Shop Products
Houzz Logo Print
jbest123_gw

Patented Plants

jbest123
16 years ago

Patents are good for 17 to 20 Years and can not be extended. Some plants like Crape Myrtle have 20 to 25 patents dating back to 1978. When a patent is soon to expire, there are changes made (some very minor) and a new patent assigned. My question is, If I have a plant in my yard that is 20 or more years old, can I propagate it if changes were made and a new patent assigned?

Comments (142)

  • Charlie
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Nervous - Is your white blackberry thornless? Is it erect, semi-erect or vine? Where can it be purchased?

  • Charlie
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    If I buy a patented plant and want to asexually propagate it because I enjoy propagation, is there a method for paying a fee to make it a legal propagation?

  • brandon7 TN_zone7
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    "If I buy a patented plant and want to asexually propagate it because I enjoy propagation, is there a method for paying a fee to make it a legal propagation?"

    That depends on whether the patent holder will allow that. In many cases, if you contact the patent holder, they'll give you permission to propagate for free as long as you promise not to sell the new plants. In some cases, they'll ask for a small fee (sometimes pennies). In a few cases, they may not give permission. It's just up to them. One possible reason they might not want to give you permission is if they have some kind of exclusive contract with some grower.

  • paul122
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    As far as I know it works differently in Europe. You can only patent plant name not plant itself. That means that once you buy patented plant you can propagate is as much as you want even sell it but you cannot sell it under patented plant name. Should you do that you will be fined. I reckon this make sense and to be honest I can often see patented plants with small name change like physocarpus opulifolius "Diabolo" sold as "Diablo". Nobody seems to mind it. Never seen it in large nurseries tho as royalties are not that expensive here. I myself prefer paying royalties, but should I want to propagate something I do it and I definitelly don't feel any remorse (not for commercial purpose). Criminal mastermind that should be put to jail, right? Should you want to feel angry about it, suit yourself.

  • brandon7 TN_zone7
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Paul,

    I'm no expert on European law, but I can tell you that much of what you report is just plain incorrect. First, names cannot be patented in the EU (or probably anywhere). The EU does have Trade Mark protection, used to reserve names used in association with selling the plant or group of plants, that is actually fairly close to what the US system is (or is supposed to be). Trade Mark protection is about origin (who is providing the product) more than about the plant itself (trademarks are not for cultivar names, in other words).

    Next, plants can be patented in the EU. There is currently debate about what can and can't be covered, but so far the EU Plant Patent has been used somewhat similarly to the US Plant Patent. There is also a Plant Variety Rights coverage which corresponds to our Plant Variety Protection. There are also some other related legal protections for plant "inventions" in the EU. Finally, individual EU member countries often provide similar, but alternate, methods of legally protecting plant "inventions".

  • Campanula UK Z8
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Phew, thank goodness we are a bit more reasonable in Europe where we can propagate to our heart's content. There has been far too much shouting about thievery for my taste. Do you think it is appropriate to 'patent' bits of the human genome? Stem cell research arising from HELA cells? Please don't snivel on about the huge amounts of hard work these bio-engineering comoanies are doing (and the mighty profits they demand)....see me weep in solidarity (not) as they refuse to allow for generic medicines to be circulated in the third world.

    But then, I rarely, if ever, buy ludicrously expensive clonal varieties of freely available species - my geranium wallichianum is as lovely to me as Rozanne, and as for the crappy echinaceas and coreopsis pumped out for those who must have novelty???? I do propagate whatever plant I feel like - the skill is mine to use as I wish. Call me a thief and I will call you a greedster.

  • brandon7 TN_zone7
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Campanula,

    I thought you lived in the UK. At least that's what your profile says! If your in the UK, doesn't that mean you are in the EU??? At least it did the last I've heard.

    Next, what on Earth does patenting bits of the human genome have to do with this thread? ...or with anything in this Forum? Are you familiar with the Hot Topics Forum. Your post probably would be more appropriate there. You could change your screenname to RobinHood and preach until your heart's content.

  • Campanula UK Z8
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Yes, the UK is part of the EU and as such, we can propagate plants for our own use but not sell them or profit from them.....which strikes me as eminently reasonable since our local police force probably have better things to do(such as preventing real crimes) than policing our back gardens to see if we are 'stealing'.

  • brandon7 TN_zone7
    10 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    "...we (in the EU) can propagate plants for our own use but not sell them or profit from them..."

    You could be right about that specific point, Campanula, when it comes to patents (not for Plant Variety Rights, though), but I would like to see what you base that on. My reading (although it was brief) of EU plant patent legislation seems to indicate that the patents "shall extend to any...propagation or multiplication" resulting in plants with the same characteristics as the patented plant. I see no exemption whatsoever regarding personal use. It is possible that that was added later or is covered in some other law, but I haven't run into it. Many people here in the US believe our laws exempt personal use cases, which it certainly does not.

    I am actually surprised that this type of thing is not more easily researched online. The US laws regarding plant patents are pretty easy to find online at a number of sites, but the EU regulations/laws seem to be deeply buried in raw legislation documents (at least it seems that way from my experience).

  • PanhandleLady_6b
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    What about trademarked plants? Are you allowed to make more of those as long as they are properly identified?

  • brandon7 TN_zone7
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    "What about trademarked plants?"

    Plants aren't trademarked; "brands" of plants can be. Trademarks do not have anything to do with whether you can propagate a plant.

    "Are you allowed to make more of those as long as they are properly identified?"

    You are free to identify a plant, with an associated trademarked name, by it's cultivar name (or could call it "Fred" for that matter), but you can't use the trademarked (brand) name to sell the plant without permission.

  • PanhandleLady_6b
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Thank you, brandon7

    I also found this, it explains things simply... I have cut and pasted a copy of the text for reference in the future.

    http://extension.oregonstate.edu/gardening/what-does-it-mean-when-nursery-plants-are-patented-or-trademarked

    The underline link below this is the same as the one above.

  • brandon7 TN_zone7
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    There are quite a few minor errors in that OSU article. They have the broad ideas correct, but I hate to see all the little slips that could mislead someone. For example, when they write, "Another person could propagate a trademarked plant, but not call it the same variety name." As indicated later in the article, trademarks cannot legally be applied to a "variety" name (here BTW, they are actually talking about cultivar name, rather than a botanical variety).

  • PanhandleLady_6b
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    So I can trademark my special little mum I grew that's reddish orange from 'chrysanthemum pacificum' crossings as 'Great Balls of Fire' but the botanical latin name of chrysanthemum pacificum is not trademarked; and nobody else can sell it as 'Great Balls of Fire' but can sell it as 'chrysanthemum pacificum' (the latin is real but not that color, this is an example only). If they want to sell it as 'Great Balls of Fire' they have to get permission from me to do so and probably pay me for the right, correct?

  • brandon7 TN_zone7
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    As long as Great Balls of Fire wasn't the actual name of the plant. For instance, if you hybridized a new plant and named it Chrysanthemum pacificum 'Huge Explosion', you could then market it as Great Balls of Fire Chrysanthemum. Notice that Great Balls of Fire is used as a descriptor, or "brand". You'll often see plants being sold with trade names used as cultivar names, but doing so actually puts the trademark in jeopardy. If the trade name becomes accepted as a cultivar name, enforcing the trademark may become difficult or impossible.

  • PanhandleLady_6b
    9 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Thank you. That is the part I needed clarified! Thanks again.

  • Joan Terflinger
    8 years ago

    WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES OF PROPAGATING A PATENTED PLANT?

  • brandon7 TN_zone7
    8 years ago

    It may have already been said above (I didn't re-read the entire thread), but the chances of any consequences (except to one's conscience) for someone propagating just one or two plants for their own use, is very unlikely. Technically the propagator may be liable for up to three times the damages (potential loss to the patent holder) as well as legal costs. In extreme cases, where defendants fight the process, additional legal implications can arise (indirectly from the patent issue). Unless you are intentionally violating a plant patent or propagating large quantities for sale, this is not something to worry about (again, except for your conscience).

  • little_dani
    8 years ago

    I went back and reread the entire thread. Very interesting. One note, I no longer drink Diet Coke, either. It is bad for my (and probably your) health.

  • ubro
    8 years ago

    This is for Canadian growers and gardeners------ in Canada we have a govt. site the Canadian Food Inspection Agency that lists all plants in an easy to search page and you can look up any plant that has been protected, it lists when the protection ends or if it has already and if they withdrew the application ( therefor no PBR). I contacted them for info and the response was clear. PBR (plant breeders rights) and Plant Patents are two different things. Apparently plant varieties cannot be patented in Canada ( this is a direct quote from the expert at the Canadian PBR agency) but the breeder must get PBR to protect it, and they must get a PBR in each country, one from the US does not apply to selling in Canada unless they apply and hold one in Canada as well. So, if it is not on the list or if the PBR has expired or been withdrawn it is not protected.

    It gets more complicated because some plants from other countries do not qualify for a Canadian PBR if they have previously been marketed for a period of years in their own country before application is applied for here. This time frame is dependant on the type of plant.

    And the breeder has to list the original name of the plant that the PBR is granted for (even if he trademarks it under a new name) when he sells it. Both names must be listed.

    Also you can propagate any PBR for your own use freely you just cannot sell it.

    Here is the exact copy from the site. The last rule applies to seed and pollen.

    Exceptions to the Rights

    The rights of the holder do not apply to any act performed for:

    • Private and non-commercial purposes
      Protected varieties may be propagated when the propagated material is to be used for private and non-commercial purposes.
    • Experimental purposes
      Protected varieties may be used in research.
    • Plant Breeding
      Protected varieties may be used for breeding and developing new plant varieties
  • PRO
    Catrina's Garden
    8 years ago

    Sounds like the Canadians have an improved system over us. Thanks ubro, can you give us that website?

  • ubro
    8 years ago
    last modified: 8 years ago

    catrina, the site http://www.inspection.gc.ca/plants/plant-breeders-rights/overview/guide/eng/1409074255127/1409074255924 or google the Canadian Food Inspection Agency--- click Plants---click Varieties--and search by crop kind or name.

    Very user friendly. I contacted them because I have done some peony breeding and wanted to make sure I was not breaking any rules.

    I respect those who do the breeding work but it is getting so complicated out there, and some companies are using questionable marketing practices

    for example- renaming plants that are already available under another name. (Pink Lady apple.)

    -registering names of older or heirloom varieties in which the patent is no longer valid and thus keeping other growers from selling it under it's real name because now they hold the rights to that name, although not to the plant itself.

    -putting patent protected signs on plants whose PBR is not valid, etc etc.

    I always try to respect the patent rights but dividing your plants for personal use is definitely not stealing

  • brandon7 TN_zone7
    8 years ago
    last modified: 8 years ago

    "...registering names of older or heirloom varieties in which the patent is
    no longer valid and thus keeping other growers from selling it under
    it's real name because now they hold the rights to that name, although
    not to the plant itself."

    There are multiple things wrong with that statement ... but, at least here in the US, one cannot legally copyright/trademark a cultivar name.

    "I always try to respect the patent rights but dividing your plants for personal use is definitely not stealing."

    In most places, legally, it is. I'm sure some would feel that jumping an orchard fence and taking just one apple for one's personal consumption was not stealing, but many would disagree with that.

  • ubro
    8 years ago

    brandon, I am not trying to be confrontational, just to understand. Maybe my first statement was a bit mixed up, sorry for that, but I wonder how is it I see the registered name signs now on a few older variety apples that have been in the marketplace for years?

    as to the second statement, I do see jumping the orchard fence and taking an apple as stealing. But gardeners here in Canada need only follow the rules set out by our government, and dividing your beloved plant for your own use, here at least, is allowed.


  • brandon7 TN_zone7
    8 years ago

    "...I wonder how is it I see the registered name signs now on a few older
    variety apples that have been in the marketplace for years?"

    I may be misunderstanding your statements. By "registered name" and "real name", most people would be referring to the registered cultivar name, but maybe that's not what you mean. Registered cultivar names cannot be trademarked or copyrighted. If someone makes that claim, I believe it would be perfectly fine to ignore their claim (assuming you have checked it out carefully).

    If you are actually meaning that they are using an old trademarked name (a name used in conjunction with a particular source), that's a different story. I am unfamiliar with trademark laws in Canada, and only generally knowledgeable of the basics here in the US. A little internet searching could fill in the details regarding trademark usage, specifically as it relates to validity of a trademark over time.

    Personally, I just stay away from trademark names all together, for the most part. If someone only knows a plant by a trademark name, you could tell them that it was that same plant, but I seldom see a real need to go further than that. I find that most people that care about specific names are often just as familiar with the cultivar name as they might be with any trademark name (at least most of the time).

  • Cat
    7 years ago

    boy I never heard so many judges sitting on the bench as this....all plants belong to the Source, we are stewards, when I figure out how to create new plants I tell everyone that asks about it how to do it. I seek no profit from that. I do not understand people. and I do not want to, I like my dogs. Blessings to everyone equally, peace out.

  • brandon7 TN_zone7
    7 years ago

    Starchild, you sound spaced out.

  • devsense
    7 years ago
    last modified: 7 years ago

    This has been a v entertaining and interesting thread , thanks Ubro for the links to Canadian PBR laws , atleast for us its pretty clear we can continue with personal use propagation of Patented varieties.

  • PRO
    Catrina's Garden
    7 years ago

    I need to chime in again and thank Ubro for the links too as it looks like I never did that.

    Wow, and what an old thread too. I have been following it since the beginning but at this point I should probably reread it as there was a lot said that I'm sure I'm not aware of.

    Although I'm in the biz and wouldn't knowingly sell patented plants because it is a law. And because I am an amature daylily hybridizer I get that this is a lot of work. I still don't believe that we can patent plants like we do other inventions. Starchild does sound like a hippie but I think he or she has the right idea. Plants are not made by humans, weather "the Source" is God or evelution the human that crossed the plant has no control over what they get. They are only the record keeper.

    Catrina

  • PRO
    Catrina's Garden
    7 years ago

    Forgive my bad spelling, I typed that really fast.


  • ubro
    7 years ago

    well said catrina, I to am in the biz and I will not sell plants that hold patents. Some of the new plants are sports of others, totally new branches etc. that have grown without any human intervention.

  • brandon7 TN_zone7
    7 years ago

    "...that have grown without any human intervention."

    That's really a gross misrepresentation of the situation. Before a plant can be patented, a very large amount of work goes into finding, evaluating, and propagating it. You don't just walk outside, see a neat plant, and send in a patent request!

    If you want to illegally propagate a patented plant, do it without making some extremely LAME excuse.

  • brandon7 TN_zone7
    7 years ago

    "...the human that crossed the plant has no control over what they get."

    That statement also couldn't be further from the truth. Many hybridizers do large amounts of background research, produce hundreds of different plants that are later narrowed down to one or two individuals, and perform extensive evaluations in order to produce a superior plant. It's surprising how oblivious some gardeners are to the process behind producing a patentable plant.

  • PRO
    Catrina's Garden
    7 years ago

    Dear Brandon,

    Please try to be nice. I think we have both said that we are not breaking the law because we refuse to sell patented plants.

    We and other gardeners are not stupid or lame. We know that a lot of work goes into hybridizing. I have thousands of seedlings in my field all painstakingly marked to remember what parents they are from and the pods all marked with little twisty ties and a huge database to keep track of it all and record plant atributes like height, bud count, branching and so on. You don't have to tell me, or most serious gardeners how much work it is.

    We are not oblivious.

    But, should I ever get that perfect blue daylily that has great bud count, just the right amount of flounce so that it doesn't get hung up when it tries to open and looks like nothing else on the market today, I will introduce it and only have my name in the records as the hybridizer....no patent. That is what most daylily hybridizers do. That is why we have so many wonderful varieties today.

    This is a free country you know. It is not required that it's citizens agree with all of our countries laws.

    What really irks me is they make these laws but then they don't give those that want to abide by them a very easy way to even know what plants are not legal to propagate. If you know of where such a list exists please tell me. How do you expect people to follow this law if this information is not given to them?

    And Brandon,

    In some cases I think they do just go "Hey that's a neet plant" and put a patent on it. For example: My grandma had certan types of verigated sedum in her garden long before they were patented. They are the exact same plants except that now they have a name and come in a fancy pot.

    I probably won't be commenting again and I may even stop following this. Please try to be nice to the next person that espresses their opinion.

  • tete_a_tete
    7 years ago
    last modified: 7 years ago

    I imagine that there are times when someone finds in their garden something that grew from a seed and then decides to jump through the hoops and get a patent on it.

    But mostly I think that breeders spend time and effort in pollinating a particular species, protecting the flower/s from other pollinators, gathering the seed when ripe, sowing that seed, pricking out the seedlings and awaiting their flowering. From this group they hope to find something nice enough, and different enough, to be able to convince the Plant Breeder's Association that it is suitable for registering as something new.

    Then they have to think up a name that will grab attention, design a label (or have one designed) and propagate (asexually) their new plant in large enough numbers to make it all worthwhile.

  • tete_a_tete
    7 years ago

    If a plant is protected by a PBR, it will be stated on its label.

    HOWEVER, not all businesses follow the rules and some will sell a PBR-protected plant under it's registered name but without having permission from the breeder or buying labels off the breeder. These people get found out as members of the public see these plants in these nurseries and Garden Centres and report back to the breeder. Mind you, what more can you do other than visit these places and let them know that you know what they are up to?

    My opinion is that it is wrong to sell PBRs unless you buy the labels from the breeder.


  • brandon7 TN_zone7
    7 years ago

    "...we have both said that we are not breaking the law because we refuse to sell patented plants."

    This would lead me to believe you don't understand the legalities regarding plant patents. Plant patents preclude unauthorized propagation regardless of intent to sell the plants.

    "We and other gardeners are not stupid or lame."

    And, no one called you that! However, some of the excuses and statements being made are stupid and lame.

    "What really irks me is they make these laws but then they don't give
    those that want to abide by them a very easy way to even know what
    plants are not legal to propagate."

    Actually there are multiple ways to see if a plant is patented. A quick google search will almost always provide the answer. Also Patent Genius, and other sites, list all plant patents. I do notice that the Patent Genius site seems to be temporarily down, as I write this post., but normally it works very well.

    Also, it's a legal requirement that the patent holder properly proclaims their patent on a plant. If they don't, their patent can be called into question. It's true that sometimes propagators don't always clearly mark patented plants, but they are supposed to.

    "My grandma had certa(i)n types of v(a)ri(e)gated sedum in her garden long before they were patented."

    This is VERY unlikely unless your grandma had something to do with the patents. Part of the patent process precludes most distribution before the patent is requested. If a plant is sold or distributed to the public before the patent process begins, it cannot be patented.

    "They are the exact same plants except that now they have a name and come in a fancy pot."

    Having a name, other than the actual cultivar name (which would have been there from the very start, before the patent), has nothing whatsoever to do with a patent! It sounds like you may be getting patents and trademark names confused.

    ---------------------------------------------------------

    Re: PBR-protected plants (Plant Breeder's Rights)

    PBR is a totally different subject that plant patents (at least here in the US). PBR's are rarely of significance to the ornamental gardening community. This is primarily (current usage, anyways) a food crop thing.

  • ubro
    7 years ago

    Ditto cartrina .

    And yes brandon, I do understand the difference between PBR, a plant patent and a trademark, but you have to realize that maybe you are talking about what is legal in the USA which I know nothing about, and what is legal in Canada. From an email directly from the Canadian government agency that controls plant registration, I quote, " plants cannot be patented in Canada" so a PBR is the only option for Canadian breeders. Going to the Canadian website and following their laws is what any grower in Canada should do.

    Also:

    If you want to illegally propagate a patented plant, do it without making some extremely LAME excuse.

    A rude comment, as I said, I do not, I REPEAT do not propagate plants that are protected. You assume that because I am talking about this subject, that I am therefor trying to defend the practice of illegal propagation, which I am not.

    You have twisted my words.

    My comment :

    "Some of the new plants are sports of others, totally new branches etc. that have grown without any human intervention. " Was a harmless observation of how nature can provide mutations (without any help from us) that are worth propagating further.

    It was not said to imply that breeders do not do any work developing new plant varieties. You jumped the gun and read my comment with a negative tone that was not there.

    I breed many things, peonies for one, fruit for another, both of these plant types will not bloom or produce for many years, and some I have to throw out even though much work has gone into their development. So I do know the level of work that breeders go thru, I am one! Albeit on a small scale.

    I have, infact, a 10 year old lilac that did exactly that. I walked out one day, admired it and noticed a beautiful sport that was displaying different coloured blossoms from the parent plant. Not something I did, but a chance of nature. Maybe I will propagate it further, maybe I will just enjoy it and share with my family, friends and neighbours.

    Not sure I will be following the thread further either.

  • brandon7 TN_zone7
    7 years ago

    Ubo, my second paragraph was not meant to refer to your statement specifically, and that's why it was in another paragraph. So, actually you have changed the meaning of MY comments. Maybe I should question whether it was rude of you to be so defensive and jump to conclusions? That second paragraph was written with a couple of previous posts in mind.

    I did/do find your statement a little confusing with a sentence about not selling patented plants jammed together with a sentence about patented plants being grown without any human intervention.

  • tete_a_tete
    7 years ago
    last modified: 7 years ago

    'PBR's are rarely of significance to the ornamental gardening community. This is primarily (current usage, anyways) a food crop thing.'

    That's hogwash, Brandon.

    However, I did get confused and thought that patented plants were the PBR ones. So what the heck are patented plants?

  • brandon7 TN_zone7
    7 years ago
    last modified: 7 years ago

    "That's hogwash, Brandon."

    OK, Tete_a_tete, prove me wrong! Name some ornamental cultivars covered by PBRs, here in the US. I can give you many hundreds covered by plant patents. Let's see how you do!

    "So what the heck are patented plants?"

    Are you kidding?

  • brandon7 TN_zone7
    7 years ago
    last modified: 7 years ago

    Tete_a_tete, just for the heck of it, I looked through the certificates that have been issued for Plant Breeder's Rights by the US government. Over 99% have been issued for crops (soybeans, corn, lettuce, potatoes, wheat, etc). Grasses are occasionally protected this way. Surprisingly, zinnias have been given a few (didn't count them, but probably a dozen or so), and a very few other, mostly obscure, annuals have been given certificates.

    Bottom line....boy, was I ever right!!!

  • tete_a_tete
    7 years ago
    last modified: 7 years ago

    I can't name any ornamental cultivars covered by PBRs in the USA. I have no clue what you have there. I can think of quite a few ornamental species that have been bred here. Most of them are native Australian shrubs such as Grevillea and Leptospermum.

    So have 'patented' plants (as opposed to PBRs) been bred by the person who took out the patent? Or have they been sports (for example), like the Granny Smith apple? that someone found on a tree and took out a patent?

  • brandon7 TN_zone7
    7 years ago

    A large portion of the patented plants here in the US have been bred rather than produced from sports, etc. If I had to guess, I'd guess that 85% or more are the results of intentional breeding efforts. Lots of professional plant breeders/hybridizers/growers have fairly large operations, where hundreds or thousands of plants are produced, evaluated, and narrowed down to just a few individual plants that are later introduced into the trade. Lots of money, time, and effort are sometimes represented by a patented plant.

    Personally, I think I would be fine with the US laws being changed to allow for private/non-commercial vegetative propagation of patented plants. I think it's pretty commonly done already, and most people that would do it then are already doing it now. I still think it's a good idea to know what the law is, now. I think very few people really understand the US laws regarding plant patents, PVRs, or the other more unusual plant-related protections...not to mention the trade-name/trademark issues.

  • tete_a_tete
    7 years ago

    That's good because I thought I was being a bit of a doofus.

    I also think that there is no harm in propagating patented plants or PBRs for home use.

  • rhizo_1 (North AL) zone 7
    7 years ago

    Brandon, you're my hero! You've done a marvelous job with this topic.

  • gardengal48 (PNW Z8/9)
    7 years ago

    While Brandon and I have had our issues in the past, I agree completely with rhizo that he has done an exemplary job of explaining the issues in detail and with complete accuracy. This is a big deal that tends to be treated all too lightly by the uninformed, by many home hobby gardeners and by unscrupulous nursery operators, all who either don't realize or don't care that they are breaking the law.

  • marguerite_gw Zone 9a
    7 years ago

    I think, having read this thread, that any sensible gardener would stay away from plants bred with an eye to making money from the breeding. Evolution does a great job of producing plants superior to any 'man-made' varieties, as evidenced by the fact that we have so many great old heirloom plants that have stood the test of time - unlike their new brethren which may well just be nine-days-wonders, and which will be out of their patents anyway by the time their true value can be assessed.

  • brandon7 TN_zone7
    7 years ago

    "Evolution does a great job of producing plants superior to any 'man-made' varieties"

    I don't think that would be the "majority view", especially if we define superior as having the qualities desired by most gardeners.

    "...unlike their new brethren which may well just be nine-days-wonders..."

    Well, that's most often because even better stuff has been introduced, not because the cultivar has been found to have faults. This part of your argument, when viewed from a wider perspective, actually seems to disprove what you are arguing. If stuff keeps getting better and better (and was originally believed to be better than the "natural" plant), then the latest and greatest would be better and better than the original "natural" plant.

    You are the one that has to decide what you like best, but trying to convince the rest of us that plant breeding results in less desirable plants is going to be a step up-hill climb.

  • marguerite_gw Zone 9a
    7 years ago

    We are just observing from different perspectives, Brandon. You will note that I did not name 'desirability' as a criterion in assessing the value of plants; I am talking of plants that stand the test of time, that are of value to natural pollinators, and that tend to be disease-free in the main. When plants become vulnerable to the often fickle tastes of humanity in its search for the next greatest thing, we are on a downward slide to turning these living creatures into disposable objects, not part of a whole system vital to our existence on this earth.

    I think indeed it is plants that need protection, from the abuses exercised on them by those breeding them purely for money; think of the vast amounts of seedlings disposed of summarily because they don't make the grade, whatever that is, this week or month or year.

Sponsored
FineLine Kitchens, Inc.
Average rating: 5 out of 5 stars81 Reviews
Award Winning Kitchen & Bath Design Center Serving the DMV Area