Integrating Food Safety Concerns into Conservation Technical Guides

Integrating Food Safety Concerns into Conservation Technical Guides Paul Robins, Executive Director, RCD of Monterey County RCD October 1, 2008 Resource Conservation District of Monterey County Co-Management of Agricultural Lands for Natural Resource Protection and Food Safety Goal: Develop technical guidance tools for farmers and conservation planners to make informed decisions Central Coast Farmers & Ranchers Squeezed Between Conflicting Needs To: „ „ „ „ Produce Abundant, High Quality Crops, Follow Demanding Ag Industry Standards, Follow Water Quality Regulations, Regulations, While Projecting a Proactive Public Image that Inspires Trust in Agriculture. Whole Farm Management Plans Integrate multiple practices to optimally achieve resource conservation and production goals „ Management Practices „ Vegetative Practices „ Structural Practices 2006 Spinach Outbreak „ „ „ No definitive determination could be made regarding how E. coli O157:H7 pathogens contaminated spinach in this outbreak (CDHS & FDA investigation) Over 20,000 media stories published Catalyst for the creation of the LGMA and LGMA Metrics…and Super Metrics Leafy Green Marketing Marketing Agreement Agreement California Leafy Green Products Handler Marketing Agreement issued by the California Department of Food and Agriculture. www.caleafygreens.ca.gov: The ‘METRICS’ Commodity Specific Food Safety Guidelines for the Production and Harvest of Lettuce and Leafy Greens: „ Developed by Western Grower’s Association working with regulatory agencies, scientists, produce industry representatives, and other interested parties. Accepted by the Leafy Green Marketing Agreement Board and applies to all signatory handlers and associated growers under the Leafy Green Marketing Agreement. „ The Super Metrics Some individual companies that buy leafy green products from growers have food safety program requirements that must be adhered to, in addition to the Metrics, to sell their product. Individual Company Food Safety Programs „ „ „ „ „ „ Based on the LGMA Above and beyond Vague or ambiguous Not science-based Conflict with “sustainable” marketing and goals Highly proprietary SV-21 TRP Retrofit 2007-1 1 1. After: Close up of the small mammal /amphibian exclusion fence and newly installed catwalk to access the pond inlet. Created 03/21/07; Modified 09/11/07, 01/08/08 From the Field, a Grower’s Perspective Resource Conservation District of Monterey County From the Field, a Grower’s Perspective RCDMC’s Grower Survey: •Mail survey with Follow-Up Postcard •600 Row Crop Growers ~ 30% Return Rate •181 Growers own/operate 140,000 acres row cropland •Santa Cruz, Santa Clara, San Benito, Monterey, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara Counties Resource Conservation District of Monterey County From the Field, a Grower’s Perspective Of the Respondents: •~80% Farm Water Quality Protection Short Course & Farm Water Quality Plans •91% adopted 1 or more “conservation practices aimed to improve water quality and/or wildlife habitat” •~63% voluntarily received technical assistance Resource Conservation District of Monterey County From the Field, a Grower’s Perspective Conservation Practices Discouraged and/or Eliminated: Non-crop Vegetation ~ filter strips, hedgerows, critical area plantings, grassed waterways Ponds & Waterways ~ streams, natural ponds, tailwater recovery ponds, irrigation water reservoirs, sediment & water catch basins Wildlife ~ non-domestic animals Resource Conservation District of Monterey County From the Field, a Grower’s Perspective Conservation Practices Discouraged and/or Eliminated: Non-crop Vegetation (leafy green growers) “It has been suggested that I remove it” = 32.1% “I have actively removed it in response to auditors or others comments” = 32.1% Resource Conservation District of Monterey County From the Field, a Grower’s Perspective Conservation Practices Discouraged and/or Eliminated: Ponds and/or Waterways (leafy green growers) “It has been suggested that I remove them” = 14.8% “I have actively removed them in response to auditors or others comments” = 7.4% Resource Conservation District of Monterey County From the Field, a Grower’s Perspective Conservation Practices Discouraged and/or Eliminated: Wildlife ~ Non-domestic Animals: „ “It has been suggested that I discourage the presence of wildlife.” 47.7% „ “I have actively discouraged wildlife in response to auditors or others comments.” 40.7% Resource Conservation District of Monterey County From the Field, a Grower’s Perspective Measures Adopted to Discourage Wildlife: •Bare Ground Buffers ~50% (92,000 acres) •Poisoned Bait Stations ~50% (108,000 acres) •Trapping ~ 40% (87,000 acres) •Fencing ~40% (66,000 acres) Growers that reported adopting one or more of these measures control 133,000 acres of row cropland. Resource Conservation District of Monterey County Resource Conservation District of Monterey County From the Field, a Grower’s Perspective Conservation Practices Discouraged and/or Eliminated: Wildlife (leafy green growers) Crops rejected due to animals not considered to pose significant risk = “potential frog habitat” and “presence of frogs & tadpoles in creek” Resource Conservation District of Monterey County Wildlife: Non-domestic Animals Health Risk or Foreign Object? The Challenge: Balancing Food Safety and Conservation Goals • Is not necessarily a trade-off between conflicting goals. • Proper balance of conservation and food safety practices can maximize benefits while accomplishing both objectives. Potential sources of water quality impairment Potential sources of pathogen contamination Imported amendments Irrigation water Crop detection Flood waters Animal intrusion Waterways Off-farm detection Dust Cropland Upland water runoff Farm roads Upland land uses Landscape Perspective Consider conservation practice effect on pathogen vectors Practices in Question: „ Hedgerows „ Windbreaks „ Filter Strips „ Grassed Waterways „ Sediment Basins „ Tailwater Systems „ Streambank Protection Example: Windbreaks Potential Pathogen Vectors: „ Water: unlikely to affect, may serve to filter overland flow Air: Significant reduction in potential dust-borne pathogen movement from livestock Animals: Insufficient cover for large animals of concern such as pigs or deer, Animals: trees can be selected to attract native birds and beneficial insects to reduce pests and need for insecticides. „ „ „ Management or mitigation strategies if potential food safety risk exists: Grassed Waterways „ „ „ Management: select nonseeding grass species to reduce summer food supply for animals. Management: mow to discourage voles, allow taller growth to discourage squirrels. Mitigation: install silt fence as barrier to small animal movement into crop Note: unlikely that rodents are a pathogen vector in open crop land Natural resource and food safety impact of food safety advice: Bare Ground Buffers „ „ „ „ „ Increase in soil erosion & sedimentation. Degrade water quality & aquatic habitat. Reduced food and cover for some rodents. No affect on movement of pigs, deer, or squirrels from rangeland Eliminates pathogen reduction benefits of vegetation as a filter. Integrating Food Safety & Environmental Protection Progress and Next Steps „ Draft materials reviewed by Farm, Food Safety, and Conservation Network members and other specialists. Concerns to be addressed: Wildlife vs. Animals of Significant Risk; How much science is enough? How local does research need to be? RCD compiling reviewer comments into final draft of Ag Conservation Practice Handbook for Food Safety. Individual Practice Fact Sheets will be developed Information will be posted on LGMA website Workshops and Trainings will be offered to farmers, technical advisors, and auditors „ „ „ „ „ paul.robins@rcdmonterey.org www.rcdmonterey.org (831) 424-1036 Daniel.Mountjoy@ca.usda.gov (831) 754-1595 Resource Conservation District of Monterey County