Ag Alert April 3, 2024

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.

Dairy sustainability Conference highlights progress on emissions

Rice irrigation Trial tests feasibility of buried drip lines

Page 3

Page 12

www.cfbf.com • www.agalert.com APRIL 3, 2024

Field Crops Vegetables

special reports

By Caleb Hampton State and federal water providers have increased promised allocations after ac- counting for recent storms that improved snowpack and reservoir levels. The California Department of Water Resources doubled the amount of water it expects to deliver this year to most con- tractors that rely on the State Water Project, increasing the allocation for water users south of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta from 15% to 30% of requested sup- plies. Those north of the delta are expect- ed to receive 50% of their allotment, while Feather River Settlement Contractors will get their full allocation. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, which manages the Central Valley Project, in- creased allocations for south-of-delta ag- ricultural water users from 15% to 35% of their contracted allotment and from 75% to 100% for those north of the delta. The re- vised allocations followed a new snow sur- vey measurement released March 1 and a spring runoff forecast released March 8. As of April 1, statewide snowpack was 104% of average for that date. A final water alloca- tion for the year, accounting for springtime precipitation, is expected in May or June. In their initial allocations, water agen- cies are “cautious about not overcommit- ting water supplies that may not material- ize,” said Chris Scheuring, senior counsel for the California Farm Bureau, adding that water allocations may still increase. “We’re optimistic,” he said. “Hopefully, the season finishes out with another blast or two of rain, and we hope everybody is able to get full deliveries in a decent year like this one.” Agricultural water users in the San Joaquin Valley voiced frustration at re- ceiving roughly a third of their contracted allotment during a year with above-aver- age precipitation, following historic rain and snow events last year that replenished California’s reservoirs. “This is very disappointing and not See WATER, Page 11 Despite wet year, fish protections limit allocations

Placer County farmer Rich Ferreira walks through his organic citrus grove planted with a cover crop. He says conservation improvements he has made have benefited pollinators, left, soil health and the quality of his citrus crop.

Citrus farm showcases pollinator habitat

By Christine Souza With honeybees and butterflies in de- cline worldwide, California farmers are doing their part to increase pollinator hab- itat, while also seeing on-farm benefits of reduced pest pressures and improved crop quality and soil health. Placer County organic farmer Rich Ferreira, owner of Side Hill Citrus, said he

has spent decades working on conserva- tion projects. He has about 3 acres of native plants—some of them in blocks, some in hedgerows. He also has windbreaks. “The government programs have helped me immensely over the years,” Ferreira said. Ferreira’s Lincoln-based farm was the site of a pollinator habitat workshop by

the Xerces Society and the Placer County Resource Conservation District last week. He led about 30 people on a tour to view decades of conservation work on his land. Across from a citrus grove, he stopped to talk about a large hedgerow of native plants, which offer blooms for pollinators from early spring to fall.

See POLLINATOR, Page 16

n e w s p a p e r

From the Fields .......................4-5 Vegetables................................ 8-9 Field Crops .........................12-13 Classifieds........................... 18-19 Inside

Published by

Why overtime law fails both farms and farmworkers

By Norm Groot For many decades, farmworkers have been vital to the harvesting of food crops in the Salinas Valley and other parts of the Monterey County agricultural region. Monterey County farm employers do their part to attract and support farm- workers in a dimin- ishing agricultural labor pool. Many pay significantly higher wages to their employees than the current California mini- mum wage of $16 per hour, plus benefits such as healthcare and retirement programs. Norm Groot But some workers are losing hours and income due to California legisla- tion intended to help them. In 2016, the California Legislature passed Assembly Bill 1066 to extend overtime hours to farm- workers after 8 hours of work each day, or 40 hours each week. Previously, overtime was paid after 10 hours a day to accommo- date seasonal harvesting hours. In a recent study analyzing AB 1066, Alexandra E. Hill of the Foundation of Agricultural Economics at the University of California explained the bill’s underly- ing premise that “workers would benefit from higher incomes for the same time at work” if their hours and overtime re- mained unchanged. But she also noted an economic risk. “If employers reduce hours to remain below the new thresholds, worker incomes could fall, making workers who value the extra income more than additional leisure time worse off,” Hill wrote. “In this case, employers would also need to hire addi- tional workers, invest in labor-saving or

ers and their labor contractors send farm- workers home instead of moving to another field for continued work each day. This has resulted in shorter hours for farmworkers, sometimes even short- er than the regular eight-hour day. With almost continuous harvest of fresh food crops in the Salinas Valley region, there are tight windows available for peak harvest of crops. Careful planning of harvest activi- ties has altered some production plans to maintain the eight-hour workday. Thus, while many employers pay gener- ous hourly rates and benefits, their practi- cal solution to AB 1066 has been to limit daily work hours rather than have the same crew work multiple fields that will result in overtime pay. The higher farm wage rates in Monterey County can increase the overtime costs ex- ponentially—and the worker compensa- tion insurance premiums based on total payroll. Now, after devastation suffered by local agriculture from flooding events in 2023, farm employers are seeking every way possible to remain financially viable. With prices for fresh food products con- tracted well in advance of the planting of a crop, there is no ability to increase sale prices when production costs, such as la- bor, increase during the production season. Careful control of labor costs—the largest line item in fresh food production—is nec- essary to keep the bottom line in the black. Additional costs for overtime hours ap- pear to be a threshold that farm employers are not willing to cross. It is unfortunate that lawmakers did not consider their in- sights or heed their voices before passing a bill that has led to reduced hours and pay for farmworkers. (Norm Groot is executive director of the Monterey County Farm Bureau. He may be contacted at norm@montereycfb.com.)

A celery field in the Salinas Valley is harvested. Many farmers pay workers above the California minimum wage, plus health and retirement benefits. But employee hours were cut due to the new overtime law.

labor-augmenting technology, or make larger business changes like switching to less labor-intensive crops.” The bill has led to the latter scenario, with farm employers cutting hours to save on overtime costs. This results in smaller paychecks, as daily work hours have been reduced to meet the new overtime stan- dard. Relying on worker-reported federal data, the research found that California farmworkers worked 15,000 to 45,000 few- er hours in 2019 and 2020 while making $6 million to $9 million less per week than they would have if the 10-hour workday overtime exemption had continued. As a result, Hill concluded, “In 2019 and 2020, the two years following the phase-in of California’s new overtime standards for agricultural workers, the average California crop worker experienced reduced hours and earnings.” Labor unions, including the United

Farm Workers, supported the passage of AB 1066 as a means to increase farm- worker earnings. Meanwhile, civil rights icon and UFW co-founder Dolores Huerta noted that fewer working hours could be a benefit, given the strenuous nature of farm work and global warming’s negative impact on working conditions. This is con- trary to the bill’s intent. AB 1066 ultimately forced financial de- cisions for farm employers already facing rising input and regulatory costs, plus increasing amounts paid for employee health-care benefits and mandatory paid time off. With the overtime law increasing pressure on farms to balance their books, many farmworkers saw their work time re- duced by more than 10 hours a week. Local growers in Monterey County have adjusted their harvest work hours to com- ply with the rule change, as many predicted when AB 1066 became law. When harvest work is finished in one field, farm employ-

VOL. 51, NO. 13

April 3, 2024

AG ALERT ® weekly newspaper is an official publication of the CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU

www.agalert.com www.cfbf.com

@cafarmbureau @cafarmbureau @cafarmbureau

@calfarmbureau

Board of Directors (District 1) Ronnie Leimgruber; (2) Scott Hudson; (3) Mark Lopez; (4) Kevin Merrill; (5) Kevin Robertson; (6) Joey Airoso; (7) Lorna Roush; (8) April England; (9) Jay Mahil; (10) Jan Garrod; (11) Joe Martinez; (12) Paul Sanguinetti; (13) Jake Wenger; (14) Joe Fischer; (15) Clark Becker; (16) Garrett Driver; (17) Johnnie White; (18) Daniel Suenram; (19) Taylor Hagata; (20) Jim Morris; (21) Ronald Vevoda; (Young Farmers & Ranchers Committee Chair) Trelawney Bullis. 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.

Peter Hecht- Chief Editor, Publications

ADVERTISING: Brock Tessandori- Business Development Manager (916) 561-5585 Antonio Muniz- Sales Coordinator Classifieds: (916) 561-5570 2600 River Plaza Dr., Sacramento, CA 95833. Represented in the East and Midwest by J.L. Farmakis, Inc. Eastern office: Bill Farmakis 48 Topfield Rd., Wilton, CT 06897 (203) 834-8832; Fax: (203) 834- 8825. Midwest office: Russ Parker, P.O. Box 7, Albia, IA 52531 (641) 946-7646, 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 weekly except weeks of Memorial Day, July 4, Thanksgiving,

Christmas; and with exceptions, by the California Farm Bureau, 2600 River Plaza Dr., Sacramento CA 95833 (telephone: (916) 561-5570). Periodicals postage paid at Sacramento, California. 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, di- rector, 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

Christine Souza- Assistant Editor

Ching Lee- Assistant Editor

Caleb Hampton- Assistant Editor

Shawn Collins- Production Designer

Paula Erath- Graphic Designer

GENERAL INFORMATION: (916) 561-5570

agalert@cfbf.com

Printed on Recycled Paper

BPA Business Publication Member

2 Ag Alert April 3, 2024

Dairy farmers look for new methane emission solutions

ing to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Though the oldest operational digesters date back to 2004, most of the state’s digesters are new, with 120 built since 2021. Spurring much of the growth is California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard, an incentive program aimed at reducing use of fossil fuels. It allows biogas to earn credit for being a low-carbon fuel. At the federal level, the Renewable Fuel Standard program provides additional incentives. Reducing methane is crucial to slow-

ing global warming, Mitloehner said, be- cause if the potent greenhouse gas can be squelched aggressively, dairy production can reach a point of climate neutrality, or not add warming to the planet. Much of the buzz relates to new findings on how to cut enteric methane, which ac- counts for 51% to 67% of greenhouse gas emissions from dairies, according to data from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Feed additives have been in development

By Ching Lee With a construction boom of methane digester projects on California dairy farms in recent years, milk producers have begun to reduce a powerful greenhouse gas emit- ted by the manure coming from their cows. Now they must tackle the methane com- ing from the front end of their animals. Cow burps emit what’s known as enteric meth- ane, and the race to reduce it represents a new frontier for the dairy industry. The California Dairy Sustainability Summit in Davis last week shed light on some of the latest innovations in feed, genetics and vaccines showing promise. The annual conference highlights achieve- ments California dairy farms have made in environmental sustainability and some new planet-smart efforts. Various speakers stressed the impor- tance of public and private backing. Just as financial incentives have helped to get more methane digesters online, funding support is needed to drive progress in un- derstanding enteric emissions and how to curb them. California aims to cut livestock meth- ane emissions by 40%, or 7.2 million metric tons, below 2013 levels by 2030. Frank Mitloehner, an air quality special- ist at the University of California, Davis, said California dairies are already close to achieving half the state’s methane reduc- tion goals and will likely exceed them with reductions of 7.6 to 10.6 million metric tons of greenhouse gases, mostly methane, in coming years. A “sizable reduction” will come from at- trition, he said, as the state is expected to lose nearly 1% of its dairy cows annually. Most of the current methane reductions are through manure management, with dairy digesters accounting for more than half of the 7.2 million metric tons of reductions.

Digesters capture methane from cov- ered manure lagoons on dairies. The biogas is then cleaned and turned into renewable natural gas, which can be used to power vehicles and generate electricity and, more recently, hydrogen. As of August 2023, 161 dairy digesters were in operation in California, accord-

See DAIRY, Page 17

BRAND NEW SEASON!

APPLY LESS, EXPECT MORE?

www.californiabountiful.com

LOCAL STATIONS

CITY

STATION

TIME

Bakersfield

KERO/23 Sat. 8:30pm

Chico/Redding KHSL/12

Sat. 7pm

Fresno

KPVT/18 Sun. 11:30am

An AgroLiquid crop nutrition plan offers lower use rates through the right custom formulas, deep agronomic knowledge and total customer support. AgroLiquid has precisely what it takes to help you achieve more with less.

Find an AgroLiquid dealer near you AgroLiquid.com

Los Angeles Sat. 7:30pm Monterey/Salinas KOTR/My11 Sat. 5pm Palm Springs KMIR/36 Sun. 11:30pm Sacramento KOVR/13 Sat. 6pm San Diego KUSI/51 Sun. 11am San Francisco KRON/4 Sun. 6:30pm Santa Barbara KSBY/6 Sun. 5pm CABLE/SATELLITE RFD-TV: Dish Ch. 231; DirecTV: Ch. 345 Sun. 8am* KCAL/9

*Pacific Time

Now trending

@cabountiful

April 3, 2024 Ag Alert 3

From the Fields ®

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

Caroline Yelle Solano County beekeeper

Kevin Herman Fresno, Madera and Merced counties tree crop grower

With strong honeybees coming out of winter, we had a good bee survival rate, so we are super happy about it. This is probably related to the late rain we had last spring, which created better resources for the bees. Almond bloom was better this year than last year, when we had few windows for pollination. This year, we had good windows of pollination, with three to four days of honey flow or nectar coming into the hives. Some beekeepers made al- mond honey, which is pretty rare. The honey from the almond is super dark and bitter. My mentor told me that 30 years ago, they used to make almond honey, but that hasn’t happened in years. The honeybees were so happy in the almonds that we had to do swarm con- trol. The bees built up their numbers fast, so I needed to make sure they stayed in the boxes and didn’t leave to find another house. I had hives stacked four high, when typically, we only stack them two high. With a three-day window of dry conditions, my husband and I spent 36 straight hours moving bees into the almonds. At one point, it was 4 o’clock in the morning, and there were beekeepers out doing the same. One beekeeper was stuck in the mud up to the axle, so we stopped to pull him out. Beekeepers were looking for empty trucks and forklifts because available gear for moving bees was being used at the same time. Typically, you have a window of a few weeks or more, but those three days were intense. Two weeks ago, we removed our bees from the almonds in Dixon, so I’m a little later doing that than other beekeepers. Because the bees are so strong, I will start splitting them to make more colonies as soon as possible. The first queens of the season are coming this week from the queen breeder, so I’ll be making more hives for the next month.

We’ve wrapped up our pruning, and we’re completing the mulching of the pruning clippings on almonds, pistachios, figs—pretty much everything. Fortunately, we have not had to do much irrigation yet with the late spring rains we’ve been having. We are getting ready to start our first fertilizer applications and some fungicide applications. The almond crop looks a little spotty. I’ve got some ranches that have great crops, and I’ve got some that are just OK. I wish I knew why. Talking to my friends, the consensus is that it’s probably going to be a pretty good-sized crop. Pistachios are just leafing out, and I think it’s going to be a good crop, but not a great one, certainly less than last year. The walnuts are starting to wake up, and bloom is just starting. Once again, it looks like a nice crop, but last year was huge, and I don’t think it’s going to be as big this year. On figs, there’s what they call the first crop and then the main crop. The first crop comes off last year’s wood, and you can see that pretty well right now. I’m sounding like a broken record because last year we had a really big first crop, and this year it’s just a good first crop. It appears to not be as big as last year. We have good groundwater conditions though, and the reservoirs are nice and full. I’m a little frustrated that the government is not releasing more than 35% to us right now, considering the circumstances. Almond sales have been really strong, which is a pleasant change. Pistachio sales are just astronomical. We’re 58% ahead of last year, so it’s really good be- cause last year was our biggest crop ever. Fig sales are kind of slow right now. I’m not sure why. That’s a mixed bag from one crop to another.

Del Hanson San Diego County vintner and manzanita grower

In January, we got permitted to build a winery and tasting room. Our hope is to open in the first quarter of 2025. Our farm is in Alpine, and the tasting room is going to be in Santee. For years, we tried to build it in the unincorporated area of San Diego County, but there were too many reg- ulatory hurdles. That’s why we ended up not being able to put the tasting room at our farm. We grow 2 acres of winegrapes and 15 acres of manzanita, which we also make wine from. I’ve been making manzanita wine for 10 years and fine-tuning the recipe over the last couple years. It’s comparable to sauvignon blanc, though our first release is going to be sweetened, so it tastes more like a sweet cider. There are some hobbyists making manzanita wine. But as far as I know, we’ll be the first and only commercial producers on the planet. We did our first full harvest of the manzanita in September and October. Manzanita is a native Southwestern plant. It does not require any irrigation. The fruit can sit on the tree for months. We’re hoping we can save it in a cold room and use it when our winery opens. You typically have to harvest grapes when the sugar level is right and be ready to process that grape within a day or two. Until the winery opens, we’re dropping all our grapes because it’s not worth it to harvest such a small quantity. We’re wrapping up our winter pruning. Our biggest farming cost is labor. We’re on the far east side of San Diego County. The farm la- bor companies in San Diego don’t like coming out to us. I have a much easier time getting labor from the Imperial Valley. I end up paying two hours extra per day for travel time for each worker because they’re sitting in a car for two hours.

4 Ag Alert April 3, 2024

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

Jonathan Merrill Monterey County vegetable grower

The vegetable growing season is at the front end of the transition from the desert. The supply and harvest are moving from Southern California, Arizona and Mexico to the Salinas Valley. We had a few fields harvested last month, and things are starting to pick up. We have our first head lettuce and romaine lettuce starting to get cut this week. The lettuce looks phenomenal. We’ve had great growing conditions. The rains caused some issues in terms of planting challenges and timing, but we were able to meet all our deadlines. Last year, we had acres flooded or damaged. This year, we’ve been strategic in where we decided to plant to minimize our risk and maximize plantings. The last few years, impatiens necrotic spot virus has been the talk of the town in the Salinas Valley. It was significant in causing some of the worst lettuce crop losses I’ve seen in my career. But last year, we saw lower disease pressures. We’re off to a strong start this year as far as disease issues and crop quality. The yields have been excellent. The cost of labor is an ongoing challenge. The industry in the Salinas Valley is doing a good job of paying a fair wage and staying ahead of the minimum wage. But it is a challenge because it’s expensive. The availability of labor can also be an issue when you get into the season. I’m working with farm labor contractors, and if we can schedule things appropriately, plan ahead and be efficient, we can meet the needs in the field. Other costs have also gone up. The cost and maintenance of tractors and other ve- hicles is more expensive. Land rent has gone up significantly. Merrill Farms produces directly for shippers. We’re susceptible to whatever the market rates are. Right now, markets are decent. Harvest is on time and things are functioning well. We’re kicking into gear. The growing season will continue through November or December.

This is Ag! wi th KIRTI MUTATKAR

A monthly podcast series Available on all your favorite platforms

unitedag.org/thisisag

HEAR INSPIRING STORIES FROM LEADERS IN AG

April 3, 2024 Ag Alert 5

Receive a $500 Exclusive Cash Reward *

Farm Bureau Members Receive $500 * toward an Eligible New F-150 ® Lightning ® , Super Duty ® , F-150, Ranger ® or Maverick ®

FORD SUPER DUTY

FORD F-150 LIGHTNING

FORD F-150

FORD RANGER

FORD MAVERICK

*Farm Bureau Exclusive Cash Reward is exclusively for active Farm Bureau members who are residents of the United States. $500 Exclusive Cash Reward on the purchase or lease of an eligible new 2023/2024/2025 Ford Maverick, Ranger, F-150, Super Duty or F-150 Lightning. This incentive is not available on Ranger Raptor ® , F-150 Raptor, F-650 ® and F-750 ® Super Duty. This offer may not be used in conjunction with most other Ford Motor Company private incentives or AXZD-Plans. Some customer and purchase eligibility restrictions apply. Must be a Farm Bureau member for 30 consecutive days prior to purchase or lease and take new retail delivery from an authorized Ford Dealer’s stock by January 2, 2025. See your authorized Ford Dealer for qualifications and complete details. Note to dealer: Claim in VINCENT using #32286. Visit FordRecognizesU.com/FarmBureau today for complete offer details!

BAKERSFIELD JIM BURKE FORD 661-328-3600 www.jimburkeford.com CERES RUSH TRUCK CENTER 209-857-7400 www.rushfordtrucksceres.com COLUSA HOBLIT MOTORS FORD 530-458-2151 www.hoblitford.com CORNING CORNING FORD 530-824-5434 www.corningford.com EL CENTRO EL CENTRO MOTORS 760-336-2101 www.elcentromotors.com EUREKA HARPER MOTORS 707-443-7311 www.harpermotors.com GRIDLEY GRIDLEY COUNTRY FORD 530-846-4724 www.gridleyfordsite.com HOLLISTER GREENWOOD FORD 831-637-4461 www.teamgreenwoodford.com

LIVERMORE LIVERMORE FORD LINCOLN 925-294-7700 www.livermoreford.net MADERA MADERA FORD 559-674-6771 www.maderaford.com MERCED RAZZARI FORD 209-383-3673 www.fordrazzari.com MORGAN HILL THE FORD STORE 833-548-4419 www.fordstoremorganhill.com PORTERVILLE PORTERVILLE FORD 559-784-6000 www.portervilleford.net "Place your order without additional markup"" REDDING CROWN FORD 530-241-4321 www.crownmotorsredding.com

RIVERSIDE FRITTS FORD 951-687-2121 www.frittsford.com ROSEVILLE FUTURE FORD LINCOLN 866-415-4719 www.futureford.com SANTA ROSA HANSEL FORD 707-623-1426 www.hanselford.com SUNNYVALE SUNNYVALE FORD 408-522-0229 www.sunnyvaleford.com TULARE WILL TIESIERA FORD, INC. 559-688-7471 www.willtiesieraford.com

Receive a $500 Exclusive Cash Reward *

Farm Bureau Members Receive $500 * toward an Eligible New F-150 ® Lightning ® , Super Duty ® , F-150, Ranger ® or Maverick ®

FORD SUPER DUTY

FORD F-150 LIGHTNING

FORD F-150

FORD RANGER

FORD MAVERICK

UK tariff suspension could increase almond shipments

policy, said in a statement. California produces 80% of the global almond supply, including all commer- cially grown almonds in the U.S. Two- thirds of almonds produced in the state are exported. The UK tariff suspension follows India’s removal last September of retaliatory tar- iffs on some U.S. farm products that made California almonds and walnuts less com- petitive in the Indian market. India had imposed 20% retaliatory tar- iffs on certain U.S. agricultural products in

2019 in response to the Trump administra- tion’s tariffs on steel and aluminum. Almond exports to India, the sec- tor’s No. 1 export market, were valued at $854 million in 2021, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The department estimated the value of almond exports to India will reach $1 billion this year. California’s almond sector includes 7,600 farms and 100 processors, and sup- ports more than 110,000 jobs, including about 102,000 in the Central Valley.

The Almond Board of California is prais- ing the United Kingdom’s announcement that it will suspend tariffs for at least two years on raw kernel and in-shell almonds from the U.S. and other countries. The tariffs—4% on in-shell almonds and 2% on raw kernels—have been in place since the UK left the European Union in 2021. They are to be lifted on April 11. The almond board said the tariff suspen- sion is expected to save UK almond im- porters about $4 million a year, allowing them to offer a more competitive price on raw California almonds to UK processors and ultimately to consumers. The tariff suspension was requested by the UK’s Nut and Dried Fruit Trade Association. The group applied for the suspension after working with the almond board, which provided information and trade data to help facilitate the process. “We are grateful for our longtime part- nership with the UK’s Nut and Dried Fruit Trade Association and appreciate the UK government’s approval of the applica- tion to suspend tariffs on almonds,” Julie Adams, the almond board’s vice president for global technical and regulatory affairs, said in a statement. “This will certain- ly benefit UK consumers with increased availability of healthy almond products.” UK trade officials on March 18 issued a list of commodities, including almonds, that will have tariffs suspended until June 30, 2026. The officials said they may apply to extend the suspension of the tariffs or make a permanent change. UK duties of 8% to 10% remain on roasted almonds, including flavored al- monds. There is an 8% tariff on marzipan and almond flour and a 20% tariff on al- mond paste.

“We plan to work with NDFTA to assess further tariff suspensions in the UK, and with other partners overseas to identify opportunities for additional tariff suspen- sion requests to lower costs for importers and processors and boost demand for California almonds,” Keith Schneller, the almond board’s senior advisor on trade

Weed control in rice is a team sport.Your team just got stronger.

POWERS ELECTRIC PRODUCTS COMPANY

Loyant ® CA herbicide. Broadleaves and sedges have had it too easy for too long, strangling crops and chipping away at yields. That changes with Loyant CA herbicide. With a mode of action unlike any other commonly-used herbicide in rice, Loyant CA controls broadleaves and sedges. There are 12 weeds on the label, including ricefield bulrush, smallflower umbrellasedge, water plantain, ducksalad and California arrowhead. To learn how Loyant CA can contribute to your weed management team, talk to your PCA.

Body 15% OFF FOR ACTIVE MEMBERS OF THE FARM BUREAU

Visit us at Corteva.us/LoyantCA/AA ® ™Trademarks of Corteva Agriscience and its affiliated companies. Loyant CA is only registered for sale or use in California. Always read and follow label directions. ©2024 Corteva

ORDER TODAY PEPCO2000@COMCAST.NET 559-275-3030 WWW.POWERSELECTRIC.COM

April 3, 2024 Ag Alert 7

CALIFORNIA

Vegetables A SPECIAL GROWERS’ REPORT OF AG ALERT ®

The Western Cover Crops Council and the University of California established this crop demonstration at Park Farming Organics in Sutter County to showcase several varieties of cover crops.

Cover crops supply nutrients on regenerative farm By Vicky Boyd

“The soil hasn’t been tilled, but I’ve heard it’s in beautiful shape,” Collins said. Wynette Sills, who farms organic field crops with her husband, Ed, near Pleasant Grove, said they were considering transitioning to certified regenerative organic. Before doing so, they wanted to learn more about sheep grazing arrangements and specific soil tests, among other considerations. “We’re just at the beginning and learning and figuring out logistics,” she said. Scott Park, who planted his first cover crop in 1989, said they don’t want a single piece of bare ground. If a field isn’t planted with a cash crop, it has cover crops on it. The theory is the roots and the liquid compounds they exude feed the beneficial microbiome living in the soil. Withhold a crop and its roots, and you essentially starve the soil microbes. “Cover crops are driving our system,” Scott Park said. The Parks and many growers like them have seen first-hand how their soils have bene- fited from cover crops. But Sarah Light, UC Cooperative Extension agronomy advisor for Sutter, Yuba and Colusa counties, said she saw mixed results from a three-year cover crop study conducted on three Colusa County farms. Funded by the California Department of Food and Agriculture Healthy Soils Program, the trials compared two seeding rates of purple vetch to an untreated control. Light found no significant differences in processing tomato yields following the different

As part of their long-term commitment to building healthier soils, Scott and Brian Park have added sheep grazing to their farm, which grows a mix of organic vegetables and field crops. The father and son, who operate Park Farming Organics near Meridian, say the move into regenerative agriculture fits their philosophy of focusing on practices that produce positive impacts. Central to their efforts is growing cover crops before each cash crop. “Let’s take away the negatives that are taking your crop down,” Scott Park said. “Let’s put in the positives. If you take care of the soil, it will take care of the crop.” To foster learning about the emerging field of regenerative agriculture, the Parks, who are certified regenerative organic, hosted a field day with the Western Cover Crops Council and the University of California. During the event, the father-son duo discussed their cover crop rotations and showed off some of their specialized equipment, much of which was custom made. Attendee Rich Collins said he wanted to become better educated about some of the cover cropping and regenerative practices one of his tenants was using on a field near Dixon. Shortly after the 2023 processing tomato harvest, the tenant planted a sorghum-sudan cover crop, which mined much of the nitrogen left over from the tomatoes. After chopping the cover, the renter no-till planted a vetch cover crop and eventually brought in about 800 goats to graze the field in preparation for planting pickling cucumbers this spring.

See REGENERATIVE, Page 9

8 Ag Alert April 3, 2024

treatments, although there was an upward trend tied to cover crop seeding rates. On a positive note, she found no significant differences in greenhouse gas emissions. One challenge with the trials is they were only three years, Light said. “Most say it takes five years to measure (soil) changes,” she said. “However, what we’re hearing from growers is unquestion- able. Growers report better moisture infil- tration rates even after one year.” Not all cover crops are created equal, and each one has its strong points and drawbacks. The Parks draw on past expe- riences when choosing the best single va- riety or blend for each field, and they also factor in the previous cash crop as well as the upcoming one. Pulling off their crop rotations, which Brian Park described as like putting togeth- er a “big Lego set,” takes proper timing. In the spring, for example, they walk a fine line when terminating cover crops. The Parks want to get the benefits of lots of nitrogen-rich biomass, but they don’t want so much that it overwhelms ground preparation equipment or takes too long to break down. If the cover crops are allowed to grow too late into spring, they begin dry- ing out the ground. Once the Parks terminate the cover crop, they like to wait about two weeks before Regenerative Continued from Page 8

Brian Park, who handles day-to-day operations at Park Farming Organics in Sutter County, says the farm clears cover crops from fields before they begin drying the ground. Cover crops leave nitrogen-rich biomass to nourish soils for spring planting.

they plant. This allows the ground to mel- low, the vegetation to break down and soil- borne pest activity to decrease. As an example, Scott Park showed a field with a recently terminated vetch crop that was destined for processing tomato trans- plants in mid-April. “Because we held onto the moisture, we can plant the transplants into moisture, and it lets us go 30 days without irrigating,” he said. On some of their later-planted fields, they’ll bring in sheep to graze the cover crops. Livestock don’t provide additional nutrients to a field. Rather, they recycle those found in vegetation and excrete

them in forms more readily taken up by plants and soil microbes. Brian Park said they decided to incor- porate sheep after hearing Gabe Brown, a North Dakota farmer well known in regen- erative agriculture circles, speak at the Soil Health Academy in 2017. “We respected his opinion on introduc- ing the animals and the connection to the land,” Brian Park said. The Parks don’t own sheep and instead have an arrangement with Kaos Sheep Outfit, which brings its animals from the Napa Valley after they’ve grazed vineyards in late winter. The flock of about 1,000 sheep can

graze about 2 acres of farmland per day. Brian Park said they’re still trying to fig- ure out stocking rates since the current flock can’t cover their approximately 1,400 cover-cropped acres during the relatively short grazing season. But any solution likely won’t involve becoming sheep owners. “We looked into getting a herd of sheep, but I’m thankful we haven’t,” Brian Park said. “There are certain times of year they couldn’t be here. Where do they go and who’s in charge of them then?” (Vicky Boyd is a reporter in Modesto. She may be contacted at vlboyd@att.net.)

Agricultural Market Review

Quotations are the latest available for the week ending March 29, 2024

Workplace Violence & Unions on the Farm Upcoming Webinar April 16, 2024

Year Ago Week Ago Latest Week

Livestock

Slaughter Steers – 5-Area Average Select & Choice, 1100–1420 lbs., $/cwt. Hogs – Average hog, 51-52% lean, Iowa-Minn. market, $/cwt. Slaughter Lambs – $ per cwt. 85–176 lbs. National weekly live sales Field crops – basis prompt shipment Cotton – ¢ per lb., Middling 1 3/32” Fresno spot market Corn – U.S. No. 2 yellow $/bu. trucked Alfalfa Hay – $ per ton, quality * , FOB Region 1, Northern Inter-mountain

165-167

186-190

185-191

73.70

82.20

83.00

10:00AM - 11:00AM Presented by FELS Free Webinar!

133-156

211

170-270

80.03

81.99

81.13

8.78

6.13-6.22

6.27

Topics Include:

Scan to RSVP:

17 (G/P, per bale)

270 (S)

No quote

Region 2, Sacramento Valley

No quote

280-300 (P)

No quote

Workplace violence training requirements Card Check is Here Get Updates and Resources from FELS How is Farm Bureau working for you!

Region 3, Northern San Joaquin Valley

No quote

255 (P)

310 (P)

Region 4, Central San Joaquin Valley

400 (G/P)

180 (F/G)

320 (S)

Region 5, Southern California

25 (P, per bale) 19 (P, per bale) 19 (P, per bale)

Region 6, Southeast Interior

340 (P)

200-220 (P/S)

195-215 (P)

Rice – Milled #1 Head, FOB No. Calif. mills Medium grain, $ per cwt.

70-72

30-32

Provided by the California Farm Bureau as a service to Farm Bureau members. Information supplied by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Market News Branch.

Brought to you by Stanislaus and San Joaquin County Farm Bureau

*ADF=Acid detergent fiber; (S) = Supreme/<27%ADF; (P) = Premium/27-29; (G) = Good/29-32; (F) = Fair/32-35.

RSVP here: https://stanfarmbureau.org/events/

April 3, 2024 Ag Alert 9

2024

to Capitol Ag Conference sponsors for standing up for California’s farmers and ranchers! THANK YOU

Legislative Reception Sponsor – Silver

Legislative Reception Sponsor – Bronze

Premier Partner

Coffee Break Sponsors

cfbf.com |

Water Continued from Page 1

Westside Transplant in Merced County, which supplies tomato transplants to farmers across the state, said last month that growers in the Westlands Water District were hesitating to plant processing tomatoes because of uncertainty around water supplies. While tomato acreage is largely dictated by the supply needs of canneries, which are contracting less tonnage this year, Nicks said water supplies also play a role.

“It was kind of shocking,” she said last week, that the allocation for farmers south of the delta was not increased more. A larger revision, in line with the state’s water sup- plies, might have prompted some growers to order more tomato transplants, she said. “Depending on how things go,” Nicks said, “they could still change the alloca- tion. But by that time, it’s kind of too late.” Westlands Water District said it con- ducted an analysis that found steelhead

trout and winter-run chinook salmon “are expected to trigger further restrictions on delta pumping into June,” which is after farmers of many crops will have made their cropping decisions for the year. “The hydrology this year is good,” Scheuring said. “If we have folks that are getting shorted, that’s a problem.” (Caleb Hampton is an assistant editor of Ag Alert. He may be contacted at champton@cfbf.com.)

because our expectations are unrealistic,” said Allison Febbo, general manager for Westlands Water District, a major water provider that supplies farms in Fresno and Kings counties. “The broad public discussions surrounding water management in California have led us to believe that higher levels of delivery would be possible in better hydrologic years, such as this one.” Allocations for farmers and other con- tractors south of the delta were limited by the presence of protected fish species near pumping facilities, which resulted in reduced pumping from the delta into the San Luis Reservoir. The reservoir serves state and federal water systems. “While the series of storms in Northern California improved the water supply out- look, a number of factors, particularly an- ticipated regulatory constraints through- out the spring, continue to limit the water supply allocation for south-of-delta agri- culture,” said Karl Stock, regional director for the Bureau of Reclamation. DWR director Karla Nemeth said the state agency was doing its best “to balance water supply needs while protecting native fish species.” The threatened and endangered fish species found near pumping facilities include delta smelt, winter-run chinook salmon and steelhead trout. Regulations designed to protect those species have made it hard for San Joaquin Valley farm- ers to anticipate water supplies from year to year, Scheuring said. “Oftentimes, we find that species-relat- ed restrictions hamper the flow of water from north to south,” he said. “It is not so much a supply problem as a regulatory problem and, some would say, an infra- structure problem.” DWR emphasized the need for the Delta Conveyance Project, which would move water south from the delta through a 45- mile tunnel. The $16 billion project would “make it possible to move more water during high flow events while helping fish species like steelhead trout avoid threats posed by current pumping infrastructure,” the department said. In December, the water agency released a final environmental impact report, ap- proving the project. The tunnel still needs buy-in from water users that would fund the project, and it faces challenges from opponents trying to block it in court. Febbo said the inability to move water south through the current system has con- sequences for crop production and the peo- ple who make their living from agriculture. “Inadequate and unpredictable water supplies have a direct impact on the com- munities and farms in the San Joaquin Valley and their ability to feed the nation and the world,” she said. Febbo called the most recent allocation “a missed opportunity to celebrate what appears to be good outcomes for fisheries and to also provide water supplies that are essential for the San Joaquin Valley, an area already struggling with economic challenges and rising unemployment.” Nicole Nicks, general manager at

Avoid Capital Gains Tax When Selling Your Property

Consider a Charitable Remainder Trust (CRT) with City of Hope® if you would like to do any of the following:

• Establish a business succession plan alternative.

• Sell your property and bypass capital gains tax on the transfer. • Receive lifetime income for yourself and/or loved ones. • Receive a charitable income tax deduction.

• Convert a non-income producing parcel of land into a lifetime income stream. • Explore an alternative to a 1031 exchange.

A CRT can be established with appreciated real estate, such as agricultural, residential, vacation, commercial and multifamily properties, and is an investment vehicle that is in accordance with IRS guidelines.

EXAMPLE: CHARITABLE REMAINDER TRUST VS. OUTRIGHT SALE COMPARISON

OUTRIGHT SALE

CHARITABLE REMAINDER TRUST

Sales Price

$4,000,000 ($200,000) $3,800,000 ($983,970) $2,816,030

$4,000,000 ($200,000) $3,800,000

Sales Cost (5%) Net Proceeds

Estimated Capital Gains Tax

Sale Proceeds

$3,800,000 $1,225,480

Charitable Income Tax Deduction

- -

Net Annual Income

$190,000

The figures contained herein are for illustration purposes only and should not be considered legal, accounting or professional advice. Your actual benefits will vary depending on several factors, such as age, cost basis and current property value, the state in which the property is located and timing of funding a Charitable Remainder Trust. Please contact us for a no-obligation, complimentary consultation.

To learn more, contact Michael Rorman or another member of our team at 800-232-3314 or plannedgiving@coh.org . City of Hope’s expert Planned Giving team has helped many people create charitable trusts and generate significant tax savings and income benefits.

CityofHope.org

April 3, 2024 Ag Alert 11

CALIFORNIA

Field Crops A SPECIAL GROWERS’ REPORT OF AG ALERT ®

As part of ongoing research at this Colusa County rice field, farmer Kurt Richter is working with researchers and advisors to test drip irrigation for growing rice to reduce water use. Rice works as a rotational crop for processing tomatoes, which already uses subsurface drip tape. While the trial shows promise, Richter says, the method may not work for all rice farms.

Drip-irrigation trials show promise for rice farming By Vicky Boyd

“This is not a practical way to raise rice across the valley,” Richter said. “This is a niche situation where we’re looking for a profitable rotation crop for processing tomatoes.” The system’s success depends on soil texture and several other factors. In Richter’s case, he tried it on sandier soils that are not the best for rice but good for row crops. He said he wouldn’t even think of doing it on fields unsuitable for row crops or with heavier soils, such as on the Sacramento Valley’s west side. Initially, Richter considered row rice, a system popular in the Mid-South. Growers there plant rice on raised beds, much like they do tomatoes or melons, and furrow irrigate them. After visiting farms in Arkansas and Louisiana that grow row rice, he ruled it out because it didn’t save water. Instead, Richter looked at buried drip irrigation, also known as subsurface drip irri- gation. He said he was familiar with the improved irrigation efficiency it brought to the processing tomato sector, which already had the infrastructure, such as filters, in place. With the move to drip for rice also came changes to several other practices traditionally used in flooded rice. Rice producers typically shank aqua ammonia fertilizer into soil before flooding and planting. In the trial, because the drip field wasn’t going under a permanent flood, the fertilizer program was changed to include ammonia sulfate, a water-soluble dry fertilizer.

Following 2022 when he essentially received no surface water deliveries, Colusa County rice farmer Kurt Richter wanted to test whether growing rice on buried drip irrigation would be feasible in 2023. “Why would anyone want to do something as ridiculous as this? The answer is the drought of 2022. That’s when the idea first hatched,” said Richter, who farms row crops. “There was no prospect in sight that the situation was going to improve. Then the question became: Can we grow rice with less water, and how do we keep the industry alive?” The unusually wet winter in 2022-23 prompted him to change focus. The goal then be- came testing whether rice could be a profitable rotational crop for processing tomatoes that used the same buried drip irrigation tape, usually left in the ground for five to nine years. Last year was a proof of concept, and Richter—who worked with drip manufacturer Netafim and a team of research and crop advisors from Colusa County Farm Supply— learned from the challenges. “What we were trying to do was make this thing simple,” said Jim Cook, Colusa County Farm Supply research director. “All of the drip irrigation data globally shows you how it started and how it finished, but nothing in between.” The system proved promising enough that Richter plans to increase the trial to 32 acres of rice on drip this season from last year’s 8 acres. He was quick to point out that drip irri- gation for rice isn’t suited to every farm.

See RICE, Page 13

12 Ag Alert April 3, 2024

Rice Continued from Page 12

After Richter applied a preflood her- bicide and flooded the field, an air- plane flew on Calrose medium-grain rice variety M-521 and followed with a fertilizer application. Just four days after planting, a week of cold storms slowed the crop and forced Richter and his team of advisors to decide to reflood the field using drip to protect the seedlings. Eventually, the weather warmed and the farm was able to estab- lish the stand. Throughout the season, Richter walked the field and irrigated based on “eyeball- ing it.” The goal was to keep the root zone wet but not necessarily allow puddling on the soil surface. The team also fertigated, or applied liquid fertilizer through the drip tape. As the crop grew, Richter and his advi- sors noticed dark-green stripes in the field where high concentrations of fertilizer settled above the drip tape. As a result, they changed their irrigation tactics and applied more fresh water after fertigation to try to push the nutrients farther away from the drip lines. “We learned a lot about fertilizer move- ment and irrigation duration,” Richter said. In addition, the farm battled weeds, including cottonwood shoots and a lot of “strange” terrestrial species not found in conventional flooded rice fields. “You have a whole different spectrum

Drip-irrigation tape is applied to tubing on the edge of a Colusa County rice field. The farmer and researchers are studying different approaches to growing rice using less water and maintaining yields.

of weeds that grow in these different envi- ronments, and the chemicals work differ- ently,” Cook said. Deciding when to drain the field in prepa- ration for harvest also was an unknown. “When do you turn the water off? This is like nothing we’ve ever done before,” Richter said. He and advisors made an educated guess of two weeks before harvest, which in hindsight proved to be the right call. The crop dried down nicely, and there were no issues during harvest in late September. The field produced slightly more than 86 hundredweights per acre at

22.1% moisture, a yield Richter said he was pleased with. His conventionally grown rice fields yielded in the low 90 cwts. per acre. “Anything in the 70s would have been considered a success,” he said about the drip trial. His milling grades of 64/70, which denote the percentage of whole ker- nels compared to rice, were on the higher side. Overall, Richter said the trial penciled out because input costs were low. Compared to an adjacent rice field that was grown using traditional flooding, the trial used slightly more water overall. Richter said he and the research team

probably could have saved about 8 to 12 acre-inches had they not had to reflood the drip field during the cold snap. Based on lessons learned in 2023, Richter said they definitely plan to “crimp down on water use” this season. They also plan to try different approaches to herbi- cides and fertilizers. “The key is everything that goes into this has to be producing decent yields, produc- ing decent quality and needs to be more profitable than the alternative,” Richter said. (Vicky Boyd is a reporter in Modesto. She may be contacted at vlboyd@att.net.)

CIMIS REPORT | www.cimis.water.ca.gov

CALIFORNIA IRRIGATION MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM

For the week of March 21 - March 27, 2024 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)

IMPERIAL (87)

THIS YEAR LAST YEAR AVG. YEAR % FROM AVG.

0.72 0.58 0.76 -1

0.73 0.82 0.87 -17

0.73 0.80 0.96 -23

0.63 0.84 0.90 -30

0.92 0.89 0.95 -4

0.89 0.94 0.92 -3

1.00 0.88 1.08 -6

0.94 0.81 1.01 -5

1.59 1.38 1.45 10

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 irrigation water. Contact Richard Snyder at the University of California, 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. ETo information is provided by the California Irrigation Man- agement 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

April 3, 2024 Ag Alert 13

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