tom 4

[cottonpicken]

How much for your flax
You being a religious man means you should be shelling out a fair deal and all eh?

I demand an accurate response.

[TOM4CWB]

Dear C.P.

I understand the Secan retail price for Sorrel Flax is $16.56/bu

[checking]

Would a "please", and a sincere "thankyou" coax a flax selling price and a variety from you, Tom?

[checking]

Sorry, too late. I guess @#$%&#& worked (lol)

[cottonpicken]

i'm very happy for your good fortune.

[parsley]

Triffid contamination from continuous planting over many years, will certainly have contaminated buildings, plants, trucks, ditches, garbage, machinery, equipment and psyche.

Let's call it a full front contamination.

The company of seedgrowers who were the beneficiaries of the inital Triffid release granted to them through the tendering process as set out by the CDC at the the University of Saskatchewan, would be overexposed to this full front Triffid contamination, over many years. Moreso than say, farmer cotton buying seed from his neighbor, which held some peripheral risk.

Sites of *peripheral* seedgrowers who were contaminated by only third party contamination were not as toxic as the *primary* sites where GM seed was soley owned and soley distributed by those primary seedgrowers sharehiolders

Because there is an audit trail for all seedgrowers, maybe a prudent action would be to quarantine the primary Triffid site owners as seed distributers for a period of two years, giving them an oopportunity to cleanse their entire operations.

Commercial farmers buying seed for 2010 could avoid the primary Triffid owner sites, if they chose, fo both buying seed or for cleaning seed.

The primary contaminated sites/farmers would be publically listed on all Flax Growers' websites, for a period of two quarantined years.

This action would be similar to Toyota recalling their brakes, and the Toyota shareholders sharing in the share value reduction, not just the guy who can't drive his car.

The Trifffid shareholders would agree to two years of NOT selling flax seed, which gives each and every one of them a good opportunity to set up their own risk management program on GM Events gone bad.

Triffid owners were instructed by the last protocol, to crush the flax, but obviously, the measure was not effectively implemented, so perhaps new protocol could be adopted in 2010 with accountability built, by putting the ownership onus on the primary patent owners, whether it be a seed company, university, or a government.

Have your say. Pars

[TOM4CWB]

oneoff, CP, Checking....

This whole thing is a gut wrencher.

If one 60 gram sample is tested... (about 10,000 seeds) the accuracy is only .03% according to the experts.

So my test was negative... but really means nothing. We have been deceived.

This is why the 'new' protocol requires 4 different samples of 60 grams each... bringing the statistical accuracy to .01% 95% of the time. The sample needs to be .01% of the lot being tested... then cut using proper reducing protocol to end with 2.5kg for export... and 2.0kg for seed.

These DNA tests were originally for .1%... and only by close calibration can they meet the accuracy claimed. EU protocol requires 4 different 60 gram samples... ground to a preset consistency... then tested against known calibration samples. One sample is calibrated at .05%, one sample at .01% and the third at a known sample of ZERO Flax GM event.

I understand the EU often does not use the higher GM event .05 &.01% calibration samples... just the known ZERO sample. The EU in general does not care much about the .01% standard I am told... any amplification reading from the zero known sample is a positive for the GM event... there is no such thing as a 'trace' level of contamination in their minds.

A seed either contained the GM event... and tests negative... or is positive.



So Our Canadian GM testing system is screwed up and backwards.

Seed needs to have the 4-60 gram test first before conditioning. NOT after! $3/bu for conditioning is not far off cost last year for the flax I cleaned... using gravity etc. and assuring high quality for pedigreed stock seed. Plus $2.50/bu levy and royalty is not unusual. How many lots can seed growers afford to loose... to a 'false' positive or GM trace event...

If one of my 10t flax lots... tests positive... will anyone buy the lots that are from the same field that are negative? What about a trace result?

What about outcrossing?

If a GM flax plant outcrossed in a field 12 years ago... being a diploid and crossing with normal flax...

25% are normal; 50% have 50% of the GM event; 25% have 100% of the GM event normally this GM Flax.

Normal outcrossing is about 1.85% @ .1m it has been found. Outcrossing can happen as far as 35m at low frequencies (ie. Bees).

[Environmental biosafety of genetically engineered crops: Flax (Linum usitatissimum L.) as a model system by Amitkumar Jayendrasinh Jhala]

So trace events now being tested at 30-40% of samples submitted... are by some people considered positive results even though we can not test accurately below .01%.

I am told in cargos now being delivered... have a very similar result being reported for their EU testing... our trace is a EU positive...

IF the cargo is being used in the EU for industrial... it can then be handled.

This is a 'gentleman's agreement' the .01% tolerance... NOT the LAW.

Zero is still Zero!

According to CFIA if a negative at .01 is tested and certified; a grower of seed can use this. BUT is a negative zero? It is a fact many growers who now THINK they are negative.... are instead half pregnant!

In the US... the LLRice event taught many things to those in LA. I spoke for a very long time to a wise operator at Eurofins GeneScan, Inc. today.

Farm saved seed that was properly cleaned and sampled and had a zero GM event... was just as effective at removal of the problem... as was certified seed.

Is rice different that flax?

Good question... but one would logically expect the US to be as expert and best experienced anywhere; because they have being dealing with this problem for over a decade!

I know there will be those who will want to hang me... being honest is more important than anything else... on judgement day before my creator.

In Louisiana they are 2 years into having clear rice seed GM zero reports... and virtually all commercial grain is at zero as well.

He said we are headed for a disaster up here... politics is trumping common sense and logic.

They will do the same tests as Quantum... are ISO certified (Quantum is not)... if you can wait a couple of weeks for the result.

Check the CGC web site for links... only 3 in North America are properly certified for the EU.

http://www.grainscanada.gc.ca/gmflax-lingm/ltf-lal-eng.htm



List of ISO 17025-accredited laboratories

Eurofins/GeneScan USA
Eurofins GeneScan, Inc.
2315 N Causeway Boulevard, Suite 200
Metairie LA 70001
Telephone: 504-297-4330
Web site: http://www.gmotesting.com/

Genetic ID
504 N 4th Street, Suite 102
Fairfield IA 52556
Telephone: 641-472-9979 or 877-366-0790
Web site: http://www.genetic-id.com

OMIC USA, Inc.
3344 NW Industrial Street
Portland OR 97210-1619
Telephone: 503-223-1497
Web site: http://www.omicnet.com/omicusa/index.htm

[oneoff]

You know t4; I have the deepest respect for anyone who tells the whole truth. Such people (and I now include you as one of them) have always been my first choice with whom I would prefer to have business dealings.
Registered seed growers deserve fair returns for the extra work and costs of producing your saleable product. When a catastropy happens; and the seed industry is an integral part of the story; it should have come clean and accepted even more than their fair share of the financial damages that have and will fall mainly outside the seed grower community.
When I first brought up the concept of the relationships of test sensitivity as it relates to tolerance levels as then related to the science of statistics and probabilities; levels of significance; maybe even standard deviations and confidence levels; not to mention sampling methadologies and inherent errors and mistakes possible in each of the above factors; it could be just as confusing to ordinary farmers as the Chief Justices summary of the determining liability. Myself included. I didn't have the facts that t4 has so bravely provided; and will be totally suprised if he is far from the mark. When there is no credable rebuttal to t4; as there has not been to my previous posts; then it can almost safely be said that our statements are pretty accurate.
Whether you can pull together various pieces of information to see the bigger picture is not determined by your level of education. That comes from a seperate set of skills that involve common sense; fairness and the ability to put truth and honesty above the short term gains in protecting your own interest.
Up to now; there has been way too many industry plans dictated by at least perceived self interest of those parties. There is every likelihood that their plan of certified seed is deleloped around limiting their own liabilities and offloading costs onto farmers. We've aquiesed too many times before; and someday should come together enough to gain a seat at the table. Again its time for those organizations and companies to come clean. They surely knew all about the points that t4 has reported; and have deliberately witheld and continue to withold that information which is essential to choosing the best options going forward.
Speak up if we are wrong; and certainly listen and respond if valid points are being made. You will gain respect no other way.

[parsley]

Respect can only be earned.

You've earned mine, Tom.

[oneoff]

I think someone is saying "Ignore, Ignore, Ignore"

[TOM4CWB]

Parsley and oneoff,

This is a 'fluid' situation... and changes daily.

I just sent off 4 new samples... and will recheck our own farms status... this time we will know... generation by generation... I will have 4 decending generations of/from the same lot of breeder seed checked. One would have thought CSGA and CFIA would be responsible... and proactive... . The tests they did in Nov/Dec were worse than nothing.... to a .1% of a positive/negative test... everything came back negative I am told.

[cottonpicken]

"Comerical seed growers have the most to loose"

Ignoreignoreignorenotmeonlysteersand*****signoreig noreignore

[oneoff]

Why are there so few people that seem to be willing to ask hard questions and even fewer willing to take anything more than a lukewarm stance. If the Triffid tests only a couple of months ago were tested to 0.1% and are now 0.01% levels required then there serious implications. Could you please repeat your figures T4.
The reluctance of the manipulators in the trade to respond to what are most likely valid points made byself and others is reprehensible. I'll move on to other things if I'm wrong; but trust me ; the trade will be reluctant to let this stranglehold go. Farmers are dozing if not totally asleep.

[Burbert]

I once heard a seed company salesman, say that they went through a truckload of canola seed, and found 4 cleaver seeds in it, HENCE they rejected the whole load as unsuitable. TOM 4, Why would that happen???? After all they found the 4 cleaver seeds in the load. They should have thrown them out, cause now they had a perfect load of seed.... Ya see, the whole industry is based on total bull crap, methinks, standards are phoney!!!

[haveapulse]

I repasted from Pars as really if we believe in accoutability Pars has made the best case of that process:

Commercial farmers buying seed for 2010 could avoid the primary Triffid owner sites, if they chose, fo both buying seed or for cleaning seed.

The primary contaminated sites/farmers would be publically listed on all Flax Growers' websites, for a period of two quarantined years.

This action would be similar to Toyota recalling their brakes, and the Toyota shareholders sharing in the share value reduction, not just the guy who can't drive his car.

The Trifffid shareholders would agree to two years of NOT selling flax seed, which gives each and every one of them a good opportunity to set up their own risk management program on GM Events gone bad.

Triffid owners were instructed by the last protocol, to crush the flax, but obviously, the measure was not effectively implemented, so perhaps new protocol could be adopted in 2010 with accountability built, by putting the ownership onus on the primary patent owners, whether it be a seed company, university, or a government.


Have your say. Pars

What i find amazing is we are not upset by the club root protocol of do nothing to quarantine that problem... which I believe has potential to become even more detrimental to our industry.