oats

[charliep]

I note the initial quote was about oats. Not sure how we got from oats to biotech. It also has Brian Rosnagal name. For those who have talked to him (I have), you will know his opinion.

My point is Quality Assured Seeds, Farm Pure and other versions tried to bring innovation to the industry - mainly through traditional breeding mechnisms.

If you don't like the model of how this company invested in new plant breeding ideas (conventional and biotech), what is the model for the future? The tooth fairy? Looking under cabbage leaves? A stork? Divine intervention?

[charliep]

I apologize for misspelling Brian's name. Should be Brian Rossnagel.

[parsley]

charliep, Maybe the toothfairy thing would serve the 21,071 farmers in Manitoba, the 50,598 farmers in Saskatchewan and the 53,652 farmers in Alberta (Statcan 2000)a little better than the central planners have done herding them around.

Although I do admit, the ag companies; two hundred or so seed farmers; the government and the universities; are served well by the setup.

The central planners sent a bill to demand their puke cleaned get up and some farmers don't want to pick up the mop.

That's what this is about, charliep.

[charliep]

Curious as to what your reason for posting the first article? Not
sure the connection between the oat variety in article and flaxseed.

If you are unhappy with the Canadian model for plant breeding
research and commercialization, what is the correct one? Similar to
the GRDC in Australia - a seed levy (not right term) on all varieties
including common seed. Europe - mostly private sector breeding
(same companies as here) with a levy on common seed. US one?
Argentina/Brazil?

I should correct myself. QAS, Farm Pure, et al were simply bringing
forward (commercializing if you) these varieties. They were U of S
varieties developed in their plant breeding program.

[cpallett]

charliep,

One addition to the model might be for the developers and the regulator to have a look at the possible effects of 'genetic drift' on the marketplace before approving the release of a 'plant with novel trait' into field testing or registration for comercial production. Certainly the current Directive of the CFIA (Dir2000-07) that governs whether a new GMO will be allowed to be field-tested makes no mention whatsoever of any form of assessment of impact on the market should genetic drift occur.

Just a thought, but might it not make just a teeny bit of common sense to take a look at the actual and potential effect on producers before you let the genie out of the bottle?

Oh and parsley, there is a legal precedent out there and it's a beauty, if I do say so myself. I think you might like it.

[stubblejumper]

It seeems that agriville has become a place where people who hate everything can come to vent to anyone who will listen.

[burnt]

"It seeems that agriville has become a place where people who hate everything can come to vent to anyone who will listen."

Don't you just hate when that happens?

[checking]

SJ, if you'll change "hate" to "won't accept", I'll agree with your statement.

Acceptance - will or won't - is the model. It's not to develop and release something, and then receive the shock that its buggered up that which has been acceptable.

[parsley]

It wasn't a frivilous post, charliep

I wanted to show there is a constant flow of information and commerce and central planning between the ag companies; seed growers,governments, and the universities. Central planning. I don't blame them. Each gain and thrive on the system as it is setup. And they don't want to be disturbed.

And each looks towards increased income as checkoffs inflate, and as revenues multiply when more fertilizer is applied by producers to try and make ends meet, and as new sources are created(ie oats)as well.

The university, for example, does financially well via checkoffs and grants. Oats checkoffs came out of the blue. How many ordinary farmers growing oats decided to create an oats checkoff?

Maybe checkoffs needs to be lowered. What about lowering the percentage for 2010 by taking into account the $717,432 coming from CN? Maybe the government needs to quit downloading research funding responsibilities on farmers. perhaps government contributions should not have to be matched by producer money. Maybe the University has to share facilities or have fewer projects.

My point is, and I keep making it charliep, is that the majority of farmers don't make enough money at the farmgate. And all of the above players keep extracting more.

It's a point many don't seem to want to grasp. Pars

[gustgd]

Parsley I am interested in your thoughts on how plant breeding should be done?
To paraphrase your thoughts please add or rephrase if I have you pegged wrong.

a) You think farmers don't make enough at the farmgate, and the .50 cents a tonne optional checkoff on oats is a major contributor.
b) Oat growers don't have enough say in their industry on where these checkoffs go.