Datasets:

BAAI

/

IndustryCorpus_agriculture

like 3

Follow

Beijing Academy of Artificial Intelligence 621

2017-09/1015/en_head.json.gz/60

Contact Thu 27 Mar 2008 More News from France, and It’s Not Necessarily Good Posted by Fredric Koeppel under Champagne , What Were They Thinking [4] Comments The announcement was made this month that the INAO, the institute that governs the appellation controlee system of vineyards and vine-growing in France, has authorized the expansion of the areas that may legitimately call themselves part of Champagne. You must understand: This is a HUGE BIG DEAL. This NEVER HAPPENS. The region in north-central France where the world’s best and best-known sparkling wines are made — and which alone should be entitled to the name “champagne” — was rigorously limited to 319 villages by the INAO in 1927. This recent addition of 38 villages or communes is unprecedented. The motivation lies in the increasing demand for champagne all over the world, but especially in Russia and China, those wondrous realms of new wealth. Between 2006 and 2007, sales of champagne increased 41 percent in Russian; in five years, sales of champagne have increased in China by 30 percent. There’s not enough to go around. The INAO tentatively addressed the problem of supply and demand in 2006 by allowing, on an experimental basis, for the grape yield per hectare (about 2.47 acres) to increase from 13,000 kilos to 15,500 kilos, though the increase is supposed to be held in grower’s tanks in reserve in the event of disease, hail, frost or bad harvests. Still, evidence both historical and contemporary shows that in many cases increasing yields in vineyards (taking into account such factors as density of vines and canopy management) can result in lower quality wine. As “TimesOnLine,” the website of The London Times said on March 14, “Permission to make champagne is almost a license to print money,” and not only because the luxurious effervescent beverage is so much in demand. Land that was previously outside the allowed areas of Champagne may increase in value as much as 200 times. Gilles Flutet, who is in charge of demarcation at INAO, was quoted in many sources as saying: “If your vines fall on the wrong side of the divide, they will be worth 5,000 euros a hectare. On the other side they will be worth a million euros.” License to print money indeed. We understand why communes have petitioned and filed law suits for years in their attempts to join the Magic Circle of Real Champagne Farmers or at least for the chance to sell their land. The fact that new law suits are being filed by land-owners and communes not admitted in the expansion — in other words, the losers — emphasizes how serious the fiduciary aspects of the situation are. I hate to sound cynical. Obviously the INAO has spent a great deal of time researching the quality of the soil and the character of the land in the newly permitted communes, as well as the history and traditions and micro-climates of the anointed areas. In the United States, however, we have seen too often how political and commercial is the system that grants official American Viticultural Area status to regions that seem to have no real viticultural value other than the exigencies of local geography and the influence of local growers, winemakers and legislators. It would be a miracle if the INAO were immune to similar pressure. In all the stories I have read about the decision, no one is quoted as saying, “We’re doing this for the glory of our beloved Champagne region.” It will be 10 years before grapes and juice from the 38 communes make their slow way through the traditional champagne method into bottles and thence onto the world’s retail shelves. By then, we might not care. Go ahead, throw a few more villages into the mix. Will the Russians and Chinese be able to tell the difference? Image from istockphoto.com. 4 Responses to “More News from France, and It’s Not Necessarily Good” Terry Hughes Says: March 28th, 2008 at 8:06 am Personally, I’m no big fan of Champagne. Too much a standardized product, price/quality ratio out of whack, and I truly hate dosage, the source of my headaches. But this makes it all so much worse, even for those who love the stuff. It’s all about greed, only this time a legalized form of the same impulse that led to the current Brunello scandal. Fredric Koeppel Says: March 28th, 2008 at 10:05 am well, im a huge fan of champagne (the less dosage the better), but you’re right about the standardization from the Big Houses. It’s more gratifying to search out the products of the small growers and makers that express some individuality. Félicien Breton Says: March 30th, 2008 at 9:36 am Standardization is a current problem. Therefore it is not related to a starting acreage increase. The INAO has a big history of correctly delimitating zones, so we can hope that this move will keep prices and yields in check. Anyway as Fredric does, I’ll keep tasting small production. Center for Wine Origins Says: March 31st, 2008 at 4:52 pm Another issue that is especially important for Champagne as a region is obviously name protection. A poll released last week said that the majority of wine consumers support truth-in-labeling, an issue that this region deals with constantly. When wine purchasers take the time to learn where their beverages come from, they will also be more informed about the many appellation issues that the region of Champagne currently faces. Consumers need to be aware of both this appellation issue as well as understanding where the Champagnes (or Ports, Sherries or any other brand of food/drink that currently faces the issue of name protection) that they buy come from. Thursday, Mar 27th, 2008 at 7:38 pm Champagne and What Were They Thinking

农业

2017-09/1015/en_head.json.gz/2450

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2011/12/111219-wind-turbines-help-crops-on-farms.html Planting Wind Energy on Farms May Help Crops, Say Researchers Among other positive effects for farming, wind turbines can improve the flow of carbon dioxide to the surrounding crops. Photograph by Bertrand Rieger, Hemis/Corbis America's corn belt overlaps with its central "wind belt"—a wide swath of the midsection of the United States that is ideal for wind energy development-an intersection that could be good news for corn, new research suggests. Experimental Glider to Attempt Record-Breaking Flight Into Space Zika's Accidental Ally: Miami's Luxury High-Rises Dodging Wind Farms and Bullets in the Arctic With the tremendous growth in wind energy in the past decade, turbines often have been planted in or near cropland—leading both farmers and researchers to wonder what effect the rotating blades might have on corn, soy, and other crops. In traditional agriculture in many places, farmers grow trees along the edges of fields, a technique that slows the wind and stirs up the air, benefiting the crops in the field. Now researchers are studying whether wind turbines can have a similar effect—actually helping crops to grow. Some of the leading research is under way in the U.S. Midwest, heartland of the world's leading corn-producing nation, a place where blustery fields have been ideal for siting wind energy farms. The findings here could apply to many places around the world, wherever turbines and farms are near each other, although the effects on vegetation may vary by region or by crop. Mixing the Air One of the more obvious ways that wind turbines could help agriculture is by mixing up the air, getting more carbon dioxide (CO2) to the crops, since "the job of corn is to take up as much CO2 as it can," said Eugene Takle, an agricultural meteorologist at Iowa State University. Some of the other effects turbines could have on crops would be more complicated. For example, by causing the air to move, wind turbines could reduce the amount of dew on leaves at night. This would help reduce crop diseases, such as those caused by fungi, Takle said. That would be a welcome impact in the top U.S. corn-producing state, Iowa, where climate change has made the air more moist, making dew more common, according to a report this year commissioned by the Iowa state government. (Iowa was second to Texas in the United States in wind energy installed in 2011.) Another potential beneficial impact: Because turbines mix up the air and slow wind speeds, they also could also affect the temperature around them, making nights warmer and days cooler. Both these effects could help crops, making frosty nights less common, and reducing the number of sweltering days that stress plants. With this variety of effects, "we are finding it's more complicated than we thought," Takle said. But based on his work on how trees affect crops, Takle expects that "on balance, the effect would be positive." Revealing Turbines' "Wakes" To figure out what effect turbines might have on crops, Takle is collaborating with a team at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colorado, led by atmospheric scientist Julie Lundquist. Lundquist has begun using "lidar"—like radar, but using light—to reveal the swirls of air in the long "wake" behind a wind turbine, like the waves trailing behind a boat. At an American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco last week, her team presented initial results from its first large set of measurements, which the researchers are still analyzing. Modern turbines are typically perched on tall towers about 250 feet (80 meters) high, and the strongest part of the wake stretches downwind from a turbine about two or three times the height of the tower, the lidar studies revealed. The swirling turbulence from the turbine spreads out as it travels downwind, the lidar study found. "We're still trying to figure out where, and in which circumstances, the wake hits the ground," Lundquist said. A Need for Answers The turbines' influence on temperatures could also have a downside for crops. A nighttime rise in temperature could increase the amount the plants respire—a kind of exhalation at nighttime, when plants release some of the carbon they took up from the air during the day. That could be a negative because the plants would take up less carbon, losing some of the benefits of their daytime growth. The possibility underscores the importance of the research for the agricultural community. Farmers for years have leased portions of their fields for wind turbines as a way to boost income, but they have wondered what effect it might have on crops, Lundquist said. "It's a big choice for farmers to make," she said, so they hope to start getting answers soon. The effects that wind turbines could have on wind and temperatures fit with a 2010 study led by atmospheric scientist Somnath Baidya Roy of the University of Illinois, which was the first published study of the weather around a wind farm. His study found that in southern California, nighttime temperatures were higher downwind from wind turbines. Roy agreed that the effects on crops will be complex, and "one good thing could offset another bad thing." "I think the frost protection effect for crops is going to be a really good thing," Roy said, adding that it might outweigh other effects. Because of the varied effects of turbines and the needs of different plants, Lundquist cautions that what may help Iowa corn might not help other crops in other places. "Wind energy offers us great potential for renewable energy," she said, "we just have to be clever and sensitive about how we deploy it." This story is part of a special series that explores energy issues. For more, visit The Great Energy Challenge.

农业

2017-09/1015/en_head.json.gz/2687

Tractor Trendsetters: Ford-Ferguson 9N Written by Larry Gay In late October 1938, Harry Ferguson of England brought a Ferguson-Brown tractor with a hydraulically-controlled hitch to the U.S. and demonstrated his tractor and attached implements to Henry Ford. Ford was very impressed with how Ferguson’s tractor outperformed the Allis-Chalmers B and Fordson tractors that Ford used for comparison. As a result, Ford and Ferguson sat at a table in the field and worked out an agreement that Ford would manufacture a tractor with Ferguson’s patented hitching system and Ferguson would market the tractor and implements. The discussion ended with a handshake and was never put in writing. Ten Ford engineers, led by Harold Brock, started designing the new tractor in January 1939. Two of Ferguson’s assistants helped adopt the hydraulic-hitching system into the tractor. To simplify the design process, the Ford engineers used many production automobile and truck parts and the 4-cylinder, 120-cubic-inch engine was derived from the Mercury V-8 automobile engine. On June 29, 1939, the Ford-Ferguson 9N tractor was introduced to the press and the public. The 9N was a small, low-profile tractor with the operator’s seat positioned immediately above the transmission case, requiring the operator to straddle the transmission. Although the tractor had four wheels with one on each corner, it was not a standard-tread tractor because the wheels could be adjusted to match the spacing of row crops and the front axle had 21 inches of clearance. The 9N was the first example of what we now identify as a utility tractor. One of the biggest problems encountered during the development process was what name to put on the tractor. Eventually it was decided to put the Ford name on one plate and Ferguson System on another plate. The tractor weighed about 2,140 pounds and the initial retail price was $585. About the first 750 were built with a cast aluminum hood until the stamping dies for the sheet metal hood were built. The trade magazines were impressed by the unique hitching system on the rear of the tractor for attaching a series of wheel-less implements. Demonstrations during the introduction meeting emphasized the ease of attaching the implements, backing into corners, and the weight transfer to the tractor’s rear wheels. This hitching system soon became known as a 3-point hitch. The 9N model became the 2N during World War II with the material changes required due to the war, but the serial number retained the 9N prefix. From 1939 through 1947, Ford Motor Company built about 99,000 of the 9N and 207,000 of the 2N for a total of about 306,000 tractors. Harold Brock continued to lead the Ford tractor engineers until 1959. By 1963, he was the leader of the John Deere tractor engineers when the John Deere 4020 tractor was introduced. Two classic tractors in one engineer’s lifetime is an outstanding achievement. Harold Brock passed away on January 2, 2011 at the age of 96. Larry Gay is the author of four tractor books published by the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, including A Guide to Ford, Fordson, and New Holland Tractors. This book may be obtained from ASABE at 800-695-2723 or asabe.org, click publications and then click history books.

农业

2017-09/1015/en_head.json.gz/2807

The Origin and Evolution of Baby Carrots The Cut & Peel story - White Blush scare - Chlorine Issue Watch a video of how the process works and how baby carrots are "made". Some statistics Baby carrots first appeared in US supermarkets in 1989. There are two types - true baby carrots, and manufactured baby carrots. Baby carrots have become a lunch box staple. Parents love them for their convenience and because they’re seen as a healthy food choice. Kids love them because they’re sweet and fun to eat. But what’s the real deal behind baby carrots? After all, they’re not like regular carrots. They’re perfectly shaped with rounded edges; they don’t have the same thick core; and, even peeled, they are bright orange. A quick Google search of baby carrots turns up some frightening information, and mis-information, on how they are made and whether they are really “soaked in chlorine.” Strictly "baby" means immature, pulled from the ground before they reach full size. Originally that was the case, nowadays they have developed miniature strains which are mature when small in stature! Real baby carrots (miniature version of full size) are what they are, about 3 or 4 inches in length. Baby "style" cut carrots (those whittled down from larger carrots) started off by the "inventor" as being approx 2 inches in the 1980's, and have remained so, more or less, ever since. USDA use weight to base its standards for nutrition etc - a small baby carrot is deemed 10 grams, a medium one 15 grams. Note that prior to the "invention" of baby cut carrots in the 1980's, engineer and inventor, Joseph T. Listner was early to recognize the appeal and convenience of bagged, ready-to-eat vegetables. In 1959, he designed and built a one-of-a-kind machine that sliced raw carrots into sticks. The machine enabled a small-scale producer like Listner, Inc., in Wallington, New Jersey, to slice an estimated one million pounds of carrots in sixteen years of operation. Listner sold his bagged carrot sticks and coleslaw to stores, including the Grand Union supermarket chain. Read more at the National Museum of American History, which includes some photos of his early carrot slicing machine. See the Youtube video produced by Grimmways about the whole process of producing baby carrots. Here Here is the Carrot Museum take on it all. True Baby CarrotsIn the 1980's supermarkets expected carrots to be a particular size, shape, and colour. Anything else had to be sold for juice or processing or animal feed, or just thrown away. One farmer wondered what would happen if he peeled the skin off the gnarly carrots, cut them into pieces, and sold them in bags. He made up a few test batches to show his buyers. One batch, cut into 1-inch bites and peeled round, he called "bunny balls." Another batch, peeled and cut 2 inches long, looked like little baby carrots. Bunny balls never made it. But baby carrots were a hit. They transformed the whole industry. A "true" baby carrot is a carrot grown to the "baby stage", which is to say long before the root reaches its mature size. The test is can you see a proper "shoulder" on each carrot. These immature roots are preferred by some people out of the belief that they are superior either in texture, nutrition or taste. They are also sometimes harvested simply as the result of crop thinning, but are also grown to this size as a specialty crop. Certain cultivars of carrots have been bred to be used at the "baby" stage. One such cultivar is 'Amsterdam Forcing'. You will see them in the stores and are normally very expensive and displayed with some of the green showing to "prove" they are a "real" carrot. There is also a baby variety called Thumbelina, or Paris Market shaped like a golf ball. Manufactured Baby Cut Carrots (the most common) Tired of the wastefulness he was seeing, Mike Yurosek whittled "babies" from grown-up cast off carrots. Baby Cut Carrots were invented by Mike Yorusek (Read the full story here.) Most baby carrots sold in U.S. and U.K. supermarkets are really what the industry calls “baby cuts” – made from longer carrots that have been peeled and cut into a smaller size. These carrots have been specifically bred to be smaller in diameter, coreless and sweeter than regular carrots. "Manufactured" baby carrots , or cut and peel, are what you see most often in the shops - are carrot shaped slices of peeled carrots invented in the late 1980's by Mike Yurosek, a California farmer, as a way of making use of carrots which are too twisted or knobbly for sale as full-size carrots. Yurosek was unhappy at having to discard as much as 400 tonnes of carrots a day because of their imperfections, and looked for a way to reclaim what would otherwise be a waste product. He was able to find an industrial green bean cutter, which cut his carrots into 5 cm lengths, and by placing these lengths into an industrial potato peeler, he created the baby carrot. The much decreased waste is also used either for juicing or as animal fodder. Perhaps most important, the baby-cut method allows growers to use far more of the carrot than they used to. In the past, a third or more of a carrot crop could have been easily tossed away, but baby-cut allows more partial carrots to be used, and the peeling process actually removes less of the outer skin that you might imagine. They are sold in single-serving packs with ranch dressing for dipping on the side. They're passed out on airplanes and sold in plastic containers designed to fit in a car's cup holder. At Disney World, and MacDonald's burgers now come two ways: with fries or baby carrots. There is nothing "wrong" with manufactured baby carrots. They are a food that humans have enjoyed for centuries, probably millennia, chock-full of goodness that we need to keep our bodies functioning. Mr Yurosek died in 2005. Baby carrot products have been the fastest growing segment of the carrot industry since the early 1990s and are among the most popular produce items in the supermarket aisle – more than potatoes and celery, according to a 2007 USDA report. Transformed to the core The baby-cut boom also transformed the industry from its roots up. Before, growers were more interested in a bulky carrot with more of a tapered shape. But those were hard to chop into baby shape, so plant breeders worked to create varieties that were longer and narrower, allowing a producer to get four cuts instead of three on each carrot root, which is the part of the plant we eat. They also found they could limit the diameter size of carrots by increasing the density with which they were planted — a discovery that helped them harvest more carrots per acre. (This sort of change wasn’t new for carrot growers: Up to the 1950s, when carrots were sold with their leaves intact, they were bred for hearty leaf growth. That stopped after grocers started selling just roots.) Today’s carrot is also now bred for uniform colour. Because the cutting process exposes much of the root to the buyer’s eye, producers don’t want their bags of carrots to be collared like a paint palette. With baby carrots or cut-and-peel carrots, you can see the core of every chunk,. The growers would like every carrot in that bag to look like every other one. Growers also obsess about texture and taste. You might find carrots far sweeter than they were in the past, and that’s intentional. Researchers found much of their appeal as a snack came from their sweetness, especially for perennially sweet-toothed kids, and bred them to have more natural sugar and less of the harsh taste that comes if you do a poor job of peeling. Today specific cultivars are grown to create the now ubiquitous baby carrot. Farmers want a carrot that is about five-eighths inches in diameter, 14 inches long that they can cut into four pieces to make baby carrots. In order to create thinner vegetables, baby carrots are planted closer together than traditional carrots. In as little as 120 days from planting, the carrots are dug up and trucked to the processing house to be cut and peeled. But before packaging, all carrots receive a brisk scrub accompanied by a chlorine bath. Borda says Grimmway Farms, whose labels include Cal-Organic, uses a chlorine solution on all its carrots – organic and non-organic -- to prevent food poisoning, before a final wash in water. Grimmway says the chlorine rinse is well within limits set by the EPA and is comparable to levels found in tap water. Ashley Bade, nutritionist and founder of Honest Mom Nutrition, says the chlorine bath is a standard practice in many pre-cut food items. “The chlorine-water solution is a needed step in the process to limit the risk of food-borne illnesses such as E.coli,” she says. The new varieties’ names reflect the change in growers’ needs: Prime Cut, Sweet Cuts, Morecuts. What is perhaps most important, the baby-cut method allows growers to use far more of the carrot than they used to. In the past, a third or more of a carrot crop could have been easily tossed away, but baby-cut allows more partial carrots to be used, and the peeling process actually removes less of the outer skin that you might imagine — in part because growers, who are selling by weight, don’t want to take off more than they need to. And what’s left over after the initial processing can still be used in even smaller products, or squeezed for juice. There is no doubt that baby carrots are a fun snack and are a great way to introduce healthy foods into the often French fry, and fast food driven diets of children and teenagers, because from the snacking perspective, they are convenient and satisfying, for all ages. Read more here on the processes involved in the production of baby carrots. "Where do baby carrots come from? Behind the scenes at a baby carrot harvest." Vanmark Equipment LLC is one of the world's leading manufacturers of carrot processing equipment. Millions of pounds of carrots processed in the United States go through Vanmark’s peelers/washers before making their way to consumers. Vanmark makes equipment for cleaning and polishing carrots of all sizes as well as processing and shaping product sold as baby carrots. Our equipment can use a two part process to first remove material from full size cut carrots and then shape and smooth the pieces into a rounded, distinctive baby carrot shape. (Source Vanmark equipment website) What happens to the left over pieces of carrots? The 0.84 % left over mainly goes to animal feed, though I also know of some, where it can go to juice and for pulping into baby foods/soups etc. There seems to be two attitudes - 1. it is "waste" (for animal feed). 2. It has a commercial value and is passed on to the food processing industry. The problem is that the cutting down/shaving process is designed to do just that, it is rarely commercially viable to ensure the shavings are collected effectively to remain clean and safe to pass on to the food industry. It's ok for animals!. Because it is not a consistent left over, in terms of size, the cuttings do not go to salads or other fresh products. The carrot cake producers buy shredded carrot made from whole big carrots as it easier to process that way and you get more for your money. The "waste" is becoming less and less as the machines get more efficient. For example many of the modern computer/laser guided machines can make 3 babies out of one carrot. How a typical carrot is processed to maximise use for human consumption If you were to divide up a typical 8 and ½ inch carrot it would typically be processed in such a manner that only about the very top half inch goes to animal feed. This is at the crown end. The point end quarter of the remaining carrot goes to making those tiny, baby carrots. The central portions are processed either to make “standard” cut or peel baby carrots or sent for juice making. The thickest part goes off to be processed into juice concentrate to be further sliced or diced into fresh pre-packs. Diagrammatical Representation Some Statistics: In the US over 172 million tonnes of carrots are processed into baby peeled carrots. In the US baby peeled carrots sales exceed US$400 million per annum. Overall carrot consumption in the US has increased by 33% through the introduction of baby peeled carrots. In the US annual consumer spending on baby peeled carrots exceeds US$2.00 per head. In 1999 baby peeled carrot purchases passed whole carrots. 94% of US consumers purchased baby peeled carrots 90% had bought whole carrots. Purchases of baby peeled carrots were even ahead of fresh salad mixes. Baby peeled carrots have the lion's share of the carrot category accounting for over 80% of all retail carrot sales. Up until 2000 baby carrots have dominated US produce department's with excellent growth ahead of all other produce items. From Field to Supermarket Shelf In the field, two-storey carrot harvesters use long metal prongs to open up the soil, while rubber belts grab the green tops and pull. The carrots ride up the belts to the top of the picker, where an automated cutter snips off the greens. They're trucked to the processing plant, where they're put in icy water to bring their temperature down to 37 degrees to inhibit spoiling. They are sorted by thickness. Thin carrots continue on the processing line; the others will be used as whole carrots, juice or cattle feed. An inspector looks for rocks, debris or malformed carrots that slip through. The carrots are shaped into 2-inch pieces by automated cutters. An optical sorter discards any piece that has green on it. The pieces are pumped through pipes to the peeling tanks. The peelers rotate, scraping the skin off the carrots. The carrots are weighed and bagged by an automated scale and packager. Finally placed in cold storage until they are shipped. People sometimes find that baby carrots turn slimy in the fridge, very soon after storage. They are going off due to poor storage conditions, post harvest. If you eat them you run the risk of food poisoning (usually from ecoli or salmonella bacteria). It happens to baby carrots more than normal carrots because of the additional processing involved. Baby cut carrots are made from longer carrots. The skin is taken off and then longer carrots are cut into smaller "baby" carrots. The skin (as in humans!) is there for a reason, a protective layer. These baby carrots are then washed in a chlorine solution before a final wash in potable water. This process is an attempt to ward off early degradation of the baby carrots. Most carrots are kept and processed in near freezing conditions and once they leave the packing plants experience warmer temperatures which encourage bacterial growth. Storage conditions in supermarkets is far from ideal, in many cases.In the case of slimy carrots (baby or otherwise) one has to err on the side of caution and throw them away. Here is the full story of the popular Baby Cut & Peel carrot: It all began in the mid 80's ago when Mike Yurosek of Newhall, California got tired of seeing 400 tons of carrots a day drop down the cull chute at his packing plant in Bakersfield. Culls are carrots that are too twisted, knobbly, bent or broken to sell. In some loads, as many as 70% of carrots were tossed. Yurosek tried to be resourceful. He used some of his cull as animal slop, but his farm was so big and he had so much waste -- 400 tons a day -- that his pigs’ fat turned orange. He went on this way for decades, enduring the daily tragedy of the cull, and dreaming of a better world. Yurosek had always been a "think outside the carrot patch" guy. In the 1960s, Yurosek and Sons was selling carrots in plastic bags with a Bunny-Luv logo, a cartoon that got the farmers in trouble with Warner Bros., which was protective of its Bugs Bunny brand. Instead of bringing in lawyers and spending a fortune, Yurosek recalls, "I said to my wife who is a pretty good drawer, 'Hey, draw me up about 50 bunnies, would you? Then we'll send them to Warner Bros. and ask them to tell us which ones we can use.' " The entertainment giant picked one, and Bunny-Luv lived on for the price of a pencil. The farmer continued growing carrots, and throwing them out, for decades. But in 1986, Yurosek had the idea that would change American munching habits. California's Central Valley is dotted with farms, fruit and vegetable processors, and freezing plants. Yurosek knew full well that freezers routinely cut up his long, well-shaped carrots into cubes, coins and mini-carrots. "If they can do that, why can't we, and pack 'em fresh?" he wondered. First he had to cut the culls into something small enough to make use of their straight parts. The first batch was done in a potato peeler and cut by hand. Then he found a frozen-food company that was going out of business and bought an industrial green-bean cutter, which just happened to cut things into 2-inch pieces. Thus was born the standard size for a baby carrot. Next, he sent one of his workers to a packing plant and loaded the cut-up carrots into an industrial potato peeler to take off the peel and smooth down the edges. What he ended up with was a little rough but still recognizable as the baby carrot of today. After a bit of practice and an investment in some bagging machinery, he called one of his best customers, a Vons supermarket in Los Angeles. "I said, 'I'm sending you some carrots to see what you think.' Next day they called and said, 'We only want those.' The babies were an economic powerhouse. Stores paid 10 cents a bag for whole carrots and sold them for 17 cents. They paid 50 cents for a 1-pound package of baby carrots and sold them for $1. By 1989, more markets were on board, and the baby-carrot juggernaut had begun. Today, these "babies" come from one main place in the US: Bakersfield, California. The state produces almost three-quarters of U.S. carrots because of its favourable climate and deep, not-too-heavy soil. Every day, somewhere in the state, carrots are either being planted or harvested (20 million pounds in 2006). Which is why Bakersfield is home to the nation's top two carrot processors: Grimmway Farms and Bolthouse Farms. In the early 1990s, Yurosek sold his company to rival Grimmway. The Bunny-Luv logo still can be found on Grimmway's organic carrots. But it's Bakersfield's other carrot producer, Bolthouse, that carries on the Yurosek tradition. Yurosek's grandson Derek is Bolthouse's director of agricultural operations. The Industry calls them "Minis" and have brought about a carrot-breeding revolution, says the USDA's Phillip Simon, who also teaches horticulture at the University of Wisconsin. Carrots originally were sold in bulk, straight from the farm. The first advance was the "cello" carrot. Introduced in the 1950s, these were washed and sold in newfangled (at the time) cellophane bags. "Cello carrots had to look like a carrot, and that was enough," Simon says. Enter the baby carrot. Suddenly carrots were "branded." Instead of just carrots, they were Bunny-Luv or Bolthouse or Grimmway carrots. Consumers could remember the name, and if they got a bad carrot, they wouldn't buy that particular brand any more. Breeders got to work, getting rid of woodiness and bitterness. They also bred for enhanced length, smoothness and a cylindrical quality that lets processors clip off as little of the tip as possible. Balancing these with the desirable sweetness and juiciness is a delicate task, Simon says. The faintly bitter taste is essential to what makes a carrot taste like a carrot. "I've had carrots that have more of a flavour note of peas or corn," he says. Get the carrot too juicy and it breaks in the field. "There are some carrot varieties so succulent they're amazing, but they're like glass," Simon says. "Consumers like juicy carrots, but if they're all broken, you can't sell them." None of this was done with fancy genetic engineering. "You just grow lots of carrots and look at them and taste them," Simon says. Breeders started experimenting with seed from varieties culled in the past for being too long to fit into the plastic bag. "Prior to baby carrots, the ideal length for a carrot was somewhere between 6 and 7 inches," Simon says. Now they're typically 8 inches long, a "three-cut" that can make three 2-inch babies. And breeders are edging toward fields of even longer carrots. "You make it a four-cut, and you've got a 33% yield increase," Simon says. The baby-cut boom transformed the industry from its roots up. Before, growers were more interested in a bulky carrot with more of a tapered shape. But those were hard to chop into baby shape, so plant breeders worked to create varieties that were longer and narrower, allowing a producer to get four cuts instead of three on each carrot root, which is the part of the plant we eat. They also found they could limit the diameter size of carrots by increasing the density with which they were planted — a discovery that helped them harvest more carrots per acre. Mr Yurosek is often referred to as the "Father of Baby Carrots". By simply cutting carrots into 2-inch sections, he won a well-earned place in agricultural history. Equally deserved is his legacy in business lore. Yurosek transformed an industry by addressing a common problem. Whereas most growers focused their energies on production excellence, Yurosek addressed another ingredient required for success: customer relevance. Sadly he died of cancer in 2005. The Baby Carrot industry has been successfully rejuvenated in 2010 by the introduction of "Eat'em Like Junk Food" campaign, following the recent trend of fast food outlets trying to gain new customers by extolling the virtues of the healthiness of their offerings. Read more here. Here's what Grimmways say about their baby carrots - Are baby carrots grown to be so small, or are they just regular carrots that have been cut to size? Baby carrots begin as full-size, long and slender carrots. The variety that we use for our fresh, peeled baby carrots is a hybrid that combines the best qualities of more than 250 known commercial carrot varieties. Because taste is very important to us, we allow the carrot to grow almost to its full maturity before harvesting. Prior to selecting which carrots will become baby carrots, we eliminate any that are greater than 7/8-inch in diameter. The smaller carrots are then cut into two- inch pieces, peeled, polished and packaged. We use no food additives or preservatives in this process. What is the shelf life of your peeled baby carrots? If the carrots are stored at 33 to 40 degrees, they should maintain fresh for four to five weeks. What causes the white coating on carrots? Dehydration causes a white coating on carrots. When carrots are peeled, they lose some of their natural moisture barrier, begin to dehydrate and may eventually develop a white color on the carrot surface. We use no chemicals or additives that would cause the white surface. Often, you can restore that “just-picked” color and freshness by soaking the carrots in a bowl of ice water for a few minutes before serving. How are peeled baby carrots processed? We create our fresh, peeled baby carrots by first cutting the carrots into two- inch segments. After inspection and grading for defects and size, the carrots are peeled and polished. This mechanical process uses no chemicals, food additives or preservatives. The carrots are then washed in water that is treated with a small amount of chlorine, then soaked and rinsed with potable water before being packaged. Baby carrots, like bagged salad mixes and other “ready to eat” fresh vegetables, are rinsed in this diluted chlorine solution to inhibit bacterial growth that naturally occurs in water. Carrots are then hydro-cooled to 34 degrees. Just prior to packaging, we inject less than half-an-ounce of water into the bag to help keep the carrots moist. Can I freeze the carrots? We don’t recommend freezing them. If you do, blanch the carrots first. Otherwise, they will turn mushy when they are thawed. Can I use the carrots after the “best if used by date?” We don’t recommend it. If the carrots are still firm and crisp, you can use them for up to two weeks after the date on the bag. However, if they have become slimy, mushy, black, or have an off odor, you should not use the carrots. Do you use any GMO’s? We do not use any genetically modified organisms. Do I need to wash and peel the carrots? The specialty cut carrots (baby, chips, shredded, etc.) are pre-washed and “ready-to-eat” directly from the bag. We do recommend that you wash whole carrots. Peeling is personal preference. Where are Grimmway carrots grown? Most of our carrots are grown in California. However, we do have some fields in Colorado. What is the difference between organic and conventional carrots? Organic carrots are grown without the use of synthetic pesticides, herbicides or fertilizers. In addition, organic fields must be free from the use of synthetic pesticides, herbicides or fertilizers for three years before being considered organic. Certification includes inspections of farm fields and processing facilities, detailed record keeping, and periodic testing of soil and water to ensure that growers and handlers are meeting the standards that have been set by certifying agencies. - See more at: http://www.grimmway.com/carrots/our-process/ask-the-farmer/#sthash.HHMcqyJA.dpuf Why is one little carrot so important? Some children refuse to eat vegetables and many won’t touch a carrot unless it can be used as a sword during playtime. Sometimes it can feel like it’s just not worth the bother to try and feed them vegetables at every meal. But according to the World Health Organization, eating vegetables like carrots can help prevent blindness caused by vitamin A deficiency. Vitamin A deficiency partially or totally blinds nearly 350,000 children from more than 75 countries every year. Roughly 60 percent of these children die within months of going blind. However, vitamin A deficiency is preventable. One cooked carrot has approximately 150% of the Recommended Daily Amount of beta-carotene, which is converted into vitamin A. Vitamin A helps to prevent night blindness, dry skin, poor bone growth, weak tooth enamel, diarrhoea and slow growth. The greatest health benefits come from eating a wide variety of fruits and vegetables. The American Institute for Cancer Research has estimated that a diet high in a variety of fruits and vegetables may prevent 20 to 33 percent of lung cancers. The cartenoids found in greens, broccoli and spinach may help protect against other cancers. Eating 5 servings of fruits and vegetables supplies a whole range of nutrients, which provide the kind of protection originally attributed to betacarotene alone. Unfortunately, most children are not interested in cancer and disease prevention so it is parents who have to resort to sneaking nutrition in the foods kids love. And the Baby Carrot plays it part. Over 40 brands are sold, marketed under such names as Premier and Bunny-Luv, and more modern names to reflect what the consumer wants, like Prime Cut, Sweet Cuts, Morecuts. The market now also covers things such as baby-cut but also sticks, chips, dipping packages, shredded carrots and juice. The FutureThere appear to be endless, indeed, packaged carrot products have become so ubiquitous that the industry has levelled off in per-capita consumption. Americans are still eating 50 percent more carrots than they were, but ironically, the carrot has regained such an important position on the shopping list that some in the industry worry it could be losing its value as a premium product. (And some of that drop, they point out, could also be because peeled products actually offer more edible carrot per pound. Buying less doesn’t mean eating less.) With that in mind, researchers are always looking for ways to spice up the carrot. Producers want to darken the colour of carrots, not just for aesthetics but also because the deeper orange signals more beta-carotene, an antioxidant that serves as one of the best sources of vitamin A, for which carrots are renowned. Scientists are pushing has pushed the colour curve - producing white, red and purple carrots that are actually the colours of the roots were originally grown 1,000 years ago. The rainbow colours give growers still more marketing options - especially for kids, who seem drawn to items that look like someone was having fun with crayons - and could even be mixed together in a variety pack. Look for a Rainbow Pack at a store near you! Eat 'em Like Junk Food Campaign In 2009, after a decade of steady growth, Bolthouse's carrot sales went flat. Sales of baby carrots, the company's cash carrot, actually fell, sharply, and stayed down. Nobody knew why. This was a big problem. After a series of focus groups and surveys something interesting was discovered. People said they were eating as many carrots as they always had. But the numbers clearly showed they were buying fewer. What people meant, it turned out, was they were as likely as ever to keep carrots in the fridge. When the recession hit, though, they became more likely to buy regular carrots, instead of baby carrots, to save money. But people used to eating baby carrots weren't taking the time to wash and cut the regular ones. And unlike baby carrots, which dry out pretty quickly once a bag is opened, regular carrots keep a long time. So people were buying regular carrots and then not eating them, and not buying more until the carrots they had were finally gone or spoiled. Bolthouse had never marketed its baby carrots. It just sent truckloads to supermarkets, where they got piled up in the produce aisle. A new advertising campaign was needed. The concept was "To have a great advertising idea, you have to get at the truth of the product. The truth about baby carrots is they possess many of the defining characteristics of our favourite junk food. They're neon orange, they're crunchy, they're dippable, they're kind of addictive - They're just cool and part of your life. If Doritos can sell cheeseburger-flavoured Doritos, we can sell baby carrots." A new jazzy packaging portfolio was created, aimed primarily at junk food addicts and it soon became a roaring success. (The above information is taken from a more detailed piece by Douglas McGray writing for the Fast Company - read the full article ) $25m campaign to Get Kids to Eat Carrots by branding them like junk food - According to USA Today, a group of producers will unveil a sophisticated media campaign designed to drive a wedge between the munching public and our snack foods, a wedge in the shape of a carrot. This campaign will include repackaging carrots for school vending machines in bags that resemble Doritos (both orange, little-finger size, crunchy, so consumers probably won't even notice the difference, right?) (Left, Halloween "Scarrots" 2010). Baby Carrot.Com - The flash website is here A few words of warning, and the viable alternative - Citrox!Baby carrots are not as nutritious as full whole carrots, because a lot of the goodness in carrots is contained in the skin and just below it. This is removed in the baby carrot making process. After harvesting, the carrots are mainly washed in chlorinated water, just like our drinking water, and cleaned to remove dirt and mud. Some finished baby carrots are washed, or dipped, by a further chlorine solution to prevent white blushing once in the store. There is no evidence that this is harmful, but it is worth knowing about!. The truth is that baby carrots are no different from packaged lettuce or any other prepared produce -- like bagged lettuce—you find in the grocery store. However organic growers use a citrus based non toxic solution called Citrox (The ProGarda™), the natural alternative to synthetic biocides for the decontamination of fresh produce, food and beverages. Citrox technology incorporates a truly holistic approach designed to increase the effectiveness and profitability of food and beverage production processes. A brief overview of this product All Citrox products are made from natural extracts or naturally derived compounds. Some of them are permitted for use in organic production (e.g.: fruit & vegetable decontaminant) or certified organic (e.g.: pre-harvest treatment products). All the Citrox derivatives are completely non-toxic, non-carcinogenic, non-corrosive, and non-tainting in use. They can actually be added to foodstuffs. They are formed by the bioflavonoid extracts and a range of completely natural organic acids, this combination having highly synergistic effects in all their many applications. The ProGarda™ decontaminant range has been specifically formulated for the decontamination of fruits and vegetables. These products are viable alternatives to the use of chlorine (or other compounds or systems) for decontaminating fresh fruits and vegetables. More about Citrox here. According to Randy Worobo, an associate professor of food microbiology at Cornell University, you need not worry. As reported in Prevention magazine, he says carrots are not preserved in bleach but rinsed in a chlorine wash that's recommended by the FDA to kill bacteria such as salmonella and E. coli. Most pre-cut produce, including frozen vegetables and fruit salad, is washed with this or similar sanitizers. Baby Cut and Peeled Carrots are treated with chlorine. It is used as an anti-microbial treatment to control potential contamination in the finished product. Carrots that are treated with chlorine are subsequently soaked and rinsed with potable water to remove the excess chlorine before being packaged. Sanitizers that can be used to wash or to assist in lye peeling of fruits and vegetables are regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in accordance with the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act as outlined in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 21, Ch. 1, Section 173.315. Chlorine is routinely used as a sanitizer in wash, spray, and flume waters used in the fresh fruit and vegetable industry. Anti-microbial activity depends on the amount of free available chlorine (as hypochlorous acid) in water that comes in contact with microbial cells. The effectiveness of chlorine in killing pathogenic micro organisms has been extensively studied." Also read what Bolthouse, a leading producer in the US has to say, More on the Chlorine scare What about the chlorine? Some carrots are washed with chlorinated water. This water must have a pH (acidity) between 6.0 and 7.0. The concentration of chlorine in the water should be between 100 and 150 ppm (parts per million). The time of contact between the carrots and the chlorinated water should not exceed 5 minutes. This must be removed from the carrots by rinsing with potable water or using a centrifugal drier. According to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, the use of chlorine as a antimicrobial treatment is a current accepted practice in the processing for all fresh cut ready-to-eat vegetables. This ‘Chlorine’ is most likely sodium hypochlorite also known as chlorine bleach. It is used as a disinfectant and antimicrobial in many industries. It is made by reacting a sodium hydroxide solution (also know as caustic soda or lye) with elemental chlorine gas. All of these chemicals are made from sodium chloride, also known as salt. Next time do some research look up cholera if you want a glimpse of what the world was like before the wide availability of chlorine disinfection! Like other ready-to-eat fresh vegetables, baby-cut carrots are rinsed or sprayed with very diluted chlorine to reduce the risk of bacterial contamination, and then thoroughly washed and bagged. This process is approved by the FDA and accepted by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, with strict rules for what concentration of chlorine can be used and how long the carrots can be exposed. Chlorine is similarly used as a disinfectant in public water supplies and sometimes in poultry processing. It is toxic at high concentrations, but there is no evidence that trace amounts left on food and in water are harmful to health. Is this dangerous? Chlorination is a well-known and well-tested way to disinfect food products. Our tap water is chlorinated as well. When you disinfect something, that means that you kill the bacteria that are present. Chlorine kills bacteria. It can also kill us, or be very bad for us. The bleach you use to clean and disinfect your toilet, contains chlorine. Do not drink it. This will kill you because it is far more concentrated than we can safely ingest. The diluted chlorine in your tap water and in your baby-carrots, presents no proven danger whatsoever. It is precisely to make the carrots safe that the chlorine is used. As a side-note, it is interesting to know that the term "chlorine" is something of a misnomer. Chlorine, in its natural state, is a highly reactive gas that forms compounds with other products. When chlorine is added to other products, it will react virtually immediately to form compounds such as hypochlorous acid (when chlorine is added to water) and sodium hypochlorite (when chlorine is added to a sodium hydroxide solution). These compounds in turn disinfect the water. When we talk about chlorine, and even about free chlorine, these compounds are usually what we are referring to. Note: there are certain compounds of chlorine that do cause cancer. Does chlorine cause cancer? No. While medical science is not an exact science, and we must always be vigilant, there is at present no evidence whatsoever that chlorine causes cancer or could be a facilitator for cancer. The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have not classified chlorine as to its human carcinogenicity. The solution used to wash carrots is NOT the same as in swimming pools. Read this interesting article which attempts to put the record straight. More on White Blush It is caused by drying of the damaged (peeled) tissue as the carrots are exposed to air. During storage air can dry out the surface of carrots due to lack of humidity. The carrots may also shrivel due to the lack of moisture. In contrast, whole carrots retain their protective peel, so it takes longer for this problem to occur in them. It is simply the carrot drying out. Try it out for yourself. Take a fresh, normal carrot and cut it in half. Wait. The same white covering (which is officially called white blush) will appear on the cut. Baby carrots will show a lot more white blush for a very simple reason: their skin has been removed and therefore, the entire carrot dries out. Methods of inhibiting the formation of white blush discoloration on freshly processed carrots. When many fruits (i.e., apples, pears, peaches, avocados, and bananas) and vegetables (i.e., beans, potatoes, mushrooms and many root crops) are bruised, or are cut, peeled, or processed in any other way that causes tissue injury, a black or brown discoloration appears at the site of the tissue injury within a few minutes due to enzymes of the melanosis reaction. This discoloration problem has been the subject of much study, because of its obvious economic importance to the food processing industry. Unlike other fruit and vegetables as detailed above, carrots do not develop black or brown discolorations after suffering tissue injuries due to enzymes of the melanosis reaction. Consequently, the carrot is an ideal vegetable to process shortly after harvest into a form that is ready for consumption. Of the estimated 3 billion pounds of carrots that are marketed in the United States each year, approximately 20% are peeled soon after harvest to be sold as fresh miniature carrots, carrot sticks, carrot coins, carrot shreds, and other forms of fresh processed carrots. Whole, unprocessed carrots may be stored under refrigeration for many weeks without significantly deteriorating. However, freshly processed carrots that have been in refrigerated storage for just a few days begin to develop a whitish, chalk-like appearance on their abraded surfaces. In the carrot processing industry, this whitish, chalk-like appearance is known as "white blush." The rate at which white blush appears on processed carrots is a function of the physiological condition of the whole carrots prior to processing, the degree of abrasiveness that was present in the processing, the chemical treatments that were applied to the carrots, if any, and the humidity levels and the temperatures at which the carrots have been stored. For example, variations in the physiology of the whole, unprocessed carrots caused by different degrees of environmental stresses during the growing period, such as heat stress and drought stress, will result in variations in the onset of white blush formation under given storage conditions. Carrots that were grown in poorly irrigated fields tend to form white blush discoloration more rapidly, than do processed carrots that were grown in well irrigated fields. White blush discolourisation is unsightly and unappetizing. As a result, consumers invariably associate white blush with distastefully old carrots, even though the taste and nutritional value of processed carrots are not affected by the appearance of white blush. This fact leads to significant commercial waste when processed carrots are pulled from the shelf due to the appearance of white blush even though taste and nutrition are not being effected. To date, white blush has been controlled primarily by washing freshly processed carrots with chilled water, usually in a hydro cooler, followed by refrigeration and/or by packaging of the freshly processed carrots in specialised containers, including some that maintain modified atmospheres within the containers. Chlorine has also been added to the chilled water treatments for sanitation purposes, and primarily to control microbial bacteria growth on the processed carrots. However, depending upon the above variables, the onset of white blush may only be delayed for a few days. Therefore baby carrots tend to have a shorter shelf life. Important Note: This website contains information which is for general information purposes only and is given in good faith. Whilst the World Carrot Museum endeavours to keep the information up to date and correct, it operates a system of continuous improvement to this information. Accordingly no warranty is given as to the accuracy, completeness, reliability or suitability with respect to the website or the information, advice or opinion contained on the website for any purpose. Users who rely on the information contained in this website or any part of it do so at their own risk. The World Carrot Museum does not represent or warrant that the information accessible via this website is accurate, complete or current, and has no liability whatsoever in respect of any use which you make of such information.

农业

2017-09/1015/en_head.json.gz/3237

With ingenuity, creativity, and a touch of grit, this small North Carolina town cultivated a community garden project to produce healthy food for neighbors in need. By Pat Stone The Lord's Acre giving garden is as beautiful as it is productive. Photo by Susan Sides Several years ago, I was feeling frustrated. “There are so many problems,” I said to myself, “and there’s so much suffering in the world.” Worst of all, I felt that there was nothing I could do about it. Do you know that feeling? Even though I lived an environmentally conscientious life and donated money to worthy causes, I needed to take my own two hands and actually do something tactile to make a difference, no matter how small.It was looking at my hands (well, the dirt on them, anyway) that spurred this thought: I know quite a bit about gardening — so why don’t I help start a community garden project in which people could grow food to give away? What could be a more tangible way to help others than growing fresh food for them?Hunger is a significant problem. One in seven people in the United States relies on local food aid, and more than 14 percent live below the official poverty line. At least one in five children is at risk of hunger. Right where you live, people are going hungry. But food-aid agencies seldom share fresh, wholesome produce when it’s in season. Pretty much everything in food pantries comes in a can or a box. No wonder: Such items are inexpensive and they store well. Thinking of that industrially processed food, I only got more excited about my vision of growing fresh vegetables and giving them away. I knew my plan wouldn’t solve world hunger, but it would be something hands-on that would help right where I lived.Digging InWhen I asked folks in my town of Fairview, North Carolina, what they thought of a community giving garden, enthusiasm spread faster than bees on clover. A lot of people besides me wanted a down-to-earth way to help. Before long, our urban community garden had an advisory group, a great piece of borrowed land for growing the garden, scads of generous donations — from a port-a-potty to a truckload of composted manure — and scores of people eager to pull stones and plant seeds.We named our community garden project The Lord’s Acre after a local Great Depression effort in which people gave away what they grew on an acre to help neighbors in need.Now that our urban community garden is in its eighth growing season, I’m proud to say that our volunteers have grown and given away more than 55 tons of organic produce to neighbors in need. Our beautiful garden has even spawned spin-off efforts, such as a weekly community meal, garden classes, new home gardens, and a program in which interested folks can give or take excess produce. We quickly learned that in addition to produce, The Lord’s Acre grows community.Start Your Own Giving Garden If you’d like to set something like this up in your own community, you’ll first need to find other driven people who want to take part in the garden project. Your team’s first efforts will be organizing and planning. Create a core group and a steering committee that meets regularly, and designate one person as the main facilitator. Next, start asking some key questions. For instance, how many people will be involved, and what will their roles be? At The Lord’s Acre, we have a full-time garden manager, seasonal garden interns, and scores of volunteers. Also, what model of giving garden do you want to create? We give away everything we grow through local food agencies. In other models, everyone who works in the community garden gets a share of the harvest. Some groups help people grow gardens in their own backyards.Likewise, you can garden in a slew of different ways. We use deep-dug raised beds, which build healthy soil and make for extremely high production in a limited space. Others use traditional row gardens or boxed beds.Next, figure out how you’re going to share the food you grow. Contact local agencies to see what they need and what they’d be willing to take. Seek out groups that would welcome donations, such as a veterans center or women’s shelter, as well as food pantries. Grow what they can use.Finally, research whether other giving gardens are already established in your area. You can learn from them and work with them. We’re all in this together!Community Garden Project EssentialsConsider these factors before you break ground on your giving garden:Land. You’re going to need someone to donate the use of good, arable land that gets at least six to eight hours of sunlight a day. Preferably, choose a location that’s convenient for other growers to get to. Consider exploring whether a nursing home, school, park, church, or other organization would be willing to provide the land. If you can work under their auspices, that can also help with paperwork. Otherwise, you’ll probably need to incorporate as a nonprofit.Water. Don’t garden where you don’t have on-site access to the water you’ll need for growing plants. We’ve seen gardens fail that try to get around this necessity by trucking water in.Supplies. You’ll be amazed by your neighbors’ and local businesses’ generosity. Our urban community garden has gotten so many supplies — from fencing to seeds — through donations. People and businesses are quite generous when you personally ask them to fulfill a specific need. It’s incredibly gratifying to see. Sometimes I think the best thing The Lord’s Acre does is make it easy for others to help. So many folks want to assist others, but they sometimes just don’t know how. Indeed, that’s how our own garden grew from a one-person idea to a project that hundreds of people are now involved in, and that last year grew more than 12 tons of fresh produce on just under an acre of land.For me, the surprising reward of this whole community garden project has been the joy of working with others. The gratitude individuals express for our vegetables is a joy to behold. But food donations don’t solve poverty. They’re a Band-Aid, but not a solution. The real solutions come, one little bit at a time, from people working together and getting to know each other, so that eventually we’re all neighbors helping each other. There’s not a single volunteer at The Lord’s Acre who doesn’t feel they receive as much as they give, who doesn’t appreciate the chance to work together and grow friendships as well as food.A MOTHER Connection to This Community Garden ProjectThe Lord’s Acre has an interesting connection to MOTHER EARTH NEWS. Susan Sides (our garden manager), Franklin Sides (Susan’s husband), and I (the founder) all worked for the magazine back in the 1980s. I was the assistant editor/garden editor, and Susan and Franklin were the magazine’s staff gardeners. Susan and Franklin gardened at the long-since-defunct MOTHER EARTH NEWS Eco-Village and, later, in a smaller garden that provided editorial material.When the steering committee for The Lord’s Acre interviewed candidates for our garden manager, it quickly became obvious to everyone that Susan was the perfect choice. She’s not only an incredible gardener, but an incredible person, as well. Plus, Franklin’s dedication, friendliness, and creative handyman talents are a local legend. It’s been an honor to work with them again. As Susan puts it, “Relationships are the primary crop in gardens that give away food. And love is the currency.”

农业

2017-09/1015/en_head.json.gz/3587

Speakout Progressive Picks About Us Submission Guidelines Contact Newsletter Sign-Up Job Openings Donate How to Give Why Donate? FAQ Testimonials Planned Giving More Ways to Give Obama Deregulates GMO Crops Despite Supreme Court Injunction Thursday, June 02, 2011 By Robbie Hanna Anderman, Tikkun | Op-Ed font size Early this spring, while the world was distracted by Egypt’s uprising, President Barack Obama pushed the Secretary of Agriculture and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to deregulate genetically engineered alfalfa and sugar beets in the United States. The USDA came through as he directed, totally deregulating these Monsanto-patented genes in early February. In so doing, Obama and the USDA have chosen to override and ignore decisions and injunctions made by the U.S. Supreme Court that banned planting of genetically engineered alfalfa and sugar beets without consideration of the Environmental Impact Assessments, which showed high risks to organic and conventional (chemical) farmers. So how does this affect you and me? Neither of us remembers seeing alfalfa or sugar beets on our breakfast table or even on our Seder table. Or do we? Sugar beets provide over 50 percent of the sugar Americans use in their coffee, cereals, and desserts. For the moment, let’s not focus on the fact that sugar beets can cross-pollinate with red beets and make our borscht genetically modified. Alfalfa reaches our tables within milk, cream, butter, and meat, as it is used as a major animal feed in the dairy industry. It is also used to enrich soils in organic farming. At this time, no genetically engineered crops are permitted for sale in the European Union (though WikiLeaks has revealed that the U.S. government is exerting strong pressure on the EU to allow them). Thus this new deregulation will potentially close off present markets for organic farmers’ crops. Obama’s push for deregulation potentially also means the end of the organic meat and organic dairy industries as we presently know them. Essentially, he is choosing to favor the profits of big agribusiness over the survival of America’s family farmers, and especially America’s organic farmers. Our democracy has to work for farmers and consumers and not just for multinational biotech corporations. It makes absolutely no sense that the economic risks to farmers are not considered before genetically engineered crops are put on the market. It is farmers who pay the costs of genetic contamination, not the biotech companies. How else does this affect you and me? I’ll defer to Canadian geneticist David Suzuki on this. In an interview with the True Food Foundation, Suzuki said anyone who claims genetically engineered food is perfectly safe is “either unbelievably stupid, or deliberately lying,” adding: “The reality is, we don’t know. The experiments simply haven’t been done, and now we have become the guinea pigs…. I am most definitely not in favor of release of GMOs in the food stream and given that it’s too late, I favor complete labeling of GMO products.” In “More Science Needed on Effects of Genetically Modifying Food Crops,” a September 2009 article for the Vancouver news site Straight.com, Suzuki wrote: Some have argued that we’ve been eating GM foods for years with few observable negative consequences but as we’ve seen with things like trans fats, it often takes a while for us to recognize the health impacts. With GM foods, concerns have been raised about possible effects on stomach bacteria and resistance to antibiotics, as well as their role in allergic reactions. We also need to understand more about their impact on other plants and animals. And in “Experimenting With Life,” an article in Yes! magazine, he wrote: We have learned from painful experience that anyone entering an experiment should give informed consent. That means at the very least food should be labeled if it contains GMOs so we each can make that choice. Like Dr. Suzuki, I think it’s worthwhile to acknowledge that we are also guinea pigs in another big experiment. Ours is the first generation to ever eat food that has been intentionally sprayed with poison before being eaten. While it may be argued that we need greater quantities to “feed the world,” the truth is that we’ve lost quality, we’ve lost fertility in humans and in the soil, and our health care budgets are indicative of the effects of this path. Busy schedule? Click here to keep up with Truthout with free email updates. Maria Rodale’s book Organic Manifesto cites shocking studies that make a strong case against chemical farming, while at the same time highlighting the positive nutritional and environmental benefits of organic farming. And according to a 2009 report from the UN Environmental Program, organic farming may be the only way we can solve the growing problem of hunger in the developing countries. Yes, organic farms can feed the world, and do it sustainably. So why is Obama favoring Monsanto? This is the company responsible for more than fifty uncontrolled or abandoned places where hazardous waste is located (“Superfund sites” according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Superfund sites). We also have Monsanto to thank for Agent Orange, PCBs, DDT, and more. Monsanto’s genetically modified seeds already dominate the entire U.S. corn, soy, canola, and cotton crops. About 93 percent of soy, 86 percent of corn, 93 percent of cotton, and 93 percent of canola seed planted in the United States in 2010 were genetically engineered. Phil Angell, Monsanto’s director of corporate communications, explained the company’s regulatory philosophy thus: “Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is FDA’s job.” To assure the Food and Drug Administration and USDA do not regulate genetically engineered crops, biotech has spent more than half a billion dollars lobbying Congress since 1999. If we follow the “historical” pattern of genetically engineered corn, soy, cotton, and canola, we will likely soon see engineered alfalfa and sugar beets, with their wind- and bee-carried pollen, completely taking over the entire seed industry for those crops. This contamination would disallow farmers’ ancient practice of keeping and breeding seeds from year to year, and drive up expenses for all farmers. This is nothing new from the American government, which has historically supported policies favoring the consolidation of U.S. seed ownership in the hands of a few major corporations. So let us remind our children that we were “slaves unto Pharaoh in Egypt.” For surely having one corporation control the seeds gives it unprecedented control. The state of affairs reminds me of how Pharaoh, at Joseph’s urging, took control of the grain supplies of Egypt, causing Jacob’s family to go down into Egypt and eventually become enslaved. Not worried yet? Chew on this: it’s been said that most U.S. cities do not have three days of food supplies on their shelves. Extremes of weather in recent years have shown us how vulnerable this situation is. Meanwhile, the National Farmers Unions in the United States and Canada have advocated support for local family farmers and the implementation of local and national programs to ensure food security and food sovereignty — programs that fail to interest corporate-controlled politicians. The fact that the executive wing of government has chosen to override a recent major decision by the Supreme Court to stop all dissemination of genetically engineered alfalfa until the completion on an environmental assessment of its danger is certainly cause for questioning. What’s going on here? Did Obama betray us? Did Obama, a man, a charismatic politician, betray the people who voted for him, whose spirits were raised high with the slogan “Yes, we can”? Perhaps. Yet I am reminded that to run a presidential campaign requires a great deal of money. And since the Supreme Court Citizens United decision — supported by Clarence Thomas, a former attorney for Monsanto — to allow corporations the unlimited ability to anonymously fund political campaigns, it is becoming obvious that Obama owes something to many rich people. U.S. corporations have gained inordinate power over all our politicians by manipulating the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. The amendment was adopted in 1868 to protect the rights of newly freed Blacks, yet by 1886 the Supreme Court had begun recognizing it as a protection of the rights of the “persons” called corporations — persons which do not breath, do not have consciences, and are mandated to make a profit for their shareholders. Which group would you betray? Your funders or your fans? When Obama cried, “Yes, we can!” he obviously was speaking for a different “we” than those who voted for him imagined. Monsanto’s seeds are genetically engineered for use with the company’s chemical herbicide RoundUp. Last year we learned that weeds are growing resistant to RoundUp. Monsanto’s profits and stock prices began dropping. A failed technology is now getting another chance to dance and prop up a failing corporation. Oddly, alfalfa (Arabic for “king of herbs”) does not need herbicides for more than 93 percent of its common applications. Farmers have been growing it for many centuries and know how to do so without herbicides. The push for genetically engineered alfafa is just a game move toward controlling the food supply. After all, what will we eat when America’s family farmers are all driven off their farms and into our cities? We would then be dependent on corporate factory farms, whose managers are far from the soil and lack experience in dealing with the whims of nature and weather. We would also be dependent on oil and the prices of oil to supply us with imported food. WikiLeaks has just revealed dispatches from Saudi Arabia to the United States from 2007–9 stating that Peak Oil is happening now: reports of oil in the ground were exaggerated by 40 percent. Thus shipping prices, and agrichemical prices are soon to rise even further. In the 1970s, the richest 1 percent of American families took in 9 percent of the nation’s total income. Today, the top 1 percent take in 23.5 percent of total income. With median workers earning less than they did thirty years ago, who will be able to afford food, let alone nourishing food? Even in the face of these dire circumstances, however, the consciousness of humans is rising. People are increasingly demanding to know where their food comes from. People are supporting organic production even in the face of recession. People are taking up gardening and shopping at farmers markets. Obama taught us not to look for a charismatic messiah, while also teaching us those magic words, “yes, we can!” The coalitions that came together to elect Obama can be revived, as can the networks, and the social media to keep alive the connections. The Center for Food Safety has already filed a legal brief to halt the actual dissemination of these genetically engineered seeds, and Canadian Organic Growers and several other organizations have joined in on the lawsuit. This struggle needs our support. We all eat; it goes beyond all differences. In addition to supporting the legal struggle for food safety, we can also make our voices heard by refusing to invest in big genetic engineering companies such as Monsanto and Bayer. We can do it. We can craft food security and food sovereignty for the people of America and beyond. To read more pieces like this, sign up for Tikkun's free newsletter or visit us online. You can also keep up with Tikkun on Facebook and follow them on Twitter. Robbie Hanna Anderman Robbie Hanna Anderman co-founded Morninglory Farm in Eastern Ontario in 1969 and is blessed to live there with his family (including four grandsons) and extended family. An organic orchardist, gardener, and cook -- as well as a musician and craftsman -- he is grateful to be alive and at home on Liferaft Earth at this moment. Related StoriesUSDA Approved Monsanto Alfalfa Despite Warnings of New Pathogen Discovered in Genetically Engineered CropsBy Mike Ludwig, Truthout | ReportEl Salvadoran Government and Social Movements Say "No" to MonsantoBy Carlos Martinez, AlterNet | Report Show Comments Obama Deregulates GMO Crops Despite Supreme Court Injunction

农业

2017-09/1015/en_head.json.gz/3643

ABC invests $4.7 million for next gen almond farming, sustainability Feb 16, 2017 California wine grape industry seeks no-touch vineyard Feb 10, 2017 Jimi Valov: a proud ambassador of farming, community and pistachios Feb 13, 2017 Former Ariz. ginner Charlie Owen posthumously awarded Lifetime Achievement Award Feb 14, 2017 California vegetables face China inroads on Pacific Rim Dan Bryant | Mar 15, 2003 China's accession to the World Trade Organization heralded more equitable conditions and new market potentials, but its competition with vegetables and other California crops in Pacific Rim markets is also expected to increase, both in volume and quality. That's one conclusion by Mechel Paggi, director of the Center for Agricultural Business at California State University, Fresno. Paggi, a seminar presenter at the recent World Ag Expo at Tulare, predicted “Competition with California products will intensify in markets such as Japan, South Korea, and Malaysia, where we have already seen that sort of pattern develop.” That will be particularly true for labor-intensive crops destined for Japan, where high quality Chinese produce, at presently low volume, is appearing and is expected to expand. This competition is aside from existing issues of Chinese garlic, apple juice concentrate, and other exports causing serious concern among U.S. producers who have seen their domestic markets collapse. Those in the U.S. who want to do business with China, Paggi said, should think in terms of niche-window markets in developing their strategies. “This could be where production in the U.S. is seasonal and you can see yourself sourcing product out of China to fill that window.” General Mills example One case of how multi-national corporations are moving into China is General Mills' agreement with the Chinese to supply training and cannery facilities to set up an asparagus growing and processing industry to capture markets throughout Asia. “It took six years to do it, but now General Mills sources all its asparagus for Asia from that operation. It's the model we're seeing everywhere, and the speed at which it is occurring will make your head swim. “It will be fairly difficult to maintain competition in these sorts of niche markets that are developing models of foreign investment in China. A lot of them will compete directly with California,” he said. Paggi, whose former assignments include agricultural analyst with the Congressional Budget Office and senior economist with the United Nation's Food and Agricultural Organization, offered another bit a caution for prospective trading partners with China. “Remember that the focus on everything, worldwide, is quality and safety. One of the things we see from the foreign investment models is complete control of all inputs of production and processing from dirt to can. Quality and food safety are keys to profitability.” In profiling China as a market for U.S. products, Paggi said China operates on a relatively small arable-land base of 52.6 million acres and 1.3 billion in population, in contrast to 70.4 million acres and 282 million persons in the U.S. Irrigation projects “However,” he said, “there is some effort to increase arable land through introduction of massive water projects to bring irrigation to acreage currently unable to grow crops.” The Chinese population is concentrated in the south central and south coastal regions, while the northeast and western portions are vast land masses populated by nomadic tribes. The importance of agriculture is dramatized by the 47 percent of the Chinese population involved in agriculture, compared to only 2 percent in the U.S. Chinese productivity relies on very intensive use of hand labor, irrigation, chemicals, and fertilizers. The disparity of its urban regions earning a per capita income more than double that of rural areas is one of China's most formidable problems, he said. “Most rural people, especially the young, are trying desperately to migrate into the urban areas. One way the Chinese government is trying to close the gap is by attracting foreign investment in agriculture.” Paggi said China, given its land mass and population, is often inaccurately considered a major player in world trade. In agricultural trade, for example, its role is minor, at about 5 percent, or about one-third that of the U.S. That does not preclude, however, the need for western observers to monitor the slow but steady growth of China's trade with the world. “Things are always changing there, but now we think the overall trend is toward trade products that involve processing or labor and away from commodities that are land-intensive. While bulk grains are being imported, vegetables are being exported.” Paggi reminded that when China does import or export certain commodities, such as corn or cotton, it has huge effect on world markets. “In corn, for example, in the last four years they have replaced the U.S. as a major supplier to the three of our key Asian markets: South Korea, Malaysia, and Japan.” Although China's exports may not be alarming in the aggregate, when it comes to specific products, there is much concern by American producers. Among those are garlic, mushrooms, carrots, and apple juice concentrate. Exports of California farm products, such as fresh and processed vegetables, nuts, citrus, wine, and beer, are presently viewed as expanding markets as the Chinese work toward higher incomes, but the Chinese are developing their own industries in those products. The Chinese diet, Paggi said, now relies more on rice and cabbage and is less robust in meats, sugar, fresh fruits, and oils than typical Western diets. “Their emphasis on development of fruits, nuts, and vegetables that are competitive with California is something we cannot ignore.” Although the they are planting some 13,000 acres of walnuts each year as part of a long-range reforestation program, Paggi said the Chinese have yet to approach the success of the California almond and pistachio industries. California, with its high reliance on mechanization, now has a productive edge on China in processing tomatoes. That will not likely be the case for long, he added, since mechanization, although modest, is taking hold and replacing human labor.

农业

2017-09/1015/en_head.json.gz/3930

News Prized Black Bengal Goats of Bangladesh Prized Black Bengal Goats of Bangladesh Monday 19 March 2007 0:00 CET Black bengal goats are being studied by Bangladesh scientists participating in an FAO/IAEA research programme in Asia. (Photo: Bangladesh Agric. Univ.) Among the world´s poorest countries, Bangladesh is home to one of the richest treasures - prized black bengal goats. The dwarf-size animals are the source of meat, milk, and leather for families - and a big part of the national economy. But changing patterns of land use are threatening the animals´ future. "Our fallow lands for grazing goats are reducing day by day," says Dr. M. O. Faruque of the country´s Department of Animal Breeding & Genetics at Bangladesh Agricultural University. "It´s because of our growing human population and the need to plant cereal crops." Research supported by the IAEA and Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) is helping Bangadesh plan and protect the goats´ future. Working with other countries in the Asian region, scientists are looking to learn more about black bengal goats and other livetock. A specific aim is to build up the capacity of national agricultural research systems to conduct research in livestock genetics and breeding using modern methods of molecular science. "The goat is perhaps the most misunderstood and neglected, but nevertheless important species of livestock in the Third World countries," notes Prof. Md. Ruhul Amin, a colleague at the university. "They play an important role in our country's economy." Bangladesh scientists are working with other experts to help goat herders and farmers adapt to the changing environment. About 80% of the country´s people live in the countryside, and raising goats and other livestock is a key part of their livelihood. "Goats have typically been raised as scavengers, but now the traditional rearing system in Bangladesh is under threat," says Dr. Faruque. New approaches to rearing and managing the herds are needed, he says. One government priority is to train tens of thousands of farmers on better ways to raise black bengal goats. Results of the FAO/IAEA research programme are contributing to scientific knowledge about animal health and reproduction underpinning such steps. No one knows exactly how many goats graze in Bangladesh - some estimates run as high as 30 million. Together they provide about 30 thousand tons of meat and 20 million square feet of hides and skins, besides milk and other products families depend upon. "Meat and skin obtained from the Black Bengal are of excellent quality and fetch high prices, even in the local market," says Prof. Ruhul Amin. The FAO/IAEA-supported research, launched in 2004 to run over two phases, is analyzing more that 100 sheep and goat breeds by applying nuclear and molecular tools for DNA analysis. Together, the breeds represent the most important livestock species in the Asian region, numbering nearly one billion animals. See Story Resources for more information about the research. Related Resources Animal Genetics Black Bengal Goats Coordinated Research Project FAO/IAEA Bangladesh Goat Research Goat Rearing in Bangladesh Mar 19 2007 Last update: 24 February 2015 More on the IAEA

农业

2017-09/1015/en_head.json.gz/4297

Native Herbaceous Perennials for the October Garden Posted on October 2, 2012 by Reeser Manley Share this:FacebookTwitterGoogleEmailPrint (Author’s Note: The following article is excerpted from my upcoming book, The New England Gardener’s Year. The book is scheduled to be published as an e-book later this year (November) and in print version early next year (February). To see more photographs of the herbaceous perennials discussed in this article, visit the The New England Gardener’s Year Facebook page, http://www.facebook.com/negardener). There are several herbaceous perennials that belong in the October garden. Some, like the heleniums, begin flowering as early as August and continue into autumn, while others wait until late September or early October to burst into bloom. Smooth Blue Aster (Symphyotrichum laeve) The smooth blue aster is a native fall-flowering plant throughout New England. It grows 2 to 3 feet tall with a central stem that produces a few flowering side shoots in its upper half. Each flowering stem produces panicles of numerous daisy-like flower heads, each about 1/2 to 1 1/4 inches across. Like most members of the sunflower family, each head has about 15 to 30 lavender or light blue-violet ray flowers surrounding a disk of yellow flowers. These tiny central flowers turn reddish yellow as they age. The common name, smooth blue aster, reflects the lack of hairs on the stem and leaves. Gardeners interested in planting smooth blue aster should look for the cultivar ‘Bluebird’, and improvement over the species. Flowering begins in late September in Zone 5 and lasts 3-4 weeks. During October, the small fruits, called achenes, develop with small tufts of light brown hair that aid in dispersal by the wind. Smooth blue aster has many attractive qualities including adaptability to a variety of soil types, beautiful flowers, attractive foliage, and stems that remain erect during the blooming season. It performs best in full or partial sun, and mesic soils, typically fertile loam or clay loam. Plants withstand drought fairly well. The flowers of smooth blue aster provide much needed nectar for monarch butterflies about to embark on their long flight. They also attract native bees, syrphid flies, and hoverflies. The caterpillars of the silvery checkerspot butterfly feed on the foliage, along with caterpillars of many moth species. Swamp milkweed (Asclepias incarnata) By October, caterpillars of the monarch butterfly are munching on the leaves of swamp milkweed as the first ripe seed capsules are splitting open to release their seeds to the wind. Silky hairs at the end of each seed form a parachute-like tuft that aids in dispersal. Swamp milkweed is a tall plant with fragrant clusters of pink and light purple flowers. As its name implies, it prefers moist to wet soils and is ideal for planting in the rain garden or along the edge of a pond. Best grown in full sun, it tolerates heavy clay soils and is very deer-resistant. Stonecrop (Hylotelephium spectabile) Known by several common names, including showy stonecrop, showy orpine, ice plant, and butterfly stone crop, this plant (formerly named Sedum spectabile) is Asian in origin but has escaped cultivation to become naturalized in small areas of Connecticut and Massachusetts. It has an upright habit, reaching 18 inches in height and width with leaves that are bluish-green and semi-succulent. Clusters of pink flowers open in late summer and last until frost. A hybrid between this species and S. telephium led to the introduction of the very popular cultivar, ‘Autumn Joy’. Stonecrops should be grown in full sun and well-drained, neutral to slightly alkaline soil that has been amended with plenty of compost. Divide the clumps every 3 or 4 years. Plants often flop late in the season and may need staking. Beautiful in the October border, stonecrop is very popular among bees as a source of late-season nectar. Sneezeweed (Helenium autumnale) Helenium autumnale, common sneezeweed or dog-tooth daisy, occurs in wet meadows, thickets, swamps, and river margins throughout New England. Garden forms of this species also show a preference for damp conditions, although they will tolerate all but the driest of soils. They can be grown on heavy clay that is annually amended with compost. Cultivated forms of Helenium autumnale can be found in a wide array of rich colors from pale yellow to deep red and bronze. Giant Sunflower (Helianthus giganteus) The October flowers of smooth blue aster provide much needed nectar for monarch butterflies about to embark on their long flight. Native throughout New England, the giant sunflower lives up to its name, reaching 12 feet in height when grown in rich garden soil. Without sturdy staking you will go to the garden the morning after an October storm and find some of its tall stems lying on the ground. Not a candidate for the perennial border, it is better suited to stand alone at pond’s edge or where woods and clearing meet. Giant sunflower is not particular about soil type, growing well in sandy, loamy, or clayey soils as long as they are well-drained. It is cold hardy to USDA Zone 4. The flower heads are borne on numerous leafy branches in the top third of the main stem, each head measuring 2 to 3 inches across. The first heads appear in late September, but the main show is reserved until October. Given its size and tendency to be flattened by wind, what gardener would grow this mammoth plant? Anyone interested in attracting wildlife, for sure. The nectar and pollen of the flower heads attract bumblebees, hoverflies, butterflies, and other pollinators. Other insects feed on the foliage and stalks, including numerous species of beetles as well as caterpillars of the silvery checkerspot and painted lady butterflies. The seeds are eaten by mourning doves, white-winged crossbills, goldfinches, black-capped chickadees, white-breasted nuthatches, tufted titmice, and various sparrows. This entry was posted in Perennials by Reeser Manley. Bookmark the permalink. About Reeser Manley

农业

2017-09/1015/en_head.json.gz/4719

Follow us on: Farm bill debate to resume in '13; tax laws finalized Issue Date: January 9, 2013 By Christine Souza The new 113th Congress will be asked to complete work on a five-year farm bill, which the outgoing Congress left undone as it completed work on a "fiscal cliff" and farm bill extension package that passed on Jan. 1. California Farm Bureau Federation policy specialists describe the package as a mixed bag for farmers and ranchers, citing treatment of the estate tax as a positive, but failure to pass a five-year farm bill as a negative. Because Congress extended the 2008 Farm Bill through September, CFBF Federal Policy Division Manager Rayne Pegg said farm organizations now have the next several months to educate new members of Congress about programs critical to the success of the state's farmers and ranchers. "We're starting with some new members who are going to have to get up to speed on the farm bill and its impact on California. We hope the progress that was made in the House and the Senate during 2012 is not lost in this new Congress," Pegg said. "Farm Bureau will be meeting with the committees to discuss the importance of these programs for California farmers and ranchers." Because an agreement on a new, five-year farm bill could not be reached, the package approved by Congress, known as the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, was negotiated between Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Vice President Joe Biden. That meant that much bipartisan work on a new, multi-year bill by the chairs of the House and Senate agriculture committees was not utilized, Pegg said, adding it's uncertain whether any of the negotiated changes will end up in a bill worked out by the new Congress. The final package extended most provisions of the 2008 Farm Bill, including the Milk Income Loss Contract program through Sept. 30 and the Dairy Product Price Support Program through Dec. 31. But Michael Marsh, CEO of Western United Dairymen, said simply extending existing dairy programs will not help California dairy farmers. He noted that the MILC, which compensates producers when milk prices fall below a certain level, and the DPPSP, which maintains a minimum farm price for milk through government purchases of cheddar cheese, nonfat dry milk and butter, deal only with low milk prices and do not provide adequate protection for dairy farmers when they are faced with high feed costs. What dairy farmers want, he said, is a program in the farm bill that would protect their margins. One proposal, the Dairy Security Act, offers a voluntary margin insurance program, although Marsh said the current proposal favors Midwestern dairies. The failure by Congress to pass a five-year farm bill, he said, may provide more opportunity for California dairy producers to have their voices heard. "We've already been preparing to make another push to see if we could get a margin insurance program that gives Californians some better protection on the Dairy Security Act. So we are going to keep pushing ahead," he said. The Specialty Crop Block Grant, plant pest and disease research, and market access programs have been extended with mandatory funding in 2013, whereas funding for other programs important to specialty crop research will be left to approprirations committees to determine. The fiscal-cliff package also authorized $80 million for livestock indemnity payments; $400 million for the livestock forage disaster program; $50 million for emergency assistance for livestock, honeybees, and farm-raised fish; and $20 million for trees assistance, which have only been authorized and not funded, Pegg said. CFBF federal policy analyst Josh Rolph said the bill makes a number of changes to tax laws that will apply to farmers and ranchers, including a permanent exemption for the estate tax. "I want to applaud our membership for making their voice heard in Washington. The new change in the context of the last two years is better than it could have been for the family farm," Rolph said. "We got the higher exemption indexed to inflation, along with much-needed planning certainty that hasn't existed for years." But, Rolph added, "We won't rest until we have a workable estate tax solution for family farmers and ranchers." The estate tax exemption now stands at $5 million per person, indexed for inflation—currently $5.12 million—with any unused amount allowed to transfer to a spouse. The maximum rate will increase to 40 percent, up from 35 percent. The estate and gift tax exemptions were unified. Stepped-up basis is already permanent law, Rolph said. Tim Chiala of George Chiala Farms, a vegetable grower and processor in Santa Clara County, said repeal of the estate tax remains the ultimate goal. "Our parents and grandparents worked hard to build a farm operation that not only could be passed on to the next generation, but could provide and intrigue the younger generation to go into agriculture," Chiala said. "These family farms and ranches have been paying taxes from the second they went into operation and will continue to pay as long as they can afford to operate. Elimination of the estate tax is what we need, but an extension of the exemption is better than nothing." The bill also finalized these permanent tax rules: Capital gains tax: The top rate will be 15 percent for taxpayers earning less than $400,000 for an individual or $450,000 for a couple. At the higher income levels, the top rate rises to 20 percent. Income tax rate brackets will be 10 percent, 25 percent, 28 percent and 35 percent for taxpayers making less than $400,000 for an individual or $450,000 for a couple. There are no caps on personal exemptions or itemized deductions. The marriage penalty is eliminated for many taxpayers. Alternative minimum tax: The bill increases the AMT exemption for 2012 to $50,600 for individuals and $78,750 for married filing jointly, and indexes it for inflation. Payroll tax: Each employee pays 6.2 percent in payroll tax and the employer pays a matching 6.2 percent. Those who are self-employed pay 12.4 percent. (Christine Souza is an assistant editor of Ag Alert. She may be contacted at [email protected].)

农业

2017-09/1015/en_head.json.gz/5118

Environment Auto By mulchkin What Does Sustainable Development Mean? Social, Environmental, Economic Sustainability <?xml encoding="UTF-8"><?xml encoding="UTF-8">"Is that Sustainable?!"Credit: cepolinaP"Sustainable." It's a popular word these days. Want to perk some ears? Use the word "sustainable." Often, the term is applied to the concept of development, though few people seem to be asking "what does sustainable development mean?" Are the two really compatible - development and sustainability? The classic "triad" of sustainability consists of three legs: environmental sustainability, social sustainability, and economic sustainability. An understanding of each and where the triad concept originated will help us understand this basic question: what does sustainable development mean? Sustainable Defined The concept is simple, something sustainable can be sustained. Sustainable Development? For folks who like definitions, here's the most popular: A model that "meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."[768] This answer to the question of what is sustainable development was given at the United Nation's Brundtland Commision in 1987. Since, the term is popularly applied to many practices and concepts: sustainable building, sustainable forestry, sustainable education, sustainable travel, sustainable tourism, sustainable community, sustainable cites, sustainably transportation, etc. Learning some about sustainable agriculture can help us better understand the question of what is sustainable development. A sustainable agriculture is a model of providing for food and fiber that, theoretically, continually enhances (or at least doesn't degrade) the so called natural resources necessary for growing plants and animals. Tilling, thus, would arguably be an unsustainable agriculture practice because it increases erosion, the leaching of valuable mineral, the decay rates of organic matter, kills earthworms, and much more. So not tilling would be considered a practice in sustainable agriculture systems; well, at least some sustainable agriculture systems, as not all "sustainable farmers" see tilling as inherently unsustainable. A number of prophetic voices have raised much awareness about the need for a more sustainable, ecological, environmentally sound agriculture. Joel Salatin, Virgin writer and farmer at Polyface Farm, is one of these. The investigative food journalist Michael Pollan is another. Among others are Wendell Berry, Wes Jackson, Steve Solomon, John Jeavons, and Sally Fallon. Triad of Sustainability As with all triads, the goal is stability. A stool with one or two legs won't stand, three are the minimum. A stool with three legs of unequal length won't necessarily stand, and if it does it won't be stable. The goal: A stool with three equal legs. The three legs of the "sustainability stool" are economic, environmental, and social. The concept that something must be economically viable if it's to be sustainable. How can one continue something if it makes them no money, arguably a necessity these days? Opponents, however, point out the fallacy of trying to develop sustainable systems and practices within the concept of an inherently unsustainable economic system. Basically, if the free market economic system is bound for collapse, why should the "economic leg" exist at all? Regardless of the arguments, the concept economic viability and even profitability within the sustainability movement encouraged many farmers and others to transition to more ecological, environmental practices in the 1980s and 90s. Indeed, such remains the case today. And also, the concept of economic sustainability, in large part, should be thanked for the establishment of government funded sustainability programs such as SARE (Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education) and ATTRA (Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas), both two incredible resources (links open in new window). While the concept of economic sustainability may be inherently flawed, it nevertheless has and continues to serve as an important motivator for individuals and groups alike to move towards more sustainable practices. The environmental leg of the sutainability triad seems most self explanatory. In the sense that we are all part of the natural world, the environmental leg is really the only one of much importance (after all, trees only have one trunk). So the concept is simple: Anything sustainable must only not harm the natural world but, moreover, must enhance it. Because we humans are part of the natural created world, it seems funny to have an entire leg for "social" sustainability. But think of this leg more as the "social justice" work of the sustainability movement. A sustainable development that marginalizes some while raising up others is not sustainable. Socially just sustainability makes it possible for every persons needs to be met. What does Sustainable Development mean? Now that we've explore some underpinnings of the sustainability concept, readers should have more insight towards the question of what does sustainable development mean. To apply the triad concept , it means it's a model of development that is economically viable, environmentally sound, and socially just. While much of the philosophy and basic assumptions that these understandings are based on seem perhaps a bit short-sighted and even untruthful, chances are that we'd all be much better off working towards greater sustainability in our micro lives and the macro systems and practices we support. May we each find the strength and fortitude to work towards something greater than ourselves. Going Grey is the Green Solution for Saving Water mulchkin 6 Rarest Colors of American Lobsters Australian Wetlands Need Protecting - Birds and Habitat Suffering Why Are the Bees Dying? And What Can We Do? Brooklyn Botanic Garden, A Touch Of Wonder 5 Easy Ways To Help The Environment And Save Money What is Permaculture Landscaping What Happened to the Aral Sea? 6 Step Guide To Making Your Own Compost Elephants, Ivory and Our Kind Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), Meeting Report: United Nations, 1987.

农业

2017-09/1015/en_head.json.gz/5600

Pineapple Del Monte testing genetically modified pineapple By Coral Beach April 26, 2013 | 4:35 pm EDT Genetically modified pineapple grown in Costa Rica by Del Monte Fresh Produce Co. Inc. gained the approval of the U.S. Department of Agriculture earlier this year. However, according to a statement from Del Monte officials April 26, the new pineapple variety — dubbed Rosé — is “in a testing phase.” “The USDA’s decision does not mean that Rosé is in commercial distribution; it is in a testing phase. Del Monte intends to continue to test Rosé and will communicate more details when appropriate,” according to the statement from Dennis Christou, vice president of marketing in North America for the Coral Gables, Fla., produce company. “Del Monte Fresh Produce has a very active research and development program designed to explore new varieties and new agricultural techniques. The results of these research projects may or may not lead to commercialization depending on many factors including regulatory approvals by the relevant governmental authorities where and when applicable.” Del Monte officials wrote to the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service in July 2012 seeking approval for its patent-pending Rosé pineapple. Michael Gregoire, deputy administrator of biotechnology regulatory services at APHIS responded with the agency’s OK on Jan. 25, but the response was not made public until late April. Before the new pineapple can be imported to the U.S., Del Monte must complete a food safety consultation with the Food and Drug Administration. The FDA’s website listing approved consultations did not show any pineapple reqults as of April 26. “APHIS confirms that the harvested Del Monte Rosé pineapple as described in your documentation does not require an importation or interstate movement permit under (federal code),” according to Gregoire’s letter. “… fruit from the Del Monte Rosé pineapple cultivar does not have the ability to propagate and persist in the environment once they have been harvested.” In its request to APHIS, Del Monte described the new pineapple variety as having rose-colored flesh. “To achieve its novel fruit color, Del Monte Fresh has altered expression of genes involved in lycopene biosynthesis to increase levels in edible tissues of pineapple fruit,” according to Del Monte’s request. “The genes of interest are derived from edible plant species, pineapple and tangerine.” Various Costa Rican media report the Coral Gables, Fla.-based fresh produce company has been working with Costa Rican growers to develop the new pineapple variety since 2005. When the Costa Rican government OK’d expanded plantings in 2011, some environmental groups in the country expressed concerns. According to its letter to APHIS, 65% of the pineapple Del Monte imports to the U.S. is sold to the fresh sector. Another 15% goes to fresh cut, with the remainder going to juice and frozen products. The new genetically modified variety would be sold in the same channels and at about the same percentages as Del Monte Gold pineapple, according to the letter. The 2012 financial report from Del Monte showed about a third of the company’s fresh produce sales are from commodities grown in Costa Rica. del montegenetically modified pineapplecosta rican growers About the Author: , Staff Writer Coral Beach joined The Packer newsroom in February 2011, bringing more than 30 years of experience at daily newspapers, trade magazines and online publications. Beach earned a bachelor’s of science degree from the University of Kansas School of Journalism in 1982. e-mail: [email protected] phone: 913-438-0781 Follow @@Coral_TheBeach Log in to comment Farm Journal Media

农业

2017-09/1015/en_head.json.gz/6539

Farm Subsidies Birds And Fish Would Choose By Dan Charles Oct 17, 2011 TweetShareGoogle+Email This wetland in Iowa was created with money from conservation subsidy programs. Lynn Betts / USDA/Natural Resources Conservation Service With the 2012 farm bill coming up fast, we're taking a closer look at what it is and how it shapes food policy and land use in an occasional series. This is part three. Capitol Hill is a scrum of lobbyists fighting over a shrinking budget these days, and farm subsidies are under attack as never before. Some of those subsidies appear likely to die. I hear cheering. Farm subsidies are wildly unpopular almost everywhere except among the people who receive them. After all, why should taxpayers pump more money into a farm economy that's already flush with profits from high grain prices? But let's talk about one kind of farm subsidy, one that environmentalists are fighting to preserve. Believe it or not, so are the people who run the water systems in American cities. This week, some of these groups wrote a letter to Congress asking lawmakers to keep funding these programs. We're taking about "conservation" subsidies. Some people call them "green payments," and they add up to about $5 billion each year. Under these programs, the government pays farmers to do things that are good for the environment, but aren't profitable. The biggest single source of green payments, the Conservation Reserve Program (which costs just under $2 billion each year), pays farmers to take cropland out of production for ten years or more and instead plant native grasses (or sometimes trees) on that land. At its peak a few years ago, 36 million acres were part of the CRP. That's an area the size of the state of New York. It's been declining in recent years. Now it's more like the size of Indiana. Other programs pay farmers to turn cropland back into wetlands (good for wildlife and water quality), or to introduce farming practices that reduce soil erosion and fertilizer runoff or provide more habitat for wildlife. But why? Consider this: Conservation subsidies may be the most effective way to improve the health of the vast Mississippi watershed (and other, smaller, farming areas on both coasts.) Farmers control the vast majority of the land in such places. Their cumulative decisions can (and do) drive species into extinction by eliminating grasslands and wetlands. Almost inevitably, they pollute streams and lakes. Agriculture dominates this landscape. It's got a major impact on the environment. It's been almost impossible to rein in its environmental impact through regulation. How do you tell a farmer in Iowa that he's not allowed to grow top yields of corn on his own land? So instead of a stick, the government uses a carrot: Conservation payments. Economists at the USDA believe that the public is getting a good deal: In 2007, they calculated that the Conservation Reserve Program buys at least $1.3 billion of clear environmental benefits each year. Think cleaner water, more wildlife, and reduced soil erosion. That's not including some benefits that are more difficult to calculate, such as reducing the amount of greenhouse emissions from agriculture. Now, conservation payments have their problems. As with most government money, the biggest challenge is making sure that payments go to the right places. The farmers who own the fields that would be most valuable as wetlands or grasslands don't necessarily choose to sign up. In other cases, farmers may be getting paid for doing things that they would have done anyway. And in farm communities, there are mixed feelings on conservation payments. When I reported on the CRP back in 2005, farmer Don Teske, of Wheaton, Kansas, told me that "the perception is that you're being paid to do nothing." For many farmers, subsidies for growing food seem more acceptable than a check for leaving land idle. That may be one reason why, in the current battle over farm subsidies, environmentalists seem to be fighting harder for conservation programs than the big mainstream farm organizations, such as the American Farm Bureau. Those organizations are pushing for a bigger subsidy for crop insurance — essentially a safety net for those who want to grow more corn, soybeans, and cotton. These farmers don't want to be part-time park rangers. They want to farm. Stay tuned for more on crop insurance. For more on how the farm bill was shaped, see our previous posts on direct payments and the bill's storied history.Copyright 2011 National Public Radio. To see more, visit http://www.npr.org/. TweetShareGoogle+Email © 2016 Public Radio Tulsa

农业

2017-09/1015/en_head.json.gz/8730

US crops tell story of future world food prices North America editor From the section US & Canada http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19188333?postId=113383877 High temperatures and little rain have lead to a seriously damaged corn crop Marion Kujawa strips back an ear of corn with disgust. It's a weedy specimen, only a few inches long. Half way up the cob gleams a solitary golden kernel. The farmer's alarm at this measly harvest may soon be shared by consumers around the world, as food prices shoot up.Then next ear he picks is even worse."There's nothing. Nothing. It should be 10 inches long, completely full of grain but the heat was so bad, 110 out here, that means 140 degrees coming off the ground. It's just burned up. I've done everything I can do. The rest is in the Maker's hands. I can't make rain."The spry 73-year-old, kitted out in his John Deere cap and denim overalls has farmed these 2,000 acres (809 ha) in southern Illinois for more than half a century. He's seen drought before. '54 was bad, he says and in the 80s he watched as some good men went under, through no fault of their own. But this past July has been the hottest in American history and he's never seen anything like this. Devastation has come out of a clear blue cloudless sky, the lack of rain parching good ground into a cracked, pale grave for the crops.'It's all gone' You can't sell this. It's all gone. There's nothing thereMarion Kujawa, Farmer We tramp through a landscape of shrunken brown plants, dried husks crunching under our feet as Marion searches for some small sign of fruitful growth. The best we can find is an ear that has produced seven kernels.The corn should be seven feet (2m) high, waving above our heads, green and laden with fat heavy cobs, like the ones you eat slathered in butter. Instead, the tallest plant barely brushes our shoulders. The folk around here don't like to sound defeatist. They will tell you that they've known hard times, got through them in the past and have faith they will again. They are not among life's worriers and moaners. Yet their optimism and their prayers have yielded no rain. There is a realisation that for this year, this is it. "You can't sell this. It's all gone. There's nothing there," Marion says, clutching a bare cob."We're on a downslide going into the middle of August. It's done. It's done. Some is going to be worse than others, but it's going to hurt. You have to be strong, but we got nothing to harvest." His other crop, soya beans, look in a better state. At least the plants are green, and there is some hope for them if there is rain soon. But the pods are so small and tight that he can barely split them open with his penknife blade to show me the bean inside. The sky is still a perfect cloudless blue and the forecasters have dropped their previous prediction of rain by the weekend.It doesn't pay to be too optimistic.Last year Marion sold a $1m (£639,000) worth of crops. This year he will be lucky to make $200,000. Crop insurance and his own prudence, conservatism as he calls it, should mean he will weather the lack of storm. But there is no getting around the fact that two of the staples of the world food industry are about to become scarce commodities. That means they will also become more expensive. Soya beans and corn make oil and animal feed, as well as ethanol, to some controversy. But they also go into products you wouldn't think about. Snacks, fast food, even soft drinks. That means America's drought is going hit us all.World economy fearsAbout 500 miles away from the cornfields of southern Illinois, in Chicago, Ceres, the goddess of agriculture stands atop the city's board of trade, the place that claims to have invented futures trading in in the 19th Century. She has no face, perhaps so as not to show her shame at all the unanswered prayers. Inside, corn traders shout and raise their clenched fists in the air."Seven dollars.""Seven, twenty-one.""Nine, thirty-two.""Take it, backed up."Some gesticulate with both arms, fingers pointing or outstretched. It seems more like a pent-up strike meeting than commerce in action, but the fever will not lessen. Image caption Inside the Chicago trading floor They are all waiting for the crop production report on 10 August, which will set out the situation. As we look at all the activity, Virginia McGathey, president of McGathey Commodities, tells me that she thinks the figures will be even worse than most people have been expecting."The prices are as high as they've ever been," she says. "This was supposed to be the biggest crop ever of corn. The weather was wonderful in the spring and now it looks like we could have lost 50% of the crop. At that point all bets are off."She points out that American farmers are not the only ones who have been suffering through a lack of rain. It's been the same story in Russia, parts of Asia, and earlier in the year, South America."World food prices are definitely going up, and I believe they are going up to stay," Virginia McGathey says. She thinks corn prices could pass $9 a bushel, a price that would be "astronomical"."If you think back in the day you could buy a pair of tennis shoes for $10, now they're like a $110, we're heading that way with grain prices. You're going to see prices go up, minimum 20% at the grocery stores."The world economy doesn't need any more bad news at the moment, but the pathetically shrunken cobs in Marion's fields may be wizened heralds of blows yet to land. View comments Drought in US bakes cattle and crops 3 August 2012 Drought aid hit by US Congress recess 3 August 2012 Video Markets watch Russia for possible grain export controls 8 August 2012 More US & Canada stories

农业

2017-09/1015/en_head.json.gz/8802

National Beef to close California slaughter plant The National Beef Packing Co. blames a dwindling supply of available fed cattle for its decision to close its processing plant in Brawley, Calif. The closure will affect about 1,300 jobs. Tim HeardenCapital Press Published on February 3, 2014 1:23PM The National Beef Packing Co. is closing its only West Coast processing facility in Brawley, Calif., affecting about 1,300 jobs and sending shock waves through the already fragile Imperial Valley economy.A declining supply of fed cattle available to the Southern California facility was a key driver in the company’s decision to stop production there after April 4, company general manager and vice president Brian Webb told local officials in a letter Jan. 31.National Beef has not determined the future for the plant, which it acquired in 2006, but its support for affected workers will include help in finding jobs at other National Beef facilities, a company news release stated.“Unfortunately, based on current and projected business needs, the company has made a decision to cease beef slaughter operations in Brawley and close our facility,” Webb wrote.The Brawley plant has the capacity to slaughter about 1,900 cattle per day, mostly Holstein steers, industry experts told the Reuters news service.The closure will leave three National Beef plants in Kansas as the closest facilities available to West Coast suppliers. National Beef’s operations in Liberal, Dodge City and Kansas City, Kan., are joined by facilities in Hammels Wharf, Pa., Moultrie, Ga., and St. Joseph, Mo.The shutdown will also likely have ripple effects through the area’s economy. The plant contributes more than $3.4 million in annual revenue to the city in the form of water and sewer charges and a utility users’ tax – nearly 30 percent of the city’s total water sales and one-quarter of all sewer charges, according to a news release.Imperial County’s unemployment rate was already 22.5 percent in December, the Imperial Valley Press reported. Cattle were the county’s highest valued crop in 2012 at nearly $484 million, according to the county’s latest crop and livestock report.The closure comes as severe drought in the West has prompted many ranchers to trim their herds. Cattle herds nationally are at historic lows, reflecting a calf crop that has declined for 17 straight years, University of Missouri ag economist Ron Plain has said.The Brawley plant has had ongoing issues with the city over its wastewater. In 2008, the Colorado River Basin Regional Water Quality Control Board ordered the city to start a pretreatment program for wastewater from the plant, and the city imposed a surcharge on National Beef based on the amount and contents of sewage it sent to the city’s treatment plant, according to the water board.Still, the city was fined $1.7 million last year for violations of effluent limitations at the city’s treatment plant, many of which resulted from inadequately pretreated discharge from the slaughterhouse, the water board asserted.OnlineNational Beef Packing Co.: http://www.nationalbeef.com/Pages/default.aspxNational Beef Notice to Government Officials: http://www.brawley-ca.gov/media/managed/news/NB_PlantClosure.pdf

农业

2017-09/1015/en_head.json.gz/10286

EU Plant Health Regime improved to reduce risk of importing harmful organisms Today the Agriculture Council adopted amendments to Directive 2000/29/EC, which deals with protective measures against the introduction and spread of organisms harmful to plants or plant products in the European Union. The amended Directive improves the transparency of import procedures for plants and plant products and further adjusts the EU Plant Health regime to the conditions of the internal market, responding to risks resulting from increased trade. The overall aim of the EU plant health legislation is to ensure protection against harmful organisms that affect plants or plant products. The benefits of the amended Directive include the strengthening of import clearance procedures for plants and plant products and improved conditions for co-operation between customs authorities and official phytosanitary bodies in Member States. The Directive also ensures better information for importers and the establishment of a harmonised system of fees charged for carrying out import checks. Commissioner David Byrne, responsible for Health and Consumer Protection, said "I welcome this reinforcement of the EU's plant health regime, strengthening the internal market and giving the European Union as a whole an improved capacity to trade safely in plants and plant products." Two examples of diseases caused by harmful organisms that are addressed by the Directive are potato brown rot and potato ring rot, both very damaging to potato crops with the potential to cause crop losses of up to 50%. Another example is pine wilt caused by pinewood nematode, one of the most devastating harmful organisms affecting conifers. Losses occur in natural coniferous forests as well as in artificial forest ecosystems like ornamental conifer plantings, windbreaks and Christmas tree plantations. A final example worthy of mention is fire blight, which can be extremely damaging to fruit trees and ornamental trees. These organisms are not dangerous to the consumer but can cause significant economic losses. In all cases very stringent measures to contain them are already in place under the current Directive. The amended Directive introduces improved clearance procedures for the import of plants or plant products that might harbour these organisms, hence reducing the risk of introducing such organisms. Background The EU Plant Health Regime was established by Directive 2000/29/EC, which contains all measures and actions to be taken to prevent the introduction into and the spread within the European Union of organisms harmful to plants or plant products. Such organisms are currently either not present in the EU or if they are present they are not widespread and they are being kept under control. The amended Directive that was adopted today was originally proposed by the Commission on 5 April 2001. In addition to the improved import clearance procedures and harmonisation of fees for phytosanitary import inspections, the amended Directive aims to complete, specify and update other provisions in the Directive, building on experience gained, new scientific evidence and international instruments. In particular, these provisions include: those relating to the format of the phytosanitary certificates used by Member States under the International Plant Protection Convention, the role of the single authority of each Member State for co-ordination and contact in plant health matters, procedures for the adoption of derogation decisions or of emergency measures and plant health checks organised by the Commission. The amended Directive also adjusts regulatory provisions to clarify procedures for the Commission to exercise the implementing powers that have been conferred on it. Finally, in accordance with obligations under the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, the amended Directive specifies procedures for recognising the equivalence of phytosanitary measures of other parties to that Agreement. The amended Directive will enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal, and requires Member States to adopt and publish the provisions necessary to comply with it before 1 January 2005. The Commission will now focus on preparing various implementing measures such as co-operation between the official phytosanitary bodies in the Member States and the Customs authorities, model forms of documents to be used in that co-operation, and the means of transmission of these documents. Such measures must be taken to maintain the identity of the consignments and to safeguard against spreading harmful organisms during transport until the completion of the required phytosanitary and customs formalities. Side Bar

农业

2017-09/1015/en_head.json.gz/10861

Irrigation district working with Odessa landowners The East Columbia Basin Irrigation District is working with landowners in the Odessa Subarea who are eligible to replace groundwater with surface water from the Columbia River. Development coordinator Levi Johnson says the work includes finding financially feasible options for farmers. Construction to widen part of the East Low Canal south of Interstate 90 for water delivery is slated to begin in November. Matthew WeaverCapital Press Published on October 2, 2013 10:13AM The East Columbia Basin Irrigation District recently held a meeting for 100-130 landowners in the Odessa, Wash., area who are eligible to receive water from the Columbia River.Levi Johnson, development coordinator for the district, said he is verifying information with landowners to confirm their eligibility.Roughly 170,000 acres in the Odessa Subarea are irrigated using groundwater. Of that, about 102,000 acres are eligible to receive surface water from the Columbia River. That reliance on groundwater in the region has caused the Odessa aquifer to subside rapidly. More than 35 percent of the affected wells will be abandoned by 2020, Johnson said.“We are reaching farmers who have had to change production systems dramatically because of wells that will only run for a day or two, a couple weeks, a couple months — whereas 10, 20 years ago, they were running to allow them to maximize their production area,” Johnson said.The district is working on contractual issues with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and addressing the fact no secondary use permit has yet been issued to the agency to withdraw the water, Johnson said.The district is beginning to design alternative delivery systems, working with landowners to find financially feasible options.“We’re working with landowners to figure out who’s interested and what makes sense for them economically to participate in the program,” Johnson said.The preferred alternative identified by the Bureau of Reclamation and Washington Department of Ecology would deliver water to 70,000 acres, Johnson said. The district is also working on the Odessa Groundwater Replacement Program, which covers 88,000 of the 102,000 eligible acres.The groundwater replacement program includes the 70,000 acres from the preferred alternative, 10,000 acres from Lake Roosevelt incremental releases and 8,000 acres from coordinated conservation programs to landowners currently pumping from the Odessa aquifer.The bureau estimates the cost will be $730 million, the bulk of which will fall to landowners. The district, however, expects the cost to be lower, noting the bureau often estimates construction costs higher than actual costs.“If the total cost of all these systems is out of reach for these farmers, we’re planning on coming up with other alternatives to deliver this water that meets the farmer’s needs,” Johnson said.The district hopes to take preliminary design alternatives to landowners by early 2014, with a rough estimate of the cost per acre. The district hopes to begin delivering water in the next two years.Construction on expansion of 45 miles of the East-Low Canal south of Interstate 90 is slated to begin in November, although Johnson said there are caveats given the governmental shutdown and permitting requirements. The earthwork is slated to be done over the next two winters, he said.

农业

2017-09/1015/en_head.json.gz/11009

Wakame, Sea Vegetable 2.1 oz / 60 g Double click on above image to view full picture Case of 6 - $70.90$11.82 each Sun-dried from the environmentally protected national treasure, Ise (ee-say) Bay, Japan. Essential for miso soup and delicious in salads. It turns a happy bright green when soaked. A good source of magnesium. Details Eden Wakame is cultivated off the shores of Ise (ee-say) Bay, Japan where it thrives in cool and mineral rich arctic currents. The sea there is surrounded by National forests and mountains and is known as the 'Ocean by Mountains' area. Rivers nourish the bay adding to a mineral rich environment. This area leads all of Japan in ecology movements. Development is forbidden to ensure future generations the legacy of this famous edible seaweed resource. This wakame is hand harvested from January to the end of April by farmers in boats using long poles with blades attached to cut the fronds loose from the ocean bottom. Long rakes are used to gather the wakame as it floats to the surface. The wakame is taken ashore, washed, hung on ropes and left to sun dry before trimming, grading and packaging. Unlike most commercial wakame, Eden Wakame is not treated with softening agents such as enzymes or monosodium glutamate (MSG). Wakame Undaria pinnatifida is a species of brown algae with long, delicate leaves that resemble feathers. Its size and tenderness varies depending on where it grows as temperature and ocean conditions create a variety of plants. Wakame first became known in the United States as the green in Miso soup, and is one of the most popular sea vegetables in Japan and the United States today. Eden Wakame is quickly restored to tenderness when soaked and is a favorite in soups, stews, marinated dishes, and salads. Eden Wakame is low calorie, fat and cholesterol free, and a good source of magnesium. Like kombu and other brown algae, wakame contains glutamine, a sweet amino acid that acts as a flavor enhancer and softening agent when cooked with other foods. Its alginic acid, a polysaccharide similar to pectin found in land plants, protects the plant from bacteria and fungi. Scientific research conducted by McGill University, in Canada demonstrated that "alginic acid binds with heavy metals in the body, from all sources, renders them insoluble and causes them to be eliminated." Additional Info Wakame (Undaria pinnatifida) Good Source of Fiber Yes, 2.5 g to 4.9 g per serving (10% to 19% DV)

农业

2017-09/1015/en_head.json.gz/11659

Honeybees return to Kew Gardens Honeybees are making a comeback to Kew Gardens as part of a campaign to encourage people to grow bee-friendly flowers in their gardens. Beekeepers have reported unusually high losses of honeybees in recent years Photo: GETTY 4:00PM BST 16 Jun 2009 Around 20,000 honeybees have been released into two hives in a wild flower meadow at the world famous botanical gardens in London, marking a return after a year without the insects. Bees in Kew's hives died at the same time as many colonies across the country – with the widespread losses thought to be as a result of problems including disease and environmental pressures. Bees play a vital part in pollinating many of the crops grown in the UK, but have been hit by agricultural changes which have reduced the availability of the wildflowers that are so important in providing food for the insects. Diseases such as the varroa mite have infected hives, killing the bees, while climate change and pesticide use have also been suggested as possible factors in the insects' decline. The number of honeybees has fallen by between ten and 15 per cent in the last two years, according to the Government, but a survey of British Beekeepers' Association members suggests losses could have been as high as 30 per cent between November 2007 and March 2008. Annette Dalton, horticultural manager at Kew Gardens, said: "No English garden is complete without its bees and Kew Gardens is no exception." She said the wild flower display was full of bee-friendly plants such as oxeye daisy and wild clary, with winter and spring flowering trees and shrubs nearby to feed the bees all year round. "We want to do our bit to help the British honeybee and we hope this will show visitors to the Gardens the important interaction between plants and insects. "Without pollinators like bees, plants would not set seed and our food supplies would be under threat," she said. UK News Earth » Wildlife » Gardening »

农业

2017-09/1015/en_head.json.gz/11983

Continuing the Green Revolution: Wall Street Journal Op-Ed By Norman Borlaug This op-ed was published in the July 18, 2007, edition of the Wall Street Journal (Eastern Edition). Copyright (c) 2007, Dow Jones & Company, Inc. Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction of distribution is prohibited without permission. Abstract (Summary) Early crossbreeding experiments to select desirable characteristics took years to reach the desired developmental state of a plant or animal. Today, with the tools of biotechnology, such as molecular and marker-assisted selection, the ends are reached in a more organized and accelerated way. The result has been the advent of a "Gene" Revolution that stands to equal, if not exceed, the Green Revolution of the 20th century. So far, most biotechnology research and development has been carried out by the private sector and on crops and traits of greatest interest to relatively wealthy farmers. More biotechnology research is needed on crops and traits most important to the world's poor -- crops such as beans, peanuts, tropical roots, bananas, and tubers like cassava and yams. Also, more biotech research is needed to enhance the nutritional content of food crops for essential minerals and vitamins, such as vitamin A, iron and zinc. The debate about the suitability of biotech agricultural products goes beyond issues of food safety. Access to biotech seeds by poor farmers is a dilemma that will require interventions by governments and the private sector. Seed companies can help improve access by offering preferential pricing for small quantities of biotech seeds to smallholder farmers. Beyond that, public-private partnerships are needed to share research and development costs for "pro-poor" biotechnology. Persistent poverty and environmental degradation in developing countries, changing global climatic patterns, and the use of food crops to produce biofuels, all pose new and unprecedented risks and opportunities for global agriculture in the years ahead. Agricultural science and technology, including the indispensable tools of biotechnology, will be critical to meeting the growing demands for food, feed, fiber and biofuels. Plant breeders will be challenged to produce seeds that are equipped to better handle saline conditions, resist disease and insects, droughts and waterlogging, and that can protect or increase yields, whether in distressed climates or the breadbaskets of the world. This flourishing new branch of science extends to food crops, fuels, fibers, livestock and even forest products. Over the millennia, farmers have practiced bringing together the best characteristics of individual plants and animals to make more vigorous and productive offspring. The early domesticators of our food and animal species -- most likely Neolithic women -- were also the first biotechnologists, as they selected more adaptable, durable and resilient plants and animals to provide food, clothing and shelter. In the late 19th century the foundations for science-based crop improvement were laid by Darwin, Mendel, Pasteur and others. Pioneering plant breeders applied systematic cross-breeding of plants and selection of offspring with desirable traits to develop hybrid corn, the first great practical science-based products of genetic engineering. Consider these examples: Since 1996, the planting of genetically modified crops developed through biotechnology has spread to about 250 million acres from about five million acres around the world, with half of that area in Latin America and Asia. This has increased global farm income by $27 billion annually. Ag biotechnology has reduced pesticide applications by nearly 500 million pounds since 1996. In each of the last six years, biotech cotton saved U.S. farmers from using 93 million gallons of water in water-scarce areas, 2.4 million gallons of fuel, and 41,000 person- days to apply the pesticides they formerly used. Herbicide-tolerant corn and soybeans have enabled greater adoption of minimum-tillage practices. No-till farming has increased 35% in the U.S. since 1996, saving millions of gallons of fuel, perhaps one billion tons of soil each year from running into waterways, and significantly improving moisture conservation as well. Improvements in crop yields and processing through biotechnology can accelerate the availability of biofuels. While the current emphasis is on using corn and soybeans to produce ethanol, the long- term solution will be cellulosic ethanol made from forest industry by- products and products. However, science and technology should not be viewed as a panacea that can solve all of our resource problems. Biofuels can reduce dependence on fossil fuels, but are not a substitute for greater fuel efficiency and energy conservation. Whether we like it or not, gas- guzzling SUVs will have to go the way of the dinosaurs. Finally, I should point out that there is nothing magic in an improved variety alone. Unless that variety is nourished with fertilizers -- chemical or organic -- and grown with good crop management, it will not achieve much of its genetic yield potential. Mr. Borlaug, the 1970 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, was yesterday awarded the Congressional Gold Medal, America's highest civilian honor.

农业

2017-09/1015/en_head.json.gz/12310

The Structure of Agriculture Austria Table of Contents Despite the government's efforts to sustain agriculture, by 1991 not one province had as much as 10 percent of the population involved in agriculture and forestry. At the beginning of the 1970s, all but two provinces (Vienna and Vorarlberg) had more than 10 percent of their populations involved in farming. This contrasted markedly to the situation in 1934, when all but those same two provinces had more than 30 percent of their populations working in agriculture. Over this period of two generations, the decline in the Austrian farm population was as fast as any in the Western world. Of Austria's total area of almost 84,000 square kilometers, about 67,000 square kilometers are used for farming and forestry. Roughly half of that area is forest, and the remainder is arable land and pasture. Agriculture and forestry accounted for about 280,000 enterprises in 1986, with the average holding being about twentythree hectares. There were about 4,500 corporate farms. Beyond those farms, however, only a third of all farmers were full-time farmers or farming companies. Over half the farming enterprises were smaller than ten hectares; nearly 40 percent were smaller than five hectares. Just as the number of farmers has long been in decline, so also has been the number of farms. Family labor predominates, especially in mountainous areas and on smaller farms. Only a third of all farm and forestry enterprises were classified as full-time occupations in 1986. A full half of these enterprises are spare-time, that is, less than half of household labor is devoted to farming or forestry. The remainder are part-time. Farms up to ten hectares are more often tended by part-time and spare-time farmers rather than by fulltime farmers. For most farm owners and workers, nonfarm income is as important, if not more important, than farm income. Despite the decline in the number of farmers and agriculture's share of GDP since 1960, agricultural output has risen. As of the early 1990s, Austria was self-sufficient in all cereals and milk products as well as in red meat. This gain was achieved because of the considerable gains in agricultural labor productivity. The value of agricultural and forestry output is heavily concentrated in field crops, meat, and dairy products, with most of it coming from animal husbandry. Because large parts of Austria are mountainous, only the lowland areas of eastern Austria and some smaller flat portions of western and northern Austria are suitable for crop production and more intensive forms of animal husbandry. The remainder of the land is used for forestry and less intensive animal husbandry, most of which takes advantage of mountain pasturage.

农业

2017-09/1015/en_head.json.gz/12945

Share: Conservation awards kick off Stewardship Week April 27-May 4 April 28, 2014 The Delaware Agricultural Museum and Village was the setting for the April 23 Stewardship Week proclamation reading and presentation of the annual Governor’s Agricultural and Urban Conservation Awards. On behalf of Gov. Jack Markell and Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control Secretary Collin O’Mara, DNREC Division of Watershed Stewardship Director Frank Piorko led a ceremony with Delaware Association of Conservation Districts First Vice President Robert Emerson recognizing the honorees. Piorko also read a proclamation signed by the governor officially designating April 27 to May 4 as Stewardship Week in Delaware under the theme Dig Deeper: Mysteries in the Soil. “These honorees are wonderful and diverse examples of how we can all be better environmental stewards by taking thoughtful, important actions to protect and enhance our soil, water and air quality,” said Piorko. “Whether a specific project or a lifetime of conservation, the individuals receiving acknowledgement today possess a continuing commitment to environmental improvement." Delaware Department of Agriculture Secretary Ed Kee congratulated the honorees. “The recipients this year are all excellent stewards of our state. Their daily work proves their commitment to protecting our land and water for future generations,” said Kee. Sussex County honorees were the Seaford School District, which received the Urban Award, and John T. Elliot Jr. of Bridgeville, who received the Agricultural Award. The Sussex Conservation District, the Delaware Nature Society, and the Seaford School District partnered on the design, construction, planting, and outreach effort to construct rain gardens and water features at the four elementary schools in Seaford: Blades, Seaford Central, West Seaford, and Frederick Douglass. Grant funding was provided by DNREC under the Chesapeake Bay Implementation Grant. The intent of the project was to install water-quality practices at the schools while creating a schoolyard habitat that ties into school curriculum and teaches the importance of conservation and stewardship. Delaware Nature Society coordinated with the teachers on incorporating the gardens into the school curriculum as an outdoor classroom, and on the continued maintenance of the rain gardens and ponds. The Seaford School District has been very receptive to taking on the responsibility of maintaining these natural areas, enhancement of the school grounds, and acting as stewards of the Chesapeake Bay. Elliot has been a longtime cooperator with the Sussex Conservation District. He tills approximately 419 acres of corn, soybeans and small grain, of which 80 acres is irrigated. Elliot is a yearly participant in the district’s cover crop program, planting 233.1 acres in 2013. By participating in the cover crop program, He has helped reduce non-point source pollution by allowing the cover crop to utilize the nutrients left over in the soil from the previous crop. These nutrients can be recycled by the following year’s crop. Elliot’s nutrient management plan is written by Sussex Conservation District conservation planners. He also participates in the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service programs. He received cost-share assistance for 10 acres of wildlife plantings on his farm and most recently received an irrigation water management cap plan through NRCS to improve his fields and irrigation program. Legislator of the Year The Delaware Association of Conservation Districts also recognized state Sen. Bruce Ennis, D-Smyrna, as the 2014 Legislator of the Year, an annual award which is given to a legislator for outstanding service, loyalty and devotion to conservation efforts in Delaware. Ennis has served in the Delaware Legislature representing Kent County since 1982. Currently, he serves on the Agriculture Committee and Joint Finance Committee, and also works with the Kent County Conservation District to ensure the concerns of his constituents are heard and addressed. Through legislation, Ennis has allocated funds for a number of conservation and drainage projects throughout Kent County over the past year; he has also supported funding for a number of conservation and drainage projects through the Kent Conservation District. Ennis has also allocated funds for 22 completed conservation and drainage projects through the KCD, and an additional nine that are currently in different phases of planning. In the early 1990s as a state representative, Ennis was instrumental in the launching of the Dry Fire Hydrant Program and subsequent installation of the hydrants at sites throughout Kent County through the First State Resource Conservation and Development Council Inc., a program that is still active today. Ennis also supports and educates constituents on the Kent Conservation District’s role in conservation, drainage assistance, and stormwater management throughout his Legislative District, and all of Kent County. A lifelong supporter of the FFA, he attends several FFA functions each year, including the FFA Alumni Barbecue. Most Popular ~~ Townsend Team ~~ Paul & Darlene Townsend, REALTORS® DON'T MISS THIS RARE 2.98+/- ACRE ZONED C-1 ON LONG...Millsboro1,200,000.00 DON'T MISS THIS GEM! NEVER BEFORE LISTED! LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION! Rare 2.98+/- Acre...

农业

2017-09/1015/en_head.json.gz/12955

Industry Data reveals “mid-size” farms are disappearing By Brett Wessler September 04, 2013 | 3:55 pm EDT Data shows the average farm size has remained steady over the last 30 years, however, a closer look shows fewer “average” farms and considerably more large and small farms. The Agricultural Resource Management Survey, USDA’s primary source of farm financial information shows in a 2011 survey of 1.68 million farms the average farm was 234 acres. More analysis reveals four out of five farms are smaller than the average, and the median farm size, the farm smaller than half and larger than half of the 1.68 million farms, was just 45 acres. A recent article from the USDA’s Economic Research Service says the data is skewed by the growing trend of few farms working more acres. This has increased over the past 30 years with advancements in technology and farm organization. More efficient equipment, precision farming, genetically engineered seeds and a more prominent role for GPS systems have allowed farms to manage larger farms in the same amount of time, and lower their average cost per acre through a better economy of scale. From the chart below, the majority of the farms are between 10 and 49 acres, but the majority of the cropland is owned by farms with more than 2,000 acres. With consolidation and fewer farms owning more cropland, ERS calculations show the midpoint of cropland, the point where half of the acreage is on larger farms and half was on smaller farms, was a farm with 1,100 acres. That average has more than doubled since 1982 when the midpoint acreage for U.S. crop farms was 589 acres. The shift to larger farms shifted mostly in the 20 years between 1987 and 2007. The midpoint for corn acres tripled in that time from 200 to 600 acres. The shift upward could be in farms purchasing more land, or transitioning land from other crops to corn to take advantage of higher prices as the crop could be used as feed or shipped to ethanol plants. Among other crops, the midpoint for soybean cropland also increased from 243 acres for the average enterprise in 1987 to 490 acres in 2007. Click here for the full report. croplandagricultureagcornfarm size About the Author: Brett Wessler

农业

2017-09/1015/en_head.json.gz/13018

samsung galaxy s5 review , newest samsung galaxy , the samsung galaxy , samsung galaxy s5 , samsung galaxy s5 phone , the samsung galaxy s5 , new samsung galaxy s5 release date , More Mangos From Costa Rica Uncategorized2016/06/29 Costa Rica News – Sorry guys with a dirty mind we are talking about the fruit not anything else. The effects of El Niño benefited mango exporters this year as they achieved a price differential of up to 50% in international markets and allowed them the opportunity to trade more volume in the global market. This happened because of the changes in harvest in Mexico and Peru, two of the world’s biggest mango suppliers. Peru ended production earlier than usual, and Mexico delayed its harvest, which left a gap in demand that Costa Rica could supply. Costa Rica mainly exports the Tommy Atkins mango variety to the United States. The Tommy Atkins is a red medium sized mango, and a 4.2 kilo-box of this variety was traded for $7 last year. The same box, however, was marketed for about $13 in the harvest that just ended. The European market also reacted positively and paid exporters up to $8 more per box, as they received between $10 and $14 per box, while last year they were paid $6 a box. The mango export season runs from January to May and the production is concentrated in Guanacaste and in Central Pacific areas, such as Atenas, San Mateo, Orotina, and Puntarenas. Last year these areas were severely affected by drought and strong winds that caused the fall of fruit that wasn’t ripe, which reduced harvest volumes by up to 15% in the case of exporter Manga Rica. “Fortunately, we’ve managed to offset the effect of El Niño, which reduced production, with better prices and could take advantage of the window that Mexico and Peru left. We had a good year, “said Andres Medina, general manager of the company. Manga Rica is the only exporter certified by the US to market mangoes in that market because it complies with the inspection agreement to prevent the entry of fruit flies into that market. To do this, the company invests some $90,000 per harvest. The mango is a fruit that has a booming demand, especially in the United States, the Netherlands, Germany, and China, where demand grew by more than 50% in recent years, according to data from the Foreign Trade Promoter (Procomer). Europe is the second biggest market for Costa Rica’s mango and it imports the Tommy Atkins and Keitt variety, which is a larger and less colorful fruit that tastes sweet. For several year, England was the main destination in Europe, but it was displaced by Germany and the Netherlands. The country also supplies Portugal, Russia, Belgium, and Spain. Among the major competitors in those markets are Brazil, Mexico, Peru, the Ivory Coast, Senegal, and South Africa. From Fresh Plaza costa rica, costa rica business, costa rica food, costa rica fruit, costa rica mangoes, costa rica news, exporting from costa rica, mango fruit, More Mangos From Costa Rica, news in costa rica Related posts Cancel replyYou must be logged in to post a comment. The Costa Rican Times Costa Rica News More Mangos From Costa Rica

农业

2017-09/1015/en_head.json.gz/13054

2016: Reality for producers ‘was pretty grim’ Feb 13, 2017 Cash, other prizes could be yours at Mid-South Farm & Gin Show Feb 15, 2017 Judsons winners in National Outstanding Young Farmer competition Feb 14, 2017 What are Arkansas rice producers considering for 2017 season? Feb 15, 2017 Management Drought likely to persist into 2012 Most of Texas remains in the worst drought category, D-4. Conditions could persist into 2012, or longer. La Nina is to blame. Ron Smith | Oct 20, 2011 If you didn’t like the summer of 2011, chances look pretty good that you aren’t going to be happy with 2012, either. And 2013, ’14, and ’15 could add to your discontent. “This past year we had an unusual drought,” says Texas A&M professor of meteorology and state climatologist Dr. John Nielsen-Gammon. “And we have a strong possibility of it continuing.” Nielsen-Gammon, speaking at the recent Beef Financial Management Conference in Amarillo, said most of Texas remains in the worst drought category, D-4, with only a few areas “around the edge” in less dire straits. He said the drought overall is so bad that the current rating system may not be broad enough to cover it. “We might need a D-5 or a D-6 designation,” he said. “And the longer a drought goes on the worse it gets.” He said average rainfall for the state for the last 6 months was only 5 inches. “We’ve been running from 35 percent to 40 percent of normal rainfall for the past 11 or 12 months.” The drought of 2011 (It actually dates back to last fall.) ranks as the worst in recorded history for much of Texas, eclipsing 1917, 1934 and 1956. And most of the state recorded drought conditions that would be in the top ten worst droughts in history. The difference, so far, between the current drought and the infamous 1956 drought, is duration. Worst in history “In 1956, they were experiencing long-term statewide drought. But 2011 represents the worst short-term drought in Texas history,” Nielsen-Gammon said Analysts have to go back 100 years to find anything close to 2011. “We’ve had 12 consecutive months with below average rainfall. September was the seventh consecutive driest month on record.” He said parts of East Texas remain in a drought that has lasted four years. Recent rains have provided a bit of hope that the drought may be ending but consistent rain will be necessary to break the drought. Nielsen-Gammon said some North Texas Counties had rain last May and that far West Texas had recent “monsoon” rains. “But most of the state is still dry. Some pockets have had less than 10 percent of normal rainfall for the past six months. Most of the state has received less than 25 percent of normal rainfall during that time.” He said intense heat from June through August, “well above what’s been observed before,” added to the problem. Blame La Nina La Nina gets most of the blame for the prolonged drought. “For the past 20 years Texas has fit the pattern of La Nina/El Nino,” Nielsen-Gammon said. That pattern shows that when waters in a specific area of the Pacific Ocean are cooler, the Southern United States experiences warm and dry conditions. That’s La Nina. When those waters are warmer, El Nino comes into play and conditions are cool and damp in the Southern United States. “Most climatologists credit La Nina for the current drought,” he said. But other factors also contribute to Southwestern weather patterns. Tropical storms in the Gulf of Mexico may break drought cycles as may storms coming across the Sierra Madre. Nielsen-Gammon said drought contributed to the unusually high temperatures in the Southwest last summer. “Because of dry conditions, we also had high temperatures,” he said. “Most of the excess heat was due to lack of rainfall and lack of evaporation.” He said evaporation from soil and plants helps cool temperatures. With drought, plant growth is diminished and evaporation reduced. “Solar energy goes into the soil instead of into evaporation, so it gets even drier.” He said temperatures in Texas have been “unusually warm over the past decade. Except for the Panhandle, Texas’ coolest decade was the 1970s.” More drought? He doesn’t predict with certainty that the current drought will persist into 2012, but he says current models indicate the chances are greater that conditions will remain dry than that they will moderate. He refers to various computer models that “predict cooler temperatures in the Pacific” favoring continuation of La Nina and dry and warm conditions across the Southern United States. He showed a graph with a bar divided into four possibilities: driest in 30 years; tenth driest in 30 years; tenth wettest in 30 years; and wettest in 30 years. Under typical circumstance, the two extremes would have about a 33 percent chance of occurring and the middle position also 33 percent. But with current projections, Nielsen-Gammons said the bar tilts toward warm and dry. “We see about a 40 percent chance that Texas will be in a drought period through fall and early winter,” he said. He sees only a 27 percent chance that conditions will be wetter than usual. He said the state had a “reasonable chance” of rainfall for the next two weeks—a prediction that was borne out in some areas of the state from October 7 through 12. “That reasonable chance will be available,” he said, “until we get locked into La Nina.” He also noted that even with a 3-inch rainfall, areas like Lubbock will “still be below average rainfall.” Folks who take advantage of showers to plant wheat have to consider the possibility of getting enough moisture to “get through the winter,” he said. Unfortunately, conditions may not get much better any time soon. “Texas rainfall has been increasing over the long term,” Nielsen-Gammon said. “But it’s been erratic. The extreme far west has been about the same for 100 years. The rest of the state has seen about a 10 percent increase over the last century, so rainfall average is relatively flat and nothing to worry about as far as climate change and rainfall, at this point.” He said since 2000 Texas rainfall has included a series of wet years interspersed with drought. Natural changes, he said, hold the key. In addition to the La Nina/El Nino effect, the Atlantic Ocean also affects Southwest weather. “In the 1950s, warm Atlantic waters and cold Pacific waters created the 1950’s drought period that persisted into the 1960s. That’s the only time those conditions have overlapped.” Until now, perhaps. “We’ve had a warm Atlantic since 1995 with a lot of hurricane activity.” Based on potential for La Nina and other factors, “it looks like a two-year drought at a minimum. But it’s hard to predict. If we’re lucky, we’ll have only two years of drought, but we look at the ’50s and know that long droughts are possible. Sooner or later we will see something worse than the 1950’s droughts.” He said the chance of a five-year drought is about one in four “maybe a little less than that.” Ocean temperature oscillations, he said, have been occurring for thousands of years. “But our ability to forecast has improved. We’re just beginning to have computer power and computer models to forecast on a large scale. In the future, we will probably be able to make more accurate ocean forecasts and more long-term predictions.” He said some factors can’t be predicted, however. Sun spots and volcanoes may reduce temperatures. “We’re in a period now with less solar activity, and fewer sun spots.” He said global temperatures have increased over the last century and “carbon dioxide is causing climate change.” Nielsen-Gammon said the 2011 drought extended from Texas west into Arizona, north into Kansas and eastward to Georgia and South Carolina.

农业

2017-09/1015/en_head.json.gz/13474

Citrus greening takes toll on growers It's the most deadly citrus disease ever to threaten Florida's $9 billion citrus industry, but there are ways to detect and treat the menace. ANTHONY DeFEOSTAFF WRITER DELEON SPRINGS — It's the most deadly citrus disease ever to threaten Florida's $9 billion citrus industry, but there are ways to detect and treat the menace known as huanglongbing, or citrus greening. That was the message given to about two dozen master gardeners and members of the public Thursday afternoon during a tour at Vo-LaSalle Farms near DeLeon Springs. The program was organized by the University of Florida's Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences extension office in DeLand. Bruce and Steve Crump, the father-and-son owners of the grove, accompanied by agricultural officials, led the group through part of the farm's 65 acres of groves, pointing out some of the signs of citrus greening. "Greening might be a misnomer," said Bruce Crump. "It doesn't make (the plant) green. It makes it yellow." A 2012 University of Florida study estimated that since 2006, greening has cost Florida's economy $3.63 billion in lost revenue and 6,611 jobs by reducing citrus production. The disease, which originated in China in the early 20th century, was first spotted in the U.S. in 1998. It was first detected in Florida in 2005. Since then, growers have been fighting what has generally been a losing battle against the disease. Infected trees might not show symptoms for years. When they do, one of the main symptoms is a yellowing of the plant's leaves, particularly around veins. Affected trees will produce small, lopsided, sour-tasting fruit, before eventually dying altogether. There is no cure for greening, which is caused by a type of bacteria spread by an insect called the Asian citrus psyllid. Currently, growers treat the disease by spraying pesticides to kill the psyllid, in hopes of curtailing their spread. Steve Crump said those efforts, while somewhat effective, have nearly doubled his production costs. "Probably 20 percent of our trees are infected," he said. While there are other diseases, like citrus canker, affecting groves around the state, nothing compares with how severe greening has become, he said. "Greening is the worst — liver cancer to an orange tree. There's no coming out of it," he said. In Volusia County, which had about 815 acres of commercial citrus production during the 2011-12 season, commercial citrus growers follow a coordinated pesticide spraying schedule. Those efforts have been somewhat effective in reducing the psyllid population. "Fortunately, Volusia County has the lowest population of the psyllid out of all the counties that produce citrus," said David Griffis, director of the extension office. But abandoned groves and growers who don't spray pesticides provide a safe harbor for the bugs, which threaten the livelihood of more responsible growers. "I'm trying to dissuade people from planting citrus in their yard for this reason: this man has 65 acres and this is how he makes his living," said Joe Sewards, an instructor and urban horticulture agent for the extension. "He's got a vested interest and most homeowners are growing it for fun. They don't have the tools he has available to properly control this particular disease." The University of Florida and others are still researching ways to deal with the disease. In the long run, he said researchers hope to find and breed citrus trees that are resistant to the disease. "We'll get through it," Bruce Crump said. "There will be orange trees that are survivors. I said it before and I'll say it again, it helps to be a Christian in this business, to have a lot of faith."

农业

2017-09/1015/en_head.json.gz/13651

The Scottish Grove Project Oasis Organic Olive GroveThe Scottish Grove Project The Scottish Grove Project The Scottish Grove is a dream come true. It all began with a classic fair trade task – to serve as the missing link between the Arab farmer and the Israeli market. As the story unfolded and we became more involved, we realized this project presented a unique opportunity to make a quantum leap and bring our values full circle. For in this project, we didn’t just help a farmer market his olive oil; we helped farmers reclaim 30 dunams of derelict, uncultivated land in the heart of the Jezreel Valley below Nazareth and transform it into a flourishing olive grove, which will produce extra virgin olive oil that will be sold all over the world. Our partners in this exciting journey are the owners of the land – the Abu Hatum family from Yafi’a (read more about our partnership with the family) and the Church of Scotland. This marvelous olive grove allows us to promote the modernization of traditional Arab farming and agriculture by introducing new techniques, irrigation, and olive cultivars; aid sustainable cultivation and agriculture; invest all future proceeds of the grove in community projects that promote fair employment for Arab women; and oversee the entire value chain, from seed to extra virgin olive oil bottle. In 2012, a new olive grove was planted against the backdrop of the historic scenery of Nazareth on one side and the archeological site of Armageddon (Tel Megiddo) on the other side in the Jezreel Valley. With it, seeds of hope were planted in the hearts of all those involved in, and inspired by, Israel’s new, flourishing Jewish-Arab olive grove. Dedication of the Scottish Grove (December 2011) First planting in the Scottish Grove (September 2012) On September 15th, 2012, Sindyanna of Galilee planted olive trees on unused land belongs to Arab farmers in collaboration with the Scottish church. Most of the volunteers had no previous farming experience before joining the planting but, although it was very hard work, it was very nice experience for all the participants – to feel the soil and the young plants under the blue sky. (Read more about the event) First olive picking in the Scottish Grove (November 2014 / Photos: Yoram Ron)

农业

2017-09/1015/en_head.json.gz/14585

Can Wal-Mart Really Make Organic Food Cheap For Everyone? By Dan Charles Apr 19, 2014 TweetShareGoogle+Email Wal-Mart is promising to drive down the prices of organic food by bringing in a new company, WildOats, to deliver a whole range of additional products. Wal-Mart/Flickr Originally published on April 19, 2014 9:40 am It could be another milestone in organic food's evolution from crunchy to commercial: Wal-Mart, the king of mass retailing, is promising to "drive down organic food prices" with a new line of organic food products. The new products will be at least 25 percent cheaper than organic food that's on Wal-Mart's shelves right now. Yet we've heard this before. Back in 2006, Wal-Mart made a similar announcement, asking some of its big suppliers to deliver organic versions of popular food items like mac-and-cheese. A Wal-Mart executive said at the time that it hoped these organic products would cost only 10 percent more than the conventional alternative. Wal-Mart has, in fact, become a big player in organic food, with some remarkable cost-cutting successes. At the new Wal-Mart just a few blocks from NPR's headquarters, I found some organic grape tomatoes on sale for exactly the same price as conventional ones. Organic "spring mix" salad was just 9 percent more expensive than the conventional package. Outside the fresh produce section, though, organic products were hard to find, and those I did spy were significantly more expensive. Organic diced tomatoes were 44 percent higher. The premium for a half-gallon of organic milk was a whopping 85 percent. Now Wal-Mart is bringing in a new company, WildOats, to deliver a whole range of additional organic products, from pasta sauce to cookies, and do it more cheaply. I asked the CEO of WildOats, Tom Casey, how he plans to do it. His answer, in a nutshell: Bigger can be better. The production and distribution of organic food is still highly fragmented, Casey says. Wal-Mart can change that, delivering organic products in through its "world-class distribution system" and giving manufacturers of, say, pasta sauce a chance to operate on a larger, more efficient scale. Charles Benbrook, a long-time proponent of organic agriculture who's now with the Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources at Washington State University, thinks that this plan is realistic. Most organic producers have to use other companies' processing facilities, which also handle conventional food, Benbrook wrote in an e-mail. "This requires them to shut down, clean out the lines, segregate both incoming and outgoing product, and this all costs money," writes Benbrook. According to Benbrook, larger production — to supply larger customers — will allow organic food processors to run "100 percent organic all the time" and will cut costs by 20 to 30 percent. This has already happened with packaged salad greens, which is why consumers don't pay very much extra for those organic products. Benbrook does have one warning: Large scale can't be achieved overnight. It takes at least three years for farmers to get their land certified as organic, for instance. "There will be hell to pay if Wal-Mart turns mostly to imports, and they know it." If Wal-Mart sticks with this effort and creates an organic supply chain that's as efficient as the conventional one, the company could help answer an unresolved question about organic food: How much of the organic price tag is because of small-scale production, and how much is inherent in the rules that govern organic production, such as the prohibition on synthetic pesticides, and industrial fertilizer? Benbrook thinks Wal-Mart's experiment will show that organic farmers, if given an honest chance to compete, will out-produce their conventional neighbors, and that organic prices will come down. Others disagree. Todd J. Kluger, vice president of marketing for Lundberg Family Farms, told Rodale News in an interview that Wal-Mart's goal of producing food 25 percent more cheaply is "fantasy. There isn't much you can do to cut the cost of organic ingredients," Kluger said. In the same interview, Mark Kastel, an organic activist who co-founded the Cornucopia Institute, suggested that Wal-Mart's cost-cutting drive could undermine the ethical values of organic farming. "One of the reasons people are willing to pay more is that they think they're supporting a different ethic, a different animal husbandry model, and that family farmers are being fairly compensated," Kastel says. According to Kastel, organic buyers will shy away from the kind of large-scale supply chain that Wal-Mart and WildOats envision. "We want to know where our food comes from, how it's produced, and what the story behind the label is," he told Rodale News. Tom Casey, CEO of WildOats, says that the company has not yet decided whether it will disclose where it is buying its food. (That's pretty typical for supermarket brands.) "We want to be respectful of our suppliers," he told The Salt.Copyright 2014 NPR. To see more, visit http://www.npr.org/. Transcript WADE GOODWYN, HOST: It's WEEKEND EDITION from NPR News. I'm Wade Goodwyn. Organic food has taken another step away from its crunchy alternative routes. Walmart, the king of mass-market retail, says it will sell even more organic food, and it promises to bring down the price tag as well. Now the question is will organic producers be able to keep up with demand? Joining me talk about this is NPR's food and agricultural correspondent Dan Charles. Dan, welcome to the show. DAN CHARLES, BYLINE: Nice to be here. GOODWYN: Dan, Walmart says it's going to sell organic food more cheaply. How's it going to do this? CHARLES: Well, you know, Walmart already sells organic food. But this - they're trying to make a statement saying we're going to set up our own house brand. It's delivered by a separate company actually called Wild Oats. And they're saying we're going to organize this, and we're going to deliver organic food more cheaply. And it's a good question. How are they going to do this? I mean, I actually talked to the CEO of Wild Oats. And he said it's all about logistics. He said Walmart is the king of distribution, right. And so if we organize the production and the processing and distribution of organic foods on a large scale, there's efficiencies to be had. This is actually kind of an experiment, a test. You know, how much of the extra costs that you pay when you buy organic food - how much of that is just the fragmented nature of the business? How much of it is the small-scale aspect? And how much of it is inherent in organic production? GOODWYN: Well, there's no question that Walmart is kind of the king of logistics. But if you talk to some of their suppliers, they'll also complain that Walmart is the king of squeezing them and making them produce the product ever more cheaply at their own expense. CHARLES: Right. So you could say this is a threat to some organic producers who are used to higher margins. On the other hand, I mean, the organic production is expanding, and if Walmart wants large quantities, they may have to outbid other producers. There is a limit right now on the amount of organic food for sale. They say they want to expand that, and there's no reason why they couldn't. There's lots of land out there. Right now, organic is actually a very small part of American food production, people say 5 percent or less. So there's no reason why Walmart couldn't expand organic production if they offered a good price. The question is can they do it cheaply? GOODWYN: Part of this has to do with trust. Are people going to stop going to Whole Foods and go over to Walmart 'cause they can get the eggs $2 cheaper? I'm a little skeptical. CHARLES: OK, so this gets to this question of what is organic really because organic has an actual legal definition. You know, it's set out by the National Organic Standards, laid down by the USDA. And it has to do with how organic food is produced - no pesticides, no industrial fertilizer, certain other rules like... GOODWYN: Chickens can walk around. CHARLES: Chickens can walk around, etc. And you can do that on a large scale, and you can do it for Walmart. But organic, also, for the consumer sometimes, is cultural image. People think small-scale, local, nonindustrial, non-Walmart, right? GOODWYN: Correct. CHARLES: So, you know, so you can see the organic label kind of splitting. You can get organic eggs for $3 a dozen. You can get organic eggs for $6 a dozen. And the companies that sell them for $6 a dozen say we are the true organic. We go beyond the strict requirements of these rules. Our milk comes from small, family farms. Our chickens have lots of pasture, not just, you know, a door in the side of the chicken house. And we'll tell you where we get our products. You know, we're more true to organic roots. And maybe they will get a certain segment of the market, and the $3 eggs will get another segment. GOODWYN: NPR's food and agricultural correspondent Dan Charles. Dan, thanks. CHARLES: Enjoyed it, Wade. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.TweetShareGoogle+EmailView the discussion thread. © 2016 MTPR

农业

2017-09/1015/en_head.json.gz/14862

HomeNewsToledo Water Crisis Brings New Urgency to Farmers' Efforts to Manage Runoff Toledo Water Crisis Brings New Urgency to Farmers' Efforts to Manage Runoff Markets and News Editor Growers and others in ag community say they’ve been working to address the issue of Lake Erie’s high phosphorus levels. After a weekend of stern warnings to avoid their city’s water, Toledo's 400,000 residents on Monday got the news that it was once again safe to grab a drink or take a shower using city water. The source of the crisis? A bloom of toxic algae that drifted near Toledo’s water intake in Lake Erie, resulting in high levels of microcystin, a toxin that can cause vomiting, poor liver function, and more. But new worries for Ohio farmers may have just begun as people revisit the question of Lake Erie’s water quality and the role of agriculture. Runoff from crops and livestock operations, along with aging septic systems and lawn/garden fertilizer use, are one of the reasons behind the lake’s high phosphorus levels and blue-green algae blooms. According to a 2013 task force report, phosphorus from cultivated cropland represents 61 percent of the total phosphorus load in the Lake Erie basin. As a result, many farmers are fretting that that they now will be unfairly blamed for all of Lake Erie’s problems. "My biggest concern was the situation in the lake, but now that it’s subsided, my biggest concern is that people will have a knee-jerk reaction and start scapegoating," says Wade Smith of Whitehouse Specialty Growers, where he grows vegetables and perennials. Yet Ohio’s agriculture community has been working on the issue for several years. "We started with extensive outreach to our members, telling them, ‘You need to take this concern seriously,’" says Joe Cormely, communications director for the Ohio Farm Bureau. The organization has encouraged farmers to educate themselves about new developments in nutrient application and explore more strategic land management practices Such learning will also soon be mandatory for some. In 2014, the Ohio legislature passed a law requiring farmers with 50 acres or more to attend a class before they can obtain the new license to apply fertilizer to their fields, similar to the requirements for pesticides. Others say they are already using practices designed to reduce runoff and use fertilizer more strategically, from filter strips along drainage ditches, no-till, and more. "I think a lot of us are trying to do the right thing. We are adopting GPS technology and variable-rate fertilizer technology to get it right," says Paul Herringshaw, who farms corn, soybeans, and wheat on 1,500 acres near Bowling Green, Ohio. "We have a lot of concern about what is happening. … I cannot stress enough that Ohio agriculture has been more proactive that we are getting credit for." Herringshaw points to farmer-supported research at Ohio State University, where research scientist Elizabeth Dayton is looking at phosphorus and agriculture with the hope of helping farmers and others find the best ways to manage yields, reduce runoff, and improve water quality near Lake Erie, which supplies drinking water to 11 million people in the U.S. and Canada. "We need to identify the source and figure out what is happening, because nobody knows what is really going on," says Herringshaw, who notes that many farmers have reduced their phosphorus usage compared to the past. "Unfortunately, the research is going to take time." That may be exactly what Ohio farmers do not have, though, when it comes to the question of taking action to improve Lake Erie’s water quality. "When 400,000 people are told not to drink the water, nothing is fast enough," Cormely of the Ohio Farm Bureau says. Will Ohio farmers be under pressure to reduce fertilizer use? Will Toledo's drinking-water crisis be quickly forgotten? Share your thoughts in the AgWeb discussions. Back to news Proposed Ohio Fertilizer Legislation -- Nutrient Certification Requirement 4/9/2013 12:11:00 PM Ohio Environmentalists Propose Quantitative Water Quality Standards 1/2/2014 11:53:00 AM Ohio Legislature Considers Fertilizer Certification for Farmers 1/30/2014 3:25:00 PM Comments

农业

2017-09/1015/en_head.json.gz/16367

Hydroponics (2) ▼Alternatives/Organics (719) ►Chemicals (2799) WordPress.org « Proposed Rulemaking in Maine Undermines Comprehensive School Pesticide Reform Common Herbicide May Increase Risk of Rare Disorder in Infants » 01 Oct Goats to Join Chicago O’Hare Maintenance Crew (Beyond Pesticides, October 1, 2012) O’Hare International Airport in Chicago is planning to sign on a shepherd and approximately 30 goats and sheep to graze on overgrown brush at the perimeter of the airport later this fall. The animals are expected to clear about 250 square feet of vegetation per day. Airport officials sought out the goats in order to eliminate an overgrowth of poison ivy and poison oak, and reduce the habitat for wildlife hazardous to airport operations, such as birds or deer. Chicago will join a list of other cities, including Atlanta and San Francisco, that use grazing animals to help maintain portions of their airport and a multitude of other cities that use goats as part of their weed management plans. The choice to use goats at O’Hare was made because, according to Department of Aviation spokeswoman Karen Pride, the overgrown property is difficult for machinery and pesticide applicators to reach because of hills and standing water. The area where the goats will be grazing is outside the security fence, so there’s no danger of goats straying onto the runways. “The animals are a more cost-efficient and environmentally friendly alternative for brush removal,”Ms. Pride said. Five potential vendors already have been identified, and the department hopes the three-week pilot program can get started before the weather gets too cold. Beyond Pesticides has long been an advocate for the use of goats and grazing animals as a least toxic solution for weed management. Goats are often more efficient at eradicating weeds, and are more environmentally sustainable than using harmful pesticides and chemicals. When goats are used for weed management the first thing they do when they walk through the pasture is snap off all the flower heads. Then they pick the leaves off one at a time, very quickly, leaving a bare stock. Once goats graze a weed, it cannot go to seed because it has no flower and cannot photosynthesize to take in sunlight and build a root system because it has no leaves. Grasses are a last choice for goats, which means the desirable grass species are left behind with natural fertilizer to repopulate the land. Goats are notorious for eating poisonous plants, such as poison ivy and poison oak, and can handle them without getting sick. Goats can also be helpful in recycling Christmas trees. They will strip the whole tree leaving just the trunk, which can be turned into firewood. Chicago O’Hare is not the only airport using grazing animals to deal with difficult lawn maintenance problems. This year, Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport also adopted a pilot project where 100 grazing sheep (plus a few goats) are being used to eat invasive plants such as kudzu. In just two days, a herd ate through nearly half of the waist high weeds in a test acre near the airport. The sheep were hired from Ewe-niversally Green and are part of the “Have Ewe Herd?” program hosted by Trees Atlanta, a nonprofit group dedicated to planting and conserving trees. Goats have been used for eight summers as part of the weed management program at San Francisco International Airport. Goats are used because the property is an environmentally sensitive area that contains two endangered species, the San Francisco garter snake and the California red-legged frog. The goats are used to eat the vegetation along the property lines on the west side of the airport property and can go into places where the airport cannot use heavy machinery or personnel, similar to the situation in Chicago. The goats used in San Francisco come from Goats R Us, which hires out goats to homeowners, private land managers, and public agencies to graze sites ranging from neighborhood yards to 30,000 acre ranches. Goats and grazing animals are being used across the United States for a variety of weed management programs from Hempstead, New York to Cheyenne, Wyoming. Even Google hired 200 goats instead of a mowing crew to manage the weeds and brush growing on their corporate campus in Mountain View, California. Google used them in order to reduce fire hazard, according to Dan Hoffman, Google’s Director of Real Estate and Workplace Services. The company’s hiring of the goats costs about the same as mowing. For more information on natural, non-chemical land management strategies, read “Successfully Controlling Noxious Weeds with Goats: The natural choice that manages weeds and builds soil health” and see Beyond Pesticides’ Lawn and Landscape pages. Sources: The Chicago Tribune , NBC News All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides. on Monday, October 1st, 2012 at 12:01 am and is filed under Alternatives/Organics, Invasive Species, Lawns/Landscapes. = Using the Blog

农业

2017-09/1015/en_head.json.gz/16911

Environmentalists: Chinese Dairy Demand Could Wreak Havoc on Central Valley Air, Water By KQED News Staff June 13, 2013 Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window)Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window) By Susanne Rust and Serene Fang, The Center for Investigative Reporting A growing demand for milk and cheese in China has the potential to bring California’s beleaguered dairy industry back to life – and with it, renewed concern about its damaging effects on the environment. China is quickly building its own dairy industry, which experts say is in every way as modern and high-tech as California’s. (Photo: Serene Fang/The Center for Investigative Reporting) As China’s middle class grows, so does its penchant for dairy products such as milk, cheese and yogurt. U.S. government data show that Chinese demand for dairy products is growing rapidly. For instance, between 2011 and 2012, imports of skimmed milk powder grew by 49 percent and are expected to increase an additional 18 percent this year. And although China is trying to build its nascent dairy industry to meet this demand, it relies heavily on imports of high-protein feed. That includes one of California’s most water-intensive crops, alfalfa. “Exports (of alfalfa) to China are definitely increasing,” said Daniel Putnam, an agronomist at the University of California, Davis. “We’ve seen a pretty dramatic rise since 2006, and I think all expectations are that it will probably increase again this year.” But this news, and the already-documented toll California’s large dairy farms are having on air and water quality in the Central Valley, is making many environmentalists nervous. “Definitely, there’s a carrying capacity for dairy, and it’s air quality,” said Brent Newell, legal director for the Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment, an environmental justice organization that focuses mostly on the San Joaquin Valley. “You can’t keep sticking more dairies in the San Joaquin Valley in order to export cheese to China.” Environmental scientists say the California Dairy model has wreaked havoc on air and water quality. California is the nation’s largest dairy-producing state with nearly 42 billion pounds of milk produced in 2011, or 21 percent of the nation’s total milk output, according to the Dairy Institute of California’s most recent economic report in 2012. That success has been attributed largely to the state’s model for dairy farming, which maximizes the number of cattle per farm while minimizing the need for on-site food production. “The traditional dairy farm model in the rest of the country is one where dairy farmers grow a considerable amount of their own feed,” said Bill Schiek, an economist with the Dairy Institute, a dairy processors trade group. In California, he said, dairy operators don’t grow grain or hay on-site but bring it in. “It’s a very specialized operation.” But it’s a model that environmental scientists say has wreaked havoc on air and water quality. Critics and scientists point to studies showing the dairy industry, with roughly 1.8 million cows, is the single largest contributor of smog-forming volatile organic compounds in the valley’s already-polluted air. Government and academic research indicates that gases emitted from fermented feed, cows and cow waste combine with other free-floating particles in the atmosphere to form smog. The dairies also have been implicated in the pollution of groundwater. Research has shown that nitrogen produced by cow waste can seep through soil into groundwater, contaminating water sources and, in some cases, making the water undrinkable. For instance, dairy manure, which is the largest source of animal manure in California, accounts for more than 200,000 tons of nitrogen every year, much of which ends up in groundwater, according to research by Thomas Harter, a hydrologist at UC Davis. Nearly 10 percent of public water wells in California have more nitrogen than the government deems acceptable, while in some areas, more than one-third of private wells exceed that level, according to the UC Davis study. But over the past five years, the once-booming dairy industry has begun to slow. According to the California Department of Food and Agriculture, more than 300 dairies have gone out of business in that time period. That trend, said UC Davis agricultural economist Leslie Butler, is the result of high feed costs and a vulnerable industry model, which relies heavily on cheap imported grain. In the past few years, feed prices have skyrocketed, the result of competition with the biofuels industry, a severe drought in the Midwest and increased shipping and transportation costs. But not all hope is lost for the battered industry, said Ross Christieson, a consultant for the California Milk Advisory Board, a trade group for the state’s roughly 1,600 dairy farmers. “China has been going through a major economic growth boom over the last 20 years, and that has fueled consumption of dairy products,” he said. “We know a lot of these markets will grow ten- or twentyfold over the next few decades. By being there now, we can be at the start of the growth.” And it’s this potential for growth that has Newell and other environmental activists concerned. “We’re bearing the burden of all this pollution for a product that is being exported,” he said. “It is fundamentally unfair and unjust to burden low-income communities in the San Joaquin Valley with all of this pollution.” And shipping the state’s limited water supply, in the form of alfalfa, is a concern to many as well. Robert Glennon, a professor at the University of Arizona with expertise in water law, argues that it doesn’t make sense to be “using so much water to send such a low-value product to China.” But while Chinese demand for dairy is increasing by double-digit percentages every year, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Newell and others say it’s also likely temporary. That’s because Chinese entrepreneurs are trying to meet the growing demand by starting their own dairy farms. That could reduce demand for California dairy products, and because China has a limited amount of arable land and water, Chinese farmers would need to import more feed, including water-hungry alfalfa. And that could bring California’s dairies to the same place they are today – struggling to pay the high cost of feed. This story was edited by Richard C. Paddock and copy edited by Nikki Frick and Christine Lee. This story was produced as part of the Food for 9 Billion series, a collaboration of The Center for Investigative Reporting, Homeland Productions with broadcast partners PBS NewsHour, APM’s Marketplace, and PRI’s The World. For more, visit http://cironline.org/projects/food-9-billion. The reporter can be reached at [email protected]. Explore: Environment, Science Mr. Newell sees the 300 dairies that went out of business as only a good start. He would love to put the remaining 1600 dairies out of business too I’m sure. What would we poor valley folks do without magnanimous San Francisco elitists looking out for us. Dairy Cares Unfortunately, the facts are missing from this piece. Dairy families have long understood their important responsibility to steward the land and natural resources such as air and water. Conservation, preservation, re-use and recycling are fundamental values among farm families, many of whom have operated sustainably on the same land for generations. And their values are backed up by action: California dairy families operate under the nation’s strictest water quality regulations for dairies. Sampling and laboratory testing of manure, soil, irrigation water and harvested crop plant tissue to account for on-farm nitrogen usage is routine and required by the regulations. Central Valley dairy families, at their own expense, have installed a large network of groundwater monitoring wells throughout the Central Valley. A video about dairy families’ work to protect water quality is available on the Dairy Cares homepage at http://dairycares.com/ California dairy families are the only dairies in the world to be regulated to reduce volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Since adoption of the air quality regulations, dairy families have reduced VOCs from their farms by more than 28 percent. Moreover, when it comes to the serious issue of smog and ozone in our Central Valley, the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District identifies oxides of Nitrogen (NOx), not VOCs, as the primary culprit in the formation of both smog and harmful Particulate Matter 2.5. NOx is formed by the combustion of fossil fuels, of which the biggest source in the Central Valley comes from motorized vehicles. Thank you for this opportunity to share the facts. For more information about the sustainability work California dairy families are doing, visit http://www.DairyCares.com ~Dairy Cares mmmartym Unfortunately, the “investigative reporters” here did no investigating. They grossly failed to contact air and water quality regulators or air and water quality scientists and bootstrapped unsubstantiated claims by a lawyer notorious for filing frivolous losing actions against farmers and regulators with analysis debunked years ago. Incredible and sad that PBS ran with such shoddy work. Mary Magdalene and Jesus as Lovers in Mark Adamo's New San Francisco Opera Resolution Introduced to Name Part of Bay Bridge After Willie Brown

农业

2017-09/1015/en_head.json.gz/17060

CARD: Center for Agricultural and Rural Development Products/Output Iowa Land Value Ag Policy Review Iowa Ag Review Winter 2005, Vol. 11 No. 1 Guns and Butter, Crop Insurance Reform, and the Farmer Safety Net Rethinking Agricultural Domestic Support under the World Trade Organization Agricultural Situation Spotlight: Planting Decisions: Corn versus Soybeans Animal Identification Is Key to Restarting Beef Exports to Japan U.S. Sweetener Consumption Trends and Dietary Guidelines Chad E. Hart [email protected] John C. Beghin [email protected] The World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations under the Doha Round are slowly progressing toward an eventual new agreement on agriculture. A new framework for the agriculture agreement was approved by the WTO membership in August 2004. The changes in the guidelines for domestic support could have effects on many countries and many types of support. However, details on the specific regulations of the agreement have yet to be determined. Dramatic reforms in agriculture could take place under the framework, but the decisions made to implement the framework will determine if that potential is realized. If countries lack ambition and commitment to make genuine reforms, changes in support will not happen in this round. Governments provide support to agriculture in numerous ways, for example, direct payments, research grants, loan programs, and storage programs to name a few. Under the current Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture (URAA), domestic support programs are divided into three "boxes" that indicate the trade-distorting effects of the programs. "Green Box" programs are considered minimally trade distorting. The agreement sets out specific guidelines for the structure of such programs but does not set limits on these program expenditures by WTO members. "Blue Box" programs are considered more trade distorting but have production limits embedded in them. These programs also are not limited under the current agreement. All other programs are "Amber Box" programs. Amber Box programs are considered the most trade distorting and are limited under the current agreement. Within the Amber Box, programs are classified as product-specific or non-product-specific. These classifications determine the so-called de minimis rules, by which certain Amber Box programs may be exempt from domestic support limits. Support that counts against the limits is referred to as the Aggregate Measure of Support (AMS). The New Framework, Recent Policy Changes, and WTO Rulings The newly agreed upon framework for agricultural domestic support is targeted at achieving substantial reductions in trade-distorting support, the Amber and Blue Box programs. New limits are put in place on de minimis support, Blue Box support, and the product-specific AMS. Total support, as measured by the sum of AMS, de minimis, and Blue Box support, is to be limited. This limit on total support will be tightened during the implementation period. All member states face a 20 percent reduction in the total support limit in the first year of implementation. This reduction is referred to as the "down payment." Recent estimates indicate the United States would have a total support limit of $49 billion per year at the start of the new agreement; a 20 percent reduction would lower the limit to $39 billion. Additional reductions in the total support limit will be based on a tiered formula that is yet to be determined. However, the formula will result in larger reductions for WTO members that have higher levels of permitted support. Total AMS and de minimis permitted levels will also be reduced over the implementation period. The agreement stipulates that product-specific AMS and Blue Box support should only be capped, rather than reduced. However, the framework states that the required reductions in total support and total AMS should also result in reductions in product-specific support. The Blue Box has been redefined to include direct payment schemes that are either production limiting or do not require production at all. A member state's limit for Blue Box support will be based on 5 percent of its average total value of agricultural production over a historical period or the amount of existing Blue Box payments over a historical period, whichever is higher. Green Box guidelines are to be reviewed to ensure that all Green Box programs are minimally trade or production distorting. Both the United States and the European Union have significantly altered their agricultural programs over the last few years. They have moved a great deal of their subsidies to direct payments to agricultural entities. The U.S. direct and counter-cyclical payments and the E.U. Single Farm Payments all fit the description of direct payments. Given the current structure of the Green Box and the new definition of the Blue Box, U.S. direct payments and E.U. Single Farm Payments would be filed as Green Box. U.S. countercyclical payments would go in the Blue Box. These moves give the United States and the European Union a great deal of flexibility in dealing with the proposed reductions. However, the WTO panel ruling on the Brazil-U.S. cotton dispute has concluded that U.S. direct payments "do not fully conform" to the guidelines for Green Box direct payments because of their exclusion of fruit and vegetable production on the payment-base acreage. By the same measure, E.U. Single Farm Payments, too, would not conform to the Green Box requirements. However, it should be relatively easy to fix both issues, so this is probably of minor concern to U.S. and E.U. negotiators. The framework explicitly states that the reductions in total AMS permitted levels "will result in reductions of some product-specific support." But true reductions may not materialize because there are loopholes in market price support (MPS) programs, and member states still have flexibility to provide support through other mechanisms. The change in Japanese rice policy in the late 1990s provides one example of an MPS loophole. Another example would be if the United States made superficial changes to the dairy and sugar programs to fulfill a target in product-specific support reductions without truly affecting actual support. The United States could also lower loan rates in the marketing loan program (reducing product- specific AMS) and augment the countercyclical program to make up the support difference (by changing the target price). Aggregate support would remain the same but would shift from the Amber Box to the Blue Box. The ability of reductions in total AMS permitted levels to force reductions in product-specific support will also hinge on the product-specific AMS limits. These limits have yet to be determined, although the framework does state that the limits will be based on "respective average levels." To guarantee product-specific support reductions, the final level of total permitted AMS must be less than the sum of the product-specific AMS limits. Recommendations for Moving Forward The issues embedded in the current WTO agriculture negotiations are numerous because of the multitude of agricultural programs used by member states throughout the world. Putting all of the programs into categories has allowed negotiators and their advisers to condense this support into manageable points so that further clarifications can be made. Building on the framework for agricultural domestic support, we recommend additional changes. The definition of Green Box policies needs to be re-examined. Given the possible effects of decoupled income support and marketing, transportation, and infrastructure support on world trade, these programs may not truly fit the Green Box target of minimally trade-distorting policies. However, these programs are not directly linked to current production or prices and may have large non-agricultural benefits. Therefore, leaving them in the Green Box but tightening the rules for them may make the most sense. An initially generous Green Box definition may facilitate negotiation of a phase-out of the Amber Box policies, which are the most damaging distortions. Developing countries complain about the large expenditures that sustain E.U. and U.S. farm policies. As these expenditures take place no matter what, competing exporters would be better off with Green Box types of policies than with Amber Box policies. However, this change would mean that net food-importing countries would lose access to cheap food. The export subsidies that keep the costs of food down would disappear with the Amber Box. But trade would be undeniably much less distorted. The current AMS framework for market price support cannot adequately reflect actual support levels. The MPS examples of Japanese rice and U.S. dairy and sugar show the flaws in current AMS calculations for these programs. Moving to an AMS based on current world and domestic prices will better capture the actual level of support and align market price support programs with other Amber Box programs in which actual expenditures are used in the calculations. An alternative would be to remove the MPS programs from both the AMS limits and the current AMS calculations. The way AMS is calculated for MPS in the current agreement has a significant loophole, allowing the possibility that countries can make small changes in official policy (resulting in minimal changes in agricultural trade protection) and provide themselves large cushions from agricultural support reductions. Either of the proposals suggested here would close this loophole. Although the framework has provided the possibility for significant agricultural trade reform in domestic support, the Blue Box cap proposed in the framework is so generous that many programs could be folded into the Blue Box with no effective change in policy. Actually, the MPS loopholes, generous initial AMS bindings, and generous Blue Box caps taken together ensure that no actual change in aggregate support would occur. As the agricultural framework stands now, actual cuts in support may well have to wait for a third round of agricultural negotiations, unless negotiators develop a sudden desire for radical reforms. It may help to remember that it took eight rounds of world trade negotiations to get rid of trade distortions in manufacturing. This article was drawn from a larger working paper of the same name. The full text is available at http://www.card.iastate.edu/products/publications/synopsis/?p=557. ♦ Index of Articles Contact Us · Site Map · RSS News Feed · Links · Staff Intranet Copyright 2017. CARD is a center located within the Department of Economics in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Iowa State University.

农业

2017-09/1015/en_head.json.gz/17062

Carrot Genome A Complete Genome for the Carrot Photo compliments of USDA Agricultural Research Service, where researchers have selectively bred carrots with pigments that reflect almost all colours of the rainbow. More importantly, though, they are very good for your health. Photo by Stephen Ausmus, USDA. Often the evolutionary history of a species can be found in a fossil record. Other times, DNA and genetic fingerprints replace rocks and imprints. That is the case for the carrot, the richest crop source of vitamin A in the American diet, whose full genetic code has been deciphered by a team led by the University of Wisconsin–Madison in collaboration with the University of California, Davis. Introduction - Vavilov (1951) placed the center of origin of cultivated carrot in Central Asia, and an analysis of molecular diversity in wild and cultivated carrots from around the world demonstrated that wild carrots from Central Asia were more similar to cultivated carrots(Iorizzo et al., 2013), confirming Vavilov’s conclusions. Carrots may have been cultivated as a root crop in the Roman Empire, with extensive cultivation first recorded around 900 AD in Central Asia – Afghanistan in particular (Stolarczyk and Janick, 2011;Banga, 1963). Colour has played an important role in the history of carrot domestication. The first Central Asian carrots were yellow or purple, and in the early 1500s, orange carrots were noted in still life paintings and some written accounts in Europe. Central Asian carrots spread first to the west beginning in the 900s, through the Middle East, North Africa, and then Europe; and to the east to South and North Asia (Banga, 1963). Orange carrots are grown globally today but yellow, purple, red, and white carrot land races, and some modern cultivars, are grown on a more limited scale in several parts of the world. Carrot is among the top 10 vegetable crops globally and is a rich source of vitamin A, thanks to the popularity of orange carrots, which contain vitamin A precursors α- and β-carotene (Simon et al., 2009). The lutein in yellow carrots, anthocyanins in purple carrots, and lycopene in red carrots are also well-documented phytochemicals (Arscott and Tanumihardjo, 2010). Carrot is a diploid out crossing crop and all carrot cultivars were open pollinated before the discovery of the first cytoplasmic male sterility (CMS) in carrot by Welch and Grimball (1947). The discovery of CMS in carrot triggered an expanded effort in carrot breeding and genetics, with the development of the first hybrid carrot cultivars and the first genes named in the1960s. By the mid-1980s about 20 simply-inherited traits had been reported. Carrot is typically categorized as a cool season crop and most production is in temperate climates, but subtropical cultivars have been developed and have expanded the climate range of carrot production, especially since the 1970s (Simon, 2000). Philipp Simon is a USDA, ARS Research Geneticist and Professor of Horticulture at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA. His research in vegetable genetics and breeding has focused on carrot improvement and development of breeding tools. He has developed widely used germplasm, co-led the carrot sequencing project with Allen Van Deynze, and collected carrot, Allium, and other vegetable germplasm in 10 collecting expeditions. May 2016 - Scientists have unveiled the gene in carrots that gives rise to carotenoids, a critical source of Vitamin A and the pigment that turns some fruits and vegetables bright orange or red. The new, high-quality genome assembly, which the researchers established for an orange doubled-haploid carrot (Nantes variety), contains more than 32,000 predicted protein-coding genes. .As the researchers reported they were able to track down a candidate gene involved in orange carrot pigmentation and gained insight into the evolution of plants in the euasterid II lineage, which contains carrots, lettuce, sunflower, celery, and parsley. Formally named DCAR_032551, the star gene emerged from the first complete decoding of the carrot genome, published in the scientific journal "Nature Genetics". The gene which "conditions carotenoid accumulation in carrot taproot," according to the research in the science journal Nature Genetics. The researchers believe the gene "regulates upstream photosystem development and functional processes, including photomorphogenesis and root de-etiolation" of the carrot. The study reveals how the orange colour occurs and which genes are involved, and also shows that carrot colour is not genetically connected to flavour. It is fortuitous that coloured carrots became popular, because the pigments are what make carrots nutritious, and orange carrots are the most nutritious of all. University of Wisconsin–Madison horticulture professor and geneticist Phil Simon, who led the research team, said: "Now we have the chance to dig deeper and it's a nice addition to the toolbox for improving the crop." Co-author Allen Van Deynze, Seed Biotechnology Center director of research at the University of California, Davis, added: "This was an important public-private project, and the genomic information has already been made available to assist in improving carrot traits such as enhanced levels of beta-carotene, drought tolerance and disease resistance. Going forward, the genome will serve as the basis for molecular breeding of the carrot." The study reveals that genes for colour and genes associated with preferred flavours are not connected, and that early breeders' preference for orange carrots was fortuitous as the beta-carotene pigments are what make them nutritious, Simon explained. "The accumulation of orange pigments is an accumulation that normally wouldn't happen," he said. "It's a repurposing of genes plants usually use when growing in light." The researchers also sequenced 35 different types of carrots to compare them to their wild ancestors. They showed that carrots were first domesticated in the Middle East and Central Asia, confirming the Vavilov Center of Diversity theory, which predicts cultivated plants arose from specific regions rather than randomly. Sometime about 1,100 years ago, farmers living in what is now Afghanistan took advantage of a mutation in the Y gene that put it to work down in their carrots' roots. In the process of domesticating the white, wild carrot, they turned it yellow. Six hundred years later in Europe, cultivation took another turn, and carrots deepened in hue from yellow to dark orange. It's obvious that farmers were selecting for the mutation that concentrated carotenoids in the carrot root. It's a good thing they did so, too, since it made carrots much more nutritious. But health can't have been bygone breeders' motivation - no one in the 9th century knew what a carotenoid was, let alone that it was a source of a vitamin that's good for our eyes, immune systems and other organs. So Simon examined flavour, to see if colourful carrots tasted better. Again, no dice: Orange carrots and their white counterparts taste pretty much the same. There are other possibilities - perhaps the gene for colour is linked to one for size, or hardiness. Or perhaps historic humans just liked the way yellow and orange carrots looked. Is it possible that this is one question best answered by people, rather than carrots? Senior author Phillip Simon, a horticulture researcher affiliated with the University of Wisconsin at Madison and the US Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Research Service said "The motivation was to get as complete a genome for carrot as we could … for basic knowledge reasons and from the standpoint of crop improvement - It gives us a better handle on genomic regions to track when we're in the plant breeding process, and to get a better handle on the process of gene expression in both basic and applied applications." He also noted that the results are generating interest amongst carrot breeders in the public sector, at academic institutions, and seed companies. Carotenoids were first discovered in carrots (hence the name), but which among the vegetable’s newly tallied 32,115 genes was most responsible for their formation remained a mystery. Daucus carota (the Latin name) now joins a select club of about a dozen veggies — including the potato, cucumber, tomato and pepper — whose complete genomes have been sequenced Laying bare the humble carrot’s genetic secrets will make it easier to enhance disease resistance and nutritive value in other species, the researchers said. Having identified the mechanism controlling the accumulation of carotenoid, it may be possible - through gene-editing, for example — to import it to other staple root vegetables such as the cassava, native to South American and widely grown in Africa. “These results will facilitate biological discovery and crop improvement in carrots and other crops,” said Philipp Simon, senior author and a professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Interestingly, carrots — along with many other plants — have about 20 percent more genes than humans. This enables carrots to better thrive and develop through changing environmental conditions. Looking back at the plant’s family tree, scientists have been able to determine that it split with the grape about 113 million years ago and from the kiwi about 10 million years after that. The research team traced carrot evolution as far back as the dinosaurs. Sometime between the Cretaceous and Paleogene periods - roughly around the time dinosaurs went extinct - carrots, along with other plants of the era, picked up genetic advantages that allowed them to thrive in differing environmental conditions. At 32,000 genes, the carrot genome is a good deal longer than that of humans (somewhere between 20,000 and 25,000 genes). It's not actually surprising that a lowly carrot's DNA would have to be more sophisticated than a human's, after all, plants can't choose or change their environments, so they need to prepare for all contingencies, stocking their genome with traits that can be turned on or off depending on changing environmental circumstances. The Technical Bits To delve into carrot traits and the history of the euasterid II clade, the researchers performed Illumina paired-end sequencing on libraries with a range of insert sizes on an orange, doubled-haploid, Nantes-type carrot called DH1, which has an estimated genome size of 473 million bases. The sequence data was then combined with bacterial artificial chromosome end reads and linkage map data. They also sequenced RNA from 20 DH1 carrot tissues and did genome re-sequencing on representatives from 35 carrot accessions spanning several D. carota sub-species or outgroups. The reference genome assembly spanned 421.5 million bases, with nearly half of assembled sequences stemming from transposable elements and other repetitive sequences. The team's annotation efforts uncovered 32,113 predicted protein-coding genes — including thousands of suspected regulatory genes — along with almost 250 microRNAs, and more than 1,000 more non-coding RNAs. "It's a relatively small genome," Simon said, "and that certainly played into our ability to be able to say that … it's one of the most complete [plant genomes] in coverage and contiguity." From the re-sequencing data, the researchers identified almost 1.4 million high-quality SNPs, which they used to cluster the carrot accessions into groups coinciding with plant geography, origins in Central Asia, and cultivation history. The study confirmed that the “Y” gene is responsible for the difference between white carrots and yellow or orange carrots. It is one of two genes responsible for converting ancestral wild-type white carrots to orange ones. It also identified a new, previously unknown gene that contributes to the accumulation of the colourful compounds. The newly discovered gene is actually a defect in a metabolic pathway that appears to be related to light sensing, the researchers said. Plants derive their own nutrition through light sensing, or photosynthesis, but roots like carrots aren’t normally exposed to light and do not need photosynthetic pigments like carotenoids. The carrot has, in a sense, repurposed genes that plants usually use when growing in light. The researchers also compared the carrot genome to sequences from more than a dozen other plants ranging from potato and tomato plants in the euasterid I clade — which diverged from carrot ancestors around 90.5 million years ago — to more distantly related grape and kiwi plants. They saw evidence of two past whole-genome duplications in the carrot lineage, one taking place roughly 70 million years ago, with a more recent duplication occurring an estimated 43 million years ago. Meanwhile, the researchers' fine mapping search for genes related to key carrot traits led them to a candidate gene called DCAR_032551 on chromosome 5 that appears to influence the accumulation of the carotenoid pigment, turning otherwise white carrots orange. That pigment is mainly found in domestic carrots, Simon explained, and was not documented prior to the 16th century when it first appeared in Europe. In addition to the "generic" carrot genome, the researchers also sequenced DNA from 35 different wild and cultivated specimens and sub-species to shed light on domestication patterns. The carrot genome would assist the identification of other candidate genes behind "healthy" plant compounds such as flavonoids, as well as mechanisms involved in stress resistance, growth, flowering, seed production and regeneration, said the scientists. All these properties were said to be "important traits for sustained agricultural production and improved human health". The team is now following up on this and other leads from the study, including genes that may contribute to the production of anthocyanin, lycopene, and lutein pigments that lend some carrots their purple, red, and yellow colouring, respectively. Simon noted that the researchers are also investigating genes involved in resistance to plant disease or pests such as nematodes, and genes that mediate key plant growth features or response to abiotic stressors such as drought. Reference - Nature Genetics (2016) doi:10.1038/ng.3565 Received 23 September 2015 Accepted 11 April 2016 Published online 09 May 2016 link here Next Page - The History of Carrot Colours Reference material here. Also read the Comprehensive Review of Carrot Colors and their properties here.

农业

2017-09/1015/en_head.json.gz/18409

Hydroponics (2) ►Alternatives/Organics (719) ▼Chemicals (2799) WordPress.org « Scientists Determine 99.6% of Lice Resistant to Chemical Treatment Pesticides Linked to 30% Decline in French Men’s Sperm Count » 12 Mar Pesticide Blamed for Deaths of Hundreds of Wild Birds (Beyond Pesticides, March 12, 2014) As many as 700 birds have been found dead in a wildlife reserve in New South Wales, Australia. Preliminary tests reveal that the pesticide, fenthion, was the cause of death for many little correlas, galahs and sulphur-crested cockatoos found over the past two weeks. Certain uses of fenthion for home gardens and a range of agricultural uses were scheduled for suspension by the Australian Government, but a few months ago fenthion use, long associated with bird kills, was extended for another year. For the past two weeks, dead birds have been found all along a mile of Troy Reserve on the Talbragar River, in New South Wales, Australia. Testing of samples from the dead birds indicated fenthion, an organophosphate insecticide highly toxic to birds, as the most likely cause of the deaths. Volunteers helped gather the carcasses to prevent raptors, such as whistling kites and tawny frogmouths, from feeding on the poisoned carrion. About 30 sick birds, including two kites, have been so far been rescued. Locals found the first deaths on February 27 but were initially prevented from collecting the carcasses out of concern about possible bird flu. About 200 dead birds were found on the first day of cleanup alone. The predominantly affected species is the little corella and with the number of deaths so high, ecologists and environmentalists believe this will have an impact on the local population. “We’ve got fantastically beautiful bird populations out here,” said Ann Mara, chairwoman of the Wildlife Information, Rescue and Education Service (WIRES) wildlife rescue group. “This is a significant loss.” According to the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA), the agency which oversees pesticide registration in Australia, in September 2012 a proposal was announced to suspend the use of fenthion products in certain horticultural situations, as well as in the home garden, on the basis of concerns regarding residues in food crops. Information relating to residues on certain fruit was assessed and it was concluded that the potential dietary exposure resulting from the use of fenthion on peaches and apricots was unacceptable. APVMA issued new instructions for use prohibiting the continued use of fenthion on certain horticultural crops, and modifying or restricting the use of fenthion on other crops including fruit fly treatments of many fruits and vegetables. Use of fenthion on food producing plants in the home garden was prohibited. However, in October 2013 the APVMA delayed the suspension of these fenthion uses until 30 October 2014. Unfortunately, had fenthion been suspended as first initiated in 2012, there may have been a different outcome for these bird populations. Fenthion is very highly toxic to birds and highly toxic to estuarine/marine invertebrates and non-target organisms. In the U.S., fenthion was registered to control adult mosquitoes only. In 2002, American Bird Conservancy, Defenders of Wildlife, and the Florida Wildlife Federation filed a law suit in Federal District Court against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to stop the continued use of fenthion in Florida. The suit said the registration of the pesticide, sold under the name Baytex to kill mosquitoes in several counties in the state, violated the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Migratory Bird Treaty Act. In 2003, the registrant, Bayer, voluntarily canceled all its fenthion product registrations. Over the years the chemical was implicated in several bird kill incidents, including bird kills on Marco Island, Florida. According to the American Bird Conservancy, other incidents involving bird mortality from the use of fenthion for mosquito control have been reported. In California, American goldfinch, gulls, ducks, shorebirds, green-backed heron, egrets, and many other species of passerine birds have been found after fenthion sprays for mosquito and/or midge control. In 1970 in Louisiana, more than 1,000 birds were reported dead after a fenthion application. In Massachusetts and Idaho, robins, sparrows, catbirds, and sandpipers have also been killed. With the bird kill in Australia, there is concern about higher-order birds, such as eagles, that may prey on poisoned birds, as well as concerns about long-term effects on bird populations. It is still unknown how the birds came into contact with the pesticide and the local authorities are asking for public information on the possible misuse of pesticides in the region. Water samples from the nearby Macquarie River have also been tested and preliminary results indicate that no pesticides have been detected. Birds face challenges from the widespread use of pesticides. A 2013 study led by a preeminent Canadian toxicologist, Pierre Mineau, Ph.D., identifies acutely toxic pesticides as the most likely leading cause of the widespread decline in grassland bird numbers in the U.S. The report finds that the best predictor of bird declines is the lethal risk from insecticide use modeled from pesticide impact studies. Organic solutions to pest control and land management are the best ways to protect of bird and non-target wildlife populations. Join us and continue the conversation with Dr. Mineau at Beyond Pesticides’ 32nd National Pesticide Forum, Advancing Sustainable Communities: People, Pollinators and Practices, April 11-12, 2013, Portland State University, Portland, OR to discuss organic solutions for protecting our environment. This years’ forum will focus on solutions to the decline of pollinators and other beneficials; strengthening the organic food production system; regulating and right-to-know genetically engineered food; improving farmworker protection and agricultural justice; and creating healthy buildings, schools and homes. Source and Photo: The Sydney Morning Herald All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides. on Wednesday, March 12th, 2014 at 12:01 am and is filed under Chemicals, Fenthion, International, Wildlife/Endangered Sp.. 3 Responses to “Pesticide Blamed for Deaths of Hundreds of Wild Birds” 1 GMOsRFakeScience4FakeScientists Says: The government of Australia appears to be as corrupt as most any anywhere. Come on, Aussies! We all need to fight for your beautiful country and world. March 12th, 2014 at 4:14 pm 2 Jane Peters Says: Birds aren’t pests. Why are they being killed? Jorge Says: AS a result of these birds being killed do you think this may also blame the landscape architects that designed the farming land? August 8th, 2015 at 12:05 am Leave a Reply

农业

2017-09/1015/en_head.json.gz/19235

Captive Labor The plight of Peruvian sheepherders illuminates broader exploitation of immigrant workers in U.S. agriculture. ALVARO BEDOYA This article is from the September/October 2003 issue of Dollars and Sense: The Magazine of Economic Justice available at http://www.dollarsandsense.org This article is from the September/October 2003 issue of Dollars & Sense magazine. at a discount. On the night of June 25, 2000, Remigio Damián, a Peruvian shepherd, collapsed on the doorstep of a local farmer. Feverish and frail, Remigio had spent the past four days walking through mountains and pastures to escape his employer—a prominent local landowner—who he alleged had thrown him to the ground in a fit of rage. According to Remigio, his boss had housed him in a tent for months at a time, and frequently failed to provide him sufficient food, leaving him half-starved in remote areas of arid highland. One year later, after a slow and bureaucratic government investigation into the matter, Remigio's boss was handed the following sentence: not a dime to be paid in fines, not a day to be spent in jail, just a requirement that he write a manual on how he will treat new hires… Stereotype has it that such abuse and injustice is confined to remote regions of the Third World, but Remigio did not work in the pastures of Cusco, or anywhere near the Andes. Remigio Damián worked in Colorado for Louis Peroulis, a wealthy rancher, and his case is typical of what may be the most exploited group of laborers in America: foreign sheepherders. Beginning in 1957, American sheep ranchers began importing sheepherders, primarily from the Basque country of northern Spain. When the Spanish economic situation improved in the 1970s, the sheep industry turned to a poorer region: the Peruvian highlands. Today, over 2,100 foreign sheepherders work for American ranchers. The sheepherders are almost all from central Peru—with a few exceptions from Chile, Mexico, and Mongolia. With the help of this impoverished (and effectively captive) workforce, American ranchers have been able to keep labor costs at a minimum, actually decreasing herders' real (inflation-adjusted) earnings by 50% to 70% over the past 50 years. Since the passage of the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, the federal government has allowed agribusiness to import "temporary guest workers" from abroad to perform agricultural work that U.S. citizens are presumably unable or unwilling to undertake. Known as "H-2A" workers for the statute providing for their immigration visas, these laborers are bound by federal law to work only for the employer that sponsored their entry, and are required to return to their country of origin upon the completion of their contract. Should H-2A workers decide to leave their jobs, they can be imprisoned and eventually deported. Like most H-2A workers, sheepherders toil in remote areas. In the spring and summer months, most sheepherders are given a mule and a tent and are sent to graze their flock—typically consisting of 750 to 1,250 sheep—in high pastures. From November to March, the "lambing season" when new lambs are born, herders return to the ranch—itself typically located in a distant, rural area—to assist in lambing and to facilitate the shearing and slaughter of selected sheep. While lamb meat and wool—the chief products of the American sheep industry—find their way into every supermarket or department store in the country, Americans rarely see the abuse and exploitation that it takes to produce these popular commodities. Sheepherders' suffering is invisible to the �public. In the summer of 2002, I traveled to California to have a closer look at the living and working conditions of these laborers. Over two months, I interviewed industry representatives, government officials, and 32 current and former sheepherders. The suffering and squalor that I found was highly troubling in its own right, but even more unsettling for the implications it had for H-2A workers and for all agricultural labor in the United States. "Even in Peru We Don't Live Like This" Nationally, with the exception of California, Oregon, and North Dakota, sheepherders are not paid more than $750 per month. In California, the pay is higher ($1,200 per month) thanks to the efforts of labor advocates. These income figures can be deceiving, however. Herders are not paid for a month of nine-to-five workdays: sheepherders are on-site, on the job, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Whether they are grazing their charges in higher pastures during the summer, or tending to newborn lambs in the winter, most herders are specifically prohibited from leaving their work site. "We can only go into town to shop or visit friends if we escape our camps at night without the rancher noticing," lamented one herder. Their back-breaking labor literally never ends: 80% of herders reported not having a single day of rest in at least the past year, many for much longer. Taking this into account, hourly wages for herders are pitifully low, ranging between $1 and $3 per hour, far lower than the $5.15 minimum wage guaranteed by law to most other workers in the United States. But the sheepherders' wages are not illegal. In fact, each year the Department of Labor (DOL) actually sets wage floors by state for H-2A sheepherders at these subsistence levels. Ranchers respond to these criticisms by noting that all herders are provided room and board free of charge. Unfortunately, for over 95% of the herders I interviewed, "room" meant a cloth tent or a dilapidated trailer. (Some ranchers were more creative, though: two years ago, the Peruvian consulate learned that a group of Arizona herders was housed in a broken down school bus.) Regardless of whether a herder was housed in a trailer, tent, or covered wagon, conditions were abysmal. Though summer temperatures in California's Central Valley can rise up to 110�, not a single sheepherder had air conditioning. Though temperatures can dip below freezing in the winter, not one sheepherder's housing unit was equipped with a heating system. Moreover, not a single herder interviewed was provided with a toilet; every single herder was given a shovel with which to bury his excrement. "Board" was as inadequate as "room." With few exceptions, herders' rations consisted of lamb meat, either salted or slaughtered on-site, and canned goods. The majority of herders reported receiving the same food week after week, and noted that they were rarely given fresh fruit. One herder described his entire food supply for the year as "four lambs and canned food. Nothing else." Another, lacking a way to refrigerate the meat he was given, kept it in a red burlap sack hidden under his cot. "This way the dogs can't get to it," he explained. Herders reported that under these conditions, their meat often rotted in less than four days, forcing them to finish their weekly ration by the middle of the week. While herding sheep may sound safe and easy, herders perform many related tasks that place them at great risk, such as moving 100- to 200-pound coils of fence and driving on treacherous roads to reach new camps. Herders in California and Nevada are exposed to an additional threat—Valley Fever, a fungal infection triggered by Coccidioides immitis spores native to California's Central Valley. Though Valley Fever can be treated if detected, it is almost unknown outside of California, Nevada, and northern Mexico. Doctors in Peru are largely unaware of how to detect or treat it, meaning that afflicted herders returning to their home country often suffer a progression to more advanced, fatal stages. This combination of inclement weather, dangerous and exhausting work, and almost total isolation from the outside world makes sheepherding one of the most dangerous occupations in the United States. Though there are no published fatality statistics for sheepherding, at least six sheepherders—Edgar Estrella, Apolinario Qui�ones, Edmundo Serva Orihuela, Najario Soto, Carlos Aldana, and Jose Manuel Hilario Hinojo—died between 1995 and 1999 in California alone. Even if we only count two of the six deaths as job related—indeed, the deaths of Najario Soto, who died of exposure, and Edmundo Serva Orihuela, who died of Valley Fever, were definitively work related—the annual fatality rate would still be 80 deaths per 100,000 employees, as there are approximately 500 sheepherders in the state. This is a figure four times the average rate for agricultural industries. It's even greater than that of the American industry with the highest reported fatality rate: mining. Ranchers do not match herders' heightened risks with heightened care. Instead, ranchers often abandon workers who complain about their problems. One former worker, Lorenzo Mosquera, spoke of a particularly tragic episode: his employer ignored his repeated requests to see a doctor and left him at a local hotel once he could no longer work. Two days later, due to the employer's information, the Immigration and Naturalization Service arrested the herder for being "out of status." Because his boss had kept his visa and passport, Lorenzo could not prove his status, and spent two months in federal prison before being released on the intervention of the Peruvian consulate. The indifference of Lorenzo's employer is no anomaly. In 2000, Central California Legal Services conducted a survey of sheepherders, and asked what happened when they complained to their employers. Their responses are chilling: "He attacked me and soon he fired me," said one herder. "He fired me from the job, telling me I was a nobody," said another. A third sheepherder was told that he could "die behind the sheep." As one herder noted: "In Peru, I would make less than 500 soles (about $143) per month for this work. But there, we aren't alone—even in Peru, we don't live like this." A Federal Fleecing Perhaps more egregious than the sheepherders' substandard working conditions is the fact that the law facilitates their exploitation: Peruvian sheepherders are legal workers, and it is legal to do these things to them. It is legal to house a herder in a tent. It is legal to give him a shovel instead of a bathroom. It is legal to pay him two dollars an hour and force him to be "on the job" continuously, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Due to a decades-long relationship between ranchers and federal legislators, federal law books are riddled with rancher-friendly exceptions to national labor standards. On the most basic level, sheepherders are exempt from the hourly minimum wage of $5.15 to which most Americans are entitled. Instead, herders receive a monthly minimum wage set by the Department of Labor. With the exception of California, North Dakota, and Oregon, this comes out to either $650 or $750 per month. Herders are also exempt from federal regulations that require workers to take rest breaks every several hours. As Department of Labor regulations state, herders can be "on call for up to 24 hours a day, 7 days a week." In California and Nevada, ranchers and officials at state enforcement agencies interpret this to mean that herders can be required to be on-site 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Compared to other migrant workers—and even other H-2A temporary agricultural workers—housing regulations for sheepherders are effectively non-existent. While regulations for H-2A and other migrant farm workers go into extensive detail about the structure of their housing—specifying everything from ceiling height to the thickness of window mesh—sheepherders can legally be housed in tents "where terrain and/or land regulations do not permit use of other more substantial mobile housing." While federal regulations for H-2A worker housing require that toilets be constructed if public sewers aren't available, sheepherder regulations state that "pits [can be] used for the disposal or burying of excreta and liquid waste" so long as they are "kept fly-tight when not filled in completely after each use." Ranchers and Department of Labor inspectors typically interpret this provision to mean that herders can be supplied with shovels instead of toilets. While H-2A housing regulations closely regulate farm workers' access to cooking facilities (including food refrigeration), federal law allows ranchers to feed herders "salted" unrefrigerated meat when "mechanical refrigeration of food is not feasible." Not only do H-2A workers lack the right to organize, strike, and bargain collectively—H-2As, like most agricultural workers, are exempt from the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)—they also lack the ability to switch employers or quit their employment. Their H-2A agricultural guest worker visas prohibit them from working for anyone other than the employer who sponsored their entry. If a herder is assigned to an abusive, exploitative employer, he is not free to quit his job to look for better employment. He is not even free to leave his job site. If a herder were to do any of these things, he could be—and many have been—imprisoned and deported. Lance Compa, writing on behalf of Human Rights Watch, summed up their plight: "H-2A workers are caught in the antithesis of a free labor system, unable to exercise rights of association but also unable to move to another employer to seek better terms." The wool industry's push to disenfranchise sheepherders continues to this day. While labor advocates like Chris Schneider, managing attorney of Central California Legal Services, repeatedly fail to get an audience with the Department of Labor's Employment and Training Administration (ETA) officials, federal documents show that James Holt, an economic consultant for the Western Range Association (WRA), the leading rancher industry group, has regular meetings and correspondence with ETA officials. This unrestricted access has given the WRA decisive influence over the revision of existing ETA sheepherder regulations. For example, while the WRA was able to convince the ETA to implement a new, streamlined process for requesting additional H-2A sheepherders, archaic provisions—such as those that allow sheepherders to be housed in tents—have remained untouched for decades. The wool industry's influence is not limited to cabinet agencies. Senator Larry Craig of Idaho—who is pushing to expand the current H-2A program—recently proposed a further decrease in the federally mandated sheepherder minimum wage. If his bill were to pass, it would only add to the decades-long erosion of sheepherders' meager earnings. One Sheep in the Flock It is tempting to label the squalor and legal powerlessness experienced by sheepherders as an anomaly, an exception in an otherwise safe agricultural industry with a legally empowered workforce. When we look across American agriculture, however, we can see that exploitation and legal powerlessness are prevailing conditions. Sheepherders form a small subset of all H-2A agricultural guest workers. Like sheepherders, almost all H-2A guest workers work in physically dangerous sectors of American agriculture. In the 1980s and early 1990s, for example, most H-2A workers entered the sugar industry, harvesting long stalks of cane with razor-sharp machetes—a job so dangerous that it was commonplace for workers to lose fingers during the harvest. Today, the two largest importers of H-2A labor—primarily from Mexico, Guatemala, and other Central American countries—are tobacco farmers and fruit growers. H-2A fruit pickers commonly suffer from falls and exposure to pesticides. And a recent study published by the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine revealed that nearly a quarter of all North Carolina tobacco workers surveyed had suffered from nicotine poisoning, or "green tobacco sickness," at some point during the previous harvest. Combined, tobacco and fruit bring in over half of all H-2A workers. The use of heavy machinery, exposure to pesticides, and poor access to health care make agriculture generally a high-risk occupation whether one is an H-2A worker or not. While the average fatality rate for all industries in the United States is 4.3 deaths per 100,000 individuals employed, the fatality rate for agriculture is five times higher. Despite the higher risks associated with their employment, just like sheepherders and other H-2A guest workers, all agricultural workers are subject to a distinctly lower level of legal safeguards than other U.S. workers. Only a minority of agricultural workers—scholars estimate around 35%—are legally entitled to the minimum wage and unemployment insurance, and no agricultural employees receive overtime pay. Also, though agricultural workers are subject to housing standards in the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, the work site regulations issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration for agricultural jobs are cursory at best, only requiring that bathroom and hand-washing facilities be available at job sites. More importantly, since all agricultural workers are exempt from the NLRA, they all lack the right to organize, strike, and bargain collectively with their employers. While we would normally expect the law to most protect those most in need of protection, with agricultural labor, it does the exact opposite: the more vulnerable the agricultural worker, the less likely he is to be protected, and the more likely he is to be actively restricted by federal standards from taking steps to protect himself. Indeed, when we compare the rights of agricultural workers in general, H-2A workers, and foreign sheepherders, as is done in the table, this pattern is unsettlingly clear. On one of my first days interviewing herders in California, I met a man named Aureliano Figueroa, who told me the following story: One day, I fell sick and my bones ached… and I had a very strong fever. I asked the campero [manager] to visit the doctor. He said, "Go to your tent and don't come out." I asked him [again] and he just gave me three pills and told me, "Go to your tent and don't come out." And I wanted to see the doctor, but the money wasn't enough. I couldn't leave, anyway, not without the campero's permission. I tried to cure my fever with some plants I picked… a friend of mine showed me how… but I just kept on shaking. It didn't stop until [three days later]. Nowadays I try to keep myself warm, but sometimes during the lambing season you have to be up all night, or so early in the morning that it doesn't matter what you're wearing. I just don't want to get sick again. Maybe the campero would take me to the doctor this time. Although some might be tempted to attribute Figueroa's suffering to the cruelty of his employer, his experience could only have occurred in the context of a legal system that permitted and encouraged his exploitation. In the wealthiest nation in the world, in the 21st century, this is unconscionable. Sheepherders' abysmal working conditions should be made illegal. They should be able to quit their jobs without fear of imprisonment or deportation. Moreover, sheepherders must be given the right to organize—a right which, like all agricultural workers in the United States, they are currently denied. Alvaro Bedoya was born in Peru and raised in upstate New York. He recently graduated from Harvard College with a degree in Social Studies, and will enter Yale Law School in the fall of 2004 to study labor and immigration law. Home 2017 archive2016 archive2015 archive2014 archive2013 archive2012 archive2011 archive2010 archive2009 archive2008 archive2007 archive2006 archive2005 archive2004 archive2003 archive2002 archive2001 archive2000 archive1999 archive1998 archive1997 archive1996 archive D&S books About D&S Get involved D&S blog Please note our new address: Dollars & Sense89 South St., LL02Boston, MA 02111 USA © 2017 Economic Affairs Bureau, Inc.

农业

2017-09/1015/en_head.json.gz/19397

Pig Farming in Poland By John Feffer I know a bit about dairy farming since I spent my summers growing up in the dairy country of Vermont's Northern Kingdom. But my knowledge of pig farming is all second-hand and comes mostly from Annie Proulx's novel That Old Ace in the Hole, a devastating indictment of industrial farming in Oklahoma. What remains in my memory are the huge holding ponds of pig excrement and the unholy smell. So I was pleasantly surprised to visit the pig farm of Adam and Anna Janeczek, located in the village of Wyborow, a couple hours east of Warsaw. Their neighborhood looked practically suburban, with neat houses lined up one side of the street and well-tended fields on the other side. I didn't smell any pigs, and I certainly didn't see any holding ponds. Behind the Janeczek's house, small enough to be concealed from the road by a few trees, lay their pig operation (pictured above). We sat in their scrupulously clean living room to chat. Theirs is a family farm, which is nothing like the industrial farming that dominates American agriculture. The Janeczeks keep about 90 sows and produce about 1,300 piglets a year that they then fatten up and sell. When Poland entered the European Union in 2004, it became much cheaper for Polish pig farmers to simply buy piglets from countries like Denmark and then raise them for sale. They could then dispense with all the buildings and equipment and expertise needed to produce their own piglets. But the Janeczeks continue to maintain the older traditions that their family have held to for the century or so that their farm has been in existence. It's not easy to be a small farmer in Poland. "It's frustrating, for instance, that the state wants to subsidize sows when you have 150 or more," Anna Janeczek told me. That's for industrial farms. We have 85 or so. So, we'd be interested in seeing subsidies for farms with 50 sows or more. That would be fair for us. But this government that we have only gives advantages to the big farmers. Adam Janeczek agreed. "All the time people talk about healthy food," he said. In my opinion, and this is the great deception, the production of large firms is not possible without drugs, antibiotics and so on. They don't have time to take care of one pig at a time. But if we're talking about small farms, family farms, there's much less risk of illness, so the food is healthier. We have less waste, and we dispose of it properly. But politics is a different matter, as you probably understand. Much has changed since the end of the Communist era. When Janeczek was in Norway in the 1980s, he was shocked when the farmer he was visiting went to a store to buy only two screws. "Why two screws?" he asked. Because with us if there were screws in the shop, if they were available, you'd get a kilo, or two or five. If they were there. But we went to the store in Norway and there was no problem. The screws were there, and he bought just two of them. I came back to Poland and I wanted to buy screws and there weren't any. Today, the stores are full of products, but they're more expensive and people don't necessarily have the money to buy them. "Some farmers think logically and buy the machine only if it's necessary," his wife said. Other farmers see a low price and buy it even if they don't need it. They buy the new tractor even if they can't afford it. That's why there's all this debt. But we don't have that kind of debt. The fact is there's a lot of equipment in the countryside. There might not be a lot of buildings and there might not be a lot inside people's houses, but outside in the yard there's a lot of equipment. It's not a life that is attracting many young people to relocate to the countryside. "My husband's no longer a spring chicken," she continued. He has a combine. At this point it's worn out but my husband still uses it. The young people don't want to work in these conditions. They don't want to work nights. My husband is a born farmer. He works for the idea of it. Sometimes we argue because I'd like some repairs on the house, and he doesn't because it needs work there and there and there: it's a bottomless pit. But the young generation wants something different. They don't want to work all the time because of an idea. They only have to see that it's necessary to harvest, to thresh, and you can't just get it over with quickly and go on vacation. My husband still does it this way. What was the situation like 23 years ago here at the farm? Husband: If we're talking about the economy, before 1989 there was money but no goods in the stores. And today there are goods but no money. It's the reverse. In 1988, I left the country for the first time. I was in Norway. And there was a store with machines, tractors. I thought stupidly, "Damn, they have all these products but no one to buy them!" And now that's the situation with us too. It's a question of money. I'll tell you, before 1989 it was rather common for farmers to be taken care of in some way by the state. There was no room for maneuver. There were no goods, nothing to buy. But now, after all the changes, enterprises developed. Now it's necessary to have a finger on the pulse of what's going on in order to control the situation. Wife: We're farmers, and certainly we don't have influence over the situation. For instance, chemical fertilizers are terribly expensive. The means of production for farmers include tractors, machines. Everything is entrepreneurial. In our example, for instance, we can't increase our landholding even if we want, because everyone wants to buy land and land is relatively expensive and there's none to buy. Now I'm thinking about our son Tomek. He might prefer to grow grain and not raise animals. But that would be very hard to do. So, you see, we don't have a lot of room for maneuver. All the equipment is pretty expensive. If Tomek wants to remain connected to the farm -- and he still hasn't made up his mind -- we don't know if it will even pay to do so. Husband: But you asked what changed. Very little changed. Wife: The equipment got expensive. Before it was cheap, before 1989. Everything was cheaper then. Husband: Yes, but -- Wife: But you got paid right away. Husband: As my wife said, in 1989 goods were produced, they were sold, and you got money at the end. Immediately. And now, after these changes, a bunch of cheaters started to move into agriculture. After two weeks, a month, the payments weren't made and in the end the firm disappeared somewhere and some people declared bankruptcy, and it was just unfair. So, that changed. We would sell goods and not get paid. But now, actually, the situation has changed so that we get a remittance and after two or three weeks, we get paid. The situation has stabilized. But still the main problem is that farmers here in Poland, because of politics, didn't get any stake in meat-processing plants like in Denmark or where farmers are part of cooperatives. We don't have that here. We have dairies where farmers are shareholders and they get dividends. But farmers who produce pork or lamb are not shareholders in the meat-processing firms. And also they don't have any influence over the prices or the bonuses or the dividends. Wife: Especially over prices. We sell where we can get a good price. But there's not a lot of choice. One place is cheaper today, another tomorrow but it's a lot further away. It used to be that old clients were predictable. Now you have to wheel and deal. Husband: When the changes took place and firms collapsed, it was precisely the farmers who suffered. And later it was obvious who was opening things up here: various city slickers who had capital. And we knew all about them. For a farmer in Poland, during those years of Communism or socialism or whatever you call it, there wasn't general poverty. Farming was normal: food was produced normally. We had private producers in Poland. That's why I say that there wasn't anything new with these changes, with privatization. All the time we were working privately. Progress certainly came to the countryside, as in the entire EU. The first thing that came to the countryside were telephones. Wife: That was in 1990. And only the mayor had a telephone. Husband: And now everyone has a cellphone. And that's great. Wife: There's another plus that I'd like to boast about. We work quickly now because we pay our bills electronically. We don't have to involve an accountant because everything is computerized. Through the telephone, we can connect to the Internet, pay our bills, read things on screen, make our sowing plans - all on the computer. Husband: The invoices, the payments: everything is on the computer.That's the way it is in America as well these days in the countryside. When I was a kid, there was no Internet, no cell phone. Husband: Exactly.So it was a completely different situation for agriculture 30 years ago. For the rest of the interview, click here. Follow John Feffer on Twitter: www.twitter.com/johnfeffer Director, Foreign Policy In Focus and Editor, LobeLog; Author of 'Splinterlands' Poland Farming Agriculture Eastern Europe Europe

农业

2017-09/1015/en_head.json.gz/19991

Home Gardening Chelsea Flower Show is such a garden inspiration bwatts CompleteInspiration The grounds of the Royal Hospital in London’s Chelsea have been transformed into a floral paradise We’re delighted to tell you two very special garden varieties from Woman’s Weekly’s Shop have been shortlisted for Plant Of The Year at the RHS Chelsea Flower Show 2015. The dazzling dwarf raspberry cultibar Raspberry Ruby Beauty (‘Nr 7’) is perfect for small containers and our climbing Fuchsia ‘Pink Fizz’ is a mass of sugar-pink blooms. Raspberry Ruby Beauty (‘Nr7’) and Fuchsia ‘Pink Fizz’ made the Chelsea Flower Show 2015 Plant Of The Year Short List Our Gardening Editor, Adrienne Wild, is a big fan of Chelsea and is always excited about seeing new varieties on show. ‘Chelsea Flower Show is the highlight of the gardening year. For over 100 years, it’s wowed visitors, from home and abroad, with the best ideas, trends and style that horticulture has to offer,’ she says. ‘Of course, it’s the plants that are the stars. People don’t just admire the amazing variety, but also how the plants are persuaded by their expert growers to be at their best (sometimes out of season) for one week at the end of May. ‘Visit the event and you’ll find over 600 exhibitors competing to show off their horticultural talents and vying for a coveted Gold Medal. You’ll get a first glimpse of gems being launched by plant breeders, and see emerging design trends – giving you inspiration for everything from great plant combos to the latest look for your patio. ‘And if you go on the last day, you could snap up some real bargains, as exhibitors sell their plants from about 4pm.’ The display of plants at Chelsea Flower Show 2015 is breathtaking Here’s what to look else to look out for this year Prince Harry – his charity, Sentebale, will have a garden inspired by the Sentebale Mamohato Children’s Centre. It provides residential camps for children affected by HIV and AIDS in Lesotho, Africa. The garden aims to give visitors a taste of Lesotho with a rock/waterscape feature that represents the area’s mountainous terrain. The main sponsor of 2015 Chelsea Flower Show, the M&G garden has been designed by Jo Thompson. It will be a quintessentially British retreat with a two-storey oak framed building, a large natural swimming pond and a display of tumbling roses and peonies. The triangle garden, which can be viewed from all three sides, has been designed by Dan Pearson for Champagne house Laurent-Perrier, capturing the spirit of Chatsworth estate in Derbyshire. The RHS Chelsea Flower Show runs from 19-23 May. For more info about the RHS, and to book tickets for its Shows, visit rhs.org.uk or call 0844 338 0338. A Japanese garden of contrasting foliage is stunning A potted history 1862 The Royal Horticultural Society’s first Great Spring Show – the forerunner of RHS Chelsea – was held in the RHS garden in Kensington, before moving to Temple Gardens (and becoming known as The Temple Show) in the heart of London, where it ran until 1911. 1912 The great nurseryman, Sir Harry Veitch, secured the grounds of the Royal Hospital, Chelsea, for a one-off show. It proved such a good site that the Great Spring Show was moved there in 1913 (the start of the Chelsea Flower Show as we know it), and has taken place almost every year since. 1914-1918 Despite the First World War, the event was held in 1914 and 1916, but not in 1917 and 1918. 1926 The Show opened a week late due to the General Strike. 1932 A summerhouse was demolished by torrential rain; this year is often referred to as ‘The Chelsea Shower Flow’. 1937 King George VI and Queen Elizabeth celebrated their Coronation Year, and to mark the occasion, an Empire Exhibition was staged, complete with a prickly pear from Palestine, pines from Canada, and gladioli from East Africa. 1940s Chelsea was cancelled during the Second World War, when the hospital grounds were used as an anti-aircraft site. 1951 The Great Marquee was pitched for the first time. It was the world’s largest tent, measuring 3.5 acres. 1956 Flower-arranging was allocated its very own tent. 1958 BBC coverage of the show began. 1988 Attendance became so popular that a cap of 157,000 visitors was put on the event. 2013 In the Show’s 100th year, the famous ban on garden gnomes, usually deemed too tacky to display, was lifted (for one year only). Sculpture enhances a charming garden at Chelsea Flower Show 2015 Chelsea by numbers There are around 250 stands across the site and 100 exhibits in the Grand Pavilion. It takes 800 people 33 days to build the show from bare grass to glorious displays. In 2014, visitors to the show drank 1,150 glasses of champagne, 6,400 glasses of Pimm’s and 10,560 hot drinks, and ate over 10,000 portions of fish and chips! The Grand Pavilion is roughly 11,775 square metres – big enough to house 500 London buses. The annual cycle of planning lasts 15 months, which means arrangements for next year’s show have already begun. On average, 165,000 people visit the Show each year. Order plants on the Woman’s Weekly Shop Visit our website to order either of our plants that were shortlisted for Plant Of The Year. Whether you would like our Raspberry Ruby Beauty (‘Nr 7’), or our Fuchsia ‘Pink Fizz’, it’s simple to place your order online, and, your plants will be delivered straight to your door. How To Make: A cat cross stitch Learn crochet from the start – how to hold your hook and yarn How To Knit: Lace knitting 15 things you definitely need to know when you’re knitting Clangers How to do Tunisian crochet How To Make A Dress: How to sew a dress with stay stitch How To Make: A tote bag Outtakes: Behind the scenes of Woman’s Weekly’s videos

农业

2017-09/1015/en_head.json.gz/22548

June 2013 Weather and Its Impacts on Missouri The cool spring weather began transitioning toward a more seasonable summer-like pattern during June, with below normal temperatures at the beginning of the month climbing to near to above normal conditions for much of the rest of the month, Figure 1. Preliminary temperature data for the state indicate a statewide average June temperature of 73.1°F, or 0.1° above the long-term average. It was the 9th consecutive June averaging warmer than normal, with the last cooler than normal June occurring in 2004, Figure 2. Some record low temperatures were established early in the month when Joplin and St. Joseph dropped to 45 and 44°F, respectively, on June 3rd and Kansas City dipped to 46°F on the 4th. Rolla set a minimum temperature record of 48°F on June 8th. Monthly precipitation was variable across Missouri, but the statewide average was 4.71 inches, or 0.04" above the long-term average. Due to the localized nature of convective activity, precipitation disparities were profound across the state. Regionally, the highest precipitation totals were confined to east central and southeastern sections. Another area of heavier rainfall extended from a 100-mile wide corridor centered in Vernon County, in southwestern Missouri, to Shannon County, in south central sections. Most locations across the northern half of the state received 2-4 inches, whereas the southern half reported 4-6 inches. There were notable exceptions, however. Some of the highest rainfall totals were in Barton, Dade and Greene counties where CoCoRaHS observers reported 10.17, 10.36 and 12.68 inches, respectively. Ironically, driest conditions were also reported in southwestern Missouri, where observers in Stone, Barry and Taney counties reported 1.35, 1.28 and 0.75 inches for the month. As of July 2, there was no official drought designation in the state, Figure 3, but conditions were getting dry in pockets of central Missouri and extreme southwestern sections. A highly localized and unusual extreme precipitation event impacted portions of southwestern Missouri during the morning and early afternoon hours of June 15. Slow-moving, training thunderstorms developed along an outflow boundary just south of Springfield and dropped intense and extreme rainfall totals ranging from 6-9 inches. Flash flooding quickly emerged across parts of southern Greene County and northern Christian County, with inundated roads and numerous high water rescues reported. The Springfield National Weather Service office issued a flash flood emergency for parts of south Springfield due to the extreme flooding. Intense thunderstorms also dropped heavy rainfall over portions of Jasper and Barton counties during this time, resulting in localized flash flooding. Severe thunderstorms developed in eastern Kansas late in the evening of June 27 and impacted the Kansas City metropolitan area before sweeping southeastward into parts of west central and south central Missouri during the early a.m. hours of the 28th. There were numerous reports of tree, power line and property damage due to winds gusting between 50 and 70 mph. According to the Missouri Agricultural Statistics Service, by the end of June crop conditions had improved with warmer weather and scattered showers. Fifty-nine percent of the corn and soybean crop were reported to be in good to excellent condition. More than 90% of the topsoil and subsoil moisture conditions were reported to be in adequate to surplus condition and 76% of the pastures were in good to excellent condition. Hay and stock water supplies were sufficient where 86% and 99%, respectively, were in adequate to surplus condition.

农业

2017-09/1015/en_head.json.gz/22568

Sierra Leone Farmers Evicted for Sugarcane Biofuel Plantations by Jennifer Kennedy, CorpWatch Blog Addax sign in Sierra Leone. Photo courtesy Oakland Institute Addax Bioenergy, a Swiss energy company, is jeopardizing the livelihoods of thousands of subsistence farmers in order to export ethanol made from sugarcane grown in Sierra Leone, according to the Sierra Leone Network on the Right to Food (SiLNoRF) and Brot Für Alle (Bread for All), an NGO based in Switzerland.The Makeni project in the Bombali and Tonkolili districts of western Sierra Leone was initiated in 2008 on land acquired by Addax, a subsidiary of Oryx, an energy corporation founded by Swiss billionaire Jean Claude Gandur. Sugarcane grown on 10,000 hectares of land will be processed in a neighboring ethanol refinery and a biomass power plant to deliver a total of 100,000 megawatt hours of power for export to Europe once all the infrastructure has been completed later this year.Addax has planted the fast growing sugar cane on large areas of productive land known as the bolilands even though it promised not to, alleges SiLNoRF’s in its 2012 annual monitoring report. “[Addax] has taken away most of the bolilands and the people, they are saying that they have been stolen from them,” Abass J. Kamara, programmes coordinator for SiLNoRF, told CorpWatch. (The company has a 50 year lease for a total of 57,000 hectares of land in Sierra Leone."Now I don’t have a farm. Starvation is killing people. We have to buy rice to survive because we don't grow our own now," one community member told Canadian journalist, Joan Baxter at an April 2012 farmers' conference organized by SiLNoRF and Green Scenery, another Sierra Leonean civil society organization.For Sierra Leone, a small West African nation that ranks as one of the poorest countries in the world, which is slowly emerging from a brutal civil from war that displaced about half of its population from 1991-2002, this issue of food security is a major national problem, according to the Oakland Institute, a U.S. based think tank.The current government headed by President Ernest Bai Koroma has favored the introduction of industrial farming as a way to meet this challenge. For example, in 2009, the government created the National Sustainable Agriculture Development Plan (NSADP), to “increase the agriculture sector’s contribution to the national economy by increasing productivity through commercialization and private sector participation.”The Makeni project, which has been touted as the country’s ‘flagship investment’ for agricultural development, has received €142 million in loans from several European development banks such as the Netherlands Development Finance Company (FMO) and the German Development Finance Institution (DEG – Deutsche Investitions- und Entwicklungsgesellschaft mbH). Included in the list is the UK’s Department of International Development (DFID) sponsored Emerging Africa Infrastructure Fund (EAIF).In order to resolve the conflict with local farmers who have relied on the land for generations, Addax ‘lured’ community members into signing away their land to Addax with ‘juicy’ but non-binding promises to build schools, medical facilities, and community centers, alleges Bread for All. Kamara noted that the communities’ right to “free, prior and informed consent” had been violated because Addax had only talked about positive changes, neglecting to mention any of the project’s possible negative impacts.Addax also set up an alternative farming mitigation project called the Farmer Development Program (FDP) but this has failed to provide adequate long-term food security for impacted farmers so far, according to a joint report by SiLNoRF and Bread for All published in September 2012.A key stumbling block is the fact that farmers have to pay the full cost of seeds, harrowing, and ploughing on this new land after just three years which SiLNoRF says will be hard.For example Kamara told CorpWatch that “farmers are confined to smaller portions of land and they are being encourage by Addax to use mechanized methods of farming like fertilizers and other pesticides and these people cannot afford to pay for them.”Although Addax pays compensation of $12 per hectare per year to many of the community members, an “Independent study report of the Addax Bioenergy sugarcane-to-ethanol project in the Makeni region in Sierra Leone” published by SiLNoRF says that this is not a “fair and adequate amount’” as it would not be enough to purchase a single meal in the province’s regional capital of Makeni.Responding to the publication of the SiLNoRF study, Addax said that it “vigorously contests the allegations contained in the strongly biased report which neither reflects the reality on the ground nor takes any notice of the unprecedented efforts deployed on the ground to engage with local communities and improve their daily lives.”NGOs blame the development agencies for having created this conflict. A report titled ‘The Hunger Games' published by War on Want, a UK NGO, alleges that DFID has used taxpayers’ money to support “land grabbing” in Africa by supporting big agribusinesses over millions of subsistence farmers, condemning the latter to poverty.War on Want points out that DFID helped finance the creation of the Sierra Leone Investment and Export Promotion Agency (SLIEPA) in 2008, which has been aggressively promoting foreign investment” that has resulted in some 500,000 hectares of land being acquired by foreign corporations, according to SiLNoRF.Addax is not the only company which has been accused of land grabbing in Sierra Leone. In the southern district of Pujehun, land disputes are also simmering between local famers and Socfin Agricultural Company Sierra Leone Limited, a subsidiary of Socfin Group which is majority owned by the French investment and holding conglomerate, Bolloré Group. Despite promised benefits, many families are vehemently opposed to the leasing of their farmland for rubber and oil plantations, according to Green Scenery, a Sierra Leonian NGO.

农业

2017-09/1015/en_head.json.gz/23391

> Pacific Northwest Sea Run Forum WSC May 3rd Meeting Pacific Northwest Sea Run Forum No such thing as rainbow trout, only landlocked steelhead jjohnson Location: Sky, North Umpqua WSC News - May 3rd Meeting Speaker: Phil Davis, Hoh River Trust Place: UW Horticulture Center Title: Overview of the Hoh River Trust About the Trust: The Hoh River Trust was formed in February 2004 by Western Rivers Conservancy (WRC) and the Wild Salmon Center to own and manage river lands along the Hoh River on Washington’s Olympic Peninsula with an objective to conserve, restore, and enhance these lands for the benefit of the dependent species, including healthy salmon and steelhead runs along with listed ESA species including marbled murrelet, spotted owl, bald eagle, and bull trout. Within this mission we will also pursue community and educational outreach. This will be a legacy that not only benefits the targeted ecosystem and local community, but contributes to a broader understanding of the viability of healthy river systems elsewhere. Using bridge financing from private foundations, WRC to date has acquired approx. 4,700 acres of commercial timber lands valued at over $8.7mm from Rayonier Corp. within a 10,000 acre corridor extending from the western boundary of Olympic National Park to the Pacific Ocean. Hoh River Trust subsequently acquired from WRC approx. 3,500 of those acres for $6.5mm funded by grants from the State of Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) as a part of their allocation of federal funds under Section 6 of the Endangered Species Act. The Trust is awaiting an additional grant from WDNR of $2.2mm to acquire the remaining 1,200 acres held by WRC. WRC is also actively negotiating the purchase of an additional 2,500 acres which would bring the total acquired lands to approx. 7,200 acres, over 70% of the available land within the 10,000 acre corridor. WRC will need to arrange bridge financing of approx. $5mm to complete this transaction. The Trust has contracted with the Cascade Land Conservancy to develop a comprehensive Land Management Plan on the Trust’s initial ownership of up to 4,700 acres. The plan will be completed in 2006 and include specific strategies to: • Identify and prioritize a list of immediate restoration activities, including tree thinning, replanting, invasive weed control, road and culvert repair and maintenance, access improvements, habitat restoration, and more; • Seek input from local and regional community members; • Begin meaningful restoration activities, utilizing local contractors where possible; • Monitor fish-population responses over time to restoration activities, utilizing baseline data from Wild Salmon Center; • Develop a long term schedule to monitor and assess the effectiveness of restoration and stewardship activities relative to the goal of returning the river and its riparian habitats to their naturally evolving condition. The Hoh River Trust is committed to working closely with local communities on the Olympic Peninsula, meaningfully engaging them in our planning, restoration, and stewardship activities. These are the communities that rely on the Hoh River for livelihood and recreation, communities that know and love the river best. Creating a sense of ownership among local and regional communities will be vital to the success of this initiative. To keep our stewardship grounded in the best science and management practices, we have hired a professional land management and stewardship staff with extensive experience in habitat restoration, forestry, fisheries, and project management, and we are developing dynamic relationships with regional fish and wildlife conservation-organizations, management agencies, and academic researchers. About the River: The chance to preserve the Hoh River is truly a unique conservation opportunity; it is a last great American river. With over 250,000 rivers in the continental US, the Hoh is one of the very few that remains virtually intact from it source high in the Olympic mountain range draining 56 miles into the Pacific Ocean. The upper watershed is pristine; twenty five miles of the river and its upper tributaries are protected within Olympic National Park, flowing cold and clear across gravel bars and under towering old growth forests. Over 140 inches of rain a year feeds the river and sustains one of the planet’s last intact temperate rainforests. The lower mainstem winds for 30 miles through a mosaic of government, commercial timber, private, and Native lands. While some tributaries in the lower watershed have been impacted by timber activities, the mainstem and its broad floodplain have escaped development pressure. No major levees constrain the river, and a network of channels braid back and forth between massive logjams, across gravel bars, through timbered floodplains, and under emerald cathedrals of giant spruce and cedar, furnished in vine maple, hanging mosses, sorrel, and fern. From its source 8,000 feet high on Mt. Olympus to the Pacific Ocean, the Hoh flows its entire length as it has for thousands of years, supporting a remarkable diversity of wildlife. Northern spotted owl, marbled murrelet, and bald eagle nest in snags along the river and its floodplain. Deer, Roosevelt elk, black bear, cougar, fox, and other mammals browse and hunt in the surrounding forest. Thousands of adult salmon spawn in the Hoh’s clean gravel, while countless juveniles rear and feed under logjams and in shaded, rich, sinuous back channels. The Hoh supports populations of resident cutthroat and rainbow trout, Dolly Varden, and Threatened bull trout; the river gathers some of the healthiest native salmon and steelhead runs in the US outside of Alaska. The Hoh has no permanent hatcheries, and almost all the salmon and steelhead returning to the Hoh are wild. The Hoh River Trust can assure that almost 90% of the entire Hoh ecosystem is protected from unwanted development, where the dependent species can thrive in an undisturbed and naturally evolving habitat, and where people can continue to enjoy the ecological bounty, leaving a legacy of pristine wilderness for future generations. Biography: Phil received a degree in Economics from Stanford University in 1980, and followed that with a successful 25-year business career, including tenures at Manufacturers Hanover Trust Bank, Wells Fargo Bank, and a family ownedregional electrical-supply distributor in Seattle, Stusser Electric Company. In 2000 he joined HouseValues Inc. to lead this early stage Internet start-up as Executive Vice President of Finance & Operations, helping tobuild the organizational and financial foundation for one the region's mostsuccessful new businesses. Phil most recently was Vice President at Savers, Inc., North America's largest for-profit thrift store chain. Phil decided to change course and accept the position at Hoh River Trust in the summer of 2005 by an informed passion for rivers, fish, and wildlife, and by a deep confidence in the mission and strategies of the organization."I'm thrilled to be part of this team," says Phil. "This opportunity to help leave a lasting legacy for the environment and the community is very meaningful to me and my family." Phil will be primarily responsible for development and for the administration and oversight of the Trust's Peninsula based land-management operations. Phil is a fly fisherman and river lover. He lives in Seattle, Washington with his wife, 3 sons and 2 dogs. Find all posts by jjohnson rich_simms Location: Rivers of North Sound & Oly Pen -Lost poor realitive of the Simms family fishing fortune Visit rich_simms's homepage! Find all posts by rich_simms Wild Steelhead Coalition March 3rd Meeting WSC Meeting Doublespey 3rd Meeting of the WSC-Join Us!!! 3rd Meeting of the WSC-Join Us!!

农业

2017-09/1015/en_head.json.gz/24721

Topic: Steve "Chicken" Morris *voted off* Topic: Steve "Chicken" Morris *voted off* (Read 2884 times) Steve "Chicken" Morris *voted off* ChickenAge:47Home Town:Marion, VAOccupation:Chicken FarmerBio Steve "Chicken" Morris was born in Marion, Virginia, and grew up on a commercial farm, where he has worked with poultry since he was 13 years old. After 40 years of marriage, Morris broke ties with his wife and raised his three children (Tyychelle and twins Dee Ann and Jessica) alone.Morris currently manages the farm, where they produce all natural eggs and chickens along with grass-fed beef, pork and turkey. He also runs a store on the property. He previously worked as a bouncer, a fish culturist for the Fish & Game Department, a security officer and a logger. He enjoys hunting, fishing, camping and riding ATVs. He describes himself as outgoing and someone who lives on the edge. He enjoys country and bluegrass music. His favorite sport is baseball. He is a member of the Rich Valley Fair Association and the Abingdon Farmers Market Board.Morris currently resides in Marion, Virginia. He had four dogs, Zek, Cluck, Poke and Eli. His birth date is September 2, 1959.Meet Chickenhttp://video.cgi.cbs.com/vplayer3/play.pl?type=rm&width=480&height=360&feat=vplayer&adtype=pre&arena=video&prod=innertube&id=149106&ord=81894.7049864501 Re: Steve "Chicken" Morris He looks older then he is to me. By discription will be a strong pesonality and will not put up with the laying around doing nothing. Re: Steve "Chicken" Morris *voted off* I’d Already Won Everything I Wanted to Win” – An Interview with Survivor: China’s Chicken by David Bloomberg -- 09/21/2007 Chicken may be the happiest player ever to only make it to the first vote. Why? You’ll have to read on to find out. Plus, why did he go from making suggestions to not even answering questions? What strategy did he try? Chicken talks about all of this and much, much more! Some reality show contestants give short answers to specific questions. Others like to tell their stories. Chicken is definitely in the latter group. In doing so, Chicken was probably the most talkative first-eliminated contestant I’ve ever talked to, and one of the most talkative contestants, period. We might not have seen much of it on the show, but he had his reasons and he made up for it now. Indeed, he answered a number of my questions before I could even ask them. So read on to see what he had to say.RealityNewsOnline: Hello, Chicken, and thanks for taking the time to talk to RealityNewsOnline! What was your strategy coming into the game?Chicken: I’ll tell ya, when I caught the flight out of Charlotte to JFK, I had a game plan. After preliminaries to the day I left, I had a game plan. I watched many many episodes in my chair at home, [thinking] you need to do this you need to do that. But then I said I’m just going to be myself, I’m not gong to fit a piece of the puzzle that a I think would fit in. I was going to be myself, period.Basically, that’s what I did the whole trip until last night, I took one day at a time. But a lot of people were talking about being really disappointed. I’m not disappointed. I’m very proud to be a small part of this for many different reasons. And I’d go back tomorrow.It’s not a money thing, it’s just the people that you meet and it’s hard to talk to these people. They’re basically from a different culture. It’s just like last night, they drug that old frame out of the woods. I had enough sense to know even if we made part of he shelter out of this thing, it’s not going to hold together. They thought they found a flipping gold mine. That’s when I first spoke and said this is not going to work. You can’t make something out of nothing. I just voiced my opinion and that was the last time I did, they wouldn’t listen to me.Then we slept in the rain and walked in the mud, the circumstances were bad for them. For me, I walk in the mud every day. When we’re sorting cattle, we don’t take the day off because it’s raining or because the mud’s a foot deep. When we got into that truck at the first of the show, there was about three or four inches of mud. They said, “oh good gracious, the mud.” I’m thinking to myself, “you ain’t seen nothing yet.”I don’t criticize these people and I hope they don’t criticize me. This cast is absolutely super. Sixteen people from 16 different walks of life. They’ve done an extraordinary job of casting these people. That is what I like about this show. I don’t care where you’re from, rich or poor, you’re all even. And how it plays it out is what’s great about this game. It requires a little bit of luck and depending on who you are, maybe a lot of luck.When I landed in China, I’d already won everything I wanted to win. From that day on, it was just a plus. You take a great journey and you’re at this party, and you really don’t care what happens. People think you’re strange if you don’t care about money. But money’s not the issue for me. This was the greatest trip in the world for me. I’ve never flown, I’ve never rode a boat. I didn’t miss nothing.RNO: Speaking of the experience, what was your opinion of the ceremony at the Buddhist temple and the way Leslie walked out?Chicken: Leslie shouldn’t have done that. This is my opinion. Jeff was very very clear on his instructions – this is not a religious ceremony. He explained more about Buddha than you saw. I was astonished with the temple. I’ll never forget the temple and what Jeff said at the start of the game. This is a way of life for these people and when they invite you in, a perfect stranger, [you should honor it].What you seen last night took about three hours. This is a big part of their culture and they’ve shared it with you. It’d be like bringing 250 Chinese people on the farm – it’s a culture shock. Buddha is not religious, it’s like Confucius. Buddha and farming is not really on the same level but I’m using it as an example.When I took that long walk after the game, I was disappointed. Today I’m not and that temple was extraordinary. It marked me. I’m sure the other 15 people won’t give the same answer. That’s what makes this cast so good and what makes this show.I’ve watched a ton of Survivor. You can play all you want to in your chair. But we’re all very unique people from very unique places with a very unique way of life. Those are the pieces that make a great show. This is a great season, going by the cast and what I’ve seen last night. I think it was a good kickoff to one of the better seasons in the last three or four years.RNO: You mentioned that you gave your opinion and they didn’t listen, so you didn’t give it anymore. I understand why you decided to back off when people on your tribe weren’t listening to you, but why did you appear to go to such an extreme to avoid answering questions when they were asked of you?Chicken: (laughs) It’s like, I made a ton of suggestions at first. I build things. You’ve got all this know-how, but it didn’t show. They went a couple days without water and I didn’t because I was drinking water in 20 minutes and eating kiwis in 20 minutes, and these people did without. I voiced my opinion and they were talking about college days and partying. This goes on all day the first day.Me and Peih-Gee wanted to get it done. We’re in the middle of nowhere playing the greatest flipping game in the world. We want to get stuff done and everybody else wants to sit around talking about parties and music. I can’t relate to that. That’s when the 16 different people from 16 different places come in. Nobody was talking about hunting or fishing or farming.When I came out of that temple and saw the other seven people, I knowed I was in trouble. I thought about it and said, “just be yourself, whatever happens is going to happen.” When I’m trying to tell you something and you don’t want to listen, they just brush it off.On the second day, when they asked me and I didn’t want to answer, then it became an issue. I could have gotten down on my knees and kissed their behind and built their shelter. But that’s not the way I am. Then the next day I’d have to kiss their behinds again. You do something for me and I’ll do something for you.RNO: We saw you talk to Frosti and Dave about votes, but did you try to form a specific alliance with anybody?Chicken: On the first evening, when I was coming back from getting water, I come up on three girls, Peih-Gee, Jaime, and Sherea. They were standing about 70 yards from where I was. I walked up on them and they said, “Chicken come here.” We went into all this conversation. They said let’s stick together, it’s early for an alliance but let’s take that chance. Let’s four hook up.I told them what they wanted to hear. But my word is good as gold, I would’ve stuck to the alliance. On the third day, Dave says your name’s come up and I confronted Jaime. She said it was a little early to build alliances. Then we came back from the immunity challenge and we were on pins and needles.You’re all standing in a circle and the first name that comes up is mine. The others says as long as it’s not me, I don’t care who it is. My name was the first one that come up. It could have been anyone else, but then you go thinking about all these other shows and the way this thing was supposed to be played out. If you go by other shows, Ashley should have been the one to go because she done the least in three days. Whether she was sick or lazy or sprained her ankle – whatever the reason, Ashley done the least. She’s the weak link, she should’ve went first.You know, on down the line, somewhere, I’m sure they will figure it out and miss me. Whether it’s the next day or the next Tribal Council or the next challenge. But it’ll be too late then. They made a mistake and so be it. There’s no doubt about it, I could’ve built the shelter. But why would you want to build a shelter with seven other people standing there looking for you?That [and teaching them to get water and food] wouldn’t have bought you but maybe another week or 10 days maybe even two weeks. But there’s nothing in concrete. When I started building the shelter, me and Dave were doing about 70% of the work. I said, “Dave, why do we want to do this? They’re standing right there and we could reach out and smack ‘em. We’re working our hind ends off, but for what?”I could’ve built the shelter and fed ‘em. Some of my favorite players in past Survivors have been brutal workers. Another disappointing thing about the past Survivors, the guy that does the work and plays the greatest game never wins the money, not the ones I’ve seen. The guy that deserves the money never gets the money.But that’s a great element to this game. One in 16 chance, the adventure. The money is down the list to me. When you’re a guy from Virginia, you never done anything, you’re just astonished with the trip. I’m never gonna be rich, but the first night there were at least five or six people who mentioned a million dollars. That’s not me. You can call me crazy, but I’m travel-shocked by the trip. I’m shocked at the way they [production staff] treat you. You go from nothing to something really quick. It’s a feeling you’ve never had before. Everything is top shelf. Everything matters and it’s just an extraordinary journey.These other people, it didn’t shock in some of our travels. Here we are traveling and I look around so much my neck gets sore. These people are reading books and have their Ipods in, not even looking out the window. I don’t miss nothing. This country, the culture, the people, the temple, I’ll never forget it as long as I live. I don’t think you’ll hear that from the others. Maybe I’m wrong and I’m exaggerating about my trip. But the trip itself was amazing. If you’ve done a lot of traveling, it would have been the trip of a lifetime, but for me it was the trip of 10 lifetimes!Maybe that was my weakness – I was so excited about being there that I lost track of the game. But I’m not the type of guy who’s going to take care of you – you scratch my back I’ll scratch yours. That’s the way I am here. My neighbor, if his tractor breaks down, he can get mine, or I can get his if mine breaks down. It’s a way of life and it’s not for these people. This is what makes great entertainment is bringing 16 people together and making them build relationships.It didn’t happen for us. I was amazed at how quick the other tribe came together. They would congratulate each other, pat each other on the back – you didn’t see that with us. Even in Tribal Council, it’s gonna take something to bring these people together. I don’t believe they’ll ever come together. I don’t know what happens in the game, but going by what I seen, these people are not going to come together. I may be wrong, but that’s just my opinion. The other tribe come together and I guarantee they’re a lot closer than we were.I look forward to when we all get together and we catch up. You hear stories about this game changing people, but I guarantee it didn’t change the others like it did me. Probably because I’ve never done anything or went nowhere. The trip means more to me than the money.RNO: Your exclamation of “Damn!” when you were voted out may have been one of the best reactions to a vote ever – and certainly made a couple of your tribemates jump. Where did the sudden emotion come from?Chicken: I was expressing myself, let me tell you. You just get over the shock and try to reason with it. They’ve got no reason. They were standing around and my name come up. There was five people talking and that’s where the luck comes in. My name was mentioned and there’s people who don’t care for what reason. They’re not thinking I can feed ‘em and take care of ‘em. They’re thinking, “if he wants to take him out I’ll do it too.”I believe my name just come up and four people standing there said we’ll send him home. They’re not thinking of the reasons, my name come up. That’s what makes this game so great. Peih-Gee’s name could’ve come up. Just one of those things about luck. I believe that’s what happened. No one hates me and my name just come up. Maybe I’m wrong too. I’m not the sharpest tool in the tool shed but that’s my own opinion.RNO: Looks like we’ve run out of time. Thanks again, Chicken!http://www.realitynewsonline.com/cgi-bin/ae.pl?mode=4&article=article7363.art&page=1 Great article!! Sounds like he really got to enjoy his experience and that is great! Another interview: http://www.realitywanted.net/2007/09/24/interview-with-chicken-from-cbss-survivor-china/Thought this part was interesting...A. Chicken Morris: What you didn’t see was that both Leslie and John and stepped out of the ceremony. You also didn’t see the fact that Jeff asked me what I thought of Leslie and John walking out of the temple. I told Jeff I they shouldn’t have done it since it was bad game play and might leave a bad taste in the mouth of other players. However, they had the right to do so. Jeff did explain clearly that this was not a religious ceremony. Quote from: georgiapeach on September 24, 2007, 04:59:31 PMAnother interview: http://www.realitywanted.net/2007/09/24/interview-with-chicken-from-cbss-survivor-china/Thought this part was interesting...A. Chicken Morris: What you didn’t see was that both Leslie and John and stepped out of the ceremony. You also didn’t see the fact that Jeff asked me what I thought of Leslie and John walking out of the temple. I told Jeff I they shouldn’t have done it since it was bad game play and might leave a bad taste in the mouth of other players. However, they had the right to do so. Jeff did explain clearly that this was not a religious ceremony. OK whos John? Logged That's what I mean! Unless he mis-heard Jean (as in Jean-Robert) as John --then I have no clue! And not so nice either if 2 players went outside and Jeff only called out Leslie--he is getting bad at influencing the game! Honest I had to look at the names and I suppose the writer of the article didn't do his homework . Logged Heres another interview Survivor: China Interview - ChickenExclusive: The chicken farmer tells us why he was the first one who went home.by Eric Goldman September 24, 2007 - Someone always has to be the first person booted off of a season of Survivor, and in Survivor: China, that person turned out to be Steve "Chicken" Morris. The oldest member of Zhan Hu, Chicken wasn't fitting in with his tribe from the start. Despite his knowledge on living outdoors, his tribemates didn't initially listen to the suggestions given by the 47 year old chicken farmer from Marion, VA, and after that he decided to stop giving any suggestions at all, even when asked. This seemed to set him apart as a perceived uncooperative member of the tribe, and while other Zhan Hu members names were floated as possible first boots, it was Chicken who went home, exclaiming "Damn!" when he saw his name ready by Jeff Probst. The day after Chicken's one and only Survivor episode aired, I spoke to him to find out what his experience was like in the game. http://tv.ign.com/articles/822/822494p1.html and TVGuide's Tuesday, September 25, 2007 Survivor-fried Chicken: Oldest Player Is the First to Go by Nina Hämmerling Smith http://www.tvguide.com/News/survivor-china-chicken/070925-03

农业