Posted on

weed and seed program wiki

Many vegetables are grown in seed beds to develop suitable seedlings for transplanting in the field. Soils dedicated to seed beds are usually light, with good tilth, and fertilized to obtain a good plant emergence. Seed beds are usually flood-irrigated and plastic-protected. Many weed control techniques are already described in the work of Labrada, (1996). Here we add some possibilities for weed management.

1. Preparation of a seedbed 2-3 weeks before planting to achieve maximum weed-seed germination near the soil surface. 2. Planting the crop with minimum soil disturbance to avoid exposing new weed seed to favourable germination conditions. 3. Treating the field with a non-residual herbicide to kill all germinated weeds (William et al. 2000) just before or after planting, but before crop emergence.

Another aspect related to the complexity of herbicide use is its soil persistence that can seriously affect the next crops in the rotation as a result of soil residues or carryover. Vegetable rotations are very fast and intensive in many places, and herbicide toxicity can affect the next crop if the cycle of the previous crop is short enough.

A number of vegetables are produced under plastic mulching, which may affect herbicide behaviour, reducing its volatility and condensation phenomena, and crop selectivity could be modified.

There is a great interest in the integration of tilling practices with chemical control because of the reduction of the herbicide impact and the cost of hand-labour. While herbicides play an important role in a very mechanized, open air, extensive horticulture, hand-weeding is a common practice in vegetable cultivation, even following herbicide treatment (e.g. green beans may need 5-15 h/ha and transplanted tomatoes, 50-90 h/ha).

Irrigation is another typical characteristic of these crops in Mediterranean or arid areas. The type of irrigation used also conditions weed management because of the many systems available: traditional irrigation through flooding or by furrows, and the more modern sprinkling, drip and infiltration irrigation. Herbicides have different behaviour. Their incorporation is affected by water and crop selectivity can thus be substantially reduced.

As a result of all these problems and because of the small areas under vegetables, chemical companies are not very interested in developing specific herbicides for weed management in these crops. This lack of interest may also bring about the discontinuance of some selective herbicides, such as naptalam, bensulide, and others from the European market. In the United States there is also concern regarding herbicides used for minor crops. One of the projects there, IR-4, has a mandate to provide weed management solutions to vegetable growers in the United States (Arsenovic and Kunkel, 2001).

The U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs originally founded the Weed and Seed program in 1991.  They believed high crime areas needed some sort of resolution.  They formed the weed and seed program as a trial to see if it was possible to solve the high crime rates (National Weed and Seed).  During this 18 month trial they saw tremendous results and a decrease in crime rates (Travis). The Weed and Seed program was a nationally funded program supported by many major political groups and departments.  The U.S. Attorney’s Office helped tremendously with funding and employees.  Also many police departments strongly supported this program.  The Metropolitan Police Department assisted with funding until May of 2008 (Weed and Seed Executive).  However, there was some opposition to the program at first.  Seattle City Council member Margaret Pageler opposed the Weed and Seed Program because she believed it took away the peoples civil rights by creating laws and policies regarding public safety.  For example, in 1992 some of the proposals of the Weed and Seed Program were leaked which stirred up a great deal of controversy amongst Seattle civilians including the proposal of street sweeps “Street sweeps, where everybody on public streets in an area designated as “high crime” would be taken into custody and forced to prove their innocence” (Patrick). Many people feared this proposal simply because they could be arrested for simply being on the street at the wrong time “Arresting everybody on a public street just because they happened to be out at the time of the sweep would completely ignore the long established tradition in our country of due process before the law. Who could say that many innocent young folks wouldn’t be caught up in these sweeps, possibly having their lives damaged by being marked as having been in jail?”(Patrick).  This is a reasonable opposition of the Weed and Seed Program however, that was only proposed in Seattle, Washington and never went into effect.  The fact that this proposal never went into effect did ease the opposition of the Weed and Seed Program however, these people still remain wary of the programs motives.

One program in particular is located in Rock Hill, SC.  Rock Hill is located in York County in northern South Carolina.  The current Rock Hill Weed and Seed program focuses on five neighborhoods including Hagins-Fewell, Sunset Park, Crawford Road, Flint Hill, and South Central.  The population of Rock Hill is 66,154 people and counting.  Rock Hill has repeatedly struggled with excessive crime rates and poor neighborhood conditions.  The Weed and Seed Program was formed in Rock Hill to provide the opportunity to improve the living conditions for the people and bring them together to improve their community vibrancy (Urban Rock Hill).

Each city has the ability to pass any policies necessary for the improvement of the project as long as they are approved by the Executive office and manager.  For example, in Woodburn, Oregon there is a policy which guides the committees to do their jobs properly.  It is a well organized policy proposal which lays out the step by step requirements of each sub-committee for the Weed and Seed program in Woodburn.  The “Seed” sub-committee is required to “develop and recommend strategies that bring positive influences to the target neighborhood” (Weed and Seed Steering).  These strategies must include prevention, intervention and treatment, community policing and neighborhood restoration activities (Weed and Seed Steering).  This simply lays out the jobs of each Weed and Seed committee and chairmen.  In Delaware Every Weed and Seed site is required to establish a Safe Haven, a multi-service center often housed in a school or community center, where many youth- and adult-oriented services are delivered.

The funding of The Weed and Seed Program mainly came from grants whether entirely or partially.  Some funds also came from State and Federal programs.  On a local level many fundraisers were held to get the community involved and raise the necessary funds to complete a project.  Most of the grants given by the federal government went to policing.  Police services received grants for an average of $475,252.  This money went towards police overtime, crime prevention programs and other necessities for policing.  Also major grants went towards “weeding” programs which help prevent crime and making the community a safer place.  Less money went towards “seeding” programs giving $237,177 to treatment services, revitalization programs, and other community activities (Travis).   

United States Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs that dedicates their time to community based projects.  The Weed and Seed program was formed to “weed” out the crime in local neighborhoods and “seed” a more vibrant community.  This program aims to weed out violent crime, gang activity, drug use, and drug trafficking in neighborhoods that desperately need it.  They then attempt to restore those neighborhoods through community social and economic activities.  Weed and Seed was created in 1991 to reduce the crime rates and improve community vibrancy (Travis).  It began with a trial period including nineteen cities over eighteen months.  These cities obtained grants for $1.1 million to prevent crime and create programs to get the community involved in restoring neighborhoods (Travis).