roundup ready patent

[rambler]

The Roundup Ready patent will be expiring in a couple years.

Monsanto has released some views on that.

It appears perhaps it will be possible for some to save the first version of that seed in the future.

There are several levels of patents on the technology; on the seed; and licence agreements. So it's not a simple thing to figure out.

I'm not gonna be for or against this. I know it is a hotbutton topic around here. I don't wish for that.

Just, to inform that some changes and issues are happening about it, might want to look into it if it is a topic you are concerned about. It's possible that after 2014 the rr1 gene could be available in more soybeans. Possibly.

Monsanto has come up with a different type of RR patent, and will be continuing with that for the next 20 years - they won't develop any new RR1 soybeans, so it's not that they are giving up or releasing all their seed or anything like that.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/business/18seed.html

--->Paul

[labrat]

We only use roundup in extreme situations and the concept of using it around edible plants is unheard of on our property and why anyone would use the genetically modified seed is beyond me. There are several reports written on the subject. This was found on www.MotherEarthNews.com in October; I don’t know which hardbound issue, but most likely, it was the November/December. This is a list of seventeen reports found on www.motherearthnews.com; the direct link is http://www.motherearthnews.com/searc...oundup%20ready and the specific article Roundup Kills More Than Weeds paraphrases the report found in Toxicology.

As I no longer work in academia and no longer have a subscription to Elsevier journals, I was only able to locate the abstract on this subject. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...fdf831d54d653b

Abstract

Glyphosate-based herbicides are the most widely used across the world; they are commercialized in different formulations. Their residues are frequent pollutants in the environment. In addition, these herbicides are spread on most eaten transgenic plants, modified to tolerate high levels of these compounds in their cells. Up to 400 ppm of their residues are accepted in some feed. We exposed human liver HepG2 cells, a well-known model to study xenobiotic toxicity, to four different formulations and to glyphosate, which is usually tested alone in chronic in vivo regulatory studies. We measured cytotoxicity with three assays (Alamar Blue®, MTT, ToxiLight®), plus genotoxicity (comet assay), anti-estrogenic (on ERα, ERβ) and anti-androgenic effects (on AR) using gene reporter tests. We also checked androgen to estrogen conversion by aromatase activity and mRNA. All parameters were disrupted at sub-agricultural doses with all formulations within 24 h. These effects were more dependent on the formulation than on the glyphosate concentration. First, we observed a human cell endocrine disruption from 0.5 ppm on the androgen receptor in MDA-MB453-kb2 cells for the most active formulation (R400), then from 2 ppm the transcriptional activities on both estrogen receptors were also inhibited on HepG2. Aromatase transcription and activity were disrupted from 10 ppm. Cytotoxic effects started at 10 ppm with Alamar Blue assay (the most sensitive), and DNA damages at 5 ppm. A real cell impact of glyphosate-based herbicides residues in food, feed or in the environment has thus to be considered, and their classifications as carcinogens/mutagens/reprotoxics is discussed.

[snoozy]

I'm not ready for Roundup.

[fatrat]

When the real dangers of RR and BT corn and soybeans become known and people are being hurt bad I wonder what will happen to Monsanto. Will they be held accountable or will they get off the hook? As far as I'm concerned, I hope they will be driven out of business and thier CEO's thrown in jail. Then the business of raising seed may be returned back to the farmers who should have been doing it all along.

[tinknal]

Originally Posted by fatrat

Then the business of raising seed may be returned back to the farmers who should have been doing it all along.

And of course the 10 bushel per acre yields.

[Windy in Kansas]

rambler, I really, really tried to bite my tongue and not say anything, but oh well.

Originally Posted by fatrat

When the real dangers of RR and BT corn and soybeans become known

Roundup has been around for decades. How long does it take?

As to putting the raising seed back in the hands of farmers-----then I guess universities and seed companies should stay out of it too?

Do farmers have the expertise, the drive and determination to develop seed traits BEFORE the actual need to ward off a specific disease has arrived on the continent? As an example a specific ill from Africa which is said to be coming and it is just a matter of time. Affects wheat.

Would vegetable FARMERS also qualify to raise seed? Many, many, if not most would abandon heirlooms and go strictly to hybrids since farmers NEED to make a profit to stay in business and it is clear that hybrids have better yield, often much better disease resistance, drought tolerance, etc.

Those of us that have used or do use Roundup and other glyphosate type of products know that we can apply less gallons of those herbicides than the old ones, many of which are now retired, and get better weed control as a result. If it didn't work so well do you think it would be in use to the extent that it is? Many of us have been around it for decades and have no ill affects from it. I might add that farmers may have a greater respect for herbicides and chemicals than the city folk so may not have the exposure they do, i.e. many farmers are licensed will use the proper labeled techniques whereas city folk will ignore them. Farmers face a $10,000 fine if they don't follow label directions, keep proper records, etc. At least in KS.

We that use it have our opinions based on use and results and you have your opinions often simply based on fear mongering from the web. Also from some scientific data and some scientific data that is flawed.

I can respect you not wanting to use it and since it is a legal product please respect my right to use it. If it is so horrible then get the government to ban it.

[tab]

Can you post some data to show that it is fear mongering and the data is flawed? I have not made up my mind on this subject and I often hear those exact phrases on the threads but no links......not being disrespectful in this request but it is a request. I have seen some pretty good looking reports on the dangers of Roundup and the like. It often takes time for things to show up sometimes decades. One thought I have seen put forth is the fertility problems and early onset puberty are coming from somehwhere and then there is autism.

We are under "attack" from some invasive nonnative plants and Roundup is the only herbicide that seems to "work". Really nothing is really working as the plants just keep spreading, sigh.

[plowjockey]

It's hard to imagine that "Mother Earth News" would have an axe to grind, with Monsanto.

The article "Roundup kills more than weeds", is just the usual fear-mongering for the uninformed masses.

The article even states that "surfacants" are actually causing the cell damage, not nessarily the Roundup. "surfacants", for those un-informed, is "soap". Add soap to a group of cells, or even frog eggs and the protective coating will wash off, killing cells or eggs.

Really has nothing to do with the Roundup.

"Solvents and surfactants, legally considered “inert ingredients,” are mixed with glyphosate in products such as Roundup weed killer to create chemical formulations that increase mobility and more direct access to the cells. “Those same factors that aid penetration into a plant, also aid penetration into the skin,” says Vincent Garry, professor emeritus of pathology at the University of Minnesota. “These chemicals are designed to kill cells.”

Originally Posted by labrat

We only use roundup in extreme situations and the concept of using it around edible plants is unheard of on our property and why anyone would use the genetically modified seed is beyond me. There are several reports written on the subject. This was found on www.MotherEarthNews.com in October; I don’t know which hardbound issue, but most likely, it was the November/December. This is a list of seventeen reports found on www.motherearthnews.com; the direct link is http://www.motherearthnews.com/searc...oundup%20ready and the specific article Roundup Kills More Than Weeds paraphrases the report found in Toxicology.

As I no longer work in academia and no longer have a subscription to Elsevier journals, I was only able to locate the abstract on this subject. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...fdf831d54d653b

Abstract

Glyphosate-based herbicides are the most widely used across the world; they are commercialized in different formulations. Their residues are frequent pollutants in the environment. In addition, these herbicides are spread on most eaten transgenic plants, modified to tolerate high levels of these compounds in their cells. Up to 400 ppm of their residues are accepted in some feed. We exposed human liver HepG2 cells, a well-known model to study xenobiotic toxicity, to four different formulations and to glyphosate, which is usually tested alone in chronic in vivo regulatory studies. We measured cytotoxicity with three assays (Alamar Blue®, MTT, ToxiLight®), plus genotoxicity (comet assay), anti-estrogenic (on ERα, ERβ) and anti-androgenic effects (on AR) using gene reporter tests. We also checked androgen to estrogen conversion by aromatase activity and mRNA. All parameters were disrupted at sub-agricultural doses with all formulations within 24 h. These effects were more dependent on the formulation than on the glyphosate concentration. First, we observed a human cell endocrine disruption from 0.5 ppm on the androgen receptor in MDA-MB453-kb2 cells for the most active formulation (R400), then from 2 ppm the transcriptional activities on both estrogen receptors were also inhibited on HepG2. Aromatase transcription and activity were disrupted from 10 ppm. Cytotoxic effects started at 10 ppm with Alamar Blue assay (the most sensitive), and DNA damages at 5 ppm. A real cell impact of glyphosate-based herbicides residues in food, feed or in the environment has thus to be considered, and their classifications as carcinogens/mutagens/reprotoxics is discussed.

[fatrat]

tinknal,

OP corn can and does compete with the yield of inbred hybrids when properly done. An inbred hybrid does not produce any more corn per plant than OP corn. In fact OP corn can produce more corn per plant than inbred hybrids and has on average about 25% more protien. OP corn also competes with weeds better than inbred hybrid corn. Many farmers today are finding that when they feed OP corn to livestock the livestock actually gains more weight on less corn so even with lower yield you can end up with more feed. OP corn does not have to yield less than inbred hybrids if you know how to work with it. The yield in inbred hybrid corn only comes from higher plant populations. The ability of hybrids to withstand higher plant populations came from highly inbred OP corn. The inbreeding weeded out inferior and weak genetics and revealed which plants could withstand higher populations. Then when the inbred was crossed with another inbred the plants had sufficient genetic diversity for strength and the genes to withstand higher populations. The farmers of the past planted their corn no more than 18,000 per acre and sometimes as low as 7,000 per acre in order to produce the largest ears. Having never planted the corn under the stress of higher populations they never developed seed that can withstand the higher population necessary to produce higher yields per acre. The genes that make inbred hybrids withstand high populations came from the OP corn and are still in the OP corn if you are willing to work with it. The seed corn must be put under stress to reveal the plants with superior genetics. They didn't understand that in the past. They thought that you developed better genetics by giving the corn the best environment.

Documented evidence of yields in excess of 200 bushels per acre and even as high as 300 bushels per acre of shelled corn exist from over 100 years ago. There were farmers back then who were starting to figure it out. In Minnesota in recent history the OP variety MN13 was tested along with local hybrids and it out yielded all except one. The problem is that back when farmers were using OP corn, corn was still a new crop for the white man. It hadn't been improved on but for less than 100 years. Uneducated farmers and a few researchers didn't have the information they needed. The old time farmers were also very into corn shows which encouraged breeding for visual apearance but not yield. It is well documented that the corn shows actually hurt yield. Farmers wouldn't plant the higher yielding varieties because they often didn't win corn show competitions. Any farmer winning a corn competition stood to make a lot of money selling inferior yielding seed that grew pretty corn. They refered to those ugly higher yielding varieties as "utility varieties". Then everyone abandoned the OP corn for a little better yield that could have been gotten with OP corn if they hadn't given up so soon. Now the farmers are slaves to Monsanto for seed, pesticides and fertilizers.

I sent some of my OP corn to a full time farmer in Kentucky this year, no side jobs for him to make ends meet. He tells me it grew and yielded as well as any hybrid he had ever grown. He swares he will never go back to inbred hybrid corn and be a slave to Monsanto. I know a farmer in Minnesota who farms full time, no side job to make ends meet. He farms corn, hay and cattle. He plants only OP corn, does just as well as he ever did with inbred hybrids and has NO CORN SEED BILLS. My brother works on a farm in Michigan where they farm 5000 acres of corn, wheat and beans and cattle. Their hybrid corn seed bill last year was $250,000.

Yield is important but what's more important is profit. The expense of $200-$300 per 50 lb bag of hybrid seed and all the chemicals that go along with it eats up a lot of profit. A farmer can get good yield from his own home grown OP seed properly handled and fewer or no chemicals and make just as much profit.

You can't treat OP corn the same as inbred hybrids. It is different and can yield just as well but farmers today are so convinced that they have to have that Monsanto seed that you can't talk any sense into most of them. I've seen it with my own eyes and have the testimony of full time farmers that have proved it to themselves and a few others who will listen to them.


windyinkansas,

Where do you think the incredible increase in all types of cancer is coming from? It's coming from the chemicals in our lives. Of course the chemical companies paying for all the research studies are going to tell you otherwise. They won't make as much money if you don't buy their poison.

[tinknal]

That's funny, I thought I was talking about soybeans..............????

[tinknal]

Originally Posted by fatrat

tinknal,


windyinkansas,

Where do you think the incredible increase in all types of cancer is coming from? It's coming from the chemicals in our lives. Of course the chemical companies paying for all the research studies are going to tell you otherwise. They won't make as much money if you don't buy their poison.

Evidence?

[rambler]

Originally Posted by tab

Can you post some data to show that it is fear mongering and the data is flawed? I have not made up my mind on this subject and I often hear those exact phrases on the threads but no links......not being disrespectful in this request but it is a request. I have seen some pretty good looking reports on the dangers of Roundup and the like. It often takes time for things to show up sometimes decades. One thought I have seen put forth is the fertility problems and early onset puberty are coming from somehwhere and then there is autism.

We are under "attack" from some invasive nonnative plants and Roundup is the only herbicide that seems to "work". Really nothing is really working as the plants just keep spreading, sigh.

A lot of weed sprays & insect sprays were used in the 1960's. They weren't controled or regulated very well. Food additives - coloring & artificial flavors were used back then.

Could be that these things have added up to cause some problems? I can be talked into believing there is some relationship?

The deal is, Roundup (it is actually glyphosate - Roundup is brand name & the version made by Monsanto but since the patent ran out years ago, there are dozens of different manufaturers of it now) is much safer than many of the old chemicals from the 1960s and 1970s.

Those older chemicals, many persist in the environment for weeks, months, a couple last for 3+ years in the ground strong enough to affect plants of the wrong type.

Glyphosate (Roundup) doesn't last hardly at all in the ground. You can spray it on weedy ground, plant seed that day, and the seed will come up just fine. It doesn't last long at all.

I think many people that are scared of ag chemicals have some odd idea that Roundup made by Monsanto is the only chemical any farmer has ever used, and without it we all would go back to pulling weeds and no spray at all would ever touch ag crops.

That isn't true.

The old chemicals created decades ago seem to be the worse ones. The newer ones made in the last 20 years have much lower LDL's, much much shorter persistance, and just generally target green plants much more than animal tissue.

So, in my mind, glyphosate (Roundup) is a much safer chemical than Lasso, 2.4.D, Banvel, Dual, and the others. It doesn't bother animal tissue so much; less amount is used per acre; and it breaks down much quicker on the soil.

Likewise, bt crops contain a naturally occuring anti-bug toxin. I think that natural toxin is much safer for the environment than handling jugs of bug poison. Returning to those days puts more farmers in harm's way. Bug poison is a dangerous thing to us humans - to those who need to handle it in volume anyhow.

If there is a connection between farm chemicals and diesease rates we see today; I believe it comes from those much-used chemicals from the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s.

The Roundup stuff used today is safer. imho

I don't understand why many people are so anti-Monsanto, anti-Roundup (glyphosate), and want us to return to the longer lasting, more dangerous chemicals.

That makes no sense.

--->Paul

[Bearfootfarm]

OP corn can and does compete with the yield of inbred hybrids when properly done.

Yes, if you till it enough, and cultivate it enough, and fertilize it enough.
But then there goes your PROFIT.
Farming isnt just about "yeilds"

[texican]

I don't know if OP plants produce as much as hybrids or not. I'm thinking hybrids produce more of what the commercial farmers want, or they'd all be planting OP. The difference, I'd imagine between the two, would be reaction to herbicides and insecticides. Monsanto made a fortune off of 'Roundup'... and then found a gene that makes their patented seeds resistant to roundup.

Weeding is a bugger, even in a small garden plot. Expecting someone with a section of land to hand weed is ludicrous. The less trips a farmer makes over his fields, the more money he makes.... and there ain't that great a margin on farming in the first place.

Profit is evil... especially if it's someone else's profits.

I don't use Monsanto products.

I hope their patents do lapse, so other corporations can compete better.

I prefer OP, being a survivalist at heart (and a tightwad to boot... who in their right mind would want to have to purchase seed year after year, if they could just save their own).

[tinknal]

There is another point. Far fewer gallons of diesel fuel are burned when you do not have to repeatedly cultivate.

[Jolly]

Roundup Ready plants are all that is keeping many farmers in business...

[rambler]

Originally Posted by texican

I don't know if OP plants produce as much as hybrids or not. I'm thinking hybrids produce more of what the commercial farmers want, or they'd all be planting OP. The difference, I'd imagine between the two, would be reaction to herbicides and insecticides.

Up here in the northern climate, open pollinated corn will top out around 150-200 bu per acre. Hybred corn will top out at 250-300 bu.

Actual, in field yields for OP is about 120-150, while hybred corn is about 200-225 bu.

The problem with open pollinated corn is that it isn't improved. It doesn't bring in any money - so who is going to spend time to breed a better version? I hear mention of open pollinated corn names that were around when my dad started farming! The hybred corn is typically replaced every 5 years with 'something better'.

The open pollinated can't handle higher planting populations, insects are harder on it, and so on. It just hasn't kept up.

That doesn't mean it's bad!!! Can work well on a couple acres where you don't do all the perfect seed placement, perfect fertilizer, etc. No point in planting a hybred if you are only shooting for 80 bu an acre yields. Some still use it on a big farm for silage - it can produce as good a silage as a hybred.

It's just a matter of what you are aiming for. If you plant 1000 acres of corn & are looking for high yields - open pollinated just isn't going to work well.

As some say, if the research & effort had been put into breeding it, it would be a lot closer to hybred corn. But - who's going to invest the money, when no one buys much seed per year?

--->Paul

[tinknal]

Rambler, seed company's could make money on OP corn the same way Monsanto makes money on roundup ready beans. License the genetics and hold the patent.

[rambler]

Originally Posted by tinknal

Rambler, seed company's could make money on OP corn the same way Monsanto makes money on roundup ready beans. License the genetics and hold the patent.

But that is the catch-22: Who would buy it then? The point of OP corn is that you can save it & not need to buy new seed every year.

If the licence doesn't allow you to save seed, then you might as well buy hybred seed which already has all the development....

It's not that op corn is poor. Good stuff. It just doesn't have the breeding research that hybred corn gets.

--->Paul

[tinknal]

Originally Posted by rambler

But that is the catch-22: Who would buy it then? The point of OP corn is that you can save it & not need to buy new seed every year.

If the licence doesn't allow you to save seed, then you might as well buy hybred seed which already has all the development....

It's not that op corn is poor. Good stuff. It just doesn't have the breeding research that hybred corn gets.

--->Paul

I thought the license allowed to save seed if you paid a licensing fee.