Aller au contenu principal
Le Réseau BIO
Plate-forme de réseautage pour les producteurs, transformateurs et commerçants d'aliments
biologiques du Québec
Un site réalisé grâce à un
partenariat






Bienvenue sur le Réseau BIO, une plate-forme de réseautage pour les
producteurs, transformateurs et commerçants d'aliments biologiques et
intervenants en agriculture biologique au Québec.
Se connecter / S'inscrire
Nom d'utilisateur *
Mot de passe *
Se souvenir de moi


Remplir une demande d'inscription
Mot de passe oublié ?
Se connecter
Vous êtes ici
Accueil
Agrégateur de flux
Le gouvernement du Québec appuie financièrement le Festival des fromages
fins de victoriaville
MAPAQ Communiqués - mar, 2013/06/18 - 22:07
 18 juin 2013 - Connaissez-vous les aliments du Québec? - Lancement du concours Les
Aliments du Québec dans mon panier!
Les cochons pourraient être affectés par l'alimentation OGM
LeQuebecBio.com - lun, 2013/06/17 - 15:16
Des chercheurs australiens et américains affirment que la consommation
de grains génétiquement modifiés a une influence sur la santé des porcs. Selon leur étude, les
femelles nourries à cette diète auraient un utérus en moyenne 25 % plus lourd que celles
nourries avec les mêmes céréales conventionnelles, et les inflammations sévères de l'estomac
seraient aussi plus fréquentes chez les femelles et chez les mâles.
Ne pas consommer la sauce à spaghetti à la viande de la marque Restaurant
chez Georges
MAPAQ Communiqués - ven, 2013/06/14 - 21:11
 14 juin 2013 - Ne pas consommer la sauce à spaghetti à la viande de la marque
Restaurant chez Georges - Les Sauces chez Georges inc., Saguenay
VIDEO: Weed Control in Organic Spring Cereals
Modifier eXtension Articles,News,Faqs,Events- organic production (anglais) - jeu,
2013/06/13 - 16:15
eOrganic author:
Lauren Kolb, University of Maine
This video, from the University of Maine Weed Ecology Group, highlights the results of four years
of research on weed management in organic spring cereals. Lauren Kolb discusses the
limitations of the widely-used spring-tine harrow for weed management, which has a short
window of opportunity for effectiveness. Weeds quickly outgrow the white thread stage, when
they are most susceptible to being either uprooted or buried. Delays in tine harrowing, due to
precipitation or soil condition, can result in unacceptably low rates of control and unnecessary
crop damage.
The researchers evaluated the use of increased seeding rates in barley (200 versus 500 plants
m-2) and wheat (400 and 600 plants m-2) for increased weed suppression. Elevated seeding
rates reduce gaps in the crop row, provide a buffer against tine harrow damage, and increase the
rate of canopy formation, leading to greater weed suppression than typical planting rates. This
method was compared to sowing cereals in wider rows and cultivating between the rows with
sweeps, as is common in row crops like corn and soybean. Yield, weed growth and seed
production, and economics were evaluated.
Elevated seeding rates, while providing greater weed suppression than standard seeding rates,
did not show a yield benefit. In general, the number of weeds and their competitiveness will
dictate how much emphasis needs to be placed on managing weeds. If growers expect their
fields to be very weedy, based on what weeds went to seed the previous year, wide rows with
inter-row cultivation provide the most economical choice for organic weed management for
growers in Northern New England.
Video Transcript
Weeds are a constant reminder of previous years’ weed management failures. Without the use of
herbicides, organic farmers often see their weed problems increase every year both in number
and in diversity of species. Although cereals are quite competitive because of their initial seed
size advantage over weed seeds and quick canopy growth, yield reductions due to weeds are
common. Grain quality can also be adversely affected, as weeds can harbor insect pests and
diseases and compete for essential nutrients. Wet weed seed in the harvested grain can also
cause spoilage.
Why are weeds so prevalent in organic cereals? The fundamental agronomic practices used by
most organic grain growers―methods developed over the last fifty years of input-intensive
production―are poorly suited to organic production, where weed pressure is often very high.
These practices―relatively low seeding rates of 120 pounds per acre and wide rows of 7
inches―work in conventional production because herbicides are used to eliminate weeds, thus
minimizing the emphasis on crop-weed competition.
Many growers rely on spring-tine harrowing to reduce weeds in organic small grains such as
wheat and barley. This cultivating implement uses flexible metal tines to uproot weeds, which
then desiccate on the soil surface. Given ideal conditions of dry soil and very small weeds,
harrowing can kill over 90% of weeds in the field. However, a wet spring makes timely spring-tine
harrowing nearly impossible. Delaying harrowing until field conditions improve reduces efficacy,
as weeds are larger and less susceptible to uprooting. Furthermore, spring-tine harrowing treats
the entire field uniformly, wherein the tines also harm the crop through uprooting, burial, and foliar
damage. Studies in barley have shown an average 10% yield reduction per spring-tine cultivation
event. So, although use of the spring-tine harrow can achieve high levels of weed control, there is
a trade-off with yield losses due to crop damage.
Organic farmers can achieve modest improvements in crop-weed competition by switching to
competitive cultivars that are tall, emerge quickly, and have horizontal leaf carriage; or, they can
choose species like oats. Increasing seeding rates to 290 pounds per acre can also increase
yield and suppress weed growth. However, this strategy may not be cost-effective due to the high
cost of organic seed.
More selective weed control may be achieved using an inter-row hoe and wider row spacing, as
seen in row crops like corn or soybeans. The Schmotzer EPP cultivator is one example of a weed
management tool designed specifically for controlling weeds within the crop row in small scale
organic production. Mounted on a 3-point hitch, the unit is controlled by hydraulic-assisted
manual steering. Depending on the size of the crop, working speed can reach 6 miles per hour.
Larger-scale cultivators with automated guidance systems can operate at much higher
speeds―up to 10 miles per hour―and still maintain accuracy.
Each sweep is mounted to the toolbar with a parallel linkage, allowing the precise depth control
essential for variable field surfaces. Weeds are controlled between the row by undercutting or
burial, making the efficacy of inter-row hoeing less reliant on soil conditions or weed size. With
greater efficacy against larger weeds, inter-row hoeing can be performed multiple times in a
season, allowing for control of weeds that would be unaffected by spring-tine harrowing. Because
inter-row hoeing selectively targets weeds, crop damage is minimal. Furthermore, inter-row
hoeing with the Schmotzer shows promising results for control of creeping perennials like
quack grass, which cannot be controlled in-season by spring-tine harrowing or herbicides.
With reduced weed density and weed pressure, cereal grain yield increases. At a cost of $7.52
per acre, inter-row hoeing is a less expensive weed management option than doubling the
seeding rate, while providing equivalent yields and weed suppression.
When weed pressure is low, cereals are sufficiently competitive as to not require increases in
seeding rate or physical weed control to manage weeds. However, most organic farms have
ample weed pressure to merit consideration of this new technology.
This is an eOrganic article and was reviewed for compliance with National Organic Program
regulations by members of the eOrganic community. Always check with your organic certification
agency before adopting new practices or using new materials. For more information, refer to
eOrganic's articles on organic certification.
eOrganic 7690
Adoption Potential and Perceptions of Reduced Tillage among Organic
Farmers in the Maritime Pacific Northwest
Modifier eXtension Articles,News,Faqs,Events- organic production (anglais) - mer,
2013/06/12 - 14:23
eOrganic authors:
Dr. Andrew T. Corbin Ph.D., Agriculture and Natural Resources Faculty, Washington State
University Extension Snohomish County
Dr. Douglas P. Collins Ph.D., Small Farms Extension Specialist, WSU Center for Sustaining
Agriculture and Natural Resources
Dr. Rose L. Krebill-Prather Ph.D., Research Associate, Social and Economic Sciences Research
Center, Washington State University
Chris A. Benedict M.S., Agriculture and Natural Resources Faculty, Washington State University
Extension Whatcom County
Dr. Danna L. Moore Ph.D., Interim Director, Social and Economic Sciences Research Center,
Washington State University
Want to reduce your tillage? Find out what Northwest growers are learning.
Reduced tillage (RT) is a desired yet challenging strategy to achieve for many organic farmers. In
the maritime Pacific Northwest, organic RT systems are not widely adopted due to the required
technologies and practices that are new to producers in this region. The lack of adoption of these
practices provides a unique opportunity to examine producer perceptions about soil quality and
barriers to adoption of new soil improvement techniques. During the spring of 2011, three organic
vegetable producer focus groups were conducted in western Washington to learn about producer
knowledge, attitudes, practices, and the perceived benefits and risks of implementing RT
technologies. Focus group participants were eager to share their experiences relative to organic
RT practices. Farmers reported to understand the benefits of tillage reduction and cover
cropping, but acknowledged there are significant obstacles to overcome before successful
implementation can occur on their own farms. The obstacles encompass aspects of organic
vegetable production in the maritime Northwest where there is higher soil moisture, a shorter
growing season, and smaller scale farms relative to other regions where the RT practices are
used successfully. While RT methods improve soil quality, farmers lose the beneficial aspects of
tilling the soil related to aeration, soil moisture levels, soil temperature, and weed management.
Other concerns pertained to the equipment needed for the RT practices and whether the
equipment has been cost-effectively adapted to smaller scale farms. Results from these focus
groups have assisted our team to more effectively proceed with RT research and outreach
efforts.
Cover crops (barley) terminated by flail mower and roller/crimper (pictured) in preparation for
vegetable transplants at the Washington State University Northwest Research and Extension
Center, Mount Vernon, WA. Photo credit: Andrew Corbin
 Introduction
 Developing a RT Research and Extension Project in Western Washington
 Results




Conclusions
Opportunities for future research
References and Citations
Additional Resources
Introduction
Washington State has the third highest number of organic farmers and the second highest
organic farmgate sales in the United States (United States Department of Agriculture [USDA]National Agricultural Statistics Service [NASS], 2010). Organic agriculture in western Washington
is a vibrant and growing industry composed of more than 266 certified organic farms and 25,900
certified acres, up 140% and 280% respectively since 2005 (Kirby and Granatstein, 2012).
Growth in western Washington organic agriculture is driven by strong consumer demand in
regional metropolitan areas such as Portland, OR, Seattle, WA, and Vancouver, B.C.
Without access to synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, organic farmers are more reliant on cultural
management tactics and healthy soils to manage weeds and provide fertility. In addition to a
relatively short growing season common to other northern latitude regions, maritime Pacific
Northwest farms experience high winter rainfall that encourages erosion, soil nutrient leaching,
and soil compaction. These conditions, which escalate the risk of decreasing soil quality and
ultimately profitability among organic farmers in this region, may encourage adoption of
alternative production strategies.
Weed management is a primary concern for organic vegetable growers (Walz, 2004). Crops and
weeds fill the same ecological niche and compete for the same resources. To be productive,
growers need to structure an environment that is beneficial to the crops, with minimal weed
pressure (Di Tomaso, 1995). In conventional agriculture, herbicides are used to suppress weeds,
but most selective herbicides are not permitted in organic farming (Gruber and Claupein, 2009).
Primary tillage (plowing/disking) and secondary tillage (cultivation) are methods of suppressing
weeds compatible with organic production standards. Most research on reduced tillage (RT)
systems has focused on conventional agriculture where herbicides are used (Kaval, 2004).
Recent work suggests organic production systems may successfully maintain yields under higher
weed pressures as compared to conventional systems (Ryan et al., 2009).
Certified organic growers must use tillage and cultivation practices that “maintain or improve the
physical, chemical, and biological properties of soil” (USDA-National Organic Program [NOP],
2000). Frequent tillage contributes to the deterioration of soil quality, which threatens the
sustainability of western Washington organic vegetable farms. Regular tillage with multiple
passes is a routine practice of growers who rely on tillage to suppress weeds. Unfortunately,
over-tilling damages soil structure and promotes erosion (Montgomery, 2008). Frequent tilling
also requires labor, machinery and fuel, and expensive inputs that have negative environmental
impacts (Grandy et al., 2006; Grandy and Robertson, 2006; Robertson et al., 2000). High
biomass, mechanically terminated cover crop mulches associated with RT have been shown to
inhibit weeds (Altieri et al., 2011; Mirsky et al., 2011; Ryan et al., 2011). Therefore, researchers
are interested in evaluating RT production systems to help farmers improve the economic and
environmental sustainability of their operations.
Farms provide regionally important ecosystem services (Costanza, 1997), including flood
protection, erosion prevention, increased biodiversity, and carbon sequestration. RT organic
farms have fewer negative externalities and more positive externalities in the form of enhanced
ecosystem services (Kocian et al., 2012). Decreasing tillage activities reduces wind and soil
erosion and creates benefits to society both off-site and on-site. In the United States, off-site soil
erosion damage is estimated to cost $37.6 billion annually (Uri, 2001). On-site erosion impacts
the future productivity of the land (Walker and Young, 1986). Farmers will also need access to
machinery, whether through low-interest loans or special programs like those currently underway
by Conservation Districts in Washington and Oregon, the University of Idaho, and WSU
Extension (Meyer, 2009). These programs address knowledge barriers and lower risks
associated with adopting new technologies by promoting communication and mentoring among
farmers.
Recent research has found that traditional predictors of adoption of new innovations such as
education, length of time farming, and farm structure, have little or no relationship to the adoption
of more complex innovations like broader forms of conservation (Coughenour, 2003; Napier et
al., 2000). Adoption of RT practices involves accepting a “loosely coupled system” composed of
components that vary independently where farmers choose from a collection of practices based
on their personal preferences, farm characteristics, perceived needs, level of knowledge, labor
availability, and many other factors. Certain techniques may even be adapted by farmers to fit
their specific farm or marketing needs. Because of the flexibility in choosing what, where, why,
and how to adopt, no two organic farmers are alike in what they practice or grow. Moreover, each
organic farming practice is associated with a different set of perceived adoption constraints
(Goldberger, 2008). Fundamental to RT is that growers have knowledge and experiences that
lead them to appreciate the complex interaction and relationships of their specific production
practices and how these can impact (enhancing or eroding) soil quality and soil biology for their
regional growing circumstances. An example of this is while more conventional tillage manages
weeds, soil quality is reduced through greater erosion and earthworm populations decrease
(Chan, 2001). Additionally, Rogers' (2003) theory of diffusion underscores the importance,
advantage, and compatibility that a new technology must have in order to be widely adopted.
Preliminary experimental results and demonstration of the best methods to grow crops using RT
will likely facilitate adoption of RT methods and technologies. In addition to these traditional
Extension tools, adoption of conservation practices may be enhanced by internet-based outreach
tools, including interactive webinars, web-pages, and web-videos (Case and Hino, 2010; Sobrero,
2008).
Coughenour (2003) found that, in adopting these more complex practices, connections between
farmers may be as or more important than connections between farmers and representatives of
the scientific community. In other words, conversations between farmers at the local coffee shop
or feed store might be more important than the research field or laboratory. Perhaps more
importantly, they rely on their peers (who have similar circumstances and similar problems) for
informal “expert” consultation. This connection between farmers appears to be related to the
ability of other farmers to model implementation of new practices, to talk about it in a way that is
easily understood, and to potentially be available for appropriate and immediate help. On-farm
trials and demonstration projects can be used to develop expertise among early adopters. Recent
economic research has also shown that adoption can be better understood by looking at the
demand for specific traits or qualities in complex technologies (Useche et al., 2009). It is also
necessary to account for factors that go beyond profitability, including land ownership, scale of
production, farm/farmer characteristics, and the life cycle of existing capital–all of which help
explain why technologies are not adopted even when it appears they would improve profitability
(Isik, 2004; Purvis et al., 1995; Carey and Zilberman, 2002; Barenklau and Knapp, 2007).
Developing a Reduced Tillage Research and Extension Project in Western Washington
Research and Extension efforts to reduce tillage on organic farms in western Washington began
in 2008 with the formation of a stakeholder advisory group, an on-farm trial, and a symposium.
The symposium, supported by a USDA Organic Research and Extension Initiative (OREI)
planning grant, brought together 72 regional organic vegetable growers, agricultural
professionals, and national RT specialists. National and regional organic RT specialists were
invited to present successful examples and discuss their RT organic production methods. The
first day culminated with a field trip to an on-farm trial. The second day focused on understanding
local needs and opportunities, and describing how WSU should be involved in research and
outreach. Three priorities were identified by the group: 1) Identify production methods that
integrate cover crops and RT technologies to improve soil quality and reduce weed populations;
2) Evaluate the economic impact of adopting RT technologies in terms of average profitability, the
variance of profits, and factors influencing the likelihood of adoption; 3) Facilitate adoption of RT
technologies and ideas, and identify the most effective strategies for encouraging behavior
change. Core members of the producer advisory group formed during the symposium have
remained engaged as research participants in on-farm and research center trials and have
guided the direction of the project to ensure relevance.
Washington Organic Farmer RT Focus Groups
Focus groups were chosen at this stage because they are a useful way to examine grower beliefs
and perceptions, and to understand the decisions made on operations. Focus groups are an
effective method for interacting with stakeholders and engaging them to learn more broadly about
their concerns, knowledge, experiences, and barriers to implementation of RT (Krueger and
Casey, 2000; Morgan and Krueger, 1998). The discussion format and what individuals had to say
in response to our questions and topics provided information about their attitudes, beliefs,
behaviors and their underlying values with respect to RT implementation in agriculture as well as
in the high moisture areas where they manage their small to medium size organic vegetable
production systems. The goal of the focus groups was to help the project team identify major
bridges and barriers in the design, adoption and dissemination of RT production systems for
organic vegetable crops in western Washington.
In spring 2011, the RT Working Group, made up of western Washington Extension and research
faculty, worked collaboratively with faculty and staff of the WSU Social & Economic Sciences
Research Center (SESRC) in the development of the focus group pre-survey, moderator's guide,
focus group participant screening and selection, as well as the implementation of focus group
sessions.
Focus Group Participants
For focus groups to be an effective methodology, participants need to be randomly recruited from
the target population to achieve a mix of contributors comprised of the types of producers to
which the research is directed (Krueger and Casey, 2000; Morgan and Krueger, 1998). Both men
and women often work in small farming operations. Furthermore, there is an ethnic diversity of
people who participate in area Extension programs for organic vegetable production. Specifically,
western Washington has an increasing number of Latino growers involved in organic vegetable
production. Focus groups with culturally diverse populations that encompass a much smaller
proportion of growers and who are concentrated in some local areas more than others have not
been elaborated in the literature for focus groups or Extension programs. In this research, Latino
growers participated and engaged in the same session discussions with other area growers
about the use of RT.
The RT Working Group provided the SESRC with a list of growers who participated in the 2009
symposium entitled “No-Till Organic Vegetable Production in Western Washington”. These
farmers, along with a list of organic vegetable producers gathered from the Washington State
Department of Agriculture were selected from the following western Washington counties:
Whatcom, Skagit, Snohomish, King, Pierce, Thurston, Lewis, Mason, Jefferson, Clallam, Kitsap,
Island, and San Juan (Fig.1). Other names suggested by WSU Extension personnel involved in
the project from the counties of interest were provided to the SESRC for a total of 145 potential
farmers for screening and selection.
Participants were screened for the person on the farm who makes decisions regarding cropping
practices and other farm management decisions and who was 18 years of age or older.
Participants also needed to have at least one acre of organic vegetables produced on their farm,
but they did not have to be certified organic. The goal for each session was to have
approximately ten individuals confirmed for each session.
Figure 1 Western Washington Counties and focus group locations
Implementation of Focus Groups
In spring 2011, focus groups were scheduled in three different locations in western Washington:
Mount Vernon, Everett, and Olympia (Fig. 1). Each focus group session was planned for a two
hour block of time. One of the SESRC principal investigators served as the focus group
moderator while the other principal investigator took notes. In addition, audio recordings were
taken during each focus group. The focus group moderator guided the discussion through the
main topic areas (Table 1). The same set of topics was used at each focus group session to
ensure consistency. A written pre-survey with questions about farm characteristics and a selfrating of RT knowledge was completed by farmers prior to the discussion. Farmers were also
given a $50 honorarium for their participation.
Table 1. Focus Group Discussion Topics 1. From your perspective, what are the main reasons
farmers use reduced tillage practices? What tillage practices do you currently use? 2. What are
the main reasons farmers use cover crops? What cover crop practices do you currently use? 3.
What concerns do you have about adopting reduced tillage practices and cover cropping?
Identify any barriers. 4. What tillage equipment do you currently have? What new equipment
would be needed in order to adopt reduced tillage practices? 5. How does your access or lack of
access to the proper equipment affect your willingness to adopt new practices? 6. How do you
learn about new farming practices? What factors influence you to make changes in your practice?
7. What factors/facts would most convince you to adopt reduced tillage practices?
At the Mount Vernon focus group, a Spanish speaking interpreter provided a simultaneous
translation for the four Spanish-speaking participants during the discussion. The translator
relayed their comments and questions to the larger group and then provided back discussion
comments. This allowed for an interchange that offered insight into their unique practices and
perceptions of RT and also allowed them to learn about and ask questions of their Englishspeaking grower counterparts.
Project researchers from the RT working group played a key role in the discussion by interjecting
information and clarifying critical points regarding the current project-related research.
Researchers also answered questions and provided clarification on RT and cover cropping
practices. The sessions encouraged communication between researchers and participants by
developing questions that led the conversation around the chosen topics. Farmers from this
working group were committed to supporting and promoting the comprehensive resources being
developed during this integrated research and Extension project.
Compilation of Findings
After the focus group sessions were completed, SESRC personnel prepared typed transcripts of
each session. The data generated from the focus groups is qualitative. The power in focus
groups is not a quantitative measurement but rather capturing the breadth of the topics and
issues that surface from participants interacting with each other in dialogue during the sessions.
Focus groups are a way to listen to people and learn from them. Often the synergy, group
dynamic and questions that participants pose to one another in addition the moderator's
questions explores new depths and aspects not often uncovered in surveys or other means of
capturing interview data.
Results Participant Profile
In the pre-survey, the majority of participants across focus groups indicated familiarity with RT
practices and though most were not using the specific strategies being studied by the RT
Working Group, they have tried to reduce the amount of tillage they do in one form or another
(Table 2). Twelve Mount Vernon participants, six Everett participants, and six Olympia
participants indicated they have used some form of RT on their farm, although the focus group
discussion revealed that individual farmers' definition of RT ranged widely. The remaining
participants from each of the three locations indicated “No”; they have not used RT practices on
their farm. However, all participants indicated a high level of interest in RT for various reasons.
Farmer participants rated their own current level of knowledge about RT in organic vegetable
production. While these results have too few respondents to be considered a survey with
statistical representation, the rating does provide a profile and guide as to how much session
participants knew with regard to RT. There were no strong differences among participants in the
3 local areas in terms of RT knowledge. Mount Vernon and Everett participants rated themselves
as having moderate knowledge overall, while Olympia participants tended to rate themselves with
a little less than “Moderate knowledge” overall. Most of the session participants were aware there
is more knowledge to be gained and that they could increase their knowledge about RT
technologies and practices.
Table 2. Focus Group Session dates, Locations, Participants, Farm Composition, and
Crops Produced
Key Focus Group Themes
The focus group discussions revealed that farmers were eager to share their experiences and
were interested in learning how to effectively use these RT and cover cropping practices on their
own farms. Farmers recognize there are downsides to not tilling the soil and were concerned
whether or not the downsides might outweigh the advantages. Farmers also had concerns about
whether RT practices would work in their particular situation in the maritime Northwest.
Bridges to Reduced Tillage and Cover Cropping: Improved Soil Quality
Soil quality was the main reason given for pursuing RT and cover cropping practices. Farmers
perceived that tilling the soil destroys soil macrofauna and decreases organic matter–both
important components of soil health. Farmers were interested in practices that would help to
maintain and restore the balance of organic matter in the soil. On ground that has been
repeatedly tilled, farmers understood they risk losing soil fertility and organic matter along with
large organisms that are important to healthy soil. They also understood that maintaining and
building organic matter helps to reduce erosion and regulate soil moisture.
Farmers recognized how rich the soil is when it is first tilled (i.e. when taken out of pasture), but
also how quickly it loses its rich quality and organic matter when it is repeatedly tilled. Farmers
worried about the number of passes they make through the field because of the probable decline
in soil quality. For example, the development of a compacted hard pan has become a problem for
some farmers.
Farmers wanted to know how to use RT practices to restore, maintain and improve the quality of
the soil that has been compromised after repeatedly being tilled. A key question surfaced towards
directing extension research: Is there a rotation strategy for using RT that will decrease soil bulk
density and increase soil organic matter without losing the benefits of tillage?
Growers recognized the value of RT for maintaining soil quality but also the potential for reducing
costs. One large grower in particular summarized that the fewer tillage passes he has to make
through a field or bed, the more he saves on fuel and labor.
Barriers to Using Reduced Tillage Practices
No current regional examples. One of the main barriers to adopting RT was the lack of RT
practices adapted to the maritime Northwest. In this area there are different crops, different soil
types, different climate, and a shorter growing season compared to other areas where RT
practices are currently being used successfully. Farmers were unaware of any examples of RT
practices employed in areas similar to their particular situation. As a result, farmers did not feel
confident about using the practices.
The scale of the operation impacted the tradeoffs farmers see between tilling and reducing tillage.
Farmers wanted to know if RT and cover cropping practices used on Midwestern row crops and
grains can be successfully adapted to a small intensive scale in the maritime Northwest.
For growers to be willing to adopt new practices such as RT, they want to see their risk reduced
by systematic trials in research and then proven in actual farming conditions and on sites under
organic vegetable production. Some growers wanted to see the results of sowing two or more
cover crops. Others suggested a need for research to target cover crops that improve soil quality
in wet conditions. They recognized that cover crops and RT use are not a “one size fits all”
solution.
Managing soil moisture and temperature. One of the main challenges that farmers in the
maritime Northwest face is high levels of soil moisture in the spring and areas on their farms that
are prone to flooding because of the high levels of moisture. While some farmers indicated that
cover cropping protects their soil from erosion, other farmers find that cover cropping is
impractical with extremely wet soils (e.g. some farmers have standing water at critical planting
times).
Farmers indicated that they were concerned about using RT practices when they have such cool
spring soil temperatures because of the shorter growing season in the maritime Northwest. They
stipulated that one of the main methods to increase the soil temperature is to till the soil.
Furthermore, by having a lighter colored cover crop on top of dark soil, the increase in soil
temperature will also be delayed.
Nutrient availability. Farmers were concerned that the nutrients incorporated into the soil during
the tilling process would instead be tied up in the cover crop. They wanted to know how to get the
nutrients back into the soil. While cover crops increase the organic matter and nutrients in the
soil, farmers want to know how those nutrients are incorporated into the soil and become
available to the targeted cash crop if the cover crop is not tilled in. Farmers are concerned that an
unincorporated cover crop competes for or even drains nutrients out of the soil. Farmers want to
know how RT and cover cropping impacts the main crops they are trying to grow. They want to
know if there are certain combinations and timings of cover crops that will help compensate for
the amount of nutrients that may be tied up in the cover crop.
Weed and pest management. Farmers indicated that they need to know how to address weed
problems that may occur as tillage is reduced because they have heard that RT increases the
need for herbicides. When planting beans, for example (at least without a no-till drill), there is a
need to open up the row and plant the seed. This allows weeds to germinate and it is difficult to
control them without further tillage or herbicides. Perennial weeds are also seen to infest ground
that is fallow or has not been regularly tilled.
Slugs are another pest specific to the maritime Northwest. Farmers in the group were very
concerned, as they have experienced increased slug problems if crop debris was left in the field
or if a cover crop was not tilled into the soil. They expressed apprehension that cover crops,
especially dense cover, may become an enhanced habitat for slugs which are already a problem.
Adoption of Reduced Tillage and Cover Cropping: Next Steps
Farmers wanted more information about which cover crops to use, how to space the plantings
and more about scheduling the planting of the cover crop. One problem farmers have is being
able to get the cover crop in early enough to get maturity before having to get their cash crop
planted on time. Are there cover crops that have an earlier season that would work well for the
farmers in the maritime Northwest? Farmers wondered if there are methods of double cropping of
a cover crop with the cash crop. They also wanted to know how to coordinate multiple factors and
how to get various practices to work together. Furthermore, because the methods of farming
differ for different ways of marketing the products, farmers wondered whether or not these
practices will work in their situation. For some cash crops, leaving cover crop “trash” in the field
diminishes the value of the cash crop (e.g. green beans).
Equipment Acquisition and Utilization
Specialized equipment was mentioned as a main obstacle in each focus group. Farmers wanted
to know more about the specific equipment they would need under a RT system and whether
existing equipment could be adapted for RT purposes. Farmers had reservations about
purchasing equipment if it was unclear whether it was adaptable to their specific situation and
conditions or had a proven track record. Some also inquired as to where to find the specialized
equipment. Farmers also considered the feasibility of sharing, renting, or purchasing the
specialized equipment.
Growers and researchers discussed the possibility that Extension and Conservation Districts
should be explored as resources for cooperative equipment sharing for small growers in a region.
The participants' past experiences indicated that often there is such a short window of opportunity
when specialized equipment is needed that everyone would need the equipment at the same
time, and they foresee that factor as a real limitation. Also, when sharing equipment, farmers
wondered who would be responsible for expenses when it breaks down. In addition, just getting
the equipment from one farm to another could be a challenge. Equipment sharing can also lead
to weed and plant disease problems being transmitted from one farm another.
Conclusions
This series of focus groups provided insight into the perceptions, experiences, and concerns of
organic vegetable growers in western Washington. Several recurring concepts in the focus
groups have been valuable in directing current and future research on RT and cover cropping
practices: 1) the problems organic vegetable growers face with RT in moist maritime conditions,
2) what they want and need to know about RT to adopt it, and 3) the desire for a wider
understanding of the possible benefits that accrue from RT use. The size of the sessions in terms
of participants allowed for in-depth discussions about RT and cover crops, and this provided
insights for guiding researchers in developing protocols that can be used to yield generalizable
research results. Participants questioned each other and also questioned researchers at the end
of the sessions.
Smaller growers and larger growers viewed the use of RT and cover crops differently. Smallscale Latino/a growers emphasized that since they often hand pick crops, they can use cover
crops combined with RT to help keep berries clean (less soil from muddy conditions) and allow
them to remain on the vine longer. Larger growers emphasized their need to carefully evaluate
the tradeoff of cover crops and RT to difficulty in harvesting (weed entanglement from increased
growth in subsequent seasons), changes in hand harvesting, labor and fuel costs as well as any
pervasive impacts to product quality.
Focus group participants recognized the benefits of RT and cover cropping but were yearning for
more information and stronger evidence of how well the RT practices proposed by researchers
would work on their specific farms under their specific conditions and on their specific crops.
These growers seek the benefits of the increased soil quality that can occur when tillage is
reduced. However, growers have concerns about how well those practices will work for them
because of the wetter climate and subsequently wetter soil they are dealing with compared to
other areas where these practices are being used successfully. The performance of RT
technologies during the shorter growing season in western Washington and overall cooler soil
temperatures was also an important concern.
Opportunities for Future Research
Many gaps exist in RT knowledge that impede the adoption of these practices in this region.
There is a clear need to understand the trade-offs between the benefits and costs associated with
specific RT practices and cover crops used in terms of soil quality, weed management, soil
compaction and aggregation, soil temperature, labor requirements and changes associated with
proposed practices in fields with high levels of moisture in early spring. Many also indicated that
because of their small scale, some specific practices and the specialized equipment in particular
will need to be adapted to their situation. Growers have ongoing concerns about weeds and other
pests, and about which cover crops work best and when to plant them. Slug control and
prevention in RT systems is a key area of research needed in the cool, seasonally wet climate of
the maritime Pacific Northwest. This is of special concern for organic growers committed to
minimal or no chemical options for pest control.
Grower participants welcomed the opportunity to exchange information with fellow growers about
each other's current cover cropping, crop management and tillage practices and to tap into, ask
questions and learn about the current WSU research being done on RT and cover cropping
practices. They were also interested in learning about some of the specialized equipment and
specific practices that are being used. Very few agricultural policies are directed towards
supporting small-acreage vegetable growers, and this study points to a need for specialized
support and research in the form of shared equipment resources or programs to help offset risk
and larger expenses. Another area of research is the role of incentives for reduced environmental
impact and how that might play towards inducing organic vegetable growers to further adopt RT
and cover crops to reduce soil erosion.
Growers indicated that they use a variety of ways to learn about new practices including
workshops, conferences, face-to-face meetings with researchers and other growers, the Internet,
YouTube™ videos and books. Growers wanted to know that the practices have been tried in real
settings and under conditions similar to their own situations. Inclusion and participation by Latinos
in our sessions suggests a need for materials to be translated and made available and accessible
in other languages.
The WSU RT Working Group in western Washington has incorporated the valuable findings of
the focus groups into their research station and on-farm experimental designs, especially in the
areas of cover crop type, variety, and timing, combinations of cover crops and cover crop
termination methods and timing. The Working Group continues to involve their stakeholders in
workshops, trainings, field days and conferences developed specifically to influence the wider
adoption of RT technologies and practices. The focus group sessions highlight that small
producers have limited time, capacity, and resources to experiment and test various cover crops
and tillage practices during their production season. Research programs like that of the RT
Working Group have an important role to address the questions raised in a systematic way using
scientific practice and experimental methods towards reducing risk for farmers to adopt RT
technologies and practices.
References and Citations
 Altieri, M. A., M. A. Lana, H. V. Bittencourt, A. S. Kieling, J. J. Comin, and P. E. Lovato. 2011.
Enhancing crop productivity via weed suppression in organic no-till cropping systems in Santa
Catarina, Brazil. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 35: 855–869. (Available online at:















http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10440046.2011.588998#.UajUFJxkmVB)
(verified 31 May 2013).
Baerenklau, K. A., and K. C. Knapp. 2007. Dynamics of agricultural technology adoption: Age
structure, reversibility, and uncertainty. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 89(1):
190–201. (Available online at: http://ajae.oxfordjournals.org/content/89/1/190.abstract)
(verified 31 May 2013).
Carey, J., and D. Zilberman. 2002. A model of investment under uncertainty: Modern irrigation
technology and emerging markets in water. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 84:
171–83. (Available online at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1245032) (verified 31 May 2013).
Case, P., and J. Hino. 2010. A powerful teaching tool: Self-produced videos. Journal of
Extension, 48(1) Article 1TOT3. (Available online at:
http://www.joe.org/joe/2010february/tt3.php) (verified 31 May 2013).
Chan, K. Y. 2001. An overview of some tillage impacts on earthworm population abundance
and diversity—implications for functioning in soils. Soil and Tillage Research 57: 179–191.
(Available online at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0167-1987(00)00173-2) (verified 31 May
2013).
Costanza, R., J. C. Cumberland, H. E. Daly, R. Goodland, and R. Norgaard. 1997. An
introduction to ecological economics. St. Lucie Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Coughenour, C. M. 2003. Innovating conservation agriculture: The case of no-till cropping.
Rural Sociology 68(2): 278–304. (Available online at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.15490831.2003.tb00138.x) (verified 31 May 2013).
Di Tomaso, J. 1995. Approaches for improving crop competitiveness through the manipulation
of fertilization strategies. Weed Science 43:491–497. (Available online at:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4045585) (verified 31 May 2013).
Goldberger, J. R. 2008. Diffusion and adoption of non-certified organic agriculture: A case
study from semi-arid Makueni District, Kenya. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 32(4): 531–
564. (Available online at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10440040802257371) (verified 31 May
2013).
Grandy, A. S., T. D. Loecke, S. Parr, and G. P. Robertson. 2006. Long-term trends in nitrous
oxide emissions, soil nitrogen, and crop yields of till and no-till cropping systems. Journal of
Environmental Quality 35:1487–1495. (Available online at:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16825469) (verified 31 May 2013).
Grandy, A. S., and G. P. Robertson. 2006. Initial cultivation of a temperate-region soil
immediately accelerates aggregate turnover and CO2 and N2O fluxes. Global Change Biology
12: 1507–1520. (Available online at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01166.x)
(verified 31 May 2013).
Gruber, S., and W. Claupein. 2009. Effect of tillage intensity on weed infestation in organic
farming. Soil & Tillage Research 105: 104–111. (Available online
at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2009.06.001) (verified 31 May 2013).
Isik, M. 2004. Incentives for technology adoption under environmental policy uncertainty:
Implications for green payment programs. Environmental and Resource Economics 27:247–
263. (Available online at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:EARE.0000017624.07757.3f) (verified
31 May 2013).
Kaval, P. 2004. The profitability of alternative cropping systems: A review of the literature.
Journal of Alternative Agriculture 23: 47–65. (Available online
at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J064v23n03_06) (verified 31 May 2013).
Kirby, E., and D. Granatstein. 2012. Trends in Washington state organic agriculture 2004–
2011 data. In Organic Farm Statistics. Washington State University Center for Sustainable
Agriculture and Natural Resources. (Available online at:
http://csanr.wsu.edu/pages/Organic_Statistics) (verified 31 May 2013).
Kocian, M., B. Traughber, and D. Batker. 2012. Valuing nature's benefits: An ecological
economic assessment of Iowa's Middle Cedar watershed. Earth Economics. Tacoma, WA.
(Available online at:














http://www.eartheconomics.org/FileLibrary/file/Midwest/Earth%20Economics_Middle%2
0Cedar%20River_ESV_2012.pdf) (verified 31 May 2013).
Krueger, R. A., and M. A. Casey. 2000. Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research,
3rd edition. Sage Publications, Inc. Thousand Oaks, CA.
Meyer, T. 2009. Direct seed mentoring project final report, Ag Pilots Program, Ruckelshaus
Center, WSU. (Available online at:
http://ruckelshauscenter.wsu.edu/projects/documents/DirectSeedMentoringfinalreport.pdf) (verified 31 May 2013).
Mirsky, S. B., W. S. Curran, D. M. Mortensen, M. R. Ryan, and D. L. Shumway. 2011. Timing
of cover-crop management effects on weed suppression in no-till planted soybean using a
roller-crimper. Weed Science 59: 380–389. (Available online
at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1614/WS-D-10-00101.1) (verified 31 May 2013).
Montgomery, D. R. 2008. Pay dirt. Scientific American 299: 76-76. (Available online at:
http://gis.ess.washington.edu/grg/publications/pdfs/sad0708Mont2p.pdf (verified 31 May
2013).
Morgan, D. L., and R. A. Krueger. 1998. The focus group kit. Sage Publications, Inc.
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Napier, T. L., J. Robinson, and M. Tucker. 2000. Adoption of precision farming within three
Midwest watersheds. Journal of Soil and Water Conversation 55: 135–141. (Available online
at: http://www.jswconline.org/content/55/2/135.short) (verified 31 May 2013).
Purvis, A., W. G. Bogges, C. B. Moss, and J. Holt. 1995. Technology adoption decisions under
irreversibility and uncertainty: An ex ante approach. American Journal of Agricultural
Economics 77: 541–551. (Available online at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1243223) (verified
31 May 2013).
Robertson, G. P., E. A. Paul, and R. R. Harwood. 2000. Greenhouse gases in intensive
agriculture: Contributions of individual gases to the radiative forcing of the atmosphere.
Science 289: 1922–1925. (Available online
at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.289.5486.1922) (verified 31 May 2013).
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.
Ryan, M. R., R. G. Smith, D. A. Mortensen, J. R. Teasdale, W. S. Curran, R. Seidel, and D. L.
Shumways. 2009. Weed-crop competition relationships differ between organic and
conventional cropping systems. Weed Research 49(6):572–580. (Available online
at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3180.2009.00736.x) (verified 31 May 2013).
Ryan, M. R., W. S. Curran, A. M. Grantham, L. K. Hunsberger, S. B. Mirsky, D. A. Mortensen,
E. A. Nord, and D. O. Wilson. 2011. Effects of seeding rate and poultry litter on weed
suppression from a rolled cereal rye cover crop. Weed Science 59: 438–444. (Available online
at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1614/WS-D-10-00180.1) (verified 6 June 2013).
Sobrero, P. M. 2008. Social learning through virtual teams and communities. Journal of
Extension, 46(3) Article 3FEA1. (Available online at:
http://www.joe.org/joe/2008june/a1.php) (verified 31 May 2013).
United States Department of Agriculture. 2010. 2008 Organic production survey. Volume 3,
Special Studies, Part 2, AC-07-SS-2. National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA,
Washington, DC. (Available online at:
http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Online_Highlights/Organics/ORGANI
CS.pdf) (verified 31 May2013).
United States Department of Agriculture. 2000. National organic program: NOP rule on
organic production and handling requirements. 7 C.F.R., part 205, Subpart C: § 205.203. Soil
fertility and crop nutrient management practice standard. (Available online at:
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp=&
SID=0f8fafe5bf24adc40f593ec093bfe02e&n=7y3.1.1.9.32.3&r=SUBPART&ty=HTML#7:3.1
.1.9.32.3.354.4 (verified 31 May 2013).

Uri, N. D. 2001. The environmental implications of soil erosion in the United States.
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 66(3): 293–312. (Available online
at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1006333329653) (verified 31 May 2013).
 Useche, P., B. L. Barham, and J .D. Foltz. 2009. Integrating technology traits and producer
heterogeneity: A mixed-multinomial model of genetically modified corn adoption. American
Journal of Agricultural Economics 91(2): 444–461. (Available online
at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8276.2008.01236.x) (verified 31 May 2013).
 Walker, D. J., and D. L.Young. 1986. The effect of technical progress on erosion damage and
economic incentives for soil conservation. Land Economics Vol. 62(1): 83–93. (Available
online at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3146566) (verified 31 May 2013).
 Walz, E. 2004. OFRF Fourth National Organic Farmers' Survey: Sustaining Organic Farms in
a Changing Organic Marketplace. Organic Farming Research Foundation. Santa Cruz, CA.
(Available online at:
http://ofrf.org/sites/ofrf.org/files/docs/pdf/4thsurvey_results.pdf) (verified 31 May 2013).
Additional Resources
 Benedict, C., A. T. Corbin, A. Bary, and D. P. Collins. 2012. Organic reduced tillage in the
Pacific Northwest. Group website under the eOrganic Community of Practice for eXtension.
(Available online at: http://eorganic.info/node/4988). (Verified 28 May 2013).
Acknowledgements
This project was supported by the Organic Research and Extension Initiative of the (formerly)
Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service, USDA, Grant # 2009-5130005584 and is gratefully acknowledged. The authors wish to thank Colleen Burrows for her role in
grant and focus group development, SESRC staff and all of our farmer cooperators who
participated in the focus groups.
This is an eOrganic article and was reviewed for compliance with National Organic Program
regulations by members of the eOrganic community. Always check with your organic certification
agency before adopting new practices or using new materials. For more information, refer to
eOrganic's articles on organic certification.
eOrganic 9597
Monsanto poursuivi à cause de son blé
LeQuebecBio.com - mer, 2013/06/12 - 13:57
La contamination du blé tendre blanc par un OGM pourrait représenter une
catastrophe pour les agriculteurs du nord-ouest des États-Unis. La découverte de ce blé de
Monsanto, résistant à l’ herbicide Roundup, dans une ferme d’ Oregon a déjà eu un impact sur
les marchés. Pour cet État et celui de Washington, le blé tendre blanc représente la principale
variété produite. Cette céréale est principalement destinée aux pays asiatiques pour la fabrication
de nouilles et de biscottes. Or, le Japon et la Corée, deux bons clients, refusent de prendre du
blé modifié génétiquement.
Le ministre Gendron dépose un projet de loi pour mieux lutter contre
l'accaparement des terres agricoles
MAPAQ Communiqués - mar, 2013/06/11 - 19:07
 11 juin 2013 - Le ministre Gendron dépose un projet de loi pour mieux lutter contre
l'accaparement des terres agricoles
Deux lauréates du volet « agriculture, pêches et alimentation »
MAPAQ Communiqués - lun, 2013/06/10 - 18:27
 10 juin 2013 - Deux lauréates du volet « agriculture, pêches et alimentation »
Davantage de pesticides avec le réchauffement climatique
LeQuebecBio.com - lun, 2013/06/10 - 13:52
Ce réchauffement climatique augmentera la présence d’ insectes nuisibles dans
les cultures du Québec, selon la première étude qui s’ intéresse au problème. L’ arrivée de la
pyrale – ennemi numéro un du maïs sucré – et du doryphore – capable de détruire
complètement un champ de pommes de terre – sera plus hâtive. Des générations plus
nombreuses d’ insectes verront le jour au cours du même été. Quant à l’ efficacité des
méthodes de lutte contre ces ravageurs, elle diminuera, selon le rapport du consortium sur la
climatologie Ouranos.
Appel à la vigilance pour éviter la transmission à l'humain et aux animaux
domestiques
MAPAQ Communiqués - ven, 2013/06/07 - 16:39
 7 juin 2013 - Appel à la vigilance pour éviter la transmission à l'humain et aux animaux
domestiques
Le ministre Gendron veut l'étiquetage obligatoire des OGM
LeQuebecBio.com - ven, 2013/06/07 - 13:50
S'il n'en tenait qu'au ministre de l'Agriculture François Gendron, le Québec
instaurerait l'étiquetage obligatoire des organismes génétiquement modifiés (OGM). D'une part,
dit-il, il faudrait la collaboration du gouvernement fédéral, de qui relève la question de
l'étiquetage. Mais également, il estime qu'une telle démarche ne peut fonctionner si elle se fait en
vase clos.
Le gouvernement du Québec appuie le développement des appellations
réservées et des termes valorisants
MAPAQ Communiqués - jeu, 2013/06/06 - 15:59
 6 juin 2013 - Le gouvernement du Québec appuie le développement des appellations
réservées et des termes valorisants
Consultation publique sur le projet d'indication géographique protégée «
Cidre de glace du Québec »
MAPAQ Communiqués - jeu, 2013/06/06 - 15:59
 6 juin 2013 - Consultation publique sur le projet d'indication géographique protégée «
Cidre de glace du Québec »
Pas de maïs sucré GM québécois cette année
LeQuebecBio.com - jeu, 2013/06/06 - 13:46
Les Québécois pourront faire cette année leurs épluchettes de blé d'Inde sans
avoir à se demander si leurs épis ont été génétiquement modifiés (GM). Après avoir tenté une
timide incursion sur le marché en 2012, les producteurs québécois de maïs sucré ont retraité
devant les réactions négatives des consommateurs.
Organic No-Till Grain Production in the Midwest
Modifier eXtension Articles,News,Faqs,Events- organic production (anglais) - mar,
2013/06/04 - 17:23
eOrganic authors:
Kathleen Delate, Extension Organic Specialist, Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Cynthia Cambardella, Soil Scientist, USDA-ARS National Lab for Agriculture and the
Environment, Ames, IA
Jeff Moyer, Farm Manager, Rodale Institute, Kutztown, PA
Introduction
Organic grain production, including soybeans, reached 1,072,107 acres in the United States in
2008 (United States Department of Agriculture [USDA] Economic Research Service [ERS],
2012). The majority of U.S. organic grain is produced in the Midwest, where in 2008 there were
374,302 acres of organic corn and 93,567 acres of organic soybeans.
The majority of organic grain producers in the Midwest rely on tillage operations to manage
weeds, using rotary hoes or harrows for over-the-row weed management and row cultivators for
between-row management. While tillage operations can be very effective, there has been some
concern about the potential negative impact of tillage operations on soil quality–particularly for
producers interested in participating in USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service [NRCS]
soil conservation cost-share programs that focus on mitigating soil erosion. In order to meet
certified organic requirements and enter the expanding organic market, producers must
implement a soil-building plan in accordance with sections 205.203 and 205.205 of the National
Organic Program (NOP) final rule (USDA, 2000). At the heart of the regulations is the
protection or enhancement of carbon and other nutrients in soil organic matter to maintain soil
fertility and structure.
Successful weed management is also critical for organic and transitioning farmers. Cover crops
serve a dual role of providing fertility and helping to manage weeds. They can be plowed under
prior to grain crop planting, or terminated without tillage in reduced tillage or no-till operations.
There is wide acceptance of no-till in conventional production systems that rely on herbicides, but
it is still sometimes more difficult to get consistent crop stands in no-till compared to tilled
conventional systems because of cold soil and increased insect and disease pressure on
emerging seedlings. No-till is even more challenging in organic systems because organiccompliant seed treatments to protect seedlings from insects and diseases are limited, and
organic-compliant herbicides are expensive to use on a broad scale and less effective than
synthetic herbicides. If weeds emerge through the crushed cover crop mulch, there are limited
options; however, high residue cultivation can be used to aid in managing weeds.
This article reports preliminary research findings on no-till organic systems.
Nutrient Cycling and Cover Crops
Management of soil organic matter (SOM) to enhance soil quality and supply nutrients is a key
determinant of successful organic farming. This involves balancing two ecological processes:
mineralization of carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) in SOM for short-term crop uptake; and
sequestration of C and N in SOM pools for long-term maintenance of soil quality, including
structure and fertility.
Using organic amendments, crop rotations, and cover crops are multifunctional management
practices that conserve soil organic matter, enhance soil quality, protect soil from erosion, and
sequester C to help mitigate global climate change. Nitrogen fertility is maintained through
synchronization of N mineralization from soil organic N pools, and plant uptake of inorganic N.
Leguminous cover crops provide short-term yield benefits through rapid mineralization of
inorganic N from plant biomass. Decomposing cereal grain cover crop biomass immobilizes soil
N to reduce N leaching loss during the winter months, and contributes relatively more C as
stabilized soil organic matter than legumes. Including small grain and leguminous cover crops in
organic rotations may help optimize soil N cycling to enhance productivity and minimize loss of N
from the rooting zone.
The intensive tillage that is often used in organic production can compromise soil quality gains,
unless more C-rich amendments are added (manure, cover crops, compost, etc.) than are lost
through decomposition. Reducing tillage in organic farming systems is a major challenge for
producers because of its central role in weed management. The development of effective
reduced tillage methods across a range of climates and farming systems is key to improving the
environmental and economic sustainability of organic production.
Reduced Tillage of Cover Crops for Soil Health and Weed Management
Reduced tillage of cover crops in organic no-till systems has become the goal of many organic
producers in the United States. Following the lead of conventional no-till systems, organic
producers recognize the benefits of reduced tillage on soil physical, chemical and biological
properties. No-till cover crop termination methods developed for organic systems include mowing,
stalk-chopping and undercutting—all of which can lead to patchy distribution and rapid
breakdown of the mulch—providing more opportunities for weed establishment and growth.
Rolling or compressing the cover crop with a no-till roller/crimper can help to uniformly deposit
cover crop residue and allow for a more persistent mulch cover throughout the growing season
(Creamer and Dabney, 2002; Morse, 2001).
With the support from a USDA Conservation Innovation Grant [CIG], the Rodale Institute
(Kutztown, PA) distributed no-till roller/crimpers to several U.S. universities in 2005 to help
develop site-specific recommendations for no-till organic production (Hepperly, 2007). The roller
consists of a large steel cylinder (10.5 ft wide x 16 in diameter) filled with water to provide 2,000
lbs of weight. Steel blades are welded in a chevron pattern to crimp and mechanically kill fallplanted cover crops in the spring (see Fig. 1). The roller can be rear-mounted or, more ideally,
front-mounted on a tractor to crush cover crops and plant crop seeds in a single pass of the
tractor. A dense, uniform cover crop is needed to create a mulch capable of suppressing weeds
to avoid or greatly reduce the need for additional weed control, such as high-residue cultivation,
throughout the season. Corn and soybean seeds can be planted or drilled into the flattened cover
crop, using no-till planters or drills. Successful production of organic corn, soybean, tomatoes,
pumpkins, and strawberries has been achieved with rolled cover crops in Pennsylvania and
Michigan (Sayre, 2005). Visit Rodale Institute's webpage for organic no-till for additional
information. Despite several successes, there have been many challenges with the organic no-till
system (Carr et al., 2012), particularly with failure of cover crop termination (Delate et al., 2012)
and cover crop residue impeding placement of supplemental fertilizers (Mirsky et al., 2012).
Figure 1. Rolling/crimping rye cover crop before planting organic soybeans. Photo credit:
Kathleen Delate, Iowa State University.
Organic No-Till Roller/Crimper Research in the Midwest Basic No-Till Operations
Organic no-till for corn and soybean production has been studied across the Midwest since
2005. At the Iowa State University Neely-Kinyon Farm in Greenfield, Iowa, cover crop
combinations of hairy vetch and rye (HV/R), and Austrian winter pea and winter wheat
(AWP/WW), were planted in September through October and killed with a roller/crimper in late
May of the following year. Rolling/crimping took place when the rye and wheat covers were at or
past anthesis or pollen-shedding, and the vetch and peas were at full bloom. The hairy vetch/rye
combination provided superior mulch cover over the wheat/pea mixture due to greater biomass
and stand. In the first year of the experiment, organic soybeans yielded 45 bushels/acre in the
hairy vetch/rye system—an excellent yield considering no post-planting tillage operations for
weed management were employed (Delate et al. 2011).
A six-state (IA, MN, WI, MI, ND and PA) USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture [NIFA]
Organic No-Till Project was initiated in 2008 following a wheat crop planted on plots in all states
to create a uniform crop history. Cover crops in the no-till experiment were established in fall
2008 and consisted of the following treatments: 1) a conventionally tilled treatment where cover
crops (hairy vetch and rye) were planted in fall and tilled in spring, with tillage used after
commercial crop planting for weed management; and 2) a no-till treatment where cover crops
were planted in fall and rolled/crimped in spring with no further tillage. Plot size varied across
states based on available land, averaging 30 x 100 feet with 4 replications per treatment. In May
or June (weather-dependent), cover crops were either disked in the conventional tillage system,
or rolled/crimped in a one-pass organic no-till system. Commercial crops of corn (following hairy
vetch) and soybean (following rye) were planted with the goal of the crushed cover crops serving
as a dried mulch between crop rows throughout the season. Cover crop performance was
excellent: rye biomass averaged 8,952 pounds per acre across 5 sites, and hairy vetch biomass
averaged 4,118 pounds per acre across 4 sites. All sites experienced some hairy vetch winter-kill,
but the northernmost states (MN and ND) reported severe hairy vetch winter-kill, thus making this
cover crop of limited use for organic no-till in these states.
Yields Under Organic No-Till Systems
The no-till system worked well for soybean in the crushed rye in all states when rye was
rolled/crimped at or post-anthesis (see Fig. 2). Organic soybean yields averaged 26 bushels per
acre in the first season without any post-planting weed management, compared to 33 bushels per
acre in the conventional tillage system, which averaged 3 post-planting weed tillage operations
(see Fig. 3).
The no-till corn system was much more challenging. There was only one state (PA) where no-till
organic corn yields exceeded 100 bushels per acre. The corn yield average over the remaining
sites was only 33 bushels per acre, compared to 73 with conventional tillage. The low corn yields
overall were associated with poor overwintering of the hairy vetch cover crop in all states; a wet,
cool season; high weed populations; and low nutrient availability, since the corn crop relied solely
on N from the hairy vetch with no compost or manure added to the experiment.
In the majority of sites, weeds were greater in the hairy vetch/corn no-till system than the
conventional tillage system. Perennial weeds were particularly problematic in the organic no-till
system after one full season without tillage. The weed population was not censused prior to
planting the cover crop, so it is unknown if previous weed populations aggravated the weed
problem. Although weeds appeared to be less of a problem in the early-season no-till soybean
plots, presumably from the rye’s thick, weed-free mulch, the rolling/crimping appeared to
stimulate reproductive growth of secondary tillers. By the end of the season, the no-till soybean
plots had many rye plants between soybean rows. While not critically impacting soybean yield,
the presence of the rye plants at the end of 2009 led to interference with the growth of the oat
crop that followed soybean in the rotation in 2010. Oats were no-till drilled, in keeping with the notill protocol of the long-term experiment.
Figure 2. View of rolled/crimped rye cover crop with soybeans planted in one-pass operation.
Photo credit: Kathleen Delate, Iowa State University.
Lower yields in no-till oat plots were associated with perennial weeds such as Canada thistle,
dandelion, quackgrass and clovers; and resurgence of previously planted hairy vetch and rye
cover crops. Because of the high weed populations, plots were tilled at the end of the second
year after two crop-years of no-till corn or soybean followed by no-till oats, before drilling cover
crops for the second no-till phase. In the second no-till corn and soybean phase, despite similar
corn plant populations (no-till: 25,690 plants per acre; conventional tillage: 24,904 plants per
acre), no-till corn yields again disappointed cooperators, with no-till yields only 37% of
conventional tillage yields. These results strongly suggest that Midwest conditions are not
conducive to successful organic no-till corn with hairy vetch as the sole source of N. Soybean
plant populations in the second no-till season were 4,000 plants per acre less than in the
conventional tillage system, but yields did not suffer. Cold, wet weather led to slow germination of
seed, but similar yields were obtained in no-till and conventional tillage organic soybean fields,
averaging 25 bushels per acre across 5 sites. Broadleaf weed populations were much greater in
no-till fields, but annual and perennial grass weeds were not as high in oat, corn and soybean
fields, suggesting that these crops are reasonably competitive with grass weeds in the no-till
system. Despite high weed populations, no-till soybean yields were competitive, suggesting
excellent compensatory function from high planting populations and extensive pod set.
Figure 3. Close-up of organic soybeans emerging in rolled/crimped rye cover crop. Photo credit:
Erin Silva, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Soil Quality Effects of Organic No-Till Production
Prior to cash crop planting at the beginning of the Organic No-Till project, soil quality analysis
revealed no significant differences in any parameters between the no-till and the conventional
tillage fields. After 3 years of no-till, soil microbial biomass carbon (MBC) values were significantly
greater in no-till than in conventional tillage plots at 4 of the 5 relatively moist sites located in the
upper and central Midwest, and PA. In ND, where rainfall was only 17 inches per year, MBC did
not increase in no-till plots (Table 1). These findings could be explained by noting that MBC
quickly reacts to soil management changes as experienced with the no-till treatment, since
reduced soil disturbance from no-till and higher available C concentration in the top soil layer has
been shown to lead to increased microbial populations. In addition, higher microbial biomass
content is generally considered an indicator of soil fertility, despite lower yields in the no-till
treatment.
Table 1. Microbial biomass carbon (MBC) soil differences between no-till and conventional-till
(mg/g). Analysis conducted by S.L. Weyers, USDA-ARS, Morris, MN.
Site MBC MBC Signif. Diff.*/** No-till (NT) Conventional-till (CT) Iowa 176 134 ** Minnesota
191 166 * Pennsylvania 138 118 ** Wisconsin 247 171 ** Michigan 105 93 NS North Dakota 96
116 Signif. greater in CT
* Significantly greater at <0.10. ** Significantly greater at <0.05.
At 3 sites (IA, MI, and MN), residual soil nitrate-N, pH, and electrical conductivity were greater
under no-till than conventional tillage. At only one of 6 sites (IA), bulk density was higher and
macroaggregation lower under no-till, suggesting increased soil compaction. However, bulk
density was not significantly different at half of the sites, and was significantly higher under
conventional tillage at 2 sites (MN and PA), indicating that no-till management had differential
effects on soil compaction for the sites under investigation. Total soil N and potentially
mineralizable N were higher under no-till at the WI research station site, demonstrating enhanced
cycling and storage of soil N. Because soil quality changes take multiple years to document,
further research is needed to verify possible changes induced by the different soil management
and crop rotation strategies.
Economic Effects of Organic No-Till Production
Average returns to management for organic corn, oats and soybean were greater in the
conventional tillage system compared to the no-till system in all years, across all sites. The
potential for reduced fuel, equipment, and labor costs with no-till will encourage more organic notill systems if production challenges can be overcome. In addition, if benefits from soil C
enhancement and greenhouse gas reduction were included in the analysis of no-till systems, the
economic and environmental picture would be brighter for organic systems (Singerman et al.,
2011).
Conclusions
Regional differences and site-specific recommendations for organic no-till grain production will
continue to be investigated across the Midwest. Growers should only try the no-till system on a
small scale for several years to get experience under varying conditions before committing
sizable acreage. Organic no-till soybeans have been shown to have more stable yields than notill corn, so farmers interested in experimenting with this system should try soybeans first. It is
important to note that weather plays a key role in the effectiveness of the organic no-till system—
adequate moisture is needed for the commercial crop to compete with the cover crop, particularly
if any cover crop regrowth occurs. Adding irrigation in dry years could dramatically improve the
performance of these systems in semi-arid locations. On the other hand, late spring rains can
delay rolling/crimping of the cover crop and delay planting or maturity of the commercial crop,
thus leading to a lower yield. As with any new technology, several challenges remain. The goal of
reducing tillage in organic systems to ameliorate C losses and reduce petroleum costs in weed
management, however, propels this research forward.
References and Citations
 Agricultural Marketing Service—National Organic Program [Online]. United States Department
of Agriculture. Available at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/ (verified 3 May 2013).
 Carr, P. M., P. Mäder, N. G. Creamer, and J. S. Beeby. 2012. Editorial: Overview and
comparison of conservation tillage practices and organic farming in Europe and North
America. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 27: 2–6. (Available online at:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1742170511000536) (verified 3 May 2013).
 Creamer, N. G., and S. M. Dabney. 2002. Killing cover crops mechanically: Review of recent
literature and assessment of new research results. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture
17:32–40. (Available online at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1079/AJAA20014) (verified 3 May 2013).
 Delate, K., D. Cwach, and C. Chase. 2011. Organic no-tillage system effects on organic
soybean, corn and irrigated tomato production and economic performance in Iowa, USA.
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 27:49–59. (Available online at:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1742170511000524) (verified 3 May 2013).
 Hepperly, P., R. Seidel, and J. Moyer. 2007. Year 2006 is breakthrough for organic no-till corn
yield; tops standard organic for first time at Rodale Institute. Rodale Institute, Kutztown, PA.
(Available online at:
http://newfarm.rodaleinstitute.org/columns/research_paul/2007/0107/notill_print.shtml)
(verified 3 May 2013).






Mirsky, S. B., M. R. Ryan, W. S. Curran, J. R. Teasdale, J. Maul, J. T. Spargo, J. Moyer, A. M.
Grantham, D. Weber, T. R. Way, and G. G. Camargo. 2012. Conservation tillage issues:
Cover crop-based organic rotational no-till grain production in the mid-Atlantic region, USA.
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 27:31–40. (Available online at:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1742170511000457) (verified 3 May 2013).
Morse, R. D. 1999. No-till vegetable production–its time is now. HortTechnology 9:373–379.
(Available online at: http://horttech.ashspublications.org/content/9/3/373.full.pdf+html)
(verified 3 May 2013).
Reganold, J. P. 1988. Comparison of soil properties as influenced by organic and
conventional farming systems. American Journal Alternative Agriculture 3(4):144–155.
(Available online at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0889189300002423) (verified 3 May 2013).
Sayre, L. 2005. Organic no-till research spreading across the Midwest. The Rodale Institute,
Kutztown, PA. (Available online at:
http://www.newfarm.org/depts/notill/features/2005/0602/msuroller.shtml) (verified 3 May
2013).
Singerman, A., K. Delate, C. Chase, C. Greene, M. Livingston, S. Lence and C. Hart. 2011.
Profitability of organic and conventional soybean production under ‘green payments’ in carbon
offset programs. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems. 27:266–277. (Available online at:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1742170511000408) (verified 3 May 2013).
United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service (USDA ERS). 2012.
Organic Statistics for U.S.–2008. (Available online at:
http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/Organic/index.htm) (verified 3 May 2013).
This is an eOrganic article and was reviewed for compliance with National Organic Program
regulations by members of the eOrganic community. Always check with your organic certification
agency before adopting new practices or using new materials. For more information, refer to
eOrganic's articles on organic certification.
eOrganic 7681
Etats-Unis: Le Connecticut va étiqueter les OGM
LeQuebecBio.com - mar, 2013/06/04 - 13:43
La Californie avait dit non, le Connecticut est donc le premier Etat américain à
adopter une loi sur l'étiquetage des organismes génétiquement modifiés (OGM). Un porte-parole
de la Chambre des représentants du Connecticut, Todd Murphy, a indiqué à l'AFP mardi que le
projet de loi y avait été adopté lundi par «134 votes contre 3», après avoir été déjà validé par le
Sénat samedi.
Topdressing Organic Hard Winter Wheat to Enhance Grain Protein
Modifier eXtension Articles,News,Faqs,Events- organic production (anglais) - mar,
2013/06/04 - 13:43
eOrganic author:
Dr. Ellen Mallory Ph.D., University of Maine
Introduction
Topdressing, an in-season application of nitrogen, is a strategy some organic winter wheat
growers use to increase grain yield and enhance protein. Because there is little research-based
information available on topdressing, it can be difficult to decide when it is needed, appropriate
timing of application, and what materials should be used.
Photo credit: Ellen Mallory, University of Maine.
Wheat Grain Protein
Grain protein is a key quality measure for bread wheat, affecting gluten strength and loaf volume.
Wheat grain must have a protein concentration of 12% or greater to be considered suitable for
bread flour. Grain that does not meet the acceptable level either receives a discounted price or
must be sold into alternative markets. High protein wheat is often rewarded with premium
payments. More information about grain protein and other bread wheat quality measures can be
found in the publication Understanding Wheat Quality: What Bakers and Millers Need, and
What Farmers Can Do.
Nitrogen Fertility and Grain Protein
Nitrogen (N) is a primary building block of protein, so it follows that N availability is one of the
critical factors influencing the protein content of a crop. The timing of N availability, as well as the
total amount, is important. Nitrogen taken up by the plant during its vegetative period can
increase both yield and protein, whereas N available after stem elongation primarily increases
grain protein concentration. Production practices that increase yields without supplying enough
additional N can reduce grain protein concentrations due to protein dilution, i.e.,the same amount
of N is contained in a greater quantity of grain. For these reasons, assuring adequate available N
for grain yield and protein is a top challenge for winter wheat production. Winter wheat yields tend
to be higher than spring wheat yields, yet N supply can be lower due to loss over the winter
months of N applied before seeding. In conventional winter wheat production, a standard
recommendation is to include a spring topdress application of N to increase grain protein content
and baking quality. For more information, see Nitrogen Management for Hard Wheat Protein
Enhancement.
Organic winter wheat producers face additional N fertility challenges. The most economical and
practical approach to supplying N is to incorporate amendments prior to seeding. However,
amendment sources with low C:N ratios (e.g. green manures and liquid dairy manure) may
release substantial N in the fall and promote vegetative growth and tiller production; yet excess
soil mineral N is susceptible to leaching over the winter. Sources with higher C:N ratios (e.g. solid
dairy manure) may have better synchrony with fall crop uptake, but may not mineralize quickly
enough in the spring to supply adequate N for the crop to attain acceptable grain protein levels.
Many researchers have observed lower grain protein and bread loaf volumes for organic
compared with conventional wheat, which they attributed to inadequate N supply (Annett et al.,
2007; Casagrande et al., 2009; Fredriksson et al., 1997; Gooding et al., 1993).
While some organic producers use topdressing, there is limited research-based information
currently available as to the best N sources and timing of application in organic systems. A study
in France found that topdress applications of guano or feather meal, applied to winter wheat at
various times from early tillering to heading, always produced higher gross margin from increases
in grain yield, grain protein or both as compared with a no nitrogen reference treatment when
there were no other limiting factors (e.g. weeds, disease, water); and that later topdress
applications produced greater increases in protein than earlier ones for both materials (David et
al., 2005). A similar study in the United Kingdom observed increased grain yield and grain protein
with early spring applications of either broiler litter, cattle slurry, or pig slurry to winter wheat but
found a high degree of variation in their effectiveness from year to year, as well as among the
manures (Nicholson et al., 1999). High rates of topdress N were applied and evaluated as a sole
source of N in both cases, which may not be practical for many organic farmers. See below for
links to current research on using topdressing as a supplement to preplant N applications to
boost grain protein levels of organic winter wheat.
Topdress Nitrogen Sources
Manure is not generally an acceptable N source for topdressing bread wheat because there may
not be enough time between application and harvest to satisfy the 90-day pre-harvest interval
specified in Part 205.203 of the United States Department of Agriculture [USDA] National
Organic Program [NOP] regulations for crops whose edible portion does not have direct
contact with the soil surface or soil particles. Other N sources for topdressing include properly
composted or heat-treated/processed manures, plant and animal meals and emulsions (e.g.
soybean meal, feather meal, blood meal, fish emulsion), and sodium nitrate.
Any topdressing materials must meet input standards for organic certification (see Can I Use
This Input on My Organic Farm?). Sodium nitrate, also known as Chilean nitrate, is currently
allowed under NOP standards but has been under scrutiny and may be restricted in the future.
See the eXtension article Organic Soil Fertility for more information on different N sources for
organic production.
Topdress sources can be applied as dry materials or as liquid foliar sprays, the latter being wellsuited for irrigated systems depending on the liquid formulation. While soil-applied N is absorbed
via plant roots, foliar-applied N may be absorbed directly through the leaf cuticle and/or indirectly
via plant roots, as some of the N solution reaches the soil&emdash;either initially or with
subsequent rainfall or irrigation. Foliar N application rates are limited by how much the leaves can
physically absorb at any one time, and by the potential for leaf-burn from high N concentrations.
Topdress Rates
Topdress N rates depend on the yield potential of the crop. The higher the potential yield, the
greater the additional N needed to increase protein. Researchers in the Pacific Northwest
estimate that to achieve 14% grain protein, hard red winter wheat requires 0.4 pounds of N per
bushel of grain above the amount of N needed to attain optimal yields (Brown et al., 2005). This
amounts to 20 lbs N/acre for a 50-bushel per acre crop and 30 lbs N/acre for 75 bushels per acre.
It is difficult to predict crop yield potential and protein increase resulting from added N since both
depend on late-season growing conditions. Field and production history, including N credits for
legumes used in soil-building crop rotations, should be used to help gauge if topdressing is
needed and how much topdress N to apply. In conventional systems, in-season diagnostic tests
at two key wheat developmental stages have been developed to guide topdress N decisions.
Tiller density at spring green-up (Feekes 2) is used to determine if topdress N is needed at that
time to stimulate more tillering and optimize yields. Tissue N concentration at jointing (Feekes 45) is used to determine if the plants have sufficient N for good protein levels or if topdress N is
needed. For more information see Alley et al., 1999; Brown et al., 2005; Weisz and Knox, 2009.
These tools have yet to be adapted to organic systems.
The type of topdress material applied also needs to be factored into the application rate.
Materials that mineralize slowly may need to be applied at higher rates, but care should be taken
to synchronize N release with crop uptake as much as possible to avoid excess N mineralization
after crop harvest.
Topdress Timing
Topdress N can be applied as soon as soil conditions allow traffic on the field in early spring.
However, numerous studies under conventional production have shown that later applications
increase protein more than earlier ones. Similar results were found in an organic field trial of
different topdress timing and N sources conducted in Maine and Vermont in 2010 and 2011.
Averaged over both sites and years, topdress N applied at the late tillering, flag leaf, and boot
stages increased crude protein by 0, 0.4, and 0.8 percentage points, respectively, for dehydrated
chicken manure and 0.4, 0.9, and 1.3 percentage points, respectively, for sodium nitrate (Mallory
and Darby, in press). In drier areas, late-season topdress N applications may not be fully utilized
by the crop without adequate soil moisture. There is also concern that N applied very late in the
season (at flowering and later) may increase grain protein levels but does not always improve
baking quality. A number of studies in conventionally grown wheat have found no improvement in
dough properties or bread loaf volume with application of a foliar urea solution at flowering
despite increases in grain protein concentrations (Gooding and Davies, 1992). There is evidence
that N taken up by the plant this late in the season does not get fully incorporated into functional
grain proteins (Finney et al., 1957), and changes the protein composition in ways that negatively
affect dough properties (Timms et al., 1981).
Economics
The decision of whether or not to topdress should include consideration of the added costs and
potential returns. Topdress costs include the cost of the N product and application, and any
damage that may occur to the crop from field traffic. Potential returns from topdressing depend on
changes in yield, increase in protein, and whether the higher protein level moves the wheat crop
from the feed-grade market to the food-grade market, or qualifies it for a protein premium when
sold.
Research on Topdressing Organic Winter Wheat
The following links will take you to abstracts and recorded presentations.
 Topdress timings and N sources—Mallory, E. and H. Darby. 2011. Topdress nitrogen effects
on organic winter bread wheat yield and quality. Agronomy Abstracts. (Available online at:
http://a-c-s.confex.com/crops/2011am/webprogram/Paper68357.html)
 The effects of topdressing organic nitrogen on hard red winter wheat yield and quality—Part II.
2012 Final Report. SARE Project Number ONE11-140. (Available online at:
http://mysare.sare.org/mySARE/ProjectReport.aspx?do=viewRept&pn=ONE11140&y=2012&t=1)
 Topdress effects for different wheat varieties—Hills, K. and S. Jones. 2011. Effectiveness of
late spring topdressing for increasing protein quality and quantity in organic hard winter wheat
in western Washington. Agronomy Abstracts. (Available online at: http://a-cs.confex.com/crops/2011am/webprogram/Paper68130.html)
 Foliar topdress treatments—University of Nebraska—Shapiro, C., D. Lyon, R. S. Little, G.
Hergert, E. Sarno, P. Baenziger, M. J. Mainz, and V. H. Florke Jr. 2010. Efforts to increase
grain protein in organic winter wheat. Agronomy Abstracts. (Available online at: ttp://a-cs.confex.com/crops/2010am/webprogram/Paper60926.html)
References and Citations
 Annett, L. E., D. Spaner, and W. V. Wismer. 2007. Sensory profiles of bread wheat made from
paired samples or organic and conventionally grown wheat grain. Journal of Food Science
72:S254-S260. (Available online at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-3841.2007.00331.x)
(verified 2 May 2013).
 Alley, M. M., P. Scharf, D. E. Brann, W. E. Baethgen, and J. L. Hammons. 2009. Nitrogen
management for winter wheat: Principles and recommendations. Publication 424-026. Virginia
Cooperative Extension, Blacksburg, VA. (Available online at: http://pubs.ext.vt.edu/424/424026/424-026.html) (verified 2 May 2013).
 Brown, B., M. Westcott, N. Christensen, B. Pan, and J. Stark. 2005. Nitrogen management for
hard wheat protein enhancement. PNW 578. University of Idaho, Moscow, ID. (Available
online at: http://www.cals.uidaho.edu/edcomm/detail.asp?IDnum=1270) (verified 2 May
2013).
 Casagrande, M., C. David, M. Valantin-Morison, D. Makowski, and M. H. Jeuffroy. 2009.
Factors limiting the grain protein content of organic winter wheat in south-eastern France: a










mixed-model approach. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 29:565-574. (Available online
at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/agro/2009015) (verified 2 May 2013).
David, C., M. H. Jeuffroy, F. Laurent, M. Mangin, and J. M. Meynard. 2005. The assessment
of Azodyn-Org model for managing nitrogen fertilization of organic winter wheat. European
Journal of Agronomy 23:225-242. (Available online at:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2004.08.002) (verified 26 May 2013).
Finney, K. F., J. W. Meyer, F. W. Smith, and H. C. Fryer. 1957. Effect of foliar spraying on
Pawnee wheat with urea solutions on yield, protein content, and protein quality. Agronomy
Journal 49:341-347. (Available online at:
http://dx.doi.org/10.2134/agronj1957.00021962004900070001x) (verified 26 May 2013)
Fredriksson, H., L. Salomonsson, and A. C. Salomonsson. 1997. Wheat cultivated with
organic fertilizers and urea: Baking performance and dough properties. Acta Agriculturae
Scandinavica, Section B—Soil & Plant Science 47:35-42. (Available online at:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09064719709362436) (verified 26 May 2013).
Gooding, M. J. and W. P. Davies. 1992. Foliar urea fertilization of cereals: A review. Nutrient
Cycling in Agroecosystems 32:209-222. (Available online at:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01048783) (verified 26 May 2013).
Gooding, M. J., W. P. Davies, A. J. Thompson, and S. P. Smith. 1993. The challenge of
achieving breadmaking quality in organic and low input wheat in the UK—A review. Aspects of
Applied Biology 36:189-198.
Mallory, E., T. Bramble, M. Williams and J. Amaral. 2012. Understanding wheat quality: What
bakers and millers need and what farmers can do. Bulletin 1019. University of Maine
Cooperative Extension, Orono, ME. (Available online at:
http://umaine.edu/publications/1019e/) (verified 26 May 2013).
Mallory, E. and H. Darby. In-season nitrogen effects on organic hard red winter wheat yield
and quality. Agron Journal. In press.
Nicholson, F.A., B.J. Chambers, K.A. Smith, and R. Harrison. 1999. Spring applied organic
manures as a source of nitrogen for cereal crops: experiments using field scale equipment.
The Journal of Agricultural Science 133:353-363. (Available online at:
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=7517)
(verified 26 May 2013).
Timms, M.F., R.C. Bottomly, J.R.S. Ellis, and J.D. Schofield. 1981. The baking quality and
protein characteristics of a winter wheat grown at different levels of nitrogen fertilisation.
Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 32:684-698. (Available online at:
http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1002/jsfa.2740320709) (verified 26 May 2013).
Weisz, R. and B. Knox. 2012. Nitrogen management for small grains. In R. Weisz (ed.) Small
Grain Production Guide 2011-2012. AG-580. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service,
Raleigh, NC. (Available online at: http://www.smallgrains.ncsu.edu/productionguide.html) (verified 26 May 2013).
This is an eOrganic article and was reviewed for compliance with National Organic Program
regulations by members of the eOrganic community. Always check with your organic certification
agency before adopting new practices or using new materials. For more information, refer to
eOrganic's articles on organic certification.
eOrganic 7694
Le cumul de pesticides sur les fruits et légumes inquiète les spécialistes
LeQuebecBio.com - lun, 2013/06/03 - 13:42
Les spécialistes en santé publique s'inquiètent de la proportion de fruits
et de légumes vendus au Québec qui présente des traces de pesticides, et ce, même si seule
une très petite minorité d'entre eux dépasse les normes établies. Mais surtout, ils sont
préoccupés par l'accumulation de produits chimiques sur un même végétal, une situation dont on
connaît peu les effets sur la santé.
Ne pas consommer de la raie panée dans le vinaigre (scopecia)
MAPAQ Communiqués - sam, 2013/06/01 - 00:35
 31 mai 2013 - Ne pas consommer de la raie panée dans le vinaigre (scopecia) Distribution Multi-Viande, Montréal
Les gouvernements du Canada et du Québec accordent une aide financière
aux Serres Lefort
MAPAQ Communiqués - sam, 2013/06/01 - 00:35
 31 mai 2013 - Les gouvernements du Canada et du Québec accordent une aide
financière aux Serres Lefort
Pages















« premier
‹ précédent
…
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
…
dernier »
suivant ›
Tous droits réservés © 2013 - 2016 CETAB+ | Propulsé par Drupal | Réalisation
LeDucDuBleuet.info
Ce projet a été réalisé grâce à une aide financière accordée dans le cadre du programme
Innovbio
du ministère de l'Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l'Alimentation.