Happy farmers, court ruling.

Call me what ever but i just dont see why we should mess with what works alfalfa grows really well here and it is still the best plant for making high quality hay so with that being said why even tinker with its genetics. its kinda dumb for folks to think they can improve on what god made. To me it would make more sense to come up with a hay mower that will shorten dry time so you can cut and bale in one day now that would be an improvement. The weak spot of any hay is the weather not the plant

“Every time humans try to "improve" upon nature there are horrific, unintended consequences.”

OK, I ignored it the first time it was posted, but I’m not going to let you broad stroke the whole world with your unfounded and illogical statements.
The Indians were the first ones to improve on corn yields through hybridization. There have been crosses between different kinds of nut trees. When humans use selection on varieties of vegetables, isn’t that a human directed improvement? Most of our flowers are the results of human directed cross breeding. Against that? A superior strain of blackberry is often tissue cultured to prevent disease transmission and to ramp up production with limited plant matter. Frankenfood?

Last time I looked the Pharmacy wasn’t pushing nuts and berries and tree bark. You might not like what’s available or the tiny percentage that have a reaction to some drugs, but it has played a key part in getting the life expectancy past 37.

For every horrific, unintended consequence, like thalidomide, there are hundreds of wonderful, intended improvements.

Please edit you response to “Once in a while there are horrific, unintended consequences, but they are the rare exception.”

To make such an overstated, false comment halts the possibility of an intelligent discussion.

GM Alfalfa increases the number of years you can produce a profitable crop between plowing. As weeds invade, the crop beecomes less and less profitable. Inless you are in the weed business, you want to reduce the weeds that compete with your harvestable crop. A shot of Roundup is as effective as the much costlier process of plowing, discing, planting, cost of expensive alfalfa seed and lost crop in the initial planting year.

Regardless of longer life span of a field of alfalfa and being able to spray it with chemicals it would still be more profitable if they spent there time into a mower that would cut drying time to one or two days. This year for example its rained so much here that none of us have gotten a great hay crop yet its to wet and dry time of 3 days or more it just gets rained on again about every 3 days we get a really good rain imagine instead of spending so much time and money on GM a crop and you could come up with a contraption to make so you cut one day and maybe bale that day or even the next morning. i know alot of us farmers would make much much more money on our crops if we could minimize the impact weather would have then it wouldnt be so important if the crop had to be replanted every few years or not and no one would argue with hay mower that could do that and every one would be happy. just my 2 cents. sorry i wont say any thing else.

I agree with you BUT as in every living thing, weeds adapt to their environment (the chemicals sprayed for control) and develop a resistance to it and in my opinion that is the horrific unintended, unresearched consequence to genetic modification.

back to square one, educate about proper application rates, rotate crops and create a smarter farmer to outsmart the persistent weeds... as farmers, we need to work in harmony with nature not spray the crap out of it. If weeds are that big of a problem, maybe a pasture grass/hay crop isn't the answer.

__________________
There can be no happiness if the things we believe in are different from the things we do.

HappyFarmer (me) is not Happy to read this.
HF

What you are saying is that you don't care about any facts, you will hang on to your opinion for 'whatever' reason happens to be handy?

We no longer live in caves & eat grubs. Many, many things in life have actually moved us forward. There are sometimes stumbles or mis-steps. Or utter failures. But - the progress is there.

If you happen to not like GMO so be it. Without some better resoning, what do you have to offer on it tho? You have no knowledge of the subject, and appear to not want to learn anything of it.

Myself, if I oppose something, I learn everything I can of it, so that I can go forward with info & knowledge & clear thinking on the topic.

Just a thought.

--->Paul

I think it is safe to say that most of us who are anti-GMO came to our conclusions through ample research and good thought processes. How do you know he doesn't have perfectly good reasons for his opinion? There isn't much point in writing them out here since you guys seem to have a 4 or 5 member propaganda team for technology and Monsanto and all things anti-green and you like writing diatribes against those who disagree. Being anti-progress is no worse than being pro-progress at any cost.

Afraid you are the one being illogical. Crossing varieties within a species that can interbreed NATURALLY is far different than adding genes that nature never intended for that species.

GMOs are indeed the Frankensteins of plant world, put together artificially IN A LAB from the parts of many maybe even totally unrelated species. Hybrids are result of planting two EXISTING varieties of same species and then either stabilizing them into a new variety or leaving them unstable to protect economic interests. Comparing the GMO to standard hybrid is apples and oranges comparison, though your GMO may indeed contain genes from apples and oranges... LOL

And introducing such things into system, may mean short term profits, but when it becomes universal, higher production just forces prices down and forces that many more smaller farmers out of buisiness.

__________________
"What would you do with a brain if you had one?" -Dorothy

"Well, then ignore what I have to say and go with what works for you." -Eliot Coleman

How do you replenish non-contaminated seed in a contaminated world? In a sterile lab? You might find very remote areas where that particular species isnt normally grown, then irrigate or whatever is necessary to allow it to grow and produce a seed crop... But once the world is contaminated, those "antique" and nature designed plants couldnt remain uncontaminated in normal agricultural use if we ever decided to go back to them after finding out GMOs are indeed bad for humans.

I suspect in GMO like lot of things, it will eventually be discovered some are dangerous and some are harmless. Be kinda nice to find that out BEFORE releasing them for use, but the hearts of men are easily corrupted, and they are always chasing those short term profits that produce bad long term results without being much concerned. If his great grandchildren grow two heads and have 3 belly buttons and guarenteed to die before age 15, its not the short term thinking happy farmer's fault...., he got to buy a new tractor with his short term windfall. And most likely he will be dead before his great grandchildren are even born. Let the future generations worry, he got his immediate gratification.

__________________
"What would you do with a brain if you had one?" -Dorothy

"Well, then ignore what I have to say and go with what works for you." -Eliot Coleman

Hey Patt, (I'm a girl, btw ) Thanks, you are right. Rambler doesn't know much about me except that he disagrees with my opinion.

HermitJohn, excellent point to make about difference between hybrid natural and GMO.

Rambler - We have different opinions here. It's okay. Doesn't matter if either of us have a doctorate or barely able to tie our shoes. That's what opinions are.

Sometimes opinions come from a vast amount of research and knowledge, or lack thereof.
Sometimes opinions come from moral or ethical beliefs, or lack thereof. Either way, we all get to have an opinion.

In this case, I choose not to argue facts since it's more a belief of mine that roots my opinion here. Regardless of what you might say about that, I don't feel my opinion is less valid just because we don't have a scientific debate.

I didn't try to dispute any facts, I only emphasized a statement that seemed real similar to my beliefs.

That's cool.

Just curious what your opinion is based on, I guess.

Some folks have an opinion on the worth of people with different colored skin. While each opinion is just an opinion as you say, I guess most of society will pick one opinion as more worthy that another in that case.

In my clumsy way, I try to figure out where your opinion comes from is all.

I don't understand, so I get nosey about it.

That's all.

This topic comes up in this forum a couple times a year, and it's just very hard for me to understand where it is you are coming from.

I'm not worried about how you feel about it. I'm curious as to why?

Not trying to change you.

--->Paul

There were many that opposed the steel plow, fearing the metal would poison the soil. There was much opposition to the process of hybridization. That concern exists today in the interest in open pollinated varieties. Same for chemical fertilizers, there is opposition to that, despite the fact that millions would starve without it.
I’m no advocate for Monsanto or the use of chemical herbicides. But since Roundup quickly breaks down, doesn’t pollute groundwater and has a low toxicity level to humans and our animal partners on this planet, I don’t fear it.
Yes, GMO and hybrid are different. I wasn’t saying they were the same, no more than automobiles and airplanes are the same. As we evolve, we are presented with new advances. Each step produces fear of the unknown. We can stay in our caves and fear the thunder or we can step into the mainstream of society and buy a PC and wile away our days on line.
The anti-GMO can have their opinion, just as I have mine. Perhaps, partndn is correct. Some folks are basing their opinion on facts while others on feelings. Hey, folks, I’m with you on the feeling part. On first blush, GMO sounds scary. My feelings are toward small farms, family gardens everywhere, neighbors selling milk to the neighbors in ½ gallon mason jars with a locking glass lid, Lassie at the end of the driveway, etc. But that world is gone (if it ever really existed) and we can hold onto that ideal as much as we can, but we need to adapt the technology available to us or we’ll be swept away by those that have educated themselves and their profitability allows them to grow. Shoveling money into a non-profitable “hobby” farm is sort of quaint, but it can’t make it over the long haul.
But in a discussion about Roundup ready alfalfa, we can cut through the Frankenfood in about the first post. Beyond that, I want to hear facts.
Without them, our discussion is done; go prop up your heritage tomato plants on your Chinese wire trellis. Perhaps you can come pull weeds in my alfalfa field.

Kinda curious how you KNOW what these biotech companies are and aren't working on. And I agree... I'd love to know for sure what these companies are doing. But since there's no real regulation or authority over these types of genetic experiments we can't know. And that's the real problem.

Companies should not be allowed to create new life forms and just release those into the wild without regard to the consequences. And that's exactly what they are doing. GMO alfalfa is not alfalfa. It's a new life form. That's what allows them to use patent law to defend their "intellectual property". And I for one think that we should leave the job of creating new life forms to higher forms of intelligence than ourselves.

__________________
Patrick Harris
http://ByExample.com

How will you maintain your profits when there is Roundup Ready genes in the weeds? There is evidence there is gene drift into weeds. Can you point me to a decades long study as to the safety of Roundup over time in our food supply? I know we've been told that it breaks down quickly and is safe, but we've been told many things about various chemicals only to find later that oops! someone made a mistake. Is the short term profit worth the possible after affects?

Many farmers looking to make profits haven't fully considered the long term affects of their actions. That is how we ended up with the Dust Bowls, why much of the soil of this nation is dead and depleted and our food is lacking many nutrients. Please take the time to consider more deeply, although it may cost you today. Perhaps there are weeds you can make money with?

__________________
~ Carol

This is precisely my objection to GM crops. The artificial combination of plant and non-plant organisms for the express purpose of being able to sell roundup--sell patented seeds year after year, sell roundup, etc....

My objections don't have anything to do with Monsanto making a ton of money, any moral objections, just the idea that a "new life form" has been released into the environment en masse without knowing full well what all the consequences will be. We already know that a big consequence is that GM crops are affecting/contaminating/changing non-monsanto produced/open-pollinated crops into something new, something that they were not.
There are also reports of changes in some soil organisms due to modified crops.

I unfortunately am also very pessimistic about our future with these crops. I think those with most money usually wins, so think Monsanto, and the soy and corn, etc. industries will continue to "win". I also think that it's probably too late to "go back" to the pre-GMO era and like bringing kudzu into this Country, we'll regret their actions.
Also, from the looks of a recent local article, this whole issue of GM crops--weeds--pesticides, is just turning into one big merry-go-round.

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com...21&id=11612889

I do think what can be done is to continue to "fight" against anymore organisms being "modified", otherwise all of our(their) seeds will be coming from one source.

Well - I read up on the topis, from several sources of info. Some are terribly slanted pro-GMO; others are terribly slanted anti-GMO.

All together, a person can come to a somewhat fair summery of what is going on.

To only follow one slanted side, really doesn't do much good.

GMO stuff is regulated, with lots of hoops for the companies to jump through. And rightly so! Perhaps there should be more or less regulation, but there certainly is some.

China has pretty relaxed rules on this - very little regulation on the experiments. I understand several researchers have gone there because of that. Right or wrong? I donno. Just how it is. I hear they had some very unusal pigs, things that got so odd even they stopped.....

I am going to get real uuncomfortable with aminal research on all this GMO stuff. But - it will be coming, quickly or slowly - it will be coming.

So far, the plant work that has been done seems to have followed pretty good scientific safety, and attempted to keep things isolated until they were tested for some time.

Certainly we can disagree on that, and several of you want much more tsting before any plants are released. That is fair enough; but I wonder if there will ever be enough testing before you would agree it is safe; or if this is just a stalling tactic because some of you want no GMO at all.

I do understand your last sentence. I can understand that concern.

I don't particularly agree that a life form can be patented & owned - but that is the law as it is today, and so it is.

I don't have any use for RR alfalfa on my farm, so this crop is not terribly important to me.

Many of the insect tolerant GMO corn seed crops seem to make a more reliable, better yielding corn. Perhaps that does have some importance in the world.

Anyhow, I appreciate your concerns, but I don't think it's fair to say companies have no regulation on this issue? Monsanto was not allowed to create a RR grass for golf courses, because there was a real strong chance it would cross-breed with grassy weeds and create problems. Clearly that was good move by the regulators, and terribly short-sighted by Monsanto to think of such a thing.

It's not all black & white, and I can understand some of your concerns.

--->Paul

This whole subject makes me angry, then sad, then I feel small and helpless. GMO's aren't about bad food. GMO's are about cornering the market. People have been sued for keeping the seeds of crops that were 'infected/infiltrated' from neighbors GMO crops, even when there was no way to stop it.

Makes me sick and makes me realize how little we have control of these issues.

I think "animal research" is already in progress...in the field. It's happening because the new crops and animals have been interacting in the fields on their own, without established scientific methodology.
Unfortunately, many people only resist animal research when the cute, fuzzy ones are being affected and give little thought to the smaller, less emotionally appealing ones (Bambi vs earthworms).
The researchers can only (in this situation) observe the results. Maybe it's not a bad study method; the results can't be manipulated, only the reporting.


I agree that there are many, many very slanted viewpoints which is often the case when big business is seen to be favored over all else.

I agree. It seems that the great plains is one big test plot.
HermitJohn made a great point that was overlooked:
"And introducing such things into system, may mean short term profits, but when it becomes universal, higher production just forces prices down and forces that many more smaller farmers out of buisiness."

When my grandpa got out of the war he was able to feed the family milking 20 cows. Not for long though. It seems like all the new efficiencies serve to consolidate ownership and capital and control. Farms have to keep getting bigger and bigger to survive-I wonder if I will live to see the day when farmers are vertically integrated right out of their place as landowners and become just employees. I imagine a lot of them feel that way already. And I don't blame farmers for trying to make a buck by keeping ahead of the curve-margins are slim and you all have to feed your families.

My main concern about GMOs is that somebody overlooks something and it all goes haywire. Look at the gulf. Oops. We've built deserts before and I imagine we'll do it again. It's hubris, and I think it's unnecessary and mainly serves (in the end) to line pockets at the top.
Just an observation-I don't claim to be an expert.