Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Capital press. (Salem, OR) 19??-current | View Entire Issue (June 23, 2017)
CapitalPress.com 6 Editorials are written by or approved by members of the Capital Press Editorial Board. June 23, 2017 All other commentary pieces are the opinions of the authors but not necessarily this newspaper. Opinion Editorial Board Editor & Publisher Managing Editor Joe Beach Carl Sampson opinions@capitalpress.com Online: www.capitalpress.com/opinion O UR V IEW Idaho Wheat Commission right on royalties I daho wheat producers are a bit miffed with the University of Idaho, and we think they have every reason to be mad. For years Idaho producers, through the wheat commission, have given researchers at the university money for the wheat breeding program. It’s been running about $1.25 million a year. Not a small amount of money considering how much wheat prices have fallen in recent years. The university has put that money to good use. University of Idaho breeders have developed a number of popular, and profi table, public varieties. It’s been good for farmers, who get varieties bred specifi cally for Idaho growing conditions. It’s Capital Press File been good for the university, because the royalties from the public varieties have been a boon. It’s not an insignifi cant amount of money. Three of UI’s publicly released wheat varieties — UI Magic, UI Palouse and UI Castle — have generated $400,000 in royalties the past two years. No one really begrudges the university profi ting from intellectual property developed at its facilities by its researchers. It’s what the university is doing with the money, or rather what it’s not doing with the money, that’s the rub. None of the royalty money is going back into the breeding program. Under UI’s current royalty distribution formula, 20 percent goes to the college to distribute as it wants, 40 percent goes to the university’s offi ce of technology and 40 percent goes to the inventor. We think someone who develops intellectual property, even if they are on the public payroll, should profi t from their discoveries. It gives them the incentive to do even better work to benefi t producers. That still leaves 60 percent of the royalty pie that could be going back into the breeding program. The Idaho Wheat Commission wants the university to commit to returning its share of the royalties back to the program, and toot sweet. To make sure it gets the O UR V IEW Washington apple industry’s new super star T he Washington state apple industry is re-inventing the way it does business. The industry is investing hundreds of millions of dollars in a radically different strategy for introducing a new variety of apple, the Cosmic Crisp. A cross between the Enterprise and the Honeycrisp varieties, Cosmic Crisp is easier to grow and store than most other varieties. Most importantly, consumer focus groups have given it top ratings for taste and texture. The Cosmic Crisp has all the makings of a super star and will replace Red Delicious and other varieties whose popularity has fl agged in recent years. Apple varieties typically take many years before they reach a critical mass. The Cosmic Crisp’s introduction will shift that process to fast-forward. This spring about 50 Washington growers chosen in a drawing planted 630,000 Cosmic Crisp trees. About 10 million more trees will go into the ground in the next two years. In 2019 Cosmic Crisp will make its commercial debut with 200,000, 40-pound boxes. That will jump to 1.9 million boxes the next year, 5 million in 2021 and 9 million in 2022, marking the fastest ramp-up of a new apple variety in history. Ultimately, industry leaders hope to sell 30 million boxes or more each year. The main question that remains is price. Assuming consumers are willing to pay a premium price similar to what they pay for Honeycrisp, the new apple will become a success. But even at lower prices the Cosmic Crisp will be a boon to the industry. The Cosmic Crisp is different because it was developed by Washington State University breeders. That allows WSU and the state’s apple industry to retain control of it and the royalties it generates. The royalty is $1 for every tree sold and 4.75 percent of the price of every box that sells for more than $20. One-fi fth of the royalty will go to commercializing and promoting the apple. Most importantly, half of the royalty will go to WSU plant breeding programs, with most of that going to apple breeding. The remaining royalty will go to the WSU Offi ce of Commercialization, The Associated Press the College of Agricultural, Human and Natural Resource Sciences and the breeders. This investment in turn will establish a bigger pipeline for developing more new apple varieties in the future. Our hope is the Cosmic Crisp will be a roaring success, but our further hope is that success will provide the resources that allow WSU’s plant breeders to develop important new varieties of apples and other crops. One apple industry leader said the Cosmic Crisp could help Washington become “the Silicon Valley of apple breeding.” That’s a bold statement, but it’s also one that’s achievable. Letters policy Write to us: Capital Press welcomes letters to the editor on issues of interest to farmers, ranchers and the agribusiness community. Letters policy: Please limit letters to 300 words and include your home address and a daytime telephone number with your sub- mission. Longer pieces, 500-750 words, may be considered as guest commentary pieces for use on the opinion pages. Guest commentary submissions should also include a photograph of the author. Send letters via email to opinions@capitalpress.com. Emailed letters are preferred and require less time to process, which could result in quicker publication. Letters also may be sent to P.O. Box 2048, Salem, OR 97308; or by fax to 503-370-4383. message, the commission has told the university that if it doesn’t comply the producers will stop funding the program. “We expect senior management to grab a hold of this and get it fi xed because soon isn’t quick enough,” Commissioner Bill Flory told university general counsel Kent Nelson during the commission’s June 7 meeting. Here’s how the producers see it: They helped fund the research in the fi rst place, then were charged for the seeds once they were developed. It looks to them that they are the ones doing all the paying. Fair point. Nelson said the university takes the issue seriously. It should, and meet the commission’s demand. Agricultural Heritage Program a starting point for getting farmland to next generation By NELLIE MCADAMS For the Capital Press H ow do beginning farm- ers and ranchers connect with the record num- ber of retiring producers? What should be a straightforward question with a straightforward answer isn’t always so simple. Recent research by Oregon State University, Portland State University and Rogue Farm Corps found that the average age of Oregon’s farmers and ranchers is nearly 60, higher than it’s ever been. As a result, 64 percent of Oregon’s farm- land — 10.45 million acres — will change hands in the next 20 years. Yet the majority of Oregon producers might not have comprehensive succession plans, which means this land is not guaranteed to stay in agri- cultural production. Estate taxes, attorney fees and family strife can come with any estate, but they are espe- cially likely and costly in an unplanned estate. As one ranch- er said: “Either you pay the at- torney now and have something left over for your kids, or you pay it all to the state after you die and you burden your family in the process.” Land-rich but cash-poor farmers and ranchers often sell their agricultural land to pay es- tate taxes and divide the estate among multiple heirs, jeopar- dizing the future of the business that created this wealth. One farmer asked: “If the first gen- eration spent their lives buying the asset, how can they help the next generation not have to pay for it again?” In a recent series of agri- cultural succession workshops around the state, attendees in- cluded not only retiring produc- ers, but first-generation farmers and ranchers without property to inherit. Among them was Ai- mee Danch, a Jackson County rancher in her 30s. Aimee grew up in a semi-ur- ban area, but was always drawn to agriculture. Fearing it wasn’t a viable profession because she wasn’t born into it, she worked on and off ranches until apprenticing at San Juan Ranch in Colorado, where she fi nally decided there must be a way to make a living. Aimee couldn’t stop ranching. “I feel most myself when I’m doing this work,” she said. She went on to manage a 600-head cow operation with upwards of 1,000 head of fin- ish beef for a company in Cal- ifornia. After 4 years, she met her husband, Jeremiah Stent, a ranch manager in Central Cali- fornia, and together they decid- ed to form their own land and cattle company, Pacific Grass- lands LLC. Business has grown steadi- ly for them. But one thing they couldn’t do during the decade of amassing the skills and experi- ence necessary to successfully run a livestock business is save enough money to purchase land. As Aimee explained, “You sim- ply cannot legitimately learn the Guest comment Nellie McAdams skills and save or raise the mon- ey for a down payment at the same time.” Aimee and Jeremiah now raise their 1-year-old daughter outside Jacksonville, running several hundred head of cattle on more than 10 leases in Or- egon and California. None of their properties are contiguous and each has a different landlord. The decreased effi ciency of this model and the inability to scale due to a lack of access to large parcels makes it nearly impos- sible to acquire the capital they need for a down payment. They know about the mass farm and ranch succession, but wonder, “How do we develop a process that doesn’t depend on luck for connecting retiring ranchers who have solvent ranch- es and are looking for successors, with qualifi ed fi rst-generation ranchers? Having the skills and equipment isn’t enough when the price of the land is often too high to cash fl ow with agricultural income alone. We don’t know of any fi rst-generation ranchers who’ve been able to purchase land unless they’re backed by a landowner or benefactor.” Organizations are working to make these connections. On- line programs like Oregon Farm Link connect landowners to land seekers; Dirt Capital LLC in the northeastern states pools capital from private investors to help beginning farmers buy land; and some land trusts help farmers purchase land in transactions that include a working lands ease- ment. These easements prevent development, allow for produc- tion, help sellers get cash from their land without having to sell parcels, and make the land more affordable for young farmers. The Oregon Agricultural Her- itage Program, HB 3249, would help fund working lands ease- ments as well as other voluntary tools like temporary covenants and conservation management plans. It also would support suc- cession workshops and a study of Oregon’s estate tax. This bill is an important part of the solu- tion — a starting point. Agri- cultural land is changing hands, aging farmers want to see their legacy continued, and qualifi ed beginning farmers and ranchers are ready to take it on. We should continue to explore tools and op- portunities for connecting gen- erations of farmers and ranchers for the future of agriculture in Oregon. Nellie McAdams is on the board of the Oregon Associa- tion of Conservation Districts and is the Farm Preservation Program Director at Rogue Farm Corps, where she helps create programs for farm and ranch succession planning and the preservation of agricultural land for the next generation. She also works on her family’s hazelnut farm in Gaston, Ore.