Month: October 2011

Del Voight – Penn State Extension. Photo 10/31/2011
Snowfall hampers Soybean harvest in more ways than one. One can run snow through the combine with beans if it stays below 20 degrees but otherwise it will gum up the machine. Also the addition moisture will aid in the dry matter losses each day. John Yocum retired Extension Agronomist related to me many years ago that it is typical to lose about a pound of dry matter per day that harvest is delayed due to the alternating shrink and swell of the pod which housed the bean inside. This is will also increase harvest loss as the bean pod begin to split during the freeze thaw during the day. Add to this a mechanical head and a reel speed(most growers run it way to fast) and the beating will take out another few bushels. It is really devasting to realize just how much monetory loss these farmers are losing daily with the recent weather.

As in Dave Hartman response from PDA.

Due to tropical storms and an overabundance of rain many acres of grain and other crops were inundated by floodwaters across Pennsylvania. This has generated concern about the potential use of flood-affected crops for food or animal feed, since floodwaters can contain sewage, heavy metals, or other contaminants and can also predispose these crops to molds and the development of toxins. Since this has been an unusual event, there is little local precedent for dealing with this issue.

We have worked with federal agricultural agencies for guidance on the testing, handling and disposition of these crops. Based on their research and recent communications with United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) officials on this issue, we are now able to offer some guidance regarding the testing, handling and disposition of these crops.

The Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition at FDA has assessed the potential use of these crops for food uses and concluded that there is no practical way to recondition these crops for use for human food. They recommend that the flood-affected crops be segregated and or otherwise disposed of to ensure they do not contaminate unaffected crops during harvesting, storage and distribution. Adulterated grain and other crops may be subject to seizure under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Based on this determination by FDA, grains, which have been harvested from flooded crops, should not be handled, used or marketed in manner that could allow them to potentially be mixed with grains intended for human consumption. Example: Soybeans intended for human food processing, such as soybean oil, should not be commingled with flood affected soybeans.

The Center for Veterinary Medicine at FDA has also assessed the potential use of these crops as animal feed. FDA has indicated that as harvested these crops would not be acceptable for use in animal feed. Producers must be aware that by choosing to harvest and use flood water adulterated crops as animal feed they will assume the liabilities associated with the potential problems of this feed.

To even be considered for use in animal feed, these crops should be cleaned and dried or heat-treated. The grain must be tested for the following criteria, at a minimum:

1. Mycotoxins to include at least aflatoxin, fumonisin, vomitoxin, zearalenone, and ochratoxin.
2. Heavy metals, with emphasis on cadmium, mercury and lead.
3. Presence of certain pathogenic bacteria and their toxins, especially Salmonella, E. coli 0157:H7, E. coli 0104:H4 and Clostridium perfringens and botulinum. Heat treatment must be done for a duration and at temperatures sufficient to destroy these pathogenic organisms.
4. Pesticide screen, with particular emphasis on organophosphate and chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides.
5. Presence of PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) consistent with the levels found in Title 21 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 500.45.

It is important to note that if further information becomes available concerning other environmental or industrial contaminants in a specific locale, additional testing may be necessary.

Maximum acceptable levels for the contaminants listed above are summarized in the tables, paragraphs and referenced documents below:

Aflatoxin –

Fumonisin –

Vomitoxin – (DON)

Infested grains testing 10 ppm or less for DON may be used in animal feed according to the advisory based on the species, portion of the diet and level of DON. FDA does not recommend the use of grain with levels of DON that exceed 10 ppm in animal feed.

**FDA has updated the advisory levels of DON in distiller’s grains, brewer’s grains, gluten and gluten meal. Ruminating beef cattle and dairy cattle over 4 months of age- 30ppm not to exceed 50% of the diet and not to exceed 10ppm in beef cattle finished feed and not to exceed 5ppm in dairy cattle finished feed.

Ochratoxin A and Zearalenone – “No regulatory standards have been initiated for these toxins and results from exposure data and/or risk assessments have indicated that regulatory standards are not warranted at this time. The FDA continuously follows development of newer data regarding these mycotoxins, thereby constantly evaluating the need to set regulatory standards.” (from the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology Task Force Report No. 139 January 2003) Other countries have established maximum levels for Ochratoxin A and Zearalenone in foodstuffs, dairy products and animal feedstuffs in the parts per billion (ppb) range dependent on commodity and intended use.

Pesticides – The following referenced documents and websites establish pesticide and regulatory compliance standards.

• FDA Compliance Policy Guide Sec. 575.100 Pesticide Residues in Food and Feed – Enforcement Criteria (CPG 7141.01)

http://www.fda.gov/iceci/compliancemanuals/compliancepolicyguidancemanual/ucm123236.htm

• EPA 40CFR Part 180 Tolerances and Exemptions for Tolerances for Pesticide Chemicals in Food – http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/40cfr180_04.html

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) – The temporary tolerances for residues of

PCB's are as follows:

• 0.2 part per million in finished animal feed for food-producing animals (except the following finished animal feeds: feed concentrates, feed supplements, and feed premixes).
  

• 2 parts per million in animal feed components of animal origin, including fishmeal and other by-products of marine origin and in finished animal feed concentrates, supplements, and premixes intended for food-producing animals.
  

• 10 parts per million in paper food-packaging material intended for or used with finished animal feed and any components intended for animal feeds. The tolerance shall not apply to paper food-packaging material separated from the food therein by a functional barrier which is impermeable to migration of PCB's.
  								

   

Forages and silages affected by flood waters should be tested for the same contaminants as flood affected grains. Refer to the Managing Flood Damaged Forage and Pasture document for more information.

Pennsylvania’s dairy and livestock community should be aware that any animal feed crop touched by flood water is considered adulterated under federal law. It is reasonably likely that a variety of contaminants are present in the silt on the plants or on the plants themselves. Adulterated silage and forage should not be used as animal feed unless the risks of its use can be appropriately managed. If flooded feed is not managed appropriately, adulterated feed places animal health at risk and poses a means for contaminants to enter the human food supply, particularly through the milk supply.

Grain crops raised for feeding on-farm are not directly subject to federal and state regulations because the grains are not in commercial distribution. However, food (eggs, meat and milk) produced from feeding these grains may be regulated. Contaminants from potentially adulterated feed, if found in milk, may impact the farm‘s ability to ship milk. It is recommended that all producers test these grains to ensure that the flood-affected grains are below the tolerances for the contaminants identified above. Again, it is important that producers consult with Penn State Extension to assess the handling and use of flood-affected grains and other crops.

Producers must be aware that by choosing to harvest and use adulterated crops as animal feed they will assume the liabilities associated with any problems from such feed.

Beware of products intended to be used for or promoted to bind mycotoxins and other harmful toxins. They must be the subject of an approved Food Additive Petition (FAP) from the FDA or Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) for use in food or feed if they are sold or intended to be used for this purpose.

Activated charcoal is not an approved food/feed additive and is not GRAS. Food or feed containing activated charcoal is considered adulterated under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.

Sodium aluminosilicate and hydrated sodium calcium aluminosilicate are GRAS when used as anticaking agents in animal feed at a level not exceeding 2 percent in accordance with good manufacturing or feeding practices. However, FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) has consistently maintained that the use of sodium aluminosilicate or hydrated sodium calcium aluminosilicate as binders for mycotoxins is not GRAS and approved FAPs must be obtained before these products may be used or claims may be made regarding their utility as mycotoxin binders. Products which are not the subject of an approved FAP may be subject to regulatory action.

CVM is concerned that all mycotoxins are not uniformly bound by anticaking agents and that similar anticaking agents do not bind mycotoxins to the same degree.

Furthermore, any mycotoxins which are bound might not remain bound when the feed is consumed and exposed to the acid environment of the gut. If this were to occur, the animal could be exposed to unknown and potentially unsafe levels of mycotoxin which could result in mycotoxin residues in meat, milk, or eggs.

The Department will offer grain testing at no charge to help producers, not covered by crop insurance, who choose to make determinations on grain quality for harvesting and feed potential and assess whether it is likely that any of the listed contaminants are present in flood affected field crops.

Grain Sampling Procedures

(These sampling guidelines are adapted from “Practical Procedures For Sampling Grain”, from USDA’s Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA).)

It is recommended that grain sampling and shipping be completed by a PSU County Extension Agent if available. Also, your feed nutrionist may be able to offer support with the collection and shipping of the grain samples.

Sampling is an essential part of the inspection process and is critical to the accuracy of the final grade. If the sample is not representative of the lot, the inspection result will not reflect the true quality of the lot.

Basic Principles of Obtaining a GOOD sample:

• Collect several samples from different areas of the lot.

• Combine these samples to form a single sample.

• Consider the size of the sample needed for analysis.

• Completely mix or blend the final sample.

Tailgate Sampling:

Use a container (a large coffee can will work) to sample grain from a moving stream of grain. Tailgate sampling will draw a reasonably representative sample, as grain is loaded/unloaded from a combine to a truck/wagon or from a truck/wagon to a bin.

To Obtain A GOOD Sample With A Tailgate Sampler:

• Let the grain flow from the carrier (truck, combine, bin) for a few seconds before taking your first sample. Avoid sampling the last few bushels flowing out of the container.

• Hold the sampling device so that it is at one side of the grain stream.

• Pull the tailgate sampler through the grain stream in a continuous motion.

• Empty each sample into a clean, dry container.

• Take a minimum of three samples per carrier. More samples will yield a more representative composite sample.

Probe Sampling:

A hand probe is the only effective method of obtaining a representative sample from grain at rest in a truck bin or other container. There are two types of hand probes – a compartmented probe and an open-throat probe. The open-throat probe does not have compartments inside. This feature allows the sample to be poured directly from the probe into a sample container. The open-throat probe tends to draw more grain from the top portion of the lot. Results of the open-throat probe will differ from that of a sample drawn with a compartmented probe. Hand probes come in 5′, 6,’ 8′, 10′, and 12′ lengths. The sample is more representative of the lot if the probe reaches the bottom of the carrier.

To Obtain A GOOD Sample With A Hand Probe:

• Determine the locations in the container to be probed. Avoid sampling in the spout stream.

• With the slots on the probe closed, insert the probe at a slight angle (10 degrees).

• With the slots facing upward, open the probe and move it up and down in two short motions to fill the compartments.

• Close the probe, withdraw it from the grain and empty the grain onto a canvass or trough that is slightly longer than the probe you are using. If you are using an open-throat probe, pour the grain from the open end of the probe directly into a clean, dry container.

While drawing the sample, observe the general condition of the grain and check for objectionable odors, insect infestation, large stones, pieces of metal or glass and any other potentially harmful conditions.

****It is imperative to draw a representative sample and get as accurate of an inspection as possible. The condition of stored grain can change depending on the conditions of the storage area and the quality factors of the stored grain. ****

Testing Procedures

The Department will offer grain testing, at no charge, to help producers, not covered by crop insurance, who choose to make determinations on grain quality for harvesting and feed potential and assess whether it is likely that any of the listed contaminants are present in flood affected field crops.

Grain samples submitted for testing must meet the following criteria:

1. Grain samples should be obtained by collecting a representative 6 – 10 pound sample of the grain from a bin or truck using established procedures (see guidelines above). Grain should be cleaned and dried. Ideally, samples should represent grain lots of 10,000 bushels or less.
2. Samples should be submitted to the laboratory in a paper bag, so condensation does not occur, along with the name, address, and telephone number of the grain producer. The lot of grain that was sampled should also be identified.
3. Test results should be available to the producer in approximately 7-10 days from receipt of sample, dependent on the findings. Positive results in any category may require additional testing and increase the turnaround time for analytical results.
4. Based on the test results, producers can then voluntarily advise the Department of their intentions regarding the use, non-use, incorporation, composting, handling, storage, or other disposition of the grain.

    

   Samples should be submitted to the attention of: Michael Hydock, Chief; Division of Lab Section, Bureau of Food Safety, 2301 North Cameron Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110
   

Reporting Procedures

If the above testing and sampling procedures are followed and the grain meets the criteria established, FDA will not require the submission of a diversion request as outlined in their regulations for use of these crops as animal feed. Producers should voluntarily notify the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture of their intentions to process, test, and sell or use these crops. A PDA Voluntary Notification Form is available at the end of this document or upon request to the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture

Producers should seek consultation with a livestock nutrionist and veterinarian on any analytical results that they receive for flood-affected crops for the proper use or disposition of the crops.

Handling Recommendations 

• Use a respirator approved by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). Nuisance dust masks (paper masks) are not effective against smaller particles such as mold spores and fumes. Approved respirators are recommended to anyone that may come in direct contact with the waste material (contaminated grain or other crop material). Producers may wish to consult the following website,

http://www.agsafety.psu.edu/factsheets/E36.pdf for more respiratory protection information.

• Waste material (contaminated grain or other crop material) must be packaged in a bladder bag, supersac or equivalent packaging technology which can completely enclose the material for acceptance at intended disposal facility/location.

• Transport vehicles transporting the enclosed waste material should also be covered (tarped) to prevent air dispersal of waste material (contaminated grain or other crop material).

– For landfill disposal, the waste material (contaminated grain or other crop material) should be covered immediately after deposition at the landfill working face. 

– For disposal at a waste-to-energy facility, the waste material (contaminated grain or other crop material) should be fed directly into the burning chamber and not placed into the waste pit.

Disposal Options:

1. For Flood affected grains and other crops

Physical mixing of flood affected grain with uncontaminated grain for animal feed is not an acceptable practice. Blending of “clean” grain with adulterated grain is generally not permitted and the final product resulting from blending is unlawful, regardless of the level of the contaminant.

2.  On-farm disposal:

Pre harvest crops can be rotary mowed and incorporated into soil. Composting on farm or through a commercial composter is an option.

3.  Biofuels production:

The contaminated grain or other crop material may be used in biofuels production provided it meets the quality specifications of the production facility and the facility is permitted under General Permit WMGR109 http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/landrecwaste/lib/landrecwaste/residual_waste/gp/wmgr109.pdf, other DEP permit authorization, or under a co-product determination. In addition, the contamination levels of the distiller’s grain must be evaluated before it is allowed to be used as animal feed.

4.  Boiler fuel:

The waste material (contaminated grain or other crop material, etc.) may be used as fuel (co-product for energy recovery under Chapter 287.1 of the residual waste regulations) http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/025/chapter287/s287.1.html in an industrial boiler provided permit approval is granted by the DEP’s Air Quality Program and the waste material has at least 5,000 BTUs/lb.

5.  Waste-to-energy facility:

The waste material (contaminated grain or other crop material, etc.) may be processed at a waste-to-energy facility as a residual waste (agricultural waste) if accomplished in accordance with these procedures, the waste-to-energy facility operator has received “Form U – Request to Process or Dispose of Residual Waste” approval, and the waste-to-energy facility operator has determined the waste material will not adversely effect the facility operations and has received Air Quality Program approval. No chemical analysis is required in accordance with the Chemical Analysis Waiver provisions under Section D4. of the Form U provided the chemical analysis waiver does not conflict with the waste-to-energy facility’s approved waste acceptance plan, see http://www.elibrary.dep.state.pa.us/dsweb/View/Collection-9584. In addition, the waste material should be fed directly into the burning chamber and not placed into the waste pit.

6.  Landfill Disposal:

It has been determined that the waste material (contaminated grain or other crop material, etc.) may be disposed in Pennsylvania landfills as a residual waste (agricultural waste) if accomplished in accordance with these procedures and if the landfill operator has received “Form U – Request to Process or Dispose of Residual Waste” approval. No chemical analysis is required in accordance with the Chemical Analysis Waiver provisions under Section D4. of the Form U provided the chemical analysis waiver does not conflict with the landfill’s approved waste acceptance plan, see http://www.elibrary.dep.state.pa.us/dsweb/View/Collection-9584. However, the landfill operator must still determine that the waste material will not adversely affect the landfill operations, liner and/or leachate collection and treatment capabilities.

DEP Regional Offices

– The following DEP regional offices may be contacted for information on permitting, Form U approval requests, and other disposal options listed above:

I.    Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, Philadelphia.    

Southeast Regional Office

2 East Main Street

Norristown, PA 19401

Phone: (484) 250 – 5960

II.    Carbon, Lackawanna, Lehigh, Luzerne, Monroe, Northampton, Pike, Schuylkill, Susquehanna, Wayne, Wyoming.

Northeast Regional Office

2 Public Square

Wilkes-Barre, PA 18711-0790

Phone: (570) 826 – 2516

III.    Adams, Bedford, Berks, Blair, Cumberland, Dauphin, Franklin, Fulton, Huntingdon, Juniata, Lancaster, Lebanon, Mifflin, Perry, York.

Southcentral Regional Office

909 Elmerton Avenue

Harrisburg, PA 17110-8200

Phone: (717) 705 – 4706

IV.    Bradford, Cameron, Centre, Clearfield, Clinton, Columbia, Lycoming, Montour, Northumberland, Potter, Snyder, Sullivan, Tioga, Union.

Northcentral Regional Office

208 West 3^rd Street – Suite 101

Williamsport, PA 17701

Phone: (570) 327 – 3653

V.    Allegheny, Armstrong, Beaver, Cambria, Fayette, Greene, Indiana, Somerset, Washington, Westmoreland.

Southwest Regional Office

400 Waterfront Drive

Pittsburgh, PA 15222-4745

Phone: (412) 442 – 4000

VI.    Butler, Clarion, Crawford, Elk, Erie, Forest, Jefferson, Lawrence, McKean, Mercer, Venango, Warren.

Northwest Regional Office

230 Chestnut Street

Meadville, PA 16335-3481

Phone: 814-332 – 6848

For more information pertaining to this guidance document contact Erin Bubb, Chief, Division of Agronomic and Regional Services at the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture at 717-772-5215.

ebubb@pa.gov

For more information pertaining to the grain sample submission contact Michael Hydock, Chief, Food Safety Lab Division at the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture at 717-787-4315.

mhydock@pa.gov

For more information pertaining to the management of flood affected crops visit http://extension.psu.edu/prepare/emergencyready/flood/psuresources/managing or contact Penn State Extension. http://extension.psu.edu

This document was written with guidance from Greg Roth, Ph.D, Penn State Extension, University of Vermont Extension’s “Managing Flood Damaged Crops and Forage From Tropical Storm Irene”, and Vermont’s Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets

This document is only intended as a guide and in no manner endorses or encourages the harvesting, feeding or other use of flood damaged crops. By choosing to harvest and use flood damaged or adulterated crops as animal feed or enter such crops into the food chain, the producer assumes all risks and liabilities associated with the problems such feed may cause. The recommended tests set forth in this document are not all inclusive. In addition, the samples received are only as good as the techniques utilized and the test results achieved may or may not be representative of the entire affected crop area. The tests and the results thereof shall not be considered as any endorsement or decision by the Department related to a product’s safety, regulatory compliance or final usage. All decisions related to the final use of any products tested are at the sole discretion of the producer and should be made with consideration of all laws and regulations related to such usage and the potential health consequences to their animals and the food supply. Test results shall not, in any manner bind the Department or release or vindicate any producer from, nor in any manner act to mitigate, any penalty or action that may be imposed upon such producer for improper use of the product tested.

VOLUNTARY NOTIFICATION OF

USE OF FLOOD – AFFECTED GRAINS IN PENNSYLVANIA

Name and Address of Grower/Producer:

Telephone and Fax Numbers (include cellular phone information if available):

E-mail address (if available):

Amount and Type of Grain (bushels):

How Grain was Cleaned and Processed:

Intended Use of the Grain

Name and Address of Intended User (if available):

Contaminant Test Results of Sample(s):

Mycotoxins

1. Aflatoxin –
   
2. Fumoninsin –
   
3. Vomitoxin –
   
4. Zearalenone –
   
5. Ochratoxin –
   

Heavy Metals

1. Cadmium (Cd) –
   
2. Lead (Pb) –
   
3. Mercury (Hg) –
   

Pathogenic Bacteria

1. E. coli 0157:H7 –
   
2. E. coli 0104: H4-
   
3. Salmonella –
   
4. Clostridium perfringens –
   
5. Clostridium botulinum-
   

Pesticide Screen

1. Organophosphates –
   

1. Chlorinated Hydrocarbons –
   

PCBs

Polychlorinated Biphenyls

1. Aroclor 1254 –
   
2. Aroclor 1260 –
   

This form should be completed and submitted to the Department of Agriculture prior to any attempt to handle flood-affected grain. The completed form may be mailed or faxed to:

Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture

Bureau of Plant Industry

2301 North Cameron St

Harrisburg, PA 17110

Fax: 717-783-3275

Attn: Erin Bubb

List of PSU Cooperative Extension Staff in Affected Flood Damaged Counties

Berks – Mena Hautau – mmh10@psu.edu; 610-378-1327

Bradford – Gary Hennip – glh11@psu.edu; 570-265-2896 or Tom Maloney – tjm2@psu.edu; 570-265-2896

Chester – Cheryl Fairbairn – caf2@psu.edu; 610-696-3500

Columbia – John Esslinger – cje2@psu.edu; 570-275-3731 or Dave Hartman – dwh2@psu.edu; 570-784-6660

Bucks – Mike Fournier (mpf1@psu.edu; 215-345-3283)

Cumberland – Dave Swartz – dls19@psu.edu; 717-582-2131

Dauphin – Paul Craig – phc8@psu.edu; 717-921-8803

Delaware – Greg Martin – gpm10@psu.edu; 717-394-6851 (Greg is assigned in Lancaster, but travels)

Lancaster – Leon Ressler – ljr6@psu.edu; 717-394-6851

Lebanon – Del Voight – dgv1@psu.edu; 717-270-4391

Lehigh – Bob Leiby – rel5@psu.edu; 610-391-9840

Luzerne – Donna Grey – dsg6@psu.edu; 570-825-1701

Montgomery – Andy Frankenfield – adf13@psu.edu; 610-489-4315

Montour – John Esslinger – cje2@psu.edu; 570-275-3731 or Dave Hartman – dwh2@psu.edu; 570-784-6660

Northampton – Tianna Dupont – std11@psu.edu; 610-746-1970

Northumberland – John Esslinger – cje2@psu.edu; 570-275-3731 or Dave Hartman – dwh2@psu.edu; 570-784-6660

Perry – Dave Swartz – dls19@psu.edu; 717-582-2131

Schuylkill – Duane Miller – dlm228@psu.edu; 570-622-4225

Snyder – John Esslinger – cje2@psu.edu; 570-275-3731 or Dave Hartman – dwh2@psu.edu; 570-784-6660

Sullivan – Mark Madden – mxm53@psu.edu; 570-928-8941

Union – John Esslinger – cje2@psu.edu; 570-275-3731 or Dave Hartman – dwh2@psu.edu; 570-784-6660

York – John Rowehl – jer2@psu.edu; 717-840-7408

Winter 2011-2012: More Monster Snowstorms for the Northeast?

Del Voight – Penn State Extension

Here is the current Fall Check point Newsletter from the Pa Soybean Board.  Fall Issue of Check point Newsletter  Here is the link also from the spring newsletter.

 Spring Pa Soybean Board Check Point

Here is a screen shot of the combine yield monitor in Franklin County.  This is one of several sites that the information was gained on a few post applications of fungicides to wheat.  Essentially this project was to determine timing of fungicides. The design was to assess a GS 7 treatment alone, a GS11 treatment alone and also a GS7 followed by a GS 11 treatment.  This case showed some of the sort of response one might expect.  Dr. Collins will be assessing the combined sites and determine the relative benefit to the selected timing methods. Yield on the left column represent the average of the strip plot of three replications within the field.