Debunked: March against Monsanto campaign

Cairenn

Senior Member.
GM crops are NOT the only patented seeds. Her is some history of seed patents.

The Plant Patent Act of 1930 (“the PPA”)

Congress first considered expanding patent protection to include plants in 1892, but it did not enact the PPA until May 1930. Supported by celebrated plant breeders like Luther Burbank and inventors like Thomas Edison, the PPA relies on an analogy between new breeder-produced varieties and new mechanical, electrical, or chemical inventions. According to the committee reports Congress prepared in support of the PPA, “a plant discovery resulting from cultivation is unique, isolated, and is not repeated by nature, nor can it be reproduced by nature unaided by man, and such discoveries can only be made available to the public by encouraging those who own the single specimen to reproduce it asexually and thus create an adequate supply.” Of course, it’s fair to ask – given the appeal of the analogy between a newly bred plant variety and a newy invented plough or mill – why hadn’t plant breeders simply applied for regular utility patents (before Congress passed the PPA)?

Two things hampered horticulturalists from getting utility patents on new plant varieties. First, the Patent Office at the time viewed plants, even newly invented varieties that would not exist but for human intervention, as unpatentable products of nature. In other words, so far as the Patent Office was concerned, there as no difference between stumbling on a new plant in the woods and developing a new plant in a breeding program. Second, plant breeders had trouble providing written disclosures that were detailed enough to satisfy the Patent Act requirements for utility patents. (To get a utility patent, one must enable others in the relevant art to make and use the invention to which you claim an exclusive right. This disclosure, which teaches other artisans in the field, is the public’s side of patent law’s basic bargain, in exchange for which the inventor gets a time-limited right to exclude others. And this disclosure obligation continues today.)

Congress solved both of these problems with the PPA, by creating a new kind of patent called a “plant patent,” different from a utility patent. Congress expressly made new plant varieties patentable, in language now codified at 35 U.S.C. § 161: “Whoever invents or discovers and asexually reproduces any distinct and new variety of plant, including cultivated sports, mutants, hybrids, and newly found seedlings, other than a tuber propagated plant or a plant found in an uncultivated state, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.” (The courts have construed the word “plant” in the PPA to have its common meaning, rather than a strict scientific meaning. Thus, for example, the courts decided that bacteria are not eligible for plant patent protection under § 161. In re Arzberger, 112 F.2d 834 (CCPA 1940).) Congress also ensured that the disclosure requirement for a plant patent would not be so demanding as to prevent protection, in language now codified at 35 U.S.C. § 162: “No plant patent shall be declared invalid for noncompliance with [the disclosure requirement for utility patents] if the description is as complete as is reasonably possible.” A plant patent gives its owner the “the right to exclude others from asexually reproducing the plant, and from using, offering for sale, or selling the plant so reproduced, or any of its parts, throughout the United States, or from importing the plant so reproduced, or any parts thereof, into the United States.” 35 U.S.C. § 163. In short, a plant patent covers a single new plant and its asexually reproduced offspring.

The PPA “was the first legislation anywhere in the world to grant patent rights to plant breeders.” Imazio Nursery, Inc. v. Dania Greenhouses, 69 F.3d 1560, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1995). It’s important to recognize, however, that the PPA’s limit to asexually reproduced copies of the original parent plant is a serious one. PPA protection does not give the patentee the right to prevent someone from cultivating a similar variety on his or her own. Nor does it pertain to plants reproduced by seeds, or seeds themselves. Indeed, according to the congressional reports supporting the PPA, the patented plants “must be asexually reproduced in order to have their identity preserved”; “seedlings … would not preserve the character of the individual.” Requiring asexual reproduction also helps to prove that the claimaint has actually developed a new variety “by separating variations resulting from fluctuations in environmental conditions from true plant variations.” Imazio Nursery, 69 F.3d at 1566.

The Plant Variety Protection Act of 1970 (“the PVPA”)

A crop seed company, even after the PPA’s enactment, could not stop others from saving crop seed and planting in the next season. As Professor Keith Aoki (UC Davis) noted in a recent article, “[t]he seed industry wanted explicit patent rights in sexually reproduced varieties without any inquiry into seed ‘quality,’” i.e., any assessment whether the new seed variety would produce better plants than existing varieties. Weeds, Seeds & Deeds: Recent Skirmishes in the Seed Wars, 11 Cardozo J. Int’l & Comp. L. 247, 284 (2003).

Congress created a patent-like system for seed-reproduced plants in 1970, with the enactment of the PVPA. This statute is not part of the Patent Act. Instead, it creates a Plant Variety Protection Office within the Department of Agriculture. (The Patent Office is in the Department of Commerce.) A successful applicant receives a plant variety protection certificate, not a patent. Specifically, “[t]he breeder of any sexually reproduced or tuber propagated plant variety (other than fungi or bacteria) who has so reproduced the variety … shall be entitled to plant variety protection for the variety, subject to the conditions and requirements of this chapter, if the variety is” new, distinct, uniform, and stable. 7 U.S.C. § 2402(a). The certificate gives its owner the right “to exclude others from selling the variety, or offering it for sale, or reproducing it, or importing it, or exporting it, or using it in producing (as distinguished from developing) a hybrid or different variety therefrom.” 7 U.S.C. § 2483(a)(1). But this right to exclude has significant exceptions – exceptions that a crop seed company would find especially annoying. The PVPA-based power to exclude another from “reproducing” the covered seed does not bar a farmer from saving seed from one crop and planting it at a later time. 7 U.S.C. § 2543. And competing seed companies can conduct research on a PVPA-protected variety: “The use and reproduction of a protected variety for plant breeding or other bona fide research shall not constitute an infringement of the protection provided under this chapter.” 7 U.S.C. § 2544. Neither seed-saving, nor research use, would be permitted as a matter of course under the Patent Act, with a regular utility patent. As a result, utility patent protection remained desirable to the seed companies, even after Congress enacted the PVPA.
Content from External Source

http://cookingupastory.com/patent-law-how-patents-grew-over-time-to-include-living-organisms
 

Grieves

Senior Member
I debunked that patents on plants is nothing new. I think that if patents on plants were going to be bad it would have already showed. If you want to claim Mansanto's contracts are somehow going to hurt farmers or whatever else then you still need to provide evidence of this and not just speculation.
First plant patent issued in 1930
lol, man, an article I provided which I urged you to read posts and posts back covered all that, detailing the history of plant-patents pretty extensively, and how they've evolved. And here was me hoping you were actually considering what I presented to a small extent.

I'm done debating with you, your attempts to bait me into a pointless debate with you is over.
Suppose I should be grateful then. That brick wall was starting to bruise my head.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Some of us feel that folks should be PAID for the work they do. Some seem to want to let others do the work, pay them a pittance and then take that work and make money with it.

I believe that even universities are now patenting any seeds they develop. Then they will license that patent to a seed company
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
Some of us feel that folks should be PAID for the work they do. Some seem to want to let others do the work, pay them a pittance and then take that work and make money with it.

I believe that even universities are now patenting any seeds they develop. Then they will license that patent to a seed company
Looks like universities have a lot to gain even if they don't patent stuff, at the very least they get funding.
http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=181105
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
If the contracts were the problem then they would be supporting golden rice.

Golden Rice was developed using genetic modification techniques, with genes from maize and a common soil microorganism that together produce beta carotene in the rice grain. Surveys of rice varieties around the world failed to identify any varieties that contain significant amounts of beta carotene, so conventional breeding programs could not be used to develop Golden Rice.

Golden Rice was invented by Professor Ingo Potrykus, then of the Institute for Plant Sciences, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, and Professor Peter Beyer of the University of Freiburg, Germany. By 1999, Professor Potrykus and Dr. Beyer produced a prototype Golden Rice and published their landmark research in Science.

The inventors’ desire to donate Golden Rice as a gift to resource-poor farmers in developing countries led to a public-private partnership with Syngenta to help further develop Golden Rice.

Scientists at Syngenta then carried out additional laboratory, greenhouse, and field research to help raise the beta carotene levels in Golden Rice. In 2005, they developed a new version of Golden Rice that produces substantially more beta carotene than the 1999 prototype - as published in Nature Biotechnology.

Syngenta arranged royalty-free access to the patents and intellectual property, held by several biotechnology companies, for a number of key technologies used in Golden Rice. This allows IRRI and others to develop Golden Rice varieties on a non-profit basis.

The inventors, with the help of Adrian Dubock, also established the Golden Rice Humanitarian Board and the Golden Rice Network of public sector institutions through which they continue to actively work to enable the development and introduction of local Golden Rice varieties that would be well-suited to the different target countries.

IRRI is the coordinating institution for the Golden Rice Network and has been working to develop Golden Rice with national partners since 2006.

In April 2011, IRRI and national rice research institutes in Bangladesh and the Philippines began working with Helen Keller International to evaluate Golden Rice as a potential tool to help address vitamin A deficiency in those countries.
Content from External Source
But in spite of NO real association with Monsanto and that it will be royalty free, and that it will save lives, it is still being branded as a 'Frankenfood' by the anti GM crowd.

I love how folks change their story. You show them that GM is safe, then its' the contracts and Monsanto wanting to 'control the world's food supply'.
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
If the contracts were the problem then they would be supporting golden rice.

But in spite of NO real association with Monsanto and that it will be royalty free, and that it will save lives, it is still being branded as a 'Frankenfood' by the anti GM crowd.

I love how folks change their story. You show them that GM is safe, then its' the contracts and Monsanto wanting to 'control the world's food supply'.
I love how they call them frankenfood, when conventional hybrid methods still manipulate the genome of plants, except conventional methods manipulate the entire genome, often times with some very frankenfood sounding ways.
http://www.agriquest.info/index.php/methods-for-hybrid-seed-produciton

And to the last part, That is what I want to know. When did Mansanto come into the Anti-GMO scene, is there some correlation with new data being released at the time of Mansanto entering that debunked their unhealthy claims?
 

Grieves

Senior Member
And to the last part, That is what I want to know. When did Mansanto come into the Anti-GMO scene, is there some correlation with new data being released at the time of Mansanto entering that debunked their unhealthy claims?
Monsanto is the leading name in GMO agribusiness, and more or less invented the current model, so of course their name is intrinsic with most discussions on the issue. There are folks on the more Alex Jonesey side of things who are anti-GMO and don't even know what/who Monsanto is.
 

Critical Thinker

Senior Member.
The chemtrail crowd will be recruiting at LA protest against Monsanto..... capitalizing on the fact that belief on one conspiracy makes one more likely to believe in other conspiracies.


http://losangelesskywatch.org/event/la-skywatch-takes-action-against-monsanto-this-saturday


"LA SkyWatch Takes Action Against Monsanto This Saturday

20 May 2013, 7:34 pm
When: May 25, 2013 from 10:30 am to 6:00 pm


We had a lively and interesting meeting this past Saturday at the UnUrban. The Bruce Douglas video presentation was a coherent explanation of the new chemtrail delivery system: the chemtrail bombs exploding off the coasts of many of the continents on our planet. Bruce’s skill in navigating these weather sites on the Internet and then pulling out the essential data from visual weather maps, then connecting the dots for us brought a clearer awareness for those who were at the meeting. We also had the opportunity to talk live with Bruce via telephone and speakers with a question and answer session following the video presentation. Thank you for helping us have such a live q & a during our meeting. We intend to have more live q & a interviews with other important speakers in our future meetings.
This Saturday, May25th, Los Angeles SkyWatch activists will be out there again to take another action for humanity. Radio Station KPFK 90.7FM Los Angeles will be helping us in this endeavor although they have not invited us and would probably not even acknowledge our presence in this city. However, we are on the same page for this Saturday action. KPFK is sponsoring a protest against Monsanto. Monsanto is the visible corporate agent behind genetically modified seeds, another variation of a genetically engineered effort to ruin our lives.
Please join us at 10:30am this Saturday morning on the right side facing the stage. We will have a large blue banner saying, “Who’s Spraying the Sky?” + over a 100 chemtrail cards with a reference to the Los Angeles SkyWatch website. We can reach many people this way who are looking for a group that is talking about that which is not talked about. See below for details about the Saturday event.
The march and rally goes from 11am -1pm (LA SkyWatchers please try to be there at 10:30am)
Pershing Square 532 S. Olive (There is $5 parking less than 5 blocks away from the site.
Call Bob at 310-836-0257 before you come so we can have an idea about who is intending to be there
Hope to see many of you there. Thank you!"
Content from External Source
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
The chemtrail crowd will be recruiting at LA protest against Monsanto..... capitalizing on the fact that belief on one conspiracy makes one more likely to believe in other conspiracies.


http://losangelesskywatch.org/event/la-skywatch-takes-action-against-monsanto-this-saturday


"LA SkyWatch Takes Action Against Monsanto This Saturday

20 May 2013, 7:34 pm
When: May 25, 2013 from 10:30 am to 6:00 pm


We had a lively and interesting meeting this past Saturday at the UnUrban. The Bruce Douglas video presentation was a coherent explanation of the new chemtrail delivery system: the chemtrail bombs exploding off the coasts of many of the continents on our planet. Bruce’s skill in navigating these weather sites on the Internet and then pulling out the essential data from visual weather maps, then connecting the dots for us brought a clearer awareness for those who were at the meeting. We also had the opportunity to talk live with Bruce via telephone and speakers with a question and answer session following the video presentation. Thank you for helping us have such a live q & a during our meeting. We intend to have more live q & a interviews with other important speakers in our future meetings.
This Saturday, May25th, Los Angeles SkyWatch activists will be out there again to take another action for humanity. Radio Station KPFK 90.7FM Los Angeles will be helping us in this endeavor although they have not invited us and would probably not even acknowledge our presence in this city. However, we are on the same page for this Saturday action. KPFK is sponsoring a protest against Monsanto. Monsanto is the visible corporate agent behind genetically modified seeds, another variation of a genetically engineered effort to ruin our lives.
Please join us at 10:30am this Saturday morning on the right side facing the stage. We will have a large blue banner saying, “Who’s Spraying the Sky?” + over a 100 chemtrail cards with a reference to the Los Angeles SkyWatch website. We can reach many people this way who are looking for a group that is talking about that which is not talked about. See below for details about the Saturday event.
The march and rally goes from 11am -1pm (LA SkyWatchers please try to be there at 10:30am)
Pershing Square 532 S. Olive (There is $5 parking less than 5 blocks away from the site.
Call Bob at 310-836-0257 before you come so we can have an idea about who is intending to be there
Hope to see many of you there. Thank you!"
Content from External Source
Why do I get the feeling that process of connecting the dots looks something like John Madden connecting the Xs and Ox to say "HI Mom"?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Bruce Douglas has a frankly ridiculous theory based on looking at satellite images, pointing to normal weather cell formations, or even just clouds, and claiming they are "aerosol explosions".



He has this theory because there are almost no contrails over Hawaii.
 

david darkeststar

New Member
It seems the only folks really concerned about GM crops effects on bees, are folks that don't keep bees.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kxn56Dta6Q

Is that how it seems to you?

Cairenn

The linked Youtube video show a demonstration made by professional bee keepers which contradicts the suggestion made which was that "It seems the only folks really concerned about GM crops effects on bees, are folks that don't keep bees"
 
Last edited by a moderator:

david darkeststar

New Member
I totally agree. We have a real dilemma in the UK as for years the government has provided grants for farmers to go organic. Off the top of my head I would say that organic farms have increased 4 or 5 fold in the past 20 years but the yields they produce are 30 or 40% less. Now given that at best we can produce around 60% of our own food organic appears not to give us food security (off topic but post WWII we had rationing for some products into the '50's, so my parents would moan about). GM would give us the option of a greater self reliance but people are really resistant. Here is a link for the latest, public funded trial for a GM wheat crop that would be resistant to aphids (wheat is our main crop, and the main user of pesticides). Note the comment from someone in the US at the bottom. http://www.rothamsted.ac.uk/Content.php?Section=AphidWheat
GMO's are toxic. Please don't allow this to happen in the UK. I live in the US and have been sick from eating Genetically Modified Wheat for years. I thought I had a gluten allergies all of the sudden but that isn't the case at all. I have been sick for years now with kidney pains and intestinal pains along with bloating and weight gain. That is what GMO's do to you. I recently visited the UK and was happy to realize finally that it wasn't an allergy but that it was the GMO's that were causing my symptoms. I didn't realize this until I was able to eat bread without GMO's. I would hate for this to happen out here and for people to be ill because of this. Please look up Mark Hyman's article on GMO's through the huffingtonpost website. Also for history on GMO production you can find it on Wikipedia about Norman Borlaug and his creation of Dwarf Wheat
Content from External Source

Regarding your comment about killing aphids with a GM wheat crop.
Would it not make more sense to set up an industry which breeds ladybirds for that?
In fact they already have, you personally can purchase predatory insects online but we would apparently rather GM everything instead.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

David Fraser

Senior Member.
@ Biggerdave

Regarding your comment about killing aphids with a GM wheat crop.
Would it not make more sense to set up an industry which breeds ladybirds for that?
In fact they already have, you personally can purchase predatory insects online but we would apparently rather GM everything instead.

Increasing the predator population is not always a good thing. I remember the hot summer of 1976 and there was quite literally a plague of ladybirds. After they finished off the aphids they took to biting people. Afterwards there seemed to be a big increase in the blackbird population in my area.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
@ Biggerdave

Regarding your comment about killing aphids with a GM wheat crop.
Would it not make more sense to set up an industry which breeds ladybirds for that?
In fact they already have, you personally can purchase predatory insects online but we would apparently rather GM everything instead.
Farmers need to take a lot of things into account. The extra cost of buying GM seeds that will resist pests or the cost of buying predatory insects? How much extra time farmers need to spend using insects to control pests. Also have to take into account what will be more effective. If the lady bugs don't help then the farmers yield can be affected and they are out more money.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

david darkeststar

New Member
Increasing the predator population is not always a good thing. I remember the hot summer of 1976 and there was quite literally a plague of ladybirds. After they finished off the aphids they took to biting people. Afterwards there seemed to be a big increase in the blackbird population in my area.

Nature deals with the situation of population explosions quite adequately. When the food source runs out the organisms numbers drop back to a level which can be sustained.
In fact it's that very argument which companies are using to convince us that GM's are a good thing because they say that the only way we will be able to sustain our own population is to increase the food yield via genetic manipulation.
I would suggest that it is better to use predators because the only affect that a ladybird will have on a plant is to kill the aphids and allow it to thrive, thus increasing it's yield because it isn't having it's sap stolen.
Incidentally I remember 1976 very well. The best summer ever. I don't remember being bitten by ladybirds though and I was always outside.

Another thought. If GM crops are going to produce more bountyful crops than we could possibly imagine then why is population control on the table?
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
Nature deals with the situation of population explosions quite adequately. When the food source runs out the organisms numbers drop back to a level which can be sustained.
In fact it's that very argument which companies are using to convince us that GM's are a good thing because they say that the only way we will be able to sustain our own population is to increase the food yield via genetic manipulation.
I would suggest that it is better to use predators because the only affect that a ladybird will have on a plant is to kill the aphids and allow it to thrive, thus increasing it's yield because it isn't having it's sap stolen.
Incidentally I remember 1976 very well. The best summer ever. I don't remember being bitten by ladybirds though and I was always outside.

Another thought. If GM crops are going to produce more bountyful crops than we could possibly imagine then why is population control on the table?

You are assuming that predatory insect will kill every pest. Even if they did eventually kill every pest, it takes time to do so, in that time yield is lost due to pests who haven't been killed are still eating. GM crops resistant to pests will cause the pest to first stop eating and then kill it. It is effective at killing them more rapidly and thoroughly.

The only people who talk about population control are fearmongers.
 

david darkeststar

New Member
Farmers need to take a lot of things into account. The extra cost of buying GM seeds that will resist pests or the cost of buying predatory insects? How much extra time farmers need to spend using insects to control pests. Also have to take into account what will be more effective. If the lady bugs don't help then the farmers yield can be affected and they are out more money.

If there is a cost to combat pests then that cost as you said is incurred regardless of which route you take. I personally would rather choose the path which will have the least impact.
If there are aphids and ladybirds then there won't be aphids around for long will there? Eating aphids is what ladybirds do. When there are no aphids left the ladybirds will move on. Simple as that.
The cost in time would be at worst no different either way. Whether it's sprays and chemicals or predatory insects someone has to go put them where they think they need to be don't they?
We learn by experience so the use of predators would improve year on year if we adopted it full time. Any mistakes would of course be costly but unlike GMO's the price for our mistakes using predators would be obvious to this generation not the next.
 

Trigger Hippie

Senior Member.
Increasing the predator population is not always a good thing. I remember the hot summer of 1976 and there was quite literally a plague of ladybirds. After they finished off the aphids they took to biting people.

We should design genetically modified ladybugs that don't bite people after they finish decimating the aphid population.:)
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
If there is a cost to combat pests then that cost as you said is incurred regardless of which route you take. I personally would rather choose the path which will have the least impact.
If there are aphids and ladybirds then there won't be aphids around for long will there? Eating aphids is what ladybirds do. When there are no aphids left the ladybirds will move on. Simple as that.
The cost in time would be at worst no different either way. Whether it's sprays and chemicals or predatory insects someone has to go put them where they think they need to be don't they?
We learn by experience so the use of predators would improve year on year if we adopted it full time. Any mistakes would of course be costly but unlike GMO's the price for our mistakes using predators would be obvious to this generation not the next.
By planting pests resistant crops the farmer spends less time worrying about pests. He spends less time spraying pesticides. He doesn't need to spend as much time to check if he has pests, to put more lady bugs out, all of those take fuel and time. If it were so simple then that is what farmers would be doing it. Organic farmers use Bt as pesticide too.
Lady bugs are not a simple fix to a very complex process.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
A you tube of a single protest is not evidence for anything other than that group of protestors.

CDC is a problem in countries where there are NOT and have never been any GM crops. It is rarely a problem in wild hives or even urban hives--urban hives are exposed to a lot of chemicals.

I am sure that some pesticides, if used wrong can kill bees. But not GM crops.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
David are you a farmer? or do you have close friends or family that are? If so, what type of crops and acreage?

What works fine on a small truck garden doesn't work as well in huge fields.
 

david darkeststar

New Member
By planting pests resistant crops the farmer spends less time worrying about pests. He spends less time spraying pesticides. He doesn't need to spend as much time to check if he has pests, to put more lady bugs out, all of those take fuel and time. If it were so simple then that is what farmers would be doing it. Organic farmers use Bt as pesticide too.
Lady bugs are not a simple fix to a very complex process.

Bacillus thuringiensis? A bug. Isn't that essentially the same technique that I'm advocating? Using natural processes which are tried and tested by billions of years of evolution. Using insect predators might be a chore but it works and the consequences are no risk to anyone except the aphids. You just can't put a patent on it. Yet.
All your objections are based fundamentally on money aren't they? Money being the fundamental problem. Unless you have enough of it of course and who in the world has enough? You know the answer to that. It isn't us is it?
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
There seem to be two opposed claims - one that GM crops result in more spraying of pesticide as the farmer doesn't have to worry about the crop being poisoned so can be more indiscriminate with the pesticide use - and the other is that GM crops need to be sprayed less as they discourage pests in the first place. Are there two different types that people are talking about - pesticide resistant GM crops and pest resistant GM crops?
Can this issue be clarified?
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
Bacillus thuringiensis? A bug. Isn't that essentially the same technique that I'm advocating? Using natural processes which are tried and tested by billions of years of evolution. Using insect predators might be a chore but it works and the consequences are no risk to anyone except the aphids. You just can't put a patent on it. Yet.
All your objections are based fundamentally on money aren't they? Money being the fundamental problem. Unless you have enough of it of course and who in the world has enough? You know the answer to that. It isn't us is it?
What are you advocating exactly? Could you be specific so we can try and address your concerns.
Are you suggesting that a farmer shouldn't invest his money wisely so that he can make a profit for his family? 98% of farms in America are family onwned.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/eib-economic-information-bulletin/eib24.aspx#.UZ_0pUCTjAo
U.S. farms are diverse, ranging from small retirement and residential farms to enterprises with annual sales in the millions. Nevertheless, most U.S. farms—98 percent in 2004—are family farms. Even the largest farms tend to be family farms. Large-scale family farms and nonfamily farms account for 10 percent of U.S farms, but 75 percent of the value of production. In contrast, small family farms make up most of the U.S. farm count, produce a modest share of farm output, and receive substantial off-farm income. Many farm households have a large net worth, reflecting the land-intensive nature of farming.
Content from External Source
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
There seem to be two opposed claims - one that GM crops result in more spraying of pesticide as the farmer doesn't have to worry about the crop being poisoned so can be more indiscriminate with the pesticide use - and the other is that GM crops need to be sprayed less as they discourage pests in the first place. Are there two different types that people are talking about - pesticide resistant GM crops and pest resistant GM crops?
Can this issue be clarified?
There are pests resistant Bt crops that typically need no or very little pesticide spraying. Then there is RR crops that are resistant to roundup herbicide. The later sprays herbicide that the crop is resistant to. A from of indiscriminate spraying. I believe pesticides are still sprayed for the RR crops. Not sure if there are any RR Bt crops. Both can save farmers time and fuel.
 

david darkeststar

New Member
I believe Bill Gates advocates reducing the population growth rate but some people take that to mean he advocates depopulation.

Yes, some people do twist words don't they but that isn't what I said is it? In fact I sometimes have a tendency to castigate people for going down that road myself. As we should. I try to be careful with my words and make sure that I deal with factual information. The truth shall set yee free and all that.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Yes, some people do twist words don't they but that isn't what I said is it? In fact I sometimes have a tendency to castigate people for going down that road myself. As we should. I try to be careful with my words and make sure that I deal with factual information. The truth shall set yee free and all that.

Then can you explain what you meant by your comment about Bill Gates and depopulation?
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
I would still like to know if you are a farmer or if know know one closely.

It helps to know the depth of your knowledge of the field.
 

HappyMonday

Moderator
Bacillus thuringiensis? A bug. Isn't that essentially the same technique that I'm advocating? Using natural processes which are tried and tested by billions of years of evolution.

Processes which evolved to suit conditions prior to the interference from massive numbers of humans.

How is it in keeping with a natural process to release artificially large numbers of ladybirds to deal with large numbers of aphids on large fields of crops which wouldn't exist without unnatural intervention of industrialised methods of food production?
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
Found this on aphids. Doesn't say anything about damage to wheat, or even corn or soy. I think there are GM sugar beets. Might not be a very thorough list either.
http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/PESTNOTES/pn7404.html#DAMAGE
Aphids may transmit viruses from plant to plant on certain vegetable and ornamental plants. Squashes, cucumbers, pumpkins, melons, beans, potatoes, lettuces, beets, chards, and bok choy are crops that often have aphid-transmitted viruses associated with them.
Content from External Source

Didn't pay attention to the pretty pictures at first. There seems to be a Russian wheat aphid.
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
Found this on aphids. Doesn't say anything about damage to wheat, or even corn or soy. I think there are GM sugar beets. Might not be a very thorough list either.
http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/PESTNOTES/pn7404.html#DAMAGE
Aphids may transmit viruses from plant to plant on certain vegetable and ornamental plants. Squashes, cucumbers, pumpkins, melons, beans, potatoes, lettuces, beets, chards, and bok choy are crops that often have aphid-transmitted viruses associated with them.
Content from External Source

Didn't pay attention to the pretty pictures at first. There seems to be a Russian wheat aphid.

Try this link :)

http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/r730300611.html
 
Top