By Sandi Karstens
Low inputs, little maintenance and the ability to withstand wear and tear – that’s what turfgrass managers want today.
There is plenty to consider when it comes to natural grass turf for sports stadiums. As you tune into your favorite college football or NFL team this weekend, take a look at the stadium. Does it have shade or no shade? Is it in a warm climate or a cool climate? Is there a retractable roof?
Whether it’s Kentucky blue grass or a turf-type tall fescue, all these factors and more must be taken into consideration when it comes to nurturing natural grass turf in sports stadiums.
Turfgrass managers are demanding new cultivars because they need surfaces that are durable and can recover well. They need surfaces that are low maintenance, requiring fewer inputs and less water. They need varieties that can handle stress — be it athletes, weather or pests and diseases.
Leah Brilman serves as director of research and technical services for Seed Research of Oregon, where she works to produce grasses that can survive with less water, and are highly disease resistant. Photo: Seed Research of Oregon.
Bred to Handle Stress
Evaluating how the turf wears is key to finding a suitable mix for your surface. “We want a cultivar with adequate wear, but also good seed yield,” says Leah Brilman, director of research and technical services for Seed Research of Oregon — a business unit of DLF Pickseed.
The durability of Bermudagrass has made it a favorite of NFL teams, which is put to the test weekly during the season. In a recent poll by Sports Illustrated, seven of the top 10 fields in the NFL were in southern climates, and all but two had some variety of Bermudagrass.
Brilman says turfgrass managers are not only looking at the lower maintenance Kentucky bluegrass, but also ryegrass and turf-type fescues for sports fields. “Especially when you get down to younger kids’ sports fields, we are seeing much more use of turf-type tall fescues,” she says, adding that Kentucky bluegrass holds up well, has excellent sod strength and produces an adequate amount of seed.
Brilman explains that her team, in partnership with the Alliance for Low-Input Sustainable Turf (A-LIST) has done a lot of work with tall fescues and selections under stress.
Many of today’s stadiums are less than ideal for sun exposure. To manage these factors, stadiums in the southern United States have tried hearty, warm weather strains like Paspalum and Zoysia.
Edzard van Santen, an Auburn University professor in the College of Agriculture, says they’re breeding bentgrass for the southern transition zone. And to the east, turfgrass scientists at the University of Georgia are working on Zoysias for sports fields and Paspalum for watering issues.
Turfgrass managers have to battle many stressors, such as cold and heat. Working to make turf withstand cold, drought and heat tolerance is key, whether that is spring dead spot in Bermudagrass or brown patch in turf-style fall fescues.
When it comes to the weather, Brilman says things have gotten more and more unpredictable.
Van Santen adds that it’s not so much climactic instability that turfgrass managers need to be wary of, but what New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman calls, “global climactic weirdness.”
The effects of the, “weirdness depend on location and factors such as precipitation,” he explains. “Throw in oscillation patterns such as El Nino Southern Oscillation and you have a real mess.”
During the past 20 years, van Santen says a few patterns have emerged. “When I started at Auburn, you hardly ever saw Argentine bahiagrass (a forage species) in northern Alabama, whereas today it is frequently observed,” he says. “Thus, warm season grasses are used much farther north than 20 years ago. We have warm season sports turf as far north as West Lafayette, Ind.”
Changing weather patterns have also expanded the growing season in many regions, which changes pest pressures. As an example, van Santen says fall armyworms appear earlier nowadays and sometimes a month earlier than in the past. “This affects other turf management options such as the application of pre-emergence herbicides,” he says, noting that disease and pest resistance are paramount.
According to van Santen and his colleagues, Dave Han, Extension turf specialist and associate professor, and Elisabeth Guertal, turfgrass and nutrient management professor, it’s difficult — and getting harder — to manage the growing tide of emerging pests and diseases.
Resistance and new pesticides are contributing factors, and while industry is creating new compounds and formulations to combat these problems, the process is long and arduous.
Brilman agrees, “We are always looking at disease resistance.”
This breeder block allows DLF Pickseed researchers to evaluate the yield potential of tall fescue. Photo: DLF Pickseed.
Researchers use this Cadi wear machine to help test the durability and recoverability of turf grasses. Photo: DLF Pickseed.
Management Matters
But as pest pressures increase, so does the need to use fewer inputs, such as insecticides and herbicides.
“We want turf that can survive with less water, herbicides and fungicides — in general, a turf that can survive with fewer inputs,” Brilman says.
Bill Kreuser, assistant professor and Extension turfgrass specialist at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, says some school grounds across the country have banned pesticides — a trend that is likely to continue.
Kreuser shares that in the 1990s and early 2000s, new grass releases required high maintenance conditions. With good maintenance, grasses performed really well. However, he says most were not maintained at the level they needed to be.
When turfgrass isn’t maintained, Kreuser says it gets compacted and can be pretty hard, especially if it is not irrigated and fertilized properly. This is especially important when athletes hit the field, and deal with injuries, such as concussions, he explains.
Now the big thing is grasses that are able to use less water, nutrients, pesticides, etc. — all while producing a dark green color.
Regardless of region, Brilman says low maintenance turf is key, and that low-maintenance theory also applies to irrigating sports fields.
“As the water supply becomes scarcer, the ability of turf to recover from stress under a water-limiting regimen will become more important,” she says. “We’ve been doing a lot of work in that area. For instance in California, we are looking at our turf and maintaining cool season turf with less water, and assessing which ones do best under those conditions. We are also looking for ones that you can let go (dormant) and bring back up … and ones you can water at 60 percent of the evapotranspiration rate.”
While the need to use less water is always important, Kreuser says the bigger issue is the timing of application — whether that’s watering the field or applying a product,
“We shouldn’t just be putting things down based on calendar intervals,” he says. “We should be using data to make better choices about timing.”
Kreuser says some new areas researchers are looking into include supplemental grow lights that are rolled onto the field. The broader theme is plant health, he adds. “We are really trying to maximize all of the things that we can control to make plants as healthy as possible with minimal stress,” he says.
It’s a tall order, but turfgrass researchers across the country are working hard to match the right turf to the right stadium and the right products to the right situations. The campaign to improve turfgrass cultivars is endless and knows no geographical boundaries.
DLF Pickseed, through its brands — DLF, Pickseed USA, Pickseed Canada and Seed Research of Oregon — has trials not only in Oregon, but has a farm in Kentucky, Denmark, France and the Czech Republic to name a few. If they don’t have a site where they are growing their own turf, they work with the National Turfgrass Evaluation Program or a local university or sod grower to put on trials in that particular region.
Brilman says they also look at alternatives, such as tetraploid perennial ryegrasses, a turf-type intermediate rye that germinates later in the season.
“We never develop for one characteristic, always a broad range, and at end of day it still needs to produce seed,” Brilman says.
Read the original article on Seed World here.
Judge strikes down GMO ban in Oregon’s Josephine County
/in Recent NewsThe 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
Agriculture a major economic factor in Oregon
/in Recent NewsNationally, 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
Purdue University Study: Eliminating GMOs Would Take Toll on Environment, Economies
/in Recent NewsFebruary 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.”
Homeowners may win right to let lawns turn brown
/in Recent NewsShould 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
ScottsMiracle-Gro Announces 2016 ‘Pollinator Promise’ Through Its GRO1000 Garden and Greenspace Program
/in Recent NewsCompany 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.
New report takes pulse of Oregon agriculture
/in Recent NewsFewer farms, but more productive – just one finding
SALEM, Ore. –Oregon agriculture’s large impact on the state’s economy is reaffirmed by an updated analysis and report released by Oregon State University.
The OSU study, commissioned by the Oregon Department of Agriculture, quantifies the contributions of producers, processors, and others in a variety of economic snapshots ranging from sales to employment.
“We’ve talked consistently about the importance of agriculture to Oregon’s economy and the numbers found in OSU’s report validate what has been said,” says ODA Director Katy Coba. “What we think is happening in agriculture is indeed taking place.”
The report, Oregon Agriculture, Food and Fiber: An Economic Analysis, builds on previous OSU studies done in 2008 and 2011 to assess agriculture’s economic footprint and ripple effect on the state. It details the entire cycle of agriculture– from the farm to the consumer– and connects the flow of dollars throughout the system, capturing production, processing, distribution, wholesale, retail, and food service.
Using a variety of currently available data, the report generally shows that the industry continues its steady growth. Specifically, it finds 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. The report also finds that 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. Overall, Oregon agriculture is responsible for $22.9 billion or 10.6 percent of the net state product.
“Whichever measurement you want to use, those are all big numbers that show agriculture’s huge contribution to Oregon’s economy,” says Coba.
Spread throughout the report are compelling stories captured by statistics.
While the number of Oregon farms, ranches, and total farm acreage has decreased in recent years, the output of Oregon farms has increased 39 percent to $5.7 billion dollars between 2010 and 2014.
“Our producers aren’t really getting paid that much more for their crops, so they’ve become much more productive, and those numbers reflect that,” says Coba.
Measuring efficiency is another byproduct of the OSU study, according to its primary author.
“One of the most important points in this report is the tremendous work farmers and ranchers have done by improving the use or efficiency of their inputs like water, land, and chemicals,” says OSU Extension Economist Bruce Sorte.
“Oregon was ranked 46th out of the 50 states in terms of agricultural total factor productivity in 1960 and it advanced to 15th with the highest level of improvement among all the states. Farmers and ranchers are still improving each year working with researchers in universities, government, and businesses. This is very good news for consumers, producers, and ecosystems.”
A section of the report focuses on processing– adding value to what is agriculturally produced. In 2013, more than $12 billion was added to the farmgate sales of Oregon-grown food and fiber by processors and food services.
Frozen food manufacturing tops the list of processing sectors, in terms of sales. followed by breweries, fluid milk manufacturing, canned fruits and vegetables, wineries, and cheese manufacturing.
Sorte underscores the importance of value-added agriculture while saying more can be done.
“Adding value– increasing the value of wheat at ten cents a pound to flour at fifty cents a pound, providing water to a dryland farm so it can grow an irrigated crop, or Oregon fruit or beef served in a restaurant– is such an important and difficult process. If we encourage these value-added efforts for Oregon’s exports and as substitutes for imports of food to Oregon, we could at least double the already sizable value-added contribution of the agriculture, food and fiber industry of $23 billion.”
The report looks at distribution and marketing. A section on farm direct sales quantifies the growing interest by consumers who want to buy local food. The report also captures the jump in organic agriculture sales, now up to 4 percent of total ag sales in Oregon. A look at ag exports indicates how “new dollars” brought into Oregon from international customers and consumers from across the US help the state’s economy grow.
“Agricultural, food, and fiber production and processing account for 10.9 percent of all Oregon exports, or a total of $15.2 billion in sales,” says Mallory Rahe, Extension Community Economist and report co-author.
The report specifically notes that the more “finished” the good or service is before it is exported or used to substitute for an import, the greater the value added to the state’s economy.
The state’s agricultural leaders are encouraged by the report’s findings.
“Agriculture is the handshake between the urban and rural communities in Oregon,” says Dan Arp, dean of OSU’s College of Agricultural Sciences. “Our agricultural producers and processors sustainably provide the high quality foods and beverages that all Oregonians take pride in and enjoy daily. This report demonstrates that agriculture also has a profound economic impact on the state both in terms of sales and jobs. Agriculture is indeed key to Oregon’s economic success.”
ODA Director Coba concurs.
“Agriculture is a very important part of Oregon,” she says. “In terms of population, the number of farmers and ranchers in our state is small. Yet, when you look at the contribution they make to both our economy and our environment, things we pride ourselves on, agriculture has a tremendous impact on the state.”
As for the report itself, don’t expect it to simply gather dust while sitting on a shelf in someone’s office. The study can be used to convince policy makers that what is generally good for agriculture is good for the Oregon economy.
Simply put, agriculture is more than just farming. For the 1-in-7 Oregonians who have a job connected to agriculture, the report should make them feel good about their contribution to the state’s economy.
Read the original article on KTVZ here.
New barge service provides much-needed relief for Oregon exporters
/in Recent NewsNov 30, 2015, 3:01pm PST; Updated Nov 30, 2015, 3:05pm PST
The loss of container service in Portland has driven up shipping costs, forcing exporters to use trucks to send goods to Puget Sound to use container shipping services there. The barge-rail system is meant to address that by serving the ports of Lewiston, Morrow and Portland.
To remedy the region’s shipping crisis, container barge service has been reinstated along the Columbia and Snake rivers.
After losing nearly all its container shipping providers, the Port of Portland has joined a partnership to help importers and exporters in Oregon, Washington and Idaho move containerized agricultural products to and from markets in Asia.
The first barge is loading at the Port of Lewiston this week. Service will carry empty containers for cargo upriver and return full every two weeks, according to the Port of Portland.
In Boardman, commodities will be combined with Oregon agricultural and paper products and taken by rail to the Northwest Container Service yard in Portland.
Then, containers will stay in Portland for export through Terminal 6 on Westwood Shipping vessels or continue by rail to Seattle and Tacoma.
The Upriver Container BargeRail Shuttle is a partnership including Northwest Container Service, Tidewater Barge and the ports of Morrow, Lewiston and Portland.
The Port of Portland contributed $51,000 to help start the project. According to a statement from the Port of Portland, the shuttle service is expected to be self-sustaining by the second full month of service.
Once established, rail service from Boardman is expected to increase to weekly as more companies decide to participate.
Read the original article on the Portland Business Journal here.
What do Sports Field Managers Demand from Turfgrass Today?
/in Recent NewsBy Sandi Karstens
Low inputs, little maintenance and the ability to withstand wear and tear – that’s what turfgrass managers want today.
There is plenty to consider when it comes to natural grass turf for sports stadiums. As you tune into your favorite college football or NFL team this weekend, take a look at the stadium. Does it have shade or no shade? Is it in a warm climate or a cool climate? Is there a retractable roof?
Whether it’s Kentucky blue grass or a turf-type tall fescue, all these factors and more must be taken into consideration when it comes to nurturing natural grass turf in sports stadiums.
Turfgrass managers are demanding new cultivars because they need surfaces that are durable and can recover well. They need surfaces that are low maintenance, requiring fewer inputs and less water. They need varieties that can handle stress — be it athletes, weather or pests and diseases.
Leah Brilman serves as director of research and technical services for Seed Research of Oregon, where she works to produce grasses that can survive with less water, and are highly disease resistant. Photo: Seed Research of Oregon.
Bred to Handle Stress
Evaluating how the turf wears is key to finding a suitable mix for your surface. “We want a cultivar with adequate wear, but also good seed yield,” says Leah Brilman, director of research and technical services for Seed Research of Oregon — a business unit of DLF Pickseed.
The durability of Bermudagrass has made it a favorite of NFL teams, which is put to the test weekly during the season. In a recent poll by Sports Illustrated, seven of the top 10 fields in the NFL were in southern climates, and all but two had some variety of Bermudagrass.
Brilman says turfgrass managers are not only looking at the lower maintenance Kentucky bluegrass, but also ryegrass and turf-type fescues for sports fields. “Especially when you get down to younger kids’ sports fields, we are seeing much more use of turf-type tall fescues,” she says, adding that Kentucky bluegrass holds up well, has excellent sod strength and produces an adequate amount of seed.
Brilman explains that her team, in partnership with the Alliance for Low-Input Sustainable Turf (A-LIST) has done a lot of work with tall fescues and selections under stress.
Many of today’s stadiums are less than ideal for sun exposure. To manage these factors, stadiums in the southern United States have tried hearty, warm weather strains like Paspalum and Zoysia.
Edzard van Santen, an Auburn University professor in the College of Agriculture, says they’re breeding bentgrass for the southern transition zone. And to the east, turfgrass scientists at the University of Georgia are working on Zoysias for sports fields and Paspalum for watering issues.
Turfgrass managers have to battle many stressors, such as cold and heat. Working to make turf withstand cold, drought and heat tolerance is key, whether that is spring dead spot in Bermudagrass or brown patch in turf-style fall fescues.
When it comes to the weather, Brilman says things have gotten more and more unpredictable.
Van Santen adds that it’s not so much climactic instability that turfgrass managers need to be wary of, but what New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman calls, “global climactic weirdness.”
The effects of the, “weirdness depend on location and factors such as precipitation,” he explains. “Throw in oscillation patterns such as El Nino Southern Oscillation and you have a real mess.”
During the past 20 years, van Santen says a few patterns have emerged. “When I started at Auburn, you hardly ever saw Argentine bahiagrass (a forage species) in northern Alabama, whereas today it is frequently observed,” he says. “Thus, warm season grasses are used much farther north than 20 years ago. We have warm season sports turf as far north as West Lafayette, Ind.”
Changing weather patterns have also expanded the growing season in many regions, which changes pest pressures. As an example, van Santen says fall armyworms appear earlier nowadays and sometimes a month earlier than in the past. “This affects other turf management options such as the application of pre-emergence herbicides,” he says, noting that disease and pest resistance are paramount.
According to van Santen and his colleagues, Dave Han, Extension turf specialist and associate professor, and Elisabeth Guertal, turfgrass and nutrient management professor, it’s difficult — and getting harder — to manage the growing tide of emerging pests and diseases.
Resistance and new pesticides are contributing factors, and while industry is creating new compounds and formulations to combat these problems, the process is long and arduous.
Brilman agrees, “We are always looking at disease resistance.”
This breeder block allows DLF Pickseed researchers to evaluate the yield potential of tall fescue. Photo: DLF Pickseed.
Researchers use this Cadi wear machine to help test the durability and recoverability of turf grasses. Photo: DLF Pickseed.
Management Matters
But as pest pressures increase, so does the need to use fewer inputs, such as insecticides and herbicides.
“We want turf that can survive with less water, herbicides and fungicides — in general, a turf that can survive with fewer inputs,” Brilman says.
Bill Kreuser, assistant professor and Extension turfgrass specialist at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, says some school grounds across the country have banned pesticides — a trend that is likely to continue.
Kreuser shares that in the 1990s and early 2000s, new grass releases required high maintenance conditions. With good maintenance, grasses performed really well. However, he says most were not maintained at the level they needed to be.
When turfgrass isn’t maintained, Kreuser says it gets compacted and can be pretty hard, especially if it is not irrigated and fertilized properly. This is especially important when athletes hit the field, and deal with injuries, such as concussions, he explains.
Now the big thing is grasses that are able to use less water, nutrients, pesticides, etc. — all while producing a dark green color.
Regardless of region, Brilman says low maintenance turf is key, and that low-maintenance theory also applies to irrigating sports fields.
“As the water supply becomes scarcer, the ability of turf to recover from stress under a water-limiting regimen will become more important,” she says. “We’ve been doing a lot of work in that area. For instance in California, we are looking at our turf and maintaining cool season turf with less water, and assessing which ones do best under those conditions. We are also looking for ones that you can let go (dormant) and bring back up … and ones you can water at 60 percent of the evapotranspiration rate.”
While the need to use less water is always important, Kreuser says the bigger issue is the timing of application — whether that’s watering the field or applying a product,
“We shouldn’t just be putting things down based on calendar intervals,” he says. “We should be using data to make better choices about timing.”
Kreuser says some new areas researchers are looking into include supplemental grow lights that are rolled onto the field. The broader theme is plant health, he adds. “We are really trying to maximize all of the things that we can control to make plants as healthy as possible with minimal stress,” he says.
It’s a tall order, but turfgrass researchers across the country are working hard to match the right turf to the right stadium and the right products to the right situations. The campaign to improve turfgrass cultivars is endless and knows no geographical boundaries.
DLF Pickseed, through its brands — DLF, Pickseed USA, Pickseed Canada and Seed Research of Oregon — has trials not only in Oregon, but has a farm in Kentucky, Denmark, France and the Czech Republic to name a few. If they don’t have a site where they are growing their own turf, they work with the National Turfgrass Evaluation Program or a local university or sod grower to put on trials in that particular region.
Brilman says they also look at alternatives, such as tetraploid perennial ryegrasses, a turf-type intermediate rye that germinates later in the season.
“We never develop for one characteristic, always a broad range, and at end of day it still needs to produce seed,” Brilman says.
Read the original article on Seed World here.
Parliament rejects national GMO bans proposal
/in Recent NewsPress release – Environment / Public health / Food safety − 28-10-2015 – 14:27
No realistic way for EU countries to keep EU-approved GMO food and feed out of their national markets, say MEPs. © AP Images/European Union – EP
A draft EU law that would enable any EU member state to restrict or prohibit the sale and use of EU-approved GMO food or feed on its territory was rejected by the European Parliament on Wednesday. Members are concerned that the law might prove unworkable or that it could lead to the reintroduction of border checks between pro- and anti-GMO countries. They call on the Commission to table a new proposal.
“Today’s vote gave a clear signal to the European Commission. This proposal could turn on its head what has been achieved with the single market and the customs union”, said rapporteur Giovanni La Via (EPP, IT), whose recommendation to reject the proposal was approved by 577 votes to 75, with 38 abstentions.
“Over the last few months, serious concerns have been expressed about the lack of any impact assessment, the proposal’s compatibility with the single market, and also whether it is actually feasible. There was no evaluation of the potential consequences or of other available options”, he added.
“I believe that this proposal could have negative consequences for agriculture in the EU, which is heavily dependent on protein supplies from GMO sources. It could also have indirect negative effects on imports. Finally, there are concerns over whether this proposal could even be implemented, because there are no border controls in the EU”, he concluded.
The proposal, which would amend existing EU legislation to enable member states to restrict or prohibit the use of EU-approved genetically modified food and feed on their territory, was tabled by the EU Commission on 22 April 2015.
The Commission suggested that this proposal should be modelled on another EU law, on GMOs intended for cultivation, which entered into force in early April 2015. This allows member states to ban the cultivation of EU-approved GMOs on their territory.
But whereas cultivation necessarily takes place on a member state’s territory, GMO trade crosses borders, which means that a national “sales and use” ban could be difficult or impossible to enforce without reintroducing border checks on imports.
Next steps
European Commissioner for Health and Food safety Vytenis Andriukaitis has said that the European Commission will not withdraw the legislative proposal, which will be discussed by EU ministers.
Read the original article from the Capital Press here.
A Message from Representative Kurt Schrader
/in Recent NewsThank you for contacting me regarding Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) and food labeling. I appreciate hearing from you on this divisive, yet very important issue. As a veterinarian and an organic farmer, and having spent six years on the House Agriculture Committee including two as the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Horticulture and Biotechnology, I’ve studied the issue of GMOs very closely and it’s something I take very seriously.
For thousands of years humans have grown or bred plants and animals and chosen the most desirable traits for breeding the next generations in an effort for them to be able to resist pests and disease and increase yields. Through modern techniques using biotechnology it has become possible to modify or isolate genes in a laboratory with great precision and speed to improve a plant’s resistance to disease, insects or drought, a plant’s tolerance to a herbicide, improving a food’s quality or nutritional value, or increasing its yield. Genetic modification builds on breeding techniques that farmers have been using for thousands of years through hybridization and selective plant breeding.
Through biotechnology we’ve been able to increase productivity and efficiency while reducing the number of inputs like water and pesticides, resulting in higher crop yields. Higher crop yields per acre allow for better land management and the conservation of marginal lands. GMOs reduce the application frequency and toxicity of pesticides in farming. According to the USDA, pesticide use has decreased with the adoption of insect-resistant GE crops with only 9 percent of all U.S. corn farmers using pesticides in 2010. Pesticide use on corn farms declined from 0.21 pound per planted acre in 1995 to 0.02 pound in 2010. In addition, herbicide-tolerant crops have enabled the substitution of glyphosate (or Roundup) in place of more toxic and persistent herbicides.
GMOs in combination with good agricultural practices also improve soil quality and reduce pollution by allowing farmers to till less often, or not at all, therefore reducing soil erosion and reducing the carbon footprint of agriculture. For example, according to data from the USDA approximately 45 percent of GE soybean acres were cultivated using no-till technologies in 2006. By comparison only 5 percent of the acres planted with conventional seeds were cultivated using no-till techniques. 32 percent of GE cotton acres were planted using conservation tillage in 2007, compared to 17 percent of conventional cotton acres. 33 percent of GE corn acres were planted using no-till in 2005, versus 19 percent of conventional corn acres.
Since their introduction in 1996, the use of GE crops in the United States has grown rapidly, accounting for approximately 94 percent of soybean, 88 percent of corn, and 90 percent of cotton acreage in the U.S. Globally, GE crops are grown in 28 countries (including the U.S., Brazil, Argentina, Canada, India, South Africa, and China to name a few) and account for 420 million acres – an area nearly the size of Alaska.
It is estimated the world population will increase to nine billion people by 2050 increasing food demand by 70 percent. With increased pressures from climate change, we will become even more reliant on the ability of the scientific community to develop the necessary technologies that will increase the yields and productivity of our crops to provide a safe and sustainable food supply. Biotechnology will become an even more important tool in the fight against global poverty and food insecurity. GM crops that flourish in challenging environments without the aid of expensive pesticides or equipment can play an important role in alleviating hunger and food stress in the developing world. This is precisely why I am very concerned about the demonization of biotechnology and the rejection by many of the supporting science behind it. We must be careful we do not discourage further scientific advancement and innovation in this critical area.
Safe and effective use of crops developed through biotechnology can help us feed the hungry and malnourished in developing nations in Africa, Asia, and Latin and South America. For example, a lack of vitamin A in rice-based societies in developing countries leads to an increased incidence of malnutrition, blindness, disease and premature death in small children. Vitamin A deficiency is responsible for 500,000 cases of irreversible blindness and up to 2 million deaths each year. However, dietary supplementation of vitamin A can eliminate this problem. Researchers have developed a strain of rice that uses genetic modification to fortify the grain with vitamin A. This “Golden Rice” can help combat nutrient deficiency, disease and death in developing nations around the world. In fact, Golden Rice was one of the winners of the “Patents for Humanity Award” in 2015 from the White House Office of Science and Technology and U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Unfortunately, many of the countries most affected by vitamin A deficiency that could benefit from products like Golden Rice have rejected GM foods due to misconceptions about their safety. I don’t think the U.S. should do anything to play into those fears.
The Pew Research Center recently conducted a poll of the scientific community and found that 88 percent of scientists polled found GE food is safe to eat[1]. A wide range of well-respected international science organizations concur with this analysis concluding GMOs are no less safe than other foods. Here are some examples:
Proponents of mandatory labeling often point to the European Union (EU) who many think, incorrectly, has a ban on GMOs. To date, 75 GM products were approved for food and feed use in the EU[11] including corn, sugar beets, cotton, and soy beans. The EU has also approved two crops for cultivation: a GMO corn and a potato. The Chief Scientific Advisor to the European Union stated, “If we look at evidence from [more than] 15 years of growing and consuming GMO foods globally, then there is no substantiated case of any adverse impact on human health, animal health or environmental health, so that’s pretty robust evidence, and I would be confident in saying that there is no more risk in eating GMO food than eating conventionally farmed food.”[12]
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is the government agency tasked with ensuring that foods sold in the United States are safe, wholesome and properly labeled. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) and the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act are the Federal laws governing food products under FDA’s jurisdiction. The Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA), which amended the FD&C Act requires most foods to bear nutrition labeling and requires food labels that bear nutrient content claims and certain health messages to comply with specific requirements.
Under these laws the FDA requires that consumers have all information relevant to health, safety, and nutrition, on federally approved labels and that they are accurate, informative, truthful, and not misleading. Any food, whose composition has been changed in any way that is related to health, safety, or nutrition, must inform consumers of such changes on the label. Mandatory labeling of GE foods would damage the integrity of our food labeling laws by redefining their purpose and moving us away from a labeling system that has always been based solely on health, safety, and nutrition.
There is now near unanimity among scientists that GMOs are safe to eat and I’m afraid in the rush to mandate labeling of GE food we will unfairly stigmatize these foods and mislead consumers. The costs and negative impacts of a fifty state patchwork of inconsistent and incoherent standards would be significant. A more reasonable approach is to put in place a national standard for voluntarily labeling products free of GM ingredients. That is why I am a strong supporter of HR 1599, the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act which would:
varieties developed using bioengineering before those foods are introduced into commerce.
HR 1599 passed the House on July 23, 2015 with broad bipartisan support by a vote of 275-150, including 45 democrats, and has been sent to the Senate for further consideration.
I understand this issue is extremely sensitive to many people and I take their concerns to heart. I hope you realize that my approach on this issue is one based in science and my long history of being an organic farmer. Crafting a legislative solution to a difficult public policy problem is never easy task, but I feel we have achieved a reasonable solution that serves the needs of those on both sides of this issue. I believe there is room for conventional and organic agriculture and I will continue to be a voice for both here in Congress.
Thank you once again for contacting me.
See the original letter here.