checkoffs opt out question?

[charliep]

Not sure how to answer. Refundable is likely administratively easier to handle.

[wd9]

Those that benefit from other peoples funding suck. I don't benefit from clubroot resistant canola if i don't buy the seed from Monsanto.

But the million dollar question is how do you fairly get funding publicly (farmers) that all farmers benefit from, however small that benefit is - it still is one, without making it mandatory. So far i haven't seen an acceptable answer.

I guess you just don't do it.

Good luck gustgd, this is a tough one.

[countryguy]

Wow..Unflippen believable. Did anybody here that supports research ever look where it has gotten us? Or do you really think more production is the answer to farm profitability issues?

[countryguy]

On another note how many of you research supporters benefited from FNA's glyphosate program without actually buying a membership?

[dave4441]

Actually, i did benifit from the public program that FNA enlisted to move glyphsate across the border. When they entered into the OUI program, they new that once they achieved equivalency, it was in the public domain and anyone could use the program to bring the product across the border, that was how the program was designed. What they did to stop that was monopolize all USA supplies of Clearout, so they could increase margins when they resold it to Canadian growers. They basically did an end run on OUI. Out of the other side of their mouth they claim to be giving the grower cost if they buy a membership which is complete and total BS.

[wd9]

Countryguy, the answer to your profitability is to be on the first rung of a quota system and legislated input costs. But then we don't need about 80% of the farmers. Then it will be profitable. Beyond that, you will never ever ever ever be profitable because your input cost will follow your gross profit. always has, always will.

That said, most farms still do better then the average wage owner if capital is considered.