GURT (Genetic Use Restriction Tech) - Terminator gene

[northfarmer]

I see the lobby has cranked it up on this topic again.

If such technolgy could be employed in new seed varieties would it not give us a great tool to manage volunteer crops in subsequent production cycles?

I see the organics are one of the lobbies working on Minister Ambrose. You would think it would be a benefit to them as it would be a useful tool to preclude the unwanted spead of volunteers.

I cannot see how this tech, when developed, would affect the reuse and reseeding of all current varietes of crops grown.

I would think it would further stimulate the development of new and better varieties of many crops.

Farmers could be free to choose whether such techonlgy would be a fit on their own operation.

I had also read that in some cases the seed could be replanted but that certain beneficial traits could only be carried for the first generation.

I would hope that constructive and informed debate could ensue as to the fit of these technologies in modern agriculture.

[SASKFARMER3]

I don't have to spend an extra 100,000.00 to some seed company for seed that hasn't increased our yields out west one once, for what.
If farmers believe that this is good their dreaming in Technicolor for sure.
The seed company's want you under their control.
Talked to a VP with Major Grain company and they make dick squat on canola seed, with cut backs and seed company greed they have nothing left for the middle man yes they make on the chemical but on the seed nothing to speak of. Same with most seed company's but the grain company is held responsible for everything.
WE ARE NOT THE USA OR EUROPE WHERE WE GET HELP FROM OUR GOVERNMENT THIS IS CANADA!

[northfarmer]

so.....you seed common bounty or ebony when you seed canola?.....what kind of wheat........Park and Katepawa?

I do not give a @#$% what the grain company makes off seed sales they do not pay my bills, they buy my grain....

..... all I care about is the cost per unit of production...you cannot count on govt help in this business...if it comes it comes....and I do plenty of lobbying....

...if a new variety or trait like liberty link or rr lower my cost per unit of production after I have tried it on my farm I grow it....i can only assume you have been using the same varieties for a long time if the newer stuff is not any better on your farm...

if farmers do not get value from the technology they will not buy...and if you do not like it stay with your strategy...

the economics of my grain production have never been this poor in my carreer....but there is no question that the average yields on my farm over the last twenty years have improved substantially....same basic fertility program and low distrubance seeding from the start...canola yields have increased more than cereals...

that all being said....i would say it is still time to "drop the gloves" on defending our industry as one thread had aptly put it! I am not moving to to the EU or US, so i choose to stay here and fight it out....

[SASKFARMER3]

No I see Liberty link hybrid gen 1 and

1st gen ac Barrie and1st gen Manley

etc.

we have seed plots with minimal reg seed

The economics of doing it this way work.

The terminator gene will be the end of farming trust me on that.

buying new seed on all acres is a quick trip to the poor house.

and your crops are better than your fathers because of fertility not the seed genetics.

sorry that's the facts.

[northfarmer]

I was talking about twenty years of my crops, not my fathers....and as i said we have been using the same fertility strategy over those twenty years with the exception of increasing sulfur usage on canola..

...sorry those are the facts...

we buy pedigree pulses and cereals for seed plots also every year and in doing so evaluate performance of new varieties and adopt the performers for one generation of commercial production....currently planting large acreas of Superb, Stratus Green Peas, 5700 CPS and Morgan oats..we will again try new varieties this year on plots for comparison......at one time we did the same with canola, but with the advent of transgenic and hybrid canola we changed our strategy to certified based on varietal performance on our fields...

You are currently using the first wave of transgenic canola, and I can only presume you did so becasue you saw value in the product...

I prefer RR canola though also grow liberty and clearfield...and I would see value in paying for technology that did not produce viable volunteer seed and hence the associated cost of that volunteer plant on subsequent production....canola in particular and this may be of much much less value to me with cereals and pulses .....but I have an open mind on other crops as well

so thanks Saskfarmer on your position on this issue, you are entitled to your opinion and you make it clearly.....

but to categorically say that it could spell the end of farming???.

trust you? no thanks I will do my own due diligence


is there anyone else out there with ideas on this stuff? my purpose is too not sell the idea, but to debate the issue...

[SASKFARMER3]

North boy you have to work for a seed company or chemical company because from your writing you don't live in the real world.
Farming is about making money even in tough years and we are seeing right now the toughest of the years every dollar has to be counted.
I evaluate new varieties each year and in most cases their has not been one big significant change in varieties.
Barley same yield as 70s wheat little higher but no big increase, Durum actually little less and poorer color.
Oats same, some new varieties the plants don't even care to take.
Canola yes RR needs a killer gene to protect Monsanto from Brown baggers and to protect the farmer from a new weed that he has to kill in a burn off with higher cost than his neighbors etc. Oh yes Monsanto's is the winner here, flax is in the same department with yield, and with all these new wheat varieties etc, now farmers cant even sell some because of the infighting between the seed company's the elevator company's and CWB.
I know I cant change your mind because you will do what you think works on your farm and great for you but look at what they want and see if your farm is part of their plan. Yes it is to control you till the end.
Have a good day.

[northfarmer]

I am no one's boy.

I like to discuss and debate ideas, intelligently, and without patronizing or insulting those I debate with.

I work for no one but myself.

have a good day.

[SASKFARMER3]

Kind of grouchy for a northerner but hey that's alright I am just saying that having a terminator gene in our grains will do nothing for the farmers and give the seed company's total control.
Go ahead buy their product.

[SASKFARMER3]

Northfarmer, I totally agree with Saskfarmer. Terminator genes will ruin the farming industry, because no competition spells control, control spells the end.

I give you this eg. We have these great new canola varieties right?? Where does it stop?? We have seen canola seed prices jump in the last 5 years 2-3$/lb. If canola seed would jump to $10/lb next year would you still buy it?? You would have to thanks to terminator genes spelling no competition..

[northfarmer]

people who buy the new expensive seed varieties buy them freely.....because they see value in planting them

....I still at times seed polish canola depending on the spring situation, the seed is certified seed $2/lb or less, you can still get certified conventional canola, decent varieties, for the same prices...

I will not argue with the growing concentration of players in the seed breeding business, but I beleive that has to due to the barriers of entry into that market..big money to get varieties registered and commercially successful ..withdrwaral of public/govt breeding efforts, etc....

I would imagine that for farmers that did not see the value they could go back to their $3.00/lb certified op or $5/lb hybrid if they did not want the new tech, just like now you could also go the low cost option, but many do not and all the power to those that can and do so successfully

If there is demand there will be supply....no different than the fact brown bag seed is an option on your own farm, yet many still go for the newest in certified seed....

In agriculture in the last century there have been many advances in technology and many thought that would spell the end of farming as we know it, yet it has not....

China, based on my what I have read has the worlds largest investment in Biotech engineering in food crops, this by several order of magnitude...I would suspect India and other growing global economic powers that lack food self suffiencency are making similar investments...even the EU that bans our GMO canola has many of its own gm crops in the fields and is expanding usage...

...if something like GURT cannot deliver extra value to the farmer by giving us volunteer crop mgmt and accelerate the investment in plant breeding of the crops we grow here in Canada...

...then I would suspect the best option for us would be to lobby for a global moratorium on the technolgy and I may be the first to join in on the lobby...in MHO...

[countryguy]

Northfarmer,I am just curious as to what situations you find volunteers such an issue that you need them to self destruct themselves?

[northfarmer]

Currently canola volunteers in follow crops to canola are the specific issue I have to deal with....easy to kill, but still take mositure and nutrients from crop in early growth stage that is critical to yield potential..

I will also post an article i read this morning of one of my info services....good info on the issue...

Why Canada should support Coexistence crops

Wednesday, March 22, 2006
By Robert Wager

There is no such thing as risk-free anything. However, this fact does not stop some from demanding risk-free agricultural biotechnology.



The controversies (mostly hypothetical) over genetically engineered (GE) crops and food never seem to end. As soon as one scare story is demonstrated to be false or highly unlikely, another floods the media. No doubt, this is by design. Canada recently stirred up a hornets nest when its representatives at the meeting of the U.N. Convention on Biodiversity in Bangkok called for the end to a de facto moratorium on the research and development of genetic use restriction technologies for genetically engineered crops. Recently several other countries have joined Canada in calling for an end to the ban.

Genetic use restriction technologies or GURTs are systems designed to prevent the unwanted transfer of transgenes (the DNA engineered into GE plants) to other plants or the unauthorized propagation of transgenic crops. There are several different ways they work, but these systems have one thing in common. They all block the possibility of the engineered genes and traits from ending up elsewhere.

Some GURT-containing GE seeds will not germinate, for example, while other GURT engineered plants will produce only sterile pollen. Either way, no genetically engineered genes will spread to other plants. This is why critics of GE crops call these terminator technologies. However, a more appropriate and descriptive term would be coexistence crops, since they would eliminate the possibility of two neighboring fields crossing with each other. Perhaps more than any other aspects of genetically engineered crops, these technologies have been the target of massive fear-generating campaigns by critics.

Critics say coexistence crops threaten farmers in the developing world by preventing the saving of seed from this year's crop for next years planting. But coexistence crops are not designed for developing world farmers. They are designed, in part, for farmers who already buy new seed each year. Most farmers in the developed world buy hybrid, certified or transgenic seed each year. These types of seed cost more, but produce far better yields, protect the environment or cost far less to grow, so the farmer gains in the end. Virtually all corn grown in North America is from hybrid seed with 50 per cent transgenic. Better than 70 per cent of the canola grown in Canada is transgenic. The benefits are well documented, including less pesticide use, healthier corn with less fungal toxin contamination and healthy canola oils that are trans-fat free.

The development and incorporation of coexistence crops would have several advantages over today's transgenic crops. Along with ending illegal propagation of transgenic crops, the issue of horizontal gene flow would also be eliminated. Therefore, there would no longer be any issue of cross-pollination between transgenic and organic crops.

Perhaps this is why certain groups are fighting the development of coexistence crops so ferociously. In fact, pollen from transgenic crops does not threaten organic crop certification at all. According to the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM), there should not be any threshold of cross-pollination, and if it occurs it does not necessarily threaten the organic status of the product. The IFOAM does not even advocate mandatory testing for the cross-pollination of organically grown crops from transgenic ones.

It has been suggested that coexistence crops will threaten biodiversity. Critics claim the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, of which Canada is a signature, prohibits the development of coexistence crops. However, Article 2 of the protocol states: "Parties shall ensure that the development, handling, transport, use and release of any living modified organism [international term for GE crops] are undertaken in a manner that prevents or reduces the risks to biodiversity."

Since coexistence crops would block gene flow from transgenic crops to other plants, their incorporation into biotechnology crops is actually in keeping with the International Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety agreement. There are approximately 60,000 seed varieties sold in North America each year. There are approximately 100 transgenic varieties of crops. It seems very far-fetched to suggest 100 transgenic varieties with sterile GURT engineering are going to threaten 60,000 non-transgenic varieties.

Blocking gene flow is important in another area of agricultural biotechnology. Up to now the production of most pharmaceuticals has required very expensive laboratories and production facilities. This is all about to change. Scientists have developed ways to make pharmaceuticals in plants. This has tremendous health and economic benefits. Where once a particular pharmaceutical might cost $100 per dose to produce, it can now be made in a plant for pennies. Everything from vaccines to heart medicines will be produced in genetically engineered plants. Of course, safety issues surrounding the growing of "pharma crops" have been considered in detail. There are very elaborate rules to maintain separation between food and pharmaceutical producing crops, including dedicated fields, large isolation distances, dedicated equipment, as well as separate storage and processing facilities.

Adding GURT technology to pharma crops would further increase the safety with the complete elimination of the possibility of pollen flow from pharma crops to related plants.

The whole world stands to benefit from such developments. Soon the lack of refrigeration that has hampered vaccine delivery in many parts of the world will no longer be a problem, for example. Pharma crops containing edible vaccines will be grown wherever they are needed. Two of the pharma crops furthest along in development contain vaccines for Hepatitis and Norwalk virus. Hundreds of millions of people stand to benefit from these advances in agricultural biotechnology.

Almost 10 years of growing biotechnology crops has demonstrated huge environmental benefits, better yields and healthier food with absolutely no demonstrated harm from consumption. Canada should be applauded for its call for a return of a science-based approach to continued research and development of coexistence crops. It is clear there are many benefits to incorporating coexistence crops into agricultural biotechnology.

Robert Wager is a researcher at the University of Guelph in Canada
http://www.uoguelph.ca

[SASKFARMER3]

North farmer your way off the mark in this one.
Why do you have so many volunteer canola plants must have a Case combine cant keep them in the hopper. HA HA!
It must be the Round up ready ones that are the problem that are sucking moisture so early in the season. I spray out the Liberty with 1/2 Liter generic roundup. Yea that's $1.89 Canadian.
Yea the benefits of the terminator gene out ways the cost.
Keep reading propaganda I can create a report that says the same thing with some money sent my way.

[northfarmer]

do not have a Case combine at thispoint in time...I long ago grew up and out of discriminating on color of equipment...

yes i grow rr canola and it poses challenges....not uniquely at burnoff off and sometimes at preharvest of my cereals...

who is to say that there will even be an additional cost to having this tech in my certified seed...no one knows that as of yet...the seed companies may save more money by not having to concern themselves with theft of their technology...maybe they might even bring some of the stacked traits over from corn and soybeans...like insect resistance, drought tolerance, NUE....or zero transfat oil like they now have in soy in the US....

fact is i might be able to skip the burnoff entirely on my rr stubble, your chem might only cost you a little, but I guess the sprayer runs for free and does not depreciate..

...but I always got great value out of my burnoff on ll stubble, for there are many more weeds than just volunteer canola to deal with...

...and the nutrients and moisture those little plants use comes at a cost...

[SASKFARMER3]

North farmer your brainwashed by the fact that you see a benefit to this technology and it amazes me that you believe that the seed costs saving will be given back to the farmer.
Where in the history of farming in western Canada have We been passed on any savings a company gets.
COME ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!