[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
HEARING TO REVIEW SPECIALTY CROP AND ORGANIC AGRICULTURE PROGRAMS IN
ADVANCE OF THE 2012 FARM BILL
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
HORTICULTURE AND ORGANIC AGRICULTURE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 21, 2010
__________
Serial No. 111-57
Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture
agriculture.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
58-020 WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota, Chairman
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania, FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma, Ranking
Vice Chairman Minority Member
MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa JERRY MORAN, Kansas
JOE BACA, California TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California SAM GRAVES, Missouri
DAVID SCOTT, Georgia MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
JIM MARSHALL, Georgia STEVE KING, Iowa
STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, South RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
Dakota K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas
HENRY CUELLAR, Texas JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
JIM COSTA, California JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota DAVID P. ROE, Tennessee
STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania
DEBORAH L. HALVORSON, Illinois BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana
KATHLEEN A. DAHLKEMPER, CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming
Pennsylvania THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida
BOBBY BRIGHT, Alabama
BETSY MARKEY, Colorado
FRANK KRATOVIL, Jr., Maryland
MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan
LARRY KISSELL, North Carolina
JOHN A. BOCCIERI, Ohio
SCOTT MURPHY, New York
WILLIAM L. OWENS, New York
EARL POMEROY, North Dakota
TRAVIS W. CHILDERS, Mississippi
WALT MINNICK, Idaho
______
Professional Staff
Robert L. Larew, Chief of Staff
Andrew W. Baker, Chief Counsel
April Slayton, Communications Director
Nicole Scott, Minority Staff Director
______
Subcommittee on Horticulture and Organic Agriculture
DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California, Chairman
JIM COSTA, California JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio, Ranking
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon Minority Member
FRANK KRATOVIL, Jr., Maryland JERRY MORAN, Kansas
SCOTT MURPHY, New York TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
WILLIAM L. OWENS, New York CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming
Keith Jones, Subcommittee Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Cardoza, Hon. Dennis A., a Representative in Congress from
California, opening statement.................................. 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Peterson, Hon. Collin C., a Representative in Congress from
Minnesota, opening statement................................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Schmidt, Hon. Jean, a Representative in Congress from Ohio,
opening statement.............................................. 4
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Witnesses
Angelucci, James A., General Manager, Phillips Mushroom Farms,
Kennett Square, PA; on behalf of American Mushroom Institute... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Jones, Jr., Robert N., Director of Production, The Chef's Garden,
Huron, OH...................................................... 12
Prepared statement........................................... 14
Kohl, Jr., Bernard, President, Angelica Nurseries, Inc.,
Kennedyville, MD; on behalf of American Nursery & Landscape
Association.................................................... 17
Prepared statement........................................... 19
Nicholson, Mark, Executive Vice President and Part Owner, Red
Jacket Orchards; Member, Board of Directors, U.S. Apple
Association, Geneva, NY........................................ 23
Prepared statement........................................... 25
Supplementary material....................................... 64
Platz, Paul, corn, soybean, green pea, and sweet corn producer,
Lafayette, MN.................................................. 27
Prepared statement........................................... 29
Richey, Daniel R., President/CEO, Riverfront Packing Company;
President, Riverfront Groves, Inc.; President, Gulfstream
Harvesting Company, Vero Beach, FL............................. 31
Prepared statement........................................... 33
Smith, Ph.D., Margaret A., Value Added/Sustainable Agriculture
Extension Educator, Value-Added Agriculture, Extension and
Agronomy Department, Iowa State University; Co-Manager, Ash
Grove Farm, Ames, IA........................................... 34
Prepared statement........................................... 37
Submitted Material
Wootton, Michael, Senior Vice President, Sunkist Growers,
submitted statement............................................ 63
HEARING TO REVIEW SPECIALTY CROP AND ORGANIC AGRICULTURE PROGRAMS IN
ADVANCE OF THE 2012 FARM BILL
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 21, 2010
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Horticulture and Organic
Agriculture,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:10 a.m., in
Room 1300 of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Dennis
A. Cardoza [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives Cardoza, Costa, Schrader,
Murphy, Owens, Peterson (ex officio), Schmidt, Lummis, and
Rooney.
Staff present: Liz Friedlander, Alejandra Gonzalez-Arias,
Keith Jones, John Konya, Patricia Barr, John Goldberg, Pam
Miller, Mary Nowak, Jamie Mitchell, and Sangina Wright.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DENNIS A. CARDOZA, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM CALIFORNIA
The Chairman. Good morning. This hearing of the
Subcommittee on Horticulture and Organic Agriculture to review
the specialty crop and organic agriculture programs in advance
of the 2012 Farm Bill will come to order. We will start with
opening statements and I will start with my own opening
statement. Then we will go to my Ranking Member's statement and
we will recognize others.
I want to thank everyone for being here today, taking time
out of your busy schedules to attend this seventeenth in a
series of the Committee on Agriculture hearings in advance of
the 2012 Farm Bill. This morning we will focus our attention
specifically on specialty crop and organic agriculture
programs. My objective today is straightforward. We are here to
assess what is working, what is not working and how we can
improve upon the historic 2008 Farm Bill effort on behalf of
specialty crops and organic agriculture.
Today's hearing is a departure from the Subcommittee's
traditional hearing format. We have foregone the Administration
witnesses so as to maximize our time with producers. We can
always have the Administration before us, based on what we hear
from what the producers say today. As with our field hearings,
we want to listen and pay close attention to those individuals
who get up every morning to supply this country with the
world's safest, most abundant food supply.
As I read today's testimony, I am yet again reminded of the
extraordinary diversity of the products and practices
represented by these sectors. At our hearing earlier this
summer, particularly the one that was held in Fresno,
California, we heard from specialty crop and organic producers
with a breathtaking diversity of size, generating an amazing
array of different food products. We heard from producers with
tens of acres, with hundreds of acres, and with thousands of
acres producing almonds, apricots, bell peppers, eggplants,
grapes, lemons, nectarines, melons, nursery plants, peaches,
plums, oranges, spinach, sweet corn and tomatoes, and each
producer using sound production practices. The witnesses in the
panel before us today are no different, and you have tremendous
geographic and product variety.
I love to publicize the bounty of California, especially my
own home, San Joaquin Valley. In 2008, California led the
nation in the farm cash receipts with $36.2 billion in sales
and accounted for 14 percent of national receipts for crops.
However, it is clear from today's witness panel that Florida,
Iowa, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Minnesota, New York and
other states have specialty crop centers in their own right. In
working with specialty crop and organic producers over the past
number of years, we have learned some other things as well. I
have learned that these producers and these sectors are classic
entrepreneurs. Specialty crop producers have never sought
direct subsidies, even though their sector represents over
half, more than 50 percent of the total crop farm gate value in
the country.
Specialty crop producers are also pragmatic problem-
solvers. When confronted with food safety issues, they formed
their own private sector efforts, not content to merely wait
for the Federal Government to act.
Specialty crop producers are on the forefront of water
conservation efforts, coexisting with urban neighbors and
protecting the environment. Organic producers have a unique
managerial ability to couple the best of the new, such as
product tracing and direct marketing with wisdom of the old,
such as composting.
In the 2008 Farm Bill, Congress dedicated almost $3 billion
in funding over 5 years to areas with critical importance to
these sectors. We addressed their long-term competitiveness by
enhancing efforts on research, pest and disease management,
trade conservation expansion of market opportunities. We
addressed nutritional concerns by expanding access to fruits
and vegetables in schools and on grocery shelves, so that the
nutritional benefits of these foods become more available and
abundant to everyone.
Since the passage of the 2008 Farm Bill, with the historic
recognition of specialty crops and organic agriculture, we have
been encouraged by the public's response. A new national
dialogue on healthy, nutritious food has emerged and shows no
signs of lessening. Improving the health of our country has
become a central focus of the academic debate and of local
media attention.
I anticipate that the 2012 Farm Bill will be written during
tough fiscal times. The continued intense public dialogue on
nutrition and health, and the question of how best to wisely
allocate America's hard-earned tax dollars will never be far
from that debate. We must begin to address health and nutrition
in ways like never before, increasing the accessibility of
fruits and vegetables for public consumption in a way to begin
to solve some seemingly intractable health problems such as
obesity, stroke and heart disease. Based on what we have heard
thus far, and will hear from our witnesses today, I am
convinced that we are on the right policy track.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cardoza follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Dennis A. Cardoza, a Representative in
Congress from California
Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedules to attend this
17th in a series of Committee on Agriculture hearings in advance of the
2012 Farm Bill.
This morning we will focus our attention specifically on specialty
crop and organic agriculture programs.
My objective today is straight forward. We are here to assess what
is working, what is not, and how we can improve upon the historic 2008
Farm Bill effort on behalf of specialty crops and organic agriculture.
Today's hearing is a departure from the Subcommittee's traditional
hearing format. We have forgone Administration witnesses so as to
maximize our time with producers.
We can always have the Administration before us based on what we
hear from producers today.
As with our field hearing, we want to listen and pay close
attention to those individuals who get up every morning to supply this
country with the world's safest and most abundant supply of food.
As I read today's testimony, I am yet again reminded of the
extraordinary diversity of products and practices represented by these
sectors.
In our hearings earlier this summer, particularly in Fresno,
Calif., we heard from specialty crop and organic producers with a
breathtaking diversity of size generating an amazing array of food.
We heard from producers with tens of acres, with hundreds of acres
and with thousands of acres producing almonds, apricots, bell peppers,
eggplants, grapes, lemons, nectarines, melons, nursery plants, peaches,
plums, oranges, spinach, sweet corn and tomatoes, and each producer
using sound production practices.
The witness panel before us today is no different with its
geographic and product variety.
I love to publicize the bounty of California, especially the San
Joaquin Valley. In 2008, California led the nation in farm cash
receipts with $36.2 billion in sales and accounted for 14% of national
receipts for crops.
However, it is clear from today's witness panel that Florida, Iowa,
Ohio, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Minnesota, and New York are specialty
crop centers in their own right.
In working with specialty crop and organic producers over a number
of years, I've learned some other things as well.
I've learned that the producers in these sectors are classic
entrepreneurs. Specialty crop producers have never sought direct
subsidies even though the sector represents \1/2\--50 percent--of the
total crop farm gate value in this country.
Specialty crop producers are also pragmatic problems solvers. When
confronted with food safety issues, they formed their own private
sector efforts, not content to merely wait for the Federal government
to act.
Specialty crop producers are on the forefront of water conservation
efforts, co-existing with urban neighbors and protecting the
environment.
Organic producers have a unique managerial ability to couple the
best of the new, such as product tracing and direct marketing, with the
wisdom of old, such as composting.
In the 2008 Farm Bill, Congress dedicated almost $3 billion in
funding over 5 years to areas of critical importance to these sectors.
We addressed their long-term competitiveness by enhancing efforts
on research, pest and disease management, trade, conservation and
expansion of market opportunities.
We addressed nutritional concerns by expanding access to fruits and
vegetables in schools and on grocery shelves so that the nutritional
benefits of these foods become more available to everyone.
Since the passage of the 2008 Farm Bill with its historic
recognition of specialty crops and organic agriculture, we have been
encouraged by the public's response.
A new national dialogue on healthy, nutritious food has emerged and
shows no signs of lessening.
Improving the health of our country has become a central focus of
academic debate and media attention.
I anticipate that the 2012 Farm Bill will be written during tough
fiscal times. And the continued intense public dialogue on nutrition
and health, the question of how best to wisely allocate Americans'
hard-earned tax dollars will never be far from us.
We must begin to address health and nutrition in ways like never
before. Increasing the accessibility of fruits and vegetables for
public consumption is a way to begin to solve some seemingly
intractable health problems, such as obesity, stroke and heart disease.
Based on what we've heard thus far and will hear from our witnesses
today, I am convinced that we are on the right policy track.
With that, I now yield time to Ranking Member Schmidt for her
opening statement.
The Chairman. With that, I now yield time to our Ranking
Member, Mrs. Schmidt, for her opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEAN SCHMIDT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM OHIO
Mrs. Schmidt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing to review the specialty crop and organic agriculture
programs to help us prepare for the next farm bill. I want to
thank our witnesses for joining us and look forward to hearing
from all of you. I especially want to thank Mr. Jones, Bob
Jones, from the great Buckeye State and what you may not know,
Mr. Chairman, is that while Bob grows a variety of herbs and
produce and edible flowers, he also supplies the White House
with his quality Ohio produce. I am glad he was able to be here
today to talk to us.
As we approach--by the way, Bob, I hope you can at some
point get invited to actually eat in the White House, but as we
approach this next farm bill, it is imperative that we hear
directly from you, the growers, to fully understand from your
firsthand experience what is working and what is not. Some of
the decisions on program authorizations and funding levels will
be difficult, but I am confident with your input we can put
together a farm bill that meets the goals of food safety and
security, world prosperity, environmental health and
nutritional well-being. As we all know, legislation affecting
American agriculture is not only about programs that assist
producers and consumers, it is also about our tax policies,
international trade and regulatory programs.
As we prepare for the next farm bill, it is critically
important to consider the regulatory pressures our farmers are
facing from this current Administration. For starters, it seems
that every day the new Administration, the Obama EPA, is
proposing a new regulation, facilitating new litigation, or
pursuing the extreme agenda of environmental groups with a
blatant disregard for the impact that it will have on our
farmers. While I won't even attempt to itemize all the assaults
on our farmers, there are a couple I want to mention.
One recently begun is the reevaluation of a popular
herbicide, atrazine. Now, by the EPA's own estimate, atrazine
provides corn growers with billions of dollars of economic
benefits each year. Less than 4 years ago the Agency completed
a 12 year review of this product and found it to be safe for
human health and environment. Yet, one of the first actions of
this new EPA decided to initiate a new costly, burdensome and
scientifically misguided reevaluation based entirely on claims
of extremists in the environmental community that were
published in The New York Times.
Another recent attack by the EPA on our growers, a decision
that deserves mention, is the proposed mandate for a zero drift
standard for pesticide application. Interestingly enough, even
the EPA in its own publication admits the zero drift standard
for pesticide applications is impossible to meet, so why would
this new Administration pursue these policies? Is our President
so beholden to extremists in the environmental community that
he is willing to strangle rural America with economic-killing
regulations?
The attacks by Federal regulators on farmers are not the
only concern we need to address. Biotechnology is another area
where our farmers are facing mounting threats. Here we have a
regulatory agency in the USDA, the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service that has previously conducted its
evaluations in a fair and transparent manner, and has based its
decisions on the best available science. Thus, by an agency
that bases decisions on facts rather than propaganda,
extremists in the environmental community have initiated
numerous legal challenges. With the help of activist judges,
these extremists have had success in slowing, stopping or in
some cases reversing decisions by the USDA. A recent Supreme
Court decision may offer some hope, but only time will tell.
While these issues will be likely addressed by another of our
Subcommittees in the coming weeks and months, I feel it is
important that we hear from our panelists today on how these
issues affect you.
With regard to foreign trade, I stand solidly with the
agriculture community in supporting the free trade agreements
in South Korea, Columbia and Panama. It is long overdue and
thankfully the President has finally announced his intention to
set a November deadline for removing outstanding obstacles to
implement the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement. We await further
action by the White House in support of this pronouncement. I
hope the President will also aggressively pursue the agreements
with Columbia and Panama. Our producers are losing vital
markets and billions of dollars in export sales while the
Administration sits on the sidelines and waits. I urge this
Administration to move quickly on implementation of all three
free trade agreements.
There are other threats to our farmers including cap-and-
trade, the resurrection of the death tax at the end of the year
which will wreak havoc on family farms, the increased
regulation of agriculture chemicals and the expansion of the
Clean Water Act, which would subject every wet area in the U.S.
from irrigation canals to small ponds and even temporary
puddles in the middle of pastures, to new and sweeping
regulations and permitting processes. Given these regulatory
burdens, programs in the farm bill will be even more important
to help our producers comply with potential Federal mandates,
remain competitive in the global marketplace, and continue to
supply the world with the safest and most plentiful food
supply.
Again, I want to thank all of you and I look forward to
hearing from you.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Schmidt follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jean Schmidt, a Representative in Congress
from Ohio
I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing to
review specialty crop and organic agriculture programs to help us
prepare for the next farm bill. I thank our witnesses for joining us
and look forward to hearing your insightful testimony.
I want to especially welcome Bob Jones from Huron, Ohio, who grows
a variety of herbs, produce, and edible flowers. Bob supplies the White
House with his quality Ohio produce, and I am glad he was able to take
time out of his busy schedule to be with us today.
As we approach the next farm bill, it is imperative that we hear
directly from you, the growers, to fully understand from your first-
hand experience what is working and what isn't. Some of the decisions
on program authorizations and funding levels will be difficult, but I
am confident that with your input, we can put together a farm bill that
meets the goals of food safety and security, rural prosperity,
environmental health, and nutritional well-being.
As we all know, legislation affecting American agriculture is not
only about programs that assist producers and consumers. It is also
about our tax policies, international trade, and regulatory programs.
As we prepare for the next farm bill, it is critically important to
consider the regulatory pressures our farmers are facing from the Obama
Administration.
For starters, it seems that every day the Obama EPA is proposing a
new regulation, facilitating new litigation, or pursuing the extreme
agenda of environmental groups with a blatant disregard for the impact
it will have on our farmers. While I won't even attempt to itemize all
of the assaults our farmers are confronting, there are a couple that I
will mention to illustrate the point.
One is the recently begun re-re-evaluation of the popular herbicide
atrazine. By EPA's own estimate, atrazine provides corn growers with
billions of dollars of economic benefits each year.
Less than 4 years ago, the agency completed a 12 year review of
this product and found it to be safe for human health and the
environment. Yet, in one of its first actions, the Obama EPA decided to
initiate a new costly, burdensome, and scientifically misguided re-re-
evaluation based entirely on the claims of the extremists in the
environmental community as published in The New York Times.
Another recent attack by the EPA on our growers that deserves
mention is the proposed mandate for a zero-drift standard for pesticide
applications. Interestingly, even the EPA, in its own publications
admits that a zero-drift standard for pesticide applications is
impossible to meet.
So why would the Obama Administration pursue these policies? Is our
President so beholden to the extremists in the environmental community
that he is willing to strangle rural America with economy killing
regulations?
The attacks by Federal regulators on farmers are not the only
concern we will need to address. Agricultural biotechnology is another
area where our farmers are facing mounting threats.
Here we have a regulatory agency in USDA, the Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service, that has previously conducted its
evaluations in a fair and transparent manner, and based its decisions
on the best available science. Frustrated by an agency that bases its
decisions on facts rather than propaganda, extremists in the
environmental community have initiated numerous legal challenges.
With the help of activist judges, these extremists have had success
in slowing, stopping, or in some cases reversing decisions by the USDA.
A recent Supreme Court decision may offer some hope--only time will
tell. While these issues will likely be addressed by another of our
Subcommittees in the coming weeks and months, I feel it important that
we hear from our panelists today how these issues affect their
operations.
With regard to foreign trade, I stand solidly with the agriculture
community in supporting the free trade agreements with South Korea,
Columbia and Panama. It is long overdue.
Apparently, the President has finally announced his intention to
set a November deadline for removing outstanding obstacles to the
implementation of the U.S.-Korea FTA. We await further action by the
White House in support of this pronouncement.
I hope the President will also aggressively pursue the agreements
with Columbia and Panama. Our producers are losing vital markets and
billions of dollars in export sales while the Obama Administration sits
on the sidelines. I urge the Administration to move quickly on
implementation of all three FTAs.
There are other threats to our farmers including cap-and-tax, the
resurrection of the death tax at the end of this year which will wreak
havoc on family farms, the increased regulation of agriculture
chemicals, and the expansion of the Clean Water Act, which would
subject every wet area in the U.S. from irrigation canals to small
ponds, and even temporary puddles in the middle of pastures to new and
sweeping regulations and permitting.
Given these regulatory burdens, programs in the farm bill will be
even more important to helping our producers comply with potential
Federal mandates, remain competitive in the global marketplace, and
continue to supply the world with the safest and most plentiful food
supply.
Again, I want to thank the witnesses for joining us, and I look
forward to your testimony and today's discussion.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mrs. Schmidt.
The chair is honored today to have with us, and all in
attendance, are honored to have the Chairman of the full
Committee on the dais today with us. Mr. Peterson, would you
like to make an opening statement?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. COLLIN C. PETERSON, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM MINNESOTA
Mr. Peterson. Briefly, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
calling today's hearing and I want to apologize, I have to go
down to the White House for the bill signing here in a minute.
I wanted to be here to recognize the outstanding work that you
led last time in getting $3 billion in the farm bill for the
first time horticulture and organic agriculture title, and $3
billion that we were able to secure. You know, we want to make
sure that in this farm bill we build on that effort we made in
the last farm bill, and like all of the titles, we are going to
look into what we are doing, make sure that what we are doing
is the right thing and we are being as efficient and effective
as we can. So we appreciate your leadership and look forward to
working with you, and this Subcommittee, as we put the next
farm bill together to make sure that we build on what we have
accomplished and not go backwards.
And I want to welcome one of my producers from Minnesota,
Mr. Platz, who has come out here. He has a diversified
operation, which you see more of that going on, in Minnesota,
and we had this farm-flex deal in the last farm bill. We are
going to have to deal with that again next time, but we were
able to at least make sure that that industry had sufficient
acreage and was able to expand. So I welcome all of the members
of the panel and I am sorry I can't be with you, but I have
other fish to fry here this morning, so thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Peterson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Collin C. Peterson, a Representative in
Congress from Minnesota
Thank you, Chairman Cardoza, for calling today's hearing of the
Subcommittee on Horticulture and Organic Agriculture. The purpose of
this hearing is to review specialty crop and organic agriculture
programs in advance of the 2012 Farm Bill. It is important that we take
a look at what is working and what we can improve for the next farm
bill in these areas.
The Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 was the first farm
bill to contain a separate title dedicated to horticulture and organic
agriculture. Overall, we added almost $3 billion in funding for organic
agriculture, fruit and vegetable programs and local food networks. This
includes money for programs related to specialty crop block grants,
planting flexibility, pest and disease management, organic
certification cost-share and conservation, specialty crop research and
nutrition, all of which will be discussed at today's hearing.
Specialty crops and organic agriculture are important sectors of
the farm economy. Because every state has the capacity for some kind of
specialty crop production, and with the growing value-added
opportunities available to producers, these sectors show a great deal
of promise in promoting economic prosperity in rural communities.
According to the U.S Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Economic
Research Service, specialty crops account for approximately 50 percent
of all U.S. cash receipts of farm crops.
As the Committee begins to consider the 2012 Farm Bill, we are
looking at all of the programs under the Committee's jurisdiction to
ensure that we are spending available money as effectively as possible.
Because we are in the midst of a difficult fiscal environment, it is
important that we carefully evaluate all farm bill programs before we
move forward. Specialty crop production is an important part of the
U.S. farm economy, and we need to be sure that the programs in place
optimize taxpayer dollars.
I want to thank our witnesses for testifying today and sharing
their views and expertise. As producers from operations of various
sizes that grow a diversity of products, they can provide the Committee
with a comprehensive snapshot of what's going on at the ground level.
They operate within these specialty crop and organic agriculture
programs on a regular basis, so their perspective is an important part
of our farm bill hearing process. This hearing and the others we are
holding to consider farm programs will help us provide the most
effective and efficient programs to farmers and ranchers and will lead
to the best possible agriculture policy in the 2012 Farm Bill.
Thank you again, Chairman Cardoza, for holding today's hearing, and
I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses.
The Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I think that everyone
appreciates the work that you have done on the Financial
Regulatory Reform Bill. Most folks don't realize that the
Agriculture Committee had a substantial role in that bill. I
will never forget the day that you came to the leadership
meeting and informed us very early on in the process about the
exposure that this country had with trillions of dollars of
derivatives. More funds were housed in the derivatives market
then the total amount of cash in the country. We didn't know
how much exposure we had as a nation, and the work that you did
will keep us from having the same kind of financial calamity I
believe in the future. If anyone deserves watch the bill
signing ceremony, you do. I very much appreciate your efforts.
I would also like to say there is no possible way that we
could have ever put together the specialty crop title of the
farm bill, or the whole farm bill, without you. It was the
first bill to go through regular order under PAYGO and first to
override two Presidential vetoes. Without your shrewd steering
of the process, and managing this Committee in a bipartisan
basis, none of this would have happened. I appreciate serving
on this Committee with you and thank you for your efforts.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The chair is happy to recognize other Members to make brief
opening remarks at this time if any Member would like to do so.
Seeing none, I would like to welcome our witnesses to the
witness table. I will try to not butcher your names, but if
preceding history is any indication, I will butcher them
anyway. I will do my best.
First of all we have with us, Mr. James Angelucci, General
Manager of Phillips Mushroom Farms on behalf of the American
Mushroom Institute from Pennsylvania. Welcome, sir. We have Mr.
Robert N. Jones, Director of Production of The Chef's Garden
from Ohio. We have Mr. Bernie Kohl, Jr., President of Angelica
Nurseries, Incorporated, on behalf of the American Nursery &
Landscape Association from Maryland. Welcome. We have Mr. Mark
Nicholson, Executive Vice President, Red Jacket Orchards,
Geneva, New York. We have Mr. Paul Platz, corn, soybean, green
pea and sweet corn producer from Lafayette, Minnesota. We have
Mr. Daniel R. Richey, President and CEO of Riverfront Packing
Company, President, Riverfront Groves, Incorporated, and
President of Gulfstream Harvesting Company from Vero Beach,
Florida. Welcome, sir. And we have Margaret A. Smith, Ph.D.,
Value Added/Sustainable Agriculture Extension Educator from
Iowa State University, and Co-Manager of Ash Grove Farm in
Hampton, Iowa.
Wow, I think my staff knows how much trouble I have
pronouncing these names and they have done a good job of
picking you so I didn't mess up. Mr. Angelucci, would you
please begin when you are ready. You have 5 minutes. Feel free
to summarize your testimony. The entire written testimony will
be put in the record. Summarizing will leave us more time for
questions. You may begin.
STATEMENT OF JAMES A. ANGELUCCI, GENERAL MANAGER, PHILLIPS
MUSHROOM FARMS, KENNETT SQUARE, PA; ON BEHALF OF AMERICAN
MUSHROOM INSTITUTE
Mr. Angelucci. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify today.
I am Jim Angelucci, General Manager of Phillips Mushroom
Farms, a third-generation, family-owned operation with growing
facilities in Kennett Square, Pennsylvania and in Warwick,
Maryland. In addition to growing traditional white Portobello
and Crimini mushrooms, we also are the largest producer of
specialty mushrooms in the United States growing Shiitake,
Oyster and four other varieties. Some of our Pennsylvania
production is certified organic under the USDA Program. We also
buy from other area farms, packed under other farms' labels and
also have a processed-food division.
I am pleased today to give you some real world examples of
how the public policy decisions that you make result in
programs that are tangible and have positive impacts on the
mushroom industry and for consumers. The mushroom farm
community is particularly proud of our Food Safety Program.
First, mushrooms have never been associated with a foodborne
illness outbreak. Since mushrooms are grown indoors, certain
risks are minimized but we have our own set of unique
challenges. Following the 2006 E. coli outbreak in spinach, the
mushroom industry realized we had to step up our on-farm Food
Safety Program in order to assure customers of the safety of
our product and to satisfy the increasing demand for audits. As
a matter of fact, the Las Vegas line had mushrooms 6:1 to be
the next commodity to have a problem.
In response, we came together and developed an industry-
wide food safety standard specific to growing, harvesting and
shipping of fresh mushrooms. It is known as MGAP, the Mushroom
Good Agricultural Program. MGAP is consistent with the FDA
Guide to Minimize Microbial Food Safety Hazards for Fresh
Fruits and Vegetables. It focused on risk involved in
production based on science. It is attainable, auditable and
verifiable. Just developing a program doesn't necessarily mean
growers will follow it, so our next even more challenging task
was how to get growers to implement it.
At this point, you may be asking what these voluntary food
safety efforts have to do with the 2008 Farm Bill and today's
hearing. Funding from the Pennsylvania Department of
Agriculture through the Farm Bill Specialty Crop Block Grant
Program has supported development and implementation of the
MGAP Program. Block grant funds were spent to develop Food
Safety Worker Training Programs, a website where growers could
access all of the MGAP materials including standards,
guidelines, training tools and forms needed for audit
documentation. These tools are important so the grower can
spend his or her time on implementation, not designing
checklists and schedules.
But first, to gauge feasibility of the program, we ran a
pilot program on a small farm testing all the materials we
developed. We made modifications based on their experience.
Finally, we held four training sessions with an overwhelming
turnout. By using web-based tools and train the trainer
workshops, we have disseminated food safety messages to
literally thousands of our workers. By combining funds from the
American Mushroom Institute and the Mushroom Council, we were
able to expand our reach to all consumer mushroom farms in the
United States. We have received technical assistance from Penn
State University, private consultants and most importantly,
from our industry leaders who volunteer their time and talents.
In addition, the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture has
used a portion of the block grant funding to provide a cost-
share program for good agricultural practices conducted by
USDA, not only for mushroom growers but for all Pennsylvania
fruit and vegetable growers.
With increasing frequency, produce buyers be they large
packers/shippers, food service vendors or retail outlets are
requiring GAP audits at the expense of the grower. For any farm
but particularly a small operation, establishing a documented
food safety program can be expensive and time consuming. Having
all or part of the cost of the audit reimbursed through a
Specialty Crop Block Grant Program has motivated farms to
implement the MGAP Program.
I understand that during consideration of the farm bill
questions arose as to why funds should go through the state
departments of agriculture. Sixty-five percent of all U.S.
mushrooms are grown in Pennsylvania, therefore the Pennsylvania
Department of Agriculture understands the needs and concerns of
our industry and recognizes the importance to the state's
economy. It just makes sense that the state departments of
agriculture would have better perspective on the local needs of
the farmers they serve. As for accountability, the Pennsylvania
Department of Agriculture and USDA have required extensive
progress and final reports in outlining not only what has been
accomplished but quantitative information on the impact of the
projects.
So how do we measure success? Since the auditable MGAP
Program has been in place, about 18 months, half of the
mushroom farms in the U.S. and over 60 percent in Pennsylvania
have successfully passed the MGAP audit. Even more importantly,
these farms represent over 85 percent of U.S. production. In
Pennsylvania, we have primarily small growers who struggle
daily with the rising cost of production. They would not have
been able to do this on their own. The work achieved through
the Specialty Crop Block Grant Funds resulted in even safer
food product and documented program to enhance consumer
confidence. As we face new food safety legislation and
regulation from FDA, the mushroom industry feels that we are
clearly prepared and especially the Specialty Crop Block Grants
have played a large role in our success.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Angelucci follows:]
Prepared Statement of James A. Angelucci, General Manager, Phillips
Mushroom Farms, Kennett Square, PA; on Behalf of American Mushroom
Institute
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I am
Jim Angelucci, the General Manager of Phillips Mushroom Farms, a third
generation, family-owned company with mushroom growing facilities in
Kennett Square, PA and Warwick, MD.
I'm pleased today to give you some real world examples of how the
public policy decisions you make result in programs with tangible and
positive impacts for the mushroom industry and for consumers.
The mushroom farm community is particularly proud of our food
safety record. Fresh mushrooms have never been associated with a
foodborne illness outbreak. Since mushrooms are grown indoors, certain
risks are minimized, but we have our own set of unique challenges.
Following the 2006 E. coli outbreaks in spinach, the mushroom
industry realized we had to step up our on-farm food safety programs in
order to assure our customers of the safety of our product and to
satisfy the increasing demand for audits. In response, we came together
and developed an industry-wide food safety standard specific to the
growing, harvesting and shipping of fresh mushrooms. It is known as
MGAP--the Mushroom Good Agricultural Practices program.
MGAP is consistent with the FDA Guide to Minimize Microbial Food
Safety Hazards for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables. It is focused on the
risks involved in production and based on science; it is attainable,
auditable and verifiable. But just developing a program doesn't
necessarily mean growers will follow it; so our next and even more
challenging task was how to get growers to implement it.
At this point you may be asking what these voluntary food safety
efforts have to do with the 2008 Farm Bill and today's hearing.
Funding from the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture through the
Farm Bill's Specialty Crop Block Grant program has supported the
development and implementation of the MGAP program. Block grants funds
were spent to develop food safety worker training programs, a website
where growers can access all the MGAP materials, including the
standards, guidelines, training tools, and forms needed for audit
documentation. These tools are important so a grower can spend his or
her time on implementation not on designing checklists and schedules.
But first, to gauge the feasibility of the program, we ran a pilot
program at a small farm testing all the materials we developed. We made
modifications based on their experiences. Finally, we held four
training sessions with an overwhelming turnout. By using web-based
tools and train-the-trainer workshops, we have disseminated food safety
messages to literally thousands of our workers. And by combining funds
from the American Mushroom Institute and the Mushroom Council, we were
able to expand our reach to all commercial mushroom farms in the United
States. We received technical assistance from Penn State University,
private consultants, and most importantly, from our industry leaders
who volunteered their time and talents.
In addition, the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture has used a
portion of block grant funding to provide a cost share program for Good
Agricultural Practice audits conducted by USDA--not only for mushroom
growers but for all Pennsylvania fruit and vegetable growers
With increased frequency, produce buyers--be they large packer/
shippers, foodservice vendors or retail outlets--are requiring GAP
audits, all at the expense of the grower. For any farm, but
particularly a small operation, establishing a documented food safety
program can be expensive and time consuming. Having all or a part of
the cost of an audit reimbursed through the Specialty Crop Block Grant
program has motivated farms to implement the MGAP program.
I understand that during consideration of the farm bill, questions
arose as to why the funds should go through state departments of
agriculture. Sixty-five percent of all U.S. mushrooms are grown in
Pennsylvania. Therefore, the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture
understands the needs and concerns of our industry and recognizes our
importance to the state's economy. It just makes sense that a state
department of agriculture would have a better perspective on the local
needs of the farmers they serve.
As for accountability, the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture
and USDA have required extensive progress and final reports outlining
not only what has been accomplished but quantitative information on the
impact of the projects.
So how do you measure success? Since the auditable MGAP program has
been in place--about 18 months, half of the mushroom farms in the U.S.
(and over 60 percent in Pennsylvania) have successfully passed a MGAP
audit. Even more importantly, these farms represent over 85 percent of
U.S. production.
In Pennsylvania, we have primarily small growers who struggle daily
with the rising costs of production. They would not have been able to
do this on their own. The work achieved through the Specialty Crop
Block Grant funds resulted in an even safer food product and a
documented program to enhance consumer confidence. As we face new food
safety legislation and regulations from FDA, the mushroom industry
feels that we are clearly prepared, and the Specialty Crop Block grants
have played a large role in our success.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thanks you, sir.
I will get back to my list. Next we have Mr. Robert Jones,
Director of Production of The Chef's Garden in Huron, Ohio. Mr.
Jones, you have 5 minutes to testify. Thank you very much.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT N. JONES, Jr., DIRECTOR OF PRODUCTION, THE
CHEF'S GARDEN, HURON, OH
Mr. Jones. Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity this
morning and thank you for your public service.
My name is Bob Jones. I am a vegetable grower from The
Chef's Garden in Huron, Ohio. The Chef's Garden is a multi-
generational family farm specializing in sustainably-grown
gourmet vegetables for four and five star restaurants in all 50
states and 12 additional countries. I am proud to say that my
children are the fourth generation to have worked on our family
farm, and we hope to continue the agricultural legacy of the
Jones Family long into the future.
We have been fortunate and truly blessed to have developed
relationships with chefs patient enough to teach a family of
dirt farmers the food business. The Chef's Garden grew out of
necessity. After many years as wholesale vegetable growers,
suffering financial hardship, losing the family farm in 1983,
we began rebuilding by custom growing for chefs we first met at
Cleveland-area farmers markets.
My personal experience with the farm bill comes by the way
of the Specialty Crop Block Grant Program funded by USDA and in
Ohio, administered by the Ohio Department of Agriculture. I
have served on the Grant Review Committee in Ohio for the past
2 years. First of all, let me say how critically important this
source of funding is to the specialty crop industry. It is at
this time in Ohio the sole source of funding available to this
entire industry.
In Ohio, we have what I consider a rather unusual problem
that has created a tremendous opportunity. The amount of fresh
produce consumed in our state is several times that of the
amount of produce being grown in the state, yet the vast
majority of Ohio's productions of fresh fruits and vegetables
are exported out of the state. This is a losing proposition for
both producers and consumers of fresh produce. When considering
sustainability issues and carbon footprints, our growers must
strive to balance the production and consumption numbers in our
state. We must truly listen to our consumers' needs, and then
convince growers to meet and exceed those needs. This, in my
opinion, is where the greatest value of the Specialty Crop
Block Grant Program comes from, helping specialty crop
producers help themselves.
Sixty percent of all the nation's farmers do not raise farm
bill program crops, and, therefore, do not receive direct
subsidies. Please let me be very clear on this point. We do not
want them. Ohio growers like myself are much more interested in
becoming better growers, marketers and promoters. The technical
research on production methods, conservation issues,
nutritional programs, Farm-to-School Program, promotional
activities and food safety programs such as our Ohio Produce
Marketing Agreement and producer-consumer connection activities
are much more valuable to the sustainability of our specialty
crop industry than direct subsidies.
In Ohio, we have funded several such activities and are
just beginning to see the potential benefit of these projects.
We need to help our growers better understand the producer-
consumer imbalance and find ways to eliminate it, and then
begin marketing outside of our state as we are within 500 miles
of the vast majority of the entire populations of both U.S. and
Canada.
Ohio and other Midwest specialty crop producers could and
should be supplying these consumers the majority of their fresh
produce year round. Helping specialty crop producers understand
and take advantage of the opportunities that exist for them is
critical. We can only accomplish these lofty goals with
continued support of the Specialty Crop Block Grant Program.
The current program however could be even more workable if the
funding formula were more balanced per its distribution by
state.
I understand that under the farm bill each state receives a
minimum grant, and then the balances of available dollars are
distributed according to specialty crop cash receipts data by
state. Currently, it appears that Ohio, for example, received
only about one percent of these additionally distributed
dollars, compared to California which is receiving nearly 40
percent. I understand this funding discrepancy and the need to
flow more dollars to the states with more production. That
said, in states like Ohio we do not have existing support
systems or technical assistance similar to what others enjoy.
The block grant program is one of the few tools we have to
support our growers and better realize our specialty crop
opportunities. To meet this need, I believe some shifts in the
existing formula may be warranted.
I also believe the program's success would benefit from
having each state's specialty crop producers involved in
determining the best use of each state's allotment funds once
the funds are in the state departments of agriculture. It would
also help if the funding cycle were moved to an earlier time of
the year. Under the current funding system, some states do not
find out the amount of funding they will receive until
February. USDA contracts for these projects are not finalized
until August or September which makes it difficult to conduct
in-season research projects within the funding year.
It is also difficult for specialty crop producers to be
involved during the growing season. Moving the entire funding
cycle back a month or 2 could help to keep the very people this
program is intended to help involved in the state level
decision-making process, and will, in my opinion, dramatically
increase the effectiveness of the program.
In closing, the Specialty Crop Block Grant Program is
critically important and helpful. It is truly the only way to
keep our industry sustainable into the future. Thank you for
the opportunity to participate in this process and I would
welcome any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jones follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert N. Jones, Jr., Director of Production, The
Chef's Garden, Huron, OH
Good morning.
My name is Bob Jones. I am a vegetable grower from The Chef's
Garden in Huron, Ohio. Thank you all for your public service and for
the opportunity to speak about the specialty crop and organic
agriculture programs at the USDA.
The Chef's Garden is a multi-generational family farm specializing
in sustainably-grown gourmet vegetables for four and five star
restaurants in all fifty states and twelve countries. I am proud to say
my children are the fourth generation to work on our farm, we hope to
continue the Jones family farming legacy long into the future. We have
been fortunate and blessed to develop relationships with chefs patient
enough to teach a family of dirt farmers the food business.
The Chef's Garden grew out of necessity. After many years as
wholesale vegetable growers, suffering financial hardship, losing the
family farm in 1983, we began rebuilding by custom-growing for chefs we
met at Cleveland area farmer's markets.
My personal experience with the farm bill comes by way of the
Specialty Crop Block Grant Program, funded by the USDA, and
administered in Ohio by the Ohio Department of Agriculture. This source
of funding is critical to the specialty crop industry. It is, at this
time, the sole source of funding available to this industry as a whole.
In Ohio, we have an unusual problem that has created a tremendous
opportunity. The amount of fresh produce consumed in our state is
several times the amount grown in our state. Yet the vast majority of
Ohio's fresh fruits and vegetables are exported out of the state. This
is a losing proposition for both the growers and consumers of fresh
produce. When considering sustainability and carbon footprints, we
growers must strive to balance the production and consumption numbers
in our state. We must truly listen to our consumers' needs, and then
convince growers to meet and exceed those needs. This is where the
Specialty Crop Block Grant Program is most valuable: helping specialty
crop producers help themselves!
Sixty percent of all the nation's farmers do not grow farm bill
``program crops'' and therefore do not receive direct subsides. (site:
USDA, 2007 Farm Bill Proposals, page 171) Please hear me clearly: we do
not want them! Ohio growers like me are much more interested in
becoming better growers, marketers and promoters. The technical
research on production methods, conservation issues, nutritional
programs, farm to school programming, promotional activities, Food
Safety programs such as our ``Ohio Produce Marketing Agreement,'' and
producer/consumer connection activities, are much more valuable to the
sustainability of our specialty crop industry than direct subsidies. In
Ohio we have funded several such projects and are just beginning to see
their potential.
In Ohio, we need to better understand the producer/consumer
imbalance and find ways to eliminate it, and then begin marketing
outside of our state as we are within 500 miles of the vast majority of
the populations of both the U.S. and Canada. Ohio and other Midwest
farms could and should supply the majority of these consumers' fresh
produce year-round.
Helping specialty crop producers understand and take advantage of
the opportunities that exist for them is critical. We can only
accomplish these lofty goals with continued support of the Specialty
Crop Block Grant Program.
However, the current program could be even more workable if the
funding formula was more balanced per its distribution by state. I
understand that under the farm bill, each state receives a minimum
grant and then the rest of the available dollar(s) are distributed
according to specialty crop cash receipts data by state. Currently it
appears that Ohio, for example, receives only about one percent of
these additionally distributed dollars compared to California receiving
nearly 40 percent. I understand this funding discrepancy and the need
to flow more dollars to the states with more production. That said, in
states like Ohio, we do not have existing support programs and systems
of technical assistance similar to what other states enjoy. The block
grant program is one of the few tools we have to support our growers
and better realize our specialty crop opportunities. To meet this need,
I believe some shifts in the existing formula may be warranted. I also
believe the program's success would benefit from having each state's
specialty crop producers involved in determining the best use of each
state's allotted funds once the funds are in the hands of the state
departments of agriculture.
It would also help if the funding cycle was moved to an earlier
time of year. Under the current funding cycle, in some years states do
not find out the amount of funding they will receive until February.
USDA contracts for these projects are not finalized until August or
September, which makes it difficult to conduct in-season research
projects within the funding year. It is also difficult for specialty
crop producers to be involved during the growing season. Moving the
entire cycle back a month or 2 could help keep the very people this
program is intended to help, involved in state-level decision-making,
and will, in my opinion, dramatically increase the program's
effectiveness. The Specialty Crop Block Grant Program is critically
important and helpful. It is truly the only way to help our industry
sustain itself in the long run.
Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this process, and
for your support of our industry. I welcome any questions you may have.
Attachment
Thank you, Mr. Jones.Mr. Bernie Kohl, President of Angelica
Nurseries, welcome, sir, and please proceed with your testimony.
STATEMENT OF BERNARD KOHL, Jr., PRESIDENT, ANGELICA NURSERIES, INC.,
KENNEDYVILLE, MD; ON BEHALF OF AMERICAN NURSERY & LANDSCAPE ASSOCIATION
Mr. Kohl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Subcommittee Members and guests.
I am Bernie Kohl, a third generation nurseryman and President of
Angelica Nurseries located on Maryland's scenic eastern shore. Angelica
is Maryland's largest wholesale grower, producing quality landscape
plants for customers in the eastern U.S. I am also here today on behalf
of the American Nursery & Landscape Association.
I thank you for the fact that the 2008 Farm Bill recognizes the
important role of specialty crops including nursery crops and
floriculture. Our industry provides young trees and plants to American
farms that grow apples, oranges, peaches, grapes and strawberries. We
grow the plants that surround the U.S. Capitol and your own homes. Our
plants provide real benefits like urban cooling, carbon capture and
improved air and water quality.
While in town I intend to visit my Congressional delegation to urge
their support for H.R. 4509, the Small Business Environmental
Stewardship Act. I would like to thank Representative Kurt Schrader for
introducing this important tree planting bill.
Nursery and greenhouse crop sales are about $17 billion each year
at farm gate. Our industry ranks among the top five agricultural
commodities in 28 states, and among the top ten in all 50 states. We
represent \1/3\ of the value of all specialty crop production in the
U.S.
The industry has survived without market distorting subsidies or
price supports. We would like to keep it that way. Our farm bill
priorities focus on critical infrastructure and programs to enable
success. I will mention a few highlights. Details are in my written
testimony.
First, the 2008 Farm Bill helps to address a serious threat of
invasive plant pests. Section 10201 provides funding for innovative
programs to identify, detect and respond to plant pest threats from
around the world. USDA's APHIS has set clear goals based on the farm
bill language and is working with interested parties including ANLA.
Important work under one of these goals, safeguarding nursery
production will set the stage for a modernized certification system for
nursery crops including interstate and international commerce.
Section 10202 of the farm bill established a National Clean Plant
Network or NCPN to protect U.S. specialty crops such as grapes, peaches
and apples from catastrophic plant pests. Robert Wooley, an
internationally respected fruit and nut treestock grower recently said
of the program, ``The NCPN could be considered the poster child for the
positive impact we have enjoyed from the inclusion of specialty crops
funding in the latest farm bill.'' The NCPN has enabled nurseries to
eliminate common virus from nursery stock and at the same time to
monitor for exotic, invasive disease in a unique and innovative
surveillance program. The NCPN is also providing a mechanism to update
and harmonize state certification programs which will facilitate
interstate commerce of clean nursery trees.
Perhaps the most significant benefit is the maintenance and
improvement of the clean plant programs at Washington State University,
the University of California and Clemson University. These programs
provide essential disease testing therapy for domestic and imported
fruit in great varieties. Farm bill funding has been timely and
critically important to sustaining their survival.
On the topic of research, we appreciate establishment of the
Specialty Crops Research Initiative, yet we remain concerned with the
required 1:1 matching funds for these grants. This requirement puts
some sectors at a disadvantage. SCRI grants are multi-year and many
traditional industry funding sources cannot commit multi-year funding.
Finally, the USDA ARS and other Federal partners are disadvantaged
because other Federal resources cannot count toward the matching
requirement. The Specialty Crop Block Grant Program, which provides
grants on a formula basis to the states to fund projects important to
the specialty crop industries, a number of state associations in our
industry have successfully applied for these grants. I have included
two examples in my written statement.
Nursery growers appreciate the 2008 Farm Bill expanded eligibility
under the Tree Assistance Program however we have encountered problems
with the TAP implementation which are described in my written
statement. Resolution seems close but we would appreciate your help if
problems exist.
While many farm bill provisions are making a positive difference,
we want to note a serious threat from the Biomass Crop Assistance
Program or BCAP. The potential diversion of forestry byproducts, most
notably tree bark, from established markets to energy generation could
devastate nursery producers across the U.S. Over 70 percent of nursery
crops are now grown in containers, and bark is the most important
component of the growing substance that fills these containers. BCAP
subsidies threaten our $17 billion industry and could fuel loss of
market share to imports from Canada and elsewhere. BCAP subsidies
should encourage new biomass crops and opportunities, but not disrupt
established markets at taxpayer expense.
Let me end with an issue that is on the minds of all specialty crop
producers, farm labor. As important as the farm bill is, growers cannot
survive without labor. We now face a perfect storm resulting from
aggressive worksite enforcement, Congressional inaction and regulatory
overkill. Most producers are one I-9 audit away from disaster. A few of
us are trying to use the legal program known as H-2A and we are
struggling with a third set of rules in 3 years. Labor reform will
enable a bright future. Ignoring the problem will cause American
production on-farm and off-farm jobs to leave the country. We support
the AgJOBS Bill, H.R. 2414 as a balanced bipartisan solution.
Thank you again for your leadership and the opportunity to speak to
you today. We look forward to collaborating on the next farm bill.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kohl follows:]
Prepared Statement of Bernard Kohl, Jr., President, Angelica Nurseries,
Inc., Kennedyville, MD; on Behalf of American Nursery & Landscape
Association
Thank you, Chairman Cardoza, Ranking Member Schmidt, Subcommittee
Members, and distinguished guests, for this opportunity to present
testimony on implementation of the 2008 Farm Bill's Specialty Crop
title, on behalf of the U.S. nursery and greenhouse industry. I am
Bernie Kohl, President of Angelica Nurseries, located on the beautiful
and agriculturally important Eastern Shore of Maryland. Angelica
Nurseries is a third-generation wholesale growing operation producing
quality landscape plants for customers up and down the Eastern Seaboard
and into the Midwest. Angelica is the largest nursery in the State of
Maryland, and one of the largest agricultural employers in the state.
My remarks today are presented on behalf of the American Nursery &
Landscape Association (ANLA). ANLA is a leading member of the Specialty
Crop Farm Bill Alliance, with whom we collaborated on the 2008 Farm
Bill's specialty crop provisions. We join in thanking the Chairman and
the Subcommittee for successfully crafting a farm bill that for the
first time recognizes in a serious way the role of specialty crops,
including nursery crops and floriculture. We look forward to working
with you as the 2012 Farm Bill begins to take shape.
Though struggling through the economic downturn, the nursery and
greenhouse industry is a bright spot in U.S. crop agriculture. The
combined U.S. nursery, floriculture, and landscape industry,
collectively known as the ``green industry,'' has an estimated economic
impact of $147.8 billion.\1\ The industry employs 1.95 million
individuals, generates $64.3 billion in labor income, and provides $6.9
billion in indirect business taxes. Products and services offered by
the green industry directly contribute to production of apples, citrus,
grapes, strawberries, and other food crops; to sustaining our
environment; and to improving the quality of life in rural, suburban
and urban communities. Landscape plants provide ecosystem service
benefits that range from reducing energy needs, to fostering carbon
sequestration, and improving water quality and storm water management.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Economic Impact of the Green Industry in the United States.
Hall, Charles R., Alan R. Hodges, John J. Haydu. Southern Agricultural
Economics Association, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. nursery and floriculture crop production represents a major
component of the nation's specialty crop agriculture. According to the
USDA's 2007 Census of Agriculture, nursery, greenhouse and floriculture
annual crop sales totaled roughly $17 billion at farm gate. Nursery and
greenhouse crop production now ranks among the top five agricultural
commodities in 28 states, and among the top ten in all 50 states. The
sector represents roughly a third of the value of all specialty crop
production in the U.S. In Maryland, nursery and greenhouse annual
production totaled about $209 million according to the 2007 Census.
The Farm Bill and the Nursery Industry
The U.S. nursery industry has developed and thrived without the
influence of market-distorting subsidies, price supports, or similar
programs. Most wish to keep it that way. Consistent with this history
and philosophy, our priorities in the 2008 Farm Bill focused on
critical infrastructure and programs to deal with plant pest and
disease threats, and to fund needed research. Global trade and travel
have accelerated the pace of new pest introductions. Given the
diversity of crops that the industry produces, virtually every new
plant pest that arrives and establishes in the U.S. becomes a
production or market access problem for the nursery industry. Emerald
ash borer, Asian longhorned beetle, and the pathogen responsible for
``sudden oak death'' are just a few examples with which the industry is
struggling.
The 2008 Farm Bill did several positive things relating to the
serious threat of plant pests and diseases:
Section 10201 provided critical funding and direction for
innovative initiatives to identify and mitigate offshore
threats, and improve pest detection and rapid response in the
U.S. So far, USDA's Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service
(APHIS) has set priorities based upon six goal areas drawn
directly from the language of the farm bill. While this is
long-term work, and success at prevention is not always easy to
measure, we believe APHIS has so far done a good job of
involving stakeholders in an open and transparent process for
identifying and funding the best ideas to accomplish the goals.
Specific projects funded and suggested for future funding under the
``Safeguarding Nursery Production'' goal are setting the stage
for a modernized system for the certification of nursery crops
moving in interstate and international commerce.
One critically important goal under 10201 is to more effectively
identify and mitigate, potential threats plant pest threats to
U.S. agriculture before they arrive at our airports and ports,
and make their way to our farms and forests. Strategic research
and analysis on pest threats which might reach our shores in
the next few years is essential to our ability to avoid
introduction, or to eradicate pests or diseases quickly if they
do arrive here. If we were to share one constructive criticism
for the deployment of 10201 funds so far, it would be that too
few projects have been designed and implemented for offshore
pest threat identification and mitigation.
Section 10202 of the farm bill established the National
Clean Plant Network (NCPN). The NCPN was created to protect
U.S. specialty crops, such as grapes, nuts, apples, peaches and
other fruits, from the spread of economically harmful plant
pests and diseases. The NCPN will contribute to the global
competitiveness of U.S. specialty crop producers by creating
high standards for our clean plant programs for these vital
crops. The program will improve U.S. growers' access to the
newest and most profitable plant varieties from around the
world, without the devastating plant diseases that exist
elsewhere in the world.
Robert Woolley, an internationally respected grower of deciduous
fruit and nut tree nursery stock, represents ANLA in the NCPN
governance structure. He recently participated in the annual
meeting of parties involved in NCPN, and had this to say after
the meeting concluded:
``The NCPN could be considered the poster child for
positive impact we have enjoyed from inclusion of
specialty crops funding in the latest farm bill. With
farm bill funding, the NCPN has enabled nurseries to
eliminate common virus from nursery stock and, at the
same time, to monitor for exotic, invasive disease in a
unique and innovative surveillance program. The NCPN is
also providing a mechanism to update and harmonize
state certification programs which will facilitate
interstate commerce of `clean' nursery trees. Perhaps
the most significant benefit of the establishment of
the NCPN, however, is the maintenance and improvement
of clean plant programs at Washington State University
and the University of California as well as Clemson
University in South Carolina. These programs provide
essential disease testing and therapy for both domestic
and imported fruit and grape varieties, and farm bill
funding via the NCPN has been timely, and critically
important to sustaining their survival.''
The establishment and maintenance of the National Clean Plant
Network was one of our highest farm bill priorities. We are
truly impressed with the progress that has been made already on
this program.
In Section 10203, Congress intended the Secretary of
Agriculture to be the final word on emergency pest funding
decisions. In California, we have witness time and again where
the experts at fighting pests are overruled by the Office of
Management and Budget. The result has been delayed funding and
more pests. We appreciate this Committee's efforts to correct
this bureaucratic problem. Early indications suggest that OMB
remains the final word and we would ask that you closely
monitor this situation.
Specialty Crops Research Initiative
We appreciate the recognition, through the Specialty Crops Research
Initiative in the 2008 Farm Bill, of the need for research funding to
support the specialty crop industry. We remain concerned, however, with
the required 1:1 funding match for these grants. This requirement puts
many specialty crop growers at a disadvantage, especially in industries
that do not have check-off programs. SCRI grants are multi-year, and
most traditional industry funding sources (including our own research
endowments, the Horticultural Research Institute, and the American
Floral Endowment) cannot commit funding for multiple years. We are also
concerned that the match requirement, as implemented, is placing USDA-
ARS and other Federal partners on a less-than-competitive playing field
because other Federal funds and resources cannot be used to meet the
matching requirement.
A longer term concern with the creation of the National Institute
for Food and Agriculture--NIFA--is that the move toward long term,
systems competitive funded research reduces funding that could be
applied to meet immediate or quickly emerging research needs, such as
those resulting from the introduction of invasive pest species. We feel
that it is critical for USDA to maintain and increase funding efforts
for its intramural research agency, USDA-ARS, in a balanced way with
respect to competitive funds available through NIFA. Increased funding
is also needed for the formula-funded Smith-Lever and Hatch Act as
these programs provide for the base research and educational delivery
infrastructure for Cooperative Extension and State Experiment Station
programs. If we allow our national research infrastructure to
deteriorate for lack of funding for traditional pest and disease
research, we will not easily be able to rebuild it.
Unintended Consequences of the Biomass Crop Assistance Program
While many provisions of the 2008 Farm Bill are already making a
positive difference, we must alert you to a serious potential
unintended consequence of one particular program, the Biomass Crop
Assistance Program, or BCAP. While the program's goals are worthy, the
potential diversion of certain forestry byproducts--most notably
softwood and hardwood bark--from established value-added markets could
devastate nursery producers across the U.S. for these simple reasons:
most nursery crops are now grown in containers, and the single most
important component of the growing substrate that fills these
containers is bark.
Over 70 percent of the nursery crops and 100 percent of the
greenhouse crops produced in the U.S. are now grown in containers. The
major ingredient for the growing media or ``substrates'' used in
container production is bark. Diversion of bark supplies for other
uses, or a sharp and significant change in their market price due to
market-distorting subsidies, threatens the domestic nursery and
greenhouse industry and much of the $17 billion in annual nursery and
greenhouse crop sales across the country. Market price distortions or
diversion of bark resulting from inclusion in the BCAP will seriously
impact domestic production and could fuel loss of market share to
imports from Canada and elsewhere.
It is worth noting that already, over 95% of bark byproducts have
established value-added markets. Roughly 83% of softwood bark, and 70%
of hardwood bark, is already used for energy generation. In this
respect, BCAP subsidies would seem to represent a solution in search of
a problem. Concerns about future bark availability due to market forces
had already prompted the industry to fund a multi-year project to
develop alternative substrates. However, the work is long-term, and the
disruption and damage done by bark subsidies is a clear and immediate
danger.
ANLA recently submitted official comments to USDA's Farm Service
Agency, in which we offered a series of recommendations on how to
address this concern. While the issue is now in the regulatory realm,
we are grateful for the opportunity to alert the Subcommittee to the
potential unintended consequences that will result if bark and other
wood waste materials with established markets are included in the BCAP.
Specialty Crop Block Grant Program
One aspect of the Specialty Crop title of the farm bill is the
Specialty Crop Block Grant Program. This program provides grants on a
formula basis to the states to fund projects important to the success
of specialty crop industries. A number of state associations in our
industry have successfully applied for these grants. Following are two
examples of the types of projects funded:
Pennsylvania Landscape & Nursery Association received a
grant to develop a technical manual for PennDOT on proper
installation and maintenance plant material along road rights-
of-way to mitigate stormwater runoff from highways. The project
should be completed by June 2011.
The North Carolina Green Industry Council received a $47,000
specialty crop block grant last year to promote outdoor water
use efficiency and water conservation to the citizens of NC in
an effort to reinvigorate consumer purchasing of plants, trees
and turf. Three major droughts over the last 10 years in the
region have led to outdoor watering bans and water restrictions
which crippled nursery growers, garden centers and landscape
contractors. In partnership with North Carolina State
University, the GIC published and distributed over 200,000
Water Wise Works and Watering Tips brochures to consumers
across North Carolina using retail displays and direct
distribution to landscape contractors, nurseries, sod growers,
extension agents and municipalities. The Governor designated
July 2010 as Smart Irrigation Month. A statewide billboard
campaign is directing consumers to a new website developed with
the specialty block grant money, www.SavingWaterNC.com.
Risk Management, Crop Insurance, and Tree Assistance Program
Nursery growers appreciate that the 2008 Farm Bill expanded
eligibility under the Tree Assistance Program (TAP). However, we have
encountered problems with TAP implementation. USDA's Farm Service
Agency (FSA) took the position that trees were ineligible unless they
produced a crop. This was contrary to Congressional intent which
expanded TAP coverage by recognizing trees and ``bushes'' as crops
themselves. We believe that a recent communication involving FSA,
Congressional and Committee staff resolved the matter and that FSA is
correcting its TAP handbook. We hope the Committee can help us to
ensure that FSA has communicated this policy correction to its local
offices.
Another apparent glitch, in FSA's TAP computer program, resulted in
disallowing reimbursement of rehabilitation, pruning, and site
preparation costs for containerized trees while nevertheless allowing
reimbursement of such costs for in-ground trees. We have been assured
this technical error is in the process of being corrected, but no
timetable has been given. Again, we would appreciate the Committee's
assistance ensuring that FSA has resolved or is resolving this.
On the broader question of risk management, the crop insurance
system is not serving the needs of the nursery and greenhouse sector.
Growers report that crop insurance agents in Tennessee, for example,
have had over 70 % of their policies dropped since the nursery crop
insurance calamity that happened as a result of the Easter freeze and
drought of 2007. Prominent factors for the decline are a lack of
educated adjusters and a lack of clear interpretation (adjuster to
adjuster and even within RMA) of the specialty crop insurance policy.
We would be happy to share previous testimony on problems with the crop
insurance system and nursery crops.
Agricultural Labor and Immigration Policy
As important as the farm bill has become to America's specialty
crop industries, it is difficult to have a serious discussion about the
future success of specialty crop producers without acknowledging the
elephant in the room: farm labor. Hired labor is critical to most
specialty crop producers, and we now face a ``perfect storm'' resulting
from Congressional inaction and regulatory excess.
The facts are stark. Most farm workers lack legal status. Many have
been here for years, and are highly skilled and essential. The
recession has done virtually nothing to change the reality: While we
have seen a small uptick in Americans applying for farm jobs, few
actually report to work, and many fewer stay.
Aggressive worksite enforcement that began near the end of the Bush
Administration has accelerated under the Obama Administration.
Specialty crop and dairy producers are especially vulnerable. Farmers
are one I-9 audit away from disaster. Meanwhile, the only legal labor
safety net, known as H-2A, has long been difficult and unattractive.
Producers are now struggling through the third set of rules in 3 years.
The program has descended into regulatory chaos. I can say this with
authority, as we have been using the program for over 10 years.
We fully recognize that farm labor is not a traditional farm bill
issue. Nonetheless, we raise it for this simple reason: lack of timely
and thoughtful resolution of the farm labor crisis will hasten the
offshoring of our specialty crop and livestock agriculture. As
production shifts to Canada or Mexico or Chile or China, America will
lose thousands upon thousands of U.S. jobs upstream and downstream of
the farmer that exist here now because we are producing here. We
respectfully urge your leadership and support for enactment of the
bipartisan and urgently needed reforms of the AgJOBS bill, H.R.2414,
whether as part of a comprehensive immigration reform bill, or an
important step toward fixing our broken immigration system.
Conclusion
Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
testify on behalf of the U.S. nursery and greenhouse industry. The 2008
Farm Bill for the first time truly recognized the importance of
specialty crops, including nursery and floriculture. Together,
specialty crops now represent almost half of the value of total crop
production in America, and the specialty crop title of the 2008 Farm
Bill placed emphasis on practical, solutions-oriented programs. We
recognize that the next farm bill cycle will be exceptionally difficult
from a budgetary standpoint. We thank you for your work to date, and
hope you will join together to protect specialty crops' place at the
table, going forward.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, sir.
Mr. Mark Nicholson, Executive Vice President of Red Jacket
Orchards from Geneva, New York. Thank you, sir, for being here
and please proceed with your testimony.
STATEMENT OF MARK NICHOLSON, EXECUTIVE VICE
PRESIDENT AND PART OWNER, RED JACKET ORCHARDS, MEMBER, BOARD OF
DIRECTORS U.S. APPLE ASSOCIATION, GENEVA, NY
Mr. Nicholson. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Cardoza,
Ranking Member Schmidt, and distinguished Members of the
Committee, but I would also like to specifically recognize New
York Congressmen Bill Owens and Scott Murphy and express our
appreciation for their participation on this Committee.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today
regarding the impact of the 2008 Farm Bill. My name is Mark
Nicholson and I serve on the board of the U.S. Apple
Association and am a member of the third-generation that
operates Red Jacket Orchards located in Geneva, New York. Our
integrated farm business includes a 600 acre fruit farm, fruit
packing facility, juice processing plant, a metro New York
farmers market and wholesale distribution operation which my
brother, father and I own and operate. We primarily grow fresh
market apples and other specialty fruit crops, and also press
apple cider and 100 percent fruit juices.
I had the pleasure to testify during the farm bill hearings
in Canandaigua, New York during the summer of 2006. I am proud
that many of our industry's top priorities were incorporated in
the 2008 Farm Bill, a truly notable milestone for our industry.
As I stated then, and I feel is worth repeating here, apple
growers and the produce industry have never relied upon direct
payment programs to support grower income or market prices.
Instead, we strongly advocate programs that help grow demand
for, and consumption of, our products and the long-term
competitiveness and sustainability for our industry. I believe
the 2008 Farm Bill met these goals and would like to thank
Chairman Cardoza for his leadership on behalf of the specialty
crop industry during the last farm bill's lively debate.
I believe these programs are a good investment in our
industry especially in these tough economic times. Today,
specialty crop producers face an interesting dichotomy. On the
one hand we are under pressure like never before from increased
input costs and competition from low-cost producers like China.
On the other hand, consumers are more aware than ever of the
health benefits inherent in our products, and their need to
fight obesity and to make healthier choices. I much prefer that
the healthy apple or other produce snack consumers increasingly
reach for has a grown in the USA sticker on it rather than a
sticker from another country like China, which produces over
half of the world's apples.
For the sake of time I am going to focus on just a few of
the many specialty crop farm bill programs supported by the
apple industry. My written testimony goes into further detail
and I would be happy to answer any questions the Committee
Members might have.
The Specialty Crop Research Initiative: as growers and
small business owners we must overcome challenges in order to
remain in business for 50+ years as our family has been
fortunate enough to do. As a plant science graduate from
Cornell University, I have a special interest in, and
understanding of, the power of science. I believe strongly that
with adequate funding our research institutions cannot only
help us to overcome these numerous challenges, but also give
our next generation of family members the tools they will need
to thrive for another 50 years.
The U.S. apple industry has been an active participant in
the SCRI and is pleased to champion this USDA Program. A number
of projects selected for funding are already well under way
covering everything from pest control to fruit quality and
automation of orchard operations. While these projects have
significant apple components, their activities and results also
impact other specialty crops such as peaches, walnuts, pears,
cherries and strawberries. Project participants span the
country and include over a dozen institutions.
Fruit and Vegetable Program: I believe passionately that
the Fruit and Vegetable Program, which was expanded to all 50
states in the last farm bill and provides a fresh fruit or
vegetable snack to elementary-age school children, provides the
best opportunity for a win-win program. As a parent of a 15
month old son and 6 year old daughter, I see the power daily of
teaching healthy eating habits and providing proper food
choices at an early age. My daughter, Lily, continues to
surprise me by regularly choosing a piece of fruit over candy
or a sweet when given a choice.
The Food and Vegetable Program has been immensely popular
in New York and throughout the country. For example, the
elementary school in North Rose, New York participated in the
program and the results were phenomenal. Students there tried
fruit like kiwi which some had never seen before and even in
the middle of apple country, many students were not accustomed
to eating whole, fresh apples. Unfortunately however, the State
of New York recently made the decision that due to tight funds
and oversubscription to the program, only schools with 98
percent free and reduced meals would be allowed in the program.
This shuts out the school in North Rose and many other schools
in the rural districts as well. It all may be for naught
unfortunately.
While recognizing that immigration does not fall under the
jurisdiction of this Committee, I would be remiss if I did not
take a moment to restate my comments from the 2006 Farm Bill
field hearing. Unfortunately and frustratingly, not much has
changed in the 4 years since then. If in the process of
securing our borders which our industry favors we do not
develop a workable guest worker program for agriculture, the
best farm bill programs will do little good. This remains, as I
see it, the greatest immediate threat to my family's farm's
economic viability.
In conclusion, I thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and the
Committee for the invitation to speak here today. I am very
proud of the accomplishments that we have achieved in the 2008
Farm Bill on behalf of the apple industry and other specialty
crop producers. I believe if we can maintain the critical tools
we have built in the 2008 Farm Bill, and if possible expand
them, then our industry has a great opportunity to grow and
thrive. With that, I can confidently encourage my children to
consider joining us as the next generation and help Red Jacket
Orchards continue for another 50 years. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Nicholson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mark Nicholson, Executive Vice President and Part
Owner, Red Jacket Orchards; Member, Board of Directors, U.S. Apple
Association, Geneva, NY
Introduction
Good morning, Chairman Cardoza, Ranking Member Schmidt, and
distinguished Members of the Committee. I would also like to
specifically recognize New York Congressman Bill Owens and express our
appreciation for his participation on this Committee. Congressman Owens
represents our state well on agricultural issues and brings a wealth of
knowledge and experience from working with producers during his days in
private practice. We look forward to working with you Congressman Owens
on the many important issues that come before this Committee.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today regarding the
impact of the 2008 Farm Bill. My name is Mark Nicholson and I serve on
the Board of the U.S. Apple Association (USApple). I am a member of the
third generation that operates Red Jacket Orchards located in Geneva,
New York. Our integrated farm business includes a 600 acre fruit farm,
fruit packing facility, fresh juice processing plant, and metro New
York farm market and wholesale distribution operation, which my
brother, father, and I own and operate. We primarily grow fresh market
apples but over the past 15 years have diversified into other specialty
fruit crops, including apricots and plums that are currently being
harvested and sold in this region's Whole Foods or Wegmans
supermarkets. In addition to our fresh fruit crops, we also press apple
cider and other 100 percent fruit juices in our newly completed,
sustainably built and powered, 22,000 square foot juice processing
facility. The majority of our fruit and value-added products are
marketed and sold in the Northeast, with a special emphasis in metro
New York, but we have recently found enthusiastic customers as far away
as Georgia, Alabama, and Texas.
As I address this Committee today, I can't help but feel a genuine
sense of accomplishment as I had the pleasure of testifying during your
farm bill hearing in Canandaigua, NY, during the summer of 2006. I am
proud that many of our industry's top priorities were incorporated into
the 2008 Farm Bill, a truly notable milestone for our industry and a
testament to the well organized effort put forward by both the
Specialty Crop Farm Bill Alliance and the Congressional offices that
supported us. As I stated then, and I feel is worth repeating here,
apple growers and the produce industry have never relied upon direct
payment programs to support grower income or market prices. I don't
believe, and here I am in the majority of my peers, that would be in
the best interest of my business or our industry. Instead, we strongly
advocate programs that help grow demand for and consumption of our
products, and build long-term competitiveness and sustainability for
our industry. I believe the 2008 Farm Bill met these goals and would
like to thank Chairman Cardoza for his leadership on behalf of the
specialty crop industry during the last farm bill's lively debate.
As a founding member of the Specialty Crop Farm Bill Alliance,
apple growers and packers worked through USApple in support of programs
included in the bill which are now enhancing the competiveness and
efficiency of our industry. I am pleased to report today on how many of
those programs are helping the specialty crop industry, specifically
the apple industry, as well as the direct impact on my family's third
generation farm, Red Jacket Orchards.
I believe these programs are a good investment in our industry,
especially in these tough economic times. Today, specialty crop
producers face an interesting dichotomy. On one hand we are under
pressure like never before from increased input costs--from electricity
to labor and crop protection tools--and competition from low cost
producers like China. On the other hand, consumers are more aware than
ever of the health benefits inherent in our products and the need to
fight obesity and to make healthier choices. I'd much prefer that the
healthy apple or other produce snack they increasingly reach for on the
supermarket shelf has a ``grown in the USA'' sticker on it, rather than
a sticker from another country like China which produces over half the
world's apples.
Specialty Crop Block Grants
The Specialty Crop Block Grant Program focuses on regional and
local priorities for specialty crop producers. These are being used by
growers at the state level and are tailored to meet specific local
needs. This approach is critical as a one-size-fits-all approach would
not work within the apple industry--as the needs of a New York apple
grower might be different from a grower in Washington State or in
Ohio--let alone across the entire specialty crop industry of over 300
crops.
For the apple industry, these block grants are funding important
projects ranging from research, to marketing, nutrition and food safety
programs. In fact, in New York where the financial situation is dire at
the moment and program funding is being cut drastically across all
state agencies, the only reliable source of funding for industry
projects is money from Federal funds. For Red Jacket Orchards,
Specialty Crop Block Grants that fund New York's Pride of NY program
have provided critical resources for demand building marketing projects
that we could otherwise not afford. I credit the Pride of NY program
with helping us greatly expand our business in the key metro New York
marketplace. We are currently undertaking a grant that will allow us to
build our brand awareness in this expensive media market.
Value-Added Grant Program
Prior to the Specialty Crop Block Grant program Red Jacket Orchards
participated in the Farm Bill's Value-Added Grant Program, which was
our first major award. Funds from this program helped us make the
critical leap from producing generic apple cider, which is more or less
a commodity, to producing a line of value added, freshly pressed 100%
fruit juices with a distinctive flavor and appearance. The success we
experienced in expanding sales of this value added line, which is
derived primarily from fruit we grow, culminated in our investment in a
new 22,000 square foot juice production facility that came on line this
past June and is anticipated to create 15 new jobs over the next 3
years.
Specialty Crop Research Initiative
As growers and small business owners we must overcome challenges in
order to remain in business for 50+ years, as our family has been
fortunate enough to do. As a plant science graduate from Cornell
University I have a special interest in, and understanding of, the
power of science. I believe strongly that with adequate funding our
research institutions can not only help us to overcome these numerous
challenges but also give our next generation of family members the
tools they will need to thrive for another 50 years.
That's why the Specialty Crops Research Initiative (SCRI) is both
unprecedented and impressively effective. For the first time, the
nation's producers, processors and handlers of fruits and vegetables
have had access to a competitive funding program of sufficient
magnitude to effectively address a range of technical barriers that
limit their sustainability, competitiveness, and profitability.
Researchers and extension professionals have created multi-
disciplinary, multi-institutional, and multi-state teams focused on
stakeholder priorities.
The U.S. apple industry has been an active participant in the SCRI
and is pleased to champion this USDA program. A number of projects
selected for funding are already well underway including:
Biocontrol of key pests in western orchards.
Application of modern genetic technologies to improve fruit
quality.
Engineering approaches to stabilizing apple yield.
Comprehensive automation of orchard operations.
Biomarkers to diagnose fruit quality and safety.
While these projects have significant apple components, their
activities and results also impact other specialty crops such as peach,
walnut, pear, cherry, strawberry. Project participants span the country
and include such disparate institutions as Carnegie Mellon University,
Cornell University, Michigan State University, Oregon State University,
Penn State University, Purdue University, USDA-Agricultural Research
Service, University of Arkansas, University of California, University
of Minnesota, and Washington State University.
The SCRI is a competitive funding program that supports the kind of
research and extension activities specialty crop industries have been
seeking for decades. Its $50 million annual allocation is effectively
invested and has transformed the research and extension communities and
the industries they serve.
Fruit & Vegetable Program
I believe passionately that the Fruit and Vegetable program, which
was expanded to all 50 states in the last farm bill and provides a
fresh fruit or vegetable snack to elementary aged children, provides
the best opportunity for a win-win program. As a parent of a 15 month
old son and 6 year old daughter, I see the power daily of teaching
healthy eating habits and providing proper food choices at an early
age. My daughter continues to surprise me by regularly choosing a piece
of fruit over candy or other sweet when given the choice. I guess this
should come as no surprise as Lily has been eating fruits and
vegetables since starting solid foods and has enjoyed an ample
selection, many from our farm. Unfortunately, not all children are this
fortunate and the Fruit and Vegetable program can play a critical role
in filling this need. The other win, obviously, is the expansion of
consumption of fruits and vegetables, something that hasn't changed
significantly in decades, and the positive impact this will have on
producers.
The fruit and vegetable program has been immensely popular in New
York and throughout the country. For example, the elementary school in
North Rose, New York, participated in the program and the results were
phenomenal. Students there tried fruit like kiwi, which some had never
seen before, and even in the middle of apple country many students were
not accustomed to eating fresh whole apples. Teachers, students and
parents loved this program and with well over 50% of the students at
this school qualifying for free or reduced price lunches the school
exceeded the minimum threshold required in the farm bill.
Unfortunately, however, the State of New York recently made the
decision that, due to tight funds and over-subscription to the program,
only schools with 98 percent free and reduced meals would be allowed in
the program. This shuts out the school in North Rose and many other
rural schools as well.
As so much attention is now being given to the growing obesity
rates in this country, here's a program that can really make a
difference, and it is, at least in the schools that are lucky enough to
have it.
Export Promotion
Exports are extremely important for the apple industry, with about
25 percent of our crop sold overseas. While we do not export our fruit
at Red Jacket Orchards, a strong export market helps ensure that
domestic prices remain stable thus helping growers like us who do not
directly sell their fruit overseas. Apple growers use two programs--the
Market Access Program and the Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops
Program--to help grow exports. MAP provides critical funding, more than
matched by industry contributions, to operate programs which promote
American apple consumption around the world. TASC funding is also
helping our industry reduce foreign phytosanitary barriers to apple
exports.
It may all be for naught . . .
While I recognize immigration issues do not fall under the
jurisdiction of this Committee, I would be remiss if I did not take a
moment to restate my comments from the 2006 Farm Bill field hearings.
Unfortunately and frustratingly not much has changed in the 4 years
since then. If in the process of securing our borders, which our
industry favors, we do not develop a workable guest worker program for
agriculture, the time spent here will be for naught because our
industry will cease to be viable. Without workers to pick, prune, pack
and process our fruit, the best farm bill programs will do little good.
This remains, as I see it, the greatest immediate threat to my family
farm's economic viability.
Conclusion
I again thank the Chairman and the Committee for the invitation to
speak here today. I am very proud of the accomplishments that have been
achieved in the 2008 Farm Bill on behalf of the apple industry and
other specialty crop producers. I recognize the current economic
climate is challenging but I am optimistic the future holds better
times not only for our industries but also the nation as well. I
believe if we can maintain the critical tools we have built in the 2008
Farm Bill, and when possible expand them, then our industry has a great
opportunity to grow and thrive. With that, I can confidently encourage
my children to consider joining as the next generation and help Red
Jacket Orchards continue for another 50 years.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Nicholson. I can attest to the
fact that even though my children consume vast quantities of
sugar, they still love your apples.
We are very fortunate to have with us today, Mr. Paul
Platz, corn, soybean, green pea, sweet corn producer from
Lafayette, Minnesota. Sir, welcome to the Committee and please
proceed with your testimony.
STATEMENT OF PAUL PLATZ, CORN, SOYBEAN, GREEN PEA, AND SWEET
CORN PRODUCER, LAFAYETTE, MN
Mr. Platz. Good morning, Chairman Cardoza, and Members of
the Committee.
My name is Paul Platz. I am a farmer.
The Chairman. I did mess up your name. I apologize.
Mr. Platz. I am a farmer, a seed sales representative and a
licensed commercial animal waste technician which is a fancy
name for a manure hauler. My wife, Donita, and I own and
operate a diversified farming operation near Lafayette,
Minnesota. Southern Minnesota's economy is predominantly
agricultural. Corn, soybeans and livestock production of all
types are the mainstays of our area, but a multitude of
alternative crops are produced locally as well. On our farm,
like most of our neighbors, we produce corn and soybeans,
however, we also produce green peas and sweet corn for
processing under contract with Seneca Foods.
I am here to talk about the importance of midwestern
farmers having the option to grow fruits and vegetables for
processing by continuing and improving the Farm Flex Provisions
included in the last farm bill. I decided to diversify my
farming operation by adding sweet corn and green peas in 1993.
I determined that adding these crops would help spread out my
risk and improve my profitability. At that time, there were no
farm program restrictions on fruit and vegetable production,
and my producer history has allowed me to continue growing
green peas and sweet corn after the limitations were put in
place.
We are now producing about 80 acres of green peas and 80
acres of sweet corn for processing. Producing vegetables for
the processing industry is important for my business because it
is profitable. I have discovered through the years that
planting green peas seems to reduce compaction issues in our
soil and subsequent corn crops produce very well. Planting
vegetables also has low input cost for us. Low input costs help
keep my line of credit at my local bank within the targeted
levels that lenders will provide. Also, my paychecks from
Seneca Foods for my vegetables arrive at different times than
those from my field corn and soybean sales, and that helps my
cash flow needs.
Without program restrictions, bringing a new crop
enterprise into my farming operation was relatively simple.
Just sign a contract and plant vegetables. Recent farm bills
have made it more difficult to include vegetable production in
our farming rotations. My concern about these restrictions is
in part centered on my son's ability to start his own farming
career and to produce vegetables under existing rules. It is my
understanding that my producer history cannot be transferred to
my son or my heirs. Individual farm history is preserved, but
many of my landlords are elderly and farms may be sold to
owners who do not produce vegetables.
Renting new farms with history is difficult at best. The
Planting Transferability Pilot Project does attempt to address
some of these issues. Unfortunately, the project seems to only
temporarily solve the immediate problems without addressing
long-term issues. For instance, if my son were to start his
farming career and request a pilot program, he would be allowed
to produce vegetables in 2011, but he would not get either the
producer history or farm history that would enable him to grow
vegetables in subsequent years. Upon my death, not even my wife
would be able to inherit my producer history.
As it stands now, young farmers or any farmer who might
decide to start growing vegetables in our area will have
serious obstacles to doing so. As time goes on and natural
attrition continues, either through retirements, or death of
existing farmers, fewer and fewer farms and acres will be
available for vegetables grown for processing. This puts the
entire vegetable processing industry in our area in jeopardy.
If we as farmers are not allowed the flexibility we need to
produce vegetables for processing, eventually processors will
be forced to close their plants. These plants employ a lot of
people, and as I have detailed they provide an important income
stream for midwestern farmers.
I would also like to mention that my third son, Alex, is
currently working his 12 hour shift as a pea combine operator
for Seneca Foods. My decision to add vegetable production to
our farming plan in 1993 has proven to be a good idea for both
my farm and for my son, as he works to pay for his college
education.
The Farm Flex Pilot Program established in the 2008 Farm
Bill is a good first step toward remedying these problems.
Unfortunately, it appears underutilized. There seems to be a
variety of reasons for the lack of participation in the pilot
program. The downturn in the economy has played a large part.
Seneca Foods has told me that they are contracting for less
production because demand is down all across the industry.
Also, the strength of the dollar relative to other currencies
is likely making imported fruits and vegetables more
economically attractive. The acreage limitation rules are
simply an unnecessary complication. If the sign-up process for
the pilot program is simplified to make the only qualification
that participating farmers grow fruits and vegetables for
processing, I think you will see more farmers take advantage of
it.
Mr. Chairman and Members, I respectfully ask that we all
work toward a more permanent solution to these issues and
ensure a thriving future for agriculture in the Midwest. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Platz follows:]
Prepared Statement of Paul Platz, Corn, Soybean, Green Pea, and Sweet
Corn Producer, Lafayette, MN
Good morning, Chairman Cardoza and Members of the Committee. My
name is Paul Platz. I am a farmer, a seed sales representative, and a
licensed ``Commercial Animal Waste Technician,'' which is a fancy name
for a manure hauler. My wife Donita and I own and operate a diversified
farming operation near Lafayette, Minnesota. Southern Minnesota's
economy is predominately agricultural. Corn, soybeans, and livestock
production of all types are the mainstays of our area, but a multitude
of alternative crops are produced locally as well. On our farm, like
most of our neighbors, we produce corn and soybeans. However, we also
produce green peas and sweet corn for processing under contract with
Seneca Foods. I am here to talk about the importance of midwestern
farmers having the option to grow fruits and vegetables for processing
by continuing and improving the Farm Flex provisions included in the
last farm bill.
I decided to diversify my farming operation by adding sweet corn
and green peas in 1993. I have always kept extensive records on each
profit center in my business, and I determined that adding these crops
would help spread out my risk and improve my profitability. At that
time there were no farm program restrictions on fruit and vegetable
production, and my producer history has allowed me to continue growing
green peas and sweet corn after the limitations were put in place.
We're now producing about 80 acres of green peas and 80 acres of sweet
corn for processing.
Producing vegetables for the processing industry is important for
my business because it's profitable. My enterprise analysis over the
last 17 years has shown that producing vegetables can be very volatile,
but on average, mostly profitable. I have discovered through the years
that planting green peas seems to reduce compaction issues in the soil,
and subsequent corn crops produce very well. Planting vegetables also
has low input costs. Low input costs help keep my line of credit at my
local bank within the targeted levels that lenders will provide. Also,
my paychecks from Seneca Foods for my vegetables arrive at different
times than those for my field corn and soybean sales. This helps my
cash flow needs.
Planting vegetables also spreads out my workload and allows me to
make better use of my resources. The planting and harvesting operations
of my vegetables are generally staggered with my corn and soybeans. Our
farm's livestock operation allows me to meet most of my own fertility
needs with manure from my hogs. I can apply a significant amount of hog
manure to my vegetable fields in late September before the soybean
harvest begins. Being able to get some of my own manure applications
completed early allows me to custom haul manure for my neighbors in
October, which also significantly helps my cash flow.
Without program restrictions, bringing a new crop enterprise into
my farming operation was relatively simple. Just sign a contract and
plant vegetables. Recent farm bills have made it more difficult to
include vegetable production in our farming rotations. My concern about
these restrictions is in part centered on my son's ability to start his
own farming career and to produce vegetables under existing rules. It
is my understanding that my producer history cannot be transferred to
my son or my heirs. Individual farm history is preserved, but many of
my landlords are elderly and farms may be sold to owners who do not
produce vegetables. Renting new farms with farm history is difficult at
best. The Planting Transferability Pilot Project does attempt to
address some of these issues. Unfortunately, the project seems to only
temporarily solve the immediate problems, without addressing long-term
issues. For instance, if my son were to start his farming career and
request the pilot program, he would be allowed to produce vegetables in
2011, but he would not get either the producer history or the farm
history that would enable him to grow vegetables in subsequent years.
Upon my death, not even my wife would be able to inherit my producer
history.
As it stands now, young farmers or any farmer who might decide to
start growing vegetables in our area will have serious obstacles to do
so. As time goes on, and natural attrition continues either through
retirements or death of existing farmers, fewer and fewer farms and
acres will be available for vegetables grown for processing. This puts
the entire vegetable processing industry in our area in jeopardy. If we
as farmers are not allowed the flexibility we need to produce
vegetables for processing, eventually processors will be forced to
close their plants. These plants employ a lot of people and as I have
detailed, they provide an important income stream for Midwestern
farmers. I would also like to mention that my third son Alex is
currently working his 12 hour shift as a pea combine operator for
Seneca Foods. My decision to add vegetable production to our farming
plan in 1993 has proven to be a good idea both for my farming operation
and for my son as he works to pay for his college education.
The Farm Flex pilot program established in the 2008 Farm Bill is a
good first step to remedying this problem. Unfortunately, it appears
underutilized.
There seem to be a variety of reasons for the lack of participation
in the pilot program. The downturn in the economy has played a large
part. Seneca Foods has told me that they are contracting for less
production because demand is down all across the industry. Also, the
strength of the dollar relative to other currencies is likely making
imported fruits and vegetables more economically attractive. The
acreage limitation rules are simply an unnecessary complication. If the
sign-up process for the pilot program is simplified to make the only
qualification that participating farmers grow fruits and vegetables for
processing, I think you will see more farmers take advantage of it.
Mr. Chairman and Members, I respectfully ask that we all work
toward a more permanent solution to these issues to ensure a thriving
future for agriculture in the Midwest.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Platz.
Now, we have Mr. Daniel Richey, President and CEO of
Riverfront Packing Company and President of Riverfront Groves,
Inc., Vero Beach, Florida. Sir, welcome to the Committee and
please proceed with your testimony.
STATEMENT OF DANIEL R. RICHEY, PRESIDENT/CEO,
RIVERFRONT PACKING COMPANY; PRESIDENT,
RIVERFRONT GROVES, INC.; PRESIDENT, GULFSTREAM HARVESTING
COMPANY, VERO BEACH, FL
Mr. Richey. Thank you, Chairman Cardoza, Ranking Member
Schmidt, and Members of the Committee. Also, I would like to
thank the opportunity to thank Congressman Rooney who is a new
Member of the Agriculture Committee and who represents a large
portion of Florida agricultural production, including my
groves, for his steadfast support of citrus.
The Chairman. If I could just interrupt for a second, Mr.
Rooney was intending to be here. He has a conflict with the
Judiciary Committee, but he has indicated to me that he wanted
to be in attendance for your testimony. We will make sure we
get it to him and hopefully you all will connect throughout the
day.
Mr. Richey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In addition, I would like to thank Congressman Putnam, a
great friend of Florida agriculture and a personal friend of
mine. I want to honor him for his outstanding representation of
our industry through all of our challenges over the past 10
years. I would also like to recognize my Congressman, Bill
Posey, for his service on behalf of all of us in the Indian
River citrus growing district.
Agriculture is a major economic engine in Florida's
economy, ranking second only to tourism. We are reminded of the
importance of agriculture to our economy during these
challenging economic times when tourism is down due to the
financial pressure families are feeling, and the recent press
surrounding the oil crisis in the Gulf, which ultimately will
result in a loss of 17,000 jobs and $1.2 billion impact on our
economy.
Our agricultural industry is very diverse. We grow a wide
array of products, from potatoes and peanuts in the north to
tropical fruit in the south. We are a major supplier of food to
the U.S. during the winter months. The citrus industry
represents the largest component of the agricultural industry
in Florida with a $9 billion impact on the state's economy and
it provides 76,000 jobs.
Sticking with the theme of some of my fellow panel members,
this is not corporate America. This is made up of fourth and
fifth generation family farmers. I know I am preaching to the
choir because you understand agriculture and generational
connection that these families feel toward their chosen
profession. Most people don't get that. I am sure you do.
Like other fellow members, Tyler, my son, is a senior at
Florida State University and has a desire to come into this
business. He had a huge connection with his grandfather, who is
since deceased, and wants to carry on that legacy for another
generation. He questions me on this regularly if that will be
possible.
A major challenge to our family legacy and our entire
industry is invasive, non-native pests and diseases. Recently,
in Florida we have endured the introduction of citrus canker,
which is a bacterial disease spread by wind-driven rain. You
can imagine how the hurricanes affected us on that one.
Huanglongbing, you can probably guess where that one came
from, is also known as greening disease which is spread by an
insect known as a psyllid. There is no known cure for this
disease and it is fatal to trees.
And third, most recently, in April we had a discovery of
citrus black spot which is a fungal disease, in a southwest
Florida grove. All three of these diseases are non-native to
Florida. They have come from foreign lands. This highlights the
importance of pest interdiction. It is a tough job, especially
in Florida which ranks second to only California for pest and
disease risk.
The challenge is great due to the 21 international seaports
and airports and the 1,200 miles of coastline in Florida. We
have our eye to the south, as Central and South American citrus
groves harbor three additional diseases that are not present in
the U.S. They are known as CVC, Sudden Death--that is a great
name--and leprosis. If allowed to enter, they would inflict
considerable damage to our citrus industry. We have to keep
these diseases out of the United States.
The Section 10201 Program can be an area of focus to help
us achieve this objective. As I understand it, the fundamental
component of this program was to increase resources to high
risk areas such as Florida and California. The recent
challenges I have described probably make us the poster child
for this program enhancement request.
In the past 2 years, Florida effectively deployed the $3
million received through the 10201 Program, ranging from
enhanced interdiction at our border checkpoints to additional
surveillance along our many rivers and canals. The funds were
used to establish additional electronic signage and an
additional educational video to be viewed by the cruise ship
patrons in our state. I believe that most, if not all, tourists
simply do not know the inherent risk they are bringing to our
shores when transporting fruit or plant material. Education can
go a long way in correcting this dangerous behavior.
The proposed 2011 projects include additional detection
dogs, which are very effective, increased inspection personnel
and resources to detect exotic insects like the Medfly that was
recently found in Palm Beach County, and continued funding to
protect our vibrant avocado industry in South Florida. The
citrus industry is engaged, partnering with each other to
develop regional pest management districts and working very
closely with our counterparts in California, Texas and Arizona.
This is essential to our survival. Our collective industry
appreciates the efforts at APHIS, Customs and Border Protection
and the Florida Department of Agriculture to protect our
livelihood.
In closing, make no mistake, the challenges we face are
just that, challenges. We will rise up to meet these challenges
of today, and we will remain an important spoke in the wheel of
Florida's economy. We do need your assistance with the issues
we cannot control on our borders. If given a fighting chance,
we will not only survive, we will thrive. Your support to keep
us safe from the threat of invasive pests and diseases is much
appreciated, and I appreciate the opportunity for you allowing
me to testify here today. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Richey follows:]
Prepared Statement of Daniel R. Richey, President/CEO, Riverfront
Packing Company; President, Riverfront Groves, Inc.; President,
Gulfstream
Harvesting Company, Vero Beach, FL
First I would like to thank Chairman Cardoza, Ranking Member
Schmidt, and fellow Committee Members for the opportunity to testify in
front of you today on behalf of the Florida citrus industry.
I would also like to take a moment to thank Congressman Tom Rooney
who is a Member of the Agriculture Committee and represents a large
portion of Florida's agricultural production including some of my
groves for his steadfast support of citrus.
In addition, I would like to thank a former Member of this
Committee, Congressman Adam Putnam. Adam is a great friend to Florida
Agriculture and a personal friend of mine. I want to honor him for his
outstanding representation of our industry through all the issues we've
faced over the last 10 years.
Finally, I want to recognize my Congressman Bill Posey for his
service on behalf of my neighbors in the Indian River citrus region.
Florida citrus represents a $9 billion economic engine that
supports 76,000 good jobs in my home state. Many families are third,
fourth and even fifth generation citrus farmers. Unfortunately, right
now our great industry is locked in a fight for its long term
viability.
As many of you may know, Florida citrus faced the infestation of
citrus canker disease and the hurricanes that spread it across the
entire growing region of our state. That situation caused untold harm
to our industry.
But now an even more devastating disease is threatening Florida
citrus. It is called Huanglongbing (HLB) or citrus greening disease,
and it is one of the most serious citrus diseases in the world.
Citrus greening is a bacterial disease that greatly reduces
production, destroys the economic value of fruit, and kills trees. Once
infected, there is no cure. Currently, citrus greening can be found in
all 32 citrus producing counties in Florida.
Furthermore, yet another pest and disease was confirmed in April of
this year with the discovery of citrus black spot in South Florida.
This fungal disease is marked by dark, speckled spots or blotches on
the rinds of fruit, which is a very economically significant disease
for a fresh citrus packer such as myself. I expect subsequent
regulations to control the spread of black spot to affect my business.
Here is the frustrating part. NOT ONE of these diseases is native
to the United States. They came across the border from foreign lands.
This clearly highlights the immense importance of pest interdiction. We
in the Florida citrus industry are living the nightmare that is caused
when regulators fail to keep non-native diseases out of our country.
I acknowledge it is a tough job, especially in my home state.
Florida is ranked #2 in the nation for pest and disease risk behind
only California. Our state is very agriculturally diverse with a
variety of specialty crops from tropical fruit to nursery stock to a
variety of berry crops. This is made possible by our favorable climate.
We are able to produce food crops during the winter when most of the
U.S. is too cold to do so. This is an important function and one that
needs to be protected.
But the Florida agriculture industry has a target on its collective
back. With 21 international seaports, airports and 1,200 miles of
coastline, Florida is a gateway state for cargo and passengers.
Obviously, this creates considerable risk of agricultural pest and
disease entry.
And believe me we are scared of the next citrus disease to reach
our state. They are out there. Diseases such as CVC, Sudden Death and
leprosis can be found in Brazil and Central America, two major trading
partners with the United States. We have to do everything we can to
keep these diseases out of the United States!
Part of this can be achieved through the Section 10201 program. And
we believe the USDA can improve the implementation of the program in
high risk sentinel areas such as Florida. As you recall, a key
foundational component of Section 10201 was to increase resources to
high risk areas of the United States to assist with the early detection
of new pest and disease introductions.
There are many Florida pest detection projects that are of value,
including citrus pest and disease mitigation and the need for better
fruit fly early detection and mitigation tools and techniques that
could be added. There is certainly a need to support Florida citrus
research and suppression programs.
The purpose of Section 10201 is clear that high risk states and
pathways were to be the primary areas of consideration to which to
apply Section 10201. Florida has received over $3 million in projects
over the last 2 years designed to mitigate the impact of invasive
species on Florida's specialty crops and agricultural in general. Key
projects include added resources at our agricultural interdiction
stations located at our borders. This has resulted in several key
agricultural pest interceptions on foreign agricultural products
including potato psyllids carrying zebra chip virus, plant feeding
snails not established in Florida, exotic aphids and leafminer insects.
The Florida Department of Agriculture also established a
surveillance program for marinas, rivers and canals in Florida that
harbor boats capable of international travel as this is a pathway that
does not get enough attention in the agricultural safeguarding
continuum. They have mapped all the marinas and stopping points along
our rivers and canals, have set up survey points, and are also
conducting outreach to help assure that parties who live and work in
these areas are aware of the risk associated with invasive species
introductions.
Another project that the Florida Department of Agriculture is
working on is an outreach project that will increase electronic signage
and messaging at key Florida ports of entry. In addition, FDACS is
producing a video that they plan to introduce to cruise ships and to
international air flights that will educate incoming passengers about
the need to declare any agricultural products they may be carrying.
New projects they are proposing for 2011 include the use of
agricultural detection dogs to sniff out agricultural contraband in
incoming mail and parcels at the mail/package hubs in Florida as well
as our interdiction stations. They have also requested funding for
increased inspector resources to run additional pest detection traps as
an early warning system for exotic fruit flies like the Medfly, a pest
we are currently battling in an eradication program in Palm Beach
County. They are also requesting continued funding to help protect our
avocado industry from the Red Bay Ambrosia Beetle and Laurel Wilt, a
pest disease complex with the potential to wipe out the multi-million
dollar avocado industry in South Florida.
Right now, the Florida citrus industry is setting up Citrus Health
Management Areas where growers will partner together to form regional
pest management programs to control the Asian citrus psyllid, the small
bug that vectors citrus greening. These management areas are essential
to the survival of the Florida citrus industry and would be a perfect
fit for support from the Section 10201 program.
Again, as a citrus grower I appreciate the efforts of APHIS,
Customs and Border Protection and the Florida Department of Agriculture
and Consumer services to protect my livelihood. We must continue to be
vigilant to ensure our domestic sources of food are safe from the
threat of pests and diseases.
Thank you for allowing me to testify today.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Richey. I appreciate your
testimony. As you can see, the gentleman from Florida, Mr.
Rooney, has joined us. He is not a Member of the Committee but
he has joined us today. I have consulted with the Ranking
Member and we are pleased to welcome him for him to join in the
questioning so long as there is no objection from the Members
of the Committee. Seeing none, he will be allowed to join.
Thank you for being here and welcome.
Our next panel member to testify is Margaret Smith, Ph.D.,
Value Added/Sustainable Agriculture Extension Educator, Iowa
State University, and Co-Manager of Ash Grove Farm, Hampton,
Iowa. My Ranking Member, Mrs. Schmidt, indicated to me I hadn't
seen this before the hearing, but there are over three pages of
publications that you have produced in your career. I must say
that that is quite impressive, and we are very pleased to have
you here today to testify. Welcome and please proceed.
STATEMENT OF MARGARET A. SMITH, Ph.D., VALUE ADDED/SUSTAINABLE
AGRICULTURE EXTENSION EDUCATOR, VALUE-ADDED AGRICULTURE,
EXTENSION AND AGRONOMY DEPARTMENT, IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY; CO-
MANAGER, ASH GROVE FARM, HAMPTON, IA
Dr. Smith. Thank you so much for this opportunity to speak
to the Subcommittee today. I am honored by your invitation and
welcome the opportunity to share my perspective with both hats
I wear in agriculture. My literal hats were too large to bring
in my luggage so I come to you today with my two figurative
hats.
My husband, Doug Alert, and I farm 950 acres in north
central Iowa near Hampton. We run a beef cow herd and we raise
organic row crops, corn and soybeans, small grains, hay and
pasture. We began transitioning to organic 16 years ago and all
the land we now farm is certified organic.
In my work with Iowa State University Extension, I
coordinate a statewide Iowa Fruit and Vegetable Working Group.
This group is comprised of a group of growers and others in the
industry, and our mission is to help build capacity to increase
production, handling and marketing for Iowa's fruit and
vegetable industries.
Let me speak first about organic farming. In the 2008
organic Census, which was a new Census focused just on this,
they noted $3.16 billion in sales in organic agriculture. This
has been a growing industry for the last 20 years, and the
market has pulled the growth and development of that industry
again without price supports. The market has been the driver.
In Iowa, we are listed as eighth in states by number of
organic farms with 513. We are probably beyond that number now
and in the upper Midwest, you look at Wisconsin, Minnesota,
Iowa and Illinois, we have a disproportionate number of organic
farms in the United States with about 17 percent of all those
farms.
The increase of organic agriculture has added to diversity
in our agricultural landscape, both biological diversity, but
also human diversity, and this is really a fantastic
development for agriculture. In our state and in the nation
where we have seen virtually a continual decline in numbers of
farms and as we know it, ecological diversity, organic
agriculture helps in a small way to help reverse that.
The Organic Research and Extension Initiative is really a
great program. We appreciate that this was added and increased
in funding in this last farm bill. With the $78 million that
was committed, more and more research was funded, but I would
like to say I still believe we are under funded in this
respect. Only 20 percent of applicants in 2009 were funded
under that research program.
What I think is so critical is that research for organic
agriculture I feel doesn't just serve the organic agriculture
industry. This research looks at basic insect, disease and weed
biology, investigates how agroecosystems work, pursues ways to
work with natural systems to increase productivity. These are
all critical to agricultural sustainability. This work can also
have application for non-organic agriculture, so that we are
getting more bang from that research buck than we may realize,
but we are looking far into the future. It is hard to evaluate
exactly how much at this time. The work that is done now in
crop rotations, cover crops, these items that are critical in
our industry, really can have application in the future for all
of agriculture.
Please continue this funding to OREI. At this time, the
funding is about 1.8 percent of the total funding for
agriculture. The organic industry represents 3.5 percent of
food receipts and we would like to, my husband and I, see more
equality on that funding for the organic farming research
program.
I would like to speak about the Organic EQIP Program. This
has been again a good addition. We were awarded an Organic EQIP
Program on our farm. With those monies, we will increase and
improve our grazing system. We received support for fencing and
water systems, and we had great support from our local NRCS
staff and from FSA as we worked through that process.
There were challenges in the upper Midwest again with that
program in understanding of our USDA NRCS staff in working with
these different kinds of farms. Organics list different to
them. Vegetable crops in the upper Midwest list different to
them. Please continue the Organic EQIP Program. I think it is
wonderful. I think we can improve it. There are a number of
ways that might do that which are noted in my written
testimony, but, particularly, just training for those staff
would help. To your credit and from that program, this has
brought a number of farmers into work with USDA Programs that
did not otherwise have that exposure. I think that has been
wonderful.
Our panel here has covered very well some of the specialty
crop programs, and in Iowa we have also used the block grant
program. Unlike Ohio, I believe, we have a local committee of
local experts that does determine how those funds are used. It
has been great in that it is funding not only research, but
also promotion so we would like to continue Specialty Crop
Block Grant Program as well as Specialty Crops Research
Initiative.
Let me share this: our Fruit and Vegetable Working Group in
Iowa has identified a number of priorities and those include
risk management, post harvest handling and food safety. Another
comment about the Specialty Crop Research Initiative, there is
a requirement that those grants are multi-agency, multi-state
and I would encourage you to think about at least a portion of
those funds being committed that can be done just within one
state. Some of our issues are local and we need to address
those as well.
I am over my time. My last area that is critical to us on
our farm, and to specialty crop growers in Iowa, is risk
management and insurance. We have no crop insurance for
specialty crops in Iowa. The AGR-Lite Program which is a
revenue insurance program could be a good program in our state.
It is not available to Iowa. It is available in 35 other states
but this last risk management is a double whammy for our
farmers. Not only are they not covered by their crops in the
event of a crop failure or market price challenges, but lenders
are wary of working with our specialty crop growers because
they don't have that kind of support. So, they have a hard time
getting financing. I would encourage you to look at the AGR-
Lite Program. It can be improved a number of ways, and since it
is not suitable for beginning farmers at this time, please look
at AGR-Lite. Please expand that to include the United States
and let's look at additional risk management programs and
strategies for our specialty crop producers and organic
growers.
Thank you so much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Smith follows:]
Prepared Statement of Margaret A. Smith, Ph.D., Value Added/Sustainable
Agriculture Extension Educator, Value-Added Agriculture, Extension and
Agronomy Department, Iowa State University; Co-Manager, Ash Grove Farm,
Ames, IA
Introduction
Thank you for this opportunity to speak to the Subcommittee today.
I am honored by your invitation and welcome the opportunity to share my
experiences from our farm business and from my position with Iowa State
University Extension, where I work in the Value-Added Agriculture
Extension Program with fruit and vegetable growers.
I come to the hearing today with two `hats'. First, as an organic
farmer, my husband, Doug Alert, and I operate an organic grain, forage
and livestock farm in North Central Iowa near the town of Hampton. We
farm 950 acres of owned and rented land and raise organic corn,
soybeans, oats, wheat, barley, hay and pasture, and run a beef cow
herd. Our crops are raised and marketed for various food, feed and seed
markets. We work with three landowners with both cash rent and crop
share leases, as well as owned land. My husband has farmed for 27
years: I joined him 16 years ago. We began our transition to organic in
1994 on rented land, with the first land certified in 1997. All the
land that we farm has been certified organic since 2007.
I serve as an advisor to the board of the recently formed Iowa
Organic Association (IOA) that has members from a range of interests,
including growers, processors, buyers and consumers. This nonprofit
organization works to educate and inform the public about organic food
and farming and to help the industry grow.
I also serve on the board of the Midwest Organic and Sustainable
Education Services (MOSES) nonprofit organization. MOSES has
coordinated the largest organic farming conference in the U.S. each
February for the last 21 years. This year, 2010, at the MOSES Organic
Farming Conference, we reached 2,701 farmers, aspiring farmers,
agricultural professionals and organic industry suppliers with outreach
and education about organic farming. MOSES is one of 40 member
organizations of the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC).
I would like to thank NSAC for helping to coordinate my presence here
today.
My second `hat' is one I proudly wear for Iowa State University
Extension, where I have worked for 23 years. For the last 9 years, I
have worked in the Value Added Agriculture Extension Program with
specialty crop producers--fruit and vegetable growers--and with
specialty meat producers on various aspects of their business
development. Part of my responsibility is co-facilitating the Iowa
Fruit and Vegetable Working Group (FVWG), comprised of growers, buyers,
our state fruit and vegetable growers' association, nonprofits,
government, and University personnel. The group's mission is to
identify and work with others to overcome obstacles to increasing the
amount of local produce available in our state and the Upper Midwest.
I would like to speak briefly about both USDA support for organic
agriculture and for programs supporting specialty crops.
Organic Farming in Iowa
According to the 2008 Organic Census of Agriculture, Iowa was
eighth among the states in number of organic farms with 513. The Upper
Midwest is a center of organic production, with the States of Wisconsin
(1,222 farms), Minnesota (550 farms), Iowa, and Illinois (229 farms)
having a total of 2,514 organic farms or 17.2 percent of the U.S.
total. Including the acres in transition in 2008, Iowa by 2010, now has
100,000 acres or more certified for organic production.
The total value of sales from organic commodities in the U.S. was
reported at $3.16 billion in the Census. Sales from Wisconsin,
Minnesota, Iowa and Illinois totaled $297 million or 9.4 percent of the
U.S. total. States with higher value crops, such as California,
Michigan and Florida reported higher sales values per acre than our
states in the upper Midwest. In Iowa, total sales for crops and
livestock, when averaged over certified harvested cropland and pasture
averaged $871 dollars per acre.
Our cluster of states with relative high levels of organic farming
may be, in part, due to Organic Valley Cooperative, a producers'
marketing co-op based in LaFarge, Wisconsin. Many of us in the industry
think that is may also be due to a high level of creativity and
willingness to take risk among our farming population. In addition, we
have had excellent support from our nonprofits organizations, state
departments of agriculture, and from our land grant universities in
these states.
Iowa State University has an Organic Agriculture Program that
conducts research and extension outreach education for Iowa citizens.
Field days, workshops, and Iowa Organic Conference and an Iowa
Communications Network (broadband service) series on organic
agriculture are held throughout the year.
Our Iowa producers have been attracted to organic production
systems for a number of reasons. The potential for higher average
profits per acre is one, whereas some farmers find that the system
better fits their worldview. Others are concerned about their personal
health and find organic systems fit their goals. For smaller-scale and
in some cases, beginning farmers, the search for a niche where they can
compete with larger and/or more established farmers bring them to
organic production. In addition, organic production systems are
complex, flexible, fluid, and fascinating, so appeal to some folks who
like a challenge!
The growing market for organic products in the last 20 years has
provided excellent opportunities for those interested to move into this
niche production and marketing arena. The addition of organic farmers
to Iowa's farm landscape has increased our diversity of crops,
livestock and people and has also increased our agricultural sales.
In the early stages of transition and certification, there is a
`learning curve' to master these more diverse production systems. My
husband, Doug, and I often joke that the learning curve to successful
organic production and marketing is long and steep! Weather plays a
large role in the success of organic crop production, perhaps more so
than with non-organic systems. Based on several long-term agro-
ecological studies and, if we can interpolate from natural ecosystems,
in the long term and with experienced growers, these more diverse
production systems should become more stable. It is often in the early
stages of an organic farm and the farmer's learning the system that the
most support is needed.
Organic Provisions in the 2008 Farm Bill
Organic Research and Extension Initiative
The Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative (OREI) is
the USDA's largest competitive grants program focused exclusively on
organic agriculture research and extension. OREI funds projects that
enhance the ability of organic producers and processors to grow and
market high quality organic agricultural products. The substantial
increased in OREI funding from $15 million to $78 million in the last
2008 Farm Bill was a welcome development! This increase was an
excellent step toward towards providing a fair share of funding for
organic agriculture research. Because organic production systems are
information intensive, the growth of these systems depend heavily on
investments in new and innovative research and extension programs.
The OREI has a huge unmet demand even with the 2008 Farm Bill
funding increase. In 2009, the program received 134 proposals totaling
$98 million but could only fund 28 of them. The appointment of Dr. Mary
Peet as the first ever National Program Leader at NIFA for organic
agriculture has helped OREI immensely through its expansion in the 2008
Farm Bill. Thank you for this development.
In my opinion, some of the most important research findings from
Iowa State University's Organic research program corroborate and
support other work that has found improved soil quality in organic crop
rotations compared to less diverse rotations. Where more crops are
grown in succession or in diverse mixes, soil quality improves.
One of the most important aspects of research support of organic
agriculture goes beyond its application for those specific organic
systems as implemented today. Much of this research looks at basic
insect, disease, and weed biology, investigates how complex
agroecosystems function, and how crops, soils and pest interact.
Research on soil biology, and the link to soil erosion control and
improvement of soil quality, is critical to implementing operations and
systems that contribute to sustainability. I feel that this work may
have excellent application also in non-organic agriculture. Work now on
cover crops, crop rotations, composting, manure management, sequential
cropping, and integration of crop and livestock systems can serve both
organic and non-organic agriculture in the future.
I ask that you continue funding for organic agricultural research
and move toward funding that is, at the least, comparable to the 3.5
percent that organic agriculture represent in our food economy. With
total USDA REE funding for organic research currently at less than 1.8
percent of total funding, that would suggest this Committee should set
a goal of at least doubling the current size of the OREI flagship
program in the next farm bill to do its part to help reach ``fair
share'' funding.
National Organic Certification Cost Share Program
The National Organic Certification Cost Share Program (NOCCSP)
makes financial assistance available to help defray the costs of
organic certification for producers and handlers of organic products.
The Agricultural Marketing Service provides funding to state
departments of agriculture. Producers and handlers then need to apply
to their respective states to receive cost share funds. Generally,
organic certifiers are able to assist producers in applying for
assistance. Producers and handlers can receive up to 75 percent of
their annual certification costs up to a maximum payment of $750 per
year. Recipients must be certified by a USDA accredited certifying
agent under the National Organic Program.
The 2008 Farm Bill reauthorized the NOCCSP and provided an almost
five-fold increase in mandatory funding for the program, from $5
million to $22 million. I have learned that this higher amount should
be sufficient to cover all producer and handler requests for funding
through the life of this farm bill.
I urge you to continue this small, but important, program as you
reauthorize the farm bill. Annual certification costs for farmers are
much higher than they were before the USDA program. The National
Organic Program (NOP) is critical to the industry, and this modest cost
share with farmers helps ensure it is not a barrier to participation by
small and mid-scale farm operators or by beginning farmers. The $750
cap per farm helps ensure that funding will be available to more farms,
regardless of scale. This program, while modest in benefit to
individual farms, is a positive statement of support for diverse,
organic systems.
EQIP Organic Initiative
I also want to talk about the new Organic Initiative in the
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). The 2008 Farm Bill
provides up to $50 million per year for conservation assistance to
farmers who are transitioning to organic production or who are already
certified and want to bring additional acres or livestock into their
farming operation. The EQIP funding helps the farmers to plan and
implement conservation practices that can enhance the conservation
performance of their farms.
A farmer can receive up to $20,000 per year, with an additional cap
of $80,000 over a 6 year period. The farmer is required to develop and
carry out an Organic System Plan or carry out practices consistent with
an Organic System Plan. They must also be pursing an organic
certification or be in compliance with their organic certification.
In 2009, the Natural Resources Conservation Service obligated $36
million for EQIP Organic Initiative contracts. In my home State of
Iowa, the EQIP Organic Initiative in 2009 was initially allocated $1.4
million by NRCS but it proved so popular, that additional funding was
provided to bring the total to $3.5 million for 125 farm contracts.
This year, as of July 16, 2010, Iowa has 77 Organic EQIP contracts for
a total of $1.4 million. Forty-eight of those are contracts on
certified organic farms and 29 contacts are for farms in transition to
organic production. This is a tremendous boost for resource enhancement
on organic farms. Part of our success in participation in Iowa is due
to our Upper Midwest nonprofit sustainable organizations that work to
educate producers about the USDA program possibilities.
We, in Iowa, were pleased to see such a high demand by Iowa farmers
for the Initiative. My husband and I received an Organic EQIP contract
on our farm that will help us implement interior fencing and water
lines and watering points to improve our managed grazing system for our
beef herd. We received excellent assistance from our NRCS and FSA
county staff as we processed our application.
There were challenges, however, both with this program and the
organic aspects of the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP). Before
these programs, many organic producers had had little or no contact
with NRCS offices and their county staff, and many NRCS staff had no or
little exposure to organic agriculture and smaller-scale farms.
Although there are challenges implementing any new program, the lack of
understanding by USDA staff of organic systems and small, diverse farms
hindered the process in the Upper Midwest.
The Subcommittee should mark as a success, however, that many new
producers now have contact with and better understanding of their USDA
government services and that many USDA staff have a greater
understanding of organic and diversified agriculture. It is to USDA's
credit to have made these moves to include more farmers in these
programs. One small-scale organic vegetable and herb producer stated
that, ``after all these years, inclusion in USDA programs helped me
feel validated about my career.''
This Initiative could be made even more successful in providing
conservation assistance to organic farmers and ranchers in 2011 with
some administrative improvements. The following steps could help:
NRCS is working on EQIP Organic Initiative guidance for NRCS state
offices and farmers, which the agency plans to issue by October 2010.
Once this Guidance is released, NRCS should conduct a 3 month winter
sign-up, which will give farmers time to read through the Guidance and
decide which conservation practices are best suited for their farmers.
NRCS should make information available about practices and payments
in a more timely fashion, preferably at the beginning of the FY 2011
sign-up period.
NRCS should ensure that State Conservationists are standardizing
their EQIP Organic Initiative web pages and keeping them up to date.
Funding in the program for education of both farmers and USDA NRCS
personnel about organic and diverse operations, including those
producing specialty crops, would smooth much of the confusion among
participants and support personnel.
Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP)
Although the Conservation Stewardship Program was not part of the
organic conversion assistance option in the 2008 Farm Bill, it is
nonetheless a very important program for organic producers, including
specialty crop producers. When the CSP became available, and it was
clear NRCS had amended the program to an extent to take organic systems
into account, we took steps to apply. We had, of course, to background
ourselves about the program and the differences between the former
Conservation Security Program and this new iteration.
We were awarded a CSP contract on our farm, in part as recognition
for work that we had done and, in part to implement new practices. With
this contract, we will be able to create shallow water habitat for
wildlife, implement a comprehensive nutrient management plan, do
regular pest management scouting, and use cover crops more regularly in
our rotations.
We would like to express our appreciation for this program and to
encourage its continuation and further fine-tuning and adjustments to
ensure full recognition of the environmental benefits of sustainable
and organic farming systems. Because of the inherent diversity on
organic farms and our long-term planning window, these farms have great
potential to further enhance wildlife populations, improve soil quality
and sequester carbon, and implement long-term stable pest and nutrient
management plans that should benefit the public as well as the farmer
recipients. I would like to see this program in the next farm bill and
over time to become a staple and centerpiece of the farm program of the
future.
Specialty Crops in Iowa
The 2007 USDA Census of Agriculture enumerates 1,620 farms in Iowa
producing vegetables, fruits, nuts and berries with sales of $23.7
million. Judging from the influx of new produce farms in the recent
past, I would expect that number to be higher in 2010. In addition,
there were 705 business nurseries, greenhouses, and Christmas tree
farms with sales of 94.8 million. Even in Iowa, known for our wide
expanses of corn and soybeans, specialty crops are a $1.18 billion a
year business. The food crop industry in increasing in our state,
evidenced by increased local food sales, new farm business start ups,
increased institutional food purchases and the new food aggregation
businesses started to fill the gap between producers and buyers. Many
frustrations have arisen among growers and buyers, as constraints to
growth continue to slow business development. With local efforts and
support from USDA programs, we hope to advance the growth of the
industry in the next few years.
Our Iowa Fruit and Vegetable Working Group, formed in late 2007,
comes together to address current issues and projects addressing
industry bottlenecks three to four times each year. Participants from
both the organic and non-organic segments of the industry are working
together and have identified a number of areas that are constraining
both their business growth and the growth of the industry in our state.
These identified needs include:
better information and access to that information for both
production and marketing;
risk management;
post-harvest handling--information, effective systems,
costs, methods, etc.;
labor availability and management;
availability of capital;
mechanization on small and mid-sized fruit and vegetable
farms;
aggregation of supply for wholesale and institutional
markets;
beginning produce farmers; and
food safety.
It's clear that there is plenty of work for those of us in support
and educational roles for the industry! The Working Group has initially
focused our work in post-harvest handling of vegetables, improving
access to information about production and marketing, and the needs of
beginning vegetable farmers. Requests and input from our participants
have shifted our work right now to focus on food safety education and
mechanization on small and mid-sized produce farms. We recently
received a Specialty Crop Grant from the Iowa Department of
Agricultural and Land Stewardship to conduct on-farm workshops about
post-harvest handling of vegetables. Growers are extremely interested
in improving these systems on their farms and in how to do so
economically.
Specialty Crops Programs in Farm Bill
Specialty Crop Block Grant Program
Specialty Crop Block Grant Program (SCBGP) that provides grants
annually to assist State Departments of Agriculture to enhance the
competitiveness of specialty crops (fruits, vegetables, tree nuts, and
nursery crops) has been enthusiastically used in Iowa. The mandatory
funding implemented in the 2008 Farm Bill has increased the funding
available for our state. In addition, the increased reliability of
funding has allowed better planning by our Department of Agriculture
from year-to-year for this program.
We appreciate this program, in particular, for the fact that the
funds come to our state and applications are reviewed and prioritized
by local experts in the fruit, vegetable, and other specialty crop
industries. Our Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship has
done an excellent job of convening a review team representative of
applicants for this program and funding diverse projects in outreach,
education, and promotion for specialty crops. Grants have been awarded
to universities, nonprofit organizations, growers' associations,
farmers' marketing associations, food cooperatives, and regional food
systems working groups.
In Fiscal Year 2009, Iowa was awarded $243,405 under this program
and funded ten projects. These were to:
Partner with Northeast Region Iowa State Extension, the
Leopold Center, and the Northeast Iowa Food and Farm Coalition
to initiate food safety research and quality assurance
activities, which encompasses six counties, to expand markets
for locally grown specialty crops.
Provide marketing materials to identify and be specifically
aimed at specialty crop producers who sell at farmers' markets
in the branding campaign ``Freshness is Our Specialty.''
Partner with Iowa Heartland Resource Conservation and
Development and Drake University to expand the Greater Des
Moines Buy Fresh Buy Local campaign to greatly increase
emphasis on fruits, vegetables, and other specialty crops and
their producers.
Partner with Pathfinders Resource Conservation and
Development, Inc. to provide a Local Food Coordinator in order
to create new markets for locally grown specialty crops through
networking, marketing, and active coordination between
institutional buyers and regional producers.
Partner with the Iowa State Horticultural Society to
facilitate an event that provides an education opportunity for
both home gardeners and professionals in all aspects of
specialty crops production and to promote horticulture in Iowa.
Partner with the Iowa Department of Education to continue to
establish relationships between growers and their local
communities through promoting the purchase of locally produced
food in Iowan schools, strengthen the farm economy, and offer
educational opportunities to improve child nutrition and
health.
Partner with the Iowa Fruit and Vegetable Growers
Association to bring expert speakers to the Iowa Fruit and
Vegetable Growers Conference 2010 to provide an educational
opportunity for Iowa fruit and vegetable farmers to consider
the many aspects of sustainability and how sustainability
impacts them.
Partner with Prairie Winds Resource Conservation &
Development, Inc. to research the nutrient content, antioxidant
content, and sensory characteristics of Aronia berry products
including fresh juice, processed juice, freeze dried drink mix,
jams, jellies, and wine.
Partner with the Iowa Fruit and Vegetable Growers
Association to develop production techniques specific to Iowa
along with utilizing various cultivars in order to support an
extended season for Iowa fruit growers.
Specialty Crop Research Initiative
The Specialty Crop Research Initiative (SCRI) competitive grant
program funds specialty crop research and extension projects conducted
by Federal agencies, national laboratories, colleges and universities,
research institutions and organizations, private organizations or
corporations, addressing the following broad topics:
Plant breeding, genetics, and genomics to improve crop
characteristics, including food quality and nutrient content,
nutrient management, and pest management among other subtopics;
Efforts to identify and address threats from pests and
diseases, including threats to pollinators;
Efforts to improve production efficiency, productivity, and
profitability over the long term (including specialty crop
policy and marketing);
New innovations and technology, including improved
mechanization and technologies that delay or inhibit ripening;
or
Methods to prevent, detect, monitor, control, and respond to
potential food safety hazards in the production and processing
of specialty crops, including fresh produce.
Each of these five purposes receives at least 10% of the total
funding for the program to ensure that one or two purposes are not
funded at the expense of all the others. Priority is given to projects
that are multi-state, multi-institutional, or multidisciplinary and
that includes methods to communicate results to producers and the
public. Matching funds at least equivalent to the grant amount are
required.
I am excited about this research initiative, but believe that the
funding is inadequate to address specialty crop needs. We could easily
use $6-$8 million for research in just Iowa each year to address our
specialty crop needs. Additional funds can be made available through
appropriations, which would be welcomed. In addition, I would encourage
examination of the requirement or preference for multi-agency and
multi-state projects. Although I do believe that these have great
merit, some projects may best be addressed on a smaller geographic
scale and a percentage of funds should be committed without these
requirements.
Public Plant and Animal Breeding for Sustainable and Organic Farming
Systems
We need new stress, insect, and disease resistant cultivars with
greater nutrient density that are adapted to sustainable farming
systems. These types of cultivars are needed, in addition to those
developed by commercial companies, to fully address food needs in the
U.S. and beyond. Increasing plant and animal variety and breeds with
increased resilience, diversity and nutrition with site-specific
adaptability will be keys to meeting these challenges.
This Committee wisely added a new priority within the Agriculture
and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) for classical or conventional plant
and animal breeding. I believe that publicly funded and classical
breeding programs are needed for three major reasons:
1. Only classical breeding or individual selections can result in
improved cultivars for certified organic systems. When I
selected soybean seed for our farm for this 2010 growing
season, I had only about six cultivars that fit our maturity
range and could provide needed agronomic and food processing
characteristics. Where the need for soybean cyst nematode
resistance is also needed in some fields, my selection choices
narrowed to three cultivars. We are anxiously looking forward
to the RAG 1 and 2 genes for soybean aphid resistance becoming
available in cultivars in our Group II maturity range. These
cultivars were or are being developed in public breeding
programs, such as that as Iowa State University. This scarcity
of commercially available cultivars is sobering; I begin to
feel as if we have too few eggs in our farming `basket'.
2. Desirable traits for many aspects of plant health and
productivity, such as rust resistance in oats, increased
protein levels in wheat, and reduced food anti quality factors,
such as lower erucic acid in canola are multi-gene traits.
Multi-gene traits are more readily altered using classic
breeding techniques, rather than by insertion of single genes.
3. Niche and crops grown on a small scale often warrant little
interest among commercial plant breeding/seed companies. If
private industry is not doing any breeding and there is no
publicly funded breeding, the crop is at a standstill! For
instance, in the U.S., there is only one publicly funded flax
breeder, based at North Dakota State University. There is only
one publicly funded red beet breeder in the U.S., based at the
University of Wisconsin. Although these are minor crops, it
would seem prudent to ensure adequate support of genetic
improvement.
AFRI should support breeding programs that produce a good return on
investment. That said, however, there are many minor and specialty
crops that need public support for breeding if genetic improvement is
to continue. The return on investment may be lower for these, but still
worthwhile. Public funding should help complement breeding work that is
currently done by industry and fill gaps that will otherwise not be
addressed.
Risk Management Needs for Specialty Crop and Organic Farmers
Specialty Crop Farmers
In Iowa, there is no satisfactory crop insurance available for
fruit and vegetables. When compared with crop insurance options for
corn and soybeans growers, this seems a gross oversight and neglect of
these important crops and crop producers. Although these specialty crop
producers are eligible for disaster payments or the Noninsured Crop
Disaster Assistance Program (NAP), growers have informed me that the
compensation for losses greater that 50 percent of the yield base and
55 percent of the average wholesale market price of the their crop does
not make it worth their while to even process the paperwork. In
particular, where growers are selling retail and/or selling high value
crops, such as certified organic, the disaster payments based on
wholesale commodity prices are negligible relative to their potential
lost income.
The lack of risk management products creates a double challenge for
small- and medium-sized, diversified specialty crop producers. Not only
is there no safety net in the event of weather, crop disease, or insect
yield reductions, but lenders are wary of working with growers of non-
traditional commodities if they have no guarantee of some minimum
income level that allows for debt servicing. These growers, both those
experienced in the industry and newcomers, are challenged to manage
their risk. Most growers manage this with a combination of direct,
retail, and wholesale sales and with wide crop diversity. Lack of
support to manage risk discourages growers from expanding their
businesses and specializing in perhaps fewer crops. This may well limit
our ability as an industry to serve the growing demand for local and
regional wholesale fresh and processed fruits and vegetables.
Adjusted Gross Revenue-Lite could be a good product for many of our
specialty crop producers and organic farmers. The AGR-Lite whole-farm
revenue protection insurance plan protects against low revenue due to
unavoidable natural disasters and changes in market prices. Most farm-
raised crops, animals, and animal products are eligible. This insurance
product is available in 35 states, but not in Iowa nor several of our
surrounding midwestern states, including Nebraska, South Dakota or
Missouri.
AGR-Lite has some noted limitations, however, that indicate it is
not the only risk management product likely needed by specialty crop
and organic producers. Limitations that constrain participation and
income protection include: (1.) the need for 5 years of Schedule F tax
records to calculate an average gross income prevents participation by
beginning and early stage farmers--those who may need income protection
the most. (2.) AGR-Lite covers only income from crop and livestock
production and marketing but not from any value-added enterprises. For
example, a diversified fruit and vegetable farm would only be covered
for crop production, but not for income from processed jams or apple
pies. Diversified crop and livestock farms that direct market meat
would be covered for production and price risk, but not for losses in
their value-added meat sales.
RMA data for crop year 2009 indicates that only 423 Adjusted Gross
Revenue (AGR) and 401 AGR-Lite policies were sold, out of a total of
over two million policies of all types. Of that total, the three West
Coast states accounted for 339 AGR policies (80 percent of the total)
and Washington and Oregon accounted for 282 of the AGR-Lite policies
(70 percent of the total). Clearly there is major room for improvement
in these policies as well as geographic expansion.
I strongly suggest that AGR-Lite be made available in every state
and every county of those states by 2012. I respectfully request that
whatever is constraining the availability of this product throughout
the U.S. be addressed by the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation and the
Risk Management Agency. In addition, I encourage researching
improvements to broaden the scope of this product.
Organic Farmers
I hope that AGR-Lite (and Adjusted Gross Revenue, AGR), can be
improved so that it becomes the option that diversified fruit vegetable
farmers, diversified livestock and grain farmers, direct marketers, and
value-added practitioners have been looking for. In the meantime,
organic farmers face two specific challenges that Congress recognized
and began to address in the last farm bill. Not only are organic
farmers charged a premium surcharge to purchase regular crop insurance,
but they are also paid at conventional prices in the event of a
substantial crop yield reduction, rather than at higher organic prices.
They face an unfair economic impact--both higher costs for sign up, and
payouts at much lower than their normal prices.
In the 2008 Farm Bill, this Committee required RMA to fund a study
to explore these problems with organic insurance and to find solutions.
That report has been transmitted to USDA. I believe these problems can
and should be addressed now. The surcharge for organic producers should
be dropped and coverage based on organic prices implemented just as
quickly as RMA and its sister agencies can collect the needed data.
I would also suggest to the Subcommittee that inquiries be made now
about the prospects for using a portion of the $2 billion that USDA
intends to re-invest from the recently completed re-negotiation of the
standard reinsurance agreement to fix existing problems with AGR-Lite
and with organic coverage. I cannot think of a better use for a portion
of those recently-acquired funds than to start solving major current
problems for specialty crop, organic growers and a wide variety of
other highly diversified farming operations.
In addition, new risk management strategies and products are needed
for diversified farms, including those that produce a wide variety of
fruits and vegetables, diverse organic farms, farms that engage in
value-added enterprises, and for beginning farmers.
The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Smith. I was happy to give you
extra time in light of your excellent testimony. I would also
like to mention that a few years ago, I was thinking about
raising some grass-fed cattle. I read a book to that name by an
author from Iowa, from your home state, and I was amazed that
he took a very intensive agriculture farm that was suffering
from spending a lot of extra money in veterinary bills and
other things, feed costs to raising grass-fed cattle and turned
an unprofitable operation into a profitable one by actually
raising less cattle but doing it in a more productive way for
him. Now I am not sure that works for everyone, but it was
certainly an interesting read for me and it was very
instructive, and my wife and I started eating grass-fed beef
and we love the flavor. So there is room in agriculture
throughout this nation for all different kinds of production,
and I think that is one of the things even though this
Committee has the umbrella over organic, certainly other
methods and we have room for everything. We can be a big-tent
and accommodate many different methods of production, and I
appreciate your testimony to that regard.
Dr. Smith. Thank you.
The Chairman. We are now going to open the Committee up to
questions. The chair would like to remind the Members that they
will be recognized for questioning in order of arrival. I will
begin the questioning. Each Member will have 5 minutes to
question the panel. I anticipate we will have more than one
round of questions because the number of Members here and the
time we have allotted, so I will begin.
Mr. Angelucci, are there other farm bill programs that
mushroom producers utilize?
Mr. Angelucci. There are none. There are some of the EQIP
funding that has been used by farms to enhance some of the
facilities, but other than that there are no other farm bill
subsidies that go to mushroom producers.
The Chairman. Okay, thank you very much.
Mr. Jones, you mentioned in your testimony that Ohio, the
Ohio Produce Marketing Agreement, as I understand it, it takes
a tiered approach to standards based on farm size. Could you
tell the Subcommittee about that agreement?
Mr. Jones. Yes, the Ohio Produce Marketing Agreement is a
grassroots effort that began in earnest about 2 years ago in
response to the National Leafy Greens Marketing Agreement
Proposal by Western Growers out of California. We saw that as
very threatening because it was a one-size-fits-all standard
that would--is proposed through USDA to envelop all producers
of all sizes with one set standard. The Ohio Produce Marketing
Agreement's three-tiered approach is that it involves all
growers. There are no growers exempted as in the National Leafy
Greens where the small direct market growers are exempted. Our
effort would not exempt anyone. It is still a voluntary
marketing agreement, but it allows for the producer to choose
at what level they choose to enter that marketing agreement.
Tier 1 would be for direct marketers. Tier 2 would be for those
wholesalers who are selling to food handlers within the State
of Ohio. Tier 3 would be those larger growers who are already
doing third-party audits and selling across the country.
The Chairman. Okay, thank you. It is also my understanding
that some of these standards track with the Leafy Greens
Marketing Agreement, is that correct?
Mr. Jones. Very similar that is. There are a lot of what we
try to do was to take the best of what the National Leafy
Greens or the California Leafy Greens Marketing Agreement
Program had. It is a wonderful program developed very quickly
and was very successful in my opinion.
The Chairman. Very good. Thank you, sir. Given in Mrs.
Schmidt's opening statement, and your company's shipment of
products across the country could you tell us what you think
about what the USDA's Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food Program?
Mr. Jones. I think it is a wonderful program. I think that
it complements very strongly the local food movement in this
country. Consumers are much more aware of where their food is
coming from. I do question some of the contradictory programs.
The National Leafy Greens Proposal within USDA is in direct
contradiction to Know Your Food, Know Your Farmer because they
really are not complementary of one another. It is a great
program. Know Your Food, Know Your Farmer, is wonderful and
supports the local food movement within the country.
The Chairman. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Kohl, I am glad to hear that the farm bill section
10201 provides assistance to better protect against pest
threats and that research is also a key part of the strategy.
In the farm bill we created a Specialty Crop Research
Initiative so that applied research could be targeted to unique
needs of specialty crops. Has the nursery industry sought
funding from the Specialty Crop Research Initiative?
Mr. Kohl. To my knowledge, there has been little success
with that. One of the problems is the fact that the funding is
matching funding. Many of the organizations in our industry
that are providing the matching funding can't commit to multi-
year funding because of the way our industry works and in light
of the economic situation right now.
The Chairman. Right.
Mr. Kohl. But it is something that is important though to
our industry, and we continue to work on it within our own
industry.
The Chairman. Let me ask a follow-up then.
Mr. Kohl. All right.
The Chairman. Has USDA consulted with you or other nursery
growers to develop priorities or to help you with the Specialty
Crop Research Initiative, or to try and overcome these
challenges?
Mr. Kohl. I am not, I am actually not the specialist on
this side of the industry, but the USDA has worked well with us
as an industry, as well as our state department of agriculture
has been very cooperative in trying to help us figure out how
to address the threats that we see.
The Chairman. I am going to share your concerns, Mr. Kohl,
with my colleague and friend, Mr. Holden, who comes from
Pennsylvania. He is the Chairman of the Subcommittee with
jurisdiction over that section of the farm bill and the
research section so we will try and work through these issues
as we go forward.
Mr. Kohl. Okay.
The Chairman. But I would like to follow-up with Mr. Richey
on the same question. Maybe, sir, you can answer from your
perspective.
Mr. Richey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Over the past 3 years, Florida has submitted several
requests for projects under the SCRI Program and, particularly,
in partnership with California. Unfortunately, none of those
have transpired in positive results and no funding has been
received. We have had great success with the block grant
program though in lieu of this lack of funding from SCRI. We
have received very positive response and results again due to
the joint efforts of California and Florida working together on
a common invasive pest and disease that ultimately leads to the
death of a citrus tree.
The Chairman. Thank you, sir. That concerns me greatly what
you have said today, and it is important that the Committee
focus in and hone in on these areas that don't work. This
clearly seems to be one that we are going to need to adjust and
modify. I have heard from some academicians the same kind of
concerns that certain research is not being targeted in the
areas they think are most beneficial to providing assistance to
industries. So we will continue to follow-up on this since it
is an area that I will definitely ask the Administration about
when we have our next hearing.
Mr. Richey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. You are welcome.
Mr. Nicholson, there are a number of other programs, and if
the Committee will indulge me, I am going to ask a couple of
more questions because I think it is important to lay the
groundwork for the follow on questions. There are a number of
other programs that we enhanced in the 2008 Farm Bill. One of
those is the Tree Assistance Program. Have you accessed funds
through the TAP Program or know someone who has?
Mr. Nicholson. Fortunately, for us as producers and in New
York we haven't had an immediate need for that. You know, my
understanding now as a representative of the industry is that
there certainly was an expectation that the program would have
been made more immediately available since it was already an
existing program. I think that is where some concern was.
The Chairman. Do you believe the program is working?
Mr. Nicholson. I don't have specific experience with it to
comment on that.
The Chairman. Thank you. I appreciate your comments on
that, especially the Specialty Crop Block Grant Program. Can
you describe the process that New York State uses to determine
which projects will be accepted under the State's SCBGP Program
submission?
Mr. Nicholson. That is directed to me?
The Chairman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Nicholson. As you know, our experience with the block
grant program in New York has most immediately been related to
their Pride of New York Program, and we are very supportive of
that program. For one thing, it has provided us with market
expanding resources, and as I have mentioned, one of our key
markets is Metro New York where we are a local producer and
provider of products. It is a very expensive media market. It
is a very expensive market to break into and make people aware
of your existence, so it has been a very positive program for
us there. You know, one thing I would comment on is just like
all these other states, in New York the dire fiscal situation
has left very little funding for producers so these Federal
funds through the Specialty Crop Block Grant Program is really
the only thing that is available to us right now. Even in the
tough economic times, we have been expanding our business, and
I credit these funds with helping us to really capture
especially the trend towards buying local, so we are very
supportive of how they have been used there.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Nicholson.
I thank the Committee for its indulgence. I have many more
questions, but I will let the rest of the Committee proceed. I
now call Mrs. Schmidt for her time.
Mrs. Schmidt. Well, thank you and going along the line of
block grant programs, this is for anyone else on the panel that
wants to address this but I am going to start with my colleague
from Ohio. Do you think that there is appropriate outreach and
coordination by your respective state departments of
agriculture to work with specialty crop producers and the
industry when formulating Specialty Crop Block Grant proposals?
Mr. Jones, I mean do you have a good relationship, is Ohio
working well with you on this?
Mr. Jones. Yes, it has been, I have been involved in the
Specialty Crop Block Grant Program for 4 or 5 years now. It has
changed considerably, the process by which we use in Ohio. The
Ohio Department of Agriculture, I would say, is making great
strides in working with the specialty crop growers. The
Department has formed a committee that reviews those block
grant applications. I personally would like to see that
committee include more growers. The committee itself is
unbalanced. There are only two growers of 13 on that committee,
currently. We are working with the Department to try and change
that. Some of the timing references that I mentioned earlier in
my testimony have a great deal to do with that. The time of the
year that these grants are reviewed is at a time when most of
the growers are very, very busy, so it is somewhat difficult to
get the growers involved. I think that overall it is a good
process and it is getting better each and every year.
Mrs. Schmidt. A follow-up to you, sir, is it the timing on
the part of the state or is it at the Federal level that makes
the state have a lack of coordination of growing season and
timing for these block grants?
Mr. Jones. My understanding is it is on when the state
departments of agriculture receives official word on how much
funding they are going to have to use and then the RFPs go out.
All the not-for-profit agencies, industry organizations, and
universities in Ohio submit proposals, and then those are
reviewed. Then there is the lengthy process of going through
that entire process, and then going back to USDA, there is a
long time between when that committee makes it's official
suggestions on what projects should be funded and when official
funding is received from USDA. There may be a 3 to 4 month lag
time. By that time, you are through the main growing season
where most of the research and projects could happen.
Mrs. Schmidt. Just to follow-up with you again, sir, what
would be your fix on this?
Mr. Jones. My suggestion from my experience is to move it
back, if it is possible to move that whole cycle of funding
back a couple of months, so that those discussions with the
specialty crop growers are happening during the off-season. If
we were having those discussions about what projects should we
fund in January, February and March versus April and May, it
may help that whole process. Then get that funding or USDA
final approval earlier in the cycle in April, May, June versus
August and September, then we can get those projects initiated
and going. Many of them are research projects that have to
happen during the growing season.
Mrs. Schmidt. Anyone else on the panel like to comment on
that question, Dr. Smith?
Dr. Smith. Just to add to that, although growing seasons
vary across the country, they are not all April to November,
April to October, that if the period would blanket a growing
season. In Iowa, we start September 1, and so if you are trying
to do research you cannot complete it in 1 calendar year.
Mrs. Schmidt. Mr. Richey.
Mr. Richey. Thank you. I would just like to echo both Dr.
Smith and Mr. Jones. I think the block grant program is an
excellent program. The timing is always an issue, but it really
boils down to the relationship that we have in our, in Florida,
anyway, between the industry and the Commissioner, our
Agriculture Commissioner and his intimate knowledge of our
issues. It brings it down to a more local level. The response
is quicker. Obviously, just by the nature of it, the knowledge
of the issue is greater, so that relationship is key in the
success of the block grants.
Mrs. Schmidt. Follow-up question to anyone on the panel,
during the last farm bill there was a discussion about the
administration of the block grant program, whether the USDA
should run the program and decide which projects are funded or
whether the local state departments of agriculture should
continue to award the projects. Do you think that the Specialty
Crop Block Grant Program should be run by the USDA at the
Federal level, or in your respective states at the state level
and any, yes, sir.
Mr. Angelucci. Because mushrooms are Pennsylvania's largest
vegetable cash crop, we have an excellent working relationship
with the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture and have always
had, even prior to the Specialty Crop Block Grants. I think
that throwing funds into a Federal pool would eliminate
specialty crops in areas because of the lack of knowledge about
that particular industry within the Federal Administration,
rather than letting the individual state departments of
agriculture handle those funds and appropriate those as
necessary.
Mrs. Schmidt. Anyone else want to comment?
Mr. Nicholson. I would like to echo that. I think one of
the most attractive things of that program is the ability to
put it into our specific states. As everyone has mentioned that
the uniqueness of not only different crops, but within the same
crops, how we produce and market apples in New York, and it is
different then how it is produced and marketed in Ohio and
Washington State for that matter. I think what makes that
program most attractive and effective is that it is handed to
each individual state.
Mrs. Schmidt. I take it everyone agrees. Before I turn it
back to the Chairman, so I am taking from all of you that there
is an issue with the timing of the block grants, getting them
to the states so that the states can get them to the growers,
so that you can effectively have a good use of the knowledge
that you want to gain from these block grants. I think it is
from the Federal level that we have to get the money released
to the states more appropriately and more quickly. Is that what
I am hearing from all of you?
Thank you. I will turn it back over to you, sir.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mrs. Schmidt.
Mr. Schrader, thanks for being here today, and you now have
your opportunity to question the panel at this time.
Mr. Schrader. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate the hearing. This is an important area for folks in
the Willamette Valley that I represent in the great State of
Oregon.
The first question to Dr. Smith, if you will, on the cost-
sharing system, how do you feel that is working for organic
producers? And kind of a secondary question is how is our
labeling doing? Is it protecting organic produce?
Dr. Smith. A question of qualification, do you mean cost-
share for EQIP?
Mr. Schrader. Well, I was referring to the sign-up system
itself, getting certified.
Dr. Smith. Oh, the support and compensation for
certification.
Mr. Schrader. Right.
Dr. Smith. I think that program is working well. In Iowa,
that is administered through our state department of
agriculture and I think that has worked well. I think that has
been a very generous program. It is, the compensation is small
per farm. The top cap is $750 just to help farmers defray their
cost of certification, but it is a real mark and positive
statement from you in support of the program. I think that is
working fine, and the second question?
Mr. Schrader. Well, it was just about the labeling for
organic produce, is that good enough to protect the brand name,
if you will? There are a lot of natural. There is light. There
is almost organic. I mean where are we?
Dr. Smith. Well, the labeling issue for eco-labels in these
can be very confusing, and I don't know that there is anything
else you need to do with the organic label to protect it. I
think growers, grower groups perhaps USDA, as well needs to
continue to make clear what that means but new labels will
always come along and they will be competitive. The one
challenge I have heard about, and I don't have personal
experience though, is any products coming from other countries,
do they really adhere to the National Organic Program
standards? There have been some speculation that they do not,
and I would like to see a greater investigation in that. It is
hard to compete even with organic grains in Iowa when we have
grains coming from China if they are actually certified organic
to our standards. There is nothing wrong with that. If they are
not then that is something I think should be regulated.
Mr. Schrader. Mr. Kohl, with regard to the TAP Program, my
nurseries were devastated by storms this past winter, and I
have had a tough time with the economy like everybody else.
But, that all together was a double whammy, and I was very
concerned about comments in your testimony about FSA's
requirements. Are they moving rapidly enough to change that to
make sure that on produce-bearing trees and shrubs are actually
protected now under TAP?
Mr. Kohl. They have made a move in that direction somewhat
in that in-ground trees are included as part of that program,
however a vast majority of the trees that are grown in the
nursery industry are grown in containers, and they are still
outside of the plants that are qualified for the program. We
also found that problem with the program, the fact the
Catastrophic Insurance Program for our industry has not worked,
has never really worked for our industry which is a requirement
of being and getting the proceeds from the TAP Program. We have
recently had meetings at our state-level to discuss the crop
insurance program so that it would possibly work for a nursery
in conjunction with the TAP Program.
Mr. Schrader. Mr. Chairman, I think that is an area, if we
could, we should look at in the next farm bill because it is a
big sector of a lot of the states around the country that
nurseries are not apparently able to take advantage of that.
The Chairman. Well, I certainly agree with you. We will
work together to try and craft something that works for your
area and the rest of the country.
Mr. Schrader. Great, thank you.
Mr. Kohl, again, you indicated, as did one of the other
panelists, I think Mr. Richey, about the foreign disease issue.
Are there things we can do before they even enter our ports to
deal with keeping foreign pests and diseases off our shores and
out of our nurseries and farms?
Mr. Kohl. Well, we need to expand and, again, it boils down
to the economics of it. We need better coverage. We need better
inspection at our entry points not only in traditional crops.
Most of our pests that enter this country have not come here on
plants. They have come here on tonnage, on pallets, on things
that are not typically looked at. So, that is really the
important thing because the pests that are coming in here are
very damaging. You know, the Dutch Elm disease years ago
annihilated the elm stands in this country, and the Emerald Ash
borer and the Sudden Oak death on the West Coast stands to do
the same thing in other varieties of plants. So it is something
that is highly important to our industry.
Mr. Schrader. Very good, thank you, I yield back my time.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Schrader.
I think next up was Mrs. Lummis, she has had to go to
another hearing. I would like to call on Mr. Rooney, if you
have any questions, sir.
Mr. Rooney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate
you letting me sit in on this Subcommittee meeting. I have
learned a lot today. I want to thank the panel, and I
especially want to echo the Ranking Member, Mrs. Schmidt, with
her concern specifically with regard to the EPA, particularly
considering the proposed New American Nutrient Standards for
Florida's waters that was released in January and its assault
on Florida's agriculture.
I had the opportunity to go to the EPA and meet with their
Administrator with a bipartisan group of Florida Congressman
and it was very frustrating especially since I kind of feel
like Florida is being used as a guinea pig. But regardless, I
thank you for those comments and again in my home State of
Florida, agriculture is $103 billion a year industry with a
large portion of it being in specialty and organic crops. Over
the past several years, Florida agriculture has endured a
constant barrage of pests and disease as we heard, and that
threatens to cripple our industry.
I think it is very important to have Mr. Richey here today
to testify and share his experiences with the Committee. He is
the reason why I wanted to be here today, not only to support
him and Florida, but also all Florida citrus which makes up a
huge portion of Florida's Sixteenth District. I can tell the
Committee also from a personal level that nobody works harder
for Florida and Florida's farmers then Mr. Richey, whose
reputation proceeds him and almost works too hard, some people
would say. I wanted to ask you this question, just so you can
illuminate and help this Committee understand the challenges
that we face in Florida. Mr. Richey, can you briefly explain to
us how pest and disease have affected your ability to market
your product, both domestically and internationally?
Mr. Richey. Thank you, Congressman Rooney, and thank you
for your service on the Agriculture Committee. The industry is
very grateful for you, to you for that service.
I think a prime example would be after the hurricanes of
2004 and 2005, devastating our industry with the spread of
citrus canker, which as I mentioned earlier is a bacterial
disease spread by wind-driven rain. We had four hurricanes
crisscross our state that year which basically resulted in
canker, citrus canker being declared endemic in our state and
the eradication program was ceased. That caused a statewide
quarantine on the movement of citrus. You can imagine what that
did to us, not only for domestic shipments but international
shipments. My company is the largest grapefruit shipper in the
State of Florida, 80 percent of which is shipped into the
international arena, certainly contributing to in a positive
way to our trade deficit. We were immediately embargoed from
shipping to Europe. We were challenged with shipping to Japan,
which is our single largest market. We constantly have
challenges with Korea for a variety of non-tariff trade
barriers, but this one became another target for them to impose
upon us, and Taiwan and all of, I may have mentioned all of
Europe so yes, we had to work through a lot of that. We were
certainly at the same time very sensitive to our cousins in
California, Arizona and Texas. We agreed to not push the
envelope to try to ship there because we weren't, it wasn't
clear yet whether citrus canker on fruit was a true pathway to
spread the disease. So we do work very closely together with
our fellow citrus growing states and we agreed that threat,
while it was unknown, was not worthy of the risk so it did
affect us greatly.
Not only did it affect our ability to ship, which we worked
through over 3 years, but it also affected our cost basis. Our
typical production costs were in the range of $1,000 per acre.
They increased to today over $2,200 to $2,400 an acre, and that
is strictly a result of invasive pests and diseases so we have
it both sides. On the economics on the revenue side was
hampered due to lack of our inability to ship to all markets,
and our costs on the other side went up dramatically. So it
was, it did have an absolute direct, immediate, negative impact
on us.
Mr. Rooney. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, my time is up,
and I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you, sir, both you and Mrs. Schmidt
have indicated concern with EPA, and while that is not the
direct jurisdiction of this Committee, I want to assure you
that I share some of those concerns. Mr. Costa and I were just
discussing the question of methyl iodide and how that, the
potential restrictions on that product could devastate
agriculture in California and other places around the country
that rely on fumigants. There are certainly concerns about how
the EPA is going about some of these things. I think it is
imperative for us to discuss amongst ourselves strategies on
how to engage the Administration in making sure that we base
decisions on sound science and not upon conjecture. Not upon
anything else. It is too important. The product, all of these
different issues are too important to the industry. We want to
protect, of course, human health, but it is very important that
we move cautiously in these areas so that we don't devastate
the industry while we are trying to protect human health. I
look forward to working with both of you and the rest of the
panel, as well as the Members of this Committee, and the full
Committee, to ascertain what is the correct stance here. We
will look into it.
We still have Mr. Owens. Please proceed with your
questioning and I probably owe you a minute or 2 extra.
Mr. Owens. Given the time and the hearing, the extra minute
won't be necessary.
Mr. Nicholson, you indicated in your written testimony that
you had some serious concerns about where we are on immigration
reform. I would like for you to maybe give us a little bit of
background in terms of the issues, even though you and I have
discussed them before. I think for the benefit of the rest of
your panelists and also for the Committee, what your views are
on that and what you see are the solutions.
Mr. Nicholson. Thank you very much for that question and
the time in this venue to discuss it. You know, our farm is
located in the central part of New York. We are in the Finger
Lakes region between Syracuse and Rochester. We rely, as most
people at this table who have migrant labor, rely primarily on
a migrant labor force to do the majority of the work on the
farm. One of the most immediate issues we have had has not been
with the current, any new legislation but really with how
things have evolved in the enforcement arena. We are
unfortunately located very close to the Canadian border and
with that we have, there is a very strong presence of
additional enforcement in our area.
What is going on in Arizona now has actually already played
out in my community, on my farm, and in Geneva itself where we
had police officers pulling over basically anybody who looked
suspicious. And rather then asking them for drivers licenses,
they were asking them for Green Cards and immigration papers,
not only of drivers but of all occupants in the vehicles. Then
they would hold them for 2 hours until Federal officers could
come and determine the status of those individuals. And we have
documented on numerous occasions where many of those
individuals were properly documented and even citizens, so we
got to the point there where we had gotten to the bottom of the
slippery slope, as I like to put it. Absent any comprehensive
program for ag labor, we see the ongoing status quo as being a
great threat to us. And for those who are using H-2A that has
been good for them, but as they have seen, as well as everybody
that has had to turn to that program, have become overwhelmed
and unusable, not to mention the constant changing that has
occurred. So we fully support the passage of the AgJOBS Bill as
an answer to that, and we certainly would encourage the
consideration of that sooner rather than later. Our top
priority is comprehensive reform of course but absent that, we
are looking for support on the AgJOBS.
Mr. Owens. Thank you. Does any other member of the panel
want to comment on the immigration issue as to how it affects
your operations? Mr. Kohl.
Mr. Kohl. Yes, we use migrant labor, always have. We have
been in the H-2A Program since 1998. We have been a user of E-
Verify Program since 1997. The program is, has always been
difficult, a lot of red tape but we were managing with it. In
the last 3 years though because of the inability to move a
reform bill in Congress, there has been a lot of regulatory
change within the rules. It seems like every year, you are not
really sure what the rules are going to be when you are
planning your year. You don't know what the wages are going to
be set at because where they get them from keeps changing. It
is hard to plan your business year without knowing, I mean
labor is the largest single cost in our operation as it
probably is in many, and not knowing what that number is really
puts it at a disadvantage to plan for our year. Not only does
it make that difficult, but there are many people out there
that are not using this program. I promote doing things the
right way.
That is what we are doing, however we are being penalized
by flaws within this program. The wage right, for example, just
is not the fair market wage in our area. It is much over that
so it puts us at a disadvantage to our competitors because we
are trying to do the immigration thing the right way.
Mr. Owens. Thank you.
Mr. Jones.
Mr. Jones. We also use H-2A. It is certainly not a perfect
process but it is the best we have right now. We are supportive
of AgJOBS. It is not perfect but it is the best alternative
that we have seen to this date. I really believe that society
in general in this country has a choice to make. We are either
going to want safe food and domestic food safety program where
we can control the food production and how safely it is done
here in the U.S., or we want to build fences around the border
and have true immigration reform as has been done in Arizona
where we build that wall and we don't let these workers come
into the country to do this work. Then we are going to ship all
the production of our produce offshore where we have no control
over the food safety. It really comes down to that balance. We
are going to have to work very hard to get a situation that
works well for both, but we are kind of creating a push for
ourselves here. Which one do we want? Do we want to control the
safety of our produce grown domestically, or do we want to
build walls and not let anybody come in that wants to do this
type of work in this country. Any one of these panel members
can tell you, finding domestic workforce that wants to do this
kind of work on a continual basis when it is hot and when it is
raining, it is not there.
Mr. Owens. So your suggestion is?
Mr. Jones. The suggestion is to work together
collaboratively to try and come up with something like AgJOBS.
We are going to have to have a guest worker, a workable guest
worker program then and at the same time work on domestic food
safety. We can do domestic food safety in this country. We are
working down that road. It is coming together nicely. We are
working with FDA and USDA to come to a workable situation where
we can protect the consumers from foodborne illness, but we
can't do that if we don't have a good guest worker program to
grow those crops here domestically.
Mr. Owens. Thank you very much. I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Owens, I look forward to
coming to your district next week.
Mr. Owens. We look forward to having you.
The Chairman. Thanks.
I have a question for the entire panel. The first year that
the block grant program was put in place, we have testimony
that the program was implemented late in the year, and it was
tough to get funds out in the year. I have a press release from
the USDA dated January 29, 2010, where they announced the
program earlier this year. My question to you all is how is
that as far as a date? Is the program working better this year
than it did the previous year? I want to talk about this in the
context of the criticism we received from some of our urban
colleagues who don't understand the program very well. They
felt that the block grant funds were basically a fund for
agriculture without controls. I was talking to my colleague
Mrs. Schmidt about it just a few minutes ago. Flexibility is
precisely what makes it effective. In the year that we have a
new outbreak of a pest, or disease, or we find out something
that isn't working properly, we are able through the program's
ability to augment funds in the specific area that it is
needed. I would like to have you all speak very briefly about
the effectiveness of the program. If you concur with my
statement please let us know so that we can have that testimony
to push back against our colleagues criticisms. We need that
flexibility in agriculture. That you can't perfectly determine
where you need to spend money when you are writing the farm
bill. And second, please discuss the timing of the allocations
and the process by which USDA is making these judgments, and
whether or not this new current timeline works for you all. We
will start with Mr. Angelucci and just work our way down the
panel.
Mr. Angelucci. Mr. Chairman, I agree with your statement.
It is very difficult to try to determine what the next disaster
is going to be as far as research and I, our industry is
completely different than the rest of my colleagues here at the
table. We produce mushrooms indoors in a controlled environment
and we do it year round, so even though we are in agriculture,
even though we are regulated by seasonal farm statutes, we
can't take advantage of the H-2A Program for one thing. Our
argument is our crop is 8 weeks long. We just do it 6\1/2\
times a year, but as far as the funding we spend most of our
industry on food safety which is a big concern. As more
regulation is mandated by FDA, it is going to be increasingly
more difficult for small farms, and especially specialty crops,
to be able to adhere to the regulations and ensure that those
regulations are met and verified. So for our industry, in
addition to doing the food safety testing, we do have other
pathogens that do affect our crops. Just because we are indoors
it doesn't mean we are immune from them, and some of that
research funding that would be available to test for control of
those pathogens will be extremely important.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Jones. We are going to have to be brief or I am not
going to get all of my questions in. Mr. Jones.
Mr. Jones. I would concur with your statement. I would also
concur with Mrs. Schmidt's statement that getting that money as
close to the end-user, the specialty crop user, if that could
be administered completely by the state departments of
agriculture that would be even better, moving the timetable up
so that we can maintain that fluidity and address the current
problem of the time with those Federal dollars that would work
very well.
The Chairman. Let me address that last point. I concur, in
theory, about getting it to the states. However, it only takes
a couple of mistakes on the state level to become a 60 Minutes
issue about waste and fraud with your Federal dollars. And that
is why while the states recommend, the Federal Government needs
to keep a little string attached. We don't want an abuse, so it
is a real fine line we have to walk. We are trying to protect
our reputations and make sure the projects are worthy, and at
the same time letting the states determine what is the most
important. I don't know what the correct balance is, but I
wanted to share with the panelists what our concerns as a
Committee often are as we move forward in writing these pieces
of legislation.
Mr. Jones. Very close parameters from your goals and
objectives, no question. We have to make sure that we are
meeting your intentions as close as we can to the consumer.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Jones.
Mr. Kohl.
Mr. Kohl. I don't know that I can add too much to what has
already been said. The nursery industry is relatively new at
making use of these Specialty Crop Block Grant Programs, and
most of it has been around educational needs when something
arises and like you say, you can't plan on these things. The
water usage through the drought years in North Carolina was an
excellent example that we used. In Pennsylvania, we did an
educational piece on sustainability and maintaining a nursery
in PennDOT, so it is a work order we have used but we are
relatively new at doing it.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Nicholson.
Mr. Nicholson. I absolutely concur with the importance of
the flexibility. I am not exactly aware of any issues with
timing in New York for us specifically or to other apple
industry members. And I did just want to clarify my response on
the TAP Program earlier, the apple industry was very pleased
that it has been brought in as a permanent part of the farm
bill. The frustration was a little bit more with implementation
timing.
The Chairman. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Platz.
Mr. Platz. Well, I seem to be the odd dog out of the water
here. I don't even know what the block grant program is but it
sounds interesting. I am going to check it out.
The Chairman. Very good, sir.
Mr. Platz. It seems to me that it is a way to provide some
flexibility, and that is really what I am here to ask the
Committee to consider is our planting flexibility and the pilot
program was a good start. But, I think we are a little bit
different, it seems than most of the rest of the producers
here, I think that putting that pilot program could be made a
lot simpler just by indicating that it applies to those growers
for processing only. Most of these folks here seem to be for
the most part fresh, maybe some processors, but that is what I
am here to talk about is the planting flexibility in that pilot
program so being I don't know much about it.
The Chairman. I have a follow-up question for you right
after I ask my other two colleagues.
Mr. Richey.
Mr. Richey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Timing is an issue,
earlier is better. We would like to see an enhanced block grant
program due to the fact that everything that has been stated
here that certainly local knowledge is probably much better,
much more timely and obviously we believe more effective.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Dr. Smith.
Dr. Smith. I concur with your statement, as well that a
major advantage of the program is that it does come to the
state, and we have talked about that. The flexibility, like for
instance the work with food safety in Pennsylvania, this is a
big need right now in Iowa and there are some big food safety
research grants available. This isn't our greatest need right
here in Iowa. We need funds right now in Iowa, we need funding
to do outreach and education in food safety. This is one avenue
where we might be able to do that and I hope that there are
others.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Platz, I know as you have said you have mentioned the
Farm Flex Pilot appears to be under utilized. Do you know what
the actual rate of utilization and participation is?
Mr. Platz. Well, I can speak on two levels. Our local
county is Nicollet County, Minnesota participation in 2010 was
zero. There was a producer who should have signed up for the
program but for whatever reason didn't. That producer did plant
vegetables on regular acres and was found in planting
violations, so he will lose his DCP countercyclical and any
other government payments that he would have been eligible for
so that program would have benefited him. On the state level,
at the State of Minnesota in 2009, 4,200 acres were used. In
2010, 4,500 and as far as national statistics, I don't know.
The Chairman. Mr. Peterson's staff is here. Chairman
Peterson was one of the advocates of the program. We will take
a look at and see how we can improve it, both in maintaining
protections against folks using subsidized land to compete
against other farmers, but also to make sure that its
utilization is appropriate.
Mr. Platz. Well, there are some reasons why that program
wasn't used very much.
The Chairman. What are they?
Mr. Platz. In recent years, at least in our area of the
country, in 2008 and 2009 were just tremendous years for yield
so supplies have grown tremendously. At the same time, everyone
is aware of the difficult economy and demand is down for the
product that we produce, and the processing, at least the
products that we produce. So, those two things coming together
have resulted in the processors reducing contracted acres for
peas in 2010 by 40 percent, and sweet corn acres have been
reduced by 20 percent. As it usually happens in these
situations, as soon as you reduce acres, something happens.
Well, this year in the Midwest, pea yield is down significantly
and sweet corn yield most likely will be on my farm. We
anticipate higher acres being contracted next year, and most
likely a greater use of that program next year. So the program
is important to us but it does need to be simplified and just
make it available to those producers growing for processing
only. Thank you.
The Chairman. So you have been affected by Murphy's Law, is
that what you are telling us?
Mr. Platz. Yes, it happens in agriculture.
The Chairman. I suggest that we still have a couple of
years before we actually write the bill. Please keep Mr.
Peterson and myself and other Members of the Committee informed
about how it is working. I think this is one of those areas
that we are going to need to see the full story, especially in
light of the fact that you have been affected by cyclical
trends.
Mr. Platz. All right, thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, sir.
Another question to you, sir, the House Education and Labor
Committee as part of its work on the reauthorization of the
Child Nutrition Programs has added dried frozen fruit as
eligible items for use through the School Fruit and Vegetables
Snack Program so long as the dried and frozen fruit do not have
any added sugar. Do you agree with their actions, and do you
have any suggestions regarding how the language may be
improved?
Mr. Platz. Yes, we support that idea. I think in general
the health industry has long supported adding fruits and
vegetables to the diets of children, and my wife would argue
that I could benefit from eating a few more fruits and
vegetables as well. I think our local school districts, our
kids go to the GFW School District in Winthrop, Minnesota and
the cooks and the dieticians there would appreciate having that
flexibility. As far as perhaps the improving the language of
that, I would suggest perhaps adding the word canned fruits and
vegetables as well as dried and frozen. I have personally
toured the Montgomery Processing Facility and my peas and sweet
corn make it from the field either to the frozen area or within
the canned in 3 hours or less. We would argue that the
nutrition from those products once it is in the sealed can and
the frozen bag never leaves. So I would suggest adding the word
frozen in addition to, or I am sorry, canned in addition to
dried and frozen. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you for your testimony, sir.
Mr. Richey, your testimony with regard to APHIS hits home.
In California, we seem always to be fighting a new invasive
pest. The House Agriculture Committee was disappointed and
dismayed when in previous farm bill testimony, APHIS port
inspectors were transferred to the Department of Homeland
Security's Custom and Border Protection mission area. As you
may know, we tried to fight that transfer and weren't
successful. Here is my question, can you give the Subcommittee
your impression of CBP's performance to date? I am talking
about everything, identification of pests, communication with
industry, how they are doing. What is your take on their
performance, the whole gamut?
Mr. Richey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, obviously we
have seen what I would perceive, and the industry perceives, as
a drop off in border security with the transfer of APHIS from
the USDA to Homeland Security. I had the privilege of serving
on the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Fruits and Vegetables
and it was an item that we took up and was one of the top items
that we reviewed, and one of our top recommendations was to try
to successfully transfer that back to the Department of
Agriculture for these types of interdictions. The record speaks
for itself, I mean after 2001, we have had the introduction of
several diseases in Florida, specifically. I would probably
have to characterize our overall view of it as disappointing,
and we would much rather have seen that stay where it was. And
we would love to see consideration given to sending it back to
what we believe is the proper area, because obviously if
Homeland's has issues, be it terrorism, certainly, somebody
bringing an orange in their bag is probably not going to be of
their top concern, where it would be if it were for an ag
inspector so that is our take on it, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I wholeheartedly agree with you. I have
another question, Mr. Richey, you spoke passionately about the
threat plant diseases pose to Florida citrus. While I am glad
to hear that the farm bill section 10201 provided assistance to
better protect against these threats, research is also a key
part of that strategy. In the farm bill, we created the
Specialty Crop Research Initiative so applied research could be
targeted to unique needs of specialty crops. The question is
has the Florida citrus industry sought funding from the
Specialty Crop Research Initiative, and has USDA consulted with
you and other Florida citrus growers to develop priorities for
that initiative?
Mr. Richey. Mr. Chairman, we have submitted, over the past
3 years, multiple requests and several of those in concert with
California and have not yet received any funding. One of the
things we have had to do because of that is we have had to
impose a tax on ourselves, and we have created a foundation
through our Department of Citrus. We have used those tax
dollars and we have had to redirect that money from
advertising, generic advertising of orange juice to research,
which certainly has hurt our overall success in the generic
marketing of our product. So, while definitely the program has
its potential, we have not realized nearly the full potential
of that program by any means.
The Chairman. Has USDA made you aware of results of any
research that is funded through this Specialty Crop Research
Initiative?
Mr. Richey. I wish I could answer that differently but the
answer is no, sir.
The Chairman. That is very disappointing. I am going to
make sure that my friend, Mr. Holden and his Subcommittee knows
about this. This is a big problem. We have put a lot of dollars
here that they were directed to be utilized in just these kind
of cases, and I am very displeased about that and I plan to ask
the Administration about that.
Dr. Smith, you look like you have a comment on that and I
would be happy to let you pile on.
Dr. Smith. In all fairness to the research community, I
believe that program has been in force 2 years or 3. We are
very apprehensive to put out research results after just 1 year
of data because we can be wrong. Now, where there is a great
need that doesn't mean to sit on it and hide it but----
The Chairman. Yes, but I don't think this is about the
results. I think this is about funding the initial studies.
Dr. Smith. Yes, that is what I was going to say as Mr.
Richey said that if their need hasn't been funded in the first
place. I think there is, I don't know the entire review process
on that. I think the funding is modest relative to the need.
The Chairman. I agree with you.
Dr. Smith. And I also think that forcing researchers into a
multi-state, multi-organization, multi-everything sometimes
constrains the application process. You are so busy managing
people and will you do this little piece, and will you do that
little piece. Sometimes it actually can constrain getting the
research done.
The Chairman. Okay, whatever is constraining the problem,
we have to fix it. I see in the citrus industry, in particular,
but there are a lot of industries that we are going to have to
review how well this program is meeting their needs. I saw the
devastation with the glassy-winged sharpshooter in the grape
industry in the Temecula region in southern California. I know
that it remains a problem. We now have the light brown apple
moth affecting and invading my area of California. I am not
particularly pleased with the progress we are making on some of
these pests and some of the research. We have ongoing research
with pollinators and the problems that they seem to be facing,
and the increased cost that farmers are paying for bees and
pollination. We are going to have to do something about this.
That is something that this Committee is going to focus on
mightily.
Dr. Smith. I would like to please request and encourage you
also to think about that these issues are long term systemic
issues. They are not going to be solved in 1 or 2 years of
research, and that is the challenge for the way we function
here is looking at long term research. But, when you look at
pests and their complex biology and the numbers of ways we
might address them, we need some long term focus.
The Chairman. I agree, I pushed very hard for more research
dollars in the farm bill, and it is probably one of the biggest
areas of failure that I personally felt was that we could have
done more. There were many needs and some things got left
behind, and I think that long term research is one of those
things.
Before I close the hearing, I have one final question and
we have gone over a few minutes already from the allotted time.
Dr. Smith, you addressed crop and revenue insurance problems in
your testimony. As you work with specialty crop farmers in Iowa
through your work with the extension, how often does the
insurance issue come up? Do you have any sense of its priority
on the list of what these farmers identify as their major
problems and barriers? And finally, in your view, is this
problem specific to the fruit and vegetable producers, or do
other types of diversified operations have similar issues?
Dr. Smith. For our Iowa growers most are small to mid-
scale. It does not come up as their top priority, the reason I
believe it does not is they don't even know that it might be
possible for them to get crop insurance. It isn't there at all.
We do have access to the NAP Program, the catastrophic coverage
and it is not at all adequate. We have had a few apple growers
apply in Iowa where that may no longer apply. It is so off the
radar for our growers. Right now, those small-scale growers and
mid-scale growers manage their risk by ranging a wide
diversity, growing a wide diversity of crops, by engaging as
much retail sales as possible through community-supported
agriculture and farmers market, as well as their wholesale
sales. It is a need to the growth in our industry. What I see
is we are constraining these growers to this kind of small-
scale size, and if we do that, we are not going to be able to
fulfill our need for local food that we see grown and not to
insult the growers, I don't. They don't know what they don't
know about potential for some risk management products that
other states have access to. In addition to our fruit and
vegetable growers, again our organic growers are not fully
covered. As grain producers we do have access to crop
insurance. We do purchase that every year, but it doesn't come
close. We can't buy the level of coverage that matches the
value of our crop. We would love to have some other options.
The Chairman. The Chairman is very concerned about all
this. With regard to our Committee as the organic sector
expands into Iowa, are you aware of any efforts to track
organic prices because as you know, organic farmers face
particular problems with respect to insurance. One problem of
course, is with basic insurance payouts because of the lack of
pricing data, and each region of the country are different.
Production volume of each farmer traditionally is different,
and customs and practices in each region can vary depending on
weather and climate and soil. So how do we structure that kind
of a program?
Dr. Smith. Well, the Agricultural Marketing Service is
collecting some organic grain prices and are reporting those
now on a biweekly, every 2 week basis, and that has been very
beneficial. We check those very carefully in our operation as
we do marketing. I think for diverse operations, revenue
insurance products are probably better options than trying to
insure each individual vegetable crop or organic grain crop in
Iowa. To collect the actuary of data needed would be just a
tremendous job, whereas if we did work with revenue insurance
programs, then we are looking at the whole income of the farm,
so revenue insurance is capturing of course production levels,
price levels. Right now, AGR-Lite that I mentioned doesn't
cover income from value-added products, so if we have a diverse
farm that is doing some processing, those vats are not covered.
So that is the way that I think would be a better approach to
addressing those needs in the near future than looking at
collecting yield and price data on every single vegetable crop.
There are a lot of vegetable crops in Iowa, just not a lot of
each one.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Before we adjourn, I would invite the Ranking Member to
make any closing remarks that she would wish to make.
Mrs. Schmidt. Thank you. I want to thank you all for coming
here today and sharing your testimony with us. As we move
forward with the next farm bill, I ask you to go back into your
local communities and get very, very active with your local
farmers. Specialty crops, especially organic production is a
growing industry. My own daughter who is 30+ years old, that is
all that she and her husband provide for their family are
organic foods. I am of a different generation and I mix with
value and price, but they don't look at price. They look at
what they believe is the best product for their families, but
the organic voice in farming has always been a small voice. I
think you need to rise that, raise it up especially in this
next farm bill and don't just look at Members of this
Committee, look at other Members in your own states and talk to
them about your issues with agriculture. Talk to them about
your issues with the EPA, or with the new water program that
could devastate your farming communities. Talk to them in very
simple but real terms because we are all policymakers here, and
while we have a very limited scope with the EPA, basically just
with pesticides, there are other committees that have a wider
scope with the EPA on other issues and just stay in contact
with your local Congressperson, your Senators and make your
voices heard.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mrs. Schmidt.
I want to thank you all for being here. Your testimony was
helpful and enlightening and articulate. I appreciate you all
being here and traveling to Washington to be with us, and
taking time especially as you approach harvest season to be
here.
Under the rules of the Committee, the record of today's
hearing will remain open for 10 calendar days to receive
additional material and supplementary written responses from
the witnesses to any question posed by a Member. This hearing
of the Subcommittee on Horticulture and Organic Agriculture is
hereby adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:18 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Submitted Statement by Michael Wootton, Senior Vice President, Sunkist
Growers
Thank you, Chairman Cardoza, and Ranking Member Schmidt for
scheduling this Subcommittee hearing to review specialty crop and
organic agriculture programs in advance of the 2012 Farm Bill
reauthorization.
Sunkist Growers is a 117 year old marketing cooperative, owned by
4,000 family citrus producers in California and Arizona. The
production, marketing and processing of our citrus supports employment
for thousands of people and generates over $850 million in total annual
revenue. More than \3/4\ of which is paid to our grower-owners.
Given that 26% of our fresh fruit sales are generated through
exports, Sunkist is strongly supportive of USDA's Market Access Program
(MAP). That WTO green box program has enabled our cooperative to
develop and maintain vital overseas markets for our American-grown
fresh citrus for many years. MAP helps in some measure to counter
significant foreign government subsidies of competing citrus products
in those markets and helps to level the playing field for U.S. exports.
MAP is an effective pubic-private partnership that increases
American agricultural exports. The USDA's recent (March 2010) economic
assessment by IHS Global Insight of the effectiveness of MAP indicates
the U.S. receives a 35:1 return on investment, including an average
annual increase in U.S. farm receipts of $4.4 billion.
Given this evaluation, and the Administration's announced policy
goal to double U.S. exports via the National Export Initiative over the
next 5 years, we strongly urge the Committee to consider increasing the
funding for the Market Access Program. The success of this program
throughout the last decade validates the wisdom of Congressional
support and funding.
Additionally, we urge that consideration be given to strengthening
the resources devoted to the Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops
(TASC) program that is also administered by the Foreign Agricultural
Service. This program is distinctly different from the Market Access
Program, in that it seeks to remedy technical barriers to trade for
U.S. specialty crops' access to foreign markets. Its relatively modest
level of mandatory spending, $9 million for FY 2011 and FY 2012, is not
sufficient to meet the demands of a host of technical issues that now
hinder access to valuable overseas markets for our agricultural
commodities.
Past funding cycles have allowed TASC to support a variety of
programs including; the creation and maintenance of a Maximum Residue
Level database for the U.S. and Canada, research related to the
reduction of bean thrips on navel oranges shipped to Australia and the
establishment of an Internet tracking system for pests by the
California Department of Food and Agriculture. Success of the TASC
program is derived from its historic features of dexterity, quick
response and timely action to ensure the flow of American products into
key markets.
Sunkist's production areas are located in California and Arizona.
As western border states they are at high risk for exotic pest and
disease introduction. Indeed Sunkist's growers are contending with a
variety of destructive sanitary and phytosanitary issues as a result of
the large urban populations in these states, the international air, sea
and land ports of entry and the mild year round climate that can
support these exotic pests and diseases.
It is, therefore, essential that APHIS and U.S. Customs and Border
Protection be provided with the necessary resources to identify the
pathways for emerging pest and disease threats and then interdict them
upon attempted entry into the U.S. The funding provided under Section
10201 of the farm bill is an excellent first step in that process. For
example, a number of projects are dedicated to researching threats to
citrus production such a Huanglongbing (HLB) disease aka citrus
greening. Other projects aim to enhance domestic inspection, such as
training additional dog teams. These types of projects, when properly
implemented, provide an prudent investment by the Federal Government,
as their costs are significantly lower than the resource demands
required to confront a full-blown pest or disease outbreak.
The Section 10201 funding is properly targeted to high risk
sentinel states. Future enhancements to the program should not
undermine this focus. States like California, Arizona, Texas and
Florida should receive a significant portion of this funding due to
their higher vulnerability as the likely entry point for exotic pests
and diseases.
APHIS has engaged in an excellent program of stakeholder outreach
and involvement in setting priorities for the Section 10201 program.
Those benchmarks are established well in advance of the annual review
process and serve to guide those local, state, Federal and industry
evaluators during their individual and group processes.
In contrast, the Specialty Crop Research Initiative does not appear
to have operated in such a transparent process. Though the intent of
that program is important and can have great value, its track record to
date can be improved. For example, all requests for research funding
targeting the destructive Huanglongbing disease have been rejected
during SCRI evaluations. These rejections appear to have been largely
technical in nature, but miss the larger point of addressing real world
priority issues that can provide magnified impact for the government
investment in research.
It may be well worth the Committee's time to review and further
guide the process surrounding SCRI in order to ensure that the Federal
Government's investment in this program is being properly leveraged.
Chairman Cardoza and Ranking Member Schmidt, thank you again for
allowing Sunkist Growers to comment on some of these important topics
as you begin the Committee's work to reauthorize the farm bill. Sunkist
Growers appreciates your commitment to the ongoing success of the
citrus industry and the specialty crop industry in general. We look
forward to working with you in the months ahead on crafting relevant
Farm Bill provisions.
Michael Wootton,
Senior Vice President,
Sunkist Growers.
______
Supplementary Material Submitted by Mark Nicholson, Executive Vice
President and Part Owner, Red Jacket Orchards; Member, Board of
Directors, U.S. Apple Association
Fruit & Vegetable Program
I would like to take this opportunity to expand on my testimony
regarding the fruit and vegetable program. This U.S. apple industry has
been working in support of this innovative program since it started as
a pilot in the 2002 Farm Bill. The expansion of the program to all 50
states was a top priority for our industry in the 2008 Farm Bill. The
program is designed to expose low-income children to fresh fruits and
vegetables and it has been a win-win for the apple industry and the
students who receive the snack. For many of these students, the fruit
and vegetable program is their only opportunity to eat fresh fruits and
vegetables. I understand that there are now efforts underway to expand
the program beyond fresh produce to include dried, frozen, and perhaps
even processed products. I strongly encourage the Committee to protect
the integrity of the program and allow it to continue as a ``fresh''
only program. There are a number of other programs for dried, frozen
and processed foods and the apple industry strongly supports those
programs as well.
Section 32 Purchases
Also, in the area of Federal nutrition programs, I would like to
address the changes that were made to the Section 32 program in the
last farm bill. The spending cap placed on Section 32 purchases of
commodities resulted in a substantial reduction of funds available for
purchasing commodities. This came at the worst possible time for the
apple industry--particularly those growing for the processed market--as
the industry faced extremely low prices last year. Though USDA agreed
that an apple purchase was needed they were not able to act in a timely
fashion due to a lack of available funds. The purchases that were
eventually made helped the industry but did not have the same impact
that they would have if the Department had been able to act when the
request was initially made.
Another related problem with the 2008 Farm Bill is the elimination
of the ability of the USDA to carry forward any unexpended funds. The
elimination of carry over significantly reduces the flexibility of the
USDA to manage commodity purchasing.
The reduction in Section 32 funds has also meant that the fresh
sliced apple pilot has not been further expanded. This program was very
popular with schools as many wanted to purchase fresh slices but did
not have the funds to do so in their budgets. Fresh sliced apples are
great for kids that have braces or for students on the go. Studies have
shown that students consume more of the apple when it is offered sliced
and ready to eat.