This is an anti-GMO post

Yvonne's hubby · #61 06/26/13, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ernie

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.

How much poison do you put on your organically grown produce before you eat it? In whole lot higher doses than .05 parts per billion? Things like common tables salt is quite deadly, spray those veggies of yours with a bit of vinegar, which is nothing but an herbicide that millions of folks like to put on their salad, and soak their meats in prior to cooking and eating.

The reason these herbicides are being found in trace amounts in aquifers is quite simple... it doesnt stay in the soil to be sucked up by food bearing plants. It is leached out of the soil as it is breaking down into harmless elements.

AngieM2 · #62 06/26/13, 01:12 PM

YH- honestly - salt and vinegar comparing to herbicides and GMO? That hurts the argument for the farmers.

salt and vinegar are foods, the others have not been so.

wannabechef · #63 06/26/13, 01:13 PM

1 part per billion...man that's a lot!

I bet if you drilled a well in the middle of nowhere that you would find 1 part per billion of heavy metals, arsenic and other toxic things. I'm betting if you have copper plumbing in your home you ingest 1 part per billion of lead in every glass of water you ingest. But we should stop using copper and toxic plastic pipes and use hollowed out organic trees to pipe our water...better yet, we should go back to drawing from a well with a bucket.

You have to look at the whole picture Ernie, unfortunately you either need glasses or its too far away for you to see.

wannabechef · #64 06/26/13, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AngieM2

YH- honestly - salt and vinegar comparing to herbicides and GMO? That hurts the argument for the farmers.

salt and vinegar are foods, the others have not been so.

True, they are foods...but pour either one into a small pond and see what happens to life in a pond.

Sow salt into your neighbors garden and see if it will sustain life.

wr · #65 06/26/13, 01:24 PM

Angie, while someone like yourself would consider salt and vinegar to be foods, both have profound effects on soil and the surrounding ecosystems as well.

AngieM2 · #66 06/26/13, 01:29 PM

They may do so, and I don't dispute it one minute. But, to compare them to something that is not food, is hurting the argument that the "Pro"'s are trying to derail this anti thread with.

Ever notice that it went 24 posts before the "pro" group had to come and correct the ones that do not wish to have this?

All sides say they have facts, anti's are posting new information and everytime the 'pro" and the ones that call them self large farmers have to come and correct.

A person has no chance of a decent discussion without being harrassed if they post anti sentiments - it happens every thread.

And I still request that if farmers want me to know and not be worried then tell us how they handle it on their farms so we know from a first hand experience, or don't call anyone on this thread ignorant.

wannabechef · #67 06/26/13, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wr

Angie, while someone like yourself would consider salt and vinegar to be foods, both have profound effects on soil and the surrounding ecosystems as well.

Yup, salts and acids will kill amphibians. Like I said, put salt into a pond and see what happens to not only animal life, but plant life as well. Not much plant life exists in the Bonneville Salt Flats.

Salt is persistent in soils, the chemicals in roundup are not. The salt laiden manure straight from a cows arse is more dangerous to plants

ET1 SS · #68 06/26/13, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lazy J

Yet another thread by non-farmers telling what farmers do, but when a real farmer posts the truth he is attacked. Sad.....

Is that like 'real' Scotsmen?

ET1 SS · #69 06/26/13, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wendy

... 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.

Because there are no Farm Subsidies for it.

Ernie · #70 06/26/13, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ET1 SS

Because there are no Farm Subsidies for it.

Yep. Organic prices are much closer to the true price of agriculture.

Something I find funny ...

Commercial farmers are effectively hiding behind the anonymity of their screen names and the commercial buyers to poison their customers, while meanwhile they LAUGH at their customers and mock their concerns about poisons in the food. Not just on the internet, but you see it everywhere. On the radio, on the streets, etc.

My name is right there in the thread, attached to my business in my signature, and available for all to see. I stand behind my product.

Would they be like this if they sold directly to the consumer instead of through about a dozen middlemen, or if they didn't have large organizations to lobby the government on their behalf to prevent GMO labeling?

I don't think so. The only reason anyone buys their product at all is because they either can't afford better or because they don't know any better. And after reading through this thread, I bet there's more than one of their customers who now knows better.

AngieM2 · #71 06/26/13, 01:51 PM

Keep it decent and not insulting.

farmerDale · #72 06/26/13, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AngieM2

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.

Ok, Which crop would you like to hear about? Why not I start with canola?

The year prior to canola, I generally have grown a cereal crop in my rotation. Barley, oats, wheat, canaryseed, or whatever. Rotation is a huge part of farming.

After the wheat is harvested, it snows, lol. Then spring comes, and Farmer Dale walks his land to see what weeds are there. You see, we do not apply blanket herbicides, they are not cheap, and so if they are not needed, we don't spray 'em.

Different weed issues call for different herbicides, and different agronomic practices. Different weeds, need different rates. But most of the time, I MAY spray a half litre of glyphosate prior to seeding my canola. In that half litre, is about a quarter of a pound of active ingredient, glyphosate. I use glyphosate NOT made by monsanto, just because it is cheaper, and works just as well.

IF there are specific weed issues, I MAY ad another herbicide to the glyphosate to sharpen the control, and avoid resistance issues that scare people so bad. I have no resistant weeds on my farm, and most farmers do not, because we rotate our crops and our chemistry. The herbicide I may add to the glyphosate is applied at a rate of about 4 grams an acre, or 1/100th of a pound of product per acre. This sharpens control on certain weeds. See, when you tank mix, you end up getting something called synergistic efficacy. This means that small amounts of herbicides form different groups often enhance the uptake by the target weeds, and are therefore more effective than one or the other used alone.

Then within a week, I seed my canola. The canola emerges in 5 to 7 days, and again I watch my fields for specific weed issues. If warranted, I will spray half a pound of glufosinate ammonium on my canola at the three leaf stage, about 80 days prior to harvest. So with the field free of weeds, my canola prospers.

And then I combine it.

So I have sprayed MAYBE one pound of product on 2 000 000 pounds of land. Most of the herbicide is eaten, yes eaten and digested withing the plants. The miniscule amount that gets on the soil, is eaten, yes eaten by soil micropbes, worms, and is broken down further, depending on the herbicide involved. Some break down ultra fast, some are intentionally residual to suppress weeds for perhaps a couple of weeks.

So my harvested canola seed, Usually in the amount of around 2000 pounds an acre, has had half a pound applied to it 90 days before harvest, when it was very young, small, and actively growing. Of that half pound, most of it is broken down into simple compounds by the plants themselves, as they are bred to do so.

The canola is then shipped to Japan, Europe, Mexico, the US, and a myriad of other nations. Japan being our largest customer.

The same general idea applies to all my crops. Spray once at the early stages of growth to remove weed competition.

Did you know, that only a few wild oats plants per square foot reduces yield by 15 to 35%? Something that is NEVER talked about on here, is the fact that weeds are aggressive yield thieves. Organic producers have no way to remove these weeds after emergence, and so their yields suffer. The other reason their yields suffer, is because it is VERY difficult to feed the crop properly and accurately, but we are talking weeds here.

When these weeds seed out, some like wild mustard have a 60 year dormancy, and are very competetive. If you miss a single year, you can then see what you are up against.

It all comes down to scouting the land, and applying if necessary, the proper herbicide, in the PROPER amount.

If herbicides were so harmful, my soil would be dead. But it is not, it is improving every year, because of proper fertility, no-till, etc. The soil organic matter is regaining ground lost from when it was farmed organially, ironically enough. The soil life is phenomenal, the wildlife is VERY healthy, frogs and salamanders, those beacons of environmental degredation, can be found anywhere in my fields, before or after herbicide applications, in vast numbers.

The water does not run off the land as much anymore due to the no till revolution. And the water that does run off is now clear, where it was once very brown and muddy. When water is not carrying soil, it can not carry herbicides, because the herbicides that are left, are tied up in the clay and organic matter particles of the soil. If that is kept on the land by not tilling and enhancing erosion, it is never a bad thing.

SO basically, that is how we grow canola in western Canada...

Ernie · #73 06/26/13, 01:56 PM

To a certain extent, commercial farmers have my sympathy.

They are slaves to the bank and the government. They can't stop doing what they do because then they'll lose their government subsidies and the bank will call in their loans. They are no longer free men, but they have now become little cogs in a vast industrial-agricultural machine in which they have about as much control over their destiny as a pig in a pen does.

They're desperate and desperation shows. "Dogs bark to protect what they love," so the old saying goes, but dogs also bark to protect their livelihood.

We're on the verge of a food revolution here in the United States. The internet (and homesteaders learning to do for themselves) has caused the information about bad commercial farming practices to spread far and wide and consumers are asking very pointed and intelligent questions, to which most farmers beat their chests, wave the flag, and then claim the consumer doesn't know what he's talking about.

Not the best way to stay in business. In the 1980's, it was "get big or get out". Now the mantra could be best described as "get small, or get out".

o&itw · #74 06/26/13, 02:00 PM

To be reasonable, here, we really need to differentiate the use of herbicides from the possible dangers of GMO crops. Some people will not use industrial produced herbicides at all. Some of us will use them when we don't seem to have any alternative. I know of no farmer that loves to use them, they are expensive to purchase and apply.

Though I am not a fan of GMO corn because of the bacterial/virul gene splicing , I do use Roundup and 2,4,D from time to time. I know some people disagree with its use and that is their prerogative. I wish farmers didn't have to use pesticides, and having been a farmer, I am quite sure they would rather not need to also.

So even thought the reason for the genetic modification is primarily so that a pesticide (herbicide) can be used without hurting the crop, those of us who are against GMO crops should not be lumped into a group that is against chemical pesticides or herbicides.

AngieM2 · #75 06/26/13, 02:05 PM

farmerDale - thank you very much for that informational post.

I have a question. The canola - is it the GMO version that does not get hurt by the glyphosate?

Is that why the light application of the glyphosate enhanced with other chemicals?

farmerDale · #76 06/26/13, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AngieM2

They may do so, and I don't dispute it one minute. But, to compare them to something that is not food, is hurting the argument that the "Pro"'s are trying to derail this anti thread with.

Ever notice that it went 24 posts before the "pro" group had to come and correct the ones that do not wish to have this?

All sides say they have facts, anti's are posting new information and everytime the 'pro" and the ones that call them self large farmers have to come and correct.

A person has no chance of a decent discussion without being harrassed if they post anti sentiments - it happens every thread.

And I still request that if farmers want me to know and not be worried then tell us how they handle it on their farms so we know from a first hand experience, or don't call anyone on this thread ignorant.

Angie, the so called "pro group", showed up because the assertions became utterly ridiculous, and insulting. I am a large farmer by this forums contention, but in real life, at 2000 acres, I am about the smallest farmer in my municipality, it is all perspective.

A lesson on "harrassment" When someone provokes someone to respond, due to blatant misunderstanding, lack of knowledge, or spreading false science, would you prefer to not have a balance thrown in? Refuting mis-truths is NOT harrassing. Lying about an entire occupation, and what they do, kinda is...

In MAY threads, I have explained the rates of herbicides used, why gm has saved my farms soil, how herbicides work, and where they go once applied, yet no gm hater is ever satisfied, much less even responds to my posts. Like an ostrich, they fail to be proactive and ask for more information.

And for this, I AM thankful. At least you asked, instead of making ridiculous assumptions based on an organic food producers web site, or the likes. When it is monsanto, it is about the money. When it is some organic producers organization, it never is. Organic farmers are too moral to be questioned...

Thank you for asking. I hope if my answer has not been satisfactory, that if you have further questions, I would do my best to answer them as well.

I join these discussions, because they are simply out of touch with what goes on in the real farming world. Pre-suppositions based on lies, NEED to be refuted. I would have jumped in sooner, but up to that point, it wasn't too bad. And then, things were said. Things that need to be made clear, and need to have factual rebuttal, not some acreage owners philosophical rant.

Dale.

ET1 SS · #77 06/26/13, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ernie

Yep. Organic prices are much closer to the true price of agriculture.

Something I find funny ...

Commercial farmers are effectively hiding behind the anonymity of their screen names and the commercial buyers to poison their customers, while meanwhile they LAUGH at their customers and mock their concerns about poisons in the food. Not just on the internet, but you see it everywhere. On the radio, on the streets, etc.

My name is right there in the thread, attached to my business in my signature, and available for all to see. I stand behind my product.

Would they be like this if they sold directly to the consumer instead of through about a dozen middlemen, or if they didn't have large organizations to lobby the government on their behalf to prevent GMO labeling?

I don't think so. The only reason anyone buys their product at all is because they either can't afford better or because they don't know any better. And after reading through this thread, I bet there's more than one of their customers who now knows better.

Hiding?

Where does this hiding come from?

Conventional farming has two income streams.
Organic farming has one income stream.

Hiding?

Earl Butz developed the Farm Bill, to artificially control conventional food prices. There are speeches he presented arguing this point. And it worked.

farmerDale · #78 06/26/13, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ernie

To a certain extent, commercial farmers have my sympathy.

They are slaves to the bank and the government. They can't stop doing what they do because then they'll lose their government subsidies and the bank will call in their loans. They are no longer free men, but they have now become little cogs in a vast industrial-agricultural machine in which they have about as much control over their destiny as a pig in a pen does.

They're desperate and desperation shows. "Dogs bark to protect what they love," so the old saying goes, but dogs also bark to protect their livelihood.

We're on the verge of a food revolution here in the United States. The internet (and homesteaders learning to do for themselves) has caused the information about bad commercial farming practices to spread far and wide and consumers are asking very pointed and intelligent questions, to which most farmers beat their chests, wave the flag, and then claim the consumer doesn't know what he's talking about.

Not the best way to stay in business. In the 1980's, it was "get big or get out". Now the mantra could be best described as "get small, or get out".

Slaves to the bank? lol Subsidies? I am in Canada, we have very little subsidization.

I do what I do, because I want my soil better for my sons than when I started farming. I want healthy soil, I want to make a living off the land. I am living most peoples dreams. In the middle of no where. Where I could shoot a moose form my porch most any day of the week. Where I do not have to answer to anyone. I do what I do because I love it. I am not a slave to a bank. I am not doing this for anyone but my family. And my sons future...

farmerDale · #79 06/26/13, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AngieM2

farmerDale - thank you very much for that informational post.

I have a question. The canola - is it the GMO version that does not get hurt by the glyphosate?

Is that why the light application of the glyphosate enhanced with other chemicals?

I have grown rr canola, ll canola, and conventional canola.

This year I have LL canola, which is resistant to liberty, or glufosinate ammonium. Rotation is not only about crop types, but is important WITHIN same crops as well, and also herbicide rotation is used to avoid the threat of these supposed "super weeds" as some call them. IMO, if a farmer gets a "super weed" it is his own fault for not rotating enough through different crops and herbicide groups.

So the glyphosate was applied before seeding. You can seed anything after glyphosate application, not just rr crops.

I added the other herbicide to control a certain weed called storksbill, which shows up time to time, under certain weather conditions.

partndn · #80 06/26/13, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by farmerDale

Slaves to the bank? lol Subsidies? I am in Canada, we have very little subsidization.

I do what I do, because I want my soil better for my sons than when I started farming. I want healthy soil, I want to make a living off the land. I am living most peoples dreams. In the middle of no where. Where I could shoot a moose form my porch most any day of the week. Where I do not have to answer to anyone. I do what I do because I love it. I am not a slave to a bank. I am not doing this for anyone but my family. And my sons future...

hmm. That post appears to be exactly a philosophical "rant," (as you mentioned earlier is what provokes your replies to comments in threads like this) just in your own words.

It's incredibly similar to the situation of one here you seem to strongly oppose. As practical as you may perceive it, your insistence on offering what you believe to be scientific fact, etc. is your own philosophical rant. You put it very nicely there and seem to sincerely believe your efforts and methods are for your family's benefit, and so on.

I got no problem with that. I have issue that so many of you guys seem to present your statements in a way that sounds like your heart's desire is more worthy than others'.