July 2001

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

Every Drop Counts! From Nez Perce Soil & Water Conservation District For many of us, the nice green lawn of summer is an important part of what makes a house a home. And in order to keep a lawn looking green and beautiful it needs plenty of sunlight and water. During the months of July and August many lawns will 'brown' as the summer progresses in the Lewiston area. Unfortunately, because of the low snowpack levels last winter, we are expecting drought conditions this summer. Every drop we are able to conserve, will count toward preventing a water shortage and maintaining greener, healthier lawns. How can one conserve and keep the lawn and garden green? Here are just a few tips to follow: Water your lawn morning and evening when it is cooler. Avoid watering during the middle of the day, when the sun's heat will cause much of the water to evaporate (and increase your water bill!). Also try watering less frequently for longer periods of time. This will help stimulate root growth, particularly in the spring and early summer. The longer the roots, the more efficient your plants will be in absorbing water, and in retaining that water throughout the summer. Consider using a seepage hose in your garden. Seepage hoses are perforated to allow for a slow, continuous trickle of water from the hose. By placing the hose around or near the base of your garden plants you are putting the water right where it is needed most. Your plants will have water available to them all the time in a cost and labor efficient manner. Mulching garden soil by placing grass clippings, wood chips, or straw around the base of plants will help to trap moisture near the plant roots. The ground will stay moist longer, and the plants will do better. Care needs to be taken though, to ensure that the lawn clippings do not contain pesticide or herbicide residues from chemical spraying. This could kill your garden plants. Likewise be careful in your use of woodchips, while perfect for many flower beds and shrubbery, woodchips contain tannic acid, a chemical naturally found in wood, but one that may be harmful to garden plants that are exposed to it over time. Vegetable gardens generally do better with straw or grass mulching. Compost, normally used to enrich poor soil, can also make excellent mulching material. Consider installing rain gutters and placing small outdoor water cisterns near the down spouts to take advantage of infrequent summer rainfall. And lastly, windbreaks also help to conserve water. Trees, shrubs, and berry bushes will block the wind which can carry away needed moisture. Lewiston has a population of roughly 30,000 people within the city and its outlying areas. In order to avoid and/or lessen possible water shortages this summer, all individual efforts are important. Every household can take steps toward water conservation. Remember, every drop counts! Weed Control In Pasture And Hay By John D. Fouts, WSU Cooperative Extension, Spokane, WA The key to weed control in pasture and hay is management. This means management for a vigorous stand of grass and/or legumes. To achieve this, a variety of tools are available for different circumstances. The most important tool for maintaining and improving pasture is grazing management. In a hay crop the most important tool is harvest management. The principles behind the proper use of these tools are the same. Whether it is grazing or harvesting, vigorous stands are promoted when there is periodic removal of the above-ground growth and adequate recovery/regrowth time before removal takes place again. A vigorous stand helps control weeds by competing with them for space, light, nutrients, and water. Sometimes the stand needs a little help to get the upper hand. This is where herbicide or mechanical weed control methods can be beneficial. If a weed infestation has gotten out-of-hand, measures must be taken to overcome the dominant weeds. This means using the appropriate herbicide at the proper time to knock them back so that the forage crop has a chance to compete. At the same time, it is important to provide the crop with the nutrients it needs to promote vigorous growth. It is also critical at this stage that the management of grazing or harvesting provides the needed recovery/regrowth time or the forage will not be able to gain the competitive advantage to dominate the weeds. Weed control is like fighting a fire. Prevention, early detection and rapid response are more effective than after-the-fact control. Prevention means keeping weeds out before they get started. This includes pre-seeding weed control (usually with recommended herbicides and/or tillage) and the use of certified weed-free seed. Another key prevention point is limiting outside traffic as much as possible, and cleaning vehicles and equipment before entering the land. This is much easier said than done. Early detection should be an ongoing effort. The importance of field scouting cannot be emphasized enough. Routine scouting of the entire pasture or hay field can help you identify invading weeds early so that they can be eliminated before they become a problem. It is much easier to control a small infestation than wait until you have a big problem. Scouting takes time, but it is time well spent. Scouting several times a year, particularly following the use of a control measure, allows you to evaluate the effectiveness of the control and monitor any shifts in weed populations that occur in response to your control measures. The weed population is quite transitional and different species may be present at different times of the year. Once you have spotted and identified a weed invader, take the steps to control it as soon as possible. This may mean pulling, but make sure that pulling of this species won't just spread it from the remaining roots. It may mean spot spraying, in which case, make sure that the herbicide you use and the timing are right for this species. Remember proper identification is the starting point for proper control. Some good references for weed identification and control recommendations are: "Weeds of the West", EB1867; "Weed Management for Cover Establishment and Maintenance on Conservation Reserve Program Acres", PNW329; "Weed Control Guide for the Conservation Reserve Program"; and the "Pacific Northwest Weed Control Handbook." If you find a weed you cannot identify, take it to your local WSU Cooperative Extension office or your county noxious weed control office. The Next Farm Bill&emdash; When Will It Arrive? By Jon Newkirk, WSU Cooperative Extension, Ritzville, WA The Federal Agriculture, Improvement, and Reform Act of 1996 expires in 2002. Discussion and debate on the next farm bill has begun. The U.S. House Committee on Agriculture is holding hearings on the commodity provisions of the bill hoping to pass that part of the next farm bill by the fall of 2001. The Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry is holding hearings on various parts of the farm bill but Senator Lugar, Indiana, Chairman of the Senate Ag Committee was reported in "Pro Farmer" to be reluctant to handle the farm bill in piecemeal fashion and wants to handle it all next year. Not only are there differences on timing, there will be differences on the amount of money that should be made available for the next farm bill. Farm and commodity groups are suggesting something in the order of $17 billion a year for farm income support, up over 12 billion from that budgeted in 2002. It is interesting to follow the testimony, which is very easy with the Internet. Testimony of all witnesses before the House Committee is available at http:/I agriculture.house.gov/comdty.htm. Much of the debate will consider whether a particular provision falls within the World Trade Organization (WTO) "green box" or "amber box". Green is good, amber is not so good. If payments fall within the green box, the WTO limits are virtually non-existent, if "amber box" stiff limitations exist. To help you understand, here are the essence of what it takes for payments to be WTO "green box" payments. * Payments cannot be related to, or based on, current commodity prices or current production levels. * Payments cannot be made to producers based on their current production. * Payment recipients could not be required to produce anything currently to receive a payment. Expect the Congress to go to great lengths to keep payments in the WTO green box. LDP's and marketing loan payments are amber box payments. This will work against higher loan rates. AMTA or Production Flexibility Payments are green box. Counter-cyclical payments will have to be designed carefully to stay within the green box. As a result, conflicts between regions and different commodity groups are likely to crop up potentially creating a political Pandora's box, WTO green box on one hand, impossible to pass on the other. The final report of the Commission on 21st Century Production Agriculture clearly identifies the differences which will surface during the debate. The remainder of this article discusses this report. Most of what has been written about the Commission's report focused on the majority opinion. I was surprised to find when I read the full report that while the Commission did agree on several of their recommendations, the Income Safety Net (or Farm Income Support Policy) recommendation, which is the center piece of the upcoming policy debate, drew especially strong dissent by four of the eleven Commission members. The 21st Century Commission was established by the 1996 Farm Bill. The Commission was charged with identifying the appropriate role of the federal government in support of production agriculture after 2002. The Commission was then to develop specific recommendations for legislation to facilitate that role. The Commission was made up of eleven members. Three members were appointed by President Clinton, four by the United States House of Representatives, and four by the United States Senate. Their report was delivered to the Congress and to President Bush in late January 2001. House and Senate hearings on their report initiated the farm bill development process. The majority recommendation in essence recommends providing an adequate income safety net for farmers with minimal market distortion. To achieve this goal, the majority of the Commission recommends continuing the Agricultural Marketing Transition Act (AMTA) program at the base funding level, instituting a counter-cyclical Supplemental Income Support (SIS) program, and continuing the non-recourse marketing loan program, with modifications, to bring all commodities into price alignment. The Commission further recommended instituting a tax-deferred farm savings account program, the Farm and Ranch Risk Management (FARRM) account, removing all limitations on payments, and suggested that Congress consider replacing the crop insurance subsidies with a voucher program. In support of their recommendations, the Commission provided a report on the status of American agriculture. The picture painted by the Commission's Appendix on "the Status of U.S. Agriculture" shows an agricultural industry in relatively good financial condition. U.S. agricultural farm solvency ratios are shown to be the lowest since the 1960's, i.e. the U.S. farm debt to asset ratio is 15.5 percent which, according to the report, "reflects a farm sector in a comparatively good position to make investments or to weather low commodity prices". The rate of return to assets, a common measure of profitability, is 2.1 percent in 2000, down from 3.7 percent in 1999 and lower than the 1990 to 1999 average of 3.4 percent. While not consistent across the U.S., farmland values and cash rental rates generally have risen steadily since 1987, one indication that profitable operators are competing for land. Net rent to non-operator landlords is forecast to reach an all time high of $13.3 billion in 2000. The Commission in establishing their justification for income support for producers uses the 1996 net cash farm income of $57.6 billion as their benchmark. The Commission majority report recommends continuing AMTA payments at the "existing baseline budget." AMTA payments are considered "green" payments under the Aggregate Measure of Support (AMS) commitments of the U.S. to the WTO. To solve the inflexibility of the AMTA program, the Commission recommended the adoption of an additional counter-cyclical income support program. The recommended SIS program would provide supplemental payments to producers when an aggregate measure of gross income from the program crop falls below some percentage of the historical income level. While the Commission did not make specific recommendations on how the "aggregate program crop income" would be calculated, it would be a composite of all program crops and not for any one crop, a necessity if the SIS payments were to be decoupled from specific commodity prices and to remain "green" payments under future WTO commitments. The Commission also recommended continuing the "existing" non-recourse marketing loan program while adjusting the marketing loan rates to reflect a closer balance between the historical market price of individual crops. This change would diminish the incentive to plant one crop over another simply because of the LDP benefits. The Commission recommended keeping loan rates at existing levels and pointed to the following reasons for not increasing them. Firstly, higher rates would require either additional federal spending or reductions in other federal programs. Further, if low commodity prices continue, LDPs and Marketing Loan Gains would threaten to push federal support payments over the WTO cap. The Commission highlighted how tax policy causes farmers, in good years, to offset tax liability with capital investments. The payments for these capital improvements often cause cash flow problems in times of poor prices. The FARRM account recommended by the Commission is intended to encourage savings in good years for use in poor years. Up to 20% of before tax farm income, tax deferred, could be deposited in such accounts. The FARRM account could function as a cash reserve for low income years and as an alternative retirement fund for the producer. The Commission's conclusions on risk management praised the changes in the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000 yet stated that these changes did not "entirely address the moral hazard problem (fraud) and distortion of planting decisions that currently occur under the existing crop insurance system." The Commission recommended studying these issues as well as examining the possibility of moving to an actuarially sound crop/revenue insurance program with products provided by private companies. They recommended the government consider not underwriting a portion of insurance companies risk (do away with crop insurance subsidies) but instead only provide farmers with a voucher to offset the cost of insurance premiums. The Commission recommended abolishing the statutory limitation on payments to producers. The Commission majority argued that attempts to limit the amount of government payments to individual producers are ineffective given the rules that allow for participation of multiple entities. Doing away with the limitation would eliminate the inefficiencies of the unnecessary burden of paperwork associated with compliance for the vast majority of producers. This compliance effectively constitutes non-binding regulations for a limited few. Minority Views: There were two "Minority Views" reported on the Farm Income Support Policy. Leland Swenson of South Dakota and the National Farmers Union, James DuPree, an Arkansas farmer and former U.S. Senate legislative aide, and Ralph Paige of Georgia and the Federation of Southern Cooperatives signed one Minority View. John Campbell, a corporate agribusiness vice president from Nebraska and Senator Lugar authored the other. The Swenson Minority Report rejects all of the assumptions behind the '96 Farm Bill stating that none of them had merit and there is little to suggest in the future that the promise of those assumptions will ever come true. This view suggests that optimistic trade forecasts for expanded agricultural trade are usually wrong; risk management programs have failed to adequately address price and production losses; less regulation has not improved production efficiency or reduced costs; the farm program has reduced economic security for producers; competition for export markets has increased because of the rational behavior of individual producers in response to declining prices and incomes; and family farms have reduced viability. The signers of this minority view have a wide range of recommendations that include continuing the AMTA payments and using the marketing loan program as the primary counter-cyclical income support program. They call for basing marketing loan rates on a comparable percentage (80% is mentioned) of a three year rolling average of USDA's full economic cost of production based on yield per planted acre for each crop. They suggest that the market loan program consider basing the marketing loan repayment rate on a comparable world market price format adjusted to a local price basis. They want to expand planting flexibility to all crops without limitations, target program benefits to reduce the potential that farm programs encourage further concentration, and limit the level of gross federal farm program benefits. Further, they ask that voluntary inventory management be instituted with a farmer-owned reserve and earned storage income for farmers. They also ask that a voluntary production management (supply control) program be instituted by offering higher loan rates if acreage is idled. They ask that the use of government funds to remove surplus stocks from the commercial market be considered. The second "Minority View" was written by John Campbell, a corporate vice president of an agribusiness firm in Nebraska. Mr. Campbell has a wide range of experience including serving as USDA Deputy Undersecretary for International Affairs and Commodity Programs during the George Bush administration. He has held various House and Senate staff positions relating to agriculture including serving Jesse Helms and Richard Lugar. He has also been involved in the development of the 1985, 1990, and 1996 farm bills. Mr. Campbell's introduction asks the question, "What can we learn from five years of supposed reform peppered with three years of emergency intervention?" He answers this question with the following: "Surprisingly, we learned that gross receipts for the eight program crops were $10 billion higher than the previous farm bill. Likewise, net cash income for those crops was $3.6 billion higher over the same period. While the average net cash income over the period would have been the same as the previous farm bill without emergency payments, it didn't make any difference. All of the additional income came from Congress." Mr. Campbell criticizes the Commission for defending the net income "high-water mark" created in 1996 and 1997. He opposes the majority recommendation because, "The Commission recommendation formalizes, through supplemental counter-cyclical payment, what Congress did the past three years. The Supplemental Income Support (SIS) payment formula almost guarantees that land rents and land prices will not give back the jumps made through windfall F2F (Freedom to Farm) payments, no matter what the market says." He believes that the capitalization of government payments into land values and rents will force farmers to squeeze more out of each acre at lower variable costs than ever before and that only the fastest, biggest, and smartest will be able to do that. Mr. Campbell writes, "The combination of new labor-saving technology and substantial government supports not only allows more acres to be farmed by one farmer; it virtually assures it." Mr. Campbell believes that crop insurance subsidies now threaten to distort planting decisions and that high risk regions show a consistent pattern of receiving more in insurance payments than they pay in premiums. He argues that the crop insurance program is a program that transfers payments from low risk farmers to high risk farmers. He maintains that "what crop insurance does for too many producers is reduce the risks of risky farming in risky areas." He suggests if we are to have a subsidized crop insurance program, the designing and administration of the program and the responsibility for its actuarial soundness should be turned over to an elected board of farmers. He recommends legislating a permanent and automatic disaster payment program. Finally, Mr. Campbell reviews the "basic situation." He finds that farmers aren't poor anymore, and that just about any measure used shows that farmers are better off than the population as a whole. He maintains large and small farms do not need government assistance. Medium size farmers need help making a transition to either larger, cost-effective farms, to off-farm employment, or out of agriculture altogether. Small farms are unlikely to transition to commercial operations and income levels will continue to be dependent on off farm sources. He finds that previous research shows that price orientated, counter-cyclical payments usually increase revenue instability, and that former and existing programs have not reduced risk or stabilized income. Conclusion: How wide might the support be in Congress for each of these views? Conventional wisdom would argue that the majority view of the Commission is held by more members of Congress than either of the other two views, yet both of the minority views clearly have strong proponents in agriculture and in the Congress. With such divergent views shaping the debate, consensus on a final U.S. farm policy may be difficult to obtain. However the Congress treats the Commission on 21st Century Production Agriculture's recommendations, the Commission's report and supporting documents provide substantive insights into the issues that will make up the debate. I have just scratched the surface of the Commission's report with this review. There are sections on Conservation and the Environment, Trade Policy, Small and Limited Resource Farmers, and Antitrust and Industry Concentration. Finally, there is an exhaustive appendix with charts and graphs on the Status of U.S. Agriculture and a copy of the U.S. submission to the WTO for Comprehensive Long-Term Agricultural Trade Reform. Farmers To Benefit From Recent China Agreement Agriculture Secretary Ann M. Veneman said recently that China's recent bilateral commitments pave the way for significantly increased U.S. access to the world's most populous market. "We are very pleased that the United States and China have now resolved one of the last remaining bilateral issues in China's bid to join the World Trade Organization," Veneman said. "For America's farmers, ranchers, and food processors, China's entry into the rules-based WTO trading system will mean an increase of about $2 billion a year in agricultural exports. ....China agreed to limit its use of trade-distorting domestic agricultural subsidies to 8.5 percent of the total value of its agricultural productionBbelow the 10-percent level allowed for developing countries under the WTO.  China also agreed to an 8.5-percent cap on supports for specific products and waived the separate WTO exemption permitting developing countries to provide unlimited investment and input subsidies for agricultural and rural development." "I commend Ambassador Robert Zoellick and his USTR team for their work in bringing these issues to a successful conclusion," said Veneman. "We will continue to work with USTR in pursuing the expansion of markets for U.S. food and agricultural products."

Bug Zappers Better Left Off Bug lights and bug zappers are popular insect control devices used by homeowners - with an apparently good reason. For only about $40 a person can hang a contraption on the deck or a nearby tree and listen all night long to the sizzle of electrocuting bugs. "People think these little marvels are functional, attractive and 'environmentally safe,'" said Jack DeAngelis, OSU entomologist. "But they don't work," he added, laughing. "Don't use them." According to DeAngelis, bug zappers have two main problems. "First, bug zappers are not selective," he said. "They attract and kill beneficial insects along with potential pests. Most insects are not harmful, so most of the zaps you hear are harmless or even beneficial insects going up in smoke. "Secondly, bug zappers don't zap every insect they attract. So turning on a bug zapper actually increases the number of bugs in your immediate area by drawing them in from surrounding yards. This effect is especially noticeable if the bug zapper is near the woods or other dense vegetation." DeAngelis recommends that homeowners use their bug zappers only as tree ornaments. "Just don't plug it in," he laughed. The best control for mosquitos, the main pest "target" of zappers, is to remove standing water, he said. "Mosquitos need standing water in which to breed, even a small puddle can support a population," said DeAngelis. "Be sure that gutters are draining properly, empty flower pots and check drainage ditches. Drain or treat ponds, creeks and landscape water features." Safe Harvesting Operations: Preventing Accidents While Harvesting Hay And Forages Excerpted from Farm Safety Series PNW 512 by John Fouts, WSU Cooperative Extension, Spokane, WA Harvesting hay or other forage crops involves many different operations. Because of the many types of machines used, number of people, and different operations involved, accidents can and do occur during this busy season. Causes of Accidents While Harvesting: Tractor Overturns. This is the number one cause of injury and death on the farm or ranch. Refer to December 1999 Ag Horizons for detailed safety practices. Improper Use, Hitching, or Maintenance of Implements: Harvesting forage and hay involves mowers, rakes, balers, stackers, harrowbeds, loaders, and other machines. All have moving parts that can easily entangle a person who comes in contact with them. Improper hitching of the implements could cause the tractor or truck to overturn. Improper maintenance may result in loose parts flying off and striking bystanders or workers. Trying to unclog a machine when it is still running is a major cause of serious accidents. Working In Unfamiliar Fields: The hitting of holes, ruts, or stumps constitutes a major hazard. Unsafe Transport of Equipment: Traveling too fast, not having clear sight when turning onto the road, failure to have the proper signs and lights, and not driving defensively all contribute to accidents. Lifting Bales onto a Truck or Wagon: Sudden movements by the truck or tractor can throw workers off balance or cause hay bales to fall off and strike a worker. Prevention of Accidents While Harvesting: 1. Remove stumps, stones, or other debris from the field, or clearly mark them. Mark ditches and banks. Some banks are undercut. 2. Slow down when working on hillsides. Plan harvesting so that equipment travels downhill on steep slopes. Do not make sharp turns when headed downhill. 3. Keep all shields in place, especially the PTO shield. Keep long hair away from moving parts. Keep platforms clear of debris. Never mount or dismount a machine when it is moving. Make sure all machines are hooked up correctly. Operating a mower or forage harvester at excessive speed can cause machine failure and possible injuries from flying debris if parts fail. 4. Never try to unclog a machine when it is still moving or in operation. Cutterbars: Stop the tractor and disengage the PTO. Raise the cutterbar and back up. Shut off the engine and engage the parking brake or shift the transmission into Park (or Neutral.) Reels, Crimper Rolls, and Augers: Stop the tractor and disengage the PTO. Shut off the engine before doing any work on them. Wait until the part has stopped moving. Back the material out of the equipment to unclog the unit. 5. The same techniques apply when working on balers and bale handling systems. Stop the tractor, disengage the PTO and shut off the tractor. Wait for the flywheel and other moving parts to stop. Test the bale-knotter by turning the shut-off system by hand to see in slow motion what is happening. Keep hands away and observe. 6. When loading bales manually, be sure that the driver does not start and stop suddenly. 7. Block or secure machines such as headers, bars, stackers, when working on them. Block the wheels too. Use solid wood blocks. 8. Keep hydraulic fluid clean and check often for damage to the system. Keep belts and chains in good repair and have the right tension on them at all times. 9. Be sure the tractor has front-end ballast 10. Do not eject big bales where they might start rolling. Do not let anyone stand near the rear of the baler when a bale is coming out. Contact the WSU Cooperative Extension office in your county to get a complete copy of Farm Safety Series PNW 512. Implementation Of Biodiversity Reprinted from WAWG's Green Sheet Information From Liberty Matters News Service U.S. Rep. Chris Shays (R-CT) and 69 cohorts have taken it upon themselves to implement the Treaty on Biodiversity, even though it was never ratified by the U.S. Senate. The 70 East Coast lawmakers have arrogantly offered up for sacrifice the states of Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming to execute the Wildlands Project and the UN/U.S. Man and the Biosphere Program. The bill, H.R. 488, The Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act of 2001, will set aside portions of those states to be preserved as an "enduring resource of wilderness, wild land areas, and biodiversity for the benefit of the American people." There are provisions for biological connecting corridors, cooperative agreements and land trades and acquisitions. There will be a National Wildland Recovery System and a National Wildland Recovery Corps. The Western states have been chosen because the congressional review of roadless areas within National Forest system lands indicates they will help "fulfill" the role of the U.S. Forest Service to ensure a quality "National Wilderness Preservation System." There may even be room for people: Sec.3. (b) (7) "Purpose of Designations: [to] promote scientific research, primitive recreation, solitude, physical and mental challenge, and inspiration for the benefit of all the American people." And no, the people of the above-named Western states were not consulted. Voles, Or Meadow Mice, Who's Who? By Darla Rugel, WSU Cooperative Extension, Davenport, WA Have you been wondering what all those runways are that appeared in lawns and fields when the snow finally melted this spring? More than likely they are caused by voles (alias Meadow Mice), small mouse-like rodents. Distinguished from true mice by their short tails, small eyes, and stocky build, these little animals can be responsible for damage of trees, flower bulbs, and for tunneling through vegetable and flower gardens. Most vole species live in colonies and inhabit pastures, roadsides, and other grassland or weedy sites. Runways are a sure sign of the presence of voles. The runways are constructed both through surface vegetation and below ground. Small surface holes lead to the underground passages and also to nesting areas. Voles have a high reproductive potential, breeding most of the year; with population peaks in the spring and fall. There may be several litters with 3-5 young in each. Vole populations often vary dramatically throughout the year. Peak densities occur about every four years, and may or may not be in regular cycles. A number of factors may contribute to these fluctuations, such as weather patterns, food and cover availability, and predation pressure. Large populations can result in considerable damage during winter foraging activity. Voles may even significantly deplete forage on livestock pastures and rangeland (Clark 1984). If vole populations become high enough, damage management and population reduction may become necessary. Some of the methods employed are; vegetation management, exclusion, introduction or encouragement of predators, trapping, and professional extermination by rodenticide. (There are NO rodenticides registered for homeowner use against voles in Washington State.) Habitat manipulation is a way to lower the carrying capacity for voles. They need protective vegetative cover, and so mowing, burning or plowing can be used effectively to reduce their populations. In gardens, try to keep surrounding areas free of tall grass and thatch, and remove any root vegetables prior to winter. Exclusion of voles from large areas is difficult and not very practical, although hardware cloth cylinders around individual trees or gardens can be effective. Encouraging predation is another way to reduce vole populations. This can be accomplished by placing raptor poles near problem areas. Domestic cats can be effective predators near houses, and in gardens and yards. Small vole populations can be controlled effectively by using ordinary mousetraps baited with peanut butter and oatmeal. Set the trap perpendicular to vole runways, with the triggers in the runways. This can be a time-consuming method, but useful where poisons cannot be used. If a vole population is high or spread over a large area, may it be dealt with by habitat modification, or by contacting a local professional who is licensed to use registered pesticides on voles. In most cases a combination of methods may be more effective than relying on a single approach. Court Rules For Ecology On Stubble Burning From WAWG's Green Sheet A recent Court ruling allows Washington state wheat producers to continue to burn field stubble as an effective farm management tool, and allows them to Continue in their voluntary good-faith effort to abide by the memorandum of understanding (MOU) signed by the Washington Association of Wheat Growers (WAWG) and the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology)&emdash;an agreement that reduces stubble burning by 50% over seven years. U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Washington Judge Robert Whaley on June 15 issued his order from the bench, granting Ecology's motion for summary judgment. The effect of the order was the dismissal of legal action brought by Save Our Summers against Ecology for alleged violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act. Whaley stated that no evidence existed to support the SOS claim. Said WAWG President Perry Dozier (509-520-1320): "Wheat growers will continue to work with Ecology, in accordance with the MOU, continuing to reduce stubble burning emissions. We will continue working to educate farmers about the importance of wind direction, which has been added to this year's burning permit application. We too are committed to protecting the air breathed by all people in the state. Preliminary numbers show that, this past growing season, there has been a further, 16%, reduction in the number of acres burned." While the dismissal of the lawsuit is good news, portions of the court's opinion contains language that concerns wheat growers in particular and could be troublesome to agriculture in general. WAWG will continue to work to keep the Best Management Practices farmers need. Stubble burning is one of those practices. Child Rearing Costs A family with a child born in 2000 can expect to spend about $165,630 ($233,530 when factoring in inflation) for food, shelter, and other necessities to raise that child over the next 17 years. Now in its 40th year, the USDA report, "Expenditures on Children by Families," has proven to be a valuable resource for state agencies and courts in determining child support guidelines and foster care payments.  Of primary interest to states is the child-rearing cost estimate for middle-income, two-parent families, which in 2000, ranged from $8,740 to $9,860, depending on the age of the child. The report, compiled by USDA's Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, notes that family income* affects child rearing costs, with low-income families projected to spend $121,230; middle-income families $165,630; and upper-income families $241,770 (all in 2000 dollars) over a 17-year period.  In 1960, a middle-income family could expect to spend $25,230 to raise a child through age 17. Since 1960, expenses on children have changed considerably.  Food decreased from 24 percent to 18 percent of total child-rearing costs, while child care and education expenses increased from 1 percent to 10 percent.  Housing cost was the single largest expenditure on a child in 2000, averaging 33 percent of the total costs over 17 years, compared with 32 percent in 1960. In real dollars, the overall cost of raising a child has increased 13% from 1960 to 2000.  The report notes geographic variations in the cost of raising a child, with expenses the highest for families living in the urban west, followed by the urban northeast and urban south. Families living in the urban midwest and all rural areas have the lowest child-rearing expenses. A limited number of copies of the report are available and may be requested by writing to USDA's Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, 1120 20th Street, NW, Suite 200 &endash;  North Lobby, Washington, DC 20036-3406.  The report also is also available on the CNPP web site at: http://www.usda.gov/cnpp/ Managing Weeds After Wildfire By Kim Goodwin and Roger Sheley, MSU Land Resources and Environmental Sciences The ecological effects of wildfires are often beneficial given the natural role of fire in perpetuating ecosystems. Depending upon fire intensity and plant characteristics, many plants will survive and reinitiate growth soon after a fire. The ability of plants to reestablish, thrive and reseed in subsequent years can be hurt if noxious weeds are inadequately managed. Burned areas can contain high nutrient levels, exposed ground surfaces and reduced shade. These favor weed colonization and exponential weed growth, which can prevent reestablishment of desired vegetation and displace already established native plants. If permitted to reach large infestation levels, the resulting weed population will be very difficult and expensive to manage. A well formulated and implemented burned area weed management plan can prevent weed establishment in both burned and adjacent unburned areas and help establish and maintain healthy, weed-resistant plant communities. Burned areas may have inadequate competitive vegetation cover (below 30 percent). In such cases, it will be necessary to provide a desired plant community that can suppress weeds through resource competition. Revegetation, when necessary, can be a first step in the implementation of a burned area weed management plan. A seed mix should contain a diversity of aggressive, quick-establishing grasses and forbs, though forbs should not be included if broadcast treatments of broadleaf herbicides are anticipated. This mix should be able to effectively occupy available burned area niches. Such a plant community is likely to be weed-resistant, because few soil resources are available to a potential invader. The most successful burned area revegetation efforts have been observed with a fall-dormant broadcast seeding directly into the ash layer immediately after the fire. Burned area revegetation conducted the year after a fire will benefit from seed placement with a no-till drill if the ash layer is absent. If the site is inaccessible to such equipment, doubling or tripling the broadcast seeding rate based upon drill seeding or plowed ground will enhance establishment success. Integrated weed management is an ecological approach to prevent and manage weed populations. A burned area IWM plan includes: prevention and monitoring strategies, effective in precluding spread and establishment into weed-free areas; eradication of small populations; a cumulative approach in large infestation management towards reestablishment of healthy plant communities. Preventing weeds from spreading through seed dispersal is the most effective and least costly method of weed management. Because of this, use only certified noxious weed-free seed mixes, forage and mulch; thoroughly clean vehicles and equipment before entering weed-free burned areas; and eradicate or contain adjacent weed populations. Surveying burned areas to eradicate new weeds through an organized monitoring plan is essential to prevent weed establishment. Monitoring should occur at least three times (spring, summer, fall) and concentrate where weed infestations often begin: along fire lines, roadways, railways and waterways. Newly established populations or those smaller than 100 square feet are most responsive to eradication. Individual weeds must be removed and steadily replaced with desired vegetation until all viable seeds are depleted from the soil. Seed dormancy and longevity mean that long-term management is required for eradication. If eradication is to succeed, reproduction must be stopped completely. No method or integration of methods can achieve eradication for large weed populations. Management towards reestablishing healthy plant communities is the most practical management option. This involves shifting the competitive balance from the infestation to the desired plants by revegetating, if necessary, after the infestation has been weakened through an integration of mechanical, chemical, cultural and/or biological controls. The Montana State University Extension Service sponsors "Weeds after Wildfire" workshops. These workshops provide information on weed management funding administered through the Noxious Weed Trust Fund grants program within the Montana Department of Agriculture. Workshop participants will be awarded three private and three commercial/governmental pesticide applicator recertification credits for attendance. If you would like to see one in your area, contact your local MSU county Extension office to see if one can be arranged or contact Kim Goodwin, MSU project specialist at 994-6749. USDA Awards $15 Million In Rural Education And Medicine Grants Secretary of Agriculture Ann M. Veneman recnetly announced the approval of 42 Distance Learning and Telemedicine (DLT) grant proposals benefiting 20 states and American Samoa for a total of $15 million. The DLT program provides financial resources to develop technologies needed to enhance learning opportunities and medical care for some of America's most remote rural communities. "These grants are important for helping rural areas become better equipped with the use of high speed, modern technology," stated Veneman.  "Using today's technology not only opens new doors of information and opportunity, it insures the skills of rural school children will be developed in the area of today's fast moving technology." Included in the $15 million in grants are 24 educational projects totaling $9 million that will fund 294 educational facilities. More than $6 million is targeted to fund 18 projects that will involve over 77 health care institutions. The grant funds will reach far into many rural communities throughout the country. For example in rural Maine, funds are expected to improve access to health care services for approximately 80,000 people; or along the Texas Gulf Coast, the Taft Independent School District will be able to provide students and adults with greater access to educational resources; or in California's largest rural and agricultural region, 3,300 students and adults will gain greater access to educational resources such as core curriculum, advance placement courses, and vocational training. In addition to the $15 million in grants announced today, USDA's Rural Utilities Service is accepting applications for $200 million in loans and $110 million for DLT grant/loan combinations. Further details, along with regulations and application guide, are available on the web at: http://www.usda.gov/rus/telecom/dlt/dltpublications.htm. The telephone contact is (202) 690-4493 and the fax number is (202) 720-1051. Applications are to be submitted to the USDA Rural Utilities Service, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Mail Stop 1550, Washington, D.C. 20250-1550. Indicate attention to the Director, Advanced Services Division, Telecommunications Program.

Top of Page