Feb 19 2008
There will be five new faces at the Ontario Soybean Growers board table this year.
by BETTER FARMING STAFF
The Growers released its new list of board of directors yesterday.
Essex County grower Leo Guilbeault returns as the organization’s chair; Kevin Marriott of Lambton and Kim Fysh of Kent will be first and second vice chairs and Elgin County producer John Johnston rounds out the executive.
New directors include: Mark Huston (Kent); Keith Black (Huron); Helmuth Spreitzer (Dufferin, Waterloo, Wellington, Hamilton-Wentworth); Ken Thompson (Bruce) and Dwight Foster (eastern Ontario).
In November, the board’s directors came under fire from many in its membership for the decision to pull out of merger talks with the Ontario Corn Producers’ Association and the Ontario Wheat Producers’ Marketing Board.
In December, after its semi-annual meeting, the board voted unanimously to return to the discussion table.
But in at least two districts, Huron County, District 9 and in eastern Ontario, District 13, growers expressed their disapproval of the controversial November decision by defeating the directors’ nominations to become their regional organization’s delegates. Board directors are elected from the pool of delegates.
Other board members returning this year include: Harry Buurma (Lambton); Valerie Hobbs (Oxford and Brant); Robert Norris (Perth); Joe Thompson (Middlesex); Joe Hickson (Halton, Peel, York, Durham, Victoria, Northumberland, Peterborough, Haliburton and Muskoka); and Kim Turnbull (Haldimand, Norfolk and Niagara). BF
Minggu, 04 Mei 2008
Risk Management Plan to mitigate farm labour cost increases?
Feb 23 2008
Farmers, particularly those in horticulture, are looking to the provincial government to introduce a risk management-type program this year to help offset dramatic increases in farm labour costs.
By SUSAN MANN
In its prebudget submission, delivered to the provincial government early January, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture (OFA) called for a plan to tackle the issue. The provincial budget comes down in early spring.
On Jan. 1 the hourly minimum wage rose by 75 cents to $8.75 from $8. It’s set to go up again on Jan. 1, 2009 to $9.50 and then to $10.25 a year later.
Ontario will have the highest hourly minimum wage in North America when the rate reaches $9.50, says OFA executive committee member Mark Wales.
Wales noted the farming industry had just finished swallowing a graduated increase in the minimum wage prior to this year. Then in last spring’s budget the provincial government announced this latest round of increases.
“It came out in the budget as a total surprise,” Wales explains, adding there weren’t any consultations.
Farmers’ returns are often based on international commodity prices or grocery chains dictate what prices they will pay farmers. “They base them on the lowest cost importer, which may be Peru, Chile, China – countries which have no minimum wage regulations and no labour legislation,” Wales said.
All farmers are facing increased minimum wage costs, but horticulture will feel it the most. On a typical Ontario fruit, vegetable or flower operation 40 to 50 per cent of the cost to grow the crop is labour.
“Your single biggest cost is now going up by 28.5 per cent over three years and there’s no way to recover one cent of it from the marketplace,” Wales notes.
The OFA wants to see in place a program similar to the three-year pilot risk management program introduced for grains and oilseeds farmers last year. That program was developed by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA), commodity groups and the OFA. It's designed to provide funding to help mitigate cost of production increases.
The program works this way – the cost of growing the crop is compared to what the crop needs to sell for. A target price is set. If the crop in Ontario sells for more than the target price that year there isn’t a payment. But if the crop sells for less than the target price there’s a payment for the farmers who signed up and paid a premium.
Wales, who grows corn and soybeans along with 12 different vegetables in Elgin County, says the Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers’ Association and the Labour Issues Coordinating Committee are working with OMAFRA to design a similar program for horticulture. It’s hoped this program will help offset unforeseen cost increases both in labour and energy.
In developing the program, officials still need to compile cost of production and sales data. “We also need to get a funding commitment from the province,” Wales says.
The federation’s pre-budget submission has been submitted to the government. Agriculture Minister Leona Dombrowsky received a copy and it has been submitted for Finance Minister Dwight Duncan for consideration. No decisions have been made yet, says Kelly Synnott, her communications adviser. BF
Farmers, particularly those in horticulture, are looking to the provincial government to introduce a risk management-type program this year to help offset dramatic increases in farm labour costs.
By SUSAN MANN
In its prebudget submission, delivered to the provincial government early January, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture (OFA) called for a plan to tackle the issue. The provincial budget comes down in early spring.
On Jan. 1 the hourly minimum wage rose by 75 cents to $8.75 from $8. It’s set to go up again on Jan. 1, 2009 to $9.50 and then to $10.25 a year later.
Ontario will have the highest hourly minimum wage in North America when the rate reaches $9.50, says OFA executive committee member Mark Wales.
Wales noted the farming industry had just finished swallowing a graduated increase in the minimum wage prior to this year. Then in last spring’s budget the provincial government announced this latest round of increases.
“It came out in the budget as a total surprise,” Wales explains, adding there weren’t any consultations.
Farmers’ returns are often based on international commodity prices or grocery chains dictate what prices they will pay farmers. “They base them on the lowest cost importer, which may be Peru, Chile, China – countries which have no minimum wage regulations and no labour legislation,” Wales said.
All farmers are facing increased minimum wage costs, but horticulture will feel it the most. On a typical Ontario fruit, vegetable or flower operation 40 to 50 per cent of the cost to grow the crop is labour.
“Your single biggest cost is now going up by 28.5 per cent over three years and there’s no way to recover one cent of it from the marketplace,” Wales notes.
The OFA wants to see in place a program similar to the three-year pilot risk management program introduced for grains and oilseeds farmers last year. That program was developed by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA), commodity groups and the OFA. It's designed to provide funding to help mitigate cost of production increases.
The program works this way – the cost of growing the crop is compared to what the crop needs to sell for. A target price is set. If the crop in Ontario sells for more than the target price that year there isn’t a payment. But if the crop sells for less than the target price there’s a payment for the farmers who signed up and paid a premium.
Wales, who grows corn and soybeans along with 12 different vegetables in Elgin County, says the Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers’ Association and the Labour Issues Coordinating Committee are working with OMAFRA to design a similar program for horticulture. It’s hoped this program will help offset unforeseen cost increases both in labour and energy.
In developing the program, officials still need to compile cost of production and sales data. “We also need to get a funding commitment from the province,” Wales says.
The federation’s pre-budget submission has been submitted to the government. Agriculture Minister Leona Dombrowsky received a copy and it has been submitted for Finance Minister Dwight Duncan for consideration. No decisions have been made yet, says Kelly Synnott, her communications adviser. BF
Pigeon King responds to Iowa
Dec 27 2007
Iowa’s Attorney General’s office has confirmed that it is reviewing information it ordered an Ontario company to provide concerning business practices.
On Dec. 21, the office stated: “Pigeon King International provided a reply on Dec. 19, 2007, to the Iowa Attorney General’s Civil Investigative Demand. The Farm Division of the Attorney General’s Office is reviewing the materials submitted by Pigeon King International.”
by BETTER FARMING STAFF
On Dec. 13, the Iowa Attorney General’s office warned investors to be wary of Pigeon King International’s business practices and issued a civil investigative demand that says, in part, that “Pigeon King International business practices may be violating the Iowa Consumer Fraud Act and the Iowa Business Opportunities Law, including misleading consumers regarding the true viability of establishing several large pigeon processing plants within a time frame that would allow the business opportunity marketed by the respondent [Pigeon King International] to have a legitimate independent business purpose” other than “providing inventory for new growers in furtherance of a ‘Ponzi’ type of investment scheme.”
Following the Dec. 13 press release, Pigeon King International and its founder, Arlan Galbraith, were featured in media reports across Canada and in some U.S. states. Galbraith, who charges breeders up to $500 for a pair of breeding pigeons in return for a guarantee to buy back all offspring for 10 years, says that he is currently building his inventory and will construct processing plants once he has enough birds. He told CBC television that he currently has about 700 breeders in the United States and Canada.
Better Farming featured Pigeon King International in a cover story published Dec. 1. Company founder Arlan Galbraith, who declined an interview with Better Farming at the time, promised to respond with a letter to the editor to correct any errors. On Dec. 5, PKI representative Shelley Mason sent an email to publisher Paul Nolan citing only one objection. She claimed that one of the people quoted in the article was operating a “Front for Extortion.” (sic)
Better Farming was unable to confirm Mason’s allegation with authorities contacted. The individual named denied it. BF
Iowa’s Attorney General’s office has confirmed that it is reviewing information it ordered an Ontario company to provide concerning business practices.
On Dec. 21, the office stated: “Pigeon King International provided a reply on Dec. 19, 2007, to the Iowa Attorney General’s Civil Investigative Demand. The Farm Division of the Attorney General’s Office is reviewing the materials submitted by Pigeon King International.”
by BETTER FARMING STAFF
On Dec. 13, the Iowa Attorney General’s office warned investors to be wary of Pigeon King International’s business practices and issued a civil investigative demand that says, in part, that “Pigeon King International business practices may be violating the Iowa Consumer Fraud Act and the Iowa Business Opportunities Law, including misleading consumers regarding the true viability of establishing several large pigeon processing plants within a time frame that would allow the business opportunity marketed by the respondent [Pigeon King International] to have a legitimate independent business purpose” other than “providing inventory for new growers in furtherance of a ‘Ponzi’ type of investment scheme.”
Following the Dec. 13 press release, Pigeon King International and its founder, Arlan Galbraith, were featured in media reports across Canada and in some U.S. states. Galbraith, who charges breeders up to $500 for a pair of breeding pigeons in return for a guarantee to buy back all offspring for 10 years, says that he is currently building his inventory and will construct processing plants once he has enough birds. He told CBC television that he currently has about 700 breeders in the United States and Canada.
Better Farming featured Pigeon King International in a cover story published Dec. 1. Company founder Arlan Galbraith, who declined an interview with Better Farming at the time, promised to respond with a letter to the editor to correct any errors. On Dec. 5, PKI representative Shelley Mason sent an email to publisher Paul Nolan citing only one objection. She claimed that one of the people quoted in the article was operating a “Front for Extortion.” (sic)
Better Farming was unable to confirm Mason’s allegation with authorities contacted. The individual named denied it. BF
Soybean board says good-bye to merger
Dec 19 2007
The Ontario Soybean Growers board of directors’ sudden withdrawal from a merger agreement with two other provincial grains and oilseeds groups has generated both support and criticism from the province’s agricultural community.
by MARY BAXTER
But those on both sides of the issue who might be wondering what motivated the board to make such a decision had to wait until a Dec. 19 committeemen’s meeting to find out what the reasons behind the decision might be.
That’s the word from board’s chair Leo Guilbeault.
“Clarification will be done directly with the growers at the meeting next week,” said Guilbeault on Dec. 10.
The decision to withdraw from a memorandum of understanding with the Ontario Corn Producers’ Association (OCPA) and the Ontario Wheat Growers’ Marketing Board (OWGMB) was made by secret ballot at a Nov. 27 board meeting.
Guilbeault would not say how many voted for or against the decision other than it won a majority of the votes. He said all 15 directors attended the meeting although one had to leave early. That director was Joe Hickson. Hickson confirmed he did not have an opportunity to vote on the decision before he left.
The other boards were informed of the decision at a Nov. 29 meeting of the committee in charge of planning the merger.
“It came as a disappointment,” said Dale Mountjoy, president of the Ontario Corn Producers’ Association. “We’d put a lot of time into this.”
Al Kerkhof, chair of the Ontario Wheat Producers’ Marketing Board, shared that perspective and affirmed his board’s continued support of the idea of merging with other groups by stating in a Nov. 30 news release that “we feel strongly that our joint proposal would add value to Ontario grain and oilseed farmers.”
Guilbeault said the soybean board has opted to follow through on a strategic plan that it is in the process of developing.
“It’s a better option than the MOU (Memorandum of Understanding),” he said on Dec. 10.He explained that the MOU did not define clearly how the organization’s strategic plans would be carried forward during the merger and these were among the board’s concerns.
Guidelines for board members discussing the issue obtained by Better Farming listed a number of other concerns, including:
the package that would be issued to growers ahead of a March vote on whether to approve the merger “did not fairly reflect both the pros and cons of both sides of the issue;”
the process of developing the merger was not transparent enough;
the merger might decrease the value of soybean grower services despite a significant increase in proposed license fees; and
with a proposed reduction in the number of directors representing growers to 15 in the new organization compared to the 41 currently serving the three organizations, grower representation would be lost.
Middlesex farmer Jamie Payton said he thinks the decision to pull out is a “positive move.”Of particular concern, he said, was the proposal to significantly reduce the number of directors on the new, amalgamated board. That might lead to a situation of greater staff involvement and less grassroots, he said.
He said he had confidence in the board’s decision, describing its members as “astute” and “frugal.”
Huron County farmer Bev Hill, on the other hand, said he was really disappointed with the decision. Indeed, he said he’s so disappointed, “I hardly know where to start.”
He pointed out there was significant grassroots involvement in the development of the merger.
The merger was signed by all three groups in June, 2004.
After it was signed a committee of farmers drawn from all three commodity groups developed four different options for producers to consider. These options were presented at county committee meetings earlier this year and at the organizations’ meetings in March, producers opted to completely merge the three groups. Since then, a committee that includes two members from each organization and their alternates as well as facilitators have worked on developing the final proposal.
Hill said he’s concerned that growers didn’t have a say in the soybean board’s decision to dissolve the MOU.
Moreover, at a recent meeting, Huron County’s two soybean directors cited confidentiality as a reason for not being able to provide a detailed explanation for the withdrawal, he said.“We think that’s wrong.”
The directors did confirm that the reasons did not involve personnel or a legal issue - the only two reasons that would justify keeping reasons confidential, he said.
Although he calls the board’s directors “competent,” Hill said their decision has affected his trust in the organization.
Hill said he’d like to see a province-wide vote take place as was scheduled to happen in 2008. (The Ontario Farm Product Marketing Commission, which oversees all three organizations, requires a producer vote for fundamental changes to marketing boards. To effect a change at least two thirds of those casting votes or half of the cumulative production represented by those casting ballots must be in favour of the change).
Hill said he felt an amalgamation would “provide an opportunity for farmers to speak with one voice in the matters of corn, soybeans and wheat.”
“Long term that’s bound to have a positive impact.”
Mountjoy said concerns about the financial stability of the OCPA wasn’t one of the reasons given by the soybean growers for their decision.
“All three boards put their financial statements into the package (to be distributed to producers),” he said.
Referring to the organization’s debt in connection with its loss of a trade action against U.S. corn growers, Mountjoy also said OCPA would would have the money owed paid by mid-2009, the deadline that had been set for the merger of the three groups.
“We owe some money but we’re on a repayment schedule,” he said.
Guilbeault said he had no comment on whether the financial health of the other organizations played a role in the decision.
“That’s speculation,” he said.
Guilbeault said he had fielded many calls from growers unhappy with the board’s decision.
But because it’s a board decision, “we have to stick by it - for now,” he said. BF
The Ontario Soybean Growers board of directors’ sudden withdrawal from a merger agreement with two other provincial grains and oilseeds groups has generated both support and criticism from the province’s agricultural community.
by MARY BAXTER
But those on both sides of the issue who might be wondering what motivated the board to make such a decision had to wait until a Dec. 19 committeemen’s meeting to find out what the reasons behind the decision might be.
That’s the word from board’s chair Leo Guilbeault.
“Clarification will be done directly with the growers at the meeting next week,” said Guilbeault on Dec. 10.
The decision to withdraw from a memorandum of understanding with the Ontario Corn Producers’ Association (OCPA) and the Ontario Wheat Growers’ Marketing Board (OWGMB) was made by secret ballot at a Nov. 27 board meeting.
Guilbeault would not say how many voted for or against the decision other than it won a majority of the votes. He said all 15 directors attended the meeting although one had to leave early. That director was Joe Hickson. Hickson confirmed he did not have an opportunity to vote on the decision before he left.
The other boards were informed of the decision at a Nov. 29 meeting of the committee in charge of planning the merger.
“It came as a disappointment,” said Dale Mountjoy, president of the Ontario Corn Producers’ Association. “We’d put a lot of time into this.”
Al Kerkhof, chair of the Ontario Wheat Producers’ Marketing Board, shared that perspective and affirmed his board’s continued support of the idea of merging with other groups by stating in a Nov. 30 news release that “we feel strongly that our joint proposal would add value to Ontario grain and oilseed farmers.”
Guilbeault said the soybean board has opted to follow through on a strategic plan that it is in the process of developing.
“It’s a better option than the MOU (Memorandum of Understanding),” he said on Dec. 10.He explained that the MOU did not define clearly how the organization’s strategic plans would be carried forward during the merger and these were among the board’s concerns.
Guidelines for board members discussing the issue obtained by Better Farming listed a number of other concerns, including:
the package that would be issued to growers ahead of a March vote on whether to approve the merger “did not fairly reflect both the pros and cons of both sides of the issue;”
the process of developing the merger was not transparent enough;
the merger might decrease the value of soybean grower services despite a significant increase in proposed license fees; and
with a proposed reduction in the number of directors representing growers to 15 in the new organization compared to the 41 currently serving the three organizations, grower representation would be lost.
Middlesex farmer Jamie Payton said he thinks the decision to pull out is a “positive move.”Of particular concern, he said, was the proposal to significantly reduce the number of directors on the new, amalgamated board. That might lead to a situation of greater staff involvement and less grassroots, he said.
He said he had confidence in the board’s decision, describing its members as “astute” and “frugal.”
Huron County farmer Bev Hill, on the other hand, said he was really disappointed with the decision. Indeed, he said he’s so disappointed, “I hardly know where to start.”
He pointed out there was significant grassroots involvement in the development of the merger.
The merger was signed by all three groups in June, 2004.
After it was signed a committee of farmers drawn from all three commodity groups developed four different options for producers to consider. These options were presented at county committee meetings earlier this year and at the organizations’ meetings in March, producers opted to completely merge the three groups. Since then, a committee that includes two members from each organization and their alternates as well as facilitators have worked on developing the final proposal.
Hill said he’s concerned that growers didn’t have a say in the soybean board’s decision to dissolve the MOU.
Moreover, at a recent meeting, Huron County’s two soybean directors cited confidentiality as a reason for not being able to provide a detailed explanation for the withdrawal, he said.“We think that’s wrong.”
The directors did confirm that the reasons did not involve personnel or a legal issue - the only two reasons that would justify keeping reasons confidential, he said.
Although he calls the board’s directors “competent,” Hill said their decision has affected his trust in the organization.
Hill said he’d like to see a province-wide vote take place as was scheduled to happen in 2008. (The Ontario Farm Product Marketing Commission, which oversees all three organizations, requires a producer vote for fundamental changes to marketing boards. To effect a change at least two thirds of those casting votes or half of the cumulative production represented by those casting ballots must be in favour of the change).
Hill said he felt an amalgamation would “provide an opportunity for farmers to speak with one voice in the matters of corn, soybeans and wheat.”
“Long term that’s bound to have a positive impact.”
Mountjoy said concerns about the financial stability of the OCPA wasn’t one of the reasons given by the soybean growers for their decision.
“All three boards put their financial statements into the package (to be distributed to producers),” he said.
Referring to the organization’s debt in connection with its loss of a trade action against U.S. corn growers, Mountjoy also said OCPA would would have the money owed paid by mid-2009, the deadline that had been set for the merger of the three groups.
“We owe some money but we’re on a repayment schedule,” he said.
Guilbeault said he had no comment on whether the financial health of the other organizations played a role in the decision.
“That’s speculation,” he said.
Guilbeault said he had fielded many calls from growers unhappy with the board’s decision.
But because it’s a board decision, “we have to stick by it - for now,” he said. BF
Flower Power
According to Amy Stewart, the ultimate struggle of every commercial flower grower is to make a mass-produced commercial product meet the typical buyer’s standards, which are really quite high: We require our flowers to be unique, long lasting, and robust yet still appear natural, gentle, and fragrant. It doesn’t matter to us how long the flowers have been cut and without water, or how far they’ve traveled through various climates and hands before arriving at the florist or supermarket where we find them. We demand perfection when the flower at last reaches its final destination—the vase.
For hundreds of years, technology has been advancing to help growers meet these demands. Proof of a sophisticated floral trade and an advancing methodology has been documented in Roman Egypt, where some florists’ business correspondence had been found scribbled on papyrus. Today most breeding involves gene splitting under a microscope and is performed in sterile laboratories. Cut flowers are now bred for longer vase-life, stronger stems, little or no pollen residue, and larger vibrant blossoms.
“The supreme irony of cut flower breeding,” Stewart says, “lies in the fact that we use all the science and technology available to us to make a flower stop acting like a flower. But no one can change the fact that a flower exists for just one purpose: to reproduce and die.”
Although there are many elements to consider for successful blossom production, one of the most significant is a concept called photoperiod, which was discovered in the 1920s by two scientists from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Their experiments proved that plants could be broken into three categories depending on the number of hours of daylight required to initiate blooming. A short-day plant needs day lengths that are 13 hours or less, a long-day would require at least 14 hours or more, and a day-neutral is not specifically influenced by daylight at all.
Flower growers face the same issues as the rest of the agriculture industry: immigrant labor, pesticide regulations and restrictions, and ever-growing international competition.
The idea was refined by later scientists, who found that flowering is actually regulated by night length no matter how many hours of daylight it gets, a flower cannot bloom unless it also receives sufficient amounts of time in the dark. Today, a widely used classification system allows growers to create artificial days of twenty or thirty hours in length. By regulating the day and night length, growers have the ability to produce bloom on demand.
Depending on the plant, a flower may blossom several times before needing to be replaced. But in commercial settings, a bulb has “just one shot, one season to make its mark. It is not cost effective for [the grower] to coddle a bulb along year after year as its productivity declines, so after it blooms once, it gets tossed on the compost pile and a fresh bulb arrives to take its place.” Although quite a morbid thought for flower lovers everywhere, including Stewart, this makes fine business sense.
The book points out that flower growers face the same issues as the rest of the agriculture industry: immigrant labor, pesticide regulations and restrictions, and ever-growing international competition. “Cut flowers in the United States are an endangered species…with [imports now making up] nearly 80 percent of all flowers purchased nationwide.” With many Latin American and African countries having ideal weather conditions year-round, laxer restrictions on pesticide use, and an abundance of cheap labor that lets them harvest flowers at a lower cost per stem, it is not surprising that Stewart and many others are uncertain of the future prosperity of domestic business. It is disappointing that Stewart does not offer suggestions of her own for how to save the domestic industry.
Flowers headed for market are cut prematurely to guarantee that full bloom occurs only in the hands of the paying customer, typically four to five days later. By keeping the cut flowers in the cold and dark, the aging process is slowed down significantly and the buds are prevented from opening or spoiling.
If the flowers are being imported into the U.S., they must also pass a thorough inspection for pests and plant diseases. If even the smallest trace of either is found, the entire shipment must either be dumped or fumigated right there in the airport. Since flowers are not monitored for pesticide use as foods are, it has become a competitive advantage for many international growers to use the maximum amount of pesticide to prevent any further delays or an increase in their costs. Stewart even recalls her first hand experience with watching Latin American growers dip each cut flower from bud to stem in a large vat of pesticide prior to shipping. It certainly makes one want to resist the familiar urge to lean into a beautiful bouquet and inhale deeply.
Stewart’s book closes with the debate over threats to florists posed by wholesalers and supermarkets that can sell cut flower arrangement at the lower prices consumers demand. She says the special verve that florists bring to their arrangements will protect the industry. But it’s hard to imagine, over time, that we will be without machines that could quickly and without error gather and arrange the flowers according to any request, resulting in a product that would be significantly less expensive. There will be a continued need for a venue to sell them. Perhaps her own enthusiasm for the flower business stops Stewart from acknowledging this reality.
It is also interesting that Stewart does not consider the possibility that the decline of florists and cut-flower businesses may be due to the fact that many consumers now buy potted plant arrangements in lieu of flowers, which still express the sentiments and emotions provided by cut flowers, but also offers a longer-term of enjoyment for the money.
Flower Confidential provides extensive, intriguing information on the business of flowers, if not anything the average consumer will need to think about before grabbing the next bouquet off the shelf. As a $40 billion worldwide luxury industry, it seems clear that the flower trade will survive in some form long into the future.
Keri Ann Lutz is a summa cum laude graduate of the College of Notre Dame of Maryland and the business & circulation manager at The American.
For hundreds of years, technology has been advancing to help growers meet these demands. Proof of a sophisticated floral trade and an advancing methodology has been documented in Roman Egypt, where some florists’ business correspondence had been found scribbled on papyrus. Today most breeding involves gene splitting under a microscope and is performed in sterile laboratories. Cut flowers are now bred for longer vase-life, stronger stems, little or no pollen residue, and larger vibrant blossoms.
“The supreme irony of cut flower breeding,” Stewart says, “lies in the fact that we use all the science and technology available to us to make a flower stop acting like a flower. But no one can change the fact that a flower exists for just one purpose: to reproduce and die.”
Although there are many elements to consider for successful blossom production, one of the most significant is a concept called photoperiod, which was discovered in the 1920s by two scientists from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Their experiments proved that plants could be broken into three categories depending on the number of hours of daylight required to initiate blooming. A short-day plant needs day lengths that are 13 hours or less, a long-day would require at least 14 hours or more, and a day-neutral is not specifically influenced by daylight at all.
Flower growers face the same issues as the rest of the agriculture industry: immigrant labor, pesticide regulations and restrictions, and ever-growing international competition.
The idea was refined by later scientists, who found that flowering is actually regulated by night length no matter how many hours of daylight it gets, a flower cannot bloom unless it also receives sufficient amounts of time in the dark. Today, a widely used classification system allows growers to create artificial days of twenty or thirty hours in length. By regulating the day and night length, growers have the ability to produce bloom on demand.
Depending on the plant, a flower may blossom several times before needing to be replaced. But in commercial settings, a bulb has “just one shot, one season to make its mark. It is not cost effective for [the grower] to coddle a bulb along year after year as its productivity declines, so after it blooms once, it gets tossed on the compost pile and a fresh bulb arrives to take its place.” Although quite a morbid thought for flower lovers everywhere, including Stewart, this makes fine business sense.
The book points out that flower growers face the same issues as the rest of the agriculture industry: immigrant labor, pesticide regulations and restrictions, and ever-growing international competition. “Cut flowers in the United States are an endangered species…with [imports now making up] nearly 80 percent of all flowers purchased nationwide.” With many Latin American and African countries having ideal weather conditions year-round, laxer restrictions on pesticide use, and an abundance of cheap labor that lets them harvest flowers at a lower cost per stem, it is not surprising that Stewart and many others are uncertain of the future prosperity of domestic business. It is disappointing that Stewart does not offer suggestions of her own for how to save the domestic industry.
Flowers headed for market are cut prematurely to guarantee that full bloom occurs only in the hands of the paying customer, typically four to five days later. By keeping the cut flowers in the cold and dark, the aging process is slowed down significantly and the buds are prevented from opening or spoiling.
If the flowers are being imported into the U.S., they must also pass a thorough inspection for pests and plant diseases. If even the smallest trace of either is found, the entire shipment must either be dumped or fumigated right there in the airport. Since flowers are not monitored for pesticide use as foods are, it has become a competitive advantage for many international growers to use the maximum amount of pesticide to prevent any further delays or an increase in their costs. Stewart even recalls her first hand experience with watching Latin American growers dip each cut flower from bud to stem in a large vat of pesticide prior to shipping. It certainly makes one want to resist the familiar urge to lean into a beautiful bouquet and inhale deeply.
Stewart’s book closes with the debate over threats to florists posed by wholesalers and supermarkets that can sell cut flower arrangement at the lower prices consumers demand. She says the special verve that florists bring to their arrangements will protect the industry. But it’s hard to imagine, over time, that we will be without machines that could quickly and without error gather and arrange the flowers according to any request, resulting in a product that would be significantly less expensive. There will be a continued need for a venue to sell them. Perhaps her own enthusiasm for the flower business stops Stewart from acknowledging this reality.
It is also interesting that Stewart does not consider the possibility that the decline of florists and cut-flower businesses may be due to the fact that many consumers now buy potted plant arrangements in lieu of flowers, which still express the sentiments and emotions provided by cut flowers, but also offers a longer-term of enjoyment for the money.
Flower Confidential provides extensive, intriguing information on the business of flowers, if not anything the average consumer will need to think about before grabbing the next bouquet off the shelf. As a $40 billion worldwide luxury industry, it seems clear that the flower trade will survive in some form long into the future.
Keri Ann Lutz is a summa cum laude graduate of the College of Notre Dame of Maryland and the business & circulation manager at The American.
Mother-In-Law Tongues and Others—Sansevieria
For an all too familiar seeming genus of plants (the old common name, mother-in-law tongue, implying that you can't get rid of them). Sansevieria nonetheless contains a large number of unfamiliar and very interesting species. The genus has wandered from family to family over the years, starting out as Liliaceae, then Agavaceae, and finally (at least for the moment) showing up in the fairly newly established family Dracaenaceae. This taxonomic migration reflects the close resemblance of these strictly Old World plants to the New World agave family. Dracaenas, familiar house and office plants, include a few rarely seen species (some in the UCBG collection) from places such as southwest Arabia and the island of Socotra that appear remarkably similar to arborescent, xerophytic Yucca species. A few sansevierias resemble agaves or yuccas, and they occupy somewhat equivalent ecological niches in their native habitats of eastern African and surrounding regions.
Essentially only two forms of Sansevieria, both only semi-succulent, constitute the vast majority of the plants found in cultivation. One of these is Sansevieria trifasciata, with long, narrow, sword-shaped, upright leaves. Since the plants have been grown for so long, numerous forms and cultivars have been selected out, such as the cultivar ‘Laurentii,’ with distinct banded marking and a yellow leaf margin, a central component of innumerable dish gardens and indoor plant displays. Other forms of Sansevieria trifasciata, however, have managed to keep from become living clichés. Among these, ‘Bantel's Sensation’ often attracts attention with its white leaves marked with linear green streaks and narrow green margins. As is the case with many highly variegated plants, it grows slowly enough to have remained somewhat uncommon. Some growers specialize in odd forms of S.fasciata, or the still confused plant called S. hahnii, of uncertain horticultural origin. Sansevieria hahnii resembles a small, spineless Agave and grows into a compact rosette of flattened leaves. ‘Golden Hahnii’ is a common form with golden-yellow leaf margins; ‘ Loop 's Pride,’ much less common, forms small rosettes that are almost black when well grown. Other forms are rarer still, very slow growing, and command extremely high prices.
The other sansevierias, rarely encountered in the general nursery trade, exhibit a considerable diversity of forms and often a great deal more developed degree of succulent modification. Many species form tight rosettes, usually offsetting from close to the surface rhizomes. Of these, some remain quite small, with rosettes no more than four or five inches across, including Sansevieria subspicata, S. parva, or the relatively uncommon S. aethiopica. These three have relatively broad leaves with soft tips; others with this growth form, such as S. phillipsiae may have narrow leaves that end in very sharp points, and sometimes have rosettes over a foot in diameter. In nature these plants often cluster around the bases of acacia trees in the seasonally dry East African plains. Another growth form, typified by Sansevieria grandis, consists of rosettes made of broad, upward pointing, elongated leaves that ultimately take on the shape of a huge, openwork vase. A third form, including species such as Sansevieria stuckyi and S. cylindrica, sends out thickly terete (cylindrical) leaves that point upright several feet into the air. In other species the leaves are somewhat spoon shaped, broadening into ovals after a thin stem-like base, while still others make columns of distichous (two-ranked) leaves like pillars made of stacks of cow horns. These distichous species can become quite tall, or, as in the case of Sansevieria ehrenbergii or S. robusta, the individual leaves will become large and massive, the adult plant looking like a many fingered, outspread hand or an open fan.
A further odd feature of many sansevierias is that immature plants may look entirely distinct from adult forms. A good example of this is the species formerly called Sansevieria singularis, now S. fischeri. When young the plants make clusters of rosettes of thick, downward curving, channeled leaves of an interesting, mottled green color. A plant with multiple rosettes may be quite large and seem full grown, but at some point the growths will change to erect single leaves only, and a mature specimen will consist of a number of these very thick, very large leaves, up to several feet tall, protruding out of the ground with no sign of the rosettes from which they began.
Vaguely similar in appearance, though never forming rosettes, is Sansevieria hallii, introduced as Sansevieria ‘Baseball Bat.’ These plants consist of several individual leaves, connected by an underground rhizome and looking more like a baseball bat sawed down the middle than a cylinder, slowly poking their way into the air. Another unusual species, S. pinguicula, from Kenya, slowly makes clumps of pointed, very thick leaves that resemble a choice miniature Agave, except that the rosettes tend to become airborne, raised up by clusters of thickened roots. Sansevieria kirkii var. pulchra, with elongated, upright growing leaves, has a striking pattern of mottled cross-hatchings, and in the best clones is a mixture of pink and gray with hardly a trace of green to be seen. Still rare and coveted, S. eilensis, from Somalia, produces occasional upright leaves about the size and shape of a finger from its subsurface rhizome, while the plant known as S. horwoodii (called by some Sansevieria ‘Horwood’ and possibly a form of S.forskaliana,), has flattened leaves of great thickness, giving it, too, an extremely distinctive look.
Many sansevierias are close to indestructible. They will tolerate much lower light than other succulents, or almost any other plants. They will survive with almost any soil mix, and endure neglect and abuse without complaint. Under ideal conditions they should receive a little morning sunlight or bright indirect light, water about once a week--less often (every three weeks or so) in winter--and will thrive slowly in either a standard succulent mix or a slightly richer soil. A few are touchier. Sansevieria pinguicula will rot if water remains in its rosettes; it also will do better with slightly leaner soil and somewhat brighter light. S.eilensis can be quite difficult to grow, and some people keep it in beds heated by electric cables to keep it from rotting off.
All in all, Sansevieria is an interesting genus, with plants ranging from ones you can't kill, to ones you can't find, or can barely keep alive in ideal circumstances. The Garden has a good collection of the plants (several on display in the Arid House), with a number of unidentified species, many from Kenya . We always have some to sell at sales, often located in the shade under the tables.
Essentially only two forms of Sansevieria, both only semi-succulent, constitute the vast majority of the plants found in cultivation. One of these is Sansevieria trifasciata, with long, narrow, sword-shaped, upright leaves. Since the plants have been grown for so long, numerous forms and cultivars have been selected out, such as the cultivar ‘Laurentii,’ with distinct banded marking and a yellow leaf margin, a central component of innumerable dish gardens and indoor plant displays. Other forms of Sansevieria trifasciata, however, have managed to keep from become living clichés. Among these, ‘Bantel's Sensation’ often attracts attention with its white leaves marked with linear green streaks and narrow green margins. As is the case with many highly variegated plants, it grows slowly enough to have remained somewhat uncommon. Some growers specialize in odd forms of S.fasciata, or the still confused plant called S. hahnii, of uncertain horticultural origin. Sansevieria hahnii resembles a small, spineless Agave and grows into a compact rosette of flattened leaves. ‘Golden Hahnii’ is a common form with golden-yellow leaf margins; ‘ Loop 's Pride,’ much less common, forms small rosettes that are almost black when well grown. Other forms are rarer still, very slow growing, and command extremely high prices.
The other sansevierias, rarely encountered in the general nursery trade, exhibit a considerable diversity of forms and often a great deal more developed degree of succulent modification. Many species form tight rosettes, usually offsetting from close to the surface rhizomes. Of these, some remain quite small, with rosettes no more than four or five inches across, including Sansevieria subspicata, S. parva, or the relatively uncommon S. aethiopica. These three have relatively broad leaves with soft tips; others with this growth form, such as S. phillipsiae may have narrow leaves that end in very sharp points, and sometimes have rosettes over a foot in diameter. In nature these plants often cluster around the bases of acacia trees in the seasonally dry East African plains. Another growth form, typified by Sansevieria grandis, consists of rosettes made of broad, upward pointing, elongated leaves that ultimately take on the shape of a huge, openwork vase. A third form, including species such as Sansevieria stuckyi and S. cylindrica, sends out thickly terete (cylindrical) leaves that point upright several feet into the air. In other species the leaves are somewhat spoon shaped, broadening into ovals after a thin stem-like base, while still others make columns of distichous (two-ranked) leaves like pillars made of stacks of cow horns. These distichous species can become quite tall, or, as in the case of Sansevieria ehrenbergii or S. robusta, the individual leaves will become large and massive, the adult plant looking like a many fingered, outspread hand or an open fan.
A further odd feature of many sansevierias is that immature plants may look entirely distinct from adult forms. A good example of this is the species formerly called Sansevieria singularis, now S. fischeri. When young the plants make clusters of rosettes of thick, downward curving, channeled leaves of an interesting, mottled green color. A plant with multiple rosettes may be quite large and seem full grown, but at some point the growths will change to erect single leaves only, and a mature specimen will consist of a number of these very thick, very large leaves, up to several feet tall, protruding out of the ground with no sign of the rosettes from which they began.
Vaguely similar in appearance, though never forming rosettes, is Sansevieria hallii, introduced as Sansevieria ‘Baseball Bat.’ These plants consist of several individual leaves, connected by an underground rhizome and looking more like a baseball bat sawed down the middle than a cylinder, slowly poking their way into the air. Another unusual species, S. pinguicula, from Kenya, slowly makes clumps of pointed, very thick leaves that resemble a choice miniature Agave, except that the rosettes tend to become airborne, raised up by clusters of thickened roots. Sansevieria kirkii var. pulchra, with elongated, upright growing leaves, has a striking pattern of mottled cross-hatchings, and in the best clones is a mixture of pink and gray with hardly a trace of green to be seen. Still rare and coveted, S. eilensis, from Somalia, produces occasional upright leaves about the size and shape of a finger from its subsurface rhizome, while the plant known as S. horwoodii (called by some Sansevieria ‘Horwood’ and possibly a form of S.forskaliana,), has flattened leaves of great thickness, giving it, too, an extremely distinctive look.
Many sansevierias are close to indestructible. They will tolerate much lower light than other succulents, or almost any other plants. They will survive with almost any soil mix, and endure neglect and abuse without complaint. Under ideal conditions they should receive a little morning sunlight or bright indirect light, water about once a week--less often (every three weeks or so) in winter--and will thrive slowly in either a standard succulent mix or a slightly richer soil. A few are touchier. Sansevieria pinguicula will rot if water remains in its rosettes; it also will do better with slightly leaner soil and somewhat brighter light. S.eilensis can be quite difficult to grow, and some people keep it in beds heated by electric cables to keep it from rotting off.
All in all, Sansevieria is an interesting genus, with plants ranging from ones you can't kill, to ones you can't find, or can barely keep alive in ideal circumstances. The Garden has a good collection of the plants (several on display in the Arid House), with a number of unidentified species, many from Kenya . We always have some to sell at sales, often located in the shade under the tables.
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)