March 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

U.S. Advances Bold Proposals In FTAA Negotiations From the Office Of The United States Trade Representative The United States announced today a bold, comprehensive offer to eliminate tariffs and trade barriers in the negotiations for the Free Trade Area of the Americas, a $13 trillion market of 34 countries and nearly 800 million people. The U.S. is offering to eliminate its import duties on the majority of industrial and agricultural imports from the Western Hemisphere immediately upon entry into force of the FTAA, and is offering broad access to its services, investment and government procurement sectors. In addition, the U.S. is offering that textiles and apparel imports from the region would be duty-free in the U.S. just five years after the FTAA takes effect, provided other countries reciprocate. "It is our shared hemispheric vision that free trade and openness benefits everyone and provides opportunity, prosperity and hope to all our peoples. President Bush has made the FTAA a top U.S. priority, and today we deliver with bold proposals to lower barriers throughout the region," said U.S. Trade Representative Robert B. Zoellick. "The United States has created a detailed roadmap for free trade in the Western Hemisphere&emdash;we've put all our tariffs on the table because free trade benefits all and brings us closer together as neighbors." The U.S. offer sets an important benchmark in the market access negotiations, and demonstrates U.S. leadership as negotiations move into a critical and substantive phase. To encourage other FTAA countries to make equally ambitious market access proposals, today's U.S. offer only extends to those FTAA countries that put their own offers on the table. Over the next several months, the United States and other FTAA countries will respond to each other's initial offers and begin negotiations in preparation for the Miami Ministerial meeting in November, which the United States is co-chairing with Brazil. The U.S. offer covers five key areas of the negotiations: consumer and industrial goods; agriculture; services; investment; and government procurement. "The U.S. is already a very open market. The FTAA will benefit American farmers, workers, consumers and businesses by reducing high tariffs and trade barriers throughout the rest of the Western Hemisphere, while promoting regional economic growth and integration. The United States shares a hemispheric responsibility with our co-chair Brazil in helping to lead these negotiations to success, and we look forward to building on our good work and cooperation," added Zoellick. The U.S. offers provide different rates of reductions in trade barriers throughout the region to reflect the wide disparity in economic size and development among FTAA countries. The 34 countries had earlier agreed that differences in the levels and development and size of economies should be taken into account in the developments of the market access offers. The United States has consulted extensively with Congress and trade advisory groups over several months during the drafting of these offers, summaries of which were released today. Highlights of the U.S. FTAA Offer: About 65% of U.S. imports of consumer & industrial goods from the Hemisphere (not already covered by NAFTA) would be duty-free immediately upon effectiveness of FTAA, with all duties on consumer & industrial products eliminated by 2015. For U.S. imports of textiles and apparel from FTAA countries, the offer is even bolder: we propose to move to zero tariffs in just five years, provided other countries reciprocate. To jump start the move toward open markets, immediate elimination of tariffs is offered on a reciprocal basis in key sectors such as chemicals, construction and mining equipment, electrical equipment, energy products, environmental products, information technology, medical equipment, non-woven fabric, paper, steel, and wood products. About 56% of agricultural imports from the Hemisphere would be duty-free immediately when FTAA takes effect. Other agricultural tariffs fall into staging categories of 5 years, 10 years, or longer, tailored to individual countries. Market access opportunities would be provided broadly across the U.S. investment and services sector, with markets open unless a specific exception is taken. This presumption for market opening-a "negative list"-is similar to U.S. free trade agreements (FTA) with Chile and Singapore. Companies in FTAA countries would be able to compete for U.S. government procurement contracts on an equal footing with firms from current NAFTA partners. This market opportunity covers nearly all the goods and services purchased by 51 federal government agencies. The offer to FTAA countries is designed to mesh with broad U.S. initiatives in the World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations. For example, the U.S. FTAA offer envisions the elimination of consumer and industrial tariffs no later than 2015, which is in line with the U.S. "Tariff-Free World 2015" proposal in the WTO. The U.S. offer also is intended to spur increased cooperation in the WTO on important global issues, such as the U.S. proposal to eliminate agricultural export subsidies in all WTO members and to reduce substantially trade-distorting farm supports. In addition to the FTAA and WTO, the United States is pursuing an aggressive strategy of global trade liberalization through bilateral agreements. In the last month, the United States has launched FTA negotiations with five Central American nations (Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua); with Morocco; and with the nations of the Southern African Customs Union (SACU - Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia, South Africa and Swaziland). The United States also recently completed FTA negotiations with Singapore and Chile. In order to facilitate the FTAA negotiations, the United States is providing assistance and coordinating trade capacity building throughout the Western Hemisphere. Last November at the FTAA Ministerial Meeting in Quito, Ecuador, the United States won endorsement from ministers for the Hemispheric Cooperation Program (HCP), a comprehensive trade capacity-building program to help small and developing countries in the region to fully benefit from the FTAA. In FY 2002, the United States provided over $102 million in trade capacity building activities to countries participating in the FTAA. AID represents approximately 65% of total US government trade capacity building assistance. Double Cropping Manure-Treated Fields Can Help Manage Phosphorus Reprinted from University of Idaho's AgKnowledge Nutrient cycling on an Idaho dairy goes something like this: cows eat the silage that turns into muscle and milk and the manure that the farmer spreads on the field to nourish the crop that will be made into silage that the cows eat. A healthy system strikes a balance between the amount of manure nutrients the producer applies to his field and the amount the crop takes up. Manure applications that are too heavy pose the risk of phosphorus running off the field into nearby surface waters to feed nuisance aquatic growth such as algae. Bill Stouder of Stouder Holsteins at Wendell has in recent years been tuning the balance on his dairy through double cropping. Rather than plant just one field corn crop on the 40 acres where he sprays his dairy's wastewater, he puts in a winter crop of triticale for his heifers then follows it right away in spring with his corn crop. "It really helps to put on a second crop to pull out phosphorus," says Stouder. In field trials at the UI Parma Research and Extension Center from 1999 to 2001, UI Extension Crop Management Specialist Brad Brown has produced research data that quantifies the value of double cropping. Three years of double cropping triticale, a winter cereal, followed by corn removed 50 pounds per acre more phosphorus than three annual crops of corn. Furthermore, the level of phosphorus in the soil dropped from 30 ppm to 11.8 ppm over three years with double cropping versus from 30 ppm to just 17.0 ppm with three crops of corn. That's a difference that dairy producers can appreciate. Like all of them, Stouder is required to keep the phosphorus level in the first foot of his soil to no more than 40 ppm (parts per million) to prevent surface water contamination. Once that threshold is reached, producers can apply only as much manure as that year's crop can use to fill its phosphorus needs. Producers could transport excess manure to more distant fields at a cost and assuming available land, turn it into compost, or simply produce less milk. Double cropping, however, has the additional benefit of enabling dairy producers to produce more feed for their herd. Brown's study showed that double cropping produced 2.6 to 4.9 tons per acre more forage dry matter, depending on the winter cereal, than corn crops alone. In Gooding County, extension educator Bill Hazen says "more and more" producers are adopting double cropping to manage phosphorus, a practice some of them adopted years ago to protect fields from eroding winter winds. "Local sales of triticale seed have been going up 15 to 25 percent a year for the past five years. You hardly ever see a bare field anymore in wintertime," said Hazen. Brown believes double cropping has even more potential in the Treasure Valley because of its longer growing season. To the east of it, in Gooding County, Hazen says producers ideally should plant their corn crop "within days" of harvesting their winter cereal. "Time is the critical element." Brown's research was funded by the United Dairymen of Idaho. Soil Conditioner Eliminates Majority Of Field Runoff Sediment Reprinted from University of Idaho's AgKnowledge This past growing season, U.S. farmers irrigated more than a million acres of farmland, including a couple hundred thousand in Idaho, with water containing the soil conditioner polyacrylamide, or PAM. An off-the-shelf chemical, PAM dissolved in irrigation water keeps soil particles from eroding off fields and the bottom of irrigation furrows, and it settles out sediment suspended in the water. "The first time I saw it, I couldn't believe the difference it made," said Don Morishita, a UI weed scientist. "Without it, you see very muddy, very brown water moving down the furrow. With PAM, the water is very clear." Research conducted by the USDA Agricultural Research Service in Idaho since 1991 shows that PAM eliminates an average 94 percent of the sediment in field runoff from furrow irrigation, said Bob Sojka, soil scientist with the service's Northwest Irrigation and Soils Research Laboratory in Kimberly. Besides that, it increases water infiltration into the soil by as much as 50 percent on medium- to fine-textured soils. A few years ago, Sojka interested Morishita in finding out whether PAM might have implications for weed control. Morishita has since found that PAM in irrigation water reduces the movement of weed seeds in irrigation furrows, keeping seeds from spreading from one part of a field to another or onto fields of neighbors farther along the canal. The result is "a real positive This past growing season, U.S. farmers irrigated more than a million acres of farmland, including a couple hundred thousand in Idaho, with water containing the soil conditioner polyacrylamide, or PAM. An off-the-shelf chemical, PAM dissolved in irrigation water keeps soil particles from eroding off fields and the bottom of irrigation furrows, and it settles out sediment suspended in the water. "The first time I saw it, I couldn't believe the difference it made," said Don Morishita, a UI weed scientist. "Without it, you see very muddy, very brown water moving down the furrow. With PAM, the water is very clear." Research conducted by the USDA Agricultural Research Service in Idaho since 1991 shows that PAM eliminates an average 94 percent of the sediment in field runoff from furrow irrigation, said Bob Sojka, soil scientist with the service's Northwest Irrigation and Soils Research Laboratory in Kimberly. Besides that, it increases water infiltration into the soil by as much as 50 percent on medium- to fine-textured soils. A few years ago, Sojka interested Morishita in finding out whether PAM might have implications for weed control. Morishita has since found that PAM in irrigation water reduces the movement of weed seeds in irrigation furrows, keeping seeds from spreading from one part of a field to another or onto fields of neighbors farther along the canal. The result is "a real positive reducing herbicide loss from the field," said Morishita, "especially one like Sonalan." PAM had no effect on runoff of Outlook, which is more soluble in water than Sonalan. Finally, the scientists found that although PAM increases water infiltration, even Outlook moves no deeper into the soil than it does without PAM. Brian Olmstead, a farmer south of Twin Falls, has used PAM for almost 10 years. With PAM holding soil onto his fields, the sediment retention ponds at the bottoms of his fields don't fill up as fast. He used to have to dig them out every year, but PAM lets him do it every third year. Olmstead also is in charge of water quality at the Twin Falls Canal Company, where teaching other farmers about PAM is one way he is helping the company to minimize the amount of sediment draining into the Middle Snake River. The company's irrigation return flows contribute to sediment levels in the river that exceed state water quality standards. Today, about 60 percent of the company's 4,000 irrigators are using PAM along with other practices, according to Olmstead, and the river has responded. "Visually, it's way, way better than it was two years ago." 2003-Crop Loan Rates The U.S. Department of Agriculture recently announced 2003-crop corn, grain sorghum and soybean county loan rates; 2003-crop dry pea, lentil and small chickpea loan program provisions, including regional loan rates for dry peas; 2002- and 2003-crop crambe and sesame loan rates; and revised 2003-crop canola, flaxseed, mustard seed, rapeseed and safflower county loan rates. Today's announcement of the corn, grain sorghum and soybean county loan rates is the earliest in recent history. The 2003-crop loan rates for wheat, barley, oats and other oilseeds were previously announced on December 13, 2002. This announcement revises the loan rates for canola, flaxseed, mustard seed, rapeseed and safflower as specified in the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003 (the 2003 Act), but does not affect the loan rates for wheat, barley, and oats. Determining County Loan Rates The 2002 Farm Bill restructured national loan rates, thus requiring changes in county loan rates. The Conference Report accompanying the 2002 Farm Bill also provided guidance suggesting that USDA use the generally upward change in national loan rates to revise county loan rates. Because county loan rates had not been adjusted to reflect changing grain market conditions for over 10 years, numerous disparities between loan rates and market prices had emerged, affecting producer benefits. Almost immediately upon enactment of the 2002 Bill, USDA announced the most comprehensive adjustments in more than 15 years to the county loan rate structure for 2002 crops. The new rates were intended to reflect market factors affecting each crop to the fullest extent possible and thus avoid distortions that work to the detriment of producers and the industry. The 2003-crop county loan rate determinations are in keeping with this market-oriented approach. The relative levels of the 2003-crop county loan rates for each commodity reflect the most recent information available about price relationships around the country. The 2003-crop rates will enhance the market orientation of the loan and loan deficiency payment (LDP) programs. County Loan Rate Differences Along State Borders Reduced Despite the reduction in significant market distortions following last year's county loan rate announcement, notable cross-border differences in some rates remained. For corn, the situation was particularly notable along the Minnesota-Iowa border. Today's announcement of the 2003-crop county loan rates is in response to producers' concerns regarding these differences and reflects the most recent information on cross-border differences in market price relationships. While some cross-border differences will continue because of certain market conditions, today's actions will reduce and, in some instances, eliminate many of the unwarranted differences. Corn, Sorghum, and Soybean County Loan Rates Updated In establishing this year's rates, the Department paid special attention to reducing notable loan rate differences among neighboring counties that are not the result of current market forces. These updated county loan rates reflect changes that have occurred in cropping and marketing patterns over the years and should be highly beneficial to most farmers. Pulse Loan Rates: Base Qualities Adjusted and Dry Pea Loan Rates Differentiated by Region In accordance with the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003 (the 2003 Act), signed on February 20, 2003, base quality levels for the 2003-crop pulse commodities will be feed grade for dry peas and #3 grade for lentils and small chickpeas. Also, 2003-crop dry pea loan rates will be differentiated by region in accordance with the 2002 Farm Bill's Congressional Conferees' guidance. The 2003-crop dry pea national loan rate is $6.33 per hundredweight. Dry pea production is regionally dispersed and season average farm prices are significantly different among regions. The 2003-crop regional loan rates will apply uniformly to feed grade dry peas throughout all counties within each region. For the 2003 crop, a regional dry pea loan rate of $6.68 per hundredweight will be uniformly applicable for all counties in the West region, which includes the Palouse (Idaho, Oregon and Washington) and other states west of the Rocky Mountains (Arizona, California, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah). In the East region - Montana and North Dakota, plus all other states not in the West region - a loan rate of $5.89 per hundredweight will be applicable. The 2003-crop lentil national loan rate of $11.94 per hundredweight will apply uniformly to #3 grade quality in all counties in the nation. The 2003-crop small chickpea national loan rate of $7.56 per hundredweight will apply uniformly in all counties in the nation to #3 grade chickpeas that pass through a 20/64 grading screen. Crambe and Sesame Seed Made Eligible for Loan and LDP Programs and 2003-Crop Canola, Flaxseed, Mustard Seed, Rapeseed and Safflower Loan Rates Revised Also, consistent with the 2003 Act, the 2002- and 2003-crop loan rates for crambe and sesame seed are set at $0.096 per pound. This announcement makes producers on farms with a history of planting crambe or sesame seed during 1998-2001 eligible for the direct and counter-cyclical payment programs. The 2003-crop national average loan rates for canola, flaxseed, mustard seed, rapeseed and safflower also are revised to $0.096 per pound. Summary of 2003-Crop Corn, Sorghum, Oilseed, and Pulse National Loan Rates Corn $1.98 per bushel Sorghum $1.98 per bushel Soybeans $5.00 per bushel Sunflower Seed $0.096 per pound Rapeseed $0.096 per pound Canola $0.096 per pound Safflower $0.096 per pound Flaxseed $0.096 per pound Mustard Seed $0.096 per pound Sesame Seed $0.096 per pound Crambe $0.096 per pound Dry Peas $6.33 per hundredweight Lentils $11.94 per hundredweight Small Chickpeas $7.56 per hundredweight Accessing 2003-Crop County Loan Rates Within four business days of this announcement, the county loan rates for these commodities will be available on USDA Farm Service Agency's Web site at: http://www.fsa.usda.gov/dafp/psd/

Disaster Assistance For Sugar Beet Growers From "Far West This Week", March 7, 2003 USDA officials pledged to work closely with sugar beet growers in allocating disaster assistance funds allocated under the Omnibus appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2003. The bill provides $60 million in assistance to sugar beet growers as part a $3.1 billion disaster assistance package to agriculture producers. Technical Service Provider Alert The NRCS website TECHREG was up and running March 1. To access the site go to <https://techreg.usda.gov>. Those who have user ID and password can proceed to the site to register to become a technical service provider. Passwords and e-government user ID can be obtained online at the NRCS home page at www.nrcs.usda.gov <http://www.nrcs.usda.gov>. Just click on the electronic government icon on the left side of the page, then click on "register" and follow the instructions. Veneman Outlines Key Priorities For Agriculture Agriculture Secretary Ann M. Veneman presented the keynote address at the opening of the 79th Annual Agricultural Outlook Forum held in Arlington, VA, February 20, 2003, where she outlined some key priorities for the food and agriculture sector to help America's farmers and ranchers better compete in the 21st Century. "Our world is in constant change, and so is the world of agriculture. When you examine where agriculture has come in a relatively short time, the pace of that change is remarkable," said Veneman. "But some issues that have confronted America's farm sector are still challenges today and will continue to be so in the coming years." Veneman said that as agriculture looks to the future, several critical areas are important to examine closely to help shape the future of the industry: • Applying technology to its fullest potential, advancing alternative uses for agricultural products and adopting a forward-looking regulatory system that ensures the integrity of technology advancements in food and agriculture; • Strengthening the nation's food safety systems and ensuring the protection of the food supply against potential bioterrorist threats; • Improving and expanding risk management tools for producers to better prepare the agriculture sector when it faces difficult and challenging times; and • Continuing to expand and open new international markets and working harder to educate all involved about the perils to agriculture if progress is not made in this area. The following are excerpts from Veneman's remarks on some of the key areas of focus in the coming years: Technology "We are already seeing the benefits of crop biotechnology, and researchers are making incredible inroads into new uses for biotech crops and animals. As scientists push back the frontiers of biotechnology, government regulators are greeted with enormous challenges. Failure to regulate effectively could undermine consumer confidence, cost farmers valuable markets&emdash;both domestic and export&emdash;and delay the enormous public and private benefits that can be reaped from applying biotechnology to food and nonfood uses." Veneman announced that she has formed an interagency team and directed the group to thoroughly review current regulations pertaining to all aspects of biotechnology, particularly those that may be required for new pharmaceutical and industrial crops. A top priority of the group is to strengthen coordination with FDA and EPA to ensure there are no gaps in the regulatory infrastructure. Veneman also said later this year she is convening an international science and technology conference to bring agriculture, environment and science ministers together from around the world to discuss and showcase agriculture-related technologies. The conference will be held June 22-25 in Sacramento, Calif. Delivering Safe Food "Competing successfully in the future also hinges on the safety of our food supply. The President shares this belief, and for this reason, has proposed record funding for meat and poultry food safety programs as well as funding increases to strengthen agricultural protection systems. In fact, USDA's food safety budget, if approved by the Congress, will reflect a 20 percent increase since this Administration has been in office. This is good progress, but food safety is also about science and utilizing that science to develop better policies and stronger systems to protect the food supply and consumers." Veneman said that the USDA has declared a "war on pathogens." Headed by Food Safety Under Secretary Dr. Elsa Murano, USDA is examining current policies, investing in new research and technology and more advanced training programs to ensure our programs meet the challenges of the new Century. Veneman also said a close reexamination of the nation's agricultural infrastructure programs&emdash;from farm to table&emdash;is necessary to ensure the continued protection of the food supply from potential bioterrorist threats. The Secretary said that in the future, these programs cannot be simply looked at on a year-by-year basis. Funding priorities should be part of America's permanent infrastructure &emdash;part of long-term policy planning and funding&emdash;and the agriculture community should become more proactive in helping to make sure they become part of mandatory spending in future years. Managing Risks On the Farm Another key to success in the 21st Century is having effective, market based risk management tools for producers. Veneman said that today, the foundation of the nation's risk management program is crop insurance. Following passage of the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000, USDA implemented program reforms that spurred participation. Today, nearly 80 percent of eligible acreage is covered, compared with only 69 percent in 1998. Over 50 percent of the insured acreage is now insured at a 70 percent or higher level of coverage, compared with only 9 percent in 1998. "Despite such progress, we need to strengthen our crop insurance program and improve risk management tools, generally. Our goals are to ensure widely available and effective risk management tools for our diverse farm sector, for farmers and stakeholders to be well informed, that the delivery system is fair and effective, the programs are operated with integrity, and that we excel at service to the nation's producers." To achieve these objectives, the Secretary has asked the Risk Management Agency to undertake a major initiative in 2003 to identify the underserved producers and closely examine the regions, commodities and risks and then prioritize the development of new products to fill the gaps identified. Veneman said priorities of this initiative include: examining the need to serve the livestock industry, including forage and range coverage; addressing concerns with coverage in regions facing multiyear droughts; simplifying and improving the effectiveness of various insurance products; and reviewing various RMA authorities to ensure the soundness of the delivery system and effective oversight of the insurance industry. The Secretary also announced an effort to make crop insurance more affordable and encourage smaller and specialty crop producers in underserved states to try new insurance products. RMA this week is making available up to $18 million to provide financial assistance in 15 states that have been historically underserved by the Federal Crop Insurance program. Opening Global Markets Through Trade and Development "Another component that will help ensure our competitiveness in the 21st Century is to maintain and increase access to international markets, enhance worldwide economic development, and stimulate world prosperity." The Secretary said that trade and trade agreements have brought significant benefits to U.S. agriculture. For example, U.S. exports to its NAFTA partners have grown 76 percent during the past 10 years, while exports to the rest of the world grew 12 percent. Veneman said that this year will be a critical one for advancing the U.S. trade agenda with WTO negotiations entering a crucial phase, while negotiations continue on creation of a Free Trade Area for the Americas (FTAA) and other bilateral agreements. Veneman concluded her remarks by saying, "Competing in the 21st Century means above all that we must be prepared to address the challenges and take advantage of the opportunities in the ever-changing marketplace. Our ability to take advantage of opportunities on a number of fronts will determine whether we reap the benefits of the 21st Century marketplace." For a complete transcript of the Secretary's remarks, and other activities and events as part of the 79th Annual Agricultural Outlook Forum, "Competing in the 21st Century," please visit http://www.usda.gov/. OSU Website By Andy Duncan, Oregon State University Oregon's best-known source of outside-the-classroom educational information, the Oregon State University Extension Service, has redesigned its website to make it easier for Oregonians to find answers to practical questions online. With a simple search on the website you now can find experts, publications and other educational materials in areas that range from how to increase profits and protect the environment in agriculture, forestry and the seafood industry to how to do a better job of parenting, preparing food safely and using computers in everyday life. The OSU website is at: http://extension.oregonstate.edu/. Other examples of materials on the website: A video will take you into the salmon's world to learn about watershed health. You can learn about WebWizards, an award-winning OSU 4-H program for high school-age kids, and you can read scientists' findings from a joint university report on Klamath Basin water allocations. Spring Is Best Time To Plant Groundcovers By, Carol Savonen, Oregon State University. Do you have an area in your yard where you'd like to create more interest than just having a lawn? Do you have bare patches between stepping stones? Do you have a slope that needs some coverage? Groundcovers might be just what you are looking for. Groundcovers are any type of low growing plant, besides turf grass, that covers the soil densely, explained Jan McNeilan, consumer horticulturist with the Oregon State University Extension Service and co-author of "the Pacific Northwest Gardener's Book of Lists." Spring is the best time to plant groundcover plants. If you live on the west side of the Cascades, early spring is a fine time to plant. If you live in the colder or higher regions of Oregon, then it is best to wait until the soil warms up a bit before you consider planting. As with most new plants, it is best to plant the majority of groundcovers in well-amended, well-drained and weed-free soil. For the first growing season, water, weed and fertilize regularly to help it get established. Some of McNeilan's recommendations for appropriate groundcovers: • For sun or shade, consider planting: kinnikinnick, white bishop's hat (Epimedium), winter creeper (Euonymus fortunei). • For a sunny site: wooly yarrow, mountain rockcress (Arabis), spreading junipers, carpet heather (Calluna), chamomile and creeping or other low cotoneasters all grow well. • For a damp shady site, wild ginger, bunchberry, dead nettle, princess pine or lungwort perform well. • For a dry shady site, try bellflower (Campanula), lily-of-the-valley, bunchberry, bishop's hat, or soapwort (Saponaria). • To best stabilize a slope, try crown vetch, cotoneasters, bunchberry, winter creeper, creeping Oregon grape, or lowboy pyracantha. Choose the best for your exposure. • For a moist, poorly drained site, plant, bog rosemary, bleeding heart or spring cinquefoil. • For cracks and crevices between paving stones or beneath a rock, try woolly yarrow, rupture-wort, rock breaker (Saxifraga spp.), creeping thyme, foam flower, soapwort or speedwell. • For the seacoast environment, with cool summer temperatures and fog, try silver lace vine (Polygonum aubertii), creeping juniper, horseshoe vetch, beach strawberry, kinnikinnick or Point Reyes ceanothus. Consult your local garden guide or nursery for planting instructions. Workshops Help Dairy Producers Seize Pricing Opportunities Reprinted from University of Idaho's AgKnowledge Wendell-area dairy producer Lisa Thompson was astounded. With volatile milk prices frequently slumping below break-even levels, it would have been possible had she and her husband, Rick, patiently locked in the right prices&emdash;to have sold their milk in the top third of the market every month for the past several years. In addition, the Thompsons needn't have just grinned and borne it when milk prices exceeded the price they had contracted with their processor: they could have pocketed much of the difference by buying "call options." Those were Thompson's "take-home lessons" from a three-day, 12-hour workshop called "Achieving Risk Management Success in Dairy" developed for Idaho dairy producers. The "Dairy ARMS" workshops are sponsored by the University of Idaho College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, Dairy Farmers of America, Idaho Dairymen's Association, Glanbia, Kraft and West-Farm Foods. Participants learn about basic and advanced marketing strategies and&emdash;before leaving the last session&emdash;complete marketing plans for their own dairies. Joe Dalton, UI Extension dairy specialist in Caldwell and a workshop instructor, says "Dairy ARMS" helps producers minimize the alternating wishfulness and despair that can cloud decision-making. "The goal should be to maintain profitability at some level on a year-in, yearout basis, rather than just weathering the storm at the lowest prices or reaping the rewards of the highest prices," he says. As the three days evolve, producers put an increasingly sharp pencil to their costs as they pinpoint the exact price they can afford to accept. Then, they learn how to lock in that price&emdash;and how to determine how long they might have to wait for it. "It was very interesting to see that milk has averaged about $12.12 over the last 10 years, so really the trick is to try to average better than that by the decisions you make," says Thompson. C. Wilson Gray, UI Extension livestock economist and another workshop instructor, says the workshop curriculum "does a very good job of providing background on how milk prices behave and why they've acted the way that they have in the past." Once linked to an inflationadjusted parity index that was based on 1910-14 farm prices and later supported by government purchases of surplus product, today's freerer-floating milk prices now swing as much as $9 between highs and lows. In southeastern Idaho's Bear Lake County, UI Extension educator Joel Packham says price risk is particularly damaging to small producers. "They don't have the economies of scale," he says. "Larger dairies have other places where they can save some money, but we just don't have that ability here." Dairyman Gary Johnson, who owns a 300-cow dairy in Meridian with his wife, Terri, says the couple "got a lot of good" out of what he describes as a "very involved" program. "It made us aware of the short amount of time that milk is at a really good price and the amount of time that it's at certain price levels," he says. It puts everything into reality, so that when you see an opportunity you know it's an opportunity. It really made us aware that we've let some opportunities slide by that we shouldn't have." Late Legislator Continues To Give Back To State Reprinted from University of Idaho's AgKnowledge When the late David Little, an eight-term Idaho legislator, served on the powerful Joint Financial Affairs Committee, saw the need for both state and support for scientific research. Little, the only rancher to lead both the Idaho and Idaho Woolgrowers Associations, knew science could help to answer society's questions about natural resource management. He also knew that federal and state support could not provide all of the resources necessary. In his customary fashion, he founded the David Little Livestock Range Management Research Endowment at the University of Idaho to begin to address that issue. Created in 1981, the endowment provided $60,000 for range-related research and education in 2002. For Karen Launchbaugh, a range scientist in the UI College of Natural Resources, the funding from the endowment fills a critical role. Launchbaugh, weed scientist Linda Wilson of the College of Agricultural and Life Sciences and UI Extension educator Shannon Williams received a $20,000 grant from the Little Endowment to begin a study of using livestock grazing to manage rangeland weeds in Idaho. Their study will focus on three weeds, meadow hawkweed, sulfur cinquefoil and houndstongue, in northern Idaho and two, Dalmatian toadflax and whitetop, in southern Idaho. The Little Endowment also funded a previous study by Launchbaugh and Wilson on yellow starthistle. "Mostly what it's done has been to provide seed money to do the initial research needed to secure additional funding for more detailed research," Launchbaugh said. In the starthistle study, the Little Endowment funding helped the team land another $155,000 from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Western Region Integrated Pest Management Program. She said, "It's really hard to get big grants these days without showing you can do the work." That is what David Little wanted to accomplish, said Larry Branen, UI dean of the College of Agricultural and Life Sciences. "He knew there needed to be wider support for carrying out research targeted to the use of range in Idaho. This has been a program that has allowed us to get into areas that we couldn't address before." In addition, Branen said, the Little Endowment has provided the chance for researchers to involve students in their work, adding, "The fact that we were able to include students and solve specific problems facing livestock producers is what I see is important." In its most recent round of project funding, the Little Endowment advisory committee took a different tack that tied it more closely to educational efforts than ever before. The endowment's latest project provided $13,635 to support helping schoolteachers incorporate range science into their lesson plans. Launchbaugh will team with the Idaho Rangeland Resource Commission's Gretchen Hyde to create a broader range education program. They believe Little Endowment funding will provide a bridge to build on past teacher education efforts and leverage them to win further support for the effort.

Top of Page