The NEW World Dictators..... Hitlers Reborn

[wd9]

lakenheath, pollen flow and seed development is always a challenge regardless of the technology or characteristics in the variety you wish to multiply. This has been an issue forever.

Following the guidelines of barriers and maintaining pollen spread distances for retaining seed the cross is extremely low - not zero of course, but not 25% as you illustrated.

The advantage is those few seeds which contain the traits to prevent germination do not add to your production crop the next year and eliminates the seeds from appearing in your end product which the customer may not want. The challenges of organic production, biosafety protocol, adventitious presence, coexistence and of course non-tariff trade barriers are very real today as you all well know.

Absolutely, as a farmer I fear the day all the seed I put in the ground will have to be purchased. That is the issue that seems to drive whether individual technologies should be accepted or rejected and although it shouldn't be that way, it is and will be stronger as more tech comes along.

The challenge will be that if the innovation is scientifically shown by CFIA and Health Canada to be safe for feed, food, and the environment, should the individual farmer have the opportunity to choose that product if it makes finacial sense on their own farm. Or should a handful of fear mongerers make that decision for everyone's farms?

Again, I don't want to buy all my seed as certified, but if I did want to and it made financial sense for my farm, should I have that opportunity?

[wd9]

Well, should I?

[lakenheath]

Absolutely not. Just because you can obtain financial gain is not reason enough be able to use something. If slavery was legal, I could sure get some cheap labour for my farm. Really improve the bottom line. So why shouldn't I be able to run slaves on my farm if it would improve my bottom line? Why?

Because it is not right. It effects others. Don't be so selfish and nearsighted. Look at the long-term implications. Way too often in agriculture have we not had foresight into the future, for short term gain.

[wd9]

Uhhhh, because slavery is illegal, and novel trait registration by Health Canada and CFIA are covered under Acts.

I'm not sure what you are referring too in regards to illegal measures, but suppose there was the ability to eliminate spraying Lorsban - killing everything in my canola field, beneficial insects, birds, bees... and the surrounding area just to control Bertha army worms. If there was a switchable gene to control them instead, would it be of value and benefit?

How about not having to spray for sclerotina? How about wheat, oats barley, canola being able to fix their own nitrogen? How about being able to straight cut canola - pod shattering resistance? How about drought and salene tolerance? How about fusarium resistant wheat? How about feed wheat with the bacteria to enable ethanol production right from the seed like switch grass? How about pharmaceuticals, biodiesel specific oilseeds. Creating products which help lower cholesterol?

Are you saying I can't choose to grow these because you don't understand them?

[lakenheath]

WD9,

The debat was on the topic of "Terminator Gene".

You - Pro.....Me - Con

You said, "Shouldn't I be able to use something on my farm that benefits my farm"

I used an analogy (although a far out one), and the point I was trying to prove was that just because something would benefit a farm does not mean we have the God given right to use it.

Remember.....Terminator gene is the debate. Not insect tolerant traits being bread into plants or genetically modifying the plants DNA.

[northfarmer]

genetic advancements in our crops, including insect and disease resistance, are intertwined in the the terminator, or more appropriately GURT debate.....for private interest, not government, to invest in plant biotech they will need a means to protect their intellectual property...and to get regulatory approvals...the debate often gets polariized by fear mongerers and conspiracy threorists....from what I have read recently the focus of the research now is is into development of traits that might possibly cease to exist after the first generation of planting....ie. imagine if the F2 liberty canola you planted did not have liberty resistance...it would grow but you could not steal the trait from the legal owner...the fact of the matter from a macroecomic perspective is that such technolgy may level the playing field with countries such as Brazil and Argentina where their is little or no defence of intellectual property rights in the courts...but I suppose it will be their governments that pay for development of biotech traits for defence against asian rust??? or will they simply find a way to steal the technolgy from plant breeders in the US?....either way imagine what such biotech developments in soybeans might do to further undermine the position of canola in the global oil seed market...this is a very complex debate, and from that perspective I think it is not just a debate of pro and con on the terminator gene, that frankly is the oversimplification and polarization of the real debate on this matter...in MHO

[lakenheath]

Hasn't mankind learned from all the horrible mistakes in the past that you can't mess around with nature. Genetic and biological diversity is very important in the fight against diseases that threaten our food species. Creating these super-plants with scientific traits is not all 100% good.

All I am saying is be cautious. Nature is many many times smarter and deceptive than any Monasanto science lab.

The dollar drives the science. The dollar pays for ads and speakers to present the facts to us. But the dollar ignores consequences.

When nature decides to build up tolerance to these super-species, where do we turn to for our new and better breed. Not the old varities, they are long gone. We turn to the Monsantos and will pay big money to get our hands on the next variety that will combat the new threats presented by nature.

[jensend]

producers should be looking for sustainability in food production. probably more clues in developing a sustainable system to be found in nature than at a free breakfast put on by monsanto, dow, or all the rest of them put together.

[Pulseman]

Well, well smart farmers,

So what if people that invest in to plant breeding (and there are more then just Monsanto & Dow) want some guranteed return on the investment they make?

Who can re-use the fertilizer from 2005 in 2006, who can re-use the other inputs?

But seed, the only source that realy makes your yield should be free forever? Get away from your socialistic thinking and become business people.

Your whining makes me sick.

O, one more thing for the smarties in the circle: only corn and rye is cross pollinating for our major grain, so your neighbours field can be what ever wheat and would not effect your XYZ variety.

[lakenheath]

Pulseman represents the worst type of farmer (incredibly un-informed). They are a dangerous type and are puddy in the hands of multi-national agri-business.

That being said. Mr. Pulseman Smart Farmer. Please read the following.

Wheat is self pollinating. If any of you have been in a field that has decided to release its pollen and a gust comes up you know that pollen can travel a good distance. The scariest thing about this is that all wheat can cross-pollinate. Winter wheat can cross-pollinate with hard red spring if they were grown at the same time. Durum and hard red spring are both grown at the same time and can both cross-pollinate. With the introduction of GM wheat not only are we putting our hard red spring wheat crops in jeopardy, we are putting every other wheat crop on the chopping block as well.

Get your facts straigth. Brainy!

Plus, it would be nice if you had an open mind. I think multi-nationals and agri-business are a good thing for agriculture. But we must challenge them on every front because what they do effects us.

Brainboy Pulseman, with his narrow mind, has decided for us that we hate them and should force them to stop doing beneficial research. Give me a brake brainy.

[lakenheath]

One more thing. We never asked for free seed. And we are not whinning. So get off your un-informed high horse and post something with intellegence.

Some informative insight would be appreciated. Not your slandering comments.

Mr. Business Pulseman.

[lakenheath]

Lakenheath, I agree with what your saying. Pulseman we have nothing to gain from this kind of science. The short gain is far less of a benefit, compared to the long term disaster.