the traditional knowledge that plants will absorb nutrients through their roots,” says Fleuridor, explaining that leaves' primary function is thought to be photosynthesis. "It raises some questions."
On Thursday, December 19, Fleuridor met with participating farmers and Ohio State specialists for a discussion of the research trials and results.
Partnering farmers began the meeting by sharing their experiences with foliar products. Wayne county dairy farmer Jeff Miller began experimenting with foliar feeding on one of his pastures five years ago. He decided to spray half of his pasture to see what would happen and because he couldn’t afford to spray the whole field. But when he noticed how much quicker his herd began to graze in the foliar fed area, he decided he couldn’t afford not to spray the whole field. Other farmers relayed similar experience, noting increases in crop yield, forage health, palatability, and harvested hay quality that coincided with the use of foliar feeding.
Yield gets a lot of attention in studies, but quality and palatability are also important, especially on dairy farms where forage is not the end product. Past studies have noted other advantages to foliar feeds, including decreased nutrient runoff, better absorption efficiency of micro- and macronutrients, reduced instance of disease, and, in a 2000 study on wheat, increased grain protein content.
"Forage quality is where we really expected to see changes, but we didn't," said Ohio State soil fertility specialist Steve Culman, who provided technical assistance on the project.
Fleuridor's study examined a variety of forage quality measurements, including in-field measurements for sugar content (Brix), as well as lab analysis for crude protein, stem:leaf ratio, fiber content, relative forage quality, net energy of lactation, and estimated milk/ton.
In addition to sharing individual and overall test results with the participating farmers, Fleuridor also spent time explaining how researchers use randomized plots and statistics to separate actual treatment differences from differences that happen randomly or from variations in the field. Fleuridor noted that there were some differences between the treatment and control in the studies, but the results were inconsistent and didn’t reveal a cohesive pattern of increased yield, plant health, or milk production for the sites in this study.
Culman cautions farmers to inform themselves before using foliar feeds. “If you’re looking at adding these products, look at the formulation and know what you’re getting. Foliar products tend to supply only a small amount of nutrients.”
Most of the farmers in the study plan to continue using foliar feeding, feeling that these products have caused improvements on their fields. They did note mixed results with some products and a need for additional labor. Several of the participants also stressed that other soil problems need to be fixed before turning attention to foliar feeds.
As for Fleuridor, she feels there are many factors that could have contributed to the mixed results in this study, including weather and soil conditions when the products were applied. She recommended that future studies use a consistent forage composition, and suggested a focus on clover may be advisable, based on farmer feedback.
This study was sponsored by The Ohio State University Paul C. and Edna H. Warner Grants for Sustainable Agriculture, Organic Valley FAFO (Farmers Advocating for Organic), and SoilBiotics. Organic Valley FAFO is currently accepting grant proposals for on-farm research projects. The deadline is February 15, 2020. Read more: https://www.organicvalley.coop/why-organic-valley/power-of-we/farmers-advocating-organics/
|Ohio State researcher Louceline Fleuridor applied foliar feed treatments at spring green up and 10 days after each cutting. Applications were made in the mornings when temperatures were below 75 degrees F.|
A smaller than usual corn harvest is underway in Ohio. A smaller than needed portion of the harvest continues to be organic.
According to annual acreage reports from Mercaris, a company specializing in market data and services for organic and non-GMO, the 2019 harvest will see a record number of organic grain acres, despite the notoriously poor spring planting season (1). But the firm also predicted a 12% decrease in actual organic corn yields, compared to 2018, which will lead to increased imports and costs for organic livestock farmers.(2)
For decades, consumer demand for organic food has grown annually by double-digits (3). While still a comparatively small portion of overall agricultural production, organic corn acreage in the U.S. increased by more than 55% between 2011 and 2016, driven mainly by demand from organic dairy farms (4). Despite the large increase in production, organic grain was imported to the U.S. in 2016, indicating the potential for future growth (5, 6). Currently, Ohio ranks in the top 5 states for number of certified organic corn growers, and in the top ten for acres harvested (7). However, relatively little is known about the management practices of these farms.
As part of an interdisciplinary study on soil balancing, Ohio State researchers surveyed certified organic corn growers in Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Indiana in the spring of 2018. These four states collectively represent one-third of all U.S. organic corn growers and produce about 20% of the nation’s organic corn.
Responses show the majority of organic corn growers in this region are dairy farmers. More than half of the organic corn grown in 2017 was used as on-farm livestock feed. Most (70%) respondents harvested corn as grain corn; 36% harvested corn as silage (with some doing both). Other uses were rare. A surprisingly large number (nearly 2/3) of the growers use horse-powered equipment, indicating they are likely members of Old Order Amish or similar Plain communities.
The survey examined the use of soil amendments, crop rotations, cover crops, various tillage and cultivation strategies, yields, selling costs, and management priorities. Manure and compost were by far the most common practice, used by 89% of all organic corn growers. Other amendments were used by fewer than half the growers. Tillage practices were chosen for weed management, but most other management decisions focused on soil health.
Reported yields varied widely, ranging from 25 to 250 bushels per acre for grain and 5-34 tons per acre for silage. According to the data collected and estimated from survey responses, very few farmers lost money on the fields reported on for this study.
Farmers with more years of experience raising crops organically tended to have higher net returns on average, suggesting that economic performance can be expected to improve over time for transitioning farms. About 40% of respondents had less than five years of experience farming organically.
Researchers received a 57% response rate (859 responses), yielding a margin of error of 2%.
This work is supported by Organic Agriculture Research & Extension funding grant no. 2014-51300-22331/project accession no. 1003905 from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture. Read more at go.osu.edu/orgcorn.
That’s how Dr. Emilie Regnier describes giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida). Regnier, an associate professor and researcher in weed ecology, has completed two USDA-funded studies and a survey of certified crop advisors regarding giant ragweed. Capable of reaching a staggering 17 feet tall and responsible for making millions of allergy sufferers miserable, giant ragweed is on the minds of many this time of year. Regnier’s work has shown the ability of giant ragweed to adapt to changes and expand its range both culturally and geographically.
Many of our worst weeds have been introduced from areas where their spread is controlled by natural predators. Giant ragweed, however, is native to North America and has plenty of natural predators, including, at one time, the indigenous people of North American, says Regnier. Just about every part of it is regularly consumed by something. So how is it that giant ragweed remains such a problem?
Most of its advantages center on an uncanny ability to adapt. Giant ragweed shows a great degree of genetic diversity. Anyone can observe this, says Regnier. If you were to collect seed from five different plants and pile them into 5 piles, chances are that the seed from each of those plants would be different in appearance (size, number and size of points, color).
“It’s almost like each plant has a fingerprint,” she says.
This physical variability is something you can see, but it indicates diversity in other characteristics. Former Ohio State graduate student Brian Schutte showed seed dormancy in giant ragweed had wide variation. Most ragweed emerges in early March, but he found some seeds with emergence windows reaching into July and August. This variation makes it easy for giant ragweed to escape weed control methods.
Giant ragweed’s genetic diversity has allowed it to respond and benefit from changes in land use and cropping systems. Initially considered a riparian plant growing along ditches and waterways, giant ragweed is now frequently found in the midst of row crops. Regnier’s survey of certified crop advisors showed that, over the last 30 years, giant ragweed has expanded to fields outside of the corn belt in all directions. It is one of several weeds developing resistance to common herbicides—an issue much in the current spotlight. Ragweed has also benefitted from changes in what Regnier calls the “architecture of modern agriculture,” as soybeans and shorter corn varieties have become more common in rural landscape over the decades.
“The selection for crop species that are shorter, and therefore don’t lodge as much, has lots of benefits; but, on the other hand, it reduces their ability to shade out weeds,” she says, “That might be one of the cultural reasons that giant ragweed has become worse as a weed.”
Don’t despair! Giant ragweed does have some weaknesses, says Regnier. As an annual plant, giant ragweed is completely reliant on seeds to reproduce. Since flowering time is strongly driven by the hours of daylight we know it will begin around mid-August.
“If you can control the plant so that it’s not big enough to flower at that time then you can prevent the reproduction of seeds.”
Giant ragweed typically requires pollen from another plant, so one plant rarely causes an outbreak. And happily, giant ragweed is not a prolific seed-producer, nor a seed that remains viable in the soil for long periods of time. Most giant ragweed seeds lose viability in the first year but can survive longer if buried by deep tillage or stored underground by earthworms and rodents. Even seeds that are produced, are often consumed by mice and voles and sometimes by insects.
What if you already have a giant ragweed problem?
Knowing giant ragweed’s weaknesses can help solve an existing problem.
- Since most giant ragweed emerges in early spring, having a competitive cover crop or perennial in place in March can reduce its emergence. Alfalfa or mixed hay should be able to control ragweed effectively by providing competition in the spring and with mowing events to set back late emerging weeds. Since the seeds rarely survive longer than one year, including a forage crop in rotation should help prevent ragweed problems.
- Alternatively, a crop could be be planted later in the spring after most of the ragweed seeds have germinated. The false seed bed technique uses repeated bouts of light tillage to germinate then terminate weed seeds in the field.
- Taller fast-growing crops densely planted can help shade out later emerging giant ragweed plants.
- Giant ragweed seeds can float and are often cached by mice and other rodents. Managing the weed in non-crop areas through mowing can help prevent its spread into planted areas.
- For more on information and resources on organic weed management, visit go.osu.edu/eco-weed-mngt
Although giant ragweed is less problematic in tall crops like corn, this weed can certainly outgrow field corn varieties, reaching a staggering 17 feet tall.
Giant ragweed seeds are relatively large (3/16 to 7/16 inch long and 1/8 to 1/4 inch wide) and encased in a woody hull with a distinctive set of points at the top and smaller points or ridges around the middle of the hull. Left on the soil surface, these seeds are a favorite treat of mice and other small rodents.
|Giant ragweed typically emerges in March. The first (cotyledon) leaves have an indentation at the base and are fairly large -- 3/8 to 5/8 inch wide, 1 to 1 3/4 inches long. The first true leaves are ovate, lobed and directly across the stem from one another. The second pair of true leaves shows the more familiar shape of giant ragweed. Leaves have stiff hairs that point toward the leaf tip and usually form 3 distinct lobes but can have up to 5.|
Photo of young ragweed plants is from the Ohio State weed lab, courtesy of bugwood.org
Other photos by Ken Chamberlain, Ohio State, College of Food Agricultural and Environmental Sciences.
written by Andrea Leiva Soto, Horticulture and Crop Science
Ohio State researchers compared an organic system to a conventional one, looking at several soil quality indicators such as bulk density, organic matter content, and nematode populations. After four years, the organic system had fewer harmful nematodes, especially during the hay phase of the rotation. Mineral nitrogen was more abundant in the conventional system, while microbial nitrogen prevailed in the organic system. Soil bulk density did not differ between systems, even though intensive tillage was done in the organically managed fields. However, despite the high carbon inputs added to the organic system, organic matter was only slightly higher compared to the conventional system.
Nematodes have a bad reputation for damaging crops and garden plants, but some can be quite important for plant growth. Certain kinds of nematodes eat bacteria and fungi that cause plant diseases. Others decompose organic matter, providing plant nutrients. Studies indicate that nematodes supply 27% of the soil nitrogen that is available to plants. Today, nematodes are increasingly used as an indicator of the status of the soil food web. The soil food web is a complex network with organisms that provide services to the farm ecosystem like regulating pests, nutrient recycling, modifying soil structure, or even breaking down man-made chemicals.
Organic matter additions have been shown to influence nematode populations. Adding green manure cover crops or decomposed animal waste can decrease root-feeding nematodes. Additionally, organic amendments are known to increase soil nitrogen, organic matter and microbial biomass, and reduce soil bulk density, leading to less soil compaction. As a result, roots explore deeper and have more oxygen available leading to more vigorous growth.
However, the intensive tillage practices used to incorporate amendments or control weeds, disrupt the soil ecosystem, affecting the populations of beneficial microbes and nematodes. Synthetic fertilizers, insecticides, and soil compaction can also cause similar undesirable effects.
To better understand these kinds of interactions and develop insights into how best to manage them, a study at the Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center (OARDC) in Wooster, Ohio, compared conventional and organic farming systems and how soil characteristics, nitrogen cycling, and nematode populations are affected by each system.
The conventional system used chemical fertilizers, herbicides, and reduced tillage in a corn–soybean rotation. The organic system incorporated fresh straw, beef manure, poultry compost, and intensive tillage in a corn–oat–hay rotation. Soil samples were taken in the spring before soil inputs, and in autumn after crop harvest. Samples were taken from between and within the crop rows. Then for each sample, the nematodes were counted and identified, and soil bulk density, organic matter, and nitrogen were measured.
Results: After four years, the organic system had fewer harmful nematodes, especially for the hay phase of the rotation. Mineral nitrogen was more abundant in the conventional system, while microbial nitrogen prevailed in the organic system. Soil bulk density did not differ between systems, even though intensive tillage was done in the organically managed fields. And despite the high carbon inputs added to the organic system, organic matter was only slightly higher compared to the conventional system.
Take Home Messages
- When you are transitioning to organic, it is important to reduce synthetic inputs gradually. The soil system needs time to build different sources of nutrients to be sustainable in the long-term. It is known that after the transition period, organic farms have more nitrogen in the soil compared to conventional farms, mainly due to a build-up of the microbial nitrogen pool, but these benefits will not be available immediately.
- Organic amendments and crop rotations can decrease harmful root-feeding nematodes in the soil. And by including hay in the rotation cycle, you can decrease these nematode populations even more.
- Intensive tillage can reduce the soil-related benefits of organic farming. On the other hand, organic inputs should significantly increase soil organic matter and decrease soil bulk density. In the organic farming system discussed above, the benefits of the large organic inputs were diminished by the intensive tillage routine. Rather than seeing a decrease in compaction level, the soil bulk density remained the same. And there was only a minor boost in soil organic matter. Decreased use of tillage in organic farming would better take advantage of the benefits that an organic system can provide.
Read more about it:
This study was conducted at Ohio State in the early 2000s. Published results are availabe online.
Briar, Shabeg S.; Grewal, Parwinder S.; Somasekhar, Nethi; Stinner, D.; Miller, Sally A. 2007. Soil nematode community, organic matter, microbial biomass and nitrogen dynamics in field plots transitioning from conventional to organic management. Applied Soil Ecology 37: 256-266.
Read more news and information on organic agriculture research at offer.osu.edu.
The Ohio State Soil Balancing Team is concluding a five-year project examining the beliefs, practices, and effects of soil balancing. Soil balancing involves the use of high calcium amendments to manipulate the ratio of calcium, magnesium, and potassium in the soil. For decades, proponents have claimed that the right balance of these cation nutrients will improve field conditions and yields, but none of these effects have been replicated by modern university research.
Through interviews, surveys, and literature reviews, the team gained a better understanding of why and how soil balancing is used by farmers and how it had been studied by researchers. The group found that while most researchers and university educators viewed soil balancing as an ineffective fertilization program; farmers and consultants who use soil balancing view it as a holistic method for improving soil health.
With input from a farmer advisory committee, the team designed long-term field experiments situated on organic farms and university research sites. The field trials found some evidence that changes in Ca:Mg ratios were associated with changes in soil structure and weed populations. However, the team was unable to document consistent effects on these characteristics, or on soil biology, crop quality, or yield.
Based on the overall project findings, the Ohio State team recommends further investigation of how soil balancing’s effectiveness is impacted by specific site conditions such as cation exchange capacity (CEC), clay content, or management practices. Meanwhile, the team has issued the following recommendations for anyone using or considering soil balancing.
Soil test data is critical to making informed decisions about managing Ca:Mg ratios.
Watch your pH if using lime. Gypsum is a better choice to change your Ca saturation ratio without affecting pH, and it also provides sulfur.
Soils with a CEC below 10 meq/100 g may develop K deficiencies. In soils with a low holding capacity for cations, excess Ca can quickly lead to deficiencies of K, and possibly Mg. We did observe this in on-farm sites.
Consider economic factors. On soils with higher CEC, more time and amendments will be needed to increase the Ca:Mg ratio. Depending on the amount of change needed and the value of your crop, using soil balancing may be cost prohibitive.
Any time you try a new practice, monitor the results. If possible, try using the new practice on only part of your farm and compare it with a similarly managed area to see if the new technique is making a positive contribution over time.
Additional Resources and Information are available at https://offer.osu.edu/soil-balancing/resource including summary reports, articles, and presentations.
Ah spring! The war against weeds begins anew. The first major skirmish of the growing season should happen before planting. The stale seed bed technique is an often over-looked practice that can be used before planting. It works by first encouraging weeds to sprout and then killing them when they are young and most vulnerable. For organic growers, a stale seed bed can replace the effects of a pre-emergence herbicide. And when used properly, it can contribute to both short-term and long-term weed management.
Weed control can be handled with short-term or long-term approaches. Short-term management focuses on controlling weeds during the first part of crop growth when weeds are more likely to affect crop yields. Long-term weed management, however, works all season-long to deplete weed seeds from the seedbank (the reservoir of viable weed seeds in the soil). Whichever approach you take, using a stale seed bed is a great cultural weed control technique.
To use the stale seed bed most effectively, start several weeks before planting. An initial cultivation kills any emerged weeds that have overwintered. It also brings weed seeds to the surface where exposure to light and oxygen stimulate germination. Depending on the weather and types of seeds present in the soil, weeds may sprout up overnight or over a few weeks. When weeds have germinated and are still small and young, they are easy to kill with a second light cultivation. This process is then repeated as needed and as time allows. As few as three cycles of light/ shallow tillage can reduce the number of subsequent weeds noticeably. For fields and gardens with very heavy weed infestations more cycles of repeated tillage over a few years will be needed. Using a stale seed bed may push back your planting date; but in the absence of weed competition, the crop will have more access to water and sunlight and be able to make up for lost time.
Keys to Success
- Do not allow emerged seedlings to grow large. It is best to till lightly just as the first seedlings are emerging as this and the earlier ‘white thread’ stage are the most susceptible to desiccation. The more time new weeds have to develop roots, the harder they become to kill with a shallow cultivation.
- Keep the cultivation shallow to avoid bringing new weed seeds to the surface. The implement used to stir the soil should not go deeper than 2 inches with most of the stirring in the top inch.
- The technique is dependent upon having adequate soil moisture. Under drought conditions preparation of a stale seedbed may require irrigation to stimulate weed seed germination.
- Deeper initial tillage can be used to bury an existing weed problem. Tillage, especially when done with a disc or a power tiller, distributes the previous year’s weed seeds throughout the top 6 inches or so of soil. In contrast, an inversion tillage that turns sod upside down will place last year’s seeds 6 inches or so under the surface. From there they are unlikely to emerge unless further discing or lighter tillage moves them closer to the surface. Used skillfully, a deep inversion plowing followed by stale seed bed can put a serious surface weed problem out-of-sight and out-of-mind, at least until the next time the field is plowed deeply.
Stale Seedbed is most effective when it’s part of a zero weed threshold system.
The common short-term approach to managing weeds(which weed scientists usually call the “critical period approach”) is to control weeds aggressively during the first 4-6 weeks after the crop is planted. This 4-6-week period is the critical period during which crops stands are established and yield is secured. Afterwards weeds are of less threat to production; therefore, many farmers scale back control efforts. However, weeds that grow before and after the critical period are still a problem. If allowed to flower and set seed, they will be planting a future crop of weed problems. A long-term approach to weed management, called zero weed seed threshold, requires constant diligence and removal of all weeds before they produce seeds--even after harvest. Research indicates that 3-4 years of using this approach will result in a field with relatively few weeds, provided weed seeds are not introduced from without the field (in seed, irrigation water, on equipment, etc.).
Both short-term and long-term approaches have benefits and drawbacks, many of which depend on a farmer’s individual goals, crops, and available resources. A new online tool from Ohio State allows farmers to think through various weed control approaches in the context of their own individual situations. For those looking to make changes to their weed management, the Organic Weed Decision Making Tool, shows pros and cons of various strategies over time and gives steps to implementing new tactics. Learn more at go.osu.edu/eco-weed-mngt.
Organic farms are excellent hosts for pollinators because of the reduced danger of pesticides, but also because of the greater diversity that organic operations often support, says Ohio State Bee lab director Denise Ellsworth. With over 450 different species of bees in Ohio, a variety of plants and habitats is important.
Ohio State’s Bee Lab is dedicated to research and outreach on topics related to honey bees, wild bees, and other pollinators. Ellsworth has partnered with others to develop numerous factsheets and resources on Ohio-specific bee and pollinator topics, including id guides to common Ohio bees, and tips for creating pollinator habitats with specific tree and plant suggestions.
Honey bees can of course serve as an additional source of income. Honey production comes to mind immediately, but some farmers also manage pollinator services, renting out their hives to various fields during the growing season. For those not looking to raise bees commercially, there are still benefits to creating pollinator habitats. According to Ellsworth, pollinators share the same habitat needs as other beneficial insects. “So even if you’re not growing something that relies on pollinators, you’ll be creating a habitat for other beneficial insects: wasps, lady beetles, and other ‘good guys,’” she says.
Whether you’re managing a small personal garden or a multi-acre farm, areas to develop for pollinator habitat are easy to identify: Fallow fields, cover crops, hedgerows, windbreaks, riparian buffers, ponds and ditches, natural or undeveloped areas, pastures, and flower gardens can all be improved with features and plants to attract pollinators.
Selected Ohio State resources are listed below. You can also visit the Ohio State Bee Lab website for more resources including current research, and information on the Ohio Bee Atlas, to which citizen scientists can contribute photos and observations. Additional resources are available through the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation. They have several general factsheets and guides related to organic farms and pollinators. https://xerces.org/pollinator-conservation/organic-farms/
Honey Bee Resources
Getting Started with Honey Bees, IPM for Bees, etc.
Creating Pollinator Habitat
presentations from 2019 OEFFA Conference and 2019 Grazing Conference
Attracting Pollinators to the Garden
Bee, Wasp, Hornet, and Yellow Jacket Stings for Trainers and Supervisors
Bumble Bees in Ohio: Natural History and Identification of Common Species
How to Identify and Enhance Ohio’s Wild Bees in Your Landscape
Ohio Bee Identification Guide
Ohio Bee Identification Cards and Posters
Ohio Trees for Bees
Pollinator Quick Guide: What You Can Do to Help Bumble Bees
Pollinator Quick Guide: What You Can Do to Help Honey Bees
Pollinator Quick Guide: What You Can Do to Help Native Bees
Pollinator Quick Guide: What You Can Do to Help Pollinators
Honey Bees in House Walls
Based on an article from Organic Seed Alliance by Kiki Hubbard. Read the full article here.
New varieties of disease-resistant cucurbits are commercially available as a result of Cornell University's Eastern Sustainable Organic Cucurbit Project.
Through participatory efforts with farmers and regional seed companies, Extension researchers developed new varieties with organic producers in mind, focusing on resistance to common diseases and pests, but also on production and culinary characteristics important to organic farmers.
“All of our successes with DMR are owed to farmer input,” says project director Michael Mazourek. “We took moderately resistant material that we had at Cornell, moderately resistant material identified by organic farmers, and people are seeing the literal cross-pollination of these partnerships in DMR varieties now available to growers.”
‘Trifecta’ muskmelon stood out for its excellent eating quality and yield–even under levels of downy mildew pressure that defoliated most commercial melon varieties. The variety also exhibited good bacterial wilt resistance and was less prone to damage from striped cucumber beetles. ‘Trifecta’ is currently available for sale through Common Wealth Seed Growers and Southern Exposure Seed Exchange.
DMR401 cucumber, a downy-mildew resistant (DMR) slicing cucumber variety, now available for purchase through Common Wealth Seed Growers, High Mowing Organic Seeds, SeedWise, and Southern Exposure Seed Exchange.
DMR264 cucumber, excellent resistance to new strain of downy mildew, smaller and bred for warmer climates with severe pressure from downy mildew. Available from Common Wealth Seed Growers.
Additional varieties are being tested for release.
The Eastern Sustainable Organic Cucurbit Project has received funding from the USDA Organic Research and Extension Initiative, as well as the Organic Farming Research Foundation, Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE), and the Clif Bar Family Foundation. Read more about the project at eOrganic.
Recordings are available from the 27th Annual Conservation Tillage and Technology Conference, held in Ada, Ohio, in March 2019. This two-day event brought together speakers in a variety of subject areas – many of which will be of interest to organic farmers.
Videos are available on the conference’s You Tube Channel.
Here are some of the offerings:
Cover Crop Panel: Addressing Cover Crop Seed Issues
Sarah Noggle, OSU Extension, Paulding Co., Moderator; Jay and Ann Brandt, Walnut Creek Seeds; Don Grimes, Ohio Seed Improvement; Cody Beacom, Bird Hybrids
Protecting Identity Preserved Crops In The Field:
Managing Pollen Drift to minimize contamination of Non-GMO Corn
Dr. Peter Thomison, OSU Extension Corn Specialist
Enhancing Mycorrhizae And Metarhizium Fungus
Jim Hoorman, USDA-NRCS, Soil Health Specialist
What Management Practices Most Influence Soil Health In Corn Production?
Dr. Christine Sprunger, OSU Assistant Professor, SENR
Enhancing Beneficial Insects With Pollinators
Dr. Stephanie Frischie, Xerces Society Agronomist / Native Plant Materials Specialist, Plymouth, WI
Can Weeds Be Managed With Calcium Amendments?
Dr. Doug Doohan, OSU Professor, HCS, and Andrea Leiva Soto, OSU PhD Student, HCS
Elephant In The Room: Why Do So Many Farmers Practice 'Soil Balancing' Despite The Lack Of Scientific Evidence?
Dr. Doug Jackson-Smith, OSU Professor, SENR, and Dr. Caroline Brock, OSU Senior Research Associate, SENR
The Effects Of Manipulating Ca:Mg Ratios On Ohio Crop Yields And Soil Health
Dr. Steve Culman, OSU Assistant Professor, SENR, and Will Osterholz, USDA-ARS
Weather Pattern Effects On Conservation Practices
Dr. Aaron Wilson, OSU, Byrd Polar and Climate Research Center
Return On Investment With Using Gypsum
Dr. Subbu Kumarappan, OSU Associate Professor, ATI
Gypsum Is More Than Calcium: Summary Of Ohio Field Crop Responses To Sulfur
Louceline Fleuridor, OSU MS student, HCS
Written by Evin Bachelor, Law Fellow, Agricultural and Resource Law Program
The Ohio Specialty Crop Registry connects producers of specialty crops, beekeepers, and pesticide applicators to one another through free online registries. Producers of specialty crops and beekeepers may voluntarily report the boundaries of their specialty crops and beehives. The registry then compiles this information in a mapping tool that also provides the contact information of the registrant. In doing so, pesticide applicators are better able to avoid these areas and minimize spray drift.
The Old System: the Ohio Sensitive Crop Registry
The Ohio Department of Agriculture (ODA) first launched a registry for sensitive crops in 2014 so that pesticide applicators could know the locations of sensitive crops before spraying in a given area. The registry came about at a time when widespread demand for organic foods required more farmers to closely monitor what came into contact with their crops. The original tool allowed commercial producers of at least a half-acre of a single type of sensitive crop to register. Sensitive crops included just about any non-row crop such as fruits, vegetables, and herbs. Apiaries, outdoor aquaculture, brambles, certified organic farms, nurseries, greenhouses, and orchards also could be registered.
The New System: the Ohio Specialty Crop Registry
Now, ODA partners with FieldWatch, Inc. to operate the Ohio Specialty Crop Registry. FieldWatch, Inc. is a non-profit organization that operates three registries: DriftWatch for producers of specialty crops, BeeCheck for beekeepers, and CropCheck for producers of row crops. FieldWatch creates maps based on the information from these registries, and makes those maps available to pesticide applicators in another program called FieldCheck. In summary, the three registries are for the producers and beekeepers, and FieldCheck is for the pesticide applicators.
Ohio currently only uses the DriftWatch and BeeCheck registries. According to ODA, the list of sensitive crops under the old program is virtually the same under the new system, meaning that producers of any non-row crop may utilize DriftWatch. While beekeepers may report the location of their beehives in DriftWatch, ODA recommends that beekeepers with no specialty crops use BeeCheck.
FieldWatch, Inc. continues to update its tools to add features and indicators, and CropCheck represents one such development. New for 2019, this registry allows producers of row crops like corn, soybeans, and wheat to register their crops. Its development comes on the heels of the introduction of dicamba-tolerant seeds. Only Arkansas, North Carolina, Illinois, and Indiana have adopted CropCheck for 2019. Ohio has not yet adopted it.
Connecting the Dots between the Registry and Liability
At this point you may be asking yourself, why is this in the ag law blog? That’s a fair question, and the answer is simple: risk management. As more farmers adopt organic practices, as pesticides and seeds change, and as weather patterns evolve, the risk increases that pesticide drift may come into contact with and negatively impact specialty crops and beehives.
The law expects people to act reasonably and to exercise due care at all times, and this default duty applies to pesticide applicators. Common claims for drift include negligence, nuisance, and trespass. Each of these claims examine whether the parties acted reasonably and with due care. Most often, when a court decides that a pesticide applicator acted unreasonably, it is because he or she failed to apply the pesticide in a manner consistent with the label. Following the label is certainly an expectation, but it is not the only thing a court will consider.
When a pesticide applicator does not use FieldCheck, a perceptive attorney representing beekeepers and producers of specialty crops would likely argue that the use of FieldCheck is an industry standard. If an attorney could establish this, then the failure to use FieldCheck would mean that a pesticide applicator failed to act in a reasonable manner and exercise due care. While we have not seen an Ohio court consider this issue yet, as use of the program continues to grow, this argument will come to hold more weight when a case does arise.
When a pesticide applicator does use FieldCheck, he or she has a stronger argument that he or she acted in a reasonable manner. FieldCheck provides pesticide applicators with a way to know exactly where registered sensitive crops and beehives are located, and allows the applicator to buffer accordingly. FieldCheck provides a quick, cheap, and easy way to manage legal risk, alongside following the label. Applicators who use the program may want to document when they used the program and also how the maps impacted their application plan.
These scenarios presume that the beekeeper or producer of specialty crops has registered the locations of their bees or crop with a FieldWatch registry. When sued by a beekeeper or producer of specialty crops who did not register their locations, a pesticide applicator could use similar arguments as noted above in order to defend against the lawsuit. However, the applicator’s focus would likely regard the lack of notice. Again, these arguments alone would not likely determine the outcome of the case, but they would help the court determine whether the parties acted reasonably.
What about hemp?
Another question that some of our readers will also be asking is: which registry is for hemp? We made a call and left a message with FieldWatch. If or when hemp production becomes legal in Ohio, we’ll be sure to provide an update on which registry is proper for hemp. Ohio’s hemp bill is on the move, and the Ohio Senate Agriculture & Natural Resources Committee completed its third hearing of the bill this week. However, we can’t forget that growing hemp is not legal in Ohio unless and until the bill is passed into law and the regulatory system is created.
Reprinted by permission from the Ohio Agricultural Law Blog. The blog is a service of the Ohio State Farm Office, which provides information for agricultural producers and land owners on agricultural law, taxation, production economics and farm management.