Live data from Hacker News

“Open source” seeds loosen Big Ag’s grip on farmers

worldsensorium.com

11–20 of 371 posts

Re: “Open source” seeds loosen Big Ag’s grip on farmers

#11

Do plants engineered to not produce plantable seeds have some kind of advantage, or is it purely so the seed producers can continue selling the seeds? I remember when I first heard of roundup ready crops as a child, that aspect of it completely baffled me both in why and how they would make plants not replantable.

The only advantage is that these companies can force the farmers to keep buying seeds from them. It is the susbscription based revenue model for agriculture :)

https://borgenproject.org/terminator-seeds-threaten-sustaina...

Re: “Open source” seeds loosen Big Ag’s grip on farmers

#12

Do plants engineered to not produce plantable seeds have some kind of advantage, or is it purely so the seed producers can continue selling the seeds? I remember when I first heard of roundup ready crops as a child, that aspect of it completely baffled me both in why and how they would make plants not replantable.

They get unique characteristics, like all the tomatoes look identical and have long shelf life which is important for customers because they "eat with their eyes". They also taste like shit but who cares, right?

Re: “Open source” seeds loosen Big Ag’s grip on farmers

#13

Do plants engineered to not produce plantable seeds have some kind of advantage, or is it purely so the seed producers can continue selling the seeds? I remember when I first heard of roundup ready crops as a child, that aspect of it completely baffled me both in why and how they would make plants not replantable.

The seeds produced are often plantable. For many seeds, especially GMO seeds, the grower needs to acquire a license to the seeds and agrees not to save seeds from planted crops (as you suspect, to ensure income for the seed producer).

Other seeds are patented varieties. Typically these are 'hybrids' which are a cross of two varieties of the same plant for whatever specific features they select. These seeds won't 'breed true' so the offspring will likely not be identical to the parents.

From what I understand, GMO crops won't have a very stable lineage. Nature tends to select against the genetic modifications, but I do believe most GMOs are replantable today.

This is not the case for GMO salmon, which they are trying to sterilize.

Re: “Open source” seeds loosen Big Ag’s grip on farmers

#14
Cool and all, but there's not a single mention of "hybrid" on the entire page, which means that this is not targeted at the majority of, say, US agriculture.

The general public does not understand agriculture well, and I've noticed that this misunderstanding is stronger among those that have huge huge concerns about seeds and GMOs. Hybridization is a huge benefit, one of the primary reasons to use seeds from somebody else; you get a better crop and somebody else has done the work of hybridization. It doesn't matter if your seeds are patented or not if you are using hybrids, the seeds from hybrids do not perform as well as the hybrid seeds.

While it is fantastic to have the source seeds for hybrids, those that have concerns about our agribusiness would do well to learn more about the great skill it takes. Specialization and different roles is helping improve productivity immensely, which means less land is used by farming, and more land can be maintained, or returned from ag use for ecological restoration.

And even outside of the seed business, specialized knowledge and skill is incredibly for boosting productivity. For example, almond farmers in California are far far more productive than pecan farmers in the South in part because of contractors who specialize in the planting and bed preparation for a new orchard. If we could transfer this skill set from California, perhaps California could stop using so much scarce water for nuts, and pecans could replace almonds for many applications.

Deep knowledge, deep tech, and high specialization are good things for advanced economies. Open source seeds definitely advance that advanced knowledge, immensely. But we must also abandon pastoral aspirations of converting farming back into a hugely labor intensive activity as it was, say, 150 years ago. Except for the few that want to do it as a hobby, our backs will thank us.

Re: “Open source” seeds loosen Big Ag’s grip on farmers

#15

Do plants engineered to not produce plantable seeds have some kind of advantage, or is it purely so the seed producers can continue selling the seeds? I remember when I first heard of roundup ready crops as a child, that aspect of it completely baffled me both in why and how they would make plants not replantable.

There are no plants engineered to not produce plantable seeds. There's a long-standing moratorium on terminator genes that is generally observed.

The reason why you have to rebuy your seeds from the companies is because of hybrid vigor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterosis

It's still not 100% understand how this actually happens (heaps models and results exist), but when you cross two reasonably distantly related parents, the offspring F1 will outperform both. However, if you then backcross the offspring again, you'll lose that hybrid vigor, and your F2 behaves like crap again (often the F2 is also all over the shop in the phenotype, which makes harvesting annoying with different flowering times, different sizes etc.)

That's the whole business model of the seed companies: keep on remaking F1s, sell them. There's nothing nefarious or GM about this, it goes back to the 50s and 60s with Norman Borlaug making hybrid F1s in wheat triggering the green revolution.

Re: “Open source” seeds loosen Big Ag’s grip on farmers

#17

Do plants engineered to not produce plantable seeds have some kind of advantage, or is it purely so the seed producers can continue selling the seeds? I remember when I first heard of roundup ready crops as a child, that aspect of it completely baffled me both in why and how they would make plants not replantable.

Lots of "normal" plants don't produce usable seeds. Basically every apple you've ever had will produce a crab apple tree when planted, if you want to copy that tree you need to take a cutting and propogate that.

I suspect that these engineered plants don't have some specific "don't produce seeds" gene added in, they're just hybrids like a liger or a mule.

Re: “Open source” seeds loosen Big Ag’s grip on farmers

#18
post #8
post #4

There should be an open source label on produce grown from open source seeds.

Wouldn't it be better to labeled protected produce with patent numbers? Then you force the cost and overhead on them rather than the fledgling open-source seed movement.

That would be pretty hilarious. I don’t think it would really work, but what could work is labeling the seeds with precise information about what patents they embody. Farmers could then collect the seeds and store them against the day the patents expire. Once the patents are expired (which can take up to 20 years), they can start planting them with no restrictions.

Re: “Open source” seeds loosen Big Ag’s grip on farmers

#19

Do plants engineered to not produce plantable seeds have some kind of advantage, or is it purely so the seed producers can continue selling the seeds? I remember when I first heard of roundup ready crops as a child, that aspect of it completely baffled me both in why and how they would make plants not replantable.

The seeds produced are often plantable. For many seeds, especially GMO seeds, the grower needs to acquire a license to the seeds and agrees not to save seeds from planted crops (as you suspect, to ensure income for the seed producer). Other seeds are patented varieties. Typically these are 'hybrids' which are a cross of two varieties of the same plant for whatever specific features they select. These seeds won't 'bre…

Why would hybrids have to be patented? You are confusing separate things here.

Re: “Open source” seeds loosen Big Ag’s grip on farmers

#20
I remember, there was a case where a farmer grew patented plants on his field. They spread to his neighbours field who then got sued by the patent holding company for not licensing that plant. My memory is a bit fuzzy here but you get the idea.

Now, how about reversing that? Think of a GPL-like licensed plant that makes all derived plants also inheriting that license. Legally poisoning the binary distribution format DNA of all inferred works. Wait a few decades and, with a little bit of evolutionary luck, wake up in a Stallman garden.

I'm just a naive dude with no clue about genetics or even law. Just a thought that came to my mind :^)

Post reply on HN