Guthion is another one that will be sorely missed. Cherry growers really don't have much of a backup plan after it's phased out in the next few years. They have a zero tolerance threshold for cherry maggot (due to stringent requirements of exports, as I recall). None of the proposed replacements for Guthion work as effectively. Currently extension personnel are telling cherry growers to find solutions for maggot before Guthion is completely pulled, but are not really telling them how to do it. Growers are essentially left to themselves to try to figure out some spray program that will work with the current insecticides available. Not to be misunderstood, I think the EPA on the whole has done a good job removing older more dangerous chemistries and encouraging newer safer ones. Although I'm not in complete support for the ban on Guthion and Methyl Bromide (given the increased restrictions for its use i.e. increased buffer zones, monitoring of drift, notification of neighbors, etc) what I'm mostly opposed to is the knee-jerk reactions which seem to be taking place with neonicotinoids and the current bee crisis. As far as competitiveness of U.S. ag, the U.S. farmer has been able to compete w/ countries where labor is very cheap. Traditionally this has been done through automation. A combine running through a field at 10 acres/hr. can compete with a Chinaman harvesting the same field, no matter how little he's paid. Some of our crops are still labor intensive (I'm thinking of fruits here) but that is changing. Thinning and harvesting are in the early stages of becoming fully automated. When that happens, cost of labor will no longer be a factor, as is the case currently with field crops. I do think environmental regulation may tip the scale. Not that I'm against regulation, just that we need to recognize there is a fine balance between adequately protecting the environment and rendering our food growing sector non-competitive. Perhaps that sounds like a severe statement, but the uncomfortable truth is that huge yield increases (and thereby the abundant cheap food) we've enjoyed over the last 50 years are largely the result of synthetic fertilizer and effective pesticides. I'm not trying to start an organic vs. conventional debate, just explaining my rationale for claiming environmental regulation can have a pretty big impact. It would be unfortunate if regulation got so aggressive as to take us back to years where pests took a significant percentage of the crop.

I purchased my domain name,www.northerntropics.com through yahoo domains, it cost me 2.99 the first year and 9.99 a year after that. I purchased a sams club business membership for $35 a year and besides the fact that I can go to sams club (don't do that much) as a member you get a free multipage website that's very customizable.I set up my yahoo website so that when you type in my web address, it forwards to the sam's club website, not my little generic starter page. I sell things on e-bay, and even if they don't always sell, you can mention your website there and that causes several hits a week. I listed 9 foot tall banana trees last week and even though I didn't sell them, that exposure only cost me $1.35 and it's global exposure. Great deal! If you have specific knowledge on some subject that you'd like your customers to be able to access, post an e-bay guide. Now I'm a top 5,000 reviewer, and that adds credibility too. I sell things which are pretty complicated to care for like lotus plants, and hardy musa basjoo bananas, and then I have a guide there that they can read and no one has to remember what to do. When I sell things at farmers market, I tell people about my care guides for the plants and give them my card so they can print them or look at them whenever they want to so that I don't get phone calls at 10 pm when frost is forecast asking what to do with their tropical banana plants in Indiana! Local Harvest only wants you if you're organic, right? So if you post on there, but you're not organic, that's just wrong. So it's not an option for everyone. Also there is a free sales ad site through our tv station in Indianapolis. I'm sure if they have it, other states do too! There's a link to my site just to show you what you can do with the free website through sam's club, it's not for advertising Sincerely Sandy @ Northern Tropics, Muncie, IN Here is a link that might be useful: northern tropics sams club website

Let this go down

"You could always propagate them sexually, from seed" Not really. As far as I know, if you propagate a hybrid rose from seed, you most likely will NOT get a true clone of the original rose; your seedling from seed is almost surely will be different from the rose you got the seed from. I guess that is the reason why the patent law forbids asexual propagation but it is silent about Âsexual propagation. This corn story is outrageous and bizarre. I haven't heard that! It is also surprising because hybrids-as I mentioned above - usually donÂt come true from seeds. But I admit I know nothing about the Âcloning potential of genetically engineered seeds. Nonetheless, a ban on using seed or pollen of a patented rose in order to create new cultivars would extremely slow down or make breeding of new varieties close to impossible except if the breeder uses old, out of patent specimens. I doubt that hybridizers are required to wait 20 years or more to get a pollen or seed to create a new rose. If you search roses genealogy on HMF, in most cases you will see the 'parentage' registered, namely the seed and the pollen 'parent' mentioned, provided the rose was bred subsequent to the time when precise information became available for the breeders as to how to ID with certainty the parents of their new and hopefully successful creations. I mention only one example. On HMF I just looked up MeillandÂs Bolero (2004, floribunda) that was bred by using the seeds of Kimono (1961) and Sharifa Asma (Ausreef). Sharifa Asma was released in 1989 and is still patented. It was certainly patented when the house of Meilland came out with Bolero, and they obviously had to start breeding Bolero well before the 2004 marketing. I seriously doubt that it was illegal to use SharifaÂs seeds in order to come up with a new hybrid. On the other hand, you can also notice that the parentage of the newest roses by Kordes, Tantau is "undisclosed", not does Austin reveal the bloodline of his newest varieties. I agree with Mgleason. If a retailer, wholesaler or nursery buys exclusive patent rights, it should make the rose available either by propagating the rose in question or allow other nurseries to propagate it. Diane made a good point by saying: "Talk to a hybridizer, see if that changes your mind". Others argued that the breeder would feel awful and cheated if an individual propagates his/her rose without paying royalties. I believe a breeder also wants his roses to be grown in as many gardens and in as many countries as possible and would feel just as bad and just as cheated if someone buys the exclusive right to market his rose but instead buries it. Jack Harkness, an outstanding breeder in his own right, argues that Âwe felt that that a holder of a new variety had some obligation to distribute it to his fellow rose growers, whether he charged for the stock or charged royalties . His comment was made regarding Peace. The Harkness company got two plants of Peace earlier as a present from the American distributor, namely from Robert Pyle. The Harknesses wanted to buy stock from MeillandÂs British agent (patent holder, I guess) who in turn informed them that his company had no stock to spare. So the Harkness firm propagated Peace from the plants they got from Pyle and when MeillandÂs British agent visited them, reports Harkness " I made a point of letting him see our stock of Peace, ready for sale at the same time as his, in 1947" As you can see, in the Harkness incident the issue was not even so critical as it is with Bear Creek aka J&P exclusives from KordesÂ, TantauÂs or otherÂs roses that were pulled from production after a very short period of time and are absolutely unavailable because access for propagation is denied for other US nurseries and import from Canadian nurseries are prohibited. In these cases those who have the specific rose should be able to propagate it or send cuttings to those who want that rose very much. I would penalize the holder of exclusive rights if the 'intent to sell' turns out to be intent to neglect or abuse the contract that gave this person or company exclusive rights. And I would like to see those appreciated who do everything that the specific rose does not become extinct.