California Agriculture JULY-SEPTEMBER 2003 ■ VOLUME 57 NUMBER 3

Wine and artisan cheese find their niche

University of California | Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources | Research in Agricultural, Natural and Human Resources Specialty crops and value-added products: a bright spot in California agriculture

ver the last century, California pay a premium price. The California Milk Advisory Board growers have pioneered hundreds along with innovative processors and distributors and UCCE Oof specialty crops and value-added advisors in Humboldt, Sonoma, Marin, Glenn and Merced Ellie Rilla products. Today we produce more than counties are working with dairy operators who want to pro- County Director, 350 commodities, and supply more duce artisan cheeses. UC Cooperative than half of the nation’s fresh fruit and Extension, Likewise, growers in Marin County are finding enthusias- Marin County vegetables. An important component tic markets for grassfed beef and eggs from range-fed hens, in the remarkable success of California as well as cut flowers and cool-weather coastal crops such as agriculture has been the willingness of farmers to be innova- artichokes and berries. In a recent UC Cooperative Extension tors and early adapters — whether it’s planting new crops or survey, 24% of Marin County growers were marketing value- developing new markets. added products such as organic dairy products, natural However, recent market trends in many traditional com- wool and olive oil. About half (47%) of those surveyed were modities have led to consolidation of the grower-processor- interested in adding value-added products to their farming retail chain, often at the expense of smaller, family-operated operations. operations. Small farmers find they have only limited ability Since 1987, UCCE Sonoma County has offered an to influence the market prices that allow them to continue 18-week course on specialty crop production, which includes farming, let alone make a profit. This concentration of mar- marketing information on how to set up a farmers’ market kets — along with global competition — has forced produc- booth, start a subscription farm or package products for ers to look for new niches. wholesale or retail. In Fresno County, the Small Farm Incu- Many growers have found that it pays to go the extra step bator Project — a collaboration between UCCE and local and provide consumers with specialized, value-added prod- agencies and nonprofits — provides information to minority ucts, like farmstead cheeses, boutique olive oil and premium farmers on small farming practices, including marketing and wine (see page 71). For instance, production of specialty postharvest issues. cheeses more than doubled between 1993 and 2001 (see page Ventura County farm advisors are pointing small growers 76). This renaissance of specialty foods has not only been a toward lucrative, unique subtropical crops like lychee, pas- boon to growers and consumers, it has revitalized rural com- sion fruit, cherimoya, longan and star fruit. Similarly, small munities and in some cases improved the environment. farm advisors are evaluating the suitability of new specialty Small growers have tapped new markets, including sell- crop varieties for the San Joaquin Valley including 300 pep- ing their specialty products directly to consumers through pers, 200 squash, 180 tomatoes and 42 blueberries, as well as farmers’ markets in the Bay Area, Los Angeles, Silicon Valley, blackberries, papaya and tomatillo. San Diego and other population centers. Local farmers’ mar- Some small farmers have pursued agritourism to create kets have increased from just two in 1977 to more than 400 income and add value to the farm. The UC Small Farm Cen- today, generating over $150 million of business annually. En- ter and UC Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education trepreneurial growers can bring their products directly from Program offer workshops and a guide to help growers set up the farm to city residents who appreciate freshness, quality such ventures. and variety, and are willing to pay for it. California’s organic industry, while still a small part of the Growers who concentrate on specialized and value-added state agricultural economy with less than 2% of gross sales, is products seem to be recreating a market that was popular showing dramatic growth. What began as a small, alternative a century ago when personal contact and regional identity growing method is being mainstreamed by larger operators were commonplace due to transportation and refrigeration who are farming specialty crops such as lettuce, broccoli, constraints. California’s specialty cheese boom is a case in strawberries and wine grapes on certified organic acreage point. The popular Point Reyes Original Blue Cheese was across the state. born of owner Bob Giacomini’s desire to The UC Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources keep his kids on the farm. At the same time, Giacomini was recognizes the importance of new crops and value-added able to cut his herd size in half, easing pressure on pastures, products for California agriculture’s long-term viability and reducing water-quality concerns and thereby lightening the the need for research and extension efforts that can help re- load on his entire dairy operation while still making a profit. duce risks inherent in adopting them. By providing sound Giacomini and other dairy producers have discovered that science and guidance for creative innovation, UC can pro- the geographically specific qualities and flavors that the milk mote a diverse and viable agriculture — one that provides carries from the soil, water and pastures into the cheese cre- opportunities for growth and advances the well-being of all ates unique flavor characteristics for which consumers will Californians. News departments California 68 Letters Agriculture Economic analysis clarified Skeptical about soil quality News and Peer-reviewed Research published bimonthly by the Division of Agriculture and Research update Natural Resources, University of California 69 VOLUME 57, NUMBER 3 Breeding and genetics key to stemming Pierce’s disease Executive editor: Janet White Managing editor: Janet Byron Central Valley growers Art director: Davis Krauter pulling grapevines Publications assistant: Jessica Glikshtern California Agriculture 1111 Franklin St., 6th floor Research articles Oakland, CA 94607-5200 Phone: (510) 987-0044; Fax: (510) 465-2659 71 California’s wine industry [email protected] enters new era http://danr.ucop.edu/calag COVER: The strength of California agricul- ture has always been its ability to adapt Heien, Martin Mailed at periodicals postage rates at Oakland, CA and at additional and find new markets for unique products. mailing offices. Postmaster: Send change of address “Form 3579” to Consumers are drinking better but less California Agriculture at the above address. (ISSN 0008-0845) In recent years, growers have excelled at RATES: Subscriptions free upon request in U.S.; $24/year outside developing value-added products such as wine; the wine industry has broken into the U.S. After publication, the single copy price is $5.00. Orders premium wine (see page 71) and artisan distinct price and quality sectors. must be accompanied by payment. Payment may be by check or cheeses (see page 76). UC advisors have international money order in U.S. funds payable to UC Regents. MasterCard/Visa accepted; requests require signature and card played a key role in helping them cultivate 76 Sampling and farm stories expiration date. Please include complete address. and market the wide range of delicious prompt consumers to buy Articles published herein may be reprinted, provided no specialty crops and products found in pro- advertisement for a commercial product is implied or imprinted. specialty cheeses Please credit California Agriculture, University of California, citing duce aisles and farmers’ markets across the volume and number, or complete date of issue, followed by inclusive state (see page 66). Reed, Bruhn page numbers. Indicate ©[[date]] The Regents of the University of California. Photographs may not be reprinted without permission. Artisan cheese consumers are “food UC prohibits discrimination against or harassment of any person experimenters” who want to know on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, physical or mental disability, medical condition (cancer-related or genetic charac- the story behind the cheese, and they teristics), ancestry, marital status, age, sexual orientation, citizenship, will pay for quality. or status as a covered veteran (special disabled veteran, Vietnam-era 81 veteran or any other veteran who served on active duty during a war or in a campaign or expedition for which a campaign badge has Low-income consumers, been authorized). University Policy is intended to be consistent with 81 the provisions of applicable State and Federal laws. Inquiries regard- though less aware of ing the University’s nondiscrimination policies may be directed to genetically modified the Affirmative Action/Staff Personnel Services Director, University of California, Agriculture and Natural Resources, 300 Lakeside Dr., 6th foods, are concerned Floor, Oakland, CA 94612-3550 or call (510) 987-0096. and want labels ©2003 The Regents of the University of California King In focus groups, ethical and safety Associate Editors Animal, Avian, Aquaculture concerns were cited most often; & Veterinary Sciences nutrition programs should address Edward R. Atwill 86 emerging food technologies. Christopher M. Dewees Kathryn Radke BIOS approach tested for Barbara A. Reed 86 Economics & Public Policy controlling walnut pests Richard J. Sexton in San Joaquin Valley David Zilberman 93 Grant et al. Food & Nutrition Amy Block Joy Nut yields and quality were comparable Editor’s note: Sheri Zidenberg-Cherr between BIOS and conventional pest Human & Community Development Thank you to all who provided management, but costs for pheromone Marc Braverman information with your resubscriptions. Alvin Sokolow disruption remain high. We will report on the survey results Land, Air & Water Sciences in the next issue. Flow meters tested Mark Grismer 93 John Letey Due to cutbacks related to the on dairy lagoon water Natural Resources state’s budget deficit, California Lynn Huntsinger Schwankl et al. Agriculture will be publishing four Terrell P. Salmon Doppler and electromagnetic flow Richard B. Standiford issues in 2003 instead of six. Paid meters, although expensive, are Pest Management subscriptions will be extended for accurate and can improve manure Donald L. Dahlsten two issues. Deborah A. Golino nutrient management on dairies. Timothy D. Paine Plant Sciences Kevin R. Day Steven A. Fennimore http://danr.ucop.edu/calag • JULY-SEPTEMBER 2003 67 Economic analysis clarified Letters California Agriculture received the following clarification from author Louise Jackson concerning “Scientists, growers assess trade-offs in use of tillage, cover crops and compost” (note Skeptical about soil quality correct title)(April-June 2003, p. 48–54): In the economic analysis of Salinas Valley cropping systems California Agricul- that differed in tillage and organic matter management, a ture received sev- spreadsheet error occurred in the calculation of broccoli eral letters concern- yields used in table 4 and figure 5. Although broccoli in the ing “Looking back conventional tillage plus organic amendment (+OM; such as 60 years, California cover crops and compost) treatment still has the highest harvest soils maintain overall costs, total costs, total returns and net returns (see table), the chemical quality” values are not as high as presented originally. The values for the (April-June 2003, three other treatments also increase because the harvest costs p. 38) by F. DeClerck were calculated as a proportion of total harvest costs. However, and M.J. Singer: the relative ranking of the treatments remains the same as originally presented. I am amazed by the Conventional tillage +OM is still the most profitable treatment conclusion that the for broccoli even though it was not the most profitable treatment overall chemical qual- for the lettuce crops in the experiment, possibly because broccoli ity of California soils is about what it was in 1940, is more responsive than lettuce to changes in surface soil when there was no mention of any minerals other characteristics. Tillage and organic matter management may be than phosphorus, nitrogen and carbon. Aren’t cal- best tailored for responses of specific crops. cium, gold, iron, manganese, magnesium and so The total costs, returns and net returns for the 2-year period forth chemicals? Or are they simply elements and have changed due to the changes in broccoli performance not to be considered important to the “quality” of the soil? (fig. 5). Revised total costs are: conventional tillage +OM Clayton L. Olson ($31,548), conventional tillage –OM ($28,731/acre), minimum Instructor/retired tillage +OM ($28,515) and minimum tillage –OM ($26, 874). The Santa Cruz City Schools ranking of net returns has changed as follows: minimum tillage –OM ($2,778/acre), conventional tillage –OM ($2,282/acre), The apparent increase in clay content in several conventional tillage +OM ($2,190) and minimum tillage +OM groups of soils ascribed to soil erosion is inher- ($2,018). Conventional tillage +OM is not the most profitable ently implausible and contradictory to changes across the four-crop rotation used during the 2-year period. in other soil properties, particularly total carbon Our final conclusion remains the same: conventional tillage and total nitrogen. A more plausible interpretation +OM with intermittent use of minimum tillage (e.g., between of the findings is that the authors obtained more summer crops or to incorporate a cover crop) is the most viable complete dispersal of soil aggregates that were option for enhancing various aspects of soil quality, avoiding the identified as silt or sand in their archival samples. low productivity that was characteristic of long-term minimum George Borst, Soil Scientist tillage, and offering some reduction in tillage and fuel costs. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (ret.) Fallbrook, Calif.

Some hunches were borne out in the data: ag- TABLE 4. Revised cover crop + broccoli; crop harvested Apr 2000 riculture altered the chemistry of soils, much as expected. The conclusion of the authors once again Management costs Min till Min till Conv till Conv till per acre ($) +OM −OM +OM −OM confirmed transparently the social science aspects of agronomy: “The scientific community, as well Harvest costs 3908 3599 5112 3746 Interest on capital 99 72 124 88 as regulators and the general public, have recently Total costs 6605 5866 8250 6466 raised concerns that uses of soil may be unsustain- Returns per acre ($) able . . . We conclude that most of the properties Total returns 7405 6812 9685 7097 we have measured do not indicate a loss of soil Total costs 6605 5866 8250 6466 quality in California.” Net returns 800 946 1436 632 I struggled to understand this conclusion even in terms of the social values I advocated and I could not. Clay percentage, clay being harder to WHAT DO YOU THINK? The editorial staff of California Agriculture move than phosphorus, jumped three-fold, de- welcomes your letters, comments and suggestions. Please write to tailing huge erosion losses, which in turn modify us at [email protected] or 1111 Franklin St., 6th floor, Oakland, CA huge carbon gains. 94607. Include your full name and address. Letters may be edited Bud Hoekstra for space and clarity. San Andreas, Calif. The authors respond: Mr. Olson asks how we can make a statement about no reason to suggest that the archived samples would be- the chemical soil quality when we do not investigate all have differently than the new samples in the particle-size the possible elements that make up soil. Nitrogen, organ- analysis. ic matter content, some measure of microbial activity and Soil quality is, as Mr. Hoekstra observes, a qualitative soil density are measures often used to assess the suitabil- not quantitative parameter. We agree that the concept is ity of soil for agricultural purposes. These properties are qualitative, but as scientists, we try to inform the quali- indicators of change in the chemical, microbiological and tative with quantitative information. The clay percent- physical properties of soil. Would our conclusions have age changes may be a function of erosion, deep plowing, been different had we measured many other parameters? land-leveling or natural variability. Among the variables Perhaps, but those that we measured provide a good look measured, we have the least confidence in the differences at some of the most important soil constituents that are reported for the clay values. The samples were taken likely to change the most on agricultural lands over the where landowners would give us permission based on time period in question. the location of samples collected long ago. Analyses were Mr. Borst suggests that the changes we measured are carefully done, appropriate statistics were applied and incompatible and that the clay data are a function of the conclusions drawn. method used to measure the clay content. All samples A more complete statistical analysis of our findings were treated the same in the laboratory, and we know of can be found in Geoderma 113(3-4):215–30.

Research update

Breeding and genetics key to stemming Pierce’s disease

lassical breeding combined with modern gene- “Breeding grapes splicing techniques may be the key to main- can be frustrating,” Ctaining and creating grape hybrids resistant to Walker says. “Wild Pierce’s disease, UC scientists told a workshop for species are often North Coast vintners. The workshop, held April 22 hard to classify; they in Napa and hosted by UC Riverside’s College of are hybrid forms that Natural and Agricultural Sciences, was designed to can vary between pa- Michael Barnes give local growers and vintners the latest informa- rental extremes. For UC Davis geneticist Andrew Walker and colleagues tion on the deadly plant disease. instance, the same are studying the grape genome, in order to identify While the nonnative glassy-winged sharpshooter species could have genes that confer resistance to Pierce’s disease (GWSS) — which transmits the Pierce’s disease members that are and other grape maladies. (PD) pathogen Xylella fastidiosa — has not become very resistant or very established in northern premium wine-grape grow- susceptible to Pierce’s disease. We can not select par- ing areas, it has made inroads and damaged several ents for breeding without extensive pretesting to en- hundred acres of vines in Southern California. This sure they have the high levels of resistance we need.” voracious insect — a highly efficient vector for the The process of identifying genes for resistance to disease — has spread northward from Southern Pierce’s disease could be shortened by using gene- California to Kern and Tulare counties. mapping techniques similar to those used to map UC Davis geneticist Andrew Walker is breeding the human genome. It may be many years before the varieties to confer disease resistance without losing grape genome is completely mapped, but Walker and flavor characteristics suitable for the table-grape, colleagues have begun to build basic maps that will raisin and wine industries. However, he estimates it help them find genes that confer resistance, as well as may be 15 to 20 years before disease-resistant com- identify better hybrids for breeding purposes. mercial wine-grape varieties are available. However, Walker warned: “You can isolate a desir- Scientists typically search for disease-resistance able gene from one grape species and splice it into characteristics in wild but related species. Walker the chromosome of another, but you currently have and his colleagues are using four wild species that little control over where the new gene is placed on a show PD-resistance, all from the southeastern Unit- chromosome, or how it is expressed. In many ways, ed States. They are also experimenting with dozens gene-splicing techniques involve as much trial-and- of resistant selections from breeders there. error as traditional breeding techniques.” Research update

UC Riverside plant pathologist Donald Cooksey was easier and cheaper, we would be seeing even also emphasized the variety of genetic strains of more removals.” Pierce’s disease. Some strains of X. fastidiosa can Nearly three-quarters of the acreage uprooted is cause disease on grapes, almonds and alfalfa, while in Fresno, Kern and Tulare counties, primarily old others attack citrus, coffee and oleander specifically. vineyards or those without grape contracts, Correia Xylella is a specialized pathogen, growing only in reported at the May 30 Vineyard Economics Semi- the plant xylem and insect mouthparts. Strategies to nar in Napa. The varieties being pulled are mostly prevent disease include techniques to prevent estab- wine varieties, plus older Thompson Seedless rai- lishment of Xylella in the sharpshooter mouthparts sins and table grapes. and the use of harmless, naturally occurring endo- “Many of the growers are converting to citrus or phytic bacteria to compete with Xylella for coloniza- almonds,” Vasquez notes. tion of grapevines. Behind dairy, grapes are the state’s second larg- Damage to grapevines in the Napa and Sonoma est agricultural sector, worth $2.6 billion in 2002. valleys tends to be concentrated at the edges of According to a March 2003 California Department vineyards, UC Berkeley entomologist Alexander of Food and Agriculture report, California crushed Purcell told the workshop. With the introduction 3.8 million tons of grapes (including wine, raisins of GWSS, there could be transmission from vine to and table grapes) in 2002, up 12.5% from 2001, vine, and the possibility of an exponential growth in while growers received average prices 17% lower numbers of infected plants. than the previous year. Growers without contracts Sponsors of the conference included UC agri- for their grapes faced the lowest spot-market prices cultural departments and centers, UC Cooperative in decades. Extension, the North Coast Pierce’s Disease Task The wine industry has been hit by overplant- Force, and a variety of vintners and agricultural ing and reduced consumption due to a weakened suppliers. — Michael Barnes economy. In addition, there has been an influx of in- expensive imports from Chile, Australia and South Central Valley growers pulling grapevines Africa. As a result, the industry has fragmented into distinct price and quality sectors, from ultrapre- aced with a grape glut and depressed prices, mium to jug wines (see page 71). Indeed, Napa Val- grape growers in the Central Valley have pulled ley growers earned nearly $3,000 per ton for their Fout more than 50,000 acres of vines since 1999. high-value grapes in 2002, while Fresno-area grow- “Whenever there’s a glut, the Central Valley al- ers took in $136 per ton for lesser-quality varieties, ways gets hit the hardest,” UC viticulture advisor CDFA reported. Stephen Vasquez says, “because it has more uncon- Despite recent turmoil, the industry appears to tracted acreage and its climate is not conducive to have turned a corner, says David Freed of the Uni- higher-end grapes.” versal Capital Corporation (UCC) Group, which The 8-county region’s total grape acreage peaked conducts an annual economics survey of the wine at nearly 600,000 acres in 1999. The removed acre- industry. Freed says that the outlook for “work- age, taken out between 1999 and April 2003, rep- horse” varieties such as Chardonnay is improving. resents more than 400,000 tons of production, says “People tend to talk red and drink white,” Freed industry analyst Tony says. Correia. UC viticulture advisor Ed Weber said that a sil- The estimates are based ver lining of recent wine industry trends — for con- on permits approved by The Wine Institute The sumers, at least — may be the success of popular, the Regional Air Quality very low-priced wines such as Charles Shaw, which Control Board, which bans is flying off the shelves for $1.99 per bottle at Trader the burning of treated Joe’s. wood used for vineyard The overwhelming success of so-called “two- stakes and requires the buck Chuck” — which has sold an unprecedented 5 careful separation of re- to 6 million cases since its introduction in early 2001 moved vines and stakes. — demonstrates the ability of the wine industry to With subsequent removal develop new markets for lower-quality fruit, Weber costs running about $400 says. per acre, some growers are Furthermore, Vasquez says, “This is an opportu- Grape production was up 12.5% in 2002, but simply abandoning their nity for people who didn’t drink wine before to try prices received by growers were 17% lower. vines, Correia says. “If it it, and possibly look into higher-priced wines.”

ReSEARCH ARTICLE

▲ ▲

California’s wine industry enters new era Phil Schermeister

Since the 1970s, when lower-quality jug wine dominated the market, U.S. consumers have developed a taste for better, more expensive wines. Concurrently, California vintners began producing world-class wines and growers planted tens of thousands of acres of new vines. Above, Many connoisseurs learn about wine and buy directly at the winery.

September 2002, California matically improving, U.S. consumers in grape growers picketed a Gallo the 1980s and 1990s took a new interest INgrape-receiving facility in Fresno, pro- in wine and the lifestyle associated with testing the $65 a ton — just enough to fine wine and food (see page 76). At the Dale Heien cover picking costs — offered for their same time, consumers increasingly ap- Philip Martin grapes. Meanwhile, swank restaurants preciated and understood that the taste ▼ were serving wines made from Napa of wine reflects where the grapes are Cabernet Sauvignon grapes worth grown and how the wine is made. These The wine industry in California and $3,700 a ton. The wine industry in and other changes have contributed the world is entering a new era, California and the world is entering a to a reconfiguration of the California, marked by consolidation and glo- new era, as people drink less but better and world, wine economy. In the 21st balization. People are drinking less wine. Will producers of lower-priced century, the California wine industry but better wine. Will producers of grapes raise their quality enough to at- is changing as a result of consumption lower-priced grapes raise quality to tract more upscale wine drinkers, put- patterns, consolidation of production attract more upscale wine drinkers, ting downward pressure on all grape and the globalization of sales and tastes. and wine prices, or will the wine-grape putting downward pressure on all Quality, not quantity grape and wine prices, or will the industry continue to fragment into wine-grape industry fragment into distinct quality and price segments, al- U.S. wine drinkers upgraded their distinct quality and price segments? lowing one segment to prosper while tastes over the past quarter century as another languishes? In 2001 and 2002, an increased grape baby boomers with more leisure time In 1976, a revolution took place in the and money began to explore wine. Con- supply and the recession led to de- California wine industry. A blind tasting sumption of cheaper table wines, cost- clining prices for wine grapes in all in Paris pitted several California wines ing $3 a bottle or less, was stable during areas of California except the North against top French vintages. To the eter- the 1980s. In November 1991, the CBS Coast. Predictions of a severe wine- nal chagrin of the (French) judges, the TV program 60 Minutes aired a segment grape glut obscure the possibility California wines — Stag’s Leap Caber- on the “French paradox,” which found that a fragmented wine industry is net Sauvignon and Chateau Montelena that moderate consumption of red wine developing in which some segments Chardonnay — were voted superior. In lowers the risk of coronary heart dis- prosper while others languish. part because domestic wines were dra- ease, making wine consumption more TABLE 1. U.S. table wine consumption by retail price (750 ml bottle) and percentage of total volume, 1991–2001 1991 1995 1998 1999 2000 2001 Cases sold (retail price) ...... million cases ...... Ultrapremium (over $14) 2.4 3 5.5 10.1 14.4 14.8 Super-premium ($7 to $14) 7.1 10.1 21.4 24.5 24.5 26.4 Popular premium ($3 to $7) 28.1 34.5 48.1 49.5 52.6 51.3 acceptable among health-conscious con- Jug wine (below $3) 69.2 69.4 67.8 65.7 55 52.6 sumers. Wine consumption, especially Total 106.8 117 142.8 149.8 146.5 145.1 of better-quality table wine, rose sharply Average price $3.44 $3.88 $4.60 $5.21 $5.88 $5.96 (table 1): wines carrying labels such as Total volume ...... % ...... “Chablis” or “Burgundy” and classified Ultrapremium (over $14) 2 3 4 7 10 10 as jug wine fell from 65% of consump- Super-premium ($7 to $14) 7 9 15 16 17 18 tion in 1991 to 36% in 2001. Wines cost- Popular premium ($3 to $7) 26 30 34 33 36 36 Jug wine (below $3) 65 59 47 44 37 36 ing $7 a bottle or more were 9% of sales Source: Fredrikson 2003. in 1991, and 28% in 2001 (Fredrikson 2003). The average, inflation-adjusted price of a bottle (750 milliliter [ml]) went from $3.50 in 1991 to $4.60 in 2001, 2.5% port foliage. During the 1990s, trellises growth in the North Coast and Central annually. This increase in consumption became more complex, often having Coast areas (table 3; CASS 2002). Non- of higher-priced wines and decrease wires to guide the shoots upward, foster- bearing acreage increased even faster, in consumption of jug wines led to the ing growth and facilitating exposure to although the exact amount remains un- phrase that consumers were drinking sunlight. Some growers remove leaves certain because some growers have not “less but better.” The popular premium by hand to increase the exposure of the fully reported their acreage. category, also known as “fighting va- grapes to sunlight. Grape clusters that In 2001 and 2002, the increased grape rietals,” now has a share equal to the are slow to ripen are removed, intensify- supply and the recession led to declin- once-dominant jug wines. ing the flavor of the wine produced from ing prices for wine grapes in all areas Higher grape and wine prices led to the remaining clusters and increasing the except the North Coast. In the southern more plantings in California, especially quality of the wine. San Joaquin Valley, the result was ex- in coastal areas associated with higher- Grape growers have become more tremely low prices, which prompted priced wine grapes. At the beginning sensitive to terroir, or local conditions. the protests at Gallo. Over 60% of grape of the wine boom in the late 1970s, pro- Rootstocks have been developed for acreage in the southern San Joaquin Val- ducer prices for wine grapes rose in all particular areas so that vines are more ley (Madera, Fresno and Tulare coun- areas. However, increased production in disease resistant or drought tolerant, ties) is Thompson Seedless, grapes that the 1980s led to lower prices and a 10% suggesting that parts of California may can be marketed as table grapes, dried reduction in acreage between 1982 and develop a French-style system that asso- into raisins, or crushed to make wine 1991. As the dollar rose in value in the ciates specific grape varieties with partic- or grape juice concentrate ­— a natural 1980s, wine imports surged, achieving ular areas, such as Cabernet in the Napa sweetener added to soft drinks and a 27% market share in 1984. During the Valley, Chardonnay in the Carneros area confectionery products. Many southern late 1980s, the California wine industry of Napa and Sonoma counties and Zin- San Joaquin Valley growers do not have again began to expand, but this time fandel in the Sierra foothill counties. contracts with wineries, which explains growers planted varietal grapes such as During the 1990s, the demand for why they were protesting low spot-mar- Chardonnay, Zinfandel, Cabernet Sau- wine increased and some wineries of- ket or harvest-time prices in 2002. vignon and Merlot. The top five wine- fered growers multiyear planting con- Farm, food industry consolidation grape varieties accounted for 45% of the tracts with guaranteed prices (Goodhue acreage in 1972 and 65% in 1997, but et al. 2002). Plantings increased 48% The farm and food industries are only French Colombard and Zinfandel between 1991 and 2001, with the fastest consolidating so that fewer and larger were among the top five in both years (table 2; CASS 2001). Wine-grape production methods also TABLE 2. California wine-grape varieties and percentage of acreage, 1972 and 2001 changed. In the early 1970s, most grow- ers planted vines in rows 10 to 1972 2001 12 feet apart, which reduced disease Carignane 12 Chardonnay 21 risks by increasing air circulation but French Colombard 10 Cabernet Sauvignon 15 Zinfandel 9 Merlot 11 also limited yields on what was becom- Grenache 7 Zinfandel 10 ing more expensive land; rows today Barbera 6 French Colombard 8 are spaced 8 feet or less apart. The most Total 44 65 common trellis system during the 1970s Source: CASS 2001. had three wires, for the irrigation hose, cordon or vine, and a catch wire to sup- Photos: The Wine Institute The Photos:

Wine-grape production methods have changed since the 1970s. Many growers have become attuned to local growing conditions and are focusing more attention on trellising, pruning and thinning grapes in the field. As a result, high-value Chardonnay and Cabernet Sauvignon dominate the market.

firms account for an increased share of owns Canandaigua Wine Co.­ — the ket many labels, gaining shelf space in total sales. The same squeeze on mid- second- largest wine producer after E. retail stores and facilitating exports and size players is occurring in the wine & J. Gallo — as well as Franciscan Es- joint ventures. industry. The nation’s top three wineries tates, giving it a total of 51 brands in 14 Midsize wineries are at a competi- — Gallo, Canandaigua and The Wine market categories, including Almaden, tive disadvantage vis-á-vis both larger Group — account for over 60% of the Cribari, Inglenook, Paul Masson, Taylor and smaller ones. Small wineries in volume of U.S. wine that is shipped. In California Cellars, Nathanson Creek, areas frequented by tourists can sell the current phase of industry consolida- Dunnewood, Talus, Manischewitz, wine directly to consumers through tion, larger wineries are buying smaller Cook’s, Taylor and Wild Irish Rose. The their tasting rooms, thereby eliminating ones, in part to improve their bargain- Wine Group owns Glen Ellen, Franzia distributors and retailer markups. For ing position with retailers such as Cost- and Mogen David (Franson 2002). Con- example, the Napa Valley has 300 win- co. For example, Constellation Brands solidation enables one producer to mar- eries, a third of California’s total, and most sell much of their wine directly to visitors. Midsize wineries, by contrast, TABLE 3. California wine-grape acreage, production and price* must often sell their wine via distribu- tors, who can have considerable market North Coast: Napa, Sonoma, Lake, Mendocino counties 1982 1991 2001 power under state laws regulating Acreage 71,349 84,086 122,444 alcohol sales; in some states, distribu- Crush (tons) 251,600 347,400 383,000 tors have monopoly rights to distribute Share of total crush (%) 12 17 13 Price/ton ($) 621 1,046 2,219 wine, and many states prohibit wine Total receipts ($1,000) 156,244 363,380 849,877 arriving from Internet sales. In the tradi- tional, three-tiered marketing system for Central Coast: Monterey to Santa Barbara counties wine, wineries sell to distributors who Acreage 54,152 49,854 86,501 sell to supermarkets and liquor stores. Crush (tons) 165,200 195,200 407,400 The markup from winery to consumer Share of total crush (%) 8 10 14 Price/ton ($) 460 749 1,240 is often 100% or more, with much of the Total receipts ($1,000) 75,992 146,205 505,176 profit going to distributors. There is an ongoing effort to eliminate the distribu- Central San Joaquin: Lodi-Woodbridge area tor in wine marketing via Internet sales, Acreage 80,791 73,111 114,765 but progress has been slow due to the Crush (tons) 493,400 519,600 797,700 Share of total crush (%) 24 25 28 constitutional right of states to regulate Price/ton ($) 150 240 390 alcohol sales. Several lawsuits oppos- Total receipts ($1,000) 74,010 124,704 311,103 ing the ban on Internet sales of wine are presently in court. Southern San Joaquin Large wineries aim to achieve econo- Acreage 140,474 108,076 142,463 mies of scale and produce uniform Crush (tons) 1,109,000 989,300 1,290,000 Share of total crush (%) 55 48 45 wines with vertical integration, growing Price/ton ($) 143 157 185 grapes in their own vineyards or hav- Total receipts ($1,000) 158,587 155,320 238,650 ing grapes grown for them according Source: CASS 2002. to winery-set specifications. Many of * These four areas account for 98% to 99% of California wine grapes. the largest vineyards are in the Central Coast region, which lends itself to large- TABLE 4. Global wine production and per capita consumption, 1961–1999

Share of world production 1961 1969 1979 1989 1999 ...... % ...... France 24 18 22 22 22 Italy 26 27 22 21 21 Spain 10 9 13 11 12 United States 3 4 4 5 6 Rest of world 37 42 39 41 39 World total (million hectoliters) 202 270 378 283 280

Per capita consumption 1961 1969 1979 1989 1999 ...... liters ...... France 126 112 93 74 60 Italy 108 114 90 62 54 Spain 53 63 65 41 38 United States 4 4 7 8 8 Source: Anderson and Norman 2003.

scale production of varietal wine grapes Africa; they collectively produce 10% Japan (table 5; Fredrikson 2003). in areas where large parcels of grain and of the world’s wine, but have just 1% of There is a battle fermenting between grazing land were converted to vine- the world’s population, which means Old World European producers and yards. There are also economies of scale that most of the wine they produce is New World producers. In Europe there in winemaking, with more fermentation exported. Australia, for example, ex- are thousands of grape growers, many and storage capacity smoothing produc- ports 90% of the wine it produces, and with fewer than 5 acres, and most send tion and reducing wine crush and fer- Australia, Chile and South Africa have their grapes to co-op wineries. The mentation costs. Technological changes large acreages of vineyard that are not famous chateaux that grow grapes and in fermentation and quality control have yet producing grapes, promising more bottle wines with their own labels are also made it easier to produce wine wine exports. exceptions. Most European wines are a with a consistent taste, and research Import trends blend of several grape varieties, and the continues on understanding the chemi- wine is labeled to reflect the region in cal composition of wine to improve The import share of U.S. wines over which the grapes were grown, such as consistency. the last 2 decades has a V-shape: Im- Bordeaux or Burgundy. The quality and Globalization of production ports made up 25% of the volume of quantity of wine vary from year to year, U.S. wine consumed in the early 1980s, which means that vintage charts are Although wine is one of the world’s reached a low of 12% in 1990 and are needed to determine the best wines. oldest drinks, production and consump- now about 22%. Imports in the mid- In the New World, grape growing tion remain concentrated in Europe, 1980s mostly affected U.S. producers and winemaking are often integrated which produces 74% of the world’s 6 of jug wines, as Italian imports such as operations in which the winemaker billion gallons of wine, equivalent to 1 Riunite and Bolla increased their U.S. aims for consistency so that the first gallon for each of the world’s 6 billion sales (table 5; Fredrikson 2003). Today’s and last bottle taste the same. New inhabitants. The “Big Three” wine pro- import surge is led by two Australian la- World wines, often produced with ducers are France (22%), Italy (21%) and bels, Lindemans and Rosemount Estate, more technology, tend to be preferred Spain (12%) (table 4). The other major which compete with wines produced by consumers in countries that do not European wine producers account for in California’s Central Coast and Lodi- produce much wine, such as the United 19% of Woodbridge region. In 2001, the United Kingdom. global wine production. States imported 127 million gallons of California transformation The United States is the fourth- wine and exported 80 million gallons; largest producer of wine, accounting about 70% of U.S. wine exports go to Parts of the California wine indus- for about 6% of world production. Great Britain, Canada, Netherlands and try have transformed themselves from Other major New World wine produc- ers are Argentina (5%), South Africa TABLE 5. Top wine importers to United States, 2001 (3%), Australia (2%) and Chile (2%) (Anderson and Norman 2003). They are Country of origin Gallons (1,000) Major brands New World countries in the sense that Italy 54,152 Riunite, Bolla, Casarsa, Ecco Domani they share a common wine style (fresh France 28,746 Georges Duboeuf Australia 29,382 Lindemans, Rosemount Estate and fruity) and were largely settled by Chile 13,429 Concha y Toro, Walnut Crest European immigrants. The “Dynamic Source: Fredrikson 2003. Trio” are Australia, Chile and South California Grown The Wine Institute The

The California wine industry has been transformed into a segmented market. Premium wines are in greater demand, while growers of “fighting varietals,” left, must respond to fast-changing consumer tastes and a current surge of imports. Producers of Thompson Seedless, right, can sell their grapes for lower-priced uses, although profitability is presently limited.

producers of jug or generic wine to ever, profitability in these alternatives, If the demand for jug or generic wines producers of high-quality wine; or from especially raisins and wine, is presently continues to fall, the 21st-century wine producers of wines labeled Chablis limited. industry may operate at very differ- or Burgundy, which are winegrowing A related question is how long the ent speeds, with one segment enjoying areas of France, to producers of world- trend toward more expensive wines record profits while another uproots class Chardonnay and Cabernet Sauvi- will last. Today’s population of senior unprofitable grapes. gnon. UC research and individuals in citizens is the wealthiest in history. the Napa Valley laid the groundwork Many marketers feel this is the source for the 1976 Paris surprise. The wine of the shift to more expensive wines, boom they launched made some sectors and they note that the size of the baby of the state’s wine industry extremely boom generation is unique in U.S. his- successful. tory. At some point the shift to wine D. Heien and P. Martin are Professors of The most pressing question facing and to higher-priced wines may cease. Agricultural and Resource Economics, UC the industry is how fast producers can Current levels of consumption, even for Davis. The authors thank Kirby Moulton respond to changing consumer tastes, as higher-priced wines, have been stagnant and the reviewers for useful and insightful wine drinkers shift from jug wine since 2000. This may be due to current comments. to fighting varietals, fighting varietals to economic forces and perhaps September premium, and premium to ultra- 11, or it may foretell a plateau in wine premium wines. Analysts who do not consumption such as that experienced distinguish between these different cat- in the 1980s. References egories predict a “wine glut of historic In addition to the change in tastes, Anderson K, Norman D. 2003. Global proportions” (Palmer 1998). An article considerable concern exists regarding Wine Production, Consumption and Trade, in Barron’s emphasized that, with wine the level and direction of imported 1961–1999: A Statistical Compendium. Ad- elaide, Australia: Centre for International production rising 4% to 5% a year, and wines — both bottled and bulk — Economic Studies, Adelaide Univ. 369 p. consumption rising 0% to 1% per year, which are used for blending. California [CASS] California Agricultural Statistics “The basic laws of supply and demand vintners in partnership with foreign Service. 2001. California grape acreage: guarantee that the coming glut will 1972 and 2001. Sacramento. www.nass.usda. wineries, or California wineries with gov/ca. have a depressing effect on retail wine vineyards abroad, may prosper, but the CASS. 2002. Final grape crush report 2001, prices” (Palmer 2001). However, this fate of growers is less clear. Other con- 1991 and 1982. Sacramento. www.nass.usda. prediction of a glut ignored the pos- cerns arise over the impact of ongoing gov/ca. Franson P. 2002. Canandaigua digests its sibility of a segmented wine industry, consolidation, especially on medium- big bites. Wine Business Monthly. October. p as well as alternative outlets for lower- sized wineries, which could result in a 23–7. quality grapes. In a segmented wine few large wineries and many small win- Fredrikson JA. 2003. 2002 Annual Wine industry, some parts may be booming eries marketing to the agro-tourist and Industry Review. Woodside, CA: Gomberg, Fredrikson & Assoc. Gomberg-Fredrikson Re- while others go bankrupt. Displaced Internet trade. port 22(12):5, 21. growers have alternatives in the grape The wine industry has been among Goodhue et al. 2002. Contact use wide- concentrate (sweetener), raisin and ta- the most successful of California’s spread in wine-grape industry. Cal Ag 56(3):97–102. ble-grape markets. Thompson Seedless farming sectors. The growing number Palmer J. 1998. The coming glut. Aug 3. grapes, which account for one-third of of educated wine drinkers, optimists Barrons. p 1. the California grape acreage, can be sold emphasize, means that the demand for Palmer J. 2001. Bacchus’ revenge. Aug 27. in any one of the four markets. How- premium wines can continue to expand. Barrons. p 1.

ReSEARCH ARTICLE ▲ Sampling and farm stories prompt consumers to buy specialty cheeses

Barbara A. Reed Christine M. Bruhn ▼

California specialty cheese makers need information on what drives product sales so they can effectively market their products. Focus group and telephone research revealed Over the past decade, consumers have developed a taste for “artisan” or specialty cheeses. Left, In focus groups, consumers said they rely on store staff and samples to help them choose that specialty cheese consumers new specialty cheeses. Right, Most specialty cheeses are displayed without formal packaging have a strong preference for sam- or fully visible labels. Case cards often describe cheeses without including the price. pling cheese before making a pur- chase. Consumers also rely heavily on staff recommendations to select California’s specialty cheeses are de- on high-end specialty foods, including cheese. They appreciate unlimited scribed as “artisan” cheeses; they are cheese. Although we did not do sampling in an unhurried, low-pres- made by hand in limited quantities and a demographic profile of our inter- sure environment. Specialty cheese possess unique taste and quality char- viewees, in general they were educated, acteristics that differentiate them from well-traveled and made conscious consumers consider themselves other cheeses. Likewise, “farmhouse” or choices about spending “food experimenters”; they value “farmstead” cheeses are made with milk more than the average consumer on narrative descriptions about where from the farm, on the farm. high-quality food. and how the cheese was made and Between 1993 and 2001, production Vertical integration of dairy produc- are not price sensitive in this area of of Hispanic cheeses almost doubled, tion and specialty cheese processing their food purchases. increasing from 34.9 million pounds allows dairy farmers to set prices that to 70.6 million pounds. Production of cover their production costs, rather alifornia’s dairy industry is second other specialty cheeses grew from than act as price takers in the commod- only to Wisconsin’s in cheese 26.9 million pounds to 54.5 million ity marketplace. Some California dairy Cproduction. According to the California pounds. Between 2000 and 2001, His- producers have capitalized on the ex- Department of Food and Agriculture panic cheese production increased by pansion of this market and are creating (CDFA), California produced more 8%, and other specialty cheeses by 10% unique, handmade cheeses, in small- than 1.6 billion pounds of cheese in (CDFA 1998, 2002). scale farmstead operations following 2001. Production is primarily in food The California Milk Advisory Board European traditions. For example, the service (commodity) cheeses such as (CMAB) surveyed more than 50 lead- Pedrozo Dairy and Cheese Company cheddar (34%), Monterey jack (11%) ing restaurants in San Francisco and the near Orland makes a Gouda-style farm- and mozzarella (44%). Hispanic cheeses Napa and Sonoma valley wine regions stead cheese from a small herd of Jersey (including queso fresco, panela, cotija about artisan cheese use in 1995 and cows grazed on pasture. The spring and queso blanco) (4%), other Italian again in 2000. In 1995, none of the res- milk is used for the production of a cheeses (including ricotta, provolone, taurants had a cheese course, and few seasonally available cheese, aged for mascarpone and cacavallo) (3%) and all artisan cheeses appeared on menus. 1 year, called Northern Gold-Black Butte other specialty cheeses (3%) are tracked Now, nearly half of the restaurants list Reserve. The Fiscalini Cheese Company separately. artisan cheeses on the menu as ingre- in Modesto makes traditional 60-pound Commodity cheeses are used for dients, and two-thirds feature cheese wheels of cheddar from their Holstein food service products such as fast-food courses (CMAB 2002). California’s ar- herd; the cheese is cloth-wrapped and tacos or pizza, while specialty cheeses tisan cheeses are also making inroads aged between are a general category of unique chees- into specialty retailers such as Harry 18 months and 2 years. Redwood Hill es. For example, Parmigiano Reggiano and David, and Dean and DeLuca. The Farm in Sebastopol makes several is a well-known specialty cheese made increase in consumption of specialty goat cheeses in a French style. One is a to very exacting standards within one cheeses over the last decade may be California Crottin similar to the French region of Italy; it is identified by the tra- due in part to California’s economic Crottin de Chavignol — a small, cylin- ditional large rounds of cheese stamped boom during the 1990s. People who had drical cheese with a golden-colored ed- with the consortium name. Many of disposable income chose to spend it ible rind. Current U.S. consumption of cheese A B is estimated at about 30 pounds per per- son annually, a 20% increase since 1990. In California, mozzarella — primarily destined for pizza — represented 44% of all cheese produced in 2001. U.S. con- sumption still lags behind traditional cheese-loving countries such as France, where the average annual cheese con- Fig. 1. (A) Specialty cheese purchases as a percentage (by weight) of all cheese purchases sumption is 54 pounds per person made by specialty cheese consumers and (B) frequency of specialty cheese purchases, (CMAB 2002). reported in telephone survey (n = 47). Our project was conducted under a U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Western Region Sustainable Agriculture participated in four focus groups. Both Currently, cheeses made from raw milk Producer/Marketing Grant, to assist the telephone questionnaires and focus and sold in the United States must be small-scale artisan cheese makers. The group questions were developed with aged for at least 60 days. Many produc- objective was to gather information the assistance of dairy farmers who also ers of artisan cheeses want to preserve about the shopping habits and opinions produce specialty cheese, CMAB mar- traditional cheese-making methods that of specialty cheese consumers that will keting personnel and independent food include the use of raw milk, although help cheese makers develop successful industry consultants. the debate in the United States centers strategies to target that market segment. on whether the 60-day aging require- Not your typical shopper We conducted telephone surveys, focus ment effectively reduces pathogens. At group interviews and in-store consumer Before the telephone interviews be- this time, cheeses made from unpas- evaluations of point-of-sale materials. gan, consumers were read a definition teurized milk (either U.S. or imported The telephone survey and focus of specialty cheese. It read in part: ”An origin) must be aged a minimum of 60 group participants were recruited example of specialty cheese is a farm- days to be legal. We included a question through sign-up sheets posted at spe- stead cheese made in limited quantities about raw milk cheeses in the phone cialty food departments in one gour- by hand. It can be imported or domes- survey and a more general question in met specialty store in Chico and one tic, is usually sold by the pound and the focus groups to learn whether spe- grocery store each in Sacramento and the customer decides how much he or cialty cheese consumers perceived them San Francisco. Forty-seven telephone she will buy.” The telephone interviews as a health risk. interviews were conducted in which revealed that the self-identified spe- Consumption of cheeses made from consumers were asked about the types cialty cheese consumers are dedicated raw milk was not a concern for the ma- of cheese they purchased, the coun- to the specialty-cheese market segment, jority of people we spoke with. Among try or region of origin, frequency and with 48% purchasing specialty cheeses those interviewed, 45% did not know if quantities purchased, and awareness of (rather than commodity cheeses) 75% the cheeses they purchased were made cheese manufacturing practices related of the time (fig. 1A). Nine percent shop with pasteurized milk and hadn’t ever to raw milk. Of those surveyed, 34 also for specialty cheeses several times each thought about it. Another 38% knew week, and another 38% at least once a they purchased raw milk cheeses and TABLE 1. Percentage of specialty cheese week (fig. 1B). These buying habits are did not have health-related concerns consumers (n = 47) who purchased not typical of today’s consumer, who (table 1). various cheese, including those made looks for convenience in food purchas- Varieties purchased. Most varieties from non-pasteurized (raw) milk ing and preparation. Specialty cheese of specialty cheese, as categorized by consumers are buying small quanti- production method, were consumed by Milk class % ties (75% usually purchased less than more than 90% of those interviewed. Cow 100 a pound) and are concerned about its Examples of cheese production types Goat or sheep 96 freshness and quality. When asked to are veined cheeses (Roquefort), soft Manufacturing method identify the cheese’s country or region surface-ripened cheeses (Brie) or fresh Aged hard cheeses of origin, most identified Europe (57%), cheeses (chevre). The only category (Parmesan, Asiago, Gouda) 98 Veined cheeses followed by California (32%) and other with a consumption rating below 90% (Roquefort, Stilton, blue) 94 United States (11%). was “fresh cheeses” (68%). This cat- Soft surface-ripened cheeses Raw milk cheeses. The USDA has egory may have been underreported, (Brie, Camembert) 91 considered changing laws related to the as the majority responded in the affir- Fresh cheeses (chevre, queso blanco) 68 production of raw milk cheeses (those mative to buying goat and sheep milk Pasteurization process made from unpasteurized milk) because cheeses, and the majority of goat milk Purchased raw milk cheeses (any type)? Yes 38 fresh cheeses (those that are not aged) cheeses on the market are fresh chees- No 17 made from raw milk have been associ- es. Consumers may have been less Don’t know 45 ated with outbreaks of foodborne ill- familiar with the other fresh cheeses, ness, including salmonella and lis-teria. such as the Hispanic-style cheese queso fresco, that were also mentioned to de- scribe the category. Focus groups themes Each of the four focus groups con- sisted of eight or nine people who were paid honoraria and served a selection of specialty cheeses for participating. The meetings were tape-recorded with Fig. 2. Importance of sociopolitical factors influencing specialty cheese purchases among focus the participants’ permission, and full group participants (in some cases, figure may not add up to 100% due to rounding error). transcripts were created. We used fo- cus groups to determine how specialty decisions. Specialty cheese consum- is on the quality and not the quantity cheese consumers perceive, feel and ers expressed a strong preference for of food they consume. think about how they make cheese sampling cheese before they purchase The focus group responses about purchasing decisions. Common themes it and said they use tasting and staff food safety were consistent with the and ideas were extracted from each of recommendations for cheese selection. telephone surveys. Most specialty the transcripts (Krueger 1994). Consum- Consumers indicated that they appreci- cheese consumers are not concerned ers were asked open-ended questions ate unlimited sampling in an unhurried, about the potential health issues re- about how they use and choose cheeses; low-pressure environment and consider lated to consuming raw milk cheese. the type of information they look for on themselves “food experimenters.” Store Those who choose to purchase raw package labels; their thoughts about the staff members can have a significant milk cheeses often do so for a per- quality, flavor or safety of cheeses made impact on sales, both through a high ceived complexity of flavor not found from raw milk versus pasteurized milk; level of service and a broad knowledge in pasteurized cheeses, or because they and what kind of information they want of their products. If a cheese was highly believe the process is more natural or from store staff. We also asked if there recommended by the sales staff, and traditional. was anything about dairy products and if the staff provided a sample for tast- Cost not an issue health that influences purchase deci- ing, consumers we spoke with said sions. they often purchased a type of cheese Few consumers in any of the groups Participants were asked to describe (blue-veined cheeses, for example) they volunteered information about the pric- where their cheese comes from (if they ordinarily wouldn’t buy or had never ing or cost of artisan cheeses, except if knew) and after some meditation, to tried. They often left the store with one they were buying for children. These share their vision of how and where or two cheeses not on their shopping list consumers make no effort to economize the cheese is made — even if they had as a result of the staff recommendations when they are buying artisan cheeses, never seen a cheese-making room. They or sampling. although a few of them have experi- were given a chance to create questions Participants consumed cheese as enced sticker shock when they reached for cheese makers and dairy producers an appetizer, ingredient in salad and the checkout stand. For this market seg- in the format of, “If I could talk to the cooked dishes, and snack food. They ment, purchasing decisions are driven person who actually made the cheese, I also included cheeses as a dinner by the occasion and are guided by fla- would want to know . . .” or “If I could course — a practice in European house- vor and use. In most specialty cheese talk to the farmer who owned the cows holds and restaurants that is just now cases, where the cheese is displayed in that provided the milk for my cheese becoming popular in the United States. whole wheels and cut and wrapped to I would want to know . . .” Finally, we Specialty cheese consumers told us order, prices are not displayed. The buy- asked some sociopolitical questions they are not reading labels to find low- er must ask about the price if it concerns about food production and buying fat and low-sodium cheeses. They look them. Retail prices for specialty cheeses habits. Consumers were asked to rate for a description of the cheese flavor range anywhere from $6 per pound to the importance of buying foods that are and characteristics, country of origin, more than $30 per pound. organic, locally produced, purchased storage, ripening and aging informa- Sociopolitical concerns directly from family-owned farms and tion, food pairings and “sell by” date. produced in a sustainable manner. Once Fat content confirms quality and taste Focus group participants were asked they had rated the importance of each attributes, and participants specifi- to use a printed form to rank the impor- sociopolitical question from “very im- cally avoid purchasing low-fat cheeses. tance of several sociopolitical factors portant” to “don’t think about it,” we These consumers are aware of the con- related to food production and pur- discussed their responses as a group. sequences of excessive consumption of chases, such as potential health benefits, “Food experimenters” like samples certain foods and believe the quality sustainable and organic farming and of a high-fat food must be very high locally produced food. After they wrote Responses from the focus groups before they will commit an allotment of down their responses, we discussed the established that consumers do not rely fat and calories to cheese. Many of the rankings so people could qualify their on packaging to make initial purchasing participants mentioned that their focus choices. Most of the sociopolitical issues Specialty cheese consumers said they received a very important or important appreciate narratives rating (fig. 2). about how, where and by whom the In qualifying their statements, spe- cheese was made. cialty cheese consumers brought up two Makers of farmstead factors that override their philosophy cheeses — made when it comes to their buying habits. Advisory Board California Milk from milk produced on the farm where First, their purchasing decisions are cheese is made — tempered by time constraints and con- can take advantage venience. For example, 50% of the San of this marketing opportunity. Francisco participants thought buying Some California farmstead cheeses include: locally produced foods was important 1. Serena, Three Sisters Farmstead Cheese Co. or very important, and 38% thought that 2. Gouda (medium), Winchester Cheese Co. buying direct from family-owned farms 3. St. John, Fangundes Old-World Cheese. was important or very important. While 4. Northern Gold, Pedrozo Dairy & Cheese. these numbers reflect strong support for 5. St. George, Joe Matos Cheese Factory. 6. Giana, Spring Hill Jersey Cheese. locally grown foods, they also indicate 7. Cheddar (sharp), Bravo Farms. that direct access to farms is more of a 8. Cloth-wrapped Cheddar, Fiscalini Farms. challenge for residents of San Francisco 9. Original Blue, Point Reyes Farmstead Cheese. than of Sacramento or Chico. The aver- age response across all groups for these provide milk for their cheese, respon- and rolling green hills. Traditional Euro- two questions was higher, at 68% and dents mentioned antibiotics and hor- pean cheese shops such as Neal’s Yard 80%, respectively. San Francisco impor- mones 12 times and grazing and pasture Dairy in London were also mentioned. tance ratings for the non-access issues nine times. This love of narrative is a marketing of organic and sustainable food produc- opportunity not to be missed by farm- Narrative descriptions sell tion and health benefits of foods were as stead cheese makers. Stories about the high as the other focus groups. Focus group participants also told cheese makers and their farms should In the list of sociopolitical questions us that effective “narratives” about a be conveyed to the customer. Retail provided to participants, we did not product would influence their purchase, shops can use feature boards or descrip- include a question about product qual- even if they were not initially inclined tive case cards, or the store staff can re- ity or freshness. However, all the groups to buy the cheese. For example, one late the narratives directly to customers. qualified their comments on socio- said, “I don’t think you can underesti- A feature board is a chalk or dry-erase political issues with the statement that mate narrative. You hear a story about board hung behind the counter with the actual and perceived quality and a 90-year-old cheese maker up in the weekly specials or featured items writ- freshness of the product were more im- mountains, and even if it’s really strong ten on it. A case card hangs or stands in portant factors than whether it is organ- cheese that I might not normally buy, I a refrigerator case (maybe on a peg in ic, sustainable or made locally. Specialty might try it. It has everything to do with the cheese) and is usually large enough cheese consumers may try to support the person selling me the cheese.” to provide a verbal description of the organic or local production, but not at Another noted, “I usually like to cheese, its origin and some food pair- the expense of perceived quality, fresh- know where the cheese comes from, like ings. ness or flavor. Here, again, their ideals where the wine comes from. In Europe, Cheese makers had hoped the fo- were not always perfectly reflected in certain cheeses have to come from cows cus groups could help guide them in their shopping habits. Furthermore, that are grazing at a certain altitude or designing effective labels that would “quality” and “freshness” were self-de- higher. That’s where the tradition comes highlight dairy practices. We found that fined terms that we did not ask partici- in, which has lasted for several centu- labels are not essential to the purchasing pants to explain. ries.” decisions of specialty cheese consumers, Fifty-three percent of the participants “The best cheese I ever had,” another but they do want accurate and sufficient rated “Buying foods that have potential participant noted, “was probably while information (including narratives) to health benefits” as very important, and I was driving across the German bor- guide cheese selection. This may also be 41% said it was important. Related to der to Austria, and I stopped by a little provided by store staff or written on a health concerns, participants brought farm that made everything by hand. feature board or up questions about the source of the They had all kinds of cheeses they make refrigerator case cards. milk used for cheese-making and what themselves. I couldn’t resist them.” To follow up on what we learned in was “put into” the cheese besides milk. These consumers have a romantic the focus groups about narrative de- “Antibiotic-free” and “hormone-free” vision of cheese production and associ- scriptions, we developed a series of four foods are also important to the specialty ate specialty cheeses with European case-card statements, each of which de- cheese consumer. When asked what cheese-making traditions. Small (family) scribed the same cheese in a slightly dif- they would like to discuss if they could farms were mentioned often. The partic- ferent manner. We then set up a cheese talk to the person raising the cows that ipants evoked images of stone cottages tasting table in the deli section of two TABLE 2. Proposed case-card statements, ranked by specialty cheese shoppers (n = 36) from 1 (most likely to influence purchase) to 4 (least likely)

Statement Mean such as chalkboards or case cards influ- Pedrozo Peppercorn is a Gouda-style cheese, handmade in limited quantities ence consumer purchases and should by Tim and Jill Pedrozo. The Pedrozo family ages this cheese over 60 days. 1.83b* contain as much information as possible This cheese is great as an hors d’oeuvre or on top of a salad. about the cheese and the cheese makers. Pedrozo Peppercorn is a smooth, rich Gouda-style cheese made exclusively Although we did not survey restau- from the milk of Jersey cows grazed on organic pastures. This semi-hard cheese 2.04ab rants, cheese makers told us that they has a mild flavor accented with pepper. are establishing relationships with chefs Pedrozo Peppercorn is a Gouda-style cheese accented with Indonesian in the same ways that they get to know peppercorn. It is made on a small family farm in Northern California. 2.63ab The milk for this cheese is produced without rBST. retail customers. Cheese makers usually give their product to restaurants to use Pedrozo Peppercorn is a semi-hard Gouda-style cheese made exclusively 2.79a from the milk of Jersey cows. The Pedrozo family ages this raw-milk cheese as an introduction and work with the over 60 days. chef to develop appropriate recipes or

* Means with different letters are significantly different from each other (P = .0082). place the cheese as one selection in a cheese course. It took almost 30 years for California specialty grocery stores in Sacramento but it is essential to establish the prod- to evolve from the jug wine capital of and asked customers to evaluate the uct origin as distinctly different from the United States to a state known for marketing effectiveness of the product Kraft Singles. Mass media advertising its fine wines (see page 71). The wine descriptions on the case cards. Thirty- for Real California Cheese is conducted industry built its reputation by creat- six people participated in the case-card by the CMAB and paid for through ing products on a small scale that were evaluations. check-off dollars (assessments on each equal or superior to European wines in Consumers were asked to select the pound of cow’s milk produced, as regu- the same price categories. At the 2002 case-card statement that would most lated by California’s milk marketing American Cheese Society competition in likely prompt them to purchase a cheese order), so in-person promotions by the Washington, D.C., one-quarter of the they sampled for our project. The de- cheese maker are an important means 100 cheese makers submitting entries scription order was randomized on of differentiating a specialty product. were from California. The cheese rated the survey sheet to avoid skewing the Members of the sales staff need to know best of show was produced in Califor- response. The card that described the as much as possible about the cheese, nia, and California cheeses took home cheese as “handmade,” mentioned the who the cheese makers are and what the prizes in 15 of 22 categories. Although farm family by name and included a farm is like, including farming practices the California artisan cheese industry is serving suggestion received the highest and animal care and feeding. If cheese still in its infancy, like the wine indus- rating and was significantly different makers are selling through a distribu- try of the 1970s, it has lots of room for from the case card (P < 0.01) with the tor, they should be sure to educate the growth. lowest rating (table 2). Only the written distributor about their product, provide descriptions influenced the response. sales materials for retailers and conduct Neither the store location nor the clien- in-store demonstrations whenever pos- B.A. Reed is County Director and Dairy tele frequenting the store contributed sible. Farm Advisor, UC Cooperative Extension, to the statistical variation seen in the Increased sales are the incentive for Glenn County; and C.M. Bruhn is Director, response. The data were analyzed by a the specialty store staff to set up tasting Center for Consumer Research, UC Davis. blocked ANOVA and the means tested demonstrations with cheese makers References by Tukey’s Studentized Range. and provide cheese samples for their customers. Such staff often rotates [CDFA] California Department of Food Marketing strategies and Agriculture. 1998. Manufacture of featured cheeses and can use features dairy products. California Dairy Statistics Who better to tell the story of the to derive multiple sales in the same Annual 1997. Sacramento, CA. p 25–32. product than the maker? Focus group product category. For example, if an http://134.186.235.120/dairy/pubs/Annual/ responses showed that cheese makers aged Italian cheese such as Parmigiano 1997pdfs/manufacture.pdf. CDFA. 2002. Manufacture of dairy need to establish a relationship with Reggiano is featured, staff members products. California Dairy Statistics An- customers directly or through cheese often provide other aged dry cheeses nual 2001. Sacramento, CA. p 25–30. buyers and distributors. A large part to customers for comparison and http://134.186.235.120/dairy/pubs/Annu- al/2001/5.pdf. of this strategy can be accomplished purchase. [CMAB] California Milk Advisory Board. through an effective narrative. If cheese is sold in individual pack- 2002. The Contemporary American Cheese Cheese makers should try to have ages rather than cut from a wheel, pack- Course: The New Basics of Eating Well. Work- a physical presence at in-store demon- aging will help the consumer identify shops for chefs. Las Vegas, Portland, Salt Lake City. CMAB, South San Francisco, CA. strations so that customers and store a known brand, but they will generally Krueger RA. 1994. Focus Groups: A Prac- employees can get to know them per- not select a novel cheese based on pack- tical Guide for Applied Research. 2nd ed. sonally. This personal time can be costly, aging alone. Other in-store displays Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 255 p.

ReSEARCH ARTICLE

▲ ▲ Low-income consumers, though less aware of genetically modified foods, are concerned and want labels

Nicelma J. King

▼ Suzanne Paisley

Consumer attitudes about genetical- ly modified foods have been report- ed in a number of studies in recent years, but little attention has been paid to the awareness and attitudes of low-income consumers. While land-grant universities and public health departments have targeted these consumers for nutrition edu- cation, it is not clear what their atti- tudes are, or how the subject should be addressed in education programs such as those offered by Coopera- tive Extension. We conducted focus Controversy over genetically modified foods erupted with introduction of the Flavr Savr tomato, above, in the mid-1990s, and continued as new products were introduced into groups with low-income consum- agriculture and the food stream. Nonetheless, only about 15% to 20% of the low-income ers in California during spring and consumers in focus groups were familiar with the concept of agricultural biotechnology. summer 2002. Their awareness of genetically modified foods was low, but ethical and safety concerns were otic resistance among the general popu- foods have been conducted in recent lation (Heffern 2002). Some critics also years in the United States. These studies fairly high; and they wanted geneti- cite concerns about the ethics of manip- generally show that awareness of GM cally modified foods to be labeled. ulating genetic material in the labora- foods is fairly low, but has increased Consumer and nutrition education tory (Fukuyama 2002). Researchers have over time (Shanahan et al. 2001). A poll programs targeted at low-income noted that acceptance of biotechnology, conducted by the Mellman Group in consumers should address emerging in principle, is fairly high among the March 2001 reported that 54% of 1,001 food technologies. U.S. public, and that it increases with consumers in a nationally representative greater knowledge and understanding sample had heard “nothing” or “not eginning in about 1994, the arrival of the science involved. much” about GM foods (Pew/Mellman and proliferation of genetically The views of low-income consumers 2001). The study reported that consum- modifiedB (GM) crops and foods in U.S. have not been specifically examined in ers of higher socioeconomic status had markets sparked a public policy contro- most polls. It might be expected that they heard more about GM food than others. versy. Advocates say that agricultural would accept GM foods without much Fifty-nine percent of those with a col- biotechnology offers potentially sub- concern, especially if the modifications lege degree or higher had heard about stantial benefits, such as decreased sus- lead to greater availability, higher nutri- GM foods, compared with only 36% ceptibility to crop damage from insects tional values or reduced prices for food. of those with a high school diploma or disease, increased nutritional value, The lack of organized consumer activism or less. Given the strong relationship and a more plentiful supply. But critics among low-income consumers also sug- between education and income in the of GM foods express concerns about gests likely acceptance of GM foods. This United States, this poll suggests that the possibility that genetically altered population is less educated than the U.S. low-income consumers might be less organisms could have long-term nega- population as a whole, suggesting lower aware of GM foods. tive impacts on an already precarious levels of scientific knowledge, including Zogby International conducted a ecological balance (Brown 2001). Others about biotechnology. poll in 2001 that linked religious views raise concerns related to food safety, Opinion polls and surveys to general attitudes on biotechnology such as that milk produced from dairies (Pew/Zogby 2001). The study found using rbST will have higher trace levels Several surveys and polls of con- that Protestants, Catholics and Muslims of antibiotics, thereby increasing antibi- sumer awareness and acceptance of GM were opposed to cross-species gene splicing in principle, and that women in all religious groups were more likely than men to oppose biotechnology. Zogby International conducted an- other recent survey, which differentiated respondents by race and residence in California; it indicated that consumers believe the benefits of biotechnology in general outweigh the risks (Pew/Zogby 2002). Overall, Californians were similar to residents in the rest of the country in their belief that the benefits of bio- technology outweigh the risks, but resi- dents of Northern California were more likely to say that the risks outweigh the benefits. However, African American respondents, both in California and After the concept of genetically modified food was introduced, concerns among the focus nationally, were most likely to say that group participants focused on ethics and safety. Many felt that cross-species DNA splicing the risks of biotechnology outweigh simply “wasn’t right,” while others worried that foods might cause unwanted bodily the benefits (65%). Latino respondents changes or be unsafe for children. were also somewhat likely to say the risks outweigh the benefits, although at limited English proficiency and limited to emphasize that the changes are made a much lower rate than African Ameri- educational backgrounds — especially at the subcellular level. The explanation cans (49%). in science — so we felt it would be im- of the reasons for genetic modifica- Given the higher concentration of portant to explain the concept of GM tion of the food product was simple, African Americans and Latinos among food in language the participants could and either positive or neutral from a low-income Californians, these polls understand. consumer point of view. We used an and surveys suggest that low-income We held focus groups at the begin- example that had a positive impact on Californians are likely to have heard ning or end of nutrition education nutritional value (golden rice), one that little about GM foods, are not likely to classes offered by UC Cooperative Ex- reduced pesticide use (Bt sweet corn) understand the science initially and are tension or WIC, the federally sponsored and one that affected ripening (Flavr somewhat likely to have concerns. Women, Infants and Children’s Nutri- Savr tomato). No brand names of food This study attempts to understand tion Program, around the state during products available in the market today the awareness levels and nature of April, May and August 2002. Focus were used as examples because we did concerns about GM foods among groups were 20 to 25 minutes long and not want to influence consumer behav- low-income and minority California usually conducted at the beginning of a ior relative to any specific product. All consumers. It evaluates whether the particular class. They constituted only a of the examples were of plant products potential benefits of GM foods offset small part of the total nutrition informa- for direct human consumption, rather concerns, and if pricing influences ac- tion the participants received in a than ingredients in processed foods or ceptability. Finally, it considers what 4- to 6-week class series. Focus groups products intended for consumption by kind of information low-income con- were held in Alameda, Los Angeles, animals. sumers want to help them make in- Sacramento, San Francisco, San Jose, Where English proficiency was in formed choices about GM foods. San Mateo and Shasta counties. One question, the focus groups were either hundred thirty-seven consumers par- Focus on low-income consumers translated into or conducted in Spanish. ticipated, with an ethnic composition Nutrition educators who indicated that We conducted focus groups to better of 55% Latino, 20% white, 15% Asian translation was needed were provided understand and interpret data obtained and 10% African American. All of the with the focus group guide in advance, from earlier polls. Also, the prolifera- participants were low-income parents so that they would be familiar with the tion of terms used in the various polls of children under 18, and only five were information to be covered in the focus signifying essentially the same issue male. One focus group was held in a group. In some cases, the nutrition edu- (food biotechnology, agricultural bio- continuation high school program for cator asked questions in Spanish, and technology, genetically modified food, parenting teens, but the other partici- follow-up questions and probes were genetically engineered food and so on) pants were adults. asked in Spanish by the researcher. The could be associated with inconsistent The concept of genetic modification focus groups were audiotaped and tran- results. It is not clear whether the sur- of food was explained to participants scribed prior to analysis. vey respondents understood any of the using an 11-by-17-inch picture of a Low awareness of GM foods terms, or all of the terms in the same model of the DNA molecule. The model general way. Low-income and minor- was chosen as a method of explaining About 15% to 20% of the participants ity audiences in California often have the process of genetic modification, and said they had heard the term “genetical- ly modified foods” or “food biotechnol- line or cautionary news story, combined require labeling unless the modification ogy” before our explanation of GM food with a lack of informative food labels, process introduces known allergens was given. When asked what they had could cause them to reject certain foods. or substantially changes the product’s heard, few had any concrete responses Safety and ethics nutritional value. Although most (about related directly to actual issues in food 90%) of participants indicated that they biotechnology. Several said things like The concept of GM foods was of read the labels of packaged foods they “food additives,” or “hormones and concern to about 25% to 30% of the purchase, it is not clear whether this is things like that added to food.” A small focus group participants, even if they the case for most low-income consum- number mentioned a product, usually had been unaware of GM food prior ers. These participants were more likely StarLink corn. About 10% mentioned to the focus group. Their concerns fell to be aware of labels because they were modifications related to genetic engi- into two general categories: ethics and enrolled and contacted in nutrition edu- neering. Of those who had heard of GM safety. Those with ethical concerns be- cation classes with a curriculum that foods, the majority said they got the in- lieved that modifying foods genetically emphasizes reading nutrition informa- formation from the media, usually tele- simply “wasn’t right” and that genetic tion on food labels. vision news. A few, particularly the high selection through hybridization (plant Those with safety concerns usu- school participants, received their in- breeding) was fundamentally different ally raised questions about whether formation from school or an organized from genetic modification. These par- GM food would cause an undesirable educational activity. Overall, awareness ticipants were especially troubled about change in their body, whether it would of GM foods was low, with over 80% cross-species DNA splicing, such as the be susceptible to the creation of harm- of the participants indicating no prior prospect that DNA in a vegetable might ful by-products during food prepara- knowledge or awareness of GM foods. come from an animal, especially one not tion and whether the product’s shelf When asked whether they thought a intended for consumption. The concerns life would be unnaturally shortened or few, some or a lot of foods on the mar- of these participants were not allayed by lengthened. Less frequently, participants ket today were GM, most said a few the description of DNA modifications as mentioned safety concerns such as safe or some. When probed further, most taking place at the subcellular level with consumption by children, disease risks participants had no idea how many or material that is no longer distinguished related to long-term use, and the length which foods available today were GM. as belonging to a particular animal or of testing before foods reach the market. Some participants cited the foods of- plant. What bothered these respondents Some of the safety concerns were fered as examples in the explanation, was the overall ethics of replacing DNA amorphous, and it was difficult to un- golden rice and the Flavr Savr tomato, across species. More than one partici- derstand whether they were derived even though they were told that these pant paraphrased a line from an old from a lack of knowledge or familiarity foods are not currently on the market. margarine commercial, “Don’t mess with scientific concepts, or due to the About half were concerned that meats with Mother Nature.” food industry’s past mistakes in declar- they bought, such as chicken or beef, This concern with the ethics of cross- ing products safe that later were with- had been genetically modified, even af- species genetic splicing is not markedly drawn from the market. For example, ter we explained that food additives or different than for a U.S. adult popula- one participant commented, “Sure, it’s supplements in diets of animals raised tion segmented by religion, as noted by safe now, but then they’ll do a study for consumption were not related to Zogby in their 2001 poll. Ethical con- and find out that it causes a disease or genetic modification. A few consumers cerns were also raised without reference has a bad effect on something else, like made the connection between the pos- to specific religious belief by Fukuyama DDT.” Overall, those with safety con- sible uses of GM grains in animal feed (2002). What is potentially of concern cerns did not have a high level of trust as a route to GM food. StarLink corn for this audience is that low-income in or awareness of regulations used to was mentioned infrequently, although consumers might be less likely to get keep the food supply safe, including many consumers remembered hearing information about the actual process the use of pesticides during the growth “something about corn.” Because of the of biotechnology that would inform process, additives during processing or high number of Latino participants, and their views, and could potentially help the sale of GM foods for human con- the importance and visibility of corn-de- to change them. It is difficult to know sumption. rived products in Latino diets, concerns without further study whether ethical Pesticides, nutrients, costs about the safety of corn and products concerns would be overcome by more containing GM corn could be significant scientific knowledge or understanding Reduction in pesticide use. Partici- in California. of the modification process. Our expla- pants voiced increased support for GM The knowledge gap about GM foods nation to the focus groups was short foods when the modification would re- is potentially worrisome, suggesting and simple and not intended to con- sult in the discontinuation of pesticides that this audience is susceptible to vince participants one way or the other or additives. Even participants with misinformation or misinterpretation. of ethical values associated with genetic safety concerns were more supportive Because most information they receive modification. The extent to which ethi- of GM foods if they reduced pesticide about food safety is from television cal concerns shape consumer choice is use. By contrast, participants with eth- news, it is possible that a negative head- unknown, as current regulations do not ics concerns maintained their concerns even when faced with the possibility of tions that principally served grower or reduced pesticide use. One participant producer convenience or profitability, suggested that a food might be modi- such as crop ripening, easier harvest or Suzanne Paisley fied for resistance to a particular disease desirable postharvest traits. They were or pest, but there was no guarantee that particularly skeptical about the impact the modification might not increase its GM foods might have on overall qual- attractiveness to another disease or pest. ity of the foods available to them in the For an audience composed of people market. In many cases, however, their with little scientific knowledge, this was negative attitude appeared to be related a sophisticated insight. more to dissatisfaction with the quality Nutrition. Participants voiced the and taste of currently available produce highest level of support for GM foods than to the genetic modification of any when the modification increased the particular product. food’s nutrient value, especially if the Support for labeling GM foods product was intended for the develop- ing world. It is somewhat puzzling that Participants were strongly support- these low-income consumers did not ive of labeling for GM foods and perceive themselves as potential benefi- believed that they needed a lot of infor- ciaries of improved nutritional value. mation about all aspects of the process. In one focus group, the discussion ex- Alternate sources for information, such plicitly turned on this point, after a par- as pamphlets or brochures in supermar- Participants in the focus groups strongly supported the labeling of foods as ticipant said that genetic modification kets, were also discussed, but the ma- genetically modified. Many wanted to know could be beneficial in countries where jority wanted packaged products to be the source of the DNA as well as nutritional children have a difficult time getting labeled. Principally, they wanted to see, comparisons with the unmodified food. all the proper nutrients, “. . . like India, printed prominently on the label, infor- Mexico, El Salvador.” mation on why the food was modified. either entirely conducted in or trans- “What about here?” another partici- Many also wanted to know the source lated into Spanish. It is possible that the pant interjected. “We have the same of DNA used in the modification; this relatively high level of concern reflected kind of poverty here.” concern was apparently the fact that these focus groups were “No,” the original speaker replied. related to apprehension about cross-spe- conducted as part of a nutrition class “Here is different. The nutritious foods cies DNA transfers. In addition, they that emphasized increased awareness of are available here, and they do not cost wanted to see nutritional comparisons nutrition labeling. But it is also possible so much that families cannot get them.” on the label between the GM food and a that participants wanted more informa- In general, it appeared that the group similar food that had not been modified. tion to help familiarize themselves with agreed with her, because most partici- They wanted any differences in shelf life a new food product. One participant pants nodded in assent. or handling needs between the GM food said, “It’s only needed when the prod- Food supply and costs. The partici- product and conventionally produced uct is new. Once people get used to it, pants were more favorably disposed food product to be highlighted. For pro- they won’t need to do so much educa- when the possibility was raised that GM duce, or foods purchased in bulk, they tion and information.” foods might cost less than comparable wanted a prominently placed brochure Our finding is consistent with the unmodified products. In most cases, or pamphlet with essentially the same May 2000 and March 2001 Wirthlin those with safety concerns were more information. polls conducted for the International likely than those with ethical concerns The high level of interest in labeling Food Information Council (IFIC) on to say that they would consider pur- was something of a surprise, as it ap- unsegmented groups of U.S. consum- chasing a GM food if its price was lower pears that most U.S. consumers do not ers, which found that 58% to 65% of than a conventional unmodified food read nutritional labeling currently pro- consumers want GM foods labeled, product. One participant with primarily vided on foods (Noussair et al. 2002), even if the modification does not ethical concerns stated, “They [the food and especially given the public’s over- change allergenicity or nutritional con- industry] want to get us to accept the whelming support of prepared foods. tent (IFIC/Wirthlin 2001). In our focus product, so they’ll lower the price to get In particular, fast food is consumed un- groups, about 80% indicated that they more people to try it.” critically, with the majority of purchas- wanted the information on the label. Benefits to consumers. Overall, the ers apparently paying little attention to More recent (August 2002) polling data participants’ support of GM foods was nutritional content. collected by Cogent Research for IFIC strongest when the modification ap- The support we found for labeling indicated that 59% supported current peared to have some direct benefit for is even more surprising given the high U.S. Food and Drug Administration them, such as a reduction in the use of percentage of participants who were (FDA) regulations on labeling of GM pesticides or increased nutrients. They Latino with relatively low English pro- foods, but the item that asked about were more ambivalent about modifica- ficiency. Four of the focus groups were agreement with FDA was not included in the poll (IFIC/Cogent 2002). Cur- does not differ markedly from that of Give me the information, so I can decide rent FDA policy does not require such the general population, according to for myself.” comprehensive labeling unless the GM surveys and polls to date. The focus food causes allergenicity or is changed group participants indicated somewhat nutritionally, but as consumer aware- more awareness of GM foods than ness increases it seems likely that such might have been expected from the N.J. King is Cooperative Extension Special- labeling would enhance consumer polling results. Again, this awareness ist, College of Agriculture and Environ- acceptance of GM foods rather than could be due to the self-selection bias mental Sciences, UC Davis. This research retard it. inherent in the sample, which consisted was carried out with the cooperation and assistance of Cooperative Extension Home Consumer education implications of consumers who chose to take nutri- tion education classes. Economists Gloria Brown (County Direc- The focus groups were exploratory Fourth, the most significant differ- tor, San Mateo–San Francisco), Gloria and the results must be interpreted with ence between the attitudes and con- Espinosa-Hall, Faye Lee, Yvonne Nicholson, caution. Nonetheless, some intriguing cerns of low-income consumers and Barbara Turner and Estella West, in identi- inferences can be drawn, which can those reported by polls and surveys of fying and coordinating appropriate groups be useful in deciding how to include general U.S. populations is the higher to participate in the focus groups. Sandra information on GM foods in nutrition degree of ethical or principle concerns. Alvarez, Dana Andrews, Pat Brown and education classes. First, the participants These concerns are not mentioned in Michele Lites also facilitated some of the were somewhat more skeptical of GM other U.S. polls and surveys, but are groups. The author is grateful for their as- foods than has been reported in opinion quite prominent in European opposi- sistance, as well as for the time and candor polls and surveys of general audiences tion to GM foods. This distinction sug- of the focus group participants. Any errors to date. Although this concern was fairly gests that more education or scientific of fact or interpretation are the responsibil- low (25% to 30%), the focus groups were information alone may not be sufficient ity of the author alone. conducted 2 years after the negative pub- for a small but significant segment of licity surrounding the June 2000 StarLink the U.S. population, including low- References corn recall, and few of the participants income consumers. Brown K. 2001. Seeds of concern: Are cited that as their primary concern. genetically modified crops an environmental Designers of nutrition and food- dream come true or a disaster in the making? Second, the participants apparently safety information programs that target Sci Am 284(4):50–7. based their concerns and beliefs about low-income audiences need to plan Fukuyama F. 2002. How to regulate sci- GM foods on very little information, how to introduce simple information ence. Public Interest 146:3–22. Heffern R. 2002. The ethics of eating. Nat either of the basic science involved or on GM foods into their curricula. This Catholic Reporter (May 24) http://natcath. the frequency with which they faced information should include informa- org/NCR_Online/archives2/2002b/052402/ GM foods. This concern is overt among tion that: explains the basic genetic 052402a.htm. the 20% to 25% who voiced ethical or modification process; helps consumers [IFIC] International Food Information Council/Cogent. 2002. U.S. consumer at- safety concerns, and implicit among the distinguish between GM foods and titudes toward food biotechnology. Survey 80% who favor more stringent labeling food additives or supplements; explains Questionnaire, 9/24/02. IFIC Backgrounder, current FDA policy on labeling of GM Food Safety and Nutrition Information. www.ific.org. The participants apparently based foods; and describes which food prod- IFIC/Wirthlin. 2001. More U.S. consumers ucts currently are most likely to contain see potential benefits to food biotechnology. their concerns and beliefs on very little GM food ingredients. Food Biotechnology Survey Questionnaire, information, either of the basic science We found surprisingly strong support 3/31/01. IFIC Backgrounder, Food Safety and Nutrition Information. www.ific.org. involved or the frequency with which among the focus group participants for Noussair C, Robin S, Ruffieux B. 2002. labeling of GM foods. Some produc- Do consumers not care about biotech foods they faced GM foods. ers may be concerned that labeling will or do they just not read the labels? Econ Let- ters 75(1):47–53. cause consumers to avoid GM foods, but Pew/Mellman. 2001. Public sentiment requirements. Although a high percent- that outcome was not supported by our about genetically modified food. Pew Ini- age of the participants had not heard focus groups. The fact that GM foods tiative on Food and Biotechnology. http:// of GM foods, this lack of information are not currently labeled unless they pewagbiotech.org/research/gmfood/. Pew/Zogby. 2001. Genetically modifying should not be deemed uncritical sup- introduce some potential for allergens food: Playing God or doing God’s work? Pew port, because public opinion in this or changes in nutritional value means Initiative on Food and Biotechnology. http:// area is easily swayed. The lack of solid that the opportunity for educating the pewagbiotech.org/research/survey7-01.pdf. consumer is limited. The focus groups Pew/Zogby. 2002. Environmental savior or information on the subject could make saboteur? Debating the impacts of genetic this audience even more susceptible to were quite clear that information on the engineering. Pew Initiative on Food and Bio- misinformation and mistrust of the food label (or, for bulk foods and produce, in technology. http://pewagbiotech.org/ production system. the display area) would help them make newsroom/releases/020402.php3. Shanahan J, Dietram S, Eunjung L. 2001. Third, awareness of GM foods an informed decision. As one participant Attitudes about agricultural biotechnology among low-income consumers, even said, “If it’s not on the label, it makes me and genetically modified organisms. Public those with limited English proficiency, think they’re trying to hide something. Opinion Quarterly 65(2):267–81.

ReSEARCH ARTICLE ▲

BIOS approach tested for controlling walnut pests in San Joaquin Valley

Joseph A. Grant Walt Bentley Carolyn Pickel Jeannine Groh-Lowrimore ▼

As concerns increase over changes in pesticide regulations, farmworker safety, surface and groundwater To test the effectiveness of mating disruption in controlling codling moth, pheromone contamination and escalating costs dispensers were applied to walnut trees in the northern San Joaquin Valley. The dispensers and uncertainties associated with must be hung by hand either from a pruning tower, left, or the ground, right. chemical controls, walnut growers need effective and cost-efficient ysis to optimize fertilizer use (Swezey included a variety of walnut cultivars ways to produce walnuts with and Broome 2000). and orchard designs in eastern San Joa- minimal use of pesticides. This study From 1999 to 2001, we conducted quin and northern Stanislaus counties compared the effectiveness of Bio- a project aimed at adapting the BIOS (table 1). Nine of the 12 growers in 2000 logically Integrated Orchard Systems model to fit the biological, economic and 2001 designated an adjacent por- (BIOS) with conventionally managed and infrastructure conditions of the tion of the same block or a nearby block walnut orchards in the northern San walnut farming industry in the northern — of the same variety and similar size, Joaquin Valley from 1999 to 2001. San Joaquin Valley. Our primary focus age and cultural characteristics — to We found no significant differences was pest management, including con- serve as a conventionally managed com- between BIOS and conventional trol of three key walnut pests: parison block. At our request, most of blocks in nut quality or yields. Cod- codling moth, aphids and mites. the growers retained a pest control advi- sor (PCA) experienced in BIOS or other ling moth was effectively controlled BIOS, conventional blocks compared by pheromone disruption and alter- alternative farming methods to provide Ten growers participated in the proj- management advice in BIOS blocks. native pest-control methods. Mating ect in 1999, and 12 in 2000 and 2001. Independent consultants or PCAs from disruption, by itself, appears to pro- Each grower designated a block of ma- agricultural supply dealers provided vide good control of codling moth ture walnuts for BIOS implementation. consulting in conventional blocks. in many orchards. However, it is still BIOS blocks were chosen based on vari- A customized plan for managing more expensive for growers than ety, previous crop and pest history and codling moth and other pests was de- conventional pest-control methods. the growers’ preferences. These blocks veloped for each BIOS block by a team

he Community Alliance with Fam- TABLE 1. Participating BIOS and conventional walnut blocks ily Farmers (CAFF), through its in northern San Joaquin Valley, 1999–2001 Tinnovative Biologically Integrated Or- Varietal codling Block size (acres) BIOS/conv. chard Systems (BIOS) project in Yolo Site Variety moth susceptibility BIOS Conv. configuration and Solano counties, demonstrated A Vina Moderate 16 47 Single block, split from 1996 to 1999 that it is possible to B Chandler Low 20 20 Single block, split reduce pesticide use and still produce C Vina Moderate 10 10 Single block, split D Serr & Sunland High 20 20 Single block, split good yields of high-quality walnuts E Hartley Low 20 54 Adjacent blocks with low levels of pest damage (CAFF F Vina Moderate 13 9 Adjacent blocks (1999 only)* 1999). BIOS emphasizes intensive G Vina Moderate 10 10 Separated by small ‘Waterloo’ block monitoring, biological control and ben- H Vina Moderate 11 None N/A eficial insect habitat enhancement to I Vina & Serr Moderate/high 23 None N/A control pests; cover crops, animal ma- J Hartley Low 20 None N/A nures and composts to build soil; and K Serr High 15 39 Single block, split L Hartley Low 10 10 Adjacent blocks measured use of fertilizers based on * Site F had paired BIOS and conventional blocks in 1999, and no conventional block in 2000 or 2001. nutrient budgeting and leaf tissue anal- of technical experts, consisting of the These included pheromone mating dis- local UC Cooperative Extension farm ruption, releases of the codling moth advisor, two UC integrated pest man- parasitoid Trichogramma platneri, and agement advisors, two walnut growers insecticides that would not disrupt bio- with BIOS or organic walnut farm- logical control of other pests. ing experience, four individuals with Pheromone mating disruption. We BIOS-related expertise (cover crops, tested several hand-applied phero- soil building, pest management), two mone mating-disruption products in PCAs and a representative of a major BIOS blocks. Two companies currently California walnut processor. Growers produce hand-applied pheromone dis- agreed to follow the management plan pensers for use in walnuts. Each manu- as closely as possible in BIOS blocks. facturer has developed small, specially Growers and their consultants and designed plastic dispensers containing PCAs determined pest management small amounts of codling moth phero- practices in the conventionally man- mone. Most growers used motorized aged comparison blocks. pruning towers to reach the upper parts We developed a comprehensive of tree canopies, and attached the dis- monitoring program, which included pensers — directly by hand or with the A variety of pheromone mating-disruption weekly monitoring of BIOS and con- aid of a specially configured pole — to products were tested in BIOS and conventional orchards, including a recently ventionally managed blocks by a project branches near the tops of trees. developed wax emulsion applied using field scout from April through October We used Isomate C+, a currently a pressurized handgun that projects the for key pests, using established sam- available mating-disruption product emulsion near the tops of trees. pling methods (UC IPM 1987, 2000). (Pacific Biocontrol), in one BIOS block Monitoring results were summarized (C) in 1999; five blocks (C, D, F, I and and delivered to growers and their K) in 2000; and four blocks (C, E, F and PCAs each week. H) in 2001. A single application at a rate 40 grams of codling moth pheromone We used data from growers’ har- of 400 dispensers per acre was made at per acre per application in 2000. A first vest delivery and grading reports to biofix (the start of egg laying by the first application was made at biofix in early compare yield and quality in BIOS and flight) of the overwintered generation in April, and subsequent applications at conventionally managed blocks. We each block. Isomate CTT (Pacific Biocon- 4- to 6-week intervals. also evaluated nut quality using harvest trol), another hand- Two manufacturers produce bulk samples we collected when trees were applied product with the same phero- pheromone dispensers, known generi- shaken for commercial harvest. We in- mone blend as the C+ formulation but cally as puffers, for disrupting codling spected 60 randomly selected nuts col- twice as much pheromone per dispens- moth mating. Puffers consist of a pres- lected from each of 10 preselected trees er, was used in two BIOS blocks (K and surized disposable can filled with per block for quality defects and pest L) in 2001. This product was applied at pheromone and propellant, fitted with a damage (total of 600 nuts per block). a rate of 200 dispensers per acre at bio- valve and nozzle assembly and a These trees were located at regular fix, affording some savings in applica- battery-operated controller. The control- intervals along a middle row in each tion cost over the C+ product. ler is programmed to release precise block. We also obtained yield informa- Three growers (A, E and J) used doses of pheromone at timed intervals. tion from questionnaires completed by CheckMate CM-XL1000 (Suterra), an- The dispensers, hung near the tops of growers each year. other commercially available mating- trees at rates of one per 1 to 2 acres, of- disruption product, in their BIOS blocks Managing codling moth fer considerable potential savings in in 2000 at a rate of 225 dispensers per application labor over dispensers such Codling moth is the key insect pest acre, applied once per season at biofix. as Isomate C+ and CTT. We deployed of walnuts, and it was the major focus A recently developed experimental experimental puffers manufactured by of our efforts. Codling moth has three wax emulsion containing codling moth Pure Green Solutions at a rate of one generations per year in the northern San pheromone (Atterholt et al. 1999; Grant per acre in three BIOS blocks (A, D and Joaquin Valley. Feeding by first-genera- et al. 2001) was made available to our G) in 2001. tion larvae causes damaged nuts to drop project by the manufacturer (Gowan). Two manufacturers have developed from trees. Second and third generation We used the product in four BIOS sprayable pheromone formulations. In larvae bore into nuts and damage the blocks (B, E, F and G) in 1999 and three these products, codling moth phero- kernel. Most of these nuts remain on the (B, H and L) in 2000. The pheromone mone is contained in very small (10- to tree until harvest but are unmarketable. emulsion was applied using a pressur- 200-micron diameter) spherical poly- In BIOS blocks, we proposed a careful ized handgun applicator that projected mer capsules suspended in a liquid combination of intensive monitoring a precisely metered stream of emulsion carrier. When sprayed in the orchard, of pests and beneficial insects with onto branches or leaves near the tops of these capsules adhere to leaves and thoughtful deployment of one or more trees. The application rate and concen- other tree surfaces and slowly release alternatives to conventional insecticides. tration were designed to provide pheromones into the air. An advantage TABLE 2. Yields and nut quality were comparable in paired BIOS and conventional blocks*†

Processor grading evaluation‡ Orchard harvest samples No. Yield % % large % % % codling % % % % Year sites Block (tons/ac) insect§ sound offgrade¶ edible RLI# moth mold shrivel oilless** dark 1999 7 BIOS 2.2 0.7 76.1 5.7 45.2 53.1 0.3 5.8 4.5 2.0 10.4 Conv. 2.5 0.3 71.4 4.6 45.6 53.1 0.3 3.1 3.3 2.6 6.1 ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns s 2000 8 BIOS 1.6 2.0 81.5 5.4 43.8 49.9 1.5 4.1 4.8 3.3 8.4 Conv. 1.6 1.0 77.3 4.4 44.1 50.2 1.1 3.9 3.8 3.8 8.1 ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns 2001 8 BIOS 2.0 0.5 86.2 1.7 50.9 50.9 0.6 1.0 1.6 4.3 14.7 Conv. 1.9 0.3 83.7 1.9 48.7 51.6 0.6 0.8 1.6 3.4 16.1 ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

* ns = Difference between BIOS and conventional blocks ‡ Grading performed by Diamond Walnut Growers, # Relative Light Index, a measure of kernel color; higher not significant. Stockton. numbers mean lighter color. s = Significant at P < 0.05. § Includes damage to in-shell nuts by codling moth and ** Darkened kernels with low oil content; usually become † Only sites with paired BIOS and conventional blocks navel orangeworm. shriveled during processing. were used for comparison (excludes sites F in 2000 and ¶ Includes kernel damage identified as mold, insect and 2001, and sites H, I and J in 1999–2001). shrivel. of these formulations is that they are fective disruption, though instances control of these pests by natural en- applied with conventional orchard of unacceptably high damage levels emies. Web-spinning mites (primarily sprayers. The principal limitation is that sometimes occur in mating-disrupted two-spotted mites in the northern San the pheromones are subject to degrada- orchards with low seasonal trap cap- Joaquin Valley), mite predators (six- tion by ultraviolet light, which limits tures. We used pheromone traps (with spotted thrips and western predatory their longevity to 30 to 45 days (Welter the same designs and lures as in the mite) and aphids (walnut and dusky- et al. 2002). As such, they must be ap- BIOS blocks) to monitor codling moth veined aphids) were monitored from plied three to five times for full-season development and populations in con- May through harvest. Each week, 50 control. Manufacturers are working ventional blocks. to 60 terminal leaflets were collected to improve the stability and longevity To evaluate first-generation activity from lower and midcanopy branches of these products. We used a spray- and damage, we counted dropped nuts of random trees in the orchard, and able formulation (Suterra) in two BIOS weekly under 10 preselected trees in leaves were examined for the presence blocks (B and I) in 2001. each block. These were the same 10 trees or absence of mites and dusky-veined Parasitoids, growth regulators. sampled at harvest for quality and dam- aphids. Walnut aphids (live as well as T. platneri was released during the sec- age evaluations. The number aphid “mummies” killed by the para- ond and third codling moth generations of dropped nuts damaged by first- sitoid Trioxys pallidus) were monitored in five BIOS blocks (A, D, F, I and J) in generation larvae is an accepted indica- using this presence-absence method in 1999 (Mills et al. 2000). Four weekly re- tor of possible damage by the second 1999. In 2000 and 2001, we counted the leases of 200,000 Trichogramma-infested and third generations. Damage was number of live and parasitized walnut eggs of a stored-product moth pest were also assessed at the end of the first and aphids present on leaflets. made during each generation by fixed- second codling moth generations by vi- Natural enemies. Enhancement of wing aircraft. At four of these five sites sually inspecting 100 randomly selected natural enemies is an integral com- (all but F), growers also applied the nuts in the middle (50 nuts) and upper ponent of BIOS. The field scout made insect growth regulator tebufenozide (50 nuts) canopies of these trees for notations on the presence or absence of to control first-generation codling moth external signs of feeding or entry. Data generalist predators (lady beetles, as- larvae. This material is selective and from harvest sample evaluations and sassin bugs, lacewings and syrphid fly nondisruptive to T. platneri and other growers’ grade results was also used to larvae) on leaflets collected for mite and orchard beneficial insects. T. platneri re- assess damage at harvest. aphid monitoring during weekly visits. If any number of particular predator leases were not made in 2000 or 2001. Mites and aphids Codling moth assessment. To as- species was observed among sampled sess the effectiveness of codling-moth Aphid and mite feeding can reduce leaflets, it was scored as present for that control strategies in each block, we used tree growth, and nut quality and yield. sample date. Aphids also excrete honeydew, which pheromone trap captures (Pherocon 1C Pesticide use in 1999 and Scenturion LPD in 2000 and serves as a substrate for sooty mold 2001; traps were baited with Suterra growth on the surface of nuts, turning Growers and their PCAs collaborated BioLure lures). Three traps were placed the husk surface black. This increases with project personnel in selecting and at midcanopy in each block and moni- the likelihood that nuts will become deploying alternative codling- tored weekly. It is generally accepted sunburned and have darkened or shriv- moth management approaches in their that if male moths can locate phero- eled kernels. BIOS relies on intensive BIOS blocks. When chemical control mone traps in mating- population monitoring to assess the of codling moth was indicated in BIOS disrupted orchards, the mating suppres- need for chemical control of mites blocks, growers were asked to use sion is not working. Low trap captures and aphids, and on limiting the use of tebufenozide as their first choice. This are generally assumed to indicate ef- cod-ling moth insecticides to enhance insect growth regulator is selective and TABLE 3. Total seasonal average 1X pheromone trap captures in BIOS (after deployment of mating disruption*) and conventional blocks nondisruptive to beneficial insects in the and comprehensive indicator of qual- orchard. Phosmet was recommended ity differences than processor grading 1999 2000 2001 A BIOS 490 67 4 as an alternative to tebufen-ozide in results, though the latter determine the Conv. 525 562 492 BIOS blocks with severe codling moth actual price paid for nuts by the proces- B BIOS 0 1 0 pressure or where first-generation treat- sor. Conv. 80 75 200 ment was necessary. The growers and Codling moth. Codling moth pres- C BIOS 4 7 10 their PCAs made decisions to treat BIOS sure, as measured by pheromone trap Conv. 688 677 295 blocks for other pests — and conven- captures, varied greatly among the D BIOS 245 0 < 1 Conv. 240 332 208 tional blocks for all pests — based on orchards (table 3). Trap catches were E BIOS 14 20 < 1 their individual experiences and objec- generally lower in pheromone-mating- Conv. 331 326 85 tives. disruption BIOS blocks, though the vari- F BIOS 31 5 < 1 Growers treated conventional blocks ous technologies differed in longevity of Conv. 993 N/A N/A with standard pesticides at registered suppression and in the amount of occa- G BIOS 2 50 < 1 rates, including chlorpyrifos (Lorsban), sional captures of male moths. Conv. 196 98 32 esfenvalerate (Asana), phosmet (Imi- Results of first-generation dropped- H BIOS 175 24 1 dan) or methyl parathion (Penncap-M) nut counts showed low levels of early- I BIOS 764 16 2 for codling moth; propargite (Omite) season codling moth damage in most J BIOS 1224 695 168 or clofentezine (Apollo) for mites; and blocks (table 4). There were no sig- K BIOS N/A 4 < 1 Conv. N/A 382 250 chlorpyrifos or naled (Dibrom) for nificant differences between BIOS and L BIOS N/A 12 < 1 aphids. Though growers were informed conventional blocks in the number of Conv. N/A 276 101 of and asked to adhere to recognized dropped nuts. The numbers of codling * Use of mating disruption is indicated by colored numerals. treatment thresholds for particular moth–damaged nuts in midseason can- pests, they were generally allowed to opy damage assessments were accept- treat BIOS and conventional blocks as ably low at all sites in all years. Except they deemed necessary to ensure ac- for the first canopy damage assessment ceptable yields and quality. Growers in 2001, when BIOS blocks had slightly reported pesticide applications for cod- greater average damage than conven- ling moth and other pests in year-end tional blocks, there were no significant questionnaires. differences between BIOS and conven- BIOS effectiveness evaluated tional blocks. A single application of Isomate C+ Yields and quality. Nut yields were or CTT suppressed trap captures for similar in BIOS and conventional blocks the entire season at all sites where these in all three years of the project (table 2). products were used (table 5). Nut dam- Nut quality, as measured by processor age in these sites, as measured by can- grading evaluations, was also compara- opy damage assessments and harvest ble. Kernel damage by insects was never evaluations, was also low and compa- Pheromones can be applied in aerosol form, great enough to trigger processor pay- rable to that in conventional blocks. such as this experimental microsprayer, or “puffer,” which releases precise doses at timed ment penalties, though mold damage A single application of CheckMate intervals. resulted in off-grade penalties in both CM-XL1000 suppressed trap captures BIOS and conventional blocks in some at the three sites where it was used in TABLE 4. Average number codling-moth-damaged years. Nuts sampled at harvest showed 2000 until mid-July, when a resumption dropped nuts under trees during first generation, and no significant differences between BIOS of low-level trap captures indicated percent nuts with codling moth damage during first and conventional blocks in nut damage that the product was depleted of phero- and second canopy damage assessments, in paired BIOS and conventional blocks* or kernel quality, except for a slight in- mone. The average weekly trap capture crease in darkened kernels in one year. in these blocks was only 0.3 moths per % % In general, our harvest samples trap before July 16; it was 5.3 moths per No. No. drop damage, damage, Year sites Block nuts/tree June August showed more damage than processors’ trap thereafter. This late-season activity 1999 7 BIOS 0.2 0.14 0.06 grading reports, especially non-insect- was great enough to warrant chemi- Conv. 0.5 0.03 0.69 related defects such as moldy, shriveled cal treatment at one of the sites. Two ns ns ns and darkened kernels. This occurred of the three blocks where this product 2000 8 BIOS 1.5 0.43 0.66 Conv. 1.7 0.23 0.48 because some damaged nuts (e.g., shriv- was used had the greatest codling moth ns ns ns eled and oilless) are removed by harvest damage at harvest (4.3% and 2.2%) of all 2001 8 BIOS 3.9 0.21 0.45 and hulling equipment prior to proces- the mating-disrupted blocks. Conv. 4.7 0.06 0.48 sor delivery and because our harvest The pheromone wax emulsion sup- ns s ns evaluations included defects such as pressed pheromone trap captures for at * ns = Difference between BIOS and conventional blocks not significant. dark kernels that processors do not nec- least 30 days after application (Grant et s = Significant at P < 0.05. essarily consider rejectable. As such, our al. 2001). Under the relatively low harvest samples were a more sensitive codling-moth pressure conditions that TABLE 5. Performance of alternative approaches used to control codling moth in paired BIOS and conventional blocks*

Codling moth Avg. seasonal No. June August management Year(s): trap capture dropped nuts assessment, assessment, Harvest practice sites used (moths/trap) per tree % damage % damage damage, % Isomate C+ 1999: C 4 1.1 0.3 0.6 0.9 Conventional 2000: C, D, K 409 2.1 0.2 0.8 1.1 2001: C, E ss ns ns ns ns Isomate CTT2001: K, L < 1 1.2 0.5 0.5 0.8 Conventional 176 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.3 ns ns ns ns ns CheckMate CM-XL1000 2000: A, E, G 46 1.0 0.5 0.8 2.4 Conventional 329 1.2 0.1 0.2 0.7 ns ns ns ns ns Pheromone emulsion 1999: B, E, G 6 1.7 0.2 0.1 0.2 Conventional 2000: B, L 192 1.2 0.1 0.04 0.2 ss ns ns ns ns Tebufenozide + T. platneri 1999: A, D 368 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.7 Conventional 383 0.1 0.0 1.5 0.5 ns ns ns ns ns * ns = Difference between BIOS and conventional blocks not significant. ss = Significant at P < 0.01.

Orchards treated with a combination of tebufenozide and T. platneri releases had acceptably low levels of nut dam- age during the season and at harvest. Good codling moth control Our results lead us to the provisional conclusion that mating disruption, by it- self, can provide good control of codling moth in many orchards. It is least likely to be successful as a sole treatment in orchards with susceptible varieties, tall canopies and historically large codling moth populations. Ongoing research with sprayable and puffer formulations will address whether this limitation can be overcome using more frequent or higher doses. Walnut growers and PCAs with con- The BIOS implementation team, consisting of growers, UC advisors and technical experts, ventional orchards currently base their visited with growers at the beginning of the project to suggest strategies for reducing pesticide use. codling moth management decisions on prior damage and in-season assess- prevailed in orchards where this mate- malfunctioning ones at BIOS block D, ments of pheromone trap captures and rial was used in 1999, the longevity of where they provided good suppression nut damage. Because pheromone trap the emulsion was such that two appli- of trap captures (total seasonal capture captures are greatly reduced in mating- cations were sufficient for the season. of 0.3 moths per trap) and nut damage disrupted orchards, they are not consid- Three applications were needed in (0.3% at harvest). ered useful for assessing moth activity. 2000. This material provided good con- The Suterra sprayable formulation Statistical comparisons of trap captures trol of nut damage during the season used in BIOS blocks B and I in 2001 pro- and harvest damage in our project’s and at harvest. vided good suppression of pheromone mating-disruption blocks showed that Early in the 2001 season, we found trap captures throughout the season (to- pheromone trap captures were poor in- that some puffers deployed at BIOS tal seasonal trap captures were dicators of potential damage within the blocks A, B and G were malfunction- 0 and 2.0 moths per trap, respectively). range of relatively low damage levels ing and releasing variable amounts of However, both these sites had relatively observed in the mating-disrupted block pheromone. Because of this, the units high dropped-nut counts (19 and 10 per (linear regression is significant at P < were removed from BIOS blocks A and tree, respectively), and the tall Serr trees 0.01, r2 = 0.24). Work is currently under G in early June and Isomate C+ dis- at site I had relatively high damage levels way to evaluate a new codling moth pensers were hung to disrupt mating in canopy assessments (1.5% and 4.2% lure based on a pear fruit volatile that for the balance of the season. We used in the June and August assessments, re- attracts both male and female moths properly operating puffers to replace spectively) and at harvest (4.5%). and may allow more accurate tracking TABLE 6. Duration and intensity of web-spinning mite infestations and mite predators, in paired BIOS and conventional blocks (n = 23), 1999–2001* thrips and western predatory mites), Web-spinning mites Mite predators† on the other hand, were significantly Avg. % Max. % Avg. % Max. % No. weeks leaflets leaflets No. weeks leaflets leaflets more abundant in BIOS blocks, though detected mites w/mites detected w/predators w/predators the difference was small. These findings BIOS 6.3 14.3 29.0 8.6 14.7 37.1 contradict the broadly held assertion that Conv. 6.0 11.3 26.8 6.5 11.3 24.2 mites can be reduced by eliminating or ns ns ns s s s reducing broad-spectrum insecticides * ns = Difference between BIOS and conventional blocks not significant. (UC IPM 1987, 2000). In some cases, late- s = Significant at P < 0.05. † Includes six-spotted thrips and western orchard predator mites. season changes in mite and predator populations indicated that mites were effectively controlled in BIOS blocks by of activity in mating-disrupted walnut moth management costs in conventional their natural predators. Overall, however, orchards (Light et al. 2001, 2002). blocks, as provided by growers in year- our results suggest that biological control Although early-season counts of end surveys, ranged from $76 to $112 of two-spotted mites was not strongly codling-moth-damaged dropped nuts per acre. Therefore, growers consider enhanced by reducing disruptive insecti- are used as an indicator of damage hand-applied products prohibitively cide treatments for codling moth, at least in conventionally managed orchards, expensive compared with conventional not to a degree where the need for miti- we found no relationship between pesticides. The cost of the pheromone cide applications was reduced. BIOS and dropped-nut counts and codling emulsion product could not be esti- conventional blocks needed chemical moth damage at harvest in mating- mated because it was experimental and treatment for mites with roughly equal disrupted blocks (linear regression is is not currently commercially available. frequency over the 3-year project. not significant at P < 0.05). Midseason The cost of applying the emulsion aver- Averaged over 3 years, the dura- canopy damage assessments proved a aged $7 per acre per application in our tion and intensity of walnut aphid and somewhat better predictor of eventual tests — around $14 to $21 per acre de- walnut aphid parasitoid activity were harvest damage in mating-disrupted pending on the number of applications similar in BIOS and conventional blocks blocks, though all but 0.5% and 0.3% of needed for (table 7). Apparently, walnut aphids were harvest damage was already present by season-long control. If they are shown controlled as well by parasitoids in BIOS the time assessments were made at the to be effective in ongoing tests, phero- blocks as by late-season insecticide ap- end of the first and second codling moth mone puffers (now available for cod- plications in conventional blocks. The flights, respectively. (Linear regression ling moth from Suterra) and sprayable dusky-veined aphid was present at some for first canopy assessment is not signif- formulations (now available from Suter- sites and reached greater average infesta- icant at P < 0.05; regression is significant ra and 3M) offer the prospect of achiev- tion levels in BIOS than in conventional for second assessment at ing good control at lower costs than the blocks. Only one BIOS block (H) was P < 0.001, r2 = 0.56.) If codling moth had hand-applied products. Costs per acre treated each year for this pest. not been controlled as effectively by for these products are unknown because Natural enemies. Seasonal compila- mating disruption in these blocks, can- the amounts of product needed per acre tion of general predator observations opy damage assessments may not have are still under investigation. made by the project field scout showed provided adequate advance warning of that lady beetles and syrphid fly larvae Control of mites and aphids a codling moth problem. — both aphid predators — and lace- Pheromone product costs During the 3 years of the project, wings — effective general predators of web-spinning mite infestations were mites and aphids — were significantly Although we demonstrated that similar in BIOS and conventional blocks more abundant in BIOS than in conven- many of the pheromone-dispensing (table 6). Mite predators (six-spotted tional blocks (table 8). technologies can control codling moth effectively in walnuts, they must also be cost-competitive with pesticides for TABLE 7. Duration and intensity of aphids and their parasites in BIOS and conventional blocks, 1999–2001*† growers to use them. Of the various Live walnut aphids‡ Parasitized walnut aphid mummies Dusky-veined aphids mating-disruption products we tested, only the hand-applied dispensers were No. No. Avg. no. Max. no. No. Avg. % Max. % weeks Avg. no. Max. no. weeks mummies/ mummies/ weeks leaflets leaflets registered for use and commercially detected leaflet per leaflet detected leaflet leaflet detected with DVA with DVA available in California. Approximate BIOS 9.6 1.0 4.2 10.8 0.8 2.2 4.9 7.1 14.5 2001 retail prices were $110 per acre per Conv. 8.4 1.0 3.6 9.6 0.7 1.7 2.4 2.6 10.1 ns ns ns ns ns ns ns s ns application for Isomate C+ and CTT and * ns = Difference between BIOS and conventional blocks not significant. $140 for CheckMate CM-XL1000. Appli- s = Significant at P < 0.05. cation costs were $50 to $90 for Isomate † Only paired BIOS and conventional sites where walnut aphids (n = 16), aphid mummies (n = 16) or dusky-veined aphids C+, $25 to $50 for Isomate CTT, and $15 (n = 8) present were used for comparison. ‡ Includes data from 2000 and 2001 only. In 1999, live and parasitized walnut aphids were monitored using presence-absence to $26 for CheckMate CM-XL1000. Proj- sampling. ect growers’ annual average codling- Fewer pesticide applications may help address the costs and uncer- tainties of the BIOS approach, and help Though the number and type of identify better methods of assessing treatments used each year differed de- A pest pressure and potential damage in pending on pest abundance, growers’ orchards where they are used. pesticide use records show that our suc- cesses in managing key walnut pests in BIOS blocks were achieved while using substantially fewer conventional pesti- J.A. Grant is Farm Advisor, UC Cooperative cide applications (fig. 1). The reductions Extension (UCCE), Stockton; achieved were mainly the result of re- W. Bentley is IPM Entomologist , UC Kear- placing codling moth sprays with mat- ney Agricultural Center, Parlier; ing disruption and other alternatives. C. Pickel is Area IPM Advisor, UCCE, We observed that growers’ pesticide use Yuba City; and J. Groh-Lowrimore is Staff patterns in conventional blocks were Research Associate, UCCE, Stockton. The similar to other conventional blocks UC Sustainable Agriculture Research and they farmed and to blocks of similar Education Program funded this project. The varieties and pest pressure in the area. authors wish to thank project growers for We do not believe that project growers their vision and cooperation and CAFF for made more pesticide applications in inspiring it. B conventional blocks because of moni- References toring data made available to them by Atterholt CA, Delwiche MJ, Rice RE, Kro- project personnel. chta JM. 1999. Controlled release of insect sex pheromones from paraffin wax and emul- Effective alternatives sions. J Controlled Release 57:233–47. [CAFF] Community Alliance with Family This project demonstrated that alter- Farmers. 1999. Biologically Integrated Or- native approaches can be used to ef- chard Systems (BIOS) 1998 Year-End Report. fectively manage key pests in walnuts. Davis, CA. 18 p. These tactics must be deployed with Grant JA, Giles DK, Brazzle J, Groh J. 2001. New codling moth management tool: Phero- thoughtful consideration of individual mone emulsion shows promise in walnuts. pest and orchard factors, and intensive Nut Grower 21(4):8–11. monitoring is critical for evaluating ef- Light D, Knight AL, Henrick CA, et al. 2001. A pear-derived kairomone with phero- fectiveness and assessing the need for monal potency that attracts male and female supplemental pesticide applications. codling moth, Cydia pomonella (L.). Naturwis- Most of the currently available mat- senschaften 88:333–8. ing-disruption technologies we tested Light D, Reynolds K, Grant JA, et al. 2002. Validation and development of a monitoring were effective and helped reduce total and management system for codling moth pesticide use, but were more costly than based on a novel female and male attractant conventional pesticide-based programs. kairomone. In: Walnut Research Reports 2001. Sacramento: California Walnut Market- Biological control of mites and aphids ing Board. p 259–304. was enhanced when disruptive insecti- Mills NJ, Pickel C, Mansfield S, et al. 2000. Fig. 1. Number and type of annual pesticide Trichogramma inundation: Integrating para- treatments applied for (A) codling moth and cides were reduced, but may not be sitism into management of codling moth. Cal (B) all pests in paired BIOS and conventional adequate to eliminate pesticide applica- Ag 54(6):22–5. blocks. tions for these pests. Ongoing research Swezey SL, Broome JC. 2000. Growth pre- dicted in biologically integrated and organic farming. Cal Ag 54(4):26–35. TABLE 8. Generalist predators observed in paired BIOS and conventional blocks (n = 23)* [UC IPM] UC Statewide Integrated Pest Management Program. 1987. Integrated Pest Management for Walnuts, 2nd ed. ANR Pub Chrysopidae/ 3270. 96 p. Coccinellidae Reduviidae Hemerobiidae Syrphidae UC IPM. 2000. UC Pest Management (lady beetles) (assassin bugs) (lacewings) (syrphid flies) Total Guidelines: Walnuts. ANR Pub 3471. 48 p. BIOS 5.2 2.0 17.6 5.7 30.6 Welter SC, Cave F, Singleton M. 2002. Conv. 3.3 1.1 13.4 2.8 20.6 Development of alternative pheromone s ns sss ss sss dispensing technologies for management * ns = Difference between BIOS and conventional blocks not significant. of codling moth. In: Walnut Research s = Significant at P ≤ 0.05. ss = Significant at P ≤ 0.01. sss = Significant at P ≤ 0.001. Reports 2001. Sacramento: California Walnut Marketing Board. p 225–7.

ReSEARCH ARTICLE ▲ Flow meters tested on dairy lagoon water

Larry Schwankl Alison Eagle Carol Frate Ben Nydam ▼

As California’s dairy industry contin- Accurate flow-rate measurements are needed to more efficiently manage nutrients in ues to grow, manure management water from dairy manure ponds, which is later applied during irrigation. Commonly used in agriculture, the propeller meter often becomes entangled with weeds and has become an increasingly impor- twine from a dairy manure pond, making it difficult to obtain readings. tant issue for dairy producers, gov- ernment regulators and the public here are approximately 2,200 dair- done at the pond’s discharge pipe, ei- living in close proximity to dairies. ies in California, with more than ther with a sampling valve inserted into Dairies are increasingly required to 1.4T million cows. The largest concentra- the pipe or as the water enters a stand- prepare nutrient management plans tion of dairies is in Southern California pipe prior to being mixed with freshwa- and comply with regulations con- (Riverside and San Bernardino counties) ter and sent to the fields for irrigation. cerning their manure management and in the San Joaquin Valley (Tulare Water quality may vary by season and practices. A common dairy practice County north to San Joaquin County). by pond depth, so sampling should be in California is to house the cows Dairy size is continually increasing, done appropriately to characterize the in free stall barns with water flush resulting in ever-larger volumes of manure water. systems to remove the manure. manure that must be managed. Many Obtaining flow-rate measurements The manure flush water, high in dairies use a free stall barn system that for manure water can be challeng- nutrients such as nitrogen and is flushed with water to remove manure ing. The current draft guidelines for phosphorus, is collected in holding and collect it in a holding pond. Other Comprehensive Nutrient Management ponds until it can be combined with dairy water (such as holding pen/milk- Plans (CNMPs), developed by the U.S. freshwater and applied to cropland ing parlor water or storm-water runoff) Department of Agriculture Natural Re- during irrigation. Being able to that comes in contact with manure is sources Conservation Service (NRCS) quantify the amount of manure wa- also collected and stored in the manure and the U.S. Environmental Protection ter applied is critical to good nutri- pond. The manure-pond water, which Agency, emphasize the importance of ent management of crops. The high is rich in nutrients, is mixed with fresh- accurately measuring manure-water trash and debris content of manure water and applied to agricultural fields applications (NRCS 2003). CNMPs are water has precluded the use of during irrigation. The objective is to required by the NRCS for cost sharing most flow meters commonly used apply the nutrients in agronomically on some dairy improvements. In addi- in agriculture, such as the propeller appropriate amounts and, in doing so, tion, Merced County is requiring that meter. A field test of electromag- manage the amount of nitrogen and all of its dairies (335 in 2003) complete CNMPs by 2006 (Merced County 2003). netic flow meters and a Doppler phosphorus that might eventually pol- lute groundwater. Other Central Valley counties are also flow meter determined that both Successful nutrient management of considering requiring CNMPs for dair- were accurate, dependable and ap- dairy manure-pond water applied to ies. In addition, revisions to federal and propriate for measuring manure- fields requires knowing both the flow state water-quality regulations may water flow rates. Their drawbacks rate from the pond and the nutrient mandate nutrient management plans in are price ($3,000 to $4,000) and the content of the pond water. Pond water the near future. need for electrical power for perma- must be sampled to determine nutrient Dairy operators often do not measure nent flow-meter installations. concentrations. Sampling is most easily flow rates for their manure-pond water Several different types of flow meters were tested for accuracy and ease of use in dairy manure ponds. Left, The Doppler meter sensor is attached to the side of a PVC pipe. Above, A tube electromagnetic flow meter is installed in a PVC pipe. Top right, Insertable electromagnetic flow meters were accurate in tests; they are most useful if the meter needs to be moved from site to site. Right, The flow meters were tested in series. Dairies may realize significant savings in fertilizer costs by investing in a Doppler or electromagnetic flow meter. because manure solids and debris in — were evaluated at a Tulare County electromagnetic field in the water pass- the water collect and clog many flow dairy to determine how well they work ing through or by the flow meter; the meters. The propeller meter, widely for measuring dairy water movement changes the voltage of used for measuring flow rates in other manure-pond waters. the electromagnetic field. The voltage agricultural applications, is also sus- Doppler, electromagnetic meters change is measured by the magmeter ceptible to weeds and twine entangling and the flow velocity is determined us- the propeller. In fact, any flow meter A Doppler meter has a sensor that ing Faraday’s Law of Electromagnetic that extends into the flow path of the simply attaches to the outside of a PVC Induction. This law states that the elec- pipeline is likely to experience the same or metal pipe. The meter transmits an trical voltage induced in the liquid flow- problems. Alternative methods of esti- acoustic signal of known frequency and ing through a magnetic field is directly mating manure-water flow rates, such then measures the signal reflected back proportional to the velocity of the fluid. as measuring the rate of drop in the ma- from particles in the water. The velocity The flow rate can be determined from nure pond or estimating flow rates from of the water flowing in the pipe influ- the flow velocity and the inside cross- assumed pump discharge, have their ences the frequency of the reflected sectional area of the pipe. drawbacks. Pond drop measurements signal. Since Doppler meters need sus- Both Doppler meters and tube mag- are complicated by the difficulty in pended particles in the water to accu- meters have been used for many years determining the actual surface level of rately determine the flow rate, they will in sewage treatment facilities and other the pond and by inflows potentially oc- not work well on very clean water, but industrial applications where water curring at the same time as discharges. manure water certainly does not lack for contains solids or debris. The most com- The discharge rate of some manure- suspended particles. mon installations of both meters require water pumps, such as floating agitator There are two types of electromag- 110-volt power. However, they both also pumps, may vary widely depending on netic meters. The tube magmeter con- have 12-volt battery-powered models, the level of the manure pond. As a be- sists of a short section of unobstructed and a 12-volt tube magmeter is avail- lowground pond is emptied, the pump pipe that is permanently installed in the able that utilizes a solar panel/battery discharge rate drops. The pumping rate pipeline via flanges. Tube magmeters source. This last system is significantly of one manure-pond pump dropped have electromagnets built into the more expensive than the 110-volt sys- from 1,200 to 800 gallons per minute short section of pipe. The other, the in- tems. If manure-water flow rates are (gpm) when the pond surface fell ap- sertable electromagnetic meter, consists measured near the manure pond a 110- proximately 5 feet. of a rod inserted into the pipe through volt power source The ideal method of measuring a hole and threaded fitting. The insert- is often close by, but if the flow meter is manure-water flows would be with a able magmeter has its electromagnet used in the irrigation system pipeline reliable, accurate flow meter that does located on the streamlined tip of the where power is not available, a 12-volt not clog and is installed to provide in- rod, which protrudes only slightly into system may be preferable. stantaneous and totalized flow rates. the pipe so it does not have significant In the flow meter test, three tube Two types of flow meters that meet this problems with tangling and clogging. magmeters from different manufactur- criteria — electromagnetic and Doppler The magnets of both types induce an ers (Water Specialties, Danfoss and Isco) TABLE 1. Flow meter test results

Test Flow meter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ...... gallons per minute ...... Magmeters Danfoss* 1216 800 1018 665 874 355 1080 728 801 880 742 Isco† 977 640 859 361 1071 704 796 878 752 Water Specialties‡ 880 351 1120 720 813 896 750 Insertable electromagnetic Marsh-McBirney§ 810 857 656 Doppler, Greyline¶ 951 715 990 667 819 415 1115 777 Propeller 1180 813 1056 675 884 365 * Danfoss MAG 3100 flow meter; supplier: EMCO Engineering ‡ Water Specialties Ultra Mag; McCrometer, Hemet, CA. Measurements, Longmont, CO. § Marsh-McBirney Multi-Mag; Marsh-McBirney, Frederick, MD. † Isco UniMag PVC Flow Tube; Isco, Lincoln, NE. ¶ Greyline PDFM-IV Portable Doppler; Greyline Instruments, Massena, NY.

were installed in series in an 8-inch The tests ranged from 30 minutes to netic meter’s accuracy was comparable Schedule 40 PVC pipe through which more than 90 minutes. The flow meter to that of the tube mag-meters — within dairy pond water was pumped on its rates reported in table 1 are the average 5% accuracy. Only in test 11 was its ac- way to the irrigation system. The mag- flow rate during each test, calculated curacy somewhat lower and this was meters were installed far enough apart using the beginning totalized flow vol- attributable to some debris collecting on that they did not interfere with each ume, the final totalized flow volume the sensor, noticed when the meter was other. We also installed an 8-inch, sad- and the test duration. Following each removed at the end of the test. Debris dle-mounted propeller meter that had test, the propeller meter was inspected collecting on the insertable magmeter been carefully calibrated in a hydraulics to ensure that it was not entangled. Af- sensor does not appear to be a common lab, and an insertable electromagnetic ter the initial tests (table 1), we found problem, but it is a possibility. flow meter (Marsh-McBirney) that was that the tube magmeters were extremely Accuracy within 10% should be ac- installed in the pipe through a saddle, accurate and that all three models ceptable for monitoring manure-water with a 2-inch threaded opening, mount- agreed very closely. Since the tube mag- flow rates under field conditions. ed to the pipe. The propeller meter, used meters were at least as accurate and This level of accuracy can be readily as the standard, was left in the pipe only reliable, under the water- achieved with any of the electromag- long enough to run the tests because quality conditions, as the propeller me- netic flow meters. In fact, the electro- previous use had shown that it would ter, they were used subsequently as the magnetic flow meters often measure foul with weeds if left for an extended measurement standard to avoid poten- with 5% accuracy. The Doppler meter period of time. tial problems with entanglement of the frequently achieves the 10% accuracy To evaluate the flow meters across a propeller meter. goal and its portability makes it useful range of flow rates, we performed mul- Flow meter accuracy evaluated for taking measurements at multiple tiple tests (11 in all). Flow rates for the locations. tests varied (table 1) due to pond level All the tube magmeters did an ex- The insertable electromagnetic flow drops that affected the pump discharge cellent job of measuring manure-pond meter can also be moved, or it can be or as a result of partial closure of a but- discharges. They were very accurate, permanently mounted at one location. terfly valve located just downstream of consistently within 5% accuracy across Its installation and calibration were the test site. All the flow meters tested a wide range of flow rates, and were substantially more complicated than must be mounted in a straight section trouble-free in operation. The displays that of the Doppler meter, but its ac- of pipe and operated when the pipeline on the magmeters were digital and curacy was comparable to that of the is flowing full. There should be 8 to 10 conveniently displayed instantaneous tube magmeters. flow rate (gpm) and totalized flow (cu- pipe diameters of straight pipe (for an Choosing a flow meter 8-inch pipe, this is 64 inches to 80 inches mulative gallons). They have also been of straight pipe) upstream of the meter, reliable over time; two of those tested Which of these meters is appropri- and 4 to 6 pipe diameters of straight have been in operation by commercial ate for a particular application? For a pipe downstream of the meter. Install- dairies for more than 2 years without permanent meter installation, any of ing the meter directly downstream of a any problems. the tube magmeters tested would be an partially closed valve or close to elbows The Doppler and insertable electro- excellent choice. They are unaffected or tees should be avoided if possible. If magnetic flow meters were also accurate. by solids or trash in the water and will the flow meter must be installed at such The Doppler meter was accurate within work well with both clean and dirty wa- a location, greater lengths of straight 15%, with only test number 1 (table 1) ter. The tube magmeters keep a running pipe upstream of the meter will be re- being less accurate than this. A number total of water volume pumped from quired to ensure an accurate reading of tests (3, 4, 5, 7 and 8) were all within the pond and are easy to read. Remote (Hanson and Schwankl 1998). 10% accuracy. The insertable electromag- mounting of the display units allows FLOW METERS —­ continued from page 95 COMINGUP them to be placed where they are most San Joaquin Valley realized cost savings convenient to read. in commercial fertilizer of $55 per acre If the flow meter needs to be moved for corn silage when managing manure to different sites, either the Doppler nutrients using a flow meter (Eagle and meter or the insertable electromagnetic Pettygrove 2002). With these potential flow meter would be appropriate. The savings, the flow meter costs can be latter would be preferable if the me- quickly justified as part of an improved ter were going to be left installed for manure nutrient management system. extended periods (such as a week or In addition, the environmental benefits more), since installation of the Doppler in preventing the excessive losses of nu- meter requires the use of a conductive trients could be significant. gel that may be susceptible to degrada- tion under hot or wet weather condi- Jack Kelly Clark Kelly Jack tions. The Doppler meter works very well if it is going to be moved to differ- Aquatic ecology ent locations frequently (daily or every L. Schwankl is Irrigation Specialist, Depart- in the Delta food web few days). ment of Land, Air and Water Resources, The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta However, it is often desirable to keep UC Davis; A. Eagle was Dairy BIFS Project is a complex mosaic of waterways that forms the transition zone between a running total of the pond water ap- Coordinator, Kearney Agricultural Center; San Francisco Bay and its waterways. plied to fields. This is more difficult to C. Frate is Farm Advisor, Tulare County In recent decades, some Delta fish and accomplish without a permanent meter Cooperative Extension; and B. Nydam is invertebrate populations have declined installation. Additionally, a portable Consultant, Dellavalle Laboratory. significantly. In the next issue of Califor- nia Agriculture, scientists examine the flow meter must be reinstalled each critical role that phyto-plankton plays in time manure water is released, which References the Delta food web and the ecological may not be practical on a dairy where factors related to human and agricultural Eagle A, Pettygrove S. 2002. Integrating activities that may be contributing to its labor or time resources are limited. In forage production with dairy manure man- decline. addition, if multiple sites are all dis- agement in the San Joaquin Valley. Biologi- In addition, a study of freshwater cally Integrated Farming Systems, UC Sustain- charging at the same time and need to fish provides insights into how environ- able Agriculture Research and Education mental stressors affect Delta aquatic life. be measured, a single meter will not be Program, Davis, CA. sufficient. Hanson BR, Schwankl LJ. 1998. Water Also coming up: Unfortunately, at a cost of $3,000 to turbulence disrupts accuracy of some flow meters. Cal Ag 52(1):25–30. ▼ $4,000 each, none of the meters tested Merced County. 2003. Animal Confine- Special section: Hunger and obesity, food are as inexpensive as the propeller me- ment Ordinance. http://www.co.merced.ca. security and nutrition ters that agricultural users commonly us/health/envhlth/index.htm. ▼ [NRCS] USDA Natural Resources Conser- Glassy-winged sharpshooter treatments utilize. The tube magmeter prices vary vation Service. 2003. Guide for Preparing a somewhat depending on the pipe size. Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan ▼ While this may seem like an expensive (CNMP) for Confined Animal Facilities in Cali- Water stress in almond irrigation investment, a group of dairies in the fornia. Davis, CA. 71 p.

[email protected] Visit California Agriculture on the Internet: Phone: (510) 987-0044 Fax: (510) 465-2659 http://danr.ucop.edu/calag/