#### Monsanto
- Thread starter RandyMac
- Start date
Help Support Arborist Forum:
i guess its all a matter of choice. Some countries refuse to import GMO corn and soybeans yet their poulations are starving to death.everybody is entitled to their choices,thats why we live in the good ole USA. KEEP ON GROWIN.
poorboypaul
Addicted to ArboristSite
Baker Creek Heirloom seed company.
Arbonaut
Go Climb It
They make a big old thick cardboard box for thier product. I lived in one for a couple days stranded in a blizzard. I had a bag of black licorice, melted snow in my hands to drink and I was damn glad to have it.
Arbonaut
Go Climb It
We are getting some Strawberries here for about $1 per pound from Dole in Watsonville CA. They are the biggest ever. They are either havin' an exceptional year there (for the second year) or these are genetically modified. They just almost can't be this good. Straight from Valhalla.
ft. churchill
Addicted to ArboristSite
My wife and I plant alot of saved seeds, others come from peaceful valley, pinetree, or seeds of change. The strawberries you speak of are a perfect example of the trash that they call fruits and veggies at the super markets. Remember how strawberries used to have aroma, a sweet taste and a wonderful flavor. Now it's only about the size. Ya might as well pop a piece of styrofoam in your mouth. The ones we grow are about the size of the end of a man's thumb and are filled with the old time qualities.
Stihlofadeal64
Addicted to ArboristSite
<=== Raises his hand to place an order for the old time strawberries. You have me convinced
here at my screen, all I need is a taste test!
Arbonaut
Go Climb It
Did you just say I was feeding myself and my family trash? No pal that's candy bars. That is trash. The strawberries the last couple of years are top notch. Sometime thang are not black and white. Ice cream bars also is filled with old time quality so is DDT and lead arsenate.
tbow388
Off The Air BEEEEEEEEP
You know it never occurred to me.
"Monsanto"
You know, it just went right over my head until I was walking into one of my local feed and farm supply stores (Scruggs Farm, Lawn and Garden)
I now remember this going on in my community.
Scruggs Brothers, Monsanto Battle in Seeds Case
"Monsanto"
You know, it just went right over my head until I was walking into one of my local feed and farm supply stores (Scruggs Farm, Lawn and Garden)
I now remember this going on in my community.
Scruggs Brothers, Monsanto Battle in Seeds Case
monsanto sucks!!!! they have tried to put decorah.iowa seed savers exchange out of business..they have also put the squeeze on many smaller seed corn co's,,and bought em out..one was 1 mile west of town here..no longer in existence....they want to control all the seeds of the world..........
luckydozenfarm
THE MAN OF STIHL
I don't have a problem with them. I grow 200+ acres of their DeKalb Triple-Pro corn and its the best stuff. I don't have to spray Atrazine herbicide (that's the really bad stuff) or dangerous pesticides over my corn.
Haven't had to put on my chem suit to mix chemicals in over 6 years. There are a lot of people out there who don't know anything about GMO's yet bash Monsanto like they know what they are talking about with genetics.
I work closely with Monsanto as a farm test grower and researcher, and I've been to numerous seminars and have had extensive experience growing, analyzing, and evaluating GMO crops.
They have isolated the gene that produces the same crystal protein (cry-endotoxins) produced by Bacillus thuringiensis, a common soil bacterium. They have genetically engineered these plants to produce these cry-endotoxins, which have been PROVEN to not be harmful to humans and untargeted insects such as Monarch butterflies, and have de-engineered the possibly harmful beta-exotoxins that are present in the naturally occurring Bt cys proteins. Previously, common Pyrethroid pesticides would kill EVERYTHING!!
That being said, if you took a bottle of Dipel, which is considered an organic Bt pesticide, you would be spraying the naturally occurring soil-borne Bt. However this Bt has not been modified to remove the beta-exotoxins that have shown to have very slight effects in non-targeted insects and humans over a long-period, and under heavy exposure. GMO corn and soybeans have been engineered to not express this beta-exotoxin. So am I suggesting that GMO corn could be safer and less-toxic than an actual CERTIFIED ORGANIC pesticide?? Well figure in that I also haven't had to use Atrazine herbicide in 6 years and instead switched to Glyphosate, I'd say that's a plus. Atrazine has shown to be harmful in many tests as it leaches heavily into groundwater supplies. Glyphosate breaks down in days when it touches the soil.
I used to spray corn with pyrethroids such as Ambush, Pounce and Baythroid. With all of these you need to be heavily protected when mixing and spraying. Dangerous chemicals that you were eating and never had a problem with it. Now I don't have to spray any pesticides, and that saves fuel also.
The newest thing they are working on is getting a GMO that is drought resistant and can produce 100+ bushel corn in areas that see less than 20 inches of rainfall a year. Think about how that could help lessen the world's hunger problem and free up previously unusable farmland.
So before you jump on the Kill Monsanto train, why don't you do some research OFF the internet and go to one of the grower seminars they hold. Talk to farmers and see what they think also. I think you will come to a different conclusion.
Haven't had to put on my chem suit to mix chemicals in over 6 years. There are a lot of people out there who don't know anything about GMO's yet bash Monsanto like they know what they are talking about with genetics.
I work closely with Monsanto as a farm test grower and researcher, and I've been to numerous seminars and have had extensive experience growing, analyzing, and evaluating GMO crops.
They have isolated the gene that produces the same crystal protein (cry-endotoxins) produced by Bacillus thuringiensis, a common soil bacterium. They have genetically engineered these plants to produce these cry-endotoxins, which have been PROVEN to not be harmful to humans and untargeted insects such as Monarch butterflies, and have de-engineered the possibly harmful beta-exotoxins that are present in the naturally occurring Bt cys proteins. Previously, common Pyrethroid pesticides would kill EVERYTHING!!
That being said, if you took a bottle of Dipel, which is considered an organic Bt pesticide, you would be spraying the naturally occurring soil-borne Bt. However this Bt has not been modified to remove the beta-exotoxins that have shown to have very slight effects in non-targeted insects and humans over a long-period, and under heavy exposure. GMO corn and soybeans have been engineered to not express this beta-exotoxin. So am I suggesting that GMO corn could be safer and less-toxic than an actual CERTIFIED ORGANIC pesticide?? Well figure in that I also haven't had to use Atrazine herbicide in 6 years and instead switched to Glyphosate, I'd say that's a plus. Atrazine has shown to be harmful in many tests as it leaches heavily into groundwater supplies. Glyphosate breaks down in days when it touches the soil.
I used to spray corn with pyrethroids such as Ambush, Pounce and Baythroid. With all of these you need to be heavily protected when mixing and spraying. Dangerous chemicals that you were eating and never had a problem with it. Now I don't have to spray any pesticides, and that saves fuel also.
The newest thing they are working on is getting a GMO that is drought resistant and can produce 100+ bushel corn in areas that see less than 20 inches of rainfall a year. Think about how that could help lessen the world's hunger problem and free up previously unusable farmland.
So before you jump on the Kill Monsanto train, why don't you do some research OFF the internet and go to one of the grower seminars they hold. Talk to farmers and see what they think also. I think you will come to a different conclusion.
Dalmatian90
Addicted to ArboristSite
Don't know if I'm getting more of a penny pincher or what, but for what retail seed packets are starting to cost that's sounding better and better
I'm not a GMO opponent, but I'm not a supporter either -- I think there is a lot of very complex science that hasn't been done yet that needs to be done.
Those wonderful properties, like producing cry-endotoxins without beta-exotoxins means there are new proteins in the plant -- proteins in this case that probably never before existed in nature (since they're producing something different from bT), never mind in corn. How will those affect plant, animal, and human health in a long term and large scale?
I guess I think back to Thalidomide on that. Ends up that the molecule exists in two forms, mirror images of each other. The left-handed version being a good sedative. The right-handed version a horrible mutagen. Happens that amino acids are all left handed. The science on the safety of Thalidomide was good -- it's just neither did they ask all the questions (what happens if pregnant women took it?), nor do I suspect they even knew some of the questions to ask (modern understanding of DNA was occuring simultaneously to the commercialization of Thalidomide; I don't know the detail scientific history of the time but the potential impact of chemicals with both left- and right- handed forms with amino acids and mutation may not have yet been recognized.)
And that's one of the keys -- science is only as good as the questions you ask. A lot can be missed if you don't look, and I don't believe we're looking hard enough at GMO.
I am NOT a supporter of Monsanto -- they have the values system of scumbags.
There is poor information out there too.
We don't have a food production problem on earth, we do have a food distribution problem. Those are separate issues. It's more then a bit disengenous talking about 100 bushel corn on 20" of rain being needed to feed a world...when we already produce so much of the damn stuff we force-feed it to our cars to get rid of it.
We have benefited enormously from the "Green Revolution" -- but it is also not clear whether better hybrids and synthetic fertilizers were necessary. An equal amount of science focused on more intensive management technigues probably would've yielded similar results.
There is a key difference, however. "Green Revolution" technology is highly marketable because of it's dependence on purchased inputs -- seeds that you need to buy since most farmers won't grow their own hybrid seed sources, fertilizers to buy, pesticides to buy, more equipment to finance, etc. The profits flow to capital. Intensive management isn't -- there isn't a lot to sell to a biodynamic farm; there is even less to sell on a regular basis. The profits to be wrung are the farmers, but it takes a.lot.more.thought on his part then having the local elevator come out and whip up a recipe of what to apply when to download into Greenstar.
Saying glyphosate breaks down in days is, at best, playing loose with the English language.
It's average half-life is 32 days -- in a typical application, half the glyphosate is still there a month later. Generally 90% will have broken down within six months.
Is that shorter then more persistent chemicals like Atrazine? Absolutely.
Do I use glyphosate (and 2,4-D) myself for a few particular problems? Yep.
Is Roundup different then glyphosate? Yep. Roundup is really bad for aquatic animals, due to the surfacants used to increase its effectiveness. There are glphosate based herbicides that are approved for aquatic use. Understanding just what is doing what is our biggest challenge.
forestryworks
Addicted to ArboristSite
Agreed.
Only if it falls on bare soil. The fact that it breaks down faster than other herbicides doesn't mean it's safe.
No one is fixing the world's hunger problem until we fix the issue of food waste in the USA. We waste 40-50% of what we grow (a small portion of that is expected, obviously), yet we want to "feed the world"? Ain't happening, not by a long shot. And we overproduce enough as it is.
That "unusable" land you're speaking of is better left as grassland for grazing, open space, hunting and fishing, or for "perennializing" current industrial farming - perennial crops with the yields of annuals. It'll happen. People just need to stop being so economically and environmentally myopic. You know, like feeding the world.
luckydozenfarm
THE MAN OF STIHL
What perennial crop are you talking about exactly? Grass for hay? You do know that hay is the most widely harvested crop that is already in production, right? More "unusable" acres in America are devoted to hay than any other crop. Grass is a versatile, indigenous plant that grows well in many areas and can do well in poorer soils that can't support row crops.
I'm gonna level with you guys on this. Farmers have to grow more food in the next 50-100 years than has EVER BEEN GROWN since the dawn of agriculture. We have close to 9 BILLION people on this planet and its growing exponentially. Glyphosate, Atrazine, BT crops, etc etc aren't the biggest problem we all are facing right now. It's declining water supplies, above and below ground. The Ogallala aquifer is declining rapidly out near us. Most of the water is pumped out of it to supply central pivot irrigation to the crops in the southern plains of Texas and Oklahoma. Look at Google satellite maps and see how many there are. Drive through the Texas panhandle and see the green fields of wheat and sorghum then look at how nothing is growing in the dry ditches along the road. How are we going to tell the next generation that live out there that they won't have any water because we need it to grow hog feed today?
That amount of land can't go back to grazing, unless you want a tremendous backlash in the prices of food. It simply is too much land already in production that the market has priced ourselves into a corner. The spot price of corn today is dependent on the future supplies coming into production. Would people benefit from having a GMO that can produce the same yield in dryland farming than in irrigated fields? Of course they would. The purpose of GMO traits isn't solely to produce MORE food, its purpose is to produce more or the same amount using less resources and dangerous chemicals, which in turn save money and the planet. Are they 100% perfect? I'm not saying that they are, we are still testing long term effects. But on the same hand they haven't been proven to be dangerous through countless tests for years. If they come out tomorrow and say that GMO causes kidney failure or something, then ABSOLUTELY, I wouldn't grow them.
What I am saying is that we don't have many options with this expanding population to be throwing good technology out the window, for no other reason that we just don't understand it. People in the 1600's would burn medicine men at the stake for sorcery if they came up with some healing potion that actually worked.
As a corn farmer here in Texas for 36 years, I believe I've said all I need to say on the topic. If you still disagree and think Monsanto is the worst company on the planet then that's your problem. Barring some unforeseen event, GMO's are here to stay, so you might as well get used to it, maybe even learn a little more about it. I for one have no problem with their products and I enjoyed some of our first Bt , Round-up Ready sweet corn of the season last night and it was delicious. It was a joy to pick pesticide free corn in a completely weed free field.
forestryworks
Addicted to ArboristSite
You proved my point. I'll expound below.
Humans don't eat hay. I'm talking about grain crops that have been hybridized with perennial grasses - this gives us the yield of grains but the root system of perennial grasses (this is exactly what they mean when they talk about getting to the "root" of the 10,000 year old farming problem). Those crops aren't fully here yet, but they will be. Annual crops are headed for the wayside in the coming decades, and good riddance, they do nothing for soil fertility. Yes, I'm aware of soybeans and their ability to fixate nitrogen - but that won't fix the problem of bare soil.
And on the subject of the Ogallala Aquifer, it is well established in many circles that a good sized portion of it are going to lose all their water within the next 50 years if they keep farming as they are now. Better start dryland farming today, with every other row held in place by perennial native grass. Annual crops are a huge part of the reason for the decline in soil fertility in the Great Plains - adding fertilizer is just a cute little band aid. And if you want clean water, that is able to get back into the Aquifer, you would be wise to unfarm and plant more grassland - it is perennial, native grasslands that cleans our water and recharges the aquifers - cropfields do not. Which is more important, yields of crops and cash in hand, or stabilizing the water supply of the Aquifer?
Every summer I drive through the Panhandle of TX on my way to cooler climes and I see those crop circles, those big fancy pivot irrigators, and all that water gettin' blown away by the West Texas wind. Common sense tells me, if somebody has to artificially water what they are growing, and on such a landscape scale, they probably shouldn't be growing that in the first place. Water is way more important than cash crops. What else do I see? Bare soil. All those planted windbreaks and crop residue (in which there's still bare soil showing) are just band aids for looming and larger problems. The Dust Bowl will repeat itself and only a fool will think it won't, because most of the Great Plains, the Southern parts especially, are only going to get drier in the coming decades. Healthy grasslands are the only option for saving the Ogalalla Aquifer - that plant community is adapted to the harsh climate of the Great Plains, it has 12,000+ years of evolutionary history there and it rightfully belongs there. Leave the farming to the more mesic areas in the East.
As an added note on groundwater depletion, in my home county in Texas, oil companies pulled 1.8 billion gallons of groundwater out of the Trinity Aquifer in 2012 for the sole purpose of well fracturing. That's something else that needs to change, too. Once it's mixed with those nasty fracturing chemicals, that water is useless. And it was perfectly good to begin with.
“The trouble with water – and there is trouble with water – is that they’re not making any more of it. They’re not making any less, mind you, but no more either. [...] People, however, they are making more of, many more – far more than is ecologically sensible – and all those people are utterly dependent on water for their lives, for their livelihoods, their food, and increasingly, their industry. Humans can live for a month without food but will die in less than a week without water. Humans consume water, discard it, poison it, waste it, and relentlessly change the hydrological cycles, indifferent to the consequences; too many people, too little water, water in the wrong places and in the wrong amounts.” – Marq de Villers
Industrial farming has an ego problem, basically. They think the more they produce, the less hungry people there will be. Kinda like praying, not really helping but thinking that you are. Again, with 40-50% of the annual US food crops wasted, no American farmer is making a dent on world hunger. So, if they are so concerned about the subject, why don't they volunteer their time or money and go to those places? Don't get me wrong, I'm not against farming, especially the small healthy-soil oriented family farms - they're the ones that give farming a good public image. But industrial farming? Meh. They can keep shooting themselves in the foot and ask for more subsidies.
“The human gluttony gene, bolstered by the very real images of starving Africans, pushes us to grow tons more food than the world economic system can absorb or deliver. Federal farm policy, out of fear of hunger and of the farm lobby, continues to encourage overproduction through subsidies and support programs. The significant irony is that the scientific term for the stuff that is killing the Gulf of Mexico is “nutrients”—fertilizer that feeds the growth of microorganisms in water, whose dead bodies poison the ocean downriver. And it is the overproduction of food, the staff of life, that actually threatens the life and health of our planet.” — George B. Pyle
Last edited:
luckydozenfarm
THE MAN OF STIHL
OK let's get back to the real world, if we may. Fantasy crops like perennial grains would be wonderful, and if my Dodge diesel 3500 dually ran off unicorn farts we'd all be saved. I would think you know as a farmer that perennial plants need water and fertilizer too. You can't just harvest and pull nutrients out of the field and put nothing back in year after year. That's wishful thinking, but until we are closer on your perennial grasses idea, we need to keep looking at viable alternatives closer to fruition like GMO drought resistant corn.
Monsanto | Genuity DroughtGard Hybrids
I think its funny how people complain about industrialized farming. I just got back from a trip to South Vietnam where my father flew in the Air Force and I was surprised on how they plant rice in Vietnam. Do you know how?? ONE PLANT AT A TIME BY HAND!! Do you know they do it in East Texas?? They plant seeds with an AIRPLANE!! How do they harvest it? ONE PLANT AT A TIME BY HAND!! How do we harvest it here? A 400hp Case Combine that harvests hundreds of acres a day...
So what does that do for us in America where industrialized farming is the norm? It frees up human labor to go on and do other things, and makes the price of food very low. Certainly, there are drawbacks to low priced food: wastage, obesity, pollution, for sure. But I saw what misery those people in Vietnam go through every day JUST TO EAT..If we went back to that way of life people in America will riot, I'm sure of it. At the very least we would move back to third world country status. So that's never going to happen, let's just take that option off the table. As for the "ego problem", we don't have one. We are here to make as much money for our products as we can. Just like any other place of business, and I'm sure just like the one you work for. That's called capitalism and there are winners and losers by design.
As for the subsidies...don't expect me to pay for my $300,000 combine by myself and to be able to get a Quarter Pounder off the dollar menu. I'm not saying there isn't fraud in the system, but to kill the patient due to an illness would be shooting yourself and America in the foot. Removing subsidies would force out many smaller farms and would leave you with ONLY large farms with the working capital to move forward, forcing even higher prices at the supermarket. The only consequence to removing subsidies is higher prices and less competition, plain and simple.
I agree with you that we should never have to irrigate fields. That's the point I was making in the first place. Either get GMO the crops to produce the same or more with less water and fertilizer, or move on to other areas with better rainfall. I spoke yesterday with our DeKalb (a Monsanto Brand) seed rep here in our county and he was telling me that they are field trialing a new variety of Drought-Gard corn a few counties over to the west of us near San Antonio. We get 45+ inches of rain here in Waller county but 100 miles to the west near San Antonio they get less than 20". I am excited to see this technology get off the ground and I plan on taking a trip out to see it in person in a few weeks. It is planted in a field that has never been planted to corn due to the lack of rainfall in the area. They are expecting 85-100 bushels per acre on the crop all dryland, no irrigation.
Listen, I'm not against your idea of hybridizing perennial native grasses with row crops. I'm open to any idea of better methods and sustainable farming, but we need to keep our hand and feet working with what we have now. If perennial hybrids gets up and working you can bet I'll be on board with it.
I have two kids in elementary school and they started their first garden this year. I couldn't be more proud of them and I want this farm to be here for them and their kids.
Oh and BTW...humans do eat hay...we eat the cows that eat the hay, same thing in my book.
luckydozenfarm
THE MAN OF STIHL
“The human gluttony gene, bolstered by the very real images of starving Africans, pushes us to grow tons more food than the world economic system can absorb or deliver. Federal farm policy, out of fear of hunger and of the farm lobby, continues to encourage overproduction through subsidies and support programs. The significant irony is that the scientific term for the stuff that is killing the Gulf of Mexico is “nutrients”—fertilizer that feeds the growth of microorganisms in water, whose dead bodies poison the ocean downriver. And it is the overproduction of food, the staff of life, that actually threatens the life and health of our planet.” — George B. Pyle
You are quoting George B. Pyle??...SMH....really?
Have you actually read his book? That book is nothing more than a socialistic liberal dream land where everyone holds hands and sings Koombaya. He knows the problems farmers face b/c I think he is from Kansas, but dude, he needs a real world economic lesson. I would love to have him get from behind the desk and spend a day harvesting corn with me.
Besides we don't have the luxury of time for his wishful thinking, huge over the top ideas, and a complete overhaul of the agricultural socio-economic system hoping it was the right move. We do, however, need to move towards more sustainable farming using less inputs such as nitrogen fertilizers, irrigation, diesel fuel, and chemicals. His book does point out that the problem isn't food capacity its the lack of funds to purchase food. True, but that's certainly not agriculture's fault to remedy. The only help industrialized agriculture can and should provide is the economies of scale pricing that can be accomplished with the right mechanized tools at our (or their) disposal. It's a well known economic FACT that people will receive lower wages for a task that a machine can accomplish more efficiently. It was the case with the cotton industry also back in the late 1800's. With the advent of the cotton picker, tractor and cotton gin, prices for cotton and the manual labor to produce cotton (discounting free slave labor) fell through the roof. A boon for consumers wouldn't you say? It left little profit for any cotton producer who didn't have the money for the equipment. Today, remove the equipment, the GMO cotton seeds, the large, industrialized, technologically-efficient farms, add in a few socialist labor unions for all the new hand pickers/planters and you'll have a $200 box of Q-tips. I promise you that.
You are quoting George B. Pyle??...SMH....really?
Have you actually read his book? That book is nothing more than a socialistic liberal dream land where everyone holds hands and sings Koombaya. He knows the problems farmers face b/c I think he is from Kansas, but dude, he needs a real world economic lesson. I would love to have him get from behind the desk and spend a day harvesting corn with me.
Besides we don't have the luxury of time for his wishful thinking, huge over the top ideas, and a complete overhaul of the agricultural socio-economic system hoping it was the right move. We do, however, need to move towards more sustainable farming using less inputs such as nitrogen fertilizers, irrigation, diesel fuel, and chemicals. His book does point out that the problem isn't food capacity its the lack of funds to purchase food. True, but that's certainly not agriculture's fault to remedy. The only help industrialized agriculture can and should provide is the economies of scale pricing that can be accomplished with the right mechanized tools at our (or their) disposal. It's a well known economic FACT that people will receive lower wages for a task that a machine can accomplish more efficiently. It was the case with the cotton industry also back in the late 1800's. With the advent of the cotton picker, tractor and cotton gin, prices for cotton and the manual labor to produce cotton (discounting free slave labor) fell through the roof. A boon for consumers wouldn't you say? It left little profit for any cotton producer who didn't have the money for the equipment. Today, remove the equipment, the GMO cotton seeds, the large, industrialized, technologically-efficient farms, add in a few socialist labor unions for all the new hand pickers/planters and you'll have a $200 box of Q-tips. I promise you that.
Last edited:
Dalmatian90
Addicted to ArboristSite
Which is why it's folly to believe you're going to feed the world from the American grain basket.
You ship off the nutrients, to be crapped out into a river in India, Africa, or China to float on down to the ocean and cause an algae bloom there.
Meanwhile we're turning natural gas into nitrogen and mining the finite resources of Florida's phosphate deposits to replace the nutrients we're shipping overseas and flushing out to sea ourselves. Those of us here won't live to see the exhaustion of world phosphate mines, but we will see the U.S. become dependent on Moroccan phosphate within the next 20 years.
Any sustainable agricultural system on the scale of centuries is going to need to recapture nutrients from the population they're feeding, and even after processing the waste and concentrating the nutrients, you'll want them reasonably close by to keep the costs of shipping down. Nitrogen we can make easy enough. Potassium we're in good shape on for the next thousand years or more with current technology. But within a century or two we're probably looking at having to feed 5-7 Billion people with no more rock phosphate left.
We need the bulk of the world's calories to be produced near the bulk of the world's people, so among other good reasons to do so...the nutrients can be recycled easily
As to the $200 box of Q-tips, that's hyperbole.
16% of our spending on food goes to farmers. The other 84% is shipping, processing, marketing, retail, etc.
To double our farmers gross income...it would take a 16% increase in food prices.
We could increase our farm costs, and thus what we need to pay them, significantly without catastrophic impact on consumer prices.
Last edited:
Sustainable farming only matters if you are not going to go broke doinng it and family farm means you make enough to impress the ladies to have relations with you
Similar threads
