Food prices in Russia

[Gator]

I'd say your suspicion is not well founded: the practice of using hormones (steroids in particular) to accelerate animal growth has long been banned for public-health reasons in the whole EC IINM, so it would make no sense to accept that sort of meat from elsewhere.

Yes, EU concluded that the American practice is a potential risk for human health.   In contrast, American regulatory bodies conclude it is not a significant risk. 

I have not (and will not) read the research on cancer risk.  Suffice it to say that America has a long history of this practice, so data are available and one would think that such research would contrast European consumers with American consumers. 

American regulatory bodies tend to prohibit any practice which increases cancer risk by one additional cancer per million exposures.  This is very, very small in comparison with the fact that 25% of Americans get cancer.  Assuming that the risk of American beef is at this threshold, it means consuming our beef at worse increases cancer risk from 25% to 25.0001%.   

I leave it to you to decide.  BTW, when visiting America did you refrain from eating beef?

[dbneeley]

American regulatory bodies tend to prohibit any practice which increases cancer risk by one additional cancer per million exposures.  This is very, very small in comparison with the fact that 25% of Americans get cancer.  Assuming that the risk of American beef is at this threshold, it means consuming our beef at worse increases cancer risk from 25% to 25.0001%. 

Gator,

Where in the *world* did you get the idea that "25% of Americans get cancer?" Sorry, but that is preposterous.

According to the Centers for Disease Control, the figure for 2007 (the first year I saw in a brief perusal) the official incidence rate of invasive cancer was 542 per 100,000 population. This means for that year the incidence was a hair over one half percent of the population.


David

[SANDRO43]

BTW, when visiting America did you refrain from eating beef?

No, I did not deem that an occasional, rather than habitual, exposure could be significantly harmful .

[JR]

Wonder how much the wheat crisis affected prices... although my wife says that the price rise started way before that.

It's called "The Futures Market." The prices of basic food products are set long before anything hits the grocery stores.

[JR]

Possum,

We just returned a couple weeks ago, and yes is quite disturbing to see that prices in RU for basic foodstuffs, meat, milk, veggies etc were equal to or considerably higher than those here in EU.  We're not talking Moscow either.  Higher level consumer items such as name brand appliances on the other hand were cheaper.  Doesn't make sense.

The sense comes from retailers figuring out that a family will most likely buy one big screen TV every few years but food every week)) Food is a weapon: point it at the heads of consumers and they'll pay.

[Shadow]

Do they have Spam in Russia ?   

Yrs and not only the edible type.

[GQBlues]

Yrs and not only the edible type.

Exactly. Aside from China, Russia is the spam capital of the world.

My in-laws tells us that prices in Novo is worst than prices in Moscow. They say it's a bit dishearthening to experience how these prices fluctuate so much from day to day. I'm sure that largely have to do with transportation.

[dbneeley]

Food prices all over the world have increased dramatically. It seems a combination of factors including poor harvests, plus the Federal Reserve monkeying with the money supply has cheapened the dollar, leading to higher commodity prices (most are valued in dollars for international trade purposes). Additionally, the absolutely insane ethanol subsidies in the U.S. have caused many farmers to plant corn for ethanol production rather than wheat, which has further exacerbated the problems with wheat supply and pricing.

Chalk the latter to up to the "law of unintended consequences."

David

[Gator]

Gator,

Where in the *world* did you get the idea that "25% of Americans get cancer?" Sorry, but that is preposterous.

According to the Centers for Disease Control, the figure for 2007 (the first year I saw in a brief perusal) the official incidence rate of invasive cancer was 542 per 100,000 population. This means for that year the incidence was a hair over one half percent of the population.

I did not specify, yet it would seem obvious that I was talking about lifetime (not annual) incidence of cancer.  My "25%" number was for death from cancer.  Actually, I did not recall correctly - The incidence reported by the American Cancer Society: 

Men
 Lifetime incidence of developing invasive cancer:  44%
 Lifetime incidence of dying from cancer:  23%

For women the incidence is lower, 38% and 20%.


http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CancerBasics/lifetime-probability-of-developing-or-dying-from-cancer

In case you are questioning my one per million regulatory guideline, I offer the following quote:

In the 1970s, the U.S. Food and Drug Agency (FDA) was the first agency to address this issue, adopting a risk level of 1-in-1-million (10-6) as the incremental cancer risk for carcinogenic residues in foods that was considered to be "essentially zero" (Kelly, 1991). The origin of this "essentially zero" risk level was purely arbitrary. Since then, the 10-6 risk level has become commonplace in the regulation and management of environmental contaminants, with the strongest endorsement coming from the U.S. EPA, which employs 10-6 as its primary risk benchmark for "acceptable" exposure to carcinogens within the general population.

Now do understand my point that the EU ban is a lot of nonsense?[/b]

[GQBlues]

Speaking of diet-related cancer risk/incidence, here's an article of cancer rate/developed country.

http://health.msn.com/health-topics/quit-smoking/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100269522&gt1=43001

It's not in the beef, it's in those delicious Danish pastries after all 

Curiously, I understand the apprehension for eating American beef by the health conscious European population, but mewonders why smoke so much, then? Same goes to Russia for banning US chicken exports.

They want to be diet-conscious just so they can die of lung and/or liver cancer?

[Gator]

GQ,

Good points.  Smoking tobacco exposes a person to both genotoxic and promoting carcinogens.   We are exposed constantly to trace chemicals in the workplace, environment and diet that have the ability to mutate healthy cells.  A vast majority of these exposures do not activate oncogenes.  And if it happens, cancer requires two changes in the same cell and almost always the  human body's  beautiful repair system will destroy transformed  cells.  However, frequent and high concentration exposures increase the odds that one transformation will pass our defense system.  Even then, a different type of exposure  is required to promote initiated cells into true cancer cells.  Becuase both the initiator and promoter are inhaled in the same breath,  smoking is indeed very risky, perhaps 100,000 times more risky than the growth hormones in beef, none of which are deemed Group A human carcinogens.

Red meat is not bad for you 
Fuzzy green meat is bad for you

[Maxx2]

This is all as a result of "Quantitive easing" and the devaluing of currencies for exports. We will all have to lower our standard of living.

[dbneeley]

This is all as a result of "Quantitive easing" and the devaluing of currencies for exports. We will all have to lower our standard of living.

Maxx,

As I pointed out earlier, this is indeed one factor, but not at all the sole one involved.

It is surprising to note the extent of the impact of ethanol subsidies have on the market--in the past several years, I understand the percentage of corn used for this purpose has gone from 9 per cent to 36 per cent. In addition, because of the high corn prices because of this foolish subsidy, many farmers have planted corn instead of wheat--adding to the pressure on the wheat market.

When you consider a rather poor grain harvest in many areas of the world, this additional lowering of supply has a magnified effect on grain prices generally. Price elasticity can become pronounced in that sort of situation--as we are seeing worldwide.

Some countries are now trying to pass laws prohibiting export of grains because they are worried about domestic shortages and large price rises--Moldova just did this, for example.

With grain price increases, too, other food prices increase. For example, in the U.S. roughly 60 percent or more of the grain production over the past twenty years has gone to animal feed. Average conversion ratios for beef, to give one example, mean that about five pounds of grain is fed to the animal to produce one pound of beef, if memory serves. Increase feed grain prices, then, and the cost of meat can not help but follow. (The pity is that grass fed beef is far healthier than grain fed beef...)

Then, add in increases in fuel prices. Modern farming is a fuel-intensive business, not to mention the costs of transportation adding to the availability and cost of foodstuffs in areas remote from where they are produced.

Therefore, to believe that it is "all" the result of quantitative easing is not correct, although that is definitely a factor.

David

[Maxx2]

Therefore, to believe that it is "all" the result of quantitative easing is not correct, although that is definitely a factor.

David

I agree with you now that you pointed that out. I fear that someday in the future quantitative easing will become the primary blame with no doubt about it. I see annual trillion dollar plus deficits as far as the eye can see. These with the unfunded entitlements numbering into the ten's of trillions of dollars can mean only two things for the future. Default by national, states, counties and cities by bankruptcy. Or the sly way of the printing press (quantitative easing) by keeping everything "afloat" with increasingly worthless dollars. For the former I understand Congress is considering changing the bankruptcy laws so as to allow the States to do this. The later is already happening I just do not know when the general public will wake up to the fact we are heading off a cliff. Probably when they have to choose between paying for food for their families or fuel to get to work. Or maybe when they start sleeping in their cars in the parking lot outside their work. With a shrinking economy on account of all of our jobs (a bit of an exaggeration I know) being offshored to China and ten thousand baby boomers retiring everyday I just do not see a sustainable economic future for America. 

[dbneeley]

I agree with you now that you pointed that out. I fear that someday in the future quantitative easing will become the primary blame with no doubt about it. I see annual trillion dollar plus deficits as far as the eye can see. These with the unfunded entitlements numbering into the ten's of trillions of dollars can mean only two things for the future. Default by national, states, counties and cities by bankruptcy. Or the sly way of the printing press (quantitative easing) by keeping everything "afloat" with increasingly worthless dollars. For the former I understand Congress is considering changing the bankruptcy laws so as to allow the States to do this. The later is already happening I just do not know when the general public will wake up to the fact we are heading off a cliff. Probably when they have to choose between paying for food for their families or fuel to get to work. Or maybe when they start sleeping in their cars in the parking lot outside their work. With a shrinking economy on account of all of our jobs (a bit of an exaggeration I know) being offshored to China and ten thousand baby boomers retiring everyday I just do not see a sustainable economic future for America. 

Maxx,

Although the situation is obviously both painful and very serious indeed, I am somewhat amused by the transformation you are going through. Am I not correct that not so long ago you were strongly in favor of "progressive" politics? It seems you are awakening to the fact that the conservatives have been correct all along, and that the rather insane policies of the past decades have created a fiscal catastrophe--on all levels of government.

The largest part of local and state debts lies at the feet of overly generous wage and benefits for government workers. There are unfunded liabilities in the trillions of dollars that there is no way to pay for. Politicians have given these out, often knowing that they were unsustainable over time but willing to leave the problems to future generations. The primary reason for extending bankruptcy to both state and local governments is to be able to abrogate those agreements. There will be enormous pain involved for millions of people, unfortunately.

(Both parties are liable for too much of this, unfortunately, although the most "progressive" "Blue" states seem to be by far in the worst shape.)

Add on the completely irresponsible way that Medicare and Medicaid have been handled, and the fact that the Social Security "trust fund" is a complete illusion, and the dimensions of the problem cannot be overstated. Then consider the additional costs of Obamacare and that could be the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back.

It turns out that the true conservatives who have been warning of these things for many years--and who have been marginalized by the press and by the major party apparatus--have been correct all along.

In my view, the position of the Tea Party has been correct--we must return to the bounds of the Constitution without trying to make the Federal government "all things to all people"--to get its house very much in order. The first part of that is obviously to rein in spending to a huge degree. It would be simple to do from a theoretical standpoint, but hugely difficult from a political one.

Meanwhile, welcome to the ranks of the fiscal conservatives!
 

David

[Maxx2]

Maxx,

Although the situation is obviously both painful and very serious indeed, I am somewhat amused by the transformation you are going through. Am I not correct that not so long ago you were strongly in favor of "progressive" politics? It seems you are awakening to the fact that the conservatives have been correct all along, and that the rather insane policies of the past decades have created a fiscal catastrophe--on all levels of government.

The largest part of local and state debts lies at the feet of overly generous wage and benefits for government workers. There are unfunded liabilities in the trillions of dollars that there is no way to pay for. Politicians have given these out, often knowing that they were unsustainable over time but willing to leave the problems to future generations. The primary reason for extending bankruptcy to both state and local governments is to be able to abrogate those agreements. There will be enormous pain involved for millions of people, unfortunately.

(Both parties are liable for too much of this, unfortunately, although the most "progressive" "Blue" states seem to be by far in the worst shape.)

Add on the completely irresponsible way that Medicare and Medicaid have been handled, and the fact that the Social Security "trust fund" is a complete illusion, and the dimensions of the problem cannot be overstated. Then consider the additional costs of Obamacare and that could be the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back.

It turns out that the true conservatives who have been warning of these things for many years--and who have been marginalized by the press and by the major party apparatus--have been correct all along.

In my view, the position of the Tea Party has been correct--we must return to the bounds of the Constitution without trying to make the Federal government "all things to all people"--to get its house very much in order. The first part of that is obviously to rein in spending to a huge degree. It would be simple to do from a theoretical standpoint, but hugely difficult from a political one.

Meanwhile, welcome to the ranks of the fiscal conservatives!
 

David

I do not believe I was ever a "progressive". Do you mind a brief synapses of my life?

I was raised in a high control cult religion that taught "you must obey God as ruler rather than man". Later I found out God in their interpretation was them. In this high control cult religion one of the control means used on us was the use of loaded language. Certain words and phrases were stressed to manipulate our thinking. "Theocratic", "worldly", "Christendom", "of the World", "cleansed earth", "unclean" "Armageddon", "Apostate", "apostate thinking", "questioning God", "professed Christian" and so on. Essentially I deprogrammed myself out of this faith and now I am a Christian without any religious affiliation. I mention this because I am trying give you an understanding that I am an independent sort and have the ability to look close to see if there is 'a man behind the curtain' (think Wizard of Oz analogy) working to fool us. This puts me into the "conspiratorial camp" as some would label me. But my way of looking at it, it is those that put a label on me that are doing the same thing my former religion did. Namely it is a 'stop think' (See Orwell's "1984") means to not look too closely at them or the world around us. They do it without thinking.

 I disagree with a lot of Noam Chomski but he does sum it up well now and then:

The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.

Unfortunately I am attributed to believing some rather outlandish stuff, which I do not. I do not believe in Big foot, Loch Ness monster or chupachabras in my attic. Nor do I believe everything is manipulated in the market. There is a great deal of incompetence involved. On the other hand there is a great deal of greed going on as well and that is where the conspiracies (planned manipulations of the market) come from. Things such as the bailout of AIG to help Goldman Sachs by Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson former CEO of Goldman Sachs. The hundreds of billions paid to foreign banks by the Fed for the investment garbage sold to them that had been rated triple A by a ratings agency that should have known better. Then maybe they did? Who was behind them? What did they get out of it? Then there is small time crooks like Bernie Madoff who is punished unlike all the other much bigger crooks of Wall Street who keep their billions in bonuses. What is going on is criminality to a degree that dwarfs anything in humanity's past. The media should be howling to the moon about all of this but they are not. After all they are owned by the same big corporations that sit at top of the food chain. The first ones who get the stimulus funds and tax breaks because of the payoffs to the politicians and their layering of their people into the regulatory branches of the government. Of course there are conspiracies all over the place, people and institutions getting together to figure out what is best for their short term gain while the middle class and poor are having the rug pulled out from under them.  

As far as my recently coming around to conservative thinking. If I had progressive ideals they were dropped when I wrote my first check to the IRS for $60,000. That was about 20 years ago. I had set up a gold refining operation and serviced the jewelry manufacturing industry in Minnesota, Wisconsin, North Dakota and Iowa. After hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of dollars paid out in taxes I had a phone conversation with a radio talk show host Jason Lewis. He later became Rush Limbaugh's most frequent guest host when Rush was gone. The subject was the "free trade" agreements. I had read a book that questioned the wisdom of transforming America out of a manufacturing economy and into a service economy. Jason took the side of "free trade" (loaded word there). Jason had his talking points no doubt from some think tank funded by a transnational corporation or the Rockefellers

[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbnpN07J_zg[/youtube]

Anyway "conservative" radio talk show host Jason Lewis, Al Gore Bill Clinton's point man, their Democrats and the conservatives in Congress all believed that the "free trade" agreements were a good thing. Fast forward ten years and what did we get? 42,400 manufacturing factories shut down in the US. Wal-Mart overtaking GM as the largest employer in the US with Wal-Mart wages replacing GM wages. Unreasonable union demands adding to their demise. Short term thinking there. Main street getting killed. Mini malls and retail shopping mega complexes replacing factories with low pay service jobs for our kids. For me it was my largest account. The one I worked for back 30 years ago and serviced for 16 years as a self employed business man. The account that after 105 years as a manufacturing jeweler could no longer compete against cheap foreign labor and had to shut down. My two daughters (30 and 26) stuck in part time jobs waitressing and making espresso coffee. Women with degrees. My first grandchild, 5 months old and I wonder what future she will have. Where will we be when China overtakes us as the largest economy? They have no love or affection for us. Remember they are building their military too and recently commission their first aircraft carrier. Will America become another third world country? Where is the nationalism that isn't polluted with globalism and the self interests of the military industrial complex? Then there is the lying of the government on just about every statistic they give us from unemployment to the true inflation rate. It takes John Williams of www.shadowstats.com to get the straight scoop.

I regards to you. I think it is great you are an expat. At least were you live is not going to go back to the bank. Russia is smart. Their people outright own their own homes plus a lot of them have dachas 'out in nature' to supplement their monthly groceries. You're a smart guy even though you are caught in the "right-left paradigm"  

...sectors of the doctrinal system serve to divert the unwashed masses and reinforce the basic social values: passivity, submissiveness to authority, the overriding virtue of greed and personal gain, lack of concern for others, fear of real or imagined enemies, etc. The goal is to keep the bewildered herd bewildered. It's unnecessary for them to trouble themselves with what's happening in the world. In fact, it's undesirable -- if they see too much of reality they may set themselves to change it.

[Maxx2]

Just too good not to share

[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sE6MKwW2nfQ&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

[55North]

Do they have Spam in Russia ?   

Probably since WWII as, in the UK where it was universally consumed as an American import, some in the USSR would have got the taste via the Murmansk Convoys. 
 
They do do pork big time. Must be a close 'copy' somewhere.   

[Rubicon]

I think that governments who want to feed their people with sufficient protein must consider growing soy crops.  soy protein if very low in fat.  also, if I remember correctly, it takes five times as much water and other resources to feed/grow cattle.  I love beef as much as the next meat eater, yet I was vegetarian for the first 17 years of my life and did not suffer.  soy products are very creative, some of the soy burgers are very good, and we used to have a soy "Turkey" at Thanksgiving.  Spock eats soy stuff on Star Trek.

[55North]

Spock was a humourless pointy ears, lest we forget.  But he was responsible for my mother's successful (?) rearing of me.

[dbneeley]

I think that governments who want to feed their people with sufficient protein must consider growing soy crops.  soy protein if very low in fat.  also, if I remember correctly, it takes five times as much water and other resources to feed/grow cattle.

Rubicon--

The last figure I saw was that it takes on average 5,000 gallons of water for each pound of finished beef in the supermarket. As you know, various places have water shortages, including much of California--yet cattle there are responsible for more water use than the human population according to a study I saw some years ago.

Remember, too, that a large percentage of grains in the U.S. wind up as animal feed--so the water to grow the grain winds up as part of the use attributable to the meat production.

In the case of beef, if I recall correctly it takes about five pounds of grain for one pound of beef.

Other studies indicate that if all the arable land devoted to raising meat--including the crops fed to the animals--were instead devoted to raising vegetables and grains for vegetarians, we could feed 27 times as many people. One interesting one I read perhaps a decade ago indicated that reducing meat consumption in the U.S. by only 15% and devoting the saved resources to producing plant-based foodstuffs could have essentially eliminated hunger in the world at that time.

Pretty sobering stuff.

David

[Faux Pas]

Rubicon--

The last figure I saw was that it takes on average 5,000 gallons of water for each pound of finished beef in the supermarket. As you know, various places have water shortages, including much of California--yet cattle there are responsible for more water use than the human population according to a study I saw some years ago.

Remember, too, that a large percentage of grains in the U.S. wind up as animal feed--so the water to grow the grain winds up as part of the use attributable to the meat production.

In the case of beef, if I recall correctly it takes about five pounds of grain for one pound of beef.

Other studies indicate that if all the arable land devoted to raising meat--including the crops fed to the animals--were instead devoted to raising vegetables and grains for vegetarians, we could feed 27 times as many people. One interesting one I read perhaps a decade ago indicated that reducing meat consumption in the U.S. by only 15% and devoting the saved resources to producing plant-based foodstuffs could have essentially eliminated hunger in the world at that time.

Pretty sobering stuff.

David

David,

This story appears to be a prime example of starting with a conclusion and worrying about the facts later to support it. There are so many holes in that particular theory I don't know how it could at anytime be taken seriously. It is wrought with assumptions and little to no "teeth" IMO. For instance, the end result of eliminating world hunger particularly telling as world hunger is currently more of a political problem than a supply problem. The estimation of 5000 gallons of water for one pound of beef seems extremely high but even if it isn't, the theory is based on the assumption that the 5K gallons of water leaves the eco-system, it doesn't. 27 times more food is also a far fetched number and assuming it's true, everyone isn't vegetarian. Quite honestly it looks like a pitch from PETA

[dbneeley]

David,

This story appears to be a prime example of starting with a conclusion and worrying about the facts later to support it. There are so many holes in that particular theory I don't know how it could at anytime be taken seriously. It is wrought with assumptions and little to no "teeth" IMO. For instance, the end result of eliminating world hunger particularly telling as world hunger is currently more of a political problem than a supply problem. The estimation of 5000 gallons of water for one pound of beef seems extremely high but even if it isn't, the theory is based on the assumption that the 5K gallons of water leaves the eco-system, it doesn't. 27 times more food is also a far fetched number and assuming it's true, everyone isn't vegetarian. Quite honestly it looks like a pitch from PETA

Sorry, no "pitch from PETA"--the figures I gave were all from different sources.

Whether "everyone" is vegetarian or not is immaterial. Americans in general are, as you are undoubtedly aware, the fattest people in the developed world. (I believe Samoa may hold the title of highest percentage overweight, but the U.S. is gaining on them). Cutting 15% of meat consumption should be easy without becoming vegetarian--but it would likely lead to healthier people.

The 5,000 gallons per finished pound is quite believable if you are familiar with the entire cycle of meat production. My ex father in law was a beef rancher who also did custom farming and ran a small feed store. During the ten years his daughter and I were married, I learned a fair amount about that stuff, and I can easily believe it could take that much.

Whether the water "leaves the ecosystem" or not is also beside the point. The fact is that not all the water that is used is readily available for reuse--and too much of it goes through central treatment plants, which is one of the larger but often overlooked sources of energy consumption.

Personally, I could be quite happy to return to a vegetarian diet myself, but as my wife and stepson are meat eaters and because I do not want to have to prepare totally separate foods, I eat meat as well.

However, I'd probably be healthier if I were a vegetarian--a vegan diet that is within the low to moderate glycemic index range is for most diabetics the most healthy choice. Animal fat in the bloodstream raises insulin resistance of the cells as well as contributing to
atherosclerotic disease states.

David

[Faux Pas]

David,

No doubt we'd all be healthier if we followed Vegan diets but, the reality of the situation is, that ain't going to happen. There is something to be said for quality of life and capitalists markets to drive it.

Besides, let's don't even tread into mandating diets on the world population. Hospitals will fill up with people dying of nothing 

[GQBlues]

The estimation of 5000 gallons of water for one pound of beef seems extremely high but even if it isn't, the theory is based on the assumption that the 5K gallons of water leaves the eco-system, it doesn't. 27 times more food is also a far fetched number and assuming it's true, everyone isn't vegetarian. Quite honestly it looks like a pitch from PETA

It is. That calculation was done I believe back in the '70s, a time before more technologically advanced irrigation systems were available and reclaim water was non-existent.  As a matter of fact, you can surf EarthSave.org and get more info regarding this matter. The very latest calculation conducted in '89 resulted in a conclusion that 2,489 gallons of water per pound of production beef is expended. It was conducted in California. Happy cows, after all, are from California.

Reclaim water are 'treated' in varying grades. Non-consumption reclaim water require far less treatment and are largely use for irrigation systems statewide. They're not for human consumption.

Most of California's cattle ranch unfortunately are in desert plains (not all, but most) and thus what would otherwise be non-arable land are turned into alfalfa/grass pasture oasis in large acreage and supported by miles of irrigation systems.

But don't quite turn vegetarian because of this reality. Truth is, if everyone turned vegetarian overnight, the demand on water will triplicate because then you would need far more water supply to irrigate and process fruits and vegetables instead of grass as cow feed. Water treatment standards will be addressed and likely changed since the produce are directly marketed for human consumption not stock.

California is further taxed with water demand recently by the explosion of vineyards across the state.