U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

58–020 PDF 2010

HEARING TO REVIEW SPECIALTY CROP AND 

ORGANIC AGRICULTURE PROGRAMS IN 

ADVANCE OF THE 2012 FARM BILL

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

HORTICULTURE AND ORGANIC AGRICULTURE

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JULY 21, 2010

Serial No. 111–57

(

Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture 

agriculture.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE 

COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota, Chairman 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania, 

Vice Chairman 

MIKE MCINTYRE, North Carolina 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

JOE BACA, California 

DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

JIM MARSHALL, Georgia 

STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, South 

Dakota 

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas 

JIM COSTA, California 

BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

DEBORAH L. HALVORSON, Illinois 

KATHLEEN A. DAHLKEMPER, 

Pennsylvania 

BOBBY BRIGHT, Alabama 

BETSY MARKEY, Colorado 

FRANK KRATOVIL, JR., Maryland 

MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan 

LARRY KISSELL, North Carolina 

JOHN A. BOCCIERI, Ohio 

SCOTT MURPHY, New York 

WILLIAM L. OWENS, New York 

EARL POMEROY, North Dakota 

TRAVIS W. CHILDERS, Mississippi 

WALT MINNICK, Idaho 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma, Ranking 

Minority Member 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska 

DAVID P. ROE, Tennessee 

BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri 

GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming 

THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

ROBERT L. LAREW, Chief of Staff 

ANDREW W. BAKER, Chief Counsel 

APRIL SLAYTON, Communications Director 

NICOLE SCOTT, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HORTICULTURE AND ORGANIC AGRICULTURE

DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California, Chairman 

JIM COSTA, California 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

FRANK KRATOVIL, JR., Maryland 

SCOTT MURPHY, New York 

WILLIAM L. OWENS, New York 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio, Ranking Minority 

Member 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming 

KEITH JONES, Subcommittee Staff Director

(II) 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Cardoza, Hon. Dennis A., a Representative in Congress from California, opening statement ........................................................................................................ 1

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 3

Peterson, Hon. Collin C., a Representative in Congress from Minnesota, opening statement ........................................................................................................ 7

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 7

Schmidt, Hon. Jean, a Representative in Congress from Ohio, opening statement ...................................................................................................................... 4

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 6

WITNESSES

Angelucci, James A., General Manager, Phillips Mushroom Farms, Kennett 

Square, PA; on behalf of American Mushroom Institute .................................. 9

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 11

Jones, Jr., Robert N., Director of Production, The Chef’s Garden, Huron, 

OH ......................................................................................................................... 12

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 14

Kohl, Jr., Bernard, President, Angelica Nurseries, Inc., Kennedyville, MD; 

on behalf of American Nursery & Landscape Association ................................ 17

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 19

Nicholson, Mark, Executive Vice President and Part Owner, Red Jacket Orchards; Member, Board of Directors, U.S. Apple Association, Geneva, NY .... 23

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 25

Supplementary material .................................................................................. 64

Platz, Paul, corn, soybean, green pea, and sweet corn producer, Lafayette, 

MN ......................................................................................................................... 27

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 29

Richey, Daniel R., President/CEO, Riverfront Packing Company; President, 

Riverfront Groves, Inc.; President, Gulfstream Harvesting Company, Vero 

Beach, FL .............................................................................................................. 31

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 33

Smith, Ph.D., Margaret A., Value Added/Sustainable Agriculture Extension 

Educator, Value-Added Agriculture, Extension and Agronomy Department, 

Iowa State University; Co-Manager, Ash Grove Farm, Ames, IA ................... 34

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 37

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Wootton, Michael, Senior Vice President, Sunkist Growers, submitted statement ...................................................................................................................... 63 

(1)

HEARING TO REVIEW SPECIALTY CROP AND 

ORGANIC AGRICULTURE PROGRAMS IN 

ADVANCE OF THE 2012 FARM BILL 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 21, 2010

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HORTICULTURE AND ORGANIC

AGRICULTURE, 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:10 a.m., in Room 

1300 of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Dennis A. 

Cardoza [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Cardoza, Costa, Schrader, 

Murphy, Owens, Peterson (ex officio), Schmidt, Lummis, and Rooney. 

Staff present: Liz Friedlander, Alejandra Gonzalez-Arias, Keith 

Jones, John Konya, Patricia Barr, John Goldberg, Pam Miller, 

Mary Nowak, Jamie Mitchell, and Sangina Wright. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DENNIS A. CARDOZA, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM CALIFORNIA 

The CHAIRMAN. Good morning. This hearing of the Subcommittee 

on Horticulture and Organic Agriculture to review the specialty 

crop and organic agriculture programs in advance of the 2012 Farm 

Bill will come to order. We will start with opening statements and 

I will start with my own opening statement. Then we will go to my 

Ranking Member’s statement and we will recognize others. 

I want to thank everyone for being here today, taking time out 

of your busy schedules to attend this seventeenth in a series of the 

Committee on Agriculture hearings in advance of the 2012 Farm 

Bill. This morning we will focus our attention specifically on specialty crop and organic agriculture programs. My objective today is 

straightforward. We are here to assess what is working, what is 

not working and how we can improve upon the historic 2008 Farm 

Bill effort on behalf of specialty crops and organic agriculture. 

Today’s hearing is a departure from the Subcommittee’s traditional hearing format. We have foregone the Administration witnesses so as to maximize our time with producers. We can always 

have the Administration before us, based on what we hear from 

what the producers say today. As with our field hearings, we want 

to listen and pay close attention to those individuals who get up 

every morning to supply this country with the world’s safest, most 

abundant food supply. 

2

As I read today’s testimony, I am yet again reminded of the extraordinary diversity of the products and practices represented by 

these sectors. At our hearing earlier this summer, particularly the 

one that was held in Fresno, California, we heard from specialty 

crop and organic producers with a breathtaking diversity of size, 

generating an amazing array of different food products. We heard 

from producers with tens of acres, with hundreds of acres, and with 

thousands of acres producing almonds, apricots, bell peppers, eggplants, grapes, lemons, nectarines, melons, nursery plants, peaches, 

plums, oranges, spinach, sweet corn and tomatoes, and each producer using sound production practices. The witnesses in the panel 

before us today are no different, and you have tremendous geographic and product variety. 

I love to publicize the bounty of California, especially my own 

home, San Joaquin Valley. In 2008, California led the nation in the 

farm cash receipts with $36.2 billion in sales and accounted for 14 

percent of national receipts for crops. However, it is clear from today’s witness panel that Florida, Iowa, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Minnesota, New York and other states have specialty crop 

centers in their own right. In working with specialty crop and organic producers over the past number of years, we have learned 

some other things as well. I have learned that these producers and 

these sectors are classic entrepreneurs. Specialty crop producers 

have never sought direct subsidies, even though their sector represents over half, more than 50 percent of the total crop farm gate 

value in the country. 

Specialty crop producers are also pragmatic problem-solvers. 

When confronted with food safety issues, they formed their own 

private sector efforts, not content to merely wait for the Federal 

Government to act. 

Specialty crop producers are on the forefront of water conservation efforts, coexisting with urban neighbors and protecting the environment. Organic producers have a unique managerial ability to 

couple the best of the new, such as product tracing and direct marketing with wisdom of the old, such as composting. 

In the 2008 Farm Bill, Congress dedicated almost $3 billion in 

funding over 5 years to areas with critical importance to these sectors. We addressed their long-term competitiveness by enhancing 

efforts on research, pest and disease management, trade conservation expansion of market opportunities. We addressed nutritional 

concerns by expanding access to fruits and vegetables in schools 

and on grocery shelves, so that the nutritional benefits of these 

foods become more available and abundant to everyone. 

Since the passage of the 2008 Farm Bill, with the historic recognition of specialty crops and organic agriculture, we have been 

encouraged by the public’s response. A new national dialogue on 

healthy, nutritious food has emerged and shows no signs of lessening. Improving the health of our country has become a central 

focus of the academic debate and of local media attention. 

I anticipate that the 2012 Farm Bill will be written during tough 

fiscal times. The continued intense public dialogue on nutrition and 

health, and the question of how best to wisely allocate America’s 

hard-earned tax dollars will never be far from that debate. We 

must begin to address health and nutrition in ways like never beVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:27 Sep 20, 2010 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\DOCS\111-57\58020.TXT AGR1 PsN: BRIAN
3

fore, increasing the accessibility of fruits and vegetables for public 

consumption in a way to begin to solve some seemingly intractable 

health problems such as obesity, stroke and heart disease. Based 

on what we have heard thus far, and will hear from our witnesses 

today, I am convinced that we are on the right policy track. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cardoza follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. DENNIS A. CARDOZA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM CALIFORNIA

Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedules to attend this 17th in a 

series of Committee on Agriculture hearings in advance of the 2012 Farm Bill. 

This morning we will focus our attention specifically on specialty crop and organic 

agriculture programs. 

My objective today is straight forward. We are here to assess what is working, 

what is not, and how we can improve upon the historic 2008 Farm Bill effort on 

behalf of specialty crops and organic agriculture. Today’s hearing is a departure 

from the Subcommittee’s traditional hearing format. We have forgone Administration witnesses so as to maximize our time with producers. 

We can always have the Administration before us based on what we hear from 

producers today. 

As with our field hearing, we want to listen and pay close attention to those individuals who get up every morning to supply this country with the world’s safest and 

most abundant supply of food. 

As I read today’s testimony, I am yet again reminded of the extraordinary diversity of products and practices represented by these sectors. 

In our hearings earlier this summer, particularly in Fresno, Calif., we heard from 

specialty crop and organic producers with a breathtaking diversity of size generating 

an amazing array of food. 

We heard from producers with tens of acres, with hundreds of acres and with 

thousands of acres producing almonds, apricots, bell peppers, eggplants, grapes, 

lemons, nectarines, melons, nursery plants, peaches, plums, oranges, spinach, sweet 

corn and tomatoes, and each producer using sound production practices. 

The witness panel before us today is no different with its geographic and product 

variety. 

I love to publicize the bounty of California, especially the San Joaquin Valley. In 

2008, California led the nation in farm cash receipts with $36.2 billion in sales and 

accounted for 14% of national receipts for crops. 

However, it is clear from today’s witness panel that Florida, Iowa, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Minnesota, and New York are specialty crop centers in their own 

right. 

In working with specialty crop and organic producers over a number of years, I’ve 

learned some other things as well. 

I’ve learned that the producers in these sectors are classic entrepreneurs. Specialty crop producers have never sought direct subsidies even though the sector represents 1⁄2—50 percent—of the total crop farm gate value in this country. 

Specialty crop producers are also pragmatic problems solvers. When confronted 

with food safety issues, they formed their own private sector efforts, not content to 

merely wait for the Federal government to act. 

Specialty crop producers are on the forefront of water conservation efforts, co-existing with urban neighbors and protecting the environment. 

Organic producers have a unique managerial ability to couple the best of the new, 

such as product tracing and direct marketing, with the wisdom of old, such as 

composting. 

In the 2008 Farm Bill, Congress dedicated almost $3 billion in funding over 5 

years to areas of critical importance to these sectors. 

We addressed their long-term competitiveness by enhancing efforts on research, 

pest and disease management, trade, conservation and expansion of market opportunities. 

We addressed nutritional concerns by expanding access to fruits and vegetables 

in schools and on grocery shelves so that the nutritional benefits of these foods become more available to everyone. 

Since the passage of the 2008 Farm Bill with its historic recognition of specialty 

crops and organic agriculture, we have been encouraged by the public’s response. 

A new national dialogue on healthy, nutritious food has emerged and shows no 

signs of lessening. 

4

Improving the health of our country has become a central focus of academic debate and media attention. 

I anticipate that the 2012 Farm Bill will be written during tough fiscal times. And 

the continued intense public dialogue on nutrition and health, the question of how 

best to wisely allocate Americans’ hard-earned tax dollars will never be far from us. 

We must begin to address health and nutrition in ways like never before. Increasing the accessibility of fruits and vegetables for public consumption is a way to 

begin to solve some seemingly intractable health problems, such as obesity, stroke 

and heart disease. 

Based on what we’ve heard thus far and will hear from our witnesses today, I 

am convinced that we are on the right policy track. 

With that, I now yield time to Ranking Member Schmidt for her opening statement.

The CHAIRMAN. With that, I now yield time to our Ranking Member, Mrs. Schmidt, for her opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEAN SCHMIDT, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM OHIO 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing to review the specialty crop and organic agriculture programs 

to help us prepare for the next farm bill. I want to thank our witnesses for joining us and look forward to hearing from all of you. 

I especially want to thank Mr. Jones, Bob Jones, from the great 

Buckeye State and what you may not know, Mr. Chairman, is that 

while Bob grows a variety of herbs and produce and edible flowers, 

he also supplies the White House with his quality Ohio produce. I 

am glad he was able to be here today to talk to us. 

As we approach—by the way, Bob, I hope you can at some point 

get invited to actually eat in the White House, but as we approach 

this next farm bill, it is imperative that we hear directly from you, 

the growers, to fully understand from your firsthand experience 

what is working and what is not. Some of the decisions on program 

authorizations and funding levels will be difficult, but I am confident with your input we can put together a farm bill that meets 

the goals of food safety and security, world prosperity, environmental health and nutritional well-being. As we all know, legislation affecting American agriculture is not only about programs that 

assist producers and consumers, it is also about our tax policies, 

international trade and regulatory programs. 

As we prepare for the next farm bill, it is critically important to 

consider the regulatory pressures our farmers are facing from this 

current Administration. For starters, it seems that every day the 

new Administration, the Obama EPA, is proposing a new regulation, facilitating new litigation, or pursuing the extreme agenda of 

environmental groups with a blatant disregard for the impact that 

it will have on our farmers. While I won’t even attempt to itemize 

all the assaults on our farmers, there are a couple I want to mention. 

One recently begun is the reevaluation of a popular herbicide, 

atrazine. Now, by the EPA’s own estimate, atrazine provides corn 

growers with billions of dollars of economic benefits each year. Less 

than 4 years ago the Agency completed a 12 year review of this 

product and found it to be safe for human health and environment. 

Yet, one of the first actions of this new EPA decided to initiate a 

new costly, burdensome and scientifically misguided reevaluation 

5

based entirely on claims of extremists in the environmental community that were published in The New York Times.

Another recent attack by the EPA on our growers, a decision that 

deserves mention, is the proposed mandate for a zero drift standard for pesticide application. Interestingly enough, even the EPA in 

its own publication admits the zero drift standard for pesticide applications is impossible to meet, so why would this new Administration pursue these policies? Is our President so beholden to extremists in the environmental community that he is willing to 

strangle rural America with economic-killing regulations? 

The attacks by Federal regulators on farmers are not the only 

concern we need to address. Biotechnology is another area where 

our farmers are facing mounting threats. Here we have a regulatory agency in the USDA, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service that has previously conducted its evaluations in a fair 

and transparent manner, and has based its decisions on the best 

available science. Thus, by an agency that bases decisions on facts 

rather than propaganda, extremists in the environmental community have initiated numerous legal challenges. With the help of activist judges, these extremists have had success in slowing, stopping or in some cases reversing decisions by the USDA. A recent 

Supreme Court decision may offer some hope, but only time will 

tell. While these issues will be likely addressed by another of our 

Subcommittees in the coming weeks and months, I feel it is important that we hear from our panelists today on how these issues affect you. 

With regard to foreign trade, I stand solidly with the agriculture 

community in supporting the free trade agreements in South 

Korea, Columbia and Panama. It is long overdue and thankfully 

the President has finally announced his intention to set a November deadline for removing outstanding obstacles to implement the 

U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement. We await further action by the 

White House in support of this pronouncement. I hope the President will also aggressively pursue the agreements with Columbia 

and Panama. Our producers are losing vital markets and billions 

of dollars in export sales while the Administration sits on the sidelines and waits. I urge this Administration to move quickly on implementation of all three free trade agreements. 

There are other threats to our farmers including cap-and-trade, 

the resurrection of the death tax at the end of the year which will 

wreak havoc on family farms, the increased regulation of agriculture chemicals and the expansion of the Clean Water Act, which 

would subject every wet area in the U.S. from irrigation canals to 

small ponds and even temporary puddles in the middle of pastures, 

to new and sweeping regulations and permitting processes. Given 

these regulatory burdens, programs in the farm bill will be even 

more important to help our producers comply with potential Federal mandates, remain competitive in the global marketplace, and 

continue to supply the world with the safest and most plentiful 

food supply. 

Again, I want to thank all of you and I look forward to hearing 

from you. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Schmidt follows:]

6

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JEAN SCHMIDT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM OHIO

I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing to review specialty 

crop and organic agriculture programs to help us prepare for the next farm bill. I 

thank our witnesses for joining us and look forward to hearing your insightful testimony. 

I want to especially welcome Bob Jones from Huron, Ohio, who grows a variety 

of herbs, produce, and edible flowers. Bob supplies the White House with his quality 

Ohio produce, and I am glad he was able to take time out of his busy schedule to 

be with us today. 

As we approach the next farm bill, it is imperative that we hear directly from you, 

the growers, to fully understand from your first-hand experience what is working 

and what isn’t. Some of the decisions on program authorizations and funding levels 

will be difficult, but I am confident that with your input, we can put together a farm 

bill that meets the goals of food safety and security, rural prosperity, environmental 

health, and nutritional well-being. 

As we all know, legislation affecting American agriculture is not only about programs that assist producers and consumers. It is also about our tax policies, international trade, and regulatory programs. As we prepare for the next farm bill, it 

is critically important to consider the regulatory pressures our farmers are facing 

from the Obama Administration. 

For starters, it seems that every day the Obama EPA is proposing a new regulation, facilitating new litigation, or pursuing the extreme agenda of environmental 

groups with a blatant disregard for the impact it will have on our farmers. While 

I won’t even attempt to itemize all of the assaults our farmers are confronting, there 

are a couple that I will mention to illustrate the point. 

One is the recently begun re-re-evaluation of the popular herbicide atrazine. By 

EPA’s own estimate, atrazine provides corn growers with billions of dollars of economic benefits each year. 

Less than 4 years ago, the agency completed a 12 year review of this product and 

found it to be safe for human health and the environment. Yet, in one of its first 

actions, the Obama EPA decided to initiate a new costly, burdensome, and scientifically misguided re-re-evaluation based entirely on the claims of the extremists in 

the environmental community as published in The New York Times.

Another recent attack by the EPA on our growers that deserves mention is the 

proposed mandate for a zero-drift standard for pesticide applications. Interestingly, 

even the EPA, in its own publications admits that a zero-drift standard for pesticide 

applications is impossible to meet. 

So why would the Obama Administration pursue these policies? Is our President 

so beholden to the extremists in the environmental community that he is willing to 

strangle rural America with economy killing regulations? 

The attacks by Federal regulators on farmers are not the only concern we will 

need to address. Agricultural biotechnology is another area where our farmers are 

facing mounting threats. 

Here we have a regulatory agency in USDA, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, that has previously conducted its evaluations in a fair and transparent 

manner, and based its decisions on the best available science. Frustrated by an 

agency that bases its decisions on facts rather than propaganda, extremists in the 

environmental community have initiated numerous legal challenges. 

With the help of activist judges, these extremists have had success in slowing, 

stopping, or in some cases reversing decisions by the USDA. A recent Supreme 

Court decision may offer some hope—only time will tell. While these issues will likely be addressed by another of our Subcommittees in the coming weeks and months, 

I feel it important that we hear from our panelists today how these issues affect 

their operations. 

With regard to foreign trade, I stand solidly with the agriculture community in 

supporting the free trade agreements with South Korea, Columbia and Panama. It 

is long overdue. 

Apparently, the President has finally announced his intention to set a November 

deadline for removing outstanding obstacles to the implementation of the U.S.-

Korea FTA. We await further action by the White House in support of this pronouncement. 

I hope the President will also aggressively pursue the agreements with Columbia 

and Panama. Our producers are losing vital markets and billions of dollars in export 

sales while the Obama Administration sits on the sidelines. I urge the Administration to move quickly on implementation of all three FTAs. 

7

There are other threats to our farmers including cap-and-tax, the resurrection of 

the death tax at the end of this year which will wreak havoc on family farms, the 

increased regulation of agriculture chemicals, and the expansion of the Clean Water 

Act, which would subject every wet area in the U.S. from irrigation canals to small 

ponds, and even temporary puddles in the middle of pastures to new and sweeping 

regulations and permitting. 

Given these regulatory burdens, programs in the farm bill will be even more important to helping our producers comply with potential Federal mandates, remain 

competitive in the global marketplace, and continue to supply the world with the 

safest and most plentiful food supply. 

Again, I want to thank the witnesses for joining us, and I look forward to your 

testimony and today’s discussion.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mrs. Schmidt. 

The chair is honored today to have with us, and all in attendance, are honored to have the Chairman of the full Committee on 

the dais today with us. Mr. Peterson, would you like to make an 

opening statement? 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. COLLIN C. PETERSON, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM MINNESOTA 

Mr. PETERSON. Briefly, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for calling 

today’s hearing and I want to apologize, I have to go down to the 

White House for the bill signing here in a minute. I wanted to be 

here to recognize the outstanding work that you led last time in 

getting $3 billion in the farm bill for the first time horticulture and 

organic agriculture title, and $3 billion that we were able to secure. 

You know, we want to make sure that in this farm bill we build 

on that effort we made in the last farm bill, and like all of the titles, we are going to look into what we are doing, make sure that 

what we are doing is the right thing and we are being as efficient 

and effective as we can. So we appreciate your leadership and look 

forward to working with you, and this Subcommittee, as we put the 

next farm bill together to make sure that we build on what we 

have accomplished and not go backwards. 

And I want to welcome one of my producers from Minnesota, Mr. 

Platz, who has come out here. He has a diversified operation, 

which you see more of that going on, in Minnesota, and we had this 

farm-flex deal in the last farm bill. We are going to have to deal 

with that again next time, but we were able to at least make sure 

that that industry had sufficient acreage and was able to expand. 

So I welcome all of the members of the panel and I am sorry I can’t 

be with you, but I have other fish to fry here this morning, so 

thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Peterson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. COLLIN C. PETERSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM MINNESOTA

Thank you, Chairman Cardoza, for calling today’s hearing of the Subcommittee 

on Horticulture and Organic Agriculture. The purpose of this hearing is to review 

specialty crop and organic agriculture programs in advance of the 2012 Farm Bill. 

It is important that we take a look at what is working and what we can improve 

for the next farm bill in these areas. 

The Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 was the first farm bill to contain 

a separate title dedicated to horticulture and organic agriculture. Overall, we added 

almost $3 billion in funding for organic agriculture, fruit and vegetable programs 

and local food networks. This includes money for programs related to specialty crop 

block grants, planting flexibility, pest and disease management, organic certification 

8

cost-share and conservation, specialty crop research and nutrition, all of which will 

be discussed at today’s hearing. 

Specialty crops and organic agriculture are important sectors of the farm economy. Because every state has the capacity for some kind of specialty crop production, and with the growing value-added opportunities available to producers, these 

sectors show a great deal of promise in promoting economic prosperity in rural communities. According to the U.S Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Economic Research Service, specialty crops account for approximately 50 percent of all U.S. cash 

receipts of farm crops. 

As the Committee begins to consider the 2012 Farm Bill, we are looking at all 

of the programs under the Committee’s jurisdiction to ensure that we are spending 

available money as effectively as possible. Because we are in the midst of a difficult 

fiscal environment, it is important that we carefully evaluate all farm bill programs 

before we move forward. Specialty crop production is an important part of the U.S. 

farm economy, and we need to be sure that the programs in place optimize taxpayer 

dollars. 

I want to thank our witnesses for testifying today and sharing their views and 

expertise. As producers from operations of various sizes that grow a diversity of 

products, they can provide the Committee with a comprehensive snapshot of what’s 

going on at the ground level. They operate within these specialty crop and organic 

agriculture programs on a regular basis, so their perspective is an important part 

of our farm bill hearing process. This hearing and the others we are holding to consider farm programs will help us provide the most effective and efficient programs 

to farmers and ranchers and will lead to the best possible agriculture policy in the 

2012 Farm Bill. 

Thank you again, Chairman Cardoza, for holding today’s hearing, and I look forward to hearing from today’s witnesses.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Chairman, I think that everyone appreciates 

the work that you have done on the Financial Regulatory Reform 

Bill. Most folks don’t realize that the Agriculture Committee had 

a substantial role in that bill. I will never forget the day that you 

came to the leadership meeting and informed us very early on in 

the process about the exposure that this country had with trillions 

of dollars of derivatives. More funds were housed in the derivatives 

market then the total amount of cash in the country. We didn’t 

know how much exposure we had as a nation, and the work that 

you did will keep us from having the same kind of financial calamity I believe in the future. If anyone deserves watch the bill signing 

ceremony, you do. I very much appreciate your efforts. 

I would also like to say there is no possible way that we could 

have ever put together the specialty crop title of the farm bill, or 

the whole farm bill, without you. It was the first bill to go through 

regular order under PAYGO and first to override two Presidential 

vetoes. Without your shrewd steering of the process, and managing 

this Committee in a bipartisan basis, none of this would have happened. I appreciate serving on this Committee with you and thank 

you for your efforts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The chair is happy to recognize other Members to make brief 

opening remarks at this time if any Member would like to do so. 

Seeing none, I would like to welcome our witnesses to the witness 

table. I will try to not butcher your names, but if preceding history 

is any indication, I will butcher them anyway. I will do my best. 

First of all we have with us, Mr. James Angelucci, General Manager of Phillips Mushroom Farms on behalf of the American Mushroom Institute from Pennsylvania. Welcome, sir. We have Mr. Robert N. Jones, Director of Production of The Chef’s Garden from 

Ohio. We have Mr. Bernie Kohl, Jr., President of Angelica Nurseries, Incorporated, on behalf of the American Nursery & Landscape Association from Maryland. Welcome. We have Mr. Mark 

9

Nicholson, Executive Vice President, Red Jacket Orchards, Geneva, 

New York. We have Mr. Paul Platz, corn, soybean, green pea and 

sweet corn producer from Lafayette, Minnesota. We have Mr. Daniel R. Richey, President and CEO of Riverfront Packing Company, 

President, Riverfront Groves, Incorporated, and President of Gulfstream Harvesting Company from Vero Beach, Florida. Welcome, 

sir. And we have Margaret A. Smith, Ph.D., Value Added/Sustainable Agriculture Extension Educator from Iowa State University, 

and Co-Manager of Ash Grove Farm in Hampton, Iowa. 

Wow, I think my staff knows how much trouble I have pronouncing these names and they have done a good job of picking you 

so I didn’t mess up. Mr. Angelucci, would you please begin when 

you are ready. You have 5 minutes. Feel free to summarize your 

testimony. The entire written testimony will be put in the record. 

Summarizing will leave us more time for questions. You may begin. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES A. ANGELUCCI, GENERAL MANAGER, 

PHILLIPS MUSHROOM FARMS, KENNETT SQUARE, PA; ON 

BEHALF OF AMERICAN MUSHROOM INSTITUTE 

Mr. ANGELUCCI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the 

opportunity to testify today. 

I am Jim Angelucci, General Manager of Phillips Mushroom 

Farms, a third-generation, family-owned operation with growing facilities in Kennett Square, Pennsylvania and in Warwick, Maryland. In addition to growing traditional white Portobello and 

Crimini mushrooms, we also are the largest producer of specialty 

mushrooms in the United States growing Shiitake, Oyster and four 

other varieties. Some of our Pennsylvania production is certified organic under the USDA Program. We also buy from other area 

farms, packed under other farms’ labels and also have a processedfood division. 

I am pleased today to give you some real world examples of how 

the public policy decisions that you make result in programs that 

are tangible and have positive impacts on the mushroom industry 

and for consumers. The mushroom farm community is particularly 

proud of our Food Safety Program. First, mushrooms have never 

been associated with a foodborne illness outbreak. Since mushrooms are grown indoors, certain risks are minimized but we have 

our own set of unique challenges. Following the 2006 E. coli outbreak in spinach, the mushroom industry realized we had to step 

up our on-farm Food Safety Program in order to assure customers 

of the safety of our product and to satisfy the increasing demand 

for audits. As a matter of fact, the Las Vegas line had mushrooms 

6:1 to be the next commodity to have a problem. 

In response, we came together and developed an industry-wide 

food safety standard specific to growing, harvesting and shipping of 

fresh mushrooms. It is known as MGAP, the Mushroom Good Agricultural Program. MGAP is consistent with the FDA Guide to Minimize Microbial Food Safety Hazards for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables. It focused on risk involved in production based on science. It 

is attainable, auditable and verifiable. Just developing a program 

doesn’t necessarily mean growers will follow it, so our next even 

more challenging task was how to get growers to implement it. 

10

At this point, you may be asking what these voluntary food safety efforts have to do with the 2008 Farm Bill and today’s hearing. 

Funding from the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture through 

the Farm Bill Specialty Crop Block Grant Program has supported 

development and implementation of the MGAP Program. Block 

grant funds were spent to develop Food Safety Worker Training 

Programs, a website where growers could access all of the MGAP 

materials including standards, guidelines, training tools and forms 

needed for audit documentation. These tools are important so the 

grower can spend his or her time on implementation, not designing 

checklists and schedules. 

But first, to gauge feasibility of the program, we ran a pilot program on a small farm testing all the materials we developed. We 

made modifications based on their experience. Finally, we held four 

training sessions with an overwhelming turnout. By using webbased tools and train the trainer workshops, we have disseminated 

food safety messages to literally thousands of our workers. By combining funds from the American Mushroom Institute and the 

Mushroom Council, we were able to expand our reach to all consumer mushroom farms in the United States. We have received 

technical assistance from Penn State University, private consultants and most importantly, from our industry leaders who volunteer their time and talents. In addition, the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture has used a portion of the block grant funding 

to provide a cost-share program for good agricultural practices conducted by USDA, not only for mushroom growers but for all Pennsylvania fruit and vegetable growers. 

With increasing frequency, produce buyers be they large packers/

shippers, food service vendors or retail outlets are requiring GAP 

audits at the expense of the grower. For any farm but particularly 

a small operation, establishing a documented food safety program 

can be expensive and time consuming. Having all or part of the 

cost of the audit reimbursed through a Specialty Crop Block Grant 

Program has motivated farms to implement the MGAP Program. 

I understand that during consideration of the farm bill questions 

arose as to why funds should go through the state departments of 

agriculture. Sixty-five percent of all U.S. mushrooms are grown in 

Pennsylvania, therefore the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture understands the needs and concerns of our industry and 

recognizes the importance to the state’s economy. It just makes 

sense that the state departments of agriculture would have better 

perspective on the local needs of the farmers they serve. As for accountability, the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture and 

USDA have required extensive progress and final reports in outlining not only what has been accomplished but quantitative information on the impact of the projects. 

So how do we measure success? Since the auditable MGAP Program has been in place, about 18 months, half of the mushroom 

farms in the U.S. and over 60 percent in Pennsylvania have successfully passed the MGAP audit. Even more importantly, these 

farms represent over 85 percent of U.S. production. In Pennsylvania, we have primarily small growers who struggle daily with the 

rising cost of production. They would not have been able to do this 

on their own. The work achieved through the Specialty Crop Block 

11

Grant Funds resulted in even safer food product and documented 

program to enhance consumer confidence. As we face new food 

safety legislation and regulation from FDA, the mushroom industry 

feels that we are clearly prepared and especially the Specialty Crop 

Block Grants have played a large role in our success. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Angelucci follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES A. ANGELUCCI, GENERAL MANAGER, PHILLIPS

MUSHROOM FARMS, KENNETT SQUARE, PA; ON BEHALF OF AMERICAN MUSHROOM

INSTITUTE

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I am Jim Angelucci, 

the General Manager of Phillips Mushroom Farms, a third generation, family-owned 

company with mushroom growing facilities in Kennett Square, PA and Warwick, 

MD. 

I’m pleased today to give you some real world examples of how the public policy 

decisions you make result in programs with tangible and positive impacts for the 

mushroom industry and for consumers. 

The mushroom farm community is particularly proud of our food safety record. 

Fresh mushrooms have never been associated with a foodborne illness outbreak. 

Since mushrooms are grown indoors, certain risks are minimized, but we have our 

own set of unique challenges. 

Following the 2006 E. coli outbreaks in spinach, the mushroom industry realized 

we had to step up our on-farm food safety programs in order to assure our customers of the safety of our product and to satisfy the increasing demand for audits. 

In response, we came together and developed an industry-wide food safety standard 

specific to the growing, harvesting and shipping of fresh mushrooms. It is known 

as MGAP—the Mushroom Good Agricultural Practices program. 

MGAP is consistent with the FDA Guide to Minimize Microbial Food Safety Hazards for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables. It is focused on the risks involved in production and based on science; it is attainable, auditable and verifiable. But just developing a program doesn’t necessarily mean growers will follow it; so our next and 

even more challenging task was how to get growers to implement it. 

At this point you may be asking what these voluntary food safety efforts have to 

do with the 2008 Farm Bill and today’s hearing. 

Funding from the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture through the Farm 

Bill’s Specialty Crop Block Grant program has supported the development and implementation of the MGAP program. Block grants funds were spent to develop food 

safety worker training programs, a website where growers can access all the MGAP 

materials, including the standards, guidelines, training tools, and forms needed for 

audit documentation. These tools are important so a grower can spend his or her 

time on implementation not on designing checklists and schedules. 

But first, to gauge the feasibility of the program, we ran a pilot program at a 

small farm testing all the materials we developed. We made modifications based on 

their experiences. Finally, we held four training sessions with an overwhelming 

turnout. By using web-based tools and train-the-trainer workshops, we have disseminated food safety messages to literally thousands of our workers. And by combining funds from the American Mushroom Institute and the Mushroom Council, we 

were able to expand our reach to all commercial mushroom farms in the United 

States. We received technical assistance from Penn State University, private consultants, and most importantly, from our industry leaders who volunteered their 

time and talents. 

In addition, the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture has used a portion of 

block grant funding to provide a cost share program for Good Agricultural Practice 

audits conducted by USDA—not only for mushroom growers but for all Pennsylvania fruit and vegetable growers 

With increased frequency, produce buyers—be they large packer/shippers, 

foodservice vendors or retail outlets—are requiring GAP audits, all at the expense 

of the grower. For any farm, but particularly a small operation, establishing a documented food safety program can be expensive and time consuming. Having all or 

a part of the cost of an audit reimbursed through the Specialty Crop Block Grant 

program has motivated farms to implement the MGAP program. 

I understand that during consideration of the farm bill, questions arose as to why 

the funds should go through state departments of agriculture. Sixty-five percent of 

all U.S. mushrooms are grown in Pennsylvania. Therefore, the Pennsylvania DeVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:27 Sep 20, 2010 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 I:\DOCS\111-57\58020.TXT AGR1 PsN: BRIAN
12

partment of Agriculture understands the needs and concerns of our industry and 

recognizes our importance to the state’s economy. It just makes sense that a state 

department of agriculture would have a better perspective on the local needs of the 

farmers they serve. 

As for accountability, the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture and USDA 

have required extensive progress and final reports outlining not only what has been 

accomplished but quantitative information on the impact of the projects. 

So how do you measure success? Since the auditable MGAP program has been in 

place—about 18 months, half of the mushroom farms in the U.S. (and over 60 percent in Pennsylvania) have successfully passed a MGAP audit. Even more importantly, these farms represent over 85 percent of U.S. production. 

In Pennsylvania, we have primarily small growers who struggle daily with the rising costs of production. They would not have been able to do this on their own. The 

work achieved through the Specialty Crop Block Grant funds resulted in an even 

safer food product and a documented program to enhance consumer confidence. As 

we face new food safety legislation and regulations from FDA, the mushroom industry feels that we are clearly prepared, and the Specialty Crop Block grants have 

played a large role in our success. 

Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thanks you, sir. 

I will get back to my list. Next we have Mr. Robert Jones, Director of Production of The Chef’s Garden in Huron, Ohio. Mr. Jones, 

you have 5 minutes to testify. Thank you very much. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT N. JONES, JR., DIRECTOR OF 

PRODUCTION, THE CHEF’S GARDEN, HURON, OH 

Mr. JONES. Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity this 

morning and thank you for your public service. 

My name is Bob Jones. I am a vegetable grower from The Chef’s 

Garden in Huron, Ohio. The Chef’s Garden is a multi-generational 

family farm specializing in sustainably-grown gourmet vegetables 

for four and five star restaurants in all 50 states and 12 additional 

countries. I am proud to say that my children are the fourth generation to have worked on our family farm, and we hope to continue the agricultural legacy of the Jones Family long into the future. 

We have been fortunate and truly blessed to have developed relationships with chefs patient enough to teach a family of dirt farmers the food business. The Chef’s Garden grew out of necessity. 

After many years as wholesale vegetable growers, suffering financial hardship, losing the family farm in 1983, we began rebuilding 

by custom growing for chefs we first met at Cleveland-area farmers 

markets. 

My personal experience with the farm bill comes by the way of 

the Specialty Crop Block Grant Program funded by USDA and in 

Ohio, administered by the Ohio Department of Agriculture. I have 

served on the Grant Review Committee in Ohio for the past 2 

years. First of all, let me say how critically important this source 

of funding is to the specialty crop industry. It is at this time in 

Ohio the sole source of funding available to this entire industry. 

In Ohio, we have what I consider a rather unusual problem that 

has created a tremendous opportunity. The amount of fresh 

produce consumed in our state is several times that of the amount 

of produce being grown in the state, yet the vast majority of Ohio’s 

productions of fresh fruits and vegetables are exported out of the 

state. This is a losing proposition for both producers and consumers 

of fresh produce. When considering sustainability issues and carVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:27 Sep 20, 2010 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 I:\DOCS\111-57\58020.TXT AGR1 PsN: BRIAN
13

bon footprints, our growers must strive to balance the production 

and consumption numbers in our state. We must truly listen to our 

consumers’ needs, and then convince growers to meet and exceed 

those needs. This, in my opinion, is where the greatest value of the 

Specialty Crop Block Grant Program comes from, helping specialty 

crop producers help themselves. 

Sixty percent of all the nation’s farmers do not raise farm bill 

program crops, and, therefore, do not receive direct subsidies. 

Please let me be very clear on this point. We do not want them. 

Ohio growers like myself are much more interested in becoming 

better growers, marketers and promoters. The technical research 

on production methods, conservation issues, nutritional programs, 

Farm-to-School Program, promotional activities and food safety 

programs such as our Ohio Produce Marketing Agreement and producer-consumer connection activities are much more valuable to 

the sustainability of our specialty crop industry than direct subsidies. 

In Ohio, we have funded several such activities and are just beginning to see the potential benefit of these projects. We need to 

help our growers better understand the producer-consumer imbalance and find ways to eliminate it, and then begin marketing outside of our state as we are within 500 miles of the vast majority 

of the entire populations of both U.S. and Canada. 

Ohio and other Midwest specialty crop producers could and 

should be supplying these consumers the majority of their fresh 

produce year round. Helping specialty crop producers understand 

and take advantage of the opportunities that exist for them is critical. We can only accomplish these lofty goals with continued support of the Specialty Crop Block Grant Program. The current program however could be even more workable if the funding formula 

were more balanced per its distribution by state. 

I understand that under the farm bill each state receives a minimum grant, and then the balances of available dollars are distributed according to specialty crop cash receipts data by state. Currently, it appears that Ohio, for example, received only about one 

percent of these additionally distributed dollars, compared to California which is receiving nearly 40 percent. I understand this funding discrepancy and the need to flow more dollars to the states 

with more production. That said, in states like Ohio we do not have 

existing support systems or technical assistance similar to what 

others enjoy. 

The block grant program is one of the few tools we have to support our growers and better realize our specialty crop opportunities. 

To meet this need, I believe some shifts in the existing formula 

may be warranted. 

I also believe the program’s success would benefit from having 

each state’s specialty crop producers involved in determining the 

best use of each state’s allotment funds once the funds are in the 

state departments of agriculture. It would also help if the funding 

cycle were moved to an earlier time of the year. Under the current 

funding system, some states do not find out the amount of funding 

they will receive until February. USDA contracts for these projects 

are not finalized until August or September which makes it difVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:27 Sep 20, 2010 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 I:\DOCS\111-57\58020.TXT AGR1 PsN: BRIAN
14

ficult to conduct in-season research projects within the funding 

year. 

It is also difficult for specialty crop producers to be involved during the growing season. Moving the entire funding cycle back a 

month or 2 could help to keep the very people this program is intended to help involved in the state level decision-making process, 

and will, in my opinion, dramatically increase the effectiveness of 

the program. 

In closing, the Specialty Crop Block Grant Program is critically 

important and helpful. It is truly the only way to keep our industry 

sustainable into the future. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this process and I would welcome any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Jones follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT N. JONES, JR., DIRECTOR OF PRODUCTION, THE

CHEF’S GARDEN, HURON, OH 

Good morning. 

My name is Bob Jones. I am a vegetable grower from The Chef’s Garden in 

Huron, Ohio. Thank you all for your public service and for the opportunity to speak 

about the specialty crop and organic agriculture programs at the USDA. 

The Chef’s Garden is a multi-generational family farm specializing in sustainablygrown gourmet vegetables for four and five star restaurants in all fifty states and 

twelve countries. I am proud to say my children are the fourth generation to work 

on our farm, we hope to continue the Jones family farming legacy long into the future. We have been fortunate and blessed to develop relationships with chefs patient 

enough to teach a family of dirt farmers the food business. 

The Chef’s Garden grew out of necessity. After many years as wholesale vegetable 

growers, suffering financial hardship, losing the family farm in 1983, we began rebuilding by custom-growing for chefs we met at Cleveland area farmer’s markets. 

My personal experience with the farm bill comes by way of the Specialty Crop 

Block Grant Program, funded by the USDA, and administered in Ohio by the Ohio 

Department of Agriculture. This source of funding is critical to the specialty crop 

industry. It is, at this time, the sole source of funding available to this industry as 

a whole. 

In Ohio, we have an unusual problem that has created a tremendous opportunity. 

The amount of fresh produce consumed in our state is several times the amount 

grown in our state. Yet the vast majority of Ohio’s fresh fruits and vegetables are 

exported out of the state. This is a losing proposition for both the growers and consumers of fresh produce. When considering sustainability and carbon footprints, we 

growers must strive to balance the production and consumption numbers in our 

state. We must truly listen to our consumers’ needs, and then convince growers to 

meet and exceed those needs. This is where the Specialty Crop Block Grant Program is most valuable: helping specialty crop producers help themselves! 

Sixty percent of all the nation’s farmers do not grow farm bill ‘‘program crops’’ 

and therefore do not receive direct subsides. (site: USDA, 2007 Farm Bill Proposals, 

page 171) Please hear me clearly: we do not want them! Ohio growers like me are 

much more interested in becoming better growers, marketers and promoters. The 

technical research on production methods, conservation issues, nutritional programs, farm to school programming, promotional activities, Food Safety programs 

such as our ‘‘Ohio Produce Marketing Agreement,’’ and producer/consumer connection activities, are much more valuable to the sustainability of our specialty crop 

industry than direct subsidies. In Ohio we have funded several such projects and 

are just beginning to see their potential. 

In Ohio, we need to better understand the producer/consumer imbalance and find 

ways to eliminate it, and then begin marketing outside of our state as we are within 

500 miles of the vast majority of the populations of both the U.S. and Canada. Ohio 

and other Midwest farms could and should supply the majority of these consumers’ 

fresh produce year-round. 

Helping specialty crop producers understand and take advantage of the opportunities that exist for them is critical. We can only accomplish these lofty goals with 

continued support of the Specialty Crop Block Grant Program. 

However, the current program could be even more workable if the funding formula was more balanced per its distribution by state. I understand that under the 

15

farm bill, each state receives a minimum grant and then the rest of the available 

dollar(s) are distributed according to specialty crop cash receipts data by state. Currently it appears that Ohio, for example, receives only about one percent of these 

additionally distributed dollars compared to California receiving nearly 40 percent. 

I understand this funding discrepancy and the need to flow more dollars to the 

states with more production. That said, in states like Ohio, we do not have existing 

support programs and systems of technical assistance similar to what other states 

enjoy. The block grant program is one of the few tools we have to support our growers and better realize our specialty crop opportunities. To meet this need, I believe 

some shifts in the existing formula may be warranted. I also believe the program’s 

success would benefit from having each state’s specialty crop producers involved in 

determining the best use of each state’s allotted funds once the funds are in the 

hands of the state departments of agriculture. 

It would also help if the funding cycle was moved to an earlier time of year. 

Under the current funding cycle, in some years states do not find out the amount 

of funding they will receive until February. USDA contracts for these projects are 

not finalized until August or September, which makes it difficult to conduct in-season research projects within the funding year. It is also difficult for specialty crop 

producers to be involved during the growing season. Moving the entire cycle back 

a month or 2 could help keep the very people this program is intended to help, involved in state-level decision-making, and will, in my opinion, dramatically increase 

the program’s effectiveness. The Specialty Crop Block Grant Program is critically 

important and helpful. It is truly the only way to help our industry sustain itself 

in the long run. 

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this process, and for your support 

of our industry. I welcome any questions you may have.

16

ATTACHMENT


11157001
17

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Jones. 

Mr. Bernie Kohl, President of Angelica Nurseries, welcome, sir, 

and please proceed with your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF BERNARD KOHL, JR., PRESIDENT, ANGELICA 

NURSERIES, INC., KENNEDYVILLE, MD; ON BEHALF OF 

AMERICAN NURSERY & LANDSCAPE ASSOCIATION 

Mr. KOHL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Subcommittee Members 

and guests. 

I am Bernie Kohl, a third generation nurseryman and President 

of Angelica Nurseries located on Maryland’s scenic eastern shore. 

Angelica is Maryland’s largest wholesale grower, producing quality 

landscape plants for customers in the eastern U.S. I am also here 

today on behalf of the American Nursery & Landscape Association. 

I thank you for the fact that the 2008 Farm Bill recognizes the 

important role of specialty crops including nursery crops and floriculture. Our industry provides young trees and plants to American 

farms that grow apples, oranges, peaches, grapes and strawberries. 

We grow the plants that surround the U.S. Capitol and your own 

homes. Our plants provide real benefits like urban cooling, carbon 

capture and improved air and water quality. 

While in town I intend to visit my Congressional delegation to 

urge their support for H.R. 4509, the Small Business Environmental Stewardship Act. I would like to thank Representative Kurt 

Schrader for introducing this important tree planting bill. Nursery and greenhouse crop sales are about $17 billion each 

year at farm gate. Our industry ranks among the top five agricultural commodities in 28 states, and among the top ten in all 50 

states. We represent 1⁄3 of the value of all specialty crop production 

in the U.S. 

The industry has survived without market distorting subsidies or 

price supports. We would like to keep it that way. Our farm bill 

priorities focus on critical infrastructure and programs to enable 

success. I will mention a few highlights. Details are in my written 

testimony. 

First, the 2008 Farm Bill helps to address a serious threat of 

invasive plant pests. Section 10201 provides funding for innovative 

programs to identify, detect and respond to plant pest threats from 

around the world. USDA’s APHIS has set clear goals based on the 

farm bill language and is working with interested parties including 

ANLA. Important work under one of these goals, safeguarding 

nursery production will set the stage for a modernized certification 

system for nursery crops including interstate and international 

commerce. 

Section 10202 of the farm bill established a National Clean Plant 

Network or NCPN to protect U.S. specialty crops such as grapes, 

peaches and apples from catastrophic plant pests. Robert Wooley, 

an internationally respected fruit and nut treestock grower recently 

said of the program, ‘‘The NCPN could be considered the poster 

child for the positive impact we have enjoyed from the inclusion of 

specialty crops funding in the latest farm bill.’’ The NCPN has enabled nurseries to eliminate common virus from nursery stock and 

at the same time to monitor for exotic, invasive disease in a unique 

and innovative surveillance program. The NCPN is also providing 

18

a mechanism to update and harmonize state certification programs 

which will facilitate interstate commerce of clean nursery trees. 

Perhaps the most significant benefit is the maintenance and improvement of the clean plant programs at Washington State University, the University of California and Clemson University. These 

programs provide essential disease testing therapy for domestic 

and imported fruit in great varieties. Farm bill funding has been 

timely and critically important to sustaining their survival. 

On the topic of research, we appreciate establishment of the Specialty Crops Research Initiative, yet we remain concerned with the 

required 1:1 matching funds for these grants. This requirement 

puts some sectors at a disadvantage. SCRI grants are multi-year 

and many traditional industry funding sources cannot commit 

multi-year funding. 

Finally, the USDA ARS and other Federal partners are disadvantaged because other Federal resources cannot count toward 

the matching requirement. The Specialty Crop Block Grant Program, which provides grants on a formula basis to the states to 

fund projects important to the specialty crop industries, a number 

of state associations in our industry have successfully applied for 

these grants. I have included two examples in my written statement. 

Nursery growers appreciate the 2008 Farm Bill expanded eligibility under the Tree Assistance Program however we have encountered problems with the TAP implementation which are described 

in my written statement. Resolution seems close but we would appreciate your help if problems exist. 

While many farm bill provisions are making a positive difference, 

we want to note a serious threat from the Biomass Crop Assistance 

Program or BCAP. The potential diversion of forestry byproducts, 

most notably tree bark, from established markets to energy generation could devastate nursery producers across the U.S. Over 70 percent of nursery crops are now grown in containers, and bark is the 

most important component of the growing substance that fills these 

containers. BCAP subsidies threaten our $17 billion industry and 

could fuel loss of market share to imports from Canada and elsewhere. BCAP subsidies should encourage new biomass crops and 

opportunities, but not disrupt established markets at taxpayer expense. 

Let me end with an issue that is on the minds of all specialty 

crop producers, farm labor. As important as the farm bill is, growers cannot survive without labor. We now face a perfect storm resulting from aggressive worksite enforcement, Congressional inaction and regulatory overkill. Most producers are one I–9 audit 

away from disaster. A few of us are trying to use the legal program 

known as H–2A and we are struggling with a third set of rules in 

3 years. Labor reform will enable a bright future. Ignoring the 

problem will cause American production on-farm and off-farm jobs 

to leave the country. We support the AgJOBS Bill, H.R. 2414 as 

a balanced bipartisan solution. 

Thank you again for your leadership and the opportunity to 

speak to you today. We look forward to collaborating on the next 

farm bill. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kohl follows:]

19

1The Economic Impact of the Green Industry in the United States. Hall, Charles R., Alan R. 

Hodges, John J. Haydu. Southern Agricultural Economics Association, 2006. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BERNARD KOHL, JR., PRESIDENT, ANGELICA NURSERIES, 

INC., KENNEDYVILLE, MD; ON BEHALF OF AMERICAN NURSERY & LANDSCAPE ASSOCIATION

Thank you, Chairman Cardoza, Ranking Member Schmidt, Subcommittee Members, and distinguished guests, for this opportunity to present testimony on implementation of the 2008 Farm Bill’s Specialty Crop title, on behalf of the U.S. nursery 

and greenhouse industry. I am Bernie Kohl, President of Angelica Nurseries, located 

on the beautiful and agriculturally important Eastern Shore of Maryland. Angelica 

Nurseries is a third-generation wholesale growing operation producing quality landscape plants for customers up and down the Eastern Seaboard and into the Midwest. Angelica is the largest nursery in the State of Maryland, and one of the largest agricultural employers in the state. 

My remarks today are presented on behalf of the American Nursery & Landscape 

Association (ANLA). ANLA is a leading member of the Specialty Crop Farm Bill Alliance, with whom we collaborated on the 2008 Farm Bill’s specialty crop provisions. 

We join in thanking the Chairman and the Subcommittee for successfully crafting 

a farm bill that for the first time recognizes in a serious way the role of specialty 

crops, including nursery crops and floriculture. We look forward to working with you 

as the 2012 Farm Bill begins to take shape. 

Though struggling through the economic downturn, the nursery and greenhouse 

industry is a bright spot in U.S. crop agriculture. The combined U.S. nursery, floriculture, and landscape industry, collectively known as the ‘‘green industry,’’ has an 

estimated economic impact of $147.8 billion.1 The industry employs 1.95 million individuals, generates $64.3 billion in labor income, and provides $6.9 billion in indirect business taxes. Products and services offered by the green industry directly contribute to production of apples, citrus, grapes, strawberries, and other food crops; 

to sustaining our environment; and to improving the quality of life in rural, suburban and urban communities. Landscape plants provide ecosystem service benefits 

that range from reducing energy needs, to fostering carbon sequestration, and improving water quality and storm water management. 

U.S. nursery and floriculture crop production represents a major component of the 

nation’s specialty crop agriculture. According to the USDA’s 2007 Census of Agriculture, nursery, greenhouse and floriculture annual crop sales totaled roughly $17 

billion at farm gate. Nursery and greenhouse crop production now ranks among the 

top five agricultural commodities in 28 states, and among the top ten in all 50 

states. The sector represents roughly a third of the value of all specialty crop production in the U.S. In Maryland, nursery and greenhouse annual production totaled 

about $209 million according to the 2007 Census. 

The Farm Bill and the Nursery Industry 

The U.S. nursery industry has developed and thrived without the influence of 

market-distorting subsidies, price supports, or similar programs. Most wish to keep 

it that way. Consistent with this history and philosophy, our priorities in the 2008 

Farm Bill focused on critical infrastructure and programs to deal with plant pest 

and disease threats, and to fund needed research. Global trade and travel have accelerated the pace of new pest introductions. Given the diversity of crops that the 

industry produces, virtually every new plant pest that arrives and establishes in the 

U.S. becomes a production or market access problem for the nursery industry. Emerald ash borer, Asian longhorned beetle, and the pathogen responsible for ‘‘sudden 

oak death’’ are just a few examples with which the industry is struggling. 

The 2008 Farm Bill did several positive things relating to the serious threat of 

plant pests and diseases:

• Section 10201 provided critical funding and direction for innovative initiatives 

to identify and mitigate offshore threats, and improve pest detection and rapid 

response in the U.S. So far, USDA’s Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service 

(APHIS) has set priorities based upon six goal areas drawn directly from the 

language of the farm bill. While this is long-term work, and success at prevention is not always easy to measure, we believe APHIS has so far done a good 

job of involving stakeholders in an open and transparent process for identifying 

and funding the best ideas to accomplish the goals.

Specific projects funded and suggested for future funding under the ‘‘Safeguarding Nursery Production’’ goal are setting the stage for a modernized sysVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:27 Sep 20, 2010 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 I:\DOCS\111-57\58020.TXT AGR1 PsN: BRIAN
20

tem for the certification of nursery crops moving in interstate and international 

commerce.

One critically important goal under 10201 is to more effectively identify and 

mitigate, potential threats plant pest threats to U.S. agriculture before they arrive at our airports and ports, and make their way to our farms and forests. 

Strategic research and analysis on pest threats which might reach our shores 

in the next few years is essential to our ability to avoid introduction, or to eradicate pests or diseases quickly if they do arrive here. If we were to share one 

constructive criticism for the deployment of 10201 funds so far, it would be that 

too few projects have been designed and implemented for offshore pest threat 

identification and mitigation.

• Section 10202 of the farm bill established the National Clean Plant Network 

(NCPN). The NCPN was created to protect U.S. specialty crops, such as grapes, 

nuts, apples, peaches and other fruits, from the spread of economically harmful 

plant pests and diseases. The NCPN will contribute to the global competitiveness of U.S. specialty crop producers by creating high standards for our clean 

plant programs for these vital crops. The program will improve U.S. growers’ 

access to the newest and most profitable plant varieties from around the world, 

without the devastating plant diseases that exist elsewhere in the world.

Robert Woolley, an internationally respected grower of deciduous fruit and nut 

tree nursery stock, represents ANLA in the NCPN governance structure. He recently participated in the annual meeting of parties involved in NCPN, and had 

this to say after the meeting concluded:

‘‘The NCPN could be considered the poster child for positive impact we have 

enjoyed from inclusion of specialty crops funding in the latest farm bill. 

With farm bill funding, the NCPN has enabled nurseries to eliminate common virus from nursery stock and, at the same time, to monitor for exotic, 

invasive disease in a unique and innovative surveillance program. The 

NCPN is also providing a mechanism to update and harmonize state certification programs which will facilitate interstate commerce of ‘clean’ nursery 

trees. Perhaps the most significant benefit of the establishment of the NCPN, 

however, is the maintenance and improvement of clean plant programs at 

Washington State University and the University of California as well as 

Clemson University in South Carolina. These programs provide essential 

disease testing and therapy for both domestic and imported fruit and grape 

varieties, and farm bill funding via the NCPN has been timely, and critically important to sustaining their survival.’’

The establishment and maintenance of the National Clean Plant Network was 

one of our highest farm bill priorities. We are truly impressed with the progress 

that has been made already on this program.

• In Section 10203, Congress intended the Secretary of Agriculture to be the final 

word on emergency pest funding decisions. In California, we have witness time 

and again where the experts at fighting pests are overruled by the Office of 

Management and Budget. The result has been delayed funding and more pests. 

We appreciate this Committee’s efforts to correct this bureaucratic problem. 

Early indications suggest that OMB remains the final word and we would ask 

that you closely monitor this situation. 

Specialty Crops Research Initiative 

We appreciate the recognition, through the Specialty Crops Research Initiative in 

the 2008 Farm Bill, of the need for research funding to support the specialty crop 

industry. We remain concerned, however, with the required 1:1 funding match for 

these grants. This requirement puts many specialty crop growers at a disadvantage, 

especially in industries that do not have check-off programs. SCRI grants are multiyear, and most traditional industry funding sources (including our own research endowments, the Horticultural Research Institute, and the American Floral Endowment) cannot commit funding for multiple years. We are also concerned that the 

match requirement, as implemented, is placing USDA–ARS and other Federal partners on a less-than-competitive playing field because other Federal funds and resources cannot be used to meet the matching requirement. 

A longer term concern with the creation of the National Institute for Food and 

Agriculture—NIFA—is that the move toward long term, systems competitive funded 

research reduces funding that could be applied to meet immediate or quickly emerging research needs, such as those resulting from the introduction of invasive pest 

species. We feel that it is critical for USDA to maintain and increase funding efforts 

for its intramural research agency, USDA–ARS, in a balanced way with respect to 

21

competitive funds available through NIFA. Increased funding is also needed for the 

formula-funded Smith-Lever and Hatch Act as these programs provide for the base 

research and educational delivery infrastructure for Cooperative Extension and 

State Experiment Station programs. If we allow our national research infrastructure 

to deteriorate for lack of funding for traditional pest and disease research, we will 

not easily be able to rebuild it. 

Unintended Consequences of the Biomass Crop Assistance Program 

While many provisions of the 2008 Farm Bill are already making a positive difference, we must alert you to a serious potential unintended consequence of one particular program, the Biomass Crop Assistance Program, or BCAP. While the program’s goals are worthy, the potential diversion of certain forestry byproducts—most 

notably softwood and hardwood bark—from established value-added markets could 

devastate nursery producers across the U.S. for these simple reasons: most nursery 

crops are now grown in containers, and the single most important component of the 

growing substrate that fills these containers is bark. 

Over 70 percent of the nursery crops and 100 percent of the greenhouse crops produced in the U.S. are now grown in containers. The major ingredient for the growing media or ‘‘substrates’’ used in container production is bark. Diversion of bark 

supplies for other uses, or a sharp and significant change in their market price due 

to market-distorting subsidies, threatens the domestic nursery and greenhouse industry and much of the $17 billion in annual nursery and greenhouse crop sales 

across the country. Market price distortions or diversion of bark resulting from inclusion in the BCAP will seriously impact domestic production and could fuel loss 

of market share to imports from Canada and elsewhere. 

It is worth noting that already, over 95% of bark byproducts have established 

value-added markets. Roughly 83% of softwood bark, and 70% of hardwood bark, is 

already used for energy generation. In this respect, BCAP subsidies would seem to 

represent a solution in search of a problem. Concerns about future bark availability 

due to market forces had already prompted the industry to fund a multi-year project 

to develop alternative substrates. However, the work is long-term, and the disruption and damage done by bark subsidies is a clear and immediate danger. 

ANLA recently submitted official comments to USDA’s Farm Service Agency, in 

which we offered a series of recommendations on how to address this concern. While 

the issue is now in the regulatory realm, we are grateful for the opportunity to alert 

the Subcommittee to the potential unintended consequences that will result if bark 

and other wood waste materials with established markets are included in the BCAP. 

Specialty Crop Block Grant Program 

One aspect of the Specialty Crop title of the farm bill is the Specialty Crop Block 

Grant Program. This program provides grants on a formula basis to the states to 

fund projects important to the success of specialty crop industries. A number of 

state associations in our industry have successfully applied for these grants. Following are two examples of the types of projects funded:

• Pennsylvania Landscape & Nursery Association received a grant to develop a 

technical manual for PennDOT on proper installation and maintenance plant 

material along road rights-of-way to mitigate stormwater runoff from highways. 

The project should be completed by June 2011.

• The North Carolina Green Industry Council received a $47,000 specialty crop 

block grant last year to promote outdoor water use efficiency and water conservation to the citizens of NC in an effort to reinvigorate consumer purchasing 

of plants, trees and turf. Three major droughts over the last 10 years in the 

region have led to outdoor watering bans and water restrictions which crippled 

nursery growers, garden centers and landscape contractors. In partnership with 

North Carolina State University, the GIC published and distributed over 

200,000 Water Wise Works and Watering Tips brochures to consumers across 

North Carolina using retail displays and direct distribution to landscape contractors, nurseries, sod growers, extension agents and municipalities. The Governor designated July 2010 as Smart Irrigation Month. A statewide billboard 

campaign is directing consumers to a new website developed with the specialty 

block grant money, www.SavingWaterNC.com.

Risk Management, Crop Insurance, and Tree Assistance Program 

Nursery growers appreciate that the 2008 Farm Bill expanded eligibility under 

the Tree Assistance Program (TAP). However, we have encountered problems with 

TAP implementation. USDA’s Farm Service Agency (FSA) took the position that 

trees were ineligible unless they produced a crop. This was contrary to Congressional intent which expanded TAP coverage by recognizing trees and ‘‘bushes’’ as 

22

crops themselves. We believe that a recent communication involving FSA, Congressional and Committee staff resolved the matter and that FSA is correcting its TAP 

handbook. We hope the Committee can help us to ensure that FSA has communicated this policy correction to its local offices. 

Another apparent glitch, in FSA’s TAP computer program, resulted in disallowing 

reimbursement of rehabilitation, pruning, and site preparation costs for containerized trees while nevertheless allowing reimbursement of such costs for in-ground 

trees. We have been assured this technical error is in the process of being corrected, 

but no timetable has been given. Again, we would appreciate the Committee’s assistance ensuring that FSA has resolved or is resolving this. 

On the broader question of risk management, the crop insurance system is not 

serving the needs of the nursery and greenhouse sector. Growers report that crop 

insurance agents in Tennessee, for example, have had over 70 % of their policies 

dropped since the nursery crop insurance calamity that happened as a result of the 

Easter freeze and drought of 2007. Prominent factors for the decline are a lack of 

educated adjusters and a lack of clear interpretation (adjuster to adjuster and even 

within RMA) of the specialty crop insurance policy. We would be happy to share previous testimony on problems with the crop insurance system and nursery crops. 

Agricultural Labor and Immigration Policy 

As important as the farm bill has become to America’s specialty crop industries, 

it is difficult to have a serious discussion about the future success of specialty crop 

producers without acknowledging the elephant in the room: farm labor. Hired labor 

is critical to most specialty crop producers, and we now face a ‘‘perfect storm’’ resulting from Congressional inaction and regulatory excess. 

The facts are stark. Most farm workers lack legal status. Many have been here 

for years, and are highly skilled and essential. The recession has done virtually 

nothing to change the reality: While we have seen a small uptick in Americans applying for farm jobs, few actually report to work, and many fewer stay. 

Aggressive worksite enforcement that began near the end of the Bush Administration has accelerated under the Obama Administration. Specialty crop and dairy producers are especially vulnerable. Farmers are one I–9 audit away from disaster. 

Meanwhile, the only legal labor safety net, known as H–2A, has long been difficult 

and unattractive. Producers are now struggling through the third set of rules in 3 

years. The program has descended into regulatory chaos. I can say this with authority, as we have been using the program for over 10 years. 

We fully recognize that farm labor is not a traditional farm bill issue. Nonetheless, we raise it for this simple reason: lack of timely and thoughtful resolution of 

the farm labor crisis will hasten the offshoring of our specialty crop and livestock 

agriculture. As production shifts to Canada or Mexico or Chile or China, America 

will lose thousands upon thousands of U.S. jobs upstream and downstream of the 

farmer that exist here now because we are producing here. We respectfully urge 

your leadership and support for enactment of the bipartisan and urgently needed 

reforms of the AgJOBS bill, H.R.2414, whether as part of a comprehensive immigration reform bill, or an important step toward fixing our broken immigration system. 

Conclusion 

Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf 

of the U.S. nursery and greenhouse industry. The 2008 Farm Bill for the first time 

truly recognized the importance of specialty crops, including nursery and floriculture. Together, specialty crops now represent almost half of the value of total 

crop production in America, and the specialty crop title of the 2008 Farm Bill placed 

emphasis on practical, solutions-oriented programs. We recognize that the next farm 

bill cycle will be exceptionally difficult from a budgetary standpoint. We thank you 

for your work to date, and hope you will join together to protect specialty crops’ 

place at the table, going forward.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, sir. 

Mr. Mark Nicholson, Executive Vice President of Red Jacket Orchards from Geneva, New York. Thank you, sir, for being here and 

please proceed with your testimony. 

23

STATEMENT OF MARK NICHOLSON, EXECUTIVE VICE

PRESIDENT AND PART OWNER, RED JACKET ORCHARDS, 

MEMBER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS U.S. APPLE ASSOCIATION, 

GENEVA, NY 

Mr. NICHOLSON. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Cardoza, 

Ranking Member Schmidt, and distinguished Members of the Committee, but I would also like to specifically recognize New York 

Congressmen Bill Owens and Scott Murphy and express our appreciation for their participation on this Committee. 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today regarding 

the impact of the 2008 Farm Bill. My name is Mark Nicholson and 

I serve on the board of the U.S. Apple Association and am a member of the third-generation that operates Red Jacket Orchards located in Geneva, New York. Our integrated farm business includes 

a 600 acre fruit farm, fruit packing facility, juice processing plant, 

a metro New York farmers market and wholesale distribution operation which my brother, father and I own and operate. We primarily grow fresh market apples and other specialty fruit crops, 

and also press apple cider and 100 percent fruit juices. 

I had the pleasure to testify during the farm bill hearings in 

Canandaigua, New York during the summer of 2006. I am proud 

that many of our industry’s top priorities were incorporated in the 

2008 Farm Bill, a truly notable milestone for our industry. As I 

stated then, and I feel is worth repeating here, apple growers and 

the produce industry have never relied upon direct payment programs to support grower income or market prices. Instead, we 

strongly advocate programs that help grow demand for, and consumption of, our products and the long-term competitiveness and 

sustainability for our industry. I believe the 2008 Farm Bill met 

these goals and would like to thank Chairman Cardoza for his 

leadership on behalf of the specialty crop industry during the last 

farm bill’s lively debate. 

I believe these programs are a good investment in our industry 

especially in these tough economic times. Today, specialty crop producers face an interesting dichotomy. On the one hand we are 

under pressure like never before from increased input costs and 

competition from low-cost producers like China. On the other hand, 

consumers are more aware than ever of the health benefits inherent in our products, and their need to fight obesity and to make 

healthier choices. I much prefer that the healthy apple or other 

produce snack consumers increasingly reach for has a grown in the 

USA sticker on it rather than a sticker from another country like 

China, which produces over half of the world’s apples. 

For the sake of time I am going to focus on just a few of the 

many specialty crop farm bill programs supported by the apple industry. My written testimony goes into further detail and I would 

be happy to answer any questions the Committee Members might 

have. 

The Specialty Crop Research Initiative: as growers and small 

business owners we must overcome challenges in order to remain 

in business for 50+ years as our family has been fortunate enough 

to do. As a plant science graduate from Cornell University, I have 

a special interest in, and understanding of, the power of science. 

I believe strongly that with adequate funding our research instituVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:27 Sep 20, 2010 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 I:\DOCS\111-57\58020.TXT AGR1 PsN: BRIAN
24

tions cannot only help us to overcome these numerous challenges, 

but also give our next generation of family members the tools they 

will need to thrive for another 50 years. 

The U.S. apple industry has been an active participant in the 

SCRI and is pleased to champion this USDA Program. A number 

of projects selected for funding are already well under way covering 

everything from pest control to fruit quality and automation of orchard operations. While these projects have significant apple components, their activities and results also impact other specialty 

crops such as peaches, walnuts, pears, cherries and strawberries. 

Project participants span the country and include over a dozen institutions. 

Fruit and Vegetable Program: I believe passionately that the 

Fruit and Vegetable Program, which was expanded to all 50 states 

in the last farm bill and provides a fresh fruit or vegetable snack 

to elementary-age school children, provides the best opportunity for 

a win-win program. As a parent of a 15 month old son and 6 year 

old daughter, I see the power daily of teaching healthy eating habits and providing proper food choices at an early age. My daughter, 

Lily, continues to surprise me by regularly choosing a piece of fruit 

over candy or a sweet when given a choice. 

The Food and Vegetable Program has been immensely popular in 

New York and throughout the country. For example, the elementary school in North Rose, New York participated in the program 

and the results were phenomenal. Students there tried fruit like 

kiwi which some had never seen before and even in the middle of 

apple country, many students were not accustomed to eating whole, 

fresh apples. Unfortunately however, the State of New York recently made the decision that due to tight funds and oversubscription to the program, only schools with 98 percent free and reduced 

meals would be allowed in the program. This shuts out the school 

in North Rose and many other schools in the rural districts as well. 

It all may be for naught unfortunately. 

While recognizing that immigration does not fall under the jurisdiction of this Committee, I would be remiss if I did not take a moment to restate my comments from the 2006 Farm Bill field hearing. Unfortunately and frustratingly, not much has changed in the 

4 years since then. If in the process of securing our borders which 

our industry favors we do not develop a workable guest worker program for agriculture, the best farm bill programs will do little good. 

This remains, as I see it, the greatest immediate threat to my family’s farm’s economic viability. 

In conclusion, I thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and the Committee for the invitation to speak here today. I am very proud of 

the accomplishments that we have achieved in the 2008 Farm Bill 

on behalf of the apple industry and other specialty crop producers. 

I believe if we can maintain the critical tools we have built in the 

2008 Farm Bill, and if possible expand them, then our industry has 

a great opportunity to grow and thrive. With that, I can confidently 

encourage my children to consider joining us as the next generation 

and help Red Jacket Orchards continue for another 50 years. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Nicholson follows:]

25

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARK NICHOLSON, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND PART

OWNER, RED JACKET ORCHARDS; MEMBER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, U.S. APPLE

ASSOCIATION, GENEVA, NY 

Introduction 

Good morning, Chairman Cardoza, Ranking Member Schmidt, and distinguished 

Members of the Committee. I would also like to specifically recognize New York 

Congressman Bill Owens and express our appreciation for his participation on this 

Committee. Congressman Owens represents our state well on agricultural issues 

and brings a wealth of knowledge and experience from working with producers during his days in private practice. We look forward to working with you Congressman 

Owens on the many important issues that come before this Committee. 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today regarding the impact of 

the 2008 Farm Bill. My name is Mark Nicholson and I serve on the Board of the 

U.S. Apple Association (USApple). I am a member of the third generation that operates Red Jacket Orchards located in Geneva, New York. Our integrated farm business includes a 600 acre fruit farm, fruit packing facility, fresh juice processing 

plant, and metro New York farm market and wholesale distribution operation, 

which my brother, father, and I own and operate. We primarily grow fresh market 

apples but over the past 15 years have diversified into other specialty fruit crops, 

including apricots and plums that are currently being harvested and sold in this region’s Whole Foods or Wegmans supermarkets. In addition to our fresh fruit crops, 

we also press apple cider and other 100 percent fruit juices in our newly completed, 

sustainably built and powered, 22,000 square foot juice processing facility. The majority of our fruit and value-added products are marketed and sold in the Northeast, 

with a special emphasis in metro New York, but we have recently found enthusiastic customers as far away as Georgia, Alabama, and Texas. 

As I address this Committee today, I can’t help but feel a genuine sense of accomplishment as I had the pleasure of testifying during your farm bill hearing in 

Canandaigua, NY, during the summer of 2006. I am proud that many of our industry’s top priorities were incorporated into the 2008 Farm Bill, a truly notable milestone for our industry and a testament to the well organized effort put forward by 

both the Specialty Crop Farm Bill Alliance and the Congressional offices that supported us. As I stated then, and I feel is worth repeating here, apple growers and 

the produce industry have never relied upon direct payment programs to support 

grower income or market prices. I don’t believe, and here I am in the majority of 

my peers, that would be in the best interest of my business or our industry. Instead, 

we strongly advocate programs that help grow demand for and consumption of our 

products, and build long-term competitiveness and sustainability for our industry. 

I believe the 2008 Farm Bill met these goals and would like to thank Chairman 

Cardoza for his leadership on behalf of the specialty crop industry during the last 

farm bill’s lively debate. 

As a founding member of the Specialty Crop Farm Bill Alliance, apple growers 

and packers worked through USApple in support of programs included in the bill 

which are now enhancing the competiveness and efficiency of our industry. I am 

pleased to report today on how many of those programs are helping the specialty 

crop industry, specifically the apple industry, as well as the direct impact on my 

family’s third generation farm, Red Jacket Orchards. 

I believe these programs are a good investment in our industry, especially in 

these tough economic times. Today, specialty crop producers face an interesting dichotomy. On one hand we are under pressure like never before from increased input 

costs—from electricity to labor and crop protection tools—and competition from low 

cost producers like China. On the other hand, consumers are more aware than ever 

of the health benefits inherent in our products and the need to fight obesity and 

to make healthier choices. I’d much prefer that the healthy apple or other produce 

snack they increasingly reach for on the supermarket shelf has a ‘‘grown in the 

USA’’ sticker on it, rather than a sticker from another country like China which produces over half the world’s apples. 

Specialty Crop Block Grants 

The Specialty Crop Block Grant Program focuses on regional and local priorities for specialty crop producers. These are being used by growers at the state level 

and are tailored to meet specific local needs. This approach is critical as a one-sizefits-all approach would not work within the apple industry—as the needs of a New 

York apple grower might be different from a grower in Washington State or in 

Ohio—let alone across the entire specialty crop industry of over 300 crops. 

For the apple industry, these block grants are funding important projects ranging 

from research, to marketing, nutrition and food safety programs. In fact, in New 

26

York where the financial situation is dire at the moment and program funding is 

being cut drastically across all state agencies, the only reliable source of funding for 

industry projects is money from Federal funds. For Red Jacket Orchards, Specialty 

Crop Block Grants that fund New York’s Pride of NY program have provided critical 

resources for demand building marketing projects that we could otherwise not afford. I credit the Pride of NY program with helping us greatly expand our business 

in the key metro New York marketplace. We are currently undertaking a grant that 

will allow us to build our brand awareness in this expensive media market. 

Value-Added Grant Program 

Prior to the Specialty Crop Block Grant program Red Jacket Orchards participated in the Farm Bill’s Value-Added Grant Program, which was our first major 

award. Funds from this program helped us make the critical leap from producing 

generic apple cider, which is more or less a commodity, to producing a line of value 

added, freshly pressed 100% fruit juices with a distinctive flavor and appearance. 

The success we experienced in expanding sales of this value added line, which is 

derived primarily from fruit we grow, culminated in our investment in a new 22,000 

square foot juice production facility that came on line this past June and is anticipated to create 15 new jobs over the next 3 years. 

Specialty Crop Research Initiative 

As growers and small business owners we must overcome challenges in order to 

remain in business for 50+ years, as our family has been fortunate enough to do. 

As a plant science graduate from Cornell University I have a special interest in, and 

understanding of, the power of science. I believe strongly that with adequate funding 

our research institutions can not only help us to overcome these numerous challenges but also give our next generation of family members the tools they will need 

to thrive for another 50 years. 

That’s why the Specialty Crops Research Initiative (SCRI) is both unprecedented 

and impressively effective. For the first time, the nation’s producers, processors and 

handlers of fruits and vegetables have had access to a competitive funding program 

of sufficient magnitude to effectively address a range of technical barriers that limit 

their sustainability, competitiveness, and profitability. Researchers and extension 

professionals have created multi-disciplinary, multi-institutional, and multi-state 

teams focused on stakeholder priorities. 

The U.S. apple industry has been an active participant in the SCRI and is pleased 

to champion this USDA program. A number of projects selected for funding are already well underway including:

• Biocontrol of key pests in western orchards.

• Application of modern genetic technologies to improve fruit quality.

• Engineering approaches to stabilizing apple yield.

• Comprehensive automation of orchard operations.

• Biomarkers to diagnose fruit quality and safety.

While these projects have significant apple components, their activities and results also impact other specialty crops such as peach, walnut, pear, cherry, strawberry. Project participants span the country and include such disparate institutions 

as Carnegie Mellon University, Cornell University, Michigan State University, Oregon State University, Penn State University, Purdue University, USDA-Agricultural Research Service, University of Arkansas, University of California, University 

of Minnesota, and Washington State University. 

The SCRI is a competitive funding program that supports the kind of research 

and extension activities specialty crop industries have been seeking for decades. Its 

$50 million annual allocation is effectively invested and has transformed the research and extension communities and the industries they serve. 

Fruit & Vegetable Program 

I believe passionately that the Fruit and Vegetable program, which was expanded 

to all 50 states in the last farm bill and provides a fresh fruit or vegetable snack 

to elementary aged children, provides the best opportunity for a win-win program. 

As a parent of a 15 month old son and 6 year old daughter, I see the power daily 

of teaching healthy eating habits and providing proper food choices at an early age. 

My daughter continues to surprise me by regularly choosing a piece of fruit over 

candy or other sweet when given the choice. I guess this should come as no surprise 

as Lily has been eating fruits and vegetables since starting solid foods and has enjoyed an ample selection, many from our farm. Unfortunately, not all children are 

this fortunate and the Fruit and Vegetable program can play a critical role in filling 

this need. The other win, obviously, is the expansion of consumption of fruits and 

27

vegetables, something that hasn’t changed significantly in decades, and the positive 

impact this will have on producers. 

The fruit and vegetable program has been immensely popular in New York and 

throughout the country. For example, the elementary school in North Rose, New 

York, participated in the program and the results were phenomenal. Students there 

tried fruit like kiwi, which some had never seen before, and even in the middle of 

apple country many students were not accustomed to eating fresh whole apples. 

Teachers, students and parents loved this program and with well over 50% of the 

students at this school qualifying for free or reduced price lunches the school exceeded the minimum threshold required in the farm bill. Unfortunately, however, the 

State of New York recently made the decision that, due to tight funds and over-subscription to the program, only schools with 98 percent free and reduced meals would 

be allowed in the program. This shuts out the school in North Rose and many other 

rural schools as well. 

As so much attention is now being given to the growing obesity rates in this country, here’s a program that can really make a difference, and it is, at least in the 

schools that are lucky enough to have it. 

Export Promotion 

Exports are extremely important for the apple industry, with about 25 percent of 

our crop sold overseas. While we do not export our fruit at Red Jacket Orchards, 

a strong export market helps ensure that domestic prices remain stable thus helping 

growers like us who do not directly sell their fruit overseas. Apple growers use two 

programs—the Market Access Program and the Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops Program—to help grow exports. MAP provides critical funding, more 

than matched by industry contributions, to operate programs which promote American apple consumption around the world. TASC funding is also helping our industry reduce foreign phytosanitary barriers to apple exports. 

It may all be for naught . . . 

While I recognize immigration issues do not fall under the jurisdiction of this 

Committee, I would be remiss if I did not take a moment to restate my comments 

from the 2006 Farm Bill field hearings. Unfortunately and frustratingly not much 

has changed in the 4 years since then. If in the process of securing our borders, 

which our industry favors, we do not develop a workable guest worker program for 

agriculture, the time spent here will be for naught because our industry will cease 

to be viable. Without workers to pick, prune, pack and process our fruit, the best 

farm bill programs will do little good. This remains, as I see it, the greatest immediate threat to my family farm’s economic viability. 

Conclusion 

I again thank the Chairman and the Committee for the invitation to speak here 

today. I am very proud of the accomplishments that have been achieved in the 2008 

Farm Bill on behalf of the apple industry and other specialty crop producers. I recognize the current economic climate is challenging but I am optimistic the future 

holds better times not only for our industries but also the nation as well. I believe 

if we can maintain the critical tools we have built in the 2008 Farm Bill, and when 

possible expand them, then our industry has a great opportunity to grow and thrive. 

With that, I can confidently encourage my children to consider joining as the next 

generation and help Red Jacket Orchards continue for another 50 years.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Nicholson. I can attest to the 

fact that even though my children consume vast quantities of 

sugar, they still love your apples. 

We are very fortunate to have with us today, Mr. Paul Platz, 

corn, soybean, green pea, sweet corn producer from Lafayette, Minnesota. Sir, welcome to the Committee and please proceed with 

your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF PAUL PLATZ, CORN, SOYBEAN, GREEN PEA, 

AND SWEET CORN PRODUCER, LAFAYETTE, MN 

Mr. PLATZ. Good morning, Chairman Cardoza, and Members of 

the Committee. 

My name is Paul Platz. I am a farmer. 

The CHAIRMAN. I did mess up your name. I apologize. 

28

Mr. PLATZ. I am a farmer, a seed sales representative and a licensed commercial animal waste technician which is a fancy name 

for a manure hauler. My wife, Donita, and I own and operate a diversified farming operation near Lafayette, Minnesota. Southern 

Minnesota’s economy is predominantly agricultural. Corn, soybeans 

and livestock production of all types are the mainstays of our area, 

but a multitude of alternative crops are produced locally as well. 

On our farm, like most of our neighbors, we produce corn and soybeans, however, we also produce green peas and sweet corn for 

processing under contract with Seneca Foods. 

I am here to talk about the importance of midwestern farmers 

having the option to grow fruits and vegetables for processing by 

continuing and improving the Farm Flex Provisions included in the 

last farm bill. I decided to diversify my farming operation by adding sweet corn and green peas in 1993. I determined that adding 

these crops would help spread out my risk and improve my profitability. At that time, there were no farm program restrictions on 

fruit and vegetable production, and my producer history has allowed me to continue growing green peas and sweet corn after the 

limitations were put in place. 

We are now producing about 80 acres of green peas and 80 acres 

of sweet corn for processing. Producing vegetables for the processing industry is important for my business because it is profitable. I have discovered through the years that planting green peas 

seems to reduce compaction issues in our soil and subsequent corn 

crops produce very well. Planting vegetables also has low input cost 

for us. Low input costs help keep my line of credit at my local bank 

within the targeted levels that lenders will provide. Also, my paychecks from Seneca Foods for my vegetables arrive at different 

times than those from my field corn and soybean sales, and that 

helps my cash flow needs. 

Without program restrictions, bringing a new crop enterprise 

into my farming operation was relatively simple. Just sign a contract and plant vegetables. Recent farm bills have made it more 

difficult to include vegetable production in our farming rotations. 

My concern about these restrictions is in part centered on my son’s 

ability to start his own farming career and to produce vegetables 

under existing rules. It is my understanding that my producer history cannot be transferred to my son or my heirs. Individual farm 

history is preserved, but many of my landlords are elderly and 

farms may be sold to owners who do not produce vegetables. 

Renting new farms with history is difficult at best. The Planting 

Transferability Pilot Project does attempt to address some of these 

issues. Unfortunately, the project seems to only temporarily solve 

the immediate problems without addressing long-term issues. For 

instance, if my son were to start his farming career and request a 

pilot program, he would be allowed to produce vegetables in 2011, 

but he would not get either the producer history or farm history 

that would enable him to grow vegetables in subsequent years. 

Upon my death, not even my wife would be able to inherit my producer history. 

As it stands now, young farmers or any farmer who might decide 

to start growing vegetables in our area will have serious obstacles 

to doing so. As time goes on and natural attrition continues, either 

29

through retirements, or death of existing farmers, fewer and fewer 

farms and acres will be available for vegetables grown for processing. This puts the entire vegetable processing industry in our 

area in jeopardy. If we as farmers are not allowed the flexibility 

we need to produce vegetables for processing, eventually processors 

will be forced to close their plants. These plants employ a lot of 

people, and as I have detailed they provide an important income 

stream for midwestern farmers. 

I would also like to mention that my third son, Alex, is currently 

working his 12 hour shift as a pea combine operator for Seneca 

Foods. My decision to add vegetable production to our farming plan 

in 1993 has proven to be a good idea for both my farm and for my 

son, as he works to pay for his college education. 

The Farm Flex Pilot Program established in the 2008 Farm Bill 

is a good first step toward remedying these problems. Unfortunately, it appears underutilized. There seems to be a variety of reasons for the lack of participation in the pilot program. The downturn in the economy has played a large part. Seneca Foods has told 

me that they are contracting for less production because demand 

is down all across the industry. Also, the strength of the dollar relative to other currencies is likely making imported fruits and vegetables more economically attractive. The acreage limitation rules 

are simply an unnecessary complication. If the sign-up process for 

the pilot program is simplified to make the only qualification that 

participating farmers grow fruits and vegetables for processing, I 

think you will see more farmers take advantage of it. 

Mr. Chairman and Members, I respectfully ask that we all work 

toward a more permanent solution to these issues and ensure a 

thriving future for agriculture in the Midwest. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Platz follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PAUL PLATZ, CORN, SOYBEAN, GREEN PEA, AND SWEET

CORN PRODUCER, LAFAYETTE, MN 

Good morning, Chairman Cardoza and Members of the Committee. My name is 

Paul Platz. I am a farmer, a seed sales representative, and a licensed ‘‘Commercial 

Animal Waste Technician,’’ which is a fancy name for a manure hauler. My wife 

Donita and I own and operate a diversified farming operation near Lafayette, Minnesota. Southern Minnesota’s economy is predominately agricultural. Corn, soybeans, and livestock production of all types are the mainstays of our area, but a 

multitude of alternative crops are produced locally as well. On our farm, like most 

of our neighbors, we produce corn and soybeans. However, we also produce green 

peas and sweet corn for processing under contract with Seneca Foods. I am here 

to talk about the importance of midwestern farmers having the option to grow fruits 

and vegetables for processing by continuing and improving the Farm Flex provisions 

included in the last farm bill. 

I decided to diversify my farming operation by adding sweet corn and green peas 

in 1993. I have always kept extensive records on each profit center in my business, 

and I determined that adding these crops would help spread out my risk and improve my profitability. At that time there were no farm program restrictions on fruit 

and vegetable production, and my producer history has allowed me to continue 

growing green peas and sweet corn after the limitations were put in place. We’re 

now producing about 80 acres of green peas and 80 acres of sweet corn for processing. 

Producing vegetables for the processing industry is important for my business because it’s profitable. My enterprise analysis over the last 17 years has shown that 

producing vegetables can be very volatile, but on average, mostly profitable. I have 

discovered through the years that planting green peas seems to reduce compaction 

issues in the soil, and subsequent corn crops produce very well. Planting vegetables 

also has low input costs. Low input costs help keep my line of credit at my local 

30

bank within the targeted levels that lenders will provide. Also, my paychecks from 

Seneca Foods for my vegetables arrive at different times than those for my field 

corn and soybean sales. This helps my cash flow needs. 

Planting vegetables also spreads out my workload and allows me to make better 

use of my resources. The planting and harvesting operations of my vegetables are 

generally staggered with my corn and soybeans. Our farm’s livestock operation allows me to meet most of my own fertility needs with manure from my hogs. I can 

apply a significant amount of hog manure to my vegetable fields in late September 

before the soybean harvest begins. Being able to get some of my own manure applications completed early allows me to custom haul manure for my neighbors in October, which also significantly helps my cash flow. 

Without program restrictions, bringing a new crop enterprise into my farming operation was relatively simple. Just sign a contract and plant vegetables. Recent 

farm bills have made it more difficult to include vegetable production in our farming 

rotations. My concern about these restrictions is in part centered on my son’s ability 

to start his own farming career and to produce vegetables under existing rules. It 

is my understanding that my producer history cannot be transferred to my son or 

my heirs. Individual farm history is preserved, but many of my landlords are elderly 

and farms may be sold to owners who do not produce vegetables. Renting new farms 

with farm history is difficult at best. The Planting Transferability Pilot Project does 

attempt to address some of these issues. Unfortunately, the project seems to only 

temporarily solve the immediate problems, without addressing long-term issues. For 

instance, if my son were to start his farming career and request the pilot program, 

he would be allowed to produce vegetables in 2011, but he would not get either the 

producer history or the farm history that would enable him to grow vegetables in 

subsequent years. Upon my death, not even my wife would be able to inherit my 

producer history. 

As it stands now, young farmers or any farmer who might decide to start growing 

vegetables in our area will have serious obstacles to do so. As time goes on, and 

natural attrition continues either through retirements or death of existing farmers, 

fewer and fewer farms and acres will be available for vegetables grown for processing. This puts the entire vegetable processing industry in our area in jeopardy. 

If we as farmers are not allowed the flexibility we need to produce vegetables for 

processing, eventually processors will be forced to close their plants. These plants 

employ a lot of people and as I have detailed, they provide an important income 

stream for Midwestern farmers. I would also like to mention that my third son Alex 

is currently working his 12 hour shift as a pea combine operator for Seneca Foods. 

My decision to add vegetable production to our farming plan in 1993 has proven to 

be a good idea both for my farming operation and for my son as he works to pay 

for his college education. 

The Farm Flex pilot program established in the 2008 Farm Bill is a good first 

step to remedying this problem. Unfortunately, it appears underutilized. 

There seem to be a variety of reasons for the lack of participation in the pilot program. The downturn in the economy has played a large part. Seneca Foods has told 

me that they are contracting for less production because demand is down all across 

the industry. Also, the strength of the dollar relative to other currencies is likely 

making imported fruits and vegetables more economically attractive. The acreage 

limitation rules are simply an unnecessary complication. If the sign-up process for 

the pilot program is simplified to make the only qualification that participating 

farmers grow fruits and vegetables for processing, I think you will see more farmers 

take advantage of it. 

Mr. Chairman and Members, I respectfully ask that we all work toward a more 

permanent solution to these issues to ensure a thriving future for agriculture in the 

Midwest. 

Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Platz. 

Now, we have Mr. Daniel Richey, President and CEO of Riverfront Packing Company and President of Riverfront Groves, Inc., 

Vero Beach, Florida. Sir, welcome to the Committee and please proceed with your testimony. 

31

STATEMENT OF DANIEL R. RICHEY, PRESIDENT/CEO,

RIVERFRONT PACKING COMPANY; PRESIDENT,

RIVERFRONT GROVES, INC.; PRESIDENT, GULFSTREAM HARVESTING COMPANY, VERO BEACH, FL 

Mr. RICHEY. Thank you, Chairman Cardoza, Ranking Member 

Schmidt, and Members of the Committee. Also, I would like to 

thank the opportunity to thank Congressman Rooney who is a new 

Member of the Agriculture Committee and who represents a large 

portion of Florida agricultural production, including my groves, for 

his steadfast support of citrus. 

The CHAIRMAN. If I could just interrupt for a second, Mr. Rooney 

was intending to be here. He has a conflict with the Judiciary Committee, but he has indicated to me that he wanted to be in attendance for your testimony. We will make sure we get it to him and 

hopefully you all will connect throughout the day. 

Mr. RICHEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

In addition, I would like to thank Congressman Putnam, a great 

friend of Florida agriculture and a personal friend of mine. I want 

to honor him for his outstanding representation of our industry 

through all of our challenges over the past 10 years. I would also 

like to recognize my Congressman, Bill Posey, for his service on behalf of all of us in the Indian River citrus growing district. 

Agriculture is a major economic engine in Florida’s economy, 

ranking second only to tourism. We are reminded of the importance 

of agriculture to our economy during these challenging economic 

times when tourism is down due to the financial pressure families 

are feeling, and the recent press surrounding the oil crisis in the 

Gulf, which ultimately will result in a loss of 17,000 jobs and $1.2 

billion impact on our economy. 

Our agricultural industry is very diverse. We grow a wide array 

of products, from potatoes and peanuts in the north to tropical fruit 

in the south. We are a major supplier of food to the U.S. during 

the winter months. The citrus industry represents the largest component of the agricultural industry in Florida with a $9 billion impact on the state’s economy and it provides 76,000 jobs. 

Sticking with the theme of some of my fellow panel members, 

this is not corporate America. This is made up of fourth and fifth 

generation family farmers. I know I am preaching to the choir because you understand agriculture and generational connection that 

these families feel toward their chosen profession. Most people 

don’t get that. I am sure you do. 

Like other fellow members, Tyler, my son, is a senior at Florida 

State University and has a desire to come into this business. He 

had a huge connection with his grandfather, who is since deceased, 

and wants to carry on that legacy for another generation. He questions me on this regularly if that will be possible. 

A major challenge to our family legacy and our entire industry 

is invasive, non-native pests and diseases. Recently, in Florida we 

have endured the introduction of citrus canker, which is a bacterial 

disease spread by wind-driven rain. You can imagine how the hurricanes affected us on that one. 

Huanglongbing, you can probably guess where that one came 

from, is also known as greening disease which is spread by an inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:27 Sep 20, 2010 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 I:\DOCS\111-57\58020.TXT AGR1 PsN: BRIAN
32

sect known as a psyllid. There is no known cure for this disease 

and it is fatal to trees. 

And third, most recently, in April we had a discovery of citrus 

black spot which is a fungal disease, in a southwest Florida grove. 

All three of these diseases are non-native to Florida. They have 

come from foreign lands. This highlights the importance of pest 

interdiction. It is a tough job, especially in Florida which ranks second to only California for pest and disease risk. 

The challenge is great due to the 21 international seaports and 

airports and the 1,200 miles of coastline in Florida. We have our 

eye to the south, as Central and South American citrus groves harbor three additional diseases that are not present in the U.S. They 

are known as CVC, Sudden Death—that is a great name—and leprosis. If allowed to enter, they would inflict considerable damage 

to our citrus industry. We have to keep these diseases out of the 

United States. 

The Section 10201 Program can be an area of focus to help us 

achieve this objective. As I understand it, the fundamental component of this program was to increase resources to high risk areas 

such as Florida and California. The recent challenges I have described probably make us the poster child for this program enhancement request. 

In the past 2 years, Florida effectively deployed the $3 million received through the 10201 Program, ranging from enhanced interdiction at our border checkpoints to additional surveillance along 

our many rivers and canals. The funds were used to establish additional electronic signage and an additional educational video to be 

viewed by the cruise ship patrons in our state. I believe that most, 

if not all, tourists simply do not know the inherent risk they are 

bringing to our shores when transporting fruit or plant material. 

Education can go a long way in correcting this dangerous behavior. 

The proposed 2011 projects include additional detection dogs, 

which are very effective, increased inspection personnel and resources to detect exotic insects like the Medfly that was recently 

found in Palm Beach County, and continued funding to protect our 

vibrant avocado industry in South Florida. The citrus industry is 

engaged, partnering with each other to develop regional pest management districts and working very closely with our counterparts 

in California, Texas and Arizona. This is essential to our survival. 

Our collective industry appreciates the efforts at APHIS, Customs 

and Border Protection and the Florida Department of Agriculture 

to protect our livelihood. 

In closing, make no mistake, the challenges we face are just that, 

challenges. We will rise up to meet these challenges of today, and 

we will remain an important spoke in the wheel of Florida’s economy. We do need your assistance with the issues we cannot control 

on our borders. If given a fighting chance, we will not only survive, 

we will thrive. Your support to keep us safe from the threat of 

invasive pests and diseases is much appreciated, and I appreciate 

the opportunity for you allowing me to testify here today. Thank 

you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Richey follows:]

33

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DANIEL R. RICHEY, PRESIDENT/CEO, RIVERFRONT PACKING

COMPANY; PRESIDENT, RIVERFRONT GROVES, INC.; PRESIDENT, GULFSTREAM

HARVESTING COMPANY, VERO BEACH, FL 

First I would like to thank Chairman Cardoza, Ranking Member Schmidt, and fellow Committee Members for the opportunity to testify in front of you today on behalf of the Florida citrus industry. 

I would also like to take a moment to thank Congressman Tom Rooney who is 

a Member of the Agriculture Committee and represents a large portion of Florida’s 

agricultural production including some of my groves for his steadfast support of citrus. In addition, I would like to thank a former Member of this Committee, Congressman Adam Putnam. Adam is a great friend to Florida Agriculture and a personal 

friend of mine. I want to honor him for his outstanding representation of our industry through all the issues we’ve faced over the last 10 years. 

Finally, I want to recognize my Congressman Bill Posey for his service on behalf 

of my neighbors in the Indian River citrus region. 

Florida citrus represents a $9 billion economic engine that supports 76,000 good 

jobs in my home state. Many families are third, fourth and even fifth generation 

citrus farmers. Unfortunately, right now our great industry is locked in a fight for 

its long term viability. 

As many of you may know, Florida citrus faced the infestation of citrus canker 

disease and the hurricanes that spread it across the entire growing region of our 

state. That situation caused untold harm to our industry. 

But now an even more devastating disease is threatening Florida citrus. It is 

called Huanglongbing (HLB) or citrus greening disease, and it is one of the most 

serious citrus diseases in the world. 

Citrus greening is a bacterial disease that greatly reduces production, destroys 

the economic value of fruit, and kills trees. Once infected, there is no cure. Currently, citrus greening can be found in all 32 citrus producing counties in Florida. 

Furthermore, yet another pest and disease was confirmed in April of this year 

with the discovery of citrus black spot in South Florida. This fungal disease is 

marked by dark, speckled spots or blotches on the rinds of fruit, which is a very 

economically significant disease for a fresh citrus packer such as myself. I expect 

subsequent regulations to control the spread of black spot to affect my business. 

Here is the frustrating part. NOT ONE of these diseases is native to the United 

States. They came across the border from foreign lands. This clearly highlights the 

immense importance of pest interdiction. We in the Florida citrus industry are living the nightmare that is caused when regulators fail to keep non-native diseases 

out of our country. 

I acknowledge it is a tough job, especially in my home state. Florida is ranked 

#2 in the nation for pest and disease risk behind only California. Our state is very 

agriculturally diverse with a variety of specialty crops from tropical fruit to nursery 

stock to a variety of berry crops. This is made possible by our favorable climate. We 

are able to produce food crops during the winter when most of the U.S. is too cold 

to do so. This is an important function and one that needs to be protected. 

But the Florida agriculture industry has a target on its collective back. With 21 

international seaports, airports and 1,200 miles of coastline, Florida is a gateway 

state for cargo and passengers. Obviously, this creates considerable risk of agricultural pest and disease entry. 

And believe me we are scared of the next citrus disease to reach our state. They 

are out there. Diseases such as CVC, Sudden Death and leprosis can be found in 

Brazil and Central America, two major trading partners with the United States. We 

have to do everything we can to keep these diseases out of the United States! 

Part of this can be achieved through the Section 10201 program. And we believe 

the USDA can improve the implementation of the program in high risk sentinel 

areas such as Florida. As you recall, a key foundational component of Section 10201 

was to increase resources to high risk areas of the United States to assist with the 

early detection of new pest and disease introductions. 

There are many Florida pest detection projects that are of value, including citrus 

pest and disease mitigation and the need for better fruit fly early detection and 

mitigation tools and techniques that could be added. There is certainly a need to 

support Florida citrus research and suppression programs. 

The purpose of Section 10201 is clear that high risk states and pathways were 

to be the primary areas of consideration to which to apply Section 10201. Florida 

has received over $3 million in projects over the last 2 years designed to mitigate 

the impact of invasive species on Florida’s specialty crops and agricultural in general. Key projects include added resources at our agricultural interdiction stations 

34

located at our borders. This has resulted in several key agricultural pest interceptions on foreign agricultural products including potato psyllids carrying zebra chip 

virus, plant feeding snails not established in Florida, exotic aphids and leafminer 

insects. 

The Florida Department of Agriculture also established a surveillance program for 

marinas, rivers and canals in Florida that harbor boats capable of international 

travel as this is a pathway that does not get enough attention in the agricultural 

safeguarding continuum. They have mapped all the marinas and stopping points 

along our rivers and canals, have set up survey points, and are also conducting outreach to help assure that parties who live and work in these areas are aware of 

the risk associated with invasive species introductions. 

Another project that the Florida Department of Agriculture is working on is an 

outreach project that will increase electronic signage and messaging at key Florida 

ports of entry. In addition, FDACS is producing a video that they plan to introduce 

to cruise ships and to international air flights that will educate incoming passengers 

about the need to declare any agricultural products they may be carrying. 

New projects they are proposing for 2011 include the use of agricultural detection 

dogs to sniff out agricultural contraband in incoming mail and parcels at the mail/

package hubs in Florida as well as our interdiction stations. They have also requested funding for increased inspector resources to run additional pest detection 

traps as an early warning system for exotic fruit flies like the Medfly, a pest we 

are currently battling in an eradication program in Palm Beach County. They are 

also requesting continued funding to help protect our avocado industry from the Red 

Bay Ambrosia Beetle and Laurel Wilt, a pest disease complex with the potential to 

wipe out the multi-million dollar avocado industry in South Florida. 

Right now, the Florida citrus industry is setting up Citrus Health Management 

Areas where growers will partner together to form regional pest management programs to control the Asian citrus psyllid, the small bug that vectors citrus greening. 

These management areas are essential to the survival of the Florida citrus industry 

and would be a perfect fit for support from the Section 10201 program. 

Again, as a citrus grower I appreciate the efforts of APHIS, Customs and Border 

Protection and the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer services to protect my livelihood. We must continue to be vigilant to ensure our domestic sources 

of food are safe from the threat of pests and diseases. 

Thank you for allowing me to testify today.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Richey. I appreciate your testimony. As you can see, the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Rooney, has 

joined us. He is not a Member of the Committee but he has joined 

us today. I have consulted with the Ranking Member and we are 

pleased to welcome him for him to join in the questioning so long 

as there is no objection from the Members of the Committee. Seeing none, he will be allowed to join. Thank you for being here and 

welcome. 

Our next panel member to testify is Margaret Smith, Ph.D., 

Value Added/Sustainable Agriculture Extension Educator, Iowa 

State University, and Co-Manager of Ash Grove Farm, Hampton, 

Iowa. My Ranking Member, Mrs. Schmidt, indicated to me I hadn’t 

seen this before the hearing, but there are over three pages of publications that you have produced in your career. I must say that 

that is quite impressive, and we are very pleased to have you here 

today to testify. Welcome and please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF MARGARET A. SMITH, PH.D., VALUE ADDED/

SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE EXTENSION EDUCATOR, 

VALUE-ADDED AGRICULTURE, EXTENSION AND AGRONOMY 

DEPARTMENT, IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY; CO-MANAGER, ASH 

GROVE FARM, HAMPTON, IA 

Dr. SMITH. Thank you so much for this opportunity to speak to 

the Subcommittee today. I am honored by your invitation and welcome the opportunity to share my perspective with both hats I 

35

wear in agriculture. My literal hats were too large to bring in my 

luggage so I come to you today with my two figurative hats. 

My husband, Doug Alert, and I farm 950 acres in north central 

Iowa near Hampton. We run a beef cow herd and we raise organic 

row crops, corn and soybeans, small grains, hay and pasture. We 

began transitioning to organic 16 years ago and all the land we 

now farm is certified organic. 

In my work with Iowa State University Extension, I coordinate 

a statewide Iowa Fruit and Vegetable Working Group. This group 

is comprised of a group of growers and others in the industry, and 

our mission is to help build capacity to increase production, handling and marketing for Iowa’s fruit and vegetable industries. 

Let me speak first about organic farming. In the 2008 organic 

Census, which was a new Census focused just on this, they noted 

$3.16 billion in sales in organic agriculture. This has been a growing industry for the last 20 years, and the market has pulled the 

growth and development of that industry again without price supports. The market has been the driver. 

In Iowa, we are listed as eighth in states by number of organic 

farms with 513. We are probably beyond that number now and in 

the upper Midwest, you look at Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa and Illinois, we have a disproportionate number of organic farms in the 

United States with about 17 percent of all those farms. 

The increase of organic agriculture has added to diversity in our 

agricultural landscape, both biological diversity, but also human diversity, and this is really a fantastic development for agriculture. 

In our state and in the nation where we have seen virtually a continual decline in numbers of farms and as we know it, ecological 

diversity, organic agriculture helps in a small way to help reverse 

that. 

The Organic Research and Extension Initiative is really a great 

program. We appreciate that this was added and increased in funding in this last farm bill. With the $78 million that was committed, 

more and more research was funded, but I would like to say I still 

believe we are under funded in this respect. Only 20 percent of applicants in 2009 were funded under that research program. 

What I think is so critical is that research for organic agriculture 

I feel doesn’t just serve the organic agriculture industry. This research looks at basic insect, disease and weed biology, investigates 

how agroecosystems work, pursues ways to work with natural systems to increase productivity. These are all critical to agricultural 

sustainability. This work can also have application for non-organic 

agriculture, so that we are getting more bang from that research 

buck than we may realize, but we are looking far into the future. 

It is hard to evaluate exactly how much at this time. The work that 

is done now in crop rotations, cover crops, these items that are critical in our industry, really can have application in the future for 

all of agriculture. 

Please continue this funding to OREI. At this time, the funding 

is about 1.8 percent of the total funding for agriculture. The organic industry represents 3.5 percent of food receipts and we would 

like to, my husband and I, see more equality on that funding for 

the organic farming research program. 

36

I would like to speak about the Organic EQIP Program. This has 

been again a good addition. We were awarded an Organic EQIP 

Program on our farm. With those monies, we will increase and improve our grazing system. We received support for fencing and 

water systems, and we had great support from our local NRCS 

staff and from FSA as we worked through that process. 

There were challenges in the upper Midwest again with that program in understanding of our USDA NRCS staff in working with 

these different kinds of farms. Organics list different to them. Vegetable crops in the upper Midwest list different to them. Please 

continue the Organic EQIP Program. I think it is wonderful. I 

think we can improve it. There are a number of ways that might 

do that which are noted in my written testimony, but, particularly, 

just training for those staff would help. To your credit and from 

that program, this has brought a number of farmers into work with 

USDA Programs that did not otherwise have that exposure. I think 

that has been wonderful. 

Our panel here has covered very well some of the specialty crop 

programs, and in Iowa we have also used the block grant program. 

Unlike Ohio, I believe, we have a local committee of local experts 

that does determine how those funds are used. It has been great 

in that it is funding not only research, but also promotion so we 

would like to continue Specialty Crop Block Grant Program as well 

as Specialty Crops Research Initiative. 

Let me share this: our Fruit and Vegetable Working Group in 

Iowa has identified a number of priorities and those include risk 

management, post harvest handling and food safety. Another comment about the Specialty Crop Research Initiative, there is a requirement that those grants are multi-agency, multi-state and I 

would encourage you to think about at least a portion of those 

funds being committed that can be done just within one state. 

Some of our issues are local and we need to address those as well. 

I am over my time. My last area that is critical to us on our 

farm, and to specialty crop growers in Iowa, is risk management 

and insurance. We have no crop insurance for specialty crops in 

Iowa. The AGR-Lite Program which is a revenue insurance program could be a good program in our state. It is not available to 

Iowa. It is available in 35 other states but this last risk management is a double whammy for our farmers. Not only are they not 

covered by their crops in the event of a crop failure or market price 

challenges, but lenders are wary of working with our specialty crop 

growers because they don’t have that kind of support. So, they have 

a hard time getting financing. I would encourage you to look at the 

AGR-Lite Program. It can be improved a number of ways, and 

since it is not suitable for beginning farmers at this time, please 

look at AGR-Lite. Please expand that to include the United States 

and let’s look at additional risk management programs and strategies for our specialty crop producers and organic growers. 

Thank you so much. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Smith follows:]

37

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARGARET A. SMITH, PH.D., VALUE ADDED/SUSTAINABLE

AGRICULTURE EXTENSION EDUCATOR, VALUE-ADDED AGRICULTURE, EXTENSION

AND AGRONOMY DEPARTMENT, IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY; CO-MANAGER, ASH GROVE

FARM, AMES, IA 

Introduction 

Thank you for this opportunity to speak to the Subcommittee today. I am honored 

by your invitation and welcome the opportunity to share my experiences from our 

farm business and from my position with Iowa State University Extension, where 

I work in the Value-Added Agriculture Extension Program with fruit and vegetable 

growers. 

I come to the hearing today with two ‘hats’. First, as an organic farmer, my husband, Doug Alert, and I operate an organic grain, forage and livestock farm in 

North Central Iowa near the town of Hampton. We farm 950 acres of owned and 

rented land and raise organic corn, soybeans, oats, wheat, barley, hay and pasture, 

and run a beef cow herd. Our crops are raised and marketed for various food, feed 

and seed markets. We work with three landowners with both cash rent and crop 

share leases, as well as owned land. My husband has farmed for 27 years: I joined 

him 16 years ago. We began our transition to organic in 1994 on rented land, with 

the first land certified in 1997. All the land that we farm has been certified organic 

since 2007. 

I serve as an advisor to the board of the recently formed Iowa Organic Association 

(IOA) that has members from a range of interests, including growers, processors, 

buyers and consumers. This nonprofit organization works to educate and inform the 

public about organic food and farming and to help the industry grow. 

I also serve on the board of the Midwest Organic and Sustainable Education Services (MOSES) nonprofit organization. MOSES has coordinated the largest organic 

farming conference in the U.S. each February for the last 21 years. This year, 2010, 

at the MOSES Organic Farming Conference, we reached 2,701 farmers, aspiring 

farmers, agricultural professionals and organic industry suppliers with outreach and 

education about organic farming. MOSES is one of 40 member organizations of the 

National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC). I would like to thank NSAC for 

helping to coordinate my presence here today. 

My second ‘hat’ is one I proudly wear for Iowa State University Extension, where 

I have worked for 23 years. For the last 9 years, I have worked in the Value Added 

Agriculture Extension Program with specialty crop producers—fruit and vegetable 

growers—and with specialty meat producers on various aspects of their business development. Part of my responsibility is co-facilitating the Iowa Fruit and Vegetable 

Working Group (FVWG), comprised of growers, buyers, our state fruit and vegetable 

growers’ association, nonprofits, government, and University personnel. The group’s 

mission is to identify and work with others to overcome obstacles to increasing the 

amount of local produce available in our state and the Upper Midwest. 

I would like to speak briefly about both USDA support for organic agriculture and 

for programs supporting specialty crops. 

Organic Farming in Iowa 

According to the 2008 Organic Census of Agriculture, Iowa was eighth among the 

states in number of organic farms with 513. The Upper Midwest is a center of organic production, with the States of Wisconsin (1,222 farms), Minnesota (550 farms), 

Iowa, and Illinois (229 farms) having a total of 2,514 organic farms or 17.2 percent 

of the U.S. total. Including the acres in transition in 2008, Iowa by 2010, now has 

100,000 acres or more certified for organic production. 

The total value of sales from organic commodities in the U.S. was reported at 

$3.16 billion in the Census. Sales from Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa and Illinois totaled $297 million or 9.4 percent of the U.S. total. States with higher value crops, 

such as California, Michigan and Florida reported higher sales values per acre than 

our states in the upper Midwest. In Iowa, total sales for crops and livestock, when 

averaged over certified harvested cropland and pasture averaged $871 dollars per 

acre. 

Our cluster of states with relative high levels of organic farming may be, in part, 

due to Organic Valley Cooperative, a producers’ marketing co-op based in LaFarge, 

Wisconsin. Many of us in the industry think that is may also be due to a high level 

of creativity and willingness to take risk among our farming population. In addition, 

we have had excellent support from our nonprofits organizations, state departments 

of agriculture, and from our land grant universities in these states. 

Iowa State University has an Organic Agriculture Program that conducts research 

and extension outreach education for Iowa citizens. Field days, workshops, and Iowa 

38

Organic Conference and an Iowa Communications Network (broadband service) series on organic agriculture are held throughout the year. 

Our Iowa producers have been attracted to organic production systems for a number of reasons. The potential for higher average profits per acre is one, whereas 

some farmers find that the system better fits their worldview. Others are concerned 

about their personal health and find organic systems fit their goals. For smallerscale and in some cases, beginning farmers, the search for a niche where they can 

compete with larger and/or more established farmers bring them to organic production. In addition, organic production systems are complex, flexible, fluid, and fascinating, so appeal to some folks who like a challenge! 

The growing market for organic products in the last 20 years has provided excellent opportunities for those interested to move into this niche production and marketing arena. The addition of organic farmers to Iowa’s farm landscape has increased our diversity of crops, livestock and people and has also increased our agricultural sales. 

In the early stages of transition and certification, there is a ‘learning curve’ to 

master these more diverse production systems. My husband, Doug, and I often joke 

that the learning curve to successful organic production and marketing is long and

steep! Weather plays a large role in the success of organic crop production, perhaps 

more so than with non-organic systems. Based on several long-term agro-ecological 

studies and, if we can interpolate from natural ecosystems, in the long term and 

with experienced growers, these more diverse production systems should become 

more stable. It is often in the early stages of an organic farm and the farmer’s learning the system that the most support is needed. 

Organic Provisions in the 2008 Farm Bill 

Organic Research and Extension Initiative 

The Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative (OREI) is the USDA’s 

largest competitive grants program focused exclusively on organic agriculture research and extension. OREI funds projects that enhance the ability of organic producers and processors to grow and market high quality organic agricultural products. The substantial increased in OREI funding from $15 million to $78 million in 

the last 2008 Farm Bill was a welcome development! This increase was an excellent 

step toward towards providing a fair share of funding for organic agriculture research. Because organic production systems are information intensive, the growth 

of these systems depend heavily on investments in new and innovative research and 

extension programs. 

The OREI has a huge unmet demand even with the 2008 Farm Bill funding in- crease. In 2009, the program received 134 proposals totaling $98 million but could 

only fund 28 of them. The appointment of Dr. Mary Peet as the first ever National 

Program Leader at NIFA for organic agriculture has helped OREI immensely 

through its expansion in the 2008 Farm Bill. Thank you for this development. 

In my opinion, some of the most important research findings from Iowa State University’s Organic research program corroborate and support other work that has 

found improved soil quality in organic crop rotations compared to less diverse rotations. Where more crops are grown in succession or in diverse mixes, soil quality 

improves. 

One of the most important aspects of research support of organic agriculture goes 

beyond its application for those specific organic systems as implemented today. 

Much of this research looks at basic insect, disease, and weed biology, investigates 

how complex agroecosystems function, and how crops, soils and pest interact. Research on soil biology, and the link to soil erosion control and improvement of soil 

quality, is critical to implementing operations and systems that contribute to sustainability. I feel that this work may have excellent application also in non-organic 

agriculture. Work now on cover crops, crop rotations, composting, manure management, sequential cropping, and integration of crop and livestock systems can serve 

both organic and non-organic agriculture in the future. 

I ask that you continue funding for organic agricultural research and move toward 

funding that is, at the least, comparable to the 3.5 percent that organic agriculture 

represent in our food economy. With total USDA REE funding for organic research 

currently at less than 1.8 percent of total funding, that would suggest this Committee should set a goal of at least doubling the current size of the OREI flagship 

program in the next farm bill to do its part to help reach ‘‘fair share’’ funding. 

National Organic Certification Cost Share Program 

The National Organic Certification Cost Share Program (NOCCSP) makes financial assistance available to help defray the costs of organic certification for producers and handlers of organic products. The Agricultural Marketing Service proVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:27 Sep 20, 2010 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 I:\DOCS\111-57\58020.TXT AGR1 PsN: BRIAN
39

vides funding to state departments of agriculture. Producers and handlers then need 

to apply to their respective states to receive cost share funds. Generally, organic certifiers are able to assist producers in applying for assistance. Producers and handlers can receive up to 75 percent of their annual certification costs up to a maximum payment of $750 per year. Recipients must be certified by a USDA accredited 

certifying agent under the National Organic Program. 

The 2008 Farm Bill reauthorized the NOCCSP and provided an almost five-fold 

increase in mandatory funding for the program, from $5 million to $22 million. I 

have learned that this higher amount should be sufficient to cover all producer and 

handler requests for funding through the life of this farm bill. 

I urge you to continue this small, but important, program as you reauthorize the 

farm bill. Annual certification costs for farmers are much higher than they were before the USDA program. The National Organic Program (NOP) is critical to the industry, and this modest cost share with farmers helps ensure it is not a barrier to 

participation by small and mid-scale farm operators or by beginning farmers. The 

$750 cap per farm helps ensure that funding will be available to more farms, regardless of scale. This program, while modest in benefit to individual farms, is a 

positive statement of support for diverse, organic systems. 

EQIP Organic Initiative 

I also want to talk about the new Organic Initiative in the Environmental Quality 

Incentives Program (EQIP). The 2008 Farm Bill provides up to $50 million per year 

for conservation assistance to farmers who are transitioning to organic production 

or who are already certified and want to bring additional acres or livestock into 

their farming operation. The EQIP funding helps the farmers to plan and implement conservation practices that can enhance the conservation performance of their 

farms. 

A farmer can receive up to $20,000 per year, with an additional cap of $80,000 

over a 6 year period. The farmer is required to develop and carry out an Organic 

System Plan or carry out practices consistent with an Organic System Plan. They 

must also be pursing an organic certification or be in compliance with their organic 

certification. 

In 2009, the Natural Resources Conservation Service obligated $36 million for 

EQIP Organic Initiative contracts. In my home State of Iowa, the EQIP Organic Initiative in 2009 was initially allocated $1.4 million by NRCS but it proved so popular, that additional funding was provided to bring the total to $3.5 million for 125 

farm contracts. This year, as of July 16, 2010, Iowa has 77 Organic EQIP contracts 

for a total of $1.4 million. Forty-eight of those are contracts on certified organic 

farms and 29 contacts are for farms in transition to organic production. This is a 

tremendous boost for resource enhancement on organic farms. Part of our success 

in participation in Iowa is due to our Upper Midwest nonprofit sustainable organizations that work to educate producers about the USDA program possibilities. 

We, in Iowa, were pleased to see such a high demand by Iowa farmers for the 

Initiative. My husband and I received an Organic EQIP contract on our farm that 

will help us implement interior fencing and water lines and watering points to improve our managed grazing system for our beef herd. We received excellent assistance from our NRCS and FSA county staff as we processed our application. 

There were challenges, however, both with this program and the organic aspects 

of the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP). Before these programs, many organic producers had had little or no contact with NRCS offices and their county 

staff, and many NRCS staff had no or little exposure to organic agriculture and 

smaller-scale farms. Although there are challenges implementing any new program, 

the lack of understanding by USDA staff of organic systems and small, diverse 

farms hindered the process in the Upper Midwest. 

The Subcommittee should mark as a success, however, that many new producers 

now have contact with and better understanding of their USDA government services 

and that many USDA staff have a greater understanding of organic and diversified 

agriculture. It is to USDA’s credit to have made these moves to include more farmers in these programs. One small-scale organic vegetable and herb producer stated 

that, ‘‘after all these years, inclusion in USDA programs helped me feel validated 

about my career.’’

This Initiative could be made even more successful in providing conservation assistance to organic farmers and ranchers in 2011 with some administrative improvements. The following steps could help: 

NRCS is working on EQIP Organic Initiative guidance for NRCS state offices and 

farmers, which the agency plans to issue by October 2010. Once this Guidance is 

released, NRCS should conduct a 3 month winter sign-up, which will give farmers 

40

time to read through the Guidance and decide which conservation practices are best 

suited for their farmers. 

NRCS should make information available about practices and payments in a more 

timely fashion, preferably at the beginning of the FY 2011 sign-up period. 

NRCS should ensure that State Conservationists are standardizing their EQIP 

Organic Initiative web pages and keeping them up to date. 

Funding in the program for education of both farmers and USDA NRCS personnel 

about organic and diverse operations, including those producing specialty crops, 

would smooth much of the confusion among participants and support personnel. 

Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) 

Although the Conservation Stewardship Program was not part of the organic conversion assistance option in the 2008 Farm Bill, it is nonetheless a very important 

program for organic producers, including specialty crop producers. When the CSP 

became available, and it was clear NRCS had amended the program to an extent 

to take organic systems into account, we took steps to apply. We had, of course, to 

background ourselves about the program and the differences between the former 

Conservation Security Program and this new iteration. 

We were awarded a CSP contract on our farm, in part as recognition for work 

that we had done and, in part to implement new practices. With this contract, we 

will be able to create shallow water habitat for wildlife, implement a comprehensive 

nutrient management plan, do regular pest management scouting, and use cover 

crops more regularly in our rotations. 

We would like to express our appreciation for this program and to encourage its 

continuation and further fine-tuning and adjustments to ensure full recognition of 

the environmental benefits of sustainable and organic farming systems. Because of 

the inherent diversity on organic farms and our long-term planning window, these 

farms have great potential to further enhance wildlife populations, improve soil 

quality and sequester carbon, and implement long-term stable pest and nutrient 

management plans that should benefit the public as well as the farmer recipients. 

I would like to see this program in the next farm bill and over time to become a 

staple and centerpiece of the farm program of the future. 

Specialty Crops in Iowa 

The 2007 USDA Census of Agriculture enumerates 1,620 farms in Iowa producing 

vegetables, fruits, nuts and berries with sales of $23.7 million. Judging from the influx of new produce farms in the recent past, I would expect that number to be higher in 2010. In addition, there were 705 business nurseries, greenhouses, and Christmas tree farms with sales of 94.8 million. Even in Iowa, known for our wide expanses of corn and soybeans, specialty crops are a $1.18 billion a year business. The 

food crop industry in increasing in our state, evidenced by increased local food sales, 

new farm business start ups, increased institutional food purchases and the new 

food aggregation businesses started to fill the gap between producers and buyers. 

Many frustrations have arisen among growers and buyers, as constraints to growth 

continue to slow business development. With local efforts and support from USDA 

programs, we hope to advance the growth of the industry in the next few years. 

Our Iowa Fruit and Vegetable Working Group, formed in late 2007, comes together to address current issues and projects addressing industry bottlenecks three 

to four times each year. Participants from both the organic and non-organic segments of the industry are working together and have identified a number of areas 

that are constraining both their business growth and the growth of the industry in 

our state. These identified needs include:

• better information and access to that information for both production and marketing;

• risk management;

• post-harvest handling—information, effective systems, costs, methods, etc.;

• labor availability and management;

• availability of capital;

• mechanization on small and mid-sized fruit and vegetable farms;

• aggregation of supply for wholesale and institutional markets;

• beginning produce farmers; and

• food safety.

It’s clear that there is plenty of work for those of us in support and educational 

roles for the industry! The Working Group has initially focused our work in postharvest handling of vegetables, improving access to information about production 

41

and marketing, and the needs of beginning vegetable farmers. Requests and input 

from our participants have shifted our work right now to focus on food safety education and mechanization on small and mid-sized produce farms. We recently received a Specialty Crop Grant from the Iowa Department of Agricultural and Land 

Stewardship to conduct on-farm workshops about post-harvest handling of vegetables. Growers are extremely interested in improving these systems on their farms 

and in how to do so economically. 

Specialty Crops Programs in Farm Bill 

Specialty Crop Block Grant Program 

Specialty Crop Block Grant Program (SCBGP) that provides grants annually to 

assist State Departments of Agriculture to enhance the competitiveness of specialty 

crops (fruits, vegetables, tree nuts, and nursery crops) has been enthusiastically 

used in Iowa. The mandatory funding implemented in the 2008 Farm Bill has increased the funding available for our state. In addition, the increased reliability of 

funding has allowed better planning by our Department of Agriculture from yearto-year for this program. 

We appreciate this program, in particular, for the fact that the funds come to our 

state and applications are reviewed and prioritized by local experts in the fruit, vegetable, and other specialty crop industries. Our Iowa Department of Agriculture and 

Land Stewardship has done an excellent job of convening a review team representative of applicants for this program and funding diverse projects in outreach, education, and promotion for specialty crops. Grants have been awarded to universities, 

nonprofit organizations, growers’ associations, farmers’ marketing associations, food 

cooperatives, and regional food systems working groups. 

In Fiscal Year 2009, Iowa was awarded $243,405 under this program and funded 

ten projects. These were to:

• Partner with Northeast Region Iowa State Extension, the Leopold Center, and 

the Northeast Iowa Food and Farm Coalition to initiate food safety research 

and quality assurance activities, which encompasses six counties, to expand 

markets for locally grown specialty crops.

• Provide marketing materials to identify and be specifically aimed at specialty 

crop producers who sell at farmers’ markets in the branding campaign 

‘‘Freshness is Our Specialty.’’

• Partner with Iowa Heartland Resource Conservation and Development and 

Drake University to expand the Greater Des Moines Buy Fresh Buy Local campaign to greatly increase emphasis on fruits, vegetables, and other specialty 

crops and their producers.

• Partner with Pathfinders Resource Conservation and Development, Inc. to provide a Local Food Coordinator in order to create new markets for locally grown 

specialty crops through networking, marketing, and active coordination between 

institutional buyers and regional producers.

• Partner with the Iowa State Horticultural Society to facilitate an event that 

provides an education opportunity for both home gardeners and professionals in 

all aspects of specialty crops production and to promote horticulture in Iowa.

• Partner with the Iowa Department of Education to continue to establish relationships between growers and their local communities through promoting the 

purchase of locally produced food in Iowan schools, strengthen the farm economy, and offer educational opportunities to improve child nutrition and health.

• Partner with the Iowa Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association to bring expert 

speakers to the Iowa Fruit and Vegetable Growers Conference 2010 to provide 

an educational opportunity for Iowa fruit and vegetable farmers to consider the 

many aspects of sustainability and how sustainability impacts them.

• Partner with Prairie Winds Resource Conservation & Development, Inc. to research the nutrient content, antioxidant content, and sensory characteristics of 

Aronia berry products including fresh juice, processed juice, freeze dried drink 

mix, jams, jellies, and wine.

• Partner with the Iowa Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association to develop production techniques specific to Iowa along with utilizing various cultivars in 

order to support an extended season for Iowa fruit growers. 

Specialty Crop Research Initiative 

The Specialty Crop Research Initiative (SCRI) competitive grant program funds 

specialty crop research and extension projects conducted by Federal agencies, naVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:27 Sep 20, 2010 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 I:\DOCS\111-57\58020.TXT AGR1 PsN: BRIAN
42

tional laboratories, colleges and universities, research institutions and organizations, private organizations or corporations, addressing the following broad topics:

• Plant breeding, genetics, and genomics to improve crop characteristics, including food quality and nutrient content, nutrient management, and pest management among other subtopics;

• Efforts to identify and address threats from pests and diseases, including 

threats to pollinators;

• Efforts to improve production efficiency, productivity, and profitability over the 

long term (including specialty crop policy and marketing);

• New innovations and technology, including improved mechanization and technologies that delay or inhibit ripening; or

• Methods to prevent, detect, monitor, control, and respond to potential food safety hazards in the production and processing of specialty crops, including fresh 

produce.

Each of these five purposes receives at least 10% of the total funding for the program to ensure that one or two purposes are not funded at the expense of all the 

others. Priority is given to projects that are multi-state, multi-institutional, or multidisciplinary and that includes methods to communicate results to producers and 

the public. Matching funds at least equivalent to the grant amount are required. 

I am excited about this research initiative, but believe that the funding is inadequate to address specialty crop needs. We could easily use $6–$8 million for research in just Iowa each year to address our specialty crop needs. Additional funds 

can be made available through appropriations, which would be welcomed. In addition, I would encourage examination of the requirement or preference for multiagency and multi-state projects. Although I do believe that these have great merit, 

some projects may best be addressed on a smaller geographic scale and a percentage 

of funds should be committed without these requirements. 

Public Plant and Animal Breeding for Sustainable and Organic Farming 

Systems 

We need new stress, insect, and disease resistant cultivars with greater nutrient 

density that are adapted to sustainable farming systems. These types of cultivars 

are needed, in addition to those developed by commercial companies, to fully address food needs in the U.S. and beyond. Increasing plant and animal variety and 

breeds with increased resilience, diversity and nutrition with site-specific adaptability will be keys to meeting these challenges. 

This Committee wisely added a new priority within the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) for classical or conventional plant and animal breeding. I 

believe that publicly funded and classical breeding programs are needed for three 

major reasons:

1. Only classical breeding or individual selections can result in improved 

cultivars for certified organic systems. When I selected soybean seed for our 

farm for this 2010 growing season, I had only about six cultivars that fit our 

maturity range and could provide needed agronomic and food processing characteristics. Where the need for soybean cyst nematode resistance is also needed 

in some fields, my selection choices narrowed to three cultivars. We are anxiously looking forward to the RAG 1 and 2 genes for soybean aphid resistance 

becoming available in cultivars in our Group II maturity range. These cultivars 

were or are being developed in public breeding programs, such as that as Iowa 

State University. This scarcity of commercially available cultivars is sobering; 

I begin to feel as if we have too few eggs in our farming ‘basket’.

2. Desirable traits for many aspects of plant health and productivity, such as 

rust resistance in oats, increased protein levels in wheat, and reduced food anti 

quality factors, such as lower erucic acid in canola are multi-gene traits. Multigene traits are more readily altered using classic breeding techniques, rather 

than by insertion of single genes.

3. Niche and crops grown on a small scale often warrant little interest among 

commercial plant breeding/seed companies. If private industry is not doing any 

breeding and there is no publicly funded breeding, the crop is at a standstill! 

For instance, in the U.S., there is only one publicly funded flax breeder, based 

at North Dakota State University. There is only one publicly funded red beet 

breeder in the U.S., based at the University of Wisconsin. Although these are 

minor crops, it would seem prudent to ensure adequate support of genetic improvement.

43

AFRI should support breeding programs that produce a good return on investment. That said, however, there are many minor and specialty crops that need public support for breeding if genetic improvement is to continue. The return on investment may be lower for these, but still worthwhile. Public funding should help complement breeding work that is currently done by industry and fill gaps that will otherwise not be addressed. 

Risk Management Needs for Specialty Crop and Organic Farmers 

Specialty Crop Farmers 

In Iowa, there is no satisfactory crop insurance available for fruit and vegetables. 

When compared with crop insurance options for corn and soybeans growers, this 

seems a gross oversight and neglect of these important crops and crop producers. 

Although these specialty crop producers are eligible for disaster payments or the 

Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP), growers have informed me 

that the compensation for losses greater that 50 percent of the yield base and 55 

percent of the average wholesale market price of the their crop does not make it 

worth their while to even process the paperwork. In particular, where growers are 

selling retail and/or selling high value crops, such as certified organic, the disaster 

payments based on wholesale commodity prices are negligible relative to their potential lost income. 

The lack of risk management products creates a double challenge for small- and 

medium-sized, diversified specialty crop producers. Not only is there no safety net 

in the event of weather, crop disease, or insect yield reductions, but lenders are 

wary of working with growers of non-traditional commodities if they have no guarantee of some minimum income level that allows for debt servicing. These growers, 

both those experienced in the industry and newcomers, are challenged to manage 

their risk. Most growers manage this with a combination of direct, retail, and wholesale sales and with wide crop diversity. Lack of support to manage risk discourages 

growers from expanding their businesses and specializing in perhaps fewer crops. 

This may well limit our ability as an industry to serve the growing demand for local 

and regional wholesale fresh and processed fruits and vegetables. 

Adjusted Gross Revenue-Lite could be a good product for many of our specialty 

crop producers and organic farmers. The AGR-Lite whole-farm revenue protection 

insurance plan protects against low revenue due to unavoidable natural disasters 

and changes in market prices. Most farm-raised crops, animals, and animal products are eligible. This insurance product is available in 35 states, but not in Iowa 

nor several of our surrounding midwestern states, including Nebraska, South Dakota or Missouri. 

AGR-Lite has some noted limitations, however, that indicate it is not the only risk 

management product likely needed by specialty crop and organic producers. Limitations that constrain participation and income protection include: (1.) the need for 

5 years of Schedule F tax records to calculate an average gross income prevents participation by beginning and early stage farmers—those who may need income protection the most. (2.) AGR-Lite covers only income from crop and livestock production and marketing but not from any value-added enterprises. For example, a diversified fruit and vegetable farm would only be covered for crop production, but not 

for income from processed jams or apple pies. Diversified crop and livestock farms 

that direct market meat would be covered for production and price risk, but not for 

losses in their value-added meat sales. 

RMA data for crop year 2009 indicates that only 423 Adjusted Gross Revenue 

(AGR) and 401 AGR-Lite policies were sold, out of a total of over two million policies 

of all types. Of that total, the three West Coast states accounted for 339 AGR policies (80 percent of the total) and Washington and Oregon accounted for 282 of the 

AGR-Lite policies (70 percent of the total). Clearly there is major room for improvement in these policies as well as geographic expansion. 

I strongly suggest that AGR-Lite be made available in every state and every county of those states by 2012. I respectfully request that whatever is constraining the 

availability of this product throughout the U.S. be addressed by the Federal Crop 

Insurance Corporation and the Risk Management Agency. In addition, I encourage 

researching improvements to broaden the scope of this product. 

Organic Farmers 

I hope that AGR-Lite (and Adjusted Gross Revenue, AGR), can be improved so 

that it becomes the option that diversified fruit vegetable farmers, diversified livestock and grain farmers, direct marketers, and value-added practitioners have been 

looking for. In the meantime, organic farmers face two specific challenges that Congress recognized and began to address in the last farm bill. Not only are organic 

farmers charged a premium surcharge to purchase regular crop insurance, but they 

44

are also paid at conventional prices in the event of a substantial crop yield reduction, rather than at higher organic prices. They face an unfair economic impact—

both higher costs for sign up, and payouts at much lower than their normal prices. 

In the 2008 Farm Bill, this Committee required RMA to fund a study to explore 

these problems with organic insurance and to find solutions. That report has been 

transmitted to USDA. I believe these problems can and should be addressed now. 

The surcharge for organic producers should be dropped and coverage based on organic prices implemented just as quickly as RMA and its sister agencies can collect 

the needed data. 

I would also suggest to the Subcommittee that inquiries be made now about the 

prospects for using a portion of the $2 billion that USDA intends to re-invest from 

the recently completed re-negotiation of the standard reinsurance agreement to fix 

existing problems with AGR-Lite and with organic coverage. I cannot think of a better use for a portion of those recently-acquired funds than to start solving major current problems for specialty crop, organic growers and a wide variety of other highly 

diversified farming operations. 

In addition, new risk management strategies and products are needed for diversified farms, including those that produce a wide variety of fruits and vegetables, diverse organic farms, farms that engage in value-added enterprises, and for beginning farmers.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Dr. Smith. I was happy to give you 

extra time in light of your excellent testimony. I would also like to 

mention that a few years ago, I was thinking about raising some 

grass-fed cattle. I read a book to that name by an author from 

Iowa, from your home state, and I was amazed that he took a very 

intensive agriculture farm that was suffering from spending a lot 

of extra money in veterinary bills and other things, feed costs to 

raising grass-fed cattle and turned an unprofitable operation into 

a profitable one by actually raising less cattle but doing it in a 

more productive way for him. Now I am not sure that works for 

everyone, but it was certainly an interesting read for me and it was 

very instructive, and my wife and I started eating grass-fed beef 

and we love the flavor. So there is room in agriculture throughout 

this nation for all different kinds of production, and I think that 

is one of the things even though this Committee has the umbrella 

over organic, certainly other methods and we have room for everything. We can be a big-tent and accommodate many different methods of production, and I appreciate your testimony to that regard. 

Dr. SMITH. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. We are now going to open the Committee up to 

questions. The chair would like to remind the Members that they 

will be recognized for questioning in order of arrival. I will begin 

the questioning. Each Member will have 5 minutes to question the 

panel. I anticipate we will have more than one round of questions 

because the number of Members here and the time we have allotted, so I will begin. 

Mr. Angelucci, are there other farm bill programs that mushroom 

producers utilize? 

Mr. ANGELUCCI. There are none. There are some of the EQIP 

funding that has been used by farms to enhance some of the facilities, but other than that there are no other farm bill subsidies that 

go to mushroom producers. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay, thank you very much. 

Mr. Jones, you mentioned in your testimony that Ohio, the Ohio 

Produce Marketing Agreement, as I understand it, it takes a tiered 

approach to standards based on farm size. Could you tell the Subcommittee about that agreement? 

45

Mr. JONES. Yes, the Ohio Produce Marketing Agreement is a 

grassroots effort that began in earnest about 2 years ago in response to the National Leafy Greens Marketing Agreement Proposal by Western Growers out of California. We saw that as very 

threatening because it was a one-size-fits-all standard that would—

is proposed through USDA to envelop all producers of all sizes with 

one set standard. The Ohio Produce Marketing Agreement’s threetiered approach is that it involves all growers. There are no growers exempted as in the National Leafy Greens where the small direct market growers are exempted. Our effort would not exempt 

anyone. It is still a voluntary marketing agreement, but it allows 

for the producer to choose at what level they choose to enter that 

marketing agreement. Tier 1 would be for direct marketers. Tier 2 

would be for those wholesalers who are selling to food handlers 

within the State of Ohio. Tier 3 would be those larger growers who 

are already doing third-party audits and selling across the country. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay, thank you. It is also my understanding 

that some of these standards track with the Leafy Greens Marketing Agreement, is that correct? 

Mr. JONES. Very similar that is. There are a lot of what we try 

to do was to take the best of what the National Leafy Greens or 

the California Leafy Greens Marketing Agreement Program had. It 

is a wonderful program developed very quickly and was very successful in my opinion. 

The CHAIRMAN. Very good. Thank you, sir. Given in Mrs. 

Schmidt’s opening statement, and your company’s shipment of 

products across the country could you tell us what you think about 

what the USDA’s Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food Program? 

Mr. JONES. I think it is a wonderful program. I think that it complements very strongly the local food movement in this country. 

Consumers are much more aware of where their food is coming 

from. I do question some of the contradictory programs. The National Leafy Greens Proposal within USDA is in direct contradiction to Know Your Food, Know Your Farmer because they really 

are not complementary of one another. It is a great program. Know 

Your Food, Know Your Farmer, is wonderful and supports the local 

food movement within the country. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Kohl, I am glad to hear that the farm bill section 10201 provides assistance to better protect against pest threats and that research is also a key part of the strategy. In the farm bill we created 

a Specialty Crop Research Initiative so that applied research could 

be targeted to unique needs of specialty crops. Has the nursery industry sought funding from the Specialty Crop Research Initiative? 

Mr. KOHL. To my knowledge, there has been little success with 

that. One of the problems is the fact that the funding is matching 

funding. Many of the organizations in our industry that are providing the matching funding can’t commit to multi-year funding because of the way our industry works and in light of the economic 

situation right now. 

The CHAIRMAN. Right. 

Mr. KOHL. But it is something that is important though to our 

industry, and we continue to work on it within our own industry. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask a follow-up then. 

46

Mr. KOHL. All right. 

The CHAIRMAN. Has USDA consulted with you or other nursery 

growers to develop priorities or to help you with the Specialty Crop 

Research Initiative, or to try and overcome these challenges? 

Mr. KOHL. I am not, I am actually not the specialist on this side 

of the industry, but the USDA has worked well with us as an industry, as well as our state department of agriculture has been 

very cooperative in trying to help us figure out how to address the 

threats that we see. 

The CHAIRMAN. I am going to share your concerns, Mr. Kohl, 

with my colleague and friend, Mr. Holden, who comes from Pennsylvania. He is the Chairman of the Subcommittee with jurisdiction 

over that section of the farm bill and the research section so we 

will try and work through these issues as we go forward. 

Mr. KOHL. Okay. 

The CHAIRMAN. But I would like to follow-up with Mr. Richey on 

the same question. Maybe, sir, you can answer from your perspective. 

Mr. RICHEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Over the past 3 years, Florida has submitted several requests for 

projects under the SCRI Program and, particularly, in partnership 

with California. Unfortunately, none of those have transpired in 

positive results and no funding has been received. We have had 

great success with the block grant program though in lieu of this 

lack of funding from SCRI. We have received very positive response 

and results again due to the joint efforts of California and Florida 

working together on a common invasive pest and disease that ultimately leads to the death of a citrus tree. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir. That concerns me greatly what 

you have said today, and it is important that the Committee focus 

in and hone in on these areas that don’t work. This clearly seems 

to be one that we are going to need to adjust and modify. I have 

heard from some academicians the same kind of concerns that certain research is not being targeted in the areas they think are most 

beneficial to providing assistance to industries. So we will continue 

to follow-up on this since it is an area that I will definitely ask the 

Administration about when we have our next hearing. 

Mr. RICHEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. You are welcome. 

Mr. Nicholson, there are a number of other programs, and if the 

Committee will indulge me, I am going to ask a couple of more 

questions because I think it is important to lay the groundwork for 

the follow on questions. There are a number of other programs that 

we enhanced in the 2008 Farm Bill. One of those is the Tree Assistance Program. Have you accessed funds through the TAP Program or know someone who has? 

Mr. NICHOLSON. Fortunately, for us as producers and in New 

York we haven’t had an immediate need for that. You know, my 

understanding now as a representative of the industry is that there 

certainly was an expectation that the program would have been 

made more immediately available since it was already an existing 

program. I think that is where some concern was. 

The CHAIRMAN. Do you believe the program is working? 

47

Mr. NICHOLSON. I don’t have specific experience with it to comment on that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. I appreciate your comments on that, 

especially the Specialty Crop Block Grant Program. Can you describe the process that New York State uses to determine which 

projects will be accepted under the State’s SCBGP Program submission? 

Mr. NICHOLSON. That is directed to me? 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. NICHOLSON. As you know, our experience with the block 

grant program in New York has most immediately been related to 

their Pride of New York Program, and we are very supportive of 

that program. For one thing, it has provided us with market expanding resources, and as I have mentioned, one of our key markets is Metro New York where we are a local producer and provider of products. It is a very expensive media market. It is a very 

expensive market to break into and make people aware of your existence, so it has been a very positive program for us there. You 

know, one thing I would comment on is just like all these other 

states, in New York the dire fiscal situation has left very little 

funding for producers so these Federal funds through the Specialty 

Crop Block Grant Program is really the only thing that is available 

to us right now. Even in the tough economic times, we have been 

expanding our business, and I credit these funds with helping us 

to really capture especially the trend towards buying local, so we 

are very supportive of how they have been used there. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Nicholson. 

I thank the Committee for its indulgence. I have many more 

questions, but I will let the rest of the Committee proceed. I now 

call Mrs. Schmidt for her time. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Well, thank you and going along the line of block 

grant programs, this is for anyone else on the panel that wants to 

address this but I am going to start with my colleague from Ohio. 

Do you think that there is appropriate outreach and coordination 

by your respective state departments of agriculture to work with 

specialty crop producers and the industry when formulating Specialty Crop Block Grant proposals? Mr. Jones, I mean do you have 

a good relationship, is Ohio working well with you on this? 

Mr. JONES. Yes, it has been, I have been involved in the Specialty Crop Block Grant Program for 4 or 5 years now. It has 

changed considerably, the process by which we use in Ohio. The 

Ohio Department of Agriculture, I would say, is making great 

strides in working with the specialty crop growers. The Department has formed a committee that reviews those block grant applications. I personally would like to see that committee include more 

growers. The committee itself is unbalanced. There are only two 

growers of 13 on that committee, currently. We are working with 

the Department to try and change that. Some of the timing references that I mentioned earlier in my testimony have a great deal 

to do with that. The time of the year that these grants are reviewed is at a time when most of the growers are very, very busy, 

so it is somewhat difficult to get the growers involved. I think that 

overall it is a good process and it is getting better each and every 

year. 

48

Mrs. SCHMIDT. A follow-up to you, sir, is it the timing on the part 

of the state or is it at the Federal level that makes the state have 

a lack of coordination of growing season and timing for these block 

grants? 

Mr. JONES. My understanding is it is on when the state departments of agriculture receives official word on how much funding 

they are going to have to use and then the RFPs go out. All the 

not-for-profit agencies, industry organizations, and universities in 

Ohio submit proposals, and then those are reviewed. Then there is 

the lengthy process of going through that entire process, and then 

going back to USDA, there is a long time between when that committee makes it’s official suggestions on what projects should be 

funded and when official funding is received from USDA. There 

may be a 3 to 4 month lag time. By that time, you are through the 

main growing season where most of the research and projects could 

happen. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Just to follow-up with you again, sir, what would 

be your fix on this? 

Mr. JONES. My suggestion from my experience is to move it back, 

if it is possible to move that whole cycle of funding back a couple 

of months, so that those discussions with the specialty crop growers 

are happening during the off-season. If we were having those discussions about what projects should we fund in January, February 

and March versus April and May, it may help that whole process. 

Then get that funding or USDA final approval earlier in the cycle 

in April, May, June versus August and September, then we can get 

those projects initiated and going. Many of them are research 

projects that have to happen during the growing season. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Anyone else on the panel like to comment on that 

question, Dr. Smith? 

Dr. SMITH. Just to add to that, although growing seasons vary 

across the country, they are not all April to November, April to October, that if the period would blanket a growing season. In Iowa, 

we start September 1, and so if you are trying to do research you 

cannot complete it in 1 calendar year. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Richey. 

Mr. RICHEY. Thank you. I would just like to echo both Dr. Smith 

and Mr. Jones. I think the block grant program is an excellent program. The timing is always an issue, but it really boils down to the 

relationship that we have in our, in Florida, anyway, between the 

industry and the Commissioner, our Agriculture Commissioner and 

his intimate knowledge of our issues. It brings it down to a more 

local level. The response is quicker. Obviously, just by the nature 

of it, the knowledge of the issue is greater, so that relationship is 

key in the success of the block grants. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Follow-up question to anyone on the panel, during 

the last farm bill there was a discussion about the administration 

of the block grant program, whether the USDA should run the program and decide which projects are funded or whether the local 

state departments of agriculture should continue to award the 

projects. Do you think that the Specialty Crop Block Grant Program should be run by the USDA at the Federal level, or in your 

respective states at the state level and any, yes, sir. 

49

Mr. ANGELUCCI. Because mushrooms are Pennsylvania’s largest 

vegetable cash crop, we have an excellent working relationship 

with the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture and have always 

had, even prior to the Specialty Crop Block Grants. I think that 

throwing funds into a Federal pool would eliminate specialty crops 

in areas because of the lack of knowledge about that particular industry within the Federal Administration, rather than letting the 

individual state departments of agriculture handle those funds and 

appropriate those as necessary. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Anyone else want to comment? 

Mr. NICHOLSON. I would like to echo that. I think one of the most 

attractive things of that program is the ability to put it into our 

specific states. As everyone has mentioned that the uniqueness of 

not only different crops, but within the same crops, how we produce 

and market apples in New York, and it is different then how it is 

produced and marketed in Ohio and Washington State for that 

matter. I think what makes that program most attractive and effective is that it is handed to each individual state. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. I take it everyone agrees. Before I turn it back 

to the Chairman, so I am taking from all of you that there is an 

issue with the timing of the block grants, getting them to the states 

so that the states can get them to the growers, so that you can effectively have a good use of the knowledge that you want to gain 

from these block grants. I think it is from the Federal level that 

we have to get the money released to the states more appropriately 

and more quickly. Is that what I am hearing from all of you? 

Thank you. I will turn it back over to you, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mrs. Schmidt. 

Mr. Schrader, thanks for being here today, and you now have 

your opportunity to question the panel at this time. 

Mr. SCHRADER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the hearing. This is an important area for folks in the Willamette Valley that I represent in the great State of Oregon. 

The first question to Dr. Smith, if you will, on the cost-sharing 

system, how do you feel that is working for organic producers? And 

kind of a secondary question is how is our labeling doing? Is it protecting organic produce? 

Dr. SMITH. A question of qualification, do you mean cost-share 

for EQIP? 

Mr. SCHRADER. Well, I was referring to the sign-up system itself, 

getting certified. 

Dr. SMITH. Oh, the support and compensation for certification. 

Mr. SCHRADER. Right. 

Dr. SMITH. I think that program is working well. In Iowa, that 

is administered through our state department of agriculture and I 

think that has worked well. I think that has been a very generous 

program. It is, the compensation is small per farm. The top cap is 

$750 just to help farmers defray their cost of certification, but it 

is a real mark and positive statement from you in support of the 

program. I think that is working fine, and the second question? 

Mr. SCHRADER. Well, it was just about the labeling for organic 

produce, is that good enough to protect the brand name, if you will? 

There are a lot of natural. There is light. There is almost organic. 

I mean where are we? 

50

Dr. SMITH. Well, the labeling issue for eco-labels in these can be 

very confusing, and I don’t know that there is anything else you 

need to do with the organic label to protect it. I think growers, 

grower groups perhaps USDA, as well needs to continue to make 

clear what that means but new labels will always come along and 

they will be competitive. The one challenge I have heard about, and 

I don’t have personal experience though, is any products coming 

from other countries, do they really adhere to the National Organic 

Program standards? There have been some speculation that they 

do not, and I would like to see a greater investigation in that. It 

is hard to compete even with organic grains in Iowa when we have 

grains coming from China if they are actually certified organic to 

our standards. There is nothing wrong with that. If they are not 

then that is something I think should be regulated. 

Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Kohl, with regard to the TAP Program, my 

nurseries were devastated by storms this past winter, and I have 

had a tough time with the economy like everybody else. But, that 

all together was a double whammy, and I was very concerned 

about comments in your testimony about FSA’s requirements. Are 

they moving rapidly enough to change that to make sure that on 

produce-bearing trees and shrubs are actually protected now under 

TAP? 

Mr. KOHL. They have made a move in that direction somewhat 

in that in-ground trees are included as part of that program, however a vast majority of the trees that are grown in the nursery industry are grown in containers, and they are still outside of the 

plants that are qualified for the program. We also found that problem with the program, the fact the Catastrophic Insurance Program for our industry has not worked, has never really worked for 

our industry which is a requirement of being and getting the proceeds from the TAP Program. We have recently had meetings at 

our state-level to discuss the crop insurance program so that it 

would possibly work for a nursery in conjunction with the TAP Program. 

Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Chairman, I think that is an area, if we 

could, we should look at in the next farm bill because it is a big 

sector of a lot of the states around the country that nurseries are 

not apparently able to take advantage of that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I certainly agree with you. We will work 

together to try and craft something that works for your area and 

the rest of the country. 

Mr. SCHRADER. Great, thank you. 

Mr. Kohl, again, you indicated, as did one of the other panelists, 

I think Mr. Richey, about the foreign disease issue. Are there 

things we can do before they even enter our ports to deal with 

keeping foreign pests and diseases off our shores and out of our 

nurseries and farms? 

Mr. KOHL. Well, we need to expand and, again, it boils down to 

the economics of it. We need better coverage. We need better inspection at our entry points not only in traditional crops. Most of 

our pests that enter this country have not come here on plants. 

They have come here on tonnage, on pallets, on things that are not 

typically looked at. So, that is really the important thing because 

the pests that are coming in here are very damaging. You know, 

51

the Dutch Elm disease years ago annihilated the elm stands in this 

country, and the Emerald Ash borer and the Sudden Oak death on 

the West Coast stands to do the same thing in other varieties of 

plants. So it is something that is highly important to our industry. 

Mr. SCHRADER. Very good, thank you, I yield back my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Schrader. 

I think next up was Mrs. Lummis, she has had to go to another 

hearing. I would like to call on Mr. Rooney, if you have any questions, sir. 

Mr. ROONEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate you 

letting me sit in on this Subcommittee meeting. I have learned a 

lot today. I want to thank the panel, and I especially want to echo 

the Ranking Member, Mrs. Schmidt, with her concern specifically 

with regard to the EPA, particularly considering the proposed New 

American Nutrient Standards for Florida’s waters that was released in January and its assault on Florida’s agriculture. 

I had the opportunity to go to the EPA and meet with their Administrator with a bipartisan group of Florida Congressman and it 

was very frustrating especially since I kind of feel like Florida is 

being used as a guinea pig. But regardless, I thank you for those 

comments and again in my home State of Florida, agriculture is 

$103 billion a year industry with a large portion of it being in specialty and organic crops. Over the past several years, Florida agriculture has endured a constant barrage of pests and disease as we 

heard, and that threatens to cripple our industry. 

I think it is very important to have Mr. Richey here today to testify and share his experiences with the Committee. He is the reason why I wanted to be here today, not only to support him and 

Florida, but also all Florida citrus which makes up a huge portion 

of Florida’s Sixteenth District. I can tell the Committee also from 

a personal level that nobody works harder for Florida and Florida’s 

farmers then Mr. Richey, whose reputation proceeds him and almost works too hard, some people would say. I wanted to ask you 

this question, just so you can illuminate and help this Committee 

understand the challenges that we face in Florida. Mr. Richey, can 

you briefly explain to us how pest and disease have affected your 

ability to market your product, both domestically and internationally? 

Mr. RICHEY. Thank you, Congressman Rooney, and thank you for 

your service on the Agriculture Committee. The industry is very 

grateful for you, to you for that service. 

I think a prime example would be after the hurricanes of 2004 

and 2005, devastating our industry with the spread of citrus canker, which as I mentioned earlier is a bacterial disease spread by 

wind-driven rain. We had four hurricanes crisscross our state that 

year which basically resulted in canker, citrus canker being declared endemic in our state and the eradication program was 

ceased. That caused a statewide quarantine on the movement of 

citrus. You can imagine what that did to us, not only for domestic 

shipments but international shipments. My company is the largest 

grapefruit shipper in the State of Florida, 80 percent of which is 

shipped into the international arena, certainly contributing to in a 

positive way to our trade deficit. We were immediately embargoed 

from shipping to Europe. We were challenged with shipping to 

52

Japan, which is our single largest market. We constantly have 

challenges with Korea for a variety of non-tariff trade barriers, but 

this one became another target for them to impose upon us, and 

Taiwan and all of, I may have mentioned all of Europe so yes, we 

had to work through a lot of that. We were certainly at the same 

time very sensitive to our cousins in California, Arizona and Texas. 

We agreed to not push the envelope to try to ship there because 

we weren’t, it wasn’t clear yet whether citrus canker on fruit was 

a true pathway to spread the disease. So we do work very closely 

together with our fellow citrus growing states and we agreed that 

threat, while it was unknown, was not worthy of the risk so it did 

affect us greatly. 

Not only did it affect our ability to ship, which we worked 

through over 3 years, but it also affected our cost basis. Our typical 

production costs were in the range of $1,000 per acre. They increased to today over $2,200 to $2,400 an acre, and that is strictly 

a result of invasive pests and diseases so we have it both sides. On 

the economics on the revenue side was hampered due to lack of our 

inability to ship to all markets, and our costs on the other side 

went up dramatically. So it was, it did have an absolute direct, immediate, negative impact on us. 

Mr. ROONEY. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, my time is up, and 

I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir, both you and Mrs. Schmidt have 

indicated concern with EPA, and while that is not the direct jurisdiction of this Committee, I want to assure you that I share some 

of those concerns. Mr. Costa and I were just discussing the question of methyl iodide and how that, the potential restrictions on 

that product could devastate agriculture in California and other 

places around the country that rely on fumigants. There are certainly concerns about how the EPA is going about some of these 

things. I think it is imperative for us to discuss amongst ourselves 

strategies on how to engage the Administration in making sure 

that we base decisions on sound science and not upon conjecture. 

Not upon anything else. It is too important. The product, all of 

these different issues are too important to the industry. We want 

to protect, of course, human health, but it is very important that 

we move cautiously in these areas so that we don’t devastate the 

industry while we are trying to protect human health. I look forward to working with both of you and the rest of the panel, as well 

as the Members of this Committee, and the full Committee, to ascertain what is the correct stance here. We will look into it. 

We still have Mr. Owens. Please proceed with your questioning 

and I probably owe you a minute or 2 extra. 

Mr. OWENS. Given the time and the hearing, the extra minute 

won’t be necessary. 

Mr. Nicholson, you indicated in your written testimony that you 

had some serious concerns about where we are on immigration reform. I would like for you to maybe give us a little bit of background in terms of the issues, even though you and I have discussed them before. I think for the benefit of the rest of your panelists and also for the Committee, what your views are on that and 

what you see are the solutions. 

53

Mr. NICHOLSON. Thank you very much for that question and the 

time in this venue to discuss it. You know, our farm is located in 

the central part of New York. We are in the Finger Lakes region 

between Syracuse and Rochester. We rely, as most people at this 

table who have migrant labor, rely primarily on a migrant labor 

force to do the majority of the work on the farm. One of the most 

immediate issues we have had has not been with the current, any 

new legislation but really with how things have evolved in the enforcement arena. We are unfortunately located very close to the Canadian border and with that we have, there is a very strong presence of additional enforcement in our area. 

What is going on in Arizona now has actually already played out 

in my community, on my farm, and in Geneva itself where we had 

police officers pulling over basically anybody who looked suspicious. 

And rather then asking them for drivers licenses, they were asking 

them for Green Cards and immigration papers, not only of drivers 

but of all occupants in the vehicles. Then they would hold them for 

2 hours until Federal officers could come and determine the status 

of those individuals. And we have documented on numerous occasions where many of those individuals were properly documented 

and even citizens, so we got to the point there where we had gotten 

to the bottom of the slippery slope, as I like to put it. Absent any 

comprehensive program for ag labor, we see the ongoing status quo

as being a great threat to us. And for those who are using H–2A 

that has been good for them, but as they have seen, as well as everybody that has had to turn to that program, have become overwhelmed and unusable, not to mention the constant changing that 

has occurred. So we fully support the passage of the AgJOBS Bill 

as an answer to that, and we certainly would encourage the consideration of that sooner rather than later. Our top priority is comprehensive reform of course but absent that, we are looking for 

support on the AgJOBS. 

Mr. OWENS. Thank you. Does any other member of the panel 

want to comment on the immigration issue as to how it affects your 

operations? Mr. Kohl. 

Mr. KOHL. Yes, we use migrant labor, always have. We have 

been in the H–2A Program since 1998. We have been a user of EVerify Program since 1997. The program is, has always been difficult, a lot of red tape but we were managing with it. In the last 

3 years though because of the inability to move a reform bill in 

Congress, there has been a lot of regulatory change within the 

rules. It seems like every year, you are not really sure what the 

rules are going to be when you are planning your year. You don’t 

know what the wages are going to be set at because where they 

get them from keeps changing. It is hard to plan your business 

year without knowing, I mean labor is the largest single cost in our 

operation as it probably is in many, and not knowing what that 

number is really puts it at a disadvantage to plan for our year. Not 

only does it make that difficult, but there are many people out 

there that are not using this program. I promote doing things the 

right way. 

That is what we are doing, however we are being penalized by 

flaws within this program. The wage right, for example, just is not 

the fair market wage in our area. It is much over that so it puts 

54

us at a disadvantage to our competitors because we are trying to 

do the immigration thing the right way. 

Mr. OWENS. Thank you. 

Mr. Jones. 

Mr. JONES. We also use H–2A. It is certainly not a perfect process but it is the best we have right now. We are supportive of 

AgJOBS. It is not perfect but it is the best alternative that we have 

seen to this date. I really believe that society in general in this 

country has a choice to make. We are either going to want safe food 

and domestic food safety program where we can control the food 

production and how safely it is done here in the U.S., or we want 

to build fences around the border and have true immigration reform as has been done in Arizona where we build that wall and we 

don’t let these workers come into the country to do this work. Then 

we are going to ship all the production of our produce offshore 

where we have no control over the food safety. It really comes down 

to that balance. We are going to have to work very hard to get a 

situation that works well for both, but we are kind of creating a 

push for ourselves here. Which one do we want? Do we want to 

control the safety of our produce grown domestically, or do we want 

to build walls and not let anybody come in that wants to do this 

type of work in this country. Any one of these panel members can 

tell you, finding domestic workforce that wants to do this kind of 

work on a continual basis when it is hot and when it is raining, 

it is not there. 

Mr. OWENS. So your suggestion is? 

Mr. JONES. The suggestion is to work together collaboratively to 

try and come up with something like AgJOBS. We are going to 

have to have a guest worker, a workable guest worker program 

then and at the same time work on domestic food safety. We can 

do domestic food safety in this country. We are working down that 

road. It is coming together nicely. We are working with FDA and 

USDA to come to a workable situation where we can protect the 

consumers from foodborne illness, but we can’t do that if we don’t 

have a good guest worker program to grow those crops here domestically. 

Mr. OWENS. Thank you very much. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Owens, I look forward to coming 

to your district next week. 

Mr. OWENS. We look forward to having you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thanks. 

I have a question for the entire panel. The first year that the 

block grant program was put in place, we have testimony that the 

program was implemented late in the year, and it was tough to get 

funds out in the year. I have a press release from the USDA dated 

January 29, 2010, where they announced the program earlier this 

year. My question to you all is how is that as far as a date? Is the 

program working better this year than it did the previous year? I 

want to talk about this in the context of the criticism we received 

from some of our urban colleagues who don’t understand the program very well. They felt that the block grant funds were basically 

a fund for agriculture without controls. I was talking to my colleague Mrs. Schmidt about it just a few minutes ago. Flexibility is 

precisely what makes it effective. In the year that we have a new 

55

outbreak of a pest, or disease, or we find out something that isn’t 

working properly, we are able through the program’s ability to augment funds in the specific area that it is needed. I would like to 

have you all speak very briefly about the effectiveness of the program. If you concur with my statement please let us know so that 

we can have that testimony to push back against our colleagues 

criticisms. We need that flexibility in agriculture. That you can’t 

perfectly determine where you need to spend money when you are 

writing the farm bill. And second, please discuss the timing of the 

allocations and the process by which USDA is making these judgments, and whether or not this new current timeline works for you 

all. We will start with Mr. Angelucci and just work our way down 

the panel. 

Mr. ANGELUCCI. Mr. Chairman, I agree with your statement. It 

is very difficult to try to determine what the next disaster is going 

to be as far as research and I, our industry is completely different 

than the rest of my colleagues here at the table. We produce mushrooms indoors in a controlled environment and we do it year round, 

so even though we are in agriculture, even though we are regulated 

by seasonal farm statutes, we can’t take advantage of the H–2A 

Program for one thing. Our argument is our crop is 8 weeks long. 

We just do it 61⁄2 times a year, but as far as the funding we spend 

most of our industry on food safety which is a big concern. As more 

regulation is mandated by FDA, it is going to be increasingly more 

difficult for small farms, and especially specialty crops, to be able 

to adhere to the regulations and ensure that those regulations are 

met and verified. So for our industry, in addition to doing the food 

safety testing, we do have other pathogens that do affect our crops. 

Just because we are indoors it doesn’t mean we are immune from 

them, and some of that research funding that would be available 

to test for control of those pathogens will be extremely important. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Jones. We are going to have to be brief or I am not going 

to get all of my questions in. Mr. Jones. 

Mr. JONES. I would concur with your statement. I would also concur with Mrs. Schmidt’s statement that getting that money as close 

to the end-user, the specialty crop user, if that could be administered completely by the state departments of agriculture that 

would be even better, moving the timetable up so that we can 

maintain that fluidity and address the current problem of the time 

with those Federal dollars that would work very well. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me address that last point. I concur, in theory, about getting it to the states. However, it only takes a couple 

of mistakes on the state level to become a 60 Minutes issue about 

waste and fraud with your Federal dollars. And that is why while 

the states recommend, the Federal Government needs to keep a little string attached. We don’t want an abuse, so it is a real fine line 

we have to walk. We are trying to protect our reputations and 

make sure the projects are worthy, and at the same time letting 

the states determine what is the most important. I don’t know 

what the correct balance is, but I wanted to share with the panelists what our concerns as a Committee often are as we move forward in writing these pieces of legislation. 

56

Mr. JONES. Very close parameters from your goals and objectives, 

no question. We have to make sure that we are meeting your intentions as close as we can to the consumer. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Jones. 

Mr. Kohl. 

Mr. KOHL. I don’t know that I can add too much to what has already been said. The nursery industry is relatively new at making 

use of these Specialty Crop Block Grant Programs, and most of it 

has been around educational needs when something arises and like 

you say, you can’t plan on these things. The water usage through 

the drought years in North Carolina was an excellent example that 

we used. In Pennsylvania, we did an educational piece on sustainability and maintaining a nursery in PennDOT, so it is a work 

order we have used but we are relatively new at doing it. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Nicholson. 

Mr. NICHOLSON. I absolutely concur with the importance of the 

flexibility. I am not exactly aware of any issues with timing in New 

York for us specifically or to other apple industry members. And 

I did just want to clarify my response on the TAP Program earlier, 

the apple industry was very pleased that it has been brought in as 

a permanent part of the farm bill. The frustration was a little bit 

more with implementation timing. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Platz. 

Mr. PLATZ. Well, I seem to be the odd dog out of the water here. 

I don’t even know what the block grant program is but it sounds 

interesting. I am going to check it out. 

The CHAIRMAN. Very good, sir. 

Mr. PLATZ. It seems to me that it is a way to provide some flexibility, and that is really what I am here to ask the Committee to 

consider is our planting flexibility and the pilot program was a 

good start. But, I think we are a little bit different, it seems than 

most of the rest of the producers here, I think that putting that 

pilot program could be made a lot simpler just by indicating that 

it applies to those growers for processing only. Most of these folks 

here seem to be for the most part fresh, maybe some processors, 

but that is what I am here to talk about is the planting flexibility 

in that pilot program so being I don’t know much about it. 

The CHAIRMAN. I have a follow-up question for you right after I 

ask my other two colleagues. 

Mr. Richey. 

Mr. RICHEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Timing is an issue, earlier is better. We would like to see an enhanced block grant program due to the fact that everything that has been stated here that 

certainly local knowledge is probably much better, much more 

timely and obviously we believe more effective. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Dr. Smith. 

Dr. SMITH. I concur with your statement, as well that a major 

advantage of the program is that it does come to the state, and we 

have talked about that. The flexibility, like for instance the work 

with food safety in Pennsylvania, this is a big need right now in 

Iowa and there are some big food safety research grants available. 

57

This isn’t our greatest need right here in Iowa. We need funds 

right now in Iowa, we need funding to do outreach and education 

in food safety. This is one avenue where we might be able to do 

that and I hope that there are others. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Platz, I know as you have said you have mentioned the Farm 

Flex Pilot appears to be under utilized. Do you know what the actual rate of utilization and participation is? 

Mr. PLATZ. Well, I can speak on two levels. Our local county is 

Nicollet County, Minnesota participation in 2010 was zero. There 

was a producer who should have signed up for the program but for 

whatever reason didn’t. That producer did plant vegetables on regular acres and was found in planting violations, so he will lose his 

DCP countercyclical and any other government payments that he 

would have been eligible for so that program would have benefited 

him. On the state level, at the State of Minnesota in 2009, 4,200 

acres were used. In 2010, 4,500 and as far as national statistics, 

I don’t know. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Peterson’s staff is here. Chairman Peterson 

was one of the advocates of the program. We will take a look at 

and see how we can improve it, both in maintaining protections 

against folks using subsidized land to compete against other farmers, but also to make sure that its utilization is appropriate. 

Mr. PLATZ. Well, there are some reasons why that program 

wasn’t used very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. What are they? 

Mr. PLATZ. In recent years, at least in our area of the country, 

in 2008 and 2009 were just tremendous years for yield so supplies 

have grown tremendously. At the same time, everyone is aware of 

the difficult economy and demand is down for the product that we 

produce, and the processing, at least the products that we produce. 

So, those two things coming together have resulted in the processors reducing contracted acres for peas in 2010 by 40 percent, 

and sweet corn acres have been reduced by 20 percent. As it usually happens in these situations, as soon as you reduce acres, something happens. Well, this year in the Midwest, pea yield is down 

significantly and sweet corn yield most likely will be on my farm. 

We anticipate higher acres being contracted next year, and most 

likely a greater use of that program next year. So the program is 

important to us but it does need to be simplified and just make it 

available to those producers growing for processing only. Thank 

you. 

The CHAIRMAN. So you have been affected by Murphy’s Law, is 

that what you are telling us? 

Mr. PLATZ. Yes, it happens in agriculture. 

The CHAIRMAN. I suggest that we still have a couple of years before we actually write the bill. Please keep Mr. Peterson and myself 

and other Members of the Committee informed about how it is 

working. I think this is one of those areas that we are going to 

need to see the full story, especially in light of the fact that you 

have been affected by cyclical trends. 

Mr. PLATZ. All right, thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir. 

58

Another question to you, sir, the House Education and Labor 

Committee as part of its work on the reauthorization of the Child 

Nutrition Programs has added dried frozen fruit as eligible items 

for use through the School Fruit and Vegetables Snack Program so 

long as the dried and frozen fruit do not have any added sugar. Do 

you agree with their actions, and do you have any suggestions regarding how the language may be improved? 

Mr. PLATZ. Yes, we support that idea. I think in general the 

health industry has long supported adding fruits and vegetables to 

the diets of children, and my wife would argue that I could benefit 

from eating a few more fruits and vegetables as well. I think our 

local school districts, our kids go to the GFW School District in 

Winthrop, Minnesota and the cooks and the dieticians there would 

appreciate having that flexibility. As far as perhaps the improving 

the language of that, I would suggest perhaps adding the word 

canned fruits and vegetables as well as dried and frozen. I have 

personally toured the Montgomery Processing Facility and my peas 

and sweet corn make it from the field either to the frozen area or 

within the canned in 3 hours or less. We would argue that the nutrition from those products once it is in the sealed can and the frozen bag never leaves. So I would suggest adding the word frozen 

in addition to, or I am sorry, canned in addition to dried and frozen. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you for your testimony, sir. 

Mr. Richey, your testimony with regard to APHIS hits home. In 

California, we seem always to be fighting a new invasive pest. The 

House Agriculture Committee was disappointed and dismayed 

when in previous farm bill testimony, APHIS port inspectors were 

transferred to the Department of Homeland Security’s Custom and 

Border Protection mission area. As you may know, we tried to fight 

that transfer and weren’t successful. Here is my question, can you 

give the Subcommittee your impression of CBP’s performance to 

date? I am talking about everything, identification of pests, communication with industry, how they are doing. What is your take on 

their performance, the whole gamut? 

Mr. RICHEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, obviously we 

have seen what I would perceive, and the industry perceives, as a 

drop off in border security with the transfer of APHIS from the 

USDA to Homeland Security. I had the privilege of serving on the 

Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Fruits and Vegetables and it 

was an item that we took up and was one of the top items that we 

reviewed, and one of our top recommendations was to try to successfully transfer that back to the Department of Agriculture for 

these types of interdictions. The record speaks for itself, I mean 

after 2001, we have had the introduction of several diseases in 

Florida, specifically. I would probably have to characterize our 

overall view of it as disappointing, and we would much rather have 

seen that stay where it was. And we would love to see consideration given to sending it back to what we believe is the proper 

area, because obviously if Homeland’s has issues, be it terrorism, 

certainly, somebody bringing an orange in their bag is probably not 

going to be of their top concern, where it would be if it were for 

an ag inspector so that is our take on it, Mr. Chairman. 

59

The CHAIRMAN. I wholeheartedly agree with you. I have another 

question, Mr. Richey, you spoke passionately about the threat plant 

diseases pose to Florida citrus. While I am glad to hear that the 

farm bill section 10201 provided assistance to better protect 

against these threats, research is also a key part of that strategy. 

In the farm bill, we created the Specialty Crop Research Initiative 

so applied research could be targeted to unique needs of specialty 

crops. The question is has the Florida citrus industry sought funding from the Specialty Crop Research Initiative, and has USDA 

consulted with you and other Florida citrus growers to develop priorities for that initiative? 

Mr. RICHEY. Mr. Chairman, we have submitted, over the past 3 

years, multiple requests and several of those in concert with California and have not yet received any funding. One of the things we 

have had to do because of that is we have had to impose a tax on 

ourselves, and we have created a foundation through our Department of Citrus. We have used those tax dollars and we have had 

to redirect that money from advertising, generic advertising of orange juice to research, which certainly has hurt our overall success 

in the generic marketing of our product. So, while definitely the 

program has its potential, we have not realized nearly the full potential of that program by any means. 

The CHAIRMAN. Has USDA made you aware of results of any research that is funded through this Specialty Crop Research Initiative? 

Mr. RICHEY. I wish I could answer that differently but the answer is no, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. That is very disappointing. I am going to make 

sure that my friend, Mr. Holden and his Subcommittee knows 

about this. This is a big problem. We have put a lot of dollars here 

that they were directed to be utilized in just these kind of cases, 

and I am very displeased about that and I plan to ask the Administration about that. 

Dr. Smith, you look like you have a comment on that and I would 

be happy to let you pile on. 

Dr. SMITH. In all fairness to the research community, I believe 

that program has been in force 2 years or 3. We are very apprehensive to put out research results after just 1 year of data because 

we can be wrong. Now, where there is a great need that doesn’t 

mean to sit on it and hide it but——

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, but I don’t think this is about the results. 

I think this is about funding the initial studies. 

Dr. SMITH. Yes, that is what I was going to say as Mr. Richey 

said that if their need hasn’t been funded in the first place. I think 

there is, I don’t know the entire review process on that. I think the 

funding is modest relative to the need. 

The CHAIRMAN. I agree with you. 

Dr. SMITH. And I also think that forcing researchers into a multistate, multi-organization, multi-everything sometimes constrains 

the application process. You are so busy managing people and will 

you do this little piece, and will you do that little piece. Sometimes 

it actually can constrain getting the research done. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay, whatever is constraining the problem, we 

have to fix it. I see in the citrus industry, in particular, but there 

60

are a lot of industries that we are going to have to review how well 

this program is meeting their needs. I saw the devastation with the 

glassy-winged sharpshooter in the grape industry in the Temecula 

region in southern California. I know that it remains a problem. 

We now have the light brown apple moth affecting and invading 

my area of California. I am not particularly pleased with the 

progress we are making on some of these pests and some of the research. We have ongoing research with pollinators and the problems that they seem to be facing, and the increased cost that farmers are paying for bees and pollination. We are going to have to do 

something about this. That is something that this Committee is 

going to focus on mightily. 

Dr. SMITH. I would like to please request and encourage you also 

to think about that these issues are long term systemic issues. 

They are not going to be solved in 1 or 2 years of research, and 

that is the challenge for the way we function here is looking at long 

term research. But, when you look at pests and their complex biology and the numbers of ways we might address them, we need 

some long term focus. 

The CHAIRMAN. I agree, I pushed very hard for more research 

dollars in the farm bill, and it is probably one of the biggest areas 

of failure that I personally felt was that we could have done more. 

There were many needs and some things got left behind, and I 

think that long term research is one of those things. 

Before I close the hearing, I have one final question and we have 

gone over a few minutes already from the allotted time. Dr. Smith, 

you addressed crop and revenue insurance problems in your testimony. As you work with specialty crop farmers in Iowa through 

your work with the extension, how often does the insurance issue 

come up? Do you have any sense of its priority on the list of what 

these farmers identify as their major problems and barriers? And 

finally, in your view, is this problem specific to the fruit and vegetable producers, or do other types of diversified operations have 

similar issues? 

Dr. SMITH. For our Iowa growers most are small to mid-scale. It 

does not come up as their top priority, the reason I believe it does 

not is they don’t even know that it might be possible for them to 

get crop insurance. It isn’t there at all. We do have access to the 

NAP Program, the catastrophic coverage and it is not at all adequate. We have had a few apple growers apply in Iowa where that 

may no longer apply. It is so off the radar for our growers. Right 

now, those small-scale growers and mid-scale growers manage their 

risk by ranging a wide diversity, growing a wide diversity of crops, 

by engaging as much retail sales as possible through communitysupported agriculture and farmers market, as well as their wholesale sales. It is a need to the growth in our industry. What I see 

is we are constraining these growers to this kind of small-scale 

size, and if we do that, we are not going to be able to fulfill our 

need for local food that we see grown and not to insult the growers, 

I don’t. They don’t know what they don’t know about potential for 

some risk management products that other states have access to. 

In addition to our fruit and vegetable growers, again our organic 

growers are not fully covered. As grain producers we do have access to crop insurance. We do purchase that every year, but it 

61

doesn’t come close. We can’t buy the level of coverage that matches 

the value of our crop. We would love to have some other options. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chairman is very concerned about all this. 

With regard to our Committee as the organic sector expands into 

Iowa, are you aware of any efforts to track organic prices because 

as you know, organic farmers face particular problems with respect 

to insurance. One problem of course, is with basic insurance payouts because of the lack of pricing data, and each region of the 

country are different. Production volume of each farmer traditionally is different, and customs and practices in each region can vary 

depending on weather and climate and soil. So how do we structure 

that kind of a program? 

Dr. SMITH. Well, the Agricultural Marketing Service is collecting 

some organic grain prices and are reporting those now on a biweekly, every 2 week basis, and that has been very beneficial. We 

check those very carefully in our operation as we do marketing. I 

think for diverse operations, revenue insurance products are probably better options than trying to insure each individual vegetable 

crop or organic grain crop in Iowa. To collect the actuary of data 

needed would be just a tremendous job, whereas if we did work 

with revenue insurance programs, then we are looking at the whole 

income of the farm, so revenue insurance is capturing of course 

production levels, price levels. Right now, AGR-Lite that I mentioned doesn’t cover income from value-added products, so if we 

have a diverse farm that is doing some processing, those vats are 

not covered. So that is the way that I think would be a better approach to addressing those needs in the near future than looking 

at collecting yield and price data on every single vegetable crop. 

There are a lot of vegetable crops in Iowa, just not a lot of each 

one. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Before we adjourn, I would invite the Ranking Member to make 

any closing remarks that she would wish to make. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Thank you. I want to thank you all for coming 

here today and sharing your testimony with us. As we move forward with the next farm bill, I ask you to go back into your local 

communities and get very, very active with your local farmers. Specialty crops, especially organic production is a growing industry. 

My own daughter who is 30+ years old, that is all that she and her 

husband provide for their family are organic foods. I am of a different generation and I mix with value and price, but they don’t 

look at price. They look at what they believe is the best product 

for their families, but the organic voice in farming has always been 

a small voice. I think you need to rise that, raise it up especially 

in this next farm bill and don’t just look at Members of this Committee, look at other Members in your own states and talk to them 

about your issues with agriculture. Talk to them about your issues 

with the EPA, or with the new water program that could devastate 

your farming communities. Talk to them in very simple but real 

terms because we are all policymakers here, and while we have a 

very limited scope with the EPA, basically just with pesticides, 

there are other committees that have a wider scope with the EPA 

on other issues and just stay in contact with your local 

Congressperson, your Senators and make your voices heard. 

62

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mrs. Schmidt. 

I want to thank you all for being here. Your testimony was helpful and enlightening and articulate. I appreciate you all being here 

and traveling to Washington to be with us, and taking time especially as you approach harvest season to be here. 

Under the rules of the Committee, the record of today’s hearing 

will remain open for 10 calendar days to receive additional material and supplementary written responses from the witnesses to 

any question posed by a Member. This hearing of the Subcommittee on Horticulture and Organic Agriculture is hereby adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:18 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

63

SUBMITTED STATEMENT BY MICHAEL WOOTTON, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, SUNKIST

GROWERS

Thank you, Chairman Cardoza, and Ranking Member Schmidt for scheduling this 

Subcommittee hearing to review specialty crop and organic agriculture programs in 

advance of the 2012 Farm Bill reauthorization. 

Sunkist Growers is a 117 year old marketing cooperative, owned by 4,000 family 

citrus producers in California and Arizona. The production, marketing and processing of our citrus supports employment for thousands of people and generates over 

$850 million in total annual revenue. More than 3⁄4 of which is paid to our growerowners. 

Given that 26% of our fresh fruit sales are generated through exports, Sunkist 

is strongly supportive of USDA’s Market Access Program (MAP). That WTO green 

box program has enabled our cooperative to develop and maintain vital overseas 

markets for our American-grown fresh citrus for many years. MAP helps in some 

measure to counter significant foreign government subsidies of competing citrus 

products in those markets and helps to level the playing field for U.S. exports. 

MAP is an effective pubic-private partnership that increases American agricultural exports. The USDA’s recent (March 2010) economic assessment by IHS Global 

Insight of the effectiveness of MAP indicates the U.S. receives a 35:1 return on investment, including an average annual increase in U.S. farm receipts of $4.4 billion. 

Given this evaluation, and the Administration’s announced policy goal to double 

U.S. exports via the National Export Initiative over the next 5 years, we strongly 

urge the Committee to consider increasing the funding for the Market Access Program. The success of this program throughout the last decade validates the wisdom 

of Congressional support and funding. 

Additionally, we urge that consideration be given to strengthening the resources 

devoted to the Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops (TASC) program that is also 

administered by the Foreign Agricultural Service. This program is distinctly different from the Market Access Program, in that it seeks to remedy technical barriers to trade for U.S. specialty crops’ access to foreign markets. Its relatively modest level of mandatory spending, $9 million for FY 2011 and FY 2012, is not sufficient to meet the demands of a host of technical issues that now hinder access to 

valuable overseas markets for our agricultural commodities. 

Past funding cycles have allowed TASC to support a variety of programs including; the creation and maintenance of a Maximum Residue Level database for the 

U.S. and Canada, research related to the reduction of bean thrips on navel oranges 

shipped to Australia and the establishment of an Internet tracking system for pests 

by the California Department of Food and Agriculture. Success of the TASC program is derived from its historic features of dexterity, quick response and timely action to ensure the flow of American products into key markets. 

Sunkist’s production areas are located in California and Arizona. As western border states they are at high risk for exotic pest and disease introduction. Indeed 

Sunkist’s growers are contending with a variety of destructive sanitary and 

phytosanitary issues as a result of the large urban populations in these states, the 

international air, sea and land ports of entry and the mild year round climate that 

can support these exotic pests and diseases. 

It is, therefore, essential that APHIS and U.S. Customs and Border Protection be 

provided with the necessary resources to identify the pathways for emerging pest 

and disease threats and then interdict them upon attempted entry into the U.S. The 

funding provided under Section 10201 of the farm bill is an excellent first step in 

that process. For example, a number of projects are dedicated to researching threats 

to citrus production such a Huanglongbing (HLB) disease aka citrus greening. Other 

projects aim to enhance domestic inspection, such as training additional dog teams. 

These types of projects, when properly implemented, provide an prudent investment 

by the Federal Government, as their costs are significantly lower than the resource 

demands required to confront a full-blown pest or disease outbreak. 

The Section 10201 funding is properly targeted to high risk sentinel states. Future enhancements to the program should not undermine this focus. States like 

California, Arizona, Texas and Florida should receive a significant portion of this 

funding due to their higher vulnerability as the likely entry point for exotic pests 

and diseases. 

APHIS has engaged in an excellent program of stakeholder outreach and involvement in setting priorities for the Section 10201 program. Those benchmarks are established well in advance of the annual review process and serve to guide those 

local, state, Federal and industry evaluators during their individual and group processes. 

64

In contrast, the Specialty Crop Research Initiative does not appear to have operated in such a transparent process. Though the intent of that program is important 

and can have great value, its track record to date can be improved. For example, 

all requests for research funding targeting the destructive Huanglongbing disease 

have been rejected during SCRI evaluations. These rejections appear to have been 

largely technical in nature, but miss the larger point of addressing real world priority issues that can provide magnified impact for the government investment in research. 

It may be well worth the Committee’s time to review and further guide the process surrounding SCRI in order to ensure that the Federal Government’s investment 

in this program is being properly leveraged. 

Chairman Cardoza and Ranking Member Schmidt, thank you again for allowing 

Sunkist Growers to comment on some of these important topics as you begin the 

Committee’s work to reauthorize the farm bill. Sunkist Growers appreciates your 

commitment to the ongoing success of the citrus industry and the specialty crop industry in general. We look forward to working with you in the months ahead on 

crafting relevant Farm Bill provisions.

MICHAEL WOOTTON, 

Senior Vice President,

Sunkist Growers. 

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL SUBMITTED BY MARK NICHOLSON, EXECUTIVE VICE

PRESIDENT AND PART OWNER, RED JACKET ORCHARDS; MEMBER, BOARD OF

DIRECTORS, U.S. APPLE ASSOCIATION

Fruit & Vegetable Program 

I would like to take this opportunity to expand on my testimony regarding the 

fruit and vegetable program. This U.S. apple industry has been working in support 

of this innovative program since it started as a pilot in the 2002 Farm Bill. The 

expansion of the program to all 50 states was a top priority for our industry in the 

2008 Farm Bill. The program is designed to expose low-income children to fresh

fruits and vegetables and it has been a win-win for the apple industry and the students who receive the snack. For many of these students, the fruit and vegetable 

program is their only opportunity to eat fresh fruits and vegetables. I understand 

that there are now efforts underway to expand the program beyond fresh produce 

to include dried, frozen, and perhaps even processed products. I strongly encourage 

the Committee to protect the integrity of the program and allow it to continue as 

a ‘‘fresh’’ only program. There are a number of other programs for dried, frozen and 

processed foods and the apple industry strongly supports those programs as well. 

Section 32 Purchases 

Also, in the area of Federal nutrition programs, I would like to address the 

changes that were made to the Section 32 program in the last farm bill. The spending cap placed on Section 32 purchases of commodities resulted in a substantial reduction of funds available for purchasing commodities. This came at the worst possible time for the apple industry—particularly those growing for the processed market—as the industry faced extremely low prices last year. Though USDA agreed 

that an apple purchase was needed they were not able to act in a timely fashion 

due to a lack of available funds. The purchases that were eventually made helped 

the industry but did not have the same impact that they would have if the Department had been able to act when the request was initially made. 

Another related problem with the 2008 Farm Bill is the elimination of the ability 

of the USDA to carry forward any unexpended funds. The elimination of carry over 

significantly reduces the flexibility of the USDA to manage commodity purchasing. 

The reduction in Section 32 funds has also meant that the fresh sliced apple pilot 

has not been further expanded. This program was very popular with schools as 

many wanted to purchase fresh slices but did not have the funds to do so in their 

budgets. Fresh sliced apples are great for kids that have braces or for students on 

the go. Studies have shown that students consume more of the apple when it is offered sliced and ready to eat.

Æ