This is an anti-GMO post

Not saying that at all. Just saying GMO is pretty much needed to supply enough food to feed everyone. If someone can come up with a good alternative that will allow the same quantity to be produced, then go at it. But to think small scale farming & organic little roadside stands can feed the growing population is crazy. It just can't. The price of food would be so high no one would be able to afford to eat. The people I have seen at farmer's markets & such that grow organic are doing so because they know they can charge a lot more money for that product. Some are really into that way of growing things & a lot are just doing it because they can make more money selling it that way. Once again, money talks. When organic prices are in line with other prices then you might see more people buying that. Right now, most can't afford to buy organic. People will buy what they can afford. GMO food is better than no food. Right now most of working American can't afford to buy organic.

If all of the organic producers are doing this to "save the world" from big ag, then why don't they bring their prices down to compete with big ag more? I am sure more people would buy organic if the prices weren't so high.

__________________
I can't believe I deleted it!

To me that seems like a flippant, stick in your eye, sort of comment.

It seems to have no real meaning, it does not resemble anything I know as reality.

That is the sort of comment that starts me down the slope of figuring 'you folk' just don't have a clue of what you are talking about.....

I say this not to insult you Ernie, but just that is how you come across with such a comment. I appreciate the conversation, and am really trying to figure out what you are trying to say here?

You will have the typical 3 people just loving what you say, and well..... There we are.

It would be neat to have you work with me for a year, see how farming is really done, and get some first hand experience of what really happens down on the farm.

I think it would be a real eye opener for you. And the 3 others.

Do you mow your own lawn with a gas powered mower? Changing the oil, and refueling the mower exposes you - and the lawn - to chemicals more toxic than the spray I use on my corn and soybeans.

The point of gmo is use safer, or less per acre, pesticides. So your comment is just not right? It is so far removed from the reality I live in, I really don't know what to make of it?

In trying Ernie, I'm really trying.

Paul

Look on your own bottles.

It's enough for me to know that a man can't walk through those fields while you're spraying that. If it's toxic to drink or eat, it doesn't go on my FOOD.

I can assure you Ernie that at the rate he sprays not even an ant dies.

Ernie? Do you know that drinking too much water will kill you?

__________________

Dang. I didn't manage to not be rude.

So to answer his question...farmer, what's the rate of 41% Gly per acre for corn?

__________________

Just a guess, but depending on temperature it's probably around 1qt per acre, it may be as low as 1pt per acre.

My point is, you have no idea how much...not even a clue, but you say the fields are bathed in toxic herbicides and its simply not true, second, if you know what goes on 24 hours per day you would know this.

__________________

Another foolish argument.

I know that my neighbor bakes cookies a lot, but I don't know how much flour she puts in the bowl without going over there and looking at her recipe.

Bottom line ... you and the other commercial farmers have utterly failed to convince your customers that your product won't kill them. With the collusion of the government, you've tricked them into eating toxic substances. Now, the tide of public opinion has turned against the large commercial farmers and we're not only not willing to buy your products, but we're also not willing to let you destroy the waterways and pollute the land.

None of you have even tried to convince us that you aren't putting poison on your property and the food you sell. All you've tried to do is take exception to the phrase "bathed in poisons". You're quibbling about the AMOUNT of poison that's being used.

So say it. Say you don't put poison on the food. When you can claim that, then you have an argument.

Farmers do not spray roundup ON anyones food.... they spray it on weeds (undesirable plants) prior to planting their crops (the plants that will produce your food at a later point)

I think it would really help these discussions if people would educate themselves a bit prior to engaging in the conversation.

__________________
"Nothing so needs reforming as other peoples habits." Mark Twain

[quote=Ernie;6639943].

Dang. I didn't manage to not be rude. quote]

I don't want to be cruel Ernie, but I doubt there's a way to say it that will be accepted kindly, but you are kind of making a bit of a fool of yourself branding yourself a farmer.

A homesteader, indeed, but a few raised beds, a couple of rabbits and a few chickens doesn't make anyone a farmer, not by a long shot.

We have a few acres too, some raised beds, about 70 chickens, 10 ducks and some horses...and I work with livestock professionally off site as a farrier also providing hoof care for non equine ungulates.. but that doesn't make me a farmer by any stretch of the imagination or association and I would expect to be mocked by my good dairy farming/corn and bean producing/potato and onion producing/ hay producing neighbors if I went around calling myself a farmer. They are farmers, not I, nor you I'm afraid.

__________________
I saw something nasty in the woodshed

Is the poison they are spraying on that plant going to remain on that plant & end up in the crop that forms?

I spray my fruit trees. They are sprayed before the fruit forms. I much prefer apples that are nice instead of worm ridden & bad. Some things need to be done.

If no sprays were used on any of the cropland, how exactly would you keep weeds under control? Just asking?

__________________
I can't believe I deleted it!

Since there is no legal definition of farmer, then sure. If some of you want to use the fact that I do not sell food commercially to try and demonstrate that I don't know what I'm talking about ... go for it. But your definition looks pretty lame. Are you implying that before the 1920's, there were no farmers in the world? Farming is a unique profession that depends upon heavy tractor equipment, bank loans, and heavy usage of toxic chemicals?

Ultimately, this is YOUR problem, not mine.

The way I see it, there's only two types of people who buy your food.

1. The person who doesn't care what they eat but only cares about the price and won't pay you a living wage.

2. The person who does care what they eat and will pay a premium price, but they don't want you to put poison on what you sell them.

But you can't do it. Commercial farmers absolutely can't say they won't put poison on the food or in the fields.

You can look back through this thread and see their arguments: "We don't put MUCH poison on the food", or "it's not THAT poisonous", or (my personal favorite) "you don't know what you're talking about".

But none of them can say, "Here, I have the product you're looking for without any poisons at all. Open your wallet."

From a business perspective, that's a pretty big problem, I'd think. If you owe the bank on your farm and you've taken out a loan to cover your poisons, your diesel, and your seed, and the one group of consumers who can afford to pay you what you need won't buy your product then welcome to bankruptcy.

ETA:

The free market has spoken. They don't want your poisonous food. You have lost this argument in the marketplace. People will shell out $4 per pound for chemical-free tomatoes, but your chemical-laden product is going to head for the value-meal at McDonald's. The government subsidies are required to enable you to grow it, and the food stamps are required so that people will buy it.

Anyone with a buck and a brain is going to choose the one without poisons.

If you wish to keep this discussion going, please try and keep it civil.

ON the food? lol.

I can honestly say I do not spray any poisons on the food I produce.

Will the self professed "farmers" that use GMO for all the reasons they always state on these thread please do this.

Take us step by step thru the application of the roundup or weed killers, and the use of the GMO on your farm.

That will either prove your not poisoning statments, and let us all that would like at least labeling, or more - to have a chance to see what a real farmer does that always puts down those that don't want GMO or pesticides in the food or waterways.

Can you do that. Especially since you've proclaimed often that none of the ones that do not care for GMO's know what we are talking about.

So please, elaborate.

__________________
"Live your life, and forget your age." Norman Vincent Peale

Nice. So now the elite who produce food like products for the masses are telling is not to question their methods. Shut up and eat it and be glad you aren't starving. Reminds me of a woman who uses to cut my hair; when I told her I didn't want it cut they way she wanted to cut it she arrogantly told me it was HER HAIRCUT and she knew best. Really? Well it's my money and responsibility to keep my children healthy - so you can bet your butt I will question your do-it-with-as-little-effort-as-possible, earth destroying way of growing things.

Yup, right on it as its being loaded into the truck headed for grocery store!

__________________

They just spray it on the weeds and none of it makes it into the soil?

Please explain how so much of it is making its way into our rivers and drinking water?

http://ks.water.usgs.gov/pubs/fact-s...fs.076-98.html

(a clipping from the article - I bolded the selection I like)

Detections of herbicides were relatively widespread in shallow aquifers across the Midwest (fig. 1), with one or more compounds being detected at greater than 0.05 µg/L (microgram per liter, which is roughly equivalent to "part per billion") in 40.3 percent of the 303 wells sampled. The concentrations encountered, however, were generally low, with the median total herbicide concentration being approximately 0.5 µg/L. Only one sample had a herbicide concentration (alachlor = 4.3 µg/L) that exceeded a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) or Health Advisory Level (HAL) for drinking water (U.S. Environ-mental Protection Agency, 1995). However, these drinking-water criteria may not answer all questions related to health and environmental risks associated with the presence of herbicides in ground water. First, only 7 of the 13 compounds detected at greater than 0.05 µ/L have MCLs or HALs established.

Second, these criteria only consider the effects of individual pesticides and do not account for possible additive or synergistic toxicity from the presence of more than one compound. The co-occurrence of multiple herbicide compounds in ground-water samples was common during this study (fig. 3). Two or more compounds were present in 60 percent of samples where pesticides were detected. Third, these criteria only consider acute toxic effects and do not consider potential chronic effects such as reproductive, developmental, and neural-behavioral toxicity.


----end clipping

So not only is the free market deciding it doesn't want to buy your food, but there's also an increasing concern about just what you're doing to the environment as you grow that food. It's one thing to poison yourself and your customers, but when you start poisoning people who aren't even part of the process ... well ... I think it's time to put some people into prison.

And since the neighbor bakes a lot of cookies and you happen to bake a loaf of bread does that make you a baker since you likely sit and talk to your neighbor while having coffee?

__________________