Pedigreed Seed Grower Policy

[charliep]

I do note your comments about public and private. From the private investment side, the confusion you talk about is one of the reasons private sector will not invest here in cereal research.

Perhaps the real victom is in developing research capital and human talent. Would a new graduate plant breeder choose canola or wheat as a career path? Where is the money? Perhaps this relates to your theme in the beginning and Canada's policy towards wheat as something different both on the marketing and research side.

[parsley]

Would you agree that government companies, fed by the public tit, with forced participation by the citizens, is communism?

Would you agree that private biotech companies fed by public tax dollars, and sidestepping all responsibility. but with forced regulatory participation (as will GM contamination finally render all farmers captive) is a system all of its' own, too?, What is the definition of that system charliep? Would it be the Moussolini system? Is that that a good model? Because that's where we are headed.

You say, "From the private investment side, the confusion you talk about is one of the reasons private sector will not invest here in cereal research."

There's really no confusion, is there? The private biotech companies openly solicit money from government, who picks winners and losers! BASF courted massive tax dollar grants in the US (cars) with no strings attached!

"Would a new graduate plant breeder choose canola or wheat as a career path? "

Researchers today are choosing dividends.They are not salaried, but instead, shareholders. They will provide any answers that enhance the bottom line(climate data/toyota)

Research should be just that. Research. Paid whether it fails or not.Public data available if public money funds.

Of course you realize I am touchy about food. And if you have ever observed a child with a brain tumor, or an adult with Wegenires, or a neighbor with celiac, most would better understand the point.

IMHO of course, charliep Pars

[charliep]

Again the question - what is the plant breeding model you would suggest?

[sawfly]

a tax credit is inflationary, either way. farmer seed or pedigree.
If the govt. is spending money it should be for the overall health and competitiveness of the whole sector.
not for the benefit of private breeders


A checkoff on bushels sold .
fund public research, distribute at cost.


if someone builds a better mousetrap , it sells ,more power to them.

public varieties keep a lid on seed costs.
without them competition is just an illusion and in the end with a stranglehold on the industry they can make as much as they want.

look at the herbicide industry, charging top dollar for 20 yr. old off patent chemicals. Why because you can't get anything else.

just like 40-50$ seed for an acre of canola.
we gave them the power to steal our profit , because we have no backup plan. no decent public variety .

[parsley]

Free Enterprise charliep.


Free Enterprise charliep.


Free Enterprise charliep.

Not communism..(gov't owned and run)

Not facism (Privately owned but built by tax payers money)


Free Enterprise charliep.How does that sit with you?


Raise your money, get your loans, patent your invention, pocket the profits, but be subject to a country's regulation.

Public dollars goes towards undisturbed unbiased research, with the public accessing the research.


Quite novel, huh? Pars

[parsley]

sawfly,

Would you agree thast if farmers get a tax credit for seed, then greenhouse growers should as well, etc. as why would one sector be eligible and not the other?

Teachers pets.

Otherwise, it's so easy for governments to pick partisan winners and losers unless there is EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY available for all citizens.
Pars

[charliep]

So you are suggesting the US and European system where there is limited
investment in public breeding but everyone pays for the use of privately
developed seed technology via a levy or some other payment for seed
patents (even common seed). Perhaps the tweak is you want you want
political and public review of technology (which I assume is specific to
genetic engineering) in plant breeding.

Do I understand your request?

[charliep]

I might note Canada effectively has the system you have suggested. Why
is there limited private investment in cereal breeding in Canada?

[parsley]

What you wrote is not my view at all.

I recommend more public money towards research. Where researchers can research and be paid instead of having to come up with pre-determined results. Scientists, I am told by actual scientists, are often harassed. And beaten into the line that is required. Toyota. Climatologists.Gawd,I keep repeating.

Tax money should NOT NOT NOT be lavished upon a few chosen corporations.

Corporations should be able to raise money as did much of the computer industry.Venture capital.

What is happening, is a few corps like Syngenta and BASF and Dow etc are eating up our available research dollars, may patent the inventions, use the universities as their research/delivery systems, but retain ownership of any intellectual property,

All so they can develop drought resistant sorghum to grow in say, the dessert area of Africa while getting a grant from the African government for irrigation in order to grow massive amounts of grain to export, so Canadian farmers don't have to export to Africa any more.

Yes, well. I can't wait for higher deductions to contribute towards strategy like that. Pars

[charliep]

Perhaps where your model fails is commercialization - taking plant breeding
from the research and moving it from the regulatory approval process until it
is finally available to the farm community. Government and university (as well
as farmer funding organizations) are not set up to do this.

You seem to be promoting the Australian model - GRDC funding and from
there a plant breeding structure where revenues are shared between the public
breeding sector (universities), private companies and the GRDC.

[parsley]

Structure has to stem from who owns the patent.

In the case of Triffid, the patent was sold to a private corporation. It could have been sold to SWP/Pioneer. They should have been responsible for the risks. But how did that work?

If a University or test station retains patent ownership, it is a different situation. They own the patent. And the public takes the risk

You see, charliep, if you believe in free enterprise, it basically boils down to

ownership = responsibility

Each division of financial/ownership responsibility must be clearly defined as say, a service provider or an owner, shareholder, etc.

Canadians simply cannot tolerate a cluster of biotech companies developing a novel plant with public money,for example, getting the university to distribute it to a bunch of farmers to grow as well as sell them the designer chemicals, and then walk away from all responsibility.

Mussolini would approve of total private ownership backed with public responsibility/funding, but then I'm not a real fan of his, so I admit I'm a bit prejudiced.

[sawfly]

parsley i did not think we agreed on much . but i fully agree with what you say on this issue.

[gustgd]

March 4, 2010 / Saskatoon

Federal Tax Credit for Farmers on Check-off Investments

The federal government annually provides a Scientific Research and Experimental Development (SR&ED) tax credit to producers offering them money back on their check-off investments.

The tax credit percentage for producers who contributed to the Wheat and Barley Check-off (administered by the Western Grains Research Foundation) in 2009 are 83% for wheat and 76% for barley.

It should be noted that the check-off on barley in Alberta is collected by the Alberta Barley Commission and will be subject to a different tax credit rate.

The percentages above are calculated by looking at the amount of the check-off dollars spent directly on research, this is then determined to be the eligible portion. Each check-off organization may vary, as they will have their own eligible percentage.

The tax credit is earned at a rate of 20% for individuals and 35% for corporate producers that are Canadian controlled private corporations (CCPC).

Producers who choose to opt-out of the program are not eligible for the tax credit.

Doing the Math - A Wheat Example
If a producer contributed $300 to the Wheat Check-off in 2009, the eligible amount would be calculated by taking 83% (the wheat percentage) of the $300 = $249.

If the producer files taxes as an individual they would take the $249 and would earn 20% of this amount as a tax credit = $49.80.

For producers who file as a corporation, they would earn 35% of the $249 as a tax credit = $87.15

Producers can visit the WGRF website at www.westerngrains.com under the Current Info tab for links to the Canadian Revenue Agency website where the appropriate forms can be obtained and options for tax credit use are outlined.

For more information on claiming your SR&ED tax credit, please consult your accountant or visit the Canada Revenue Agency website.



-30-

For further information, contact:



Mike Espeseth

Western Grains Research Foundation

306-975-0365

[charliep]

Liability is one of the many issues that should be in a R & D policy. Perhaps my questions relate to who does research, who commercializes, who takes the risks including liability in the case of gene flow/other things and finally who benefits. You may disagree but Canada is pretty mixed up mess when it comes to answering these questions. There is more clarity (at least looking from the outside) in our competitors processes. While Canada spends time beating on each other up and down the supply, other regions are making real progress in putting useful new varieties in front of farmers. Our system puts Canada at a competitive disadvantage to regions including Europe/its policy on genetic engineering.