Grower-backed promo boards abound

Industry-supported marketing programs for agricultural crops, overseen by the state or federal government, are very popular in California. Sixty-three such programs covered $21.18 billion or two-thirds of the total value of the state's agricultural output in 2004.

A recent study by the University of California indicates that these marketing orders, marketing agreements, commodity commissions and councils and national check-off programs are likely to continue going strong into the 21st century.

Annual assessments by the state's agricultural producers to maintain the marketing programs totaled $226 million or more in 2004-05. The funds are collected with enforcement based on the police and taxing powers of government, but only after farmer-producers have approved the assessments by wide majorities.

Where opposition exists to the programs, it is usually based on the government's involvement, the mandated aspect of the program, or the direction taken by promotional activities. Some producers who have opposed the programs feel they can gain more by using the amount of their assessments to conduct their own advertising and promotional programs.

While promotion is the largest share of what their assessments support, some of the programs do no promoting at all, channeling funds to inspection, research or quality control activities.

In the past 25 years, challenges to a few of the pro-grams by producers have resulted in lawsuits that have gone all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. However, all but one of the cases, the one covering the mushroom industry, have been rejected, allowing the mandates to continue.

This year, the California Pistachio Commission ceased to exist after a major producer sued, challenging the balance of voting power as specified in the organization's by-laws. A replacement association of growers is being formulated, and the federal marketing order remains.

Professor Emeritus of Agricultural and Resource Economics Hoy Carman, author of the university study, reported in the university's magazine California Agriculture for October-December, that expenditures by the mandated programs has increased sharply. They spent $71.35 million in 1985, but more than $226 million in 2004-05. Slightly more that $154 million of that was invested in promotion, while administration, research and inspection services accounted for the rest.

A significant increase in the amount the programs invested in research helped advance the total expenditures. In 1992, 28 of the programs spent $8.5 million for research, but that total reached more than $25 million in 2004-05, with 48 of the programs supporting some level of research.

The early research projects dealt with the development of new varieties, insect and pest management, irrigation, disease control, pollination, harvest methods and machinery, crop management and post-harvest quality control. Recent emphasis has favored nutrition and health research.

The three programs that have embraced the health and nutrition goals enthusiastically are the leafy greens marketing agreement and the federal marketing orders for almonds and pistachios.

The big spenders of farmers money are the three milk programs - manufacturing, market and fluid - at more than $62 million annually, followed by avocados at $19.4 million, table grapes at slightly more than $14 million and walnuts at a little more than $11 million, all in the 2004-05 year.

The mandated programs have proven their worth, and they seem primed to continue their investments in better products, better methods to produce them and better ways to communicate with consumers as they market their bounty.

Don Curlee is an ag writer based in Clovis. His column appears biweekly. E-mail him at agwriter1@sbcglobal.net