It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Monsanto Starts Raising Prices (big time)

page: 1
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Monsanto to Charge as Much as 42% More for New Seeds (Update3)


www.bloomberg.com...


Aug. 13 (Bloomberg) -- Monsanto Co., the world’s largest seed maker, plans to charge as much as 42 percent more for new genetically modified seeds next year than older offerings because they increase farmers’ output.

Roundup Ready 2 Yield soybeans will cost farmers an average of $74 an acre in 2010, and original Roundup Ready soybeans will cost $52 an acre, St. Louis-based Monsanto said today in presentations on its Web site. SmartStax corn seeds, developed with Dow Chemical Co., will cost $130 an acre, 17 percent more than the YieldGard triple-stack seeds they will replace.


It turnes out, since farmers may get increased yield from the seeds, Monsanto wants their cut of that.


The company is pricing its seeds to share the benefit of increased yields with farmers, said Mark Gulley, a New York- based analyst at Soleil Securities. Prices include seed treatments designed to protect seedlings from pests and disease, Monsanto said. “They are in essence splitting the value of the extra yield 50-50,” Gulley said by telephone.



The rise in prices can be expected. It's what a monopoly does, right? The scary thing I read in the article was about the proliferation of Monsanto seeds and the projection for their use next year.

The expect about a SIX FOLD increase in the plantings of the Roundup Ready soybean next year, up from 1.5 Million acres in 2010 to 8 million acres next year.

Although they don't give a timeline, but in 2010 they expect 4 million acres of SmartStax corn to be planted, leading to an eventual 65 Million acres.

For reference, the total Soybean acreage planted in US in 2009 is estimated at 76 million acres.
www.nass.usda.gov...


Corn is at 87 Million acres for 2009.

Seems like they expect almost all corn to be Monsanto's GM eventually.


PRINCIPLE CROP AREA IS EXPECTED TO DECLINE NEARLY 8 MILLION ACRES. This in itself is also very disturbing. I know we've heard stories of farms dying. That's almost four times as large an area as Yellowstone. I can't even wrap my head around the acreage that will be LOST next year, but it's a LOT.

Approximate TOTAL farmland in Kansas in 2007 was 46,345,827 acres. So, we're losing about the equivalent of ONE FIFTH the state of Kansas in farming acreage.

www.ers.usda.gov...

Nothing to worry about, right?




posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 11:17 AM
link   
See, my understanding is that the GM seeds reproduce their own sterile seeds. I might be wrong, but isn't that the opposite of what farmers want?

You would think they would want a crop that they can use again without purchasing more seeds.

Just my $0.01 (-$0.01 for hyper-inflation)

[edit on 17-9-2009 by havok]



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 11:19 AM
link   
This is great. First they sue farmers for their livlihood, driving many to suicide, because the wind scattered monsanto seeds, and some re-grow as volunteers. Monsanto claimed this was copyright infringement and won, time and time again:
www.keepmainefree.org...
www.organicconsumers.org...
www.usatoday.com...

They have then monopolized most of the seeds on the market(along with syngenta)


So they've successfully forced farmers into re-buying monsanto seeds every year.

The logical next step is to jack prices up. After that, you watch, they will start to gobble up every bit of farmland they can get their hands on.

And let's not forget the "terminator" seed
www.ethicalinvesting.com...
that causes the second generation seeds to be sterile.

Ahhh, the luxury of genetics....



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 11:20 AM
link   
Reply to post by KSPigpen
 


It makes sense they expect a six fold increase next year, with Codex being implemented Dec. 31. Then every crop has to be GM.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by havok
 


Yes, I would think that it would be exactly what farmers really want. I also understand that Monsanto has been bullying co-ops and running other seed producers out of business.

Here's on story. There are many, many more.

www.biotech-info.net...



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
And let's not forget the "terminator" seed
www.ethicalinvesting.com...
that causes the second generation seeds to be sterile.

Ahhh, the luxury of genetics....


Aside from their lousy business ethics, this is one of the things that *really* bothers me about GM seed producers. As soon as they introduce code to limit reproduction, what happens if these cross pollinate with natural plants and in a few generations, the bulk of the natural plants are sterile. We could drive entire species of plant life to extinction "by accident".


[edit on 9-17-2009 by rogerstigers]



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by KSPigpen
It turnes out, since farmers may get increased yield from the seeds, Monsanto wants their cut of that.


seems fair to be. the seed costs more because the seed provides higher yeilds. i really can't see the issue.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogerstigers

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
And let's not forget the "terminator" seed
www.ethicalinvesting.com...
that causes the second generation seeds to be sterile.

Ahhh, the luxury of genetics....


Aside from their lousy business ethics, this is one of the things that *really* bothers me about GM seed producers. As soon as they introduce code to limit reproduction, what happens if these cross pollinate with natural plants and in a few generations, the bulk of the natural plants are sterile. We could drive entire species of plant life to extinction "by accident".


[edit on 9-17-2009 by rogerstigers]


Exactly. The terminator seed technoledgy is honestly one of the bigger threats to mankind. It has been proven time and time again that it will cross with native vegetation, which in a matter of years would mean all plant life on earth would be sterile.

Ever wonder why they have a seed bank?

en.wikipedia.org...
Brazil has already banned them.

If you live in canada or ecuador you can go here to send a letter asking for the permanent banning of terminator seeds in your country:
www.banterminator.org...

www.thirdworldtraveler.com...
There are MANY camaigns out there to ban these seeds:
www.utne.com...



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by pieman

Originally posted by KSPigpen
It turnes out, since farmers may get increased yield from the seeds, Monsanto wants their cut of that.


seems fair to be. the seed costs more because the seed provides higher yeilds. i really can't see the issue.


I think you need to do a little more research. The crops may produce higher yeilds, but farmers can only use them for one year. Re-planting has been deemed copyright infringement. So instead of being able to collect their own seeds to suppliment their crops, farmers MUST buy ALL NEW SEEDS, every single year.

And now, at a shiny new high price.

Yes, no problem whatsoever....



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by pieman

Originally posted by KSPigpen
It turnes out, since farmers may get increased yield from the seeds, Monsanto wants their cut of that.


seems fair to be. the seed costs more because the seed provides higher yeilds. i really can't see the issue.



Mainly it's the ethics behind it. It they played fair and just competed against everyone, then they could play the better value for your money card. But they aren't. They are bullying and running other seed companies out of business and locking farmers into arrangements that force them to buy new seed every year instead of using the traditional method of letting a percentage of their crop go to seed.

What they are doing is unethical and potentially very danerous.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by pieman

Originally posted by KSPigpen
It turnes out, since farmers may get increased yield from the seeds, Monsanto wants their cut of that.


seems fair to be. the seed costs more because the seed provides higher yeilds. i really can't see the issue.



I agree with a previous poster. you need to research before commenting, maybe checking some of the links supplied.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


the thread is about the prices this year compared to last, monsanto didn't allow the saving of seed last year either, so i don't see what difference that makes. frankly, farmers buy the seed knowing they can't save it, if they have a problem with that they should buy a brand of seed they can save.

monsanato may well be trying to establish a monopoly but they haven't managed it yet, and wouldn't at all if the farmers that are being so hard done by just stopped buying the seed.

obviously it's worthwhile for the farmers to buy new seed every year or they wouldn't do it. use your head.

reply to post by Rickster01
 


yeah, i must learn to believe everything i read, god forbid i do something like think for myself.

reply to post by rogerstigers
 


farmers know, or should know, what they're getting into. ignorance is no defense. no-one holds a gun to their head and forces them to buy monsanato.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by pieman
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


the thread is about the prices this year compared to last, monsanto didn't allow the saving of seed last year either, so i don't see what difference that makes. frankly, farmers buy the seed knowing they can't save it, if they have a problem with that they should buy a brand of seed they can save.

monsanato may well be trying to establish a monopoly but they haven't managed it yet, and wouldn't at all if the farmers that are being so hard done by just stopped buying the seed.

obviously it's worthwhile for the farmers to buy new seed every year or they wouldn't do it. use your head.

reply to post by Rickster01
 


yeah, i must learn to believe everything i read, god forbid i do something like think for myself.

reply to post by rogerstigers
 


farmers know, or should know, what they're getting into. ignorance is no defense. no-one holds a gun to their head and forces them to buy monsanato.




Here is 1 link that was supplied www.biotech-info.net... At the start it seems to be a good idea for the farmers but things dont always go as anticpated for them. I think they saying is when you dance with the devil he tells you when to stop.
Thats exactly what happens when farmers and third world countries actually believe what there told and when they wanna get out they cant.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by pieman
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


the thread is about the prices this year compared to last, monsanto didn't allow the saving of seed last year either, so i don't see what difference that makes. frankly, farmers buy the seed knowing they can't save it, if they have a problem with that they should buy a brand of seed they can save.

monsanato may well be trying to establish a monopoly but they haven't managed it yet, and wouldn't at all if the farmers that are being so hard done by just stopped buying the seed.

obviously it's worthwhile for the farmers to buy new seed every year or they wouldn't do it. use your head.

reply to post by Rickster01
 


yeah, i must learn to believe everything i read, god forbid i do something like think for myself.

reply to post by rogerstigers
 


farmers know, or should know, what they're getting into. ignorance is no defense. no-one holds a gun to their head and forces them to buy monsanato.


Again, I think your research skills are failing you.

Buy a different brand? You do realize that between Monsanto and Syngenta there are virtually NO OTHER BRANDS. Monsanto own over 90% market share on various crops?

DO you realize that Monsanto has put multiple farmers out of business by suing them because the WIND CARRIED MONSANTO SEEDS ONTO THEIR FARM?

It's disappointing that someone would defend something like this without knowing the facts.

Again, you put the comp out of business, you monopolize the market, and then you jack up the prices. How anyone can defend these types of predatory actions is not only disturbing, it is disgusting.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by pieman
 


Way to defend a modern day monopoly!
Monsanto is waaaaay up on the list of corporations that are evil to the bone man, get with it.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by pieman

Originally posted by KSPigpen
It turnes out, since farmers may get increased yield from the seeds, Monsanto wants their cut of that.


seems fair to be. the seed costs more because the seed provides higher yeilds. i really can't see the issue.



I have to give it to you, pieman. On the surface your point inarguable. All other things being equal, the farmers could make well-informed decisions and show their approval or disapproval of a companies policies by way of their investment in the product that company sells.

Somehow, along the way things got turned around a little bit. There were lots of suits, lots of farmers going bankrupt because they couldn't afford to fight a huge corporation, grain co-ops being sued because somehow some of Monsanto's product got dumped in with everyone else's...
And now, like a drug addict with only one supplier, these farmers are about to get bent over quite nicely.

The price thing really bothered me, because 42 percent seems a bit outrageous of an increase in price for ANY product in a year's time, but I was slightly more concerned with the whole picture.

Outrageous price increases, (the farmer won't get to recoup any of that price until a good harvest) the apparent monopoly and planned dependence on the pesticide and the seed, both provided from a sole source with no competition to keep prices reasonable, and the overall reduction in planted acreage not only this year, but projected as well.
We're losing our farmlands. It seems pretty small right now, at just 8 million acres this year, but that sort of loss cannot be sustained without a grave impact on our production.

Thanks for bringing a different viewpoint to the table, pieman.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 02:55 PM
link   



And now, like a drug addict with only one supplier, these farmers are about to get bent over quite nicely.




And quite nicely put.


couldnt work out how to quote just a line but ill work it out

[edit on 17-9-2009 by Rickster01]



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 03:05 PM
link   
This is VERY simple.

Farmers are Monsanto's main competition. They WANT to do everything they can to FORCE small farmers OUT of business. "Who gives a ratt's a* how long that land has been in their family?!? This is business, and we want their land for OUR GMOs! Make no mistake. We will have it." - Monsanto souse. And with Codex coming, they will. The government is backing them every step of the hostile [takeover] way.

This is business...it's not personal...right?



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by mpriebe81
reply to post by pieman
 


Way to defend a modern day monopoly!
Monsanto is waaaaay up on the list of corporations that are evil to the bone man, get with it.


In the top five of my list.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by lagnar
This is VERY simple.

Farmers are Monsanto's main competition. They WANT to do everything they can to FORCE small farmers OUT of business. "Who gives a ratt's a* how long that land has been in their family?!? This is business, and we want their land for OUR GMOs! Make no mistake. We will have it." - Monsanto souse. And with Codex coming, they will. The government is backing them every step of the hostile [takeover] way.

This is business...it's not personal...right?


sigh.


And it goes all the way up there too....



Monsanto’s man Taylor returns to FDA in food-czar role

www.grist.org...

I'm sure they'll do what's right.




top topics



 
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join