make the most of water resources with careful irrigation practices

> continues on page 2

in this issue:For the Farmer: 1Make the Most ofWater ResourcesFarm manager Jim Leapexplains how waterbudgeting and carefulmonitoring can helpoptimize water use onthe farm

Killer Tomatoes vs. 5Golden RiceResearcher Phil Howardreviews the socialcontext of geneticengineering

Academics and 8ActivistsNew Center study teamsUCSC academics withNGOs to promote socialjustice in the foodsystem

Symphylan Study 9USDA funds new studyof persistent pest

From the Director 4

Research Updates 10

Center Notes 12

Resources 15

Events 20

The CENTER for AGROECOLOGY & SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS

SPRING/SUMMER 2003 VOL. 21, NO.1

Drip irrigation has reducedwater use and weed pressureat the Center’s on-campusfarm.

Make the Most of WaterResources with CarefulIrrigation Practices

In Santa Cruz’s Mediterranean climate we rely on irrigation throughout our dry summers to produce most of the crops on the Center’s 25-acre organic farm.

Located on the UC Santa Cruz campus, the farm includesrow crop acreage cultivated with a small tractor, as well ashand-worked raised garden beds and several fruit orchards.

Water conservation is a way of life in our climate, and animportant component in any food production system. How-ever, many growers working at both field and garden scalesdon’t know how much water they’re applying when they runan irrigation set, and often the tendency is to over irrigatetheir crops.

As well as wasting water, over irrigation leads to unneces-sary weed pressure, nutrient leaching, nitrogen loss to theatmosphere, disease pressure, and soil compaction. Conversely,water stress from too little irrigation can decrease yields andincrease the crop’s susceptibility to pests and pathogens. Cropplants that reach the permanent wilting point, where no water isavailable to the plants, often will not recover.

In this article I’ll try and take some of the guesswork outof deciding how much water to apply to a growing crop. I’llfirst describe the sprinkler and drip irrigation systems we useat the Center’s on-campus farm, then discuss the idea of wa-ter budgeting and provide some equations for calculating waterapplication rates. I’ll also talk about ways to estimate soilmoisture and schedule irrigation to optimize water use.

Although the information presented here is geared to field-scale irrigation, much of it can also be applied on a gardenscale. A comprehensive understanding of water schedulingand delivery is crucial in order to make the best use of thiskey resource and to produce a healthy, abundant harvest.

SPRINKLER IRRIGATION

At the UCSC Farm we use sprinklers to pre-irrigate openrow-crop ground, and to irrigate orchards, seedbeds, and sum-mer cover crops such as buckwheat, perennial rye grass, sudangrass, and vetch. Our standard sprinkler set up includes 20-foot-long sections of 2-inch diameter aluminum pipe with

THE CULTIVAR | SPRING/SUMMER 20032

either rain bird (for orchards) or adjustable plastic sprin-kler heads (for row crops). Sprinkler irrigation allows us toirrigate our gently sloping fields easily, and with good uni-formity.

Sprinkler systems also have some drawbacks. They cancreate high humidity situations that can trigger or exacer-bate fungal growth in crops such as onions, tomatoes,cucurbits (cucumbers, squash, etc.), potatoes, and straw-berries. Care must be taken when managing these cropswith overhead irrigation to allow for extended dry periodsbefore and after irrigation sets.

Some crops, such as sweet corn, are not practical to over-head irrigate because of height. In other crops, weedinfestations can be enhanced because of the extent of soilsurface wetting. Overhead irrigation should be avoided onwindy days, when you can actually lose up to half of yourapplied water to evaporation (see Application Efficiencyand Uniformity, page 17).

DRIP IRRIGATION

A series of dry years through the mid 1970s and againthrough the mid 1980s and into the 1990s has contributedto water conservation consciousness in California. As aresult, drip irrigation technology, developed in the desertsof Israel in the late 1960s, has gained popularity. Drip irri-gation is now a major part of our water delivery systemand has helped significantly reduce our annual water useover the past 10 years, even though we have greatly in-creased the acreage in production.

We use drip irrigation on corn, beans, beets, winter andsummer squash, pumpkins, potatoes, peppers, and straw-berries, as well as garlic, onions, and other row crops. Thedrip line we primarily use (called T-tape) is a high-flow 8mil tape with emitters spaced 8 inches apart.

We typically leave the lines on the surface, or we burythem very shallowly in corn, beans, and peppers by settingthe cultivator to throw a little dirt over them on the lastcultivation. High gopher pressure dictates surface use be-cause gopher damage can be easily located and repairedwhen the lines are on or near the surface.

The T-tape is designed to be operated at low pressure(7–10 pounds per square inch) and should either be runlevel or on a slight downhill slope (the greater the slope,the poorer the uniformity of application, with more waterending up on the lower end of the slope; see ApplicationEfficiency and Uniformity).

Some growers are concerned about the start-up costs forinstalling a drip system. The initial investment in drip linesand headers can range from $400 to $800 per acre, but ifthe system is well maintained (e.g., the drip lines are rolledup and stored indoors during winter) it should last up tofive years.

Trouble-shooting Drip SystemsWhen using drip irrigation, it’s always a good idea start

up the system, then check pressure at the end of each line

to see if lines are fully operational. If the system isn’t com-ing up to pressure there’s probably a large leak. If you finda line that is not dripping, then walk the entire line, in-specting it at intervals until you find the problem.

When T-tape is laid directly on the soil surface, it tendsto expand and contract with the daily temperature fluctua-tions, which can lead to problems such as kinking and lineseparation at splices or headers. Often drip-line needs tobe repositioned for proper function. When using T-tape onstrawberries we pin the line in place with wire clips.

Clogged emitters are a common problem with many dripsystems, especially in areas where water is high in mineralsalts or particulates. Most systems will require a filter, whichis usually installed at the pump.

Advantages of Drip IrrigationSuccessful drip irrigation requires pressure regulation,

water filtration, good monitoring, and good system design.Drip irrigation has helped cut our water use, while allow-ing us to maintain production.

Besides cutting water use, other advantages of drip irri-gation include reduced levels of fungal diseases on certaincrops because the foliage is not wetted, decreased weedpressure because much of the soil surface remains dry, andease of harvest and tractor cultivation because of reducedsurface wetting.

In general, drip systems require less labor than most othertypes of irrigation systems, but need closer management tomaintain efficiency and function. State-of-the-art drip sys-tems are set up on automatic timers and use fertilizerinjection systems. The use of buried T-tape in permanentbeds is gaining popularity but requires specialized tillageequipment.

Drip irrigating with T-tape directs water to the crops’ roots andkeeps water off of the vegetation, helping reduce diseases.

Jim Leap

THE CULTIVAR | SPRING/SUMMER 2003 3

WATER BUDGETING HELPS REFINE IRRIGATION PRACTICES

In its simplest terms, irrigation scheduling or water bud-geting—i.e., deciding how often and how long to irrigate—isbased on the idea of replacing water extracted from thesoil. This extraction is a function of evapotranspiration(Et)—a combination of evaporation from the soil and tran-spiration as water is transferred to the air through thestomata, or respiratory pores, of the growing crop. Factorsaffecting Et include crop growth stage, soil type, and climate.

The typical evapotranspiration rate for a full canopy cropon the UCSC Farm during the summer and early fall is aboutone inch of water per week. So in general we want to applyabout one inch of irrigation water per week for an activelygrowing crop, including orchards, during the warm part ofthe growing season in order to replace water lost throughevapotranspiration. Obviously, an unusually hot week mightgenerate the need for as much as a two-inch replacement,while a cool, foggy week would have a very low replace-ment rate. Note also that a newly germinated crop will havea low Et rate; it is critical not to over-irrigate young crops.

Irrigation frequency should correspond to the time re-quired for the soil in the crop’s root zone to dry toapproximately 50% of field capacity, where field capacityis defined as the amount of water that the soil will holdagainst the pull of gravity (see Estimating Soil Moisturechart, page 18). In other words, if it takes three days forthe soil to dry down to 50% of field capacity, irrigationshould take place every three days.

This rule of thumb will vary depending on the crop.Given their shallow root systems and increased susceptibil-ity to water stress, annual crops often require more frequentirrigation (2–3 times per week for many crops). Conversely,established orchards with deep root systems often requireless frequent but larger volumes of water to be delivered ineach irrigation. In both situations the amount of water lostthrough evapotranspiration is replaced, but the frequencyof irrigation is different.

Calculating Evapotranspiration RateIn California, the California Irrigation Management In-

formation System (CIMIS) provides information onevapotranspiration for regions throughout the state. Thisinformation is available on the CIMIS web site,www.cimis.water.ca.gov, or call 800.922-4647.

Calculating a Water Budget for Your FarmOnce you know your region’s Et rate, you can develop a

water budget for your farm by calculating the output rate(gallons per minute, or gpm, of water applied) of your sprin-kler or drip system and determining how long the systemmust run in order to replace the water lost through evapo-transpiration.

One point of confusion I’ve encountered when explain-ing the water budget idea is: Where is the starting point?When calculating a water budget, assume that you are start-ing at field capacity (see Estimating Soil Moisture chart). Agood analogy is to think of a person (plant) with a glass of

water and a straw (roots). You can’t start extracting water(via evapotranspiration) unless you start with a full glass.Then every time you extract water, you replace it with thesame amount of water that was drawn out (water budget/irrigation schedule). Ideally, just before you take your last sipyou harvest the crop.

Sprinkler Irrigation Water BudgetingThe following three steps show how to calculate the time

needed to replace water lost through Et from a 1-acre blockof vegetables in full canopy using sprinkler irrigation—

Step 1: Calculate evapotranspiration in a 1-acre field inSanta Cruz – • Daily average summer evapotranspiration rate for an

actively growing crop in full canopy in Santa Cruz =0.15 inch/day (from CIMIS data)

• Multiply this by 7 days/week = ~1.05 inches/week • There are 27,154 gallons of water in an acre inch (an

acre inch is the amount of water needed to cover anacre to a 1-inch depth)

• An acre = 43,560 square feet (roughly 208 feet x 208feet)

• Multiplying 1.05 inches/week (Et) x 27,145 gallons/acre inch = 28,512 gallons/acre of water lost eachweek through evapotranspiration in an activelygrowing crop in full canopy.

Step 2: Calculate sprinkler irrigation output (the sprinklersystem’s output rate is based on sprinkler head orifice sizeand system pressure) – • Flow rate from a 1/8-inch nozzle running at an

operating pressure of 45 pounds per square inch (psi)is about 3 gallons per minute (gpm)

• There are roughly 109 sprinkler heads per acre using20-foot pipes set 20 feet apart (20 feet x 20 feet = 400square feet. 43,560 square feet/acre divided by 400 =109)

• 109 sprinkler heads x 3 gpm each = 330 gallons perminute

• 330 gallons/minute x 60 minutes/hour = 19,800gallons/hour/acre


Jim Leap

Sprinkler irrigation delivers uniform coverage to the gentlysloping fields of the UCSC Farm.


directorf r o m t h e center staff

CAROL SHENNAN, PH D Director

PATRICIA ALLEN, PH D Specialist–Social Issues, Assoc. Dir.

SEAN SWEZEY, PH D Specialist–Extension, Assoc. Dir.

BARBARA MAXIMOVICH Assistant to the Director

JOAN TANNHEIMER Program Assistant

DIANE NICHOLS Apprenticeship Coordinator

ORIN MARTIN Apprentice Course AssociatesCHRISTOF BERNAU

ANN LINDSEY Apprentice Course Grant Writer

ALBIE MILES Curriculum Editor

JIM LEAP Operations Manager

THOMAS WITTMAN Operations Assistant

NANCY VAIL CSA Cooordinator

MARTHA BROWN Senior Editor

LOWELL GENTRY Postgraduate ResearchersJAN PEREZ

JANET BRYER Research AssistantsDIEGO NIETORUTH HOLBROOK

MARC LOS HUERTOS, PH D Post-Doctoral ResearchersPHIL HOWARD, PH D

ELISE BREWIN, Second-Year ApprenticesELIZABETH FAUST, KAT GOODWIN, MICHAEL IRVING,MARCI KRASS, JASMINE ROOHANI, JULIE STULTZ, JOHN VARS

faculty affiliatesJenny Anderson, Weixin Cheng, Laurel Fox, Margaret FitzSim-mons, Greg Gilbert, Steve Gliessman, David Goodman,Karen Holl, Deborah Letourneau, Michael Loik, Manuel Pastor,Ravi Rajan, Alan Richards, Patricia Zavella

Spring/Summer 2003, Volume 21, No. 1

The Cultivar is published twice yearly by the Center for Agroecology &Sustainable Food Systems, a research and education group at UC SantaCruz working to develop sustainable food and agricultural systems.Current and back issues are available. Editor: Martha Brown.

On the UCSC campus, the Center manages the 25-acre Farm and 2-acreAlan Chadwick Garden, both open daily to the public. For moreinformation about the Center and its activities, please contact us at:

CASFS, University of California1156 High Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95064831.459-4140 or 459-3240 (telephone) 831.459-2799 (fax)www.ucsc.edu/casfs

ISSN No. 1065-1691

- Dr. Carol Shennan

Spring brings the end of the rainy season to California’scentral coast, where our Mediterranean climatemeans a long, dry summer before the fall rains ar-

rive. Even in non-drought years, conserving water is a highpriority for farmers and gardeners. At the Center’s UCSCFarm and Alan Chadwick Garden, drip irrigation systemsand carefully timed irrigation sets save water while ensur-ing crops receive optimal moisture. In this issue’s cover story,Farm manager Jim Leap shares ideas for developing “wa-ter budgets” to fine tune irrigation practices.

Jim will also be involved in a new study of gardensymphylans (Scutigeralla immaculata), recently funded bythe US Department of Agriculture’s Western SustainableAgriculture Research and Education program (page 9). TheCenter’s farm will serve as one of five research sites in Cali-fornia and Oregon for studying potential organic controloptions for this persistent soil pest.

The Center’s social issues research will also be expand-ing in the coming months. A new project, funded by UCSC’sCenter for Global, International and Regional Studies,teams social issues staff and other UCSC academics withactivists from NGOs to look at ways of promoting socialjustice in the food system (page 8). Patricia Allen, who di-rects the Center’s social issues research, has also initiated astudy with UCSC Community Studies professor JulieGuthman to examine school food policies. They are par-ticularly interested in identifying programs that havesuccessfully addressed concerns about children’s nutritionand have provided a secure market for local small-scalegrowers (page 10).

Also in this issue, social issues researcher Phil Howardexplores the social context of genetic engineering (GE),looking at some of the factors that have created the eco-nomic incentives for this new technology and the way thatthese incentives have influenced GE research.

Publication of our training manual, Teaching OrganicFarming and Gardening: Resources for Instructors, hasgenerated widespread interest and positive feedback (page13). As we’d hoped, this publication is serving a wide au-dience, including college and university instructors, tocooperative extension agents, to farmers with apprentice-ship programs, to those working in overseas developmentprograms.

I received a warm reception at Yale University earlierthis year, where I presented a paper on the Center’s historyand work as part of the Yale Agrarian Studies Colloquium

series. Widespread interest among the colloquium partici-pants in the Center’s unique combination of research,education, and outreach reminds me that the Center is trulya model and inspriration for those developing programs thatcombine practical training with academic research and publiceducation efforts.


> continues on next page

Killer Tomatoes versus Golden Rice:The Social Context of Genetic Engineering

Thousands of demonstrators from environmentaland anti-globalization groups took to the streetsof Sacramento, California this June to protest a U.S.

government-sponsored summit on GE (genetically engi-neered) food and other aspects of industrial agriculture.Conference organizers billed the meeting as an attempt toincrease understanding of agricultural technology andshowcase its potential to alleviate hunger and improvenutrition. Protesters countered that the conference was athinly veiled effort to prop up the biotechnology industryby painting a false picture of its benefits while ignoring itsnegative impacts and the true causes of hunger.

In an interview with The Guardian newspaper, MaryBull of the anti-GE group Killer Tomatoes said, “The UnitedStates is trying to coerce poor African nations into taking[GE foods]. It is a really significant conference from thatpoint of view and we have to show that food can be dis-tributed in a just and equitable way and not in the form ofcorporate-controlled and pesticide-driven agriculture,”(Campbell 2003).

How did we get to this point in the evolution of geneticengineering, with citizen groups pitting themselves againstcorporations such as Monsanto in a showdown over con-trol of the food supply?

Ironically, the first scientists to splice foreign genes intoDNA—the technique used to develop GE products—wereconcerned enough about the technology’s potential nega-tive effects that they chose to put limits on their ownresearch. This concern was quickly overridden by research-ers’ fears that non-scientists would legislate the directionof gene manipulation studies. Troubling experimental re-sults were downplayed so as to alleviate any potential legalcontrols on gene-splicing research.

Financial incentives for researchers developed in stepwith biotechnology’s advances. The patenting of living or-ganisms led to investor interest, and industry funds beganto underwrite the majority of university research on ge-netic engineering. Within two decades of GE’s debut,chemical companies were buying up seed companies atexorbitant prices to consolidate their hold on the manu-facture and “bundling” of GE seeds and pesticide inputs.Today, the entire food chain—from seeds to processing anddistribution—is being increasingly consolidated by a hand-ful of multinational corporations.

In this article I review the social context of genetic engi-neering and summarize the developments that have led to

the current standoff between those concerned about theeconomic, social, and environmental impacts of GE tech-nology and those who will profit by increasing thedistribution of GE products.

FEAR OF RESEARCH LIMITATIONS OVERRIDES EARLYCONCERNS

In the early 1970s, the first techniques were developedfor splicing foreign DNA into bacteria using newly discov-ered enzymes. The scientists involved in this research quicklybecame concerned about the possibility of creating newdiseases. By 1974 many of these scientists called for tem-porary restrictions on their own lines of research, a moveunprecedented in the history of biology outside of humanexperimentation. Paul Berg, a leading researcher and chairof biochemistry at Stanford said at the time, “It is the firsttime I know of that anyone has had to stop and think aboutan experiment in terms of its social impact and potentialhazard,” (Wade 1974).

A hurried meeting was held at Pacific Grove, California’sAsilomar Conference Center in 1975 to figure out how toimplement these restrictions. The scientists agreed on vol-untary safety guidelines, such as strict containment andworking with disabled bacteria. National Institutes ofHealth (NIH) then adopted these guidelines for projectsthey funded.

The scientists’ concern led citizens to become interestedin the issue. Regulations even more stringent than the NIHguidelines were soon enacted in a dozen cities, including acitizen oversight commission in Cambridge, Massachusetts,home of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology andHarvard University. Removing oversight of experimentsfrom the NIH to an outside committee was also being pro-posed at this time through federal legislation sponsored bysenator Ted Kennedy.

Scientists felt their freedom was being threatened by theseimpending legislative controls on their work. In response,they organized and engaged in a public relations campaign.Their primary strategy was to exaggerate the benefits ofgenetic engineering and downplay the risks (Buttel 1993).

In 1976 scientists serving on an NIH committee investi-gated the danger of infection from GE organisms. However,instead of testing the worst-case scenario, they used weak-ened bacteria so that results would be more favorable andthus head off any attempts to regulate the field.

Here are a few quotes from this committee –


“By using known pathogens, it seems to me we gopolitically in the wrong direction even thoughscientifically it does make more sense.”

“If we want to get these experiments done so we can goabout our work quickly, maybe one shouldn’tintroduce problems of this level.”

“It’s molecular politics, not molecular biology, and Ithink we have to consider both, because a lot ofscience is at stake.” (cited in Wright 1994)

Despite designing the experiments in this way, some ofthe bacteria did cause tumors in animals. However, theseresults were never published. In 1979 the NIH held a pressconference to announce that “this form of research is per-fectly safe.” The NIH regulations that had placed limits onGE experiments were soon relaxed. The strategy ofdownplaying risks and exaggerating benefits had provedeffective in addressing the political threat to genetic engi-neering research.

FINANCIAL INCENTIVE OF GE TECHNOLOGY

In 1980 two major events occurred that shaped the sub-sequent path of the science and industry of geneticengineering. First was the U.S. Supreme Court decision inDiamond v. Chakrabarty. This 5-4 ruling allowed patentson living organisms that were genetically engineered. Sec-ond, Congress passed the Bayh-Dole Act, which alloweduniversities to patent and commercialize publicly fundedresearch applications.

By this time the exaggerated claims of genetic engineershad begun to attract the interest of Wall Street venture capi-talists. As a result, some cell biologists became millionairesliterally overnight by starting their own companies, evenwhile remaining employed by a university. An almost un-intended side effect of the political battle to keep GE freeof regulation was a strong economic interest in continuingto exaggerate its potential benefits, such as those made forthe product Golden Rice1, and minimize its risks.

Industry funding of academic research increased by over800% during the next 20 years, triggering a growing po-tential for conflicts of interest. In a study of 800 scientificpapers published in biomedical and life science journals in1992, more than a third of the authors had an undisclosedfinancial interest in the results (Krimsky et al. 1996).

CHEMICAL COMPANIES SEE PROFITS IN SEEDS

By the 1990s, the effects of the legal and legislative ac-tions noted above were clearly evident in the structure ofthe seed industry. No chemical companies were in the seedbusiness ten years ago, yet today five gigantic chemicalcorporations are among the world’s largest seed compa-

nies. These are Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta (formed by amerger of AstraZeneca and Novartis), Aventis (now a sub-sidiary of Bayer), and Dow. Monsanto and DuPont have abiotechnology sharing agreement and together control 15%of the world’s commercial seed market, including 73% ofU.S. seed corn sales (ETC Group 2002).

The past two decades have seen tremendous consolida-tion in the industry, with global seed sources dwindling from7,000 companies in the mid 1980s to 1,500 in the late 1990s(Madeley 2003). This dramatic decline has resulted directlyfrom the “Gene Giants” buying up seed companies, usu-ally at highly inflated prices. Monsanto spent $6 billionbuying seed companies in 1996 and 1997 alone. DuPontpaid $7.7 billion for Pioneer Hi-Bred Seeds. The only expla-nation for the amounts paid, which cannot be justified byseed company earnings, is a deliberate strategy to control thefood supply in the expectation of eventual monopoly profits.

For example, in 1994 Agracetus filed a patent claim onany soybean that was developed through any process ofgenetic engineering. Monsanto opposed this patent untilthey acquired Agracetus in 1996. In May of 2003 the Eu-ropean patent office upheld this claim, which had been inthe appeal process for nine years. Jim Thomas of the Ac-tion Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration(ETC) said, “It’s a bit like publishing a badly written cakerecipe and then claiming ownership of any cakes baked byanybody using any recipe any time in the future,” (ETCgroup, 2003). Monsanto currently controls 100% of ge-netically engineered soybeans and approximately 91% ofgenetically engineered seeds overall. Almost all the rest ofthe market is controlled by just four other massive chemi-cal companies (Madeley 2003).

Unlike hybrid seeds, which are covered under the PlantVariety Protection Act, patented genetically engineered seedscannot legally be saved by the farmer. Farmers who havesaved GE seeds are being fined millions of dollars in somecases, and have even been sentenced to prison. Private in-vestigators hired by corporations that sell seed are checkingup on farmers (sometimes illegally) to enforce their “intel-lectual property rights,” even for non-GE hybrid seeds.

In Canada a court ruled that even if the seeds get in yourfields accidentally, you are required to pay the technologyfee or remove them. The farmer involved in this case, PercySchmeiser, recently learned that the Canadian SupremeCourt will hear his appeal of this decision. Not content torely on their political power, corporations are currentlydeveloping technologies to prevent seeds from germinatingor expressing key traits unless the grower applies thecompany’s proprietary chemicals.

CORPORATIONS TAKE AIM AT FOOD SUPPLY

Genetic engineering is driving the corporate takeover ofthe rest of the food supply. Robert Fraley, co-president ofMonsanto’s agricultural sector, described his company’sstrategy in the magazine Farm Journal (October 1996):“What you’re seeing is not just a consolidation of seed com-panies, it’s really a consolidation of the entire food chain.”

1 Developers of “Golden Rice”—a rice strain genetically engi-neered to express Vitamin A—claim that their product willalleviate sight loss and other diseases linked to Vitamin A-defi-ciency. However they omit the fact that according to their ownfigures, an adult would have to eat nearly 20 pounds of cookedrice a day to satisfy his or her Vitamin A requirement from theinitial introduction of Golden Rice (Brown 2001).


Cargill, which had one of the largest seed businesses inthe world, sold its operation to Monsanto because it didnot have access to genetically engineered varieties. Cargillthen entered into a joint venture with Monsanto to obtainaccess to GE technology. Together, these two corporationscontrol everything from seeds, pesticides, chemicals, graincollection and processing, to meat production and process-ing (Heffernan et al. 1999).

Genetically engineered seeds are being tied to other in-puts to lock farmers into the four or five major chemical/GE seed players. For example, Monsanto’s Roundup Readyseeds can only be used with Roundup herbicide, even thoughcheaper versions of this herbicide are available. PioneerDuPont seed gives better interest rates on financing, de-pending upon how much “approved” products the farmerbuys; approved chemicals include those from Syngenta,Bayer/Aventis, and Dow. The precedent set with patentedgenetically engineered seeds is also being extended by “bun-dling” chemicals and other inputs with conventional seeds.For example, Syngenta in the United Kingdom recentlybegan selling a non-GE hybrid barley only in conjunctionwith their pesticide. No pesticide, no barley.

Monsanto spent half a billion dollars each on Roundupresistance and recombinant bovine growth hormone by1995. Very few companies can afford these developmentcosts. If public acceptance of genetic engineering were morewidespread, we would almost certainly have even greatercorporate control of the food supply.

ANOTHER STEP ON INDUSTRIAL AGRICULTURE’STREADMILL

Almost 100% of GE crops are straightforward exten-sions of industrial agriculture: they are bred to tolerateherbicide applications or to produce pesticides. A tiny mi-nority is designed to resist viruses—a way to patch upproblems caused by monocultures, which are more suscep-tible to disease. GE researchers are developing products tofix other problems stemming from industrial agriculture,such as soil salinization. None of these “fixes” address thereal problems of industrial agriculture, such as pollutionfrom pesticides and fertilizers, soil erosion, groundwateroverdraft, and loss of biodiversity.

Increased yields are another area of GE research. How-ever, even if yields were successfully increased this wouldonly contribute to the treadmill of production, where theearliest adopters of new products receive temporary ben-efits from increased production. Subsequently the increasein supply leads to price drops, and other farmers are forcedto increase their yields just to survive financially. Despitethe claim by GE supporters that this technology is neededto feed the world, there is already enough food being grownto provide everyone with adequate nutrition. The problemis not one of production, but one of distribution and people’sability to buy food (Lappé et al. 1998).

But even the GE industry’s shortsighted efforts haven’tworked very well. Despite claims, genetic engineering hasnot increased yields, and there have been numerous prob-

lems such as crop failures and the emergence of superweedsthat are resistant to herbicides (Ho and Ching 2003). Thebiotechnology industry lost $11.6 billion in 2002, a 71%increase from the year before. Only 20 of 318 public bio-technology companies have had sustained profitability inthe last three years (Hamilton 2003).

Nearly 30 years after it was first developed, genetic en-gineering has yet to deliver on the promises scientists madein order to avoid regulation of their research. Instead, GEhas helped to centralize corporate control of food, agricul-ture, and publicly funded research, while creating a backlashfrom consumers, farmers, and others unwilling to see GEtechnology dominate the food system’s future.

References

Brown, Paul. 2001. GE “golden rice” propaganda de-nounced as hoax. The Guardian, February 10.

Buttel, Frederick H. 1993. Ideology and agricultural tech-nology in the late twentieth century: Biotechnology assymbol and substance. Agriculture and Human Values10, 5-15.

Campbell, Duncan. 2003. The killer tomatoes head for Cali-fornia crop summit. The Guardian, June 20.

ETC Group. 2002. “DuPont and Monsanto: ‘Living inSinergy’?” News Release. Tuesday, April 9. http://www.etcgroup.org.

ETC Group. 2003. “Patently Wrong!” News Release.Wednesday, May 7. http://www.etcgroup.org

Hamilton, David P. 2003. Biotech industry could turn prof-itable this decade. Wall Street Journal, June 12.

Heffernan, William D., Mary Hendrickson and RobertGronski. 1999. Consolidation in the Food and Agricul-ture System. Report to the National Farmers Union.Available at: http://www.foodcircles.missouri.edu

Ho, Mae-Wan, Lim Li Ching. 2003. “The Case for a GM-Free Sustainable World: Independent Science Panel.”Institute of Science in Society: London.

Krimsky, S., L.S. Rothenberg, P. Stott and G. Kyle. 1996.Financial interests of authors in scientific journals: A pilotstudy of 14 publications. Science and Engineering Eth-ics 2 (4), 395-410.

Lappé, F. M., J. Collins, and P. Rosset, with L. Esparza.1998. World Hunger: 12 Myths, Second Edition. Grove/Atlantic and Food First Books.

Madelay, John. 2003. “Corporate Control of the FoodChain: The GM Link.” Consumers International. http://www.consumersinternational.org

Wade, Nicholas. 1974. Genetic manipulation: Temporaryembargo proposed on research. Science 185, 332-334.

Wright, Susan. 1994. Molecular Politics: Developing Ameri-can and British Regulatory Policy for GeneticEngineering, 1972-1982. University of Chicago Press.

– Phil Howard


Academics and ActivistsTeam to PromoteSocial Justice in theFood System

Social justice issues in the agriculture and food systemhave often taken a back seat to efforts aimed at im-proving growing techniques, finding alternative

marketing outlets, and saving the family farm. Overlookedhave been issues such as labor relations, gender inequities,and access to productive resources. This is particularly truein California, where much of the country’s food is produced,yet many of those who grow and harvest it go hungry astheir families live in poverty.

Partly as a result of this stark juxtaposition of socialinequity and unparalleled abundance, the California sus-tainable agriculture movement has begun to tackle socialjustice issues that have been shunted to the side for far toolong in the interest of production-oriented technical ad-vances. Within several key organizations, political will nowexists to address the inter-related problems of food costand accessibility, wages and working conditions on farmsand in food service, and the viability of farms that incorpo-rate agroecological practices.

Social issues researchers from the Center for Agroecologyand Sustainable Food Systems (the Center) have workedfor many years to address social as well as environmentalissues, and to bring these topics into the conversation aboutdeveloping a truly “sustainable” agriculture and food sys-tem—a system that sustains people as well as the land.

A $3,000 grant made this spring by the UC Santa CruzCenter for Global, International and Regional Studies(CGIRS) will provide seed funding for a project in whichUCSC academics will work with non-governmental orga-nizations (NGOs) to address social issues in the agrifoodsystem. The Center is providing additional funding to sup-port this project, which seeks to improve the accessibilityand relevance of academic research. The objectives of theproject are to—

1. forge better understandings of the institutionalcontext in which each group works in order to bettersupport each others’ work;

2. share lessons, insights, and findings from research andactivism that has already been done;

3. create a shared research and education agenda; 4. establish tangible and specific institutional ties,

including cross-group advising and governance roles,ongoing networking structures, and specific projectcollaborations;

5. seek funding that would support specific research andthe ongoing collaboration of these groups.

The project brings together a number of UCSC aca-demics with interests in social issues in the agrifood system.They include—

Julie Guthman, assistant professor, Community StudiesPatricia Allen, associate director, Center for Agroecology

and Sustainable Food SystemsMelanie Du Puis, associate professor, SociologyPhil Howard, postdoctoral researcher, Center for

Agroecology and Sustainable Food SystemsJan Perez, postgraduate researcher, Center for Agroecology

and Sustainable Food SystemsCarol Shennan, professor, Environmental Studies, and

director of the Center for Agroecology and SustainableFood Systems

Keith Warner, graduate student, Environmental Studies

Work will focus on collaboration with California NGOs,such as the California Sustainable Agriculture WorkingGroup (CSAWG) and the California Food and Justice Coa-lition. CSAWG is a statewide coalition of organizationsdedicated to strengthening the movement for a sustainableand socially just food system in California. The memberorganizations include family farmer, environmental, organicagriculture, consumer, farmworker, public health, commu-nity food security, pesticide reform, and local advocacygroups. The California Food and Justice Coalition is a neworganization that grew out of a food security summit heldin June of 2003. This statewide membership coalition iscommitted to the basic human right to healthy food whileadvancing social, agricultural and environmental justice.

Plans for the project include holding meetings with NGOleaders who are working on sustainable food systems toestablish working relationships, discuss shared agendas, andplan a one-day workshop for January 2004. This work-shop will be held in conjunction with the Ecological FarmingConference in Asilomar, California (see Events, page 20), aconference attended by most California NGOs working onsustainable food systems. NGO staff and university-basedresearchers interested in social justice issues in the agrifoodsystem will be invited to take part in a workshop focusedon strategic planning to deepen and expand the collabora-tion.

– Patricia Allen

Martha Brown



T he garden symphylan (GS), Scutigerella immac-ulata, is a key pest of over 100 crops in Oregon,California, and Washington. Populations of this

tiny centipede-like organism feed on the roots of develop-ing plants, weakening or killing the plants, or increasingtheir susceptibility to soilborne diseases such as the Verti-cillium soil fungus.

Organic growers have few management options when itcomes to suppressing garden symphylans, beyond avoid-ing infested ground, tilling extensively to physically disruptpopulations, and planting large transplants that can out-grow feeding symphylans. Because there are no organicallyapproved pesticide treatments for symphylans, organicfarms are particularly vulnerable to the pest. This is com-pounded by the fact that GS populations tend to flourishin soils with good structure and high levels of organic mat-ter—a hallmark of many organic farms.

For the past several years, Center for Agroecology andSustainable Food Systems farm manager Jim Leap hasworked with Jon Umble of Oregon State University to im-prove monitoring techniques for symphylans and hasexperimented with various crop rotations to see whethercertain crops naturally suppress the pest’s populations (see“Symphylans challenge growers and researchers,” in TheCultivar, volume 19, no. 1, Spring/Summer 2001).

Umble has found that symphylan populations remainedgenerally stable when corn or no crop was grown, but in-creased substantially in the presence of spinach and lettucecrops. Leap and Umble have also observed that potato cropsappear to suppress GS populations, thus limiting or elimi-nating symphylan damage not only to the potato crop itself,but also to crops that follow potatoes in the rotation. Thissuppressive effect of potatoes has been duplicated at otherfarms and in the laboratory.

Based on these promising results, Umble recently receiveda grant from the US Department of Agriculture’s WesternSustainable Agriculture Research and Education program(WSARE) to pursue work on the effect of potatoes andother Solanum species (e.g., tomatoes, peppers) on the gar-den symphylan. The research effort will also includeimproving GS monitoring techniques so that growers willbe better able to evaluate the levels of GS in their soils andmake appropriate management decisions. The Center’s farmat UC Santa Cruz will serve as a research site for the study,along with the organically managed Student Farm at UCDavis, the conventionally managed Oregon State Univer-

Center to Take Part in Studyof Garden SymphylansControl Options

sity Horticulture Farm in Corvallis, and two private farmsin Oregon (one organic and one conventional). All of thesites have experienced crop damage from GS.

This WSARE-funded study will focus on isolating andanalyzing the mechanism that causes the observed decreasein symphylan populations when potatoes are grown, andwill evaluate the potential of growing potatoes and otherSolanum species, or using potato alkaloid-derived com-pounds, to manage GS. It will also examine whether thepopulation decrease that the researchers observed also oc-curs when a known symphylan host, such as a weed speciesor GS-vulnerable crop like broccoli, is grown with the po-tatoes. This issue has broad implications, both for evaluatingthe effectiveness of the potato crop reduction tactic whenweed hosts of symphylans are present and for evaluatingother potential applications of the potato crop reductiontactic (e.g., using potatoes as an intercrop).

STUDY DESIGN

The field study will include four treatments: 1) a weed-free potato cropping system, 2) a potato cropping systemwith a planted “weed” host (broccoli), 3) an additionalSolanum species crop determined to supress symphylans(based on laboratory tests), and 4) a control (broccoli). Thetreatments will be established next spring (year 1) at eachof the 5 study sites in plots identified as having highsymphylan populations. In year 2 all of the plots will beplanted to broccoli. The research group will evaluate theeffect of the treatments by comparing GS densities and broc-coli health in year 2 among the treatments.

In addition to field tests, Umble will conduct greenhouseand laboratory tests to determine whether the suppressiveeffect of potatoes is caused by symphylans feeding directlyon the plants and tubers, or by exposure to chemicals ex-uded by the potato plants’ roots or tubers.

The garden symphylan (GS) is translucent to white in color andless than a 1/4-inch long, with 10 to 12 pairs of leg. Whenunearthed from the soil they move rapidly away from light.


UpdatesR e s e a r c h

New Center Project to AnalyzeSchool Food Policies and Programs

Nationwide, schools serve 6.5 billion meals each year,affecting children, parents, teachers, and food producersand processors. Since their inception in 1946, school foodprograms had undergone little change. But in the past sev-eral years, fiscal crises of school districts along with concernsabout child nutrition and economic concentration in thefood system have led to various innovations in school foodprograms and policies.

These innovations include banning on-campus sales offast foods, soft drinks and other foods high in fat andsugar—even though sales of these products have createdan important revenue stream for schools. For example, newCalifornia legislation specifies fat and sugar content limitsfor elementary school meals. In addition, some school dis-tricts have joined with the sustainable agriculture movementto develop farm-to-school food requisitioning programs,bringing together two seemingly unrelated issues—childhealth problems and the viability of small farms. Farm-to-school programs aim to increase the nutritional value ofchildren’s school meals while simultaneously providing asecure market option for small-scale growers.

A new study coordinated by Patricia Allen, the Center’sassociate director and social issues specialist, and JulieGuthman, assistant professor of Community Studies at UCSanta Cruz, will examine some of California’s innovativeschool food projects to determine how school food pro-grams are determined and developed.

Guthman and Allen will address a variety of questions,including: How and why are different school food projectsand programs developed? What roles are played by com-munity demographics and locality? How are school policiesnegotiated among various constituents? Who gets includedand why? How do some districts become innovators whileothers do not? How do budgetary considerations and/orentitlement availability affect what takes place? How dofederal and state policies and programs shape what can bedone?

In addressing these questions, the researchers hope toidentify some of the most effective school food programsand pinpoint what has made them successful. This prelimi-nary work will form the basis of a broader research effortto assess the potential of school programs in furthering thedevelopment of sustainable food systems.

Blocks ofbroccoliandpotatoeswere grownfollowingcover cropincorpora-tion.

Study Examines Effects of Annual andPerennial Cover Crops

With the increase in organic farming along California’scentral coast, new land is being converted from conven-tional production and certified to meet organic standards.Certification requires a three-year transition period duringwhich prohibited inputs cannot be used; however, there isusually no price premium for crops grown during the tran-sition time. This may be a window during which growerscan improve their soil using perennial cover crops.

At the Center’s UCSC Farm, manager Jim Leap has de-veloped a seven-year crop rotation that includes an18-month fallow period. During the fallow, he grows a pe-rennial rye grass cover crop to build soil organic matter. In2002, Center researchers and affiliated faculty establishedtrials at the Center’s Farm to compare two cover croppingstrategies: a one-year fallow treatment cover cropped withperennial rye grass, overseeded after a few months’ growthwith crimson clover, versus an annual winter cover croptreatment (bell bean, vetch, oat grass mix). No additionalcompost was added to either treatment following the covercrops’ incorporation.

The researchers were particularly interested in the levelsof organic matter generated by each treatment, the nitro-gen available to crops following the cover crops’incorporation, and the soil respiration rates throughout thecover crop season and subsequent cropping season.

Researchers found that the amount of available nitro-gen in the perennial cover crop treatments was consistentlylower through most of the experiment, suggesting that lessnitrogen was available for loss through leaching, but alsoless available to the developing crop. Much of the

Jon

Kersey


overseeded crimson clover was eaten by slugs, further low-ering the amount of nitrogen available from the perennialcover.

Yields of broccoli—a particurly nitrogen-sensitive crop—planted after the cover crops were incorporated weresignificantly lower in the perennial cover crop treatment.In contrast, potato yields were not affected by the differentcover crop treatments. Soil respiration rates remained higherin the perennial cover crop treatment even after it was turnedunder, suggesting the persistence of a more active soil mi-crobial community. This may reflect higher levels of carbonavailable following the perennial rye treatment.

Despite the impact on yields, the goals of organic pro-duction , such as improving soil organic matter levels anddecreasing nitrogen loss from the soil system) may justifythe use of perennial covers and fallow periods to improvesoil quality, especially in systems undergoing the transitionfrom conventional to organic management. The researchgroup will continue to modify perennial cover crop treat-ments and examine ways to optimize soil-buildingtechniques.

Center Presents Water QualityMonitoring Results to Local Growers

One aspect of the Center’s Central Coast Project investi-gates the impact of farming and other land uses on waterquality in the Monterey Bay watershed (see “Study exam-ines agriculture’s impact on central coast water quality,”The Cultivar, Fall/Winter 2001, vol.19 no. 2) . This effortseeks to increase the sustainability of agriculture onCalifornia’s central coast by helping farmers understandthe impact of their practices on water quality, and suggest-ing ways to improve soil and fertility management to protectnatural resources. The project team includes Center direc-tor Carol Shennan, and Center researchers Marc LosHuertos, Lowell Gentry, Claire Phillips, and Alex Fields.

Although previous data suggested that various centralcoast land use practices, including agriculture, had an im-pact on water quality, strong conclusions could not bedrawn because data sets had not sampled a wide area overan extended time period. Therefore it was difficult to makeconclusive statements about the links between land use prac-tices and impaired waterways.

As a result, growers in the Monterey Bay watershed havebeen understandably apprehensive about the prospects ofnew farming regulations based on preliminary conclusions.Nevertheless, with the Farm Bureau’s help, growers haveorganized themselves into watershed working groups withthe explicit goal of developing water quality plans for theirfarms and ranches.

In coordinating these working groups, Center research-ers have taken on a unique role in the region to summarizeexisting water quality data while explaining and exploringthe data limitations and what conclusions can and cannotbe drawn from them. After nearly three years of sampling,


Instantaneous Nitrate Load

Pajaro River @ Chittenden Gap

0.0001

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

1000

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000

1950s

1960s

1970s

1980s

1990s

2000s

the Center now has one of the most robust water qualitydata sets in the region (a summary of this data will appearin the next issue of The Cultivar).

Last winter, Marc Los Huertos was invited to presentwater quality data for the watershed working group in thePajaro Valley. As shown in the figure above, nitrate con-centrations have been increasing in the Pajaro River forseveral decades. Samples from numerous locations in thestudy exceed the drinking water standard of 10 mg/L (ppm).Nitrate concentrations at this level often adversely impactaquatic ecosystem function and when found in drinkingwater are considered to be a human health risk. The in-crease in the concentrations of nitrate occurs as waterwayspass through agricultural areas, which suggests that agri-culture is a likely source, although other sources cannot beruled out.

Sampling shows an increasing level of nitrates in the Pajaro Riverfrom the 1950s to the present.

Researchers measure nitrate and phosphorus levels throughoutthe Monterey Bay watershed in areas with different land uses,including forested regions, urban areas, and sites adjacent toagricultural land.

Low

ell Gen

try

Discharge (m3/sec)

Nit

rate

load

(gra

ms/

sec)


In addressing the working group, Los Huertos discussedhow inorganic phosphorous (ortho-P) can also impair wa-terways by triggering noxious algae production infreshwater systems. Currently, there are no numeric goalsestablished by the Regional Water Quality Control Boardto limit phosphorous contamination, but it is likely thatgoals may be approximately 0.2 ppm ortho-P. In otherwords, discharge into the creeks and rivers along the cen-tral coast should be below this target figure. However, theCenter researchers found ortho-P concentrations higherthan 0.2 ppm in Corralitos Creek, in a location that drainsa redwood forest with no obvious human-caused sourcesof phosphorous.

These data highlight the importance of careful testingand negotiations over how water quality data and waterquality regulations are interpreted, in order to avoid plac-ing an unnecessary regulatory burden on growers.

Study of Aphid Impact onBroccoli Continues

Diego Nieto, a research assistant in the Center’s FarmExtension program, began his second season of work thisspring examining the dynamics of cabbage aphid(Brevicoryne brassicae) infestations of organically grownbroccoli. The cabbage aphid is the principal pest for broc-coli growers on California’s central coast. The study, whichis part of Nieto’s master’s research in biology for San JoseState, takes place at Pure Pacific Farms in Monterey Countyand at the Center’s UCSC Farm.

Nieto is examining variables that affect whether or notaphids will damage the broccoli head enough to make itunharvestable. These variables include the plant’s locationin the field, the impact of wind direction, the growth stageof the broccoli when the aphids arrive (arrival time), andthe location of the aphid colony on the plant itself. At theUCSC Farm, he is experimenting with caged plants to iso-late aphid arrival time and location of the aphid infestationas factors that affect harvestability of broccoli. For instance,he is simulating early arrival time by introducing aphidcolonies to a broccoli plant, then caging the plant to iso-late it from additional infestations.

At the Monterey County site, Nieto is also examiningthe effect of planting a “good bug blend” of over a dozenspecies, mostly clovers, cornflowers, and poppies, adjacentto the broccoli crop to see whether it can attract sufficientbeneficial insects to help control aphid infestations.

Results thus far indicate that the earlier aphids arriveon a plant, the less likely it will be harvestable at the end ofthe season. An aphid colony’s location on the plant hasalso proven to significantly influence whether or not abroccoli’s head is harvested. So far, the parasitism that oc-curs depends on the density of aphids present, with highernumbers of parasites occurring with a high density ofaphids. The research will continue through a third crop-ping season.

NotesC e n t e r

Center Staff Participate inFarm Bureau’s Focus Ag Program

Christof Bernau, who manages the hand-worked gardensat the Center’s UCSC Farm, and Nancy Vail, the Center’sCommunity Supported Agriculture coordinator, are takingpart in this year’s Focus Ag program sponsored by the SantaCruz County Farm Bureau. Focus Ag informs communityleaders, policy makers, and educators about agriculturalissues in Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties. The programwas developed after a survey demonstrated a lack of knowl-edge about agriculture among people in the region—a regionwhere agriculture and tourism are the leading economicactivities.

Says Bernau, “The gamut of things we are learning aboutinclude water issues, land use planning, abalone farming,timber practices, crop production, genetic engineering, thefarming and wildlife interface and other salient issues.”During the nine-month program, participants are exposedto the range of the region’s agricultural products and prac-tices, including organic agriculture, with the hope that theywill come away with a better understanding of the role ag-riculture plays in the area.

Vail has found the program a valuable source of mate-rial for her teaching work at the Center. “Attending FocusAg has been a wonderful opportunity to hear first handabout the issues, challenges, and opportunities involvingagriculture in Santa Cruz County. Learning about the com-plexities around water, land use, and relationships betweenfarmers and environmentalists has already helped me be-come a better-informed instructor in organic and sustainableagriculture. I’m looking forward to upcoming sessions andhaving the opportunity to share more with the apprentices.”

Others taking part in this year’s Focus Ag program in-clude a congressional aide to U.S. Representative Sam Farr,a field representative for State Senator Bruce McPherson,directors from the Second Harvest Food Bank and the GreyBears, a division chief from the California Department ofForestry and Fire, and district director for AssemblymanSimon Salinas.

Center director Carol Shennan recently began serving onthe Focus Ag Board of Directors, which helps plan the pro-gram and carefully reviews feedback from participants.According to Shennan, Focus Ag is seen as a model for im-proving the visibility of agriculture, and has been contactedby a number of counties interested in developing similarprograms in their areas.



Center Work Presented atYale Colloquium Series

Center director Carol Shennan was invited to present aseminar at the Yale Agrarian Studies Colloquium series atYale University earlier this year. In her presentation, en-titled “Bridging disciplines and the theory/practice divide:The challenges and successes of the UC Santa Cruz Centerfor Agroecology & Sustainable Food Systems,” she dis-cussed some of the influences that have shaped the Center’swork and mission, and raised questions about the role ofpublic universities and science in social change, particu-larly within the food and agriculture system.

According to Shennan, the seminar was well received,with lots of interest from students and faculty. As a resultshe was asked to advise efforts to develop an urban farmon the Yale campus, as well as a compost production effort(using food waste from college kitchens). Both projects serveas educational resources for students and the community.One of the colleges at Yale has also committed to servingorganic food in its dining facility.

Training Manual Receives High MarksIn January 2003 the Center published a training manual

based on the course material presented in its six-month Ap-prenticeship training program (see Apprenticeship programannouncement, next page). Teaching Organic Farming andGardening: Resources for Instructors covers practical as-pects of organic farming and gardening, applied soil science,and social and environmental issues in agriculture. Unitscontain lecture outlines for instructors and detailed lectureoutlines for students, field and laboratory demonstrations,assessment questions, and annotated resource lists. Al-though much of the material has been developed for fieldor garden demonstrations and skill building, most of theunits can also be tailored to a classroom setting.

In reviewing the training manual, Raymond Poincelot,editor of the Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, noted that

Center staff andseven invited au-thors developedthe lectures, dem-onstrations, andhands-on exer-cises in the 600-page trainingmanual.

“Both the Center for Agroecology & Sustainable Food Sys-tems and the UCSC Farm & Garden Apprenticeship havebeen in the forefront of organic farming and gardening formany years. Their track record has been excellent and thisresource guide is no exception. [It] is likely to become thebenchmark for such materials and promises to be very use-ful to educational, extension, research and otherprofessional institutions and programs interested in train-ing organic farmers and gardeners.”

Other feedback we’ve received includes the followingfrom a rural development project organizer in Kenya, whowrote: “This manual looks like the very best resource yetthat I have come across to help us develop training mod-ules for local farmers. Thank you for making it available.”A number of college and university programs and Coop-erative Extension offices from around the country have alsoordered the manual; one North Carolina Extension em-ployee wrote to say, “I appreciate your willingness to makesuch a valuable resource available via the internet, and with-out charge. Efforts like yours are what helptoo-often-underfunded Extension offices move forward onagricultural sustainability and support for organic agricul-ture. Many thanks.”

The 600-page manual is designed to be placed in a 2-inch, 3-ring binder so that sections can be easily removedand copied for class use. It is available from the Center for$45. Price includes tax, shipping, and handling; binder notincluded. To order, send a check or money order made pay-able to UC Regents to: CASFS, 1156 High St., Santa Cruz,CA 95064, attn: Teaching Manual. Please be sure to in-clude your mailing address.

The manual is also available to download in PDF for-mat for free from the Center’s web site (www.ucsc.edu). Ifyou have questions about the resource guide, or questionsabout ordering, please send email to [email protected] or call 831.459-3240.

Teaching Organic Farming & Gardening: Resources for Instructorsincludes classroom and hands-on lessons on garden- and field-scale compost production.

Mar

ci K

rass


2004 Apprenticeship AnnouncedThe Center’s six-month Farm & Garden Apprenticeship

course provides training in the concepts and practices oforganic gardening and small-scale farming. This full-timeprogram is held annually at the 25-acre UCSC Farm and2-acre Alan Chadwick Garden on the UCSC campus. TheApprenticeship course carries 20 units of UC Extensioncredit for the approximately 300 hours of formal instruc-tion and 700 hours of in-field training and hands-onexperience in the greenhouses, gardens, orchards, and fields.

Each year 35 to 40 apprentices come from all regions ofthe U.S. and abroad for the six-month course. Most ap-prentices choose to live on the Farm in their own tents,sharing cooking and other community responsibilities in acommon kitchen/dining facility. Tuition is $3,250 and thereare several scholarships available for people of color and/or low-income.

Graduates of the program have gone on to run theirown farms and market gardens; teach in garden educa-tion, community gardening, and horticultural therapyprograms; work in the sustainable agriculture and foodpolicy arenas; and develop their own apprenticeship-basedtraining programs. Many graduates also take part in thePeace Corps and other international development projects.

The next Apprenticeship course will run from April 12to October 15, 2004. Application deadlines for the 2004program are September 1, 2003 for international appli-cants and November 1, 2003 for U.S. and Canadiancitizens. For more information, contact—

Apprenticeship InformationCASFS, UCSC1156 High StreetSanta Cruz, CA [email protected]

Detailed program information and application materi-als are available on the Center’s web site—

www.ucsc.edu/casfs/training/index.html

Grants Help Extend Apprenticeship’sImpact

The Center’s Apprenticeship training course received a$20,000 grant from the Kellogg Foundation through theCalifornia Food, Fibers, and Futures (CF3) project. Thegrant will allow Center staff to work with a consortium ofCalifornia university and college farm managers and edu-cators interested in sustainable agriculture and the use ofcollege farms for practical training and course labs.

The consortium includes college farm instructors, fac-ulty, and administrators from California’s three highereducation systems (California State Universities, UCs, andCommunity Colleges). The goal of the project is to createan introductory sustainable agriculture course that incor-porates practical training and labs at college and universityfarms. It would result in a course outline and instructionalresource list for farm-based coursework that can be adaptedfor use across a range of California post-secondary institu-tions.

The CF3 project also provided $3,150 to assist the Ap-prenticeship with statewide distribution of its new trainingmanual through the California Agriculture Teachers Asso-ciation (CATA) Conference this June. ApprenticeshipCoordinator Diane Nichols made a presentation to com-munity college instructors about the newly-published guide,Teaching Organic Farming and Gardening Resources forInstructors (see page 13), and sold and gave away copies atthe conference’s “Farm Show.”

A $5,000 grant from the Organic Farming ResearchFoundation (OFRF) will help the Apprenticeship staff tocomplete a second training manual, this one focused on

Propagation techniques are among the many skills that appren-tices develop during the six-month training course held at theCenter’s Farm & Garden on the UCSC campus.

Thanks to a scholarship from the Margoes Foundation, LydiahGatere traveled from Kenya to take part in the 2001 Apprenticeshipcourse and stayed on as an assistant instructor in 2002. She is nowat Cornell University pursuing a Master’s degree in internationalagriculture.

Mar

ci K

rass

Marci K

rass



Farming with the Wild: Enhancing Biodiversity on Farmsand Ranches, by Dan Imhoff. This new book presents acompelling view of a future in which farming and ranchingoperations are integrated into regional networks of pro-tected wildlands. Imhoff traveled throughout the U.S. tofind farmers, ranchers, government agencies, and nonprofitorganizations that are striving to develop and renew suc-cessful agricultural practices that are compatible withhealthy, wild ecosystems.

Examples include regional conservation movements andfarmland habitat initiatives, as well as economic incentiveprograms, such as ecolabels and local marketing initiatives,that encourage conservation-based agriculture. Profiles ofindividual farms provide examples of the many ways thatranchers, orchardists, and farmers are integrating theiroperations with surrounding natural areas and providingwildlife habitat on their land.

A section on “Getting Started” offers concrete ideas formapping the farm and surrounding habitats, and techniquesfor managing farms and ranches for wildlife. It also listslandowner incentive programs—including financial sup-port, technical assistance, and help in negotiatingbureaucracies—as well as USDA conservation programs.

Illustrated with more than 200 color photos, Farmingwith the Wild provides valuable information and resourcesfor anyone interested in a sustainable future both for agri-culture and wildlife populations. It is available fromwww.watershedmedia.org, by calling 707.4321-2936, orthrough local bookstores.

Wild Farm Alliance Briefing Papers. The Wild Farm Alli-ance (WFA) was established by a group of wildlandsproponents and ecological farming advocates who share aconcern for the land and its wild and human inhabitants.The group’s mission is to “promote agriculture that helpsto protect and restore wild Nature, creating a sustainableagriculture in which community-based, ecologically man-aged farms and ranches seamlessly integrate into landscapesthat accommodate the full range of native species and eco-logical processes.”

WFA has produced a series of briefing papers on topicsthat include grazing for biodiversity, agricultural croppingpatterns that integrate wild margins to enhance wildlifehabitat, financial programs for preserving wildlife habitatvia conservation incentives that cultivate a stewardshipethic, and water management practices to protect water

Resourcesr e c o m m e n d e ddirect marketing and small farm viability. The OFRF grant

will supplement a $5,000 seed grant from the Foundationfor Sustainability and Innovation that helped initiate theproject last year, and a $15,000 grant from the True NorthFoundation. The True North Foundation has also providedcontinuing support for the Community Supported Agri-culture (CSA) training and demonstration project with a$10,000 grant. The new direct-marketing manual, focus-ing on CSAs, will be published next spring and will beavailable for sale in print, and for free in PDF format onthe Center’s web site.

For the seventh consecutive year, the Margoes Founda-tion has provided sponsorship for African participants inthe apprenticeship training course. This year’s scholarshiprecipients are Anyankor Benjamin Sowah and LeonardAvanya Kofi Borklo-Hadjah, both from Accra, Ghana.

Earthbound Farm has once again generously supportedthe Apprenticeship and the UCSC Farm & Garden throughits “Benefit Chef Walk” program. These benefits bring acelebrity chef to Earthbound’s Carmel Valley farm for atour and cooking demonstration. This year’s guest chef wasTraci Des Jardins, executive chef-owner of Jardinière inSan Francisco. Her restaurant features organic produce andsocially progressive employment practices.

Students in the apprenticeship training course install a newcollection of ornamental plants in the border adjacent to theUCSC Farm’s hand-worked garden beds.

New Perennial Border PlantedThanks to a grant from the Stanley Smith Horticultural

Trust, the Center’s on-campus farm has a beautiful newperennial border demonstration area at the entrance to theone-acre hand-worked garden. The new project serves asan educational resource for both apprentices and the manyvisitors to the UCSC Farm.

Garden manager Christof Bernau chose the new border’splants to demonstrate a range of flower form, color, andplant architecture. Many of the plants are drought tolerantand a number of them will attract beneficial insects to theborder and adjacent garden. “Ninety percent of these plantsare new to our site, making them a valuable teaching tooland source of material for propagation,” says Bernau.

Ch

rist

of B

ern

au


quality, limit erosion, and enhance nutrient cycling. These4- to 6-page briefs include specific strategies for farmersand consumers to improve wildlife habitat, and examplesof farms, ranches, and projects whose practices protect andenhance species diversity.

WFA Briefing Papers are available free in PDF formaton the Wild Farm Alliance web site, www.wildfarmalliance.org. They can also be purchased for $5.00 per copyby contacting WFA at 406 Main St., Ste 213, Watsonville,CA 95076, or email to [email protected].

State of the States, 2nd Edition. Organic Farming SystemsResearch at Land Grant Institutions, 2001-2003, by JaneSooby. This second edition of State of the States updatesthe original report released in 2001 by the Organic Farm-ing Research Foundation (OFRF). State of the States IIcatalogues organic research, education, and extensionprojects currently in place at the nation’s 68 public landgrant agriculture schools, at public research stations, andthrough Cooperative Extension.

According to the report, although the total number oforganic research acres in the U.S. land grant system morethan doubled between 2001 and 2003, research acreage isnot keeping pace with the growth of commercial certifiedorganic acreage in the U.S. The report states that organicresearch occupies only 0.13% of available research acre-age in the land grant system (up from 0.07% in 2001),while 0.3–2% of U.S. farmland is certified organic, depend-ing on crop type. The acreage of research land that hasbeen certified organic by an independent certification agencyis only 0.06% of the total research acreage available, upfrom 0.02% in 2001.

State of the States II is a useful resource for farmers,scientists, students, and others seeking information on cur-rent work in organic agriculture. According to the author,it also serves to measure the level of commitment each publicagricultural institution has to serving organic growers withresearch and extension services. This report is particularlysuited for use in an electronic format, as it contains links tomany web sites. Information is presented by state, and isorganized primarily by the following topics: research, pro-duction; research, consumer/economic; Extension;education. To find research in particular topic areas, usethe search tool in the Adobe Reader.

To see the report on-line, visit the Organic Farming Re-search Foundation’s web site at www.ofrf.org. To order acopy of State of the States II, contact OFRF at PO Box440, Santa Cruz, CA 95061-0440, 831.426-6606 (phone),831.426-6670 (fax), or email [email protected].

International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability (IJAS),Chief Editor: Professor Jules Pretty. IJAS is a new cross-disciplinary, peer-reviewed journal dedicated to advancingthe understanding of sustainability in agricultural and foodsystems. The IJAS publishes both theoretical developmentsand critical appraisals of new evidence on what is not sus-tainable about current or past agricultural and food systems,

Symphylans will be introduced into pots with potatoroots, and will be exposed in Petri dishes to six of the pri-mary products of the two primary alkaloids found inpotatoes, alpha-solanine and alpha-chaconine. Finelyground soil will be used as a control, and researchers willmonitor the number of symphylans surviving over the courseof three weeks of exposure.

The third part of the study will compare two samplingtechniques for symphylan populations: traditional soil sam-pling and a recently developed bait sampling method. Soilsampling requires collecting soil and sifting through it tosearch for symphylans—a time-consuming process. Baitsampling involves placing a cut piece of beet or other cropthat will attract symphylans on the soil surface, then re-turning later to see how many of the pests are on or underthe bait. This technique is relatively quick and measuresonly the feeding symphylans in the soil, which is the popu-lation of interest to growers.

However, Umble has found that the presence of vegeta-tion in the field can skew bait-sampling results becausesymphylans may come to the bait in lower numbers whenroots are in the soil. Thus the researchers will attempt tocalibrate soil and bait sampling results, both in the pres-ence and absence of other vegetation, in order to gauge theaccuracy of bait sampling techniques.

Symphylans Studycontinued from page 9

as well as on transitions towards agricultural and ruralsustainability at farm, community, regional, national andinternational levels, and through food supply chains.

The editors and board welcome original, high-qualitycontributions from all countries, and from scientists andpractitioners from both the natural and social sciences. Theeditors and board neither include nor exclude any agricul-tural technology for ideological reasons.

The publishers will use a three-tiered pricing structurebased on the UNDP Human Development Index(www.undp.org). Libraries in over 100 countries will beable to receive the International Journal of AgriculturalSustainability either free of charge or at a substantially re-duced rate.

For further details on submitting a paper, the three-tieredpricing structure, and how to subscribe, contact the pub-lisher, [email protected] or visit theirwebsite, www.channelviewpublications.com.

You can also receive a free email newsletter, which willgive full details of the contents of forthcoming issues andlinks to their abstracts, by sending email tonews@channelview publications.com stating “subscribeagriculture.”

- Martha Brown



Step 3: Calculate irrigation requirements – • 28,512 gallons/acre are lost through evapotranspir-

ation each week from an actively growing crop in fullcanopy. The sprinkler system is capable of delivering19,800 gallons/hour/acre @ 45psi.

• To calculate the amount of irrigation time required toreplace the amount of water lost through Et:Divide 28,512 gallons/acre (Et rate) by 19,800gallons/hour/acre (irrigation system application rate) =1.4 hours of irrigation time required each week,assuming 100% delivery efficiency (see section onApplication Efficiency and Uniformity, below).

Running the one-acre sprinkler system for 1.4 hours eachweek will apply 28,512 gallons/acre (~1.05 inches/acre),the amount needed to replace water lost through Et. Thistotal of 1.4 hours/week should be divided in to 2 to 3 evenlytimed irrigation sets/week of 40 or 30 minutes respectively.

Drip Irrigation Water BudgetingKnowing how much water to apply with T-tape is a bit

of an art, but we can approach it using the water budget-ing system and actually be quite precise with our applicationrates.

The following steps show how to calculate the timeneeded to run a drip irrigation system in order to replacethe water lost through evapotranspiration from a 1-acreblock of vegetables in Santa Cruz—

Step 1: Calculate evapotranspiration in a 1-acre field inSanta Cruz – same as given in the sprinkler irrigation ex-ample = 28,512 gallons/acre of water are lost each weekthrough evapotranspiration in an actively growing crop infull canopy.

Step 2: Calculate drip irrigation output – • Flow rate of high flow T-tape drip irrigation ribbon

with 8-inch emitter spacing at 10 psi = 0.74 gallons/minute/100 feet

• There are 14,520 feet of row per acre when beds arespaced 36 inches center-to-center

• To determine gallons/hour/acre emitted from one acreof drip irrigation tape, divide 14,520 (the number ofrow feet/acre) by 100 = 145 (the number of 100-footlengths of drip irrigation tape in 1 acre). Multiply 145by 0.74 gallons/minute/100 feet (the amount of waterdelivered through each 100 feet of tape) = 107.4gallons/minute/acre

• 107.4 gallons/minute x 60 minutes = 6,446 gallons/hour/acre. Two lines of drip tape per bed wouldprovide twice this volume, or 12,893 gallons/hour/acre.

Step 3: Calculate irrigation requirements – • 28,512 gallons/acre are lost through evapotranspir-

ation each week from an actively growing crop in full

Irrigation Efficiencycontinued from page 3

canopy. The drip system described above is capable ofdelivering 6,446 gallons/hour/acre @ 10psi.

• To calculate the amount of irrigation time required toreplace the amount of water lost through Et completethe following:Divide 28,512 gallons/acre (Et rate) by 6,446 gallons/hour/acre (irrigation system application rate) =4.4 hours of irrigation time required each week.

Running one acre of single line drip irrigation with 8-inch emitter spacing for 4.4 hours each week will apply28,5112 gallons/acre (~1.05”/acre). This total of 4.4 hours/week should be divided into 2 to 3 evenly timed irrigationsets.

The drip line manufacturer will normally give you infor-mation on flow rates expressed as “gallons per minute per100 feet” within a range of normal operating pressures. Asshown above, our high flow tape is rated at 0.74 gallons/minute/100 feet @ 10psi.

If you can’t find information on the flow rate for yourparticular drip line, you can figure out the flow rate byplacing a cup below a drip emitter and running the systemfor one hour. Measure the volume of water in the cup andmultiply that amount by the number of emitters in 100 feetof line to get output in gallons/hour/100 feet. Divide thisnumber by 60 to get gallons/minute/100 feet. Plug this num-ber into the above equation to get gallons/hour/acre (notethat there is quite a difference in flow rates depending onoperating pressure).

MONITORING AND ESTIMATING SOIL MOISTURE

Although water budgeting using evapotranspiration ratesgives you a good sense of how much water should be re-placed each week, it’s still important to monitor soilmoisture. The best monitoring tool is a good soil auger,which let’s you look below the often dry-appearing surfaceto make a decision on whether to irrigate.

Monitoring skills also include knowing crop needs androoting depths, and knowing how to judge the range ofsoil moisture from permanent wilting point to field capac-ity (see Estimating Soil Moisture chart). By observing theplants daily, you’ll develop an eye for the subtle changes incolor and appearance that can signal the need for irriga-tion.

Irrigation scheduling must also take into account theneeds of the specific crop or crops (see sidebar, page 19).

APPLICATION EFFICIENCY AND UNIFORMITY

When determining application rates for any type of sys-tem, it’s also important to consider the system’s overallefficiency. If you’re applying water through a sprinkler ona hot, windy day, and you’ve figured your rate of applica-tion based on nozzle size and pressure, you will also have


SOIL MOISTURE LEVEL COARSE LIGHT MEDIUM HEAVY

(% OF FIELD CAPACITY1) (SAND) (LOAMY SAND, (FINE, SANDY LOAM, (CLAY LOAM, CLAY)SANDY LOAM) SILT LOAM)

25 –50%Moisture isavailable, but levelis low. Irrigationneeded. (2nd range)

Appears dry; willnot retain shapewhen squeezed inhand.

Appears dry; maytend to make acast2 whensqueezed in hand,but seldom willhold together.

May form a weakball3 under pressurebut will still becrumbly. Color ispale with noobvious moisture.

Pliable, forms a ball;will ribbon butusually breaks or iscrumbly. May leaveslight stain or smear.

50 –75%Moisture isavailable. Level ishigh. Irrigation notyet needed.(3rd range)

Color is darkenedwith obviousmoisture. Soil maystick together invery weak cast orball.

Color is darkenedwith obviousmoisture. Soilforms weak ball orcast under pressure.Slight finger stain,but no ribbonwhen squeezedbetween thumb andforefinger.

Color is darkenedfrom obviousmoisture. Forms aball. Works easily,clods are soft withmellow feel. Willstain finger andhave slick feelwhen squeezed.

Color is darkenedwith obvious mois-ture. Forms goodball. Ribbons easily,has slick feel. Leavesstain on fingers.

0 –25%No available soilmoisture. Plantswilt. Irrigationrequired. (1st range)

Dry, loose, singlegrained, flowsthrough fingers.No stain or smearon fingers.

Dry, loose, clodseasily crushed andwill flow throughfingers. No stainor smear onfingers.

Crumbly, dry,powdery, will barelymaintain shape.Clods, breaks downeasily. May leaveslight smear or stainwhen worked withhands or fingers.

Hard, firm baked,cracked. Usually toostiff or tough to workor ribbon2 by squeez-ing between thumb orforefinger. May leaveslight smear or stain.

Appears and feelsmoist. Color isdarkened. Mayform weak cast orball. Will leavewet outline orslight smear onhand.

75% to fieldcapacity(100%)Soil moisturelevel followingan irrigation.(4th range)

Appears and feelsmoist. Color isdarkened. Formscast or ball. Willnot ribbon, butwill show smear orstain and leave wetoutline on hand.

Appears and feelsmoist. Color isdarkened. Has asmooth, mellowfeel. Forms balland will ribbonwhen squeezed.Stains and smears.Leaves wet outlineon hand.

Color is darkened.Appears moist; mayfeel sticky. Ribbonsout easily, smears andstains hand, leaveswet outline. Formsgood ball.

1 Field capacity is the amount of water that the soil will hold against the pull of gravity.2 Ribbon is formed by squeezing and working soil between thumb and forefinger.3 Cast or ball is formed by squeezing soil in hand.

Estimating Soil Moisture by Feel


An information packet on the scholarship program will be sentthose calling Tom Haller’s number and leaving their name andaddress.

General Rules of Field Capacity Needs

• During the flowering and fruit set stages of cropdevelopment, plants are most sensitive to drought/water stress.

• Most crops require irrigation when the soil moisturein the root zone of the plant has decreased toapproximately 50% of field capacity. See the chart atleft, Estimating Soil Moisture by Feel, to help youdetermine the moisture content of the soil.

• Seed beds containing small-seeded, directly sowncrops require light and frequent water applications.Apply water each time 50% of the surface soil hasdried down, showing discoloration.

• Seed beds containing large-seeded, directly sowncrops require less frequent water applications. Applywater each time the soil at the depth of the seed hasdried to 50% of field capacity.

• Addenda to the above general rules–

1. Potatoes: Phase 1 and phase 4 (the planting andmaturation stages) require the full soil moisturefluctuation between 50% and 100% of fieldcapacity. Phase 2 and phase 3 (tuber initiation andenlargement) demand less of a fluctuation,responding favorably to a moisture swing between75% and 100% of field capacity

2. Other Solanaceae family crops (e.g., tomatoes,peppers, eggplant) respond favorably to a fullswing between 50% and 100% of field capacity

3. Cut flowers: Irrigation 24 hours prior to harvest willhelp assure full turgor pressure at harvest time andincrease the vase life of the stems or bouquets

4. Leafy greens: 50% of field capacity minimum

5. Alliums: 50% of field capacity minimum

6. Established fresh beans and peas: 50% of fieldcapacity minimum

7. Celery: Responds favorably to a moisture swingbetween 75–100% of field capacity

to figure for the evaporative loss from the wind and heat.This loss could be as much as 50%.

Uniformity also comes into play. If your system is notuniformly applying water, then you will have to over-applyin some areas to get enough water to other areas. The bestyou can usually expect from a sprinkler system is about80% efficiency. This is why it’s important to monitor yourapplication with some type of rain gauge, and use as manyrain gauges as possible to compensate for lack of unifor-mity.

Sprinkler distribution uniformity (DU) can be easily de-termined by setting out rain gauges in a grid pattern underyour sprinkler set and using the following formula—

Average rate of lowest quarter x 100 = %DU

Average rate of others

Set out a minimum of 12 rain gauges (or any straight-sided cylinder capable of holding water) under your sprin-kler system in a uniform grid pattern. After the set hasbeen run, measure the depth of water that collected in eachof the gauges. Then take the average depth recorded fromthe lowest 25% of the gauges and divide that by the aver-age depth recorded from the other gauges. In other words,if you were to set out 16 gauges and measure 1.5 inches ofwater in 4 of the gauges and 2 inches of water in the re-maining 12 gauges, then your average of the lowest quarterwould be 1.5 and your average from the remaining gaugeswould be 2 –

1.5 = 0.75 x 100 = 75% DU

2

You can see from this example that if you had collected2 inches from all 16 gauges your distribution uniformitywould be 100%.

The most common problems that result in poor unifor-mity (<75% DU) are inadequate pressure, worn nozzles,improper line and nozzle spacings, and poorly designedsprinkler heads. Inadequate pressure will create a non-uni-form sprinkler pattern, with most of the water forming adoughnut pattern around the outermost circumference ofthe spray pattern. Adequate pressure is characterized by auniform “misting” pattern of fine water droplets fallingfrom the riser all the way out to the outer circumference ofthe spray pattern.

Uniformity in drip systems can be an issue as well, espe-cially when drip lines are run downhill on slopes greaterthan 1 or 2%. Drip system uniformity on slopes can beeasily determined by placing small cups below the emit-ters at various points along the line and comparing collectedamounts after enough volume has accumulated to measureeasily. A well-designed and maintained drip system caneasily operate at between 80% and 90% efficiency.

THE ART AND A SCIENCE OF IRRIGATION

Knowing when and how much water to apply to a newlyplanted or growing crop is both an art and a science. Thereare many variables to consider, including soil type, specificcrop requirements, delivery system, and weather patterns.

The art of irrigation comes into play when, based onyears of experience, the gardener or farmer knows whatfactors to look for that will indicate whether or not a cropneeds water.

The science of irrigation scheduling using water budget-ing techniques, as described above, should be thought ofas a tool to help both experienced and inexperienced grow-ers fine tune their water delivery and optimize the use ofone of our most precious resources.

– Jim Leap

266

UC Santa CruzThe Center for Agroecology & Sustainable Food Systems1156 High Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95064

www.ucsc.edu/casfs

NON-PROFIT

ORGANIZATION

US POSTAGE

PAID

PERMIT NO. 32

SANTA CRUZ, CA

eventsS a n t a C r u z a r e a

. Preparing the Winter Gar-den, Saturday, September 6, 12noon–3 pm, Louise CainGatehouse, UCSC Farm. Fallmarks the start of the MontereyBay region’s “second gardeningseason.” Come and learn how toprepare your garden beds forthe winter and get the most outof your fall-planted crops. Learnabout cover cropping, best-performing vegetable varietiesand more. $5-$10 (sliding scale)for Friends’ members; $15 fornon-members, payable the dayof the workshop.

. Fall Plant Sale, Friday, Sep-tember 12, 12 noon–6 pm, andSaturday, September 13, 10 am–2 pm, Barn Theater Parking Lot,UC Santa Cruz. Fall is a wonder-ful time to plant vegetablecrops to extend your gardeningseason and give perennials agood head start for spring. Theregion’s best-suited varieties oforganically grown winter veg-etables and landscape plantswill be available. Proceedssupport the Apprenticeship inEcological Horticulture pro-gram. For more information, call459-3240.

. Seed Saving, Saturday, Sep-tember 20, 10 am–12 noon,Louise Cain Gatehouse, UCSCFarm. Seed saving expert ZeaSonnabend from the EcologicalFarming Association will show

you how to save seed from yourgarden at this hands-on work-shop. Learn how to improveyour garden and save moneythrough seed saving. $10 forFriends’ members, $15 for non-members, payable the day ofthe workshop.

. Harvest Festival, Saturday,October 11, 11am–5 pm, UCSCFarm. Join us for our annualFarm celebration. Great music,food, apple tasting, an apple piebake-off, garden talks, hay rides,kids’ events, tours, displays bylocal farmers, and an all-aroundgood time are in the works. Freefor Friends’ members and kids12 and under; $5 for non-mem-bers.

. Friends Fall Benefit Dinnerat Blacks Beach Cafe , Tuesday,November 11, 7 pm. This popu-lar annual fundraiser helps kickoff the fall holiday season. Enjoya wonderful five-course mealcreated by Blacks Beach Cafeowner Robert Morris and guestchefs. All proceeds from thedinner support the Friends’community education andscholarship projects. $70, in-cludes wine. For more informa-tion and to reserve your seatscall 459-3240 or reserve directlywith the restaurant at 475-2233.Blacks Beach Cafe is located at15th Ave & E. Cliff Dr. in SantaCruz.

California.14th Annual Bioneers Con-ference, October 17–19, 2003,Marin Center, San Rafael. Thisconference features a numberof sessions related to farmingand food systems, includingtalks on food justice, biody-namic farming, organic foodstandards, and much more. Forregistration information andprogram details seewww.bioneers.org

. 24th Annual EcologicalFarming Conference, January21–24, 2004, Pacific Grove. Thisannual four-day winter forumfeatures prominent keynotespeakers and more than 50workshops on the latest ad-vances in agricultural produc-tion, marketing, research, andimportant issues. The confer-ence takes place at theAsilomar Conference Center onthe Monterey coast.

For more information, contactthe Ecological Farming Associa-tion at 831.763-2111, [email protected] or see their web site atwww.eco-farm.org.

. California Farm Conference/North American Farmers’Direct Marketing Conference,February 2–8, 2004, Sacra-mento. More than 1,000 farmdirect marketers are expected

to attend the North AmericanFarmer Direct Marketing Con-ference and California FarmConference to be at theSheraton Grand SacramentoHotel and Sacramento Conven-tion Center. The theme of thisjoint conference is “A Bounty ofGolden Opportunities”.

The 2004 conference includes athree-day farm tour, an exten-sive trade show, featured speak-ers, special workshops, andsome 40 breakout sessions.Some of the most innovativedirect marketing farmers fromaround the U.S. and Canada willbe among the more than 120speakers.

Conference participants willhear presentations about avariety of direct marketingoptions: certified farmers mar-kets, roadside stands, entertain-ment farming, and direct salesto restaurants, schools, and thepublic.

Further details and registrationinformation are available on theweb at www.californiafarmconference.com orwww.nafdma.com. You can alsosend e-mail to [email protected] or leave a mes-sage for Tom Haller at 530.756-8518 ext. 16. A limited numberof scholarships are available forlow-income California farmers.

make the most of water resources with careful irrigation practices

Documents