April 2003

Back Issues: September '98, October '98, November '98, December '98, January '99,
February '99, March '99, April '99, May '99, June '99, July '99, August '99, September '99,
October '99, November '99, December '99, January '00, February '00, April '00, May '00,
July '00, August '00, September '00, October '00, November '00, December '00,
January '01, February '01, March '01, April '01, May '01, June '01, July '01,
September'01, October '01, November '01, December '01, January '02, February '02(NA),
March '02, April '02, May '02, June '02, July '02, August '02, September '02, October '02,
November '02, December '02, January '03, March '03

No Sound Science In Cancer Risk Assessments By Steve Harris, Far West This Week (4/11/03) The Environmental Protection Agency is drawing fire from the American Council on Science and Health for failing to base its draft cancer risk assessment guidelines on sound science. According to ACSH, there is no evidence that EPA consulted with the National Cancer Institute or other experts on the established risk actors for human cancer in developing its draft "Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment" and "Supplemental Guidance for Assessing Cancer Susceptibility from Early Life Exposure to Carcinogens." To set the record straight, ACSH provides some "supplemental guidance" of its own. In comments submitted to EPA, ACSH wrote: "It s critical to note that human exposure to trace levels of environmental chemicals is NOT on the list of known risk factors for cancer. Thus, in attempting to identify and assess the degree of risk for adult or childhood exposure to trace levels of environmental chemicals, the EPA is focused not on an established but rather on a hypothetical risk of human cancer." The full ACSH comments, as respectfully submitted to the EPA, can be read at: http://www.acsh.org/press/releases/comments040803.html Burning Questions From the Idaho Council on Industry & the Environment Date: 4-3-03&emdash;On one side of the issue are claims that parents must take children with respiratory diseases and flee their homes in the face of advancing smoke from blue grass field burning. On the other side are the parents who have farmed this land for three generations but are now facing economic ruin and the loss of the ability to feed their children. On one side of the issue is Safe Air for Everyone (SAFE) a group which Pullman, Washington, executive director, Patti Gora, says represents "ordinary citizens, community leaders and physicians." Its mission, according to its web site, "is to protect the health of area citizens by ending grass field burning in North Idaho." On the other side of the issue are the farmers of North Idaho who have been growing grass seed for decades and are aware of the opposition to burning grass stubble. To date, they say they have not found a viable alternative to burning. The research is continuing and in the meantime, the farmers have supported voluntary restrictions on burning to lessen the impact on those around them. In the middle is the Idaho legislature which for years has tried to find a middle ground that would deal with the perceived public health effects while maintaining the economic and environmental advantages of this unique crop. The Lawsuits The lawsuits have been cropping up faster than spring dandelions in your lawn: A group of Idaho residents has filed a class action lawsuit against 79 farmers and seed companies asking for tens of millions of dollars in damages. These people are represented by the Seattle firm of Hagens Berman which received millions of dollars by suing the tobacco companies on behalf of Idaho and 12 other states. Idaho was awarded $700 million over the next 25 years from companies who also paid the legal fees for each state. Hagens Berman was paid $7 million for the Idaho portion of the suit. (On a side note, this is the same firm which filed a class action suit against seven Idaho mining companies over health issues and property values in the Silver Valley.) The North Idaho grass growers are represented by Gary Baise, a Washington, DC attorney who also represented Washington state wheat growers in a similar lawsuit and attorney Peter Erbland. Erbland pointed out in a story last August the serious economic effects on the farmers who have farmed in the area "for many generations and provide an economic base for our community. These are farmers. These are not evildoers." Gora's group, SAFE, has also filed its own lawsuit asking for a permanent end to field burning on the Rathdrum Prairie. Other lawsuits have claimed that smoke from grass field burning should be banned under a hazardous waste statute and as a violation under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Both suits were dismissed. Two Sets of Facts When it comes to factual information, there seem to be two sets of facts. SAFE contends that hospital admissions increase dramatically during the days when farmers are allowed to burn. Last year burning was done on 7 days in August and September. The farmers claim that admission records show no increase in admissions due to respiratory problems during burning. In fact, they claim the most admissions during the winter when air quality in the region is at its worst. On April 3rd, during a hearing on H391, members of the Senate Agricultural Affairs Committee, members were given a chart that shows PM 2.5 one hour concentrations as measured at Lakes Middle School in Coeur d'Alene from January, 1999, through December, 2001. That chart showed that air quality was consistently worse around the July 4th holiday each year than during the field burning that took place in August or September. The most dramatic increase in PM 2.5 during that time frame was the result of slash burning on Fernan Hill Road on November 2, 1999. (PM 2.5 refers to the size of the particulate matter contained in air pollutants which occurs in diesel and natural gas emissions and dust as well as in all types of smoke. PM 2.5 is thought to be small enough to be drawn deep into the lungs.) On January 30, ICIE organized a presentation before a joint session of the state legislative agricultural affairs committees. Safe Air for Everyone (SAFE) was represented by its executive director, Patti Gora, and the grass growers were represented by Gary Baise. Gora focused on the fact that while the air quality standards have not been technically violated, she can point to several deaths that she attributes to field burning. She claims there are 140 physicians in Bonner, Kootenai and Latah County who have joined SAFE in its efforts to end field burning. It's a difficult issue because Gora describes 67 children with cystic fibrosis who "have to run for their lives" and asthmatics who must "flee the area for safety." Gary Baise did not argue that particulate matter was not a problem. In fact, it can be harmful at high levels. The issue according to Baise is whether or not the levels of particulate matter produced by grass field burning are high enough to be solely responsible for the health impacts on the people that Gora represents. He pointed out that grass burning is not the only particulate matter that is going into the air in North Idaho. Recently, a Benewah County grass grower pointed out that Kootenai and Benewah counties are classified as areas with highly erodible soil which require a permanent vegetative cover. They have been encouraged under federal farm programs to plant blue grass seed. Grass seed is a natural filter that protects ground water and prevents erosion because it does not require annual tilling. The North Idaho Farmers Association representative Linda Clovis makes the point that farmers are more than willing to reduce the use of burning as a tool; however, they want facts and science used in making these decisions because at this point, farmers do not have any other option. She points out that production of blue grass seed per acre in the Spokane area has dropped by one-third. She also points to studies that show that the burn ban in Washington state has not resulted in the level of improved air quality that anti-burning groups have claimed. A Legislative Answer There have been several bills over the last few years to deal with the issue of blue grass burning in North Idaho as well agricultural burning in the rest of the state. Farmers around the state have worked on voluntary guidelines to manage smoke and to educate the agricultural community about the importance of following these guidelines. Last week, after input from farm groups and anti-burning activists, House Agricultural Affairs Committee Chairman Doug Jones crafted the latest bill to deal with the issue. The bill would expand the current Smoke Management and Crop Residue Disposal Act from Kootenai and Benewah counties to all ten north Idaho counties. Beyond expanding the area, it places some heavy penalties on farmers who violate the act-from a one year ban from any burning for a first violation to a $10,000 fine for a subsequent violation. Farmers must register their fields in order to burn and they must pay $1 per acre to the state Department of Agriculture. The Department can use the funds for research into alternative crops which do not require burning; to improve burning and cultural practices for crops which may require burning; to explore alternatives to burning; to study and evaluate, if appropriate, any public health impacts of burning. On Thursday, the Senate Agricultural Affairs held a hearing on this bill which passed the Idaho House on Representatives on March 31. Members of the committee asked detailed questions of the bill's sponsor as well as taking testimony from farmers and anti-burning advocates. Rep. Jones pointed out that this bill expands to include just the ten North Idaho counties because of the differences in topography and climate between north and south Idaho. Farmers from North Idaho stressed the mandatory penalties which they are willing to support in order to continue to use field burning as an agricultural practice on a restricted basis. The bill is based on the current system in place in Benewah and Kootenai Counties which stresses the use of monitoring and scientific information to determine the best days to allow field burning while protecting public health in the area of the burning. The bill also contains a safe harbor provision to protect the farmers from frivolous lawsuits if they comply with the state regulations and are not negligent in their burning practices. Anti-burning advocates asked the committee not to support the bill. While they acknowledged being consulted and recognized the positive changes in the bill such as expanding the law to cover all 10 North Idaho counties and the proposed mandatory penalties, they continue to contend that the only solution to this issue is a complete ban of field burning. The committee voted to send the bill be sent to the full Senate with a do-pass recommendation. Whether this will be the answer to the contentious issue of agricultural field burning remains to be seen. Note: This information was sent to us by a concerned farmer from Idaho. It comes from the Idaho Council on Industry & the Environment (ICIE), a private, nonprofit organization whose mission is to promote balanced dialogue and the use of facts and science in the discussion of environmental issues Contact information: Pat Barclay, Executive Director, PO Box 255, Boise, Idaho 83701, 208-336-8508. $7 Million Released For Klamath Basin Agriculture Secretary Ann M. Veneman recently released $7 million to assist farmers in the Klamath Basin in Oregon and California. The funds are part of a $50 million fund for Klamath farmers made available through the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) authorized in the 2002 Farm Bill. "The Bush Administration is working to assist farmers and ranchers in the Klamath Basin," said Veneman. "This funding will help producers accelerate implementation of conservation practices on the ground this year." Eligible farmers will receive financial and technical assistance to improve the efficiency of on-farm irrigation systems and institute other measures that improve ground and surface water conservation. Conservation practices will result in net savings in groundwater or surface water resources on the agricultural operation of the producer. In March 2002, President Bush established a cabinet-level Klamath River Basin Federal Working Group that includes the Departments of Interior, Agriculture and Commerce to address concerns raised by farmers, ranchers, fishermen, tribes and others affected by the difficult conditions in Klamath. As part of the working group, USDA is working with farmers and ranchers to implement a variety of conservation programs that are available through the department. For example, the Natural Resources Conservation Service is working with a number of landowners to improve wetland and wildlife habitat through the Wetlands Reserve Program. This includes an additional 2,500 acres enrolled in permanent easements during 2002. The projects are located on Upper Klamath Lake and the Williamson River, both major water sources of the Klamath Basin. These projects will benefit water quality and improve wildlife habitat, thereby providing benefits to the endangered Lost River and Shortnose Sucker fish. "Through the combined efforts of the Klamath Basin producers, local conservation districts and USDA, on-farm conservation measures will be implemented to reduce water demand and increase irrigation efficiencies," said USDA Deputy Under Secretary Mack Gray. Farmers interested in applying for the EQIP funds may submit an application to their local NRCS office or USDA Service Center. Applications also are available online at "http://www.nrcs.usda.gov". Program participants will receive funding when the conservation practices in their EQIP contract are completed. Information related to the Klamath Basin area is also available from the Department of Interior, "http://www.doi.gov/", and the Department of Commerce, "http://www.doc.gov/". Key Sign-Up Dates For Crop, Other Disaster Programs Agriculture Secretary Ann M. Veneman recently announced key sign-up dates for programs under the Agricultural Assistance Act of 2003, including the crop disaster assistance program. Veneman said that sign-up for the crop program, which will reimburse producers for qualifying crop losses in either 2001 or 2002, will begin June 6, with payments to begin shortly thereafter. "The Department is committed to getting assistance into the hands of affected producers as soon as possible," Veneman said during a briefing with reporters from the USDA radio studios. "Our timetable is several weeks ahead of previous disaster aid packages, even though this is a more complicated bill to implement." To expedite the process, Veneman said the department is working to cut regulatory red tape by going directly to final rules where possible and implementing many regulations through a single, expedited "mega regulation." Crop disaster payments must be calculated using the same formula used for the 2000 crop year. This means crop losses for 2001 and 2002 will be valued using the price election for Actual Production History crop insurance policies, or if that price is not available, a 5-year average. Crop disaster payments are also subject to a formula which states that the sum of (1) the value of the crop not lost, (2) the disaster payment, and (3) the crop-insurance indemnity cannot exceed 95 percent of what the crop's value would have been, if there had been no loss. Crop disaster payments will be reduced if the 95 percent limitation is exceeded. The value of the crop not lost and the 95 percent limitation will be valued at either the Actual Production History price election or the NASS season-average price, whichever is higher. Specific details will be available from local Farm Service Agency offices, USDA Service Centers and on the web at "http://www.usda.gov". Other key assistance program details include: $60 million in hurricane-loss assistance for sugar cane growers and cooperatives will be provided in May; sign-up for the $50 million cottonseed program will begin after completion of the 2002 crop ginning season, which occurs around May 1; $60 million in disaster related assistance for the sugar beet industry, with sign-up beginning in June; $250 million Livestock Assistance Program that will reimburse producers for grazing losses will begin in July. The Livestock Compensation Program (LCP) and the Tobacco Payment Program (TOPP) already are in place, with sign-up for TOPP underway and LCP sign-up slated to begin April 1. USDA also is issuing refunds to eligible producers who were assessed payment reductions last year for haying or grazing on lands enrolled under the Conservation Reserve Program. These refunds will total $16.4 million to producers in 28 states. "This is one more way to assist affected producers," Veneman said. "The refunds will go to farmers and ranchers who were hardest hit by last year's drought." Another important date includes the June 2 closing date to sign completed contracts for the 2002 and 2003 Direct and Counter-cyclical Program. For more information on these issues, visit USDA's website at "http://www.usda.gov/" Information specific to disaster assistance can be found at "http://disaster.fsa.usda.gov/" Grow A Potted Tree On Your Patio Or Porch By Carol Savonen, Oregon State University You don't need a large piece of property to grow a tree. If you have a porch, patio or balcony, you might want try growing a tree in large container pots. Neil Bell, an Oregon State University Extended Campus community horticulturist, and Gail Gredler, horticulturist and education director for the Oregon Garden in Silverton, suggest some guidelines to help you choose and grow a healthy container tree. Pay attention to the expected size of a mature tree. For obvious reasons, a tree whose mature size is on the small side will be most appropriate for container growing. The size of a tree is usually proportional to the size of the root system, and containers will necessarily restrict root growth. Smaller species and dwarf varieties of standard species are good candidates for containers. Evergreens like Mugo pine (Pinus mugo), Korean fir (Abies koreana), cryptomeria (Cryptomeria japonica), Skyrocket juniper (Juniperis scopulorum 'Skyrocket'), boxwood (Buxus spp.), English yew (Taxus baccata), strawberry madrone (Arbutus unedo), dwarf camellias, and just about any dwarf conifer can be grown in containers. Deciduous trees like Japanese maple (Acer palmatum), star magnolia (Magnolia stellata), cutleaf vine maple (Acer circinatum 'Monroe'), dwarf weeping birch (Betula pendula 'Trost's Dwarf'), lacebark elm (Ulmus parvifolia 'Frosty', 'Seiju' or 'Yatsabusa' and crepe myrtle (Lagerstroemia indica) also do well in containers. For those with sunny indoor space, citrus trees (Meyer lemon, Baerr's lime, mandarin orange) or other tender evergreen trees can be grown in containers outside in the summer and inside during the colder months. Growing anything in a container starts with selecting a pot and soil. Clay pots are heavier than plastic, but are more stable in windy conditions, especially with larger trees. Careful soil selection is very critical to the health of your tree. Do not use soil directly from your garden. Instead, use a soil-based compost, with good organic matter content and preferably some perlite or pumice to make the mix porous, which keeps air in the soil. These are commercially available in bags at nurseries and in garden sections of discount stores. "Good container soils retain water without becoming waterlogged," said Bell. "They also provide part of the nutrient requirements of the plants and do not get compacted." Caring for a containerized tree is more work than growing a tree in the ground. The roots of a containerized tree can only search for water and nutrients within the confines of the pot, so you will need to provide adequate amounts of both. Trees in containers, especially porous containers, will need regular watering and feeding. Fertilize with a balanced, slow-release fertilizer. Protect the tree roots from winter cold by keeping the container in a protected spot or a cool greenhouse or wrap the pot with an insulating material during the coldest months. Pots should be about as wide as they are high to provide the best insulation to the roots. If a tree starts to outgrow its container, you have several choices. Plant it in the ground, plant it in a larger container, or prune the roots back by one third and plant it back in its current container. Root pruning is a similar technique to bonsai and will help to keep the tree small. Trees in containers can add a lot of ambience to your patio or deck. With a little extra effort, you can enjoy a containerized tree for many years. Hybrid? Open-Pollinated? Clonal?...What's The Difference? By Peg Herring, Oregon State University As you pore over plant catalogues and contemplate flats of seedlings at the nursery, you may have the choice of purchasing hybrids, open-pollinated varieties or clones. What's the difference? Rebecca Brown, Oregon State University Extended Campus horticulturist, outlined these distinctions: • A hybrid variety is made by cross-pollinating two specific parent varieties. This first generation of offspring is referred to as the F1 hybrid. Although F1 hybrids often show increased yield and vigor, the plants will not breed true if its seeds are saved. F1 Hybrids include many kinds of sweet corn, summer squash, melons, cucumbers, carrots, spinach and some tomatoes and peppers. • Open pollinated varieties are cross-pollinated plants that will breed true from seed if they are isolated from other varieties of the same species. Many heirloom varieties are open-pollinated. Examples of open-pollinated varieties include most winter squash and pumpkins, radishes, popcorn and ornamental corn, and some cucumbers, squash and carrots. • Pure line varieties are self-pollinated. They do not need to be isolated and will breed true from saved seed. Examples include all beans and peas, lettuce, and some kinds of tomatoes, peppers and eggplant. • Clonal varieties are propagated by methods other than seed. Like "chips off the old block," they will yield true if planting stock is saved, but diseases can be a problem. Examples include most potatoes, garlic and asparagus. • Genetically modified organisms (GMO) are transgenic varieties developed by inserting a gene from another organism into a plant. There are currently no GMO varieties available to home gardeners.

New Agriculture Fact Book Is Now Available Secretary of Agriculture Ann M. Veneman recently announced that the 2001-2002 Agriculture Fact Book is now available. "Agriculture is integral part of our nation's economic and social fabric," Veneman said. "This new publication provides useful information on a variety of topics including homeland security, conservation, biotechnology, organic foods and energy sources." The Agriculture Fact Book 2001-2002 includes general information and statistical data about American food consumption, the agricultural sector and rural America. The book also describes USDA's wide-ranging programs and services, such as farm programs; exports; rural development, food safety; nutrition; management of land, water, and forests; protecting U.S. borders from pests and diseases; and scientific agricultural research. As part of USDA's effort to provide information through the Internet, the Agriculture Fact Book 2001-2002 can be accessed through the web at "http://www.usda.gov/factbook". The site includes links and other media that provide further information about agriculture, food, conservation, nutrition, food safety and related issues. Hard copies of the publication are available for sale by the Government Printing Office and can be ordered online at "http://bookstore.gpo.gov/ " Building Better Berries By Mitch Lies, Oregon Progress magazine, Winter 2003 As Bernadine Strik looks over her blueberry plot on a summer day at Oregon State University's North Willamette Research and Extension Center at Aurora, just south of Portland, she sees more than fruit growing on bushes. She sees a way of life, one worth hanging on to. It's crops like blueberries, Strik said, the kind of high-value crop that sustains small-acreage family farms, that are helping keep Oregon the way it is. "If our small farmers don't make it," Strik asked, "what's the Willamette Valley going to look like in 5 or 10 years?" While most of the country has adopted monoculture farming, with huge fields filled with a single crop, Oregon's Willamette Valley continues to be a refuge for small farms and crop diversity. The total number of blueberry acres in the state of Oregon, 2,500, adds up to about an average-sized farm in the Midwest, where millions of acres are dedicated to producing either corn or soybeans. And unlike the large farms in the Midwest, where it takes upwards of 1,000 acres to support one family, those 2,500 acres of blueberries are supporting dozens of farm families in Oregon. Crop diversity and small farms enhance the quality of life in Oregon in several ways, some of which are obvious every time you pass a roadside fruit and vegetable stand, and some of which are not so obvious. In addition to the potential benefits to soil, air and water quality, crop diversity adds to the valley's rich scenery and is helping preserve a way of life that has been lost in most of the country, where the nearest neighbor is often miles away. "This might sound corny," Strik said, "but I love Oregon and I'd like to keep it like it is." Strik, the berry crop research leader at the research and extension center in Aurora, has introduced several innovative crop management practices over the past decade that have helped blueberry growers improve the economics of their operations. Most prominently, Strik has introduced high-density plant spacing, which has put a dramatic stamp on yields, and she has brought trellises into fields, which has tended to cause more upright growth in plants, a physiological phenomenon that is contributing to fewer machine-harvest losses. "The economic gains from trellising are astounding," Strik said. "We've found that machine-harvest losses are reduced 3 percent to 8 percent of total yield each year. In a mature blueberry planting, that can mean an extra 1,000 pounds of fruit per acre that you are retaining. At 50 cents a pound, you've paid for the cost of installing the trellis for a 30-year planting in one year." Strik also determined that growers can improve economic gains by planting bushes one-and-one-half feet apart and three feet apart, rather than the standard four-foot plant spacing that growers have used for decades. "There's a slightly higher establishment cost and there's added pruning costs (as much as a few hundred dollars per acre), but you're talking an extra five tons an acre at the three-foot density, and at 50 cents a pound, you have increased returns by $5,000 an acre per year." Yield increases are even more dramatic at the one-and one-half-foot spacing, but not many growers have tried that, Strik said. "Growers are a conservative bunch. They haven't gone to the one-foot density yet, but two- to three-feet is becoming widely used." "You can see, though," she said while pointing to a highly productive row of blueberries, "that there is double the yield here in this high-density planting." Raised on a family farm on Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Strik obtained a bachelor's degree in horticulture from the University of Victoria in British Columbia in 1983. She earned her Ph.D. in strawberry physiology at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada, in 1987. As a student, she was influenced by plant breeder Hugh Daubeny of Agriculture Canada, the Canadian equivalent of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Daubeny developed Totem strawberries, the variety now grown on most of the strawberry acreage in Oregon. "He really cared about growers and wanted to develop good varieties," she said. "He had a huge influence on my life." Strik began working at OSU in 1987. Perhaps because of the lessons she learned while being raised on a small farm, Strik has taken a practical approach to research. Strik said she believes it is important for scientists from the public and private sectors to work closely on research projects. More important, she said, is working closely with growers. "Some of the best ideas come from growers," she said. "By talking to growers and trying to be ahead of the curve, I believe a researcher can have a big impact on a grower's success. "I consider myself an applied researcher," she added. "There is no advantage for a grower to get a boost in yield, for instance, if it costs him an arm and a leg. I monitor establishment costs, picking costs and processor costs. And I think it is important to follow through with research and to work closely with Extension to see that the research gets out to the industry." While Strik has contributed to dramatic gains in blueberries, her work with Marionberries also is proving beneficial for small farmers. Recently, she introduced two new crop-management practices that are expected to boost yields and reduce problems with contaminants. Through her work in research plots, Strik has found that cutting back first-year canes in late spring improves the cold hardiness of the next flush of canes. Also, she has noticed that the shorter canes have a higher percentage of bud break. Because of these findings, Strik has theorized that Marionberries have a greater cold hardiness when grown under high-density planting with shorter canes. To date, her theories are proving true and her high-density plantings are gaining the attention of Oregon's Marionberry growers. Ultimately, Strik said, researchers hope to develop a more cold-hardy Marionberry plant. In the meantime, Strik may have found an interim solution. "We've found that we can increase cold hardiness by 5 degrees Fahrenheit," she said. "That could have a tremendous influence on yields." Strik and some farmers also may have found a solution to what has been a thorny issue in growing Marionberries. Machine-harvested fruit has better flavor and better color than hand-harvested fruit, but a problem has developed with the harvest. During a mild winter, many leaves survive and their stems, or petioles, can fall into machine-harvested fruit and contaminate it. Strik brainstormed about how to solve the problem with members of the industry such as Norm Johnson of Littau Harvesters in Stayton, Oregon, and Rufus LaLone of Smuckers, Inc., in Woodburn, Oregon. They thought of knocking off leaves by running harvesters or brushes through Marionberry fields during the winter, and she and Johnson tested a machine harvester equipped with brushes. Suddenly, the Marionberry industry had a solution to this sticky problem. "It is very satisfying," Strik said. "We've done this for two years now and found that we can reduce the presence of thorny petioles by 74 percent." Marionberry growers who perform this practice are in line to receive a five-cent-per-pound premium because of the reduced contamination. Given that this cultural practice was used on about 600 of the 4,500 acres of Marionberries this past winter, this research may have a benefit of $300,000 this year alone. As an added benefit, Marionberry growers have begun collecting the debris removed by their machine harvester in winter. This has led to a reduction in leaf roller larvae, which over-winter in the dead leaves, and could reduce the use of insecticides. "I like the fact that this was a cooperative effort between an agricultural experiment station, a machine harvest company, processors and growers," Strik said. "Through this kind of cooperation, we can really get things accomplished." Strik, who has about 12 projects going at any one time, has three appointments at the university: researcher, Extension specialist and teacher. "The three appointments blend nicely," she said, "in that they each benefit the other." Strik noted that in carrying out her research projects she relies heavily on the help of research assistant Gil Buller and research technician Connie Pace. Among her 12 projects, Strik is working on nitrogen management in raspberries, blackberries, blueberries and strawberries. Her work in nitrogen management is designed to improve the efficiency of existing fertility programs and reduce any impact on the environment. Strik also works closely with breeders at the North Willamette Research and Extension Center in developing management guidelines for new varieties of berries. "My goal is to be able to advise growers on how to manage these new varieties when they are released," she said. Strik also is working on an idea that may find its way into strawberry fields soon. Typically, growers have planted strawberries in April and early May. Harvest is in June the following year. Strik's research is showing that growers can plant strawberries as late as July with no adverse effect on yields the following year. In fact, the fruit is bigger and more economical to harvest. She is experimenting with crops such as meadowfoam, whose seeds provide a valued oil, and green pears in hopes of finding a crop growers can harvest from their acreage in June, before they plant strawberries. "We want to find something that can give the grower income in the planting year," she said. Unlike the research of scientists working on experiments with huge monoculture crops such as corn and soybeans, the research of Bernadine Strik will never have an impact on hundreds of thousands of acres. All told, the production of small berries in Oregon covers less than 25,000 acres. But her research has a lot to do with sustaining a way of life in a state where small farms are very much a part of the landscape&emdash;and where small farmers still contribute to the economic and cultural fabric of rural life. Clear Fire-Prone Vegetation Near Your Home By Carol Savonen, Oregon State University Home burning due to forest fire last summer. Fire experts say a low snow pack thus far this winter may lead to another catastrophic fire season&emdash;just one year after Oregon suffered through the worst series of fires in recent memory. More than 2,000 fires burned nearly a million acres of Oregon forestland in 2002, according to Oregon Department of Forestry. Property owners in rural or remote forest areas should begin taking responsibility now&emdash;before the growing season&emdash;for reducing fire risk, even if they have fire protection, advises Stephen Fitzgerald, forester with the Oregon State University Extension Service in central Oregon. Involved with forest fire issues for the past 12 years, Fitzgerald is the author of the book, "Fire In Oregon's Forests: Risks, Effects, and Treatment Options," recently published by the Oregon Forest Resources Institute. Rural and remote homes are at higher risk for fire than city dwellings, said Fitzgerald. "Although you may have rural fire protection provided by a local fire protection district, don't live under the illusion that firefighters will be able to extinguish a wildfire before it gets to your home and property," warned Fitzgerald. "In the event of a large wildfire, firefighters may not enter property that has hazardous fuel conditions, placing themselves and fire-fighting equipment at risk." Late winter and early spring is a great time to take action and reduce fuels and other fire hazards around homes and property, he said. To lessen the risk of wildfire, Fitzgerald offers a few simple steps to protect home and property in wooded and rural areas. Most of these tasks can be completed in just one weekend. • Create a "green-belt" (i.e., lawn) 10- to 30-feet wide around your home. • Landscape with fire-resistant plants in both irrigated and non-irrigated portions of your landscape. • Clean and remove conifer needles and other debris from your roof and gutters annually. • Prune trees up to eight to 10 feet to eliminate "fuel ladders." You can vary the pruning height so your trees are more natural appearing. • Reduce the number of native shrubs under trees and in non-irrigated portions of your property. • Thin trees so there is about 10 feet between tree crowns; clean up thinning debris. Consider removing trees up against your house or with branches overhanging the roof, or at least prune branches up so they are not in contact with the side of the house or roof. • Keep firewood stacked 30 feet away and uphill from your home. • Replace a wood shake roof with a fire-resistant roof as soon as possible or feasible. One challenge homeowners face when cleaning up their property is what to do with all the debris. Options include burning small piles, chipping the material or bringing the debris to your local landfill. Contact local fire departments for burning regulations before you strike a match, advises Fitzgerald. Portable chippers can be rented to grind up woody debris. The chipped material can then be spread out on the soil surface beneath your trees, used as landscape mulch or spread on a garden path. Some county landfills offer "free days" for bring in yard debris. The landfill then chips the material to make large batches of mulch used by public works departments and others. Check with local county landfills to see if they offer such a program. Think fire prevention when planning a new home in a forested area, advises Fitzgerald. • Use fire-resistant siding and non-combustible composition, tile or metal roofing materials. • Limit the amount of deck area because hot embers can ignite wooden decks. Build on a level portion of your property when possible (fire burns faster on slopes). • Install alternative water (e.g. cistern or pond) sources for firefighters because electric power often fails or is shut off during a fire making your well and outside faucets useless. • Create adequate access to your property for fire-fighting equipment to enter and exit easily. Check with local fire protection districts for entrance/exit standards. • Don't forget to display reflective address numbers where your driveway meets the street. Most local fire departments have reflective address signs available. For more information on wildfire prevention, Fitzgerald suggests these websites: Firewise: http://www.firewise.org/ Oregon Dept. of Forestry: http://www.odf.state.or.us/ Colorado State Forestry Service: http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/CSFS/homefire.html U.S. Forest Service: http://www.fs.fed.us/land/#fire Fire-Resistant Plant List for Oregon: http://extension.oregonstate.edu/deschutes/FireResPlants02.pdf FireFree: http://www.firefree.org Contact your rural fire protection district office for fire-related information and burning regulations. Local field offices of the Oregon Department of Forestry and your local county office of the OSU Extension Service can also help provide additional information or help direct you to other sources of information. Why Does Society Value Superstar Athletes More Than Nurses? By Suzi Taylor, Montana State University News The average nurse in the United States makes $45,000 a year; the average fireman, $33,000. Yet the lowest-paid Major League Baseball player makes $300,000 per year, with many pro athletes signing contracts for 10 to 20 times that sum. Is our society out of whack for valuing spectator sports more than nursing and public safety? The situation can be explained through economics, says Andy Hanssen, an associate professor in the agricultural economics and economics department at Montana State University-Bozeman. Hanssen recently discussed why pro athletes are paid so much while essential workers are paid so little during a training session for economics teachers from 12 Montana communities. First of all, says Hanssen, who has researched many other sports economics topics, "worth" is a value-laden concept. Just because Atlanta Braves pitcher Greg Maddux will earn $14.75 million this year doesn't mean his skills are more useful to society than a nurse's or fireman's. It simply means that the Braves owners believe Maddux's presence on the team will translate to an additional $14.75 million (or more) through increased ticket sales, TV viewers, merchandise sales and team victories. If the owners didn't think they'd get their money's worth out of pro athletes, they would not pay such high salaries. Next, says Hanssen, is the economic concept of "the last unit sold." "Salaries, like all market prices, reflect the value to buyers of the last unit sold," he said. Simply put, that means one additional nurse would not greatly increase the level of service provided by the country's sum total of nurses. However, said Hanssen, one more pitcher of Maddux's caliber would have a huge impact on Major League Baseball. In short, nurses are more abundant and easily interchangeable than are professional athletes. Again, added Hanssen, salary is not a reflection of a nurse's value to society. In fact, he said, the total contributions of the country's nurses far exceeds the total contributions of its athletes. And, if the U.S. had only 750 nurses&emdash;as it does Major League Baseball players&emdash;nurses would be the ones signing multi-million-dollar contracts. In summary, Hanssen said, the widespread interest in professional sports coupled with a small supply of potential athletes means high salaries for those who can make it to the big leagues. Conversely, even though the country has a high need for nurses, that is countered by an equally high potential supply, meaning much lower salaries for those who choose the profession. Questions like "are athletes really worth it?" can help students understand economics, said Hanssen, who presented the paycheck conundrum and other probing sports topics at the Feb. 28 training at MSU in Bozeman. Organizers of the event believe that while high school students may not perk up their ears for supply and demand curves or the law of diminishing marginal returns, they might tune in to economics if intrigued by real-world issues like skyrocketing ticket prices, salary caps and organized drafts. Other sessions covered seat belt laws, the Endangered Species Act and the minimum wage. The workshop was sponsored by the MSU Department of Agricultural Economics and Economics, the Montana Council on Economic Education and the Calvin K. Kazanjian Economics Foundation. The session was designed to help high school teachers and community college instructors use real-world issues to teach economics.

Top of Page