ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT

Partial Deregulation Measures for Cultivation of

Roundup Ready® Alfalfa Events J101/J163

August 5, 2010
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Events J101 and J163 Acronyms and Abbreviations

Environmental Report i 8/5/2010

ACCase acetyl-CoA carboxylase (enzyme)

ADF Acid detergent fiber

ai/A Active ingredient per acre

ALS acetolactate synthase (enzyme)

AMS Agricultural Marketing Service (USDA)

AOSCA Association of Official Seed Certifying Agencies

AP Adventitious presence 

APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA)

ASTA American Seed Trade Association

BMP Best Management Practices

BNF Biotechnology Notification Files

BRS Biotechnology Regulatory Service (USDA APHIS)

BST Bovine somatotropin

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFIA Canadian Food Inspection Agency

C.F.R. Code of Federal Regulations

CRLF California red-legged frog

CTIC Conservation Technology Information Center

CTP2 Chloroplast transit peptide

d Dose

DNA Deoxyribonucleic Acid

EA Environmental Assessment

EC European Commission (EU)

EEC Estimated Environmental Concentration

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EPA Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.)
Events J101 and J163 Acronyms and Abbreviations

Environmental Report ii 8/5/2010

EPSPS 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (enzyme)

ER Environmental Report

ERS Economic Research Service (USDA)

EU European Union 

FAO Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations

FDA Food and Drug Administration (U.S.)

FFDCA Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act

FGI Forage Genetics International

FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact

FQPA Food Quality Protection Act

FSANZ Food Standards Australia New Zealand

ft feet

GE Genetic engineering or genetically engineered

GM Genetically modified

GMO Genetically modified organism

GPS Global Positioning System

GR Glyphosate resistant

GT Glyphosate-tolerant

HSP70 Heat shock protein intron

IM/NRC Institute of Medicine and National Research Council

in. Inches

IPA Isopropylamine salt

lbs. Pounds

IM Institute of Medicine

kg Kilograms
Events J101 and J163 Acronyms and Abbreviations

Environmental Report iii 8/5/2010

M Mendelian manner

mg Milligrams

MRID Master Record Identification Number

MT/SA Monsanto Technology Stewardship Agreement

NA National Academies

NAFA National Alfalfa and Forage Alliance

NAS National Academy of Science

NASS National Agricultural Statistical Service (USDA)

NCBA National Cattlemen’s Beef Association

NDF Neutral detergent fiber

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

No. Number

NOP National Organic Program

NRC National Research Council

OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development 

OFPA Organic Foods Production Act

OSTP Office of Science and Technology Policy

PNT Plant with a Novel Trait

PNW Pacific Northwest

POEA Polyethoxylated Tallow Amine

PPA Plant Protection Act

ppm Parts per million

rDNA Recombinant DNA

RED Reregistration Eligibility Decision

RfD Reference Dose

ROD Record of Decision
Events J101 and J163 Acronyms and Abbreviations

Environmental Report iv 8/5/2010

RR Roundup Ready

RRA Roundup Ready® Alfalfa

TUG Technology use guide

T-DNA Transferred DNA

UC University of California

μg Micrograms

U.S. United States

U.S.C U.S. Code

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USDC U.S. District Court

WHO World Health Organization

WSSA Weed Science Society of America

wt weight
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Events J101 and J163 Table of Contents

Environmental Report v 8/5/2010

SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................... 1

1.1 PURPOSE OF THIS ER............................................................................................ 1

1.1.1 Background ............................................................................................. 1

1.1.2 Purpose of and need for action................................................................ 3

1.1.3 The proposed measures.......................................................................... 4

1.2 RATIONALE FOR CREATION OF RRA.................................................................. 17

1.3 SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ADDRESSED ......................................... 17

1.3.1 Gene transmission to non-genetically engineered alfalfa ....................... 17

1.3.2 Socioeconomic impacts ......................................................................... 18

1.3.3 Consumer’s choice to consume non-GE food ........................................ 18

1.3.4 Potential for development of glyphosate-resistant (GR) weeds .............. 19

1.3.5 Cumulative effects of increased use of glyphosate ................................ 19

1.4 FEDERAL REGULATORY AUTHORITY – COORDINATED FRAMEWORK .......... 19

1.4.1 USDA regulatory authority ..................................................................... 20

1.4.2 EPA regulatory authority........................................................................ 21

1.4.3 FDA regulatory authority........................................................................ 22

1.5 THE NATIONAL ORGANIC PROGRAM AND BIOTECHNOLOGY......................... 22

1.5.1 Non-GMO Project working standard ...................................................... 24

1.5.2 Growth in organic and GE farming......................................................... 25

1.6 COEXISTENCE IN U.S. AGRICULTURE................................................................ 25

1.6.1 Coexistence and biotechnology ............................................................. 25

1.6.2 USDA position on coexistence and biotechnology ................................. 26

1.6.3 Coexistence in U.S. agriculture.............................................................. 26

1.7 ROLE OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES IN AGRICULTURAL 

BIOTECHNOLOGY................................................................................................. 27

1.8 ALTERNATIVES..................................................................................................... 28

1.8.1 Alternative 1 – No Action ....................................................................... 28

1.8.2 Alternative 2 – Partial Deregulation........................................................ 29

SECTION 2.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ...................................................................... 30

2.1 ALFALFA CHARACTERISTICS.............................................................................. 30

2.1.1 Growth................................................................................................... 30

2.1.2 Pollination.............................................................................................. 30

2.2 ALFALFA PRODUCTION........................................................................................ 31

2.2.1 Forage production, general.................................................................... 31

2.2.2 Organic alfalfa hay production ............................................................... 35

2.2.3 Seed production..................................................................................... 36

2.3 GENE FLOW .......................................................................................................... 41

2.3.1 Hybridization.......................................................................................... 42

2.3.2 Seed-to-seed gene flow studies............................................................. 44

2.3.3 Gene flow potential................................................................................ 46

2.4 ALFALFA WEED MANAGEMENT .......................................................................... 46

2.4.1 Weed characteristics and concerns ....................................................... 46

2.4.2 Problem weeds in alfalfa production ...................................................... 47

2.4.3 Use of herbicides to control weeds ........................................................ 52

2.4.4 Non-herbicide weed management practices .......................................... 59

2.5 HERBICIDE RESISTANCE..................................................................................... 60
Events J101 and J163 Table of Contents

Environmental Report vi 8/5/2010

2.6 SEXUALLY COMPATIBLE RELATIVES INCLUDING CONSPECIFIC FERAL 

AND VOLUNTEER ALFALFA ................................................................................. 63

2.6.1 Native sexually compatible relatives ...................................................... 63

2.6.2 Feral and volunteer alfalfa ..................................................................... 63

2.7 FOOD, FEED AND OTHER ALFALFA USES ......................................................... 65

2.8 PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL ISSUES ................................................................. 66

2.9 SOCIOECONOMICS AND HEALTH ....................................................................... 66

SECTION 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...................................................... 67

3.1 PLANT PATHOGENIC PROPERTIES AND UNINTENDED EFFECTS................... 67

3.1.1 Background ........................................................................................... 67

3.1.2 Evaluation of intended effects................................................................ 70

3.1.3 Evaluation of possible unintended effects .............................................. 71

3.2 WEEDINESS PROPERTIES AND FERAL CROPS ................................................ 73

3.2.1 Weediness properties of alfalfa.............................................................. 73

3.2.2 RRA and weediness .............................................................................. 74

3.2.3 Impacts.................................................................................................. 75

3.3 IMPACTS OF RRA FORAGE CROPS ON CONVENTIONAL AND ORGANIC 

FORAGE CROPS................................................................................................... 75

3.3.1 Pollen sources in forage production fields.............................................. 75

3.3.2 Potential for gene flow in forage production fields.................................. 76

3.3.3 Potential consequences of gene flow in forage production fields............ 77

3.3.4 Growing and marketing alfalfa ............................................................... 77

3.3.5 Potential for and consequences of mechanical mixing........................... 78

3.3.6 Impacts.................................................................................................. 79

3.4 IMPACTS FROM RRA FORAGE CROPS ON NATIVE ALFALFA .......................... 80

3.4.1 Impacts.................................................................................................. 80

3.5 IMPACTS FROM RRA FORAGE CROPS ON FERAL ALFALFA 

POPULATIONS ...................................................................................................... 81

3.5.1 Impacts.................................................................................................. 82

3.6 IMPACTS FROM RRA FORAGE CROPS TO RANGELAND ALFALFA 

CROPS................................................................................................................... 83

3.6.1 Impacts.................................................................................................. 83

3.7 IMPACTS FROM RRA FORAGE CROPS TO CONVENTIONAL OR 

ORGANIC ALFALFA SEED PRODUCTION AREAS............................................... 84

3.7.1 Impacts.................................................................................................. 85

3.8 IMPACTS FROM RRA SEED PRODUCTION......................................................... 86

3.8.1 Cross-pollination.................................................................................... 86

3.8.2 Seed Mixing........................................................................................... 87

3.8.3 Impacts.................................................................................................. 87

3.9 LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION SYSTEMS ................................................................. 88

3.10 FOOD AND FEED................................................................................................... 88

3.10.1 FDA authority and policy........................................................................ 89

3.10.2 FDA biotechnology consultation note to the file BNF 000084................. 90

3.10.3 Health Canada approval 2005 ............................................................... 94

3.10.4 CFIA approval 2005............................................................................... 95

3.10.5 Japan approval ...................................................................................... 95

3.10.6 Australia – New Zealand approval ......................................................... 95

3.10.7 Other approvals ..................................................................................... 95

3.10.8 Impacts.................................................................................................. 95
Events J101 and J163 Table of Contents

Environmental Report vii 8/5/2010

3.11 WEED CONTROL AND GR.................................................................................... 97

3.11.1 Weed control with conventional alfalfa................................................... 97

3.11.2 Weed control with RRA.......................................................................... 98

3.11.3 Herbicide-resistant weeds...................................................................... 99

3.11.4 GR weeds............................................................................................ 100

3.11.5 Impacts................................................................................................ 102

3.12 PHYSICAL ............................................................................................................ 103

3.12.1 Land Use ............................................................................................. 104

3.12.2 Air Quality and Climate ........................................................................ 104

3.12.3 Water Quality....................................................................................... 105

3.13 BIOLOGICAL ........................................................................................................ 106

3.13.1 Animal and plant exposure to glyphosate............................................. 107

3.13.2 Threatened and endangered species................................................... 111

3.13.3 Potential impact of exposure to RRA ................................................... 113

3.14 HUMAN HEALTH AND SAFETY........................................................................... 113

3.14.1 Consumer health and safety ................................................................ 113

3.14.2 Hazard identification and exposure assessment for field workers ........ 114

3.15 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PARTIAL 

DEREGULATION.................................................................................................. 116

SECTION 4.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS.......................................................................... 120

4.1 CLASS OF ACTIONS TO BE ANALYZED ............................................................ 120

4.2 GEOGRAPHIC AND TEMPORAL BOUNDARIES FOR THE ANALYSIS.............. 120

4.3 RESOURCES ANALYZED.................................................................................... 121

4.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS RELATED TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF 

GLYPHOSATE RESISTANT WEEDS................................................................... 121

4.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF POTENTIAL INCREASED GLYPHOSATE 

USAGE ................................................................................................................. 122

4.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON LAND USE, AIR QUALITY AND CLIMATE............. 125

4.7 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON WATER QUALITY.................................................. 125

4.8 CUMULATIVE BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS................................................................ 126

4.9 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON HUMAN HEALTH AND SAFETY............................ 131

4.10 CUMULATIVE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS ........................................... 131

4.11 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL CUMULATIVE IMPACTS......................................... 132

SECTION 5.0 REFERENCES.......................................................................................... 133
Events J101 and J163 Table of Contents

Environmental Report viii 8/5/2010

APPENDICES

Appendix A Monsanto Technology Stewardship Agreement (MT/SA) and accompanying 

Technology Use Guide (TUG)

Appendix B National and Tier III Production Data and State Maps with County-level Detail for 

the Eleven Tier III States with Seed Production greater than 100,000 lbs.

Appendix C National Alfalfa & Forage Alliance Best Management Practices for Roundup 

Ready® Alfalfa Seed Production.

Appendix D Orloff, S., D.H. Putnam, M. Canevari and W.T. Lanini, Avoiding Weed Shifts and 

Weed Resistance in Roundup Ready Alfalfa Systems, University of California 

Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources Publication 8362 (2009).

Appendix E Effects of Glyphosate-Resistant Weeds in Agricultural Systems (Appendix G from 

Draft EIS).

Appendix F Selected Comments to Draft Environmental Impact Statement from Farmers 

Using Roundup Ready Alfalfa.

Appendix G Chart of Anticipated Adoption of RRA under Partial Deregulation, Prepared by 

Monsanto/FGI (August 4, 2010).

Appendix H Roundup Ready Alfalfa Satisfaction Study (Study #091 113 1108) Prepared by 

Market Probe, Inc. (December 2008).

Appendix I Putnam, D. and D. Undersander. 2009. Understanding Roundup Ready Alfalfa 

(full version). Originally posted on the Hay and Forage Grower Magazine web 

site at: 

http://hayandforage.com/understanding_roundup_ready_alfalfa_revised.pdf 

(January 1, 2009).

Appendix J Roundup Ready Alfalfa Harvesting Study, Study # 3482 (originally submitted as 

Appendix 6 to Monsanto/FGI comment to draft EIS).

Appendix K Fitzpatrick, S. and G. Lowry. 2010. Alfalfa Seed Industry Innovations Enabling 

Coexistence. Proceedings of the 42nd North American Alfalfa Improvement 

Conference, Boise, Idaho, July 28-30, 2010.

TABLES

Table 1-1 Alfalfa Seed and Hay Production Overview (State List)

Table 1-2 Eight Seed Grower Consortia

Table 2-1 Alfalfa Forage and Seed Production by State

Table 2-2 Organic Alfalfa Hay Harvested Acreage

Table 2-3 Summary of FGI Idaho Gene Flow Studies

Table 2-4 Seed to Seed Gene Flow

Table 2-5 Weeds in Alfalfa

Table 2-6 Susceptibility of Broadleaf Weeds in Seedling Alfalfa to Herbicide Control

Table 2-7 Susceptibility of Grass Weeds in Seedling Alfalfa to Herbicide Control
Events J101 and J163 Table of Contents

Environmental Report ix 8/5/2010

Table 2-8 Susceptibility of Weeds in Seedling Alfalfa to Herbicide Combination Control

Table 4-1 Comparison of Potential Effects of Glyphosate and Alfalfa Herbicides on 

Freshwater Fish

Table 4-2 Comparison of Potential Effects of Glyphosate and Alfalfa Herbicides on 

Freshwater Aquatic Invertebrates

Table 4-3 Comparison of Potential Effects of Glyphosate and Alfalfa Herbicides on Aquatic 

Plants (Algae and Duckweed)

FIGURES

Figure 1-1 Table 3-9 from Draft EIS for RRA

Figure 2-1 Gene Flow

Figure 2-2 Herbicide resistance worldwide

Figure 4-1 Growth in adoption of genetically engineered crops in U.S.
Events J101 and J163 Introduction

Environmental Report 1 8/5/2010

SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION

This Environmental Report (ER) examines the environmental impacts of cultivation of Roundup 

Ready® alfalfa (RRA) lines J101 and J163 (J101/J163)1 for a temporary period subject to a 

range of measures, including geographic restrictions, stewardship requirements and other 

limitations. This ER is provided in connection with the petitioners’ supplemental request for nonregulated status in part (commonly known as “partial deregulation”) for RRA. This document is 

intended to provide information that may be utilized by the United States Department of 

Agriculture’s (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) in complying with the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)2 and its applicable regulations3 either in connection 

with partial deregulation of RRA or for any other regulatory or administrative action adopting the 

measures addressed herein. A partial deregulation or other administrative action adopting the 

measures may be superseded at a later date after APHIS completes the Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) and makes its determination regarding the pending petition for complete 

deregulation of RRA.

Alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) was planted on approximately 21 million acres in the U.S. in 2009. 

Overall crop value was $7.9 billion in the 2009-2010 crop year. Over 99 percent of the alfalfa 

planted in the U.S. is planted for harvest as forage, with less than one percent harvested for 

seed. RRA, which has been genetically engineered to be tolerant to the herbicide glyphosate, is 

currently cultivated on approximately 200,000 acres or less, (USDA NASS, 2010b; USDA 

APHIS, 2009), pursuant to permit or court order.

1.1 PURPOSE OF THIS ER

1.1.1 Background

In April 2004, under the requirements of the Plant Protection Act (PPA)4 and its implementing 

regulations,5 Monsanto Company (Monsanto) and Forage Genetics International (FGI) 

submitted a petition to APHIS for a determination of non-regulated status for RRA (Rogan and 

Fitzpatrick, 2004). Monsanto is an agricultural company involved in the development and 

marketing of biotechnology-derived agricultural products. FGI is an alfalfa seed company and a 

 

1

 The terms RRA and glyphosate tolerant alfalfa,or GT alfalfa are used interchangeably throughout this document.

2

 NEPA of 1969, as amended; Title 42 of the U.S. Code (42 U.S.C.) §§4321-4347.

3

 Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implement NEPA and are found in Title 40 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (40 C.F.R.), Parts 1500 through 1508. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has implemented 

NEPA regulations, which are found at 7 C.F.R. part 1b, as has APHIS, and those are found at 7 C.F.R. part 372.

4

 7 U.S.C. §§7701-7786.

5

 7 C.F.R. Part 340.
Events J101 and J163 Introduction

Environmental Report 2 8/5/2010

wholly-owned subsidiary of Land O’Lakes, Inc., a farmer-owned food and agricultural 

cooperative representing the interests and needs of more than 300,000 direct and indirect 

members across the U.S. APHIS, through its Biotechnology Regulatory Service (BRS), is one 

of three federal agencies responsible for regulating biotechnology in the U.S. under the 

Coordinated Framework described in Section 1.4. APHIS regulates genetically engineered (GE) 

organisms that may be plant pests, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates plant 

incorporated protectants and herbicides used with herbicide-tolerant crops, and the U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services’ Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates food 

and animal feed. The FDA completed its consultation process for RRA in 2004 (Tarantino, 

2004). EPA approved the use of glyphosate over the top of RRA on June 15, 2005. The use of 

glyphosate over the top of RRA did not require an increase in the existing glyphosate residue 

tolerance of 400 ppm in the animal feed, non-grass crop group. EPA issued a new glyphosate 

tolerance for alfalfa seed of 0.5 ppm on February 16, 2005.6

NEPA requires federal agencies to evaluate the potential impact of proposed major federal 

actions and consider such impacts during the decision-making process. After agency review for 

safety, including an evaluation of relevant scientific data and all public comments relating to 

potential plant pest risks and related environmental impacts, APHIS issued an Environmental 

Assessment (EA) pursuant to NEPA in 2005 (USDA APHIS, 2005). Based on that EA, APHIS 

reached a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) on the environment from the unconfined 

cultivation and agricultural use of RRA and its progeny (USDA APHIS, 2005). Accordingly, in 

June 2005, APHIS granted non-regulated status to RRA (USDA APHIS, 2005).

After RRA was deregulated, the seeds were sold and planted. During the growing season of 

2005 and 2006, approximately 200,000 acres were planted in 1,552 counties in 48 states 

(Alaska and Hawaii were not included). Approximately nine months after APHIS granted nonregulated status to RRA, two alfalfa seed growers and seven associations filed a lawsuit against 

the USDA over its decision to deregulate RRA, claiming that APHIS’ EA failed to adequately 

consider certain environmental and economic impacts as required by NEPA. In February 2007, 

the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, finding that APHIS is required to 

prepare an EIS before approving its deregulation of RRA, and vacated APHIS’ 2005 decision to 

deregulate RRA (U.S. District Court (USDC), 2007a). On March 12, 2007, the Court issued a 

preliminary injunction order in the case (USDC, 2007b). The order prohibited all sales of RRA 

seeds, effective on the date of the order, pending the Court’s issuance of permanent injunctive 

 

6

 40 C.F.R. §180.364; 70 Fed. Reg. 7864 (Feb. 16, 2005).
Events J101 and J163 Introduction

Environmental Report 3 8/5/2010

relief; and prohibited all future planting, beginning March 30, 2007. The Court also vacated 

APHIS’s deregulation determination. On March 23, 2007, APHIS published a notice in the 

Federal Register describing the Court’s decision that RRA was once again a regulated article.7 

On May 3, 2007, the Court issued a permanent injunction regarding the control of the RRA that 

had been planted, and requiring APHIS to issue an administrative order specifying mandatory 

production practices that must be implemented by RRA growers (USDC, 2007c). The Court 

issued an amended judgment on July 23, 2007, further clarifying the mandatory production 

practices (USDC, 2007d). APHIS issued its administrative order on July 12, 2007 (USDA 

APHIS, 2007a). In August and September 2007, USDA, Monsanto, FGI and others filed an 

appeal, arguing that the injunction was improper. After the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 

affirmed the district court decision, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to hear the case. In June 

2010, in Monsanto Co. et al. v. Geerston Seed Farms et al., the Supreme Court overturned the 

lower court ruling, striking down the injunction.

Following issuance of the district court’s amended judgment in July 2007, APHIS commenced 

work on the EIS for complete deregulation. The Notice of Intent was published in the Federal 

Register on January 7, 2008.8 The notice of availability for the draft EIS was published in the 

Federal Register on December 18, 2009.9 In the draft EIS, APHIS preliminarily concluded that 

there is no significant impact on the human environment due to granting nonregulated status to 

RRA (USDA APHIS, 2009). The comment period for the draft EIS, following an extension 

granted by APHIS, concluded on March 3, 2010. Approximately, 145,000 comments were 

submitted. APHIS is now preparing the final EIS.

1.1.2 Purpose of and need for action

This ER has been prepared to support an anticipated EA to be prepared by APHIS with respect 

to a partial deregulation of RRA. The ER examines the environmental impacts of implementing 

the proposed measures laid out below, either through a partial deregulation of RRA or other 

administrative means. The proposed measures would allow commercialization and

deregulation of RRA in limited areas and under specific cultivation conditions explained more 

fully below in Section 1.1.3. If APHIS concludes that an EA supports a FONSI for the proposed 

measures, APHIS could decide to implement such measures through “partial deregulation”.

 

7

72 Fed. Reg. 13735 (Mar. 23, 2007).

8

 73 Fed. Reg. 1198 (Jan. 7, 2008).

9

 74 Fed. Reg. 67205 (Dec. 18, 2009).
Events J101 and J163 Introduction

Environmental Report 4 8/5/2010

1.1.3 The proposed measures

Monsanto/FGI have proposed the following measures to be implemented through partial 

deregulation or other administrative means. The companies state that these measures would 

allow a subset of alfalfa farmers to obtain the substantial benefits of RRA pending complete 

deregulation. For example, they expect RRA to (i) offer growers a wide-spectrum weed control 

option that will enhance stand establishment and increase alfalfa forage; (ii) increase flexibility 

to treat weeds on an as-needed basis; (iii) allow alfalfa production on marginal land with severe 

weed infestations; and (iv) provide growers with a weed control system that has a reduced risk 

profile for the environment. The proposed measures include a separate set of restrictions for 

RRA forage production and RRA seed production. These restrictions are described in the 

sections below.

FORAGE PRODUCTION RESTRICTIONS

1) Grower Requirements: Each grower is required to abide by the terms specified in their 

Monsanto Technology / Stewardship Use Agreement (MT/SA) and accompanying 

Technology Use Guide (TUG), which contractually obligates growers to comply with 

stewardship requirements related to growing RRA for forage. A copy of the MT/SA and 

TUG are included in Appendix A.

2) RRA Seed Licensing Requirements: All RRA seed is sold through a network of 

licensed seed companies and their retailers and dealers/distributors. Each seed 

company is required to have a current Genuity® Roundup Ready® Alfalfa Commercial 

License Agreement to sell RRA seed. This agreement specifies the limited rights of the 

seed companies to market the product, including stewardship requirements associated 

with RRA.

3) Seed Identification: RRA seed bag labeling and a unique purple seed colorant will be 

required product identity mechanisms to notify all RRA forage growers of the presence 

of the RRA trait and the geographic limitations for product use.10

4) Crop Harvest (Forage only): RRA fields, except as noted under “Seed Production 

Restrictions” Section below, may be harvested for forage only. All growers shall adhere 

to limitations as outlined in the MT/SA and TUG (Monsanto TUG, attached as Appendix 

A).11

 

10 Similar labeling and use agreements are typically used for the sale and stewardship of other GE crops, so growers 

are currently familiar with such contractual obligations.

11 Forage growers who have previously used RRA are familiar with this crop use limitation. See Appendix A.
Events J101 and J163 Introduction

Environmental Report 5 8/5/2010

5) Geographic Restrictions for Forage Planting based on Cropping Practices: 

Geographic restrictions will be placed on forage planting by state and county based on 

the amount of alfalfa seed produced (see Appendix B). Data on the amount of seed 

produced is from the 2007 Census of Agriculture, as summarized in Figure 1-1 (for 

additional details see Table 1-1 and Appendix B). Geographic restrictions for alfalfa 

forage plantings will be defined in three categories (Tiers I, II, and III) based on the 

amount of alfalfa seed production reported in each state. (See Appendix B for maps).

a. Tier I: States with no reported alfalfa seed production (2007); 27 States and all 

counties within each.

i. New RRA forage production plantings are allowed in accordance with the 

requirements established by the TUG and Genuity® Roundup Ready® 

Alfalfa Commercial License Agreement.

ii. Forage growing is the only reported crop practice for alfalfa. No 

commercial alfalfa seed growth was reported in Tier I states in 2007. 

However, if conventional seed production fields are now present, then 

RRA forage grown near these new conventional seed production fields 

are subject to the requirement provided in Restriction Enhancement A 

(see Tier II.ii below).

b. Tier II: States with <100,000 lbs annual seed production (2007); 12 States and 

all counties within each.

Commercial alfalfa seed production occurs in these states; however, the number 

of seed growers, seed acres and cumulative pounds are limited and widely 

dispersed. Only 0.51 percent of the U.S. alfalfa seed crop is produced in these 

states (2007).

i. New RRA forage production plantings are allowed in accordance with the 

requirements established by the TUG and Genuity® Roundup Ready® 

Alfalfa Commercial License Agreement.

ii. Restriction Enhancement A applies if the RRA forage field is located 

within 165 ft of a commercial, conventional alfalfa seed production field. 

Under Restriction Enhancement A, the RRA grower must harvest forage 

before 10 percent bloom.
Events J101 and J163 Introduction

Environmental Report 6 8/5/2010

1. Rationale for Restriction Enhancement A: In grower locations 

where an individual RRA forage field is within 165 ft of a 

conventional seed production field, the TUG requires the RRA 

grower to mitigate RRA flowering by harvesting not later than 10 

percent bloom stage to mitigate pollen production. RRA forage 

grower compliance with the TUG’s 10 percent bloom stage 

harvest has been high and rarely was it delayed by weather or 

other factors. (See Appendix J). This restriction will address 

mitigations at or near geographic (county, state and federal) 

borders. The 165 ft distance is the science and market-based, 

industry recognized isolation distance for certified alfalfa seed 

crops (see Association of Official Seed Certifying Agencies 

(AOSCA), 2009); and, the potential extent of gene flow of 10 

percent bloom hay to nearby seed crops is de minimis at 165 ft 

(Teuber and Fitzpatrick, 2007; Van Deynze et al., 2008).

c. Tier III: States each having >100,000 lbs annual seed production (2007); 11 

States. Enhanced restrictions to be applied based on predominant county 

cropping practices. In the eleven states with greater than 100,000 acres of 

annual alfalfa seed production, additional by-county geographic restrictions will 

apply. In many cases, within each state, seed acreage is geographically 

concentrated and typically localized to a few specific counties where climate is 

suitable for seed growing. (See geographic maps for each of these states in 

Appendix B.) In these states, alfalfa seed is typically grown by professional 

growers under seed company contracts and official seed certification inspection 

programs are widely used by growers and the contracting seed companies. 

Alfalfa forage production is also a major enterprise in these states and in many 

cases it is geographically separate from seed crop acres.

i. By-County criterion used to determine eligibility for new RRA forage 

plantings.

1. Counties without seed production reported (Appendix B).
Events J101 and J163 Introduction

Environmental Report 7 8/5/2010

a. New RRA forage production is allowed in accordance with 

the requirements established by the TUG and Genuity® 

Roundup Ready® Alfalfa Commercial License Agreement.

b. Restriction Enhancement A: If RRA forage field is located 

within 165 ft of a conventional alfalfa seed field, RRA 

grower must harvest forage at or before 10 percent bloom.

c. Restriction Enhancement B: All RRA forage growers are 

required to report GPS coordinates of all RRA forage field 

locations. GPS field location information is available for 

monitoring and enforcing the planting restrictions 

applicable to RRA forage fields.

d. Forage production is the only reported crop practice in 

these counties. Commercial alfalfa seed growing is not 

reported.

2. Counties with seed production reported (Appendix B).

a. Restriction Enhancement C: New RRA forage plantings 

are not allowed in counties with commercial alfalfa seed 

production.

b. Commercial alfalfa seed growing is a predominant activity 

in these counties

c. 99.5 percent of U.S. alfalfa seed production is in these 

counties.

6) Summary of Allowed Forage Production Scope:

a. Nationwide, the counties excluded from new RRA forage production under the 

requested partial deregulation represent 99.5 percent and 21.84 percent of the 

alfalfa seed production pounds (lbs) and forage production acres, respectively 

(See Appendix B).
Events J101 and J163 Introduction

Environmental Report 8 8/5/2010

b. Nationwide, the counties where new RRA forage plantings are allowed (with 

various restrictions) include 0.5 percent and 78.16 percent of the alfalfa seed 

production (lbs) and forage production acres, respectively.

7) Monitoring and Enforcement of Forage Crop Restrictions

Support and enforcement of the partial deregulation of RRA for forage production would

be accomplished by the following mechanisms.

a. Education and Communication: Education and communication activities would 

be conducted with hay growers, seed dealers/sellers and seed companies. 

Examples of these activities include training and information sessions for dealers 

and sellers, detailing the requirements for selling RRA, sales meetings, periodic 

visits with growers and sellers, and computer based training modules that can be 

tailored to specific areas of focus related to the product and requirements.

i. Training: Online training would be required for each seed company staff 

member handling RRA as well as the appropriate personnel at 

Monsanto/FGI.

ii. The MT/SA and accompanying Monsanto TUG: The MT/SA and 

accompanying TUG, a legal agreement between growers who utilize 

Monsanto technologies and Monsanto, would be updated to include direct 

reference to the partial deregulation conditions, including the limitations 

pertaining to where RRA forage can be grown and hay and forage 

management practices.

iii. Packaging Updates: In addition to being clearly labeled as RRA seed, 

all bags of finished product would have an additional prominent tag that 

lists the states and counties in which the product could not be planted. In 

addition the seed would have a unique coating color (purple) that 

identifies it as being RRA seed.

iv. Dealer Requirements: All dealers selling RRA would sign a dealer 

agreement legally binding them to adhere to the partial deregulation 

requirements.
Events J101 and J163 Introduction

Environmental Report 9 8/5/2010

v. Industry Communications: Alfalfa industry-specific groups would be 

utilized to support communication of the partial deregulation requirements 

in communications to their members. These include National Alfalfa and 

Forage Alliance (NAFA), American Seed Trade Association (ASTA), etc.

vi. RRA Information Line: A toll free number will be available for growers 

or other individuals to clarify information or answer questions regarding 

the partial deregulation.

b. Assessment and Verification: Multiple assessment and verification tools will 

be utilized to monitor and verify adherence to the partial deregulation request.

i. Reconciliation of Sales Data: All sales to hay growers will be reconciled 

with remaining RRA seed inventory at the end of the planting season 

(twice per year). This reconciliation will be part of a legal commercial 

requirement of the seed companies and dealers selling RRA.

ii. GPS coordinates: GPS coordinates will be collected on all sales in the 

eleven (11) Tier III states. The GPS coordinates will be collected on all 

fields planted with RRA. Information will be validated at time of receipt; 

questionable data will be reviewed.

iii. Hotline: A toll-free hotline will be available for individuals to report 

violations to the partial deregulation ruling.

c. Proactive Sampling, Testing and Review, inclusion of third parties: Various 

internal and/or third parties will be utilized to randomly review plantings and to 

determine grower compliance with the conditions of the partial deregulation.

d. Enforcement: Violations of the partial deregulation decision will have the 

following impacts:

i. Grower: Takeout of the alfalfa field in violation would be required. 

Grower has the potential to lose access to RRA.

ii. Dealer: Any dealer incentive payments would be at risk. In addition,

dealers would also risk losing their ability to sell RRA in the future.
Events J101 and J163 Introduction

Environmental Report 10 8/5/2010

iii. Seed Company: Any seed company incentive payments would be at 

risk. In addition, seed companies would also risk losing their ability to sell 

RRA in the future.

e. Ongoing Measurement: An annual report would be prepared by FGI for the 

USDA summarizing activities in all areas identified above. Additional data would 

be provided upon request.

f. Any potential additional investigation or action would be conducted in 

accordance with all federal, state and local laws concerning individual property 

rights, inspections and sampling activities. Monsanto has demonstrated that it 

does not exercise its patent rights where trace amounts of patented seeds or 

traits are present in a farmer’s fields as a result of inadvertent means.

Figure 1-1. Table 3-9 from Draft EIS for RRA.
Events J101 and J163 Introduction

Environmental Report 11 8/5/2010

Table 1-1 Alfalfa Seed and Hay Production Overview (State List)

State

Seed -

Acres 

Hvstd.

Seed -

Operations

Seed - In 

Pounds

Alfalfa Hay -

Acres

Alfalfa Hay -

Operations

Alfalfa Hay -

Tons

Existing 

Seed 

Production 

Category

Restrictions on new 

RRA forage plantings 

(all counties within 

state)

Within State By-County 

Geographic Criteria and 

Restrictions on new RRA forage 

production

ALABAMA 7,526 340 16,944 None Not Applicable

ALASKA - - - None

ARKANSAS 11,732 278 28,647 None

TUG restrictions, plus, 

if field is within 165 ft 

of conventional seed 

production, then <10% 

bloom cut required

CONNECTICUT 8,343 349 18,441 None

Tier I: 

States 

with no 

reported 

alfalfa 

seed 

production 

(2007)

DELAWARE 3,687 177 13,530 None

FLORIDA 6,951 141 14,993 None

GEORGIA 1,655 134 4,810 None

HAWAII 89 5 267 None

ILLINOIS 322,339 12,913 1,138,512 None

INDIANA 241,129 10,775 665,767 None

KENTUCKY 269,610 10,538 524,565 None

LOUISIANA 2,164 52 4,768 None

MAINE 10,089 246 23,876 None

MARYLAND 40,576 1,429 120,402 None

MASSACHUSETT

S

9,921 406 22,537 None

MISSISSIPPI 3,931 159 7,113 None

NEW

HAMPSHIRE

5,373 218 13,475 None

NEW JERSEY 20,310 728 51,483 None

NORTH 10,322 758 16,755 None
Events J101 and J163 Introduction

Environmental Report 12 8/5/2010

CAROLINA

PENNSYLVANIA 475,873 14,402 1,357,225

RHODE ISLAND 1,035 63 1,806 None

SOUTH 

CAROLINA

4,070 143 8,860 None

TENNESSEE 20,074 1,655 45,819 None

VERMONT 31,769 571 68,624 None

VIRGINIA 89,213 3,063 233,807 None

WEST VIRGINIA 28,465 1,185 62,484 None

WISCONSIN 1,517,522 30,810 3,673,619 None

Subtotal - - - 3,143,768 91,538 8,139,129

COLORADO 1,815 8 - 861,053 8,648 2,887,865 Minor Not Applicable

IOWA - 5 - 830,440 22,040 3,054,729 Minor

KANSAS 342 5 22,430 793,140 9,643 2,986,134 Minor

TUGrestrictions,plus,if

fieldiswithin165ftofcon

ventionalseedproducti

on,then<10%bloomcut

required

Tier II: 

States 

with 

<100,000 

lbs seed 

production 

(2007) MICHIGAN - 10 15,610 698,595 16,431 1,707,036 Minor

MINNESOTA 611 17 63,461 944,775 20,398 2,671,173 Minor

MISSOURI 399 19 40,540 295,021 8,229 782,847 Minor

NEBRASKA 545 29 21,216 1,085,921 14,820 3,955,881 Minor

NEWMEXICO 310 15 29,907 236,103 4,272 1,176,242 Minor

NEWYORK 27 3 6,180 450,144 7,707 1,119,421 Minor

NORTH DAKOTA - 6 34,784 1,457,604 8,985 3,072,682 Minor

OHIO - 1 - 437,658 15,354 1,256,174 Minor

TEXAS 546 24 79,885 153,763 2,391 721,303 Minor
Events J101 and J163 Introduction

Environmental Report 13 8/5/2010

Subtotal 4,595 142 314,013 8,244,217 138,918 25,391,487 Minor

ARIZONA 5,206 53 1,902,669 257,407 943 1,968,043 Major No RRA forage 

planting allowed

CALIFORNIA 36,625 114 19,083,458 986,982 3,587 7,057,014 Major

Tier III: 

States 

with 

>100,000 

lbs seed

(2007) IDAHO 12,788 92 9,346,709 1,037,520 8,817 4,254,543 Major

MONTANA 10,338 80 3,729,635 1,868,756 9,711 3,936,445 Major

NEVADA 6,498 19 4,237,101 274,004 1,128 1,217,586 Major

If 2007 census 

indicated NO incounty seed 

production, then:

See Census 

Criteria (See 

Appendix B for 

county list)

OREGON 4,959 32 3,183,375 428,812 3,569 1,777,894 Major

If 2007 census 

indicated seed 

production in 

county, then:

TUG restrictions and

GPS coordinate 

reporting; if new field 

is within 165 ft of 

conv.seed production, 

then 10% bloom cut 

required

OKLAHOMA 2,004 29 281,121 334,990 3,781 1,131,938 Major

SOUTH DAKOTA 6,014 47 428,447 1,996,599 12,653 4,414,338 Major

UTAH 3,803 54 2,077,813 548,570 7,780 2,172,218 Major

WASHINGTON 17,127 82 10,860,608 448,588 4,294 2,192,001 Major

WYOMING 10,548 62 5,915,816 674,284 4,007 1,696,438 Major

Subtotal 115,910 664 61,046,752 8,856,512 60,270 31,818,458

Grand Total 120,505 806 61,360,765 20,244,497 290,726 65,349,074
Events J101 and J163 Introduction

Environmental Report 14 8/5/2010

RRA SEED PRODUCTION RESTRICTIONS

The National Alfalfa and Forage Alliance (NAFA) used current science and extensive 

stakeholder input to design the “Best Management Practices (BMP) for Roundup Ready Seed 

Production” (See Appendix C in this ER for additional details on BMPs for Roundup Ready® 

Alfalfa Seed Production). These BMP have been adopted by the industry as standards for any 

future RRA seed production as part of an overall stewardship program designed to ensure 

coexistence of various alfalfa hay and seed markets. All RRA seed grower contracts require full 

adherence to the NAFA BMP, a type of identity preserved process-based seed stewardship, 

which includes but is not limited to the following measures:

 RRA seed field location reporting to official seed certification agencies

 Field and isolation zone inspection by official seed certification agencies

 Equipment cleaning prior to and after use

 Segregated and uniquely identified seed handling and storage

 Planting stockseed labeling

 FGI RRA seed grower education and contracting

 Field termination reporting

 Seed company monitoring of compliance

 Annual third-party review of efficacy of BMP

 Other

FGI has individual seed-producer farmer partners who have asked for the opportunity to 

produce RRA seed crops.

Partial deregulation of RRA would include seed production that is restricted to eight defined 

seed grower consortia (Table 1-2). FGI has determined that each of these individual consortia 

could meet or exceed the National Alfalfa & Forage Alliance BMP for RRA Seed Production 

(NAFA, 2008a) parameters and the proposed partial deregulation enhancements to isolation 

distance described below (See Appendix C and Table 1-2).

1) Seed Identification: Stockseed container to be clearly labeled as containing RRA trait 

seed. Grower seed contracts and official field reporting will notify each seed grower 

regarding the measures imposed for seed growing.
Events J101 and J163 Introduction

Environmental Report 15 8/5/2010

2) Implement all NAFA BMP with Isolation Enhancement

a. All BMP measures will be followed, documented, monitored and enforced for 

compliance by FGI or its representatives. In addition, each field will be inspected 

annually by the local seed certification agency, confirming minimum isolation 

standards for that production year.

b. Measures will set the enhanced, minimum, isolation requirements for RRA seed 

fields as follows. The minimum required isolation from conventional, commercial 

seed fields will be 4 miles and 1 mile, when honeybees or leafcutter bees are the 

managed pollinating species, respectively.

c. The potential for gene flow at NAFA BMP isolation is de minimis (Van Deynze et 

al. 2008) and this measure’s proposed enhancement of isolation distance would 

further ensure de minimis gene flow potential into conventional seed crops 

should they be present.

3) Geographic Restrictions:

a. Only eight pre-authorized, physically-isolated locations for RRA seed production 

will be allowed. Each location of proposed seed growing is composed of one to 

three large seed growers who will act together to manage isolation control within 

a local, informal RRA seed grower consortium.
Events J101 and J163 Introduction

Environmental Report 16 8/5/2010

Table 1-2 Eight Seed Grower Consortia

Grower 

Consortium

Counties and State Number of 

requesting 

growers

Approximat

e number of 

initial acres 

(2010-2011)

Managed 

pollinator 

bee 

species

Seed 

harvest 

equipment 

status, 

ownership

Current 

isolation 

distance to 

conventio

nal seed

NAFA Best 

Practices 

minimum 

isolation 

distance

Partial 

Deregulatio

n Isolation, 

minimum 

distance

A. Northern 

California

Lassen, CA 1 300 leafcutter On-Farm >5mi 900 ft 1 mi

B. Central 

California

Kings, Kern, Fresno, 

CA

2 2,000 Honeybee 

+leafcutter

On-farm 4 mi 3 mi 4 mi

C. Colorado Mesa, CO 3 1,000 leafcutter On-farm >10 mi 900 ft 1 mi

D. Eastern 

Idaho

Oneida, Manidoka, 

Twin Falls, ID

500 leafcutter On-farm 1 mi 900 ft 1 mi

E. Western 

Idaho

Ada, Canyon, 

Payette, ID

3 2,000 leafcutter On-farm 1 mi 900 ft 1 mi

F. Nevada Humbolt, Pershing, 

NV

2 600 leafcutter On-farm 2 mi 900 ft 1 mi

G. Texas Carson, Castro, 

Donley, Gray, Lamb, 

Ochiltree, Roberts, 

Swisher, TX

1 500 leafcutter On-farm >10 mi 900 ft 1 mi

H. Utah Box Elder, Cache, 

Millard, Weaver, UT

3 500 leafcutter On-farm 5 mi 900 ft 1 mi
Events J101 and J163 Introduction

Environmental Report 17 8/5/2010

1.2 RATIONALE FOR CREATION OF RRA

Alfalfa is a small seeded perennial forage crop that competes with annual weeds during 

establishment and with annual and perennial weeds in established stands. With irrigated alfalfa 

stands, weed seeds in irrigation water can reinfest the stand with weed seeds with every 

irrigation event. Weed infestation increases the risk of successful establishment and weeds 

generally compete with alfalfa for light, water, and nutrients. Weeds can have an adverse affect 

on the quality of harvested forage and effectively shorten the productive life of the alfalfa stand. 

RRA offers alfalfa growers a simpler, more effective, more flexible, and less expensive herbicide 

alternative for weed control. Current weed control programs in alfalfa production have serious 

limitations because certain weed species are difficult to control. Certain of these difficult to 

control weeds are poisonous and/or toxic to livestock. Glyphosate applications to RRA will offer 

flexibility in timing of weed control, including preplant, preemergence and/or postemergence 

applications. In contrast to most other commonly used alfalfa herbicides, glyphosate can safely 

be applied at virtually any stage of GT alfalfa development. The use of GT alfalfa can help 

increase alfalfa forage yield and forage quality through better weed control (Rogan and 

Fitzpatrick, 2004, pp. 20-21; Medlin and Siegelin, 2001).

Glyphosate is not used for in-crop weed control in conventional alfalfa (those without glyphosate 

tolerance) because it damages the plants. With GT alfalfa, growers have another option for 

weed control.

1.3 SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ADDRESSED

During the lawsuit discussed above, certain specific issues were identified by the court as 

requiring additional NEPA analysis by APHIS (USDC, 2007). These primary issues are 

described below and are addressed in the Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences sections of this ER. Other issues identified by APHIS in the draft EIS are also 

addressed to the extent they are relevant to the proposal for partial deregulation to ensure full 

disclosure and analysis of any potential impacts associated with partial deregulation of RRA 

under the proposed measures. Many of the citations herein are to the draft EIS discussions of 

the basic facts regarding alfalfa, its weed threats and cultivation.

1.3.1 Gene transmission to non-genetically engineered alfalfa

Alfalfa is a perennial crop and is typically replanted every three to six years. The crop is 

typically harvested for forage three to eight times per year, depending on location and seasonal 

climate. Most alfalfa in the U.S. is harvested in the late vegetative stage (pre-bloom) to optimize 
Events J101 and J163 Introduction

Environmental Report 18 8/5/2010

yield and nutritional quality. Forage quality begins to drop dramatically in hay harvested after 

the flowering stage, and continues to deteriorate as the crop further matures toward pod/seed 

set (USDA APHIS, 2009, p. 40). Hay harvested after 10 percent bloom is generally of poor 

quality for feed and has low market value (USDA APHIS, 2009, p. G-6). This leaves little 

opportunity for pollination among forage crops. Alfalfa is exclusively pollinated by bees which 

normally pollinate other alfalfa plants growing in close proximity. However, pollinations at 

greater distances can occur (e.g, less than 1 to greater than 3 miles depending upon the bee 

species).

In contrast, growers promote flowering and seed ripening in commercial seed fields. In most 

fields, flower buds begin to form on stems approximately 4 to 6 weeks after field mowing during 

long-day photoperiods and warm weather. Once alfalfa begins flowering, it flowers 

indeterminately, and its duration depends on moisture, temperature, and other factors (Rogan 

and Fitzpatrick, 2004). Ripe seed, viable for germination, is formed 5 to 6 weeks after 

pollination (i.e., 9 to 12 weeks total after mowing). Seed harvested before this stage is not 

viable.

Cross-pollination between RRA and conventional or organic alfalfa crops could potentially result 

in the inadvertent presence of GE material in conventional or organic alfalfa hay intended for a 

market with specific or zero tolerance for the presence of GE material. Putnam (2006) 

estimated that the GE sensitive hay market is approximately 3 to 5 percent of the total market. 

He estimated that the majority of the market (95 to 97 percent) is composed of growers that may 

either adopt RRA varieties and/or are not likely to be GE sensitive in their buying decisions.

Detailed analysis of the potential for gene transmission from RRA has been conducted. 

Potential impacts from both hay and seed production on organic and conventional hay and seed 

production, other Medicago crops, and feral populations of alfalfa are analyzed in Sections 3.3 

through 3.8 of this ER. A study of the topic was separately published (Van Deynze et al., 2008).

1.3.2 Socioeconomic impacts

The court found that APHIS failed to analyze in its initial EA the socio-economic impacts of 

deregulating RRA on organic and conventional farmers. Therefore, further analysis was 

conducted and is discussed in Sections 3.15 of this ER.

1.3.3 Consumer’s choice to consume non-GE food

The court found that APHIS failed to analyze the possibility that deregulation of RRA would 

degrade the human environment by eliminating a consumer’s choice to consume, or a grower’s 
Events J101 and J163 Introduction

Environmental Report 19 8/5/2010

choice to grow, non-GE food. Therefore, further analysis was conducted and is discussed in 

Section 3.10 of this ER.

1.3.4 Potential for development of glyphosate-resistant (GR) weeds

As the adoption of GT crops has grown, the use of glyphosate has increased (National 

Research Council [NRC], 2010, Figures S-1, S-2, and S-3; Young, 2006). Concerns have been 

expressed that increased use of glyphosate may lead to development of GR weeds. Further 

analysis was conducted and is discussed in Sections 2.4 and 3.11 of this ER.

1.3.5 Cumulative effects of increased use of glyphosate

Further analysis of cumulative impacts from increased use of glyphosate was conducted and is 

discussed in Section 4 of this ER.

1.4 FEDERAL REGULATORY AUTHORITY – COORDINATED FRAMEWORK

Interagency coordination in scientific and technical matters is the responsibility of the federal 

Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), which was established by law in 1976. A 

large part of the OSTP’s mission is “to ensure that the policies of the Executive Branch are 

informed by sound science” and to “ensure that the scientific and technical work of the 

Executive Branch is properly coordinated so as to provide the greatest benefit to society” 

(OSTP, undated).

In 1986, the OSTP published a “comprehensive federal regulatory policy for ensuring the safety 

of biotechnology research and products”, the Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of 

Biotechnology (Coordinated Framework) (OSTP, 1986). The OSTP concluded that the goal of 

ensuring biotechnology safety could be achieved within existing laws (OSTP, 1986).

The Coordinated Framework specifies three federal agencies responsible for regulating 

biotechnology in the U.S.: USDA’s APHIS, the EPA, and the FDA. APHIS regulates GE 

organisms under the PPA of 2000. EPA regulates plant-incorporated protectants and 

herbicides used with herbicide-tolerant crops under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 

Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). FDA regulates 

food (including animal feed, but not including meat and poultry, which is regulated by USDA), 

including food and feed produced through biotechnology, under the authority of the FFDCA. 

Products are regulated according to their intended use and some products are regulated by 

more than one agency. Together, these agencies ensure that the products of modern 

biotechnology are safe to grow, safe to eat, and safe for the environment. USDA, EPA, and 
Events J101 and J163 Introduction

Environmental Report 20 8/5/2010

FDA enforce agency-specific regulations to products of biotechnology that are based on the 

specific nature of each GE organism.

In 2001, in a joint Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)/OSTP assessment of federal 

environmental regulations pertaining to agricultural biotechnology, the CEQ and OSTP found 

that “no significant negative environmental impacts have been associated with the use of any 

previously approved biotechnology product” (CEQ/OSTP, 2001, p. 1).

For RRA, the plant is reviewed by USDA and FDA, whereas EPA is responsible for registering 

the use of the glyphosate herbicide and establishing a tolerance for allowable glyphosate 

residues.12 As indicated herein, although certain issues such as weed resistance and impacts 

of glyphosate on animals or plants are addressed by EPA (not APHIS), this ER nevertheless 

addresses those issues.

1.4.1 USDA regulatory authority

The APHIS BRS mission is to protect U.S. agriculture and the environment using a dynamic and 

science-based regulatory framework that allows for the safe development and use of GE 

organisms. Under its authority from the PPA, APHIS regulates the introduction (importation, 

interstate movement, or release into the environment) of certain GE organisms and products.13 

A GE organism is presumed to be a regulated article if the donor organism, recipient organism, 

vector, or vector agent used in engineering the organism belongs to one of the taxa listed in the 

regulation14 and is also presumed to be a plant pest. APHIS also has authority under these 

rules to regulate a GE organism if it has reason to believe that the GE organism may be a plant 

pest or APHIS does not have sufficient information to determine that the GE organism is unlikely 

to pose a plant pest risk.15

Under APHIS’ regulations a person may petition APHIS to evaluate submitted data and 

determine that a particular regulated article is unlikely to pose a plant pest risk, and, therefore, 

should no longer be regulated.16 The petitioner is required to provide information related to 

plant pest risk that the agency may use to determine whether the regulated article is unlikely to 

 

12 Under the FFDCA and associated regulations, EPA sets a tolerance, or maximum residue limit, for pesticide 

treated food and feed items. A tolerance is the amount of pesticide residue allowed to remain in or on each treated 

food commodity. The tolerance is the residue level that triggers enforcement actions. That is, if residues are found 

above that level, the commodity will be subject to seizure by the government.

13 7 C.F.R. §340.

14 7 C.F.R. §340.2.

15 7 C.F.R. §340.1.

16 7 C.F.R. §340.6. entitled “Petition for determination of non-regulated status”.
Events J101 and J163 Introduction

Environmental Report 21 8/5/2010

present a greater plant pest risk than the unmodified organism.17 If the agency determines that 

the regulated article is unlikely to pose a plant pest risk, the GE organism will be granted nonregulated status. In such a case, APHIS authorizations (i.e. permits and notifications) would no 

longer be required for environmental release, importation, or interstate movement of the nonregulated article or its progeny.

It was under these regulations that Monsanto/FGI submitted the petition for a determination of 

non-regulated status for event J101/J163 (Rogan and Fitzpatrick, 2004). J101/J163 alfalfa were 

considered regulated because they contain non-coding deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) segments 

derived from plant pathogens and the vector agent used to deliver the transforming DNA is a 

plant pathogen (See Section 3.1 for a discussion of these concepts) (USDA APHIS, 2005, p. 5).

1.4.2 EPA regulatory authority

EPA is responsible for regulation of pesticides (including herbicides such as glyphosate) under 

the FIFRA.18 FIFRA requires that all pesticides be registered before distribution, sale, and use, 

unless exempted by EPA regulation. Before a product is registered as a pesticide under FIFRA, 

it must be shown that when used in accordance with the label, it will not result in unreasonable 

adverse effects on the environment.

Under the FFDCA, as amended,19 pesticides added to (or contained in) raw agricultural 

commodities generally are considered to be unsafe unless a tolerance or exemption from 

tolerance has been established. EPA establishes residue tolerances for pesticides under the 

authority of the FFDCA. EPA is required, before establishing a pesticide tolerance to reach a 

safety determination based on a finding of reasonable certainty of no harm under the FFDCA, 

as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA). The FDA enforces the 

tolerances set by the EPA. EPA approved the use of glyphosate over the top of RRA on June 

15, 2005. The use of glyphosate over the top of RRA did not require an increase in the existing 

glyphosate residue tolerance of 400 ppm in the animal feed, non-grass crop group; this 

tolerance supports the feeding of alfalfa forage that has been treated with glyphosate to 

livestock. EPA issued a new glyphosate tolerance for alfalfa seed of 0.5 ppm on February 16, 

2005.20

 

17 7 C.F.R. §340.6(c)(4).

18 7 U.S.C. §136 et seq.

19 21 U.S.C. §301 et seq.

20 40 C.F.R. §180.364; 70 Fed. Reg. 7861 (Feb. 16, 2005).
Events J101 and J163 Introduction

Environmental Report 22 8/5/2010

1.4.3 FDA regulatory authority

FDA, which has primary regulatory authority over food and feed safety, has published a policy 

statement in the Federal Register concerning regulation of products derived from new plant 

varieties, including those genetically engineered (FDA, 1992). Under this policy, FDA uses a 

consultation process to ensure that human food and animal feed safety issues or other 

regulatory issues (e.g. labeling) are resolved prior to commercial distribution of a bioengineered 

food. Monsanto/FGI submitted a food and feed safety and nutritional assessment summary for 

RRA to FDA in October 2003. FDA completed its consultation process in 2004 (Tarantino, 

2004; Hendrickson and Price, 2004). FDA’s analysis and related impacts are discussed in 

Section 3.10.

1.5 THE NATIONAL ORGANIC PROGRAM AND BIOTECHNOLOGY

Congress passed The Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) of 1990 to avoid the confusion 

and misrepresentation then taking place in the “organic” marketplace.21 The OFPA required the 

USDA to establish a National Organic Program (NOP) to develop uniform standards and a 

certification process for those producing and handling food products offered for sale as 

“organically produced.”22 The OFPA requires certification under the NOP, which was finalized 

in 2000, to be process-based.23 “The certification process does not guarantee particular 

attributes of the end product; rather it specifies and audits the methods and procedures by 

which the product is produced” (Ronald and Fouche, 2006). The NOP defines certain “excluded 

methods” of breeding that cannot be used in organic production, describing them as “means 

that are not possible under natural conditions or processes.”24 Along with genetic engineering, 

three other modern breeding techniques are specified as “excluded methods” in the 

regulations.25 Thus, a certified organic grower cannot intentionally plant seeds that were 

developed by these specific excluded methods. However, because “organic” is based on 

process and not product, the mere presence of plant materials produced through excluded 

methods in a crop will not jeopardize the integrity of products labeled as organic, as long as the 

grower follows the required organic production protocol. Also, other modern breeding methods -

 

21 7 U.S.C. § 6501 et seq.

22 7 C.F.R. Part 205, announced at 65 Fed. Reg. 80548 (Dec. 21, 2000).

23 7 U.S.C. §6503(a).

24 7 C.F.R. §205.2.

25 Id.
Events J101 and J163 Introduction

Environmental Report 23 8/5/2010

for example, induced radiation or chemical mutagenesis - are not specified as excluded 

methods by the NOP (discussed in Section 3.1.1).

All organic growers’ production plans must be approved by an organic certifying agent before 

the farm can be certified as “organic.”26 Such plans must include, among other things, steps the 

organic grower is taking to avoid what the NOP refers to as “genetic drift” from any neighboring 

crops using excluded methods.27 Certification must include on-site inspections of the farm to 

verify the procedures set forth in the organic production plan.28

Thus, the NOP recognizes the coexistence of organic growers with neighboring growers who 

may choose to grow products developed using certain methods of biotechnology. So long as an 

organic grower follows an approved organic method of production that seeks to avoid contact 

with these specific biotechnology-derived crops, if some residue of the biotechnology-derived 

plant material is later found in the organic crop (or food produced from it), neither the crop (or 

food) nor the organic farm is in danger of losing its organic status. According to the standards 

established by the NOP, no grower or seed producer should lose organic certification due to 

inadvertent transmission of genetic material from a genetically engineered crop.

In the context of the genetic drift discussion, in the preamble of the NOP regulations, USDA 

emphasized that it is the use of excluded methods as a production method that is prohibited, not 

the mere presence of a product of excluded method:

It is particularly important to remember that organic standards are process 

based. Certifying agents attest to the ability of organic operations to follow a set 

of production standards and practices that meet the requirements of the Act and 

the regulations. This regulation prohibits the use of excluded methods in organic 

operations. The presence of a detectable residue of a product of excluded 

methods alone does not necessarily constitute a violation of this regulation. As 

long as an organic operation has not used excluded methods and takes 

reasonable steps to avoid contact with the products of excluded methods as 

detailed in their approved organic system plan, the unintentional presence of the 

products of excluded methods should not affect the status of an organic product 

or operation.29

The NOP calls for testing only if there is “reason to believe” that a grower has used excluded 

methods.30 The preamble states that a “reason to believe” may be triggered by situations such 

 

26 See 7 C.F.R. Part 205, Subpt. E. 

27 See id. at 205.201; 65 Fed. Reg. 80547, 80556 (Dec. 21, 2000) (discussing “genetic drift”). 

28 7 C.F.R. §205.403. 

29 65 Fed. Reg. 80547, 80556 (Dec. 21, 2000).

30 7 C.F.R. §205.670(b). 
Events J101 and J163 Introduction

Environmental Report 24 8/5/2010

as a formal, written complaint to the certifying agent regarding the practices of a certified 

organic operation; the proximity of a certified organic operation to a potential source of drift; or 

the product from a certified organic operation being unaffected when neighboring fields or crops 

are infested with pests.31

This testing provision does not establish a zero tolerance standard for the presence of products 

of excluded methods in organically labeled food. Rather, it serves as a warning that excluded 

methods may have been used: “Any detectable residues of. . . a product produced using 

excluded methods found in or on samples during analysis will serve as a warning indicator to 

the certifying agent.”32

[T]hese regulations do not establish a “zero tolerance” standard. . . [A] positive 

detection of a product of excluded methods would trigger an investigation by the 

certifying agent to determine if a violation of organic production or handling 

standards occurred. The presence of a detectable residue alone does not 

necessarily indicate use of a product of excluded methods that would constitute a 

violation of the standards.”33

Only if the organic producer intentionally used excluded methods of crop production will that 

producer be subject to suspension or revocation of organic certification.

Indeed, since the time GE crops were introduced in the U.S. in the mid-1990s, organic markets 

have grown and expanded (Smith, 2010b, p. 10).

1.5.1 Non-GMO Project working standard

The Non-GMO34 Project is a non-profit organization created by leading members of the organic 

industry to “offer consumers a consistent non-GMO choice for organic and natural products that 

are produced without genetic engineering or recombinant DNA technologies” (Non-GMO 

Project, 2010a). The Non-GMO Project has created a working standard to implement its goal. 

The standard sets action thresholds for “GMO” (GE) adventitious presence for certain products. 

If these action thresholds are exceeded, the participant must investigate the cause of the 

exceedance and take corrective action (Non-GMO Project, 2010, p. 13). The standard sets a 

threshold of 0.25 percent for GE material for the presence of GE traits in non-GE seeds (p. 28), 

and a 0.9 percent threshold for non-GE food or feed (p.14).

 

31 See 65 Fed. Reg. 80547, 80629 (Dec. 21, 2000). 

32 Id. at 80628.

33 Id. at 80632.

34 GMO stands for genetically modified organism.
Events J101 and J163 Introduction

Environmental Report 25 8/5/2010

1.5.2 Growth in organic and GE farming

Expansion of organic farming has succeeded at the same time as the growth of GE crops. 

Consumer demand for organically produced goods “has shown double-digit growth for well over 

a decade” and organic products “are now available in nearly 20,000 natural food stores and 

three of four conventional grocery stores.” Organic products “have shifted from being a lifestyle 

choice for a small share of consumers to being consumed at least occasionally by a majority of 

Americans” (USDA Economic Research Service [ERS], 2009c).

1.6 COEXISTENCE IN U.S. AGRICULTURE

1.6.1 Coexistence and biotechnology

Coexistence of different varieties of sexually compatible crops has long been a part of 

agriculture, especially in seed production, where large investments are made in developing new 

varieties and high seed purity levels are required by the Federal Seed Act’s implementing 

regulations.35 The aspect of coexistence most relevant to this document is that related to 

specific methods of crop production. In this context, coexistence refers to the “concurrent 

cultivation of conventional, organic, and genetically engineered (GE) crops consistent with 

underlying consumer preferences and choices” (USDA Advisory Committee, 2008). The 

differences among these crops that are particularly relevant to coexistence in this ER are in the 

types of breeding methods (sometimes referred to as “genetic modifications”) that are 

associated with each of these three types of crop production.

“Genetic engineering” is defined by APHIS regulations as “the genetic modification of 

organisms by recombinant DNA techniques.”36 Recombinant DNA (rDNA) techniques are 

discussed in Section 3.1.1 of this ER. While there are many ways to genetically modify a crop, 

the APHIS definition of GE crops applies only to those developed using rDNA techniques, which 

are among the more modern breeding methods.

Organic crops are those produced in accordance with the requirements of the NOP, discussed 

in Section 1.5.

Conventional crops are simply those that are neither GE nor organic. They may be 

commodity crops (mass produced), or they may be identity preserved, with some characteristic 

tailored for a specific end user. Identity-preserved usually refers to a “specialty, high-value, 

premium or niche market” (Massey, 2002). One type of identity preserved product that has 

 

35 7 C.F.R. § 201

36 7 C.F.R. §340.1
Events J101 and J163 Introduction

Environmental Report 26 8/5/2010

been produced since the introduction of GE crops is “non-GE”; however, there are no 

mandatory standards governing the use and/or marketing of “non-GE” products. (USDA 

Advisory Committee, 2008).

Farmers who want to maximize their profitability must decide whether the higher prices 

(premiums) they may receive for organic or identity-preserved crops are sufficient to offset the 

added managerial costs of producing these crops. As researchers have noted, “Although yields 

on organic farms are sometimes less than those of conventional systems, price premiums make 

it an attractive option for growers looking for specialized markets and a higher-value product” 

(Ronald and Fouche, 2006).

1.6.2 USDA position on coexistence and biotechnology

It is USDA’s position that all three methods of agricultural production described above can 

provide benefits to the environment, consumers, and the agricultural economy (Smith, 2010b).

1.6.3 Coexistence in U.S. agriculture

The USDA Advisory Committee on Biotechnology and 21st Century Agriculture who reported 

that “coexistence among the three categories of crops is a distinguishing characteristic of U.S. 

agriculture, and makes it different from some other parts of the world,” expressed its belief that 

U.S. agriculture supports coexistence, and recommended continued government support of 

coexistence (USDA Advisory Committee, 2008). Among the Committee’s findings:

 The U.S. is the largest producer of GE crops in the world.

 The U.S. is one of the largest producers of organic crops in the world.

 The U.S. is one of the largest exporters of conventionally-grown, identity preserved, nonGE crops in the world.

 Some U.S. farmers currently are producing a combination of organic, conventional, and 

GE crops on the same farm.

Among the coexistence-enabling factors the Committee identified is the existing “legal and 

regulatory framework that has enabled different markets to develop” without foreclosing the 

ability of “participants in the food and feed supply chain to establish standards and procedures 

(e.g., not setting specific mandatory adventitious presence (AP) thresholds and having processbased rather than product-based organic standards).” At the same time, development of 

practices and testing methods that allow for voluntary thresholds has also enabled coexistence 

(USDA Advisory Committee, 2008).
Events J101 and J163 Introduction

Environmental Report 27 8/5/2010

As APHIS has previously observed, “studies of coexistence of major GE and non-GE crops in 

North America and the European Union (E.U.) demonstrated that there has been no significant 

gene flow from GE crops and that GE and non-GE crops are coexisting with minimal adverse 

economic effects” (Smith, 2010b, pp. 11-12) (citing Gealy et al., 2007; Brookes and Barfoot, 

2003; Brookes and Barfoot, 2004(a) and (b), and Walz 2004). In addition, “the agricultural 

markets and local entities have addressed coexistence through contractual arrangements, 

management measures, and marketing arrangements. This market-based approach to 

coexistence has created economic opportunities for all kinds of producers of agricultural 

products.” (Id. p. 9). RRA is one of fifteen GT events previously deregulated by USDA. See 

APHIS, EPA, Petitions of Non-Regulated Status Granted or Pending by APHIS as of February 

2, 2010, http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/not_reg.html).

1.7 ROLE OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES IN AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY

The analyses in this ER are based on published, peer-reviewed scientific papers; federal 

government assessments; assessments from international agencies; information from 

specialists from many universities; data collected by Monsanto/FGI under controlled conditions; 

and information from other relevant sources. One resource used for this ER is the National 

Academies (NA), a private, non-profit institution that advises the nation on scientific and 

technical matters. It consists of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), the National 

Academy of Engineering, the Institute of Medicine (IM) and the National Research Council 

(NRC) (NA, 2010). Scientists, engineers and health professionals are elected by their peers to 

the academy and serve pro bono. Reports are prepared by committees of members with 

specialized expertise and reviewed by outside anonymous experts (Alberts, 1999). NA reports, 

as well as the scientific studies used in those reports, are used as applicable throughout this 

document.

The NA has been active in studies related to agricultural biotechnology since the 1970s and 

works cooperatively with federal agencies, and its reports have provided guidance and 

recommendations for process improvement to regulatory agencies (Alberts, 1999). The NRC 

1989 guidelines for field testing of genetically engineered organisms were used as the basis for 

agency procedures for field trials (Alberts, 1999; NRC, 1989). In studies in 1987 and 2000 the 

NRC emphasized that the characteristics of the modified organism should be the object of a risk 

assessment, and not the methods by which the modifications were accomplished; and that the 

risks associated with recombinant DNA techniques are the same in kind as risks from other 

types of genetic modification (NRC, 1987; NRC, 2000). This position was re-iterated in a 2004 
Events J101 and J163 Introduction

Environmental Report 28 8/5/2010

study prepared jointly by the IM and the NRC. Whether such compositional changes result in 

unintended health effects is dependent on the nature of the substances altered and the 

biological consequences of the compounds. To date, “no adverse health effects attributed to 

genetic engineering have been documented in the human population” (Institute of Medicine and 

National Research Council [IM/NRC], 2004, p. 8). In a 2002 report, the NRC “found that the 

current standards used by the federal government to assure environmental safety of transgenic 

plants were higher than the standards used in assuring safety of other agricultural practices and 

technologies” (NRC, 2002). The NRC reports that, while biotechnology is not without risk, since 

the first commercial introduction of transgenic plants, “biotechnology has provided enormous 

benefits to agricultural crop production” (NRC, 2008). NRC’s latest report on biotechnology in 

agriculture evaluates the impact of genetically engineered crops on farm sustainability (NRC, 

2010). The authors concluded that an understanding of impacts on all farmers will help ensure 

that GE technology contributes to sustainability and that commercialized GE traits to date, when 

used properly, “have been effective at reducing pest problems with economic and environmental 

benefit to farmers” (NRC, 2010).

1.8 ALTERNATIVES

In addition to the alternative of implementing the partial deregulation measures (Alternative 2), 

this ER considers the alternative of full regulation (Alternative 1).

1.8.1 Alternative 1 – No Action

In conducting NEPA review, agencies consider a no action alternative, which provides a 

baseline against which action alternatives can be evaluated. This ER identifies the no action 

alternative as a return to full regulation – or the status quo when the petition for deregulation of 

RRA was initially submitted. Under this alternative, the introduction of RRA would be fully 

regulated and would require permits issued or notifications acknowledged by APHIS until APHIS 

completes its EIS and issues a Record of Decision (ROD) regarding whether to deregulate 

RRA. For purposes of this analysis, we assume that Alternative 1 would not involve widespread 

RRA cultivation, and instead would contemplate a return to conventional alfalfa crops or to 

crops other than alfalfa.37

 

37 This ER does not address the acres of RRA planted prior to March 30, 2007, and cultivated pursuant to conditions 

required by the district court and implemented by APHIS by administrative order. These acres are reaching the end of 

their productive lives and will be removed within the next few years under either Alternative. Because their acreage 

and expected lifespan is so small, and because their impacts would be identical under either Alternative, the analysis 

of these limited impacts would not be meaningful within the scope of this ER. 
Events J101 and J163 Introduction

Environmental Report 29 8/5/2010

1.8.2 Alternative 2 – Partial Deregulation

Under this alternative APHIS would implement the proposed measures described in Section 

1.1.3.
Events J101 and J163 Affected Environment

Environmental Report 30 8/5/2010

SECTION 2.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

2.1 ALFALFA CHARACTERISTICS

Alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) is a deep-rooted and short-lived perennial plant considered to be 

the “Queen of Forages” due to its high nutritional content for cattle, sheep and horses (USDA 

APHIS, 2009, p. 18).

2.1.1 Growth

Alfalfa is recognized as a widely adapted crop, growing in all continental States, as well as 

Alaska and Hawaii. Alfalfa initially grows from seed, but after each harvest or winter it will regrow from buds arising from the perennial crown/root structure. As alfalfa grows, yield (i.e. 

above ground biomass) increases until alfalfa yield peaks at full bloom. However, juvenile 

vegetative alfalfa vegetative alfalfa plants have the highest nutritional value and that nutritional 

value decreases as the plant approaches full flower. The vegetative growth interval during 

most of the year is 22 to 40 days. The crop is typically harvested for forage three to eight times 

per year, depending on location and seasonal climate. The alfalfa plant grows until stopped by 

a hard freeze. Fields grown for forage production are typically maintained for 3 to 6 years or 

longer in some areas (USDA APHIS, 2009, p. 18-19).

2.1.2 Pollination

Alfalfa is predominantly cross-pollinated and the flowers depend entirely on bees for crosspollination. Alfalfa requires bees to physically “trip” flowers to release pollen for egg fertilization 

and seed production (refer to Section 2.2.3) (USDA APHIS, 2009, p. 19).

Alfalfa is exclusively insect pollinated (Mallory-Smith and Zapiola, 2008). The flowers depend 

on bees for cross-pollination. Alfalfa seed farmers must stock bees to ensure pollination 

because most regions that cultivate alfalfa seed do not have naturally occurring populations of 

effective alfalfa pollinators. Forage farmers do not stock bees, however, because they do not 

want or need pollination of their fields (USDA APHIS, 2009, p. 94; Rogan and Fitzpatrick, 2004). 

Leafcutter bees (Megachile rotundata F.) are typically used to pollinate alfalfa seed production 

fields in the cooler Pacific Northwest (PNW), and honey bees (Apis mellifera) are primarily used 

in the Desert Southwest. However, a few growers in niche regions like southern Washington 

use alkali bees (Nomia melanderi) due to their unique geography and climate (USDA APHIS, 

2009, p. 19). Alfalfa pollen is not carried by the wind; it is not wind-pollinated. Severe 

environmental conditions such as, heavy winds in combination with drought, may sometimes 
Events J101 and J163 Affected Environment

Environmental Report 31 8/5/2010

cause flowers to trip and self-pollinate. Although rare, self-pollinated seeds have inferior vigor 

and germination due to genetic inbreeding depression in alfalfa (Teuber, 2007).

Pollen-mediated gene flow decreases exponentially as the distance from the pollen source 

increases (Mallory-Smith and Zapiola, 2008). However, the type of pollinator determines the 

extent. All bees have a limited range over which they will search to efficiently collect pollen; 

most nectar or pollen foraging occurs close to the nest when flowers are present. The 

maximum foraging radius for each of the three commercially available bee species (honey bees, 

leafcutter bees, and alkali bees) depends heavily on the abundance of nectar and pollen 

resources. Leafcutter bees have the shortest routine foraging radius of less than a 1/4 mile. 

The honey bee and alkali bee having a forging range of 1 to 3 miles (Arnett, 2003; Gathmann 

and Tscharntke, 2002; Hammon et al., 2006; Teuber et al., 2005). Honey bees may infrequently 

transport alfalfa pollen and effect pollination up to 3 miles from the source (St. Amand et al., 

2000; Teuber et al., 2004; Hammon et al. 2006). Honey bees are predominantly nectar 

collectors and as such they tend to avoid the tiny alfalfa flowers when other sources of nectar 

flowers are available. When visiting alfalfa flowers, honey bees are known as inefficient 

pollinators because they predominantly “side-feed” solely for nectar, i.e., they leave the flower 

closed (un-tripped) and un-pollinated. Feral honey bees and native bees including Bombus

spp., Osmia spp., Agapostomen spp. and Megachile spp. can also be found visiting alfalfa 

flowers in varying numbers. These species may sometimes pollinate alfalfa flowers but their 

importance in alfalfa pollination is minor (USDA APHIS, 2009, p. O-5; Hammon et al., 2006; 

Arnett, 2002).

2.2 ALFALFA PRODUCTION

2.2.1 Forage production, general

Alfalfa is among the most important forage crops in the U.S., with more than 21 million acres in 

cultivation. Recognized as the oldest plant grown solely for forage, alfalfa has been used as 

livestock feed because of its high protein and low fiber content. Alfalfa is ranked fourth on the 

list of most widely grown U.S. crops by acreage and is ranked third among agricultural crops in 

terms of value (USDA APHIS, 2009, p. 17). The harvested acreage of alfalfa harvested for 

forage (dry hay) was approximately 21 million acres in 2009, which generated 71 million tons of 

hay at an average yield of 3.35 tons per acre (USDA ERS, 2010a and 2010b). Over the last 60 

years (since 1951), harvested alfalfa hay acreage in the U.S. has ranged between 20.7 acres 

(2010) and 29.8 million (1957) (USDA ERS, 2010a). From 1951 to 2009 (latest year available), 

total U.S. production (dry) has ranged between 46.8 million tons (1951) and 91.9 million tons 
Events J101 and J163 Affected Environment

Environmental Report 32 8/5/2010

(1986) (USDA ERS, 2010b). Since 1950, yields generally increased until about the mid-1980s; 

since then yields in most years have been around 3.3 tons per acre. The total acreage of 

harvested alfalfa has generally been declining since the mid-1980s, with 2010 the lowest year 

since 1950 (USDA ERS, 2010a). The production decreases are due to alfalfa’s use in crop 

rotation declining in the U.S., and the increased use of corn silage as a source of forage in dairy 

diets coupled with the decline in dairy (milk) prices paid to farmers. Alfalfa requires different 

management, equipment, and labor schedules than other major cropping systems such as corn 

and soybeans. Transportation of bulky alfalfa hay or haylage to distant markets may be 

prohibitively expensive (USDA APHIS, 2009, p. 34). In the 2009/2010 season (May 2009 to 

April 2010), the average price farmers received for alfalfa hay was $115/ton, compared to 

$101/ton for other hay (USDA ERS, 2010c).

Alfalfa is grown for forage in almost every U.S. state. U.S. production of hay/haylage and seed 

harvested for the 2006 season is shown in Table 2-1. Haylage is alfalfa that is chopped at 

higher moisture content than hay, and stored in silos, bunkers or plastic bags to enable 

controlled fermentation to preserve the nutritional content. The major U.S. alfalfa producing 

regions include the Southwest, PNW, Inter-Mountain, Plains, North Central, and East-Central. 

The North-Central and the East-Central regions are the highest acreage hay and haylage 

regions in the U.S.; whereas, the Southwest and PNW regions produce the most seed in the 

U.S. (USDA NASS, 2010b).
Events J101 and J163 Affected Environment

Environmental Report 33 8/5/2010

Table 2-1 Alfalfa Forage and Seed Production by State

2006 National Agricultural Statistics Service Date

State Acres by State 

(1000s)

Hay and Haylage 

Harvested

Dry 

Hay 

2006

Hay and 

Haylage 

2006

Average 

Yield T/A

Forage 

Tons 

Harvested

Seed 

Production 

Acres

Average 

Yield 

(lbs/A)

Seed Lbs 

Harvested

AZ 250 250 8.3 2,075 4 500 2,000,000

CA 1,050 1,070 6.9 7,426 38 550 20,900,000

NM 220 234 51 1,184 2 400 800,000

Southwest

Total 1,520 1,554 10,685 44 23,700,000

ID 1,180 1,230 4.5 5,523 28 700 19,600,000

NV 270 270 5.1 1,377 5 600 3,000,000

OR 430 430 4.4 1,892 5 650 3,250,000

WA 440 455 4.9 2,239 15 750 11,250,000

PNW

Total 2,320 2,385 11,031 53 37,100,000

CO 780 780 3.8 2,964 0.6 200 390,000

MT 1,550 1,550 2.1 3,255 5.5 200 3,025,000

UT 560 560 4 2,240 2.2 200 1,320,000

WY 500 500 2.8 1,400 7.5 400 4,125,000

InterMountain

Total 3,390 3,390 9,859 15.8 8,860,000

KS 950 965 3.8 3,677 0.5 200 100,000

NE 1,250 1,265 3.3 4,212 0.4 200 80,000

OK 380 380 2.1 798 0.4 200 80,000

TX 150 160 4.4 707 1 400 400,00

Plains

Total 2,730 2,770 9,394 2.3 660,000

IA 1,180 1,230 4 4,908 0 0 0

MN 1,350 1,500 3.6 5,460 0 0 0

ND 1,450 1,450 1.2 1,740 0 0 0

WI 1,650 2,400 3.9 9,336 0 0 0

SD 1,800 1,820 1.6 2,930 7 250 1,750,000

North 

Central

Total 7,430 8,400 24,374 7 1,750,000

CT 7 7 2.1 15 0 0 0

DE 5 5 3.9 20 0 0 0

IL 440 460 4.2 1,918 0 0 0

IN 360 360 4.1 1,476 0 0 0

ME 10 10 1.9 19 0 0 0

MD 40 40 3.9 156 0 0 0

MA 13 13 2.3 30 0 0 0

MI 830 980 4 3.940 0 0 0

MO 390 400 3 1,184 0 0 0

NH 8 8 2.4 19 0 0 0

NJ 25 25 2.5 63 0 0 0

NY 370 610 3.3 2,019 0 0 0

OH 470 550 4 2,195 0 0 0

PA 500 660 3.8 2,515 0 0 0

RI 1 1 3 3 0 0 0

VT 45 90 3.6 322 0 0 0

East 

Central

Total 3,514 4,219 12,894 0 0

Source: USDA APHIS, 2009, Table 3-20

Cultural practices

Seeding and planting. The objectives of seedbed preparation are to manage crop residue (the 

leftover vegetative matter from the previous crop), minimize erosion, improve soil structure, and 

eliminate early season weeds. Alfalfa requires a good establishment for a long-lived productive 
Events J101 and J163 Affected Environment

Environmental Report 34 8/5/2010

stand. Results from seed failure include poor seedbed preparation, seeding too deep or too 

shallow, low moisture availability, freezing, diseases, insects, damage from herbicides, and 

excess competition for light and nutrients from a companion crop or from weeds. Slight 

differences in seeding may be in the equipment used, such as, drills, broadcasting, or aerial 

broadcasting. Seeding time during the year varies from region to region. Northern areas will 

generally seed in spring to avoid major freezing damage of young seedling plants whereas all 

other areas will seed in the fall. Recommended seeding times are based on the previous crop, 

soil water availability throughout the year, and the time of year. The recommended soil 

preparations are similar in all regions unless no-till planting is used and no-till planting can be 

used in all regions (USDA APHIS, 2009, p. 84). No-till productions systems do not have any 

associated tillage where weed control is entirely through chemical means.

Fertilizing. The only differences in fertilizing among alfalfa growers occur in the composition of 

the fertilizer used because of the different soil types in different regions. All regions generally 

recommend good availability of phosphorus and potassium. Nitrogen fertilizer is generally not 

recommended unless considerable refuse from the previous crop exists (USDA APHIS, 2009, p. 

84).

Harvesting. Alfalfa grown for forage can be used for grazing or harvested as greenchop, 

haylage/silage or hay. The only major difference for harvesting in different regions is the total 

number of harvests per year. The northern regions typically have up to two or three harvests 

per year due to shorter growing seasons. Southern regions can have six or more harvests per 

year. The major differences are in the adaptation of different varieties to the different climates 

of the U.S. and differing levels of various pests (weeds, disease, and insects) (USDA APHIS, 

2009, p. 84).

Harvesting. Alfalfa grown for forage can be used for grazing or harvested as greenchop, 

haylage/silage or hay. The only major difference for harvesting in different regions is the total 

number of harvests per year. The northern regions typically have up to two or three harvests 

per year due to shorter growing seasons. Southern regions can have six or more harvests per 

year. The major differences are in the adaptation of different varieties to the different climates 

of the U.S. and differing levels of various pests (weeds, disease, and insects) (USDA APHIS, 

2009, p. 84). 

Crop rotations. Crop rotations can help maintain soil fertility, reduce soil erosion, avoid 

pathogen and pest buildup, adapt to weather changes, avoid allelopathic effects (effects to 

reduce the growth of one plant due to chemical releases by another) and increase profits. 
Events J101 and J163 Affected Environment

Environmental Report 35 8/5/2010

Weeds can be a problem in alfalfa, but once alfalfa is established, it acts as a suppressor of 

weeds and is commonly used in rotations for weed reduction. Alfalfa is also used in crop 

rotations because it provides nitrogen to the soil, which decreases fertilizer inputs in other 

rotations. Rotating perennials, such as alfalfa, with annuals also helps control weeds and 

improves soil tilth. Using other crops to rotate with alfalfa is likewise advisable because mature 

alfalfa is autotoxic to seedling alfalfa. (USDA APHIS, 2009, p. 73 and 75).

2.2.2 Organic alfalfa hay production

Between 2000 and 2005, the number of acres in certified organic alfalfa hay production 

fluctuated slightly, but overall showed an increasing trend. The percentage of total alfalfa hay 

acres certified as organic per year was between 0.51 to 0.92 percent nationally during this time 

period (see Table 2-2). During 2005 (the most recent year for which certified organic alfalfa 

acres are reported), there were 204,380 acres in certified organic production, which was 

approximately 0.92 percent of the U.S. alfalfa dry hay total (USDA APHIS, 2009, p. 48).
Events J101 and J163 Affected Environment

Environmental Report 36 8/5/2010

Table 2-2 Organic Alfalfa Hay Harvested Acreage.

Acreage 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Total 113,157 116,608 155,437 135,717 175,260 204,380

Share of Total 

U.S. Acreage

0.51% 0.49% 0.67% 0.58% 0.81% 0.92%

Source: USDA-ERS, 2005; USDA-NASS, 2007; USDA APHIS, 2009, p. 48

Organic alfalfa hay production is similarly distributed geographically to conventional hay. 

However, production of organic alfalfa hay is a more significant proportion of total alfalfa hay 

production in some States. In 2005, for example, more than 4 percent of all alfalfa hay acreage 

in Idaho was organic, compared to just 0.92 percent nationally. Organic alfalfa, like organic 

dairy, also seems to occur in pockets, with 72 percent of organic acreage located in just 6 

States—Idaho, Wisconsin, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, and California. These 6 

States account for about 41 percent of total U.S. alfalfa acreage (USDA APHIS, 2009, p. 48).

The increased price per ton of hay received by organic growers is partially offset by a reduction 

in forage quality (due to increased weeds in the hay) and an approximately 12.5 percent 

reduction of alfalfa yield per acre (Long et al., 2007). The 2005 national average yield per acre 

for all alfalfa hay production was 3.39 tons. Based on differences in organic and conventional 

alfalfa yield from Long et al. (2007), the total estimated U.S. organic hay production in 2005 was 

about 606,242 tons; the total U.S. production of alfalfa hay in 2005 was approximately 

76,149,000 tons. The resulting eaverage organic alfalfa yield per acre, in 2005, was 2.97 tons. 

This estimate is approximate, however, and is only presented here for illustrative purposes 

(USDA APHIS, 2009, p. 48).

2.2.3 Seed production

Maintaining seed purity, identity and quality

The Federal Seed Act and its implementing regulations38 establish basic standards for 

certification of seed, which are carried out by state seed certifying agencies. A state seed 

certifying agency is created by state law, has authority to certify seed, and has standards and 

procedures approved by USDA “to assure the genetic purity and identity of the seed certified.” 

Seed certifying agencies’ standards and procedures must meet or exceed those specified in the 

 

38 7 C.F.R. §201.
Events J101 and J163 Affected Environment

Environmental Report 37 8/5/2010

USDA regulations.39 Federal law also allows for international seed certification. Through the 

certification process, the certifying agency “gives official recognition to seeds produced of a 

cultivar or named variety under a limited generation system which ensures genetic purity, 

identity, and a given minimum level of quality” (USDA, 2009a). In the case of alfalfa, State Crop 

Improvement Associations (or sometimes Seed Grower Associations) provide certifications that 

seed production followed minimum standards, such as isolation between different alfalfa 

varieties, absence of prohibited noxious weeds in the field, inspection of conditioning 

(separation) facilities, maintaining traceability of seed lots, and seed testing (USDA APHIS, 

2009).

The most common levels of certification that would normally be available for consumer 

purchase would be “registered seed” or “certified seed.” Breeder seed is controlled by the seed 

developer and is the source for the production of the other classes of certified seed, and 

foundation seed is normally used to establish new production fields (USDA, 2009a and 7 C.F.R. 

§ 201.2). Standards are highest for Breeder/Foundation seed, next highest for Registered; 

while “Certified” has the least stringent requirements of the certified categories. In all cases, the 

party seeking the certification is responsible for ensuring the requirements are met.

Certified seed must have a label indicating, among other things, the percent of pure seed, inert 

matter, other crop, and weed seed. Seed purity standards vary between states but remain high, 

particularly for foundation seed stock. At least 99 percent of each seed harvest must contain the 

pure seed variety (i.e. < 1 percent genetic off-types), and there are strict limits on the allowable 

amounts of other crops, weeds and inert matter. After seed crops have been evaluated by seed 

labs, they are tagged with seed labels in accordance with law. The Association of Official Seed 

Certifying Agencies (AOSCA) requires that a representative sample from each submitted crop 

undergo multiple tests at a seed lab. All types of seed crops must be accurately labeled. The 

Foundation and Certified seeds are identified by a special tag that includes variety, kind, origin, 

net weight, percent pure seed, percent other materials, amount of noxious seed and weeds, and 

identification of the seed lab performing the analysis (USDA APHIS, 2009).

California, the leading producer of alfalfa seed, provides an example of typical rules for field 

eligibility (past use and spatial isolation) and seed purity standards. These rules are followed by 

most states. For cultivating Foundation seed (seed of the highest purity), alfalfa must not have 

grown on the land in the previous four years. For Certified seed, alfalfa must not have been 

grown on the land in the previous one to two years. These past use requirements may vary 

 

39 7 U.S.C. §1551(a)(25); 7 C.F.R. §201.67.
Events J101 and J163 Affected Environment

Environmental Report 38 8/5/2010

depending on the intervening crops. The boundaries of the field must be clearly set and all 

noxious weeds and volunteer plants must be eradicated before planting. Foundation seed fields 

must be isolated from alfalfa of different varieties by 900 feet (ft). Certified fields must be 

isolated by 165 ft However, a “10 percent rule” provides some flexibility for Certified fields. 

Under this rule, if 10 percent or less of the Certified field is in the 165 foot isolation zone, then 

the entire field is considered Certified. However, if more than 10 percent is in the isolation zone, 

then that part of the field must be separated and not harvested as Certified seed (USDA APHIS, 

2009).

Summary of practices for alfalfa seed production

Unlike alfalfa hay production, alfalfa seed production is largely concentrated both geographically 

and in the number of producers. Seed production occurs primarily in niche areas of the western 

U.S. on approximately 100 to 120 thousand acres under intensive management and irrigated 

field conditions (see Figure 1-1). It requires a long growing season with a very warm 

temperature, very low humidity during seed ripening, and specialized equipment. Most 

professional seed producers use cultured bees and specialized equipment associated with bee 

culture (USDA APHIS, 2009, p. 68).

Based on the 2007 Census of Agriculture, the top three seed producing states, accounting for 

over 60 percent of production, were California with 31 percent of produced seed, Washington 

with 17 percent, and Idaho with 15 percent. The remaining seed production was highly 

concentrated in the western states of Nevada, Oregon, Wyoming, Montana, and Utah (USDA 

APHIS, 2009).

As shown in Table 3-9 of the draft EIS (included as Figure 1-1 of this ER), within the seed 

producing states seed production is localized to certain counties. In the most recent USDANASS Census of Agriculture (2007), during 2002 and 2007, 1,234 and 806 farmers grew alfalfa 

seed on 110.6 and 120 thousand acres, respectively. This is a small number of growers in 

comparison to those growing alfalfa for forage (i.e., 344,000 and 290,000 alfalfa hay growers in 

2002 and 2007, respectively). During 2007, 90 percent of the U.S. seed crop tonnage was 

grown by 304 seed growers operating farms with at least 100 acres of alfalfa seed (USDANASS, 2009). Therefore, most of the alfalfa seed production is managed by a relatively small 

number of large professional seed producers. Nearly all large growers have at least one 

proprietary seed production contract with one of the four national alfalfa seed production 

companies (USDA APHIS, 2009, p. 68-69).
Events J101 and J163 Affected Environment

Environmental Report 39 8/5/2010

Cultural practices used to produce seed are distinct from those used to produce forage. 

Professional seed growers usually grow seed under terms of a two or three year term seed 

company contract, by variety name. The contracting seed company supplies the stock seed 

(e.g., foundation seed) to the seed producer and the genetic source variety of the seed is 

documented. In contrast, seed companies purchasing or growing “common seed” or “catch 

crop” seed typically use lower management and inputs, the genetic identity of the stock seed is 

often unspecified/unknown and the resultant product quality is highly variable and cannot be 

certified as to cultivar or variety identity (USDA APHIS, 2009, p. 69).

Typically, seed fields are planted in the fall and clipped back in late spring so that bloom within 

the field is uniform, synchronous and optimally timed for the warm dry season and optimal 

pollinator activity. Weed and in-crop volunteer controls (herbicides and cultivation) are applied 

mainly prior to the start of pollination or after seed harvest. Flowering begins in approximately 

mid-June. Insecticides (primarily for Lygus control) and other pesticides are applied prior to bee 

release to avoid insecticide damage to the bees. At approximately 50 percent flower (early to 

mid-July), cultured bees are gradually moved into the seed field for pollination with their domicile 

or hive for local shelter. The field is actively pollinated for approximately one month, allowed to 

ripen seed for approximately 4 weeks more, and then, chemically desiccated or swathed several 

days prior to combining the seed. At the end of the pollination period and just prior to 

desiccation, the pollinating generation of bees is either at the end of their lifecycle (i.e., 

leafcutter or alkali bees), or are transported by the honeybee keeper to a different location to 

forage on fall-flowering plant species. Seed is harvested in mid August to late September 

depending on geography. In long-growing season regions, the cool-season alfalfa forage growth 

between seed crops is sometimes mechanically harvested or grazed (USDA APHIS, 2009, p. 

69).

Stands of alfalfa grown for seed production only are usually maintained for an average of three 

production seasons. The length of the seed stand is generally predetermined by the seed 

production contracts and AOSCA variety certification standards. In contrast to forage stands, 

most alfalfa seed planted for seed production purposes is planted at a low density in widely 

spaced rows and not cut monthly. Consequently, weeds in the seed fields have more open area 

and time to proliferate and compete with the alfalfa. Therefore, weeds, insects, and pests are 

intensively managed in seed production systems. Weed seeds and weed debris in grower seed 

lots directly reduce the purity and yield of alfalfa seed and drive up growers’ costs to remove 

them (USDA APHIS, 2009, p. 69-70).
Events J101 and J163 Affected Environment

Environmental Report 40 8/5/2010

RRA seed production since 2005

In 2006-2007, RRA seed was produced in the U.S. on a widespread basis for the first time since 

deregulation in 2005. This presented an opportunity for FGI to implement an internal seed 

quality program to monitor the efficacy of the FGI Best Practices for RR Stewardship during 

Seed Production (“FGI Best Practices”). Conventional alfalfa seed lots grown and/or processed 

in proximity to RR seed in 2006 and 2007 were tested for the adventitious presence (AP) of the 

RR trait. The data showed that the AP of the RR trait in FGI conventional seed lots occurred 

infrequently and, in all cases if detected, was at a very low level—0.004 to 0.180 percent. This 

was well within the FGI’s goal of <0.5 percent AP. This large-scale commercial validation of FGI 

Best Practices supports research-based isolation standards and demonstrates the effective 

implementation of quality control programs at both the grower and processor level. FGI believes 

that this, and more recent industry reviews together demonstrate that reasonable tools are 

available and are being used by seed producers to allow successful coexistence of diverse 

alfalfa seed market sectors and preserve conventional seed and hay market choices (USDA 

APHIS, 2009). In late 2007, following the Court’s Decision, the FGI Best Practices were 

extensively reviewed by the Steering Committee of the National Alfalfa & Forage Alliance 

Peaceful Coexistence Workshop (October 10, 2007). The steering committee was composed of 

a broad array of alfalfa industry stakeholders. In January, 2008, NAFA’s Board of Directors and 

all genetic suppliers of NAFA adopted the NAFA BMP (Appendix C) as requirements for RRA 

seed producers. A third-party panel of State Seed Certification Agencies has reviewed 2008 

and 2009 conventional alfalfa seed crop year data and has stated that the NAFA BMP appear to 

be working to achieve coexistence, i.e., conventional and RRA varieties have been produced 

successfully during the period following widespread cultivation of RRA.

All alfalfa seed production since 2005

The latest information of total alfalfa seed production is from the 2007 Census of Agriculture, 

when 121,467 acres of alfalfa seed were harvested producing approximately 62 million pounds 

of seeds at an average productivity of approximately 510 lbs/acre.

Alfalfa seed acreage and production increased between 2002 and 2007, reversing the trend of 

decreases in alfalfa seed production over the preceding few years. Economic, social and 

competitive challenges face both U.S. alfalfa seed and forage growers. These challenges 

include: changes in global seed demand and production, economics, environmental constraints, 

regulatory issues, and insect control and weeds. The presence of weeds can have a greater 

impact on costs in alfalfa seed production than alfalfa forage production. Post-harvest 
Events J101 and J163 Affected Environment

Environmental Report 41 8/5/2010

separation of weed seed from the alfalfa seed is costly; therefore, the control of weeds in the 

field is a more desirable method of seed quality control. No primary or secondary noxious 

weeds are allowed for certified seed (USDA APHIS, 2009, p. 43-44).

Seed availability

All four of the major U.S. seed genetic suppliers and seed production companies (FGI, Pioneer 

Hi-Bred, Dairyland Seeds and Cal/West Seeds) sell conventional and/or organic seed products. 

Prior to the federal court injunction, these varieties were sold alongside of one or more RRA 

varieties. RRA was sold by more than 20 seed brands all of which continued to offer 

conventional cultivar products (USDA APHIS, 2009).

During the 2005-2007 period of deregulation of RRA, approximately 200,000 and 18,000 acres 

of RRA hay and seed, respectively, were grown with no substantiated disruption of the market 

for conventional alfalfa hay or seed (USDAS APHIS, 2009; McCaslin, 2007).

Organically certified and conventionally grown seed lots are routinely marketed to U.S. organic 

forage producers for the establishment of organic alfalfa forage fields. Although a small amount 

of organic alfalfa seeds used in the U.S. are purchased from U.S. seed distributors, little or none 

of the organic alfalfa seeds appear to have been originally grown in the U.S. (McCaslin, 2007). 

There is little information available to indicate if there are any certified organic alfalfa seed 

producers in the U.S. (USDA APHIS, 2009). Organic alfalfa seed sold in the U.S. by U.S. seed 

companies is therefore most likely to have been wholly or largely imported from organic 

producers in Canada or elsewhere, where insect pests in alfalfa seed production are less 

catastrophic and base production costs for seed are much lower (McCaslin, 2007).

2.3 GENE FLOW

This section provides background information on gene flow, which is relevant to the impacts 

analysis provided in Section 3 of this ER.

Gene flow has been defined as the “incorporation of genes into the gene pool of one population 

from one or more populations” (Futuyma, 1998). Gene flow is a basic biological process in plant 

evolution and in plant breeding, and in itself does not pose a risk (Bartsch et al., 2003; Ellstrand, 

2006, p. 116).

There are several factors that influence the probability of gene flow between alfalfa fields. The 

following is a list of factors adapted from Putnam, 2006 (USDA APHIS, 2009, p. 100):
Events J101 and J163 Affected Environment

Environmental Report 42 8/5/2010

 Probability of synchronous flowering (e.g., the percentage of days where several plants 

flower simultaneously);

 Relative availability and abundance of pollen from various sources (e.g., the percentage 

of bloom during each day of synchronous flowering);

 Presence of pollinators and pollinator types

 Pollinator activity on days of synchronous flowering and placement of bee hives (e.g., 

influenced by timed bee release and weather);

 Distance between fields (alfalfa populations);

 Probability of seed maturation; and

 Probability of seed germination.

2.3.1 Hybridization

In plant biology, when gene flow occurs between individuals from genetically distinct populations 

and a new plant is formed, the new plant is called a hybrid (Ellstrand, 2003, p. 10). 

Hybridization is usually thought of as the breeding of closely related species or subspecies 

resulting in the creation of a plant that has characteristics different from either parent. Usually 

this occurs through deliberate human efforts; however, it can also occur indirectly from human 

intervention, or in nature. For example, when plants are moved to a new environment (with or 

without human intervention), they may hybridize with plants of a closely related species or 

subspecies in that new location.

For natural hybridization to occur between two distinct populations, the plants from the two 

populations must flower at the same time, they must be close enough so that the pollen can be 

carried from the male parent to the female parent, fertilization must occur, and the resulting 

embryo must be able to develop into a viable seed that can germinate and form a new plant 

(Ellstrand, 2003, pp. 11-13).

Characteristics that favor natural hybridization between two populations when the above 

requirements are met include (Mallory-Smith and Zapiola, 2008, p. 429):

 Presence of feral populations (domestic populations gone wild) and uncontrolled 

volunteers

 Presence of a high number of highly compatible relatives

 Self-incompatibility
Events J101 and J163 Affected Environment

Environmental Report 43 8/5/2010

 Large pollen source

 Large amounts of pollen produced

 Lightweight pollen

 Large insect populations (insect pollinated)

 Long pollen viability

Feral populations are discussed in Section 2.6. Volunteers are plants from a previous crop 

that are found in a later crop and are also discussed in Section 2.6.

There are no sexually compatible wild relatives of alfalfa present in the U.S. (Mallory-Smith 

and Zapiola, 2008; Van Deynze et al., 2008, p. 7). Therefore, movement of the CP4 EPSPS 

gene found in RRA varieties can only occur within or among cultivated or feral alfalfa 

populations (USDA APHIS, 2009, p. 94).

Alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) is predominantly self-incompatible; that is, fertilization does not 

occur between the male and female parts on the same plant. Self-incompatible plants must be 

cross-pollinated (also known as “out-crossed”) to form viable seed: that is, for fertilization to 

occur, the female part of the flower (the stigma) must successfully receive pollen from the male 

part of a second plant (the anther). The majority of cross-pollination in alfalfa is effected by 

bees visiting plants growing in very close proximity (i.e., within four meters) (St. Amand et al., 

2000).

As discussed in Section 2.1.2, alfalfa is exclusively insect-pollinated, and, in seed production 

areas, farmers must stock bees to ensure economic levels of seed production.

Gene flow via seed mixtures

Nearly all alfalfa forage producers purchase seeds for planting, largely because growerproduced grower-saved-seed is only possible in the niche seed-growing geographies. 

Commercially produced seed is generally produced under a contract from a seed company: the 

foundation stock seed is provided to the contract grower by the seed company and seed lots are 

harvested, transported and conditioned by variety name and lot code. Such contracts and the 

typical use of official seed certification schemes maintain field and seed lot segregation, identity 

and varietal purity. Seed certification standards set limits on the percentage of other variety offtypes that are allowed. Therefore, seed growers and seed producers are aware of the 

importance of routine cleaning of field equipment, seed transportation containers and seed 

processing equipment as means to mitigate off-types and weed seed presence to very low 
Events J101 and J163 Affected Environment

Environmental Report 44 8/5/2010

levels. Regardless of stringent management, commercial agricultural seeds are not and cannot 

be 100 percent pure. Therefore, it is widely recognized that some seed admixtures may still 

inadvertently occur, and that, in all but exceptional cases they are likely to pose no safety, 

economic or regulatory issues.

2.3.2 Seed-to-seed gene flow studies

FGI performed gene flow studies in Idaho from 2000 to 2002 using leafcutter bees for 

pollination, however, the presence of feral and native bees were also noted. These studies 

showed a mean gene flow of 1.39 percent at 500 ft and 0.0000 percent at 3⁄4 of a mile 

(Fitzpatrick et al., 2002). Table 2-3 and Figure 2-1 below summarize the findings of these field 

studies.

Table 2-3. Summary of FGI Idaho Gene Flow Studies (Fitzpatrick et al., 2002)

Notes: Isolation distance between trap and source, number of replicates per distance, replicate plot size (acres), trap 

plot cardinal direction from source and, interplot land cover a,b,c, the mean observed gene flow and the upper bound 

of true gene flow (i.e., the 99.9 percent confidence interval upper limit) are given. Interplot land cover:a various crop

species typical for the area (e.g., onions, corn, wheat, etc.); b roadways, or c fallow. “-” indicates distance not tested.
Events J101 and J163 Affected Environment

Environmental Report 45 8/5/2010

Figure 2-1 – Gene Flow

UC—Davis, Monsanto/FGI performed a gene flow study during the 2003 growing season using 

honey bees. The pollen-mediated gene flow at isolation distances of 900 ft, 5,000 ft, and 2.53 

miles were 1.49 percent, 0.2 percent, and ≤0.06 percent, respectively (Teuber et al., 2007).

A mixed honey bee and leafcutter bee gene flow study was performed in the San Joaquin Valley 

of California in 2006 and 2007 (Teuber et al., 2007; Van Deynze et al., 2008). Summary data 

from those studies are presented in the Table 2-4 below.

Table 2-4 Seed to Seed Gene Flow (Teuber et al., 2007)

Distance Gene Flow

(% adventitious presence)

165 ft. 2.3

900 ft. 0.9

4,000 ft. 0.6

1 mile 0.2

3 miles 0.03

5 miles Not detected

FGI conducted a gene flow study subsequent to the 2006 growing season which validated the 

FGI Best Practices (FGI, 2007). The observed gene flow ranged from 0.09 percent at an 

isolation distance of one mile to 0.01 percent at an isolation distance of three miles. At distances 

of 5 miles or greater, the gene flow was not detected.
Events J101 and J163 Affected Environment

Environmental Report 46 8/5/2010

To summarize, data collected under actual seed production conditions found gene flow ranging 

from 0.00 to 0.18 percent when FGI Best Practices were used. This is well below the FGI 

Company’s domestic market goal of less than 0.5 percent adventitious presence. As required 

by the NAFA BMP (2008a), a third-party review panel has annually conducted a review of 

conventional seed crop gene flow data. In each of the two annual reviews, the panel has 

validated that NAFA BMP are working on a commercial scale to enable coexistence among 

conventional and RRA seed producers (NAFA, 2009; Fitzpatrick and Lowry, 2010).

2.3.3 Gene flow potential

This ER addresses potential gene flow pathways as follows:

 Potential for gene flow from RRA forage crops to conventional and organic forage crops 

(Section 3.3)

 Potential for gene flow from RRA forage crops to native alfalfa (Section 3.4)

 Potential for gene flow due to feral alfalfa populations (Section 3.5)

 Potential for gene flow from RRA forage crops to rangeland alfalfa (Section 3.6)

 Potential for gene flow from RRA forage crops to conventional or organic alfalfa seed 

production areas (Section 3.7)

 Potential for gene flow from RRA to any of the above receptors, in alfalfa seed 

production (Section 3.8)

2.4 ALFALFA WEED MANAGEMENT

2.4.1 Weed characteristics and concerns

While a weed can be defined as any unwanted plant, problem weeds are those that are 

competitive and persistent. Healthy, productive stands of alfalfa require attention to manage 

pests (including weeds), fertilizer inputs, irrigation (if applicable), and harvest timing. Weeds 

can be a problem in alfalfa particularly at establishment of a new stand and after the stand has 

started to thin toward the end of its life. Once a dense stand of alfalfa has been established, the 

competition of the alfalfa plants with weeds and the fact that alfalfa is cut at regular intervals 

during the production season act as suppressors of weeds. Weed control at establishment is a 

particularly important time since good weed control at this time leads to the establishment of a 

dense, healthy stand for the life of the crop.
Events J101 and J163 Affected Environment

Environmental Report 47 8/5/2010

Several years after sowing alfalfa when plants weaken and stands become thin weeds become 

more competitive with alfalfa and can contribute to a significant decline in alfalfa yield and 

forage value. Certain weed species found in alfalfa stands are particularly difficult to control, are 

poisonous to livestock, negatively affect palatably or livestock performance, impart off flavors to 

milk products, and may be noxious regulated species (USDA APHIS, 2009, p. 73).

Competition for light, water and nutrients. A grower tries to capture the plant resources on 

his land - primarily light, water, and nutrients - for his crop; however, competitive weeds often 

secure some of these resources for their growth, at the expense of the crop. Some common 

characteristics of competitive weeds are rapid seedling establishment, high growth rates, prolific 

root systems and large leaf areas.

Weed persistence. Persistent weeds are able to survive year after year on a given piece of 

ground, in spite of a farmer’s efforts to control them. Some plants are both competitive and 

persistent through the production of large numbers of seeds. The bushy wild proso millet, for 

example, shatters upon contact when mature, and can produce 400 to 12,000 seeds per square 

foot. While high reproductive rates also contribute to a weed’s persistence, seed dormancy is 

also an important trait in persistence. Cultivated soils typically contain thousands of seeds per 

square meter, waiting for the opportunity to germinate. Some seeds, for example, velvetleaf, 

can remain viable in the soil for up to 50 years. Many perennial weed species have the ability to 

reproduce from root fragments. Canada thistle, for example, has a deep, spreading root system 

that can continue to send up shoots after the surface plant has been removed multiple times. 

Some weeds have the ability to alter their characteristic in response to stress; for example, 

some weeds respond to drought by flowering and going to seed early (Tranel, 2003; McDonald 

et al., 2003, pp. 9-12).

Weeds are controlled in conventional alfalfa and RRA with chemicals (herbicides), cultural 

methods (rotation, mowing, companion crops, monitoring), and mechanical methods (tillage). 

The cultural and mechanical methods are permitted for organic farmers. RRA systems allow for 

the use of one additional herbicide, glyphosate.

2.4.2 Problem weeds in alfalfa production

The following weeds have been identified as problem weeds in alfalfa that prevent production of 

maximum yields: Barnyardgrass, Bermudagrass, Bluegrass (annual), Bromes, Buckhorn 

plantain, Bulbous bluegrass, Burning nettle, Canarygrass, Chesseweed, Chickweed (common), 

Coastal fiddleneck, Cupgrass, Dandelion (common), Dodder, Filarees, Field bindweed, 
Events J101 and J163 Affected Environment

Environmental Report 48 8/5/2010

Flixweed, Foxtail (green), Foxtail (yellow), Foxtail barley, Goosegrass, Groudsel (common), 

Hare barley, Johnsongrass, Junglerice, Knotweed, Lambsquarter (common), London rocket, 

Miner’s lettuce, Mustards, Nettleleaf, Nightshade, Nutsedges, Palmer Amaranth, Pepperweeds, 

Prickly lettuce, Quackgrass, Redmaids, Russian thistle, Ryegrass, Shepardspurse, Sowthistle, 

tinkgrass, Wild oats, Wild Radish, Witchgrass, and Yellow starthistle (UC IPM, 2006) . These 

weeds are summarized in Table 2-5. Most of these weeds, and others, are present throughout 

all the alfalfa growing regions. Certain weeds are classified as annual, biennial or perennial. An 

annual or biennial is a plant that completes its life cycle to produce seed in one or two years (or 

less), respectively. Perennials are plants that live for more than two years. They may reproduce 

by seeds, rhizomes (underground creeping stems) or other underground parts. Weeds are 

further classified as broadleaf (dicots) or grasses (monocots).

Table 2-5 Weeds in Alfalfa

Common Name Scientific 

Name and 

Synonyms

GR 

Biotype 

Reported 

in U.S.

Types Season

East CentralNorth CentralSoutheastWinter Hardy Inter-MountainGreat PlainsPNWModerate InterMountainSouthwest

Barnyard grass Echinochloa 

crus-galli, 

cockspur grass, 

Japanese millet 

watergrass 

cockspur 

watergrass

NA Grass SA X X X X X X

Bermudagrass Cynodon spp. NA Grass P X X X

Bluegrass 

(annual)

Poa annua

walkgrass, 

annual 

bluegrass

NA Grass WA X X X

Bromes Bromus spp. NA Grass WA X

Buckhorn 

plantain1

Plantago 

lanceolata

No Broadleaf P X X

Bulbous 

bluegrass

Poa bulbosa NA Grass P X

Burning nettle Urtica dioic

California nettle

slender nettle

stinging nettle

tall nettle

NA Broadleaf A X

Canarygrass Phalaris 

arundinacea

canary grass

reed 

canarygrass

Phalaris 

canariensis

canary grass

Phalaris minor

canarygrass

littleseed 

canarygrass

NA Grass WA X

Chesseweed Malva neglecta

buttonweed

NA Broadleaf WA-P X X
Events J101 and J163 Affected Environment

Environmental Report 49 8/5/2010

Common Name Scientific 

Name and 

Synonyms

GR 

Biotype 

Reported 

in U.S.

Types Season

East CentralNorth CentralSoutheastWinter Hardy Inter-MountainGreat PlainsPNWModerate InterMountainSouthwest

cheeseplant

little mallow

common mallow

Chickweed 

(common)

Stellaria media NA Broadleaf WA X X X X X

Coastal 

fiddleneck

Amsinckia 

menziesii var. 

intermedia

coast buckthorn

coast fiddleneck

common 

fiddleneck

fiddleneck

NA Broadleaf WA X

Cupgrass Eriochloa 

gracilis

southwestern 

cubgrass

tapertip

cupgrass

Eriochloa 

contracta

prairie cupgrass

Eriochloa villosa

wooly cupgrass

NA Grass SA X X

Dandelion 

(common)

Taraxacum 

officinale

blowball

common 

dandelion

faceclock

NA Broadleaf P X X X X X

Dodder Cuscuta

50 common 

names for the 

species in the 

genus

NA Broadleaf SA X X X X

Filarees Erodium spp. NA Broadleaf WA X X X X X X X X

Field bindweed Convolvulus 

arvensis

creeping jenny

European 

bindweed

morningglory

perennial 

morningglory

Smallflowered 

morningglory

NA Broadleaf P X X

Flixweed Descurainia 

sophia

flixweed

pinnate 

tansymustard

NA Broadleaf WA X X X

Foxtail (green) Setaria viridis

bottle grass

green 

bristlegrass

green foxtail

green millet

pigeongrass

wild millet

NA Grass SA X X X X X X X

Foxtail (yellow) Setaria glauca

pearl millet

pigeongrass

NA Grass SA X X X X X X
Events J101 and J163 Affected Environment

Environmental Report 50 8/5/2010

Common Name Scientific 

Name and 

Synonyms

GR 

Biotype 

Reported 

in U.S.

Types Season

East CentralNorth CentralSoutheastWinter Hardy Inter-MountainGreat PlainsPNWModerate InterMountainSouthwest

wild millet

yellow 

bristlegrass

yellow foxtail

Foxtail barley Hordeum 

jubatum

NA Grass P X X

Goosegrass1Eleusine indica

crowsfoot 

grass

Indian 

goosegrass

manienie alil’l

silver 

crabgrass

wiregrass

No Grass SA X X

Groundsel 

(common)

Senecio vulgaris

ragwort

old-man-in-theSpring

NA Dicot WA X

Hare barley Hordeum 

leporinum

hare barley

leporinum

barley

wild barley

NA Dicot WA X X X

Johnsongrass1Sorghum 

halepense

aleppo

milletgrass

herbe de cuba

sorgho d’ Alep

sorgo de alepo

zacate johnson

Yes (1) 

State

Grass P X X

Junglerice1Echinochloa 

colona

Junglerice

watergrass

No Grass SA X

Knotweed Polygonum

arenastrum

common 

knotweed

doorweed

matweed

ovalleaf 

knotweed

prostrate 

knotweed

NA Broadleaf SA X X

Lambsquarter 

(common)

Chenopodium 

album

Lambsquarters 

White goosefoot

Yes Broadleaf SA X X X X X X X X

London rocket Sisymbrium irio NA Grass WA X

Miner’s lettuce Claytonia 

perfoliata

NA Dicot WA-P X

Mustards Brassica spp. NA Broadleaf WA X X

Mustards Brassica spp. NA Broadleaf SA X

Nettleleaf Chenopodium 

murale

NA Broadleaf SA X

Nightshade Solanum 

sarrachoides

Hairy 

nightshade

NA Broadleaf SA X X
Events J101 and J163 Affected Environment

Environmental Report 51 8/5/2010

Common Name Scientific 

Name and 

Synonyms

GR 

Biotype 

Reported 

in U.S.

Types Season

East CentralNorth CentralSoutheastWinter Hardy Inter-MountainGreat PlainsPNWModerate InterMountainSouthwest

Hoe nightshade

Nutsedges Cyperus 

esculentus

yellow nutgrass

yellow nutsedge

Cyprus rotundus

chaguan

Humatag

cocograss

kili’o’opu

nutgrass

pakopako

purple nutsedge

NA Grass P X

Palmer 

Amaranth1

Amaranthus

palmeri

carelessweed 

(type of 

pigweed)

Yes (8) 

States

Broadleaf SA X

Pepperweeds Lepidium 

densiflorum

Common 

pepperweed

Greenflower 

pepperweed

peppergrass

NA Broadleaf WA X X

Prickly lettuce Lactuca serriola

China lettuce

wild lettuce

NA Broadleaf WA X X X

Quackgrass Elytrigia repens

couchgrass

quackgrass

quickgrass

quitch

scotch

twitch

Elymus repens

couchgrass

dog grass

NA Grass P X X X X

Redmaids Calandrinia 

ciliate

NA Broadleaf WA X X

Russian thistle Salsola kali

tumbleweed

Salsola iberica

prickly Russian 

thistle

tumbleweed

tumbling thistle

NA Broadleaf SA X X X X

Ryegrass1Lolium 

multiforum

Italian ryegrass

annual 

ryegrass

Yes (3) 

States

Grass WA X X

Shepardspurse Capsella 

bursapastoris

Shephardspurse

NA Broadleaf WA X X X X X X X X

Sowthistle Sonchus spp. (5 

species)

NA Broadleaf P X

Stinkgrass Eragrostis 

cilianensis

candy grass

lovegrass

strongscented 

NA Grass SA X
Events J101 and J163 Affected Environment

Environmental Report 52 8/5/2010

Common Name Scientific 

Name and 

Synonyms

GR 

Biotype 

Reported 

in U.S.

Types Season

East CentralNorth CentralSoutheastWinter Hardy Inter-MountainGreat PlainsPNWModerate InterMountainSouthwest

lovegrass

Wild oats Avena fatua

flaxgrass

oatgrass

wheat oats

NA Grass SA-WA X X X X

Wild Radish Raphanus 

raphanistrum

NA Broadleaf SA X X X

Witchgrass Panicum 

capillare

panicgrass

ticklegrass

tumble panic

tumbleweed 

grass

witches hair

NA Grass SA X X

Yellow 

starthistle

Cantaurea 

solstitialis

NA Dicot WA X X

1 – Glyphosate resistant weed

Note: Refer to Table G-8 in the draft EIS for Glyphosate resistant weed infestations by state

Source: (UC IPM. 2006), (USDA APHIS, 2009, Tables G-3 and G-7), and (USDA, 2010b)

2.4.3 Use of herbicides to control weeds

Herbicides are used at three different phases in conventional alfalfa farming, which include 

stand establishment (to prepare the ground), established stands (to control weeds), and during 

stand removal (to kill alfalfa). The 17 EPA-registered herbicides that are used for stand removal 

or to control volunteer alfalfa include:

Herbicide Mode of Action

2,4-DB (Butyrac, Butoxone) - Synthetic Auxin; Growth regulator

Benfluralin (Balan) - Dinitroanalines; Microtubule assembly inhibition

Bromoxynil (Buctril) - - Nitriles; Photosystem II inhibitors

Clethodim (Prism, Select) - Acetyl-CoA carboxylase (ACCase) inhibitors

Diuron (Karmex, Direx) - Ureas, Amides; Photosystem II inihitors

EPTC (Eptam) - Thiocarbamates; Seed growth inhibitors (shoot)

Hexazinone (Velpar) - Photosystem II inhibitors

Imazamox (Raptor) - Acetolactate synthase (ALS) inhibitors

Imazethapyr (Pursuit) - ALS inhibitors

Metribuzin (Sencor) - Photosystem II Inhibitors

Norfluzaon (Solicam) - Carotenoid biosynthesis inhibitors

Paraquat (Gramoxone Inteon) - Bipyridiliams; Cell membrane disruptor
Events J101 and J163 Affected Environment

Environmental Report 53 8/5/2010

Pronamide (Kerb) - Dinitroanilines; Microtubule assembly inhibition

Sethoxydim (Poast) - ACCase Inibitors

Terbacil (Sinbar) - Photosytem II Inhibitors

Trifluralin (Treflan/TR-10) - Dinitroanilines; Microtubule assembly inhibition

Source: (USDA APHIS, 2009, Table G-1) and (Heap, 2010)

Table 2-6 summarizes the effectiveness of the herbicides on broadleaf weeds in seedling 

alfalfa, Table 2-7 summarizes the effectiveness of the herbicides on grass weeds in seedling 

alfalfa, and Table 2-8 summarizes the effectiveness of herbicide combination control on weeds 

in seeding alfalfa.

Alfalfa stands are usually thinning and vulnerable to weeds after 2 to 8 years. Alfalfa stands are 

typically removed by killing the alfalfa by either tillage, herbicide application, or both. RRA 

cannot be removed using glyphosate; therefore, just like conventional alfalfa, RRA can be 

removed using tillage and/or labeled, non-glyphosate herbicides.
Events J101 and J163 Affected Environment

Environmental Report 54 8/5/2010

Table 2-6 Susceptibility of Broadleaf Weeds in Seedling Alfalfa to Herbicide Control

POSTEMERGENT

BROADLEAF 

WEEDS

24DB*1 24DB*3 24DB*4 BRO1 BRO2 CLE1 CLE2 GYL+ HEX IMA1IMA2IMZ1IMZ2PAR*1 PAR*2 PRO SET1SET2

burclover N N N N N N N P P N N N N N N N N N

buttercup N N N N N N N - - C C P C P C - N N

celery, wild N N N N N N N C P N N N N N P - N N

chickweed N N N N N N N C P C C C C P C N N N

cocklebur C C C C C N N C C C C C C N P N N N

dock, curly 

(seeding)

P C C N N N N C N N P N N N N P N N

doverfoot N N P N N N N C - C C C C P C N N N

fiddleneck N N N C C N N P P N P N P N P N N N

fillarees N N N N N N N P P P C P C N P N N N

groundsel, 

common

N P C P C N N C C N N N N N P N N N

henbit N N N N N N N C N N P P C N N C N N

jimsonweed P C C C C N N C - C C C C C C - N N

knotweed 

(seedling)

N P C P P N N C C P C P C N N C N N

lambsquarters C C C C C N N C C N N P C P C C N N

lettuce, miners N N N N N N N C P C C P C P C C N N

lettuce, prickly P C C P C N N C N N N N N P C C N N

mallow, little 

(cheeseweed)

N N N N N N N P N P C P C N N N N N

milkthistle N N P N P N N C - N N N N P P N N N

mustard, black N P C C C N N C P C C C C N P N N N

nettle, burning N N P N N N N P N P C P C N N N N N

nightshade, 

hairy

P C C C C N N C C C C C C - C C N N

oxtongue, 

bristly

- P P P C N N - - N P - - - - - N N

pineappleweed N N N N P N N C P N N N N P C N N N

pigweed, 

redroot

C C C N P N N C C C C C C N N C N N

radish, wild N P C N P N N C P P C P C N P N N N

rockpurslane, 

desert

N N N N N N N C N C C N N P C P N N

rocket, London P C C P C N N C P C C C C C C C N N

rush, toad N N N - - N N C C C C - - N N C N N

shepherd’spurseN P P C C N N C P P C C C N P N N N

smartweed, 

swamp

P C C P C N N C C C C - C N P N N N

sowthistle P C C C C N N C N N N - - N C N N N

speedwell, 

thymeleaf

N N N N N N N C N N N N N N N P N N
Events J101 and J163 Affected Environment

Environmental Report 55 8/5/2010

spurge, petty N N N N - N N - - C C - - C C - N N

spurry, corn N N N N N N N C C N N - - - C C N N

starthistle, 

yellow

N N N P C N N - C N N - - - C N N N

sunflower, wild C C C C C N N C C C C C C N P N N N

swinecress N N P N P N N C C C C - - N P N N N

willowherb, 

panicle

P C C N - N N - - C C - - N N - N N

Source: (UC IPM, 2009)
Events J101 and J163 Affected Environment

Environmental Report 56 8/5/2010

Table 2-7 Susceptibility of Grass Weeds in Seedling Alfalfa to Herbicide Control

POSTEMERGENT

GRASS

WEEDS

24DB*1 24DB*2 24DB*3 24DB*4 BRO1 BRO2 CLE1 CLE2 GYL+ HEX IMA1IMA2IMZ1IMZ2PAR*1 PAR*2 PRO SET1SET2

barley, hare N N N N N N C C C N N N C C P P C C C

barnyardgrass N N N N N N C C C N C C C C P P N C C

bluegrass, 

annual

N N N N N N P C C P N P N P P C C N N

brome, ripgut N N N N N N C C C N N N C C P P C P -

canarygrass, 

hood

N N N N N N C C C N N P C C N P N C C

fescue, rattail N N N N N N - C C N N N P P P P - N P

foxtail, yellow N N N N N N P C C N N P C C P P N C C

goosegrass N N N N N N P P C N N N N N N N N P P

oat, wild N N N N N N C C C N P P C C P P C C C

punagrass N N N N N N P C P N N N N N N N - P C

ryegrass, 

Italian

N N N N N N C C C/P^ N N N C C P C C C C

wheat, 

volunteer

N N N N N N C C C N N P C C P C C C C

Source: (UC IPM, 2009)

Ratings Legend

C = control (100-80% control)

P = partial control (79-65% control)

N = no control (less than 65% control)

- = no information

Chemical Legend

24DB*1 = 2,4-DB* (Butoxone 0.5, etc.) IMA1 = imazethapyr (Pursuit 0.063)

24DB*2 = 2,4-DB* (Butoxone 0.75, etc.) IMA2 = imazethapyr (Pursuit 0.094)
Events J101 and J163 Affected Environment

Environmental Report 57 8/5/2010

24DB*3 = 2,4-DB* (Butoxone 1.0, etc.) IMZ1 = imazamox (Raptor 0.032)

24DB*4 = 2,4-DB* (Butoxone 1.5, etc.) IMZ2 = imazamox (Raptor 0.047)

BRO1 = bromoxynil (Buctril 0.25) PAR*1 = paraquat* (Gramoxone 0.125)

BRO2 = bromoxynil (Buctril 0.375) PAR*2 = paraquat* (Gramoxone 0.25)

CLE1 = clethodim (Prism 0.1) Pro* = pronamide (Kerb 1.0)

CLE1 = clethodim (Prism 0.1) Set1 = sethoxydim (Poast 0.375)

GLY+ = glyphosate (Roundup WeatherMax) Set2 = sethoxydim (Poast 0.5)

HEX = hexazinone (Velpar 0.25)

Comments

NOTE: Weed size and spray coverage impact weed control as will herbicide rate, adjuvant type, spray volume, and environmental 

conditions.

* Permit required from county agriculture commissioner for purchase or use.

+ for Roundup-ready (RR) alfalfa only

^ glyphosate (Roundup) resistance developing in many crops
Events J101 and J163 Affected Environment

Environmental Report 58 8/5/2010

Table 2-8 Susceptibility of Weeds in Seedling Alfalfa to Herbicide Combination Control

POSTEMERGENT COMBINATIONS

BROADLEAF 

WEEDS

BRO 

IMA1

BRO 

24DB*2

BRO 

SET3

BRO 

CLE4

BRO 

HEX5

IMA 

24DB*6

IMA 

CLE7

IMA 

SET8

SET 

24DB*9

IMA 

PAR*10

IMA 

HEX11

burclover N N N N P N N N N N P

buttercup C N N N N C C C N C C

celery, wild N N N N N N N N N P P

chickweed C N N N C C C C N C C

cocklebur C C C C C C C C C C C

dock, curly 

(seeding)

C C N N N P N N C N P

doverfoot C P N N N C C C P C C

fiddleneck C C C C C N N N N P P

fillarees C N N N P P P P N C C

groundsel, 

common

C C C C C N N N C C C

henbit P N N N P N N N N N N

jimsonweed C C C C C C C C C C C

knotweed 

(seedling)

P P P P P C P P P P C

lambsquarters C C C C C C N N C C C

lettuce, miners C N N N P C C C N C C

lettuce, prickly C C C C C C N N C C N

mallow, little 

(cheeseweed)

C N N N N C P P N C C

milkthistle P P N N N N N N P P -

mustard, black C C C C C C C C P C C

nettle, burning C N N N N C P P N P C

nightshade, 

hairy

C C C C C C C C C C C

oxtongue, 

bristly

P P C C P - N N P - P

pineappleweed P C C C - P N N C C -

pigweed, 

redroot

C C P P C C C C C C C

radish, wild C P P P P P P P P P C

rockpurslane, 

desert

C N N N N C C C N C C

rocket, London C C C C P C C C C C C

rush, toad C - - - C C C C N C C

shepherd’spurseC C C C C P P P P P C

smartweed, 

swamp

C C C C C C C C C C C

sowthistle C C C C C N N N C C N

speedwell, 

thymeleaf

N N N N N N N N N N N

spurge, petty C N N N N C C C N C C

spurry, corn N N N N C N N N N C C

starthistle, 

yellow

C C C C C N N N N C -

sunflower, wild C C C C C C C C C C C

swinecress C N P P - C C C P C C

willowherb, 

panicle

C C - - - C C C C C C

GRASS 

WEEDS

barley, hare N N C C N N C P C P N

barnyardgrass C N C C N C C C C C C

bluegrass, 

annual

N N N P N N C N N C P

brome, ripgut N N P C N N C P P P N

canarygrass, 

hood

P N C C N P C C C P P

fescue, rattail N N N - N N - N N P N

foxtail, yellow P N C C N N C C C P P
Events J101 and J163 Affected Environment

Environmental Report 59 8/5/2010

BROADLEAF 

WEEDS

BRO 

IMA1

BRO 

24DB*2

BRO 

SET3

BRO 

CLE4

BRO 

HEX5

IMA 

24DB*6

IMA 

CLE7

IMA 

SET8

SET 

24DB*9

IMA 

PAR*10

IMA 

HEX11

goosegrass N N P N N N P P P N N

oat, wild P N C C N P C C C P P

punagrass N N P - N N P P P N N

ryegrass, 

Italian

N N C C N N C C C C N

wheat, 

volunteer

P N C C N N C C C P P

Source: (UC IPM, 2009)

Ratings Legend

C = control (100-80% control)

P = partial control (79-65% control)

N = no control (less than 65% control)

- = no information

Chemical Legend

1

 = bromoxynil (Buctril 0.25) + imazethapyr (Pursuit 0.064)

2

 = bromoxynil (Buctril 0.25) + 2,4-DB*(Butoxone 1.0, etc.)

3

 = bromoxynil (Buctril 0.375) + sethoxydim (poast 0.375)

4

 = bromoxynil (Buctril 0.375) + clethodim (Prism 0.25)

5

 = bromoxynil (Buctril 0.25) + hexazinone (Velpar 0.125)

6

 = imazethapyr (Pursuit 0.063) + 2,4-DB*(Butoxone 0.5, etc.)

7

 = imazethapyr (Pursuit 0.063) + clethodim (Select Max 0.1)

8

 = imazethapyr (Pursuit 0.063) + sethoxydim (Poast 0.375)

9

 = sethoxydim (Poast 0.375) + 2,4-DB*(Butoxone 1.5, etc.)

10 = imazethapyr (Pursuit 0.063) + paraquat* (Gramoxone 0.25)

11 = imazethapyr (Pursuit 0.094) + hexazinone (Velpar 0.25)

Comments

NOTE: Weed size and spray coverage impact weed control as will herbicide rate, adjuvant 

type, spray volume, and environmental conditions.

* Permit required from county agriculture commissioner for purchase or use.

2.4.4 Non-herbicide weed management practices

Weeds can also be controlled through cultural and mechanical methods. Weed management 

options include:

 Rotation of crops

 Winter crops in rotation

 Mowing or flash grazing

 Companion crops/co-cultivation/interseeding/nurse crop

 Cover crops (smother crops) (prior to planting alfalfa)
Events J101 and J163 Affected Environment

Environmental Report 60 8/5/2010

 Field scouting for early detection

 Monitor for weed species and population shifts

 Mechanical removal

 Adjusting harvest frequency

 Burning

 Tillage cultivation (seed production only)

Forage harvest removes weed biomass and developing weed seedlings. Regular forage 

harvest at late vegetative/mid bud stage combined with healthy competitive stands, effectively 

manage many key weed species, especially during the middle stages of a specific stand. Crop 

rotations can help maintain soil fertility, reduce soil erosion, avoid pathogen and pest buildup, 

adapt to weather changes, avoid the effects to reduce growth of one plant due to chemicals 

released by another, and increase profits. Alfalfa is also used in crop rotation because it 

provides nitrogen to the soil, which decreases fertilizer inputs in other rotations. Perennials and 

annuals promote and restrict different weeds, so rotating perennial and annual crops helps 

control weeds in general. Rotating alfalfa is also advised because mature alfalfa is autotoxic to 

seedling alfalfa (USDA APHIS, 2009, p. 74-75).

2.5 HERBICIDE RESISTANCE

Herbicide resistance is “the inherited ability of a plant to survive and reproduce following 

exposure to a dose of herbicide normally lethal to the wild type” (WSSA, 1998).

Herbicide resistance is a result of natural selection. Plants within a population of a given 

species are not all identical; they are made up of “biotypes” with various genetic traits. Biotypes 

possess certain traits or characteristics not common to the entire population. Herbicides, that 

suppress or kill weeds, can exert selection pressure on weed populations. When a herbicide is 

applied, the plants with genes that can confer resistance to it, which had no special survival 

qualities before the herbicide was introduced, become the survivors who are then able to 

reproduce and pass on their genes. With repeated application of the same herbicide and no 

other herbicide or weed control practice, the resistant biotype becomes the dominant biotype in 

that weed community. In the mid-1950s, Harper (1957) theorized that annual, repeated use of 

any herbicide could lead to shifts in weed species composition within a crop-weed community. 

Similarly, Bandeen et al. (1982) suggested that a normal variability in response to herbicides 

exists among plant species and tolerance can increase with repeated use of an herbicide. 
Events J101 and J163 Affected Environment

Environmental Report 61 8/5/2010

Indeed, as of June 27, 2010, 341 herbicide resistant weed biotypes have been reported to be 

resistant to 19 different herbicide modes of action (Heap, 2010). Glyphosate-resistant weeds 

account for 5 percent of the herbicide resistant biotypes (as documented on the 

www.weedscience.org website) while weeds resistant to herbicides that inhibit acetolactate 

synthase (ALS), such as Raptor and Pursuit, account for 31 percent of the herbicide resistant 

biotypes (Wilson, 2010a, p. 6).

Figure 2-2 shows the increase in herbicide resistant biotypes with time. Among the herbicides 

commonly used in conventional alfalfa, Prism, Poast and Select are ACCase inhibitors; Raptor 

and Pursuit are ALS inhibitors; Butyrac and Butoxone are growth regulators, and Karmex and 

Direx are in the category of photosynthesis inhibitors. Figure 2-2 shows only the number of 

confirmed resistant biotypes. The total extent and distribution of resistant biotype varies widely. 

Details of herbicide resistant weed in alfalfa are discussed in Section 3.11.

For as long as herbicide resistance has been a known phenomenon, public sector weed 

scientists, private sector weed scientist and growers have been identifying methods to address 

the problem. For instance, when a farmer uses multiple weed control tools, each effective on a 

particular species, herbicide resistance biotypes will be controlled and the resistance biotype 

generally will not become the dominant biotype within a population (Gunsolus, 2002; Cole, 

2010a, p. 4). By contrast, weed resistance is known to occur most rapidly in areas where there 

is a sole reliance
Events J101 and J163 Affected Environment

Environmental Report 62 8/5/2010

Figure 2-2. Herbicide resistance worldwide

on a single herbicide used repeatedly over multiple crop generations for the management of a 

specific weed spectrum.

When a grower encounters a biotype that is resistant to an herbicide he is using, the grower 

must use an alternate method of weed control. Management practices that can be used to 

retard the development of resistance, such as those routinely used by alfalfa growers, include 

herbicide mixtures, herbicide rotation, mowing, and crop rotation.. The WSSA reports: “Weed 

scientists know that the best defense against weed resistance is to proactively use a 

combination of agronomic practices, including the judicious use of herbicides with alternative 

modes of action either concurrently or sequentially” (WSSA, 2010b).
Events J101 and J163 Affected Environment

Environmental Report 63 8/5/2010

2.6 SEXUALLY COMPATIBLE RELATIVES INCLUDING CONSPECIFIC FERAL AND 

VOLUNTEER ALFALFA

2.6.1 Native sexually compatible relatives

There are no sexually compatible native relatives of alfalfa present in the U.S. (Mallory-Smith 

and Zapiola, 2008; Van Deynze et al., 2008, p. 7). No native members of the genus Medicago 

are found in North America (USDA APHIS, 2009, p. 20).

2.6.2 Feral and volunteer alfalfa

Feral crops are those that have become de-domesticated. Based on available data, dedomestication has occurred in only a few crops. These feral crops are of minor importance 

compared with other weeds (Gressel, 2005). In North America, the feral plants that cause much 

of the economic damage are imported horticultural plants; for example, Japanese privet, 

Japanese honeysuckle and kudzu (Gressel, 2005).

For purposes of this ER, unmanaged alfalfa planted for pasture, grazing or road-side 

reclamation (and similar uses) is also considered feral as, once established, they receive no or 

minimal agronomic inputs (e.g., clipping). Cultivated and feral alfalfa populations source to the 

same Medicago sativa L. germplasms that were repeatedly introduced to North America over a 

400 year period.

Rogan and Fitzpatrick (2004) summarize the extent of feral populations in six major alfalfaproducing States—California, Washington, Idaho, Wyoming, Nevada, and Montana—

confirming that minor feral populations do exist in areas where alfalfa seed or forage is 

produced (USDA APHIS, 2009, p. 22). Compared to cultivated alfalfa, feral alfalfa occurs at a 

relatively low density and scale. Kendrick et al. (2005) performed a biogeographic survey of five 

states (California, Idaho, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Wisconsin) in 2001 and 2002 and 

found that feral plants were not present or were sparse in most agricultural areas. 

Approximately 22 percent of the surveyed sites had dispersed or patches of feral alfalfa within 

1.25 miles of cultivated alfalfa (Kendrick et al. 2005; Van Deynze et al., 2008). Relative to the 

geographies in which only forage is grown, areas with seed production fields were found to have 

fewer feral alfalfa plants growing in roadsides. Using herbicides or mechanical means, feral 

alfalfa can be and is controlled by certified alfalfa seed growers as a standard method to help 

assure isolation from other sources of pollen during varietal seed production (AOSCA, 2009).

Feral, or naturalized, alfalfa populations can escape agricultural fields and multiply by natural 

regeneration throughout the U.S. Feral alfalfa can be found at air fields, canals, cemeteries, 
Events J101 and J163 Affected Environment

Environmental Report 64 8/5/2010

ditch banks, fence rows, highways, irrigation ditches, pipelines, railroads, rangeland, right-ofways, roadsides, and wastelands. Alfalfa plants that are not part of cropping systems generally 

have no regular external inputs like irrigation, herbicides, insecticides, and fertilizers. All feral 

alfalfa in the U.S., like alfalfa under cultivation, originated from introduced varieties.

In general, survival without management inputs requires feral plant populations to have traits 

that may differ from those of cultivated plants. The most common traits include:

 variety of pollinators,

 continuous seed production,

 considerable seed output,

 seeds produced in several habitats,

 seed dispersal over short and long distances,

 seed dormancy (ability to form a seedbank),

 broad germination requirements,

 discontinuous germination,

 rapid vegetative growth,

 ability to withstand competition,

 tolerance to unfavorable biotic and abiotic conditions, and

 rapid flowering

A portion of alfalfa seeds may be temporarily impervious to water; these are “hard” seeds. The 

hard seeds may decay in soil or lay un-germinated (dormant) for a period of time (e.g., a few 

weeks to several years). Gradually, the hard seed coat ages and the seed will germinate or 

decay. Alfalfa develops small fragile seedlings that if successfully established may become 

volunteers in subsequent crops or in unmanaged areas. Hard seed likely contribute few 

volunteer plants after one year, as, alfalfa seeds generally do not persist for more than one year 

in field soil (Albrecht et al., 2008). Data for persistence of hard seed in seed production fields is 

given and discussed in Van Deynze et al. (2008), this confirms Albrecht et al. where studies 

were done in forage plantings in the Midwest. To guard against hard seed carryover, seed 

growers take steps to eliminate residual alfalfa volunteers prior to planting (Putnam and 

Undersander, 2009, attached as Appendix I). AOSCA varietal purity standards (2009) require 
Events J101 and J163 Affected Environment

Environmental Report 65 8/5/2010

land history of 2 or 4 years without alfalfa cultivation, for the Certified and Foundation alfalfa 

seed generations, respectively. Little to no secondary seeds are formed on hay crop stems 

because they are harvested in their juvenile stage (weeks before any new, viable seed is 

formed). A mature alfalfa stand is highly competitive and highly autotoxic to fragile, emerging 

secondary seedlings. Therefore, secondary seedlings are a very unlikely avenue for effective 

gene flow into existing solid-seeded alfalfa plantings. The autotoxic reaction and inter-plant 

competition severely limit germination and seedling vigor of alfalfa sown or dropped into existing 

or newly terminated alfalfa stands. Solid-seeded cultivated alfalfa fields do not successfully selfseed. Attempts to thicken existing alfalfa stands by deliberately inter-planting new seed into 

them typically fail, which is why most agronomists do not recommend the practice (Canevari et 

al., 2000; USDA APHIS, 2009, p. 18-19, 100).

Several scientists have reported that volunteer GT plants could become a problem in rotational 

crops when both rotational crops are GT, however none provided specific information or data 

(e.g., Cerdeira and Duke, 2006; Owen and Zelaya, 2005; York et al, 2004; NRC, 2010). RRA 

volunteers would be expected to be more of concern in crops grown for seed, such as corn and 

soybeans. Volunteer alfalfa plants—whether conventional or RRA—are controlled by use of 

mechanical means (e.g., tillage) or by application of several registered non-glyphosate broadleaf herbicides. Feral alfalfa can also be controlled using these practices, or with glyphosate.

2.7 FOOD, FEED AND OTHER ALFALFA USES

Both food (sprouts, dietary supplements, and herbal or homeopathic medicine) and animal feed 

(hay, haylage, or silage) are derived from alfalfa. 

Alfalfa forage, primarily harvested as hay or haylage, is used as a source of fiber and protein in 

animal diets. Most alfalfa forage is fed to dairy or beef cattle, but can also be an important part 

of the diet for horses, sheep and goats.

A small fraction of alfalfa seeds are used to produce sprouts for human consumption. Any 

alfalfa seed for sprouts must be certified as having been produced to food-grade specifications 

and therefore food-grade seed is grown and distributed in an entirely separate channel from that

for general use, non-food-grade planting seeds. Food-grade seeds for sprouts are produced 

throughout the world, but the major suppliers are Canada, Italy, U.S. and Australia. Sprouts are 

cultivated from clean raw (non-coated, untreated) seeds in controlled environment sprouting 

chambers for approximately 5 to 10 days before sale to consumers.
Events J101 and J163 Affected Environment

Environmental Report 66 8/5/2010

FDA and equivalent regulatory bodies in Japan, Korea, Canada, Australia/New Zealand, etc., 

have granted full approval for the use of RRA as a food (see Section 3.11). Monsanto and FGI 

have developed the RRA varieties for field planting purposes (only), and as such the companies 

do not intend nor allow (give license to) any seed growers or seed purchasers to use RRA 

varieties for food-grade sprout production (Hubbard, 2008; USDA APHIS, 2009, p. 18).

2.8 PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL ISSUES

The affected environment for land use, air quality, water quality, ecology, threatened and 

endangered species, and other sensitive wildlife is the alfalfa producing areas and the seed 

producing regions. The affected environment for climate is global, as impacts on climate 

change are a global issue.

2.9 SOCIOECONOMICS AND HEALTH

The affected environment for socioeconomic issues includes those individuals who could 

potentially be economically impacted if their food or agricultural products are adversely affected 

by RRA, and those who could be economically impacted if RRA becomes a deregulated article. 

Potential impacts to the first group are discussed primarily in Section 3.10 and impacts to the 

second group are discussed in Section 3.15. The potential for health impacts to individuals who 

may come into contact with RRA or alfalfa seeds or other products derived from RRA is 

discussed in Sections 3.10 and 3.14. Health effects of potential exposure to herbicides are 

discussed in Section 3.14.
Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 67 8/5/2010

SECTION 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

3.1 PLANT PATHOGENIC PROPERTIES AND UNINTENDED EFFECTS

APHIS previously determined, based on scientific analysis and in accordance with its 

obligations under the PPA, that RRA does not exhibit plant pathogenic properties (USDA 

APHIS, 2009).

APHIS considered the potential for the transformation process, the introduced DNA sequences, 

or their expression products to cause or aggravate plant disease symptoms in RRA and its 

progeny or in other plants.

APHIS also considered whether data indicate that unintended effects would arise from the 

genetic engineering of these plants. APHIS considered information from the scientific literature 

as well as data provided by Monsanto/FGI in their petition that was developed from their field 

trials (USDA APHIS, 2009).

Based on the analysis summarized below, there are no impacts resulting from plant pathogenic 

properties, introduced or aggravated disease symptoms, or unintended effects under any of the 

alternatives. Details of the Monsanto/FGI studies are included in the petition (Rogan and 

Fitzpatrick, 2004).

3.1.1 Background

Plant genetic modification

Plant genetic modification by humans ranges from the simple approach of directed selection –

where seeds of plants with desired traits are saved and replanted – to complex methods such 

as the use of rDNA (see definitions on next page). APHIS regulations define genetic 

engineering as genetic modification through the use of rDNA technology.40 Crossing (and then 

recrossing) two sexually compatible plants by taking the pollen from one plant and brushing it 

onto the pistil of another remains the mainstay of modern plant breeding (IM/NRC, 2004). Both 

more traditional, “conventional breeding” and rDNA methods can involve changes in the 

frequency, sequence, order, and regulation of genes in a plant and can use many of the same 

enzymes. However, with conventional breeding all the tens of thousands of genes in the plant 

are involved, and with the rDNA method only a few genes are involved. In classical breeding, 

crosses can be accomplished only between closely related species, and therefore only traits 

that are already present in those species can be targeted. In contrast, the rDNA approach can 

 

40 7 C.F.R. § 340.1.
Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 68 8/5/2010

use genes from any living organism, thus opening the door to vast potential in trait development 

(Lemaux, 2008, p. 774; AMA, 2000).

Other examples of plant genetic modification include cell fusion (the protective cell wall is 

stripped and cells are fused by some external force) and induced mutagenesis (inducing 

mutations in seeds by ionizing radiation or carcinogenic chemicals) (Ronald and Adamchak p. 

88). Mutagenic techniques, which have been in use since the late 1920s, create random 

mutations and are limited by their inability to target a desired trait (FDA, 1992; Lundqvist, 2009, 

p. 39).

Agrobacterium

Agrobacterium tumefaciens (Agrobacterium) is a soil microbe that has been called “nature’s 

own genetic engineer” because of its ability to transfer a fragment of its own DNA into a host 

plant (AMA, 2000). (See definitions at right.) The transferred DNA is stably integrated into the 

plant DNA, and the plant incorporates and expresses the transferred genes. The transferred 

DNA (T-DNA) reprograms the host plant cells to grow into callus tissue and produce certain 

amino acid derivatives that are a food source for the Agrobacterium. On a macro scale, the 

callus tissue growth is called crown gall disease. In the early 1980s scientists developed strains 

of Agrobacterium with T-DNA that lacked the disease-carrying genes (“disarmed” 

Agrobacterium). Agrobacterium transformation system has been utilized in the development of 

a large number of genetically engineered plants in commercial production (IM/NRC, 2004, pp. 

28-29). The method uses a DNA molecule called a vector that serves as a carrier to insert TDNA that contains specific genetic elements. These genetic elements are organized into a 

gene cassette, which consists of a gene encoding for a single biological function plus other 

genetic elements necessary for the expression of that gene when introduced into the plant. 

Other elements in the gene cassette include a promoter, which can be thought of as the “on 

switch” for the gene encoding for the desired trait; and a targeting sequence, which makes sure 

the gene product, typically a protein, ends up in the right location within the cell (such as the 

chloroplast).

Unintended effects from breeding

Most crops naturally produce allergens, toxins or other antinutritional substances; these often 

serve the plant as natural defense compounds against pests or pathogens (FDA, 1992). Plant 

breeders may monitor the levels of antinutritional substances relevant to their crop. For 
Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 69 8/5/2010

example, lignin is an indigestible cell wall component that limits forage digestibility. Alfalfa 

breeders typically monitor lignin content of plants in their breeding programs.

Scientists from the Institute of Medicine (IM) and the National Research Council (NRC) ranked 

breeding methods according to their relative likelihood of producing unintended effects, which 

they hypothesized would correspond to the degree of genetic disruption associated with the 

method. Selection from a homogeneous population was ranked at one end of the spectrum 

(less likely to produce unintended effects) and induced mutagenesis (from chemicals or 

radiation) was ranked at the other end (more likely). Agrobacterium transfer of rDNA was 

among the methods ranked in between (IM/NRC, 2004, Figure ES-1). Recent studies in Europe 

comparing transgenic and conventional barley suggest that conventional breeding may cause 

more unintended effects than rDNA methods, likely because of the very large number of genes 

that are affected in conventional breeding techniques (Sonnewald, 2010).

Glyphosate tolerance

As discussed in Section 2, glyphosate acts by inhibiting the action of the enzyme EPSPS, in 

plants. EPSPS is a catalyst for a reaction necessary for the production of certain amino acids 

essential for plant growth. When plants are treated with glyphosate the EPSPS enzyme is 

inhibited, they cannot produce the amino acids needed for continued growth and eventually die. 

The EPSPS protein and the reaction it catalyzes are present in all plants and microbes. There 

are variations in the amino acid sequence of EPSPS among different plants and bacteria. GT is 

achieved by introducing an EPSPS enzyme, termed CP4 EPSPS, that is not inhibited in the 

presence of glyphosate. An Agrobacterium strain (designated CP4) was the source of the CPR 

EPSPS gene that encodes for the CP4 EPSPS enzyme (Rogan and Fitzgerald, 2004). The 

CP4 EPSPS enzyme carries out the same enzymatic reaction in the plant as the native EPSPS; 

however, when plants that contain the CP4 EPSPS are sprayed with glyphosate, they are able 

to continue to produce the essential amino acids needed for plant growth. The objective of the 

genetic modification in RRA was to simplify and improve weed management practices in alfalfa 

by the addition of the CP4 EPSPS enzyme to confer tolerance to glyphosate (USDA APHIS, 

2005).

Transformation system

RRA was developed using a disarmed Agrobacterium-mediated transformation system of sterile 

alfalfa leaflets. Post-transformation, the Agrobacterium were eliminated from tissues by a 7-

week culture on antibiotic-containing medium. Glyphosate was used to select for transformed 
Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 70 8/5/2010

tissues containing the EPSPS gene construct. This technique of using a disarmed 

Agrobacterium strains followed by selection has a 20-year history of safe use and has been 

used for transformation of a variety of plant species and tissues. The plant material used for 

development of RRA was FGI proprietary alfalfa clone R2336 from a high yielding, fall dormant 

breeding population. The initial plants, selected for tolerance to glyphosate, were designated 

J101/J163, and various populations were developed from these events to provide the data 

presented in the petition (USDA APHIS, 2005).

DNA sequences inserted into RRA

Data supplied in the petition and reviewed by APHIS indicate that the CP4 EPSPS expression 

cassette inserted into alfalfa events RRA contains the CP4 EPSPS coding sequence under the 

regulation of the 35S promoter, a heat shock protein intron (HSP70), a chloroplast transit 

peptide (CTP2) sequence and a E9 3’ polyadenylation sequence. The CTP2 CP4 EPSPS 

coding region used to produce events J101/J163 is the same as that employed in several other 

RR crops such as soybean, which have been previously reviewed and granted non-regulated 

status by the USDA. The CP4 EPSPS gene does not cause disease and has a history of safe 

use in a number of GE plants (e.g., corn, cotton, and soybean varieties).

3.1.2 Evaluation of intended effects

Analysis of inheritance

Data were provided by Monsanto/FGI and reviewed by APHIS that demonstrate stable 

integration and inheritance of the EPSPS gene cassette over several breeding generations. 

Statistical analyses show that GT is inherited as a dominant trait in a typical Mendelian manner 

(M).

Analysis of gene expression

Monsanto/FGI collected data on EPSPS protein concentrations from field trials conducted at 

several locations. The companies determined EPSPS protein concentrations using standard 

laboratory techniques. EPSPS concentrations on a fresh weight basis averaged 257 

micrograms (μg)/gram in plants with event J101, 270 μg/gram in plants with event J163, and 

252 μg/gram in plants from the population containing both events J101/J163. EPSPS is 

ubiquitous in plants and microorganisms and has not been associated with hazards from 

consumption or to the environment. Crops that contain this protein and have been granted nonregulated status have included corn, soybean, cotton, rapeseed, and sugar beet (USDA APHIS, 

2010a). In 2009, significant acreages of corn (59 million acres or 68 percent of the total), upland 
Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 71 8/5/2010

cotton (6.3 million acres or 71 percent of the total) and soybean (70.5 million acres or 91 

percent of the total) grown in the U.S. were planted with herbicide tolerant varieties (USDA 

NASS, 2010c). Although these acreages include all herbicide tolerant varieties, GT ones 

(containing CP4 EPSPS) predominate. All have also undergone FDA review (FDA, 2010).

Analysis of the intended trait

Monsanto/FGI conducted numerous field trials to evaluate RRA in different environments. 

Standard field trials evaluated (1) agronomic performance, (2) disease and pest resistance 

performance, and (3) seed multiplication. Agronomic practices used to prepare and maintain 

each field trial were characteristic of each representative region. Where the glyphosate 

herbicide Roundup® was used in trials, no negative impacts from application were noted 

(Rogan and Fitzpatrick, 2004).

3.1.3 Evaluation of possible unintended effects

Disease and pest susceptibility

On the basis of pest and disease susceptibility data reviewed by APHIS, RRA populations were 

no different from control or conventional alfalfa populations in the prevalence of or response to 

diseases or pests. Since the deregulation of RRA in 2005, there have been no reports of any 

change in disease or pest interactions in RRA compared to conventional alfalfa (USDA APHIS 

2009).

During field trials from 1999 to 2003 and after deregulation of RRA in 2005, RRA has been 

grown over a broad geographic distribution of sites in the U.S. This has exposed RRA to a wide 

range of naturally occurring diseases. The principal alfalfa diseases in the U.S. affect the foliar, 

crown, root, vascular, and seedling health of alfalfa plants. Fungi are the primary pathogen type 

involved in most alfalfa diseases. Nematodes, bacteria, viruses, and other microbes can also 

reduce alfalfa production. The major economic diseases that occurred during field trials 

included: seedling damping-off (fungal genera such as Pythium, Phytophthora, Aphanomyces); 

foliar diseases (fungal genera such as Leptosphaerulina, Colletotrichum, Peronospora, Phoma, 

Stemphylium, Cercospora, and stem nematodes like Ditylenchus); and root rots, vascular wilts 

and crown diseases (fungal genera such as Phytophthora, Aphanomyces, Verticillium, 

Fusarium, Phoma, and bacterial wilt caused by Clavibacter) (USDA APHIS, 2009).

The major insect pest species affecting alfalfa vary between regions in the U.S. During field 

trials and after deregulation of RRA in 2005, RRA has been exposed to a wide range of 

naturally occurring insect pests. The principal economic insects included: potato leafhoppers 
Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 72 8/5/2010

(Empoasca fabae), aphids [pea (Acyrthosiphon pisum), blue (A. kondoi) and spotted alfalfa 

aphids (Therioaphis maculata)], alfalfa weevil (Hypera postica), lygus bugs (Lygus species), 

other plant bug species (family Miridae) and alfalfa caterpillars (various Lepidopteran species). 

The disease and pest susceptibility observations for the field trials were provided to APHIS. 

These observations consistently showed no significant differences in the disease and insect 

susceptibility between events J101/J163 (or synthetic populations developed using both events) 

and the conventional control lines or commercial reference varieties. Although occasional 

differences were noted at some field sites, there were no concurrent trends of differences 

across field sites or years. This suggests that these differences were likely due to random 

variation. Additional disease ratings taken as part of the phenotypic comparative studies also 

indicate that diseases and pest incidence are unchanged in RRA compared to the control and 

that RRA is not more or less susceptible to pests or diseases than conventional alfalfa. 

Commercial experience and additional research conducted since the 2005 deregulation 

decision are consistent with the findings from field trials during the regulated period (USDA 

APHIS, 2009).

Gene silencing

In evolutionary biology, a homologous trait is one derived from a common ancestor that appears 

in multiple species. Homology may be manifested on a macro scale, for example, in the 

similarity in mammal forelimbs, and on a genetic scale, in DNA sequences. Al-Kaff et al. (1998) 

have noted gene silencing effects when transgenic plants have been infected by a virus with 

DNA sequence homology to a portion of the introduced genes. The only virus-derived DNA in 

the introduced gene cassette is the promoter, which is from the figwort mosaic virus. None of 

the viral diseases of alfalfa is related to figwort mosaic virus (Whitney and Duffus, 1986), so 

silencing of the EPSPS gene would not be expected and has not been observed.

Compositional changes

The composition of forage produced by RRA plants containing either event J101, J163, or the 

paired events J101 X J163 was measured and compared to the composition of control and 

conventional alfalfa forage (Rogan and Fitzpatrick, 2004). Monsanto/FGI analyzed alfalfa for 

compositional changes as part of their submission to FDA in the consultation process. While 

FDA uses these data as indicators of possible nutritional changes, APHIS views them as 

general indicators of possible unintended changes.
Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 73 8/5/2010

Compositional analyses evaluating carbohydrates, protein, ash, minerals, fiber, lignin, fat, and 

18 amino acids (a total of 35 different components) identified three statistically different values 

compared with the control population for J101, seven statistically different values for J163, and 

11 statistically different values for the paired J101 X J163 population. However, all analyses fell 

within the 99 percent tolerance interval developed from the conventional varieties grown in the 

same locations, providing additional evidence that J101, J163 and the paired J101 X J163 

populations do not exhibit unexpected or unintended effects (USDA APHIS, 2005).

3.2 WEEDINESS PROPERTIES AND FERAL CROPS

This section addresses two questions:

1. What are the weediness properties of alfalfa?

2. Is RRA any more likely to become a weed than conventional alfalfa?

For information on feral alfalfa or volunteer alfalfa, refer to Section 2.6.2.

3.2.1 Weediness properties of alfalfa

Alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) is not listed as a serious weed in A Geographical Atlas of World 

Weeds (Holms et al., 1991) or as a weed in World Weeds: Natural Histories and Distribution

(Holms et al., 1997), Weeds of the North Central States

(http://www.aces.uiuc.edu/vista/html_pubs/WEEDS/list.html ), Weeds of the Northeast (Uva et 

al.,1997), or Weeds of the West (Whitson et al., 1992). Alfalfa is not listed as a noxious weed 

species by the U.S. Federal Government (7 C.F.R. Part 360) and is not listed as a weed in the 

major weed references (Crockett, 1977; Holm, Pancho et al., 1979; Muenscher, 1980) (USDA 

APHIS, 2009).

Although feral (free-living) populations of alfalfa are fairly common and volunteers may occur 

among succeeding crops, alfalfa is not considered a serious weed, a noxious weed, or an 

invasive species41 in the U.S. The Interactive Encyclopedia of North American Weeds, Version 

3.0, includes alfalfa (NCWSS, 2005). But this reference does not indicate why alfalfa is 

considered a weed. It may be included based on its potential occurrence as an unwanted 

volunteer in agricultural settings (USDA APHIS, 2009 p. H-13).

 

41 A species that is not native to a particular ecosystem and whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic 

damage or environmental harm or harm to human health. Executive Order 13112 – Invasive Species (1999); USDA 

National Agricultural Library, 2010.
Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 74 8/5/2010

3.2.2 RRA and weediness

Some scientists, for example, Ellstrand (2006), have raised the question of “unintended crop 

descendents from transgenic [GE] crops.” Ellstrand states (p. 116): “The possibility of 

unintended reproduction by transgenic crops has raised questions about whether their 

descendents might cause problems. These problems have fallen into two broad categories: 

first, the direct feral descendents of the crops may prove to be new weeds or invasives, and 

second, that unintended hybrids between transgenic crops and other plants could lead to certain 

problems.” This section discusses the weediness properties of RRA, and addresses the 

concern of direct descendents of the crop that “may prove to be new weeds or invasives.” 

Hybridization is addressed in several later sections.

Alfalfa does not naturally hybridize with any wild relatives in North America. Having established 

that there are no related, sexually compatible wild relatives in the U.S., movement of the CP4 

EPSPS gene can only occur to cultivated or feral alfalfa populations through pollination by bees, 

dropped seeds or seed admixtures.

RRA events J101/J163 were field tested in North America from 1999 to 2003 and planted 

commercially after deregulation in 2005. APHIS reviewed data on characteristics that might 

relate to or have an effect on increased weediness. These included seed dormancy, seed 

germination, seedling emergence, seedling vigor, spring stand, spring vigor, seed yield, 

vegetative growth or plant vigor, plant dormancy, growth habit, flowering properties, and effect 

on symbiotic organisms (USDA APHIS, 2009). No unusual characteristics were noted that 

would suggest increased weediness of J101/J163 plants relative to the control populations.

In a separate evaluation, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), whose responsibilities 

include regulation of the introduction of animal food and plants (including crops) to Canada, 

reached the same conclusion about the weediness potential of events J101/J163 compared with 

non-transgenic alfalfa. In 2005, the CFIA authorized the “unconfined release into the 

environment and livestock feed use of alfalfa events J101/J163” (CFIA, 2005). In its evaluation 

of events J101/J163, CFIA “determined that stand establishment, enhanced growth, vigour or 

stand longevity; changes in susceptibility to plant pests and diseases common to alfalfa; 

increases in forage and seed yield and increases in seed dormancy were within the normal 

range of expression of these traits currently displayed by commercial alfalfa varieties” (CFIA, 

2005). The CFIA reached the following conclusions (CFIA, 2005):

No competitive advantage was conferred to these plants, other than that 

conferred by tolerance to glyphosate herbicide. Tolerance to Roundup® 
Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 75 8/5/2010

agricultural herbicides will not, in itself, render alfalfa weedy or invasive of natural 

habitats since none of the reproductive or growth characteristics were modified.

The above considerations, together with the fact that the novel traits have no 

intended effects on alfalfa weediness or invasiveness, led the CFIA to conclude 

that alfalfa events J101/J163 have no altered weed or invasiveness potential 

compared to currently commercialized alfalfa.

3.2.3 Impacts

Alternative 1: No Action

Under Alternative 1, there would be no impacts from RRA on weediness properties of alfalfa or 

feral alfalfa because new RRA would not be grown commercially.

Alternative 2: Partial Deregulation of RRA

APHIS has concluded that alfalfa does not exhibit weediness properties, and that RRA does not 

exhibit any altered weediness properties when compared with conventional alfalfa. Therefore, 

Alternative 2 would not impact the weediness characteristics of alfalfa.

Feral, non-RRA exists throughout the U.S. RRA does not exhibit any increased feral growth 

potential when compared to conventional alfalfa. Therefore, Alternative 2 would not affect the 

feral growth potential of alfalfa.

Under Alternative 2, RRA volunteers in crop production would be controlled by mechanical 

means (e.g., tillage) or by application of one of several registered non-glyphosate herbicides.

3.3 IMPACTS OF RRA FORAGE CROPS ON CONVENTIONAL AND ORGANIC FORAGE 

CROPS

This section considers the possibility of impacts from RRA forage crops on conventional and 

organic forage crops through gene flow (refer to Section 2.3 for a general discussion of gene 

flow), or by mixing in harvesting or transportation.

3.3.1 Pollen sources in forage production fields

As discussed in Section 2.3, alfalfa is a short-lived perennial crop plant that peaks in forage 

yield during the second and third year. In the hay production fields, alfalfa is grown for its high 

nutritional value for cattle and horses. The nutritional value is at its highest during the plant’s 

young vegetative state. As the plant approaches full flower, its nutritional value decreases. 

Therefore, alfalfa grown for hay is managed to limit growth to the juvenile state. Most alfalfa hay 

in the U.S. is harvested before 10 percent of the stems have one or more open flowers. Thus, 

most forage fields are cut before most plants have produced any pollen and prior to when they 
Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 76 8/5/2010

could be pollinated. This practice is widely recommended so that hay production and nutritional 

quality of the hay are optimized to maximize the farmer’s economic productivity (USDA APHIS, 

2009, p. 18-19, 100).

3.3.2 Potential for gene flow in forage production fields

Cross-pollination, if it occurred could potentially result in adventitious (inadvertent) production of 

embryos with the GT gene in a conventional or organic hay production field. Because alfalfa 

forage is typically managed for high quality and harvested before 10 percent bloom, and RRA 

forage producers are concerned with high quality, there is little potential for cross-pollination 

because the availability of pollen is minimized as a consequence of normal harvest activities. 

Furthermore, as mentioned in Section 3.3, in all but exceptional cases, native populations of 

bees are insufficient to effect economic levels of alfalfa seed pollination so they are augmented 

using cultured bee colonies. Unlike seed farmers, forage producers do not stock bees to 

produce the forage crop because they do not want or need pollination of their fields (USDA 

APHIS, 2009, p. 94; Rogan and Fitzpatrick, 2004).42

Nonetheless, if cross-pollination occurs in forage fields, the inadvertently pollinated plants are 

without gene flow consequence because they are almost always harvested before developing 

embryos mature to become viable seed. For effective gene flow from a RRA hay field to a 

conventional/organic hay field, each of the following must occur: (1) cross pollination between 

RRA and conventional plants; (2) delayed harvest allowing mature seed to form in the 

conventional/organic field; (3) mature RRA seed shattering and falling to the ground rather than 

being removed in forage harvest; (4) successful establishment of the new RRA seedling in the 

established conventional/organic alfalfa stand. Each of these requirements are unlikely and the 

combination of all of them happening is remote (Putnam, 2006; Van Deynze et al., 2008). Even 

in instances where weather or equipment failures delay harvesting of GT or non-RRA hay fields, 

there is little risk of unwanted GT gene flow into alfalfa production (Van Deynze et al., 2008). 

Alfalfa hay normally is harvested at or before first flower, 6 to 9 weeks before the ripe seed 

stage (Putnam, 2006; USDA APHIS, 2009 p.100). Regardless of proximity and management of 

a potential neighboring RRA hay field, a conventional/organic hay producer can eliminate any 

risk of potential pollen-mitigated RRA gene flow by simply harvesting prior to ripe seed stage.

 

42 An exception to the foregoing are an unknown number of conventional alfalfa forage producers who inadvertently 

or by agreement allow a honeybee keeper to forage bees on the alfalfa field to produce a honey crop or brood. (See 

USDA, 2009 at Appendix O.) This would be unlikely for RRA forage producers because producers generally cut 

before blooms are useful for honey production. Honeybees would be unlikely to forage on RRA forage fields because 

bloom would be managed to maintain high quality forage.
Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 77 8/5/2010

3.3.3 Potential consequences of gene flow in forage production fields

As discussed above, because alfalfa hay is harvested well before ripe seed is produced, gene 

flow into or between RRA and conventional forage crops is expected to be de minimis.

3.3.4 Growing and marketing alfalfa

Dairy farmers would be the most likely users of RRA hay because they often depend on pure 

alfalfa stands that are free of weeds and grasses, whereas, beef cattle producers and horse 

owners typically feed their animals a mix of alfalfa-grass hay (Putnam, 2005; USDA APHIS, 

2009, p. 17).

The dairy industry has widely accepted biotechnology-derived products, including recombinant 

bovine somatotropin (rBST) used to increase a cow’s milk production, and GT crops such as 

corn, soybean, canola, and cottonseed meal used in feed. However, organic dairy producers 

have rejected GT crops and require hay from organically grown (non-RRA) crops. Although 

organic milk production has grown considerably, it is still less than one percent of the total U.S. 

production (Miller, 2005; Putnam, 2006). Additionally, some horse owners may prefer using 

non-RRA feed. However, because many horses are sickened or die from poisonous weeds in 

hay, many horse owners may choose RRA. Like organic milk production, organic beef 

production will require non-RRA alfalfa. However, organic beef production is less than one 

percent of the total beef production industry, and the non-organic beef industry is not expected 

to be sensitive to RRA (NCBA, 2005; Putnam, 2006).

Less than two percent of U.S. alfalfa hay production is exported (NAFA, 2008b). The export of 

alfalfa hay is of particular economic interest in the Columbia Basin of Washington and the 

Imperial Valley of California, where local exporters, supported by local hay producers, have 

developed this market. Seven states in the western U.S. export approximately 4-5 percent of 

their production (NAFA, 2008b). The largest importers of U.S. produced alfalfa hay are Japan, 

South Korea, and Taiwan. RRA has been approved for import into these three countries, and to 

Canada and Mexico. These five countries together represent over 90 percent of total U.S. hay 

exports (USDA APHIS, 2009, Table 3-15, p. 55). Although there are no regulatory barriers for 

the vast majority of this market, customer preference may demand testing for adventitious 

presence (AP) of the RRA trait in conventional hay sold for export. Protein-based test strips and 

testing protocol have been developed to test hay destined for AP sensitive markets (Woodward 

et al., 2006). These low-cost testing methods have been widely adopted by the export industry 
Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 78 8/5/2010

to service the market segment requiring such tests, successfully avoiding any disruption of this 

important hay industry segment. (See USDA APHIS, 2009, p. Q-19).

3.3.5 Potential for and consequences of mechanical mixing

Alfalfa has small seeds that are planted, harvested, transported and processed for sale using 

large equipment designed especially for alfalfa seed crop handling. Seed growers and seed 

processing companies utilize lot segregation and equipment cleaning routines to remove seeds 

from equipment. Effective lot identification, segregation and equipment cleaning are practices 

required for the production of certified quality seeds. Vacuums, compressed air, sweeping, 

partial or complete disassembly, washing with water, etc. are effective means used to clean 

planting, harvesting, transportation, seed conditioning and seed treatment/coating equipment 

before or after use. These widely-adopted sanitation routines have been successful helping to 

assure negligible content of off-types, weed seeds, inert and non-crop mixtures (AOSCA, 2009).

As in all other agricultural production practices, there is possibility for mixtures between seed 

crops due to residual seeds in equipment, seed spillage, planting or lot blending mistakes or 

other human errors, however, the potential for impact is highly managed and therefore limited. 

Conventional seed crop handling practices vary widely and depend on the producer’s end 

product quality targets (e.g., common seed to certified seed markets). Historically (i.e., 20-50 

years ago), conventional alfalfa seed has sometimes been transported in trucks or trailers and 

seed escapes along transportation routes were commonplace. In contrast, first, all RRA seed 

growers are uniformly obligated under their FGI seed grower contracts to observe certified seed 

standards for seed identification, segregation and handling (AOSCA, 2009). Second, RRA seed 

producers are obligated to following the NAFA BMP requirements for contained transportation of 

seeds, equipment sanitation, and obvious seed lot labeling, etc. (see below). FGI provides 

training and the secure, labeled seed bins to each RRA grower and monitors compliance to the 

contract requirements. The NAFA BMP stipulates the following sanitation, identification and 

segregation requirements that must be followed for all RRA seed production:

Sanitation requirements. Manage equipment to minimize seed mixture potential 

between different varieties and or variety types. Growers shall use dedicated 

equipment for planting and harvesting RRA seed production, when possible. 

Zero tolerance for seed admixture is not feasible under commercial production 

conditions; however, grower must take reasonable steps to assure that 

equipment is clean prior to and after use in the Roundup Ready seed field. 

Examples: Planter inspection, clean-down before and after use; Combine 

inspection, clean-down thoroughly before and after use; RRA seed bins may only 

be used for RRA seed; maintain physical separation of varieties in storage; 

inspect bins before use; Handle all like-trait varieties together; plan for harvest 
Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 79 8/5/2010

sequence of fields to maintain best separation of varieties by trait type; Clean all 

seed handling equipment to avoid mixing RRA and conventional seed; Return 

unused, unopened stock seed to the contracting seed company for credit; 

maintain in clean storage areas; When a contract harvester is used for RRA seed 

harvest, Growers must notify the contract harvester, in advance, that the field to 

be harvested is RRA (NAFA, 2008a).

Mechanical mixtures between lots in forage harvesting are possible, but mixing is limited in 

extent by the following common alfalfa forage practices (NAFA, 2008b): (1) Most hay (>75 

percent) is harvested and fed on the same farm of production, therefore, growers know the type 

of variety planted in each field and fields are harvested separately. Fields lots are typically 

harvested separately and because each field may have a different feed quality level, the 

harvests are typically placed into separate storage areas for feeding. (2) Hay is not fungible 

during marketing, that is typically, each hay lot is identified, segregated and traceable to the field 

of origin during transportation, brokerage and sale. This is especially the case for organically 

certified crop products which must remain segregated from non-organically produced crops 

throughout all handling steps. (3) Some GE-sensitive hay marketers or feed processing 

facilities (meal, cubes, pellets) use commercial testing kits to test for the presence of the RRA 

trait in hay, thereby, offering a post harvest means to assure RRA hay segregation from nonRRA hay.

3.3.6 Impacts

Alternative 1: No Action

Under Alternative 1, there would be no impacts to growers of organic or conventional hay 

because RRA hay would not be grown commercially.

Alternative 2: Partial Deregulation of RRA

Based on the above discussions, RRA hay production under Alternative 2 would be expected to 

result in minimal impact for the following reasons:

 The reproductive biology of the alfalfa plant combined with normal harvest management 

for alfalfa forage provide for a de minimis likelihood of gene flow from one forage 

production field to another.

 Hay fields would be cut before seed is produced.

 A combination of geographic restrictions and gene flow mitigation measures (e.g harvest 

management requirements) significantly reduce the forage-to–seed gene flow interface. 

Gene flow mitigation measures (MT/SA and Technology Use Guide) are contractually 
Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 80 8/5/2010

required for all RRA hay producers. These mitigation measures are practicable, contractenforced, science-based, and market-driven. They have been designed to enable 

coexistence by mitigating all or nearly all unwanted gene flow between dissimilar crops 

and to aid in protecting non-GT, export, and organic hay and seed alfalfa crops. There 

have been negligible impacts since commercial seed production began in 2005 due to 

the efficacy of these BMP.

 Low-cost testing procedures are readily available to meet the needs of market requiring 

such tests.

 The conservative measures associated with this alternative include additional 

conservative forage/hay production restrictions that will ensure an extremely low 

likelihood and extent of gene flow from one production field to another.

 The biology, cultivation and marketing practices typically used in conventional alfalfa hay 

production limit the potential for physical and handling mixture to very low levels. The 

likelihood and extent of RRA and non-RRA mixtures are highly constrained by RRA seed 

grower practices stipulated and enforced under RRA seed grower contracts.

 RRA seed bag labeling and a unique purple seed colorant will be required for all RRA 

seed, which will notify RRA forage growers of the presence of the RRA trait and the 

limitations for product use. The colorant and bag labeling will reduce the likelihood of 

inadvertent planting by any organic or non-GE producer.

 As discussed in Section 3.8.1, conventional and organic alfalfa seed will continue to be 

available.

3.4 IMPACTS FROM RRA FORAGE CROPS ON NATIVE ALFALFA

As discussed in Section 2.6.1, no native members of the genus Medicago are found in North 

America. Therefore, there would be no impacts to native alfalfa under either alternative, 

because none exists.

3.4.1 Impacts

Because there are no native alfalfa populations in the U.S., there would be no impact with either 

alternative.
Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 81 8/5/2010

3.5 IMPACTS FROM RRA FORAGE CROPS ON FERAL ALFALFA POPULATIONS

The M. sativa species has naturalized populations in all 50 States (USDA APHIS, 2009, p. 23). 

Synchronous flowering of hay or seed production fields neighboring feral alfalfa will likely lead to 

cross-pollination. Feral alfalfa has the potential to act as a bridge for gene flow from GT alfalfa 

crops to non-GT alfalfa crops. First, the RRA hay or seed production field could serve as a 

pollen donor to the feral non-RRA. The subsequent feral GT offspring could then serve as the 

pollen donor to the non-GT hay or seed production field. Feral alfalfa near hay and seed fields 

should be controlled to avoid gene flow to the feral population (USDA APHIS, 2009, p. 101). 

Feral alfalfa in roadsides, ditchbanks and pastures is commonly controlled by mowing, disking, 

cultivation or the use of herbicides. Biogeographic survey data documents that, although 

climate and cropping practices are favorable for seed propagation, feral alfalfa is actually less 

abundant in seed producing geographies than other regions (Rogan and Fitzpatrick, 2004; 

Kendrick et al., 2005). Possible explanations for this observation are that, as seed producers 

follow seed certification standards requiring isolation, they routinely practice effective mitigations 

to control or prevent feral alfalfa populations (mowing, herbicides, cultivation). Also, alfalfa 

would not be intentionally planted in species mixtures in roadsides, pastures or rangelands 

where professional seed production occurs.

The barriers to gene flow into conventional/organic hay fields described in Section 3.3 also 

apply to pollen-mediated gene flow from RRA forage to feral alfalfa plants. These barriers also 

apply to pollen-mediated gene flow from feral alfalfa plants to conventional or organic alfalfa 

forage and will limit potential feral-to-hay gene flow to extremely low levels. Additionally, feral 

alfalfa will have low seed production plus damage from lygus bug and infection from seed-borne 

fungi when seed develops under damp conditions. (Putnam and Undersander, 2009 attached 

as Appendix I). The primary limitations to feral-to-seed gene flow is the relative 

paucity/abundance of pollen and proximity of pollinators in the field optimally managed for seed 

production, compared with a low density of feral plants growing some distance away and 

without the benefit of water, nutrient or pest control inputs (Van Deynze et al., 2008). A further 

mitigating factor is that Certified seed production requires a minimum 165 ft isolation between 

the seed production field and any feral alfalfa allowed to flower. Many seed growers have 

historically produced Certified seed.
Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 82 8/5/2010

3.5.1 Impacts

Alternative 1: No Action

Under Alternative 1, there would be no impacts regarding feral alfalfa because no RRA hay or 

seed would be produced commercially.

Alternative 2: Partial Deregulation of RRA

Based on the above discussions, Alternative 2 would be expected to result in minimal impact to 

feral alfalfa for the following reasons:

 The reproductive biology of the alfalfa plant combined with normal harvest management 

for alfalfa forage provide for a de minimis likelihood of gene flow from an RRA forage 

production fields to feral alfalfa and from feral alfalfa to conventional or organic forage 

production fields.

 The proposed limitations on the scope of allowed RRA seed production will be defined 

and stringently controlled as a means to mitigate the likelihood and possible extent of 

gene flow to non-RRA crops. The proposed restrictions have been designed to enable 

coexistence by mitigating all or nearly all unwanted gene flow between dissimilar crops 

and to aid in protecting non-GT, export, and organic hay and seed alfalfa crops. The 

restrictions include but are not limited to the following: isolation distance, seed field 

reporting, labeling, segregation and all other contractually required components of the 

NAFA BMP. All RRA seed acres will be grown under FGI contracts that require each 

field to be grown and inspected to meet State Seed Certification requirements including 

the requirement to isolate the field from other alfalfa within 165 ft.; this, therefore, 

includes control of feral alfalfa. These mitigation measures are practicable, contractenforced, science-based, and market-driven. There have been negligible impacts since 

commercial seed production of RRA began in 2005 in large part due to the 

demonstrated efficacy of these BMP (NAFA, 2009; Fitzpatrick and Lowry, 2010 attached 

as Appendix K).

 The conservative measures associated with this alternative include additional 

conservative seed production and forage/hay production restrictions that will ensure an 

extremely low likelihood and extent of gene flow from one production field to feral alfalfa 

from feral alfalfa to conventional or organic forage production fields.
Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 83 8/5/2010

3.6 IMPACTS FROM RRA FORAGE CROPS TO RANGELAND ALFALFA CROPS

Commercially cultivated alfalfa and feral alfalfa populations properly belong to the M. sativa

complex, a group of closely related subspecies that are reproductively compatible. The most 

commonly cultivated alfalfa in the world is M. sativa subsp. sativa, but subspecies falcata is also 

cultivated on a limited basis, primarily under rangeland conditions and in colder regions (USDA 

APHIS, 2009, p. 30).

Rangeland alfalfa populations might increase if certain ranchers intentionally seed alfalfa to 

increase hay quality and soil nitrogen (Waggener, 2007; High Plains Midwest Ag Journal, 2008). 

As has historically been the case, seed producers will remain aware of seeding practices in 

neighboring rangelands, ditchbanks, pastures, roadsides, or other minimally-managed areas.

Both subspecies M. sativa subsp. sativa and M. s. subsp. falcata, have been historically used to 

derive alfalfa cultivars in North America. In addition to M. s. subsp. sativa (purple flowered 

alfalfa), M. s. subsp. falcata has been used as a winterhardy germplasm source by alfalfa 

breeders since at least the early 1950s. Therefore, the potential for natural gene flow between 

subspecies sativa and falcata is well documented and well understood (Monsanto-FGI comment 

to the DEIS Appendix 1 p. 14). It is reasonable to predict that hybridization between rangeland 

falcata subspecies and RRA varieties with mostly sativa parentage would occur, but they would 

present no novel or unstudied risk. The limited number of acres of falcata and the barriers for 

gene outflow from cultivated hay field sources (Putnam, 2006; Van Deynze et al., 2008) will limit 

the likelihood and extent of effective gene flow from RRA forage production to any synchronous 

alfalfa plants naturalized in the rangeland. Additionally, gene flow from a naturalized falcata x 

sativa plant to neighboring conventional or organic forage or production fields would be limited 

by the expected very low frequency of RRA varieties in rangeland usage and the array of gene 

flow barriers described in Van Deynze et al. (2008).

3.6.1 Impacts

Alternative 1: No Action

Under Alternative 1, there would be no impacts to rangeland alfalfa because no RRA hay or 

seed would be produced commercially.

Alternative 2: Partial Deregulation of RRA

Based on the above discussions, Alternative 2 would be expected to result in minimal impact to 

rangeland alfalfa for the following reasons:
Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 84 8/5/2010

 The reproductive biology of the alfalfa plant combined with normal harvest management 

for alfalfa forage provide for a de minimis likelihood of gene flow from one forage 

production field to another.

 Gene flow mitigation measures (MT/SA, FGI Stewardship Program, and NAFA BMP for 

RRA Seed Production) are contractually required for all RRA seed producers. These 

mitigation measures are practicable, contract-enforced, science-based, and marketdriven. They have been designed to enable coexistence by mitigating all or nearly all 

unwanted gene flow between dissimilar crops and to aid in protecting non-GT, export, 

and organic hay and seed alfalfa crops. There have been negligible impacts since 

commercial seed production began in 2005 due to the efficacy of these BMP (NAFA, 

2009; Fitzpatrick and Lowry, 2010).

 Glyphosate is minimally used in rangeland situations, and therefore there would be no 

selective advantage for RRA plants in the rangeland. (USDA APHIS, 2009, p. 98-99).

 The conservative measures associated with this alternative include additional 

conservative seed production and forage/hay production restrictions that will ensure an 

extremely low likelihood and extent of gene flow from one production field to another.

 As discussed in Section 3.8.1, conventional and organic alfalfa seed will continue to be 

available.

3.7 IMPACTS FROM RRA FORAGE CROPS TO CONVENTIONAL OR ORGANIC 

ALFALFA SEED PRODUCTION AREAS

There is potential for cross-pollination due to synchronous flowering in a RRA forage crops and 

adjacent non-RRA seed crops. As seed producers follow AOSCA isolation distances for seed 

certification, gene flow will be minimized because gene flow decreases exponentially with 

distance from crop (Van Deynze et al., 2008) (see also discussion in Section 2.3). Research 

from Teuber et al. (2007) showed that hay-to-seed gene flow is low if the AOSCA certified seed 

isolation distance of 165 ft from sexually compatible crops is observed. In that study, at a 

distance of 165 ft, the extent of gene flow to nearby seed fields was less than 0.5 percent even 

when neighboring alfalfa hay fields were harvested at 20 or 50 percent bloom. (Hay fields are 

typically harvested before 10 percent bloom.) When the isolation distance from the edge of the 

seed crop to neighboring alfalfa forage fields was increased to 350-600 ft, the gene flow 

decreased to a mean of 0.01 percent (Van Deynze et al., 2008).
Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 85 8/5/2010

3.7.1 Impacts

Alternative 1: No Action

Under Alternative 1, there would be no impacts from RRA forage crops to conventional or 

organic seed production crops because no RRA hay or seed would be produced commercially.

Alternative 2: Partial Deregulation of RRA

Based on the above discussions, Alternative 2 would be expected to result in minimal impact 

from RRA forage crops to conventional and organic seed production areas the following 

reasons:

 Alfalfa forage production fields are generally cut prior to 10 percent bloom and before 

seed is allowed to set.

 Gene flow mitigation measures (MT/SA and Technology Use Guide) are contractually 

required for all RRA hay producers. These mitigation measures are practicable, contractenforced, science-based and market-driven. They have been designed to enable 

coexistence by mitigating all or nearly all unwanted gene flow between dissimilar crops 

and to aid in protecting non-GT, export, and organic hay and seed alfalfa crops. There 

have been negligible impacts since commercial seed production began in 2005 due to 

the efficacy of these BMP.

 Under Restriction Enhancement A of the proposed measures, in states where alfalfa 

seed production fields were historically (2007) or are currently present, if the RRA forage 

field is located within 165 ft of a commercial, conventional, seed production field, the 

RRA grower must harvest forage before 10 percent bloom. This restriction is the 

science- and market-based, industry recognized isolation distance for certified alfalfa 

seed crops, and the potential and extent of gene flow of 10 percent bloom hay to nearby 

seed crops is de minimis at a distance of 165 ft (Teuber and Fitzpatrick, 2007; Van 

Deynze et al., 2008).

 Additionally, in states where there is more than 100,000 lbs. of annual alfalfa seed 

production, additional restrictions apply by county to further reduce the potential for gene 

flow. In counties without seed production, RRA forage growers must report the GPS 

location of all RRA fields. Under Restriction Enhancement C, in counties with seed 

production, no new RRA forage plantings are allowed.
Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 86 8/5/2010

 As discussed in Section 3.8.1, conventional and organic alfalfa seed will continue to be 

available.

3.8 IMPACTS FROM RRA SEED PRODUCTION

3.8.1 Cross-pollination

The greatest potential for cross-pollination and mixing among crop species occurs in seed 

production because that is where pollination is intended to, and does, occur (see description in 

Section 2.1.2). The relationships between isolation distance, pollinator species and pollenmediated gene flow in alfalfa seed production has been studied extensively (Van Deynze et al, 

2008). This science informed the current industry standards for isolation in NAFA Best 

Practices for RRA Seed Production (www.alfalfa.org) and was validated in 2008 and 2009 in 

large scale surveys of adventitious presence of the RRA trait in conventional seed (Fitzpatrick 

and Lowry, 2010). Physical mixing of seeds can occur during harvesting, seed cleaning, 

packaging, and transport. These activities are also governed by NAFA Best Practices for RRA 

Seed Production, and are components of adventitious presence evaluated in the annual third 

party audit/validation conducted on commercial seed lots. 

The production of non-RRA alfalfa seed and forage both rely on continued availability of nonRRA parent seed, with non-detectable levels of the RRA trait. There is a clear consensus in the 

industry that there will always be a market (domestic and international) for non-RRA varieties 

developed and produced in the U.S. There is no reason to believe that industry and/or 

university alfalfa breeders will not continue to develop varieties for these markets. The 

production of Breeder seed generation (Syn1) alfalfa seedstock is often done in a screen cage 

to exclude incoming pollinators, so there should be no new incremental effort required to avoid 

low level gene flow from neighboring RRA seed or hay production. The production of 

Foundation (Syn2) alfalfa seedstock requires adherence to AOSCA standards, which include 

extraordinary isolation from all neighboring alfalfa (seed, hay or uncultivated sources). The 

standard Foundation seed required isolation of 900 ft is often sufficient to eliminate gene flow 

from neighboring RRA alfalfa seed or hay production, but occasionally very low levels of 

adventitious presence are found. When a non-detect standard for Foundation seed is adopted 

by the breeder, use of an additional isolation distance would decrease the risk of low level gene 

flow. As a general practice of stringent quality control, Breeder and Foundation seed is routinely 

evaluated for trueness-to-type, including a lack of off-types. In the event of a low incidence of an 

off-type, such as presence of the RRA trait in conventional alfalfa, breeders routinely cull the offtype plants and repeat the variety seed increase (APHIS, 2009, Appendix V). Adherence to 
Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 87 8/5/2010

AOSCA standards for certified seed production and attention to detail in quality control of 

seedstocks has been a successful strategy for high quality U.S. seed production by American 

seed companies (Monsanto/FGI Comments to draft EIS at p. 6-7). Additionally, in cooperation 

with several U.S. alfalfa seed companies, AOSCA (2010) has developed a new seed production 

protocol for the production of alfalfa seed. The new protocol is tailored to meet the needs of 

seeds destined for export, organic and other sensitive market channels where biotechnology 

traits are expressly excluded. Meeting the specific and incremental requirements of this 

“special” AOSCA certification program allows the seed producer to label the seed with a 

statement certifying adherence to the AOSCA program (Monsanto/FGI Comments to draft EIS 

at p. 5; NAFA, 2008b; NAFA, 2008c; NAFA, 2008d).

3.8.2 Seed Mixing

The biology, cultivation and marketing practices typically used in conventional alfalfa seed and 

hay production limit the potential for physical and or handling mixtures to very low levels. The 

likelihood and extent of RRA and non-RRA mixtures are negligible and highly constrained by 

RRA seed grower practices stipulated and enforced under RRA seed grower contracts. Organic 

or other GE sensitive hay producers will opt to plant non-GE seeds and will follow their routines 

for maintaining segregation between hay lots. The impacts to non-RRA markets are expected 

to be negligible, especially because all RRA seed and hay growers must manage their crop 

according to their obligations under contracts, licensing, seed certification standards and or 

segregation standards for organic crops.

RRA is compositionally similar to seed and forage from conventional alfalfa. Therefore, from a 

food and or feed safety perspective, the impact of mixtures between RRA and non-RRA seeds 

or forage is negligible. However, as discussed elsewhere in this document (Sections 3.3.4, 

3.3.5, 3.15 and 4.10) and extensively throughout the DEIS (USDA APHIS, 2009), there is a 

segment of consumers and markets that due to their rejection of GE crops or traces thereof, 

may experience socio-economic concerns and nominal (and voluntary) GE mitigation/avoidence 

costs (e.g., testing costs).

3.8.3 Impacts

Alternative 1: No Action

Under Alternative 1, there would be no impact from RRA seed production on organic or 

conventional alfalfa seed production because no RRA hay or seed would be produced 

commercially.
Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 88 8/5/2010

Alternative 2: Partial Deregulation of RRA

Under the partial deregulation alternative, there would be no or negligible impacts to growers of 

organic or conventional alfalfa seed for the following reasons:

 Gene flow mitigation measures (FGI Stewardship Program, and NAFA BMP for RRA 

Seed Production) are contractually required for all RRA seed producers. The isolation 

distances and other mitigation measures required by the NAFA BMP are practicable, 

contract-enforced, science-based and market-driven. They have been designed to 

enable coexistence by mitigating all or nearly all unwanted gene flow between dissimilar 

crops and to aid in protecting non-GT, export, and organic hay and seed alfalfa crops.

There have been negligible impacts since commercial seed production began in 2005 

due to the efficacy of these BMP. The eight RRA seed grower consortia authorized to 

plant under partial deregulation would meet or exceed the NAFA BMP parameters with 

enhanced additional isolation requirements. The minimum required isolation from 

conventional, commercial seed fields will be 4 miles and 1 mile when honeybees or 

leafcutter bees are the managed pollinating species, respectively. The potential for gene 

flow at the NAFA BMP isolation is de minimis (Van Deynze et al., 2008), and the 

proposed increase to the isolation requirement would further ensure de minimis gene 

flow potential from RRA seed fields to conventional seed crops should they be present.

 The biology, cultivation and marketing practices typically used in conventional alfalfa 

seed production limit the potential for physical and handling mixture to very low levels. 

The likelihood and extent of RRA and non-RRA mixtures are highly constrained by RRA 

seed grower practices stipulated and enforced under RRA seed grower contracts.

 Conventional and organic alfalfa seed will continue to be readily available to growers.

3.9 LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION SYSTEMS

RRA alfalfa will be used in livestock production systems as feed for livestock. Therefore, its 

only potential impacts to livestock production systems would be related to animal feed, which is 

discussed in Section 3.10.

3.10 FOOD AND FEED

Both food (sprouts, dietary supplements, and herbal or homeopathic medicine) and animal feed 

(hay, haylage, or silage) are derived from alfalfa. In this section we summarize the large body 

of scientific evidence that has been developed that supports the conclusion that food and feed 
Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 89 8/5/2010

derived from RRA are as safe and healthy as food and feed derived from conventional alfalfa. 

While the evidence has largely been developed by Monsanto and/or FGI, it has been evaluated 

and peer reviewed by FDA and by panels of government scientists from Canada, Japan, 

Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, Korea, and the Philippines, all of whom have approved, or 

recommended for approval, the use of products from RRA in their countries.

We begin with a summary of FDA’s authority and policy under the FFDCA with regard to 

ensuring the safety of food and feed derived from genetic engineering, documenting each 

element FDA evaluated in its consultation process. We then summarize the evaluations and 

conclusions of several other international scientific oversight groups.

3.10.1 FDA authority and policy

FDA policy statement. In 1992, the FDA issued a policy statement clarifying its interpretation 

of the FFDCA regarding foods (including animal feed) derived from new plant varieties, 

including plants developed by genetic engineering. The purpose of the policy is “to ensure that 

relevant scientific, safety, and regulatory issues are resolved prior to the introduction of such 

products into the marketplace” (FDA, 1992). FDA is the “primary federal agency responsible for 

ensuring the safety of commercial food and food additives, except meat and poultry products” 

and “FDA has ample authority under the FFDCA safety provisions to regulate and ensure the 

safety of foods derived from new plant varieties, including plants developed by new techniques. 

This includes authority to require, where necessary, a premarket safety review by FDA prior to 

marketing of the food” (FDA, 1992). Under section 402(a)(1) of the FFDCA, a food is 

adulterated and thus unlawful “if it bears or contains an added poisonous or deleterious 

substance that may render the food injurious to health or a naturally occurring substance that is 

ordinarily injurious” (FDA, 1992).

FDA has the authority to ensure safety of new foods. FDA considers its existing statutory 

authority under the FFDCA and its implementing regulations “to be fully adequate to ensure the 

safety of new food ingredients and foods derived from new varieties of plants, regardless of the 

process by which such foods and ingredients are produced” (FDA, 1992). “The existing tools 

provide this assurance because they impose a clear legal duty on producers to assure the 

safety of foods they offer to consumers; this legal duty is backed up by strong enforcement 

powers; and FDA has authority to require premarket review and approval in cases where such 

review is required to protect public health” (FDA, 1992).
Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 90 8/5/2010

Developers have the responsibility to evaluate the safety of new foods. “It is the 

responsibility of the producer of a new food to evaluate the safety of the food and assure that 

the safety requirement of section 402(a)(1) of the act is met. FDA provides guidance to the 

industry regarding prudent, scientific approaches to evaluating the safety of foods derived from 

new plant varieties, including the safety of the added substances that are subject to section 

402(a)(1) of the act. FDA encourages informal consultation between producers and FDA 

scientists to ensure that safety concerns are resolved” (FDA, 1992).

Foods developed by new methods do not present greater safety concerns. “FDA believes 

that the new techniques are extensions at the molecular level of traditional methods and will be 

used to achieve the same goals as pursued with traditional plant breeding. The agency is not 

aware of any information showing that foods derived by these new methods differ from other 

foods in any meaningful or uniform way, or that, as a class, foods developed by the new 

techniques present any different or greater safety concern than foods developed by traditional 

plant breeding” (FDA, 1992).

FDA’s goal is to ensure the safety of all food and feed. “The goal of the FDA’s evaluation of 

information on new plant varieties provided by developers during the consultation process is to 

ensure that human food and animal feed safety issues or other regulatory issues (e.g. labeling) 

are resolved prior to commercial distribution” (FDA, 1997).

3.10.2 FDA biotechnology consultation note to the file BNF 000084

FDA makes the contents of its biotechnology notification files (BNFs) available on the internet 

(see reference FDA, 2004; RRA is BNF 000084). FDA documented its RRA consultation with 

Monsanto/FGI in a note to the file dated December 8, 2004 (FDA, 2004). That information is 

summarized below.

Characterization, inheritance, and stability of the introduced DNA

Using standard analytical techniques, Monsanto/FGI verified that events J101/J163 contained a 

single copy of the CP4 EPSPS cassette, and that all components were intact (FDA, 2004; 

Rogan and Fitzpatrick, 2004).

Monsanto/FGI conducted crosses using conventional breeding techniques. These studies 

indicate that the introduced trait (glyphosate tolerance) was stably inherited as a dominant trait 

(FDA, 2004; Rogan and Fitzpatrick, 2004).
Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 91 8/5/2010

Using standard analytical techniques, Monsanto/FGI demonstrated the stable integration of the 

T-DNA over five generations (Rogan and Fitzpatrick, 2004).

Introduced substance – CP4 EPSPS enzyme

As discussed in Section 3.1.1, EPSPS is a catalyst for a reaction necessary for the production 

of certain aromatic amino acids essential for plant growth and has a similar function in bacteria 

and fungi (for example, baker’s yeast). While EPSPS is present in plants, bacteria and fungi, it 

is not present in animals; animals do not make their own aromatic amino acids, but rather obtain 

them from the foods they consume. Thus, EPSPS is normally present in food and feeds derived 

from plant and microbial sources (Harrison et al., 1996). There are variations in the genetic 

makeup (amino acid sequences) of EPSPS among different plants and bacteria. The EPSPS 

used in Agrobacterium sp. strain CP4 is just one variant of EPSPS. A unique characteristic of 

CP4 EPSPS is that, unlike EPSPS commonly found in plants, it retains its catalytic activity in the 

presence of glyphosate (FDA, 2004; Rogan and Fitzpatrick, 2004).

Concentrations in alfalfa. CP4 EPSPS protein levels in sample extracts were measured using 

standard methods, with the resulting average concentration of approximately 0.02 to 0.03 

percent (192 to 317 parts per million) (Rogan and Fitzpatrick, 2004).

Toxicity of CP4 EPSPS. The FDA concluded that “the CP4 EPSPS protein produced by RRA 

lines J101/J163 was biochemically and functionally equivalent to CP4 EPSPSs produced by 

other RR crops, and to the family of EPSPS proteins that naturally occur in crops and 

microbiologically-based processing agents that have a long history of safe consumption by 

humans and animals” (Hendrickson and Price, 2004). This similarity of the CP4 EPSPS protein 

to EPSPS’s in a variety of foods supports the lack of health concerns and extensive human and 

animal consumption of the family of EPSPS proteins (Rogan and Fitzpatrick, 2004).

Studies were conducted on mice, using CP4 EPSPS doses of 400, 100, and 40 milligrams (mg) 

of CP4 EPSPS per kilogram (kg) of body weight per day (mg/kg body wt –d). For a typical 0.03-

kg mouse, the 400 mg/kg body wt –d dose equated to 12 mg per mouse per day. The study 

was designed to reflect a 1,000-fold factor of safety on the highest possible human exposure to 

CP4 EPSPS, based on assumed exposures to soybean, potato, tomato, and corn at the time 

the study was done (Harrison et al., 1996). The daily CP4 EPSPS content in the maximum 

mouse exposure was equivalent to the amount in approximately 160 pounds of RRA. No 

treatment-related adverse effects were observed, and there were no significant difference in any 
Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 92 8/5/2010

measured endpoints between the CP4 EPSPS treated mice and the control group (Harrison et 

al., 1996, p. 735).

Monsanto/FGI also compared the amino acid sequence of CP4 EPSPS to protein sequences in 

the public domain ALLPEPTIDES database using the FASTA algorithm, and reported no 

biologically relevant sequence similarities between CP4 EPSPS protein and known toxins were 

observed (Bonnette, 2004). A peptide is a molecule consisting of several linked amino acids 

(GMO Safety, 2010a).

Allergenicity. Allergens can be derived from many sources: in animal hair, pollen, insect bites, 

dust mites, plants, pharmaceuticals, and food. Approximately 20,000 allergens have been 

identified. Most allergens in food are high molecular weight proteins and are rather resistant to 

gastric acid and digestive enzymes (GMO Safety, 2010a).

Monsanto searched a comprehensive database of allergens (Hileman et al., 2002) containing 

sequences of known allergens, for amino acid homology to the CP4 EPSPS protein, and 

concluded that there was no immunologically significant amino acid sequence homology 

between the CP4 EPSPS protein and amino acid sequences of allergens in the database 

(Bonnette, 2004).

At least two studies have been conducted on the mammalian digestibility of CP4 EPSPS. In the 

first study, the CP4 EPSPS protein was exposed to simulated gastric (stomach) and intestinal 

fluids that were prepared according to the U.S. Pharmacopoeia (1990). The half-life of the CP4 

EPSPS protein was reported to be less than 15 seconds in the gastric fluid, greatly minimizing 

any potential for the protein to be absorbed in the intestine. The half-life was less than ten 

minutes in the intestinal fluid (Harrison et al., 1996, p 738). The second study reported similar 

results (Bonnette, 2004). Specifically, FDA (2004) noted the following from the Monsanto/FGI 

submmittal: the soil bacterium used to create RRA is not a known allergen or pathogen (does 

not cause allergic reactions or diseases); the CP4 EPSPS gene and protein lack structural 

similarities to any allergen (it does not have the same structure as anything that causes allergic 

reactions).

Food and feed uses of alfalfa

Alfalfa has a long history as a feed source for animals. Greater than 95 percent of alfalfa is used 

as animal feed.

Human food uses of alfalfa are minor and it is consumed as compressed leaf material for dietary 

supplements and herbal teas or as fresh sprouts. The seeds germinated for sprouts are 
Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 93 8/5/2010

produced and marketed in a distinct, food-grade channel from those for field (non-food) 

purposes (Section 2.7). A small fraction of alfalfa seeds are used to produce sprouts for human 

consumption. Any alfalfa seed for sprouts must be certified as having been produced to foodgrade specifications and therefore food-grade seed is grown and distributed in an entirely 

separate channel from that for general use, non-food-grade planting seeds. Food-grade seeds 

for sprouts are produced throughout the world, but the major suppliers are Canada, Italy, U.S. 

and Australia. Sprouts are cultivated from clean raw (non-coated, untreated) seeds in controlled 

environment sprouting chambers for approximately 5 to 10 days before sale to consumers.

FDA and equivalent regulatory bodies in Japan, Korea, Canada, Australia/New Zealand, etc., 

have granted full approval for the use of RRA as a food (see Section 3.11). Monsanto and FGI 

have developed the RRA varieties for field planting purposes (only), and as such the companies 

do not intend nor allow (give license to) any seed growers or seed purchasers to use RRA 

varieties for food-grade sprout production (Hubbard, 2008; USDA APHIS, 2009, p. 18). The FGI 

mandated purple seed coating for all commercial RRA seed helps mitigate unintended use of 

RRA seed for sprouts.

Alfalfa is the principal forage for cattle and horses because of its high nutritional content. The 

nutritional content of alfalfa is highest in young vegetative alfalfa plants and decreases as plants 

approach full flower. Dairy cows are generally fed the highest quality alfalfa hay (vegetative to 

bud stage). Beef cattle, horses, heifers, and non-lactating dairy cows are fed hay that is higher 

in fiber and lower in protein. Forms of storage include hay, haylage, and silage. Grazing is 

sometimes used as an alternative to harvesting alfalfa. However, grazing presents a risk of 

animal loss due to bloating and difficulties in alfalfa stand maintenance if grazing is continuous 

(Rogan and Fitzpatrick, 2004).

Honey bee hives commonly use alfalfa and clover as nectar sources. Therefore, managed and 

wild bee hives are often associated with alfalfa fields (FDA, 2004; USDA, 2009 draft EIS 

Appendix O).

Compositional analysis

To assess whether alfalfa events J101/J163 are as safe and nutritious as conventional alfalfa 

varieties, the composition of forage produced by Roundup Ready alfalfa plants containing either 

event J101, J163, or the paired events J101 X J163 was measured and compared to the 

composition of control and conventional alfalfa forage. This study was conducted under USDA 
Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 94 8/5/2010

Notification Number 01-029-12n. Forage was harvested from plants grown in field trials and 

analyzed using standard methods or other suitable methods (Monsanto, 2004).

Forage samples were collected from all plots and analyzed for 35 different nutritional 

components. Compositional analyses of the forage samples included proximates (protein, fat, 

ash and moisture), acid detergent fiber (ADF), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), lignin, amino acids, 

and minerals (calcium, copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, phosphorous, potassium, sodium 

and zinc), as well as carbohydrates by calculation. In all, 35 different components were 

analyzed to assess the composition of Roundup Ready alfalfa (Rogan and Fitzpatrick, 2004).

Statistical analyses were performed on the compositional data for the RRA containing events 

J101/J163. As expected, statistically significant differences were observed for the concentration 

of some of the analytes in comparison to the control. Where values were different, the mean 

was within the 99 percent tolerance interval developed for the analyte using conventional alfalfa 

reference varieties. Therefore, it is unlikely that these differences are biologically meaningful. 

These data are consistent with the conclusion that forage produced by alfalfa plants containing 

event J101 or J163 is comparable to forage produced by control or conventional alfalfa 

varieties. These compositional data support the conclusions derived from other phenotypic 

studies indicating that no biologically meaningful changes were associated with alfalfa 

populations containing event J101 or event J163 (Monsanto, 2004).

Conclusion

Based on the data submitted, the FDA considered the consultation process to be complete and 

acknowledged this in Biotechnology Consultation Note to the File BNF No. 000084 (FDA, 2004).

3.10.3 Health Canada approval 2005

Health Canada’s Food Directorate has legislated responsibility for premarket assessment of 

“novel foods.” Under Canadian regulations, foods derived from alfalfa lines containing events 

J101/J163 are considered novel foods because they are derived from a plant that has been GM 

to exhibit characteristics that were not previously observed in the plant (Health Canada, 2005).

Health Canada conducted a comprehensive assessment of GT alfalfa lines containing events 

J101/J163 according to its “Guidelines for the Safety Assessment of Novel Foods,” reviewing 

the same information Monsanto/FGI provided to FDA in its consultation, and made the following 

conclusion (Health Canada, 2005):

“Health Canada’s review of the information presented in support of the food use 

of glyphosate tolerant alfalfa lines containing events J101/J163 concluded that 
Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 95 8/5/2010

the food use of alfalfa lines containing this event does not raise concerns related 

to safety. Health Canada is of the opinion that alfalfa lines containing events 

J101/J163 are as safe and nutritious as current commercial alfalfa varieties.”

3.10.4 CFIA approval 2005

The CFIA evaluated GT alfalfa events J101/J163 for use as livestock feed and approved their 

use in 2005. Based on its evaluation of data provided by Monsanto/FGI, and as summarized in 

its Decision Document DD2005-53, the CFIA “determined that these plants with a novel trait 

(PNT) do not present altered environmental risk nor, as a novel feed, do they present livestock 

feed safety concerns when compared to currently commercialized alfalfa varieties in Canada” 

(CFIA, 2005).

3.10.5 Japan approval

Japan approved the food use RRA in 2005 and the feed use in 2006. Environmental approval 

was also granted in Japan in 2006 (Japan Biosafety Clearinghouse, 2010; Center for 

Environmental Risk Assessment, 2010).

3.10.6 Australia – New Zealand approval

Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) is a bi-national government agency with 

responsibility to develop and administer the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code. 

FSANZ approved the food use of RRA in 2006 (FSANZ, 2006). FSANZ found “no public health 

and safety concerns. On the basis of the available evidence, including detailed studies provided 

by the Applicant, food derived from GT lucerne J101/J163 is considered as safe and wholesome 

as food derived from other commercial lucerne varieties.” (FSANZ, 2006, p. ii).

3.10.7 Other approvals

RRA was also approved for use as food and/or feed in Mexico in 2005 (Ministry of Health), in 

the Philippines in 2006 (Department of Agriculture Bureau of Plant Industry), and in Korea in 

October 2007 (Center for Environmental Risk Assessment, 2010). Environmental approval was 

granted in Korea in January 2008 (Rural Development Administration).

3.10.8 Impacts

Alternative 1: No Action

Under Alternative 1, there would be no impact from RRA on feed or food, or on consumer 

choice.
Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 96 8/5/2010

Alternative 2: Partial Deregulation of RRA

Health effects of consumption of RRA. Alfalfa is consumed as both animal feed 

(hay/haylage) and human food (e.g., alfalfa sprouts). Based on the scientific evidence 

summarized in this section, health impacts from consuming RRA food or feed are not expected 

from RRA. Feed derived from RRA is equivalent to feed derived from conventional alfalfa. 

Although RRA has been found to be equivalent to conventional alfalfa by several international 

scientific agencies, Monsanto/FGI have determined that RRA will not be licensed for use for any 

human food purposes.

Health and consumer choice effects of consumption of food or feed derived from RRA. 

Beef and dairy products may be derived from cattle/cows that have consumed RRA. The Food 

and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the World Health Organization 

(WHO), and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) have made 

statements regarding the potential for the protein encoded by the transgene (the CP4 EPSPS 

protein) to transfer to animal-derived products intended for human consumption (FAO/WHO 

1991; FDA 1992; OECD 2003). These reports, as well as the studies summarized above in this 

section have concluded that the CP4 EPSPS protein is equivalent to other forms of the EPSPS 

protein, and that food and feed containing the CP4 EPSPS protein is as safe and nutritious as 

the conventional counterparts. As discussed in Section 3.10.1, the half-life of the CP4 EPSPS 

protein in the digestive system is only a few minutes; no detectable amounts of the CP4 EPSPS 

protein are expected to be found in beef or dairy products from animals fed RR alfalfa. Although 

uncommon, fragments of transgenes have been found in dairy and animal products 

(Flachowsky and others, 2005). If very low levels of transgenic fragments could be infrequently 

found in dairy products and beef from cattle/cows consuming RRA, presumably they would also 

be present in the same products, from the use of corn as cattle feed, as most corn grown in the 

U.S. is genetically engineered. Honey from bees is mostly fructose and glucose; however, 

possibly it could have minute fragments of transgenic DNA from pollen from RRA. The 

presence of DNA fragments, GE or otherwise, is not a health issue (on the safety of DNA (FDA, 

1992); however, depending on how “non-GE food” is defined, it could affect a consumer’s 

choice to consume non-GE food. The minute levels that might potentially be found in honey, 

beef or dairy products would, for example, be far below the threshold standards for non-GE food 

proposed by the Non-GMO Project (Section 1.5). A consumer with “zero tolerance” for beef or 

dairy derived from GE products or that might contain minute fragments of transgenes would 

have the choice of consuming organic honey, beef and dairy products. Presumably that 
Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 97 8/5/2010

consumer would already be consuming organic beef and dairy products because of the use of 

GE corn as cattle feed. Market demand will ensure that conventional and organic alfalfa will still 

be available to the dairy or cattle farmer who wishes to avoid RRA.

Summary. Based on the above analysis, Alternative 2 would be expected to have no or 

negligible impacts on food or feed, or consumer choices regarding food or feed.

3.11 WEED CONTROL AND GR

3.11.1 Weed control with conventional alfalfa

Weed management is an important aspect of alfalfa production. Some of the negative effects of 

weeds in alfalfa crops include the following:

 competition with weeds can reduce yield and cause thinning in the stand;

 weeds can lower the nutritional quality of alfalfa hay because many weeds are lower in 

protein (50 percent less protein than alfalfa) and higher in fiber compared to alfalfa;

 poisonous weeds containing toxic alkaloids (a type of chemical) (e.g., common 

groundsel, fiddleneck, yellow starthistle, and poison hemlock) can make alfalfa hay 

unmarketable;

 under some conditions weeds can accumulate toxic nitrate concentrations (e.g., 

lambsquarters, kochia, and pigweed);

 some weeds with a spiny texture can cause mouth and throat ulcerations in livestock 

(e.g., foxtail, wild barley, cheatgrass, and bristlegrass);

 weeds that are unpalatable to livestock result in less feeding and, therefore, less 

productivity (of either beef or milk);

 some weeds can contribute to off flavors in milk (e.g., wild celery, Mexican tea, creeping 

swinegrass, and mustards); and

 weeds that contain higher moisture content than alfalfa (e.g., dandelion) can cause bale 

problems such as mold, off-color hay, and high bale temperatures, which are a fire 

hazard.

(Canevari et al., 2007; Canevari et al., 2006; Van Deynze et al., 2004; Loux et al., 2007; Miller 

et al., 2006; Orloff et al., 1997; Orloff et al., 2009, attached as Appendix D; USDA APHIS, 2009 

pp. 105-06).
Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 98 8/5/2010

Without weeds, alfalfa can grow at a density of about 12 plants per square foot. Heavily weedinfested stands can have less than one alfalfa plant per square foot (Canevari et al., 2007). In 

California, if weeds are not effectively controlled, they can represent up to 76 percent of the first 

cutting yields (USDA APHIS, 2009, p. 106).

3.11.2 Weed control with RRA

The following discussion of RRA and weed management was based largely on the technical 

report, Effects of Glyphosate-Resistant Weeds in Agricultural Systems (USDA APHIS 2009, 

Appendix G, attached as Appendix E of this ER).

RRA can be used by farmers for weed management in alfalfa crops. Its unique characteristics 

allow for effective weed control throughout the growing season of an alfalfa crop, and, alfalfa 

and alfalfa farming practices per se have characteristics that will complement the weed control 

provided by glyphosate and, as such, will aid in the suppression of the development of GR 

weeds. The ability for alfalfa to fix nitrogen encourages the decision to follow alfalfa in the 

rotation with a crop that requires additional nitrogen, such as the annual grasses of corn and 

various cereal crops. These subsequently rotated crops can tolerate a spectrum of herbicides

substantially different from the herbicides used in alfalfa. This encourages rotation of crops and 

herbicides, both of which are highly recommended for reducing the probability of developing 

herbicide resistant weeds (Orloff et al., 2009; USDA APHIS, 2009, p. 109).

Alfalfa produced for forage purposes (e.g., hay and silage in GE, conventional, or organic 

production systems) is mowed regularly at a recommended cutting height of 3 inches. This 

removes all plant material higher than 3 inches including weeds (Orloff et al., 1997), which may 

not have had time to produce flowers, pollen or seed. This regular removal of all plant mass 

above 3 in. of the soil surface, including all vegetative weed material, greatly suppresses or 

eliminates seed production in weed species, and is especially effective in controlling annual 

weeds (USDA APHIS, 2009, p. 109).

In a RRA farming system for forage, the combination of broad spectrum weed control from 

glyphosate (which should lead to more vigorous alfalfa competition), and regular mowing, which 

reduces the likelihood that any GR weeds in the RRA field have had time to produce pollen or 

set seed, greatly decreases the probability of the development of GR weeds. In some parts of 

the western U.S., alfalfa produced with irrigation requires multiple herbicide applications to 

control repeated influx of weed seed introduced with irrigation water. In most cases the use of 

one or more non-glyphosate herbicides with increased residual activity will be required to 
Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 99 8/5/2010

provide effective weed control (Orloff et al., 2009, attached as Appendix D). In seed production, 

although an early spring or late fall mowing sometimes occurs, in-season mowing only occurs 

once, as one seed crop is removed each year; thus, there is a potential for greater weed seed 

production compared to alfalfa forage production. However, in order to maximize yield for a 

seed crop and minimize weed seed content, alfalfa seed production (including RRA seed 

production) currently receives significantly higher cultural and herbicide inputs (beyond 

glyphosate only) to reduce weed cover than in alfalfa forage production. Glyphosate can only be 

applied in alfalfa seed production when plants are in the vegetative state. Other herbicides will 

be used to control weeds during the longest part of the growing season. These additional 

herbicides with other modes of action will also work to reduce weed seed production and 

minimize glyphosate-resistant weeds in the seedbank of fields where RRA is grown for seed 

(USDA APHIS, 2009, p. 109).

3.11.3 Herbicide-resistant weeds

A number of genetic, biological/ecological, and operational factors are involved in determining if 

a weed species will evolve a resistance to any herbicide (Georghiou and Taylor, 1986; Neve, 

2008). Genetic factors include the frequency of genes in a weed species that promotes 

resistance to a particular herbicide, the ability and rate of changes to genes to cause resistance, 

the way genes for resistance are passed down to offspring, and the fitness of the plant (and 

these genes) in the presence and absence of an herbicide. Biological and ecological factors 

include how the weed species reproduces (selfing or outcrossing), seed production capacity, 

seed bank turnover, and amount of gene flow within and between populations (Maxwell and 

Mortimer, 1994; Jasieniuk et al., 1996; Neve, 2008). The genetic factors and 

biological/ecological factors involved highlight that different species may present different risks 

of resistance, depending on the genetics of the weed and the biology of the plant. Operational 

factors involved in the evolution of weed resistance include the type of chemistry and how the 

herbicide kills plants (e.g. mode-of-action), the frequency with which the herbicide is applied, 

and the dose and pattern of herbicide application.

Alfalfa weed management, including major weeds in alfalfa, herbicides used, herbicide mode of 

action, and herbicide resistance, was discussed in Sections 2.5. Measures to reduce herbicide 

resistance were also discussed in Section 2.5.
Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 100 8/5/2010

3.11.4 GR weeds

As discussed in Section 2, herbicide resistance is not a unique or new phenomenon. The 

development of weeds resistant to a particular herbicide mode of action is an issue that growers 

have faced for decades. As with other herbicide modes of action, not all weeds respond the 

same to glyphosate, and some species naturally vary in their tolerance to the herbicide.

Because of the nature of glyphosate and its history of use, generally speaking, there is a 

reduced potential that there will be a selection for weed resistance, compared to other 

herbicides. Glyphosate is a nonselective, foliar-applied, broad spectrum, post-emergent 

herbicide compared to many other herbicide groups. It operates by binding to a specific 

enzyme in plants thereby interfering with the plant’s required metabolic process. Glyphosate is 

the only herbicide that binds with this enzyme, and therefore it is highly specific (Cole, 2010, p. 

5; Orloff, 2009, p. 6, attached as Appendix D).

Accordingly, while glyphosate has been used extensively for over three decades, there have 

been relatively few cases of resistance development, as compared to many other herbicides 

and when considering the substantial glyphosate-treated acreage worldwide (approximately 1 

billion acres) and the total number of weeds that the herbicide can control. In the U.S., there 

are ten weed species where GR biotypes are known to exist in certain areas of the country (19 

weeds have been reported to have developed GR at some location worldwide). These resistant 

weeds represent a relatively small minority of the overall weed population. For example, in 

2009, approximately 135 million of the 173 acres of corn, soybeans and cotton in the U.S. were 

planted with a herbicide tolerant variety, with the most common tolerance trait being glyphosate 

tolerance (USDA NASS, 2009a). At the same time, only about 6 percent of the total planted 

corn, soybean and cotton acres in the U.S. are estimated to have some level of presence of 

weeds resistant to glyphosate (Ian Heap as reported by WSSA, 2010b). As discussed above, 

the characteristics of glyphosate itself reduce the potential for the development of herbicide 

resistance as compared to other herbicide families. As such, certain herbicide families have 

been classified according to their risk of resistant weed development. Beckie (2006) lists ALS 

and ACCase inhibiting herbicides as “High” risk for resistance development, while glyphosate is 

considered a “Low” risk herbicide for the development of herbicide resistant weeds. ALS and 

ACCase inhibiting herbicides are commonly used in conventional alfalfa production, and weeds 

resistant to these two herbicide groups are widely distributed across alfalfa growing regions of 

the U.S. RRA can help delay resistance to these herbicides by adding to the diversity of 

herbicide modes of action in alfalfa production.
Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 101 8/5/2010

Use of herbicides with different modes of action, either concurrently or sequentially, is an 

important defense against weed resistance (WSSA, 2010b). “Use of a single product or mode 

of action for weed management is not sustainable. Some of the best and most sustainable 

approaches to prevent resistance include diversified weed management practices, rotation of 

modes of action and especially the use of multiple product ingredients with differing modes of 

action” (WSSA, 2010b). In addition, cultural practices such as cultivation or mowing are 

effective weed resistance management operations.

The WSSA reports higher levels of awareness among growers regarding the need to minimize 

the potential for development of GR: “In a market research study that surveyed 350 growers in 

2005 and again in 2009, in response to the question, ‘are you doing anything to proactively 

minimize the potential for resistance to glyphosate to develop,’ 67 percent said yes in 2005 and 

87 percent said yes in 2009” (David Shaw, as reported in WSSA, 2010). “In a 2007 survey of 

400 corn, soybean and cotton growers, resistance management programs were often or always 

used by 70 percent or more of all three grower groups” (Frisvold and Hurley as reported by 

WSSA, 2010b). There is widespread information available from universities and other sources 

regarding GR. Public universities (i.e. University of California, North Dakota State University, 

University of Minnesota), herbicide manufacturers (i.e. www.weedresistancemanagement.com, 

www.resistancefighter.com) and crop commodity groups (i.e. National Corn Growers 

Association, American Soybean Association) have internet web sites with information on 

prevention and management of herbicide resistance. Monsanto’s TUG (attached to this 

document as Appendix A) provides specific management practices for the prevention of 

glyphosate resistant weeds. Additionally, the UC’s Integrated Pest Management website 

(http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PGM/weeds_common.html) and at the UC Weed Research and 

Information Website (http://wric.ucdavis.edu/information/information.html) provide information on 

weed identification and specific weed management practices (Orloff et al., 2009; attached as 

Appendix D).

Alfalfa growers have strong financial and practical interests in managing weeds effectively and 

preemptively to reduce the development of herbicide resistance in order to maximize yield 

potential. The development of GR weeds harms the economic return per acre for the individual 

farmer and the entire alfalfa industry (Orloff et al., 2009, attached as Appendix D).

As such, strategies and recommendations to delay the development of GR weeds have been 

developed for alfalfa (Orloff et al., 2009, attached as Appendix D; TUG, attached as Appendix 

A). In general, weed scientists recommend the following to mitigate the risk of herbicide 
Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 102 8/5/2010

resistance in alfalfa: (1) Apply integrated weed management practices. Use multiple herbicide 

modes-of-action with overlapping weed spectrums in rotation, sequences, or mixtures; (2) Use 

full recommended rate and proper application timing for the hardest to control weed species 

present in the field; (3) Scout fields after herbicide application to ensure control has been 

achieved; (4) Avoid allowing weeds to reproduce by seed or to proliferate vegetatively; (5) 

Monitor site and clean equipment between sites; (6) Start with a clean field and control weeds 

early by using a burndown treatment or tillage in combination with a preemergence residual 

herbicide as appropriate; (7) Use cultural practices such a cultivation and crop rotation, where 

appropriate; and (7) Use good agronomic principles that enhance crop competitiveness. 

(HRAC, 2009). Similarly, the TUG recommends scouting for weeds; starting with a clean field 

using a burndown herbicide application or tillage; controlling weeds when they are small; crop 

rotation with opportunities for other modes of action; crop rotation; and “the right herbicide 

product at the right rate and at the right time.” (TUG, p. 10, attached as Appendix A). All RR 

technology users, including alfalfa growers, are contractually obligated through the MT/SA to 

follow the TUG. RRA seed growers are also required by the NAFA BMP to “[m]anage weeds 

and volunteers using integrated weed control strategies (e.g., conventional practices 

supplemented with Roundup agricultural herbicide formulations applied according to the label 

for alfalfa seed production)” (NAFA, 2008).

Table 2-5 in Section 2.4.2 lists weeds known to be found in alfalfa and the biotypes known to be 

glyphosate resistant. Since 1998, 14 new GR weeds have been found globally. Nine of these 

have glyphosate resistant biotypes in the U.S. Of these nine, four species are known to be 

common in alfalfa fields.

3.11.5 Impacts

Alternative 1: No Action

Under Alternative 1, there would be virtually no effect on the potential for weeds to develop 

resistance to glyphosate, given that glyphosate use is minimal with conventional alfalfa. 

However, under Alternative 1, the impact of weeds resistant to other herbicides is likely to 

continue to increase as growers would continue to use conventional weed control methods, 

including other herbicide modes of action.

As discussed above, glyphosate use in alfalfa can be an effective tool against weeds resistant 

to non-glyphosate herbicides, such as ALS-inhibitors and ACCase-inhibitors. Weed resistance 
Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 103 8/5/2010

to glyphosate is not as common as resistance to many other herbicides (Orloff et al., 2009, p. 6, 

attached as Appendix D).

Alternative 2: Partial Deregulation of RRA

Under Alternative 2, impacts, if any, with respect to the development of GR weeds due to 

increased use of glyphosate associated with RRA crop production are expected to be very 

small. First, as discussed above, the nature of glyphosate itself makes it less likely that new GR 

weed populations will develop in alfalfa as a result of the use of glyphosate in RRA. 

Specifically, there is a relatively low rate of resistance in weeds to glyphosate relate to the 

widespread use of this chemical. (Orloff et al., 2009, p. 6; attached as Appendix D). Because 

of this differential in weed resistance between glyphosate and other herbicides, the introduction 

of this additional mode of weed control may have a net positive effect on weed resistance in 

alfalfa production. Second, there is a high level of awareness about the potential for GR weeds 

and many readily available resources to assist growers with management strategies (e.g., Orloff 

et al., 2009). Third, because herbicide resistance is a heritable trait, it takes multiple growing 

seasons for herbicide tolerant weeds to emerge and become the predominant biotype in a 

specific area (Cole, 2010a, p. 4). Researchers have concluded that even if growers completely 

relied on only one herbicide, it is likely to take at least five years for an herbicide-resistant weed 

population to develop (Kniss, 2010a, p. 4; Beckie, 2006, Neve, 2008; Werth et al., 2008). This 

is a reason why crop monitoring and follow up by weed scientists in cases of suspected 

resistance are important parts of all herbicide resistance stewardship programs. Fourth, RRA 

growers are required to abide by the following requirements, which will operate to mitigate the 

risk of glyphosate weed resistance in RRA:

 Read and follow all herbicide use directions and recommendations;

 Follow all stewardship practices outlined in Monsanto’s TUG (Appendix A) which 

includes weed resistance management practices; and

 • Follow the Weed Resistance Management Guidelines to minimize the risk of 

resistance development (see Monsanto’s TUG, p. 4; 

http://www.weedresistancemanagement.com/guidelines.html).

3.12 PHYSICAL

The assessment of impact to land use in the sections below considers the impacts to land use 

or current cultivation practices under the no action alternative and the proposed partial 

deregulation alternative.
Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 104 8/5/2010

3.12.1 Land Use

Alternative 1: No Action

Under Alternative 1, there would be no impact to land use or current cultivation practices. There 

would be no new planting of RRA for commercial purposes. It is anticipated that existing alfalfa 

acres would continue to be planted with non-RRA or non-alfalfa crops.

Alternative 2: Partial Deregulation of RRA

Under Alternative 2, it is expected that RRA would be planted on existing alfalfa acreage for hay 

or seed production provided that the proposed partial deregulation measures discussed in 

Section 1.1.3 above are followed. Appendix G charts the anticipated adoption of RRA under 

Alternative 2. However, the impact of this alternative on the overall amount of land devoted to 

alfalfa cultivation is expected to be minimal, as under this alternative, land currently used for 

alfalfa seed or hay production would continue to be used in the same manner. Alfalfa 

production is largely a market-driven decision rather than a technology-driven decision. (USDAAPHIS, 2009, p. 157). The availability of a new weed control option is not expected to impact 

current land use management. However, since glyphosate controls a broad range of weeds, 

farmers may choose to plant RRA on fields with greater weed potential. If the life span of RRA 

can be extended longer than current alfalfa stand lifespans, this might impact land use decisions 

regarding crop rotation practices, but is not expected to change the nature of land use into or 

out of agricultural production.

3.12.2 Air Quality and Climate

The assessment of impacts to air quality and climate in the sections below considers impacts to 

air quality and climate practices under the no action alternative and the proposed partial 

deregulation alternative. Under Alternative 1, existing alfalfa acreage will continue to be planted 

with non-RRA or non-alfalfa crops.

Alternative 1: No Action

The no action alternative would result in an adverse impact to air quality and climate. The 

continued regulation of RRA would result in continued planting of conventional and/or organic 

alfalfa. Non-RRA requires greater tillage for weed control than does RRA. Weed control in nonRRA is usually primarily accomplished by pre-plant tillage to prepare a weed-free seed bed, 

and/or by clipping targeted to stop weed growth and competition (with or without crop harvest). 

As glyphosate is a crop-safe, broad spectrum herbicide, it is possible that additional alfalfa 
Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 105 8/5/2010

acres, like other herbicide tolerant crops, would be established using no-till methods. 

Comparatively, the tillage associated with non-RRA establishment requires greater use of farm 

machinery which results in greater greenhouse gas emissions.

Alternative 2: Partial Deregulation of RRA

As previously stated, the partial deregulation of RRA is expected to result in an increase in the 

total acreage of RRA crops. This would be accompanied by increased glyphosate application 

and decreased tillage of alfalfa fields. Because glyphosate is non-volatile (i.e., does not 

evaporate readily) at normal temperatures and is not considered an atmospheric contaminant 

(EPA, 1993), the increased application of glyphosate is not expected to result in adverse 

impacts to air quality. If glyphosate is applied aerially, any potential drift-related impacts can be 

minimized by utilizing recognized practices for managing the potential for off target movement 

(i.e., using of specific nozzle types, limiting applications to conditions less favorable for drift). 

The overall impacts from aerial application are expected to be minimal because only around two 

percent of glyphosate is applied aerially in the U.S. (USDA APHIS, 2009). The decreased tillage 

of alfalfa fields under this alternative would have a net positive effect on air quality and climate 

by reducing the operation of farm machinery and the associated greenhouse gas emissions. 

Emissions related to global warming, ozone depletion, summer smog and carcinogenicity, 

among others, were found to be lower in GT crop systems than conventional systems (Bennett 

et al., 2004).

3.12.3 Water Quality

The assessment of impacts to water quality in the sections below considers impacts on surface 

water quality and groundwater. Under Alternative 1, alfalfa acres will continue to be planted 

with non-RRA or non-alfalfa crops.

Alternative 1: No Action

Surface water. Alternative 1 would have an adverse impact on surface water quality. Under 

this alternative, growers would continue to plant conventional and organic alfalfa, resulting in the 

continued reliance on tilling and/or multiple herbicides for weed control. The adverse impact 

would be due to the continued generation of runoff containing: 1) herbicides with greater 

environmental impact than glyphosate; and/or 2) particulate matter derived from increased 

tillage and soil erosion. Tillage causes widespread soil disturbance resulting in erosion and 

topsoil loss, with a corresponding increase in sedimentation and turbidity in streams. This 
Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 106 8/5/2010

erosion can also transport herbicides used on the fields into the surface waters. The usage of a 

GT cropping system such as RRA allows for cultivation with reduced tillage.

Groundwater. Alternative 1 would result in an adverse impact to groundwater. Adverse 

impacts would result from the continued use of multiple herbicides to control weeds. The vast 

majority of growers would continue to plant conventional alfalfa, resulting in the use of multiple 

herbicides for weed control. Several non-glyphosate herbicides have a higher potential to leach 

into groundwater, which results in groundwater contamination.

Alternative 2: Partial Deregulation of RRA

Surface water. Partial deregulation would result in increased planting (increased acreage) of 

RRA. The associated increase in application of glyphosate for weed control would reduce the 

impact on surface water quality by facilitating the adoption of conservation tillage methods and 

reducing the use of other herbicides with greater potential for adverse impact. Conservation 

tillage reduces disturbance of the soil and associated soil erosion from wind and water, and is 

facilitated by use of a GT cropping system such as RRA. The net effect would be lower 

amounts of herbicide and suspended sediment in runoff, which would improve water quality in 

streams and lakes (Wiebe and Gollehon, 2006).

Groundwater. The increased application of glyphosate under Alternative 2 would have a 

positive effect on groundwater quality by reducing the use of other herbicides that more readily 

leach into groundwater.

3.13 BIOLOGICAL

Potential environmental effects of pesticide use are carefully considered as a part of the FIFRA 

pesticide registration process. Prior to the approval of a new pesticide or a new use of that 

pesticide (including a change in pesticide application rates and/or timing) and before 

reregistering an existing pesticide, EPA must consider the potential for environmental effects 

and make a determination that no unreasonable adverse effects to the environment will be 

caused by the new pesticide, new use or continued use.

To make this determination, EPA requires a comprehensive set of environmental fate and 

ecotoxicological data on the pesticide’s active ingredient (40 C.F.R. Part 158). EPA uses these 

data to assess the pesticide’s potential environmental risk (exposure/hazard). The required 

data include both short- and long-term hazard data on representative organisms that are used 

to predict hazards to terrestrial animals (birds, nontarget insects, and mammals), aquatic 
Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 107 8/5/2010

animals (freshwater fish and invertebrates, estuarine and marine organisms), and nontarget 

plants (terrestrial and aquatic).

Information regarding the impacts of glyphosate on the biological environment is summarized 

below. Additional information on this topic is also being considered in the USDA APHIS Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on the Deregulation of Glyphosate Tolerant Alfalfa 

(Docket No. APHIS-2007-0044) (USDA APHIS, 2009). 

3.13.1 Animal and plant exposure to glyphosate

Glyphosate is a non-selective herbicide with post-emergence activity on essentially all annual 

and perennial plants. As discussed in Section 3.1.1, this activity is due to inhibition of EPSPS, 

an enzyme involved in aromatic amino acid synthesis. As with any herbicide, a risk exists that 

spray drift could pose issues for plants on the borders of the target field. However, EPA takes 

the potential for spray drift into account when conducting the risk assessment it uses to 

establish pesticide application rates and direction for use, which are designed to minimize spray 

drift risks. Glyphosate binds tightly to agricultural soils and is not likely to move offsite dissolved 

in water. Moreover, glyphosate is not readily taken up from agricultural soil by plants. This 

limits the impact of glyphosate use on non-target plants, including aquatic plants.

Alternative 1: No Action

Plants. Under the no action alternative, RRA would remain regulated, and growers of 

conventional alfalfa would continue to use multiple herbicides for weed control. Many of the nonglyphosate herbicides are selective herbicides that kill only particular groups of plants such as 

annual grasses, perennial grasses, or broadleaf weed species. Therefore, growers of 

conventional alfalfa use more than one herbicide to achieve satisfactory weed control. In 

addition, some of the other herbicides are applied at greater volumes compared to glyphosate.

The continued use of other herbicides would result in potential adverse impacts to non-target 

plants. The herbicides used in conventional alfalfa production have been found, in general, to 

have more significant environmental impacts than glyphosate (USDA APHIS, 2009). This is 

consistent with the EPA decision to grant reduced risk status for glyphosate use in RRA. 

Comparison of results from terrestrial and aquatic plant studies with predicted exposure from 

herbicide use suggests that most of the herbicides used in conventional alfalfa systems may 

have greater adverse effects than glyphosate on aquatic or terrestrial plant species.

Animals. Under this alternative RRA would remain regulated, and growers of conventional 

alfalfa would continue to use an array of herbicides for weed control. Many of the herbicides 
Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 108 8/5/2010

used in conventional alfalfa production have been found to have higher toxicity to certain animal 

species than glyphosate. Animal species within and adjacent to fields of conventional alfalfa 

would continue to be exposed to these more toxic herbicides. The amphibian habitat in 

watersheds where conventional and organic alfalfa are grown would continue to be impacted by 

higher levels of tillage, soil erosion, sedimentation in runoff, and turbidity in ponds, lakes, and 

rivers than would otherwise be the case if RRA were grown.

Under this alternative, alfalfa growers will continue to have difficulty controlling certain weed 

species that sicken, poison or reduce growth of horses, cattle and other livestock. Livestock 

illness and suffering related specifically to consumption of toxic weeds in alfalfa forage would 

remain unchanged. Economic losses associated with veterinary service costs and livestock 

productivity losses would remain unchanged.

Alternative 2: Partial Deregulation of RRA

Plants. With partial deregulation, the acreage of RRA and the associated use of glyphosate 

would increase. The increased glyphosate use would be accompanied by a corresponding 

decrease in the use of other herbicides that have a higher potential to impact non-target plant 

life. So this alternative would have an overall positive effect on terrestrial and aquatic plants. 

The EPA has concluded that glyphosate use on RRA poses reduced risk compared to the use 

of other herbicides for weed control.43 As is the case with aerial application of any herbicide, 

terrestrial and aquatic plants in the vicinity of alfalfa fields may be incidentally exposed to 

glyphosate by spray drift. However, if aerial applications are minimized and/or appropriate spray 

drift reduction practices are utilized, this risk to non-target plants would be reduced; recall that 

EPA has determined that no unreasonable adverse effects occur from spray drift of glyphosate 

when applied according to label directions. Each year there are millions of acres of GT crops 

that are treated with glyphosate with minimal impact to adjacent non-target terrestrial plants 

including crops, when appropriate drift minimization measures are practiced.

Because glyphosate binds strongly to soil particles and has no herbicidal activity after binding to 

soil, no effects on aquatic plants will result from surface water runoff from glyphosate use on 

RRA. Conservation tillage and no tillage practices have the potential to mitigate impacts to 

aquatic plants through decreasing soil-laden runoff.

 

43 A reduced risk decision is made at the use level based on a comparison between the proposed use of the 

pesticide and existing alternatives currently registered on that use site. A list of decisions regarding Reduced Risk 

Status can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/workplan/reducedrisk.html
Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 109 8/5/2010

Animals. With partial deregulation, the acreage of RRA and the associated use of glyphosate 

would increase. The increased glyphosate use would be accompanied by a corresponding 

decrease in the use of other herbicides that have a higher potential to impact animals.

Based on the data available on glyphosate usage, chemical fate, and toxicity, glyphosate is not 

expected to pose an acute or chronic risk to the following categories of wildlife (EPA, 1993):

 Birds;

 Mammals;

 Terrestrial Invertebrates;

 Aquatic Invertebrates;

 Fish; and

 Soil Microorganisms.

Glyphosate is practically non-toxic to slightly toxic to birds, freshwater fish, marine and estuarine 

species, aquatic invertebrates and mammals and practically non-toxic to honey bees (which are 

used to assess effects on non-target insects in general) (EPA, 1993). Glyphosate has a low 

octanol-water partition coefficient, indicating that it has a tendency to remain in the water phase 

rather than move from the water phase into fatty substances. Therefore, it is not expected to 

accumulate in fish or other animal tissues.

As a part of the reregistration evaluation under FIFRA, EPA conducted an ecological 

assessment for glyphosate. This assessment compared the results from toxicity tests with 

glyphosate conducted with various plant and animal species to a conservative estimate of 

glyphosate exposure in the environment (Estimated Environmental Concentration (EEC)). In the 

Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) for glyphosate (EPA, 1993), the exposure estimates 

were determined assuming an application rate of 5.0625 lb active ingredient per acre (ai/A), 

which exceeds 3.75 lb a.e./A, the maximum EPA labelled use rate for a single application for 

agricultural purposes. When the EECs were calculated for aquatic plants and animals, the 

direct application of this rate (5.0625 lb a.e./A) to water was assumed. Based on this 

assessment, EPA concluded that effects to birds, mammals, fish and invertebrates are minimal 

based on available data (EPA, 1993).

The glyphosate end-use products used in agriculture contain a surfactant to facilitate the uptake 

of glyphosate into the plant (Ashton and Crafts, 1981). Depending on the surfactant used, the 

toxicity of the end-use product may range from practically nontoxic to moderately toxic to fish 
Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 110 8/5/2010

and aquatic invertebrates (EPA, 1993). For this reason, the 1993 Glyphosate RED stated that 

some formulated end-use products of glyphosate needed to be labeled as “Toxic to fish” if they 

were labeled for direct application to water bodies. Due to the associated hazard to fish and 

other aquatic organisms, glyphosate end-use products that are labeled for applications to water 

bodies generally do not contain surfactant, or contain a surfactant approved for direct 

application to water bodies.

Possible adverse impacts to amphibians resulting from the deregulation of RRA may be offset 

by the shift from other herbicides used in alfalfa cultivation, which are considered to have higher 

environmental impacts in general. Additionally, amphibian habitat in watersheds where RRA is 

produced could be improved through conservation tillage, resulting in decreased soil erosion, 

decreased sedimentation in runoff, and decreased turbidity in ponds, lakes, and rivers fed by 

surface waters.

Glyphosate can theoretically be toxic to microorganisms because it inhibits the production of 

aromatic amino acids through the shikimate pathway. However, field studies show that 

glyphosate has little effect on soil microorganisms, and, in some cases, field studies have 

shown an increase in microbial activity due to the presence of glyphosate (USDA FS, 2003).

Glyphosate itself is slightly toxic to amphibians; however, amphibians exhibited greater 

sensitivity to Roundup® formulations than to glyphosate tested as an acid or isopropylamine 

(IPA) salt. This could be due to the surfactant (POEA) used in agricultural formulations, which 

has been found to be more toxic to amphibians and other aquatic animals than the herbicide 

itself (Lajmanovich et al., 2003). Some researchers have suggested that, in combination with 

POEA, Roundup® could cause extremely high rates of mortality to amphibians that could lead 

to eventual population declines (Relyea, 2005). However, the testing methods of the Relyea

(2005) study have been called into question due to the high exposure doses, which exceed 

application rates of glyphosate (regulated by FIFRA), as well as the fact that this Roundup® 

product is not approved for use in an aquatic setting (USDA APHIS, 2009). Considering the 

potential for aquatic exposure to glyphosate formulations from terrestrial uses, EPA recently 

evaluated the effect of glyphosate and its formulations on another amphibian species, the 

California red-legged frog, and concluded that aquatic exposure to glyhphosate or its 

formulations posed no risk to this threatened species (EPA, 2008). Because EPA considered a 

wide range of application rates in their evaluation for the red-legged frog, this conclusion can 

also be applied to amphibians exposed to glyphosate from applications on GT alfalfa. 
Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 111 8/5/2010

3.13.2 Threatened and endangered species

Alternative 1: No Action

Under this alternative RRA would remain regulated, and growers of conventional alfalfa would 

continue to use a multitude of herbicides for weed control. Many of the herbicides used in 

conventional alfalfa production have been found to have higher toxicity to certain animal species 

than glyphosate. Threatened and endangered species within and adjacent to fields of 

conventional alfalfa would continue to be exposed to these more toxic herbicides. The 

amphibian habitat in watersheds where conventional and organic alfalfa are grown would 

continue to be impacted by higher levels of tillage, soil erosion, sedimentation in runoff, and 

turbidity in ponds, lakes, and rivers than would otherwise be the case if RRA were grown.

Alternative 2: Partial Deregulation of RRA

Under partial deregulation, the acreage of RRA would likely increase with a concomitant 

increase of glyphosate use for weed control. Based on the information presented below, there 

is no expected impact based on the ecological safety assessment conducted for glyphosate 

discussed below (Mortensen et al., 2008) and growers implementation of glyphosate application 

practices required by Monsanto that are designed to protect threatened or endangered species.

Monsanto recently performed an updated assessment of the impact to threatened and 

endangered species of glyphosate application to GT crops. The results of this assessment were 

submitted to USDA as Monsanto Report No. RPN-2007-227 (Mortensen et al., 2008). 

Monsanto also prepared an endangered species assessment for terrestrial plants that was 

submitted to USDA (Honegger et al., 2008). The findings of these assessments are as follows:

 Threatened or endangered terrestrial or semi-aquatic plant species are not at risk from 

ground applications of glyphosate at rates less than 3.5 lb active ingredient per acre 

(ai/A). Since the maximum single application rate before or after crop emergence in GT 

alfalfa is 1.55 lb ai/A, no listed plant species are predicted to be at risk from ground 

application of glyphosate to RRA.

 • Threatened or endangered terrestrial or semi-aquatic plant species are not at risk 

from aerial applications of glyphosate at rates less than 0.70 lb ai/A. Since rates above 

0.7 lb ai/A are needed to control a number of weed species, buffers for aerial application 

have been proposed by Monsanto (using an EPA-accepted drift model) to permit aerial 

application at rates up to 1.55 lb ai/acre while still predicting no impact on plant growth at 

the edge of the buffer. Monsanto has developed a web site, www.Pre-Serve.org, to 
Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 112 8/5/2010

provide growers a means to determine if threatened or endangered plant species are 

potentially at risk from glyphosate applications that they are planning on GT crops. The 

requirement for growers to consult this web site has been incorporated into the 

Monsanto Technology/Stewardship Agreement and Technology Use Guide, an 

agreement that growers sign when purchasing any Monsanto GT seed. Through the 

implementation of the Pre-Serve web site and its mandated use by growers, threatened 

and endangered plant species are protected from potential effects from glyphosate use 

on RRA.

 Other taxa (including birds, mammals, insects, fish, amphibians, aquatic invertebrates, 

and aquatic plants) are not at risk from the use of glyphosate herbicides in alfalfa 

production. In addition, other taxa are not at risk from indirect effects resulting from 

habitat alteration from the use of glyphosate.

Amphibians use a wide range of aquatic habitats for their breeding sites and could be exposed 

to glyphosate in surface water. Considering the potential for aquatic exposure to glyphosate 

formulations from terrestrial uses, EPA recently evaluated the effect of glyphosate and its 

formulations on the California red-legged frog (CRLF). EPA concluded that aquatic exposure to 

glyphosate and its formulations posed no risk to this threatened species (EPA, 2008). As a part 

of the endangered species effects assessment for the California red-legged frog, EPA evaluated 

the effect of glyphosate at application rates up to 7.95 lb ai/A. Based on this assessment, the 

application of glyphosate at the maximum, single, in-crop application rate specified on the EPAapproved label for RRA (1.55 lb ai/A) would have no effects on threatened and endangered 

species of fish, amphibians, birds, or mammals.

Although not specifically discussed in the assessment, it can also be determined that there 

would be no effects of glyphosate or its formulations on threatened or endangered vascular 

aquatic plants and aquatic invertebrates (EPA, 2008). For terrestrial invertebrates, it was 

determined that there were no effects on non-endangered species. Although not specifically 

stated in the CRLF assessment, exposure levels from spray drift to threatened or endangered 

invertebrates adjacent to RR alfalfa fields are below the level44 that would result in a conclusion 

of risk. Additional information has been provided to EPA to also support a conclusion of no risk 

for small terrestrial invertebrates that might be present in the field at the time of glyphosate 

application. For terrestrial plants, the potential for effects on non-endangered species was 

assessed, and using the endpoints and EECs provided, it could be determined that there would 

 

44 Screening level drift assumptions are one percent for ground applications and five percent for aerial applications.
Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 113 8/5/2010

be no effects on terrestrial plants from ground applications at the maximum single in-crop 

application rate for RRA.

3.13.3 Potential impact of exposure to RRA

APHIS analyzed the potential impacts to threatened and endangered species from directly 

contacting, consuming, or hybridizing with RRA and/or their progeny. This analysis considered 

the effect of production of RRA on designated critical habitat or habitat proposed for 

designation. The results are as follows:

 RRA is not expected to become more invasive in natural environments or have any 

difference in effect on critical habitat than their parental non-GT line in the absence of 

glyphosate selection.

 Analysis of forage samples from several locations demonstrates that RRA is 

compositionally and nutritionally equivalent to other alfalfa varieties currently on the 

market. It is not expected to have adverse nutritional effects on any threatened and 

endangered species that feeds upon it. The RRA CP4 EPSPS protein does not have 

toxic or pathogenic effects that would affect threatened and endangered species or their 

critical habitat.

 RRA is not expected to form hybrids with any state or federally listed threatened or 

endangered species of plant or any plant species proposed for federal listing.

Based on this assessment, APHIS could not identify any difference between the impacts from 

exposure to RRA and the impacts from exposure to other alfalfa varieties (conventional and 

organic varieties). Consequently, there would be little or no differences between Alternatives 1 

and 2 in terms of the exposure of threatened and endangered species to RRA.

3.14 HUMAN HEALTH AND SAFETY

3.14.1 Consumer health and safety

Because RRA is compositionally and nutritionally identical to non-RRA and because alfalfa 

forage and seed are not directly consumed by humans, the main issue regarding consumer 

health and safety is potential dietary exposure to glyphosate herbicide residues. The general 

public may be exposed to herbicides used on RRA if they consume animal commodities arising 

from livestock fed on the treated alfalfa. For the reasons described below, this risk is very small, 

and there would be little or no differences between Alternatives 1 and 2 in terms of the impact of 

regulation or partial deregulation of RRA on consumer health and safety.
Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 114 8/5/2010

Consumption of adjacent crops impacted by spray drift is a theoretically possible route of 

exposure, but is not a normal part of dietary risk assessment (EPA, 2000). The predominant 

route of potential dietary glyphosate exposure to consumers linked to RRA is via consumption of 

meat / milk from livestock fed on the treated alfalfa. EPA’s procedures to estimate dietary 

exposure fully account for these processes (EPA, 2000; EPA, 1993). EPA has determined that 

there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to glyphosate 

residues (71 Fed. Reg. 76180 (Dec. 20, 2006)). According to the RED (EPA, 1993), glyphosate 

has relatively low oral and dermal acute toxicity and has been placed in Toxicity Category III for 

these effects (Toxicity Category I indicates the highest degree of acute toxicity, and Category IV 

the lowest). The acute inhalation toxicity study was waived because glyphosate is nonvolatile 

and because adequate inhalation studies with end-use products exist and show low toxicity.

Glyphosate is already used for weed control with conventional alfalfa and other GT crops, 

including GT corn, GT soybeans, and GT cotton. In addition, it is registered for use in weed 

control with several fruits and vegetables, and tolerances are established in the consumable 

commodities of these crops. The current upper estimates of exposure risk for glyphosate are 

based on highly conservative fruit and vegetable intake rates with an assumed high estimated 

amount of glyphosate residue. The current aggregate dietary risk assessment completed by 

EPA concludes there is no concern for any subpopulation regarding exposure to glyphosate, 

including the use on many fruits and vegetables (71 Fed. Reg. 76180 (Dec. 20, 2006)). 

Moreover, the potential exists for decreases in the applications and subsequent residues of 

more toxic herbicides if RRA is partially deregulated.

The use of glyphosate does not result in adverse effects on development at non-maternally toxic 

doses, reproduction, or endocrine systems in humans and other mammals (EPA, 1993; WHO, 

2004; ECETOC, 2009). Under present and expected conditions of use, glyphosate does not 

pose a health risk to humans (EPA, 1993). Additionally, the nature of glyphosate residue in 

plants and animals is adequately understood, and studies with a variety of plants indicate that 

uptake of glyphosate from soil is limited. The material that is taken up is readily translocated 

throughout the plant. In animals, most ingested or absorbed glyphosate is eliminated in urine 

and feces. As discussed in Section 3.10, no impacts from consumption of food or feed 

containing the CP4 EPSPS protein would be expected.

3.14.2 Hazard identification and exposure assessment for field workers

The main issue regarding the health and safety of field workers and RRA is potential worker 

exposure to glyphosate used for weed control. For the reasons described below, the health risk 
Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 115 8/5/2010

from field worker exposure to glyphosate is small when used in accordance with labeling. There 

would be little or no differences between Alternatives 1 and 2 in terms of the impact of 

regulation or partial deregulation of RRA on field worker health and safety.

Glyphosate is already used for weed control with conventional alfalfa and other GT crops, 

including GT corn, GT soybeans, and GT cotton. In addition, it is registered for use in weed 

control with several fruits and vegetables. So the potential for field worker exposure to 

glyphosate will continue to exist whether RRA is regulated or deregulated.

With regard to subchronic and chronic toxicity, one of the more consistent effects of exposure to 

glyphosate at high doses is reduced body weight gain compared to controls. Body weight loss 

is not seen in multiple subchronic studies, but has at times been noted in some chronic studies 

at excessively high doses ≥ 20,000 ppm in diet (WHO, 2004). Other general and non-specific 

signs of toxicity from subchronic and chronic exposure to glyphosate include changes in liver 

weight, blood chemistry (may suggest mild liver toxicity), and liver pathology (USDA FS, 2003). 

Glyphosate is not considered a carcinogen; it has been classified by EPA as a “Group E 

carcinogen”, which means that it shows evidence of non-carcinogenicity for humans (EPA, 

1993).

EPA’s human health analysis considers both the applicator and bystander as having the 

potential for exposure to glyphosate. Based on the toxicity of glyphosate and its registered uses, 

including use on GT crops, EPA has concluded that occupational exposures (short-term dermal 

and inhalation) to glyphosate are not of concern because no short-term dermal or inhalation 

toxicity endpoints have been identified for glyphosate (71 Fed. Reg. 76180 (Dec. 20, 2006)).

Additional evidence to support the EPA conclusion can be found in the Farm Family Exposure 

Study, a biomonitoring study of pesticide applicators conducted by independent investigators 

(Acquavella et al., 2004). This biomonitoring study determined that the highest estimated bodily 

adsorption of glyphosate as the result of routine labeled applications of registered glyphosatebased agricultural herbicides to crops, including GT crops, was approximately 400 times lower 

than the reference dose (RfD) established for glyphosate. Furthermore, investigators 

determined that 40 percent of field workers (applicators) did not have detectable exposure on 

the day of application, and 54 percent of the field workers had an estimated bodily adsorption of 

glyphosate more than 1000 times lower than the RfD (Acquavella et al., 2004). Use patterns 

and rates for RRA are typical of most glyphosate agronomic practices. Therefore, the partial 

deregulation of RRA would not significantly increase the exposure risk to pesticide applicators.
Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 116 8/5/2010

Finally, the biomonitoring study also found little evidence of detectable exposure to individuals 

on the farm who were not actively involved with or located in the immediate vicinity of 

application of glyphosate-based herbicides to crops. Considering the similarity of the use pattern 

and application rates of the glyphosate products in this study compared to those registered for 

use on RRA and GT crops in general, bystander exposure attributed to the use of glyphosate on 

GT crops is expected to be negligible.

Based on the above information, the use of currently registered herbicide products containing 

glyphosate in accordance with the EPA labeling requirements will not pose unreasonable risks 

or adverse effects to field workers or bystanders. In general, the herbicidal activity of 

glyphosate is due primarily to a metabolic pathway that does not occur in humans or other 

animals, and, thus, this mechanism of action is not directly relevant to the human health risk 

assessment. EPA considers glyphosate to be of low acute and chronic toxicity by the dermal 

route of exposure. Glyphosate is considered a Category IV dermal toxicant and is expected to 

cause only slight skin irritation (USDA APHIS, 2009).

3.15 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PARTIAL 

DEREGULATION

APHIS has studied the potential socioeconomic impacts of fully deregulating RRA (USDA 

APHIS, 2009, pp. 125-145 & Appendix S). Although the types of potential socioeconomic 

impacts discussed in the draft EIS under full deregulation would remain the same as under this 

proposed partial deregulation, the scale (extent and scope) of each impact would be 

significantly more limited. The proposal restricts (excludes) forage planting of RRA within 

county-level proximity to 99.5 percent of the U.S. alfalfa seed crop production areas and it would 

place highly stringent isolation conditions and other requirements on a small, pre-defined group 

of RRA seed producers. 

Simply stated, protection of conventional and organic seed purity has been identified as an 

important component for the coexistence of GE, conventional and organic agricultural crops, 

including alfalfa. As it is primarily a geographically-structured approach parsed to the county 

level by seed vs. forage crop production criteria, the partial deregulation is intended to preclude 

the possibility for socio-economic impacts (favorable or unfavorable) specifically inter-related 

with gene flow into >99.5 percent of the U.S. alfalfa seed crop. The remaining approximately 

0.5 percent of the seed crop is also unlikely to be impacted because when and if grown in local 

proximity to a RRA forage crop (<165 ft), the RRA forage producers would be required to 
Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 117 8/5/2010

mitigate the amount of available RRA pollen by cutting the RRA hay crop prior to 10 percent 

bloom.

USDA has clearly endorsed coexistence of GE, conventional and organic growers, crops and 

markets. During the period in which USDA/APHIS finalizes a court-ordered EIS and prepares a 

record of decision on the deregulation of RRA, the terms of the proposed Partial Deregulation 

cautiously parse out the areas of primary “gene flow interface” between RRA and conventional 

alfalfa, enabling immediate RRA grower benefits without interfering with conventional and 

organic crops and markets. The proposed partial deregulation conditions will enable, without 

restriction, the continued supply of conventional variety seeds and basic generation seeds for 

export, organic or domestic use. It would also allow producers to choose to use or not use RRA 

on approximately seventy-eight percent (78%) of U.S. forage production acres and enable a 

nominal number of RRA seed growers on seed production acres where extraordinary isolation 

exists. The actual adoption of the technology by forage growers is anticipated to be some 

fraction of the eligible (allowed) alfalfa acreage total in each region of the U.S. (Appendix G). 

Those most likely to adopt the technology are those producers serving dairy herd forage needs. 

However, pending completion of an EIS and a final deregulation decision, this partial 

deregulation would not uniformly enable all forage or seed growers the choice to participate in 

the socio-economic benefits of the technology, and moreover, in future years, it is possible that 

RRA seed supplies could fall short of RRA seed demand or that forage market inequities might 

develop between competing geographies with and without the technology.

It is likely that through improvements to weed management, the widespread adoption of the 

RRA technology by growers could result in economic benefits related to the quantity and 

improved forage quality of U.S. hay supplies (see below). Forage producers and dairy 

producers may most directly benefit from more abundant supplies of dairy quality forage with 

fewer weeds. Organic forage, dairy, and other food producers would also be likely to 

economically benefit from increased market share related to the newly-heightened market 

differentiation between organic and non-organic dairy and forage production strategies, e.g., the 

organic dairy food customer base may increase if a proportion of conventional consumers begin 

to purchase organic foods due to a negative perception of GE alfalfa. Since the RRA crops 

were first grown (2005-2007) the organic dairy sector has experienced market growth. 

According to several independent analyses (Putnam and Undersander, 2009, attached as 

Appendix I; Van Deynze et al., 2008; NAFA, 2008d; Putnam, 2006; Putnam, 2007), organic 

forage supplies and organic farming practices are unlikely to be at economic risk, adversely 
Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 118 8/5/2010

impacted, or materially affected by the deregulation or growing of RRA. Simple, minimal/nocost effective methods are available to organic and conventional forage producers wishing to 

avoid RRA irrespective of their neighbor’s choice to grow RRA seed or hay crops. Specifically, 

organic or non-GE forage producers need only to cut their hay before seed ripens, purchase 

non-GE planting seeds qualified for organic use and maintain organic hay lot segregation; i.e., 

follow current routine farm plans required by the NOP. Organic dairy or livestock producers will 

continue to grow and/or purchase only organically qualified (identity-preserved, segregated) 

feedstuffs; i.e., follow current routine farm plans required by the NOP. A minority, approximately 

3 to 5 percent, of total alfalfa production may be sensitive to GE traits (Putnam, 2007). 

Therefore, it may be reasoned that a similar percentage of U.S. alfalfa forage growers would opt 

to take these nominal steps to avoid RRA trait presence in their conventional hay crops. 

Forage production. Benefits to farm socio-economics include improvements to grower 

profitability, consistent and abundant on-farm forage supply, and, the ease and flexibility of 

weed control.

As indicated above, in the defined geographies where RRA forage production would be allowed 

with restrictions for new plantings (Table 1-1 and Appendix B of this ER), forage producers 

would have a new tool available for weed management throughout the life of the stand. Forage 

producers (n=201) who have previously commercially used the RRA technology report an 

average increase in productivity of 0.9 total acres per year (T/A/yr) which translates to 

approximately $100 acre per year (A/year) incremental crop value at an average hay price of 

$110 total (T) (RRA Satisfaction Study, Market Probe, 2008, attached as Appendix H). Over the 

life of the stand (e.g., 3 to 5 years), the approximate incremental value of RRA forage 

production is $300 to $500 per acre (A).

Like growers of other GE crops, many growers of RRA also report experiencing intangible social 

benefits (see examples of Public Comments to draft EIS included in Appendix F). Specifically, 

growers report that the RRA technology improves their farming experience in that weed control 

is easier, simpler, more reliable (less risk of failure), herbicide timing is more flexible and crop 

injury (stress) is lessened. They also acknowledge the lessened risk to water sheds and to 

herbicide applicators (self, family and employees) compared to several other herbicide choices. 

Relative to their economic benefits and risks, currently available weed management strategies 

may not be implemented at all because they can be expensive, ineffective on target weeds, 

restricted in use due to environmental or worker safety issues, difficult to apply at the correct 

time for good control, and some measures reduce alfalfa crop yield or stand longevity more than 
Events J101 and J163 Environmental Consequences

Environmental Report 119 8/5/2010

the weeds (e.g., early clipping, companion and cover crops). RRA growers note that the RRA 

technology is especially beneficial for weed control during the early seedling establishment 

period when the new planting can be at risk of failure (complete loss) due to unchecked weed 

competition. Although there are many reasons why alfalfa plantings fail in the first year, growers 

who adopt RRA would likely have less exposure to economic risk and intangible uncertainty 

associated with the possibility of losing their valuable planting inputs, meanwhile ensuring a 

more consistent supply of nutritious forage for livestock than the alfalfa growers not adopting the 

technology.

Seed Production. Socio-economic benefits related to RRA seed production include: improved 

profitability for RRA seed growers; the benefits described above associated with improved weed 

control; and a seed supply of new RRA varieties targeting new production niches, thus enabling 

the forage benefits described herein.

The seed producer consortia outlined in Table 1-2 have several things in common. These 

growers all produced RRA seed in 2006, 2007, 2008 and/or 2009. They will receive FGI 

training on RRA Seed Production Best Practices and will be monitored by FGI for compliance as 

required by the NAFA BMP and the proposed conditions for partial deregulation. These 

growers also all produce seed in a setting that allows substantial isolation from conventional 

alfalfa seed production. Table 1-2 shows the existing isolation, and the minimum required 

isolation required in future years under the terms of this partial deregulation. In all cases the 

required isolation exceeds the NAFA RRA Seed Production Best Practices.

Pollen-mediated gene flow is inversely proportional to isolation distance, and varies by 

introduced pollinator species. Any new RRA seed production with the growers and production 

areas outlined in Table 1-2 will have a minimal impact on conventional or organic seed 

production targeted for either U.S. or export markets.
Events J101 and J163 Cumulative Impacts

Environmental Report 120 8/5/2010

SECTION 4.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

This section discusses the cumulative impacts that may be associated with Alternative 2, when 

combined with other recent past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the 

affected environment. Cumulative impacts that will occur are expected to be negligible.

Cumulative impacts occur when the effects of an action are added to the effects of other actions 

occurring in a specific geographic area and timeframe. The cumulative impact analysis follows 

CEQ’s guidance: Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National Environmental Policy Act 

(CEQ, 1997). The steps associated with the analysis include:

 Specify the class of actions for which effects are to be analyzed.

 Designate the appropriate time and space domain in which the relevant actions occur.

 Identify and characterize the set of receptors to be assessed.

 Determine the magnitude of effects on the receptors and whether those effects are 

accumulating.

4.1 CLASS OF ACTIONS TO BE ANALYZED

This analysis addresses regional and national actions that may have impacts that may 

accumulate with those of the proposed partial deregulation measures.

4.2 GEOGRAPHIC AND TEMPORAL BOUNDARIES FOR THE ANALYSIS

As described in Section 2, over the past 60 years, the number of alfalfa hay acres harvested 

annually in the U.S. has ranged between 20.7 million acres (2010) and 29.8 million acres 

(1957), with peak tonnage of hay production in the mid-1980s (USDA ERS, 2010a). In 2006, 

20.9 million acres of alfalfa was harvested for forage. (In contrast, 122.1 acres of alfalfa was 

harvested for seed.) Alfalfa is grown for forage throughout the U.S. Based on 2008 production 

data by county, the four major U.S. alfalfa producing regions include the north-central, west, 

northeast, and south, with the north-central and the west regions being the highest producing 

regions in the U.S.

Under this proposal, we anticipate that any future alfalfa planting under partial deregulation will 

conform to the geographic use restrictions described herein, with the exception of a minimal 

number of acres (e.g. less than 100 acres) that may be produced under APHIS permit. In the 

event this proposal is granted, the small and declining number of RRA acres planted under 

APHIS permit will not have incremental cumulative impact on any of the resource areas.
Events J101 and J163 Cumulative Impacts

Environmental Report 121 8/5/2010

Activities relevant to the cumulative impacts analysis have been identified from reviews of 

information available from government agencies, such as NEPA documents, land-use and 

natural resource management plans, and from private organizations. Not all actions identified in 

this analysis would have cumulative impacts on all resource areas.

4.3 RESOURCES ANALYZED

Issues evaluated in this cumulative impacts analysis include some of the resource areas 

discussed in Sections 2 and 3 including land use, air quality and climate, water quality, 

biological, and human health and safety. In addition, specific topics analyzed include: 

cumulative impacts related to any possibility of development of glyphosate resistant weeds, and 

cumulative impacts of potential increased glyphosate usage with the cultivation of GT crops.

4.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS RELATED TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF GLYPHOSATE 

RESISTANT WEEDS

Glyphosate offers many benefits to the grower as a weed control product. Glyphosate controls a 

broad spectrum of grass and broadleaf weed species present in U.S. production fields, has 

flexible use timings, and when used in GT crops, has a very high level of crop safety. As the 

adoption of GT crops has grown, the use of glyphosate has increased over the past several 

years. As discussed in Section 3, with the increased use of glyphosate, there is also the 

potential for increased selection pressure for the development of new glyphosate-resistant weed 

populations and/or new glyphosate-resistant weed species.

As discussed in Section 2.4, there is a low probability for the development of new glyphosateresistant weed populations and/or development of new resistance weed species from the use of 

glyphosate herbicides in conjunction with plantings of RR alfalfa. The expected use pattern of 

herbicides, including glyphosate, in alfalfa and the alfalfa production practices (e.g. frequent 

mowing) provides a basis for retarding the development of new resistance. It also provides a 

basis for managing resistance that may be present from movement of a resistant weed seed 

into an alfalfa field or cross-pollination from a resistant weed to a sexually compatible weed 

within an alfalfa field.

As discussed in Section 3.11.14, market research studies indicate that growers of glyphosatetolerant crops are increasingly taking measures to minimize the potential for development of 

glyphosate resistance. Based on the adoption of these measures by growers of other GT crops 

such as GT corn, GT soybeans, and GT cotton (Frisvold et al., 2009), similar adoption of these 

measures by GT alfalfa growers is anticipated. In all three of these other GT crops, growers are 
Events J101 and J163 Cumulative Impacts

Environmental Report 122 8/5/2010

adopting best management practices, in particular the more frequent use of complementary 

herbicides in a glyphosate-based weed management programs in corn (Givens et al., 2009; 

Frisvold et al., 2009). The key best management practices recommended by industry and 

academics to control against weed resistance are as follows : a) identifying weeds and 

monitoring for escapes to determine if current practices need to be modified to achieve 

acceptable levels of weed control, b) using proper herbicide rates and timing, c) using crop 

rotation to facilitate use of different modes of action over time, d) using agronomic management 

practices to supplement herbicide weed control, e) alternating herbicides with different modes of 

action, and e) tank mixing herbicides of different modes of action (HRAC, 2009; Orloff et al., 

2009; Monsanto, 2010a).

Increased glyphosate use is not expected in the major GT crops (corn, soybeans and cotton), 

as GT usage in these crops is high and likely not to increase beyond current levels. As 

discussed above and in Section 3.11, there is a high level of awareness among growers of 

these crops of the need to minimize the potential for development of glyphosate resistance, and 

evidence that growers are implementing management practices to prevent the development of 

glyphosate resistant weeds.

These management practices for all glyphosate-tolerant crops, combined with the specific 

alfalfa weed management practices discussed in Section 2.4, will together help minimize the 

cumulative potential for development of glyphosate resistant weeds under Alternative 2. Thus, 

Alternative 2 is not expected to contribute to cumulative adverse impacts on the development of 

glyphosate-resistant weeds.

4.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF POTENTIAL INCREASED GLYPHOSATE USAGE

The increase in glyphosate used under the proposed interim measures described in this ER 

(Alternative 2), would be minimal. Assuming a 50 percent market share, the amount of 

glyphosate applied to RRA would be 1,627,500 lb a.e (0.5 x 21 million total alfalfa acres X 1.55 

lb a.e./A). Calculating from Table N-3 on page N-16 in the draft EIS, total use of glyphosate on 

corn, cotton, soybean, and wheat is equal to 126,308,000 lbs. Therefore, even if glyphosate is 

used on 50 percent of total alfalfa acres, the glyphosate use on alfalfa would be 1.3 percent of 

the glyphosate used on these four major crops.

According to the USDA ERS (2009), U.S. farmers have adopted genetically engineered crops 

widely since their introduction in 1996. Soybeans and cotton genetically engineered with 

herbicide-tolerant traits have been the most widely and rapidly adopted GE crops in the U.S., 
Events J101 and J163 Cumulative Impacts

Environmental Report 123 8/5/2010

followed by insect-resistant cotton and corn. Figure 4-1 shows the percentage of acres of 

genetically engineered crops in the U.S. between 1996 and 2009. Appendix G charts data from 

Monsanto/FGI of the anticipated adoption of RRA under Alternative 2 over a 10 year period.

Figure 4-1 Growth in Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops in U.S.

Source: Graph from USDA ERS, 2009

Herbicide-tolerant crops, which are engineered to survive application of specific herbicides that 

previously would have damaged the crop, provide farmers with a broader variety of options for 

effective weed control. Based on USDA survey data, herbicide tolerant soybeans went from 17 

percent of U.S. soybean acreage in 1997, to 68 percent in 2001 and 91 percent in 2009. 

Plantings of herbicide tolerant cotton expanded from approximately 10 percent of U.S. acreage 

in 1997 to 56 percent in 2001 and 71 percent in 2009. The adoption of herbicide tolerant corn 

was slower in previous years, but has reached 68 percent of U.S. corn acreage in 2009 (USDA 

ERS, 2009).

Corn growers use the largest volume of herbicides. Approximately 96 percent of the 62.2 

million acres used for growing corn in the 10 major corn-producing States were treated with 

more than 164 million pounds of herbicides in 1997 (USDA ERS, 2009). Soybean production in 

the U.S. also uses a large amount of herbicides. Approximately 97 percent of the 66.2 million 

soybean acres in the 19 major soybean-producing States were treated with more than 78 million 

pounds of herbicides in 1997 (USDA ERS, 2009). Cotton production relies heavily on 
Events J101 and J163 Cumulative Impacts

Environmental Report 124 8/5/2010

herbicides to control weeds, often requiring applications of two or more herbicides at planting 

and postemergence herbicides later in the season (Culpepper and York, 1998). Close to 28 

million pounds of herbicides were applied to 97 percent of the 13 million acres devoted to 

upland cotton production in the 12 major cotton-producing States in 1997 (USDA ERS, 2009).

Pesticide use on corn and soybeans has declined since the introduction of GE corn and 

soybeans in 1996. Several studies have analyzed the agronomic, environmental, and economic 

effects of adopting GE crops, including actual pesticide use changes associated with growing 

GE crops (McBride and Brooks, 2000; Fernandez-Cornejo, Klotz-Ingram, and Jans, 1999, 2002; 

Giannessi and Carpenter, 1999; Culpepper and York, 1998; Marra et al., 1998; Falck-Zepeda 

and Traxler, 1998; Fernandez-Cornejo and Klotz-Ingram, 1998; Gibson et al., 1997; ReJesus et 

al., 1997; Stark, 1997). Many of these studies have concluded that herbicide use is reduced 

with herbicide-tolerant varieties (USDA ERS, 2009).

Studies conducted by the USDA shows an overall reduction in pesticide use related to the 

increased adoption of GE crops. Based on the adoption of GE crops between 1997 and 1998 

(except for herbicide-tolerant corn, which is modeled for 1996-97), the decline in pesticide use 

was estimated to be 19.1 million acre-treatments, 6.2 percent of total treatments (USDA ERS, 

2009). Most of the decline in pesticide acre treatments was from less herbicide used on 

soybeans, which accounts for more than 80 percent of the reduction (16 million acre-treatments) 

(USDA ERS, 2009).

The adoption of herbicide-tolerant crops such as RRA, GT soybeans, and GT corn results in the 

substitution of glyphosate for previously used herbicides. The GT crops allow farmers to limit 

and simplify herbicide treatments based around use of glyphosate, while a conventional weed 

control program can involve multiple applications of several herbicides. In addition, and more 

importantly, herbicide-tolerant crops often allow farmers to use more benign herbicides (USDA 

ERS, 2009).

There are known benefits associated with the use of glyphosate herbicides compared to 

herbicides currently used by alfalfa producers. Glyphosate has documented favorable 

characteristics with regard to risk to human health, non-target species, and the environment 

(Malik et al., 1989; Williams et al., 2000). Glyphosate is classified by the EPA as Group E 

(evidence of non-carcinogenicity for humans) (57 Fed. Reg. 8739 (Mar. 12, 1992)). In 1998, the 

EPA granted Reduced Risk status for an expedited review of the submitted residue data 

package supporting the use of glyphosate. 
Events J101 and J163 Cumulative Impacts

Environmental Report 125 8/5/2010

Petitions for non-regulated status are pending for additional events or lines of GT soybean, 

corn, sugar beets, and creeping bentgrass (USDA APHIS, 2010). If deregulated, the production 

of new GT crops would lead to increased glyphosate application, and in the instances that it is 

cultivated in or near the same geographic areas where RRA is produced, this could lead to a 

cumulative impact on non-target plants impacted by glyphosate. However, given that these 

acres are already being used for agricultural production (in the case of corn and soybeans, most 

likely through a RR cropping system), these plants are likely already exposed to glyphosate or 

other pesticides.

Studies of the relationship between genetically engineered crops and herbicide use has shown 

that an increase in GT crops can result in a decrease in mechanical tillage (Brimner et al., 2005; 

Fernandez-Cornejo, 2006; Gianessi and Reigner, 2006; Kleter et al., 2007; Sankula, 2006; 

Johnson et al., 2008). The potential cumulative impact from this reduction in mechanical tillage 

is discussed in the following sections.

4.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON LAND USE, AIR QUALITY AND CLIMATE

As discussed in Section 2, alfalfa acreage has fluctuated little for the past 60 years, although 

acreage has generally been declining since the mid-1980s. Acreage used for alfalfa would not 

be expected to be impacted by increased RRA plantings. Therefore, as discussed in Section 3, 

Alternative 2 is not expected to impact land use directly or indirectly, other than the anticipated 

shift of certain acreage from conventional or organic alfalfa production to RRA production as a 

result of a partial deregulation (See Appendix G charting anticipated adoption of RRA under 

Alternative 2), and no cumulative impacts on land use are anticipated from Alternative 2.

As discussed in Section 3, Alternative 2 is expected to have positive impacts on air quality and 

climate, primarily resulting from reduced tillage. Consequently, Alternative 2 is not expected to 

have any adverse cumulative impacts on air quality or climate.

4.7 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON WATER QUALITY

As discussed in Section 3, the advent of GT crops and the use of post-emergent herbicides that 

could be applied over a crop during the growing season have facilitated the use of conservation 

tillage farming practices, since weeds could be controlled after crop growth without tilling the soil 

(USDA ERS, 2009). The use of GT crops (particularly soybeans) has intensified that trend 

since it often allows a more effective and less costly weed control regime than using other postemergent herbicides (USDA ERS, 2009; Carpenter and Gianessi, 1999).
Events J101 and J163 Cumulative Impacts

Environmental Report 126 8/5/2010

The impact of conservation tillage (including no-till, ridge-till, and mulch-till) in controlling soil 

erosion and soil degradation is well documented (Edwards, 1995; Sandretto, 1997). By leaving 

substantial amounts of plant matter over the soil surface, conservation tillage 1) reduces soil 

erosion by wind; 2) reduces soil erosion by water; 3) increases water infiltration and moisture 

retention; 4) reduces surface sediment and water runoff; and 5) reduces chemical runoff (USDA 

ERS, 2009).

Glyphosate may potentially be found in surface water runoff when erosion conditions lead to the 

loss of surface particles. However, as discussed in Section 3, partial deregulation of GT crops 

typically leads to an increase in conservation tillage and no tillage systems, which results in less 

mechanical disturbance of the soil during alfalfa cultivation and thereby decrease the loss of 

surface soil. Consequently, given that glyphosate binds strongly to soil particles and has no 

herbicidal activity after binding to soil, no-tillage and conservation tillage are expected to further 

reduce the likelihood of any impact of surface water runoff (Wiebe and Gollehon, 2006). 

Therefore, no cumulative adverse impacts to surface water or groundwater are anticipated. 

4.8 CUMULATIVE BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS

For non-target terrestrial species, available ecological assessments in EPA RED (EPA, 2003) 

documents or registration review summary documents provide the support that the use of 

glyphosate represents reductions in chronic risk to birds compared to benfluralin, norflurazon, 

paraquat, sethoxydim, and trifluralin, and in acute risk to small mammals in comparison to 

bromoxynil, EPTC, and paraquat. For other alfalfa herbicide products, as well as glyphosate, no 

significant risks to birds or other non-target terrestrial species were indicated in the available 

information.

For non-target aquatic species, Tables 4-1, 4-2, and 4-3 provide summaries of the estimated 

exposure and hazard information for the traditional herbicides used in conventional alfalfa 

production, and present quantitative comparisons of the derived Risk Quotients. Exposure, 

defined as the EEC, was calculated for all products using the assumptions (assuming aerial 

application) of 5 percent drift of spray applied to a one-acre field onto water and 5 percent runoff 

from 10 treated acres into a one-acre pond six feet in depth. Herbicide treatments were based 

on the maximum single application rate for alfalfa taken from product labels. Hazard information 

(LC50 or EC50) for each active ingredient was taken from the EPA Ecotoxicology One-Liner 

Database (if available) or other EPA source documents and summarized in Tables 4-1, 4-2, and 

4-3 as the upper and lower values from the range of values reported. Hazard information for the 

end-use formulated products is generally not readily available; thus, this analysis is a 
Events J101 and J163 Cumulative Impacts

Environmental Report 127 8/5/2010

comparison based solely on the active ingredients. Any label warnings and other available 

hazard and/or risk descriptions for non-target aquatic species are also included. The Risk 

Quotient is determined for each active ingredient by dividing the EEC by the hazard (LC50 or 

EC50) value.

Plants potentially at risk from the use of glyphosate are potentially at risk from the use of any 

herbicide. Like most herbicides, plants are highly sensitive to glyphosate. Monsanto has 

developed a program named Pre-Serve to address the use of glyphosate, including aerial 

spraying, in areas where threatened plants may be located. Following use instructions on the 

EPA-approved label and use limitations described in Pre-Serve would address any such risk of 

exposure. Federal law requires pesticides to be used in accordance with the label. 

Conservation tillage and no tillage practices provide additional assurance that the impact to 

aquatic plants is reduced by decreasing soil-laden runoff.

 The EPA-approved labels for products containing 2,4-DB, celthodim, sethoxydim, and trifluralin 

include warnings of toxicity or adverse effects to fish, and/or aquatic invertebrates and/or 

aquatic plants. Risk Quotients that exceed the Trigger Value of 0.5 for aquatic animals and 1.0 

for aquatic plants are highlighted in bold text in Tables 4-1, 4-2, and 4-3 as exceeding a Level of 

Concern, based on EPA Ecological Effects Rejection Analysis and Deterministic Risk 

Characterization Approach. Current alfalfa herbicide products containing benfluralin, 

bromoxynil, diuron, hexazinone, metribuzin, norflurazon, paraquat, terbacil, and trifluralin are 

shown to exceed these Levels of Concern. As supported by the EPA designation of reduced 

risk for application of glyphosate to alfalfa, glyphosate is a more environmentally preferred 

herbicide compared to other herbicides currently used in alfalfa production since glyphosate is 

generally less toxic and has favorable degradation properties.
Events J101 and J163 Cumulative Impacts

Environmental Report 128 8/5/2010

Table 4-1. Comparison of Potential Effects of Glyphosate and Alfalfa Herbicides on Freshwater Fish

Fish LC50 (a.i.)2

Range (ppm)

Fish Risk Quotient3

Range Active 

Ingredient

Max. lb/acre 

(single appl.)

EEC1

(ppm) low high worst best

Classification / Label Warnings

Glyphosate 1.55 0.052 45 140 0.001 0.0004

2,4-DB 1.7 0.057 2 16.8 0.029 0.003 Toxic to fish

Benfluralin 4 1.5 0.051 NA 0.0317 1.6

Bromoxynil 4 0.375 0.013 0.023 0.17 0.55 0.07

Clethodim 0.25 0.008 19 33 0.0004 0.0003

Diuron 2.4 0.081 0.71 14.2 0.11 0.006

EPTC 3.9 0.131 11.5 27 0.011 0.005

Hexazinone 1.5 0.051 > 100 274 < 0.0005 0.0002

Imazamox 0.047 0.002 > 94 > 122 < 0.00002 < 0.00001

Imazethapyr 0.094 0.003 > 112 423 < 0.00003 0.000007

Metribuzin 1 0.034 42 > 100 0.0008 < 0.0003

Norflurazon 0.98 0.033 8.1 16.3 0.004 0.002

Paraquat 0.8 0.027 > 1 156 < 0.027 0.0002

Pronamide 2 0.067 72 350 0.0009 0.0002

Sethoxydim 0.47 0.016 170 265 0.0001 0.0001 Toxic to aquatic organisms.

Terbacil 1.2 0.040 46.2 112 0.0009 0.0004

Trifluralin42 0.067 0.0084 0.210 8.0 0.32 Extremely toxic to freshwater, marine 

and estuarine fish.

NA = information not available

1 EEC refers to the Estimated Environmental Concentration, which assumes that a one-acre pond, six feet deep receives 5% drift from a one-acre field and 5% 

runoff from a 10-acre field.

2 Aquatic LC50 values obtained from the 2010 EPA Ecotoxicology One-Liner Database, except where Footnote 4 is indicated.

3 Risk Quotient is EEC/LC50. Risk Quotient Bolded if > 0.5 = Level of Concern [criteria from EPA Ecological Effects, Rejection Analysis]. Risk Quotients >0.1 

result in classification for Restricted Use (http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/ecorisk_ders/toera_risk.htm#Deterministic).

4

Toxicity values are from the available Reregistration Eligibility Documents, United States Environmental Protection Agency.
Events J101 and J163 Cumulative Impacts

Environmental Report 129 8/5/2010

Table 4-2. Comparison of Potential Effects of Glyphosate and Alfalfa Herbicides on Freshwater Aquatic Invertebrates

Invertebrate EC50 (a.i.)2

Range (ppm)

Invertebrate Risk 

Quotient3 Range Active 

Ingredient

Max. lb/acre 

(single appl.)

EEC1

(ppm) low high worst best

Classification / Label 

Warnings

Glyphosate 1.55 0.052 134 780 0.0004 0.00007

2,4-DB 1.7 0.057 NA 25 0.002

Benfluralin 4 1.5 0.051 NA 0.0218 2.3

Bromoxynil 4 0.375 0.013 0.011 0.096 1.1 0.1

Clethodim 5 0.25 0.008 NA 20.2 0.0004

Diuron 2.4 0.081 0.16 1.1 0.51 0.07

EPTC 3.9 0.131 3.5 66 0.040 0.002

Hexazinone 1.5 0.051 178 > 1000 0.0003 < 0.00005

Imazamox 0.047 0.002 > 94.3 > 122 < 0.00002 < 0.00001

Imazethapyr 0.094 0.003 > 109 > 1000 < 0.00003 < 0.000003

Metribuzin 1 0.034 4.2 > 65 0.008 0.0005

Norflurazon 0.98 0.033 5.3 15 0.006 0.002

Paraquat 0.8 0.027 NA 1.2 0.020

Pronamide 2 0.067 > 4 > 6 < 0.02 < 0.01

Sethoxydim 0.47 0.016 NA 78 0.0002 Toxic to aquatic 

organisms.

Terbacil 1.2 0.040 65 > 1000 0.0006 < 0.00004

Trifluralin 4

2 0.067 0.56 2.2 0.12 0.03 Extremely toxic to aquatic 

invertebrates.

NA = information not available or not applicable

1 EEC refers to the Estimated Environmental Concentration, which assumes that a one-acre pond, six feet deep receives 5% drift from a one-acre field and 5% 

runoff from a 10-acre field.

2 Aquatic Invertebrate EC50 values obtained from the 2010 EPA Ecotoxicology One-Liner Database, except where Footnote 4 is indicated.

3 Risk Quotient is EEC/EC50. Risk Quotient Bolded if > 0.5 = Level of Concern [criteria from EPA Ecological Effects, Rejection Analysis]

4

Toxicity values are from the available Reregistration Eligibility Documents, United States Environmental Protection Agency.

5 EC50 value is from a study using a 25.6% ai concentration.
Events J101 and J163 Cumulative Impacts

Environmental Report 130 8/5/2010

Table 4-3. Comparison of Potential Effects of Glyphosate and Alfalfa Herbicides on Aquatic Plants (Algae and Duckweed)

Aquatic Plant EC50 (a.i.)2

Range (ppm)

Aquatic Plant Risk 

Quotient3 Range Active 

Ingredient

Max. lb/acre 

(single appl.)

EEC1

(ppm) low high worst best

Classification / Label 

Warnings

Glyphosate 1.55 0.052 0.8 38.6 0.065 0.001

2,4-DB 1.7 0.057 NA > 0.932 < 0.061

Benfluralin 4

1.5 0.051 NA 0.1 0.51

Bromoxynil 4

0.375 0.013 0.051 > 0.63 0.25 < 0.02

Clethodim 0.25 0.008 1.34 11.4 0.006 < 0.0007 May pose hazard to federally 

listed endangered plants.

Diuron 2.4 0.081 0.0024 0.095 30 0.85

EPTC 3.9 0.131 1.36 41 0.097 0.003

Hexazinone 1.5 0.051 0.0068 0.21 7.4 0.2

Imazamox 0.047 0.002 0.011 > 0.038 0.14 < 0.042

Imazethapyr 0.094 0.003 0.0081 59.2 0.4 0.00005

Metribuzin 1 0.034 0.008 0.16 4.2 0.21

Norflurazon 0.98 0.033 0.0097 0.058 3.4 0.57

Paraquat 0.8 0.027 0.00055 2.84 50 0.009

Pronamide 2 0.067 0.76 > 4 0.09 < 0.017

Sethoxydim 0.47 0.016 >0.27 5.6 <0.059 0.003 Toxic to aquatic organisms.

Terbacil 1.2 0.040 0.011 0.14 3.7 0.29

Trifluralin 2 0.067 0.015 5 4.5 0.01

NA = information not available or not applicable.

1 EEC refers to the Estimated Environmental Concentration, which that a one-acre pond, six feet deep receives 5% drift from a one-acre field and 5% runoff 

from a 10-acre field.

2 Aquatic EC50 values obtained from the 2010 EPA Ecotoxicology One-Liner, unless Footnote 4 is indicated.

3 Risk Quotient is EEC/EC50. Risk Quotient Bolded if > 1.0 = Level of Concern [criteria from EPA Ecological Effects, Rejection Analysis].

4

Toxicity values obtained from the available Reregistration Eligibility Documents, United States Environmental Protection Agency.
Events J101 and J163 Cumulative Impacts

Environmental Report 131 8/5/2010

4.9 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON HUMAN HEALTH AND SAFETY

Where pesticides may be used on food or feed crops, EPA sets tolerances (maximum pesticide 

residue levels) for the amount of the pesticide residues that can legally remain in or on foods. 

EPA undertakes this analysis under the authority of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 

(FFDCA). Under the FFDCA, EPA must find that such tolerances will be safe, meaning that 

there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide 

chemical residue. This finding must be made and the appropriate tolerance established before a 

pesticide can be registered for use on the particular food or feed crop in question (USDA 

APHIS, 2009).

Another potential impact of the use of glyphosate on human health is pesticide applicator 

exposure related to the increased glyphosate usage. Biomonitoring of pesticide applicators 

conducted by independent investigators has shown that bodily adsorption of glyphosate as the 

result of routine, labeled applications of registered glyphosate-based agricultural herbicides to 

crops, including to RRA, was thousands of times less than the allowable daily intake level 

established for glyphosate (Acquavella et al., 2004). Given similarity in use pattern and rates, 

the commercialization of RRA will not significantly increase the exposure risk to pesticide 

applicators. Furthermore, EPA, the European Commission, the WHO, and independent 

scientists have concluded that glyphosate is not mutagenic or carcinogenic, not a teratogen nor 

a reproductive toxicant, and that there is no evidence of neurotoxicity associated with 

glyphosate (EPA, 1993; EC, 2002; WHO, 2004; Williams et al., 2000).

Bystander exposure to glyphosate as a result of pesticide application to RRA would be 

negligible, since such applications would occur in an agricultural setting in relatively rural alfalfa 

fields, not in an urban setting. A biomonitoring study found little evidence of detectable 

exposure to individuals on the farm who were not actively involved with or located in the 

immediate vicinity of application of glyphosate-based herbicides to crops (Acquavella et al., 

2004) Considering the similarity of the use pattern and application rates of the glyphosate 

products in this study compared to those registered for use on RRA and GT crops in general, 

bystander exposure attributed to the use of glyphosate on GT crops is expected to be negligible.

4.10 CUMULATIVE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS

As discussed above in Sec. 3.15, the potential for gene flow from RRA seed acreage to 

conventional or organic alfalfa could have an adverse economic impact on conventional or 

organic growers who expect to receive a premium for their crops in markets that demand non-
Events J101 and J163 Cumulative Impacts

Environmental Report 132 8/5/2010

RRA products. The partial deregulation measures proposed in Alternative 2, including isolation 

distances associated with seed production, are specifically designed to render the risk of any 

such impacts de minimis. Moreover, the reproductive biology of the alfalfa plant combined with 

normal harvest management for alfalfa forage provide for a de minimis likelihood of gene flow 

from one forage production field to another. Those producing organic or non-GE hay are likely 

required to maintain cultivation standards required by the NOP or identity preservation contracts 

that provide additional assurances against gene flow. While some of these growers may enter 

into contractual agreements that require testing for the presence of GE plant material, those 

tests are simple and inexpensive. Hay failing to meet contractual standards may still be sold as 

commodity hay.

It is anticipated that growers who plant RRA under Alternative 2 will experience economic 

benefits related to the quantity and improved forage quality of U.S. hay supplies. Growers have 

reported other socio-economic benefits, including greater flexibility, safety, ease and simplicity 

of weed control. APHIS has studied the potential socioeconomic impacts of fully deregulating 

RRA (USDA APHIS, 2009, pp. 125-145 & Appendix S).

4.11 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

When considering the impact that the use of glyphosate could have on the human environment 

in conjunction with other GT crops already being cultivated in the same affected environments, 

the facts suggest that increased use of glyphosate on acreage that shifts from conventional or 

organic alfalfa production to RRA production will have little, if any, additive effect. Alternatively, 

this new use of glyphosate has the potential to reduce risks to the affected environment from the 

use of other, more harmful, herbicides on these limited acreages. This is supported by the 

assessment of the hazards associated with glyphosate when compared to other available 

herbicides used for weed control in alfalfa production. Subsequently, there is no reasonably 

anticipated adverse cumulative impact on human health or the environment from the use of 

glyphosate associated specifically with Alternative 2.
Events J101 and J163 References

Environmental Report 133 8/5/2010

SECTION 5.0 REFERENCES

Acquavella J.F., Alexander, B.H., Mandel, J.S., Gustin, C., Baker, B., Chapman, P., and Bleeke, 

M. 2004. Glyphosate biomonitoring for farmer-applicators and their families: Results 

from the farm family exposure study. Environ Health Perspect. 112:321-326.

Alberts, 1999. Testimony of Bruce Alberts, president of the National Academy of Science, 

before the US Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry. October 7.

Ali, 2004. Mir B. Ali. Characteristics and production costs of U.S. sugarbeet farms. USDA 

statistical bulletin no. 974-8. 

Al-Kaff et al., 1998. Al-Kaff, N.S., S.N. Covey, M.M. Kreike, A.M. Page, R. Pinder and P.J. 

Dale. 1998. Transcriptional and Posttranscriptional Plant Gene Silencing in Response to 

a Pathogen. Science 279: 2113-2115

AMA, 2000. American Medical Association. Report 10 of the Council on Scientific Affairs (I-00). 

Genetically modified food and crops. Accessed on June 22, 2010 at: http://www.amaassn.org/ama/no-index/about-ama/13595.shtml

AOSCA (Association of Official Seed Certifying Agencies). 2009. Operational Procedures, 

Crop Standards and Service Programs Publication, Crop Certification Standards for 

Alfalfa. Association of Official Seed Certifying Agencies, 1601 52nd Ave., Ste 1, Moline, 

IL 61265.

Arnett, W.H. 2002. Alfalfa pollinators. Report prepared by Dr. Harold Arnett, Professor of 

Entomology (Emeritus), University of Nevada, for Forage Genetics International. (Copies 

available on request.)

Bagavathiannan, M. V., R.H. Gulden and R.C. Van Acker. 2010. Occurrence of alfalfa 

(Medicago sativa L.) populations along roadsides in southern Manitoba, Canada and 

their potential role in intraspecific gene flow. Transgenic Res. (on-line). DOI 

10.1007/s11248-010-9425-2.

Beckie, H.J., 2006. Herbicide-resistant weeds: management tactics and practices. Weed 

Technology, 20.

Bennett, R., Phipps, R., Strange, A., and Grey, P. 2004. “Environmental and Human Health 

Impacts of Growing Genetically Modified Herbicide-Tolerant Sugar Beet: a Life-Cycle 

Assessment.” Plant Biotechnology Journal 2(4):273-278

Bennett, R.M., Ismael, Y., Kambhampati, U., & Morse, S. (2004). Economic impact of 

genetically modified cotton in India. AgBioForum, 7(3), 96-100. Available on the World 

Wide Web: http://www.agbioforum.org.

Bonnette, 2004. Richard E. Bonnette, FDA. Biotechnology consultation note to the file, BNF 

No. 00090. Subject: Glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet event H7-1. August 7. Accessed 

on June 26, 2010 at: 

http://www.fda.gov/Food/Biotechnology/Submissions/ucm155775.htm
Events J101 and J163 References

Environmental Report 134 8/5/2010

Brimner, T.A., Gallivan, G.J., and Stephenson, G.R. 2005. “Influence of Herbicide-Resistant 

Canola on the Environmental Impact of Weed Management.” Pest Management Science 

64:441-456.61(1):47-52.

Brookes and Barfoot, 2004. Graham Brookes and Peter Barfoot. GM crops: the global 

economic environmental impact – the first nine years, 1996-2004. AgBioForum. 

Accessed on August 4, 2010 at: http://www.agbioforum.org/v8n23/v8n23a15-

brookes.htm

Canevari, M., Putnam, D.H., Lanini, W.T., Long, R.F., Orloff, S.B., Reed, B.A., and Vargas, R.V. 

2000. “Overseeding and Companion Cropping in Alfalfa.” Oakland: University of 

California Agriculture and Natural Resources Publication 21594. 31 pp.

Carpenter, J., & Gianessi, L. (2001). Agricultural biotechnology: Updated benefit estimates. 

Washington, DC: National Center for Food and Agriculture Policy. Available on the 

World Wide Web: http://www.ncfap.org/reports/biotech/updatedbenefits.pdf.

Center for Environmental Risk Assessment, 2010. GM crop database: summary of regulatory 

approvals. Accessed on August 4, 2010 at: http://ceragmc.org/index.php?action=gm_crop_database&mode=ShowProd&data=J101%2C+J163

CEQ, 1997. Council on Environmental Quality. Considering cumulative effects under the 

National Environmental Policy Act. Accessed on August 4, 2010 at: 

http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/ccenepa/exec.pdf

CEQ/OSTP, 2001. Council on Environmental Quality and Office of Science and Technology 

Policy. Case studies of environmental regulation. Accessed on July 5, 2010 at: 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ostp/library/archives

Cerdeira and Duke, 2006. A.L. Cerdeira and S.O. Duke. The current status and environmental 

impacts of glyphosate–resistant crops: A review. Journal of Environmental Quality.

CFIA, 2005. Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Decision Document DD2005-53. 

Determination of the safety of Monsanto Canada Inc.’s Roundup Ready® Alfalfa 

(Medicago sativa L.) Events J101 and J163. Accessed on August 4, 2010 at: 

http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/plaveg/bio/dd/dd0553e.shtml

Cole, 2010. Declaration of Richard Cole, PhD in support of the intervenors’ opposition to PL 

permanent injunction case no. 080484.

Crockett, L. (1977). Wildly Successful Plants: North American Weeds. Honolulu, HI, University 

of Hawaii Press.

Culpepper, A.S., and A.C. York. 1998. “Weed Management in Glyphosate-Tolerant Cotton,” 

The Journal of Cotton Science, 4:174-185.

Deaville ER, Maddison BC. 2005. Detection of transgenic and endogenous plant DNA 

fragments in the blood, tissues, and digesta of broilers. J Agric Food Chem 53:10268–

75.
Events J101 and J163 References

Environmental Report 135 8/5/2010

Edwards, W.M. “Effects of Tillage and Residue Management on Water for Crops,” Crop 

Residue Management to Reduce Erosion and Improve Soil Quality: Appalachia and 

Northeast Region. R.L. Blevins and W.C. Moldenhauer, eds., U.S. Dept. of 

Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Conservation Research Report No. 41, 

1995. 

Ellstrand, 2003. Norman C. Ellstrand. Dangerous liaisons? When cultivated plants mate with 

their wild relatives (syntheses in ecology and evolution). The Johns Hopkins University 

Press.

Ellstrand, 2006. Norman C. Ellstrand. When crop transgenes wander in California, should we 

worry? California Agriculture: Vol. 60, No. 3, p. 116. 

EPA, 1993. United States Environmental Protection Agency. “Reregistration Eligibility Decision 

(RED): Glyphosate.” Technical Report, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic 

Substances. EPA 738-R-93-014.

EPA, 2000. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs. 

Available information on assessing exposure from pesticides in food: a user’s guide. 

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/2000/July/Day-12/6061.pdf

EPA, 2008. Risks of Glyphosate Use to Federally Threatened California Red-legged Frog 

(Rana aurora draytonii). Pesticide Effects Determination. 

http://www.epa.gov/espp/litstatus/effects/redleg-frog/glyphosate/determination.pdf

European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals. [ECETOC] 2009. Technical 

Report, No. 106. Guidance on Identifying Endocrine Disrupting Effects. 

http://www.ecetoc.org/technical-reports

European Commission [EC]. 2002. Report for the Active Substance Glyphosate, Directive 

6511/VI/99, January 21. Accessed August 4 at 

http://www.furs.si/law/EU/ffs/eng/annexI/direktive/RR/glyphosate.pdf. 

Falck-Zepeda, J.B. and G. Traxler. 1998. “Rent Creation and Distribution from Transgenic 

Cotton in the U.S.” Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Auburn 

University, AL. Prepared for the symposium entitled “Intellectual Property Rights and 

Agricultural Research Impacts,” NC-208 and CIMMYT, El Batan, Mexico, Mar. 5-7, 

1998.

FAO/WHO. 1991. Report from a joint Consultation: Strategies for Assessing the Safety of Foods 

Processed by Biotechnology. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the 

United Nations/World Health Organization.

FDA, 1992. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Statement of policy – foods derived from new 

plant varieties. Guidance to industry for foods derived from new plant varieties. FDA 

Federal Register, Volume 57 – 1992, 22984-23005, Friday, May 29, 1992, Notices. 

Accessed on June 27, 2010 at: 

http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/GuidanceDocume

nts/Biotechnology/ucm096095.htm
Events J101 and J163 References

Environmental Report 136 8/5/2010

FDA, 2004. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Biotechnology note to the file. BNF No. 

000084: glyphosate-tolerant alfalfa events J101 and J163. Accessed on August 4, 2010 

at: http://www.fda.gov/Food/Biotechnology/Submissions/ucm155620.htm.

FDA, 2010. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. List of Completed Consultations on 

Bioengineered Foods. Accessed on June 26, 2010 at: 

http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/fcn/fcnNavigation.cfm?rpt=bioListing

Fernandez-Cornejo, J., and C. Klotz-Ingram. 1998. “Economic, Environmental, and Policy 

Impacts of Using Genetically Engineered Crops for Pest Management.” Selected paper 

presented at the 1998 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

meetings. Ithaca, NY, June 22-23, 1998. 

Fernandez-Cornejo, J., C. Klotz-Ingram, and S. Jans. 1999. “Farm-Level Effects of Adopting 

Genetically Engineered Crops in the U.S.A.” Proceedings of NE-165 Conference, 

Transitions in Agbiotech: Economics of Strategy and Policy. William H. Lesser, ed., 

Washington, DC, June 24-25, 1999. 

Fernandex-Cornejo, J., C. Klotz-Ingram, and S. Jans. 2002. “Farm-Level Effect of Adopting 

Herbicide-Tolerant Soybeans in the U.S.A.” Journal of Agriculture and Applied 

Economics, April 2002. 

Fernandez-Cornejo, J. 2006. Agricultural Resources and Environmental Indicators (AREI), 

Chapter 3.3: “Biotechnology and Agriculture.” USDA Economic Research Service. 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/arei/eib16/Chapter3/3.3/. 

Fitzpatrick, S. and G. Lowry. 2010. Alfalfa Seed Industry Innovations Enabling Coexistence. 

Proceedings of the 42nd North American Alfalfa Improvement Conference, Boise, Idaho, 

July 28-30, 2010. 

Flachowsky G, Aulrich K, Böhme H, Daenicke R. 2001. The use of genetically modified 

organisms (GMOs) in animal nutrition. Surveys Anim Nutr 29:45–79.

Flachowsky G, Chesson A, Aulrich K. 2005. Animal nutrition with feeds from genetically 

modified plants. Archiv Anim Nutr 59:1–40.

Futuyma, 1998. Douglas J. Futuyma. Evolutionary Biology. 3rd ed. Sinauer Associates, 

Sunderland, Massachusetts.

Gathmann, A. and T. Tscharntke. 2002. Foraging ranges of solitary bees. J. Animal Ecol. 

71:75-764.

Georghiou, G.P. and C.E. Taylor, 1986. Factors influencing the evolution of weed resistance. 

In Pesticide resistance: strategies and tactics for management. National Academy 

Press. 

Gianessi, L.P. and J.E. Carpenter. 1999. Agricultural Biotechnology: Insect Control Benefits, 

National Center For Food And Agricultural Policy, Washington, DC, July 1999. 

http://www.bio.org/food&ag/ncfap.htm. 
Events J101 and J163 References

Environmental Report 137 8/5/2010

Gianessi, L. and Reigner, N. 2006. “Pesticide Use in U.S. Crop Protection Production: 2002 -

With Comparison to 1992 & 1997 – Fungicides and Herbicides.” Report, Crop Life 

Foundation, Washington, D.C. “Insecticides & Other Pesticides.” Technical report, Crop 

Life Foundation, Crop Protection Research Institute. 

http://www.croplifefoundation.org/Documents/PUD/NPUD%202002/Fung%20&%20Herb

%202002%20Data%20Report.pdf. 

Gibson VI, J.W., D. Laughlin, R.G. Lutrell, D. Parker, J. Reed, and A. Harris. 1997. 

“Comparison of Costs and Returns Associated with Heliothis Resistant Bt Cotton to NonResistant Varieties,” Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conferences, 1997. 

Giesy JP, Dobson S, Solomon KR (2000) Ecotoxicological risk assessment for Roundup 

herbicide. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 167: 35-120. 

GMO Safety, 2010a. Glossary. Accessed on June 27, 2010 at: http://www.gmosafety.eu/glossary.html

Gressel, 2005. J. Gressel, editor. Crop ferality and volunteerism. CRC Press, Taylor and 

Francis Group, Boca Raton, FL.

Gunsolus, 2002. J.L. Gunsolus, University of Minnesota. Herbicide resistant weeds. WW06077. Reviewed 2008. Accessed on July 26, 2010 at: 

http://mn4h.net/distribution/cropsystems/DC6077.html#Figure 1.

Hammon, B., C. Rinderle, and M. Franklin. 2006. Pollen movement from alfalfa seed production 

fields.Available on-line: 

http://www.colostate.http://mn4h.net/distribution/cropsystems/DC6077.html#Figure 1.

Harrison et al., 1996. Harrison, L., M. Bailey, M. Naylor, J. Ream, B. Hammond, D. Nida, B. 

Burnette, T. Nickson, T. Mitsky, M. Taylor, R. Fuchs and S. Padgette. 1996. The 

expressed protein in glyphosate-tolerant soybean, 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate 

synthase from Agrobacterium sp. strain CP4, is rapidly digested in vitro and is not toxic 

to acutely gavaged mice. American Institute of Nutrition, Vol. 126, No. 3, pp. 728-740.

Health Canada, 2005. Novel food information. Glyphosate tolerant alfalfa events J101 and 

J163. Accessed on August 4, 2010 at: http://cera-gmc.org/docs/decdocs/06-304-

007.pdf.

Heap, 2010. The International survey of herbicide resistant weeds. Online. Accessed on June 

22, 2010 at: www.weedscience.com.

Hendrickson and Price, 2004. C. Hendrickson and W.D. Price, FDA. Biotechnology 

consultation note to the file, BNF No. 00084. Subject: Glyphosate-tolerant (Roundup 

Ready) Alfalfa Event J101 and Event J163. December 8, 2004. 

High Plains Midwest Ag Journal 2008. Yellow-flowering Alfalfa Topic of June 26 Field Day, High 

Plains Midwest Ag Journal. 

http://www.hpj.com/archives/2008/jun08/jun23/Yellowfloweringalfalfatopi. 

Hileman et al., 2002. Ronald E. Hileman, Andre Silvanovich, Richard E. Goodman, Elena A. 

Rice, Gyula Holleschak, James D. Atwood, and Susan L. Hefle. Bioinformation methods 
Events J101 and J163 References

Environmental Report 138 8/5/2010

for Allergenicity assessment using a comprehensive allergen database. International 

Archives of Allergy and Immunology 2002; 128: 280-291.

Holm, L., Pancho, J.V., Herbarger, J.P., and Plucknett, D.L. 1979. A geographical atlas of 

world weeds. John Wiley and Sons, New York.

Holm, L., Pancho, J.V., Herbarger, J.P., and Plucknett, D.L. 1991. A geographical atlas of 

world weeds. Kreiger Publ. Co., Malabar, FL.

Honegger J.L., Mortensen, S.R., and Carr, K.H.. 2008. Overview of the Analysis of Possible 

Risk to Threatened and Endangered Species Associated with Use of Glyphosatecontaining Herbicides in Alfalfa Production. Monsanto Study Number RPN_2007_228.

HRAC (Herbicide Resistance Action Committee). 2009. Website. http://www.hracglobal.com.

Honegger JL, Mortensen SR, Carr KH. 2008. Overview of the Analysis of Possible Risk to 

Threatened and Endangered Species Associated with Use of Glyphosate-containing 

Herbicides in Alfalfa Production. Monsanto Study Number RPN-2007-228. 

IM/NRC, 2004. Institute of Medicine and National Research Council of the National Academies. 

Safety of genetically engineered foods: approaches to assessing unintended effects of 

genetically engineered foods on human health. National Academies Press.

Japanese Biosafety Clearinghouse. Ministry of Environment. Outline of the biological diversity 

risk assessment report: Type I use approval for J101. Outline of the biological diversity 

risk assessment report: Type I use approval for J163. Outline of the biological diversity 

risk assessment report: Type I use approval for the cross J101 X J163. Accessed on 

August 4, 2010 at: http://cera-gmc.org/static/cropdb/511_JP.html

Jasieniuk, M., A.L. Brule-Babel, and I.N. Morrison, 1996. The evolution and genetics of 

herbicide resistance in weeds. Weed Science 44.

Johnson, S.R., Strom, S., and Grillo, K. 2008. “Quantification of the Impacts on U.S. Agriculture 

of Biotechnology-Derived Crops Planted in 2006.” Technical report, National Center for 

Food and Agricultural Policy. 

http://www.ncfap.org/documents/Quantification%20of%20the%20Impacts%20on%20US

%20Agriculture%20of%20Biotechnology.pdf.

Jonas DA, Elmadfa I, Engel KH, Heller KJ, Kozianowski G, Konig A, Muller D, Narbonne JF, 

Wackernagel W, Kleiner J. 2001. Safety considerations of DNA in food. Ann Nutr Metab 

45:235–54.

Kendrick, D.L., T.A. Pester, M.J. Horak, G.J. Rogan, and T.E. Nickson. 2005. Biogeographic 

survey of feral alfalfa populations in the U.S. during 2001 and 2002 as a component of 

an environmental risk assessment of Roundup Ready alfalfa. In 2005 Agronomy 

abstracts. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI.

Kleter, G.A., Bhula, R., Bodnaruk, K., Carazo, E., Felsot, A.S., Harris, C.A., Katayama, A., 

Kuiper, H.A., Racke, K.D., Rubin, B., Shevah, Y., Stephenson, G.R., Tanaka, K., 

Unsworth, J., Wauchope, R.D., and Wong, S. 2007. “Altered Pesticide Use on 
Events J101 and J163 References

Environmental Report 139 8/5/2010

Transgenic Crops and the Associated General Impact from an Environmental 

Perspective.” Pest Management Science 63:1107-1115.

Kniss, 2010a. Declaration of Andrew Kniss in support of the intervenors’ opposition to motion 

for permanent injunction case no. 080484.

Kovach, A.J., Petzoldt, C., Degni, J., and Tette, J. 1992. “A Method to Measure the 

Environmental Impact of Pesticides.” New York's Food and Life Sciences Bulletin’, NYS 

Agricultural Experiment Station, Cornell University, Geneva, NY, 139. 8 pp. Annually 

updated. www.nysipm.cornell.edu/publications/EIQ.html.

Lajmanovich R, Lorenzatti E, Maitre MI, Enrique S, Peltzer P. (2003) Comparative acute 

toxicity of the commercial herbicides glyphosate to neotropical tadpoles Scinax nasicus 

(Anura : Hylidae). Fresenius Environmental Bulletin 12(4): 364-367.

Lemaux, 2008. Peggy Lemaux, Department of Plant and Microbial Biology, University of 

California, Berkeley. Genetically engineered plants and foods: a scientist’s analysis of 

the issues (part I). Annu. Rev. Plan. Biol. 59:771-812.

Long, R., S. Orloff, R. Meyer, K. Klonsky, and P. Livingston. 2007. Sample Costs to Establish 

and Produce Organic Alfalfa Hay. University of California Cooperative Extension, Davis, 

California. Accessed 25 June 2008 at 

http://coststudies.ucdavis.edu/files/alfalfaorg2007.pdf.

Lundqvist, 2009. Eight years of Scandinavian barley mutation genetics and breeding. In 

Induced plant mutations in the genomics era, FAO, Rome, 2009. 

Malik, J., Barry, G., and Kishore, G. 1989. The Herbicide Glyphosate. BioFactors. 2:17-25.

Mallory-Smith and Zapiola, 2008. Carol Mallory-Smith and Maria Zapiola, Oregon State 

University, Crop and Soil Science. Review: gene flow from glyphosate-resistant crops. 

Mallory-Smith, C. & Zapiola, M. 2008. Gene flow from GT crops. Pest Management Science. 

64(4) pp. 428-440.

Marra, M., G. Carlson, and B. Hubbell. 1998. “Economic Impacts of the First Crop 

Biotechnologies.” http://www.ag.econ.ncsu.edu/faculty/marra/firstcrop/imp001.gif. 

Massey, 2002. Raymond Massey, crop economist, University of Missouri. Identify preserved 

crops. File A4-53. Accessed on June 30, 2010 at: 

http://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/crops/html/a4-53.html

Maxwell, B.D. and A.M. Mortimer, 1994. Selection for herbicide resistance. In Herbicide 

resistance in plants: biology and biochemistry. Powles, S.B. and J.A.M. Holtrum, eds. 

CRC Press, Boca Raton. FL.

McBride, W.D., and N. Brooks. “Survey Evidence on Producer Use and Costs of Genetically 

Modified Seed,” Agribusiness 16(1):6-20. 2000.

McCaslin, 2007. Declaration of Mark McCaslin, PhD in support of the intervenors’ opposition to 

PL permanent injunction case no. 01075. 
Events J101 and J163 References

Environmental Report 140 8/5/2010

McDonald et al., 2003. Sandra K. McDonald, Lindsay Hofsteen, and Lisa Downey, Colorado 

State University. Crop profile for sugar beets in Colorado. Accessed on May 30, 2010 

at: 

http://www.ipmcenters.org/cropprofiles/ListCropProfiles.cfm?typeorg=crop&USDARegion

=National%20Site.

Medlin, C.R. and S.D. Siegelin, 2001. Weed management in alfalfa stands. Purdue University 

Department of Botany. WS-11-W.

Miller, M., 2005. Organic dairy profile. Iowa State University Agricultural Marketing Resource 

Center.

http://www.agmrc.org/agmrc/commodity/livestock/dairy/organicdairyprofile.htm

Monsanto, 2010a. Technology Use Guide (TUG). The Source for Monsanto’s Portfolio of 

Technology Product, Stewardship Requirements and Guidelines for Use. Available at 

http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/ag_products/pdf/stewardship/technology_use_guid

e.pdf

Muenscher, W. C. 1980. Weeds. 2nd ed. Cornell University Press, Ithaca and London. 586 pp.

Mortensen SR, Carr KH, Honegger JL. 2008. Tier I Endangered Species Assessment for 

Agricultural Use of Glyphosate and Glyphosate-containing Herbicides. Monsanto Study 

Number RPN-2007-227. 

Mortenson, M. C.; Schuman, G. E. & Ingram, L. J. (2004), Carbon Sequestration in Rangelands 

Interseeded with Yellow-Flowering Alfalfa (Medicago sativa ssp. falcata), Environmental 

Management 33, S475-S481. 

NA, 2010. National Academies, Accessed on July 27, 2010 at: 

http://www.nationalacademies.org/about/

NAFA, 2008a. National Alfalfa & Forage Alliance (NAFA). Best Management Practices for 

Roundup Ready Alfalfa Seed Production. Online. Accessed on July 27, 2010 at: 

http://www.alfalfa.org/pdf/CSBMPForRRA.pdf

NAFA, 2008b. Coexistence for Alfalfa Hay Export Markets (June 2008), available at 

http://www.alfalfa.org/pdf/CSExportHay.pdf.

NAFA, 2008c. Coexistence for Alfalfa Seed Export Markets (June 2008), available at 

http://www.alfalfa.org/pdf/CSExportSeed.pdf. 

NAFA, 2008d. Coexistence for Organic Alfalfa Seed & Hay Markets (June 2008), available at 

http://www.alfalfa.org/pdf/CSOrganic.pdf.

NAFA, 2009. National Alfalfa & Forage Alliance 2008-09 Annual Report (Coexistence Strategy 

Implementation). Available on-line: http://www.alfalfa.org/pdf/annualreport0809.pdf 

NCBA (National Cattlemen’s Beef Association), 2005. Retailers, consumers hungry for organic 

beef. 
Events J101 and J163 References

Environmental Report 141 8/5/2010

http//www.beefusa.org/newsretailersconsumershungryfororganicbeef10813.aspx.

NCWSS (2005) Interactive Encyclopedia of North American Weeds Version 3.0. Southern 

Weed Science Society, in collaboration with the North Central Weed Science Society 

http://www.thundersnow.com/pdfdocs/weedlistv3com.pdf

http://www.thundersnow.com/pdfdocs/pamphlet30ncwss.pdf

Neve, P. 2008. Similation modeling to understand the evolution and management of glyphosate 

resistance in weeds. Pest Management Science. 64: 392-401.

Non-GMO Project, 2010. Non-GMO project standard. Accessed on June 16, 2010 at: 

http://www.nongmoproject.org/common/non-gmo-project-standard/ngp-standard-v6-2ndcomment-period-2/.

NRC, 1986. National Research Council of the National Academies. Committee on strategies 

for the management of pesticide resistant pest populations. Pesticide resistance: 

strategies and tactics for management. National Academies Press.

NRC, 1989. National Research Council of the National Academies. Field testing genetically 

modified organisms: framework for decision. National Academies Press.

NRC, 2000. National Research Council of the National Academies. Genetically modified pestprotected plants: science and regulation. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.

NRC, 2002. National Research Council. Committee on environmental impacts associated with 

commercialization of transgenic plants board on agricultural resources, division on life 

and earth sciences. Environmental effects of transgenic plants: the scope and adequacy 

of regulation. National Academies Press.

NRC, 2008. National Research Council. Planning committee for the workshop on research to 

improve the evaluation of genetically engineered organisms on terrestrial and aquatic 

wildlife and habitats. National Academies Press.

NRC, 2010. National Research Council of the National Academies. The impact of genetically 

engineered crops on farm sustainability in the United States. National academies press.

OECD, 2003b. (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development). 2003. 

Considerations for the safety assessment of animal feedstuffs derived from genetically 

modified plants. ENV/JM/MONO. 2003.11. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. 21, 2010 at: 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/pdf/Alfalfa_Injunction_20070312.pdf

Orloff, S., D.H. Putnam, M. Canevari and W.T. Lanini, 2009. Avoiding Weed Shifts and Weed 

Resistance in Roundup Ready Alfalfa Systems, University of California Division of 

Agriculture and Natural Resources Publication 8362, available at 

http://alfalfa.ucdavis.edu/-files/pdf/avoidingWeedShifts_RR.pdf.

OSTP, 1986. US Office of Science and Technology Policy. Coordinated Framework for 

Regulation of Biotechnology. 51 FR 23302, June 26. 
Events J101 and J163 References

Environmental Report 142 8/5/2010

Owen and Zelaya, 2005. Micheal DK Owen and Ian A Zelaya, Iowa State University. 

Herbicide-resistant crops and weeds resistant to herbicides. In Pest Management 

Science 61(3): 301–311. 

Putnam, D. 2005. “Market Sensitivity and Methods to Ensure Tolerance of Biotech and NonBiotech Alfalfa Production Systems.” Proceedings, 35th California Alfalfa & Forage

Putnam, D. 2006. “Methods to Enable Coexistence of Diverse Production Systems Involving 

Genetically Engineered Alfalfa.” Agricultural Biotechnology in California Series, 

Publication 8193. Technical report, University of California, Division of Agriculture and 

Natural Resources, available at http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/pdf/8193.pdf. 

Putnam, D., 2007, Is it Possible for Genetically-Engineered (GE) and Non-GE Alfalfa to 

Coexist? In: Proceedings, 37th California Alfalfa & Forage Symposium, Monterey, CA, 

17-19 December, 2007. UC Cooperative Extension, Agronomy Research and 

Information Center, Plant Sciences Department. http://alfalfa.ucdavis.edu.

ReJesus, R.M., J.K. Greene, M.D. Hamming, and C.E. Curtis. 1997. “Economic Analysis of 

Insect Management Strategies for Transgenic Bt Cotton Production in South Carolina.” 

Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conferences, Cotton Economics and Marketing 

Conference (1):247-251.

Relyea, R.A. 2005. “The Lethal Impact of Roundup on Aquatic and Terrestrial Amphibians.” 

Ecological Applications 15(4):1118-1124.Ross, Merrill A. and Daniel J. Childs. undated. 

Department of Plant Botany and Plant Pathology, Purdue University. Herbicide mode of 

action summary. Accessed on June 2, 2010 at: 

http://www.ces.purdue.edu/extmedia/ws/ws-23-w.html.

Rogan, G. and Fitzpatrick, S. 2004. “Petition for Determination of Nonregulated Status: 

Roundup Ready Alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) Events J101 and J163.” Technical report, 

Monsanto. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/aphisdocs/04_11001p.pdf

Ronald and Adamchak, 2008. Pamela C. Ronald and Raoul W. Adamchak. Tomorrow’s table: 

organic farming, genetics, and the future of food. Oxford University Press.

Ronald and Fouche, 2006. Pamela C. Ronald, Professor of Plant Pathology and Chair, Plant 

Genomics Program, University of California, Davis; and Benny Fouche, University of 

California Cooperative Extension Farm Advisor. Genetic engineering and organic 

production systems. Agricultural biotechnology in California series. Publication 8188.

Sadava, 2008. David Sadava. Understanding genetics: DNA, genes, and their real-world 

applications. The Teaching Company.

St. Amand, P.C., D.Z. Skinner and R.N. Peaden. 2000. Risk of alfalfa transgene dissemination 

and scale-dependent effects. Theor. Appl. Genet. 101: 107-114.

Sankula, S. 2006. “Quantification of the Impacts on U.S. Agriculture of Biotechnology-Derived 

Crops Planted in 2005.” Technical Report, National Center for Food and Agricultural 

Policy. 

http://www.ncfap.org/documents/Quantification%20of%20the%20Impacts%20on%20US

%20Agriculture%20of%20Biotechnology.pdf. 
Events J101 and J163 References

Environmental Report 143 8/5/2010

Sandretto, C. 1997. “Crop Residue Management,” Agricultural Resources and Environmental 

Indicators, AH-712, pp. 155-174. USDA, Economic Research Service.

Sankula, S. 2006. “Quantification of the Impacts on U.S. Agriculture of Biotechnology-Derived 

Crops Planted in 2005.” Technical Report, National Center for Food and Agricultural 

Policy. 

http://www.ncfap.org/documents/Quantification%20of%20the%20Impacts%20on%20US

%20Agriculture%20of%20Biotechnology.pdf.

Smith, 2010b. Cindy Smith, APHIS Administrator. Declaration of Cindy J. Smith in US District 

Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, Center for Food 

Safety, et al., v. Tom Vilsack et al. May 7, 2010.

Sonnewald, 2010. Professor Uwe Sonnewald, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg. Interview, 

reported April 19, GMO Safety. Accessed on June 27, 2010 at: http://www.gmosafety.eu/news/1146.impact-transgenes-basically-limited-immediate-function.html

Stark Jr., C.R. 1997. “Economics of Transgenic Cotton: Some Indications Based on Georgia 

Producers.” Beltwide Cotton Conference Proceedings, Cotton Economics and Marketing 

Conference. 

Sundermeier and Reeder, undated. Alan Sundermeier and Randall Reeder. Fall strip tillage 

systems: an introduction. Ohio State University Fact Sheet. Access on June 28, 2010 

at: http://ohioline.osu.edu/aex-fact/0507.html

Symposium, Visalia, CA 12-14 December, 2005. UC Cooperative Extension, 

AgronomyResearch and Extension Center. Plant Sciences Department, University of 

California, Davis.

Tarantino, 2004. Laura Tarantino, PhD, Director, Office of Food Additive Safety, Center for 

Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, U.S. FDA. Letter to Glen Roger, Monsanto 

Company, dated December 10, 2004; Subject: Biotechnology consultation agency 

response letter BNF No. 00084. Accessed on July 14, 2010 at: 

http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/fcn/fcnDetailNavigation.cfm?rpt=bioListing&id=17

Teuber, 2007. United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco 

Division. Case No. C 06-01075 CRB. Direct Testimony of Larry R. Teuber Regarding 

Permanent Relief. April 27.

Teuber, L.R.; & Fitzpatrick, S. 2007. Assessment of Alfalfa Gene Flow Between Fields Planed 

for Hay Production and Adjacent Fields Used for Seed Production. 

http://ucce.ucdavis.edu/specialsites/alf_seed/2007/Handout.pdf

Tranel, 2003. Patrick J. Tranel, University of Illinois. Weeds and weed control strategies, 

Chapter 17 in Plants, genes and crop biotechnology, second edition. Maarten J. 

Chrispeels and David E. Sadava, editors. Jones and Bartlett publishers.

UC IPM, 2006, University of California Pest Management Guidelines: Alfalfa. Accessed on July 

26, 2010, at: http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/r1700999.html#REFERENCE
Events J101 and J163 References

Environmental Report 144 8/5/2010

UC IPM, 2009, University of California Pest Management Guidelines: Alfalfa. Accessed on July 

26, 2010, at: http://ucipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/r1701411.html

USDA 2009a. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service. 

Understanding seed certification and seed labels. Accessed at http://www.plantmaterials.nrcs.usda.gov/pubs/lapmctn9030.pdf 

USDA 2010b. Invasive and noxious weeds database. Accessed on June 14, 2010 at: 

http://plants.usda.gov/java/invasiveOne?startChar=B

USDA Advisory Committee, 2008. What issues should USDA consider regarding coexistence 

among diverse agricultural systems in a dynamic, evolving, and complex marketplace? A 

consensus response prepared by the USDA Advisory Committee on Biotechnology and 

21st Century Agriculture. Accessed on June 30, 2010 at: 

http://www.usda.gov/documents/Coex_final.doc

USDA APHIS, 2005. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service. USDA/APHIS Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact. 

[www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/not_reg.html] Accessed January 15, 2008. Includes 

determination of non-regulated status for glyphosate tolerant alfalfa events J101 and 

J163 (OECD unique identifier J101-Mon-00101-8 and J163-Mon-00163-7) as Appendix 

D; determination signed by Cindy Smith, Deputy Administrator, Biotechnology 

Regulatory Services, APHIS, May 14, 2005. Accessed on July 23, 2010 at: 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology/not_reg.html

USDA APHIS, 2007a. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal Plant Health Inpsection Service, 

Biotechnology Regulatory Services. Administrative Order. July 12, 2007. Accessed on 

July 21, 2010 at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/pdf/RRA_A4_final.pdf

USDA APHIS, 2009. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service. Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Glyphosate-Tolerant Alfalfa Events 

J101 and J163: Request for Nonregulated Status. November 2009.

USDA APHIS, 2010a. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service. Petitions of nonregulated status granted or pending by APHIS as of May 12, 

2010. Accessed on June 26, 2010 at: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/not_reg.html

USDA ERS 2010b. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Field grains 

database: custom query results. Accessed on August 2, 2010 at: 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/FeedGrains/CustomQuery/Default.aspx#ResultsPanel. 

USDA ERS 2010c. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Field grains 

data: yearbook tables. Table 11: Hay: average prices received by farmers. Accessed 

on August 2, 2010 at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/FeedGrains/Table.asp?t=11

USDA ERS, 2009a. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Adoption of 

Genetically Engineered Crops in the U.S. updated on July 1, 2009. Accessed on June 

22, 2010 at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/biotechcrops/.
Events J101 and J163 References

Environmental Report 145 8/5/2010

USDA FS. (United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service). 2003. “Glyphosate –

Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment: Final Report.” Technical report, USDA, 

Forest Service. http://teamarundo.org/control_manage/docs/04a03_glyphosate.pdf. 

USDA NASS 2010b. U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. 

Accessed on June 29, 2010 at: http://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/#42911035-7FB5-37FAAAC1-47F474ABB0A2. 

USDA NASS, 2009a. U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. 

Acreage. Accessed on June 26, 2010 at: 

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1000

USDA NASS, 2009b. U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. 

Agricultural statistics 2008. Accessed on June 28, 2010 at: 

http://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Ag_Statistics/2008/index.asp

USDA NASS, 2009c. Alfalfa Hay (Dry) harvested Acres by County for Selected States. 

Accessed on July 20, 2010 at: 

http://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Crops_County/pdf/AL-HA09-RGBChor.pdf

USDA NASS, 2010c. U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. 

Acreage. Accessed on July 5, 2010 at: 

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1000

USDA NASS. 2007. Agricultural Statistics 2006, Chapter VI – Statistics of Hay, Seeds, and 

Minor Field Crops. United States Department of Agriculture, National Agriculture 

Statistics Service, Washington, D.C.

USDC, 2007. USDA APHIS Roundup Ready Alfalfa Documents. Accessed on July 19, 2010 

at: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology/alfalfa_documents.shtml

USDC, 2007a. US District Court for the Northern District of California. Accessed July 21, 2010 

at: 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology/downloads/alfalfa/gealfalfa_Feb07_courtdecisi

on.pdf

USDC, 2007b. US District Court for the Northern District of California. Accessed July 21, 2010 

at: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/pdf/Alfalfa_Injunction_20070312.pdf

USDC, 2007c US District Court for the Northern District of California. Accessed July 21, 2010 

at: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/pdf/Alfalfa_Ruling_20070503.pdf

USDC, 2007d US District Court for the Northern District of California. Accessed July 21, 2010 

at: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/pdf/Alfalfa_Amended_Order_20070723.pdf

Uva, R.H., J.C. Neal and J.M. Ditomaso. 1997. Weeds of the Northeast. Cornell University 

Press, Ithaca and London. 397 pp.

Van Deynze, A., D.V., Putnam, S.D.H., Orloff, S., Lanini, M. T., and Canevari, R. Vargas, K. 

Hembree, S. Mueller, and L. Teuber.M., 2004. “Roundup Ready Alfalfa: An Emerging 

Technology.” Publication 8153, Agricultural Biotechnology in California Series. Technical 
Events J101 and J163 References

Environmental Report 146 8/5/2010

Report, University of California, Davis, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources. 

http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/pdf/8153.pdf .

Van Deynze, A.E., S. Fitzpatrick, B. Hammon, M.H. McCaslin, D.H. Putnam, L.R. Teuber and 

D.J. Undersander. 2008. Gene Flow in Alfalfa: Biology, Mitigation, and Potential Impact 

on Production. Special Publication 28. Council for Agricultural Science and Technology 

(CAST), Ames, Iowa. 30 pp. 

Waggener, R. 2007. Yellow-flowering Alfalfa Can Improve Native Rangelands, University of 

Wyoming. http://uwadmnweb.uwyo.edu/UWag/news/Yellow-Alfalfa.asp.

Whitney, E.D. and J.E. Duffus. 1986. Compendium of Beet Diseases and Insects. pp. 26-32.

Whitson, T.D., L.C. Burrill, S.A. Dewey, D.W. Cudney, B.E. Nelson, R.D. Lee and R. Parker. 

1992. Weeds of the West. The Western Society of Weed Science, Newark, CA. 630 pp.

Wiebe and Gollehon, 2006 Wiebe, K. and Gollehon, N. 2006. “Information Bulletin 16 

Agricultural Resources and Environmental Indicators 2006 Edition.” Technical report, 

USDA. 

Williams, G.M., Kroes, R., and Munro, I. 2000. Safety evaluation and risk assessment of the 

herbicide Roundup and its active ingredient, glyphosate for humans. Pp. 117-165. In 

Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, Vol. 31.

Woodward, W.T.W., Putnam, D.H. and Reisen, P. 2006. A solution for Roundup Ready Alfalfa 

in sensitive export markets (Poster) Proceedings of the Washington State Hay Growers 

Association Annual Conference, January 18-19, 2006, Kennewick, WA

World Health Organization (WHO). 2004. Pesticides in food – 2004. Report of the Joint 

Meeting of the and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Panel of 

Experts on Pesticide Residues in Food and the Environment and the WHO Core 

Assessment Group on Pesticide Residues (JMPR). Rome, Italy, 20-29 September

2004. FAO Plant Production and Protection Paper 178. World Health Organization and 

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. Accessed on 

June 17, 2010 at: 

http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/agphome/documents/Pests_Pesticides/JMPR/20

08_JMPR_Evaluations.pdf.

WSSA 1998. Weed Science Society of America. Weed Technology Volume 12, Issue 4 

(October-December) 1998. p. 789. Accessed August 4, 2010 at: 

http://www.wssa.net/Weeds/Resistance/definitions.htm

WSSA, 2010b. Weed Society of America. WSSA supports NRC findings on weed control. 

Accessed on June 16, 2010 at: http://www.wssa.net/ 

York et al., 2004. A.C. York, A.M. Steward, P.R. Vidrine and A.S. Culpepper. Control of 

voluntgeer glyphosate-resistant cotton in glyphosate-resistant soybean. Weed Technol. 

18:532.

Young, 2006. Bryan G. Young. Changes in Herbicide Use Patterns and Production Practices 

Resulting from Glyphosate- Resistant Crops. Weed Tech. 20:301-307.
Appendix

A

Monsanto Technology and Stewardship Agreement 

(MT/SA)

and Accompanying Technology Use Guide (TUG)













































Appendix B
Appendix B
Appendix B
Appendix B
Appendix B
Appendix B
Appendix B
Appendix B
Appendix B
Appendix B
Appendix B
Appendix B
Appendix B
Appendix B
Appendix B
Appendix B
ALALALAL

AZAZAZAZ ARARARAR

CACACACA

COCOCOCO

FLFLFLFL

GAGAGAGA

IDIDIDID

ILILILILILILILILIL ININININ

IAIAIAIAIAIAIAIAIA

KSKSKSKS

KYKYKYKY

LALALALA

MI MI MI MI

MNMNMNMN

MS MS MSMS

MOMOMOMO

MT MT MTMT

NENENENE

NVNVNVNV

NM

NCNCNCNC

NDNDNDND

OHOHOHOH

OKOKOKOK

OROROROR

SCSCSCSC

SDSDSDSD

TNTNTNTN

TXTXTXTX

UTUTUTUT

VVV

V

WA WA WAWA

WV WV WVWV

WI WI WI WI

WY WY WYWY

AKAKAKAK

HI HI HI HI

Alaska Alaska Alaska Hawaii Hawaii Hawaii

Seed Production Levels from 2007 Ag Census Data Seed Production Levels from 2007 Ag Census Data Seed Production Levels from 2007 Ag Census Data
APACHE APACHE APACHE

COCHISE COCHISE COCHISE

COCONINO COCONINO COCONINO

GILA GILA GILA

GRAHAM

GREENLEE GREENLEE GREENLEE

LA PAZ LA PAZ LA PAZ

MARICOPA MARICOPA MARICOPA

MOHAVE MOHAVE MOHAVE

NAVAJO NAVAJO NAVAJO

PIMA PIMA PIMA

PINAL PINAL PINAL

SANTA CRUZ SANTA CRUZ SANTA CRUZ

YAVAPAI YAVAPAI YAVAPAI

YUMA YUMA YUMA

Alfalfa Hay

No Seed Production Reported

Seed Production Reported

Arizonia - Alfalfa Hay Counties Arizonia - Alfalfa Hay Counties Arizonia - Alfalfa Hay Counties 

With and Without Seed Production With and Without Seed Production With and Without Seed Production

Appendix B
ALAMEDA ALAMEDA ALAMEDA

ALPINE ALPINE ALPINE

AMADOR AMADOR AMADOR

BUTTE BUTTE BUTTE

CALAVERAS CALAVERAS CALAVERAS

COLUSA COLUSA COLUSA

CONTRA COSTA CONTRA COSTA CONTRA COSTA

DEL NORTE DEL NORTE DEL NORTE

EL DORADO EL DORADO EL DORADO

FRESNO FRESNO FRESNO

GLENN GLENN GLENN

HUMBOLDT HUMBOLDT HUMBOLDT

IMPERIAL IMPERIAL IMPERIAL

INYO INYO INYO

KERN KERN KERN

KINGS KINGS KINGS

LAKE LAKE LAKE

LASSEN LASSEN LASSEN

LOS ANGELES LOS ANGELES LOS ANGELES

MADERA MADERA MADERA

MARIN MARIN MARIN

MARIPOSA MARIPOSA MARIPOSA

MENDOCINO MENDOCINO MENDOCINO

MERCED MERCED MERCED

MODOC MODOC MODOC

MONO MONO MONO

MONTEREY MONTEREY MONTEREY

NAPA NAPA NAPA

NEVADA NEVADA NEVADA

ORANGE ORANGE ORANGE

PLACER PLACER PLACER

PLUMAS PLUMAS PLUMAS

RIVERSIDE RIVERSIDE RIVERSIDE

SACRAMENTO SACRAMENTO SACRAMENTO

SAN BENITO SAN BENITO SAN BENITO

SAN BERNARDINO SAN BERNARDINO SAN BERNARDINO

SAN DIEGO SAN DIEGO SAN DIEGO

SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO SAN JOAQUIN SAN JOAQUIN SAN JOAQUIN

SAN LUIS OBISPO SAN LUIS OBISPO SAN LUIS OBISPO

SAN MATEO SAN MATEO SAN MATEO

SANTA BARBARA SANTA BARBARA SANTA BARBARA

SANTA CLARA SANTA CLARA SANTA CLARA

SANTA CRUZ SANTA CRUZ SANTA CRUZ

SHASTA SHASTA SHASTA

SIERRA SIERRA SIERRA

SISKIYOU SISKIYOU SISKIYOU

SOLANO SOLANO SOLANO

SONOMA SONOMA SONOMA

STANISLAUS STANISLAUS STANISLAUS

SUTTER SUTTER SUTTER

TEHAMA TEHAMA TEHAMA

TRINITY TRINITY TRINITY

TULARE TULARE TULARE

TUOLUMNE TUOLUMNE TUOLUMNE

VENTURA VENTURA VENTURA

YOLO YOLO YOLO

YUBA YUBA YUBA

Alfalfa Hay

No Seed Production Reported

Seed Production Reported

No Seed or Hay Production Reported

California - Alfalfa Hay Counties California - Alfalfa Hay Counties California - Alfalfa Hay Counties 

With and Without Seed Production With and Without Seed Production With and Without Seed Production

Appendix B
ADA ADA ADA

ADAMS ADAMS ADAMS

BANNOCK BANNOCK BANNOCK

BEAR LAKE BEAR LAKE BEAR LAKE

BENEWAH BENEWAH BENEWAH

BINGHAM

BLAINE BLAINE BLAINE

BOISE BOISE BOISE

BONNER BONNER BONNER

BONNEVILLE BONNEVILLE BONNEVILLE

BOUNDARY BOUNDARY BOUNDARY

BUTTE BUTTE BUTTE

CAMAS CAMAS CAMAS

CANYON CANYON CANYON

CARIBOU CARIBOU CARIBOU

CASSIA CASSIA CASSIA

CLARK CLARK CLARK

CLEARWATER CLEARWATER CLEARWATER

CUSTER CUSTER CUSTER

ELMORE ELMORE ELMORE

FRANKLIN FRANKLIN FRANKLIN

FREMONT FREMONT FREMONT

GEM

GOODING GOODING GOODING

IDAHO IDAHO IDAHO

JEFFERSON JEFFERSON JEFFERSON

JEROME JEROME JEROME

KOOTENAI KOOTENAI KOOTENAI

LATAH LATAH LATAH

LEMHI LEMHI LEMHI

LEWIS LEWIS LEWIS

LINCOLN LINCOLN LINCOLN

MADISON MADISON MADISON

MINIDOKA MINIDOKA MINIDOKA

NEZ PERCE NEZ PERCE NEZ PERCE

ONEIDA ONEIDA ONEIDA

OWYHEE OWYHEE OWYHEE

PAYETTE PAYETTE PAYETTE

POWER POWER POWER

SHOSHONE SHOSHONE SHOSHONE

TETON TETON TETON

TWIN FALLS TWIN FALLS TWIN FALLS

VALLEY VALLEY VALLEY

WASHINGTON WASHINGTON WASHINGTON

Alfalfa Hay

No Seed Production Reported

Seed Production Reported

Idaho - Alfalfa Hay Counties Idaho - Alfalfa Hay Counties Idaho - Alfalfa Hay Counties 

With and Without Seed Production With and Without Seed Production With and Without Seed Production

Appendix B
BEAVERHEAD BEAVERHEAD BEAVERHEAD

BIG HORN BIG HORN BIG HORN

BLAINE BLAINE BLAINE

BROADWATER BROADWATER BROADWATER

CARBON CARBON CARBON

CASCADE CASCADE CASCADE

CHOUTEAU CHOUTEAU CHOUTEAU

DEER LODGE DEER LODGE DEER LODGE

FERGUS FERGUS FERGUS

FLATHEAD FLATHEAD FLATHEAD

GALLATIN GALLATIN GALLATIN

GARFIELD GARFIELD GARFIELD

GLACIER GLACIER GLACIER

GRANITE GRANITE GRANITE GOLDEN VALLEY GOLDEN VALLEY GOLDEN VALLEY

HILL HILL HILL

JEFFERSON JEFFERSON JEFFERSON

JUDITH BASIN JUDITH BASIN JUDITH BASIN

LAKE LAKE LAKE

LEWIS AND CLARK LEWIS AND CLARK LEWIS AND CLARK

LIBERTY LIBERTY LIBERTY

LINCOLN LINCOLN LINCOLN

MADISON MADISON MADISON

MEAGHER MEAGHER MEAGHER

MINERAL MINERAL MINERAL MISSOULA MISSOULA MISSOULA

MUSSELSHELL MUSSELSHELL MUSSELSHELL

PARK PARK PARK

PETROLEUM

PONDERA PONDERA PONDERA PHILLIPS PHILLIPS PHILLIPS

POWELL POWELL POWELL

RAVALLI RAVALLI RAVALLI

ROSEBUD ROSEBUD ROSEBUD

SANDERS SANDERS SANDERS

SILVER BOW

STILLWATER STILLWATER STILLWATER SWEET GRASS SWEET GRASS SWEET GRASS

TETON TETON TETON

TOOLE TOOLE TOOLE

TREASURE TREASURE TREASURE

VALLEY VALLEY VALLEY

WHEATLAND WHEATLAND WHEATLAND

YELLOWSTONE YELLOWSTONE YELLOWSTONE

YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK

Alfalfa Hay

No Seed Production ReportedSeed Production Reported

Montana - Alfalfa Hay Counties Montana - Alfalfa Hay Counties Montana - Alfalfa Hay Counties 

With and Without Seed Production With and Without Seed Production With and Without Seed Production
CARSON CITY CARSON CITY CARSON CITY

CHURCHILL CHURCHILL CHURCHILL

CLARK CLARK CLARK

DOUGLAS DOUGLAS DOUGLAS

ELKO ELKO ELKO

ESMERALDA ESMERALDA ESMERALDA

EUREKA EUREKA EUREKA

HUMBOLDT HUMBOLDT HUMBOLDT

LANDER LANDER LANDER

LINCOLN LINCOLN LINCOLN

LYON LYON LYON

MINERAL MINERAL MINERAL

NYE NYE NYE

PERSHING PERSHING PERSHING

STOREY STOREY STOREY

WASHOE WASHOE WASHOE

WHITE PINE WHITE PINE WHITE PINE

Alfalfa Hay

No Seed Production Reported

Seed Production Reported

Nevada - Alfalfa Hay Counties Nevada - Alfalfa Hay Counties Nevada - Alfalfa Hay Counties 

With and Without Seed Production With and Without Seed Production With and Without Seed Production

Appendix B
BA

BABA

BENTON BENTON BENTON

CLACKAMAS CLACKAMAS CLACKAMAS

CLATSOP CLATSOP CLATSOP

COLUMBIA COLUMBIA COLUMBIA

COOS COOS COOS

CROOK CROOK CROOK

CURRY CURRY CURRY

DESCHUTES DESCHUTES DESCHUTES

DOUGLAS DOUGLAS DOUGLAS

GILLIAM

GRANT GRANT GRANT

HARNEY HARNEY HARNEY

HOOD RIVER HOOD RIVER HOOD RIVER

JACKSON JACKSON JACKSON

JEFFERSON JEFFERSON JEFFERSON

JOSEPHINE JOSEPHINE JOSEPHINE

KLAMATH KLAMATH KLAMATH LAKE LAKE LAKE

LANE LANE LANE

LINCOLN LINCOLN LINCOLN

LINN LINN LINN

MAMAMA

MARION MARION MARION

MORROW

MULTNOMAH MULTNOMAH MULTNOMAH

POLK POLK POLK

TILLAMOOK TILLAMOOK TILLAMOOK SHERMAN SHERMAN SHERMAN

UMATILLA UMATILLA UMATILLA

UNION UNION UNION

WASCO WASCO WASCO

WASHINGTON WASHINGTON WASHINGTON

WHEELER WHEELER WHEELER

YAMHILL YAMHILL YAMHILL

Oregon - Alfalfa Hay Counties Oregon - Alfalfa Hay Counties Oregon - Alfalfa Hay Counties 

With and Without Seed Production With and Without Seed Production With and Without Seed Production
HUGHES HUGHES HUGHES

STANLEY STANLEY STANLEY

ZIEBACH ZIEBACH ZIEBACH

AURORA AURORA AURORA

BEADLE BEADLE BEADLE

BENNETT BENNETT BENNETT

BON HOMMBON HOMMBON HOMM

BROWN BROWN BROWN

BRULE BRULE BRULE

BUFFALO BUFFALO BUFFALO

BUTTE BUTTE BUTTE

CAMPBELL CAMPBELL CAMPBELL

CHARLES MIX CHARLES MIX CHARLES MIX

CLACLACLA

CORSON CORSON CORSON

CUSTER CUSTER CUSTER DAVISON DAVISON DAVISON

DEWEY DEWEY DEWEY

DOUGLAS DOUGLAS DOUGLAS

EDMUNDS EDMUNDS EDMUNDS

FALL RIVER FALL RIVER FALL RIVER

FAULK FAULK FAULK

GREGORY GREGORY GREGORY

HAAKON HAAKON HAAKON

HAND HAND HAND

HANSHANSHANS

HARDING HARDING HARDING

HUTCHHUTCHHUTCH

HYDE HYDE HYDE

JACKSON JACKSON JACKSON

JERAULD JERAULD JERAULD

JONES JONES JONES

LAWRENCE LAWRENCE LAWRENCE

LYMAN LYMAN LYMAN

MAMAMA

MCPHERSON MCPHERSON MCPHERSON

MEADE MEADE MEADE

MELLETTE MELLETTE MELLETTE

PENNINGTON PENNINGTON PENNINGTON

PERKINS PERKINS PERKINS

POTTER POTTER POTTER

SANBORN SANBORN SANBORN

SHANNON SHANNON SHANNON

SPINK SPINK SPINK

SULLY SULLY SULLY

TODD TODD TODD

TRIPP TRIPP TRIPP

WALWORTH WALWORTH WALWORTH

Alfalfa Hay

No Seed Production ReportedSeed Production Reported

South Dakota - Alfalfa Hay Counties South Dakota - Alfalfa Hay Counties South Dakota - Alfalfa Hay Counties 

With and Without Seed Production With and Without Seed Production With and Without Seed Production
SAN JUAN SAN JUAN SAN JUAN

DAGGETT DAGGETT DAGGETT

SANPETE SANPETE SANPETE

UTAH UTAH UTAH

WASATCH WASATCH WASATCH

BEAVER BEAVER BEAVER

BOX ELDER BOX ELDER BOX ELDER

CACHE CACHE CACHE

CARBON CARBON CARBON

DAVIS DAVIS DAVIS

DUCHESNE DUCHESNE DUCHESNE

EMERY EMERY EMERY

GARFIELD GARFIELD GARFIELD

GRAND GRAND GRAND

IRON IRON IRON

JUAB JUAB JUAB

KANE KANE KANE

MILLARD MILLARD MILLARD

MORGAN MORGAN MORGAN

PIUTE PIUTE PIUTE

RICH RICH RICH

SALT LAKE SALT LAKE SALT LAKE

SEVIER SEVIER SEVIER

SUMMIT SUMMIT SUMMIT

TOOELE TOOELE TOOELE

UINTAH UINTAH UINTAH

WASHINGTON WASHINGTON WASHINGTON

WAYNE WAYNE WAYNE

WEBER WEBER WEBER

Alfalfa Hay

No Seed Production Reported

Seed Production Reported

Utah - Alfalfa Hay Counties Utah - Alfalfa Hay Counties Utah - Alfalfa Hay Counties 

With and Without Seed Production With and Without Seed Production With and Without Seed Production

Appendix B
ADAMS ADAMS ADAMS

BENTON BENTON BENTON

CHELAN CHELAN CHELAN

CLALLAM

CLARK CLARK CLARK

COWLITZ COWLITZ COWLITZ

DOUGLAS DOUGLAS DOUGLAS

FERRY FERRY FERRY

FRANKLIN FRANKLIN FRANKLIN

GRANT GRANT GRANT

GRAYS HARBOR GRAYS HARBOR GRAYS HARBOR

JEFFERSON JEFFERSON JEFFERSON

KING KING KING

KITSAP KITSAP KITSAP

KITTITAS KITTITAS KITTITAS

KLICKITAT KLICKITAT KLICKITAT

LEWIS LEWIS LEWIS

LINCLINCLINC

MASON MASON MASON

OKANOGAN OKANOGAN OKANOGAN

PACIFIC PACIFIC PACIFIC

PIERCE PIERCE PIERCE

SAN JUAN SAN JUAN SAN JUAN

SKAGIT SKAGIT SKAGIT

SKAMANIA SKAMANIA SKAMANIA

SNOHOMISH SNOHOMISH SNOHOMISH

THURSTON THURSTON THURSTON

WAHKIAKUM WALLA WA

WALLA WAWALLA WA

WHATCOM

YAKIMA YAKIMA YAKIMA

Alfalfa Hay

No Seed Production ReportedSeed Production ReportedNo Seed or Hay Production Reported

Washington - Alfalfa Hay Counties Washington - Alfalfa Hay Counties Washington - Alfalfa Hay Counties 

With and Without Seed Production With and Without Seed Production With and Without Seed Production
WASHAKIE WASHAKIE WASHAKIE

ALBANY ALBANY ALBANY

BIG HORN BIG HORN BIG HORN

CAMPBELL CAMPBELL CAMPBELL

CARBON CARBON CARBON

CONVERSE CONVERSE CONVERSE

CCC

FREMONT FREMONT FREMONT

HOT SPRINGS HOT SPRINGS HOT SPRINGS

JOHNSON JOHNSON JOHNSON

LARALARALARA

LINCOLN LINCOLN LINCOLN

NATRONA NATRONA NATRONA

NNN

PARK PARK PARK

PLATTE PLATTE PLATTE

SHERIDAN SHERIDAN SHERIDAN

SUBLETTE SUBLETTE SUBLETTE

SWEETWATER SWEETWATER SWEETWATER

TETON TETON TETON

UINTA UINTA UINTA

WWW

Alfalfa Hay

No Seed Production ReportedSeed Production Reported

Wyoming - Alfalfa Hay Counties Wyoming - Alfalfa Hay Counties Wyoming - Alfalfa Hay Counties 

With and Without Seed Production With and Without Seed Production With and Without Seed Production
CLEVELAND CLEVELAND CLEVELAND

POTTAWATOMIE POTTAWATOMIE POTTAWATOMIE

ALFALFA ALFALFA ALFALFA

AAA

BEAVER BEAVER BEAVER

BECKHAM

BLAINE BLAINE BLAINE

BRYABRYABRYA

CADDO CADDO CADDO

CANADIAN CANADIAN CANADIAN

CARTER CARTER CARTER

CIMARRON CIMARRON CIMARRON

COAL COAL COAL COMANCHE COMANCHE COMANCHE

COTTON COTTON COTTON

CREEK CREEK CREEK

CUSTER CUSTER CUSTER

DEWEY DEWEY DEWEY

ELLIS ELLIS ELLIS

GARFIELD GARFIELD GARFIELD

GARVIN GARVIN GARVIN

GRADY GRADY GRADY

GRANT GRANT GRANT

GREER GREER GREER

HARMON HARMON HARMON

HARPER HARPER HARPER

HUGHEHUGHEHUGHE

JACKSON JACKSON JACKSON

JEFFERSON JEFFERSON JEFFERSON

JOHNSTON JOHNSTON JOHNSTON

KAY KAY KAY

KINGFISHER KINGFISHER KINGFISHER

KIOWA KIOWA KIOWA 

LINCOLN LINCOLN LINCOLN

LOGAN LOGAN LOGAN

LOVE LOVE LOVE

MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR

MARSHALL MARSHALL MARSHALL

MCCLAIN MCCLAIN MCCLAIN

MURRAY MURRAY MURRAY

NOBLE NOBLE NOBLE

OKFUSKEOKFUSKEOKFUSKE

OKLAHOMA OKLAHOMA OKLAHOMA

OOO

OSAGE OSAGE OSAGE

PAWNEE PAWNEE PAWNEE

PAYNE PAYNE PAYNE

PONTOTOC PONTOTOC PONTOTOC

ROGER MILLS ROGER MILLS ROGER MILLS

SEMINOLE SEMINOLE SEMINOLE

STEPHENS STEPHENS STEPHENS

TEXAS TEXAS TEXAS

TILLMAN TILLMAN TILLMAN

TTT

WWW

WASHITA WASHITA WASHITA

WOODS WOODS WOODS

WOODWARD WOODWARD WOODWARD

Alfalfa Hay

No Seed Production ReportedSeed Production Reported

Oklahoma - Alfalfa Hay Counties Oklahoma - Alfalfa Hay Counties Oklahoma - Alfalfa Hay Counties 

With and Without Seed Production With and Without Seed Production With and Without Seed Production
Appendix

C

National Alfalfa & Forage Alliance Best Management 

Practices for Roundup Ready® Alfalfa Seed 

Production
Best Management Practices

for Roundup Ready® Alfalfa Seed Production

Introduction 

The genetic supplier members (hereinafter called the “Companies”) of National Alfalfa & Forage Alliance (NAFA) 

have agreed to jointly adopt, as a minimum, the following Best Management Practices for Roundup Ready Alfalfa 

(RRA) Seed Production in the United States. Compliance is required under a separate and binding agreement of 

the Companies to each other in this commitment. Forage Genetics International (FGI) is the exclusive licensed 

seed producer of RRA and will require all RRA seed production sub-licensees (herein after called the “RRA Seed 

Contractor(s)”) to become a party to this binding agreement. It is not the intent of this document to establish best 

management practices for the production of alfalfa seed for GE sensitive markets. Changes to this document will 

require a recommendation from the Companies and approval by the NAFA Board of Directors.

Roundup Ready Trait Stewardship in Seed Production

This document establishes RRA commercial seed production policies that exceed industry standards for Certified 

alfalfa seed production. 

Specifically, RRA seed production practices will meet or exceed Association of Official Seed Certifying Agencies 

(AOSCA) standards for the seed production of Foundation Class alfalfa seed production.

All RRA seed growers must complete RRA seed stewardship training and agree to follow the RRA seed production 

policies as described herein and as required by RRA seed production contracts.

RRA Seed Contractors’ Responsibilities

Isolation. The RRA Seed Contractor will insure that the isolation distance between the new planting and any 

established conventional seed production meets the following pollinator-specific isolation requirements for RRA seed 

production. Note the pollinator designated applies to normal pollinating bees introduced or locally cultured for alfalfa 

seed production in the area. If more than one pollinator species is introduced or locally cultured, the longer minimum 

distance applies. 

Leaf cutter bee – 900 feet

Alkali bee – 1 mile

Honey bee – 3 miles

Every year the Companies will collectively sample conventional seed lots, test for adventitious presence of 

the Roundup Ready trait, and use isolation distance from RRA seed production to monitor the effectiveness of 

current isolation standards. The Companies, along with three AOSCA representatives of state crop improvement 

associations or their designees, will analyze the data and make recommendations for changes to required isolation 

distances, if appropriate.

Reporting. The RRA Seed Contractor shall report GPS coordinates of all established and planned RRA seed 

production fields to local state seed certification officials as early as possible, but no later than two weeks prior to 

planting. State officials will confirm minimum isolation and establish a state pinning map for RRA seed production. 

The RRA Seed Contractor must authorize state officials to report to any seed grower or seed company, on request, 

the isolation distance between a planned new conventional alfalfa seed field and the nearest RRA seed field. GM-trait 

sensitive conventional or organic alfalfa seed producers can then use this third party service to assist them in planning 

their field locations to meet their company’s isolation or field crop history goals or the certification agent may use the 

data to certify a stated isolation distance. The RRA Seed Contractor shall also notify local state seed certification 

officials, and officials shall confirm when a RRA seed production field is terminated.

GE-free seed production zones. The RRA Seed Contractor will limit RRA seed production contracts to the following 

states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Washington and Wyoming. 

The RRA Seed Contractor will also respect any GE-free alfalfa seed production zone designated as such by a 

consensus of local seed growers. Recognition and designation of such zones will be based on the requirements of 

each state. It is envisioned that the local state seed certification agency would play an active role in administering 

programs of this nature.

•

•

•

•

•

•

NAFA Coexistence Document Adopted January 2008
2 National Alfalfa & Forage Alliance - “Best Management Practices for Roundup Ready® Alfalfa Seed Production”

Cooperation. All seed companies are encouraged to 

communicate and work together individually to manage 

joint seed quality issues and concerns.

RRA seed grower training. The RRA Seed Contractor 

will require RRA stewardship training for all new RRA 

seed growers. The RRA seed grower will confirm 

having received a copy of the NAFA Best Management 

Practices for Roundup Ready Alfalfa Seed Production 

(see Appendix 2).

RRA seed grower contracts. The RRA Seed Contractor 

shall stipulate which bee species can be introduced for 

pollination and incorporate key grower stewardship 

requirements (as listed below) in RRA seed production 

contracts.

License. The RRA Seed Contractor will have an FGI 

license for RRA seed production, including reporting 

requirements for acreage planted and seed harvested, 

by variety.

RRA Seed Growers’ 

Responsibilities

Monsanto Technology/Stewardship Agreement (MTA). 

RRA Seed Grower must sign an MTA and are bound by 

the terms outlined in the current Monsanto Technology 

Use Guide (TUG). The MTA is a limited-use license for 

Monsanto traits, and renews automatically each year. 

The TUG is updated annually.

Observe patent rights. All RRA stock seed and 

harvested seed contains patent-protected, Roundup 

Ready trait, therefore:

All seed transfer/sale is exclusive between RRA Seed 

Grower and the RRA Seed Contractor; no seed may 

be sold by RRA Seed Grower to other parties.

RRA Seed Grower may not save seed for any purpose

as per MTA.

Observe all federal, state and local regulations. It is 

the RRA Seed Grower’s responsibility to know and obey 

current federal, state and local regulations affecting their 

agricultural practices. Some examples are as follows:

Federal Laws and Regulations:

Pesticide use labels and restrictions;

U.S. Patent Rights;

Plant Variety Protection; Federal Seed Act.

Phytosanitary laws governing import or export of 

seeds and pollinators.

State Laws and Regulations:

Noxious or prohibited weeds, pathogens or insects;

Pesticide use labels and restrictions

Local Laws and Regulations:

Pesticide use notifications (field posting);

County restrictions or prohibitions on the use of 

biotechnology, as applicable.

Bees. RRA Seed Grower will manage pollinators to minimize 

pollen flow to conventional/other variety fields.

Only contract-specified bee species can be introduced 

for pollination supporting RRA seed production.

There shall be no bee domicile movement from RRA 

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

to conventional alfalfa seed fields until pollination is 

finished for the year.

Once bees are in RRA seed fields, they may only 

be moved among RRA fields. It is the RRA Seed 

Grower’s responsibility to inform their pollinator 

contractors or bee keepers of this requirement.

RRA Seed Grower will locate domiciles to maximize 

domicile distance to other varieties, to the extent 

reasonable and appropriate to each field.

The main pollinator bee species will be stated on each 

RRA Seed Grower Contract. Isolation requirements 

are specific to the main pollinator species. 

If honeybees are not the contract-stipulated pollinator 

species, the RRA Seed Grower will discourage 

neighbors from keeping honeybee hives in proximity 

to RRA seed production. In cases where this cannot 

be avoided, RRA Seed Grower is required to report 

the incident to the RRA Seed Contractor.

Isolation. RRA Seed Grower will assist RRA Seed 

Contractor with field location planning prior to planting, 

isolation zone monitoring after planting and facilitate 

crop improvement inspections as requested. 

The pollinator species-specific isolation policy is as 

follows (minimum distance to preexisting conventional 

seed at planting of RRA): 

Leaf cutter bee – 900 feet

Alkali bee – 1 mile

Honey bee – 3 miles

Once the RRA seed field is planted, State Certification 

officials will visit to confirm minimum isolation distances 

are in place. RRA Seed Grower must cooperate with 

this verification process.

If the RRA Seed Grower learns that new alfalfa seed 

field(s) are planned or planted in close proximity the 

RRA seed field, RRA Seed Grower will communicate 

this information to RRA Seed Contractor. Management 

strategies for maintaining RRA seed quality (varietal/

trait purity) can then be implemented by the RRA 

Seed Contractor.

Trait purity. RRA stock seed is guaranteed by the 

provider to have ≥90% RR plants; up to 10% non-RR 

plants, or “nulls”, are normal and expected based on the 

breeding and genetics of the trait.

Growers must apply sufficient Roundup® herbicide to 

kill the <10% nulls prior to 9 inches of growth in the 

establishment year.

Apply only registered (labeled) Roundup brand 

herbicides to the field.

Weeds and in-crop volunteers. Manage weeds and 

volunteers using integrated weed control strategies (e.g., 

conventional practices supplemented with Roundup 

agricultural herbicide formulations applied according to 

the label for alfalfa seed production). Integrated weed 

control strategies:

Minimize risk of weed shifts or development of tolerant 

weeds. Growers are required to use integrated weed 

control methods. 

Maintain variety true to type: RRA seed fields need 

non-Roundup practices to control in-crop Roundup 

Ready alfalfa volunteers sprouting from prior year 

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•
National Alfalfa & Forage Alliance - “Best Management Practices for Roundup Ready® Alfalfa Seed Production” 3

seed crop in carry-over fields. This is consistent with 

conventional alfalfa seed production practices for 

certified quality seeds.

Stand take-out.

The RRA seed field must be destroyed at the 

expiration/termination of the seed contract. Takeout must be completed prior to first flower in the 

subsequent year so that seed certification inspectors 

can verify stand termination. 

Stand termination and volunteer management 

measures must be sufficient to allow seed certification 

inspectors to validate stand take-out and to render the 

alfalfa stand worthless for any unlicensed purpose 

or use (e.g., unlicensed seed, forage, hay or pasture 

production purpose). 

RRA stand take-out date and method must be reported 

to the RRA Seed Contractor and stand destruction 

verified by local crop improvement using the RRA 

stand take out form, or the equivalent, to report the 

information (see Appendix).

Plan to use a subsequent crop that allows 

management of alfalfa and RRA alfalfa volunteers 

should they occur.

Sanitation requirements. Manage equipment to 

minimize seed mixture potential between different 

varieties and or variety types. Growers shall use 

dedicated equipment for planting and harvesting RRA 

seed production, when possible. Zero tolerance for seed 

admixture is not feasible under commercial production 

conditions; however, grower must take reasonable steps 

to assure that equipment is clean prior to and after use in 

the Roundup Ready seed field. Examples:

Planter inspection, clean-down before and after use;

Combine inspection, clean-down thoroughly before 

and after use;

RRA seed bins may only be used for RRA seed; 

maintain physical separation of varieties in storage; 

inspect bins before use;

Handle all like-trait varieties together; plan for harvest 

sequence of fields to maintain best separation of 

varieties by trait type;

Clean all seed handling equipment to avoid mixing 

RRA and conventional seed;

Return unused, unopened stock seed to the 

contracting seed company for credit; maintain in 

clean storage areas;

When a contract harvester is used for RRA seed 

harvest, Growers must notify the contract harvester, in 

advance, that the field to be harvested is RRA.

Communication. Immediately communicate questions 

or concerns to the RRA Seed Contractor or to FGI.

Field records. RRA Seed Grower must record and 

communicate the following to RRA Seed Contractor:

Planting date; actual acres planted; seed rate/acre; 

stock seed received/returned;

Accurate field address with latitude/longitude (decimal 

degrees) and local field map;

Roundup herbicide application date(s), rate(s), 

formulation used;

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Seed box/bin numbers used for harvest;

Stand destruct date and methods used using the RRA 

stand take out form, or the equivalent, to report the 

information (see Appendix).

RRA Seed Contractors’ Production 

Staff Responsibilities

Working in close partnership with seed growers;

Complying with binding agreements with local crop 

improvement organizations: 

RRA Seed Contractor will report each field 

location, planting date and stand take-out date to 

local crop improvement organizations;

Coating RRA stock seed purple for easy identification 

by seed growers;

Recommending changes to this document, should 

the need arise.

Roundup Ready® and Roundup® are registered 

trademarks of Monsanto.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

“Best Management Practices 

for Roundup Ready® Alfalfa Seed Production”

Coexistence Strategy Forum Steering Committee

Tom Braun, Midwest Forage Association

Reedsville, WI

Jim Cane, USDA-ARS, Logan Bee Lab

Logan, UT

Chuck Deatherage, CA Alfalfa Seed Prod. Rsrch. Brd. 

San Joaquin, CA

Paul Frey, Cal/West Seeds

Woodland, CA

Chep Gauntt, Washington Hay Growers Association 

Kennewick, WA

Frederick Kirschenmann, Leopold Ctr. for Sustainable 

Agric., Ames, IA

Mark McCaslin, Forage Genetics International

St. Paul, MN

Dave Miller, Pioneer Hi-Bred International

Arlington, WI

Dan Putnam, University of California

Davis, CA

Dan Undersander, University of Wisconsin

Madison, WI

Allen Van Deynze, University of California, Seed 

Biotechnology Ctr, Davis,CA

Mark Wagoner, Washington Alfalfa Seed Commission 

Touchet, WA

Editor

Beth Nelson, President, NAFA, St. Paul, MN

Published by NAFA

National Alfalfa & Forage Alliance

4630 Churchill St. #1 • St. Paul, MN 55126

www.alfalfa-forage.org
4 National Alfalfa & Forage Alliance - “Best Management Practices for Roundup Ready® Alfalfa Seed Production”

Appendix 1
National Alfalfa & Forage Alliance - “Best Management Practices for Roundup Ready® Alfalfa Seed Production” 5

Appendix 2























































































Appendix

F

Selected Comments to Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement form Farmers Using Roundup Ready 

Alfalfa
APHIS-2007-0044-0320 

Name: Daniel M. Luckwaldt 

Address: Woodville, WI 

Submitter's Representative: Daniel Luckwaldt 

Organization: Luckwaldt Agriculture Inc. 

I am a dairy farmer who planted 100 acres of round-up ready alfalfa when it was available. I 

seemed to work very good. Additionally it allowed me to plant my alfalfa in a no-till manner 

(which leaves a smaller carbon footprint) and not worry about weeds. Seemed like it was the 

best alfalfa I ever grew and was very easy/simple to manage. 

APHIS-2007-0044-0516.1

Name: Gene Robben 

Address: Dixon, CA 

Organization: Robben Ranch 

Robben Ranch is a large farming operation located near the town of Dixon, California. This 

farming operation normally raises approximately 4,000 acres of alfalfa each year. The hay that 

is produced on this ranch supplies several dairy and cattle operations in the southern part of the 

Sacramento valley and the northern part of the San Joaquin valley. Each fall this ranch tries to 

replace older stands of alfalfa and replaces fields of alfalfa that are of poor quality. These fall 

plantings can range from 800 to 1,000 acres. Fall planting of alfalfa has been the most 

successful for Robben Ranch. 

Three years ago, Robben Ranch planted 600 acres of Roundup Ready Alfalfa to see how this 

new variety would produce and what type of quality it would have. This fall was the third year of 

production for the new Roundup Ready variety. It was found from production records that the 

Roundup Read Alfalfa equaled other varieties in production per acre, and had outstanding tests 

in T.D.N. (total digestible nutrients). The other factor that was a concern was how resistant was 

this alfalfa to Roundup Herbicide. After a few Roundup sprays, there was no apparent loss of 

plants or stands over the three year period. 

Many farmers know that with our standard varieties of alfalfa, w can spend form $50 - $100 per 

acre annually for weed control. With Roundup Ready Alfalfa, expenses range from $10 - $30 

per acre per year, which is a considerable savings over standard weed control. It was also 

noticeable that in the Roundup Ready Alfalfa fields almost 100% weed control was obtained. 

Robben Ranch hopes the government will release Roundup Ready Alfalfa seed for the 2010 

planting season. If so, this ranch will probable plant 1,000 acres of Roundup Ready Alfalfa this 

coming fall season. I feel that the government regulators fully analyze the benefit that Roundup 

Ready Alfalfa has for the American farmer and the environment they will release the seed for 

sale. 

From an environmental standpoint, one can only hope that the regulators will find that with the 

release of Roundup Ready Alfalfa seed, several million pounds of current herbicides will be 

greatly decrease or eliminated. Velpar, Sincor, Direx, Gramoxone, and Treflan TR-10 granules 
-2- 

are just a few examples of these current herbicides being used. With the reduction of these 

herbicides, our streams and waterways will be much safer for our environment and us. 

Document: APHIS-2007-0044-0813 

Name: Kurt Robert Brink 

Address: Richview, IL 

Biotechnology-based breeding methods safely enhance and extend a crop’s yield potential, feed 

value, adaptation, pest tolerance, environmental benefits, crop management and utilization 

options, as other biotech crops have demonstrated. The Roundup Ready alfalfa system 

provides dependable, cost-effective control of broadleaf and grassy weeds for the life of the 

alfalfa stand. 

I have had a plot of RR Alfalfa now for at least 3 years and it has proven to be a major plus for 

our Dairy business in that we usually are able to maintain at least a RFV of 155 or better in each 

of 5 cuttings/year. With the ability to control weed growth, it is one of, if not the best stand I have 

among the 4 fields I do have in alfalfa. 

It is imperative in these tough economic times that we are not deprived of whatever advantage 

we can glean from the seed technology this variety provides.Roundup Ready alfalfa can lead to 

more consistent, high-quality, weed-free hay, resulting in an increased supply of dairy-quality 

hay. The forage produced from Roundup Ready alfalfa is comparable in composition, nutritional 

value and safety to that produced from conventional alfalfa varieties, resulting in proven feed 

safety. Dairy farmers can benefit from increased milk production per ton of feed and fewer 

animals sickened by weeds in their feed. 

I urge the USDA to consider biotechnology’s long history of success and allow alfalfa growers to 

join other American farmers in the benefits and new opportunities offered by biotechnology. 

Kurt Brink 

B&B Dairy Farms 

Illinois 

 

Document: APHIS-2007-0044-1094 

Comment from John Maddox 

Name: John Maddox 

Address: Burrell, CA 

I am a dairyman and alfalfa grower. I currently grow 2,400acs of conventional alfalfa and I would 

like to have the ability to purchase and grow Roundup Ready alfalfa. I did grow 40acs of 

Roundup Ready alfalfa when it was first avialable and was extremely satisfied with it. 

The Roundup Ready system is extremely effective in controlling some of our toughest weeds 

that we have in our hay fields especially nutgrass which is a big problem for us to control with 

the currently avialable products that we have. 

It eliminates summer grasses in the alfalfa which gives me greater flexibility in my winter spray 

applications. 

I firmly believe that if I am able to grow Roundup Ready alfalfa, I am going to be able to better 

protect my workers because they will not have to be exposed to the more toxic herbicides that I 

currently have to use to control my weeds. This is a huge issue for us in California especially 
-3- 

with the many worker safety regulations that we put in place to provide a safe work environment 

for our employees. 

For our dairy, it is of high importance to us to provide the highest quality feed that we can find 

for our milk cows so that we can maximize their production of high quality milk and butterfat. By 

growing Roundup Ready alfalfa, I found that my alfalfa was higher in quality and tonnage per 

acre due to the fact that it was much cleaner than my conventional fields. My 40acres of 

Roundup Ready alfalfa was the first field that ever produced 10 tons/acre for the year. We have 

never been able to do that with our conventional varities. This higher production per acre allows 

me to use less alfalfa acres to provide me the same amount of hay that I currently get from my 

conventional fields. This frees up some ground for me to rotate into other crops. 

Third, because herbicide resistance is a heritable trait, it takes multiple growing seasons for 

herbicide tolerant weeds to emerge and become the predominant biotype in a specific area 

(Cole, 2010a, p. 4). Researchers have concluded that even if growers completely relied on only 

one herbicide, it is likely to take at least five years for an herbicide-resistant weed population to 

develop (Kniss, 2010a, p4; Beckie 2006, Neve, 2008; Werth et al., 2008). This is a reason why 

crop monitoring and follow up by University and industry weed scientists in cases of suspected 

resistance are important parts of all herbicide resistance stewardship programs.

The practice of repeated, in-season mowing combined with alfalfa's perennial 

nature reduce the likelihood of glyphosate-resistant weed development in >99 percent 

of the crop's acreage. The ability for alfalfa to fix nitrogen encourages the decision to 

follow alfalfa in the rotation with a crop that requires additional nitrogen, such as the 

annual grasses of corn and various cereal crops. These subsequently rotated crops can 

tolerate a spectrum of herbicides substantially different from the herbicides used in 

alfalfa. This encourages rotation of crops and herbicides, both of which are highly 

recommended for reducing the probability of developing herbicide resistant weeds 

(Orloff et al., 2009; USDA APHIS, 2009, P. 109). 
Appendix

G

Chart of Anticipated Adoption of RRA Under Partial 

Deregulation, Prepared by Monsanto/FGI (August 4, 

2010)
Partial Deregulation Projected Adoption of Roundup Ready Alfa

0

5,000

10,00015,00020,00025,000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

Year Following Partial Deregulation

Acreage (1,000's)

US Alfalfa Acreage (2007)Cumulative RRANorth CentralIntermountainPlainsEast CentralPacfic N.W.South WestSouth East

ROUNDUP READY ALFALFA SATISFACT

(Study #091 113 1108)

Prepared By:

MARKET PROBE, INC.

St. Louis, Missouri

December 2008

This document contains information that is Company confidential. In addition, this report ma

“inside,” information within the meaning of the federal securities laws. Trading in securities of 

of inside information, or disclosure of such information to others who then trade, is a violation o

criminal and civil liability and is also a violation of the Monsanto Global Standards of Busine

information with anyone outside of Monsanto Company, or with any employee who does not n

perform his or her job. If you share the information with an employee who needs to have the in

or her job, you must make that employee aware of these confidentiality requirements. 
[ Page 2] 

18

11

34

17

14

25

18

20

13

37

47

13

10

8

15

27

20

46

24

23

28

17

20

9

28

7

1

23

100 75 50 25 0 25 50 75 

Overall (n=201)

East (n=122)

West (n=79)

Percent of Respondents

7.00 or more 6.00 to 6.99 5.00 to 5.99Less than 5.00 Don't know

Q.8b In terms of tons per acre, what was the annual yield on [Established Roundup Ready alfalfa acres][Es

Ready alfalfa acres]?

Yields On Established Roundup Ready Acres Com

Established Or Past Non-Roundup Ready A

[Base=All respondents]

Tons per acre:

Non-Roundup Ready Alfalfa Roundup Ready Alfalfa
Appendix

I

Putnam, D. and D. Undersander. 2009. 

Understanding Roundup Ready Alfalfa (Full 

Version). Originally Posted on the Hay and Forage 

Grower Magazine Web Site at: 

http://hayandforage.com/understanding_roundup_re

ady_alfalfa_revised.pdf (January 1, 2009)
Appendix I 

Putnam and Undersander (2009) 

Pages 1-3 of Appendix I: 

Magazine Version 

Holin, F. 2009. Roundup Ready Reality? (Partial version of Putnam and Undersander. 

2009. Available at: 

http://license.icopyright.net/user/viewFreeUse.act?fuid=OTQxOTg4Mg%3D%3D 

(August 3, 2010) 

Pages 4-6 of Appendix I: 

Full Version 

Putnam, D. and D. Undersander. 2009. Understanding Roundup Ready Alfalfa (full 

version). Originally posted on the Hay and Forage Grower Magazine web site at: 

http://hayandforage.com/understanding_roundup_ready_alfalfa_revised.pdf (January 1, 

2009). 
January 1, 2009 

Roundup Ready Reality? 

by Fae Holin 

Is emotion trumping science in debates over the release of Roundup Ready alfalfa? Two forage specialists 

think so. They've put together a paper debunking what they call misinformation presented at annual 

conferences around the country. 

"We want to dispel some of those myths," says Dan Undersander, University of Wisconsin extension forage 

specialist. Undersander and his colleague at University of California-Davis, Dan Putnam, offer "a scientific 

perspective" for alfalfa growers and industry representatives as they evaluate Roundup Ready (RR) alfalfa. 

RR alfalfa, legalized in 2005, lost that designation with a court injunction just about two years later. A USDA 

environmental impact statement, required by the court, is nearing completion with a public comment period 

expected in the next month. A decision on whether the transgenic crop should again be made available to 

growers is expected to follow several months later. 

In the meantime, the forage specialists want to make sure the alfalfa industry is well-informed. They've 

offered Hay & Forage Grower a preview of their paper, which will be published in its entirety at 

hayandforage.com [http://hayandforage.com/understanding_roundup_ready_alfalfa_revised.pdf]. 

Here's a synopsis of their concerns: 

1. Once you release this gene, you can't call it back.

Undersander and Putnam respond that the gene is already out - more than 300,000 acres of RR alfalfa have 

been planted for hay and a limited amount planted for seed. The real question, they write, is whether 

growers can continue to plant conventional seed. Their answer: Only non-RR alfalfa is being planted now 

and, if concerned about contamination, growers can test it for the RR gene. 

2. Won't contamination from neighboring fields result in all seed being Roundup Ready eventually?

"No," they emphasize, citing that seed production methods and isolation distances will keep the presence of 

the gene "at a very low level for seed" and that "non-genetically enhanced (non-GE) seed will always be 

available." 

3. Won't my neighbor's RR hayfields contaminate my non-GE alfalfa hay production through pollen 

and gene flow?

Hay & Forage Grower: Roundup Ready Reality? Page 1 of 3

http://license.icopyright.net/user/viewFreeUse.act?fuid=OTQxOTg4Mg%3D%3D 8/3/2010
"No," they write. "There is an extremely low probability of gene flow among hayfields. For this to happen, 

fields must flower at the same time, pollinators must be present to move pollen (it does not blow in wind), 

plants must remain in fields four to six weeks after flowering for viable seed production, seed must shatter to 

fall to the ground and establish on the soil surface, seedlings must overcome autotoxicity to germinate and 

seedlings must overcome competition from existing plants." 

Pollen can only be carried by pollinators such as bees, and honey bees don't like to pollinate alfalfa, they 

add. The specialists discuss the difficulties of the seed germinating, concluding that if growers take care to 

plant non-RR seed, it's unlikely their hayfields will become contaminated with the gene. 

4. Will the seed companies be able to keep seed from being contaminated?

"Yes. The greatest real potential for pollen flow and contamination is during seed production," Undersander 

and Putnam write. They cite ways the seed industry has agreed to keep track of transgenic seed and 

reasons why it's in the companies' best interests to do so. 

5. Won't feral alfalfa be a source of contamination?

"Feral (wild growing) alfalfa can act as a bridge for moving genes from one seed field to another, and thus 

should be controlled to prevent gene flow in any area where seed production occurs, whether GE or not. 

Feral alfalfa is primarily an issue in portions of Western states because little occurs elsewhere," write the 

forage specialists. They discuss reasons why feral seed would have low production and suggest that 

removing plants from ditches and roads is a good idea to prevent gene flow. 

6. Won't hard seed be a source of contamination?

"Hard seed of alfalfa generally does not persist for more than one year in moist soils, much less after years 

of hay production," they respond. "To guard against hard seed carryover, seed growers take steps to 

eliminate residual alfalfa volunteers prior to planting. State seed certification standards already require that 

the alfalfa seed field's history include a two-year exclusion period before planting alfalfa for seed." 

7. Much of the hay in my area is cut late with mature seed - we have good farmers but weather and 

equipment problems force late cuttings.

"This occasionally happens," Putnam and Undersander answer. "However, plants must remain in a field for 

four to six weeks after pollination of flowers for viable seed to form and longer for seed to shatter." Delayed 

cutting will cause little to no seed production in hayfields, and hay harvest should remove seed. 

The last seven concerns have to do with 8) growing organic hay; 9) export markets; 10) whether seed 

companies bias the research on RR alfalfa; 11) possible effects it may have on insects, animals or the 

environment; 12) whether farmers can or will follow stewardship protocols; 13) weed resistance to Roundup 

and 14) whether the risks of RR alfalfa outweigh the rewards. 

"There is also a risk with NOT moving ahead with a technology," Under-sander and Putnam contend. RR 

alfalfa will control tough weeds, they write. "Further, if this breeding methodology is permanently banned, it 

would mean fewer genetic advancements for alfalfa in the future. 

"It is important that alfalfa growers and the industry understand how to use this important new genetic tool, 

while at the same time, protecting those farmers who don't wish to adopt it." 

Hay & Forage Grower: Roundup Ready Reality? Page 2 of 3

http://license.icopyright.net/user/viewFreeUse.act?fuid=OTQxOTg4Mg%3D%3D 8/3/2010
2009 Penton Media. Permission granted for up to 5 copies. All rights reserved. 

You may forward this article or get additional permissions by typing http://license.icopyright.net/3.5479?

icx_id=hayandforage.com/hay/farming_roundup_ready_reality_0101/index.html into any web browser. Penton 

Media, Inc and Hay & Forage Grower logos are registered trademarks of Penton Media, Inc . The iCopyright logo is a registered trademark of 

iCopyright, Inc. 

Hay & Forage Grower: Roundup Ready Reality? Page 3 of 3

http://license.icopyright.net/user/viewFreeUse.act?fuid=OTQxOTg4Mg%3D%3D 8/3/2010
Understanding Roundup Ready Alfalfa

A number of concerns have been raised about the release of Roundup Ready (RR) alfalfa, the first biotech trait in 

alfalfa. Many of these concerns have been fueled by misinformation. In this article, we provide a scientific 

perspective on these concerns that we hope will inform. 

Concern 1. Once you release this gene – you can’t call it back.

Over 300,000 acres of RR alfalfa have been planted for hay over the past 2 to 3 years, with a limited amount 

planted for seed. The real question is whether you can continue to plant conventional alfalfa seed and the answer 

is a resounding ‘yes’ – all of the seed currently for sale is ‘conventional’ – and you only need to test it (or ask the 

seed company to test it) with inexpensive test strips to make sure it does not contain the gene if you don’t want it. 

Conventional alfalfa seed will continue to be available after Roundup Ready alfalfa is released.

Concern 2. Won’t contamination from neighboring fields result in all seed being Roundup Ready, eventually?

No. Seed production methods and isolation distances currently recommended by seed companies should keep 

adventitious presence at a very low level for seed. A gene will increase in a population only if the new gene gives 

the plant an advantage over other plants and the conditions creating the advantage are consistently present. 

Conversely, if plants are grown in an environment where the gene provides no advantage, the gene is more likely 

to remain in the population at very low levels or to be lost from the population. The formulas for computing these 

changes in gene frequency can be found in most books on population or quantitative genetics, such as Falconer 

and MacKay, 1996, Introduction to Quantitative Genetics, Longman Press. Thus non-GE seed will always be 

available.

Concern 3. Won’t my neighbor’s Roundup Ready hay fields contaminate my conventional or organic alfalfa hay 

production through pollen and gene flow?

No. There is almost zero probability of gene flow among hay fields. For this to happen all the following must occur

• fields must flower at same time. 

: 

• pollinators must be present to move pollen (it does not blow in wind). 

• plants must remain in field 4 to 6 weeks after flowering for viable seed production. 

• seed must shatter, to fall to ground and establish on soil surface. 

• seedlings must to overcome autotoxicity to germinate. 

• seedlings must to overcome competition from existing plants.

Pollen moves among alfalfa plants only when carried by pollinators such as bees, and honey bees do not like to 

pollinate alfalfa. Alfalfa seed takes many weeks after flowering to mature sufficiently to germinate and longer to 

shatter and fall onto the ground. Alfalfa seed does not readily spread. Alfalfa does not germinate well on the soil

surface. Germination will be further reduced by alfalfa autotoxicity from existing planting in the hay field (this is 

why interseeding alfalfa to thicken a stand generally fails). Germinating seeds must compete with established 

plants for water, nutrients and sunlight. Data has shown that interseeded plants generally die during the first 

growing season. Thus, if a grower takes care to plant conventional seed, it is very unlikely that the Roundup Ready 

gene will move to their hay fields. (See Gene Flow in Alfalfa: Biology, Mitigation, and Potential Impact on 

Production, Special Publication of the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST) at http://www.castscience.org/displayProductDetails.asp?idProduct=157 ) 

Concern 4. Will the seed companies be able to keep seed from being contaminated?

Yes, the greatest real potential for pollen flow and contamination is during seed production. The seed industry has 

agreed on a field tagging technique in areas where RR alfalfa seed will be grown so neighbors and other seed 

companies will know where RR seed is being produced. The bulk of non-GE alfalfa seed is produced for export by 

seed production companies and it is in their own best interest to control seed production to continue to produce 

the 30% or more of total production as non-biotech for export. This large volume of export seed production is 

much more significant economically than the less than 1% of total seed market for organic seed production. 

However, concerns and methodology for exported seed will allow organic seed production indefinitely, making 

non-biotech seed available to growers. 

Concern 5. Won’t feral alfalfa be a source of contamination?

Authors: Dan Putnam, University of California, and Dan Undersander, Univeristy of Wisconsin 

January 2009
Feral (wild growing) alfalfa can act as a bridge for moving genes from one seed field to another, and thus should be 

controlled to prevent gene flow in any area where seed production occurs, whether biotech or not. Feral alfalfa is 

primarily an issue in portions of Western states because little occurs elsewhere. Feral alfalfa will have low seed 

production for the reasons described in #3 plus damage from lygus bug and infection from seed-borne fungi when 

seed develops under damp conditions. Seed from any feral plants will contribute to new plants only over a very 

short term, but removing feral alfalfa from ditches and roads is a good idea for organic and export growers to 

prevent gene flow. If feral alfalfa is deemed a problem in a specific area, then it must be controlled as off types of 

alfalfa and other problem weeds are currently controlled using cultural and other herbicide methods. 

Concern 6. Won’t hard seed be a source of contamination?

Hard seed of alfalfa generally does not persist for more than one year in moist soils (Albrecht et al. 2008 Forage 

and Grazinglands), much less after years of hay production. To guard against hard seed carryover, seed growers 

take steps to eliminate residual alfalfa volunteers prior to planting. State Seed Certification Standards already

require that the alfalfa seed field's history include a 2-year exclusion period before planting alfalfa for seed. 

Concern 7. Much of hay in my area is cut late with mature seed – we have good farmers but weather, equipment 

problems force late cuttings.

Although late cuttings occasionally happen viable seed development is unlikely. However, plants must remain in 

field for 4 to 6 weeks after pollination of flowers for viable seed to form and longer for seed to shatter. Delaying 

harvest 1 to 2 weeks due to weather, equipment problems and other issues will cause little to no seed production

in hay fields (see item #3). Furthermore, hay harvest should remove this small amount of seed so that it doesn’t 

become a problem. 

Concern 8. Organic producers may have difficulty growing organic hay.

No – there is no reason that organic growers can’t continue to successfully grow organic hay. In fact the presence 

of Roundup Ready alfalfa hay in the marketplace may increase the value of organic hay, for buyers who are 

sensitive to biotech traits. Current demand for organic hay has been high, in spite of the introduction of Roundup 

Ready alfalfa. There are a number of growers who currently grow both Roundup Ready alfalfa and organic hay on 

the same farm without difficulty. Organic growers should 1) select conventional seed that is tested for the trait if 

their customers have set a standard of no adventitious presence, 2) take simple steps to protect their crop from 

gene flow and 3) identify hay lots after harvest. Feedstuffs can be tested to ensure low biotech levels desired for 

these markets. Organic growers currently are certified to show that their crops are not grown with pesticides or 

non-organic fertilizers, and similar steps can be taken to show that they do not use genetically engineered crops.

Concern 9. Couldn’t we lose our entire export market?

No. While export growers and buyers are sensitive to the presence of biotech traits in crops, they have developed 

market-assurance methods to demonstrate that they are marketing non-biotech alfalfa hay, including testing to 

assure buyers of the non-biotech status of hay. Japan, Taiwan, and Korea (main U.S. hay market) already use 

biotech corn and soybeans and have accepted some RR alfalfa hay. The European Union has approved use of 

certain biotech varieties of corn and soybeans in food and feedstuffs. While significant in some growing regions in 

the US, exported hay represents less than 1 % of total alfalfa hay production.

Concern 10. Isn’t the research biased by the seed companies that stand to gain most? 

RR technology at has been evaluated at many universities. This research is independent of the concerned 

commercial parties. The goal is to independently test a technology for its viability and environmental safety for 

farmers and for the general public. These studies must be well-designed, accurate and can only be published only 

after review by anonymous individuals from other institutions selected for impartiality.

Concern 11. Won’t the Roundup Ready gene in alfalfa have a negative effect on insects, diseases, other biota, or 

the environment?

There is currently no evidence that this gene would have a negative effect on insects or animals, or the 

environment. The Roundup Ready gene has been thoroughly tested as other crops were released (corn, soybeans, 

cotton) and no impact on any other biota has been found. No toxicology issues have been identified with roundup 

ready alfalfa fed to animals. In the past ten years, billions of tons of corn, soybeans, cotton and alfalfa have been 

Authors: Dan Putnam, University of California, and Dan Undersander, Univeristy of Wisconsin 

January 2009
produced with this gene, and there has been no documented harm to animals, humans or wildlife. In fact the use 

of Roundup would replace some more toxic pesticides that have been used and found in ground water (e.g. 

Velpar).

Concern 12. Farmers can’t/won’t follow stewardship protocols. 

All technology requires stewardship by farmers (e.g. fertilizer use, pesticide use, irrigation). Farmers must be 

educated about stewardship needed and required to use appropriate stewardship for any technology. The 

possibility of gene flow is no different in scope than controlling pesticide drift, fertilizer contamination from 

conventional farms, or for that matter, the influence of weeds from organic fields that may contaminate 

neighbor’s fields. Good farmers know how to do this.

Concern 13. Won’t there be weed resistance to Roundup from use of RR alfalfa? 

Weed resistance and weed shifts are issues with all herbicides. New management programs have always resulted 

in shifts in weed pressure. For example, no-till crop production has resulted in different weed problems than when 

crops were grown with conventional tillage. Resistance to glyphosate has occurred in row crop situations. 

Inclusion of alfalfa might actually slow increase of resistant populations of weeds because an additional 

mechanical control (frequent hay harvest) is being added to the weed management program. Techniques are 

readily available to avoid weed shifts or weed resistance using the Roundup Ready system as detailed in a recent 

article (Orloff et al., 2008).

Concern 14. Risk far outweighs reward/Do we really need this? Are we willing to take this kind of gamble?

There is also a risk with NOT moving ahead with a technology that has clear potential benefits to farmers and the 

environment. Currently, many animals are killed or hurt each year by weedy alfalfa fields – something that 

Roundup Ready technology could help address. Also, some of the conventional herbicides have been found in well

water – something not true with glyphosate. Additionally, Roundup Ready alfalfa would allow farmers to control

tough weeds for which no other good method of control exists (e.g. winter annuals such as chickweed, wild garlic, 

wild onion, perennials such as dandelion. difficult weeds such as nutsedge and dodder, and poisonous weeds such 

as groundsel). 

Further, if this breeding methodology is permanently banned, it would mean fewer genetic advancements for

alfalfa in the future. Some traits currently under development, such as a low lignin gene that could mean higher 

forage yield and fewer cuttings for farmers, a leaf retention gene to retain leaves through harvesting process, 

genes which confer pest resistance, or genes to increase bypass protein, would never be available to farmers. It is 

not reasonable or fair to farmers to restrict a technology from use in alfalfa that is available in other crops. 

A series of articles on biotech alfalfa and coexistence of GE and conventional alfalfa seed and hay production is 

available at http://www.alfalfa.org/CSCoexistenceDocs.html and http://alfalfa.ucdavis.edu/+producing/biotech.aspx. 

In summary, it is essential that alfalfa growers and the industry understand how to use this important new 

genetic tool, while at the same time, protecting those farmers who don’t wish to adapt it. Research has proceeded 

with great deliberation in the development of Roundup Ready alfalfa and shown it to be a good tool that will 

benefit many farmers. Like every other tool, it must be used with care and appropriate stewardship. It is 

important for the industry to manage for coexistence of biotech-adapting and non biotech-adapting farmers, since 

other important biotech traits are being developed which might be much greater benefit to farmers and society.

Dr. Dan Putnam, University of California

Dr. Dan Undersander, University of Wisconsin

Authors: Dan Putnam, University of California, and Dan Undersander, Univeristy of Wisconsin 

January 2009
Appendix

J

Roundup Ready Alfalfa Harvesting Study, Study 

#3482 (Originally Submitted as Appendix 6 to 

Monsanto/FGI Comments to Draft EIS)
Prepared By:

St. Louis, Missouri

January 2010

ROUNDUP READY ALFALFA HARVESTIN

Study #3482

Forage Genetics International/ Monsanto Company

Appendix 

6
[ Page 2 ] Rou

Attorney-Client Privilege

METHODOLOGY

 To achieve the objectives set for this study, a total of 200 telephone inte

with growers who had Roundup Ready alfalfa acres in production in 2009 interviews were distributed regionally:

West: WA/OR/ID/CA/NV/UT/AZ . . . . . . . East: All other states, east of the Rockies 

 Participants were screened on the following criteria:

 Actively involved in farming Primarily responsible for decisions concerning the management pra

alfalfa crop

 Had 30+ acres of Roundup Ready alfalfa in production in 2009 or 2 Not, nor anyone in household, working for a farm chemical manufa

dealer

 Not, nor anyone in household, working for a seed company, or as a  Not, nor anyone in household, raising alfalfa seed for a seed compa

 A monetary honorarium was paid ($40-West and $20-East) to all particip

conducted between January 18th and 25th, 2010.

Forage Genetics International/ Monsanto Company

Appendix 

6
[ Page 3 ] Rou

Attorney-Client Privilege

2010 Roundup Ready Alfalfa Penetration

[Base=Respondents able to estimate]

Q.D How many acres of alfalfa, including both established and newly seeded, will you have this year in 2010Q.E And, how many, if any, of these [Q.D] acres are Roundup Ready alfalfa, and how many are conventiona

38

40

35

62

60

65

0 25 50 75 

Overall (n=199)

East (n=104)

West (n=95)

Percent of alfalfa acres

Roundup Ready alfalfa* Conventional alfalfa

*To be included in this study, growers were required to have Roundup Ready alfalfa acr

Forage Genetics International/ Monsanto Company

Appendix 

6
[ Page 4 ] Rou

Attorney-Client Privilege

Percent Of Roundup Ready Alfalfa Harvested At Specifi

Q.3 In 2009, what percent of your total Roundup Ready alfalfa did you harvest:

45

39

54

33

37

38

36

24

1

36

0 25 50 75 

Overall (n=198)

East (n=104)

West (n=94)

Aware of production

fields in area (n=8)

Percent of Roundup Ready Alfalfa Acres

Pre-bloom At or before 10% bloom 11% to 20% bloom 21% blo

[Base=Respondents harvesting Roundup Ready alfalfa and able to es

Forage Genetics International/ Monsanto Company

Appendix 

6
[ Page 5 ] Rou

Attorney-Client Privilege

24

28

9

0 25 50 75 

Overall (n=42)

East (n=27)

West (n=15)

Average

Of the 18% of Occasions When Harvest Occurred Afte

What Percent Were Due To Bad Weather

Q.4b What percent of the time was your decision to harvest Roundup Ready alfalfa after 10% bloom due to 

[Base=Respondents harvesting at least some Roundup Ready alfalfa after 10% bloom

Forage Genetics International/ Monsanto Company

Appendix 

6
Appendix

K

Fitzpatrick, S. and G. Lowry. 2010. Alfalfa Seed 

Industry Innovations Enabling Coexistence. 

Proceedings of the 42nd North American Alfalfa 

Improvement Conference, Boise, Idaho, July 28-30, 

2010
Alfalfa Seed Industry Innovations Enabling Coexistence 

S. Fitzpatrick* and G. Lowry**

The alfalfa seed industry has recently implemented two complementary programs that together 

enable mutual coexistence between conventional and Roundup Ready alfalfa (RRA) seed 

producers. The 2010 Alfalfa Seed Stewardship Program (ASSP-2010) is an identity preserved 

process-based certificate offered by state seed certification agencies. It was developed by the 

Association of Official Seed Certifying Agencies (AOSCA) designed to serve GE-trait sensitive 

conventional seed producers (e.g., export). In 2008, the Best Management Practices for RRA 

Seed Production (BMPs) was adopted by the National Alfalfa & Forage Alliance. These BMPs 

are required coexistence protocols that apply only to RRA seed-producing companies (i.e., no 

new requirements are imposed upon external conventional seed producers). These market-driven, 

science-based programs were developed with the involvement of alfalfa industry stakeholders 

over a 5-year period (2005 to 2010) using all available market and gene flow data. An array of 

stakeholders were involved that represented diverse segments of the alfalfa seed and hay 

industries: scientists, seed certifiers, breeders, exporters, marketers, producers, growers and 

organic. These new programs are independent from and more stringent than AOSCA or OECD 

Seed Certification Programs. Forage Genetics and Pioneer Hi-Bred International (the only 

companies producing RRA seed), have collectively reported to inspectors that in 2009 greater 

than 97% of their conventional seed lots were produced without detection of the RRA trait (>500 

lots tested with <0.00% RRA). If detected, AP was less than 0.5% (overall lot average <0.1%).

Seed Program 

No Program 

(e.g., 

common 

seed) 

USDA National 

Organic 

Program 

Certification Certified Seed 

Roundup Ready 

Alfalfa (RRA) Seed 

AOSCA AASP2010 Identity 

Preserved, 

Certified Seed 

Market 

U.S. domestic 

conventional 

(baseline) 

Organic forage 

planting 

U.S domestic 

conventional & 

RRA seed 

U.S. domestic RRA 

seed 

U.S. conventional 

seed for export 

Purity Standard 

or Objective n/a 

No official purity 

standards; 

process-based 

requirements 

<1% off types 

< 0.5% GE in 

neighboring 

conventional seed 

production 

Non-detect GE 

Spatial isolation 

from other seed 

field 

n/a 

Customized farm 

plan; not uniform 

mitigation 

standard 

165 ft 

900 ft to 3 mi at RRA 

seed field planting 

(pollinator specific) 

>5 miles 

Program conforms 

to: n/a 

USDA-AMS 

National Organic 

Program 

Federal Seed Act 

Industry consensus 

and RRA seed co. 

contracts 

AOSCA 

I. P. Program 

Program 

monitored by: n/a 

Local Organic 

Certifying 

Agency 

State Seed 

Certifying Agency

State Seed 

Certifying Agency 

State Seed 

Certifying Agency

Program 

obligations fulfilled 

by: 

 n/a 

Organic, 

conventional 

grower 

Seed company and 

seed grower 

RRA seed company 

and seed grower 

GE-sensitive seed 

company and 

conventional seed 

grower 

Growers using the 

program: 

Conventional 

only 

Conventional 

only 

Both, conventional 

and RRA All RRA, only Conventional only

* Forage Genetics International, West Salem, WI **Idaho Crop Improvement Association, Meridian, Idaho
Appendix

A

Monsanto Technology and Stewardship Agreement 

(MT/SA)

and Accompanying Technology Use Guide (TUG)













































•• . . , 

Seed 

Production Seed - 

Reported, Acres Seed - Seed -In Alf, Hay- Alf. Hay- 

State County 2007 Alfalfa For Foraqe Production Hvstd. Operations Pounds Acres Operations 

ARIZONA COCONINO 0 4 

ARIZONA GILA 0 1 

ARIZONA GREENLEE 0 0 0 1,126 19 

ARIZONA LAPAZ No Yes, With Limits and GPS Reporting 60,290 52 

ARIZONA MOHAVE 10,374 15 ARIZONA PIMA 1,888 23 

ARIZONA SANTACRUZ 0 2 

Subtotals 0 0 0 0 73,678 116 

ARIZONA APACHE 0 2 0 0 146 

ARIZONA COCHISE 0 1 0 19,621 65 ARIZONA GRAHAM 304 6 112,960 1,973 61 

ARIZONA MARICOPA Yes No new RRA forage production 776 17 182,099 75,394 175 

ARIZONA NAVAJO 0 2 0 2,694 48 ARIZONA PINAL 0 6 859,873 54,495 175 

ARIZONA YAVAPAI 0 3 30,000 0 28 

ARIZONA YUMA 1,723 16 708,212 25,789 129 

Subtotal Subtotals 2,803 53 1,893,144 0 179,966 827 

State Total 2,803 53 1,893,144 0 253,644 943 

CALIFORNIA ALAMEDA No Yes, With Limits and GPS Reporting 0 4 

CALIFORNIA ALPINE 0 1 

CALIFORNIA AMADOR 1,613 4 

CALIFORNIA BUTTE 0 0 0 1,349 20 CALIFORNIA CALAVERAS 0 1 

CALIFORNIA COLUSA 14,900 49 

CALIFORNIA CONTRA COSTA 3,696 15 

CALIFORNIA GLENN 13,851 109 

CALIFORNIA INYO 3,273 12 

CALIFORNIA LAKE 58 8 

CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES 0 0 0 7,693 30 

CAUfORNIA MARIN 0 0 

CALIfoRNIA MARIPOSA 0 0 

-.,-- --


'" ":0",', X'S' 

Seed 

Production Seed - 

Reported, Acres Seed - Seed -In Alf. Hay- Alf. Hay- 

State County 2007 Alfalfa For Forage Production Hvstd. Operations Pounds Acres Operations 

IDAHO KOOTENAI 5,362 100 

IDAHO LATAH 4,156 90 

IDAHO LEMHI 21,478 116 

IDAHO LEWIS 4,469 57 

IDAHO LINCOLN 23,248 145 

IDAHO MADISON 15,114 183 

IDAHO NEZ PERCE 0 91 

IDAHO POWER 9,961 89 

IDAHO SHOSHONE 0 3 

IDAHO TETON 12,617 110 

IDAHO VALLEY 1,304 22 

Subtotals 0 0 0 0 520,089 4,014 

IDAHO ADA 0 8 609,015 20,972 461 

IDAHO CANYON 7,018 31 5,940,842 40,654 867 

IDAHO CASSIA 0 1 0 53,422 267 

IDAHO ELMORE 0 1 0 38,569 162 

IDAHO FRANKLIN 0 2 0 33,233 320 

IDAHO GEM 233 7 129,588 10,747 241 

IDAHO GOODING Yes No new RRA forage production 0 1 0 33,174 289 

IDAHO JEROME 707 5 577,532 42,265 286 IDAHO MINIDOKA 0 1 0 29,381 269 

IDAHO ONEIDA 0 6 430,150 28,802 178 IDAHO OWYHEE 1,179 11 877,054 48,409 307 

IDAHO PAYETTE 496 9 267,467 15,850 290 

IDAHO TWIN FALLS 258 5 151,500 68,924 596 

IDAHO WASHINGTON 130 4 68,418 29,866 270 

Subtotals 10,021 92 9,051,566 0 494,268 4,803 

State Total 10,021 92 9,051,566 1,014,357 8,817 

MONTANA CASCADE No Yes, With Limits and GPS Reporting 65,292 401 

MONTANA DANIELS 19,602 95 

MONTANA DEER LODGE 4,150 21 
... ;';," 

Seed 

Production Seed - 

Reported. Acres Seed - Seed -In Alf. Hay- Alf. Hay- 

State County 2007 Alfalfa For Forage Production Hvstd. Operations Pounds Acres Operations 

MONTANA FERGUS 158.137 520 

MONTANA GARFIELD 0 0 0 30.927 121 

MONTANA GLACIER 28.397 151 

MONTANA GOLDEN VALLEY 21.207 64 

MONTANA GRANITE 8.720 50 

MONTANA HILL 13.796 99 

MONTANA JUDITH BASIN 79.911 181 

MONTANA LAKE 33.618 379 

MONTANA LEWIS AND CLARK 31.028 282 

MONTANA LIBERTY 6.982 43 

MONTANA MADISON 47.830 215 

MONTANA MEAGHER 18.583 54 MONTANA MINERAL 1.332 25 MONTANA MISSOULA 9.158 157 MONTANA MUSSELSHELL 0 0 0 26,499 104 

MONTANA PARK 0 0 0 38.637 205 

MONTANA PONDERA 27.044 188 

MONTANA POWELL 17.602 79 

MONTANA RAVALLI 15.037 333 

MONTANA ROOSEVELT 52.241 205 

MONTANA SHERIDAN 19.749 125 

MONTANA SILVER BOW 3.585 19 

MONTANA SWEETGRASS 38,484 136 

MONTANA TETON 42.172 240 MONTANA TOOLE 8.782 59 

MONTANA VALLEY 0 0 0 51.908 257 

MONTANA WHEATLAND 22.600 70 

MONTANA WIBAUX 0 0 0 19.272 77 

Subtotals 0 0 0 0 962.282 4.955 

MONTANA BEAVERHEAD Yes No new RRA forage production 0 1 0 42.828 145 

MONTANA BIG HORN 619 7 341.502 70.177 293 

MONTANA BLAINE 0 3 230.000 53,439 254 
Seed 

Production Seed - 

Reported, Acres Seed - Seed -In Alf. Hay- Alf. Hay- 

State Coullty 2007 Alfalfa For Forage Production Hvstd. Operations Pounds Acres ·Operations 

MONTANA BROADWATER 0 1 0 20,608 115 

MONTANA CARBON 0 12 1,253,336 34,963 309 MONTANA CARTER 560 3 76,000 68,447 185 

MONTANA CHOUTEAU 0 1 0 25,519 149 MONTANA CUSTER 0 5 53,921 41,624 198 MONTANA DAWSON 0 1 0 29,735 206 MONTANA FALLON 105 3 22,341 73,050 165 MONTANA FLATHEAD 0 2 0 18,783 315 

MONTANA GALLATIN 0 1 0 54,242 372 

MONTANA JEFFERSON 0 2 0 13,747 83 

MONTANA LINCOLN 0 1 0 3,341 70 MONTANA MCCONE 0 1 0 20,625 111 

MONTANA PETROLEUM 0 1 0 26,304 53 

MONTANA PHILLIPS 0 2 0 40,426 211 

MONTANA POWDER RIVER 2,187 17 410,112 68,080 190 

MONTANA PRAIRIE 0 2 0 14,352 88 

MONTANA RICHLAND 0 1 0 44,729 227 

MONTANA ROSEBUD 749 8 200,108 35,367 166 

MONTANA SANDERS 0 1 0 13,685 129 

MONTANA STILLWATER 0 1 0 43,459 222 

MONTANA TREASURE 0 1 0 7,278 38 

MONTANA YELLOWSTONE 0 2 0 41,666 462 

Subtotals 4,220 80 2,587,320 0 906,474 4,756 

State Total 4,220 80 2,587,320 0 1,868,756 9,711 

NEVADA CARSON CITY No Yes, With Limits and GPS Reporting 0 2 NEVADA CLARK 1,742 28 

NEVADA DOUGLAS 0 55 

NEVADA ELKO 12,076 80 NEVADA ESMERALDA 12,114 13 

NEVADA EUREKA 22,340 49 

NEVADA LANDER 23,245 44 
Seed 

Production Seed - 

Reported, Acres Seed - Seed -In Alf. Hay- Alf. Hay- 

State County 2007 Alfalfa For Forage Production Hvstd. Operations Pounds Acres Operations 

NEVADA LYON 43,451 139 

NEVADA MINERAL 0 0 4 

NEVADA NYE 9,787 41 

NEVADA STOREY 0 1 

NEVADA WASHOE 4,134 101 

Subtotals 0 0 0 0 128,889 557 

NEVADA CHURCHILL 162 5 129,000 25,955 294 

NEVADA HUMBOLDT 4,206 6 3,024,793 51,041 101 

NEVADA LINCOLN Yes No new RRA forage production 0 2 0 11,039 47 

NEVADA PERSHING 1,960 4 1,067,308 30,625 74 

NEVADA WHITE PINE 0 2 0 12,056 55 

Subtotals 6,328 19 4,221,101 0 130,716 571 

State Total 6328 19 4221101 259605 1128 

OKLAHOMA ADAIR No Yes, With Limits and GPS Reporting 190 

OKLAHOMA ATOKA 524 1

OKLAHOMA BEAVER 3,786 3

OKLAHOMA BECKHAM - - - 5,527 7

OKLAHOMA BLAINE 6,525 8

OKLAHOMA BRYAN 4,071 3

OKLAHOMA CADDO 7,456 116 

OKLAHOMA CANADIAN - - - 14,541 165 

OKLAHOMA CARTER 1,339 1OKLAHOMA CHEROKEE 302 

OKLAHOMA CHOCTAW 1,634 1

OKLAHOMA CIMARRON 5,390 1

OKLAHOMA CLEVELAND 3,482 4OKLAHOMA COAL 260 OKLAHOMA COMANCHE 5,384 5

OKLAHOMA CRAIG 1,066 2

OKLAHOMA CUSTER 9,835 121 

OKLAHOMA DELAWARE 352 1
•• , 

" 

Seed 

Production Seed - 

Reported, Acres Seed - Seed -In Alf. Hay- Alf. Hay- 

State County 2007 Alfalfa For Forage Production Hvstd. Operations Pounds Acres Operations 

OKLAHOMA DEWEY 3,325 3OKLAHOMA ELLIS 4,878 3

OKLAHOMA GARFIELD 7,838 108 

OKLAHOMA GARVIN - - - 17,535 133 

OKLAHOMA GREER - - - 4,437 3

OKLAHOMA HARMON 2,416 2

OKLAHOMA HASKELL 2,442 1

OKLAHOMA HUGHES 1,166 2

OKLAHOMA JACKSON - - - 4,420 5OKLAHOMA JEFFERSON 303 OKLAHOMA JOHNSTON - OKLAHOMA KINGFISHER - - - 12,149 102 OKLAHOMA LATIMER 290 OKLAHOMA LEFLORE 1,973 2OKLAHOMA LINCOLN - - - 1,509 4OKLAHOMA LOGAN - - - 3,878 6OKLAHOMA MAJOR - - - 8,079 9OKLAHOMA MARSHALL - OKLAHOMA MAYES 1,157 3OKLAHOMA MCCLAIN 10,022 100 OKLAHOMA MCCURTAIN 2,094 4

OKLAHOMA MCINTOSH 519 1

OKLAHOMA MURRAY 2,254 1OKLAHOMA NOBLE 5,315 9OKLAHOMA NOWATA 996 2OKLAHOMA OKFUSKEE 317 OKLAHOMA OKLAHOMA - - - 5,565 7OKLAHOMA OSAGE 2,902 5OKLAHOMA OTTAWA 680 1OKLAHOMA PAWNEE 1,667 3OKLAHOMA PAYNE - - - 2,560 4

OKLAHOMA PITTSBURG 681 1
Seed 

Production 'Seed - 

Reported, Acres Seed - Seed - In Alf. Hay- Alf. Hay- 

State County 2007 Alfalfa For ForaQe Production Hvstd. Operations Pounds Acres Operations 

OKLAHOMA PONTOTOC 409 1OKLAHOMA POTTAWATOMIE - - - 2,510 6

OKLAHOMA PUSHMATAHA 497 

OKLAHOMA ROGER MILLS 6,267 48 

OKLAHOMA ROGERS 606 2

OKLAHOMA SEMINOLE 850 1

OKLAHOMA SEQUOYAH 968 1

OKLAHOMA TULSA 1,016 2

OKLAHOMA WASHINGTON 203 

OKLAHOMA WOODS - - - 13,060 106 

OKLAHOMA WOODWARD 2,879 6

Subtotals 0 0 0 214,296 2,628 

OKLAHOMA ALFALFA 96 3 1,696 21,702 178 

OKLAHOMA COTTON - 2 - 813 1

OKLAHOMA CREEK - 1 - 1,853 2

OKLAHOMA GRADY 275 5 4,350 22,971 220 

OKLAHOMA GRANT - 1 - 13,621 138 

OKLAHOMA HARPER - 2 - 3,421 3

OKLAHOMA KAY - 2 - 6,991 119 

OKLAHOMA KIOWA Yes No new RRA forage production - 3 - 6,226 8

OKLAHOMA LOVE - 1 - 328 1

OKLAHOMA MUSKOGEE - 2 - 1,735 2

OKLAHOMA OKMULGEE - 2 - 298 

OKLAHOMA STEPHENS - 1 - 2,222 2

OKLAHOMA TEXAS - 1 - 6,611 3

OKLAHOMA TILLMAN - 1 - 18,134 9

OKLAHOMA WAGONER - 1 - 878 1

OKLAHOMA WASHITA - 1 - 12,700 122 

Subtotals 371 29 6,046 120,504 1,153 

State Total 371 29 6046 334800 3781 

OREGON BAKER No Yes, With Limits and GPS Reporting 22,057 215 
" 

.. • 0(1;0001 . 

Seed 

Production Seed - 

Reported, Acres Seed - Seed -In Alf. Hay- Alf. Hay- 

State County 2007 Alfalfa For Forage Production Hvstd. Operations Pounds Acres Operations 

OREGON BENTON 390 9 

OREGON CLACKAMAS 1,371 42 

OREGON CLATSOP 185 5 OREGON COLUMBIA 345 12 OREGON COOS 268 8 

OREGON CROOK 17,975 149 

OREGON DESCHUTES 8,165 126 

OREGON DOUGLAS 1,928 34 

OREGON GRANT 8,796 80 

OREGON HARNEY 45,514 178 

OREGON JEFFERSON 15,175 146 OREGON JOSEPHINE 463 25 

OREGON KLAMATH 61,859 335 

OREGON LAKE 64,174 171 

OREGON LANE 0 0 0 737 22 OREGON LINCOLN 130 3 

OREGON LINN 829 23 

OREGON MARION 0 0 0 1,740 69 

OREGON MORROW 18,269 57 

OREGON MULTNOMAH 238 12 

OREGON POLK 342 19 OREGON SHERMAN 421 14 

OREGON TILLAMOOK 326 3 OREGON UNION 26,633 314 OREGON WALLOWA 19,777 147 OREGON WHEELER 4,006 42 

OREGON YAMHILL 1,781 51 

Subtotals 0 0 0 0 323,894 2,311 

OREGON GILLIAM Yes No new RRA forage production 0 1 0 2,312 14 

OREGON HOOD RIVER 0 1 0 236 14 OREGON JACKSON 0 1 0 4,127 104 

OREGON MALHEUR 3,565 25 2,317,740 58,166 707 
i@ WE ill " P";', 

;, ,i, vQUn ",l,iisl ' i""",,'''- ' .. " 

Seed 

Production Seed - 

Reported, Acres Seed - Seed -In Alf. Hay- Alf. Hay- 

State County 2007 Alfalfa For Forage Production Hvstd, Operations Pounds Acres Operations 

OREGON UMATILLA 0 2 0 34,341 312 OREGON WASCO 0 1 0 4,451 70 

OREGON WASHINGTON 0 1 0 1,285 37 

Subtotals 3,565 32 2,317,740 0 104,918 1,258 

Total 3,565 32 2,317,740 428,812 3,569 

SOUTH DAKOTA AURORA No Yes, With Limits and GPS Reporting 0 0 0 17,065 159 

SOUTH DAKOTA BEADLE 0 0 0 38,312 315 

SOUTH DAKOTA BON HOMME 28,997 352 

SOUTH DAKOTA BRULE 0 0 0 23,814 178 

SOUTH DAKOTA BUFFALO 10,296 38 SOUTH DAKOTA BUTTE 0 0 0 46,953 299 SOUTH DAKOTA CHARLES MIX 42,202 358 SOUTH DAKOTA CLARK 23,158 208 

SOUTH DAKOTA CLAY 17,946 140 

SOUTH DAKOTA CODINGTON 0 0 0 22,632 244 

SOUTH DAKOTA CUSTER 8,523 86 

SOUTH DAKOTA DAVISON 0 0 0 19,504 209 SOUTH DAKOTA DAY 0 0 0 16,978 239 SOUTH DAKOTA DEUEL 15,882 224 

SOUTH DAKOTA DOUGLAS 16,158 198 

SOUTH DAKOTA EDMUNDS 0 0 0 27,401 164 

SOUTH DAKOTA FALL RIVER 0 0 0 8,596 72 

SOUTH DAKOTA FAULK 33,758 149 SOUTH DAKOTA GRANT 18,919 222 

SOUTH DAKOTA HAAKON 0 0 0 44,691 146 SOUTH DAKOTA HAMLIN 0 0 0 10,296 153 

SOUTH DAKOTA HAND 46,311 218 

SOUTH DAKOTA HANSON 9,084 110 SOUTH DAKOTA HARDING 56,869 131 

SOUTH DAKOTA HYDE 24,976 96 SOUTH DAKOTA JERAULD 20,034 110 
i ' ' ' Han ," !:f OOHtP§M!iI£itWO, {\,Q9lJ1MU!!ltl n, ,,' I 

Seed 

Production Seed - 

Reported, Acres Seed - Seed - In Alf. Hay - Alf. Hay - 

State County 2007 Alfalfa For Foraqe Production Hvstd. Operations Pounds Acres Operations 

SOUTH DAKOTA JONES 0 0 0 25,627 82 

SOUTH DAKOTA LAKE 10,956 200 

SOUTH DAKOTA LAWRENCE 17,738 108 

SOUTH DAKOTA LINCOLN 6,988 205 

SOUTH DAKOTA MCCOOK 11,207 207 

SOUTH DAKOTA MCPHERSON 46,056 180 

SOUTH DAKOTA MINER 14,753 162 

SOUTH DAKOTA MINNEHAHA 0 0 0 21,271 413 

SOUTH DAKOTA MOODY 10,304 163 

SOUTH DAKOTA PERKINS 0 0 0 101,477 260 

SOUTH DAKOTA POTTER 12,155 68 

SOUTH DAKOTA ROBERTS 0 0 0 21,618 268 

SOUTH DAKOTA SANBORN 0 0 0 24,493 158 

SOUTH DAKOTA SPINK 0 0 0 28,985 241 

SOUTH DAKOTA STANLEY 10,430 55 

SOUTH DAKOTA TODD 0 0 0 55,694 124 

SOUTH DAKOTA UNION 7,753 143 

SOUTH DAKOTA WALWORTH 20,749 105 

SOUTH DAKOTA YANKTON 29,048 309 

SOUTH DAKOTA ZIEBACH 34,754 101 

Subtotals 0 0 0 0 1,161,411 8,370 

SOUTH DAKOTA BENNETT Yes No new RRA forage production 759 5 100,000 30,980 131 

SOUTH DAKOTA BROOKINGS 0 2 0 19,123 299 

SOUTH DAKOTA BROWN 0 1 0 32,865 315 

SOUTH DAKOTA CAMPBELL 0 2 0 24,821 130 

SOUTH DAKOTA CORSON 0 1 0 89,144 206 

SOUTH DAKOTA DEWEY 2,113 9 50,000 65,514 186 

SOUTH DAKOTA GREGORY 0 1 0 64,016 330 

SOUTH DAKOTA HUGHES 0 1 0 9,816 97 

SOUTH DAKOTA HUTCHINSON 0 1 0 23,966 300 SOUTH DAKOTA JACKSON 0 1 0 51,461 161 

SOUTH DAKOTA KINGSBURY 0 1 0 22,344 218 
"',.. % 

Seed 

Production Seed - 

Reported, Acres Seed - Seed -In Alf, Hay- Alf. Hay- 

State County 2007 Alfalfa For Foraqe Production Hvstd. Operations Pounds Acres Operations SOUTH DAKOTA LYMAN 0 1 0 21,977 111 

SOUTH DAKOTA MARSHALL 324 4 23,782 23,530 187 

SOUTH DAKOTA MEADE 0 5 30,500 150,760 489 SOUTH DAKOTA MELLETTE 0 2 0 43,478 146 

SOUTH DAKOTA PENNINGTON 0 2 0 55,621 290 SOUTH DAKOTA SHANNON 0 1 0 9,094 39 

SOUTH DAKOTA SULLY 0 2 0 6,121 39 SOUTH DAKOTA TRIPP 175 3 0 76,438 343 SOUTH DAKOTA TURNER 0 2 0 14,119 266 

Subtotals 3,371 47 204,282 0 835,188 4,283 

Total 3,371 47 204,282 0 1,996,599 12,653 

UTAH BEAVER 19,908 120 

UTAH CARBON 0 0 0 5,786 142 

UTAH DAGGETT 3,761 20 

UTAH DAVIS 0 0 0 3,715 155 

UTAH EMERY 0 0 0 17,488 351 

UTAH GARFIELD 9,738 156 

UTAH GRAND 2,945 45 

UTAH IRON 45,230 238 

UTAH KANE 1,443 50 

UTAH MORGAN No Yes, With Limits and GPS Reporting 0 0 0 9,406 165 

UTAH PIUTE 0 0 0 8,870 73 UTAH RICH 9,270 78 UTAH SALT LAKE 0 0 0 3,324 153 

UTAH SAN JUAN 5,300 64 

UTAH SEVIER 25,878 394 UTAH SUMMIT 0 0 0 7,361 214 

UTAH TOOELE 5,951 144 UTAH WASATCH 0 0 0 7,189 227 

UTAH WASHINGTON 0 0 0 5,031 153 

UTAH WAYNE 11,732 157 
Seed 

Production Seed - 

Reported, Acres Seed - Seed -In Alf. Hay- Alf. Hay- 

State County 2007 Alfalfa For Forage Production Hvstd. Operations Pounds Acres Operations 

Subtotals 0 0 0 0 209,326 3,099 

UTAH BOX ELDER 0 21 1,091,907 49,161 533 

UTAH CACHE 580 6 311,706 50,741 636 

UTAH DUCHESNE 60 3 30,000 33,357 423 

UTAH JUAB 0 1 0 15,445 158 UTAH MILLARD Yes No new RRA forage production 1,118 16 426,700 72,244 421 

UTAH SANPETE 0 1 0 35,994 475 

UTAH UINTAH 0 2 0 36,019 497 

UTAH UTAH 0 2 0 30,197 996 

UTAH WEBER 0 2 0 16,086 542 

Subtotals 1,758 54 1,860,313 0 339,244 4,681 

Total 1,758 54 1,860,313 548,570 7,780 

WASHINGTON ASOTIN No Yes, With Limits and GPS Reporting 673 10 

WASHINGTON CHELAN 1,561 44 

WASHINGTON CLALLAM 1,633 40 

WASHINGTON CLARK 431 12 

WASHINGTON COLUMBIA 1,284 29 

WASHINGTON COWLITZ 0 1 

WASHINGTON DOUGLAS 0 0 0 1,624 44 

WASHINGTON GARFIELD 394 12 

WASHINGTON GRAYS HARBOR 108 6 

WASHINGTON ISLAND 1,612 20 

WASHINGTON JEFFERSON 77 5 

WASHINGTON KING 0 0 

WASHINGTON KITSAP 0 2 WASHINGTON LEWIS 638 18 

WASHINGTON PACIFIC 0 2 WASHINGTON PEND OREILLE 1,603 36 WASHINGTON PIERCE 105 7 

WASHINGTON SANJUAN 0 2 

WASHINGTON SKAGIT 254 8 
"", 

Seed 

Production Seed - 

Reported, Acres Seed - Seed -In Alf. Hay- Alf. Hay- 

State County 2007 Alfalfa For ForaQe Production Hvstd. " -", Pounds Acres Operations 

WASHINGTON 0 2 

WASHINGTON 0 0 0 632 14 

WASHINGTON THURSTON 307 16 

IA/"c;,uIIljGTON WAHKIAKIIM 0 1 

11\, ,c;,uIIljGTON WHATCOM 791 16 

0 0 0 0 13,727 347 

WASHINGTON ADAMS 0 1 0 20,982 104 WASHINGTON BENTON 0 3 43,225 12,412 162 

WASHINGTON FERRY 0 1 0 3,866 56 WASHINGTON FRANKLIN 311 5 238,526 77,441 272 

WASHINGTON GRANT 4,249 25 2,308,614 117,488 549 WASHINGTON KITTITAS 0 1 0 8,721 165 

WASHINGTON KLICKITAT Yes No new RRA forage production 0 1 0 26,515 160 

WASHINGTON IINr.OI N 0 1 0 14,545 127 

WASHINGTON OKANOr:;AN 129 7 25,731 23,253 399 

WASHINGTON SPOKANE 0 3 19,200 36,386 656 

WASHINGTON STEVENS 0 6 46,112 32,477 436 WASHINGTON WALLA WALLA 10,759 14 7,510,760 14,772 123 

11\/'" '" WHITMAN 0 2 0 8,456 130 

WASHINGTON YAKIMA 713 12 409,045 37,363 608 

Subtotals 16,161 82 10,601,213 0 434,677 3,947 

Totals 16,161 82 10,601,213 0 448,404 4,294 

WYOMING ALBANY No Yes, With Limits and GPS Reporting 6,972 33 WYOMING CAMPBELL 45,631 177 

WYOMING CARBON 14,065 61 

WYOMING CONVERSE 28,914 135 

WYOMING -,r. 58,944 369 

WYOMING HOT 9,766 94 

WYOMING JOHNSON 21,923 103 WYOMING I ARAMII= 22,606 106 

WYOMING 39,848 271 
Appendix B

Seed 

Production 

Reported, 

State County 2007 

WYOMING NATRONA WYOMING NIOBRARA WYOMING PLATTE WYOMING SUBLETTE WYOMING TETON WYOMING UINTA WYOMING WESTON 

WYOMING BIG HORN 

WYOMING CROOK WYOMING FREMONT WYOMING PARK Yes WYOMING SHERIDAN WYOMING SWEETWATER 

WYOMING WASHAKIE 

Alfalfa For Foraoe Production 

Subtotals 

No new RRA forage production 

Subtotals 

Totals 

Seed -

Acres 

Hvstd. 

0 

0 0 0 

4,560 

0 0 

0 

4,560 4,560 

Seed -

Operations 

0 

18 

3 

6 

29 

1 

1 

4 

62 62 

/7; 

Seed -In 

Pounds 

0 

2,816,147 

0 

173,138 

2,534,285 

0 

0 

244,826 

5,768,396 5,768,396 

0 

o o 

Alf. HayAcres 

25,269 

12,974 

30,497 5,485 

4,610 

6,251 

21,847 

355,602 

35,845 

77,829 

85,550 

37,844 

45,376 

20,607 

15,631 

318,682 

674,284 

Alf. HayOperations 

152 

60 

176 

29 

32 53 

67 

1,918 

332 

232 

608 

407 

268 

126 116 

2,089 

4,007 

Per State Average Exclusion/Inclusion: 

Alf. HayTons 

76,777 

30,041 

88,012 

10,312 14,440 13,751 

22,306 

846,208 

126,064 

104,988 

275,524 

133,764 113,207 

42,944 

53,739 

850,230 

1,696,438 

Hay% Hay % 

Operations Operations 

Excluded Included 

48% 

52% 

146% 
ALALALAL

AZAZAZAZ ARARARAR

CACACACA

COCOCOCO

FLFLFLFL

GAGAGAGA

IDIDIDID

ILILILILILILILILIL ININININ

IAIAIAIAIAIAIAIAIA

KSKSKSKS

KYKYKYKY

LALALALA

MI MI MI MI

MNMNMNMN

MS MS MSMS

MOMOMOMO

MT MT MTMT

NENENENE

NVNVNVNV

NM

NCNCNCNC

NDNDNDND

OHOHOHOH

OKOKOKOK

OROROROR

SCSCSCSC

SDSDSDSD

TNTNTNTN

TXTXTXTX

UTUTUTUT

VVV

V

WA WA WAWA

WV WV WVWV

WI WI WI WI

WY WY WYWY

AKAKAKAK

HI HI HI HI

Alaska Alaska Alaska Hawaii Hawaii Hawaii

Seed Production Levels from 2007 Ag Census Data Seed Production Levels from 2007 Ag Census Data Seed Production Levels from 2007 Ag Census Data
APACHE APACHE APACHE

COCHISE COCHISE COCHISE

COCONINO COCONINO COCONINO

GILA GILA GILA

GRAHAM

GREENLEE GREENLEE GREENLEE

LA PAZ LA PAZ LA PAZ

MARICOPA MARICOPA MARICOPA

MOHAVE MOHAVE MOHAVE

NAVAJO NAVAJO NAVAJO

PIMA PIMA PIMA

PINAL PINAL PINAL

SANTA CRUZ SANTA CRUZ SANTA CRUZ

YAVAPAI YAVAPAI YAVAPAI

YUMA YUMA YUMA

Alfalfa Hay

No Seed Production Reported

Seed Production Reported
ALAMEDA ALAMEDA ALAMEDA

ALPINE ALPINE ALPINE

AMADOR AMADOR AMADOR

BUTTE BUTTE BUTTE

CALAVERAS CALAVERAS CALAVERAS

COLUSA COLUSA COLUSA

CONTRA COSTA CONTRA COSTA CONTRA COSTA

EL DORADO EL DORADO EL DORADO

FRESNO FRESNO FRESNO

GLENN GLENN GLENN

HUMBOLDT HUMBOLDT HUMBOLDT

IMPERIAL IMPERIAL IMPERIAL

INYO INYO INYO

KERN KERN KERN

KINGS KINGS KINGS

LAKE LAKE LAKE

LASSEN LASSEN LASSEN

LOS ANGELES LOS ANGELES LOS ANGELES

MADERA MADERA MADERA

MARIN MARIN MARIN

MARIPOSA MARIPOSA MARIPOSA

MENDOCINO MENDOCINO MENDOCINO

MERCED MERCED MERCED

MONO MONO MONO

MONTEREY MONTEREY MONTEREY

NAPA NAPA NAPA

NEVADA NEVADA NEVADA

ORANGE ORANGE ORANGE

PLACER PLACER PLACER

PLUMAS PLUMAS PLUMAS

RIVERSIDE RIVERSIDE RIVERSIDE

SACRAMENTO SACRAMENTO SACRAMENTO

SAN BENITO SAN BENITO SAN BENITO

SAN BERNARDINO SAN BERNARDINO SAN BERNARDINO

SAN DIEGO SAN DIEGO SAN DIEGO

SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO SAN JOAQUIN SAN JOAQUIN SAN JOAQUIN

SAN LUIS OBISPO SAN LUIS OBISPO SAN LUIS OBISPO

SAN MATEO SAN MATEO SAN MATEO

SANTA BARBARA SANTA BARBARA SANTA BARBARA

SANTA CLARA SANTA CLARA SANTA CLARA

SANTA CRUZ SANTA CRUZ SANTA CRUZ

SHASTA SHASTA SHASTA

SIERRA SIERRA SIERRA

SOLANO SOLANO SOLANO

SONOMA SONOMA SONOMA

STANISLAUS STANISLAUS STANISLAUS

SUTTER SUTTER SUTTER

TEHAMA TEHAMA TEHAMA

TRINITY TRINITY TRINITY

TULARE TULARE TULARE

TUOLUMNE TUOLUMNE TUOLUMNE

VENTURA VENTURA VENTURA

YOLO YOLO YOLO

YUBA YUBA YUBA

Alfalfa Hay

No Seed Production Reported

Seed Production Reported

No Seed or Hay Production Reported
ADA ADA ADA

ADAMS ADAMS ADAMS

BANNOCK BANNOCK BANNOCK

BEAR LAKE BEAR LAKE BEAR LAKE

BENEWAH BENEWAH BENEWAH

BINGHAM

BLAINE BLAINE BLAINE

BOISE BOISE BOISE

BONNEVILLE BONNEVILLE BONNEVILLE

BUTTE BUTTE BUTTE

CAMAS CAMAS CAMAS

CANYON CANYON CANYON

CARIBOU CARIBOU CARIBOU

CASSIA CASSIA CASSIA

CLARK CLARK CLARK

CLEARWATER CLEARWATER CLEARWATER

CUSTER CUSTER CUSTER

ELMORE ELMORE ELMORE

FRANKLIN FRANKLIN FRANKLIN

FREMONT FREMONT FREMONT

GEM

GOODING GOODING GOODING

IDAHO IDAHO IDAHO

JEFFERSON JEFFERSON JEFFERSON

JEROME JEROME JEROME

KOOTENAI KOOTENAI KOOTENAI

LATAH LATAH LATAH

LEMHI LEMHI LEMHI

LEWIS LEWIS LEWIS

LINCOLN LINCOLN LINCOLN

MADISON MADISON MADISON

MINIDOKA MINIDOKA MINIDOKA

NEZ PERCE NEZ PERCE NEZ PERCE

ONEIDA ONEIDA ONEIDA

OWYHEE OWYHEE OWYHEE

PAYETTE PAYETTE PAYETTE

POWER POWER POWER

SHOSHONE SHOSHONE SHOSHONE

TETON TETON TETON

TWIN FALLS TWIN FALLS TWIN FALLS

VALLEY VALLEY VALLEY

WASHINGTON WASHINGTON WASHINGTON

Alfalfa Hay

No Seed Production Reported

Seed Production Reported
BEAVERHEAD BEAVERHEAD BEAVERHEAD

BIG HORN BIG HORN BIG HORN

BLAINE BLAINE BLAINE

BROADWATER BROADWATER BROADWATER

CARBON CARBON CARBON

CARTER CARTER CARTER

CASCADE CASCADE CASCADE

CHOUTEAU CHOUTEAU CHOUTEAU

CUSTER CUSTER CUSTER

DANIELS DANIELS DANIELS

DAWSON DAWSON DAWSON

DEER LODGE DEER LODGE DEER LODGE

FALLON FALLON FALLON

FERGUS FERGUS FERGUS

FLATHEAD FLATHEAD FLATHEAD

GALLATIN GALLATIN GALLATIN

GARFIELD GARFIELD GARFIELD

GLACIER GLACIER GLACIER

GOLDEN VALLEY GOLDEN VALLEY GOLDEN VALLEY GRANITE GRANITE GRANITE

HILL HILL HILL

JEFFERSON JEFFERSON JEFFERSON

JUDITH BASIN JUDITH BASIN JUDITH BASIN

LAKE LAKE LAKE

LEWIS AND CLARK LEWIS AND CLARK LEWIS AND CLARK

LIBERTY LIBERTY LIBERTY

LINCOLN LINCOLN LINCOLN

MADISON MADISON MADISON

MCCONE MCCONE MCCONE

MEAGHER MEAGHER MEAGHER

MINERAL MINERAL MINERAL MISSOULA MISSOULA MISSOULA

MUSSELSHELL MUSSELSHELL MUSSELSHELL

PARK PARK PARK

PETROLEUM

PHILLIPS PHILLIPS PHILLIPS PONDERA PONDERA PONDERA

POWDER RIVER POWDER RIVER POWDER RIVER

POWELL POWELL POWELL

PRAIRIE PRAIRIE PRAIRIE

RAVALLI RAVALLI RAVALLI

RICHLAND RICHLAND RICHLAND

ROOSEVELT ROOSEVELT ROOSEVELT

ROSEBUD ROSEBUD ROSEBUD

SANDERS SANDERS SANDERS

SHERIDAN SHERIDAN SHERIDAN

SILVER BOW

STILLWATER STILLWATER STILLWATER SWEET GRASS SWEET GRASS SWEET GRASS

TETON TETON TETON

TOOLE TOOLE TOOLE

TREASURE TREASURE TREASURE

VALLEY VALLEY VALLEY

WHEATLAND WHEATLAND WHEATLAND

WIBAUX WIBAUX WIBAUX

YELLOWSTONE YELLOWSTONE YELLOWSTONE

YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK

Alfalfa Hay

No Seed Production ReportedSeed Production Reported

Montana - Alfalfa Hay Counties Montana - Alfalfa Hay Counties Montana - Alfalfa Hay Counties 

With and Without Seed Production With and Without Seed Production With and Without Seed Production

Appendix B
CARSON CITY CARSON CITY CARSON CITY

CHURCHILL CHURCHILL CHURCHILL

CLARK CLARK CLARK

DOUGLAS DOUGLAS DOUGLAS

ELKO ELKO ELKO

ESMERALDA ESMERALDA ESMERALDA

EUREKA EUREKA EUREKA

HUMBOLDT HUMBOLDT HUMBOLDT

LANDER LANDER LANDER

LINCOLN LINCOLN LINCOLN

LYON LYON LYON

MINERAL MINERAL MINERAL

NYE NYE NYE

PERSHING PERSHING PERSHING

STOREY STOREY STOREY

WASHOE WASHOE WASHOE

WHITE PINE WHITE PINE WHITE PINE

Alfalfa Hay

No Seed Production Reported

Seed Production Reported
BAKER BAKER BAKER

BENTON BENTON BENTON

CLACKAMAS CLACKAMAS CLACKAMAS

CLATSOP CLATSOP CLATSOP

COLUMBIA COLUMBIA COLUMBIA

COOS COOS COOS

CROOK CROOK CROOK

CURRY CURRY CURRY

DESCHUTES DESCHUTES DESCHUTES

DOUGLAS DOUGLAS DOUGLAS

GILLIAM

GRANT GRANT GRANT

HARNEY HARNEY HARNEY

HOOD RIVER HOOD RIVER HOOD RIVER

JACKSON JACKSON JACKSON

JEFFERSON JEFFERSON JEFFERSON

JOSEPHINE JOSEPHINE JOSEPHINE

KLAMATH KLAMATH KLAMATH LAKE LAKE LAKE

LANE LANE LANE

LINCOLN LINCOLN LINCOLN

LINN LINN LINN

MALHEUR MALHEUR MALHEUR

MARION MARION MARION

MORROW

MULTNOMAH MULTNOMAH MULTNOMAH

POLK POLK POLK

SHERMAN SHERMAN SHERMAN TILLAMOOK TILLAMOOK TILLAMOOK

UMATILLA UMATILLA UMATILLA

UNION UNION UNION

WALLOWA WALLOWA WALLOWA

WASCO WASCO WASCO

WASHINGTON WASHINGTON WASHINGTON

WHEELER WHEELER WHEELER

YAMHILL YAMHILL YAMHILL

Alfalfa Hay

No Seed Production ReportedSeed Production ReportedNo Seed or Hay Production Reported

Oregon - Alfalfa Hay Counties Oregon - Alfalfa Hay Counties Oregon - Alfalfa Hay Counties 

With and Without Seed Production With and Without Seed Production With and Without Seed Production

Appendix B
HUGHES HUGHES HUGHES

STANLEY STANLEY STANLEY

ZIEBACH ZIEBACH ZIEBACH

AURORA AURORA AURORA

BEADLE BEADLE BEADLE

BENNETT BENNETT BENNETT

BON HOMME BON HOMME BON HOMME

BROOKINGS BROOKINGS BROOKINGS

BROWN BROWN BROWN

BRULE BRULE BRULE

BUFFALO BUFFALO BUFFALO

BUTTE BUTTE BUTTE

CAMPBELL CAMPBELL CAMPBELL

CHARLES MIX CHARLES MIX CHARLES MIX

CLARK CLARK CLARK

CLAY CLAY CLAY

CODINGTON CODINGTON CODINGTON

CORSON CORSON CORSON

CUSTER CUSTER CUSTER DAVISON DAVISON DAVISON

DAY DAY DAY

DEUEL DEUEL DEUEL

DEWEY DEWEY DEWEY

DOUGLAS DOUGLAS DOUGLAS

EDMUNDS EDMUNDS EDMUNDS

FALL RIVER FALL RIVER FALL RIVER

FAULK FAULK FAULK

GRANT GRANT GRANT

GREGORY GREGORY GREGORY

HAAKON HAAKON HAAKON

HAMLIN HAMLIN HAMLIN

HAND HAND HAND

HANSON HANSON HANSON

HARDING HARDING HARDING

HUTCHINSON HUTCHINSON HUTCHINSON

HYDE HYDE HYDE

JACKSON JACKSON JACKSON

JERAULD JERAULD JERAULD

JONES JONES JONES

KINGSBURY KINGSBURY KINGSBURY

LAKE LAKE LAKE

LAWRENCE LAWRENCE LAWRENCE

LINCOLN LINCOLN LINCOLN

LYMAN LYMAN LYMAN

MARSHALL MARSHALL MARSHALL

MCCOOK MCCOOK MCCOOK

MCPHERSON MCPHERSON MCPHERSON

MEADE MEADE MEADE

MELLETTE MELLETTE MELLETTE

MINER MINER MINER

MINNEHAHA MINNEHAHA MINNEHAHA

MOODY MOODY MOODY

PENNINGTON PENNINGTON PENNINGTON

PERKINS PERKINS PERKINS

POTTER POTTER POTTER

ROBERTS ROBERTS ROBERTS

SANBORN SANBORN SANBORN

SHANNON SHANNON SHANNON

SPINK SPINK SPINK

SULLY SULLY SULLY

TODD TODD TODD

TRIPP TRIPP TRIPP

TURNER TURNER TURNER

UNION UNION UNION

WALWORTH WALWORTH WALWORTH

YANKTON YANKTON YANKTON

Alfalfa Hay

No Seed Production ReportedSeed Production Reported

South Dakota - Alfalfa Hay Counties South Dakota - Alfalfa Hay Counties South Dakota - Alfalfa Hay Counties 

With and Without Seed Production With and Without Seed Production With and Without Seed Production

Appendix B
SAN JUAN SAN JUAN SAN JUAN

DAGGETT DAGGETT DAGGETT

UTAH

SANPETE SANPETE SANPETE

UTAH UTAH

WASATCH WASATCH WASATCH

BEAVER BEAVER BEAVER

BOX ELDER BOX ELDER BOX ELDER

CACHE CACHE CACHE

CARBON CARBON CARBON

DAVIS DAVIS DAVIS

DUCHESNE DUCHESNE DUCHESNE

EMERY EMERY EMERY

GARFIELD GARFIELD GARFIELD

GRAND GRAND GRAND

IRON IRON IRON

JUAB JUAB JUAB

KANE KANE KANE

MILLARD MILLARD MILLARD

MORGAN MORGAN MORGAN

PIUTE PIUTE PIUTE

RICH RICH RICH

SALT LAKE SALT LAKE SALT LAKE

SEVIER SEVIER SEVIER

SUMMIT SUMMIT SUMMIT

TOOELE TOOELE TOOELE

UINTAH UINTAH UINTAH

WASHINGTON WASHINGTON WASHINGTON

WAYNE WAYNE WAYNE

WEBER WEBER WEBER

Alfalfa Hay

No Seed Production Reported

Seed Production Reported
ADAMS ADAMS ADAMS

ASOTIN ASOTIN ASOTIN

BENTON BENTON BENTON

CHELAN CHELAN CHELAN

CLALLAM

CLARK CLARK CLARK

COLUMBIA COLUMBIA COLUMBIA

COWLITZ COWLITZ COWLITZ

DOUGLAS DOUGLAS DOUGLAS

FERRY FERRY FERRY

FRANKLIN FRANKLIN FRANKLIN

GARFIELD GARFIELD GARFIELD

GRANT GRANT GRANT

GRAYS HARBOR GRAYS HARBOR GRAYS HARBOR

JEFFERSON JEFFERSON JEFFERSON

KING KING KING

KITSAP KITSAP KITSAP

KITTITAS KITTITAS KITTITAS

KLICKITAT KLICKITAT KLICKITAT

LEWIS LEWIS LEWIS

LINCOLN LINCOLN LINCOLN

MASON MASON MASON

OKANOGAN OKANOGAN OKANOGAN

PACIFIC PACIFIC PACIFIC

PEND OREILLE PEND OREILLE PEND OREILLE

PIERCE PIERCE PIERCE

SAN JUAN SAN JUAN SAN JUAN

SKAGIT SKAGIT SKAGIT

SKAMANIA SKAMANIA SKAMANIA

SNOHOMISH SNOHOMISH SNOHOMISH

SPOKANE SPOKANE SPOKANE

STEVENS STEVENS STEVENS

THURSTON THURSTON THURSTON

WAHKIAKUM WALLA WALLA WALLA WALLA WALLA WALLA

WHATCOM

WHITMAN WHITMAN WHITMAN

YAKIMA YAKIMA YAKIMA

Alfalfa Hay

No Seed Production ReportedSeed Production ReportedNo Seed or Hay Production Reported

Washington - Alfalfa Hay Counties Washington - Alfalfa Hay Counties Washington - Alfalfa Hay Counties 

With and Without Seed Production With and Without Seed Production With and Without Seed Production

Appendix B
WASHAKIE WASHAKIE WASHAKIE

ALBANY ALBANY ALBANY

BIG HORN BIG HORN BIG HORN

CAMPBELL CAMPBELL CAMPBELL

CARBON CARBON CARBON

CONVERSE CONVERSE CONVERSE

CROOK CROOK CROOK

FREMONT FREMONT FREMONT

GOSHEN GOSHEN GOSHEN

HOT SPRINGS HOT SPRINGS HOT SPRINGS

JOHNSON JOHNSON JOHNSON

LARAMIE LARAMIE LARAMIE

LINCOLN LINCOLN LINCOLN

NATRONA NATRONA NATRONA

NIOBRARA NIOBRARA NIOBRARA

PARK PARK PARK

PLATTE PLATTE PLATTE

SHERIDAN SHERIDAN SHERIDAN

SUBLETTE SUBLETTE SUBLETTE

SWEETWATER SWEETWATER SWEETWATER

TETON TETON TETON

UINTA UINTA UINTA

WESTON WESTON WESTON

Alfalfa Hay

No Seed Production ReportedSeed Production Reported

Wyoming - Alfalfa Hay Counties Wyoming - Alfalfa Hay Counties Wyoming - Alfalfa Hay Counties 

With and Without Seed Production With and Without Seed Production With and Without Seed Production

Appendix B
CLEVELAND CLEVELAND CLEVELAND

POTTAWATOMIE POTTAWATOMIE POTTAWATOMIE

ADAIR ADAIR ADAIR

ALFALFA ALFALFA ALFALFA

ATOKA ATOKA ATOKA

BEAVER BEAVER BEAVER

BECKHAM

BLAINE BLAINE BLAINE

BRYAN BRYAN BRYAN

CADDO CADDO CADDO

CANADIAN CANADIAN CANADIAN

CARTER CARTER CARTER

CHEROKEE CHEROKEE CHEROKEE

CHOCTAW

CIMARRON CIMARRON CIMARRON

COAL COAL COAL COMANCHE COMANCHE COMANCHE

COTTON COTTON COTTON

CRAIG CRAIG CRAIG

CREEK CREEK CREEK

CUSTER CUSTER CUSTER

DELAWARE DELAWARE DELAWARE

DEWEY DEWEY DEWEY

ELLIS ELLIS ELLIS

GARFIELD GARFIELD GARFIELD

GARVIN GARVIN GARVIN

GRADY GRADY GRADY

GRANT GRANT GRANT

GREER GREER GREER

HARMON HARMON HARMON

HARPER HARPER HARPER

HASKELL HASKELL HASKELL

HUGHES HUGHES HUGHES

JACKSON JACKSON JACKSON

JEFFERSON JEFFERSON JEFFERSON

JOHNSTON JOHNSTON JOHNSTON

KAY KAY KAY

KINGFISHER KINGFISHER KINGFISHER

KIOWA KIOWA KIOWA LATIMER LATIMER LATIMER

LE FLORE LE FLORE LE FLORE

LINCOLN LINCOLN LINCOLN

LOGAN LOGAN LOGAN

LOVE LOVE LOVE

MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR

MARSHALL MARSHALL MARSHALL

MAYES MAYES MAYES

MCCLAIN MCCLAIN MCCLAIN

MCCURTAIN MCCURTAIN MCCURTAIN

MCINTOSH MCINTOSH MCINTOSH

MURRAY MURRAY MURRAY

MUSKOGEE MUSKOGEE MUSKOGEE

NOBLE NOBLE NOBLE

NOWATA NOWATA NOWATA

OKFUSKEE OKFUSKEE OKFUSKEE

OKLAHOMA OKLAHOMA OKLAHOMA

OKMULGEE OKMULGEE OKMULGEE

OSAGE OSAGE OSAGE

OTTAWA OTTAWA OTTAWA

PAWNEE PAWNEE PAWNEE

PAYNE PAYNE PAYNE

PITTSBURG PITTSBURG PITTSBURG

PONTOTOC PONTOTOC PONTOTOC

PUSHMATAHA PUSHMATAHA PUSHMATAHA

ROGER MILLS ROGER MILLS ROGER MILLS

ROGERS ROGERS ROGERS

SEMINOLE SEMINOLE SEMINOLE

SEQUOYAH SEQUOYAH SEQUOYAH

STEPHENS STEPHENS STEPHENS

TEXAS TEXAS TEXAS

TILLMAN TILLMAN TILLMAN

TULSA TULSA TULSA

WAGONER WAGONER WAGONER

WASHINGTON WASHINGTON WASHINGTON WOODS WOODS WOODS

WASHITA WASHITA WASHITA

WOODWARD WOODWARD WOODWARD

Alfalfa Hay

No Seed Production ReportedSeed Production Reported

Oklahoma - Alfalfa Hay Counties Oklahoma - Alfalfa Hay Counties Oklahoma - Alfalfa Hay Counties 

With and Without Seed Production With and Without Seed Production With and Without Seed Production

Appendix B
Appendix

C

National Alfalfa & Forage Alliance Best Management 

Practices for Roundup Ready® Alfalfa Seed 

Production
Best Management Practices

for Roundup Ready® Alfalfa Seed Production

Introduction 

The genetic supplier members (hereinafter called the “Companies”) of National Alfalfa & Forage Alliance (NAFA) 

have agreed to jointly adopt, as a minimum, the following Best Management Practices for Roundup Ready Alfalfa 

(RRA) Seed Production in the United States. Compliance is required under a separate and binding agreement of 

the Companies to each other in this commitment. Forage Genetics International (FGI) is the exclusive licensed 

seed producer of RRA and will require all RRA seed production sub-licensees (herein after called the “RRA Seed 

Contractor(s)”) to become a party to this binding agreement. It is not the intent of this document to establish best 

management practices for the production of alfalfa seed for GE sensitive markets. Changes to this document will 

require a recommendation from the Companies and approval by the NAFA Board of Directors.

Roundup Ready Trait Stewardship in Seed Production

This document establishes RRA commercial seed production policies that exceed industry standards for Certified 

alfalfa seed production. 

Specifically, RRA seed production practices will meet or exceed Association of Official Seed Certifying Agencies 

(AOSCA) standards for the seed production of Foundation Class alfalfa seed production.

All RRA seed growers must complete RRA seed stewardship training and agree to follow the RRA seed production 

policies as described herein and as required by RRA seed production contracts.

RRA Seed Contractors’ Responsibilities

Isolation. The RRA Seed Contractor will insure that the isolation distance between the new planting and any 

established conventional seed production meets the following pollinator-specific isolation requirements for RRA seed 

production. Note the pollinator designated applies to normal pollinating bees introduced or locally cultured for alfalfa 

seed production in the area. If more than one pollinator species is introduced or locally cultured, the longer minimum 

distance applies. 

Leaf cutter bee – 900 feet

Alkali bee – 1 mile

Honey bee – 3 miles

Every year the Companies will collectively sample conventional seed lots, test for adventitious presence of 

the Roundup Ready trait, and use isolation distance from RRA seed production to monitor the effectiveness of 

current isolation standards. The Companies, along with three AOSCA representatives of state crop improvement 

associations or their designees, will analyze the data and make recommendations for changes to required isolation 

distances, if appropriate.

Reporting. The RRA Seed Contractor shall report GPS coordinates of all established and planned RRA seed 

production fields to local state seed certification officials as early as possible, but no later than two weeks prior to 

planting. State officials will confirm minimum isolation and establish a state pinning map for RRA seed production. 

The RRA Seed Contractor must authorize state officials to report to any seed grower or seed company, on request, 

the isolation distance between a planned new conventional alfalfa seed field and the nearest RRA seed field. GM-trait 

sensitive conventional or organic alfalfa seed producers can then use this third party service to assist them in planning 

their field locations to meet their company’s isolation or field crop history goals or the certification agent may use the 

data to certify a stated isolation distance. The RRA Seed Contractor shall also notify local state seed certification 

officials, and officials shall confirm when a RRA seed production field is terminated.

GE-free seed production zones. The RRA Seed Contractor will limit RRA seed production contracts to the following 

states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Washington and Wyoming. 

The RRA Seed Contractor will also respect any GE-free alfalfa seed production zone designated as such by a 

consensus of local seed growers. Recognition and designation of such zones will be based on the requirements of 

each state. It is envisioned that the local state seed certification agency would play an active role in administering 

programs of this nature.

•

•

•

•

•

•

NAFA Coexistence Document Adopted January 2008
2 National Alfalfa & Forage Alliance - “Best Management Practices for Roundup Ready® Alfalfa Seed Production”

Cooperation. All seed companies are encouraged to 

communicate and work together individually to manage 

joint seed quality issues and concerns.

RRA seed grower training. The RRA Seed Contractor 

will require RRA stewardship training for all new RRA 

seed growers. The RRA seed grower will confirm 

having received a copy of the NAFA Best Management 

Practices for Roundup Ready Alfalfa Seed Production 

(see Appendix 2).

RRA seed grower contracts. The RRA Seed Contractor 

shall stipulate which bee species can be introduced for 

pollination and incorporate key grower stewardship 

requirements (as listed below) in RRA seed production 

contracts.

License. The RRA Seed Contractor will have an FGI 

license for RRA seed production, including reporting 

requirements for acreage planted and seed harvested, 

by variety.

RRA Seed Growers’ 

Responsibilities

Monsanto Technology/Stewardship Agreement (MTA). 

RRA Seed Grower must sign an MTA and are bound by 

the terms outlined in the current Monsanto Technology 

Use Guide (TUG). The MTA is a limited-use license for 

Monsanto traits, and renews automatically each year. 

The TUG is updated annually.

Observe patent rights. All RRA stock seed and 

harvested seed contains patent-protected, Roundup 

Ready trait, therefore:

All seed transfer/sale is exclusive between RRA Seed 

Grower and the RRA Seed Contractor; no seed may 

be sold by RRA Seed Grower to other parties.

RRA Seed Grower may not save seed for any purpose

as per MTA.

Observe all federal, state and local regulations. It is 

the RRA Seed Grower’s responsibility to know and obey 

current federal, state and local regulations affecting their 

agricultural practices. Some examples are as follows:

Federal Laws and Regulations:

Pesticide use labels and restrictions;

U.S. Patent Rights;

Plant Variety Protection; Federal Seed Act.

Phytosanitary laws governing import or export of 

seeds and pollinators.

State Laws and Regulations:

Noxious or prohibited weeds, pathogens or insects;

Pesticide use labels and restrictions

Local Laws and Regulations:

Pesticide use notifications (field posting);

County restrictions or prohibitions on the use of 

biotechnology, as applicable.

Bees. RRA Seed Grower will manage pollinators to minimize 

pollen flow to conventional/other variety fields.

Only contract-specified bee species can be introduced 

for pollination supporting RRA seed production.

There shall be no bee domicile movement from RRA 

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

to conventional alfalfa seed fields until pollination is 

finished for the year.

Once bees are in RRA seed fields, they may only 

be moved among RRA fields. It is the RRA Seed 

Grower’s responsibility to inform their pollinator 

contractors or bee keepers of this requirement.

RRA Seed Grower will locate domiciles to maximize 

domicile distance to other varieties, to the extent 

reasonable and appropriate to each field.

The main pollinator bee species will be stated on each 

RRA Seed Grower Contract. Isolation requirements 

are specific to the main pollinator species. 

If honeybees are not the contract-stipulated pollinator 

species, the RRA Seed Grower will discourage 

neighbors from keeping honeybee hives in proximity 

to RRA seed production. In cases where this cannot 

be avoided, RRA Seed Grower is required to report 

the incident to the RRA Seed Contractor.

Isolation. RRA Seed Grower will assist RRA Seed 

Contractor with field location planning prior to planting, 

isolation zone monitoring after planting and facilitate 

crop improvement inspections as requested. 

The pollinator species-specific isolation policy is as 

follows (minimum distance to preexisting conventional 

seed at planting of RRA): 

Leaf cutter bee – 900 feet

Alkali bee – 1 mile

Honey bee – 3 miles

Once the RRA seed field is planted, State Certification 

officials will visit to confirm minimum isolation distances 

are in place. RRA Seed Grower must cooperate with 

this verification process.

If the RRA Seed Grower learns that new alfalfa seed 

field(s) are planned or planted in close proximity the 

RRA seed field, RRA Seed Grower will communicate 

this information to RRA Seed Contractor. Management 

strategies for maintaining RRA seed quality (varietal/

trait purity) can then be implemented by the RRA 

Seed Contractor.

Trait purity. RRA stock seed is guaranteed by the 

provider to have ≥90% RR plants; up to 10% non-RR 

plants, or “nulls”, are normal and expected based on the 

breeding and genetics of the trait.

Growers must apply sufficient Roundup® herbicide to 

kill the <10% nulls prior to 9 inches of growth in the 

establishment year.

Apply only registered (labeled) Roundup brand 

herbicides to the field.

Weeds and in-crop volunteers. Manage weeds and 

volunteers using integrated weed control strategies (e.g., 

conventional practices supplemented with Roundup 

agricultural herbicide formulations applied according to 

the label for alfalfa seed production). Integrated weed 

control strategies:

Minimize risk of weed shifts or development of tolerant 

weeds. Growers are required to use integrated weed 

control methods. 

Maintain variety true to type: RRA seed fields need 

non-Roundup practices to control in-crop Roundup 

Ready alfalfa volunteers sprouting from prior year 

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•
National Alfalfa & Forage Alliance - “Best Management Practices for Roundup Ready® Alfalfa Seed Production” 3

seed crop in carry-over fields. This is consistent with 

conventional alfalfa seed production practices for 

certified quality seeds.

Stand take-out.

The RRA seed field must be destroyed at the 

expiration/termination of the seed contract. Takeout must be completed prior to first flower in the 

subsequent year so that seed certification inspectors 

can verify stand termination. 

Stand termination and volunteer management 

measures must be sufficient to allow seed certification 

inspectors to validate stand take-out and to render the 

alfalfa stand worthless for any unlicensed purpose 

or use (e.g., unlicensed seed, forage, hay or pasture 

production purpose). 

RRA stand take-out date and method must be reported 

to the RRA Seed Contractor and stand destruction 

verified by local crop improvement using the RRA 

stand take out form, or the equivalent, to report the 

information (see Appendix).

Plan to use a subsequent crop that allows 

management of alfalfa and RRA alfalfa volunteers 

should they occur.

Sanitation requirements. Manage equipment to 

minimize seed mixture potential between different 

varieties and or variety types. Growers shall use 

dedicated equipment for planting and harvesting RRA 

seed production, when possible. Zero tolerance for seed 

admixture is not feasible under commercial production 

conditions; however, grower must take reasonable steps 

to assure that equipment is clean prior to and after use in 

the Roundup Ready seed field. Examples:

Planter inspection, clean-down before and after use;

Combine inspection, clean-down thoroughly before 

and after use;

RRA seed bins may only be used for RRA seed; 

maintain physical separation of varieties in storage; 

inspect bins before use;

Handle all like-trait varieties together; plan for harvest 

sequence of fields to maintain best separation of 

varieties by trait type;

Clean all seed handling equipment to avoid mixing 

RRA and conventional seed;

Return unused, unopened stock seed to the 

contracting seed company for credit; maintain in 

clean storage areas;

When a contract harvester is used for RRA seed 

harvest, Growers must notify the contract harvester, in 

advance, that the field to be harvested is RRA.

Communication. Immediately communicate questions 

or concerns to the RRA Seed Contractor or to FGI.

Field records. RRA Seed Grower must record and 

communicate the following to RRA Seed Contractor:

Planting date; actual acres planted; seed rate/acre; 

stock seed received/returned;

Accurate field address with latitude/longitude (decimal 

degrees) and local field map;

Roundup herbicide application date(s), rate(s), 

formulation used;

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Seed box/bin numbers used for harvest;

Stand destruct date and methods used using the RRA 

stand take out form, or the equivalent, to report the 

information (see Appendix).

RRA Seed Contractors’ Production 

Staff Responsibilities

Working in close partnership with seed growers;

Complying with binding agreements with local crop 

improvement organizations: 

RRA Seed Contractor will report each field 

location, planting date and stand take-out date to 

local crop improvement organizations;

Coating RRA stock seed purple for easy identification 

by seed growers;

Recommending changes to this document, should 

the need arise.

Roundup Ready® and Roundup® are registered 

trademarks of Monsanto.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

“Best Management Practices 

for Roundup Ready® Alfalfa Seed Production”

Coexistence Strategy Forum Steering Committee

Tom Braun, Midwest Forage Association

Reedsville, WI

Jim Cane, USDA-ARS, Logan Bee Lab

Logan, UT

Chuck Deatherage, CA Alfalfa Seed Prod. Rsrch. Brd. 

San Joaquin, CA

Paul Frey, Cal/West Seeds

Woodland, CA

Chep Gauntt, Washington Hay Growers Association 

Kennewick, WA

Frederick Kirschenmann, Leopold Ctr. for Sustainable 

Agric., Ames, IA

Mark McCaslin, Forage Genetics International

St. Paul, MN

Dave Miller, Pioneer Hi-Bred International

Arlington, WI

Dan Putnam, University of California

Davis, CA

Dan Undersander, University of Wisconsin

Madison, WI

Allen Van Deynze, University of California, Seed 

Biotechnology Ctr, Davis,CA

Mark Wagoner, Washington Alfalfa Seed Commission 

Touchet, WA

Editor

Beth Nelson, President, NAFA, St. Paul, MN

Published by NAFA

National Alfalfa & Forage Alliance

4630 Churchill St. #1 • St. Paul, MN 55126

www.alfalfa-forage.org
4 National Alfalfa & Forage Alliance - “Best Management Practices for Roundup Ready® Alfalfa Seed Production”

Appendix 1
National Alfalfa & Forage Alliance - “Best Management Practices for Roundup Ready® Alfalfa Seed Production” 5

Appendix 2























































































Appendix

F

Selected Comments to Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement form Farmers Using Roundup Ready 

Alfalfa
APHIS-2007-0044-0320 

Name: Daniel M. Luckwaldt 

Address: Woodville, WI 

Submitter's Representative: Daniel Luckwaldt 

Organization: Luckwaldt Agriculture Inc. 

I am a dairy farmer who planted 100 acres of round-up ready alfalfa when it was available. I 

seemed to work very good. Additionally it allowed me to plant my alfalfa in a no-till manner 

(which leaves a smaller carbon footprint) and not worry about weeds. Seemed like it was the 

best alfalfa I ever grew and was very easy/simple to manage. 

APHIS-2007-0044-0516.1

Name: Gene Robben 

Address: Dixon, CA 

Organization: Robben Ranch 

Robben Ranch is a large farming operation located near the town of Dixon, California. This 

farming operation normally raises approximately 4,000 acres of alfalfa each year. The hay that 

is produced on this ranch supplies several dairy and cattle operations in the southern part of the 

Sacramento valley and the northern part of the San Joaquin valley. Each fall this ranch tries to 

replace older stands of alfalfa and replaces fields of alfalfa that are of poor quality. These fall 

plantings can range from 800 to 1,000 acres. Fall planting of alfalfa has been the most 

successful for Robben Ranch. 

Three years ago, Robben Ranch planted 600 acres of Roundup Ready Alfalfa to see how this 

new variety would produce and what type of quality it would have. This fall was the third year of 

production for the new Roundup Ready variety. It was found from production records that the 

Roundup Read Alfalfa equaled other varieties in production per acre, and had outstanding tests 

in T.D.N. (total digestible nutrients). The other factor that was a concern was how resistant was 

this alfalfa to Roundup Herbicide. After a few Roundup sprays, there was no apparent loss of 

plants or stands over the three year period. 

Many farmers know that with our standard varieties of alfalfa, w can spend form $50 - $100 per 

acre annually for weed control. With Roundup Ready Alfalfa, expenses range from $10 - $30 

per acre per year, which is a considerable savings over standard weed control. It was also 

noticeable that in the Roundup Ready Alfalfa fields almost 100% weed control was obtained. 

Robben Ranch hopes the government will release Roundup Ready Alfalfa seed for the 2010 

planting season. If so, this ranch will probable plant 1,000 acres of Roundup Ready Alfalfa this 

coming fall season. I feel that the government regulators fully analyze the benefit that Roundup 

Ready Alfalfa has for the American farmer and the environment they will release the seed for 

sale. 

From an environmental standpoint, one can only hope that the regulators will find that with the 

release of Roundup Ready Alfalfa seed, several million pounds of current herbicides will be 

greatly decrease or eliminated. Velpar, Sincor, Direx, Gramoxone, and Treflan TR-10 granules 
-2- 

are just a few examples of these current herbicides being used. With the reduction of these 

herbicides, our streams and waterways will be much safer for our environment and us. 

Document: APHIS-2007-0044-0813 

Name: Kurt Robert Brink 

Address: Richview, IL 

Biotechnology-based breeding methods safely enhance and extend a crop’s yield potential, feed 

value, adaptation, pest tolerance, environmental benefits, crop management and utilization 

options, as other biotech crops have demonstrated. The Roundup Ready alfalfa system 

provides dependable, cost-effective control of broadleaf and grassy weeds for the life of the 

alfalfa stand. 

I have had a plot of RR Alfalfa now for at least 3 years and it has proven to be a major plus for 

our Dairy business in that we usually are able to maintain at least a RFV of 155 or better in each 

of 5 cuttings/year. With the ability to control weed growth, it is one of, if not the best stand I have 

among the 4 fields I do have in alfalfa. 

It is imperative in these tough economic times that we are not deprived of whatever advantage 

we can glean from the seed technology this variety provides.Roundup Ready alfalfa can lead to 

more consistent, high-quality, weed-free hay, resulting in an increased supply of dairy-quality 

hay. The forage produced from Roundup Ready alfalfa is comparable in composition, nutritional 

value and safety to that produced from conventional alfalfa varieties, resulting in proven feed 

safety. Dairy farmers can benefit from increased milk production per ton of feed and fewer 

animals sickened by weeds in their feed. 

I urge the USDA to consider biotechnology’s long history of success and allow alfalfa growers to 

join other American farmers in the benefits and new opportunities offered by biotechnology. 

Kurt Brink 

B&B Dairy Farms 

Illinois 

 

Document: APHIS-2007-0044-1094 

Comment from John Maddox 

Name: John Maddox 

Address: Burrell, CA 

I am a dairyman and alfalfa grower. I currently grow 2,400acs of conventional alfalfa and I would 

like to have the ability to purchase and grow Roundup Ready alfalfa. I did grow 40acs of 

Roundup Ready alfalfa when it was first avialable and was extremely satisfied with it. 

The Roundup Ready system is extremely effective in controlling some of our toughest weeds 

that we have in our hay fields especially nutgrass which is a big problem for us to control with 

the currently avialable products that we have. 

It eliminates summer grasses in the alfalfa which gives me greater flexibility in my winter spray 

applications. 

I firmly believe that if I am able to grow Roundup Ready alfalfa, I am going to be able to better 

protect my workers because they will not have to be exposed to the more toxic herbicides that I 

currently have to use to control my weeds. This is a huge issue for us in California especially 
-3- 

with the many worker safety regulations that we put in place to provide a safe work environment 

for our employees. 

For our dairy, it is of high importance to us to provide the highest quality feed that we can find 

for our milk cows so that we can maximize their production of high quality milk and butterfat. By 

growing Roundup Ready alfalfa, I found that my alfalfa was higher in quality and tonnage per 

acre due to the fact that it was much cleaner than my conventional fields. My 40acres of 

Roundup Ready alfalfa was the first field that ever produced 10 tons/acre for the year. We have 

never been able to do that with our conventional varities. This higher production per acre allows 

me to use less alfalfa acres to provide me the same amount of hay that I currently get from my 

conventional fields. This frees up some ground for me to rotate into other crops. 

Third, because herbicide resistance is a heritable trait, it takes multiple growing seasons for 

herbicide tolerant weeds to emerge and become the predominant biotype in a specific area 

(Cole, 2010a, p. 4). Researchers have concluded that even if growers completely relied on only 

one herbicide, it is likely to take at least five years for an herbicide-resistant weed population to 

develop (Kniss, 2010a, p4; Beckie 2006, Neve, 2008; Werth et al., 2008). This is a reason why 

crop monitoring and follow up by University and industry weed scientists in cases of suspected 

resistance are important parts of all herbicide resistance stewardship programs.

The practice of repeated, in-season mowing combined with alfalfa's perennial 

nature reduce the likelihood of glyphosate-resistant weed development in >99 percent 

of the crop's acreage. The ability for alfalfa to fix nitrogen encourages the decision to 

follow alfalfa in the rotation with a crop that requires additional nitrogen, such as the 

annual grasses of corn and various cereal crops. These subsequently rotated crops can 

tolerate a spectrum of herbicides substantially different from the herbicides used in 

alfalfa. This encourages rotation of crops and herbicides, both of which are highly 

recommended for reducing the probability of developing herbicide resistant weeds 

(Orloff et al., 2009; USDA APHIS, 2009, P. 109). 
Appendix

G

Chart of Anticipated Adoption of RRA Under Partial 

Deregulation, Prepared by Monsanto/FGI (August 4, 

2010)
Partial Deregulation Projected Adoption of Roundup Ready Alfa

0

5,000

10,00015,00020,00025,000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

Year Following Partial Deregulation

Acreage (1,000's)

US Alfalfa Acreage (2007)Cumulative RRANorth CentralIntermountainPlainsEast CentralPacfic N.W.South WestSouth East

ROUNDUP READY ALFALFA SATISFACT

(Study #091 113 1108)

Prepared By:

MARKET PROBE, INC.

St. Louis, Missouri

December 2008

This document contains information that is Company confidential. In addition, this report ma

“inside,” information within the meaning of the federal securities laws. Trading in securities of 

of inside information, or disclosure of such information to others who then trade, is a violation o

criminal and civil liability and is also a violation of the Monsanto Global Standards of Busine

information with anyone outside of Monsanto Company, or with any employee who does not n

perform his or her job. If you share the information with an employee who needs to have the in

or her job, you must make that employee aware of these confidentiality requirements. 
[ Page 2] 

18

11

34

17

14

25

18

20

13

37

47

13

10

8

15

27

20

46

24

23

28

17

20

9

28

7

1

23

100 75 50 25 0 25 50 75 

Overall (n=201)

East (n=122)

West (n=79)

Percent of Respondents

7.00 or more 6.00 to 6.99 5.00 to 5.99Less than 5.00 Don't know

Q.8b In terms of tons per acre, what was the annual yield on [Established Roundup Ready alfalfa acres][Es

Ready alfalfa acres]?

Yields On Established Roundup Ready Acres Com

Established Or Past Non-Roundup Ready A

[Base=All respondents]

Tons per acre:

Non-Roundup Ready Alfalfa Roundup Ready Alfalfa
Appendix

I

Putnam, D. and D. Undersander. 2009. 

Understanding Roundup Ready Alfalfa (Full 

Version). Originally Posted on the Hay and Forage 

Grower Magazine Web Site at: 

http://hayandforage.com/understanding_roundup_re

ady_alfalfa_revised.pdf (January 1, 2009)
Appendix I 

Putnam and Undersander (2009) 

Pages 1-3 of Appendix I: 

Magazine Version 

Holin, F. 2009. Roundup Ready Reality? (Partial version of Putnam and Undersander. 

2009. Available at: 

http://license.icopyright.net/user/viewFreeUse.act?fuid=OTQxOTg4Mg%3D%3D 

(August 3, 2010) 

Pages 4-6 of Appendix I: 

Full Version 

Putnam, D. and D. Undersander. 2009. Understanding Roundup Ready Alfalfa (full 

version). Originally posted on the Hay and Forage Grower Magazine web site at: 

http://hayandforage.com/understanding_roundup_ready_alfalfa_revised.pdf (January 1, 

2009). 
January 1, 2009 

Roundup Ready Reality? 

by Fae Holin 

Is emotion trumping science in debates over the release of Roundup Ready alfalfa? Two forage specialists 

think so. They've put together a paper debunking what they call misinformation presented at annual 

conferences around the country. 

"We want to dispel some of those myths," says Dan Undersander, University of Wisconsin extension forage 

specialist. Undersander and his colleague at University of California-Davis, Dan Putnam, offer "a scientific 

perspective" for alfalfa growers and industry representatives as they evaluate Roundup Ready (RR) alfalfa. 

RR alfalfa, legalized in 2005, lost that designation with a court injunction just about two years later. A USDA 

environmental impact statement, required by the court, is nearing completion with a public comment period 

expected in the next month. A decision on whether the transgenic crop should again be made available to 

growers is expected to follow several months later. 

In the meantime, the forage specialists want to make sure the alfalfa industry is well-informed. They've 

offered Hay & Forage Grower a preview of their paper, which will be published in its entirety at 

hayandforage.com [http://hayandforage.com/understanding_roundup_ready_alfalfa_revised.pdf]. 

Here's a synopsis of their concerns: 

1. Once you release this gene, you can't call it back.

Undersander and Putnam respond that the gene is already out - more than 300,000 acres of RR alfalfa have 

been planted for hay and a limited amount planted for seed. The real question, they write, is whether 

growers can continue to plant conventional seed. Their answer: Only non-RR alfalfa is being planted now 

and, if concerned about contamination, growers can test it for the RR gene. 

2. Won't contamination from neighboring fields result in all seed being Roundup Ready eventually?

"No," they emphasize, citing that seed production methods and isolation distances will keep the presence of 

the gene "at a very low level for seed" and that "non-genetically enhanced (non-GE) seed will always be 

available." 

3. Won't my neighbor's RR hayfields contaminate my non-GE alfalfa hay production through pollen 

and gene flow?

Hay & Forage Grower: Roundup Ready Reality? Page 1 of 3

http://license.icopyright.net/user/viewFreeUse.act?fuid=OTQxOTg4Mg%3D%3D 8/3/2010
"No," they write. "There is an extremely low probability of gene flow among hayfields. For this to happen, 

fields must flower at the same time, pollinators must be present to move pollen (it does not blow in wind), 

plants must remain in fields four to six weeks after flowering for viable seed production, seed must shatter to 

fall to the ground and establish on the soil surface, seedlings must overcome autotoxicity to germinate and 

seedlings must overcome competition from existing plants." 

Pollen can only be carried by pollinators such as bees, and honey bees don't like to pollinate alfalfa, they 

add. The specialists discuss the difficulties of the seed germinating, concluding that if growers take care to 

plant non-RR seed, it's unlikely their hayfields will become contaminated with the gene. 

4. Will the seed companies be able to keep seed from being contaminated?

"Yes. The greatest real potential for pollen flow and contamination is during seed production," Undersander 

and Putnam write. They cite ways the seed industry has agreed to keep track of transgenic seed and 

reasons why it's in the companies' best interests to do so. 

5. Won't feral alfalfa be a source of contamination?

"Feral (wild growing) alfalfa can act as a bridge for moving genes from one seed field to another, and thus 

should be controlled to prevent gene flow in any area where seed production occurs, whether GE or not. 

Feral alfalfa is primarily an issue in portions of Western states because little occurs elsewhere," write the 

forage specialists. They discuss reasons why feral seed would have low production and suggest that 

removing plants from ditches and roads is a good idea to prevent gene flow. 

6. Won't hard seed be a source of contamination?

"Hard seed of alfalfa generally does not persist for more than one year in moist soils, much less after years 

of hay production," they respond. "To guard against hard seed carryover, seed growers take steps to 

eliminate residual alfalfa volunteers prior to planting. State seed certification standards already require that 

the alfalfa seed field's history include a two-year exclusion period before planting alfalfa for seed." 

7. Much of the hay in my area is cut late with mature seed - we have good farmers but weather and 

equipment problems force late cuttings.

"This occasionally happens," Putnam and Undersander answer. "However, plants must remain in a field for 

four to six weeks after pollination of flowers for viable seed to form and longer for seed to shatter." Delayed 

cutting will cause little to no seed production in hayfields, and hay harvest should remove seed. 

The last seven concerns have to do with 8) growing organic hay; 9) export markets; 10) whether seed 

companies bias the research on RR alfalfa; 11) possible effects it may have on insects, animals or the 

environment; 12) whether farmers can or will follow stewardship protocols; 13) weed resistance to Roundup 

and 14) whether the risks of RR alfalfa outweigh the rewards. 

"There is also a risk with NOT moving ahead with a technology," Under-sander and Putnam contend. RR 

alfalfa will control tough weeds, they write. "Further, if this breeding methodology is permanently banned, it 

would mean fewer genetic advancements for alfalfa in the future. 

"It is important that alfalfa growers and the industry understand how to use this important new genetic tool, 

while at the same time, protecting those farmers who don't wish to adopt it." 

Hay & Forage Grower: Roundup Ready Reality? Page 2 of 3

http://license.icopyright.net/user/viewFreeUse.act?fuid=OTQxOTg4Mg%3D%3D 8/3/2010
2009 Penton Media. Permission granted for up to 5 copies. All rights reserved. 

You may forward this article or get additional permissions by typing http://license.icopyright.net/3.5479?

icx_id=hayandforage.com/hay/farming_roundup_ready_reality_0101/index.html into any web browser. Penton 

Media, Inc and Hay & Forage Grower logos are registered trademarks of Penton Media, Inc . The iCopyright logo is a registered trademark of 

iCopyright, Inc. 

Hay & Forage Grower: Roundup Ready Reality? Page 3 of 3

http://license.icopyright.net/user/viewFreeUse.act?fuid=OTQxOTg4Mg%3D%3D 8/3/2010
Understanding Roundup Ready Alfalfa

A number of concerns have been raised about the release of Roundup Ready (RR) alfalfa, the first biotech trait in 

alfalfa. Many of these concerns have been fueled by misinformation. In this article, we provide a scientific 

perspective on these concerns that we hope will inform. 

Concern 1. Once you release this gene – you can’t call it back.

Over 300,000 acres of RR alfalfa have been planted for hay over the past 2 to 3 years, with a limited amount 

planted for seed. The real question is whether you can continue to plant conventional alfalfa seed and the answer 

is a resounding ‘yes’ – all of the seed currently for sale is ‘conventional’ – and you only need to test it (or ask the 

seed company to test it) with inexpensive test strips to make sure it does not contain the gene if you don’t want it. 

Conventional alfalfa seed will continue to be available after Roundup Ready alfalfa is released.

Concern 2. Won’t contamination from neighboring fields result in all seed being Roundup Ready, eventually?

No. Seed production methods and isolation distances currently recommended by seed companies should keep 

adventitious presence at a very low level for seed. A gene will increase in a population only if the new gene gives 

the plant an advantage over other plants and the conditions creating the advantage are consistently present. 

Conversely, if plants are grown in an environment where the gene provides no advantage, the gene is more likely 

to remain in the population at very low levels or to be lost from the population. The formulas for computing these 

changes in gene frequency can be found in most books on population or quantitative genetics, such as Falconer 

and MacKay, 1996, Introduction to Quantitative Genetics, Longman Press. Thus non-GE seed will always be 

available.

Concern 3. Won’t my neighbor’s Roundup Ready hay fields contaminate my conventional or organic alfalfa hay 

production through pollen and gene flow?

No. There is almost zero probability of gene flow among hay fields. For this to happen all the following must occur

• fields must flower at same time. 

: 

• pollinators must be present to move pollen (it does not blow in wind). 

• plants must remain in field 4 to 6 weeks after flowering for viable seed production. 

• seed must shatter, to fall to ground and establish on soil surface. 

• seedlings must to overcome autotoxicity to germinate. 

• seedlings must to overcome competition from existing plants.

Pollen moves among alfalfa plants only when carried by pollinators such as bees, and honey bees do not like to 

pollinate alfalfa. Alfalfa seed takes many weeks after flowering to mature sufficiently to germinate and longer to 

shatter and fall onto the ground. Alfalfa seed does not readily spread. Alfalfa does not germinate well on the soil

surface. Germination will be further reduced by alfalfa autotoxicity from existing planting in the hay field (this is 

why interseeding alfalfa to thicken a stand generally fails). Germinating seeds must compete with established 

plants for water, nutrients and sunlight. Data has shown that interseeded plants generally die during the first 

growing season. Thus, if a grower takes care to plant conventional seed, it is very unlikely that the Roundup Ready 

gene will move to their hay fields. (See Gene Flow in Alfalfa: Biology, Mitigation, and Potential Impact on 

Production, Special Publication of the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST) at http://www.castscience.org/displayProductDetails.asp?idProduct=157 ) 

Concern 4. Will the seed companies be able to keep seed from being contaminated?

Yes, the greatest real potential for pollen flow and contamination is during seed production. The seed industry has 

agreed on a field tagging technique in areas where RR alfalfa seed will be grown so neighbors and other seed 

companies will know where RR seed is being produced. The bulk of non-GE alfalfa seed is produced for export by 

seed production companies and it is in their own best interest to control seed production to continue to produce 

the 30% or more of total production as non-biotech for export. This large volume of export seed production is 

much more significant economically than the less than 1% of total seed market for organic seed production. 

However, concerns and methodology for exported seed will allow organic seed production indefinitely, making 

non-biotech seed available to growers. 

Concern 5. Won’t feral alfalfa be a source of contamination?

Authors: Dan Putnam, University of California, and Dan Undersander, Univeristy of Wisconsin 

January 2009
Feral (wild growing) alfalfa can act as a bridge for moving genes from one seed field to another, and thus should be 

controlled to prevent gene flow in any area where seed production occurs, whether biotech or not. Feral alfalfa is 

primarily an issue in portions of Western states because little occurs elsewhere. Feral alfalfa will have low seed 

production for the reasons described in #3 plus damage from lygus bug and infection from seed-borne fungi when 

seed develops under damp conditions. Seed from any feral plants will contribute to new plants only over a very 

short term, but removing feral alfalfa from ditches and roads is a good idea for organic and export growers to 

prevent gene flow. If feral alfalfa is deemed a problem in a specific area, then it must be controlled as off types of 

alfalfa and other problem weeds are currently controlled using cultural and other herbicide methods. 

Concern 6. Won’t hard seed be a source of contamination?

Hard seed of alfalfa generally does not persist for more than one year in moist soils (Albrecht et al. 2008 Forage 

and Grazinglands), much less after years of hay production. To guard against hard seed carryover, seed growers 

take steps to eliminate residual alfalfa volunteers prior to planting. State Seed Certification Standards already

require that the alfalfa seed field's history include a 2-year exclusion period before planting alfalfa for seed. 

Concern 7. Much of hay in my area is cut late with mature seed – we have good farmers but weather, equipment 

problems force late cuttings.

Although late cuttings occasionally happen viable seed development is unlikely. However, plants must remain in 

field for 4 to 6 weeks after pollination of flowers for viable seed to form and longer for seed to shatter. Delaying 

harvest 1 to 2 weeks due to weather, equipment problems and other issues will cause little to no seed production

in hay fields (see item #3). Furthermore, hay harvest should remove this small amount of seed so that it doesn’t 

become a problem. 

Concern 8. Organic producers may have difficulty growing organic hay.

No – there is no reason that organic growers can’t continue to successfully grow organic hay. In fact the presence 

of Roundup Ready alfalfa hay in the marketplace may increase the value of organic hay, for buyers who are 

sensitive to biotech traits. Current demand for organic hay has been high, in spite of the introduction of Roundup 

Ready alfalfa. There are a number of growers who currently grow both Roundup Ready alfalfa and organic hay on 

the same farm without difficulty. Organic growers should 1) select conventional seed that is tested for the trait if 

their customers have set a standard of no adventitious presence, 2) take simple steps to protect their crop from 

gene flow and 3) identify hay lots after harvest. Feedstuffs can be tested to ensure low biotech levels desired for 

these markets. Organic growers currently are certified to show that their crops are not grown with pesticides or 

non-organic fertilizers, and similar steps can be taken to show that they do not use genetically engineered crops.

Concern 9. Couldn’t we lose our entire export market?

No. While export growers and buyers are sensitive to the presence of biotech traits in crops, they have developed 

market-assurance methods to demonstrate that they are marketing non-biotech alfalfa hay, including testing to 

assure buyers of the non-biotech status of hay. Japan, Taiwan, and Korea (main U.S. hay market) already use 

biotech corn and soybeans and have accepted some RR alfalfa hay. The European Union has approved use of 

certain biotech varieties of corn and soybeans in food and feedstuffs. While significant in some growing regions in 

the US, exported hay represents less than 1 % of total alfalfa hay production.

Concern 10. Isn’t the research biased by the seed companies that stand to gain most? 

RR technology at has been evaluated at many universities. This research is independent of the concerned 

commercial parties. The goal is to independently test a technology for its viability and environmental safety for 

farmers and for the general public. These studies must be well-designed, accurate and can only be published only 

after review by anonymous individuals from other institutions selected for impartiality.

Concern 11. Won’t the Roundup Ready gene in alfalfa have a negative effect on insects, diseases, other biota, or 

the environment?

There is currently no evidence that this gene would have a negative effect on insects or animals, or the 

environment. The Roundup Ready gene has been thoroughly tested as other crops were released (corn, soybeans, 

cotton) and no impact on any other biota has been found. No toxicology issues have been identified with roundup 

ready alfalfa fed to animals. In the past ten years, billions of tons of corn, soybeans, cotton and alfalfa have been 

Authors: Dan Putnam, University of California, and Dan Undersander, Univeristy of Wisconsin 

January 2009
produced with this gene, and there has been no documented harm to animals, humans or wildlife. In fact the use 

of Roundup would replace some more toxic pesticides that have been used and found in ground water (e.g. 

Velpar).

Concern 12. Farmers can’t/won’t follow stewardship protocols. 

All technology requires stewardship by farmers (e.g. fertilizer use, pesticide use, irrigation). Farmers must be 

educated about stewardship needed and required to use appropriate stewardship for any technology. The 

possibility of gene flow is no different in scope than controlling pesticide drift, fertilizer contamination from 

conventional farms, or for that matter, the influence of weeds from organic fields that may contaminate 

neighbor’s fields. Good farmers know how to do this.

Concern 13. Won’t there be weed resistance to Roundup from use of RR alfalfa? 

Weed resistance and weed shifts are issues with all herbicides. New management programs have always resulted 

in shifts in weed pressure. For example, no-till crop production has resulted in different weed problems than when 

crops were grown with conventional tillage. Resistance to glyphosate has occurred in row crop situations. 

Inclusion of alfalfa might actually slow increase of resistant populations of weeds because an additional 

mechanical control (frequent hay harvest) is being added to the weed management program. Techniques are 

readily available to avoid weed shifts or weed resistance using the Roundup Ready system as detailed in a recent 

article (Orloff et al., 2008).

Concern 14. Risk far outweighs reward/Do we really need this? Are we willing to take this kind of gamble?

There is also a risk with NOT moving ahead with a technology that has clear potential benefits to farmers and the 

environment. Currently, many animals are killed or hurt each year by weedy alfalfa fields – something that 

Roundup Ready technology could help address. Also, some of the conventional herbicides have been found in well

water – something not true with glyphosate. Additionally, Roundup Ready alfalfa would allow farmers to control

tough weeds for which no other good method of control exists (e.g. winter annuals such as chickweed, wild garlic, 

wild onion, perennials such as dandelion. difficult weeds such as nutsedge and dodder, and poisonous weeds such 

as groundsel). 

Further, if this breeding methodology is permanently banned, it would mean fewer genetic advancements for

alfalfa in the future. Some traits currently under development, such as a low lignin gene that could mean higher 

forage yield and fewer cuttings for farmers, a leaf retention gene to retain leaves through harvesting process, 

genes which confer pest resistance, or genes to increase bypass protein, would never be available to farmers. It is 

not reasonable or fair to farmers to restrict a technology from use in alfalfa that is available in other crops. 

A series of articles on biotech alfalfa and coexistence of GE and conventional alfalfa seed and hay production is 

available at http://www.alfalfa.org/CSCoexistenceDocs.html and http://alfalfa.ucdavis.edu/+producing/biotech.aspx. 

In summary, it is essential that alfalfa growers and the industry understand how to use this important new 

genetic tool, while at the same time, protecting those farmers who don’t wish to adapt it. Research has proceeded 

with great deliberation in the development of Roundup Ready alfalfa and shown it to be a good tool that will 

benefit many farmers. Like every other tool, it must be used with care and appropriate stewardship. It is 

important for the industry to manage for coexistence of biotech-adapting and non biotech-adapting farmers, since 

other important biotech traits are being developed which might be much greater benefit to farmers and society.

Dr. Dan Putnam, University of California

Dr. Dan Undersander, University of Wisconsin

Authors: Dan Putnam, University of California, and Dan Undersander, Univeristy of Wisconsin 

January 2009
Appendix

J

Roundup Ready Alfalfa Harvesting Study, Study 

#3482 (Originally Submitted as Appendix 6 to 

Monsanto/FGI Comments to Draft EIS)
Prepared By:

St. Louis, Missouri

January 2010

ROUNDUP READY ALFALFA HARVESTIN

Study #3482

Forage Genetics International/ Monsanto Company

Appendix 

6
[ Page 2 ] Rou

Attorney-Client Privilege

METHODOLOGY

 To achieve the objectives set for this study, a total of 200 telephone inte

with growers who had Roundup Ready alfalfa acres in production in 2009 interviews were distributed regionally:

West: WA/OR/ID/CA/NV/UT/AZ . . . . . . . East: All other states, east of the Rockies 

 Participants were screened on the following criteria:

 Actively involved in farming Primarily responsible for decisions concerning the management pra

alfalfa crop

 Had 30+ acres of Roundup Ready alfalfa in production in 2009 or 2 Not, nor anyone in household, working for a farm chemical manufa

dealer

 Not, nor anyone in household, working for a seed company, or as a  Not, nor anyone in household, raising alfalfa seed for a seed compa

 A monetary honorarium was paid ($40-West and $20-East) to all particip

conducted between January 18th and 25th, 2010.

Forage Genetics International/ Monsanto Company

Appendix 

6
[ Page 3 ] Rou

Attorney-Client Privilege

2010 Roundup Ready Alfalfa Penetration

[Base=Respondents able to estimate]

Q.D How many acres of alfalfa, including both established and newly seeded, will you have this year in 2010Q.E And, how many, if any, of these [Q.D] acres are Roundup Ready alfalfa, and how many are conventiona

38

40

35

62

60

65

0 25 50 75 

Overall (n=199)

East (n=104)

West (n=95)

Percent of alfalfa acres

Roundup Ready alfalfa* Conventional alfalfa

*To be included in this study, growers were required to have Roundup Ready alfalfa acr

Forage Genetics International/ Monsanto Company

Appendix 

6
[ Page 4 ] Rou

Attorney-Client Privilege

Percent Of Roundup Ready Alfalfa Harvested At Specifi

Q.3 In 2009, what percent of your total Roundup Ready alfalfa did you harvest:

45

39

54

33

37

38

36

24

1

36

0 25 50 75 

Overall (n=198)

East (n=104)

West (n=94)

Aware of production

fields in area (n=8)

Percent of Roundup Ready Alfalfa Acres

Pre-bloom At or before 10% bloom 11% to 20% bloom 21% blo

[Base=Respondents harvesting Roundup Ready alfalfa and able to es

Forage Genetics International/ Monsanto Company

Appendix 

6
[ Page 5 ] Rou

Attorney-Client Privilege

24

28

9

0 25 50 75 

Overall (n=42)

East (n=27)

West (n=15)

Average

Of the 18% of Occasions When Harvest Occurred Afte

What Percent Were Due To Bad Weather

Q.4b What percent of the time was your decision to harvest Roundup Ready alfalfa after 10% bloom due to 

[Base=Respondents harvesting at least some Roundup Ready alfalfa after 10% bloom

Forage Genetics International/ Monsanto Company

Appendix 

6
Appendix

K

Fitzpatrick, S. and G. Lowry. 2010. Alfalfa Seed 

Industry Innovations Enabling Coexistence. 

Proceedings of the 42nd North American Alfalfa 

Improvement Conference, Boise, Idaho, July 28-30, 

2010
Alfalfa Seed Industry Innovations Enabling Coexistence 

S. Fitzpatrick* and G. Lowry**

The alfalfa seed industry has recently implemented two complementary programs that together 

enable mutual coexistence between conventional and Roundup Ready alfalfa (RRA) seed 

producers. The 2010 Alfalfa Seed Stewardship Program (ASSP-2010) is an identity preserved 

process-based certificate offered by state seed certification agencies. It was developed by the 

Association of Official Seed Certifying Agencies (AOSCA) designed to serve GE-trait sensitive 

conventional seed producers (e.g., export). In 2008, the Best Management Practices for RRA 

Seed Production (BMPs) was adopted by the National Alfalfa & Forage Alliance. These BMPs 

are required coexistence protocols that apply only to RRA seed-producing companies (i.e., no 

new requirements are imposed upon external conventional seed producers). These market-driven, 

science-based programs were developed with the involvement of alfalfa industry stakeholders 

over a 5-year period (2005 to 2010) using all available market and gene flow data. An array of 

stakeholders were involved that represented diverse segments of the alfalfa seed and hay 

industries: scientists, seed certifiers, breeders, exporters, marketers, producers, growers and 

organic. These new programs are independent from and more stringent than AOSCA or OECD 

Seed Certification Programs. Forage Genetics and Pioneer Hi-Bred International (the only 

companies producing RRA seed), have collectively reported to inspectors that in 2009 greater 

than 97% of their conventional seed lots were produced without detection of the RRA trait (>500 

lots tested with <0.00% RRA). If detected, AP was less than 0.5% (overall lot average <0.1%).

Seed Program 

No Program 

(e.g., 

common 

seed) 

USDA National 

Organic 

Program 

Certification Certified Seed 

Roundup Ready 

Alfalfa (RRA) Seed 

AOSCA AASP2010 Identity 

Preserved, 

Certified Seed 

Market 

U.S. domestic 

conventional 

(baseline) 

Organic forage 

planting 

U.S domestic 

conventional & 

RRA seed 

U.S. domestic RRA 

seed 

U.S. conventional 

seed for export 

Purity Standard 

or Objective n/a 

No official purity 

standards; 

process-based 

requirements 

<1% off types 

< 0.5% GE in 

neighboring 

conventional seed 

production 

Non-detect GE 

Spatial isolation 

from other seed 

field 

n/a 

Customized farm 

plan; not uniform 

mitigation 

standard 

165 ft 

900 ft to 3 mi at RRA 

seed field planting 

(pollinator specific) 

>5 miles 

Program conforms 

to: n/a 

USDA-AMS 

National Organic 

Program 

Federal Seed Act 

Industry consensus 

and RRA seed co. 

contracts 

AOSCA 

I. P. Program 

Program 

monitored by: n/a 

Local Organic 

Certifying 

Agency 

State Seed 

Certifying Agency

State Seed 

Certifying Agency 

State Seed 

Certifying Agency

Program 

obligations fulfilled 

by: 

 n/a 

Organic, 

conventional 

grower 

Seed company and 

seed grower 

RRA seed company 

and seed grower 

GE-sensitive seed 

company and 

conventional seed 

grower 

Growers using the 

program: 

Conventional 

only 

Conventional 

only 

Both, conventional 

and RRA All RRA, only Conventional only

* Forage Genetics International, West Salem, WI **Idaho Crop Improvement Association, Meridian, Idaho