(TPF) which are made up of sod producers, and they’d each have three-year rotating terms.
As it stands now, the proposed sod checkoff program could raise as much as $14 million or more annually to fund research and promotion of natural grass. Tese funds would be raised through an assessment of 1/10th
of one penny per
square foot of sod sold and would be submitted to the sod checkoff quarterly. All information obtained from books, records, or reports would be kept confidential. It would not be available to Board members, or Natural Grass Sod Producers, and only those persons having a specific need for such information solely to effectively administer the program would have access to such information. Tis has been a question that has come up at various meetings, and it has been reassuring to many that the 1996 Act contains strict guidelines on confidentiality.
Another question that often comes up is, “Can producers pass this assessment on to their customers?” And the answer is yes. In doing so, it becomes a small price for each individual customer. Te associations that represent these customers strongly support the checkoff program and are willing to communicate it to their industries. Tey feel the same pain we do when lawns and other green spaces come under attack, and they understand that any program that promotes natural grass also benefits the industries whose jobs rely on it.
Two recent changes to the proposed checkoff that have come up at various meetings revolve around the idea of board seats and research/promotion dollars. As a result, in December of 2022, we proposed new language to the USDA that would 1) allow the three highest-producing states to have first right of refusal at a board seat and 2) would direct 50 percent of all funds raised in a state, minus administrative costs, to be set aside for funding research and promotion in that state. Additional language around Qualifying Organizations lays the framework for state associations such as TPF to be in charge of directing state funds.
So what are the next steps? We have passed several of the key milestones to this point and continue to work through the appropriate steps at USDA. As it stands now, we are still awaiting final approval to open the 60-day public comment period. Once that happens, our industry (and anyone else for that matter) will have the opportunity to
TPI Turf News July/August 2023
provide public comment on the proposed checkoff. Once that public comment period closes, the USDA will then have to review and compile all the comments, and provide responses to each of them, before announcing the details and date of the referendum, of which there will be plenty of notification. For example, the most recent checkoff to come up for a vote was the Concrete Masonry Products Research and Promotion Order, and there were around 17 months between the time the public comment period opened and the voting period closed. So, it is sufficient to say that the voting period shouldn’t sneak up on anyone, and we will do our best to make sure everyone is fully aware of it as soon as it is announced.
Can checkoffs be effective at changing the narrative of an agricultural product? Absolutely. Just look no further than beef, dairy, eggs, almonds, and others who have funded research to tell their story and then packaged it in meaningful, widespread marketing to consumers (Figure 1). Scientists used to say red meat is bad, but now, maybe not so. Butter and eggs used to be the enemy, but new scientific research shows differently. Te almond industry funded research to produce an FDA heart-healthy claim and demand has tripled in the last 20 years. All these stories share the same formula. Fund the research, package it, and market it to consumers in a way that changes the narrative in favor of producers. For more information about the sod checkoff, to see webinars, and to stay up to date on the latest details please visit
www.SodCheckoff.org.
Casey Reynolds, PhD, is executive director of Turfgrass Producers International.
75
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100
