First, there’s the limited availability of land. Located in the southeastern part of the state on the Atlantic coast, Onslow and the counties surrounding it are growing rapidly. Subdivisions are going up all over, which drives up the price of land dramatically. There are big farms, certainly, but most of them focus on traditional crops like tobacco, corn, soybeans and cotton. The growers, most of whom are getting up there in age, are used to farming with heavy equipment and aren’t interested in raising labor-intensive vegetables.

When added to the pest and disease problems caused by the area’s high heat and humidity, such obstacles make growing vegetables a difficult job.

Difficult, but not impossible. That’s the assessment of Mark Seitz and Larry Kent, who are teaching Onslow County residents how to be successful vegetable farmers. Seitz, an area commercial horticulture agent for North Carolina Cooperative Extension, and Kent, manager of the Onslow County Farmers’ Market in Jacksonville, see a lot of potential for vegetable growers in the region, despite all the obstacles.

Population growth, though it has its drawbacks, has increased the demand for local produce. There’s also Camp Lejeune to consider, a Marine Corps base that houses about 100,000 people. The Marines and their families are a highly transient population, but their world travels have given them a taste for exotic produce, a taste that isn’t completely satisfied by eastern North Carolina’s traditional vegetable crops, which include collard greens, cabbage, turnips, beets, tomatoes, squash and cucumbers, Seitz said.

The growing demand for local produce led Kent, Seitz and other Extension educators to create the Horticulture Enterprise Leadership Project (HELP), a class for aspiring vegetable growers.

Kent came up with the idea for HELP after three of the biggest produce vendors at the Onslow County Farmers’ Market retired about three years ago. As the market manager, Kent had to figure out how to fill the shortage (a common problem in area markets, he said). He thought educating new growers might do the trick, so he approached the local Extension office for help.

Eight or nine people signed up for the first class, held in spring 2007. Seitz and Kent teach the class with help from Extension agents Robin Taylor, who teaches produce handling and food safety, and Jeff Morton, an expert on soil sampling. The classes are held on a half-acre plot of land donated by Kent, who used to be a grower. He also gives access to a 20- by 100-foot high tunnel so students can learn the difference between growing outdoors and growing in a controlled environment.

There are two HELP classes per year, one in spring and one in fall. For 14 to 16 weeks each season, aspiring growers learn the particulars of growing vegetables in their region – everything from production to marketing. The cost to take part is $25 per person, which covers the cost of fertilizer, seed and other materials, Seitz said.

Classes are held Friday evenings, for about two hours. The first half hour is dedicated to education and the rest of the session is dedicated to garden work such as planting, weeding and harvesting. When the vegetables are ready for harvest, two or three students sell them at the Onslow farmers’ market on Saturday mornings. Each student is expected to volunteer one day a month at the market, which gives him or her experience selling and promoting a product. The market’s board donated booth space to HELP and pays for the required product liability coverage up front. The class repays the insurance fee from the money it makes selling produce at the market. Whatever money is left over is divided among class participants, he said.

The class is open to anyone in Onslow County. (Seitz hopes to have similar programs in neighboring counties one day.) To date, participants include retirees from the Northeast who are unfamiliar with eastern North Carolina’s climate, military families, kids, high school students, teachers, people looking for second careers, salespersons and farmers, according to Seitz.

“We’re trying to get the group to realize that to be successful, you have to have something unique on the market, have a product that nobody else has,” he said.

For example, this spring the students experimented with pak choi, an Asian vegetable. They grew about 200 heads and sold them all in one day, he said.

HELP is starting to make an impact. Twenty-two people signed up this spring. The project also has created two new vendors for the Onslow market, which now has six produce vendors – with room for more, Kent said.

One of the new vendors is Cheryl Davis. Her family owns a hog farm in Richlands, which gave her an advantage over other aspiring vegetable growers: She already had access to farmland and a small greenhouse.

Davis raised and sold pumpkins, gourds, Indian corn and mums on the farm before she and her husband signed up for HELP last fall. They saw an opportunity to tap into the demand for locally grown vegetables but wanted to gain a fundamental knowledge of raising produce before they really dived in, she said.

HELP taught them the fundamentals of harvesting, marketing, seeds, soil, nutrients, weed control, safe handling practices and much else. Davis also learned a bit about organic farming, which she might look into one day.

She joined the Onslow market last fall, where she started selling her pumpkins, gourds and Indian corn. She anticipates good sales from the crops she learned to grow at HELP, including lettuce, cabbage, Brussels sprouts, tomatoes and cucumbers. The class also inspired her to look into purchasing a high tunnel to help with season extension, but she needs to generate more cash flow before she can do that, she said.

ShareThis

That passion for growing and creating has helped Brenda and her family turn Renyer’s Pumpkin Farm in Wetmore, Kan., into a local destination.

It all started as a hobby, more or less. After they were married, Brenda moved in with her husband, Doug, who lived on what used to be an 80-acre corn and soybean farm in the northeast corner of Kansas, about an hour north of Topeka. Doug grew up on a dairy farm and had fond memories of his childhood, so when his wife suggested they start growing pumpkins he fell in love with the idea, she said.

Several years ago, Brenda wanted to hold an open house in the fall to show off her crafts and she thought pumpkins would be a nice addition. So, one weekend a year they turned their garage into a gift shop that specialized in crafts and pumpkins, she said.

They decided to venture into agritourism eight years ago, but didn’t really know what they were doing. They were basically “messing around,” she said. They didn’t realize how much potential their business had until they went to a North American Farmers’ Direct Marketing Association (NAFDMA) conference a few years ago in California.

That was an eye opener. They got more serious about their business after the conference and decided to expand. Brenda had already developed a clientele through her craft making and thought the farm could expand on that base. She was right.

“Little did we know how big we could get.”

They’re hoping to have at least 5,000 people visit the farm this year, she said.

The farm is now open five full weekends every fall and offers a host of agritourism activities (most of which were inspired by ideas they picked up at NAFDMA conferences, Brenda said). The farm’s Web site, www.renyerspumpkinfarm.com, lists some of the activities: u-pick pumpkins, corn cannon, hay rides, corn maze, pumpkin train, grain bin play area, pumpkin slingshot, animal area, duck races, two-story playground, tube slide, straw bale maze, concessions, picnic area, scarecrow, John Deere trike track and a family photo area.

The Renyers grow pumpkins, gourds and Indian corn on about 10 acres. The pumpkins come in all varieties, shapes, sizes and colors. Brenda has been enjoying the warty new Super Freak pumpkins this year.

“We grow it all,” she said. “I like having different kinds of pumpkins.”

Customers can pick the pumpkins in the fields or buy them pre-picked at the gift shop. They also can buy crafts, mums and gourds, many of which are used to make handmade gifts. Brenda has made snowmen, penguins, birdhouses and other items out of gourds.

Renyer’s Pumpkin Farm is in a rural area, which limits its customer base. Most visitors come from the small communities within 20 or 30 miles of Wetmore. The farm pulls some people from the Topeka area, but it’s a long drive, she said.

The farm has given the Renyers family a great opportunity to work together. Brenda used to be a teacher, but farming and crafts have become her full-time occupations. Doug still has a full-time job, but does a lot of work on the farm. Their son, Clay, 14, helps out, too. It’s been a great way for him to learn about running a business and handling money, Brenda said.

The Renyers want to continue to expand their business, but they know they have to be patient.

“There’s so much we want to do,” Brenda said, but “everything takes time and money.”

ShareThis

You could choose your side during a contentious half-day session at the Great Lakes Fruit, Vegetable and Farm Market EXPO in Grand Rapids, Mich., in early December.

The day before, the Michigan Legislature had moved one step closer toward a historic measure, passing from committees the critical bills needed to solidify the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact.

It was pretty well conceded that the full Michigan Legislature would pass the measure and the governor would sign it. Two other states, Minnesota and Illinois, and the two provinces, Ontario and Quebec, have already done so. In Indiana and Pennsylvania, lawmakers are considering the measure; in New York, it has passed both chambers but not been signed into law; in Wisconsin and Ohio, it’s still in the talking stage.

When all the states and provinces bordering the Great Lakes have passed the compact, Congress must approve it to give it the force of federal law. But there is still some distance to go and lots of forums in which to carry on the argument.

In addition to the question of the Great Lakes Compact, the Michigan Legislature has been running over with new laws regulating the state’s water and its users.

The two chief antagonists in the EXPO discussion were Jay Lehr of Columbus, Ohio, a featured speaker at the EXPO, an expert in groundwater issues and a critic of “politicized environmental issues,” and Jim Bredin, assistant director of the Office of the Great Lakes in the Michigan Governor’s office and a proponent of the compact.

The key feature of the compact is that it would ban diversion of water from the basin into other watersheds, except when that water is contained in products like apples, beer, vegetables and milk. It can’t be piped away or hauled away in tankers, although there is still ongoing controversy about bottled water. Currently, big bottles – bigger than 20 liters – can’t be hauled off, and Michigan has placed limits on a large water bottler taking water from wells.

Lehr started the discussion in an assertive way.

“I hope Congress and the other states will have more sense than the Michigan Legislature,” Lehr said. “We don’t need new laws to protect the Great Lakes.”

He said that Michigan citizens have been victims of scare tactics. “You are the most water-rich state in the nation, but you’re being treated as if you were in a desert.”

The compact also compels states to address water issues related to pollution and water use, and the Michigan Legislature passed several laws that impose some limits, require registration of wells and in other ways govern the withdrawal of water from the Great Lakes and the state’s streams, rivers, lakes and groundwater. Irrigators fear they could be deprived of water for crop production.

There is much disagreement over the so-called consumptive use of water by growing crops and of the net effect irrigation or crop growth has on the loss of water from the region.

Irrigators fear that, as the Rime of the Ancient Mariner put it, there’s “Water, water everywhere, nor any drop to drink.”

The Great Lakes is the largest basin of fresh water in the world, Lehr said, It contains some 300 quadrillion gallons of water and pours out, through the St. Lawrence Seaway, some 237 billion gallons per day. Despite the activities of irrigators and others, water continues to pour over Niagara Falls. There is no evidence that consumptive use has tapped into the basin’s stored water by exceeding the billions of gallons of annual replenishment from rainfall.

Michigan citizens, Lehr said, have been scared into the belief that political pressures from a growing population in the sunny, arid American Southwest might lead to a federal-led water transfer system to water the Western deserts. While Congress, 20 years ago, agreed that such a diversion would never occur and has agreed to let the Great Lakes states manage the water, Michigan citizens wanted a better guarantee. But, Lehr said, “the day of mega water projects is over. If Arizona wants water, the Mississippi River is bigger in outflow and a lot closer. ”

Lehr argued that Michigan, lying in the heart of the Great Lakes, has access to an abundant resource and is in fact shooting itself in the foot, giving away its natural power to the federal government and to other states with less access to the water. The state is limiting its right to use a resource it already controls, he said. Other states with smaller interests would have equal power.

He criticized the Michigan Farm Bureau for choosing not to fight for a larger, abundant-water principle but instead deciding to settle for a place at the table and a voice in setting the rules and regulations that regulate water use and limit its use by Michigan farmers.

Dipping his toe into deeper waters, he plunged ahead. He compared the Great Lakes to the atmosphere and said that it was “patently absurd” to think that we can alter the Great Lakes by human activities – any more than we can cause atmospheric changes that lead to global warming.

When Jim Bredin took the podium, there were lots of points for counterattack, especially Lehr’s assertion that the Great Lakes – or the atmosphere – are just too large to be affected by human beings.

Man’s activities have altered the Great Lakes, as the presence of zebra mussels, sea lampreys, alewives and mercury in fish attest.

Bredin also said the federal government is not a party to the compact. Over the years, many states have made agreements with other states and turned to the federal government to give them the force of law.

Because of the involvement of Canadian provinces, the compact is unusual in that it crosses an international border but does not involve treaties between countries.

While the states involved have some equal powers, such as a right to veto proposed large water diversions anywhere in the basin, they do not have equal access to Great Lakes Basin water. The key unit is the watershed, not the states. The agreement not to divert water from the Great Lakes Basin into other watersheds affects different states differently. The state of Michigan is more than 99 percent in the watershed. Ontario also has a large stake. Other states have smaller parts of the watershed within their borders, and they agree not to move water from the Great Lakes Basin into other watersheds, even those within their borders.

The huge Mississippi River watershed comes astonishingly close to the Great Lakes, and claims some Lake Michigan water through the Chicago River, which was channeled to flow backward a century ago.

Bredin said the other states were making a large potential sacrifice in agreeing not to move Great Lakes water to the nether reaches of their states. In effect, they agree not to take the water outside the watershed but must be content to use it for ports, shipping, sports and recreation.

In Ontario, a key compact provision affects the movement of water from Lake Huron across the peninsula to Lake Ontario, an intra-basin transfer that is prohibited under the compact. That same provision applies in Michigan, which borders on four of the five Great Lakes.

The compact is not totally about conserving Great Lakes water, Bredin said. It is also about conserving the Great Lakes as a treasure, preventing and remedying pollution, controlling invasive species by setting rules about water movement and release of ballast water from ships and in other ways managing the resource to keep it pristine as well as undiminished in volume.

The compact states that all “parties have a shared duty to protect, conserve, restore, improve and manage the renewable but finite waters of the Great Lakes.”

In recent years, the state of Michigan has increased regulations affecting not only Great Lakes water but all water, including groundwater, in the state. Lyndon Kelley, an Extension irrigation specialist with a shared appointment by Purdue University and Michigan State University, said riparian doctrine is gradually being modified. The modification is occurring through legislation and court decisions.

For example, irrigators – when using lakes – can find themselves subject to allocations when lake levels fall to “trigger” levels. When pumping from wells, they can find themselves replenishing water supplies to neighbors whose shallower wells are depleted. Pending legislation would make it illegal to diminish a stream or river to where it can’t sustain its customary number and species of fish. New regulations require reporting of well locations and of withdrawals exceeding 100,000 gallons of water a day. Permits are needed by large users, those withdrawing more than 2 million gallons a day.

Jon Bartholic and Jeremiah Asher, from the Institute of Water Research at Michigan State University, reported on their work to develop an assessment tool so those wanting to use water – for example, an irrigator planning to drill a well – could predict the impact of the well on his neighbors or on local streams and lakes.

The assessment tool relies on public information on well locations and depth, information about stream flows and fish populations in some 11,000 “segments” of rivers and streams across Michigan and general knowledge of the state’s geology and hydrology.

Those wishing to look at or use the assessment tool should visit the Web site, www.gwmap.rsgis.msu.edu.

This flurry of water-related activity was spurred by the proposal of the Great Lakes Compact. Whether a great conservation effort or a boondoggle, public awareness of being surrounded by an incredible resource has never been higher.

ShareThis

Adding to the ugly side, these worms have gotten harder to control with pyrethroid insecticides in recent years.

University of Illinois entomologist Richard Weinzierl has been monitoring this pest for several years. In 2006, he and other entomologists in six northern sweet corn-producing states began to cooperate in a North Central Region IPM Project. The project includes participants from Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin and Ontario. It’s led by Bill Hutchison of the University of Minnesota, along with Weinzierl and Rick Foster of Purdue University.

Working together, they assess earworms to find out how susceptible they are to pyrethroid insecticides, work to improve methods of monitoring and predicting when migrations will occur and evaluate insecticides to control them. This is the third year in which they have been making recommendations to growers about what to do to achieve control.

Weinzierl described the program during a sweet corn session at the Great Lakes Fruit, Vegetable and Farm Market EXPO in Grand Rapids, Mich., in December.

Earworms, like potato leafhoppers, don’t live year round in most areas of the Midwest that they infest during the summer. Earworms won’t overwinter north of southern Illinois (40 degrees north latitude). Instead, the moths ride on columns of rising warm air from their place of origin in south Texas and western Louisiana.

This “insect pump” moves the moths hundreds of miles north and drops them out in bands along the frontal boundaries where hot air meets cooler air and rainstorms result. Rains bring water, and also insects looking for host plants to lay eggs on. Earworm moths lay eggs on the new silks of corn.

Major migrations occur in August, but in some years – two or three years out of 10 – they can begin in June.

All this is, of course, not new. But since the late 1990s, the arriving moths have been harder to kill with pyrethroid insecticides.

“The level of control has decreased,” Weinzierl said. “It used to be 90 percent and more. Now it is 70 to 75 percent or even less: 50 percent.”

The onset of resistance begins at the source.

“Earworms that infest our late season sweet corn, tomatoes, peppers and snap beans come from southern source regions,” Weinzierl said. “Primary host crops in those source regions are cotton, sorghum, soybeans and corn. These crops receive numerous applications of pyrethroid insecticides. Pyrethroid resistance that evolves in southern crops may present a problem in the northern destinations of migrating earworms.”

Resistance does not build up from use of pyrethroids in the north, since the insects there are not destined to remain in the breeding population. They do not survive over winter.

While the potential exists for massive corn earworm control failures, so far only a few in-field failures have occurred in sweet corn fields in the north, Weinzierl said.

While the effectiveness of pyrethroids is declining, they are still the recommended method of control.

Here is the program recommended by Weinzierl and his cohorts for sweet corn growers in the north this coming summer:

Buy a wire Hartstack pheromone trap and lures that attract earworms. Use the trap to monitor earworm moth flights.

Continue to use pyrethroid insecticides as needed based on pheromone trap catches. Pyrethroids are still the best insecticides for corn earworm control. These include Capture, Warrior, Baythroid and Mustang-Max. Expect that Warrior, Proaxis, Capture, Discipline, Baythroid, Mustang/Fury and Pounce/Ambush will all be affected by any resistance mechanism.

If traps are catching moths, getting a first application on at row tassel or by first silk may improve control compared to starting sprays within two days of first silk, especially where adult control over a large acreage is accomplished. Small plots and sequential plantings may be more severely affected than large fields if moths continue to fly into these plantings from surrounding areas.

Application intervals of two to three days are especially important right after silking has begun.

Tank mixing (not rotating) with Lannate, Larvin, Sevin or SpinTor/Entrust may improve control.

Alternative insecticides include SpinTor/Entrust and Radiant (spinetoram). These are more expensive.

Bt sweet corn greatly reduces earworm numbers but does not give complete control (and does not prevent damage from western bean cutworm).

Read Extension newsletters for updates. Weinzierl’s updates are published in the University of Illinois Fruit and Vegetable News, online at http://www.ipm.uiuc.edu/ifvn. The Web site at Penn State, which will have up-to-date flight info, is www.pestwatch.psu.edu/sweetcorn/tool/tool.html.

Report any apparent control failures to the entomologists involved in the project or to your local Extension office.

ShareThis

Jacobson’s business, Westview Orchards & Cider Mill in Romeo, Mich., was audited by the U.S. Department of Labor last July 13 – a Friday. The circumstances couldn’t have been much worse: An unannounced inspection in the middle of harvest. Needless to say, Jacobson, her family and her employees were unprepared for the ordeal they were about to go through.

And the scariest thing? Such a nightmare scenario could happen to any farm market at any time – so they’d better be prepared.

Jacobson conveyed that message in December, during a farm marketing session at the Great Lakes Fruit, Vegetable and Farm Market EXPO in Grand Rapids, Mich. She shared the podium with Craig Anderson, manager of Michigan Farm Bureau’s Risk Management Services. Anderson gave the audience some perspective on the federal labor department and how it operates.

Westview Orchards sits on 188 acres in Macomb County, about 25 miles north of Detroit. It grows and sells apples, peaches, pears, cherries, pumpkins, squash and other crops. Most of the produce is sold through the on-farm market or u-pick orchards. Agritourism activities cover 15 acres and include the cider mill, a bakery, a 6-acre corn maze, straw mountains and hay rides. For more information about the farm, visit www.westvieworchards.com.

Friday the 13th

It’s a typical July day at Westview Orchards. Fruit is being harvested. Suddenly, without warning, two auditors from the U.S. Department of Labor show up. One of them speaks English and the other speaks Spanish. They question Jacobson about her farm operation for two hours (they previously had visited the farm’s Web site). They inspect all the buildings and migrant housing. They interview six to eight migrant employees in Spanish – confidentially. They take lots of notes.

“In many cases, the department of labor can be pretty aggressive with your employees,” Anderson said.

Two or three weeks later, the English-speaking auditor returns to the farm to review employment records from 2005, 2006 and 2007. Jacobson has to provide a copy of every employee’s I-9 form and every minor’s work permit. She has to supply original punch cards and payroll stubs for each employee (they employ 125 people seasonally) from a two-month period in each of the three years. She has to give income records for each farm enterprise, including the cider mill, bakery, admissions area and farm market. A record of the amount of produce the farm has purchased from other sources – and when it was purchased – also is required.

Using information from the payroll records, the auditor conducts phone interviews with local employees. Apparently baffled by something as “unique” as an agritourism destination, the auditor even consults with an expert in Washington, D.C., according to Jacobson.

Exempt or non-exempt?

That “unique” label is a misnomer. Farm markets have been around for decades (Jacobson’s grandfather built Westview’s market in the 1920s), but the federal government doesn’t seem to have noticed.

“Agriculture is our main occupation,” Jacobson said. “We do agritourism to bring customers to our farm. It’s ancillary to our growing.”

The U.S. Department of Labor doesn’t see it that way.

Federal law defines the word “agriculture” in many ways, but none of those definitions include the sale of agricultural products. That’s where farm marketers run into a brick wall with the labor department, Anderson said.

“Our argument is that selling your product is farming, but the department of labor doesn’t accept that,” he said.

The department defines employees at a farm market like Westview Orchards as either “agricultural” or “non-agricultural.” Federal law exempts agricultural workers from overtime pay, but doesn’t exempt non-agricultural workers.

So, if some areas of your business are considered agricultural and other areas considered non-agricultural, the status of your employees can get complicated. Just ask Jacobson.

The labor department made several verbal determinations about her business: On-site employees at the retail segments – like the farm market, cider mill and bakery – are not exempt from overtime pay. Workers who handle agricultural products grown on the farm – jobs like picking and grading – are exempt.

The problem is, Jacobson has several “crossover” employees who do both exempt and non-exempt jobs. They might work on the grading line during the week (agricultural), but help to sugar donuts on the weekend (non-agricultural). If they spend even 15 minutes per week sugaring donuts and the rest of the week grading fruit, they are not exempt from overtime pay, she said.

“Even if they work one hour in the market and 60 hours on the farm, you have to pay them 21 hours of overtime,” Anderson said.

The lines between jobs at a business like Westview Orchards can get blurry. For example, what about the tractor drivers who take u-pickers out to the orchards? Is that considered farm work or retail work?

Buying produce from other sources leads to further complications. Any employees who touch off-farm produce are considered non-exempt, Jacobson said.

“That really impacted us.”

Westview’s migrant housing practices also were scrutinized. The farm provides free housing as part of a migrant laborer’s wages. The labor department determined that if that practice is to continue, Westview needs to make a clear contract with its employees indicating that rent and utilities are part of their wages, she said.

Jacobson said five other farms in Macomb County were audited along with Westview, but she couldn’t find a common thread between them. The other farms grow vegetables.

In the end, Westview paid several thousand dollars in back overtime wages to crossover employees.

“We will need to set up our farm differently,” Jacobson said. “I don’t know what that means, exactly. It may mean defining more jobs as non-exempt and limiting many jobs to 40 hours a week. In the past, our practice had been to let employees cross over and to use employees where we needed them.”

Many employees want to work as many hours as possible, she said.

What can you do?

Advocacy groups are the No. 1 cause of labor audits, which generally focus on employee safety, housing and wages, Anderson said.

The economic consequences of an audit can be costly. The primary penalty for a minor violation is $5,000. If the employer knowingly committed the violation, it’s $10,000. A willful major violation can garner a $70,000 penalty, he said.

Fighting the audit in court could be even more expensive. Not only would you have to pay thousands of dollars in legal fees; the labor department would really come after you, Anderson said.

So, what can you do? Lobby your congressmen to change federal labor laws regarding farm markets. Tell them selling your products should be considered “agricultural.” But it’s not going to be easy, according to Anderson.

“Both sides of the aisle believe we in agriculture are terrible about treating our employees.”

ShareThis

Glenn, 48, runs Vogel Produce in Fremont, Mich. The farm’s main emphasis is carrots – between 500 and 600 acres of them – but it also grows about 500 acres of corn, 300 acres of soybeans and 170 acres of butternut squash. The farm is venturing into green beans and onions, Glenn said.

Glenn’s father, Andy Vogel, started farming in 1948 with 10 acres of celery, onions and potatoes. Vogel Produce is now a 1,700-acre operation. Glenn’s son, Scott, helps his dad run the farm and will take over some day.

But back to the carrot harvester. It’s a big machine.

Glenn’s brother, Wayne, built the harvester in 1992. Wayne owns a machine shop, Vogel Engineering, where he makes harvesters and other equipment for a living. Glenn’s harvester is unusual, because it’s the only six-row harvester Wayne has constructed. It originally was a four-row harvester – Wayne’s typical design – but they added two rows in 1996, when Glenn started growing cut-and-peel carrots for Bolthouse Farms. Cut-and-peel carrots are smaller than fresh-market varieties and need to be planted at higher densities to make up tonnage. They went from four 34-inch rows to six 17-inch rows, Glenn said.

The harvester is efficient. From early August until early November, it drives over the rows, pulls the carrots out, carries them to the top of the machine and spits them into a semi-truck that drives alongside. Two people are needed to run the harvester: a driver and a monitor on top. Glenn and his son do the driving.

The harvester is the only machine they use for carrots. It could be used for parsnips and beets, but Vogel Produce doesn’t grow them. The machine has performed admirably for years, and could last another 20 or so with proper maintenance. As long as the frame is sound, other parts can be replaced, Glenn said.

Vogel harvesters seem to have a penchant for longevity. Glenn’s father and brother built a different four-row harvester almost 30 years ago. The family used that machine for a long time, and Glenn sold it to another farmer who’s still using it.

Most of Vogel Produce’s harvested carrots go to Bolthouse Farms, but some go to Gerber. They also store carrots for Gerber, Glenn said.

The Vogels were the first growers in their area to raise carrots on sand instead of muck. Carrots raised on high, sandy ground grow a little slower, but they end up smoother and there’s less risk of water damage. Sand also is easier on the harvester because it doesn’t sink down, he said.

ShareThis

The new settlements are in line with Hamersley Iron’s Baosteel settlement, which saw lump prices increase by 96.5% and fines prices increase by 79.88%.

Mr Sam Walsh CEO of Rio Tinto’s Iron Ore group said that “These agreements are a strong endorsement of the settlement reached last week and reflect the very strong demand for our products across the world’s fastest growing markets. The agreements throughout Asia will provide an important platform as we embark on the largest expansion in Rio Tinto Iron Ore’s history, increasing production from the Pilbara to 320 million tonnes of iron ore per annum in 2012 and 420 million tonnes per annum beyond that.”

ShareThis

ArcelorMittal Kazakh unit said in a statement that the new facility will produce up to 400,000 tonnes a year of profile and other items used in the construction industry, for sale mostly on the Kazakh market, ArcelorMittal Temirtau.

ArcelorMittal reiterated its plan to double Kazakh steel output to 10 million tonnes a year by 2013. It said that “Of course, this would require large investments, about USD 7 billion.”

Mr Frank Pannier CEO of ArcelorMittal Temirtau last month said that the expansion project would cost USD 4 billion while an additional USD 1.3 billion was earmarked for improving safety at the facilities.

ShareThis

Indian domestic iron ore spot prices surge by 10%
We had reported on June 29th 2008, that after Orissa Mining Corporation’s latest quarterly tender on for sale of iron ore during July to September 2008, the market prices of iron ore in Orissa are expected to surge by INR 500 per tonne

As per reports received this morning, the prices of iron ore in Burwil area of Orissa have gone up by INR 500 per tonne.

Product Grade Size 30-Jun 1-Jul Change %

Iron ore - BF Fe 65% 10-40 5000 5500 500 10.0%

Iron ore - Sponge Fe 63% 5-18 6100 6600 500 8.2%

1. Rates are in INR per tonne
2. Rates are Ex mines but include loading into rakes
3. VAT or CST is in addition
4. Royalty is INR 19 per tonne for Fe content of 63 and INR 27 per tonne for Fe content of 65%

ShareThis

As per report, the new state owned company was called Hebei Iron and Steel Group Co and replaces Baosteel Group Co as China’s biggest steel company.

Mr Wang Yanjun a Tangsteel spokesman said that “The new group is officially set up and it would be based in the northern city of Shijiazhuang in Hebei province, which encircles Beijing.”

According to the Chinese financial press Tangsteel’s steel output last year was 22.75 million tonnes while that of Hansteel was 9 million. Their combined total would rank fifth worldwide after South Korea’s POSCO which produced 32.8 million tonnes.

ShareThis

Mr Dietrich Meller president of Siemens Russia said “Yesterday we signed a corresponding contract for delivery of a facility with a capacity of 400 MW.”

According to the report, the contract is expected to be followed by three more with the aggregated cost of facilities to be purchased and launched by 2011 to total EUR 300 million.

Mosenergo supplies 80% of Moscow’s heating requirements and 85% of power demand in the capital and the surrounding Moscow Region. The company brings together 17 electric power plants with electricity generating capacity of 10,600 MW and thermal generation capacity of 39,000 MW.

ShareThis

MOC claimed that the use of anti subsidy measures infringes US rules and the tradition of not adopting anti subsidy measures against non market economies, which has been practiced since 1984. MOC said this move is contradictory to the World Trade Organization Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.

It added that US Department of Commerce’s false determination and calculation of the subsidies, and consecutive anti subsidy measures against Chinese steel products, greatly hurt the interests of Chinese industry and is not acceptable to China. It said China is studying the US determination and will act actively.

It added that the frequent requests for anti subsidy probes into Chinese exports made by US industries are not conducive to the normal development of the bilateral trade relations.

US Department of Commerce initiated antidumping duty and countervailing duty investigations on imports of light walled rectangular pipe and tube from China on July 17th 2007 and US International Trade Commission made affirmative determination that the product from China materially injured US industry on August 10th 2007. US Department of Commerce made final determination on June 13th 2008. Commerce determined that Chinese producers/exporters have sold rectangular pipe in the United States at 249.12% to 264.64% less than normal value. Commerce also determined that Chinese producers/exporters received net countervailable subsidies ranging from 2.17% to 200.58%.

ShareThis

ShareThis

ShareThis

ShareThis