With the establishment of long-awaited federal rules on industrial hemp production, California farmers and others in the hemp business raised concerns about key aspects of the new rules that conflict with the state’s proposed plan.
California currently operates under emergency hemp regulations, which were approved in April, opening the door for county agricultural commissioners to begin registering farmers for industrial hemp cultivation.
Many counties held off on doing so until state sampling and testing regulations for the crop were approved in June, while others continue to hold bans or moratoriums on hemp production.
Yolo County is no exception. On Tuesday, the Board of Supervisors is holding a public hearing at which it will probably extend the temporary moratorium on industrial hemp cultivation within the unincorporated areas of the county and “adding a limited exemption for indoor cultivation for nursery stock transplants, research or seed breeding.” The prohibition has been in place since January this year and is set to expire on Jan. 15, 2020.
In late October, county staff asked for direction on whether to extend the moratorium, but after an hour-long discussion that included an update on the past several months, comments by the public and chatting amongst the supervisors, they decided to have staff return to a future meeting with strategies for indoor grows in 2020 while the overall ban continues.
They would use the year to develop a broader plan for 2021 and beyond.
Concerns like cross-pollination with outdoor licensed cannabis farms, difficulty differentiating between hemp and cannabis and disruptive odors have persisted.
“I think the two (marijuana and hemp) ultimately can co-exist we just don’t know how to make that happen today and want to do it right,” said Supervisor Jim Provenza at the Oct. 22 meeting.
The California Department of Food and Agriculture said it is reviewing the federal interim final rule to determine impacts on the state program. The federal rule became effective Oct. 31 and includes provisions for the U.S. Department of Agriculture to approve state and tribal hemp production plans. USDA will accept written comments on its rule until Dec. 30. State law requires CDFA to submit a state hemp plan to USDA by May 1.
Because draft state regulations were released before the federal rules, there are discrepancies between the two, said Taylor Roschen, a policy advocate for the California Farm Bureau Federation. The state will “very likely” need to adjust its rules so that they comply with what USDA has put forth, she added, and said CFBF will submit comments on both the federal and draft state regulations.
A key concern for farmers is the potential for their hemp crop to test “hot,” or above the 0.3% limit for tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, the psychoactive compound in cannabis.
Under USDA rules, farmers face stricter sampling and testing requirements for THC levels than what current state rules call for. For one, federal rules require farmers to sample their crop at least 15 days before harvest, while state rules allow growers 30 days.
At a meeting of the California Industrial Hemp Advisory Board last week, farmers and other stakeholders voiced concern about the “huge time crunch” the federal rule would create, especially if there is a backlog at the testing lab and results are not back in time. They said they were also confused by whether the 15-day window marks the beginning or end of harvest, which could take multiple weeks in a new agricultural sector with limited mechanical harvesting and available employees.
Another concern is the availability of testing labs, of which there is already a shortage in the state, growers said. USDA requires testing be done by labs registered by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, whereas the state allows CDFA to make some decisions on what labs are approved. Depending on how many labs would want to register with DEA for hemp sampling and testing, this federal requirement could create another bottleneck, Roschen said.
There’s also question about what part of the plant should be sampled and tested. Federal rules require growers to sample the top flower portion of the plant, where THC content is most concentrated, especially as the plant grows closer to its harvest date. Under the state’s proposed plan, samples are taken from different parts of the plant, including the flowers, leaves, stalks and stems, creating a composite sample.
Another discrepancy between state and federal rules is what constitutes total THC. State rules require testing for delta-9 THC, the primary psychoactive component of cannabis, whereas federal rules call for testing for both delta-9 THC and THC-A, a nonpsychoactive version that converts to delta-9 THC when heated to a certain point during the testing process.
Sierra Valley hemp farmer Dave Roberti said the more stringent USDA sampling and testing requirements would cause THC results to spike “way up,” making it “really hard for people to stay under the 0.3%” threshold.
“The testing procedures are going to hinder people from getting into growing hemp,” he said. “If it stands the way it is, I think there’s going to be a lot of guys who say, ‘I’m not taking the risk. I’m not even going to try this.’ And I don’t blame them. I’m not sure that I would.”
As growers learn how to grow this new crop, Roberti said he would like to see researchers at the University of California help farmers understand more about the plant and its growth pattern, especially as it relates to hemp grown for cannabidiol, or CBD. The nonpsychoactive compound is being marketed for its purported health benefits and pharmaceutical uses, and demand for CBD has largely driven the current growth and interest in hemp production.
As of Nov. 1, CDFA recorded a total 35,320 registered acres of industrial hemp, with 33,318 acres farmed by 465 registered growers and 2,002 acres belonging to 85 registered seed breeders. Of the state’s 58 counties, 32 have registered hemp acreage. Kern County leads with 8,150 acres, followed by Riverside County at 7,268 acres, Fresno County at 3,602 acres and Imperial County at 3,308 acres.
Roberti said growers need more information about how to maximize the plant’s CBD levels while staying within regulatory limits for THC. They also want to know whether THC spikes at a certain time in the growing season and if stress plays a role.
Though not “a whole lot of data” is available yet, according to UC Cooperative Extension specialist Bob Hutmacher, some observations have emerged from a couple of small trials conducted this year at UC Davis and the UC West Side Research and Extension Center in Fresno County. The initial studies included an experiment on planting density, comparing different cultivars and a breeding-observation block representing a range of genetics. Researchers also battled corn ear worms on their small plots and were forced to use a pesticide to reduce damage to developing buds.
On the impact of different environmental conditions and plant maturity on raising concentrations of the plant’s different compounds, Hutmacher said “there’s a little bit of literature out there that would go along with the idea,” but added, “that sort of remains to be seen.” A more dominant factor affecting the THC-CBD profile of the crop is plant cultivar, he said, and growers should look to their seed or transplant provider as the primary source of information when selecting cultivars.
Though the UC experiment this year was “fairly narrow,” Hutmacher said it provided researchers “a learning experience,” adding that growers also had “a crash course,” with some having planted multiple varieties this year.
“They’ve learned a lot, so we can learn some things from them,” he said, “and hopefully we can add something to the picture.”
Click here to view original web page at www.dailydemocrat.com