# Farmers Abandoning GMO Seeds And The Reason Will Surprise You



## bsharp

Interesting read. I hope it catches on as much as the article leads us to believe...but I suspect that, much like our treatments for varroa, GMO-producing companies will create new pesticides and [new pesticide]-ready crops to go with them. Like beekeepers, some farmers will use them and some won't.


----------



## Ian

I will not argue the article , but for our farm it's the huge cost of buying hybrid seeds (which is what a lot of RR seeds are) that is making us think twice about growing it. With the depressed commodity prices margins start to get thin. Hybrids still out perform traditional stock no doubt, but if we are working with negative margins then we must cut those costs .


----------



## Duncan Thacker

Can you provide a link to the article? never mind there it is in front of my blind face!


----------



## Goran

:applause: I am little to say surprised.


----------



## Duncan Thacker

THE ABOVE REFERENCED ARTICLE said:


> “Five years ago the [GMO seeds] worked,” said farmer Christ Huegerich, who along with his father planted GMO seeds. “I didn’t have corn rootworm because of the Bt gene, and I used less pesticide. Now, the worms are adjusting, and the weeds are resistant. Mother Nature adapts.”


Man plans and God laughs (along with Mother Nature)

There is as much talk about resistance as there is about cost effectiveness. Regardless of the reasons GOOD RIDDENCE !!!!!


----------



## honeydrunkapiaries

There was a study awhile back by an actual scientist. http://www.producer.com/2013/05/no-yield-benefit-from-neonicotinoids-scientist/ In any case I hope it catches on. In Ontario sadly untreated seeds are not available to farmers.


----------



## hpm08161947

I am not familiar with "Waking Times" magazine, but it does not appear to be your usual AG mag. In the mag. are articles about the Soul and Physical Body converging through evolution..... hmm. Think I will stick to the Progressive Farmer.


----------



## Dreyadin

It's all about the bottom line. I'm cringing as quite a few local farms are cutting down windbreaks and tilling slopes they didn't before so they can plant even more.


----------



## LeonardS

I don't hear any talk of farmers in my area dropping the Gmo seed. I think they all plan to use it for their corn and beans this year.


----------



## jim lyon

There may be some truth to this. Here is something I know for sure. A profile of the American farmer is that he/she is a bright risk taking, profit driven, entrepreneur, who usually carries a pretty heavy debt load. If there is an opportunity seen across the fence it catches on quickly. No articles in magazines are required, word of success spreads like wildfire in farming circles. If one needs to see what's making money right now, one only needs to look at what is being grown.


----------



## Ian

It always gets me when non farmers make statements like this "Simply put, they say non-GMO crops are more productive and profitable."

They have no idea what they are talking about...


----------



## Barry

jim lyon said:


> If there is an opportunity seen across the fence it catches on quickly. No articles in magazines are required, word of success spreads like wildfire in farming circles.


I watched a program on TV the other night about feeding America and the way we farm today compared to our grandparents way. Only 2% of the population are farming. The overall feeling one got from watching it was bleak, but near the end several key players admitted that the shift is starting to happen. Less corn feed beef is being consumed forcing that industry to start moving in a new direction. A lot more produce is being grown in city/urban areas that locals are buying, etc. There is a shift starting to take place and eventually how we farm will also have to adjust.


----------



## mathesonequip

ian post #3 above has a valid point. I am in a marginal corn area, mostly corn for dairy forage. last year a couple of neighbors went back to older hybrids to cut input costs. they trimmed up front costs by something like $85/acre as I recall. their corn looked as good or better than a lot of it in the area. in the past the chemical and seed companies tend to try to go toward pricing their products so they are making most of the money not the grower.


----------



## Ian

Barry;1056619There is a shift starting to take place and eventually how we farm will also have to adjust.[/QUOTE said:


> only if the consumer will pay for that shift, demand only goes half way


----------



## hpm08161947

Ian said:


> It always gets me when non farmers make statements like this "Simply put, they say non-GMO crops are more productive and profitable."
> 
> They have no idea what they are talking about...


Just an hour ago, I asked one of our Corn'Soybean guys what he would think of switching to a Non-GMO variety. He said he did not think that it would be possible to obtain enough seed for a typical commercial planting. And if he was able to, it would mean he could only plant perhaps half of his normal acreage (4k to 6k acres). He also added, before you start to count your profits, don't forget to take into consideration the cost of all that diesel to cultivate those crops and the pesticides that would be required. Those airplanes aren't cheap and besides that you can't leave your hives out there....

Sure... non-GMO will work in the garden, and in subsistence scale farming, but on an industrial farm - no way. There are no more 300 acre farms.... they all farm thousands of acres...


----------



## sqkcrk

Ian said:


> only if the consumer will pay for that shift, demand only goes half way


Don't you think that consumers care more that food is produced that how food is produced?


----------



## hpm08161947

sqkcrk said:


> Don't you think that consumers care more that food is produced that how food is produced?


A few care how it is produced, but they are a distinct minority.


----------



## Barry

But that pendulum is swinging evermore to the "how food is produced" side.


----------



## hpm08161947

Barry said:


> But that pendulum is swinging evermore to the "how food is produced" side.


Maybe. But for the moment it seems to be tied to the economic as well as educational status of the buyer.


----------



## Ian

I agree Barry. 
But the momentum of that pendulum weakens as "how food is produced" starts to cost more.

Take my packer for example. We sell in a coop, 100% Canadian sourced honey, needless to say our production standards are much the same as the US production standards, which give us a high quality product. 
But put that product on the shelf beside honey from cheaper priced blended product from Argentina, a product where who knows where it originated and the production standards behind it, and it will out complete my product most of the time.


----------



## Barry

sqkcrk said:


> Don't you think that consumers care more that food is produced that how food is produced?


I don't think so , Mark. That is how we got to this place, consumers caring more that food is produced. Now that we have an abundance of cheap food, consumers, especially young consumers, are becoming equally if not more interested in the how.


----------



## Ian

thats the key point, "Now that we have an abundance of cheap food"

today I can afford a more expensive coffee, I think I'll support "such and such"
today I cant afford a more expensive coffee, I think I'll just get what I can afford


----------



## Kamon A. Reynolds

Barry said:


> But that pendulum is swinging evermore to the "how food is produced" side.[/QUOT
> 
> I agree it is swinging more to the health and concerned side. As beekeepers we should be right behind this. There are plenty of non gmo growers who get as high of yields. When i worked as a soil consultant intern we had guys doing all kinds of quote impossible stuff. You just have to approach farming differently. Use higher quality seed that you breed yourself, minerals Fertilizers and sprays that build the soil not nuke it to pieces. As my grandpa says your either growing or dying. Might take a while to know which but time will tell. At least those who grow crops that are non gmo and without roundup can know that they are feeding people food without small amounts of poisonin them and that the bees are better for it
> 
> H


----------



## REDWOOD

Barry said:


> I watched a program on TV the other night about feeding America and the way we farm today compared to our grandparents way. Only 2% of the population are farming. The overall feeling one got from watching it was bleak, but near the end several key players admitted that the shift is starting to happen. Less corn feed beef is being consumed forcing that industry to start moving in a new direction. A lot more produce is being grown in city/urban areas that locals are buying, etc. There is a shift starting to take place and eventually how we farm will also have to adjust.


Well said, we in the UK are opposed to GM and are frightened of the thought of them being legal for human consumption. A fast growing trend is developing where small farmers markets are popping up everywhere so small producers can sell their top quality produce.


----------



## hpm08161947

[/QUOTE=Kamon Reynolds;1056764]


Barry said:


> But that pendulum is swinging evermore to the "how food is produced" side.[/QUOT
> 
> I agree it is swinging more to the health and concerned side.
> 
> H


Let's take this notion to it's extreme. Pretend the pendulum has swung all the way across the arc. Organic Farms are the Law of the Land. How much of the world could we feed? Would the world population need to be cut in half? What is the maximun size organic farm that one man can tend? 

Is the Malabar Farm the answer.....


----------



## Barry

I don't think the pendulum can swing that far to the other side now that we are feeding so many. I think it will move back towards a balance of quality and quantity.


----------



## hpm08161947

Barry said:


> I don't think the pendulum can swing that far to the other side now that we are feeding so many. I think it will move back towards a balance of quality and quantity.[/QUOTE
> 
> I agree, where we differ is I do not think the pendulum can swing very far and still feed a good portion of the globe.
> 
> REDWOOD.... can the UK feed itself without importing food?


----------



## REDWOOD

there must be a better way than spraying chemicals on our food


----------



## hpm08161947

REDWOOD said:


> there must be a better way than spraying chemicals on our food



I think we all agree that organic farming would be best, the problem is that if the UK were forced to use this method over 1/2 of you would starve or be forced to immigrate (hasn't this happened before?  )


----------



## Dave Burrup

The idea that organic farming is chemical free is ludicrous. They just spray different chemicals, and often more of the chemicals because they are so ineffective. There are some really toxic plant derived chemicals. After all they evolved in the plants to prevent grazing, and disease. Another point these chemicals have not been studied to see what their long term effects are.
Dave


----------



## Kamon A. Reynolds

Not if done properly again everyone assumes that just cause it iis natural it is not aas productive. First let's stop using corn for ethanol and cows and now we have freed up most of our land. Cows eat grass just fine. And it takes less time and Inputs to grow grass. Ethanol is a joke and seriously crops like ssweet potatoes produce twice as much ethanol per acre than corn. If it was about saving Americans money it could have happened along time ago.

I grow the majority of our food off of a garden 50 ft by 125 ft that feeds 6 people a minimum of 75% of our vegetable food for the year. I grow our own chicken ( main source of income) on a space the size of the garden. Sure wsupplement grain for the cchickens and buy groceries but it is not even close t the point of can we feed the country?More of can the people feed themselves?

The answer is no. It is a culture problem not a production or population problem.


----------



## hpm08161947

Kamon Reynolds said:


> The answer is no. It is a culture problem not a production or population problem.


I think you need to do some recalculation based on a world of 10 billion people and limited arable land. First consider the manpower required by this type of farming. Big Gardening won't do it.


----------



## Dave Burrup

kamon we grow most of our own food too, but the time and energy inputs would put a commercial guy in the hole. I started the organic thing in the 60s, and I have tried many of the Robert rodale tricks. Some worked and worked well. We farm 18 acres and due to the types of crops we grow we do not have chemical options and have to use the "organic approach". My wife and I work our tails off trying to keep up, and we loose money right and left. If I had the GMO option I would switch in a moment.
Dave


----------



## Dreyadin

There still are some small farms out there.. not many. In the last 100 years there was a huge shift. 

Who's to say it will only be big ag?

There is an interest in how food is produced- but for many ethics is limited by their pocketbook. Right now- granted- it is mostly just trend. Some stick with it, many bail (which is why some cities are having issues with abandoned and surrendered chickens, rabbits, and goats.) Price hikes in food, while honestly warranted, will drive more to grow their own in ernest. Part is due to awareness, part is due to health decline. Frankly.. most have absolutely no clue about what they're eating.


Strip cropping, no-till, cover cropping... those are methods primarily used in organics- and making their way into conventional. 

Sprays in organics is the last resort. 

Big ag can't keep up.. (still that 300 bushel acre is a dream).. it's all heavily fossil fuel dependent from start to finish.


----------



## sqkcrk

hpm08161947 said:


> REDWOOD.... can the UK feed itself without importing food?


The US doesn't feed itself w/out importing food. I can't imagine what percent of England's food is imported.


----------



## Dreyadin

No.. The UK can't. They had a heck of a time during WW2 and since then the population increased quite a bit. As well overfishing is a huge issue. They can make a pretty big dent.. but.. our subsidized corn is so stupidly cheap it's imported. 

Kamon.. no animals is not a solution. Better utilizing them would be a start.


----------



## hpm08161947

sqkcrk said:


> The US doesn't feed itself w/out importing food. I can't imagine what percent of England's food is imported.


But we could if we did not export so much.


----------



## sqkcrk

Maybe if we didn't want strawberrys in December.


----------



## hpm08161947

In long run, one thing that might help would be eating more insects and primary producers (plants). 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is something we pay no attention to when every other day we eat pork chops. Maybe this is where honey bees come in.... fried brood.... quite a delicacy in some quarters. The further down the food chain (toward the sun) we eat the less energy we waste to entropy.


----------



## rhaldridge

hpm08161947 said:


> [/QUOTE=Kamon Reynolds;1056764]
> 
> Let's take this notion to it's extreme. Pretend the pendulum has swung all the way across the arc. Organic Farms are the Law of the Land. How much of the world could we feed? Would the world population need to be cut in half? What is the maximun size organic farm that one man can tend?
> 
> Is the Malabar Farm the answer.....


There is a common misperception that organic practices are less productive than conventional practices.

Why, in any case, would an organic farm be limited to one man? Malabar had lots of people working it.


----------



## rhaldridge

Dave Burrup said:


> If I had the GMO option I would switch in a moment.
> Dave


Why do you think it would help you?


----------



## Dave Burrup

I could spray roundup to control weeds instead of hoeing them.
Dave


----------



## hpm08161947

rhaldridge said:


> There is a common misperception that organic practices are less productive than conventional practices.
> 
> Why, in any case, would an organic farm be limited to one man? Malabar had lots of people working it.


I know... on one acre with one man tending it.... one can produce great yeilds... but that is not the way feeding the world works.

But Malabar Farm was owned by one man.... I realize there would be employees.


----------



## Dominic

"Experts" have been painting doom and gloom scenarios about our capacity to feed the planet's increasing population for, at the very least, centuries. And yet, here we are, over seven billion people...

Food production (and world hunger) is, first and foremost, an economic problem. Arable land is unevenly distributed. Capital and means of production is unevenly distributed. Agronomic expertise is unevenly distributed. Population is unevenly distributed. Logistical expertise and capacities are unevenly distributed.

When farmers keep using the same old practices, no matter what, because that's the only thing they know, that's waste. When farmers have great fields, but no machinery to work it, that's waste. When farmers have great yields, but no warehouse to preserve it, that's waste. When farmers have great grains, but no fertilizers to boost growth, that's waste. When great lands are turned into housing neighborhood, that's waste. There is a LOT of waste in the world. And the answer to it, and world hunger, is not potential, it's $. You'd think that countries with a lot of hunger would waste less than us perfect-food-obsessed north-americans, right? Wrong. Waste is atrocious in third-world countries. It just wastes elsewhere. It is wasted because, for the same amount of seeds, they will get a lot less yields and require a lot more labor. It is wasted because they lack the funds to invest in warehouses to keep the food in controlled atmospheres. Because the distribution networks are inferior.

Conventional or organic has nothing to do with it. All farmers in the world could be organic and we could still significantly increase global food yields. After all, there is a vast array of alternatives to synthetic pesticides and fertilizers. In most cases, even the local small-scale organic hippy north-american farm will significantly outproduce third-world farms. We've got the best seeds. The means to analyze our soils, to analyze our compost and manure. We've got the machinery to work the ground properly. The fertilizers to optimize growth. The agronomists to scientifically evaluate best practices. The vast array of pesticides, both organic and not. Refrigerated trucks. The capacity to find and ship to far-away customers via the internet for premium prices. The tunnels to protect crops from bad weather. And so on.

I don't think many people realize just how productive our farms have become, and how third-world farms could very well obtain the same levels of productivity if only they had access to the same resources and markets. There is plenty of room for global production to rise, with or without GMO crops.


----------



## rhaldridge

hpm08161947 said:


> I know... on one acre with one man tending it.... one can produce great yeilds... but that is not the way feeding the world works.
> 
> But Malabar Farm was owned by one man.... I realize there would be employees.


Well actually, in the rest of the world, particularly the third world, small farms are more often the rule than the exception.

Conventional agriculture is highly dependent on very cheap energy. I'm not sure how much longer that can go on. This cheap energy allows one farmer to cultivate a much greater acreage than he could with less energy-intensive methods, but this approach makes conventional agriculture extremely vulnerable, as well as out of the reach of most of the world's farmers.

I love the books about Malabar Farm, even though Bromfield was a fiction writer, and surely embellished his accounts. But Malabar is still beautiful today, and a testament to the basic notion that farmers should feed the soil, and let the soil feed the plants. On my last visit, however, I was saddened to see that his neighbors were still planting corn in rows right down the fall line, and that corn was poor and yellow. He must be spinning in his grave.


----------



## rhaldridge

Dave Burrup said:


> I could spray roundup to control weeds instead of hoeing them.
> Dave


Be careful what you wish for. I recently attended a farmer's symposium in which the co-op agents were talking about roundup tolerant pigweed, and that it was causing a substantial problem for produce farmers, who don't even have access to roundup ready crops. This is one of the dark sides of GMO crops.


----------



## JRG13

If the non GMO guys are spraying round up, how is that only GMO's fault the weeds are resistant? Overuse of roundup on RR crops may have accelerated the issue, but a proper farm uses a rotation, so hit it with something else.


----------



## Ian

rhaldridge said:


> This is one of the dark sides of GMO crops.


lol, you make it sound serious. pigweed is one of those weeds that is very hard to kill, roundup or not. 
time to get out that tiller


----------



## rhaldridge

JRG13 said:


> If the non GMO guys are spraying round up, how is that only GMO's fault the weeds are resistant? Overuse of roundup on RR crops may have accelerated the issue, but a proper farm uses a rotation, so hit it with something else.


It isn't just naturally evolving resistance to Roundup. Actual genetic material is migrating from GMO crops to noxious weeds. This is a fairly ominous development, and one that we were assured would not happen.

http://www.isb.vt.edu/brarg/brasym96/brown96.htm



Ian, it's no joke. No-till systems that formerly relied on Roundup just aren't working very well anymore in many areas.

http://www.weedscience.org/summary/home.aspx

I think a lot of farmers are starting to feel like they've been played for chumps. Not a happy sensation.



> Says David Ehrenfield, Professor of Biology at Rutgers University, "Genetic Engineering is often justified as a human technology, one that feeds more people with better food. Nothing could be further from the truth. With very few exceptions, the whole point of genetic engineering is to increase sales of chemicals and bio-engineered products to dependent farmers"


Well, he's probably a commie. But if you haven't heard much about this stuff, it's worth Googling around a little. It's costing farmers serious money.


----------



## hpm08161947

rhaldridge said:


> It isn't just naturally evolving resistance to Roundup. Actual genetic material is migrating from GMO crops to noxious weeds. This is a fairly ominous development, and one that we were assured would not happen.
> y.


You know every time you catch a viral infection , you have a possibility of experiencing a transgenic experience. Not a good thing, but it happens naturally, no matter what we do. If you get lucky, it could be a great thing...



> Ian, it's no joke. No-till systems that formerly relied on Roundup just aren't working very well anymore in many areas.


Don't these guys with weed problems ever alternate herbicides? Alternate fields and crops? Plow or till every few years. Weeds do not seem to be major problem.


----------



## Haraga

Ian, I love reading the posts from the keyboard farmers.


----------



## hpm08161947

Haraga said:


> Ian, I love reading the posts from the keyboard farmers.


A great many people seem to feel that if it works on my .25 acre organic garden then it should work in Agribusiness. The difference between .25 acres and 4000 acres of soybeans is far more than just "Scale". I wonder if they realize how much time is spent by the average farmer hedging on the commodities market? I am pretty sure that most of these well-meaning city people are convinced that the worlds food problems could be solved by a simple conglomeration of these .25 acre organic gardens.


----------



## wildbranch2007

hpm08161947 said:


> The difference between .25 acres and 4000 acres of soybeans is far more than just "Scale".


but if we broke up that 4000 acres into say 100 acres each couldn't we put all those people that can't find jobs back to work?


----------



## WLC

Well, those weeds that have become roundup resistant have 'naturally' evolved their own resistance.

There's no evidence of genes jumping from GMOs to weeds.

That's what usually happens when you use the same product, year after year. The pests become resistant.

That's one reason why farmers switch to other types of seeds, and then use their own choice of pesticide products.

Even Monsanto is getting into the 'organic seed' game.


----------



## sqkcrk

Maybe. If they would work. There are lots of Americans who are American'ts. They don't know how to work. I don't know how to work. Not like the migrant workers I know of. Not like a number of beekeepers I know of.

Do you really think that there are enough people like my Uncle Gordon and Grandpa Porter who worked a 200 acre farm in Iowa last generation?

Besides, the land is worth too much for anyone to be able to buy and work such a small piece of productive farm land. Most places. And it also keeps getting covered up by concrete and asphalt for parking lots and highways.

Some of the once most productive crop land, bottom land, in Cherokee County, NC got covered up by a 4 lane highway right down the middle of the valley, instead of along the side which would have left most of it available for cultivation. Happens all of the time.


----------



## Dominic

hpm08161947 said:


> A great many people seem to feel that if it works on my .25 acre organic garden then it should work in Agribusiness. The difference between .25 acres and 4000 acres of soybeans is far more than just "Scale". I wonder if they realize how much time is spent by the average farmer hedging on the commodities market? I am pretty sure that most of these well-meaning city people are convinced that the worlds food problems could be solved by a simple conglomeration of these .25 acre organic gardens.


Of course they could feed the world. Small farms are more productive, even if less efficient. Just because, as a society, the USA ended up concentrating food production in the hands of a very marginal portion of its population, does not mean that this is the only model that works.

Less efficient farms may produce more costly farms, due to lack of scale economies, greater labor needs, and higher capital : profit ratios, but as stated in my previous post, this just leads to higher prices, not less crops. Small farms feed most countries. And their poverty is usually more a result of "developed" country protectionism and dumping than of their own performances.

There certainly are a number of advantages to large farms, namely affordable food, but to claim that it is the only way the world can be fed is quite a leap. And don't forget that these huge farms rely on the fact that in North-America, fossil fuels are cheaper than labor, and that the government heavily subsidizes the industry. When fossil fuel prices will rise enough, and if government subsidies cease, that huge farm agribusiness model will crumble.


----------



## Ian

wildbranch2007 said:


> but if we broke up that 4000 acres into say 100 acres each couldn't we put all those people that can't find jobs back to work?


wanta work for $5 per day?


----------



## Ian

Haraga said:


> Ian, I love reading the posts from the keyboard farmers.


you and me both! lol


----------



## mnbeekeeper

I think one of the reasons you big farmers are defending what you do is.....what would you do if you could not drive around in a big tractor that drives itself. you don't really care that your feeding milllions of people cheap food because why would that be something you would be proud of. I bet if this generation of farmers had to farm like the farmers of the early 1900s you probably would not even want to farm. do you big farmers ever think about how easy you have it. you always say we don't get it. where does all this food come from. well take away your tractor and your chems and your hybrid seed and how good of a farmer would you be?? I can only hope that cheap food goes away sooner rather than later. do you know what happens to people that eat cheap food. they don't get smarter I can tell you that for sure. and just for the record..im not very smart. I work hard to make up for what my brain may lack. I do know that some one that works hard to eat is far better off than some one that eats for free. there are way to many people on this earth eating for free.


----------



## camero7

And lots of children starving every day in this world. I'm glad that farmers raise the crops they do. A mule and 40 acres doesn't go very far.


----------



## rhaldridge

hpm08161947 said:


> You know every time you catch a viral infection , you have a possibility of experiencing a transgenic experience. Not a good thing, but it happens naturally, no matter what we do. If you get lucky, it could be a great thing...[/QUOTE
> 
> And if you're unlucky?
> 
> 
> 
> hpm08161947 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't these guys with weed problems ever alternate herbicides? Alternate fields and crops? Plow or till every few years. Weeds do not seem to be major problem.
> 
> 
> 
> Monsanto is working on 2,4-D and dicamba Ready crops. Yay! That will surely be good for the bees, amiright?
> 
> Maybe you don't understand what the RoundUp Ready system is.
> 
> Anyway, according to actual farmers, this is a big problem. They've invested heavily in the system, and it's failing them. Too bad for them, I guess.
> 
> A little reading matter, if you're actually interested in the problems of farmers.
> 
> http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agri...trial-agriculture/the-rise-of-superweeds.html
> 
> Just to be fair and balanced:
> 
> http://www.monsanto.com/weedmanagement/Pages/Glyphosate-ResistantWeedBiotypes.aspx
> 
> And a quote from the Monsanto page:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When a weed is known to be resistant to glyphosate, then a resistant population of that weed is by definition no longer controlled with labeled rates of glyphosate. Roundup agricultural herbicide warranties will not cover the failure to control glyphosate-resistant weed populations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So farmers have that going for them, which is nice.
> 
> But I'm just a keyboard farmer. What would I know, right?
Click to expand...


----------



## wildbranch2007

Ian said:


> wanta work for $5 per day?


na ya gotta do better than that, the statistics say the average non worker in N.Y. gets $45,000 for not working, I'm trying to work my way up to that level with bees.


----------



## mathesonequip

wow.......i grew up on a farm continuously in the family since 1713, that's when we got the deed anyway probably actually a couple of years longer. a couple of my brothers still run it and a couple of us bought our own and stared from scratch. many of you have no idea how hard it really is. farming has never been easy. it has always been commercial or you will not be in it for long. wow..... are a lot of us today a long way from reality or what?


----------



## LeonardS

mnbeekeeper said:


> I think one of the reasons you big farmers are defending what you do is.....what would you do if you could not drive around in a big tractor that drives itself. you don't really care that your feeding milllions of people cheap food because why would that be something you would be proud of. I bet if this generation of farmers had to farm like the farmers of the early 1900s you probably would not even want to farm. do you big farmers ever think about how easy you have it. you always say we don't get it. where does all this food come from. well take away your tractor and your chems and your hybrid seed and how good of a farmer would you be?? I can only hope that cheap food goes away sooner rather than later. do you know what happens to people that eat cheap food. they don't get smarter I can tell you that for sure. and just for the record..im not very smart. I work hard to make up for what my brain may lack. I do know that some one that works hard to eat is far better off than some one that eats for free. there are way to many people on this earth eating for free.


I guess that we now have the answers to all the worlds problems........let's blame the Farmers......we all know its easy work in a big tractor.......WOW, all my relatives that farm will be happy to hear this world saving information.


----------



## Ian

mnbeekeeper said:


> I bet if this generation of farmers had to farm like the farmers of the early 1900s you probably would not even want to farm. do you big farmers ever think about how easy you have it. you always say we don't get it. where does all this food come from. well take away your tractor and your chems and your hybrid seed and how good of a farmer would you be??


I can't explain in words the level of pride I take in my farm. That same level of pride would be exactly the same if I were driving a work horse turning sod or carting my honey boxes behind a team on a hay wagon....

Hey mnbeekeeper, how would you like to pull honey without the use of our modern day electricity? Lots of problems associated with pulling off the grid. I bet if you were to beekeeper as they did in the early 1900's that old hand crank would sure get tired. Heck, I bet you drive to your beeyards with a truck,.? Nice feature to have in your operation. 

>>I bet you dont ever think about how easy you have it, well take away your electricity and truck and see how good of a beekeeper would you be??<<


----------



## hpm08161947

Ian said:


> I can't explain in words the level of pride I take in my farm. That same level of pride would be exactly the same if I were driving a work horse turning sod or carting my honey boxes behind a team on a hay wagon....
> 
> <


And from what I have seen of your farm from your website, you have plenty of reason to be proud!


----------



## rhaldridge

WLC said:


> Well, those weeds that have become roundup resistant have 'naturally' evolved their own resistance.
> 
> There's no evidence of genes jumping from GMOs to weeds.


Really?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/genetically-modified-crops-pass-benefits-to-weeds/

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2011/08/transgenenic-weed-doubles-its.html

http://www.uvm.edu/vtvegandberry/factsheets/transgenic.html


----------



## WLC

rhaldridge said:


> Really?
> 
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/genetically-modified-crops-pass-benefits-to-weeds/
> 
> http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2011/08/transgenenic-weed-doubles-its.html
> 
> http://www.uvm.edu/vtvegandberry/factsheets/transgenic.html


Yes, really.

Canola hybrids aren't such a big surprise. Cross pollination between GM canola and a wild relative. No 'jumping genes'.

RR resistant Pigweed is naturally resistant. No GMO involved. Just glyphosate resistance. There are other weeds that have also become resistant to glyphosate 'naturally'.


----------



## mnbeekeeper

well take away your electricity and truck and see how good of a beekeeper would you be??<<[/QUOTE]

but I could still produce honey and run my business, could you still run your 3k acre farm with mules. good luck with that. the only reason I jumped into this is because you big farmers think your way is the only way. 

ian, your on here everyday. maybe have a little to much free time on your hands. that proves my point right there. if your farming practices were harder like they used to be I don't think you would be wasting time on here all day everyday.. 

the farmers that take care of the land and give back to the land and sell to their friends and neighbors are great, but the ones that only take from the land and sell what they take to china are not good for anything I care about.


----------



## sqkcrk

mnbeekeeper said:


> the only reason I jumped into this is because you big farmers think your way is the only way.


I don't know why anybody thinks that anybody thinks that way. We all do what works for us. I could care less if anybody does anything the way I do. I tell people not to. Do it your own way and be happy.


----------



## hpm08161947

mnbeekeeper said:


> the farmers that take care of the land and give back to the land and sell to their friends and neighbors are great, but the ones that only take from the land and sell what they take to china are not good for anything I care about.


The world is more complicated than that. I don't believe you really think what you said. AgriBiz is a complex subject, we have no choice but to feed the world.


----------



## Ian

mnbeekeeper said:


> ian, your on here everyday. maybe have a little to much free time on your hands. that proves my point right there. if your farming practices were harder like they used to be I don't think you would be wasting time on here all day everyday..


Oh and do I love chit chatting here! Sure beats working!!
mnbeekeeper, your argument is ridiculous, 

how many hours in a 24 hour day do you spend not working? I guess your point was that,... farmers should not have spare time, and some of that bit of spare time is not allowed to be spent on beesource? Please, argue your point further LOL


----------



## JRG13

Hey Ian, how much snow you got on the ground, better start farming it!


----------



## hpm08161947

JRG13 said:


> Hey Ian, how much snow you got on the ground, better start farming it!


Ian could be out in his barn polishing his harnasses, or maybe sharpening his plow?

Most likely he is studying the commodites market.


----------



## Ian

JRG13 said:


> Hey Ian, how much snow you got on the ground, better start farming it!





hpm08161947 said:


> Ian could be out in his barn polishing his harnasses, or maybe sharpening his plow?


ha ha ha, seriously, there are days I wish farming was the way it use to be 80 or 90 years ago, heck of a lot easier! These days there is so much technical crap and a CONSTANT push to get more work done in a day that it can wear on a fella...

we are half way through calving 400 cows right now. This extreme cold and wind has created a bit of a challenge this year keeping the calves from freezing! All is going well, but it sure takes a lot of WORK

mnbeekeeper, I rule my own day. how are you doing with that?


----------



## Ian

>>But I'm just a keyboard farmer. What would I know, right?<<

right

>>Anyway, according to actual farmers, this is a big problem. They've invested heavily in the system, and it's failing them. Too bad for them, I guess.<<

its not failing them...


----------



## rhaldridge

Ian said:


> >>But I'm just a keyboard farmer. What would I know, right?<<
> 
> right
> 
> >>Anyway, according to actual farmers, this is a big problem. They've invested heavily in the system, and it's failing them. Too bad for them, I guess.<<
> 
> its not failing them...


So what you're telling me is that those farmers who say it's failing them are just lying?

Good to know. I'm totally reassured.


----------



## Haraga

Who are these farmers and what is failing them that they have no control over?


----------



## JWChesnut

Round-up Ready Soybeans patent expires this year (2014). Generic version of the Monsanto monopoly will come on market (and the replanting restrictions to individual farmers will end). The cost of the technology will plummet.


----------



## rhaldridge

Haraga said:


> Who are these farmers and what is failing them that they have no control over?


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/business/energy-environment/04weed.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

It's not that they have no control over it. It's that unforeseen consequences (herbicide resistant weeds) have ended up making things worse rather than better. So now there's a sort of herbicide arms race. For example, seed companies are getting approval to stack their GMO seeds with multiple herbicide resistance, and they're advising farmers to buy more varieties of herbicide to deal with resistant weeds. It's great for them-- they get to move more product. 

Not so great for farmers. The amount of Roundup required to control weeds has steadily risen over the last few years, so that application rates are much heavier now than they were when Roundup ready crops were first introduced. It would be naive to expect that the same thing won't happen again with the additional and less benign herbicides that will be required to control roundup resistant weeds.

2,4-D is poised to step up, since Dow AgroSciences is developing resistance to this herbicide in their new GMO varieties.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/gmo-seeds-resistant-to-2-4-d-considered-for-u-s-approval-1.2483195

Maybe it's just me, but this seems like the sort of treadmill that just keeps going faster until you go flying off, no matter how fast you run.


----------



## rhaldridge

JWChesnut said:


> Round-up Ready Soybeans patent expires this year (2014). Generic version of the Monsanto monopoly will come on market (and the replanting restrictions to individual farmers will end). The cost of the technology will plummet.


Don't worry. Since Roundup ready crops are becoming useless, new GMOs resistant to other herbicides will replace them in the profit picture.

It'll be fine.


----------



## Dave Burrup

It's not that they have no control over it. It's that unforeseen consequences (herbicide resistant weeds) have ended up making things worse rather than better

What is frequently mis-understood or just ignored is that the herbicide resistance is to roundup, not the other available herbicides. All of the herbicides that were used on the various crops before are still available. So a farmer can and should use the same herbicides he used before roundup to rotate and to control the resistant weeds. It is nearly impossible for species to develop resistance to multiple modes of action. So the release of 2-4D and dicamba is a good thing in that it should control resistance. If the rotations are done between these resistance technologies the problems should be reduced, but there has to be rotation between the modes of action.
Dave


----------



## jim lyon

A little perspective may be in order here. The alarm bells about roundup resistance seems to be ringing the loudest from those individuals and groups who have already made their opposition to gmo's quite clear. Farmers have dealt with herbicide weed resistance since, probably, the year after 2-4-D was first introduced. The fact that there are weeds not easily controlled by glyphosate isnt a terribly dire situation. I talked recently with a close friend, and one of the brightest people I know, that farms thousands of acres in central Minnesota in addition to owning a farm service business that applies the whole range of fertilizers, and pesticides. He said they currently look at glyphosate as an excellent grass control product with the benefit that it controls most all broad leaves as well. Its limitations are that there are a few resistance issues and because there is no residual effect it dosent control late emerging weeds that can pop up under the crop "canopy". Not a big issue in his mind as there are many effective and economical alternatives that can control those specific weed problems. The point is that the term "super weeds" which has great dramatic effect isnt akin to an old B grade horror flick threatening all man kind. Its just another farming challenge but one that has easily applied solutions. 
Fear not folks, if all else fails farmers can always replace chemical control with the ole mechanical tillage methods of multiple passes through the field, disturbing and drying the soil with each pass, burning incredible amounts fuel in the process. And lets not forget about all the resulting erosion issues that we used to deal with years ago. Remember? That was like sooooooo 1970.


----------



## Ian

rhaldridge said:


> It's that unforeseen consequences (herbicide resistant weeds) have ended up making things worse rather than better.


Do you even understand chemical use in agriculture? None of this is unforeseen. Resistance to herbicides is well known and farmers manage it according by rotating their herbicides as well as crop rotation practices and tillage management practices. You look quite foolish crying about the end of agriculture as we know it. We still have lots tools in our basket, including the good old tiller and when roundup does run its course, we can resume tilling the land once again.


----------



## oldreliable

China announced they no longer accept GMO corn from the U.S. We export much of our corn to them and other countries. So...wonder if this trend of other countries regulating and placing band on GMO, leaves less export opportunities. HOW ABOUT SOIL MANAGEMENT? quit putting chemicals into the ground! As for less corn fed beef...thanks to GMO beef..the list goes on.


----------



## Ian

China makes demands until they go hungry,


----------



## hpm08161947

We have a big field thoroughly infested with PigWeed (Nasty Stuff). Infestaton happened over the last 2 years. As soon as it warms up the field will be thoroughly tilled and then a surface adhering herbicide will be applied Must be the first time in 10 years that the land has been tilled. The PigWeed is not due to Glycophosphate - it's just a tough, voracious, weed. The field is 80 acres.... so 800 acres has avoided tillage. Have any idea how much diesel it takes to till 800 acres, if nothing else... think of the environment.

These arguments always become political so quick....


----------



## Haraga

Keyboard farmers. They don't know what they don't know.


----------



## rhaldridge

Ian said:


> You look quite foolish crying about the end of agriculture as we know it. .


When did I do that? You look quite foolish claiming I'm saying something I never said. What I said was that Roundup resistant weeds have become a problem for some farmers. Is that really a hard concept to grasp?

Yes, there are plenty of ways to deal with weeds besides Roundup, and some of them do not involve developing resistant weeds. The thread is about GMO crops, and one of the problems with GMO crops is that they have led to excessive use of one weed control system. I mean, if you plant Roundup ready corn or beans or cotton, you're probably going to use Roundup to control weeds, otherwise what's the point in paying a premium for those seeds? Most of the beans grown in this country are Roundup ready. What do you think that might mean about the weed control system used for those beans?

Monsanto is famous for placing print ads telling farmers Roundup was "the only weed control you'll ever need." 

Apparently they were wrong.

It's true, I'm not a farmer, but I come from a long line of farmers. In fact, some of my ancestors taught some of your ancestors how to grow corn. 

That may have been a mistake.


----------



## Ian

rhaldridge said:


> In fact, some of my ancestors taught some of your ancestors how to grow corn.
> 
> That may have been a mistake.


a mistake that breeding efforts brought Canada a cold climate corn? ... what did I say about sounding foolish?


----------



## Ian

Haraga said:


> Keyboard farmers. They don't know what they don't know.


----------



## hpm08161947

Why don't I see these weed choked soybeans. Across my front yard is a field of approximately 1000 acres, all GMO -RR- Neonics. My bees don't die, between the rows is a clean as a whistle. It seems like I should see at least some sign of these problems. I mean, we debate them all the time here on BeeSource.


----------



## Ian

hpm08161947, the answer lies in post #89. I hear exactly what your saying.

The fact is that RR technology is so widely popular, because it works! 

Not so good for beekeepers because RR cropping has cleaned up all those bee loving weeds within the crop rows!!


----------



## hpm08161947

Ian said:


> Not so good for beekeepers because RR cropping has cleaned up all those bee loving weeds within the crop rows!!


Yup... so true..... wander through that 1000 acres and you will be hard pressed to find a single bee........ alas.


----------



## Ian

RR cropping has allowed farmers to achieve their ultimate goal, clean fields!


----------



## Spark

Ian said:


> RR cropping has allowed farmers to achieve their ultimate goal, clean fields!


Didn't DDT do that too :lookout:


----------



## rhaldridge

Ian said:


> a mistake that breeding efforts brought Canada a cold climate corn? ... what did I say about sounding foolish?


Whoosh!

But at least you tried.


----------



## wildbranch2007

proof positive that farmers are making to much money!!

http://screen.yahoo.com/inspiration/iowa-funeral-surprise-232632077.html


----------

