Dear Editor,

THE allegation is that the standard operating protocol (SOP) that governs the production of basic and certified one (C1) and two (C11) seed paddy at the Burma Rice Research Station was grossly disregarded, leading to paddy that should have been sent to the mill as commercial grain now being processed and sold to farmers as high-quality seed.The allegation is also that the Head of the Burma Rice Research Station instructed the staff under his guidance to harvest several fields of seed that were heavily water-logged and rejected by the field inspection and certification team; bulk harvest whole fields that were only partially inspected with areas that were rejected; and harvest other seed fields that were classified as commercial grains based on the field inspection and certification standard.

The produce harvested from these areas was then forcefully sent to the processing facility to be processed and sold as seed to farmers.

Many farmers who had already bought the seed paddy complained of reduced growth and germination. And if one were to carefully examine these seeds, one would see mould and discolouration on the grains, which suggest that the grains were harvested from water-logged plants during the rainy period.

Any experienced farmer would know that once a field is lodged and rain comes and catches it, it can no longer be used as seed. The head knows all this, so it now begs the question: Why is the Burma head trying to dupe the farmers? Is he trying to make the industry fail to make the APNU-AFC government look bad? Is he looking for fame and recognition to show an increase in the average number of bags of seed produced at Burma, at the expense of the end users?

This is not the first time that seed fields which did not qualify were forcefully harvested by this very same person to be sold as seed. Something is fundamentally wrong here. If the management does not change this malpractice at Burma Research Station, the already challenged farmers and their families will suffer much more.

Many senior officers within the GRDB have objected to this wrongdoing, but their calls were all ignored by the head, who is strongly pushing for these bad quality seeds be sold to farmers.

In my view, if the seed paddy does not pass the field inspection and quality analysis, it should not be sold to farmers as seed, but should be sent to the mill as grain.

Faithfully,
TERRY ROSS