The Rural Voice, 1981-01, Page 12thing" he warns. Rotation starts to look
better - crops like alfalfa for example, can
return nitrogen to the soil naturally.
Does George Jones ever feel he's
responsible for creating the monoculture
"Monster"? It's a question he's
obviously been asked before.
"I have no conscience about it, n9
regret's," he assures me, adding that the
renewal process is there for the asking.
While Jones says it would be rather
specious to think farmers will ever get rid
of corn, there are alternatives to consider
- rotating crops, going back to corn cribs
rather than energy - consumptive dryers.
In 1975, Jones joined Ciba-Geigy
when it absorbed Stewart Seeds. He's
now working on a corn breeding program
and a self -pollinated breeding program
as well as researching other crops such as
winter wheat, soybeans, etc.
Although it's obvious the researcher
doesn't want to get into a discussion on
the controversial plant breeders' rights
issue, he scoffs at the idea companies like
Ciba-Geigy have sinister intents. Ciba-
Geigy, he believes is "A responsible
citizen," whose research will benefit
humanity. The concern that companies
will breed seeds which can be used only
with their own chemicals seems like a
ridiculous suggestion to Jones.
In addition to research, George Jones
is also experimenting in another area.
After being a "frustrated farmer" for
years, he bought a farm near Fergus, to
use "as my outdoor laboratory." When
he moved to Ailsa Craig, that farm was
sold but his son Doug persuaded him to
look at another piece of land in the
Riversdale area.
"All my life I've loved Bruce County,"
Jones says, because it's partially
surrounded by water, and it has one
million acres of land, which remind Jones
of his roots in PEI. Also, in the days he
was preaching the gospel of corn, he
often stopped in to talk with a "real
genius", the Bruce ag. rep. of that
period, George Gear.
What has George Jones learned from
putting his research to work on the farm?
Well, one thing he discovered is "you
forget the pain of farming." It's obvious
from his hands that's he's been reminded
lately of the physical labour involved in
the business.
Reporters can't help asking the corn
evangelist if he thinks his years in the
classroom and research lab have
produced better yields on his own farm.
"No," he responds," because most
people are using the (same) technology."
His yields, he guesses, are as good as
those of other good farmers in the area.
The academic world, which Jones
inhabited for 20 years, "may not be the
real world, but it's an interesting world,"
he says. Now he's combining both the
real world and the researcher's world,
and his enthusiasm for each is catching.
To Jones, the world is an exciting place,
and one can't imagine his enthusiasm for
agriculture ever dimming. And, Jack
Tanner says, "To my way of thinking,
there's no one alive today who has
contributed more to Ontario agriculture
than George Jones."
Plant breeders'
BY ADRIAN VOS
There is much uncertainty among
farmers about the consequences of
granting patents to plant breeders for
new seed varieties they develop.
Vic Althouse, NDP agricultural critic in
the House of Commons from Humbold,
Saskatchewan, says the "Plant Breeder's
Rights Legislation," is a licence to
"...the ever expanding fingers of corpor-
ate vertical integration reaching into
control of the seed industry." And
further"...a classic example of what the
so-called cheap food policy really means.
Variety and competition are disappearing
- with it also many farmers and food
producers as well."
The Canadian Federation of Agricul-
ture (CFA) has given its cautious approv-
al to the amendments to the Canada Seed
Act and to the new plant breeders rights
bill (Bill C.32). The federation only wants
assurance farmers won't be ripped off
when a plant breeder has an exclusive
variety, and that seed development by
the use of public funds will be continued
and even expanded.
Some of the advantages of this bill are
that some seed can be imported, as
foreign plant breeders will be assured of
royalites.
Domestic plant breeders will have
more incentive because they can collect
rights
The CFA, NFU, and FAO positions
royalties, both in domestic and in foreign
sales.
The legislation doesn't mean everyone
can go out and sell his own brand of seed.
Only licenced seed will be protected, and
licencing requirements from Agriculture
Canada will remain in effect.
But not everyone is as complacent as
the CFA. Examples of the disadvantages
of such a bill abound in countries where
plant breeders' rights are in effect.
European farmers have complained for
years that seed prices have increased
dramatically since patents were introduc-
ed, and U.S. seed prices are reportedly
increasing much faster than other agri-
cultural input costs.
How much more profitable it is for the
seed companies is shown in the moves of
large multinationals into the seed busi-
ness. It's only about two years ago that
Ciba-Geigy, a multi -national company,
bought the pride of Ontario seed growers
for many years, Stewart Seeds of Ailsa
Craig.
The National Farmers Union sides with
American general farm organizations, in
being strongly opposed to granting
pat ents to plant breeders. Their presi-
dent, James Mayne, says no "...miracle
discoveries of high yielding plants that
are resistant to pests and diseases and
perfectly suited to our climate conditions
will result. We have yet to be proven
wrong for trusting our public breeding
program."
The NFU newsletter quotes Canadian
Business magazine as saying patents are
almost certain to be to the detriment of
the industry and claims Canadian church-
es churches say breeders' rights would
threaten the world food supply and could
force third world countries to buy back
indigenous seeds from multinational
companies.
The condition for approval by the CFA
that government remains in the seed
development business, shows that body
shares the concern that there is a real
danger that good varieties may disappear
when they are Tess profitable than weaker
strains.
Maclean's magazine reports that the
Food and Agricultural Organization of the
United Nations (FAO) is opposed to seed
patents; that patents have resulted in
monopolistic practices, crop epidemics in
the third world and a narrowing of the
genetic base of plants.
Althouse says, "It is becoming more
apparent that government is becoming
the handmaiden of corporations."
Whatever the legislature will decide,
farmers would be well advised to keep
informed of the possible effects of this
Bill C-32.
PG. 12 THE RURAL VOICE/JANUARY 1981