|
Post by marion on Feb 8, 2011 9:51:14 GMT -5
Also, it might be prudent not to attach A2 results to pedigree database..marion
|
|
|
Post by Star Creek Dexters on Feb 8, 2011 13:12:09 GMT -5
I can see both sides of everything being said here.
From my point of view the problem is not the test, the results, the way a person handles them or even so much the privacy, it's the fact that there is an ownership to those results that does not belong to the person who purchased the test.
When I test my herd for Chondro, PHA, or Color Coat, etc, those test results end with that test. I design my herd based on my goals from that test.
What A2 Corp is doing different than the rest is the like of this : The inventor of the Chondro test saying, "Here's the test for Chondro, test your animal. BUT if your test comes back positive and you intend to build a herd with positive animals, you may and very well could owe us part of the profits from that herd."
No matter what my animal tests for, Chondro, PHA, Color, etc, once the test has been done the profit from that test stops for the inventor.
No one owns a gene or a right to a gene but God.
This could be taken to all different levels...hypothetically, how about this?
Someone discovers a new strain of native grass, my land happens to grow that native grass, should that discoverer have a right to charge me because my land happens to grow it naturally?
How about this: Someone discovers a new gene in humans that produces a wanted effect in offspring. If my children have that gene, should I be charged for them carrying it?
The scope of this concept is endless. This is what makes me angry.
I know that once you have formed an opinion about something it is hard to change it. I understand that there are passions here that are effecting the reactions and comments. My passion is to live as undebted as possible. I don't want to owe anyone for my land, my home. I don't want to have to be indebted to HEB or the local grocery to buy my food there every week. I don't want to live indebt to an electric company that would cause me not to be able to function if the electricity were to be taken out. Our passion is homesteading and we are steadily working towards that goal. Why would I test with a company with the intention of starting a raw milk source, when I know before hand that the company that holds the results to my test would indebt me and my herd to themselves?
|
|
|
Post by legendrockranch on Feb 8, 2011 14:13:44 GMT -5
I don't want to have to be indebted to HEB or the local grocery to buy my food there every week. For you folks not familiar with HEB, it's mostly a "Texas" grocery store. Sure is nice sitting back once in awhile reading all of this, instead of being knee deep in it. Barb
|
|
|
Post by wdd on Feb 9, 2011 0:11:16 GMT -5
I think it all boils down to the fact that the A2 Corp owns the rights (patents) on A2 Milk or Milk free of the A1 Casine. If you try to market milk in any form and make any claim as to the A2 or A1 status of the milk you are in violation of their patents and copyrights. Even posting your test results or status of an animal you are selling as A1 or A2 is using their copyrighted terms. They will overlook these infingements on their patents in the case of homesteaders and family cow owners that are testing their own animals for personal consumption but they can excercise their legal rights at any time they feel their 'property rights' or profits are threatened. They want a monopoly on the sale of A2 milk and milk products. They will not allow you to use the family cow testing to form commercial herds. This to me would mean at anytime they may revoke the rights or challenge anyone in court that they feel is using the test to produce commercial herds of A2 cattle. Do they have a magic number of animals tested by one individual before they deem them to be a commercial operation? Anyone that claims on their taxes farm expenses in regards to their Dexters could be concidered a commercial operation. I think at this time the A2 Corp is more worried about protecting their Retail Milk Business but a good lawyer could cause trouble with any farm operation that they feel violates their patents or rights and threaten their monopoly/profit. If you test your aniimals and don't try advertising using their patented 'A2' or 'A1' designations then they would have no reason to come after you. If you test large numbers of animals they may feel you are violating their agreement and trying to establish a commercial herd. They may not know themselves exactly where to draw the line yet. We are talking about a very large company with big pockets so don't try shifting ownership of animals to relatives or friends to establish a milking herd of A2 Dexters or other cattle because that will prove to them you are purposely trying to violate their patents. The testing rights are allowed for small owners looking to test animals for personal consumption not to establish a commercial enterprise to make money off their tests unless you pay for the commercial licensing. They own the tests and the A2 and A1 names. They will use these to make themselves richer not to see someone else get the profits they are after.
|
|
|
Post by cddexter on Feb 9, 2011 16:03:58 GMT -5
Thanks, Gary. IP rights have huge implications, and it's all very well to say we aren't going to be affected because we aren't large or commercial (and we've never seen this exclusion confirmed in writing from the Corp) but even if this is true, should the A2 Corp modify it's stand it could have serious repercussions for all of us, or if they are bought out, the new corporate owners can set their own rules.
I'd rather err on the side of caution, no matter how tempting or attractive it is to breed for yet another 'desirable' gene, or ebven use the knowledge to breed away from an undesirable one. c.
|
|
|
Post by wdd on Feb 13, 2011 23:40:55 GMT -5
Gene, I am not against testing for the A2 milk status of Dexters. I was pointing out that people should be careful how they go about using the information and advertising. If someone is planning to commit fraud or use the testing provided by the A2 Corp for purposes that are prohibited they should think twice. Especially if they post their intents on a public forum such as this. If a representative of the A2 Corp reads these posts and see that there are a number of breeders planning to try and bypass the agreement they agree to when submitting their samples, what do you think their oppinion will be of the integrity of Dexter owners. The following is the statement from the UC Davis Testing site: The UC Davis Veterinary Genetics Laboratory is approved by A2 Corporation Limited as an A2 Certified Tester. A2 Corporation Limited owns a suite of intellectual property rights (including patent rights, trademarks, and technical and commercial know how) relating to testing, breeding and herd formation of animals used to produce A2 MILK®, or milk free of beta casein A1, and the subsequent production and sale of such milk. Any person who intends to form a herd of animals used to produce A2 MILK®, or milk free of beta casein A1, and/or produces and/or sells such milk, may be infringing A2 Corporation Limited's intellectual property rights. Please contact A2 Milk Company LLC (A2 Corporation Limited's exclusive North American Licensee) with any further queries. A2 Corporation Limited may access and use information from the UC Davis Veterinary Genetics Laboratory relating to the A2 testing carried out by the UC Davis Veterinary Genetics Laboratory and may communicate with the person seeking testing or the owner of the animal to be tested.It mentions patent s and trademark s. I don't remember where I read it now since it was a year or more ago, but there was mention of the A2 Corp patenting the name A1 & A2 when it was used to describe milk (It may have only applied to New Zealand & Australia at the time but why would a large Corp not do the same in the USA?). Milk free from beta casein A1 (which I mis-quoted in my earlier post) is from this statement and that on the A2 Corps website. They also allude to other patents, trademarkes, ect. when breeding, producing and or selling A2 milk (It is the producing A2 milk statement that concerns me since you don't even have to be selling it). Check out the following link www.a2milk.com/certified.htmlKimberly is correct in her worries about the A2 testing being different than other genetic testing. If you pay for other genetic test there is a royalty that goes back to the company, group, or individual that developed and patented the test, but they don't demand access to the testing results and information on who is doing the test and the identification on the animals that were tested. A2 Corp is demanding and requiring test owners to provide more information and maintaining more control over the tests and results than other companies do. This is not agreeable to many people that don't like big brother looking over their shoulder and breathing down their necks. You and others are willing to give up part of your privacy and individual rights inorder to know the A2 status of your animals many are not. I am not saying whether or not someone else should test their animals for the A2 status of their Dexters. I just wanted others to think about their choices before they make that step, especially if their actions and intentions are not in accordance to the agreement they are entering. The information anyone posts on these chat sites can be used against them in a legal case to prove intent to commit fraud or violate others rights, patents, and/or trademarks. I still plan on testing my Dexters, but I need to decide if I am willing to take the risk of over stepping my rights when selling animals or trying for an all A2/A2 herd.
|
|
|
Post by cddexter on Feb 14, 2011 11:19:58 GMT -5
Thanks, Gary. Straightforward comments about real risks, make with your eyes open.
Genebo seems confident that Dexters and Dexter owners aren't included in the disclaimers, and isn't shy about saying so. I'd sure prefer to see that confirmed in writing from the proper source before I took it as gospel. How about it, Gene...you have the contacts, can you get something BINDING from the A2 Corp that confirms it's okay to breed specifically Dexters for, promote them as, and sell small amounts of milk from, tested and proven A2 Dexters? Maybe they would define 'commercial' as they use it, as that would be very helpful. c.
|
|
|
Post by cddexter on Feb 18, 2011 22:58:12 GMT -5
Gene, the statement isn't in question. What I am asking is you and Judy infer? state? imply? say? that Dexters aren't commercial dairy animals so the A2Corp won't be applying their royalties and control over Dexter owners who use A2 (or not) to promote their animals or sell a bit of milk as a farmgate income, or use it to select their breeding program animals. Please use the connections you claim to have to ask this question of the A2Corp, to reassure Dexter owners who are now asking these very questions, and are exhibiting concern. Got it now? c.
|
|
|
Post by cddexter on Feb 19, 2011 11:23:57 GMT -5
More red herrings, gene. There is nothing in any of the A2Corp literature, or the disclaimer from Davis, that specifically excludes private owners (be they Dexter owners or not, but it's Dexter owners who post on this site, and who have expressed concern on this site which is why I used 'Dexter owners') from being under the A2Corp's umbrella. A lot of posts on this topic have been from just us folks who are concerned that we, if we test, or have tested even one little Dexter, are included in the general licensing agreement that anyone who uses the test is bound by the A2Corps' conditions, which specifically reference royalties and breeding herds.
Maybe you or Judy can answer these questions. I ask this of the two fo you, as according to your posts, it's thanks to your work we have the test at Davis, you know the right people to contact, and have the connections to do so. It's also been the two of you who've been doing most of the promoting of the test. It's in your best interests to be able to confirm or deny our concerns.
Are 'private' owners (your term) excluded from the IP licensing agreement conditions?
Under what conditions would a Dexter, or a group of Dexters, be included, if they aren't already?
I look forward to your informed reply. thanks, c.
|
|
|
Post by kansasdexters on Feb 19, 2011 15:17:59 GMT -5
Genebo,
You've made reference to your previous statement several times now:
"The possibility that he may be licensed to do the test should be good news to the ADCA, which makes 21.4% profit off of the DNA tests he does for ADCA members (according to the 2009 financial statement). « Last Edit: Nov 2, 2010, 9:14pm by genebo » "
Your claim that the ADCA is making a huge profit on DNA testing is not correct. Here's what you missed in your review of the 2009 Financial Statement:
1. The ADCA Financial Statement of Revenues is for a 12 month period (the calendar year, January 1 - December 31) and it records revenues as they are received within that period. The amount shown for 2009 on Genetic Testing is: $29,845.00 and this amount is the total for the checks that were received and deposited within the specified 12-month period.
2. The ADCA Financial Statement of Expenses is also for the calendar year, and it records expenses as they are paid. The amount shown for 2009 on Genetic Testing is: $23,467.00 and this amount is what was invoiced by Texas A&M and paid within the specified 12-month period.
Texas A&M invoices the ADCA monthly, and only after it has actually run the tests. So there is always a time difference (of at least a month) from when the ADCA receives money for testing (Revenue) and when it pays Texas A&M for the testing (Expenses). The difference between Revenue and Expenses is not "profits" that the ADCA made on Genetic Testing -- the difference is because the invoice for the testing done in December 2009 wasn't received and paid until January 2010.
The testing done through the ADCA at Texas A&M is essentially done "at cost", and it is offered as a service to members, not a "profit-center" for the Association.
Patti
|
|
|
Post by kansasdexters on Feb 20, 2011 22:38:56 GMT -5
Genebo,
If you want to know how much the testing costs versus how much the ADCA pays, then you need to ask the Treasurer, Jim Smith. The ADCA Financial Reports are on a "Cash Basis", not an "Accrual Basis". I'm very sorry that you don't understand accounting, because I've tried to explain it the best way that I know how. If you need a firsthand explanation from a CPA, then please contact Jim Smith.
I've asked Jim Smith to provide me with a ADCA cost vs. ADCA charge on each genetic test. I should have that in the next day or so and I will post it.
By the way, there was a significant increase in the revenue for genetic testing in 2009 - 2010, due to the requirement for genotype prior to registering a bull. There was also a significant increase in expenses, as the tests that were done were invoiced to the ADCA.
In regards to the license to test for A2 Beta Casein using the A2 Milk Corporation's test -- the agreement isn't between the ADCA and the A2 Milk Corporation, it is being negotiated directly between Texas A&M and the A2 Milk Corporation. If these negotiations fail to arrive at an agreement, then Texas A&M won't be offering the test. As far as pricing of the test, that is entirely up to Texas A&M -- they have to determine the price per test that works for their business operations. The ADCA doesn't determine what this price will be, Texas A&M does. If Texas A&M can't offer the test at a competitive price, then they probably just won't offer it.
Patti
|
|
|
Post by kansasdexters on Feb 21, 2011 13:57:24 GMT -5
Genebo,
The Financial Statement is correct -- it's your interpretation of the Financial Statement that is incorrect. As I explained, the Financial Statement is done on a cash basis, not on an accrual basis. You cannot simply subtract the 2009 Genetic Testing Expenses from the 2009 Genetic Testing Revenues and determine a "profit" -- it just doesn't work that way.
Here is the information that the ADCA Treasurer provided:
The ADCA DNA Test Prices that are charged to members for testing done at Texas A&M through the ADCA are the same as what the ADCA pays Texas A&M for each of the tests. The only exception to this is the test for Chondrodysplasia -- and for that particular test, the ADCA charges $35 and pays Texas A&M $34 -- the difference of $1 per test is charged to recover the cost of the licensing fee that the ADCA paid upfront when Texas A&M became licensed to do the test.
The difference in funds on the income statements is due to the fact that the ADCA Treasurer receives the members' checks when the samples are taken (via the ADCA testing liason) to Texas A&M and the invoicing and payment for that testing invoice by the ADCA may lag 1 to 2 months behind.
Patti
|
|
|
Post by allmuxedup on Mar 21, 2011 0:38:22 GMT -5
Carol, You're just yanking my chain. Gene, You sound like you're surprised by this. Isn't this what she does when people differ in opinion from hers? She never shows any restraint on her attacks, not any at all.
|
|
|
Post by farmgirlwv on Mar 23, 2011 21:28:36 GMT -5
Hi there, new board member, old dexter owner. I see that the vitriol hasn't gone away over the years. . But while researching a1-a2 milk I came across a disturbing pdf article about transgenic (correct me if I am wrong but I think that means Genetically modified) beta casein production- This may be ultimately where the money trail of "patents" over A2 genes is going- I mean if you are a company like Montsan...er, well you know, why breed for a2 when you can genetically modify for it and THEN patent that "breed" of transgenic animal, or that transgenic gene. Here is the link - I'd like input on what others think, maybe I am just getting paranoid in my old age. - Diana www.gmofree-euregions.net:8080/docs/ajax/ogm/nbt783%20GMO%20cow.pdf
|
|
|
Post by Star Creek Dexters on Mar 24, 2011 6:20:11 GMT -5
Diana, I am not able to find the article, just a home page...Could you source it again?
|
|