|
Post by Roy@ranch on Jul 22, 2011 12:16:40 GMT -5
Since Round Up's effectiveness is starting to be questionable, shouldn't the tech fee go away (on soys). They have given us Roundup II soys, but as far as I can tell they just have a new name, nothing else. For sure no more effective weed control. Will this happen when patent expires? Surely competitive seed companies will balk.
Any thoughts?
Roy
|
|
|
Post by lafarmer345 on Jul 22, 2011 13:02:01 GMT -5
Roy,
I agree. You would think after 16 years, they would have this technology paid for by now.
I am not sure where you are located, but in Mississippi, Tennessee, Arkansas, and bootheel of Missouri, there are a lot of resistance problems. Monsanto has all of these hoops to jump thru now, if you spray Product A (not roundup) you will get this amount of rebate, and if you spray A and B(again not Roundup) you will get more of a rebate. The guys in the areas I mentioned are having to farm the "old fashioned way" with residuals and cultivation. A tech fee for Roundup on top of that is an insult IMO.
|
|
Bristol Hillbilly
Hired Hand
Sentinel aka "Bouncer"....Sitting by the door....
Posts: 215
|
Post by Bristol Hillbilly on Jul 22, 2011 15:13:11 GMT -5
I agree whole heartedly. I asked them a couple of years ago since they recommended adding this and that to the mix. So I asked if I just left out roundup if we could waive the tech fee. They didn't even think about it the answer was a resounding NO.
|
|
|
Post by glowplug on Jul 22, 2011 18:57:05 GMT -5
Tech fees are how Monsanto pays for research and development. If you want improved varities, better disease and insect resistance, increased drought tolerance, then research-development is going to take us there. Syngenta does research-development, Dow does research-development and you're paying for that too when you buy their product.
Now the RR1 patent expires in 2014 (I believe). After it does, you can save RR1 soybean seed for your own planting. How well you do at harvesting, cleaning, storing to protect germination is up to your skill levels. Will your seed have 80% germination? 85%? 90%? Will the RR2 varieties offer a good sized yield advantage over RR1s in 2014? Will RR3 soybeans be out by then?
I don't know the answers to those questions. Yup seed prices are higher than years ago but at least the varieties are vastly better than those we had in the 1988 drought. Then think of how fertilizer prices have skyrockted and fertilizer ain't no better now than it was in 1988. If any outfit is ripping us off, it's the fertilizer outfits.
Glowplug - disclaimer - for the new friends to be made on here........I sell seed in addition to row cropping, for one of the smaller seed companies serving WI and MN.
|
|
|
Post by lafarmer345 on Jul 22, 2011 19:15:04 GMT -5
GP, I dont care for Monsanto, and you know this, but I couldnt farm without them, and I know this as well. But to charge for something that many are not getting any good out of.....RR tech fee with all of the gly resistance....makes no sense to me. And so far, none of the RR2's here have shown anything to me. They are still getting their butts kicked by RR1. I wont attempt to save seed, and I dont know of many that will try. I will pay for the "new and improved"....with a higher tech fee...and by that time, RR resistance will be here. I will be paying for something I will get down the road.
Might be easier to quit farming and buy shares of Monsanto if they are in that much need of R&D money
|
|
|
Post by glowplug on Jul 22, 2011 19:49:16 GMT -5
lafarmer,
RR-Dicamba soybeans will soon be out, in versions from Syngenta and from Monsanto. What we all paid in seed costs funded that project,
Monsanto stock has been up and down over the years, just like other companies. We both missed some buying and selling opportunities there.
In my area, RR2's outperformed RR1s last year. But I plant 2.1 and earlier maturities. Obviously farming and results differs greatly from north to south. Competition is a good thing and we get better products from these companies. Not so with feritilizer. It's the same stuff as 40 years ago but they jack the prices because they can. Not because they have improved their products.
Glowplug
|
|
|
Post by Roy@ranch on Jul 22, 2011 21:42:27 GMT -5
RR II is nothing more than new RR beans. As far as new varieties, well we used to get new varieties all the time without any Tech. fee. Saving seed is not rocket science, limiting factor is if you want the hassle of doing it or not.
Roy
|
|
Bristol Hillbilly
Hired Hand
Sentinel aka "Bouncer"....Sitting by the door....
Posts: 215
|
Post by Bristol Hillbilly on Jul 23, 2011 3:38:30 GMT -5
GP You seem to be well schooled and I compliment you on that.BUT IMO Monsanto has had the consumer pay for all the white collars, mistakes and other ? purchases (Holdens for $1Billion back in the 90's). I agree the fertilizer has taken a considerable jump, but I also hold that if potash for example wasn't working as well as it used to, due to my dependency on it and the potash institute told me I needed to use xyz fert with potash to get as good as results, it would leave a bitter taste that I still had to pay as much or more for the same potash. As far as ever saving RR seed legally, I hope you are right but I can't make myself believe that it will come to pass. Don't get me wrong RR technology is a great tool, one that I am glad to have in my arsenal of tools.It is not the complete answer. WE have brought on RR resistance and that is our fault. I hope if this dicamba resistance comes along we don't completely depend on it too.
|
|
|
Post by glowplug on Jul 23, 2011 8:47:36 GMT -5
Bristol,
You're 2nd to the last sentence nails it. Farmers created resistant weeds, not the companies selling seed or chemicals. The only time I ever spray straight glyphos, is on soybeans. My corn herbicide program is always a tank mix. Kill the weeds dead and they don't make glyphos resistant offspring. The reason glyphos doesn't work as good in some states is guys tried to half-rate when R-Up was more expensive than it is now.
As to what we're paying for, of course. A Pioneer customer is also paying for the white collar guys, the failure of their Optimum GAT program, those 4 page ags in the farm magazines, the other media ads, the lawyers and lawsuits they've lost, the seed companies Pioneer bought out, etc. Ain't no different with Syngenta, Dow or Monsanto. The Big 4 are basically the same. And your "free" cap ain't free.
What I do know is that I get better yields now, in part due to no herbicide injury on the crop. It's very important to me that glyphos. doesn't develop resistant weeds here in WI. Cause I know there's weeds from hell in other states.
I'd bet saving RR1 seed will be done. The question is whether it is a false economy move that costs more than it returns? As I understand it, in RR2Y beans, the resistance trait is inserted at a different point. The RR1 would sometimes have issues taking up maganese. I haven't noticed the yellow leaf event in RR2Y varieties.
I don't like the higher seed prices anymore than other farmers. But I'm surely not going back to conventional soybeans. LL soybeans haven't caught on here in WI and Ignite ain't cheap either (plus it is more temperature sensitive than glyphos.)
Right now, we just got over 4" of rain this morning. That's a bigger concern than anything else.
Glowplug
|
|
|
Post by kwestfarms on Jul 23, 2011 10:32:09 GMT -5
I went back to conventional beans. My yields with RR beans were going backwards. In 3rd year conventional and have increasing yields. Seed a hell of a lot cheaper, weed control a little more. With higher yields, bottem line is better. Just the way it works for me!!!
John
|
|
|
Post by bentover on Jul 23, 2011 10:37:46 GMT -5
Glowplug quit your whining you needed the rain, you're just never satisfied. I lurked on that other site and know a little about your Pioneer love affair. I agree with the over use of round up made the problem of resistance much worse
|
|
cowboycorn
Hired Hand
schpellin and gramer natzee
Posts: 155
|
Post by cowboycorn on Jul 23, 2011 10:55:58 GMT -5
Every company, be it AgChem, Big Oil, communication, yadda yadda, has an annual R & D budget. If they had never invented RU, then what would they be covering their alleged research costs with. I think they have carried it a bit far. Big Oil does not add a tech fee to all the "good shit" they put in your gas, the market takes care of that. If it's that good, it will outsell the "regular stuff"
I worked in R & D for an outfit once and saw know that it ain't the actual R & D that costs, it's the extravagant spending at the end of each fiscal year to "spend" the budget so they can get it back again plus some the following year. They work just like our government, not the most efficient users of money. They did hit a homerun back in the 70's with roundup for sure, but I'm not convinced the tech fee is still warranted.
There are numerous other weed control technologies on the table now, but they won't bring them out as they are not lucrative enough for the bottom line. They are more concerned with profit than weed control in my field.
|
|
|
Post by glowplug on Jul 23, 2011 12:53:43 GMT -5
I do know that Monsanto stock dropped dramatically at one point last winter. So they have their ups and downs. I'd think that if any one of the Big 4 had the "new, improved, lemon-scented" whiz bang herbicide or crop system, they'd bring it to market. Mon. wants to take Pioneer down. Syngenta wants to overtake the other three. Dow too. It's not in their best interests of profitability and kickin' the competitors in the nutz to sit on new technologies.
After a series of lawsuits, there's no love between Big P and Monsanto. If Big P had any big cards in their hand, they'd play them so they'd preserve their #1 seed sales spot. If Mon. had a new big gun, they'd be putting the finishing kill shot in Big P. Dow and Syngenta, same deal.
As to the tech fee, if it went away, the price of seed would just go up. Reminds me of when a politician says he won't raise taxes, then we're saddled with multiple fee increases on vehicle licenses, hunting-fishing licenses, meat plant inspections, grain elevator inspections, etc, etc.
We have competition and choice in the marketplace. There's organic, conventional, RR and LL soybeans available for most of us. There's 4 major national seed outfits and a whole bunch of smaller regional companies. But there ain't one of them who will sell seed under cost for long.
John, if you're happy with conventional beans, great. Guess I'm not willing to work that hard at soybean weed control. If I had the inclination to that direction, I'd raise RR beans, and do conventional corn. Always hated the way conventional beans looked after spraying. Corn is tougher. Everyone has to pick what works for them. So Roy, there's another option for you.
Glowplug
|
|
|
Post by kwestfarms on Jul 23, 2011 13:34:46 GMT -5
My conventional's look as good or better after spraying this year than my RR's ever did!! The bottom line , thats what it's all about and the bottom line is where I'm doing better!! I still use RU but as preplant combo with 2-4D where needed on corn or beans. The continued over use has resulted in more and more resistant weeds and resulting poor weed control.I know of operations in this area planting all RR beans and corn and using only RU for weed control , just a recipe for eventual disaster.
John
|
|
|
Post by glowplug on Jul 23, 2011 15:02:33 GMT -5
I don't know of any chemical that doesn't pucker up conventional beans? As to corn, laying down a good preplant, or pre-emerge works there. Changing up the tank mix companions with glyphos keeps weeds in corn from anticipating what you're gonna throw at them.
Not sure where you farm John, but if these guys think that glyphos alone will work forever, they probably all voted for obama too.
Glowplug
|
|