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