DOCSLIB.ORG

Polyethylene and Biodegradable Plastic Mulches for Strawberry

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Polyethylene and Biodegradable Plastic Mulches for Strawberry environmental impacts associated with Polyethylene and Biodegradable Plastic the use and disposal of low-density Mulches for Strawberry Production in the polyethylene plastic mulch films for crop production (He et al., 2015; United States: Experiences and Opinions of Kasirajan and Ngouajio, 2012; Liu et al., 2014; Steinmetz et al., 2016). Growers in Three Regions PE mulch offers many benefits to farmers, such as improved weed man- Jessica R. Goldberger1, Lisa W. DeVetter2, agement, moderated soil temperature, 3 increased soil moisture, higher yields, and Katherine E. Dentzman improved crop quality, and higher profits (Freeman and Gnayem, 2005; ADDITIONAL INDEX WORDS. environment, Fragaria ·ananassa, grower survey, Garwood, 1998; Lamont, 1993, matted row, mulch disposal, plasticulture, sustainability 2005). Because PE mulch does not biodegrade, disposal options include SUMMARY. Although agricultural plastic mulches can have significant horticultural recycling, incineration, on-farm burn- Fragaria ·ananassa benefits for specialty crops such as strawberry ( ), there can also ing, and landfilling (Hempill, 1993; be significant economic and environmental costs. In particular, polyethylene (PE) plastic mulch requires labor and financial investments for removal and disposal. Moore and Wszelaki, 2016). The num- Micro- or nanoparticles may persist in soil and negatively affect microbial activity, ber of recycling facilities that accept PE physical soil properties, and nutrient availability. A possible alternative to PE mulch mulch is limited because of contamina- is biodegradable plastic mulch, which has similar horticultural benefits but does not tion with soil and/or vegetation (up to need to be removed from the field at the end of the growing season. Biodegradable 50% by weight) (Kasirajan and Ngoua- plastic mulch can be tilled into the soil, where it is converted by soil microorganisms jio, 2012). Moreover, the labor and into water, carbon dioxide, and microbial biomass. Although horticultural and transport costs associated with recy- environmental research into the impacts of PE and biodegradable plastic mulch is cling, burning, and landfilling force ongoing, it is also important to understand farmers’ practices and perceptions re- some farmers to stockpile, bury, or lated to these mulches. We conducted a survey of strawberry growers in three illegally dump their spent PE mulch. growing regions of the United States: California, the Pacific Northwest, and the Mid-Atlantic. Our results indicate several regional differences, with California Plastic fragments and additives can ac- farmers being more likely to have used biodegradable plastic mulch, and growers cumulate in soil, thus altering soil phys- from California and the Pacific Northwest being more likely to perceive negative ical properties, nutrient availability, and impacts of PE mulch compared with growers in the Mid-Atlantic. Regardless of microbial activity (Bandopadhyay et al., region, a majority of growers were interested in learning more about biodegradable 2018; Steinmetz et al., 2016). plastic mulch. We conclude with several suggestions for biodegradable plastic mulch Introduced in the 1990s, bio- development and outreach that may promote strawberry growers’ adoption of this degradable plastic mulch is a potential technology. alternative to PE mulch (Kasirajan and Ngouajio, 2012; Miles et al., he widespread use and disposal threats to wildlife via entanglement and 2017; Sintim and Flury, 2017). Made of plastics are associated with ingestion (Thompson et al., 2009a, from starch and other biodegradable Tsignificant environmental im- 2009b). Of the 6.3 billion tonnes of polymers, biodegradable plastic pacts, such as accumulation in land- plastic waste generated since the 1950s, mulch is designed to perform compa- fills and the natural environment, and an estimated 79% has accumulated in rably to PE mulch while also biode- landfills and the natural environment grading in soil or composting Received for publication 30 Apr. 2019. Accepted for (Geyer et al., 2017). Plastic pollution in environments at the end of its useful publication 9 July 2019. marine environments has been well lifetime (Miles et al., 2017). The Published online 21 August 2019. documented (Law, 2017; Worm long-term environmental impacts of 1Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Washington et al., 2017). More recent research biodegradable plastic mulch require State University, P.O. Box 646420, Pullman, WA 99164 has focused on the contamination of further investigation (Bandopadhyay 2Department of Horticulture, Northwestern Wash- terrestrial ecosystems, including agro- et al., 2018; Brodhagen et al., 2017; ington Research and Extension Center, Washington ecosystems, by microplastic particles Li et al., 2014; Razza and Cerutti, State University, 16650 SR 536, Mount Vernon, WA (<5 mm) and nanoparticles (<0.1 mm) 2017; Sintim et al., 2019). Neverthe- 98273 (Machado et al., 2018a, 2018b; Ng less, biodegradable plastics are one 3Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, University of Idaho, 875 Perimeter Drive, et al., 2018; Rillig et al., 2017; possible way to mitigate global agri- Moscow, ID 83844 Rodrıguez-Seijo and Pereira, 2019). cultural plastic pollution (Cassou, This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Of particular concern are the 2018). Agriculture (USDA) National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) Specialty Crop Research Initiative (award no. 2014-51181-22382) and USDA NIFA Hatch funds (accession no. 1014754 and 1014919). Units J.R.G. is the corresponding author. E-mail: jgoldberger@ To convert U.S. to SI, To convert SI to U.S., wsu.edu. multiply by U.S. unit SI unit multiply by This is an open access article distributed under the CC 0.4047 acre(s) ha 2.4711 BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/ 25.4 inch(es) mm 0.0394 licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). 1 micron(s) mm1 https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTTECH04393-19 0.9072 ton(s) tonne(s) 1.1023 • October 2019 29(5) 619 RESEARCH REPORTS Although polymer scientists, soil Table 1. Strawberry production in the United States and selected states. Data scientists, toxicologists, and related from the 2012 Census of Agriculture (USDA, 2014). scientists conduct research on the U.S. rank U.S. rank environmental impacts of plastic Farms for no. of Total area for total Mean area mulching practices, it is instructive State (no.) farms (acres)z area (acres) also to study the human dimensions California 995 2 40,926 1 41.1 of plastic use and disposal in agricul- Pacific Northwest ture. For example: What are farmers’ Oregon 399 9 2,121 3 5.3 perceptions of the advantages and Washington 614 3 1,514 4 2.5 disadvantages of PE mulch? How do Mid-Atlantic farmers typically dispose of PE mulch? New York 588 4 1,220 5 2.1 Is biodegradable plastic mulch per- Pennsylvania 1,015 1 1,049 6 1.0 ceived to be a viable alternative to PE U.S. Total 10,388 67,467 6.5 mulch? What is the likelihood that z farmers would consider using biode- 1 acre = 0.4047 ha. gradable plastic mulch? To answer these and related questions, we sur- North Carolina), Mid-Atlantic (New do not incur the removal and disposal veyed strawberry growers in Califor- York, Pennsylvania), Pacific North- costs associated with PE mulch. Eco- nia, the Pacific Northwest (Oregon west (Oregon, Washington), and nomic research has shown that U.S. and Washington), and the Mid- Midwest (Ohio, Michigan, Wiscon- consumers are willing to pay more for Atlantic (New York and Pennsylvania) sin). Globally, the largest producer of strawberries grown with biodegrad- in 2016 to explore regional differ- strawberries is China, followed by the able plastic mulch, which may in part ences in strawberry growers’ experi- United States, Mexico, Egypt, Tur- offset the higher upfront cost of the ences and opinions related to the use key, and Spain (Food and Agriculture mulch (Chen et al., 2018). of PE and biodegradable plastic Organization of the United Nations, Our human dimensions study, mulches. Strawberry growers were 2017). which focuses on farmers’ experiences chosen as the study population be- U.S. strawberry production and and opinions related to PE and bio- cause of their widespread use of plas- marketing practices vary by region degradable plastic mulch, is part of tic mulch, high crop value, and (Samtani et al., 2019). For example, a larger project, ‘‘Performance and potential interest in biodegradable most California strawberries are an- Adoptability of Biodegradable Plastic plastic mulch products. Two hundred nual plantings for fresh market (Fen- Mulch for Sustainable Specialty Crop andnineteenstrawberrygrowers nimore, 2017); the Pacific Northwest Production,’’ funded by the USDA completed the survey, for a response is known for the production of high- National Institute of Food and Agri- rate of 21%. Our study not only quality processing fruit in a perennial culture’s Specialty Crop Research Ini- contributes to the nascent literature matted row system (Finn, 2017); and tiative program (award no. 2014– on farmers’ adoption of biodegradable the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states 51181–22382). The survey was con- plastic mulch (Cowan et al., 2015; exhibit a combination of perennial ducted by the project’s Technology Goldberger et al., 2015; Scaringelli matted rows and raised-bed plasticul- Adoption Working Group with guid- et al., 2016) but also meets the call ture for fresh-market strawberries ance from a transdisciplinary team of for more research on stakeholders’ (Pritts, 2017). Plastic mulch is in- scientists, Extension
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Alternatives to Plastic Mulch
    Alternatives to Plastic Mulch for Organic Vegetable Production Carol Miles, Kathryn Kolker, Jenn Reed and Gail Becker WSU Vancouver Research & Extension Unit 1919 NE 78th Street, Vancouver, WA 98665 (360) 576-6030, [email protected], http://agsyst.wsu.edu Introduction Weed control is one of the primary concerns in organic farming as it is labor intensive, expensive and time consuming. Since its introduction in the 1950s, plastic mulch has become a standard practice used by many farmers to control weeds, increase crop yield, and shorten time to harvest (Lamont, 1991). Plastic mulch has contributed significantly to the economic viability of farmers worldwide, and by 1999 almost 30 million acres worldwide were covered with plastic mulch, with more than 185,000 of those acres in the United States (American Plastics Council, 2004; Takakura and Fang, 2001). However, each year farmers must dispose of their plastic, and although agricultural plastic recycling has begun, the disposal option that most choose is the landfill (Garthe, 2002). Many organic farmers, especially those who are small-scale, choose not to use plastic mulch because of the waste disposal issues. An effective, affordable, degradable alternative to the now-standard plastic mulch would contribute the same production benefits as plastic mulch and in addition would reduce non-recyclable waste. Previous work. In 2003, we conducted a preliminary study at Washington State University Vancouver Research and Extension Unit (WSU VREU) to evaluate paper and cornstarch mulches as alternatives to plastic mulch. We used 81 lb Kraft paper with and without oil application. We evaluated three oils (soybean, linseed and tung) applied before and after laying the paper.
    [Show full text]
  • AGRICULTURAL PLASTICS Q & a Vers Feb 8, 2016
    Lois Levitan, PhD Recycling Agricultural Plastics Program Department of Communication Cornell University, Ithaca NY 14853 AGRICULTURAL PLASTICS Q & A vers Feb 8, 2016 • What are agricultural plastics? • What is plastic? • How is plastic film used on dairy farms? • How is plastic film used in producing fruits, vegetables & ornamentals? • What is done with waste plastic after it is no longer useful on the farm? • What new products are made from recycled agricultural plastics? • Why is plastic ground up or baled before shipping to markets? • Are all agricultural plastics made from the same material? • Is it ok to burn waste plastic in a back field on the farm? • What about pesticide containers? WHAT ARE AGRICULTURAL PLASTICS? ‘Agricultural Plastics’ are the array of plastic products and packaging used in agricultural production and sales. Most have a short useful life. Plastic products are typically lighter to lift and transport, less fragile, safer to use, and have a higher production efficiency than the concrete, glass, ceramic and other materials they have replaced over the past several decades. Silage Bags • Bunk Silo Covers • Polytwine • Bale Wrap • Netwrap • Maple Tubing • Irrigation Drip Tape & Polytubes • High Tunnels • Tarps • Seedling Plug Trays • Plant Pots • Mulch Film • Fumigation Film • Pesticide & Dairy Chemical Containers • Boat Wrap • Bee Hive Frames • Bird Netting • Aquaculture Supplies • Row Covers • O2 & Moisture-Barrier Film • Bags for Seed, Feed, Fertilizer, Peat, Wood Pellets, Potting Mix, etc. • Low Tunnels • • F.I.B.C. (totes, supersacks) • Grain Bags • Greenhouse Covers • Hoophouses • Solarization Film • WHAT IS PLASTIC? Plastics are solid materials that can be molded, pressed, or extruded into a variety of forms and shapes.
    [Show full text]
  • COT Microplastics Overarching Staement 2021
    COMMITTEE ON TOXICITY OF CHEMICALS IN FOOD, CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND THE ENVIRONMENT Overarching statement on the potential risks from exposure to microplastics Background 1. Plastic pollution has been widely recognised as a global environmental problem (Villarrubia-Gómez et al., 2018). The adverse effects of plastic litter have been widely documented for marine animals (e.g. entanglement, ingestion and lacerations); however, the potential risks from exposure to smaller plastic particles i.e. micro- and nanoplastics in humans are yet to be fully understood. Scope and purpose 2. As part of horizon scanning, the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT) identified the potential risks from microplastics as a topic it should consider. Upon review of the literature, it was decided that nanoplastics should also be included. An initial scoping paper was presented to the COT in October 2019 (TOX/2019/62)1, since when the topic and additional information has been discussed several times by COT with the final substantive discussion in December 2020. A list of all discussion papers considered by the COT during the review is given in Annex A. 3. The purpose of this overarching statement is to bring together these discussions, summarise the COT conclusions reached to date and provide a high-level overview of the current state of knowledge, data gaps and research needs with regards to this topic. 4. Future sub-statements, which will consider in detail the potential toxicological risks of exposure from microplastics via the oral and inhalation routes, are intended to provide supplementary material for this overarching statement.
    [Show full text]
  • Plasticulture in California Vegetable Production
    PUBLICATION 8016 Plasticulture in California Vegetable Production WAYNE L. SCHRADER, UC Cooperative Extension Vegetable Farm Advisor, San Diego County Plasticulture is the art of using plastic materials to modify the production environ- UNIVERSITY OF ment in vegetable crop production. Plasticulture began in the 1950s and early 1960s with the introduction and use of plastic films, mulches, and drip irrigation systems. CALIFORNIA Vegetable growers frequently use plastics in pest management, stand establishment, Division of Agriculture harvesting, and postharvest handling operations, and in containers for marketing. and Natural Resources Plasticulture system components can include http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu • plastic mulches to control soil temperature, control weeds, and repel insects • plastic films for erosion control, soil fumigation, or solarization • row covers for temperature control, wind or frost protection, and insect exclusion • drip irrigation for improved water management and for the application of chemi- cals (chemigation) and fertilizers (fertigation) during irrigation • plastic windbreaks • plastic barriers against vertebrate pests Plasticulture has developed into management systems that allow growers to achieve higher-quality produce, superior yields, and extended production cycles. Growers using plasticulture can produce vegetables for markets during the winter, early spring, and late fall that would otherwise be impossible to address. Benefits of plasticulture include • earlier production (7 to 30 days earlier) • increased
    [Show full text]
  • Impacts of a Ban Or Restrictions in Sale of Items in the EU's Single Use Plastics Directive
    SOCIAL RESEARCH NUMBER: 32/2020 PUBLICATION DATE: 19/05/2020 Preliminary Research to Assess the Impacts of a Ban or Restrictions in Sale in Wales of Items in the EU's Single Use Plastics Directive Mae’r ddogfen yma hefyd ar gael yn Gymraeg. This document is also available in Welsh. © Crown Copyright Digital ISBN 978-1-80038-424-8 Title: Preliminary Research to Assess the Impacts of a Ban or Restrictions in Sale in Wales of Items in the EU's Single Use Plastics Directive Author(s): George Cole, Resource Futures Carla Worth, Resource Futures Katie Powell, Resource Futures Sam Reeve, Resource Futures Susie Stevenson, Miller Research (UK) Nick Morgan, Miller Research (UK) Howard Walker, Bridge Economics Full Research Report: Cole, G; Worth, C; Powell, K; Reeve, S; Stevenson, S; Morgan, N; Walker, H (2019). Preliminary Research to Assess the Impacts of a Ban or Restrictions in Sale in Wales of Items in the EU's Single Use Plastics Directive. Cardiff: Welsh Government, GSR report number 32/2020 Available at: https://gov.wales/impacts-ban-or-restrictions-sale-items-eus-single- use-plastics-directive Views expressed in this report are those of the researcher and not necessarily those of the Welsh Government For further information please contact: Isabella Malet-Lambert Knowledge and Analytical Services Welsh Government Cathays Park Cardiff CF10 3NQ 03000 628250 [email protected] Table of contents List of tables ..........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Paper-Based Products As Promising Substitutes for Plastics in the Context of Bans on Non-Biodegradables
    EDITORIAL bioresources.com Paper-based Products as Promising Substitutes for Plastics in the Context of Bans on Non-biodegradables Wei Liu,a,# Huayu Liu,a,# Kun Liu,a,# Haishun Du,b,* Ying Liu,c and Chuanling Si a,c,* As a global environmental problem, plastic pollution has attracted worldwide attention. Plastic wastes not only disrupt ecosystems and biodiversity, but they also threaten human life and health. Countries around the world have enacted regulations in recent years to limit the use of plastics. Paper products have been proposed as promising substitutes for plastics, which undoubtedly brings unprecedented opportunities to the pulp and paper industry. However, paper products have some deficiencies in replacing certain plastic products. Research and development to improve paper properties and reduce production costs is needed to meet such challenges. Keywords: Plastic; Plastic bans; Pulp and paper industry; Paper-based materials Contact information: a: Tianjin Key Laboratory of Pulp and Paper, Tianjin University of Science and Technology, Tianjin 300457, China; b: Department of Chemical Engineering, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849, USA; c: Tianjin Jianfeng Natural Product R&D Co., Ltd., Tianjin 300457, China; *Corresponding authors: [email protected]; [email protected] # Co-first author with the same contribution to this work Plastics and Plastic Bans Plastic products have the advantages of light weight, low cost, good ductility, and excellent insulation, which explains why they have been widely used in industry, agriculture, medicine, and other fields (Geyer et al. 2017). Over the past few decades, the production of plastics has experienced rapid growth. It is reported that by 2015, 8.3 billion tons of plastics had been produced in the world; however, of that amount, 6.3 billion tons had become plastic waste (Geyer et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Expanded Polystyrene Food Service Take-Out Container Study
    Appendix 1.1. California Cities that have Pursued a Polystyrene Ban Please note that not all of these bans are in place: many have been challenged or overturned. Alameda (2008) Expanded polystyrene ban, requirement that all takeout food packaging be compostable or recyclable Albany (2008) Expanded polystyrene ban, requirement that all takeout food packaging be compostable or recyclable Aliso Viejo (2005) Government facility expanded polystyrene ban Ordinance #2004-060 Berkeley (adopted 1988) Expanded polystyrene ban, requirement that 50% of takeout food packaging be recyclable or compostable Title 11.58 and 11.60 of Municipal Code Calabasas (2008) Expanded polystyrene ban, requirement that all takeout food packaging be recyclable or compostable Capitola (2009) Expanded polystyrene ban, requirement that all disposable takeout food packaging be compostable Carmel (1989) Expanded polystyrene ban, requirement that 50% of takeout food packaging be recyclable, compostable or reusable Del Ray Oaks (effective July 1, 2010) Expanded polystyrene ban, requirement that all takeout food packaging More information available on be recyclable or compostable page 35 of Agenda Packet Emeryville (2008) Expanded polystyrene ban, requirement that all takeout food packaging be recyclable or compostable Fairfax (1993) Expanded polystyrene ban for all restaurants and food retail vendors Title 8.16 of Municipal Code Fremont (effective January 1, 2011) Expanded polystyrene ban for food vendors, requirement that all takeout food packaging be recyclable or compostable Appendix 1.1 | i Hayward (effective July 2011) Expanded polystyrene ban for restaurant vendors, requirement that takeout food packaging be recyclable or compostable Hercules (2008) Expanded polystyrene ban Sec. 5-3109, Title 5, Chapter 3 of Municipal Code Huntington Beach (2005) Government facility expanded polystyrene ban Laguna Beach (2008) Polystyrene ban, requirement that all plastic takeout food packaging be recyclable Title 7.
    [Show full text]
  • Checking out on Plastics III
    Checking Out on Plastics III January 2021 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ABOUT EIA ABOUT GREENPEACE EIA UK CONTENTS 62-63 Upper Street, With support from John Ellerman We investigate and campaign against Greenpeace defends the natural Executive Summary 4 London N1 0NY UK Foundation. environmental crime and abuse. world and promotes peace by Introduction 6 T: +44 (0) 20 7354 7960 investigating, exposing and Background 7 “We aim to advance the wellbeing Our undercover investigations E: [email protected] confronting environmental abuse Methodology 8 of people, society and the natural expose transnational wildlife crime, eia-international.org and championing responsible Summary of results 10 world by focusing on the arts, with a focus on elephants and solutions for our fragile Targets 12 environment and social action. tigers, and forest crimes such as Environmental Investigation Agency UK environment. The plastic packaging footprint 13 We believe these areas can make illegal logging and deforestation for UK Charity Number: 1182208 Own-brand versus branded reductions 14 an important contribution to cash crops like palm oil. We work to Company Number: 07752350 Overall trends in this year’s survey 16 wellbeing.” safeguard global marine ecosystems Registered in England and Wales Retailer snapshot: highlights and lowlights 18 by addressing the threats posed Plastic bags 20 by plastic pollution, bycatch Single-use items 24 and commercial exploitation of Fruit and vegetables 28 whales, dolphins and porpoises. Reuse and refill 30 Finally, we reduce the impact of Recycling and recycled content 32 climate change by campaigning Online 33 to eliminate powerful refrigerant Convenience retailers 34 greenhouse gases, exposing related Conclusions 35 illicit trade and improving energy Recommendations 36 efficiency in the cooling sector.
    [Show full text]
  • Plasticulture –A Key Step to Second Green Revolution
    Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2020) Special Issue-11: 2299-2315 International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences ISSN: 2319-7706 Special Issue-11 pp. 2299-2315 Journal homepage: http://www.ijcmas.com Review Article Plasticulture –A Key Step to Second Green Revolution Afroza Akhter1*, Ambreen Nabi1, Ajaz. A. Malik1, Sayed Azrah Indrabi1, Amreena Sultan1, Insha Javeed1 and Tariq. A. Bhat2 1Department of Vegetable Science, 2Department of Environmental Sciences, Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology of Kashmir, Shalimar, Srinagar- 190025, Jammu and Kashmir, India *Corresponding author ABSTRACT The green revolution within India commenced in the early 1960‟s that led to an increase in food grain production, especially in Punjab, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh due to adoption of modern methods and technology such as the use of high yielding varieties, tractors, irrigation facilities, pesticides and fertilizers. To remain self- sufficient in food grains, we need another green revolution or rather a greener revolution. Innovative agro practices need to be adapted towards transformation of Indian agriculture to precision farming practices, which will result in stretching our K e yw or ds agro input resources manifold to increase agricultural productivity in both quantity Plasticulture, and quality. Plasticulture applications are one of the most useful indirect Green revolution, agricultural input, which hold the promise to transform Indian agriculture and bring Soil , Precision farming and the “Second Green Revolution”. Plasticulture is defined as the use of plastics in productivity agriculture, horticulture, water management, food grain storage etc. Plasticulture includes all kinds of plant or soil coverings ranging from mulch films, row coverings, low tunnels to greenhouses.
    [Show full text]
  • Allowed Mulches on Organic Farms and the Future of Biodegradable Mulch
    Allowed Mulches on Organic Farms and the Future of Biodegradable Mulch All farmers know that conventional polyethylene (aka: plastic) mulch is widely used for crop production because it controls weeds, conserves soil moisture, increases soil temperature, improves crop yield and quality, has a relatively low cost, and is readily available. Conventional mulch is also widely used on organic farms although organic farmers and others have questioned its use because it is often non- recyclable, and is generally made from non-biodegradable based materials. At this time, no biodegradable mulch is allowed for use on organic farms. None of the commercially available biodegradable mulches have been proven to meet the requirements of the National Organic Standards. In this document we answer common questions about the currently allowed mulches on organic farms and the potential of using biodegradable mulches in the future. How does the National Organic Program define “mulch”? 7 CFR 205.2 The National Organic Program (NOP) states that mulch is any non-synthetic material, such as wood chips, leaves, or straw, or any allowed synthetic material such as newspaper or plastic that serves to suppress weed growth, moderate soil temperature, or conserve soil moisture. What specifically can organic farmers use now for mulching? 7 CFR 205.601 Currently allowed options for mulching are: • Non-synthetic, untreated materials such as wood chips, leaves, or straw • Newspapers or other recycled paper, without gloss, glossy inks, or color inks • Plastic mulches and covers provided they are removed from the field at the end of the growing season, and they are petroleum-based, but not polyvinyl chloride (PVC) • Biodegradable bio-based mulch film - provided that it complies with the requirements and restrictions of the USDA organic regulations, and Policy Memo 15-1 in the NOP Program Handbook.
    [Show full text]
  • And Microplastics on an Agricultural Farmland Received: 31 May 2018 Sarah Piehl 1, Anna Leibner1, Martin G
    www.nature.com/scientificreports OPEN Identifcation and quantifcation of macro- and microplastics on an agricultural farmland Received: 31 May 2018 Sarah Piehl 1, Anna Leibner1, Martin G. J. Löder 1, Rachid Dris 1, Christina Bogner 2 & Accepted: 8 November 2018 Christian Laforsch 1 Published: xx xx xxxx Microplastic contamination of aquatic ecosystems is a high priority research topic, whereas the issue on terrestrial ecosystems has been widely neglected. At the same time, terrestrial ecosystems under human infuence, such as agroecosystems, are likely to be contaminated by plastic debris. However, the extent of this contamination has not been determined at present. Via Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) analysis, we quantifed for the frst time the macro- and microplastic contamination on an agricultural farmland in southeast Germany. We found 206 macroplastic pieces per hectare and 0.34 ± 0.36 microplastic particles per kilogram dry weight of soil. In general, polyethylene was the most common polymer type, followed by polystyrene and polypropylene. Films and fragments were the dominating categories found for microplastics, whereas predominantly flms were found for macroplastics. Since we intentionally chose a study site where microplastic-containing fertilizers and agricultural plastic applications were never used, our fndings report on plastic contamination on a site which only receives conventional agricultural treatment. However, the contamination is probably higher in areas where agricultural plastic applications, like greenhouses, mulch, or silage flms, or plastic-containing fertilizers (sewage sludge, biowaste composts) are applied. Hence, further research on the extent of this contamination is needed with special regard to diferent cultivation practices. Plastic debris is ubiquitous in all ecosystems on earth1 and yet, only a fraction of this environmental issue is visi- ble.
    [Show full text]
  • Bio-Based and Biodegradable Plastics – Facts and Figures Focus on Food Packaging in the Netherlands
    Bio-based and biodegradable plastics – Facts and Figures Focus on food packaging in the Netherlands Martien van den Oever, Karin Molenveld, Maarten van der Zee, Harriëtte Bos Rapport nr. 1722 Bio-based and biodegradable plastics - Facts and Figures Focus on food packaging in the Netherlands Martien van den Oever, Karin Molenveld, Maarten van der Zee, Harriëtte Bos Report 1722 Colophon Title Bio-based and biodegradable plastics - Facts and Figures Author(s) Martien van den Oever, Karin Molenveld, Maarten van der Zee, Harriëtte Bos Number Wageningen Food & Biobased Research number 1722 ISBN-number 978-94-6343-121-7 DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.18174/408350 Date of publication April 2017 Version Concept Confidentiality No/yes+date of expiration OPD code OPD code Approved by Christiaan Bolck Review Intern Name reviewer Christaan Bolck Sponsor RVO.nl + Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs Client RVO.nl + Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs Wageningen Food & Biobased Research P.O. Box 17 NL-6700 AA Wageningen Tel: +31 (0)317 480 084 E-mail: [email protected] Internet: www.wur.nl/foodandbiobased-research © Wageningen Food & Biobased Research, institute within the legal entity Stichting Wageningen Research All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system of any nature, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. The publisher does not accept any liability for inaccuracies in this report. 2 © Wageningen Food & Biobased Research, institute within the legal entity Stichting Wageningen Research Preface For over 25 years Wageningen Food & Biobased Research (WFBR) is involved in research and development of bio-based materials and products.
    [Show full text]