15_AM_ALF_02
Alfalfa Committee Meeting
Agenda & Meeting Report
Asheville, North Carolina
Tuesday, June 24, 2014
8:00 AM – 9:30 AM
Chair
Victor Shaul
Vice Chair
Mike Moore
1)
Call to Order – Attempted
2)
Introductions / roll call / distribute sign-in sheet – Done
3)
Review AOSCA anti-trust compliance policy – Done
4)
Review & adopt agenda – motion made, seconded, and passed to adopt the agenda as
presented.
5)
Approve minutes from 2013 meeting, # 14_AM_ALF_02 – motion made, seconded, and
passed to approve the minutes from the previous meeting.
6)
GMO in exported hay issue that you dealt with – any follow up or opportunities for AOSCA?
Maybe even share, if you can, how you went about your investigation in case this happens
again. (Moore, Shaul)
General discussion – V. Shaul, last summer, call from hay grower who had planted what he
thought was a conventional alfalfa variety, but the hay product, when tested, showed RR
trait. Remnant seed was produced from production done during the first deregulated
production period. Victor was initially concerned that he had received the wrong variety, but
it proved that it was a contamination of the correct variety. There was also some indication
that the timing on the situation was correlated with a political effort on GMO crops in WA
state, and Victor became an uncomfortable participant. An attempt was made by the seed
production company to discover the source of the AP, and the comment was that they were
not surprised that it had AP. Canada has been challenged by this, but work to share what
standards for other variety are, and some of that is driven by the NOP impact/concerns and
how they can bring testing into that system. Also discussions on economic
impact/coexistence of GMO/NOP. Conventional varieties can have AP, so some growers
have “produced” RR alfalfa as part of the production of a conventional variety.
NAFA BMP Review – Victor discussed the latest review of the BMP, poorly, so Mike spent
more time sharing that AP contaminated lots are increasing, but that is still LLP, and this
year’s review showed all lots tested were below the AOSCA 2% standard for other variety.
It was also noted that the comment period is open for the new GMO low lignin trait, and
deregulation is likely.
Dr. Shah – SRTD does not differentiate between GMO and conventional varieties. When
asked if he was getting any pressure or considering trait testing/verification, and he said
there was none. His lab is able to perform those tests, and they have worked in rice on a
company request and a fee for service basis. He touched on the Clearfield wheat issue in
Colorado, and that a certified tag stated that the variety was a Clearfield wheat, but the trait
ALFALFA
June 24, 2014
15_AM_ALF_02
presence verification was not part of testing. WA put the Clearfield test in WA
regulations/standards that a test for the trait was part of certification. WA will have almost
200 varieties in the field this year, and differentiation at inspection is very difficult. Jerry
Robinson predicts that trait testing/variety verification will be necessary in the future. He
said that a trait for which we have a test should be part of certification. Ken (ND) cited
electrophoresis worked until sib lines made even that test ineffective in variety identification,
and are now looking at molecular markers. Victor encouraged communicating with trait
owners to offer to develop ACR’s that make a trait test part of our certification efforts.
Randy Preator stated that partnering with industry (ACR) is preferential to engaging from a
regulatory side. Dr. Shah strongly recommended promoting ACR use to VRB participants
for trait verification. It was noted that there has been no use of ACRs by Clearfield variety
owners.
7)
8)
Idaho tag requests – Mick Goff’s recent experience with Pioneer (Moore, Shaul)
Communicate with your neighbors when you have a tag/variety question. If individual
agencies get a name for what previously went through a VRB as an Experimental
Designation, they should share it with AOSCA so the variety database can be kept current.
It was the general consensus that names could be “approved” without action by the entire
VRB.
Radish Standards proposal (Smith, Shaul) - # 14_AM_ALF-CS_01
Sandy Smith led the discussion. OR has had a request to provide certification on radish,
and thus the proposal presented. He noted a minor change to land requirements, #2,
should state “seeded.” The standards were reviewed at the Western and Southern region
meetings, and as far as he knows, were deemed acceptable. The restricted weeds listed
potentially cross with the crop.
Motion: Forward the standards as amended to the Council for approval. Motion carried.
9)
Other business – None
10) Action Items –
1. There was a motion to forward the amended radish standards to the Council for
consideration. Motion carried.
11) Adjourn – Adjourned at 9:00.
ALFALFA
June 24, 2014