Author Topic: TGRC MTA  (Read 88 times)

William Schlegel

  • Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,711
  • Karma: 67
    • Botanist, gardener, and science teacher.
    • View Profile
    • William's Instagram which is not set to public so message me if you want added
  • Koppen zone: Dfb Googled
  • Hardiness Zone: USDA zone 6A
TGRC MTA
« on: 2022-07-22, 10:10:57 AM »
Walt what about that MTA stinks? I signed it to get LA2329 Solanum habrochaites and several other accessions. It worried me some but didn't seem too onerous. I remember they want us to make mention of the TGRC in any publications. Maybe a few other things?

 I was just working on making more (Joseph's Promiscuous x LA2329) x (Mission Mountain Sunrise x Joseph's Big Hill F2) crosses when I read your post.

I noticed the F1 regular leaf tomatoes out competing the selfed potato leaf in both the MMS and unknown exserted potato leaf mixed populations but in both cases Joseph's promiscuous tomato project was amongst the possible pollen donors. So I definitely do get hybrid vigour in my crosses but I am definitely making crosses with Joseph's promiscuous project as well as very wide wild crosses.

Edit: my experience with the TGRC is that they sent me about five accessions on three occasions without any apparent qualms about my qualifications and then said no to to a fourth request, explaining that they couldn't send me any more seed, because I am not affiliated with a university, or with a seed bank. They specifically cited the importance of supporting researchers at institutions who are grant funded, and rely on their material, and their limited supplies of material. Therefore I do not personally intend to request any more material from them until such a time as I am affiliated with a university or a seed bank. Though it makes me think we should collectively establish a seed bank or become affiliated with one. Also and related I was able to find one accession suitable for my fourth request from the USDA ARS-GRIN system and I don't believe they have a MTA and it was material originally from TGRC. So it might be better for U.S. citizens to source their plant breeding germ plasm from the USDA because they do usually supply independent breeders and they require no MTA.

Quote from Walt below:

Actually I was talking about common garden tomatoes from common gardens in Peru and Mexico.  Before the European invasion, Peru and Mexico, I think, had little day to day interaction.  It is quite possible that the Inca or pre-Inca and the Aztec, Maya,or pre-Maya knew about each other But I don't think they were sending tomato seeds back and forth all the time.  I don't believe there were two independant domestications of tomato, but if there were, so much the better from the hybrid vigor point of view.
That is not to say that the previous two post aren't good ideas. Just not my ideas.
After I posted yesterday, I went to the tomato germplasm center's web site and looked up some accessions from Peru and Mexico.  In 1949 and 1950, Dr. Rick said "might be a Marglobe grown in unfavorable conditions.  Even back then one couldn't be sure what wasan old heirloom or an imported variety from USA or Europe.
From what I understand, genetic studies show that only a few tomato seeds got to  Mexico from South America where they were domesticated.  But over the centuries mutations built up and natural and human selection restored genetic diversity.  Though not as much as the diversity as in South America where the domestic populations interacted with wild populations.  Then the Spanish took some samples of Mexican  tomato seeds to Spain and these few samples spread across Europe.  Then Europeans brought some samples of tomato seeds to what became the USA.  So there were several bottle necks in modern  tomatoes.  That is why I have been so shocked at the hybrid vigor you folks have found.  You are mostly crossing close relatives.  Not you Joseph.  You have more genetic variation in your populations that the entire tomato seed industry of the USA when Dr. Clayborg said hybrid tomatoes are getting by on hybrid corn's reputation  That was true at that time.  So all of you who are following Joseph's example.  You are all doing a great work.
Still think Peruvian x Mexican is a good idea.  But I read the material transfer agreement and I think it stinks.  But I might try anyway.  Just to see.
« Last Edit: 2022-07-23, 08:13:03 AM by William Schlegel »
Western Montana garden, glacial lake Missoula sediment lacustrian parent material and shallow 7" silty clay loam mollisoil topsoil sometimes with added sand in places. Zone 6A with 100 to 130 frost free days

Walt

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 70
  • Karma: 16
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: TGRC MTA
« Reply #1 on: 2022-07-23, 01:20:16 AM »
William.  I'm good with most of it.  Mostly they want to be credited with supplying germplasm.  Fine, I always credit my sources.  But they want to restrict me, or anyone, from sharing the seeds or any seeds with this in their pedigree, unless the receiver also signs the pledge  And on and on forever.  So a customer 50 years from now would have to sign before buying.  I'll reread the material transfer agreement and see if I understood correctly.
I could be mixing this up with Florida's material transfer agreement which gives Florida a part of any payment for any citrus sold if it has one of their trees in its pedigree.  Quite a different thing.  And Florida's does go on forever.  Actually I may be missinterpiting that too.  It could last only as long as any patent lasts.  I should check that again too.

William Schlegel

  • Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,711
  • Karma: 67
    • Botanist, gardener, and science teacher.
    • View Profile
    • William's Instagram which is not set to public so message me if you want added
  • Koppen zone: Dfb Googled
  • Hardiness Zone: USDA zone 6A
Re: TGRC MTA
« Reply #2 on: 2022-07-23, 06:43:23 AM »
That is interesting. When I read it, it actually left me wondering if it applied to my own seed grown from their seed. I also wonder if it has changed. So I just looked at it and I don't think it has since I first read it about 3-5 years ago.

I do have questions:

Does it apply to seed saved from it at all or only to the original packet? It doesn't seem to mention anything but the original material. To me that doesn't seem to include future generations or outcrossed genetic descendents?!

It specifically mentions breeding AND research. However also mentions that commercial or other use may require a different agreement. Does that mean that we can breed from it for OSSI as long as we don't personally profit from our breeding work?

Here it is below as found today 7/23/2022 at https://tgrc.ucdavis.edu/mta.html

" UC DAVIS C.M. Rick Tomato Genetics Resource Center
Material Transfer Agreement
These plant materials (“MATERIALS”) requested from the C.M. Rick Tomato Genetics Resource Center (“TGRC”) are the property of
The Regents of the University of California as represented by its Davis campus (“THE REGENTS”) for distribution to companies,
institutions, universities and other entities (“USERS”). Use of the MATERIALS is subject to the USAGE RESTRICTIONS below. For
other use and commercial use, please contact THE REGENTS for appropriate licenses.
USAGE RESTRICTIONS:
BY ACCEPTING OR USING THESE MATERIALS, YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE CONDITIONS OF THIS NOTICE. You
may refuse to accept the conditions of this notice by returning the unused MATERIALS to the TGRC.
The MATERIALS are provided free of charge, and except as stated herein, without restrictions, by the TGRC to support research,
breeding, and/or educational projects involving tomato. The USERS may distribute the MATERIALS to third parties only if the third
parties are given a copy of this notice and agree to be bound by its terms, or if USERS provide third parties an agreement containing
terms that are at least as protective of THE REGENTS’ rights as those contained in this Agreement. The USERS will use the
MATERIALS in compliance with all applicable statutes and regulations.
USERS will cite the UC Davis/C.M. Rick Tomato Genetics Resource Center in any publication(s) describing the research utilizing the
MATERIALS. The suggested acknowledgment statement is as follows: The MATERIAL was developed by and/or obtained from
the UC Davis/C.M. Rick Tomato Genetics Resource Center and maintained by the Department of Plant Sciences, University
of California, Davis, CA 95616.
The MATERIALS have not been thoroughly evaluated by the TGRC. THE REGENTS MAKES NO WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND,
EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, REGARDING THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE TGRC; THE QUALITY,
HEALTH, OR PHYTOSANITARY CONDITION OF THE MATERIALS; OR THE GENETIC IDENTITY OF THE MATERIALS,
INCLUDING ITS ORIGIN, PURITY, TRUENESS TO TYPE, GENETIC BACKGROUND, AND THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF ANY
TRANSGENES. The USER is responsible for verifying that genetic identity is correct in its own plantings, and the USER will notify the
TGRC of any potential problems it observes with the MATERIALS, such as aberrant segregation, incorrect phenotypes, unexpected
traits, or other problems.
Any MATERIALS provided pursuant to this Agreement are understood to be experimental in nature and may have hazardous
properties. THE REGENTS MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS AND EXTEND NO WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EITHER
EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED. THERE ARE NO EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR
A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR THAT THE USE OF THE MATERIALS WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY PATENT, COPYRIGHT,
TRADEMARK, OR OTHER PROPRIETARY RIGHTS. Nothing in this Agreement grants by implication, estoppel, or otherwise any
rights in the intellectual property of THE REGENTS except as explicitly set forth herein.
THE REGENTS WILL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT DAMAGES, LOST PROFITS, COSTS OF PROCURING SUBSTITUTE
GOODS OR SERVICES, LOST BUSINESS, ENHANCED DAMAGES FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INFRINGEMENT OR ANY
INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE, OR OTHER SPECIAL DAMAGES SUFFERED BY RECIPIENT ARISING
OUT OF OR RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT FOR ALL CAUSES OF ACTION OF ANY KIND (INCLUDING TORT, CONTRACT,
NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, AND BREACH OF WARRANTY) EVEN IF THE REGENTS HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
Unless prohibited by law, USERS assume all liability for claims for damages against it by third parties which may arise from the
USERS’ use, storage or disposal of the MATERIALS. In addition, when USERS are for-profit entities, USERS, to the extent permitted
by law, will hold harmless, defend, and indemnify THE REGENTS against any claims, costs or other liabilities which may arise as a
result of the USERS’ use, storage or disposal of the MATERIALS."
« Last Edit: 2022-07-23, 08:56:17 AM by William Schlegel »
Western Montana garden, glacial lake Missoula sediment lacustrian parent material and shallow 7" silty clay loam mollisoil topsoil sometimes with added sand in places. Zone 6A with 100 to 130 frost free days

Walt

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 70
  • Karma: 16
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: TGRC MTA
« Reply #3 on: 2022-07-23, 08:41:57 AM »
It seems that these new conditions do not apply to materials aquired before these new conditions were published.

Andrew Barney

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 707
  • Karma: 53
  • Northern Colorado, Semi-Arid Climate, USA
    • Pea Breeding, Watermelon x Citron-melon, Purple Foliage Corn, Wild Tomatoes
    • View Profile
    • My blog
    • Email
  • Koppen zone: Dfc / Dfb
  • Hardiness Zone: 5b
Re: TGRC MTA
« Reply #4 on: 2022-07-23, 10:33:57 AM »
Though it makes me think we should collectively establish a seed bank or become affiliated with one.

+1 , I think the time for an official OSSI seedbank or seed library has come. If no one in the OSSI board wants to support such an option (as apparently, they do not), then perhaps it is time to attempt to self-organize a semi-decentralized seed bank or seed library ourselves. An officially supported OSSI seed bank / seed library would help add credibility, even if we ourselves were still doing the semi-decentralized approach. Perhaps EFN would be interested in this??

Also and related I was able to find one accession suitable for my fourth request from the USDA ARS-GRIN system and I don't believe they have a MTA and it was material originally from TGRC. So it might be better for U.S. citizens to source their plant breeding germ plasm from the USDA because they do usually supply independent breeders and they require no MTA.

This is mostly true, however on rare occasions germplasm from USDA with MTA do exist. Usually, the MTA is the result of other institutions from other countries. I saw one recently i think on potato germplasm, but it was not very restrictive, in fact i think it basically said you can't patent this because it comes from peru, or something like that. A refreshing take on MTA. I wish there was a way we could really push the OpenMTA on organizations.