Cancellation of Variety Registration by Request in Canada

[gustgd]

http://www.inspection.gc.ca/plants/variety-registration/registration-procedures/cancellation-of-registration/eng/1359966665364/1359967053183


Since it's reasonable to be thinking of varietal de registration

How would you want it done?

I think Sceptre durum is being deregistered because of Cadnium levels. It's something that our buyers don't like and we needed to remove.

Or is there something else?

There's likely a small cost to maintaining registration. Who should pay?



While we're on it how should registration be handled?

Should it be wide open? The market will decide or should we stay with committees and the lag time and lost opportunity of the present system?

[gustgd]

Canola is different from the cereals

I think it has something to do with how canola appears to be working. Because it's a hybrid and comes in a bag and part of the purchase agreement has you committing not to re grow. Throw in seed treatment restrictions and a company doesn't have to de register they can simply stop selling and it's "new" varieties every couple years.

Wheat will be different as it's open pollinated and farmers have a history of saving seed.

All they have to do is say at some point in the distant future wheat seed will be as expensive as canola on a per acre basis.

They never have to justify all the public breeding and tax dollars that went into getting Canadian cereal varieties in place.

[bgmb]

I think if the public does not want to pay which i can understand then the breeding should remain as is but be funded by the checkoff paid by farmers and those who pay checkoffs should be rewarded with a dividend if there is any profits out of the system.

[bgmb]

And also those who pay checkoffs should own the genetics. Why would we as farmers pay a checkoff to fund a breeding program we do not own?

[SASKFARMER3]

Canola is not different than cereals! In the beginning we cleaned our own canola in the 70s then they took a seed treatment away only sold to seed growers then when the had all the old varieties deregulated they started like equipment, costs of production is up and research costs so have to add a dollar a lb we'll 14 years later were at 14 a lb and climbing! Winner is seed companies farmer is stuck with useless varieties that promise the world and most years do the same as we did before! Just a lot of fluff!
Study canola and what happened and quit believing the ones in control with a agenda, because I can honestly say the farmer will never win!

[bgmb]

Honestly saskfarmer Dont like the new seed system either but canola is different than cereals. I dont think we are going to produce our own hybrids on farm, and where do you get this 14 dollar a lb from i dont think we have never paid more than 11 bucks a lb for the best canola genetics. Still more than it should be but its not as bad as soy or corn.

[bgmb]

But in the case of cereals i agree with your analysis this is a no win for farmers just a way for companies to control the genetics we are growing and extract maximum willingness to pay from farmers.
Wheat seed will be 50 dollars an acre before we know it instead of 12-15 with your own seed.

[ado089]

Let me translate for SF3. If hybrids and single use agreements are going to be the way of the future it is prudent to only deregulate old varieties based on output characteristics only. Access to open pollinated varieties and approved seed treatments is important to ensure value and honesty in the seed industry.

[gustgd]

Thanks Ado. I didn't want to be accused of Strawmaning SF3.

Here's some food for thought.
Why would refundable commissions be responsible for varietal development. Why couldn't it be a public company owned by farmers. Class A shareholders get to decide direction. Much more accountable.

It wouldn't necessarily mean "cheaper" seed yet those who want a farmer option would have opportunity. Commission checkoff could remain *low* and people could put their money where their mouth is.

I'll expand as necessary, but for now have to move sprayer

[cottonpicken]

We could use simple math logic help or hurt the idea.

We could take canola and use some round numbers,say a 10 year time frame,say 20 million acres,say 50 dollars an acre,all to keep it simple,say 5% roe
(return on investment)should put us in the ballpark?Feel free to argue different numbers i'm shooting from the hip.

So that is basically a billion a year in seed cost annulized at 5%,so basically we would need to calculate trend line per acre increases in yield against that axis of the graph and this is more complicated than i thought and i got to get back to work.

Someone else feel free to help build the formula.

[cottonpicken]

But actually if use the rule of 72,,we know the doubling time of 7% is 10 years.

[cottonpicken]

Ahh **** it.

I'm doing this wrong,if you want a 5% return on increase in yield through seed investment you need a doubling in real yield every 14 years.

[bucket]

And history has proven that isn't or hasn't happened.

[gustgd]

Don't want to argue your math Cotton but first response will point to this study of Greys.

Personally I don't think it's 20% but I haven't done any studies.


http://westerngrains.com/news/wheat-barley-varietal-research-benefits-producers/

Full study is in link at bottom of release

[Rareearth]

I second the idea of farmer check off dollars funding research that they own.

Why would I fund research ( check offs) for varieties I have to buy from private companies. This would be the same as paying Dekalb a extra bonus, dividend, call it what you want for the privilege of buying there varieties at the highest price of what the market will bear.

What is going to happen with all of the Ag Canada research, varieties, infrastructure etc?