Introduction
Despite media hoopla about "integrated pest management" and organic grape growing, viticulturalists have made little progress toward reducing their dependence upon pesticides. California growers and wineries have not banded together to fund research to improve their industry in spite of robust in recent years -- even in the richest growing areas, Sonoma and Napa counties.
Although producers of other crops devote up to 2% of sales to research, which is itself a small amount compared to most industries, California wine grape growers contribute a mere hundredth of a percent. In Oregon, taxes on their vintner counterparts provide 40 times more research money per gallon of wine and the European and Australian wine industries spend much more.
"I think it is one of the biggest failures of the wine industry," says Harvey Posert, recently retired from years of conducting public relations for winery giant R. Mondavi. "Turf and ego are a general thing, but other groups have managed to get together and work together."
Downhill Course
Even worse, money for research may well be in decline. A recent industry publication reported that only 15% of growers and 16% of wineries in the state contribute to the main industry fund for vineyard research. Aggravating the situation, government funding for vineyard research at U.C. Davis, which provides advanced scientific information to all growers in the state, was cut by 18% between 1990 and 1995.
Overall, California wine grape growers -- with one notable exception, Crushing District 11 in the Lodi-Woodbridge area -- have failed to organize, raise research funds from their own ranks or taxpayer grants and begin the shift to less chemically intensive pest management.
Although grower alliances could improve the industry's image as well as its profits, progress at organizing has been sluggish. Efforts have been slow to start or too small in scope. As a result, research and on-farm demonstrations of non-chemical pest management have not been available to the vast majority of the wine industry.
One reason for this lies in the absence since 1985 of compulsory federal market orders -- in effect, a tax on product value -- that are common for other agricultural products. [more on market orders] [Federal market orders recently survived a challenge by a California farmer when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the legitimacy of taxation by commodity commissions. Some in the wine industry have speculated that a market order may be necessary to bring their fellows around to making contributions to research.]
Compulsion may not be necessary, however, if growers follow the lead of the more palatable alternative pioneered by Lodi-Woodridge's Crushing District 11.
Shortly after the demise of the federal market order for wine grapes, a state law gave growers in 17 officially designated wine grape "crushing" districts the option to organize into self-directed local commissions. But growers in most districts -- including Sonoma's and Napa's -- rejected the concept in district-wide elections held several years ago.
United They Stand
Only Crushing District 11 of the Lodi-Woodridge region voted to establish a self-supporting local commission. With the largest production of several economically important premium varieties, Lodi-Woodridge grapes are beginning to compare favorably to high-value grapes produced in Sonoma and Napa.
Although Lodi-Woodridge grapes in 1995 earned an average of $465 per ton, while Sonoma's was $1,122 and Napa's $1,282, the region's growers are enhancing their market appeal -- and profits -- by using fewer pesticides and creating an eco-friendly image.
The Lodi-Woodridge Wine Grape Commission, founded in 1991, is locally directed and taxes district grape growers a small 1/3 of 1% of harvest. Now established with 650 growers and an annual budget of $750,000 -- including several taxpayer-supported state grants -- the commission's popularity was affirmed when more than 90% of growers voted in 1996 to extend its term.
One of its most progressive steps was taken in 1992 when the commission launched theonly district-wide Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program to reduce pesticide use and replace it with combinations of pest-control techniques. Growers already committed to the program hosted barbecues for neighbor growers where IPM was the topic of discussion. Gradually the word spread and acceptance grew for the the IPM program. Today, advisors work with growers to demonstrate cover-cropping and other strategies to keep pest damage down.
"Since the program is based on education and knowledge of the local environment, such neighborhood cooperation is essential," notes commission Executive Director Mark Chandler. Yet it took five years for the commission to convince growers to agree to work toward adopting IPM strategies and -- even with the most promising program in the state -- significant pesticide reduction remains a distant goal.
Projects Long on Hope, Short on Dollars
Elsewhere, while growers and vintners associations do well-meaning research, all have limited significance for substantial pesticide reduction in the near future. And all are funded by taxpayer dollars with little or no wine industry support.
One project is underway on California's central coast, where the Central Coast Wine Grape Grower Natural Vineyard Team received a grant from the state Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) to publish a"natural" wine grape growing protocol. One of the team's goals is to establish a district commission like Lodi-Woodridge's.
DPR also funded the Paso Robles Vintners and Growers Association in San Luis Obispo County to produce a manual and workshops on how to use local computerized weather data. Growers hope to learn to tie fungicide application to need rather than a predetermined schedule.
A 1996 DPR grant to the Temecula Valley Vintners Association in Riverside County supported installation of five vineyard weather stations to inform growers of optimal times to apply fungicides.
And a group of grape growers in the San Joaquin Valley, who obtained a DPR grant to explore biologically integrated viticulture systems with the U.C. Cooperative Extension, are working to establish pesticide reduction goals and monitor pest populations and vine nutrition status at several vineyards.
Sonoma's and Napa's Limited Efforts
Trying to wean Sonoma and Napa growers from chemicals has borne little fruit. Among the local efforts:
- The Sonoma Valley Vintners and Growers Association received a DPR grant to quiz growers about their understanding of "low-input" agricultural methods. The group plans to eventually create demonstration sites and conduct education and outreach for growers.
- Reducing dependence on dangerous dimethoate insecticide by stopping Pierce's disease at its source was the goal of a Sonoma County project funded by DPR and sponsored by U.C. Cooperative Extension. Though selectively removing vegetation at the edge of vineyards proved to be the most effective way to reduce populations of the insect which spreads the disease, no region-wide organized effort has been undertaken to advance implementation of the technique.
- A "fish-friendly farming" program for grape growers along the Russian River Valley is planned by the sponsoring Sotoyome-Santa Rosa Resource Conservation District and funded by the Water Quality Control Board. The program's goal is to avoid tougher regulations to protect fish species and to certify growers for a "fish-friendly" label attractive to wine buyers. Whether pesticide reduction will figure prominently in the program is yet to be determined.
- With a grant from DPR, the Napa Sustainable Wine Growing Group recently published the Field Handbook for Integrated Pest Management for Napa County, which lists IPM practices. The guide -- designed to be revised as more alternatives are identified -- will advance the discussion of IPM but can't replace vital on-site advice and demonstration required for serious pesticide reduction. A comprehensive resource directory is due out in mid-1998, the group says.
- Also in Napa County, 63 Carneros region landowners and several agencies were organized by the Napa County Resource Conservation District to form the Huichica Creek Land Stewardship in 1988. Their goal was to repair the watershed which had been degraded by soil erosion and excessive pesticide use. The cooperative effort has restored riparian habitat to reduce erosion and implemented sustainable farming systems that reduce the use of pesticides. Many of the sustainable practices developed on the watershed are on display at the Huichica Creek Vineyard which is open to the public.
Although small, underfunded and still isolated from the mainstream, the alternative pest control projects underway in wine country prove that there are options available for quick and substantial pesticide reduction -- IF the industry joins in self-funded, self-directed organizations dedicated to eliminating pesticide use. Until that day, environmentally responsible wine grape growing will only be a publicist's pipe dream.
Vineyard With a Difference
A 21-acre vineyard owned and operated by the Napa Resource Conservation District (RCD) is a demonstration of agriculture and biodiversity existing in harmony which also has another special advantage: It's the one publicly funded vineyard project that's open for visits by those who paid for it, the taxpayers.
Finished last year, Huichica Creek Vineyard now grows cover crops of native grasses to increase biodiversity and reduce erosion and patches of natural vegetation which provide habitat for wintering beneficial insects. Native trees and wildflowers are scattered throughout the vineyard, and a neighborhood of raptor, bat and swallow nests is home to predator wildlife that help keep down pest populations.
Dennis Bowker of the RCD maintains that vineyards managed with sustainable methods are more productive, cheaper to operate, less reliant on pesticides, healthier for field workers, yield higher quality wine and are better for the environment because they add fewer chemicals to the soil and water, and reduce erosion.
"If all that is growing in a vineyard is grapes, the only species that live there will be those that feed on grapes, such as pests," says Bowker. "Our goal [at the Huichica Creek Vineyard] is to demonstrate that sustainable agriculture is practical and it's the future. There's an element of inevitability to it."
|
