Primary Audience: Researchers SUMMARYOrganic and all-natural foods have become an alternative in most mainstream retail food outlets. Organic foods, although only 3% of total retail food sales, account for an estimated $17 billion in sales in the United States, and this category has been growing at a rate 7 times faster than the average food category, maintaining a sustained growth rate of more than 15% per year. Organic meat is the fastest growing sector of the organic market, and organic poultry is considered to be a gateway food, drawing in consumers who are just beginning to purchase organic foods. Current organic consumers are a bimodal population consisting of one group in their 20s and a second composed of aging baby boomers. The income distribution is also bimodal, with young parents rebudgeting to pay the higher prices for organic foods at one extreme and older Caucasian families with household incomes in excess of $80,000 at the other. African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and persons with personal or family health issues are more interested in purchasing organic foods than members of the general population. Organic food consumers have traditionally insisted the foods they purchase be raised by local farmers with a strong respect for the environment and, as is the current organic standard, to be free from growth hormones and synthetic chemicals. One of the principal beliefs is that organic foods are safer than conventional foods. Many consumers base this belief in the safety of organic foods on the prohibition of pesticides and chemicals in raising the organic food. However, their understanding of the risks from pathogenic microorganisms on organic foods is not clear. Researchers have documented many common consumer food safety errors in handling conventional poultry. Whether organic poultry has similar food safety issues has yet to be determined.

Methyl bromide (MeBr), classified as a Class I ozone-depleting substance, has been banned for ordinary agricultural uses. Weed control in commercial bell pepper production is complicated by the ban on MeBr and the lack of other available and effective soil fumigants. A field study was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of allyl isothiocyanate (ITC) and metam sodium (methyl ITC generator) as MeBr alternatives for control of Palmer amaranth, large crabgrass, and yellow nutsedge; and for increasing marketable yields in low-density polyethylene (LDPE) –mulched bell pepper. Allyl ITC was applied at 450, 600, and 750 kg ha−1; metam sodium was applied at 180, 270, and 360 kg ha−1; and MeBr plus chloropicrin (67% and 33%, respectively) was applied at 390 kg ha−1. Allyl ITC and metam sodium did not injure bell pepper. Allyl ITC at 750 kg ha−1or metam sodium at 360 kg ha−1controlled Palmer amaranth (≥ 83%), large crabgrass (≥ 78%), and yellow nutsedge (≥ 80%) comparably to MeBr. Yellow nutsedge tuber density was ≤ 84 tubers m−2in plots treated with the highest rate of allyl ITC and metam sodium and was comparable to the tuber density in MeBr-treated plots. Although allyl ITC at 750 kg ha−1controlled weeds comparable to MeBr, total marketable bell pepper yield with allyl ITC was lower than the yield with MeBr. Conversely, total marketable bell pepper yield with the highest rate of metam sodium (53.5 ton ha−1) was equivalent to the yield (62.5 ton ha−1) in plots treated with MeBr. In conclusion, metam sodium at 360 kg ha−1is an effective MeBr alternative for weed control in LDPE–mulched bell pepper.

Consumers embrace local food systems as an alternative to the global corporate model, and nearly 75% of consumers in the United States purchase organic foods occasionally. To assess consumers' knowledge of locally grown organic foods, surveys were administered at three metropolitan farmers' markets in Little Rock, Hot Springs, and Texarkana, Arkansas. Consumers with Bachelor's, Associate's, or technical degrees accounted for almost half of the people surveyed. Seventy-one percent believed organic foods were safer than conventional foods. Three times as many consumers were concerned about harmful bacteria in conventional foods than in organic. The number one reason for purchasing was to support local farmers.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to examine credit usage by beginning farmers and ranchers (BFR). BFR credit usage is stratified by location (state) and by socially disadvantaged farmer and rancher (SDFR, also known as historically underserved) status. SDFR groups are defined to include women; individuals with Hispanic, Latino or Spanish Origin; individuals who identify as American Indian or Alaskan Native, Black or African American, Asian, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander. Non-SDFR is defined as individuals who identify as non-Hispanic, White men.Design/methodology/approachThe US Department of Agriculture’s Census of Agriculture, Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) is linked with Farm Service Agency (FSA) loan program administrative data to estimate shares of BFR operations using FSA credit. Census data provided information on population changes in total farms and BFR operations from 2012 to 2017 which are compared by SDFR status.FindingsResults reveal differences among BFR operations active in agricultural credit markets by SDFR status and state. BFR were more common among SDFR groups as well as in regions where farms tend to be smaller, such as the Northeast, compared to a more highly agricultural upper Midwest. Among BFR, non-SDFR are more likely to utilize credit than SDFR, however, FSA appeared to be crucial in enabling BFR and especially beginning SDFR groups to access loans.Originality/valueThe results are timely and of keen interest to researchers, industry and policymakers and are expected to assist in developing and adjusting policies to effectively promote and improve BFR success in general and for beginning SDFR groups.

The phase-out of methyl bromide required an effective and economically viable alternative for weed management in polyethylene-mulched tomato (Solanum lycopersicum). A field experiment was conducted to compare economics of tomato production associated with crucifer (Brassicaceae) cover crops under low-density polyethylene mulch (LDPE) and virtually impermeable film (VIF) mulch with a standard treatment of methyl bromide:chloropicrin (67:33) at 350 lb/acre. Three crucifer cover crops, ‘Seventop’ turnip (Brassica rapa), ‘Pacific Gold’ oriental mustard (Brassica juncea), and Caliente [a blend of brown mustard (B. juncea) and white mustard (Sinapis alba)], were evaluated in combination with hand-weeding. Because of marginal weed control from crucifer cover crops, hand-weeding cost in all cover crop plots, regardless of mulch type, increased from $380.54/acre to $489.10/acre over that in methyl bromide plots. However, total weed management costs in the untreated control and cover crops with LDPE treatments were $17.82/acre to $111.33/acre lower than methyl bromide. Because of mulch expenses, VIF mulch increased the total weed management cost by $328.16/acre over LDPE mulch in the untreated control and cover crop treatments. Because of equivalent marketable yield, gross returns ($21,040.43/acre) were identical in all treatments. Preplant fumigation with methyl bromide provided $6260.90/acre of net returns in tomato production. The untreated control, ‘Seventop’ turnip, ‘Pacific Gold’ oriental mustard, and Caliente mustard under LDPE treatment were $54/acre, $54/acre, $98/acre, and $147/acre more profitable, respectively, than methyl bromide. However, in all other treatments under VIF, net returns relative to methyl bromide were reduced from $181/acre to $274/acre. Therefore, regardless of soil amendment with crucifer cover crops, hand-weeding can serve as an economically viable alternative to methyl bromide for weed control in LDPE-mulched tomato production, depending on the nature and level of pest infestation, labor availability, and wages.