The United States needs to be more active in trade negotiations with Latin American countries before U.S. grains lose market share and are blocked out of expanding markets, according to a team of producers on a U.S. Grains Council mission. The team members, part of the Council's 1998 Pioneer International Agricultural Trade Fellowship, traveled to Brazil, Colombia and Mexico to assess the effect of regional trading blocs on U.S. grain exports.

"The prevailing message we heard from governments in Latin America is that the United States is not interested in discussing free trade," said Rick Tolman, USGC executive director, who escorted the team. "As a result, some of our largest markets are entering into bilateral and multilateral agreements with other countries and trading blocs.

"One of the biggest hindrances for U.S. feed grains is the lack of fast track authority," Tolman said. "Many countries in Latin America do not want to negotiate with us or see us as unwilling to negotiate because we do not have fast track."

Brazil is a member of Mercosur, a regional trading bloc with Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay. U.S. grain exports to Mercosur countries are subject to an 11 percent tariff. While grain importers in the Northeast told the team they would like to trade with the United States, the tariff makes it difficult for them to purchase grain from any other country but Argentina.

The Pioneer team felt that through trade negotiations the United States could overcome this tariff barrier and open Northeast Brazil to U.S. grain imports, potentially as much as 1.5 mmt. However, the lack of fast track authority hinders the United States' ability to conductnegotiations, and in the eyes of Brazil makes the United States seem unwilling to discuss free trade.

Colombia is the largest market for U.S. grains in South America, importing just below 2 mmt annually, giving U.S. grains an 80 percent share of the market. Colombia is a member of the Andean Community, a trading bloc, along with Venezuela, Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia. The team learned that the Andean Community has a price system that places a tariff on imported corn to keep the price of corn within a five-year average. As the world price of corn declines, the tariff is raised. Today the tariff on imported corn is around 60 percent.

At this time, most countries must pay the same tariff as the United States, but trade negotiations have lowered the tariff on corn from Mercosur countries to the Andean Community. Furthermore, negotiations are under way to lower the tariff between the two blocs to zero. This process will begin in the year 2000.

"Some of the people we met in Colombia said the country needed to expand trade with the United States but were frustrated by our apparent lack of interest in further trade liberalization," Tolman said. "They feel Colombia is being forced to negotiate with other blocs like Mercosur. Canada and the EU have also been very active with the Andean Community trying to fill a vacuum left by the lack of U.S. effort."

Mexico, the United States' NAFTA trading partner and a top market for U.S. grains, is an example of what success in trade policy can mean. Feed industry representatives and endusers all praised the way the NAFTA agreement has eased purchasing U.S. feed grains and has helped their industries grow.

However, the team learned that NAFTA is only one step in maintaining strong trade relations. While both countries have benefitted from the agreement, Mexico is developing additional trade agreements with other countries, like the European Union. While this is going on, the United States is not working to enhance its trade status with Mexico.

"Mexico is currently in negotiations with Mercosur and the EU. Their perception is that the U.S. is not really interested in further trade liberalization for agriculture at the present time," Tolman said. "That perception will continue without fast track."

Want to add some fall color to your home landscape? Take a look around at trees and shrubs that are showing brilliant color now. Then, identify plants you like and add them to your landscape for next year.

One fall favorite is Oxydendrum arboreum, said Jan McNeilan, Oregon State University Extension Service consumer horticulture agent. This tree gives a bright display of dark red leaves in the fall. Along with the leaves, the tree puts out branching clusters of greenish seed capsules that extend outward and downward.

Also known as the sourwood or sorrel tree, Oxydendrum arboreum grows slowly to about 25 feet in height and will eventually grow up to about 50 feet.

Viburnum opulus is another plant with bright foliage that is ideal for fall color, McNeilan said. Being a large shrub, Viburnum opulus needs a yard that offers plenty of growing room. It will reach 20 feet in height if allowed to grow naturally.

Euonymus alatus, commonly called "burning bush," offers bright red colors in its fall foliage. Although best suited to the drier climate of central Oregon, Euonymus alatus will deliver a bright splash of color to western Oregon landscapes every fall.

While thinking about additions to the fall landscape, look at the bark textures on various deciduous shade trees and shrubs, McNeilan said. Many plants have as much beauty in their branching structure, bark texture, and twig color as they do in their foliage and flowers.

Don't count on fall and winter rains to provide water to all plants in the home landscape, said Jan McNeilan, Oregon State University Extension Service consumer horticulture agent.

Many plants grow in areas protected from the rains. Plants underneath the wide eaves on Oregon homes, for instance, are likely to be quite dry. "Rain water doesn't spread laterally, so you may need to get out the garden hose and give plants a bit of water," said McNeilan.

Although most landscape plants are dormant in the winter, they still use some water. And with cold winter months coming up, a well-watered plant has greater protection against freezing than a dry one.

On July 17, the Washington State University Cooperative Extension hosted a garlic field day at the WSU Othello Research Unit. This' event featured garlic cultivars from the national germ plasm collection maintained by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) at the Western Regional Plant Introduction Station in Pullman, Washington.

Plots containing 46 garlic lines gathered from around the world were planted this past fall for preliminary evaluation under local conditions and for multiplication. These lines were evaluated for growth habit, flowering, bulb weight and diameter. The material in this study represented the wide range of garlic types in the USDA collection, including various soft and hard-necked garlics collected in a variety of temperate and tropical regions.

Richard Hannan and Barbara Hellier, who are in charge of the USDA garlic collection, were on hand at the field day to discuss this interesting crop with growers and other industry personnel. About 25 individuals attended the field day, which was cosponsored by the Pacific Northwest Vegetable Association. WSU also gratefully acknowledges the assistance of Western Farm Service and Kuo Testing Laboratory, Othello, in conducting the evaluation.

Copies of the evaluation results are available from Erik Sorensen, WSU Cooperative Extension, Franklin County Courthouse, 1016 N 4th Avenue, Pasco, WA 99301, or by
e-mailing: esorensen@wsu.edu.

A larger garlic germplasm evaluation is planned for the coming season.

Hard work and persistence pair big dividends for U.S. barley growers in their recent fight to stop the European Union from establishing a precedent for subsidized barley sales into the U.S. By aggressively educating legislative and executive branch officials of the potential ramifications of passive acceptance of this attempt to open U.S. grain markets for subsidized sales of barley, barley growers were able to develop unparalleled interagency support for a retaliatory strike into key European barley markets.

Since the news of a sale of heavily subsidized Finnish barley hit the California feed market last spring, the barley growers have raised this issue to the highest level of political scrutiny in this writer's memory. Barley farmers amazed the Washington and Brussels establishments by taking valuable time away from home during planting season to come to Washington, D.C., and express their frustrations. In my opinion, their polite but determined protests outside of the Embassy of the European Union, the White House, and the USDA helped convince political officials that inaction was unacceptable.

Obviously, the battles are not yet over. The official U.S. response, the strong letters from Secretary of Agriculture Glickman and Secretary of State Albright, along with the announcement of a 30,000 MT barley EEP (Export Enhancement Program), send a definite message to the European Union: We were surprised, but now we are watching and ready to act. While the EU initially refused to take official action to prevent a recurrence, the cereals management committee has now initiated a 25 ECU negative corrective on subsidized grain sales into North America for the next marketing year, effectively eliminating the U.S. as a market for subsidized European barley.

Why was it so important to negate the potential precedent of this subsidized sale? Market analysts are uniformly pessimistic about the global grain market's ability to recover over the next few months. Between the collapse of Asian markets, as a result of the continuing financial turmoil in the region, huge surplus grain stocks in the European Union, and normal to above-normal production in major production regions, analysts see large supplies weighing heavily on a diminished market. World prices seem certain to deteriorate further in such a market.

Recall that EU agricultural commissioner Franz Fischler explained the market rationale for the initial shipment by pointing out that U.S. grain prices were higher than world prices so foreign suppliers were only within their rights in seeking the highest prices for their commodities. This explanation, on its face, would appear to be a valid testament to free-market economics unless one questions the initial premise.

Why are U.S. barley prices higher than world prices? Trade tools to limit imports have largely been eliminated in previous trade agreements, though we continue to seek greater transparency in the operation of state trading enterprises, such as the Canadian Wheat Board, that can have a distorting impact on domestic and global markets. Production-based price deficiency payments that might have been blamed for a 'price bubble' in the U.S. are a thing of the past. From my perspective, any real difference in U.S. and world prices in recent years (beyond quality and transportation advantages for domestic producers) is directly related to the absence of the EU from our markets.

Global markets for barley have for years been a battleground between the direct subsidization of surplus EU stocks and the market-distorting cross-subsidization practices of state trading enterprises. In short, the EU and the CWB have driven world prices down in that competition. Conversely, the U.S. market has been somewhat insulated from that competition because the EU has not attempted to market its surplus stocks in our domestic market. Without the pressure from the EU, the CWB has generally shown more restraint in marketing its barley into the U.S. While this does not mean that the CWB's persistent undercutting of U.S. prices is not price-distorting, the absence of the EU from U.S. markets has limited that distortion. As a result, U.S. prices have been slightly higher than world prices.

Obviously, then, allowing the initial sale last spring to become a precedent for future sales would have had a devastating impact on the U.S. grain market. Once those two grain marketing juggernauts begin competing on U.S. soil, U.S. prices will plummet and U.S. farmers will leave the barley production arena in droves. Anyone who doubts that Canada and the European Union could drive U.S. producers out of their own market should try to find a U.S. oats producer. It has reached the point that Canadian trade officials visiting Brussels complained to EU officials about the impact of subsidized EU oats sales in their U.S. oats market.

This is the crux of the problem facing U.S. barley producers. This is the very real economic danger that led producers to take up signs in Washington, D.C., to warn U.S. and EU policy makers that they will not sit idly by while others destroy their livelihoods. As a result of that effort, U.S. trade officials have a new understanding of the potential harm in maintaining a unilateral laissez-faire trade policy that fails to respond to the predatory pricing activities of our so-called trading partners, particularly when those predatory actions are taking place on our home turf.

I think it is time for U.S. agriculture to stand up and acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes! Our trade officials do not now have the tools to fix the mess of trading problems that are constantly demanding their attention. We constantly urge our trade team to get Canada, Australia, Brazil, Argentina, and the European Union to the negotiating table to fix various problems, but we have failed to provide the fast-track authority that has become the de facto entrance requirement for new negotiations. We express concern about the deteriorating marketing prospects in promising Asian markets, which the Institute of International Finance recently projected to result in a $35 billion increase in the U.S. trade deficit, but fail to provide the IMF funding necessary to support any revitalization of those markets. We put ourselves in a marketing headlock with misguided trade sanctions that push some of our better grain customers into the arms of other sellers, harming only ourselves.

These are things we need to fix in order to open up markets for U.S. products and to put an end to some of the market-distorting practices that our trade competitors utilize against us. Hopefully, Congress will try again this autumn to approve IMF funding, sanctions exemptions for agriculture, and fast-track authority. On fast-track, farmers must decide whether they are happy with the status quo or instead are ready to send U.S. officials to the multilateral negotiating tables with a mission to get more wins for agriculture. If we give them the authority to negotiate, and a set of attainable goals, we (and Congress) will then be able to judge their efforts when they bring back trade packages for legislative approval. If agriculture is not happy with the final product(s), we can join with our congressional supporters in a fight against such an agreement. If we don't get the USTR and the USDA to the negotiating table, though, there can be no real relief from the persistent trade problems we face today.

U.S. agricultural companies and associations recently formed an Agricultural Biotechnology Forum for the exchange of information and education on issues relating to the introduction of crops and products produced using biotechnology. The forum consists of many of the same companies and associations that comprised a group known as Agriculture for Biotechnology, which ceased operation in 1997.

The percentage of crops, including corn and soybeans, produced in the U.S. through biotechnology has increased significantly in the last several years. These grains have met some resistance overseas, particularly in the European Union, which currently requires products produced from genetically modified organisms to be labeled as such. The development of crops and foods produced through biotechnology is the result of exhaustive research, which has shown that these foods are safe and no different in composition than crops produced without biotechnology. Wheat varieties produced using biotechnology have not yet been introduced in the U.S., however, variety research is currently being conducted.

The above headline is also the title of the white paper prepared for distribution with the support of all small grains associations and commissions of the PNW. WAWG President Alex McGregor spearheaded this position paper on behalf of all PNW wheat growers. White paper text follows.

Sanctions prohibiting sale of foodstuffs to foreign customers are causing substantial hardships for the growers we serve. U.S. unilateral trade sanctions deprive American wheat growing families of access to 11% of the world in trade. Direct economic losses for wheat producers ranged from $300-million to over $500-million annually for the past 3 years. With resultant increases in carryover stocks and discriminatory price competition from export competitors not facing the same restrictions, producer losses from sanctions are likely to surpass $1-billion in the next crop year&emdash;more than 42 cents per bushel. The ripple effect of indirect losses is also substantial.

The losses are not confined to wheat and spread further across America's farmlands, severely impacting peas, lentils, barley and many other crops as well. Dry pea growers, for example, are denied access to a $17.5-million market in Cuba they once dominated while legume producers north of the 49th parallel have moved in to ship 70,000 tons of yellow peas annually to our former customers. Barley growers, too, have faced restricted market access even as, adding insult to injury, highly subsidized barley from Europe has made its way to our shores. These circumstances have worsened a rapidly developing economic crisis on farms across the nation.

Unilateral sanctions that limit the commercial, government-assisted, or humanitarian movement of agricultural products have been proven to be ineffective mechanisms to further U.S. foreign policy goals. They extract a severe penalty on U.S. agriculture and the consuming public of the sanctioned country, while providing market protection for our competitors.

Sanctions upon American foodstuffs provide our competitors with guaranteed markets on the one hand, and the ability to use profits from those sales to compete unfairly with the U.S in remaining markets on the other. The Foreign Agricultural Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture recently reported on the repercussions of these short-sighted policies in market competition with foreign state trading enterprises:

"Single-desk countries modify their sales programs to take advantage of U.S. sanctions. For example, Canada for the three marketing years prior to 1990 exported on average less than one-half million tons of wheat to Iran. Since 1990, however, wheat exports by the Canadian Wheat Board to Iran have averaged over 1.3-million tons per year. Expanding market share is not the only, and perhaps not even the primary, benefit of U.S. economic sanctions to U.S. competitors. Higher-than-prevailing market prices charged to several of the sanctioned countries have been reported by numerous sources.

This in turn enables a board exporter to charge a lower price in a market where the U.S. competes, and still maintain an average return. Thus, not only is the U.S. kept from participating in the embargoed markets, but also U.S. exporters must compete with lower bids in other markets."

Farmers across the country were grateful for the swift passage of S. 2282, a one-year waiver of sanctions against 2 major trading partners, Pakistan and India, for credit sales of agricultural commodities, products, medicine, and medical equipment. While this emergency legislation prevented the financial calamity we face from becoming even worse, broader long term steps must follow if America's farm families are to survive:

• Elimination of all current unilateral sanctions pertaining to agricultural exports except in cases of compelling national emergency or declaration of war. We urgently need a substantial rollback in the application of unilateral sanctions for the sale of agricultural commodities, products, medicine, and medical equipment.

• A new framework needs to be put in place to set policies for the future use of unilateral sanctions. Clearly stated objectives of proposed policies must be a prerequisite. Economic sanctions should be periodically reviewed by Congress and the president, with specific "sunset" provisions, and increased flexibility in terms of their application.

• The 1996 Farm Bill included provisions to provide compensation for the impact of U.S. embargoes and sanctions. The concept is based upon the belief that society as a whole should accept responsibility for foreign policy decisions, and individual economic sectors should be indemnified when those decisions have a concentrated, negative impact on a particular sector. New legislation is needed to implement a producer compensation program based on the negative impact of sanctions on the sale of agricultural products.

• We strongly support S. 1413 the "Enhancement of Trade, Security, and Human Rights Through Sanctions Reform Act" and the H.R. 3654, the "Selective Agricultural Embargo Bill".

We agree with the following principles advanced by the U.S. Wheat Associates and the National Association of Wheat Growers for sanctions reform:

* Other than in the case of war or for national security reasons, the U.S. should refrain from the use of unilateral sanctions.

* Food, food products, agricultural credit, medicine, and medical supplies should be exempted.

* All current sanctions should be subject to economic analysis and review. Ineffective measures should be discarded and time limits applied for the review of continued current sanctions measures.

* Executive branch embargoes of U.S. agricultural commodities and products should be subject to the review of the Congress.

* Compensation should be provided to U.S. producers whose exports and income are hurt due to the imposition of unilateral economic sanctions or embargoes.

The farm families we represent, and the rural communities where they live, are in trouble, a situation made much worse by shortsighted, ineffective sanctions that penalize American agriculture. Please help us in addressing this urgent situation.

(Signed by appropriate organizational leaders, including WAWG President Alex McGregor and Washington Wheat Commission Chairman Christopher Shaffer.)

Risk-management strategies for Idaho cattle producers will be the focus of three University of Idaho workshops scheduled for Twin Falls, Pocatello and Parma this month.

Participants will hear the latest situation and outlook for feed grains and cattle from UI extension agricultural economists and get a detailed update on the university's six-year-old "A to Z" retained ownership program. They will learn the current projections on backgrounding weaned calves into the winter and retaining ownership through next spring. In addition, they'll find out how to use futures and options markets to manage risk.

"Managing Risk with Cattle Production and Marketing Decisions" will be offered Oct. 20 at Best Western-Cavanaugh's Canyon Springs Hotel in Twin Falls, Oct. 21 at Cavanaugh's Hotel in Pocatello and Oct. 22 at the UI's Parma Research and Extension Center. The workshops will begin at 9:30 a.m. and conclude by about 3 p.m. at all locations. There will be no registration fee.

Sponsors include the University of Idaho College of Agriculture, Idaho Cattle Association, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and Farm Credit Services.

For more information, call Neil Rimbey, UI extension range economist, at 459-6365 in Caldwell.

As of August 30, most of Washington's 2.565 million acre wheat crop had been harvested, with 98 percent of the winter wheat and 94 percent of the spring wheat combined. This is equivalent to the progress of the last year's harvest and well ahead of the 5-year average. "All wheat yields are expected to average 63.4 bushels per acre," according to Doug Hasslen, State Statistician with the Washington Agricultural Statistics Service. Hasslen added that "this estimated yield, based on September 1 conditions, is 1.4 bushels less than the 1997 yield of 64.8 bushels." With yield per acre at this level, total production is 162.56 million bushels, 3 percent less than the 1997 production of 168.08 million bushels. Oregon producers are expecting yields to average 67.8 bushels and Idaho is expecting 80.0 bushels. These are 2.4 bushels and 0.8 bushels above 1997, respectively. The three state region is forecast to produce 327.13 million bushels, a 5 percent decrease from last year. Nationally, all wheat production is estimated at 2.56 billion bushels, 2 percent above 1997.

Washington's spring wheat crop is expected to average 47.0 bushels per acre, 7 bushels below the 1997 average. With 465,000 acres for harvest, total production is estimated at 21.86 million bushels, 9 percent less than the quantity produced in 1997. Idaho growers are expected to average 77.0 bushels per acre of spring wheat, a one bushel decrease from 1997. Oregon growers are expecting 53.0 bushels, two bushels below 1997. Spring wheat production in the Pacific Northwest is expected to total 67.99 million bushels, a 10 percent decrease from last year. Nationally, spring wheat production is down 7 percent from 1997.

Barley is expected to average 65.0 bushels per acre across Washington.

Harvest was 92 percent completed as of August 30, compared to 80 percent last year and an average of 79 percent. The 65.0 bushels per acre forecast is 11 bushels lower than last year's average yield. With 520,000 acres for harvest, total production would be 33.8 million bushels, a decrease of 9 percent from 1997. Idaho and Oregon growers are expected to average 78.0 and 77.0 bushels per acre, respectively. In 1997, Idaho's average yield was 79.0 bushels and Oregon's was 69.0. Total production in the three-state region is forecast at 103.86 million bushels, 2 percent below 1997. Nationally, barley production is 1 percent less than 1997 at 372.4 million bushels.

Sugarbeet production for Washington is 1,216,000 tons, more than double the 1997 production of 595,000 tons. Yield is estimated at 33.5 tons per acre, up four tenths of a ton from 1997. Harvested acres at 36,300 acres is also more than double the acreage from 1997 of 18,000. These increases are reflecting the return of sugarbeet processing to the growing area. Idaho and Oregon producers expected a yield of 25.3 and 24.4 tons per acre respectively. Idaho increased harvested acres to 203,000 from 197,000 in 1997. Oregon's acreage increased to 17,500 from 17,400 in 1997. Production for the Pacific Northwest is forecast at 6,779 thousand tons, 8 percent more than last year. Nationally, sugarbeet production is up 4 percent from 1997 at 31,124 thousand tons.

1997 Crop Revisions

Potato production in the Pacific Northwest for the 1997 crop was revised up to 255,635 thousand hundredweight(cwt.). Final acreage was set at 603,500 acres, with an average yield of 423.6 cwt. per acre. Washington's estimates were revised from the preliminary figures to 152,000 acres harvested, 580 cwt. per acre, and 88,160 thousand cwt. produced. Idaho's production was revised upward to 140,314 thousand cwt., with 398,000 acres harvested, and an average yield of 353 cwt. per acre. Oregon's final production was unchanged from the preliminary figure of 27,161 thousand cwt., with 53,500 acres harvested, and an average yield of 508 cwt. per acre. For the U.S., the final 1997 crop of fall potatoes totaled 465,537 thousand cwt.. This crop was harvested from 1,345,100 acres, with an average yield of 346 cwt. per acre.

Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman has announced that the next Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) general sign-up will be held during a 7-week period from October 26, 1998, through December 11, 1998, in USDA Service Centers across the Nation.

"This is an opportunity for farmers and landowners to participate in a cost-effective, voluntary program to improve their land, water, and wildlife resources," Glickman said. "It is also an opportunity for current participants with contracts expiring next fall to make new contract offers."

USDA will continue to evaluate and rank eligible CRP offers using an Environmental Benefits Index (EBI) based on the potential environmental benefits gained from enrolling the land in the CRP. Decisions will be made on the EBI cutoff after sign-up 18 ends. The EBI cutoff used in previous sign ups may not be used for this one. The cutoff is decided after analyzing the EBI numbers of all the offers. Those who would have met previous EBI thresholds are not guaranteed a contract this time around.

"CRP is a highly competitive program," said Glickman. "I encourage all landowners to find out about the Environmental Benefits Index before the December 11 cutoff, and to consult with local USDA experts on steps they can take to maximize EBI points and increase the likelihood that their land will be accepted."

The EBI in place for the 18th signup is very similar to the EBI used for the 16th signup.

USDA is authorized to maintain enrollment of up to 36.4 million acres.

Approximately 30.5 million acres will be enrolled in CRP contracts as of October 1, 1998. The contracts awarded under sign-up 18 will become effective on October 1, 1999. Just over 3.5 million acres currently subject to CRP contracts will expire on September 30, 1999.

CRP maximum rental rates have been updated to reflect 1996-1998 local land rental rates. Farmers should contact their local USDA Service Center for current rental caps and other additional information.

The CRP is designed to improve the nation's natural resource base. Participants enter into contracts with USDA to enroll erodible and other environmentally sensitive land in long-term contracts&emdash;for 10 to 15 years. In exchange, participants receive annual rental payments and a payment of up to 50 percent of the cost of establishing conservation practices.

The program protects millions of acres of American topsoil from erosion.

By reducing water runoff and sedimentation, it also protects groundwater and helps improve the condition of lakes, rivers, ponds, and streams.

Acreage enrolled in the CRP is planted to resource-conserving (vegetative) covers, which make the program the major contributor to increases in wildlife populations in many parts of the country.

If you're planning to dress up the home landscape this fall by adding a hedge planting to your yard, be aware that there are several varieties of ornamentals that make good hedges, and they come in all sizes. Here are a few examples:

In the 18-inch high range, true dwarf common box is recommended, said Jan McNeilan, Oregon State University Extension Service consumer horticulture agent. This plant is a slow-growing, broadleaf evergreen often used in edging borders around the landscape. It grows to a width of three feet and can be clipped to a height of six inches if desired.

Helleri Japanese holly is suggested for hedges no more than three feet in height. This plant has a round and dense growth habit and is tolerant of low temperatures.

In the 3- to 5-feet-high category, McNeilan recommends redleaf Japanese barberry or bullata Japanese holly. The barberry is a spiny, deciduous shrub with brilliant scarlet and yellow fall color, and red berries. The holly is an excellent foliage plant, according to McNeilan, and tolerant of low temperatures.

Berckman oriental arborvitae is another candidate about five-feet-high. It is a slow-growing conifer with golden colored foliage. If a large hedge, five- to eight-feet-high, is needed, wintergreen barberry and sasanqua camellia are recommended. The barberry is a broadleaf evergreen and makes a dense, spiny hedge. The camellia is a broadleaf evergreen that is available in many varieties.

For eastern Oregon in the eight-feet-high range, McNeilan suggests winged euonymus, a deciduous shrub with horizontally spreading branches and crimson-scarlet fall color. Another hedge planting hardy enough for the climate east of the Cascades is common snowball viburnum. It is a deciduous plant with red fall color and red berries.

For hedges over eight feet in height, pyramidal eastern arborvitae is a good possibility. It is a slender conifer useful as a narrow hedge. It grows as high as 25 feet.