Gavita Sold To Hawthorne Group
- Thread starter Stephenj37826
- Start date
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Lol
Your paranoid ramblings make for entertaining reading with my morning bowl and coffee!
nogod_
Well-Known Member
Maybe you need a corporate legalese refresher...I think youre confused.
As a second-tier subsidiary of Scotts, you ultimately answer to them. Welcome to the corporate shell game. Im sure you had all kinds of smoke blown up your ass about retaining control and im sure its all bullshit. With 25% of voting stock they say jump and you say how high. It doesnt really matter what makes sense in 2016, for the rest of your brand's existence you belong to Scotts.
Lets also not pretend that Scotts relationship with monsanto ends with pushing roundup. They have also shared patented genes, genetic engineering techniques, traded employees and lobbied on each others behalf. Its one giant circle-jerk and you just sat down in the circle.
Ive never owned a Gavita but it seems like they occupy a place in the market as a premium brand. We'll see if they maintain standards while answering to the A-brand bottom line.
Good luck!
As a second-tier subsidiary of Scotts, you ultimately answer to them. Welcome to the corporate shell game. Im sure you had all kinds of smoke blown up your ass about retaining control and im sure its all bullshit. With 25% of voting stock they say jump and you say how high. It doesnt really matter what makes sense in 2016, for the rest of your brand's existence you belong to Scotts.
Lets also not pretend that Scotts relationship with monsanto ends with pushing roundup. They have also shared patented genes, genetic engineering techniques, traded employees and lobbied on each others behalf. Its one giant circle-jerk and you just sat down in the circle.
Ive never owned a Gavita but it seems like they occupy a place in the market as a premium brand. We'll see if they maintain standards while answering to the A-brand bottom line.
Good luck!
guys, please... first of all Scotts is not Monsanto. Neither does Monsanto own Scotts. HGC is a subsidiary of Scotts. HGC took a 75% interest in Gavita. Scotts merely has the marketing rights for roundup in the gardening market. There is no involvement of Monsanto whatsoever. To say Monsanto owns Gavita is like saying Apple owns Microsoft. That is simply not true.
Furthermore: We did not need HGC just for the money. We are a very healthy organisation with a TO in excess of 100 million USD with double digit grow figures, so big money is not the issue either . However, we have grown really fast over the last few years and being part of a group of A-brands opens some doors a lot quicker, helps us to enter markets faster and enables us to expedite our development programs a lot faster. Also, it helps structuring our company a lot faster as we are still growing very fast and need to localize our business. This will result in more local service and support for our horticultural customers, but also for our retailers and end users world wide.
25% of the shares are still in the hands of the Dutch management and they will remain at the helm, which is logical as HGC nor Scotts have a background in horticultural lighting. So we see only very positive developments as we will be able to have a faster time to market and even better products with better support.
As for Jair: Why would we want to get rid of Jair? Jair is responsible for our US sales and he is a shareholder. It would be really stupid to get rid of JairIf we ever wanted to get rid of Jair there would be much easier methods than to partner up with HGC don't you think? Come on guys, less testosterone, more common sense
Atulip
Well-Known Member
whazzup
Well-Known Member
Scotts nor HGC has any experience with horticultural lighting. It would not be in their best interest to take control, we are a very successful company.
As for the LED developments: Of course Gavita develops LED fixtures. We first however made fixtures for aquatics, as the time and place for such a product is right. For horticulture however, that is a different game. An LED micromole is till 3-4 times as expensive as a HPS micromole (even with a slightly better efficiency), making the investments extremely high. So though we would be able to offer you an LED indoor fixture right now, we don't. I can't sell that to you with dry eyes. Prices are dropping though so the moment that we do introduce an LED fixture will come closer.
The first new product you will see from Gavita is the E5 retrofit replacments for T5. Same output, better spectrum, longer life, much less energy use. We already sell those in aquatics. We are just working on the right spectra now. We use a patented phosphor technology which is extremely efficient.
As for the LED developments: Of course Gavita develops LED fixtures. We first however made fixtures for aquatics, as the time and place for such a product is right. For horticulture however, that is a different game. An LED micromole is till 3-4 times as expensive as a HPS micromole (even with a slightly better efficiency), making the investments extremely high. So though we would be able to offer you an LED indoor fixture right now, we don't. I can't sell that to you with dry eyes. Prices are dropping though so the moment that we do introduce an LED fixture will come closer.
The first new product you will see from Gavita is the E5 retrofit replacments for T5. Same output, better spectrum, longer life, much less energy use. We already sell those in aquatics. We are just working on the right spectra now. We use a patented phosphor technology which is extremely efficient.
questiondj42
Well-Known Member
Obviously, it's a big conspiracy, and has nothing to do with a company positioning itself to make money on the impending legalization of cannabis in the world's 6th largest economy.
Atulip
Well-Known Member
And they'll conspire to do evil things with that money.
Stephenj37826
Well-Known Member
I look at it like this. Hawthorne is preparing for the eventual rescheduling of cannabis. This is just investments guys. And maybe creating jobs for some of their children
8thGenFarmer
Well-Known Member
I felt the need to point out a few observations. I've worked in the herb industry for 2 decades now, but have been growing different crops for decades before. Tomatoes before, thousands of acres. We were a small tomato farm, not a big one. Get used to it, this will happen to pot too. Farms will get bigger and pounds will get cheaper for customers. Time to get professional or work for someone who is.
There is so much anger toward big business from the pot side of the farmers, but I don't think they have the experience or the knowledge to know better. If you never planted a few hundred acres of something don't talk to me about how terrible round up is, you never tried to weed a square mile.
Keep in mind also the big guys may change things for the better, not worse. General hydro sold to Scott's as well. For years GH had been selling paclobutrazol to customers, selling it as an "ornamental only". Talk about poison, that's as dirty as it gets. Cancer and reproductive harm. Illegal to use on food. They knew their customers used it to keep herb short in indoor grow rooms. Scotts took the product off the market almost immediately after they acquired the company, they actually removed the only dangerous product from the lineup.
No tomato farm would ever risk their families future by spraying a yield enhanced like paclo on their tomatoes, because it's tested. And you go to jail if you spray illegal stuff on food crops. The holier than thou attitude I hear from the cannabis farmers toward conventional farms is ludicrous. Without a doubt the pot available in the unregulated market is more loaded with toxins than any product on the shelf at Safeway.
As the big ag guys enter the market I'm looking forward to the professionalism and decades and centuries of farming know how that will be brought to the table. If you think your a better farmer in your basement than the guy who grows your lettuce you better watch out, when he starts to grow what you do he's gonna school you kids. Learn more and preach less, keep in mind it's you who are the newbies.
There is so much anger toward big business from the pot side of the farmers, but I don't think they have the experience or the knowledge to know better. If you never planted a few hundred acres of something don't talk to me about how terrible round up is, you never tried to weed a square mile.
Keep in mind also the big guys may change things for the better, not worse. General hydro sold to Scott's as well. For years GH had been selling paclobutrazol to customers, selling it as an "ornamental only". Talk about poison, that's as dirty as it gets. Cancer and reproductive harm. Illegal to use on food. They knew their customers used it to keep herb short in indoor grow rooms. Scotts took the product off the market almost immediately after they acquired the company, they actually removed the only dangerous product from the lineup.
No tomato farm would ever risk their families future by spraying a yield enhanced like paclo on their tomatoes, because it's tested. And you go to jail if you spray illegal stuff on food crops. The holier than thou attitude I hear from the cannabis farmers toward conventional farms is ludicrous. Without a doubt the pot available in the unregulated market is more loaded with toxins than any product on the shelf at Safeway.
As the big ag guys enter the market I'm looking forward to the professionalism and decades and centuries of farming know how that will be brought to the table. If you think your a better farmer in your basement than the guy who grows your lettuce you better watch out, when he starts to grow what you do he's gonna school you kids. Learn more and preach less, keep in mind it's you who are the newbies.
Last edited:
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
captainmorgan
Well-Known Member
Yea Monsanto is wonderful,agent orange,roundup and plants that won't give viable seeds,sounds like a bunch of saints.
Colo MMJ
Well-Known Member
+100
MonSatan is pure evil. Great web site zerohedge.com has forums where people talk about a variety of things busines, market, politics and everyone gets how evil they are. Bayer and Dow are almost as bad.
The Ukraine civil war and coup has MonSatan in the background for stealing productive farmland and trying to push GMO on Eastern Europe and eventually Russia. Russia is against GMO. An older man i know who served or really was drafted into yet another bankster war - Vietnam, died recently. Cancer and it was probably from Agent Orange used in Vietnam from Dow Chemical.
If you want slightly weird - Monsanto was being sued by West Fertilizer of Texas. Want to have a major lawsuit go away? Blow up West Fertilizer's main plant.
http://freedomoutpost.com/why-would-anyone-want-to-blow-up-a-west-texas-fertilizer-plant/
8thGenFarmer
Well-Known Member
Monsanto is responsible for much of all selective breeding done in the world for common food crops. Not just Gmo crops, selective breeding by natural means too. Only a small percentage of their seeds are gmo.
I used to do a few hundred test plots for Monsanto tomatoes every year, trying to find the strains that handled fungus and heat the best. We would tag each field, their technicians would test some plants from each field. Mostly kids a few years out of college get the job of collecting samples from fields, they work their way up to lab work. They travel around the country with cases filled with numbered samples of tomato or corn or whathave you.
We never grew a GMO. Monsanto helped develop powdery resistant tomatoes the old fashioned way, getting tomatoes to pollinate each other.
They identified the genes and tracked it through the breeding process, eliminating the vulnerable ones from the variety. Reduced the need to use a fungicides, safer tomato sauces for kids pizza. Is that act evil? Seems like a good job to me.
They are dominant in their industry like apple, or google. Are they absolute saints? No. But a company of over 30 thousand people will have good actors and bad. Their lawyers aren't my favorite but lawyers are sharks. If you ever need a lawyer, you'll want a viscous one too.
I remember when corn yields were half of what they were now per acre.
https://www.agry.purdue.edu/ext/corn/news/timeless/yieldtrends.html
The progress made by real farmers and the people in big ag has allowed America to increase food production while reducing the acres we plant. Try that without the science of big ag. They made that possible, not social justice warriors on a keyboard.
Also, did you know that before herbicides like round up we had to till fields before we planted them. The dust bowl is what ended up as a result of that process. We loose top soil when we do that. Roundup has its flaws but only real farmers and the formally trained seem to remember why herbicides are sometimes preferable to what we used to do.
Nothing wrong with being careful with what you put in your body, I recommend that. But to call companies of thousands of lifelong plant breeders and chemists evil is nonsensical.
War can be evil, Slavery is evil, Breeding plants isn't evil. Using round up to kill weeds certainly isn't "evil". What the government did with agent orange, probably. Did Monsanto spray Vietnamese people? No, Uncle Sam did that. Monsanto makes products for farming, if you want to blame companies for war try Lockheed Martin maybe, but even there, gotta tell ya it's Washington that decides who lives and dies, not some scientist at Monsanto.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
You make way too much sense for this crowd, brother. I'm still listening, and learning.
Sativied
Well-Known Member
You started out so well with that first post...
The evil thing was not breeding it but trying to patent it... as I suspect you know very well.
http://naturalsociety.com/monsanto-tries-patent-natural-non-gmo-tomatoes/
Fortunately it was revoked
http://www.naturalnews.com/048245_Monsanto_fraudulent_patents_tomato_plants.html
Same deal with roundup, all about making farmers buy their roundup resistant varieties. Corporate greed ln an evil level.
There's a war going on many people don't even know about, breeder rights vs patents. Monsanto is the nr1 enemy of all plant breeders and the breeding laws that do deserve credit for making the world a better place. Monsanto is dangerous to the future of plant breeding and plant species. Not because of GMO, but because of their attempts to patent plant species, gmo or not.
For those who don't know what breeder's rights are, it protects the breeder of a new variety but also includes an exception from 1978 for breeders who want to create new varieties. Anti pollen chuck laws basically. You can use someone else's variety for breeding only if you actually create a new stable variety with it. This keeps the genepool available to everyone and is what has made the world a much better place than monsanto will ever do. They try to patent plant species to gain the exclusive rights, keeping it out of the hands of other breeders. Which is as evil as evil gets. Same deal with Syngenta, again trying to patent a species of which the seeds are worth more than gold... which is all they care about.
http://no-patents-on-seeds.org
8thGenFarmer
Well-Known Member
I think you have some very valid concerns. Like I said they have sharks in their company, their legal team eats without mercy. My opinion though is that is why we have courts. You pointed to several cases where the courts limited the ability of big ag to patent plants.
There are however valid reasons to limit the replanting of varieties of plants, much like their is to patent medicines. Currently Monsanto has you sign a contract promising not to replant their seed. If you plant their crop you sign the contract. Worth it for my family who still grows tomato. To being a new strain of tomato to market can take millions of dollars, no one would bother to do it scientifically if they couldn't recoup their investment. If they couldn't do the get their money back we would still be left with the old heirloom seeds, which while they were crafted were not bred with the same scientific process. Genetic testing of thousands of individuals is expensive, hard for any one family farm to do.
Same with medicine, if they can't re coup money then they don't bother investing. Medicine has interesting law in that patents expire, perhaps that is what is necessary for the patenting of plant species. We don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water on this one. Limit them in courts, protect farms, but also protect the scientists in Ag.
There has never been a collection of botanists and horticulturists and soil scientists like you'll find in a big Ag research lab. Some of the best and brightest from universities go there, because that's where they can get funding to develop ideas and see them planted in fields. These guys in the labs are doing good work. The amount of public funding for this research that is available pails to the investment that comes from the big ag companies.
My family is yielding 4x per acre what we did 100 years ago, that means more people fed, and more woodland preserved. I think it's important to have a balanced perspective of how we got from then to now.
In the future, there will be opportunities and hazards as our herb industry and the General Ag worlds merge. We should always have our bullshit meters properly calibrated, but look to take advantage of the advances the tech will bring us.
For instance
I want to use machines like that in controlled greenhouses, utilizing a scientifically bred strain immune to powdery so I can eliminate fungicide and deliver healthy product. The future is gonna be exciting, pot farming is going to get cleaner and more energy efficient, that's a good thing for the consumer and the grower.
There are however valid reasons to limit the replanting of varieties of plants, much like their is to patent medicines. Currently Monsanto has you sign a contract promising not to replant their seed. If you plant their crop you sign the contract. Worth it for my family who still grows tomato. To being a new strain of tomato to market can take millions of dollars, no one would bother to do it scientifically if they couldn't recoup their investment. If they couldn't do the get their money back we would still be left with the old heirloom seeds, which while they were crafted were not bred with the same scientific process. Genetic testing of thousands of individuals is expensive, hard for any one family farm to do.
Same with medicine, if they can't re coup money then they don't bother investing. Medicine has interesting law in that patents expire, perhaps that is what is necessary for the patenting of plant species. We don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water on this one. Limit them in courts, protect farms, but also protect the scientists in Ag.
There has never been a collection of botanists and horticulturists and soil scientists like you'll find in a big Ag research lab. Some of the best and brightest from universities go there, because that's where they can get funding to develop ideas and see them planted in fields. These guys in the labs are doing good work. The amount of public funding for this research that is available pails to the investment that comes from the big ag companies.
My family is yielding 4x per acre what we did 100 years ago, that means more people fed, and more woodland preserved. I think it's important to have a balanced perspective of how we got from then to now.
In the future, there will be opportunities and hazards as our herb industry and the General Ag worlds merge. We should always have our bullshit meters properly calibrated, but look to take advantage of the advances the tech will bring us.
For instance
I want to use machines like that in controlled greenhouses, utilizing a scientifically bred strain immune to powdery so I can eliminate fungicide and deliver healthy product. The future is gonna be exciting, pot farming is going to get cleaner and more energy efficient, that's a good thing for the consumer and the grower.
Last edited:
Sativied
Well-Known Member
I'm all with you there.
You are painting an extreme false dilemma of poor family breeders working with heirlooms vs modern breeders creating varieties that need patenting. There are many decades of conventional breeding between heirlooms and gmo varieties.
There are no good reasons to patent plants. New breeding methods, transgenesis, mixing genes from different species, do not make plant patents any more sensible. Breeder rights already cover and protect breeders and allows them to earn back their investment and much more, as Monsanto and many others have proven already for years. Plant patents are not required to advance breeding and is not better for innovation, on the very contrary. Monsanto is not interested in just making their investement back either, they want it back in 1000-fold.
captainmorgan
Well-Known Member
Keep drinking that kool-aid.
churchhaze
Well-Known Member
Ownership and control over IP isn't the only way you can make a return by investing in R&D. People said the exact same thing about software development and then GNU came along all on its own... (SUN imploded, and solaris eventually became open source...)
There's no proof that patents streamline the design process. They're just there to help large corporations totally own industries without fear of competition.
Last edited: