Gordon Couger wrote:

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
From `Multinational Monitor' Jan/Feb 2000

Technology Agreement
"[...]
But if the farmer chooses GM seed, such as Bt corn or Roundup Ready
soybeans, the seed dealer has the farmer sign a "Technology
Agreement" before leaving. Usually without even reading the document
-- and likely without understanding it -- the farmer signs the
contract and goes home.

[...]

The second Trouble Clause prohibits farmers from supplying seed to
any other person.


This provision does more than block third parties from acquiring
Monsanto's genetically altered seed without writing Monsanto a
check. It also prevents and punishes those who may try to do
independent research on the genetically modified crops without
Monsanto's express permission. Friendly university scientists with a
Monsanto relationship can gain access to seed for research -- but
scientists who may be critical of biotech can and likely will be
denied access.


The third Trouble Clause stipulates punitive damages for farmers who
violate Monsanto's decrees. Farmers who save the seed for replanting
must pay damages in the amount of 120 times the technology fee. This
is $3,000 in the case of corn -- far more than Monsanto would likely
be able to prove if it sought damages from farmers in court. This
part of the contract further makes farmers pay Monsanto's legal fees
and other costs of enforcement.

[...]"

And I guess comparing growth aspects would indeed be research.

There is no problem getting Monsanto seed for research or a farmer doing his
own comparison. Every farmer knows what he is signing.

He is signing away his right to do research unless approved. Doing
one's own comparison is one thing but you cannot share that data with
others if you recognise a deficiency.

You don't run a
business that controls millions of dollars worth of land and machinery and
not know what you are doing. You may claim that as a defense but a farmer in
the US that is still in business is not that dumb.

I know they have to look in keeping with `trends'. They have to look a
good farmer, i.e. follow the subtle suggestion that farmers should have
tidy fields - no other plants in them at all.

I farmed before breeders could protect their intellectual property and the
cotton progress was slow. As soon as the plant protection act passed there
was an immediate increase in choices private breeders had been holding back
waiting for it to pass.

A real increase or a decrease? The choices were out there, many of them if
you went out to look for them. Then after patents I guess eveyone would
concentrate on fewer main varieties, sold by subtle pressures, too, maybe.

I read from the 1929 Encyclopaedia Brittanica about many types of cotton.
I suggest that modern spinning technology could be taking a look back at
them.

Crops were found to suit the local climate, then seasonal weather
variations would rarely diminish a crop by a quarter or third, never a
half.

Interesting the statement that the fiber takes almost nothing from the
soil.

Cotton growers started getting the some of the
progress that hybrid corn farmer had been getting for years. Hybrid cotton
doesn't work as well as corn because you get so few seed per acre and the
hybrid vigor isn't there as it is in corn. The only reason they use it in
Asia is to protect their property.

If you are talking about hybrids between new world and old world cotton
they are almost two different plants.


If you don't like private breeders raise some funds for public breeders. My
state shut their cotton program down 10 years ago. Texas has one man working
on cotton. If the public sector won't do it you best be glad the private
sector does.

I fear that too much work is going into the relatively small number of
breeds currently available.

In New Zealand there has been work to save species of birds from
extinction. There and eslewhere in the world it has been found that when a
bird population drops below about fifty then forever after the breeding is
closer to inbreeding and eggs are more likely to break. That has been
tested by deliberate inbreeding of small colonies which are not
endangered, too.

As well as diverse species of crop plants it is important to have
diversity of genetic potential within species I would say. I feel
governments, our representatives, are better able to manage such
situations if we persuade them. Private breeders will spread the currently
in vogue one or two vary widely, then what happens? And selecting from GM
experiments tends to produce much purer strains in certain respects of
lack, I would say.

In 1929 cotton breeds were always thought to have limited life.

Sakellarides, Mitafifi, Yannovitch, Kidney cotton, Pernambuco, Maranham,
Ceara, Aracaty, MaceioInnivelly, Broach, Hinganghai, Dharwar, Amraoti,
Bengal, Sin, Kumpta, Nurma or Deo, some names which might stimulate some
dreams in someone.