(800) 853-2651
SHOP NOW

Observation on the GMO arguement:

O

oldtanker

Well-known Member
For both sides of the argument:

1. People have for the most part made up their minds and all the bickering isn't going to change things.

2. When you start telling people they are dumb or ignorant you just lost that argument with them and anyone else who sides with them. Not because of right or wrong but because of the implied insult. Face it, if you are insulted you get angry just like everyone else and are going to fight even harder to prove your point.

3. For both the pro and con views you have already made up your mind. The only people you may convinced are the undecided. It's kinda like the hard core nnalert and Reps. They are going to vote party ticket. You are not going to change their minds. The ones you have to convince are the independents.

4. Citing "studies" really isn't winning anyone over. Most of us know that studies are easily compromised by whomever has the money.

Get over it. Sustainable farming and organic are not fads that are going away anytime soon. People are more aware of what they are stuffing in their mouths than ever before. It's gone from being a fad to being a niche market. A growing niche market at that. Companies like General Mills, Pepsi and McDonalds are got going to cane sugar, GMO free and grass fed because of a fad. They are switching because of shifts in market demand.

Funny about some of the PRO GMO guys here. You don't trust the government, you don't trust the oil companies, you don't trust the companies that build you cars/trucks/equipment but you trust a seed company? That I don't get. The only conclusion I can come up with is that your decision to trust GMO's is not driven by anything other than potential profit or at least that's the only thing I can figure out.

Rick
 
I hear you.

Years of observation and actually growing crops and actually farming and actually working with dirt, crops, weeds, and so forth leads a person
to the conclusions they have.

Watching your crop destroyed by weeds or insects just plain sucks.

Using the harsher herbicides or the really harsh insecticides is not good for me. Might not be good for the environment. I farm, so I do what I
have to do to get a crop. But, the gmo crops are so much dp safer for me, I can use so much safer herbicides or no dangerous insecticides that
it is a -no brainer- to use gmo crops.

Very little of my crops are eaten directly by the public anyhow. It gets run through an ethanol plant (another of your favorites....) and fed to
livestock.

Gmo is safer and cheaper for me, it offers me a much more stable crop.

I have not seen a readable downside to them?

Many theories and scare tactics are offered by people who don't farm, I find those do not hold up to how these gmo products work or the
realities of how real farming operates. If this is calling people stupid or narrow minded, I need to move forward with what I know and
experience. When I know better, how am I supposed to accept such misinformation?

Most farmers hate the monopolies of the big seed and chemical companies, but it is what we have to work with. I buy most of my gmo seed
from a little seed grower 25 miles from me, the owner and tractor dip river and seed bigger and his children are the ones that help load my
pickup and write out my bill. The glyphosate I buy is often a generic that has nothing to do with Monsanto.

We live in a society that is moving into a 'like me' social structure, the mob mentality. Get on Facebook and 'like' the same thing as everyone
else and now you are part of the in, hip, crowd! Whooo whee.

So, folks make up junk, put it on the importer net, either you 'like p' it and are part of the in crowd, or you are some sort of square.....

Whatever, I never much cared about the 'in' crowd.

Gmo is a whole lot safer down on the farm than without it. Organic is stressful to the environment and risks crop failures to weed and insect
infestations. That is how it is, doesn't matter what you read on the Internet by a Frenchman.

But I agree with you, people will believe what they believe, and the whole gmo/ organic stuff is much more like a religion by those who believe
and worship it than any sort of science.

And we can't ever win a religious argument, even using science. Perhaps especially trying to use science.

Organic/ non gmo is a fad. Once people are hungry, there is only one problem in the world. We in the USA and other countries are so spoiled
we get to argue over such issues as this, as if there is any merit to it.

Whatever.

I need to go finish some planting. So folks can pf get fed in 2017 or 2018. The seed I'm putting in the ground now will get some shipped to
China by then, and some will be run through hogs, cattle, or dairy to feed you about then.

Paul
 
I love hearing about sustainable farming as I always get a laugh since there is no such thing. Any
nutrients you haul off the farm either through crop sales, milk, meat or whatever needs to be replaced
somehow or eventually the soil will become baren. Since humans don't recycle their waste or dead bodies
and haul most other waste to a dump, sustainable farming is a myth. Unless everything including plastics
is returned to the soil fertilizers of some sort will be neccessary.
 
Be haying the same field for decades and I do it all organically never sprayed any thing on it and never used a fertilizer on it and it is still doing just fine. Reason why is I also have horses and I cut the hay off the same field as the horse are in so the circle of life is in the mix.
 
Well I think that if you have tried to grow corn or beans in the old days and rode a tractor with a cultivator for a few hours you would know why most farmers support gmo's. Happy farming.
 
As long as you never sell any hay or horses and put the dead horse carcasses back on the field your sustainable. Anything else and eventually the soil will become unproductive.
 
You're right arguing won't change many hard core minds that are made up.The debate will be settled in the market place anyway and like the companies you cited and thousands of farmers markets and direct sales for non GMO products the 'trend' as they say is definitely headed in the non GMO direction.Also GMOs and Gov't subsidies go hand in hand and I can't see those
handouts lasting much longer.
 
Well guess I do the impossible then because I have been and it is and has been doing very good. Most years I get over 50 big round bales off my 14 or so acres of field.
 
Nobody gets the point that unless you are Ewell Gibbons and eating tree bark ALL your food is genetically modified, you are just arguing about the METHOD. Splicing genes in the lab, or years and years of selective breeding for both plants and animals.
 
I have a farmable wetlands I can't tile but I can farm the hay off it.

It is 'sustainable' because it is a bowl, and and rains will slowly wash nutrients into that 7 acres. Over time I haul away N,P, and K and micros, but at the same time a small amount washes in from the acres around it.

As well this is a peat bog, it has 6 feet of deep black soil, which was made from decomposing thousands of years of plant matter to build it up.

As such, yes that special spot of mine I can haul hay off of every year and not affect it in my lifetime.

But that is not a normal field. As well the one year the coop guy left the fertilizer on as he made a loop through the grass, as good as my natural grass looks on its own, wow was it taller and rhicker where he got the N on it! So I suspect even when it is nearly as high as my little tractor the grass could do better if I managed it more.

If you haul stuff out, you either need to haul stuff in, or stop harvest for a time to regrow N and organic matter. Either way you end up with less stuff if you are not bringing some versions of fertilizer in.

Not that any which way is 'wrong' I'm perfectly fine with old harvesting a good spot of hay and just managing it as it is, I'm sure he's doing a good job. But its not really what a person can do across the board on all farmed acres and have good results.

Paul
 
It will be interesting when genetically motified critters come out.

Some for food, I believe salmon is already available?

Some for pets, the same folk that don't like safer bT gmo corn will be all gaga about some cute little gmo pet perhaps.

And some for medical use, the ethics of which get very interesting.......

Paul
 
As in many thing one can not put into a place like this what all has been done over the years. Be a creek bottom ya I get flooded at times which adds thing to the soil. I also have a lot of clovers on the fields which in turn helps. Plus the fact the horses are on the field they put back in a good bit over a years times
 
I helieve this, and old, but you are not doing sustainable ag. First off there are few places with 6' of peat. But even then with enough years of use it would eventually get depleated. It will likely tale hundreds if not thousands of years, but it will happen. For regular doils the time would be much shorter, in the decades at best. And yours has nutrients replaced from erosion. In old's case he's sacrificing someone elses future for his own proffit.
 
It doesn't matter what anyone says, GMO is not going away and those who are left trying to feed their families by selling stuff from 5 acre truck farms will die off. The plots will eventually be coalesced and bought by BTOs that will plant real crops.

Remember those who farmed with horses and steam for many years after real power was introduced. This will be no different so no arguments required.
 
These folks know what they are talking about when it comes to GMOs:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzEr23XJwFY
 
Traits are yield protectors not yield makers. For example if you plant a bt corn but don't have corn borers the corn isn't going to do any better than a conventional variety of the same isoline now if corn borers are a problem then the results change. You all assume that bt, double pro, triple, smart stack ect. corn always does better, it doesn't but the seed costs twice as much. Glyphosate is basically only effective as a grass killer anymore due to over use and they tell you need to use pre's. So we are back to using Harness, Surpass, Dual ect. on our corn and pursuit, sencor, ect. on our beans so now we are back to using the same chemicals on our corn and beans as we did before rr corn. The fact is that cattle don't like grazing bt corn stalks and pheasants don't like gmo corn. I fall graze cornstalks so I have to consider this. Your seed guy might try to convince you if you spend $300 on seed corn it will do better than $150 seed but it often is not the case. You have $58.00 more per acre in seed cost so it takes over 17 bushels more corn per acre at $3.30 to come out the same. BTW today I am planting a field to RR corn because of higher grass pressure. I will put down a pre and if it doesn't need to be sprayed with rr it won't be.
 
Go on believing what you want but I use no chemicals on my fields so what else can it be????????????????????????? The gov can not tell me that it isn't and if one has to be certified to be organic that that person must be a fool to let others tell you what organic is.
 
Believe what you want but the way I do thing puts back as much if not more then I take. But you would need to know the whole story which you can never know with out coming here and taking samples etc etc etc.
 
Personally, I don't believe all the "hoopla" about the dangers of GMO's. However, it is prudent to use science instead of emotion to form an opinion. All the fuss makes me think of something a friend of mine said years ago. "Arguing with a fool is like wrestling a pig. All it does is get you dirty and annoy the pig." Mike
 
Actually its the BTO that needs Gov't farm welfare to stay in business,the small growers I know are doing well and don't want or need Gov't handouts to stay in business.Without
Gov't subsidized crop insurance no BTO could get the money to operate.John Q public is getting tired of supporting the type farming that they don't want to eat the food
that's being produced.
 
I understand, and you are doing pretty good with it all.

Still and all, at the end of a decade, you are losing a bit. It might not show up for decades or century, but over time, as you sell hay some P and K and micros are being hauled away.

The legume will add back some N so that might be neutral. And the horses recycle what they consume so you greatly reduce the amount of P and K that is lost.

If you have a 4 or higher organic matter soil, it can mineralize out that centuries old organic matter and give you all the P and K you need for a hay field.

But still and all, if you are selling hay you are consuming and exporting some P and K. Your conditions you and your children might never need worry about it on that ground, but if we are looking at a textbook, you do have some small net loss?

Dad was a miner. He mined the soil of our farm. He was too cheap to buy much fertilizer, and he was too set in his ways to try different ideas. The P ratings on my farm were 3-9 in most cases, and the K was low as well. I have deep clayish and peat soils, they hold a -lot- of those things. So dad did fine for a couple decades being cheap, and he did use a lot of cover crops (clovers) in his small grain rotation so he kept the organic matter up and added some N that way, recycled the deeper P and K those legumes could pull up from down deeper. But when I came along, it was just all used up, there wasn't anything to recycle any more. The manure from the few cattle only covered 10-20 acres, as the cattle were hauled away there went some of the nutrients manure puts back less than than you harvest for feed naturally.

So I know the game, I've been down the near organic route, and I'm rather frugal myself, I don't like to pay for fertilizer. I'm cutting that hay from my low wet area, and feed the cattle the rolls all winter on my poorer hills where they can eat, poop, and bed down on the hay. It is building up my cropping field, but it is using nutrients from the grass area. I'm moving nutrients, robbing the less useful low ground and adding to the higher good farm ground.

But, if you take something away, you need to replace it. Somehow, sometime. Or suffer lowering yields someday. That could be a lifetime away.....

Not that there is anything wrong at all in what you are doing. Not at all. Just studying the topic, you have to be removing some nutrients from your soil as you sell hay?

Paul

Paul
 
So then you weren't acurate at first when you said you hauled your horse manure back on it. In order to maintain or build you woild need to add more than that. If you are adding additional nutroents from some other scource then you could well be maintaining or building fertility.
 
Due to the hill and all around my fields I would say a good bit of organic matter washes off the hills and then into the fields so all in all I do not think I lose much if any thing. I have 44 acres of land but only 13-14 or it is pasture/hay so lots of organic matter washes into the filed every time we have a good rain
 
Again as I said you would have to be here to understand things. I have 44 acres of land but only 13-14 that is fields and the rest is hill side with lots of trees so when it rains the organic matter on the hill sides wash down and into to the fields so all in all thing stay pretty much as it needs to to maintain things equal
 



"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."

-----George Bernard Shaw
 
What I find entertaining is the multitudes of abundant kooks with elitist attitudes that on one hand talk about embracing 'science' and
'evidence' in public policy.... and on the other hand condemn modern agriculture and GMO's for eternity..... all the while possessing not one
shred of evidence... indeed in the face of a mountain of evidence to the contrary.
You are right.... people are entrenched in their positions. I figure we'll sort it all out when the kooks starve themselves out of
existence.... and I don't intend that I will be one of the ones doing the starving.

Rod
 
get 'em rick .I dont trust the seed slash chemical company..........they are about the money........my opinion...........dewy
 
fascinating mind.. so to speak. You are so wrong I don't know where to begin. Obviously you have been drinking the kool aid.. of conventual agriculture.. there is nothing remotely cogent in your critique/argument. You need to get out and read more .. but then a closed/steel trap mind is in itself its own hell.
 
Per year sometime a few more some time a few less depending on how the rains etc. go. Have had up to and around 75 bales plus 100-1500 or so square bales but that was a good year when we had a good wet spring then some rain in the summer
 
(quoted from post at 15:30:23 05/20/16) So then you weren't accurate at first when you said you hauled your horse manure back on it. In order to maintain or build you would need to add more than that. If you are adding additional nutrients from some other source then you could well be maintaining or building fertility.
Click to expand...
on, it's complicated.

If soil was dead, you would be absolutely correct, but healthy soil has trillions of microorganisms per cubic foot, which as part of their living make minerals such as phosphorus, potassium, manganese, magnesium, sulfur, copper, boron, selenium, zinc, iron, carbon, besides making a raft of other organic compounds, such as humic acid available to plants. Any compound such as salt from deep water irrigation, or a chemical that impairs or reduces the activity of those microorganisms is essentially "killing" the soil, and makes the addition of outside nutrients necessary. I personally know Certified Organic farmers who who have only brought in lime for their fields. Once in 20 years. Using green manures, livestock manures (fed from their own ground), and even selling hundreds of tons of grains and produce every year, on average their production has improved year over year.

In your model, that would be impossible. In living soil, properly managed, it's just the way things work. Old and his heirs can cut hay and sell it into eternity if he so chooses, as long as he doesn't take everything off as fast as it grows, and as long as he keeps the microbiome in his soil healthy.

Another part of the equation is that native plants have adapted very nicely to thrive on the soils and in the micro-climate of a given area. At one time, there were far more varieties of wheat than gopher holes in Kansas, more varieties of corn than crossroads in Illinois. The loss of genetic diversity in the "necessity" of getting the absolute highest yield (regardless of inputs required, or nutrition at harvest, or condition of soil afterward because that can be 'fixed' with further amendments), in addition to short rotations of crops in the pursuit of the efficiency of specialization, have contributed to that loss. It also opens the door to a catastrophic crop failure, as when the Irish put their full faith and trust in essentially one very productive variety of potato and it's near cousins. Imagine if some virus shows up that specifically attacks only RR plants. It can spread wildly because they are the dominant crop types. Ouch. Can you see where a lower yield year over year may well beat a year or more of no yield, especially if your life depends on it?
 
Hogwash!!! The first rule of physics is "matter is neither created nor destroyed." Microbes do NOT "create" elements such as Potassium, Phos, Zinc etc. They can help release it from bonds with soil
particles, but they do NOT create such minerals. They function like frackers do in oil fields- they help get the hard to get stuff after the easy stuff is gone. In the end, the soil is still depleted if not
re-fertilized.

If the theory that old time practices will rejuvenate our soils with no addition help is true, why did the pioneers move west when soils became depleted in the early 1800's? Why do natives in many countries
practice "slash and burn" style ag? Because if you don't put back, you are no different than a miner or oil driller.
 
Regards Olds comments. He is correct about the soil not needing any fertilizer. We lived in Cassville Mo back in the 1940s. Every year when dad plowed we would spend a lot of time picking rocks up out of the field. The next year
there would be just as many rocks to pick up as the year before. This went on until we moved. Any land that
can grow rocks like that doesn't need any fertilizer!!
 
Yes matter is neither created or destroyed but it is broke down into other chemical bonds by many things. Like what clover does. Clover pull nitrogen out of the air and in turn put it in the soil. Any legume does that.
The reason back in the 1800s so much land was farmed out is because they did not rotate crop and or put live stock on the land to help put back what was being taken out.
Many man made fertilizers do a lot of harm while making plants grow better due to them being in the way they effect the plant and cause them to pull out more then if there was no fertilizer because they work as a catialist (sp)
 
Ya that is why there is a lot of land in Missouri that does not see much if any plowing and hasn't due to the rocks. More then 3/4 of my land if you tried to plow it you would end up with broken plows and rolled tractors. As far as the rock yep they seem to grow very well in this area
 
What you just posted is simply not true. It has been explained over and over on these forums.

One more time.........

Cross-breeding as in hybridization is NOT GMO. It is natural selection sometimes with a bit of help from growers. And, YES, it has been going on for many millennium.

GMO, on the other hand is forcibly introducing genetics from another species into the DNA of a plant or animal. Example would frog DNA introduced into a bean plant. Not natural, would NEVER have occurred in nature, and is NOT the same as cross breeding or hybridization. Even in the broadest of definitions. Sorry.
 
I am neither for nor against GMO.

What I believe is this: more testing needs to be done to insure safety. There are hundreds of examples in the past of things that were thought to be safe in their time that turned out not to be. A classic example was thalidomide. Babies were being born with many physical deformities. This was after it had been declared safe by the FDA. And, how about DDT? There are many more examples throughout time. I only say that this one should be more evaluated for long term effects. Bear in mind that at one time, tomatoes were thought to be toxic. Lead and Mercury were thought to be healthful and non toxic.

I also believe that CHOICE is a basic right in a free society. If a person chooses not to eat or use GMO products, they should have that choice. In that respect, I am in favor of labeling to indicate the presence or absence of GMO in food.

As to sustainable farming, may I point out that a plot of land is NOT a "zero sum" item. New nutrients are constantly being brought in by mother nature herself. Dust settles out of the atmosphere. Rain and snow bring in other nutrients. Then there is erosion, wind borne dust, and so on.

One thing I see that could be a problem with herbicides is that they DO have an effect on the natural order of things in the soil. Earthworms, bacteria, and microbes, all of which play a part in bringing nutrients into a usable form for plants to use are very likely being killed or at least altered.

Last thing I want to say is that organic/sustainable raising of crops is NOT a fad!! Not a fad any more than the internet, cell phones, and electronics are fads!!! For that matter, "certified organic" only means that the producer paid dues to an association for the right to use that label. They still allow pesticides and chemical fertilizers to be used when there is danger of crop loss.
 
Yes, we would like to hear your side of the story. Paul did a great job of summarizing how many of us feel... and you offered no facts to rebut, only insults. Sort of like a lot of the non-GMO crowd. So let's hear it.
 
I say the same about my swampy grass patch. But of course, I'm losing something from the fields around it then, so - I'm losing something along the way. Somewhere.

I enjoy the conversation, I'm not out to change anyone on these topics. Thanks for chatting about it.

Paul
 
I want a better world, not a worse one.

Choices, I'm glad folks have choices, I don't want to change that.

If a person makes some claims, then I would like to be some reality behind those claims, some facts.

Been farming a lot of years, seen a lot of changes, heard a lot of stories from dad and uncles on how it was way back when.

Stuff changes. I don't like every change either, but got to move forward with it all and find a way and place that works.

Good luck to you.

Paul
 
I have one area that I can dig as deep as I can which is about 18 foot with my back hoe. Does not matter what time of year it is but if I dig a hole the next day it is full of water. In that area I have yet to hit what I would call a rock. Ya a little bit of gravel but that is every where. Have always thought it to be odd but where my chicken pen is where bear dirt is well it has lots of gravel almost like the chicken have eaten the dort and left the gravel behind
 
Boy did you guys miss the point. You are not going to change anyone's mind that is already made up.

Plus for every study that says one thing another study claims something else. And all of them can be found in magazines and on the internet so they ALL must be true!

And we don't need GMO's to keep from starving. At least not anytime soon. And I have yet to see a kid born with 2 heads cause mom ate GMO food while pregnant (I know that's an exaggeration). So a lot of false claims on both sides. For what? When did the last person on here say "hey you were right about GMO's, I've changed my mind"?

FWIW: I see more and more small sustainable and organic farms making a go of it than I see failing. Been going on long enough and has grown enough that it's no longer a fad, it's a trend.

Rick
 
"
jean May 20, 2016 1:16 AM Reply

AquaBounty's genetically modified salmon has been approved for sale as food in Canada.
...
The fish grow twice as fast as conventionally farmed Atlantic salmon because of the addition of genes from a Chinook salmon and an eel known as an ocean pout.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prince-edward-island/pei-aquabounty-salmon-genetically-modified-food-1.3589613

"

Via http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/2016/05/reader-tips-3492.html#comments

You want fries with that?
 
You say Paul needs to "get out and read more". Therein lies the problem. Folks like you read something on the internet, or in some publication that you agree with, and suddenly you are experts. Paul merely told you what works for him, and you attack him. It always amazes me that the same folks who are always qouting "scientists" about global warming (or climate change or whatever the catchphrase is for that scam/power grab this week) are the first ones to put down the science behind modern agriculture! As for drinking the Kool-aid, I would suggest YOU need to lay off of it. I'd tell you that too much sugar causes diabetes, but you probably would say that was false and blame it on high fructose corn syrup!
 
Yep the organic and small sustainable markets have been growing around here, people changing there diet, way of
thinking! Have to be blind not to notice. I am not against GMOs, but have to admit that I am looking to go into grass
based Organic dairy, for many reasons, One I can get more for milk with smaller inputs even though a little less milk I
am sure. Two, my big city neighbor has several hundred acres in CRP and he said if any one is going to farm it it has
to be done Organically, and the last is because of the Organic market is growing at a very steady pace and does not
look like it is going to slow down any time soon.
 
(quoted from post at 05:49:04 05/21/16) Yep the organic and small sustainable markets have been growing around here, people changing there diet, way of
thinking! Have to be blind not to notice. I am not against GMOs, but have to admit that I am looking to go into grass
based Organic dairy, for many reasons, One I can get more for milk with smaller inputs even though a little less milk I
am sure. Two, my big city neighbor has several hundred acres in CRP and he said if any one is going to farm it it has
to be done Organically, and the last is because of the Organic market is growing at a very steady pace and does not
look like it is going to slow down any time soon.
Click to expand...

While I'm not advocating organic or sustainable farming it is a growing niche market. I think that the guys wanting to call it a fad do so trying to discredit it. I know the grocery stores we go to all have organic sections that 10 years ago they didn't have. The grocery stores are not adding an organic section because of one or 2 customers. And Pepsi, McDonalds and these other places are not going to cane sugar, grass fed beef and other things because of a fad. They are doing it because of a trend.
And that type of farming also so does a lot of direct marketing too. And trust me, I'm not saying it's going to be the next thing and it's going to replace more modern concepts. I'm just saying it's here to stay and I think it a certain extent it will grow.

But back to the original topic: Arguing about GMO's with people who have made up their minds is like putting perfume on a pig, waste of the perfume and it annoys the pig.

Rick
 
"Organic & non gmo is a fad. Once people are hungry, there is only one problem in the world. We in the USA and other countries are so spoiled we get to argue over such issues as this, as if there is any merit to it." Fascinating commentary from a true believer.

As a 75 year old farmer and the son of an organic farmer who died at 98 a couple of years ago... I resent the implication that organic farming and sustainability is but a passing fad. I also resent the implication that I'm not educated... formally and informally.. well past the bare minimum of 12 years.

The unfortunate pack rat mentality seems to apply to those who just belong to and follow the madding crowd.. believing what they are fed by Monsanto et al.. ..never being curious enough to see what's over the horizon. Man believes what he wants to believe and just ignores the rest...somehow we revel in our ignorance.. and wear it as a badge of courage.. of sorts.

We seem to have a pack rat mentality cloistering ourselves in conclaves of the like minded. However, "the cold passion for truth hunts in no pack". - Robinson Jeffers

I'd gladly engage in a dialogue with whomever on GMO/glyphosate impact on our environment and the havoc it is causing regarding animal health. Animals are sick, humans are sick... but we spend lots of money on creating the next great "elixir" .. a new pill. Instead of looking at the root cause of our collective illness...
 
(quoted from post at 05:11:24 05/21/16) You say Paul needs to "get out and read more". Therein lies the problem. Folks like you read something on the internet, or in some publication that you agree with, and suddenly you are experts. Paul merely told you what works for him, and you attack him. It always amazes me that the same folks who are always qouting "scientists" about global warming (or climate change or whatever the catchphrase is for that scam/power grab this week) are the first ones to put down the science behind modern agriculture! As for drinking the Kool-aid, I would suggest YOU need to lay off of it. I'd tell you that too much sugar causes diabetes, but you probably would say that was false and blame it on high fructose corn syrup!
Click to expand...

And what is Paul doing? The same exact thing! None of us are scientist and we are not conducting these studies. Paul is only guilty of believing one side of the issue based on the studies he wishes to believe. Others are guilty of believing the opposing studies with a different view. Where the problem comes up is the insistence of both sides to tell each other that anyone believing the opposing side is ignorant to down right dumb and that they should educate themselves. Some of us have read both sides and are sitting firmly on the fence. My biggest thing is that I don't trust the companies to put out a safe product. The auto makers, tobacco industry, pharmaceutical companies and even fast food have put stuff out there that was/is unsafe and then spent a lot of time and energy trying to hide that they did something like that. That is why I'm on the fence. I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop.


Funny how that works. Guys that yell about the evil companies and corporate greed putting complete faith in the companies selling GMO seed.

Rick
 
Again, please shows us the facts, and not the rhetoric. I'm offended you lump all those who use GMOs into some group of Monsanto worshippers. As farmers, my family uses GMOs, but also plants conventional. On top of that, we use no-till, cover crops, manure, legume credits, a 7 year crop rotation, and operate a productive dairy herd that has won numerous awards for conservation and cattle excellence. One of our cows set the the World lifetime milk production record- living to be 20.5 years old.

Please don't lecture us on organic being "better for the environment" either. Our soil, especially that no-tilled for 30 years, is very healthy- NRCS hosts soil health workshops here, earthworms and other soil life abounds, and organic matter is on the rise.

My father-in-law, on the other hand, operates a 30+ year organic farm. His soil health is on a steady decline. Fields are worked to death, fertility is declining, and profit is not far behind. The amount of diesel he burns to produce one bushel of anything is mind boggling. It is far from being a "sustainable" operation. He's full of rhetoric as well, but few facts.

So please don't class us all as sheep. Some of us want to use every tool in the tool box to decrease pesticide use (GMO), reduce or eliminate soil loss (no-till/roundup) to protect our resources for the next generation. We use many of those technologies sparingly, and because we see positives to the whole picture, and not just the bottom line. My eldest son is out cutting hay as we speak- he's generation 6 here. I want him to have a future.

And please, show us your facts. Quantify animal health declines. Quantify soil health. And quantify you full environmental footprint, including soil loss, diesel burned, etc on a per bushel or ton basis. And don't mention any consperacy theories, please.
 
Genetically modifying a plant takes place, naturally, at the level of the gene pairs.

Those changes does not carry through to the end product that we eat once an animal or human consumes it and breaks it down.

I dont think the could examine our poop and find evidence that we ate a steak that came from a steer that ate bt corn.

Gene
 
(quoted from post at 19:25:21 05/20/16) Hogwash!!! The first rule of physics is "matter is neither created nor destroyed." Microbes do NOT "create" elements such as Potassium, Phos, Zinc etc. They can help release it from bonds with soil particles, but they do NOT create such minerals. They function like frackers do in oil fields- they help get the hard to get stuff after the easy stuff is gone. In the end, the soil is still depleted if not re-fertilized.

If the theory that old time practices will rejuvenate our soils with no addition help is true, why did the pioneers move west when soils became depleted in the early 1800's? Why do natives in many countries practice "slash and burn" style ag? Because if you don't put back, you are no different than a miner or oil driller.
Click to expand...
oonie minnie, I hope I didn't imply that the microcrobes "create" nutrients. There is no 'alchemy' going on in the soil, and exactly as you say, the microbes can only make available what is already there. Fortunately for most, those 'trace' minerals are available in many (but not all) soils, and native plants are well adapted to living with what's available. I wouldn't expect Iowa corn to do well in Georgia clay, nor Saskatoon wheat to do well in Virginia, nor vise-versa in either case.

However, you did bring up a good point - that there is a difference between farming and mining (or extracting gas). Unlike getting as much gas as possible from (what microbes made) anaerobically digested carbon buried ages ago, the topsoil is alive and with proper care and feeding (green and animal manures), can sustain a moderate yield for a very, very long time. "Wearing out" a farm is the result of taking off more than the land can support long term, and/or mono or short rotation cropping. Why did "farmers" (more like miners) wear out their farms way back when? Far more often than not because economics dictated what was planted rather than what was best for the soil.

As an analogy, I have a '44 Farmall H, which after 72 years of chugging along at 'factory specs', still works quite well. I suppose I could make it produce 150hp, but it won't do that for very long. Same way with soil and crops. Our soil is heavy, tends to be wet, and in ordinary years isn't suitable for row crops. We mostly pasture critters and raise hay. I don't expect record breaking tons per acre of hay, nor animals that finish as fast as on a feedlot. When the weather cooperates, I get a bit more production every year from our fields. When the weather doesn't cooperate, it gets mowed and mulched. Is it sustainable? As long as fuel is available, I suppose. The additional labor and hay cost to do this with horses would be a real challenge.

Coonie, I deeply appreciate your 6th generation farm, that you obviously care about how you treat your soil, and that you are very thoughtful about how you pick the tools available to you to insure your continued success there. You (and some others here) are a good example.

And FTR, I'm a 4th generation farmer, though from my mother's side. Unfortunately, the family farm was lost when it had to be sold to settle a family split. Even if I could get it back, it was the last working farm in a village with house, barn and most of the open land in the village, and they years ago prohibited the keeping of livestock within village limits. The grandfathered exemption expired the day the last cow was shipped back in 1997.
 
Well said coonie. My situation is in many ways a mirror of yours. Many farms in this area have adapted no til conservation tillage, cover crops etc. Those have found substantial benefits over 20 plus years of such practices. Soil health, if measured by microbiological activity, earthworms and production has steadily increased. We are using far far less chemicals than before and the ones we do use are far less toxic. I am far happier...and safer... growing corn developed to resist insects than using soil applied insecticides to control them. We are also spending less per acre on herbicides using no til practices . If all arable land was farmed organically, there would be a need for more acres because of the lower production per unit.This land would have to come out of natural habitats, reducing native species and wildlife. How sustainable is that? Ben
 
I applaud you for your commitment to a more sustainable approach to farming/agriculture and can see that you have experienced the benefits of moving beyond those time worn approaches of the past. However, before we proceed you may want to exchange profiles so we can determine if our discussion could be productive to either party. I am primarily a grassland farmer and don't sell into the commodity marketplace. I have developed a private market for grass-fed-finished organic beef and pork. I partner with a producer of ground scratching organically raised chickens. I don't participate in any government programs, including the staying away from cost sharing stuff from my local USDA soil and water folks. I suppose some folks would call me a libertarian of sorts. Some questions concerning your understanding of organic agriculture is in order due to your comments of significance. Please provide your understanding of the following: BRIX, Bt corn toxicity in ruminants, feeding the plant vs feeding the soil agriculture, is organic farming just the absence of chemicals?, glyphosate residue/concentrations in different soil types, glyphosate and other herbicides and the endocrine disruption syndrome in humans, glyphosate and spontaneous abortion in cattle. As an organic livestock farmer I see the world differently.. perhaps much differently than you... but then maybe not. However, I have also experienced the joys of returning health to chemically abused soils and have experienced the return of gulls .. following the plow.. to land that once didn't produce enough earthworms to attract them as I tilled under composted/rotted manure and a green manure crop. I'm not anti-science. As a graduate engineer I'm well aware of science's contributions to our welfare/wellbeing as a species. However, i've been trained as a skeptic as well..maybe it was all the philosophy classes... anyway, I just don't buy all the hype, especially when the almighty dollar is at stake. Be well
 
Longmeadow, it sounds like you are doing a good job. As far as an organic system goes, to me grassland with ruminants is about the only truly sustainable systems that works.What scares me is the consumer buying organic today frequently shuns meats, especially ruminants. And any system organic or not, doesn't function well without livestock. Most of the organic vegetable cultivation I've seen involves a lot of tillage and other things I'd consider environmental compromises.

As far as your quiz goes: Brix to me is a measure of sugar content; while it may exist, Bt toxicity in ruminants is not scientifically proven (some contested data from Europe, little elsewhere that has been peer reviewed and accepted); glyphosate toxicity may or may not be an issue- depends on who you want to listen to. Glyphosate (and perhaps Monsanto) seems to be Organic's favorite ox to gore. I've often wonder who they would rail against if it wasn't glyphosate. Frankly, I wish they'd worry more about aatrazine or some of the other insecticides out there.

To me, the greater toxicity to soil life (and perhaps all life) is the plow! And our experiences here show it. But again, our soil gets breaks from herbicide due to hay in the rotation. Yet the worms, soil organic matter, and soil life never really thrived until the plow left. That change made more improvement than any other. My experience has shown the biggest detriments are tillage and anhydrous ammonia.

Your story about the gulls returning made me laugh. Ditch the plow man... nature doesn't have one. Only worms. The gulls will follow the hay mower and manure spreader if you quit plowing. I promise. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

cpratt
Clarification on Similar Threads
Replies
6
Views
348
cpratt
cpratt
J
Another Thing On Valve Jobs
2
Replies
37
Views
1K
nick831
N
cpratt
Photo upload size limit is now 7MB
Replies
1
Views
137
stevieb49829
stevieb49829
R
Buyer/Sellers - How to You Advertise on FB Marketplace??
2
Replies
30
Views
1K
Papaw8
P
D
School me on Truck Tires 10.00 20
Replies
12
Views
1K
john in la
J
Tractor Parts Tractor Manuals

We sell tractor parts! We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today.

Copyright © 1997-2024 Yesterday's Tractor Co.

All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of any part of this website, including design and content, without written permission is strictly prohibited. Trade Marks and Trade Names contained and used in this Website are those of others, and are used in this Website in a descriptive sense to refer to the products of others. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER: Tradenames and Trademarks referred to within Yesterday's Tractor Co. products and within the Yesterday's Tractor Co. websites are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Yesterday's Tractor Co., our products, or our website nor are we sponsored by them. John Deere and its logos are the registered trademarks of the John Deere Corporation. Agco, Agco Allis, White, Massey Ferguson and their logos are the registered trademarks of AGCO Corporation. Case, Case-IH, Farmall, International Harvester, New Holland and their logos are registered trademarks of CNH Global N.V.

Yesterday's Tractors - Antique Tractor Headquarters
Website Accessibility Policy

Back
Top