Facebook
X (Twitter)
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
LinkedInPosts Tagged: assessment
October is National Farm-to-School Month
There are plenty of opportunities for teachers and schools to celebrate and get involved in National Farm to School Month with the University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources (UC ANR). Here are a few ideas to get you started.
4-H youth development
Launch a 4-H Club at your school. The 4-H Youth Development Program emphasizes enrichment education through inquiry-based learning. Core content areas include Healthy Living as well as Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM). Clubs have access to a wealth of curricula materials exploring food, agriculture and natural resources. 4-H also offers the Ag in the Classroom school enrichment program.
Invite UC ANR academics and program staff to your career day or science fair or to make a classroom presentation. Specialists from Master Gardeners, Nutrition Education, Project Learning Tree, California Naturalist and other UC ANR programs know how to engage and inspire your students.
Some programs, including Project Learning Tree, offer "train the trainer" professional development workshops that equip educators with the skills and knowledge to teach concepts in their own classrooms. Project Learning Tree also provides free activity guides to teachers who attend their workshops. The guides highlight differentiated instruction, reading connections, and assessment strategies and offer ideas to integrate technology into classroom instruction,
Research and Extension Centers
Take your students on a field trip to a UC ANR Research and Extension Center (REC). The nine RECs in California are focal points for community participation and for active involvement in current and relevant regional agricultural and natural resource challenges.
Visiting a REC offers students a unique opportunity to learn about food production through the lens of applied science research in plant pathology, integrated pest management, conservation tillage, water conservation, development of new crop varieties, and much more. Some RECs also host extended education programs such as Sustainable You! Summer Camp and FARM SMART.
The 2016 National Farm to School Month theme is One Small Step, which highlights the easy ways anyone can get informed, get involved and take action to advance farm to school in their own communities and across the country.
Each week will have a different focus:
- Education (October 3-7)
- Healthy School Meals (October 10-14)
- Farmers & Producers (October 17-21)
- The Next Generation (October 24-28)
Join the celebrations by signing the One Small Step pledge then take your own small step to support healthy kids, thriving farms and vibrant communities this October by partnering with UC ANR.
This story en español.
UC to measure energy and greenhouse gas footprints of orchard crops
A new study underway at the UC Sustainable Agriculture and Research and Education Program (SAREP) aims to help growers and policymakers better understand the energy use, greenhouse gas emissions, and carbon sequestration potential of orchard systems throughout California.
As trees grow, they draw carbon dioxide from the air to create sugar and cellulose for food and growth, locking some of that carbon into their wood as the trees age — in some trees for 25 years, in others like walnuts, for upwards of 150 years. Proper use of that carbon at the end of an orchard's life can have major implications for the overall greenhouse gas footprint of an orchard operation. Trees used for power generation after orchard removal have the potential to offset fossil-fuel related emissions created throughout the orchard's life.
"Our preliminary study in almonds shows that the amount of fossil fuel emissions saved in this way is equal to almost three-quarters of the greenhouse gas emissions generated during the whole 25-year lifespan of the orchard, using current practices," says the project's director, Sonja Brodt, SAREP academic coordinator. "We think that this information could help to position orchard crops favorably for a consumer base that is increasingly climate-smart."
This study, funded by the California Department of Food and Agriculture's Specialty Crops Block Grant Program, will focus on prunes, peaches, walnuts and almonds in all of the primary production regions of the state.
Many farm management practices have an energy use component that the project will consider including water and fertilizer use, tractor use and post-harvest transportation. By understanding which parts of orchard operations use the most energy as well as how much energy is required to manufacture and distribute inputs before they even arrive at the farm, growers can increase the efficiency of their practices. Industry groups can also develop more scientifically-sound grower sustainability programs to improve energy efficiency more broadly for the state's many tree crop growers.
"Energy is one input into agriculture that we have not thought about much from a whole supply chain point of view," says Gabriele Ludwig of the Almond Board of California, which funded a preliminary study on energy use and emissions in almond production and handling. "Yet the costs of energy, especially from fossil fuel sources, keep going up. The life cycle assessment approach used in this project can provide an analysis of where increased efficiencies may be possible."
The project's collaborators include the UC Cooperative Extension's Sutter-Yuba office, the UC Davis Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Department of Land, Air, and Water Resources, the Department of Plant Sciences, and graduate students in Horticulture and Agronomy and International Agricultural Development.
By working with growers throughout the state, project staff will be able to ensure that orchard management practices included in the project's models are representative of current practices. Growers interested in providing confidential input about their orchard practices are invited to contact Brodt at sbbrodt@ucdavis.edu or (530) 754-8547.
Accurate, site-specific knowledge of fertilizer use in California needed
As California legislators focus on nitrogen use in agriculture and its ability to contaminate groundwater, potential regulation on fertilizer use will require solid information on the amount of fertilizer used by California farmers, and the extent to which that usage contributes to environmental pollution. A new study published in California Agriculture evaluates trends in fertilizer use by California's major crops. It also shows that major deficiencies in data collection need to be addressed in order to develop effective policies regarding fertilizer use.
The publication is one of the first peer-reviewed articles to emanate from the California Nitrogen Assessment (an ongoing project at UC Davis). Assessment research documents that while there are many pathways through which nitrogen can enter the environment, inorganic fertilizer use is responsible for the largest fraction of new nitrogen introduced into California annually. Currently, over 600,000 tons of nitrogen fertilizer are sold in the state each year.
Information on fertilizer sales, however, is not an accurate indicator of fertilizer application, and authors found that fertilizer use data is not easy to come by — either because it is not tracked at relevant scales or because data sources are inconsistent.
"We found ourselves with very limited information to understand an issue with sweeping implications for California agriculture,” says Todd Rosenstock, the article's lead author. "We dug deep to create an accurate picture of fertilizer use in the state, but the remaining gaps will require attention.”
To estimate the amount of nitrogen applied to different crops around the state, authors aggregated data from different sources, including grower surveys and University of California studies, and show application rates for 33 of California's major crops.
While nitrogen fertilizer use on a crop-by-crop basis has risen over the last three decades, this increase has been more modest than fertilizer sales suggest. Between 1973 and 2005, fertilizer sales increased 31 percent, but nitrogen application rates increased on 25 percent across the 33 crops studied. Both data sets reflect increased nitrogen application and a shift to growing more nitrogen-intensive crops.
For many crops, nitrogen use increases have been accompanied by well-recorded yield increases — at rates that show nitrogen's benefit, and also suggest that farmers may be becoming more agronomically nitrogen-efficient, requiring less nitrogen per unit of production.
"In the absence of good information, we could do the wrong thing,” says Tom Tomich, co-author of the article and director of the Agricultural Sustainability Institute at UC Davis.
"Regulation without supporting data could fail to address the heart of the problem, or could damage agriculture,” says Tomich, who is also professor in the Department of Environmental Science and Policy at UC Davis, W.K. Kellogg Endowed Chair in Sustainable Food Systems and director of Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program. "Better information on nitrogen use is indispensable to collaborative development of effective solutions that can increase nitrogen use efficiency and save farmers money.”
The article makes recommendations on how data could be better compiled to improve our understanding of statewide trends in fertilizer use. To read the article, visit http://ucanr.edu/calagnassessment.
This article is part of an ongoing study, the California Nitrogen Assessment (CNA), a project of the Agricultural Sustainability Institute at UC Davis and UC Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program. The CNA reviews existing data on nitrogen to draw connections between nitrogen use, surplus, and established environmental and human health effects of excess nitrogen. The CNA is a stakeholder-driven assessment that seeks public input on its research and products. To learn more about the California Nitrogen Assessment, visit http://nitrogen.ucdavis.edu.
Tool Building Part 2
In my last post, I wrote about building an excel-based tool that helps farmers assess costs of production, taking into account direct and overhead costs. I initially took on this project because, up until November, I had not come across any tool that effectively helped a farmer to assess costs of production for a particular crop. In the past month, I have come across two resources that aim to do just this: the Veggie Compass, and Richard Wiswall’s enterprise analysis spreadsheets. I think both of these resources are great, but not without some challenges. I highly encourage any farmer to spend some time with these resources, particularly Richard Wiswall’s spreadsheets. Very soon, my own crop-planning, and crop-assessment tools will be available. I believe they are effective, farmer friendly, and comprehensive, such that a farmer may obtain accurate costs of production metrics.
I was happy to find that other Ag Extensions and farmers had spent some time on this subject. Too often, I have heard that, since small-scale diversified farming is so complex, it was of little use to try to analyze individual crops, because it would be too hard to parse out the necessary information for each one. I understand that line of thought, but I believe the answer involves more detailed record-keeping. Instead of just claiming it is too hard to keep these records, I challenge farmers to try to do so. A farmer, growing 30 crops, will invariably have crops that are not profitable, and those crops challenge the economic viability of the farm. The farmer can keep his or her head in the sand, and continue to repeat standard refrains such as, “it’s so hard to compete with the big guys”, “my employees quit just when I really needed them”, or “next year will be better”; I propose something different: the farmer can analyze her enterprises, figure out what makes money, and either figure out how to make all crops profitable (not as likely), or focus on those that are profitable.
I spent some time as a farmer and farm owner, and I know how hard it can be to analyze what you are doing. It can be scary or difficult to imagine changing your marketing scheme, and financing plan. I understand all of that. I also understand that it is even harder to farm when you don’t achieve your salary goals. I think a lot of farmers can identify with that sentiment. So, what happens when you don’t achieve your goals for several years in a row, or even decades? I suppose that’s when a farmer becomes a bit jaded; “this system is rigged!”; “we need to eliminate crop subsidies – that will even out the playing field!” In my experience, there’s always something to blame for the paltry tide of money flowing into a farmer’s bank account. Invariably though, the answer is the same – analyze your enterprises, focus on those that make you money, eliminate the rest. I see a lot of smart farmers doing just this, and becoming more and more successful in the process. That is very exciting for me to see.
A farmer friend of mine recently told me something to the effect of “we will start trimming our crop load down soon – we just need to work up to it. I know we’re not reaching our salary goals right now, but it’s so hard to change our sales model. Plus, we know we have crops that lose money, but we feel that we have to grow them.” I would never advocate that a farmer change the operation drastically in one fell swoop – that could bring about a host of unintended consequences that could spell the demise of the farm. Yet, if the farm is not making money, perhaps a large change is in order – and it is easiest to change when you are not making money. One more thought about all of this – there is no crop that a farmer “has to grow”. If a crop doesn’t make you money, figure out how it can, or throw it out of your scheme.
So, where do we start? Some farmers never plan. The process looks like this: “I have 10 acres, I like growing these crops, I will plant what I can and sell it to whomever.” This, of course, is not an effective course of action. Here’s something better:
- Step one – figure out what you will grow, and what the potential sales are for these crops at your markets.
- Step two – figure out how this fits into your farm’s parameters. How many beds/acres will you need to plant to fulfill your markets? Remember to be conservative on your yield estimates per bed when looking into this step.
- Steps three and four – figure out the labor requirements and material requirements for this crop. Many crops are very different in this respect. For instance, carrots need far more weeding time than do tomatoes, but tomatoes need to be trellised for optimal yields. Or, sweet corn has much higher nitrogen requirements than do tomatoes. Not only do these costs need to be taken into account, but so do the time requirements – ie, will you have enough labor to accomplish all of your goals at any given time? Will you have too much labor? These are very important questions to answer.
- Steps five and six – incorporate your overheads into the crop analysis. How much do overheads account for the overall cost of production? It is helpful to scrutinize both your annual overheads and capital investments to make sure that you aren’t spending too much.
- Step seven – make your assessments. Is this crop worth your time and money?
This is, essentially, the process involved in the crop-planning tool that I have created. It is an easy, seven-step program for farmers struggling with addiction to growing too many unprofitable crops. If that sounds like you, take solace, friend, for you are not alone.
Does this process make sense to you? Or, does it feel quite foreign? Do you have records to support this type of planning? If you don’t, are you willing to try? When you embark on the crop-planning voyage, you need records. The more detailed they are, the more accurate your assessment will be. If you don’t know where to start, ask some farmer friends what systems they use for record-keeping. You could ask: “How the heck do you keep track of how long it takes to harvest 100 bunches of kale?” Or even: “How do I know what my yields are per bed or per acre?” Don’t be afraid to reach out to people for help. Knowledge-sharing is a tremendous asset to small-scale farmers, and most farmers are willing to help out when they can. Plus, there are Ag extensions all over the country, and so many online resources to help you with this step.
The bottom line is, it all comes down to record-keeping. Here in Northern California, it’s getting dry and warm enough to think about planting. Plan for record-keeping now, and it will pay dividends in the future.
Olive trees to be added to ag assessment program
The California Senate Agriculture Committee has approved a bill that would add oil olive trees to the list of crops that are subject to a 1 percent state levy, according to a statement released by Sen. Anthony Cannella, one of the two sponsors.
The release said the bill, SB 707, will add oil olive trees in the CDFA Foundation Plant Services program at UC Davis. The service helps provide the industry access to disease-free, virus tested, and true-to-type certification for oil olive trees developed through extensive research. SB 707 also expands the membership of the Fruit Tree, Nut Tree, and Grapevine Improvement Advisory Board, which oversees the program, to include representatives of licensed olive nursery stock producers.
According to AroundtheCapitol.com, existing law imposes an annual assessment of 1 percent on the gross sales of all deciduous pome and stone fruit trees, nut trees, and grapevines, including seeds, seedlings, rootstocks, and topstock, including ornamental varieties of apple, apricot, crabapple, cherry, nectarine, peach, pear, and plum, produced and sold within the state or produced within and shipped from the state by any licensed nursery dealer, and provides that for packaged or containerized stock.
The new bill would include olive trees within the plants that are subject to the assessment.
Cannella's news release said another bill, SB 515, also passed by a unanimous committee vote. SB 513 would reinstate pre-existing, self-imposed industry fees that help ensure the safe and proper disposal of animal by-products, as well as to prevent the theft of kitchen grease.
“Agriculture is a $35 billion industry in California, and it’s important that we work together to ensure consumers can buy our state’s home-grown products with confidence,” Cannella is quoted. “I’m pleased to have earned the committee’s support for these two bills, and I remain committed to working with all interested parties to ensure these bills are approved by the Legislature.”
