ASSESSING DROUGHT IMPACT ON TREE HEALTH

The recent rainfall has certainly been welcomed, and we can only hope that when Santa comes to visit in a few days, more rainfall will be packaged up and brought to the great state of Texas! With that hope and wish, here is some reality as it relates to those plants we call trees, which we value greatly in the hot summer months, as they provide shade and relief from that hot Texas sunshine.
One of the worst droughts in state history and it’s creating disastrous effects on trees and forests across the state, according to staff of the Texas Forest Service. After one of the driest years on record, many shade trees went into dormancy as early as August, dropping their leaves and branches in a desperate act of self-preservation. Meanwhile, pine trees with normally thick, green crowns ended up cloaked in red, dead needles while foliage on cedar trees turned completely brown.
The sight has created a dramatic effect on the Texas landscape and left many landowners wondering whether or not their tree is dead — or if it might recover and produce new leaves next spring.
Assessing trees damaged or killed by drought can be tricky, according to Dr. Ronald Billings, Texas Forest Service Forest Health Manager. He suggests grouping the trees into three different categories — definitely dead, likely to live and questionable — to help with the task.

Definitely Dead
It is easier to make this call for pines, Ashe junipers (cedars) and other needle-bearing, conifer trees. The determination can be more difficult for hardwoods, which are more commonly thought of as shade trees. In most cases, a red pine is a dead pine, Billings said, explaining that the same can be said for cedars with red needles. Once all or most of the foliage of a pine or cedar tree turns red or brown, the tree is incapable of recovering.
Pine trees in this stage probably are already infested with tree-killing bark beetles and will eventually harbor wood-boring insects, termites and other critters. Such trees should be cut down and removed, particularly if they are likely to fall on homes, buildings or power lines.
Shade trees — like water oaks, for example — that have lost all their foliage and are beginning to drop limbs or lose large patches of bark are most likely already dead and should be removed. Hypoxylon canker, a fungus that appears as gray or brown patches on the trunk of the tree, is another sign of a dead shade tree.

Likely to Live
This category includes shade trees with at least some green or yellow leaves still attached to the limbs. In fact, even those that have dropped all their leaves may still be alive. Some native shade trees, such as post oaks and live oaks, are more drought resistant than others like water oaks or elms.
You can use a scratch test to determine if the tree is dead or just dormant. If you scrape the bark off a small branch or limb and find green, moist tissue underneath, the tree is still hanging on, waiting for the next rain. That means you may need to wait until spring to see if the tree makes a recovery — unless the tree starts to drop large branches and patches of bark, which is a sign of death. If there is no green, moist tissue, the tree is likely dead.
An exception is the baldcypress, which also is known as a cypress tree. The tree is a conifer, but unlike pines and cedars, its foliage generally turns red and drops from the tree in the fall or during periods of drought stress. Cypress trees usually will re-sprout in the spring. If in doubt, apply the scratch test or wait until spring to be sure.
Pines with a few yellow or red needles scattered throughout an otherwise green canopy have a good chance at survival. Pine trees typically shed a large portion of their older needles every year as winter approaches, and then put on new needles in the spring.
Though it’s not as feasible to water your forest, any yard trees that show signs of life (green inner tissues or green foliage) should be watered deeply to reduce lingering drought stress.

Questionable
Questionable trees are those that appear to fit somewhere between the Definitely Dead and Likely to Live categories. A pine that is topped with brown or red needles but still has green foliage in its lower branches is alive, but likely will eventually die. That’s because bark beetles likely will invade the lower trunk at some point, killing the tree in stages.
When inspecting a questionable pine tree, look for popcorn-sized masses of resin (pitch tubes) or brown dust in the bark fissures. These are early signs of attacks by pine bark beetles. The foliage of the infested pine may still be green, but the tree is doomed. This is particularly true if you find bark beetle galleries or trails beneath the bark. Pines with these signs of bark beetle attack should be removed as soon as possible.
In the case of shade trees, those that have many dead or dying limbs or mostly bare branches may or may not survive. A few green, yellow or red leaves may remain for awhile as the tree slowly dies, or it may recover when rains return. It’s important to note that not all trees may be stressed from the drought alone. Some trees may also be suffering from insect infestations, disease or other forest health problems. If you’re unsure or have any questions, visit the Texas Forest Service web site or check with a certified arborist, forester or tree care professional.
Deciding whether to remove a questionable tree can be a tough decision for both property owners and professional tree care experts. Removal should be considered if a severely drought-stressed or fire-damaged tree is close to a house or other structure on which it might fall. If it is away from such areas, it may be more feasible to wait and see if the tree makes a comeback. For more information regarding trees visit this web site; http://texasforestservice.tamu.edu

CONFERENCE HIGHLIGHTS OLD PROBLEMS WITH NEW SOLUTIONS

    Recently I participated in the Texas Plant Protection Conference held in College Station, Texas.  For the past 21 years, the non-profit professional Texas Plant Protection Association (TPPA) has sponsored educational conferences for those involved in production agriculture.  This year some of the issues we have been dealing with for years received more attention including aflatoxin and cotton root rot.
    Aflatoxin is toxin produced by a fungus that grows in some grain and oilseed crops. It is a cross-cutting issue affecting both humans and animals, said Dr. Tim Herrman, director of the Office of the State Chemist headquartered in College Station.  Sampling for the fungus has been an issue for many years.  Previously, without a standardized test, multiple results led to confusion among sample testing, Herrman said.  “In fact, multiple tests conducted by multiple agencies have multiple outcomes. To help bring together these multiple activities into a single activity, with encouragement of the Texas Corn Producers Board, Office of the State Chemist advisory committee and Texas Farm Bureau, we have launched the one sample strategy.”
    “The one-sample program is science-based adoption to risk management,” Herrman said.
Contamination is both a food safety and public health issue, because at high doses the toxin can lead to serious illness, including acute liver cirrhosis and death in both humans and animals, Herrman said.  “At sub-lethal doses, aflatoxin exposure could increase risk of liver cancer,” Herrman said.
    The one-sample strategy is a voluntary program administered by the Office of the Texas State Chemist, a regulatory agency headquartered in College Station and part of AgriLife Research. The program incorporates U.S. Department of Agriculture sampling methods outlined in the USDA Risk Management Agency Loss Adjustment Manual Program, Herrman said.
Participants must use Federal Grain Inspection Service-approved test kits validated by the state chemist office for measuring aflatoxin up to 1,000 parts per billion.
    Herrman said state chemist office field investigators conduct on-site training of grain industry personnel on how to perform sampling for aflatoxin testing using official procedures. He said the field investigators “serve as the competent authority to ensure that official procedures are followed during harvest.”     Since the one sample test began, Herrman said tests have gone from a 60 percent deviation to 23 percent current deviation on test results.   For more information about the one sample program, visit http://otscweb.tamu.edu/Risk/OneSample/Default.aspx
    Another issue addressed was the control of cotton root rot, caused by Phymatotrichopsis omnivora.  Dr. Tom Isakeit, Professor and Extension Plant Pathologist reported that despite the drought of 2011, he was successful in obtaining data confirming a reduction in root rot and an increase in cotton yields with Topguard applied to the soil at planting, confirming experiments done in 2010.  Dr. Isakeit also suggested they found that fungicide is not needed in very dry years as there is little root rot disease development in drought years.
    Cheminova, Inc. has been working with researchers at Texas A&M University to develop Topguard fungicide for control of cotton root rot.  This project has been ongoing for the last four years refining the rate of application, timing, and placement for effective and safe control of the disease.  Cheminova  Inc is supporting the Texas Department of Agriculture’s submission for a Section 18 exemption to allow use of Topguard applied at 1-2pt/ac as a T-band for control of cotton root rot for the 2012 season.

SUNFLOWER PRODUCTION SEMINAR SLATED

    A South Texas Sunflower Production Seminar will be held on Thursday, December 15, 2011 at the Jim Wells County Fairgrounds (3001 South Johnson) in Alice.  Rising prices along with increased demand for sunflowers have stimulated renewed interest in this native American crop.
    The seminar will begin with registration at 8 am followed by speaker presentations at 8:45 am.  Topics will include overview of local Sunflower Production, Sunflower Production Tips, Insect Pest Management, Weed Management, Local Hybrid Test Results, Sunflower Marketing, Crop Insurance Options, and Updates from Sunflower Industry Representatives. Speakers will include experts from the Texas AgriLife Extension Service, Sunflower Industry representatives and local industry representatives.  Following a catered lunch, there will be a tour of the Alice Grain Sunflower Cleaning Facilities.
    To ensure adequate meal and facility arrangements all planning to attend should pre-register by December 14 by calling the Jim Wells County Extension Office at 361-668-5705.
Participants will be awarded 2 CEU’s for seminar participation.  This workshop is being sponsored by the Texas AgriLife Extension Service and the Jim Wells County Field Crops Committee.

Individuals with disabilities, who require an auxiliary aid, service or accommodation in order to participate in any of the mentioned activities, are encouraged to contact the County Extension Office at 361-668-5705 at least eight days before all programs for assistance. Educational programs of the Texas AgriLife Extension Service are open to all citizens without regard to race, color, sex, disability, religion, age or national origin.

HAY SELECTION TIPS FOR HORSE OWNERS

    In this time of drought and short hay supplies, horse owners should be careful when shopping for hay sources.  Some horse owners have shared some stories with me recently about hay dealers that are making some unusual claims about their hay quality and quantity in the bale including having nutrients that would improve ease of mare foaling to selling bales that were suppose to weigh over 1,000 pounds, yet when delivered the bales could be pushed around like they weighed 200 pounds.  Its important to find a hay dealer who does not mind if you ask questions, check the entire lot of hay you are purchasing before unloading.  If you are not familiar with the hay dealer, ask for references.  After all, being a knowledgeable hay buyer is part of being a responsible horse owner.
    Now lets focus on what kind of hay is acceptable for horses.  There are many different types of hay that are suited for horse feeding programs.  The popularity of a particular type is usually influenced by the geographical area of concern.  Here in the south, coastal bermudgrass is well adapted and thus quite popular.  As you move north in the country, alfalfa, timothy, orchardgrass and alfalfa-grass mixes become more popular.  Because of the potential for health problems, kleingrass, johnsongrass, sudangrass and sorghum/sudan hybrids are not recommended for horses.
    When choosing a type of hay to feed to horses there are several factors that should be considered.  Most important is cleanliness, followed by nutrient value, and the type of horse that is being fed.
    The best hay is clean hay when it comes to feeding horses.  If hay is moldy or dusty, it should not be fed to horses.  Hay that contains dust or mold can inflame their respiratory tract and impair breathing ability.   Hay with mold or dust suggests that conditions in the field when hay was cut and baled were not ideal.  Is the hay insect free?  Alfalfa hay may be infected with blister beetles. When a horse eats a blister beetle, a chemical in the beetle causes colic, fever, and eventually death.
    Color is often used to determine hay quality yet it can deceiving and overestimated as an indicator of quality.  Although bright green hay often indicates the absence of rain damage and good harvest conditions, color can be misleading.  Bright green weeds can add color yet lower quality of hay and make it unpalatable.
    The biggest factor that affects nutrient content within a type of hay is the stage of maturity at harvest.  Hay that is cut very early in the forages growth stage often has a soft texture, is very leafy, and has a high nutrient density and palatability.  Forages cut at this stage are cut soon after the seedheads emerge with grasses or before the plant begins to bloom with legumes.  In contrast, forages harvested in late maturity will have coarse, thick stems and less leaf material.  Bottom line, the older the maturity of the plant at harvest, the lower the nutrient value and palatability.
The best way to evaluate the nutrient value of a hay sample is to have a chemical analysis performed form a lab like the Forage Testing Lab at Texas A&M University.  A submittal form and sampling instructions can be found at this web site; http://soiltesting.tamu.edu/files/Forageweb2.pdf
    Another option for a hay source would be hay cubes.  There are two possible advantages to feeding hay cubes over baled hay; one would be there is less dust than long hay and the other would be less waste. Hay cubes are usually more expensive than baled hay and consumption of cubes may be greater than baled hay.
    To get the most value from hay it would be best to have some type of hay feeder.  Hay feeders will reduce the amount of hay that the horses waste and in may cases can reduce waste by more than 20%.
    More information about hay sources may be found at the Texas Department of Agriculture web site “Hay Hotline”  http://www.gotexan.org/HayhotlineHome.aspx

DROUGHT TOLERANT SESAME HURT BY LACK OF RAIN

Sesame harvest  in Nueces County, Texas

    Sesame, a broadleaf summer crop was introduced to the Coastal Bend about four years ago when we had about 30,000 acres of failed cotton, and we were looking for a late summer crop that liked hot, dry weather.  That year we were lucky and received some timely summer rains and we made a respectable sesame crop.  This year was a bit of a challenge, with very limited rainfall during the growing season.   This year we had about 6,000 acres of sesame grown in the Coastal Bend that produced an average yield of 375 pounds per acre, with very limited rainfall.
    With that said, the demand and market for sesame continues to grow.  This summer I was introduced to some sesame buyers from Japan, that were really interested in how we grow sesame locally.  They also shared with me the growing demand for sesame in Japan and were hoping to meet that growing demand with U.S. grown sesame.  It is always good when folks from other parts of the world come to you wanting to buy home grown Ag products.  Then we have to deal with reality and the drought of 2011.
    Under ideal conditions, sesame can reach heights up to 5 to 6 feet, and generally we see heights of 3 to 5 feet in dryland production, with yields from 500 to 1,200 pounds per acre.  This year, test plots that I evaluated only reached heights of 2.2 feet and yields only averaged 255 pounds per acre.  Sure needed that rain in July and August.
    The most critical aspect to growing sesame is planting, as one needs to wait until soil temperatures reach 70 degrees F in the morning and then have adequate moisture in the top 1.5 inches of soil.  Often times sesame growers find themselves waiting on a planting rain, as the seed needs to have moisture around it for 3 to 5 days for good emergence.  This fact alone, made it challenging this year to find the optimum planting window.  We found ourselves in the situation of waiting on that planting rain, which finally came in early May and allowed us to plant following the rainfall event.
       A Sesame Variety Test was planted on May 17, 2011, at Clarkwood at the Texas AgriLife Research & Extension Center in a randomized complete replicated block with four replications, following the early May rainfall in 38-inch rows, using 45 hole sorghum planter plates and placed to a seeding depth of 1.25 inches.  Seed was planted at 2.5 pounds per acre.  During the growing season, total rainfall received only amounted to 0.88 inch.  Six varieties were evaluated for agronomic performance.  Final plant heights ranged from a low of 21.3 inches to a high of 29.8 inches, with 14 to 16 nodes per plant. Soil moisture stress late in the growing season, resulted in the charcoal rot developing in all varieties.
    Test plots were harvested on September 13, 2011 with yields ranging from a low of 225 pounds per acre for the variety of S28 to a high of 284 pounds per acre for S33.  Despite the poor yields due to a lack of rainfall, prices were good, as the majority of sesame growers had forty-cents per pound contracts and then were paid a bonus of three-cents per pound.
    Results from the 2011 Sesame Variety Trials conducted by Nueces County Extension Staff and Texas AgriLife Research have been posted online at the Nueces County Extension website at; http://nueces.agrilife.org/ under the publications link.  The support of SESACO, Sesame Coordinators, for supplying seed and supporting the test is greatly appreciated.  A detailed report is available at this website or may be obtained in the County Extension Office upon request.

COTTON RESULTS POSTED

    Results from the 2011 Cotton Variety Trials conducted by Nueces County Extension Staff and cooperating farmers have been posted online at the Nueces County Extension website at; http://nueces.agrilife.org/ under the publications link.  A detailed report is available at this website or may be obtained in the County Extension Office upon request.  Yields were above average and with the limited amount of rainfall received during the growing season, growers were pleased with results.
    A Liberty Link Cotton Variety Trial was conducted by Darrell Lawhon in the Concordia area in which four varieties were evaluated.  The best performing variety was FiberMax 1845 LLB2 at 944 pounds of lint per acre, while the trial averaged 879 pounds of lint per acre.
    A Uniform Stacked-Gene Cotton Variety Trial was conducted by Jim Massey IV near Robstown in which nine commercial varieties were evaluated.  The best performing varieties in this trial with no statistical difference were PHY 499 WRF at 858 pounds of lint per acre and DP 1044 B2F at 804 pounds of lint per acre. The trial averaged 766 pounds of lint per acre.
    A Conventional Cotton Variety Trial was conducted by Edward and Russell Jungmann north of Bishop in which eight commercial varieties were evaluated.  The best performing varieties in this trial with no statistical differences were; ARK 222-12 at 994 pounds lint/acre, ARK 114-53 at 991 pounds lint/acre, ARK 9803-23-04 at 963 pounds lint/acre and SSG HQ210CT at 935 pounds lint/acre.  The trial averaged 934 pounds lint/acre.
    One cotton planting system that seems to be growing in popularity in recent years in the Coastal Bend is that of skip-row cotton.  In an effort to address the economics of comparing the skip-row vs. solid row or conventional planting system, a trial was established with Edward and Russell Jungmann north of Bishop.   The cotton variety PHY 375 WRF was  planted in a replicated study with four replications in a randomized complete block design in 30-inch row spacing.
    In the final analysis, there was not a statistical difference in lint yield per acre between the solid row and skip-row systems.  The solid row yield was 803 pounds of lint per acre while the skip-row yielded 729 pounds of lint per acre.  In a partial budget analysis, assuming a lint price from a USDA report on 9/29/11, the gross lint value ranged from about $750/acre for solid row vs. $690/acre for skip row.  If one factors in the input costs of each system, in this particular trial, there was a $7.95/acre advantage with the conventional system if you owned the cotton picker, and a $15.92/acre advantage with the conventional system if one used a custom operator to harvest.  In another year with different weather conditions, results might have been different, thus more side by side evaluation of these two production systems is needed and is planned.
    Another cotton trial that was conducted with Darrell Lawhon, near Concordia, evaluated different cotton plant densities.  Cotton variety FM 835 LLB2 was planted in a replicated study in a randomized complete block design with three replications at two, four, and six seed per foot, with seed costs per acre ranging from $34 to $102 per acre.  There was not a statistical difference in yield between the three planting densities and yields were as follows; 2 seed/ft - 822 lbs. lint/ac, 4 seed/ft - 869 lbs. lint/ac, and 6 seed/ft - 852 lbs. lint/ac.  However, when the seed cost is considered the 4 seed/ft is the most economical.  This same trial was conducted last year and the 4 seed/ft density was also the most economical as well.

New Ag Regs To Impact Producers

Recent developments in new Agricultural regulations impacting local farmers will be discussed at a meeting on Friday, October 21, 2011 at the Texas AgriLife Research & Extension Center in Corpus Christi (10345, HWY 44) from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m.

            Topics of discussion will include the EPA On-Farm Oil/Fuel Storage Regulation or also referred to as the SPCC rule. As a result of this new regulation, certain facilities are required to develop plans that describe oil storage containers, emergency contacts, response personnel, and provide adequate countermeasures to a discharge of oil.  A representative from EPA will be available to review the regulation along with George Caldwell, Associate Director of Commodity and Regulatory Activities for Texas Farm Bureau.

            The requirements for tax exempt numbers for the purchase of certain items used in the production of agricultural and timber products become law in 2012. Procedures to obtain the tax exempt number will be discussed by Dr. Larry Falconer, Extension Economist.

            This meeting is being sponsored by the Texas AgriLife Extension Service and the Nueces and San Patricio County Farm Bureau.  For more details please call 361-767-5223.

Individuals with disabilities, who require an auxiliary aid, service or accommodation in order to participate in any of the mentioned activities, are encouraged to contact the County Extension Office at 361-767-5223 at least eight days before all programs for assistance.  Educational programs of the Texas AgriLife Extension Service are open to all citizens without regard to race, color, sex, disability, religion, age or national origin.

Continued Drought Requires Better Risk Management

            Dry weather and high input prices are making crop production and marketing risk management decisions even more difficult for 2012. A one day workshop focusing on Crop Risk Management will be held on Tuesday, October 25, 2011 at the Texas AgriLife Research & Extension Center at Corpus Christi (10345, HWY 44) from 9 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.  The workshop will focus on incorporating crop insurance products with marketing strategies to help develop a marketing plan to manage production and marketing risk that improves overall farm risk management.

            The workshop will be conducted by Extension Grain and Cotton Marketing Specialists.  A new software tool will be demonstrated that will evaluate risk implications with various insurance alternatives.  The software will be made available to all workshop participants.  A market outlook for feed grains and cotton will be given with implications for planting and marketing decisions.  The workshop will conclude with a hands-on decision exercise where participants will choose crops, insurance products, pre-harvest market strategies and post-harvest marketing strategies.  This exercise is a realistic learning activity designed to integrate the discussion about crop mix, production costs, insurance, marketing, and risk.

            Registration fee is $20 per participant which includes lunch and workshop materials.  Pre-registration is required as space is limited so make your reservations early by contacting the Nueces County Extension Office at 361-767-5223.  Participants are asked to pre-register by Friday, October 21, 2011.  This workshop is being sponsored by Texas AgriLife Extension Service, Texas Ag Finance, Capital Farm Credit, Frontier Risk Management, and Secrest Crop Insurance.

Individuals with disabilities, who require an auxiliary aid, service or accommodation in order to participate in any of the mentioned activities, are encouraged to contact the County Extension Office at 361-767-5223 at least eight days before all programs for assistance.  Educational programs of the Texas AgriLife Extension Service are open to all citizens without regard to race, color, sex, disability, religion, age or national origin.

SORGHUM BOARD NOMINATIONS SOUGHT

The Texas Grain Sorghum Producers Board (TGSB) is now accepting nomination forms for open board positions across Texas. Nomination forms must be filed with TGSB by October 14, 2011 and the biennial paper-ballot elections will be held and must be postmarked by November 14, 2011. There are current terms of five of the fifteen board members expiring, and elected directors will serve six-year terms. Two directors will be elected from the North District, one from the Central District and two from the South District.  The South District includes 37 counties including Nueces, San Patricio, Jim Wells, and Live Oak. Nomination forms will be available at your local elevator or county extension office or they may be obtained by contacting Morgan at morgan@texassorghum.org or at (806) 438-5994.

EPA OIL STORAGE REGS IMPACT FARMERS

            The Oil, Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) program was put in place by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to prevent oil spills into waters of the United States.  This program recently expanded regulations to include some farms.  As a result of these regulations, certain facilities are required to develop SPCC Plans that describe oil storage containers, emergency contacts and response personnel, procedures, and training to prevent, control, and provide adequate countermeasures to a discharge of oil.       

What farm facilities are covered by the SPCC program?  The basics: your farm facility is covered by this program if you store more than 1,320 gallons of oil in above ground bulk containers, including containers (drums, totes, aboveground storage tanks (ASTs), nurse tanks, well pumps, hydraulic lifts, etc.) with a storage capacity of 55 gallons and above, and your facilities have a “reasonable expectation of an oil discharge” to water.  Common types of oil covered under SPCC found at farms include diesel fuel, gasoline, lube oil, hydraulic oil, and mineral oil.

            In order to define what is meant by “reasonable expectation of an oil discharge” to water, consider the geography and location of your farm facility relative to nearby waters.  Determine if drainage near your fuel storage facility or precipitation runoff could transport an oil spill to a nearby water body.  Exclude any man-made features like dikes or other structures when determining potential oil spill movement to waterways.  If oil can reasonably flow to a body of water, and your fuel storage facility meets the 1,320 gallon threshold, then your facility is covered by SPCC.

            If your farm fuel storage facility is covered by the SPCC, your facility must take steps to prevent oil spills, and you need an SPCC Plan.  If you have an aboveground oil storage capacity greater than 10,000 gallons, you will need to have your Plan certified by a Professional Engineer.  If you have 10,000 gallons or less and a clean spill history, you may self-certify your Plan. Your Plan should describe the oil handling operations, spill prevention practices, spill clean-up procedures, discharge or drainage controls, and the personnel, equipment, and resources at the facility that are used to prevent oil spills from reaching water.  Make a list of your oil containers at your facility and describe the procedures you will use to prevent oil spills.  Moreover, you should describe measures you installed to prevent oil from reaching water, what you will do to contain and clean up an oil spill, and make a list of emergency contacts and first responders. The Plan should be amended and updated as changes are made at your facility and should be reviewed at a minimum every five years to assure it is up-to-date.  Keep your Plan at your site. Tip: If you are eligible to self-certify your Plan, and no aboveground container at your farm is greater than 5,000 gallons, then you may use the Plan template available to download from the EPA at: http://www.epa.gov/oem/content/spcc/tier1temp.htm.

            Oil spills can be prevented by installing dikes or berms around bulk storage containers or by using sorbent materials, drip pans, or curbing in oil transfer areas.  One should periodically inspect and test pipes and containers and develop measures to prevent container overfills.

            In the event you have an oil spill, activate your SPCC Plan to prevent oil from reaching the water body, and implement spill clean-up procedures. If oil gets into the water, notify the NRC at 800-424-8802 immediately, as well as local and state officials.  Notify EPA Region 6 in writing if oil spilled to water is greater than 1,000 gallons in a single event or greater than 42 gallons on two different occasions within a 12 month period.

            All farms and other agricultural facilities must prepare and use an SPCC Plan that meets suggested guidelines by November 10, 2011.  More information is available at the SPCC website for agriculture at: http://www.epa.gov/emergencies/content/spcc/spcc_ag.htm.