User avatar
gixxerific
Super Green Thumb
Posts: 5889
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 5:42 pm
Location: Wentzville, MO (Just West oF St. Louis) Zone 5B

[url]https://wideeyecinema.com/?p=105[/url]

This is a great movie though a bit long. I suggest you watch it espeaciallly if you are pro GMO or even pro Monsnato since they are one in the same for the most part.
Last edited by gixxerific on Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:59 am, edited 1 time in total.

DoubleDogFarm
Super Green Thumb
Posts: 6113
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2010 11:43 pm

:arrow:
Last edited by DoubleDogFarm on Fri Aug 31, 2012 3:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
GardenRN
Greener Thumb
Posts: 1102
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2011 10:01 am
Location: Chesterfield, Va

Lily I know exactly how big 1000 acres is. of course a lot of the big farms now are tens of thousands of acres. No I don't think a family could keep 1k acres weeded by hand, and I'm not against machinery. But I think that a 500 acre farm could be kept under control without the use of pesticides and herbicides, AND produce more than that thousand acres in terms of total calorie output AND income.

Anyways, all of those thousands of acres of corn you are talking about, 70% of it is grown for feed for animals that aren't supposed to be eating grains anyways.

Btw, Hope I'm not coming across as ticked off, I'm not. really just enjoying the debate. If I start to get there I'll promptly exit the convo. :wink:

User avatar
GardenRN
Greener Thumb
Posts: 1102
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2011 10:01 am
Location: Chesterfield, Va

gixxerific wrote:[url]https://wideeyecinema.com/?p=105[/url]

This is a great movie though a bit long. I suggest you watch it espeaciallly if you are pro GMO or even pro Monsnato since they are one in the same for the most part.
Saw that video gix...funny how the guy in the beginning says using round-up ready soy beans is "good for the environment" and a "sustainable system". How can it be when you are breeding round-up resistant weeds and pesticide resistant pests and you have to use more every year. That's not sustainable...not to mention what it's doing to the soil underneath the soy beans.

User avatar
rainbowgardener
Super Green Thumb
Posts: 25279
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2009 6:04 pm
Location: TN/GA 7b

lily51 wrote:Do you Know how big 1000 acres are? Do you think one family could even start to keep it weeded by hand?
And farms became larger long befor subsidies. People left the farm due to industrial revolution, machines came to the farm enabling the farming of more acres.
Proof is all in which study you read.
Lily - Did you even look at the PDF article that apple posted the link to just above you? It shows a number of different examples of organic farming, pesticide and GMO free. The first e.g. is someone with 175 acres, still pretty much for hand weeding and it shows the farmer sitting on his tractor (not one of the gigantic ones with A/C cab like the agribusiness spreads use, but still mechanical tractor). The second e.g. is someone who wrote a book Future Harvest: Pesticide free Farming. It says he farms 650 acres of mixed grains and legumes and 100 head of cattle.


So non-GMO, organic farming is clearly possible AND it does not rely on hand weeding. What it does entail is not putting your whole thousand acres in one crop. You have to be willing to do mixed crops, early and late crops, etc. It is a much more thoughtful approach. The business of agribusiness is designed to use as few people as possible to maximize profit. In any business, the biggest costs are people/ labor costs, and everything related like health insurance etc. That's why there's this huge push for "efficiency" in all industries. Efficiency we define doing more with less PEOPLE, not necessarily (or usually) less energy, less resources, less pollution, etc, just less people.

So I think sustainable farming is in general more labor intensive (even though we are not talking about hand weeding 650 or however many acres). But I don't think that is such a bad thing. We have a chronic unemployment rate in this country over 10%. (I know we say 8%, but that doesn't count the people that have given up trying, etc). Why shouldn't we put some of them back to work on farms?

The changes in population farming all have occurred in the last 100 years. 100 years ago, half the population farmed. 50 years ago (well into the mechanized farming age) 20% of the population farmed. When I suggest we should move a lot of people back to farms and give them healthy productive employment, people say that isn't possible, you can't move people around like that. Immediately after WWII there was a huge mass migration off farms. People moved themselves (and their families and lifestyles) away from where they had lived for generations into the city. Did they do that because they hated the farm or loved cities? Absolutely not! They did it because they thought that's what they had to do to support their families.

If supporting their families became possible on farms again, many would still be glad to go back.

There's a wonderful novel about the people moving off the farm and what their experiences were : The Dollmaker , by Harriet Arnow. It was published back in 1954 when this was all happening, but is still available and still very moving to read. And will give you a very different understanding of what was happening when we moved people off farms.

lily51
Greener Thumb
Posts: 735
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 2:40 am
Location: Ohio, Zone 5

This is awesome! not the post, but we now have dsl and I don't have to try to read everything on my iphone! :D

I was just using 1000 acres as a nice round number. Even here in little Ohio there are farmers with multiple K acres.
And yes, I think a lot of people left the farm because it wasnt' the romantic way of life we paint it in retrospect.
Many links did not work with my phone, so some I have read, some not.

What do you suggest....Moving people back to farms against their will? Because I do not see people wanting to do this at all.
Having taught in a vocational school for over 20 years, there was a defnite progressionn or regression of students who had any background in physical work or inclination in doing any in the future. Talk to the trades instructors in such areas.

ANd what the heck is this thing against AC for farmers. People in town that work in offices and businesses get to work in it. Sounds like discrimination. :D

MaryDel
Senior Member
Posts: 182
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 8:42 am
Location: Delaware

GardenRN wrote:Would be people dislike GMO veggies as much if the genes being added to a specific veggie were restricted to genes from a different variety of the same veggie? Wouldn't this just be a way of fast-track hybridizing?

Take the best traits from 10 different types of corn and add them into one pest resistant, disease defying, drought tolerating, heat withstanding beast of a corn? I realize you'd still have the issue of viable seeds as with other hybrids. I'm just curious what others think.

I'll omit my opinion for now.


I know mother nature never intended it, but I sure do believe I could go for an ear or two of Lobster Corn right about now........all dripping in melted butter......mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm Lobster Corn :lol:

DoubleDogFarm
Super Green Thumb
Posts: 6113
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2010 11:43 pm

I know mother nature never intended it, but I sure do believe I could go for an ear or two of Lobster Corn right about now........all dripping in melted butter......mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm Lobster Corn
Well, Good luck harvesting those bastards with pinchers. Screaming when thrown into hotwater. Who needs that!

Porktato

Eric

User avatar
rainbowgardener
Super Green Thumb
Posts: 25279
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2009 6:04 pm
Location: TN/GA 7b

Course I'm not talking about forcible removal. People will go where they can support themselves and their families. People move around this country all the time for these reasons. We spread west that way. All the Okies moved to California in dust bowl days that way. People moved from rural south to urban north after WWII that way. People these days move more than ever. Immigrants leave their home country and extended families and come to a foreign land with a foreign language solely to support their families.

If we changed our farming practices and once again had decent farmhand jobs (I'm not talking about migrant workers/stoop labor/piece work jobs), people would come for them.

Heck, I put in volunteer hours at my CSA farm doing hand hoeing/ weeding, etc in the hot sun, just to be part of it, and get the fresh local grown organic veggies, and feel like I contributed to raising them.

User avatar
applestar
Mod
Posts: 30504
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 7:21 pm
Location: Zone 6, NJ (3/M)4/E ~ 10/M(11/B)

This is getting a bit OT maybe, but I just came across this and it seems pertinent to ongoing discussion:

Pam Warhurst: How we can eat our landscapes
https://www.ted.com/talks/pam_warhurst_how_we_can_eat_our_landscapes.html

User avatar
rainbowgardener
Super Green Thumb
Posts: 25279
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2009 6:04 pm
Location: TN/GA 7b

I love it! "Vegetable tourism" Growing veggies in the cemetary, because the soil is so good. She's funny, but she really is promoting a revolution and what they are doing is brilliant. It's amazing what can happen, when you can pull a whole community together around it. Corn growing in front of the police station! She is amazing. I love all of it... the help-yourself attitude to what they grow, "investing in kindness," teaching horticulture in the high schools. She has made so much happen.

Thanks for sharing this, Applestar. I may have to go intern with her and try to figure out how to do this here.

I shared this with all my FaceBook friends...

DoubleDogFarm
Super Green Thumb
Posts: 6113
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2010 11:43 pm

"Vegetable tourism" Growing veggies in the cemetary, because the soil is so good.
Ghost peppers
Mummy berries

....+
.++++ Cross breeding
....+
....+

User avatar
rainbowgardener
Super Green Thumb
Posts: 25279
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2009 6:04 pm
Location: TN/GA 7b

A very grave business..

User avatar
GardenRN
Greener Thumb
Posts: 1102
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2011 10:01 am
Location: Chesterfield, Va

...That people are just dying to get into...

DoubleDogFarm
Super Green Thumb
Posts: 6113
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2010 11:43 pm

LMFAO

Sorry to lead you astray.

:twisted: Eric

DoubleDogFarm
Super Green Thumb
Posts: 6113
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2010 11:43 pm

sciencegal wrote:
rainbowgardener wrote: GMO organisms can ONLY be created in highly advanced micro-micro biology laboratories, with recombinant DNA techniques. The techniques have only been available in the past 20 years or so.

They create organisms that could NEVER be created by any kind of selective breeding, because those genes do not naturally exist in the species (or genus or family!). You can only select naturally from genes that already exist.
Don't tell that to endogenous retroviruses (ERV's). About 45% of the human genome is composed of ERV genes. One of the proteins produced from one human endogenous retrovirus is responsible for the formation of the placenta. Sophisticated laboratories are, for the most part, just doing what retroviruses have been doing for about 5 million years.
ERV's

Are they not naturally evolving viruses with naturally evolving suppressor genes accruing along side.

How does this relate to unnatural GMO's

Just the little I have read and my not comprehend.

I think I also read it makes up 8% of the genome not 45%.

Eric

sciencegal
Senior Member
Posts: 122
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 2:17 pm

DoubleDogFarm wrote: ERV's

Are they not naturally evolving viruses with naturally evolving suppressor genes accruing along side.

How does this relate to unnatural GMO's

Just the little I have read and my not comprehend.

I think I also read it makes up 8% of the genome not 45%.

Eric
A retrovirus is a virus that has to insert its genome into the DNA of the host cell in order to replicate. Once inserted, if the cell survives, the genome, called a provirus, becomes part of the DNA of the host. The virus that causes AIDS is a retrovirus. Goats host a similar retrovirus called CAE. I developed [url=https://www.goatbiology.com/caelifecycle.html]an illustrated article[/url] that describes the life cycle of this retrovirus which may help explain the process in better detail.

Endogenous retroviruses are the genome that became part of the DNA when a reproductive cell (or a very early embryonic cell) was infected by a very primitive class of retrovirus a long long time ago. So, they are not an evolving type of virus but a very old virus. With a few known exceptions, endogenous retroviruses can no longer create more viruses or cause disease usually because they have lost one of their genes, but the DNA can still be transcribed along with the host DNA and proteins made from it.

8% of the human genome contains identifiable genomes of infectious retroviruses based on the presence of all three necessary retroviral genes. Up to 45% of human DNA contains remnants of retrovirus genomes (retroelements). It might be interesting (or not depending on your persuasion) to know that chimpanzees have most of the same ERVs as humans.

Retroviruses do not bring foreign genes along with it when it integrates into the host genome like scientists can through modern genetic modification, but the viral genes themselves are foreign. Since the retrovirus inserts it's genome in random locations in the DNA of the host this can (apparently did) cause mutations if the viral gene was inserted in the middle of a host gene. This would greatly speed up the course of evolution which would be a much slower process if we had to wait around for a random mutation to just sort of happen.

How is this related to "unnatural" GMO? Scientists use the same chemicals and pathways that retroviruses use to insert genes into DNA. We learned how to do it from studying nature. Is this, by itself, necessarily a bad thing?

I am not concerned about the safety of eating GMO foods, and in fact in some cases GMO foods can be a great benefit, such as creating rice that produces vitamin A, preventing vitamin A deficiency blindness that is so common in poor countries. Round-up ready plants do not make any molecule that is dangerous. Weeds have been able to produce the same resistance (in probably the same way) to round-up without the help of scientists.

The evil of the whole GMO thing is that these large companies receive over a billion dollars a year in tax-payer funded (looted) subsidies and use their influence through appointments to government agencies to force people into using their products. That's the part I can't stomach.

Smallgardener
Senior Member
Posts: 172
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 1:18 pm
Location: SW Kansas

Back to the farm size and poeple leaving the farm.
Most people leave the the farm because they can't get along with the family. Many farms sell because families cant get along. Economics play a part as well. When times are tough and it can't support the whole family someone has to leave. Farming practices have played a role as well. No till and Strip till take a lot less labor so then the farm expands to fit the equipment. I would love to go back to the farm but the size is not there. There is a lot of competition between farmers for land also. Many time large farmers have the upper hand when it comes to getting more land. They have the equipment and the labor force to do it. Equipment is expensive these days tractors will cost $250,000 new and combines are now $300,000 new. No wonder people need a lot of land just to pay for the equipment.

User avatar
rainbowgardener
Super Green Thumb
Posts: 25279
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2009 6:04 pm
Location: TN/GA 7b

But that's all a vicious circle.. If you have small farms, you can farm with small equipment or even with horses. Wendell Berry farms his Kentucky land with horses, or did for many years, he's about to turn 80 now. His book "In Defense of the Family Farm" is still well worth reading.

Smallgardener
Senior Member
Posts: 172
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 1:18 pm
Location: SW Kansas

I would prefer small farms as well. They would keep the small town going. In many cases the smaller farmers also have a job in town year around or in the winter at least. With commodity prices high now would be the time for farmer to get smaller. However, when commodities get high so do expenses. Sort of a supply and demand issue.

imafan26
Mod
Posts: 13947
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 8:32 am
Location: Hawaii, zone 12a 587 ft elev.

GMO is not as bad as people make it out to be. The papaya industry in Hawaii was nearly devastated by papaya ringspot virus until GMO Sunup was developed. Sunup was used to create Rainbow. Around the world, diseases and pests threaten agriculture and they are looking toward developing GMO seeds to save them. There is also research being done to see if they can make plants more drought resistant in response to climate change.

I do agree that there should be legislation to require labeling of GMO products because there are people who would choose not to eat them. That being said, if you eat bread, pastries, edamame, beef, chicken,pork, or corn (not organically certified), you have probably eaten something containing a GMO product.

The majority of commercial corn, soy, canola, and wheat are GMO. Most of the corn fed to livestock are GMO corn. Most of the modifications were to make the crops roundup ready so the farmer could more easily weed the fields and some created terminator seeds. Terminator seeds, farmers see as a way to keep them a slave to the companies by forcing them to buy expensive seed. The companies want to protect their patents. Use of terminator seeds will protect non-GMO fields from contamination if the GMO plants cannot reproduce.

In the past companies have sued unsuspecting farmers for patent infringements for growing seed from pollen that blew over to their farms. The tide may be turning as organic farms complain about their fields being contaminated by seed and runoff from other farms.

There is really nothing wrong with a GMO product, it does not look any different from any other product. Many people have unreasonable fears about it. They have been on the market for years and is less risky than smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol, or consuming the average American diet which has way too much fat, calories and more protein than a body needs to stay healthy. Even Japan, has recently relaxed their ban and is allowing some GMO products to be imported.

What should be of concern is the effects of unwanted GMO contamination. GMO pollen can blow in the wind, be carried by insects or people and contaminate other field crops and even some wild relatives. The altered genes do not make these plants aliens, they are perfectly able to interbreed and their modifications may make them the better survivors and potentially become the dominant genes. Or should we just call this evolution?

https://www.ifama.org/events/conference ... _paper.pdf
https://www.bigislandnewscenter.com/japa ... om-hawaii/
Last edited by imafan26 on Fri Mar 29, 2013 3:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
rainbowgardener
Super Green Thumb
Posts: 25279
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2009 6:04 pm
Location: TN/GA 7b

GMO covers a lot of ground (literally and figuratively). GMO just means its genetic code has been tampered with. The question is how and for what purpose. An infinite variety of modifications could be done and a wide variety have been done, including creating glow in the dark cats that have had a phosphorescence gene inserted and inserting anti freeze genes from Antarctic fish into tomatoes to make them more frost resistant.

As you say, one of the commonest modifications is "Round-up ready," making the plant resistant to Round-up, so the fields can be sprayed with it instead of weeding. The problem with that is not the modifying, it is the spraying. Round up has lots more environmental impacts than was first understood, e.g. :

Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, is acutely toxic to fish and birds and can kill beneficial insects and soil organisms that maintain ecological balance.

Glyphosate is the third most commonly-reported cause of pesticide illness among agricultural workers in California.

The surfactant ingredient in Roundup is more acutely toxic than glyphosate itself and the combination of the two is yet more toxic.
https://www.ecologycenter.org/factsheets/roundup.html

Another significant problem with the wide spread use of Round up ready GMOs and therefore routine spraying of Round-up over square miles of crops, is that more and more weeds are now becoming Round-up resistant. By over-using/ abusing the tool, they are rendering it worthless.

he area of U.S. cropland infested with glyphosate-resistant weeds has expanded to 61.2 million acres in 2012, according to a survey conducted by Stratus Agri-Marketing. Nearly half of all U.S. farmers interviewed reported that glyphosate-resistant weeds were present on their farm in 2012, up from 34% of farmers in 2011. The survey also indicates that the rate at which glyphosate-resistant weeds are spreading is gaining momentum; increasing 25% in 2011 and 51% in 2012.
https://www.cornucopia.org/2013/02/glyph ... ore-farms/

Did you get that from 34% to "nearly half" in ONE YEAR? !!

A similar phenomenon is occurring with GMOs that have genes inserted to produce Bt (bacillus thuringiensis). Bt has been beloved of organic gardeners, because it is a bacterium that infects various kinds of crop chewing caterpillars/ worms, but nothing else and causes no environmental harm. Used selectively, in small areas of outbreaks, we might have used it forever. But now that Bt is being inserted in to everything and blanketing square miles of monoculture crops that produce the Bt toxin in every cell, we are also breeding Bt resistant pests, such as:

corn rootworms https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti ... nt_Insects

cotton bollworms
Daniel Stolte, "GM crop trouble as pests adapt," Western Farm Press, June 21, 2012.

and a number of others.

So the problem isn't the simple fact that something is GMO, but what particular kind of modification for what purpose and what are the impacts of that modification.

What I hate is that consumers have no way to know when they are purchasing GMO organisms / products, so no choice and no way to vote with their dollars for whether they want that modification. I believe GM organisms and the products containing them should have to be labelled as such, so that consumers can at least exercise some choice.

imafan26
Mod
Posts: 13947
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 8:32 am
Location: Hawaii, zone 12a 587 ft elev.

You are right rainbow, there are more ramifications to GMO than just the product themselves. There is the collateral damage and corrections that occur in response that was not considered or forseen like weed resistance and the interbreeding of the GMO crops with other crops and relatives.

The risks to people and the environment from the spraying of chemicals is well known. It is something that all agriculture and communities deal with. Homeowners are probably the most guilty parties because they are not required to have training nor do they follow directions with any regularity

Mother nature always strives for balance. When GMO develops plants with its' own built in pesticides, it is so less pesticides have to be sprayed, but then some insects will adapt and survive. In the effort to improve on mother nature, she proves that all these stressors stimulate a response for organisms to adapt to survive or die.

It is probably a much better choice to work with mother nature than against her. Promoting and encouraging beneficial insects to control pests and selecting plants that are best adapted. Think more in terms of environmental systems and communities, about how the ecosystem and its parts fit together. Try to consider as many possibilities (it is probably impossible to foresee them all) that may occur for each action. Remembering that every action invokes an equal and opposite reaction.

However, in this ever shrinking world where pests and disease are accidentally introduced into pristine environments where there are no natural predators to control them, many species of plants and animals tenuously holding on or have no defenses (isolation was their defense) will be lost. It will be the price of survival of the fittest.

Did you know the cockroach has been around for 300 million years, longer than man has been on earth, and will probably still survive long after the human race becomes extinct?

Dillbert
Greener Thumb
Posts: 955
Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 3:29 pm
Location: Central PA

a thousand years ago I remember one very organic type remarking:
(words to the effect)

"I'm not too worried about RoundUp. in a couple years the weeds will be converting it into fertilizer and all the mega-ag farms will go broke."

imafan26
Mod
Posts: 13947
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 8:32 am
Location: Hawaii, zone 12a 587 ft elev.

touche'



Return to “Vegetable Gardening Forum”