Minimizing Wildlife

Growers in and around Salinas, CA — “America’s Salad Bowl” — are getting caught between a rock and a hard place these days, and it’s costing them big bucks. On one hand the growers must follow the mandates of their produce buyers. But by doing so, they run the risk of running afoul of environmental regulations.

Advertisement

“It’s a constant battle,” sighed one large grower, who like many contacted by American Vegetable Grower declined to have his name used for fear of offending his buyers. “I’d catch hell,”
he explained.

The crux of the problem is that in their desire to avoid another food safety calamity, such as the one in September 2006 when three people died after consuming fresh-cut spinach contaminated with E. coli, produce buyers have become extremely concerned about wildlife contaminating growers’ fields. They are going so far as rejecting crops from growers, according to an eye-opening research report in the latest edition of a University of California publication, California Agriculture. One grower, for example, lost $17,500 worth of crop because a food safety audit found deer tracks near his field.

Unrealistic Demands
Are food safety standards, based on a regional and market basis, realistic? American Vegetable Grower posed this question in a recent issue our of  e-newsletter, “VegWire Online.” Here is an example of one of the responses. The grower name has been withheld.

Dealing With A Forced Reality

Top Articles
Indoor Farming Insider Talks About Evolution of the Sector

“We think it is all bunk, but our opinion is absolutely irrelevant. Our buyers demand that we wear hair nets and have no animals around.

One of the large farms we work with recently had their California inspection for the Leafy Greens [Marketing Agreement]. We were dinged because there were dog tracks in the neighboring grape vineyard — not our field!

One of our staff was at a USDA/California food safety training certification program a couple of years back, and there was a huge argument that cartons, left palletized on a trailer in the field over night, should not be used because of possible issues, like bird [droppings]. At the very least, these inspectors all agreed, the top couple of layers of boxes should be tossed out.

Leaving aside the question of whether wildlife carries E. coli — it’s normally associated with domesticated animals such as livestock — growers are being urged to take all sorts of questionable actions. One halted harvest due to the presence of tadpoles in an adjacent creek. The authors of the report surveyed growers in the region, and of the 181 growers who responded to the survey, nearly 40% said that food safety auditors had “suggested” that the growers remove wildlife. In response, more than half the growers said they are putting out poisoned bait. (See “Smelling A Rat.”)

Not Just Wildlife

In addition, 19% of the growers said that auditors had “suggested” they remove non-crop vegetation. The problem with that is many growers have actively promoted such vegetation in recent years in response to water quality regulations. Since 2003, when the 20-year-old state Agricultural Waiver of Nonpoint Source Discharge ended, growers are no longer exempt from water quality laws. Growers have taken such actions as planting cover crops and enhancing existing habitat because surrounding vegetation acts as a filter to improve water quality.

Growers are really feeling the squeeze. More than 30% took the time to share their opinions in the survey, an extraordinarily high percentage. Said one: “Our experience has been that the food safety auditors have been very strict about any vegetation that might provide habitat. We are very concerned about upsetting the natural balance, but we have to comply with our shipper’s requests.”

Said another: “I am afraid many positive environmental programs and practices are going to be abandoned due to retailers’/shippers’ new food safety practices. I am all for the environment and safe food, but feel many new food safety ideas are being driven by fear and uncertainty rather than sound science.”

The report’s authors, Melanie Beretti, the program director for the Resource Conservation District of Monterey County, and Diana Stuart, a Ph.D. candidate, note that keeping produce safe is obviously critical. But the means to achieve that goal have to be carefully evaluated to make sure they actually do reduce the risk of crop contamination, and that they don’t lead to environmental degradation.

Smelling A Rat
More than half of the growers on California’s Central Coast who responded to a recent survey reported that they put out poisoned bait to kill wildlife. But if the intent was to prevent the wildlife from contaminating crops with E. coli, the wildlife likely died for no good reason. It doesn’t appear that any animals other than cattle play a significant role in the spread of E. coli, concludes a recent report from University of California researchers.

The report, by Terry Salmon, Richard Smith, and Steve Koike of UC Extension, which was based on a talk Salmon gave to the California Lettuce Research Board, sheds a harsh light on wildlife suppression in the name of food safety. “To our knowledge, voles, mice, ground squirrels and other rodents in coastal California agricultural fields have not been found to harbor pathogenic E. coli.”

The report goes on to state that based on the extensive studies on the subject reviewed by the researchers, “it appears unlikely that these rodents will be found to be a common or important source of O157:H7 (the E. coli strain that killed three people in the September 2006 spinach outbreak) and other pathogenic strains.”
Besides putting out poisoned bait, more than half the growers responding to the survey said they had cleared land surrounding their fields of vegetation that might potentially harbor wildlife. In addition, 40% of growers said they had put up fencing around their fields. Likewise, 40% reported that they had tried trapping. All would appear to be a complete waste of time and money, at least when it comes to food safety.

The report concludes: “Therefore, unless future research findings indicate otherwise, it is hard to justify extensive trapping, baiting, fencing, and vegetation clearing for the specific purpose of reducing animal vectoring of E. coli O157:H7.”

One grower who did agree to speak on the record about the issue is Dale Coke, owner of Coke Farms in San Juan Bautista, CA. Coke, who farms 300 acres of 30 to 40 types of organic vegetables, said he felt free to speak because he doesn’t deal with the big grocery chains and mega-stores that wield so much influence. Coke says he understands why growers who deal with the big chains would keep silent, but finds it troubling. “You can tell something’s wrong when people are afraid to speak on a topic they feel so strongly about,” he says.

Coke says many of the buyers’ dictates simply make no sense. For example, he’s lost money because he can’t sell leafy greens to Canadian buyers because they require that he sign the Leafy Greens Marketing Agreement, which he will not. Coke says he won’t sign because he only grows leafy greens that are intended to be cooked, such as kale and chard, so they don’t represent a food safety risk as heat kills the organisms in question. “I’m all for making the food safer,” he says, “but I don’t want to adhere to rules that complicate my life for no good reason.”
Some of the buyer’s mandates not only seem arbitrary, says Coke, but may actually be damaging. For example, due to the widespread use of rodenticides, voles, mice, and squirrels may develop tolerance to the poisons. In addition, those that are killed might be consumed by owls and hawks, poisoning those beneficial predators.

“Farmers were going in the right direction (environmentally), then you have standards that come out that have no basis in fact, that have a negative impact,” he says. “It’s too bad. A lot of farmers are really getting jerked around.”

Growers’ Horror Stories
According to the recent mail survey of 600 irrigated-row-crop growers conducted by the Resource Conservation District of Monterey County, 8% of the respondents said they had their crops rejected based on the presence of practices to improve water quality or wildlife habitat on the farm. Here are a few of their explanations:

  • Crop rejected due to deer intrusion.
  • Crop rejected due to potential frog habitat.
  • Harvest stopped due to presence of frogs and tadpoles in creek.
  • Crops planted for processor near trees needed a buffer of 100 to 150 feet.
  • Lost $17,500 worth of crop due to deer tracks

0