Seed Synergy... what does our Canadian seed system.. need to do?

[grassfarmer]

Forgive a the class dunce for a minute.
Is there no need for R&D? How do we do it?
I remember a CWB employee telling me there can't be any need for research in wheat because "if there were somebody would be doing it". Sounded like a Belarus employee.
Not defending any method as I don't educate myself regarding this much.
But are we neglecting a need while deciding how to do it?

It sounds like that employee didn't know what he was talking about. There was a strong public plant breeding system maintained throughout the CWB era. Perhaps it's not un-connected that after bowing to corporate interests on wheat marketing they would then bow to the same interests on controlling the seed supply?
One thing worth pointing out is that public plant breeding is not ending - the slow, expensive, early stage - early generations - of new variety development will remain public as it has always been. The lucrative, latter stage development of new varieties including multiplication and commercialization are what the big seed companies are after with their royalty cash grab. They still want the taxpayer to do the expensive part while asking the Government to mandate the farmer pay for the development costs they didn't incur.

[katoe]

What are your conservative mps saying. I emailed mine but have not received a reply

[bucket]

What are your conservative mps saying. I emailed mine but have not received a reply

Conservatives are all for this and it would have been done already except for the election in 2015....WCWGA had to fill a whole new lot of paper bags of cash to liberals to get this done on behalf of their masters/sponsors....

[blackpowder]

Well if you could take a flame thrower to the whole system, what you do then?
King for a day. Fix it.

[ajl]

The first thing to fix is the variety registration system. Who is asking for a variety to be removed from the class? A variety of HRS that has been in use for a decade or more and then suddenly is not good enough any more? Other than that nothing really needs to be changed. You don't find supermarket shelves empty very often these days do you? Lots of new varieties coming out every year so there seems to be available funding. There could be focus on more of an improvement before a variety is released but on farm testing will determine that. This whole process is just another raid on farmer equity and I don't have much to give.

[bucket]

Well if you could take a flame thrower to the whole system, what you do then?
King for a day. Fix it.

You want me to fix it??????

So all the ****heads that brought it this far are going to resign because of their incompetence....if you want me involved get guys that are spearheading this shit out of the way....

Is there a costing of how much is spent annually in checkoffs, R&D from government resources etc?

Have an umbrella group that oversees all that funding...then have each commodity with their wants/needs list...and get the varieties or traits based on market requirements implemented by that fund ....

When the variety is ready to be sold to commercial side....add up all your costs to get it to that point PLUS a ROI and put it out for tender with that reserve....once its picked up as a commercial the money from the tender goes back to further variety research....

If what they said at Saskatoon about a 11 to 1 return all this should be self funding without a further ask in the form of a royalty....

There is no ROI on any of this because they are legislating the royalty to farmers....


The books have to opened up because the money is there if the ROI is accurate....

If it doesn't make sense, I will answer questions now but am I granted the same privilege of not answering like Carla and Anthony in Saskatoon??????

[dmlfarmer]

I have some questions for supporters of royalties:
Why do I have to pay a royalty on a variety when as soon as I seed it for commercial production, it loses its name distinction? I can no longer sell it commercially or even advertise it by name. It is simply a class and grade. If seed growers want to charge a royalty, at least let commercial growers have the benefits of continuing to have their production known by the name of the variety that I paid the royalty on.

Why are we still judging the merits of new varieties by old varieties like Barrie when that is no longer even a dominant variety grown on the prairies? If royalties are to develop new and better varieties should they not be compared to the best current varieties instead of old standards?

Current registration requirements in Canada only call for a new variety to “show merit are equal to or better than the appropriate check cultivars with regard to any single characteristic or combination of characteristics that renders the candidate beneficial for a particular use in a specific area of Canada." Soil conditions and climate change across my farm so I need to know the specific conditions a new variety needs to deliver the merits it has been registered to offer. So seed growers need to inform me both what is the advantage of this new variety and what factors are needed to gain the advantage such as soil type, rain fall, maturity, fertility requirements etc so I can make a better buying decision. Then if those advantages don't appear given a complete description, do I have legal recourse to recover my additional costs of seed/royalities.

And then the registration process goes on to state: "In practice, few candidate cultivars reach the minimum standard in all of the important characteristics under consideration. Most will show a collection of strengths and weaknesses relative to the checks. In some cases deficiencies in one characteristic may be compensated for by strength in another (e.g. lower yield for earlier maturity). It is the overall merit of a candidate cultivar that is assessed when making a recommendation for or against registration. If you claim royalties will yield better new varieties, I think the requirements for registration better be a lot higher than simply meeting current standards or even worse, trading off existing merits.

Finally, since this seems to be taxing commercial producers to cover the costs of elite seed growers and plant breeders while giving the most benefits back to these elites, can we rename the EPR as the Seed Equalization Transfer as it seems to be a lot closer to Federal Equalization Transfer Payments than it does to Seed Research and Development?

[bucket]

Well if you could take a flame thrower to the whole system, what you do then?
King for a day. Fix it.

Any comments on my suggestion or are the sponsors on weekend break?????

[TOM4CWB]

Bucket,
As I, in my last post to "Walterm,
I agree this whole levy royalty discussion... has been rather pointless. With Upov 91 and PBR in place... the folks who actually plan and provide valuable genetics... have all the tools needed to be fairly compensated for the Intellectual Property they would be sharing with farmers in western Canada growing cereals with new advanced productivity and quality enhancements that would deserve added income payments."

The 11 to 1 return on public investments... is generally meant to show productivity enhancements, profitability increases.... to commercial grain growers/endusers who enjoy 95% of these ROI gains. As CSGA seed farmer/growers... do not share in levy/royalty revenues collected from All pedigreed seed production... from select seed [down the 7 possible generations to Certified cereal seed sales]... farmer pedigreed multipliers are only collecting and paying the often $1.50/bu royalty... paying 100% to seed co's with the contracts with the plant breeder/institutions... Again for clarity...Cereal pedigreed seed production for farmers who multiply seed to the certified seed level... only involves PAYING ROYALTIES[not getting any portion of these royalties themselves]. As well...Trailing contract royalties would not be a revenue generation source either; for Pedigreed stock seed increases; by farmer pedigreed seed growers[no financial gain projected or expected]...

With a very major seed co[contracting [with plant breeders/institutions] being Secan[who is a non-profit]...as 100% of the increased 'new' royalties will flow into new seed R&D...
And as no funds are paid out to any shareholder/members...
Then This results in our Canadian co-operative based pedigreed seed distribution system itself... naturally as a matter of course... creates a Canadian seed system 'discipline' in our varietal cereal development models... as private profit seed co.s must compete with our Canadian seed co-ops... that are non-profit and return 100% of royalty revenues back to R&D... just as you asked be a part of a future seed system model.
Have a good day, Sincerely Tom

Any comments on my suggestion or are the sponsors on weekend break?????

[bucket]

Tom4$4himself

You forgot to mention your markup on certified seed sales...usually 2 to 3 times market value of the best year....

Don't ****ing say seed growers don't make money....you have certified seed sales for all your work and then the common seed sales at higher prices as well....


I think if this tax is implemented then we should be paying market price for certified seed and the royalty can take care of the industry.....

[farmaholic]

What do you sell your certified seed for?

Bucket,
As I, in my last post to "Walterm,
I agree this whole levy royalty discussion... has been rather pointless. With Upov 91 and PBR in place... the folks who actually plan and provide valuable genetics... have all the tools needed to be fairly compensated for the Intellectual Property they would be sharing with farmers in western Canada growing cereals with new advanced productivity and quality enhancements that would deserve added income payments."

The 11 to 1 return on public investments... is generally meant to show productivity enhancements, profitability increases.... to commercial grain growers/endusers who enjoy 95% of these ROI gains. As CSGA seed farmer/growers... do not share in levy/royalty revenues collected from All pedigreed seed production... from select seed [down the 7 possible generations to Certified cereal seed sales]... farmer pedigreed multipliers are only collecting and paying the often $1.50/bu royalty... paying 100% to seed co's with the contracts with the plant breeder/institutions... Again for clarity...Cereal pedigreed seed production for farmers who multiply seed to the certified seed level... only involves PAYING ROYALTIES[not getting any portion of these royalties themselves]. As well...Trailing contract royalties would not be a revenue generation source either; for Pedigreed stock seed increases; by farmer pedigreed seed growers[no financial gain projected or expected]...

With a very major seed co[contracting [with plant breeders/institutions] being Secan[who is a non-profit]...as 100% of the increased 'new' royalties will flow into new seed R&D...
And as no funds are paid out to any shareholder/members...
Then This results in our Canadian co-operative based pedigreed seed distribution system itself... naturally as a matter of course... creates a Canadian seed system 'discipline' in our varietal cereal development models... as private profit seed co.s must compete with our Canadian seed co-ops... that are non-profit and return 100% of royalty revenues back to R&D... just as you asked be a part of a future seed system model.
Have a good day, Sincerely Tom

[TOM4CWB]

Side note to Bucket... as End use customers enjoy part of the 11 to 1 multiplier ROI... perhaps it is only fair... commercial grain buyers... and end use consumers... Directly pay some % into cereal seed R&D themselves. Cheers

Bucket,
As I, in my last post to "Walterm,
I agree this whole levy royalty discussion... has been rather pointless. With Upov 91 and PBR in place... the folks who actually plan and provide valuable genetics... have all the tools needed to be fairly compensated for the Intellectual Property they would be sharing with farmers in western Canada growing cereals with new advanced productivity and quality enhancements that would deserve added income payments."

The 11 to 1 return on public investments... is generally meant to show productivity enhancements, profitability increases.... to commercial grain growers/endusers who enjoy 95% of these ROI gains. As CSGA seed farmer/growers... do not share in levy/royalty revenues collected from All pedigreed seed production... from select seed [down the 7 possible generations to Certified cereal seed sales]... farmer pedigreed multipliers are only collecting and paying the often $1.50/bu royalty... paying 100% to seed co's with the contracts with the plant breeder/institutions... Again for clarity...Cereal pedigreed seed production for farmers who multiply seed to the certified seed level... only involves PAYING ROYALTIES[not getting any portion of these royalties themselves]. As well...Trailing contract royalties would not be a revenue generation source either; for Pedigreed stock seed increases; by farmer pedigreed seed growers[no financial gain projected or expected]...

With a very major seed co[contracting [with plant breeders/institutions] being Secan[who is a non-profit]...as 100% of the increased 'new' royalties will flow into new seed R&D...
And as no funds are paid out to any shareholder/members...
Then This results in our Canadian co-operative based pedigreed seed distribution system itself... naturally as a matter of course... creates a Canadian seed system 'discipline' in our varietal cereal development models... as private profit seed co.s must compete with our Canadian seed co-ops... that are non-profit and return 100% of royalty revenues back to R&D... just as you asked be a part of a future seed system model.
Have a good day, Sincerely Tom