Ag Alert November 4, 2026

Ag Alert is the newspaper of the California Farm Bureau Federation, reaching Farm Bureau agricultural and collegiate members. Agricultural members are owners and decision-makers on California farms and ranches. The California Farm Bureau Federation is a non-governmental, non-profit, voluntary membership organization whose purpose is to protect and promote agricultural interests throughout the state of California and to find solutions to the problems of the farm, the farm home and the rural community. Farm Bureau is California's largest farm organization, comprised of 53 county Farm Bureaus. Farm Bureau strives to protect and improve the ability of farmers and ranchers engaged in production agriculture to provide a reliable supply of food and fiber through responsible stewardship of California's resources.

Telling ‘the real story’ Ventura County crop report looks at costs to farm, not just revenue

Sweet potato sales The root vegetable is no longer just for Thanksgiving

Page 3

Page 6

www.cfbf.com • www.agalert.com NOVEMBER 4, 2026

The Newspaper for California Agriculture

Vegetables Dairy & Livestock

special reports

By Caleb Hampton California walnut growers face the pros- pect of another year in the red as harvest wraps up this month and handlers market the new crop. Despite increased walnut prices, industry experts said growers could struggle to break even due to rising pro- duction costs and low yields. On Oct. 1, the U.S. Department of Ag- riculture estimated the state’s crop at 680,000 tons, down 16% from last year. Don Barton, president of Escalon-based GoldRiver Orchards, a walnut grower, pro- cessor and shipper in San Joaquin County, said the company was set to receive its last walnut loads of the season this week. “We’re receiving the end-of-season trickles,” said Barton, who handles walnuts from throughout the Central Valley. Yields were especially down in the Sacramento Valley and in the industry-leading Chan- dler variety, he said. Sutter County grower Ranjit Davit esti- mated his walnut crop came in 20% to 30% below average. “We saw smaller-sized nuts,” Davit said. Inconsistent chill hours during winter and varying temperatures in the spring caused uneven pollination and a lighter nut set, according to an October report from the California Walnut Board and Commission. Bikram Hundal, vice president of op- erations for Earlimart-based Sequoia Nut Company/Custom Almonds LLC, a grow- er, processor and shipper in Tulare County, said he thought the low yields also reflect- ed reduced spending by farmers on crop maintenance and materials. “If you’re not making money on the farm, you will not be putting any inputs into the orchards,” Hundal said. “Of course, the production will be impacted.” Last month’s USDA forecast resulted in a “shock” in the market, Barton said, with prices jumping in response to the small crop. “That certainly slowed down the market,” he said. “There has been some See WALNUTS, Page 14 Soaring costs and low yield dampen walnut prospects

California farmers explore seaweed crop Gary Fleener, senior director of science and policy for Marin County-based Hog Island Oyster Co., left, and Riley Zajon, the company’s quality assur- ance manager, pull a container of oysters out of the water. The seaweed grows naturally on the equipment and is harvested for food and other uses.

By Manola Secaira

Gary Fleener, the company’s senior di- rector of science and policy, stands atop a small motorboat to receive the baskets. Today, the duo isn’t looking for seaweed. They’re collecting the oysters as part of on- going work to monitor their health. But there’s so much seaweed that it’s hard to avoid. “We can go out and pick 500 pounds

of wet weight (seaweed), and somebody would come in behind us and not know” that they picked anything, Fleener said, gesturing to a pile of equipment covered in sea lettuce. Seaweed grows naturally on the compa- ny’s oyster-farming equipment. In 2022, Hog Island received a permit to harvest

It’s just past sunrise when Riley Zajon, a quality assurance manager with Marin County-based Hog Island Oyster Co., wades into Tomales Bay to fish out some oyster baskets. As she dredges them out of the water, different varieties of seaweed— mainly nori, sea lettuce and ogo—cling to the equipment.

See SEAWEED, Page 16

n e w s p a p e r

Commentary.................................2 From the Fields........................4-5 Vegetables................................ 6-7 Classifieds........................... 17-19 Inside

Published by

C ommentary

Lessons learned from being a dot on bankruptcy map

By Jenny Lester Moffitt This past August, the National Associ- ation of State Departments of Agriculture and the National Agricultural Law Center launched Data on Economic and Bank- ruptcy Trends in Agriculture, or DEBT, mapping both Chapter 11 and Chapter 12 agricultural bankruptcies to provide a more comprehensive picture of farm fi- nancial distress. There are 1,401 dots on that map repre- senting bankruptcies filed since 2021. My family’s farm is one of them. My family has

Ye a r s of finan- cial and marketing challenges, a devastat- ing fire and a trade war that de- pressed the walnut ma r k e t pushed the farm into ser i ous financial distress. In 2020, my dad faced a decision no farmer wants to make. Liquidating would have been simpler. Instead, he chose bankruptcy. He chose restructuring, court hearings, land sales and years of uncertainty because bankruptcy offered something liquidation did not: a chance to keep farming, produc- ing food, employing people and caring for the land. He fought to save the farm until he could fight no longer. My dad died in September 2025. Over the past year, facing foreclosure, I’ve had the difficult responsibility of winding down what remained. We sold the home ranch. We auctioned equipment, and we said goodbye to cherished employees who worked with our family for decades. Those are the visible losses when a farm fails. But there are others that don’t appear on a bankruptcy filing. We lose knowledge accumulated over generations. We lose jobs and customers for local businesses. We lose relationships between farmers and communities. We risk losing investments made over decades

work. When you are doing something you deeply believe in and love, it makes a world of difference. 5. Cultivate community. Our employees, our customers, our neighbors, the research- ers and fellow farmers we worked with, and the residents of our town meant every- thing to us. In good times and bad, people showed up for one another. We helped each other out. Community matters. 6. Live with integrity and honesty. In farm- ing, some of the most important agreements are still made with a handshake. Your word matters. How you treat people matters. The deed may have changed hands, but the lessons endure. And they are les- sons for agricultural policy at a time when American agriculture is at a crossroads. If we truly value what farms and farmers provide, we cannot wait until bankruptcy to decide they are worth saving. We need strong markets, earlier financial and busi- ness support, conservation investments that strengthen economic resilience, better tools for managing debt and realistic pathways for the next generation to remain on the land. The DEBT map helps us see the scale of the challenge. But we should never mis- take the dots for the story. Those dots are farmers. Families. Em- ployees. Communities. Our farm is one of them. We lost the land. We lost the business. We lost my dad. But we did not lose what the farm taught us. And one way to honor those lessons is to do everything we can to keep more farms from becoming dots on the map. Jenny Lester Moffitt is vice president of farmland protection and strategic priorities for American Farmland Trust. She served as undersecretary of marketing and regulatory programs at the U.S. Department of Agriculture from 2021-2025. She can be reached at jmoffitt@farmland.org.

in soil, conserva- tion and steward- ship. And sometimes we lose an- other fam- ily from agriculture altogether. Those losses are difficult— s o m e - t i m e s impossi- b l e—t o rebuild.

Jan. 2021-June 2026

Puerto Rico

Cases

Chapter 11 reorganization Chapter 12 family farm or fisherman

1 3 10

California had 22 Chapter 11 and 73 Chapter 12 cases, the highest bankruptcy case total in the nation from January 2021 to June 2026.

farmed in Califor- nia since 1883, first in the Santa Clara Valley and later in Winters. My dad was a fourth-gen- eration farmer. I am the fifth.

Last week, six years after first filing for bankruptcy, we paid off the bank in full. It marked the end of a long and difficult chapter. But as I’ve reflected on the loss of our family farm, I’ve also thought a lot about what remains: the lessons that I have learned from my father and from the land we worked so hard to sustain. Lessons like: 1. Be patient. Like a tree grown from a seedling or rebuilding organic matter in the soil, some of the most important results take time. 2. Persevere. A bad crop year, a market collapse, a bad fire during harvest—life will throw you curveballs. What matters most is how you respond, adapt and keep moving forward. 3. Take a systems approach. There is rarely a single—or simple—solution to our biggest challenges. In fact, everything is connected. Treat one pest and you may disrupt the predators that kept another in check. Lasting solutions require us to un- derstand the whole system. 4. Work with purpose and passion. Farming is hard work. And, to borrow a term my husband often uses, it is also heart

Jenny Lester Moffitt

For nearly 50 years, our family farm grew walnuts while caring for the land. For 35 years, we operated one of the nation’s largest organic walnut processing opera- tions, at one point employing 38 people and purchasing walnuts from more than 60 other growers. Our home ranch was the heart of it all. It was where I grew up, where I worked alongside my dad for 10 years, and where I learned the importance of both economic and environmental sustainability. It was where my dad constantly experimented with ways to farm better—from organic pest management and healthy soils to biochar, water recycling and renewable energy. And it was a place where farmers, researchers, policymakers and students came to see what we were doing and learn alongside us. It was a thriving farm and a living laboratory. And yet it still failed.

VOL. 53, NO. 21

November 4, 2026

AG ALERT ® newspaper is an official publication of the CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU • CFBF.COM Printed on recycled paper

@cafarmbureau @cafarmbureau @cafarmbureau @cafarmbureau

@cafarmbureau agalert.com

POSTMASTER: Send address changes to AG ALERT, 2600 River Plaza Dr., Sacramento, CA 95833. The California Farm Bureau does not assume responsibility for statements by advertisers or for products advertised in AG ALERT nor does the Federation assume responsibility for statements or expressions of opinion other than in editorials or in articles showing authorship by an officer, director, or employee of the California Farm Bureau Federation or its affiliates. No alcohol, tobacco or political advertising will be accepted. Shannon Douglass, President Shaun Crook, First Vice President Ron Peterson, Second Vice President BOARD OF DIRECTORS: (District 1) Neil Nagata; (2) Richard Schmid; (3) Mark Lopez; (4)

Steven Fenaroli – Managing Director of Public Affairs and Communications

Represented in the East and Midwest by J.L. Farmakis, Inc. Eastern office: Bill Farmakis 24 East Ave, Box 1350, New Canaan, CT 06840, Phone: (203) 834-8832, Fax: (203) 834-8825. Ryder Farmakis 85 John St., Apt 2A, New York, NY 10038, (203) 404-0873. Midwest office: Brenda Murphy W8611 Kent Rd, Poynette, WI 53955, (608) 690-3688. Bob Brunker 8209 NW 81st Ct., Kansas City, MO 64152, (816) 746-8814. Jennifer Saylor 8426 N. Winfield Ave., Kansas City, MO 64153, (816) 912-2804. Laura Rustmann, 901 Lands End Cir, St. Charles MO 63304, (636) 238-8548. AG ALERT (issn 0161-5408) is published biweekly by the California Farm Bureau, 2600 River Plaza Dr., Sacramento CA 95833 (916) 561-5570. Periodicals postage paid at Sacramento, California.

Kevin Merrill; (5) John Moore; (6) Roger Everett; (7) Lorna Roush; (8) April England; (9) Jay Mahil; (10) Jan Garrod; (11) Jeff Dittmer; (12) Steve Kafka; (13) Joey Gonsalves; (14) Joe Fischer; (15) Clark Becker; (16) Garrett Driver; (17) Johnnie White; (18) Daniel Suenram; (19) Taylor Hagata; (20) Martin Spannaus; (21) Ronald Vevoda; (Young Farmers & Ranchers Committee Chair) August D’Amato. ADVISORY MEMBERS: Jenny Holtermann, Chair, CFB Rural Health Department; Glenda Humiston, University of California Cooperative Extension. LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: Send to agalert@cfbf. com or Ag Alert, Attn: Editor, 2600 River Plaza Drive, Sacramento, CA 95833. Include name, address, phone number, email address; 250-word limit.

Ching Lee – Senior Editor Caleb Hampton – Editor Manola Secaira – Staff Writer

Shawn Collins – Production Designer Sam Adams – Multimedia Specialist GENERAL INFORMATION: (916) 561-5570 agalert@cfbf.com ADVERTISING: Mariah Fellows – Sales Manager (916) 561-5575 Antonio Muniz – Sales Coordinator Classifieds: (916) 561-5570, 2600 River Plaza Dr., Sacramento, CA 95833.

If you or someone you know is in crisis, call or text 988 or visit 988lifeline.org

2 Ag Alert November 4, 2026

County’s record crop values describe ‘only half the story’

“You could have a banner year and still lose money,” she said. Ventura County farmer Will Terry, who grows strawberries and other crops, said the inclusion of production costs rep- resents “the most important change to the crop report in years,” as the informa- tion “adds a dose of reality” to a false per- ception that Ventura County agriculture is thriving just because gross revenues continue to rise. “As farmers know all too well, capi- tal-intensive, low-margin businesses get

hit particularly hard by cost inflation,” he said. “I expect the 2026 crop report to look even worse as costs continue to outpace revenues.” The county reported that avocado grow- ers earned about 5 cents for every dollar in sales last year. Celery growers retained about 1 cent per dollar of revenue after esti- mated production expenses, while pepper revenue also slightly exceeded production costs, with growers earning about 3 cents for every dollar generated.

By Ching Lee Ventura County farmers and ranchers generated a record $2.41 billion in gross production value in 2025, but cost esti- mates in the county’s annual crop report indicate that growers of some major com- modities earned little or nothing after pro- duction expenses. The report, titled “Making Cents of Ag- ricultural Production,” found that produc- tion costs consumed an estimated $1.01 for every dollar in strawberry revenue, leaving growers with no return. Lemon growers faced an even larger shortfall, spending an estimated $1.12 for every dollar earned. The county’s record crop value—which rose 4% from 2024’s $2.3 billion—masks mounting financial pressures on growers, warned Louise Lampara, CEO of Farm Bu- reau of Ventura County. “We’re always fighting that perception that farmers are rich because the gross (revenue) is so high,” she said. “That’s only half the story. That’s not even the real story.” By including the cost estimates asso- ciated with producing a crop and the net return to growers, the 2025 Ventura Coun- ty crop and livestock report represents a departure from traditional crop reports, which typically provide only the gross rev- enue of agricultural commodities. But gross crop values alone do not provide a detailed picture of agricultural economics, Lampara said, as gross value measures the value of production before expenses and does not represent grow- ers’ profits. Ventura County Agricultural Commis- sioner Korinne Bell said growers have complained for years that publishing a crop’s gross revenue does nothing to illu- minate how much it costs to farm. “It gives a false picture of what’s going on,” she said, adding that the inclusion of production costs and growers’ estimat- ed net return in the crop report “became an opportunity to tell a story that hadn’t been told.” Using the report’s production-cost data, Farm Bureau of Ventura County estimat- ed that real net returns across major com- modity groups have declined about 80% since 2015. Strawberries remained the county’s leading commodity, with a gross value of about $808 million, up 14% from the pre- vious year. Nursery stock rose 21% to $225 million, while raspberry value climbed 36% to $220 million. Lemon value in- creased 54% to nearly $182 million. But higher production values did not necessarily translate into stronger returns for growers, analysis by Farm Bureau of Ventura County found. Strawberry production costs exceed- ed the crop’s gross revenue by about $8 million in 2025. Lemon production costs totaled an estimated $203.5 million, com- pared with $181.7 million in gross revenue. Bell said she knew lemons have not

been profitable for growers, but she was still surprised to see that they lost 12 cents for every dollar generated. The data for strawberries were more shocking, she said, because the crop posted its highest value on record, yet growers still lost an estimat- ed 1 cent for every dollar in revenue after production costs.

See COSTS, Page 12

Leave More Than Land — Leave Hope

The greatest legacy isn’t just what you leave — it’s what you make possible.

Create steady income for life, provide security for your family and give hope to find a cure for cancer for patients everywhere.

Scan to Receive Your Free Guide

November 4, 2026 Ag Alert 3

From the Fields ®

Bryan Van Groningen San Joaquin County farmer

Steven Springer Yuba County farmer

Our family is centralized in a few different crops. We sell watermelons under the Yosemite Fresh label and pumpkins under the Pamper’d Farms label. We also grow al- monds, and we have some field crops like wheat and alfalfa. And we raise beef cattle. Pumpkins were hot and heavy with harvest leading up to Halloween. We grow about 50 different varieties of pumpkins that are shipped up and down the state and as far as Utah. We harvested most of our regular, carving-size pump- kins. Our ornamental varieties that are smaller were harvested back in August, September and into October. The crop looks good. Yields are running slightly above average. The weather this past year was conducive to pumpkin production. We didn’t have too much extreme heat. Our watermelon crop was very good as well. We’re at the very tail end of watermelon harvest. Everything is done by hand labor. Our crews start with watermelon harvest in June and they continue all the way through the end of October. Pumpkins have to be handled carefully. They can’t have broken stems or scars from lying in the field. It’s like a beauty contest. We send some of our off-grade pumpkins and watermelons to our feedlot for the cattle and to some local dairies. We just finished almond harvest and are getting ready to do some postharvest ac- tivities like pruning, fertilizing and preparing the trees to go into dormancy. Our almond crop was down maybe 10% to 20%. We had some really poor pollination weather. The whole state was down, so that drove prices up, which makes up for it a little bit. We have a long season. We’re almost through it, and we’re thankful to make it through another year. We’re thankful we’ve had good weather this year and good yields in some of our crops.

I just finished my walnut harvest and started harvesting persimmons. I grow four varieties of English walnuts. Walnut harvest was a little rough. Yields were off probably 15%. The size is off, and the meat yields are down. I think the heat in the summertime and the extended bloom in the spring came back to bite us. The walnut market doesn’t sound like it’s very good. The last word I got was prices were maybe the same as last year. That isn’t enough to make it, with all the inputs being super high this year. Fertilizer prices are up, and now this fuel price right through our harvest when we’re burning the most. It adds up. The persimmon crop looks decent. I’ve got about 24 acres of persimmons, which are split pretty much evenly between the fuyu and hachiya varieties. There’s a little bit of sunburn from the heat, but overall it looks fairly decent this year. I would say yields are average. Quality is a little better in the hachiyas. I sell the persimmons right here at the ranch. I’ve had a lot of phone calls the last two weeks—people wanting me to get started. I just don’t have enough employees to do the walnuts and persimmons at the same time. I always start a little behind everybody because of my walnut harvest. I’ve got some pretty good orders through the first seven to 10 days. It looks strong right now. Our biggest customer is a wholesaler who sells the persimmons to grocery stores. Persimmon harvest will go probably through Thanksgiving. I kept my price the same as last year. I’m selling a 40-pound box of fuyu persimmons for $28 and hachiya persimmons for $24. I feel like if I raise it too much, I’ll lose some sales. You’ve got to find a happy medium between making a dollar and leaving them out on the tree.

Jim Spinetta Amador County winegrape grower

I help my brother farm 100 acres of winegrapes in Amador County. Our harvest is complete. Now it’s time to go through and fix the trailers, repaint them and wash out the bins—preventive mainte- nance. The vines are getting a nice drink of water from the rain. We’ll start pruning in January. We grow primitivo, zinfandel and barbera. What’s unique about the Italian varietals that grow really well up here in the foothills is they like the hot days and cold nights, and they also like the dry condi- tions. A lot of the vines are irrigated three times a year at the most. This year’s crop is down, which is beneficial for the industry. It will help balance the situation that we’re getting our way out of right now. We’ve been farming here since 1852. The wine industry has seen ups and downs, but it’s working itself out and getting more into balance. This year’s harvest was the earliest ever for us. We started in August and finished up weeks ago. We had favorable ripening conditions. We had a cooler summer. We didn’t have the extreme heat in our area, and it al- lowed the grapes to ripen faster. It was very favorable for quality. This is one of those excellent-quality years. The majority of the grapes here have to be handpicked because we’re on hillsides. A lot of the vines are also head-trained, so they’re not even on wire. Labor this year is extremely expensive and very hard to find. We take care of our crews like they’re family. There are three really good local farm labor con- tractors that we use for harvest. A lot of people are using more mechanization. We’re using electrical hand pruners, which are much faster and more efficient as opposed to using the old-fashioned hand pruners. It’s probably 60% faster. It’s also easier on the body and safer for the crews. And the pruning is done better because their hands and arms aren’t tired.

4 Ag Alert November 4, 2026

Insights from farmers and ranchers across the Golden State, including members of the California Farm Bureau.

Billie Roney Tehama County rancher We run cattle in the valley, and we summer up in the mountains in Lassen and Plumas counties. We winter down here in Tehama and Butte counties. I was scrambling to pick up hay twine before the rain came in. We feed large hay bales, and we tie them up with twine. As the cows eat the hay down, I need to stay on top of picking up the twine because it’s not good for cattle to ingest it. We try not to drive around in the mud because it doesn’t help the grass grow. We brought the girls down from the mountains early this year. The feed seemed to come on late this summer, and it was dry. We elected to come down on account of the feed and also the wolf pressure. That’s an ongoing issue. It’s affected us most in Lassen County. The liaison for the (California Department of Fish and Wildlife) was giving me updates regularly on clusters of wolves being right on the edge of our meadow. We were kind of en- circled. I elected not to turn our cattle out to protect the calves. I held about 50 cows down here with baby calves and did not send them to the mountains, so I fed all summer long. Since we’ve been hit with wolves, we don’t send baby pairs up there. We keep them down here and feed them. The cost of hay bales is astronomical. Ever since the wolves hit us, it has cost us phenomenal amounts of money. Ranchers take it on the chin a lot from people who think we are paid for our losses, and we’re just not. Most of the animals that are killed by wolves are never recorded. A lot of them you can’t find. A lot of them the agency is unable to verify by their standards that a wolf killed them. The high beef prices have helped. It changed a few things. We didn’t keep feeders this year, which we almost always do. We sold the weaned calves for the first time I can remember, so we’re selling them much younger than we used to. The younger animals bring so much more money now, and the feeder that is held and fed until it’s heavier brings you less per pound. When you calculate how much you paid for the feed, it doesn’t make sense to hold onto those weaned calves. I’ll be buying bulls in the next few weeks. Traditionally, we’ve bought bulls locally, but we have also bought quite a few bulls from Texas. You can watch a video of them in real time as they’re selling, and then you bid over the phone, and they deliver them. It’s handy for us because we never have enough time to break away from the ranch to make a trip like that.

To contribute to From the Fields, submit your name, county of membership and contact information to agalert@cfbf.com.

IN PARTNERSHIP WITH ZAIGER’S GENETICS

ONE-TIME EARLY HARVEST HUGE POLLINATION SAVINGS HUGE POLLINATION SAVINGS CULTURAL SAVINGS FOR ORCHARD LIFE CONSI AL SAVINGS FOR ORCHARD LIFE CONSISTENT YIELDS TENT YIELDS

@davewilsonnursery

learn more at davewilson.com

November 4, 2026 Ag Alert 5

CALIFORNIA

Vegetables A SPECIAL GROWERS’ REPORT OF AG ALERT ®

A crew harvests a field of the Bellevue orange-fleshed sweet potato variety near Delhi in Merced County. At right, harvested bins of sweet potatoes await transport to storage sheds, where they’ll be held under controlled conditions until they’re packed to meet orders. Growers statewide report overall good quality and average yields for the 2026 crop.

Market, prices strengthen for sweet potato growers By Vicky Boyd After suffering from a post-COVID hangover, the state’s sweet potato industry appears to be recovering with stabilized acreage and improved prices over the past year. 80 1,000-pound bins per acre, which could have been larger overall had some growers waited to harvest.

A mid-October storm that dropped up to an inch of rain in many areas likely wasn’t enough to damage unharvested sweet potatoes, thanks to ensuing warm weather that dried out the ground, Fookes said. Statewide, growers planted about 18,000 acres this season, down from about 21,000 acres six years ago, Stoddard said. Most of the state’s production is centered in Stanislaus, Merced and Fresno counties. At one time, about one-third to one-half of the state’s sweet potato crop was sold in November, driven by the Thanksgiving holiday. While the month still accounts for a large portion of sales, Fookes said sweet potato consumption has grown to be more year-round. He pointed to the root vegetable’s positive nutritional story, versatility and greater use by food service as a few reasons for the shift. Orange-fleshed varieties remain the biggest market drivers, although red-skinned ones also are popular. Fookes said he’s seen growing interest in specialty varieties, particularly Murisaki, a Louisiana State University release with purplish skin and creamy white flesh. Increased production and heightened consumer awareness has spurred Murisaki’s

“Beginning last year, things finally started getting better, mostly because there were short crops in Mississippi and North Carolina because of weather,” said Scott Stoddard, a farm adviser with the University of California Cooperative Extension. Jeremy Fookes, director of sales for Livingston-based A.V. Thomas Produce, a sweet potato grower, packer and shipper, agreed. “Compared to last season, this season definitely has some strength to it for growers, especially with the supply situation,” he said. “It’s one of those seasons where there’s an opportunity to be a little bit firmer with pricing, but it needed to be so with not having a bumper crop and having higher input costs.” Harvest of this year’s crop, which started unusually early in late July, will continue into November but will taper off, Stoddard said. Spurred by strong early sweet potato prices and a tight market, some growers began to dig the crop in mid-summer before the roots had achieved their overall size potential. “They wanted to take advantage of good prices,” said Stoddard, who serves Merced and Madera counties. “They churned through acreage because they were only harvesting half a crop.” This season, Stoddard said he sees good quality and expects average yields of about

See POTATOES, Page 7

6 Ag Alert November 4, 2026

Potatoes Continued from Page 6

manager Brian Carter. He and D&S Farms partner Dave Souza like to visit the trial during harvest to talk with La Bonte and Stoddard about the experimental lines. Carter noted La Bonte has been “very good coming out with new varieties that are better looking and better yielding, and we definitely support him.” But varietal development isn’t the in- dustry’s only research focus. Total sweet potato production costs run more than $12,500 per acre, with labor remaining the largest portion, Stoddard said. That’s because human hands touch the crop from hot bed production of slips, or plant cut- tings, to harvest and packing. “Labor is a major issue for the sweet potato industry in the U.S., so we need to figure out a better harvest system,” he said. In response, Mississippi State Universi- ty, along with several other universities in sweet potato-producing states, has sub- mitted a U.S. Department of Agriculture specialty crop research initiative proposal to develop an improved harvester. Currently, a crew of about 10 people and one harvester can cover only about 1 acre per day. Stoddard, who is part of the pro- posal, said increasing harvest to 2 acres per day would be a 100% efficiency improve- ment and could cut per-bin harvest costs in half. Vicky Boyd is a reporter in Modesto. She can be reached at agalert@cfbf.com.

expansion beyond traditional Asian mar- kets into more mainstream grocery stores in some parts of the country. Because California doesn’t have its own breeding program, Stoddard works closely with LSU AgCenter sweet potato breeder Don La Bonte. Based at the university’s Sweet Potato Research Station in Chase, Louisiana, La Bonte said his main goals are developing new varieties that benefit his state’s producers. From about 30,000 seed-grown lines at the beginning of each season, he whittles them down to 300 at the end of the first year. It may take six to seven more years of selecting and trialing at the research station and in farmers’ fields before La Bonte has a high-yielding, attractive, tasty and pest-tolerant variety he feels comfortable releasing. As part of screening potential candi- dates, he sends about 30 advanced lines to Stoddard annually to trial under California conditions. The LSU breeder also travels to California during fall harvest to evaluate trial entries alongside Stoddard and visit with local producers about what they want in new releases. “We’re looking for varieties that have sta- bility and flexibility and are able to grow in different types of soil,” La Bonte said. “We’re looking for more universal produc- tion material with durability and the power

A commercial sweet potato harvester and crew dig experimental sweet potato varieties near Atwater to determine whether one might be a candidate for eventual commercial production.

to overcome all of the things that nature can throw at it.” One of the LSU lines that has caught Stoddard’s attention for the past several years is LA 14-11, as it is known experimen- tally. With maroon skin and orange flesh, he said he sees it as a possible replacement for the long-standing variety Diane. While popular with growers because of its high yields, Diane has a fairly short storage life, he said. La Bonte released Vermilion, a

red-skinned, orange-fleshed variety, in 2021, and Stoddard saw it as a potential Diane replacement because of its longer storage potential. Some California farmers have dialed in production techniques to successfully grow the new variety, but he said others haven’t been as fortunate. As part of their efforts to support the industry, sweet potato grower-packer D&S Farms in Atwater has hosted an LSU variety trial for several years, said farm

November 4, 2026 Ag Alert 7

State Affairs - Federal Policy - Legal Services Advocacy in Action

Legal victory A federal appeals court has upheld a de- cision preliminarily blocking enforcement of California’s Senate Bill 399, a 2025 law restricting how employers communicate with employees about certain workplace issues, including union organizing. The decision represents a major win for California Farm Bureau, which filed an amicus brief in the case earlier this year. While the ruling is not a final decision on the law’s constitutionality, it maintains the restrictions on enforcement as the case proceeds. Under SB 399, employers are prohibited from disciplining or otherwise penaliz- ing employees who choose not to attend meetings where the employer discusses political or religious matters, including whether employees should join or support a labor union. Farm Bureau supported the legal chal- lenge by joining a “friend-of-the-court” brief with other business and agricultural interests, arguing that the law unfairly re- stricts employers’ ability to communicate with their workforces. Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed that the chal- lengers were likely to succeed in their argu- ment that the law violates employers’ First Amendment rights. The court found that the law places restrictions on employers based on the subjects they discuss, raising constitutional concerns. The decision means California cannot enforce the challenged provisions while the lawsuit continues. This is particularly relevant to agricultural employers, who may communicate with employees about union representation and other work- place matters. Air monitoring The California Department of Pesticide Regulation’s 2025 air monitoring report found that none of the pollutants mea- sured reached levels considered harmful to health, though laboratory issues limited 2025 data for two fumigants. Released late last month, the report provided updated data on pesticide concentrations in four agricultural communities: Oxnard, Santa Maria, Shafter and Watsonville. DPR’s air monitoring network , estab- lished in 2011, collects weekly air sam- ples to evaluate potential pesticide ex- posure and the effectiveness of existing regulatory safeguards. Of the 40 pesticides and breakdown products monitored in 2025, 25 were be- low detectable levels, six were detected at only trace levels, and nine were de- tected at quantifiable concentrations. This represents a decrease from 13 chemicals detected at quantifiable lev- els in 2024, although the comparison is somewhat limited by incomplete 2025 data for two fumigants. Detecting a pesticide does not necessar- ily indicate a health risk. DPR compares

report from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. In addition to established pack terri- tories across Northern California, CDFW has documented wolf activity in Butte County and confirmed a wolf west of In- terstate 5 near the county lines of Men- docino, Lake and Glenn, marking the first verified wolf presence in the region in modern history. Meanwhile, Tehama County recorded its first confirmed wolf depredation, at- tributed to the Ice Cave pack. The Tunni- son pack is no longer considered active after its breeding female joined the Harvey pack, CDFW reported. These developments raise questions about how California measures wolf recov- ery, particularly its reliance on breeding pairs and established packs as population benchmarks. While pack counts may de- cline due to changes such as pack mergers, the overall wolf population, geographic range and impacts on livestock can con- tinue to increase. As wolves expand into additional areas of California, ranchers are encouraged to stay informed through CDFW’s updat- ed wolf activity maps at https://wildlife. ca.gov/Conservation/Mammals/Gray- Wolf/Location-Map and report sightings to help track wolf movements.

other livestock, pets and wildlife. Infesta- tions can cause severe wounds and can be fatal if left untreated. The pest poses a significant threat to animal health and the livestock industry, making early detection and rapid contain- ment critical. In response, USDA and Arizona officials have established a 20-kilometer (approxi- mately 12 miles) infested zone around the detection, implemented animal move- ment restrictions, increased surveillance and trapping, and released sterile flies to help control the population. While the detection occurred in Arizona, the proximity to California underscores the importance of continued vigilance among livestock producers and veterinarians. USDA encourages animal owners to regularly inspect livestock and pets for un- usual wounds, visible larvae or egg masses and signs of irritation or discomfort. Sus- pected infestations should be reported immediately to a veterinarian or animal health official. USDA maintains a public dashboard with confirmed detections and response information at screwworm.gov. Wolves Gray wolves continue to expand into new areas of the state, according to a new

measured concentrations against health- based thresholds for short-, medium- and long-term exposure. These thresholds incorporate additional margins of safety and are set below concentrations where adverse health effects are expected. DPR reported no exceedances of appli- cable acute, subchronic or chronic health- based thresholds in 2025, concluding that the reported pesticide concentrations were unlikely to be harmful to human health. The report also noted that laborato- ry issues at the California Department of Food and Agriculture resulted in the invalidation of some 2025 monitoring data for 1,3-dichloropropene and meth- yl bromide. As a result, only partial-year results for these chemicals were includ- ed in the report. The findings underscore the value of real-world data to inform regulatory de- cisions, protect public health and ensure farmers can continue using essential crop protection tools responsibly. Kangaroo rat Riverside County officials will revise a proposed change to the Stephens’ kanga- roo rat mitigation fee after Farm Bureau raised concerns that the new fee struc- ture could significantly increase permit- ting costs. The proposal would replace a proj- ect-based fee with a flat fee of $500 or $900, depending on the type of develop- ment, based on a parcel’s gross acreage. The change could place a greater financial burden on rural landowners applying for routine permits. California Farm Bureau worked with Riverside County Farm Bureau to review the proposal and submitted a comment letter to the county board of supervisors questioning the methodology and justi- fication for the fee change. The letter also asked the county to seek additional input from the agricultural community. The board continued consideration of the proposal last week. County staff later met virtually with Riverside County Farm Bureau and affected stakeholders, with California Farm Bureau also participating. County staff agreed to revise language in the proposed ordinance and recirculate it to Riverside County Farm Bureau and rural stakeholders for review before bringing it The U.S. Department of Agriculture An- imal and Plant Health Inspection Service confirmed the first detection of New World screwworm in Arizona last week, following identification of the pest in a dog in Coch- ise County. The case was confirmed by the USDA National Veterinary Services Laboratories. Federal and state animal health officials are coordinating response efforts to pre- vent further spread. back to the board of supervisors. New World screwworm New World screwworm is a parasitic fly whose larvae feed on the living tissue of warm-blooded animals, including cattle,

Peter Adam & Associates, LLC Mediation • Facilitation • Negotiation Protect the farm. Preserve the family. Find a way forward. When family agricultural disputes, succession issues, or exit strategies threaten what you’ve built, experienced help is available. Peter Adam and his family built a successful agribusiness over 42 years. He served as Santa Barbara County Supervisor (2013-2020) and understands the agricultural world from the inside. He helps families clarify options, reduce legal costs, protect relationships, and reach equitable outcomes. Call 805-310-3854 peteradamassociates@gmail.com Santa Maria, CA Curriculum Vitae and references available upon request. | Peter L. Adam

8 Ag Alert November 4, 2026

November 4, 2026 Ag Alert 9

A SPECIAL PRODUCERS’ REPORT OF AG ALERT ® CALIFORNIA Dairy & Livestock

Jersey cows that produce milk for Land O’ Lakes are pictured in Tulare County in 2024. In July, the farmer-owned dairy cooperative an- nounced it was upgrading its Tulare processing facility so that it can begin manufacturing protein-rich dairy products such as ultra-filtered milk. The upgrade is part of a multi-billion-dollar investment by dairy processors nationwide to capitalize on rising demand for protein.

Protein boom marks ‘paradigm shift’ in dairy sector By Caleb Hampton Rising demand for protein is creating new market opportunities for dairy producers and driving decisions made by farmers and processors.

According to a CoBank analysis, dairy processors have invested a record $14 billion in new or remodeled processing facilities that are currently under development and set to begin operating by 2028, with protein demand driving some of those investments. In July, Land O’ Lakes announced it was investing $34 million to upgrade its Tulare facil- ity so that the Minnesota-headquartered dairy cooperative can manufacture “high-value dairy protein” products, starting with ultra-filtered milk. The process involves filtering fresh milk through membranes that separate the milk’s components, enabling manufacturers to remove water and lactose, and concentrate the protein content in the final product. “The investment is designed to help us meet growing demand for high-quality dairy protein while unlocking greater value from member milk,” said Heather Anfang, executive vice president at Land O’Lakes and president of dairy foods at the cooperative. “Protein has moved beyond a niche health category to become a defining force in how consumers evaluate food.” The facility upgrade is under construction, Anfang said, with production of ultra-filtered milk set to begin early next year. Geiger said dairy farmers stand to benefit from the sector tapping into the protein boom, but the pivot also brings some challenges.

Last year, 70% of U.S. consumers said they wanted more protein content in their diets, up from 59% in 2022, according to the International Food Information Council’s Food & Health Survey. Market research also showed consumers were willing to pay a premium for products labeled high in protein. Corey Geiger, lead economist for dairy production and processing at CoBank, said multiple factors have made protein a dietary priority for consumers. These factors include an emphasis placed on protein by the Make America Healthy Again movement, new dietary guidelines released this year by the Trump administration that increased the recommended amount of daily protein intake, and the growing preva- lence of GLP-1 medications, with those on the weight loss drugs advised to pack protein into their limited calorie consumption. This year, sales of protein-rich dairy products such as whey protein powder, ultra-fil- tered milk, Greek yogurt and cottage cheese have all increased, according to the market research firm Circana. Industry experts believe protein demand will remain heightened, and dairy producers are developing new processing capacity to cater to the market. “This is a paradigm shift,” Geiger said.

See PROTEIN, Page 11

10 Ag Alert November 4, 2026

Protein Continued from Page 10

However, even with protein playing a larger role in breeding decisions, experts said it will take time for those traits to show up in the milk supply. “Any changes made right now, we won’t see for three years,” Geiger said, referring to the nine-month gestation period of cows and the two years it takes calves to become cows and begin producing milk. “If con- sumer demand remains as strong, we are going to be chasing protein production for a while.” In the meantime, Fernandes said be- cause of the decline in butterfat pricing, he “pulled back” on feeding his cows costly supplements such as palmitic acids and whole cottonseed, which increase butter- fat but no longer paid off as much. “We’re not putting as much emphasis on those two ingredients,” he said. “The key is to just try to increase the overall flow of milk. That’s what gives you more total pounds of protein.” The Tulare-based farmer, who is a Land O’ Lakes owner-member, said he was op- timistic about the cooperative’s upcoming expansion into ultra-filtered milk and oth- er dairy protein products. “We’re very pleased,” he said. “We’re making something that currently has de- mand for it.” Caleb Hampton is an editor at Ag Alert. He can be reached at champton@cfbf.com.

Nearly all dairy farmers are paid not by milk volume but for milk components, or solids, primarily protein and butterfat. For much of the past decade, butterfat was in high demand, and milk pricing formulas incentivized farmers to max- imize the butterfat content in the milk their cows produced. That timeframe coincided with advances in genomic se- quencing and breeding, much of which was geared toward creating a U.S. dairy herd genetically engineered to produce milk that is rich in butterfat. “Dairymen across the country have concentrated on getting more fat in their milk,” Tulare County dairy farmer Joey Fer- nandes said. As a result, through a combination of genetics and nutrition, the amount of butterfat in the U.S. milk supply increased substantially more than protein content during the past decade. Last year, for the first time in decades, butterfat went into oversupply, and with demand for protein rising, the hierarchy in milk pricing has since reversed. During the first nine months of last year, protein prices in milk averaged $2.44 a pound while butterfat averaged $2.45 a pound, according to CoBank. In the first nine months of this year, protein averaged $2.45 a pound while butterfat prices fell to $1.69 a pound. “There’s been a big shift,” Geiger said.

Land O’ Lakes’ facility in Tulare is the Minnesota-headquartered cooperative’s largest dairy pro- cessing facility. It is set to begin manufacturing ultra-filtered milk in the first quarter of next year.

The constraint for dairy farmers is they cannot easily change their opera- tions to ramp up the protein content in their milk, limiting the extent to which they might capitalize on the protein trend in the near term. According to data from the Council on Dairy Cattle Breeding, genetics accounts for 72% of the protein gains in the U.S. milk supply and 62% of the butterfat gains, with nutrition playing a comparatively larger role in boosting butterfat than protein. Fernandes, the Tulare County farmer, said he planned to “look a little more at

the protein” in genetic selection going for- ward, as he believed the market for protein will remain strong. “I think it’s here to stay,” he said. In March, Holstein Association USA, the world’s largest dairy breed association, changed its Total Performance Index—a genetic ranking system—to give more weight to protein and less to butterfat in scoring the expected production value of dairy bulls and cows. Farmers use the system to make breeding decisions that benefit herd health and profitability.

Partner With Purpose. Support California Agriculture. Become A Sponsor.

Connect your business with California's agricultural community through sponsorship opportunities that make an impact.

cfbf.com/AnnualMeeting

November 4, 2026 Ag Alert 11

Labor: 45¢

◊ Inputs: irrigation, fuel, fertilizer and packaging ◊ Plant Care: organic and conventional pest and disease management

interest, levies and other financial costs ◊ Net Return-Loss: grower net income

LEMON CO

Costs Continued from Page 3

Services: 12¢ Compliance: 3¢

Inputs: 20¢

Labor: 45¢

Land: 18¢

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE/WEIGHTS & MEASURES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE/WEIGHTS & MEASURES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE/WEIGHTS & MEASURES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE/WEIGHTS & MEASURES VENTURA COUNTY, USA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE/WEIGHTS & MEASURES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE/WEIGHTS & MEASURES

THIS IS NOT LEGAL TENDER V VENTURA COUNTY, USA 1 V VENTURA COUNTY, USA 1 1 V VENTURA COUNTY, USA 1 THIS IS NOT LEGAL TENDER V VENTURA COUNTY, USA 1 1 V VENTURA COUNTY, USA 1 1 THIS IS NOT LEGAL TENDER 1 THIS IS NOT LEGAL TENDER V THIS IS NOT LEGAL TENDER

Cost = 101¢ No return to grower. An additional 1¢ is needed to cover all costs.

THIS IS NOT LEGAL TENDER

STRAWBERRIES ONE V ENTURA C OUNTY, CA SERIES 2025 STRAWBERRIES

STRAWBERRIES ONE V ENTURA C OUNTY, CA SERIES 2025 1 STRAWBERRIES V ENTURA C OUNTY, CA SERIES 2025 1 1 STRAWBERRIES ONE V ENTURA C OUNTY, CA SERIES 2025 1 1 1 1

ONE V ENTURA C OUNTY, CA SERIES 2025 STRAWBERRIES ONE V ENTURA C OUNTY, CA SERIES 2025 1 1 1

The report examined six categories of farm expenses: labor, land, inputs, plant care, services and regulatory compliance. Labor was the largest production expense for many of the county’s major crops. Lampara said the contrast between the record production figure and the cost esti- mates illustrates the challenges facing the region’s agriculture. She attributed the fi- nancial squeeze to policy and production economics, emphasizing that growers in- creasingly struggle to make farming pay. The new report “sets the record straight,” she said, pointing to growers’ declining re- turns even as irrigated farmland has re- mained relatively stable. County records show 98,470 acres of irrigated cropland in 2025, compared with 98,732 acres in 2024. The report cautioned that its cost anal- ysis is intended to provide context on pro- duction economics rather than serve as a formal economic study. Its estimates focus on wholesale production costs and do not include expenses such as marketing, retail markups or sales taxes. Bell acknowledged that providing the new information was “a heavy lift.” She ini- tially looked to the University of California Cooperative Extension to do the work but eventually hired someone for the project. It took the new staff person six months of interviewing growers to compile the cost information, she noted.

Labor: 37¢ generated by Ventura County’s two top crops—strawberries and lemons. After paying expenses for labor (wages, benefits and workforce), land (leasing, field preparation and planting stock), inputs (irrigation, fuel, fertilizer and packaging), plant care (pest and disease management), ser- vices (custom work, postharvest operations and equipment rent- als) and compliance (regulatory fees, taxes, insurance, interest, levies and other financial costs), the 2025 crop report found This graphic shows the cost and return per dollar revenue strawberry growers lost 1 cent per dollar revenue while lemon growers lost 12 cents.

STRAWBERRIES

Loss: 1¢

Chief Deputy Commissioner

Agricultural Commissioner

Plant Care: 3¢

COUNTY

ONE V ENTURA C OUNTY, CA LEMONS VENTURA COUNTY, USA 1 ONE V ENTURA C OUNTY, CA SERIES 2025 Agricultural Commissioner Chief Deputy Commissioner THIS IS NOT LEGAL TENDER 5 5 5 5 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE/WEIGHTS & MEASURES V LEMONS LEMONS VENTURA COUNTY, USA 1 ONE V ENTURA C OUNTY, CA SERIES 2025 Agricultural Commissioner Chief Deputy Commissioner THIS IS NOT LEGAL TENDER 5 5 5 5 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE/WEIGHTS & MEASURES V LEMONS LEMONS VENTURA COUNTY, USA 1 ONE V ENTURA C OUNTY, CA SERIES 2025 Agricultural Commissioner Chief Deputy Commissioner THIS IS NOT LEGAL TENDER 5 5 5 5 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE/WEIGHTS & MEASURES V LEMONS LEMONS VENTURA COUNTY, USA 1 ONE V ENTURA C OUNTY, CA SERIES 2025 Agricultural Commissioner Chief Deputy Commissioner THIS IS NOT LEGAL TENDER 5 5 5 5 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE/WEIGHTS & MEASURES V LEMONS LEMONS VENTURA COUNTY, USA Labor: 37¢ Land: 28¢ SERIES 2025 Agricultural Commissioner Chief Deputy Commissioner THIS IS NOT LEGAL TENDER 5 5 5 5 ONE V ENTURA C OUNTY, CA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE/WEIGHTS & MEASURES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE/WEIGHTS & MEASURES VENTURA COUNTY, USA V LEMONS Inputs: 12¢ SERIES 2025 Agricultural Commissioner Chief Deputy Commissioner THIS IS NOT LEGAL TENDER 5 5 5 5 V LEMONS LEMONS

Services: 25¢ Compliance: 7¢

STRAWBERRY

Cost = 112¢ No return to grower. An additional 12¢ is needed to cover all costs.

Loss: 12¢

Plant Care: 3¢

Bell said growers and the county board of supervisors have responded positively to the new data, with supervisors asking her to continue including cost estimates in future reports. However, the long-term outlook for the project remains uncertain. It’s unclear whether other county crop reports will begin publishing simi- lar cost data, but Bell said Santa Barbara

County’s agricultural commissioner has expressed interest. Lampara said Farm Bureau of Ventura County’s analysis of the data is available at economicsoftheacre.org, where the orga- nization plans to build an index that tracks the economic health of Ventura County agriculture. She said the index could then be used to “impact check” pending or

proposed policy, giving the Farm Bureau a new advocacy tool. “I have not had anyone in the ag com- munity tell me that they don’t want this story told,” she said. “Everybody’s telling me that it’s about time.” Ching Lee is senior editor of Ag Alert. She can be reached at clee@cfbf.com.

A NEW Benefit Supporting Rural Health

Get 20% off Recurring Monthly Membership Dues & $1 enrollment fee*

Supporting your health on and off the farm—our Rural Health & Safety Committee is proud to bring you a new benefit with In-Shape Fitness. California Farm Bureau Corporate Promo Code: CAFB2618 Enter the Promo code during the enrollment process to apply discount. Enroll online at inshape.com or at your local club. Powered By: California Farm Bureau’s Rural Health & Safety Committee *Additional fees may apply. Amenities and facilites vary by location.

December 5-7 Grand Sierra Resort | Reno, NV REGISTER NOW! cfbf.com/AnnualMeeting

Visit cfbf.com/inshape or call 916-561-5500

12 Ag Alert November 4, 2026

Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20