Seeds of farm prohibited by the UMP !! Ashamed !!

Agriculture and soil. Pollution control, soil remediation, humus and new agricultural techniques.
bamboo
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1534
Registration: 19/03/07, 14:46
Location: Breizh

Re: Farm seeds prohibited by the UMP !! Ashamed !!




by bamboo » 30/11/11, 14:26

I would just try to comment on the law before I cry wolves ...
Christophe wrote:
For farmers, sowing his own crop will be banned or taxedSmall farmers producing less than 92 tonnes of grain are exempt.

Already, it only affects large farmers (with a yield of 10t / ha it's 90ha, which is not the small farm)

Christophe wrote:
The farmer must pay 50 cents per tonne of wheat upon delivery of his crop.

Is this not precisely what Antoine and Christophe claim to be the right solution?
Payment based on production, rather than seeding?
0 x
Solar Production + VE + VAE = short cycle electricity
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79117
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972




by Christophe » 30/11/11, 14:38

Yes Indy but ...

1) For the 92 T it is not rather "were" that it is necessary to read? Because concerning the law of 1994? It's not very clear ...

2) For the tax, yes but then it is noted, a few sentences below:

it is forbidden to reuse your own seeds, and for the other half - cereals and fodder plants -, you have to pay to resow."


So ... it's not clear either! : Cheesy:
0 x
bamboo
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1534
Registration: 19/03/07, 14:46
Location: Breizh




by bamboo » 30/11/11, 14:56

Christophe wrote:Yes Indy but ...

1) For the 92 T it is not rather "were" that it is necessary to read? Because concerning the law of 1994? It's not very clear ...

Ben the current law transposes a regulation which dates from 1994.
But it is this transposition that puts the limit to 92T ...

Christophe wrote:
it is forbidden to reuse your own seeds, and for the other half - cereals and fodder plants -, you have to pay to resow."


So ... it's not clear either! : Cheesy:

We know that journalists do not understand much of what they write ... So "Pay to reseed" means that they will pay taxes when they sell the production obtained from reused seeds. ..

In short: as always, beware of articles
1) journalists don't understand much
2) the testimonies come from people who have interests and therefore present things as they arrange them ...

Completely off topic, but in the same vein : a researcher has succeeded in showing that athletes should to smoke.
Yes Yes...
In this case, the researcher had been honest and just wanted to show that you should always be wary of research results. But the fact remains that he had shown that by following the same process as an ordinary researcher, one could arrive at an extremely false conclusion.
0 x
Solar Production + VE + VAE = short cycle electricity
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79117
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972




by Christophe » 30/11/11, 15:36

Ok I agree !
0 x
User avatar
antoinet111
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 874
Registration: 19/02/06, 18:17
Location: 29 - Landivisiau
x 1

Re: Farm seeds prohibited by the UMP !! Ashamed !!




by antoinet111 » 30/11/11, 18:28

minguinhirigue wrote:I do not agree that these seeds are "terminator" plants or that there is a total ban on reusing seeds.
so how do you make fair compensation for your work? resale tax only works if actual returns are declared.

We are indeed gradually moving towards a serious decline in the genetic variety of cultivated plans for food, it is a whole section of our agricultural and culinary culture that is disappearing.
sorry to tell you that this is wrong, it is the job of the seed banks, conservatories and INRA to conserve resources (which is done), we know that it is important to find characters of interest, you confuse with the industry that wants uniformity, creators only create according to demand and need.


A low but constant tax like that proposed by Christophe seems to be a good compromise. It would allow any farmer wishing to sell a production under a protected species name to pay a tax paying the seed companies.
this exists in the form of royalties or a tax on the first sale but which does not work

On the other hand, prohibiting the sale of strictly identical copies can be understood. It should be the same for plant species!
this is what the French state bodies are looking for, they do not want a patent but a form of protection.



Janic wrote: So only when the seeds in question are the result of research.

this is the case for 99% of cultivated varieties, the old varieties are nothing but perfumery from the point of view of varietal improvement, everything has been shaped by human hands (see the mouth of the origin of corn tomato or wheat).

clasou wrote:The living must not be a source of income, it is life.
Are you happy to eat a garden tomato? what you eat at every vegetable or animal meal has been improved by a guy for years, see decades, you do not find it normal that he can live while he feeds you?
I come back to the example of the tomato, guys for centuries have worked hard to make it eatable, I remember that it is a toxic fruit originally.


One solution is to make it an object like Monsanto or something else that includes a sterility gene.
still bullshit, for years we have made hybrid plants to have beautiful plants resistant to diseases, it is true that when they reproduce, the progeny is not identical.

si tes ogm ....

.


if only the anti GMOs knew what a GMO really is, they would stop freaking out, but on the other hand reasoning about certain partics of inserting harmful genes or in plants with a high capacity to multiply with wild plants would not be bad.

also, thank you not to confuse GMO and creation of variety, for info, 90% of the time it is bees, flies and bumblebees that do the job, it is not more natural is not it?
0 x
I vote for the writing of concrete post and practicality.
Down the talkers and ceiling fans!
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963




by Ahmed » 30/11/11, 18:44

You say:
I come back to the example of the tomato, guys for centuries have worked hard to make it eatable, I remember that it is a toxic fruit originally.

Precisely, in the case of these seeds which result from the varietal selection of generations of peasants, it seems completely monstrous to charge for their use.
This is particularly serious for peasants from impoverished countries who already have difficult living conditions.
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
User avatar
antoinet111
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 874
Registration: 19/02/06, 18:17
Location: 29 - Landivisiau
x 1




by antoinet111 » 30/11/11, 18:49

Ahmed wrote:You say:
I come back to the example of the tomato, guys for centuries have worked hard to make it eatable, I remember that it is a toxic fruit originally.

Precisely, in the case of these seeds which result from the varietal selection of generations of peasants, it seems completely monstrous to charge for their use.
This is particularly serious for peasants from impoverished countries who already have difficult living conditions.


So, we go back 100 years with all the diseases and parasites of the time, tell me what you think of famines and ask an Irishman if he prefers a resistant potato or an old variety that is dying?
0 x
I vote for the writing of concrete post and practicality.

Down the talkers and ceiling fans!
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963




by Ahmed » 30/11/11, 19:16

Fortunately, since the beginnings of agriculture, the work of the peasants has been efficient enough that we are always there to talk about it!
I have friends who are trying to continue this selection work on old bread wheat, according to different criteria of course.
These researches can coexist with those that you carry out, although they conflict on their finality ... on the one hand there is a desire for reappropriation and autonomy, on the other technical efficiency and mastery of the sector.

I do not wish to pursue a dialogue of the deaf which would resemble that of the anti and nuclear pros: to get lost on technical details whereas the divergence relates to a different conception of society.
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
User avatar
antoinet111
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 874
Registration: 19/02/06, 18:17
Location: 29 - Landivisiau
x 1




by antoinet111 » 30/11/11, 23:09

uhhhh ??? you drop the song without arguments, I would like to discuss it, especially on the purpose that you say different.

pity.
0 x
I vote for the writing of concrete post and practicality.

Down the talkers and ceiling fans!
clasou
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 553
Registration: 05/05/08, 11:33




by clasou » 01/12/11, 06:14

Hello Antoine111.
So you all say it has been modified so that we can eat it. But originally the man is not a hunter-gatherer.
Diet must have been a while.
Does GMO not mean genetically modified?
Hybrids, I am against then maybe wrong, but I only have so-called old species.
But maybe the state attacked kokopelli for another reason.
One of my dreams, that the state plants everywhere on green spaces among others, apple trees, cherry pear trees ......... and that everyone can help themselves, just for food.
In addition to savings, there is no need to advertise that you have to eat .......
a + claude
0 x

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "Agriculture: problems and pollution, new techniques and solutions"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 311 guests