The recent third quarter issue of Seed Today magazine featured three of our member companies: West Coast Beet Seed Co., Vista Seed Partners, and the Oregon State University Seed Lab. Please click the links below to read the articles!
West Coast Beet Seed in Seed Today
Seed Today Company Profile-Vista Seed Partners
Oregon State Univ. Seed Lab in Seed Today
You can read Seed Today in it’s entirety HERE
Cattle and calves No. 1, followed by greenhouse, nursery products
While Oregon agriculture’s overall growth curve has slowed down in recent years, certain crops and livestock commodities have enjoyed a very healthy increase in production value over the past decade.
In fact, only one commodity in the top 20 has recorded a decrease over the 10-year period, and that drop is very small, the state Department of Agriculture reported Wednesday.
Newly released statistics from USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service provides a preliminary picture of 2015’s crop and livestock value of production. The numbers indicate that Oregon agriculture continues to be a major contributor to the state’s economy with an overall production value expected to be in the neighborhood of $5.4 billion– similar to the preceding two years.
The value of agricultural production in Oregon last year includes a top ten list with familiar names. Onions returned to the list while hazelnuts dropped out:
(1) Cattle and calves, $914 million
(2) Greenhouse and nursery products, $894 million
(3) Hay, $604 million
(4) Milk, $474 million
(5) Grass seed, $383 million
(6) Wheat, $217 million
(7) Potatoes, $176 million
(8) Pears, $152 million
(9) Wine grapes, $147 million
(10) Onions, $125 million
Oregon produces more than 220 agricultural commodities, so there are always winners and losers any given year. Several top ten commodities dropped in production value in 2015, but still show strong gains over a 10-year period.
For the second year in a row, cattle and calves tops the list with a production value of $914 million, which is slightly down from 2014. However, over a 10-year period beginning in 2005, the value has increased 71 percent.
The cattle industry tends to be cyclical, and the strong prices enjoyed the past couple of years are weakening in 2016. Nonetheless, cattle and calves is expected to be a mainstay at or near the top of all commodities in the foreseeable future.
The greenhouse and nursery sector has steadily recovered from the nation’s economic recession shortly after the commodity reached above the billion dollar mark in 2007. Greenhouse and nursery’s production value hit a low point of $667 million in 2010. The industry is now fairly close to where it was a decade ago, at $894 million– a 3 percent increase from 2005.
Hay saw a near $100 million decrease in 2015, compared to 2014. However, the commodity remains solidly in the No. 3 position in Oregon and has actually increased in production value the past 10 years by 70 percent.
Similarly, milk recorded a big drop last year of more than $180 million, but has increased 32 percent since 2005. Like greenhouse and nursery, the grass seed industry suffered greatly during the recession but is now back to where it was 10 years ago, recording a 2 percent increase since 2005 to $383 million.
Wheat prices continue to decrease the crop’s value, which also saw a drop from 2014 to 2015. However, wheat is still 20 percent higher in production value than it was 10 years ago. The pendulum has swung widely over the years. Five years ago, wheat’s value was $441 million– twice as much as last year’s figure.
Potatoes remains in 7th place among Oregon’s top commodities and recorded a slight increase in 2015. Potatoes was also 7th in 2005, but the value has increased 36 percent since then. Pears moved up to 8th after showing a healthy gain in 2015. Going back 10 years, that increase has been a remarkable 108 percent.
Easily the most astonishing growth over the years has been the wine grape sector. Just 10 years ago, the production value stood at $36 million. In 2015, it topped $147 million – a whopping 308 percent increase from 2005. No other Oregon agricultural commodity has seen a higher increase.
After dropping out of the top 10 for a year, onions has returned after a moderate increase in production value this past year to $125 million, exactly where it was 10 years ago. Gone from the top 10 is hazelnuts, which saw a large decrease in production in 2015. Nonetheless, its value has grown 50 percent from 2005.
Also outside the top 10, there are three commodities that have shown triple-digit percentage increases over a 10-year period.
Blueberries remains a shooting star among Oregon crops, with a slight bump in 2015, but a huge jump of 246 percent since 2005. Last year’s production of 96.9 million pounds harvested is a record in Oregon and the second consecutive year the value has topped $100 million.
The other two growth commodities include eggs and apples. Egg production value last year skyrocketed to $116 million, which is a 131 percent increase from 2005. Coincidentally, the value of production for apples has also increased 131 percent over that same 10 year period, even though the number is only $44 million. The growing interest in ciders is one possible reason for the recent higher number.
The only Oregon agricultural commodity in the top 20 to actually lose production value in the past 10 years is Christmas trees. Still, the decrease is only 2 percent, and the production value of Christmas trees last year was actually $20 million more than in 2014.
Overall, the swings in production and prices for Oregon crops and livestock have not been tremendously dramatic, with a couple of exceptions. The top 10 and even the top 20 generally contains the same names with a few changes in ranking. Look for that to continue when statistics for 2016 are tabulated.
To download a copy of the latest Oregon Agriculture Facts & Figures brochure, go to:
https://www.oregon.gov/ODA/shared/Documents/Publications/Administration/ORAgFactsFigures.pdf
View the original article at ktvz.com
Towns all across America are struggling with their budgets. The nation remains stuck in the worst economic recovery since the Great Depression. In states like New Jersey, Connecticut and Massachusetts household income actually fell last year. And retirees everywhere living on their savings are being hurt by near zero interest rates.
So why are some municipalities still spending big bucks to install artificial turf fields? Main reason: taxpayers have been getting hoodwinked by bogus analysis into thinking artificial turf fields are cheaper than natural grass.
But the reality is that non-partisan studies have shown the exact opposite–natural grass fields are a bargain compared to artificial turf due to the huge costs taxpayers get stuck with to maintain and replace artificial fields after their warrantees expire. One of the artificial turf industry’s selling points is that an artificial turf field will last eight-to-10 years, even though the usual warranty runs for only eight, and that the initial exorbitant cost of installation is recouped in no time from tens of thousands in savings from no longer maintaining a natural grass field. Another way proponents of artificial turf skew the math in their favor is by saying many more events will be held on the field once artificial turf is installed, thereby lowering “the cost per event” on the field relative to natural grass. But who knows if that math is based on reality (the fields in my town, Glen Rock, New Jersey, are often vacant)? How can anyone accurately predict the future demographics of a town?
Indeed, the Australian government did a comprehensive study dispelling the myth trumpeted by some politicians and artificial turf makers that artificial turf fields cost less than natural grass in the long term due to lower expenses for upkeep. But the politicians keep coming up with creative ways to fool the taxpayers into thinking they are going to save money in the long run with artificial turf.
For example, below is a chart from a report done by Montgomery County looking at the cost of a natural grass field versus an artificial turf field. Notice that over 20 years the artificial field is 49% more expensive than the grass field (assuming the most expensive natural grass is used). Then, presto! Towards the bottom of the chart the number of hours the artificial turf field is used is doubled to twice the use of the natural grass field, thus based on “cost per hours of use” projections the artificial field is now cheaper. This type of math reminds me of the guy who went to a sale at a store determined to buy enough items on sale so that his he would “save” enough to pay for everything.
Left-field screen before installation of artificial turf (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Comment from FieldTurf: “FieldTurf has always been and will always be committed to the quality of our product and the highest levels of client service. We stand by our warranties, and in the rare cases that there is a quality issue we work to make it right – period.
We have more than 5,000 fields in place in the United States, and in terms of the handful of cases pointed out here from your source, almost all of them have either been, or are in the process of, being settled amicably. Many times this means we replace the turf in accordance with the terms of the warranty or allow the client to upgrade to a newer model at a significant discount.
In terms of cost, the facts speak for themselves. We encourage all potential customers to run the numbers and take a hard look at the financial realities – and the fact that there are more than 10,000 turf fields in the U.S. demonstrates that the result is often recognizing the benefits of turf. Given major issues such as population growth, declining city infrastructure, and water shortages, ignoring or discounting the importance of considering the usage rate and “cost per use” of artificial turf vs. grass simply doesn’t make sense.”
The fallacy in all this has to do with the concept of “saving” from maintenance of natural grass fields. Even if the budget shows an amount for the maintenance of a natural grass field, the chances are that the amount is not spent on the field. Tax revenue is fungible. Anyone who claims that there are “savings” needs to show how much in reality has been spent on the field in any given fiscal year going back ten years. What this also does not tell is that the savings, assuming there is any real savings, pays only for the initial installation; the savings do not pay for the replacement of the field in eight to 10 years, or perhaps longer.
But since artificial town fields are a new phenomenon, many taxpayers who voted for artificial fields are only now finding out their real cost. One of the many cautionary tales I found during my research was so alarming it was covered by a local news broadcast. It shows how the replacement costs of two artificial fields at different high schools in Missouri had to be replaced at a huge expense because they had tears and balding spots of turf.
I only began to research the subject of turf field costs when I went to a public meeting in my town, where the council wants an artificial turf field to replace our grass field despite the fact that Glen Rock is replete with vacant stores, debasing tax revenue from businesses. We recently had our debt rating downgraded. And an artificial turf field installed at our high school just a few years ago went way over budget due to a debacle involving contaminated soil, and is already showing signs of wear and tear.
At the town meeting, there were two members of the company that is going to install the turf field also present. The turf field guys, mayor and every council member, except for one, were for the artificial turf field, and the council approved a $3 million bond. But they used such nonsensical financial analysis many residents, including myself, have become suspect (an honest summary comparing the costs of an artificial turf field with a natural grass field could be done with four numbers: the total cost of each type of field over a 10 and 15 year period).
Opponents of the artificial turf field got enough signatures in our town to force a referendum. But we still haven’t gotten an honest cost comparison of artificial turf and natural grass fields. Arecent article in our town’s newspaper said the total cost of the artificial field will be “$2.74 million” but does not mention over what time period, so it is a meaningless number.
If the artificial turf guys invade your town, make sure you get an honest count. The citizens of Glen Rock still have not gotten one.
By Mike Ozanian, Forbes Staff Writer
Link to more article resources and to read the article in FORBES HERE
Risa Demasi is wrapping up her term as chair of the American Seed Trade Association (ASTA). As the first woman to lead the board of the 133-year-old organization, she’s preparing to hand the reins off to a new chairperson, and in doing so will pass on some valuable lessons that she learned while at the helm.
“Talk about learning a lot. I’ve really grown professionally,” the 50-year-old partner at Grassland Oregon says. “ASTA is in a good position now. The board is engaged and committed, and it’s a tremendous honor to serve with some of the greatest leaders and thinkers of our industry.”
Demasi took the helm as chair at a crucial time for ASTA, when the organization was gearing up to move into a new era in the seed industry — one marked by exciting new technology and an increasingly connected world. Her immediate goal was to speak with all incoming regional vice presidents, division and committee chairs, directors at large, U.S. regional and Canadian and Mexican representatives, and ASTA senior staff. And she wanted to do it in the first 100 days of her time as chair.
She calls them her “hundred-day calls”.
“Those first calls were really instrumental for me to get a finger on the pulse of what everyone was thinking and allowed us to open a deeper dialogue than we may have had otherwise. It was clear to me right off the bat that we all want the best for the industry, to make sure it’s positioned well, and to bring everyone up to a top level of influence,” she says.
“Those calls were key in understanding what I needed to do and know that we were all on the same page. We used the results of those calls as we opened both of our executive committee meetings. It was incredibly valuable.”
For Demasi, the fact that ASTA was in such a good place when she became chair made her job all the more important, she says. She notes that ASTA board members and staff are active within the industry, and are working to ensure a healthier seed industry for everyone.
“Our director of state government affairs, Pat Miller, has been to every U.S. state capitol on our behalf. He continues to monitor every bill or initiative that may affect our industry and keeps us abreast of new developments,” she notes.
Tim Johnson of Illinois Foundation Seeds, who is on ASTA’s executive committee, has also recently served as president of the International Seed Federation. “The world is smaller all the time. We’re committed to taking a leadership role on critical issues in international organizations that influence the seed industry,” Demasi says.
She adds that Ric Dunkle, ASTA’s senior director for seed health and trade, is well respected by government agencies around the world and continues to work with them to ensure seed is able to move efficiently across borders and eliminate non science-based barriers.
“You could likely name any country and Ric will have participated in phytosanitary regulations or conversations there,” Demasi says.
“When things are working as well as they are, that’s the best time to review. That’s a real position of strength. We have such a rich and harmonious diverseness, which is our strength. Not only do we ensure every voice is heard, we want everyone to see themselves as a part of the organization,” she says.
Her second goal was to establish benchmarks and metrics to measure ASTA’s progress in executing its five-year strategic plan, especially in regard to reaching out and improving communication — between sectors, with federal and state governments, among generations, within the association and to the public.
The feedback she received fell into five areas: Cross-sector communication, advocacy, inter-generational communication, internal communication and public outreach.
“While other organizations inside and outside of agriculture are just becoming aware that communication is critical, ASTA is ahead of the curve. One of our biggest challenges is communicating how innovations such as new breeding techniques are contributing to our quality of life,” she says. “People are lining up to get the latest iPhone, but advancements in agriculture aren’t viewed in the same light. We need to change that.”
ASTA recently launched a brand new website, just one of its efforts to capture attention and ensure the organization is able to better reach out to a wider, younger audience.
“When we meet people where they are, instead of just responding to fears, we can give them confidence, whether it’s organic products or new breeding techniques.”
ASTA has been working on new communications tools it plans to unveil in the next few months. It’s those tools that will help build on the legacy Demasi leaves as she passes the torch to a new chair — Mark Herrmann of AgReliant Genetics, who is currently vice chair. Second vice chair Tracy Tally will move into the position of vice-chair.
“Risa brought up communication as a major issue, and it just so happens it coincides with what the ASTA board has been working on for a few years now,” says Tally, owner of Texas-based Justin Seed Co. “I think that will be a big part of her legacy — continued communication, reaching out and understanding the need to communicate, to reach out to the membership and have one-on-one conversations with them.”
Tally says Demasi had a knack not just for helping ASTA communicate better as an organization, but for helping individual board members better communicate with one another in situations where a collective mentality can sometimes take over.
“She always made the situation relaxed and allowed people to open up and discuss their concerns,” he says. “With her board meetings, we typically started off as a whole board, but then we had breakout sessions to allow us to take a very serious topic and situation and talk about it in small groups. Then we’d bring it back to the whole group. That was hugely helpful in fostering a sense of individuality in that group setting, which is very important.”
Demasi says it’s crucial to her that board members feel like they have a say, which allows members to stay positive and work for the benefit of the organization as a whole.
“Too often people get caught up looking at differences, making it easy to get sidetracked. When you focus on what you have in common, you find the glue that holds you together and you find the path forward. You can accomplish anything you set out to,” she says.
Read the article at Seedworld.com
The Ravens have played on artificial turf for the past 13 years. The players pushed to play on grass.
The Ravens are switching from artificial turf to natural grass at M&T Bank Stadium for the start of the 2016 season.
Team President Dick Cass announced the move Friday and the players and Head Coach John Harbaugh, who already knew the plans, are giving the move a big thumbs up.
“The players really wanted to play on grass and that was a key consideration. The coaches wanted to play on grass,” Cass said.
Baltimore had natural grass in the stadium when M&T Bank Stadium opened in 1998, but it didn’t work out well.
The field got chewed up during the season and they had trouble keeping it in good condition late in the season due to sunlight restrictions. Starting in early November, sunlight does not reach the Ravens sideline from about the numbers into the bench.
Thus, the Ravens changed to an artificial turf from Sportsexe Momentum Turf for the 2003 season, then replaced that with a newer Shaw Momentum 51 turf before the start of the 2010 season.
Cass said he has long felt that the Ravens’ artificial surfaces were the best in the league. The Ravens knew at the end of the season they were going to replace their current surface, and the original plan was to stick with it.
However, the Ravens did more research over the offseason on whether they could maintain a high quality grass field.
They found a different strain of grass, from a sod farm in North Carolina that are a mixture of Burmuda and some rye grass, that they believe will be more robust than what they previously used in the stadium. The Ravens also plan to use artificial light to keep grass growing where the field is shaded.
The team also plans to re-sod the entire field once during the season, and perhaps do parts of it a second time if needed. The team will have two backup fields growing in North Carolina and ready to go when needed.
“There have been a lot of technological advances with the grass from what I’m told,” Harbaugh said. “Our grounds people have done a great job of researching it, and they feel like they have the type of grass now that can thrive in there.”
Once it was a possibility, the two major factors going forward with natural grass is that it should be better for players’ health and that it’s befitting Baltimore and the rough-and-tumble AFC North.
Division rivals Pittsburgh and Cleveland both have grass, as well as the two closest NFL teams to Baltimore, Washington and Philadelphia. Overall, 17 of the NFL’s 32 teams play their home games on grass, except for Green Bay’s hybrid field.
“To me, it’s Baltimore,” Harbaugh said. “It epitomizes what Baltimore is all about, the history of football in Baltimore. To me, a Baltimore football team should be playing on a grass field, ultimately. It’s a recognition of that.”
Harbaugh was asked if he was the one lobbying for grass.
“I might have,” he said with a smile. “I like the grass. I think it’s the AFC North, it’s the Baltimore Ravens – it just seems right.”
The Ravens talked to the players about the move in August to get their take and OK. While the decision did not come as a result of injuries suffered by quarterback Joe Flacco (ACL), wide receiver Steve Smith Sr. (Achilles) and running back Justin Forsett (broken arm), the Ravens do expect it to help keep players healthier.
Cass said M&T Bank Stadium has stacked up very well against other artificial surfaces when it comes to injuries, but there is data that shows there are fewer lower-body injuries when playing on a high-quality natural field compared to artificial.
Cornerback Lardarius Webb suffered both of his ACL tears while changing directions at M&T Bank Stadium.
“It’s a black and white difference,” Webb said, adding that he can feel a difference in his knees when he practices outside on the Ravens’ grass field compared to inside on the artificial turf at the Under Armour Performance Center.
“Turf is harder on your body, harder on your joints, harder on your muscles,” veteran defensive end Chris Canty said. “It’s a higher rate of injury.”
In addition to helping with lower-body injuries, tight end Crockett Gillmore said he expects it will help prevent concussions. He estimated that players get more concussions from their head slamming into the hard ground than they do from the actual hit.
“Last week, I hit my head pretty hard on the grass in Cleveland,” Gillmore said. “I actually saw my facemask print in the grass. If I hit my head that hard on turf, it would have been lights out for a couple days.”
Installing and maintaining a high-quality grass field will be a “significantly greater expense” and come with more maintenance, Cass said.
Cass also said the Ravens are not anticipating eliminating any events they host at the stadium. While there will be concern about the field being torn up, measures will be taken to prevent damage and the Ravens aren’t willing to sacrifice those events.
“We’ll still have concerts, we’ll still have international soccer, we’ll have Army-Navy football next year, and we’ll try to attract other major college football games,” Cass said. “We will still host the two traditional Baltimore City [high school] games.”
Read the article at Baltimoreravens.com here.
The prohibition against genetically engineered crops in Oregon’s Josephine County has been struck down by a judge who ruled the ordinance is pre-empted by state law.
Voters in the county approved the ban on genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, in 2014 even though state lawmakers disallowed local governments from regulating the crops the prior year.
Proponents of the GMO ban claimed that the state pre-emption was unconstitutional, but Josephine County Circuit Court Judge Pat Wolke has rejected that argument and held the county ordinance to be invalid.
“The state law says that the localities may not legislate in this area; and the voters of Josephine County have attempted to legislate in the exact same area. It is impossible to read the two enactments in harmony; so that the local ordinance must give way,” Wolke said in the May 16 ruling.
Farmers Robert and Shelley Ann White challenged the legality of the GMO ordinance last year, arguing it had prevented them from planting biotech sugar beets on 100 acres of leased property.
During oral arguments in April, much of the debate focused on whether the Whites had legal standing to file the case.
Supporters of the GMO ban called them “hobby farmers” who filed a “manufactured lawsuit” on behalf of agribusiness lobbyists and didn’t have a valid lease to the 100 acres or a contract to grow biotech sugar beets.
Oregonians for Safe Farms and Families, a nonprofit, and Siskiyou Seeds, an organic seed producer, had intervened to defend the ordinance after the county government took a neutral position in the litigation.
The intervenors claimed the Whites had a “purely hypothetical” interest in growing GMOs, which isn’t enough to establish standing.
“They need more than their general disdain for this ordinance to get into court,” said attorney Melissa Wischerath, who represented the intervenors.
The judge disagreed with that characterization, ruling that “the plaintiffs have demonstrated that their conflict with the ordinance is not academic or speculative and that the determination in this case will have a practical effect on them.”
Proponents of the GMO ban also claimed the ordinance should not be pre-empted by state law because Oregon has a “regulatory void” in regard to biotech crops.
Because lawmakers had barred local restrictions on GMOs without establishing a statewide system to protect organic and conventional farmers from cross-pollination, the pre-emption statute is unconstitutional, the invervenors argued.
Wolke found that Oregon law doesn’t require a “replacement regulatory scheme” for a statute to pre-empt local rules.
He also rejected the argument that the pre-emption statute only applies to packaged seeds and not plants, calling this an “absurd interpretation” of the law.
Oregon’s Jackson County was allowed to prohibit GMO crops in 2014 because the initiative in that county was already on the ballot when lawmakers passed the pre-emption statute.
Supporters of Josephine County’s ordinance claimed the limit was arbitrary, but Wolke said it was a “legislative prerogative” to set the cut-off date.
Wolke likewise refused to disregard an Oregon Supreme Court precedent dealing with conflicts between state laws and county ordinances, saying he lacked the authority to do so.
Oregonians for Food and Shelter sees the ruling as a victory for farmers across the state, said Scott Dahlman, the agribusiness group’s policy director.
“It’s a great affirmation that the seed pre-emption law is legal,” he said.
While the ruling confirms the statute is constitutional, it’s possible that a similar court battle would have to be fought if another Oregon county passes and tries to enforce a similar GMO ban, Dahlman said.
Currently, supporters of a GMO ban in Lane County are gathering signatures for a prospective ballot initiative, he said.
Read the original article in the Capital Press HERE
Nationally, Ag Week and Ag Day, celebrated Tuesday, encourage Americans to understand how food and fiber products are produced, to value the essential role of agriculture in maintaining a strong economy and to appreciate the role agriculture plays in providing safe, abundant and affordable products.
“Agriculture has a large economical impact in Douglas County,” said Shelby Filley, regional livestock and forage specialist for the Oregon State University Extension Service.
According to the latest report, the 2012 census data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, there were 1,927 farms in the county, covering 382,386 acres. The total value of agricultural products sold in the county was $64,803,000, and Filley said most of that value comes from livestock, which is almost double the value of crops.
Cattle made up 29 percent of agricultural commodity sales while sheep and lambs only contributed to 3 percent and other animal products accounted for 8 percent.
The USDA conducts a census of agriculture every five years, so the next will come out in 2017. Filley noted that the numbers have probably increased since 2012, as the market for cattle has gone up since then.
“There are also other economic advantages of having agriculture in our county,” Filley said. “That is the multiplier effect of the money that the farmers spend locally, like fuel, fertilizer, food for their families and clothing, so that’s also added to the value of the farm products.”
But the value of agriculture to the community holds more than the economic impact.
“We have the value to all of Douglas County citizens who enjoy a rural lifestyle, enjoy seeing the green pastures, the cattle, sheep and lambing and corn growing. It’s just beautiful to see,” Filley said. Children also benefit from living on a farm, as they get to learn to take care of animals and the land and spend time outside in the fresh air.
“There’s no question that agriculture continues to be a major part of our economy and that farmers and ranchers make huge contributions to Oregon’s environmental quality,” said Katy Coba, director of the Oregon Department of Agriculture.
An Oregon State University study commissioned by ODA last year provides a numerical snapshot of agriculture’s importance to the state’s economy:
• Agriculture is directly and indirectly linked to about $50 billion in sales of goods and services, which is more than 13 percent of the statewide total of sales involving all industry sectors.
• Oregon agriculture directly or indirectly supports more than 326,000 full or part-time jobs, making up almost 14 percent of total jobs in the state.
• Oregon agriculture is responsible for $22.9 billion or 10.6 percent of the net state product.
A few additional statistics support the notion that agriculture is worth celebrating:
• More than 98 percent of Oregon’s farms are family operations – dispelling the notion that agriculture in the state is made up of big corporate farm factories.
• Oregon agriculture is a key traded sector, ranking first in volume of exported products and third in value of exported products.
• Nationally, one farmer supplies food for about 155 people in the U.S. and abroad.
In preparing for National Ag Week, Coba has developed key messages to a variety of audiences this year. She notes that Oregonians are very enamored with agriculture and especially like their food to come from a local grower whenever possible. Coba also commends farmers and ranchers for putting practices in place that minimize impacts on Oregon’s natural resources. They realize that if they don’t take care of the land and water, they are not going to be productive. In addition, agricultural producers provide habitat for wildlife in Oregon.
With so many positives associated with agriculture, Coba’s messages are designed to prompt all Oregonians into taking some action, not only this coming week, but 52 weeks a year.
FOR THE URBAN AUDIENCE:
“Go out and enjoy Oregon agricultural products, whether it is food, nursery or you name it. Spring is the time of year when we are re-energized. Farmers’ markets will be kicking into gear soon. So now is the time to look for Oregon products and support our farmers and ranchers as you make your retail purchases.”
For rural audience:
“We greatly appreciate what our rural communities contribute to our economy and our culture. We want to continue working with you to figure out more ways that agriculture can contribute to the economic benefit of rural Oregon.”
For families:
“There is so much you can do with your family that is centered around agriculture. Whether it’s going to a u-pick farm operation, planting your own garden or preparing a fantastic meal prepared with Oregon products, agriculture is a great way to connect with your kids and friends. Go out and celebrate family and friends with Oregon agriculture as the centerpiece.”
For young people who may want to consider a career in agriculture:
“There are so many great opportunities for a career in agriculture. The first thing you may think is that the only choice is to be a farmer. Certainly, you can work on a farm if you are interested. But you can also find a career in marketing Oregon products, financing or simply working with organizations and institutions that support agriculture. There is a great need for infrastructure – maybe it’s selling farm equipment or fertilizers. There is a huge and wide array of jobs that support agriculture and can use any expertise you might develop.”
FOR THE OREGON LEGISLATURE:
“Thank you for your support of Oregon agriculture. We need that support moving forward. As we look for ways to continue to improve the economic, environmental and social contributions that agriculture makes to Oregon, legislative support is critical to achievement.”
And finally, to the agriculture community itself:
“Oregon would not be what it is without agriculture. Whether it’s small farms, large farms, whether you are marketing locally or internationally, you are all valued. Be proud of what you are doing.”
Read the original article in the New Review HERE
February 29, 2016
Higher food prices, a significant boost in greenhouse gas emissions due to land use change and major loss of forest and pasture land would be some results if genetically modified organisms in the United States were banned, according to a Purdue University study.
Wally Tyner, James and Lois Ackerman Professor of Agricultural Economics; Farzad Taheripour, a research associate professor of agricultural economics; and Harry Mahaffey, an agricultural economics graduate student, wanted to know the significance of crop yield loss if genetically modified crops were banned from U.S. farm fields, as well as how that decision would trickle down to other parts of the economy. They presented their findings at the International Consortium on Applied Bioeconomy Research in Ravello, Italy, last year. The findings of the study, funded by the California Grain & Feed Association, will be published in the journal AgBioForum this spring.
“This is not an argument to keep or lose GMOs,” Tyner said. “It’s just a simple question: What happens if they go away?”
The economists gathered data and found that 18 million farmers in 28 countries planted about 181 million hectares of GMO crops in 2014, with about 40 percent of that in the United States.
They fed that data into the Purdue-developed GTAPBIO model, which has been used to examine economic consequences of changes to agricultural, energy, trade and environmental policies.
Eliminating all GMOs in the United States, the model shows corn yield declines of 11.2 percent on average. Soybeans lose 5.2 percent of their yields and cotton 18.6 percent. To make up for that loss, about 102,000 hectares of U.S. forest and pasture would have to be converted to cropland and 1.1 million hectares globally for the average case.
Greenhouse gas emissions increase significantly because with lower crop yields, more land is needed for agricultural production, and it must be converted from pasture and forest.
“In general, the landuse change, the pasture and forest you need to convert to cropland to produce the amount of food that you need is greater than all of the landuse change that we have previously estimated for the U.S. ethanol program,” Tyner said. In other words, the increase in greenhouse gas emissions that would come from banning GMOs in the United States would be greater than the amount needed to create enough land to meet federal mandates of about 15 billion gallons of biofuels.
“Some of the same groups that oppose GMOs want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to reduce the potential for global warming,” Tyner said. “The result we get is that you can’t have it both ways. If you want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in agriculture, an important tool to do that is with GMO traits.”
With lower crop yields without GMO traits, commodity prices rise. Corn prices would increase as much as 28 percent and soybeans as much as 22 percent, according to the study. Consumers could expect food prices to rise 1-2 percent, or $14 billion to $24 billion per year.
In the United States, GMOs make up almost all the corn (89 percent), soybeans (94 percent) and cotton (91 percent) planted each year. Some countries have already banned GMOs, have not adopted them as widely or are considering bans. Tyner and Taheripour said they will continue their research to understand how expansion of and reductions of GMO crops worldwide could affect economies and the environment.
“If in the future we ban GMOs at the global scale, we lose lots of potential yield,” Taheripour said. “If more countries adopt GMOs, their yields will be much higher.”
Should homeowners associations be able to force residents to water their yards, even during a drought?
Oregon legislators plan to tackle that question during next month’s session.
Although December saw record rains, drought will continue to impact the state, Rep. Susan McLain, D-Hillsboro, told a House committee Friday.
McLain is proposing a bill that would allow property owners to conserve water by not watering, even if their homeowners association requires it.
“It would not force anyone to do anything,” Brian Posewitz, staff attorney for WaterWatch of Oregon, said in written testimony. “It would simply allow conscientious citizens to do the right thing by reducing or eliminating water consumption that is not necessary for any basic human need or activity.”
The proposal is supported by the League of Oregon Cities, Special Districts Association of Oregon and Trout Unlimited, as well as the city of Gresham and Clackamas River Water Providers, a coalition of Willamette Valley water providers.
“I think the green-lawn era is dead,” said Tom Wolfe, a lobbyist for Trout Unlimited. “Who needs a green lawn?”
Homeowners association watering requirements could even compromise a city’s ability to comply with its federally mandated Water Management and Conservation Plan, said Brian Stahl, Gresham’s deputy director of environmental services.
California passed a similar law in 2014. It followed an executive order Gov. Jerry Brown issued barring homeowners groups from penalizing members who conserve water during a drought.
Oregon has endured four consecutive years of drought. In July, fish began dying from low stream flows and high temperatures, leading the state to curtail fishing hours. And cities across the state asked residents to curtail water use.
No one testified against the proposal. A similar bill is expected to be introduced in the Senate.
Read the article from The Statesman Journal HERE
Company to Foster Pollinator-Friendly Habitats Across North America With Community Outreach and Garden Grants
MARYSVILLE, Ohio, Dec. 15, 2015 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Bees, butterflies and other pollinators are nature’s unsung heroes, critical to the sustainability of one-third of the planet’s food supply and the health of millions of flower gardens. In an effort to help combat the loss of pollinator habitats in recent years, The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company announced plans today for a yearlong effort to improve consumer education about pollinators and promote the creation of backyard and urban habitats where they can thrive.
The “Pollinator Promise” will fund the establishment of at least 50 pollinator gardens throughout the United States in 2016, as part of the company’s GRO1000 community gardening initiative. The GRO1000 initiative, now in its sixth year, partners with the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the Pollinator Stewardship Council, The Franklin Park Conservatory and others, to promote the availability of additional grants for gardens and green spaces throughout the country.
“The importance of pollinators is unquestionable and it is easier than most people think to create a habitat where they can thrive,” said Jim King, senior vice president of corporate affairs at ScottsMiracle-Gro. “The Pollinator Promise is a year-long effort to help home gardeners and urban planners understand the critical role these creatures play in our ecosystem and to provide them the tools necessary to grow successful pollinator gardens.”
With thousands of gardeners and backyard enthusiasts connecting with Miracle-Gro® each year, the company has also launched a web site dedicated to this effort. ScottsMiracleGro.com/PollinatorPromise provides online answers to common questions about backyard pollinator gardens. Through its existing relationship with the Tournament of Roses, ScottsMiracle-Gro also will directly engage gardeners throughout 2016 about the need for pollinator habits. In fact, this year’s Miracle-Gro® float will prominently feature pollinators.
“We are calling upon individual gardeners and communities to help reverse the downward population trend by restoring the natural habitat bees and butterflies need to survive,” said Michele Colopy, Program Director, of the Pollinator Stewardship Council. “We are pleased to partner with ScottsMiracle-Gro to help spearhead these efforts that are at the core of our mission.”
To join the effort, submit a grant application open January 4-February 22 or to learn more about how to create your own pollinator garden, visit: scottsmiraclegro.com/pollinatorpromise.
About ScottsMiracle-Gro
With more than $3 billion in worldwide sales, The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company is the world’s largest marketer of branded consumer products for lawn and garden care. The Company’s brands are the most recognized in the industry. In the U.S., the Company’s Scotts®, Miracle-Gro® and Ortho® brands are market-leading in their categories, as is the consumer Roundup® brand, which is marketed in North America and most of Europe exclusively by Scotts and owned by Monsanto. In the U.S., we operate Scotts LawnService®, the second largest residential lawn care service business. In Europe, the Company’s brands include Weedol®, Pathclear®, Evergreen®, Levington®, Miracle-Gro®, KB®, Fertiligène® and Substral®. In 2015, the Company ranked in Forbes 100 Most Reputable Companies in America. For additional information, visit us at www.ScottsMiracleGro.com.
See original article on ScottsMiracle-Gro here.
