GM crops are about control over the population. Control the food, control the people. People better wake up NOW!
Tom

 

What Tom said.

 

Anyone wonder what will happen to Monsanto when their ills are figured out by the general public? I hope I'm alive long enough to see it fall.

 

GM crops are about control over the population. Control the food, control the people. People better wake up NOW!
Tom

How? If someone doesn't want to plant them there are hybrids and 'heirloom' seeds out there.

 

But how much less labor and fuel does it take to produce the same amount of food product and how much more profit do they make the farmer because of it?

 

Fortuneately for those who actually grow the crops, the real production figures are the opposite. National average bushels per acre of corn was still in the 20s as late as 1940. By 2000, it was up to 126. For 2007, it was 160 and full potential still not reached.

www.agronext.iastate.edu/corn/production/management/harvest/producing.html

Martin

 

What watcher said.

The GM crops aren't magically producing more than their counterparts.... the allure of Roundup-ready GM crops is the huge savings incurred, by not having to till. Anyone that's spent sunup to sundown on a tractor knows how much fun it is... avoiding that extra work (and the thousands saved in fuel/maintenance) by not having to till, is worth it, if you're looking at the bottom line. Diesel is going thru the roof...

 

Whatever varieties of soybeans that farmer used in that test should be distributed to every other farmer. 70 bushels per acre vs. 77 for "almost identical" varieties? National average in 1994 was 41 and still the same in 2007, compared to 11 in 1924. I know a lot of farmers around here who would love to take that 70 figure to the bank any day!

Martin

 

But how much less labor and fuel does it take to produce the same amount of food product and how much more profit do they make the farmer because of it?

I agree. I also think that the GM crops would probably pull the farmer's toes from out of the fire if they are poorer managers. Meaning the growing crop can be salvaged from a weed infested field whereas it would have been lost to poor cultivation practices. Salvage also would apply to those with normally poor insect control in conventional fields, depending upon crop specifics.

No one has mentioned the modified benefits which adds health benefits. How many children each year are benefited from GM rice? "genetic modification that could help the 124 million children worldwide who lack vitamin A, the single most important cause of blindness, and prevent the million or so deaths associated with this deficiency." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2000/01/20/ecfvit20.xml

Are any of you aware of the side benefit of healthier farmers as a result of using GM rice from less exposure to pesticides? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/04/050428181133.htm

I don't mind someone pointing out things about GM crops as Jeff54321 has done. What I object to are those that would bash just for the sake of bashing if an article has anything to do with certain companies or any genetic modifications.

Read the material, the benefits or lack of, then form your own opinions.

 

How? If someone doesn't want to plant them there are hybrids and 'heirloom' seeds out there.

It's not that simple
http://www.organicconsumers.org/gefood/organicfarmers602.cfm

 

I get in trouble here because I see that most of these issues are not black and white or cut and dried. My belief that good guys wear white hats and anyone in a black hat was evil in every way has given way to the knowledge that most important issues are complex. Most folks don't want to know that GM seeds help the environment by conserving fuel by eliminating the need for multiple cultivations. GM BT corn cuts the need for insecticides, further helping our environment. It is laughable to think that so many farmers are using GM seeds if it didn't save them anything. You think they are paying extra just to get a free cap? The automatic,"Amen" every time someone trashes GM seeds or Monsanto is a bit childish. Learn about the products. Understand the process. Chase away the boogyman thru knowledge. Many folks wouldn't use John Deere's iron plow for fear the iron would poison their soil. I'm not saying GM seeds are the greatest thing ever, but it isn't the devil's seed either. There are many kinds of GM seeds. Some GM corn is not bothered by Round up. Some fights corn bores. If all we know about GM is that someone grew an ear on a mouse, we just show how uneducated we are. The key is knowledge.

 

I always find it a bit curious when someone willingly defends a company like Monsanto.

"If you're talking about:

* Persecuting Small Family Farmers,
* Bovine Growth Hormone,
* PCBs, Agent Orange,
* Poisoning the Third World,
* Roundup Pesticide,
* Water Privatization,
* Genetically Engineered Crops,
* or Farm Bankruptcies,

you're talking about
the Monsanto Corporation."

http://www.organicconsumers.org/monlink.cfm

 

I always find it a bit curious when someone willingly defends a company like Monsanto.

"If you're talking about:

* Persecuting Small Family Farmers,
* Bovine Growth Hormone,
* PCBs, Agent Orange,
* Poisoning the Third World,
* Roundup Pesticide,
* Water Privatization,
* Genetically Engineered Crops,
* or Farm Bankruptcies,

you're talking about
the Monsanto Corporation."

http://www.organicconsumers.org/monlink.cfm

Any time that Percy Schmeiser is used as an example of "Persecuting Small Family Farmers", everything else on such a site must also be suspect. He was proven to be a crook and did more to discredit the honest farmers than any other individual connected with agriculture.

Martin

 

Percy Schmeiser is only one of thousands of farmers who have problems with Monsanto.

 

interesting, I just watched the future of food documentary today and I must say I am glad to be 63 at this time in the world's condition. I don't have long to go, and I am not sorry about that. Can't see much good in any one's future from now on, with the exception of the large corporations.

 

AS i haven't actively farmed for a number of years can't speak to all the financial ins and out of the modern style of commercial farming. However can speak to some of the older styles of farming. Odley enough it seemed as if a lot of the older cultivating ways etc served quite well. A lot of the modern stile is almost an outdoor factory. As for saving the number of trips in the field etc. you still have to run that tractor to spray and so on. Not suer am saving a lot of cost. Also it is now starting to show up in a number of recent studies that small is better and the Monsanto mantra of get big or get out is starting to wear a bit thin. From what I am seeing here of late is that a number of studies backed by governments etc. have come up with the conclusions that the big corp. way is actually just a song and dance to get international control of the food sources. Verey sarey!!

 

interesting, I just watched the future of food documentary today ...

If you have not seen it, the documentary; The World According to Monsanto is a real eye opener.

 

It's not that simple
http://www.organicconsumers.org/gefood/organicfarmers602.cfm

Sure it is. If you don't want to plant GM seeds then all you have to do is not buy them. I don't think anyone is at the suppliers holding guns to farmer's heads.

 

I think one of the overriding questions is going to be - how to feed the people of the world. We have done it by making increases upon increases in productivity per acre. If GMO isn't the next step to increasing productivity then what will it be??

Have any actual double blind studies been done that positively indicts GMO grains etc as being the culprit of a certain disease or are we still seeing the shadows of the latest boogy man??

Its like the argument between Chem Fertilizer and Organic. Can the plant really distinguish between different/but identical types of nitrogen??

Personally I prefer crops/animals/food that I have raised myself, but I am not going to feed the world. Would be happy just to feed my family, but probably not going to be able to do that either.

Is the argument of GMO much the same as with Hybrids. Isn't a hybrid plant also GMO??

 

Hybrids are not even close to GMO Hybrids are actually a natural manner of plants doing what nature meant them to do. Just humans not allowing certain groups to breed together it is still a natural process. Gmo are man made forced changing of the natural breading process.

 

I have a degree in Microbiology with a minor in genetics. I'm quite aware of the difference, but the difference may mean either feeding the masses or not. And a plant can only manage so much genetic modification before it will stop functioning as the plant was intended.

The question still begs - oil is going away so fertilizer gets more expensive/scarce. The people aren't going to go away - how do you propose feeding them?? Or do we not use what science can offer and let them starve??

Heck - maybe the end of the world as we know it will come soon anyway and solve our problems. We are just one super-volcanic eruption away from mass extinction anyway. Or maybe from a Nuke war started by the Arabs. HMMMM I wonder what they would eat in the mid-east if the US was not producing all the food we do??

 

Sure it is. If you don't want to plant GM seeds then all you have to do is not buy them. I don't think anyone is at the suppliers holding guns to farmer's heads.

No, it isn't that easy. What about pollen from GMO fields crossing into non-GMO fields? You can't stop the spread of GMO once it is loose in the environment.

Have any actual double blind studies been done that positively indicts GMO grains etc as being the culprit of a certain disease or are we still seeing the shadows of the latest boogy man??

Well, considering that GE has been around (commercially) for what, 20 years? How many long-term studies have been done? Most (if not all) of the research I have seen have been done on mice/farm animals for, at most, a few months. What about studies that cover years? I don't trust studies that are financed by Monsanto (et. al.) or from their subsidiary USDA/FDA. How about some unbiased reports. A university in Minnisota (?) did a study on ethanol and determined that it was more harmful than helpful. Well, the ethanol industry didn't like that and threatened to take their money elsewhere. Guess what, the research was apparently modified to satisfy the ethanol industry.

 

No, it isn't that easy. What about pollen from GMO fields crossing into non-GMO fields? You can't stop the spread of GMO once it is loose in the environment.

How many farmers save their own seed so as to be concerned about GMO pollen drift? Besides, the most common "foreign" organism introduced into plants is Bt, that's always been in the environment and is an approved organism for organic farming and gardening.

Martin

 

Well, considering that GE has been around (commercially) for what, 20 years? How many long-term studies have been done?

I stopped large scale farming in 1983 and had been using genetically engineered milo maize (sorghum) crops for several years. So they have been around closer to 30 years. That is longterm enough for me.

 

I have a question, for those who oppose GMO seeds....how can you justify the thousands or millions of those who would starve because of such a regression in farming practices....As for myself, My RR Alfalfa are played out and until it is legal agian I want farm straight alfalfa, If RR corn is outlawed, I won't farm corn without a doubling of price, Without RR canola, I won't plant without a tripling of price......

ask around and you will find most farmers are just like me, many have already sold the big bog tactors, and necessary tillage pieces.....The clock can't be turned back now.....

The good old days were not that good, I won't go back.