# Jerry Hayes/Monsanto



## Gypsi

I think this could be a good thing. If Jerry Hayes is smart. Because someone has to teach Monsanto the ins and outs of bees.


----------



## jeremynj

Nothing dealing with monsanto is a good thing.


----------



## Gypsi

Anything that puts the brakes on monsanto's "progress" is a good thing. Personally I have a few suggestions, but since they own the FDA I am not likely to be heard.


----------



## sqkcrk

A good thing for Jerry, I imagine. FL's lose, I would think. Suppose he will still write for ABJ"s Classroom?

If it is true, Best wishes Jerry. Make Jim proud.


----------



## jim lyon

Why do I feel like I am in a crowded room and someone just yelled fire?


----------



## sqkcrk

I don't know. Why? Do you feel like Jerry has gone over to the enemy?


----------



## AmericasBeekeeper

Really? Jerry just wrote me from his "freshfromflorida" address.


----------



## Barry

I'm sure it's just Monsanto's "leak" to get more discussion going here. Monsanto hasn't been mentioned here for a couple of weeks now.


----------



## sqkcrk

Write him back and find out what you can. Inquiring minds want to know.


----------



## Gypsi

Mark,

While I like your line, I take the long view. Many swarms will be lost. Some will cross breed with hardier feral species, and in the long run, those feral bees may outrun government controls, pesticides and the interference of humans. We can only hope for the best. 

Gypsi


----------



## sqkcrk

Okay. Thanks.


----------



## acbz

Amazing how fast this beekeeping grapevine works. I might add that the commercial beekeeper in question heard it from another commercial beekeeper in Florida. Who knows what the whole story is. I played the game "telephone" when I was a kid. I doubt that Jerry would switch teams on us. I'd view it as having one of our guys on the "inside".


----------



## sqkcrk

So what's the real story? Did he or didn't he and what is your source?


----------



## wildbranch2007

acbz said:


> I'd view it as having one of our guys on the "inside".


if true would make an expert witness I would think.


----------



## Beeslave

ACBZ-I trust your word. Since we both know my source so well I'm sure I know where his info came from. Fill me in when you have time.


----------



## Ted Kretschmann

I am going to Florida tomorrow to pick up supplies at the Dadant branch at High Springs. Jerry Latiner, branch manager and a good beekeeper, is the information clearing house in the Southeast about beekeeping. If it is true, then he will have heard it and can comfirm. I have talk to Mr. Latiner over the past few weeks off and on placing my order. If something as big as Mr. Hayes quitting his position in Florida had happened, Mr. Latiner would have told me. I will know more on Wednesday. TED


----------



## WLC

http://beeologics.info/reprints/PLoS-Hunter_et_al._Large-Scale_Field_Application-Dec_2010.pdf

Jerry Hayes is one of the authors of the 'successful' RNAi field trial study.

Joining the Monsanto team formally suggests to me that the FDA has approved RNAi for treating Honeybees.

You can soon feed dsRNA to your bees in FDA approved products.

It's just a matter of time before many of the others involved also formally join Monsanto as well.

In my opinion, it won't be long before Monsanto controls pollination here in the U.S. . 

They're picking the 'low hanging fruit'.


----------



## sqkcrk

An interesting leap in logic, since we don't know if Jerry has been hired by Monsanto. How do you make that assumption?


----------



## WLC

If I were Jerry, I would have made the transition at least a year or two ago.

It takes time to prepare for the 'conquest' of Amaerican Beekeepers by Monsanto.


----------



## AmericasBeekeeper

Jerry wrote, Yes. Working with RNAi for control of honey bee pests, parasites and diseases. Merry Christmas. Jerry


----------



## sqkcrk

So, working w/ Monsanto, but not leaving FL Dept of Ag?

Jeff Pettis and Dennis van Engelsdorp are co-authors of that paper too WC. Are they working for Monsanto too?


----------



## suttonbeeman

Yep its true. Jerry turned in his resignation Thursday afternoon. He will be going to Missouri to work. I had a phone call about 6 Thursday night. Done deal


----------



## sqkcrk

I don't know Jerry as well as others do, but, what I do know of him, I believe he will be serving our industry as well as he will Monsanto. He is a person of integrity, imo. Let's wish him well and hope for the best for all.


----------



## Barry Digman

Monsanto is Monsanto. They're a corporation whose first (and only) duty is to their stockholders. That is what will determine what ANY employee will be focused on when they're working there. That's not a value judgement, it's just the way it works.


----------



## beemandan

The very notion that everyone who works for Monsanto, Bayer, big pharma, big oil…etc are all environmentally unconcerned and corrupt is ridiculous. These are our neighbors, and often family or friends. 
Best to Jerry Hayes.


----------



## Barry Digman

beemandan said:


> Best to Jerry Hayes.


Indeed. It's really no one else's business.


----------



## Acebird

Barry Digman said:


> Monsanto is Monsanto..., it's just the way it works.


No different than any other mega corporation. I don't think it is any secrete that Monsanto wants to replace the honeybee as the major pollinator for food products. They certainly are out to squash the organic farmer world wide because to do it locally would be ineffective. It will be interesting when the day comes that natural seeds are outlawed. It is not hard to find seeds to grow your own marijuana so I can't see how a government will prevent another boot legged seed from finding its way to its citizens. A new wave of crime...
As far as Jerry is concerned, I don't know him and it wouldn't matter if I did. Money is power and very rarely will it not have an influence on what a person does or does not do.


----------



## lazy shooter

All of Monsanto's employees are governed by federal regulating agencies such as OSHA and the USEPA. They are also confined to Monsanto employee agreements. Within all these regulations, the company expects to make a profit. Public held corporations exist to make profits for their stock holders. 

I don't know Jerry Hayes from Adam Allfox, but he will have to fit the Monsanto mold. From all of the accolades this fellow has received on this forum, I would assume he is a man of high integrity. I don't think he will fit into the Luddite category. Like an above poster, the Monsanto employees are our friends, neighbors, and relatives, and I do not believe they are all bad actors.


----------



## AstroBee

Barry Digman said:


> Monsanto is Monsanto. They're a corporation whose first (and only) duty is to their stockholders. That is what will determine what ANY employee will be focused on when they're working there. That's not a value judgement, it's just the way it works.


Sorry, but I must disagree. Almost any company has "duties" to many, not simply their stockholders. And thats speaking as a stockholder whose been thrown out with the bathwater by one very large corporation. There lots of shady dealings going on behind the scenes and if it happens make the stockholders happy then great, if not.. oh well. So, it just happens that ONE of their duties is to their stockholders, and not always their primary goal. This becomes more obvious when we're talking multi-national companies that can impact the environment. 

I've communicated with Jerry on a few occasions and found him as someone of high integrity and does not appear to the "trained minion" type whose only concern will be Monsanto's bottom line.


----------



## snl

From Ace
"It is not hard to find seeds to grow your own marijuana so I can't see how a government will prevent another boot legged seed from finding its way to its citizens."

Hey Ace, just how many MJ plants do you grow?


----------



## Gypsi

Talk about a LOADED question...

opcorn:


----------



## sqkcrk

Jerry and I have "talked" and he hopes that we can give this new relationship a chance.

"Monsanto purchased Beeologics and wanted someone who had knowledge of RNAi, had been a champion for the industry and beekeepers, had collaborative relationships w/ Univ. and USDA and was known in the industry as a straight shooter."

I believe that Jerry's motivations are sincerely w/ what is best for bees and beekeepers in mind. I hope this puts any concerns to rest.


----------



## Acebird

snl said:


> Hey Ace, just how many MJ plants do you grow?


How many do you want?


----------



## Gypsi

It is his relationship. Or is the question whether his "voice" will be taken seriously now that he's working for Monsanto?



sqkcrk said:


> Jerry and I have "talked" and he hopes that we can give this new relationship a chance.
> 
> "Monsanto purchased Beeologics and wanted someone who had knowledge of RNAi, had been a champion for the industry and beekeepers, had collaborative relationships w/ Univ. and USDA and was known in the industry as a straight shooter."
> 
> I believe that Jerry's motivations are sincerely w/ what is best for bees and beekeepers in mind. I hope this puts any concerns to rest.


----------



## WLC

You should read, "The World According to Monsanto" by Marie-Monique Robin.

Then you'll understand why you should be concerned.


----------



## Gypsi

I'm concerned about Monsanto, I read OCA's newsletter, etc. But I've been stock-piling non-GMO seeds, and I'll be catching as many feral bees as I can and trying to make something of them. I'm hoping to have enough seed, land and water to support myself and family as this potential stuff hits the fan. Which it's gonna.


----------



## sqkcrk

Gypsi said:


> Or is the question whether his "voice" will be taken seriously now that he's working for Monsanto?


Will you take his voice seriously? Or will you write him off because he works for Monsanto? Have you ever taken him seriously so far?


----------



## Gypsi

I don't know who he is. Never read anything he wrote. Who do I take seriously? Michael Palmer, Michael Bush, Charlie B, OD Frank. and you now and then. 

I weigh a person's words and give them a value accordingly - does it change around a lot, is this experience or random book-learning, is the person's suggestion putting me at risk of a great loss, is he judgmental (aka his way is the ONLY way, yelling at me - usually a surefired path to trouble.) Since I don't take ABJ, and I wouldn't have time to read it probably, I don't know who he is. I distrust Monsanto, and certainly weigh their words against their actions. Doesn't necessarily reflect on him. 

Gypsi


----------



## sqkcrk

Gypsi,
I know you are just a half year beginner, but you need to broaden your knowledge base. Jerry Hayes has been around many years. He studied under Dr. Jim Tew of Ohio State Universities Agricultural Institute, Wooster, OH. He went to work for Dadant and Sons and became the answerman of The Classroom Section of the magazine, American Bee Journal. 

You can probably find back issues available thru members in your local bee club. You have time to spend here on beesource, you aught to have some time for reading other things too.

After a time w/ Dadant, Jerry became FL State Apiarist. He still answers The Classroom Questions, speaks at bee meetings and is well known and well respected in the beekeeping industry.

If there is anyone suited for a job like this one, it's Jerry.


----------



## jim lyon

Would I be correct in assuming that any critic of Monsanto on here never spent an hour much less a good part of ones summer pulling velvetleaf, pigweed, ****leburs and a host of various thistles (and you kids make sure you cut the heads off those thistles too don't just lay them down) from soybean fields? After a few days of that I was never so glad to see an extracting room. When I started hearing that farmers were spraying and the days of getting up at 5am to walk beans may be over my very first thought was "but are you absolutely sure that its environmentally responsible?". FWIW that's the world according to Jim.


----------



## Gypsi

Mark,

the first thing I have to do is pay my mortgage. I have a great fish book, it is the bible of fish books it covers every disease affecting tropical fish for the last 200 years. And it doesn't cover enteric septicemia or the new strains of ich. My fish pay my bills. So what do I read, the epic tome, or the current stuff that I pick up on the net. 

I'm only online this week because I have a serious website overhaul in progress, much-needed. I write my html the old fashioned way, in Wordpad. For me it's faster than an editor. 

When the bees start paying my bills, I might have more leisure for reading. I own literally 1000's of books. I don't know what year it will be when I give myself permission to read something for fun again. Much less the whole background of beekeeping. I do own Beekeeping for Dummies. Haven't read a page of it, but I have it. 

I'll take your word that he is suited. Since I presently don't read his stuff, it isn't going to make much difference who he works for. As for local opinions, I joined my local beeclub. Because the gal I bought my bees from didn't know what the heck she was doing. And I followed her advice. So much for a mentor.


And as for ****lebur, have you ever dug out goatshead, aka sandspur? Makes pigweed a piece of cake. I've been digging weeds for 30 years, and using compost to make it easier for 25. But I don't do large acreage. To each their own. 
Gypsi


----------



## jim lyon

:scratch:


----------



## lazy shooter

I have worked months and months for Monsanto over the past 17 years. They have the best safety program that I have been associated with, and I have consulted for most of the big oil companies and their service companies. The safety program tells me a lot about a company. If a company is willing to spend time and money, but I repeat myself, on safety I am impressed.

Monsanto always requires all drilling activities to be the closed loop system. That means that when drilling several thousand feet deep on their projects, and they do not want one drop of drip on their location. In my experience they are extremely good stewards of the land. 

Corporations are supposed to work within the laws of the land. I have drilled five deep wells on Monsanto property and they were always within the laws and regulations of all concerned agencies.

It seems that some of our posters have an altruistic view of corporations. Corporations pay large salaries and bonuses CEOs and their lieutenants so long as there are profits to distribute. Don’t be misled, corporations exist to make profits. 

I don't know Monsanto's history, but assuming they were bad actors at one time, could they have changed their modus operandi. I think people change, and I think companies change. I think everything changes. What's exactly the same?


----------



## valleyman

Let me play the devils advocate here. I am not convinced that Monsanto is the monster that some have made them out to be. Now, having opened my mouth and inserted foot, let me give my entire view. In any Corporation there are good managers and not so good managers. Sometimes they let greed cloud out common sense business practices. It can come and go at any company with the change of management. Even low levels of management can not be following the intended desire of upper management. So I think Jerry Hayes has a much better idea of what is going on at Monsanto than anyone posting here. So at very best all we can do is hope he can get thru to someone in higher management and convince them that it is not in Monsanto best interest (financial health) in the long run to destroy the bees as some have suggested they want to do. But I have always said that when in Rome you must do as the Romans do if you are going to survive in the long haul. I do not know Jerry Hayes, but while I believe he will do all he can to protect the bees in the end he will do what Monsanto wants him to. Money talks and you know what walks!!


----------



## WLC

There are plenty of problems with the promises made by Monsanto for their products.

Just read, "The World According to Monsanto" by Robin.

Superweeds, genetic contamination of seed stocks, profit losses, loss of export markets, loss of pest resistance, loss of biodiversity, lawsuits...

I think that you're going to see something similar happen to the Honeybee, with American Beekeepers going through yet another a 'living nightmare', this time at Monsanto's hands.

I would use much more 'colorful language' to describe someone who is about to deliver me into the hands of a ruthless opponent.

'Sellout' just isn't strong enough a word for it.


----------



## lazy shooter

There have been several of our posters that seem to well acquainted with Jerry Hayes and his work. All of those people are very complimentary of Jerry as a man and as a professional beekeeper. He seems like the kind of guy that will help Monsanto and serve our intereste at the same time. If one takes the positition that Monsanto is pure evil, then the hiring of people like Jerry will dilute their evil. It's a good thing for all concerned.


----------



## beefarmer

Someone needs to run monsanto out of bees before they get in !!!!! What's up their sleeves, charging everyone a tech. fee because they were exposed to gmo plants, or your not allowed to make your own splits because that would be the equivalant of farmers saving gmo seed for planting. monsanto needs to stay out of the beekeeping world.


----------



## Acebird

sqkcrk said:


> If there is anyone suited for a job like this one, it's Jerry.


Mark, why do you think Monsanto hired Jerry? Do they or DID they have the same concerns? As a friendly suggestion you should read more about that in your spare time.


----------



## VeggieGardener

lazy shooter said:


> I don't know Monsanto's history, but assuming they were bad actors at one time, could they have changed their modus operandi. I think people change, and I think companies change. I think everything changes. What's exactly the same?


That's just it, there is a lot of documented history associated with Monsanto that has created those feelings of distrust that many have towards the company.

What's exactly the same? How about Monsanto's desire to gain dominance over the seed supply through the use of GMO's, seed patents, the purchase of other seed houses, and then dropping or abandoning open pollinated seed varieties that can not be legally controlled or restricted. What's to make one think that their goals would be any different if they were in a position to control bees or plant pollination in any degree?

You can argue that that's how all businesses operate but who wants a corporation wielding control and ownership of something as essential to us as the ability to plant or save a seed, or as routine as how to care for our bees? Some of their past practices seem to go far beyond the interest of making "improvements" and are monopolistic.


----------



## sqkcrk

Acebird said:


> Mark, why do you think Monsanto hired Jerry? Do they or DID they have the same concerns? As a friendly suggestion you should read more about that in your spare time.


See Post #33 in this Thread and you will see what Monsanto was looking for. The why may be two fold, to help their image and to help beekeepers, which would help their image. Not being a spokesman for Monsanto, I have no real idea of their motivation other than what I have heard from Jerry.

Is there something specific you are refering me to?


----------



## TWall

jim lyon said:


> Would I be correct in assuming that any critic of Monsanto on here never spent an hour much less a good part of ones summer pulling velvetleaf, pigweed, ****leburs and a host of various thistles (and you kids make sure you cut the heads off those thistles too don't just lay them down) from soybean fields?


Jim,

I remember those days! Only it was certified seed soybean and wheat fields. Volunteer corn plants in a soybean field could result in the loss of certification. Mustard in wheat was loads of fun.

As an undergrad I had two acres of PYO strawberries. Roundup was a great tool for spot treatment of weeds. Customers just won't bushwhack through thistles to find strawberries around their ankles!

Everyone may not like Monsanto or other large corporations. But, they are a part of the world we live in. I'd trade varroa for Monsanto any day!

Tom


----------



## Acebird

sqkcrk said:


> Is there something specific you are refering me to?


No Mark, you are hearing some of the concerns from other people that I am already aware of. It doesn't do you any good for me to tell you what my concerns are.

A large corporation is like a flywheel. It is physically impossible for it to change directions because the whole upper level management would have to change at once. The only way to change Monsanto is to break it up like the AT&T phone company in an anti trust lawsuit. To think that a single individual would have any influence on the direction a mega corp would take is really like putting your head in the sand. It is not to big to fail it is too big to change. That is what we missed in the last recession we haven't got out of yet.
But if you believe in hope...


----------



## Gord

My bet is that Monsanto will patent a gene that gets inserted into the bees.
They'll let it out into the environment, then sue any beekeeper that has that gene in their bees.
It's what they do, and it's not that hard.


----------



## Acebird

TWall said:


> Customers just won't bushwhack through thistles to find strawberries around their ankles!


I don't know what you are doing wrong but we picked 25 quarts of strawberries this year from an organic farmer who doesn't use Roundup. I didn't see any thistle. My only complaint was kneeling on sharp rocks about the size of your fists. The strawberry jam is to die for which is why I suffered through kneeling on rocks.

They sell out every year so this nonsense about needing poisons doesn't make sense to me.


----------



## TWall

Acebird said:


> I don't know what you are doing wrong but we picked 25 quarts of strawberries this year from an organic farmer who doesn't use Roundup. I didn't see any thistle. My only complaint was kneeling on sharp rocks about the size of your fists. The strawberry jam is to die for which is why I suffered through kneeling on rocks.
> 
> They sell out every year so this nonsense about needing poisons doesn't make sense to me.


Ace,

I'm not sure why you thought I was doing something wrong? Maybe the fact that I used Roundup to kill a weed that would have prevented my customers from picking strawberries? It was only applied to the weeds, not the strawberries. If you had come to my farm you would not have complained about the sharp rocks. But, I can't give Monsanto or Roundup the credit for no rocks. Four different glaciers tended to pulverize the rocks to dust, greatly improving with soil fertility.

I sold out every year also. My customers appreciated weed-free fields. This was long before organic farming became as popular as it is today. Monsanto was a much smaller company.

Your reference to using poisons doesn't make sense to me. What are you talking about? The spot application of roundup to the weeds only? Is roundup poisonous? Let's compare some LD 50's of some common "poisons'. To compare apples to apples these numbers are all for rats.

Roundup/glyphosate: 5600 mg/kg
Aspirin: 200 mg/kg
Ibuprofen: 636 mg/kg
Omeprazole: 2210 mg/kg
Pyrethrins: 200-2600 mg'kg - sometimes used as "organic" insecticide

This type of fear mongering is what creates misinformed impressions that many people build on. The same can be said for a lot of the hyperbole about Monsanto.

Ultimately, the choice is up to Mr. Harris as to how he chooses to support himself. It really isn't any of our business. Monsanto is not the biggest problem facing beekeeping right now. IF you make the assumption that Monsanto is a problem facing beekeeping.

Tom


----------



## fish_stix

TWall; :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:


----------



## Gypsi

There are weeds roundup doesn't kill. The mighty sandspur, bane of Texas and New Mexico, which I tried to kill with roundup in 2009, I finally gave up and dug it all out. (watering before it goes to seed will kill it, I learned later, but my water bill wouldn't have handled it) My rolling trash cart holds 55 gallons, and I was filling it once a week with sandspur plants and seeds for months near the end of 2009. This being after the great propane torch experiment in October 2008 - which burned up the plants but not the seeds. Dallis Grass, bane of St. Augustine yards every where. Roundup kills St Augustine very well, btw. But not Dallis Grass. And it won't touch Bermuda. Bermuda holds a party and laughs. My big question is not whether roundup kills rats. It is whether it kills bees.

There was some considerable concern that a GMO corn species that monsanto was distributing, impregnated with an insecticide, (I think) was killing bees. I bought sweet corn seed last year, made sure it was not monsanto, and it is carefully refrigerated, because I won't be buying more. 

My concern is that Monsanto's first line of concern is the profit line. The GMO's have already cross-pollinated with organic and heritage crops, contaminating their DNA. The means of contamination was bees, of course.
And then Monsanto had the audacity to sue the owners of said organic and heritage crops for stealing their patent rights. But that's ok, wasn't my garden. 

If Monsanto starts messing with bee DNA, and it doesn't work out well, with 25% of food crops in this country dependent upon bees, the grocery store shelves Monsanto's experimentation is supposed to be stocking could well be empty. 

But as long as they aren't near me, it's not my problem. Or is it?


----------



## sqkcrk

Acebird said:


> No Mark, you are hearing some of the concerns from other people that I am already aware of. It doesn't do you any good for me to tell you what my concerns are.
> 
> But if you believe in hope...


Oh, okay, I thought you wanted me to read some book or something. I thought that was what you were refering to.

I hope Jerry does well and I hope what he does do will benefit the beekeeping industry. What's wrong w/ hope.


----------



## sqkcrk

Gypsi said:


> My concern is that Monsanto's first line of concern is the profit line.


And yours isn't? If not, you must be quite well off or quite comfortably poor or fooling yourself. What's best for Gypsi is what concerns Gypsi and being in some way profitible is of unmost concern to Gypsi I imagine.


----------



## WLC

I take it that some of the posters trying to paint Monsanto in a favorable light just aren't aware of their history. Read, "The World according to Monsanto". I keep repeating this so that you will be well informed as to what many of us already know.

What you may not be aware of is how the purchase of Beeologics by Monsanto, along with all of it's patents, technologies, and more importantly, key experts, puts the American Beekeeper at risk.

The FDA is about to approve the feeding of dsRNA to Honeybees as Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS). This opens the door for other forms of patented dsRNA, including transgeneic vectors, that will be impossible to keep out of untreated hives (your bees).

The way U.S. patent law works regarding plants and animals is this: you are liable if Monsanto's patented sequences show up in your Honeybees.

Re-read the above if you didn't understand it the first time around.

So, Mr. Hayes, and many others, are about to unleash a juggernaut upon the beekeeping world.

His 'know-how', and the combined 'know-how' of many other beekeeping 'actors', as well as the complicity of the FDA and USDA, will make the unimaginable a reality in short order.

What some of you have failed to understand concerning the announcement that Monsanto had purchased Beelogics is this: it took years of planning to reach that point.

The 'warplan' has already been in motion for years well before the announcement concerning Mr. Hayes' joining Monsanto.

Simply put, it's too late.

All that you can do is watch as Monsanto carries out it's plan.

We are all completely helpless and 'up to our eyeballs'.


----------



## lazy shooter

There is so much good cheer on this forum. It's under whelming.


----------



## WLC

I thought that the pro-Monsanto folks would be thrilled?

Let me paraphrase this: those who exchange liberty for security deserve neither.

Is that an appropriate statement to make regarding the subject of this thread?

Or, is it way out of line not withstanding what may become of the American Beekeeper?


----------



## Gypsi

We are all completely helpless and 'up to our eyeballs'.

I have discovered that flying "under the radar" is much better than being "up to my eyeballs". 
I am a small person. I have a small amount of money. I do not fight big guns, I keep my disappearing act in practice. 

Gypsi
(please note, no company name below said signature. This is a PUBLIC forum.)


----------



## Acebird

LOL Gypsi, how long do you think it would take someone to find you based on the posts you have made so far?


----------



## Gypsi

Not terribly long. But I'd have to be a lot bigger and have more to steal to make it worth the trouble, especially for one of the giants. Like Monsanto


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> I thought that the pro-Monsanto folks would be thrilled?


Let me set things straight, just in case y'all were going to any conclusions, or already have. I am not "pro-Monsanto". Not "anti" either. I am pro-glass half full and optomistic, rather than a doomsayer.

As said before, I wish Jerry well and see his new position both good for him and for us. Being the straight shooter that he is.

WLC,
Do you think we all should read "The World According to Monsanto"? I'm a little confused how you feel about that.


----------



## jim lyon

sqkcrk said:


> WLC,
> Do you think we all should read "The World According to Monsanto"? I'm a little confused how you feel about that.


I am a bit confused myself, I was going to read it but then he said "it's too late" and "we are all completely helpless". Being the sport that I am, I will read it nevertheless......as soon as he spends a week on my farm pulling weeds to save me the half days work and $20 in spray doing it myself. If you want to meet new neighbors up close and personal let your thistles go to seed just one time....


----------



## Mbeck

Is there any chance of Monsanto developing a permethrin ready bee?
They can do it with Round up and corn!
Sure would be nice to be able to spray them!


----------



## Gypsi

jim lyon said:


> I am a bit confused myself, I was going to read it but then he said "it's too late" and "we are all completely helpless". Being the sport that I am, I will read it nevertheless......as soon as he spends a week on my farm pulling weeds to save me the half days work and $20 in spray doing it myself. If you want to meet new neighbors up close and personal let your thistles go to seed just one time....


I'd think you'd spray those thistles while they are short 
I have let my thistles go to seed - in 2005. Darned wind re-seed-ed one corner of my lot so many times I covered it with pond liner and rocked it in in 2006 - too steep for a riding mower, and the year I dislocated my knee things got out of hand. That would be 05.


----------



## WLC

Jim:

I've pulled and dug invasive plants and trees from many preserves and and sanctuaries.

What you need to do is go pull 'superweeds' from the fields of farmers w/ RR crops.

Roundup doesn't work like it used to.

The reason is gentic contamination of the environment by the very same gene cassettes that have been used to make GM crops.

That's right Jim, those are Roundup Ready superweeds.

Now you know why Monsanto recently won the title as the worst company for the environment, 2011, from an environmental organization.

I'm not sure that you should read 'The World According to Monsanto" because it might cause you to experience an 'existential crisis'. 


Mbeck:

It's theoretically possible.


----------



## jim lyon

WLC said:


> Jim:
> That's right Jim, those are Roundup Ready superweeds.


Actually they arent, though I wont argue that RR resistance is always a concern. I do own several farms that are regularly cropped with RR crops and we as yet have not seen an issue with weeds that show resistance only with more adaptive weeds that quickly pop up between spraying intervals. The situation that I was hoping to recruit you for  is 100 acres of native grass, clover and alfalfa wildlife sanctuary which has always had a problem with Musk and Canadian thistles. For those who arent familiar with them they are a nasty perennial weed that loves to reseed and is avoided like the plague by pretty much all wildlife. I dont use Roundup because it will destroy all the good stuff out there that has taken so long to get established. Part of the secret to the success of thistles is their tendency to hide just below the 2 to 3 foot tall grass line then seemingly overnight pop up and bloom. Timing is so crucial in killing them, there is such a narrow window and the darned things hide so well. Roundup does kill them though but as I mentioned it is not the chemical of choice because once you have sprayed a spot bare something is going to grow there eventually and 99% of the time its something undesirable. Come to South Dakota and I will show you first hand (seriously), I would much rather see you at my door than an angry neighbor complaining about weeds.


----------



## Acebird

jim lyon said:


> If you want to meet new neighbors up close and personal let your thistles go to seed just one time....


We do the bees love it. We have people we don't even know stop by and take pictures at our beautiful gardens. I weed our vegetable garden by hand with a special hoe. I find it to be good exercise and allows me to have two beers in stead of one at the end of the day. I can do the whole garden in an hour if I don't slack off and leave it too long. Once the plants get to the flowering state they almost control the weeds themselves.
My wife weeds everything else by hand on her hands and knees because that is what she likes. It is a way for her to unwind she tells me. I think it is what keeps her young.:thumbsup:


----------



## Ted Kretschmann

Back from Florida......Jerry Hayes did quit the Florida apiary inspection program for Montsanto. Jerry Latiner is on the same page as myself, which is, we would rather have one of our own people like Mr. Hayes working for what ever Frankensteinian project Montsanto is working on. At least someone might be able to voice a concern in the research.........The eastern shore of Florida is a mess, with the bee wars heating up. The beekeeper in question claims someone spiked his bee feed with Filiprinol and killed his colonies. Then his neighbors bees robbed out the dead outs of his and the chemical killed his neighbors bees. Venerable Horace Bell, who has kept bees in the area for decades, is riding around, asking questions, trying to figure out what is going on and how to get his bees out of the area for safety concerns. "There are now so many beehives on the east coast of Florida, you could just about walk on them from Jacksonville south to Miami and never touch the ground"-Jerry Latiner......It boils down to this...FILIPRINOL HAS NO PLACE IN A BEEHIVE AND YOU ARE NOT TO SMART IF YOU ARE USING IT>>IT IS JUST A TIME BOMB WAITING TO HAPPEN> Beekeepers keep learning lessons the hard way....Also TLAPS is of interest in Florida. The question now being asked is not when the USDA will find it in the ongoing survey. BUT where did they find it and how long ago? Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, and Florida have been the brunt of the survey. But Alabama does not have hardly any bees, so this year the brunt of the survey was in Tennessee, Georgia and Florida. Jerry Latiner stated it reminded him of years ago when the first two mites were found. They found them, then surveyed to see how far the infestation had spread. So only time will tell and as usual, the bee business can not get a break from more problems.......Oh, do not worry people. The Mayan calander ends in one year and if that does not kill us. Then the super flu virus that is lab created will wipe out 60% of humanity when it is accidently, mysteriously escapes the lab. TED


----------



## sqkcrk

Who will fill Jerry's shoes as State Apairist?


----------



## valleyman

jim lyon,
You are wasting your keystrokes in trying to get some to understand that they are not feeding the world with their little chemical free world. I have 100 acres of pasture, now hay fields and if not for 2/4/d for the leaved species, crossbow for the woody species, Round up for the grassy (johnson grass) species of noxious plants, it would be impossible to keep desirable production of anything on my acreage. There are many other newer chemicals available, but the ones I have named are the most recognizable. I know that there is abuse in any industry, but I'm afraid that some on here live in a world of paranoia, and are unwilling to accept the neccesity of chemicals.Good Luck to all of us!!


----------



## jim lyon

Wow Ted after reading your post I'm not sure I even want to go to work today. The robbing theory is certainly the most plausible explanation that I have as yet heard. while nobody in this industry likes to have bees moved in on them these types of "wars" never have winners. An old beekeeper advised me years ago to worry first and foremost about your own bees everything else will resolve itself. Of course if you suspect disease and varroa spread that is easier said than done.


----------



## squarepeg

>....Also TLAPS is of interest...

what is tlaps?


----------



## Acebird

valleyman said:


> jim lyon,
> it would be impossible to keep desirable production of anything on my acreage.


Of course, "desirable production" you have a bench mark in mind that you cannot attain without poisons. And now that you have used those poisons you can't stop. Monsanto loves you but Monsanto doesn't care about you.

Those who choose not to eat food laced with Monsanto's additives are far from paranoid about starving and they are putting their money where their mouth is. You are in denial that some people recognize the difference and that the trend is increasing not decreasing. The biggies are jumping on the band wagon. Unfortunately, most of the soil in the US is already tainted so it is again coming from off shore. So where do you think US agriculture is going to be in the future? Probably off shore.


----------



## TWall

Acebird said:


> You are in denial that some people recognize the difference and that the trend is increasing not decreasing. The biggies are jumping on the band wagon. Unfortunately, most of the soil in the US is already tainted so it is again coming from off shore. So where do you think US agriculture is going to be in the future? Probably off shore.


Acebird,

If you think "off-shore" soils are "pure" you are sadly mistaken. The utopia you have in mind does not exist.

Tom


----------



## irwin harlton

TLAPS Rumors have been heard its been found.......I pray and hope thats all it is, a rumor

[PDF] 
Exotic pests of honey bees
www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__.../Exotic-pests-of-honey-bees-Primefact-46-...File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
Tropilaelaps mite (Asian mite)


----------



## Acebird

I am sure you will agree that there is no such thing as pure. Stop introducing chemicals namely poisons into the soil or onto your seeds for 7 years and you can than produce food considered organically grown. Is it perfect, no. Producing your own food is perfect like producing your own honey.
There are those that don't want to produce their own food and are willing to pay more for something Monsanto has not got their hands on. I don't know if I would classify that as utopia.

This thread raises questions about Jerry Hayes and Monsanto. I don't know Jerry Hayes but I do know Monsanto. Monsanto buys control and Jerry Hayes is now one more notch on their gun barrel. Money is power and that ain't ever going to change.


----------



## fish_stix

OK. I've read enough. I'm pulling my .45 out of the safe and shooting myself before Monsanto gets me.


----------



## Nabber86

I sure hope Jerry isnt reading this thread.


----------



## sqkcrk

Acebird said:


> one more notch on their gun barrel.


Just to be picky, as y'all know I am from time to time, the saying isn't "notch on their gun barrel", why would anyone notch a gun barrel? I bet there even alot of people who don't know what a notch is. I really wonder if anyone ever did notch a gun belt or gun stock to keep count of successful kills. Why would one abuse their equipment that way?

The saying is "putting another notch in the gun belt".

That's the whole ball of wax in a nutshell.


----------



## sqkcrk

Nabber86 said:


> I sure hope Jerry isnt reading this thread.


I don't think he woulkd be surprised by the nay sayers/doomsdayers. I'm sure he would appreciate those who wish him well.


----------



## Daniel Y

I don't know diddly about Monsanto or Jerry. I will say I have seen thread after thread about what monsters Monsanto is. I have to admit that they tend to make me go okay maybe I should see what I think this place really is cause I am not buying all these claims. But I am pretty sure they are not squeaky clean either. Now all of a sudden there is this change of tune when it comes to Jerry. I am not buying that either. Good guy gone bad? maybe. Mainly I am not really forming much of any opinion because nearly everything I have seen so far on any of it land in the definitely unreliable bucket. I am pretty sure that Monsanto is not unknown to Jerry and he has whatever reasons he has to work for them. Not like he can say. oops I didn't realize.


----------



## sqkcrk

Daniel Y said:


> I don't know diddly about Monsanto or Jerry.


What about bees? Do you have any yet?


----------



## Ted Kretschmann

Mark, Westervelt-possible misspelling of his last name-is acting Florida state apiarist at the moment. Mr. Latiner told me he would become the state apiarist in Florida. From what I know of the man, he is very capable and will do an excellent job. All I can tell you the bee wars are on the east coast, that is all I know. T-laps is the abbreviated term for Tropilaelaps Clarae. It is a very nasty little mite from asia that is a third the size of Varroa and kills colonies in weeks. It reproduces worse than rabbits. TED


----------



## WLC

"I sure hope Jerry isnt reading this thread."

Hayes, Mendes and Hunter represent the key players in the staging that's occurred in Florida. You can bet that all of the beekeepers w/ bees in Florida, especially the pollination operations, have been profiled.

I haven't heard much about California, another key staging area. They must have some known players that have formally joined Monsanto at this point in time.


----------



## sqkcrk

"staging"? 

Also, who is Hunter?


----------



## WLC

"staging"?

Product development and Marketing.

Hunter is the USDA-ARS scientist who is the lead author on the RNAi field trial paper. He also discovered RNA virus inserts in Honeybee DNA here in the U.S. . He's good. Real good.

You forgot to ask about 'profiling'.

AKA: targeting.

Hayes can identify the 'market' in Florida for Monsanto.

He was the state apiarist for crying out loud. He knows who keeps bees in Florida. Now, Monsanto does as well.

Jerry is going to be a very busy man.


----------



## sqkcrk

Well, I kinda got what you meant by profiling, but thanks for clarifying for those who didn't get it.

Those who keep bees in FL is not private or priveledge information. The Apiary Inspection Registration List may well be confidential information. I would be shocked and disappointed if Jerry shared that w/ Monsanto. I seriously douibt that he would. He strikes me as more ethical than that.

If Mansanto wanted a listing of beekeepers, though I don't know why they would want such a list, a Directory of Beekeepers from ABF and AHPA would be easier to get hold of and at less a cost than highering someone.

Who keeps bees in FL is not a secret.


----------



## WLC

Didn't I say that Monsanto wants to control pollination in the U.S. ?

I'd say that Jerry knows the majors personally.

I wonder if he's working on commission?


----------



## AstroBee

sqkcrk said:


> If Mansanto wanted a listing of beekeepers, though I don't know why they would want such a list


You might if you watched too many reruns of X-files and became hyper-paranoid. Perhaps we could convince WLC to change his handle to Fox Mulder and Ace to change to Dana Scully then we could really have fun.


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> I'd say that Jerry knows the majors personally.


There are people on beesource.com who coulkd put that list together too.


----------



## WLC

X-Files. Cute.

Let's see how you feel in a year or two when Monsanto sues beekeepers across the country for patent infringement.

The law is on their side. Not yours.

Here's how it goes:

Major pollinators w/ bees in Florida get on board the RNAi gravy train because it's an offer they can't refuse (they'll get rich). This is Jerry's gig.

The RNAi product spreads to other hives by robbing and drifting across the country.

Monsanto sues bekeepers many miles away from Florida for patent infingement.

Game over.

It's a Florida strategy. It's more like a game of Risk than the X-Files.

Once Monsanto locks up the pollinators, here's how it goes:

Pollinator: Who's your daddy Almond man?

Almond man: Monsanto's my daddy, and I'll buy all my phytosanitary products from them.

Pollinator: ****ed right (Ca-Ching!).


Is that so hard to understand?


----------



## The Soap Pixie

Tom,

After following this thread I just wanted to reply to something you wrote.



TWall said:


> Your reference to using poisons doesn't make sense to me. What are you talking about? The spot application of roundup to the weeds only? * Is roundup poisonous? *
> 
> *This type of fear mongering is what creates misinformed impressions *that many people build on. The same can be said for a lot of the hyperbole about Monsanto.
> 
> Tom


_"To protect our health, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets maximum legal residue levels for every pesticide, for dozens of crops. But a new study in the respected journal Toxicology has shown that, at low levels that are currently legal on our food, Roundup could cause DNA damage, endocrine disruption and cell death. The study, conducted by French researchers, shows glyphosate-based herbicides are toxic to human reproductive cells".
_
Read more: http://www.motherearthnews.com/Sustainable-Farming/Roundup-Weed-Killer-Toxicity.aspx#ixzz1hK3NnqNm

And just because the information was printed in Mother Earth News doesn't make the French study printed in the journal of Toxicology any less valid.

It is only fear mongering if science doesn't back it up and in the case of round-up used on weeds the science says it is toxic to humans. What is real fear mongering is when companies like Monsanto tell the public that we'll all starve to death if we refuse GMO seeds. No science to back up the claim that Monsanto can feed the world with their toxic creations but they keep pumping that info to the public.

BTW/I go every year with my family to an organic farm to pick strawberries for canning since my own garden doesn't produce quite enough yet. No thistle issues on the farm we frequent.

It is amazing to me how so many people can take a backseat on the whole "Monsanto" issue, especially beekeepers. Although I've only had bees for two years I know plenty about Monsanto. It is disturbing what they've done to farmers across the nation and there is no doubt they will eventually do the same to beekeepers. To each their own. For those of us not wanting to see Monsanto do any more damage, we'll keep staging public protests and educating as many as we can about the truth


----------



## Ted Kretschmann

Bees were declared back in the early twentieth century "feral by nature". That is they go were they please, do what they please regardless of man's intervention. This was the result of many, many law suits, involving pollination, fruit damage and who owns the swarm that is hanging with in sight of another man's apiary. Thus the precendent was set a long time ago. Monsanto will have a very hard time suing anybody just because their genetics showed up in somebody else's honeybees fifty, a hundred or a thousand miles down the road because of the "feral by nature" classification. You, me, and Monsanto can not control the wild population of honey bees and that even includes the African variety. Nor can they control your bees either for the above stated reason. The best they will be able to do is license out a genetically manipulated strain of honeybee to a select group of queen breeders, who have signed contracts with the company. The breeders will then maintain the strain and mass produce the product to the general beekeeping public. All the monies that have been spent to develop the strain will be already included in the cost per unit sold to the public. And a general royalty fee for each queen bee sold will be paid back to Montsanto by the contracted out breeders. That is how it works in the Queenbreeding world. That is how it worked for the buckfast, ARC-Y1,SMR/VSH, Russian, New world carniolians, and in the near future, Mountain gray caucasians. And that is how it will work for a genetically tampered strain of honeybee. I predict that people will shun the new strain of honeybee like the plague for the simple reason-IT IS NOT NATURE"S HONEYBEE but a lab creation. Economically it will not be a money maker for Montsanto but a money failure. Montsanto would be better off with their expansive brain trust to find a way to eradicate the hive beetle. The pest that brought a host of viruses that are now causing havoc in our general honeybee population. TED


----------



## ryan

OK WLC, not that I believe the whole plan, but I follow your logic. To a point. I have a couple of questions about tactics.

Why Florida beekeepers? FL beekeepers have the only honey crop in the nation that interferes with Almond pollination. Not to mention you can't get any farther away from the almonds than FL. Many, if not most, of FL bees don't even get involved with the pollination crop that has driven our industry. Why not break into TX where there is not a honey crop that competes with pollination. Better yet, there are 1,000,000 - 2,000,000 hives in CA right now. Why not go after the big target, CA? CA is where there are beekeepers are doing pollination exclusively for a living. That's where the big Agriculture is also. The real money.

Do you really think big polliators are going to be influenced by the ex-state bee inspector/apiarist??? Most of these guys hate the government. Those who work for government are not exactly looked up to by "major" beekeepers. Of all the people that could be hired to recruit big players, is Jerrys background really the best?

Florida, Really? Jerry, Really? 

I'm not saying you can't take over the world by starting here. But Why Start Here?


----------



## VeggieGardener

Ted Kretschmann said:


> Bees were declared back in the early twentieth century "feral by nature". That is they go were they please, do what they please regardless of man's intervention. This was the result of many, many law suits, involving pollination, fruit damage and who owns the swarm that is hanging with in sight of another man's apiary. Thus the precendent was set a long time ago. TED


There were laws and long standing precedents regarding seeds and plant patents also but those have been turned upside down. And what goes where it pleases more so than pollen that is driven by the wind? That doesn't prevent Monsanto from suing innocent farmers whose crops are contaminated by being cross pollinated and later determined to contain Monsanto's genetic material.


----------



## WLC

Ryan:

I haven't heard about California or Texas yet. If someone has heard of Monsanto hiring state apiarists and the like in other states, a 'heads up' would be in order.

Why Florida? Overwintering of bees.

Now if you're saying that no one is going to send bees from Florida to almonds in California, then maybe it's all of the other places those bees end up that's the issue.

I just used the 'Pollinator/Almond man' skit as an example of why Monsanto is really interested in Honeybees all of a sudden.

How is Monsanto going to coerce all of those pollinators to use RNAi? Money and lawsuits. 


Ted:

Patent law is on Monsanto's side, even with the Honeybee.


----------



## broodhead

What did Mr. Hayes do for Florida beeks???


----------



## sqkcrk

Being from FL, you should be a better authority on that than the rest of us not from FL. Or is that your point? Nothing of note?

What did Laurence Cutts do for the beekeepers of FL? And, following WLC's line of logic, why wasn't Laurence Cutts hired by Monsanto? Seems he would be easier pickings being retired.


----------



## Acebird

ryan said:


> Florida, Really? Jerry, Really?
> 
> I'm not saying you can't take over the world by starting here. But Why Start Here?


You can't think this one out?

Florida is the ONLY peninsula in the country. What a great place to expand the experiments in the real world. It has a country on either side we could care less about. The state is controlled by the well to do who feel much of the land is for their development regardless of what natural resources are distroyed. The poor and those who are concerned for the environment are just run over. That makes it a whole lot easier to push legislation through to their benifit.


----------



## Acebird

WLC said:


> X-Files. Cute.
> 
> Let's see how you feel in a year or two when Monsanto sues beekeepers across the country for patent infringement.


I know how you feel but I would rather not see.


----------



## Acebird

:thumbsup:


The Soap Pixie said:


> No thistle issues on the farm we frequent.


When you remove a weed by mechanical means the weed doesn't get stronger like it does with chemical means. If composed it adds to the fertility of the soil. This is old science.


----------



## Acebird

Ted Kretschmann said:


> Monsanto will have a very hard time suing anybody just because their genetics showed up in somebody else's honeybees fifty, a hundred or a thousand miles down the road because of the "feral by nature" classification. You, me, and Monsanto can not control the wild population of honey bees and that even includes the African variety. Nor can they control your bees either for the above stated reason.


Ted you are using the argument the organic farmers used and they lost temporarily. Heirloom seeds are feral by nature and proliferate by nature. You can believe what you want to believe but what you just stated did happen and the culprit was MONSANTO!


----------



## Ted Kretschmann

I am sorry WLC but stock releases are stock releases, no matter who or what entity is doing the release. The methodology is how it is done that I have stated above in the previous post. I have been involved with queen breeding for most of my career in one shape, form or fashion. My families past has been involved with alot of the stock releases mentioned above in the previous post. I have genetics from all those mention that were intentionally or unintentionally pick up or placed in my bees. Since I have russian genetics in my bees, does that mean the russian breeders association and the government is going to sue me? Oh, God, my buddy Hubert Tubbs is going to sue me.. We have to keep a level of sanity. Montsanto will be releasing a stock line and the above method is how it is done. WLC, you sure you are not upset that they hired Jerry over you?? You are the geneticist but Jerry has years of practical, hands on knowledge handling thousands of colonies of bees. So who would you hire-hopefully the man with the years of experience handling bees. WLC, you are stirring up a pile of stink, when you do not know hoey about how the bee breeding industry works and how stock lines are released to the industry. Be careful when you are smoking one when up on your balcony. TED


----------



## broodhead

sqkcrk said:


> Being from FL, you should be a better authority on that than the rest of us not from FL. Or is that your point? Nothing of note?
> 
> What did Laurence Cutts do for the beekeepers of FL? And, following WLC's line of logic, why wasn't Laurence Cutts hired by Monsanto? Seems he would be easier pickings being retired.


Looks like I made my point!!


----------



## lazy shooter

If you think Monsanto is going to take over the world via their ag operations and the bee industry, you can own a part of it by buying Monsanto stock. Just think, when the year 2020 comes around, Monsanto will be in charge of the world's food source and you can be feeding at the table with them.


----------



## ryan

WLC

If we are talking about cornering the pollination market and exposing bees to stuff, there is only one place to start. California. CA spends more on pollination than all other states combined. Maybe more than all other states combined X 10. There is no question CA is where the money is, and the greatest number of bees to infect. 

Is there some logic to starting in FL when most of the pollination money and most of pollination bees are sitting in the central valley 3000 miles west of FL. There are FL bees that move to CA for almonds, but only a fraction of what is in CA. Not to mention the caged queen capital of the U.S. is out in CA also. You could have instant infestation of genes into all states within a few months. If you started the plan in CA. It's OK if you don't have a reason that Florida was picked to start the world take over. It would almost need to be a hidden reason, CA is the only place it makes sense. 

Acebird. I did think it out. I just think your wrong.

ryan


----------



## Acebird

You are not the first person to tell my I am wrong... In about 5 years you won't be the only person to admit I was right. Some people take awhile to smarten up...

The experiments and goof fixing will occur in Florida where there is little resistance. The production model will be broadcasted to California probably after Monsanto owns the Almonds. They may have to take over the wineries too, I am not sure.


----------



## Tia

I'm with Acebird. I garden the same way he and his wife do and am chemical free with both my gardens and bees. As for Mr. Hayes, I've met him only once, and although he is a very intelligent gentleman, I found him to be very narrow minded in certain aspects of beekeeping. He disagreed with my methods--in particular, FGMO fogging--and was quite rude to me and spoke to me in a very deprecating manner--during a workshop at one of our state meetings. Of course, this was many years ago--before CCD. Now that the push is once again for "natural beekeeping," perhaps his views have changed.


----------



## ryan

Acebird
Take it easy, 

You acused me of "not being able to think it out". Now I need to smarten up. That's 2 swipes you've taken at my I.Q.

If they are signing up major players (?the reason they hired Jerry?) then it sounds like the experiments are about over. Someone said beekeepers would be getting sued within 2 years. Because sueing beekeepers to get them in line is part of the grand plan. If we are at really at that point then CA, not FL, would be the most effective genetic launch point. That's how I would take over the world. 

They are going to own the Almonds and Vinyards? CA almond growers have more money than monsanto does. Almonds are the biggest industry in the biggest state in the biggest economy in the world. Now you really have my interest up. How does that takeover happen??? Ok, I'll take the bait. I can't help myself. Here goes........I think your wrong about this. 

peace


----------



## Mosherd1

I am sure that Jerry will write an article in the next month or two in one or both of the magazines and put much of this speculating to rest as it relates to his reasoning behind this decision.


----------



## VeggieGardener

Ted Kretschmann said:


> I am sorry WLC but stock releases are stock releases, no matter who or what entity is doing the release. The methodology is how it is done that I have stated above in the previous post. I have been involved with queen breeding for most of my career in one shape, form or fashion. My families past has been involved with alot of the stock releases mentioned above in the previous post. I have genetics from all those mention that were intentionally or unintentionally pick up or placed in my bees. Since I have russian genetics in my bees, does that mean the russian breeders association and the government is going to sue me?


Ted, I don't know if you are correct or not, but I pray that you never have to stand across from a team of Monsanto lawyers and rely on those arguments in a courtroom... I'm afraid they would provide a harsh and costly education on why genetics are _not_ all the same when they involve modified genes that happen to be the intellectual property of Monsanto!


----------



## Acebird

ryan said:


> CA almond growers have more money than monsanto does.



I wasn't going to get into this but without insulting your I.Q. I don't think you realize how big Monsanto is. The experiments aren't over, they have just begun in the bee world. California is too environmentally friendly to let Monsanto play on a small scale. When they hit california it will be big and it will be swift like the hydrofracking deal in NY. Everything done behind the scenes and then bam all at once with all their ducks in a row.

I am sure Jerry will continue to write articles. The question is what will you believe with Monsanto wagging his tail? What you believe now?


----------



## sqkcrk

ryan said:


> Acebird, I think your wrong about this.
> 
> peace


You aren't the first to tell him that. I probably wasn't either. I just wanted to pre-empt his reply . 


I'm sure Jerry is capable of writing articles, but I don't think I've ever seen one he did write. He has written plenty of replies to querstions. Maybe those count as articles?


----------



## valleyman

ryan said:


> Acebird
> Take it easy,
> 
> You acused me of "not being able to think it out". Now I need to smarten up. That's 2 swipes you've taken at my I.Q.


I wouldn't worry too much about what the "BIRD" thinks. We've seen his on display for months on Beesource. I am not against organic anything. I just know you can't feed the world that way.


----------



## ryan

Enough money to buy up 10s of billions dollars of California valley trees and grape vines, but not enough to sell a few breeder queens there. Hmmmm.

Yep they are big. More correctly stated, Monsanto has less money available than the almond acerage, water rights, and management would be sold for. If any real push to buy up almonds ever happened the demand pressure would drive the price of acreage up to an unbelieavalbe high price.

Monsanto has a duty to shareholders/owners. The owners want cash payments quarterly. And they want it from the things Monsanto usually makes money on. If Monsanto shareholders wanted to own almonds or vinyards they would invest in them. Monsanto can't run the majority of almond or vinyard industries. No one has ever done such a thing. Major investors would not allow such a foolish investment to move forward. 

It would be fun. But people with real money don't allow employees (monsanto executives) to have fun risking their money buying something, which will have to be purchased for far more than it is worth. Tying up 10s or 100s of Billions in unprofitable investments will never be tollerated. 

All this because I think CA is a better start point than FL. I'm glad this is the extent of our differences. 

I'll catch you after the new year. 

ryan


----------



## Barry Digman

ryan said:


> They are going to own the Almonds and Vinyards? CA almond growers have more money than monsanto does. Almonds are the biggest industry in the biggest state in the biggest economy in the world.


Well, not exactly. 



> California is the only state that produces almonds commercially. The 2010 almond crop increased from the previous year, totaling nearly 1.7 billion pounds, and was valued at nearly $2.7 billion (NASS 2011). Per person consumption of almonds in the United States has generally been increasing and reached 1.3 pounds in 2008 (ERS).
> http://www.agmrc.org/commodities__products/nuts/almond_profile.cfm





> By comparison, Monsanto's revenue for the year ended 8-31-11 was nearly $12 billion. They have a market value of nearly $38 billion.
> http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=MON


Dairy and grapes appear to rank above almonds in crop value.

http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics...ions/California_Ag_Statistics/2010cas-ovw.pdf


----------



## WLC

As I've said, Mr. Hayes' move to Monsanto is the first big move of a state apiarist I've heard about. No news from California or elsewhere as of yet.

Perhaps Florida makes more sense as the launching point of RNAi for Honeybees here in the U.S. if there's more active drifting and robbing earlier in the season in Florida than elsewhere. Hence, more 'contamination' of untreated hives by the RNAi product.

Would I be right in saying that most pollinators overwinter in Florida?

PS- Maybe Florida is first because Beeologics (now a subsidiary of Monsanto) is located there?


----------



## Acebird

valleyman said:


> I just know you can't feed the world that way.


It was done that way until the fourties so what happened?


----------



## Acebird

http://home.ezezine.com/1636/1636-2011.12.23.15.10.archive.html


> CATCH THE BUZZ
> Scientists engineer mosquito immune system to fight Malaria. Question is…when will they build a Honey Bee?
> Researchers at the Johns Hopkins Malaria Research Institute have demonstrated that the Anopheles mosquito's innate immune system could be genetically engineered to block the transmission of malaria-causing parasites to humans. In addition, they showed that the genetic modification had limited impact on the mosquito's fitness under laboratory conditions. The researchers' findings are published December 22nd in the Open Access journal PLoS Pathogens.
> In this study, Dimopoulos and his team genetically engineered Anopheles mosquitoes to produce higher than normal levels of an immune system protein Rel2 when they feed on blood. Rel2 acts against the malaria parasite in the mosquito by launching an immune attack involving a variety of anti-parasitic molecules. Through this approach, instead of introducing a new gene into the mosquito DNA, the researchers used one of the insect's own genes to strengthen its parasite-fighting capabilities.
> According to the researchers, this type of genetically modified mosquito could be further developed and used to convert malaria-transmitting to Plasmodium-resistant mosquito populations. One possible obstacle for this approach is the fitness of the genetically modified malaria resistant mosquitoes, since they would have to compete with the natural malaria-transmitting mosquitoes. The researchers showed with their study that the Rel2 genetically modified mosquito strain lived as long, and laid as many eggs, as the non-modified wild type mosquitoes, thereby suggesting that their fitness had not become significantly impaired.


Funny, I just received this email. I guess catch the buzz is not up on things.


----------



## hpm08161947

Acebird said:


> It was done that way until the fourties so what happened?


A few Billion people have complicated it... in the last 70 years.


----------



## Acebird

hpm08161947 said:


> A few Billion people have complicated it... in the last 70 years.


So are you saying there are more people that can grow there own. There certainly is not a land shortage. There is so much land available we are waisting it on growing fuel.


----------



## Barry

Ace, this is the 21st century, not the 19th.


----------



## hpm08161947

Acebird said:


> So are you saying there are more people that can grow there own.


To feed the world organically would get pretty pricey too. Just imagine the manpower required.


----------



## WLC

"Be careful when you are smoking one when up on your balcony. TED"

I don't smoke cigars outdoors. 

Ted, here's the thing, dsRNA is fed to bees (at least that's what they're currently doing).

It is composed of a patented sequence of nucleotides (RNA), but it crosses the line between a gene and a pesticide. It's a very new product with regards to treating Honeybees.

The study has already shown that non treatment hives (the controls) were contaminated by the dsRNA treatments. It's as if you have a pesticide contamination with an address (the sequence).

I've also discussed how dsRNA can be made to want to integrate into a Honeybees DNA (by retrotransposition).

So, either way, beekeepers can get sued.

There's the famous case of the Canadian farmer known for producing strains of Canola seed that was sued by Monsanto. He lost.

The same thing can happen whether you are just a rank and file beekeeper, or a major queen breeder.

The patent law for plants and animals is similar. So, the issue of strains/breeds has already been shown by previous court victories by Monsanto to be moot.

If their property (the sequence) shows up in your bees, it's their bees now. Sorry.

My advice. order up enough of Monsanto's RNAi product to treat all of your bees, and then some.

They're not going to sue a good customer. Don't forget to ask for the free promotional stuff as well.


----------



## Barry

What's that, the Monsanto hive tool?


----------



## Ted Kretschmann

WLC, most pollinators and honey producers that pollinate overwinter in CALIFORNIA! You have 1.8 million colonies of honeybees that at some point and time in the winter are in the San Jaquin Valley. And it is just not Almonds that get pollinated by all these bees. There is everything from plum to peaches that the bees work for hire. I know this because I have been right there with Richard Adees bees pollinating blueberries ten feet across the ditch from my bees in apricots. I even had David Mendes bees pollinating with in sight of mine also. We all were working the same ranch's orchards. So even a majority of Florida's bees are out west doing the job to feed the nation. Sorry, the Monsanto theory does not fly when most of the nation's bees are out west working, leaving around 400,000 colonies left in place in the east. If Monsanto does anything, it will be through a stock release under contract with select breeders. TED


----------



## WLC

Ted:

I don't doubt you.

You say California through breeders.

So, who is in Monsanto's lineup in California? We have no news.

I say Monsanto is coming out of Florida through pollinators.

We do have news on the lineup coming out of Florida.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see.


----------



## ryan

Thanks Barry. I should have checked befor I spoke.
This is from Forbes 500 of 2011 as listed on the cnn money website sorry this is hard to read

in Millions of $ revenue xxxxxx profits
226	Avon Products	10,862.8	xxxxxx 606.3
227	Thermo Fisher Scientific	10,788.7	xxxxxx 1,035.6
228	Penske Automotive Group	10,734.4 xxxxxx 108.3
229	Starbucks	10,707.4 xxxxxx 945.6
230	CSX	10,636.0 xxxxxx 1,563.0
231	Devon Energy	10,633.0 xxxxxx 4,550.0
232	H.J. Heinz	10,558.0 xxxxxx  864.9
233	Textron	10,525.0 xxxxxx 86.0
234	Monsanto	10,502.0 xxxxxx 1,109.0
235	Lincoln National	10,410.5 xxxxxx 980.3
236	First Data	10,380.4 xxxxxx -1,021.

Monsanto ranks 234 on the Forbes 500 list 0f 2011. Eight places behind Avon, you know the door-to-door make-up company. Two places behind H.J. Hienz, the worlds most dominanting ketchup company. Game stop is somewhere near here, selling revamped Atari games I suspect. You never see an Atari being sold any more. You all know what those geeks did to the Atari boys!

They don't have the money to buy up the almond industry. Check out the list. How afraid is everyone of the power behind Penske, or CSX rail way. None of these companies can make a legitimate play on the est.6000 almond farmers. Ebay is 269, profit of 1.8 billion, I'll bet the shareholders will demand dividends instead of a stake in a dirty farm.


----------



## ryan

WLC

Both being from FL and the robbing is a theory as to why Florida.

The 'most pollinatiors winter in FL' idea is not the case. Only a small % of pollinating hives winter in FL. As stated in earlier posts. The west coast pollination dwarfs Florida in both number of hives, wintered or otherwise, and $ paid out.


----------



## WLC

So who is on Monsanto's RNAi team in California? Randy Oliver? LOL.


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> Maybe Florida is first because Beeologics (now a subsidiary of Monsanto) is located there?


Who said that Jerry and Beeologics were staying in FL? Where is Monsanto's Headquarters?

"Ultimately the goal is to help beekeepers..." Jerry Hayes has said.
"I hope beekeepers on beesource.com will give it a chance."

I guess we can kiss that one goodby.


----------



## sqkcrk

Acebird said:


> It was done that way until the fourties so what happened?


Uh, 7 Billion people? More people on farms than off farms then? Farmers moved to where they could find nonfarm work and those who stayed on the farm became more efficient, bought more machinery to farm more acres per person. Etc., etc.


----------



## sqkcrk

hpm08161947 said:


> To feed the world organically would get pretty pricey too. Just imagine the manpower required.


Not really Herb. Not if we had a World War and allowed eradicated diseases back out into the environment. If we killed off half the world population we probably could feed the rest organically, if half of those left went back to farming w/ horses instead of tractors, Amish style, only w/out chemical fertilizers and pesticides.


----------



## Barry Digman

ryan said:


> They don't have the money to buy up the almond industry.



I'm not sure where the idea of actually buying up almond orchards entered the thread. 

The issue seems to be the threat of a company dominating the beekeeping industry by the use of genetically engineered bees.


----------



## WLC

Let me run this up the flagpole to see if anyone salutes.

I'm saying that Monsanto wants to dominate the pollination of crops by Honeybees, and the dsRNA product that they now own, and is almost certain to get FDA approval, is the key to this strategy because of the way Monsanto operates.

I've also had the horrible thought that Honeybees are excellent natural vectors. Did you know that they can also take pollen from the hive to pollinate flowers? Sort of like a reverse pollen trap. Also, it may be possible for some of their patented dsRNA to get into flowers via Honeybees.

The reverse pollen trap is an old idea.

(here is a version for Bt application)
http://www.entsoc.org/PDF/Pubs/Periodicals/EE/EETOCS/PDF/en069901172p.pdf

The exchange of RNA between bees and plants (usually in the form of RNA viruses) is from a recent study.

I can certainly see why Monsanto has become interested in Honeybees.

Do you think that they would have the chutzpah to pull off something like this on almonds and other crops?


----------



## ryan

post 113
The experiments and goof fixing will occur in Florida where there is little resistance. The production model will be broadcasted to California probably after Monsanto owns the Almonds. They may have to take over the wineries too, I am not sure.

Come on man. This is a vital part of world food domination. First we get Jerry, then take over major pollination crops then control the bees by law suits against beekeepers. I can't believe you can't see the writing on the wall. Get with the program.


----------



## fish_stix

WLC keeps referring to the farmer who was sued by Monsanto and lost the suit. I read the transcript, at least the published version. The farmer bought and planted Monsanto seed and then harvested the seeds from the crop and replanted the following year and did not pay royalties to Monsanto, claiming that the entire crop was affected by windborn pollen. His own employees were witnesses to the fact that he replanted using harvested seed. To me that's the same as buying a Ford truck and rebadging with my name and selling it as my own brand. Monsanto had every right to take him to court and recover damages. As usual, various news agencies printed their own versions of the story, taking the position that it was the big nasty corporation against the poor little farmer. Thankfully, the courts saw through all the BS and nailed the guilty party.


----------



## Acebird

sqkcrk said:


> If we killed off half the world population we probably could feed the rest organically,


We have been trying but they keep reproducing faster than we can bump them off.

Seriously, organic farming has nothing to do with the Amish way of life. Yes, it is the 21st century and today you have huge machines that pump poop below the surface of the soil to fertilize just like you have huge machines to pump chemicals into the soil. One is better for the soil and one isn't. That is the difference. We have the technology today to mechanically remove the weeds from the soil in an efficient way. And if poisoning the soil was outlawed then there would be more efficient ways developed for fertilizing the soil organically. The animals are still producing poop but it is not used for fertilizer. When you sign on to a chemical solution it is like taking crack. You are hooked and there is no turning back. You tell your kids don't use crack. Why? Isn't it fun? Doesn't it make you feel great? That is what I have been told.


----------



## sqkcrk

Hey, the way I see it, everybody should do all the drugs and alchohol they want as long as they don't come crying to me when their life is all messed up. Just like all the Youtube videos of dumb skate boarders and daredevils trying to hurt themselves so they can become famous for a second.

Go ahead and kill yourself. But don't expect me to bury you when you do.


----------



## WLC

fish-stix:

I'm talking about a different one, but no matter. The mere presence of the patented sequence/gene in your crop is enough for you to be found guilty of patent infringement. It doesn't matter how it got there.

So, if anyone finds the patented RNAi sequence in your hive, and you didn't purchase any RNAi from Monsanto, you're guilty of patent infringement!

All it takes is one drifter from a treated hive, or some robbing of a treated hive by your bees.

Savy?


----------



## sqkcrk

Who will be checking their bees for that and why? Who would be checking someone elses bees for that and why? Under what authority? What would make someone do that?

Who has the equipment to check for "patented RNAi sequence"? What would that cost? Why would one look?


----------



## WLC

Monsanto uses the Pinkerton agency to 'check for that'. No, they don't even bother with a warrant.

Hunter could 'check for that' for example. I don't know who Monsanto has used in the past to verify the presence of patented sequences.

By the way Mark, you can call Monsanto's 'fink line' to report someone infringing on their patent for a reward.

It'll be truly cut-throat. Beekeeper against beekeeper.


----------



## TWall

Acebird said:


> We have been trying but they keep reproducing faster than we can bump them off.
> 
> Seriously, organic farming has nothing to do with the Amish way of life. Yes, it is the 21st century and today you have huge machines that pump poop below the surface of the soil to fertilize just like you have huge machines to pump chemicals into the soil. One is better for the soil and one isn't. That is the difference. We have the technology today to mechanically remove the weeds from the soil in an efficient way. And if poisoning the soil was outlawed then there would be more efficient ways developed for fertilizing the soil organically. The animals are still producing poop but it is not used for fertilizer. When you sign on to a chemical solution it is like taking crack. You are hooked and there is no turning back. You tell your kids don't use crack. Why? Isn't it fun? Doesn't it make you feel great? That is what I have been told.



Acebird,

Seriously??!! Chemical fertilizers are like crack??!! Really??!!

Granted added organic matter improves soil qualities beyond fertility. But, multiple passes of farm equipment burns more fuel, increases oxidation of organic matter and increases soil erosion. And, livestock production is not evenly distributed across the country. So, manure is not where it is needed. Trucking manure across the country is not economically feasible. Also, the increase of more sustained animal production results in less manure available since animals are on pasture more. Having to go collect manure from pastures in not feasible.

To make your plan work farms are going to have to become more diversified. Who is going to do this? People are looking to work smarter, not harder. How many people today want to go back to dairy farming? Would you like to have to be on the farm 365 days a year, morning and night, to milk the cows? Go to three milkings a day and you can't go out for lunch either! Yes, this is an extreme example. But, there is a reason so few people are farmers now. For the most part, you can make a better living without as much physical strain and economic risk getting a job in the city.

Monsanto does not fit into everyone's warm, cushy feeling of what agriculture was or should be. Am I saying ti is good to become so dependent on one company? No! But, I also don't believe Monsanto is the evil empire (I thought that title was saved for Bayer??). 

Is this the best for beekeeping? I have no idea. Is this the best for Jerry Hayes? He must think so!

The truth is somewhere between the extremes.

Tom


----------



## Gypsi

Bayer actually is the evil empire, as I remember from a petition I signed this spring. But with a Monsanto snitch line, In addition to a host of bee diseases, and if OD can lose half his hives, how can I stand a chance? I have about decided I don't want to be a beekeeper. I might get some mason bees. Actually I have local mason bees, I might just drill them some nesting blocks. 

Gypsi

(and cows milk is not a suitable food for adult humans, that would save everyone a lot of work if we figured that out. Fewer moobs and other excessive estrogen symptoms too.)


----------



## Ted Kretschmann

Beebiologics was bought out by Monsanto. Thus the lab phase of experimentation was over and had promise. So Monsanto, as a good investment, buy the genetic engineering company......So to conduct field trials they hire someone with vast experience handling honeybees...So they hire Jerry Hayes to do the field trials.....The field trials and this is conjecture based on what WLC keeps hammering, consist of feeding bees a concoction of RNAi laced feed.....Thus the RNAi concoction welds and melds its way into the DNA sequence, making honeybees more immune to the viral concoction spread by todays pest of honeybees......Since bees are feral by nature and Monsanto can not control where these tainted genetics will end up and cannot financially sue every beekeeper in the world. Thus they have to develop a breeding program to propegate the genetically altered strain of bees..... Once again Jerry Hayes is the man to head such a breeding program....Thus breeding stock is developed. A select group of commercial breeders is selected to maintain, develop and sell under contract, queens to the general beekeeping population....A royalty is paid back to Monsanto by the contracted breeders for each and every queen bee sold. That is how it works in the breeding world. In order to maintain a pure line of altered bees that are 100 % resistant you will have to purchase them again and again to ensure that the resistance continues to work. If outcrossing occurs, the daughter queens will only be 50% resistant due to genetic dilution and still may succomb to varroa carried viruses. Thus Monsanto makes a fortune from royalties from repeated queen sales of their 100% resistant genetically altered honeybees product. Hey guys, this might work if they also include glow in the dark jelly fish genes. Bees will be able to fly and forage at night thus increasing honey crops. TED


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> Monsanto uses the Pinkerton agency to 'check for that'. No, they don't even bother with a warrant.
> 
> Hunter could 'check for that' for example. I don't know who Monsanto has used in the past to verify the presence of patented sequences.
> 
> By the way Mark, you can call Monsanto's 'fink line' to report someone infringing on their patent for a reward.
> 
> It'll be truly cut-throat. Beekeeper against beekeeper.


But how would anyone know or be suspicious? Maybe I will just turn you in from here, right now. What's the reward?


----------



## WLC

Ted:

Monsanto doesn't have to breed bees for them to become genetically altered with this technology.

If they have developed an R2 insert ready form of dsRNA as I've described before, then they can produce 'naturally transgenic' bees insatantly. 

It's a very powerful technology.


----------



## WLC

'Maybe I will just turn you in from here, right now. What's the reward?'

Mark, maybe you should make yourself useful an ask Jerry Hayes about the subsidies that Beekeepers (pollinators for example) will receive for using RNAi and if pollination customers will have their pollination expenses subsidized if they use RNAi pollinators.

This is a key issue for the success of the product.


----------



## sqkcrk

Make myself useful? Thanks. That's the nicest thing you've ever said to me.

I'll think about it. But, I doubt that he'd answer such a question before he is actually employed. Would you? Maybe you should find out who else is on the Team and ask them. Rather than doing all this speculation.


----------



## NY_BLUES

Thats it, I'm convinced by WLC and Ace.

I am gonna sell all my hives right now, before the get contaminated by the "evil RNAi" and lose all their value. After I sell them, I am gonna buy some stock in Monsanto, that way I can benefit from all the law suits that we will win when we sue all the beekeepers in the US.
Its a great plan dont you think? Dang I shouldnt have let the cat out of the bag, now I am gonna have to hurry and sell them before everyone reads this post and floods the market with hives and drives the price down.


Give me a break. Monsanto is in business to do 1 thing, MAKE MONEY. Money is not made by sueing people. Look at the litigation costs, attorney fees, and time lost in court. They are going to bring a product to market just like they did with the GM crops. 

WLC, where did you get your legal information from. In order for them to open your hive and test it for their RNAi sequence, they would need a court ordered test, or supena. Then a seperate 3rd party would have to do the testing, so that they could not show a bias. A private company can not come to your house, walk into your yard and just start testing away. 

And if you are worried about it showing up, buy some of their product and you will be covered.


----------



## Acebird

Ted Kretschmann said:


> ....A royalty is paid back to Monsanto by the contracted breeders for each and every queen bee sold. That is how it works in the breeding world.


If I buy a queen from you and I split the hive or raise queens from that hive do I give you a kick back for every nuc I make? What if a drone from this hive mates with some other queen in the neighborhood do they have to pay you now? You can't make the correlation between natural seed propagation and bee propagation? What about any other animal? Every time you breed a dog, horse, steer you would be obligated to pay for every offspring. That is what genetic engineering is all about.


----------



## WLC

NY Blues:

The Pinkerton men have never asked for permission to sample crops suspected of patent infringement. The likes of Judge Sippel of the U.S. district court in St. Louis (Monsanto's home) don't care about it either.

How would they sample a hive?

One way is by bee-vacing up samples at the hive entrance (I've used a modified dust buster successfully). 

The other way is through the honey you sell.

Monsanto's yearly litigation budget is in the 100's of millions of dollars a year (I've seen a figure between $400-500 million).

It's as if you have no choice but to buy their product.


----------



## WLC

Mark:

The American taxpayer subsidized the green revolution and now subsidizes the 'Gene' revolution (GMOs).

It's a critical program that Monsanto has to have set up in advance before this new RNAi prodcut is marketed to beekeepers.

Otherwise, the American Beekeeper will be out of business because of the high cost of the product.

I do understand why the success of RNAi technology is critical to U.S. agriculture, and I also understand what is required to make it successful.

Let Jerry know that the subsidies need to be in place first, and he is probably the guy to make sure that this has already happened.


----------



## NY_BLUES

WLC

Any samples collected and tested without proper aauthorization would not be admissable in a court room. Also, any patent infringment lawsuit would have to be filed in the district court where the infringment took place, likely not st louis unless the infringment took place there.

Also anyone from pinkertons shows up on a piece of my property without a search warrent, they are heading to jail for criminal trespass. A private investigation firm has no authority to conduct searches anyway.


----------



## NY_BLUES

WLC

Any samples collected and tested without proper aauthorization would not be admissable in a court room. Also, any patent infringment lawsuit would have to be filed in the district court where the infringment took place, likely not st louis unless the infringment took place there.

Also anyone from pinkertons shows up on a piece of my property without a search warrent, they are heading to jail for criminal trespass. A private investigation firm has no authority to conduct searches anyway.


----------



## sqkcrk

I really don't know him well enuf to feel comfortable asking him those questions or to be advising him on anything. I could give you his contact info. Or you could go to nthe Apiary Inspectors of America website and look it up yourself and then communicate w/ him. I think that would be better for both of us. You could ask him the questions you wish answers to w/out going thru me and my potential mis-stating your questions.


----------



## lazy shooter

We in Texas have very strick trespass laws. They can be enforced by the property owner via a firearm. A bee inspector, or Pinkerton detective would not want to be found testing my bees or anything else on my property.

I'm 72 years old but remain a very good shot with pistol, rifle or shotgun.


----------



## hpm08161947

lazy shooter said:


> I'm 72 years old but remain a very good shot with pistol, rifle or shotgun.


I know. You are going to shoot him dead. Guess life is cheap in TX. Execution... for bee sampling.... hmmm


----------



## WLC

NY Blues:

Monsanto lawsuits always end up in St. Louis. They rarely lose. The tresspss issue means nothing there as it has been shown in case after case.

Don't underestimate the Pinkerton men. They've been doing this kind of work for Monsanto for a long time. 

Mark:

We don't have to inform Jerry directly. Monsanto has a web operation. They're taking notes. 

What's really funny is that this RNAi stuff doesn't even have to be effective. In fact, it's better for Monsanto if it's an inert sequence.

No worries about product liability lawsuits, and they still have the patented sequence 'hammer'.


----------



## lazy shooter

hpm08161947 said:


> I know. You are going to shoot him dead. Guess life is cheap in TX. Execution... for bee sampling.... hmmm


As stated above, I am 72 years old and most likely the bee inspector will be a quite a bit younger. That being the case, I probably won't be able to act as a bouncer. The gun is my equalizer. No, I am not going to shoot someone dead from ambush. I am going to confront the trespasser, and if he does not have an excuse for trespassing that satisfies me, then he will be asked to leave. If he doesn't leave, my next action is to call the sheriff. If at any time, the trespasser poses a threat to me the gun will be my next option.

We in Texas are a civilized society, but we are of frontier lineage and believe your property is sacrosanct.


----------



## Ted Kretschmann

Ace, the royalty is paid by the commercial bee breeder back to the people that developed the stock line. Now, over the years I have been stung enough, and had enough honeybee genetics injected into me from their stings, breathed in enough pollen, dander from their bodies, and frass, that I am probably part honey bee anymore genetically. So the next step in this Orwellian, X files, theory progression of thought-If you are stung by a RNAi laced bee the genetics will show up in your blood stream. Monsanto will then aquire a court order, take a forced blood sample from you and sue you for patent infringement should RNAi honeybee genetics shows up in you blood stream from the day before stings you recieved. Do I hear the old twilight zone theme music in the background??? WLC, you sure that cigar you smoke up on your balcony is not a "blunt". And that you were not partaking while watching the Xfiles movie where they were using genetically altered honeybees to pollinate transmutated corn to perfect the delivery system to infect all of mankind with the dangerous black blood virus??? And after infection we all become space aliens with big eyes, big heads, and a strange gray skin color.... Come on guys this is all a movie plot from the X files that science fiction writers created and the Christmas joke is on us. TED


----------



## WLC

Guys, just buy the RNAi product (as long as it is subsidized).

Ted:

Ask yourself this question: why did Monsanto buy Beeologics, their RNAi technology, hire beekeeping related personnel, etc., etc. ?

They want control of Honeybee pollination and the crops that the Honeybee pollinates.

I don't think that they really give a hoot about queen breeding, because that's not how this RNAi stuff really works.

I rarely drink, and don't use drugs. So, there.

Monsanto is on the move, yet again.


----------



## Acebird

Ted, patents don't work that way. You can shoot up all you want. Monsanto would not have any financial loss from you have bee genetics in your blood stream. They can claim financial loss it if shows up in your bees though.


----------



## slickbrightspear

monsanto has sued farmers in the past due to contamination thru wind pollenation and won.


----------



## Acebird

Ted, patents don't work that way. You can shoot up all you want. Monsanto would not have any financial loss from you having bee genetics in your blood stream. They can claim financial loss it if shows up in your bees though.


----------



## hpm08161947

lazy shooter said:


> No, I am not going to shoot someone dead from ambush. I am going to confront the trespasser, and if he does not have an excuse for trespassing that satisfies me, then he will be asked to leave. If he doesn't leave, my next action is to call the sheriff. If at any time, the trespasser poses a threat to me the gun will be my next option.
> 
> We in Texas are a civilized society, but we are of frontier lineage and believe your property is sacrosanct.


Hmm... that does not sound any different than anywhere else, that I know of. So what happened to "Shoot first and ask questions later"? Must not have renewed your NRA membership.

Frontier lineage? Everybody I know would qualify for that badge.... These lands were totally uninhabited when my scotch/irish ancestors came up the Cape Fear. 

Last time I was in Dallas... it reminded me of NYC....

Enough of this rant.... just that "gonna shoot everybody" implication always seems to make me snort!


----------



## Ted Kretschmann

This will be done through a stock release, which is a controlled environment, O.K.. Regulatory agencies, like EPA, FDA, And the USDA along with HomeLand Security are not going to let a Company such as Monsanto to release something into the willy nilly's of the environment that just might down the road cause irreversable harm to all of us by damaging honeybees. Thus causing starvation to the masses when food supplies are in short supply already in the world.... Just the logistics involved in such a feeding release will be a nightmare. Even in California, where all but 400,000 colonies in the nation overwinter, such a release even through open air feedings will be dysfunctional at best. Blanket coverage is not happening because you can not get beekeepers to agree on anything. We are likened to herding CATS!! Then there are the uneven laws governing honeybees and honeybee movement within the states and between states. Alabama, Hawaii, Lousianna, all have some of the strictest bee laws in the nation. You just can not bring colonies of bees into these states. Especially if they are genetically tampered with, with something that is unwanted. So the only way this will ever be viable will be through stock release. That is all I am going to say on this X-file scenerio and I will be proven correct in the next nine months. And if MONSANTO needs an assistant to JERRY HAYES and the pay is good, I AM FOR HIRE......Because if WLC's Nightmare on Elm Street plot hits the ground, hobbyist beekeepers will be extinct, Commercial beekeeping is doomed and I will need a job. TED


----------



## lazy shooter

"Hmm... that does not sound any different than anywhere else, that I know of. So what happened to "Shoot first and ask questions later"? Must not have renewed your NRA membership."

Nothing was said about "shooting first." Critical reading should proceed criticism.


----------



## lazy shooter

"Hmm... that does not sound any different than anywhere else, that I know of. So what happened to "Shoot first and ask questions later"? Must not have renewed your NRA membership."

Nothing was said about "shooting first." Critical reading should proceed criticism.


----------



## hpm08161947

lazy shooter said:


> Nothing was said about "shooting first." Critical reading should proceed criticism.


That is right. Reread the last few comments and you will see what I am getting at. (It's a comment on Texas machismo... hint)


----------



## hpm08161947

lazy shooter said:


> Nothing was said about "shooting first." Critical reading should proceed criticism.


That is right. Reread the last few comments and you will see what I am getting at. (It's a comment on Texas machismo... hint)


----------



## lazy shooter

hpm08161947 said:


> That is right. Reread the last few comments and you will see what I am getting at. (It's a comment on Texas machismo... hint)


In the spirit of Christmas, I am going to wish you a Merry Christmas and put this "rant" behind me.

As we oft say in West Texas, "vaya con Dios."

lazy


----------



## WLC

'...Because if WLC's Nightmare on Elm Street plot hits the ground, hobbyist beekeepers will be extinct, Commercial beekeeping is doomed and I will need a job. TED'

No Ted, it'll be taxpayer subsidized biotech beekeeping.

Happy Holiday to all.


----------



## fish_stix

Must be the water in NYC.


----------



## Mike Gillmore

This has given me a great idea for a new movie plot .... a terminator is sent back in time to take out Jerry Hayes before he joins the evil Monsanto Corporation and brings about the end of civilization as we know it. Hummm, that could sell, you think? 

Merry Christmas to all!


----------



## valleyman

Got a better plot for a movie. In Monsantos failed attempt to dominate the bee world and control the world food supply they have turned the bees into gigantic attacking, stinging, killing machines that start to get even with the human race for controlling their existance and robbing their honey for many centurys. Isn't this about as believable as some of the other scenarios played out on this thread!!!?


----------



## lazy shooter

I like Valleyman's plot better. The term "killer bees" is already out in the public. Steven King or some of the scifi writers could really do job with Mutated bees. I can't wait to see the movie.


----------



## jim lyon

Those aren't bad plots but you still have to add a bit more dramatic flair. use some terms like "The unimaginable will be a reality" and " A juggernaut will be unleashed" and "the warplan has been in motion for years" and "we are all completely helpless" and.........wait a minute I think someone might already have a copyright on that screenplay.


----------



## VeggieGardener

I'm reminded more of the scene from the "Hunt for Red October" where the smug, know-it-all submarine captain rejects the contrary opinions and chooses to throw all caution to the wind by removing the safeties before firing his torpedoes. The last words he hears as the torpedo turns upon his own boat and crew come from a lowly regarded mate who states "you arrogant ***, you've destroyed us all!"


----------



## jim lyon

VG: If your point is that what Monsanto is up to is akin to nuclear war then I might respectfully submit that perhaps we should save more of our worrying for events in Pakistan, North Korea and Iran and a bit less about what one of the more esteemed members of our beekeeping industry might be up to.


----------



## Barry Digman

Here's a Vanity Fair piece from 2008 about Monsanto:

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto200805

It's not very flattering, but I have to assume that since it's still available that it's contains some truth.


----------



## jim lyon

Linkwars: Don't ya just love em. Takes about a minute and so easy to do, just google something and get a potpourri of ten of thousands of different items, you just take your pick and presto instant rebuttal.


----------



## Beeslave

Question- What's more evil......arrogance or ignorance?


----------



## WLC

'Ignorance is bliss where tis folly to be wise."

It's the subsidies from the American taxpayer that have allowed the biotech giant, Monsanto, to do what it has.

We're more than just accomplices. We ARE Monsanto.

Monsanto is just another monstrous projection of the American Id.

The fact is, we are the monsters, not Monsanto.

Are you sure that you really want enlightenment?

Be careful what you wish for.


----------



## Barry Digman

Kind of a Pogo moment there, indeed....


----------



## WLC

There's more...

For the people at Monsanto, like Jerry Hayes, to make this new RNAi technology for Honeybees a success, they have to tap into the Id of the American Beekeeper.

That's the oxygen that this new product breathes.

Frankly, it's a good model for how Monsanto has operated it's biotechnology progam for years.


----------



## sqkcrk

Id won't woik.


----------



## WLC

It most certainly does.

Look at all those happy GMO farmers: theyr'e sucking on the public teet like crazy; they're fears of pests and weeds are gone (at least they were for a while); and those amoral Roundup Ready sojeros are more than happy to displace the camposinos from their subsistence farms to urban slums, while laughing all the way to the bank.

That's Id all the way.


----------



## Ted Kretschmann

If that is the case, WLC, you and the rest of the hobbyist in the industry will be gone. TED


----------



## wildbranch2007

this thread is wonderful, you'all convinced me, I bought some monsanto stock friday for a christmas present


----------



## WLC

Ted:

The point is that Biotech Ag. is unsustainable. It can't work without the subsidies.

The same applies to biotech Beekeeping.

Wildbranch:

I don't advise folks on investments.

However, the folks that have gotten rich in Biotech Ag. have generally been cartels. Large groups of investors.

PS-Last I heard, Monsanto stock is rated CCC, High risk.


----------



## VeggieGardener

jim lyon said:


> VG: If your point is that what Monsanto is up to is akin to nuclear war then I might respectfully submit that perhaps we should save more of our worrying for events in Pakistan, North Korea and Iran and a bit less about what one of the more esteemed members of our beekeeping industry might be up to.


No, my point had absolutely nothing to do with nuclear war, the end of civilization, or what any esteemed individual of anything is doing. I just don't believe it's a matter to be trivialized or taken lightly no matter what your position is, that actions are being taken without sufficient oversight or concerns for safety, and that the consequences, if negative, may not be reversible.


----------



## WLC

I wouldn't be too concerned about Jim's taunts.

Frankly, the pollinators involved have organized themselves months/years ago.

That's why Jerry Hayes' (the Florida State Apiarist, no less) joining Monsanto a few months ahead of almonds is big news.

In short, guys like Jim have already been 'shut-out' from the big money.


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> ... the pollinators involved have organized themselves months/years ago.


Who are you talking about?
What makes you think so? Your source of info?
In what way are they so organized?


----------



## sqkcrk

VeggieGardener said:


> the consequences, if negative, may not be reversible.


Probably the only consequences that are reversible come from actions not yet taken. If negative consequences result from inaction, maybe remedies can come from acting.


----------



## WLC

Mendes in Florida, for starters. You know his affiliations already.

Please pay attention Mark.


----------



## Barry Digman

VeggieGardener said:


> I just don't believe it's a matter to be trivialized or taken lightly


Yes. When the world's largest seed company and leading manufacturer of genetically engineered seed (along with being one of the world's largest producers of pesticides and herbicides) decides to start buying bee-related companies and hiring bee experts I think it only prudent to pay attention to what they're doing.


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> Mendes in Florida, for starters. You know his affiliations already.
> 
> Please pay attention Mark.


Pay attention? I don't know what you mean.
Mendes etal? I don't know what you are getting at. I'm from MO, you'll have to show me. I think you may be jumping to conclusions not evidenced. Unless I am not paying attention.


----------



## WLC

David Mendes, the president of the American Beekeeping Federation, has been running field trials of this new RNAi product for years. He's currently running trials for Monsanto.

Jerry Hayes, has announced joining Monsanto this month.

Monsanto announced the purchase of Beeologics, and it's RNAi technology this past September.

All three are from Florida (No, not Monsanto).

These are mere formalities.

Almonds are just around the corner the end of Febuary into March.

How many RNAi treated hives out of Florida, with proper dispersal, are needed for at least 95% of the hives in California almonds to become subject to Monsanto patent infringement suits (from RNAi contamination via drifting and robbing)?

The lowball figure is in the 10K hives range.

I think that it's safe to say that between the parties mentioned, they have more than enough hives to do the job.


----------



## valleyman

Mr. Digman,
While I believe that there is a lot of paranoia in this thread, I also believe that you hit the nail right on the head with your post # 203. I Don't trust Bayer or Monsanto, not the goverment, and especially the EPA, which I know is a goverment agency, but is controlled by politicians, which in turn is controlled by money, of which Bayer, and Monsanto has lots of. Good Luck to us all, we made need it in more than just our beekeeping.


----------



## sqkcrk

Thank you. I see what you mean now.


----------



## WLC

I'm not convinced that you do Mark.

The real prize isn't control of pollination, it's control of what gets pollinated.


----------



## Gypsi

WLC, that's interesting. Actually the whole thread is very interesting.

And I don't trust any of the big players, Monsanto least of all.
However, I don't know whether to credit my father or grandfather for the following line:

You can't get blood from a rock. (or a turnip either)

From what I gather, beekeeping is not an enormously profitable business, it wouldn't do anyone much good to sue me, I don't have enough money to take.
Farming is not enormously profitable either, except for the giants. 

Both can only be bled so far and they will simply run out of blood. So, the villains let the world starve. No problem, doesn't matter how much food they have stashed for themselves, sooner or later they will run out. Money isn't very tasty. 

I'm kind of waiting and seeing, and hedging my own bets (aka gardens, chickens, and so on.)


----------



## jim lyon

Barry Digman said:


> Yes. When the world's largest seed company and leading manufacturer of genetically engineered seed (along with being one of the world's largest producers of pesticides and herbicides) decides to start buying bee-related companies and hiring bee experts I think it only prudent to pay attention to what they're doing.


I couldn't agree more Barry. The problem with this subject is that there seems to be no middle ground, you apparently have to be with us or against us. there seems to be no pragmatic reasoning about the challenges of feeding a world population weighed against the potential dangers of new agricultural technologies. No one on here has even heard a statement from Jerry about the nature of his job yet the drum beat of "agri-geddon" seems to be the voice we hear the loudest and longest. I guess if you aren't calling Monsanto an agri terrorist then you are just another pro Monsanto apologist who needs enlightened by those select few who are bright enough to understand.


----------



## Barry Digman

There's always middle ground, but sometimes it's hard to be the first to take a step toward it. We can all do a better job of offering up calmer and more respectful posts. 

As for Mr. Hayes making any kind of statement here, I don't think that will happen. If I were the president of Monsanto and one of my 20,000+ employees took the liberty of speaking out on a project that the company had already invested millions in and which demanded the highest level of confidentiality I would have him in my office the next morning demanding answers. And it wouldn't end well. Mr. Hayes' now owes a pretty high level of loyalty to Monsanto and it would be unfair of anyone to expect him to breach that in any way. 

If Monsanto chooses to say anything more than what they've already said I'm sure it will come through a company spokesperson. Till then we'll just have to keep up with what they're doing the best we can.


p.s. I'm reminded of a saying amongst cattle ranchers; "Trust everyone but brand your calves...".


----------



## Acebird

Jim, I doubt if there is a person on this forum that is upset with Jerry. They are upset with what Monsanto is up to. There are some people that want to set back and give Monsanto a chance. Do those same people feel the same about the Taliban? You see what they both have done in the past. What makes you think the future would be any different?


----------



## ryan

What is the call to action? I've seen no solutions or plans laid out. Is there any thing people can do? 

I guess the best I can do is hope the bio disaster ends as well for me as it did the corn growers....double or triple the production per acre!


----------



## Acebird

ryan said:


> double or triple the production per acre!


Some would say 20 time the production so why sell it short. But none of these equations take into account the destruction of the soil and the tole it takes on the ecology. Unless you are planing on your offspring living on another planet that is a net loss.


----------



## ryan

WLC 
I understand the corn and other seed crop problems with pollen drift and guys keeping seed to replant. I also understand there were unclear lines as to which of the two actually happened. In the corn case, I buy corn and use it as seed then sell the corn. My product is out there and can easily be tested by anyone who buys it. I will buy Meds for my bees but the end product isn't bees for sale. I sell honey, and sometimes the service of pollination. I don't pretend to understand how or what this RNAi does. I don't see the apples to apples comparison. It seems more like the Round Up product. I buy Round Up and Monsanto never checks to see where I used it and they don't seem to care how much money I make from it. It might be the companies most well know product. I don't think I've ever heard of someone getting sued for royalties. It's a straight forward deal.

Please expain how this will work with bees. If my bees rob a hive with RNAi in it. My neighbor had bought the meds and monsanto has been paid. It seems the right to use patented stuff was paid for by my neighbor and he can choose to use it or give it to me or sue my bees for stealing the research from him. Monsanto was already paid. Kinda like Round Up? But I really have no idea.

Does this stuff that is fed to bees in December pass on genetically to offspring that will be hatched out in April?


----------



## ryan

Ace

I understand the concern. But what should the beekeepers of the world do?


----------



## WLC

ryan:

They're feeding dsRNA to Honeybees.

In its most basic form, the dsRNA provides protection from pathogens.

However, in this form, it's neither a pesticide, nor a GMO.

It's something that you can feed bees that's generally recognized as safe (GRAS). In other words, we eat dsRNA all the time and it's harmless.

Monsanto wants dsRNA approved as a GRAS feeding supplement for Honeybees. No fuss with rules for pesticides, no fuss with rules for GMOs.

However, it still contains a patented sequence (of dsRNA). They can still sue for infringement.

But, get this, once they get the GRAS designation, than they can use a different form of dsRNA that can be temporarily integrated into the Honeybees DNA by retrotransposition.

Amazingly, the Honeybees own PIWI system will eliminate the insert with each new generation.

This is the kind of technology Monsanto would love to field.

It represents the easiest way for them to do with the Honeybee what they've had to struggle to do with GMOs: dsRNA sequence cassettes that insert themselves into DNA, produce an amplified signal, get the job done, and then delete thamselves at the end of it all (no gene guns, or terminator genes required). All they have to do is feed it to the bees.

It would make any Monsanto scientist drool.

The technology has some truly great potential for beekeeping as well, from eliminating pests and pathogens to making super productive Honeybees.


----------



## ryan

WLC

So the bees have to eat it to get healthy. Then the benefits go away with the next generation of bees?

It sounds hard to find any reason to sue. If the bees have stuff in them, then they had to have eaten it. Only way to get the meds is buy them, so Monsanto would always get it's money. Kinda like Round Up. Not like the seeds that you could plant and harvest and then use them again and again or sell them to others. Therefore basically stealling the genes from Monsanto.

Where does the patent infringement come in? Even if the bees co-mingle or rob the feed, Monsanto got paid? 

I don't know. I'm asking. Thank you for walking us through this.


----------



## Ted Kretschmann

Once again, I believe it will be done through a stock release of a bio engineered strain of bee that has the RNAi spliced into the DNA sequence. This would be a more permanent solution to the pathogen problem. And as stated earlier, Montsanto will contract out with queen breeders under license to produce the product. These breeders would then pay the royalty back. But each generation down the line would be less and less resistant, so you would have to keep buying "Santo" queens for the resistance to work. Just like you have to maintain pure Russian bees for the resistance to work. Feeding the stuff is not going to work because it is a temporary fix for that season. Patent infringement would come in if Monsanto found out you were breeding their stock lines and selling queens with out a contract. Thus they have beekeeping in a situation just like seeds and cows. Just watch, if "agri-geddon"-I like Jim's wording- happens, it will be through this method- a stock release. But hey, if the product reduces the need for harsh chems, and beekeeping returns to the days before mites. Then the technology might be a good thing and we all might be praising Monsanto instead of cussing it. TED


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> I'm not convinced that you do Mark.


I would be surprised if I really/fully did understand or see what you mean in your way. I remember one time explaining to a group of people the 2 door, 4 holer we were building in The Carpentry Yard at Colonial Williamsburg. I'll never forget the roar of laughter from the small crowd when a guy said, "I'm from Missouri. You'll have to show me."

I often feek that way. "I'm from MO. You'll have to show me."


----------



## jim lyon

Good job Barry D, Ryan, Ted, and WLC for restoring this to a more sane and rational discussion of what may or may not be afoot. I am, perhaps, the only one in this discussion who has signed a technology agreement with Monsanto as have all farmers who buy and plant their seeds. I believe that I understand what it is and what it isn't and have never felt threatened by it. I have seen chemical costs go down, seeds costs go up and most importantly to me yields and profits greatly increase. But I also understand that I can't sell as seed or replant the resulting harvest and that dosent particularly bother me. I also know that I have the option of planting non GMO seeds and, in fact, know some farmers who still do. How this current issue may relate to the beekeeping industry will be of interest and also worthy of a watchful eye.


----------



## sqkcrk

Acebird said:


> There are some people that want to set back and give Monsanto a chance.


I'm not sure what you think anyone can do. We don't even yet know what Monsanto is planning on doing. Not really. Not beyond speculation. So, what choice do you have nut to sit back and give Monsanto a chance? As I have said before, I wish Jerry Hayes well and hope for the best for all. I don't really see why anyone else is less congenial about this. A good guy is going on to something he must see as better for himself and for beekeeping too, because that's what he said.


----------



## WLC

ryan:

Monsanto wants you to buy their product, whether you want to or not.

They've spent an awful lot of time, effort, and money establishing the patent case law that let's them hold you liable if you get caught with one of their patented sequences without having payed them for it.

It's one of the things that has endeared them to so many an American farmer.

This dsRNA is just a new twist on an old theme for them. The main difference being, it's an RNA sequence that's been patented, not DNA. Let's just say that they're expanding their product line.

Ted:

The technology has a great deal of potential for beekeepers. It's just the heavy handed way that Monsanto deals with the least indication of patent infringement. That's the problem.

It doesn't work like a GMO where the DNA can get into the 'seed'. The regular form is dsRNA. The retrotransposon ready form may get to the DNA stage, but that doesn't get passed on to the 'seed' either. Do you follow? It different than anything we've seen before.


----------



## deknow

Ted Kretschmann said:


> Once again, I believe it will be done through a stock release of a bio engineered strain of bee that has the RNAi spliced into the DNA sequence. This would be a more permanent solution to the pathogen problem.


It's much easier to make money on a non-permanent solution to a problem. "Keep buying the magic juice your your bees will get it".

deknow


----------



## TWall

WLC said:


> It's just the heavy handed way that Monsanto deals with the least indication of patent infringement. That's the problem.


The problem is that previous products, soybeans in particular, are very easy to sell without Monsanto getting their royalty payments. Planting, and selling, bin-run soybeans happens regularly. My grandfather and uncle were certified soybean, wheat and oat producers for decades. They had a number of customers who would only buy seed from them every few years. They would save some of the beans they produced to plant next year. They would do this until their yields decreased or they wanted to change varieties. Some of these guys would also sell some of the beans to others for less than what the certified seed costs. It was just part of farming. My family would usually make a little money doing some custom cleaning. Monsanto has invested enough they do not want to let their product be sold on the "black market." 

I can't blame them for that. It is one thing when "public" varieties are being sold from the bin. It is another when it is seed developed by a private company. For every "innocent" farmer caught illegally selling proprietary seed there are plenty doing it intentionally.

Tom


----------



## valleyman

Thanks Tom for this post as I didn't want to get in the water alone. I am not a grain farmer but I know several. I've never heard a complaint about the GM seed, just praise. With the next statement I'm not trying to say that Monsanto isn't wrong sometimes in their aggression of violaters of the agreements, but from life experiences when you know all the facts involved with any conflict/lawsuit/insurance cancellation,etc. the vast majority are not innocent as they claim to be. I can see where the modifications could be the best thing for beekeepers, and the bees in general. I would think it would be up to each state to set up guidelines as to whose bees are whose. After all they are wild beings that can not be controlled, and don't know one state line from another.


----------



## WLC

Technically, GMOs work. With one major flaw.

They require subsidies because they would simply be too expensive otherwise.

Can you imagine how drastically RNAi technology will change beekeeping? 

It'll become another unsustainable Monsanto monopoly.

That's not a goal that a rational person would find acceptable.


----------



## Ted Kretschmann

Basically Monsanto has figured out a way to consolidate the beekeeping industry. Many years ago there were a lot of mom and pop dairies. They used to leave the milk in cans for pickup along the road...Well, big dairy companies came in, set up or bought out the processing plants for the milk. New regulations were enforced and the little mom and pops went out of business. Regulations went in and certain standards were enforced for milking parlors,-well the mid sized operations went out. Now all that is left are the mega milking parlors supplying the nations milk supply. Too bad, Alabama once was a productive dairy state, thus my stainless settling tanks for honey are converted dairy tanks. So here we go again. WLC, you and the hobbyist component of the industry will go out first, as consolidation starts.. Sideliners will be next. Then the small commercial guys. As a member of Sioux, I might hang on a little longer as mid sized producer. History is going to repeat itself....In about ten days, after the two national meetings, we will all know more about what is going on in the industry. WE will know all the where's and what's about T'Laps mite. This new bio technology, RNAi laced feeds.....How bad the national honey crop really was and so forth. So, we should all sit back and enjoy the bumpy ride ahead. Change is the only certain thing in life. It can be for the better or for the worse. TED


----------



## VeggieGardener

Ted, why/how do you think that hobbyist beekeepers would be forced out of keeping bees if they are not even in it to make a profit or as a business enterprise?


----------



## lazy shooter

VeggieGardener said:


> Ted, why/how do you think that hobbyist beekeepers would be forced out of keeping bees if they are not even in it to make a profit or as a business enterprise?


VeggieGardener: I am assuming Ted thinks the regulations would be too strenuous for the hobbiest to meet. I am into bees for a two fold reason. First, I want to help maintain the bee population. Second, I want some honey for my family and friends. I don't give two hoops in Hades if I ever sell a pound of honey. Like you, I don't think the regulations will affect me.


----------



## Acebird

WLC said:


> It'll become another unsustainable Monsanto monopoly.


:thumbsup: There is another flaw, because they are based on pesticides their effectiveness dwindles with time leaving behind a stronger pest.

Regulations are written for the most part to control commercial enterprises. If Monsanto has the magic potion to cure all diseases then where is the logic to police the hobbyist? Impossible...


----------



## WLC

Anyone can keep bees the Monsanto way.

They'll sell their products to anyone.

So, yes, we can all still keep bees.

You do need to follow the user agreement however.

Conceptually, would you rather feed your bees dsRNA, that's been designated as a feed supplement that's generally recognized as safe (GRAS), or would you rather treat them with regulated pesticides/chemicals?

In a strange twist, Monsanto has tapped into the American Beekeeper's Id.

It's 'treatment-free' beekeeping because dsRNA will be designated as a feed supplement by the FDA.


----------



## sqkcrk

Acebird said:


> where is the logic to police the hobbyist?


Who does that?


----------



## Barry Digman

Acebird said:


> Regulations are written for the most part to control commercial enterprises. If Monsanto has the magic potion to cure all diseases then where is the logic to police the hobbyist? Impossible...



That's only part of the story. Regulations are also written in order to raise the barriers to entry into commercial enterprises and to protect those with the largest investments in them. Corporations have spent billions to influence state and federal regulators in order to structure rules and regulations that will prevent others from entering the market easily. 

We should not underestimate the ability of major corporations to write legislation that will impact beekeeping in a way that benefits them. They do it every working day in every industry in the country.


----------



## hpm08161947

Since it is raining outside.. I think I will see if I can figure this "Monsanto Future" out.

Here is what I think you guys are saying (mostly WLC). Monsanto is going to make a Queen that is resistant to very powerful insecticides, mitecide.... and such. It's offspring would be resistant too. So I can go along and spray pyrethrins in the hive... and it will not bother a single bee.... kinda like Glyphosphate (Roundup) on GMO Soybeans..... If I make a few QC of my own... I better pay my royalties to Monsanto... or the bee police will get me?

Have I got it right so far?

Since I am not spending so much time medicating.... I will be able to become much larger.... Rather like Vertical AG....

Hmmm... doubt I have this straight.... might be nice to have a little summary....WLC?


----------



## deknow

...beekeepers are a independant lot...and we have been hearing from those that will not "sell out" to Monsanto...will keep doing what they are doing.

One thing to consider....the almonds. The great pox party on the west coast. 3/4 of the kept bees in this country are in california at the same time every year...an ideal way to spread pathogens and parasites...to 3/4 of the colonies in the country, most of which end up all over the country..coming to an apiary near you!

Add "magic monsanto juice" to the equation, and there is no need for resistant genetics, no reason not to breed from the sick bees. No reason to expect that these bees won't be perfectly capable of vectoring disease to untreated bees. The end.

deknow


----------



## D Semple

WLC said:


> Mark:
> 
> I do understand why the success of RNAi technology is critical to U.S. agriculture, and I also understand what is required to make it successful.


Elaborate on both points please, WLC.


----------



## D Semple

WLC said:


> There's more...
> 
> For the people at Monsanto, like Jerry Hayes, to make this new RNAi technology for Honeybees a success, they have to tap into the Id of the American Beekeeper.
> 
> That's the oxygen that this new product breathes.
> 
> Frankly, it's a good model for how Monsanto has operated it's biotechnology progam for years.


Pretend I'm from Kansas for a moment and tell me what you mean by "they have to tap into the Id of the American Beekeeper."


----------



## VeggieGardener

Okay, so it sounds to me like what is being suggested is that beekeepers would be dependent on certain chemical pesticides to control mites and other pests or diseases, but would also have to purchase proprietary "Roundup Ready" queens as they would be the only ones capable of tolerating the chemicals, and that treatment free will not be much of an alternative in the future.

That seems like it would even work to Monsanto's advantage to see an increase in the spread of mites and diseases as long as they had a specifically chemical tolerant queen ready for production. Isn't it still inevitable that the pests will eventually become resistant to the chemical pesticides (just like with roundup resistant superweeds), that the process won't be sustainable, and at some point will leave the beekeeper in a worst position than ever?


----------



## WLC

hpm:

Although I haven't touched on the 'pesticide resistance cassette', it's possible but not in the starting lineup. 

You can feed this stuff to workers or while raisng queens. It doesn't matter.

D Semple:

Current biotechnology is fast becoming obsolete.

dsRNA/RNAi can be retooled as needed to deal with a large range of issues. A new dsRNA/RNAi product can be tailor made to treat most problems overnight. All you need to do is modify the dsRNA sequence. The machines that currently make dsRNA are fully programable.

I wonder how they're going to get it into seeds/plants though. We know that all you need to do is feed it to bees.

How can they make this successful? First of all, dsRNA is expensive to produce. It has to be subsidized. Once they get FDA approval for dsRNA as GRAS, they're almost home. Then comes the pollinators in almonds. They can bag em all in one shot.

Mark:

Your subconscious needs and fears. But, just the ones related to beekeeping.


----------



## sqkcrk

I believe you are enjoying your superior intellect a bit too much Professor. Have you had much experience teach high school aged students? Don't dumb it down, just speak straight forward plain English.

Thank you.


----------



## Gypsi

It's going to be a very interesting year, in 2012. I'm just watching from the sidelines.


----------



## WLC

'I believe you are enjoying your superior intellect a bit too much Professor.'

Monsanto's new RNAi product for Honeybees is both irrational and amoral.

It's unsustainable, is likely to contaminate the environment irreversibaly, and requires the coercion of American Beekeepers.

However, because of the subconcious, unspoken, needs that the American Beekeeper has, it's going to be a major success for Monsanto.

You want all of the pests and pathogens 'to go away forever'. You want to have healthy and productive bees 'on demand'. You want to be unified into an unstoppable force. You want to see your foreign competitors crushed.

Your Id doesn't care that Monsanto is going to make the above possible. It wants its needs met, and its fears eliminated.

Monsanto knows your Id.

But, like any bargain with the devil, you have to give Monsanto something in return.

It's not just following the user agreement.

They want control of pollination.

And you know what, you're going to give it to them.


----------



## Barry

WLC said:


> D Semple:
> 
> dsRNA/RNAi can be retooled as needed to deal with a large range of issues. A new dsRNA/RNAi product can be tailor made to treat most problems overnight. All you need to do is modify the dsRNA sequence. The machines that currently make dsRNA are fully programable.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> How can they make this successful? First of all, dsRNA is expensive to produce. It has to be subsidized. Once they get FDA approval for dsRNA as GRAS, they're almost home. Then comes the pollinators in almonds. They can bag em all in one shot.


You still haven't answered D. Semple's question in post 238. Also, given the above statements by you, on what authority is this coming to us from? Give us your background in genetics please.


----------



## Ted Kretschmann

Agri-geddon is still a ways away. Montsanto still does not have a clear delivery system. So they hired Jerry Hayes to help develop the system. No one knows, from what I found out today, if it will be in a feed form or if they are going to play God and splice the genetic material into the honeybees themselves. WLC is right about one thing. I was told that the higher ups in government have finally figured out that without honeybees, the rest of agriculture will suffer and that they had better spend the money to help honeybees. Well, Duh, we already knew this. While the market for the product will be small and the companies-Yes, I said companies-will lose money developing and selling the product. It seems WLC is correct that this is a government subsidized research effort. I was also told that long range, nobody knows what the effect will be ,whether it is positive or negative. As I said Companies-what WLC has not deduced and what I was told that BAYER was working hand in hand with Monsanto and the government. I was told that it was a good thing that we had Jerry Hayes as basically a man on the inside from the industry working on the products development. So before everybody just goes nuts on this thread. Just remember that this could be a good thing if developed right. By developed right, I mean slowly, with great care and thought. If this product is rushed into production, unforeseen consequences caused by the product in what ever shape or form, might just be the stake through the heart that terminates beekeeping. People, we will just all have to wait and see how this plays out. One thing is certain, the bees you have today, will not be the bees you have a year or two from now as we enter this brave new world. My friend in Florida has said that Jerry Hayes plans on keeping in touch with him..TED


----------



## WLC

Barry:

The Id is from Freud.

How Monsanto uses patent law is public record.

I've posted the research on the successful RNAi field trials.

Why GMOs are unsustainable is public record. The Cost. dsRNA is no different.

etc., etc. .

And, I have answered D Semple's question.

What do I know about the genetics involved?

I've recently identified active retrotransposition into the R2 insertion site in the Honeybee, the same site that has been linked to CCD by Johnson et al. .

I have students who are investigating this as part of a project funded by a foundation who's mission is Bioethics and Biosecurity.

Barry, are you practicing your 'coercion' techniques?

As you've already found out, it won't work with me.


----------



## jim lyon

WLC said:


> 'I believe you are enjoying your superior intellect a bit too much Professor.'
> 
> Monsanto's new RNAi product for Honeybees is both irrational and amoral.
> 
> It's unsustainable, is likely to contaminate the environment irreversibaly, and requires the coercion of American Beekeepers.
> 
> However, because of the subconcious, unspoken, needs that the American Beekeeper has, it's going to be a major success for Monsanto.
> 
> You want all of the pests and pathogens 'to go away forever'. You want to have healthy and productive bees 'on demand'. You want to be unified into an unstoppable force. You want to see your foreign competitors crushed.
> 
> Your Id doesn't care that Monsanto is going to make the above possible. It wants its needs met, and its fears eliminated.
> 
> Monsanto knows your Id.
> 
> But, like any bargain with the devil, you have to give Monsanto something in return.
> 
> It's not just following the user agreement.
> 
> They want control of pollination.
> 
> And you know what, you're going to give it to them.


Wow I sure didnt realize I wanted all those things. Morality aside if I was going to wish for what was best for me economically at this point in time I would wish that nobody ever invents anything that makes beekeeping easier or bees healthier. I am doing just fine right now thank you. Since varroa first infested our operation over 20 years ago (and after some lumps early on)our operation has increased in size by 50% and our bottom line is infinitely better. Come on WLC just tone the hyperbole down a bit, it sure makes for a better though admittedly less entertaining, discussion.


----------



## Barry

Ted Kretschmann said:


> from what I found out today, . . . I was told . . . I was also told that . . . and what I was told that BAYER . . . I was told that it was a good thing . . .


AFAIC, this thread has already jumped off the deep end. Time for those of you making all the assertions to step up and show your cards. I'm done taking all this throwing around of "statements". 25 pages later and I see little more than unsubstantiated claims by some.


----------



## Barry

> I've recently identified active retrotransposition into the R2 insertion site in the Honeybee, the same site that has been linked to CCD by Johnson et al. .


How did you do this? At your kitchen counter? At your place of employment? Have you had higher education in the study of genetics? Give us reason to put weight in what you say.



> I have students who are investigating this as part of a project funded by a foundation who's mission is Bioethics and Biosecurity.


Students at what level of education?



> Barry, are you practicing your 'coercion' techniques?


Nice dodge!


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> 'I believe you are enjoying your superior intellect a bit too much Professor.'
> 
> Monsanto's new RNAi product for Honeybees is both irrational and amoral.
> 
> It's unsustainable, is likely to contaminate the environment irreversibaly, and requires the coercion of American Beekeepers.
> 
> However, because of the subconcious, unspoken, needs that the American Beekeeper has, it's going to be a major success for Monsanto.
> 
> You want all of the pests and pathogens 'to go away forever'. You want to have healthy and productive bees 'on demand'. You want to be unified into an unstoppable force. You want to see your foreign competitors crushed.
> 
> Your Id doesn't care that Monsanto is going to make the above possible. It wants its needs met, and its fears eliminated.
> 
> Monsanto knows your Id.
> 
> But, like any bargain with the devil, you have to give Monsanto something in return.
> 
> It's not just following the user agreement.
> 
> They want control of pollination.
> 
> And you know what, you're going to give it to them.


Now that's the kind of plain speaking I like to hear. Thank you. You are probably right too. Basic human condition, isn't it?


----------



## Nabber86

Good questions Barry.

I guess all this time I have been assuming the WLC was a high level genectic researcher at a major university. 

Then again, maybe he is not. 

Then again, maybe he is and recently had a multimillion dollar grant withdrawn by Monsanto and has a chip on his shoulder.

Now I am really confused.


----------



## deknow

I certainly don't know Jerry (I have met him), but I have no reason to assume that he isn't a stand up guy.

OTOH, there is not a chance in Hell that Monsanto would hire him if they thought he was going to represent the interests of beekeepers....he was hired to help Monsanto earn a profit...and he would be fired as quickly as he was hired if he were not willing or able to do so.

It would be like hiring someone to give you financial advice (presumably to maximize your assets or to move towards a specific goal), and having him/her tell you that his role was not to help you make a profit, but was to represent the interests of your customers...it isn't even a plausible scenario that Jerry is there to represent the interests of beekeepers or beekeeping....and your friend in Florida is unlikely to learn anything from Jerry that Monsanto doesn't want known (if the relationship were so close that Jerry would violate his contract and risk being fired/sued in order to keep a specific beekeeper informed with inside info, we would not be reading about it on Beesource).

deknow


----------



## WLC

WLC isn't the subject of the thread.

The fact is, I am as powerless to do anything about recent developments as anyone else.

So, has everyone accepted their fate?

Can we all see that every cloud has a silver lining?


----------



## deknow

...sometimes on closer inspection, that silver lining ends up being toxic mercury.

deknow


----------



## Nabber86

WLC said:


> WLC isn't the subject of the thread.
> 
> The fact is, I am as powerless to do anything about recent developments as anyone else.
> 
> So, has everyone accepted their fate?
> 
> Can we all see that every cloud has a silver lining?


But you are acting as the absolute authority on Mansanto's actions and throwing out a lot of big terms that make you sound like you know what you are talking about. You certainly had me fooled.

So where did you get your Ph.D. in genetics, or are you just blowing smoke out of your hole?


----------



## jim lyon

WLC said:


> WLC isn't the subject of the thread.


You nailed it Barry! If anyone wants to know my resume I would be glad to post it though I am not sure its germaine as I am not the one claiming to have all the answers here.


----------



## WLC

Nabber:

Id is a big term?

Troll away.


----------



## deknow

...everything that WLC has posted here matches with my understanding of the situation...I am certainly not as familiar with the subject matter as he/she seems to be, and I am certainly subject to misunderstanding things or being mislead....but I have done some homework.

With that said, I do wish in many of these discussions (not this one) that instead of citing the Maori paper over and over that some of WLC's own experinece and work in progress was discussed in more detail...but there are any number of reasons for him/her not to do so, and not to discuss their actual position...I have no way of knowing if it is a "good reason" or a "bad reason"...plenty of legit reasons are possible (hey, he could be Jerry Hayes representing the interests of beekeepers in violation of his contract with Monsanto).

...but, as far as I can tell, there is no where else on the internet where this topic is being discussed anywhere near as thoroughly as it is here. Given the options, I'll take what I can get. Nothing is stopping any of the other posters here from learning about the subject well enough to evaluate and/or refute what WLC is saying, or from consulting with an expert of their own choosing.

It's difficult to have any kind of discussion where someone's statements are universally suspect....by those that don't know any better. Seems like a good excuse to educate one's self.

deknow


----------



## deknow

Nabber86 said:


> So where did you get your Ph.D. in genetics, or are you just blowing smoke out of your hole?


...it takes a Ph.D. in genetics to discuss genetics? If one doesn't have a Ph.D., it follows that anything they say that is over your head is merely blowing smoke out their hole?

deknow


----------



## jim lyon

Dean: You make some good points but I decided when I registered on here that I would use my name and small town address. No cryptic acronyms no vague addresses. I did so because I felt that it would encourage me to be as civil on here as I would be to someone in person. This is discussion about bees and beekeeping for crying out load not something that one should ever need any privacy for their safety or well being. I understand that most all of the folks use some kind of name other than their own but its usually a nickname of some sort and they hardly make a secret of who they are. I always view with suspicion those folks who refuse to identify themselves in a format such as this particularly when their arguments starts becoming a bit outlandish. It would seem to me that someone who hints at a career in academics would proudly tell his resume.


----------



## Barry

deknow said:


> Nothing is stopping any of the other posters here from learning about the subject well enough to evaluate and/or refute what WLC is saying, or from consulting with an expert of their own choosing.


Actually there is. It's called time. If I were to spend time learning about all the things I'm not in the know about, I'd be a professional student. So, one has to pick and choose what items they will delve into more deeply. At the rate some here are posting on the topic, I want to know that what they are saying comes from credible sources. If someone is truly knowledgeable in a given field, there should be no hesitation to share the background of that knowledge. If anyone wants to know about my credentials in construction, I'd be happy to share that information. But then again, I'm not making claims that would bring this into question. There is no need to dodge this one. Simply show us the experience and/or schooling that would give credibility to one's statements. I won't believe just anything you know!


----------



## hpm08161947

WLC has always refused reveal any ID or credentials about himself and he has been involved in a number of interesting threads here on BeeSource. The best I can tell he works in a Lab.. and keeps bees on his roof... somewhere in NYC. It certainly would add credence to the usually interesting things he has to say.


----------



## WLC

I don't cater to anti-intellectuals.

My name is WLC.


----------



## jim lyon

WLC said:


> I don't cater to anti-intellectuals.
> 
> My name is WLC.


Am I the only one here who finds this post a bit creepy?


----------



## Nabber86

WLC said:


> I don't cater to anti-intellectuals.
> 
> My name is WLC.


There you go again. First you project yourself as an authority of advanced genetics, and now you display yourself as an advanced intellectual.

Well than I guess I am free to assume that you are a high school guidance counseler and ignore your input.


----------



## WLC

Keep trolling.


----------



## deknow

Barry, with all due respect, I can't manage your time for you...it is up to you to decide how to spend your time. If you want to spend time posting about how other people should post that is your business. If you want to spend time reading up on RNAi, Beelogics, and Monsanto, that is also your business. You get what you pay for in this respect....and you "pay" by "spending" time.

Professional students are generally paying professional teachers in one way or another. To be honest, I think it is refreshing that the overall discussion about genetics that has been ongoing since WLC started posting isn't legitimized by academic credentials...we just got done looking at the work of the most respected Ph.D. in beekeeping and found the entire approach to be a waste of time (you and me both). In that case, the Ph.D. status (or a stellar reputation) doesn't change the facts...just as it doesn't in this case. WLC's degree and reputation don't mean anything if he isn't speaking the truth...the truth is (or should be) the focus, not who brings it.

Of course I have no "scientific credentials" (I started college as a biology major...finished as a music major)....2 semesters of freshman biology is no kind of credential that I'm aware of. Given that, is my critique of the Seeley paper, or my evaluation of any of the other studies I have discussed here, on Bee-L or elsewhere somehow delegitimized? Do I know what I am talking about? How could I, according to my transcript, I'm just a saxophone player with an undergrad degree.

I won't say I'm not as curious as anyone else, but I can imagine good reasons for WLC's approach..and if I simply don't trust what is said, I can ignore it, and listen to the other person on Beesource that has demonstrated knowledge on the subject and is willing to discuss it....who is that again?

deknow


----------



## Barry

deknow said:


> and listen to the other person on Beesource that has demonstrated knowledge on the subject and is willing to discuss it....who is that again?


No one, and that should tell you something.


----------



## lazy shooter

WLC said:


> I don't cater to anti-intellectuals.
> 
> My name is WLC.


I'm an engineer with 47 years of experience and quite a bit of additional certifications, such as being a member of the Society for Petrophysicists and Well Log Analyst. Oh please, does this qualify me as being intellectual? I won't commit suicide if I don't qualify, but it will make a dent in my psyche.


----------



## WLC

I won't be trolled.

I already said no.


----------



## deknow

Barry said:


> No one, and that should tell you something.


...it tells me quite a bit about the value of this discussion _without_ WLC. Zilch.

deknow


----------



## hpm08161947

deknow said:


> ...it tells me quite a bit about the value of this discussion _without_ WLC. Zilch.
> 
> deknow


I have been following WLC comments for some time now, perhaps from the time he came on beesource. I was originally suspicious about the accuracy of what he was saying about genetics, but I have done some checking and have yet to find cracks in his armor. So it appears that he does know what he is talking about. He just has a thing about revealing anything about himself... heck I might too... if I lived in NYC.


----------



## jim lyon

deknow said:


> ...it tells me quite a bit about the value of this discussion _without_ WLC. Zilch.
> 
> deknow


I actually think it tells us a lot about the discussion either way. Too bad because it is an important topic but I would rather not get my information on this from some mystery person unless they can make a credible case for why they should remain so.


----------



## Barry Digman

Moving right along...

It seems clear to me that Monsanto is interested in the beekeeping industry in one way or another. How that interest manifests itself is somewhat of a mystery. 

I wish the thread would move back toward how and why a particular company might utilize their considerable wealth to buy bee-related companies (which they already have done) and hire recognized experts (which they've already done) and then leverage that into a model that will hugely influence the way we keep bees. 

I think there's some value to having people with knowledge of bee biology and others with knowledge of the business end of such things as pollination both tossing out ideas and theories we can discuss. 

We don't have to beat each other up in order to discuss what may or may not be coming down the pike, do we? 

I was just running numbers through my head and thinking about those fat pollination fees in California. When I first started keeping bees I think the standard was in the $35-$45 per hive range. Now you can probably add a hundred dollars to that figure, which makes it very attractive to someone who has the ability to dominate that segment of the industry in one way or another over the next decade. 

I think there's enough money in beekeeping now to attract some new and powerful players. That will impact us. Some of the questions are how and when and how much.


----------



## deknow

Barry Digman said:


> ....how and why a particular company might utilize their considerable wealth to buy bee-related companies (which they already have done)


How is easy....Monsanto is hugely profitable, it can buy virtually anything it wants. Why? My reading of the Beelogics information looked to me like it was a company setup to be sold from the outset...that bees were a good first target of RNAi technology (and media ready to boot), and that in the end, very little of this has anything to do with bees....the Beelogics RNAi technology has value throught agriculture (and probably human medicine). The end game is not bees, not pollination, it's not honey, it's not almonds...it's agriculture.



> and hire recognized experts (which they've already done) and then leverage that into a model that will hugely influence the way we keep bees.


If I had to guess, I'd say that Jerry is probably making a _lot_ more at Monsanto than he did working for the state of Florida. I'm certain that this isn't even a noticeable expense to Monsanto, and that they barely need to have a reason to hire experts...any small benefit in such a large enterprise is scaled up considerably...."made up in volume", so to speak.



> I think there's enough money in beekeeping now to attract some new and powerful players. That will impact us. Some of the questions are how and when and how much.


I think beekeeping is simply a stepping stone. A proof of concept. A media ready success story, "Monsanto Saves the Bees (instead of suing farmers)". 

I can't imagine that the self pollinating soy beans announced in October aren't the end game. Why would Monsanto want to get into the pollination business? ...it's a lot of work, it's risky, and even the best have bad years. There is much more money to be made selling seeds that don't require pollination.

deknow


----------



## sqkcrk

Beeslave said:


> Here is a msg sent to me from another commercial beekeeper
> 
> "On friday Chief Apiarist Jerry Hayes resigned and took a job with Monsanto chemical."
> 
> I can't find any articles about it. Is this a good thing or bad thing?


Dear WLC and deknow, this is what this Thread is about. Care to comment on whether it is good or bad? Otherwise, any other discussion is Off Topic, imo.


----------



## sqkcrk

hpm08161947 said:


> He just has a thing about revealing anything about himself... heck I might too... if I lived in NYC.


Heck, he has just as much a job to protect as Jerry Hayes will. That's why WLC can speak w/ authority about how much Jerry will say about Monsanto and the Project. WLC is probably traking chances w/ his job by even participating on beesource.

How many people on beesource reveal much about themselves at all. Hardly any.


----------



## deknow

Mark, according to you, all "discussion" must be of...good or bad.....this thread is only to weigh in on which binary opinion one holds?


----------



## sqkcrk

deknow said:


> Mark, according to you, all "discussion" must be of...good or bad.....this thread is only to weigh in on which binary opinion one holds?


Read the OP and tell me what this Thread is about. State a position and back it up.


----------



## valleyman

Are we now to the point of arguing that we must argue about what we are arguing about? Just saying! I think Jerry Hayes is making much more money and therefore I'm in his corner. Only time will tell as to what he, and/or Monsanto will do to or for the future of beekeeping. Everything else is just opinion and like something else everyone has one. Good luck!!


----------



## Gypsi

Watch "The Botany of Desire" on PBS.org. (it aired Tuesday night) After the apple, tulips and pot, they go to the potato, the history of its spread, the potato blight, monoculture, and finally Monsanto. New leaf, their GMO potato that created its own BT was launched by hiring a well-respected expert in the agriculture of the potato. It only got 5% of the market by McDonalds ordering them, when they bowed to public pressure and stopped, I gather it has disappeared. Discussion of other BT crops is in there. Not a bad hour's investment. But in summary, this might make Jerry Hayes a very
well-paid salesperson. Good PR, not someone likely to influence Monsanto's direction one way or the other. And in the end, it is a free-market economy. Barring genetic drift (which certainly can happen), if Monsanto can't sell their product, they will turn to other lucrative ventures I'm sure.

Bad for the environment? Quite possibly, but what do humans actually do that is GOOD for the environment.


----------



## Beeslave

Since I started the OP I grant permission for this discussion to continue as it has. To know the "good and/or bad" all the cards must be layed on the table. I posted this to gain knowledge and understanding. Please continue


----------



## squarepeg

(mistake)


----------



## lazy shooter

This is the thread to no where.

This thread brings out the Luddites that are totally convinced that Monsanto is some sort of anti-Christ that cannot change. These people believe that Monsanto has been and always will be evil. I would remind these folks that almost nothing is forever.

There is a second, smaller group of folks that know something about genetics bombard the forum with alphabet stuff, RNAi, srRNA and yada, yada, and most of us don't know squat about what they are lecturing us about. Some of these people broadcast from a hidden cave via satellite. I suspect that think 90 percent of us don't know enough about genetics to come down on either side of these arguments.

Monsanto, as a corporate entity, is like a person. They may change their course of business just as people change their behavior. Or, they may not change.

This post reminds me of a dog chasing its tail, there's a whole lot of action without any change.


----------



## valleyman

Beeslave,
I don't recall an opinion from you lately on the subject. Would you interject your current opinion of what is in the future from Jerry Hayes, and Monsanto?


----------



## Acebird

Gypsi said:


> Watch The Botany of Desire. On PBS.org. After pot, they go to
> The potato, and monsanto. New leaf was launched by hiring an
> Expert, well-respected. Which might make Jerry Hayes a very
> Well-paid salesperson. Good PR.


Of course I did and my wife read the book prior. You either want to be informed or you don't.

WLC I don't know who you are and I don't need to. In most forums when someone can't debate what you are saying they simply attack the person. I don't let it bother me. As far as I am concerned it is up to the debater to prove what you say is wrong. No one has even come close.

Amazing how this thread has taken off.
About 3 pages back it was posted that Bayer and Monsanto are working together. They are one in the same meaning they come from the same mold. Money is power. The only thing that threatens money is a revolution. Today we have the Internet which is an information pipeline. But it can be shut down very easily so the time to get informed is now. If you don't believe what a person posts prove it to yourself that he / she is wrong or continue to attack the individual and look like a fool. Your choice.

Gypsi, the book goes into the problem with monoculture much deeper that could not be aired by a network supported with big money. So the PBS version is sugar coated.


----------



## squarepeg

http://monsanto.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=980

here is monsanto's public relations release regarding aquiring beelogics.

a contact person and phone number are provided at the bottom of the release, has anyone tried?


----------



## deknow

.,.I'm not sure what you would expect Monsanto to.say. its worth noting that in the release you linked to,.the.disclaimer saying that everything in the release.is.subject.to.change is almost longer than the release. Essentially, they are telling the reader that they are not making statements or.predictions that they are.willing to.stand behind.
Deknow


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC, do you know Craig Mello? Any comments on him or Diana Cox-Foster, both members of the Beeologics Advisory Committee, along w/ Jerry Hayes, David Mendes and another cpl of people.

squarepeg has given us more to see from Beeologics. There is all sorts of info available via the Links made available by viewing thre Beeologics Link, beyond Beeologics and Monsanto. Such as the National Monthly Honey Report found thru one of the links under sponsors. Check them out, delve beyond the initial Links.

Sorry Dean, it just seemed we were going round and round and not getting anywhere. Which is not uncommon. Happy New Year. Soon.


----------



## squarepeg

i believe that disclaimor is required by sec rules since monsanto is a publicly traded company.

i'm not saying that any pr releases or statements by the phone contact would not be anything other than what they want us to hear.

i'm not knowledgable enough to ask the right questions, but some of you are. it would be interesting to hear what the answers are.


----------



## Nabber86

Why would Monsanto release any information to anyone when it has been proven that there are a lot of crazies out there that want to destroy them?


----------



## Acebird

You have never heard a full line of bs from a CEO. Take any politician, exactly the same. Number one rule, never answer a question even if you know the truth. If you want to know anything at all about a company or a politician ask the competitor. They make it their business to know the other guy's business. Here is the problem, MONOPOLY.


----------



## Nabber86

> As far as I am concerned it is up to the debater to prove what you say is wrong.


Ace, 

Where do you come up with that? A "debate" is not simply stating a position and requiring somebody else to _disprove_ it. The onus is on the person making the asserations to provide credible evidence to support his position. Otherwise, we can all go around making all sorts of ridiculas statements (i.e. I say the sky is green. Prove to me that it is not) and get nowhere.


----------



## WLC

'WLC, do you know Craig Mello? Any comments on him or Diana Cox-Foster, both members of the Beeologics Advisory Committee, along w/ Jerry Hayes, David Mendes and another cpl of people.'

The purchase of Beeologics by Monsanto has raised the issue of bias and conflict of interest for the scientists involved. How that is playing out is unknown to me.

If Cox-Foster is still on board, then Monsanto controls the publication of most Honeybee research in the U.S. .

As for the Beekeepers involved, they don't have the same issues.


----------



## Acebird

http://ento.psu.edu/directory/research-issues/honey-bee-and-pollinator-research

This doesn’t sound good.


----------



## squarepeg

wadya mean ace?


----------



## Beeslave

valleyman said:


> Beeslave,
> I don't recall an opinion from you lately on the subject. Would you interject your current opinion of what is in the future from Jerry Hayes, and Monsanto?


I'm hoping for the best but fear the worst.

I've read publications on the many benefits from Monsanto...I've read publications on their many patent infringement lawsuits .....I've read publications on the damage done to honey bees from various pesticides....I've read and read and read!


----------



## Gypsi

Looked fine to me.


----------



## beemandan

WLC said:


> If Cox-Foster is still on board, then Monsanto controls the publication of most Honeybee research in the U.S. .


It's easy to make specific, unsupported insinuations like this when you're concealed within the cloak of anonymity.


----------



## Acebird

squarepeg said:


> wadya mean ace?


http://ento.psu.edu/directory/rus169
Honey Bee and Pollinator Research: 
Currently, the focus of my research is to understand the epidemiology of RNA viruses in the pollinator community. RNA viruses are emerging as a serious threat to honey bee (Apis mellifera) health and are suspected as one of the major contributors to the recent malady, Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), 

Maybe WLC knows more than we think in the academic community and can see into the future with Monsanto.


----------



## WLC

"Efforts are being made to recreate colony collapse disorder in a controlled environment."

Hmmm...


----------



## Nabber86

Beeslave said:


> I'm hoping for the best but fear the worst.
> 
> I've read publications on their many patent infringement lawsuits


My internet research indicates that Monsanto sells seed to approximately 250,000 farmers and has sued 145 times since 1997 for patent infringement. If you do the math, that comes out to less than 0.06 percent. Of these, Monsanto has proceeded through trial with only *eleven* farmers. 

That's the cold hard facts my friends. They are hardly the sue-happy behemoth that they are made out to be here.


----------



## sqkcrk

Acebird said:


> http://ento.psu.edu/directory/rus169
> Honey Bee and Pollinator Research:
> Currently, the focus of my research is to understand the epidemiology of RNA viruses in the pollinator community. RNA viruses are emerging as a serious threat to honey bee (Apis mellifera) health and are suspected as one of the major contributors to the recent malady, Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD),
> 
> Maybe WLC knows more than we think in the academic community and can see into the future with Monsanto.


So, what are you suggesting? That people shouldn't be working on better understanding the epidemiology of RNA viruses in the pollinator community?


----------



## Acebird

If you sued 145 times and only 11 went to trial then you muscled the other 131 suits into submission. Now how do you see this benevolent conglomerate?


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> If Cox-Foster is still on board, then Monsanto controls the publication of most Honeybee research in the U.S.


To extend your line of logic, Cox-Foster already controls the publication of most honeybee research in the U.S.? Really? One person? That's hard to believe or understand.


----------



## VeggieGardener

Nabber86 said:


> My internet research indicates that Monsanto sells seed to approximately 250,000 farmers and has sued 145 times since 1997 for patent infringement. If you do the math, that comes out to less than 0.06 percent. Of these, Monsanto has proceeded through trial with only *eleven* farmers.
> 
> That's the cold hard facts my friends. They are hardly the sue-happy behemoth that they are made out to be here.


Is that a cold hard fact or a meaningless stat? You could also use the total overall number of farmers and bring that percentage down to zero but that still would not mean that Monsanto hasn't gone after and intimidated farmers who were innocent of any wrongdoing. How many lawsuits were threatened, or were there instances where other forms of harassment took place? How many farmers could actually afford to engage in a legal battle and "proceed through trial" with the likes of Monsanto?


----------



## Nabber86

Acebird said:


> If you sued 145 times and only 11 went to trial then you muscled the other 131 suits into submission. Now how do you see this benevolent conglomerate?


I see them as a benevolent conglomerate and as a not so sue-happy behemoth that they are made out to be by the Monsanto Haters Club.

Do you have any evidence to support the claim that Monsanto muscled into submission 131 out of the 145 suits?? Oh wait, I suppose it is my job to prove that your comment is accurate?


----------



## Nabber86

VeggieGardener said:


> How many lawsuits were threatened, or were there instances where other forms of harassment took place? How many farmers could actually afford to engage in a legal battle and "proceed through trial" with the likes of Monsanto?


Are you going to back that up with actual numbers, or do you want me to answer your questions for you? OK I will provide answers - My answer is zero farmers were threatened and all farmers can afford to engage in legal battle. Now it is up to you to take the Acebird debate approach and prove that I am wrong. How about that?


----------



## Acebird

Wrong, by the mere fact that a person is sued puts them on the defensive which will cost them money even if totally innocent of all charges. It would be nice if our court system automatically awarded damages to a sued victim when falsely accused. Suing is a form of muscling ask any lawyer.


----------



## Corvair68

Just they fact that they would even consider suing farmers over wind pollinated crops is a sign of their incredible greed. The fact they they threatened organic farmers who didn't want Monsanto crops and whose crops were destroyed by their "improvements" makes it even worse. I suspect the only reason more didn't go to trial is because of the amount of negative attention it has brought upon them. The American people put up with a lot of injustice, but it is usually not so blatantly obvious.


----------



## Acebird

Corvair68 said:


> The American people put up with a lot of injustice, but it is usually not so blatantly obvious.


Apparently it is not blatant to Nabber or he hasn't figured out how to google it.


----------



## Barry Digman

The thread is beginning to derail into the personal. Let's not go there.


----------



## deknow

http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/pubs/Monsanto November 2007 update.pdf

Monsanto vs. U.S. Farmers 

November 2007 Update 

In 2005, the Center for Food Safety released Monsanto vs. U.S. Farmers,
a
groundbreaking report which documents the Monsanto Company’s unprecedented use of patents
and restrictive licensing agreements to investigate and sue farmers for suspected seed-saving. 
Monsanto and its hired investigators continue to harass, intimidate and prosecute U.S. farmers, 
primarily in cases involving the alleged saving and replanting of the company’s Roundup Ready
soybeans. Below, we provide an update on the number and status of recorded lawsuits filed by
Monsanto against U.S. farmers.
2
For the first time, we also provide estimates based on
Monsanto Company documents that encompass the much more common outcome of cases
brought by Monsanto against farmers – confidential, out-of-court settlements that go unrecorded
in public court records.

Number of Lawsuits Filed Against U.S. Farmers: 
• As of October 26, 2007, Monsanto had filed 112 lawsuits against farmers for alleged
violations of its Technology Agreement and/or its patents on genetically engineered
seeds.
3

• These cases have involved 372 farmers and 49 small farm businesses 

Status of Lawsuits: 
• 57 lawsuits ended in recorded damages awarded to Monsanto
• 24 lawsuits ended in unrecorded damages awarded to Monsanto (confidential 
settlements)


1
2
Available at: http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/Monsantovsusfarmersreport.cfm 
Unless otherwise noted, these statistics were compiled by Center for Food Safety from public court records
accessed using the PACER database, available at http://pacer.uspci.uscourts.gov. Figures current as of October 26,
2007. 
3
We excluded two cases against seed companies – Monsanto vs. American Seed Inc. and Monsanto vs. Hill Seed
Company – that do not involve alleged seed-saving by farmers. 
1
• 13 lawsuits were dismissed, with no indication of whether damages were awarded to
Monsanto 
• 18 lawsuits were ongoing as of October 26, 2007

Lawsuits Filed by State
• Monsanto has sued farmers and small farm businesses in 27 different states. 

Recorded Judgments (as of October 26, 2007): 
• Sums awarded to Monsanto in 57 recorded judgments against farmers totaled
$21,583,431.99 
• The largest judgment was $3,052,800.00
• The smallest judgment was $5,595.00
• The average judgment was $385,418.42
• The median judgment was $117,440.00. 

Lawsuits on the Rise 
• Monsanto filed 7 lawsuits against farmers in 2005, 9 in 2006, and 10 in the first ten
months of 2007 (through October 26
)

Out-of-Court Settlements 
th
These recorded judgments fail to convey a true picture of the scope of Monsanto’s
aggressive actions against U.S. farmers. This is because the majority of cases brought by
Monsanto end in confidential, out-of-court settlements. Press reports and Monsanto’s own
statements suggest that the company investigates roughly 500 farmers each year.
In one case,
Monsanto vs. McFarling, District Court Judge Catherine D. Perry stated that: “[t]he vast majority
of cases filed by Monsanto against farmers have been settled before any extensive litigation took
place.”
5

Center for Food Safety has compiled information formerly available on Monsanto’s 
website to arrive at estimates of the total sums paid to Monsanto by farmers in what the company
calls “seed piracy matters.”  Appendix I summarizes these estimates for 19 states. Appendix II
reproduces the ten “Seed Piracy Updates” upon which our compilation is based. 



• As of June 2006, Monsanto had instituted an estimated 2,391 to 4,531 “seed piracy 
matters” against farmers in 19 states
• Farmers have paid Monsanto an estimated $85,653,601 to $160,594,230 in 
settlements of these seed piracy matters
• The number of seed piracy matters reported by Monsanto is 20 to 40 times the 
number of lawsuits we have found in public court records
• The estimated total of settlements paid to Monsanto by farmers ($85.7 to $160.6 
million) exceeds by four to eight times the total of recorded judgments ($21.6
million)


----------



## broodhead

Good information, Jerry Hayes is no beeman, rather a state employee. The only thing that Jerry can add to the equation would be intellectual property belonging to The State Of Florida, namely names of beeks.


----------



## Nabber86

> As of October 26, 2007, Monsanto had filed 112 lawsuits against farmers for alleged
> violations of its Technology Agreement and/or its patents on genetically engineered
> seeds.


I stand corrected. Apparently the actual number is only 112 lawsuits. Thanks for pointing that out.


----------



## Nabber86

My only point is that 112 lawsuits filed over a 16 year period is a tiny amount of lawsuits for a multi-billion dollar company to protect its patent rights. I suspect that this number is substantially lower than the public has been lead to believe by all of the negative Monsanto propaganda that exists in the media today. This low number really surprised me (I was guessing it was thousands upon thousands of lawsuits, based on what I have read on BeeSource alone). Just trying to get the facts out there so people can see them and make their own decisions. 

Makes you wonder how many times Monsanto has been sued by farmers and environmental groups? I have no numbers to back it up, but my guess is more than 112. I also suppose that "deep pockets" is the cause of many, if not more, lawsuits than muscling the little guy.


----------



## deknow

Regarding "debate"....

If this is merely a debating exercise, then it is fine to try to "win" with good "debating skills". I could argue either side of this (or almost any issue)....but just because I could, doesn't mean that I want to....if I wanted to practice "debating", I'd do it with other people that wanted to practice debating.

What I hope is happening here is that people are honestly discussing the issues, trying to get at the truth, trying to discern the facts...and figure out where there are ambiguities or legitimate disagreements. This is certainly what I'm doing.

If we start there (rather than "debating for fun"), one would hope that no one is trying to deceive, fool, and confuse the issue(s)...these are time wasters for everyone.

If I say, "X is true", it is very easy to disprove what I've said...find one exception. Point out a possibility that I haven't considered. 

If I say, "X is true", it is difficult (impossible) for me to back this up with enough evidence to "prove" what I am saying is correct......somehow, I am supposed to discount all of the possible exceptions and possibilities? Even if I do this, how do we ever know if my evidence is good...that my claims are true, that I have considered all the possibilities? ...we go back to "...find one exception. Point out a possibility that I haven't considered".

No matter what I say, no matter how well it is documented, it always comes back to that it is impossible for me to prove what I say is true....but easy for someone else to prove me wrong. If you haven't tried (at least as a brief mental experiment) to show what I've said is not true, you have no basis to believe what I've said.

If I say, X is true" and I know it isn't, I am just wasting time...mine and yours.

So, I come to these discussions with the intention of getting to the bottom of things....testing the conclusions I've already come to after running the debate in my head (having a number of voices in there helps in this regard) against opposing opinion.

If anyone thinks they can understand (never mind discuss) the issues wrt to Monsanto and Beelogics without even a cursory understanding of the technology, without being willing to read up on at least some of this, or by ignoring the contributions of WLC because of the anonymity, they are fooling themselves.

So we try to explain the technology....we try to speculate on why things are the way they are and where things are going...and a number of posters complain instead of contribute.

As far as I can tell, this is the only place this discussion is taking place publicly. If you think you can gain anything from reading or posting in this thread without taking the time to learn a bit about RNAi, about Beelogics, about Monsanto, you are fooling yourself.

deknow


----------



## deknow

Nabber86 said:


> I stand corrected. Apparently the actual number is only 112 lawsuits. Thanks for pointing that out.


....as of 2007. But you should read the whole document:


> As of June 2006, Monsanto had instituted an estimated 2,391 to 4,531 “seed piracy
> matters” against farmers in 19 states
> • Farmers have paid Monsanto an estimated $85,653,601 to $160,594,230 in
> settlements of these seed piracy matters
> • The number of seed piracy matters reported by Monsanto is 20 to 40 times the
> number of lawsuits we have found in public court records
> • The estimated total of settlements paid to Monsanto by farmers ($85.7 to $160.6
> million) exceeds by four to eight times the total of recorded judgments ($21.6
> million)


----------



## sqkcrk

broodhead said:


> Good information, Jerry Hayes is no beeman, rather a state employee. The only thing that Jerry can add to the equation would be intellectual property belonging to The State Of Florida, namely names of beeks.


Do you know anything about Jerry Hayes' backgound, education and knowledge?
Because, I don't know how you can say that. He may not own bees, but he is definetly a beeman. And Monsanto would not have hired him just for a list of names. There are cheaper ways of getting that list. Besides, such information is probably confidential, so if someone, like Jerry, supplied them w/ such info they would be in violation of FL Law.

But, maybe you know something the rest of us don't. Do you? Disparaging someones character in forums likle these, when they are not likely to defend themselves and wouldn't benefit if they did, is cheap.


----------



## beemandan

I’m not real clear about why the subject of lawsuits enters in. From the data compiled by centerforfoodsafety.org it would appear that Monsanto prevails in substantially all of the lawsuits they initiate. The average settlement was $385,000. That suggests that those farmers who were sued failed, in a rather large way, to live up to their agreements with Monsanto. Why does a small subset of the farmers using Monsanto’s seeds, who’ve broken their agreements with Monsanto, have any bearing on this discussion?


----------



## sqkcrk

deknow, in response to your last Post. Where do you suggest we go to find out about Beeologics and Monsanto and Jerry Hayes? Since those seem to be the areas of discussion. RNAi too.

I haven't read everything on the Beeologics website yet. Is anything they have there worthwhile or suspect? Taking everything w/ a grain of salt, of course.


----------



## WLC

Most settle out of court and sign a non-disclosure agreement.

So no, they don't appear in the public record. We'll never know the true extent of this practice.


----------



## deknow

Mark, I agree with what you say above about Jerry. A point worth considering (I don't think this is the point the poster was trying to make) is that they did not hire a large commercial beekeeper or buy out a large outfit (yet...at least to my knowledge). Hiring Jerry gives them an in house consultant, someone who can run/oversee trials with bees, and interface with the industry. If what they wanted was to own the pollination market, they would have bought out one of the larger concerns...they could certainly afford it if that is what they wanted. I don't think they are trying to take over the pollination business...but what do I know, there could already be a handshake deal to buy out the outfits that have been testing the beelogics product.

deknow


----------



## sqkcrk

Well, one never knows, does one? Dave Mendes is on the Beeologics Advisory Board too. Or was. I don't know if it still exists. Though I don't know why it wouldn't.

Back in Post #33 I stated why Jerry was hired. But some people see half empty glasses and look down on Government Employees at all levels. so, I am not surprised by the statements from some people. I sometimes don't have good things to say about NYS Apiary Inspectors or Apiary Inspection and I was a NYS Apiary Inspector. So what does that say.


----------



## WLC

I think that it's naive to assume that the former Florida State Apiarist and Monsanto are going to follow the 'Marquis of Queensbury' rules.


----------



## sqkcrk

A healthy dose of skepticism is not uncalled for I guess. But, until some time has passed, aren't we jumping to conclusions if the only things we have to say are negative in nature?

Is there nothing good about RNAi, Beeologics and Monsanto?


----------



## Acebird

No skepticism, nothing good about the latter.


----------



## beemandan

Ahhhh the power of the internet. As I was reading the posts on this thread I happened to look at the ad at the top. Guess what it was for?
• 
Roundup Ready Soybeans 
Accelerated Yield Technology (AYT™) System available only from Pioneer.
www.Pioneer.com/Soybeans

Someone will surely claim an Orwellian connection…


----------



## deknow

When I wanted to look into the purchase of beeologics by monsanto, I went to the beeologics website and looked at the leadership team, the tech. advisory group, and the BOD. The CEO is clearly someone that knows how to found, grow, and sell companies...software, PBX, and worked at Intel. My reading between the lines (on him and the rest of the team) is that this was setup to sell in the first place.

There is a ton of info on Monsanto all over the place....I'd recommend reading both extremes of opinion, and also finding a source that you trust to be somewhat balanced.....try to poke holes in everything you read and look up the facts that are presented....both sides in this one are prone to large distortions of fact.

For RNAi, I'd suggest starting with the wikipedia article....look up the terms you don't know as you read. This will give you a basic understanding that you can use to evaluate the claims of Beeologics (for instance, you will notice that the claims of remibee to treat CCD is based upon the assumption that IAPV causes CCD....obviously this has been all but discounted as the cause, but they keep the info on the website so they can link what they are doing to "saving the bees" http://www.beeologics.com/CCD.asp ).

Google is your friend, and critical thinking your only weapon.


----------



## sqkcrk

Thanks.


----------



## Barry

Dan, you haven't heard? Monsanto bought Beesource! I'm just a front man now.


----------



## Nabber86

deknow said:


> ....as of 2007. But you should read the whole document:


I did read it. Aside from the article having an obvious alarmist slant, “seed piracy matters” is a rather rather vague term. What exactly does that mean? 

Anyway, I was providing the facts specifically about the number of lawsuits filed by Mansanto and nothing else. I consider these facts "provable" by public record. Pretty hard to argue against those facts. 

If you want to claim that Monsanto is evil because they _had instituted an estimated 2,391 to 4,531 “seed piracy matters” against farmers in 19 states_, that's your opinion to support and in no way refutes the facts as I have presented them. 

Maybe we need a review of some basic concepts: 

FACT: Mansanto has filed 112 lawsuits against farmers for alleged violations of its Technology Agreement and/or its patents on genetically engineered seeds. 

OPINION: Monsanto is not the sue-happy behemoth that they are made out to be. 

FACT: Monsanto had instituted an estimated 2,391 to 4,531 “seed piracy matters” (whatever that means) against farmers in 19 states. 

OPINION: Mansanto a sue-happy behemoth.


----------



## beemandan

Barry said:


> Dan, you haven't heard? Monsanto bought Beesource!


Well......there goes the neighborhood


----------



## beemandan

The whole lawsuit thing revolves around protecting their intellectual property. They spent countless millions developing the products and they make demands for those who buy them. If you find the demands unacceptable....you don't buy the product. Pretty simple, to my thinking. 
Maybe we look at it another way. Let’s say some aspiring beekeeping marketer decided to print a few thousand copies of ‘Complete Idiot’s Guide to Beekeeping’ and sold it on Ebay….without paying the author or publisher. Does anyone think the author or publisher will sit still for that? Stealing intellectual property comes in many forms. And as the 'owner' of that intellectual property you'd be a fool not to defend it.


----------



## deknow

Nabber, the "seed piracy matters" were defined and quantified by Monsanto on their own website. Since this information has since been removed, the document I posted a link to reproduces this documentation in Appendix II....by state/region, and details the amount of the settlements. The range of numbers is exactly the range that Monsanto claims.

If it is your opinion that thousands of settlements made to a company with deep enough pockets to bury virtually any business with lawyers doesn't indicate that they are "sue happy", I guess we can just assume that Monsanto sent out thousands of nice letters explaining that they think their intellectual property has been infringed upon, and that they are owed money....and that the farmers realized this was the fair thing to do and sent in "settlements" gladly and without the threat of a devastating law suit.

deknow


----------



## beemandan

It doesn’t matter how much money they have….or lawyers either. If they acquired a reputation in the farming community for frivolous lawsuits costing farmers huge sums, then they’d have to find another business. If on the other hand they acquired a reputation as unwilling to protect their intellectual property rights….they’d also have to find another business.
Unlike RNAi....this is really pretty straightforward stuff.


----------



## deknow

beemandan said:


> If you find the demands unacceptable....you don't buy the product. Pretty simple, to my thinking.


...except that Monsanto has been careful to reserve the right to sue those who don't buy anything from them, have no relationship with Monsanto....if pollen from Monsanto's plants makes its way to your field. They do say they will not do this if "trace" amounts are found _and_ are present inadvertantly...but "trace amounts" could mean almost anything.

I do understand intellectual property concepts, and protecting it is important. However, unlike a book that would have to be printed, this intelectual property (monsanto's GM genes) reproduces itself with or without human intervention. If I had patented bees in my yard, and in a big storm a few drones ended up a hundred mile away in your apiary, you are now violating my intellectual property rights and are subject to being sued. I'm not responsible for keeping my bees from swarming, my drones from drifting, my drones from mating with your queens....it is your responsibility to prevent this from happening. Now, what if I've sold queens (with my patented genetics) to all the beekeepers in your county (except you). How can you protect yourself?

deknow


----------



## WLC

Remembee is fed to bees. It's a feed supplement.

It's not a pesticide or a GMO.

It does contain patented sequences.


----------



## Nabber86

deknow said:


> Nabber, the "seed piracy matters" were defined and quantified by Monsanto on their own website. Since this information has since been removed, the document I posted a link to reproduces this documentation in Appendix II....by state/region, and details the amount of the settlements. The range of numbers is exactly the range that Monsanto claims.
> 
> If it is your opinion that thousands of settlements made to a company with deep enough pockets to bury virtually any business with lawyers doesn't indicate that they are "sue happy", I guess we can just assume that Monsanto sent out thousands of nice letters explaining that they think their intellectual property has been infringed upon, and that they are owed money....and that the farmers realized this was the fair thing to do and sent in "settlements" gladly and without the threat of a devastating law suit.


Good grief. Now you are putting words in my mouth. :no:

It is not my opinion that "_thousands of settlements made to a company with deep enough pockets to bury virtually any business with lawyers doesn't indicate that they are "sue happy",.... _{big snip}, etc., etc.".

Those are your words, not mine. If you dissagree, please provide evidence that proves that I said that. A quote or particular post number will suffice. 

I will state this one more time: My opinion is that 112 filed lawsuits does not constitute a sue-happy behemoth. Simple as that. No more, no less.


----------



## deknow

..your stated opinion seems to be that the only indicator of being "sue happy" is by filing actual law suits.


> My opinion is that 112 filed lawsuits does not constitute a sue-happy behemoth.


Monsanto has published it's own propaganda that establishes that there have been thousands of settlements that never made it to court.

I think it is reasonable to assume that such settlements were made under the threat of being sued....over and over, thousands of times....if not, I'd love to hear a believable scenario.

deknow


----------



## Ted Kretschmann

Read the links...The technology just might work. And if it provides for healthier bees, less chemicals in bee hive, more honey produced and thus more money in my pocket, then I might have to go and join the "Dark Side"...TED


----------



## beemandan

Dean, I think you’re pushing the envelope on this part of the topic. If those lawsuits were against farmers who unintentionally and inadvertently wound up with trace amounts of Monsanto’s genes in their personal seed stock, Monsanto wouldn’t stand a chance in most courts. And, if they even attempted to collect damages from those innocent farmers, the farming community would respond. I think what you’re seeing are folks who’ve intentionally placed their seed producing plots adjacent to Monsanto stock, with the express intent of collecting those genetics.
If you want to argue about your concerns of human manipulation of seed (and honey bee) genetics…for once you won’t find me in disagreement. But, if your argument is against their protecting their intellectual property….we will be on opposite poles....as usual.


----------



## sqkcrk

You could just choose to see things differently, couldn't you? Change your perspective from "propoganda" to "news release".

How about settlements came to amicable resolution?


----------



## squarepeg

good point ted. since no one else has figured out ccd or what to do about it, wouldn't that be a happy day?

at the same time, if patented genes end up in my apiary through no deliberate action on my part, i want the laws to protect me from legal action by the patent holder.

if the bee community is concerned about this, now is the time for the leaders in the community to be having conversations with state and u.s. legislators. if there are no laws on the books yet that address this scenario, preemptive action might help avoid the scenarios described in this thread.


----------



## deknow

beemandan said:


> If those lawsuits were against farmers who unintentionally and inadvertently wound up with trace amounts of Monsanto’s genes in their personal seed stock, Monsanto wouldn’t stand a chance in most courts.


...but these thousands of settlements never saw the inside of a courtroom, a judge never had anything to do with it. Do you understand what it costs to defend yourself against a lawsuit...especially if the entity suing you has 75 full time employees dedicated to investigating these violations, has really deep pockets, and as much legal firepower as necessary...even if there is no actual basis for the suit?



> I think what you’re seeing are folks who’ve intentionally placed their seed producing plots adjacent to Monsanto stock, with the express intent of collecting those genetics.


certainly there is some of this...but even in such cases, should anyone really be responsible for what pollen blows onto their property? If it was pollution or pesticides, the onus would be on the one producing the pollution or pesticide to keep it from blowing onto the neighbors property...but since it's pollen I am responsible to keep someone elses microscopic, wind blown or bee carried property off of mine?
...but just as certainly, there are thousands of cases according to Monsanto...and the settlements and details are not available to either of us....so is it reasonable to assume that 100% of them are from people trying to steal from Monsanto? ...by planting non-monsanto seed on their own property? Monsanto's own words indicate that even inadvertent possession of Monsanto genes would be prosecuted _unless_ it was "trace amounts"...an ambiguous term at best....if it's possible to get trace contamination, it's probably possible to get "above trace levels" as well.

deknow


----------



## broodhead

Jerry came to Florida and worked at Dadant in High Springs as a warehouse guy, I believe he was a school teacher prior to that. I was in Dadant not long ago and there was a invitation for beeks to come hear Dr. Jerry Hayes speak at some forum, I asked someone when Jerry Recv'd his PHD and they busted out laughing.


----------



## beemandan

deknow said:


> Do you understand what it costs to defend yourself against a lawsuit...especially if the entity suing you has 75 full time employees dedicated to investigating these violations, has really deep pockets, and as much legal firepower as necessary...even if there is no actual basis for the suit?


Yeah Dean, I’m a semi-bright fellow. I understand the costs of litigation.
In the same vein Dean, do you understand the public relations and marketing disaster it would be if Monsanto beat up a boatload of innocent farmers? Do you have any idea of the long term effect on their bottom line? I guarantee you that Monsanto does.


----------



## seal62

watch food inc and king corn ..then you'll get the idea .


----------



## Nabber86

deknow said:


> ..your stated opinion seems to be that the only indicator of being "sue happy" is by filing actual law suits.
> 
> 
> Monsanto has published it's own propaganda that establishes that there have been thousands of settlements that never made it to court.
> 
> I think it is reasonable to assume that such settlements were made under the threat of being sued....over and over, thousands of times....*if not, I'd love to hear a believable scenario.
> 
> *deknow


First off, I will admit that I am completely ignorant of what a "seed piracy matter" is. You stated earlier that "seed piracy matters" were defined and quantified by Monsanto on their own website. And that that information has since been removed. That sounds a little suspicious right there. If you have some special knowlege in this area, please share with us the definition of a "seed piracy matter". Is it a couple of thugs visiting a farmer and breaking his kneecaps, or a letter repeating Monsanto's policy of protecting their patent rights? 

Based on that. how about this believable scenario.....

Thousands of out of court setlements were made by farmers who knew full well that they broke the law by infringing upon Monsanto's patent rights and didnt want to go to court and loose. Out of court settlements work both ways.


----------



## Nabber86

deknow said:


> ...but these thousands of settlements never saw the inside of a courtroom, a judge never had anything to do with it. Do you understand what it costs to defend yourself against a lawsuit...especially if the entity suing you has 75 full time employees dedicated to investigating these violations, has really deep pockets, and as much legal firepower as necessary...even if there is no actual basis for the suit?


This just in......

From Appendix II of the the document that you cited earlier: 

"Monsanto returns all pre-trial cash settlements back to rural America through the Commitment to Agricultural Scholarship Program and related youth initiatives. Over the past seven years alone the scholarship program has awarded nearly $900,000 to 650 farm youth pursuing an education and career in agriculture".

Good for them. :applause: Allowing thieves to settle out of court so they do not have to endure the hardships of a trial. On top of that, donating the pre-settlement fees to charity! 

The more I learn about Monsanto in this thread the more I like them.


----------



## WLC

Did Monsanto give any scholarships to the subsistence farmers who were forced off of public lands, and into city slums, so that RR soybeans could be planted from horizon to horizon?

You need to get informed.


----------



## Barry

deknow said:


> should anyone really be responsible for what pollen blows onto their property? If it was pollution or pesticides, the onus would be on the one producing the pollution or pesticide to keep it from blowing onto the neighbors property...but since it's pollen I am responsible to keep someone elses microscopic, wind blown or bee carried property off of mine?


No, you're not. These possible scenarios are quite grandiose. I guess if you want to believe that the big corporation will come after you for this, you can think that.


----------



## squarepeg

from what i gathered, the farmers targeted were those who sold seed, that ended up intentionally or not with monsanto's patented genes.

the equivilent in the bee world would be those selling queens, packages, and/or nucs, that had the patented genes, whether brought in intentionally or not.


----------



## Nabber86

beemandan said:


> Dean, I think you’re pushing the envelope on this part of the topic. If those lawsuits were against farmers who unintentionally and inadvertently wound up with trace amounts of Monsanto’s genes in their personal seed stock, Monsanto wouldn’t stand a chance in most courts. And, if they even attempted to collect damages from those innocent farmers, the farming community would respond. I think what you’re seeing are folks who’ve intentionally placed their seed producing plots adjacent to Monsanto stock, with the express intent of collecting those genetics.


Furthermore if the Monsanto Haters bothered to actually study the law suits that have been filed by Monsanto, they would find out that the defendent are in flagrant violation of the use agreement. In most cases the farmer knowingly and willingly re-planated second generation seeds. In some cases seeds were even sold to neighbors. As an example I present the most famous case of all (Monsanto vs Schmeiser): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeiser


Here is a more recent report of a farmer "saving seeds" and infringing upon Mansanto's patent rights: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/21/us-monsanto-lawsuit-idUSTRE78K79O20110921


I challenge anyone to cite a lawsuit that Monsanto actually won that is related to "genetic drift" and not out-right thievery of thier intellectual property rights.


----------



## Nabber86

WLC said:


> Did Monsanto give any scholarships to the subsistence farmers who were forced off of public lands, and into city slums, so that RR soybeans could be planted from horizon to horizon?
> 
> You need to get informed.


Yes, I would like to get informed. Please provide evidence that supports the statement that you have made above. Especially the part about "horizon to horizon".


----------



## squarepeg

>I challenge anyone to cite a lawsuit that Monsanto actually won that is related to "genetic drift" and not out-right thievery of thier intellectual property rights. 

if there are none the bee producers can sleep better tonite.

but if the genes are delivered through feed, i wonder if monsanto will require anyone wanting to use that feed to sign a similar user agreement.


----------



## Gord

The Canadian seed piracy issue was with Percy Schmieser, in Saskatchewan.

http://www.percyschmeiser.com/


----------



## deknow

Barry said:


> No, you're not. These possible scenarios are quite grandiose. I guess if you want to believe that the big corporation will come after you for this, you can think that.


..Monsanto's position on such things is stated clearly in a letter from one of it's lawyers in response to a lawsuit from some organic growers trying to get pre-emptive protection from being sued when someone else's pollen fertilizes their crops:


> "As it has previously publicly stated, and restates here, Monsanto policy never has been, nor will be, to exercise its patent rights where trace amounts of its patented seed or traits are present in a farmer's fields as a result of inadvertent means."


...more than trace amounts? what is a trace amount?

But the most important aspect to this is that Monsanto isn't saying that it is not a patent infringement to inadvertently have trace amounts....it is that they won't exercise them under these specific circumstances.

In other kinds of intellectual property (like text), the common exceptions do not exist because permission is given by the owner, it is because there is a legal exception (ie, "fair use" allows short quotations from otherwise copyrighted words if it is short excerpts for educational purposes). What Monsanto claims to own is every marked gene in every pollen grain produced from seeds that they sell. They lay claim to any crop harvested that is fertilized by first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth...generation offspring of their seeds....blown in on the wind.

It's not that I expect Monsanto to voluntarily relinquish any claim to anything, but it should be settled in law, and I personally think that even if done on purpose (pop a field in the middle of Monsanto country to "catch the genes"), that seeds are seeds, and if you didn't get your seeds from Monsanto and agree to their terms, you should be able to do whatever you want wrt seed saving and selling. Remember the organic farms have other problems here....if GMO pollen fertilizes their crop, it will not be organic anymore, they will not be able to maintain heirloom varieties, they will not be able to save seeds.

After all, what is to prevent a neighbor from putting up a "No bees please, we like to reserve our nectar for the native pollinators" sign...then presenting you with a bill because your bees collected some nectar from their flower garden? Don't they own the nectar in their flowers? Don't you own the fruit on your trees? What if I trained a deer to pick your fruit and drop it on my lawn?

SSDC (same sugar, different container)

deknow


----------



## Nabber86

Gord said:


> The Canadian seed piracy issue was with Percy Schmieser, in Saskatchewan.
> 
> http://www.percyschmeiser.com/


Yes and in that case the court determined the following:

Schmeiser used Roundup to clear weeds around power poles and in ditches adjacent to a public road running beside one of his fields
He noticed that some of the canola which had been sprayed had survived.
Schmeiser then performed a test by applying Roundup to an additional 3 acres to 4 acres of the same field. He found that 60% of the canola plants survived.
At harvest time, Schmeiser instructed a farmhand to harvest the test field. That seed was stored separately from the rest of the harvest, and used the next year to seed approximately 1,000 acres (4 km²) of canola.
He sold the pilfered seed at a profit
The Court's ruling concluded:
_... on the balance of probabilities, the defendants infringed a number of the claims under the plaintiffs’ Canadian patent number 1,313,830 by planting, in 1998, without leave or licence by the plaintiffs, canola fields with seed saved from the 1997 crop which seed was known, or ought to have been known by the defendants to be Roundup tolerant and when tested was found to contain the gene and cells claimed under the plaintiffs’ patent. By selling the seed harvested in 1998 the defendants further infringed the plaintiffs’ patent."
_
I am no Judge Wapner, but the case seems pretty straight forward to me. The guy is a crook.


----------



## Barry Digman

Barry said:


> Dan, you haven't heard? Monsanto bought Beesource! I'm just a front man now.


Well, that would explain the Aruba IP address...


----------



## Nabber86

deknow said:


> .....more than trace amounts? what is a trace amount?
> 
> But the most important aspect to this is that Monsanto isn't saying that it is not a patent infringement to inadvertently have trace amounts....it is that they won't exercise them under these specific circumstances.


You can sit here all day and dream up scenarios of things Monsanto _might_ do*. But actions speak louder than words. Their track record so far has never shown a willingness to pursue cases involving "gene drift" or trace amounts. They only go after clear cases of thievery. Makes pretty good business sense, doesnt it? 

*This is where your logic is really starting to fall apart - I suppose you could dream up a scenario where they might try to confiscate my dog if he ran through a field of RR crops and got pollin in his coat. Afterall, they never said that they would not.


----------



## deknow

Nabber, my reading of the case is a bit more critical of the farmer than your synopsis...I believe the court did not believe that the level of resistance that he had could have occurred by pollen drift (the second year), and that he must have procured some actual Monsanto seed from somewhere.

If we take your reading as accurate, I am liable to a corporation that you have an agreement with for what you put in the air next door. I don't see this as a tenable way to run a planet.

...but when you read this decision, you have to remember that this is a civil case...the key phrase here is "on the balance of probabilities". The farmer in this case is not "presumed innocent until proven guilty", there is no "beyond a reasonable doubt" involved. On balance of probabilities means "greater than 50% probability". I'm not trying to start a discussion on Canadian civil law, I'm just pointing out that this is not beyond a reasonable doubt or on the basis of conclusive evidence, but on the balance of probablility.

deknow


----------



## deknow

Nabber86 said:


> Their track record so far has never shown a willingness to pursue cases involving "gene drift" or trace amounts. They only go after clear cases of thievery. Makes pretty good business sense, doesnt it?


I believe you are misreading the quote I provided (I made the same mistake at first and had to reread it several times...these lawyers are tricky). It is not "drift or trace amounts"


> where trace amounts of its patented seed or traits are present in a farmer's fields as a result of inadvertent means.


...the above could be restated more clearly as "trace amounts of its patented seed or trace amounts of its patented traits are present in a farmer's fields as a result of inadvertent means"
The "or" separates "seeds"_or_ "traits", not "seeds" _or_ "inadvertent means".

This may be picky, but we are looking at a letter written by a lawyer....what it specifically says is important. In order to meet their criteria to be left alone, it has to be both inadvertant (meaning you did not mean to have monsanto's pollen blow over your field or be collected by your bees), AND in trace amounts. They are very specific.

But the fact remains that even under these conditions, they lay claim to the property, they will just be nice and not sue you. 

The fact remains that I am liable to a corporation that you have an agreement with for what you put in the air next door that is produced by what you bought from the corporation.

deknow

"It's easier to wear slippers than it is to carpet the world"
-Stuart Smally


----------



## squarepeg

>The fact remains that I am liable to a corporation that you have an agreement with for what you put in the air next door that is produced by what you bought from the corporation.

in theory, maybe, but has anyone been held liable under these circumstances yet?


----------



## Roland

From the Wiki article on Schmeisser:

Schmeiser says he has lost the right to use his strain of canola, which took him 50 years to develop, because he can not prove they do not include the Roundup Ready gene Monsanto patented. Furthermore, he says that on the advice of his lawyers, he destroyed all his seed and purchased new seed, so his strain of canola no longer exists, which presents an additional obstacle to his continuing to farm it.

The pivot fact is whether Schmeisser ever purchased Round Up ready Canola.
If he did, then he was wrong to incorporate their genes into his strain of Canola.
If he did not, and instead used Roundup as a medium to select his breeding stock, it would be very easy to move from "trace amounts" to significant levels. He sprays roundup, and breeds from the survivors. 

For a beekeeping parallel, Assume that Monsanto comes up with the silver bullet. I have a 100 hives, a beeline that goes back 159 years, and 2(trace amount) have queens that mated with Silver bullet drones. I notice they have much more vitality than my other 98, but do not know why. The next year I requeen with cells from those 2 hives, and 
get a lawsuit from Monsanto. 

How is that different than the Canola scenario where the pollen drifted(making the assumption it did)?

Roland Diehnelt
Linden Apiary, Est. 1852


----------



## WLC

'Please provide evidence that supports the statement that you have made above. Especially the part about "horizon to horizon".'

You're just going to have to read 'The World According to Monsanto: Pollution, Corruption, And The Control Of Our Food Supply; An Investigation Into The World's Most Controversial Company.' by the award winning French journalist 

Marie-Monique Robin.

She won the Rachel Carson Prize in 2009.

Learn about what you've been defending on this thread.


----------



## WLC

Roland:

The dsRNA is fed to your bees (in syrup for example).

That's what spreads through robbing and drifting.

This argument about pollen, seed, and lawsuits is off the mark.

This isn't DNA. It's a direct contaminant. It can occur in minutes.


----------



## Roland

WLC - I concede the point.

Scratch out drones, and insert robbing from another nearby yard. So if my bees rob a yard that is being fed dsRNA, I will be in possession of intellectual property that I did not purchase? 

Crazy ROland


----------



## WLC

'So if my bees rob a yard that is being fed dsRNA, I will be in possession of intellectual property that I did not purchase?'

Yup.

It gets worse.

The bees start to amplify these sequences in their tissues via the RNAi pathway, and it continues to spread as the bees feed each other. 

It's diabolical stuff.


----------



## Gypsi

Acebird said:


> Wrong, by the mere fact that a person is sued puts them on the defensive which will cost them money even if totally innocent of all charges. It would be nice if our court system automatically awarded damages to a sued victim when falsely accused. Suing is a form of muscling ask any lawyer.


Think I'm calling a lawyer and going after Allstate and every trucking company with Knight in their name in the morning.

In the meantime, WLC, I'd read the Monsanto book if someone else would re-do my wiring (it has opted to follow the plumbing on at least one circuit - my house has 10 year collapse disorder), catch up my bookkeeping, walk my dogs, and while they are at it, please pay my bills. 

I personally think we are all going to see some rather large unplanned changes in the next couple of years, stuff Monsanto and no one else can control, as the weather pattern continues to mutate, and ocean levels continue to rise. I'm just floating my own boat, going to put out a bait hive tomorrow, it's 60 degrees, good practice, and manage my own affairs while I watch the show. The bee show, the monsanto show, the climate show. And hopefully my house won't burn before I get an insurance company that actually pays claims....

Monsanto may or may not have a plan for world domination, but I doubt they asked the earth's permission first. And my authority on this - comes from my ephemerides. Uranus square Pluto.... the ride has begun.

Gypsi


----------



## WLC

You could always get hold of 'The Future of Food'. It's on DVD.


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> The bees start to amplify these sequences in their tissues via the RNAi pathway, and it continues to spread as the bees feed each other.
> 
> It's diabolical stuff.


Even tho RNAi isn't stable very long? If I understand what I was told.


----------



## Nabber86

WLC said:


> 'Please provide evidence that supports the statement that you have made above. Especially the part about "horizon to horizon".'
> 
> You're just going to have to read 'The World According to Monsanto: Pollution, Corruption, And The Control Of Our Food Supply; An Investigation Into The World's Most Controversial Company.' by the award winning French journalist
> 
> Marie-Monique Robin.
> 
> She won the Rachel Carson Prize in 2009.
> 
> Learn about what you've been defending on this thread.


That's it?? Coercion by the logical fallacy of "Appeal to Authority" (and that is a stretch to even consider RC as an authority)? You have nothing to offer in support of your position other than a sensationalist Hollywood pseudo-documentary? How about some value added reasoning to drive the point home? Is that too much to ask from an intellectual such as yourself? 

You really need to do a better job of articulating your argument if you want to recruit more believers. Your creditability is going down hill fast.


----------



## WLC

Let Marie-Monique Robin 'splain' it to you.

It's well researched and referenced.

I thought that you'd be impressed by the Rachel Carson Prize alone.


----------



## Nabber86

WLC said:


> You could always get hold of 'The Future of Food'. It's on DVD.


Another reference to a sensationalist Hollywood pseudo-documentary? How about some original thought and reasoning on your part? I guess that is too much to ask from an intellectual such as yourself.

Quit hiding behind BS and give me the argument in your own words. Unless that is too much to ask from an intellectual such as yourself.


----------



## WLC

You've never taken the time to watch, 'The Future of Food'?

It's well made, intelligent, and does a good job of showing why GMOs are unsustainable.

It also features interviews with a certain Canadian farmer.

I recommend it highly.


----------



## Barry Digman

WLC... In reading about Monsanto and Roundup it appears that we now have "super weeds"; weeds that are resistant to Roundup and that cause farmers to revert to mechanical or other means of control. Is there a parallel with what you suspect Monsanto will be working toward with bees?


----------



## WLC

GMO technology is failing.

Most recently Bt corn has shown signs of rootworm damage:

http://www.foodconsumer.org/newsite/Safety/gmo/monsanto_corn_failing_in_four_states_1227110732.html

In my opinion, dsRNA/RNAi technology, as applied to the Honeybee, can be modified almost instantly to meet any new challenges.

It is a very powerful technology that is the most likely replacement for GMOs.

The two chief issues are GRAS status and cost.


----------



## deknow

WLC, I saw the news about the root worm, and was surprised it was news. My recollection is that Michael Pollan talked about this (and was quite matter of fact about it, and that Monsanto knew)...that the life span of the product was very short (before the target organisms aquire resistance to the Bt toxin that is now ever present in the plant tissue).

deknow


----------



## deknow

From:
Playing God in the Garden
By Michael Pollan
The New York Times Magazine, October 25, 1998
http://michaelpollan.com/articles-archive/playing-god-in-the-garden/



> Monsanto, for its part, claims that it has thoroughly examined all the potential environmental and health risks of its biotech plants, and points out that three regulatory agencies — the U.S.D.A., the E.P.A. and the F.D.A. — have signed off on its products. Speaking of the New Leaf, Dave Stark told me, ”This is the most intensively studied potato in history.”
> 
> Significant uncertainties remain, however. Take the case of insect resistance to Bt, a potential form of ”biological pollution” that could end the effectiveness of one of the safest insecticides we have — and cripple the organic farmers who depend on it. The theory, which is now accepted by most entomologists, is that Bt crops will add so much of the toxin to the environment that insects will develop resistance to it. Until now, resistance hasn’t been a worry because the Bt sprays break down quickly in sunlight and organic farmers use them only sparingly. Resistance is essentially a form of co-evolution that seems to occur only when a given pest population is threatened with extinction; under that pressure, natural selection favors whatever chance mutations will allow the species to change and survive.
> 
> Working with the E.P.A., Monsanto has developed a ”resistance-management plan” to postpone that eventuality. Under the plan, farmers who plant Bt crops must leave a certain portion of their land in non-Bt crops to create ”refuges” for the targeted insects. The goal is to prevent the first Bt-resistant Colorado potato beetle from mating with a second resistant bug, unleashing a new race of superbeetles. The theory is that when a Bt-resistant bug does show up, it can be induced to mate with a susceptible bug from the refuge, thus diluting the new gene for resistance.
> 
> But a lot has to go right for Mr. Wrong to meet Miss Right. No one is sure how big the refuges need to be, where they should be situated or whether the farmers will cooperate (creating havens for a detested pest is counter-intuitive, after all), not to mention the bugs. In the case of potatoes, the E.P.A. has made the plan voluntary and lets the companies themselves implement it; there are no E.P.A. enforcement mechanisms. Which is why most of the organic farmers I spoke to dismissed the regulatory scheme as window dressing.
> 
> Monsanto executives offer two basic responses to criticism of their Bt crops. The first is that their voluntary resistance-management plans will work, though the company’s definition of success will come as small consolation to an organic farmer: Monsanto scientists told me that if all goes well, resistance can be postponed for 30 years. (Some scientists believe it will come in three to five years.) The second response is more troubling. In St. Louis, I met with Jerry Hjelle, Monsanto’s vice president for regulatory affairs. Hjelle told me that resistance should not unduly concern us since ”there are a thousand other Bt’s out there” — other insecticidal proteins. ”We can handle this problem with new products,” he said. ”The critics don’t know what we have in the pipeline.”
> 
> And then Hjelle uttered two words that I thought had been expunged from the corporate vocabulary a long time ago: ”Trust us.”


----------



## ryan

I still don't get the logic that Monsanto can sue because of robbing and drifting. 

If I buy some Monsanto meds and feed it to my bees I will have paid to treat X million bees. Monsanto can't show any $ loss if some of my bees drift over to your hive. Same deal if your bees rob the meds out of my hive befor my bees eat it and your bees get the benefit instead of mine. Monsanto got paid for all everything it did. Maybe I could sue you. 

If I buy Round Up, another Monsanto product, and then accidentally spray your field. You get the benefit of weed kill for free. But you don't owe Monsanto anything because I already paid the bill.

Round Up is a well know product from Monsanto that has no issues with patents or law suits. From the looks of it, this stuff at beelogics would also operate in a straight forward way.


----------



## ryan

I think Monsanto is on a wild goose chase. Big comapanies fail at projects all the time. This project has failure writen all over it. CCD is not any one thing. There is no mystery as to what kills bees. There must be 50+ things that cause very high stress levels in a bee hive. The mystery is figuring out what hand full of things did it in any particular year. Some things can't be treated, like trucking or the lack of nutrition due to increasing levels of monoculture in certain parts of the country. 

IMHO the gains made will be modest at best. Some regions may see some benefit while others will not. Bee loss problems are not new. If there were an single answer out there we would have had the pill, shot, or snake oil a long time ago.

I think we will see a failure to produce significant or rapid change. I hold up the past 15 years as proof. Gains have been painfully slow at best.


----------



## Barry

WLC said:


> 'The Future of Food'. It's on DVD.


The "sensationalist Hollywood pseudo-documentary: can be seen here :

http://www.hulu.com/watch/67878/the-future-of-food


----------



## beemandan

Barry said:


> The "sensationalist Hollywood pseudo-documentary: can be seen here :


Or here. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnD-DiDRIJA


----------



## jim lyon

Just spent 90 minutes watching the documentary. I came away with several impressions. 
1. As with about anything related to this subject opinions are highly perspective based. This piece is no different. 
2. This piece is quite dated, the economic examples used to make many arguments are way off the mark. 
3. The food allergy argument was pretty weak and gave little supporting evidence.
4. The argument that GMO crops are less productive is laughable to farmers and had no supporting evidence.
5. The conclusions in the Canadian test case would have had more weight in my mind had there been more details presented and the conclusion of the court been given in it's entirety instead of showing only the highlights that supported the perspective of the film producers.
6. Simply saying that the vast majority of cases are settled out of court with non disclosure agreements is really not telling me anything other than the fact that the cases presented here are the best we can do.
7. The segment on resistant "super weeds" lacked background and depth. I have actually dealt with a large infestation of Mares Tail in a post roundup spray setting on a planting of native grasses. It was quickly choked out the next year and hasn't been a factor since. I know of no farming enterprise that has been economically impacted by any super weeds.
On balance, though, I did learn some things though I was acutely aware the whole time that the producers had an agenda and their presentation was clearly slanted towards their viewpoint.
Growing up in a small farming community and being a farmer myself also gives me a perspective. Today's farmers are a pretty resilient creative and bright bunch of folks. I interact with them on a daily basis. I have recently been asking around among both farmers and local chemical salesmen (farmers themselves) to see if anyone has ever had a negative experience with Monsanto or even knows of someone who has and have yet to hear of any stories of any kind. I have however drawn a few smiles and knowing looks from some who seemed to know of someone that perhaps Monsanto should know about.
Dean: I admire your passion and your enthusiasm for the safety of our food supply, you are very open, upfront and transparent in your posts. Your arguments are concise and polite and I find that refreshing and conducive to a good atmosphere of learning. I do, however, wish that you and those who use documentaries like these as your primary source of information on this subject could live among those on the front lines of large scale food production. Perhaps it would foster a more balanced perspective.


----------



## deknow

A few more general thoughts:

What are the actual consequeces of eliminating diseases and pests from honeybees? I keep thinking of "The Monkey's Paw"..."wouldn't it be great if we could have our dead son back alive"..."oh wait, he was maimed and mutilated before he died...and remains so in his newly animated state."

The dynamic of pests and pathogens is an important part of life. Half the bacteria in the ocean are killed every day by viruses (!!!!), the development of sexual reproduction is generally regarded as a response to parasites and pathogens.

_most_ bees (somewhere around 70 percent or more) carry DWV...other viruses are also common (and don't usually cause problems). What are the consequences of simply eliminating them? What niches are opened up in the bee/hive ecosystem, and who will occupy it?

Some of the roundup ready genes appear to have drifted somehow into weeds (the things that roundup is supposed to kill). I don't think there is a direct parallel with the Beologics product to the roundup ready GMO crops, but is there something similar that _could_ happen (I don't recall any reputable source that predicted the roundup ready weeds...insect resistant issues with Bt GMOs were well known by Monsanto and in the popular press at least as far back as 1998). 

Dare I ask what other "unintended consequences" we might expect? Have we ever (outside of a laboratory) tried to eliminate virtually all biological challenges to an organism? 

What happens to breeding programs? In the quest for the allmighty dollar, is disease resistance seen as an irrelevant trait...metabolically expensive, difficult to measure (because it's too easy to just feed remibee and not have disease issues), and most importantly, not corrilated with honey production anymore.....we will have a crutch that we can't afford to lose....bees will be like the dairy cow that can't feed itself.

What happens to the skilled and experienced beekeepers who make their living because they are good at keeping bees alive and productive despite all the current disease/pest challenges? What if beekeeping becomes easy enough for farmers to do it themselves (open feed, provide remibee either in the open feeder or into the hives, and collect swarms from the neighbor's property when they complain)? ...if the risks of keeping bees are reduced to simple pre-varroa winter losses, I expect we will see a lot more local pollination contracts, displacing some of the larger operations...or at least some of their contracts.

What happens to the price of honey if it is easy to produce?

I keep thinking of the "vitality" of a trust fund kid...no financial challenges, no financial stress, little chance of innovative financial productivity.....when we eliminate biological challenges/stresses what are we left with, a puppy? 

deknow


----------



## Nabber86

I always get my scientific information from Youtube. I find that MTV is a good source too.


----------



## sqkcrk

How will altering the RNA of a virus effect the honeybee, which may be carrying the virus or not carrying the virus?

I don't think that it has been explained here very well or clearly that Beeologics and RNAi is being developed to target the disease/virus and not the bees effected by the disease/virus.


----------



## deknow

Jim, thank you for the kind words. I would like to point out that I have not seen the documentary (will watch it with Ramona after New Years...we are still doing our holiday markets), and that much of the data/evidence I've based my opinions on and presented here have come directly from Monsanto.

It seems a stretch, at best to discount anything with an anti-monsanto agenda without acknowledging that virtually everything used to counter or discount it comes from Monsanto itself......there are all kinds of motivations for being anti-monsanto, and I'll be the first to point out that they are not all equal, and certainly there is a great deal of misleading going on.

..with that said, the duty of everyone that works for monsanto is obligated by one common motivation.....to make money. Making money isn't bad, wanting to make money isn't bad, working to make money isn't bad...but one can't ignore that the BOD and high level empolyees of a corporation have a "fiduciary duty" to the corporation and the shareholders.

Any action that is not taken to benefit the bottom line is a breach of fiduciary duty...essentially, by law, all communication that comes from Monsanto must, legally, be for the purpose of benefiting the shareholders profit margin. The downside to this is that it is almost impossible for a corporation to act "morally" or to display the kind of integrity that an individual can (unless this moral behavior or act of integrity is aimed at increasing the bottom line in the long run). The upside is that we don't have to guess what the motives are behind all the communication from corporations...there is no ambiguity, it is always about the bottom line...it has to be...it's the law.

deknow


----------



## WLC

'I do, however, wish that you and those who use documentaries like these as your primary source of information on this subject could live among those on the front lines of large scale food production. Perhaps it would foster a more balanced perspective.'

The take away lesson from these documentaries and publications is this...

You're selling your crop for less than it costs to produce it.

That's unsustainable, and the same thing is about to happen to the American Beekeeper.


----------



## sqkcrk

deknow said:


> What happens to the price of honey if it is easy to produce?
> 
> deknow


First of all, for those of us who produce honey, doing so has never been and never will be easy. Even before the mites came along. It's hard work and fewer are willing or able to do it, on a Nation Feeding scale.

Secondly, if we can easily and safely treat for a virus in a manner which will have no ill effects on the bees or the honey, that might make beekeeping more profitable which would mean some people would get into beekeeping at a commercial level, just like what happened when honey went from .56/lb to .90/lb and on up. People got into beekeeping and found out what it was like and whether they could make a go of it.

So, if we could "control" a virus, which may or may not be a contributor to our current problems, why not?

And, besides, what other areas would benefit from this "new" method of pest and disease control? This is probably just the beginning and the Beekeeping Industry may well be the first beneficiary.


----------



## Barry Digman

I kind of surprised that anyone in ag would think that plants do not develop resistance. It's pretty basic science, not only in ag but in anything having to do with biology. 

I realize that Bloomberg Businessweek and Purdue University are totally unreliable sources, but I offer it up to illustrate the point anyway.



> Until recently, Monsanto was adamant that continuous use of the chemical wouldn’t create resistant weeds. “Now that it has kind of blown up, it’s like, ‘We told you so,’” says William G. Johnson, a weed scientist at Purdue University. Creating crops that tolerate two, three, or four weedkillers, as seed companies plan, should help control the spread of Roundup-resistant weeds, Johnson says. Yet it may be only a matter of time before the alternatives face the same resistance. Says Johnson: “We could get these new technologies and be in wedded bliss for 10 or 15 years, but they do select for their own failure.” Indeed, ALS inhibitors, a class of herbicides that DuPont is engineering crops to tolerate, already has the biggest weed-resistance problem due to its popularity in the pre-Roundup era...
> 
> ...In Tunica County, Miss., Cariker and his neighbors are returning to time-consuming and costly weed-control methods that had largely disappeared. Cariker this year plowed weed seedlings under the soil in the spring, sprayed a ****tail of costly chemicals before and during the growing season, and sent his crew out in the hot summer sun to hack down the surviving weeds with hoes and machetes. The goal is to keep the pigweeds from flowering; each plant can produce 500,000 seeds. Although the added fuel, labor, and chemicals plus lower yields will cut into Cariker’s income by more than $100,000 this year, he has little choice. Explains the farmer: “This can change the whole farming industry if we can’t get a handle on it.”
> 
> 
> The bottom line: Weeds are developing resistance to Monsanto’s Roundup, the top-selling herbicide, giving rivals an opening to revive older products.
> 
> http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/attack-of-the-superweed-09082011_page_2.html#



Now, the fact that weeds develop resistance to Roundup has little to do with whether or not Monsanto are nice guys. What it does tell us is that what was once touted as the be-all and end-all to weed control is failing. That in itself should serve as some kind of lesson going forward.


----------



## Gypsi

deknow said:


> Any action that is not taken to benefit the bottom line is a breach of fiduciary duty...essentially, by law, all communication that comes from Monsanto must, legally, be for the purpose of benefiting the shareholders profit margin. The downside to this is that it is almost impossible for a corporation to act "morally" or to display the kind of integrity that an individual can (unless this moral behavior or act of integrity is aimed at increasing the bottom line in the long run). The upside is that we don't have to guess what the motives are behind all the communication from corporations...there is no ambiguity, it is always about the bottom line...it has to be...it's the law.
> 
> deknow





> Monsanto’s vice president for regulatory affairs. Hjelle told me that resistance should not unduly concern us since ”there are a thousand other Bt’s out there” — other insecticidal proteins. ”We can handle this problem with new products,” he said. ”The critics don’t know what we have in the pipeline.”


instead of feeding the world, there is a strong possibility that the bottom line at Monsanto and Bayer will starve us in 100 years or so, but we can only change what we can. I remain a tree-hugging activist that at least wants to know when I am eating GMO's because it is on the label. 

Thank you Deknow for posting enough of an article for me to have a quick read, and it summarizes what I thought it would. Anything longer, I couldn't have made time, and the book is out of the question. 

Gypsi


----------



## beemandan

I, too, just spent an hour and a half watching the Future of Food. What a well balanced documentary. I was especially impressed with the interviews of the industry representatives…..oh wait….

The truth of the matter is I am concerned about the entire idea of transgenics. Humans have always had the ability to manipulate things long before they understood the consequences. Will these technologies be the ultimate Pandora's box? Maybe.
But, I still find these one-sided, so called documentaries troubling. I worked, at one time, in a couple of state prisons. There's considerable truth in the adage that all of the inmates will claim to be innocent. And most of them can tell a compelling story to support their claim....until you hear the other side. I'm afraid that the same concept may apply to much of this particular piece.


----------



## sqkcrk

I could be way out in left field on this, but I'm getting the impression that some are fearful that RNAi will eliminate viruses. I don't believe that this is the case. Is it?

I believe that what is under development is something which will kill the viruses present in ones beehives at the time one feeds it. It will have to be fed whenever viruses appear or perhaps as a preventitive.

This is not a cure all.


----------



## Nabber86

WLC said:


> 'I do, however, wish that you and those who use documentaries like these as your primary source of information on this subject could live among those on the front lines of large scale food production. Perhaps it would foster a more balanced perspective.'


I also find Disney movies to be a great source of scientific data, especially ones involving pengiuns and polar bears.


----------



## sqkcrk

deknow said:


> the duty of everyone that works for monsanto is obligated by one common motivation.....to make money. Making money isn't bad, wanting to make money isn't bad, working to make money isn't bad...but one can't ignore that the BOD and high level empolyees of a corporation have a "fiduciary duty" to the corporation and the shareholders.
> 
> Any action that is not taken to benefit the bottom line is a breach of fiduciary duty...
> 
> deknow


Presenting what you have in this manner makes it seem like it is the only motivation and the only motivation anyone at Monsanto can be concerned with. Which is misleading. imo

Whereas, the bottom line is of utmost importance to any business, to paint a picture of the bottom line being the total control over all projects in that business is misleading. Is Profit the only reason you wrote a book and are otherwise in business? I doubt it and don't think so.


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> You're selling your crop for less than it costs to produce it.
> 
> That's unsustainable, and the same thing is about to happen to the American Beekeeper.


This has been the case in beekeeping for ages. Shoot, hobby beekeepers give away tons of honey every year. That can't be profitible. And it effects my bottom line too.

But, obviously doing so has been sustainable. We're still keeping bees and producing honey.


----------



## deknow

not a cure, but a magic potion that will eliminate the pressure that the virus would otherwise be putting on the colony (probably bacteria as well).

We have seen this with antibiotics.....it's fairly common for those who routinely use antibiotics (spring and fall) to have a devistating infection lurking just one missed treatment away. Would you want to buy nucs from such an operation? Besides any damage that the queen might have directly from exposure to the antibiotics, you are buying stock that is demonstrated to not only have enough spores present to cause an infection, but also stock that is not selected for resistance.

If the antibiotics worked the way do in our fantasies (knock down the infection, no bad side effects, no resistance problems, inexpensive, does not contaminate honey,etc), then the bulk of the beekeeping world would simply be using them this way routinely and AFB would be a minor footnote in beekeeping...for those that use the antibiotics regularly...for the rest, things get ugly.

Are we really willing to trade a magic potion for bees that can take care of themselves? I'm not....it's a deal with the devil with no way out.

deknow


----------



## Acebird

> ”We can handle this problem with new products,” he said. ”The critics don’t know what we have in the pipeline.”


If that isn't Satan convincing Adam to bite the apple I don't know what is.


----------



## sqkcrk

sqkcrk said:


> How will altering the RNA of a virus effect the honeybee, which may be carrying the virus or not carrying the virus?
> 
> I don't think that it has been explained here very well or clearly that Beeologics and RNAi is being developed to target the disease/virus and not the bees effected by the disease/virus.


WLC, maybe you didn't see this Post or cared to respond to it or were too busy responding to othger Posts. Do I have it right? That the target is the virus and the vector will be the bee? The bee will eat food laced w/ RNAi specific to a virus effectively rendering the virus ineffective or unable to reproduce. right?

Which won't effect viruses not exposed to the specific RNAi. Right?


----------



## deknow

Mark, you can't fudge these numbers.

If you are selling your crop for less than it costs you to produce it, how do you make up the difference? Trust fund, Govt. subsidies, spouse with a job, waiting tables at night, etc?

...or are you just saying that you feel underpaid for the time you put in?

deknow


----------



## WLC

sqkcrk:

The dsRNA can target not only pests and pathogens, including viruses, it can also affect Honeybee biology like vitellogenin levels, or cause every egg laid to develop into a queen.

I'm not kidding. This is just the 'tip of the iceberg' with what dsRNA technology can do.


----------



## sqkcrk

There have been many years when the P&L Statement has been negative. I have done everything I can to sell for more than what it costs to produce. I'm saying that there have been many times when selling at cost or below has happened and when hobby beekeepers give away honey you can't say that that is selling above production costs.

As far as I am concerned, no trust fund, tho inheritance has helped some. Yes, outside income sources. No Gov subsudies, that's for the big guys, maybe the smarter guys. Only waiting my own table.


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> sqkcrk:
> 
> The dsRNA can target not only pests and pathogens, including viruses, it can also affect Honeybee biology like vitellogenin levels, or cause every egg laid to develop into a queen.
> 
> I'm not kidding. This is just the 'tip of the iceberg' with what dsRNA technology can do.


You are saying "it can", but isn't it also that dsRNA or RNAi, whatever the proper term should be, CAN be made specific to a virus, thereby having no other effects on any other critter? Or is it that RNA can incorporate itself into any living creature, at the genetic level?


----------



## WLC

Mark:

The first embodiment of the technology is dsRNA, with a specific sequence and target, like a Dicistroviruse, that works through the RNAi pathway in the Honeybee.

Other embodiments include, but aren't limited to:

-the regulation of transcript expression,

-'Naturally Transgenic' bees produced by using known retrotransposition mechanisms (like R2),

-ribozymes,

-dsRNA expression vectors.

RNA technology is itself a major field of Molecular Biology. It's been around for a long time.


----------



## sqkcrk

Okay, so, what is the RNAi pathway in the Honeybee? Is that the basic level of genes and the reprocutive system? Remeber, we don't all understand things or know about the things you do. Not at your level of knowledge. Most of us aren't Biology Grad Students.

Thanks.

Also, don't Monsanto's and Beeologics scientists understand all that you understand? Do you have no faith that the questions and concerns you have will be the same ones those and others working on this project will have and will address in the development of the end product? Or is "the bottom line" mentality what you most fear? That Monsanto has a devil may care attitude.


----------



## sqkcrk

Shouldn't one be able to design an RNA sequence specific enuf to harm the virus and not the bees?

From what I am told, RNAi breaks down rather quickly. Is that not so? Would that not help make it safer? Less detrimental to the nontarget?

This is fun. Asking questions like I know what I'm talking about. Reminds me of other specialized beesource Forums. lol


----------



## sqkcrk

Was this Link suggested before so some of us might understand RNAi better? The "i" stands for interference, by the way.

An animated illustration and explanation of RNAi.

http://www.nature.com/news/video-animation-rna-interference-1.9673?WT.ec_id=NEWS-20111220

I hope that works.


----------



## ryan

What are the crops that are being sold below cost that are only in business because of gov subs? Yes there are gov programs, but the farm bill was around long befor GMO. I was under the understanding that american farms are more able to stand on there own today than they have been in many years past. Government aid is at a pretty low % of a farmers gross income. Crops are healthy and productive and commodity prices are high.

Farms that I see are doing pretty good


----------



## deknow

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/25/opinion/25Rattner.html

Essentially, the govt spends/loses $1.78 for every gallon of corn produced ethanol produced in this country....this represents 4 out of every 10 ears of corn grown in the US.

deknow



> Eating up just a tenth of the corn crop as recently as 2004, ethanol was turbocharged by legislation in 2005 and 2007 that set specific requirements for its use in gasoline, mandating steep rises from year to year. Yet another government bureaucracy was born to enforce the quotas.
> 
> To ease the pain, Congress threw in a 45-cents-a-gallon subsidy ($6 billion a year); to add another layer of protection, it imposed a tariff on imported ethanol of 54 cents a gallon. That successfully shut off cheap imports, produced more efficiently from sugar cane, principally from Brazil.
> 
> Here is perhaps the most incredible part: Because of the subsidy, ethanol became cheaper than gasoline, and so we sent 397 million gallons of ethanol overseas last year. America is simultaneously importing costly foreign oil and subsidizing the export of its equivalent.
> 
> That’s not all. Ethanol packs less punch than gasoline and uses considerable energy in its production process. All told, each gallon of gasoline that is displaced costs the Treasury $1.78 in subsidies and lost tax revenue.
> 
> Nor does ethanol live up to its environmental promises. The Congressional Budget Office found that reducing carbon dioxide emissions by using ethanol costs at least $750 per ton of carbon dioxide, wildly more than other methods. What is more, making corn ethanol consumes vast quantities of water and increases smog.


----------



## hpm08161947

I was telling one of my wife's cousins, who farms a lot of Soybean (over 2000 acres) about this thread, and he found it to be pretty interesting.... particularly the parts about resistant weeds. He told me that no one around here that he knew of grew anything but GMO soybeans.... which makes sense.. as it has been a very long time since I saw anyone cultivating Soybeans. So I asked how it was that they were dealing with all the resistant weeds. He said there weren't any... so how can that be. He said that he rotates the land more now than he ever did.... probably every 4th year he comes back to the same land that he planted GMO on. He agreed that if you planted (the same land) every year... that you surely would get some super resistant weeds... but that would be sure way to loose your crop.

I was telling him about guys saving seeds to plant the following year.... and he found that difficult to understand. As he said that surely that would guarantee a lousy crop... as hybridized seeds nearly always produce a lousy F1 generation... he felt it was bound to cost a lot more than buying the seeds.

I asked what he would do if he could no longer use roundup (glycophosplate) ready seeds... his comment was that most likely he would plant none... or maybe 10% of his normal planting... as his operation just did not lend it self to the cost or time of cultivation that would be required.

He felt that without GMO... food prices would soar... which he said was the consumers choice....


----------



## ryan

Hi Deknow 

I have no dispute with ethanol problems. However, the article does Not show how "A once profitable crop that is made unprofitable by high costs of Monsanto chemicals and seeds coupled with low prices offered at the market which then force the Fed. Gov. to give farmers a subsidy to stay in business so we can have food to eat"

This is the grand plan we are being warned of. We are told this is the case with other crops. I'm asking for evidence this plan has ever really taken place.


----------



## sqkcrk

Do we have a Tangential Discussion Icon? Not that I don't go off on them myself, but really. Isn't there enuf to learn and discuss/argue about w/ Hayes/Monsanto/Beeologics/RNAi and all?


----------



## deknow

hpm08161947 said:


> So I asked how it was that they were dealing with all the resistant weeds. He said there weren't any... so how can that be. He said that he rotates the land more now than he ever did.... probably every 4th year he comes back to the same land that he planted GMO on.


What you describe (along with always planting non-Bt crops nearby to reduce the concentration of resistant genes in the pests breeding population as they move from one generation to the next) is proper management practice for growing Bt crops. It is always refreshing to hear an account of things being done properly...but I think it's commonly accepted that not everyone follows such protocols...it's more profitable in the short term not to.

The balance between short and long term benefits is one of the primary elements of life and evolution. One of the problems with GMO agriculture is that humans are always seeking and testing shortcuts. This isn't any different from what happens in the rest of nature, except that we are now inserting specific genes into specific organisms for specific purposes...a targeted and effective technology that can be heritable within the DNA, or perhaps through the organsim supported reproduction of introduced RNA. When you allow for the misapplication of the technology which will inevitably happen in search of a shortcut (not rotating crops in order to always be growing 100% of the most profitable crop, not reserving acreage for conventional crops that will not be harvested and sold, etc.), it's hard to imagine that some of the worst case scenarios won't happen. Read the Michael Pollan article form 1998, Monsanto claimed Bt resistance wouldn't be an issue for 30 years if everything went well...apparently it didn't.



> He agreed that if you planted (the same land) every year... that you surely would get some super resistant weeds... but that would be sure way to loose your crop.


I'm not positive, but I believe that in addition for this kind of "slection for rounup resistnace by always using it, that there is some evidence of genes drifting from the crops into the weeds.



> I was telling him about guys saving seeds to plant the following year.... and he found that difficult to understand. As he said that surely that would guarantee a lousy crop... as hybridized seeds nearly always produce a lousy F1 generation...


That is true...and I am not concerned about defending someone that buys seeds and sells (or even saves) the next generation in violation of an agreement with Monsanto. The problem that Monsanto has is that the resistant genes from the hybrid pollen will fertilize conventional soybeans being grown nearby by farmers that do not have a contract with Monsanto, and who don't use Monsanto's seed....and the traits are heritable to some degree, while the offspring is _not_ an F1 of a hybrid, it is a cross of a hybrid and whatever the conventional farmer planted and harvested seed from.

Monsanto solves this problem by owning your crop if their pollen gets on your crop. If they determine it to be trace amounts and unintentional, they will be nice and let you keep it...but they still own it, at least according to them.



> He felt that without GMO... food prices would soar... which he said was the consumers choice....


Of course prices will soar....our food costs are astonishingly low so that even the "poorest" among us walk around with smartphones, $100/month cable bill (when most can get HDTV over the airwaves), and rented big screen TVs....scratch tickets, $7/pack cigarets, etc. I don't want to get into a huge political/economic discussion, but we have to put food prices in context with how disposable income is spent by those that would have trouble affording to eat with higher prices before we can consider it a problem that food prices would be higher.

deknow


----------



## jim lyon

deknow said:


> What you describe (along with always planting non-Bt crops nearby to reduce the concentration of resistant genes in the pests breeding population as they move from one generation to the next) is proper management practice for growing Bt crops. It is always refreshing to hear an account of things being done properly...but I think it's commonly accepted that not everyone follows such protocols...it's more profitable in the short term not to.


A corn/bean crop rotation is the norm in our area. The combined benefits of the nitrogen put into the soil and the diversity of herbicides that are used make it quite attractive. The fact that corn is in the grass family and beans are a broadleaf is quite advantageous from a weed control standpoint. While it is true that some RR weeds are showing up in some areas it is a myth that therefore they must be difficult to control. I am well aware that farther east in the corn belt "corn on corn" is quite common, though I doubt "bean on bean" is nearly as common.


----------



## deknow

Jim, controlling weeds without roundup isn't difficult.....the problem is that the farmer paid a premium for seed so that roundup can be the weed control...because it is an easy and cheap way to control.weeds. the value of roundup resistant gmo is zero if the weeds are also resistant.

It isn't hard to go out and buy a newspaper.....but if you are doing so after paying for (and not getting) home delivery, it should.be unnecessary...you are paying two papers and only getting one.
deknow


----------



## sqkcrk

Now we're talking about newspapers? Has Monsanto put something in our Newspapers too?

Could an RNAi be designed that would take care of Computer Viruses?


----------



## hpm08161947

sqkcrk said:


> Could an RNAi be designed that would take care of Computer Viruses?


Heh Heh Heh.... you are laughing aren't ya?  Well I am..


----------



## sqkcrk

W/ all the stuff you Posted about RoundUp use in your area and all the cotton grown down there too, I'm worried about the cotton in my shorts. Aren't you?


----------



## hpm08161947

sqkcrk said:


> W/ all the stuff you Posted about RoundUp use in your area and all the cotton grown down there too, I'm worried about the cotton in my shorts. Aren't you?


Might explain this itch I got...?  Probably resistant to antibiotics too...


----------



## Acebird

deknow said:


> Of course prices will soar....our food costs are astonishingly low so that even the "poorest" among us walk around with smartphones, $100/month cable bill (when most can get HDTV over the airwaves), and rented big screen TVs....scratch tickets, $7/pack cigarets, etc. deknow


You are right deknow for the people that do eat GMO. But for those people who don't eat GMO the price will come way down. Organic prices are dropping like crazy now that the biggens are following suit.


----------



## sqkcrk

The price of oil has more to do w/ soaring prices than what it costs a farmer to produce the crop food is made from.


----------



## hpm08161947

Acebird said:


> You are right deknow for the people that do eat GMO. But for those people who don't eat GMO the price will come way down. Organic prices are dropping like crazy now that the biggens are following suit.


It is not so much what you eat... as it is what you eat... ate.

Unless you lead a purely monastic organic existence... which come to think of it... you might..... it is pretty hard to avoid.


----------



## Acebird

Because fertilizers and chemicals are made from oil. Use poop and tell the Arabs to kiss off.


----------



## WLC

The multinationals already control everything else.
Now, they want to control the Honeybee as well.
Guess who's going to foot the bill?


----------



## Barry

sqkcrk said:


> An animated illustration and explanation of RNAi.


I understand it much better now!


----------



## sqkcrk

Me too Barry. But, I wish I understood better that which I think I understand. I'm just not likely to be taking any MicroBiology Courses any time soon. I did enjoy the video though. Think I'll watch it again.

WLC,
Is that video anything you might use in a lecture?


----------



## WLC

I've used a video, animations, etc. when explaining RNAi.

Once you understand the basics, you can see how easy it is to apply.

You feed dsRNA to your bees, they take it into their cells, and it causes the target RNA to get cleaved and therefore inactivated. It could be an RNA virus, an mRNA transcript (the kind that makes proteins), etc. .

What you also need to know is this: we eat dsRNA in every bite of our food.

So, feeding it to your bees is no big deal. It's perfectly safe and non-toxic.

At least, that's what the field trials are supposed to show.


----------



## sqkcrk

Yeah, I got that from the animation, that it occurs in our bodys all the time. That it is present in our food.

"...,that's what the field trials are supposed to show." I sense you held back a "But,...", or didn't you? From what you have written before, I get the idea that what the field trials will show is preordained by those who designed the trials and are seeking the results. Or am I off base?

If it is perfectly safe and non-toxic, what's the underlying problem? Something unforseeable? Unintended?


----------



## WLC

Monsanto shouldn't have any trouble getting FDA approval since many of its former execs run the place.

But...

FDA field trials aren't thorough scientific investigations.

It's been a real struggle to get RNAi to work in practice in a host of other applications.

Frankly, dsRNA is the real technology target. It's a much bigger field with much greater possibilities.

There's far more to dsRNA than just RNAi.


----------



## sqkcrk

So is the sort of research that Monsanto will probably be doing, now owning Beeologics, a good thing? Something they, or someone, should be doing? Will it potentially be good for beekeepers?


----------



## deknow

Mark, Ive made a few posts detailing some of the potential problems, how about responding to those rather than asking an open ended question that I would answer with the same potential problems I've allready taken the time to.detail?

Deknow


----------



## WLC

The technology has great potential for the American Beekeeper. It can make you both wealthy and powerful in short order.

However, it is by its very nature irrational and amoral.

Monsanto, and the other multinationals, use a very different model.

That's what you'll be buying into.


----------



## squarepeg

>it is by its very nature irrational and amoral.

please elaborate.


----------



## kbfarms

[QUOTEI was telling him about guys saving seeds to plant the following year.... and he found that difficult to understand. As he said that surely that would guarantee a lousy crop... as hybridized seeds nearly always produce a lousy F1 generation... he felt it was bound to cost a lot more than buying the seeds.]

If you use heirloom seeds (open pollinated, non hybridized) you can easily save from year to year. There are some bean, corn and gourd seeds you can buy today that go back at least several hundred years to the Native Americans. They are "pure stock" for a want of a better term. Over 80% of the seed planted in my garden is heirloom and saved from year to year. On a commerical scale, probably not practical at this point due to the way our ag system has developed, except for the organic farms. I don't think Europe has as large a problem as the US though, as they have stricter controls on GMO plants for food production.


----------



## sqkcrk

deknow said:


> how about responding to those rather than asking an open ended question that I would answer with the same potential problems I've allready taken the time to.detail?
> 
> Deknow


I'll go back and see if I can. Others have, haven't they? How many did so understanding even the little bit that the animation illustrated? I wonder how many of us know and understand enough to be qualified to comment, let alone critique? Not that that will or should stop us from doing so.


----------



## sqkcrk

deknow said:


> Mark, you can't fudge these numbers.
> 
> If you are selling your crop for less than it costs you to produce it, how do you make up the difference?
> 
> deknow


Tightening of the belt and living off of previous years savings and juggling credit cards.


----------



## WLC

squarepeg:

I've explained why it's pure Id.

It's irrational because it requires subsidies. The product sells for less than it costs to produce.

It's amoral because of the hidden costs; to the environment, other beekeepers worldwide, and even to growers requiring pollination. It's about control without regards to any of the above.


----------



## sqkcrk

deknow said:


> not a cure, but a magic potion that will eliminate the pressure that the virus would otherwise be putting on the colony (probably bacteria as well).
> 
> We have seen this with antibiotics.....it's fairly common for those who routinely use antibiotics (spring and fall) to have a devistating infection lurking just one missed treatment away.
> 
> AFB would be a minor footnote in beekeeping...for those that use the antibiotics regularly...for the rest, things get ugly.
> 
> deknow


"just one missed treatment away."? Baldserdash. Not from my observation.

I don't know if RNAi can be used against bacteria or not, maybe WLC can tell us.

I don't believe in magic bullets. Besides, bullets recochet, which isn't good. I also don't think that a comparison between antibiotics and RNAi is an appropriate analogy, is it?

AFB is a foot not. Compared to all the bees that have died from Mites and the viruses they vector AFB is rather inconsequential in my opinion.

"bees that can take care of themselves?"? I'm going to have to change my Vote on the Poll about bees being Domesticated or Not, because, unless we just stop keeping bees, the bees most of us keep are dependent on beekeeper interaction to survive. On a Commercial Basis anyway. That's how I see it.


----------



## Acebird

sqkcrk said:


> " the bees most of us keep are dependent on beekeeper interaction to survive. On a Commercial Basis anyway. That's how I see it.


Doesn't that ring a bell? How did commercial bees get to the point that the bees cannot survive without you when they have been doing fine for millions of years?


----------



## WLC

http://aem.asm.org/content/76/17/5960.full.pdf

RNAi vs Nosema.

I'll look for RNAi/AFB.

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2164/12/450/abstract

They've sequenced P. larvae.

This means that they can design dsRNA for RNAi against AFB at will. 

Don't expect to see to much published on this because it's likely in the product development pipeline.


----------



## sqkcrk

deknow said:


> (1.) What are the actual consequeces of eliminating diseases and pests from honeybees?
> 
> (2.) The dynamic of pests and pathogens is an important part of life.
> 
> (3.) Dare I ask what other "unintended consequences" we might expect?
> 
> (4.) What happens to breeding programs? In the quest for the allmighty dollar, is disease resistance seen as an irrelevant trait...
> 
> (5.) What happens to the skilled and experienced beekeepers who make their living because they are good at keeping bees alive and productive despite all the current disease/pest challenges? What if beekeeping becomes easy enough for farmers to do it themselves (open feed, provide remibee either in the open feeder or into the hives, and collect swarms from the neighbor's property when they complain)? ...if the risks of keeping bees are reduced to simple pre-varroa winter losses, I expect we will see a lot more local pollination contracts, displacing some of the larger operations...or at least some of their contracts.
> 
> (6.) What happens to the price of honey if it is easy to produce?
> 
> deknow


(1.) I doubt that will ever happen. RNAi isn't capable of doing that, as far as I know. Maybe WLC could clarify the possibility.

(2.) Of course it is.

(3.) I'm remionded of something Donald Rumsfeld said about known knowns, unknown knowns and etc. By their nature unintended consequences are, while imaginable perhaps, unforseeable, aren't they? Does that mean we shouldn't develop and perscribe Aspirin for daily use by folks who are pron to heart attack? 

(4.) No, I don't think so. Disease resistance will still be a useful trait tool in the bigger tool box.

(5.) Beekeeping on a Commercial Basis will always be hard work and best taken up by Businessmen and Women. There will never be great impact in the pollination business from local smallscale beekeepers beyond that which exists today.

(6.) If honey becomes easy to produce, it may drive down the Bulk Price paid to those who sell in barrels. It might also drive down the price paid to Local Sales Producers too. Why do you ask? Why would that bother you? Something to do w/ "the almighty dollar" persuit?


----------



## deknow

I hate.to point out the elephant in the room Mark, but haven't you just finished telling us how unprofitable you have found your beekeeping operation to be? How are those domesticated bees doing for you?

Deknow


----------



## sqkcrk

Acebird said:


> Doesn't that ring a bell? How did commercial bees get to the point that the bees cannot survive without you when they have been doing fine for millions of years?


There is a symbiotic relationship between bees and beekeepers at a Commercial Level. One needs the other as much as the other does in order to survive and thrive.

I would point to commerce and the ever changing face and profile of agriculture and trade.

What bell were you refering to? Persuit of wealth? Pure egotism and selfcenteredness?


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> http://aem.asm.org/content/76/17/5960.full.pdf
> 
> RNAi vs Nosema.
> 
> I'll look for RNAi/AFB.


There's that Jeff Pettis guy again.


----------



## sqkcrk

deknow said:


> I hate.to point out the elephant in the room Mark, but haven't you just finished telling us how unprofitable you have found your beekeeping operation to be? How are those domesticated bees doing for you?
> 
> Deknow


We, they and I are doing alright, getting by. I'm sure if I worked my bees like some folks I know, much more workaholic than I, that I would have more hives and ones strong enuf to go to CA and ME and NY for pollination.

Elephants aside, how many treatment free outfits are there maintaining 500 colonies year after year, migrating, pollinating and producing a honey crop and having 100 nucs to sell? Not to get in afight w/ you, I don't wish to, but, I believe you have only ever mention one outfit like that. Maybe not even one. I forget.

Have I responded to enuf of the previous Posts you requested of me to? Or was there a specific one which you would like me to respond to which I haven't?


----------



## deknow

sqkcrk said:


> I would point to commerce and the ever changing face and profile of agriculture and trade.


....except that the role of.migratory commercial pollination will never Chanel....even in the face of self pollinating soy beans and the always present potential for fuel prices.to skyrocket...right?

Deknow


----------



## sqkcrk

Change is the only constent.

"Chanel", I assume you mean "change"? I don't know what self pollinating soy beans has to do w/ this discussion. Explain please.


----------



## WLC

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2164/12/450/abstract

I think that you missed this edit.

Since they have the sequence for P. larvae, they can make RNAi agents against AFB at will.

It's likely in product development already.


----------



## jim lyon

Hey I want a shot at answering Deans questions as well. (Reference post #443)
1. I am not too "worried" about that either. There will always be the next "disease de jour" on the menu. How many references have we heard on here about the RR superweeds. Apparently we are now being told of the dangers of no disease as well as the dangers of uncontrolled disease
2. Agreed
3. We know that there are unintended consequences for both treating for a pathogen and also for non treating. Life is full of unintended consequences. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfxf_iwS4Nc Sorry, I dont like posting links to make an argument but this ones a bit different I think it is easily applied in real life.
4. The above answers make this question a moot point. But the allmighty Dollar? What is that statement supposed to mean? We are giving the anonymous poster who is the biggest opponent of this proposed new technology on here a pass because someone surmised that he might be in danger of losing his job if his identity is revealed. Could he be pursuing the allmighty dollar as well? My operation is profitable I say that proudly and many charities that I hold dear are the better for it. It isnt the pursuit of money that is wrong, its how you choose to spend it. 
5. I have been beekeeping commercially for 40 years and I dont ever remember it being particularly easy. There wasnt a stampede of folks wanting to own commercial beekeeping outfits prior to varroa 20 years ago and I doubt that a miracle cure for a specific pathogen would change things much. The folks with smarts and ambition will learn how to run a few more hives and those who arent up to the demands will sell out.
6. The factor that most limits honey production today is the change in farming practices and the lack of good bee forage. My grandfather used to keep 800 hives of bees on 3 locations in western Iowa in the 30's and would routinely average 200 lbs. per hive. If you tried doing that in those same locations today they might starve. Certainly the challenge of keeping healthy bees is an issue just not the primary issue.


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2164/12/450/abstract
> 
> I think that you missed this edit.
> 
> Since they have the sequence for P. larvae, they can make RNAi agents against AFB at will.
> 
> It's likely in product development already.


Which would be a bad thing?
I can't imagine it being a money maker, so why would thery develop it?


----------



## deknow

O....a proof of.concept.before.applying it to the rest of.agriculture. remember the only trials we know.about from beeologics is for.an iapv treatment...less.market for that than afb treatment...yet Monsanto bought the whole thing.
Deknow


----------



## deknow

I don't think people.are.understanding that this is very general technology.....virtually any disease can be coded.for...and if it done right, doing so for each new challenge will be trivial.
beekeepers have already demonstrated that they will put anything in their hives to fight disease. This is a.magic bullet.
deknow


----------



## Ted Kretschmann

The technology maybe a magic bullet but it will cut out the bees own homegrown evolutionary ability to genetically adapt to problems. That is the only problem I see with RNAi technology. If it puts extra dollars in my pocket and makes beekeeping easier, then I will probably use it. TED


----------



## WLC

Ted:

The Honeybee already uses it's own natural RNAi system to fight off pathogens.
The original paper by Maori found that IAPV fragments that had been retrotransposed into the Honeybee's own DNA were resistant to IAPV infection via...

You guessed it, RNAi!

Maori said it best, they were, 'Naturally Transgenic'.

Jim:

Did you read this?

http://www.stltoday.com/business/lo...cle_87c18e7e-fb5d-54db-8587-4ac4e506340c.html

Now you know why many consider Monsanto to be one the the worst companies around for the environment. In fact, they won the prize for 2011.

I generally like biotechnology.

I just don't like the way Monsanto has wielded it, like a club.


----------



## squarepeg

>I've explained why it's pure Id.

"the id is the set of uncoordinated instinctual trends; the ego is the organized, realistic part; and the super-ego plays the critical and moralizing role." -- wikipedia

by definition, the id is neither moral nor immoral. it's more like feral in nature. to ascribe immorality the "collective" id is your choice, based on your perceptions of society and is more a statement about you than a unequivocal description of the id.

>It's irrational because it requires subsidies.

while is true that we have seen many instances in the recent past and beyond where government subsidies are a waste of our resources, and fail miserably at achieving there intended benefits, it is also true that these subsidies work. my goverment insured student loans made it possible for me to earn three college degrees. i ended up in a service profession, and i think for me and those i serve the benefits are very real. there are many examples of good and bad results involving government subsidies, to paint them all as bad is again, your bias.

> It's amoral because of the hidden costs; to the environment, other beekeepers worldwide, and even to growers requiring pollination. It's about control without regards to any of the above. 

all of this has yet to be determined. do you have a crystal ball?

all of our points of view are sculpted by are own individual experiences. maybe your experiences allow you to take an informed position that most of us cannot. the advances in my profession alone would not have come about if your view of breaking new ground prevailed.

some of my buddies went to work at a monsanto polyester mill nearby right after high school graduation. it was the best money and benefits bar none in this area. i got the chance to peruse the employee's manual they were given. half of it was devoted to protecting trade secrets and the penalty for not doing so was stiff.


----------



## sqkcrk

deknow said:


> O....a proof of.concept.before.applying it to the rest of.agriculture. remember the only trials we know.about from beeologics is for.an iapv treatment...less.market for that than afb treatment...yet Monsanto bought the whole thing.
> Deknow


What's w/ all the periods and short choppy sentences? Are you replying by teletype or something?


----------



## Barry

Gotta hunch this is what we're all subjected to when one uses their "smart" phone for forum posting.


----------



## WLC

'by definition, the id is neither moral nor amoral'

That's moral or immoral.

The point is, morality doesn't enter their decision making.

I wouldn't call government loans a subsidy. You have to pay them back.

Government (taxpayer) subsidies give an industry an unfair advantage against competitors.

Without them, the Monsantos of the world wouldn't exist. Hmmm....



'...do you have a crystal ball?'

We all know Monsanto's M.O. .

Right now, they're the only biotech giant that is taking aim at the American Beekeeper.

Their RNAi product is likely to be approved before almonds (otherwise all of the announcements make no sense), and it will be the first of a kind.

Of course, they are going to take control of pollination as quickly as possible. They can't let competitors get a foot-hold in a brand new market.

Yes, it has to be subsidized. dsRNA costs more than gold.


No crystal ball required. Just a little Freud, general knowledge, with a healthy dose of analysis.

PS-the announcements aren't an accident. They're timing them rather successfully. Even though MON is at $70 w/ a projection of $80, this new dsRNA/RNAi technology is a game changer.


----------



## Acebird

WLC said:


> Did you read this?
> 
> http://www.stltoday.com/business/lo...cle_87c18e7e-fb5d-54db-8587-4ac4e506340c.html


Agent orange is round up. The American soldier and the general population of Vietnam was the test site. Clinical trials you could say. Or weapon of mass destruction.


----------



## WLC

I wouldn't confuse glyphosate w/ dioxin.

For the record, dsRNA is likely to be designated as a GRAS (generally recognized as safe) feed supplement by the FDA. It's in every bite of food that we eat.


----------



## jim lyon

Acebird said:


> Agent orange is round up. The American soldier and the general population of Vietnam was the test site. Clinical trials you could say. Or weapon of mass destruction.


Perhaps it would be best if you did just a few minutes of research and then edit this post Ace. To equate glyphosate with the horrible dioxins sprayed during the Vietnam war is fear mongering at it's worst.


----------



## WLC

There's an unusual connection between Monsanto, the U.S. Army, Jerry Bromenshenk (another Jerry), and the scientists involved with the development of Monsanto's RNAi technology for Honeybees.

Besides the obvious Monsanto/Agent Orange/Army vets connection...

A cadre of scientists involved in this RNAi product developement went after Jerry very publicly for a groundbreaking application of U.S. Army technology in Honeybee research, Mass Spectrometry Proteomics (MSP).

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0013181

As an interesting note, the Army's MSP technology is the only field ready tool for detecting a possible environmental contaminant, like dsRNA, as it spreads from hive to hive by drifting and robbing. It's a defense technology.

Did they 'Slit the Throat' of the sentry?


----------



## sqkcrk

(another Jerry)? What do you mean by that comment?


----------



## ryan

Ok WLC or anyone else

Tell us about 1 crop that is more dependant on subsidies today than it was befor the monsanto products were introduced. 

What crop is so abused, by monsanto products and prices, that it is kept in production today only because of government payments to farmers.

Name it. I don't want to guess. You should be able to name 5 without even thinking about it.


----------



## sqkcrk

Uh, OIL?
Corn?
Cotton?

Whater U gittin' at?


----------



## ryan

Here's what I'm getting at.

Oil isn't ag. but...Pretty sure with $1oo+ oil that it is less dependant than on any gov give away it might get than it was.

Is a corn farmer more dependant on subsidies than it was befor monsanto?

I don't think so.


----------



## hpm08161947

ryan said:


> What crop is so abused, by monsanto products and prices, that it is kept in production today only because of government payments to farmers.
> 
> Name it. I don't want to guess. You should be able to name 5 without even thinking about it.


So... you are asking... which crop is so abundant now (because of Monsanto) that it is of very little value and must be propped up by Gov Contributions. That could be several... probably with Corn leading the way...

1. Corn
2. Soy Bean
3. Cotton
4. Wheat
5. Tobacco??


----------



## WLC

That's easy.

Any GMO.


----------



## Barry

Let's keep the discussion on bees and away from crops.


----------



## The Soap Pixie

Since dioxin has been found in round up it is only fair to equate round up with agent orange. Dioxin is also stored in fat cells which means it doesn't flush from our bodies.

Let's see... 

Agent Orange: causes birth defects, cancer, miscarriages, cell damage, learning disabilities.

http://www.vva.org/veteran/1207/agent_orange_feature.html

Round Up: causes birth defects, cancer, genetic damage.

The ingredients might not be identical but the effects are obviously the same.

Agent Orange used in vietnam from 1961-1971. 

I'm sure in those 10 years there were plenty of people willing to stand by the safety of Agent Orange as well. Too bad humans are always the guinea pigs for such things. No doubt that round up will be on the list of banned toxins in the next 20 yrs. 

Too bad that 20 yrs will be a long time for our bees to wait to be toxin free


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> There's an unusual connection between Monsanto, the U.S. Army, Jerry Bromenshenk (another Jerry), and the scientists involved with the development of Monsanto's RNAi technology for Honeybees.


What's your Bromenshenk beef? I really don't follow you there.

The plosone link wouldn't open for me. Do I have to subscribe or sumpthin'?


----------



## WLC

My reason for raising the GMO/subsidies issue is this: the same has to occur for Biotech Beekeeping to be a success.



sqkcrk:

I didn't have a problem with the link unless it 'broke' all of a sudden.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0013181

I'm not the one who went after Jerry and the U.S. Army bigtime.

If you ever do get to PlosOne, you simply have to follow the citations links to see that the same scientists involved in RNAi product development are the authors of papers attacking Jerry's PlosOne article.

That is an unusual occurrence in Honeybee research.

Frankly, attacking the work of the Army's MSP program is a dumb thing to do. Doing it as part of product development for Monsanto is even dumber.

The Army didn't forget Agent Orange and won't forget the scientists that attacked Wicks, et al. .

It might be 'Shock and Awe' in almonds rather than a Monsanto rout of pollinators.

I wouldn't blame them a bit.


----------



## sqkcrk

I'll try again. Maybe I didn't go about it correctly.

Tell me something please. Does the order in which names are listed on a Scientific Paper mean anything? I suspect they do. What does the order mean? Are they listed in rank or stature or in order of who contributed largest to least amounts to the study?

Thank you for clearing that up for me.


----------



## WLC

Lead author is usually the main investigator, but the last author, sometimes the corresponding author, is often the most important name on the paper.

They generally indicate the contributions made by each somewhere in the paper depending on the publication's guidelines.

I always check out the corresponding author first if that's what you're asking.


----------



## sqkcrk

By that you mean, look to see who the corresponding author(s) is/are? who they are and what their background is? Their specialty or area of expertise?

I guess knowing the players in some way or other informs ones' opinion of the Paper? Just as our idea of who Jerry Hayes is, founded or not, informs our opinion as to whether his involvement in Beeologics is a good thing or not, Bodes well or not.


----------



## sqkcrk

I didn't know there was so much going on in MD. TX and MT too.


----------



## ryan

Hi Barry 

Talking about other crops is the only way to show what Monsanto may do to the beekeeping industry economics. It's as relevant as RNA. 

hpm and WLC I assume you have seen data that show an increase in subsidies to farmers. The farm program has been around since the 1930s. Is there a spike in gross income or profit from subsidies after GMOs are introduced? I doubt it exists. But I'll look.

Anyway it doesn't really matter. Farm subsidies don't subsidize the farmer much if any. The buyer of the crop is who gets the benefit on the tax payers dime. Subsidies create a false high price paid to farmers. That drives production up even higher. A subsidy worsens the problem quickly. It is absolutely not how GMO crops found economic equilibrium in other parts of AG. 

These crops are easily viable without government subsidies paid to farmers. They will quickly find a profitable equilibrium if subsidies ended today. We don't need the subsidies to keep farmers planting corn any more today than we did in 1970 or 1980 or 1990.

It's not reasonable to conclude bees will need a subsidy either.


----------



## sqkcrk

Bees may not, but many beekeepers do.


----------



## hpm08161947

I thought bees/honey already got a subsidy....

At least this database indicates that I have some neighbors who have done rather well with honey/livestock subsidies (Only livestock they have are bees)...

http://farm.ewg.org/


----------



## lazy shooter

Farmers that are doing well on subsidies would do better with no subsidies. Like Ryan said, subsidies don't help the farmer. If there were no subsidies there would be less product, and the price would go up. One of the rules of economics, "if you want more of something subsidize it." Subsidies allow lessers to compete, and increase the price we all pay for commodities.


----------



## Barry

Again, crops, subsidies, it's getting off into other topics. This thread is already built on speculation, so let's not get even farther out there.


----------



## wildbranch2007

Barry said:


> Again, crops, subsidies, it's getting off into other topics. This thread is already built on speculation, so let's not get even farther out there.


although off topic the poster just saved me many days of frustration trying to find conservation land as the govt. agency says its confidential and not for public info. wait until the list I just compiled shows up on their desks:applause:


----------



## wildbranch2007

WLC said:


> As an interesting note, the Army's MSP technology is the only field ready tool for detecting a possible environmental contaminant, like dsRNA, as it spreads from hive to hive by drifting and robbing. It's a defense technology.


a post from bee-l from how I read this there is a trial starting in Calif. I wonder if these hives are going to almonds?

http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?A2=ind1201&L=BEE-L&F=&S=&P=6215










>
> >Would someone please recommend a good article for a layman on RNAi
> treatments for our bees?


None currently available. Large scale field testing going on at the moment
(I treated 100 hives yesterday, 100 more tomorrow).

More info at ScientificBeekeeping
http://scientificbeekeeping.com/sick-bees-part-4-immune-response-to-viruses/



-- 
Randy Oliver


----------



## Barry Digman

Beeologics itself on it's own website says that the large scale trials are already underway.



> Remebee™
> Based on RNAi technology, Remebee's active ingredients are dsRNA formulated to silence Israeli Acute Paralysis Virus (IAPV). It is delivered in feed and sustains colony health in the presence of the virus.
> Product Properties:
> 
> • Potent protection from Israel Acute Paralysis Virus (IAPV)
> • Potentially applicable to other bee viruses
> • Inherent robustness precludes the possibility of the virus breaking resistance
> • Extreme specificity and no toxicity
> • No residues in honey bees or honey
> 
> 
> Product Status:
> 
> Beeologics has begun the regulatory approval process for Remebee in conjunction with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) after a period of assessment with the IR4 agency and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The field trials conducted in Florida, Pennsylvania and Israel provided sufficient data that led to the FDA permit of conducting a large scale clinical trial in the United States. These trials are underway with the participation of leading beekeepers across the United States.
> 
> http://www.beeologics.com/remebee.asp



Recall that when Monsanto (now the parent company of Beeologics) developed a growth hormone for cows (rBGH) people wanted nothing to do with it. Oakhurst Dairy in Maine decided to advertise their milk as hormone free and Monsanto sued them. 

I have to wonder whether Monsanto will treat beekeepers the same way they treated the dairy, and whether the end result will be similar.

http://www.oakhurstdairy.com/about/release.php?nID=1133


----------



## acbz

I suppose this is pretty relevant to the discussion:

"Q&A for RNAi in Varroa press release"
https://secure.fera.defra.gov.uk/beebase/downloadNews.cfm?id=92


----------



## WLC

There are a number of projects out there, both public and proprietary, that are using applications of dsRNA to eliminate Honeybee pests and pathogens.

I've also followed some of Randy's comments elsewhere.

Honeybees natural molecular immunity involve not only RNAi, but also retrotransposition of 'foreign' RNAs into the 28S rDNA site. 

The Honeybee uses 'Natural Transgenesis' to prime it's own natural molecular immune system, RNAi.

By the way, viruses contain ORFs (open reading frames) from which proteins are translated, so they are 'viral genes'. RNAi in Honeybees originally targeted one of the VP proteins (capsid).

dsRNA can also change the phyiology of Honeybees by altering known products like vitellogenin. They produced 'precocious foragers' in one such experiment for example.

So yes, any potential application of dsRNA technology to the Honeybee is relevant.


----------



## Acebird

Barry Digman said:


> I have to wonder whether Monsanto will treat beekeepers the same way they treated the dairy, and whether the end result will be similar.


Give me one good reason why they wouldn't.
We prosecute professional athletes for using steroids but somehow we feel (as a nation) that is OK to feed it to the general public in small quantities. Stupid is as stupid does.


----------



## marenostrum

Within the thread, as far as I can see, The World According to Monsanto is referred just as a book. There's a book version of it, but it was originally a documentary film. Reading the book would be very beneficial for sure. Yet, the documentary is a valuable work and those who prefer to watch it online can do so here. (Its a low resolution copy; there might be more online sources; seems that on YouTube there's a -probably better- copy of it; buying as a DVD might be an option for some friends, as well.)

Another book to be read might be The Tragicall History of the Life and Death of Doctor Faustus which tells us the story of "a man sells his soul to the devil for power and knowledge". No need to try defending or justifying such characters. Doing so weakens "our hive". We need every single word, every bit of energy of us to defend ourselves against the front of Mephistopheles.


----------



## WLC

It appears that our own U.S. Honeybee researchers have made such a Faustian bargain. I still can't believe that they are about to deliver the Americam Beekeeper into the hands of 'you know who'.

This may have been in the works as early as 2006 as I can now see in hindsight from my own discoveries and the Monsanto announcements.


----------

