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

Frost and freeze damage affect countless fruit and vegetable growers leading to yield losses and occasionally the loss of the entire crop. Frost damage occurs when the temperature briefly dips below freezing (32°F).With a frost, the water within plant tissue may or may not actually freeze, depending on other conditions. A frost becomes a freeze event when ice forms within and between the cell walls of plant tissue. When this occurs, water expands and can burst cell walls. Symptoms of frost damage on vegetables include brown or blackening of plant tissues, dropping of leaves and flowers, translucent limp leaves, and cracking of the fruit. Symptoms are usually vegetable specific and vary depending on the hardiness of the crop and lowest temperature reached. A lot of times frost injury is followed by secondary infection by bacteria or opportunist fungi confusing with plant disease.

Most susceptible to frost and freezing injury: Asparagus, snap beans, Cucumbers, eggplant, lemons, lettuce, limes, okra, peppers, sweet potato

Moderately susceptible to frost and freezing injury: Broccoli, Carrots, Cauliflower, Celery, Grapefruit, Grapes, Oranges, Parsley, Radish, Spinach, Squash

Least susceptible to frost and freezing injury: Brussels sprouts, Cabbage, Dates, Kale, Kohlrabi, Parsnips, Turnips, Beets

More information:

https://www.extension.iastate.edu

https://www.farmprogress.com

It’s October and planting season is well underway. When planting lettuce, uniform seed spacing is critical for efficient, economical crop thinning. Due to their lack of precision, automated lettuce thinning machines cannot eliminate lettuce plants that are spaced closer than about 1 1/8” apart. These closely spaced plants, commonly referred to as “doubles”, must be carefully removed by hand which is time consuming and expensive.

Several years ago, we conducted trials examining the influence of planter travel speed on seed spacing uniformity (Siemens and Gayler, 2016). In the study, two types of planters - a vacuum planter (Stanhay 785 Singulaire) and a belt planter (Stanhay 870) were tested with pelleted lettuce seed at travel speeds of 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5 mph at the Yuma Agricultural Center. Vacuum planter test results showed that the percentage of “difficult to thin” spacings, defined seeds spaced less than 1.1” apart, increased from about 5% to 10% as speed increased from 1.0 mph to 2.5 mph (Fig. 1). Concomitantly, the percentage of seeds “precisely placed” within 0.5” of the target location (i.e., 2.0 ± 0.5”) decreased from 70% to less than 45%, and the percentage of skips increased from 7% to 30%. Variability of seed spacing uniformity as measured by the coefficient of variation (COV) of seed spacings also increased.

Similar declines in planter performance were found with the belt planter (Fig. 2). As travel speed increased from 1.0 to 2.5 mph, the percentage of difficult to thin spacings increased from 2% to 10%, precise spacings decreased from 93% to 65% and skips increased from 2% to 8%.

For both planter types, there was a significant decline in performance as speed increased from 1.5 mph to 2.0 mph, a difference in speed of only 0.5 mph. These results suggest that it is prudent to check planter performance at the chosen operating speed prior to establishing an entire block to ensure that seed spacing uniformity, not just the number of seeds per foot, is acceptable.

In short, the study showed that planter travel speed had a significant effect on seed spacing uniformity and difficult to thin, close spacings - the higher the speed, the poorer the performance.

You may be asking what is the reason for the phenomenon observed? A logical explanation is that seeds are traveling at the speed of the planter when they are released and tend to “bounce and roll” in the direction of travel when they hit the soil surface. Thus, the higher the travel speed, the further seeds bounce and roll resulting in increased seed spacing variability.

References

Siemens, M.C., & Gayler, R.R. (2016). Improving seed spacing uniformity of precision vegetable planters. Appl. Eng. Agric., 32(5), 579-587

Fig. 1. Seeding performance of a vacuum vegetable planter sowing lettuce when
operated at four travel speeds.


Fig. 2. Seeding performance of a belt vegetable planter sowing lettuce when operated at
four travel speeds

Teff grass (Eragrostis tef) is originally from Ethiopia and has gained a lot of interest in Arizona. This crop is planted between vegetables and grows under different conditions and soil types. It is a fast-growing crop and can be harvested multiple times. According to the Teff Grass Crop Overview and Forage Production Guide from 2007-09 in California it was cut an average of 4 times yielding 6.89 tons/acre. The palatability to livestock is good and some report that its preferred over other traditional grass hays¹.
There is also a need for good weed control in Teff grass to satisfy buyers. 
One herbicide that was tested for postemergence broadleaf weed control and crop safety is Simplicity (pyroxulam). A 24(c) Special Local Need Registration was extended for this product. Also, another product that is successfully used in our area for broadleaf weed control is Clarity (dicamba).
 Teff is grown during the summer between other crops that could be susceptible to residue of herbicides, and it is important that any herbicide that is used doesn’t have long-term soil activity. 
We conducted a trial last summer in the Yuma Valley to evaluate the crop safety of pyroxulam, dicamba and other herbicides. Our results for pyroxulam were consistent with the injury observed in the visual ratings obtained by B.J. Hinds-Cook, D.W. Curtis, A.G. Hulting and C.A. Mallory-Smith with a 10% recorded².
Also, efficacy for the control Purslane (Portulaca oleracea) was evaluated. The following chart shows data obtained.

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

 

Corn earworm: CEW moth counts remain at low levels in all areas, well below average for this time of year.

Beet armyworm: Trap increased areawide; above average compared to previous years.

Cabbage looper:  Cabbage looper counts decreased in all areas; below average for this time of season.

Diamondback moth: DBM moth counts decreased in most areas. About average for this time of the year.

Whitefly: Adult movement beginning at low levels, average for early spring.

Thrips: Thrips adult counts reached their peak for the season. Above average compared with previous years.

Aphids:  Aphid movement decreased in all areas; below average for late-March.

Leafminers: Adults remain low in most locations, below average for March.