They're also a huge pain in the ass to produce, at least in my experience.
Producing hybrid corn seeds, for instance, is done by planting the two varieties in the same field, with one combine-width of rows of variety A alternating with rows of variety B. Then you need to wait until variety A is grown and ready to tassel, and de-tassel it before those tassels fully form and release the pollen that drifts onto the corn silk. This is usually done by hand, by a bunch of people walking through the field and cutting the stalk between the ears and the tassels.
Once that is done, your variety A ears will be pollinated by variety B pollen, and all of those kernels will be hybrid. But your variety B ears be purebred B, not hybrid, so you now you need to harvest the field while keeping the two sets separate. This step isn't too bad, if you did a good job planting, you just need to first harvest the combine-wide strips of hybrid corn before going back to get the B corn.
But yeah, you're looking at a lot of extra work -- and money, you need contract labor to detassel a field in the narrow window of opportunity -- to produce a hybrid seed for better yields next year, and most farmers don't find it a good use of time, which is why most farmers were buying most of their seed well before seed patents and GMO were a thing.
I used to hear about "detasseling corn" as an utterly miserable short-term summer job option for high school students. Walking through cornfields in heavy clothes (to avoid getting cut up by the leaves) in summer in Iowa.
Miserable indeed! I was in Southern MN and did this job for a few weeks in the summer. We started around 5:30am and worked 8-10 hrs per day, rain or shine.
Why do this? At the time (early 2000s) it was an extremely well-paying, unskilled job at $15/hr!
Also, if you miss a couple of plants while de-tasseling it can be very bad. You must also sign contracts with your neighbors where they will refrain from planting the same crop (in exchange for $). Additionally, to get the best yield they usually place beehives to enhance pollination.
I watch Laura Farms on the YouTubes and she goes into great depth on growing seedcorn as her family’s farm does it under contract.
The de-tasseling is mostly automated these days with a sprayer attachment chopping off the tops and the legions of kids coming behind to get the ones missed.
Then they come along with another specialized attachment to ‘destroy’ the males. Basically just chop them up and leave in the rows which later on gets eaten by the cows. The outside border rows of males gets harvested and turned into winter feed for the cows.
Eventually the remaining corn gets harvested by a crew hired by the seed company because they want the full heads of corn to do their evil deeds to.
> But pure glyphosate isn’t sprayed on crops, Roundup is, which contains a variety of adjuvants and surfactants meant to help the glyphosate penetrate into tissues. And indeed when the study was repeated with what’s actually sprayed on GMO crops, there were toxic and hormonal effects even at doses smaller than the 1 or 2% concentration that’s used out on the fields.
> Roundup was found to be 100 times more toxic than glyphosate itself. Moreover, Roundup turned out to be among the most toxic pesticide they tested.
At this point any time someone switches from talking about Roundup to glyphosate, they either have an agenda, or they picked up their argument from people who do. Some of the 'inactive' ingredients in Roundup are more toxic than glyphosate, and stick around longer. Spraying it directly on yourself, the glyphosate may or may not be your immediate concern, but touching something that was sprayed weeks ago the glyphosate is the least of your problems, so making it an argument about glyphosate is one you can kind of win.
It's very much like the tobacco lobby playbook. Nicotine may not be that bad for you (unless you're a bug) but you aren't smoking nicotine. You're smoking a broadleaf plant exposed to soil minerals and four kinds of pesticides and antifungal compounds (fungi and human livers are susceptible to many of the same chemicals) which may or may not have prevented fungal volatiles from ending up in your lungs alongside the trace amounts of uranium.
You know, I wonder if GMO technology has advanced enough to replace hybridization.
Hybrids give you two different chromosomes, uniformly in your population. You take population AA and aa and get Aa. The next generation you're back to a mix of AA/Aa/aa.
There's no reason -- in the abstract -- you couldn't duplicate your gene and put two copies of it on the same chromosome, one A and one a, so that you can skip the hybridization. But does that work with current technology? I don't know!
But then the GMO company patents the result, and it's not legal for a farmer to do what farmers have been doing for ten thousand years: save some of the seeds from the crop and plant them the next year, or give some to a neighboring farmer. Getting out of that trap is a prime motivation for "open source seeds" projects.
Aside from, you know, the vast uptake of hybrid seeds, which couldn't be saved for reuse either.
Anyway, why exactly is this tradition so important that it would swamp the social benefits from improved plants obtained from GMOs (and such benefits must exist, or else farmers would not use these seeds)? This sounds like reflexive conservatism, wanting an old thing just because it is old, and damning changes just because they are changes.
> save some of the seeds from the crop and plant them the next year, or give some to a neighboring farmer
That hasn't been the predominant practice for the majority of farms for coming up on a century. Cross pollinated hybrid seeds are just way too productive to justify growing your own open pollinated varieties.
That was the promise, and the fear, around GMO, but it really hasn't had that much of an effect. Biologically, the point editing allowed by generic modification, even with our enhanced skills from CRISPR/Cas9, only allows small changes.
Generic modification by molecular techniques is just another tool, that does not supercede or override any of the past forms of generic modification by breeding that humans have been doing ever since we were humans.
Producing hybrid corn seeds, for instance, is done by planting the two varieties in the same field, with one combine-width of rows of variety A alternating with rows of variety B. Then you need to wait until variety A is grown and ready to tassel, and de-tassel it before those tassels fully form and release the pollen that drifts onto the corn silk. This is usually done by hand, by a bunch of people walking through the field and cutting the stalk between the ears and the tassels.
Once that is done, your variety A ears will be pollinated by variety B pollen, and all of those kernels will be hybrid. But your variety B ears be purebred B, not hybrid, so you now you need to harvest the field while keeping the two sets separate. This step isn't too bad, if you did a good job planting, you just need to first harvest the combine-wide strips of hybrid corn before going back to get the B corn.
But yeah, you're looking at a lot of extra work -- and money, you need contract labor to detassel a field in the narrow window of opportunity -- to produce a hybrid seed for better yields next year, and most farmers don't find it a good use of time, which is why most farmers were buying most of their seed well before seed patents and GMO were a thing.