An update earlier this month from Iowa State University (ISU) Extension stated that, “Home gardeners can successfully grow grapes in Iowa’s climate. Grapes can flourish in a backyard garden or a vineyard, but obstacles like insects and knowing the proper harvest time can keep them from reaching their full potential.”

The ISU news item, which was presented in a “Q and A format,” noted that, “Color alone, however, should not be the sole basis for harvesting grapes. Berries of many cultivars change color long before they are fully ripe. At maturity, individual berries are full size and slightly less firm to the touch. As a final test, taste a few grapes for sweetness when berry size and color indicate the fruit is approaching maturity. Harvest grape clusters when the berries are sweet.

“When harvesting grapes, remove clusters with a knife or hand shears.”

The update pointed out that, “Several factors could be responsible for the uneven ripening of the berries within a cluster.  Possible causes include overcropping (too many grape clusters on the vine), a potassium deficiency, moisture stress and 2,4-D damage.

“Overcropping is the most common cause for home gardeners. An average grapevine may have 200 to 300 buds which are capable of producing fruit. If grapevines are not pruned properly in late winter, the number of fruit clusters may be excessive.”

Also, the ISU update on grapes added that, “The best way to prevent birds from eating the grape crop is to place netting over the grapevines. Netting can be purchased at garden centers or through mail-order companies. When placing netting over the grapevines, make sure the netting is secured to the ground to prevent birds from entering from below.”

The latest edition of Choices Magazine provided a closer look at the “Global Craft Beer Renaissance.”

Joshua Berning & Michael P. McCullough provided an overview of the issue, and explained that, “While the exact definition of craft beer is arguable, most sources emphasize traditional styles and innovation as well as the scale of production (i.e., ‘small’). Yet this definition may be limited, particularly if we seek to define ‘craft’ on a global scale. Large producers (referred to as macro breweries) in particular tend to view craft beer as a market segment irrespective of brewery size.

“Regardless of definition, the growth in this hard-to-define industry segment is difficult to ignore. From country to country, a general decline in overall beer consumption has been coupled with significant growth in craft beer consumption. According to the Brewers Association, 5,234 of 5,301 U.S. breweries identify as craft breweries. Craft market share was 12.3% in 2016, up from 5.7% in 2011 (https://www.brewersassociation.org/press-releases/2016-growth-small-independent-brewers/). Similar trends have been seen in the UK (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/oct/03/uk-breweries-on-rise-craft-beer-sales-surge), Australia (http://www.beerandbrewer.com/craft-beer-will-continue-soar-2017/), and even China (https://www.ft.com/content/c872e93a-f4cd-11e6-8758-6876151821a6?mhq5j=e2).

“This has led many to pronounce a craft beer revolution. In some regards, revolution is a misnomer, as it implies the emergence of something new. All over the world, commercial brewing began as a craft industry, focusing on small, traditional, and innovative production. The more appropriate description may be a craft beer renaissance, as we are observing a reawakening, rather than the birth of the craft beer industry.”

A link to all of the articles on this topic in the latest edition of Choices is available here.

The Associated Press reported yesterday that, “A California farmer will pay $1.1 million for plowing federally protected wetlands and streams, the U.S. Justice Department said Tuesday, closing a yearslong legal battle that made him a rallying figure for critics of environmental regulation.

“The Justice Department announced the consent decree for John Duarte, who owns land and a nursery in Northern California. The settlement with federal authorities, who had been due to start the penalty phase in Duarte’s legal case Tuesday, includes civil penalties and money to restore wetlands and streams.

“The case began after Duarte bought fallow land within federally protected wetlands and streams in 2012, and paid a contractor to deep till it, or rip it. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers cited Duarte. A federal court found against Duarte last year, saying the wetlands that Duarte tilled hadn’t been plowed for at least 24 years.”

The AP article pointed out that, “The California farmer’s case had been spotlighted by farm groups, including farmers concerned about what had been an Obama administration project to more clearly define what wetlands and waterways fall under the protection of existing clean-water laws. The American Farm Bureau Federation lauded Duarte for standing up to federal environmental regulators.”

William Neuman reported yesterday at New York Times Online that, “The Food and Drug Administration has filed court papers in support of an effort to overturn a New York City law requiring calorie counts to be posted by certain establishments — at least the second time the Trump administration has inserted itself into a local case.”

The Times article noted that, “The most recent case involves a lawsuit filed in July by a group of trade organizations representing restaurants and convenience stores; the suit challenges a city law, which went into effect in May, that requires certain establishments to provide calorie counts and other nutritional information about menu items and other prepared food.

“The plaintiffs have asked a judge to grant an injunction to keep the city from enforcing the law, which it plans to start doing on Monday. A federal judge will hold a hearing in the case in Manhattan on Wednesday.

“The fight dates to efforts by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg to promote healthier eating and combat obesity, including the city’s original menu-labeling law that went into effect in 2008 and mandated that chain restaurants post calorie counts.”

Mr. Neuman added that, “The new law, like the federal rules, expanded the original New York legislation to include chain grocery stores and convenience stores that sell prepared foods like hot dogs, sandwiches or some salad bar items. It also required restaurants and stores that are covered by the law to provide additional nutritional information about prepared foods, including nutrient contents and ingredients, and to post a statement about the daily recommended dietary intake of 2,000 calories.

“Many chain outlets are already in compliance with the law, and most if not all had continued to provide calorie counts for menu items required by the original New York City law.

“But in the lawsuit, the group of trade organizations argued that the federal law pre-empted the city labeling law, and so the city was barred from carrying it out.”

Bryce Gray reported today at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch Online that, “Scientists tracking reported dicamba damage released new data Monday that show the controversial weedkiller’s suspected footprint widening significantly, as numbers of investigations and estimated acres of soybeans injured spiral ever higher, especially across the Midwest.

“The data, compiled by Kevin Bradley, a plant sciences professor at the University of Missouri, now show complaints about the herbicide’s off-target movement have been made in 21 states, in a broad area stretching from North Dakota to Georgia.

“Through surveys of state departments of agriculture, the findings identify at least 2,242 official investigations into dicamba damage nationwide, as of Aug. 10. Estimates from state extension weed scientists, meanwhile, show suspected dicamba damage has affected at least 3.1 million acres of soybeans overall — an area approaching the size of Connecticut.”

Mr. Gray noted that, “The numbers are significant not just for their size and scale, but also for the rate at which they’ve leapt since Bradley conducted a similar survey just three weeks prior, when there were 1,411 investigations in the country across an estimated 2.5 million acres.”

Brianna Clark reported earlier this week at WPSD-TV (Paducah, Ky.) Online that, “Local farmer [Hickman, Ky.], Jacob Goodman, says thousands of acres of crops have been damaged by an herbicide he didn’t use.

“The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says it received hundreds of complaints from several different states about dicamba, a weed-killing chemical, suspected of ruining soybeans.

“‘We have sprayed products side-by-side one another for years with minimal issue, occasionally you’ll see some drift,’ says Goodman. ‘But now, we’re seeing products that are being sprayed side-by-side to one another and entire fields are being damaged by it.'”

Ms. Clark noted that, “Dicamba isn’t new but Goodman says some farmers are using it in a new way this year: spraying it over soybeans that are genetically modified to withstand the chemical. But not every farmer grows the same beans, Goodman included. He says the chemical drifted onto his soybeans and now 2,300 acres are damaged; a potential loss of nearly $400,000.”

The article added that, “The Kentucky Department of Agriculture says it received 10 complaints about damages from suspected dicamba drift. Goodman says many local farmers are not reporting their damages because they don’t want their neighbors to face fines.”

An Associated Press article from last week reported that, “A task force will look at an herbicide that was temporarily banned by the state after hundreds of complaints from farmers who say it damaged their crops.

“The Agriculture Department on Monday announced the 19 members who will serve on the task force to review dicamba, investigate problems with its use and make long term recommendations. The panel will hold its first meeting on Aug. 17.

“Dicamba is a relatively inexpensive weed killer, but can drift and damage nearby row crops such as soybeans and cotton in addition to fruit and vegetable farms and ornamental trees. Arkansas has temporarily banned its sale and use. The Plant Board received more than 845 complaints this year about dicamba’s use.”

The AP article noted that, “The Missouri Department of Agriculture last month lifted a temporary ban on the use and sale of agricultural products that contain dicamba. The department said it’s satisfied by new safeguards involving the chemical.

“Missouri issued the ban after receiving more than 130 complaints that the chemical had drifted onto farm land, damaging thousands of acres of crops. The order for Xtendimax, Engenia and FeXapan herbicides was lifted after special provisions and safeguards for using the technology were developed and approved with the herbicide makers’ cooperation.”

Bob Susnjara reported last week at the Daily Herald Online that, “The movement to grow backyard chickens has caused controversy in many suburbs, so it should be no surprise that a proposal to house thousands of them just outside North Barrington’s village limits is drawing resistance from the birds’ prospective neighbors.

“If approved, a plan calls for the cluckers to be used for egg production on a large-scale poultry farm at the southwest corner of Scott Road and Route 59. The site is a little more than 5 acres and has an agricultural zoning classification, which may make it hard to derail the plan.”

The article noted that, “Anoosh Varda, who owns the land with his wife, said an outside company would operate the farm strictly for egg production. While some residents living near the site have publicly voiced opposition, Varda said he believes they’ll like the end result after three barns are completed.

“‘We’re in compliance with Lake County and we’re doing our best with construction,’ Varda said. ‘Once we’re finished, everything will look much nicer than the neighbors are expecting. But we still have a few more months to go.'”

Last week’s article added that, “Odor, noise and environmental concerns were raised by the opponents about the few hundred chickens on the land now and the thousands more that might soon arrive.

“Kevin Johnson, who lives in unincorporated Lake County on North Barrington’s border, said he first noticed the chickens a few months ago. He contends the animals don’t belong in a residential area and the situation would worsen in a large-scale chicken farm.

“‘The odor is terrible, depending upon the wind and the weather,’ Johnson said.”

“[Eric Waggoner, director of the Lake County planning, building and development department] said state law opens the door to the proposed chicken operation. He said sites greater than 5 acres in unincorporated areas are exempt from local zoning and building codes if used for verified agricultural purposes,” the article said.

The Associated Press reported yesterday that, “A legal settlement between ABC and a South Dakota meat producer in a defamation lawsuit over the network’s reports on a beef product that critics dubbed ‘pink slime’ exceeded $177 million, an attorney for the producer said Wednesday.

“Disney, which owns ABC, disclosed a $177 million legal settlement charge in a filing with a government securities regulator this week that didn’t specifically link it to South Dakota-based Beef Products Inc. BPI attorney Dan Webb said that based on the disclosure, it appears Disney is funding $177 million of the settlement and insurers are ‘paying the rest.'”

The AP article noted that, “BPI and ABC announced the settlement in June while the case was at trial. BPI could have been seeking damages as high as $1.9 billion, according to the SEC filing from Disney.

“BPI sued in 2012, saying ABC’s coverage of its lean, finely textured beef product misled consumers into believing the product is unsafe, is not beef and isn’t nutritious.

“ABC spokeswoman Julie Townsend said in a June statement that throughout the case the network maintained its reports accurately presented the facts and views of ‘knowledgeable people’ about the product.”

DTN writer Todd Neeley reported earlier this week that, “U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt is expected to visit 26 states in all before undertaking an eventual overhaul of the waters of the United States, or WOTUS, rule.

“State and federal government leaders, as well as farmers in Iowa, met with the administrator in a roundtable discussion held at the Iowa Farm Bureau headquarters in Des Moines on Tuesday, an event that was closed to the media.

“Craig Hill, president of the Iowa Farm Bureau, said during a news conference following the meeting that Pruitt emphasized the need for cooperative federalism and to put in place a rule easily understood by farmers and ranchers.”

Mr. Neeley noted that, “Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, said after meeting with Pruitt that he believes the next rule will be entirely different.

“‘If another person had been elected president, farmers would need a permit to do normal farming operations,’ Grassley said.

“‘The previous administration was more interested in control of private property rather than the environment. It is quite obvious the interest of the family farmer was not taken into consideration by the previous administration.'”

The DTN article added that, “Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds said Pruitt’s approach to partnering with state officials on improving water quality was an important step toward rewriting the rule.”