Oregon Cranberry Growers Association
Feed aggregator
Bacon and fried onion cranberry sauce
Cranberry upside-down cake
No. 11: Need a delicious cookie to serve almost anyone? This is it!
No. 11: Need a delicious cookie to serve almost anyone? This is it!
Cranberry eggnog salad
Cranberry eggnog salad
Cranberry pecan dressing
Cranberry pecan dressing
Coastal Creatures public art exhibit at the Bandon Professional Center
Oregon, Washington urged to spray for gypsy moths
A science panel has recommended Oregon and Washington spray more than 18,000 acres to combat Asian gypsy moths, seen as a major threat to the timber, nursery and Christmas tree industries.
The states’ agriculture departments are reviewing the recommendations and haven’t announced their plans. In the past, both states have taken a hard-line against gypsy moths and sprayed insecticides from the air, even in the face of urban protests and court challenges.
The panel, made up mostly of U.S. Department of Agriculture officials and academic advisers, has recommended aerial spraying 8,641 acres in north Portland in response to two Asian gypsy moths trapped last summer near the port.
The area includes the St. Johns neighborhood and Forest Park, the largest city park in the U.S. and almost seven times as large as New York’s Central Park, in Portland.
“If it got established in that park it would really be a problem,” Oregon Department of Agriculture spokesman Bruce Pokarney said.
Both states have routinely battled European gypsy moths, which are established in 19 Eastern and Midwest states and annually defoliate thousands of acres, according to USDA. Media reports often focus on the insect in caterpillar form littering picnic tables and cars, and dropping on people.
The science panel was convened in response to the trapping in Oregon and Washington of Asian gypsy moths, rarer and more dangerous than their European counterparts. Asian gypsy moths feast on a wider variety of plants and are more mobile.
Until trapping 10 this summer, WSDA had not caught an Asian gypsy moth since 1999.
The two caught near the Port of Portland were the first found in Oregon since 2006.
In response to Asian gypsy moths caught in Washington, the science panel recommended spaying 6,979 acres near the Port of Tacoma, 1,280 acres in Nisqually, 807 acres near the Port of Vancouver and 640 acres in Kent.
Agencies spray for gypsy moths in the spring as eggs hatch and caterpillars emerge. An area is typically sprayed three times over about two weeks with Bacillus thirgiensis var. kurstaki, commonly referred to as Btk and sold under the name Foray.
Besides the 10 Asian gypsy moths, WSDA trapped 32 European gypsy moths, the most since 2006. Some 22 were caught in the densely populated Seattle neighborhood Capitol Hill. The science panel recommended spaying more than the 28 acres tentatively planned by WSDA.
WSDA spokesman Hector Castro said the agency has not decided whether to revise its plans.
Oregon trapped 12 European gypsy moths, mostly near Grants Pass in Southern Oregon. ODA hasn’t decided how it will respond to those gypsy moths, Pokarney said.
WSDA has asked Gov. Jay Inslee to include $5.3 million in his supplemental budget proposal to the 2016 Legislature for a two-year campaign against Asian gypsy months. The governor’s office is evaluating spending requests from all state agencies and has not made any funding decisions, an Office of Financial Management spokesman said.
WSDA hopes most of the money actually will come from the federal government. A USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service spokeswoman said the agency will work with the states on a response, but has not made a proposal.
Flowering rush spreads while regulations delay removal
Flowering rush, an aquatic weed that clogs irrigation canals, has spread to multiple new sites near McNary Dam along the Columbia River since its discovery in the area last year.
Meanwhile, the federal government must again clear environmental regulatory hurdles before removing new patches of flowering rush found growing below the dam, which is under the jurisdiction of a different regional office of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
“Because we’re part of the federal government, we have to follow federal laws and regulations,” said Diana Fredlund, spokesperson for the Army Corps’ Portland District.
Flowering rush was first found growing on the Oregon side of the Columbia River in August 2014, with surveys eventually locating 15 sites near McNary Dam.
That portion of the river is governed by the Walla Walla District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which had to obtain approval under the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act and the Archeological Resources Protection Act to remove the weed with diver-assisted suction hoses.
“This should be straightforward. We’re just going in and by hand removing some small sites,” said Tim Butler, Oregon Department of Agriculture’s noxious weed program manager.
By the time the agency cleared those hurdles and scheduled a dive team to yank the flowering rush patches in August 2015, the weed had expanded to 45 total sites in the area.
While divers were able to treat 39 of those sites, six of them were growing on the Columbia River below McNary Dam, which means they come under the purview of the Army Corps’ Portland District, said Mark Porter, an integrated weed management coordinator for ODA.
For that reason, the process of obtaining clearance under NEPA, ESA and ARPA must now be repeated by the agency’s Portland office, which is unlikely to occur in time for the patches to be removed before next year, he said.
The agency expects that the regulatory processes will be completed over winter, when the plants disappear below the water line, so they can be covered with mats or removed when they re-emerge next spring, said Fredlund.
“We do want it to keep it from becoming a bigger problem,” she said.
The Army Corps’ Walla Walla District can continue removing the weed without re-clearing regulatory barriers, and its experience is expected to speed up the Portland District’s compliance with those statutes, said Damian Walter, wildlife biologist for the agency.
Apart from sites on the Columbia River, there’s a large population of flowering rush upriver on the Yakima River in Washington, which state regulators are attempting to control, he said.
“There is a constant source currently in the system,” Walter said. “We’ve got to address the source of it.”
As part of long-term plans to battle flowering rush, Washington State University is studying predatory beetles in Central Europe that feed on the weed’s roots in that region, limiting its spread.
The weed poses a serious threat if it’s able to enter irrigation systems along the Columbia River or its tributaries, said Porter. Flowering rush grows so thickly that it greatly slows the movement of water and changes aquatic ecosystems.
“This plant seems to be a very aggressive aquatic invader. This isn’t just another weed,” he said. “it has the big potential to do some harm.”
At Hanukkah take latkes on a delicious global flavor journey
Idaho, Oregon onion growers relieved by FDA’s final produce rule
ONTARIO, Ore. — Idaho and Oregon onion growers say they can live with the water quality provisions included in the FDA’s final produce safety rule, which was released Nov. 13.
Two years ago, they were worried the proposed water quality provisions in FDA’s originally proposed produced rule could put them out of business. But industry officials said the FDA heard their concerns and re-wrote the rule in a way that onion growers are OK with.
To go from a rule that would have seriously impacted the economics of the onion industry “to a rule that’s livable for us and allows us to stay in business is a huge victory,” said Kay Riley, chairman of the Idaho-Eastern Oregon Onion Committee.
When FDA first proposed its produce safety rule in 2013, it included water quality standards limiting how much generic E. coli bacteria could be present in agricultural water.
If the water didn’t meet those standards, farmers had to immediately stop using it. Virtually none of the surface water used by onion growers in Eastern Oregon and Southwestern Idaho meets those standards.
The water quality standards still exist in the final rule.
But FDA altered them to allow growers to meet the standards, even if their water exceeds the minimum bacteria levels, if they can show through scientific evidence that bacteria dies off at a certain rate from the last day of irrigation until harvest.
The bulb onions grown in this region are left in the field to dry for a few weeks following harvest. Field trials by Oregon State University researchers have shown these onions will meet the so-called die-off provisions.
“The thing that’s great about it is they actually listened to us,” Riley said. “I would deem it a tremendous victory compared to what it could have been.”
But the final rule still requires farmers to test their water annually, even if they meet the die-off provisions. Onion growers say the testing will be costly and time-consuming and they hope to be able to skip them.
“They are still going to require testing and that’s going to be the hardest thing to deal with,” said Stuart Reitz, an OSU cropping systems extension agent in Ontario. “The final rule is not ideal but it’s not that bad. It’s one onion growers can live with.”
Reitz said the industry is working with FDA to see if it’s possible an entity such as an irrigation district could conduct water quality tests in canals and have the results apply to a large group of farmers.
“That would get each individual farm out from having to do the testing themselves,” he said. “We really need to get some more details from FDA on what type of format that would potentially be.”
According to the FDA rule, farmers may use data collected by a third party, such as an irrigation district, but the “testing data may only be shared if there is no reasonably identifiable source of likely microbiological contamination between the sampling sites and the farms involved.”
Oregon man who shot wolf faces criminal charges
A Baker City, Ore., man who told state police and wildlife officials that he’d shot a wolf while hunting coyotes on private property has been charged with killing an endangered species.
Brennon D. Witty, 25, also was charged with hunting with a centerfire rifle without a big game tag, Harney County District Attorney Tim Colahan said Monday. Both charges are Class A misdemeanors, each punishable by up to a year in jail and a $6,250 fine. Witty will be arraigned Dec. 2 in Grant County Justice Court, Canyon City.
The shooting happened in Grant County; the neighboring Harney County DA handled it as a courtesy because his Grant County counterpart was acquainted with the hunter’s family and wanted to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest.
The incident happened Oct. 6, when Witty voluntarily notified ODFW and Oregon State Police that he’d shot a wolf while hunting coyotes on private property south of Prairie City. Police recovered a wolf’s body on the property.
Oregon’s action to remove wolves from the state endangered species list has no apparent bearing on the case. Wolves were listed under the state Endangered Species Act at the time of the shooting; the ODFW Commission on Nov. 9 removed wolves from the state list. Regardless, they remained on the federal endangered species list in the western two-thirds of the state.
The wolf was identified as OR-22, a male that has worn a GPS tracking collar since October 2013 and dispersed from the Umatilla Pack in February 2015. He was in Malheur County for awhile, then traveled into Grant County. Wildlife biologists don’t believe he had a mate of pups. Young or sub-dominant wolves often leave their home packs to establish their own territory and find mates.
OR-22 was the third Oregon wolf known to have died since August, when the Sled Springs pair in Northeast Oregon were found dead of unknown cause. The state now has a minimum of 82 wolves.
Grain commissions to combat dam misinformation
SPOKANE — The Pacific Northwest agencies representing grain farmers will unite to take a proactive approach against what they say is misinformation about the value of dams.
The Idaho Wheat Commission, Oregon Wheat Commission and Washington Grain Commission made the decision Nov. 11 in Spokane during a tri-state commission meeting.
Kristin Meira, executive director of the Pacific Northwest Waterways Association, outlined recent efforts by groups to revive arguments in favor of removing dams on the Snake River.
The outdoor clothing design company Patagonia is the reason the argument recently resurfaced, Meira said. The company’s founder and CEO is in favor of dam breaching and produced a documentary, “Dam Nation,” that’s “filled with inaccuracies,” Meira said. Protest flotillas in Seattle, Portland and the Lower Granite Dam near Lewiston, Idaho were assisted by funding from Patagonia, Meira said.
The groups’ arguments include the claim that removal of the dams will help save orcas in the Puget Sound, Meira said. Orcas eat large Chinook salmon from the Columbia-Snake river system.
“Then they make the leap to, ‘If we just breach the four Snake River dams, they’ll have a lot more Chinook to eat,” Meira said. “The problem with that argument is, the reason the orca populations were decimated 40 to 50 years ago is because until the mid-1970s, people were out there rounding up the orcas in nets and hauling them away to Sea Worlds around the country.”
Orca populations have been slowly increasing since the 1970s.
There are also more fish in the river system than before Bonneville Dam was constructed in the 1930s, Meira said, citing information from the Bonneville Power Administration and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Snake River system averages a juvenile fish survival rate of 97 percent as they move through the dam.
“We’re approaching levels that they’re not even achieving in undammed rivers,” Meira said. “This is the latest, very extreme argument (opponents) have tried to put forth. To argue this is the time we should be talking about dam breaching is a really hollow cry.”
Roughly 10 percent of U.S. wheat exports go through the Snake River dams, Meira said. Farmers need to speak out about the importance of the system to their operations, she said. The waterways association maintains a website to combat misinformation.
The dam-breaching groups are speaking to universities and reaching out to professors to back up their message, Meira said.
“They have found they have not been successful in the courts or in Congress,” Meira said. “All you have left is the press and going to colleges and doing flotillas and things like that.”
Blaine Jacobson, executive director of the Idaho Wheat Commission, said the industry needs to take a proactive approach against the protestors’ messages.
“We’ve got a great story, and it’s not getting out there,” Jacobson said. “The concern we have is that we’re playing defense. They’re setting the agenda instead of the people who really matter setting the agenda.”
The three commissions will discuss further action at their respective meetings.
Bugs help researchers study stream health in ag land
BOISE — Researchers with the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality and Oregon State University say analyzing insect populations is often the best way to assess water quality, and the data can create opportunities for agricultural land owners.
IDEQ regional water quality manager Lynn Van Every served on a committee that recently published an updated technical document to help guide the department’s water-quality analysis of Idaho waterways, based on aquatic invertebrates.
Van Every explained the department assessed roughly 100 stream reaches known to be healthy for a picture of fully functioning waterways and will use the document to compare insect life within water bodies statewide. While water samples provide a snapshot of water quality, insects offer a long-term look at health.
The new publication is the third revision of the technical document analyzing aquatic invertebrate populations. The original version was released in the late 1990s. Van Every said the document will undergo a public comment period and should be available for use some time next year.
“It’s directly associated with implementing best-management practices to address streams that are impaired,” Van Every said.
Implementation of projects aimed at improving water quality are voluntary for farmers and ranchers. Van Every said IDEQ often works with USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service or local soil and water conservation districts to design and implement cooperative, incentivized water-quality projects on agricultural land, such as buffer strips along field edges by streams, cattle fencing or off-site watering.
Van Every said IDEQ is in the midst of analyzing how aquatic life in Pebble Creek — which flows through agricultural land near Lava Hot Springs — has responded to a recent restoration of original channels.
OSU researchers Sandra DeBano and Dave Wooster have extensively studied agricultural buffers and their affects on aquatic invertebrates.
Generally, Wooster said, healthy streams are rich in desirable aquatic insects such as caddisflies, mayflies and stoneflies. The absences of those insects, and often the presence of midges or segmented worms, bodes ill for stream health, he said.
The OSU researchers’ positions were created about 15 years ago, when Eastern Oregon farmers were concerned about potential farm buffer zone requirements, similar to those in place along streams in Western Oregon forest land, to protect salmon. They’ve found the length of buffer zones they studied in Eastern Oregon is more important to water quality than width. Furthermore, data collected in 2012 and 2013 from Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program buffers along Eastern Oregon wheat fields shows the width of buffers is more critical than the type of vegetation. The data, which is still being analyzed and awaits publication, finds little difference in water quality between grass or forested buffers.
“If you have limited money and limited land, probably the most important thing to do is focus on having a continuous buffer, regardless of width,” DeBano said. “And if you have more money or time, then you may focus more on increasing width.”
The researchers also used aquatic insects to assess streams for the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, and they’re partnering with the tribes to assess the effectiveness of a recent restoration project, removing cattle ponds on camp creek near Enterprise, Ore.
Deer and elk serve as a buffer to livestock attacks
They weren’t on the agenda when the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Commission voted Nov. 9 to take wolves off the state’s endangered species list, but Oregon’s elk and deer population likely will be key factors in wolf management decisions in the years ahead.
Mark Henjum, a retired wildlife biologist who was ODFW’s original wolf program coordinator, said healthy deer and elk populations are a buffer between livestock and the state’s increasing number of predators.
Oregon has 25,000 to 30,000 black bears, an estimated 6,200 cougars and a minimum of 82 wolves, according to ODFW.
Biologists fully expect the state’s wolf population to continue growing. Wolves occupy only 12 percent of their potential range in the state, and continued dispersal from Northeast Oregon will put them in contact with elk and deer and possibly in competition with other predators. Bear and cougar are much more widely dispersed in the state.
Sharp, localized drops in ungulate prey, as deer and elk are known, could drive predators to attack sheep, cattle or other domestic animals, Henjum and other biologists say.
Bears are primarily omnivorous but will take young deer and elk, especially in the spring. Cougars, meanwhile, are solitary ambush hunters and can take just about any animal at will, Henjum said. “They’re amazingly good at what they do,” he said.
Wolves travel in packs and chase down prey. They can kill solitary adult cougars, or females and kittens, and chase cougars off carcasses. Pressure from wolves can force cougars into steeper, brushier terrain. The competition for ungulate prey could produce a bad turn for livestock.
Biologists say wolves prefer elk, but attacks on livestock are what anger cattle and sheep producers and gain media attention. From 2009 through June 2015, Oregon’s confirmed losses to wolves stood at 79 sheep, 37 cattle, two goats and two herd protection dogs. Ranchers believe wolves are responsible for much more damage, saying livestock often disappear in wolf country. In addition, many livestock attacks are written off as “probable” or “possible” wolf depredations.
“This buffer thing is one of the main reasons we haven’t seen so high a rate of loss of livestock,” Henjum said. “I think down the road, trying to maintain the ungulate populations is something that‘s going to be more important as we move on.”
Although wolves were taken off the state endangered species list, their existence in Oregon is still governed by a wolf management plan. Hunting and trapping are not allowed, and there’s no sport season for wolves. The plan does allow “controlled take” of wolves in cases of chronic livestock attacks or decreases in prey.
Phase 3 of the wolf plan, the next step after delisting, calls for wolves to be managed “in concert with its wild prey base,” a move strongly supported by groups such as the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. “Oregon’s wolf population is rapidly approaching the point where human tolerance and unacceptable impacts upon the wolf’s deer and elk prey base must be addressed,” the foundation said in a letter to the ODFW Commission.
Jerome Rosa, executive director of the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association, said his organization’s members report seeing fewer deer and elk in some areas, and more in others.
What’s ahead for wolves might be found in Oregon’s cougar management plan, which allows for targeted killings to address problems. In October, the ODFW Commission authorized killing 95 cougars in four wildlife management units during 2016. One area was chosen because of human, livestock and pet safety concerns, and three were selected to help mule deer recover. The kills, to be done by ODFW employees, federal wildlife service agents, or contractors, are in addition to whatever other cougar deaths occur.