Mooshie peas wrote:
On 2 Sep 2003 12:05:00 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:
In sci.agriculture Dean Hoffman wrote:
On 8/24/03 9:13 AM, in article ,
"Brian Sandle" wrote:
Some cut.
The folks are stariving because they cannot pay the world market
prices for the food, because they do not have work. There are
surpluses of food.
The cost of the actual raw materials going into food aren't the real
problem. Transportation and packaging add more to the cost in many cases
than the actual foodstuff. The USDA used to have an online chart showing
how much money a farmer got compared to the consumer cost. I think there's
about 2ยข U.S. worth of wheat in a loaf of bread, for example. I'll try to
find it if you're interested.
So it cannot be said that agriculture is the major stumbling block
in getting food to the poor.
Well yes, if the starving people can't grow their food. That's
agriculture.
What is the US$ cost of bread? It looks like the wheat growing cost
is about 2% and you call that the major stumbling block?
The people can't grow their food because they are trying to earn
money by growing cash crops to export. They get paid very little,
then they take the notion they can earn something by growing food
for the local market. Then USA dumps the GM food which they cannot
sell, and the poor farmers go out of business. They travel to the
cities and cannot grow food there. It's not just food they need.
Whereas there was competition between various types of weeds before,
Roundup has killed ones except those which it can't and those now
have a free reign.
There were some weeds that weren't controlled very well at all before
Roundup. Common dog bane is one example. It's tough to control even with
Roundup. There are chemicals other than Roundup that can be used in most
cases.
How often does the RR farmer have to buy those extras?
As often as needed. Nothing much has changed wrt to some weeds. Not
controlled well with glyphosate before RR crops
So other herbicides were used.
and the same after RR
crops.
Now it is claimed only glyphosate is needed. A lie.
Crop and chemical rotation is accepted practice as far as I know.
Not as simple as just RR.
Huh? For weeds that are not well controlled with glyphosate?
The advertising suggests buying RR and glyphosate solves your
problem. But no, rotation &c is needed.
You admit it depends on the economics. Roundup Ready is suppoed to
make it cheaper. But it hasn't because of extra applicaitons and
other herbicides required.
I've asked farmers on occasion if RR pays. There was a slight yield drag
with RR soybeans at first but I think the drag has been eliminated.
At cost of what? The plant has to make the RR detoxifier which takes
some of its energy. So where is that made up?
In not having to make some of the other thousands of proteins plants
make?
Less of the wanted ones? We do eat corn and soy for some protein.
The
farmers would rotate RR beans into corn fields to help control the weeds
that multiply in continuous corn.
RR corn?
Read what was said. RRbeans are grown to control weeds with glyphosate
that are not easy to control with the corn crop, and which get a grip
of the land without the good control the glyphosate provides, or
that's how I read it.
Then why are seed suppliers saying you must rotate, is what I am
getting at.
Roundup ready beans have made a big change in my area, (Nebraska, USA).
Weeds used to be a real problem. Whole families of Latinos used to hand
weed the fields to get the weeds not killed by other chemicals or normal
tillage.
So what is their work now?
MacDonalds, or some other service industry.
Is general health and welfare increasing or decreasing?
It's not necessary to rogue beans anymore.
Dog bane may be escaping Roundup control. Now Roundup has killed
other weeds which used to compete with it is it not taking over
more?
Are there examples of weeds becoming rampant because something that
they were competitors with has been given a nudge?
I wouldn't have thought so, and would wonder it it matters much. A
non-crop plant is a non-crop plant is a weed.
I wrote about the nettles in Gordon's http.
What used to be their prevalence in cotton fields before RR cotton?
The technological progress of GM is aimed at, and is achieving the
goal, of increased wealth of a limited group of technology
companies.
Well, corn farmers in the U.S. do not grow their own seed.
But they do in many countries, where agriculture employs more
people.
Well it's all to do with economic pragmatism.
About which Jim and I have been writing. He adivses me that if I
stop GM economy and try to really help third world rather than keep
the dependent they way of USA that I may lose my job as they become
cleverer.
Hybrid corn
came into use decades ago. Apparently, it's a good deal for them and the
seed companies. Several farmers in my area raise seed corn for the seed
companies. It's a hassle but it pays better than commercial corn.
I spend a lot of time in corn and bean fields. The fields are much cleaner
now than in the past due to better chemicals and farming practices.
Though the resistant weeds have fewer competitors and over some
years must be more of a problem.
Not if managed with suitable herbicides.
So don't brag that you only need glyphosate with RR crops.
Some
farmers here no till their crops in. More are switching to no or minimum
till each year. Some don't cultivate at all. They just use spray to control
the weeds. That helps keep the organic matter up and the soil erosion down.
But as I posted no till has been happening here without GM, GM
being illegal still.
Only with herbicides, of course. Herbicide resistant crops make it
that much easier and actually possible in some cases.
Can use pine oil. Or perhaps mow or prune off the weeds and let them
lie.
With RR technology you apply it to the food people are going to eat.
Legal tolerance limits for it in food have been adjusted way up to
allow for the process.