Torsten Brinch writes

Hello David, long time no see. Of course you are right,
it is a Fusarium resistance trait.

That's interesting.

It's not unlikely that organic wheat for human consumption will fail the
new mycotoxin levels, because they can't use fungicides. Some seasons it
may be most of it.

So it's a really smart move to trash the trials.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 22:46:11 GMT, "David Kendra"
wrote:

I would suspect that the Syngenta wheat did not contain RR technology.
It
was a plant health/food safety trait.

Hello David, long time no see. Of course you are right,
it is a Fusarium resistance trait.

Jim Webster and Gordon Couger has just managed to show that
they do not know what they f... they are talking about.


If they had interest in GM wheat they would've known that
Syngenta does not haven anything to whatsoever with RR wheat.
Indeed if they had done the bare minimum, to bother reading
the mail that initiated the thread they would have known this
is not about RR wheat.

no, all we did was allow the anti gm enthusiasts to hang themselves with
their own rope. I never once said what the wheat was, I merely quoted on
anti-gm spokesman back at another which is something that torsten has
trouble with

Jim Webster

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 22:46:11 GMT, "David Kendra"
wrote:

I would suspect that the Syngenta wheat did not contain RR technology.
It
was a plant health/food safety trait.

Hello David, long time no see. Of course you are right,
it is a Fusarium resistance trait.

Jim Webster and Gordon Couger has just managed to show that
they do not know what they f... they are talking about.

If they had interest in GM wheat they would've known that
Syngenta does not haven anything to whatsoever with RR wheat.
Indeed if they had done the bare minimum, to bother reading
the mail that initiated the thread they would have known this
is not about RR wheat.

You may not believe it but I have missed you.

You have been doing pretty good by yourself.

I have no idea what the Syngenta wheat is but they all do cross license the
technology. If you think about it they have to make it work. They all hang
together or they hang separately. If they don't cooperate no one will
realize the full benefits of their work. Cotton already has 2 GM traits and
Monsanto licenses them to all cotton breeders. If someone else comes up with
something the works in cotton to sell it has to fit in with all the rest.

The window for spring planted wheat is pretty short compared to winter wheat
so if they just sow it with wheat and wait until it was to late to replant
it would have the desired effect. I don't know the climate there but we
plant spring oats in the middle of February. The weather there is kinder to
wheat then hear but I expect it is getting late there as well.

Gordon

On Thu, 24 Apr 2003 04:51:25 -0500, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:


"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 22:46:11 GMT, "David Kendra"
wrote:

I would suspect that the Syngenta wheat did not contain RR technology.
It
was a plant health/food safety trait.

Hello David, long time no see. Of course you are right,
it is a Fusarium resistance trait.

Jim Webster and Gordon Couger has just managed to show that
they do not know what they f... they are talking about.

I have no idea what the Syngenta wheat is

:-) Yeah, right, you don't have a clue.

but they all do cross license the technology. If you think about
it they snip

Grin. Give it up Gordon, Syngenta is not dealing in RR wheat.

As I understand their position it is that it is going to be
a tough one in any event to get any GM wheat on the market,
and that a GM wheat offering no product quality benefit (read:
Monsantos RR wheat) would be particularly handicapped. So,
Syngenta is not willing to go down that road with RR wheat
on their hand.

The window for spring planted wheat is pretty short compared
to winter wheat so if they just sow it with wheat and wait
until it was to late to replant it would have the desired effect.

Yes. Smart action, done by well-informed activists.

TITLE: The Heartland Wrestles With Biotechnology
SOURCE: The Washington Post, USA, by Justin Gillis

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Apr21.html
DATE: Apr 22, 2003

The Heartland Wrestles With Biotechnology

By no means does the opposition movement command unanimous allegiance
in farm country -- the issue has split farmers, farm organizations and
legislatures in at least four states and two Canadian provinces, with
the pro-biotech side plausibly claiming majority support among farmers
in most of those places.

But the strength of the opposition has provoked a rollicking debate.
Roundup Ready wheat is emerging as a key test of whether the
biotechnology industry can take charge of the destiny of a major crop
used primarily as food, something it has yet to accomplish despite
successes in other crops.

And the fight is becoming a prime symbol in another way, too. As
genetic science creates opportunities to manipulate the plants and
animals people eat, associated battles are migrating out of
Washington. In the next few years, state and even local governments
will confront new kinds of crops, as well as gene-altered animals and
even a genetically engineered salmon. Some of these products require
state permits before they can be commercialized, and many state and
local governments will hear demands to keep them out. The new biology,
in other words, is coming soon to state legislatures and county
commissions across the land.

The change is already evident in North Dakota and neighboring states,
where legislators and some ordinary citizens now speak knowledgeably
about such matters as genetic drift and pollen flow. The movement has
fed on the deep suspicion of corporate ethics sparked by recent
scandals. Pollestad, that Halliday farmer, captured the mood in a
letter to the editor of the Grand Forks Herald. He noted that Monsanto
was continuing to press for quick federal approval of its wheat
despite its go-slow promises, and he called on North Dakota
lawmakers to give citizens a voice in the decision.

"Or, we could let Monsanto decide," he wrote. "And maybe we also could
get Enron to run our utilities and Arthur Andersen to keep the books."


Recouping an Investment

The crop technology that many companies, led by Monsanto, are pushing
to develop these days is an outgrowth of the vast genetic knowledge
pouring from the world's research laboratories. Scientists are
becoming increasingly adept at manipulating plants and animals in a
way nature does not, moving genes across species to confer new traits.

Most research suggests such organisms are safe to eat, but a host of
theoretical questions remain about the environmental risks, such as
the possibility of creating new types of weeds or pests. That concern,
plus lingering uncertainty about health effects, has led to a broad
opposition movement, particularly in Europe and Japan.

In the long run, the technology offers potential benefits consumers
may want, such as foods to cut the risk of heart disease or cancer.
But the crops that have come to market first are primarily designed to
benefit farmers by giving them greater control over weeds and insects.

Monsanto has been in the vanguard, developing varieties of corn,
soybeans and cotton that resist worms and other insects. The company's
biggest success, though, has been with crops designed to exploit
another of its products, an herbicide called Roundup. This popular
chemical kills weeds efficiently, does no harm to people or animals
and readily breaks down in the environment.

But Roundup kills conventional crops as well as weeds, so farmers
mostly used it to prepare their fields for planting. Monsanto
scientists set out in the 1980s, using genetic engineering, to develop
crops resistant to Roundup. "Roundup Ready" crops have proven wildly
popular, saving farmers labor. Monsanto competitors brought similar
products to market.

Not long after the crops were commercialized in the United States, in
the late 1990s, a European backlash began, featuring "Frankenfood"
headlines and warnings about manipulating nature. American farmers
lost corn sales to Europe, but growing demand in other markets took up
the slack. Neither corn nor soybeans is primarily a human food crop --
corn is largely fed to farm animals, and after the oil is squeezed
out, so is most soybean meal. Cotton, of course, is used to make
cloth.

Despite these successes, Monsanto has yet to recoup its huge
investment in biotechnology, so the company needs new products. It is
trying to conquer the fundamental cereal of Western diets -- wheat.

On past experience, the company counted on ready farmer acceptance.
But wheat farmers are highly dependent on foreign markets,
particularly Japan, and follow them assiduously. And wheat, as it
happens, is grown in a part of North America with a long tradition of
political activism among farmers, who battled banks and grain
monopolies early in the 20th century, a populist tradition that
persists.

Moreover, the people who run Monsanto had never met Tom and Gail
Wiley.


Money-Minded Opposition

The Wileys are wheat, soybean and cattle farmers who live on a
windswept farmstead at the end of a long gravel road in southeastern
North Dakota. They met in Berkeley, Calif., many years ago, and Tom
Wiley confesses to some counterculture dabbling in his youth.

But the Wileys are conventional, not organic, farmers, and have been
more or less comfortable using pesticides and other aspects of modern
farm technology since they began working Tom Wiley's family homestead
in the 1970s.

In the late 1990s, events unrelated to the biotechnology industry
politicized the Wileys. The federal government promulgated a
crop-insurance program and then changed the payout rules after farmers
had already bought their policies, a bait-and-switch that infuriated
the Wileys. They led a farmer coalition that sued the government, won,
and eventually got an act of Congress passed to correct the problem.

As that battle was winding down, the Wileys began hearing about
Roundup Ready wheat. They'd already had one bad experience with
biotech crops -- some high-grade soybeans they grew to make tofu
somehow got adulterated with a small amount of Roundup Ready soybeans,
probably from a neighbor's field, and buyers overseas balked.

What would happen, the Wileys wondered, if Monsanto commercialized
Roundup Ready wheat and foreign buyers suddenly grew skittish about
the American crop amid fears of adulteration? They talked to other
farmers. Even if falling prices led growers to abandon the Monsanto
product, the reputation and marketability of U.S. wheat might be
permanently damaged, the farmers reasoned.

A political movement was born. At lightning speed, it won a huge
victory when the lower house of North Dakota's Legislative Assembly
passed a moratorium in 2001 on Roundup Ready wheat. Shocked, Monsanto
and pro-biotech farm groups descended with lobbyists, and the state
Senate turned the moratorium into a mere study. But when the company
and farm groups began surveying major buyers of wheat, they found
strong resistance to the biotech crop, especially overseas.

Sitting in their farm kitchen not long ago, the Wileys recalled their
surprise as they built alliances with environmental outfits like
Greenpeace that have traditionally taken a dim view of conventional
farming. "I think all my life I've been an environmentalist," Gail
Wiley said, her voice dropping as she added, "even though you don't
say that too loudly around here."

If environmental factors influenced the Wileys' thinking, other people
in North Dakota looked at the issue in strictly dollars-and-cents
terms, and came out equally opposed to Roundup Ready wheat on the
grounds the marketplace just was not ready for it.

As the rebellion grew, Monsanto bowed to political reality, pledging a
slew of steps that the company contends will protect existing markets.
Meeting all the milestones will effectively delay Roundup Ready wheat
to 2005, if not later. Assuming Monsanto keeps its word, the farmers
have gained a two-year moratorium without having to pass one into law.

Doane, the Monsanto industry-affairs officer, has plied North Dakota
on the company's behalf. At his suggestion, a group of skeptical
farmers, not including the Wileys, boarded a Monsanto plane in
December and flew to St. Louis to talk to company leaders. The
discussion was mostly calm, but Louis Kuster, a grower from Stanley,
N.D., and a member of a state commission that promotes wheat sales,
said he took offense when a company executive, Robb Fraley,
seemed to imply that farmers opposing Monsanto might be advancing the
agenda of radical environmental groups.

"At that point I countered, and I did raise my voice a little bit and
I was a little bit angry, and I looked right straight at him and he
was only about five feet away from me, and I said, 'You're not talking
to the Greens here today,' " Kuster recalled. " 'We're money people.
We need to make money, too.' "


'Who Can You Trust?'

Gripping the wheel of his pickup truck on a chilly North Dakota
morning, an affable man named Terry Wanzek pointed with pride to the
several thousand acres of fields that make up his family farm. Wanzek,
squarely in the pro-biotech camp, acknowledged that the market risks
cited by opponents are real. But as he showed off his farm's spotless
grain-handling system, he declared the problems manageable.

Besides, Wanzek said, what kind of message would it send to a biotech
industry investing billions in new technology if the very customers
the companies are trying to benefit, farmers, respond by kicking them
in the teeth?

People on Wanzek's side of the issue generally take the view that
Monsanto's go-slow promises can be believed, and they also take
seriously a decade of rulings from the Environmental Protection
Agency, the Food and Drug Administration, and the U.S. Department of
Agriculture declaring biotech crops safe.

"If you can't trust EPA and you can't trust FDA and you can't trust
USDA," Wanzek said as his truck crunched its way down gravel roads,
"who can you trust?"

This is Monsanto's position, too -- that federal regulators will make
the right decisions. But the company has been forced to acknowledge
that, whatever Washington and Ottawa decide, the risk of overseas
rejection is real. Monsanto has lately papered the Great Plains states
with brochures outlining how it will proceed.

For starters, the company said it will wait until the United States,
Canada (the nation's largest competitor in selling wheat) and Japan
(its largest customer, most years) approve the crop. And the company
said it will help institute "appropriate grain handling protocols" to
keep biotech wheat separate from regular wheat. Monsanto acknowledges
that total separation of the crops in fields, combines and grain bins
is impossible but argues that adequate separation can be achieved.

Doane, the industry-affairs director, said Monsanto will honor those
commitments. "We've put it in black and white," he said. But distrust
of Monsanto runs deep enough in the Great Plains that politicians who
support the company can pay a price.

Wanzek isn't just any farmer -- he was, until recently, the Republican
chairman of the Senate agriculture committee in North Dakota's
citizen-legislature. His committee was largely responsible for killing
the biotech-wheat moratorium in the last legislative session. He was
defeated by a Democrat last November in a campaign in which his
support for biotech crops became a major issue. "The wheat deal, I
think, did cost me some votes," he said.

Wanzek's opponent, April Fairfield, was one of at least three
legislative candidates to use opposition to Roundup Ready wheat as a
signature campaign issue. All won.

Fairfield has failed so far to win a moratorium. Lawmakers also turned
down a related measure to shift legal liability to companies like
Monsanto if their crops taint nearby farms. Similar legislation has
stalled in Montana, South Dakota and other states where wheat revolts
are underway. Republicans, many of whom initially supported the North
Dakota moratorium, have closed ranks to defend the technology, largely
because of Monsanto's promises.

Passions remain high. As Fairfield described her winning campaign and
her losing attempts at lawmaking, in an interview in the basement
cafeteria of the North Dakota Legislative Assembly in Bismarck, a
fellow named Lance Hagen, executive director of the North Dakota Grain
Growers Association, ambled by. "Biotech or bust, baby!" he declared.
"That's our motto."


Unlikely Allies

Past midnight on a summer's evening three years ago, Larry Bohlen
walked out of a Safeway supermarket in Silver Spring toting $66.32
worth of taco shells and other corn products. By the time Bohlen,
director of health and environment programs at Friends of the Earth,
and his allies in the environmental movement were done having the corn
products tested for adulteration, they had forced American food and
biotech companies into a recall costing hundreds of
millions of dollars.

A biotech corn called StarLink, meant only for animal consumption, had
made its way into the human food supply through sloppy grain handling.
The incident foreshadowed another mishap last year, in which corn
genetically engineered to grow a pig vaccine nearly made its way into
food.

The problems have made large American food companies exceedingly
nervous about biotechnology. More than half their products in the
United States contain biotech ingredients, particularly lecithin or
protein made from Roundup Ready soybeans, and they live in fear that
some contamination incident will provoke a U.S. consumer backlash.

"Right now, public acceptance of biotechnology in America is
relatively high," Betsy D. Holden, co-chief executive of Kraft Foods
Inc., said in a recent speech in Arlington. "But how many more times
can we test the public's trust before we begin to lose it?"

The food industry has been publicly skeptical of Roundup Ready wheat.
Behind closed doors, according to three people privy to the
discussions, the industry has been far blunter with Monsanto and its
biotech allies. "Don't want it. Don't need it," one person said the
message has been.

The food companies have been killing smaller biotech crops like
potatoes and sugar beets for several years. Knowledgeable people say
the food companies have essentially told Monsanto they will try to
kill Roundup Ready wheat if the company moves forward, asking
suppliers to accept only conventional wheat.

At the same time, the food companies are under political pressure from
biotech supporters on Capitol Hill not to come out publicly against
gene-altered crops. That makes for a volatile situation where it is
hard to predict exactly what the food companies will do until the
wheat is approved.

Out on the Great Plains, farmers skeptical of the crop are hoping the
food companies come down as allies, but they are not counting on it.
Their efforts stalled in state legislatures, the farmers recently
petitioned the Agriculture Department for a full environmental and
economic assessment of Roundup Ready wheat before the government
grants approval.

Some farmers acknowledge that Monsanto will probably win approval
eventually but say they're looking for any stalling tactic they can
find.

"I feel that we have accomplished something, in that it's slowing up
the process so that more thought can go into it," said Kuster, the
farmer from Stanley, N.D. "The slower it goes, the more chance it has
of getting done right."

The only major concern by farmers about RR wheat is it's marketability.
There is no point in growing something that we can't sell.

The green lobby has wandered off coarse and are trying to block the most
positive technology we have ever found for the environment and ill-informed
believers like Torsten have swallowed their story hook line and sinker.

So called green groups that try to block GM crops and promote organic
farming methods as the answer to the world food problems simple don't
understand the basics of agriculture.

Gordon
"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
TITLE: The Heartland Wrestles With Biotechnology
SOURCE: The Washington Post, USA, by Justin Gillis

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Apr21.html
DATE: Apr 22, 2003

The Heartland Wrestles With Biotechnology

By no means does the opposition movement command unanimous allegiance
in farm country -- the issue has split farmers, farm organizations and
legislatures in at least four states and two Canadian provinces, with
the pro-biotech side plausibly claiming majority support among farmers
in most of those places.

But the strength of the opposition has provoked a rollicking debate.
Roundup Ready wheat is emerging as a key test of whether the
biotechnology industry can take charge of the destiny of a major crop
used primarily as food, something it has yet to accomplish despite
successes in other crops.

On Fri, 25 Apr 2003 21:49:16 -0500, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

The only major concern by farmers about RR wheat is it's marketability.

It should be a major concern to them, if their customers send signals
of "Don't want it. Don't need it", as reported in the article.

There is no point in growing something that we can't sell.

Exactly. There is a distinct possibility that RR wheat for bread could
fall in that category.

The green lobby has wandered off coarse

Perhaps from screaming 'The sky is falling' too much?
Sorry, couldn't resist. :-)

and are trying to block the most
positive technology we have ever found for the environment

Yeah, speak about hype.

and ill-informed
believers like Torsten have swallowed their story hook line and sinker.

Shrug. In the discussions we have had you have found me well-informed
and not at all gullible.

So called green groups that try to block GM crops and promote organic
farming methods as the answer to the world food problems simple don't
understand the basics of agriculture.

Otoh, those who would try to block organic farming methods and promote
GM crops as the answer to the worlds food problems would seem to be
wildly off, too.

It stands to reason that if GM crops were -the- answer to the worlds
food problems, we would have no option but to persue it. Reality,
however, is rather more complex.

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 25 Apr 2003 21:49:16 -0500, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

The only major concern by farmers about RR wheat is it's marketability.

It should be a major concern to them, if their customers send signals
of "Don't want it. Don't need it", as reported in the article.

There is no point in growing something that we can't sell.

Exactly. There is a distinct possibility that RR wheat for bread could
fall in that category.

yes, but only a possibility. So far there isn't a lot of evidence either
way, and the success of RR soya seems to indicate that the possibility is
relatively remote.

Certainly for a lot of the world last year the choice was to buy US, UK, or
Ukranian, and the latter seems to be off the market for next year due to
marketting scandals and the arrest of the agriculture minister

Jim Webster

----- Original Message -----
From: "Torsten Brinch"
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture
Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2003 3:00 AM
Subject: German GM wheat trials approved but site sabotaged


: On Fri, 25 Apr 2003 21:49:16 -0500, "Gordon Couger"
: wrote:
:
: The only major concern by farmers about RR wheat is it's marketability.
:
: It should be a major concern to them, if their customers send signals
: of "Don't want it. Don't need it", as reported in the article.
:
: There is no point in growing something that we can't sell.
:
: Exactly. There is a distinct possibility that RR wheat for bread could
: fall in that category.
:
: The green lobby has wandered off coarse
:
: Perhaps from screaming 'The sky is falling' too much?
: Sorry, couldn't resist. :-)
:
: and are trying to block the most
: positive technology we have ever found for the environment
:
: Yeah, speak about hype.
:
: and ill-informed
: believers like Torsten have swallowed their story hook line and sinker.
:
: Shrug. In the discussions we have had you have found me well-informed
: and not at all gullible.
:
: So called green groups that try to block GM crops and promote organic
: farming methods as the answer to the world food problems simple don't
: understand the basics of agriculture.
:
: Otoh, those who would try to block organic farming methods and promote
: GM crops as the answer to the worlds food problems would seem to be
: wildly off, too.
:
: It stands to reason that if GM crops were -the- answer to the worlds
: food problems, we would have no option but to persue it. Reality,
: however, is rather more complex.
:
Torsten,

Crops that use half the CO2 to grow, almost completely stop erosion,
increase organic matter in the soil at a rate of 1% a year for at least 15
years and restore much of the invertebrate and microbiolical organisms to
the soil and in the case of BT cotton can put a dent in 25% of the
insecticide used in the world have a great deal more effect than organic
farming.

In 1900 Europe was on the verge of starvation using organic farming method
because of the British blockade of Chilean nitrate. AFAIK very little has
changed in the last hundred years except organic farmer sponge insect
control off their neighbors who control their bugs. They had a great deal
more manure then than we do now. There is not enonough manure in the world
to produce over 50 % of the food we need and then only if it put on the
feild with no loss. From the time it leave the cow, pig, chicken or horses
bacteria are betaking it down and releasing ammonia into the air. If it
weathers for 6 month over the winter the is very little nitrogen in it.

For some one that is such a prolific poster to ag.science I find it odd that
you can manage to control you pest well enough to grow an organic garden.
Most of us here have some experience in razing corps and don't draw our
experiance from web pages and articles.

The time I tried to explain the inefficiency of the protein/nitrogen cycle
and you tried to use a loss system use only nitrogen in its element form
made it plain you had no idea what is involved in the way nutrients move in
the environment.

You can study all you want about farming but if you study crap you learn
carp.

Remember I was raised using organic methods and still rotate my crops with
legumes at a higher rate than most organic operation becase alfalfa is my
number 1 dryland crop. It won't do the job except in very special cases and
it doesn't do them well because of the added labor. Farm labor is not of
value to a countries economy. They need to be contributing more to the
economy that a human weeding machine.

Demark has a little over twice the farm land in the county I was rasied in
and 50 times as much land as the fellow that farms my wife place and 100
time the amount the fellow that farms my place and 20 times as big as the
ranch. You don't look out side you area and don't pay very close attention
to it. I had to point out your constitution to you. Look at the world
outside your window

I don't know about the rest of the farmers on here but my family on both
sides have been in farming and cattle as far back as we can trace them. We
are innovators the try to be the third or forth to try new technology and
learn from the mistakes of others. Unlike you that are content to make the
same mistake over and over on 98% of the Us farmers or more when measured by
land abandoned these methods over 50 years ago.

Since the US and Oz have the only ag research that is really effective in
the world until China's recent entry I am not surprised that the people of
the EU believe anything that they read in the paper.

There is only one way to see what modern farming is and that is in the farm
where they are doing it. Very few journalist get it right. They sure don't
get all the benefits like clean runoff water and increasing organic matter
right.

Either learn something about agriculture or go back to environmental science
where you dunder headed thinking is the norm. Just because you smother an
issue in verbiage it doesn't hide you lack of knowledge of the underlying
process.

Your tiresome whining, endless quotes of scientific garbage followed by
tedious semantic arguments over words is a pain in the ass.

Gordon

Gordon

On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 07:01:04 -0500, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:


----- Original Message -----
From: "Torsten Brinch"
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture
Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2003 3:00 AM
Subject: German GM wheat trials approved but site sabotaged


: On Fri, 25 Apr 2003 21:49:16 -0500, "Gordon Couger"
: wrote:
:
: The only major concern by farmers about RR wheat is it's marketability.
:
: It should be a major concern to them, if their customers send signals
: of "Don't want it. Don't need it", as reported in the article.
:
: There is no point in growing something that we can't sell.
:
: Exactly. There is a distinct possibility that RR wheat for bread could
: fall in that category.
:
: The green lobby has wandered off coarse
:
: Perhaps from screaming 'The sky is falling' too much?
: Sorry, couldn't resist. :-)
:
: and are trying to block the most
: positive technology we have ever found for the environment
:
: Yeah, speak about hype.
:
: and ill-informed
: believers like Torsten have swallowed their story hook line and sinker.
:
: Shrug. In the discussions we have had you have found me well-informed
: and not at all gullible.
:
: So called green groups that try to block GM crops and promote organic
: farming methods as the answer to the world food problems simple don't
: understand the basics of agriculture.
:
: Otoh, those who would try to block organic farming methods and promote
: GM crops as the answer to the worlds food problems would seem to be
: wildly off, too.
:
: It stands to reason that if GM crops were -the- answer to the worlds
: food problems, we would have no option but to persue it. Reality,
: however, is rather more complex.
:
Torsten,

Crops that use half the CO2 to grow snip

Yes, Gordon, what crops are you talking about?

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 07:01:04 -0500, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:


----- Original Message -----
From: "Torsten Brinch"
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture
Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2003 3:00 AM
Subject: German GM wheat trials approved but site sabotaged


: On Fri, 25 Apr 2003 21:49:16 -0500, "Gordon Couger"
: wrote:
:
: The only major concern by farmers about RR wheat is it's
marketability.
:
: It should be a major concern to them, if their customers send signals
: of "Don't want it. Don't need it", as reported in the article.
:
: There is no point in growing something that we can't sell.
:
: Exactly. There is a distinct possibility that RR wheat for bread could
: fall in that category.
:
: The green lobby has wandered off coarse
:
: Perhaps from screaming 'The sky is falling' too much?
: Sorry, couldn't resist. :-)
:
: and are trying to block the most
: positive technology we have ever found for the environment
:
: Yeah, speak about hype.
:
: and ill-informed
: believers like Torsten have swallowed their story hook line and
sinker.
:
: Shrug. In the discussions we have had you have found me well-informed
: and not at all gullible.
:
: So called green groups that try to block GM crops and promote organic
: farming methods as the answer to the world food problems simple don't
: understand the basics of agriculture.
:
: Otoh, those who would try to block organic farming methods and promote
: GM crops as the answer to the worlds food problems would seem to be
: wildly off, too.
:
: It stands to reason that if GM crops were -the- answer to the worlds
: food problems, we would have no option but to persue it. Reality,
: however, is rather more complex.
:
Torsten,

Crops that use half the CO2 to grow snip

Yes, Gordon, what crops are you talking about?

The CO2 saved by reduced fuel use in farming soybeans and cotton in notill
cropping. That doesn't count the carbon sink that no till makes until the
organic matter in the soil reaches equilibrium.

GM crops aren't the whole answer but the methods they use not only can
introduce novel traits but speed up normal breeding programs. Since more and
more of the plant breeding is going commercial efficiency takes on more
importance.

Improved seed is the fastest and surest way to improve agriculture in the
third world. It take very little training and the seed keeps on replicating
it's self and the industry has forgone royalties on substance crops for the
third world.

It is not the commercial sector that is driving the commercialization of
crop breeding it is the lack of public funding to support crop breeders and
ag research in general. When I went to work for Oklahoma State 12 years ago
over half the work we did was government funded now almost all is funded by
industry.

If you don't like commercialization some one has to pay for the research and
deploying what ever methods they decide to use.

There sure isn't any significant amount of the greens money being spent on
solutions. With Africa on the edge of famine all they do is try to make it
worse by spreading lies about GM food.

Gordon

On Sun, 27 Apr 2003 01:08:52 -0500, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:
"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 07:01:04 -0500, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:
Crops that use half the CO2 to grow snip

Yes, Gordon, what crops are you talking about?

The CO2 saved by reduced fuel use in farming soybeans and
cotton in notill cropping.

You are talking about no-till crops? But were you not talking
about GM crops? Are you now equating the two? There
is poor correlation of GM-crop area to no-till area in
the data, a fact which I have repeatedly drawn your attention
to.

You are talking about CO2 from fuel use? But were you not
suggesting halfing total CO2 emission from growing the crop?
Are you now equating the two?

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
You are talking about no-till crops? But were you not talking
about GM crops? Are you now equating the two? There
is poor correlation of GM-crop area to no-till area in
the data, a fact which I have repeatedly drawn your attention
to.

what might not be apparent to an urban european is that no-till and gm go
very much hand in hand for many farmers in the USA


You are talking about CO2 from fuel use? But were you not
suggesting halfing total CO2 emission from growing the crop?
Are you now equating the two?

you are now putting words into peoples mouths again

Jim Webster

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Apr 2003 01:08:52 -0500, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:
"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 07:01:04 -0500, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:
Crops that use half the CO2 to grow snip

Yes, Gordon, what crops are you talking about?

The CO2 saved by reduced fuel use in farming soybeans and
cotton in notill cropping.

You are talking about no-till crops? But were you not talking
about GM crops? Are you now equating the two? There
is poor correlation of GM-crop area to no-till area in
the data, a fact which I have repeatedly drawn your attention
to.

You are talking about CO2 from fuel use? But were you not
suggesting halfing total CO2 emission from growing the crop?
Are you now equating the two?

For broad leaved crops in particular the genetic resistance to Round Up
makes no till possible. With other herbicides some weed finds a niche quite
quickly. Corn is an exception to this. Atrizine as a preplant or early
postemergance treatment and 2-4-D alone and in combination with other
herbicides through the season will kill practically anything but corn, The
fact that corn grows tall enough to shade out many weeds makes weed control
in notill easier as well.

Before RR cotton and beans there was no such thing as no till cotton or
beans. I don't know how many of our 12 million acers will be no till this
year and we won't until after planting time. I just got a email from a
friend that has two places of wheat hailed out that he will put back as
notill cotton. The fellow that farms my home place killed 100 acres of wheat
to put no till cotton in. We didn't get the irrigation in west Texas in soon
enough to get wheat growing on it for cover but I expect he will next year.
At least that was the plan last I heard.

With out Round Up no till is not possible for any broad leaf crop I know of.
It would extend the amount of time you can rasie no till wheat before
herbicide resistant weeds take over.

Gordon

On Mon, 28 Apr 2003 00:34:05 -0500, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:
Before RR cotton and beans there was no such thing as no till cotton or
beans.

Get a grip, will you. There was bloody no RR cotton and beans until
after 1995.

Tillage Survey News Release 1993:
"The most dramatic increase among the conservation tillage systems
came in the no-till category, increasing from 20.6 million acres in
1991 to 28.1 million acres in 1992. The state of Iowa posted the
biggest jump in no-till acreage going from seventh with 972,000 acres
in 1991 to second nationally with 2.7 million acres in 1992. Illinois
continues to lead the way with 4.7 million acres. Indiana is third in
no-till with 2.6 million acres followed by Ohio with 2.4 million, and
Missouri with 1.9 million. No-till gained significant acreage in full
season corn, soybeans and cotton while posting moderate increases in
small grains, grain sorghum and forage seeding. No-till acres of full
season soybeans increased dramatically for the fifth consecutive year.
The 1992 figure is nearly four times the notill soybean acreage
documented in 1989. The cotton crop, which began indicating no-till
increases more recently, shows a tremendous gain of ten times the 1989
acreage. Tennessee, Mississippi and Alabama lead the growth curve in
no-till cotton in 1992."