|
||||
![]() |
The New Agriculture Network's on-line newsletter with seasonal advice for field crop and vegetable growers interested in organic agriculture. This is our final issue for 2006. Our next issue will be posted April 2007. Read previous issues through our calendar of issues.It’s not all in the bag: fresh and processed salad greens As growers respond to increasing demand for both fresh produce and convenience, they find themselves in unfamiliar territory and at risk of violating food law. What could go wrong? Consumers want more fresh produce for the obvious health benefits and growers want to provide quality fresh produce safely, economically and with convenience. Working to meet those consumer demands for safety, economy and convenience can lead a grower into considering packaging methods, such as bagging, that begin to cross the line between growing and packing fresh produce and entering into the more heavily regulated (and riskier) realm of food processing. However, simply putting the produce in a bag is not enough to call a product “processed.” Crossing that line is a risk that growers need to understand regardless of whether they choose to grow under organic certification, use sustainable farming methods or follow conventional agriculture techniques. Who can forget the most recent outbreak of E. coli O157: H7 in bagged salad with approximately 200 confirmed sick from that outbreak and at least two deaths? And this from a packing operation in the Salinas Valley of California, the “Salad Bowl of America” that packed both organic and conventionally grown-bagged salads. While E. coli has been detected in the suspect bagged spinach, far more testing will be done before the root cause of this outbreak is identified, if ever. Irrigation water is suspected, particularly because E. coli has been detected in the rivers and creeks that feed the irrigation canals in the Salinas Valley in the past. Even more recently, E. coli has been detected in irrigation water used for green leaf lettuce grown near Salinas prompting the FDA to issue a notice of recall of a specific brand of green leaf lettuce. In the same notice of the green leaf recall, the FDA repeated its assertion that, “Fresh leafy greens grown and consumed in the United States are safe. Every year there are many thousands of pounds of fresh leafy greens such as lettuce and spinach grown in the United States and consumed by the public with no consequent illness.” So what’s going on and what is a grower to do to minimize the risk and help prevent future outbreaks? Well let’s start with the bacteria known as E. coli O157: H7. E. coli itself is a class and genus of bacteria that are part of the group known as coliforms and are grown and spread via human and animal intestinal tracts. The presence of coliforms in general and E. coli in particular in the water, soil, on packing surfaces or within and without the plant is taken as a strong indicator that there has been fecal contamination. Growers, when testing water, should be testing for total coliforms and E. coli specifically. E. coli O157:H7 as a specific strain is of great concern because of its intense impact on human health. E. coli O157:H7 will, with relatively low numbers of infecting cells, cause gastrointestinal illness and potentially lead to a form of kidney failure known as HUS that can result in kidney damage and potentially death. Infants and young children, the elderly and others with compromised immune systems, are particularly vulnerable to this type of infection. In previous articles both for this publication and others (information on obtaining copies of previous articles is given below), I have described the steps necessary to develop food safety programs for fresh produce. The purpose of these programs is to prevent contamination from E. coli and other pathogenic microorganisms. We don’t have room to repeat everything in this article so I will emphasize the main points:
All of this and more GAPs are part of reducing the risk of food borne illness for fresh produce. And at this time, none of these practices are required by regulation, but are recommended by the FDA and supported by the USDA to avoid crossing the line into regulation by selling fresh produce that is considered “adulterated.” Finding that a food has become adulterated (that is contaminated in a way that is injurious to human health) gives the FDA jurisdiction to investigate in cooperation with the CDC, state and local authorities. Under the suspicion of adulteration, the FDA can then recommend a recall, and can potentially work to file charges resulting in the issuance of warrants and potential seizure of the suspected food. So, it would appear that other than weights and measures, EPA regulations, labor laws, and potential requirements for local or state inspections, the only other regulatory concern for the fresh produce grower is to avoid adulteration. Many growers in their efforts to improve the convenience of fresh produce (an attempt that may seem excessive for those of us who already consider fresh produce pretty convenient) will consider different types of bags, trays and other packaging methods. Bags and trays in and of themselves do not enter regulatory territory unless they become a source of contamination. Crossing the line from FDA and state recommended practices into FDA and state regulated food processing occurs when the cutting and trimming of fresh produce goes beyond the point of simply removing dead leaves and similar debris. Food processing occurs when cutting, peeling or tearing of the edible portion of the plant in any way results in the plant tissue becoming more vulnerable to bacterial infection and growth. Crossing that line results in the requirement for registering the facility, following FDA’s Good Manufacturing Practices, establishing washing and packing operations that are both sanitary and capable of yielding an unadulterated food product, state or local inspections, regulatory requirements for a food safety program (preferably HAACP based), and often operating in a certified processing facility or kitchen. Tips about whether produce is considered fresh or processed Examples of practices that are considered within the realm of food processing and therefore under higher regulatory standards for good manufacturing practices are: The key to all practices that result in the requirement to adhere to state and FDA food processing regulations is the increased risk of pathogen contamination and growth. It is not simply the act of putting produce in a bag or tray. Bacteria that cause food borne illness like nothing better then a warm, moist environment with lots of open, damaged fruit or vegetable cells to grow on. And simply cooling the product is not enough to prevent food borne illness. These bacteria are adaptable and can survive cold temperatures, ready to commence growth and increase food borne illness risks once the packaged produce has left the grower’s control. That’s why operations that produce bagged salads of all types are regulated as food manufacturing facilities registered, certified and inspected as required by law. We have also developed the expectation that these operations provide a step or steps in their sanitary food processing operation that will not only prevent contamination during the process, but also reduce the number of potential contaminants in the bagged product prior to or during packing. What about farm markets? Hopefully you get a better idea of when a food is considered fresh produce and when it becomes a processed food product as defined by the FDA. If you have any doubt about where your produce stands, please contact your local and state authorities to get their input on what you are required to do based on your operation’s practices. Far better that they help you operate within the arena of fresh produce then to find out that you are expected to recall your product and close your facility because you are in fact creating a processed food and have failed to follow regulatory requirements, including the requirement to register your packaging facility. For more help and articles regarding implementing Good Agricultural Practices and related topics please go to www.midamservices.org, on the left margin select “Projects,” and then on the Projects page select “Ohio and Indiana Specialty Crop Food Safety initiative.” At the bottom of the page you will find a link to “Produce Food Safety Technical Articles.” While the USDA Risk Management Agency funding for the initiative has ceased as of Sept. 30, 2006, MAAHS will maintain the website so growers can access those articles and related useful links. Consultation for GAPs, developing food safety programs and passing third party audits will be available through the Center for Innovative Food Technology (CIFT.) You can reach them by calling either Shari at 614-314-4627 or emailing shari-plimpton@eisc.org. More information is also available by calling Jennifer Hungerford of MidAmerican Agricultural Services, Inc. (MAAHS) at 614-246-8289. |
|||
| back to top |
||||
| Using compost to reduce irrigation Duane Friend University of Illinois Extension Natural Resources Management Educato |
As energy costs continue to rise, producers are looking for ways to reduce these costs. Some studies suggest that compost has the potential to improve soil moisture retention to the point that supplemental irrigation can be decreased. A study in central Wisconsin (Foley and Cooperband) examined short- and intermediate-term use of compost and other organic amendments in sandy soils in that part of the state. Compost was applied at rates of 10 tons per acre and 20 tons per acre on plots planted to potatoes and snap beans. Following the second year of application, the amount of water available to plants in these plots increased by five to 45 percent compared to plots with no compost application. The amendments improved pore size distribution, decreasing the larger pores and increasing the smaller ones. These findings suggest that under these conditions, irrigation water needs could be reduced by 10 to 90 percent, or three to seven cycles per season. Using these findings we can determine potential energy cost savings with an irrigation cost program from Kansas State University. This software program allows the user to input irrigation costs using several energy sources – propane, electricity, diesel and natural gas – for a center pivot irrigation system. The program also accounts for other variables including inches of water applied, acres covered by the system, pressure of the system and the number of feet the water is lifted. |
|||
![]() |
||||
One important aspect of the Wisconsin study is that the benefits received from applying compost and other amendments decreases over time unless additional applications are made. As the organic material decomposes, the amount of retained soil water and plant-available water also decreases. http://www.oznet.ksu.edu/pr_irrigate/Software/Irrsoftware.htm http://envirovaluation.org/index.php?title=biocycle_ www_jgpress_com_biocycle_htm_1&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1 |
||||
| back to top |
||||
| Some observations about soybean aphid Christina DiFonzo Entomology Michigan State University |
Editor’s note: MSU Entomologist Christina DiFonzo sent this message recently to MSUE educators. We are sharing it here for your information. On Sunday/Monday (October 1-2), there was a huge flight of soybean aphid gynoparae (winged females) from soybeans to buckthorn. On Monday (October 2), I found females with tiny newly-deposited nymphs on every buckthorn shrub I examined around MSU. Many of these were ant-tended (i.e. being protected), and I didn't see any ladybugs or other predators. These nymphs will mature into oviparae and lay eggs in October. Suction trap catches throughout Michigan in September have been "0", but I expect that the trap catch from this week will have soybean aphids. Heavy aphid numbers were also reported this week in Ontario and Ohio (apparently from the same flight), and last week from Indiana, Illinois and Minnesota. Thus early indications point to higher soybean aphid populations in 2007. |
|||
| back to top |
||||
| Raising Vegetables and Civic Values: CSA in the 21st Century Susan Smalley, Extension Specialist C.S. Mott Group for Sustainable Food Systems, Michigan State University |
What: The Second Biennial Conference for Community Supported Agriculture. When: November 10-12, 2006 Where: Kettunen Center near Tustin, Michigan (Just south of Cadillac, Mich.) Contact: CSA-MI, 3480 Potter Rd., Bear Lake, MI 49614. Toll free phone: 877-526-1441. Email: csafarm@jackpine.net Website: http://csafarms.org/csafarms4056869.asp Direct link to scholarship information: http://csafarms.org/csafarms7462042.asp The workshop schedule is nearing completion, the keynoters are getting their presentations ready and the mini-school curriculum is being hammered out. Check the website periodically for updates on the program, speakers and other details. The best news is that we have a regional SARE grant to help farmers with the costs of the program. Nearly 50 participants (more if some other grant money comes through) can benefit from this program. You can apply by going to the website and downloading the application form (look in the conference section of the site for 'financial assistance' or click on http://csafarms.org/csafarms7462042.asp). Contact us direct with your mailing address for a printed copy. In addition to the farmer scholarships, we have scholarship support for agricultural professionals -- Extension, NRCS, MDA, FSA, etc. -- who are interested in learning more about CSA so that they can better support farmers in CSA ventures. Contact Susan Smalley, smalley3@msu.edu, if you are interested in an ag professional scholarship. |
|||
| back to top |
||||
| Organics symposium proceedings available Phil Bogdan Plant Management Network |
The proceedings of the symposium, “Organic Agriculture: Innovations in Organic Marketing, Technology and Research,” is now publicly available through Crop Management, an online journal of the Plant Management Network. A total of 18 presentations across six themes are explored including 1) challenges remaining in the organic sector, 2) producer options and obstacles, 3) market growth, 4) the training of farmers and other agricultural professionals, 5) measuring and communicating the benefits of organic farming, and 6) research. The United States Department of Agriculture, in conjunction with other organizations in the public and private sectors, sponsored the symposium to explore potential gaps in research and support for organic growers and others in the supply chain. “The most important thing the symposium did was to clearly show the gaps in our understanding and knowledge about organic markets, research, and organic farming systems,” said Carolee Bull, a research scientist with the USDA Agricultural Research Service and member of the symposiums coordinating committee. |
|||
| back to top |
||||
| News briefs from American Farmland Trust | Bringing local healthy food to school cafeterias Farm-to-school programs are sprouting up nationwide as more and more schools connect with local farms. The programs work to serve healthy meals in school cafeterias, improve student health and provide nutrition education, all while supporting local agriculture. The schools buy and feature farm fresh foods like fruits and vegetables, providing farmers with access to new markets through schools. Currently, the federal government spends billions of dollars to subsidize grains and other crops while providing almost no support for fruits and vegetables. AFTs recommendations for the 2007 Farm Bill include support for initiatives like farm-to school programs that promote healthier diets [PDF] and increase demand for specialty crops and locally grown food. Saving land still saves money 2007 Steward of the Land Award – nominate someone deserving |
|||
| back to top |
||||
Soybean aphid eggs plentiful Christina DiFonzo |
|
|||
| back to top |
||||
|
||||