Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Capital press. (Salem, OR) 19??-current | View Entire Issue (June 26, 2015)
June 26, 2015 CapitalPress.com 3 Compromise canola bill foreshadows controversy Research may be contentious in future Analysis By MATEUSZ PERKOWSKI Capital Press Limited canola production will likely continue in Ore- gon’s Willamette Valley under recently-passed legislation, but the debate it inspired fore- shadows future battles over the crop. House Bill 3382, approved by Oregon’s House and Sen- ate, allows 500 acres of cano- la to be grown in the region through 2019 despite an over- all moratorium on its cultiva- tion. Canola is restricted in the Willamette Valley due to the concerns of specialty seed growers who worry it will cross-pollinate with related crops and destroy their mar- ket. To reassure canola oppo- nents, lawmakers included provisions in HB 3382 that set new conditions on canola re- search conducted by Oregon State University. The research is intended Mateusz Perkowski/Capital Press Farmer Kathy Hadley harvests canola oilseeds near Salem, Ore. The Oregon Legislature recently passed a bill allowing 500 acres of canola production in Oregon’s Willamette Valley through 2019 despite an overall moratorium on the crop in the area. to yield recommendations for coexistence between canola and other crops, but canola proponents suspect the verac- ity of OSU’s study will be- come a point of contention in future discussions. Before the Senate passed the bill 25-5 on June 17, it was amended to require that OSU’s research be evaluat- ed by vegetable seed experts and that it include historical data about canola’s interac- tion with brassica crops in other regions. During a discussion of HB 3382, Sen Chris Edwards, D-Eugene, said the new re- search parameters were in- cluded in the bill due to fears that OSU and the Oregon Department of Agriculture — which will make recom- mendations on coexistence — have a “pro-canola bias.” Edwards noted that in 2013 lawmakers were contemplat- ing an outright ban on canola in the Willamette Valley but instead opted for a six-year moratorium while OSU con- ducts a three-year study of the crop’s potential to cause weed and disease problems. Farmers were permitted to produce canola on 500 acres during the study and under HB 3382 will grow that amount until the end of the moratorium, subject to certain restrictions. “It’s a reasonable compro- mise between opposing views on the bill,” Edwards said. Opponents of canola pro- duction are already casting doubts on the validity of OSU’s research, giving them- selves “wiggle room” to even- tually refute the study’s con- clusions, said Matt Crawford, president of the Willamette Valley Oilseed Producers As- sociation. While the study is focused on weed and disease issues, canola opponents actually have other reasons they’re worried about the crop, he said. Some see it as providing a “biotech foothold” in the region, as genetically engi- neered varieties of canola are available, Crawford said. Other critics dislike cano- la’s potential to compete for acreage with other crops, he said. “The more options a farmer has, the harder the seed company will have to try to have a place on those farms.” While the possibility for cross-pollination does exist, other related brassica crops — including turnips and rad- ish — are grown on large acreages in the valley without restriction, he said. Canola could similarly coexist if it’s included in a “pinning” system used for other brassicas, which allows farmers to plant at suffi cient distances to avoid cross-polli- nation, Crawford said. The legislature’s willing- ness to pass HB 3382 is a positive sign for canola, par- ticularly since it was support- ed by lawmakers who wanted to prohibit the crop two years ago, he said. “That was actu- ally a pretty big step.” The Willamette Valley Specialty Seed Association does not preclude coexistence between canola and related crops, said Greg Loberg, the group’s public relations chair and manager of the West Coast Beet Seed Co. “It will be diffi cult to fi nd that sweet spot, but I don’t think it will be impossible,” he said. Even so, canola doesn’t neatly fi t into the management system for brassica seed crops because it’s grown for oil rather than genetics, Loberg said. There’s no incentive for oilseed farmers to keep the genetics of canola pure, which raises questions about their willingness to follow coex- istence rules, he said. “Will all canola oilseed producers abide by that same principle?” Canola restrictions have been in place for more than 25 years in the valley, which has given specialty seed pro- ducers the opportunity and confi dence to expand their business, Loberg said. Removing or altering those protections should not be done carelessly, which realis- tically will require continued involvement from lawmakers, he said. “They picked up a piece of Oregon agriculture and now there’s no good way to put it down.” Spotted wing drosophila • A type of “vinegar fly”, its ability to feed and lay eggs on ripening fruit makes it a significant threat to Pacific Northwest growers. • Adult spotted wing drosophilas are small with red eyes and pale yellowish-brown bodies. Spotted wings • Males have a dark spot on the tips of their wings. They also have two dark bands on their front legs. • Females lack the distinctive dark spot on their wings. Look for a large, serrated ovipositor protruding from the abdomen. Ovipositor Female Actual size Male • For more information 2-3 mm on monitoring, preventative, cultural and chemical controls, go to: spottedwing.org Sources: Oregon State University Extension Service Alan Kenaga/Capital Press Spotted wing drosophila detected in SW Idaho Capital Press CALDWELL, Idaho — University of Idaho research- ers have alerted fruit growers in Southwestern Idaho that they are fi nding small numbers of spotted wind drosophila, an exotic fruit fl y that attacks a wide range of fruit. Low numbers of the pest have been found in traps in Payette, Canyon and Owyhee county orchards, said Jim Bar- bour, an entomologist at UI’s Parma research station. But the fl ies reproduce quickly, so growers should monitor susceptible crops fre- quently, he said. “We are fi nding them, but not in signifi cant numbers,” Barbour said. However he add- ed, “they can really reproduce quickly and their numbers can get quite high pretty quickly.” Unlike the common cher- ry fruit fl y, which attacks ripe or already damaged fruit, the spotted wing drosophila can lay eggs in much fi rmer and thicker-skinned fruit still at- tached to the plant. It also has a broader range of hosts than other fruit fl ies, from berries, cherries and grapes to plums and peaches. Large commercial orchard- ists said they are concerned about the pest because of its potential to cause widespread damage, but they haven’t yet seen any damage from the fl ies. “So far, it hasn’t been an issue, but it’s defi nitely some- thing we’re keeping an eye on,” said Chad Henggeler, fi eld manager for Henggeler Packing Co., one of Idaho’s largest orchards. The fl y was fi rst detected in small numbers in Idaho in 2012 and hundreds of them were detected in traps in 2013. Few of the insects were detect- ed in 2014. Researchers initially hoped that they were brought here accidentally and wouldn’t survive Idaho’s harsh winters, Barbour said. Southwestern Idaho, where the majority of the state’s fruit is grown, is marginal habi- tat for the drosophila, which doesn’t like the cold and dry conditions prevalent in this region. Researchers now believe the insects are over-wintering in the area but their winter sur- vival rate is low, Barbour said. “They’re here and they’re probably not going to go away,” he said. “But at the numbers they are occurring at now, they’re probably not hurting anyone.” UI researchers received a grant that will enable them to do some systematic testing to determine how widespread the fl ies are and how much of a problem they are causing, Bar- bour said. Between Southwestern Ida- ho’s harsh winters and desert conditions, “they shouldn’t do that well here most years,” he said. “But it will take a few years of monitoring for us to sort that out.” Gary Kazanjian/Associated Press In this April 10, 2006, fi le photo raisin farmer Marvin Horne stands in a fi eld of grapevines planted in 1918 next to his home in Kerman, Calif. The Supreme Court said, June 22, 2015, that a program that lets the government take raisins away from farmers to help reduce supply and boost market prices is unconstitutional. High court: Raisin program is unconstitutional By SAM HANANEL Associated Press WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Mon- day that a 66-year-old pro- gram that lets the govern- ment take raisins away from farmers to help reduce sup- ply and boost market prices is unconstitutional. In an 8-1 ruling, the jus- tices said forcing raisin growers to give up part of their annual crop without full payment is an illegal confi s- cation of private property. The ruling is a victory for California farmers Mar- vin and Laura Horne, who claimed they were losing money under a 1940s-era program they call outdated and ineffective. They were fined $695,000 for trying to get around the program. A federal appeals court said the program was ac- ceptable because the farmers benefited from higher mar- ket prices and didn’t lose the entire value of their crop. The government argued that the Hornes benefited from increased raisin prices, but their cause had won wide support from conservative groups opposed to govern- ment action that infringes on private property rights. Writing for the court, Chief Justice John Roberts said the government must pay “just compensation” when it takes personal goods just as when it takes land away. He rejected the gov- ernment’s argument that the Hornes voluntarily chose to participate in the raisin mar- ket and have the option of selling different crops if they don’t like it. “‘Let them sell wine’ is probably not much more comforting to the raisin growers than similar retorts have been to others through- out history,” Roberts said. “Property rights cannot be so easily manipulated.” The program was autho- rized under a 1937 law that allows the U.S. Department of Agriculture to keep prices for raisins and other crops steady by helping to man- age supply. A 1949 market- ing order allowed farmers to form a Raisin Administra- tive Committee that would decide how much of the rai- sin crop handlers must turn over to the government each year. These raisins would be placed into a reserve pool to be sold outside the open market, used for the school lunch program, or given away to charities and for- eign governments. Any prof- its from these reserve sales would go toward funding the committee and anything left over went back to the farm- ers. The Hornes refused to participate in the program in 2003 and 2004, when raisin production far exceeded the expected demand. They tried to get around the regula- tions by packaging crops on their own instead of going through a middleman. But the department fined them for violating the rules. Raisin handlers were re- quired to give up 47 percent of their crop in 2003 season, but received far less than their costs of production. Farmers gave up 30 percent of the crop in 2004 and were paid nothing. Raisin prices have been relatively stable recently and the committee has not or- dered farmers to put crops in reserve since 2010. Only a small number of other crops are regulated in the same way, though feder- al officials say most of those programs are not active. & HWY 730 • IRRIGON, OR SAGE Fact #114 f f u t S Finley Buttes Regional Landfill is situated on 1,800 acres and is the second largest landfill in Oregon. The landfill receives over 500,000 tons of municipal solid waste annually. Visit the SAGE Center: Sunday - Thursday 10am - 5pm Friday & Saturday 10am - 6pm “The Buttercreek Boys” rop-6-26-5/#17 By SEAN ELLIS will be playing the third Sunday of each month at the museum. 541-561-2211 | 541-561-2327 | 541-303-3923 26-2/#6 26-2/#6