Pedigreed Seed Grower Policy

[parsley]

What is the official atated policy of registered/certified/pegigreed seed growers with regards to the CWB?

[bluefargo]

Neither the CSGA nor any of the provincial organizations have any policy, official or otherwise regarding the CWB.
Why would they?

[parsley]

Why wouldn't the pedigreed seedgrowers voice a position of fairness?

Ontario/Quebec has marketing choice because the CWB provides them with export licenses.

The CWB will not provide export licenses to Western farmers, EXCEPT they grant them to seedgrowers.

Why wouldn't the seedgrowers recommend that ALL Western Canadian farmers (after all, they are the seedgrowers' customers, arent they?) should also gets marketing choice?

Pars

[bluefargo]

I would be most disappointed if the seed growers had a policy on the CWB. Their business is seed.

Seed should be able to cross the border. It,s a specialized product - not a commodity per se.

Since we are on the topic, what is the OCIA's stated position on the CWB?

[TOM4CWB]

Ahhhh Parsley,

I think you have fallen for the special trap that has been cleverly set for you!

'Better to have them fighting amongst themselves'!

What, you can't see the CWB war room headlines.... WBGA a 'friend' of the CWB!

Are you sure you didn't clean out the cellar...

There must be a reason they call it a whine cellar!

[oneoff]

As was explained to me by a very selfish organic farmer; although he might as well have been a very selfish seed grower; the reason he so strongly supported the CWB; was that as soon as everyone had access to the US markets; the US would slam the door shut on organics (and arguably seed sales too).
That was the day I lost a lot of respect for any of that individual's thought processes.

[parsley]

bluefargo,

The stated position of our local OCIA organization had a motion passed on the books, seconded and carried, to work towards farmer owned and farmer controlled marketing.

Er, farmer controlled doesn't mean Government controlled either.

And organic farmers worked for marketing choice for BOTH conventional and organic farmers.

In other words,there was no slinking away into the corner when we got a break on the buyback.

How about the seed growers? How have they advanced the notion of market freedom?

Pars

[parsley]

This was written by Paul Beingessner. It was written in December.

Seed Industry Wants Taxpayers to Fund Certified Seed Use

12/01/09

In December, 2008 the Canadian Seed Trade Association made a proposal to federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty that would give farmers a greater incentive to use certified seed. Currently, the use of certified seed in Canada varies widely from one crop to another.

For those not familiar with the CSTA, it is composed largely of companies that sell certified seed, as well as some that do plant breeding, like Monsanto and Pioneer Hi-Bred. It also includes seed grower organizations like Secan and a small number of farmer groups like the Saskatchewan Pulse Growers. Associate members to CSTA are diverse. Among others, they include Manyan, a producer of jute bags, and Agro Protection International Inc., which is described on the CSTA website as "high-level investigative and evidence-gathering services". Agro Protection International Inc. does not have a website but I suspect that those farmers who've run afoul of Monsanto's seed patents will be acquainted with the work of this company.

The CSTA proposal asked that farmers who use certified seed be given a special deduction from income tax. Specifically, purchases of certified seed would qualify the farmer for an expense item equal to 1.55 times the actual cost of the seed. According to the CSTA, that would make the cost of using purchased certified seed about equal to the cost of using one's own saved seed. The CSTA estimates that increasing certified seed use from the current 30 percent to 50 percent would cause the government to forego about $90 million in tax revenue.

In describing the benefits it believes would flow from such a move, the CSTA says that increasing the use of certified seed would, among other things, increase the amount of private research into plant breeding. It claims that private sector research is highest in crops where the most certified seed is used. It notes that canola, where 92 percent of seed is certified, receives 74 percent of private sector investment. The CSTA also quantified the amount of money invested in private sector research by its members at $56 million in 2007. It says the private sector plans to "almost double" this amount over the next five years.

There is no doubt the CSTA quest to increase the amount of certified seed farmers use is self-serving. Members of CSTA, mostly companies that sell seed, stand to benefit greatly if farmers can be cajoled, compelled or incented to buy more seed and use less of their own crops for seed. The CSTA has had several proposals in the past aimed at achieving the same end. These have included the suggestion that farmers who use certified seed should qualify for reductions in crop insurance premiums and the idea that the need for Kernel Visual Distinguishability (KVD) could be eliminated if farmers used certified seed exclusively.

The CSTA maintains that there would be great benefits to the Canadian economy if their tax incentive scheme were implemented. It says farmers would benefit because new varieties would give higher yields, greater disease and insect resistance and better response to inputs. Processors would benefit from having better quality crops to process. Consumers could have a healthier diet, and society as a whole would benefit from a reduction of tillage and reduced use of pesticides and fertilizers.

Some of these claims are difficult to quantify, and CSTA offers scant evidence for the notion that new plant varieties are giving us healthier consumers. (While you can't necessarily blame it on plant varieties, today's consumers are obese, and largely less healthy than a generation ago.) Also, claims that new varieties reduce overall pesticide and fertilizer use have yet to be proven.

The CSTA proposal is part of an overall strategy to reduce farmers' ability to save their own seed. CSTA has developed this strategy, quite simply, because farmer use of certified seed only occurs where choices are limited and where farmers perceive real benefits. For example, farmers use mainly certified seed of canola because they believe there are benefits to using herbicide tolerant varieties. If they could get these without a contract binding them to buy certified seed, they would save their own. With some crops, corn for example, certified seed use is high because the varieties are largely hybrids that do not breed true from seed.

With most cereal crops, like wheat, oats and barley, farmers save their own seed because they don't believe the use of certified seed provides enough benefits to offset the costs. If this is wrong, the CSTA might be better off to show farmers the data that prove the benefits. It is noteworthy that a tax incentive only helps farmers if they are profitable. In a year where they lose money, the added cost of certified seed would be just that – an added cost. The seed industry might counter that there is a production benefit to using certified seed. If so, show us the research and convince farmers. Then they will buy your seed.

The CSTA is correct in saying we need more money going to plant breeding. But its proposal would take $90 million a year from tax revenues and return it to seed growers and seed sellers. This is twice the entire amount spent by CSTA members for plant breeding. If the government is going to "spend" that money, wouldn’t farmers be better off if the government invested $90 million directly in public plant research, rather than see some small portion of it trickle through the pockets of seed companies to their research sides? This would be a far more efficient use of taxpayers' money.



So, how about a tax credit for Farmer Schnookie, too?
Pars

PS

Interesting concept if you are a seed grower, and Farmer Schnookie is forced to buy only registered/pedigreed/contaminated seed, . as well as have Schnookie Cookie pay for all the testing.

As well as get a tax break. Pars

"Nice scheme if you can get it, and you can get it if you try. la la la "

Have the seed growers thought of or focused on actually 'marketing' their seed instead of 'legislating' their returns? Just a 'novel' suggestion.

[sawfly]

the whole idea of a tax credit for cert. seed , is insane.
run the small grain cleaner guys out of business.
cause cert. seed costs to spiral
off the charts . (worse than now even)

then a few years down the road, Govt. needs to cut back and pulls the credit.

corporate welfare and a benefit only to shareholders.

spend the money on public research and get the results to producers without selling (giving ) exclusive rights to one corporation.

[oneoff]

Its a simple question. Do our fellow organic and seed grower farmers support the same special deals for all farmers that they now enjoy only for themselves. For those in those groups who wish to continue enjoying their special status; and wish not to take any chances jeoprodizing their own current good circumstances; let their attitudes be seen for what they are.
Either way; in the long term; all farmers will suffer equally; but their will be more sympathy and compassion shown more for some groups than others.

[parsley]

oneoff,

It boils down to this:

As a farmer, are you willing to be fair and decent with a fellow farmer?


Really, really simple basic stuff, but noticibly absent in some circles.

[charliep]

Off the beginning topic but curious how plant breeding should be financed in western Canada. Should it be an Australian model with the Grain Research Development Corporation and from their plant breeding financed partially by the GRDC but also private sector. In this model, seed levies are collected from most seed being used but a method for sharing revenues among the original partners including the GRDC (allows for re-investment). Should it be like the US and Europe which is effectively 100 % private sector financed plant breeding - you want to seed technology/you pay including use of specific variety common seed.

Will note the issues on a slow withdrawl from public sector cereal breeding is as much an issue in the US as here. Has a significant impact on competitiveness and one of the reasons North America is loosing ground on wheat market share of world trade.

So if you want plant breeding research on things like fusarium resistance, perenial wheat, agronomic characturistics like improved drought tolerance/salinity tolerance/etc., where will the money come from and who gets the benefits? Is sitting back and doing nothing an acceptable alternative?

[parsley]

Let's start with 'system'.

The way it is presently working for agriculture is that research emphasis/$$ is aimed at biotechnology.

BASF/Dow/Syngenta/etc all lobby and beg governments for available research dollars

They have key people in place in each univsersity to enact their private research.

Patent inventions are owned privately via plant breeder's rights, for example, but funded mainly with massive amounts of public money.

Responsibility and liability lies with the taxpayer; the agricultural community,which trickles down to the farmer, not the inventor.

The research information paid for with public dollars is "private".

The reaearch invention paid for with public dollars is "private".

The test results are "private".

Information is "private"

So, many taxpayers view this as wrong.

It is not free enterprise to have public money funding private business, and a regulatory system that wants to "partner" instead of regulate.

Look up the definition of 'publicly funded but privately owned' with regulatory privileges(patent rights).charliep and write it down clearly on your next post.

In one word.

Is it a system you embrace?

Pars

[parsley]

And if the tax credits were applied to both pedigreed seed and farmer owned seed, what would you say, sawfly?

[charliep]

What is the system Canada should embrace? Is the Australian model the right one?