But members of the Michigan Processing Apple Growers Marketing Committee say business might not be so rotten if apple growers were offered assistance similar to corn, soybean and other non-specialty producers.

The committee, which is an arm of Michigan Farm Bureau's Michigan Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Association, will present ideas for aid at the Michigan Farm Bureau annual meeting Dec. 5-8 in Traverse City.

The group plans to outline possible remedies - including new or enhanced policies and "aggressive action" on existing Farm Bureau policies - during Tuesday's open session of the state Policy Development Committee.

The Policy Development Committee will decide whether to make the growers' suggestions part of its recommendations for policies that should be approved at delegation sessions. Farm Bureau delegates will vote on organizational policies Wednesday through Friday.

The state presentation also will prepare the committee for a Dec. 9 American Farm Bureau special meeting in Chicago. Representatives from 13 apple-producing states are expected to discuss policy options and develop a plan for addressing apple growers' concerns.

Tom Butler, Michigan Processing Apple Growers manager, said the committee's pleas are a first for the group and are in response to market prices that hover below producers' costs and state fire blight losses estimated at more than $100 million. Fire blight is a bacterial tree disease that became an epidemic in Michigan this year.

In the past, the apple industry has not "been part of the farm program to be eligible for market loss assistance programs and disaster assistance programs that other crops have been eligible for," said Butler.

"There needs to be a program in place to take care of this when it happens. Otherwise, our producers are going to be out of business. It's that simple," he said. "Michigan is very vulnerable to the wipeout of the apple industry from fire blight, and we have to do everything we can to assist the growers."

Added Butler: "Certain things were talked about in the past .... but nothing like this that's zeroing in on helping out the apple industry. ... We're saying, 'Let's pay attention to the apple industry and make them part of mainstream agriculture rather than just a special little sideline over here.'"

Ken Nye, Michigan Farm Bureau horticultural and forestry specialist, emphasized proposed improvements to federal tree and market loss assistance programs as key issues.

Tree assistance, which helps cover costs to remove and replace trees damaged by natural causes, is not guaranteed or funded annually and caps assistance at $25,000 per grower, Nye said. The committee wants the program made permanent and funded annually, and its payment limitations lifted.

"The program has not proven to be very successful," said Nye. "In the case of the fire blight problem, we have growers who are going to lose up to $1 million. (Current tree assistance) just doesn't take care of the severe problems that can occur."

The market loss assistance program offers apple growers financial help for 1999-2000, but producers want the assistance available to them on a continual basis, as done for corn, wheat and soybean farmers, Nye said.

Among existing Michigan Farm Bureau policies, Butler said it is crucial that "aggressive" action be taken to: develop a permanent disaster program that covers fire blight and offers unlimited payments; enhance inspection and testing of imported apples and apple products; and enact national marketing and bargaining legislation, particularly for processed products.

The committee also proposes:

• Continued funding for fire blight and post-harvest apple research at Michigan State University
• Rapid relief from subsidized or dumped imports
• Development of a guaranteed loan program administered through local lenders
• Increased federal purchases of apples and apple products for school lunch and other food programs
• Full funding of the Michigan Orchard and Vineyard Removal Program
• "Aggressive" action on existing Michigan Farm Bureau policies regarding: full enforcement of country-of-origin labeling, creation of an improved guestworker program, Michigan Department of Agriculture's enforcement of the state Agricultural Bargaining Act, and development of a national apple marketing program by American Farm Bureau Federation's marketing affiliate.

In the meantime, Sarah Black, Michigan Farm Bureau associate national legislative counsel, wrote the federal Farm Service Agency and Michigan's congressional delegation, urging for the swift creation of program rules to disperse $100 million in market loss and $38 million in quality loss payments to the state's apple producers.

"Michigan Farm Bureau encourages you to take any and all steps that will help facilitate a timely and quick disbursement of this much-needed disaster assistance," Black wrote. "We cannot leave the growers hanging until next spring simply because of delays in the regulatory process of getting the payments out."

The timing is critical, she said, because growers now must determine whether they will be able to continue their operations.

"Currently, growers are unable to begin that process because they are unsure of whether the money coming will be sufficient to allow them to replace their trees and continue farming," said Black. "Those orchards that have been devastated will take at least four years to bring back into production.

"These farmers are faced with not only crop loss from this year, but also tree removal and replanting costs, and four years of no revenue."

MAEAP, to be officially launched at Farm Bureau's 81st annual meeting in Traverse City, comes just about a week before the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)is expected to make its own proposal for controlling animal waste in the form of regulations MAEAP sponsors call burdensome and unnecessary.

MAEAP co-partners are the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), Michigan Department of Agriculture (MDA), the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Michigan State University and Michigan State University Extension.

The EPA on Dec. 15 plans to propose regulations that would require Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) to have National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, according to Scott Piggott, Michigan Farm Bureau's natural resources and Right-to-Farm specialist.

The action, said Piggott, is EPA's response to concerns that the DEQ has not adequately enforced the federal Clean Water Act and the act's provisions to keep animal discharges from contaminating waterways.

EPA's proposed regulations would change CAFO classifications so that a livestock farm with as few as 300 animals could have to obtain an NPDES permit to operate - even if there is no waste discharge. Currently, CAFOs are designated as farms with 1,000 or more animal units - about 1,000 beef or 700 dairy cattle.

Among other things, EPA's proposed regulations also suggest eliminating provisions that forgive CAFO discharges caused by uncontrollable weather events, such as heavy rains that overflow a manure management system.

Farm Bureau and MAEAP co-sponsors, however, argue that NPDES permits are unnecessary because the state already has a zero-discharge standard in place for farmers. Additionally, opponents say the complex NPDES permits are designed for massive operations that intend to discharge and could become an economic burden for the state's small- to medium-sized farms, where potential discharges pose little environmental threat.

MAEAP sponsors say their plan, developed over the past two years, better suits farmers and the state's environmental well-being because it calls for educational workshops for producers, on-site farm evaluations by a third party, and a slew of other resources and incentives to encourage environmental stewardship.

More importantly, at the heart of both the EPA's plan and MAEAP is the development of a customized Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan (CNMP) for individual farms, said Piggott. CNMPs detail how a farm manages manure, field crop nutrients and storm water runoff.

"You can choose your vehicle," said Piggott. Under the EPA model, "you can be forced into doing (a CNMP) and have to pay for doing it without support.

"Or you can do it voluntarily, have these incentives at your disposal and have all these entities pull together and support you in creating that plan" under the MAEAP strategy.

Both the EPA proposal and MAEAP will be outlined during a Farm Bureau educational session Dec. 7, during the MFB annual meeting. The session runs from 2 to 3:30 p.m. in Governors' Hall A of the Grand Traverse Resort.

The program will kick off with a brief update on the issues from federal, state and Farm Bureau levels.

A 45-minute panel discussion will challenge farmers to consider how the EPA's strategy would affect their operations. Panelists Vicki Pontz-Teachout of MDA, David Hamilton of DEQ, Arney Leder of EPA and Steve Davis of NRCS will pose questions, such as, "Do you know what a discharge is? Do you understand that you can't let cattle have access to a stream?"

The discussion will be followed with an overview of MAEAP and the signing of the partnership agreement.

"What the document states is: We believe in this program, and we are going to support it to the best of our abilities within the letter of the law," said Piggott.

"I think it's an excellent opportunity to show the people in the audience - plus the rest of the state - that we pose MAEAP as a solution, not as just some piece of paper. It can really help our members on their own farm."

Also supporting the agreement are several industry and environmental interest groups, including: Michigan Corn Growers Association, Michigan Pork Producers Association, Michigan Integrated Food and Farming Systems, Michigan Township Association, Michigan Land Use Institute, Michigan United Conservation Clubs, Michigan Cattlemen's Association, Michigan Association of Conservation Districts and Michigan Milk Producers Association.

MAEAP organizers will hold additional educational sessions in January and enroll farms in a pilot program throughout 2001. They hope to have 85 percent of the state's livestock production participating by 2005.

• Vicki Pontz-Teachout, director of MDA's Environmental Stewardship Division, (517) 373-1883
• David Hamilton, chief of DEQ's Surface Water Quality Division, (517) 335-4176
• Steve Davis, state conservation engineer for USDA NRCS, (517) 324-5232
• Arney Leder, EPA's senior program manager for the agency's Region Five office in Chicago, (312) 353-2000

The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Risk Management Agency recently expanded its Adjusted Gross Revenue (AGR) insurance plan, also known as whole farm revenue insurance, in response to input from several agricultural groups, said Ken Nye, Michigan Farm Bureau horticultural and forestry specialist.

The enhancements add Mason, Muskegon, Newaygo and Oceana counties to the program beginning in 2001. Presently, only Allegan, Berrien, Kent, Ottawa and Van Buren counties are eligible.

A key improvement, said Nye, is the inclusion of minor crops, such as cucumbers, that were not part of traditional crop insurance programs covering major commodities, such as corn or wheat. The change lets a farmer insure several different kinds of crops under one, convenient income protection plan.

"This is a workable plan for any size farm producing any commodity," said Nye. "It's a good fit for everyone, and it's good for the USDA, too, because it doesn't need to offer individual insurance for each minor crop."

Another significant change allows producers to protect against losses suffered as a result of price shifts.

"The beauty of this program is that, rather than provide just production protection, it covers the price of commodities," Nye said. "It doesn't matter if the loss came from production, prices or other perils. If something caused an income drop, it's insured."

Traditional crop insurance policies are based on yield and performance, said Mark Schwandt, field representative for American Farm Bureau Insurance Services in Michigan.

"This (AGR) is much more inclusive," he said. "It gives farmers a floating average so that no matter what causes the loss, they'll have some coverage based on the individual farm's experience, going back five years."

Farmers report their income from agricultural commodities based on Schedule F tax forms from the last five years. Incidental income is also included. Incidental income covers, for instance, the production value of crops fed to livestock instead of being sold.

Farmers, through a private insurance agent authorized to sell the plan, can choose three coverage programs under the proposed changes. Coverage is available with payment options of either 75 percent or 100 percent of the loss. To obtain higher levels, the farmer must meet preset guidelines, Schwandt said.

Also new in the plan, Schwandt said, is a provision that indexes expenses if tax returns from the past five years show an income increase each year. Previously, he said, the AGR plan indexed only income.

"That change was made because they found that to increase income, producers had to increase expenses," he said.

Loss payments are triggered when a farmer's adjusted gross income for the insured year is less than the loss inception point, which is calculated based on a formula that includes coverage chosen and approved gross revenue.

Schwandt said the cost for insuring a farm varies by operation, but another change this year will be to include farms that operate at more than one location as a single unit.

"Before, if a father and son farmed together, but each had individual farms, neither one was eligible," he said. "The fear was that it would be too difficult for them to separate production. But this year, as long as they provide different tax identification numbers and the partnership was in existence for at least five years, they will be allowed to be insured."

The plan is a culmination of Michigan Farm Bureau, Michigan State University and USDA efforts, Nye said. Michigan Farm Bureau members formed a focus group about three years ago to formulate the concept, MSU personnel fine-tuned the plan, and USDA developed a pilot program.

The closing date for program applications is Jan. 31, 2001.

Nominee James Bristol, of West Branch, owns a shearing business that annually shears about 20,000 sheep and handles more than 75,000 pounds of wool.

Fenton resident Bill Blake has been involved in the national lamb industry for years. He started as a meat cutter, became a salesman and marketer for lamb companies, and spent 25 years serving as regional marketing director for the American Lamb Council.

Contact: Ernie Birchmeier (800) 292-2680, ext. 2024

Graded and Preconditioned Calf sales will be held Nov. 25 in Battle Creek and Dec. 8 in St. Louis at Michigan Livestock Exchange (MLE) stockyards.

Sales start at 1 p.m. About 450 calves will be offered at the Battle Creek sale, and 750 at St. Louis.

"A lot of feedlot owners are reluctant to buy Michigan calves, but we are proving that the quality here is just as good as elsewhere," said Maury Kaercher, Michigan State University district livestock agent.

"In the long-run, it may be more economical to purchase locally grown, healthy calves rather than have them shipped hundreds of miles from other states."

Participating calves will be certified for having two sets of comprehensive vaccinations and will have been weaned at least 45 days. Calves will be weighed and graded upon arrival so that livestock of similar color, breed, weight, frame and muscle can be bought in consistent lots.

Kaercher said calves sold at prior sales had death rates less than 1 percent, and fewer than 15 percent had to be treated for illness contracted in the feedlot.

Calves sold last year, Kaercher said, averaged $5.70 more per hundredweight than calves sold in regular fall sales and earned producers an average $29.43 more per head.

For more information, call Kaercher at (616) 383-8830, or Kevin Gould at (616) 527-5357.

Contact: Ernie Birchmeier (800) 292-2680, ext. 2024

The grants are part of a three-year, $100 million assistance plan designed to help U.S. sheep and lamb farmers remain competitive while respecting international trade obligations.

The plan includes $30 million for direct cash payments for production practices and quality incentives that improve competitiveness. It also funds USDA lamb purchases and expanded scrapies eradication efforts.

In the latest round, grants were awarded to: the National Meat Association, American Lamb Council, Cornell University, Meat Export Federation, Iowa Lamb, Wolverine Packing Co., Dakota Lamb, Kansas State University, and Colorado State University in conjunction with Mountain States Lamb Cooperative.

Contact: Ernie Birchmeier (800) 292-2680, ext. 2024

The survey showed biotechnology remains acceptable to the majority of Americans as a means to improve farming practices and food quality.

More than half (53%) of all consumers interviewed had personally read or heard recent news about food products being recalled by their manufacturer. General awareness of agricultural biotechnology has also risen, with more than three-quarters of those interviewed reporting they had heard or read about this topic.

"These results show consumers continue to have confidence in the regulatory structure provided by government agencies like the FDA and EPA," said GMA President and CEO C. Manly Molpus. "In addition, swift action by responsible food manufacturers and retailers, taken even before the need for government intervention, has reinforced the strong and well-founded confidence consumers have in the U.S. food supply."

The survey found that only 10 percent of consumers worry a great deal that the foods they eat might not be safe. Almost two-thirds had little or no such concern. Consumers' main concerns remain those related to food that is not fresh or not handled in an appropriate manner. Their attention is focused on spoilage or bacterial contamination that can have immediate health effects.

Contact: Bob Boehm (800) 292-2680, ext. 2023

In ancient Rome, people hung decorative wreaths as a sign of victory. Legend has it, the hanging of the Christmas wreath was derived from this, denoting the victory of God over Satan with Jesus' birth into the world.

When an 18th century English candy maker set out to make a candy commemorating Christmas (during the time that Christmas celebrating was outlawed in England), the result was a candy cane representing a shepherd's staff and, upside down, a letter for Jesus. The original was made of white candy to represent purity with three red stripes for the Trinity and one large, red stripe for Jesus' blood. The flavor of today's candy is peppermint, which is similar to hyssop. Hyssop is in the mint family and was used in the Old Testament for purification and sacrifice.

Early Christians of Northern Europe decorated their homes and churches with an easily grown evergreen and called it "Holy Tree," which was shortened later to "Holly." The pointed green leaves represented the crown of thorns and the red berries represented the drops of blood at Jesus' crucifixion.

Ancient Celtic priests called Druids, around the New Year, would collect mistletoe from their holy oak tree and offer some as a sacrifice to the gods. Some would be hung up during a ceremony where people would stand under it and kiss, showing an end to their old grievances with each other. This later practice is still in existence.

Wassail means "be well" and originally referred to a ritual of saluting fruit trees in the dead of winter by sprinkling a mixture on the roots of select trees and wishing them good luck. The wassail mixture was usually of what was handy - like cider, apples and eggs. The wassail procession eventually left the orchards and became a strolling Christmas party with caroling, visiting different houses and spreading wishes of good cheer.

What would Christmas be without Grandma's famous Christmas cookie recipe? The word cookie originally came from the Dutch keokje, meaning "little cake." The Dutch first popularized cookies in the United States. The British took a liking to them in the 19th century, incorporating them into their daily tea service and calling them biscuits or sweet buns, as they do in Scotland.