Author: Ashley Hinson

CAPCA: Your Bottom Line is Our Priority

By Taylor Triffo, Managing Director of Legislative Affairs at KSC and CAPCA’s Legislative Advocate

California Association of Pest Control Advisors (CAPCA) continues to actively work to save you money. In late February, the California County Agricultural Commissioners and Sealers Association (CACASA) introduced AB 2380, a bill impacting county registration fees for pest control professionals and businesses.

As introduced, AB 2380 proposed repealing longstanding statutory fee limits assessed by County Agricultural Commissioners on Pest Control Advisers (PCAs), pest control businesses, structural pest operators, pilots, and licensees. The original proposal created significant concern across the regulated community due to the potential for substantial increases in registration costs, particularly for professionals and businesses operating in multiple counties, and significantly inconsistent fee rates.

Through ongoing discussions with the author’s office, county agricultural commissioner representatives, and other stakeholders, CAPCA is advocating for several major improvements to the bill that directly benefit you while still preserving resources necessary for county enforcement and regulatory activities.

Most importantly, the proposed amendments would restore reasonable registration fee caps into the bill. Under the current negotiated framework:

These changes are critically important because they preserve the principle that registrants operating across multiple counties should not face duplicative or excessive costs simply for serving growers and agricultural operations throughout California.

CAPCA has also requested to work closely with CACASA to advance development of a modernized virtual registration system in the future. An online platform would improve efficiency for registrants and county offices alike by streamlining paperwork, reducing administrative burdens, and ultimately lowering long-term operational costs.

The bill has now moved to the Senate, and formal negotiations are underway.

CAPCA’s advocacy efforts focus on striking the right balance: ensuring County Agricultural Commissioners retain the resources needed to carry out important regulatory and enforcement responsibilities while protecting PCAs, applicators, pilots, and businesses from unreasonable fee increases.

Separately, AB 1603, legislation banning the use of fluorinated chemistries (pesticides containing PFAS), passed the Assembly, by only two votes. For a body that hears PFAS and immediately thinks “forever chemicals” this is a monumental testament to CAPCA’s growing and positive relationships with state legislators.  During floor debate, several Democratic legislators raised concerns regarding the lack of viable alternatives, increasing regulatory burdens on farmers and applicators, and the growing pressures posed by invasive pests and crop diseases—thereby reinforcing the role of the PCA.

CAPCA will continue working actively on AB 1603 to ensure the interests of pest control advisers and California agriculture remain fully represented as the bill moves through the Senate process.

Connecting the Dots – PCA Conflicts of Interest Data

By Adam Tavares and Gary Silveria

Back in 2023 a study was funded by the Department of Pesticide Regulation through the Sustainable Pest Management Workgroup.  The premise was to evaluate whether “sales PCAs” made different decisions then “independent PCAs” based on assumptions around sales structures and incentives.

Initially the results of the study were buried until the JLAC audit was initiated in June 2025.  At that time, DPR presented a limited summary of the results which found that, regardless of their employment type, PCAs base their recommendations and advice to growers more on risk aversion (agronomics) than on financial incentives.

This study conducted by Jay Rosenheim and Michael Culshaw-Maurer was recently published in the Journal of Pest Science – Conflicts of interest, risk aversion, and pesticide use in California agriculture | Journal of Pest Science.  Rosenheim additionally was generous enough to publish a summary in our own CAPCA Adviser – see December 2025 issue PCAs, Conflicts of Interest and Pesticide Use in California Agriculture on page 42.

So why does this matter to you?  The PCA License was created back in 1972 due to the sales conflict.  The whole premise of the license was built around eradicating that perception, but despite best efforts it continues to follow PCAs.  In the late 1990’s there was proposed legislation to strip PCAs from any type of compensation model to reduce pesticide use.  But CAPCA and industry stakeholders successfully fought back against this faulty assumption.  But it continues to be pervasive in discussions around the Capitol, within Agencies and activist organizations.  While this study is a solid data to point to educate around, it likely will not be enough to shift the tides of perception.

So what do we do about this?  As CAPCA we continue to educate and support the productive evolution of the PCA License so that you can continue to serve as the trusted Adviser in your career space as the industry evolves.  But CAPCA can’t do it for free, our Advocacy is building traction but requires constant staff attention, consultants, a strong PAC and engaged Committee.  Recently, there has not only been a lot of criticism of associations, but an attitude that CAPCA has no value to your license without the ability to track all CE hours.  We would ask you to consider, what value does your license have if it doesn’t exist due to poor assumptions or even the actions of bad actors within the licensing community?  These things rise to the top without a watch dog voice like CAPCA rebutting the assumptions and bringing real world experiences and data back to the table.  That is why we are proud to wrap up the PCA engagement portion of the CDFA grant that captured all the non-chemical decisions and actions you take every day in the field.  From preliminary feedback, we understand this data tells the other side of the story, the why an application may be needed.  In the absence of perspective on pest pressure, scouting and non-chemical actions, outside stakeholders can only draw conclusions on PCA behavior with the PUR.  We know that use shifts from a variety of factors including seasonal pest pressure and climate factors, but from the outside, changes in use whether positive or negative are hard to distinguish.

The 2025 December Adviser article is just the start of an ongoing series of outreach opportunities to highlight data for PCAs and CAPCA to arm ourselves with as we move forward in California’s political landscape.  We hope you will renew your membership and recognize the value of fighting for your license and industry.  We hope you will encourage your employer to become a corporate partner in the coming year or even raise your commitment to invest in this discussion.  We hope that you will consider attending local CAPCA Chapter events or even the CAPCA Conference for your CE requirements.  CAPCA reinvests everything we earn right back into benefiting the PCA license.  No one else is going to do that for you.

DPR Releases 2024 Air Monitoring Network Report

Air samples collected and tested in 2024 found no pesticide detections were above DPR’s health screening levels

PUBLISHED ON November 21, 2025

SACRAMENTO, Calif. – The California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) released its 2024 Air Monitoring Network (AMN) Report, which analyzed over 200 samples collected in four California communities, comparing pesticide detections to health protective thresholds. Last year, no pesticides detected at DPR air monitoring stations exceeded those thresholds.

In 2024, 13 pesticides were detected at quantifiable levels, including 1,3-D, chloropicrin, methyl bromide (MeBr), and methyl isothiocyanate (MITC). All were detected below health protection thresholds, which means health effects are unlikely to occur.

“Monitoring air in agricultural communities helps us better understand potential pesticide exposure and evaluate the effectiveness of our protections,” said DPR Director Karen Morrison.

DPR’s AMN includes four monitoring stations located in Oxnard, Shafter, Santa Maria and Watsonville — agricultural communities with high pesticide use. The stations collect weekly air samples, each of which is tested for 40 pesticides and breakdown products that have higher toxicity, use, or likelihood of becoming airborne.

VIEW THE 2024 AMN REPORT

SAVE THE DATE: DPR will host a series of virtual public meetings in December to provide information on the 2024 AMN Report for the communities where monitors are located.

More information on the meetings is available on DPR’s website.

— California Department of Pesticide Regulation

Link to Original Article (courtesy of Morning Ag Clips)

Photo by Geri Mis on Unsplash

AI Made Its Way to Vineyards. Here’s How the Technology Is Helping Make Your Wine

LOS ANGELES (AP) — When artificial intelligence-backed tractors became available to vineyards, Tom Gamble wanted to be an early adopter. He knew there would be a learning curve, but Gamble decided the technology was worth figuring out.

The third-generation farmer bought one autonomous tractor. He plans on deploying its self-driving feature this spring and is currently using the tractor’s AI sensor to map his Napa Valley vineyard. As it learns each row, the tractor will know where to go once it is used autonomously. The AI within the machine will then process the data it collects and help Gamble make better-informed decisions about his crops — what he calls “precision farming.”

“It’s not going to completely replace the human element of putting your boot into the vineyard, and that’s one of my favorite things to do,” he said. “But it’s going to be able to allow you to work more smartly, more intelligently and in the end, make better decisions under less fatigue.”

Gamble said he anticipates using the tech as much as possible because of “economic, air quality and regulatory imperatives.” Autonomous tractors, he said, could help lower his fuel use and cut back on pollution.

As AI continues to grow, experts say that the wine industry is proof that businesses can integrate the technology efficiently to supplement labor without displacing a workforce. New agricultural tech like AI can help farmers to cut back on waste, and to run more efficient and sustainable vineyards by monitoring water use and helping determine when and where to use products like fertilizers or pest control. AI-backed tractors and irrigation systems, farmer say, can minimize water use by analyzing soil or vines, while also helping farmers to manage acres of vineyards by providing more accurate data on the health of a crop or what a season’s yield will be.

Other facets of the wine industry have also started adopting the tech, from using generative AI to create custom wine labels to turning to ChatGPT to develop, label and price an entire bottle.

“I don’t see anybody losing their job, because I think that a tractor operator’s skills are going to increase and as a result, and maybe they’re overseeing a small fleet of these machines that are out there, and they’ll be compensated as a result of their increased skill level,” he said.

Farmers, Gamble said, are always evolving. There were fears when the tractor replaced horses and mules pulling plows, but that technology “proved itself” just like AI farming tech will, he said, adding that adopting any new tech always takes time.

Companies like John Deere have started using the AI that wine farmers are beginning to adopt. The agricultural giant uses “Smart Apply” technology on tractors, for example, helping growers apply material for crop retention by using sensors and algorithms to sense foliage on grape canopies, said Sean Sundberg, business integration manager at John Deere.

The tractors that use that tech then only spray “where there are grapes or leaves or whatnot so that it doesn’t spray material unnecessarily,” he said. Last year, the company announced a project with Sonoma County Winegrowers to use tech to help wine grape growers maximize their yield.

Tyler Klick, partner at Redwood Empire Vineyard Management, said his company has started automating irrigation valves at the vineyards it helps manage. The valves send an alert in the event of a leak and will automatically shut off if they notice an “excessive” water flow rate.

“That valve is actually starting to learn typical water use,” Klick said. “It’ll learn how much water is used before the production starts to fall off.”

Klick said each valve costs roughly $600, plus $150 per acre each year to subscribe to the service.

“Our job, viticulture, is to adjust our operations to the climatic conditions we’re dealt,” Klick said. “I can see AI helping us with finite conditions.”

Angelo A. Camillo, a professor of wine business at Sonoma State University, said that despite excitement over AI in the wine industry, some smaller vineyards are more skeptical about their ability to use the technology. Small, family-owned operations, which Camillo said account for about 80% of the wine business in America, are slowly disappearing — many don’t have the money to invest in AI, he said. A robotic arm that helps put together pallets of wine, for example, can cost as much as $150,000, he said.

“For small wineries, there’s a question mark, which is the investment. Then there’s the education. Who’s going to work with all of these AI applications? Where is the training?” he said.

There are also potential challenges with scalability, Camillo added. Drones, for example, could be useful for smaller vineyards that could use AI to target specific crops that have a bug problem, he said — it would be much harder to operate 100 drones in a 1,000 acre vineyard while also employing the IT workers who understand the tech.

“I don’t think a person can manage 40 drones as a swarm of drones,” he said. “So there’s a constraint for the operators to adopt certain things.”

However, AI is particularly good at tracking a crop’s health – including how the plant itself is doing and whether it’s growing enough leaves – while also monitoring grapes to aid in yield projections, said Mason Earles, an assistant professor who leads the Plant AI and Biophysics Lab at UC Davis.

Diseases or viruses can sneak up and destroy entire vineyards, Earles said, calling it an “elephant in the room” across the wine industry. The process of replanting a vineyard and getting it to produce well takes at least five years, he said. AI can help growers determine which virus is affecting their plants, he said, and whether they should rip out some crops immediately to avoid losing their entire vineyard.

Earles, who is also cofounder of the AI-powered farm management platform Scout, said his company uses AI to process thousands of images in hours and extract data quickly — something that would be difficult by hand in large vineyards that span hundreds of acres. Scout’s AI platform then counts and measures the number of grape clusters as early as when a plant is beginning to flower in order to forecast what a yield will be.

The sooner vintners know how much yield to expect, the better they can “dial in” their wine making process, he added.

“Predicting what yields you’re going to have at the end of the season, no one is that good at it right now,” he said. “But it’s really important because it determines how much labor contract you’re going to need and the supplies you’ll need for making wine.”

Earles doesn’t think the budding use of AI in vineyards is “freaking farmers out.” Rather, he anticipates that AI will be used more frequently to help with difficult field labor and to discern problems in vineyards that farmers need help with.

“They’ve seen people trying to sell them tech for decades. It’s hard to farm; it’s unpredictable compared to most other jobs,” he said. “The walking and counting, I think people would have said a long time ago, ‘I would happily let a machine take over.’”

–By SARAH PARVINI
AP Technology Writer

Link to Original Article (courtesy of Morning Ag Clips)

2023 Air Monitoring Report Finds No Detectable Pesticides in 95% of Samples Collected

DPR operates four monitoring stations in areas with high pesticide use

PUBLISHED ON October 15, 2024

SACRAMENTO — The California Department of Pesticide Regulation released its annual Air Monitoring Report, which found that no air samples taken at monitoring sites in 2023 detected pesticides at or above health-protective screening levels or regulatory targets.

DPR operates four monitoring stations in areas with high pesticide use: Oxnard, Santa Maria, Shafter and Watsonville. The stations collect weekly air samples, which are tested for 40 pesticides.

The 2023 data found that 95% of all samples collected had no detectable pesticides. Twenty-one pesticides were not detected at all, and 11 were detected at very low, trace levels which indicates unlikely risk to or impact on people’s health.

Seven pesticides were detected at quantifiable levels, with detections falling below health-protective screening levels or regulatory targets. Those pesticides were 1,3-dichloropropene, captan, dichlorvos (DDVP), methyl isothiocyanate (MITC), malathion, methyl bromide and pendimethalin.

DPR is evaluating concentrations of one pesticide, chloropicrin, which peaked at just below the health screening level (7% below) to inform any necessary future action.

Screening levels are developed by DPR scientists through scientific evaluation to conservatively estimate when a pesticide air concentration may have any impact on human health. DPR measures air against screening levels and regulatory targets. Regulatory targets are screening levels associated with a regulatory requirement to mitigate pesticide risks or impacts. A pesticide detection below a specific screening level or regulatory target indicates that adverse health effects are unlikely, including short-term (acute) pesticide impacts, such as eye or throat irritation, nausea, headaches or blurred vision, or long-term (chronic) pesticide risks such as birth defects or nervous system problems. DPR also measures for exposures that could increase the lifetime risk for cancer.

Pesticide concentrations measuring near and above a screening level are evaluated by DPR to examine what conditions may have caused the elevated reading or to inform any future mitigation that may be needed to protect the health of people in high pesticide use areas and throughout California. Specifically for chloropicrin, DPR is conducting a detailed evaluation of pesticide use data and historical weather patterns, in addition to modeling and additional monitoring to better understand potential sources and exposures in the area. DPR plans to release its analysis specific to the chloropicrin detection in 2025.

Air monitoring is an important element of DPR’s continuous evaluation process, which includes tracking, monitoring and evaluating the risk and impact of legal pesticide use in California to inform any actions or mitigation measures needed to continue to protect people and the environment.

“Monitoring the air in communities with high pesticide use is critical to keeping California safe for everyone,” said DPR Director Julie Henderson. “I am encouraged to see that all of the 2023 pesticide concentrations fall below our health screening levels. We are still evaluating the concentrations of chloropicrin and are committed to continue collecting and reviewing our data rigorously to identify areas of potential concern, trend lines or anomalies that indicate a need for closer investigation or action.”

The fumigants detected by DPR’s air monitoring stations – 1,3-dichloropropene, chloropicrin, methyl bromide, and MITC – are all restricted material pesticides, requiring applicator training and licensing, mandatory setbacks from buildings, the use of tarps to cover treated areas or other application methods with comparable levels of emission reduction, and other restrictions on use. New regulations restricting the use of 1,3-dichloropropene went into effect January 2024, and include requirements for larger setbacks from buildings, new tarp and soil application requirements, and additional restrictions to protect residential bystanders (people living near agricultural fields) from potential exposure. DPR is developing new regulations to further restrict the use of 1,3-dichloropropene to add specific protections for occupational bystanders (people that may work near an area where the pesticide was applied).

DPR will be presenting the results from the 2023 air monitoring study at the department’s Pesticide Registration and Evaluation Committee meeting, scheduled for 10 a.m. Oct. 25, at the California Environmental Protection Agency building in Sacramento (1001 I St.). The meeting is also available online via Zoom or view-only through the CalEPA webcast. DPR is also accepting public comments on the report through 5 p.m. Nov. 12; comments can be submitted online via the department’s public comment portal.

December 12 Virtual Community Meeting on 2023 AMN Report:

DPR is hosting a virtual meeting to provide information on the 2023 air monitoring results for communities where monitors are located (Oxnard, Santa Maria, Shafter and Watsonville). The meeting will be available in Spanish and English. To request interpretation in additional languages, please email languageaccess@cdpr.ca.gov by Friday November 29, 2024.

• Date: December 12, 2024
• Time: 6 p.m.-7:30 p.m.
• Location: Zoom (virtual). You can login using this link prior to the start of the meeting. You will be prompted to enter an email address to join. This is a Zoom requirement.

Visit DPR’s website to view the full 2023 Air Monitoring Report.

For more on DPR’s air monitoring program, including past air monitoring reports, see our website.

–California Department of Pesticide Regulation

(Photo: Josh Hild, Unsplash)

Original article link courtesy of Morning Ag Clips.