Tag: mpl

November 20, 2006 General Ag News and Notes

Hawaii Agricultural Labor

Hawaii?s agricultural hired work force totaled 7,000 during the October 8-14 2006 survey week, 3 percent more than a year ago, but unchanged from the previous survey week of July 9-15, 2006. Diversified agricultural workers accounted for 77 percent of all farm labor and at 5,400 workers, it was up 1 percent from July 2006. The sugarcane industry employed 650 farm workers (does not include mill workers) during the survey week, unchanged from July 2006. Farm workers in the pineapple industry decreased 5 percent from the previous quarter to 950 (does not include cannery workers).

Average wage rate up 6 percent

The average wage paid to all hired workers during the October survey period was a record high $12.47 an hour, 74 cents more than October 2005. The combined average wage for field and livestock workers also set a new record high at $10.69 an hour, 51 cents above a year ago.

Farms employing from 1 to 9 workers paid an average of $11.16 per hour for all hired workers, while the combined average wage for field and livestock workers was $9.78 an hour.

Full Report Here
http://www.nass.usda.gov/hi/speccrop/aglabor.pdf ?

November 14, 2006 Legislative Snippets

Hawaii Agriculture Employee Definitons

?387-1 Definitions. As used in this chapter:

?Agriculture? means agriculture as defined in section 3(f) of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, or as the same may be amended from time to time.

?Department? means the department of labor and industrial relations.

?Director? means the director of labor and industrial relations.

?Employ? includes to permit or suffer to work.

?Employee? includes any individual employed by an employer, but shall not include any individual employed:

(1) At a guaranteed compensation totaling $2,000 or more a month, whether paid weekly, biweekly, or monthly;

(2) In agriculture for any workweek in which the employer of the individual employs less than twenty employees or in agriculture for any workweek in which the individual is engaged in coffee harvesting;

Electronic File Date: 11/14/2006

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol07_Ch0346-0398/HRS0387/HRS_0387-0001.htm

November 14, 2006 Legislative Snippets

Hawaii-grown roasted or instant coffee; labeling requirements

?486-120.6 Hawaii-grown roasted or instant coffee; labeling requirements.
Electronic File Date: 11/14/2006
(a) In addition to all other labeling requirements, the identity statement used for labeling or advertising roasted or instant coffee produced in whole or in part from Hawaii-grown green coffee beans shall meet the following requirements:

(1) For roasted or instant coffee that contains one hundred per cent Hawaii-grown coffee by weight the identity statement shall consist of either:

(A) The geographic origin of the Hawaii-grown coffee, in coffee consisting of beans from only one geographic origin, followed by the word ?Coffee?; provided that the geographic origin may be immediately preceded by the term ?100%?; or

(B) The per cent coffee by weight of one of the Hawaii-grown coffees, used in coffee consisting of beans from several geographic origins, followed by the geographic origin of the weight-specified coffee and the terms ?Coffee? and ?All Hawaiian?;

(2) For roasted or instant coffee consisting of a blend of one or more Hawaii-grown coffees and coffee not grown in Hawaii, the per cent coffee by weight of one of the Hawaii-grown coffees used in the blend, followed by the geographic origin of the weight-specified coffee and the term ?Coffee Blend?; and

(3) Each word or character in the identity statement shall be of the same type size and shall be contiguous. The smallest letter or character of the identity statement on packages of sixteen ounces or less net weight shall be at least one and one-half times the type size required under federal law for the statement of net weight or three-sixteenths of an inch in height, whichever is smaller. The smallest letter or character of the identity statement on packages of greater than sixteen ounces net weight shall be at least one and one-half times the type size required under federal law for the statement of net weight. The identity statement shall be conspicuously displayed without any intervening material in a position above the statement of net weight. Upper and lower case letters may be used interchangeably in the identity statement.

(b) A listing of the geographic origins of the various Hawaii-grown coffees and the regional origins of the various coffees not grown in Hawaii that are included in a blend may be shown on the label. If used, this list shall consist of the term ?Contains:?, followed by, in descending order of per cent by weight and separated by commas, the respective geographic origin or regional origin of the various coffees in the blend that the manufacturer chooses to list. Each geographic origin or regional origin may be preceded by the per cent of coffee by weight represented by that geographic origin or regional origin, expressed as a number followed by the per cent sign. The type size used for this list shall not exceed half that of the identity statement. This list shall appear below the identity statement, if included on the front panel of the label.

(c) It shall be a violation of this section:

(1) To use the identity statement specified in subsection (a)(1)(A) or similar terms in labeling or advertising unless the package of roasted or instant coffee contains one hundred per cent coffee from that one geographic origin;

(2) To use a geographic origin in labeling or advertising, including in conjunction with a coffee style or in any other manner, if the roasted or instant coffee contains less than ten per cent coffee by weight from that geographic origin;

(3) To use a geographic origin in advertising roasted or instant coffee, including advertising in conjunction with a coffee style or in any other manner, without disclosing the percentage of coffee used from that geographic origin as described in subsection (a)(1)(B) and [(a)](2);

(4) To use a geographic origin in labeling or advertising roasted or instant coffee, including in conjunction with a coffee style or in any other manner, if the green coffee beans used in that roasted or instant coffee do not meet the grade standard requirements of rules adopted under chapter 147;

(5) To misrepresent, on a label or in advertising of a roasted or instant coffee, the per cent coffee by weight of any coffee from a geographic origin or regional origin; or

(6) To use the term ?All Hawaiian? on a label or in advertising of a roasted or instant coffee if the roasted or instant coffee is not produced entirely from green coffee beans produced in geographic origins defined in this chapter.

(d) Roasters, manufacturers, or other persons who package roasted or instant coffee covered by this section shall maintain, for a period of two years, records on the volume and geographic origin or regional origin of coffees purchased and sold and any other records required by the department for the purpose of enforcing this section. Authorized employees of the department shall have access to these records during normal business hours.

(e) For the purpose of this section:

?Geographic origin? means the geographic regions in which Hawaii-grown green coffee beans are produced, as defined in rules adopted under chapter 147; provided that the term ?Hawaiian? may be substituted for the geographic origin ?Hawaii?.

?Per cent coffee by weight? means the percentage calculated by dividing the weight in pounds of roasted green coffee beans of one geographic or regional origin used in a production run of roasted or instant coffee, by the total weight in pounds of the roasted green coffee beans used in that production run of roasted or instant coffee, and multiplying the quotient by one hundred. [L 1991, c 289, ?2; am L 1995, c 103, ?1; am L 2002, c 258, ?1]

?486-121 Misrepresentation of quantity. No person shall:

(1) Sell, offer, or expose for sale less than the quantity -represented;

(2) Take any more than the quantity represented when the buyer furnishes the weight or measure by means of which the quantity is determined; or

(3) Represent the quantity in any manner calculated to mislead or in any way deceive another person. [L 1991, c 153, pt of ?6; am L 1993, c 54, ?12]

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol11_Ch0476-0490/HRS0486/HRS_0486-0120_0006.htm

February 16, 2006 'Awa (Kava Kava)

Fiji Times–New research in Scotland and Luxembourg has found that kava is a cure for two types of cancers.

RESEARCHERS who discovered that kava is a cure for two types of cancer should convince Europe to lift its ban, says Agriculture Minister Ilaitia Tuisese. He was commenting on the research findings of the University of Aberdeen in Scotland and the Laboratoire de Biologie Moleculaire du Cancer, a medical school in Luxembourgh which found that kava compounds inhibit the activation of a nuclear factor important in the production of cancer cells.

“It’s good news but there’s a ban in the European market and right now we can’t look forward to speeding up on the yaqona (kava) production,” Mr Tuisese said.

“Perhaps they (researchers) can help us convince the European market and assist in lifting the ban. The latest findings confirm what people have been saying all along that kava was not harmful to health.”

Read Complete Article Here

October 18, 2004 Ag Tourism

Hawaii’s ag-tourism valued at $33.9 million in 2003

NASS
Hawaii Agricultural Statistics
Fact finding for agriculture

HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
1428 S. KING STREET
HONOLULU, HI 96814-2512
(808) 973-9588
FAX: (808) 973-2909
 picture of State
Hawaii Ag-Tourism Released: October 18, 2004

Hawaii’s ag-tourism valued at $33.9 million in 2003

The value of Hawaii’s ag-tourism related activities (see definition below) is pegged at $33.9 million for 2003, up 30 percent from the $26.0 million generated in 2000. There were 187 farms Statewide that had ag-tourism related income during 2003, a 48 percent increase from 2000 as more farmers in Hawaii have opened-up their operations to the public; exposing visitors to the farm experience. Interest in ag-tourism appears to be strong as an additional 145 farms either started ag-tourism activities in 2004, or planned to in the future.The distribution of ag-tourism throughout the State has become more concentrated during the past four years as Hawaii county now accounts for 48 percent of the farms with ag-tourism and 37 percent of the total value. Maui county accounted for 23 percent of the farms and 20 percent of the value. Honolulu county had 16 percent of the farms and 25 percent of the value while Kauai county accounted for the remaining 13 percent of the farms and saw a boost in value to 18 percent of the total.?

County Total farms Farms with
ag-tourism activity		 Value of
ag-tourism
($1,000)		 Farms intending
to conduct ag-tourism
activities in the future
2000 2003 2000 2003 2000 2003 2000 2003
Hawaii 3,300 3,300 60 89 8,875 12,562 47 65
Honolulu 900 900 19 31 7,777 8,586 15 23
Kauai 500 500 16 24 2,103 5,949 6 20
Maui 800 800 31 43 7,288 6,772 16 37
State 5,500 5,500 126 187 26,043 33,869 84 145

Ag-tourism is a commercial enterprise on a working farm conducted for the enjoyment, education, and/or active involvement of the visitor, generating supplemental income for the farm. Activities such as producing and selling products directly from the farm, operating a bed and breakfast, conducting educational farm tours, offering horseback riding, festivals, concerts, and many other on-farm activities qualify as ag-tourism.

Hawaii and Kauai counties show big gains
Compared to four years ago, the county of Hawaii increased the value of ag-tourism by 42 percent, the second largest gain among all counties. A 48 percent increase in the number of farms with ag-tourism activity contributed to Hawaii county’s rise in value. Honolulu county saw a 63 percent increase in farms with ag-tourism and an increase in value of 10 percent. Kauai county registered the largest percentage increase by nearly tripling its ag-tourism value to $5.9 million in 2003. Maui county registered the only decline in the State during this 4-year period as receipts from ag-tourism decreased from $7.3 million in 2000 to $6.8 million in 2003, a 7 percent decline.Large operations generate most of ag-tourism’s value
Farms of all sizes conducted ag-tourism activities during 2003. These ag-tourism farms ranged from those with total farm sales of less than $2,500 a year to those well over $1 million per year. Large operations ($250,000 or more in total annual farm sales), however, accounted for most of the dollar value of ag-tourism. The top 20 percent of all farms with ag-tourism generated 91 percent of the total revenue.?

Although only approximately 3 percent of all Hawaii’s farms engaged in ag-tourism during 2003, the 48 percent increase in the number of ag-tourism operations between 2000 and 2003 is evidence that many see this as an opportunity to supplement their income and manage the risks inherent in farming.

Total value of
all farm sales		 Total number
of farms 1/		 Number of farms
with ag-tourism		 Value of
ag-tourism
($1,000)		 Average value of
ag-tourism per farm
(Dollars)
Less than $2,500 1,402 49 44 898
$2,500 to $4,999 715 4 14 3,616
$5,000 to $9,999 914 15 108 7,182
$10,000 to $24,999 1,060 21 188 8,934
$25,000 to $49,999 506 22 416 18,891
$50,000 to $249,999 563 38 2,447 64,395
$250,000 to $499,999 105 7 1,298 185,429
$500,000 to $999,999 62 8 3,218 402,250
$1,000,000 or more 71 23 26,137 1,136,376
State Total 5,398 187 33,869 181,115

1/ 2002 Census of Agriculture.

Sale of farm products leading source of ag-tourism income
Revenue from ag-tourism, which includes many various activities, was broken down into several categories. On-farm sales direct to farm visitors was the leading category, with $13.5 million, followed by retail sales (products from other farms or souvenir items), outdoor recreation, accommodations (bed and breakfast, meeting rooms, etc.), education, entertainment, and others.

?

Item Type of ag-tourism activity Totals 3/
Outdoor recreation Educational tourism On-farm
sales		 Retail
sales 1/		 Accommo-
dations 2/		 Entertain-
ment		 Other
Farms ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
2000 28 30 83 29 27 8 8 126
2003 34 30 103 38 33 8 6 187
Value ($1,000) ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
2000 5,875 353 8,444 6,700 2,252 775 1,644 26,043
2003 5,019 1,177 13,479 9,083 2,490 1,061 1,560 33,869

1/ Products from other farms or souvenir items. 2/ Bed and breakfast, meeting rooms, etc. 3/ Unduplicated total number of farms.

Most ag-tourism operations plan to maintain or expand activities in the future
Seventy-nine percent of all ag-tourism operations in 2003 were planning to maintain or expand their operations in the future. Only 4 percent, or 8 farms, of the total indicated that they will discontinue or reduce their ag-tourism activities in the future. The 2003 Ag-tourism survey also showed that flower and/or nursery operations remained the most popular type of ag-tourism operation. Coffee and fruit farms were tied at a distant second.

?

Year Future ag-tourism plans Total
Expand ag-tourism activities Remain at
current level		 Discontinue or reduce
ag-tourism activities		 Uncertain
? Number of ag-tourism farms
2000 60 41 7 18 126
2003 61 86 8 32 187
Year Type of farm 1/ Total
Fruit Vegetable Coffee Macadamia
nut		 Flower/ Nursery Livestock Other
? Number of ag-tourism farms
2000 12 8 25 5 35 30 11 126
2003 30 18 30 14 38 26 31 187

1/ A predominate commodity was designated for farms reporting more than one commodity.

Additional features of Hawaii’s 2003 ag-tourism industry

– Busiest time of the year. . .slightly more than half, 51 percent, of the operations that reported ag- tourism activity in 2003 said that business was the same year round. Of the remaining responses, winter and summer were identified as the most significant peak periods, at 22 percent and 21 percent, respectively. Spring came in at 4 percent and fall at 2 percent.- Where do ag-tourism visitors come from?. . .mainland visitors constituted the highest percentage of ag-tourism visitors, at 53 percent, followed by Hawaii residents at 35 percent, and international visitors at 12 percent.?

– Problems faced by ag-tourism operators. . .farmers were asked to rank problems or obstacles they faced in start-up or operation of ag-tourism activities. Funding was ranked as the number one problem, followed by conflicts/interference with on-going farm activities. Marketing was the third most common problem, and liability issues and insurance was fourth. Other problems ranking in order were zoning restrictions, labor, building permits, signage restrictions and community/cultural oppositions.

– Point of sale…many operations received orders for products related to ag-tourism after the visitors returned home. Out of these, 74 percent of operations reported 0-25 percent of their sales from off-site orders, 21 percent of operations reported 26 to 50 percent, and 5 percent said that over 50 percent of their ag-tourism related sales came from off-site orders.

The Hawaii Agricultural Statistics office conducted a special survey of Hawaii’s farmers to obtain the results used in this report. We appreciate the cooperation of Hawaii’s agricultural producers who completed the survey questionnaire. A special note of thanks goes to the Agricultural Development Division of the Hawaii Department of Agriculture and the University of Hawaii’s College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources for their support on this project.

?