Ag Alert. October 4, 2023

Ag Alert is the newspaper of the California Farm Bureau Federation, reaching Farm Bureau agricultural and collegiate members. Agricultural members are owners and decision-makers on California farms and ranches. The California Farm Bureau Federation is a non-governmental, non-profit, voluntary membership organization whose purpose is to protect and promote agricultural interests throughout the state of California and to find solutions to the problems of the farm, the farm home and the rural community. Farm Bureau is California's largest farm organization, comprised of 53 county Farm Bureaus. Farm Bureau strives to protect and improve the ability of farmers and ranchers engaged in production agriculture to provide a reliable supply of food and fiber through responsible stewardship of California's resources.

Citrus threat Infected bug raises concern in lemon-growing region

Special issue Hand tools, cellphones help manage water use

Page 3

More stories inside

www.cfbf.com • www.agalert.com OCTOBER 4, 2023

Trees & Vines ® Dairy & Livestock ®

special reports

By Caleb Hampton In 2020, Lake County winegrape grow- er Dave Rosenthal had nearly made it to harvest when wildfires swept through the region, blanketing his vines in smoke. The flames never reached Rosenthal’s vineyard. But the winery that had bought up two-thirds of his grapes rejected them, saying smoke had left them unfit for wine. Rosenthal wasn’t alone. In 2020, up to 325,000 tons of winegrapes, worth hundreds of millions of dollars, went unharvested in California due to actual or potential smoke damage. The overall economic toll of wildfires on the state’s wine sector that year reached $3.7 billion, according to a study by the California Wine Institute. As climate change and wildfires chal- lenge California’s wine sector, smoke taint has emerged as one of the primary threats to the state’s most lucrative crop. Despite a growing body of research on smoke taint, scientists and growers say gaps in the still-evolving science mean wildfire smoke continues to cause unnec- essary crop losses and financial damage even when it doesn’t taint grapes. “Smoke exposure and smoke taint are two very different things,” said Jeff Bitter, a Fresno County winegrape grower and president of Allied Grape Growers, a grower-owned marketing group. But that difference can be hard to iden- tify. Unlike other variables that impact winegrape quality, such as pests, disease or sugar levels, smoke taint is neither visi- ble to the eye nor noticeable to the palate before the grapes are made into wine. To detect smoke taint—or rather, to predict for it—wineries send grape samples to laboratories to be tested for a class of chemical compounds, called volatile phenols, whose presence in winegrapes is correlated with ashy-tast- ing wine. But the compounds are imper- fect predictors. See SMOKE, Page 14 Standards sought for testing smoke taint in vineyards

Farmers join study on curbing water use Sacramento County farmer Lou Biagioni meets with Kosana Suvocarev, a research specialist in biometeorology, at his corn field in Isleton. The pair are partnering in using remote-sensing technology in the nonirrigated corn field to track evapotranspiration and evaluate water-saving opportunities.

By Christine Souza After several multiyear droughts, those connected to water in California are look-

the University of California and the Delta Conservancy to study different aspects of water conservation, including the amount of water released from plants, soil and oth- er surfaces to the atmosphere, known as evapotranspiration or ET. Among those working with the re- search effort is Lou Biagioni, who farms crops such as corn, sorghum, safflower,

wheat, oats and alfalfa in Isleton. “Any data that I get is going to help,” said Biagioni, who began work with UC and the Delta Conservancy in 2022 after he was awarded grant funding by the state Department of Water Resources for the Delta Drought Response Pilot Program. Developed by state and local water See CONSERVATION, Page 19

ing at strategies to con- serve irrigation supplies and produce crops us- ing less water. To gain insight, farm- ers have partnered with

n e w s p a p e r

Inside

Comment.......................................2 Trees & Vines...........................7-8 Dairy & Livestock...............11-12 Classifieds........................... 17-19

Published by

Data tool emerges as water-rights threat is defeated

By Alexandra Biering In the past several years, the equity and effectiveness of California’s water-rights system and the California State Water Resources Control Board’s ability to enforce it have come un- der scrutiny from activists and envi- ronmental inter- est groups. This scrutiny increased following docu- mented violations of the agency’s water curtailment orders in August 2022. Alexandra Biering At the outset of 2023, California law- makers responded by introducing three water-rights “reform” bills to increase the state water board’s oversight and enforce- ment authorities in the exercise of any type of water right. Ultimately, only one such bill—Senate Bill 389 by state Sen. Ben Allen, D-Santa Monica—has successfully landed on the desk of Gov. Gavin Newsom. The other two water-rights bills, Assembly Bill 460 by Assembly Member Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, D-Orinda, and AB 1337 by Assembly Member Buffy Wicks, D-Oakland, failed to gather enough votes to pass this year. The governor has until Oct. 14 to veto SB 389. Otherwise, it will become law. Current law, under Section 1051 of the California Water Code, authorizes the wa- ter board to investigate and collect infor- mation about the state’s water resources and the claims people have made to use them. This includes investigating all rivers, stream systems, lakes or other bodies of water and ascertaining whether the waters are already appropriated under state law. It also includes determining all water rights

water code, titled “Determination of Basis of Right.” That would have given the water board the authority to adopt new regula- tions to investigate rights. It also would have given the board power to declare wa- ter rights “forfeited” with little due process. The earlier bill would also have put the entire burden of proof on the water-rights holder to demonstrate the validity of that right under the information order. As some senior water rights date to the Gold Rush era or earlier, records of these rights can be difficult to document quickly, all but setting up many people for failure under this provision. Although California Farm Bureau was initially opposed to SB 389, we and doz- ens of other water and agricultural groups dropped our opposition after the author negotiated changes to the bill that re- moved all of these provisions, changed the bill’s focus and substantially reduced the risk to water users. Whereas SB 389 was once an enforce- ment tool, it’s now an informational and data-collection tool—albeit one that could still inform enforcement if it uncovers di- rect evidence of wrongdoing. The informa- tion collected under SB 389 will be a com- plement to the state water board’s recently launched Updating Water Rights Data—or UPWARD—effort. UPWARD is a $63-million push to digi- tize a century’s worth of water-rights data and records, make them available to the public, and inform transparent and da- ta-driven water management decisions to help remove the guesswork and politics from the board’s critical task to balance all beneficial water uses. That would be a welcome step. (Alexandra Biering is a senior policy ad- vocate for the California Farm Bureau. She may be contacted at abiering@cfbf.com.)

Senate Bill 389 could have imposed burdens on senior water-rights holders to document rights dating back as far as the Gold Rush. But those provisions were dropped from the final bill language.

on a stream system if requested to do so by a party that claims rights to use the stream, river, lake or other body. The law allows state water board staff to do these things, in part, by issuing in- formation orders to request details from water-rights holders. This section of the water code is silent as to whether the wa- ter board’s power to ask for information extends to California’s most senior water rights, pre-1914 and riparian rights. The ambiguity no doubt has kept many water rights attorneys employed over the years. As passed by the Legislature, SB 389 simply clarifies the water board’s pow- ers under California Water Code Section 1051. It says that the agency may collect information about all surface water rights in the state, including pre-1914, riparian and post-1914 licensed or permitted water rights. It also allows the state board to send information orders to water-rights holders at will, rather than only doing so at the re- quest of another water-rights holder. It also

clarifies the types of information that can be requested. However, the bill places a burden of proof on the water board by requiring that the information order explain the need for the information and include support- ing evidence. It requires that the order be executed by the board’s executive direc- tor instead of staff. These provisions are important to ensure the orders are issued only when truly necessary, rather than ca- priciously or for political purposes. Finally, it affirms that the water board can take action against unauthorized water diverters—a power the board already has in California Water Code Section 1052. Earlier versions of SB 389 included very troubling provisions for California’s farm- ers, ranchers and other water users. The bill appeared to be squarely focused on giving the water board aggressive new en- forcement powers. The first version of the bill would have added an entirely new section to the

VOL. 50, NO. 36

October 4, 2023

AG ALERT ® weekly newspaper is an official publication of the CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU

www.agalert.com www.cfbf.com

@cafarmbureau @cafarmbureau @cafarmbureau

@calfarmbureau

Board of Directors (District 1) Ronnie Leimgruber; (2) Scott Hudson; (3) Richard Miner; (4) Kevin Merrill; (5) Brian Medeiros; (6) Joey Airoso; (7) Donny Rollin; (8) April England; (9) Jay Mahil; (10) Jan Garrod; (11) Joe Martinez; (12) Paul Sanguinetti; (13) Ron Peterson; (14) Joe Fischer; (15) Clark Becker; (16) Garrett Driver; (17) Johnnie White; (18) Daniel Suenram; (19) Taylor Hagata; (20) Jim Morris; (21) Ronald Vevoda; (Young Farmers & Ranchers Committee Chair) Leah Groves. Advisory Members Al Stehly, Chair, CFB Rural Health Department, Glenda Humiston, University of California Cooperative Extension. Letters to the editor: Send to agalert@cfbf.com or Ag Alert, Attn: Editor, 2600 River Plaza Drive, Sacramento, CA 95833. Include name, address, phone number, email address; 250-word limit.

Melanie Duval- Chief Marketing Officer

ADVERTISING: Brock Tessandori- Business Development Manager (916) 561-5585 Antonio Muniz- Sales Coordinator Classifieds: (916) 561-5570 2600 River Plaza Dr., Sacramento, CA 95833. Represented in the East and Midwest by J.L. Farmakis, Inc. Eastern office: Bill Farmakis 48 Topfield Rd., Wilton, CT 06897 (203) 834-8832; Fax: (203) 834-8825. Midwest office: Russ Parker , P.O. Box 7, Albia, IA 52531 (641) 946-7646, Bob Brunker , 8209 NW 81st Ct., Kansas City, MO 64152 (816) 746-8814, Jennifer Saylor , 8426 N. Winfield Ave., Kansas City, MO 64153 (816) 912-2804, Laura Rustmann , 901 Lands End Cir, St. Charles MO 63304, (636) 238-8548. AG ALERT (issn 0161-5408) is published weekly except weeks of Memorial Day, July 4, Thanksgiving,

Christmas; and with exceptions, by the California Farm Bureau, 2600 River Plaza Dr., Sacramento CA 95833 (telephone: (916) 561-5570). Periodicals postage paid at Sacramento, California. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to AG ALERT, 2600 River Plaza Dr., Sacramento, CA 95833. The California Farm Bureau does not assume responsibility for statements by advertisers or for products advertised in AG ALERT nor does the Federation assume responsibility for statements or expressions of opinion other than in editorials or in articles showing authorship by an officer, director, or employee of the California Farm Bureau Federation or its affiliates. No alcohol, tobacco or political ad-

Peter Hecht- Chief Editor, Publications

Christine Souza- Assistant Editor

Ching Lee- Assistant Editor

Caleb Hampton- Assistant Editor

Shawn Collins- Production Designer

Paula Erath- Graphic Designer

Nicole Pacheco- Graphic Designer

vertising will be accepted. Jamie Johansson , President

GENERAL INFORMATION: (916) 561-5570

Shannon Douglass , First Vice President Shaun Crook , Second Vice President

agalert@cfbf.com

Printed on Recycled Paper

BPA Business Publication Member

2 Ag Alert October 4, 2023

Ventura County detects first infected Asian citrus psyllid

By Ching Lee Citrus growers in Ventura County re- main vigilant after agricultural officials confirmed the region’s first finding of an insect pest carrying the huanglongbing bacteria, which kills citrus trees. The discovery is a concern because Ventura County remains the state’s top producer of lemons and grows other cit- rus fruits. The infected Asian citrus psyllid, which authorities confirmed on Sept. 19, was found in a residential citrus tree in the southwestern area of Santa Paula, ac- cording to the California Department of Food and Agriculture. It tested positive for Candidatus Liberibacter asiastius, the pathogen associated with huan- glongbing, or HLB, also known as citrus greening disease. Though the fatal disease has not been detected in any of the county’s citrus trees, finding an infected psyllid, which transmits the disease when it feeds on the plant, oftentimes is a precursor, “as it’s assumed the psyllid is actively feeding and/or breeding on nearby citrus plants,” said Keith Okasaki, CDFA regulatory manager for the Citrus Pest and Disease Prevention Division. HLB symptoms can often take a couple years to manifest after

the tree is infected, he added. “Hot trees are throughout San Diego, Orange and LA (counties), so it’s com- ing, if not already here,” said Ben Faber, University of California Cooperative Extension farm advisor for Ventura and Santa Barbara counties. Not every infected psyllid finding has resulted in trees testing positive for the disease. Okasaki noted in early 2021, an infected psyllid was found in the Fallbrook area of San Diego County, and that imme- diate area has yet to see an HLB-positive plant sample. However, a positive plant sample showed up in the Oceanside area later that year. “The frequency of this occurrence can vary and is not a sure thing for every case,” Okasaki said. Confirmation of an HLB-infected tree would trigger a mandatory 5-mile quar- antine around the find site. There is no known cure for HLB, which can kill a citrus tree within five to eight years. All commonly grown citrus variet- ies are susceptible. The only way to protect citrus trees from the disease is to prevent spread of the HLB pathogen by controlling populations of the vector and destroying infected trees. Since its discovery in Florida in 2005,

An adult Asian citrus psyllid, left, and yellow nymphs feed on a citrus tree’s leaves and stems, leaving behind a white, waxy substance. Psyllids carrying the huanglongbing bacteria can kill citrus trees.

HLB has decimated the Sunshine State’s citrus production, which has dropped by 90%, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Considering the pest is now well es- tablished in Southern California, Ventura County grower Will Pidduck said finding one carrying HLB in the region comes as no surprise. “It’s not shocking by any means,” he said. “I’m surprised they hadn’t found one sooner. There’s just so many psyllids around. I think we’ve all been somewhat expecting it.” For now, Pidduck said it has been

business as usual on the farm, with lemon harvest completed for the year. As such, farms are not moving any fruit until winter harvest starts. He said growers continue to monitor their groves and apply foliar treat- ments to keep psyllid populations down, which have worked for years to prevent the disease from spreading to California commercial orchards. California confirmed its first finding of the Asian citrus psyllid in 2008 in San Diego County. HLB was first detected in Los Angeles County in 2012 and has since been found in Orange, Riverside, San

See CITRUS, Page 10

SOLUTIONS to make every drop count

Rain for Rent Specializes in Water Wise Solutions

Partner with Rain for Rent to maximize your water supply and keep your ag operations growing

800 742 7246 | rainforrent.com

October 4, 2023 Ag Alert 3

Farmers turn to smartphones to monitor irrigation By Vicky Boyd

Thanks to smartphone and computer technology, homeowners can monitor home security, adjust the thermostat and turn electrical appli- ances off and on while they’re away. Now a small but increasing number of farmers are turning to similar tech- nology to automatical- ly monitor water levels and start or stop irrigation systems. At the same time, growers can use smartphones or computers to remotely check irrigation systems and manually make adjustments if needed. Seth Fiack, who farms rice and walnuts in Glenn County, became one of the first producers in the state to install an intel- ligent irrigation management system in a rice field three years ago. “I was looking at the fact that I was spending four hours a day checking water, and I didn’t have anybody to replace me,” he said. “I can quantify the labor savings, which in my opinion is significant. I can look on my phone and see the (water) depth, so that releases that time in my day, and I can just stay working.” Although Fiack believed the technology would also save water, he said he hasn’t yet been able to validate it. He said he hopes to

A solar-powered system in a Glenn County rice field gets readings from soil-moisture sensors to help guide irrigation decisions. Farmer Seth Fiack says he hopes to install a similar system in his walnut orchards with help from state water efficiency grants.

expand the system’s use from the original 30 acres to 80 acres of rice in 2024. Fiack said he was so impressed with the system’s labor savings that he plans to in- stall a similar one in walnut orchards next year as part of a project funded by grant money from the State Water Efficiency and Enhancement Program. Charles Burt, chairman of the Irrigation Training and Research Center and profes- sor emeritus in agricultural engineering at California Polytechnic State University,

San Luis Obispo, has researched hundreds of irrigation systems during his career. While he hasn’t worked with an automated irrigation management system in rice, he said the concept was intriguing. In orchard and field crops, Burt said he was a firm believer in using soil mois- ture sensors as a tool to guide irrigations. But he doesn’t recommend automated management systems in those settings because wide variability in soil types complicates sensor placement and

getting representative readings. How close or far a sensor is from an emitter can also affect results. Burt said the automated systems won’t replace boots on the ground checking irrigation systems and plant health. Rice fields are different, he said. The fields are typically laser leveled, so water depth is uniform and sensor placement isn’t critical. Plus, the sensor measures

See SYSTEM, Page 15

REQUEST A FREE R2000WF KIT SPRINKLER // HAT // LITERATURE INFO@NELSONIRRIGATION.COM

UNMATCHED UNIFORMITY

MADE POSSIBLE WITH THE R2000WF ROTATOR® SPRINKLER AND MINI DRAIN CHECK. Add TWIG® Wireless Controls for system automation. You can now remotely control and monitor your irrigation system from anywhere with the new TWIG mobile app.

NEXT GENERATION

Create watering schedules; edit by drag and drop; start, stop or pause a schedule; map irrigation blocks to verify field operation; and monitor pressure and flow with our new TWIG® Wireless Controls mobile app.

4 Ag Alert October 4, 2023

NEW WORDMARK // GRAY

Experts share upkeep tips for vineyard drip systems By Bob Johnson

Maintenance of vineyard drip-irriga- tion systems begins with inspection of the filters, which are essential for mini- mizing the number of clogged emitters. Fortunately, mod-

A vineyard and irrigation lines are shown in Edna Valley near San Luis Obispo. The Atascadero- based Central Coast Vineyard Team offers field seminars and has prepared instructional videos on water conservation and maintaining vineyard irrigation systems.

ern systems use filters that can be removed, cleaned and put back in place. Otherwise,

clogged drip systems can defeat efforts to irrigate vines uniformly throughout a block. “I’ve talked with guys who clean the screen filters once at the beginning of the season or at the beginning of the month,” said Ben Borgoa, Monterey County Resource Conservation District program engineer. “It depends on your water qual- ity” whether emitters are prone to clogging. Old-school systems filter the water with large tubs of sand, which remove impuri- ties before they reach the irrigation tape and emitters. But Jacob Hernandez, own- er of JH Ag Consulting in San Luis Obispo County, said excess washing pressure can create problems with irrigation systems by dislodging the sand. “When I do irrigation evaluations,” Hernandez said, “I ask when the last time was you checked to see if something was in the sand filter, and sometimes I get the answer, ‘I don’t know.’ If you don’t remem- ber when you checked, you might want to make sure there is sand in there.” Borgoa and Hernandez have offered irri- gation maintenance seminars for growers in partnership with the Atascadero-based Central Coast Vineyard Team, a nonprof- it that promotes sustainable farming and water conservation. Hernandez said there are shortcuts for growers that will help them save time while inspecting irrigation filters. “You want to check at least one of the sand filters; you don’t need to check all of them because that would take a lot of time,” he said. “If one of the filters is

empty, the other ones are, too.” Some growers replace all the sand in the filter while others just add enough to top them off. Before opening one of the filters, be sure to turn off the pump to avoid be- ing injured by the water pressure. There are aids that help monitor the condition of more modern screen filters, Borgoa said. “Water pressure at the filter is an indica- tion you might want to check your screens,” he said. “You want to make sure those pre- sure gauges are reading correctly.” Some systems automatically clean the screens with a back flush when the pres- sure before and after the filter drops a cer- tain amount. If there is no automatic back flush built into the system, Hernandez ad- vised scheduling back flushes by the cal- endar or by the pressure drop at the filter. Another way to decide if the filters are working is to see if the water flowing from them looks clean. It may help to inject hy- drogen peroxide, sulfur or another mate- rial to break down precipitates that could clog emitters in the vineyard, Borgoa said. The pump station should include a flow meter that records how much water is pumped into the system. Growers can

minimize clogged emitters by screening any material, such as fertilizer, before it is added to the water to be pumped through the irrigation system. “When you have a flow meter, you should record every day how much water you applied,” Borgoa said. Some flow meters automatically record this information and send it to a smart- phone or computer. Borgoa said growers should also test irrigation uniformity with hole punches, gauges and emitters costing $10 to $30. “The way we decide to take pressure read- ings is the distance from the pump station hydraulically,” Borgoa said. Readings are taken at varying distances from the pump station, he added. To take readings, Borgoa punches a hole in the irrigation line and inserts a gauge. This gives a tighter fit than using the hole

used to insert an emitter. To measure the flow rate, he sets buckets on the ground underneath 16 to 28 emitters with the pump turned on and uses a stopwatch to time the event. That can calcuate unifor- mity of water pressure and distribution throughout the vineyard and locate spots where some vines are receiving less water than others. Accurate distribution figures will help locate where clogged emitters, leaky irri- gation lines or slopes in the vineyard are causing inefficient water use. As the irrigation system is tested, Borgoa said it makes sense to flush the lines to get contaminants out before they can clog emitters. “When we flush,” Borgoa said, “it’s not a couple seconds—it’s a 10-minute flush to get the precipitates out.” (Bob Johnson is a reporter in Monterey County. He may be contacted at bjohn11135@gmail.com.)

STATEMENT OF OWNERSHIP - MANAGEMENT AND CIRCULATION (Act of August 12, 1970, Section 3685, Title 39, United States Code)

Title of Publication: AG ALERT. Date of Filing: September 6, 2023 Frequency of Issue: Weekly except weeks of March 29, May 31, July 5, August 30, November 22, December 27. Any other month with 5 Wednesdays. Annual Subscription Price: $0 to members. Location of Known Office of Publication: 2600 River Plaza Drive, Sacramento, Sacramento County, Sacramento CA 95833. Location of the Headquarters of General Business Offices of the Publisher: Same as above. Names and Address of the Publisher, Editor, and Managing Editor: Publisher: California Farm Bureau Federation, 2600 River Plaza Drive, Sacramento, CA 95833. Editor: Peter Hecht, 2600 River Plaza Drive, Sacramento, CA 95833. Managing Editor: n/a Owner: California Farm Bureau Federation, a non-profit membership organization, located 2600 River Plaza Drive, Sacramento CA 95833. Known Bondholders, Mortgages, and Other Security Holders Own- ing or Holding 1 Percent or More of Total Amount of Bonds, Mortgages or Other Securities: None. The purpose, function and non-profit statues of this organization and the exempt status of this organization and the exempt status for federal income tax purposes has not changed during the preceding 12 months. TOTAL NO. COPIES PRINTED (NET PRESS RUN). Average No. copies Each Issue During Preceding 12 months, 22,989; Single Issue Nearest Filing Date, 22,941. PAID CIRCULATION: 1. Paid/Requested Outside-County Mail Subscriptions Stated on Form 3541, Average No. Cop- ies Each Issue During Preceding 12 Months, 19,812; Single Issue Nearest Filing Date, 19,591. 2. Paid In-County Subscription, None. 3. Sales Through Dealers and Carriers, Street Vendors and Counter Sales and Other Non-USPS Paid Distribution, none; 4. Other Classes Mailed through the USPS, none. TOTAL PAID CIRCULATION: Average No. Copies Each Issue during Preceding 12 Months, 19,812; Single Issue Nearest to Filing Date, 19,591. FREE DISTRIBUTION BY MAIL CARRIER OR OTHER MEANS: Samples, complimentary, and other free copies. 1. Out- side-County as stated on Form 3541, Average No. Copies Each Issue During Preceding 12 Months, 2,877; Single Issue Nearest to Filing Date, 3,050; 2. In-County as State on Form 3541, None; 3. Other Classes Mailed through the USPS, none. 4. Free Distribution Outside the Mail, none. TOTAL FREE DISTRIBUTION: Average No. Copies Each Issue During Preceding 12 Months, 2,877; Single Issue Nearest to Filing Date, 3,050. TOTAL DISTRIBUTION: Average No. Copies Each Issue During Preceding 12 Months, 22,689. Single Issue Nearest to Filing Date, 22,641. COPIES NOT DISTRIBUTED—OFFICE USE, LEFT OVER, UNACCOUNTED, SPOILED AFTER PRINTING: Average No. Copies Each Issue During Preceding 12 Months, 300; Single Issue Nearest to Filing Date, 300. Returns from News Agents; None. TOTAL: Average No. Copies Each Issue During Preceding 12 Months, 22,989; Single Issue Nearest to Filing Date, 22,941. I certify the statements made by me above are correct and complete. (Signed) Peter Hecht, Head Editor, California Farm Bureau Federation

6 Ag Alert October 4, 2023

Trees & Vines A SPECIAL GROWERS’ REPORT OF AG ALERT ® CALIFORNIA ®

A crew near Lodi separates wood from wires and metal stakes after taking out a diseased vineyard. Some growers say burning discarded vines is the best option to prevent the spread of crop pests.

Growers seek burning option for diseased vineyards By Vicky Boyd

the agricultural material closed. As a result, the California Air Resources Board concurred with the air district’s request to extend the deadline to end burning several times. The final deadline is Jan. 1, 2025, and air district officials say they are adamant they will not extend it again. To help with the transition, the regional air district secured state funding to provide cost-share to growers. Most recently, the air district received $187 million, of which $35 million went to help custom operators purchase new chipping and grinding equipment. Some crops, such as tree nuts, were on a faster phase-down schedule. Many nut pro- ducers now have companies grind or chip orchards and incorporate the material into the soil—a system known as whole-orchard recycling. Because of unique production practices, grape vineyards are on the tail end of the phase out. Depending on the type of trellising, vineyards may not be suited to recycling because cordons—side branch-like extensions from the main trunk—envelope support wires as they grow. If those vineyards were pushed, piled and chipped, metal wire could damage equipment or become shrapnel, posing safety threats to nearby workers. In response, some growers have hired crews to painstakingly separate the wires and metal stakes from the vines, but the process is expensive. See BURNING, Page 8

San Joaquin Valley grape growers who thought they could use an agricultural burn phase-out rule exemption to ignite piles of diseased vines have encountered yet another obstacle. They also have to obtain an increasingly rare burn permit from the regional San Joaquin Valley air district. The frustration experienced by some growers became apparent at a recent agricul- tural burning outreach meeting hosted by the Lodi Winegrape Commission with help from the California Association of Winegrape Growers and the Lodi District Grape Growers Association. “When you have a diseased vineyard, it has to be taken care of,” said Randy Kazarian, a Lodi winegrape grower who had pushed an old vineyard and was waiting to burn it. “This is really a mess. I have vines in cold storage waiting for planting, and you can’t store vines for years. We have to make our plans a year in advance.” The Lodi Winegrape Commission decided to hold the meeting to help reduce confu- sion that exists on all sides, from growers to regulators, surrounding the burn regulations. Under Senate Bill 705, signed into law in 2003, open-air burning of orchards and vineyard material within the eight-county San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District was to be phased out by 2010, provided alternate, less-polluting disposal methods were available. Technological advances lagged, and several biomass plants that were expected to accept

October 4, 2023 Ag Alert 7

Burning Continued from Page 7

The legislation also provided an exemp- tion that if the county agricultural com- missioner certified a vineyard was infested with economic pests, such as viruses, the grower could burn it. That’s because sim- ply chipping and incorporating the vines into the soil could allow diseases in the woody material to carry over and infect a new vineyard. Even with the agricultural commission- er’s affirmation, the grower must still ob- tain a burn permit. The air district declares a burn day and issues permits only if it fore- casts atmospheric conditions the following day will allow for smoke dissipation, said Sheraz Gill, deputy air pollution control officer. During the winter, the district also has to factor in pollution from residential wood burning. The cause for concern are minute par- ticles known as PM 2.5, which are about 1/40th the diameter of a human hair and have been linked to respiratory problems. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has classified the San Joaquin Valley as a PM 2.5 nonattainment area, meaning it exceeds federal thresholds. If the air dis- trict can’t bring the area into compliance, the region risks losing millions of dollars of federal funding, he said. Because the EPA continues to ratchet down the PM 2.5 threshold, Gill said the air district has had to reduce the number of burn days and burn permits the past sever- al years. Even if a grower obtains a permit, it may be for only a fraction of the overall material he or she needs to burn. Tom Murphy, who farms winegrapes and nuts with his brother, Chester, near Lodi and Farmington, recalled their ex- periences when they removed a vineyard about three or four years ago. “It was a real challenge to get burn days,” Tom Murphy said. “We had a couple hun- dred acres and would get 10 to 15 acres, and then we’d have to wait to see if there

A tractor pushes over vines and trellises while removing a vineyard. Farmers say there aren’t enough facilities to process the vineyard biomass.

was another burn day. It was very slow.” Based on how this season fares and whether wineries renew some of their contracts, Murphy said they may consid- er removing additional vineyards that are not economical. Learning about disposal options was one reason he and Chester attended the agricultural burn meeting. Aaron Lange, who heads vineyard op- erations for Lange Twins in Acampo, said he likely will remove 400 acres of vineyards after this season. Over the years, Lange Twins has worked to reduce vine mealy bug infestations and remove individual virus-infected vines. To avoid pest management setbacks,

Lange said he planned to use an air-cur- tain burner to dispose of the old vineyards. The device allows for open-air burning while reducing particulate emissions by about 80%. Because it still emits 20%, the curtain burner does not quality for air dis- trict cost-share. “We’re being very cautious about how we remove them so we’re not creating a problem for ourselves down the road,” Lange said. With low grape prices and lapsing win- ery contracts, Lange said he fears some growers may not have the money to push and remove diseased vineyards. Left in the field, the old vines could host pests—in-

cluding particularly dangerous threats— that can spread to nearby vineyards. “I’m not blaming anybody,” Lange said. “But I’m just saying the situation is really ripe to spread leafroll 3 and vitivirus, which we now know is the primary cause of sud- den vine collapse.” (Vicky Boyd is a reporter in Modesto. She may be contacted at vlboyd@att.net.)

www.californiabountiful.com

A Farm Bureau Production

LOCAL STATIONS KERO/23 Bakersfield Sat. 8:30 p.m. KHSL/12 Chico/Redding Sat. 7:00 p.m. Sun. 6:00 a.m. KVPT/18 Fresno/Visalia Sun. 11:30 a.m. KCAL/9 Los Angeles Sat. 7:30 p.m. KION/46 Monterey/Salinas Sat. 6:00 p.m. KMIR/36 Palm Springs Sat. 3:30 p.m. KSBY/6 Santa Barbara/San Luis Obispo Sat. 9:30 p.m. KOVR/13 Sacramento Sat. 6:00 p.m. KUSI/51 San Diego Sun 11:30 a.m. KRON/4 SF Bay Area Sun 6:30 p.m. (will also simulcast on “kron-on” platform)

CSLB# 1021468

FEMA/NRCS DEER PIG VINEYARD FENCING Proudly serving all of California Or call Visit svbarbwire.com (831) 620-5989

SATELLITE TV RFD-TV

National

Sun. 8:00 a.m.*

*Times listed are Pacific Time

Now trending

@cabountiful

8 Ag Alert October 4, 2023

Certa-Set ® vs. Aluminum

See more green with Certa-Set ®

Offering additional tensile strength and resistance to corrosion, the Certa-Set PVC irrigation system is engineered to get results you can see. Now you can grow smarter–reducing water waste and the labor required to move pipe while increasing water efficiency and yields. It’s time to get more out of your irrigation system with Certa-Set.

A Better Foundation TM

westlakepipe.com/agalert

Citrus Continued from Page 3

Bernardino and San Diego counties. All HLB-positive trees have so far been on res- idential properties. Though treatment is not mandatory, Pidduck said many packinghouses already require it. He noted most growers mainly move fruit to packinghouses within the county during harvest. Should a quarantine be triggered, Okasaki said growers who need to move fruit within or outside the quarantine zone would need to complete additional miti- gation steps, and packers would need to ensure the mitigations are met before they can accept fruit from the quarantine area. Because the psyllid feeds on the leaves and stems of citrus trees, he said, the main concern is restricting transport of citrus plant material. The additional expense of treatments comes at a difficult time for growers, who are earning lower prices for lemons, farm advisor Faber said. A potential quarantine and HLB detection would also affect field workers and packinghouses, he added. “I’m not sure if we are ready for a quar- antine, but it might be cheaper than spray- ing three times a year,” Faber said. “It’s wait and see what CDFA finds at this point.” Meanwhile, CDFA said it continues to conduct surveys and collect samples from the residential property where the infected psyllid was found and from all host plants within a 250-meter radius around the find. The department said it did not initially find any nymph psyllids during sampling but has since collected 15 on a different

host plant from where they found the in- fected adult insect. Nymphs are significant because the immature insects feed directly on the trees, Faber said. “If they find a hot nymph or tree, HLB is there for sure,” he said. Not all psyllids carry the HLB bacteria. That the infected adult was found on a backyard tree not far from California State Route 126 suggests it could be a hitchhiker, Faber said. Because of the mild spring and summer, Faber said there have been very few psyl- lids this year, though areawide fall sprays are scheduled soon. Organic growers, who have fewer organic-approved treatment options, “would have it tough,” he added. That’s because organic treatments are not as effective as conventional, long-re- sidual insecticides, Okasaki said. If an HLB-positive plant is detected, mandatory conventional treatments are required by law within 250 meters of the detection site. Lemons remain a top crop in Ventura County, ranking third behind strawber- ries and avocados, and valued at more than $206 million in 2022, according to the county’s crop report. The citrus fruit is also an important agricultural export for the region, ranking sixth. Ventura County also grows Valencia or- anges, worth $26.6 million in 2022; manda- rins and tangelos, valued at $18.5 million; and navel oranges, $4.2 million. (Ching Lee is an assistant editor of Ag Alert. She may be contacted at clee@cfbf.com.)

AUTOMATED IRRIGATION PRECISE WATER AND FERTILIZER APPLICATION CONTROLLED REMOTELY

COMPLETE PUMP CONTROL IN-FIELD CONTROLS PRECISE FERTIGATION CONTROL

OUR PANEL

Farm Bureaus secure grant awards for climate projects

USE OUR SYSTEM TO: • SCHEDULE IRRIGATION • FLUSH FILTERS REMOTELY • APPLY EXACT FERTIGATION TO THE GALLON • RECEIVE TEXT ALERTS

Farm Bureaus in Butte and Solano coun- ties were awarded $10 million in grants through the California Department of Food and Agriculture to fund projects that support soil health and water efficiency. The two Farm Bureaus received $5 mil- lion each from the state’s Healthy Soils Program and the State Water Efficiency and Enhancement Program, or SWEEP. The grants for Butte County Farm Bureau support on-farm projects in Butte, Glenn and Tehama counties. Grant monies awarded to Solano County Farm Bureau support projects in Solano, Alameda, Contra Costa, Sacramento and Yolo counties. The funds come from $105 million in grant funds awarded in September to 23 organizations. Qualifying organizations that are award- ed Healthy Soils and SWEEP block grants may disburse funds to eligible farmers, ranchers or agricultural operations for projects and technical assistance that sup- port water resilience strategies and address impacts of climate change. “Solano County Farm Bureau is excited to be a recipient of this huge opportunity

to support California farmers and ranchers in improving their water use efficiency and their soils,” said Lisa Shipley, the organiza- tion’s executive director. “It’s a great way for agriculture to once again demonstrate its stewardship and care for the environment and the natural resources of our area,” she added. Solano County Farm Bureau will an- nounce hearings and workshops so that farmers and ranchers can learn more and apply for funding. Colleen Cecil, executive director of Butte County Farm Bureau, said the organiza- tion is poised to help farmers, who may apply for grants of up to $200,000. “Having witnessed numerous Butte County farmers and ranchers successful- ly access Healthy Soils and SWEEP fund- ing in previous grant cycles, Butte County Farm Bureau wanted to make it possible for area producers to have priority access to these funds under the new block grant format,” Cecil said. The $10 million in grants “will benefit water efficiency, greenhouse gas reduc- tion, soil and plant health, local farms, ranches—and the county Farm Bureau, too,” Cecil added.

NOT CLOUD BASED

| NO RECURRING FEES

OUR ONLINE PORTAL

BLUECORNERCONTROLS.COM SALES@BLUECORNERCONTROLS.COM

Dairy & Livestock A SPECIAL PRODUCERS’ REPORT OF AG ALERT ® CALIFORNIA ® Feed company supplies farms and backyard flocks

By Caleb Hampton Feed companies play an essential role in California’s poultry and livestock sectors. One such company, Bar ALE, stumbled into the business several decades ago. Stephen Davis, its chief operating officer and grand- son-in-law of Bar ALE’s co-founder, Paul Lewis, said the Williams-based company got its start selling bags used for chicken feed. “When the bags got returned, they’d have a little bit of feed left in the bottom,” he said. “They would vacuum out that feed, accumulate it and re-bag and sell it. That’s an accidental way they got into the feed business.” Today, at its mill in Colusa County, Bar ALE manufac- tures organic and conventional animal feeds for commer- cial farms and backyard chicken owners. “The chickens love the food, and the organic aspect is very important to us,” said Scott Farrell, a customer who manages a construction company and keeps chickens at his house in Contra Costa County. “When you’re eating a lot of eggs from these animals, you want to make sure you’re getting the healthiest type of egg that you can.” Bar ALE began making certified-organic feeds about a decade ago. Now, organic products comprise about two- thirds of its business. It also produces conventional and non-GMO feeds at its mill in Williams, selling the products across the western U.S. and as far as Alaska and Hawaii. “We compete with some of the biggest feed manufactur- ers and brand names in the world,” Davis said. That means carving out a niche so Bar ALE can stand out from its competitors. “Where we really shine is focusing on small batches that are fresh and have added value,” Davis said. “We use a lot of technologies that are geared toward maximizing performance for each species.” Much of the science and technology that goes into Bar ALE’s feeds comes from Alltech, an animal nutrition com- pany and longtime business partner. “They are the Lamborghini of ingredients and technol- ogy,” Bar ALE’s Matt Zappetini said, referring to Alltech’s yeast cells and other elements that the mill sources to boost the health benefits of its feeds. In the chicken feed, for example, the yeast cells “support gut health, promote good bugs and build up the defense system” of the birds, improving the overall health of the flock, Zappetini said. Other feed ingredients include sesame seeds, sunflower seeds, corn, wheat, barley and other grains. The chicken feed also contains oyster shells to promote harder egg- shells, and marigold flowers are added to enhance the yellow of the yolks. At the mill, employees assemble the feeds using several steps. “The easiest way to put it is that it’s similar to baking a cookie,” manager Joel Douglas said. “You’ve got a recipe, you’ve got ingredients, and you’re putting them together to come out with one final product.” First, ingredients are weighed precisely and mixed

Joel Douglas, manager of the Bar ALE mill in Williams, inspects a handful of the mill’s organic chicken feed.

See FEED, Page 12

October 4, 2023 Ag Alert 11

Feed Continued from Page 11

together using a computer system that measures the batches. “Operators put in a unique code that identifies a specific product,” such as the chicken feed used by Farrell, he said. Once the production team checks that everything is right, the ingredients go through a mixer. The powdery blends are then mixed with steam and other elements to bond the ingredients together. “The gelatin and starches make it digest- ible to the animal,” Douglas said. Then, with the blend heated to around 180 degrees, “that mash gets squeezed through a mill that has holes and a knife on the end, so it’s pushed through and getting cut into uniform pieces,” he said. Afterward, the feed goes into a cooler that sucks out the moisture. Finally, it is put on a conveyor belt that carries the feed into bulk tanks or to smaller sacks depending on the batch. “It’s a lot more than going out with a handful of corn and letting the chickens fend for themselves,” Zappetini said. The company’s approach can raise the price on some of the feeds. Farrell said he found cheaper feed elsewhere, but decid- ed to stick with Bar ALE’s organic feed. “What you feed the chickens dictates

Joel Douglas and Matt Zappetini, left, handle operations at the mill. At right, Scott Farrell uses Bar ALE feed in raising backyard chickens with his family.

what the eggs look like,” Farrell said. Together with his wife Rayna and sons Carter, age 5, and Jeremiah, age 2, Farrell keeps roughly 50 chickens in a field behind his house in El Sobrante. “It’s turned into a full-blown thing,” he said. The family has used Bar ALE’s organic chicken feed from the beginning, and they have no plans to stop.

“We have never had any issues with sick chickens or anything,” Farrell said. “We’ve only had success. That’s why we continue to use it.” For Davis and others at Bar ALE, sup- plying feed that allows families such as the Farrells to raise healthy chickens has made the years of work and innovation worth it. “I’m most proud of the quality products

and the long-term relationships and trust we have built over generations,” Davis said. “It takes time to build that reputation and loyalty.” (Caleb Hampton is an assistant editor for Ag Alert. He may be contacted at champton@cfbf.com. This story is adapted from his article that appears in the September/October 2023 issue of California Bountiful ® magazine.)

Growing Innovation.

Increase productivity with the precision of 53 GPH Fert Skid

Why HotSpot AG?

Scheduled Fertigation Fertilizer Type Nutrient Makeup Safety Class Fertilizer Tank Levels Volume Available Hourly Daily Monthly Yearly Applications Recorded Dashboard Displays

One login for many applications

Real-time control & monitoring

Timely irrigation & fertigation

Customizable reports & alarms

Reduced water & energy costs

Ongoing support

Schedule a visit at our training center! Located at 1502 Idaho Avenue, Hanford, CA 93230

Applications Included: Simplified irrigation scheduling Pump time-of-use management Automated reservoir fill VFD optimization Fertigation Wind machine automation Weather monitoring Tule Technologies ETa integration

INFO@HOTSPOTAG.COM

(559) 376-0263

WWW.HOTSPOTAG.COM

12 Ag Alert October 4, 2023

Farm Bureau Members Receive a $500 Exclusive Cash Reward * on an Eligible New Super Duty ® , F-150 ® , Ranger ® ,or Maverick ®

$ 500 Exclusive Cash Reward *

FORD F-150

FORD MAVERICK

FORD RANGER

FORD SUPER DUTY

Computer-generated images with available features shown.

* Farm Bureau Recognition Program is exclusively for active Farm Bureau members who are residents of the United States. $500 Exclusive Cash Reward on the purchase or lease of an eligible new 2022/2023/2024 Ford Maverick, Ranger, F-150 or Super Duty. This incentive is not available on F-150 Lightning ® , F-150 Raptor ® , F-650 and F-750 Super Duty. This offer may not be used in conjunction with most other Ford Motor Company private incentives or AXZD-Plans. Some customer and purchase eligibility restrictions apply. Must be a Farm Bureau member for 30 consecutive days prior to purchase or lease and take new retail delivery from an authorized Ford Dealer’s stock by January 2, 2024. Visit FordRecognizesU.com/FarmBureau or see your authorized Ford Dealer for qualifications and complete details. Note to dealer: Claim in VINCENT using #38656. Visit FordRecognizesU.com/FarmBureau today for complete offer details!

Computer-generated images with available features shown. AUBURN AUBURN FORD 530-823-6591 www.auburnford.net BAKERSFIELD JIM BURKE FORD 661-328-3600 www.jimburkeford.com CHICO WITTMEIER FORD LINCOLN 530-895-8181 www.wittmeier.com CONCORD FUTURE FORD OF CONCORD 888-735-7302 www.futurefordofconcord.com CORNING CORNING FORD 530-824-5434 www.corningford.com EUREKA HARPER MOTORS 707-443-7311 www.harpermotors.com FAIRFIELD FORD FAIRFIELD 707-421-3300 www.fordfairfield.com FORD F-150

GRIDLEY GRIDLEY COUNTRY FORD 530-846-4724 www.gridleyfordsite.com HOLLISTER GREENWOOD FORD 831-637-4461 www.teamgreenwoodford.com LIVERMORE LIVERMORE FORD LINCOLN 925-294-7700 www.livermoreford.net MADERA MADERA FORD 559-674-6771 www.maderaford.com MERCED RAZZARI FORD 209-383-3673 www.fordrazzari.com MORGAN HILL THE FORD STORE MORGAN HILL 833-548-4419 www.fordstoremorganhill.com PASO ROBLES PASO ROBLES FORD 805-239-3673 www.pasoford.com

FD23_FB_Gen_LINEUP_8.5x5.5_ad_2Q_A.indd 1

4/14/23 9:25 AM

REDDING CROWN FORD 530-241-4321 www.crownmotorsredding.com RIVERSIDE

Farm Bureau Members Receive a $500 Exclusive Cash Reward * on an Eligible New Super Duty ® , F-150 ® , Ranger ® ,or Maverick ®

$ 500 Exclusive Cash Reward * FRITTS FORD 951-687-2121 www.frittsford.com ROSEVILLE FUTURE FORD LINCOLN ROSEVILLE 866-415-4719 www.futureford.com SACRAMENTO FUTURE FORD SACRAMENTO 888-327-4030 www.futurefordofsacramento.com

FORD MAVERICK SANTA ROSA HANSEL FORD 707-623-1426 www.hanselford.com TULARE WILL TIESIERA FORD, INC. 559-688-7471 www.willtiesieraford.com

FORD RANGER

FORD SUPER DUTY

FD23_FB_Gen_LINEUP_8.5x5.5_ad_2Q_A.indd 1

4/14/23 9:25 AM

Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20