Seed royalty

[Guest]

Sure surprised me when it happened
Adding extended warranty to our tractor now

we've always bought ext warranty whenever we can
had it on the 8120 until last fall
so they are selling brand new new Hollands at Ritchie bros sale for $230k with same engine , kinger said he bought two ( I think)
how does that work ?
our 8010 if that happened , guess we just sell to wrecker? could be hard on case/new holland resale?
this whole farm scene is a giant mess

[foragefarmer]

There are alternatives to UPOV ’91!

Bill C-18 was supported by public relations campaign orchestrated by Partners in Innovation, an “Astroturf” (fake grassroots) group that claimed to represent farmers, but was actually a mouthpiece for the corporate seed industry. The NFU exposed the Partners in Innovation campaign and discredited its claims.

2. Restore Funding to Public Plant Breeding. Canada’s public plant breeders are internationally respected and have made immeasurable contributions to Canadian agriculture. For example, canola was developed by public plant breeders at the University of Manitoba in the 1970s. Laird, a lentil variety suitable for prairie production, was developed at the University of Saskatchewan’s Crop Development Centre (CDC). Nearly all of our wheat varieties have been developed by AAFC in collaboration with several Canadian universities. None of these varieties would have been part of Canadian agriculture without the government’s long-term support for public plant breeding. The rewards of this public investment are clear.

Federal budgets from 2012 to 2015 reduced funding for public plant breeding, and remaining dollars are being directed to public-private funding partnerships and commercialization initiatives. Public funds therefore are skewed toward supporting private commercial interests rather than public-interest research for public benefit.

Thought I'd refresh all your memories on the great job Closet Boy and Ritz Cracker did for Agriculture!

WCWGA had the ear of Ritz Cracker, so why weren't they opposed to UPOS'91.

It was a solid blue wave in Western Canada back in May of 2011!

[sawfly1]

I am all for paying for innovation.
But that is not what this .what is going on in every step is
A slippery slope to a handful of company's controlling every seed on the planet.
Use agreements have to go.
A patent might expire in 20 years.
But you will not have access to the seed ever.

Killing public breeding , is the
First step. Remove the old public and new varieties from the shelf.
Remove choice.
An. Innovation s market value is priced against the public ones performance.
Every move is designed to remove
That other choice
Delist de register,and any other action to kill pubic varieties.
At first . The seed Co.s drive out the public with deals and a little contract. That says you will never own the their seed, like the public ones.

Steal the public breeders people too
Once the baseline of public varieties is gone , then the sky is the limit for price.
Look at canola.

All seeds are headed that way.
Oh yes you can keep and grow your own . YA Right.
Do not believe the lies.
They even have the right to collect whatever royalty they want at the elevator or port.
And really they do not even need the seed grower. With an OP varieties just get farmers to grow it.
Clean it themselves and pay the seed Co. Every year till the end of time

Big mistake 3-4 corporations
Owning and controlling every
Seed on the planet.
When that happens.
No need for innovation of any kind.
Just sit back and cash the checks.

[walterm]

Is there any producer groups that are against this and willing to fight for farmers that think likewise?

[farmaholic]

The only place this will work is in countries who have allowed it to happen. I wonder if Russia, Ukraine, Argentina, China, Australia have this....or the third world countries.

Are there ever any performance guarantees for disease resistance, insect pest resistance. Environmental conditions will dictate the performance of the varieties more than the breeders claims. So when the varieties fall short of advertised benefits and performance...who pays.

The disasters of Triffid and Round up technology varieties as weeds are met with indifference fromnthe companies who developed them. Round up ready wheat could destroy our markets....who knows what other seed technology could shut us out of markets...but the "owners" of the seed never are held to account for market destruction by their proprietary seeds. They own it and want to be paid for its use but will never stand behind it or be accountable for its negative affects on market access.

[bucket]

Good post Jag.


All the bitching about pulse varieties-stop growing pulses if it’s so bad!! We have had access to new varieties for 25 years with no royalty cost. The total levy in SK would average under $3/Ac and the portion spent on beeeding has given powdery mildew resistant peas, aschochyta resistant lentil. Just try growing an old variety and see how you fare. There would be no pulse industry without the grower investment period. Should growers pay for it all and then some, like canola? No because there is a public economy benefit too. Should grows pay some of the cost? Yes, exactly how the pulse model has operated.

The same argument the CWB used. Socialist proud. Don't like it - don't grow it.

Live in the past as they did and see how that works for you....

Since you have the inside track on the inner circle at Sask Pulse; how about documenting the break out cost as to who pays what. And what value back to farmers are marketing agreements like King Red.....

Or the Spanish one for Simpson.....

How much did farmers pay to develop each variety?

Who can grow it?

Who can sell it?

How much went back to farmers that paid through check offs?

Complacency doesn’t breed lentils – it breeds contempt – and you seem to have bought the Koolaid.

How much did the processors pay to have private label varieties funded by the farmers growing them?

Answer some of those questions.

Then this one ...if AGT couldn't afford a used rail line to Churchill. ...why didn't the government just fix it themselves as a public owned project like transmountain?


When was the last time any farmer bought a used piece of machinery then used government money to fix it..?

[bucket]

A flow through share offering on junior oil companies back in the day use to provide nice returns .....if you understood them....

The seed money along with tax breaks provided the seed money for them to try....some were big winners... others were just for the tax break.....


Fast forward into sending checkoff money to Saskpulse and there is zero return on anything.....it should work like a flow through share offering occasionally hitting the jackpot for farmers.....not so.... we end up with more input costs and poorer prices.....

as far as older varieties of anything ....I would gladly grow them and then spend the same as today in inputs....the net return wouldn't be far off what today's varieties are providing. ....

Maybe no one has noticed the seed costs are retarded....and now a trailing royalty fee. ...wtf....farmers provided the upfront money for the R$D through checkoffs , railway overcharging and taxes.....

[grassfarmer]

Is there any producer groups that are against this and willing to fight for farmers that think likewise?

The NFU was - several years ago. Unfortunately the battle has been fought and lost before most of you woke up to it. Too late now the laws are passed, the rules in place. Now you get to live with it.

[westernvicki]

IF we are going to pay for royalties on all seed, then the whole process of seed selection needs to change.

EXTENSIVE VARIETY TESTING & RESULTS AVAILABLE:
I have been lobbying for more extensive variety testing, a model similar to what is done in the USA where actual annual yields are reported, in standardizes test plots, and data from every test plot is publicly available, in addition to increased functionality tests: the reason for this is a producer can better see & choose varietal performance if seed testing process is more rigorous.

IF we are going to pay for all seed planted, the seed industry needs to invest more in proof of concept: give farmers the best data to choose seed from, the current data is not adequate. Standardize seed test plots, do rigorous data testing to ensure we are engaging only for the best varieties.


This has been my lobby for a number of years; spend more check off dollars on a providing better data to farmers.

TENDER PROCESS;
Seed is the currency of our industry. Increased revenue will up the stakes.

IF the various arms of governement moves to engage this model indeed the varietal distribution process from public institutions like the CDC and AG Canada, will need to be assessed, as issues of like conflict of interest & insider trading (varieties going to companies that have vested interest in the seed) will need to be addressed as these institutions have public funding and in the case of the CDC & pulse varieties significant producer investment. A protocol to distribute must be fair, accountable and transparent.

In this model it will be essential that to governments insure a transparent process of varietal allocation is standardized, & implemented one that contains specific rules and a balanced committee approach to allocation, one that insures accountability, & transparency a process that prevents conflict of interest. The process must balance interest between the various investment bodies from plant breeders through to seed companies, & shareholders of companies (which will also be producers) that benefit from seed which is the currency of this trade,the potential for conflict of interest is ripe, and conflict of interest breeds corruption.

Very simply if we are to pay for seed, at all points of production the industry needs to justify the investment: in the future the allocation model must address the need for accountable distribution, and rigorous testing of varieties to insure value.

As an FYI we already pay on our royalties farm for our commercial seed, we already pay on Canola seed, when you do this you focus more on what you grow, you want value.
But in this model producers should not have to be the guinea pig of varieties that are substandard, and the only way to minimize this is with rigorous testing & transparent reporting.

Interesting to note LIMAGRAIN is a farmer owned breeding house, it is highly successful.

[bucket]

Good points westernvicki


concerns for my farm are what if the variety chosen is a dud? who is picking up the costs?

As an example ...a neighbour bought Centennial pea seed....the ****ing things wouldn't stand and they were gone after one year....pain in the ass to combine ....so he gets to buy another variety...his costs are not picked up by the seed grower or the developer or the scientist.....he picks up the cost to be a guinea pig....


Its bullshit....and the saskpulse board is promoting this nonsense...

Here is a solution when shit like that happen the neighbour should have got a trade in allowance for the dud....sort of like when buying a new vehicle and trading it off....and some of these seed costs are getting more than a vehicle every year..

[Guest]

like the lemon warranty on vehicles , ffs
same as guys who bought red water(i think?) wheat at a very high price , only to find it deregistered right away

[northfarmer]

Great points Vicki.


Levy collecting groups should be the key funders and supporters of providing legitimate and comprehensive third party evaluation of all crops.

Included in these trials we must also have all commercially grown varieties no matter how long they have been around to properly benchmark the new ones on a variety of factors not just yield.


Our various levels of government have backed away from funding these endeavors so farmers with their levy funded organizations need to step up.

Even for the trait and hybrid business of canola and soybeans. we still do not get enough good third party data on these products.

We need a more robust and competitive marketplace for the development and commercialization of all major and minor crops to remain competitive globally.

Forget about government and public breeding. The government is backing away from this and it is not coming back. I am all for government funded open source research for the benefit of industry and agriculture especially, but public breeding with limited germplasm crosses and siloed research are simply often not competitive enough as opposed to privately funded research and varietal development, IMHO.