Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

worldsensorium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 371 posts

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

#81

Post by bluGill »

exhilaration wrote: post #60
COGlory wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) There are multiple herbicides and multiple pesticides and different ways to skin a cat, not all of which are patented, or for many, the patents have expired. 2) Your second point is more applicable. Who is going to grow these seeds? People underestimate how much agriculture is devoted solely to seed crops.

People underestimate how much agriculture is devoted solely to seed crops Can you explain this further? I never thought about where seeds come from. Are there giant Bayer-owned fields devoted to growing seeds?

There are a lot of those fields around growing just seed. Some are Bayer owned, others are regular farmers who contract with Bayer to grow seed as their crop. One of the most common jobs for young farm kids is "detasseling" where they go around to seed fields to cut the tassel (male part of the corn plant) off some of the plants. Normally you plant 1 row of male plants, and 4 rows of female plants, since corn plants are both male and female, they need to cut off the male parts of the female plants. (the male plants produce corn on the female parts that is not used for the seed). You can just assume that every rural kid between 15 and 18 does the above job for a couple summers, which gives you an idea of the scale.

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

#82

Post by hesdeadjim »

version_five wrote: post #75
deelowe wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally know several people who were able to start successful careers solely based on their inventions and the protections afforded to them via patents. This seems extremely short sighted. In fact, the bigger issue to me is that patents don't matter for companies located in countries where they are not recognized (e.g. China). The biggest issue with "some little guy in his garage" inventing stuff these days is t…

A bigger issue with for the little guy is his garage is that if his actually innovation contains some trivial subcomponent that's part of a patent troll or large competitors portfolio, they can can sued into the ground, either to leech of their success or to prevent competition. patents favor big companies and trolls, and as a legal instrument it's basically impossible to change that because the costs and complexity…

Exactly, you have so little leverage as an individual or small group. The pack of wolves that are patent trolls relentlessly look for small targets who can’t afford to defend themselves, and larger companies courting a deal or a buyout can implicitly threaten a similar situation.

It’s also a slightly depressing reason why I refuse to publish source for a commercial game I built, despite wanting to. The likelihood of being sued is very tiny, but why risk it when you’ve had enough success to be noticeable.

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

#83

Post by hesdeadjim »

whichquestion wrote: post #80
version_five wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A bigger issue with for the little guy is his garage is that if his actually innovation contains some trivial subcomponent that's part of a patent troll or large competitors portfolio, they can can sued into the ground, either to leech of their success or to prevent competition. patents favor big companies and trolls, and as a legal instrument it's basically impossible to change that because the costs and complexity…

Would it be better to make patents have shorter lifespans before entering the public domain from companies of a certain size? Maybe that would level out the playing field and allow small players to be more competitive against behemoth corporations and patent trolls.

Heavily penalize patent trolling with patents that never should have been granted, prevent mafia-esque lawsuits from districts like east Texas, and drastically reduce the cost for someone to defend themselves through some form of pre-trial mediation where independent experts review the validity of a claim.

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

#84

Post by bluGill »

a_bonobo wrote: post #15
boomboomsubban wrote: post #3

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…

Hybrid was discovered in the 1930s. WWII needed all the farm production the US could get to feed the rest of the world, so hybrid crops were pushed heavily on all farmers. Since then few farmers have gone back.

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

#85

Post by StrictDabbler »

burkaman wrote: post #45
tptacek wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, he got sued by the patent holding company for using those seeds and then spraying them with Roundup , which would have killed off his crop had they not been the patented seeds. This is true of all the cases of people being sued for cultivating "Roundup-Ready" crops: the story they want to tell is that they were sued for cultivating seeds that accidentally wound up on their fields, but the facts established at tri…

> the story they want to tell is that they were sued for cultivating seeds that accidentally wound up on their fields, but the facts established at trial were that, however the seeds ended up there, the farmers deliberately exploited the patented system. I don't understand the distinction you're making. "cultivating seeds" and "deliberately exploiting the patented system" mean the same thing in this case. Spraying th…

It's not illegal to purchase and bulk-spray Round-up to an incompatible crop. It's just stupid. It is expensive and it will kill the plants.

The lawsuit alleged that the farmer's behavior was so stupid that he must have known his crop was Roundup-Ready.

That's not consistent with accidental pollination. It suggests that he deliberately cultivated or obtained seeds that were Roundup-Ready and that he knew his crop would survive the pesticide. Bulk-spraying Roundup establishes awareness and intent.

The farmer was unable to provide a convincing explanation for why he would attempt to poison his entire crop, year after year, so the court concluded he was engaged in deliberate patent evasion.

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

#86

Post by HDThoreaun »

efitz wrote: post #56

Most people support patents because they have this romanticized notion of some little guy in his garage inventing the next light bulb. That’s not representative of the mass offensive and defensive patterns of use by modern corporations. We should just end patents, period.

Patented seeds have funded GMO research which has saved literally hundreds of millions if not billions of lives through famine reduction. Yes it sucks for farmers, but I can't see how it has been anything other than absolute boon for humanity.

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

#87

Post by saalweachter »

andruby wrote: post #53
epistasis wrote: post #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…

I didn't know about hybrid seeds: "In agriculture and gardening, hybrid seed is produced by deliberately cross-pollinated plants which are genetically diverse" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_seed

They're also a huge pain in the ass to produce, at least in my experience.

Producing hybrid corn seeds, for instance, is done by planting the two varieties in the same field, with one combine-width of rows of variety A alternating with rows of variety B. Then you need to wait until variety A is grown and ready to tassel, and de-tassel it before those tassels fully form and release the pollen that drifts onto the corn silk. This is usually done by hand, by a bunch of people walking through the field and cutting the stalk between the ears and the tassels.

Once that is done, your variety A ears will be pollinated by variety B pollen, and all of those kernels will be hybrid. But your variety B ears be purebred B, not hybrid, so you now you need to harvest the field while keeping the two sets separate. This step isn't too bad, if you did a good job planting, you just need to first harvest the combine-wide strips of hybrid corn before going back to get the B corn.

But yeah, you're looking at a lot of extra work -- and money, you need contract labor to detassel a field in the narrow window of opportunity -- to produce a hybrid seed for better yields next year, and most farmers don't find it a good use of time, which is why most farmers were buying most of their seed well before seed patents and GMO were a thing.

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

#88

Post by bluGill »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #3

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.

As others pointed out, such plants don't exist.

Plants that don't produce plantable seeds have a big advantage: some seed is spilled every harvest. Farmers rotate crops, if you have corn gorwing in your soybean field that is one of the worst weeds you can have. Not only does the corn take nutrients you intend for your soybeans, it is also providing a host for any corn disease in your field that you are hoping die off now that it doesn't have corn to live in.

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

#89

Post by Cerium »

HDThoreaun wrote: post #86
efitz wrote: post #56

Most people support patents because they have this romanticized notion of some little guy in his garage inventing the next light bulb. That’s not representative of the mass offensive and defensive patterns of use by modern corporations. We should just end patents, period.

Patented seeds have funded GMO research which has saved literally hundreds of millions if not billions of lives through famine reduction. Yes it sucks for farmers, but I can't see how it has been anything other than absolute boon for humanity.

Autocorrect between boon and boondoggle?

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

#90

Post by HDThoreaun »

burkaman wrote: post #45
tptacek wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, he got sued by the patent holding company for using those seeds and then spraying them with Roundup , which would have killed off his crop had they not been the patented seeds. This is true of all the cases of people being sued for cultivating "Roundup-Ready" crops: the story they want to tell is that they were sued for cultivating seeds that accidentally wound up on their fields, but the facts established at tri…

> the story they want to tell is that they were sued for cultivating seeds that accidentally wound up on their fields, but the facts established at trial were that, however the seeds ended up there, the farmers deliberately exploited the patented system. I don't understand the distinction you're making. "cultivating seeds" and "deliberately exploiting the patented system" mean the same thing in this case. Spraying th…

The farmer new that some of the seeds in the field were the "roundup ready" ones that had blown over from the other field. Most of them were normal crops that would die when applied with roundup. He then applied the entire field with roundup, killing most of the crop in the field, with the explicit goal of saving all the remaining seeds so that he could plant them next year without paying monsanto.
Post reply on HN