In article ,
Roy wrote:

On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 7:46:26 AM UTC-6, songbird wrote:
Billy wrote:

Roy wrote:

...

You shouldn't through words like "ignorance" around so carelessly.



*hahahaha*





When you say things like, "If small amounts increase the chance of

cancer in rats then DON'T FEED IT TO RATS...problem solved.", you can

expect to be consigned to a playpen.



Ignorance can be cured, stupidity, can't.



and the fact that reality doesn't care if you

are stupid and/or ignorant, if in the end you

poison your environment enough that it can no

longer sustain life then you and/or your children

are history.







As a farmer, I know what RoundUp does. I have sprayed quack grass with
it and

it works well at the recommended rate. Not bad on Canadian

thistle when applied when they are in the rosette stage in August or

early September. When used for its intended purposes it is a great

product. Other activities of Monsanto with breeding of RR resistant

varieties, I question.



The occasional application to an isolated problem, may have merit,



if it is either occasional or isolated it could be dealt

with in another manner. growing taller perennial cover

crops, not mowing too short, hand weeding, targeted grazing

by goats, ...





but

in wholesale use for weeding crops, you are damaging the topsoil, which

in the long run we will need top grow post industrial crops.



besides the fact that monoculture farming

wastes a lot of productivity because the land

is left bare for long periods of time along

with erosion of the topsoil.





Presently,

it takes more than a calorie of fossil fuel energy to produce a calorie

of food; before the advent of chemical fertilizer a farm produced more

than two calories of food energy for every calorie of energy invested.



this equation begins to shift with the introduction

of solar and wind energy into the mix. that at least

is a small improvement, but i still agree that the

adding of chemical fertilizers without improving the

soil overall is going to still be a problem. it burns

the organic matter out of the soil very quickly.





Interplanting will grow more food than monocultures. For this more labor

intensive agriculture, you need the ecology of topsoil.



i think the problem is much more than damage

to the soil, i think there is a lack in studies

which track the effects of the gene fragments

inserted into food plants. how those fragments

are digested, if they can start an allergic

or other autoimmune response in people before

they reach the stomach and intestines, if they

affect the digestive tract microbes, etc.



one mention in recent news that made me think of

the law of unintended side effects -- about how

GMO crops have tougher stalks which requires machines

to get new/harder/different tires more often (some

farmers have their tires baked to harden them) that

chopping blades wear out faster, etc.

songbird

"
this equation begins to shift with the introduction
of solar and wind energy into the mix. that at least
is a small improvement, but i still agree that the
adding of chemical fertilizers without improving the
soil overall is going to still be a problem. it burns
the organic matter out of the soil very quickly. "

The added chemical fertilizer does not "burn" organic matter out of the soil.
Obviously you have never farmed.
Excessive amounts of chemical fertilizers especially anhydrous ammonia may
have a deleterious effect on the micro-organisms naturally present in the
soil. These micro-organisms are very important to how organic matter breaks
down to free up nutrients that plants require.

Farmers who allow oil drilling companies to spread waste drilling mud on
their fields are totally unaware of the damage that these muds do to the
micro-organisms present in the soil. Nothing grows without these
micro-organisms.

And obviously you have never farmed, or you are being overly critical of
the word "burned".

In fields, or in compost, a 25/1 ratio is needed for carbon to nitrogen
to maintain a healthy environment for soil micro-organisms. Injection of
anhydrous ammonia into the soil will encourage bacteria to consume what
organic material as there is. Think of it as "carbs verses protein".
Organic material helps hold water in the soil. Without a carbon/
nitrogen balance of 25/1, bacteria die, leaving less bacterial exudate
to hold the soil together in the face of wind, which leads to erosion.

What kind of farmer are you?

--
Welcome to the New America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA736oK9FPg
or
E Pluribus Unum
Green Party Nominee Jill Stein & Running Mate, Cheri Honkala
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/7/13/green_party_nominee_jill_stein_running

On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 11:49:01 PM UTC-6, Billy wrote:
In article ,

Roy wrote:



On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 7:46:26 AM UTC-6, songbird wrote:

Billy wrote:



Roy wrote:



...



You shouldn't through words like "ignorance" around so carelessly.







*hahahaha*











When you say things like, "If small amounts increase the chance of



cancer in rats then DON'T FEED IT TO RATS...problem solved.", you can



expect to be consigned to a playpen.







Ignorance can be cured, stupidity, can't.







and the fact that reality doesn't care if you



are stupid and/or ignorant, if in the end you



poison your environment enough that it can no



longer sustain life then you and/or your children



are history.















As a farmer, I know what RoundUp does. I have sprayed quack grass with

it and



it works well at the recommended rate. Not bad on Canadian



thistle when applied when they are in the rosette stage in August or



early September. When used for its intended purposes it is a great



product. Other activities of Monsanto with breeding of RR resistant



varieties, I question.







The occasional application to an isolated problem, may have merit,







if it is either occasional or isolated it could be dealt



with in another manner. growing taller perennial cover



crops, not mowing too short, hand weeding, targeted grazing



by goats, ...











but



in wholesale use for weeding crops, you are damaging the topsoil, which



in the long run we will need top grow post industrial crops.







besides the fact that monoculture farming



wastes a lot of productivity because the land



is left bare for long periods of time along



with erosion of the topsoil.











Presently,



it takes more than a calorie of fossil fuel energy to produce a calorie



of food; before the advent of chemical fertilizer a farm produced more



than two calories of food energy for every calorie of energy invested.







this equation begins to shift with the introduction



of solar and wind energy into the mix. that at least



is a small improvement, but i still agree that the



adding of chemical fertilizers without improving the



soil overall is going to still be a problem. it burns



the organic matter out of the soil very quickly.











Interplanting will grow more food than monocultures. For this more labor



intensive agriculture, you need the ecology of topsoil.







i think the problem is much more than damage



to the soil, i think there is a lack in studies



which track the effects of the gene fragments



inserted into food plants. how those fragments



are digested, if they can start an allergic



or other autoimmune response in people before



they reach the stomach and intestines, if they



affect the digestive tract microbes, etc.







one mention in recent news that made me think of



the law of unintended side effects -- about how



GMO crops have tougher stalks which requires machines



to get new/harder/different tires more often (some



farmers have their tires baked to harden them) that



chopping blades wear out faster, etc.



songbird



"

this equation begins to shift with the introduction

of solar and wind energy into the mix. that at least

is a small improvement, but i still agree that the

adding of chemical fertilizers without improving the

soil overall is going to still be a problem. it burns

the organic matter out of the soil very quickly. "



The added chemical fertilizer does not "burn" organic matter out of the soil.

Obviously you have never farmed.

Excessive amounts of chemical fertilizers especially anhydrous ammonia may

have a deleterious effect on the micro-organisms naturally present in the

soil. These micro-organisms are very important to how organic matter breaks

down to free up nutrients that plants require.



Farmers who allow oil drilling companies to spread waste drilling mud on

their fields are totally unaware of the damage that these muds do to the

micro-organisms present in the soil. Nothing grows without these

micro-organisms.



And obviously you have never farmed, or you are being overly critical of

the word "burned".



In fields, or in compost, a 25/1 ratio is needed for carbon to nitrogen

to maintain a healthy environment for soil micro-organisms. Injection of

anhydrous ammonia into the soil will encourage bacteria to consume what

organic material as there is. Think of it as "carbs verses protein".

Organic material helps hold water in the soil. Without a carbon/

nitrogen balance of 25/1, bacteria die, leaving less bacterial exudate

to hold the soil together in the face of wind, which leads to erosion.



What kind of farmer are you?



--

Welcome to the New America.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA736oK9FPg

or

E Pluribus Unum

Green Party Nominee Jill Stein & Running Mate, Cheri Honkala

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/7/13/green_party_nominee_jill_stein_running

I was brought up on a mixed farm. We grew most grains and raised cattle, hogs, chickens, turkeys and horses. I only grow grain crops now. I graduated from an accredited agricultural college many moons ago but still keep up-to-date as much as possible and use the Internet extensively and read a good many magazines devoted to agriculture.

I have read quite a bit regarding Monsanto et al. I believe that they are doing more harm in the world than good but others differ.

Roy wrote:
....
I graduated from an accredited agricultural college
many moons ago but still keep up-to-date as much as
possible and use the Internet extensively and read a
good many magazines devoted to agriculture.

some time crack a recent soil science (college
level) text on the matter.


songbird

On Saturday, September 29, 2012 6:53:56 PM UTC-6, songbird wrote:
Roy wrote:

...

I graduated from an accredited agricultural college

many moons ago but still keep up-to-date as much as

possible and use the Internet extensively and read a

good many magazines devoted to agriculture.



some time crack a recent soil science (college

level) text on the matter.


songbird

No problem with glyphosate...read this:

What happens to glyphosate when it enters the body
In humans, glyphosate does not easily pass through the skin. Glyphosate taken in through the skin or by mouth goes through the body in less than one day. Glyphosate leaves the body in urine and feces without being changed into another chemical.
Studies with rats showed that about one-third of a dose of glyphosate was absorbed by the rats’ intestines. Half of the dose was found in the rats’ stomachs and intestines 6 hours later, and all traces were gone within one week.

Courtesy: NIPC

In article ,
Roy wrote:

On Saturday, September 29, 2012 6:53:56 PM UTC-6, songbird wrote:
Roy wrote:

...

I graduated from an accredited agricultural college

many moons ago but still keep up-to-date as much as

possible and use the Internet extensively and read a

good many magazines devoted to agriculture.



some time crack a recent soil science (college

level) text on the matter.


songbird

No problem with glyphosate...read this:

What happens to glyphosate when it enters the body
In humans, glyphosate does not easily pass through the skin. Glyphosate taken
in through the skin or by mouth goes through the body in less than one day.
Glyphosate leaves the body in urine and feces without being changed into
another chemical.
Studies with rats showed that about one-third of a dose of glyphosate was
absorbed by the rats¹ intestines. Half of the dose was found in the rats¹
stomachs and intestines 6 hours later, and all traces were gone within one
week.

Courtesy: NIPC

You got to know, Roy, that this is a very crappy post. You don't
identify the study, and your source could be the Nigerian Investment
Promotion Commission.

It is widely known that Monsanto is spending money for good reviews, or
diversionary reviews. Next time, tell us who did the study, and you
might look to see who funded it.

Good luck with your studies.

--
Welcome to the New America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA736oK9FPg
or
E Pluribus Unum
Green Party Nominee Jill Stein & Running Mate, Cheri Honkala
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/7/13/green_party_nominee_jill_stein_running

On Tuesday, October 2, 2012 12:47:28 AM UTC-6, Billy wrote:
In article ,

Roy wrote:



On Saturday, September 29, 2012 6:53:56 PM UTC-6, songbird wrote:

Roy wrote:



...



I graduated from an accredited agricultural college



many moons ago but still keep up-to-date as much as



possible and use the Internet extensively and read a



good many magazines devoted to agriculture.







some time crack a recent soil science (college



level) text on the matter.





songbird



No problem with glyphosate...read this:



What happens to glyphosate when it enters the body

In humans, glyphosate does not easily pass through the skin. Glyphosate taken

in through the skin or by mouth goes through the body in less than one day.

Glyphosate leaves the body in urine and feces without being changed into

another chemical.

Studies with rats showed that about one-third of a dose of glyphosate was

absorbed by the rats� intestines. Half of the dose was found in the rats�

stomachs and intestines 6 hours later, and all traces were gone within one

week.



Courtesy: NIPC



You got to know, Roy, that this is a very crappy post. You don't

identify the study, and your source could be the Nigerian Investment

Promotion Commission.



It is widely known that Monsanto is spending money for good reviews, or

diversionary reviews. Next time, tell us who did the study, and you

might look to see who funded it.



Good luck with your studies.

Billy: National Pesticide Information Center did the study.

In article ,
Roy wrote:

On Tuesday, October 2, 2012 12:47:28 AM UTC-6, Billy wrote:
In article ,

Roy wrote:



On Saturday, September 29, 2012 6:53:56 PM UTC-6, songbird wrote:

Roy wrote:



...



I graduated from an accredited agricultural college



many moons ago but still keep up-to-date as much as



possible and use the Internet extensively and read a



good many magazines devoted to agriculture.







some time crack a recent soil science (college



level) text on the matter.





songbird



No problem with glyphosate...read this:



What happens to glyphosate when it enters the body

In humans, glyphosate does not easily pass through the skin. Glyphosate
taken

in through the skin or by mouth goes through the body in less than one
day.

Glyphosate leaves the body in urine and feces without being changed into

another chemical.

Studies with rats showed that about one-third of a dose of glyphosate was

absorbed by the rats? intestines. Half of the dose was found in the rats?

stomachs and intestines 6 hours later, and all traces were gone within
one

week.



Courtesy: NIPC



You got to know, Roy, that this is a very crappy post. You don't

identify the study, and your source could be the Nigerian Investment

Promotion Commission.



It is widely known that Monsanto is spending money for good reviews, or

diversionary reviews. Next time, tell us who did the study, and you

might look to see who funded it.



Good luck with your studies.

Billy: National Pesticide Information Center did the study.

The National Pesticide Information Center (NPIC) is a collaboration
between Oregon State University and the United States Environmental
Protection Agency
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Pesticide_Information_Center


Then, there is always the debate over the politics that control the EPA.

"In June 2005, a memo revealed that Philip Cooney, former chief of staff
for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, and former
lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute, had personally edited
documents, summarizing government research on climate change, before
their release."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...rotection_Agen
cy#Controversies

With the EPA out of the loop, you are left with
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Toxicity

--
Welcome to the New America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA736oK9FPg
or
E Pluribus Unum
Green Party Nominee Jill Stein & Running Mate, Cheri Honkala
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/7/13/green_party_nominee_jill_stein_running

Roy wrote:
....
Billy: National Pesticide Information Center did the study.

a short term study with rats isn't going to
reveal long term effects. some effects may not
appear for more years than you'll be alive.
who cleans it up if a mistake is made? all
those acres you spray stuff on, what happens
if it is shown to be contaminated and the
food you grow is no longer acceptable for
animal or human consumption?

do you think those companies that sell you
that stuff are going to have deep enough
pockets to make things right? to decontaminate
the soil? to pay for whatever healthcare you
and/or your decendants might need as a result?

what about people you might be poisoning
downwind? groundwater? or people who buy
your food? an insurance company can only
cover so much before they go under.


here is an example of what is actually going on:

http://news.sudanvisiondaily.com/det...?rsnpid=214316


a clear sign that poisons do not work
in a sustainable manner. this process has
been demonstrated over and over again in
many ways yet here we have yet another
poison and plants being modified so that
such poisons can be used to spray fields.

i'm really glad i'll have more poison
to breath in coming from the fields around
me, going into the water, etc.


songbird