DOCSLIB.ORG

In Polyculture Cropping Systems

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Studies of the Functionality of Annual Crop and Weed Diversify in Polyculture Cropping Systems BY ANTHONY RALPH SZUMIGALSKI A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Plant Science University of Manitoba Wiruripeg, Manitoba @ Copyright by Anthony Ralph Szumigalski 2005 TIIE T]NIVERSITY OF MÄ,NITOBA FACULTY OF G.RADUATE STUDIES COPYRIGHT PERMISSION Studies of the Functionality of Annual Crop and Weed Diversity In Polyculture Cropping Systems BY Anthony Ralph Szumigalski A ThesisÆracticum submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies of The University of Manitoba in partial fulfillment of the requirement of the degree Doctor Of Philosophy Anthony Ralph Szumigalski O 2005 I Permission has been granted to the Library of the University of Manitoba to lend or sell copies of I tnis thesis/practicum, to the National Library of Canada to microfilm this thesis and to lend or sell of the film, and to University Microfilms Inc. to pubtish an abstract of this thesis/practicum. , "opies I This reproduction or copy of this thesis has been made availabte by authority of the copyright :I o\üner solely for the purpose ofprivate study and research, and may only be reproduced and copied permiffed by copyright laws or with express written authorization from the copyright owner. ^s l1 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to thank the following for making this thesis arealíty. First, I would like to sincerely thank my advisor, Dr. Rene Van Acker, for his valuable support and advice throughout this project, countless edits on the many drafts of this thesis, and for creating a lab environment that was productwe, challenging, respectful and collegial. To my advisory committee: thank you for your ideas and helpful comments that greatly improved this thesis. I am grateful to Dr. Martin Entz who was instrumental in initiating this project, providing support and for introducing me to a cropping systems ecology approach; to Dr. Rob Roughley for his ideas on the function of biodiversity and scientific writing; and to Dr. Norm Kenkel for advice, particularly in the areas of theoretical ecology and statistics. Thanks to the external examiner, Dr. Bill Deen from the University of Guelph and to Dr. Mario Tenuta for graciously serving as the chair of the Ph.D. oral exam. In the Weeds Lab: the countless number of summer students and assistants for their hard work, dedication, patience and humour; Technicians Rufus Oree and Andrea Bartlinski; Research Associate Lyle Friesen, and my fellow grad students. The faculty and support staff in the Department of Plant Science for their assistance. To my fellow graduate students in Plant Science and other deparfments @otany, Soil Science, etc.), I appreciate the camaraderie and cups of coffee. To my musical colleagues (The Mousehouse Band), thanks for providing a legitimate diversion from research. To management and support staff at Carman and JRI Kelbum Research Farms, the Department of Plant Science greenhouses, and the Department of Soil Science, for 111 providing excellent research facilities and maintaining equipment that allowed me to conduct this research. Major frrnding for this project was provided by Pesticide-Free Production, the Manitoba Rural Adaptation Council and Agriculture and Agri-food Canada, and by graduate fellowships from the University of Manitoba Faculty of Graduate Studies and the Land Institute. The support of many family members and friends, throughout my numerous years as a student is greatly appreciated. To my late parents: for providing me with a work ethic and lifelong love of plants. And especially to my wife and soulmate, CarlaZelmer, without whose love, encouragement and support, this thesis would not have been possible. iv LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1 The 18 annual crops used in the crop richness experiment, categorized into three agronomic groups .............6g 3.2 The 29 barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) cultivars (Watson 2004) used in the cultivar richness experiment, categorizedinto three agronomic groups (value in brackets indicates two- or six-row cultivars) ......................6g 3.3 The 21 annual weed species used in the weed species richness experiment...............71 3.4 Barley yield and biomass components as affected by barley cultivar richness treatments for experimental runs in200T and2003 ...............77 3'5 The effect of crop richness on wild oat (WO) yietd and biomass components for experiments run in 2002 and2003.......... ..............g4 3.6 The effect of barley cultivar richness on wild oat (WO) yield and biomass components for experiments run in 2002 and2003.......... ......g7 3.7 The effect of weed species richness on wheat yield and biomass components for experiments run in 2001 and 2003.......... ..............gg 3.8 Effect of crop, barley cultivar or weed species richness on canopy light interception for five weekly sampling dates in 2003......... ......................90 4.1 Comparison of physical and chemical properties in the top 15 cm of soil prior to crop emergence at the six site-years of the experiment ....107 4.2Dates of seeding, recruitment measurements, in-crop herbicide applications and harvests for the six site- years of the field experiment......... .................. i07 4.3 The effect of crop treatment (w: wheat, c:canora, p : peas, ww: double density wheat) on mean weed or crop seedling recruitment density prior to in-crop herbicide applications over six site-years ............... ...................I12 4.4 Relative weed density (R\\fD) and biomass (RWB) for different intercropping treatments ('w: wheat, c :canol4 p : peas) in the absence of in-crop trìì¡ici¿e over six site-years ...........113 4.5 The effect of crop treatment (w: wheat, c:canola, p : peas, w-w : double density wheat) on mean weed biomass in the absence or pr"sence of in-crop herbicide over six site-years .............114 4'6 Competition indices for the'ability to compete' (AC) and the 'ability to withstand competition'(A'ü/C) for different crop treatments :canola, p : 'W-W (w: wheat, C peas, : double density wheat) over six site-years 'w-w: .................I21 4-7 The effect of crop treatment (w: wheat, c :canolâ, p : peas, double density wheat) on mean crop biomass in the presence ot ãbr"nr" of in-crop herbicide over six site-years 'w-w: .............123 4.8 The effect of crop treatment (w: wheat, c:canola, p : peas, double density wheat) on mean grain yield in the presence or abience of in-crop herbicide over five site-years.. ..........125 4.9 Land equivalent ratios (LER), based on crop biomass or grain yield for different intercropping treatments (w: wheat, p: c =anola, peás) initre presence and absence of in-crop herbicide over six site-years.. .................131 v 5.1 The effect of crop treatment ('W: wheat, C :canola, p: peas,'WW: double density wheat) on the least squares mean (LSM) of the differences between fal soil NO:-N quantities adjusted for initial spring NO3-N values (covariate) for a soil prof,rle depth of 60 cm over four 'WW: site-years5.1 Effect of crop treatment ('W: wheat, C^:canola" p: peas, double density wheat) on canopy light interception in the presence of in-crop herbicides for different sampling dates at four site-yeurr............ ................r43 5.2Efreú of crop treatment (w: wheat, c:canola, p: peas, w-w: double density wheat) on canopy light interception in the absence oii.t-crop herbicides for different sampling dates at four site-years............. 'ww: ...............T47 5.3 The effect of crop treatment (w : wheat, c :canola, p : peas, double density wheat) on mean volumetric soil moisture in the top 6 cm of the soil profile over several sampling periods at Carman in2002 and 2003 ......14g 5.4 The effect of crop treatment (W: wheat, C :canola, p : peas, W-W.: double density wheat) on the least squares mean (LSM) of soil profile (below a depth of 10 cm) water content during July and August in the presence or absence of in-crop herbicide at Carman in2002 and 2003 (n: 5 for each year)......... ......I54 5.5 The effect of crop treatment (W: wheat, C:canola, p : peas, W-W: double density wheat) on the least squares mean (LSM) of the differences between fall soil NO¡-N quantities adjusted for initial spring NO3-N values (covariate) for a soil profile depth of 60 cm over four site-years ............159 5.6 The effect of crop treatment (w: wheat, c:canora, p : peas, w-w: double density wheat) on mean aboveground crop dry matter N òoncentr ation (%) prior to grain harvest in late July to early August over four site-yeurr ............ ........162 5.7 The effect of crop treatment (w : wheat, c:canorã,p :peas, ww: double density wheat) on crop grain N concentrati on (%) and canola grain oil concentration over six site-years ......163 5.8 The effect of crop treatment (w: wheat, c :canolâ, p : peas, ww: double densitywheat) on crop grain N yield over six site-years................ ........16g 5.9 Nitrogen land equivalent ratios OILER), based on crop dry matter or grain yield for different intercrop treatments (w: wheat, c :canolâ, p : pãas) in the presence and absence of in-crop herbicide over six site-years ...............169 5.10 The effect of crop treatment (w: wheat, c :canola, p : peas, w-w: double density wheat) on mean aboveground weed dry matter N õoncentration (% N) and accumulation (kg N ha-t) prior to grain harvest in late July to early Àugust in the absence of in-crop herbicide over four site-years.. .....L73 vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 3 I Effect of (a) ' crop or barley (b) richness on total above-ground dry crop or barley biomass production for experimental runs in2002 and-2003....._......-.... .................74 3.2Effect of crop (a),.barley cultivar (b) or weed species richness (c) on the coefficient of variation (CV) for aboveground dry biomass forexperiments run over two years 'W.eed, ...........76 3'3 wheat and total aboveground dry biomass as affected by weed species richness treatments for 2001 and2003 experimental runs ...................7g 3'4Influence of crop and barley cultivar richness on mean coefficient of variation (CV) forplant height for experiments run in 2002 and.2003........
Recommended publications
  • Perennial Polyculture Farming: Seeds of Another Agricultural Revolution?

    Perennial Polyculture Farming: Seeds of Another Agricultural Revolution?

    THE ARTS This PDF document was made available from www.rand.org as a public CHILD POLICY service of the RAND Corporation. CIVIL JUSTICE EDUCATION Jump down to document ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT 6 HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit research NATIONAL SECURITY POPULATION AND AGING organization providing objective analysis and effective PUBLIC SAFETY solutions that address the challenges facing the public SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY and private sectors around the world. SUBSTANCE ABUSE TERRORISM AND HOMELAND SECURITY TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE Support RAND WORKFORCE AND WORKPLACE Browse Books & Publications Make a charitable contribution For More Information Visit RAND at www.rand.org Explore RAND Pardee Center View document details Limited Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law as indicated in a notice appearing later in this work. This electronic representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for non- commercial use only. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of our research documents for commercial use. This product is part of the RAND Corporation occasional paper series. RAND occasional papers may include an informed perspective on a timely policy issue, a discussion of new research methodologies, essays, a paper presented at a conference, a conference summary, or a summary of work in progress. All RAND occasional papers undergo rigorous peer review to ensure that they meet high standards for research quality and objectivity. Perennial Polyculture Farming Seeds of Another Agricultural Revolution? James A. Dewar This research was undertaken as a piece of speculation in the RAND Frederick S.
  • Genetic Engineering and Sustainable Crop Disease Management: Opportunities for Case-By-Case Decision-Making

    Genetic Engineering and Sustainable Crop Disease Management: Opportunities for Case-By-Case Decision-Making

    sustainability Review Genetic Engineering and Sustainable Crop Disease Management: Opportunities for Case-by-Case Decision-Making Paul Vincelli Department of Plant Pathology, 207 Plant Science Building, College of Agriculture, Food and Environment, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40546, USA; [email protected] Academic Editor: Sean Clark Received: 22 March 2016; Accepted: 13 May 2016; Published: 20 May 2016 Abstract: Genetic engineering (GE) offers an expanding array of strategies for enhancing disease resistance of crop plants in sustainable ways, including the potential for reduced pesticide usage. Certain GE applications involve transgenesis, in some cases creating a metabolic pathway novel to the GE crop. In other cases, only cisgenessis is employed. In yet other cases, engineered genetic changes can be so minimal as to be indistinguishable from natural mutations. Thus, GE crops vary substantially and should be evaluated for risks, benefits, and social considerations on a case-by-case basis. Deployment of GE traits should be with an eye towards long-term sustainability; several options are discussed. Selected risks and concerns of GE are also considered, along with genome editing, a technology that greatly expands the capacity of molecular biologists to make more precise and targeted genetic edits. While GE is merely a suite of tools to supplement other breeding techniques, if wisely used, certain GE tools and applications can contribute to sustainability goals. Keywords: biotechnology; GMO (genetically modified organism) 1. Introduction and Background Disease management practices can contribute to sustainability by protecting crop yields, maintaining and improving profitability for crop producers, reducing losses along the distribution chain, and reducing the negative environmental impacts of diseases and their management.
  • Dynamic Cropping Systems: Increasing Adaptability Amid an Uncertain Future

    Dynamic Cropping Systems: Increasing Adaptability Amid an Uncertain Future

    Published online June 5, 2007 Dynamic Cropping Systems: Increasing Adaptability Amid an Uncertain Future J. D. Hanson,* M. A. Liebig, S. D. Merrill, D. L. Tanaka, J. M. Krupinsky, and D. E. Stott ABSTRACT was »6.5 billion in late 2005, and is projected to rise Future trends in population growth, energy use, climate change, to 7.6 billion by 2020 and 9.1 billion by 2050 (United and globalization will challenge agriculturists to develop innovative Nations Population Division, 2006). To meet the demand production systems that are highly productive and environmentally for food, agriculture will need to produce as much food sound. Furthermore, future agricultural production systems must pos- in the next 25 yr as it has produced in the last 10 000 yr sess an inherent capacity to adapt to change to be sustainable. Given (Mountain, 2006). Increasing food production to this this context, adoption of dynamic cropping systems is proposed to extent will have significant ramifications on resource meet multiple agronomic and environmental objectives through the use. From 1961 to 1996, the doubling of agricultural food enhancement of management adaptability to externalities. Dynamic production was associated with a 6.9-fold increase in cropping systems are a form of agricultural production that relies on an annual strategy to optimize the outcome of (i) production, (ii) eco- N fertilization, a 3.5-fold increase in P fertilization, a nomic, and (iii) resource conservation goals using ecologically-based 1.7-fold increase of irrigated cropland, and a 1.1-fold management principles. Dynamic cropping systems are inherently increase of land under cultivation (Tilman, 1999).
  • Diversifying Cropping Systems PROFILE: THEY DIVERSIFIED to SURVIVE 3

    Diversifying Cropping Systems PROFILE: THEY DIVERSIFIED to SURVIVE 3

    Opportunities in Agriculture CONTENTS WHY DIVERSIFY? 2 Diversifying Cropping Systems PROFILE: THEY DIVERSIFIED TO SURVIVE 3 ALTERNATIVE CROPS 4 PROFILE: DIVERSIFIED NORTH DAKOTAN WORKS WITH MOTHER NATURE 9 PROTECT NATURAL RESOURCES, RENEW PROFITS 10 AGROFORESTRY 13 PROFILE: PROFITABLE PECANS WORTH THE WAIT 15 STRENGTHEN COMMUNITY, SHARE LABOR 15 PROFILE: STRENGTHENING TIES AMONG MAINE FARMERS 16 RESOURCES 18 Alternative grains and oilseeds – like, from left, buckwheat, amaranth and flax – add diversity to cropping systems and open profitable niche markets while contributing to environmentally sound operations. – Photos by Rob Myers Published by the Sustainable KARL KUPERS, AN EASTERN WASHINGTON GRAIN GROWER, Although growing alternative crops to diversify a Agriculture Network (SAN), was a typical dryland wheat farmer who idled his traditional farm rotation increase profits while lessen- the national outreach arm land in fallow to conserve moisture. After years of ing adverse environmental impacts, the majority of of the Sustainable Agriculture watching his soil blow away and his market price slip, U.S. cropland is still planted in just three crops: soy- Research and Education he made drastic changes to his 5,600-acre operation. beans, corn and wheat. That lack of crop diversity (SARE) program, with funding In place of fallow, he planted more profitable hard can cause problems for farmers, from low profits by USDA's Cooperative State red and hard white wheats along with seed crops like to soil erosion. Adding new crops that fit climate, Research, Education and condiment mustard, sunflower, grass and safflower. geography and management preferences can Extension Service. All of those were drilled using a no-till system Kupers improve not only your bottom line, but also your calls direct-seeding.
  • Frontiers in Alley Cropping: Transformative Solutions for Temperate Agriculture

    Frontiers in Alley Cropping: Transformative Solutions for Temperate Agriculture

    Received: 12 July 2017 | Revised: 24 October 2017 | Accepted: 7 November 2017 DOI: 10.1111/gcb.13986 OPINION Frontiers in alley cropping: Transformative solutions for temperate agriculture Kevin J. Wolz1,2,3 | Sarah T. Lovell2,4 | Bruce E. Branham4 | William C. Eddy2,5 | Keefe Keeley3,6 | Ronald S. Revord2,3,4 | Michelle M. Wander7 | Wendy H. Yang2,5,8 | Evan H. DeLucia2,5 1Program in Ecology, Evolution and Conservation Biology, University of Illinois Abstract Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, USA Annual row crops dominate agriculture around the world and have considerable 2Institute for Sustainability, Energy, and negative environmental impacts, including significant greenhouse gas emissions. Environment, University of Illinois Urbana- Champaign, Urbana, IL, USA Transformative land-use solutions are necessary to mitigate climate change and 3Savanna Institute, Madison, WI, USA restore critical ecosystem services. Alley cropping (AC)—the integration of trees 4 Department of Crop Sciences, University with crops—is an agroforestry practice that has been studied as a transformative, of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, USA multifunctional land-use solution. In the temperate zone, AC has strong potential for 5Department of Plant Biology, University of climate change mitigation through direct emissions reductions and increases in land- Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, USA use efficiency via overyielding compared to trees and crops grown separately. In 6Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison, addition, AC provides climate change adaptation potential and ecological benefits by Madison, WI, USA buffering alley crops to weather extremes, diversifying income to hedge financial 7Department of Natural Resources and risk, increasing biodiversity, reducing soil erosion, and improving nutrient- and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, USA water-use efficiency.
  • Polyculture of Fishes in Aquaponics and Recirculating Aquaculture

    Polyculture of Fishes in Aquaponics and Recirculating Aquaculture

    Issue # 48 Aquaponics Journal www.aquaponicsjournal.com 1st Quarter, 2008 Polyculture of Fishes in Aquaponics and Recirculating Aquaculture By: Eron Martan Abstract Polyculture of fishes (and invertebrates) in aquapon‐ base produced the most relevant results. When ics and recirculating aquaculture is a promising way the key words polyculture and aquaponics were we can return advanced modern agriculture to sus‐ used, there were no articles found. Using the for‐ tainable agriculture using biological controls. Poly‐ mer set of key words, there were about 40 articles culture would enhance aquaponics by producing a related to polyculture, almost all of which were variety of seafood products for local consumption. referring to polycultures carried out in earthen There has been very little published research on ponds. Other databases were tried also, but pro‐ polycultures in aquaponics so much of this work is duced fewer and less relevant results. Searches based on the experience of expert scientists. Be‐ using the key word aquaponics came up with zero cause of the lack of previous studies, there is very results in all but the Blackwell Synergy database little statistical data to present. However, it has which contained one relevant article. been confirmed that redclaw lobsters are being polycultured with tilapia; they are cultured in the Due to a lack of information alternative sources hydroponics raceways where the plants are grown were sought out. A subscription to the Aquaponics on floating rafts. The information from the inter‐ Journal was ordered. Use of a World Aquaculture views indicates that using physical separation is nec‐ Society (WAS) membership which includes access essary to prevent negative species interactions.
  • Technological Approaches to Sustainable Agriculture at a Crossroads: an Agroecological Perspective

    Technological Approaches to Sustainable Agriculture at a Crossroads: an Agroecological Perspective

    sustainability Article Technological Approaches to Sustainable Agriculture at a Crossroads: An Agroecological Perspective Miguel A. Altieri 1,*, Clara I. Nicholls 2 and Rene Montalba 3 1 Department of Environmental Science, Policy and Management (ESPM), University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA 2 International and Area Studies, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA; [email protected] 3 Departamento de Ciencias Agronomicas y Recursos Naturales, Universidad de la Frontera, Francisco Salazar, 01145 Temuco, Chile; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Academic Editors: Manuel González de Molina and Gloria Guzman Received: 24 November 2016; Accepted: 23 February 2017; Published: 27 February 2017 Abstract: Most efforts to improve agricultural production remain focused on practices driven by an intensification agenda and not by an agroecological one. Agroecology transcends the reformist notion of organic agriculture and sustainable intensification proponents who contend that changes can be achieved within the dominant agroindustrial system with minor adjustments or “greening” of the current neoliberal agricultural model. In the technological realm, merely modifying practices to reduce input use is a step in the right direction but does not necessarily lead to the redesign of a more self sufficient and autonomous farming system. A true agroecological technological conversion calls into question monoculture and the dependency on external inputs. Traditional farming systems provide models that promote biodiversity, thrive without agrochemicals, and sustain year-round yields. Conversion of conventional agriculture also requires major social and political changes which are beyond the scope of this paper. Keywords: agroecology; organic agriculture; conversion; transition; Latin America; California 1. Introduction In Latin America, agroecology is not only a scientific–technological project, but a political one.
  • Management of Crop Residues for Sustainable Crop Production

    Management of Crop Residues for Sustainable Crop Production

    IAEA-TECDOC-1354 Management of crop residues for sustainable crop production Results of a co-ordinated research project organized by the Joint FAO/IAEA Division of Nuclear Techniques in Food and Agriculture 1996–2001 May 2003 The originating Section of this publication in the IAEA was: Soil and Water Management & Crop Production Section International Atomic Energy Agency Wagramer Strasse 5 P.O. Box 100 A-1400 Vienna, Austria MANAGEMENT OF CROP RESIDUES FOR SUSTAINABLE CROP PRODUCTION IAEA, VIENNA, 2003 IAEA-TECDOC-1354 ISBN 92–0–104203–5 ISSN 1011–4289 © IAEA, 2003 Printed by the IAEA in Austria May 2003 FOREWORD It is well recognized that the organic matter content of a soil is a key attribute of fertility. The beneficial effects of organic matter on the physical, chemical, and biological properties of soil are well documented. Decline in organic matter content in intensive cropping systems is considered to be the major problem in maintaining agricultural productivity in the tropics. Additions of organic materials such as crop residues play an important role in the recycling of nutrients. More than one half of all dry matter in the global harvest is in the form of residues, and in most developing countries the amounts of nutrients in residues are often several orders of magnitude higher than the quantities applied as fertilizers. Thus, proper management of crop residues for the maintenance of soil fertility cannot be overstressed. This Co-ordinated Research Project (CRP) focused on countries where crop production and soil fertility can be sustained by the better management of crop residues. As a result of recommendations formulated at a consultants meeting organized by the Joint FAO/IAEA Division of Nuclear Techniques in Food and Agriculture, 4–7 September 1995, a Co-ordinated Research Project on “The Use of Isotope Techniques in Studies on the Management of Organic Matter and Nutrient Turnover for Increased Sustainable Agricultural Production and Environmental Preservation” was implemented between 1996 and 2001.
  • Cover Crops: Selection and Management

    Cover Crops: Selection and Management

    Soil Health and Organic Farming Cover Crops: Selection and Management By Mark Schonbeck, Diana Jerkins, Joanna Ory SOIL HEALTH AND ORGANIC FARMING COVER CROPS: SELECTION AND MANAGEMENT An Analysis of USDA Organic Research and Extension Initiative (OREI) and Organic Transitions (ORG) Funded Research from 2002-2016 Thank you to the Clarence E. Heller Charitable Foundation for supporting this project. © 2017 Organic Farming Research Foundation Santa Cruz, CA Table of Contents Introduction............................................................................................................................1 Challenges in Selecting and Managing Cover Crops in Organic Systems ...3 Selecting and Using Cover Crops for Soil Health in Organic Production: Some Tips and Information Resources .......................................................................5 Table 1. Cover cropping goals, desired characteristics and suggested cover crop species ..........................................................................................................................6 Table 2. Suggested cover crop species for different niches in the crop rotation. .................................................................................................................................. 8 Table 3. Information Resources and Tools for Selecting and Managing Cover Crops for Soil Health ......................................................................................... 15 Current Science on Cover Cropping for Organic Systems: An Analysis of USDA OREI
  • Growing Vegetables in the Coachella Valley

    Growing Vegetables in the Coachella Valley

    GROWING YOUR OWN VEGETABLES at HOME Why Grow Your Own Vegetables? • 1. Variety, variety, variety! • 2. Freshness • 3. Taste • 4. Exclusiveness • 5. Pesticide-free (If you want: An aphid infestation will test your resolve) • 6. Farm Monoculture vs. Garden Polyculture • 7. Self Satisfaction/Self-Reliance • 8. Saves Money (Maybe) • 9. Productive Exercise What’s Special About Growing Your Vegetables in the Coachella Valley?? (A plant is first and foremost, always and forever: A light-eating machine!) • 1. Long Growing Season: a) 330 frost free days b) 93% possible sunshine hours • 2. Manageable Soils • 3. Ample High Quality Water • 4. Minimum fungal plant diseases • 5. Natural Presence of Beneficial Insects What Do You Need to Know? 1. What Vegetables can I grow here? And When? 2. Where can I get my plant material? 3. What special tools do I need? 4. Planning Your Garden 5. Soil Preparation 6. Planting a seed or a transplant 6. Mulching 7. Irrigation 8. Fertilization 9. Pest Control 10. Harvest and Enjoy What Vegetables Can You Grow in the Coachella Valley? And When?? • 1. Check out the county Crop Report for the Coachella Valley in CVWD’s Annual Report. • 2. The Perennials • 3. Cool Season Vegetables • 4. Warm Season Vegetables • 5. The Odd Balls The Perennials Artichokes, Asparagus and Rhubarb Edible Ornamentals Plant once: Theoretically lasts forever, but here only asparagus can make it through our summers. Artichokes and Rhubarb should be considered cool season annuals. Bermuda Grass often invades asparagus beds Aphids love artichokes. Characteristics of Cool Season Vegetables 1. Frost Tolerant 2. Harvest a root, stalk, leaf or an immature infloresence (Flower) 3.
  • Livelihoods Grow in Gardens

    Livelihoods Grow in Gardens

    ISSN 1810-0775 Livelihoods grow in gardens Second edition )$2'LYHUVLÀFDWLRQERRNOHW Diversification booklet number 2 Second Edition Livelihoods grow in gardens Chris Landon-Lane Rural Infrastructure and Agro-Industries Division Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Rome 2011 The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. The views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of FAO. ISBN 978-92-5-107063-5 All rights reserved. FAO encourages reproduction and dissemination of material in this information product. Non-commercial uses will be authorized free of charge, upon request. Reproduction for resale or other commercial purposes, including educational purposes, may incur fees. Applications for permission to reproduce or disseminate FAO copyright materials, and all queries concerning rights and licences, should be addressed by e-mail to [email protected] or to the Chief, Publishing Policy
  • Smallholder Ecologies Smallholder Ecologies

    Smallholder Ecologies Smallholder Ecologies

    Smallholder ecologies Smallholder ecologies Nadia El-Hage Scialabba, Cesare Pacini and Soren Moller FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED N ATION S - 2 0 1 4 The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. The views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of FAO. All rights reserved. FAO encourages the reproduction and dissemination of material in this information product. Non-commercial uses will be authorized free of charge, upon request. Reproduction for resale or other commercial purposes, including educational purposes, may incur fees. Applications for permission to reproduce or disseminate FAO copyright materials, and all queries concerning rights and licenses, should be addressed by e-mail to [email protected] or to the Chief, Publishing Policy and Support Branch, Office of Knowledge Exchange, Research and Extension, FAO, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00153 Rome, Italy. © FAO, 2014 Acknowledgements Special thanks go to Angela Hilmi and Noémi Nemes for their research contributions, and Pietro Bartoleschi and Arianna Guida for the layout and design of this document.