|
|
Post by paquebot on Feb 12, 2014 23:02:58 GMT -5
I pointed the Internet companies out as why there are less people listing. That situation did not exist even 10 years ago. Then it was worthwhile to grow enough plants to supply enough seeds to meet a demand set on 4 or 5 years. Now one may introduce a new variety this year and a dozen commercial interests may be selling it two years down the road. To get it as an SSE member means $40 for the right to do it. The commercial $3 and a small handling fee means that the SSE member is sitting on a supply of seeds which he worked hard for and nobody requests them. That destroys most of the incentive to grow more. There's no reason to grow a variety which can be obtained cheaper commercially. It's a Catch-22 situation. Non-listers want to see more more varieties when the actual market demand is less.
Martin
|
|
|
|
Post by steev on Feb 13, 2014 0:09:08 GMT -5
It's certainly true that people will take advantage of any opportunity, and the internet has facilitated that behavior. The self-serving and predatory are now enabled to global reach. All the more reason to cultivate face-time relationships, in preference to on-line, at least in public circumstances.
|
|
|
|
Post by oxbowfarm on Feb 13, 2014 0:29:32 GMT -5
I pointed the Internet companies out as why there are less people listing. That situation did not exist even 10 years ago. Then it was worthwhile to grow enough plants to supply enough seeds to meet a demand set on 4 or 5 years. Now one may introduce a new variety this year and a dozen commercial interests may be selling it two years down the road. To get it as an SSE member means $40 for the right to do it. The commercial $3 and a small handling fee means that the SSE member is sitting on a supply of seeds which he worked hard for and nobody requests them. That destroys most of the incentive to grow more. There's no reason to grow a variety which can be obtained cheaper commercially. It's a Catch-22 situation. Non-listers want to see more more varieties when the actual market demand is less. Martin That argument is possibly valid for tomatoes, but not for other crop species. Some of us are interested in crops other than tomatoes. I can assure you that there are no internet seed companies carrying 30 varieties of hulless barley, and if I were to introduce a new hulless barley variety, zero internet seed companies would be carrying it in 2 years. Other crops the internet will not be jumping all over that the yearbook has much to offer; Turnips, soup peas, okra, mustard greens, OP dent/flint/flour corns, cabbage, salsify, scorzonera, sorghum, soybeans, and on and on. THAT is the function of the SSE, not to enable tomato collectors to make money selling seed. |
|
|
|
Post by steev on Feb 13, 2014 1:25:42 GMT -5
The swell festivals (which I can't attend, having work to do) and the glossy publications, all speak to me of sheer flackery (I'm being polite and PG, here, considering we're discussing the SSE, as much as it goes against my inclination to Anglo-Saxon bluntness).
As will happen to businesses when they aren't constrained by the limits of the physical capabilities of a small group of people, I think SSE has outgrown its mission, and is trying to replace substance with glitz, attempting to attract new "members" rather than keeping those who are committed to the original vision. Bottom-line cash-flow corporatism, in short. It's unfortunate, but is it any wonder that it attracts sharks and vultures?
|
|
|
|
Post by paquebot on Feb 13, 2014 4:21:48 GMT -5
The issue of supposed Yearbook isting loss maybe an issue to some but does it exist? Here's some figures to ponder to confirm or deny the claim that SSE Yearbook is going downhill for what it offers. In 2004, 807 members listed 11,238 varieties. In 2014, 598 listed 13,012. That's a gain of 1,774 varieties. (I was tempted to also list about 120 varieties of beans this year but never have enough stock to meet more than casual demand. 25-30 would have been the first for any Yearbook so that number would have been higher.) That increase is not totally due just to flowers and herbs since 2013 total was 12,495. Look through the memberships of 2004 and 2014 and see how many list only 1 or 2 varieties. In the 2004 edition, in just the "A" states, there were 11. In 2014, there are 3. Eight members may no longer be listing from 2004 but net loss of varieties there is probably zero. (One was barley, by the way.) So where's the problem? That the barley varieties were combined? Correct me if wrong but if not mistaken, you no longer list any barley? Can you blame me for being confused over what the issues are?
Martin
|
|
|
|
Post by PatrickW on Feb 13, 2014 4:38:34 GMT -5
We are discussing these same issues here in Europe.
Yes, the SSE Yearbook is exciting, and the number of listings is important. The issue however is if the biodiversity it represents is in-situ or ex-situ. If someone pulls a variety out of a genebank or their freezer from 10 years ago, this is nice, and serves a purpose, but it's not really that exciting.
What's far more interesting is if the SSE is just a 'seedbank' or if it's a 'living seedbank'. What's far more useful than just lots of seeds, are people who actually work with the seeds. People who grow the same seeds regularly, breed them, compare them with others, learn about them, write about them and talk with others. These are the senior listed members, and the ones who ensure the quality and not just the quantity of seeds increases every year. These are the people who are going to facilitate the SSE seed collection being used in a future system of agricultural. Without these senior listed members, the SSE is just a bunch of seeds.
The SSE has stopped existing as an organization that serves it's senior listed members, and has become a brand name. It's a brand name with a $5.5 million budget, and a bunch of seeds.
|
|
|
|
Post by 12540dumont on Feb 13, 2014 21:05:24 GMT -5
I'm one of the listed members who dropped out.
I have been ripped off more than once by listing members. SSE never does anything about it, when you complain. I'm sorry, when I lose $20 on seed, it's a big deal to me.
I have been disappointed over the last few years about the politics of SSE.
So, rather than complain, I'm working with a group of folks to do something about it. Our name is going to be the Grassroots Seed Network. We're getting ready to hold an election, and get to voting on things like how to list seeds, etc.
This is a list of those who
wish to participate in the new seed-saving-exchange organization. So far we haven’t
figured out how to define members or governance structure – your thoughts on that are
very welcome.
Alan Kapuler
O.J Lougheed
Sylvia Davatz
Anpetu Oihankesni
George Stevens
Amy Leblanc
Jack Kertesz
CR Lawn
Jim Tjekema
Holly Dumont
Barbara Miller
Martha Gottlieb
Suzanne Ashworth
Will Woys Weaver
James Ulager
Tim Peters
Chris Homanics
Greta Hoeffelbein
Ruth Fleishman
and Will Bonsall.
And as soon as I have any more info, I'll let you know!
|
|
|
|
Post by davida on Feb 14, 2014 1:50:21 GMT -5
So, rather than complain, I'm working with a group of folks to do something about it. Our name is going to be the Grassroots Seed Network. We're getting ready to hold an election, and get to voting on things like how to list seeds, etc. Very interesting. Please keep us posted. It was also interesting to see Carol Deppe's new seed list for 2014. And the SSE 2014 yearbook is still not opened and remains with the other seed catalogs. |
|
|
|
Post by johno on Feb 14, 2014 11:28:45 GMT -5
dumont, that's exciting and wonderful! Please do keep us informed.
|
|
|
|
Post by 12540dumont on Feb 14, 2014 13:08:24 GMT -5
As soon as I know anything else, I have promised Grassroot Seed Network that I will open a new topic here. It shouldn't be very long. Not only are we going to ask folks here to join, but we're going to ask folks to run to be on the board of directors.
|
|
|
|
Post by MikeH on Feb 14, 2014 13:16:52 GMT -5
As soon as I know anything else, I have promised Grassroot Seed Network that I will open a new topic here. It shouldn't be very long. Not only are we going to ask folks here to join, but we're going to ask folks to run to be on the board of directors. I'm all for grassroots. Just wrote a cheque to Carol Deppe for seeds and a donation. Think you could get her to join?  |
|
|
|
Post by PatrickW on Feb 14, 2014 14:52:07 GMT -5
This is certainly very exciting. There's no doubt you have my attention.
|
|
|
|
Post by philagardener on Feb 15, 2014 11:58:21 GMT -5
This sounds like a great development! Yes, please keep us all posted!
|
|
|
|
Post by billw on Feb 15, 2014 12:45:29 GMT -5
I pointed the Internet companies out as why there are less people listing. That situation did not exist even 10 years ago. Then it was worthwhile to grow enough plants to supply enough seeds to meet a demand set on 4 or 5 years. Now one may introduce a new variety this year and a dozen commercial interests may be selling it two years down the road. I keep thinking that there is a solution for this, but I am always stymied by the legal ramifications. It would be simple enough to set up a organization where independent breeders can list their creations and the intended use in a way that is not legally, but socially, enforceable. For example, you create a new tomato, list it, and specify that you don't want for-profit organizations to sell your seed for five years. You set terms as simple or complicated as you like. If somebody breaks with that, you send them a note and if they fail to listen, you then turn it loose on social networks. Not many organizations would want to weather the bad publicity. This kind of thing could be done very cheaply and with much more flexibility than government-enforced plant patenting or protection. The problem is, it would probably invite lawsuits from companies contesting the origin of the varieties and from companies claiming defamation. Lawyers always make a mess of simple ideas. But, it might be something worth considering as a part of any new seed exchange. |
|
|
|
Post by PatrickW on Feb 15, 2014 13:18:47 GMT -5
In terms of how to define members or governance structure, I'm also thinking about that for a new local organization. This may just work differently in Europe than the US, I don't really understand the differences.
I was thinking of a somewhat powerful chief executive, elected by the members, for 4-5 years. S(he) would have to get board approval for signing legally binding documents, position statements, or spending more than a fixed amount of money in a specific period, but otherwise have a lot of flexibility. The board, and maybe even the members could vote the chief executive out, but only if there was some material breach of the organization rules.
Board members also directly elected, but less powerful, mostly only able to approve actions by the chief executive and offer opinions. Maybe able to trigger a vote or directly remove the chief executive.
Maybe some kind of weighted voting system, where listed and/or senior members have more voting rights, or maybe even some system where only members nominated by the board or chief executive have any voting rights at all.
What are you guys thinking about? You have a lot more direct experience with the SSE than any of us here, I think. What sorts of specific problems are you looking to avoid?
|
|
