Rules Continued from Page 1
of any COVID-19 standard, or any infec- tious-diseasestandard, outside thecontext where employees may be exposed in the normal course of their duties, like health care providers and first responders,” he said. “The regulatory process that led to the existing standards clearly illustrated that any regulatory actionwill be obsolete on the day it became effective.” As an example, he said, the November 2020 standards make no mention of vac- cines,whichbecameavailableinDecember. Little andmany others also objected to the standards’ ongoing requirement that
N95 respiratorsbeprovided toemployees. “A requirement for extensive use of N95 respirators in this context is going to lead to shortages of respirators, as we saw last summer inthecontext of theongoingpan- demic and the wildfire smoke problems,” Little said. The requirement, he said, would lead to “denying access to respirators topeople that need them immediately because of a variety of different needs.” For example, state regulations require agricultural employers whose employees
work outdoors to provide themwith N95 respirators when the air-quality index reaches hazardous levels due to wildfire smoke. N95s also are needed on the farm for tasks such as the application of certain crop-protectionmaterials. Revised standards are due May 28, to be considered at a special meeting of the StandardsBoard June3. Thepresent stan- dards are due to expire Oct. 2, unless the board acts otherwise. (Kevin Hecteman i s an ass i stant editor of Ag Alert. He can be contacted at khecteman@cfbf.com.)
ETS, in November 2020. The ETS re- quires employers to develop a written COVID-19 prevention program or incor- porate its elements into an Injury and Illness PreventionProgram. This includes identifyingandcorrectingCOVID-19haz- ards; maintaining social distancing of at least 6 feet unless the nature of the work makes this impossible; requiring masks; procedures to investigate and respond to COVID-19 cases and outbreaks at the workplace; andclear communicationwith employees about all of those activities. During the online board meeting last week, BryanLittle,CaliforniaFarmBureau director of employment policy and chief operating officer of the affiliated Farm EmployersLabor Service, said that science andevents aremoving too fast for theCal/ OSHA emergency standards to keep up. Indeed, threedaysbefore themeeting, the state had announced a full reopening as of June 15, withnearly all capacity and so- cial-distancing requirements lifted. “Weappreciatethat theStandardsBoard isconsidering revisions to theETS that rec- ognize, if belatedly, the reality of the avail- ability of highly effective COVID-19 vac- cines,” Little said. “However, events have largelyovertakenboth theNovember 2020 ETS and this proposed revision.” Little saidFarmBureau looks forward to workingwiththeStandardsBoard tocome upwith a newplan. “The agency and the Standards Board should seriously reconsider the necessity
Study calculates costs of growing organic hay Withdemandrisingfororganicalfalfa, the University of California has released a new study outlining costs and returns of estab- lishingandproducingorganicalfalfahay. UC described organic alfalfa hay as an important ingredient inmilk-cow feed ra- tions fororganicdairies,whicharerequired touseorganic feedandallowcows tograze for part of their forage. Therefore, UC said, organic alfalfa hay “comprises a major source of forage” for organic dairy farms. Daniel Sumner, director of the UC Agricultural IssuesCenter andprofessor in the UCDavis Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, who co-au- thored the new cost study, said organic farms produced slightly more than 2% of Californiamilkoutput in2019—about 900 million pounds of milk. “Demand for organic alfalfa produc- tion has grown, including demand from dairy, horse, sheep, goat andbeef produc- ers, but is still a small share of total alfalfa production,” Sumner said. “However, un- derstandingorganicproductionmethods andcosts is very important forCalifornia’s organic hay farmers.” The study, released by UC Cooperative Extension, the UC Agricultural Issues Center and the UC Davis Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, estimates the costs and returns of estab- lishingandproducingorganicalfalfausing flood irrigation in the Sacramento Valley, northernandsouthernSan JoaquinValley and the IntermountainRegion. The study bases its calculations on 100 acres of organic alfalfa, rented for $345 per acre annually, with an alfalfa stand life of four years after the establishment year. UCCE farm advisors and specialists provided information and reviews for the study, as did alfalfa farmers. The authors describe the assumptions used to identify current costs for organic alfalfaestablishment andproduction,ma- terial inputs, cashandnon-cashoverhead and a ranging analysis table, which shows profits over a range of prices and yields. The study, “Sample Costs to Establish and Produce Organic Al fal fa Hay, California—2020” may be downloaded free from the UC Davis Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics website: coststudies.ucdavis.edu. Sample cost of production studies for other commodities are also available.
CALIFORNIA IRRIGATION MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM CIMIS REPORT | www.cimis.water.ca.gov
For the week May 13 - May 19, 2021 ETO (INCHES/WEEK)
YEAR
3.0
THIS YEAR
2.5
LAST YEAR AVERAGE YEAR
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
MACDOEL II (236)
BIGGS (244)
DAVIS (06)
MANTECA (70)
FRESNO (80)
SALINAS-SOUTH (214)
FIVE POINTS (2)
SHAFTER (5)
TEMECULA (62)
IMPERIAL (87)
THIS YEAR LAST YEAR AVG. YEAR % FROM AVG.
1.43 .89 1.19 19
1.62 1.15 1.51 8
1.95 1.80 1.81 8
1.96 1.67 1.65 19
1.49 1.21 1.53 -3
1.69 1.35 1.61 4
1.85 1.68 1.65 13
1.06 1.47 1.13 -7
.83 1.07 1.19 -31
2.28 2.05 2.05 11
W eekly reference evapotranspiration (ETo) is the rate of water use (evapotranspiration—the sum of soil evaporation and crop transpiration) for healthy pasture grass. Multiplying ETo by the appropriate “crop coefficient” gives estimates of the ET for other crops. For example, assume ETo on June 15 is 0.267 inches and the crop coefficient for corn on that day is 1.1. Multiplying ETo by the coefficient (0.26 inches x 1.1) results in a corn ET of 0.29 inches. This
information is useful in determining the amount and timing of irriga- tion water. Contact Richard Snyder, UC Davis, for information on coefficients, 530-752-4628. The 10 graphs provide weekly ETo rates for selected areas for average year, last year and this year. The ETo information is provided by the California Irrigation Management Information System (CIMIS) of the California Department of Water Resources.
For information contact the DWR district office or DWR state headquarters:
SACRAMENTO HEADQUARTERS: 916-651-9679 • 916-651-7218
NORTHERN REGION: Red Bluff 530-529-7301
NORTH CENTRAL REGION: West Sacramento 916-376-9630
SOUTH CENTRAL REGION:
SOUTHERN REGION:
Fresno 559-230-3334
Glendale 818-500-1645 x247 or x243
18 Ag Alert May 26, 2021
Powered by FlippingBook