In article , wrote:

Billy writes:

In article , wrote:

Billy writes:

In article , wrote:

Billy writes:

In article , wrote:

Billy writes:
5) By larger crops, I meant higher yield (weight) per unit of surface
area.
Higher yield used to be touted as a reason for GMOs, but GMOs don't bear
more that non-GMOs.
...

Ah, misunderstanding. If you mean GMOs don't produce larger crops
now, I have no reason to disagree.

I think GMOs have very good potential as a means to improve yield
and a lot of other desirable characteristics of plants.
And you think that, because . . . ?

Well, because Jimmy Carter said so.

(Just kidding. Bet some of you at least giggled.)

That was my first Google hit.

Here is Wikipedia on the subject:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic...od#Crop_yields
"A 2010 article summarised the results of 49 peer reviewed studies on GM
crops worldwide."

This contention was supported by a "meta study" by an

unknown author, Janet E. Carpenter (PO Box 1008, Boylston,
Massachusetts, USA), whose work was

underwritten by CropLife International("CropLife International is the
global federation representing the plant science industry. We are a
network of regional and national associations in 91 countries. Our
member companies are committed to supporting sustainable agriculture
through innovation in crop protection, plant biotechnology and seed
production."), and

published by the Nature Publishing Group, a division of Macmillan
Publishers Ltd. Like other Nature journals, there is no external
Editorial Board; editorial decisions are made by an in-house team,
although peer review by external expert referees forms a part of the
review process..

Do I need to point out that that the above is a house of cards?

I could find no other studies supporting Janet E. Carpenter meta
analysis.

I am very disappointed with Wikipedia :O(

However Professor Barney Gordon, of the University of
Kansas's department of agronomy is responsible for the report noting
GMOs lower yields.



Which cites some instances of increased yield.

But I made my statement based on my own knowledge of the subject
of selection. Some things grow bigger or faster than other things.
It's known that growth size and rate are genetically
controlled. It makes sense that those genes can be transferred from one
organism to another. If other traits can be transferred, why not
traits that affect yield.
Why indeed. Logic, you know, is only as good as it's premise. Either you
are an savant among gardeners and Monsanto has hired an ill informed
bunch of recombinant geneticists , or something is missing from your
knowledge of selection. Which do you think is more likely?

Why didn't the producers of GMOs do that; create GMOs with higher
yields? You would think that would have been a strong economic reason
for farmers to convert to GMOs instead of spending more on Round Up and
killing what little topsoil that is left.
--
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.
- Dwight D. Eisenhower, 16 April 1953
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkDikRLQrw