# GMO feed for bees and humans-why now is a great time to learn beekeeping



## Guest (Jan 29, 2012)

I am a hobby beekeeper. I will probably never have more than 30 hives. 
I am 52 years old and weight exactly the same as I did in high school. I take no medications and plan to keep it that way. 
Here are just a few of my thoughts on feeding bees and our food supply overall. A very short version that has many more details, but for the sake of trying not to confuse folks I am keeping it very short. 

( Years ago, a person that ranted about eating 'Organic' Was usually perceived to be a hippy and bunny hugger with delusional views. These days, eating Organic has a whole different meaning for me. In the era of GMO foods, additives, pesticides, etc that are a large part of food and feed that is on the market today, I believe eating and farming Organically means you will be fit, healthy and glad to be alive in your later years. 

Genetically Modified Organisms- they don't even call it food-they call it an organism! 
I won't eat it, I don't feed it to my livestock or my bees. I will NOT feed my bees high fructose corn syrup. I believe the process of radical gene insertion into the DNA of a species is unstable and unsafe. I have read many scientific research documents and books on this subject. 
Not to mention the GMO corn feed and syrup is produced from is sprayed multiple times with herbicide, it is also genetically modified to make it's own pesticide (BT)-yeah, feed THAT to your bees! This is one of the reasons I keep bees in the first place. 

NO JUNK IN MY FOOD 

In humans, high fructose corn syrup is mainly metabolized in the liver. It is not a balance of fructose and glucose and is formulated my a man made process. Does it effect the bees differently? I absolutely do not know. There are undoubtedly beekeepers that use it that will have there opinion. Please post your thoughts for another point of view. 
(I know, as you read my post, there are some readers who's hackles are coming up, eyes are bugging out and fingers are itching to refute my statement above. LOL. I am laughing already. No offence intended with any of my posts. I am not the best writer and hopefully my thoughts will be clear) 

Sugar beets have recently been authorized to be commercially grown GMO's and Sugar cane is not far away from it's modification. In the very near future, home raised honey (when apiaries are far from GMO grown crops) will be your only source of, in my opinion, safe and natural sweetener. 
The signs are all around us that our food supply is unhealthy. Obesity, disease and illness, our pets die of cancer at a young age. Why folks don't pay attention to that instead of accepting it is beyond me. 
Why is it that the human species is so accepting of things they know are not right? Just because most people you know are overweight and on several medications doesn't mean that is normal and acceptable! 

I am a fan of the old Western movies. 99.9 % of the people in those movies would be considered Anorexic by today's standards. You rarely see a lady with an hour glass figure anymore. Good Grief, even John Wayne looks skinny! 
(This will all tie into Beekeeping, I promise) 

Companies that profit from GMO product claim they are safe. Proving they are NOT safe will take independent/non manipulated studies and years of research. 

I for one trust my gut instinct and observations. I don't have my own genetics lab and cannot prove anything I say here. BUT... 
For my entire adult life, I have grown,raised, hunted and fished and continue eat as Organic as possible-forgoing many foods I really enjoy because of what I feel are unsafe or unproven additives-Pesticide residues or gene manipulation involvement. 
YOU must make up your own mind about the importance. Knowledge is your best defense against health risk ignorance when it comes to food, medications and environmental exposures. 

Obviously, I am against GMO foods. 

I find them fascinating none the less. 

Humans, plants and animals are now in one giant experimental stage. Years from now (Or even in the near future) we will undoubtedly see the results of these gene manipulations. 
Once the DNA of a species is changed, you can not just go back. Especially in plants, insects and fish. Once the new stronger bigger species escapes-via cross pollination or wild breeding it is in our food chain forever until it is eliminated by a stronger strain. Many feel Farmed GMO Salmon is another threat to our food supply, the terminator gene (Sterilization gene) may be another. Getting a little off the Beekeeping subject here, but it all comes down to a safe and sustainable food supply. Man made evolution to the tenth power. Good or bad, it is happening right now. In fact, it has been happening for many YEARS. In a world with unlimited population growth, this is what we are going to be forced to accept as a food source before long, unless you grow your own with heirloom seeds, untainted bees and livestock and natural organic farming. 


Organic and farming practices of the past are no longer adequate for today's population numbers and especially tomorrows population increases. GMO farming is now too big to fail. ( Too big to fail. Where have we heard THAT statement lately?) 

Learning how to be self sufficient NOW is so important! 

If you NEED to in the future, you will have the resources and the knowledge for full blown food production for your families needs. 

Which leads me to another question. When all sugar sources are GMO, what will we feed our bees if it is necessary?...Generally when you are a new beekeeper without the resources of drawn out frames of honey, you have to feed nucs until they are established-possibly also feeding hives in late winter until they are in full honey production mode of established hives. 

Perhaps that is why Monsanto has purchased 
BeeoLogics, a small company best known for its “groundbreaking research” vis a vis the application of RNAi technology on honeybees, a mechanism meant to block gene expression Here's the link below for your information. Could Monsanto be creating a new GMO Honeybee to withstand all the GMO crops now planted almost worldwide? 
Click here to see Monsanto's new project. ( This article is pretty one sided, but you'll get some info on the subject) 

http://maryamhenein.tumblr.com/post/...eiW6w.facebook 

I recently bought the book 'The World According to Monsanto' from Amazon.com 
The book 'Seeds of Deception' if basically the same thing, but is a bit of an easier read if you don't want the long version and don't understand genetics well. 

(I am not slamming Monsanto here-just making reference to how the biotech industry is a part of what we all consume or are exposed to. Everyone needs to be as informed as possible and make their own choices.) 

Unfortunatly, the more I learn, the more horrified I am. Our world is a scary place folks.Crazy food chain, economy that is based on people spending more than they make, unsustainable practices in many areas of business, etc, etc. 
I just want you all to start THINKING for yourselves! Don't be paranoid, just realistic. If you are a young person planning to have a family, I would really think twice about exposing yourself to food or products that could actually damage or change your DNA. 
If you are thinking about trying beekeeping this year, there is no better time. For many reasons, Our world is an unsustainable and unstable place these days. Better get started on your home self sufficiency while you still can. 
If you wait until there is a problem to prepare, it is usually too late. 

One note: 
There are too many reasons for the problems with the world today to blame it on any one thing or product. 

I have always shied AWAY from organically produced foods in the stores( and all store bought food in general) I am mainly talking about producing my own food here on my property where I have control. Eating wild game and fish. 
I buy organic coffee for instance. I know it is one of the highest pesticide residue crops in all agriculture. I drink coffee, cannot grow it so that is my best choice. 
I know full well I am getting contaminates, etc in the food I consume. I just try to REDUCE my exposure by choosing as wisely as I can. 
My chickens pick out the undigested oats from the horse manure I clean out of their stalls.They also eat worms and bugs. I don't have a problem with that. 

Now, tuna my husband caught last year may have come from the migration where ocean currents took them through the Japanese Nuclear Fukushima plant contamination. THAT I have a problem with. 
If a person had no knowledge of the potential radiation exposure those tuna may have had, how would they know? My point being, you cannot just look at your food and tell it is safe. Maybe next year when the tuna runs are non existent will they realize they had been sterilized by the radiation. Is it possible? Time will tell.


----------



## lazy shooter (Jun 3, 2011)

My question is: Can the world feed seven billion people using totally organic agricultural methods? If so, I'm good to go.


----------



## Guest (Jan 29, 2012)

deleted


----------



## lazy shooter (Jun 3, 2011)

Lauri:

I agree that people should grow their own produce, if possible. But, our large cities have millions of people living in apartments, condos, and townhouse and etc. These people cannot feed themselves. The same goes for a few billion other folks that live in enviroments and eco systems that will not allow them to feed themselves. We have to feed all of them, or kill them as they will come for our food.

I'm on your side. I sell my cattle to a company that advertises and sell grass fed beef. (no chemicals) I purchase and eat organic vegetables, and I grow a small organic garden in my yard. I like the life style, but I think we have changed the world wide enviroment to the point that we cannot sustain the worlds population organically. It's too bad.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Big Ag has little concern for feeding the world. Big Ag has a new money pit, feeding our cars. No one in the world will starve if organic farming was all that there is. They will starve because of why they always starve (even in this country) because they are poor. If for some strange reason all of the world demanded organic food the demand would be met. If people literally stopped buying food that was not organic the demand for organic food would be met. The big name brand foods are having no problem meeting the sharp increase in demand for organic food that we see today. It is not a question of can it be done it is a question of do you want to do it. The free market global system will tell that tale.

You may also want to look at what is happening now due to this shift toward organics. Because the practice is labor intensive the industry is moving off shore, the same thing that has happened to our manufacturing base. Isn't it a shame that we cannot meet this challenge? I think it is.


----------



## lazy shooter (Jun 3, 2011)

Ace:

I don't know much about agricultural practices, but I know a lot of people that are in the ag business. To a person, they all tell me that organic farming will not feed our world's population. 

You're correct in that organic farming is labor intensive. I don't know if it's moving off shore. I do know some small organic farmers that are making a very good living out of truck farms that are no larger than 20 acres. It's a nice nitch market at this time.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

I often read how food produced by modern agricultural methods (meaning ag/pharma) sells for less than it costs to produce and is therefore unsustainable.

We could easily make a switch to more sustainable forms of agriculture. Only the ag/pharma giants would perish. We'd be just fine without them.

With regards to Remembee:

It's principle modes of action are non-LTR retrotransposition assisted transgenesis, AND RNAi.

Most folks miss the first mode of action because they don't realize that since the target fragments are from viruses that have integrated into the Honeybee genome, they already have the required secondary structures to become integrated by retrotransposition.

It's been overlooked because it has been completely omitted from the two studies (Maori et al., and Hunter et al.) published on RNAi technology in Honeybees.

I'd recommend 'The R2 retrotransposon RNA families', by Moss et al., and everything by T.H. Eickbush, to understand the importance of the secondary structure of RNA to this new technology.

So, they have been making transgenic Honeybees for years now using RR Remembee (Retrotransposition-Ready Remembee).


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

If you owned a 300 - 2000 acre farm that is not producing organic food what would you say? The highest concentration of people per sq mile is in Europe. They have no problem banning anything we produce. If anybody was going to starve they would have the greatest risk if it had to do with tillable soil. Wipe out all of the US and Brazil alone can feed the world but they are gearing up for feeding our cars. Land is not the issue, demand is.

There is nothing that says you have to produce organic food by hand or on a small farm. The only difference between organically grown and non-organically grown is a 10-15% decrease in yield. As far as the US is concerned that loss can be covered by home grown, not that it has to. Your friend is not going to want to hear that.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Lauri said:


> Here are just a few of my thoughts on feeding bees and our food supply overall. A very short version that has many more details, but for the sake of trying not to confuse folks I am keeping it very short.


When you find the time, I hope you will elaborate. Sometimes short epistils just don't do a topic justice.


----------



## lazy shooter (Jun 3, 2011)

Ace:

Ace the following statement is very wrong. "The highest concentration of people per sq mile is in Europe." The largest concentrations of population per square mile are mostly in Asia.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Not Manhattan?


----------



## lazy shooter (Jun 3, 2011)

Manhattan is a country?


----------



## hpm08161947 (May 16, 2009)

lazy shooter said:


> Manhattan is a country?


A World unto it's own......


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Oops, well, no. Sorry.

That would be India, China, and uh, mmm, eh. What's the third one?

Oops.


----------



## hpm08161947 (May 16, 2009)

Lauri said:


> Genetically Modified Organisms- they don't even call it food-they call it an organism!
> I won't eat it, I don't feed it to my livestock or my bees. /[/url]


Lauri...
Do you raise "all" your own food? Both for yourself and your livestock.... That would be the only way I can see to avoid GMO .... these days...


----------



## Moon (May 7, 2011)

This most definitely seems like a topic for tailgater and not the general bee forum, but what the heck. I'll bite.



Lauri said:


> ( Years ago, a person that ranted about eating 'Organic' Was usually perceived to be a hippy and bunny hugger with delusional views. These days, eating Organic has a whole different meaning for me. In the era of GMO foods, additives, pesticides, etc that are a large part of food and feed that is on the market today, I believe eating and farming Organically means you will be fit, healthy and glad to be alive in your later years.


This may be true about people being hippy's or bunny huggers (that's a new one on me and made me chuckle) but these foods are not better simply because they are _organic_. In fact, some of the best vegetables you can eat are frozen vegetables. This produce goes straight from the farm and processing into the freezer where the majority of the nutrients are placed in a type of frozen stasis until you thaw and cook them. To put it in perspective, which would be better. An apple grown on an organic farm that is harvested on one day, shipped in transit for 2 days to your local super market, then left on a shelf in the stock room for a day before making it out onto the supermarket floor for a day or two before you buy it or apples that are harvested one day then froze the next not to be thawed until you need them? That's a difference of about five days. Organic or not, it doesn't much matter when it's had an extra five days to decompose.



Lauri said:


> Genetically Modified Organisms- they don't even call it food-they call it an organism!
> I won't eat it, I don't feed it to my livestock or my bees. I will NOT feed my bees high fructose corn syrup. I believe the process of radical gene insertion into the DNA of a species is unstable and unsafe. I have read many scientific research documents and books on this subject.
> Not to mention the GMO corn feed and syrup is produced from is sprayed multiple times with herbicide, it is also genetically modified to make it's own pesticide (BT)-yeah, feed THAT to your bees! This is one of the reasons I keep bees in the first place.


I heartily agree with you on not wanting to eat something that is producing it's own pesticide but let's not split hairs here. Regardless of what they call it, genetically modified organism, or genetically modified food is more semantics than anything and isn't really a valid argument against GMO's. I also am not a fan of having my food sprayed multiple times with herbicide; however, I am a big fan of washing my produce before I eat it. In an ideal world under ideal circumstances I'd have my own 40 acre farm producing all my own food that I'm able to control every aspect of but this just simply isn't realistic for the majority of the population so again, I simply wash my produce.



Lauri said:


> The signs are all around us that our food supply is unhealthy. Obesity, disease and illness, our pets die of cancer at a young age. Why folks don't pay attention to that instead of accepting it is beyond me.
> Why is it that the human species is so accepting of things they know are not right? Just because most people you know are overweight and on several medications doesn't mean that is normal and acceptable!


This is just simply not true. The rampant rates of obesity in our society are not indicative of a food supply that is in dire need of an overhaul but more so of a societal shift that needs to occur in the way we view food and eat in general. People are not unhealthy and overweight because they are eating processed foods, people are overweight and unhealthy because THEY EAT TO MUCH. If you were to have a big mac, a medium fry, and a medium dr. pepper you're consuming roughly around 1250 calories in one sitting. This is half of your daily allotment for calories in one sitting.

The statement that people being on medication is unnatural and unhealthy is absurd and very nearly borders on the line of irresponsibility. Prime example, my dad has a medical heart condition that is inherited. Every sibling in his family has it, I someday too will probably have it. With out the advent of modern medicine, my dad would have died five years ago due to and unsafe spike in blood pressure. Because of modern medicine my dad is able to live a healthy and full filling life. This man probably hovers around 9% body fat and is able to bench press 300lbs at the age of 56 and stands at only 5'7". Unhealthy? By no means. How about example number two. My mom was in a car accident when she was eighteen and received an artificial ankle. Due to her aging body and immune system her body has began rejecting the artificial ankle and she is now on medication to suppress her immune system. Neither her nor my father are over weight by any stretch of the imagination and live healthy full lives, yet both are on a daily regiment of medication.



Lauri said:


> I am a fan of the old Western movies. 99.9 % of the people in those movies would be considered Anorexic by today's standards. You rarely see a lady with an hour glass figure anymore. Good Grief, even John Wayne looks skinny!
> (This will all tie into Beekeeping, I promise)


Again, this statement is almost laughable in it's inaccuracy. People who would be considered Anorexic by today's standard are in fact anorexic. These people in these old western, albeit fit, are no where near anorexic by _today's standards_. Fun fact, life expectancy at the turn of the century from birth was 49.2 Years. Today the life expectancy for a white male is 75.3 years, and 80.5 years for a white female, and in turn 76.1 and 69 years for a black female, and male (respectively). So people are living longer and healthier lives then at any other time in history, all because of the advent of modern medicine. Facts are fun. _source: http://aging.senate.gov/crs/aging1.pdf _ 



Lauri said:


> I for one trust my gut instinct and observations. I don't have my own genetics lab and cannot prove anything I say here. BUT...
> Knowledge is your best defense against health risk ignorance when it comes to food, medications and environmental exposures.


I think you sum up this entire post quite succinctly with this last tidbit from your original post.



Lauri said:


> Obviously, I am against GMO foods.
> In a world with unlimited population growth, this is what we are going to be forced to accept as a food source before long, unless you grow your own with heirloom seeds, untainted bees and livestock and natural organic farming.


Unfortunately I think this is even a little far fetched. Un-tainted bees? I don't know that there are such a thing, and in the event that there are it would be impossible to keep them on the mainland (or any mainland for that matter) without cross breeding from some local mutts that by your definition must be the other 'tainted' bees. As far as heirloom seeds, sure you can grow a crop for several years and continue to harvest seeds, how do you prevent the natural migratory process of seeds from birds flying over your fields pooping out seeds they picked up from farmer Fred a hundred miles away? It's just not possible unless you're planning on building some type of biodome.



Lauri said:


> Organic and farming practices of the past are no longer adequate for today's population numbers and especially tomorrows population increases. GMO farming is now too big to fail. ( Too big to fail. Where have we heard THAT statement lately?)
> 
> Learning how to be self sufficient NOW is so important!
> 
> If you NEED to in the future, you will have the resources and the knowledge for full blown food production for your families needs.


Really? How am I suppose to supply food for a family of five living in the heart of a city renting a three bedroom apartment complex? Should I simply pick up and move my family away from their home and everything they know, abandon my job and head for greener pastures out in the country on the hopes that I'll be able to make a living and provide adequately for my family simply so they can have some fresh grown produce? This is unrealistic and unattainable for most American families.



Lauri said:


> Which leads me to another question. When all sugar sources are GMO, what will we feed our bees if it is necessary?...Generally when you are a new beekeeper without the resources of drawn out frames of honey, you have to feed nucs until they are established-possibly also feeding hives in late winter until they are in full honey production mode of established hives.
> 
> Perhaps that is why Monsanto has purchased
> BeeoLogics, a small company best known for its “groundbreaking research” vis a vis the application of RNAi technology on honeybees, a mechanism meant to block gene expression Here's the link below for your information. Could Monsanto be creating a new GMO Honeybee to withstand all the GMO crops now planted almost worldwide?
> Click here to see Monsanto's new project. ( This article is pretty one sided, but you'll get some info on the subject)


I had to stop here, I couldn't read or comment anymore. It just all becomes to silly. I think your heart is in the right place and in general I agree with you 100% on your ideas behind hunting, fishing, and providing for yourself without relying on commercially grown crops or processed food. I also am trying to steer away from these types of foods but this post is overflowing with speculation and a 'shoot from the hip' mentality of. THEY'RE OUT TO GET MAH BEES AND MAKE ME EAT THE SCIENTIFIC MUMBO JUMBO THEY COOKED UP IN A LAB!!!

I want to really, really, emphasize that I do agree with you and your ideologies but I feel this post should have been written with more facts and less ideas you tried to convey as facts.


----------



## Guest (Jan 29, 2012)

deleted


----------



## Moon (May 7, 2011)

Lauri said:


> . One side effect that was noted was the increased occurance of twinning in humans that consumed these products.
> My daughter was sure surprised in 2010 when she was not only confirmed pregnant, but with twins.
> Twins do not run in ether side of the family.
> ***CLICK***
> ...


I'm sure you could go on and on, and have no doubt that you probably will but again. You're passing off sensationalism as fact and drawing lines between points that are so obscure it's hard to see if they have any relation then proudly standing up and saying GOTCHA!!!. So a book you read said it could increase the chance of twins in humans and your daughter had twins which was obviously impossible because it's never been known to happen anywhere in your family so... GOTCHA!!!!

That cheap milk in my fridge was actually free from my aunts ranch.

There's puss in that milk? There's puss in that homogenized milk that's been boiled and sterilized?! What's next, you're going to tell me there's actually BLOOD in my steak?!?


----------



## Guest (Jan 29, 2012)

deleted


----------



## Moon (May 7, 2011)

Lauri said:


> I mentioned I admire the intelligence of Most of the folks that post here.
> I am not a scientest or involved in commercial food production. Just a concerned person who is overwhelmed with what is accepted as normal these days.
> Moon, I think your comments are pretty harsh and rude. I may not have all the facts and details, but am at least aware of potential problems and am commited to protecting my family from what I think is unhealthy.
> If this is what Beesourse is all about, I will not longer be posting here.


Whoah whoah whoah, Lauri I apologize if I offended you in anyway shape or form. That was not my intention at all and if my remarks were harsh and rude it's because I showed an uncanny lack of tact and manners. Please accept my most sincere apology. Again let me reiterate that I agree with you on the need for better food of higher quality with less chemicals and no GMO's. Personally I try to view the world through scientific eyes and when I feel like people are trying to pass off ideas or gut instincts as facts without quoting sources I think it does more harm then good and is how lynch mobs are started over no reason. Science is not the enemy, simply the path.

Again I am truly sorry if I offended you.


----------



## Guest (Jan 29, 2012)

Accepted, thanks. No worries


----------



## hpm08161947 (May 16, 2009)

Lauri said:


> If this is what Beesourse is all about, I will not longer be posting here.


It's not so much what you are saying Lauri... it is the place. There is another forum here called "Tailgator"... which would be far more appropriate... and lots of folks who love to argue. I would imagine that this entire topic will be moved there shortly... as soon as the powers that bee... get a whiff of it.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Lauri said:


> If this is what Beesourse is all about, I will not longer be posting here.


Please don't make idle threats. If you want to go on a pure food crusade grow a spine and a thick skin and open your eyes becasue Moon was quite supposrtive of you for the most part.

Also, if you are not going to write about bees and beekeeping, take it to Tailgater.

You may like to know, just like in the milk you produced yourself and fed to your babies, milk from cows has hormones in it naturally. But, maybe you were refering to "added hormones" in milk available at the grocery.

Welcome to beesource.com. How are your bees wintering?


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

deleted


----------



## Guest (Jan 29, 2012)

Thanks for the info. It can just be deleted as far as I am concerned. Sorry it got so far off topic. That wasn't my intent.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

'Science is not the enemy, simply the path.'

I wouldn't be too sure about that. Our own U.S. Honeybee research scientists have done a good job of covering up the trangenic properties of Remembee.

I suggest that you read 'The World According to Monsanto' to get a feel for the extent of the issues involved.

It's never too late to change things for the better.


----------



## Moon (May 7, 2011)

I'm done with this until it gets moved, the whole thing is off topic =P


----------



## Guest (Jan 30, 2012)

Not my intent for my original post to go off topic. I am getting emails to repost it. If it is not acceptable please remove it.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

The topic is both relevant and timely.

The day will soon be here when American Beekeepers can no longer call their honey 'Organic' because of the great potential for genetic contamination by dsRNA products like Remembee.

While some think that the call for 'Tailgaitor' is an effective way to quash this kind of a discussion on the 'Forum', they'll find that there are others here who will agree with me in saying that the call for 'Tailgator' is simply 'hot air'.

If you don't like the topic, don't view or respond to it.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

WLC said:


> While some think that the call for 'Tailgaitor' is an effective way to quash this kind of a discussion on the 'Forum', they'll find that there are others here who will agree with me in saying that the call for 'Tailgator' is simply 'hot air'.
> 
> If you don't like the topic, don't view or respond to it.


I resemble that remark. As my Dad used to say.

I wish you had been around when Tailgater was in its' heyday, open to anyone to comment in. We had some really "good" discussions which a lot of people didn't care for.

The topic and vein of this here Thread has the potential to go south quickly. Tailgater is designed for this kind of topic, this kind of give and take.

Each Forum is set up to handle specific sorts of topics. Read the headings and Post Threads in the proper Forum. That's all. Plenty of discussion will ensue, if the Topic has merit.

Y'all are just afraid to Tailgate. That's all.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

This is one of those threads that 'walk along the edge'. Please keep the discussion of GMO's and organics to their relationship to bees. Stay away from any political talk.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

What keep? There's been no bee talk. Unless cows count as bees.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

You're off topic. 

Seriously, some of you have treated the OP most unfairly.

She should feel free to post about organic farming and beekeeping without fear.


----------



## Guest (Jan 30, 2012)

I am obviously new to this forum, although I have been reading it for over a year. I notice many of the threads posted are simple questions. I had hoped to contribute to this forum and make it interesting to folks by posting stories, photos of hive designs and decoration and experiments I have done and plan to do with the bees.
I enjoy a good debate and will try to have a thicker skin.
Thank you all for the nice messages and emails.

http://www.itsmysite.com/laurimilleragricultural/
Lauri


----------



## hpm08161947 (May 16, 2009)

WLC said:


> You're off topic.
> 
> She should feel free to post about organic farming and beekeeping without fear.


Gee.... I hope we have not frightened her. We can be a fairly scary crowd at times...


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Hey, she has a 'Harley' hive, I think she can handle the beesource crowd!


----------



## hpm08161947 (May 16, 2009)

Yea... and her web site says her bees wear little black leather jackets.... now I'm scared


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Barry said:


> Hey, she has a 'Harley' hive, I think she can handle the beesource crowd!


Barry, I think you aught to hit her up for a Grant.


----------



## Scrapfe (Jul 25, 2008)

sqkcrk said:


> ... hit her up for a Grant.


Is that Foster Grants?


----------



## Scrapfe (Jul 25, 2008)

Lauri said:


> … Here are just a few of my thoughts on feeding bees and our food supply overall. A very short version that [?] has many more details, but for the sake of trying not to confuse folks I am keeping it very short…


Please don’t take it easy on us poor members of the Hoi Palloi, we may bee harder to confuse that you imagine. Use all the time you need. 



Lauri said:


> ....Genetically Modified Organisms- they don't even call it food-they call it an organism!...


I will have to disagree with you. It is the people who worship at the alter of organics who chose to deride other people choices or lifestyles by calling the food these people consume ‘Genetically Modified Organisms’ or ‘Franking Foods.’ :no:



Lauri said:


> … I believe the process of radical gene insertion into the DNA of a species is unstable and unsafe. I have read many scientific research documents and books on this subject…


Please post the names of or the links to some of the scientific research, documents, or scientific books you have read on this subject. 

Here is a short link on the above subject that you may find educational.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIvNopv9Pa8



Lauri said:


> … Companies that profit from GMO product claim they are safe. Proving they are NOT safe will take independent/non manipulated studies and years of research. …


 Are you equating the organic or health food industry with Monsanto inc. or to that evil bee killing ogre Bayer AG? Since no one can prove a negative concept, how’s about some real scientific data that proves organic foods are better for you. Organic food however didn’t seem to help this health food guru.
http://avhs-apush.wikispaces.com/Graham,+Sylvester



Lauri said:


> … I for one trust my gut instinct and observations. I don't have my own genetics lab and cannot prove anything I say here...


Oh, I see!



Lauri said:


> … Humans, plants and animals are now in one giant experimental stage. Years from now… we will undoubtedly see the results of these gene manipulations...


The results of these gene manipulations are perhaps 10,000 or more years old and are right in front of us this every minute in the form of honeybees, the Rutgers hybrid tomato, sheep, goats, cows, maize, rice, potatoes, chickens, apples, and yes even almonds. When we look in the mirror remember that it may have taken humans a billion years to get to our current stage of development. 



Lauri said:


> … I just want you all to start THINKING for yourselves! Don't be paranoid, just realistic…


Good advice, I wish more people would follow the above advice. But please do tell me which of the posters here do you think are following bad advice and how you can set them back on the stright and narrow.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

I ran across this news item:

http://locallygrownnews.com/stories/Seed-Sovereignty-Whoever-Controls-the-Seed-Controls-Food,28494

Organic farmers are suing to protect their seed stock from contamination by GMOs. It starts in NYC tomorrow.

I wonder if Beekeepers will have to do the same one day?

http://www.pubpat.org/assets/files/seed/OSGATA-v-Monsanto-Complaint.pdf


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Lazy shooter, you are right about the population density Europe = 81.8 and Asia = 89.7 but not all that different. What changes though is how many are actually feed well and consuming the food that is grown. That would be Europe.

Mark, tailgater is a club not really open discussion.

If your concern is about the health of the bees than GMO's are part of the discussion. Otherwise it becomes a club again.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Acebird said:


> Mark, tailgater is a club not really open discussion.
> 
> If your concern is about the health of the bees than GMO's are part of the discussion. Otherwise it becomes a club again.


Only in that one needs to register for "admission", once. It's no more a "club" than Chat Room. It's not like there are any dues or exclusiveness.

I could be wrong, but it got segregated because "discussions" got to heavily political/religious for the general public. Though I never understood why folks didn't just ignore it and not look. Like we are told to do w/ other Forums.

what is not open about Tailagter discussions?


----------



## Guest (Jan 30, 2012)

My intent when I wrote the original post was to try to get people to grow and harvest there own food, with 'a good time to start Beekeeping' formost on the subject. Not to promote the word 'Organic' or blame any one company for the woes of the world. If companies are producing products that are hazardous and people are stupid or ignorant enough to eat or use them-then who's fault is it?
I'd like to see folks aware of commercial food production and potential contaminates and help them make an informed choice for the health of themselves and family.
Some may scoff at this idea. Your choice.


----------



## Barry Digman (May 21, 2003)

Acebird said:


> Mark, tailgater is a club not really open discussion.



It's very much an open discussion. Here is the description, the rules, and the instructions for using it.

http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...at-Posteri-Let-the-poster-beware&daysprune=-1


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Lauri said:


> Some may scoff at this idea. Your choice.


This is probably just me, but, I don't read BIG LONG Posts because I usually get lost in what is trying to be expressed. At least you broke it up in paragraphs. I commend you for that. Some folks don't.

Run on Posts, to me, are just as bad as run on sentences. I'm not writing about "sound bite" Posts. Just asking that statements be made in more readable fashion.

I'm sure it's just me.

I really did get a kick out of your "let me be brief" Post which took me 5 minutes to reduce down to the part I wished to quote and reply to.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Barry Digman said:


> It's very much an open discussion. Here is the description, the rules, and the instructions for using it.
> 
> http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...at-Posteri-Let-the-poster-beware&daysprune=-1


Tailgater: Discussion specific to Politics, Religion, and Societal Issues. Hmmm. Sound familiar?

A place for everything. Everything in its' place.


----------



## TWall (May 19, 2010)

As anything becomes marketed to more people, become more profitable, it tends to get farther away from the intent of its' originators. There has been mention of organic food, non-GMO, etc. The implication is that this food is better and safer. The OP brought this to encourage people to try and produce more of their own food.

I saw a brief piece yesterday on Whole Foods, the largest retailer of organic foods. A number of their own brand organic frozen vegetables were labeled with the USDA Organic label and were products of China. Even the "California Medley."

As consumer demand increases it becomes harder to supply the original product. If the market for treatment free honey were to expand the definition of treatment free would loosen to the point where some/many/most would not call that product treatment free.

As has been pointed out there are a number of statements that are not factual. But, I do agree with the OP's intent, just not for the same reasons.

I am for producing as much of my own food as possible. I am more than happy to use most modern production practices, including many agri-chemicals. Our food supply has never been safer. Life is not a zero-risk proposition. For the most part people don't die of milk fever from having to drink raw milk. As has been posted earlier life expectancy is much greater than 100 years ago. Given the opportunity I would be completely self-sufficient.

Tom


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Barry Digman said:


> It's very much an open discussion.


I stand corrected.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Without getting in whether or not transgenics are good/bad/otherwise, how do you go about avoiding transgenic ag crops and transgenic garden plants while keeping honeybees? Where do you place your hives to ensure the bees that you manage aren't getting into something that you don't want in your food (honey), even aside from transgenics?


----------



## beyondthesidewalks (Dec 1, 2007)

lazy shooter said:


> Lauri:
> 
> I like the life style, but I think we have changed the world wide enviroment to the point that we cannot sustain the worlds population organically. It's too bad.


On what do you base this observation? This is the excuse for the "dark side" of agriculture. I see no reason why the world cannot be fed without GMO, highly refined, radiated and chemically treated food. To do so would take away the share that some large companies have in that large pie but the real problem is that most folks want to keep up the Kardashians and not where their food comes from.


----------



## beyondthesidewalks (Dec 1, 2007)

lazy shooter said:


> Ace:
> 
> Ace the following statement is very wrong. "The highest concentration of people per sq mile is in Europe." The largest concentrations of population per square mile are mostly in Asia.


You both may be correct. Are you considering per a city or municipal area or per country.


----------



## Stonefly7 (Nov 3, 2005)

Thanks for posting Lauri,
I believe all of what you say has merit. You must have read;
1. Animal, Vegtible, Miracle by Barbara Kingsolver
2. Folk's, This Ain't Normal by Joe Salatin
3. The Contrary Farmer by Gene Logsdon

There has been a huge movement afoot for years with folks becoming sustainable as much as they can. We are on that path as well, but it takes time. Farmers markets and coop's are all over the states now so folks have a choice. Even folks in the cities have different ways which they may produce and or purchase natural foods. The reason we are where we are is because of cheap energy. That's why the folks left the farms and villages and went to the cities. It's a long story but you can research it.

About the bees. There is some chatter about the corn crops in Indiana, and many keeps don't place their bees anywhere near large plats of crops. Others have to for pollination, income, etc. I don't feed HFC anylonger because it's not natural to the bees diet. I try to leave enough stores on the yards at a cost to my profits. I would like to see the research on sugar. Don't know about that study.

Anyway, your post is fine. We all have different opinions of how we live and what we eat, and how we care for our bees. Thanks for sharing.

Kind regards


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Kieck said:


> Where do you place your hives to ensure the bees that you manage aren't getting into something that you don't want in your food (honey), even aside from transgenics?


Three miles away from crops that are suspect. Five miles away to be sure.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

beyondthesidewalks said:


> You both may be correct. Are you considering per a city or municipal area or per country.


My original intention was per continent. I was surprised to find that China is slightly smaller in land area than the US while poking around for numbers. I thought China was much larger.


----------



## beyondthesidewalks (Dec 1, 2007)

This thread may have much relevance to beekeeping. Monsanto has purchased Beelogics, the makers of Remembee. Monsanto has a history of not playing fair. They also try to get the government to assist them in their quest to dominate all parts of agriculture. They have given away seed to cross pollinate with the crops of farmers who saved their own seed so they could legally force them to purchase seed from them. I do not like the fact that they are getting into the bee game. This is not good for the beekeeping community IMO.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

BeeOlogics. Like biology biologics beeologics.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> Three miles away from crops that are suspect. Five miles away to be sure. -Acebird


You quoted the part I threw in just to be clear that this isn't strictly transgenic crops. The transgenic crops cover a high percentage of land grown in ag production in the U. S. But crops are only one piece of this. I've observed bees collecting molasses added to animal feed. How do you know that molasses doesn't come from a transgenic source? I've seen bees picking up bits of cracked corn, even, from piles to be fed to animals. How do you verify that such a product isn't from a transgenic crop? I've seen them collecting residue from soft-drink cans, hanging around piles of things that couldn't rightly be considered logical "bee food," robbing out hives fed with who-knows-what. I think the real answer is much more complicated, and I'd be curious to know just where such locations nearby most beekeepers.


----------



## Scrapfe (Jul 25, 2008)

Lauri said:


> ... If companies are producing products that are hazardous and people are stupid or ignorant enough to eat ...them… who's fault is it?
> ...


If we can't agree about bee feed or honey, at least we some what seem to agree about the human food supply. For years now most episodes of food born illness traced to produce resulted from eating organically fertilized produce. Especially raw, or uncooked organically fertilized produce. Cases in point was last fall’s plague of killer cantaloupe from Colorado, or the murderous bean sprout outbreaks in Europe. These plagues sickened, crippled, or killed hundreds, maybe even thousands of people who you describe in post 44 as stupid or ignorant. :no: Organic or raw lettuce, spinach, onions, strawberries, apple cider, etc have all had their 15 minutes of infamy when it comes to killing or sickening organic consumers. Even honey can carry germs that may be deadly to people with immune systems that are either highly compromised or else underdeveloped. 

To avoid getting a deadly food born illness from your organic tucker, I recommend carrying a small jewelers loupe or else a large hand held magnifying glass with you when you shop for fresh organic produce. This will allow you to inspect your organic produce for wee pieces of brown Charmin clinging to the leaves roots and stalks of your organic food before you take it home.


----------



## Scrapfe (Jul 25, 2008)

Kieck said:


> ... Where do you place your hives to ensure the bees that you manage aren't getting into something that you don't want in your ...(honey), even aside from transgenics?


Two weeks ago I saw bees gathering the lather off the back and flanks of a just un-saddled horse. Someone here posted pictures of bees gathering amber dew from the concrete floor of a dog kennel. A week ago I heard, saw, and felt a bee gathering droplets of sweat from my hands and arms, even as I sat in the warm Sunshine on the side of a livestock tank full of fresh water. Mark posted about bees working the green pollen patties in the floor drains of barns and milking parlors. 

Bees are very much like the bank robber Willie Sutton who said, “I rob banks because that’s were the money is.”
http://thinkexist.com/quotation/i_rob_banks_because_that-s_where_the_money_is/226583.html
Bees gather things they need or want because those are the things that they need or want. They could care less about what we simple minded humans need or what our preferances are. Welcome to nature and the natural world were our human needs, wants, and prejudices matter not in the slightest.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Scrapfe said:


> Mark posted about bees working the green pollen patties in the floor drains of barns and milking parlors.


What?!! Which Mark? Not me. I deny. Green pollen patties in the floor drains of barns and milking parlors? That's nuts!! Must have been some other Mark.

Where can you keep bees to avoid transgenic crops? Probably nowhere. Bees fly.


----------



## Guest (Jan 31, 2012)

From most of the responses here my point seems to have been missed by many.
The word "organic' seems to be highly controversial. I am surprised it has been met with such negativity and even scoffed at. It can mean a lot of different things and I agree-commercial organic food can be unsafe in a different mannor compared to GMO or food with tons of preservitives and additives. 
I believe the point I was trying to make was:
"Grow, raise or hunt your own where you have the most control."

Scrapfe, I am really surprised you would post this video.
I am a grandmother and don't appreciate being linked to a video with vulgar language.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIvNopv9Pa8

With years of experience with home gardening and agriculture, I thought I had something to contribute to this forum. After the suprisingly great lengths some have gone to prove my thoughts and statements as irrelevent, I would be a fool to ever post here again.
Barry, please remove all of my posts and contact information.


----------



## Guest (Jan 31, 2012)

Stonefly7 said:


> Thanks for posting Lauri,
> I believe all of what you say has merit. You must have read;
> 1. Animal, Vegtible, Miracle by Barbara Kingsolver
> 2. Folk's, This Ain't Normal by Joe Salatin
> ...


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

Lauri, the problem is, with the flight range of a foraging honey bee colony, there is no truly organic honey. Unless the colony is on a certified organic island somewhere. :lookout:
Regards,
Steven


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

It looks like Occupy Wall Street is going to show their support for the organic farmers at the hearing tomorrow:

http://www.care2.com/causes/occupy-wall-street-joins-farmers-fight-against-monsanto.html

I, for one, hope that the suit for protection from the courts against genetic contamination goes forward.

Now if someone could do that for Honeybees as well...


----------



## woodguyrob (Jul 29, 2010)

Lauri-Stay around and keep posting...

Good topic, as important to beekeeping as it is to human life.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Lauri said:


> Scrapfe, I am really surprised you would post this video.
> I am a grandmother and don't appreciate being linked to a video with vulgar language.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIvNopv9Pa8
> ...


And yet you repost the link to the video. Why, if you object to the language therein?

What did you expect? That your ideas would be met wholeheartedly w/ enthusiastic agreement?


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Kieck said:


> I think the real answer is much more complicated, and I'd be curious to know just where such locations nearby most beekeepers.


You can't stop your child from putting things in their mouth and picking up germs either but that is not what you feed them. If you see a bee on a cow pie it isn't a big deal it is one of many thousand bees in the hive. It is not want the colony survives on. There is a good chance that what you buy in the grocery store has been exposed to animal waste, insects like flies and other germ sources. A little exposure you can take a lot and you are in trouble.
Of course it would be nice if GMO's did not exist at all, not so much because of the GMO but because of what the GMO is used for.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Acebird said:


> If you see a bee on a cow pie it isn't a big deal it is one of many thousand bees in the hive. It is not want the colony survives on.
> 
> Of course it would be nice if GMO's did not exist at all, not so much because of the GMO but because of what the GMO is used for.


"It is not [what] the colony survives on." Really? What makes you think so? Maybe there is something in that water the bee(s) find(s) in barnyard water which is beneficial to hive health.

"but because of what the GMO is used for." What would that be?


----------



## hpm08161947 (May 16, 2009)

Lauri said:


> From most of the responses here my point seems to have been missed by many.
> The word "organic' seems to be highly controversial. I am surprised it has been met with such negativity and even scoffed at. It can mean a lot of different things and I agree-commercial organic food can be unsafe in a different mannor compared to GMO or food with tons of preservitives and additives.
> I believe the point I was trying to make was:
> "Grow, raise or hunt your own where you have the most control."
> ...


Lauri... (Grandma)... The real obscenity in that video is the 25000 humans dying everyday from starvation!!! If that video offended you... then you best stay out of "Tailgator".


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

AMEN Herb. I wish I'd said that. 

Except Tailgater isn't that bad, is it?

I find it funny how many people seem to imply that they have their children on their laps every time they go on line. BO-O-O-GUS


----------



## lazy shooter (Jun 3, 2011)

Haven’t our bees evolved rapidly over the past couple of hundred years due to commerce and advanced transportation? From what I have read this year it appears the varroa mite is a recent (last two or so decades) thing. Since its arrival to our country several beekeepers, especially commercial beekeepers, have bred bees that are “mite tolerant.” This has been done by selective breeding for certain traits. I realize that at no point does the beekeeper physically inject new DNA into the bee, but the bee has been changed from what it was some 10 years back. We are intentionally altering and cross breeding bees. As a consequence, our cross bred bees are putting drones into the environment. Is this not somewhat akin to GMO?


----------



## hpm08161947 (May 16, 2009)

sqkcrk said:


> I find it funny how many people seem to imply that they have their children on their laps every time they go on line. BO-O-O-GUS


Grandma Lauri maybe a bit too "Delicate" for Beesource. Not sure what internet forums would be appropriate for her sensitive nature.


----------



## hilreal (Aug 16, 2005)

Anyone who works in the food production industry feeding the other 99% that do not have the ability to grow their own food, know what a blessing GMO crops are to the food industry and to the planet. It has reduced tremendously the amount of pesticides that are dumped in the environment yearly. If you take the time to study what scientists have done modifying the genome you will find that it is nothing magical and has been going on in nature for millions of years. Bacteria and viruses regularly insert their dna / rna into other organisms dna/rna and often leave behind extra pieces. If you study evolutionary biology you will find that many of our gene sequences have been aquired through millenea from other organisms. All of the sequences that have been inserted into the genomes all occur in nature and are not synthetic or man made. Most come from treatments recommended and used by organic farmers i.e. BT. 

There has never been one published scientific article demonstrating any ill effects from GMO crops to humans, livestock, pets, etc. With the millions and millions of animals that have ingested this material I am sure someone somewhere would have discovered a problem by now and Greenpeace would have made sure that everyone knew about it! It is just DNA, the same 4 amino acids that everything else is made of, nothing special or magical about it. 

Personally, I have worked with organic farmers and conventional farmers and whenever I see organic listed on a label I refuse to buy the product. It is a nice romantic idea but reality is something else.


----------



## beyondthesidewalks (Dec 1, 2007)

sqkcrk said:


> BeeOlogics. Like biology biologics beeologics.


Doesn't matter anymore. They're monsanto now. You knew who I was posting about.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

sqkcrk said:


> "but because of what the GMO is used for." What would that be?


Mark, I think you know what the primary source of food for bees is.

And you also know that the purpose of GMO is to put poison in the plant not on the plant. You can't even wash it off. So now you have people like hireal that believe it is the right thing to do, they have license to poison food for human consumption.

How many years does it take to find a drug has harmful side effects to the point it gets pulled from the shelves when the manufacturer already knew of it through their own testing? 5,10 15,20 years? Ten thousand years from now (if humanity survives) will our ancestors look at us as being as ignorant as the cave man? Or will the craving for wealth still win over the health of human life.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

hilreal said:


> It has reduced tremendously the amount of pesticides that are dumped in the environment yearly.


1. Roundup ready crops (GMO) are designed to allow the copious use of roundup...a way to increase the amount of roundup used, not reduce it.

2. The "natural process" of retrotransposing genes from microbes to larger organisms is a natural process. Death in humans is a natural process. If I cause the death of a specific human at a specific time in a specific place and in a specific manner (colonel mustard, at midnight, in the drawing room, with a candlestick) it is no longer a natural process. The process of placing specific genes from one organism into another to achieve a specific outcome is as natural as murdering colonel mustard.

deknow


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> And you also know that the purpose of GMO is to put poison in the plant not on the plant. -Acebird


Let's back up just a bit and define a few terms here.

"GMO" is abbreviated from "genetically modified organism." By definition, any organism that has had its genes modified through selective breeding programs is "genetically modified." Using this definition, honeybees bred through "conventional" breeding programs (selection by a human breeder) can be considered "genetically modified," especially if they are deliberately hybridized to produce the desired phenotype.

"Transgenic" refers to the direct and deliberate modification of specific pieces of DNA by humans, usually by adding genes from another organism to the target organism. Those genes are not always from different species, but usually are.

The most common form of transgenic organisms grown in the U. S. at this point are glyphosate-tolerant crops (usually sold as "Roundup-Ready" or some variant on it). Glyphosate-tolerant crops do not have genes intended to produce toxins; rather, they carry transgenic DNA intended to allow them to survive applications of herbicide.

Bt corn and Bt cotton contain genes from bacteria that produce proteins toxic to very specific groups of insects. Those proteins are often not even toxic to insects in the same order as the target species, and sometimes not even to insects in the same family as the target pests. Proteins from those same bacteria are used to control the same pests when applied as foliar sprays to crops, and those are labeled "organic" chemicals. Bacteria from the same species (different strain or race) are used by some beekeepers to control wax moths in hives.

I'm not trying to argue whether or not transgenics are "safe," here, just wanting to provide a few more details to consider before readers make up their minds one way or the other.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Kieck said:


> Let's back up just a bit and define a few terms here.
> 
> "GMO" is abbreviated from "genetically modified organism." By definition, any organism that has had its genes modified through selective breeding programs is "genetically modified." Using this definition,


I don't know of anybody that thinks of "GMO" with this definition. This looks to me like hybridizing or selective breeding not gene alterations.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Lifted straight from Wikipedia's page on "Genetically modified organisms":



> A genetically modified organism (GMO) or genetically engineered organism (GEO) is an organism whose genetic material has been altered using genetic engineering techniques. These techniques, generally known as recombinant DNA technology, use DNA molecules from different sources, which are combined into one molecule to create a new set of genes. This DNA is then transferred into an organism, giving it modified or novel genes. Transgenic organisms, a subset of GMOs, are organisms that have inserted DNA from a different species. GMOs are the constituents of genetically modified foods. -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_organism


----------



## Guest (Jan 31, 2012)

Thank you all who have called, emailed and sent me messages. I appreciate your kind words.


Also thank you to those who posted facts clarifying in an informative and civil way, the difference between some terminology I my have mis used.
A mistake I made in my original post was to state the work 'organic', assuming you knew MY definition of the word. 
My basic interpretation of the word organic: Not contaminated with pesticides, herbicides or other man made chemicals. No transgenic modification. 
My rule of thumb for most of my diet is: I don't eat it if it doesn't grow, run, fly or swim. Even those rules are not 100% safe these days. I am careful of the feed I use for my livestock that I consume, and even my horses, from which I harvest there manure for my compost.
You would be surprised to know I have actually never sought out organic produce in the store. I buy what is fresh and clean knowing full well it may have been imported or exposed to contaminates. I simply limit my exposure to anything I don't grow myself.
I do not buy meat.
Here's what I do eat:

http://s425.photobucket.com/albums/pp340/tweety4926/?action=view&current=b7f400b2.pbw

http://s425.photobucket.com/albums/pp340/tweety4926/?action=view&current=405f1df8.pbw


The reason I re posted the link that was offensive to me was I wanted other to see what had been posted. I figured you would delete it, as you did before Barry got a chance to review it. No , I did not have a child on my lap at the time, but very well could have. 
I am just trying to help other who are interested in my perception of healthy living. I enjoy a good debate, but not a pissing match, pardon the language.
Sorry to have this posts responses go so off topic from Beekeeping.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

Kieck said:


> Lifted straight from Wikipedia's page on "Genetically modified organisms":


...nothing in there talks about selective breeding as "genetic modification". Selective breeding is like stacking red legos together...GMO is like cutting the red bricks in half with a saw, and gluing in blue pieces of lego.

..but if we look at the wikipedia entry on genetically modified food, it clearly distinuguishes between selective breeding, mutagentic breeding (think of canola), and GM. It also states clearly that GM foods were first on the market in the mid 1990s...food produced by selective breeding has been around a bit longer than that....
deknow

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food


> . Genetically modified organisms have had specific changes introduced into their DNA by genetic engineering techniques. These techniques are much more precise[1] than mutagenesis (mutation breeding) where an organism is exposed to radiation or chemicals to create a non-specific but stable change. Other techniques by which humans modify food organisms include selective breeding; plant breeding, and animal breeding, and somaclonal variation.
> 
> GM foods were first put on the market in 1996.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Lauri said:


> Here's what I do eat:


Wow! That is an awful lot for one person to eat.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> food produced by selective breeding has been around a bit longer than that....
> deknow
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food
> ...



I understand how and why people wish to read this in different ways. Let me requote that last sentence that was quoted from Wikipedia, with my emphasis added:



> Other techniques by which humans *modify* food organisms *include* selective breeding; plant breeding, and animal breeding, and somaclonal variation.


Since we are talking about definitions of "genetically *modified* organisms" here, I think that sentence speaks volumes.

Certainly deliberately crossing two distinct subspecies of honeybees in a selective breeding program creates an "unnatural" combination of genes in the resulting offspring, a "modification," if you will. And remember that modern wheat was bred by humans quite some time ago by deliberately and selectively hybridizing across species to add genes from one species to another. Wheat was created without transgenic insertions, but was certainly "genetically modified" by humans.

All that's a bit off topic, though. Avoiding all of these things -- call them whatever you wish -- is very difficult in most beekeeping locations.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

sorry dude, that's a complete distortion of what is written. The modifications you cite ("selective breeding; plant breeding, and animal breeding, and somaclonal variation") are the OTHER techniques through which humans modify organisms....OTHER than "genetic modification".

Miss Lucy can breed a dog to a dog, or a duck to a duck (or wheat to wheat, for that matter....most geneticists see varieites of wheat as subspeicies, since they can successfully breed with one another).

...but when Miss Lucy puts the doggy and the duck on the windowsill, they might mate (I've seen photos of a rabbit and a chicken "doing it"), but they will not reproduce "combine" into a modified organism...not without cutting genes.

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcScHQ_LCO0JRGAxtnZs2o8KtG7BQDqGJUSA4NcuSaX9E53UhiZ093e40Mul (caution, image of a rabbit and a chicken "together")

deknow


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> sorry dude, that's a complete distortion of what is written. -deknow


It is? I believed it to be _other_ than genetic engineering techniques to modify organisms. If it's not, why not call them "genetically engineered organisms?"



> ....most geneticists see varieites of wheat as subspeicies -deknow


Naw, most see varieties of wheat as varieties or cultivars. "Varieties" do not really rise to the status of subspecies. But you missed my point: wheat is not a natural plant. "Wheat," as we know it, is a hybrid of at least three ancestral species (separate species, not varieties or subspecies) deliberately crossbred by humans to create "wheat." Modern wheat is at least a hybridization of emmer, spelt and goatgrass.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

Ok, try this on for size:

"structural modification of a fishing huts have had specific changes introduced into their structure by structural engineering technieques."
"Other techniques by which humans modify their fishing huts include window treatments, bright colored paint, new furniture, or refinishing the floors."

...these "other techniques" are not structural.
when changed via these other techniques, the hut still has a structure...it is still "structural"....but it has not undergone structural changes.

"modified organisms" are not actually modified organisms, but the offspring of other organisms. the genotype is affected by breeding. the offspring are "genetic", as they contain genes from their parents, but the genome of the organism remains unchanged....the genotype of the population is "modified", but the underlying structure of the genome remains unchanged.

Wheat "species" interbred without gene splicing. By no means is it a settled "fact" that varieties of wheat are separate species...what seems to be called the "genetic approach" calls them all one species because they can interbreed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomy_of_wheat#Traditional_vs._genetic_classifications


> Although the range of recognised types of wheat has been reasonably stable since the 1930s, there are now sharply differing views as to whether these should be recognised at species level (traditional approach) or at subspecific level (genetic approach). The first advocate of the genetic approach was Bowden, in a 1959 classification (now historic rather than current)[1]. He, and subsequent proponents (usually geneticists), argued that forms that were interfertile should be treated as one species (the biological species concept). Thus emmer and hard wheat should both be treated as subspecies (or at other infraspecific ranks) of a single tetraploid species defined by the genome BAu. Van Slageren's 1994 classification[2] is probably the most widely used genetic-based classification at present.
> 
> Users of traditional classifications give more weight to the separate habitats of the traditional species, which means that species that could hybridise do not, and to morphological characters. There are also pragmatic arguments for this type of classification: it means that most species can be described in Latin binomials, e.g. Triticum aestivum, rather than the trinomials necessary in the genetic system, e.g. Triticum aestivum subsp. aestivum. Both approaches are widely used.


deknow


----------



## Scrapfe (Jul 25, 2008)

Acebird said:


> Most people view "nature" as a balance of living things minus the human race...


To quote Yogi Berra (or maybe not) “I reintegrate again one more time.” Living things, (bees included) and humans are not locked in a zero-sum card game. I believe humans who feel that we are in a zero-sum poker game with nature are hedging their bets incase they find out to late that there is a god.


----------



## hpm08161947 (May 16, 2009)

I suspect that if we could return to a population of about 1 billion souls (believe we passed that in about 1800 AD) we could do away with GMOs.... nonorganics... etc etc. Until we have fewer people to feed... I wonder how that is possible.


----------



## Scrapfe (Jul 25, 2008)

hpm08161947 said:


> ... we could return to a population of about 1 billion.... how that is possible.


The short answer is to do away with GMO's and all other so called ‘nonorganics‘. Just returning to animal power in American agriculture will have the laudatory effect (to some) of reducing the US human food supply by 40% or more. Hey, I know it's only 40% but it's a start!


----------



## Scrapfe (Jul 25, 2008)

Lauri said:


> ... The word "organic' seems to be highly controversial...


The meaning of "organic" is "derived from carbon" 
You, I, our bees, your grand-children, and my great-grand daughter all are carbon based life forms. So that makes GMO crops, gasoline, as well as heirloom tomatoes organic. IMHO the term "organic" was hijacked because it can be used in a wishy-washy fashion to facilitate a political point of view. 

To get technical most agricultural pesticides (except for materials like arsenic, sulfur, mercury, etc) are by definition organic. Most modern pesticides are based on naturally occurring chemicals first produced by the carbon based DNA in prey plant species. These chemicals are produced to discourage, prevent, or control (kill) any insects or other creepy crawlies that want to feed on that plant. (Some ungrateful plants even kill the honeybees working them.) This is one of the most important reason to encourage bio-diversity, so that we do not overlook powerful new plant based pesticides or other "drugs". Chemical warfare has existed between plants and animals since the latter first developed an appetite for the former. This fact or way of life can not be changed nor can it be reformed, it is Mother Nature's way and she is set in her way's. Modern farming practices like GMO's etc. magnify and speed up, but still reflect Mother Nature's way. These practices do not kick against the pricks Mother Nature puts in our path. I enjoy reading your views, but remember views are like belly buttons. We all have one, and everyone believes their's is the prettiest and the best belly button in the whole universe.  Have a good day.


----------



## Stonefly7 (Nov 3, 2005)

Lauri,

WOW! My wife will be very impressed as I am. We do the same, but not on that scale. Don't have the game population that you have. We go out to WY every year and get Elk and Mule Deer, then spend a week on the ice to bring home rainbows and Browns. Plus we hunt and fish locally. I love your hoop houses and green houses. Not sure how much land you own, but you can produce many crops on three acres. 

I hope you take the opportunity to read those books I mentioned, "If you have time". But you are living the dream. Good for you. Do you have any pics of your bees yet? 

HPM, there's more than enough food produced on this earth to feed every soul here. It's the transportation and infrastructure system that can't handle the load. 

Kind regards


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

hpm08161947 said:


> Grandma Lauri maybe a bit too "Delicate" for Beesource. Not sure what internet forums would be appropriate for her sensitive nature.


This is too much for me to get my head around. She kills, dresses and eats game as a notable part of her diet, rides a Harley, etc., and can't put up w/ profane language from Penn Jillette? Unless the profanity she refered to was the starving masses. That didn't occur to me until now. Could be.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

beyondthesidewalks said:


> Doesn't matter anymore. They're monsanto now. You knew who I was posting about.


True. I just thought you might like to know something true and correct. In case you thought the way you spelled it was correct.


----------



## Guest (Jan 31, 2012)

LOL , I ride a harley? 
here's my Hog


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> "modified organisms" are not actually modified organisms, but the offspring of other organisms. -deknow


Huh? Are you suggesting that genes in "genetically modified organisms" aren't genes? Or aren't changed?

Or are you claiming that an organism must by transgenic to be a GMO? None of the definitions I've found make such claims. They all include transgenic organisms as one form of "GMO."



> the genotype is affected by breeding. the offspring are "genetic", as they contain genes from their parents, but the genome of the organism remains unchanged....the genotype of the population is "modified", but the underlying structure of the genome remains unchanged. -deknow


I'm talking genotypes of a population, not of species here. If I select only cordovan bees so no other genes exist in my population, I've now modified the gene pool of those bees.

If I desire a trait seen only in a unique subspecies of honeybees, and I import bees to add that trait (presuming the trait is determined genetically) to a population of bees around me, haven't I changed the alleles in that population? I added an allele that was not present in the population around me before.



> Wheat "species" interbred without gene splicing. -deknow


OK. Maybe. Depends on how you define "splicing," I guess, or how you make those distinctions. We'll come back to that in a second.



> By no means is it a settled "fact" that varieties of wheat are separate species... -deknow


The simple fact that you call them "varieties" means that they are not separate species. I'm not arguing that. Here's where it comes back from above: common wheat, _Triticum aestivum_, has six sets of chromosomes. Two sets come from the ancestral species of emmer, _Triticum dicoccum_ (_sensu latu_ - the taxonomy of emmer seems to be a bit in question). Two sets come from goatgrass, _Aegilops tauschii_. And two sets come from spelt, _Triticum spelta_, which itself is apparently a hybrid of emmer and goatgrass. That means that entire sets of chromosomes are being added ("spliced?" maybe not, but certainly added to the whole) to the ancestral species.

If you choose to argue the validity of those species, I suspect you could make some prodigious waves in the world of plant systematics. Whether or not your arguments would be accepted would be up to those experts, of course, but up to this point, all of the ancestral species are recognized as distinct species as supported by their unique binomial nomenclature. Note, also, please, that one of these species is in an entirely different genus, so choosing to argue the validity of these species also questions the validity of the genera.

What you linked is a discussion of varieties within _Triticum aestivum_, getting into a discussion about validity of assigning a trinomial (a subspecies) to certain varieties within _T. aestivum_.


----------



## hilreal (Aug 16, 2005)

Acebird said:


> And you also know that the purpose of GMO is to put poison in the plant not on the plant. You can't even wash it off. So now you have people like hireal that believe it is the right thing to do, they have license to poison food for human consumption."
> 
> There is no "poison" put in the plant. The insecticidel protein put in the plant is the same that is produced by a bacteria in the soil and is ONLY toxic to Lepidopteran species (worms) i.e not toxic to mammals, bees, wasps, etc. IF you eat "organic" produce you have eaten a lot of this stuff since organic farmers dish it out by the tons on their produce.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Lauri said:


> Here's what I do eat:
> 
> http://s425.photobucket.com/albums/pp340/tweety4926/?action=view¤t=b7f400b2.pbw
> 
> http://s425.photobucket.com/albums/pp340/tweety4926/?action=view¤t=405f1df8.pbw


Well, it looks like you are doing quite well. That you eat well, play well and enjoy life. Thanks for sharing the photos. Like you said in a previous Post, how could you not have bees. It just fits.

I gotta ask though, and please don't take this the wrong way, what had that smiling horse laying on the ground eaten?  He/she sorta looks stoned. Maybe he always smiles?

My daughter is a Horse Person too. Though she can't afford her own right now. She works for different stable owners as a stable hand, exerciser, groom and also teaches riding. She work all last year on a race horse farm wearing body armor.


----------



## hilreal (Aug 16, 2005)

deknow said:


> 1. Roundup ready crops (GMO) are designed to allow the copious use of roundup...a way to increase the amount of roundup used, not reduce it.
> 
> 2. The "natural process" of retrotransposing genes from microbes to larger organisms is a natural process. Death in humans is a natural process. If I cause the death of a specific human at a specific time in a specific place and in a specific manner (colonel mustard, at midnight, in the drawing room, with a candlestick) it is no longer a natural process. The process of placing specific genes from one organism into another to achieve a specific outcome is as natural as murdering colonel mustard.
> 
> deknow


I said pesticide when I should have said INSECTICIDE, which is more germain to this conversation. Farmers used to have airplanes fly over corn fields dropping Furadan by the tons, they used to have high boy sprayers going over the fields multiple times during the season with some pretty nasty, long lasting synthetic chemicals. They used to put multiple insecticides in the seed furrow with the seed. As one who works on and with farmers I feel much safer than I did 10 years ago. If you have some evidence of the toxic effects of BT to anything other than lepidopterans I would like to know about it. I could get in line for a nobel prize. I wouldn't hesitate to feed my bees pollen from GMO corn directly or eat it myself.

Using your definition any "breeding" could be considered unnatural. Breeding is just doing what happens in nature, only speeding it up. Nothing unnatural about it.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Lauri,
Isn't Harley the name of one of your horses? 
You and Michaerl Bush should get together and trade horse storys. You have Paints, I forget what he has.


----------



## hilreal (Aug 16, 2005)

Kieck said:


> Let's back up just a bit and define a few terms here.
> 
> The most common form of transgenic organisms grown in the U. S. at this point are glyphosate-tolerant crops (usually sold as "Roundup-Ready" or some variant on it). Glyphosate-tolerant crops do not have genes intended to produce toxins; rather, they carry transgenic DNA intended to allow them to survive applications of herbicide.
> 
> There is also native resistance to Glyphosate in several plant species. There is also evidence that the genes have been transferred to some weed species through natural processes, though some have implied that this only happens through man's intervention.


----------



## hpm08161947 (May 16, 2009)

Stonefly7 said:


> HPM, there's more than enough food produced on this earth to feed every soul here. It's the transportation and infrastructure system that can't handle the load.
> Kind regards


For sure! Now eliminate the GMOs and organically farm everything.... and lets see how much of the world we feed. For example... a man with 2000 acres of GMO soybeans can farm about 400 without GMO.... and he will burn twice the diesel fuel..... soak the ground with 1000's of gal of insecticide.... That is the point I was trying to make.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Lauri,
I sure do hope you will stick around. We're just getting to know each other, you and those who have been here a while. It's kinda like introducing a new horse to the herd. Don't ya think?

Besides, beesource is sorta like a soup. It needs good stock, different vegetables and spices and maybe a hunk of meat or two. We all bring sumthin to the mix.

I hope you stick around and keep bringing what you know to the conversation. Ya never know, I might learn something.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

The crux of the issue remains the genetic contamination of 'organic' crops by GMOs.

It's gotten to the point where European countries have prohibited Honey w/ detectable levels of GMO pollen.

Personally, I have no problems with eating GMO products. However, I do object to the technology being 'messy'.

GMO producing companies claim ownership when they suspect someone of illegally using their seeds, but when it comes to the contamination of organic products, (and the environment), they won't accept responsibility.

They want it both ways, and that's indefensible.

By the way, we could very easily survive if the world went 'Organic and Vegan'.

We would simply have to give up eating animal flesh which accounts for much of the demand for the crops being produced via GMOs.

I've experimented with that type of a diet, and I had no problems adapting to it. Yes, Honey was an important ingredient. Lot's of Honey.


----------



## hpm08161947 (May 16, 2009)

WLC said:


> By the way, we could very easily survive if the world went 'Organic and Vegan'.


Yup... that would certainly be a lot more efficient. The 2nd Law of thermodynamics is a tough one to get around. If we all became vegetarian.. or vegan... and the earth's population were cut in half... there is a good chance that it could be sustainable. 

But... I doubt that is about the happen.... I probably will not see food riots in my lifetime... but bet my grandchildren do.....


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

"There are two theorys about arguing w/ a woman. Neither works." Will Rogers

I just learned this on another Bee Forum which I'm not supposed to mention here.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

hpm08161947 said:


> there is a good chance that it could be sustainable.


Hasn't what we have been doing for millenia already been sustainable? Is there reason to believe that continuing in the same vein won't be sustainable? How do you know when something isn't sustainable? When we no longer sustain the status quo?

Certainly Ancient ways of Agriculture in Mesopotamia were sustainable for those them, most of them anyway, but, would they be sustainable now? For a select few I imagine, but not for the majority.

Herb,
There will probably be water riots befor there are food riots. Access to clean drinking water is a real problem today in much of the world. As is food.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

I've read of some instances of countries requiring honey containing amounts of pollen from transgenic crops over a certain threshold to label the honey as containing pollen from GMOs. I haven't seen anything specifying any outright bans so far. And the cases I've seen have been of European beekeepers with honey produced in Europe.


----------



## hpm08161947 (May 16, 2009)

sqkcrk said:


> Hasn't what we have been doing for millenia already been sustainable? Is there reason to believe that continuing in the same vein won't be sustainable? How do you know when something isn't sustainable? When we no longer sustain the status quo?


Here I am making the assumption that GMOs are bad, that pesticides/insecticides are bad, that third world population explosions are bad. Do I personally believe these things? Not really sure....

If the above things are true, then I suspect we are not sustainable. And I think you are correct... water riots will be the first harbinger of things to come.. but.. only time will tell.


----------



## hpm08161947 (May 16, 2009)

Kieck said:


> I've read of some instances of countries requiring honey containing amounts of pollen from transgenic crops over a certain threshold to label the honey as containing pollen from GMOs. I haven't seen anything specifying any outright bans so far. And the cases I've seen have been of European beekeepers with honey produced in Europe.


Here you go...
http://ocs.jki.bund.de/index.php/GMOhoney/GMOhoney


----------



## Guest (Jan 31, 2012)

Too funny, kind of like introducing a horse into the herd? 
Did I lay my ears back well enough? Do we have some respect for each other?
I am so amused by all these posts I may just stick around if you all will have me.

If anyone is interested in horses here is my horse web site:
http://itsmysite.com/laurimillerpainthorses/
That smiling horse is one of my stallions, no not stoned, just a happy guy. Here is a video of teaching him to lay down
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-O_TX0dvgBg&lr=1

Now this is just a trick, but we do go into remote wilderness areas in Montana and Idaho when we hunt and it is nice to have horses that will do anything you need them too, especially if someone got hurt.

I will answer the messages and emails you folks sent me ASAP when I am done with work.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Like they did in "The Outlaw Josey Wales". Cool.


----------



## Lauri (Feb 1, 2012)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...lds-stops-using-pink-slime-burger-recipe.html

Hanging my head, not hungry anymore.


----------



## Scrapfe (Jul 25, 2008)

sqkcrk said:


> ... How do you know when something isn't sustainable? ...


I want to agree with. But I want to add this, If you go back and embrace the way things were done by your great grand parents you'll end up with the same results your great grand parents ended up with. 

Do we really want to see things like the Irish potato famine, the Napoleonic Wars, or the general famine that swept Europe during the 1860s again? At a time when manual labor was needed on the farms of the day, America lost 620,000 young men in 4 years of war. The part of the country that produced 3/4 of all corn exports to Europe was devastated. Yet during these 4 years the rest of the USA increased its corn exports to Europe 500%.
The reason there was a market in Europe for American grain in the middle of the American Civil War no less was because Europeans were starving in the midst of a drought induced famine. 

I hear all this: But we can't feed but 60% of the Earth's population without pesticides, or 6 billion people must die etc. to get back to the pipe dream that some of us have about sustainable agriculture. 

The reality is much more dire than what any of you can ever imagine. There are 7+ billion humans on Earth. The reason there are so many of us is because we humans are fighters. Warfare is the way we have sustained and fed ourselves for millenniums, sustainable, sustained, or serial warfare created civilization, not sustainable agriculture, think about it. Nobel Laureate Norman Borolgh said he didn't see any volunteers lining up for gas chambers or killing fields to reduce Earths population. Borolgh is right. The warfare, genocide and ethnic cleansing that will engulf humanity in the wake of returning to "sustainable" agriculture will in fact be sustainable bloodshed. It will be bloodshed on a scale never before seen on Earth. Civilization as we know it will be devastated for a thousand years. I predict that there will be a far greater reduction in human population as a result of organics than the 2, 3, 4, or even 6 billion people who may starve, the number who will die from warfare and warfare generated plagues etc. will be far greater than those who will die of hunger.
If you want to live in the world Charles Dickens and Victor Hugo wrote about by all means be my guest. You can have my front row seat and here take my meals chit as well, just leave me and mine out of your pipe dream.

Otto von Bismarck was supposed to have said: "There are 5 things necessary to create a nation... land, food, gold, men, and iron. Of these 5 things men and iron are the most important. Because with enough men and with enough iron you can take the other 3 from your neighbors!!!"


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Modern organic/sustainable farming is a far cry from ancestral forms of agriculture.

It not only uses a variety of proven techniques for eliminating the need for chemicals, it's also far better for the soil itself.

It is modern agriculture, with its vast acreage of monocultures, which is causing the loss of huge amounts of topsoil, and is far more likely to lead to a global famine than more sustainable methods of agriculture.

That's just the way it is.


----------



## hpm08161947 (May 16, 2009)

WLC said:


> Modern organic/sustainable farming is a far cry from ancestral forms of agriculture.
> 
> It not only uses a variety of proven techniques for eliminating the need for chemicals, it's also far better for the soil itself.
> 
> .


Correct. I suspect Scrapfe is being a bit hyperbolic..... , but still one would have to drastically reduce to population. We simply do not kill each other at the rates that we once did.... nor die so quickly from an infection.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

WLC said:


> It is modern agriculture, with its vast acreage of monocultures, which is causing the loss of huge amounts of topsoil
> 
> That's just the way it is.


That one is way, way off the mark. While there are unquestionably poor farming practices around the world that have resulted in ground being broken that has resulted in wide spread erosion. Soil erosion and mono-culture are totally unrelated. In the US since the advent of Round Up resistant seeds it is rare to see someone pulling a disk not say a plow through the field anymore. Modern planters are able to plant right through the residue of the previous years crop leaving the soil largely undisturbed. You can't have it both ways WLC rail against Monsanto if you will but at least concede that the result of their technology is less disruption of the soil, fewer trips through the field and far less fuel burned per bushel harvested.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

jim lyon said:


> fewer trips through the field and far less fuel burned per bushel harvested.


Round up doesn't take fuel? Chemical fertilizers don't take fuel? Where is all this erosion? composted soil stays put. Chemically treated soil washes away, it is basically chemicals and sand. With round up the land it barren with no vegetation holding it together. That's where you have an erosion problem. Weeds hold the earth together until you turn them under and replace with food plants.

The monoculture of today totally destroys the fertility of the soil and the only reason something can be grown in it is because chemicals are added at a humongous cost. It is working against nature instead of working with nature. Not sustainable. We will loose the battle.

In an advanced civilization the birth rate goes down not up. Nobody is worried about feeding the people in third world countries where the birth rate is high. They are only worried about feeding people that can pay for the food in the first place. Now if you want to ad the word nutrition to the equation, an organic diet has more nutrition than non organic so the amount of food required is less. Obesity decreases because the body does not crave more junk food causing the balking up. Health increases so the demand for more chemicals (drugs) drops drastically(more wasted fuel). People don't necessarily live longer but the quality of life last a whole lot longer. The need for nursing homes would drastically decrease because the stays would be short not long (more wasted fuel).

I ask you, do you understand the whole picture on sustainability?


----------

