California Ag Network

Category: Ag Economics

  • National Ag, Water Coalition Applauds Committee Passage of Infrastructure Bill

    A national coalition representing thousands of Western farmers, ranchers, water providers, businesses and communities applauded passage of the Energy Infrastructure Act today by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources (ENR), and pressed the full Senate to expeditiously take up the bill on the floor.

    “On behalf of Western farmers, ranchers, businesses and residents, we commend Chairman Manchin and the Senate ENR Committee for their commitment to drafting and passing a balanced infrastructure package that includes resources for critical Western water supply needs,” Family Farm Alliance Executive Director Dan Keppen said.

    The coalition includes more than 220 organizations from 15 states that collectively represent $120 billion in agricultural production—nearly one-third of all agricultural production in the country—and many of the local and regional public water agencies that supply water to more than 75 million urban, suburban and rural residents.

    Prior to Senate ENR Committee consideration of the Energy Infrastructure Act, the coalition sent a letter to Chairman Joe Manchin and Ranking Member John Barrasso expressing support for the Western water elements included in Title VIII and IX of the bill.

    In the letter, the coalition notes that changing Western hydrological conditions and expanding populations require immediate federal investments in repairing aging water infrastructure and developing new sources of water supply.

    “We support the all-of-above approach taken in the Energy Infrastructure Act, which includes more than $8 billion for Western water projects that expand conservation and recycling efforts, improve ecosystems, fix crumbling dams and canals, and build new storage and conveyance facilities,” Association of California Water Agencies Executive Director Dave Eggerton said.

    In addition to the stabilizing the West’s water outlook, the coalition letter states that the infrastructure package represents a historic opportunity to aid in the nation’s economic recovery. Both workers and the economy will benefit from the increased demand for equipment and materials these water projects will require from American companies.

    But the time to act is now, according to the coalition.

    “As drought conditions move from bad to worse across the West, action is needed,” National Water Resources Association President Christine Arbogast said. “To minimize the fallout from this historic drought and to ensure future generations have access to a safe, reliable and affordable water supply, we call on the Senate to bring the Energy Infrastructure Act to the floor as quickly as possible.” 

    Below is a summary of the Western water provisions in Title IX:

    • Aging Infrastructure: $3.2 billion, includes $100 million for certain Reclamation projects suffering a critical failure and $100 million for repairs to certain Carey Act dams
    • Water Storage, Groundwater Storage and Conveyance: $1.15 billion, includes $100 million for new 25% grants for small surface/groundwater storage projects
    • Water Recycling: $1 billion, includes $450 million for new authorized large water recycling project grant program
    • Desalination: $250 million
    • Rural Water: $1 billion
    • Dam Safety: $500 million
    • Drought Contingency Plan: $300 million, includes $50 million for Upper Basin States
    • WaterSMART: $400 million, includes $100 million for natural infrastructure projects
    • Cooperative Watershed Management: $100 million
    • Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Program: $250 million
    • Watershed Enhancement Projects: $100 million
    • Colorado River Endangered Species Recovery and Conservation Programs: $50 million

    Click here for the latest coalition letter to Chairman Joe Manchin and Ranking Member John Barrasso.

    About Association of California Water Agencies:
    The Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) is a statewide association of public agencies whose more than 450 members are responsible for about 90% of the water delivered in California. For more than a century, ACWA’s mission has been clear: to provide comprehensive leadership, advocacy and resources for California public water agencies to ensure a high quality and reliable water supply in an environmentally sustainable and fiscally responsible manner.

    About California Farm Bureau:
    The California Farm Bureau works to protect family farms and ranches on behalf of nearly 32,000 members statewide and as part of a nationwide network of more than 5.5 million Farm Bureau members.

    About Family Farm Alliance:
    The Family Farm Alliance is a powerful advocate for family farmers, ranchers, irrigation districts and allied industries in seventeen Western states. The Alliance is focused on one mission: to ensure the availability of reliable, affordable irrigation water supplies to Western farmers and ranchers.

    About National Water Resources Association:
    National Water Resources Association advocates federal policies, legislation and regulations promoting protection, management, development and beneficial use of water resources. The association is dedicated to achieving sustainable water supply for all beneficial uses in an economical and environmentally responsible manner.

    About Western Growers:
    Founded in 1926, Western Growers represents local and regional family farmers growing fresh produce in Arizona, California, Colorado and New Mexico. Western Growers members and their workers provide over half the nation’s fresh fruits, vegetables and tree nuts, including half of America’s fresh organic produce.

  • FDA Final Rule Threatens to Remove Popular Yogurt Products from Grocery Store Shelves and Harm Dairy Foods Makers

    Dr. Joseph Scimeca, Senior Vice President of Regulatory and Scientific Affairs for the International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA), issued the following statement on IDFA’s formal objection to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration final rule to amend and modernize the standard of identity for yogurt:

    “After 40 years of waiting since FDA first issued standards for yogurt, the FDA dropped a new final rule on the standard of identity for yogurt in late June, underscoring a lack of transparency in the FDA rulemaking process. Because the rulemaking process has been so severely delayed and because the agency has consulted very little with yogurt makers, the final rule is already out of date before it takes effect. For the most part, FDA relied on comments submitted 12 or more years ago to formulate its final rule—as if technology has not progressed or as if the yogurt making process itself has been trapped in amber like a prehistoric fossil.

    “Although the International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA), which represents the nation’s yogurt makers, has been offering feedback or assistance to the FDA since it released its initial proposed rule in 2009, the agency has largely ignored our comments and suggested revisions to ensure a modernized standard. The result is a yogurt standard that is woefully behind the times and doesn’t match the reality of today’s food processing environment or the expectations of consumers. Unfortunately, IDFA has been left with no reasonable options except filing a formal objection to this final rule and imploring the agency to revisit the final rule to amend and truly modernize the standard of identity for yogurt.”

    Background on Rulemaking for Standard of Identity for Yogurt

    In June, FDA announced the issuance of the long-awaited final rule to amend and modernize the standard of identity for yogurt. Updates to the yogurt standard of identity have been pending at the FDA since 1982 when FDA stayed several major provisions of its 1981 final rule first establishing standards for yogurt. These stays were in response to objections filed at the time also by the industry. Dairy foods makers then began petitioning FDA to update the standard in 2000—more than 20 years ago. Finalization of this rule has been a priority for the IDFA for many years. While there has been very little outreach by FDA over these 20 years, IDFA has submitted comments, offered revisions and technical assistance, and made our dairy foods experts available. IDFA has continued to request updates on the status of the rule and stressed the importance of modernizing and finalizing the standard in a timely way.

    The compliance date of this final rule is January 1, 2024, which is the uniform compliance date for final food labeling regulations issued in 2021 and 2022.

    FDA says that publishing this final rule is a part of the FDA’s Nutrition Innovation Strategy, one of the goals of which is to modernize food standards to maintain the basic nature and nutritional integrity of products while allowing food makers more flexibility for innovation. The final rule hits the mark in some areas and misses badly in others. For example, the final rule consolidates three separate standards—for yogurt, lowfat yogurt and nonfat yogurt—into one standard of identity for yogurt, allowing food makers to nutritionally modify traditional standardized yogurt and then to communicate those modifications to consumers via label descriptions, product names and appropriate claims, such as “lowfat yogurt”. This seems reasonable. However, the final rule also expands the allowable ingredients in yogurt in some instances and adds confusing restrictions in others. FDA accepted industry suggestions and establishes a minimum amount of live and active cultures for yogurt containers to bear the labeling statement “contains live and active cultures” or a similar statement. The final rule also allows manufacturers to fortify yogurts, such as by adding vitamins A and D, provided they meet minimum fortification requirements, which also aligns with IDFA’s requests; however, the minimum fortification requirements are two to three times higher than standards for most dairy products and conflict with FDA’s own vitamin D regulations.

    There is a wide range of yogurts of different flavors, protein levels, sugar and sweetener content, and milkfat content on grocery store shelves today, underscoring the variety that consumers want. IDFA and its members have long advocated for having a standard that reflects what consumers are eating today and flexible enough to allow for reasonable innovation tomorrow.

    IDFA made several attempts to convey and explain recommended revisions to a 2009 proposed rule, but several of these, which would have aligned with current industry practices and allowed room for innovation, were not included in this revised standard.

    To protect the products in the marketplace that consumers want and recognize as yogurt, IDFA has submitted a formal objection to specific provisions of FDA’s final rule, including the following:

    • Baseless and overly prescriptive limitations around what ingredients can be added after fermentation, such as cream, which fail to recognize that milk fat in cream contributes the same general properties to yogurt regardless of whether added before or after fermentation.
    • Restrictions related to the required acidity and pH of the yogurt that, as written, could result in popular and traditional “cup-set” style yogurt products to be discontinued along with other styles.
    • Conflicting new requirements that would deter yogurt makers from voluntarily adding vitamin D to yogurts, which companies have done for decades and hope to continue.
    • IDFA supports clear disclosure of non-nutritive sweeteners on labels where consumers are used to looking for this information in the ingredient declaration. However, the final rule doesn’t allow the use of non-nutritive sweeteners unless nutrient content claims, such as “reduced calories,” are used on the label. IDFA believes this requirement will drive innovation in the yogurt industry away from the manufacture of standard of identity yogurt towards non-standardized products. Further, the requirement runs counter to recommendations made in the 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGAs), when the agency should be incentivizing yogurt makers toward nutritionally-enhanced products consistent with the DGAs.

    Additionally, regarding FDA’s general rulemaking process used to develop this new standard for yogurt, IDFA has the following strong concerns:

    • There has been a clear lack of urgency and transparency in the regulatory process, as well as a lack of outreach by FDA to dairy foods makers to ensure the agency has up-to-date information thus resulting in standards that don’t reflect current industry practice.
    • FDA staff and managers must be more responsive and accountable to the pressing needs of the food industry that depend on timely guidance and promulgation of regulations that reflect long-established and traditional yogurt-making processes and enable the adoption of technologies and innovations needed to meet rapidly changing consumer needs.
    • FDA’s lack of transparency in the creation of guidance and regulations can and often does result in requirements that are inconsistent with industry practices and that limit or prevent the ability to produce food products that satisfy consumer expectations yet still meet the basic and essential characteristics of the food.
    • Closer collaboration between the FDA and the industry is essential for the development of guidance and regulations that are pragmatic yet sufficiently flexible to allow for expanded consumer choice and the implementation of new innovations that may arise in the years to come.

    The International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA), Washington, D.C., represents the nation’s dairy manufacturing and marketing industry, which supports more than 3.3 million jobs that generate $41.6 billion in direct wages and $753 billion in overall economic impact. IDFA’s diverse membership ranges from multinational organizations to single-plant companies, from dairy companies and cooperatives to food retailers and suppliers, all on the cutting edge of innovation and sustainable business practices. Together, they represent 90 percent of the milk, cheese, ice cream, yogurt and cultured products, and dairy ingredients produced and marketed in the United States and sold throughout the world. Delicious, safe and nutritious, dairy foods offer unparalleled health and consumer benefits to people of all ages.

  • North American Meat Institute on Prop 12 Proposed Rules: Burdensome, Unworkable & Complex

    In comments submitted to the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA), The North American Meat Institute (the Meat Institute) today said the State of California’s proposed rules for Proposition 12 (Prop 12 or the law) are burdensome, complex and unworkable providing no food safety or animal welfare benefit.

    “The proposed rule by the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) admits there are no benefits to Californians as a result of Prop 12 and admits the deaths of breeding sows will increase,” said Mark Dopp, Meat Institute Senior Vice President Regulatory & Scientific Affairs and General Counsel. “Multiple sections of the rule should be withdrawn or significantly revised.”

    The Meat Institute submitted 12 pages of comments, found here that said the rules, if finalized, would create a bureaucratic labyrinth of regulatory provisions:

    • requiring an almost unworkable annual certification of veal and breeding pig (sow) facilities;
    • creating an overly complex accreditation process for entities allowed to certify those facilities;
    • imposing detailed recordkeeping requirements on producers and throughout the supply chain;
    • imposing problematic labeling provisions; and
    • granting legally questionable enforcement authority.

    The text of the notice and proposed rule can be found here.

    The following are key findings in the notice published along with the proposed rule:
     

    • Estimated costs for businesses to comply regarding pork: “Estimated ongoing cost is greater than the initial cost of conversion at $100,000 per year for a typical breeding pig farm due to smaller inventory of breeding pigs, lower piglet output per animal and increased breeding pig mortality.”
    • CDFA acknowledges that animal confinement space allowances prescribed in the Act (cage-free for egg-laying hens, 43 square feet for veal calves and 24 square feet for breeding pigs) “are not based in specific peer-reviewed published scientific literature or accepted as standards within the scientific community to reduce human food-borne illness, promote worker safety, the environment, or other human or safety concerns.”
    • “This proposal does not directly impact human health and welfare of California residents, worker safety, or the State’s environment…”
    • CDFA also identified higher costs for schools, universities, prisons, and county jails. And discussing “Benefits to human health, worker safety, or the State’s environment” CDFA said “The Department has made an initial determination that the proposed regulatory action will have significant, statewide adverse economic impact directly affecting California businesses including the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states.”
    • Finally, the agency identified an impact Prop 12 is likely to have – forcing low income consumers to pay more for food. “Covered pork, and especially covered egg products will become more expensive to consumers starting in January 2022 because of the animal confinement standards mandated in statutes. … Therefore, the Act will disproportionately reduce food purchasing power of low-income consumers. … Food consumers most affected will be those low-income consumers that are not enrolled in assistance programs.”

    The North American Meat Institute is the leading voice for the meat and poultry industry.  The Meat Institute’s members process the vast majority of U.S. beef, pork, lamb, and poultry, as well as manufacture the equipment and ingredients needed to produce the safest and highest quality meat and poultry products.

  • American Farmland Trust Shares Soil Health Economic Calculator with Customized Almond Version

    Today, American Farmland Trust, the organization that for 40 years has been saving the land that sustains us and advancing the principles of regenerative agriculture shares an updated AFT’s Retrospective Soil Health Economic Calculator (R-SHEC) Tool, providing farmers and the conservation community a means of evaluating the return on investment (ROI) of soil health conservation practices with 2020 price and crop data. The previous version of the tool used 2019 information. This updated pricing allows farmers to obtain a more accurate picture of the costs and benefits of their investments in soil health.

    Impacts of climate change on agriculture and the need for farms to become more resilient to extreme weather are more obvious than ever before. In addition, society is asking farmers to improve environmental outcomes of agriculture, including impacts to water quality and wildlife habitat and to sequester carbon in their soils to mitigate climate change.  Soil health practices like cover crops, no-till, nutrient management and conservation crop rotation can help address these challenges. However, despite farmers’ belief in the science underpinning the practices, they are often reluctant to change management techniques without knowing how much the practices will cost and what the financial benefits will be.

    The R-SHEC Tool is part of a comprehensive set of resources available online and free of charge from AFT on the Soil Health Case Study Methods and Took Kit webpage. The methods, tools and training resources provided are those used by AFT in developing case studies featuring soil health successful farmers in its Quantifying the Economic and Environmental Benefits of Soil Health project funded by a USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service Conservation Innovation Grant. The Tool Kit materials have all been updated for this re-release. The R-SHEC Tool allows evaluation of soil health practices adopted by row crop farmers (corn, soybeans, wheat and hay) for more than four years and within the last 15 years. The tool presents the net economic benefits in a partial budget analysis table and includes an estimate of the ROI in the soil health practices.

    In addition to updating price and cost data in the tool, AFT is releasing a customized almond version to estimate the economic effects of almond-specific soil health practices such as conservation cover, nutrient management, mulching and compost application. AFT believes the Almond R-SHEC Tool is very relevant at this time given the water struggles in California, a key almond producing region and almonds being a high-water use crop.  In 2018, AFT worked with Almond Farmers Tom and Dan Rogers and found they experienced a 25 percent reduction in irrigation water use which they attribute to the increased water holding capacity from the soil health practices used on their farm.

    The next phase of this work, a Predictive Soil Health Economic Calculator (P-SHEC) Tool will enable conservationists to partner with farmers who are “on the fence” about soil health practices to estimate the potential short and long-term economic effects of an investment in practices, hopefully giving the farmers the information they need. This tool will be previewed at the Soil and Water Conservation Society Annual Conference to be held virtually on July 26-28, 2021. Interested parties should sign up for Workshop 2 to learn about P-SHEC. The tool will not be released publicly until the fall.

    “AFT encourages our fellow conservationists to use this suite of resources and the new R-SHEC Tools released today to produce their own case studies demonstrating the economic and environmental benefits of soil health,” said Michelle Perez, AFT Water Director. “Our hope is that farmers who have been considering adopting soil health practices will find the economic evidence quantified for a farmer in their area sufficiently compelling to get them to ‘say yes’ to trying soil health practices themselves.”

    American Farmland Trust is the only national organization that takes a holistic approach to agriculture, focusing on the land itself, the agricultural practices used on that land, and the farmers and ranchers who do the work. AFT launched the conservation agriculture movement and continues to raise public awareness through our No Farms, No Food message. Since our founding in 1980, AFT has helped permanently protect over 6.8 million acres of agricultural lands, advanced environmentally-sound farming practices on millions of additional acres and supported thousands of farm families.

  • USDA-NASS Projects Smaller Crop for California Almonds

    Almond Board of California — The California Almond Objective Measurement Report, published Monday by the United States Department of Agriculture-National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA-NASS), estimates that the 2021 crop will come in at 2.8 billion meat pounds, 10 percent below last year’s record of 3.1 billion pounds. (Editor’s Note: The steep decline in production this year comes as a big surprise with the May subjective forecast suggesting a larger crop at 3.2 billion pounds)

    The drop comes during a very difficult water year across California and at a time when the almond industry is navigating a complex market with record shipments but with returns to growers down from recent years.

    “The report still forecasts a really large crop, and it’s further proof that California is an ideal place to grow almonds, even in difficult times,” said Kent Stenderup, Chair of the Almond Board of California (ABC) Board of Directors. “It’s also a testament to the hard work of growers and their efforts to improve stewardship practices and meet the demands of consumers despite the hurdles we’re facing this year.”

    The 2021 Objective Report’s forecast is 13 percent below the 2021 California Almond Subjective Forecast in May of 3.20 billion pounds. The forecast for the average nut set per tree is 4,619, down 18 percent from the 2020 almond crop. The Nonpareil average nut set is 4,512, down 20 percent from last year’s set. The average kernel weight for all varieties sampled was 1.46 grams, down 3 percent from the 2020 average weight.

    “Shipment numbers show that the demand for California almonds continues to increase both in the U.S. and around the world,” said Almond Board President and CEO Richard Waycott. “The strong forecast means the California almond industry will keep up with that growing global demand with a steady supply of high quality almonds. With such strong demand, competition for the 2021 crop could lead to a much needed increase in the return to growers, which is currently below the cost of production due to the recent record crop.”

    ABC’s June 2021 Position Report showed that both exports and total shipments increased the records set in May for a single crop year, while shipments within the U.S. are on pace for a record year. Through June, total shipments reached 2.67 billion pounds. The crop year ends July 31.

    USDA-NASS conducts the annual Objective Report, Subjective Forecast and Acreage Report to provide the California almond industry with the data needed to make informed business decisions and it thanks all farm operators, owners and management entities for their time providing the information necessary to create these reports. These reports are the official industry crop estimates.

    About the Almond Board of California

    Almonds from California are a healthy, natural, wholesome and quality food. The Almond Board of California promotes almonds with a research-based approach to responsible farming, production and marketing on behalf of the more than 7,600 almond growers and processors in California, many of whom have third- and fourth-generation family operations. Established in 1950 and based in Modesto, California, the Almond Board of California is a non-profit organization that administers a grower-enacted Federal Marketing Order under the supervision of the United States Department of Agriculture. For more information on the Almond Board of California or California almonds, visit Almonds.com.

  • NIFA Invests $14M in Animal Health & Disease Research

    The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) announced an investment of $14 million in research to protect agricultural animals from disease. The grants are part of NIFA’s Agriculture and Food Research Initiative’s Diseases of Agricultural Animals program area priority.

    “Animal health is critically important to farmers and ranchers,” said NIFA director Dr. Carrie Castille. “This research will help better understand, diagnose, control and prevent diseases in agricultural animals and aquaculture.”

    Funded projects will focus on developing new and improved vaccines, diagnostics and antimicrobial alternatives; breeding disease resistant animals; and understanding better ways to manage animals to minimize disease outbreaks.

    Examples of the 31 recently awarded Diseases of Agricultural Animals Program grants include:

    • Iowa State University’s project will introduce a new approach to Vitamin A and Zinc supplements to help protect cattle against stress and respiratory disease ($500,000).
    • University of Maine, Orono’s project will develop a new, safe aquaculture vaccine to help improve disease immunity in Atlantic salmon in an environmentally friendly and cost-effective way (495,000).
    • University of Florida’s project will examine ways to improve immunity in pigs that can protect them from lung disease and influenza virus infections ($500,000).

     

    NIFA invests in and advances agricultural research, education, and Extension across the nation to make transformative discoveries that solve societal challenges. NIFA supports initiatives that ensure the long-term viability of agriculture and applies an integrated approach to ensure that groundbreaking discoveries in agriculture-related sciences and technologies reach the people who can put them into practice. In FY2020, NIFA’s total investment was $1.95 billion.

    Visit our website: www.nifa.usda.gov; Twitter: @USDA_NIFA; LinkedIn: USDA-NIFA. To learn more about NIFA’s impact on agricultural science (searchable by state or keyword), visit www.nifa.usda.gov/impacts.

  • California Farmland Trust Appoints Clay Daulton As New Board Member

    California Farmland Trust (CFT) is proud to welcome well-respected Madera County rancher and community member, Clay Daulton as the newest appointed board member.  With 55 years at Daulton Ranch where he is the current owner, as well as experience in various professional settings, Daulton brings vast agricultural knowledge to California Farmland Trust.

    “Having grown up in Madera County and seeing the large-scale growth that has transpired in the surrounding areas over the years, ensuring farmland is treated fairly and protected in California is a great interest of mine,” Daulton said. “The opportunity to contribute to CFT in pursuit of this mission is something I am looking forward to.”

    Daulton has served on numerous boards and committees including the Madera County Farm Bureau, Madera County Cattleman’s Association, the Foreign Trade Committee at the National Cattleman’s Beef Association, and The Agricultural Foundation of California State University, Fresno.  “Given Clay’s extensive experience and professional involvement in the agriculture industry, we are excited to collaborate with him to further the mission of protecting farmland,” said Charlotte Mitchell, executive director at California Farmland Trust.

    Daulton joins the existing 13 members of California Farmland Trust’s board of directors and will serve on the farmland conservation committee. The California Farmland Trust is a California Non-Profit 501(c)(3). Our mission is to help farmers protect the best farmland in the world. To date, we have protected 16,780 acres of farmland on 77 family farms. To learn more visit us: www.cafarmtrust.org.

  • CDFA Announces Results of Controversial Dairy QIP Referendum

    The California Department of Food and Agriculture (Department) recently conducted a referendum vote among California Market Milk Producers within the State of California to determine whether the Quota Implementation Plan (QIP) effective November 1, 2018, should be amended to equalize regional quota adjusters such that the quota premium in all counties equal 1.43/cwt., and to terminate the QIP effective March 1, 2025.  Just two days prior to the Independence Day holiday, the Department announced the referendum results with the voice of the people against the termination of QIP. It was certainly a close call though, as seen in the referendum stats below.

    In order for the amendments to be approved California Food and Agricultural Section 62717 specifies that:

    Not less than fifty-one percent (51%) of the total number of eligible producers in the state shall have voted in the referendum AND one of the following criteria must be satisfied:

    1. a)  Sixty-five percent (65%) or more of the total number of eligible producers who voted in the referendum who produced fifty-one percent (51%) or more of the total amount of fluid milk produced in the state during the calendar month next preceding the month commencement of the referendum period (January 2021) by all producers who voted in the referendum approve the plan, OR,

    2. b)  Fifty-one percent (51%) or more of the total number of eligible producers who voted in the referendum who produced sixty-five percent (65%) or more of the total amount of fluid milk produced in the state during the calendar month next preceding the month commencement of the referendum period (January 2021) by all producers who voted in the referendum, approve the plan.

    Summary of the Results of the Referendum Vote: 

    Proportion of Eligible Producers that participated: 78.56%

    Proportion of those Eligible Producers Voting in Favor: 49.25%

    Proportion of those Eligible Producers Voting in Opposition: 50.75%

    Proportion of the Voted Volume Represented by Eligible Producers in Favor: 54.47%

    Proportion of the Voted Volume Represented by Eligible Producers in Opposition: 45.53%

    In summary, 78.56% of the total number of eligible producers voted in the referendum, and 49.25% voting in favor, having produced 54.47% of the total amount of fluid milk in the state, among participating producers, in January 2021. Conversely, 50.75% voting in opposition, produced 45.53% of the total amount of fluid milk in the state, among participating producers, in January 2021.

    Explanation of Results:
    78.56%     of the total number of eligible market milk producers in the State voted, therefore the first criterion was satisfied.

    Additionally, both elements of EITHER criterion in (a) OR (b) above must also be satisfied:

    1. The producers who accounted for 54.47% of the fluid milk, produced by participants in the referendum, in January 2021 voted IN FAVOR, exceeding the threshold of 51% by 3.47%, thereby satisfying the first element; however, only 49.25% of the number of eligible producers voted IN FAVOR, falling short of satisfying the threshold of 65% for the second element by 15.75%. Therefore, because only one of the two elements were satisfied, the referendum is not adopted through this criterion.

    2. 49.25% of the number of eligible producers voted IN FAVOR, falling short of satisfying the 51% threshold by 1.75%; AND, producers who accounted for 54.47% or more of the total amount of fluid milk, produced by participants in the referendum, in January 2021 voted IN FAVOR, falling short of satisfying the threshold of 65% threshold by 10.03%. Therefore, because neither of the two elements were satisfied, the referendum is not adopted through this criterion.

    Since the outcome of this referendum does not meet the criteria set forth in Section 62717 of the Food and Agricultural Code, the amendments will not be incorporated into the Quota Implementation Plan, and the QIP will remain in force and will not be terminated effective March 21, 2025. A further summary of the results is included with this notice.

    If you have questions regarding the referendum, please contact Steven Donaldson with the Quota Administration Program at (916) 900-5012 or steven.donaldson@cdfa.ca.gov.

  • Vineyard Floor Management in Drought Years – Do Dust Mulches Help?

    During drought years, especially when irrigation water supplies are limited, conserving available soil water for vine water use is important. This paper focuses on management of vineyard middles to increase water availability to vines. For an excellent discussion of all aspects of vineyard management to conserve water resources see “Reducing vineyard water use: mechanisms, strategies, and limitations” by San Luis Obispo County UCCE Viticulture and Soils Advisor, Mark Battany.

    Seasonal considerations in California’s Mediterranean climate: In the fall and winter the presence of cover crops or resident vegetation on the vineyard floor helps to increase the infiltration of rainfall into soil. During these cooler months, the loss of soil moisture from evapotranspiration of the cover crop or resident vegetation is similar to the rate of evaporation from bare soil. Therefore, the presence of living plant cover during fall and winter is beneficial to the soil water balance.

    As vegetation continues to grow during warmer and drier spring months, the amount of evapotranspiration from the plant cover will begin to exceed that of evaporation from bare soil or soil covered with mulched plant material. Therefore, terminating plant cover in the spring with mowing, herbicide, or shallow tillage will conserve soil moisture. Plant mulch generated from chemical or mechanical mowing of vineyard vegetation will help to prevent evaporation from the soil surface, and greater plant mulch amounts will more effectively conserve moisture.

    Where little plant mulch is available, soil water loss can be further reduced by tillage, which disrupts soil structure and reduces the conduction of water from deeper in soil to the surface. In effect, tillage creates a soil mulch to slow evaporation. This approach is most often used in un-irrigated vineyards.

    The best tillage approach for water conservation: While tillage can preserve soil moisture, excessive tillage to create a “dust mulch” is not more effective in conserving soil moisture and can damage soil health and function, compared to reduced tillage. Researchers in the dry inland Pacific Northwest found that one pass tillage was equal to or better than creating a fine soil mulch for water conservation: “Conventional thought has been that it takes several passes to create an effective soil mulch, but our data shows this is not true. Soil does not need to be extensively tilled into fine particles to provide a barrier to evaporation.” Furthermore, they found that the cloddy, high residue surface created by a single tillage pass increased soil aggregation and water infiltration, reduced soil crusting, and increased the soil’s resistance to erosion compared to conventional tillage. 

    Soil health considerations: Excessive tillage is detrimental to soil health and can cause pollution. When soil has been pulverized, rainfall creates a surface crust that seals soil pores and increases surface water run-off. This not only reduces water infiltration into the soil profile, it can lead to erosion and sediment pollution of local surface waters. Loss of the surface soil layer, “topsoil”, where organic matter and nutrients are concentrated, reduces a soils capacity to support plants, which in turn reduces its ability to sequester carbon. Disruption of soil structure by tillage exposes protected organic matter to microbial decomposition. Eventually, this leads to reduced soil organic matter levels and microbial populations in soil. Because most soil carbon is found in soil organic matter, reductions in soil organic matter mean reductions in soil carbon sequestration. Soil organic matter also acts like a sponge, so reducing it shrinks the soil’s water-holding capacity. A final important consideration is the added expense and fuel use for additional tillage passes.

    The Bottom Line: When irrigation water availability is limited and conserving soil moisture is vital, terminate cover crops early and use minimal tillage to conserve soil moisture. “Dust mulch” is not more effective than minimum tillage and can harm long-term soil productivity and health. – By Erica Lundquist, Ph.D., CCA, Soil Conservationist NRCS Ukiah Field Office

    Editor’s Note: Photos courtesy of North Coast Soil Hub 

  • Soil Health Institute Announces Speakers for its Annual Meeting

    The Soil Health Institute (SHI), the non-profit charged with safeguarding and enhancing the vitality and productivity of soils, announced today its lineup of agricultural leaders, scientists, and practitioners who will speak at its annual meeting, “Enriching Soil, Enhancing Life.”

    The two-day virtual event on August 11 and 12, 2021 will kick off with a keynote presentation from Moira Mcdonald, Director of the Environment Program with the Walton Family Foundation.

    Other highlights of the event will include:

    • Panel Discussion: Three farmers will describe their experiences adopting a soil health system.
    • Taryn Barclay, Cargill’s Senior Director of Strategic Partnerships and Stakeholder Engagement, will lead a session on the “Business Case for Regenerative Soil Health Systems.”
    • Dr. Julie Howe and Dr. Terry Gentry, both with Texas A&M University, will present their assessments on the “State of the Science: Impacts of Fertilizers, Manures, Pesticides, and Biological Additives on Soil Health.”
    • Dr. Arnab Bhowmik of North Carolina A&T State University will describe how soil microbial processes impact nutrient cycling and greenhouse gas emissions.
    • Dr. Ashley Shade of Michigan State University will share insights from her research into how soil microbial interactions influence their resilience, and Dr. Elizabeth Rieke, Soil Microbiome Scientist with the Soil Health Institute will provide results of a continental assessment on how tillage impacts soil microbial communities that serve various roles in healthy soils.
    • Marc Bernard will describe “4 per 1000,” the international initiative among approximately 40 countries using soil health as a framework to increase soil carbon sequestration by 0.4% per year.
    • Dr. Rodrigo Nicoloso of the Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (Embrapa) will address how the depth of carbon storage is affected by management – a key issue for carbon markets.
    • Dr. Cristine Morgan, Chief Scientific Officer with the Soil Health Institute, will introduce the concept of “Soil Health Targets,” the Institute’s approach for establishing and scaling soil health interpretations for farmers, conservation planners, and others.

    These and more topics will be covered. There is no cost to attend the event, but you must register at https://soilhealthinstitute.org/2021-annual-meeting. The website also includes a detailed schedule, a full list of speakers, and their bios.

    Continuing Education Credits (CEUs) will be available for Tri-Society members who attend the virtual conference.

    “We are excited to bring together this esteemed group of professionals to share their soil health knowledge that can significantly benefit farmers and the environment,” said Dr. Wayne Honeycutt, CEO of the Soil Health Institute. “Whether you’re a grower, agribusiness, consultant, scientist, field conservationist, government or NGO employee, this conference has valuable information for you to advance the science, adoption, and environmental benefits of soil health.”

    For more information about “Enriching Soil, Enhancing Life,” speaker bios, the schedule, and to register, visit https://soilhealthinstitute.org/2021-annual-meeting.

    ABOUT SOIL HEALTH INSTITUTE

    The Soil Health Institute is a global non-profit with a mission to safeguard and enhance the vitality and productivity of soil through scientific research and advancement. We bring together leaders in soil health science and the industry to help farmers, ranchers, and landowners adopt soil health systems that build drought resilience, stabilize yield, and benefit their bottom line. The Institute’s team of scientists, holding doctorates in various soil science and related disciplines, has developed highly effective soil health targets and standardized measurements to quantify progress at achieving regenerative and sustainable agricultural systems, and leads the cutting-edge fields of carbon sequestration and decoding the soil microbiome. Healthy soils are the foundation for rejuvenating our land. Together, we can create a secure future for all, mitigate the effects of climate change, and help agriculture and organizations meet production and environmental goals at scale. Visit soilhealthinstitute.org to learn more and follow us on LinkedIn, Twitter, and Facebook.