000			01648nab a22002897a 4500
001			68974
003			MX-TxCIM
005			20250620160716.0
008			250611s2021 fr |||p|op||| 00| 0 eng d
022			_a2425-6870
022			_a2425-6897 (Online)
024	8		_ahttps://doi.org/10.1007/s41130-021-00162-y
040			_aMX-TxCIM
041			_aeng
100	1		_aGray, R.S. _914997
245	1	3	_aIn defense of farmer saved seeds
260			_aFrance : _bINRAE ; _bSpringer-Verlag France SAS, _c2021.
500			_aPeer review
520			_aIn many countries, farmer saved seed (FSS) competes directly with a highly regulated commercial seed industry that sells certified seed. Opponents to the use FSS argue that it reduces the royalty income for plant breeders and is inferior in quality, which reduces farm profitability. We argue that because farmers have knowledge about field history and the quality of saved seed, they can make profit enhancing decisions to use, or not to use, FSS. We also show that payment of royalties is a matter of intellectual property rights and not directly a function of the use of FSS. Notably, Australia actively promotes the use of FSS for wheat and has some of the highest levels of rates of royalty revenue collection in the world.
546			_aText in English
650		7	_aProfitability _2AGROVOC _98416
650		7	_aSeed quality _2AGROVOC _96102
650		7	_aFarmers _2AGROVOC _91654
650		7	_aProfit _2AGROVOC _99897
773	0		_dFrance : INRAE ; Springer-Verlag France SAS, 2021. _gv. 102, p. 451–460 _tReview of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies _x2425-6870
942			_2ddc _cJA _n0
999			_c68974 _d68966