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

241–250 of 371 posts

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

#241

Post by UncleEntity »

saalweachter wrote: post #87
andruby wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I watch Laura Farms on the YouTubes and she goes into great depth on growing seedcorn as her family’s farm does it under contract.

The de-tasseling is mostly automated these days with a sprayer attachment chopping off the tops and the legions of kids coming behind to get the ones missed.

Then they come along with another specialized attachment to ‘destroy’ the males. Basically just chop them up and leave in the rows which later on gets eaten by the cows. The outside border rows of males gets harvested and turned into winter feed for the cows.

Eventually the remaining corn gets harvested by a crew hired by the seed company because they want the full heads of corn to do their evil deeds to.

Fascinating stuff this modern farming.

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

#242

Post by ElfinTrousers »

linuxftw wrote: post #211
ElfinTrousers wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not against this idea--I'm just frustrated by the fact that this is now something we have to spell out explicitly and back with the threat of legal action, instead of common sense.

Well, you've always had to do this. If you give someone seeds, they would be free to use those seeds to develop patented varieties.

I suspect we're actually talking about the same thing here, but misunderstanding each other. It happens.

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

#243

Post by pfdietz »

RajT88 wrote: post #204
Kalium wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even without patents, there's a whole system of plant breeder's rights. The idea is that even without patents, breeding plants for a particular set of characteristics is a ton of work and the rights system is a patent-like way to commercialize. If you have a different idea for solving this particular financial problem, I expect quite a lot of people would love to hear about it.

My point is that patents are abused enough already. We should not allow patenting of genomes/genes. Full stop. We should rely on those other systems of breeder's rights.

You objection to "patenting life" seems utterly spurious and would effectively end GMO seeds (as the effort expended creating them could not be recouped.) But perhaps that's your ulterior motive. I see no legitimate motivation for your position.

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

#245

Post by pfdietz »

tarotuser wrote: post #104
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…

This is another case where patent law superseded physical trespass and pollution/littering laws. Monsanto should have paid the farmer for polluting the farmer's field ALONG WITH being required to remove all Monsanto-owned plants. And if that means roundup-ing the whole field, paying for all damages treble, and then removing the living plants, so be it.

But no harm was done to the farmer, had the farmer not himself performed an act showing he was violating the patent. So, Monsanto didn't owe the farmer anything. The farmer had "unclean hands".

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

#246

Post by pfdietz »

adamc wrote: post #40
ed25519FUUU wrote: post #37

Article really lacks specifics. The reason so much of the USA grows “patented” seeds is because they’re created specifically to be sprayed with herbicide and not die. There’s no alternative to to patented seeds without making fundamental changes to agriculture practices. Hybrid seeds are also different than open-pollinated in that the children do not grow true to parent. Even if we removed the patents, they wouldn’t…

Certainly there are alternatives. The Congress could make it impossible to patent seeds or other organisms. They haven't, for reasons involving philosophy, money, and perhaps the deep corruption Citizens United has spawned. They probably won't. But alternatives do exist.

Or, because patenting seeds serves a legitimate and valuable public service, smears of "deep corruption" notwithstanding.

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

#247

Post by pfdietz »

imtringued wrote: post #36
a_bonobo wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What's nefarious is being coerced to take on foreign debt to buy these seeds and then watching the country fall apart because the food is for domestic consumption and not for export, which means there will be a trade deficit as the seed exporter is not obliged to import products from your country (which violates Say‘s Law that so many people seem to hang onto). So your only option is to send all the bright people in…

[flagged]

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

#248

Post by UncleEntity »

mschuster91 wrote: post #200
epistasis wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the most obvious, concentration of market power. The solution to concentrated market power is not to abandon the productivity gains, but to use law and regulate to de-concentrate market power. We could instead ban specialization and the productivity it brings, but that's dealing with the wrong thing. > concentration of genomics Again, solved not by banning specialization, but rather through diversification of the m…

> This has nothing to do with advancing knowledge and specialization, and in fact reducing pesticide usage is only going to be enabled through greater advancement of our ag tech. Or by restructuring how land is used. When you have miles upon miles of corn fields, it's a fucking buffet for corn pests. In contrast, land that has a great variety of usages - corn, wheat, grass for making hay, marijuana, rice, potatoes, b…

With industrialization comes specialization.

You can’t reasonably expect farming families to be able to afford all the specialized equipment to be able to willy-nilly change the crops they grow and large corporations are just going to specialize based on economy of scale.

When all you need is a water buffalo and a shitton of labor you can diversify crops all you want but if you have to compete in a low-margin mechanized market you do whatever it takes to keep the farm going even if that means diversity gets thrown out the window in favor of cash crops.

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

#249

Post by pfdietz »

shmerl wrote: post #109

Patents on plants is an abysmally stupid idea that shouldn't exist.

They serve a legitimate public purpose, to allow the creators of new plant varieties to earn enough to justify their creation. Why are you entitled to the results of this effort but deny the creators their due? Do you think these varieties just come into existence out of thin air, and those patenting them are somehow unfairly exploiting a windfall?

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

#250

Post by pfdietz »

jmyeet wrote: post #136

I'm very close to the IP abolitionist end of the spectrum. For copyright, give works 20 years of protection. Beyond that you have to start paying hefty fees for 10 year blocks. The fee can double every 10 years. You want a Mickey Mouse ad infinitum copyright? If you're prepared to pay billions for it, go right ahead. Patents should generally not exist. Software patents should absolutely never exist. The fact that com…

GM crops are actually one of the areas (along with pharmaceuticals) where patents are most legitimate. Crop plants are literally things that manufacture themselves; the barrier to entry if patents didn't exist would be negligible. No one could justify the effort to create new plant varieties.
Post reply on HN