California Growers Confront Labor Issues

Labor Issues—Costs and Farmworker Shortages—Challenge Growers

By Brian German, Associate Broadcaster

This year, farmers grappled with labor issues such as shortages and increased labor costs. Some growers had more than enough workers available, while others experienced difficulty in meeting their labor needs. Dave Phippen, co-owner of Travaille & Phippen Inc., a vertically integrated company that grows, packs and ships their own almonds, described some of their struggles with labor this year. “We employ a little more than 50 people year-round, but for harvest we ramp up an extra 15-20 people. There was a squeeze on the availability of the labor and a challenge with what we thought was an acceptable rate of pay,” said Phippen.

As minimum wage increases incrementally every year, growers will struggle to keep up with the higher wages. “There was a new reality in the typical forklift driver, people working in receiving, people sampling,” Phippen elaborated. “We’re paying a little bit more for all of those tasks this year, and because there were more employment [opportunities], it was harder to find people who were available and willing to work.” Phippen also noted that employees “were requiring a greater compensation rate than last year for the same job.”

Travaille & Phippen’s operation has had to reevaluate employee compensation. Phippen explained the principle that as minimum wage increases, compensation rates compress, such that a person who was earning $15 used to be $5 above minimum wage, but is now is only $4 above minimum wage,” Phippen said.

The current federal minimum wage, established in 2009, is $7.25 per hour, up from $5.85 just two years prior. Of the top 10 agricultural producing states in the country, only 4 have minimum wage rates higher than the federal level. California and Massachusetts have the highest minimum wage levels of any other states.

Travaille & Phippen was already compensating a great deal of their labor force above minimum wage; however, to stay competitive and retain their workers, they increased their compensation rates, which caused a ripple effect throughout the supply chain. As their labor costs increased, they had to charge growers more for processing. “It had a big impact on them,” said Phippen, “particularly because those growers are receiving less revenue for their crop this year than they did last year. It was quite a squeeze for our growers and we were caught in the middle of that squeeze,” Phippen explained.

Labor issues have also been a significant concern for Mark Van Klaveren, a diversified farmer in Madera who grows almonds, watermelons and Thompson seedless grapes. Van Klaveren noted that timing plays a big role in their labor situation. “Since we tend to pick our Thompson seedless late, when there is a lot of sugar, we were able to get plenty of labor because most of the other vineyards were finished. Their farmworkers were looking for someplace to work.”

Van Klaveren reported that labor proved more challenging for their other crops. “I have a steady crew for watermelons, although with the new laws coming into effect, we are going to have to make some changes and mechanize a lot more of that harvest,” Van Klaveren noted.

Labor costs will become further complicated in the years ahead as overtime limitations established in AB 1066 phase in, beginning in 2019, with all agricultural operations expected to be in compliance by 2025. The combination of increased wages and the limitation of hours will change the way many farms operate. Some growers will increase mechanization. Others growers of labor-intensive crops may replace their crops with commodities that require fewer hours to harvest.

Van Klavern noted, “The only options we have are to mechanize or get out—one of the two. We can’t afford to produce at the same prices we’re getting right now with much higher labor costs. Some machinery out there can do what we need to do and we will look real hard to get some of that in our operation,” said Van Klavern.

An economic analysis conducted by the Highland Economics firm, shows AB 1066 having significant consequences for California agriculture. The study found the policy would reduce farm production as well as farmworker income, and the new time constraints on farmworkers would negatively impact California’s overall economy.

Van Klaveren is skeptical the new legislation will create any positive outcomes. “Workers want to put in the hours. They want to work. If we’ve got to pay them higher wages to start with, and then overtime on top of that after eight hours? There are certain jobs that won’t sustain the higher wages,” Van Klavern said.

In addition to increased costs for employers, increased minimum wage negatively affects workers who are trying to get their foot in the door of a farming operation. When the government raises the entry-level wage so high that people really have to produce a lot per hour, Van Klavern clarified, inexperienced applicants will suffer. “If you cannot produce a volume of work that is worth $15 an hour or more, you cannot work because nobody is going to hire you to lose money,” noted Van Klaveren.

Collectively, farmers are looking at overall labor cost increases between 5 and 15% over the next few years, depending on the crop. Van Klavern expressed a widely-held view that continued government intervention, particularly in the area of wages, is making farming in California unnecessarily difficult. “The whole issue of employment is a private agreement between an employee and employer, as in, ‘I will work for you for so much an hour and try to produce to your expectations.’ In other words, if somebody is willing to work for $8 an hour, why not let them work for $8 an hour? If it is fine with them and fine with the employer, then why not?” said Van Klavern.

The costs of labor and limitations on farmworker hours, combined with the costs of water and increasing environmental regulations, may prove insurmountable for California agriculture. “The economics is all simple, but the government steps in and complicates everything. I guess that leaves it to us to have to figure out how to swerve between all the regulations and stay in business,” noted Van Klavern.

California Ag Today2016-10-07T10:51:51-07:00October 7th, 2016|

Better Year for Western Cotton Growers

Western Cotton Growers See Market Improvement

By Patrick Cavanaugh, Farm News Director

Cotton growers throughout California and the West fared better this year compared to last year in terms of prices and exports, as reported at the Calcot, Ltd. 89th Annual Meeting last week in Tempe, Arizona. Jarral Neeper president and CEO of the Bakersfield-based Calcot, Ltd., the cotton marketing cooperative representing growers in California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, announced, “Last year we produced about 13M bales. We should be a hair over 16M this year.”

California Cotton, Merced County

Neeper estimated, “We’re going to go from about 10.2 million bales in exports to 11.5 million based on a review of our historical shares of the marketplace and the world, the foreign production/consumption gap, our historical shares of filling that gap, and how much we should export.”

“One year ago at this time, cotton prices were at a very low $0.61 per pound,” said Neeper. “The market eventually fell. Prices rallied a little bit, and then fell down to $0.55. Then, the last month of the crop year, we had this unforeseen $0.10 rally—almost $0.12 rally.

In cotton marketing where there are highs and lows, Neeper acknowledged, you can’t always sell high; you have to sell when you can. “As a cooperative, in order to make progress payments to your membership, you do have to sell cotton and turn it into cash.”

“The cotton futures look good,” Neeper said, “even better for the coming year. We’re sitting at roughly $0.70 a pound, about ten cents higher than a year ago. And, generally, California cotton growers tend to get a $0.05 to $0.10 premium per pound because of our growing additions and high quality lint.”

Neeper believes the future of Calcot, Ltd. is “terrific.” He added, “89 years and still going strong; we’re looking for another 89 years.”

California Ag Today2016-10-05T13:14:34-07:00October 5th, 2016|

Celebrating California Agriculture . . . An Ongoing Series: Marketing

Marketing, Almond Board Style

A Rallying Cry for Ag PR on Billboards

By Laurie Greene, Editor

Celebrating California Agriculture is a refreshing perspective. In an ongoing series on CaliforniaAgToday.com, Peterangelo Vallis, executive director of the Fresno-based San Joaquin Valley Winegrowers Association (SJVWA), shares his optimistic viewpoint on California agriculture. In our original article, “Celebrating California Agriculture . . . An Ongoing Series,” published on September 13, 2016, Vallis offered this goal:

“This is basic, basic stuff because, realistically, we’re marketing the fact that we need help to make more food,” Vallis noted. “We’re making safe domestic food, but if we don’t engage with the people that are our customers, we’re never going to be able to get our ideas and our needs across, because we’re just not talking to the right audience.”

“They’re not enough people here in the valley to move the needle. We’ve got to figure out a way to get San Francisco and L.A. appreciating our position, loving what we do, and trusting that we’re doing the very best job possible,” said Vallis.

Vallis is urging California agriculture “to put some dollars together for a major billboard campaign in Los Angeles and in the Bay Area, celebrating our agricultural industry as part of a big PR campaign.”

“Just imagine,” Vallis suggested, “the power of billboards with California farmers and the fruits, nuts or vegetables they produce. The billboard could be up in prime city areas for several months for less than a few million dollars.”

Vallis commended the Almond Board of California for their example of a great starting point. “You know, the Almond Board of California (Board), I think, represents the most progressive part of California agriculture today because the Board understands how much money it takes to penetrate the market. We’re not living in 1932; we need to spend money on this stuff. I mean what does a Super Bowl commercial cost—6-7 million dollars for 30 seconds? It’s an insane amount of money, but that’s what it takes to really move the needle.”

“Billboards around the California’s urban centers or even across the nation, could carry the message of the importance of the California

ALMOND SUSTAINABILITY ECOSYSTEM (Almond Board of California, AlmondSustainability.org)

farmer,” Vallis proposed. “We could campaign on every billboard in America for one month and call it, ‘Hey, We Like to Eat Month’ or ‘Your Stomach Depends On Ag,’” noted Vallis.

“The message must connect with people,” Vallis insisted. “It would probably cost 20 or 30 million just to make that happen, but if you look at the success the Almond Board has had, that is a perfect pathway—a perfect roadmap—for what all of us in California can do at pennies per pound,” he said.

“There are some commodities that don’t make pennies per pound; but on the whole, a couple pennies per pound, put in the right space and put in front of people … Guess what? They’re going to go nuts over the product. Look what almonds have done. If that isn’t a rallying cry for what could happen. . . it would be killer! And it would be killer for our industry,” Vallis said.

California Ag Today2016-10-04T18:38:02-07:00October 4th, 2016|

Fear-Based Messaging Reduces Produce Consumption – Both Organic and Conventional

New Study Finds Fear-Based Produce Safety Messaging Negatively Impacts Low Income Consumers’ Produce Consumption

New peer reviewed research, “Low-Income Shoppers and Fruit and Vegetables: What Do They Think?” published in Nutrition Today, shows fear-based messaging tactics used by activist groups and some organic marketers that invoke safety concerns about non-organic produce may be having a negative impact on produce consumption—fruits and veggies—among low income consumers, according to the Alliance for Food and Farming (AFF).

Researchers at the Illinois Institute of Technology’s (IIT) Cen ter for Nutrition Research surveyed low income consumers to learn more about what terms and information about fruits and vegetables may influence their shopping intentions. Among the key findings, misleading messaging which inaccurately describes certain fruits and vegetables as having “higher” pesticide residues results in low income shoppers reporting that they would be unlikely to purchase any fruits and vegetables – organically or non-organically grown.

“We were surprised to see how informational content that named specific fruits and vegetables as having the highest pesticide residues increased the percentage of shoppers who said they would be unlikely to purchase any type of fruits and vegetables,” says Britt Burton-Freeman, associate professor of food science and nutrition, ITT’s Center for Nutrition Research. “The concern is that depending on the structure of the communication about pesticides and fruits and vegetables, this could turn people away from wanting to purchase any fresh produce.”

“Despite efforts by the health community, consumption of fruits and vegetables is stagnating,” says Elizabeth Pivonka, Ph.D, R.D. and president, Produce for Better Health Foundation. “This new study shows what we have been concerned about for some time, that safety fears may be another barrier to consumption of these healthy and nutritious foods. The impact of the fear-based messaging on low income consumers is especially troubling since many don’t have access or can’t afford non-organic produce.”

The findings are also concerning since the safety claims carried predominantly by groups like the Environmental Working Group (EWG) and Only Organic about pesticide residues have been repeatedly proven to be scientifically inaccurate. For the last 20 years, EWG annually releases a so-called “dirty dozen” list which urges consumers to eat only organic versions of popular produce items accompanied by misleading and unscientific claims regarding pesticide residue levels. A peer reviewed analysis of EWG’s list entitled, “Dietary Exposure to Pesticide Residues from Commodities Alleged to Contain the Highest Contamination Levels“ and published by AFF showed that substitution of organic forms of produce for non-organic produce did not result in any decrease in risk because residue levels are so minute on these fruits and vegetables, if they are present at all.

“Their tactic clearly isn’t working and it’s actually backfiring since this research shows that consumers may react to their message by deciding not to buy any produce at all – organic or non-organic,” says Teresa Thorne of the AFF. “For the benefit of consumers, especially low income consumers, this study shows it is time for groups like EWG to rethink their strategy for promoting organics and move away from tactics intended to scare consumers from buying the more affordable and accessible produce items,” Thorne says.

This IIT research compliments the peer reviewed study by John Hopkins University’s Center for a Livable Future, “They Just Say Organic Food Is Healthier”: Perceptions of Healthy Food among Supermarket Shoppers in Southwest Baltimore,” published in January 2015 [orig. Dec. 2014] in the journal, Culture, Agriculture, Food and Environment. Those researchers conducted interviews with study participants to learn more about the way organic food is understood within consumers’ definitions of healthy food. John Hopkins researchers also focused on low income consumers because “this group is particularly important demographically given the disparate burden of diet-related diseases they carry and the frequency of diet-related messages they receive.”

The study authors also found conflicting health and safety messages, including those about pesticide residues, were having a negative impact on consumers. Among their findings and recommendations: “The issue of organic can swamp or compete with other messages about nutrition, as evidenced by the data presented here. Perceiving that there is an overwhelming amount of sometimes contradictory information about healthy eating could make some consumers defeatist about trying to eat healthily. Given the potential implications of competing messages about healthy eating, it is important that those who want to improve food production techniques and those who want to improve nutrition cooperate to create consistent messaging about healthy eating.”

Dr. Burton-Freeman reached a similar conclusion. “Hearing that the majority of shoppers in this survey trust dietitians/nutritionists, scientists and physicians for health and safety information about fresh fruits and vegetables, this is an important opportunity for these professionals working in low-income populations. It is an opportunity to educate shoppers about organic and conventionally grown produce, particularly about best practices for washing, storing and preparing all fruits and vegetables to maximize their enjoyment and nutritional value and minimize their confusion and safety concerns.”

“Hopefully the peer-reviewed research from IIT and John Hopkins will have an impact on groups like EWG especially since the science clearly shows both organic and non-organic produce is very safe and can be eaten with confidence,” AFF’s Thorne says. “And, decades of nutritional research primarily conducted using non-organic produce shows that a plant rich diet leads to better health and a longer life. So choose either or both organic or non-organic produce, but choose to eat more every day.”

The Alliance for Food and Farming (AFF) is a non-profit organization formed in 1989 which represents organic and conventional farmers and farms of all sizes. Alliance contributors are limited to farmers of fruits and vegetables, companies that sell, market or ship fruits and vegetables or organizations that represent produce farmers. AFF’s mission is to deliver credible information to consumers about the safety of all fruits and vegetables. AFF does not engage in lobbying nor does it accept any money or support from the pesticide industry. In the interest of transparency, AFF’s entire 2011 tax return is posted on safefruitsandveggies.com.

Individuals May Consider Organic an Important Factor When Defining Healthy Food

University College of London: Eating 7 or More Servings Reduces Risk of Premature Death by 42%

California Ag Today2021-05-12T11:05:46-07:00October 3rd, 2016|

Calcot Could Market 70 Millionth Bale this Year

Calcot Ltd. Chairman Talks California Cotton at 89th Annual Meeting

By Patrick Cavanaugh, Farm News Director

Calcot Ltd., a democratically-run cotton marketing cooperative owned by 1,200 select cotton growers in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas, held its 89th Annual Meeting in Tempe, Arizona, this week.

Gregory Wuertz, chairman of Calcot and an Arizona cotton grower, said, “The cooperative started in 1927, and it is just amazing to me that we will reach 70 million bales sometime this year.”

“That’s a lot of cotton if you think about it,” Wuertz said. “And it has a great effect on all the growers. A lot of money has been run through the organization, and we are still doing it.”

Wuertz said Calcot directors are in the field across the western cotton belt, interacting with the industry.

“We have Calcot personnel in each cotton region who are also out in the fields talking to people and bringing up questions. They just don’t stay in their office. We try to get great members, and we work really closely with gin managers and their staff. We want to be on a first-name basis,” he said.

Wuertz noted, “You have to love the lifestyle of cotton production. You get attached to the crop. You plant it in March and harvest it in November. It’s a long-term thing.”

Yet, Wuertz acknowledged, “There are ups and downs. There always are. There is always a new catastrophe because you deal with the weather and the water issues. I think you just build up a little bit of a strength and have tougher skin than maybe some growers have with other commodities.”

Many Calcot growers outside of California are in awe of California producers.

“California has a lot more regulations,” Wuertz said. “They’re blessed with a really nice climate—just a perfect area. Our climate is a little harsher, but California people work with air quality, labor laws, and their water issues. They have to have a real sharp pencil to make all that work.”

However, Wertz says, California growers always enjoy a better per-pound price for their cotton.

“I think over the years they have developed markets, and because of their climate, they do grow a real [high] quality crop that just demands a higher price. Everybody says there’s no difference, but there is some kind of difference that is just a little better,” he said.

Wuertz explained that the Calcot cooperative is good for growers when it comes to the prices they receive.

“It is the classic cooperative idea,” he said. “It is too risky to try and peak these cotton markets. It is risky to just hold all your cotton and try to peak it at one time.”

“You have to be conservative,” he continued. “Like cotton growers are — very conservative. So you sell some and hold some and seek financing from banks for the short term. We have good tight covenants with the bank, and that’s part of our risk-management policy. We don’t want to speculate, so that is why we sell throughout the year, and we try and watch all those things.”

“We have a very strong relationship with mills and we can sell directly to them, which I think demands more of a premium for Calcot growers,” Wuertz said. “And while most cotton-spinning mills are offshore, we still have a good chunk of cotton going to some very good domestic mills, where they turn out top of the line sheets and higher-count shirts.”

California Ag Today2016-10-05T11:16:36-07:00October 1st, 2016|

Walnut Assessment to Increase

California Walnut Board To Raise Assessment for Domestic Marketing

By Laurie Greene, Editor

Dennis Balint, executive director, California Walnut Board; president and CEO, California Walnut Commission, explained to California Ag Today (CAT) the Board’s proposed increase in the marketable kernel pound weight assessment for the upcoming marketing year. The industry can comment until Oct. 17, 2016 at the Federal Registry website using the following link:

Marketing Order No. 984, “Walnuts Grown in California; Increased Assessment Rate”

Balint: This proposed rule would implement a recommendation from the California Walnut Board (Board) to increase the assessment rate established for the 2016-17 year and subsequent marketing years from $0.0379 to $0.0465 per kernel pound weight of assessable walnuts.

The Board, comprised of growers and handlers of walnuts operating within the area of production, locally administers the marketing order. Assessments upon walnut handlers are used by the Board to fund reasonable and necessary expenses of the program. The marketing year begins September 1 and ends August 31. The assessment rate would remain in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated.

California walnut orchard

The Board derived the recommended assessment rate by dividing anticipated assessment revenue needed by estimated shipments of California walnuts “certified as merchantable.” The 553,000-ton (inshell) estimate for merchantable shipments is an average of shipments during three prior years.

Pursuant to § 984.51(b) of the order, this figure is converted to a merchantable kernel weight basis using a factor of 0.45 (553,000 tons × 2,000 pounds per ton × 0.45), which yields 497,700,000 kernel weight pounds. At $0.0465 per pound, the new assessment rate should generate $23,143,050 in assessment income, which is equal to estimated expenses.

CAT: So the Walnut Board needs to raise the assessment to generate more dollars in order to maintain the aggressive domestic marketing program the Board did last year?

Balint: We raised the assessment rate to satisfy the programs the Board wanted us to execute. Last marketing year, we did the first substantial marketing campaign in the domestic market. This year, we are repeating the program. The advertising is nearly identical; however, we did have a few new executions for print. Some of the details on the PR side are different. But essentially, it’s the same plan and the same budget.

To run that program last year, we were able to draw on reserve funds in addition to the assessment. This year, we did not want to draw on those reserve funds because we would have brought the reserve funds down to a point we were uncomfortable with. So, the assessment rate went up so we could run the same level of support without touching the reserve.

CAT: Like last year, will this year be a multi-million dollar campaign to really get walnuts on the radar screen for all U.S. consumers?

Balint: Yes. We know that about 22% of U.S. households buy walnuts. We’re trying to increase that amount. Actually, we’re trying to increase two things: the number of households that buy walnuts and the usage of walnuts by people who were previously designated as what we call “light users.” We’re trying to get a bigger slice of the pie.

In the long term, getting new users is critically important. The point we’re trying to make is, no one buys things basically just for price. If they’re already using walnuts, we hope they will buy more if the price is lower.

CAT: And for the people who are not buying walnuts?

Balint: Long term, getting people who are not using walnuts to start using them is the way for our industry to get stronger. Of the people who buy walnuts, about 87% buy them because they know walnuts are healthy. That’s their primary motivation.

CAT: You have spun out beautiful ads about how walnuts can enhance salads and enhance meals.

Balint: The print campaign this season is just a slightly different execution of last season’s campaign, but it is the same strategy.

CAT: And television can be very expensive?

Balint: It is, and it forces us to make choices; whereas, in print we have an array of print ads that cover an array of uses: salads, vegetable side dishes, entrees, appetizers, snacking out-of-hand. The theory is, if you have two or three pounds of walnuts in your pantry and you use them for a salad, you will wind up snacking on them.

CAT: How about digital ads on websites such as the Food Network?

Balint: When you look at the cost of digital, it is cheaper than television, for sure.

CAT: Do you know the value of different mediums?

Balint: In my opinion, what we really do not know is the value of an impression in digital versus the value of an impression in print magazines versus the value of an impression in television. No one has ever quantified that.

CAT: Really?

Balint: Frankly, I don’t think anybody wants to quantify it. It would be very difficult to get everyone to agree.

CAT: But digital seems to be getting more eyes than television.

Balint: The digital people certainly know that they are getting a bigger and bigger slice of the pie.

CAT: Is the consumption of walnuts in the U.S. still flat?

Balint: It has been. We have not seen the latest figures, but [consumption] has been flat probably for 10 years. If you look at the nut category this past year, the usage of nuts was generally down, but we saw a slight increase in walnuts.

We are pleased about that. We know nuts are healthy in general. Walnuts are more of an ingredient nut than our friends in the almond industry and the pistachio industry. They’re more of a snacking nut. We’re more of an ingredient nut.

CAT: Back to the Board’s proposed assessment increase; is it on the Federal Register and people can go there and make comments?

Balint: Yes, that’s correct, and the marketing order gives the Walnut Board the right to do these things. And, similar to the Almond Board’s recent proposed assessment increase, it doesn’t have to go to a referendum.

California Ag Today2016-10-02T21:48:42-07:00September 29th, 2016|

CULTIVATING COMMON GROUND: Water Use Efficiency Grants

Water Use Efficiency Grants: Beneficial or Double Jeopardy for California Farming? Or both?

By Patrick Cavanaugh, Farm News Director

Through a competitive joint pilot grant program, the Agricultural Water Use Efficiency and State Water Efficiency and Enhancement Program, the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) and the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) jointly intend to demonstrate the potential multiple benefits of conveyance enhancements combined with on-farm agricultural water use efficiency improvements and greenhouse gas reductions.

The grant funding provided in this joint program is intended to address multiple goals including:

Water use efficiency, conservation and reduction
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction
Groundwater Protection, and
Sustainability of agricultural operations and food production

Agricultural Water Use Efficiency & State Water Efficiency and Enhancement Program – DWR/CDFA Joint RFP Public Workshops

Are these competitive grants promoted by DWR and CDFA providing financial support for further compliance or insulting to farmers who have already met and exceeded these stockpiling regulations? Or both?

I would like to address each goal, one by one.

Water Use Efficiency

I challenge DWR and CDFA to find one California farmer who is using water inefficiently or without regard to conservation. Grant or no grant, many farmers in the state have lost most of their contracted surface water deliveries due to the Endangered Species Act, which serves to save endangered species, an important goal we all share, but does so at any cost.

In addition, DWR is now threatening to take 40 percent of the surface water from the Tuolumne River and other tributaries of the San Joaquin River from February 1 to June 30, every year, to increase flows to the Delta to help save the declining smelt and salmon. This will severely curtail water deliveries to the Modesto Irrigation District (MID) and Turlock Irrigation District (TID)—population centers as well as critical farm areas.

This proposal, which disregards legal landowner water rights and human need, would force MID and TID to dedicate 40 percent of surface water flows during the defined time period every year, with no regulatory sunset, for beneficial fish and wildlife uses and salinity control. The proposal disregards other scientifically acknowledged stressors such as predatory nonnative non-native striped bass and largemouth bass, partially treated sewage from Delta cities, and, according to the Bay Delta Fish & Wildlife Office of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Pacific Southwest Region, invasive organisms, exotic species of zooplankton and a voracious plankton-eating clam in the Delta from foreign ships that historically dumped their ballast in San Francisco waters.

While many farmers have fallowed their farmland, other farmers across the state have resorted to reliance on groundwater to keep their permanent crops (trees and vines) alive. The new DWR proposal to divert 40 percent of MID and TID surface water will force hundreds of growers in this region—the only groundwater basin in the Valley that is not yet critically overdrafted—to use more groundwater.

In a joint statement, MID and TID said, “Our community has never faced a threat of this proportion. MID and TID have continued to fight for the water resource that was entrusted to us 129 years ago.”

The deadline for submitting public comments is September 30, 2016.

Greenhouse Gas Reduction

Have regulators forgotten Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, that requires the state to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent (back to 1990 levels) by 2050? Ag is already accommodating this regulation.

U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Source: EPA)

Now Governor Brown has signed SB-1383, “Short-lived climate pollutants: methane emissions: dairy and livestock: organic waste: landfills” into law that mandates a 25 percent reduction in methane emissions from cow burps, flatulence and manure from all dairy cows and other cattle to achieve the 1990 statewide greenhouse gas emissions level by 2020.

Now CDFA and DWR are asking for grant requests to reduce greenhouse emissions even further. Really?

The deadline for submitting public comments is September 30, 2016.

Groundwater Protection

Ironically, farmers want to reduce their groundwater needs because groundwater has always functioned in the state as a water savings bank for emergency use during droughts and not as a primary source of irrigation. But massive non-drought related federal and state surface water cutbacks have forced farmers to use more groundwater.

Golden State farmers are doing everything possible not to further elevate nitrates in their groundwater. Some nitrate findings left by farmers from generations ago are difficult to clean up.

But the DWR and CFA grant wants California agriculture to do more!

The deadline for submitting public comments is September 30, 2016.

Sustainability of Agricultural Operations and Food Production

Virtually, no one is more sustainable than a multi-generational farmer. Each year, family farmers improve their land in order to produce robust crops, maintain their livelihoods, enrich the soil for the long term, and fortify the health and safety of their agricultural legacy for future generations.

California farmers will continue to do all they can to improve irrigation methods and track their crop protection product use.

And so, I ask again, is this beneficial or double jeopardy for California farming? Or both?

The deadline for submitting public comments is September 30, 2016.

California Ag Today2021-05-12T11:17:12-07:00September 26th, 2016|

Almond Assessment Increase Comment Period Reopened

Comment Period Reopened for Almond Assessment Increase Through October 12.

Julie Adams, vice president global, technical, and regulatory affairs with the Almond Board of California, commented in an exclusive interview with California Ag Today on the proposed additional one cent almond assessment increase from 3 cents to 4 cents a pound by the Board of Directors to use in marketing the anticipated crop increases over the next three years, starting this season.

The proposed rule change was first published in the Federal Register on July 18, 2016. The comment period was reopened on Sept. 12 with an announcement in the Federal Register. The comment period is open for 30 days, ending Oct. 12, 2016, at midnight, Pacific Standard Time (PST).

California Ag Today (CAT): Where do almond growers go to make comments about the increased almond assessment?

Adams: Growers can go to www. regulations.gov and search for almonds.

Click here for the direct link to the Assessment entitled, “Almonds Grown in California: Increased Assessment Rate.“

CAT: The first comment period in August was only two weeks. How long will this one last?

Adams: The new comment period is now open and will be stay open until Oct. 12. We have also sent out notifications to handlers and we’ve included it in our communication to growers.

CAT: Why did the comment period reopen?

Adams: Basically this discussion has been going on for quite some time, actually, and started with planning and strategic meetings within the production and environmental research committees. Some of this discussion also started back a year ago when we were talking about all of the challenges facing the industry related to environmental issues, water requirements, and sustainability issues. And then, of course, with the anticipated increase in crop size, what was that going to mean in terms of keeping demand growing ahead of supply?

Discussions at strategic planning meetings underway and within our global market development committees, started feeding up to the Board recommendations that we really needed to get ready both for the challenges facing growers as well as building that [market] demand. It was at that time that the Board started talking about an increase in the assessment for a specific period of time.

We recognized that crops were increasing, and to get us through this period, we really needed to accelerate our activities. The increased assessment was approved by the Board several months ago and was published in the Federal Register. It was, at that point, a two-week comment period. While there had been a lot of communication out to the industry, the comment notification had not been sent out in a timely fashion as it needed to be since it was such a short comment period.

Based on that, as you’ll see from the reopened comment period, USDA determined that they would go ahead and reopen the period for 30 additional days. That’s the process we’re in right now.

CAT: One argument against the assessment is that the almond industry is heading into big record crop, and the 150,000 to 200,000 non-bearing acreage will soon be bearing—and that alone is sure to increase the Almond Board’s marketing budget.

Adams: It does. What we have found throughout our programs is that the more we can start building consumer awareness and demand for the product, it’s going to be ready as those crop sizes increase. We really want to be ahead of that supply situation so that we’re not trying to chase the opportunities in the market. We want to make sure there’s a strong foundation. As crops are more available, customers are ready to take in that product, really ready to put more on the shelf for consumers, and hopefully [meet] increased demand from consumers.

I think the other part of this assessment increase is about what’s happening on the production side. Research takes time and growers are facing more challenges now in terms of water availability, water quality, production issues, and environmental concerns. There’s more pressure on growers now than ever before. Part of this assessment increase for this three-year period is really to accelerate a lot of the research and work that’s underway on irrigation practices and harvesting practices, and to ramp up our food safety education. We’ve got the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) coming on board now—a requirement starting to put additional burdens on the industry.

With all of that happening, the concern is that we really need to get in front of all of this. The idea is to do that with some additional funding, so while we’re keeping up our ongoing programs, accelerating some of this research over the next three years will put us in a position, when we do come into those larger crops, where we will already have a lot of those programs in place and we will have accelerated the research so we can continue to meet a very demanding market.

CAT: We can see the need to increase our momentum in research and marketing. Of course, the vast majority of the Almond Board’s budget is for marketing right? Will the vast majority of this extra assessment go toward global marketing?

Adams: The global marketing demand portion of the budget is over 70%. That includes more than just market development. It includes a lot of consumer research, attitudes and awareness research It also includes a lot of the investment we’ve made lately on reputation management—how consumers really perceive almonds and how we need to best communicate back to consumers about what our industry is doing.

CAT: Obviously there is not going to be a vote on the added assessment. There is going to be a comment period, and if the USDA approves the assessment, it will go forward.

Adams: It was a unanimous recommendation coming forward from the Board of Directors and from a number of committees that included industry members that made recommendations to the Board of Directors. Obviously the Board is responding to the strategies and recommendations coming through the committee process. That’s what the Board unanimously endorsed and put forward in a recommendation to the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), and USDA. Now based on the comments that start to come forward through this period, then USDA will assess all of that and publish a final rule, a final determination, after the comment period closes.

CAT: If the added assessment is for this season, the USDA will have to turn it around very quickly?

Adams: They would. Obviously the USDA is monitoring this comment period and will respond to the comments and the issues expressed by individuals who are commenting on the rule. They will reflect their thinking as they come forward.

CAT: If there is a big mixture of No and Yes comments, is it possible that the comment period will stay open past the 30 days to get a consensus?

Adams: I think the USDA will look at the issues and the context of the comments. If the comments are more about clarifications and they feel what has been proposed will deal with those concerns or areas of focus, then they will look at that and make a determination. I really couldn’t say whether they would go forward with an additional comment period.

CAT: And the additional assessment will automatically sunset in crop year 2018/2019?

Adams: Exactly, and it would go back to the current 3 cent assessment. Really nothing has to be done for that to happen and that’s why the industry put in that sunset period. The Board does not have to vote on it; there does not have to be any further consultation. It will automatically go back to the 3 cent assessment.

California Ag Today2016-09-22T12:30:01-07:00September 22nd, 2016|

Eighteen New California Farm Academy Graduates!

Eighteen New Farmers Graduate from California Farm Academy

By Patrick Cavanaugh, Farm News Director

The California Farm Academy, a part-time, seven-month, beginning farmer training program run by the Land-Based Learning, graduated 18 new farmers on Sunday, September 18, 2016.

With more than 250 hours of classroom and field training behind them, these enterprising graduates were honored by notables such as Karen Ross, secretary, California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA); Craig McNamara, president and owner of Sierra Orchards, as well as president of the California State Board of Food and Agriculture; Sri Sethuratnam, director, California Farm Academy (CFA); and Mary Kimball, executive director, Center for Land-Based Learning, based in Winters California.

new farmers graduate from California Farm Academy beginning farmer training program run by the Land-Based Learning.

Eighteen new farmers graduated from California Farm Academy’s beginning farmer training program run by the Center for Land-Based Learning.

“The impetus of our program,” said Christine McMorrow, director of development for Land-Based Learning, “is the need for more farmers as the current ones age out. According to the USDA, over 700,000 new farmers will be needed in the next 20 years to replace those who retire.

CFA teachers, farmers, academic faculty and staff, and agricultural, natural resource and business professionals, teach CFA students basic production agricultural practices; crop planning; soil science; pest management; organic agriculture; irrigation and water management; marketing; ecology and conservation; obtaining loans, insurance and permits; farm financials; human resource management; risk management; farm safety; regulatory compliance and problem-solving.

McMorrow stated, “These folks have been with us since February, following a rigorous application process. A lot of these folks either have land they have dreamed of farming but did not know how to put it into production. Some of them come from farming families, but they wanted to get involved in the family business on their own. They may have been in a different career and now want to do something new or different. Perhaps they haven’t studied agriculture or they have not seen much agriculture other than what their family does, so this is an opportunity for them to learn and to explore a new business idea.

“We only take people who are serious about production agriculture. This is not a program for somebody who thinks, ‘I’ve got an acre in my backyard and I really want to grow something.’ While that’s a cool thing to do, the academy is not for those people.”

“Our graduating farmers, who range in age from their late 20s to early 50s, each wrote a business plan and presented it to folks within the agriculture industry,” said McMorrow. “They also planted some of their own crops on a farm in Winters.

McMorrow elaborated, “These new farmers have been able to create their own networks, having made contact with more than 40 different folks within the agricultural industry throughout the time they spent with us. These networks include local farmers around Yolo County, Solano County, Sacramento County, and other regions, and will help our graduates realize their dreams.”

“This is the fifth class that has graduated,” explained McMorrow, “and mind you, these folks are doing lots of different things. Some of them already have their own land, some are going to work for someone who has land, some will work other farmers, and some will go into a food-related business.”

“Still others will stay and lease small plots of land from us,” McMorrow commented, “to start their own farming business. Beginning farmers face huge barriers to getting started, the biggest of which is access to land, capital and infrastructure. So, to get their farming businesses started, California Farm Academy alumni are eligible to lease land at sites in West Sacramento, Davis and Winters at a very low cost.”

The Center for Land-Based Learning exists to cultivate opportunity.

For the land.

For youth.

For the environment.

For business.

For the economy.

For the future of agriculture.

California Ag Today2021-05-12T11:00:49-07:00September 19th, 2016|

Keeping the California Dairy Industry Afloat

The Necessity of Keeping the California Dairy Industry Competitive

By Brian German, Associate Broadcaster

Anthony Raimondo, an attorney with 15 years of experience working with farmers and farm labor contractors, is concerned the California government is placing the state’s agricultural industry at an economic disadvantage compared to other states. Raimondo used the California dairy industry as a prime example in which arbitrary in-state legislation is giving other states an advantage.

“The state government tells the dairy farmer how much they get to charge for milk,” explained Raimondo. “They have now raised minimum wage and overtime, with AB-1066 becoming law, but they do not tie any of that [added cost] to the milk price. Farmers will lose money,” he said.

“The California dairy industry is still fighting to be a part of the USDA’s Federal Milk Marketing Order (FMMO),” Raimondo continued. “But until that happens, the added costs are causing many California dairymen to weigh their options.”

Increasing government regulation is making it difficult for California dairies to compete with other states, Wisconsin in particular. Raimondo elaborated, “For many years, Wisconsin’s milk production was on the decline and California’s milk production was on the rise; that trend has now reversed. Wisconsin is now on the rise again and California is on the decline because our dairies can’t make it with the level of regulation and the level of cost,” he said.

“Some dairies have reduced hours to keep costs low,” said Raimondo. “Other dairies are closing either because they are going out of business or because they are moving to places like Idaho and Texas where the milk price is better and the cost profile is more favorable.”

The move to a FMMO would help even the playing field for California dairies. Raimondo warned there is a lot at stake if nothing is done to lower milk production costs in the number one Ag state. “We are going to lose a segment of agriculture that is 100% family farms. Family farming is one of those things that is precious to our state, and it can’t be brought back once it’s gone,” Raimondo said.

California Ag Today2021-05-12T11:17:12-07:00September 16th, 2016|

Previous 234 Next

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

California Ag News…
At Your Fingertips!

Labor Issues—Costs and Farmworker Shortages—Challenge Growers

By Brian German, Associate Broadcaster

Western Cotton Growers See Market Improvement

By Patrick Cavanaugh, Farm News Director

Marketing, Almond Board Style

A Rallying Cry for Ag PR on Billboards

By Laurie Greene, Editor

New Study Finds Fear-Based Produce Safety Messaging Negatively Impacts Low Income Consumers’ Produce Consumption

Calcot Ltd. Chairman Talks California Cotton at 89th Annual Meeting

By Patrick Cavanaugh, Farm News Director

California Walnut Board To Raise Assessment for Domestic Marketing

By Laurie Greene, Editor

Marketing Order No. 984, “Walnuts Grown in California; Increased Assessment Rate”

Water Use Efficiency Grants: Beneficial or Double Jeopardy for California Farming? Or both?

By Patrick Cavanaugh, Farm News Director

Water Use Efficiency

The deadline for submitting public comments is September 30, 2016.

Greenhouse Gas Reduction

The deadline for submitting public comments is September 30, 2016.

Groundwater Protection

The deadline for submitting public comments is September 30, 2016.

Sustainability of Agricultural Operations and Food Production

The deadline for submitting public comments is September 30, 2016.

Comment Period Reopened for Almond Assessment Increase Through October 12.

Eighteen New Farmers Graduate from California Farm Academy

By Patrick Cavanaugh, Farm News Director

The Necessity of Keeping the California Dairy Industry Competitive

By Brian German, Associate Broadcaster

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

California Ag News… At Your Fingertips!

California Ag News…
At Your Fingertips!