PIGS RESISTANT TO PRRS VIRUS

FIRST PIGS RESISTANT TO PRRS VIRUS

By Laurie Greene, Editor

First detected in the U.S. in 1987, Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome Virus (PRRS Virus or PRSSv), a recently recognized incurable viral disease of pigs that can cause animal reproductive failure, reduced growth and premature death, costs American farmers approximately $600 million in damages each year.[1] Genus PIC, a global pioneer in animal genetics, announced the development of the first pigs resistant to PRRS Virus through a long-standing collaboration with the University of Missouri’s College of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources. Specifically, they bred pigs that do not produce a protein necessary for the virus to spread.

The swine industry is invaluable to California’s agriculture, according to the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA), and the demand for swine in California is increasing greatly. Expanding ethnic populations have created new demands in the marketplace.

CDFA’s Animal Health Branch aids in the management of swine diseases because of the highly contagious nature of some diseases to swine, other species of livestock and/or people. Due to expanding international trade and travel, highly transmissible foreign animal disease can spread rapidly if undetected or detected but not reported.

Currently, CDFA participates in monitoring for PRRSv through the California Animal Health and Food Safety Laboratory System; however, since no vaccine has been effective and no control program has been proposed, preventing the spread of PRRSv within and between pig populations is a critical component of a farm’s disease control program.

CDFA Animal Health and Food Safety Services’ swine health experts recommend farmers look for blisters on hooves and on the snout, unusual or unexplained illness, hemorrhagic septicemias, unusual skin lesions ranging from cyanotic patches on the ears and abdomen to raised, scabby lesions mainly on the legs, high morbidity or mortality. If you suspect you are dealing with such a disease, contact CDFA at (916) 900-5002 or your district office.

Genus is dedicated to the responsible exploration of new innovations that benefit the wellbeing of animals, farmers, and ultimately consumers. PIC, a subsidiary of Genus, is the global leader in providing genetically superior pig breeding stock and technical support for maximizing genetic potential to commercial pork producers. PIC has been delivering genetic improvements for over 50 years.

The University of Missouri has signed a global licensing deal for future commercialization with Genus. If development continues, Genus will seek approvals and registration from governments before a wider market release. Genus expects that it will be at least five years until PRRSV resistant animals will be available to farmers.

(Photo Source: USDA)

[1] Holtkamp, Derald J.; Kliebenstein, James B.; Zimmerman, Jeffrey J.; Neumann, Eric; Rotto, Hans; Yoder, Tiffany K.; Wang, Chong; Yeske, Paul; Mowrer, Christine L.; and Haley, Charles (2012) “Economic Impact of Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome Virus on U.S. Pork Producers,” Animal Industry Report: AS 658, ASL R2671. Available at: http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/ans_air/vol658/iss1/3

_________________________________

Sources

Basi, Christian, Pigs that are Resistant to Incurable Disease Developed at University of Missouri: Discovery about PRRS virus could save swine industry hundreds of millions of dollars; Exclusive deal signed with global leader in animal genetics, December 8, 2015

CDFA Swine Health Information And Resources

California Pork Producers Association

Genus tackles major pig disease with breakthrough technology, December 8, 2015

Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome (PRRS)

Schmidt, Stephen, Big Cat Collaboration: CAFNR geneticist teams up with Kansas State researcher to make PRRSv-resistant pigs, December 8, 2015

California Ag Today2016-05-31T19:27:01-07:00December 16th, 2015|

Zacky Back in Poultry Business

By Kyle Buchoff, Assistant Editor

Lillian Zacky, a very familiar name in the Central Valley poultry industry, told an interesting story about the family’s business, “My father-in-law, Samuel Zacky, started this business in 1928. He would go into the country, which is now a metropolis, pick up chickens, take them back to his market—Sam’s Poultry Market in Los Angeles—and process them there. He thought that was the future; there would always be a corner poultry market. But my husband [Robert Zacky] said, ‘This is not going to be forever, and I don’t want to do this forever. So let’s sell to a supermarket because they are going to have packages of poultry in there.’ My father-in-law would not believe that. But anyway, it worked out.”

Sam’s Poultry Market (Photo Source: The Zacky Farms Story)

Zacky Farms flourished. Lillian Zacky recalled, “We started with chickens, we did turkeys at Thanksgiving, and now we are doing turkeys all year-round.”

In 2001, the family sold their chicken business to Foster Farms, Zacky explained, “with a non-compete for 10 years. Now that the non-compete is over, we are back in the chicken business because it is our passion, our family passion.”

The buyout terms also dictated the “Zacky” name could never appear on trade-packed chicken, but they could put Zacky on their other products, including Zacky Farms chicken franks and lunch meat. “But, anyway,” Zacky said, “for the chicken, it is now ‘Lillian Z’ because we wanted to put that ‘Z’ at the end.”

Lillian views the poultry business is a way of life. “It is not just a business,” she explained. “It is something we enjoy, plus we bring quality and health to the public. I feel what we produce for the consumer is what we would have for our own family.”

California Ag Today2016-05-31T19:27:01-07:00December 15th, 2015|

CENSUS OF AGRICULTURE UNDER SCRUTINY

HOUSE PANEL EXAMINES USE OF CENSUS OF AGRICULTURE

The United States House of Representatives Agriculture Committee’s Subcommittee on Biotechnology, Horticulture and Research held a hearing on December 9, 2015, to discuss the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) use of the Census of Agriculture authority to acquire farmer’s personal financial information. The Census of Agriculture is conducted every five years and is widely considered to be an important tool in developing strong agricultural policy. The Census is used by economists; state, local, and federal policy-makers; financial analysts; and farmers themselves.

However, in January 2015, the Agriculture Committee received correspondence from farmers and ranchers concerned that the USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) improperly used the Census of Agriculture authority to conduct a mandatory survey entitled Tenure, Ownership, and Transition of Agricultural Land (TOTAL). The TOTAL survey is a combination of what was previously the Agricultural Economics and Land Ownership Survey (AELOS), which was traditionally conducted as a follow-on Census of Agriculture survey, and the Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS III), which has been prior to this year conducted by the Economic Research Service as a voluntary, academic survey. Members of the committee primarily expressed concerns regarding the compulsory aspect of the expanded TOTAL survey, which inquired about all aspects of an operator’s personal financial portfolio as well as all aspects of farm related income and expenses.

“The most recent version of the TOTAL survey is extremely time-consuming, burdensome and over-broad in nature, and I’m concerned with the potentially negative effects this mandatory survey will have on farmers’ willingness to participate in the Census of Agriculture,” said subcommittee chair Rep. Rodney Davis, R-Ill., Chairman of the Subcommittee on Biotechnology, Horticulture, and Research. “It cannot be overstated how important the information in the Ag Census is for developing strong agricultural policy, rural development, farmland assessment, and the practices of many other sectors that serve farmers and ranchers. It guides our decision-making process, helps us determine what, if any, changes must be made to better serve and provide for farmers and ranchers, and gives us the ability to run farm programs and implement the Farm Bill,” said Davis.

“Data and information gained from the Census of Agriculture is important to every sector of the agriculture industry,” said Agriculture Committee Chairman K. Michael Conaway, “especially for lawmakers as we write and oversee the Farm Bill. However, the most recent version of the mandatory TOTAL survey is unnecessarily complex, intrusive and requires valuable time that farmers would otherwise spend operating their businesses. I hope today’s hearing shed light on the importance of quickly resolving this matter.”

Source: United States House of Representatives Agriculture Committee’s Subcommittee on Biotechnology, Horticulture and Research

California Ag Today2016-05-31T19:27:01-07:00December 15th, 2015|

Thanks to California Ag!

Thanks to California Ag for Thanksgiving!

By Patrick Cavanaugh, Deputy Editor

As Americans enjoy Thanksgiving dinner, let us recognize that farmers, especially California farmers, have made our bounty possible.

California is a big turkey producing state, always ranking in the top six nationally.

In 1948, Sophie Cubbison, who was born in San Carlos, California and who graduated from California Polytechnical University in 1912, invented the Mrs. Cubbinson’s melba toast or cornbread stuffing most of us serve. (She even paid her way through college with the money she earned feeding farmworkers. Source: www.mrscubbisons.com)

What would Thanksgiving be without wonderful California wines and Martinelli’s (another great California company) great sparkling apple and grape beverages to celebrate our good fortune?

And all those amazing side dishes . . . the russet and red potatoes from Kern County; the sweet potatoes from Merced County; the many wonderful squash varieties including zucchini, yellow, acorn squash . . . are all produced by farmers and farmworkers in California.

Green beans, lettuce, tomatoes, olives, cucumbers, radishes, and carrots will grace the tables across America, thanks to California producers in ped and other areas of the state.

Don’t forget garlic, onions and mushrooms are all produced primarily in California!

California farmers produce it all, with the exception of cranberries!

Thanks Wisconsin!

(And New Jersey, Massachusetts, Oregon, Washington, and parts of Canada)

You can thank California egg producers for those tasty hardboiled deviled eggs on Grandma’s favorite serving dish.

Plus raisins, a great addition to dressings and other dishes, thanks to the raisin producers in Fresno, Madera and Merced Counties.

And of course walnuts, almonds and pistachios are big part of our savory stuffing recipes and our snacks.

Apple cider and apple pie? California, among the top five states, produces a wide variety of apples.

Wait! What about pumpkin pie? California farmers.

And the wonderful whipped cream? Thanks to the California dairy industry.

Did you know the turkey pop-up timer was invented in California? Yes, indeed. Back in the 1950s, the California Turkey Producers Advisory Board brainstormed to figure out how to prevent over-cooked turkeys, according to Leo Pearlstein, a Los Angeles pubic relations pro in the food industry, who was among the five original board members. One board member—a California turkey producer, as Pearlstein tells it—looked up at the ceiling, noticed the sprinklers and had a Eureka moment! He suddenly realized the ceiling sprinklers were triggered when heat melted a material inside the gizmo. For a complete explanation, see How Pop-Up Turkey Timers Work at home.howstuffworks.com/pop-up-timer1.htm.

From all of us here at California Ag Today,

Thanks to California Ag for serving us a delectable nutritious Thanksgiving!

California Ag Today2016-05-31T19:27:03-07:00November 24th, 2015|

IFPRI Tackles More Food with Less Water

By Patrick Cavanaugh, Deputy Editor

Feeding a growing population is significantly dependent on irrigation—not only expansion but making existing irrigation more effective. The expansion of irrigation and water supplies has been limited by growth in demand from other sectors, like urban and industrial usage, but also livestock and aquaculture, noted Mark Rosegrant, director, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) Environmental and Production Technology Division.

“Obviously, the water sector is facing several challenges, not just in California, but around the world, including declining water quality, falling groundwater tables, and growing environmental demands for water that further restrict availability for irrigation and agriculture,” he said. “With climate change, we also will see changes in the volume and pattern of rainfall in crucial production areas that also will have negative effects in the developing world.”

“So the potential for significantly increased water scarcity in terms of water quantity and quality could put much more stress on the potential for meeting future food demand and food security,” Rosegrant said. “Thus reforming water management policies and investments to improve water use efficiency is critical to food production. Increased flexibility and adaptability of water systems to stress will need to be developed and strengthened,” Rosegrant explained. “We also need to look outside the water sector, purely defined, to things like agriculture and productivity growth through investment in the talks here.”

Rosegrant said though it is seems like there is a big water meeting around the world at least once every week, the contributions of IFPRI’s water research meeting held in Bonn, Germany last week, “Bonn 2011 Conference: The Water, Energy, and Food Security Nexus–Solutions for the Green Economy,” offered advantages and differences. “First, as you can see, we are not only looking at problems, but also looking at very highly interdisciplinary solutions, whether they be in engineering, hydrology, economic policy, or macro-policy. IFPRI also brings together academics, policy makers, development banks, politicians and NGO’s as well,” said Rosegrant.

“Finally I think it is very much an international meeting, we share global experiences for many regions of the world, but also with a strong focus on California, which not only faces extreme water difficulties, but also has probably the best ability in the world to deal with those kind of water crises. So many lessons can be learned from the California experience for the rest of the world,” he concluded.

California Ag Today2016-05-31T19:27:03-07:00November 23rd, 2015|

Avian Influenza Mapping Plan to Prevent CA Outbreaks

High Pathogenic Avian Influenza Mapping Plan (HPAI) to Prevent Outbreaks in California

By Patrick Cavanaugh, Deputy Editor

In 2014 and 2015, the outbreak of High Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) caused unprecedented damage to the mid-western commercial poultry industry, requiring the depopulation of 48 million birds, particularly turkeys and laying hens. There were isolated cases in last autumn in California as well. Migrating birds, generally considered to be the source of HPAI, move throughout the state in their flyways this time of year.

USDA Pacific Flyway Map

Maurice Pitesky, a UC Cooperative Extension population health & reproduction assistant specialist with an appointment in poultry health and food safety, emphasized the importance of the flyways, “These global flyways that waterfowl use to move north and south and back again every single year are like freeways. And in those freeway lanes, different birds interface with each other. So, we might have a Pacific flyway that covers California, but that Pacific flyway can interface with the East Asian and Australian flyway in the Northern Arctic. If you look at the genetics of the strains that were found in North America, especially in California, the genetics match some of the HPAI found in South Korea for example,” Pitesky said.

The Avian Influenza Mapping Plan is like overlaying maps of birds’ flying patterns for an early warning system for commercial operations. Pitesky observed, “We’re really just scratching the surface in how we can utilize maps with respect to surveillance and risk-mapping. For example, if I can locate on a map, where waterfowl, flooded rice fields, or wet fields are, and I can also determine where commercial poultry operations are, then I can start understanding which operations are at highest risk.”

I can triage my focus, outreach, and biosecurity efforts to those farms that are most closely located.

“New techniques are available so our national network of weather radar can actually be leveraged, and that data can be utilized remotely to understand in real time where waterfowl are hanging out. Eventually we can use that information to warn farmers in real time if there are migrating waterfowl near their farm,” he said.

California Ag Today2016-05-31T19:27:03-07:00November 18th, 2015|

Vandenheuvel Justifies FMMO in CA

Vandenheuvel Justifies FMMO in California

By Charmayne Hefley, Associate Editor

This Federal Milk Marketing Order (FMMO) hearing in Clovis, now in its seventh week, still has more ground to cover before it wraps up. Rob Vandenheuvel, general manager of the Milk Producers Council (MPC), reflected on the current California Marketing Order, “We’ve been operating under a separate system for many, many years. And while that may have worked for a good chunk of that time, in recent years, we’ve seen that the California system has not kept up with prices paid for milk in other parts of the country. So we’re trying to get on an even playing field.”

Vandenheuvel said resistance to the FMMO has come mainly from those who currently purchase California milk. “They’re not interested in a system that would require them to pay more for their milk,” he said. “They’ve had a pretty good deal in California, so they’re trying to protect it.”

He said some minor resistance comes from non-California dairymen concerned their prices could decrease should California join the FMMO. “There was talk earlier in this hearing that if dairy farmers in California were put on an even playing field and had more money paid for their milk, would they increase production? What impact might that have on the overall market?”

“When you look at California and the competition for land from pistachios and almonds,” Vandenheuvel said, “dairy is not the only agricultural interest here. So competition for land and competition for water are really going to put a lid on future growth—no matter what the dairymen get paid.”

Significant Losses

Vandenheuvel said the state’s current system has caused a significant profit loss for dairymen in California. “Our milk going to cheese plants is the largest class of milk sold in the state, but it’s still 45 percent of the total milk production. So, the state cheese price is less than the Federal price on that 45 percent of milk. The difference is a shortfall of nearly $2 billion since 2010 for the California producer.”

Vandenheuvel said when all dairies in the United States slumped in 2009, those outside of California were better able to recover under the FMMO than those inside under the CSMO. “When you look at the peaks and valleys that the dairy industry has gone through, we’ve had years like 2009, which was the worst ever,” Vandenheuvel said, “and 2012 was probably the second worst ever due to high feed costs. Most of the rest of the country recovered in the months and years following 2009 and then again 2012.

“California is still reeling. If we had sold off assets, we really haven’t recovered to where we were before 2009. So that $2 billion divided by the 2,000 dairymen that existed at that time in California was the difference between catching up and netting a profit. But actually happened, is that the industry has never recovered the losses, even after a few good years,” he noted.

Out-of-State Dairies Object to Federal Order

Vandenheuvel said that many California dairymen are looking to become part of the FMMO to get on a level playing field with the rest of the country’s milk producers. “If you buy into the theory that California dairymen got a fair price for milk will increase milk production and that would have a negative impact on the rest of the country,” Vandenheuvel said. “The best thing to happen to the rest of the country would be for California to go completely broke and shut down our entire dairy industry because they would be better off because we’d have twenty percent less milk in the whole country. That’s why I don’t think that those concerns are really strong. This hearing is more about the sellers of milk getting a fair shake and the buyers of milk not wanting to pay that fair shake.”

Vandenheuvel said that the way the dairy industry works—with milk spoiling each day—the government had to get involved in order to prevent buyers from refusing to buy one dairy’s milk and significantly devaluing the price of milk. “Cows don’t produce Monday through Friday only; there is no on or off spigot,” Vandenheuvel said. “So when you have a product that is being produced and piled up every day and has to be sold every day to a group of buyers who don’t have to buy every day –and they don’t have to buy from you—you’re at a huge disadvantage negotiating a fair price for that product.

“Imagine going to a car dealership where they had to sell a certain amount of cars that day or the vehicles would literally spoil, go bad and be worthless,” he noted. “You would have a great position to buy a car. That’s where we are, and that’s why the government got involved, said milk is important and we know dairymen are at a disadvantage. So we’re going to play referee between the two parties. Our problem in California is that that referee has been much more on the side of the processors keeping a low price in California.”

Two Main Proposals

Vandenheuvel said that two major proposals have been submitted to the USDA—one from the dairy-farmer-owned cooperatives and the other from the manufacturers. He said the USDA would decide upon the final proposal that will be voted on by producers.

“Manufacturers do not vote on Federal orders,” Vandenheuvel said, “It’s a producer vote. So it really comes down to the USDA. We think we’ve put together—as a producer coalition—a very sound, comprehensive approach of going to a FMMO while still respecting some of California’s issues—like our quota program; our transportation program.”

Vandenheuvel explained that it was very difficult to get the USDA to hold a hearing on the Milk Marketing Order. “We had to basically exhaust every alternative option in the state system,” he noted. “We tried a dozen hearings over the last ten years. We’ve tried legislation in California. We’ve tried suing the Secretary of Agriculture in California. We’ve tried protests and rallies on the steps of the capitol in front of CDFA, and at the end of the day last year our milk prices, compared to the rest of the country, had a bigger gap than we’ve seen in the last ten years.”

Vandenheuvel said the CDFA could have easily addressed many of the issues that caused milk producers to fight for a FMMO. Nevertheless, one issue, the CDFA could not have regulated for producers is interstate commerce. “That’s big for a state like California,” Vandenheuvel said. “We’ve got 35-40 million people here who drink milk and we’ve had situations in the past and currently in which milk is moving into California just to take advantage of the fact that California can’t do anything about it. Only a FMMO can regulate interstate commerce because of the way the constitution is drafted.”

Vandenheuvel said he hopes to see a recommended decision on the order by the middle of next year.

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-05-31T19:27:04-07:00November 9th, 2015|

Dairyman Cuts Diesel Emissions 92%

Kings County Dairyman Cuts Diesel Emissions 92% With Electric Mixer

By Laurie Greene, Editor

On his dairy in the Kings County town of Hanford, Philip Verway reduced his diesel consumption a remarkable 92% from 7,000 to 500 gallons in a given three-week period. His innovative secret to cutting diesel emissions is converting a diesel-powered commodity mixing machine to an electric mixer.

Kevin Abernathy, director of environmental services for the Milk Producers Council, said, “Rob Vandenheuvel, General Manager for Milk Producers Council, Philip and I helped him get a grant from the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, a state-appointed board which aims to minimize diesel exhaust output. We put together a proposal, submitted it, and their governing board actually approved the grant. What began as a concept on paper led to the reality of the processes being implemented on-farm. We had it up and running in about three months. Most importantly, the end results are not only meeting, but exceeding our expectations,” said Abernathy.

The entire operation dramatically reduces total nitrogen oxides (NOX gases), pollutants in the San Joaquin Valley, “Our initial expectation based on the modeling was 22 tons of NOX emissions.” The post-project NOX rates were about two tons—a major reduction.

Abernathy said Verway worked with contractors Duport and Supreme to engineer the electrification of the vertical mixers and built some fail-safe components into the system. Impressed, Abernathy said, “Based on what I have seen, they have done a remarkable job, particularly on the multiple fail-safes. Hats off to Duport and Supreme for coming up with technology that works day-in and day-out, 365 days of the year.”

Abernathy also admired the ingenuity in the California dairy industry, “They continue to come up with some of the most extraordinary ideas. It is an absolute blessing to work with them, and they make my job so much fun with projects like this!”

California Ag Today2016-05-31T19:27:05-07:00November 2nd, 2015|

CEO Council on Sustainability and Innovation Launched

Agribusiness CEOs and Bipartisan Policy Center Launch CEO Council on Sustainability and Innovation

Washington, D.C. – Leading agribusiness CEOs announced TODAY they are joining together with the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) to launch the CEO Council on Sustainability and Innovation to improve agriculture and food production sustainability.

Leaders of DuPont, Elanco, Kellogg Company and Land O’ Lakes joined the Council, which will research, collect and amplify innovative approaches in the agribusiness industry, over the next several months, to combat and adapt to the realities of increasing climate volatility, a growing population, and other threats to a stable food supply.

“In the next 35 years, experts anticipate demand for animal protein will climb by 60 percent as the population grows in size and affluence. Already demand for milk, eggs and poultry is outpacing anticipated expectations,” said Jeff Simmons, president, Elanco. “We can’t just rely on the public sector to address these challenges. The private sector must deliver innovative solutions that can help farmers sustainably meet our global food needs.”

“Achieving a sustainable future food supply and responding to the challenges posed by climate change are dependent on our collective actions,” said John Bryant, chairman and ceo, Kellogg Company. “Kellogg and others in our industry have a role to play in sharing innovative solutions and inspiring others to progress along their own sustainability journey.”

“To feed a growing global population, the food and agriculture industry must continue to increase agricultural productivity while facing climate variability and resource constraints,” said Chris Policinski, president and ceo of Land O’Lakes, Inc. “By working together, we can be more effective and efficient partners to enable a sustainable and productive supply chain.”

“The cost and availability of food is an issue of critical importance to all Americans,” said Jason Grumet, president, BPC. “The council will help kickstart a more robust national conversation about what’s already being done to promote sustainable food production and what more needs to be done.”

Although there is extensive industry research into various sustainability practices, there is little collective understanding of the strategies being deployed, nor is there public appreciation of adaptation challenges, mitigation opportunities, and the importance of agriculture in what must be a global conversation. The council will highlight and promote these innovative efforts.

The council’s work will culminate in a public report to be released in 2016.

California Ag Today2016-05-31T19:27:05-07:00October 29th, 2015|

Milk Marketing Order in CA Worries Other Dairy States

By Kyle Buchoff, Assistant Editor

Tom Van Nortwick, owner and publisher of Agribusiness Publications in Fresno for the last 35 years, has been attending the USDA dairy hearing in Clovis to adopt a Federal Milk Marketing Order in California. Van Nortwick warned that should California go with the Federal Milk Marketing Order, the move could hurt prices for all milk producers across the nation.

“Dairymen in other parts of the country have expressed concern that if California dairymen were paid more for their milk, they may go ahead and produce more milk,” Van Nortwick said. “California is a milk-making machine with comparatively fewer dairies. More milk on the market has been proven to create volatility and huge price fluctuations up or down, depending on demand. So California producers’ getting paid more and producing more milk would reduce the price of all milk throughout the country.”

“We found that 2-3% too much milk in the market at any one time can create up to a 40% reduction in price paid to producers,” Van Nortwick explained. “And of course, California is not the only overproducing state; Wisconsin, Minnesota and other midwestern states are also overproducing at this time.”

Van Nortwick also pointed out, “Domestic demand is strong, but exports have shrunk by about 50%, which is about 8% of last year’s market. So when you add an 8% oversupply of milk volume to the market as we broach the time for holiday season orders, and there are strong indications that inventories of milk, butter, powder, and cheese are rising across the country, prices paid to producers will fall.

“Nobody needs prices to go any lower,” stated Van Nortwick. “Our counterparts in New Zealand, Australia, and the European Union are suffering mightily, even more than we are, with record-setting low prices because they think they can just produce more than they can sell. If you produce more than you can sell, you are going to take a hit, and unfortunately it is the producers who end up taking that hit.”

California Ag Today2016-05-31T19:27:06-07:00October 19th, 2015|

Previous 121314 Next