California Ag Network

Category: Ag Economics

  • New Avocado Study Outlines Costs & Returns of High-Density Plantings

    Growers considering producing avocados in San Diego County with high-density plantings now have help to determine the economic feasibility. A new study on the costs and returns of establishing and producing avocados in San Diego County has been released by UC Agriculture and Natural Resources’ Cooperative Extension, UC Agricultural Issues Center and the UC Davis Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.

    A worker prunes weak tree branches to improve sunlight penetration in a high-density avocado orchard.

    Avocado has been one of the prominent crops produced in Southern California since the early 1950s. California avocado production peaked in 1987-88 with about 76,300 acres. San Diego had been the leading producer accounting for about 60% of the acreage.

    “Beginning in the early 1980s, there has been a continuous decline of acreage and production of avocados in San Diego County, said Etaferahu Takele, UC Cooperative Extension farm management advisor for Southern California and co-author of the study. “This is mainly because of the expansion of urban development that has increased the cost of producing the crop and especially the cost of water, reaching to up to $2,000 per acre feet in 2020.”

    The same amount of water was sufficient for the high-density avocados as it was for the traditional planting (Photo by Gary Bender).

    High-density planting increases profitability of avocado production given there is suitable land for high-density orchard development.

    Although the cost of water accounts for 44% of the total production cost in the high-density planting, the water cost is proportionally less than in the conventional planting of 145 trees per acre when distributed over a higher yield per acre, the authors write.

    Their cost analysis describes production operations for avocados planted at 430 trees per acre, with an expected life span of 40 years. The study includes a detailed summary of costs and returns and a profitability analysis of gross margin, economic profit and a break-even ranging analysis table, which shows profits over a range of prices and yields. Growers can identify their gross margin and returns to management based on their yield and prices received.

    UC Cooperative Extension advisor Gary Bender checks sunlight penetration in a high-density avocado orchard.

    Input and reviews were provided by a UC Cooperative Extension farm advisor and grower cooperators in San Diego County. The authors describe the assumptions used to identify current costs for avocado establishment and production, material inputs, cash and non-cash overhead.

    The new study, “Avocado Establishment and Production Costs and Profitability Analysis in High Density Planting, San Diego County-2020,” can be downloaded for free from the UC Davis Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics website at http://coststudies.ucdavis.edu and UCCE Riverside County Farm Management website at https://ucanr.edu/sites/Farm_Management/Costs_and_Returns. Sample cost of production studies for many other commodities are also available on the websites.

    For additional information or an explanation of the calculations used in the studies, refer to the “Assumptions” section of the report or contact Takele at (951) 683-6491 Ext. 243 or ettakele@ucanr.edu or Donald Stewart at the UC Agricultural Issues Center at destewart@ucdavis.edu. — By Pamela Kan-Rice, UCANR

  • California Beef Council Approves 2021 Work Plan, Appoints New Leadership

    The California Beef Council (CBC) will invest over $1 million in 2021 in efforts to promote beef, provide consumer information, engage with foodservice and retail stakeholders, educate health and nutrition influencers, and provide educational and informational resources to beef producers. This 2021 work plan and budget were approved by the producer-led CBC board of directors during its annual meeting, held virtually December 15 and 16.

    “California Beef Council decisions are driven by beef producers, and the cattlemen and women who are part of the organization carefully consider all strategies to determine the best way to invest our Checkoff dollars with the overall goal of driving beef demand,” said 2020 CBC Chair Jesse Larios. “Every year, the CBC reviews proposals brought forth from CBC staff and external organizations to determine how to distribute our funding in a way that best serves the long-term success of California’s beef industry.”

    Programs planned for 2021 include four seasonal integrated marketing campaigns, which will combine broad marketing and advertising efforts with retail-level promotions and incentives for purchasing beef. In 2019, similar campaigns resulted in over 97 million cumulative impressions, with the results of 2020 campaigns still being analyzed. Also included in the 2021 work plan are numerous educational programs targeting California health and nutrition professionals, with the goal of providing science-based nutrition information about beef to this community of influencers.

    Continued enhancement and roll-out of digital resources and experiences for retail and foodservice professionals will also take place in 2021, providing crucial beef education tools for these industries that are ideal for the virtual world. For producers, educational programs in Beef Quality Assurance certification, media spokesperson training and industry advocacy will also take place.

    In addition to setting the stage for 2021, CBC staff also thoroughly reviewed the results and outcomes of programs funded in 2020, providing producer leadership with a clear picture of what was accomplished.

    “This past year has certainly been challenging, and like other organizations, the CBC had to pivot and refocus its efforts in the wake of the pandemic,” noted Larios. “Yet despite some of the setbacks this year caused, we were able to successfully move forward with a variety of efforts that positively represented our cattle and beef community. I am proud of the work the CBC is able to accomplish every year, but especially in this year of disruption and uncertainty.”

    During its annual meeting, the CBC board also appointed its 2021 leadership, with an executive committee comprised of producers representing every sector of California’s beef industry. Serving as chair and vice chair in the coming year are Tom Barcellos of Porterville, representing the dairy sector, and Cindy Tews of Fresno, representing the range sector. Jesse Larios, 2020 chair of the CBC representing the feeder sector, will continue in an ex-officio role.

    To learn more about the CBC plans for 2021 and results of 2020, a recording of the staff presentation is available at www.CalBeef.org/beef-producers.

    About the California Beef Council

    The California Beef Council (CBC) was established in 1954 to serve as the promotion, research, and education arm of the California beef industry, and is mandated by the California Food and Agricultural Code. The CBC’s mission is to position the California beef industry for sustained beef demand growth through promotion, research and education. For more information, visit www.calbeef.org.

    About the Beef Checkoff

    The Beef Checkoff Program was established as part of the 1985 Farm Bill. The checkoff assesses $1 per head on the sale of live domestic and imported cattle, in addition to a comparable assessment on imported beef and beef products. States may retain up to 50 cents on the dollar and forward the other 50 cents per head to the Cattlemen’s Beef Promotion and Research Board, which administers the national checkoff program, subject to USDA approval.

  • First CLas-Positive Asian Citrus Psyllid Found in San Diego

    An Asian citrus psyllid (ACP) sample – confirmed positive for Candidatus Liberibacter asiaticus (CLas), the bacteria that causes Huanglongbing (HLB) – was collected from a residential property in the Fallbrook area of San Diego County. Confirmed by Citrus Research Board’s Jerry Dimitman Laboratory, this adult psyllid sample is the first CLas-positive ACP found in San Diego County.

    While the first confirmation of a CLas-positive ACP in San Diego County is concerning, as of today, HLB has not been detected in any San Diego County trees but surveying and sampling of area trees is ongoing. This find signals a critical time for homeowners and growers alike to continue to control ACP populations to stop the potential spread of this deadly disease, as oftentimes a CLas-positive ACP precedes the detection of an HLB-positive tree.

    The HLB quarantine zone will not be expanded as a result of this CLas-positive ACP detection and CDFA staff is swiftly conducting surveys and collecting samples from HLB host plants that are located within a 250-meter radius around the find, per the ACP/HLB Action Plan.

    While treatment is not mandatory for area commercial growers as a result of the detection, San Diego County commercial growers who have additional questions can contact Sandra Zwaal, San Diego County Grower Liaison, at szwaal2@gmail.com.

    CLICK HERE for additional information from Citrus Pest and Disease Prevention Program (CPDPP) Citrus Insider.

    Source: Citrus Pest and Disease Prevention Program (CPDPP) Citrus Insider

  • E. & J. Gallo Winery Completes Acquisition of Over 30 Brands From Constellation

    E. & J. Gallo Winery (Gallo) today announced that it has completed the acquisition of more than 30 wine brands from Constellation Brands, Inc.  The closing of the agreement between Gallo and Constellation was approved by the Federal Trade Commission on December 23, 2020.

    The acquisition includes well known wine brands such as Arbor Mist, Black Box, Clos du Bois, Estancia, Franciscan, Hogue, Manischewitz, Mark West, Ravenswood, Taylor, Vendange, and Wild Horse that will join the Gallo portfolio. With this acquisition, Gallo will expand its operational footprint with the addition of five wineries located in California, Washington, and New York, along with Constellation’s Polyphenolics business. Gallo will also acquire the Nobilo New Zealand Sauvignon Blanc brand in a separate transaction with Constellation.

    “The closing of this transaction represents our company’s long-term commitment to the wine industry,” said Chief Executive Officer, Ernest J. Gallo. He added, “We are pleased to welcome the new employees joining the Gallo family.”

    The acquisition was first announced by Gallo and Constellation on April 3, 2019. Pursuant to the FTC consent order, Gallo will also divest two of its legacy dessert brands, Fairbanks and Sheffield, to Precept Brands LLC. Terms of the transaction between Gallo and Precept were not disclosed.

    About E. & J. Gallo Winery
    Founded by brothers Ernest and Julio Gallo in 1933 in Modesto, California, E. & J. Gallo Winery is a family-owned winery with more than 7,000 global employees and is the acclaimed producer of award-winning wines and spirits featured in more than 110 countries around the globe.  A pioneer in the art of grape growing, winemaking, sustainable practices, marketing and worldwide distribution, Gallo crafts and imports wines and spirits to suit a diverse range of tastes and occasions, from everyday offerings to boutique, luxury bottlings.

    The Gallo portfolio is comprised of more than 100 unique brands, including Barefoot Cellars, Dark Horse, and Gallo Family Vineyards, as well as premium box wines The Naked Grape and Vin Vault.  Premium offerings include Apothic, Carnivor, Chateau Souverain, Columbia Winery, Ecco Domani, Edna Valley Vineyard, J Vineyards & Winery, Louis M. Martini, MacMurray Estate Vineyards, Mirassou, Orin Swift, Talbott Vineyards, and William Hill Estate, along with highly acclaimed imports, such as Alamos, Brancaia, La Marca, Las Rocas, Martín Códax, Whitehaven, and LUX Wines, importers of Allegrini, Argiano, Jermann, Pieropan and Renato Ratti.  Gallo Spirits currently offers New Amsterdam Vodka and Gin, Familia Camarena Tequila, RumHaven, Lo-Fi Aperitifs, E&J Brandy, Argonaut Brandy, Germain-Robin Brandy, Diplomático Rum, as well as imported Scotch whiskies from Whyte & Mackay, including The Dalmore, Jura and John Barr.

  • Ag Revolution Saved Over 100 Million Infant Lives in Developing World

    UC San Diego – New research from the University of California San Diego shows that since modern crop varieties were introduced in the developing world starting in 1961, they have substantially reduced infant mortality, especially for male babies and among poor households.

    The study assessed mortality rates of more 600,000 children across 37 developing countries, revealing global diffusion of agricultural technology reduced infant mortality by up to 2.4 to 5.3 percentage points. This translates to around 3 to 6 million infant deaths averted per year by the year 2000.

    The global scale of the study–the most sweeping to measure the green revolution’s impact on child health–is critical because while the green revolutions represents one of the most important technological transformations in modern history, it did not reach all parts of the world equally.

    “If the green revolution had spread to sub-Saharan Africa like it did to South Asia, our estimates imply that infant mortality rates would improve by 31 percent,” said Gordon McCord, study co-author and associate teaching professor of economics at UC San Diego’s School of Global Policy and Strategy.

    In the course of the past 60 years, the green revolution catalyzed the spread of modern crop varieties for staple crops such as wheat, maize and rice throughout the developing world. It also exemplifies successful U.S. international cooperation–the Rockefeller and Ford foundations were the initial funders of the green revolution in the 1950s and 1960s, followed by the governments of wealthy countries, including the United States.

    Developed by dozens of national agriculture programs with the support of international agricultural research centers, the crops have high yield potential such as resistance to stress, pests and disease, and improved quality of the harvested material. The increase of agricultural production worldwide has been credited with saving over a billion people from starvation.

    In the paper, published in the Journal of Health Economics, McCord and co-authors combined geospatial crop data with child-level data of over 600,000 children across 21,604 locations in 37 developing countries between 1961 and 2000. Their findings imply that a substantial part of the infant mortality reduction observed in the developing world during the second half of the 20th century is due to diffusion of agricultural technologies and inputs. By the year 2000, more than three million infant lives were saved per year as a result.

    The child-level data were provided by geo-located public health surveys of women of ages 15-49 regarding their fertility history, generating records for around three million children. McCord and co-authors culled down that information to focus on rural areas and to mothers who never migrated. This data set was spatially merged with crop distribution data, allowing for an analysis at high spatial resolution.

    Modern crop varieties proved to have positive effect on all infants; however, the impact is greater among male than female babies. The researchers found impact on female infants only in countries with more gender parity, suggesting the larger impact on male babies is partly due to discrimination by sex in resource allocation to children. Additionally, infant mortality rates declined more sharply among poorer households.

    “The health benefits of broad-based increases in agricultural productivity should not be overlooked,” McCord said. “From the policy perspective, government support for inputs leading to a green revolution as well as investments in extension and R&D programs are important.”

    At the global level, the researchers’ estimates suggest that an increase in modern crop adoption from 0 to 50 percent leads to a decline in infant mortality by 33-38 deaths per 1,000 children.

    The authors conclude their work speaks to the importance of improving productivity in agriculture as a means of improving lives in developing countries, including the lives of the poor in rural areas.

    “It is reasonable to view with some alarm the steady decline in funding for cereal crop improvement over the last few decades in sub-Saharan Africa, the continent with the least modern crop varieties,” they write. “As such, our research can inform the recent debate about whether investing in increased smallholder agricultural productivity is an effective strategy for economic development, health improvement and poverty alleviation in sub-Saharan Africa.”

    The research was supported by the Gates Foundation and the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) Standing Panel on Impact Assessment.

  • USDA Provides Over $70 Million to Protect Ag from Pests and Diseases

    The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is allocating more than $70 million to support 383 projects under the Plant Protection Act’s Section 7721 program to strengthen the nation’s infrastructure for pest detection and surveillance, identification, threat mitigation, to safeguard the nursery production system and to respond to plant pest emergencies.  Universities, states, federal agencies, nongovernmental organizations, nonprofits, and Tribal organizations will carry out selected projects in 49 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, and Puerto Rico.

    “State governments, academic institutions, and other essential cooperators across the country use these USDA funds to protect American crops and natural resources and ensure the marketability of our agricultural products across the globe,” said Greg Ibach, Under Secretary for USDA’s Marketing and Regulatory Programs.

    The fiscal year 2021 project list includes 29 projects funded through the National Clean Plant Network (NCPN). The NCPN helps our country maintain the infrastructure necessary to ensure that pathogen-free, disease-free and pest-free certified planting materials for fruit trees, grapes, berries, citrus, hops, sweet potatoes, and roses are available to U.S. specialty crop producers.

    Since 2009, USDA has supported more than 4,400 projects and provided nearly $670 million in funding through the Plant Pest and Disease Management and Disaster Prevention Program. Collectively, these projects allow USDA and its partners to quickly detect and rapidly respond to invasive plant pests and diseases.

    In FY 2021, funded projects include, among others:

    • Asian giant hornet research and eradication efforts: $944,116 in Washington and other states;
    • Exotic fruit fly survey and detection: $5,575,000 in Florida and California;
    • Agriculture detector dog teams: $4,287,097 to programs in California, Florida, and nationally to support detector dog teams;
    • Honey bee and pollinator health: $1,337,819 to protect honey bees, bumble bees and other important pollinators from harmful pests;
    • Biosecurity: $1,339,183 to Texas to monitor for pests in agricultural shipments at ports of entry;
    • Stone fruit and orchard commodities: $1,158,000 to support pest detection surveys in 10 states including New York and Pennsylvania;
    • Forest pests: $876,485 for various detection tools, control methods development, or outreach to protect forests from harmful pests in 16 states, including Arkansas, Indiana, South Carolina, and New Hampshire;
    • Phytophthora ramorum (sudden oak death pathogen) and related species: $513,497 in 14 states and nationally for survey, diagnostics, mitigation, probability modeling, genetic analysis, and outreach;
    • Solanaceous plants (including the tomato commodity): $434,000 to support surveys in 13 states including Texas, Mississippi, and South Carolina.

    USDA will use $14 million to rapidly respond to invasive pest emergencies should a pest of high economic consequence be found in the United States. In the past, USDA has used these funds to rapidly respond to pests such as grasshoppers, Mormon crickets, the Asian giant hornet, coconut rhinoceros beetle, exotic fruit flies, and the spotted lanternfly.

    As the United States and the world recognize the International Year of Plant Health through June 2021, this funding highlights USDA’s continued commitment to safeguarding our agricultural resources for current and future generations.

    Learn more about the Plant Protection Act, Section 7721 on the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) website: www.aphis.usda.gov/ppa-projects.

  • USDA Quality Loss Assistance Now Available for Farmers Affected by Natural Disasters

    The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Farm Service Agency (FSA) today announced that signup for the Quality Loss Adjustment (QLA) Program will begin Wednesday, Jan. 6, 2021. Funded by the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2020, this new program provides assistance to producers who suffered eligible crop quality losses due to natural disasters occurring in 2018 and 2019. The deadline to apply for QLA is Friday, March 5, 2021.

    “Farmers and livestock producers nationwide experienced crop quality losses due to natural disasters in 2018 and 2019,” said. Bill Northey, USDA Under Secretary for Farm Production and Conservation. “We have worked diligently over the past couple of years to roll out meaningful disaster assistance programs to help alleviate the substantial financial loss experienced by so many agricultural producers and are pleased to offer quality loss assistance as added relief. Many of the eligible producers have already received compensation for quantity losses.”

    Eligible Crops

    Eligible crops include those for which federal crop insurance or Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP) coverage is available, except for grazed crops and value loss crops, such as honey, maple sap, aquaculture, floriculture, mushrooms, ginseng root, ornamental nursery, Christmas trees, and turfgrass sod.

    Additionally, crops that were sold or fed to livestock or that are in storage may be eligible; however, crops that were destroyed before harvest are not eligible. Crop quality losses occurring after harvest, due to deterioration in storage, or that could have been mitigated, are also not eligible.

    Assistance is based on a producer’s harvested affected production of an eligible crop, which must have had at least a 5% quality loss reflected through a quality discount; or for forage crops, a nutrient loss, such as total digestible nutrients.

    Qualifying Disaster Events

    Losses must have been a result of a qualifying disaster event (hurricane, excessive moisture, flood, qualifying drought, tornado, typhoon, volcanic activity, snowstorm, or wildfire) or related condition that occurred in calendar years 2018 and/or 2019.

    Assistance is available for eligible producers in counties that received a qualifying Presidential Emergency Disaster Declaration or Secretarial Disaster Designation because of one or more of the qualifying disaster events or related conditions.

    Lists of counties with Presidential Emergency Disaster Declarations and Secretarial Disaster Designations for all qualifying disaster events for 2018 and 2019 are available here. For drought, producers are eligible for QLA if the loss occurred in an area within a county rated by the U.S. Drought Monitor as having a D3 (extreme drought) or higher intensity level during 2018 or 2019.

    Producers in counties that did not receive a qualifying declaration or designation may still apply but must also provide supporting documentation to establish that the crop was directly affected by a qualifying disaster event.

    To determine QLA eligibility and payments, FSA considers the total quality loss caused by all qualifying natural disasters in cases where a crop was impacted by multiple events.

    Applying for QLA

    When applying, producers are asked to provide verifiable documentation to support claims of quality loss or nutrient loss in the case of forage crops. For crops that have been sold, grading must have been completed within 30 days of harvest, and for forage crops, a laboratory analysis must have been completed within 30 days of harvest.

    Some acceptable forms of documentation include sales receipts from buyers, settlement sheets, truck or warehouse scale tickets, written sales contracts, similar records that represent actual and specific quality loss information, and forage tests for nutritional values.

    Payments Calculations and Limitations

    QLA payments are based on formulas for the type of crop (forage or non-forage) and loss documentation submitted. Based on this documentation FSA is calculating payments based on the producer’s own individual loss or based on the county average loss. More information on payments can be found on farmers.gov/quality-loss.

    FSA will issue payments once the application period ends. If the total amount of calculated QLA payments exceeds available program funding, payments will be prorated.

    For each crop year, 2018, 2019 and 2020, the maximum amount that a person or legal entity may receive, directly or indirectly, is $125,000. Payments made to a joint operation (including a general partnership or joint venture) will not exceed $125,000, multiplied by the number of persons and legal entities that comprise the ownership of the joint operation. A person or legal entity is ineligible for QLA payment if the person’s or legal entity’s average Adjusted Gross Income exceeds $900,000, unless at least 75% is derived from farming, ranching or forestry-related activities.

    Future Insurance Coverage Requirements

    All producers receiving QLA Program payments are required to purchase crop insurance or NAP coverage for the next two available crop years at the 60% coverage level or higher. If eligible, QLA participants may meet the insurance purchase requirement by purchasing Whole-Farm Revenue Protection coverage offered through USDA’s Risk Management Agency.

    More Information

    For more information, visit farmers.gov/quality-loss, or contact your local USDA Service Center. Producers can also obtain one-on-one support with applications by calling 877-508-8364.

    All USDA Service Centers are open for business, including those that restrict in-person visits or require appointments. All Service Center visitors wishing to conduct business with FSA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, or any other Service Center agency should call ahead and schedule an appointment. Service Centers that are open for appointments will pre-screen visitors based on health concerns or recent travel, and visitors must adhere to social distancing guidelines. Visitors are also required to wear a face covering during their appointment. Our program delivery staff will continue to work with our producers by phone, email and using online tools. More information can be found at farmers.gov/coronavirus.

  • Tito Sasaki Honored with the 2020 California Farm Bureau Federation Distinguished Service Award

    Sonoma County Farm Bureau — Tito Sasaki, a Sonoma Valley grape grower, scientist, and businessman, 35-year member and past president of Sonoma County Farm Bureau and Farm Bureau Foundation of Sonoma County, is the recipient of the 2020 California Farm Bureau Federation Distinguished Service Award.

    The California Farm Bureau has presented the Distinguished Service Award annually since 1953 to dedicated Farm Bureau members from California. Over the last century, Farm Bureau has had dozens of strong leaders. However, few have devoted the time and energy that Tito Sasaki has given, which is why he is so deserving of this recognition. This is the first time a member from Sonoma County has received this award.

    With humility and a strong community spirit, Sasaki said he was honored to receive such a recognition.

    “I am most appreciative of the Sonoma County Farm Bureau’s generosity in recommending me for the award,” Sasaki said. “If I were still on the Board, I would have recommended instead, the whole Sonoma County Farm Bureau— its members, staff, and the board. Perhaps, it doesn’t make much difference. I am, after all, accepting this honor on behalf of our Farm Bureau family.”

    Jeff Carlton, former Sonoma County Farm Bureau President who nominated Sasaki for the award, described Sasaki as “widely respected by both Farm Bureau members and elected officials, who value his intelligence and grasp of complex issues.”

    After receiving several postgraduate degrees and a successful career in engineering and quantum mechanics, Tito Sasaki joined the Sonoma County Farm Bureau in 1985, after he and his wife bought their ranch and began to revive a neglected vineyard on the property. 

    Sasaki said soon after moving to Sonoma County he came to realize the tremendous value of Farm Bureau and its crucial role in representing farmers’ interests, protecting property rights, and preserving agriculture for future generations. Farm Bureau, he said, provides the structure for farmers to work together to tackle important issues.

    For several decades, Sasaki worked tirelessly on water issues in Sonoma County. He devoted much of his time to developing water solutions and strategies, namely a balance between the water needs of farmers, fish, and urban residents. His work with the County was integral for the implementation of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. He was also a member and past Chairman of Sonoma County Farm Bureau’s Water Committee and a member of the Natural Resources Committee.

    Sasaki has served as a one-of-a-kind leader who is passionate about securing agriculture’s future in Sonoma County. His efforts, undoubtedly, helped to ensure a bright future for the next generation of farmers and ranchers. In 2019, Tito’s many contributions to agriculture were honored with his induction into the Sonoma County Farm Bureau Hall of Fame. The prestigious award recognizes individuals who have made a real and lasting difference in preserving and protecting Sonoma County’s agriculture industry and the county’s 500,000 acres of farmland.

    “There are not many people who know and understand the issues in agriculture as well as Tito. During his years on the Farm Bureau Board, he devoted countless hours to the agricultural industry, going to meeting after meeting to represent the interests of our members,” Carlton said.

    He said Tito is widely respected by both Farm Bureau members and elected officials who value his intelligence and grasp of complex issues. 

    Those who have worked with Tito over the years say his keen intelligence, analytical skills, and bulls-eye business acumen were put to good use in defining the issues and defending the rights and livelihoods of farmers and landowners.

    Not surprisingly, those who worked closely with Sasaki during his many years of service to Farm Bureau and the Sonoma County community-at-large joined in congratulating him for receiving much-deserved award.

    “Leaders often emerge when we need them the most. Tito Sasaki exemplifies that rise to leadership in a time of need. Early on Tito realized that water would be the dominant issue of the time in Sonoma County, throughout California and the West. He became Farm Bureau’s expert on water issues and worked tirelessly to ensure agricultural interests were represented in crafting water policy,” said Tim Tesconi, retired executive director of Sonoma County. 

    Tesconi said he was always impressed by Sasaki’s brilliant intellect, temperament, and grace.

    “In meeting after meeting on complex water issues, land use, and other topics it became obvious that Tito was the smartest guy in the room. He lent his time and talents to define the issues and defend the rights and livelihoods of farmers and landowners,” said Tesconi

    Former Sonoma County Ag Commissioner Tony Linegar said that he enjoyed his close working relationship with Sasaki.

    “Tito’s strong grasp of complex and technical regulatory issues positioned him as a natural leader for the Farm Bureau in fighting for reasonable and pragmatic solutions to the challenges faced by Sonoma county farmers,” Linegar said. “He has been tireless in his efforts and has gained the respect of countless agency staff for his hard work and acumen.”

    Jay Jasperse, chief engineer and director of groundwater management for the Sonoma County Water Agency, has worked with Tito over the last 15 years on water issues, primarily, implementation of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act.

    “Tito was one of the first to recognize that agriculture needed to be at the table to represent its interests in a proactive manner on the development of management programs to ensure a stable water supply,” said Jasperse.

    He said that Tito is one of the most impressive people he has ever worked with during his career. 

    “His intellect, work ethic, and his optimistic vision of the future, combined with his wry sense of humor, established him as a respected statewide leader on water matters,” Jasperse said. “I wish Tito the very best in his well-earned retirement and congratulate him on a job well done.”

    California Farm Bureau President Jamie Johansson said that Sasaki has worked passionately on Sonoma County water issues for more than 20 years.

    “He has devoted much of his time to developing water solutions and strategies, namely a balance among the water needs of farmers, fish, and urban residents,” Johansson said, noting his recent work in the county on implementation of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act.

    Johansson said that Sasaki’s reach and influence extended beyond Sonoma County.

    “Tito regularly communicated with state Farm Bureau leaders and staff as well as California legislators, seeking their expertise and support as he advocated for the agriculture industry and has been keenly focused on statewide issues impacting farmers,” Johansson said.

    Although he has retired from the Farm Bureau board Tito continues to be an ambassador for agriculture and Farm Bureau while he focuses on the next chapter of his life with his wife Janet at their vineyard in Sonoma.

    Tito Sasaki’s California Farm Bureau Federation Distinguished Service Award Acceptance Speech

    Thank you very much for this extraordinary honor. It was an utter surprise to me and my wife Janet as we had no reason to expect it. I know that many of you deserve this honor more than I do. The only difference between us is that you are still contributing whereas I am done, over and out.

    I did work hard when I was with you because it was fun. I enjoyed working not only at Sonoma County Farm Bureau but also at Napa, Marin, and Mendocino County Farm Bureaus as well as at the CFBF. The Farm Bureau, at every locality and level, is our family home where we trust each other and help each other.  One does not live for himself alone.  Only by helping others one can grow and prosper.

    Our battles for water and for the freedom to work on our land will never end. Any victory will be short-lived. Looking back, I was engaged in never-ending struggles. But, you, by working through the Farm Bureau, will have fresh opportunities of winning new battles and improving your production and profit. Profit is essential. Without profit, there will be no freedom. And without freedom, there will be no act of greatness.

    As the pandemic is tearing our social fabric, we need first to make sure we are on solid ground; then we should boost our contribution to society by creative means. I trust you will keep fighting for agriculture, keep working with each other, and make the best use of your hard-earned freedom. You will, and that’s why this Award should really belong to you all. — By Brytann Busick, Sonoma County Farm Bureau

  • USDA Announces Commodity Credit Corporation Lending Rates for January 2021

    The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) today announced interest rates for January 2021, which are effective January 4-January 31. These rates are used for a variety of farm credit options available through USDA’s Farm Service Agency (FSA).

    The CCC’s borrowing rate-based charge is 0.125%, same as December. The interest rate for crop year commodity loans less than one year disbursed is 1.125%, same as December.

    Interest rates for Farm Storage Facility Loans are the same as they were for December:

    • 0.250% with three-year loan terms;
    • 0.375% with five-year loan terms;
    • 0.625% with seven-year loan terms;
    • 0.875% with 10-year loan terms; and
    • 1.000% with 12-year loan terms.

    The interest rate for 15-year Sugar Storage Facility Loans is 1.250%, up from 1.125% in December.

    FSA loan programs provide low-interest financing to producers to build or upgrade storage facilities and other structures. They also help producers with interim financing to meet cash flow needs. More information on loans can be found at fsa.usda.gov or by contacting your local USDA Service Center.

    USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender.

  • Potential for Late-Season Spraying of Organic Herbicides to Control Yellow Starthistle

    Yellow starthistle is a noxious weed common in many areas of California’s grasslands, and is often a priority for control, due to its effects on decreased livestock carrying capacity, decreased plant diversity, and interference with recreational uses (reviewed in DiTomaso et al. 2006). A number of conventional herbicides are highly effective in controlling yellow starthistle (DiTomaso et al. 2006, USFS 2014), but in many settings, there is increased pressure to decrease use of conventional herbicides and find alternative control methods.

    Organic herbicides have received increased attention, including in the UC Weed Science Blog (https://ucanr.edu/blogs/blogcore/postdetail.cfm?postnum=5623, https://ucanr.edu/blogs/UCDWeedScience/index.cfm?tagname=organic%20herbicide), but often require repeated applications when trying to control plants during the growing season (Reiter and Windbiel-Rojas 2020).

    Yellow starthistle at the Putah Creek Riparian Reserve

    When considering the use of organic herbicides, it is important to not just substitute them into management protocols for conventional herbicides, but to consider their mode of action, and how that may shape promising approaches for their use. For example, D-Limonene (Avenger) and Capric and Caprylic acids (Suppress) contact-kill tissues, but are not systemic. This may make their effectiveness weaker when controlling weeds during the growing season, but could be promising in killing flowers and preventing seeding, as has been found with a number of conventional herbicides on yellow starthistle (DiTomaso et al. 2006), and in the use of both conventional herbicides and the organic herbicide Suppress in decreasing flowering of Wooly Distaff Thistle (DiTomaso et al. 2017).

    To assess whether these organic herbicides could provide effective control of yellow starthistle, we collaborated with Putah Creek Riparian Reserve to compare the effects of the timing and type of herbicide on yellow starthistle. Plots were mowed in December 2018 to assure good contact of the organic herbicides with growing plants. In 3 m x 3 m plots (7 replicates per treatment), we applied one of four herbicide treatments (no herbicide (control), the conventional herbicide Transline (clopyralid), the organic herbicide Avenger (D-Limonene), and the organic herbicide Suppress (caprylic and capric acids). These were applied in the spring of 2019 at 3 timings: early spring, mid-spring, and then at the initiation of yellow starthistle flowering in the late spring (see table below for details on applications).

    In the year of treatment, only the early and mid-spring applications of Transline decreased yellow starthistle, essentially eliminating it (see Photo 2), and there were no effects of the organic herbicides on the cover of yellow starthistle.

    However, all three herbicides applied at flowering resulted in damage to yellow starthistle (see Photo 3.)

    In June 2019, all herbicides applied at flowering resulted in damage to yellow starthistle

    In the following growing season, vegetation cover assessed in the late spring of 2020 showed that the most effective control of yellow starthistle was achieved from the late-season (at flowering) spray in the previous year—with equally effective control of the organic herbicides and Transline (Figure 1).

    Figure 1: Effects of 2019 herbicide applications on the percent cover of yellow starthistle at the end of the growing season in 2020.

    Of course, more time is needed to assess the long-term effects of late-season applications of organic herbicides, but based on two years of results, organic herbicides applied during the growing season have little effect on yellow starthistle, but applications at flowering are promising. Late-season applications are also beneficial because most desirable plants have already senesced at this time, providing the opportunity for yellow starthistle control with minimal unintended effects on other vegetation. — By Valerie Eviner, Professor of Ecosystem Management & Restoration, UC Davis Department of Plant Sciences

    References:

    DiTomaso, JM, GB Kyser, and MJ Pitcairn. 2006. Yellow starthistle management guide. Cal-IPC Publication 2006-03.

    DiTomaso, JM, GB Kyser, DJ Lewis and JA Roncoroni. 2017. Conventional and organic options for the control of Wooly Distaff Thistle (Carthamus lanatus). Invasive Plant Science and Management 10: 72-79.

    USFS. 2014. Field guide for managing yellow starthistle in the Southwest. USDA TP-R3-16-07.

    Reiter, M and K Windbiel-Rojas. 2020. Organic herbicides and glyphosate for weed control: results of coordinated experiments in urban landscapes. CAPCA Advisor Magazine. February 2020. Pp 24-30.