central - east central Minnesota - | stutnd - 10/12/2013 10:44 There are truths to both sides of this argument. Ed seems to put more stock into fertililty and getting as much revenue off of limited acres than most. A practice that I for one am in agree with. A true tenant of the land is what in my opinion makes a farmer. Not some of these BTO's running around scooping up acres just for show. Slopping a crop in, harvesting too fast etc.. Its foolishness IMHO and will all settle out when commodity prices near normals again. Drago does have legs in this argument. The big 3 seed companies own the lion share of the germplasm. Do we sit here and honestly think to ourselves that they will allow their very best genetics to be sold without their true money makers, which is traits. It comes down to regionalized genetics working in regionalized geographies. Maybe Ed is indeed choosing the best genetics available for his farm and practices throughout his present format. A horse breeder isn't going to sell you a son of secretariat for a fraction of the price of selling thousands of straws to a large corporation. Supply and demand conquers. The demand for genetically modified crops is still 90% or better of the corn market. Until that becomes a more balanced ratio, to the victors go the spoils. With the victors at this present time being GMO.
That's the difference . . . . The big 3 are adding additional "value" to son of secretariat's germplasm. The Big 3 think there's more money to be made, with value added traits, then the conventional germplasm seedstock ~
That's the difference between regional's and big 3's. Why don't the big 3 offer gmo's in the newer germplasm's? My opinion, cause, that's not where the money is being made .. . . it's in the value added traits. |
My seed guy tells me that prices will be the same!
