Seed Synergy

[northfarmer]

Having seen a couple presentations on this issue and the feedback I have the following observations and questions:

There seems to be no intent to limit the use of farm saved seed if you have bought the genetics, though there may be marketing implications.

This is no different than canola where hybrid seed usage is north of 90%, yet you could grow non hybrid conventional canola yet very few if any do. I have talked to farmers that have tried the old conventional varieties to test their performance with our current agronomy and they have all said the improvements with new genetics justify the cost and investment. While i have not tested this myself i do not plan to.

They are looking for a means to create a better value capture method for new genetics that are being developed and thoughts seem to be it will gravitate to a end point royalty system or contractual arrangements or a combination of the two.

Our industry seems to be focussed on more segmentation of the classes of wheat. This has resulted in the CGC now again announcing even more changes to take effect and in some cases on new and popular varieties that are at the peak of their life cycle. Have never heard of the customers in export countries complaining, so not sure who is driving this agenda?

One of the issues raised in discussions about Seed Synergy is the issue of the declarations we must sign as to class of wheat or crop we deliver when in fact the seed that was planted for that crop was farm saved. There would be recourse for certified seed but would the farmer be liable if he contaminated a silo or vessel by inadvertently misrepresenting the class of wheat at delivery? Apparently in the Canada Grains Act the buyer can default to the lowest class value of wheat if the grower cannot back up the declaration as would be the case with farmer saved seed at delivery against a contract. They of course do not do this as we have delivered farm saved seed production against such declarations, but they do keep samples of every load we dump and there is testing for varietal purity available.


Many questions to be asked and the issue is of serious importance. I would encourage all to read up on the consultations and discussions on this issue as I do believe change is coming.

[Klause]

Grassy is right,


Terry has been point man on this at the NFU... problem is farmers aren't listening because of a bunch of outlandish crap that comes from the NFU.

The problem with an organization with the structure like they have, it's prone to being taken over by wing nuts, especially with the general farming population in Canada not having a clue to what's going on, or believe what their salesmen and farm "groups" (that are sponsored by chemical companies and seed giants) are saying.

We need to work in an environment where our international competitors have seed laws that enshrine their ability to keep seed.


Today, we major issues in the canola realm...

I.E. the confession that major breeders lost canola's natural "resistance" gene to clubroot.

The fact everybody is selling "pod shatter resistant" canola, but there's only one pod shatter gene and Bayer has it...

Truth in advertising doesn't matter anymore.


For a new canola variety to be registered, no agronomic performance counts - the only parameter they use is oil content (which is what the "industry" cares about).


International buyers of our wheat are complaining that gluten yield and strength are weakening, that there's chemical alterations in the wheat we are selling... that quality isn't uniform anymore, and that we can't ship reliably.


It is absolutely disgusting that a 30 year old Dutch Wiersum variety (Pasteur) can out yield, and out compete our HRS wheats on every performance vector other than protein.

What are we doing? Making more yield and dropping protein contents in wheat (another complaint from our customers).


Pretty sure if a Canadian farmer planted Campino (Wiersum summer ****) canola next to a fancy LL or RR variety it would be eye opening.

I know people who grow conventional canola, and with modern practices (including a fungicide for Black leg), and high nutrition it easily keeps pace with the RR/LL hybrids.

The ridiculous thing is all you need to do is have a look at the publicly produced polish hybrids... If we put 1/3rd the money we pay for royalties on seed into the public program with university oversight we'd be money ahead.


Corporations don't care about major breakthroughs... you make far more money from incremental developments... Unless of course your competition is making the breakthroughs.


Ignore the CWB for a moment.

We have no cohesive marketing mechanism.
We have no farmer protections for seed, for misinformation in marketing of products, or accountability for production vectors.
We have no real grain terminal oversight (assistant CGC commissioners)
We have no government backstops, unlike the rest of the industry


We need a decade of low prices and pain so producers wake up and start saying NO.

[wmoebis]

On the declarations and saved sample program how did that work for Triffid flax? We knew exactly who bred it, what exact seed growers grew it yet when it got out all farmers had to pay and was never traced back to the seed grower or growers that let it out into public seeds.

How much do you really trust the sample that is taken by remote probe that have never been certified or tested by CGC and that sample that is only handled and retained by elevator in a back room mixed with thousands of other samples. Are you willing to bet your farm on it? Your signed affidavit does just that.

[Klause]

And here's a few choice excerpts from the green paper.

In addition, the industry organizations that currently share responsibility for seed system management with government need to assume collective responsibility (and organize themselves accordingly) for the success of the next generation seed sector.

AKA... Privatization of the seed registration system with zero government oversight.

First, that the seed sector assume leadership of the regulation of quality for use where continued regulation is required as well as other requirements that are not safety-related. This will include working to assure that the system adapts much more quickly to new technologies and other drivers pushing regulatory boundaries on an ongoing basis. Crop value chains need to play a larger role in defining information requirements and regulatory standards that make sense, particularly as new technologies begin to challenge current regulatory and operational models.

AKA... The seed industry is going to dictate what "quality" is... regardless of export markets... If export markets or end use customers do not like a new variety, the producer will be left holding the ball with unmarketable product.

Second, interested and qualified seed companies and growers would be provided greater ability to employ comprehensive in-house approaches to producing pedigreed seed by replacing external 3rd party inspections with internal quality management systems and an ex- post 3rd party audit framework. The current system of external third-party crop inspection

AKA... We're going to police ourselves, and you better trust us, but if it ends up in the elevator system and isn't pure, or the variety you thought it was... well, that's your problem.

Third, that mechanical purity standards that currently result in seed crops being demoted or rejected for certification be applied conditionally where seed cleaning capabilities allow for removal of mechanical impurities to meet grade standards.

WTF???? Ok, so I guess varieties won't have to be pure anymore as long as you can clean them out.

We propose a seed sale listing system, whereby everyone in Canada who wishes to sell field crop seed, of any type, must register the sale in an easy to use system (linked to the entire certification system). In this system all seed sold would be subject to some minimum information requirements. A seed sale listing will feature, at minimum, a basic declaration attesting to a seed lot’s identity and quality, all the way through the full available certification information (using information from the product profile described in Market Entry & Commercialization).
With this information more available, data holdings can be leveraged to produce high quality profiles and analyses, enabling better risk management, product recalls, and facilitating more efficient commercial transactions at lower costs. Importantly, the sector and crop value chains must be involved in determining traceability goals and characteristics, so that the system remains efficient and focused on outcomes of relevance to them. Much of the focus of the system described here is about getting desirable new varieties into production. At the same time this system overall – and the seed sale listing system in particular – would allow for efficient management and removal from production of unwanted varieties. Knowing exactly what is

being grown and sold, and where, would give Canada unprecedented potential to act quickly in replacing compromised varieties and assuring customers.

Big DATA... I.E. they know everything you grow on every field... Argentina had a system like this that the new government REMOVED.


Here's the best part.

Currently,

Canada’s seeds have the following attributes:
Choice
The system encourages a diversity of seed kinds, varieties, and suppliers.
Quality
The system ensures all sold seed in Canada is of known quality.
Safety
Through good stewardship, the system continues to ensure that all seed is safe for humans, animals and the environment.

Under their proposal

The Next Generation Seed System in Canada is structured and organized to deliver value and predictability for the entire value chain:
• A strong, competitive and profitable sector that attracts investment, research and innovation, and that is valued for its significant contribution to society.
• An industry-led system that is cost-effective, market driven, agile and responsive, and that enables Canada to do business globally.
• A system that meets the needs of all stakeholders along the entire value chain.
• A system that instils trust and that garners a high degree of support.

See the problem?????

• A seed listing system that brings increased transpar- ency and utility to seed sales across the country, and allows for more ef - cient protections of intel- lectual property rights and commercial transactions.

[farming101]

In Saskatchewan the Crop Insurance Management Plus program showed that in 2013 about 40%(a rough estimate) of reported acres were seeded to varieties that will be moved to CNHR in August.
In 2017 about 5.5% of the varieties seeded are due to be moved come August.
These stats are only from the insured acres under SK Management Plus. So really should look at Alberta varieties seeded to get a better picture.

If it's all about gluten you have to wonder....
I'll be interested in seeing what the baking qualities of CNHR are when it is separated out for next year(that's if they bother to report it)

[shtferbrains]

"The Next Generation Seed System in Canada is structured and organized to deliver value and predictability for the entire value chain:
• A strong, competitive and profitable sector that attracts investment, research and innovation, and that is valued for its significant contribution to society.
• An industry-led system that is cost-effective, market driven, agile and responsive, and that enables Canada to do business globally.
• A system that meets the needs of all stakeholders along the entire value chain.
• A system that instils trust and that garners a high degree of support. "

Pretty much the same argument Big Pharma uses when demanding longer drug patent protection.

Try to imagine how much they take out of the world economy with this type of protection from competition.

[sawfly1]

Klause , you have it figured out right.
they want transparency .
( hell we as farmers do not even have the right to now , what our product is worth
being loaded on the boat)

Transparency
for them is the key to collections.
under UPOV91 , they have the framework to collect from elevator to port.

are we nuts , letting seed co.s decide what varieties , we are not allowed to ship.
guess which ones they will pick?

and of course they support fam saved seed, in words anyway
not in actions
. ( until they don't )

your old public Var. , are not good enough, so you can not put them in the system.

and with User agreements anything developed even . 25-30 years ago .
will never be accessible.

no competition from anything but 40 year old public varieties.


then you get crop life deciding we can not treat our own canola.
but they will sell you stuff for wheat.

lots of tricks , to heard us into the system they want .

with the user agreements on wheat and other crops , all in place
maybe we can plant our own seed,
after we send the check. of course.


no dam way , should they police themselves , and give them rights to police us.

it is bad enough how they lobby the govt. to screw us now.

all their BS and there is no talk of farmer or consumer input or control.
which should be the 2 most important items .

[bgmb]

This is one area where the FSU and South america has a big advantage over us. They are basically using the same seed tech as we are but for free or at a much lower cost. It is important to have access to non patented seed. Good example is in the soybean seed business where everyone has the option to buy bare untreated "brown Bag" seed. They also have the option of buying the latest and greatest protected variety. Nice to have that choice, maybe on a marginal chunk of land the brown bag makes more sense or maybe to a farmer starting out who wants to keep costs and risk very low. I did hear that in areas where brown bag beans were very common that deals were being made on TUA fees to encourage planting of non brown bag seed. Several years ago before farming was cool and it was very difficult to make money many farmers were also experimenting with binvigor with mixed results.

[Klause]

This is one area where the FSU and South america has a big advantage over us. They are basically using the same seed tech as we are but for free or at a much lower cost. It is important to have access to non patented seed. Good example is in the soybean seed business where everyone has the option to buy bare untreated "brown Bag" seed. They also have the option of buying the latest and greatest protected variety. Nice to have that choice, maybe on a marginal chunk of land the brown bag makes more sense or maybe to a farmer starting out who wants to keep costs and risk very low. I did hear that in areas where brown bag beans were very common that deals were being made on TUA fees to encourage planting of non brown bag seed. Several years ago before farming was cool and it was very difficult to make money many farmers were also experimenting with binvigor with mixed results.

A treated, innovulated rr2 bean in Argentina retails for between $32. And $51 USD/unit.


Their seed law allows them to reseed these beans provided they pay a $12-20/unit tech fee for three years.

After that they can reseed without any requirements.


Very few pay the tech fee. Lol.

[bgmb]

So buy 100 ac the first year seed 3000 of own seed the next year and pay tua on 500ac. I am sure in the south they are maybe even using the same genetics we are here

[Klause]

So buy 100 ac the first year seed 3000 of own seed the next year and pay tua on 500ac. I am sure in the south they are maybe even using the same genetics we are here

Lots of beans in Argy and Brazil are Don Mario (world leader in bean tech) Monsanto and syngenta.


Some pioneer but not many

[sawfly1]

yes that is the thing,
they want to know the exact varieties , produced on every acre.
and they will take their cut at terminal or port , no matter how many brown bag acres.
or how low your seed rate. they do not need to sell you seed , at all to get paid
the rules are in place to collect one way or another

which would all be fine in the scheme of things .
if and only if , off patent varieties went to the public domain after 20 years.

then you have a base to value their improvements in the market place.

they have conveniently skipped out of their end of the age old patent bargain.

the Bargain being ,
we as a society , will protect you , your innovation from others stealing it .
or others profiting from it .
for ( used to be 15 years , now 20 ? )
in return for that protection
the innovation shall become public after the patent expires.

they are getting around their end of the bargain, with user agreements .
they never become public property .

if the same rules applied in other inventions , end user agreements.

you would still be paying , 1200 - 1500 $ for a microwave oven .

if this is the free market , well let us dam well have a free market.

what if korea or china comes up with a great canola for us to grow , and cheap too.
do you want the current seed co.s in charge of whether we can
use the new seed or not .