• You will need to login or register before you can post a message. If you already have an Agriville account login by clicking the login icon on the top right corner of the page. If you are a new user you will need to Register.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If farmers must pay more for seed, they want more say

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    If farmers must pay more for seed, they want more say

    If farmers must pay more for seed, they want more say

    A third option has emerged for funding new crop varieties — one that keeps farmers in the driver’s seat. An agricultural economist says it has merit
    By Allan Dawson
    Reporter
    Published: February 7, 2019

    Farmers could consider partnering with plant breeders to fund new varieties as an alternative to the current seed royalty options being proposed.

    When it comes to funding the development of new crops varieties, there could be a third way.

    Western Canadian farmers collectively should consider partnering with plant breeders to fund new varieties as an alternative to the two new seed royalty options farm leaders say lack widespread farmer support.

    The idea has merit, says University of Saskatchewan agricultural economist Richard Gray, who has studied variety funding for 15 years.

    The Alberta Federation of Agriculture (AFA) is exploring the concept along with its sister general farm organizations, Keystone Agricultural Producers (KAP) and the Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan (APAS) and wants a general discussion among western grain producers.

    “I’m working on the idea that you need to create a different entity to do breeding that is literally a government-producer partnership…” Gray said in an interview Jan. 31.

    “It does a few things. One, is it keeps the largest wheat-breeding program we have in the country [at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC)] alive. Two, it means Ag Canada can’t walk away without at least giving producers complete control over how that’s going to be commercialized.

    “We need something like that here if we’re going to have any kind of assurances that as soon as you create value creation the government is not going to walk away and sell it to Bayer or give it to Bayer.”

    Why it matters: Farmers say they’re willing to fund varietal research, but some worry the two proposed funding models from the federal government are the equivalent of handing life science companies a blank cheque. This proposal could address those concerns.

    After years of discussion, Canada’s seed industry last fall released two options to get farmers to pay more royalties on cereal crops. They say it’s necessary to drive more work by public and private plant breeders to develop new varieties that will benefit farms.

    A trailing royalty would compel farmers, through a Seed Variety Use Agreement, to pay a per-acre or bushel royalty on farm-saved seed.

    The other option, an end point royalty, would see farmers pay when they sell their grain.

    The Praire wheat, barley and oats commissions came out against the proposal Jan. 14 in a joint media release, stating “… the likelihood of an industry-wide agreement on either of the proposed models is low and (we) are asking for more consultation, including consideration of other options. Further consultations must focus on engaging producers with a new value proposition.”

    Deerwood farmer Ian Steppler sees both sides of the argument.

    ”But I just feel farmers are losing control,” he wrote in a message Jan. 21.

    “We are not puppets. Let these companies invest their dollars into their products to buy my business. Ultimately that is how business works. The way I read this, we subsidize their plant-breeding efforts for the breeders to charge us whatever market bears for the crops we grow. Get your hands out of my pockets.”

    Some farmers fear private seed companies will pressure the federal government to get out of variety development, AFA president Lynn Jacobson said in an interview Jan. 30.

    Angusville farmer James Melnyk agrees.

    “The yield gains percentage-wise with wheat have grown at the same percentage as canola without it being privatized,” he said Jan. 23 during an interview at Ag Days in Brandon.

    Crop insurance data shows on average Manitoba wheat and canola yields have increased 102 and 80 per cent over the last 25 years.

    “We’re getting our yields,” Melnyk said. “We’re getting our quality and we have a public system. The farmers, the taxpayers, the gross domestic product — everybody is benefiting and I think it should stay that way.

    “It’s very important.”
    Overcharged

    Few dispute the value private canola breeders have brought to their varieties, but some farmers believe they pay more than they should because they can’t save canola seed and there are no publicly developed alternatives.

    Ag economist Richard Gray agrees.

    “Under alternative ways of developing that canola they could still have something similar and not pay nearly as much,” he said.

    It costs about 40 cents a pound to produce commercial canola seed, but farmers pay about $12 a pound, Gray said.

    “Let’s say it cost them (companies) a buck a pound for hybrid seed, they’ve got a billion dollars left over that goes to companies to support their other activities,” he said. “There’s a lot of rent there.”

    Most of that billion dollars leaves Canada and only around $60 million is reinvested in canola variety development, Gray said.


    But neither royalty option being discussed would result in wheat following the canola model, Canadian Seed Trade Association president Todd Hyra said in an interview Jan. 23 at Ag Days. Both support AAFC breeders as much as private ones, he said.

    “We want to make sure the federal dollars remain part of this puzzle and we want to add some incremental dollars to make sure we are generating some revenue for those programs into the future,” he said. “At the same time we want to create an environment that attracts investment from other parts of the world.”

    AAFC says it’s not going to abandon crop research, but if seed companies ramp up AAFC will shift to ‘discovery’ research, Felicitas Katepa-Mupondwa, AAFC’s director of research, development and technology told a meeting on the proposed royalties in Winnipeg Nov. 16, 2018.

    “Our long-term vision is that we will partner with those who want to work in this field and when that capacity builds in the sector so there are those who are finishing varieties we may move our resources to upstream science, which is the appropriate strong role for a public institution,” she said.

    “If there isn’t capacity in the sector we will continue to finish varieties. If organizations… decide to get into the variety-finishing space… we do not need to compete with those… who are finishing varieties. So if there’s capacity we don’t need to be there — we move our resources elsewhere.”

    https://www.manitobacooperator.ca/news-opinion/news/if-farmers-must-pay-they-want-more-say/?utm_source=GFM+Publications&utm_campaign=3a97ce65 7a-Manitoba+Co-operator+daily+enews+Feb+08%2C+2019&utm_medium=ema il&utm_term=0_2da8244677-3a97ce657a-88077149

    #2
    No one really mentioned it, at the same time they are forcing farmers to increase the % of seed purchased from seed growers every year. I think the % of seed purchased as certified is around 15%?

    Good for seed growers
    Good for breeders
    Etc

    All creating a system of “un competitiveness “ when trying to promote competitiveness. What happens first?

    What happens if I accidentally, seed grower, seed cleaner, mix varieties ( on purpose or not), how can that be policed?

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by Rareearth View Post
      No one really mentioned it, at the same time they are forcing farmers to increase the % of seed purchased from seed growers every year. I think the % of seed purchased as certified is around 15%?

      Good for seed growers
      Good for breeders
      Etc

      All creating a system of “un competitiveness “ when trying to promote competitiveness. What happens first?

      What happens if I accidentally, seed grower, seed cleaner, mix varieties ( on purpose or not), how can that be policed?

      Details on this are very important....

      Comment


        #4
        I would bend a bit on this issue if farmers had a say and some payback system.

        Because a blanket tax to take from us and give to every seed company is corporate welfare.

        Sick bastards that can’t make it on their own still get a check doesn’t work.

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by SASKFARMER3 View Post
          I would bend a bit on this issue if farmers had a say and some payback system.

          Because a blanket tax to take from us and give to every seed company is corporate welfare.

          Sick bastards that can’t make it on their own still get a check doesn’t work.
          E

          What is the sask party and rhe Ndp saying about this issue? We are a farming province are we not?

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by the big wheel View Post
            E

            What is the sask party and rhe Ndp saying about this issue? We are a farming province are we not?
            Point of issue;

            If those farmers... who buy and sell 'brown bag' seed now... would change and obey the Upov 78 and 91 laws... as well as Plant Breeders Rights legislation... ALREADY IN EFFECT AND THE LAW NOW... I dare to say there is no need for any changes. Farmer... many many farmers... buy PBR licensed seed every year... illegally. I dare to say... if cereal seed in SK is 18% Certified seed... the 'grown from' progeny of the Certified seed... legally exempted from PBR is less than 50%[50%+18%= 68%] leaving over 30% not paying levies owed today... without any changes to any systems.

            This has led to Breeders and Seed Co's charging double the levy on Certified Seed [EG $1.50/bu instead of $.75/bu on new wheat and pea varieties]... Compliance to laws already in effect... would stop this cold as need to change our systems would vanish [cutting present royalties in half would make everyone pay their fair share.. and Certified Seed competitive with much of the rest of the common seed used for planting now legally] .

            I [as a pedigreed seed grower] pay double the levy now; what commercial growers must pay.. simply because seed breeders/co's refuse to allow Pedigreed Seed Growers the right to use farm saved seed exemptions [force us to pay] for our commercially grown grains not used for planting seed uses sold as grain to elevators .

            This problem is not going away...

            Comment


              #7
              One of the ways canola took off in acres besides the GMO varieties was because seed was not expensive....at 2.99 a pound treated plus the TUA of 15 bucks an acre ....I would say the industry flourished...

              I doubt that had seed cost 80 bucks an acre 20 years ago that the prairies would have the crush plants that are here today ...

              So while people like TOM complain and advocate for higher seed prices and seed taxes.... thinking with a little vision would prove that making something affordable to grow allows for the secondary industries to flourish....

              And it important to note most secondary industries and R&D and the people involved extract more government money or tax breaks than all primary producers combined....

              Its better to have primary producers wanting to grow grains affordably than cripple them to the point that governments have to not only bail out the primary producer but the secondary industries as well....

              And history has proven that the secondary industries will fail even with government help IF the primary producers are left on the ropes...

              Comment


                #8
                [QUOTE=TOM4CWB;402225]Point of issue;

                ... Farmer... many many farmers... buy PBR licensed seed every year... illegally. I dare to say... if cereal seed in SK is 18% Certified seed... the 'grown from' progeny of the Certified seed... legally exempted from PBR is less than 50%[50%+18%= 68%] leaving over 30% not paying levies owed today... without any changes to any systems....

                You claim "...MANY MANY FARMERS are buying PBR licencsed seed every year...Illegally...." I have never bought or sold brown bagged seed nor do I know any neighbors that regularly do this. So just wondering how you know MANY MANY farmers are doing this. And where did you get the 50% figure from? What 3rd party study has verified these percentages you are throwing out.

                Second, as a commercial grower I am currently not allowed to even name the variety when I take my farmed saved seed in for cleaning for my own use. However, if royalties are enacted, I will be forced to name the grown variety when cleaning, and if a commercial sale checkoff is enacted, then the variety grown will have to be named at the point of sale. Therefore if the seed industry still recognizes the variety after it has been grown commercially, it will be impossible to claim brown bag seed sales are illegal as the government and the seed trade both recognizes and charges for the purity of variety after commercial growth. Furthermore, it will be impossible to stop farmers from selling commercially grown seed as a named variety if the seed trade legislation gets passed. Far from solving the problems, you have made it MUCH MUCH worse!

                Comment


                  #9
                  [QUOTE=dmlfarmer;402228]
                  Originally posted by TOM4CWB View Post
                  Point of issue;

                  ... Farmer... many many farmers... buy PBR licensed seed every year... illegally. I dare to say... if cereal seed in SK is 18% Certified seed... the 'grown from' progeny of the Certified seed... legally exempted from PBR is less than 50%[50%+18%= 68%] leaving over 30% not paying levies owed today... without any changes to any systems....

                  You claim "...MANY MANY FARMERS are buying PBR licencsed seed every year...Illegally...." I have never bought or sold brown bagged seed nor do I know any neighbors that regularly do this. So just wondering how you know MANY MANY farmers are doing this. And where did you get the 50% figure from? What 3rd party study has verified these percentages you are throwing out.

                  Second, as a commercial grower I am currently not allowed to even name the variety when I take my farmed saved seed in for cleaning for my own use. However, if royalties are enacted, I will be forced to name the grown variety when cleaning, and if a commercial sale checkoff is enacted, then the variety grown will have to be named at the point of sale. Therefore if the seed industry still recognizes the variety after it has been grown commercially, it will be impossible to claim brown bag seed sales are illegal as the government and the seed trade both recognizes and charges for the purity of variety after commercial growth. Furthermore, it will be impossible to stop farmers from selling commercially grown seed as a named variety if the seed trade legislation gets passed. Far from solving the problems, you have made it MUCH MUCH worse!
                  TOM4$FORHIMSELF is not worried about the run of the mill farmers ....he is a lark for the seed industry or his masters whoever they might be today or tomorrow ....far from giving a shit about regular farmers...

                  Read deeper in his language and it will become crystal clear.....

                  He is a guy that calls going on a diet a hunger strike....

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Tom only likes regulation that suits his needs.

                    Any regulation that stands in his way is worthy of a crusade against it.

                    Contributions to two recent threads demonstrates it.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      [QUOTE=dmlfarmer;402228]
                      Originally posted by TOM4CWB View Post
                      Point of issue;

                      ... Farmer... many many farmers... buy PBR licensed seed every year... illegally. I dare to say... if cereal seed in SK is 18% Certified seed... the 'grown from' progeny of the Certified seed... legally exempted from PBR is less than 50%[50%+18%= 68%] leaving over 30% not paying levies owed today... without any changes to any systems....

                      You claim "...MANY MANY FARMERS are buying PBR licencsed seed every year...Illegally...." I have never bought or sold brown bagged seed nor do I know any neighbors that regularly do this. So just wondering how you know MANY MANY farmers are doing this. And where did you get the 50% figure from? What 3rd party study has verified these percentages you are throwing out.

                      Second, as a commercial grower I am currently not allowed to even name the variety when I take my farmed saved seed in for cleaning for my own use. However, if royalties are enacted, I will be forced to name the grown variety when cleaning, and if a commercial sale checkoff is enacted, then the variety grown will have to be named at the point of sale. Therefore if the seed industry still recognizes the variety after it has been grown commercially, it will be impossible to claim brown bag seed sales are illegal as the government and the seed trade both recognizes and charges for the purity of variety after commercial growth. Furthermore, it will be impossible to stop farmers from selling commercially grown seed as a named variety if the seed trade legislation gets passed. Far from solving the problems, you have made it MUCH MUCH worse!
                      DMLfarmer... I did not say you broke the PBR law... but some 30% of seed transactions sure appear to be illegal... otherwise this amount of Certified Seed used... won't cover how new varieties got integrated lnto commercial deliveries of new varieties so quickly.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by Rareearth View Post
                        No one really mentioned it, at the same time they are forcing farmers to increase the % of seed purchased from seed growers every year. I think the % of seed purchased as certified is around 15%?

                        Good for seed growers
                        Good for breeders
                        Etc

                        All creating a system of “un competitiveness “ when trying to promote competitiveness. What happens first?

                        What happens if I accidentally, seed grower, seed cleaner, mix varieties ( on purpose or not), how can that be policed?
                        Rareearth, end point royalties in Australia... have shown a decrease in Certified Seed... but the compliance funding for R and D funds need is gone... as funding does not depend on Certified Seed Sales... just that actual seed planted purity be proficient to meet the needs of the end users.

                        Trailing royalties have a huge compliance problem... just like in our present system today.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          So Tom4CWB, if so many many farmers are doing illegal activity, why don't you do something about it and sue them? You have all the legislation and regulations to do so, but instead you just complain and want even more legislation.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            [QUOTE=TOM4CWB;402234]
                            Originally posted by dmlfarmer View Post

                            DMLfarmer... I did not say you broke the PBR law... but some 30% of seed transactions sure appear to be illegal... otherwise this amount of Certified Seed used... won't cover how new varieties got integrated lnto commercial deliveries of new varieties so quickly.
                            I never claimed you did said I broke the law, so quit the deflecting and answer the question I asked.

                            In your comment which I replied to, you claimed 50% of the seed appears to be illegal. I disputed that figure and asked for proof. Now you are saying 30% of seed transactions appear to be illegal. So which is it? 50% or 30%, or are you just spouting opinion and have no actual proof of your claims?

                            And you missed completely my second point. Seed growers cannot have it both ways. Today commercially grown wheat cannot be sold by variety. Commercial growers cannot even legally identify by variety what they are growing. However, if the seed trade gets to identify the commercial wheat I am growing by variety and charge a royalty or tax upon sale there is no way they can stop me from selling that variety by name for the purpose of seeding to another farmer as long as I pay the tax/royalty on it. If the seed trade considers the wheat I am growing to be pure enough to be taxed by variety, they will not be able to say it is not that variety if I choose to sell it to a third party by that name. This ill thought out royalty plan will not only cost commercial growers money, it will put many seed growers out of business as they will have to compete with every commercial grower selling the seed by variety name.

                            This is simply another CWB fiasco. Lots of promises, but a lack of planning and no foresight of potential problems.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              [QUOTE=dmlfarmer;402267]
                              Originally posted by TOM4CWB View Post

                              I never claimed you did said I broke the law, so quit the deflecting and answer the question I asked.

                              In your comment which I replied to, you claimed 50% of the seed appears to be illegal. I disputed that figure and asked for proof. Now you are saying 30% of seed transactions appear to be illegal. So which is it? 50% or 30%, or are you just spouting opinion and have no actual proof of your claims?

                              And you missed completely my second point. Seed growers cannot have it both ways. Today commercially grown wheat cannot be sold by variety. Commercial growers cannot even legally identify by variety what they are growing. However, if the seed trade gets to identify the commercial wheat I am growing by variety and charge a royalty or tax upon sale there is no way they can stop me from selling that variety by name for the purpose of seeding to another farmer as long as I pay the tax/royalty on it. If the seed trade considers the wheat I am growing to be pure enough to be taxed by variety, they will not be able to say it is not that variety if I choose to sell it to a third party by that name. This ill thought out royalty plan will not only cost commercial growers money, it will put many seed growers out of business as they will have to compete with every commercial grower selling the seed by variety name.

                              This is simply another CWB fiasco. Lots of promises, but a lack of planning and no foresight of potential problems.
                              1) If you read my original post... it said 18+50% and I said 30% not in compliance... the 50% I said IS in compliance.
                              2) you are required to illegally disclose what variety of wheat you grow... The CWB did... and the CGC does today... it is required to answer the sales question honestly.. of whether or not compliance is complied with... when the class or variety declarations are signed off at the sale point.
                              3) In the trailing royalty proposal.. this illegal non-pedigreed seed identification / thorny issue continues... as declaration of variety is needed each year... to pay the trailing royalty per the contract signed to receive the first Certified Seed.
                              4) The requirement to illegally declare the variety... when it is not Certified Seed... incentivizes further trade and production of non pedigreed seed... as the seed royalty collected will be necessary in function.. so it is less on non pedigreed seed/acres... which will again incentivize underground illegal production... and encourage improper declarations of varieties that are not certified seed. Hence... the reason plant breeders are not using the trailing royalty system today... they could choose to if they wanted... but do not. So no matter how we look at this... I agree with your thesis that trailing royalties are unworkable...
                              Last edited by TOM4CWB; Feb 11, 2019, 13:45.

                              Comment

                              • Reply to this Thread
                              • Return to Topic List
                              Working...