1. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    I am noticing a disturbing trend where these "truth" people are anything but.

    I was googling aound and ran across this:
    Haitian farmers burn 400 tons of Monsanto seeds
    http://convozine.com/conversations/10825

    So much BS.

    First of all, Monsanto has not ever commercialized their 'Terminator' technology. Secondly, no one has to use fertilize, pesticide or anything else if they use a Monsanto patented seed Yes, there is a contract that says you can't save the seed for planting. But they say:

    " The genetically-modified seeds such as those donated and later immolated, cannot be saved from year to year. Some so-called terminator seeds - the DNA of which is altered so as to not drop seed after harvest - require the farmer to buy new seeds from Monsanto the following year in a legally binding contract"


    Not true. Doesn't even make sense. Most of the seed was corn, he author thinks that the corn seed doesn't drop seed? Why would that be useful in any way to plant corn that doesn't make seed?

    There is no such stipulation in the contract. You don't have to buy any more seed if you don't want to.

    Just two bogus claims.

    But the real issue here is that 40 tons of very useful and valuable seeds needed in Haiti were destroyed by bunk.

    Very sad.

    Wish I had time to straighten this out.
    So much bunk, so little time.

    PS, on my organic farm I did try out the GMO corn which carried the bacillus thurigiensis gene which protects the corn from worms. Never in my life have I had corn so good, with no worms to dig out of the cobs. Yes, i signed a contract to not save the seed.

    But, guess what? I never planted open pollinated corn seed anyway. The hybrid corn was always better, and hybrids( not genetically modifed) don't bear true after the first generation anyways, so I would have never saved the seed anyway.

    My interest in GMO here is that the chemmies are worried that Monsanto's new aluminum toxicity seeds have something to do with their conspiracy theory. I got news for them. Almost no US farmer would ever need these seeds, mostly a tropical problem, and all that is needed in our developed country is to add lime to reduce the acidity, and aluminum isn't a problem anymore.

    That doesn't help Pedro who lives 50 miles back in the bush in Brazil, whose soil is toxic and he can't haul 1000 lbs of lime to fix the problem. Pedro has anpother solution, though. He can burn down a new patch of forest every year. The ash neutralizes the soil for a season and he can grow a crop. Next year, burn again. Get the picture?

    If the truthers got their way and stopped Monsanto or whoever from developing the aluminum resistant seeds, or tricking the residents into burning up free seeds like they did to the haitians.........

    "One small victory for bunk, one great tragedy for mankind"

    Another reason to debunk.

    I should mention that this same stuff s getting repeated all around, here at a "Christian Left" site:
    http://blog.sojo.net/2010/06/21/refusing-monsanto-preserving-haiti/
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

  3. Steve

    Steve Guest

  4. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I suspect the farmers market regulars here would have a conniption at the appearance of "organic" and "GMO" in the same sentence.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  5. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    This website is run by a woman who is a biotechnologist whose husband is an organic farmer.
    Lots of common sense on the issues here:
    http://scienceblogs.com/tomorrowstable/

    Genes are organic, well, so is gasoline, and few organic farmers use "horse"power anymore.

    I'm not certified, and grew that particular corn letting people know what it was. It was so big, so sweet, and so beautiful I really couldn't believe what had happened. In my area, the only way to escape corn worms is to plant extremely early to beat the worm season, still, even using bt organic permtted spray I always got some worms. It was useless to plant again because later in the summer more generations had passed so that the worm pressure was so great that 1/2 the ear was infested.

    What I found that year was that my first planting yielded ears about like usual, but with no worms. My second planting the ears were better, and the third planting, into July, temps got up to the 100 degree mark, and I watered like crazy. I kid you not the corn unhusked was 3" in diameter. We went up on the price to $1/ear and after a try people came back and we sold every one.

    This was actually a Syngenta product, not a monsanto.
    There seems to be such a stigma against monsanto I call it monsantodevil.
    In the end, look towards asia who are fast racing the west into biotechnology.

    Have a gander at this red fleshed GMO apple, with 5000 x more anthocyanins than the Royal gala:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2Wab851PDI

    Anthocyanins are antioxidant flavonoids which give the dark berries their color and a nutritional wallop.
    On my farm we specialized in growing colorful or varieties otherwise known for high nutrient value.

    examples:
    'dinosaur' kale- dark almost black leaves with highest lutein content of any green
    many of my customes had macular degeneration
    specialty carots with high beta carotene
    ditto above
    Special tomatoes with high lycopene
    anything else colorful.
    I even attempted to supplement my soil with selenium, but found out it was illegal, alas.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Unregistered

    Unregistered Guest

    organic?!

    Your farm isn't organic if you're growing gmo corn. Just a small point. Unless, ofcourse, you're going to make the self-defeating argument that 'everything is organic'. GMO has been pushed through the 'political process', without specific safety checks and balances, by companies like Monsanto placing their employees in positions in US govt. agencies, pushing through 'non-regulation' and then returning to their previous jobs - is that the way it should be done? Dissent from within has been met with the tactics of discredit, removal of funding etc. Dr Arpad Pusztai being a prominent example.
    Transgenic crops let loose in the wider world - without full and proper research on the possible effects - ARE contaminating other crops. No-one knows what the possible future effects of some of these projects might be - apart from, ofcourse, more profit for Monsanto et al. And that's not a theory.
    The planet is a delicately balanced, multi-faceted system - and we don't know what effects we might be having on those balances by producing gmo's (and that on top of all the other man-made pressures brought to bear on those systems) which is a science based firmly in the corporate world of profit at all cost. The track record of Monsanto needs to be taken into account here - but you seem to sail by that salient point without so much a cursory nod to the inherent danger of that alone. GMO is a good example of how government is controlled by business - corporatism, as Mussolini termed it, has a narrow remit.
    I suggest you watch a film entitled The World According to Monsanto - there are plenty of scientists to listen to, and a historical record to digest. 'Roundup' - that herbicide they spray over crops that are made to be resistant, and kills every other living plant - why don't you drink some and see how you get on? These people cannot be trusted, it is clear.
     
  7. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    First of all, even "certified organic" isn't always organic. Let me explain. Allowable applications of elemental sulfur ARE "certified organic" even though elemental sulfur is as inorganic as anything could be!

    Yet in "The World According to Unregistered", a living reproducing corn plant is not considered organic?

    Secondly, "certified organic" allows the use of bt biological warfare agents to be sprayed on crops.

    Yet in "The World According to Unregistered", the corn I planted which contains the same gene and produces the same substance is not considered organic?

    I could go on and on..... like saying that people who have different genetic skin color are not human!

    I suggest that Unregistered needs to do some more study on this subject.
    This is a starter:
    http://www.biofortified.org/2010/05/ten-bad-reasons/

    Also featured in "The World According to Unregistered":
    I disagree that the earth is delicately balanced as if it were teetering on a precipice. The history of the world shows that it is robust, reactive and resistant to stress, tolerant of change, and able to withstand and return from horrific disturbance the likes of which mere humans can hardly imagine.

    I'll agree that we don't know all the possible effects, but the evidence should be coming in very soon!

    The reason why I say this is that already nearly 75% of all US corn, soybeans and cotton are grown using GMO seed. As we say down on the farm, unregistered, it's a little late to close the gate when the horse is already in the garden.

    And lastly, "The World According to Unregistered" hasn't taken a few moments to ponder why nearly 3/4 of farmers have adopted the use of GMO crops? And mind you, many of those who haven't simply can't get the specialized varities they need as GMO, else the percentage would be higher...

    Unregistered, do you really think that the MONSANTODEVIL made them do it?
     
  8. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    "Unregsitered" here is "daveb"

    daveb, can you register, or at the very least type your name in when commenting? Thanks.

    I kind of agree that GMO is not really in the current generally accepted definitions of organic. I suspect that will change with time.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Ross Marsden

    Ross Marsden Senior Member

    I would like Dave B to explain exactly (or even vaguely) how transgenic crops contaminating other crops has the future effect of more profit for Monsanto.
    That is what he said.
     
  10. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    Yes, it kills every other plant within the crop space where it is used. Those plants are called weeds. Even if they weren't killed by "Roundup", the farmer would have killedthem some other way, so no harm done. I haven't used it on my crop space, but have on poison ivy in the woods adjacent to my house. Well, actually, I didn't buy roundup, I bought generic glyphosate.

    Oh, and by the way, the patent for "Roundup" ran out 11 years ago, so all the blame you've been placing on the poor MONDSNTODEVIL has been wasted, out of date, past expiry for many years.

    The patent on roundup ready soybeans runs out in 3 years.

    Which company will become the next demonic MONSANTODEVIL when such seeds become generic?

    What if.......gasp.......farmers start saving and planting the seeds once they become generic?

    Bottom line, this anti-gmo stuff is rapidly becoming an anchronism, they just haven't realized it yet.
     
  11. daveb

    daveb Guest

    do you work for Monsanto?

    Blimey. What a lot of nonsense. Matey, if you're chucking Glyphosate all over your farm, I think you need to check out the real meaning of organic. In fact - How dare you call yourself an organic farmer? You're nothing more than an apologist for a corrupt corporation. You should learn some facts about the pesticide you use on your 'organic' enterprise:

    Glyphosate is a non-selective systemic herbicide. It kills all plant types including grasses, perennials and woody plants. It works by being absorbed into the plant mainly though its leaves but also through soft stalk tissue. It is transported throughout the plant where it acts on various enzyme systems inhibiting amino acid metabolism. This pathway exists in higher plants and microorganisms but not in animals. Plants treated with glyphosate slowly die over a period of days or weeks, and no part survives.
    Glyphosate itself may be relatively harmless, some of the products with which it is formulated have a rather less benign reputation. Marketed formulations of glyphosate generally contain a surfactant. Some of these are serious irritants, toxic to fish, and can themselves contain contaminants which are carcinogenic to humans.
    In glyphosate formulations are ethylated amines. Polyoxy-ethyleneamine refers to a group of ethylated amine products used in glyphosate formulations. These are significantly more toxic than glyphosate. They are serious irritants of eyes, the respiratory tract and skin, and have been found to contain dioxane (not dioxin) contaminants which are suspected of being carcinogenic.

    In California, glyphosate is one of the most commonly reported causes of illness or injury to workers from pesticides. The most common complaints are eye and skin irritation. The US authorities have recommended a no re-entry period of 12 hours where glyphosate is used in agricultural or industrial situations

    The Forestry Commission (UK) believes - and they should know - that glyphosate and other herbicides commonly affect hedgerow trees causing die-back. In the US it has been suggested that herbicides, including glyphosate reduce winter hardiness in trees and their resistance to fungal disease. It has been suggested that damage to maple trees increases during the second year following treatment with glyphosate, and that clover planted 120 days following treatment showed reduced nitrogen fixation and growth. This implies that glyphosate which is bound to soil particles can remain active and may be released from soil and taken up by plants.
    The US-EPA stated that many endangered plants may be at risk from glyphosate use

    Glyphosate is sprayed indiscriminately over vast areas and will inevitably kill non-target vegetation

    The toxicity of glyphosate to mammals and birds is generally relatively low. However, its broad spectrum of herbicidal activity has led to the destruction of habitats and food sources for some birds and amphibians leading to population reductions.
    Fish and aquatic invertebrates are more sensitive to glyphosate and its formulations. Its toxicity is increased with higher water temperatures and pH. Some soil invertebrates including springtails, mites and isopods are also adversely affected by glyphosate. Of nine herbicides tested for their toxicity to soil microorganisms, glyphosate was found to be the second most toxic to a range of bacteria, fungi, actinomycetes and yeasts.

    In Australia most formulations of glyphosate have been banned from use in or near water because of their toxic effects on tadpoles and to a lesser extent on adult frogs. There is also concern about non-lethal effects of the herbicide on frogs. New non-irritant formulations such as Roundup Biactive are excluded from the ban.

    Resistance
    Crops with genetically engineered resistance to glyphosate have been developed so that weeds can be controlled in fields where the crops are growing without harming the crop plants themselves. This strategy will make farmers more dependent on particular pesticidal products and will probably lead to increased use. There is also concern that the genes which display glyphosate resistance may be transferred to non-crop species including weeds.

    Reports in professional journals indicate that resistance to glyphosate has developed in annual ryegrass in Australia. Anecdotal evidence from users in the UK suggests that similar signs of resistance in annual ryegrass and knotgrass have existed for some time.

    Conclusion
    Glyphosate can be an effective tool in weed control programmes, there is nevertheless evidence of toxic effects on humans as well as environmental toxicity, indirect environmental damage and resistance in some target weed species. Since glyphosate is being marketed as a safe and environmentally friendly product and its use is so extensive, there is a danger that damage to non-target plants including endangered species will increase. Habitat damage and destruction will occur more frequently and more instances of weed resistance will appear. Cultivation of glyphosate resistant crops will potentially exacerbate these problems.

    Instead of putting words in my mouth and lying to yourself and anyone else - why don't you change your bad practices and be honest with yourself and everyone else who might be unfortunate enough to believe what you're selling them is in any way 'organic'?
     
  12. daveb

    daveb Guest

    And...

    ...oh yes, let's not forget that this is a systemic herbicide. For anyone reading this who is not familiar with what that might mean: the herbicide is integrated into the system of the plant.
    Bearing in mind the last post: would any of you think that plants made resistant to the lethal effects of glyphosate, but still sprayed with the same, might absorb that material via the process for which it was designed?
     
  13. daveb

    daveb Guest

    ok then

    Well read. I'll leave aside the host of potential profit avenues already obvious to anyone who thinks about it in a critical way. For such a person, the answer is self evident. You choose not to see due to your bias. If I might be permitted to quote myself a tad more accurately...

    'Transgenic crops let loose in the wider world - without full and proper research on the possible effects - ARE contaminating other crops. No-one knows what the possible future effects of some of these projects might be - apart from, ofcourse, more profit for Monsanto et al'

    Note the use of the words....'the possible future effects of some of these projects'.

    Hope that helps
     
  14. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    Dave, bollocks what a goofing hoser.

    You make it sound like I've used a crop duster to spray acres of glyphosate. Here is what I use to spray some poison ivy:


    [​IMG]

    The facts are that I sprayed leaves of the poison ivy. You squirt the leaves carefully in the morning when the wind is down. Yes, I used a surfactant, the extremely dangerous sodium laureth sulfate, also known as Suave brand shampoo.

    Such a terrible thing, eh?

    They eventually died. Neither the trees nor the nearby non-poisonous herbaceous plants suffered at all. It took 3 seasons to finally get all the poison ivy out of the area. Afterwards, my wife planted several thousand beautiful daffodil bulbs, adding to the 30,000 daffodils we already have. The area will be positively stunning in a few more years.

    You may want to stop me, but here in America, I have a right to spray poison ivy in my woods, and I don't give a damn what you say about it.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  15. daveb

    daveb Guest

    oooh...

    Bit touchy are we?

    Ivy? Cut it down and dig it out instead of being a lazy git.

    Glyphosate? You buy it. You use it. You endorse it.

    You promote the use of gmo, defend Monsanto - have you seen their record, their political methods? Have you? Do you care about your environment? They don't. And in the same breath, you declare your farm organic.

    That mate, where I come from, is what is known as bollocks.

    'You may want to stop me, but here in America, I have a right to spray poison ivy in my woods, and I don't give a damn what you say about it' - Ho ho ho - great argument, I can hear the music and see the flag. Is this the same 'right' that you exercise administering 'freedom and democracy' to the rest of the globe? Take a look at yourself.
     
  16. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    Digging it out would probably disturb the forest trees and associated herbaceous plants far more than a few judicious
    squirts of glyphosate ever could.
    Feel free to dig out as much poison ivy as you like.
    Lazyness actually has nothing to do with it.
    It is poisonous.

    Your claim that I defend Monsanto simply isn't true. I haven't done business with them, either.
    I did mock you people's fixation with them, which I find humorous.

    Monsanto has no need for my defense. Like I said before, GMO products are popular because they work.
    You can't really argue farmers out of doing what is in their best interests.
    If farmers didn't find these products useful, they wouldn't be in business.
    Farmers keep them in business. Your efforts have proven to have no effect on Monsanto.
    You might reconsider whether you may be wasting your time.
     
  17. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    Doing some follow up on the haiti seed donations which were burned, I find this response from Monsanto, which I didn't see at any of the anti-Monsanto links. The 25 comments are interesting:
    http://www.monsantoblog.com/2010/05/20/five-answers-monsanto-haiti/

    Within the comments is a link to another seed donation to Malawi in Africa, where Monsanto donated 700 tonnes of corn seed which produced five times the yield of their previous varieties, and enough to feed a million people for a year.
    http://www.monsanto.com/ourcommitments/Pages/hybrid-corn-in-malawi.aspx

    Nothing said these folks did not plant their traditional varieties, and in fact the comment states that they continued planting 15% of the crop with their old open-pollinated varieties.
     
  18. lee h oswald

    lee h oswald Banned Banned

    I'd recommend to everyone in the US not to eat soy beans produced there - and take a look at alfalfa (fed to livestock)....and.....? People need to vote with their money, if they have any left. The whole market is dominated by crops designed to resist 'Round Up', the glyphosate based herbicide which is systemic - it integrates into the system of the plants sprayed. Some surfactants (additives to ensure the spray stays on the plant and doesn't just drip off) are carcinogenic to humans. That might be ok for your 'health' industry, but it ain't good for you, obviously.
     
  19. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    Actually, the surfactant I use is just ordinary bathing shampoo. Works very well, even with organic certified bioweapons insecticides like bacillus thurigiensis.

    Lee has forgotten to warn about the GMO soybeans produced by most of the world, with Brazil coming in as the overseas leader at 214,000 km2.

    Or India, where 87% of the cotton crop is GMO against boll weevils and drought.

    The total is up to 10% of all the crops in the ENTIRE WORLD are genetically modified.

    I did quite a bit of driving this summer in the southland. Never in my life have I seen better crops of cotton than this year, fields of white stretching mile after mile, bolls bursting, then roadsides paved by the windblown fluff from the cotton wagons. 93% of all US cotton is GMO, the bolls carefully protected from bollworm damage by genes taken from bacteria and inserted into the plants that chemically annihilate the bollworm that formerly had to be sprayed with harmful pesticides.

    This years GMO cotton crop is primed and ready for the highest cotton prices in 140 YEARS!

    Lee, prepare yourself to wear that scratchy woolen underwear!

    Of course, according to Lee, the US is run by Nazis, so any contact with our country is a form of fraternization with the worlds' worst regime......., even buying our seeds which produce magnificent crops!

    One has to wonder why the world's farmers keep on buying successful GMO seed varieties in ever increasing amounts, and producing ever larger crops with them, producing more food, and feeding more. Why would farmers actually do something so silly, something that lee has quite succinctly shown is the WRONG thing to do?

    Could it be that they are being forced to do so by the Monsantodevil?

    If these DEMONIC Monsantodevil seeds didn't do what they were claimed to do, would they be bought?

    Or is it simply a fact that these varieties grow more, produce more, and above all make more money for the farmer?
     
  20. Unregistered

    Unregistered Guest

    And now for a message from our sponsors...
     
  21. lee h oswald

    lee h oswald Banned Banned

    It's all about the money then. I wonder what a dollar bill tastes like? Would a fifty taste better?
     
  22. lee h oswald

    lee h oswald Banned Banned

    vote with your money people - eat something else
     
  23. Leifer

    Leifer Senior Member

    Lately, the petitioners are in full force to garner signatures for the 2012 ballot proposition:
    THE CALIFORNIA RIGHT TO KNOW GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOOD ACT

    http://www.labelgmos.org/ is the movement's frontal site.

    At the farmers' market last weekend, two tables with 4 petition boards. And at nearly every "organic" seller's stand...also petitions.
    The petitions were gathering signatures from people like they were free food samples....but seemed more delicious.
    Next, outside of a local "health market".....two more petitioneers and more clipboards, with eager signers.

    Seems like a good idea...after all, if you can't see it, or don't know what the harm is....you'd better label it to save yourself.

    "Never fear, the kids are here", to scare parents from the unknown evil that lurks on the spoon before their toddler's mouths.
    Take a gander at the "scare videos" on that frontal site....
    http://www.labelgmos.org/videos

    "Just Label It"....also suggests that an elimination of GMO products causes mysterious remedies to their health and psyche.
    There is a book too, "Label it Now".

    .and this PDF, which as I briefly scanned, contains several misinterpretations..."GM-Crops-just-the-science.pdf"
     
  24. Leifer

    Leifer Senior Member

    If many people feel that companies like "monsanto" are creating such a monopoly with vast, widespread GMO's deployed in (70%+ (??)) of all grown/purchased food, then couldn't the remaining "non-GMO" food suppliers then charge the uppermost "dollar-per-pound" ?....as they would be the only alternative to GMO infiltrated foods ?
    .....and by labeling them as such an alternative, it then becomes a convenient marketing ploy to boost sales ?
    Perhaps if GMO labeling starts, I might get into the soon-to-be-lucrative business of selling non-GMO products -- seeing that most people may be turned-off by a "+GMO label".

    OK, so that's it. I've decided GMO's are bad.....now buy my product.
     
  25. George B

    George B Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member

    I am curious. . . My experience as a child and adolesent was especially with tomatoes . . . Except for a most usual growing year . . . They were exceptionally easy to grow and produce. . . My family would grow about a half acre. . . . Since that time. . . And most recently . . . I have seldom been able to produce abundant numbers of healthy tomatoes. . . In fact, the exception has become what I experienced growing up . . . I have changed nothing from what I did growing up. . . I have heard similar statements from others as well. . . Any guess on what are the possible cause. . . .?
     
  26. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    The weather.
     
  27. Leifer

    Leifer Senior Member

    This site...
    http://www.fao.org/english/newsroom/focus/2003/gmo1.htm
    ...seems to give a fair overview of the pros and cons of bioengineering, in simple language. Balanced views on this subject are hard to come across these days.
    ~~~~~~~~~~
    BTW, I said....
    I may have initially misunderstood the gist of that video. Seems that the testimonials and "remedies" are in relation to
    other ingredient "labeling",.....and that GMO labeling would be but another type of such labeling.
    ...like allergen food labeling.... http://www.fda.gov/Food/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/ucm079311.htm

    I bet many people get confused about that (or similar) videos, thinking they are referring solely to problems associated with GMO's.
     
  28. George B

    George B Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member

    Is there evidence of a significant weather change other than a steady change (I assume a general rise) in mean temperature. . . .?
     
  29. George B

    George B Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member

    My suggestion would be an increase or spike in plant pathogens. . .


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioprecipitation
     
  30. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Sorry, I though you meant there was one particular year that they were better. Often a slight difference in average temperature or a single harsh frost can have a significant effect.

    But it's really impossible to say. This is very anecdotal evidence. To me the most likely thing is simply fond remembrance magnifying the quality of your tomatoes. Then maybe you moved, or the plot of soil is just a bit worn out.

    California tomato crops have been doing just fine. I've got friends who grow tomatoes in their back yards, and they have no problems.
     
  31. George B

    George B Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member

    Hmmmm . . . I have had the opposite experience. . . I know one truck farmer whose major crop is tomatoes. . . Last summer was a total failure. . . He replanted and still failure. . . I am sure some of this is localized coincidence but I have heard similar stories from Texas to South Carolina. . .
     
  32. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    And I don't think pseudomonas syringae actually is used in commercial cloud seeding on any significant scale. It's used in snowmaking - but that's with ground level snow guns, not cloud seeding.
     
  33. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Well, perhaps that's something to do with the drought conditions there?

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
    • Like Like x 1
  34. George B

    George B Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member

    I think there are multiple factors. . .

    1) Drought
    2) Higher peak temperatures as well as average temps during growing season
    3) Blooms of plant pathogens and accompanying insect pests
    4) Hybrid seeds and reduction of biodiversity in plant selections. . .

    This is pure speculation. . . I have no scientific data to support . . .thought you guys might have a ton of sources and opinions. . .
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  35. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    I've got a few opinions on this. A lot depends on the seed, when you plant, especially far south, and whether or not you rotate tomatoes.

    Seed- you have to choose the correct varieties, suited for your area, and not susceptible to the diseases known to be in your area. Buying pre-grown plants is a real crap-shoot. Likely, if your family planted 1/2 acre, they grew ther own. Most store-bought plants are grown by unsanitary greenhouse keepers and come pre-infected with just about every disease. They might look good while they are young, but have little longevity. Must be the correct varieties. many seedling growers opt for the cheapest seeds, often the worst most disease susceptible varieties. They don't care.
    Try going to a commercial tomato greenhouse, they'll likely have you walk through an antiseptic foot bath, because they expect their plants to last many months and a disease epidemic means they start all over afer sterilizing the greenhouse.

    Timing- If you plant late, especially further south, or in a very hot summer, you will lose out on the best of the season. Tomatoes pollinate best at temperatures below 90 degrees, and much above that the blossoms might just drop off.

    Sanitation- tomatoes are prone to quite a few bacterial and viral diseases. You'll never find commercial growers doing tomatoes year after year on the same land. Diseases build up. I know, what is a small plot-holder to do? try to at least rotate as far away from last year's solanacea family(includes peppers and eggplants & potatoes) as you can, and use as strict a sanitation process as possible, removing all solanacea family refuse and burning it and don't put it in your compost, else you'll be seeding your whole land with diseases.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  36. George B

    George B Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member

    Wow! Sounds as bad as decontaminating an operating room after it has been colonized by nosocomial organisms. . .

    What do you think about the use of CaCl solutions on the plant its self. . . This was suggested by a nursery owner I talked to. . . .

    http://www.ehow.com/info_8029648_calcium-supplements-use-tomato-plants.html
     
  37. Leifer

    Leifer Senior Member

    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  38. Steve

    Steve Active Member

    • Like Like x 1
  39. Leifer

    Leifer Senior Member

    THX for the link !
     
  40. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    George, try your best to feed the soil, but I suppose you could feed the plant if all else fails. I definitely agree with the article about calcium and/or uneven watering being the cause of blossom end rot.
    However, there is still a chance that the plat might be struggling absorbing calcium for another reason. Nematodes are a soil organism which eat roots, so I suppose there's a chance of one problem causing another....

    In my case, just evening out the watering did the trick, not too dry, not too wet. I didn't actualy have a calcium shortage. That situation can also cause plenty of losses from cracking, especially if you are vine-ripening close to perfectly ripe. I have come to understand that it might be best to pick a little early if a heavy rain is expected and many 'maters are ripe enough to burst. Get a soil test before the season starts, use their recommendations if possible, and be sure to ask them to test for aluminum, barium and strontium:)

    BTW, speak to some local growers with the same soil type you have and find out what varieties they are having luck with, but don't be afraid to strike out on your own with some tests of new varieties. "Tomato grower's supply" has hundreds of varieties to choose from.
     
    • Like Like x 3