Yokohama squash - Not Every New Plant is Invasive

Gregory Yokohama squash - USDA ARS NAL "Special Collections"

               Thomas Jefferson wrote that "the greatest service which can be rendered any country is to add an useful plant to it's culture...."[1] He could hardly imagine the unintended consequence and impact that the introduction of non indigenous species has had on the ecosystems and economies of the United States. The spread of invasive species alters ecosystem services and threaten rare and endangered species; second only to land development practices in their destructive impact. It is easy, therefore, to condemn the actions of past generations who worked hard to find new and novel species to enhance the quality of life of their fellow citizens.

               Jefferson noted that the United States were "probably far from possessing, as yet, all the articles of culture [crops] for which nature has fitted our country. To find out these, will require an abundance of unsuccessful experiments. But if, in a multitude of these, we make one or two useful acquisitions, it repays our trouble."[2] Those whom have had to fight kudzu or tamarisk might take umbrage and even be outraged at the idea that the introduced species that did not find merit were paid for.

               The US Department o Agricultural Research Service (USDA ARS) was established in part to foster Jefferson's idea that "[t]he introduction of new cultures [crops], and especially of objects [plants] of leading importance to our comfort, is certainly worthy the attention of every government, and nothing short of the actual experiment should discourage an essay of which an hope can be entertained."[3]

               Because of the significant harm of a few intentionally or accidentally introduced plants, certain stakeholders have taken a dim view to non-native plants and to those who introduced them to the United States. This tendency to lump all exotic plants into one basket is based on part on a limited view of history and the role of the men who introduced important non-native species such as wheat and vegetables. Only 150 years ago, men such as Thomas Hogg, Jr. and James J. H. Gregory worked to better the produce of our farms and gardens sure in the knowledge that they were contributing to the betterment of the country and its people.

               An 1866 article in The Cultivator & Country Gentleman provides an example of a then recent introduction of a new winter squash from Japan.

" THE YOKOHAMA SQUASH Eds Co Gent The past summer we raised Yokohama Squash and it has given such good satisfaction both as a table squash and for pies that think its merits need only to be known in order it may be appreciated The vines of this new visitor from Japan slowly till some time in July when they spread rapidly on every side taking root at almost every joint and throwing out numerous side branches so that when planted eight feet apart the entire ground is occupied by the dark green leaves while the numerous peculiar looking squashes are thickly hidden beneath them I find that they yielded with us the past season from 20 to 30 squashes to the square rod averaging four or five pounds each They are very heavy in proportion to their size the seeds being small and contained in a very small cavity The flesh is very dry sweet fine grained and of a rich orange color When cooked they make the best substitute for sweet potatoes of anything I know of and for pies I think them equal to any other squash They ripened here in Connecticut the past season but required the entire season in order to mature before frost The keep very well but 1 think not quite as well as Hubbard The stems of the Yokohama where they join the squash are nearly square a peculiarity never saw in any other squash I have no seeds spare as they are already disposed of G. F. P. Milford, Conn Feb 7 1866."[4]

William Woys Weaver (2005) describes the squash as a "oddly shaped squash that resembled large chunks of hardened lava. Gray-black, other-worldly, yet hauntingly beautiful, this unique heirloom vegetable from Japan, the ‘Yokohama’ squash, was a visual study in the Japanese affection for serenity through form and texture. [The Yokohama squash has] one of the most complex flavors I have run across in any squash or pumpkin I have grown. Everyone’s taste buds are different, but I detect hints of Asian pear, mango, avocado, lemon balsam, and if you have experience with tropical fruits, the unmistakable aroma of sapote. Can this be a squash? It is even a great boon to gardeners because it is highly resistant to borers and powdery mildew."[5]

               Who were Hogg and Gregory? Thomas Hogg, Jr. was born in London, February 6, 1820, coming to the United States with his father, Thomas Hogg, Sr. and his brother James when he was 9 months old. His father was a successful nurseryman and florist in New York City. He and his brother took over the business when their father diedin I855. A staunch liberal, progressive Republican, Thomas Hogg, Jr. was appointed U. S. Marshall in 1862 by President Lincoln, who also founded USDA and sent to Japan for eight years. He would return thereafter for two more years at a posting in the Custom House. He spent much time in travelling around the Japanese Islands studying their flora since his official position afforded him unusual facilities for exploration and collection of novel and interesting plant species and cultivars. He made a large collection of Japanese trees, shrubs and herbaceous plants "among those which proved to be adapted to our climate, are many of the choicest Japanese plants which ornament our gardens to-day, which he was the first to introduce."[6]  

               James Hogg grew the seeds sent from Japan by his brother reporting the "outcome in an 1864 issue of The Magazine of Horticulture. Hogg named the variety "Yokohama" and said it was superior to the Hubbard types which were at the time the standard in American gardens."[7] James Hogg  sent seeds of the Yokohama squash to the noted Massachusetts  plantsman, James John Howard Gregory. Mr. Gregory advertised the new squash in 1865 in Marblehead.[8]    

               I was delighted to find an original copy of the handbill advertising the Yokohama squash while compiling an inventory of pre-1870 nursery catalogs in the Special Collection of the U. S. National Agricultural Library. (USDA ARS NAL)

---

[1] Thomas Jefferson Memorandum of Services to My Country, after 2 September 1800  PTJ, 32:124. Polygraph copy at the Library of Congress.

[2] Letter from Thomas Jefferson to William Drayton (1786). Thomas Jefferson Agricultural Institute http://www.jeffersoninstitute.org/initiative/jefferson.shtml

[3] Letter from Thomas Jefferson to M. Lasteyrie (1808) Thomas Jefferson Agricultural Institute. http://www.jeffersoninstitute.org/initiative/jefferson.shtml- (In other words, test the new crop before assuming it has nothing to offer.)

 [4] The Cultivator & Country Gentleman, Volume 27 L. Tucker & Son, 1866.

[5] Weaver. 2005. Yokohama Squash. Online. Accessed July 14, 2013. http://www.motherearthnews.com/real-food/yokohama-squash.aspx#axzz2Z2JTu6GK

[6] Morong, T. (1893). Thomas Hogg. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club, 20(5), 217–218. doi:10.2307/2477496

Author's npte: Kudzu, which he sent to Thomas Meehan, noted nuseryman in Philadelphia in 1876, not withstanding...

[7] Baker Creek Heirloom Seed Company. Online. Accessed July 14, 2013. https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=165630743551869&id=155935376162

[8] Shari Kelley Worrell & Norma Lovett Gregory Kelley Flude. A Timeline of his life.  Online. Accessed July 14, 2013. http://www.saveseeds.org/biography/gregory/

Mr. Gregory purchased the rights to the "best white potato" for $150 from Luther Burbank.  Mr. Gregory introduced a new potato that he shared with Luther Burbank calling it "Burbank".

Invasive species 'boxbug' tries to sneak past APHIS

Gonocerus acuteangulatus (Goeze 1778)
boxbug
image from British Bugs web site

               Invasive species are all around us. The eat our lunch, they make us sick, and they change our landscapes. Invasive species cost us money...lots of money...some say over 130 billion dollars a year in the United States alone. Most of only get excited about invasive species when they directly and immediately injure us personally.  We remain landscape illiterate convinces that food comes from stores, and clean water from pipes.

               The United States Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA APHIS) works to stave off the introduction and establishment of harmful invasive species.[1] APHIS and its ever-smaller budgets is faced with more "stuff' coming in to US ports each year. And who is APHIS' stakeholder that should be clamoring for increases to protect our pockets, food, and health? Why we the very people who have no clue. Somehow we have the idea that the infrastructure started by Lincoln and enhanced by Presidents through the 1960s now needs no support at all. Our arrogance is only unsurpassed by our inability to see tomorrow.

               If you live in the Mid-Atlantic you already know about the stink bug because it decided to not only cost the fruit industry millions but more importantly for you, because it moved in by the thousands to your personal space and caused you discomfort. So you call on APHIS and demand to know why and then fail to give it the money to prevent the next critter from moving in.

               With little support from the calmly disinterested public (those without stink bugs, pythons, flying fish and rock snot in their lives so far), the dedicated employees of APHIS and its sister organizations ARS and the Forest Service) work to keep the next invader out of your personal space. They work tirelessly to safeguard the United States much like the heroic 'Little Dutch boy' who stuck his finger in a hole in the dike to save his world from certain doom.

              And what has APHIS done lately for you - especially those of you who garden or make your living selling plants? In December, the keen eyes of USDA APHIS port inspectors in Baltimore, Maryland spotted for the first time a Coreid, Gonocerus acuteangulatus (Goeze 1778). G. acuteangulatus, commonly called known as a boxbug in the United Kingdom, id a "relatively large reddish-brown squashbug, distinguished from the commoner Coreus marginatus by the narrower abdomen and more pointed lateral extremities of the pronotum. Nymphs have a green abdomen." The website, British Bugs, goes on to describe this new invader to the US as historically very rare in the British Isles and known only from Box Hill in Surrey, where it feeds on box trees (boxwoods). British Buigs continues its report noting that the "bug is expanding its range and now occurs widely in the south-east of England and beyond. It is exploiting different foodplants, and has been found on hawthorn, buckthorn, yew and plum trees." Reports from England report that it seems prefers berry bearing species such as hollies and ivies.[2]  The boxbug is also reported as a major problem for hazelnut production in Italy.[3]

               APHIS also reports that the recently intercepted boxbug, G. acuteangulatust is a primary pest of boxwood, but is also recorded feeding on important landscape and garden plants such as hawthorn, buckthorn, yew and plum trees. According to a report in the Washington Times, the boxbug, referred to as a squashbug in the article, was "destined for Eldersburg, Md.  CBP (U.S. Customs and Border Protection) issued an Emergency Action Notification to the importer requiring the shipment to be re-exported or destroyed."[4]

               The possible introduction of this invasive pest would add to the litany of invasive species problems facing farmers and gardeners in the United States. We, all of us, should be actively supporting enhanced funding for USDA APHIS. It is worth noting that APHIS also quietly protects natural areas from invasive species that creep through our trade routes into our ports and out into our fields and woods.
 

---

[1] The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is a multi-faceted Agency with a broad mission area that includes protecting and promoting U.S. agricultural health, regulating genetically engineered organisms, administering the Animal Welfare Act and carrying out wildlife damage management activities.  These efforts support the overall mission of USDA, which is to protect and promote food, agriculture, natural resources and related issues.

To protect agricultural health, APHIS is on the job 24 hours a day, 7 days a week working to defend America’s animal and plant resources from agricultural pests and diseases.  For example, if the Mediterranean fruit fly and Asian longhorned beetle, two major agricultural pests, were left unchecked, they would result in several billions of dollars in production and marketing losses annually.  Similarly, if foot-and-mouth disease or highly pathogenic avian influenza were to become established in the United States, foreign trading partners could invoke trade restrictions and producers would suffer devastating losses.    http://www.aphis.usda.gov/about_aphis/

[2] The Essex Field Club. http://www.essexfieldclub.org.uk/portal/p/Species+Account/s/Gonocerus%20acuteangulatus

[3] Vaccino et al. 2008. Detection of damage due to bug feeding on hazelnut and wheat by biochemical techniques. Bulletin of Insectology 61 (1): 189-190.

[4] Jerry Seper. December 12, 2012. ‘Squashbug’ nabbed at Baltimore Harbor. The Washington Time. [accessed January 19, 2013] http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/12/squashbug-nabbed-baltimore-harbor/

"The importer plans to fumigate.

Upon Friday’s discovery of the bug, CBP forwarded the specimen to a USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Plant Protection and Quarantine entomologist for identification. CBP agriculture specialists work closely with USDA to protect the nation’s agriculture resources against the introduction of foreign plant pests and animal diseases.

CBP agriculture specialists have extensive training and experience in the biological sciences and agricultural inspection. On a typical day, they inspect tens of thousands of international air passengers, and air and sea cargoes nationally being imported to the United States and seize 4,291 prohibited meat, plant materials or animal products, including 470 insect pests."

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/12/squashbug-nabbed-baltimore-harbor/#ixzz2IQluwQPK

Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

HEAR CLOSING - a message from Dr. David Duffy (PCSU/UH)

November 6 2012

HEAR CLOSING - a message from Dr. David Duffy (PCSU/UH)

A message from Dr. David Duffy, Pacific Cooperative Studies
Unit/University of Hawaii:

    "Because of a lack of funds, the Hawaiian Ecosystems at Risk project (HEAR) (http://www.hear.org) may close as soon as December 15, although there may be enough funds to extend it until February 15. This will mean several things. The web site will be placed on a new server although it is not clear who will pay for the server or for transitioning the site. HEAR data will not be updated. The Pacific Ecosystems at Risk (PIER)
site (see http://www.hear.org/pier/abtproj.htm) will also become frozen, as will numerous books, reports and papers. As software evolves we will likely lose the ability to access the data. The various list servers will need new owners, otherwise moderated lists will cease to function altogether, while other lists will not be able to add or delete members. The Starr photo collection will remain accessible, but only through a third party site that will charge for access.
    I should point out that we have already lost the original home of the Pacific Basin Information Node (PBIN) website, although it has found temporary refuge. Together with HEAR, this site represents the corporate memory both here in Hawaii and across the Pacific of efforts to sustain our natural ecosystems and agriculture against problems caused by
species alien to the islands. HEAR also serves as the glue that holds the community together, providing information and facilitating communication. I just hope hindsight is kind to this decision."

               Invasive species are all around us, but most of us never see them. Except for a small group of dedicated people, who over the years have studied and documented the changes in the landscapes of our world, most of us remain oblivious to the changes that are happening to the environment. To those who watch and know the changes brought about by the introduction of novel species, the spread of invasive species is like a wild fire consuming the habitats that shelter life as we know it.

               Invasive species destroy our crops and reduce the food supply that 7 billion people need. Invasive species foul our waters and cost us resources that most of us do not even know we have. Our expectations allow us to presume that resources provided by the diversity of life will always be available to us. As we allow our physical manmade infrastructure to crumble, the ecological systems that surround and support them are changing fast and costing us more.

               The free access of information that once was found in libraries is growing ever smaller, and in the world of invasive species the little electronic portals of knowledge are blinking out along with their hardcopy brethren because some of us feel there is no role for common access to science and experience. In some ways the loss of information will result in a world that knows nothing of the problems facing us as invasive species reduce the resources once at hand. In a tangled twist, the absence of information is validation to many that there is no problem. Without access to species information and their impact on ecosystems, communities will each have to learn anew the effect and cost that some novel species can have on our daily lives.

               The fisherman will see no problem until the lake loses its many species to an exotic flying carp; the farmer will be oblivious until the stink bug reaches his soy bean fields; the gardener will know nothing until the running bamboo takes out the foundation of the home; the child's parent will be content until the python attacks at dusk; the sick will not realize the impact of the insect bite until the doctor speaks of mosquitoes from a distant land; the homeowner will be amused until he learns the cost of termites from a place far far away.

               Then, and only then, when it is too late, will the costs of ignorance come home to roost.  HEAR and PIER provided information in depth to one and all. Individuals and their communities who bear the cost of invasive species and who are unable to pay individually for research information are the losers. They will pay in damage to their fields, gardens and public lands because we did not have the will to provide knowledge to one and all as a public infrastructure service. James Madison wrote to W.T. Barry in 1822:

"A popular Government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy, or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives."[1]

---

[1] Kurland & Lerner, eds. 2000. Epilogue: Securing the Republic,  Chapter 18. © 1987 by The University of Chicago. [accessed November 6, 2012]  http://press-ubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch18s35.html

More Megacopta cribraria - kudzu bug - a recent introduction to the United States; another invasive species

kudzu bug 
Megacopta cribraria (Fabricius)
image by Joseph LaForest,  University of Georgia, Bugwood.org      

               I wrote about a recent invasive arrival to the United States last year Sunday, October 30, 2011"A new invasive species: Asian kudzu bug Megacopta cribraria attacks legumes in US" This newcomer to American ecosystems, Megacopta cribraria, is native to India and China and is also found in Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam. The bean plataspid is pea-sized, greenish brown, and round with a wide posterior. In case you need to know, the insect  to waddle when it walks on a surface and is an excellent flier.[1]

               This insect is an invasive species from Asia that attacks soybean and other legumes. It also beneficially also feeds on kudzu, an invasive plant species that has spread throughout the southern United States. This sets up a classic collision of desires for it is reducing some of the invasion pressure of kudzu while at the same time threatening the heart of American agriculture.  USDA-APHIS reports that the "pest, which is sometimes called the kudzu bug or lablab bug, was first detected in the United States in November 2009 on kudzu in Barrow County, GA. At that time, a number of homeowners complained about a large number of bugs that had swarmed onto the sides of their homes and other structures, leaving a mildly offensive or bitter odor in their wake. As of August 2010, the bean plataspid has been identified throughout Georgia, in numerous South Carolina counties, and in one North Carolina county."

               So far this particular blog - and this pest - reads like the innumerable other posts about invasive pests that have established in the United States and are causing harm to our ecosystems and the services and resources they provide. And, because it is more of the same thing, most of us are becoming hardened to the point of  being inured and unconcerned by what seems to be background disturbance, a life-style noise and an acceptable condition of modern life. In other words, as with most things today that involve the environment, the this invasive insect and the damage it causes are someone else's problem because it is not directly impacting anything we care about at the moment.

               It turns out that there are places in the world that do not want this invasive insect and are willing to stop American shipping from bring our goods such as cotton to their ports.[2] Honduran officials refused thousands of pounds of goods already landed in their ports this winter after finding several dead bugs in the bottom of cargo containers because of their concerned after learning about reports from China indicating that the bean plataspid can significantly impact springtime soybean crop losses of up to 50 percent and summertime losses of up to 30 percent. It does not help that the bean plataspid is also listed as a harmful pest of Chinese fruit trees. If it moves to other host plants in the Americas, the pest has the potential to cause significant agricultural damage.[3]

               Amazingly enough we have been fighting invasive species before there was a United States of America (Connecticut keeps trying to ban plants). An invasive species, the Hessian fly, established itself during the American revolution and worked havoc on our young nation's commercial trade. what is new is that invasive species are entering and establishing at ever growing rates. We are being overwhelmed by a biological oil-slick, a living forest fire that is permanently altering our ecosystems and the services they render. Our response is to mimic the ostrich - to hear no evil and see no wrong, to leave to a future generation the task of cleaning up and responding to the damage we are allowing to happen.

               We need to find money to raise awareness and engage the political process.

---

[1] USDA-APHIS PPQ Invasive Insect (Bean Plataspid) Poses Risk to Soybean Crops and Infests Homes in Southeastern States. [accessed May 20, 2012] http://www.aphis.usda.gov/publications/plant_health/content/printable_version/fs_beanpla.pdf

[2] National Cotton Council. kudzu bug remediation. [accessed May 20, 2012] http://www.cotton.org/tech/flow/kudzu-bug-remediation.cfm

[3] Erin France. April 8, 2012. Kudzu bugs raise concerns. erin.france@onlineathens.com/ [accessed May 20. 2012] http://onlineathens.com/local-news/2012-04-08

The World of Invasive Species is Divided into three Camps

               The world is divided into three groups when  it comes to invasive species. The first and largest is the group that has no idea, information or opinion about what an invasive species is or may be let alone whether there is reason for concern or not. This largest of constituencies is only interested in non human species when they slither into its bedrooms (pythons), bring disease (tiger mosquitoes), decreases harvest of baseball bats (emerald ash borer) or pulls down power lines (kudzu) needed to stay connected to social media.

               The second interest group has decided the information at hand warrants no concern and no focus or allocation of resources or consideration. In some sense this group has decided to live for today knowing that tomorrow will take care of itself as well as any human generations that may come. The third broad constituency, on the other hand,  sees a problem  and want to prevent what it can and fix what is damaged in order to preserve a future of maximum opportunities based upon present understandings of biological diversity. This last group's  invasive species positions are based upon an understanding that human welfare both directly and indirectly depends on the environment, a concept that the first group never thinks about and the presumptions about which the second groups has questions.

               Irreversible environmental damage to ecological system resources and services negatively affect  future generations' abilities to achieve quality of life goals. The chronic disruption of natural ecosystems caused by human development activities include the introduction and establishment of novel species that replace existing species' relationships and interactions. A major difficulty arises in any effort to assign a value that would allow an easy decision or choice as to what steps to take in regards to an invasive species issue. The  challenge is in determining the estimation of the economic value of environmental resources, service or effects, as well as the possible conflicts between the discounting of ecological effects and long-term environmental and sustainability concerns.[1]

               In a sense the whole idea of environmental evaluation lead directly to a conflict between the conservation of environmental assets including indigenous species patterns and aggregations versus traditional patterns of economic development such as the clearance of land for agriculture and urban development.  To safeguard future generations' access to ecological services, present human activities (development) would seem to require that the present generation restrict the use of scarce ecological resources.[2] But that is pretty much not going to happen in a world staring at human population numbers growing  to 9 plus billion within this century.

                If an invasive species has not yet made a measurable or economical impact on a field, landscape or natural area, most people ask why spend money on something that has not happened? It is the same problem facing schools versus prisons; why spend money on education of many individuals to prevent crimes of a few when one can wait until a crime is committed and then remove the specific individual from the community as a whole. Of course when it comes to personal health, we rather reluctantly almost get the prevention thing because our mothers told us so. When it comes to consideration of the environment, however, Mother's advice goes out the window. 

               The first two group's preoccupation with the present results in a cascading series of decisions that extend beyond invasive species inaction. Bridges are not repaired, libraries are closed and research into environmental tools are shut down. USDA-ARS, for example, is closing its Kika de la Garza Subtropical Agricultural Research Center founding in 1935 in Texas along with 9 other locations across the US because it can no longer afford to support the scientific work done there on:  

1) Integrated pest management (IPM) of parasites and diseases of honey bee colonies; 2) Biological control methods used to identify and defeat present and potential pest threats to Rio Grande Valley agriculture; 3) Organic farming systems utilizing holistic approaches to healthy and nutritious food production; 4) Quarantine treatments of subtropical fruits and vegetables; 5) Post harvest treatments of produce for disinfestations by non-chemical means; 6) Aerial remote sensing of agricultural problems; and 7) Pesticide tolerance of vegetables, ornamental, and specialty crops for registration labeling and EPA compliance.

               Another example of groups one and two unintentional and unplanned collaboration  is the budget driven decision by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to stop funding its enormously successful Aquatic Plant Control Research Program. The program traces its original to the catastrophic introduction of a non-indigenous aquatic plant, water-hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solms), which rapidly infested the waters of Florida and Louisiana.  The elimination of terrestrial and aquatic biological control research is short sighted, foolish and just plain stupid, but reflects a society concerned now with that it can get today not what it will leave for its children tomorrow.   

               Thus, it comes down to a series of trade-offs as to what to do with invasive species, their introduction, establishment and control. This is pretty much the life of a gardener; a series of morning decisions based on unsatisfactory trade-offs involving resources such as time and money. It also makes the gardener's case that an touch of prevention is worth more than a costly excursion of eradication and control after the fact. But who has time to listen to gardeners anymore?

              

---

[1] Jan Douwe Meindertsma. “Agricultural Research for Development” [accessed December 31, 2011] http://www.icra-edu.org/page.cfm?pageid=ardhome&loginas=anon_e

[2] David Pearce. 1993. Valuing The Environment: Past Practice,Future Prospect. [accessed December 31, 2011] http://prototype2010.cserge.webapp3.uea.ac.uk/sites/default/files/pa_1994_02.pdf

Once 90% of US were Self-Employed

Maryland Farms During World War II http://teachingamericanhistorymd.net/000001/000000/000054/html/t54.html

               In 1790, 90 percent of the total population of 3,929,214 in the United States were self employed farmers. By self employed I mean that they lived or died by their ability to produce for themselves food, fuel, fiber, forage, feed, flowers (herbs for medicine), and forest products for housing. Large international organizations played a supporting role and employed few people. Laws were made to protect the interests of the self employed businesses that were the family farm. For the most part laws were not made to benefit the needs and wants of large corporate employers unless those laws directly impacted the needs of small business.

               It was in the interest of large farmers to keep control of the political process in order to ensure the maximum distribution of governmental largess and resources so laws were enacted to restrict policies enfranchisement to those who owned land for example, or in the case of slavery, those who actually produced the profits. The "employees" were not part of the political debate because they were either legally or practically excluded from the important affairs of those in political control.

               The tension between the needs of the small farmer and the large land owner resulted in tensions over the role of government and the use of government revenues. Public  versus private road systems or  other transportation infrastructure such as canals were issues for debate. Even the idea of public schools was up for controversy, begging the question as to why an individual should have to pay out of his profits so another could be educated;  a question related to why one should pay for a road or bridge from public monies so that another  could use it.  Whatever the political argument, implicit in most decisions was the concept of an individual self employed agriculturally based family unit that was dependent on the profitable actions or successful family business outcomes. And more to the point the political conversations involved a majority of the population by virtue of the total number of people impacted directly by the policy decision outcomes.

               Today with a total population exceeding 300 million, fewer than 1 percent of us have a direct link to a family owned self employed business. Even the total number of self employed people today amounts to only 11 percent of the population of the United States. This means that the majority of us work for someone or something else other than ourselves. The politics of Privilege and Power becomes that of impacting legislation and policy in the 21st century while protecting the interests of the smallest number of us needed to keep power in order to distribute the proceeds of being in power.  Farming no longer has the political muscle to be a major player, but self employed small business as well as international corporate interests do have a major role even if they only directly represent a small portion of the total population. As in the beginning in 1790, government is not instituted to represent the interests of all of us, but to enable the distribution of resources to the smallest number of us while at the same time keeping the rest of us quiet. On other words, the challenge for the few is to calculate the minimum distribution of resources to the majority necessary to buy a majority's acquiescence to the holding of power by the fewest number possible.

                   

A new invasive species: Asian kudzu bug Megacopta cribraria attacks legumes in US

Megacopta cribraria Stone Mountain Park, Dekalb County, Georgia, USA

June 25, 2011Photo#565670 copyright © 2003-2011 Iowa State University

              

             Soybean aphid, corn earworms, soybean rust, soybean cyst nematode, Sclerotina stem rot and the exotic pathogen, red leaf blotch and now the Kudzu bug are threatening the US soy bean crop. Soy beans, Glycine max (L.) Merr.,  are harvested and processed into animal feed and vegetable oil.  The oil component of crushed soybeans is bound for human consumption or biofuel production.  Food uses include tofu, soymilk and soy-based yogurts to name a few.  In addition soy ingredients, according to the Soy Facts  web page provided by Soyatech, "...have become staples in the food manufacturing industry.  Soy protein ingredients play functional roles in baked foods, processed meats and other products. Soybeans are also processed into many industrial products.  The primary one at this time is biodiesel, or soy methyl esters, which may be used in any diesel engine."

            Finding a suitable legume for agricultural production in the south eastern US was a major focus of USDA in the early years of the 20th century. Gibson and Barren (2005) write that "The soybean was first introduced into the American Colonies in 1765 as "Chinese vetches."  According to their web page, "an 1879 report from the Rutgers Agri­cultural College in New Jersey is the first reference that soybeans had been tested in a scientific agri­cultural school in the United States."[1]  In the preface to a 1908 report by Charles V. Piper, agrostologist in charge of forage crop investigations of the Bureau Of Plant Industry for the United States Department of Agriculture lays out the importance of new plant species for agriculture:

"Leguminous crops play so important a part in agriculture that unusual interest attaches to any new ones, especially if adapted to sections of our country where a satisfactory legume is still a desideratum. The need of satisfactory legumes is greatest at present in our semiarid regions, though a good perennial species adapted to the Cotton Belt would be of incalculable value. If it be true that no system of agriculture can anywhere be permanent without the use of a leguminous plant in rotation, this makes imperative the search for such a crop for every part of our country where agriculture is possible"[2]

Among the many species that were tested for potential as a food, feed or forage crops was a close relative of soybean, kudzu, Pueraria montana (Lour.) Merr. var. lobata (Willd.) Maesen & S. Almeida.

            It should come as no surprise then that an invasive species, insect native to the same regions of Asia from which came soybean and kudzu might feed on both species. And given the general lack of concern on the part of the public and the lack of much support for invasive species programs such as EDRR (early detection and rapid response), it was only a matter of time before this new invgasive species reach the US.  Megacopta cribraria (Fabricius) was found invading homes in large numbers in northern Georgia in late October 2009. The good news is that this pest of numerous legumes in Asia, has the potential to provide biological control of kudzu, Pueraria montana var. lobata (Willd.) Ohwi, (Fabaceae); the bad news is that it islikely to continue to be a household pest in the vicinity of kudzu fields as well as become a pest of North American legume crops such as soybean.[3]

            To be very clear, USDA APHIS reports that in China  this recent invasive species, the kudzu bug, "...has caused springtime crop losses of up to 50 percent and summertime losses of up to 30 percent. Severe infestations on some host plants result in seed yield losses, improperly developed pods, and undersized seeds. The bean plataspid is also listed as a harmful pest of Chinese fruit trees. If it moves to other host plants in the United States, the pest has the potential to cause significant agricultural damage."[4]

            The continual drumbeat of those who claim there is no problem from invasive species seems at odds with the facts. Part of the problem is the artificial division of invasive species issues into environmental and agricultural camps. The very term invasive species was created by naturalists to address the destructive nature of introduced species on ecosystem services as if there were no existing category of investigation. At the same time US agriculture has established a century plus dedication to the research, control and management of invading species in both USDA ARS and APHIS dating back in to the late 19th century (and earlier if you take in to account US government efforts surrounding the Hessian fly - but that is another blog) . Instead of working together and pooling resources the two stakeholders view each other warily and lobby their respective federal agencies to adopt policies that occasionally duplicate efforts in research and control strategies.

            As long as we continue to think of managed fields and natural areas as exclusionary ideas we will not address completely the challenges of invasive species. All landscapes are managed to some extent; the tools of horticulture should not be automatically excluded from the needs of ecology. Agriculture must be sympathetic to the problems of invasion biology. The collision of desires is highlighted by the positive control of kudzu and the negative impact on soybean and native legumes. Agricultural pests and ecological invasives are two sides of the same problem. The destruction of our natural areas and our managed fields is growing and in growing adding costs (130 billion Pimentel et al. 2001) which will threaten our collective futures. We must adapt or perish, we cannot hide. 

           

 

---

[1] Lance Gibson and Garren Benson, Revised March 2005. Origin, History, and Uses of Soybean (Glycine max). Iowa State University, Department of Agronomy http://www.agron.iastate.edu/courses/agron212/Readings/Soy_history.htm

 

[2] USDA Yearbook - Congressional edition, Volume 5481. 1909

[3] J. E. Eger, Jr., L. M. Ames, D. R. Suiter, T. M. Jenkins, D. A. Rider, and S. E. Halbert. April 2. 2010. Occurrence of the Old World bug Megacopta cribraria (Fabricius) (Heteroptera: Plataspidae) in Georgia: a serious home invader and potential legume pest.  Insecta Mundi 0121: 1-11

[4]  USDA APHIS Fact Sheet. October 2010. Invasive Insect (Bean Plataspid) Poses Risk to Soybean Crops and Infests Homes in Southeastern States

NAPPRA: Importation of Plants for Planting - new rules from USDA APHIS

               The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is altering its rules and regulations on the importation of nursery (garden and landscape) plants  into the United States. USDA authority stems from the Protection and Quarantine (PPQ program within the USDA APHIS.  PPQ protects agriculture, horticulture and natural resources from the risks associated with the entry, establishment, or spread of animal and plant pests, invasive species and noxious weeds to ensure resilient functional ecosystem services.

               The USDA APHIS site explains that "[p]lants for planting can carry a wide variety of pests that are more likely to become established in the United States than pests that could enter through imported fruits or vegetables. The volume of plants being imported into the United States has continued to increase in recent years, as has the body of scientific information regarding emerging plant pests of concern. As a result, APHIS determined the Agency needed to update its regulations in order to better prevent the introduction and establishment of plant pests in the United States."

               APHIS formerly has two categories for plant importation: 1)  prohibited (not allowed); or 20 restricted (allowed under certain conditions).  Now APHIS introduces the category of  “not authorized pending pest risk analysis,” referred to as NAPPRA. APHIS has a "list of plants that it considers to be quarantine pests or hosts of quarantine pests.  Such plants will not be allowed to be imported until we have completed a pest risk analysis."

" Plants for Planting Whose Importation Is Not Authorized Pending Pest Risk Analysis; Notice of Availability of Data Sheets for Taxa of Plants for Planting That Are Quarantine Pests or Hosts of Quarantine Pests  

[USDA will consider all comments it receives on or before September 26, 2011.]"

for more information see Importation of Plants for Planting USDA APHIS site

Lists of NAPPRA Candidates for Host Plants of Quarantine Pests

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/plants/plant_imports/Q37/nappra/downloads/NAPPRA1stNoticeList-CandidateHostPlants.pdf

List of NAPPRA Candidates for Quarantine Pest Plants

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/plants/plant_imports/Q37/nappra/downloads/NAPPRA1stNoticeList-QuarantinePestPlants.pdf

Invasive Xylotrechus hircus - A New Beetle Species Tries to Sample Our Forests and Landscapes

Inage: copyright © Purdue University

     Two Xylotrechus hircus, longhorned beetles, were discovered in a shipping container of magnesium desulphurization reagent in Philadelphia by agricultural inspectors on April 28th, 2011. These were the first ever reported interdiction of this potentially damaging, harmful invasive species in Philadelphia as well as the United States as a whole according to Steve Sapp with the CBP Public Affairs office. Invasive species like these are most effectively handle by early detection and rapid responses such as those administered by USDA APHIS PPQ and US CPB.

    Why do we care about two beetles? The economic and environmental damage that can come from newly introduced species can overwhelm any cost effective response once the species is established. The emerald ash borer is a prime example of what can go wrong and the extent of the damage when there is no early detection and no response.[1]

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection notes that the "invasive species Xylotrechus hircus is an invasive, wood–boring insect pest from the Cerambycidae family of destructive longhorned beetles indigenous to Asia. Longhorned beetles pose a serious threat to American agriculture, to national forests and to the timber industry. CBP issued an Emergency Action Notification and ordered the importers to re-export the container of desulphurization reagent in which the longhorned beetles were discovered. That container was shipped from China."


 
[1] Emerald Ash Borer Awareness Week Don't Move Firewood; Save America's Trees http://www.emeraldashborer.info/