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.