It has been consistently recognized for several decades that over 90% of the leafy green vegetables consumed in the United States (US) and Canada from November through March each year are grown in the lower Colorado River Valleys, primary in the Yuma area valleys and the Imperial Valley (Renick, 2013 and Satran, 2017).  
 
In some recent articles published in the Agronomy Journal, Dr. Ashley McCarthy and her colleagues at the University of Vermont have evaluated the differences between nutritional recommendations in the US versus actual consumption.  They also studied vegetable crop production capacities in the US and total cropland requirements to meet vegetable crop production needs if everyone in the US consumed the recommended amounts of vegetables for good nutrition (McCarthy et al., 2022 and McCarthy et al., 2023).
 
In this project, McCarthy and her colleagues conducted a set of “thought” experiments.  To address their first question regarding our current capacity in the US to support Americans with diets complete with the daily recommended fruits and vegetables, they found that current domestic production would only provide 29% of the fruit and 53% of vegetable crops to meet that need.
 
They next examined climate, soils, topography, and other biophysical aspects of the land in the US.  From this they determined that the US has an abundance of land suitable for fruit and vegetable crop production, more than 741K acres (300M ha) among the contiguous U.S. states.  However, they do point out that less than half of the land they identified is currently used for crop production.  
 
They determined that of all the land in the US that could potentially go into fruit and vegetable crop production, 47% is currently in agriculture and 53% is not.  Many agronomists and soil scientists in the US would offer significant doubt about the realistic possibility of having that much land available for crop production, not to mention the difficulty of converting that land into agricultural production. 
 
The next question in their series of thought experiments was to evaluate the capacity in the U.S. to produce sufficient fruits and vegetables to make the nation self-reliant and not depend on imported fruits and vegetables.  From their analysis, McCarthy and her colleagues determined that U.S. could indeed become self-sustaining for fruit and vegetable crop production, even if all Americans consumed the daily recommended amounts of fruits and vegetables.
 
The results from the work of McCarthy and her colleagues are interesting but they are not without some significant points of concern or weaknesses in their argument.  For example, they recognize that to realize the projected capacities for fruit and vegetable crop production in the U.S. would require more than a doubling of the current land currently devoted to these crops.  Currently, approximately 11.6M acres (4.7M ha), or 3% of the U.S. cropland is devoted to fruit and vegetable crops.  To meet the objectives of these experiments, the U.S. would have to increase cropland devoted to fruit and vegetable production to 30M acres (12.2M ha).  
 
I am rather dubious of the capacity to convert nearly 20M acres (8M ha) from current crop production systems to a fruit or vegetable crop production system in the U.S.   As we know in the fruit and vegetable production systems in the southwest U.S., there is a tremendous amount specialized equipment, infrastructure, and expertise required to develop and manage systems of this type.  In addition, the labor requirements for fruit and vegetable crops are much larger than the large acreage commodity crops that are being grown on most of the farmland in the U.S.
 
Of the numerous questions that arise from a review of the experiments and conclusions of McCarthy and her colleagues, one major point that they do also recognize is the lack of consideration of water resources necessary to support this level of fruit and vegetable production in the US.  That point is a major limitation and it is exacerbated by the changing climate that we are experiencing throughout the western U.S.
 
There are some good points that come from studies like these.  For example, should self-reliance for food production be a strategic goal in the US?  Currently, the US imports a lot of food products, including many fruits and vegetables (non-leafy green vegetables).  Domestic production provides over 90% of the leafy green vegetables consumed in the US and Canada from November through March each year are grown in the lower Colorado River Valleys, primary in the Yuma area valleys and the Imperial Valley.  This production is totally dependent on irrigation water from the Colorado River.
 
If that last question is answered affirmatively, this would have a huge impact on preserving farmlands and shifting from urban to agricultural land development.
 
This also brings up the consideration of regional food production systems in the US.  For example, Arizona and certainly the southwestern region of the US could be self-reliant for food production if necessary.  Considering the diverse mix of crops and animals grown and produced for food systems in Arizona and the region currently, this is quite feasible for crop production systems in the Southwest.  Of course, the major limiting factor in providing this level of self-reliance in the desert Southwest is water.
 
These thought experiments have value, despite the practical flaws that can be identified.  Very importantly, they are constructive in helping us recognize the tremendous present and future value of the fruit and vegetable crop production systems in the desert Southwest we currently have today.  
 
Maintaining agricultural water allocations is important to support the production systems currently in place.  It is also important to consider the food and nutritional needs of Americans today and in the future and how and where those crops will be grown to support these needs.
 
Considerations for Colorado River water allocations to agriculture for the future are extremely important.  This is true not only to protect and support the systems currently in operation, but it is also an important aspect of food security for the US in the future.
 
 
 
References:
McCarthy, A. C., Griffin, T. S., Srinivasan, S., & Peters, C. J. (2023).  Capacity for national and regional self-reliance in fruit and vegetable production in the United States. Agronomy Journal, 115, 647– 657. https://doi.org/10.1002/agj2.21305
 
McCarthy, A. C., Srinivasan, S., Griffin, T., & Peters, C. J. (2022). A geospatial
approach to identifying biophysically suitable areas for fruit and vegetable
production in the United States. Agronomy Journal, 114, 2845–2859. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/agj2.21138
 
Renick, O. 2013.  Freezing California Lettuce Boosts Salad Costs: Chart of the Day
Bloomberg, 3 February 2013.
 
Satran, J.  2017.  This Is Where America Gets Almost All Its Winter Lettuce Who knew?  Huffingtion Post. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/yuma-lettuce_n_6796398

This study was conducted at the Yuma Valley Agricultural Center. The soil was a silty clay loam (7-56-37 sand-silt-clay, pH 7.2, O.M. 0.7%). Spinach ‘Meerkat’ was seeded, then sprinkler-irrigated to germinate seed Jan 13, 2025 on beds with 84 in. between bed centers and containing 30 lines of seed per bed.  All irrigation water was supplied by sprinkler irrigation.  Treatments were replicated four times in a randomized complete block design.  Replicate plots consisted of 15 ft lengths of bed separated by 3 ft lengths of nontreated bed.  Treatments were applied with a CO₂ backpack sprayer that delivered 50 gal/acre at 40 psi to flat-fan nozzles.

Downy mildew (caused by Peronospora farinosa f. sp. spinaciae)was first observed in plots on Mar 5 and final reading was taken on March 6 and March 7, 2025. Spray date for each treatments are listed in excel file with the results.

Disease severity was recorded by determining the percentage of infected leaves present within three 1-ft²areas within each of the four replicate plots per treatment.  The number of spinach leaves in a 1-ft²area of bed was approximately 144. The percentage were then changed to 1-10scale, with 1 being 10% infection and 10 being 100% infection.

The data (found in the accompanying Excel file) illustrate the degree of disease reduction obtained by applications of the various tested fungicides. Products that provided most effective control against the disease include Orondis ultra, Zampro, Stargus, Cevya, Eject .Please see table for other treatments with significant disease suppression/control.  No phytotoxicity was observed in any of the treatments in this trial.

At the 2023 FIRA USA Robotics and Autonomous Farming Solutions Forum last month, some of the latest automated and robotic technologies were demonstrated in the field. Several of the weeding technologies demonstrated are brand new to the U.S. and/or Yuma, AZ area. These included a 5.6 inch² (2.4 x 2.4 inch) resolution fixed boomed spot sprayer (Fig. 1), a high precision, “turret gun” spot sprayer  (Fig. 2) and a mechanical weeder that utilizes a unique rotating blade design and lidar for depth control (Fig. 3). Although the test runs were short, I was impressed with the performance and possibilities of these machines. Company representatives said that they would be traveling to Arizona for the season and would like to meet with growers interested in their technology. Company contact information can be found at their respective websites, or feel free to contact me if you would like additional information.

Fig. 1. Ecorobotix¹ (Yverdon-les-Bains, Switzerland) precision weeding machine
demonstration at 2023 FIRA USA. The unit has modular, 6.6’ wide spray booms
equipped with 156 individually controllable spray nozzles to spot spray weeds
(top right). A vision system is used to detect weeds and spot spray resolution is
2.4 x 2.4 inches. Darker soil indicates where spray (water) was delivered to
targeted weeds (bottom).



Fig. 3. GreenTech Robotics’ Weed Spider¹ (Kelvin Grove, New Zealand)
demonstration at 2023 FIRA USA. The unit is equipped with a vision system for
detecting crop plants and weeds, and blades that move in and out of the crop row
to remove in-row weeds. Lidar sensors are used to create a 3-D image of the soil
surface and control cultivating blade depth.

---

[1] Reference to a product or company is for specific information only and does not endorse or recommend that product or company to the exclusion of others that may be suitable.

It is reported that the herbicidal activities of Plant Growth Regulators (PGRs) were discovered in the 1940’s.  Then, investigators in England and in the United States started their research on this type of herbicides¹.

Some of these substances are hormones produced naturally by the plants and other are synthetically produced. Examples of naturally occurring growth regulators are gibberellins, auxin, cytokinin. Some stimulate stem elongation and cell elongation. One of the first synthetic selective herbicides developed is 2, 4-D (2,4-dichlorophenoxiacetic acid).
PGRs are used extensively for broadleaf weed control in grass crops in this region such as grain production, bermudagrass, alfalfa, cole crops, sugarbeet, forages, and turf grasses. These herbicides upset the natural balance of the hormones that controls cell division, cell enlargement, protein synthesis, and respiration. That is why this group of herbicides is sometimes called the “hormone herbicides”². In our area growers are very careful using these products due to volatility with our summer temperatures and the problems caused to sensitive crops.

According to a report from Texas A&M “phenoxy growth regulator herbicides are reported to have the least plant activity and soil residual activity; the carboxylic acids generally have the most. Broadleaf crops and turf grasses should not be planted into soils recently treated with these herbicides because they severely inhibit seedling emergence”².
 
Some PGRs:

Family	Common Name	Trade Name
phenoxy	2,4-D	Pasture pro, others
	2,4-DB	Butyrac Butoxone Rhomene
	MCPA	Rhonox Chiptox Battleship
	MCPP MCPB	Several names Several names
benzoic acid	dicamba	Banvel Clarity
carboxylic acid	Picloram	Tordon 22K
	Clopyralid	Stinger Reclaim
	triclopyr	Remedy Grandstand
	quinclorac	Facet

 

 

Results of pheromone and sticky trap catches can be viewed here.

Corn earworm: CEW moth counts down in all traps over the last month; about average for December.

Beet armyworm: Moth trap counts decreased in all areas in the last 2 weeks but appear to remain active in some areas, and average for this time of the year.

Cabbage looper: Moths increased in the past 2 weeks, and average for this time of the season.

Diamondback moth: Adults increased in several locations last, particularly in the Yuma Valley most traps.  Below average for December.

Whitefly: Adult movement remains low in all areas, consistent with previous years 

Thrips: Thrips adult movement continues to decline, overall activity below average for December.

Aphids: Winged aphids still actively moving but declined movement in the last 2 weeks. About average for December.

Leafminers: Adult activity down in most locations, below average for this time of season.