Solid Smackdown of Anti-GMO zealotry

[hog88]

You're so clueless. The "corporate farm" that so many ***** about (for some unknown reason) make up 13% of the farms in the U.S. the other 87% fall in the hands of single individuals or families. I've never understood this cry. Does it matter who owns the farm?

Roundup is neutralized when it hits the soil so it has no negative affect on the soil FTR. Yes, we have glyphosate resistant pigweed, marestail and water hemp right now. The answer moving forward to combat these is different modes of action for killing, not necessarily "stronger", whatever that even means. Most herbicides negatively affect enzymes, chlorophyll production or amino acids only found in plant life to begin with.

Please come and tell farmers today that they're reaping huge profits and watch them embarrass you with the reality of the situation. 2 years ago corn was roughly $7 per bushel, right now corn is at $4.25 and has dipped as low as $3.80 this year. So prices are 60% of what they were 2 years ago yet seed, chemicals and fertilizer prices have held relatively steady or gone up, resulting in an average break-even point of $4.31 per bushel. Cotton is trading for $0.65 per pound right now, yet it costs between $0.65 - $0.70 per pound just to raise it.

Let me know when you get cancer from the beef who ate the corn that had the Bt gene in it.

S l o w C l a p

:spank:

 

[LouderVol]

Isn't this the same case with those claiming man made global warming?

of course. there is an issue and scientists are getting paid to blow it out of proportion so that something actually happens. imo the reason you don't see major changes from these type of things is because usually the problem isn't as bad as what they make you believe. doesn't mean there isn't a problem, just that the world is not ending tomorrow, just that it may be too late to change things by tomorrow.

 

[bowlinggreenvol]

Plenty of places. For starters, if you buy a seed from them, grow the plant, harvest the crop, then try to use the seed from that plant to use again, Monsanto will sue you because they have a patent on it. You must buy your seed from them every planting season. And they have an army of lawyers to drive anyone out of business who they catch.

And you are correct, genetically modified corn is registered as a pesticide with the EPA. We all know that corn (in some form) is in virtually everything, so we are eating pesticide everyday. This is why they do not want the labeling changes to state GMO/non-GMO. People will change their habits when informed.

For starters, Monsanto is far from the only seed company and that's the way it works across all seed companies. They're not going to drive the farmer out of business, they're going to recoup what was "stolen" from them. It costs millions in R&D to get to the point of releasing a commercial hybrid, why would anyone in their right mind allow that to be bought for $200/bag one time? If Monsanto or Syngenta can't ensure, that not only are their costs recouped but that they actually make a profit then what incentive do they have to continue developing new technology?

The problem with labeling everything is the education that would have to follow. Common people are idiots and lazy, so it's easier to hear pesticides in your food and go nuts rather than sit down and listen or learn about it. They're sheep and go along with the fads as well as whatever's simpler. Diving into research and understanding the chemistry and biology is much more work than just etting Chipolte talk for you.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Please come and tell farmers today that they're reaping huge profits and watch them embarrass you with the reality of the situation. 2 years ago corn was roughly $7 per bushel, right now corn is at $4.25 and has dipped as low as $3.80 this year. So prices are 60% of what they were 2 years ago yet seed, chemicals and fertilizer prices have held relatively steady or gone up, resulting in an average break-even point of $4.31 per bushel. Cotton is trading for $0.65 per pound right now, yet it costs between $0.65 - $0.70 per pound just to raise it.

First, it would seem that you're making an argument against the use of pesticides from a profitability standpoint.

Second, you left out the part where the taxpayers are subsidizing the costs of the farming industry. The 2012 Farm Subsidy Database claims $256 billion in farm subsidies. That's 1/4 trillion dollars that the taxpayers pay to prop up this industry.

 

[LouderVol]

as far as monsanto goes, cross pollenization is also an issue. farmer A buys monsanto corn and farmer B doesn't. through the natural processes farmer B's yield cross pollenates with farmer A. Monsanto now can come in and sue farmer B for "stealing" their crop. before someone says this doesn't happen it has happened to my family a couple times. they have had to switch up what crops they grow to keep the lawyers away.

 

[bowlinggreenvol]

Actually, I think it entirely possible to feed the world population organically, but it would take radical changes to culture, society and agriculture. It used to be that nearly every home had a garden and produced quite a bit of their own food. Families were not tied to central mono-cultural agriculture and the grocery store. Their gardens were generally less susceptible to disease and pests because they were poli-cultural. And they generally saved seeds, which builds crops that thrive in their environment.

There's a mini-farm in California that is growing 1000s of pounds of produce on 1/10 of an acre using strictly organic/intensive measures. They grow enough to produce 100% of their diet while supplying local restaurants with fresh produce.

Personally, I think society would be healthier (both physically and societally) if we shrank our food production and built local community by doing so.

It's potentially possible under those circumstances, that's not going to happen though. Some bimbo ***** in LA wants to sit back and gripe about farmers all the while wanting to eat at the same time. She won't trim a rose bush let alone is she going to garden/farm.

However, organic won't work at its current rate because of the costs. As I said, yields are half of conventional yields yet it costs twice as much to purchase.

Why would we be healthier physically? When research has shown there's no safety differences between the two.

 

[Obsessed]

as far as monsanto goes, cross pollenization is also an issue. farmer A buys monsanto corn and farmer B doesn't. through the natural processes farmer B's yield cross pollenates with farmer A. Monsanto now can come in and sue farmer B for "stealing" their crop. before someone says this doesn't happen it has happened to my family a couple times. they have had to switch up what crops they grow to keep the lawyers away.

I guarantee it happens.
Monsanto is the devil. They have put farmers out of business over seed that the farmer didn't even buy from them.

Corn seed came off a haul truck going down the road, grew in the other farmers field. Lawsuit.

My buddy farms and Monsanto has come out and looked through his silos. And he isn't a small farmer.

 

[bowlinggreenvol]

First, it would seem that you're making an argument against the use of pesticides from a profitability standpoint.

Second, you left out the part where the taxpayers are subsidizing the costs of the farming industry. The 2012 Farm Subsidy Database claims $256 billion in farm subsidies. That's 1/4 trillion dollars that the taxpayers pay to prop up this industry.

Without the use of pesticides you lose yield due to weed competition, disease, insect pressure. Common sense why pesticides are used; the yield loss without them is greater than the financial cost of purchasing them.

I'm anti farm subsidies in the form of direct payments, can't argue there. But a lot of the money is in the form of insurance programs rather than "here's a $100/acre thanks for farming". It's an industry unlike any other in the world, we literally have to rely on it for our livelihood. It's not an industry where others are just waiting in line to take your place if you're knocked off the pedestal. If too many are knocked off we're in trouble. The U.S. already enjoys the lowest food costs in the world in terms of percentage of their income spent. As food prices rise due to increasing demand/less supply people will start *****ing then. So either way, consumers are going to foot the bill somewhat.

 

[Velo Vol]

There are only 8 crops on the world market today that are genetically engineered: alfalfa, corn, cotton, soybeans, canola, papaya, squash and sugar beets. Rice, potatoes and apples are in the works and forecast to come on line in the next year or two.

Which is a large percentage of what people consume.

 

[Orange_Crush]

It's potentially possible under those circumstances, that's not going to happen though. Some bimbo ***** in LA wants to sit back and gripe about farmers all the while wanting to eat at the same time. She won't trim a rose bush let alone is she going to garden/farm.

I don't disagree.

Unless she lives in a community that is locally growing food. Let's bring it down to the smallest scale possible. She lives in a subdivision where her neighbors are growing their own food on 1/2 acre lots. Many of them are producing more than they can eat. She goes to her neighbors and buys from them instead of having food trucked from 1000 miles away. She'll probably get it cheaper since it came from next door and there were no petrodollars involved in the overhead.

She'll also be far more emotionally connected to her neighbors.

However, organic won't work at its current rate because of the costs. As I said, yields are half of conventional yields yet it costs twice as much to purchase.

You're comparing big-agro organic to big-agro non-organic. I guarantee you that, on the longterm, I can produce food cheaper organically with permaculture concepts than you can produce and ship non-organically. I just read about an orchard that changed from traditional practices to permaculture practices. Their production went up, their costs went down, and they're far more sustainable.

Why would we be healthier physically? When research has shown there's no safety differences between the two.

You seem to equivocate "safe" to "healthy". But nonetheless...

Research has also shown that:

(1) Big-agro crops are not bred/developed for nutritional value, but for shelf life, look, and size. Not even bred/developed for taste as a deciding factor.

(2) Crops lose nutritional value as they lose freshness.

(3) Crops lose nutritional value as the soil loses its inherent nutrients.

(4) I don't care what you say. Spraying 'cides' on our food is not as healthy as organic foods.


Now, with permaculture, you produce and nourish soil naturally and don't have to spray nutrients back into raped soil. With permaculture, you are freer to use crops that are developed for more than 'bulk, appeal and shelf life'. With local produce, you are getting it closer to picking. With local produce, you're not releasing as much smog back to be breathed in.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Without the use of pesticides you lose yield due to weed competition, disease, insect pressure. Common sense why pesticides are used; the yield loss without them is greater than the financial cost of purchasing them.

I disagree.

Weed competition can be overcome very easily with mulches, which also put natural biomass and nutrients back into the soil through sheet composting. I haven't weeded my gardens once this year. Not once, and all I've sprayed on them is water. (I also water much less often because of the mulch, because it holds moisture in and deters evaporation.)

You're still stuck in the big-agro framework. You have pest problems because you plant mono-cultures, which are a big sign screaming : "Hey! Corn pests! Come here! Eat, breed, lay eggs and start over! There'll be more corn for your kids next year!"

You compound the problem by spraying insecticides. Those kill bugs. They sure do kill a lot of pests. But they also kill the bugs that eat those pests. The problem is that pest bugs usually have a faster lifecycle than predator-bugs that eat the pests. So all the pest bugs make a come-back much quickly, and there are no predator-bugs around to control them. So guess what happens? You have a pest epidemic, and have to start the pesticide cycle all over again.

Instead of seeing pest bugs and asking: "What can I spray on that?" Maybe you could ask: "What eats that?"

I'm anti farm subsidies in the form of direct payments, can't argue there. But a lot of the money is in the form of insurance programs rather than "here's a $100/acre thanks for farming". It's an industry unlike any other in the world, we literally have to rely on it for our livelihood. It's not an industry where others are just waiting in line to take your place if you're knocked off the pedestal. If too many are knocked off we're in trouble. The U.S. already enjoys the lowest food costs in the world in terms of percentage of their income spent. As food prices rise due to increasing demand/less supply people will start *****ing then. So either way, consumers are going to foot the bill somewhat.

That "we have to rely on it for our livelihood" is the part that I think could change to our benefit. Our current culture are consumers, and our very livelihood is "farmed" out to a central, stock-exchanged, non-sustainable system of practices that is so inefficient we (the taxpayers) have to spend 1/4 trillion dollars a year to keep it going.

What would happen if there was a movement of communities to become producers, and make more than we need? Lower tax burden (on the production and purchase side, btw...), probably cheaper food, and more community solidarity. (Instead of big-agro, our neighbors become "what we rely on for our livelihood".)

 

[bowlinggreenvol]

Which is a large percentage of what people consume.

Sugar is derived overwhelmingly from cane and not sugar beets. Oils/starches are such a minute makeup of foods they're added to. Squash is one vegetable out of how many that we consume on a yearly basis? You consume papaya and cotton on the regular?

 

[Velo Vol]

Sugar is derived overwhelmingly from cane and not sugar beets. Oils/starches are such a minute makeup of foods they're added to. Squash is one vegetable out of how many that we consume on a yearly basis? You consume papaya and cotton on the regular?

Corn. And what about wheat?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_wheat

 

[bowlinggreenvol]

I don't disagree.

Unless she lives in a community that is locally growing food. Let's bring it down to the smallest scale possible. She lives in a subdivision where her neighbors are growing their own food on 1/2 acre lots. Many of them are producing more than they can eat. She goes to her neighbors and buys from them instead of having food trucked from 1000 miles away. She'll probably get it cheaper since it came from next door and there were no petrodollars involved in the overhead.

She'll also be far more emotionally connected to her neighbors.



You're comparing big-agro organic to big-agro non-organic. I guarantee you that, on the longterm, I can produce food cheaper organically with permaculture concepts than you can produce and ship non-organically. I just read about an orchard that changed from traditional practices to permaculture practices. Their production went up, their costs went down, and they're far more sustainable.



You seem to equivocate "safe" to "healthy". But nonetheless...

Research has also shown that:

(1) Big-agro crops are not bred/developed for nutritional value, but for shelf life, look, and size. Not even bred/developed for taste as a deciding factor.

(2) Crops lose nutritional value as they lose freshness.

(3) Crops lose nutritional value as the soil loses its inherent nutrients.

(4) I don't care what you say. Spraying 'cides' on our food is not as healthy as organic foods.


Now, with permaculture, you produce and nourish soil naturally and don't have to spray nutrients back into raped soil. With permaculture, you are freer to use crops that are developed for more than 'bulk, appeal and shelf life'. With local produce, you are getting it closer to picking. With local produce, you're not releasing as much smog back to be breathed in.

What are big agro crops? The soil doesn't lose nutrients if they're replaced, cover crops are implemented and tillage practices are minimized. All of which have nothing to do with organic vs conventional.

Your last paragraph shows how moronic you are "nourish the soil naturally and don't spray nutrients back in the soil". Since when does phosphate, potassium, nitrogen and the other 14 essential elements for crop production not occur naturally in the environment? Potassium is mined in Saskatchewan (naturally occurring in the soil). It is applied to soils already containing potassium just at levels too low to support production. Phosphorus is mined out of Florida in the form of phosphate rock, once again naturally occurring. Soil is made up of nothing but nutrients which are little more than naturally occurring elements; remember the periodic table?

 

[bowlinggreenvol]

Corn. And what about wheat?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_wheat

Read your first paragraph, as of 2013 no GMO wheat is grown commercially. I can assure you that now reads as of 2015 no GMO wheat is grown commercially.

 

[volinreallife]

You're so clueless. The "corporate farm" that so many ***** about (for some unknown reason) make up 13% of the farms in the U.S. the other 87% fall in the hands of single individuals or families. I've never understood this cry. Does it matter who owns the farm?

Roundup is neutralized when it hits the soil so it has no negative affect on the soil FTR. Yes, we have glyphosate resistant pigweed, marestail and water hemp right now. The answer moving forward to combat these is different modes of action for killing, not necessarily "stronger", whatever that even means. Most herbicides negatively affect enzymes, chlorophyll production or amino acids only found in plant life to begin with.

Please come and tell farmers today that they're reaping huge profits and watch them embarrass you with the reality of the situation. 2 years ago corn was roughly $7 per bushel, right now corn is at $4.25 and has dipped as low as $3.80 this year. So prices are 60% of what they were 2 years ago yet seed, chemicals and fertilizer prices have held relatively steady or gone up, resulting in an average break-even point of $4.31 per bushel. Cotton is trading for $0.65 per pound right now, yet it costs between $0.65 - $0.70 per pound just to raise it.

Let me know when you get cancer from the beef who ate the corn that had the Bt gene in it.

Please post the drought monitor from 2013 for July. That will tell you why corn was so high.

 

[bowlinggreenvol]

I disagree.

Weed competition can be overcome very easily with mulches, which also put natural biomass and nutrients back into the soil through sheet composting. I haven't weeded my gardens once this year. Not once, and all I've sprayed on them is water. (I also water much less often because of the mulch, because it holds moisture in and deters evaporation.)

You're still stuck in the big-agro framework. You have pest problems because you plant mono-cultures, which are a big sign screaming : "Hey! Corn pests! Come here! Eat, breed, lay eggs and start over! There'll be more corn for your kids next year!"

You compound the problem by spraying insecticides. Those kill bugs. They sure do kill a lot of pests. But they also kill the bugs that eat those pests. The problem is that pest bugs usually have a faster lifecycle than predator-bugs that eat the pests. So all the pest bugs make a come-back much quickly, and there are no predator-bugs around to control them. So guess what happens? You have a pest epidemic, and have to start the pesticide cycle all over again.

Instead of seeing pest bugs and asking: "What can I spray on that?" Maybe you could ask: "What eats that?"



That "we have to rely on it for our livelihood" is the part that I think could change to our benefit. Our current culture are consumers, and our very livelihood is "farmed" out to a central, stock-exchanged, non-sustainable system of practices that is so inefficient we (the taxpayers) have to spend 1/4 trillion dollars a year to keep it going.

What would happen if there was a movement of communities to become producers, and make more than we need? Lower tax burden (on the production and purchase side, btw...), probably cheaper food, and more community solidarity. (Instead of big-agro, our neighbors become "what we rely on for our livelihood".)

Very little production ag is monoculture. Growers are on crop rotations for the largest part for these very reasons. Most insecticides are targeted for specific insects and prey on genes or DNA make ups in those pests and those alone. No one in agriculture will deny that there are sometimes unintended "consequences". But there's a reason there is a plethora of insecticide chemistries on the market; specific targeting. Introducing non-native organisms to an environment rarely works as intended; see kudzu. The same happens for insects. Mulching 5k acres is not feasible (my big-agro mindset).

The problem with your theory is it's a pie in the sky utopia that will never happen. Big agro as you've termed it, is what's required and will be required to feed the world because non-farmers aren't suddenly going to start farming. Not at a rate large enough or fast enough to make up the difference.

 

[Orange_Crush]

What are big agro crops? The soil doesn't lose nutrients if they're replaced, cover crops are implemented and tillage practices are minimized. All of which have nothing to do with organic vs conventional.

Big agro crops are the ones bred to end up in the grocery store. Are you claiming that the crops produced for consumers are bred for nutritional value, or for size, color, shelf life...?

And I was answering your question about 'physically healthier'. Does this mean you concede the health benefits of locally-grown food?

Your last paragraph shows how moronic you are "nourish the soil naturally and don't spray nutrients back in the soil". Since when does phosphate, potassium, nitrogen and the other 14 essential elements for crop production not occur naturally in the environment? Potassium is mined in Saskatchewan (naturally occurring in the soil). It is applied to soils already containing potassium just at levels too low to support production. Phosphorus is mined out of Florida in the form of phosphate rock, once again naturally occurring. Soil is made up of nothing but nutrients which are little more than naturally occurring elements; remember the periodic table?

Or perhaps you weren't following my point? You could have asked for clarity, but it seems your go-to is "moron" call-outs. But again, nonetheless...

You import nutrients harvested elsewhere, judge a mixture for it, spray it back into the ground, and start again. This is all done to try to produce a monoculture in a very unnatural way.

Nature designed things so that polycultures and animals define soil nutrient balances in a close cycle. One crop grows deep roots to harvest minerals from deep within. It dies and composts to become food for the shallow-rooted plants that couldn't access those minerals. A goat poops, releasing nutrients and carbon matter back into the soil to be recycled.

I guess I just think nature is better at its job than you are. It's more sustainable as a closed cycle with minimized inputs. And we're not having to rob nutrients from somewhere oversees as inputs to your system while we're talking about solving global food needs.

Or. I'm a moron. Either way, I'm cool with whatever you think.

:hi:

 

[Orange_Crush]

The problem with your theory is it's a pie in the sky utopia that will never happen. Big agro as you've termed it, is what's required and will be required to feed the world because non-farmers aren't suddenly going to start farming. Not a rate large enough or fast enough to make up the difference.

Realistically, I think you may be right. But at the same time, I also think that a mindset shift would lessen the reliance if more people empowered themselves.

And the discussion in my mind wasn't "will it happen", but to talk on your thought that organic "couldn't" feed the world. I still say it could, but probably won't because of the reasons you stated. Like I said, it would take a major cultural and societal change which probably would never happen.

:hi:

 

[Orange_Crush]

Very little production ag is monoculture. Growers are on crop rotations for the largest part for these very reasons. Most insecticides are targeted for specific insects and prey on genes or DNA make ups in those pests and those alone. No one in agriculture will deny that there are sometimes unintended "consequences". But there's a reason there is a plethora of insecticide chemistries on the market; specific targeting. Introducing non-native organisms to an environment rarely works as intended; see kudzu. The same happens for insects. Mulching 5k acres is not feasible (my big-agro mindset).

Oh, and crop rotation is still monoculture. It's just moving the monoculture around slightly.

 

[bowlinggreenvol]

Please post the drought monitor from 2013 for July. That will tell you why corn was so high.

Corn was over $6.50 in 2011. The drought occurred in summer of 2012 which undeniably spiked corn even higher. Corn price was the beneficiary of ethanol demand up to and through the drought. Since the drought we've had record yields in 2013 and 14 and record planted acreage in 2013. As a result of acres and yield, corn stocks are through the roof and last year China rejected corn on account of a trait that they hadn't approved yet. So the supply is up and the demand/export outlets were/are down. China has instead switched its feed demands to U.S. sorghum from U.S. corn so many states are now on the verge of planting record sorghum acres and the price is reflecting that demand over corn at this point.

 

[LouderVol]

ah, if only the political forum looked like this all the time. both sides presenting facts by people knowledgeable of the situation. refreshing and educational.

 

[bowlinggreenvol]

Big agro crops are the ones bred to end up in the grocery store. Are you claiming that the crops produced for consumers are bred for nutritional value, or for size, color, shelf life...?

And I was answering your question about 'physically healthier'. Does this mean you concede the health benefits of locally-grown food?




Or perhaps you weren't following my point? You could have asked for clarity, but it seems your go-to is "moron" call-outs. But again, nonetheless...

You import nutrients harvested elsewhere, judge a mixture for it, spray it back into the ground, and start again. This is all done to try to produce a monoculture in a very unnatural way.

Nature designed things so that polycultures and animals define soil nutrient balances in a close cycle. One crop grows deep roots to harvest minerals from deep within. It dies and composts to become food for the shallow-rooted plants that couldn't access those minerals. A goat poops, releasing nutrients and carbon matter back into the soil to be recycled.

I guess I just think nature is better at its job than you are. It's more sustainable as a closed cycle with minimized inputs. And we're not having to rob nutrients from somewhere oversees as inputs to your system while we're talking about solving global food needs.

Or. I'm a moron. Either way, I'm cool with whatever you think.

:hi:

Whether a cow craps out phosphorus or its applied in the form of fertilizer it's still phosphorus. That cow derived it's phosphorus from grazing on a pasture that in all likelihood had phosphorus applied to it. The problem becomes if a soil is naturally low in nutrient reserves to begin with, it'll never get those nutrients back unless supplied in one way or another. In your program a crop dies releasing nutrients back into the soil, but you hauled off more nutrients than that vegetation can put back. Example; corn at 200 bushels/acre pulls off roughly 100 lbs of phosphorus/ace. 70 of that is in the grain and 30 is in the stover that remains in the field. Over time that 30 lbs is mineralized by bacteria/fungi and goes back into the soil solution the other 70 has not been replaced; it has to be supplied some time, some way. If it's manure that's fine. But that cow pulled off phosphorus from grazing, he keeps some of it to supply his bodily functions and craps the rest back out. So he too has created a net negative.

I don't concede that organic is healthier than conventional because there's a plethora of studies refuting that claim. Stanford evaluated 250 studies and found little to no difference in nutrient contents between the 2 save for slightly more phosphorus in organic. So one out of the 13 essential elements for human body composition.

 

[bowlinggreenvol]

Realistically, I think you may be right. But at the same time, I also think that a mindset shift would lessen the reliance if more people empowered themselves.

And the discussion in my mind wasn't "will it happen", but to talk on your thought that organic "couldn't" feed the world. I still say it could, but probably won't because of the reasons you stated. Like I said, it would take a major cultural and societal change which probably would never happen.

:hi:

You'd also put an astronomical number of folks on the street like me and my wife. Or shut down the entire town I grew up in and it's 2500 employees that work for the local sugar operation and all the employees that are an offshoot of that industry.

 

[volinbham]

Weed competition can be overcome very easily with mulches, which also put natural biomass and nutrients back into the soil through sheet composting. I haven't weeded my gardens once this year. Not once, and all I've sprayed on them is water. (I also water much less often because of the mulch, because it holds moisture in and deters evaporation.)

How much mulch you got? How much per farm needed? Where in the heck would that all come from?