3 ms·
> The farmers saved a percentage of the seeds and sowed them again the next spring. However, this is not a lucrative model for profit-oriented multinational com
by emadehsan 4y ago
> The farmers saved a percentage of the seeds and sowed them again the next spring. However, this is not a lucrative model for profit-oriented multinational companies, since the seed breeders only earn a profit during the first sale and not again every year.
Was the "inability of the produced seeds to be sowed again and turn into a crop" intentionally baked into the seeds sold by these companies, purely for profits?
Or was there a genuine biological / physical limiting factor? E.g. crop will be more susceptible to pests?
- SQueeeeeL 4y ago>Was the "inability of the produced seeds to be sowed again and turn into a crop" intentionally baked into the seeds sold by these companies, purely for profits? No, it's purely a contractual limitation. Farmers need to sign the rights away and performing experiments with seeds blown on your land is considered a breech of contact law (i.e. you don't even need to purchase the seeds to violate IP regulations). https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/12/monsanto-sues-farmers-seed-patents https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/12/monsanto...
- qup 4y agoLegally baked-in.
- Metacelsus 4y agoNearly all modern crops are hybrid strains, which means the offspring won't have the same genotype as the parents. This is the real reason why re-planting doesn't work well. It's not anything nefarious.
- JamisonM 4y ago"Nearly all modern crops are hybrid strains" This is a "citation needed" situation here, the corn & Canola seed markets are certainly dominated by hybrids but very plentiful drops like wheat and rice are not to the best of my knowledge. If you have sources for this I am very interested to read up on it.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]