CALIF. ALMOND FARMERS FACE TOUGH DROUGHT CHOICES – AP

VALLEY ALMOND FARMERS RIP OUT ORCHARDS PREMATURELY

Source: CDFA release of Scott Smith, Associated Press article

With California’s agricultural heartland entrenched in drought, almond farmers are letting orchards dry up and in some cases making the tough call to have their trees torn out of the ground, leaving behind empty fields.

In California’s Central Valley, Barry Baker is one of many who hired a crew that brought in large rumbling equipment to perform the grim task in a cloud of dust.

A tractor operator drove heavy steel shanks into the ground to loosen the roots and knock the trees over. Another operator, driving a brush loader equipped with a fork-like implement on the front, scooped up the trees and root balls and pushed them into a pile, where an excavator driver grabbed them up in clusters with a clawing grapple. The trees were fed into a grinder that spit wood chips into piles to be hauled away by the truckload and burned as fuel in a power plant.

Baker, 54, of Baker Farming Company, has decided to remove 20 percent of his trees before they have passed their prime. There’s simply not enough water to satisfy all 5,000 acres of almonds, he said. “Hopefully, I don’t have to pull out another 20 percent,” Baker said, adding that sooner or later neighboring farmers will come to the same conclusion. “They’re hoping for the best. I don’t think it’s going to come.”

There are no figures yet available to show an exact number of orchards being removed, but the economic stakes and risks facing growers are clear. Almonds and other nuts are among the most high-value crops in the Central Valley — the biggest producer of such crops in the country. In 2012, California’s almond crop had an annual value of $5 billion. This year farmers say the dry conditions are forcing them to make difficult decisions.

Gov. Jerry Brown last month declared a drought emergency after the state’s driest year in recorded history.

The thirst for water has sparked political battles in Washington, D.C., over use of the state’s rivers and reservoirs. This month President Barack Obama visited the Central Valley, announcing millions of dollars in relief aid that in part will help the state’s ranchers and farmers better conserve and manage water.

Baker, who favors farming over politics, explained the math leading to his decision. Between now and the summer almond harvest, he would need to irrigate his orchards with scarce, expensive water and pay to have the trees pruned and sprayed. Bringing in beehives to pollinate the blossoms costs nearly $500 an acre.

That all would amount to a $2.5 million gamble, without knowing if the next couple of months will bring significant rain to the valley floor and snow to the mountains. “You’d have wrapped a lot of money up in those trees to see what happens,” he said.

Removing old trees is common practice. Almond trees remain productive for about 25 years, growers said. The state’s almond farmers removed over 10,000 acres of trees in 2012, according to a report by the California Department of Food and Agriculture. Most were past their prime. No figures are available on how many orchards farmers are removing today, said department spokesman Steve Lyle.

But Alan Thompson of G&F Agri Service LLC, who leads the crew ripping out Baker’s orchards, said the drought spiked his business by 75 percent. This time of year is typically slow, but Thompson, 31, said his heavy equipment operators start at dawn each day and work until sundown, removing orchards in short order.

“We don’t even mess around with cutting them up with chain saws,” he said. “That grinder is the way to do it right there.”

Ryan Jacobsen, executive director of the Fresno County Farm Bureau, said he expects that almond growers will be removing trees through the spring and summer because of the drought. “I have no doubt permanent crops will be taken out because of this,” he added.

Tim Lynch of Agra Marketing Group said power plants in the state nearly have more wood chips from almond trees than they can handle. Lynch’s firm acts as the middle-man between growers getting rid of their trees and the power plants that need bio fuel to burn. The dry weather this winter has allowed growers to work in their orchards that are typically soggy, and the drought pushed them to take out trees earlier than normal, he said.

The high value of almonds has caught the eye of investors in recent years, who paid top-dollar for land to plant almond orchards and cash in on the bonanza. Their value remains strong, making the decision for farmers to remove orchards difficult.

William Bourdeau, executive vice president of Harris Farms in Coalinga, said he and his colleagues within the next 30 days will have to confront the hard decision about scaling back their almond orchards. They’ve already decided not to plant 9,000 acres of vegetables — including 3,000 acres of lettuce that would have produced 72 million heads and generated 700,000 hours of work.

Next, they may rip out 1,000 acres of almonds, a permanent crop, Bourdeau said.

“I hesitate to use a number that big. Unfortunately, it’s going to that big, or bigger,” he said, still holding out hope the season will turn wet. “We’re trying to limp along as long as we can.”

“Leaving the orchards un-watered and expecting they’ll somehow survive the drought is no option,” Bourdeau said, “because insects infest the dying trees and multiply, spreading to other orchards.”

“Drawing well water is a bad option,” he said. Their wells sink 2,400 feet below ground in his region of the Central Valley, providing water that’s unhealthy and compromises the crops for years, if the trees survive at all, he said.

They have considered blending well and surface water to minimize the harm. Or they can remove some almonds to direct their limited water to fewer orchards.

“There’s a lot of what-ifs,” Bourdeau said. “There’s no good decision. It’s what’s the least-worse option.”

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-05-31T19:38:56-07:00February 24th, 2014|

NEW USDA GRANTS TO HELP MEET WATER CHALLENGES

NEW USDA GRANTS $6 MILLION IN 2014, UP TO $30 MILLION OVER NEXT FIVE YEARS

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced TODAY that USDA’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) will make $6 million in grants available this year, and up to $30 million total over the next five years, as part of a new initiative to provide solutions to agricultural water challenges. The grants will be used to develop management practices, technologies and tools for farmers, ranchers, forest owners and citizens to improve water resource quantity and quality.

“Cutting edge research holds the key to tackling the complex challenges posed by prolonged drought and ensuring the future food security of our nation,” said Secretary Vilsack. “These grants will help arm America’s farmers and ranchers with the tools and strategies they need to adapt and succeed, and build on ongoing, cross-governmental efforts to provide relief to those impacted by severe drought.”

Today’s announcement builds on USDA efforts to help farmers, ranchers and forest landowners mitigate the impacts of drought, including implementation of the livestock disaster assistance programs provided through the 2014 Farm Bill and $40 million in additional conservation dollars.

NIFA has identified three critical topics that will be funded through this new challenge area: 1) ensuring the water security of surface and ground water needed to produce agricultural goods and services; 2) improving nutrient management in agricultural landscapes focused on nitrogen and phosphorous; and 3) reducing impacts of chemicals and the presence and movement of environmental pathogens in the nation’s water supply. NIFA’s approach will link social, economic, and behavioral sciences with traditional biophysical sciences and engineering to address regional scale issues with shared hydrological processes, and meteorological and basin characteristics.

NIFA is expected to make $30 million available over the next five years for the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) water challenge area, with the expectation that the new projects awarded this fiscal year would receive additional funding in the following four years. All additional funding is contingent on future congressional appropriations and achievement of project objectives and milestones.

Building on its investment in water research, NIFA will also fund projects through the National Integrated Water Quality Program (NIWQP), which addresses critical water resource issues including water quality protection and water conservation. The RFA for this program is expected to be released in the spring of 2014.

The NIWQP supports research, education and Extension projects and programs that address critical water resource issues in agricultural, rural and urbanizing watersheds. These projects reflect the growing need to combine knowledge from biological and physical sciences with social and economic sciences to address complex water issues.

The NIWQP focuses on addressing water issues at the watershed scale. Projects funded by the NIWQP are outcome-oriented, aiming to increase awareness and change behaviors related to water resource management.

Through federal funding and leadership for research, education and extension programs, NIFA focuses on investing in science and solving critical issues impacting people’s daily lives and the nation’s future. More information is available at: www.nifa.usda.gov.

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender. To file a complaint of discrimination, write: USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Ave., S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice), or (202) 720-6382 (TDD).

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-05-31T19:38:56-07:00February 24th, 2014|

Center For Land-Based Learning Issues Official Statement On Chipotle’s “Farmed And Dangerous” Series And Cancelled Fundraiser

Chipotle’s “Farmed And Dangerous” Series Designed To Divide The Agricultural Community

By Laurie Greene, Associate Editor

After significant discussion among the Center for Land-Based Learning’s (CLBL) Board of Directors, they cancelled a Burrito Day! fundraising event with Chipotle, scheduled for Thursday, February 20, 2014.

Historically, the highly popular, nationwide Chipotle Mexican Grill chain, with its image closely tied to sustainable agriculture, has strongly supported the CLBL, which provides programs that create and nurture the next generation of farmers. That’s great because sustainability is key to all California farmers.

The Center, based in Winters, first became concerned about the fundraiser after Chipotle launched trailers one week prior to the fundraiser about a comedy series called, “Farmed and Dangerous.”

As stated on the Chipotle logo-identified Farmed and Dangerous website, “The series explores the outrageously twisted and utterly unsustainable world of industrial agriculture.” The series launched on HULU on February 17, three days prior to the event, and the company issued a press release stating that it “provides a satirical look at the lengths the agriculture industry goes to manage perceptions about its practices.”

The trailer narrative reads, “Industrial agriculture giant Animoil thinks it has the solution to feeding the world—and its own interests. But when activist Chip Randolph sets out to expose what happens before the meat gets butchered and the products hit the shelves, things get messy, literally.”

The Center cancelled the fundraising event citing the series’ animosity toward production agriculture as a marketing strategy, thus hurting agriculture at all levels, and called for critical-thinking and dialogue rather than divisive marketing.

Mary Kimbel, Executive Director, CLBL, said the Center had worked with Chipotle as a mutually beneficial partner for about 2.5 years. First, a Chipotle project last fall got the Center’s attention.

On September 12, 2013, Chipotle released “Scarecrow” and an accompanying press release with the following description:

Chipotle Mexican Grill (NYSE: CMG) today launched “The Scarecrow,” an arcade-style adventure game for iPhone, iPad and iPod touch, along with a companion animated short film of the same name. Both the game and the film depict a scarecrow’s journey to bring wholesome food back to the people by providing an alternative to the processed food that dominates his world.

“The Scarecrow” film and game are designed to help educate people about the world of industrial food production that supplies much of what they eat.

“The more people learn about where their food comes from and how it is prepared, the more likely they are to seek out high-quality, classically prepared food like we serve in our restaurants,” said Mark Crumpacker, chief marketing officer at Chipotle. “We created ‘The Scarecrow’ game and film as an entertaining and engaging way to help people better understand the difference between processed food and the real thing.”

“More recently,” Kimbel said, “We made a decision to do a fundraising with 43 Chipotle restaurants from Chico to Visalia, including Napa and Sonoma as well.”

“We were to receive 50% of the proceeds from customers who mentioned CLBL or produced a fundraising flyer (on paper or cell phone),” Kimbel continued. “We would have received $20,000 to $40,000, but it is hard to know of course.”

What CLBL did receive was a strong agricultural industry response to Chipotle’s marketing strategies. “Out of concern,” said Kimbel, “the CLBL Board watched the trailers and observed that this was a whole different level of marketing than prior Chipotle releases. It was stronger from the standpoint of really vilifying large-scale production agriculture, and our organization has always stood for working with all parts of agriculture, whether it’s a small-scale farm or a large-scale farm.”

She believes the series is too one-sided and agriculture is not black and white. “Agriculture is complex, has many challenges and we need to work on getting solutions,” explained Kimbel.

CLBL reached out to Chipotle management to have a discussion and is appreciative that Chipotle agreed and arranged it quickly. It was to have occurred on Friday (after press time).

“We want to understand their reasoning for the marketing campaign the way it is, and we want to present some of the information that we have here and why we think that there can be a positive kind of campaign without tearing down production Agriculture,” Kimbel commented.

“Chipolte has done a lot of very important things for the agricultural industry and they have made very positive changes, and we wish that that would be what was portrayed instead of tearing down part of agriculture that doesn’t need to be torn down.”

“All of agriculture is very important to our society,” she said.

Regarding an outcome, Kimbel said, “Hopefully we will be able to come to a decision that we will be able to work together in the future with regards to discussions about marketing campaigns or and at least to be able to weigh in and provide input and feedback as it allows.”

“We have no idea what the ability to do that is, but those would be the things we would be asking for.”

Here is the Center for Land-Based Learning’s official statement dated February 20, 2014:

Chipotle has been a strong supporter of Land-Based Learning programs, and we have appreciated Chipotle’s partnership and enthusiasm for our mission. However, the Board unanimously feels that Chipotle’s current “Farmed and Dangerous” mini-series crosses a line by fostering animosity toward production agriculture. This strategy hurts agriculture at all levels, not just large-scale production agriculture.

The Land-Based Learning board represents a broad range of leaders in the community, including farmers, educators, financial professionals, and policy experts. Land-Based Learning is not dedicated to any particular farming approach; instead, we aim, through education, to produce future leaders in agriculture, whether small or large, organic or conventional.

We are disappointed in Chipotle’s “Farmed and Dangerous” series. Land-Based Learning has always advocated for an open and honest dialogue about agricultural production; accordingly, we agree with Chipotle’s goal to promote critical thinking and discussion about the sources of our food. Chipotle’s previous contributions to the discussion have been challenging and provocative in a positive way.

We disagree, however, with the tone and approach of this new series, which appears designed to divide the agricultural community into big production (inherently malevolent) and small production (inherently virtuous). This is a false choice. Rather than educate the community about where its food comes from, we view the series as pitting some farms against other farms and inaccurately portraying the overwhelming majority of responsible food production operations.

The reality is that production agriculture is large and small, organic and conventional, and everything in between. Our programs, which educate high-school students about agriculture, conservation and sustainability on working farms and ranches throughout the state, are strongly supported by a wide range of agricultural interests, all of which see the value in education and training for a new generation of farmers and leaders in California. We have no doubt that this diversity of supporters is one of our greatest strengths as an organization.

The Land-Based Learning leadership team has scheduled a meeting with Chipotle’s senior management to personally convey this message, to attempt to understand the reasoning behind the “Farmed and Dangerous” series, and to request that Chipotle reconsider its divisive marketing strategy. Through constructive dialogue with Chipotle, it is our hope that their campaign might be transformed to promote productive discussion on the values we share related to a healthy and sustainable food supply.

The Center for Land-Based Learning is dedicated to creating the next generation of farmers and teaching California’s youth about the importance of agriculture and watershed conservation.

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-05-31T19:38:56-07:00February 23rd, 2014|

Science Trumps Dirty Dozen Produce List

Science Based Data Pushes Back

on Dirty Dozen Produce List

By Patrick Cavanaugh, editor

Marilyn Dolan, Executive Director of Alliance for Food and Farming

The Environmental Working Group, which issues what they call the Dirty Dozen Produce list each year, has gotten major pushback by science based produce companies.

“The dirty dozen list is produced by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) and it tells people about the 12 top commodities, that are the most pesticide contaminated of all fruits and vegetables, said Marilyn Dolan, Executive Director of the Alliance for Food & Farming, based in Watsonville, Calif. “They tell consumers ‘what they should do for those 12 items is to buy organic, and not conventional, because the conventional is laden with pesticides’”

However the Alliance for Food & Farming think the EWG is totally off-base and needed to be pushed back with facts. “The Alliance feels that this is fear-based marketing and doesn’t encourage consumption of fruits and vegetables and scares consumers,” said Dolan.

“We have launched a program to educate the media and others about the facts behind pesticide residues and the fact that residues are so low that consumers should just eat fruits and vegetables,” Dolan said. “It doesn’t matter if the fruits and vegetables are organic or conventional, because they are all safe and good for consumers.”

In 2010 the Alliance launched a campaign called safe fruits and veggies initiative and they also launched a website that is designed to give consumers credible science-based information about the safety of fruits and vegetables. “There is all kinds of information there, including scientific reports, and interactive tools that can be used,” said Dolan.

“There is also a pesticide residue calculator, which can be used to show consumers that they can eat up to 56,000 servings of carrots and there would be no health impacts from pesticides on them because they are so, so small,” she said.

The website for this information is http://www.safefruitsandveggies.com

Dolan noted that the media listened to the facts. “Before 2010 when we launched our safe fruits and veggies program, the media usually ran the dirty dozen list every year, and never provided any counter-balance.”

“However, once we decided to educate the media about this information, we found that they responded to it really well and they started looking at the information that was presented. And for the most part they just quit talking about the issue of pesticide residues. This is because they could see from our website that the information was there to counter this dirty dozen list,” she noted.

Dolan said that it became harder for the media to cover the story, and fortunately for everyone they opted to not cover it so much any more. “There has been a drastic reduction on the coverage of the dirty dozen every year when it’s released.

One of the big messages on the website is that strict government regulations are in place in the U.S. and extremely healthy-protective. “There are all kinds of systems from the EPA setting safety tolerances, to the USDA and the State Departments, who monitor actual residues on fruits and vegetables to make sure that they are not over safety limits.

“And consistently these government agencies find that fruits and vegetables sold in the U.S. are extremely safe, that they usually have no pesticide residues on them at all, and if they do, they are very, very small,” said Dolan. “They repeatedly assure Americans that fruits and vegetables are safe to eat and health experts around the world are telling people that they should be eating more fruits and vegetables.”

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-05-31T19:38:57-07:00February 23rd, 2014|

Governor Brown Announces Emergency Drought Help

Governor Brown, Legislative Leaders Announce Emergency Drought Help

On Friday, facing the worst water shortage crisis in the state’s modern history, Governor Jerry Brown announced plans to introduce emergency drought legislation that provides $687.4 million for affected communities and workers. Joining the governor in his announcement in Sacramento was Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg and Assembly Speaker John Perez.

Although the specific language in the bill is still being drafted by Senate staff, the proposed legislation makes millions available for conservation and drinking supplies for communities from existing bond funds, while also providing housing and food relief for impacted farm workers. The bill appropriates most of the remaining funding from a bond measure approved by the voters several years ago, Proposition 84, a measure that Western Growers supported.

Specifically for communities, the legislation provides bond funds to help local communities capture and manage water better, provides funding for securing emergency drinking water supplies for drought impacted communities and also increases funding for state and local conservation corps to assist communities with efficiency upgrades and fire risk. This includes $1 million for the “Save Our Water” public awareness campaign – a water conservation campaign aimed at the state’s residents.

Impacted workers will have access to $25.3 million in food assistance funding and $21 million for housing related assistance.

Additionally, the proposed legislation adopts new groundwater replenishment regulations and makes statutory changes to ensure existing water rights laws are followed and provides increased enforcement penalties for illegally diverting water. The bill also provides the California Department of Housing and Community Development the greatest flexibility to maximize migrant housing units.

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-05-31T19:38:57-07:00February 22nd, 2014|

SUPPORT NEEDED FOR AB 1961 TO PRESERVE FARMLAND FOR GENERATIONS

SUSTAINABLE FARMLAND STRATEGY ACT (AB 1961) INTRODUCED TO PRESERVE FARMLAND

Announced TODAY, CalCAN is a proud co-sponsor of a bill introduced on Feb. 19th by Assembly Agriculture Chair Susan Talamantes Eggman — the Sustainable Farmland Strategy Act (AB 1961). The bill recognizes the significance of the state’s farmland resources by requiring counties to complete a Sustainable Farmland Strategy. It is co-sponsored by CalCAN, Community Alliance with Family Farmers and American Farmland Trust.

photo credit: CAFF

“The Sustainable Farmland Strategy Act acknowledges that our agricultural land in California is a finite resource that is critical for our economy and our food security,” said Assemblymember Talamantes Eggman. “This bill highlights the need to discuss at the local level how we can maintain our agricultural land for generations to come.”

The bill requires that counties with significant farmland resources inventory their agriculturally zoned land, describe their goals and policies to retain farmland and mitigate for its loss and compile that information on the county website. Counties with less than four percent of their land base in agriculture are not required to complete a Sustainable Farmland Strategy.

“We cannot continue to lose farmland at the rate we’re going,” said Jean Okuye, Merced County farmer and President of the Merced Chapter of the California Farm Bureau Federation. “I welcome the opportunity this bill creates at the local level to discuss how our county can support our farmers and keep a thriving agriculture on the land.”

California is the most diverse and productive agricultural state in the United States with sales in 2013 topping nearly $45 billion. The state’s farms and ranches supply the majority of the country’s fruits, nuts and vegetables and are leading suppliers of dairy products. Despite this, over the past 30 years, the state has lost an average of 30,000 acres, annually, of agricultural land to non-agricultural uses.

Counties have jurisdiction over the majority of the state’s agricultural land and play a vital role in regulating the use of land, including the conservation of agricultural lands through zoning and planning activities. The Sustainable Farmland Strategy is intended to be a complement to the state’s Williamson Act, which provides tax incentives for landowners to keep their land in agriculture.

To find ways to express your support for AB 1961, go to the CalCAN website.

The California Climate and Agriculture Network (CalCAN) brings a sustainable agricultural perspective to climate change and agriculture policy. Our efforts are aimed at increasing funding for research, technical assistance and financial incentives for farmers whose practices reduce GHG emissions, sequester carbon, and provide many environmental co-benefits. Moreover, we aim to build capacity among sustainable agriculture advocacy organizations and our farmer members to engage in climate change debate. CalCAN represents sustainable agriculture organizations and allied groups that work directly with California’s sustainable and organic farmers.

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-05-31T19:38:57-07:00February 21st, 2014|

CENSUS OF AGRICULTURE RESULTS TELL STORY OF UNLIMITED POTENTIAL IN RURAL AMERICA

QUICK LOOK SHOWS CALIFORNIA CENSUS RESULTS DIFFER SLIGHTLY FROM NATION

By Laurie Greene, Associate Editor, with Sources: USDA, CDFA

This week, USDA released preliminary data from the 2012 Census of Agriculture, a complete count, taken every five years, of America’s farms and ranches and the people who operate them. The 2012 Census provides a snapshot of a rural America that remains stable in the face of difficult economic times. While the data do not paint a perfect picture, they do tell a story of the unlimited potential and growing opportunity in modern rural America.

California continues to top all states in market value of agricultural products sold with $42.6 billion versus the next state, Iowa, with 30.8 billion.

Census data indicate that the loss of farmland has slowed significantly since 2007, which means that while a total of 72 million acres of farmland have been lost since the 1982 census, we have begun to stem the tide.

In California, farm acreage was up only slightly (<1%) in 2012. New tools in the 2014 Farm Bill should help to further slow and perhaps even reverse this trend in some areas of the country.

The results reinforce what we have known for many years: the farm population is aging.

California farmers tend to be older (60.1 years), on average, than in the rest of the country (58.3).

While that is a concern, the national data also show that the number of young farmers increased slightly and the number of minority farm and ranch principal operators increased dramatically, reflecting the changing face of America as a whole.

However, in California, the number of farmers older than 74 years old increased by 13%, and the number of young farmers (less than 25 years old) decreased by 13%. Most principal farm operators in the state tend to be in the 55 to 64 years of age category.

The state’s minority operators increased in all categories, with the exception of female operators (-7%).

We are hopeful that USDA policies that attract and retain the next generation of talent into rural America will help to continue this trend.

The number of small and very large farms held steady. This reflects, in part, USDA’s recent push to help farmers and ranchers diversify into new markets, including local and regional food systems, specialty crops and organic production, and expand market access for American farm products overseas.

Our state showed growth in the number of farms with less than 10 acres (32%) and greater than 1,000 acres (5.7%). California farms with annual incomes less than $50,000 continue to predominate, with slightly fewer than in 2007.

The 2014 Farm Bill will do even more to expand support for beginning farmers and new market opportunities for all producers.

At the same time, we cannot ignore that devastating weather events increasingly impacts producers’ bottom lines. The prolonged drought and lack of disaster assistance over the past several years have made it even tougher for livestock producers and mid-sized farms to survive and thrive, and the data reflects that reality.

We must do more to protect the middle—farms and ranches that are middle-sized and mid-income—and ensure that they can access resources and protections to help them thrive. Here too, the farm bill will provide much-needed relief and stability through guaranteed disaster assistance.

More than anything, the census illustrates the power of data. Data from the census helps to inform smart policymaking that makes life easier for farmers and ranchers. It helps to stand up programs and initiatives that benefit young and beginning farmers and ranchers just starting out; improve access to resources that help women, veteran and minority farmers and ranchers thrive; and help farmers and ranchers diversify into new markets, including local and regional food systems, specialty crops and organic production.

We are on the right track, but there is still more work to do. In order to survive, American agriculture must continue to embrace innovation and diversity in crop production, markets, people and land use across the agricultural sector.

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-05-31T19:38:57-07:00February 21st, 2014|

EPA Proposes New Safety Measures to Protect Farm Workers from Pesticide Exposure

EPA Seeks to Raise Farmer Protection Standard to What Other Workers Already Receive

TODAY, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced proposed revisions to the Worker Protection Standard in order to protect the nation’s two million farm workers and their families from pesticide exposure.

“Today marks an important milestone for the farm workers who plant, tend, and harvest the food that we put on our tables each day,” said Gina McCarthy, EPA Administrator. “EPA’s revised Worker Protection Standard will afford farm workers similar health protections to those already enjoyed by workers in other jobs. Protecting our nation’s farm workers from pesticide exposure is at the core of EPA’s work to ensure environmental justice.”

EPA is proposing significant improvements to worker training regarding the safe usage of pesticides, including how to prevent and effectively treat pesticide exposure. Increased training and signage will inform farm workers about the protections they are afforded under the law and will help them protect themselves and their families from pesticide exposure.

Workers and others near treated fields will now be protected from pesticide overspray and fumes. In addition, EPA has proposed that children under 16 be legally barred from handling all pesticides, with an exemption for family farms. These revisions protect workers while ensuring agricultural productivity and preserving the traditions of family farms.

This proposal represents more than a decade of extensive stakeholder input by federal and state partners and from across the agricultural community including farm workers, farmers, and industry on the current EPA Worker Protection Standard (WPS) for Agricultural Pesticides first established in 1992.

Proposed changes to the Agricultural Worker Protection Standard (WPS) include:

Increased frequency of mandatory trainings (from once every five years to annually) to inform farm workers about the protections they are afforded under the law, including restrictions on entering pesticide-treated fields and surrounding areas, decontamination supplies, access to information and use of personal protective equipment. Expanded trainings will include instructions to reduce take-home exposure from pesticides on work clothing and other safety topics.
Expanded mandatory posting of no-entry signs for the most hazardous pesticides; the signs prohibit entry into pesticide-treated fields until residues decline to a safe level.
First time-ever minimum age requirement: Children under 16 will be prohibited from handling pesticides, with an exemption for family farms.
No-entry buffer areas surrounding pesticide-treated fields will protect workers and others from exposure from pesticide overspray and fumes.
Measures to improve the states’ ability to enforce compliance including requiring employers to keep records of application-specific pesticide information as well as farmworker training and early-entry notification for two years.
Personal Protection Equipment (respirator use) must be consistent with the Occupational Safety & Health Administration standards for ensuring respirators are providing protection, including fit test, medical evaluation, and training.
Make available to farm workers or their advocates (including medical personnel) information specific to the pesticide application, including the pesticide label and Safety Data Sheets.
Additional changes make the rule more practical and easier to comply with for farmers.
Continues the exemptions for family farms.

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-05-31T19:38:57-07:00February 20th, 2014|

DROUGHT INFLUENCES DAIRY FARMERS’ FEED PLANS

Feed Crop Competition Depletes Inventories and Increased Prices

Just as milk prices are improving, the drought is worsening, and fierce competition for hay and other feed crops, plus limited water supplies to grow other feed crops, have increased input costs and dimmed the outlook for California dairy farmers, the California Farm Bureau Federation posted TODAY.

“Poor range conditions due to drought have forced many beef cattle ranchers and sheep producers to feed more hay, depleting inventories and pushing prices up for dairy farmers,” Fresno County dairyman Donny Rollin said.

“There’s not a lot out here right now, so everybody is scrambling for the same stuff,” he said.

He noted that even though he has purchased hay recently, scheduling a delivery has been difficult, as busy truck drivers hustle to drop off all the loads.

Tulare County dairy farmer Tom Barcellos said lack of surface water deliveries from the Friant Unit of the Central Water Project and inadequate groundwater supplies will likely force him to fallow 30 percent to 40 percent of his silage-crop acreage this summer. He said he might also have to abandon some of his alfalfa acreage in order to stretch his water supply to grow additional forage for next fall and winter.

“If we don’t get any rainfall, I don’t know what I’m going to do, because I don’t even know that the water table can sustain the wells that are going to water the cows and wash the milk barn down,” Barcellos said.

“While a robust U.S. corn crop has helped to moderate corn-grain prices for dairy farmers, prices for other feed commodities such as soybean meal and cottonseed have continued to escalate. Now, California dairy producers can also expect to feel the pinch from local sources of feed,” said Peter Robinson, a University of California Cooperative Extension dairy nutrition and management specialist.

He said he expects there will be reduced availability of all feed crops if drought conditions do not improve significantly. “Dairy farmers will see their production costs increase, as they look to buy feed from out of state and maybe even offshore,” he added.

He noted that winter wheat silage, which is planted in the fall in the San Joaquin Valley, is usually germinated by rainfall, but this year, many growers have had to irrigate to get the seeds to sprout. “Because farmers probably won’t want to pump much water to support the crop,” Robinson said, “he expects there will be less production of winter wheat this year.”

He said he also expects feed-crop acreage in the San Joaquin Valley to see a significant shift away from corn silage toward sorghum, a less thirsty crop.

“Unfortunately, sorghum doesn’t have the same nutritional value to dairy cows that corn does,” he said, “and that will impact milk production.”

“Also, with water shortages to bring less cotton acreage in the valley, there will be reduced supplies of cottonseed, an important source of energy and fat in the dairy ration,” Robinson noted. “With cottonseed prices already elevated and expected to go higher,” he added, “dairy farmers may choose to feed more forage as a substitute.”

“But if you’re also dumbing down the corn silage by converting it to sorghum, then you’re going to have problems formulating rations that continue to have high milk flows,” he said. “Overall, I don’t think there’s any way that we don’t see a reduction in milk production over the summer.”

Rollin said he already grows sorghum as part of the feed mix for his heifers but noted that corn silage and wheat silage are still the best forages for his milking herd. Over the years, he’s made use of alternative feeds such as culled fruits and vegetables, including citrus, pomegranates, peaches, onions and asparagus, as well as bakery waste. This year, he’s also going to start feeding soy hull pellets, a byproduct of soybean processing.

“Farmers are pretty ingenious about figuring a way to feed cattle,” he said. “If there’s anything of any value anywhere, it’s getting gobbled up.”

But with orchard farmers trying to save water to keep their trees alive, Rollin said there would be fewer acres of vegetables and other row crops that have been a source of dairy feed.

Barcellos, who also planted sorghum last year due to tight water supplies, said dairy farmers do not normally compete with beef cattle ranchers for the same feed, because beef producers usually have plenty of grasses on rangeland to graze their cattle and they also supplement with feeds that work well for beef cattle but not necessarily for milk production.

“This time, we’re going to be in a situation where if there’s a bale of hay that’s got a string around it, everybody wants it,” he said.

“One feed product for which dairy farmers might be competing head on with beef producers this year is almond hulls, which are a big part of the dairy feed mixture,” Robinson said.

While some cattle ranchers have already begun to shrink their herds due to dry pastures and lack of available feed, Barcellos said he hopes he won’t need to make reductions on his dairy. But he noted that dairy farmers would have to make those considerations if they don’t have enough feed.

“Concern about available forage supplies may pressure some dairies to scale back their cow numbers, but higher milk prices may also drive them to increase stocking density,” Robinson said.

Even though Fresno County dairy farmer Steve Nash grows about 70 percent of his feed and describes his farming location as a good area for groundwater, he said he’s focused on maintaining his herd and trying to pay back some of the debt he’s incurred in recent years.

While some dairies may be expanding to take advantage of higher milk prices, Nash said he thinks many of them will be “holding back and trying to improve their financial situation.”

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-05-31T19:38:57-07:00February 19th, 2014|

CENTER FOR LAND-BASED LEARNING CANCELS BURRITO FUNDRAISER; CHIPOTLE COMEDIC FILM–NOT SOMETHING TO LAUGH ABOUT; COMMENTARY

Chipotle’s Ag Production Animosity Concerns Center for Land-Based Learning and the California Ag Industry

Today, the Center for Land-Based Learning, issued the following statement:

The Board of Directors for the Center for Land-Based Learning, based in part on the feedback that we have received from friends and supporters throughout the state, has decided to CANCEL the Thursday The Chipotle Fundraiser event with Chipotle due to concern over Chipotle’s “Farmed and Dangerous” series.

The Center for Land-Based Learning board is made up of a wide range of individuals, including farmers, educators, and financial professionals. Historically, Chipotle has been a strong supporter of Land-Based Learning programs and we have partnered with Chipotle on programs that demonstrate the company’s interest in our mission.

The Center for Land-Based Learning is dedicated to creating the next generation of farmers and teaching California’s youth about the importance of agriculture and watershed conservation. One of their programs, the FARMS Leadership Program, connects high school students to California’s food system and teaches them leadership through a year of visits to farms, agricultural businesses and universities.

That said, the board members are in agreement that Chipotle’s current “Farmed and Dangerous” series crosses a line by attempting to create animosity toward production agriculture as a marketing strategy. This strategy hurts agriculture at all levels, not just large-scale production agriculture. The board held an emergency meeting this past week to discuss this issue and decided to communicate to Chipotle it’s disappointment and disapproval of the Farmed and Dangerous series.

The Center for Land-Based Learning has always stood for, and intends to be, a role model for open and honest dialogue about agricultural production. It is common knowledge that agriculture is not perfect. Land-Based Learning has many issues of concern and would like to respond in a way that promotes critical thinking and discussion amongst all parties. As such, members of Land-Based Learning board of directors and staff are taking this opportunity to reach out to Chipotle’s senior management to reconsider this divisive marketing strategy.

The board believes that Land-Based Learning plays an important role in the dialog about the future of agriculture in this state. Farmers and other members of the agricultural community who support our programs represent a diverse array of viewpoints and the strength of this diversity has always been viewed as an advantage for our organization.

Please expect a public statement (to be posted to the Land-Based Learning website in the next few days) regarding the Board’s position regarding “Farmed and Dangerous” series.

The Center for Land-Based Learning is dedicated to creating the next generation of farmers and teaching California’s youth about the importance of agriculture and watershed conservation. One of their programs, the FARMS Leadership Program, connects high school students to California's food system and teaches them leadership through a year of visits to farms, agricultural businesses and universities.

The Chipotle website contains the following statements:

“Farmed and Dangerous” is “a Chipotle original comedy series that explores the outrageously twisted and utterly unsustainable world of industrial agriculture.”

The film depicts the life of a farmer as he slowly turns his family farm into an industrial animal factory before seeing the errors of his ways and opting for a more sustainable future. Both the film and the soundtrack were commissioned by Chipotle to emphasize the importance of developing a sustainable food system.

Food With Integrity is our commitment to finding the very best ingredients raised with respect for the animals, the environment and the farmers.

… no matter how big or small the farms we work with, it’s important that every worker is treated with dignity and respect. As a result, we have several policies in place designed to ensure that the products we use at Chipotle are grown, made, and shipped without exploiting people.”

IT’S ALL FUN AND GAMES UNTIL SOMEONE WRECKS A PLANET

Industrial ranching and factory farming produce tons of waste while depleting the soil of nutrients. These seem like bad things to us. So we work hard to source our ingredients in ways that protect this little planet of ours.

Family farmed

Family farmers take great care to respect their farmland because it’s the only land they have. If they plant one crop over and over that depletes the nutrients in the soil, they’re the ones who suffer. Family farmers rotate crops, plant multiple crops, avoid pesticides and generally farm in a sustainable way.   

California Ag Today Editorial:

The majority of California farmers use research-based sustainable measures and follow Federal regulations, including those for food safety and OSHA requirements, and industry-wide best management practices.

UC Davis Ag Issues Center reports, “Individuals or families control 81 percent of California’s farms.”

Most of the remaining farms are family-owned ‘S-Corps’.

The Agricultural Sustainability Institute at UC Davis reports:

“A systems approach [to sustainable agriculture] also implies interdisciplinary efforts in research and education. This requires not only the input of researchers from various disciplines, but also farmers, farmworkers, consumers, policymakers and others.

Making the transition to sustainable agriculture is a process. For farmers, the transition to sustainable agriculture normally requires a series of small, realistic steps. Family economics and personal goals influence how fast or how far participants can go in the transition. It is important to realize that each small decision can make a difference and contribute to advancing the entire system further on the “sustainable agriculture continuum.”

The key to moving forward is the will to take the next step.  Finally, it is important to point out that reaching toward the goal of sustainable agriculture is the responsibility of all participants in the system, including farmers, laborers, policymakers, researchers, retailers, and consumers. Each group has its own part to play, its own unique contribution to make to strengthen the sustainable agriculture community.