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

Commodity Marketing

Tools

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

Feb 8, 2019 | 08:37 1 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 Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Feb 8, 2019 | 11:40 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? Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Feb 8, 2019 | 11:42 3
    Quote 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.... Reply With Quote
    SASKFARMER3's Avatar Feb 8, 2019 | 11:48 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. Reply With Quote
  • 2 Likes


  • Feb 8, 2019 | 11:57 5
    Quote 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? Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Feb 11, 2019 | 06:42 6
    Quote 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... Reply With Quote
    Feb 11, 2019 | 07:00 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... Reply With Quote
  • 2 Likes


  • Feb 11, 2019 | 07:14 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! Reply With Quote
    Feb 11, 2019 | 07:18 9 [QUOTE=dmlfarmer;402228]
    Quote 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.... Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • farmaholic's Avatar Feb 11, 2019 | 07:59 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. Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Feb 11, 2019 | 08:05 11 [QUOTE=dmlfarmer;402228]
    Quote 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. Reply With Quote
    Feb 11, 2019 | 08:23 12
    Quote 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. Reply With Quote
    wd9
    Feb 11, 2019 | 08:49 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. Reply With Quote
    Feb 11, 2019 | 12:27 14 [QUOTE=TOM4CWB;402234]
    Quote 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. Reply With Quote
    Feb 11, 2019 | 13:39 15 [QUOTE=dmlfarmer;402267]
    Quote 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 at 13:45.
    Reply With Quote
    Feb 11, 2019 | 14:32 16 [QUOTE=TOM4CWB;402275]
    Quote Originally Posted by dmlfarmer View Post

    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...
    Okay, lets assume I misunderstood your first post. So you claim 30% of seed each year is not in compliance. Where are you getting his figure? Please provide your source.

    2. You ARE NOT required by CGC to disclose the variety of wheat at point of sale, only the class of wheat. Here is the CGC rules https://www.grainscanada.gc.ca/wheat...sm-msd-eng.htm

    3 You are prohibited by Canada's Seed Regulations to use a variety name for all commercially grown wheat plus most other crops). Variety names can only be used to describe pedigree production.
    http://www.inspection.gc.ca/plants/v.../1360122517324

    Therefore, as I have stated, any attempt to define commercial seed by variety for purpose of royalties or taxation upon sale will open up the market to commercial farmers being able to sell commercial production by variety name. The seed industry cannot have it both ways! Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Feb 11, 2019 | 16:57 17 [QUOTE=dmlfarmer;402276]
    Quote Originally Posted by TOM4CWB View Post

    Okay, lets assume I misunderstood your first post. So you claim 30% of seed each year is not in compliance. Where are you getting his figure? Please provide your source.

    2. You ARE NOT required by CGC to disclose the variety of wheat at point of sale, only the class of wheat. Here is the CGC rules https://www.grainscanada.gc.ca/wheat...sm-msd-eng.htm

    3 You are prohibited by Canada's Seed Regulations to use a variety name for all commercially grown wheat plus most other crops). Variety names can only be used to describe pedigree production.
    http://www.inspection.gc.ca/plants/v.../1360122517324

    Therefore, as I have stated, any attempt to define commercial seed by variety for purpose of royalties or taxation upon sale will open up the market to commercial farmers being able to sell commercial production by variety name. The seed industry cannot have it both ways!
    The seed synergy group will quickly get the rules changed to suit their purpose.....wait for it.... Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Feb 11, 2019 | 17:06 18 Glad you guys are digging in on this issue .

    It seems to cross all political
    Lines. And most commercial growers are pretty wary of where we may be headed.

    Like the guy said wheat yields have gone up the same percentage as
    Canola . Without the astronomical
    Price increases.
    .
    So we are fixing this why?

    We watched the canola game play out the last 30 years.
    So we have a pretty good idea
    Where the seed industry wants to take us.
    Canola seed did not start out at 14$/lbs.

    The big seed co.s may play nice for a while in ceral and pulses.
    A decent product at a decent
    price.

    At least until they run the public breeders out of business
    And buy up anybody else left.

    (CANOLA REPEAT)

    Then all hell breaks loose.
    3or4 co.s run it all.

    Charge whatever they want.
    Nice govt. Mandated collection scheme all set up in place.

    Another thing . Important.
    Related to what I said about the Free trade agreement the other
    Day.
    I am pretty sure.
    (Somebody correct me if I am wrong)
    That today
    You could no bring back .
    PUBLIC GOVT. Canola breeding
    Without being sued for loss of future revenue by the seed co.s .
    Under the FTA terms.

    So that in the not to distant
    Future.
    With SEED co.s pricing reasonable . They have gained a 75%
    Share of the market.
    In cereals and pulses.


    Then a Federal election and new conservative govt. Gets Elected.

    Of course they say , the private sector is doing a fine job
    Of variety development.

    Why the hell are we paying these
    GD public employees to do what the
    Privates already do.

    Axe the whole thing.
    And they do .

    Mission accomplished for the seed industry.

    Time to jack up the prices.
    Unstoppable now

    The only real competition is dead.
    Public breeding
    Can not come back .
    Without being sued under the FTA

    Checkmate Reply With Quote
    Feb 11, 2019 | 20:48 19 [QUOTE=dmlfarmer;402276]
    Quote Originally Posted by TOM4CWB View Post

    Okay, lets assume I misunderstood your first post. So you claim 30% of seed each year is not in compliance. Where are you getting his figure? Please provide your source.

    2. You ARE NOT required by CGC to disclose the variety of wheat at point of sale, only the class of wheat. Here is the CGC rules https://www.grainscanada.gc.ca/wheat...sm-msd-eng.htm

    3 You are prohibited by Canada's Seed Regulations to use a variety name for all commercially grown wheat plus most other crops). Variety names can only be used to describe pedigree production.
    http://www.inspection.gc.ca/plants/v.../1360122517324

    Therefore, as I have stated, any attempt to define commercial seed by variety for purpose of royalties or taxation upon sale will open up the market to commercial farmers being able to sell commercial production by variety name. The seed industry cannot have it both ways!
    DML Farmer,

    My [back of match pac] logic on the Planted Seed sources is this:

    18% Certified seed...
    Then 3 years average grown from legally used by Commercial farmer on own farm[52%].

    There by leaving perhaps 30% seed use then that is not in compliance with PBR laws left over.

    Confirmation work;
    I did talk to a major seed co leader today... and he would not quote the exact stats... because as WD9 says... the plant breeders and Seed Co's are somewhat afraid if we knew... but really want access to the information that every single commercial grain growers planted cereal varieties sown by acreage[each year].

    Then it is the responsibility of commercial grain growers to justify where these varieties came from...
    and "after the old varieties are 'deregistered'... cough cough splutter... I should say are reclassified... we will then get the funds we need to properly"...fund cereal varieties etc etc... by having grain growers buy the new varieties,

    My spirit was/is grieved. I suppose this dear fellow thought I would be impressed... in a positive way... WRONG.

    I told this fellow... with privacy laws... and as he called it the 'underground' seed trade already in place... I told him he was dreaming if he thought the trailing royalty model would significantly change the current CULTURAL situation of historic individual commercial farmer non-compliance, RE; R&D variety funding of Cereals.

    WD9 again is right... we can fund a reasonable varietal development cereals program... through the primarily the public plant breeding system... if non-compliance to PBR laws is stopped... and the underground seed sales system were shut down.

    Upov 78 makes it illegal to Sell any registered Varieties as common seed.
    Upov 91 makes it illegal to Sell OR BUY any registered Varieties as common seed
    PBR has been in effect for 25 years... so good luck with varieties over 25 years old...

    With genetic testing... the new technology can tell exactly which varieties are in a blended sample... down to the single percent... and the CGC and CWB were doing this a decade ago.

    I said the foolishness of doing the same thing over and over, ... yet expecting a different result... applied here.

    The Seed Growers are generally not impressed with how this was being rolled out,,, and how Seed Grower farmers are taking the abuse from the seed trade rush to come up with a solution.

    CGC protections of registered varieties were withdrawn... because climatic conditions and the failure of Variety screening to properly apply gluten strength standards... I was told today. He agreed this should be a grading quality issue... Not an excuse to downgrade varieties [to a lower CGC class] because of bad weather.

    So the CWB leg of the 3 legged stool [CGC Act, Seeds Act, CWB Act] has left us with grain farmers at the mercy of multinational extraction of value from blending of CWRS ..., all wheat... because the CGC now listens to grain co's their customers[CWB farmer voice is gone]

    Was told in so many words.. "Cereals Canada and cereal producer commissions did not have enough clout to force the CGC to back down".

    Cheers!
    It is a brave new world!!! Two steps forward... and one back!!!!
    Last edited by TOM4CWB; Feb 11, 2019 at 20:53.
    Reply With Quote
    Feb 11, 2019 | 21:48 20
    Quote Originally Posted by TOM4CWB View Post
    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.
    This was never about “seed planted purity” rates though was it?

    These royalties are only being promoted by seed companies and seed farms due to a possible increase in revenue. Just look at the solidarity of the seed industry pushing this seed tax. They are trying to tell us the only two options are a trailing royalty or an end point royalty and to trust the seed companies as they know best....LOL. Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • LEP
    Feb 11, 2019 | 22:20 21 [QUOTE=TOM4CWB;402295]
    Quote Originally Posted by dmlfarmer View Post

    DML Farmer,

    My [back of match pac] logic on the Planted Seed sources is this:

    18% Certified seed...
    Then 3 years average grown from legally used by Commercial farmer on own farm[52%].

    There by leaving perhaps 30% seed use then that is not in compliance with PBR laws left over.

    Confirmation work;
    I did talk to a major seed co leader today... and he would not quote the exact stats... because as WD9 says... the plant breeders and Seed Co's are somewhat afraid if we knew... but really want access to the information that every single commercial grain growers planted cereal varieties sown by acreage[each year].

    Then it is the responsibility of commercial grain growers to justify where these varieties came from...
    and "after the old varieties are 'deregistered'... cough cough splutter... I should say are reclassified... we will then get the funds we need to properly"...fund cereal varieties etc etc... by having grain growers buy the new varieties,

    My spirit was/is grieved. I suppose this dear fellow thought I would be impressed... in a positive way... WRONG.

    I told this fellow... with privacy laws... and as he called it the 'underground' seed trade already in place... I told him he was dreaming if he thought the trailing royalty model would significantly change the current CULTURAL situation of historic individual commercial farmer non-compliance, RE; R&D variety funding of Cereals.

    WD9 again is right... we can fund a reasonable varietal development cereals program... through the primarily the public plant breeding system... if non-compliance to PBR laws is stopped... and the underground seed sales system were shut down.

    Upov 78 makes it illegal to Sell any registered Varieties as common seed.
    Upov 91 makes it illegal to Sell OR BUY any registered Varieties as common seed
    PBR has been in effect for 25 years... so good luck with varieties over 25 years old...

    With genetic testing... the new technology can tell exactly which varieties are in a blended sample... down to the single percent... and the CGC and CWB were doing this a decade ago.

    I said the foolishness of doing the same thing over and over, ... yet expecting a different result... applied here.

    The Seed Growers are generally not impressed with how this was being rolled out,,, and how Seed Grower farmers are taking the abuse from the seed trade rush to come up with a solution.

    CGC protections of registered varieties were withdrawn... because climatic conditions and the failure of Variety screening to properly apply gluten strength standards... I was told today. He agreed this should be a grading quality issue... Not an excuse to downgrade varieties [to a lower CGC class] because of bad weather.

    So the CWB leg of the 3 legged stool [CGC Act, Seeds Act, CWB Act] has left us with grain farmers at the mercy of multinational extraction of value from blending of CWRS ..., all wheat... because the CGC now listens to grain co's their customers[CWB farmer voice is gone]

    Was told in so many words.. "Cereals Canada and cereal producer commissions did not have enough clout to force the CGC to back down".

    Cheers!
    It is a brave new world!!! Two steps forward... and one back!!!!
    Tom, sorry I think your math is off. Non compliance is way lower than you calculate because many people use farm saved seed longer than 3 years. In my case I probably average 4 or 5. I even know a couple neighbours that would be 10 or more. Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Feb 12, 2019 | 00:44 22 [QUOTE=LEP;402297]
    Quote Originally Posted by TOM4CWB View Post

    Tom, sorry I think your math is off. Non compliance is way lower than you calculate because many people use farm saved seed longer than 3 years. In my case I probably average 4 or 5. I even know a couple neighbours that would be 10 or more.
    LEP Thanks for your input;
    Obviously from year to year... the amount of saved reseeded acreage changes... as drought and frost events play a role. Even if we cut the number of PBR infringement acres in half... this would still double the royalties collected. What is sustainable? What is fair? Why not have fair costs shared in a fair way? What would this amount be? We need to have the discussion with factual numbers... and a resolution... with those who pay... determining the outcome.
    Cheers. Reply With Quote
    SASKFARMER3's Avatar Feb 12, 2019 | 06:29 23 Tom why not have real farmers for once try to be sustainable. Not protect and make a welfare system for seed growers and seed companies.

    If a variety is great we buy it .

    If a variety is shit we leave it behind.

    Every company selling seed tells me it’s 10% better than the one we grow. Some aren’t even close yet these will be subsidized.

    It’s a crock of shit welfare system Reply With Quote
  • 2 Likes


  • Feb 12, 2019 | 07:04 24 Tom, your calculation is not taking into account that when farmers buy a new variety they do not purchase it for every acre. But if they like it, it may be the only variety they seed of that crop for the next few years. For example, lets say I seed 2500 acres of wheat every year. I want to try a new variety but I don't try it on every acre. I purchase seed from a seed grower for 3 quarters, (to make it easy lets say 500 acres. I really like it so the next year and following couple of years I use my farm saved seed for all wheat acres I plant. I did not buy or sell any brown bag seed and legally seeded only farm saved seed. My initial purchase was 500/2500 acres or roughly 20% which fits with amount of pedigreed seed purchased. But on my farm, my pedigreed seed purchase for the next year is 0% yet I seeded 5 times the acres with that variety. That is how production expands so quickly - not because of illegal brown bagged sales. Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Feb 12, 2019 | 07:16 25
    Quote Originally Posted by dmlfarmer View Post
    Tom, your calculation is not taking into account that when farmers buy a new variety they do not purchase it for every acre. But if they like it, it may be the only variety they seed of that crop for the next few years. For example, lets say I seed 2500 acres of wheat every year. I want to try a new variety but I don't try it on every acre. I purchase seed from a seed grower for 3 quarters, (to make it easy lets say 500 acres. I really like it so the next year and following couple of years I use my farm saved seed for all wheat acres I plant. I did not buy or sell any brown bag seed and legally seeded only farm saved seed. My initial purchase was 500/2500 acres or roughly 20% which fits with amount of pedigreed seed purchased. But on my farm, my pedigreed seed purchase for the next year is 0% yet I seeded 5 times the acres with that variety. That is how production expands so quickly - not because of illegal brown bagged sales.
    But you see TOM4$4HIMSELF wants some action on your own multiplication of that 20 percent for the rest of your farm forever. ...

    He won't address the issue if the time you buy a new variety and it's a dud.....then he wants the royalty plus the chance to sell you new seed again....

    As I said before ......he is just a lark for his masters. ....


    The details to this seed tax have not been made clear. ...like who compensates farmers for a variety that doesn't perform to the standards or characteristics the seed grower advertises.....

    Or if it affects a market.....

    Or gets reclassified.... Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Feb 12, 2019 | 07:18 26
    Quote Originally Posted by SASKFARMER3 View Post
    Tom why not have real farmers for once try to be sustainable. Not protect and make a welfare system for seed growers and seed companies.

    If a variety is great we buy it .

    If a variety is shit we leave it behind.

    Every company selling seed tells me it’s 10% better than the one we grow. Some aren’t even close yet these will be subsidized.

    It’s a crock of shit welfare system
    Thx SF3

    The underground [ PBR intellectual property protection breaching] trade/sales of planting seed... is/was the discussion... when I and my family are forced to pay TWICE AS MUCH royalty on Certified planting Seed... because some folks take advantage of family farmers like us... to 'feather their nests' with our blood sweat and tears.
    Have a great day... from the shores of -30 with 20km winds warming our souls!!! Reply With Quote
    Feb 12, 2019 | 07:26 27 The most amazing part of Tom's reply is that he admits he has no actual proof of his claim that 30% of the seed is brown bag illegal seed, that it is simply his back of the match book estimate. This is the criteria farmers on which are being told to accept additional costs on? Unbelievable. Surely there is better proof that action needs to be taken than wild guesstimates.

    Second, Tom, if you think 30% (or more) of your growers are ripping you off, why are you even a seed grower?

    Third: If my fuel retailer said to me, you are not using as much fuel as your neighbors, therefore I think you must be stealing fuel from me or someone else, how long do think it would be before I told that retailer where to go and changed fuel suppliers. Accusing your customers of theft without any proof is extremely poor customer relations. No wonder farmers are upset with the seed industry/growers. Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Feb 12, 2019 | 07:41 28
    Quote Originally Posted by bucket View Post
    But you see TOM4$4HIMSELF wants some action on your own multiplication of that 20 percent for the rest of your farm forever. ...

    He won't address the issue if the time you buy a new variety and it's a dud.....then he wants the royalty plus the chance to sell you new seed again....

    As I said before ......he is just a lark for his masters. ....


    The details to this seed tax have not been made clear. ...like who compensates farmers for a variety that doesn't perform to the standards or characteristics the seed grower advertises.....

    Or if it affects a market.....

    Or gets reclassified....
    Agree 100% Too bad the seed industry is not honest enough to admit the reason for royalties is a tax on farm multiplication of seed rather than blame it on their guesstimates of brown bagging and the need for research. I respect honesty. I have no respect for con games/BSers. Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Feb 12, 2019 | 07:42 29
    Quote Originally Posted by bucket View Post
    But you see TOM4$4HIMSELF wants some action on your own multiplication of that 20 percent for the rest of your farm forever. ...

    He won't address the issue if the time you buy a new variety and it's a dud.....then he wants the royalty plus the chance to sell you new seed again....

    As I said before ......he is just a lark for his masters. ....


    The details to this seed tax have not been made clear. ...like who compensates farmers for a variety that doesn't perform to the standards or characteristics the seed grower advertises.....

    Or if it affects a market.....

    Or gets reclassified....
    Bucket,

    Did you actually read anything in the last 10 posts?

    Perhaps if you had...

    you would reflect that clubbing the folks who are asking and looking for practical common sense solutions... with your spiteful vernacular... could you please consider our honest attempt to do the difficult task of standing in the way of overwhelming injustice/cultural profiteering ... who thank you every time... you help them pocket big $$$ at the expense of our family farms.

    Thx for your genuine consideration of these issues in advance.
    Sincerely Reply With Quote
    Feb 12, 2019 | 07:51 30 Let's make this simple....


    TOM's masters want more money.... Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like