The opportunity to reduce costs and improve profitability for a "competitive edge" in today's global markets&emdash;that's the theme of the 2nd Northwest Direct Seed Cropping Systems Conference and Trade Show. It will be held January 5-7, 1999 at the Ag Trade Center / Convention Center and DoubleTree Hotel-City Center in Spokane, WA. Nearly 900 Northwest growers and Ag advisers attended the 1998 Conference in Pasco, WA. An audience of 1,200 to 1,500 is expected in 1999 at Spokane.

The Conference is organized as a service to growers by the PNW STEEP III program, Monsanto and other Ag support companies in cooperation with a number of PNW grower organizations, conservation district associations and other Ag support groups and agencies. The STEEP III program (Solutions To Environmental and Economic Problems) is a cooperative research and educational effort on conservation tillage systems through the University of Idaho, Oregon State University, Washington State University, and USDA-Agricultural Research Service.

The program features 37 speakers, including researchers and industry representatives and 16 growers from across the Pacific Northwest, Northern Great Plains, Canada, Argentina, and Brazil. The Conference program begins at 1:00 p.m. Jan. 5 and closes at 3:30 Jan. 7. There are 7 in-depth Focus Sessions on a variety of topics on developing direct seed cropping systems, including:

* National and international trends and experiences

* Agronomics and economics of new crops and crop rotations

* Economics and strategies for the transition to direct seeding

* PNW grower experience with systems and equipment for direct seeding

* Direct seed grain legumes&emdash;expanding the NW production region

* Managing for improved soil quality and yield potential with direct seeding

The Trade Show is a new special feature of the 1999 Conference. It will include extensive commercial and educational exhibits to provide growers, Ag industry and researchers more opportunities to discuss technology needs and share new innovations.

Reserve your room at the Spokane DoubleTree Hotel-City Center (509-455-9600) and ask for the low Conference rates of $55 - one bed for 1 or 2 people; $65 - two beds for 2 people and $75 - two beds for 3 people, plus tax.

Pre-registration is $75 (spouse $45) and includes the in-depth Proceedings, 1998 STEEP III research report, two lunches, and refreshment breaks. Registration will be $90 after Dec. 19.

Contact the NW Direct Seed Conference office at 509-547-5538, FAX 547-5563, or e-mail ( to receive a Conference program and pre-registration brochure or Conference Trade Show / Sponsorship prospectus.

A Conference Home Page on the Internet ( will also provide updates on Conference programs and events. For more information, contact Roger Veseth, WSU/UI Extension Conservation Tillage Specialist and Conference Coordinator, at 208-885-6386, FAX 885-7760, email: (rveseth@uidaho.edu).

For a variety of reasons, including law changes and company mergers, many pesticide labels have changed over the past several years. And, the most significant changes in pesticide labeling are yet to come. The Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA) is changing the way the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates pesticides. Many pesticides and pesticide uses may be lost as a result of FQPA. Manufacturers already are removing product uses and application sites from their labels in anticipation of EPA's review.

These label changes have caught many well-intentioned pesticide applicators off guard. Products they have used for years may have undergone label changes that affect the use rate, equipment requirements and allowable application sites.

Use the Actual Product Label

Why does this happen to otherwise knowledgeable and conscientious applicators? Some do not read the labels often enough, or do not read all portions of the label pertaining to them. Some companies create label books for their employees, then fail to update the books as labels change. The bottom line, however, is that it is the applicator's responsibility to read and follow the actual product label (not a specimen label) when making an application.

Common Label Violations

The following are some label violations WSDA investigators have documented during their fieldwork:

* One company was using a newly purchased herbicide on a site that had not been on the label for at least seven years. The label they were referring to in their label book listed the site, but the actual product label did not.

* Another company was found to be using 2,4-D at more than double the rate allowed on the product label, however the application was within the rate of the five-year-old label still in their label book.

* Several companies missed label changes to the Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) requirements on pesticides they were using. Their operators were found to be spraying without the eye protection or chemical resistant headgear required on the revised labels.

Follow Label Instructions

Off-label uses are a violation of pesticide law. Human exposure, plant damage, water contamination and bee kills are just a few of the problems that can be caused when a pesticide label is not followed. Off-label uses are also a concern on commodities, especially if there is no tolerance for the pesticide residue. An entire crop could be held from sale if an illegal residue is found.

Failing to read and follow pesticide labels is a violation of both federal and state law. Violations of Washington pesticide laws and rules may result in a verbal or written warning, a license suspension, denial or revocation and/or a civil penalty of up to $7,500 per violation.

Users often ask, "Do I need to read the entire label?" or "What portions of the label do I need to read?" The pesticide user is required to follow all portions of the pesticide label that relate to their activities. It is, therefore, not necessary to read those portions of the label that do not, in any way, relate to the application in question. With this in mind, applicators must be very careful in reviewing pesticide labels to make sure they have read all portions that apply to them. Many violations result from users skipping over important precautionary statements and going directly to the "Directions for Use."

Be sure to check the portion of the label following the "Directions for Use" section because several manufacturers put their "Precautionary Statements" near the end of the label. Watch very closely for "must" and "must not" statements on the label, as the word "must" means these items are required.

The one area where you may reduce your reading is in the "Directions for Use" section. You need only read the sections dealing with crops or sites you will be treating. For example, if the pesticide label lists separate instructions for its use on 20 different crops, and you are only applying the product to barley, then you may skip the instructions for the other 19 crops and only read the instructions for barley.

Good Help is Available

We understand that pesticide labels can be very confusing. Not only are they inherently complicated, but they are often formatted differently by various manufacturers. Products with the same active ingredient may have very different use and precautionary statements. Add to this the many changes that have occurred to pesticide labels over the past several years and there is no wonder people are a bit confused. The important thing to remember is that there are many sources of reliable information. If you have questions understanding a pesticide label, please ask for help. The pesticide manufacturer, product distributors, WSU Cooperative Extension Service and WSDA registration staff are all good sources of information.

U.S. pork producers are investing nearly $50 million this year in programs to strengthen the position of pork in the marketplace and to expand and develop new markets for pork producers.

On July 9, the Australian Senate passed legislation that will allow the newly created Wheat Export Authority (WEA) to indefinitely retain its single desk selling status, as long as planned reviews of the WEA in 1999-2000 and again in 2004 prove favorable. In June, the government-run Australian Wheat Board (AWB) was replaced with AWB Ltd., a private company, which is eventually expected to be a grower-owned company. Australian wheat exports were formally handled by the AWB 's merchandising arm.

Is bonemeal an animal feed or a fertilizer? The answer is that bone-meal can be used as both an animal feed and a fertilizer. The key for determining each individual product's intended use is found in its labeling, and knowing the difference can be a whole lot more important than one might imagine.

Labels Determine the Difference

A fertilizer label for bonemeal will provide a guaranteed analysis for nitrogen, phosphorous, potash and any guaranteed micronutrients.

A feed label for bonemeal will give a guaranteed analysis for minimum crude protein, minimum crude fat and maximum ash. In addition, labels of bonemeal rendered from beef and sheep tissue must contain the statement, "Do Not Feed to Cattle or other Ruminant Animals." This is to protect U.S. cattle from bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) originating from contaminated mammalian protein feed ingredients. Rendered horse and swine protein feed ingredients do not require the cautionary BSE statement since the disease is not known to infect these species.

TSEs are Fatal Diseases

Briefly, BSE, also known as "mad cow disease," is a disease classified as a transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSE). TSEs are fatal diseases to humans and other animal species, primarily ruminants. TSEs are progressively degenerative central nervous system (CNS) diseases that are characterized by a long incubation period and 100% death rate. Other animal TSEs include sheep scrapie, transmissible mink encephalopathy, feline spongiform encephalopathy, and chronic wasting disease of deer and elk. BSE of cattle has not been found in the United States but sheep scrapie and some of the other animal types have been diagnosed. TSEs in humans include Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, kuru and fatal familial insomnia.

The cause of the TSEs is not exactly known. Resistance of the diseases to physical and chemical agents that destroy nucleic acid have essentially ruled out conventional microbiological agents such as bacteria or virus as the cause. Research points to an infectious protein or prion theory and an unconventional virus.

The Key is to Read the Label

How does this relate to bone-meal as both an animal feed and a fertilizer? The main reason to be aware of bonemeal as a possible carrier of BSE is that a bonemeal fertilizer may contain mammalian protein from sheep or cattle but will not have the required cautionary stamp found on bonemeal feed products. The key is to read the label and use bonemeal for animal feed only if it is labeled for that purpose.

The Washington Barley Commission (WBC) is getting geared up for its upcoming fourth annual issue of the Washington Barley Resource Guide. The main focus of the guide is to provide marketing opportunities for sellers and buyers of Washington barley.

The guide lists growers of barley as well as cattle feeders and other end users as sources for selling barley. The guide also provides statistical information on the production and quality of Washington barley.

Interested growers and end users may request a copy of the 1997-1998 guide, to review the content and format used. In addition, growers should request an entry form to be completed for use in the 1998-1999 guide. Growers that participated in last year's guide should request an entry form in order to be included in this year's edition.

To request a copy of the guide and receive an entry form to be included in the 1998-1999 Washington Barley Resource Guide, call or write to the WBC at 905 W Riverside, Suite 501, Spokane, WA 99201; or call 509/456-4400. Deadline for entry in the 1998-1999 edition is September 25.

1. Life is not fair. Get used to it. The average teenager uses the phrase, "It's not fair" 86 times a day.

2. The real world won't care as much about your self-esteem as your school does. This may come as a shock.

3. Sorry, you won't make $40,000 a year right out of high school. And you won't be Vice President or have a car phone, either. You may even have to wear a uniform that doesn't have a designer label.

4. If you think your teacher is tough, wait until you get a boss.

5. Flipping burgers is not beneath your dignity. Your grandparents had a different word for burger flipping&emdash;they called it opportunity.

6. It's not your parents' fault if you mess up.

7. Before you were born, your parents weren't boring. They got that way paying your bills and listening to you.

8. Life is not divided into semesters, and you don't get summers off&emdash;not even spring break. You are expected to show up every day for 8 hours and you don't get a new life every 10 weeks.

9. Smoking does not make you look cool. Watch an 11-year-old with a butt in his mouth. That's what you look like to anyone over 20.

10. Your school may be "outcome-based", but life isn't. In some schools, you're given as many times as you want to get the answer right. Standards are set low enough so everyone can meet them. This bears not the slightest resemblance to anything in real life&emdash;as you will find out.

Good Luck. You are going to need it&emdash;and the harder you work, the luckier you will get.

(As seen in Ann Landers' column from the Detroit SS. Peter and Paul Roman Catholic Church)

In August 1997, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued rules designed to prevent Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), also known as "mad cow disease," from occurring in cattle in the United States. BSE has not been diagnosed in the U.S. but has been reported in European cattle herds.

The FDA scheduled a teleconference June 24 to discuss the animal proteins prohibited in ruminant feed rule (Title 21 CFR Part 589.2000). A videotaped copy of the teleconference may be obtained by calling WSDA at (360) 902-2028.

Provisions Effective In 1997

All provisions of the final FDA rule became fully effective in October 1997. The rule prohibits feeding ruminants protein-containing portions of mammalian animals. The following products can be fed to ruminants: protein products that consist entirely of pork or horse protein; blood and blood products; gelatin; and milk products (milk and milk proteins). In addition, inspected meat products that have been cooked and offered for human food and further heat processed for feed are also excluded from the prohibition. Labels of feed that contain or may contain prohibited mammalian protein must include the cautionary statement: "Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants."

The following sources of mammalian protein products, when not entirely derived from pork or horse, would be examples of the prohibited products in ruminant feed: meat; meat by-products; dried meat solubles; meat meal; meat and bone meal; animal by-product meal; meat meal tankage; cooked bone marrow; mechanically separated bone marrow; meat protein isolate; and steamed bone meal. For a complete listing of prohibited materials, refer to the official publication of the American Feed Control Officials (1998) or call (360) 902-2028.

The following non-mammalian protein or non-protein products are not subject to the regulation: fishmeal or other fish proteins; poultry and poultry by-products (such as feather meal); vegetable protein sources (soybean meal, corn gluten meal, etc.) and tallow.

Four New Compliance Guides

The FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine recently released the following four small entity compliance guides to explain how the above rule applies to renderers, feed manufacturers, and livestock feeders:

* "Guidance for Industry&emdash;Animal Proteins Prohibited From Animal Feed; Small Entity Compliance Guide for Renderers" (Guidance Document 67)

* "Guidance for Industry&emdash;Animal Proteins Prohibited From Animal Feed; Small Entity Compliance Guide for Protein Blenders, Feed Manufacturers, and Distributors" (Guidance Document 68)

* "Guidance for Industry&emdash;Animal Proteins Prohibited From Animal Feed; Small Entity Compliance Guide for Producers with On-Farm Mixing Operations" (Guidance Document 69)

* "Guidance for Industry&emdash;Animal Proteins Prohibited
From Animal Feed; Small Entity Compliance Guide for Producers without On-Farm Mixing Operations" (Guidance Document 70)

The guides are available through the CVM Internet Home Page http://www.fda.gov/cvm/or call CVM Communications at (301) 594-1755.

Additional information regarding compliance with the rule may be obtained by contacting CVM's Division of Compliance, 7500 Standish Place, HFV-230, Rockville, MD 20855, or by calling (301) 594-1726. You may also obtain a copy of the guides from WSDA by calling Ali Kashani at (360) 902-2028.

"Washington apple growers' initial indications are to produce a record 6.1 billion pounds for the 1998 crop" stated Doug Hasslen, with the Washington Agricultural Statistics Service. This is 22 percent above last year's crop and 4 percent more than previous record high of 5.85 billion pounds from the 1994 crop. Hot weather during the latter part of July slowed growth and increased the incidence of sunburnt fruit. Washington accounts for 54 percent of the Nation's apple supply.

Nationally, apple production is forecast at 11.3 billion pounds, up 9 percent from the 1997 crop, and only 2 percent below 1994's record large crop. Increased production in the Western States more than offset reduced production prospects in most of the Eastern States. Production in the Western States is forecast at 7.56 billion pounds, up 19 percent from 1997. All states except California are expecting increased production in 1998. The largest increases are expected in Colorado and Washington. In Colorado, growing conditions have been ideal for fruit development and producers expect to more than double their production from last year. In the Eastern States production is placed at 2.41 billion pounds, down 8 percent from 1997.

Bartlett pear production is forecast at 480,000 tons in California, Oregon and Washington, unchanged from the June 1998 forecast but down 15 percent from 1997. Cooler weather earlier in the season which resulted in pollination problems was responsible for Washington's decline from last year's crop.

However, at 150,000 tons, Washington will still be 45,000 tons above the 1996 level. California harvest is underway slowly with approximately 10 percent of the crop picked. Some scab is reported, overall quality is good, and fruit sizes are small. Oregon's growers expect to harvest 15,000 fewer tons than in 1997, due in part to cool, wet weather during bloom and pollination.

Washington winter pear production, at 230,000 tons is 20,000 tons less than last year, but still the third highest on Apples record. Winter pear production in Oregon, at 150,000 tons, is down 30,000 tons from last year's record of 80,000 tons. California's crop is unchanged from 1997, at 30,000 tons.

In Washington, grape production is forecast at 255,000 tons, 20 percent below last year's output but 77 percent more than the 1996 crop. The Concord and Niagara grape crops did not develop as well as last year, but wine grape production increased 26 percent. Nationally, grape production is forecast at 6.23 million tons, down 14 percent from 1997 but up 12 percent from 1996. California's all grape forecast, at 5.65 million tons, led all states but decreased 7 percent from the July 1 forecast. The New York and Washington forecasts fell from last year while Michigan increased from a year ago. These four States account for 98 percent of the forecast U.S. production in 1998.

Washington's prune production is forecast at 6,000 tons, down 500 tons from last year. Oregon growers expect a prune crop of 11,500 tons, a drop of 12 percent from last year. Washington's peach production is forecast at 47 million pounds, up from last year's 45 million pound crop. California, the country's largest peach producer, grew 1,700 million pounds.

During this year, interviewers under contract to the ARS will visit the households of about 5,000 infants and young children across the United States to gather data on the foods they eat. This children's survey is an extension of the 1994-96 nationwide food survey, "What We Eat In America," which covered all age groups. The new survey will cover children up to 10 years old. Interviewers will collect two days of food intake data as they did during the 1994-96 survey in more than 60 areas around the country.

The information will be combined with food intake data collected during the larger survey from about 5,700 children up to age 18. The combined data will provide the Environmental Protection Agency with enough information on children's food intakes for adequately estimating their exposure to dietary pesticide residues, as required by the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act. It will also be useful to planners of other programs that deal with children's needs, such as food assistance and nutrition education.

The leaves will soon be falling and winter will be at the door. Now is a good time to take stock of your 1998 apple, cranberry, grape and pear harvest and plan your risk management strategy for the 1999 crop year. CrIe positive business decision growers can make each year is to plan to ensure cash flow. Utilizing various risk management tools, such as crop insurance, can be like buying security for the continuation of those goals, protect your source of income and help achieve greater financial security.

The United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Risk Management Agency's (RMA) is continuing to develop, implement and facilitate risk management programs nationwide. Accordingly, the Spokane Regional Service Office (SRSO) a division of RMA) has placed an emphasis toward improving insurance coverage for PNW growers and has expanded the sales area for 1999 apple insurance into additional counties.

Apple crop insurance is available in Idaho: Canyon, Gem, Owyhee, Payette, and Washington counties; Oregon: Clakamas, Douglas, Grant, Hood River, Jackson, Josephine, Lane, Linn, Malheur, Marion, Polk, Umatilla, Wasco, Washington and Yamhill counties; and in Washington: Adams, Benton, Chelan, Douglas, Franklin, Grant, Kittitas, Klickitat, Okanogan, Spokane, Stevens, Walla Walla and Yakima counties.

Cranberry crop insurance is available in Oregon: Coos and Curry counties; and in Washington: Grays Harbor and Pacific counties.

Grape crop insurance is available in Idaho: Canyon County; Oregon: Benton, Douglas, Jackson, Josephine, Lane, Marion, Morrow, Polk, Washington, Yamhill counties, and Washington: Benton, Franklin, Grant, KIickitat, Walla Walla, Yakima counties.

Pear crop insurance is available in Oregon: Hood River, Jackson and Wasco counties Washington: Benton, Chelan, Clark, Douglas, Franklin, Grant, Kittitas, Klickitat, Okanogan, Skamania, and Yakima counttes.

The final date to obtain 1999 Apple, Cranberry, Grape and Pear crop insurance is November 20, 1998.

Crop insurance is available exclusively through crop insurance agents. Waivers of administrative fees for producers who qualify as limited resource farmers are available from all crop insurance companies. Private insurance agents are willing and prepared to assist those qualifying producers with determining eligibility for waivers.

Look up your local MPCI agent today. A list of Multi-Peril crop insurance agents is available at all Farm Service Agency (FSA) county offices throughout the United States.

A Chilean company has announced it purchased 34,000 metric tons (MT) of U.S. wheat, representing the first direct purchase of U.S. wheat since Chile halted imports of American wheat following the discovery of Karnal bunt in the spring of 1996. The company purchased 22,000 MT of U.S. durum for use in Peru and 12, 000 MT of soft white wheat for use in Chile. Delivery will take place this fall. Prior to halting imports in 1996, Chile imported 296,000 MT of wheat from the U.S. in 1995. During the time the U.S. was absent from the Chilean marketplace, Chilean millers reported being socked with substantial overcharges on Canadian wheat.

Consumers, already beginning to accept food irradiation as a protection against harmful bacteria in food, say they would also buy food labeled as irradiated, according to a new report by Food Marketing Institute (FMI) and the Grocery Manufacturers of America (GMA).

The report, Consumers' Views on Food Irradiation, shows 80 percent of consumers say they would be likely to purchase a food product for themselves or their children if it was labeled, "irradiated to kill harmful bacteria."

Food irradiation has been approved by the government as a way to make food safer from certain harmful bacteria and slow down spoilage. The new report contains detailed analysis of data first presented at a 1998 conference on food irradiation, as well as background information on the irradiation process, arguments for and against irradiation, and the use of irradiation in the United States and other countries.

"As food safety concerns continue to grow, we're finding that consumers are more ready than ever to hear the facts about irradiation," said Tim Hammonds, FMI President and CEO. "Consumers are tuning into the message from health officials, leading scientific experts, academics and the federal government that irradiation is a safe and effective tool to help combat foodborne illness. Food irradiation is not something we are going to do for consumers, but something we can only do with consumers." Interest in learning more about irradiation and how it is used to kill bacteria is strong. Approximately 60 percent of consumers say irradiation's effect on both harmful bacteria and nutrition is "very important." When it comes to sources of information on irradiation, more than 90 percent of consumers say they would trust the medical community, followed closely by university experts.

"Food irradiation is on its way to becoming as commonly accepted as milk pasteurization. Consumers are telling us they want more information about this new technology," said GMA CEO and President C. Manly Molpus.

"The food industry, government and the media have a responsibility to get the facts out on irradiation and prevent needless apprehension about this breakthrough in food safety."

The report details the findings of a survey commissioned by FMI, GMA, the National Restaurant Association and the American Meat Institute, offering a comprehensive look at consumer opinions about irradiation.

For more information on irradiation, a copy of the report or other consumer food safety education efforts, contact FMI at 202/452-8444 or www.fmi.org, or GMA at 202/337-9400 or www.gmabrands.com.

Fiscal 1998 U.S. agricultural import projections remain unchanged at $38 billion, says the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Vegetables now exceed coffee as the leading and fastest growing import.

$90 million in GSM 102 export credit guarantees have been made available to Vietnam for fiscal years 1998 and 1999. This represents the first time the U.S. has offered GSM 102 credit to Vietnam, a country that has doubled its purchases of U.S. farm products over the last two years.