http://www.eco-farm.org/blogs/farmer/ en joanna@eco-farm.org Copyright 2013 2013-05-02T17:37:52+00:00 http://www.eco-farm.org/blogs/farmer/public_participation_in_government_decision-making_an_organic_tradition/ http://www.eco-farm.org/blogs/farmer/public_participation_in_government_decision-making_an_organic_tradition/#When:17:37:52Z This post was republished with permission from the author.  By Lisa J. Bunin, Ph.D., Organic Policy Director April 30th, 2013 Original post by:  Center for Food Safety http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/blog/2148/public-participation-in-government-decision-making-an-organic-tradition Public participation in government decision-making is an American tradition.  Its roots extend all the way back to the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946,[1] the law which codified the first requirements for public participation in government rulemaking.  By  providing the public an opportunity to comment on its draft documents, the government not only becomes more informed about the impacts of important policy matters on stakeholders, but it also becomes more transparent and accountable to those it serves.  Having just returned from the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) meeting in Portland, OR,[2] I can say with confidence that the public participation tradition is alive and well in organic policy making.  In fact, organic is one of the most transparent sectors of our food system, largely because of its strong reliance on public participation. From the early days of organic rulemaking in 1997, when 275,603[3] people sent comments to USDA opposing genetically engineered organisms, irradiation, and sewage sludge, to this latest NOSB meeting, the public regularly exercises its right to participate.  And, its opinions hold sway.  The NOSB’s recent decision to deny a petition to allow conventionally grown sugar beet fiber in organic provides a case in point. Twice a year, the NOSB holds public meetings and makes recommendations to the Secretary of Agriculture on issues affecting the growing, processing, and handling of organic food, including whether to permit synthetic materials and non-organic ingredients.  In fact, no synthetics or non-organic ingredients are permitted whatsoever in organic, unless the NOSB approves them.  At the Portland meeting, conventional sugar beet fiber was among those ingredients reviewed in response to a petition to allow it in processed organic food.  Organically grown sugar beet fiber is not commercially available, which is why the producer petitioned to use it in the conventional form.   To allow an exception for a conventionally grown ingredient in organic, a technical review is conducted of the environmental and health hazards associated with the use, production, and consumption of the ingredient, and to evaluate existing alternatives.  In the case of conventional sugar beet fiber, the Technical Evaluation Report made it clear that, from start to finish, sugar beet production and beet sugar extraction are chemically-intensive and environmentally destructive.  Prior to planting, sugar beet seeds are frequently treated with a neonicotinoid pesticide, which threatens bees, beneficial pollinators, and birds.[4] On the farm, conventionally grown sugar beets use synthetic, toxic fertilizers, pesticides, and the notorious ozone-depleting soil fumigant, methyl bromide.[5] Industry estimates that ninety-five percent of all sugar beets grown in the U.S. are now genetically engineered,[6] so it is highly unlikely that non-GE seeds — either conventional or organic — would be available.  To extract the sugar, beets are processed with formaldehyde and the process generates a large volume of wastewater.[7] Clearly, this is not the type of production system that organic should support under any circumstances.[8]  Yet, the Subcommittee charged with evaluating the material on behalf of the NOSB felt otherwise.  Despite the critical Technical Report and the red flags it raised about the incompatibility of conventional sugar beet fiber production with organic systems, the Subcommittee voted seven in favor to approve it, with one abstention.   That’s why public participation at the NOSB is so vital. The public, including the Center for Food Safety, came to a very different conclusion than the Subcommittee in its written comments, which unmistakably turned the tables on this NOSB decision.[9] Verbal testimony at the meeting reinforced the public’s critique that allowing a substance with notable environmental and health impacts in organic food was unacceptable, particularly since alternatives are commercially available for organic producers.  When the issue was put to a vote of the full NOSB, it unanimously voted against the petition.  The entire Subcommittee ended up reversing its previous vote — a major victory for the public participation process!  Legally mandated public participation in government decision-making forces federal advisory boards, like the NOSB, to be held accountable for their actions, every step of the way.  In the organic sector, participation has been an essential piece of the policy development process where the exchange of ideas and knowledge between policy makers and stakeholders allows for the continuous improvement of organic, as per the spirit and intent of the law.[10]  And, this tradition of participation is what has allowed organic to grow and prosper and to continue to be the healthiest system of food production. ----------------------------------------------- [1] According to the Attorney General's Manual (1947) on the Administrative Procedure Act, the basic purpose of the APA is:  (1) to require agencies to keep the public informed of their organization, procedures and rules, (2) to provide for public participation in the rulemaking process, (3) to establish uniform standards for the conduct of formal rulemaking and adjudication, and (4) to define the scope of judicial review.  Available at:  http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/admin/1947cover.html [2] The NOSB is a 15 member, USDA-appointed, volunteer Federal Advisory Committee Board that works to clarify and strengthen organic regulations by serving as an Advisor to the National Organic Program and Secretary of Agriculture.  [3] USDA.  (2000) “USDA Releases National Organic Foods Standards,” (Press Release), 21 December 2000. Available at:  http://www.usembassy.it/file2000_12/alia/a0122104.htm [4] Eric Hoffmann & Steven Castle. (2012)  “Imidacloprid in Melon Guttation Fluid: A Potential Mode of Exposure for Pest and Beneficial Organisms,”105 J. ECON. ENTOMOLOGY 67 (2012).  Tennekes, Henk.  (2010) The Systemic Insecticides: A Disaster in the Making, Weevers Walburg Communicatie, Zutphen:  The Netherlands.    [5] Technical Evaluation Report (TER).  (2012) Sugar Beet Fiber: Handling/Processing, Compiled by the Organic Center for the NOSB, 7 March, pp. 9.  Available at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5098983 [6] USDA approved the planting of Roundup Ready (RR) sugar beets in 2005, and commercial planting of began in 2007.  Available at:  http://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology/sugarbeet_case.shtml [7] TER, 2012, p. 8. [8]  The Technical Evaluation Report (2012) states that “pesticide pollution from sugar beets is a global concern,” p. 9. [9] Eight public comments opposed the approval of conventionally grown sugar beet fiber and the one comment that favored it came from the petitioner. [10] Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (OFPA).  Available at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5060370         2013-05-02T17:37:52+00:00 http://www.eco-farm.org/blogs/farmer/healthy_soil_saves_water/ http://www.eco-farm.org/blogs/farmer/healthy_soil_saves_water/#When:19:39:16Z   This post was republished with permission from the author. The original will be published in the Santa Cruz County Farm Bureau ‘Between the Furrows’ Newsletter, June 2013. By Molly Dragaron, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Healthy soils hold more water, nutrients and absorb more carbon dioxide. A good soil structure allows roots to spread deep and anchor themselves more securely. A simple field test to determine the relative health of your soil involves the use of your senses “sight, touch and smell”. First, look at the soil. A healthy soil will have plant organic matter mixed in. It should be dark, cool, and have a loose, crumbly texture. The slight clumping of soil allows roots to penetrate and for air and water to seep into the pore-space. Unhealthy soils are lighter in color. They don’t hold structure, nutrients or water well. Healthy soil should be sweet and earthy smelling. This indicates the presence of good bacteria (actinnomycetes) that help break down organic matter and bring nitrogen into the soil. Unhealthy soils typically smell sour or like “kitchen cleanser.” Lastly, feel your soil. It should be cool to the touch and hold together slightly when squeezed before crumbling. Healthy soils should feel “thicker” than unhealthy soils. This is because the soil organic matter form air pockets and pores for water and roots to navigate. A healthy soil sustains food production year after year, reduces water and nutrient applications, and mitigates drought, flooding and erosion impacts. NRCS has launched a nationwide campaign to “Unlock the Soils.” For more information visit www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/soils/health/ or contact the Capitola NRCS office at 475-1967. 2013-04-22T19:39:16+00:00 http://www.eco-farm.org/blogs/farmer/recharge_a_win_win_to_protecting_pajaro_valley_groundwater_supplies/ http://www.eco-farm.org/blogs/farmer/recharge_a_win_win_to_protecting_pajaro_valley_groundwater_supplies/#When:19:38:40Z   This post was republished with permission from the author. The original will published in the Santa Cruz County Farm Bureau ‘Between the Furrows’ Newsletter, May 2013. By Staci Ruffoni, RCD of Santa Cruz County The Pajaro Valley groundwater basin is in an overdraft condition, as documented in numerous studies conducted over the past 55 years. In response to this serious issue, a group of major landowners in the Valley created the Community Water Dialogue (CWD) in July 2010. Since its onset, the group has included a wide variety of stakeholders, including landowners, growers, government representatives, and environmental groups. The CWD and the Resource Conservation District of Santa Cruz County (RCDSCC) have taken a pro-active approach in identifying solutions to the overdraft problem. Many growers in the valley have and are using irrigation management systems as a tool to safely conserve water without jeopardizing their bottom line by measuring water efficiency in their fields through probes and wireless towers. The towers involved with this technology, if purchased by individual growers, present a sizable and redundant investment. Through private donors, existing users and a grant from the RCDSCC, these towers have been purchased to create a valley wide network, the WIN Project. This network allows growers to simply rent or purchase the field monitoring equipment, making this technology accessible to everyone. The WIN Project uses the Hortau, Inc towers and connects with technology to measure soil tension in real time via the internet. Soil tension measures direct water availability and plant stress. This real time information allows growers to anticipate when to irrigate and for how long; keeping crops growing in optimal conditions. This plant based approach to irrigation management has proven to reduce water use by 30% with no detriment to the crop. For more information about the WIN Project contact the RCDSCC at 464-2950. 2013-04-16T19:38:40+00:00 http://www.eco-farm.org/blogs/farmer/key_next_steps_for_us_food_policy/ http://www.eco-farm.org/blogs/farmer/key_next_steps_for_us_food_policy/#When:21:45:30Z This post was published on the ProOrganic.org Facebook page and in an email newslist. Here is the "inside story" with complete details you need to know about what happened with HR 933, Continuing Resolution including the “Monsanto Protection Act” the President signed this week. I detail actions we took, what this means, and suggest steps for the future. Please read this to the end to be well-informed and please respond. Send me an email to info@proorganic.org to confirm you received this message now, and feel free to leave your comments and suggestions. Thank you for thousands of encouraging emails and conversations about our work! If you want to unsubscribe, you must follow the link at the bottom of this email to do so because I have no control over the email server. Like, share, and participate in our facebook group www.facebook.com/proorganic.org which receives as many as over 200,000 views monthly and features a wealth of valuable information about food, health, regulatory affairs, gardening, and many inputs. We read every email and Facebook comment, and many of you know from experience that we answer personally when possible. Please know, our all-volunteer effort is funded solely and at great personal cost and risk by the Petition Author without any outside support or financial affiliation. Ours is a historic example of what citizens can accomplish when commitment and vision combine in action. Your efforts and responses to our phone campaign request has been humbling and we cannot thank you enough. We estimate well over 60,000 calls were received by the White House this week, though some of you reported having to dial as many as 100 times to get through! What’s more, we arranged for the Food Democracy Now 250,000-plus-signer petition seeking Veto of HR 733 to be brought directly to the President's personal attention. We received help at very high Administration levels and express our deep appreciation. Proorganic.org does not speak for the entire Food Policy movement. However, aside from the White House itself, we were the most intimately involved with President Obama among all food policy organizations so this is a "from the horse's mouth" account. This email serves to share elements of what happened this week with the goal of helping everyone concerned work together more effectively to achieve our goals. First of all, you need to realize the Continuing Resolution is only a six month law. No part of this law lives beyond September 2013, no matter what it provides. You should take comfort in that, and heed this as a call to action for the future. Second, you need to realize passing periodic Continuing Resolutions has been at the highest level of political importance for Presidents over the past 2 decades. Without passage, the Government shuts down, leading the nation into certain disaster. Whatever political objectives any President has, first and foremost, the government must be funded. For this reason, we did not promote a Veto campaign, but we helped Food Democracy Now in their Veto campaign because of our common long-term objectives. Section 735 "Monsanto Rider" is reported by NY Daily News to have been written in concert with Mosanto by Sen. Roy Blount (R-MO), perhaps Monsanto’s biggest Senate contribution beneficiary. Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) allowed the language to stand without consultation with the Agriculture Subcommittee, or any others, for that matter. This infamous action has been widely criticized in the strongest terms, even within the Senate. Sen. Mikulski's Facebook page has dozens of comments in opposition. Unlike a typical "Rider," the "Section 735" paragraph did not appear at the end of the bill. Because of this, the President could not issue a Signing Statement nullifying it. We know Mr. Obama consulted the White House Consul in detail to explore this possibility. Most believe Section 735 of this bill violates the US Constitution’s “Separation of Powers” which provides for the Courts to maintain authority whenever cases are brought. This provision requires the Secretary of Agriculture to grant permits and temporary deregulation without Court intervention. Additional opinions suggest it violates the National Environmental Policy Act which calls for vairous Environmental Impact disclosures among other procedures. This is the problem we face: The US doesn’t really have a National Policy on Food and Agriculture. Corporate interests and regulators have never been governed by a solid Policy framework. We need Policy that comes from a clear and sustained public debate followed by legislation towards sustainable, healthy, and scientifically legitimate Food Policy. While tens of millions of citizens are actively involved in various national debates about topics like abortion, and other hot button issues, Food Policy gets relatively minor attention, though literally everyone eats. Occasionally, some voices involved in Food Policy advocacy compete with each other – leading to potential fragmentation and dilution of our power. We must eliminate that as a factor, and work in concert like a well-tuned orchestra to be effective. A group of important leading Food advocacy organizations including ProOrganic.org is being convened by Center for Food Safety which will address strategy and tactics next week. Our task over the next six months is to stimulate a vast national hot-button debate that puts tremendous pressure on all elected officials AND which leads to wise food-policy legislation. Some of this is already being drafted now. If that past year has taught us at ProOrganic anything, it’s that fighting Monsanto or the FDA is not leadership, it’s an understandable, but relatively ineffective reaction. Have to move beyond opposition towards proposition. Leadership means we grow our movement to 100 million people who demand Food Policy and who use it as a litmus test for supporting elected officials’ ambitions. ANY President, Governor, Senator or Congressman would have to support us or face political failure. The outrage over Section 735 and its assault on the Constitution should be used to spark many more people to involvement and action. We absolutely have to use this moment wisely, because we just got “fifteen minutes of fame” and we can exploit this to our advantage. Now it’s time to craft a crystal clear message that everybody can understand and get excited about. We have to get so many people involved in the debate that the message comes loud and clear to the all elected officials. At ProOrganic.org, we see this week’s events as an opportunity to stimulate a turning-point in the National conversation. Thanks ever so much: You will hear from me again shortly. Frederick Ravid, author http://signon.org/sign/tell-obama-to-cease-fda?mailing_id=10803&source=s.icn.em.cr&r_by=2375203 2013-04-01T21:45:30+00:00 http://www.eco-farm.org/blogs/farmer/gmo_update_eco-farm_conference_2013_and_beyond/ http://www.eco-farm.org/blogs/farmer/gmo_update_eco-farm_conference_2013_and_beyond/#When:19:25:01Z This post was republished with permission from the author, Michael Traugot, on the Farms Not Arms blog. The GMO Update panel at the Eco-Farm Conference featured four people who have been prominent in the ongoing campaign to label and otherwise regulate the spread of genetically modified organisms [GMOs] into our food chain and environment. Pamm Larry, from Chico, CA, was the Grassroots Instigator of Prop 37, the ballot initiative to label GMOs in CA. Wenonah Hauter is Executive Director, Food and Water Watch, Washington DC, and author of Foodopoly: The Battle Over the Future of Food and Farming in America. Rebecca Spector is West Coast Director of the Center for Food Safety [CFS] in San Francisco, CA; CFS is one of the main organizations legally challenging the release of GMOs. Dag Falck is the Organic Program Manager, Nature’s Path, British Columbia; he has been involved in GMO campaigns in Canada. He says there are GE-free zones in 10 cities in BC; there’s no teeth to them, but they are statements, a step in the right direction. Here are some of the main points they made. All these folks considered Prop 37 a success! It lost by less than 3%, and over 6 million Californians voted for it. It catalyzed a national movement and started a national discussion, made national news, and now there are GMO labeling efforts in the works in several more states. Rebecca Spector from CFS reported on an independent post-election poll, available at: http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/2013/01/09/post-prop-37-poll-shows-strong-public-support-for-future-ge-food-labeling/ Prop 37 won the vote on the actual election day, 51%-49%, but lost the advance voting 56%-44%. Partly this was because of the TV attack ads run by the opposition, which got there first, in the tradition of “swift-boating.” But this poll shows that 67% of the people still support GMO labeling: 21% of people who voted “No” still support labeling; they were convinced that prop 37 was “poorly written,” faulty.   The breakdown on Prop 37: Latinos voted 61% Yes; Asians voted 61% Yes; African Americans voted 56% Yes; Democratic women voted 60% Yes; voters under 30 voted 55% Yes; LA County voted 52% Yes; and the SF Bay Area voted 56% Yes. Caucasians as a group rejected the measure 58%-42%. And while people with a college degree voted against the measure 55%-45%, this same group reported in this latest poll that they support the concept of labeling GMOs by a whopping 68%-27%. Taken together, this fact plus the fact that young voters supported Prop 37 and that more people voted Yes later in the campaign, after they had seen the Yes ads, bodes well for future GMO labeling campaigns. Rebecca Spector and others have modified Prop 37 to go to the CA legislature; they will need us to call our representatives when the time comes. There is now a Washington State GMO labeling initiative. Wenonah Hauter said that many other states are considering similar measures. There is now a Coalition of States for GMO labeling.  We need the states to prompt the feds; that is often how these changes happen, in states first [e.g., marriage equality, marijuana legalization]. CFS is working at the national level, they have a labeling petition to the FDA, and have 1.2 million comments in support. http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/2012/10/01/why-california-needs-prop-37-center-for-food-safety’s-position-on-the-food-labeling-initiative/ We WILL get GMO labeling, says Spector. She said many companies are quietly working to source and use non-GMO products. There are bills in Congress about labeling or banning GMO salmon, and Sen. Boxer and Rep. DeFazio are proposing labeling all GMO foods. There is lots of activity happening, we are “on the verge.” One big fight right now is over the pending approval of the farming of GMO salmon. This would be the first GMO animal approved for release into the food chain and, inevitably, the environment. Critics say escaped GMO salmon could decimate the naturally existing salmon population. For more info, go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AquAdvantage_salmonhttp://www.hcn.org/blogs/goat/fda-ruling-on-gmo-salmon-worries-alaska-fishermen Another is the pending USDA approval of GMO corn resistant to herbicides 2,4D and dicamba. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/26/business/energy-environment/dow-weed-killer-runs-into-opposition.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 Both of these herbicides are more acutely toxic than glyphosate [main ingredient in Roundup], and their use would undoubtedly skyrocket if they are approved. Weeds have developed resistance to Roundup, so GMO corporations are developing crops resistant to 2,4D and dicamba as well as glyphosate. Critics say weeds will eventually develop resistance to these herbicides as well, forcing us onto a treadmill of ever-increasing herbicide use and new resistant GMOs, a boon to the bottom line of companies that sell both seeds and herbicides. For the CFS explanation of the situation, go to http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/wpcontent/uploads/2012/04/CFS_FSR_spring_2012.pdf One of the most interesting consequences of this campaign is that large corporations that own smaller organic companies, that were formerly “in hiding,” came out against labeling and exposed themselves that way to boycotts of their organic products, and bad publicity in general, as transparency was increased. http://www.cornucopia.org/who-owns-organic/ http://www.cornucopia.org/2012/08/prop37/ And the latest news: according to the NY Times, major food companies, including PepsiCo, ConAgra, and Wal-Mart, are considering lobbying for a national labeling program. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/01/business/food-companies-meet-to-weigh-federal-label-for-gene-engineered-ingredients.html?_r=0 Undoubtedly they will try to get one that best suits them, but their effort shows they have recognized the inevitability of labeling as Americans become more aware of the existence of GMOs and the issues involved. But, as Food Safety News reports, a federal labeling law might not be such a good thing if it is a weak law and it includes preemption, meaning no state or municipality may pass a law more stringent than the federal law. This is not the case with all federal laws, but is often the result of “compromise” legislation like that being considered by large food companies. For more details, the article is at http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2013/02/will-a-federal-compromise-on-gmo-labeling-trump-state-law-forever/%23.URVSh465M1N Many of these articles are brought to our attention by the Eco-Farm GE News Service, which is the best source I know of breaking news about GMOs. To subscribe, go to www.eco-farm.org and GE News email list. The take home message from this presentation is that political action works! We need to Take Back Our Democracy! We need to continue to let our legislators know these things are important to us. We have more power than we know if we can unite to use it. 2013-03-29T19:25:01+00:00 http://www.eco-farm.org/blogs/farmer/growing_farmers_in_the_wild_onion_city/ http://www.eco-farm.org/blogs/farmer/growing_farmers_in_the_wild_onion_city/#When:23:12:34Z   By Liz Birnbaum EFA Program Coordinator   As a fourth generation Chicagoan, I have a vested interest in news stories about Chicago—particularly those that highlight the food and farming of the city. A recent press release from the City of Chicago unveils a new and innovative farming program, which, according to the press release: “will make sites available to foster productive uses for formerly vacant land, improve community access to healthy food, help participants to supplement their incomes, and to foster workforce training.” The need for local food goes deep in so many of Chicago's neighborhoods. I know this from my first-hand experiences of the city.    The city of the wild onion has launched a network of urban farmers to cultivate up to five acres of city-owned vacant lots. The program will begin by recruiting 25 trainees and giving them technical skills training, contact to markets (through help obtaining General Agricultural Practices (GAP) certification required for retail wholesales), and access shared tools such as compost.   This program, the Farmers For Chicago Network, addresses the workforce development needs of residents with limited work history, and brings local food many steps closer for food desert communities. There are about 15 acres in the network that either already operating as farming and training sites, being planted this year, or breaking ground next year. One such site is in Back of the Yards, which is where the former Union Stockyards were located, which gave Chicago one of its monikers: “Hog Butcher for the World” and which Upton Sinclair made infamous in The Jungle. I visited this site a few years ago and I have family who lives across the infamous Bubbly Creek from the site.     According to the Chicago Food Museum, “Food has defined Chicago, from the invention of the grain elevator to the most innovative in slaughterhouse technologies. One of the earliest catalyzing moments for Chicago as a food hub was at the 1893 World’s Columbian Exposition, where Cracker Jack, Vienna hot dogs, and Aunt Jemima pancake mix were all introduced. The city has remained a hotbed of successful national and international food purveyors, such as M&M/Mars, Kraft Foods, Keebler, McDonalds, Wrigley Company, Oscar Meyer, Morton Salt, Quaker, Hostess, and others.” It seems that today Chicago is moving to be an innovation hub for shrinking food deserts and empowering new farmers.   The City is teaming up with well-known urban farming organizations such as Growing Power, Growing Home, and Angelic Organics for this program. This innovative new network is helping cultivate a more sustainable, just, and healthy food system. 2013-03-26T23:12:34+00:00 http://www.eco-farm.org/blogs/farmer/preventing_soil_erosion_can_save_irrigation_water/ http://www.eco-farm.org/blogs/farmer/preventing_soil_erosion_can_save_irrigation_water/#When:21:20:43Z Though the winter rains have passed, out-of-season rainfall, irrigation runoff, and other forces can affect soil structure and texture on farms. So as farmers prepare for spring planting, erosion prevention should still be at the top of their minds. This post was republished with permission from the author. The original was published in the Santa Cruz County Farm Bureau 'Between the Furrows' Newsletter, February 2013. See all of EFA's water blog posts by visiting www.efawaterstewardship.org. By Rich Casale, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service It’s no secret; if your soil erodes then you lose productive top soil. Not too many growers realize that soil erosion can result in the use of more water when it’s time to irrigate, but erosion can have damaging affects to both soil texture and structure. In turn, the resulting damage can affect the soil’s ability to make water available for crop use. Chronic and/or unattended soil erosion will have even a more disastrous effect on soil productivity, requiring even more irrigation water and fertilizer inputs, not to mention continued expenses related to erosion damage repair. In addition, resulting sedimentation can degrade and reduce both the quality and quantity of surface irrigation water supplies. Winter is normally the time of year when soil erosion rears its ugly head but erosion can also occur other times of the year from irrigation runoff, land activities that change drainage patterns or furrow alignments, irrigation pipeline breaks, out-of- season rainfall events, etc. Erosion prevention on the farm should be considered a year round practice not just something you do in preparation for winter rains. Keep in mind: you could be losing as much as 15 tons of soil per acre and not even know it, because you can’t see that amount in thin sheets of soil being lost over a field with your naked eye. Don’t wait until you have an erosion problem, contact NRCS for assistance at 475-1967. 2013-03-18T21:20:43+00:00 http://www.eco-farm.org/blogs/farmer/recharge_water_stewards_gather_at_ecofarm_2013/ http://www.eco-farm.org/blogs/farmer/recharge_water_stewards_gather_at_ecofarm_2013/#When:22:13:24Z   By Liz Birnbaum EFA Program Coordinator From January 23-26, 2013, the 33rd Annual EcoFarm Conference took place at Asilomar Conference Grounds in Pacific Grove, CA. Our perennial gathering is a place for people farmers, distributors, and all people who are involved in the food system to assemble and recharge for the year ahead. This year, over 1,600 people gathered there. The beachside setting was a perfect place to contemplate the power and importance of water. There were five workshops that focused explicitly on water at the conference; 119 people attended these sessions combined. There were two sessions that featured EFA’s own Water Stewardship Video Case Studies. All of these workshops were part of a track funded by the California Depart of Food and Agriculture. In addition to those sessions, three other workshops focused their attention to water. The first of these was called “Pajaro Community Water Dialogues: A Model for Collaboration,” a project which was also featured in the Water Stewardship Project (WSP) video on precision irrigation. The second workshop was called “Approaches to Dealing with Problem Water for Organic Farmers.” This workshop brought in a technical perspective, explaining how ionization can be used to neutralize the effects of waterborne contaminants, enzymatic cleansing of drip irrigation systems, and other organically approved methods for reducing salinity and pH. The third workshop delved into an up-and-coming sector: “Working Landscapes for Water Storage.” This is an area that current and future on-farm water stewards will want to watch in the coming years. The California Roundtable on Water and Food Supply released an excellent report in November on the topic, which provides a great primer. The report defines water storage as: “We define storage as processes that retain water in order to maximize its availability at the times and places it is needed. Storage functions to elongate the availability of precipitation through time and optimize availability over the lengthy dry season; as such, retention of water in the landscape must be a key guiding concept in our approach to storing water.” Another workshop offered was on the New Ag Order. In 2012, the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board approved The Agricultural order—a conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for discharges from irrigated lands in the Central Coast region. All of the workshops provided attendees with the chance to learn about water from a wide array of perspectives. In addition to the workshops, the EFA Water Stewardship Case Study videos were playing in the Exhibitor Marketplace during the whole conference. All of these efforts combined allowed agricultural water stewardship to be a highlighted aspect of the conference!   Photos by Broken Banjo Photography.   2013-02-15T22:13:24+00:00 http://www.eco-farm.org/blogs/farmer/williams_college_student_reviews_ecofarm/ http://www.eco-farm.org/blogs/farmer/williams_college_student_reviews_ecofarm/#When:18:53:02Z If you haven't heard, we think that the 2013 EcoFarm Conference was a huge success!  We're still wrapping up our final tallies but we know that over 1,500 people attended from around the world.  We were fortunate to have a group of undergraduate students from Williams College in Massachusetts join us this year.  Check out this review of the EcoFarm Bus Tour by student Celeste Berg.  You should also check out the rest of her blog about her month long course on California Agriculture. Piggy Heaven blog entry Last Wednesday morning—a 5:15am wake-up ensured ample time for transportation and a stop for decadent pastries at Davenport’s Whale Tail Café—we embarked on the pre-EcoFarm full day farm tour, the beginning of the end of our month long exploration. Our California Agriculture class culminated with a three day farming conference: the first day was an offsite tour of four different farms around Pescadero, and the final two days were a series of engaging workshops with the backdrop of stunning Asilomar beach. We arrived, jazzed but mildly groggy, at the tour’s commencement outside an old barn in Pescadero, California. The barn was a fitting introduction to the area, as we quickly learned that Pescadero’s character lags behind the contemporary. The quaint town looks exactly like it did 50 years ago, and its preservation is due largely to the lack of water in the region and strict zoning laws that prevent new development; “white flight” has made the area a Hispanic farming community. We received this information via a booming bus loudspeaker from none other than Amigo Bob Cantisano, an influential figure in California agriculture and founder of EcoFarm. We were fortunate enough to particpate in the conference’s 33rd year. Click here to read more. 2013-02-05T18:53:02+00:00 http://www.eco-farm.org/blogs/farmer/ecofarm_2013_will_highlight_efas_own_water_stewardship_video_case_studies_a/ http://www.eco-farm.org/blogs/farmer/ecofarm_2013_will_highlight_efas_own_water_stewardship_video_case_studies_a/#When:18:49:52Z   EFA produced an on-farm video case studies curriculum featuring profiles of six amazing eco-farms demonstrating innovation and ingenuity in addressing water management in their operations.  The series addresses the systems these farms have used to steward the precious and essential element; providing for conservation, efficiency and security of water on their farms.  The farmers who designed and operate these water efficiency systems and the videos will be presented at the EcoFarm Conference, January 23-26th at the Asilomar Conference Grounds in Pacific Grove, CA.  Registration for the conference still available!   The series examines the agronomy of these six farm operations covering small, medium and large scale operations.  In the series of vidoes under 10 minutes each, the farmer explains the workings of water management on their farms, as they take us on a farm tour, detailing the components involved and demonstrating how the water system works within the context of their whole farm.   From farm ponds and water reuse and recycling to permaculture keyline design that increases and extends forage yield, from low tech dry farming that eliminates water in field production to high tech soil moisture monitors beaming information through relay towers and monitored on smart phones to decrease water usage an average of 30%; farmers teach other farmers the how to's and the economics of systems all can consider, adapt and benefit from in the effort to use water more wisely.   The videos will be available to view throughout the conference.  Two water stewardship workshop sessions with the farmers present for a farmer to farmer discussion and question and answer are offered, one on Thursday and one on Friday as part of the conference schedule.   The videos are available for free viewing anytime online at www.efawaterstewardship.org with links to follow-up resources that empower farmers to explore the viability of water efficiency and conservation efforts on their own farms at any scale.   EFA is interested to facilitate the many ways that farmers can learn from each other and find solutions to increase water security, reduce costs, access resources and improve the management of water on the farm.   This curriculum is made possible by funding from the California Depart of Food and Agriculture.  2013-01-10T18:49:52+00:00