May 2000

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

Gun Control Has Proven Record Of Effectiveness Asheville Tribune Reader commentary by John J. McNight of Weaverville, NC In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. In 1938, Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. In 1935, China established gun control. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents were unable to defend themselves and were rounded up and exterminated. In 1964, Guatemala established gun control. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. In 1970, Uganda established gun control. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. In 1956, Cambodia established gun control. From 1975 to 1977, one million "educated" people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. That places total victims who lost their lives because of gun control at approximately 56 million in the last century. Since we should learn from the mistakes of history, the next time someone talks in favor of gun control, find out which group of citizens they wish to have exterminated. Scientists Examine Impacts Of Erosion-Stopping Soil Polymers By Marlene Fritz, University of Idaho Across the U.S., about a million acres of surface-irrigated farmland will be treated with polyacrylamide, or PAM, this spring. Between a third and a half of Idaho's furrow-irrigated fields will once again receive applications of the soil polymer, which binds together water-loosened soil particles and stops erosion right in its tracks. One of those fields will be at the University of Idaho's Kimberly Research and Extension Center, where UI weed scientists Don Morishita and Pam Hutchinson and USDA soil scientist Bob Sojka will examine the effects of PAM on weed control in dry bean plots. The scientists estimate that PAM slashes erosion by 94 percent, but questions remain about just how it interacts with herbicides and weed seeds. Clearly, PAM curtails the movement of herbicides off target sites in runoff water, thus inhibiting the weedkillers' potential to threaten neighbors' crops and pollute surface water. But, if its proven ability to enhance water infiltration also intensifies herbicide leaching, PAM's environmental benefits could be compromised by risks to crop roots or even groundwater. "We want herbicides to stay in the top one or two inches of soil to control germinating weeds," Morishita says. So far, in two previous years of study with corn, Morishita and Sojka have found that PAM sharply reduces the movement of weed seeds. Compared with control plots, the scientists collected only about a third as many weed seeds in runoff from PAM-treated plots. In other ARS studies, the PAM also curbed movement of soil microorganisms. "We prefer to move nothing but water," says Sojka, of the federal Agricultural Research Service's Northwest Irrigation and Soils Research Laboratory. "We don't want other substances becoming loose components affecting runoff water quality or the management of our neighbors' farms." This year, the scientists will turn their attention to two relatively new herbicides&endash;and especially to their movement through PAM-treated soil. Morishita will collect numerous water and soil samples throughout the growing season, and Hutchinson will oversee laboratory analyses of the samples. One of the herbicides, Sonalan, is considered a largely immobile chemical, while Frontier is more mobile but not highly leachable. Both are relatively short-lived and environmentally friendly, but the scientists still don't want to see them relocate off the field or into the crop's root zone. Sojka says previous research indicates that PAM moves no deeper into soil than a fraction of an inch. At the surface of all but the sandiest of soils, it clumps together the fine soil particles dispersed by water, and the enlarged soil aggregates promptly settle out of the flow. Unlike their finer components, the clumps don't block soil pores or seal soil surfaces. Water can seep so readily into PAM-treated soils that farmers must adjust their irrigation practices to move streams more quickly down their furrows, then cut back the flow rates at the first sign of runoff. "If a farmer pays attention to what he is doing, he can reap more than an erosion benefit from PAM," says Sojka. "He can get an infiltration-uniformity benefit and should be able to hang onto his chemicals." Soil scientist Rick Lentz , also of the ARS's Kimberly laboratory, studied the effects of PAM on percolation losses of the herbicide alachlor during the 1996-97 growing seasons. "Some people feared it would increase drainage losses of not only herbicides but nutrients such as nitrates," Lentz says. "But the PAM treatment neither increased or decreased fieldwide percolation losses of the alachlor or nitrates." In addition to keeping a close eye on herbicide movement in this year's bean plots, Morishita will measure weed emergence and weed distribution. He knows from his corn studies that PAM won't reduce germination of weed seeds, but he hopes it will once again keep them from dispersing. "If you're not spreading weed problems from one field to another, you're being a better land steward," he says. Grasshopper Control in the New Millenium: New Promise & Even More New Challenges By Marlene Fritz, University of Idaho As Idaho's rangelands and croplands begin to stir with grasshoppers this spring, farmers and ranchers can click onto a University of Idaho Web site to identify virtually any hoppers they may have. Even more importantly, producers can check that same Web site to pinpoint the grasshoppers' stages of life. That should prove especially helpful this year, with the projected widespread use on adjoining federal lands of an environmentally friendly new insect growth regulator. The product&emdash;called Dimilin&emdash;destroys the hoppers before they're old enough to take flight. Bob Stoltz, University of Idaho extension entomologist, says Dimilin disrupts the molting process as grasshoppers literally shed one stage of life for another. Unable to form the chitin essential to their tough outer skeleton, the exposed insects die between stages. If they're not treated on or before their fourth "instar" stage, however, the hoppers will be winged and home free&emdash;and free to make their homes wherever they choose. The Web site, www.uidaho.edu/so-id/entomology, links to key information provided by Wyoming and Colorado entomologists. It also includes University of Idaho control recommendations for 10 crops as well as for home vegetable gardens and landscapes. At the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service in Boise, plant health director Dave McNeal and plant protection quarantine officer Rob McChesney say a frustrating limitation is that Dimilin is currently labeled for use on rangeland but not on most of southern Idaho's crops. Consequently, planes spraying Dimilin need to skirt croplands by 500 feet, and&emdash;as McChesney says "that first 500 feet is the most important to treat." As has been the case in previous years, farmers will be responsible for applying pesticides to their own private lands this year while federal agencies will concentrate on spraying one-quarter to one-half mile borders of federal land along the crop-rangeland "interface." For the most part, McChesney says APHIS will be spreading rolled wheat bait that's been treated with Sevin tight up against crop fields. Indeed, controlling grasshoppers on public lands has become a much dicier proposition since 1985, when 5.7 million Idaho acres were treated with malathion and another 750,000 with Sevin-4-Oil or Sevin bait. In the past decade, Idaho's organic crop acreage has multiplied a hundred-fold to 85,000, McChesney says, and rural subdivisions and ranchettes have cropped up with abandon. Add dodging cabins and organic fields to giving bodies of water a 500-foot berth, avoiding accidental kills of bees and beneficial weed-killing insects, and leaving enough untreated grasshoppers behind to feed sage grouse, sharp-tailed grouse, southern Idaho ground squirrels and Townsend's big-eared bats, and McChesney and McNeal say environmental stewardship has become a difficult tightrope. That tightrope is chronological as well as geographical: Because they're charged with "taking extreme measures to make sure we don't damage nontarget species with pesticide accumulation," McNeal says APHIS staff treat each targeted acre only once during the year. "For all practical purposes, we have one shot," he says. In Adams County, University of Idaho extension educator Gordon Keetch recommends that farmers first try initial "patch" treatments of grasshopper hotspots to kill as many small grasshoppers as possible. Gradually following up with Sevin bait and then strip-spraying keeps pesticide use and expense to a minimum, he says. With so many rural homes going into what Keetch calls "some of the worst grasshopper areas," assembling infested private acreage into economical aerial spray blocks "can be almost impossible," Keetch says. But farmers "aren't real big on spraying everything either," he says. In Twin Falls, Stoltz says widespread spraying of broad-spectrum insecticides like Sevin and malathion takes its toll on beneficial as well as problem insects. By disrupting species balance, it can prompt unintended outbreaks of secondary pests. In the mid-1980s, cutworms and yellow-striped armyworms flared in the wake of grasshopper spraying. Dimilin would not provoke similar outbreaks, but treatments can't follow grasshoppers into crops. Increased CRP Payment Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman has announced that landowners can receive more money for participation in the Conservation Reserve Program continuous signup. The new financial incentives&emdash;totaling up to $350 million in the next three years&emdash;include signing bonuses and more money for installing and maintaining conservation practices. "Higher payments should persuade more landowners to participate, protecting ever more environmentally sensitive land along streams, rivers, wetlands, and public water supplies," Glickman said, speaking to the Agriculture Earth Day celebration on the National Mall. "In difficult economic times for farm country, this additional $350 million will mean more cash in farmer's pockets." The continuous signup enhancements, part of the Clinton-Gore plan to strengthen the farm safely net, consist of additional economic incentives and updated rates including: An up-front signing bonus of $10 per acre for every year the contract covers. This amounts to $100 to $150 per acre at the start of the contract to help defray up-front installation costs for filter strips, riparian buffers, grassed waterways, field windbreaks, shelter belts and living snow fences. A payment equal to 40 percent of the practice installation cost, in addition to the 50 percent cost-share paid by USDA for establishing certain approved practices. Increases in maintenance rate incentives for certain practices involving tree planting, fencing, or water development. Between $2 to $5 per acre may be added to existing maintenance rate incentives. Updated marginal pastureland rental rates nationwide to better reflect the market value of these lands. In many cases, rental rates increased with the update. The rule changes and incentives apply only to certain CRP continuous signup practices that generally include small acreage that provide high environmental benefits because of their impact on much larger areas. Up to $100 million in FY2000 and $125 million in FY 2001 and 2002 will be provided in signing and practice bonuses. Unlike the regular CRP program, the continuous signup program allows producers to enroll eligible highly environmentally sensitive land at anytime, without waiting for a sign-up period or competing against other offers. Conservation practices protect streams and rivers by keeping sediment and nutrients from entering the water, providing cleaner drinking water, enhancing recreation, and improving wildlife habitats. Humor! How do crazy people go through the forest? &emdash;They take the psycho path. How do you get holy water? &emdash;You boil the hell out of it. What do fish say when they hit a concrete wall? &emdash;Damn! What do eskimos get from sitting on the ice too long? &emdash;Polaroids. What do you call a boomerang that doesn't work? &emdash;A stick. What do you call cheese that isn't yours? &emdash;Nacho cheese. Farm Facts 1). Kenaf is a crop being used to make newsprint, stage sets and exhibit backdrops. 2). Less than 5 million people live on the farm today, compared to 29.8 million in 1990. 3). The U.S. has less than 7 percent of the world's farm commodities.

Diet Web Site Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman recently announced the release of the Interactive Healthy Eating Index, a new on-line dietary assessment tool that provides a quick measure of a person's diet quality. "Obesity in America is at almost epidemic proportions," Glickman said. "This user friendly web sit can help consumers carefully examine their own dietary habits and receive encouragement to improve diets." Designed for use by the general public and nutrition professionals, the IHEI shows internet users how well they are meeting current dietary guidance. The index is based on 10 aspects of a healthy diet for persons 2 years of age and older, as defined by the Dietary Guidelines for Americans and USDA's Food Guide Pyramid. Consumers can analyze their dietary status and maintain a cumulative record so improvements in their diet can be observed. Nutrition messages targeted to the user's score provide helpful information on diet and health with links to websites for those individuals with specific health concerns. The IHEI is available at the following web address: www.usda.gov/cnpp/. UI Potato Scientists Measure Impacts Of Potato Virus A By Marlene Fritz, University of Idaho It's so similar to potato virus Y that its original name was the "A strain" of PVY. Now&endash;three years after its first Idaho appearance&emdash;potato virus A not only has its own name, it is earning its own independent reputation as a threat to the state's potato crop. Beginning this spring at the University of Idaho's Parma Research and Extension Center, UI potato scientists will measure just how big of a menace PVA is. They will blend PVA-infected Russet Burbank and Russet Norkotah potatoes&emdash;rejected for seed certification this winter&emdash;with healthy spuds, thereby creating seedlots contaminated with 2, 10, 20 and 50 percent PVA. Then, over the next three years, extension seed potato specialist Phil Nolte, extension potato specialist Brad Geary and graduate student Melinda Bateman will analyze the spuds' yield and quality and project the disease's potential economic impacts. Scientists know that PVY is relatively innocuous until it infects a significant portion of the potatoes in a given field. Indeed, the Idaho Crop Improvement Association will allow certified potato seed headed for commercial production in 2001 to reach 15 percent levels of PVY and PVA combined. According to Nolte, a grower "would begin to notice yield problems" when PVY mottled 25 to 30 percent of his field with its telltale mosaic patterns on leaves. Affected tubers tend to be smaller and fewer. The disease&endash;spread nearly instantaneously by such aphids as the birdcherry-oat aphid and the Russian olive aphid&endash;interferes with the critical process of photosynthesis through which the plant manufactures its food and moves it into tubers. PVA shares PVY's symptoms and its predominantly aphid-dependent mechanism of spread, but Nolte suspects it produces fewer losses. "It appears to be a little less severe in Russet Burbank than the strains of PVY that we have here." At the university's Aberdeen Research and Extension Center, potato breeders Dennis Corsini and Richard Novy of the USDA Agricultural Research Service&endash;in cooperation with colleague Chuck Brown at Prosser, Wash.&emdash;are examining both commercial varieties and breeding material for PVA resistance. Two commercially available, genetically modified NatureMark varieties&emdash;NewLeaf Y Shepody and NewLeaf Y Russet Burbank&emdash;are resistant to PVY. So is Bannock Russet, recently released by the Tri-State Potato Variety Development Program. Indeed, Corsini says PVY has only been detected once in Bannock. Shepody, Norkotah and the yet-to-be-released Gem Russet tolerate PVY symptoms well but are readily infected and&emdash;as such&emdash;are carriers. Ranger is difficult to infect with PVY but "shows very strong symptoms" if infection actually occurs. According to Corsini, reports in the scientific literature suggest that one gene that confers resistance to PVY also makes potatoes resistant to PVA. That's what he hopes to confirm with Novy and Brown in trials this year. Early indications, and observations from other scientists, suggest that Russet Burbank is highly susceptible to PVA, Russet Norkotah is moderately susceptible and Shepody is very resistant. Corsini cautions growers not to make light of PVA. "Some growers are under the impression that it's an insignificant virus, but it's not," he says. "On average, it tends to be milder than PVY, but some plants show severe symptoms." Nolte says PVA's incidence in Idaho is clearly on the increase. "It seems like almost every year we get a few more seedlots that have at least some PVA in it," he says. ICIA officials report that 33 percent of the state's 1999-grown Norkotah seedlots, 23 percent of its Shepody seedlots and 3 percent of its Russet Burbank seedlots were rejected for planting commercial crops this year because of high levels of mosaic viruses. According to Nolte, PVA advanced right along with PVY. "They were both up by the same amount&endash;ten-fold&endash;so they seem to be spreading the same way." 1998 was a low mosaic year, he notes. Nolte attributes 1999's explosion of mosaic viruses to a record explosion of aphid carriers. Conditions for those aphids were nearly perfect, he says: a mild winter; a cold, wet, crop-delaying June; a hot, dry summer; and a prolonged fall that left late-emerging potato vines still green when the aphids were cruising for a meal. "Even though they don't particularly like potatoes and don't colonize them, they do taste them," he says. And one taste is all it takes to spread the virus from plant to plant. "You can dump all the insecticide you want on a field and still get PVY and PVA," Nolte says. "Even seed treatments don't work: they take hours to kill and the insect can do a lot of damage in that period of time." Nolte's advice to PVY- and PVA-embattled growers this season: rogue out infected spuds and "pray for a bad aphid year." Lamb Prices Strengthening Despite Higher Production April 2000 Idaho Agricultural Outlook By Marlene Fritz, University of Idaho Despite rising production, lambs entering U.S. feedlots in January were commanding prices level with a year ago or up to 20 percent higher. What looks like a slight improvement in U.S. demand is apparently edging prices upward, says livestock analyst Steve Meyer in the University of Idaho's April 2000 Idaho Agricultural Outlook. Meyer, of the Livestock Marketing Information Center in Lakewood, Colo., says comparisons between January 1999 and January 2000 indicate that Americans are buying 0.2 percent more lamb. Total usage of U.S. lamb in January 2000 was off 0.6 percent, Meyer says, but that's likely explained by an unfavorable trade balance&endash;with exports down 34 percent and imports up only 17 percent. Lamb production this January was 6 percent above a year ago, but 3 percent fewer lambs actually went to market. Lambs may have been exceptionally heavy, says Meyer, or the industry may be "trying very hard to ration an increasingly scarce product going into the Easter period when lamb demand is historically the strongest of the year." January slaughter lamb prices were steady with to 10 percent above year-ago figures. Meyer expects lambs now in feedlots to bring even stronger prices at slaughter in late spring or early summer. Interestingly, while lamb prices have historically peaked at Easter right along with demand, Meyer has found in a study of Texas slaughter lambs that 1994-98 prices topped out in June. He believes shifts in seasonal supplies underlie the change and says seasonality in U.S. lamb production is actually intensifying rather than flattening. Compared with historical indices, a relatively higher percentage of lamb is now being produced in March&endash;restraining springtime price increases&endash;and a relatively smaller percentage is being produced in August and September. March imports further exacerbate the seasonality problem. "Given the size of the industry, it may not take much change in volume to dramatically alter price patterns," Meyer says. He expects the seasonal price pattern established over the last few years to hold in 2000. Price volatility throughout the year continues to be the norm, says Meyer. Feeder lamb prices dropped from around $87 in December 1999 to $82 by the end of January to $92 by the end of February. Slaughter lamb prices moved from $75 in December 1999 to $64 in late January and back up to $75 in late February. Since March, prices have held steady. Should the normal seasonal trend hold as Meyer anticipates, he says slaughter lamb prices could move up another 15 to 20 percent in May and June to nearly $90, before they begin trending back toward the mid-$70s in late summer. Feeder lamb prices&endash;stronger than the five-year trend at their current $100&endash;could move 10 to 15 percent lower by June, to the low- to mid-$80s for the summer months. While the lamb market is generally improving, Meyer says wool "is not doing as well but down the road things could improve there as well." Nationwide in March, producers "were not interested in selling at the prices that were being offered," he says. The price gap is widening between finer wools&endash;which were bringing up to $1.45 per pound clean in March&endash;and coarser wools, trading under $1.00 per pound clean. "With the reduction in numbers of finer wool sheep in the U.S. and the tightening world-wide supplies of fine wool, buyers are having to compete harder for those types of wool," Meyer notes. When converted to U.S. cents per pound of wool, Australia's Eastern Market Indicator for the week ending March 31 was 21 cents above a year ago&endash;fueled primarily by finer wools but to a lesser extent by mid-quality wools. "Combining a currently strengthening world economy with the continued expectations of much tighter world wool supplies suggests continued modest improvement in wool prices throughout 2000," he projects. The UI's April 2000 Idaho Agricultural Outlook is available at length, with supporting tables and graphs, on the Web site of the UI Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, http://www.uidaho.edu/ag/agecon. Once on the home page, Internet users should click first on Publications, then on the Idaho Agricultural Outlook for April 2000. Idaho's Dry Bean Industry Worried About Delays In U.S. Sales to Mexico ADDENDUM: April 2000 Idaho Agricultural Outlook By Marlene Fritz, University of Idaho Last August, Mexico issued certificates for U.S. dry bean growers to export 48,000 metric tons of duty-free beans during the rest of calendar year 1999, but Idaho bean officials say that's short of the 57,963 metric tons NAFTA allows. Further, they say, an unknown portion of those 48,000 metric tons never made it across the border in 1999. So far this year, Mexico has issued certificates for only 19,901 metric tons&endash;nearly 30,000 fewer than the 59,702 allowed for calendar year 2000. The yet-to-be-auctioned 30,000 metric tons are equivalent to two-thirds of a million hundredweight of beans. Rae Tway, administrator of the Idaho Bean Commission, says the year 2000 permits were granted during a February auction but that a second auction&endash;originally scheduled for two different dates in April&emdash;has once again been delayed. According to Tway, the National Dry Bean Council's trade representatives anticipate no further auctions of import certificates until sometime after Mexico's July 2nd election. That has K. Akagi, chairman of the Idaho Bean Commission, deeply concerned. "We can't foresee when the next auction will occur and can only move so much product across the border when certificates are crammed into the last few months of a marketing year," he says. Paul Patterson, University of Idaho extension agricultural economist, calls exports "the key to improving depressed bean prices." USDA economists expect the final export tally for calendar year 1999 to fall under 8 million cwt., compared with 10.7 million cwt. in 1998. For 2000, Patterson projects exports of between 8.5 and 9.5 million cwt. if Mexico purchases the maximum-allowed quantities of duty-free beans. He says that would push bean prices to Idaho growers up by $2 to $4&endash;but, even at $16 to $19, prices would still be $3 to $6 short of the cost of producing beans in Idaho, when all costs are included. "Strong export demand from Mexico has normally been associated with better bean prices for Idaho growers," Patterson says, "but exports to Mexico have always been very erratic and often unduly influenced by Mexican politics. If Mexico fails to meet the terms of the NAFTA agreement this calendar year or if it issues export certificates near the end of the year when exports can't be completed, the expected price improvement could be reduced by as much as one-half." Even More Humor! Two Robins Two robins were sitting in a tree. "I'm hungry," said the first robin. "Me, too," said the second. "Let's fly down and find some lunch." They flew to the ground and found a nice plot of plowed ground full of worms. They ate and ate and ate and ate 'til they could eat no more. "I'm so full I don't think I can fly back up to the tree," said the first robin. "Me neither. Let's just lay here and bask in the warm sun," said the second robin. "O.K." said the first. They plopped down, basking in the sun. No sooner had they fallen asleep than a big fat tom cat snuck up and gobbled them up. As he sat washing his face after his meal, he thought,... Are you ready for it.............? Are you sure ...........................? "I love baskin' robins."

Top of Page