Issue link: http://read.dmtmag.com/i/34759
We’ve got varieties from A through Z. AtProTree Nurseries we plantawide variety oftrees eachyear and graftalong listof different variety/stock combinations. We have a great selection of high-quality apple and cherry trees available and we don’toversell.Ifyouare looking for avariety you can’t find anywhere else, call ProTree Nurseries today. The following apple varieties are available on B-⁄⁄8, BUD-·, EMLA-‡, EMLA-¤6, EMLA-⁄‚6, EMLA-⁄⁄⁄, G-‹‚, M-· (T-‹‹‡), NIC® -¤·, or Supporter ›. t Autumn Rose™ Fuji (USPP applied for) t Banning Red Fuji (USPP ⁄6,6¤› P¤) t BeniShogun (USPP ‡··‡) t Blondee™ (USPP ⁄·,‚‚‡McLaughlin cv) t Brookfield® (USPP ⁄‚‚⁄6) t Buckeye® (USPP ⁄‚8›‚) Gala Gala t Chrisolyn® (USPP ¤⁄,‹‚‚) t Crimson Gold Crab t Desert Rose™Fuji (USPP applied for) t FrettinghamCrab t Golden Delicious t Granny Smith t Hilwell Braeburn (USPP ‡∞¤6) t Honeycrisp™ (USPP ‡⁄·‡) t Indian Summer Crab t Joburn™ Braeburn (USPP ⁄⁄··¤) t JonaStar Jonagold™ (USPP ¤‚∞·‚) t LindaMac® (USPP ⁄¤,·‚‚) t Manchurian Crab t Midnight Red Spur™ (serial ‡›/›∞°,‡‹‚) t Pacific Gala® (USPP ·68⁄) Nowtakingcontractordersfor¤‚⁄3! Callustoday! Wecanaccommodateyour customordernowfor2013trees. Don’tseethevarietyyouwantlistedhere? These cherry varieties; Benton™, Bing, Black Tart, Brooks™, Chelan™, Coral Champagne, Cristalina™, Lapins, Rainier, Selah™, Skeena™, Sweetheart™, Tieton™, Tulare™, and Vans are also available on Colt, Gisela® ,Mahaleb,or Mazzard.* *Not all varieties are available on all rootstocks. Call for specific grafting information. t Pearleaf Crab t Rising Sun Fuji® t Ruby Jon(USPP ⁄‚⁄⁄∞) t Select Spur Delicious™ t September Wonder™ Fuji (USPP ⁄⁄⁄·‹) t Simpson Crab t Snowdrift Crab t Torres Fuji™ (USPP applied for) t Ultima™ Gala (USPP ⁄‹‡∞‹ P¤) t Zestar!™ (USPP ⁄⁄‹6‡) objectives was to convince her that a program needs to be set up in the 2012 Farm Bill that would establish a pool of money to fund research on the mitigation of insects, diseases, and invasive species on an emergency basis—something that earmarks were able to do. “It would be the easiest and quickest way,” Drake said. Ryan Findley, Michigan Farm Bureau’s national legislative counsel, said the elimination of earmarks might mean that commodity organiza- tions will have to pony up money when these kinds of emergencies occur. “We’re at a turning point right now,” Findley said, noting that no other provisions are in place, other than earmarks, to deal with emergencies. Most farm organizations, like Farm Bureau, defend specific earmarks while believing that the earmarking process overall is abusive and needs to be reformed. In fact, the 2008 Farm Bill put some reforms in place. A com- petitive grant structure was implemented for the newly created Specialty Crops Research Initiative. Research dol- lars were allocated for specialty crops and a process was put in place for winning those dollars. Findley notes that the competitive structure “is great if “We’re at a turning point right you win,” but if you’re late in the grant cycle or can’t win support from peer project reviewers, there’s no way to get money. Both the brown marmorated stinkbug and spotted wing drosophila showed up in Michigan last year, and Michigan researchers missed out on money to respond to it. Why earmarks? It is not clear why earmarks became a way of doing business in Con- gress, and why earmarks persist year after year for some projects, like fire- blight. While the fireblight problem is certainly long-term, a continually renewed earmark seems an odd approach. Marc Law, Joseph Tonon, and Gary Miller addressed this subject in academic papers published five years ago, one of them titled “Ear- marked: The Political Economy of Agricultural Research Appropriations” and another “The Strange Budgetary Politics of Agricultural Research Earmarks.” In these papers, they trace the earmarking process back to a law passed in 1965. They single out the U.S. Department of Agriculture as ear- mark-ridden, though to much less an extent than Defense and National Aeronautics and Space Administration, where projects costing billions of dollars may be funded by an earmark. Before the 2008 Farm Bill, only about 20 percent of USDA research dol- lars were allocated that way. Decisions about which research projects to fund were made by members of Congress through the earmarking process. The appropriations committees let the USDA know which projects should be funded through this system of “special grants.” Because earmarks deliver narrow benefits to specific constituents, they are a form of pork-barrel politics, say the authors, who are econo- mists and political scientists. By letting members of Congress make deci- sions about what research to fund, the role of scientific judgment is reduced. Opposition to earmarks has arisen from scientists, who question whether the best research proposals get funding, and from members of Congress who are not in special positions on allocation and appropria- tions committees and so are not able to share in the quid pro quo of “You support my earmark and I’ll support yours,” the authors say. Many members of Congress use earmarks as part of their reelection strategy. In general, U.S. presidents have opposed earmarks. As the writers of the papers explain, the president has a constituency of all the people, not just some. And earmarks made by Congress, the legislative body, must be carried out by the administration, the president’s executive branch of government. The authors trace the earmarking process at USDA to unintended consequences of PL 89-106, the law that appropriators invoke to fund earmarked special grants at the USDA. It was passed in 1965. “While this legislation was not intended to generate opportunities for political pork…once special grant authority arose, it created an incentive and an avenue for individual legislators to bring home narrowly defined benefits to their constituents at the cost of the population at large. This is in spite of intense pressure from the executive branch, members of the scientific community, agricultural stakeholders, and individual legislators.” In a phone interview with Good Fruit Grower, University of Vermont 8‚‚-6‹›-⁄6‡⁄ (Alison Clegg or Richard Chavez) 8‡‡-›∞‡-6·‚⁄ (HenrySanguinetti) Fax ·¤∞-6‹›-6‚›‚ 12 JULY 2011 GOOD FRUIT GROWER ‡›⁄ Sunset Road, Brentwood, CA ·›∞⁄‹ economist Marc Law, one of the authors, said he thought the recent uproar over earmarks that led to their demise was dictated by the fiscal situation and the election of new members wanting to do something about it. In agriculture, he said, the use of block grants to land-grant institu- tions, plus competitive grants, like those through the Specialty Crop Research Initiative, should be able to address problems without the need for special grants like earmarks. While earmarks are not politically feasible right now, he said, it’s too early to say that the earmarking process is gone for good. • www.goodfruit.com now.” —Ryan Findley