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

Post by bombolo » Sat, Feb 11, 2023, 1:26 AM UTC

Scoundreller wrote: post #262

tharkun__ wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd totally agree w/ this from the "grow corn and then feed cows with it" standpoint. This is doubly bad if you're displacing natural grasslands and grassland grazing with this. I.e. plant corn on your previous grasslands and cram the cows into some barn. This came through HN just recently. Another way to do the same though is to go back to what the big buffalo herds were naturally doing. I.e. let your cows actually…

Kinda what Iceland does. Multiple sheep per person. They tag 'em, let 'em roam free and collect them later in the year. https://www.cntraveler.com/story/iceland-welcomes-tourists-t... Same with many random islands explorers came across: they'd leave some livestock so when they came back later they'd have some dense and fresh food ready to harvest. Didn't work so well in Australia. And probably any of the islands most…

Post by not2b » Sat, Feb 11, 2023, 1:51 AM UTC

shuntress wrote: post #225

saalweachter wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Isn't the point of GMO technology that you can use it to accomplish this "in the lab" rather than in the field?

Post by spywaregorilla » Sat, Feb 11, 2023, 2:01 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #220

spywaregorilla wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems utterly irrelevant. Trying to benefit is irrelevant. Trying to steal is what is relevant. Consider the case where the gene edited crops actually implemented a dependency on roundup, and the neighboring farms were forced to use round up rather than did so because it was simply more useful.

No such dependency exists. The only rational reason to spray a crop with RoundUp is that you know you've sowed RoundUp Ready seeds; in any other circumstance you'd simply be killing your crop off. If you contrive a counterfactual where that's not the case, then obviously different fact patterns matter. It's like saying "well, sure, he shot the guy, but consider an alternate universe where shooting someone with a gun…

Post by breput » Sat, Feb 11, 2023, 2:17 AM UTC

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…

Post by digitallyfree » Sat, Feb 11, 2023, 2:57 AM UTC

efitz wrote: post #233

digitallyfree wrote: post #222

There are two interesting things here from a legal perspective. 1. Licensing works on the commercial seeds because they are patented, and thus the company that makes those seeds can dictate license terms on the farmers. As far as I can tell, these open seeds are not patented and thus their creators can't really impose license terms on the buyers unless they sign a contract before sale. That would be treated solely un…

> …this sounds like a very poor way to enforce the OSS license I thought the same thing, reading the article. A much more effective way, IMO, would be to establish a trust or foundation with the desired openness characteristics (eg FRAND) defined in its charter, and then have participants assign IP rights to the organization in some contract. Or, as I said in my other reponse, just end the patent system.