4 ms·

> made so second generation crops are crap To be clear, they're not specifically made so that second generation crops are crap. That's just the natural process

> made so second generation crops are crap To be clear, they're not specifically made so that second generation crops are crap. That's just the natural process of nature. If you selected the two most ideal humans to breed, by the time their children have children, it's easy to see that there is no guarantee that the original traits in the parents that were selected for are carried down the line. The best traits are soon lost. It's much the same story here. > I'm just not aware of them. That surprises me. Bayer, BASF, DOW? I would have figured these are household names, and in some cases are much larger businesses than Monsanto.

loup-vaillant 10y ago
Hasn't Bayer bought Monsanto by the way? In any case, you're certainly more aware of those firms than I am. It's your trade after all. I have heard those names, but the propaganda I've seen tend to point to Monsanto as the one deserving the torches and pitchforks. > If you selected the two most ideal humans to breed I get the point (super-crops that regress to the mean after a couple generations), but the actual downsides seem more serious: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F1_hybrid#Disadvantages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F1_hybrid#Disadvantages On the other hand, the upsides are enticing.
- randomdata 10y ago
  > but the actual downsides seem more serious What part seems serious? That the offspring are not useful for replant? It's really not that big of a deal, honestly. I, like most farmers, don't have the equipment to prepare the seeds for replant anyway, so by the time I contract that out I may as well just buy from someone who is already in the business of selling seeds. Specialization and economies of scale won out. It's no surprise that farmers themselves are not overly concerned about the replanting issue. It didn't happen much even before it became a legal issue. It's funny to me how the rest of the population have latched onto that topic.
  - loup-vaillant 10y ago
    > What part seems serious? That the offspring are not useful for replant? There is that, but also the cost of maintaining such seeds (seems to be higher than for regular seeds). I get the economy of scale though. There's also the problem of single point of failure. I cannot help but think that if farmers were self-seeding, the system would be more resilient. I'm not sure. Yet another problem is one of control. If Bayer controls our seeds the way Alphabet controls our data, this isn't going to be fun when start using that control for something we didn't expect. I mean, it's food. We need it, and they know it. I don't trust them. I've seen a documentary talking about Indian farmers committing suicide when they noticed their wonderful F1 crops could not breed properly. They thought they they were making an investment. And that's without the even more obvious problems associated with planting crops unsuited to the local climate or weak against the local pests. A crop (F1 or not) that thrives in Arizona may not fare so well in Ethiopia. I believe the "oops it requires too much water" has happened before.
    - randomdata 10y ago
      > but also the cost of maintaining such seeds (seems to be higher than for regular seeds). You get what you pay for. Virtual anyone in the world can produce an identical product, so competition is fierce. I dare even say that farming is the most competitive industry in the world. There is no room at all to overspend on something, so the hybrids have to show a benefit to even consider the cost. They exist where they have proven to be worth it. > If Bayer controls our seeds the way Alphabet controls our data, this isn't going to be fun when start using that control for something we didn't expect. I mean, it's food. We need it, and they know it. I cannot speak for all farmers, but all the seed I grow, except for corn, is produced by local companies, one of which is owned as a co-operative by the local farmers. I don't really share in your control concerns. Corn is the exception on my farm as the technology that the major players have developed has far and away exceeded anything else being produced. But, to be clear, corn is not the sweetcorn that you find down at your local grocer. Corn is primarily animal feed, with some use in production of HFCS and ethanol. So, maybe hypothetically, they can attack your meat consumption (and your sugary drinks, and your gasoline). Many people I have had discussions with would argue that is a good thing! But I also don't understand what the incentive would be. People will, as begrudgingly as it may be, start eating other foods and the value of their seed would drop to zero. Not a great play, in my opinion. Besides, what control they can have over the market is entirely limited to the laws made by the people. While hybrids have been commonplace for nearly a century and GMOs for several decades without any trouble, if something magically changed in the future, the populace could force a change in the laws to save the food supply. > I don't trust them. ... I believe the "oops it requires too much water" has happened before. Sure. We had a hybrid variety fail a few years back. We were compensated by the seed vendor for their failure to deliver. I don't know about this situation in India, but they seem to understand the value of not pissing off farmers in my experience.

loup-vaillant 10y ago

Hasn't Bayer bought Monsanto by the way? In any case, you're certainly more aware of those firms than I am. It's your trade after all. I have heard those names, but the propaganda I've seen tend to point to Monsanto as the one deserving the torches and pitchforks. > If you selected the two most ideal humans to breed I get the point (super-crops that regress to the mean after a couple generations), but the actual downsides seem more serious: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F1_hybrid#Disadvantages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F1_hybrid#Disadvantages On the other hand, the upsides are enticing.

randomdata 10y ago
> but the actual downsides seem more serious What part seems serious? That the offspring are not useful for replant? It's really not that big of a deal, honestly. I, like most farmers, don't have the equipment to prepare the seeds for replant anyway, so by the time I contract that out I may as well just buy from someone who is already in the business of selling seeds. Specialization and economies of scale won out. It's no surprise that farmers themselves are not overly concerned about the replanting issue. It didn't happen much even before it became a legal issue. It's funny to me how the rest of the population have latched onto that topic.
- loup-vaillant 10y ago
  > What part seems serious? That the offspring are not useful for replant? There is that, but also the cost of maintaining such seeds (seems to be higher than for regular seeds). I get the economy of scale though. There's also the problem of single point of failure. I cannot help but think that if farmers were self-seeding, the system would be more resilient. I'm not sure. Yet another problem is one of control. If Bayer controls our seeds the way Alphabet controls our data, this isn't going to be fun when start using that control for something we didn't expect. I mean, it's food. We need it, and they know it. I don't trust them. I've seen a documentary talking about Indian farmers committing suicide when they noticed their wonderful F1 crops could not breed properly. They thought they they were making an investment. And that's without the even more obvious problems associated with planting crops unsuited to the local climate or weak against the local pests. A crop (F1 or not) that thrives in Arizona may not fare so well in Ethiopia. I believe the "oops it requires too much water" has happened before.
  - randomdata 10y ago
    > but also the cost of maintaining such seeds (seems to be higher than for regular seeds). You get what you pay for. Virtual anyone in the world can produce an identical product, so competition is fierce. I dare even say that farming is the most competitive industry in the world. There is no room at all to overspend on something, so the hybrids have to show a benefit to even consider the cost. They exist where they have proven to be worth it. > If Bayer controls our seeds the way Alphabet controls our data, this isn't going to be fun when start using that control for something we didn't expect. I mean, it's food. We need it, and they know it. I cannot speak for all farmers, but all the seed I grow, except for corn, is produced by local companies, one of which is owned as a co-operative by the local farmers. I don't really share in your control concerns. Corn is the exception on my farm as the technology that the major players have developed has far and away exceeded anything else being produced. But, to be clear, corn is not the sweetcorn that you find down at your local grocer. Corn is primarily animal feed, with some use in production of HFCS and ethanol. So, maybe hypothetically, they can attack your meat consumption (and your sugary drinks, and your gasoline). Many people I have had discussions with would argue that is a good thing! But I also don't understand what the incentive would be. People will, as begrudgingly as it may be, start eating other foods and the value of their seed would drop to zero. Not a great play, in my opinion. Besides, what control they can have over the market is entirely limited to the laws made by the people. While hybrids have been commonplace for nearly a century and GMOs for several decades without any trouble, if something magically changed in the future, the populace could force a change in the laws to save the food supply. > I don't trust them. ... I believe the "oops it requires too much water" has happened before. Sure. We had a hybrid variety fail a few years back. We were compensated by the seed vendor for their failure to deliver. I don't know about this situation in India, but they seem to understand the value of not pissing off farmers in my experience.