11.04.2008

Guidelines for Tomato Disease Identification

Publication provides short information on major diseases on tomatoes. Text is supported by images picturing cases of diseases. Early blight, caused by the fungus Alternaria solani, usually begins on older leaves as dark, irregularly shaped spots. Spots enlarge up to 1/2 inch in diameter and are characterized by a black, targetlike, concentric ring pattern (Figure 1A). Spots are surrounded by a yellow halo (Figure 1B). Zonate spots may also occur on stems, leaf petioles, and fruit (Figure 1C). If early blight is severe, whole leaves turn yellow and quickly dry (Figure 1D). The resulting leaf shed causes sunscald on the fruit.  Figure 1A  Figure 1B  Figure 1C  Figure 1D Septoria leaf spot is caused by the fungus Septoria lycopersici, and symptoms are seen mainly on leaves. Symptoms first appear on older leaves as small grayish white spots surrounded by a dark brown border. Black pepper-size dots can be seen in the center of each spot (Figure 2A).  Figure 2A Bacterial spot and bacterial speck produce similar symptoms on leaves and fruit. Bacterial spot is caused by Xanthomonas campestris pv. vesicatoria. Initially, leaf spots appear as small, circular to irregular, dark green areas on the lower leaf surface. With age, spots become purplish gray with black centers and are sometimes surrounded by a narrow yellow halo (Figure 3A). Spots will coalesce, causing whole leaves to die and drop prematurely (Figure 3B). Spots can also form on stems and petioles. Fruit spots first appear as small, dark, raised areas, which can be surrounded by a water-soaked border (Figure 3C). Spots later become slightly larger and take on a scabby, sunken appearance.Bacterial speck is caused by Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato. Although leaf and fruit symptoms are similar to bacterial spot, with bacterial speck, large areas of tissue that borders leaf and fruit lesions may become yellow or white (Figure 3D).  Figure 3A  Figure 3B  Figure 3C  Figure 3D Fusarium wilt, caused by the fungus Fusarium oxysporum, initially causes a yellowing and wilting of lower leaves on infected plants (Figure 4A). Symptoms can be seen either on a single branch, on several branches on one side of the plant, or on all the lower branches. The yellowing and wilting progress up the plant as the fungus spreads within its host. Yellow, wilted leaves often dry and drop prematurely (Figure 4B). Eventually, the entire plant wilts and dies, producing few, if any, fruit. When the epidermis and cortical tissue (bark) on the main stem above the soil line are cut and peeled back, the area beneath the epidermis will have a distinct brown discoloration. (Figure 4C). The discoloration can extend from the roots, up the stem, through the branches, and into the petioles of the plant.  Figure 4A  Figure 4B  Figure 4C Bacterial wilt is caused by the bacterium Pseudomonas solanacearum. A characteristic of this disease is that plants wilt and die rapidly without yellowing or spotting of the foliage (Figure 5A). To identify bacterial wilt, a section of the epidermis and cortical tissue (bark) just above the soil line can be cut and peeled back. The center of the stem (pith) will appear water soaked in early stages; later, the pith will turn brown and sometimes become hollow (Figure 5B). If a portion of the affected stem is cut and placed in a clear-sided glass container filled with water, a white, milky ooze will stream out of the cut end of the discolored vascular tissue (Figure 5C).  Figure 5A  Figure 5B  Figure 5C Southern blight is caused by the fungus Sclerotium rolfsii. The first aboveground symptoms are leaf yellowing and wilting of infected plants (Figure 6A). The stem at the soil line often appears soft and sunken and develops a brown-to-black discoloration both internally and externally. Under moist conditions, a white fungal growth can be seen on the lower stem near the soil surface (Figure 6B), on fruit in contact with the soil, and on crop debris on the soil around the base of the plant. Spherical, light brown, mustard seed-size (1 to 2 mm) sclerotia often form on the mycelial mat (Figure 6C). Southern blight commonly spreads down the row (Figure 6D).  Figure 6A  Figure 6B Figure 6C Figure 6D Bacterial canker is caused by Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. michiganensis. Vascular infections cause wilting, chlorosis, and eventual death of the plant. If the stem is cut open longitudinally, a yellow to reddish brown discoloration may be observed in the vascular tissue. In later stages, canker lesions may develop on the stem, petioles, and underside of the foliage (Figures 7A-B). Superficial foliar infections cause necrosis of the foliage, usually from the leaf margins inward. The necrosis can advance until the entire leaf and petiole dies. Early infection of the fruit can cause bird's-eye spots. Bird's-eye spots are characteristically white, necrotic lesions about 1/8 inch in diameter that soon develop dark centers surrounded by a white halo (Figure 7C).  Figure 7A  Figure 7B  Figure 7C Late blight is caused by the fungus Phytophthora infestans. Symptoms on leaves begin as greenish black, water-soaked, irregular blotches, which rapidly develop into large, purple black, papery lesions. The lesion margin is often purple black and pale yellow (Figures 8A-B). Lesions also appear on stems and leaf petioles (Figure 8C). During moist conditions, white, glistening, weblike fungal growth appears on the lower leaf surface at the lesion's edge. If cool, moist conditions persist, blight will spread rapidly and kill the plant. On fruit, gray green, water-soaked, greasy spots appear near the stem end (Figure 8D). As lesions develop, they become brown and wrinkled. Under moist conditions, lesions expand, covering up to half the fruit surface. Decay may extend several inches deep into the fruit.  Figure 8A  Figure 8B Figure 8C Figure 8D Buckeye rot, caused by the fungus Phytophthora parasitica, starts as a grayish green or brown spot on fruit that has come into contact with soil. Light and dark brown concentric bands appear in the affected area (Figure 9A). This firm, leathery rot is characterized by a smooth surface and lack of sharply defined margins.  Figure 9A Tomato pith necrosis, caused by the bacterium Pseudomonas corrugata, is sometimes confused with bacterial canker. Initial symptoms include yellowing of young leaves. These symptoms may progress into yellowing and wilting of the top part of the plant. Black streaking may be apparent on the main stem, which often splits. When the stem is cut open longitudinally, the center of the stem (pith) will be hollow and often have a chambered (ladderlike) appearance (Figure 10A). Profuse development of adventitious roots can be associated with the affected pith areas, and the stem may appear swollen.  Figure 10A Tomato spotted wilt virus (TSWV) is usually spread by thrips. Tomato plants infected with TSWV become stunted and often die (Figure 11A). Initially, leaves in the terminal part of the plant stop growing, become distorted, and turn pale green. In young leaves, veins thicken and turn purple, causing the leaves to appear bronze (Figures 11B-C). Necrotic spots, or ring spots, are frequently present on infected leaves, and stems often have purplish brown streaks (Figure 11D). Infected fruit may exhibit numerous ring spots and blotches. Fruit may become distorted if it is infected when immature (Figure 11E).  Figure 11A  Figure 11B Figure 11C Figure 11D Figure 11E Cucumber mosaic virus (CMV) is usually spread by aphids. Plants are often stunted and bushy (with shortened internodes) and may have distorted and malformed leaves (Figure 12A). Leaves may appear mottled (intermingling of dark green, light green, and yellow tissue) and slightly to severely distorted (Figures 12B-C). The most characteristic symptom of CMV is extreme filiformity, or shoestringing, of leaf blades (Figure 12D). Plants infected early in their development produce few fruit.  Figure 12A  Figure 12B Figure 12C Figure 12D Root-knot nematode, Meloidogyne spp., can attack tomatoes as well as more than 2,000 other plant species. When root-knot nematode populations are high, tomato plants often are stunted and exhibit nitrogen deficiency symptoms. Tomato plants may wilt during dry weather or during the hottest part of the day (Figure 13A). The nematode causes knots or galls to develop on both large and small roots; knots range in size from the head of a pin to an inch in diameter (Figure 13B).  Figure 13A  Figure 13B Blossom-end rot is caused when soil conditions, such as high and low soil moisture or low soil pH, affect the plant's ability to take up calcium. Dark brown sunken areas appear on the blossom end of the fruit (Figure 14A). Spots become leathery and may be covered with a black mold. Symptoms first appear on fruit that are half developed.  Figure 14A Blotchy ripening or gray wall is caused by adverse growing conditions, such as high nitrogen, low potassium, soil compaction, or low light intensity. Grayish brown, blotchy areas develop on infected green fruit. As fruit mature, these areas remain gray or turn yellow, and fruit appear to have ripened unevenly (Figure 15A). When fruit are cut open, the internal wall tissue is brownish (Figure 15B).  Figure 15A  Figure 15B Catfacing is caused by adverse environmental conditions during initial fruit development, such as cool weather during fruit set and wide differences in day and night temperatures. Symptoms can include extreme fruit malformation, scarring, and concentric cracks around the stem end of the fruit (Figures 16A-B).  Figure 16A  Figure 16B Edward J. Sikora, Extension Plant Pathologist, Assistant Professor, Plant Pathology

13.03.2008

Berry growers face unique weed control challenges

Weed control costs remain a substantial factor in all caneberry production. Weed control runs about $550 an acre in fall crop raspberries when they’re first planted and there are no metal stakes to contend with. In the spring crop, it’s about $200 an acre. However, the big cost in the spring crop is primocane control that can run up to $700 an acre. Blackberries present a big problem with perennial weeds and not many herbicides to control them. Weed control costs in blackberries can easily run $700 an acre. With the phasing out of methyl bromide, California berry growers are facing more weed control challenges than growers of other specialty crops. Chris Mathews is farm manager at Garroutte Farms in Watsonville, Calif. He deals with sticky weed control issues due to the crop mix, as well as the organic portion of the business. Garroutte Farms grows 300 acres of strawberries, blackberries and raspberries. “On fumigated strawberry ground, we can get our hand weeding costs down to about $550 an acre,” Matthews told a session at the recent California Weed Science Society meeting in Monterey, Calif. “In some soils, of course, you’re going to see a $1,000 plus an acre in hand weeding.” Garroutte Farms has been moving to full bed mulch earlier in the season to improve weed control. The full plastic mulch installed at pre-planting gives a longer period of weed control, according to Matthews. Additionally, herbicides in the furrow can reduce weed pressure as well as the need for hand weeding. Matthews has been working with Chateau in row middles at pre-plant. “We sprayed Chateau once the plastic was in place,” he says. “So far, we’ve had very good control. An herbicide application will cost you $40-$50 an acre. Chateau has been working. I can potentially see big savings. It’s not going to eliminate hand weeding, but it will help.” Weed control in caneberries is another issue, complicated by not only the expense of hand labor, but also some agronomic considerations that are unique to raspberries and blackberries. “Weed control in caneberries is very different,” says Mark Bolda, Santa Cruz County UC farm advisor. “It’s very distinct from other crops and also has ramifications far beyond weed control.” In Monterey County, the Light Brown Apple Moth (LBAM) is a serious problem in caneberries that can be made worse by weeds. “Weeds and trash around the edge of the field can lead to increased pest pressures so it is important to keep those areas clean along with the rest of the field.” Another interesting phenomenon in caneberry production is the very definition of a “weed”. “Caneberries reproduce by vegetative canes, not seeds,” Bolda says. “That means you have to balance the vegetative canes with the fruiting canes. Essentially the early vegetative cane (also referred to as a primocane) is a weed, where the later vegetative cane is not.” One option to manage a vegetative cane is to cut it out. Another option is using herbicides, which can also help manage weeds within the field. Since hand labor is so expensive, growers and researchers often look for ways to manage primocanes with herbicides. Unfortunately, the choices are limited. Goal is not registered in California, but is being used in the Pacific Northwest for primocane control. Shark is registered in California, but is not persistent in the soil. Paraquat is registered, but difficult to work with, Bolda says. Matthews has also worked with Shark and Goal Tender for primocane control. “Both controlled the initial primocane they came in contact with,” he says. “The results were similar to Gramoxone or maybe even better. However, Gramoxone is hard to work with.” Longer-term control also poses a challenge. “I was hoping that I would get more residual control with Shark and Goal Tender, but they didn’t work as well as I thought they might,” Matthews says. Tillage is also limited in usefulness for weed control since caneberries often have uneven hedgerows and thick growth. It’s difficult to get at the weeds. Hoop houses offer many production advantages, but also present challenges in some aspects of weed control. “It provides a great environment for caneberries to grow,” Matthews says. “It keeps the rain off and there are fewer weeds. However, anchor rows are a problem. We can’t run a Lilliston or other cultivators down the anchor row so we end up having to use a weed whacker or something else.” “Tillage will work in the furrows,” Bolda says. “You can throw up some soil on the smaller weeds in the bed, but you don’t have a lot of space to maneuver tractors.” “Cover crops are helping us with weeds,” Bold says a grower needs to make sure that the cover crop is not restricting the air flow within the hedgerow or keeping a lot of moisture in the canopy and inviting disease problems.” A cover crop should be planted after harvest and taken down in early spring, Bolda says. Mulches are another option, but not one that works well. “The problem with mulches is that we don’t know where all the canes are coming in,” he says. “I have not seen many mulches in caneberry production that work well.” Controlling primocanes with hand cutting is another option but very expensive. Propane or flame burning is a possibility. “You have to time it correctly and do it frequently,” Matthews says. “It only works when primocanes are no larger than about 2 inches. They have the entire root system to draw from, so they have a lot of power behind them and they’re hard to stop when they are larger.” All caneberries are not equal, however. “Blackberries are really a quite different cropping system than raspberries,” Matthews says. “In raspberries, if we can eliminate all the primocanes we’re fine.” With blackberries, the new primocane is essential for the next year’s crop. Also, the old wood doesn’t harden off the way it does in raspberries so it is susceptible to damage from chemicals and flame burning. “The new canes and the old canes are quite green,” Matthews says. “Generally, blackberries are grown for six or seven years, so it’s more of a true perennial crop and we see a shift in the weed spectrum. Perennial weeds such as field bindweed are more of a problem.” Weed control costs remain a substantial factor in all caneberry production. “Weed control runs about $550 an acre in fall crop raspberries when they’re first planted and there are no metal stakes to contend with,” he says. “In the spring crop, it’s about $200 an acre. However, the big cost in the spring crop is primocane control that can run up to $700 an acre. Blackberries present a big problem with perennial weeds and not many herbicides to control them. Weed control costs in blackberries can easily run $700 an acre.” Brenda Carol, Western Farm Press

15.02.2008

Agricultural Biotechnology Continues to Increase Crop Yield and Farmer Income Worldwide While Supporting the Environment

Global use of biotech crops increased again in 2007, with global biotech crop acreage reaching a historic 282 million acres in 23 countries, according to the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA). Global biotech crop acreage increased nearly 12 percent from 2006, when 252 million acres of biotech crops were grown in 22 countries. “The reason for such impressive worldwide adoption rates is simple — agricultural biotechnology delivers significant and tangible benefits, all the way from farm to fork,” said Jim Greenwood, president and chief executive officer of the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO). “Helping to provide for more sustainable agricultural production, the benefits include a reduction in the environmental impacts of agriculture, increased production on the same amount of acreage, improved food quality, and increased farmer incomes. More than 12 million farmers around the world have chosen biotech crops because of the significant socioeconomic, environmental, and agricultural benefit they provide.” Notably, the developing world continues to enjoy the benefits of biotech crops most aggressively. ISAAA reports that 11 million small, resource-poor farmers in 12 countries grew biotech crops in 2007, an 18 percent increase from 2006. While there is no easy and singular solution to starvation, many world organizations, such as the World Health Organization’s Food Safety Department and the United Nations (UN) Food and Agriculture Organization have noted that biotechnology can play an important role in expanding and enhancing the global food supply and improving the economics of poor rural communities. This past year also showed record domestic acceptance of biotech crops according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), with biotech crop acreage in the United States increasing in 2007 by 5.5 percent over 2006, for a total of 142.5 million acres. In 2007, 91 percent of U.S. acres of soybeans grown were biotech varieties, equivalent to 58.3 million acres. Acres of biotech corn grown in the United States increased by 12 percent in 2007 over 2006, for a total of 67.8 million acres of biotech corn, or 73 percent of all U.S. corn grown. Last year, 87 percent of cotton grown in the United States was biotech varieties — a four percent increase over 2006. The continued global acceptance of agricultural biotechnology demonstrates the benefits farmers recognize from choosing biotech crops. Agricultural biotechnology has helped enable large shifts in agronomic practices that have led to significant and widespread environmental benefits. No-till agriculture, in limited use prior to 1996, has been widely adopted due to the superior weed control from biotech crops that are able to tolerate the newer class of lower-impact herbicides. In addition, a reduction in plowing has also enabled farmers to significantly reduce the consumption of fuel and decrease greenhouse gas emissions. No-till farming also leads to better conservation of soil and water and a decrease in soil erosion and soil compaction. A 2007 study by the University of Washington showed that no-plow farming methods reduce erosion to almost natural, geologic rates. Plow-less farms lost an average of 0.02 mm of soil each year, an erosion rate close to the natural geologic rates of 0.03 mm per year. In contrast, annual soil loss on plow-based farms average 1.5 mm of erosion. The study also found that on average, conventional farms lost soil about 90 times faster than new soil is produced. Biotechnology has also made possible pest control measures that are more precisely targeted at specific problem pests while dramatically reducing impacts on non-target species. Biotech varieties have dramatically reduced farmers’ reliance on pesticide applications. Globally it is estimated that pesticide applications decreased six percent in the interval from 1996-2004, eliminating 379 million pounds of pesticide applications. 2007 also saw the introduction of several important regulations for plant biotechnology domestically and internationally that support smooth trade transactions, as well as support continued research into new biotech plant varieties. Most significantly, the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) released a draft programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), an important first step in the review and revision of agricultural biotechnology regulations in the United States, commonly known as APHIS Part 340 regulations. The revision of agricultural biotechnology regulations is essential to maintaining strong oversight as technology progresses and provides newer and more beneficial products. In March and May, the USDA and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) respectively announced their interim policy and final guidance for low level presence (or adventitious presence), which is the unintentional and incidental commingling of trace amounts of one type of seed, grain, or food product with another. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) previously announced its early food safety assessment for low level presence in 2006. The United States’ science-based policies on low level presence have provided a model for the Codex Alimnetarius Commission, the international food standards body. In September, the Codex Ad Hoc Intergovernmental Task Force on Foods Derived from Biotechnology reached consensus on and progressed an annex to the Codex Plant Guidelines that addresses safety assessments in situations of low level presence. Adoption of the annex is expected in 2008, signifying the first international standard for low level presence. BIO continued to encourage the responsible management of plant biotechnology by introducing Excellence Through StewardshipSM, the first industry-coordinated stewardship program. Excellence Through Stewardship is an industry quality management program designed to enhance pant product integrity and stewardship. This is the first program that meets today’s product stewardship challenges and provides a strong quality management program (QMP) for the full life cycle of biotech plants into the future. Also in 2007, USDA announced a complimentary Biotechnology Quality Management System (BQMS) program, intended to focus on improving compliance with field trials, using a quality management approach audited by USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service. The BQMS program centers around USDA providing compliance assistance through guidelines to entities on how to implement a quality management system for purposes of compliance with confined field trials. Continued Global Acceptance of Agricultural Biotechnology In 2007, according to ISAAA, a record 23 countries planted biotech crops, with an additional 29 countries allowing imports of biotech food and animal feed. Argentina grew the second largest amount of biotech crops, after the United States, with nearly 47 million acres. India also became the fifth largest producer of biotech crops worldwide, surpassing biotech crop acreage in China. ISAAA reports that biotech crop yields in India and China increased by up to 50 percent and 10 percent, respectively and reduced insecticide applications in both countries by up to 50 percent or more. This past year also saw the introduction of new crops; China also reported planting 250,000 biotech insect-resistant poplar trees in an effort to contribute to reforestation efforts. Biotech crop acreage is expected to increase in 2008 as two Australian states, New South Wales and Victoria, announced they will lift their bans on biotech crop plantings this year. Additionally, in 2007, Brazil approved, for the first time, seed sales of biotech corn varieties. In 2007 and early 2008, the European Union continued to work towards the acceptance of biotech crops; last year, the European Court of Justice rejected an Austrian ban on biotech crops, and in early 2008, the European Commission referred Poland and its ban on biotech crops to the European Court of Justice. This past year also saw increasing approvals worldwide for field trials or new biotech varieties: Brazilian researchers began field trials for three varieties of biotech sugarcane with increased levels of sucrose. In 2007, Uganda began field trials for biotech sweet banana plants that are resistant to bacterial wilt and Black Sigatoka fungal disease. The biotech varieties are expected to save up to 50 percent of yields which are typically destroyed by pests and diseases. In early 2008, Uganda also approved field trials for biotech cotton. New Zealand approved field trials of biotech brassica vegetables, including broccoli, cauliflower, cabbage, and kale, that are resistant to caterpillar pests such as cabbage white butterfly and diamond-back moth. Australia officials approved field trials for a drought-tolerant biotech wheat. India approved the first large-scale field trial of a biotech food crop — a biotech variety of the brinjal vegetable. The biotech variety is expected to have increased yield as well as decrease the need for pesticide applications. Swiss officials approved three biotech wheat trials for varieties resistant to fungal diseases. Japanese researchers began field trials for biotech blue roses. Research and development into new biotech varieties with increased farmer and consumer benefits also took place worldwide: U.S. researchers last year developed a biotech tomato that expresses 25 times more folate than conventional tomatoes. Other U.S. scientists announced the development of a biotech tobacco plant that produces insulin, and has demonstrated promising results in diabetic mice. American scientists also developed biotech plants capable of surviving extreme drought, and which thrive on far less water. The researchers were able to enhance the drought-tolerance of the plants by delaying the cell death phase plants’ leaves go through during a drought. Italian researchers announced the development of a new potato variety with enriched beta-carotene; the pro-vitamin A content of the new biotech potato increased 3.6-fold over conventional varieties. South African researchers developed a biotech corn variety that is resistant to maize streak virus (MSV), a virus endemic to Africa that stunts the growth of maize and leads to abnormal corn development. Taiwanese researchers announced the development of a biotech eucalyptus tree that ingests up to three times more carbon dioxide than conventional varieties. Scientists believe the new biotech variety could have the potential to help reduce greenhouse gasses and global warming. The biotech eucalyptus also produces less lignin and more cellulose. In 2008, New Zealand researchers announced the development of a tear-free onion through gene-silencing technology. In 2008, American researchers announced the development of a biotech carrot with 41 percent more calcium than conventional carrots. Animal Biotechnology While plant biotechnology continued to impart benefits to farmers and consumer worldwide in 2007, research and regulatory advances in animal biotechnology also continued. Most significantly, Codex advanced a guideline for food safety risk assessments of genetically engineered animals, the first international standard of its kind. Final adoption of this guideline is expected in 2008. Domestically, in early 2008, the FDA published is final risk assessment on the safety of meat and milk products from animal clones and their offspring; the European Food Safety Authority published similar health safety conclusions in early 2008 as well. As part of the biotechnology industry’s commitment to responsible management of agricultural biotechnology, in December 2007, the major animal cloning technology providers announced the formation of a tracking program using a supply chain management system that will allow food companies to identify animal clones. The program was developed to facilitate marketing claims and works through the use of a national registry. This system will help ensure a smooth transition of meat and milk products from the offspring of animal clones into the U.S. food supply. Numerous research advances in animal biotechnology continued to 2007: U.S. researchers announced the production of genetically engineered cattle that cannot develop prion proteins, which can result in the degenerative disease bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). This research has positive implications in benefits for consumers both for human health and food safety. Cloning technology continued to advance worldwide in 2007: Korean researchers cloned the world’s first poodle; China cloned its first Boer goat; a species from southern Africa that grows extremely fast and yields more meat than other goats or sheep; and Australian researchers cloned their first beef cow, a Brahman cow. The International Horse Genome Sequencing Project published the first draft of the horse genome sequence for use by biomedical and veterinary researchers. The project sequenced 2.7 billion DNA base pairs of a Thoroughbred mare. BIO represents more than 1,150 biotechnology companies, academic institutions, state biotechnology centers and related organizations across the United States and in more than 30 other nations. BIO members are involved in the research and development of innovative healthcare, agricultural, industrial and environmental biotechnology technologies. BIO also produces the annual BIO International Convention, the world’s largest gathering of the biotechnology industry, along with industry-leading investor and partnering meetings held around the world. Source - www.bio.org

15.02.2008

A guide to growing apples ecologically, including antique versus modern varieties, resisting disease, planting

An apple orchard may be the quintessential symbol of the good life in the country. What seems easier or more natural than plucking per fect, pesticide-free apples from trees you planted as saplings and lovingly watched grow over the years? In reality, apples are a demanding crop with many pest problems; commercial apple-growers don't apply 12 to 18 sprays a season because they enjoy spraying. But by carefully choosing apple varieties and rootstocks adapted to your area's climate and pests, by keeping trees healthy through good site selection and cultural practices, and by taking advantage of recent advances in biological control, you can grow high-quality, low-spray apples. Here in southeast Kansas, we produce bumper crops of more than two dozen varieties, almost free of serious disease or insect injury, by using just two early-season sprays. ANTIQUE VS. MODERN APPLES Many people hold to the romantic idea that apples used to taste better in the "good old days," and just naturally resisted disease and worms. After all, orchardists didn't spray their trees back then, right? Wrong. Fruits were some of the first crops to be treated with pesticides — and back in the good old days of the late 1800s and early 1900s, they used lead arsenate. (Old appleorchard soil may still contain unsafe levels of lead today. In Colonial America, when apples weren't sprayed, every farm family had a 50-tree apple orchard to produce enough fruit for a year's supply of hard cider, the fermented drink that washed down every meal. The family could store the few pest-free apples for fresh eating and baking, but they tossed most into the cider grinder, oblivious to worms and surface diseases. That's a good approach to follow today if you have the time and equipment to make cider, whether hard or sweet. But if you want apples for fresh eating, cooking and storing, choose each variety on its merits for those uses, as well as its disease resistance and climate adaptation, regardless of when it was developed. While there are a number of excellent older varieties, many other antiques are not woth growing today, because newer types have surpassed them. On the other hand, some of the latter-day improvements" were cultivated just for looks, transportability or fine flavor, but can be very disease susceptible. On the other other hand, all of the scab-immune apples (varieties so resistant to scab they don't get it at all, even during seasons when the disease is severe came from modem breeding programs. APPLES FOR ALL SEASONS When choosing apple varieties, note when they ripen and if they store well under refrigeration or in a root cellar, and for how long. Your apple harvest season can stretch as long as three or four months, starting with summer apples of July or August and lasting till first frost. Although the summer apples' flavor and quality aren't up to par with the best of the fall's, and the apples can only maintain firmness and flavor for a few weeks in the refrigerator, they provide a refreshing first taste of apple season. Where summers are hot, most summer apples appreciate some midday shade; excess heat causes mealiness and lack of sweetness. Late-ripening apples tend to store the longest, up to six months under cool conditions. Several late ripeners, in fact—such as Arkansas Black, Golden Russet and Melrose—aren't really as good to eat when harvested; they must "mellow" in storage for a month or two in order to develop their fullest flavor and sweetness. When choosing your late-ripening apples, check the length of growing season they need, and make sure your area provides an average of at least that many frost-free days. Time your apple harvests to suit your needs. If you don't want a deluge of fruit at any one time, choose varieties with ripening dates well-spaced over the season. Some varieties—those called dessert apples—are best eaten fresh, while others are better for cooking or baking. But since' many are great both ways, I'd choose mostly all-purpose varieties. In making cider, mix three or four of the best apples for this purpose; blending sweet and tart varieties will result in the most full-bodied flavor. If you market apples, customers are sure to come in with requests for types they know. Investigate the ones they suggest, and plant some if they can be grown successfully in your area. If customers ask for disease-susceptible commercial varieties just because they know their names, let them sample some of the ones you've chosen. When I worked on a fruit and vegetable farm in New Jersey and customers came to the roadside market looking for Delicious or Rome apples, we'd let them taste the Northern Spy. Usually they'd agree that the Spy was much tastier, and buy a basket of that instead. ROOTSTOCKS AND INTERSTEMS Rootstocks, like varieties, must be chosen carefully to suit your needs and conditions. The rootstock is essentially the bottom half of the tree—the root system and trunk upon which the apple variety is grafted. It largely determines the tree's size at maturity. Varieties grafted onto seedling rootstocks (usually grown from seeds discarded by canneries grow into standard-size apple trees, 25 to 30 feet tall. Dwarf or semidwarf trees result from grafting a variety onto a dwarfing rootstock—vegetatively produced by layering or cutting—that restricts the growth of the tree's top. Many different apple rootstocks are used by nurseries, each with its own adaptation, pest resistance or susceptibility, and degree of dwarfing. Fully dwarf trees are generally best for both home and commercial orchards. These trees grow from seven to 10 feet tall and are easiest to harvest, prune and spray. They produce much higher yields per acre than larger trees, and allow you to grow nine different trees—a different variety each, if you like—in the space that one full-size apple tree would take up. Some nurseries construct apple trees in three, rather than two, parts, and these are the trees I generally prefer. A six- to 12-inch-long stem piece called an "interstem," grafted between the rootstock and the variety, dwarfs the tree above, while the rootstock below is chosen for good anchorage and resistance to drought, diseases and pests. CHOOSING AND PREPARING A SITE For the healthiest trees and best crops, select a site where air flows freely and water percolates through the soil quickly. Avoid that fertile creek-bottom land: Waterlogged soil leads to root rot, and low areas that trap cold air create "frost pockets" that can kill blossoms in spring. Highly fertile soil induces overly vigorous vegetative growth that is difficult to control, more susceptible to fire blight and will delay the onset of fruiting. Once trees do start bearing, excess fertility produces softer fruit that's more prone to rot. A gentle to moderate slope is usually the best site. A south-facing slope is useful for long-season varieties in shortseason areas, as it warms up sooner in spring, hasten ing bloom and harvest. A north-facing slope delays bloom and harvest, which is helpful for early-blooming apple varieties where late spring frosts often threaten (though in many areas, most apples bloom late enough to avoid frosts most years. Eastand west-facing slopes don't affect bloom or harvest time much, but western slopes are usually best avoided because they need more irrigation—especially in hot, dry climates—and because morning sun dries dew off the foliage quickly, lessening the risk of disease. A source of irrigation water is essential during the first season after planting, and an irrigation system provides valuable drought insurance—especially for trees on shallow-rooted dwarfing rootstocks—throughout the life of the planting. A trickle system is the most water- and energy-efficient way to irrigate, but soaker hoses can be fine for a small, family apple orchard. Strong winds will increase the trees' moisture needs and can whip young trees around in their planting holes, weakening them and leaving them vulnerable to pests. So where winds are strong, choose a site protected by existing plantings, or plant a windbreak. Place the windbreak so it diverts the prevailing winds of the windiest season, and is at least as far from the fruit planting as its ultimate height. In our region, a one- or two-row summer windbreak of deciduous trees south of a fruit planting helps minimize summer irrigation needs and windfallen fruit. Areas with harsher winters may need a two- or three-row winter windbreak—including a row of evergreens, usually pines or spruces—northwest of the orchard. Before planting, test your soil and adjust the pH level to within the 6.0-to-8.0 range if needed. Add phosphorus or potassium only if your soil tests quite low for these nutrients. If your site lacks organic matter, you could turn under a green manure crop before planting, but don't build the soil up too much for apples. Establish a good legume-grass ground cover (we use white clover and fescue), or, if the site already has one, plant directly into it. Killing the sod around each newly planted tree with a heavy mulch or glyphosate (Roundup herbicide controls weeds, and the decaying ground-cover roots boost tree growth. Later, once the trees are established, you can plant wildflowers in the tree rows between the ground-cover strips, to attract beneficial insects. PLANTING AND PROTECTING NEW TREES In most areas you can plant apples either in early spring or late fall, while the trees are dormant. Fall planting enables roots to become better established before new leaves start demanding water in spring, but in colder zones fall planting risks winter injury to the not-yet-settled trees. Plant them the day you get them, if possible. Fill your planting holes only with what you just dug out of them. Do not add any nitrogen fertilizers—no chemical fertilizer mixes, fresh manures, blood meal, etc.—since they can burn young roots. Adding organic matter to the planting hole is not as helpful as improving the entire area with a good ground cover. In clay soils, organic amendments in the planting hole can actually be harmful, because roots and water will then tend to stay in the looser soil of the hole instead of penetrating the heavier native soil. Without deep roots, the trees are more susceptible to drought, and impeded water drainage beyond the planting hole can lead to root rot. Set trees a few inches deeper than they grew in the nursery, to reduce root suckering. Keep the graft union of trees on dwarfing rootstocks an inch or two above the soil; if the union were buried, the variety could root and overcome the rootstock's dwarfing effect. Set interstem trees with the interstem piece half above and half below the soil. Set all trees so the curved part above the graft is facing into the direction of prevailing summer winds. After filling the hole, build a slight mound around the tree with additional soil and make a watering hole in this mound a few inches away from the tree's trunk. Water newly planted trees often. Apple trees on poorly anchored, fully dwarfing rootstocks need to be tied to .sturdy stakes so the wind doesn't blow them over. A fence post or two-inch-thick, decayresistant wooden post, five feet tall, makes a good stake. Drive the post 18 inches into the ground, six to 12 inches away from the tree. Tie the tree loosely to the stake with soft material in a figure-eight loop, so you don't girdle the tree. Trees on standard or semidwarfing rootstocks don't need staking, and neither do interstem-dwarfed trees. Protect tree trunks from winter sunscald, borer insects and rodents by wrapping white plastic tree guards around them, sinking the guards an inch into the soil. Remove these when the tree's branches and leaves have grown enough to shade the trunk. Another way to prevent sunscald and borer damage is to paint the trunk with white interior or exterior latex paint diluted half-and-half with water. A 14-inch-tall wire-mesh guard around each tree, sunk two inches into the ground, can also protect against rodents. TRAINING AND PRUNING Cut back the new trees immediately if planting in spring, but wait until early the following spring to prune trees set in the fall. Pruning adjusts the top to the reduced root system, which was pruned in transplanting, and avoids stressing roots. Pruning also stimulates buds to grow just below the cuts, helping the tree develop its best shape for fruiting. Cut trees off 30 to 36 inches from the ground, just above a bud. If the tree has branches, remove any that are less than 18 inches off the ground. Any strong branches above this height that rise from the trunk at a wide angle and in desired positions may be left on, but cut them back by half. Cut off all branches rising at a narrow angle—less than 45°—since these will develop into structurally weak branches, likely to split under a heavy crop load and very susceptible to winter injury. Don't worry if you're left with few or no side branches—buds on the trunk will grow i nto side branches that you can train to wider angles. Training a young apple tree should result in a good bearing framework. Many different training systems can achieve this, but the one most commonly used is the central leader system. Whatever training system you follow, spread the scaffold branches with clothespins or wooden strips notched at both ends, or hang weights on the branches to pull them down. Spreading or weighting the branches causes them to diverge from the trunk at a wider angle, which makes them more winterhardy and better able to bear heavy fruit loads without breaking. Prune as little as possible while trees are young, only enough to achieve the desired tree structure, since excessive pruning will delay fruiting. Most cuts should remove just the tips of branches, to induce secondary branches to grow. Competing or upright branches must be removed at their bases, but some of the latter can be saved if they are spread. Prune twice each year: in early spring to shape the tree and encourage new growth, and in early- to midsummer to channel that growth in desired directions. As our trees fill their allotted space, we keep them in bounds by doing most pruning in mid-to late summer, simply by repeatedly hand-pinching the tips off new shoots. The later in the growing season you prune, the less regrowth will occur. Never prune later than two months before your first expected fall frost, though, as that would delay tree hardening for winter and lead to increased cold damage. Cut out any dead or diseased wood as soon as you see it, no matter the time of year. Remove root suckers to help prevent fire blight—preferably in summer, because winter pruning only stimulates sucker regrowth. FERTILIZING AND IRRIGATING A few weeks after planting, we apply composted horse manure-obtained by the truckload from a nearby mushroom factory—in a three-foot-diameter circle around each tree, to a depth of three or four inches, keeping it several inches away from the trunk. Any other high-nitrogen compost would also provide essential nutrients and help control early-season weeds. A couple of months later, in early summer, we apply four to six inches of a low-nitrogen mulch, such as straw, to conserve soil moisture and control late-season weeds without inducing the trees to grow vigorously too late in the season. During the first season, we check the amount and color of growth to guide us in fertilizing the next year. If leaves are dark green and shoots grow 18 to 36 inches, the fertility level is fine, and we'll apply about the same amount of compost the second spring, soon after budbreak. We'll increase the fertilizer ration to trees that didn't grow enough, and decrease it for trees with excessive growth. Once apple trees start bearing and fill most of their allotted space, cut down on fertilizer. Branch tips of mature trees should only grow 12 to 16 inches per season. Too much nitrogenous fertilizer induces lush growth that's susceptible to fire blight, winter injury and softer fruit that won't store well and is prone to rot. On our loamy soil, bearing trees get no fertilizer beyond that provided by the mown clover-and-grass ground cover. Water new trees deeply once a week, unless one inch or more of rain has fallen. Established apples on dwarfing rootstocks also need frequent waterings, every 10 days or so in the absence of at least one inch of rain per week. Many interstem-dwarfed and semidwarf apples, along with standardsize apple trees, are quite drought resistant, and need watering only when no rain has fallen for two or three weeks. Whenever you water, apply enough to wet the soil to a depth of five or six feet, to discourage shallow rooting. Do not apply fertilizer from late summer until just before leaf fall, and don't water during this time unless the soil becomes very dry, to allow the trees to slow their growth in preparation for winter. Where apple scab is a problem and moderately susceptible varieties are grown, spray a high-nitrogen liquid fertilizer—urea or concentrated fish emulsion—on the leaves about a week before they drop (late fall. This will help the leaves decompose faster and can virtually eliminate in-orchard sources of scab infection come spring. FRUIT THINNING Apple trees on dwarfing rootstocks bear fruit at a young age—often just two or three years after planting. This is wonderful, but excess early fruiting reduces root growth, leading to poor anchorage. To avoid this, soon after the natural drop of small fruit begins each May or June (three to five weeks after petals fall) twist off all but one or two fruits from each cluster. Heavy fruiting on the central leader (the extension of the tree's main trunk, which should be kept growing upward) will bend the leader down and ruin the tree's shape. If the leader bends even after you've removed excess fruit, tie a piece of wood to it to hold it upright. Use rag strips or other soft material for tying, and remove the splint right after harvest to avoid girdling the leader. Continue to thin excess fruit each spring, even after the tree is well established, to increase the size and quality of the remaining fruit and prevent a biennial bearing pattern of huge crops one year and scant crops the next. Once trees get larger, you can expedite this process by gently shaking each branch to dislodge the tiny fruit that would have fallen anyway. Then twist off all but the biggest blemish-free fruit or two in each cluster, carefully removing all fruits showing insect damage, especially the 1/8 inch-long, crescent-shaped, egg-laying scar of the plum curculio. When you've finished thinning, rake up and dispose of all fruit on the ground. CONTROLLING INSECT PESTS The codling moth, the classic worm in the apple, is the worst insect pest in most areas. If the moths are emerging from your trees—not flying in from neighbors' trees—you can reduce the overwintering generation by wrapping corrugated cardboard strips around apple and pear trunks in late summer, before the worms crawl out of the fruit and down the trees to hibernate. The corrugated cardboard will seem like a fine hibernating place, and over the winter woodpeckers will pick out many of the worms and eat them. In late winter or very early spring, remove and destroy the cardboard, along with any remaining worms and pupae. The hibernating worms pupate in late winter, emerging as moths soon after budbreak. You can trap many of these moths—even if they're flying in from outside your property—in buckets containing one part yeast, two parts honey or molasses, and six parts water. If codling moths are still numerous, spray with ryania or phosmet (Imidan) at petal fall and again 10 to 12 days later. (Ryania is an insecticide derived from a plant and thus considered "organic." Phosmet is synthetically produced but actually less ecologically damaging; it's much more effective against several key apple pests, yet very easy on beneficial insects.) In the North, where the codling moth has only one generation per year, that's all the control you'll need. Here in Kansas, where the codling moth has three generations per year, we control the first and heaviest generation with these two sprays, and the second and third generations with beneficial Trichogramma minutum wasps. These wasps live longer and provide better control because of the availability of abundant nectar and pollen from flowers I planted under and near the apples and pears. Flowers in the carrot (dill, caraway), mustard (alyssum, rock cress) and daisy (yarrow, black-eyed Susan, coneflowers) families are especially helpful in attracting beneficial wasps. A new, no-spray way to combat codling moths, in orchards of five acres or larger, is mating disruption. Pheromone-impregnated plastic ropes, similar in size and shape to twist-ties used to seal bread bags, are hung near the top of each tree just before the first moth flight (around bloom) and again just before the second moth flight. These pheromone dispensers give off a blanket of scent, like that of female moths, confusing the male moths so that few are able to locate and mate with the females. Egg-laying—and the resulting worm damage—is greatly reduced. In orchards of one acre or larger, mating disruption with a different pheromone provides excellent control of the oriental fruit moth. This worm looks like a codling moth but is slightly smaller, and tunnels throughout the fruit. This pest has done more damage in some regions (such as Arkansas and Kansas), especially late in the season, than has the codling moth. Trichogramma wasps help control it, but extra releases are needed later in the season. Several types of leaf rollers, hidden under leaves that they plaster against the fruit, can chew shallow holes in apples. The two ryania or phosmet applications for codling moth control the overwintering worms. Later in the season, in a small home orchard, simply look for leaves covering apples, and squash the worms. In larger orchards, monitor leaf rollers with pheromone traps, and spray with Bt if you catch more than to moths per trap per week. Mating disruption of leaf rollers works well in orchards of five acres or larger. Plum curculio can scar apples east of the Rockies, but is easily controlled by the two phosmet applications used against the codling moth. Ryania and other organic sprays are not effective against curculio, but damage can be reduced by thinning fruit carefully and raking up thinned and dropped fruit. And though this long-snouted beetle destroys peaches, plums and other stone fruits—where the legless worms burrow through the soft flesh—it often causes only minor scars on apples, whose hard flesh crushes and kills the developing worms. Plant-bug damage to the fruit is often minor too, but if these are numerous, capture them with sticky white rectangle traps hung in trees before bloom. Another pest in the northeastern quarter of the United States—which thankfully doesn't occur here in Kansas or most of the rest of the country—is apple maggot. This legless worm tunnels throughout the fruit, earning it the nickname "railroad worm." Lowspray growers in New England have prevented damage by hanging sticky red balls, which attract and trap the adult flies, in their trees. But in Michigan, these traps have worked only as a method of timing sprays, such as rotenone, against apple maggot. Mass-trapping attempts in Michigan have resulted in 100% maggot-infested fruit. If aphids, mites or scale are a problem, a superior-grade oil spray just before budbreak will control these insects. We've never needed to apply this spray because these pests are controlled mostly by naturally-occurring predators in our lowspray orchard. We do see some aphids on branch tips in early summer, but we remove these tips anyway when we prune in June, and simply squash the aphids underfoot before carting away the prunings. PREVENTING DISEASES The key to apple-disease prevention is to choose varieties that resist the worst diseases of your area. It's also important to choose a site with good air movement, and maintain scrupulous orchard sanitation. Thin the fruit adequately, and remove all mummified fruit that rotted the previous year and dropped to the ground or is still hanging on the tree. Keep the trees well-pruned and open to air currents. Prune out dead, damaged or diseased wood—from your other trees and shrubs as well as your apples—whenever you see it, and remove all prunings and fallen branches from your property, or chop them up finely with a flail mower. Several fungi that cause fruit rots on apples are primarily colonizers of dead branches in trees or on the ground, and spread from the dead wood to nearly ripe fruit. When removing the diseased branches, cut six inches or more below the visible disease margin, and 12 inches below is even better for fire blight—blackened shoot tips curved like a shepherd's crook. Sterilize pruning tools between each cut—by dipping them in a solution of one part household bleach to nine parts water—to avoid spreading the disease. Rinse, dry, and oil the tools when you're finished, to prevent rusting. Right after bloom, check for blighted spurs and break them off—that's faster than cutting and you won't spread the disease. By choosing varieties that resist fire blight, cedar apple rust and white rot, and by following the cultural practices outlined above, we haven't needed any disease-control sprays. Growers who choose scaband mildew-resistant varieties, where these diseases are problems, can do the same. "Organic" sprays for diseases can do more harm than good. Sulfur kills predator mites and can lead to outbreaks of pest mites, and both copper sulfate and Bordeaux mixture partially defoliate apple trees and cause fruit to russet (a patchy, netlike brown coating that cracks the skin and encourages white rot. There are naturally russeted varieties, on the other hand, which develop a thick brown coating over the entire fruit, like that of a Bosc pear. This protects against rots and diseases on the fruit's surface (scab, mildew, sooty blotch and flyspeck, as long as the fruit doesn't crack. These russet apples also store fairly well without refrigeration and can be most useful to the ecological applegrower who can believes that beauty is more than skin-deep. HARVEST AND STORAGE Know each apple variety's approximate ripening time in your area, and start checking fruit maturity a couple of weeks before the expected harvest date. Apples are generally ready to harvest when the ground color (the background color underneath the red or orange overcolor) turns from dark green to light green or pale yellow, and they twist off easily from the spur. When some fruit seem ripe, taste them to be sure. Some varieties tend to drop their fruit before they're completely ripe, especially if the ground is dry or the fruit are pest-infested, so give those varieties special care, and pick them a little early to prevent the apples from bruising when they fall. The late apples must ripen fully on the tree or they'll always taste green, but they must be picked before the first frost or fruit will suffer damage. Since many late-storage apples aren't fit to eat straight off the tree, judge maturity by ground color and how easily the apples twist off. Stored in a root cellar or refrigerator, they'll keep you crunching till spring. Brenda Olcott-Reid Source - http://www.motherearthnews.com

14.12.2007

What Would You Pay For A Trustworthy, Long Term Weather Forecast?

About half of Cornbelt farmers would purchase improved weather forecasts for which they could be 75-100% sure of the weather 6 to 9 months away, all in an effort to make better production decisions. The results of a survey taken 6 years ago found that the average farmer who would subscribe would not pay much more than $75 for the information, even though it might accurately predict an El Nino that could cause up to $6.5 billion in damages to the US. You have just watched the latest weather forecast on TV presented by the blow-dry weather reader, and you say to yourself, “I wish I could depend on what he says.” You have learned where some of the weather maps are located on the Internet, and you may even have a weather service on your cell phone. But you lack long term weather forecasts that will allow you to adjust your cropping pattern for different crops, or even just select more drought-resistant hybrids. How important is that to you, and what would you pay for having that knowledge? No sales pitch is being made here, so…… The western Cornbelt was a magnet for hip waders this year. The eastern Cornbelt was parched during most of the growing season. There is an increasing prospect for a La Nina arriving, but remind me, does that mean wet or dry? It is part of the dynamic cycle of surface water temperatures in the Pacific along the Equator, and the cycle can either mean wet or dry seasons for the Cornbelt, impacting crop production and commodity prices. The grain traders may already be spending a lot of money on long range forecasts to improve their profits, but what about the producer where the grain meets the ground? Ohio State economists Brent Sohngen, Ted Napier, and Mark Tucker interviewed 936 farmers about the use of weather information, their desire for improved information, and how much they would pay for it. The survey was taken in 2001, and the study was published in 2003, but the findings are important because of the current weather dynamics and the extraordinary investment farmers are making in land and inputs for the 2008 crop. The researchers say one El Nino cycle could have a financial impact on the US that might range from $1.5 to $6.5 billion, and the value of a perfect forecast for an El Nino cycle could be as large as $323 million just for agriculture. Adoption of practices to prepare for such a weather cycle depends upon farmer perceptions of the accuracy of the forecast. While farmers have marketing tools such as forward contracts, and production tools such as crop insurance, the Ohio State economists say weather information could substitute for such risk management devices, or help them make better decisions. What is a long term forecast in your mind? To the researchers it is 6 to 9 months in advance of important production decisions, such as seed selection and crop insurance decisions. Some of you may already have a subscription weather service, so the Ohio State researchers considered either an initial subscription, or upgrading to a more expensive service. And the decision to adopt an improved forecast and pay for it is all based on an underlying profit motive. The survey found that weather ranked behind market prices and input costs as the most important risk factor they face. And they were asked “If you could access weather information in which you could place 75 – 100 percent confidence of predicting monthly temperature and precipitation for your farm 6 – 9 months in advance, would you use such weather information to make crop production decisions?” They found that 47% would use such reliable forecasts if they were available:1) Income does not have a significant effect on the probability of adopting improved weather forecasts. 2) More educated farmers are more likely to adopt the information, while older farmers are less likely to adopt it. 3) Farmers who have adopted long-term weather information for a larger number of farm decisions today are more likely to adopt the improved weather data we offer them. 4) Greater losses from drought likewise increase the probability of adopting the improved weather information, whereas the use of insurance and genetically modified seeds to reduce susceptibility to droughts does not seem to influence the adoption decision. 5) Average yield and variance in the yields for the county where the farmer is located do not have significant effects on the adoption decision. (Survey was taken in Ohio.) Of the 219 farmers who would adopt the improved weather forecasts for 6-9 months out, the researchers asked how much they would pay for that service. The willingness to pay for improved weather information averaged about $105 per year, but the most frequently mentioned fee that would be acceptable was about $75. (Keep in mind that these are 2001 dollars, and today’s averages would be slightly more by inflation, and possibly larger still because of higher production costs.) Summary: About half of Cornbelt farmers would purchase improved weather forecasts for which they could be 75-100% sure of the weather 6 to 9 months away, all in an effort to make better production decisions. The results of a survey taken 6 years ago found that the average farmer who would subscribe would not pay much more than $75 for the information, even though it might accurately predict an El Nino that could cause up to $6.5 billion in damages to the US. Stu Ellis

28.08.2007

Coping with Drought: Evaluating the Economics for Livestock Producers’ Options

Introduction Coping with the consequences of drought is costly for livestock producers.  This article focuses on beef cattle and other livestock that use pasture are the main source of feed.  Options will vary from farm-to-farm but in each case one of these options is likely to be less expensive that the others.  Options include buying various types of forages and feed, reducing animal numbers, or some combination.  The discussion that follows is intended to show how different options can be evaluated, using information from the NCSU enterprise budgets as examples.  These options include buying hay, using abandoned row crops or row crop residues, stockpiling, growing winter annuals, selling livestock, and selling the whole herd.  The examples used in this article are for beef cattle but these procedures apply to other pasture-based livestock such as meat goats. Where to start?  Begin by developing a feed budget for the current herd.  A feed budget is an estimate of the amount of feed that will be required to carry the animals through a feeding period of a certain length.  Feed requirements depend on number of animals, their daily forage intake needs, their daily energy, protein and mineral needs, and the length of feeding period.  The animal performance goals you have set (such as daily gain and body condition) affect these requirements.  In a summer drought situation it may be prudent to develop two feed budgets: Plan A if it rains and there is good fall grass growth, and Plan B if it stays dry and feed must be procured to carry livestock through until spring. The second step is to assess current feed inventories, if any, and then to determine additional feed needs, including forages and supplementary feeds.  The third step is to identify what feeds are available and the last step is to “run the numbers” and see which one is least costly.  The fourth step is to see if reducing livestock numbers is less costly than procuring feed to maintain current numbers. Here is an example of a feed budget to carry a herd of brood cows through a fall and winter feeding period.  There are 50 brood cows with an estimated average daily intake of 25 lb. of dry matter per day.  The normal time spring pastures are available is six-and-a-half months away, 200 days.  So, if you maintain the herd at its current size it will take [50 cows X 25 lb per day X 200 day] / 2000 = 125 tons of dry matter.  In addition, the budget calculations should consider the daily nutrient needs of the cattle in terms of energy, protein and minerals. Note this feed budget is calculated on a dry matter basis because that is the part of the diet containing the nutrients animals need.  All feeds contain some water, so an allowance must be made for this when thinking about the actual amounts of a particular feed on an “as fed” basis.  Some examples of typical dry matter (DM) content are: Hay ~ 85% DM; pasture ~ 20 to 25% DM, corn silage ~ 35% DM: ground corn ~ 88% DM.  Converting all feeds to a dry matter basis allows for a more accurate assessment and comparison of cost and value. Some feed, whether grown or bought, will be lost and not eaten.  These losses may occur during harvesting, storage or feeding and they add to total feed costs.  Actual losses depend on the crop and type of harvesting, storage and feeding system.  Harvesting losses can vary from 5 to 50% of the amount of harvestable production, storage losses from 5 to 20%, and feeding losses from 5 to 15%.  Estimates of combined losses from all sources are from a minimum of 15% up to 50% of the initial amount of harvestable production.  So, for example, hay bought or made at $80/ton with a 30% loss effectively costs $115/ton for the hay actually eaten by the animals! Considerations for bought feeds include the type, fiber content (usually from forage crops), content of the major nutrients -- energy and protein – and minerals.  The effective cost of alternative feeds include: The purchase price; harvesting cost if a standing crop, including losses; storage cost, including losses; feeding out cost, including losses; and dry matter content.  Some low quality forages may require supplementation.  The important cost to estimate is the total ration cost of what the animals actually eat, including forages and any supplements.  Feeds with a high fiber content include hays, silages, row crop residues, and some of the higher fiber byproduct feeds.  Supplementary feeds include grains, oilseed meals, byproduct feeds and minerals. Depending upon the estimated expense of the various feeding options, it may be less costly to reduce animal numbers instead, including selling or removing animals. Selling calves early, selling off replacement heifers, reducing the number of cows, and selling the entire herd are all options to consider.  Animals may be relocated using contract grazing or contract raising arrangements.  Cattle may be grown out through retained ownership.  Selected options are discussed in more detail in the following sections. Buying or Procuring Feed Identify the alternative feeds available.  Compare individual feeds of the same type -- among forages and among grains & byproducts – and combine them to meet animal needs.  FeedVal is a spreadsheet that compares the value of the energy and protein content of various feeds relative to corn and soybean meal prices.  It is available on line at: http://www.ag-econ.ncsu.edu/ extension/Ag_budgets.html.  However, FeedVal, similar programs and rules of thumb for estimating values relative to the price of corn and/or soybean meal are only intended as screening tools to help identify the most promising alternative feeds. The key factor is total ration costs, including losses and feeding out costs.  Losses and feeding costs are high for forages but vary by type.  Include costs and losses arising from harvesting, including grazing management; storing, and feeding out.  Buying Hay Costs to consider include the purchase price or cost delivered to the farm, storage losses, if any, feeding losses, feeding out costs. Convert costs to a dry matter basis for comparing alternative feeds.  For example: ·        If the purchase price, delivered, is $150 per ton, with an 85% dry matter content, the cost per ton of dry matter is $176 per ton of DM ·        If storage and feeding losses are 15% then the effective cost of the hay is $176 per ton as fed and $207 per ton of DM ·        If feeding out cost is $13 per bale, at three bales per ton, the cost is $39 per ton ·        The total cost of this bought hay is $215 per ton as fed, or $253 per ton of DM.  Standing Crops and Crop Residues What is a standing crop worth?  A livestock producer would need to pay at least the value per acre to the crop farmer.  If it is a harvestable as corn, beans, etc. then, to the owner, it is the net income from harvesting and selling the crop (plus any insurance payments).  If the crop material is residue or an abandoned crop not worth harvesting, then, to the owner the only value is any cover crop or fertilizer value.  Crop residues are likely to have a lower feed value than a crop with some crop remaining (ears of corn or beans in the pod).  The maximum value of any crop material to the livestock owner is the cost of next best alternative feed, net of handling costs.  If the value of the crop to the crop farmer is less than the cost of the livestock producer’s next best alternative then there is room for negotiating a price acceptable to both. Hay Making Cost The NCSU Hay Making Budgets estimate the cost of small square bales at $76 per ton of dry matter, or $65/ton hay as made.  The estimated cost of large round bales is $64 per ton of dry matter or $54/ton hay as made.  The spreadsheet versions of the budget allow the user to modify these costs to suit their circumstances, including baling other materials like corn stalks.  The budgets only include the actual hay making operation.  Add the cost of the hay crop or the crop residue to get the total cost of the baled crop at harvest.  When planning, consider the risk of rain damage and field losses on cost. The NCSU Hay Making Budgets estimate full economic costs, not financial costs.  Costs include: ·        Operating costs of inputs -- fuel, fertilizer, chemicals, labor, seed, interest ·        Fixed costs  -- depreciation, interest, taxes, and insurance on machinery and buildings investments ·        Opportunity costs of family labor & equity at prevailing wage and interest rates. These costs include moving bales off the field to nearby storage but not the cost of stacking, covering, etc. or feeding out. Yield estimates are included to derive costs per ton of dry matter.  A breakdown of the baling costs are shown in Table 1. Table 1.  NCSU hay making budget costs per ton of dry matter ItemLarge RoundSmall Square Operating cost $23   $27 Fixed cost $22   $26 Labor $19  $23 Total cost/ton DM $64   $76 Cost per ton as fed, hay at 85% dry matter $54   $65 Other forage enterprise budgets are available and may include harvesting cost. NCSU budgets do NOT include the cost of storage losses or feeding out the forage to animals, farm overhead cost or land charges. Forage Feeding Out Costs Feeding out costs should be considered when estimating total feed costs because these can be significant, particularly if a livestock owner places a value on his or her time or employees must be paid.  An example of the estimated cost using a 2006 model year 75 horse power tractor and bale spear for feeding includes annual ownership costs of $6.08 per hour and operating expenses of $10.50 for a total cost of $16.58 per hour.  Add labor at a cost of, say, $9.00 per hour and the total cost is $25.58 per hour.  If you use the tractor for 30 minutes to put out hay the feeding out cost is approximately $13. Table 2 summarizes the total cost of harvesting and feeding corn stalks on an as fed and a dry matter basis under three assumptions about the cost of acquiring the corn stalks.  Clearly, the cost is substantial and it would be prudent to consider alternatives, including grazing the corn stalks, fall stockpiling and winter grazing. Grazing Management Cost Grazing is an alternative to mechanical harvesting and feeding a forage crop or crop residue if fencing and water are in place.  Managing cattle on grazing incurs cost too, however, in the form of time and equipment to move livestock.  For example, the estimated cost of owning and operating a ¾ ton pickup truck is $15.76 per hour and adding labor at $9.00 brings the total cost to $24.76.  If moving cattle takes 30 minutes, the cost is approximately $12 per move. Table 2.  Cost of buying, baling and feeding corn stalks. Item Corn Stalks Corn Stalks Corn Stalks Cost of crop residue $0 $15 $30 Hay making cost $54 $54 $54 Feeding out cost $39 $39 $39 Storage & feeding loss 15% 15% 15% Total cost as fed $109 $127 $145 Total cost as DM, at 80% DM as fed $136 $158 $181   Fall and Winter Grazing Other fall and winter forage options, weather permitting, include stockpiled fescue, a fall hay cutting and winter annuals such as rye and/or ryegrass.  Fertilizer is the only cost of producing grass from a perennial pasture like fescue.  If the fall growth is stockpiled and grazed there will be the added cost of managing the grazing.  If a fall cutting of hay is made there will be the added cost of making the hay and feeding it out.  Growing a winter annual will incur the cost of growing the crop and managing it for grazing. Table 3 shows the estimated production cost for the three types of forage. Grazing management and feeding out costs are not included but are discussed below.  Stockpiling and winter grazing are both considerably cheaper to produce than the alternatives discussed previously but are weather dependent and may not be feasible for other reasons. Table 3. Fall and winter forage production costs, per acre and per ton of dry matter. Item Stockpile Fall hay Winter Annual Operating cost $35 $58 $127 Fixed cost -- $22 $11 Labor -- $19 $11 Total cost $35 $99 $149 Production, tons of dry matter per acre 1 1 2.5 Cost per ton of dry matter produced $35 $99 $60    Total Ration Costs The key question is what does the total daily feed ration cost?  Yields and quality are different for different forages so it is necessary to figure the nutritional needs of the animal to achieve desired level of animal performances and then figure the total ration cost, including supplementary feeds, minerals, etc.  In the previous example of 50 cows  needing 25 lb of dry matter a day for a 200-day feeding period required 125 tons of dry matter.  Table 4 shows cost estimates comparing  three alternatives based on: ·        Corn stalks at an initial cost of $15 per ton of dry matter, baled by the cattle producer and fed along with some supplementary feed like corn gluten feed, ·        Bought hay at $150 per ton that requires no supplement ·        A combination of one-third stockpiled fescue and two-thirds winter annual, grazed, with cattle moved twice a week.  Table 4. An example comparison of the cost of alternative feeds Item Corn Stalks Bought hay Stockpile + annuals Forage cost$15,800$31,625$8,613Feeding out2,0802,600684Supplementary feed cost 3,50000Feeding supplement1,30000Total cost22,68034,2259,297Cost per cow454685186Cost per day 11317146Cost per cow per day2.273.420.93 Animal Performance One final consideration is that animal performance affects production & income, for example, daily gain, milk production, body condition.  If animal performance is expected to be different on different rations, figure the differences in both income and cost, e.g., as income over feed cost.  In this situation, choose using a partial budget to determine the most profitable (smallest loss).  The change in profit is the sum of differences ( + or – ) in forage costs (operating & fixed costs), other feed costs, and income.  For cow-calf operations, look at whole-farm, year-round effects. Reducing Livestock Numbers As the feed examples show, coping with drought through feed procurement is an expensive proposition, so it is necessary to consider changes in livestock numbers in addition to, or instead of, this approach.  Reducing numbers economizes on available feed resources.  Options include removing some or all animals by selling or relocating them.  Selling animals might include market livestock, replacements, selected breeding stock, or the whole herd.  Relocating animals might be possible through contract grazing, contract raising or retained ownership.  The economic consequences of some of these options are evaluated below.  Hold ‘em or Fold ‘em? Selling feeder calves earlier than normal reduces the pressure on feed supplies but may also reduce net income.  Projecting the net profit from keeping feeder cattle depends on estimated weight gain, changes in cattle prices and added feed costs.  For example, if you have 550 lb. steer calves and the current price is $1.15 per lb, an animal is worth $633 per head today.  If you keep this animal for two months and it gains 75 lb you now have a 625 lb animal.  Heavier animals sell at a lower price per pound.  Cattle prices usually (but not always) fall from early August until late October or early November.  There may be a general shift in cattle prices, up or down, that offsets or adds to this seasonal decline.  Current (August 23rd, 2007) futures prices for feeder cattle suggest prices will weaken.  Other factors that can change the cattle outlook include unexpected changes in significant supply and demand factors, such as weather, forage supplies and quality, crop and feed prices, cattle supplies, and government policy changes.  All of these affect prices and are a source of the volatility that cattle producer have always had to cope with.  If you expect 625 lb cattle prices to be, say, $1.08 per lb then this animal is worth $675 per head and you have added $42 in value.  The key question is whether you can make money from this projected gain under the current feed situation. A second option is to sell your replacement heifer calves.  The cost of raising replacement heifers is greater than many people think.  Even in normal times it may be more economical to buy rather than raise heifers.  Table 5 shows examples of heifer raising costs based on university enterprise budgets. Table 5.  Heifer replacement costs. ItemBeefMO, 2005BeefKS, 2006DairyNC, 2005 Start Weight540 lb550 lb90 lbValue of calf$599$681$200Operating cost$438$538$995Fixed cost$28$44$184Labor$50$54$224Total Cost$1,087$1,317$1,580 A third option is to reduce cow numbers.  The goal is to preserve the most productive animals as the basis for rebuilding.  However, this approach reduces revenue because there are fewer calves in the next calf crop.  It reduces some out-of-pocket costs but not all and it does not reduce fixed costs (asset ownership costs) or overhead costs.  It also reduces labor requirements, either the time spent by family members or wages paid.  Overall, net income likely will be reduced  Table 6 is an example based on the NCSU beef-cow enterprise budget developed in 2006.  This budget is for a 50-cow herd.  Costs and returns were re-estimated for a 30 cow herd on the same land base, assuming feed is available to support this number of animals.  Operating expenses and revenue were reduced in proportion.  Fixed costs, by definition, are unchanged and labor requirement is reduce by 10 percent.  Feed prices were NOT adjusted from 2006 levels.   Profit, as measured by returns to land, management and farm overhead, is negative in both cases but the 30 cow herd situation has a $3,311 greater loss.  This change, $3,311, represents the “cost” of this strategy.  If the alternative is to buy, bale and feed corn stalks for the 20 cows then, based on Table 4, the cost would be $9,080. Table 6.  Cow-calf costs and returns at two herd sizes. Item 50 cows 30 cows Revenue $26,961 $16,177 Operating cost $26,277 $18,961 Fixed cost $9,222 $9,222 Labor cost $2,250 $2,093 Total cost $37,749 $30,275 Net Returns to land, management and overhead -$10,788 -$14,099   Selling the Herd and Ceasing Production Cow-calf profit margins are slim on the average and are non-existent for some producers.  Table 7 shows actual financial results for a group of Minnesota cow-calf producers in 2005.  Comparable information is not available for North Carolina producers but there is little reason to expect the situation here to be much different.  This suggests that producers should assess the past and expected future profitability of their cattle operation as part of their drought management planning.  For some, selling the entire herd may be the most appropriate option. Factors to consider include: ·        Past financial performance, ·        The estimated cost of coping with the drought, ·        Expectations of future cattle prices, cost of production and profitability.  In particular, it is likely that energy, fertilizer, and feed costs will cost more than historically. ·        Age, health and family circumstances. ·        Options for the farm if the livestock are sold and the financial implications of these. Table 7.  Financial performance for cow-calf operations, Minnesota, 2005  ItemLow Profit Average High Profit Revenue $463 $613 $742 Operating cost $415 $371 $340 Fixed & O/H cost $130 $81 $60 Total cost $545 $452 $399 Labor & Management charge $80 $72 $73 Net Return -$161 $89 $271   Selling the Herd and Restocking Later How much would it cost to sell now and repopulate the herd next year?  50 cows sold now and bought back at, say, a $300 per head difference = $15,000 added cost.  Add to this any loss of income from calf sales, net of reduced feed and other cost savings.  Only the most profitable herds facing extremely high feed costs are likely to benefit from this option.  Other issues Other issues to consider include financing the cost of providing feed and income tax management. Loans must be repaid.  Disaster assistance loans typically offer lower interest rates but these are still loans to be repaid.  Develop financial projections to ensure the cattle operation is financially viable and capable of repaying these loans from future profits and cash flow. The IRS has two special rules covering unusually large sales of livestock caused by drought (or other weather disasters) that might provide some tax benefits.  These are described in a separate article by NCSU’s Guido van der Hoeven.   Concluding Comments Coping with the effects of the drought are a balancing act involving feed options, livestock options and economics.  The discussion in this article tries to show how the economics fits into the farming decisions.  The examples are intended to show the process of evaluating the financial impacts of various alternatives and are NOT intended to represent recommendations or “the answer.” Spreadsheet versions of the NCSU beef and forage budgets are one tool producers and their advisors can use to “run the numbers.”  Enterprise budgets are guidelines only and farm situations vary widely.  They can be used as a template to figure cost of production.  For planning purposes, published budgets should be used as a guide and always modified with farm specific information.  NCSU beef budgets include cow-calf, backgrounding, summer grazing, pasture finishing, conventional finishing, and pre-conditioning.  Forage budgets include perennial and annual grasses, hay making, and silages.  There are nine dairy heifer budgets.  These are available as print and spreadsheet versions on line at:http://www.ag-econ.ncsu.edu/ extension/Ag_budgets.html In summary, cattle must be properly fed to achieve short- and long-term production goals. Land, labor and management resources vary from farm to farm, so there is no one-size-fits-all strategy. Develop a feed budget to figure animals’ feed needs in terms of dry matter and nutrients. Producers should consider all options, including: ·        Buying or procuring quantities of feed with adequate fiber, energy, protein and minerals. Evaluate the feasibility and profitability of alternatives including buying and harvesting standing crops or crop residues, growing fall pasture and winter annuals, and buying forages, by-products, or other feeds, ·        Reducing animal numbers, including selling the whole herd, ·        A combination of strategies.  Evaluate the economic consequences of these options.  Measure forage costs at the animal’s mouth, including production, storage, harvesting and feeding costs and losses. Estimate impact on total feed cost, including supplements.  Include any effects on animal performance and income using partial budgeting.  Similarly, evaluate the financial effects of reducing animal numbers.  The financial impacts of different options can differ widely – pencil it out!  There is a lot of money at stake here and taking short cuts on decision making could prove very costly.  This is work but remember “If it’s easy, fun or can be done from the seat of a tractor, there ain’t no money in it” (a quote from an anonymous cowboy). Geoff Benson, PhD, Dept of Agricultural and Resource Economics, North Carolina State University

02.08.2007

Options for drought-stressed corn

Drought-stressed corn silage can have from 75 to 90 percent of the feed value of normal corn silage. Nitrates may be an issue, but don’t write the crop off with out testing. Any corn that has pollinated and stays alive will use any rain to fill grain and that will add to the value of the crop for feed. Drought-stressed corn silage typically has higher sugar content, less starch, higher crude protein, higher crude fiber and more digestible fiber compared to normal corn silage. Always make ration changes gradually to give rumen microbes a chance to adjust to feed changes. Check with your crop insurance provider before starting any early harvest. • Nitrates: There is some variation in “safe” levels reported. University of Minnesota Dairy Nutrition Specialist Jim Linn advises that nitrate levels below 3,000 parts per million are safe. At 3,000 to 6,000 parts per million, it is moderately safe if limited to 50 percent of the total diet dry matter or less. Above 9,000 parts per million, it is very toxic and can cause animal death. Fermentation may reduce nitrate levels from 0 to 50 percent. If a fresh cut sample tests above 3,000 parts per million, fermented feed should be tested again so correct feeding decisions can be made. Nitrates are more likely to be a problem on corn that grew to a somewhat normal height but was not able to set an ear. Nitrates can be higher for a few days after getting a significant rain. Pay attention to this where corn is grazed, chopped for day-to-day feeding or chopped for forage soon after rain. Nitrates convert to nitrites. Nitrites can be absorbed in the blood stream and bind to hemoglobin to reduce the amount of oxygen carried by the blood. Animals will show signs that they are not getting enough oxygen. Symptoms may include rapid breathing, muscle tremors, lacking coordination, diarrhea, frequent urination, bluish color around nose and mouth, collapse and death. If a nitrate problem is suspected, handle livestock minimally and call the veterinarian. Grab samples from corn chopped for daily feeding can be taken or mailed to a forage lab such as Stearns DHIA lab in Sauk Centre (320) 352-2028 or Dairyland Lab in Sauk Rapids (320) 240-1737. For $10 to $15, you have an answer with less risk than using livestock as guinea pigs. Sample prior to harvest by cutting 5 to 10 stalks at a height similar to what you would be chopping. Pick stalks that are representative of the field. This can be difficult with the variation we see in some drought-stressed fields. The next challenge is to chop the sample into small pieces that the lab can handle. Call the lab with questions for handling samples. Nitrate concentration is usually higher in the lower part of the stalk. Cutting the crop higher will reduce the total nitrate concentration. If you will be short of feed, you may want to test before deciding to leave feed in the field without testing. Nitrates are a form of non-protein nitrogen. Microbes in the rumen can combine some of the nitrogen from nitrates with carbohydrates in the ration to make protein. Lactating dairy cows that are getting more grain in the ration compared to dry cows and heifers may tolerate somewhat elevated nitrate levels better. Ration formulation should be considered accordingly. • Chopping corn silage for storage: Chopping for storage is not useful until the crop dries to a moisture content that is suitable for storage. This is typically 60 to 65 percent for upright silos, 50 to 60 percent for oxygen limiting silos, 65 to 70 percent for piles and bunkers, and 60 to 70 percent for bags. Past experience counts. If we cut stalks open, we will find more moisture than we’d think based on the appearance of dried up leaves and leaf sheaths that wrap the stalk. It might be helpful if we could figure out a practical way to uniformly blend dry chopped hay with corn that is too wet to get a mix that is suitable for storage. I haven’t seen it yet. And I wouldn’t risk a whole silo or bag of feed on a process without seeing some trials that indicate a high success rate. • Chop for daily feeding: To maintain healthy rumen function, chop for each feeding and chop only the amount of feed the animals can eat within a couple of hours. So provide plenty of bunk space. Wet chopped corn will heat faster. Nitrates convert to nitrites as the feed heats. Other spoilage organisms can become a problem with heating. To keep animals healthy, DO NOT chop enough in a box to feed from all day or for 2 to 3 days. Feed some palatable hay as part of the total ration and balance rations appropriately. That makes more work, but the primary goal is healthy livestock. • Grazing: Once again feed some palatable hay and balance rations adequately. Grazing saves the cost of fuel and operating chopping equipment. Where possible, use an electric wire or other means to limit access and minimize waste. This may be more feasible with short corn. • Baling: Technically you could lay corn in a swath and let it dry. There are some challenges. Even if run through a conditioner, it can take a long time for wet stalks to dry. Stalks in a swath can start to spoil before they are dry enough to bale. Stiff stalks could make baleage wrapping a challenge by poking through the plastic wrap. It can be difficult to pick up corn swaths that lay between corn rows with out raking through a lot of soil also. Nitrates do not disappear as corn dries. • Molds, mycotoxins, and smut: We expect more smut in corn stressed by drought or by other problems. Corn smut by itself is not a health issue for livestock. As the crop deteriorates, other decaying molds can be come a problem. In 2006, while waiting for the crop to dry for chopping, rain came that promoted decaying molds to be more of problem. I would not expect this to be a problem at this point in time. There are tests for molds and mycotoxins. Nathan Winter and Dan Martens, University of Minnesota Extension Source - http://www.hutchinsonleader.com

02.08.2007

Insurers Claim Global Warming Makes Some Regions Too Hot to Handle

As the nation braces for an active hurricane season, private insurers jump ship, leaving federal and state governments liable for ever increasing payouts In the wake of skyrocketing insurance claims due to natural disasters—hurricanes, wildfires, droughts, blizzards and the like—insurers have been imposing steep rate hikes and, in some cases, fleeing high-risk areas, leaving consumers out in the cold. It's gotten so out of hand, consumer advocates say, that insurers now are even crying climate change as a factor in raising premiums or dumping clients. As the crisis mounts, hard hit states such as Florida and Louisiana are increasingly stepping up as insurance companies check out, providing coverage for residents dropped by their insurers. And signs are things will get worse before they get better: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is predicting that this year's hurricane season—which officially began June 1—will be "very active," with three to five major hurricanes in the Atlantic. Weather-related insurance losses rose to $50 billion in 2005 from less than $10 billion a decade earlier, according to a study by Ceres, a Boston-based nonprofit group that lobbies corporations to be environmentally responsible. The bulk of these losses can be attributed to sprawl in regions prone to catastrophe—the total area of coastal development in Florida has increased over 30 percent since 1990. A Warmer Earth, and Fewer Insured Private insurers also point fingers at a changing climate, citing a report issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) earlier this year that concluded global warming is to blame for a doubling over the past five years of natural disasters—and that the situation will worsen if nothing is done to stop it. (The often-touted link between climate change and increased hurricane strength, however, has yet to be firmly established.) "If circumstances change due to global warming that alter the level of risk, insurance companies need to be free to reflect that risk," says David Snyder, vice president and assistant general counsel for the American Insurance Association (AIA). "The reality is that in some places the risk is so severe that [these locations] are uninsurable." Over the past year alone, insurance companies have dramatically raised homeowners' annual premiums in parts of Texas, Louisiana, the Carolinas, Massachusetts and New York State. In the Florida Keys, for instance, windstorm insurance rates for a 1,900-square-foot home in Monroe County soared from $3,000 in 2004 to nearly $16,000 in 2007. In South Carolina private companies have stopped insuring homes valued at less than $500,000. In Rhode Island some agencies have refused to cover any coastal properties. Allstate, one of the largest residential property insurers on the east coast, elected not to renew 30,000 policies covering coastal properties in New York City, Long Island, Westchester County and Connecticut, and is considering reducing coastal area coverage in Massachusetts and along the Gulf. Predictable Risk or Idle Speculation? Consumers are up in arms about these trends. "I think [insurance companies] are speculating on the fear of global warming and using it as an opportunity to raise rates," says Bill Newton, executive director of the Florida Consumer Action Network. In the past, when private industry backed away from ventures it deemed too risky, the state and federal government often picked up the slack. The best examples are flood and crop insurance, which are now largely federally funded. "There's a continuum between public and private risk sharing, formally and informally. They play off one another and it's like a tug of rope almost," says Evan Mills, an environmental and energy systems scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California. The Federal Government began the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) in 1968 to counter the chronically high premiums for water damage and to cover consumers who either could not afford or were turned down for flood coverage by private companies. Since its inception, NFIP, which has typically run at a loss, has become the country's primary provider of flood insurance. For instance, in 2005 and 2006 NFIP requested and was granted a $24 billion in loans from the U.S. treasury to reimburse Gulf Coast customers for losses caused by Hurricane Katrina. Mills says that it is unlikely NFIP will ever be able to pay back the loan, given that it pulls in an average of only about $2 billion a year in premiums from consumers. Florida, Texas, Louisiana and Massachusetts have followed the example of the federal government and started their own insurance operations. Florida's state-funded Citizens Property Insurance has underwritten more than 1.3 million policies since its start in 2002. Some states have also taken steps to minimize the losses of private insurers. In January, for instance, Florida Gov. Charlie Crist signed into law regulations that cap insurance company losses at roughly $23 billion annually. Under the measure, the state will cover all claims in excess of the limit. The state "made the very calculated decision to act as a reinsurance carrier," says state Rep. Janet Long (D), a member of the Committee on Insurance and cosponsor of the legislation. "As long as we go along for a few years and we don't have any major catastrophic losses, this positions the state financially very well." Who's to Blame To avoid price gouging, consumer advocate Newton and scientist Mills urge insurance companies to be transparent about the models they use for setting premiums—specifically how they factor in catastrophes believed to have been brought on by climate change. "We're looking at the global warming surcharge and asking them to back it up," Newton says. There are currently no state or federal laws requiring that companies provide this information. Industry representative Snyder dismisses the notion of a "global warming surcharge." "What insurers are doing," he says, "is pricing as accurately as they can for the risk, which seems to be increasing significantly, from whatever cause, leading to more intense and greater numbers of serious storms." Mills stresses that there is a lot more going into premium increases than just new models that factor in climate change, including population increases along the coast, deterioration of infrastructure such as levies, and destruction of naturally protective wetlands. "Even if climate change wasn't happening," he says, "we'd be expecting insurance losses to be going up." Mills predicts that more states will get into the insurance game as their denizens are deemed "uninsurable" by private industry. "It certainly comes back to the taxpayer in the end," he notes. Snyder says the long-term solution is to try to limit property damage by improving land use and enforcing building codes already on the books. In this respect, insurance companies have a role as advocates for preventive measures that decrease consumers', and, therefore, insurers' liability. (One of the ways insurers have accomplished this in the past, for instance, was to push for greater motor vehicle safety.) By this logic, a government spurred to action by citizens and private industry can enforce smart development rather than becoming an insurer. According to Mills, the bottom line is that in the aftermath of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, private insurers have been dropping coverage and hiking rates, leaving states and consumers holding the bag. Rep. Long echoed that sentiment. "We're working very hard to try and level out, to try and give people some breathing room," she says, "but I can tell you that over the long haul it's going to continue to be a major issue, finding affordable coverage for Floridians, because we live in a volatile part of the world." The same could be said for every other U.S. citizen who is lucky, or unlucky, enough to live on or near the water. Source - http://www.sciam.com

29.05.2007

Camelina could lead drive for new source of biofuel

A plant that flourished in Europe roughly 3,500 years ago could become a major source of biofuel and a potentially major new crop for Eastern Washington. Researchers say camelina, if planted on millions of acres of marginal farmland from Eastern Washington to North Dakota, might help power the nation's drive for clean energy. Researchers in Washington, Oregon and Idaho say the results from test plantings of camelina are encouraging. So far, the only farmers who are interested are in Montana, where more than 50,000 acres of camelina were planted this season. But a buzz is slowly spreading among growers elsewhere. The story of camelina, though, is about more than just the marketing of an ancient crop to solve some of today's most pressing problems. It stretches from a Puget Sound biotech firm working to increase camelina yields by up to 50 percent to Capitol Hill, where lobbyists hope to convince Congress to cover camelina under the federal crop insurance program to reassure skittish farmers. "This is the most exciting crop I have seen in my 30-some years in this field," said Steven Guy, a professor at the University of Idaho and a crop management specialist. Camelina supporters say the plant can grow in more arid conditions, does not require extensive use of expensive fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides, and can produce more oil from its seeds than other crops such as canola and at, by some estimates, half the price. "We actually think it might be the next wonder crop," said Tom Todaro, chief executive of Targeted Growth, a Seattle biotech firm working to "radically" increase camelina yields. The company hopes to produce enough seed to plant 1 million acres of camelina by 2009. In theory, Todaro said, camelina could be grown on between 300,000 and 500,000 acres of farmland in Eastern Washington alone. About 85 percent of the feedstock currently used to produce biodiesel in the U.S. comes from soybeans. But soybeans are largely grown in the Midwest, and growers in the inland Northwest and the high plains areas of such states as Montana, North Dakota, Wyoming and Colorado have been searching for their own biodiesel crop. Much of the attention has focused on canola. But some researchers now say camelina might be an even better crop. "I am really excited about it," said An Hang, a Washington State University associate research agronomist in Prosser, who has planted camelina on small test plots near Othello and Paterson. Hang said camelina seeds are about one-third the size of sesame seeds and contain high levels of Omega 3, which is believed to reduce heart disease, high blood pressure and high cholesterol. After the seeds are crushed, the leftover meal can be used in feed for cattle, chickens and even fish. Known over the years as Gold of Pleasure, Wildfox, German Sesame and Siberian Oilseed, camelina seeds were crushed to produce lamp oil as far back as Neolithic times. Direct cultivation declined in medieval times for unknown reasons. In recent years, small amounts were grown for use mostly in organic health products. But interest in camelina has been rekindled as the search for biofuels has taken off amid concerns about global warming and the nation's dependence on foreign oil. Don Wysocki, an Oregon State University associate professor based in Pendleton, said camelina can grow in drier conditions than canola and other potential bioldiesel feedstocks, is easier to grow than canola and could be used in rotation with cereal crops such as wheat. "There are challenges, but of all the crops I have worked with over the years this has the most promise," he said. "If we have an operating biofuel industry in the Northwest, this could be the feedstock." Targeted Growth was founded eight years ago after a lunch between Todaro and a friend who worked at Seattle's Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. The two discussed whether the drugs the center had developed to slow the reproduction of cancer cells could be reversed and used to speed up the growth of cells in plants. The answer was yes, and Todaro's company has been able to increase yields by 20 percent to 30 percent in canola and soybeans. But the company was also looking for a plant that grew in marginal arid lands that could be used for biodiesel feedstock. It settled on camelina. It is now using a "hyper-accelerated breeding" program to increase camelina yields. Todaro emphasizes that the program does not involve actual genetic modification of camelina cells and will not require Food and Drug Administration approval. "We want to make camelina the best oil seed plant in the United States," he said. The owners of what will be the largest biodiesel plant in the nation -- a 100 million-gallon a year capacity plant at Gray's Harbor -- are aware of camelina and have expressed interest in buying as much of their feedstock as possible from Washington growers. But because the company, Imperium Renewables, announced last week it was going public, company officials were not available for comment. The National Biodiesel Board, a trade group representing the biodiesel industry, has taken no stand on camelina. "It is one of the newer feedstocks being examined," said Amber Thurlo Pearson, a board spokeswoman. "We are a feedstock-neutral organization." On Capitol Hill, Sen. John Tester, D-Mont., has introduced legislation to cover camelina under the federal crop insurance program. Montana's other senator, Democrat Max Baucus, is preparing legislation that would allow loan deficiency payments to camelina growers. Todaro said anything that will help make farmers more comfortable about growing camelina would be helpful. "I'm less concerned about the technology than about convincing farmers to grow it," he said. Les Blumenthal, Herald Washington, D.C., bureau

17.04.2007

New study tracks the spread of bird flu between farms

A new way of understanding how highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) spreads among farm birds is published today in PLoS ONE. The study could help analyse the success of different control measures in the event of future outbreaks. The study, carried out by mathematical modellers from Imperial College London and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, focuses on how H7N3, H7N7 and H7N1 strains of the virus were transmitted between different farms in three recent outbreaks. The scientists used these case studies to devise a numerical measure for how fast the virus spreads, giving the team an important insight into the overall transmissibility of the virus. This can be used to determine whether an outbreak will turn into a self-sustaining epidemic, in which the virus spreads from each infected farm to at least one other farm. The team hopes that their method, which can be used to assess the effectiveness of control measures used to counter any outbreak, will be useful for future planning to stop the transmission of highly pathogenic avian influenza between birds. Focusing on outbreaks in Italy, the Netherlands and Canada in recent years, the researchers tracked the rate of the virus' transmission at different stages of each outbreak – both before and after measures were brought in to control it. All of the investigated outbreaks occurred in extremely dense poultry farming areas, which increases the chances of transmission and therefore poses particular problems for control. Their findings showed that although the spread of the disease between farms was slowed by the introduction of control measures such as enhanced bio-security, movement restrictions and culling on infected farms, the rate of transmissibility remained close to the threshold point at which the outbreak would become a self-sustaining epidemic. Dr Tini Garske , from Imperial College London's Institute for Mathematical Sciences says: "Our analyses suggest that in the event of an outbreak of highly pathogenic avian flu in a very dense poultry farming area, additional measures may be needed in order to halt the epidemic. In the case studies we looked at we found that pre-emptive culling and de-population of nearby at-risk areas succeeded in containing the outbreak, where other less drastic measures had failed." In order to analyse the transmissibility of HPAI the researchers estimated the farm-to-farm 'reproductive number' of the virus. The reproductive number is a measurement of how many farms an affected farm infects during an outbreak. Dr Garske explains: "If, on average, at any point in time, each infected farm infects more than one further farm, the epidemic will continue. Therefore, what you’re ideally looking for when fighting an outbreak of highly pathogenic bird flu is a reproductive number of less than one. "We found in our case studies that the average reproductive number, prior to controls, was between 1.1 and 2.4. Although this average did fall when standard measures were introduced, it remained close to the threshold value of 1. Therefore, stronger action may be necessary to ensure the disease is eradicated." Dr Garske highlighted the importance of these kind of mathematical analyses, adding: "A lot of people are concerned about what might happen if a strain of avian flu crosses the species barrier and becomes easily transmissible between humans. The best way to stop this happening is to control bird flu in poultry, as these are in close contact with humans. "Our study uses a very simple method of inferring the farm-to-farm reproductive number, which uses minimal amounts of data from an outbreak. Therefore it might be useful in assessing the effectiveness of control measures in areas where data is scarce, such as South-East Asia, where currently the strain H5N1 gives cause for concern." The researchers' case studies focused on outbreaks of highly pathogenic H7N3, H7N7 and H7N1 strains of avian flu. All highly pathogenic avian flu strains, including the widely-known H5N1 strain, are similar in their effect in poultry, in that they tend to spread rapidly between individual birds and cause mortality of up to 100% in infected flocks. New study tracks the spread of bird flu between farms Imperial College London A new way of understanding how highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) spreads among farm birds is published today in PLoS ONE. The study could help analyse the success of different control measures in the event of future outbreaks. The study, carried out by mathematical modellers from Imperial College London and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, focuses on how H7N3, H7N7 and H7N1 strains of the virus were transmitted between different farms in three recent outbreaks.

12.12.2006

Enhancing Control of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza in Developing Countries through Compensation: Issues and Good Practice

Executive Summary Highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) under current conditions poses a major risk to human and animal health. Efforts to contain the disease are therefore in national and global interest. As the most widely practiced control methods for poultry involve culling birds that are infected or in regions immediately around infected animals, the most common practice to ensure the cooperation of owners of birds is to compensate them for the culling of their animals to achieve this public goal. Early identification of HPAI and the imme­diate culling of diseased or suspected animals are critical elements of reducing the risk of the disease spreading. The international com­munity and national governments have responded to this challenge by establishing funding mechanisms to enable compensation to as­sist in this strategy. Payment of compensation to farmers whose animals are being culled enhances producer cooperation through better motivation to comply with the disease reporting and culling requirements of dis­ease control packages. It reduces the time lag between an outbreak and containment actions, and hence diminishes the overall cost of control. To the extent that it reduces the virus load, it also reduces the risk of the virus mutating to becoming transmissible from hu­man to human. Enhancing early reporting and complete culling of diseased or suspected birds is thus the first objective of compensa­tion schemes. A second objective can be to reimburse losses of pri­vate citizens who have complied with a disease control process for the public good. This is compatible with the first objective. While the imperative of disease containment drives compensa­tion schemes, the reality of the severe impact of culling on very poor people cannot be ignored. However, a compensation scheme cannot cover all livelihoods losses caused by livestock disease control and it cannot replace social safety nets. This requires other measures, out­side the scope of this paper. The report seeks to provide guidelines on good practice for payment of compensation as part of HPAI stamping-out strate­gies. It is meant for national and international managers and proj­ect staff involved in containing HPAI. It responds to a request of the Senior Officials Meeting on Avian and Human Influenza held in Vienna, June 6–7, 2006, and the result of the work of a multidisciplinary team from the World Bank, FAO, and IFPRI. The report is based on review of the well-established literature of compen­sation practices in the developed world, staff interviews, experi­ence, and newly emerging gray literature (project documents, mission reports, and so forth) on compensation in the developing world, and specific field visits to Egypt, Indonesia, and Vietnam. Preparedness Is Key An effective and efficient compensation scheme will compensate the appropriate beneficiaries for the ap­propriate losses and at an appropriate level, with only a short interval between culling and payment of the compensation. This will only be possible if a number of elements are already in place before an outbreak. There needs to be appropriate legislation for the control of animal disease in force that spells out clearly the rights and responsibilities of govern­ment, livestock sector and marketing personnel, and farmers in animal disease control. There needs to be widespread awareness of the dangers of the disease and how to mitigate them. Funds have to be readily available and the procedures and sequenc­ing of actions to be followed for compensation need to be agreed in advance. Preparations for the imple­mentation of expedient and transparent payment schemes need to be in place. Procedures and sequencing of compensation require knowing who to compensate, when, how much, and how, and all the stakeholders have to be aware of and have faith in the system. Widespread knowledge in advance of what the stakes are (in­cluding poultry holdings) and identification of the stakeholders are key elements in improving the gov­ernance of the use of compensation resources, which is especially difficult in emergency situations. Because preparedness is essential to using cull­ing and compensation effectively and efficiently for disease control, countries need to make a host of arrangements without necessarily having national precedents to guide the way. The present document tries to illustrate key lessons from countries such as Thailand and Vietnam (and others) that have learned by doing and incorporated many of the les­sons in revised strategies. Even with guidelines from elsewhere, national avian influenza committees will still need to negotiate specific arrangements with national stakeholders in a way that fits local condi­tions, and this takes time and effort. Countries faced with outbreaks before they have their contingency plans in place will need to adopt the most basic measures. Even so, the same issues of who to compensate, when, for what, how, and how much still apply. However, the need to move quick­ly for disease control will force many of the normal oversight tasks to a later date and is likely to make governance issues even more difficult. Finally, it will be difficult to de-link compensation practices from both changing needs for effective dis­ease control and the issue of equitable production systems change as the disease becomes endemic. This aspect is also introduced briefly in the conclud­ing chapter. Identification of Beneficiaries As a general rule, the beneficiaries of compensa­tion are the owners of the animals. Other supply chain participants, such as feed suppliers and mar­ket operators, may also incur losses when livestock production and sales are disrupted by disease, but they have not normally benefited from compensa­tion schemes. The type of production system significantly shapes feasible identification procedures. Large, highly biosecure poultry farms (the so-called sector 1 and 2 under FAO/OIE nomenclature) have generally good inventory records and culling is well controlled. Farmer documents are then a basis for compensation. Under conditions of contract farming in these systems, ownership of the birds decides the beneficiary. If the contractor is the owner, he/she would be compensated, and takes the responsibility for re­imbursing the integrator. If the integrator owns the bird, he/she will receive the compensation. In a few cases, arrangements have been made to pay the con­tractor for lost income on a wage per day basis, with funds subtracted from the integrator share before payment. The issue of how to incorporate contract growers into compensation process remains a prob­lem that many countries are only now beginning to look into. More attention needs to be addressed to this issue lest it becomes a loophole limiting effec­tive control of the disease. Identification of the beneficiaries for small en­terprises and back yard systems (the FAO/OIE de­nominated sectors 3 and 4) is more complex, as re­cords are normally not available, and factors such as differential ownership by gender come into play. Sur­veys as part of the preparedness planning (not after the disease emerges), including the identification of ownership patterns, broad awareness of the existence of compensation and payment as an integral part of the stamping-out process, are then key factors to en­sure a broad participation of the sectors 3 and 4. Type of Losses to Be Compensated Normally, compensation covers only the so-called direct losses, which include the value of the animals, and sometimes also (in richer countries) the costs re­lated to the disposal of dead animals and cleaning and disinfection. So-called farm-level consequen­tial losses, due to business interruption, movement control, and price effects are not compensated, al­though in many developed countries private insur­ance schemes exist for such losses. Dead animals before culling are often not compensated, however there may be a rationale to do so at least partially where either dead animals have market value (and thus there is the danger they will be sold) or disease control teams cannot respond within 72 hours of dis­ease reporting by the farm in question. In all cases the accurate computation of losses is greatly aided by having adequate farm-level records of poultry holdings, and it will be important to promote such a database prior to disease outbreak. Finally, the lion’s share of actual economic losses to the countries in question may be indirect: lost feed sales, diminished tourism, absenteeism at work, and so forth. These losses are never covered by public compensation schemes. In principle, they could be insurable under private sector contracts outside the livestock sector if risks are well known, but they rarely are. Setting Compensation Rates Compensation rates are variously set on the basis of (a) market value; (b) budget availability; and (c) production costs. Setting the cost on the basis of market value, wherever possible, is the preferred policy, as basing the cost on budget availability of­ten leads to underpayment, and hence poor compli­ance with the culling operation, and production cost would favor inefficiencies, and is more complex to establish. Experience that emerges from the review in establishing compensation rates based on market values shows: •  Compensation rates as a percentage of a refer­ence market price should be set before the dis­ease emerges, as part of an overall preparedness plan, using average pre-outbreak market prices at the farm gate, computed with due regard for seasonality and the transport costs from the local community relative to the reference market. For special category birds (rare breeds, indigenous poultry, fighting cocks, grandparent stock, other bird types), where market prices are not readily available, consultation with the stakeholders is required to set realistic levels. •  Uniformity of rates across the country and for different classes of birds improves the implemen­tation efficiency of the program, and should be pursued in situations with good control. How­ever, in situations of poor movement control, differentiation by type of bird (layer, broiler) and age/weight of the group might be needed to ft compensation as close as possible with prevailing market prices. An interesting intermediate solu­tion might be to pay not on the basis of numbers but on the basis of the total weight of the flock. •  Compensation rates should be no less than 50 percent of the reference market value of suspect­ed birds at the farm gate, and no more than 100 percent. The rationale for the preferred range of 75–90 percent of the reference price and multiple considerations for being closer to one or the other limit are discussed in the report. Rates should be considerably lower for diseased birds and even less, but positive, for dead birds, to provide posi­tive incentives for early and complete reporting. Careful attention needs to be paid to bird move­ments during compensation to ensure that an incentive is not being created for the influx of healthy birds to disease zones or diseased birds to disease-free zones. •  In dealing with small farmers in developing countries, compensation should be paid within 24 hours of culling by cash (or possibly voucher where handling cash presents a security threat and credible local formal financial institutions such as rural post offices are available); any delay is likely to have a significant effect on reporting. Establishing Awareness Experience from on-going campaigns highlights the absolute necessity of communication on dis­ease control and compensation, which when done properly may run from 10 percent to 20 percent of the total package cost. The package should contain components of consultation with the beneficiaries, advocacy, and information, using multiple media and channels. The specific messages on compen­sation should explain to affected farmers the need for mandatory culling in cases of suspicion of avi­an influenza as a necessary measure to protect the health of the entire human population. They should contain the principles, procedures and grid of com­pensation levels, precise information on the exact amounts, and payment procedures. Messages and media should be prepared ahead of time with inputs from both technicians and communication special­ists. They should also be consistent over time, since frequent policy and message changes undermine the credibility of the campaign. Private sector opera­tors, such as para-veterinarians, can play a critical role in awareness raising and overall support to the campaign, and their input on retainer fees should be more encouraged than is currently the case. Payment Systems To promote early notification of suspected out­breaks, compensation for culled birds must be paid promptly following the birds’ destruction. Critical el­ements from an appropriate payment system follow: •  Rapid access to adequate funding for immediate deployment as needs arise is essential. Sources typically are government’s own funds from the National Treasury, farmer’s contributions, and those of donor partners. National budgets need contingency funds of at least 3–5 percent of total budget to facilitate a rapid central contribution in the event of an outbreak; alternative contingen­cy planning will be necessary where this is not available. •  The share of compensation payments in total animal disease control expenditures under out­breaks ranged from 0–45 percent in the cases studied, with a central tendency of about 35 per­cent. Holding large sums as contingency reserves to allow a rapid response engenders a consider­able cost. For compensation planning purposes, the upper range of foreseen culling during a se­vere outbreak should be capped at 10 percent of the national flock. Many outbreaks are controlled with culling of less than 1 percent of the national flock. Once the share of infected and closely asso­ciated birds exceeds 5 percent of the total nation­al flock, vaccination typically starts substituting for culling and compensation. These percent­ages, multiplied by the size of the national flock and again by 75 percent of the average farm-gate poultry price, provides a rough estimate of the range of funds that need to be accessible for compensation payments per se on short notice. Countries that are important poultry exporters and wish to avoid vaccination (such as Thailand under its 2004 outbreak) should plan at the 10 percent (high) limit, countries with little in the way of poultry exports and a large percentage of smallholder poultry producers at 5 percent, and countries with little trade concern, a high degree of biosecurity, and a creditworthy public finance system at 1 percent. •  The system should be simple enough to be used in difficult field situations and should make use of existing institutions (for example, line minis­tries, veterinary services, financial institutions). It is important to clarify responsibilities in advance, make provincial cross-agency coordination ar­rangements, and establish local contingency funding. If no system is in place when the disease emerges, the focus will need to shift to a greater reliance on ex post independent scrutiny to avoid inordinate delays in paying compensation. •  Eligibility databases and emergency payment (see above) procedures should be prepared as part of the emergency part preparedness plans; where lacking, they will both need to be set up when the disease emerges, posing considerable difficulties. •  The veterinary services (assessing the need and reliability of the culling), the Ministry of Finance (payment), civil authorities (security), and com­munity leadership (transparency) should all be directly involved in the payment process. •  For sectors 1 and 2, bank transfers are the most adequate instrument; cash payments are the pre­ferred method for those farms of sectors 3 and 4 without banking access. Vouchers are often less credible for immediate motivation of rural house­holds, but may work where they can be integrat­ed with a dense local network of trusted financial institutions, such as rural post offices. •  To the extent possible, maximum use should be made of local banking entities, producer’s orga­nizations, veterinary services, and nongovern­mental organizations (NGOs). Their fiduciary assessment should be part of the preparedness planning. The Way Forward While over time the international public good ar­gument regarding the risk of human-to-human transmission of HPAI might diminish, transmis­sion between animal populations of different countries will continue to be a main reason for in­ternational funding of disease control in develop­ing countries. Moreover, in the likely event of the disease becoming endemic within certain coun­tries, this will have major effect on the poor, and interventions under those conditions therefore deserve international support from an equity per­spective. Stricter disease control requirements will have a major effect on the structure of the industry, with implications still to be clearly identified for the future viability of the sectors 3 and 4. None­theless, compensation is likely to remain neces­sary for many years to come to promote the early eradication of outbreaks and to avoid the spread of transmissible animal diseases. Under such conditions, compensation will: •  Become part of modified stamping-out strategies, with probably a lower priority to culling. Clear principles of how stamping-out strategies should evolve, and how compensation fits into such evolving strategies are needed. •  Have to become more dependent on the coun­tries proven political will to improve the key institutions for animal health, in particular for early alerts and independent disease reporting. The OIE tool for Performance, vision and Strategy (PvS) is a useful instrument to assess govern­ment capabilities. • Be restricted to sectors 3 and 4, and be funded from a mixture of national and international pub­lic funds, the latter in particular for the poorer countries. • Be funded for the large commercial sectors through private initiatives, probably as a mix between mandatory levies and voluntary insur­ance; in many cases the public sector needs to work with the private sector to find equitable ways to develop these systems. Agriculture and Rural Development, World Bank Group This report was prepared by the World Bank experts group for fourth International Conference on Avian Influenza that was held in Mali on December 6-8, 2006. Link to full version of the report (PDF, 2 mB)- http://www.avianinfluenzaconference4.org/fileadmin/user_upload/PDF_Uploads/HPAI_Compensation_Final_final.pdf

12.12.2006

Avian Influenza Prevention and Control and Human Influenza Pandemic Preparedness in Africa: Assessment of Financial Needs and Gaps

This report was drafted for the fourth International conference on Avian Influenza held on December 6-8, 2006 in Mali, by a multi-institutional and interdisciplinary Task-Force involving staff from the Inter-African Bureau of Animal Resources of the Africa Union (AU-IBAR), the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE), the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and the World Health Organization (WHO). Africa recorded its first outbreak of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) when Nigeria officially reported an outbreak of the disease on February 8, 2006. The source of the Nigerian outbreak is still speculative as no concrete evidence of disease introduction has been documented. It is widely believed that legal and illegal trade in infected poultry and poultry products might have precipitated the outbreaks, although the possibility remains that the outbreaks may have resulted from interaction between infected wild birds and domestic poultry. Since the Nigerian outbreaks of HPAI, Egypt, Niger, Cameroon, Burkina Faso, Sudan, Côte d’Ivoire and Djibouti have reported outbreaks of the disease in poultry and human cases have been confirmed in Egypt and Djibouti. The threat of further spread in Africa is real and could occur from the legal or illegal movement of poultry or poultry products, and/or the interaction of domestic poultry with infected wild bird populations. The potential for infection occurs within a context where acute malnutrition and food insecurity often exceeds emergency thresholds, and in a region that is already dealing with other complex emergencies, displaced populations, conflicts, short-term economic disruption and poverty. In the present situation of few cases of human illness and few deaths (Egypt), avian flu is not viewed by many decision-makers as a priority given the burden of disease that countries are already facing. For full version of this report, please download PDF file (2,5 mB) from the source web-site - http://www.avianinfluenzaconference4.org/fileadmin/user_upload/PDF_Uploads/ALive_paper___Financial_Needs_and_Gaps_in_Africa.pdf This report was drafted by a multi-institutional and interdisciplinary Task-Force involving staff from the Inter-African Bureau of Animal Resources of the Africa Union (AU-IBAR), the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE), the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and the World Health Organization (WHO). Objective of the Paper African countries have shown a high degree of commitment and put in place policy instruments to facilitate the prevention and control of avian and human influenza since avian influenza first hit the continent in February 2006. Some countries have invested a substantial amount of funds to deal with this animal and public health threat and the potentially disastrous effect on people’s livelihoods. The start made by countries is recognized and it is in this direction that further international donor assistance is solicited to sustain the initial gains made by countries to improve the Veterinary Services and put in place public health structures and communication that, in the short, medium and long term, can provide the basis for sustainable control of highly pathogenic avian influenza and help prevent the potential for a human flu pandemic. The proposals presented are therefore aimed at boosting the operational and technical capacity for Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) prevention and control, human influenza pandemic preparedness and harmonization of communication strategies in Africa. They are designed to help African countries to improve the effectiveness and governance of their Veterinary Services in order to build the necessary capacity to efficiently prevent and control HPAI, as well as to detect and respond rapidly to other emerging and re-emerging trans-boundary animal disease outbreaks as soon as they occur. In view of the zoonotic nature of HPAI and the occurrence of human cases in Africa, it is essential to reinforce human influenza surveillance and response systems, strengthen collaboration between animal and human health institutions and improve communication elements of HPAI awareness, prevention and control with decision makers, poultry producers and consumers and the general public. This Paper is intended to serve as a technical and financial support for the Bamako International Conference on Avian and Human Influenza (AHI). Introduction Africa recorded its first outbreak of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) when Nigeria officially reported an outbreak of the disease on February 8, 2006. The source of the Nigerian outbreak is still speculative as no concrete evidence of disease introduction has been documented. It is widely believed that legal and illegal trade in infected poultry and poultry products might have precipitated the outbreaks, although the possibility remains that the outbreaks may have resulted from interaction between infected wild birds and domestic poultry. Since the Nigerian outbreaks of HPAI, Egypt, Niger, Cameroon, Burkina Faso, Sudan, Côte d’Ivoire and Djibouti have reported outbreaks of the disease in poultry and human cases have been confirmed in Egypt and Djibouti. The threat of further spread in Africa is real and could occur from the legal or illegal movement of poultry or poultry products, and/or the interaction of domestic poultry with infected wild bird populations. The potential for infection occurs within a context where acute malnutrition and food insecurity often exceeds emergency thresholds, and in a region that is already dealing with other complex emergencies, displaced populations, conflicts, short-term economic disruption and poverty. In the present situation of few cases of human illness and few deaths (Egypt), avian flu is not viewed by many decision-makers as a priority given the burden of disease that countries are already facing. Insufficient financial and logistical resources, weak Veterinary Services, lax border controls on animal movements, conflicts and inappropriate governance, constitute an environment in which the spread of the HPAI and other trans-boundary animal diseases could be facilitated. The direct consequences of HPAI outbreaks and particularly the loss of poultry production capacity and socio-economic impacts are likely to be worse in Africa than in any other part of the world. Moreover, the risk of the disease becoming enzootic in domestic poultry or wildlife has to be considered as a serious threat to the national economies and public health. The occurrence of human cases, even when sporadic, creates enormous new challenges for health systems and services that are already fragile and overburdened. The continent could equally become a reservoir for the virus from where re-emergence of the disease could pose recurrent risks to African countries and internationally. The prospect that, in this environment, the virus may mutate/reassort and initiate a human pandemic remains a distinct possibility. The rapidly evolving HPAI situation therefore, necessitates an adaptation of the global strategy to fit Africa’s specific challenges. In this regard, the actions to be taken in the short-term are aimed at putting in place emergency measures to rapidly control the regional and global spread of highly pathogenic avian influenza and to protect populations at greatest risk of infection. These short-term measures, addressing both the human and animal health dimensions of HPAI, are guided by the global strategies defined by FAO and OIE and by the WHO Regional Pandemic Influenza Preparedness and Response Plan. The leadership provided by the global technical agencies for animal and human health represented in ALive recognizes the need for a response that, at the country level, in particular, is integrated and truly multi-sectoral. The measures outlined by the ALive partnership reflect this objective, and the recommendations presented emphasize the importance of an integrated response that brings to bear the strengths of all actors and stakeholders. The progressive strengthening of official Veterinary Services is a priority both in the short- and medium-term phases of the response and the ability of Veterinary Services to discharge their responsibilities as regards effective HPAI disease control and prevention will also better equip countries to face other emerging or re-emerging zoonoses should these occur in the future. They need to be able to meet their mandate for the effective prevention and control of diseases, which fall within the concept of “Global Public Good”. Bringing the quality of the Veterinary Services in line with the international technical standards defined by OIE will have a significant and lasting impact on the countries concerned (and on the international community as a whole) in a range of areas including the agricultural economy, public health (including food safety and the supply of animal protein) and access to international markets. For these reasons, actions proposed hereafter should be considered eligible for the concept of global/international Public Good. A series of international conferences organized since the emergence of HPAI have assisted the international community in the elaboration of a global strategy (Geneva, November 2005), for the mobilization of funds for avian influenza control and human pandemic preparedness (Beijing, January 2006), and in the systematic review of emerging practice and reporting of collective global progress (Vienna, June 2006). It is a measure of the rapid spread of HPAI that, at the time of the first two conferences, Africa had not been infected and, as a result, only a very low level of funds had been specifically targeted to assist Africa in the prevention and control of avian and human influenza (AHI). Upon the invitation of the Commission of the African Union, it was agreed to hold the fourth international conference on avian influenza and human pandemic preparedness in Bamako, Mali. The main objectives of the Bamako conference are to: - Establish systematic monitoring of progress made at the country, regional and global levels in the prevention and control of AHI (following the principles established at the Geneva, Beijing and Vienna Conferences), with a special focus on Africa; - Call for financing that specifically targets African countries, based primarily on well-coordinated mobilization of all actors involved in AHI and submission to donors of a shared and realistic assessment of the needs facing African countries and on the AHI operational strategies that will be implemented. An assessment of the financing needs and gaps is therefore essential in order to mobilize the donor assistance necessary to contain the outbreaks, prevent the spread of disease and to protect the lives, livelihoods and health of the many at risk of AHI infection. Pursuant to the Vienna meeting of June 2006, the ALive Partnership received a mandate to take the lead in the preparation of a technical document that will support the pledging session for Africa at the Bamako Conference. A Multi-Institutional Task-Force composed of experts from AU-IBAR, FAO, OIE, WHO and UNICEF was therefore created to execute this task. The proposals presented hereafter, are aimed at (i) boosting the operational and technical capacity for HPAI prevention and control, (ii) human influenza pandemic preparedness, and (iii) coordination of communication strategies. They are designed to help countries facing the greatest threats to improve the effectiveness and governance of their Veterinary Services in order to make them capable of efficiently preventing and controlling HPAI, as well as detecting other emerging and re-emerging trans-boundary animal disease outbreaks as soon as they occur and in responding to them rapidly. In view of the zoonotic nature of HPAI, it is also essential that human influenza surveillance and response systems are reinforced, that systematic efforts are undertaken to strengthen collaboration between animal and human health institutions, and that comprehensive communication programs are launched to ensure that key stakeholders including poultry producers, consumers, and the general public are informed of the status of the disease and the measures that they can take to reduce the risk of infection. Go to the site of the 4th International Conference on Avian Influenza, December 6-8, 2006 in Mali ALive - Partnership for livestock development, poverty alleviation and sustainable growth