GardenBanter.co.uk - German GM wheat trials approved but site sabotaged

GardenBanter.co.uk (https://www.gardenbanter.co.uk/)

- sci.agriculture (https://www.gardenbanter.co.uk/sci-agriculture/)

- - German GM wheat trials approved but site sabotaged (https://www.gardenbanter.co.uk/sci-agriculture/15633-german-gm-wheat-trials-approved-but-site-sabotaged.html)

German GM wheat trials approved but site sabotaged

German GM wheat trials approved but site sabotaged

HAMBURG - German authorities said this week they have approved an
application from Swiss agribusiness group Syngenta AG to start
Germany's first trials of genetically-modified (GM) wheat.

But on Tuesday some 25 Greenpeace activists sowed organic wheat seed
on the test site, aimed at ruining trials as it will be impossible to
tell the difference between GMO and conventional wheat, said
Greenpeace spokesman Henning Strodthoff.

A spokesman for Germany's state owned Robert Koch scientific
institute, responsible for approving the safety of GM crop trials in
the country, said this week approval for trials this year on the 400
metre site had been given.

The country forbids commercial production of GM crops but permits
research plantings.

Syngenta had applied for permission for trail plantings of wheat
resistant to the fungus fusarium in the eastern state of Thuringia.
About 75 square metres would actually have had GM seeds.

"It does seem that the test area may not be usable," said Peter
Hefner, a spokesman for Syngenta in Germany. "There is a time limit to
plantings because of the wheat's biology."

"The approval process is also extremely complex and we cannot simply
ignore it to react to this changed situation." He added: "We have gone
through the approval process and answered all objections about safety.
The application was approved but trials cannot go forward because an
apparent legal act has occurred."

"This raises questions about how we can undertake scientific research
in Germany. It appears undertaking such research in Germany will be
problematic."

He said Syngenta is studying the legality of the protest and reserves
its right to take legal action.

Greenpeace's Strodthoff said the organisation did not regard its
protest as illegal.
"At the time of the planting this was just normal farmland and no
approval for GM trials had been given," he said.

German GM wheat trials approved but site sabotaged

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
German GM wheat trials approved but site sabotaged

HAMBURG - German authorities said this week they have approved an
application from Swiss agribusiness group Syngenta AG to start
Germany's first trials of genetically-modified (GM) wheat.

But on Tuesday some 25 Greenpeace activists sowed organic wheat seed
on the test site, aimed at ruining trials as it will be impossible to
tell the difference between GMO and conventional wheat, said
Greenpeace spokesman Henning Strodthoff.

I love it, if it is impossible to tell the difference between GMO and
conventional wheats, what is the risk posed by GMO when it is in the food
chain

sounds like Henning Strodthoff has benefited from a liberal arts education

Jim Webster

German GM wheat trials approved but site sabotaged

I love it, if it is impossible to tell the difference between GMO and
conventional wheats, what is the risk posed by GMO when it is in the food
chain

It may look the same (which is the point of the sowing), but is the
GMO wheat safe?

regards
Marcus

German GM wheat trials approved but site sabotaged

wrote in message
...

I love it, if it is impossible to tell the difference between GMO and
conventional wheats, what is the risk posed by GMO when it is in the food
chain

It may look the same (which is the point of the sowing), but is the
GMO wheat safe?

no, it just shows the stupidity of Greenpeace activists.

come on, work it out for yourself.

What is the difference between this GM wheat and conventional wheat? What do
the added genes do?

Jim Webster
regards
Marcus

German GM wheat trials approved but site sabotaged

What is the difference between this GM wheat and conventional wheat? What do
the added genes do?

For RR wheat, it means that Roundup can be sprayed on the wheat. This
means that there will be more glyphosate residue on the food/feed when
it is consumed.

The UK government increased the allowed residue by 200 times,
otherwise RR crops could not go ahead (see below).

The safety of the RR gene inserted has not been proven, as safety
tests have never been carried out. Instead, the UK government relies
on "assessment" of data provided by the manufacturer, which is not
based on testing.

regards
Marcus

Publication Date: September 21, 1999

Pesticide safety limit raised by 200 times 'to suit GM industry'
DAILY MAIL
CAMPAIGN/GENETIC FOOD WATCH
Daily Mail

THE limits on pesticide residues allowed in soya have been
increased 200-fold to help the GM industry, according to one
of the country's leading food safety experts.

Malcolm Kane, who has just taken early retirement as head of
food safety at Sainsbury's, warned that higher levels of pesticide
residues could appear in a range of foods from breakfast cereals to
biscuits.

He raised concerns that although the toxin levels are low, there may
be dangers associated with long-term consumption.

The claims were rejected by the Government's GM spin unit but are
bound to fuel hostility to the tainted technology.

The fact that the warning comes from such a respected source is
highly embarrassing for the Government and biotech firms.

Previously, UK and European rules stated that residues of the
pesticide glyphosate left on a crop of soya beans should not be higher
than 0.1 parts per million.

But according to Mr Kane, the Government has increased this figure by
200 times to 20 parts per million specifically to smooth the path of
GM soya into the national diet.

The soya has been modified to withstand spraying by glyphosate which
is sold by the giant U.S. biotech firm [ Monsanto ] under the brand
name Roundup.

This means it can be sprayed more heavily without any of the soya
plants being harmed. But one negative result could be that higher
residues of the chemical are left on the plant when it is harvested.

Mr Kane believes that rather than force the industry and farmers to
meet the existing safety levels, officials have instead relaxed the
rules to ensure GM crops remain legal.

While soya is sprayed with glyphosate, other crops, specifically
maize or corn, have been manipulated to contain their own
insecticides. These are designed to kill off pests which attack the
plants so leading to bigger crops, but Mr Kane raises the possibility
that these pesticides will also find their way into human food. A
major loophole in the regulatory system means there is no way of
monitoring or policing levels of pesticide which
are effectively injected into plants through GM technology.

Mr Kane argues that the development of crops which are herbicide-
resistant
and pesticide-resistant was a major mistake by the biotech industry
because
these do not offer any benefits to consumer.

He believes that a better handling of the technology with an emphasis
on
the production of foods which are higher in important vitamins or
other
chemicals which promote a more healthy lifestyle could have produced
a much
more positive reception.

'One does not need to be an activist or overtly anti-GM to point out
that
herbicide-resistant crops come at the price of containing significant
chemical residues of the active chemical in the commercial
weedkiller,'
said Mr Kane. 'Conventional food crops will have no such residues.'
He
added: 'Consumers are understandably concerned about chemical
residues in
the food supply, and it is the responsibility of food industry
professionals
to protect and defend their requirements.

Undoubtedly, GM offers longer-term benefits in food quality and
nutrition.
However, the two most significant GM food developments currently
being
exploited, herbicide-resistance and insect-resistance, offer no
consumer
benefits.' A spokesman for the Government's GM spin unit said that
the
residue level had been changed in 1997, after GM soya was approved in
Europe.

'The change was made because of a change in farming practice for all
soya,
both conventional and GM, it was not done to suit the GM industry,'
said
the spokesman.

While in the past the crops had been sprayed early in the growing
season,
farmers had now decided to spray them before harvest to speed up the
drying
process, she said.

However, Mr Kane, who now runs his own food safety con-sultancy,
Cambridge
Food Control, described this explanation as a red herring.

'This whole debate has been dogged by misinformation,' he said.

'There is absolutely no good reason for raising the residue limit on
soya
other that to satisfy the GM companies.' Friends of the Earth biotech
expert
Adrian Bebb said glyphosate was a suspected 'gender bender', adding:
'It is
extremely long lasting in the food chain and has been implicated in
changing
hormone levels in humans and reducing sperm counts in men.'

German GM wheat trials approved but site sabotaged

wrote in message
...

What is the difference between this GM wheat and conventional wheat? What
do
the added genes do?

For RR wheat, it means that Roundup can be sprayed on the wheat. This
means that there will be more glyphosate residue on the food/feed when
it is consumed.

exactly, spot on, 10 out of 10

so the first they they do is spray the crop with roundup, the organic wheat
dies, the RR wheat continues

and "But on Tuesday some 25 Greenpeace activists sowed organic wheat seed
on the test site, aimed at ruining trials as it will be impossible to
tell the difference between GMO and conventional wheat, said
Greenpeace spokesman Henning Strodthoff."

just managed to prove how ignorant they actually are

where to they find these people

Jim Webster

German GM wheat trials approved but site sabotaged

Jim Webster writes

so the first they they do is spray the crop with roundup, the organic wheat
dies, the RR wheat continues

Indeed. But hey jim, your knowledge of arable is like, zero.

and "But on Tuesday some 25 Greenpeace activists sowed organic wheat seed
on the test site, aimed at ruining trials as it will be impossible to
tell the difference between GMO and conventional wheat, said
Greenpeace spokesman Henning Strodthoff."

just managed to prove how ignorant they actually are

Mindblowingly so.

where do they find these people

I doubt you should expect activist to have a clue about what they are on
about.

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

German GM wheat trials approved but site sabotaged

On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 18:00:50 +0100, Jim Webster wrote:

so the first they they do is spray the crop with roundup, the organic
wheat dies, the RR wheat continues

RR wheat in a ... Syngenta! trial ... Hello?

Mike

and "But on Tuesday some 25 Greenpeace activists sowed organic wheat
seed on the test site, aimed at ruining trials as it will be impossible
to tell the difference between GMO and conventional wheat, said
Greenpeace spokesman Henning Strodthoff."

just managed to prove how ignorant they actually are

where to they find these people

Jim Webster

German GM wheat trials approved but site sabotaged

"Michael Percy" wrote in message
s.com...
On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 18:00:50 +0100, Jim Webster wrote:

so the first they they do is spray the crop with roundup, the organic
wheat dies, the RR wheat continues

RR wheat in a ... Syngenta! trial ... Hello?

Mike

I merely quote from the source of all knowledge, Marcus

Jim Webster

and "But on Tuesday some 25 Greenpeace activists sowed organic wheat
seed on the test site, aimed at ruining trials as it will be impossible
to tell the difference between GMO and conventional wheat, said
Greenpeace spokesman Henning Strodthoff."

just managed to prove how ignorant they actually are

where to they find these people

Jim Webster

German GM wheat trials approved but site sabotaged

"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

"Michael Percy" wrote in message
s.com...
On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 18:00:50 +0100, Jim Webster wrote:

so the first they they do is spray the crop with roundup, the organic
wheat dies, the RR wheat continues

RR wheat in a ... Syngenta! trial ... Hello?

Mike

I merely quote from the source of all knowledge, Marcus

I don't know if the wheat is RR wheat or not.

All the players in GM crops license their technology. The deal won't work if
they don't. In China Monsanto gave China license to the BT gene to get the
right to sell BT cotton there. Monsanto was so much more successful with
their cotton that China has barred foreign investment in their bio
technology industry early this year.

Monsanto's seed was more expensive than Chinese's BT cotton but farmers
bought the best seed they could get and it wasn't Chinese.

This year Monsanto has a better BT protien in their cotton than the first
generation. It won't make me much difference but the guys in the south were
they have more worm problems will go for it. And they will probably use it
in Arizona and New Mexico to see if they can kill out the pink boll worm.

Gordon

Gordon

German GM wheat trials approved but site sabotaged

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

"Gordon Couger" wrote in message
news:3ea664a3_2@newsfeed...

"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

"Michael Percy" wrote in message
s.com...
On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 18:00:50 +0100, Jim Webster wrote:

so the first they they do is spray the crop with roundup, the
organic
wheat dies, the RR wheat continues

RR wheat in a ... Syngenta! trial ... Hello?

Mike

I merely quote from the source of all knowledge, Marcus

I don't know if the wheat is RR wheat or not.

All the players in GM crops license their technology. The deal won't work
if
they don't. In China Monsanto gave China license to the BT gene to get the
right to sell BT cotton there. Monsanto was so much more successful with
their cotton that China has barred foreign investment in their bio
technology industry early this year.

Monsanto's seed was more expensive than Chinese's BT cotton but farmers
bought the best seed they could get and it wasn't Chinese.

This year Monsanto has a better BT protien in their cotton than the first
generation. It won't make me much difference but the guys in the south
were
they have more worm problems will go for it. And they will probably use it
in Arizona and New Mexico to see if they can kill out the pink boll worm.

Gordon

Gordon

German GM wheat trials approved but site sabotaged

All they have to do is find another feild. Surely there are other plots that
have histories to meet the needs of the trial.

Gordon
"David Kendra" wrote in message
et...
I would suspect that the Syngenta wheat did not contain RR technology.
It
was a plant health/food safety trait.

"Gordon Couger" wrote in message
news:3ea664a3_2@newsfeed...

"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

"Michael Percy" wrote in message
s.com...
On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 18:00:50 +0100, Jim Webster wrote:

so the first they they do is spray the crop with roundup, the
organic
wheat dies, the RR wheat continues

RR wheat in a ... Syngenta! trial ... Hello?

Mike

I merely quote from the source of all knowledge, Marcus

I don't know if the wheat is RR wheat or not.

All the players in GM crops license their technology. The deal won't
work
if
they don't. In China Monsanto gave China license to the BT gene to get
the
right to sell BT cotton there. Monsanto was so much more successful with
their cotton that China has barred foreign investment in their bio
technology industry early this year.

Monsanto's seed was more expensive than Chinese's BT cotton but farmers
bought the best seed they could get and it wasn't Chinese.

This year Monsanto has a better BT protien in their cotton than the
first
generation. It won't make me much difference but the guys in the south
were
they have more worm problems will go for it. And they will probably use
it
in Arizona and New Mexico to see if they can kill out the pink boll
worm.

Gordon

Gordon

German GM wheat trials approved but site sabotaged

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.

"Gordon Couger" wrote in message
news:3ea664a3_2@newsfeed...

"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

"Michael Percy" wrote in message
s.com...
On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 18:00:50 +0100, Jim Webster wrote:

so the first they they do is spray the crop with roundup, the
organic
wheat dies, the RR wheat continues

RR wheat in a ... Syngenta! trial ... Hello?

Mike

I merely quote from the source of all knowledge, Marcus

I don't know if the wheat is RR wheat or not.

All the players in GM crops license their technology. The deal won't work
if
they don't. In China Monsanto gave China license to the BT gene to get the
right to sell BT cotton there. Monsanto was so much more successful with
their cotton that China has barred foreign investment in their bio
technology industry early this year.

Monsanto's seed was more expensive than Chinese's BT cotton but farmers
bought the best seed they could get and it wasn't Chinese.

This year Monsanto has a better BT protien in their cotton than the first
generation. It won't make me much difference but the guys in the south
were
they have more worm problems will go for it. And they will probably use it
in Arizona and New Mexico to see if they can kill out the pink boll worm.

Gordon

Gordon

German GM wheat trials approved but site sabotaged

I suspect that seed supplies may be limited since I believe it was a "proof
of concept" evaluation.

"Gordon Couger" wrote in message
news:3ea72421_2@newsfeed...
All they have to do is find another feild. Surely there are other plots
that
have histories to meet the needs of the trial.

Gordon
"David Kendra" wrote in message
et...
I would suspect that the Syngenta wheat did not contain RR technology.
It
was a plant health/food safety trait.

"Gordon Couger" wrote in message
news:3ea664a3_2@newsfeed...

"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

"Michael Percy" wrote in message
s.com...
On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 18:00:50 +0100, Jim Webster wrote:

so the first they they do is spray the crop with roundup, the
organic
wheat dies, the RR wheat continues

RR wheat in a ... Syngenta! trial ... Hello?

Mike

I merely quote from the source of all knowledge, Marcus

I don't know if the wheat is RR wheat or not.

All the players in GM crops license their technology. The deal won't
work
if
they don't. In China Monsanto gave China license to the BT gene to get
the
right to sell BT cotton there. Monsanto was so much more successful
with
their cotton that China has barred foreign investment in their bio
technology industry early this year.

Monsanto's seed was more expensive than Chinese's BT cotton but
farmers
bought the best seed they could get and it wasn't Chinese.

This year Monsanto has a better BT protien in their cotton than the
first
generation. It won't make me much difference but the guys in the south
were
they have more worm problems will go for it. And they will probably
use
it
in Arizona and New Mexico to see if they can kill out the pink boll
worm.

Gordon

Gordon

German GM wheat trials approved but site sabotaged

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.

German GM wheat trials approved but site sabotaged

"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

German GM wheat trials approved but site sabotaged

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.

German GM wheat trials approved but site sabotaged

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."

German GM wheat trials approved but site sabotaged

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.

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.

German GM wheat trials approved but site sabotaged

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
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

German GM wheat trials approved but site sabotaged

----- 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

German GM wheat trials approved but site sabotaged

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?

German GM wheat trials approved but site sabotaged

"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

German GM wheat trials approved but site sabotaged

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?

German GM wheat trials approved but site sabotaged

"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

German GM wheat trials approved but site sabotaged

"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

German GM wheat trials approved but site sabotaged

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."

German GM wheat trials approved but site sabotaged

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 1994:
"No-till corn has more than doubled in 5 years from 7 percent to 17
percent of all planted acres in 1993. No-till full season soybeans
have increased over 5 times in the last 5 years, from 4 percent of
total planted acres to 22 percent this year. Use of conservation
tillage for full season soybean production now exceeds 47 percent of
planted acres, half of which is mulch-till. No-till cotton has
increased more than 3 times in the last 3 years, with Tennessee,
Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina and Mississippi leading the way."

German GM wheat trials approved but site sabotaged

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
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 1994:
"No-till corn has more than doubled in 5 years from 7 percent to 17
percent of all planted acres in 1993. No-till full season soybeans
have increased over 5 times in the last 5 years, from 4 percent of
total planted acres to 22 percent this year. Use of conservation
tillage for full season soybean production now exceeds 47 percent of
planted acres, half of which is mulch-till. No-till cotton has
increased more than 3 times in the last 3 years, with Tennessee,
Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina and Mississippi leading the way."

Not as a multi year program.

Gordon

German GM wheat trials approved but site sabotaged

On Mon, 28 Apr 2003 16:46:31 -0500, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

From: "Torsten Brinch"
: 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 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
: snip

With out Round Up no till cotton and beans were a 1 or 2 year
rotation at snip

Gordon,

What you need to explain is how the f... you can write something
as ignorant as "Before RR cotton and beans there was no such thing
as no till cotton or beans."

German GM wheat trials approved but site sabotaged

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Apr 2003 16:46:31 -0500, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

From: "Torsten Brinch"
: 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 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
: snip

With out Round Up no till cotton and beans were a 1 or 2 year
rotation at snip

Gordon,

What you need to explain is how the f... you can write something
as ignorant as "Before RR cotton and beans there was no such thing
as no till cotton or beans."

I am talking about no till as a way of farming long term not as raising a
crop for a year or two with out tillage. We have been able to do that for
years. To be able to raise crops with out tillage over any time at all you
have to be able to control all the weeds wiht out hurting the crop. Round up
is the only herbicide that will do that. There is one that comes close for a
variety of wheat that is conventionally bread to be resistant to the
herbicide.

I thought I had made that very plain that I was talking about farming not a
crop for a year or two.

Gordon

German GM wheat trials approved but site sabotaged

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Apr 2003 16:46:31 -0500, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

From: "Torsten Brinch"
: 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 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
: snip

With out Round Up no till cotton and beans were a 1 or 2 year
rotation at snip

Gordon,

What you need to explain is how the f... you can write something
as ignorant as "Before RR cotton and beans there was no such thing
as no till cotton or beans."

he has,

read it again and try and comprehend the reality, RR has allowed a 1 or 2
year rotation

now stop playing silly debating games for points and try to discuss
practical agriculture

Jim Webster

German GM wheat trials approved but site sabotaged

"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Apr 2003 16:46:31 -0500, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

From: "Torsten Brinch"
: 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 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
: snip

With out Round Up no till cotton and beans were a 1 or 2 year
rotation at snip

Gordon,

What you need to explain is how the f... you can write something
as ignorant as "Before RR cotton and beans there was no such thing
as no till cotton or beans."

he has,

read it again and try and comprehend the reality, RR has allowed a 1 or 2
year rotation

now stop playing silly debating games for points and try to discuss
practical agriculture

Jim,

I am not talking about 1 or 2 year rotations but 5 or more years. We have
been doing continuous no till corn since the 70's. The first started working
with it in the middle 60's.
Cotton and beans are sensitive to almost all over the top broad leaf weed
killers and there are weeds that preplant and preemergence weed killers
won't get. Before Round Up resistant crops you could only get away with no
till for a year or two before resistant weeds gave you a problem. Only then
if you have a lot wetter weather then I do. Many of the post emergence
herbicides for cotton don't work very well unless the get some moisture on
them in a week after they are put on. If you were raising cotton on clay
soils where you have to rotate at least every three years because of Texas
Root Rot you could get away with it conventional chemicals with out too bad
a weed problem because you have to rotate out for 2 or 3 years anyway. I
don't know how long that fungus lives in the soil but it was still there on
place I farmed that hadn't had cotton on it in 20 years.

The mixes of herbicides used for no till before Round Up were persistent in
the soil as well.

Gordon

German GM wheat trials approved but site sabotaged

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.

On Mon, 28 Apr 2003 20:39:06 -0500, "Gordon Couger"
I am talking about no till as a way of farming long term not as raising a
crop for a year or two with out tillage.

Bwahahahahahahaha

Tillage Survey News Release 1994-1995, still no RR beans in sight:
"No-till full season (same as single crop) soybeans have increased
over 6 times in the last 6 years, from 4 percent of total planted
acres to 24 percent this year."

German GM wheat trials approved but site sabotaged

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
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.

On Mon, 28 Apr 2003 20:39:06 -0500, "Gordon Couger"
I am talking about no till as a way of farming long term not as raising a
crop for a year or two with out tillage.

Bwahahahahahahaha

Tillage Survey News Release 1994-1995, still no RR beans in sight:
"No-till full season (same as single crop) soybeans have increased
over 6 times in the last 6 years, from 4 percent of total planted
acres to 24 percent this year."

How many times do I have to tell you I am talking about no till farming not
no till crops that make no till farming possible. The no till crops except
corn before RR ready crops could not be kept on the same feilds over a
number of years. With beans that is not useualy a problem because you have
diesase problems if you raise them on the same ground too may years in a row
and you want to used the nitrogen they fix with another crop.

We have been doing no till crops for one or two seasons starting in the
sixties. Only with corn have we been able to make it a long term farming
system before round up ready crops.

I can't help you ignorance of farming, weeds, and all the midrib of other
things that make up farming. If it ain't in a book or on the intent you cant
find it.

It is like the time I tried to explain the nitrogen cycle to you and you
tried to use elemental N2 to work it out in a lossless system.

Someone claiming to be knowledgeable of farming that can't grow a garden is
rather suspect. When I was farming most of my gardens would have been
organic if the land had qualified because I didn't have time to spray them.
I was too busy cutting wheat and planting cotton to tend a garden. I just
planted it and watered it and came back and cleaned up the weeds after I got
through planting cotton and started picking. Of course I just planted enough
for me and the bugs and went on.

Gordon

German GM wheat trials approved but site sabotaged

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.

On Tue, 29 Apr 2003 06:24:39 -0500, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:
How many times do I have to tell you I am talking about no till farming not
no till crops

Bwahahahahahahaha

Tillage Survey News Release 1995-1996, and still no RR beans in sight:
"Farmers planted an additional 2.2 million acres of no-till soybeans
this year, compared to 1994. No-till soybean acres now account for 30
percent of all soybean acres planted in the U.S."

German GM wheat trials approved but site sabotaged

Another major concern from farmers that I have spoken to is the fact that
another major crop with RR technology will interfer with weed control
strategies. They already hve RR soybeans and corn so why add aother major
crop? I for one hope RR wheat is not commercialized.

Dave

"Gordon Couger" wrote in message
news:3ea9f233$1_3@newsfeed...
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.