Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Capital press. (Salem, OR) 19??-current | View Entire Issue (Nov. 27, 2015)
November 27, 2015 CapitalPress.com 3 Thanksgiving meal tab increases 70 cents Farmer’s share of food dollar pegged at 19.4 cents $60 Classic Thanksgiving dinner tops $50 in 2015 50 (138 volunteer shoppers from 32 states participated in the By CAROL RYAN DUMAS Capital Press Americans enjoying the iconic Thanksgiving meal this week found only the slightest increase in the cost of a tradi- tional turkey dinner, despite signifi cant challenges to pro- duction agriculture. That speaks highly to the resiliency of farmers and ranchers and the country’s ag- ricultural production system, said John Anderson, Ameri- can Farm Bureau Federation deputy chief economist. Major challenges included the highly pathogenic avian fl u outbreak and fl ooding in the Midwest and drought in California, he said. Agriculture faces many challenges each year, but the system continues to roll along providing available, high-quality, safe food on gro- cery store shelves, he said. The system is so resilient and stable, most consumers aren’t even aware of the ob- stacles, he said. Farm Bureau’s annual in- formal price survey of classic items found on the Thanksgiv- ing Day table indicates the av- erage cost of this year’s meal for 10 is $50.11, a 70-cent in- crease from last year’s average of $49.41. That’s about $5 per $50.11 40 2015 American Farm Bureau Federation survey. The data is unscientific and based on a typical classic Thanksgiving meal for up to 10 people. AFBF’s survey menu has remained unchanged since 1986.) Up 1.4% from 2014 $28.74 30 20 1986 Matthew Mead/Associated Press This Oct. 12, 2015, photo shows a roasted Thanksgiving turkey in Concord, N.H. The American Farm Bureau Federation says the average cost of a no-frills feast for 10 is $50.11, up 70 cents from last year. The National Farmers Union says the average farmer’s take of the food dollar is 19.4 cents. person, Johnson said. The annual survey has consistently shown the afford- ability of food and the stabil- ity of the production system for the past 30 years, Ander- son said. Consumer food prices have been this year, with the latest food price index up only 0.5 percent year over year, he said. “The main point (of the survey) is to show that food is incredibly affordable, and Thanksgiving is a good time to refl ect on that,” he said. Most people probably do a more elaborate meal, but the survey is a benchmark cost comparison with the basic classic items without a lot of fl ash, he said. He jokingly adds that a $50 meal for 10 people also doesn’t consider that most people don’t exercise portion control for the iconic feast. National Farmers Union, which does a monthly report on the farmer’s share of the food dollar, did a special focus this year on the Thanksgiving meal and found that farmers received an average of 19.4 cents of the food dollar spent on the typical festive meal. The report is meant to raise public awareness on how little farmers receive and the need for good public policy that as- sists farmers, such as in times of natural disaster or unsus- tainable prices, which are par- ticularly diffi cult for beginning farmers and those with limited resources, said NFU President Roger Johnson. “Over time, the farmer’s share of the consumer dollar has consistently shrunk,” he said. One hundred years ago, the farmer’s share was about 50 percent. But as food travels further distances, is more pro- cessed and handled by more sectors, that share has gotten Source: American Farm Bureau Federation Alan Kenaga/Capital Press ’90 ’95 ’00 less and less, he said. People assume the farmer get most of the food dollar. The farmer’s share varies by commodity, but overall, it is now less than 20 percent, and it gets a little less every year, he said. The 80 percent take of the food dollar is divided between processing, transportation, packaging, wholesale, retail, food service, energy, fi nance and insurance, and advertis- ing, according to USDA Eco- nomic Research Service. Johns said the typical con- sumer is amazed that farmers are able to produce food for the amount of money they re- ceive. Producers have consistent- ly gotten more effi cient, but they are also challenged with an inelastic product and prices that often times do not cover cost of production, Johnson said. ’05 ’10 2015 It’s important that con- sumers understand how little farmers receive of the food dollar to help make the case for public policy that provides a safety net, he said. Thanksgiving is the per- fect time to raise awareness, he said. “It’s easy to forget the true value of our farmers and ranchers, who in some cases are only making pennies to the dollar on the goods we buy at our local supermarket, he said. Farm Bureau’s Anderson agreed, saying Thanksgiving is a time to toast the blessings of living in a great country where many of the challenges that plagued earlier genera- tions are greatly diminished. “The availability and qual- ity of food is one of those things and certainly some- thing to raise a toast to,” he said. Oregon landowner fi nds UW study: Climate change good for grapes, not so hot for berries ‘Catch 22’ in federal Report projects conservation program Western Washington ag at mid-century By ERIC MORTENSON Capital Press By DON JENKINS Capital Press Eric Mortenson/Capital Press Oregon landowner Bob Lamb faces reduced conservation en- hancement payments due to a “Catch 22” in contract language. He also agreed not to ex- ercise his full state water right, leaving in the stream the amount that would have been used to irrigate the land involved in the CREP agree- ment. In return, Lamb and his wife, Jane, were paid a high- er CREP rate for giving up production on irrigated land. They had to show they’d ir- rigated in at least two of the past fi ve years. The Lambs considered the program carefully. “We talked at length with the FSA people,” Bob Lamb said. “We said, all right, we believe this is a program in our best interests in terms of improving water quality and fi sh habitat, and it would not be an economic burden for us to do so.” They fully embraced the work, planting trees in a pre- cise 10-foot by 10-foot grid on both sides of the river and thrilling over the years to see wildlife return, including spawning lamprey. “You notice this is a pro- gram that is kind of attached to you; it’s not something you lightly do or don’t do,” Bob Lamb said. “You have a se- rious interest in the resource that is there on the ground. I’m talking blood, sweat and tears.” Then it came time to re- new this fall. The national FSA offi ce, reviewing Lamb’s original contract, noted the re- quirement that he had to show he’d irrigated in at least two of the previous fi ve years in order to get the higher rate. But during the 15 years of the fi rst contract, of course, he’d given up a portion of his state water right and hadn’t irrigat- ed the land contained in the CREP. By defi nition, it was no longer irrigated land and didn’t warrant the higher rate, the national FSA offi ce decid- ed. Under the renewed con- tract, Lamb will be paid $123 an acre. He said the rate paid for irrigated land was sched- uled to increase to about $265 an acre. Over the 15- year contract, the difference amounts to about $100,000, he said. He isn’t interested in a lawsuit to resolve the issue. “I don’t have enough energy in my soul,” he said. Lamb was a federal man himself, working over the years as a meteorologist, fi re weather forecaster and pow- er planner with the National Weather Service, U.S. Forest Service and Bonneville Power Administration before retiring to raise registered cattle along the Luckiamute. He knows the inertia that stalls bureau- cracies. “In order to fi x that, some- one has to take some action,” he said. Phil Ward, executive direc- tor of the Oregon FSA offi ce, said his offi ce is working on the problem. “We are very much aware of Mr. Lambs’ concerns and are actively working with our National Offi ce to reach a positive resolution to this sit- uation,” he said. Climate change may fl ood coastal farms, spark water fi ghts and proliferate pests, but it could also make West- ern Washington more suitable for warm-weather crops such as wine grapes, according to a new University of Washington study. “The warmer climate pro- jected west of the Cascades would make it easier to grow grapes in areas that are current- ly unsuitable due to low grow- ing-season temperatures,” according to the university’s Climate Impacts Group. The study, co-authored by 10 UW scientists and educa- tors, bills itself as the most comprehensive look yet at the environmental impacts on the Puget Sound region if average temperatures rose by 3 to 7 degrees by 2050. The region’s average tempera- tures have increased by 1.3 degrees since 1895, accord- ing to the study. Although the report focus- es on the Olympic Peninsula and between Olympia and the Skagit Valley, the rest of Western Washington as well as Western Oregon can expect much of the same effects, ac- cording to the study. A section on agriculture notes that farmers and ranch- ers are fl exible and in some cases could make adjustments that more than offset poten- tial drawbacks to higher tem- peratures, smaller snowpacks and rising seas. “Agriculture production already involves adapting to changing weather and climate conditions,” the report states. Here are some study fi nd- ings: • While wine grapes could benefi t by a warmer climate, berries in dormancy could be hurt by having too few days of chilling winter weather. Washington is a major pro- ducer of raspberries, blue- berries, strawberries and cranberries. Only California produces more raspberries than Washington, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. • Greenhouse gases could spur crop growth through carbon dioxide fertilization. “In the near term, if suffi cient water is available, these ben- Courtesy of Washington State University Extension A report by the University of Washington Climate Impacts Group says climate change may make Western Washington more suitable to growing wine grapes. Other crops, such as berries, however, may suffer, according to the study. efi ts can outweigh the nega- tive effects of warming,” the study states. • Rising sea levels could in- undate farmland in the Skagit River delta. “Flower (tulips) and vegetable crops (includ- ing seed crops) are especially vulnerable to fl oods, as they may still be in the ground during fall fl oods, or may need to be planted … before spring fl oods have receded,” the re- port warns. • The geographic range of pests may shift as temperatures warm. More pests will survive winters, and longer growing seasons will give pests more time to reproduce. More en- couragingly, pests’ life-cycles may fall out of sync with host plants, reducing economic damage. • Improved irrigation and farm practices could outpace climate-related effects. “Al- though increased competition for water is likely to become a key challenge, shifts from dry- land (non-irrigated) to irriga- tion could reduce the impact of declining summer water avail- ability,” according to the report. The study did not suggest where irrigation water could come from. Last summer, West- ern Washington irrigators faced unprecedented water cutbacks to preserve stream fl ows for fi sh, wildlife and recreation. Se- attle, Tacoma and Everett water managers initially thought their cities were immune from the drought, but eventually asked residents to conserve. • Government action could interfere with adjusting to cli- mate change. “Some policies and regulations — including crop subsidies, disaster assis- tance, conservation programs, environmental regulations and certain tax policies — may re- duce the incentive for adapta- tion.” The study was sponsored by the Puget Sound Institute at UW Tacoma. The institute supporters include the Puget Sound Partnership, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Washington Department of Ecology and The Nature Con- servancy. A link to the report is avail- able online at environment. uw.edu. ROP-32-52-2/#17 MONMOUTH, Ore. – When Bob Lamb talks about the conservation program he implemented on his property, he does so with reverence. The work, he said — planting 25,000 trees, improving wa- ter quality in the Little Luck- iamute River, seeing lamprey return to spawn, learning of the complicated relationship of plant and soil — was about more than himself and his time. It wasn’t about the money, either, although he welcomed the $220 per acre paid him annually under the Oregon Conservation Reserve En- hancement Program (CREP) administered by the state and the USDA’s Farm Service Agency. That’s why it’s so demor- alizing to learn, as Lamb re- newed the CREP agreement for another 15 years, that he will be paid a lower rate per acre. The problem involves state and federal interpreta- tion of the program contract and, as he described it, “A Catch 22 that said you cannot get there from here.” He estimated the reduced payments will cost him about $100,000 over the life of the renewed agreement. He didn’t have much choice: “You ei- ther take what they give you or you get nothing,” he said. Lamb wants to alert other landowners to the situation, and hopes the FSA will work to solve the problem. The local FSA conservation pro- gram specialist working with Lamb said she shares his frus- tration but isn’t sure there’s any recourse. Lamb was among the fi rst in the Willamette Valley to sign up when the program began 15 years ago as a joint venture of the state and feds. The program is intended to improve streamside areas in ag land, helping fi sh, wildlife and water quality. Landown- ers receive rental payments for carrying out conservation measures. In his case, Lamb essen- tially was paid to lease FSA 48 acres of his land fl anking the Little Luckiamute. He agreed not to cultivate with- in 180 feet of either bank. He agreed to plant thousands of Douglas fi r, western red cedar and Willamette Valley pon- derosa pine.