| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
RR Wheat - but who wants it? (was GM German Wheat Trials...)
RR Wheat: NAWG Doesn't Speak for Me
Tuesday, April 29, 2003 David Dechant -- CropChoice guest commmentary -- "Wheat Groups Ask USDA to shun biotech critics" says the headline of an Apr. 25 Reuters article. It tells how the US Wheat Associates and the Wheat Export Trade Education Committee "joined with NAWG (National Association of Wheat Growers) to assert that the biotech opponents did not represent the interests of the wheat industry." Well, who are the biotech opponents? I know of no one who opposes the science of biotechnology and these wheat groups should not label people opposed to transgenic wheat with such a broad term. On the other hand, I do know many folks who have serious concerns with whatís going on in one field of biotechnology, that being, the creation of transgenic crops and animals, as well as with how the companies doing so are promoting and commercializing them. This includes a good many consumers. Do they not eat wheat, too? Are consumers not a vital part of any industry? And, what makes NAWG, WETEC, and US Wheat Associates think they and they alone represent the interests of the most basic part of the US wheat industry, the American wheat farmer himself? I find that fellow farmers who are anxious for RR wheat's introduction are few and far in between. Just because wheat farmers are forced to pay an assessment, a.k.a. checkoff, upon selling their wheat, part of which goes to help fund these groups, doesn't mean they speak for the vast majority of farmers. In fact, last spring, farmers overwhelmingly rejected an initiative in Colorado to increase the wheat checkoff from one cent to two cents per bushel by 62 percent against to 38 per cent in favor. Being that only twenty percent of wheat farmers even bothered to return their ballots in the first place, only about one out of every dozen wheat farmers, therefore, took any action to increase the checkoff. Farmers certainly feel they aren't getting any bang for their money, or else they would have approved the increase, especially being that the increased portion would have been refundable even if it did pass! NAWGís state affiliates are voluntary membership organizations and are supposed to be separate from state checkoff boards. In practice, they are not so separate and, in many cases, share staff and offices. So when Colorado Association of Wheat Growers Executive Director Darrell Hanavan testified against GMO labeling at the Colorado statehouse a few years ago, I couldn't tell whether he was speaking for the growers association or the checkoff board, that being the Colorado Wheat Administrative Committee, as he is Executive Director of it, too. Consequently, being that the original portion of the Colorado wheat checkoff is mandatory, I felt like my own money was being used against me and still do. Though I can choose not to be a member of groups heavily dependent upon agribusiness donations and favors for their existence, like CAWG or NAWG, I cannot choose whether I want to be assessed or to which group Iíd like to send my money if I want to be assessed. But if I had a choice, no groups that take corporate donations or try to force RR wheat upon an unwilling market would get any of my money. And, that includes the US Wheat Associates and WETEC when they join in with agribusiness friendly NAWG in writing to the USDA "to assert that the biotech opponents did not represent the interests of the wheat industry." They speak for Monsanto and the few wheat farmers looking forward to RR wheat, but not for me or numerous other like-minded farmers. Nor do they speak for consumers, without whom there would be no wheat market. With this in mind, a more fitting title for the Reuters article would be, "Monsanto Influences Wheat Groups in Asking USDA to Ignore Consumers." David Dechant grows wheat, corn and alfalfa in Colorado. |
RR Wheat - but who wants it? (was GM German Wheat Trials...)
"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message ... RR Wheat: NAWG Doesn't Speak for Me Tuesday, April 29, 2003 David Dechant -- CropChoice guest commmentary -- "Wheat Groups Ask USDA to shun biotech critics" says the headline of an Apr. 25 Reuters article. It tells how the US Wheat Associates and the Wheat Export Trade Education Committee "joined with NAWG (National Association of Wheat Growers) to assert that the biotech opponents did not represent the interests of the wheat industry." Well, who are the biotech opponents? I know of no one who opposes the science of biotechnology and these wheat groups should not label people opposed to transgenic wheat with such a broad term. On the other hand, I do know many folks who have serious concerns with whatís going on in one field of biotechnology, that being, the creation of transgenic crops and animals, as well as with how the companies doing so are promoting and commercializing them. This includes a good many consumers. Do they not eat wheat, too? Are consumers not a vital part of any industry? And, what makes NAWG, WETEC, and US Wheat Associates think they and they alone represent the interests of the most basic part of the US wheat industry, the American wheat farmer himself? I find that fellow farmers who are anxious for RR wheat's introduction are few and far in between. Just because wheat farmers are forced to pay an assessment, a.k.a. checkoff, upon selling their wheat, part of which goes to help fund these groups, doesn't mean they speak for the vast majority of farmers. In fact, last spring, farmers overwhelmingly rejected an initiative in Colorado to increase the wheat checkoff from one cent to two cents per bushel by 62 percent against to 38 per cent in favor. Being that only twenty percent of wheat farmers even bothered to return their ballots in the first place, only about one out of every dozen wheat farmers, therefore, took any action to increase the checkoff. Farmers certainly feel they aren't getting any bang for their money, or else they would have approved the increase, especially being that the increased portion would have been refundable even if it did pass! NAWGís state affiliates are voluntary membership organizations and are supposed to be separate from state checkoff boards. In practice, they are not so separate and, in many cases, share staff and offices. So when Colorado Association of Wheat Growers Executive Director Darrell Hanavan testified against GMO labeling at the Colorado statehouse a few years ago, I couldn't tell whether he was speaking for the growers association or the checkoff board, that being the Colorado Wheat Administrative Committee, as he is Executive Director of it, too. Consequently, being that the original portion of the Colorado wheat checkoff is mandatory, I felt like my own money was being used against me and still do. Though I can choose not to be a member of groups heavily dependent upon agribusiness donations and favors for their existence, like CAWG or NAWG, I cannot choose whether I want to be assessed or to which group Iíd like to send my money if I want to be assessed. But if I had a choice, no groups that take corporate donations or try to force RR wheat upon an unwilling market would get any of my money. And, that includes the US Wheat Associates and WETEC when they join in with agribusiness friendly NAWG in writing to the USDA "to assert that the biotech opponents did not represent the interests of the wheat industry." They speak for Monsanto and the few wheat farmers looking forward to RR wheat, but not for me or numerous other like-minded farmers. Nor do they speak for consumers, without whom there would be no wheat market. With this in mind, a more fitting title for the Reuters article would be, "Monsanto Influences Wheat Groups in Asking USDA to Ignore Consumers." David Dechant grows wheat, corn and alfalfa in Colorado. The growers, associations, Wheat boards and wheat associations are all the same people wearing different hats. If you add in farm bureau, and the rest of the insurance companies they are grooming their dog for the fight that may or may not have the interests of agriculture at the for front. The names they sport has little to do with their aims. When trade is normalize the countries that promoted GM crops will be remembered and those that tried their best ot block them will be remembered. Your orders will be filled last with the highest contracts of the day and the worst product that will meet he delivery contract. If there aren't enough rat turds in the shipment there will be by delivery time. There is a good deal of latitude in grade of corps and it can be cut a lot closer then the grade specifies. You can get the short end every time. All the grain dust, cracked grain, rat turns, mixed crops dirt and stones have to go some were and it not to our friends. Gordon |
RR Wheat - but who wants it? (was GM German Wheat Trials...)
When trade is normalize the countries that promoted GM crops will be remembered and those that tried their best ot block them will be remembered. What do you mean by "normalize"? You make this sound like a Bush-style "with us or against us" kind of speech. Whether or not to consume GM food is a personal choice which should be respected... For more on GM wheat see he http://www.gmfoodnews.com/gmwheat.html regards Marcus |
RR Wheat - but who wants it? (was GM German Wheat Trials...)
wrote in message ... When trade is normalize the countries that promoted GM crops will be remembered and those that tried their best ot block them will be remembered. What do you mean by "normalize"? You make this sound like a Bush-style "with us or against us" kind of speech. Whether or not to consume GM food is a personal choice which should be respected... it is only a choice if people are actually willing to spend money to get a more expensive option and in the UK it looks as most people aren't.After all they just allow themselves to believe what the supermarkets tell tem Jim Webster For more on GM wheat see he http://www.gmfoodnews.com/gmwheat.html regards Marcus |
RR Wheat - but who wants it? (was GM German Wheat Trials...)
Farmers taking GM fight to Ottawa SASKATOON - A group of prairie farmers plans to take concerns about genetically modified (GM) wheat to Ottawa. They are seeking a moratorium on the product until their concerns are met. "We will be telling them a moratorium should be put on the registration of GM wheat..." - Neal Hardy Saskatchewan farmers say that if Ottawa doesn't listen, and markets are lost, someone should have to pay for those losses. The Canadian Wheat Board claims that more than 80 per cent of its customers won't buy genetically modified wheat. The board and some farm groups say if Ottawa approves Monsanto's application to introduce its Roundup Ready wheat, the whole industry will suffer. They will take that message to the Senate's Agriculture Committee in Ottawa early next month. Neal Hardy, the President of the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, says his group will have a clear message for the committee. "We will be telling them a moratorium should be put on the registration of GM wheat until such time as the market accepts it or there are ways to keep it separate," says Hardy. He has no problem with the science of GM wheat, saying that someday it will be accepted in the marketplace. Until then he says someone should have to pay if GM wheat is approved, and farmers lose markets as a result of the move. "If you're going to allow it out there, we need to have something in legislation or regulations that protects the rest of us from getting it contaminated into our product that we don't want to grow. And who is going to be responsible," Hardy says. He describes it as sort of a liability clause. Under the current rules, federal officials look at food safety issues when assessing Monsanto's application, not market acceptance. |
RR Wheat - but who wants it? (was GM German Wheat Trials...)
CWB asks Monsanto to put the brakes on roundup ready wheat
Winnipeg - The Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) has called on Monsanto Canada to withdraw its application for an environmental safety assessment of Roundup Ready(R) wheat (RRW). Monsanto's RRW application is currently before the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. In a May 22 letter to Monsanto Canada's President, Peter Turner, the CWB, a farmer-controlled grain marketing agency, detailed the devastating economic impact the introduction of RRW will have on western Canadian farmers. "Economic harm could include lost access to premium markets, penalties caused by rejected shipments, and increased farm management and grain handling costs," the letter states. The letter is signed by Ken Ritter, chairman of the farmer-controlled board of directors, and Adrian Measner, President and CEO. "Monsanto has said in the past it would not introduce RRW unless it was beneficial to farmers," Ritter said. "Well, there are no benefits. So we're asking Monsanto to put the interests of their customers, western Canadian farmers, ahead of their own commercial interests and put the brakes on RRW, before Prairie farmers suffer serious financial consequences." "Customers in over 80 per cent of our markets have expressed serious reservations about genetically modified wheat," Measner said. "For us, the customer is always right. We cannot jeopardize our ability to maximize returns to western Canadian farmers through the introduction of a product our customers do not want." The CWB has asked Monsanto to confirm its compliance with the CWB's request by June 27, 2003. The CWB has already called on the federal government to close the regulatory gap on genetically modified wheat by adding a cost benefit analysis to the food, feed and environmental assessments currently being undertaken on RRW. However, the CWB is taking this additional step because RRW could be approved before the introduction of any regulatory changes. "Under the current system, RRW could be approved for unconfined release as early as 2004," Ritter said. "We had to move quickly, so we are appealing to Monsanto directly." A copy of the letter to Monsanto Canada is attached [Below] Controlled by western Canadian farmers, the CWB is the largest wheat and barley marketer in the world. As one of Canada's biggest exporters, the Winnipeg-based organization sells grain to more than 70 countries and returns all sales revenue, less marketing costs, to Prairie farmers. ***** Mr. Peter Turner President Monsanto Canada Inc 67 Scurfield Boulevard Winnipeg MB R3Y 1G4 Fax No.: (204) 488-9599 Dear Mr. Turner: As you know, the potential release of Roundup Ready(R) wheat (RRW) remains the cause of considerable concern for wheat customers, farmers and others. The farmer-controlled Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) is extremely concerned that the unconfined release of RRW in Canada will result in significant and predictable economic harm to western Canadian farmers. This harm will occur to those who adopt the technology and those who do not, as well as to others in the Canadian wheat value chain. Economic harm could include lost access to premium markets, penalties caused by rejected shipments, and increased farm management and grain handling costs. Unfortunately, scientific data demonstrating the food safety of RRW will not, by itself, prevent this harm. Furthermore, the CWB is not satisfied that Monsanto's stated commitments regarding commercialization of RRW will adequately protect the interests of western Canadian farmers and Canada's wheat customers from this economic harm. The CWB hereby requests Monsanto withdraw its application to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) for environmental safety assessment of RRW. It is of the utmost importance that your decision on this request be made as soon as possible in order to protect the interests of the wheat value chain and to prevent the damages that may result from the unconfined release of RRW. We ask that you confirm by June 27, 2003 your withdrawal from the application process. Yours truly, Original signed by Ken Ritter Chair, CWB Board of Directors Original signed by Adrian C. Measner President and Chief Executive Officer KR/ag 066-03CH c: Hugh Grant, Executive Vice-President and Chief Operating Officer, Monsanto Company |
RR Wheat - but who wants it? (was GM German Wheat Trials...)
"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message ... CWB asks Monsanto to put the brakes on roundup ready wheat Winnipeg - The Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) has called on Monsanto Canada to withdraw its application for an environmental safety assessment of Roundup Ready(R) wheat (RRW). Monsanto's RRW application is currently before the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. It will be very satisfying when a crop becomes tight and the historically inelastic prices send the price of gm free crops soaring. Because of the surpluses of grain the countries demanding non gm crops have been able to get them from free. As soon as there is even a perceived shortage the gm free shipments prices will soar in relation to conventional crops. For the last three years we have been using grain a greater than production rates. Soybean rust has made it's way to the US. The EU has suddenly become a buyer of oil seed meals. It may take a while for a major agricultural catastrophe to happen but one will and you will find your gm free postion very expensive. It may come to a point that there is not enough gm free goods available to meet the worlds needs if the major exporting countries keep adopting them. Your sky is falling opposition to them is wearing thin and with the countries lining up on the US side in the WTO it may turn out the world just ignores your concerns on you farm to fork tractability. Particularly if the WTO rule in our favor. A united EU is a powerful economic force but the same methods of divide and conquer will work on the EU has it has in every other conflict. And there are serious rifts in the EU. The US may be arrogant, materialist and rude but we have a depth of capital that no one can match when it comes to war of any kind, conventional, trade or what ever. Trying to impose your standards on the world will in the end only cost you a great deal of money and leave your farmers and industry so far behind modern practice that they can not compete. Zeiss is as good an example as I can think of. They make with no question the finest optics in the world. But even running a not for profit business and cutting out all their dealers and dealing factory direct to reduce operating cost to the bone they can't compete with Olympus in microscope and other in other fields. The longer you try this charade the more it will cost you. Gordon |
RR Wheat - but who wants it? (was GM German Wheat Trials...)
MGEX passes biotech wheat rule, KCBT mulls one too KANSAS CITY, Mo. - With the world's first biotech wheat making its way through the regulatory approval process, the Minneapolis Grain Exchange this week approved a rule that allow companies to avoid biotech wheat deliveries. With a vote of 126 to 53, MGE members approved a provision that allows those companies accepting deliveries of spring wheat to fulfill futures contract obligations the choice of specifying non-biotech wheat. The resolution becomes effective with the July 2004 hard red spring wheat futures contract and all subsequently listed trading months. Genetically modified wheat currently is not available in the marketplace, but Monsanto Co (MON.N) is seeking approvals in Canada in Japan and plans to first commercialize its herbicide-resistant wheat in spring wheat varieties. MGEX officials described the new rule as a proactive measure aimed at preserving order and heading off disputes that could arise in the future as biotech wheat comes to market. With a nod to the MGEX, members of the Kansas City Board of Trade were also taking up the issue. The exchange's wheat contract committee will be discussing if a similar rule is needed in Kansas City, said KCBT president Bob Petersen. "That will be an issue here. We're just now starting to wrestle with it," Petersen said. "What we're presuming is that Monsanto will get approval sometime in the next 12 months," said Petersen. Monsanto has not said when or if it would commercialize a hard red biotech variety after it launches its Roundup Ready spring wheat, but the exchange wants to be prepared, said Petersen. "Minneapolis is kind of on the front lines of that so we'll watch and see how they handle that issue," he said. |
RR Wheat - but who wants it? (was GM German Wheat Trials...)
Monsanto undeterred as biotech wheat debate persists
KANSAS CITY, Mo. - Monsanto Co. (MON.N) said it will continue to seek regulatory approvals for the world's first genetically modified wheat despite allegations that the controversial product could devastate Canadian wheat exports. Monsanto believes its bid to win deregulation of its Roundup Ready wheat in Canada and the United States has "tremendous support," said Monsanto spokesman Michael Doane. The regulatory review process should answer questions and concerns about the product's safety and efficacy, Doane said. "People want to know it is safe. We're going to stay on course and continue to look for those regulatory approvals," Doane said. Doane's comments followed Tuesday's plea by the Canadian Wheat Board for Monsanto to withdraw its application to test herbicide resistant wheat in Canada. The CWB is one of Canada's largest exporters and is controlled by western Canadian farmers. The CWB said the "Roundup Ready" wheat would have a "devastating economic impact" on Canadian farmers because foreign buyers opposed to genetically altered foods would shun Canadian supplies. The CWB's concerns echoed similar fears in the United States, most recently underscored in March when a consortium of U.S. agricultural and environmental groups filed a legal petition seeking a federal moratorium on Monsanto's Roundup Ready wheat. But the regulatory review is still under way. Some think Monsanto might have regulatory approval in time to market its biotech wheat in 2004. But customer acceptance remains a significant hurdle. That was underscored earlier this month when the Korea Flour Mills Industrial Association (KOFMIA), a major U.S. wheat customer, said it would boycott American supplies if U.S. regulators approve biotech wheat varieties. North American Millers' Association vice president Jim Bair said Tuesday that concerns are so high about market disruption that Monsanto should slow down the regulatory approval process to focus on customer acceptance. "In this case the market acceptance is clearly lagging behind regulatory approval. We think those two things need to happen in tandem," said Bair. "Trying to force it onto the market .. is merely a recipe for chaos." Other U.S. wheat industry leaders said that Monsanto should continue to pursue regulatory approvals so it could release the wheat variety in Canada and the United States simultaneously, preventing either country from gaining an advantage in the wheat export market. "Monsanto has assured us that they will do this as a joint effort," said North Dakota Grain Growers executive director Lance Hagan. "It would be economic suicide for them to go back on that." U.S. Wheat Associates, which markets U.S. wheat to foreign countries, also said customer acceptance remained an obstacle to a successful launch of Monsanto's wheat. "U.S. Wheat continues to strongly urge Monsanto and other technology providers to ensure customer acceptance prior to commercialization," said U.S. Wheat spokeswoman Dawn Forsythe. -- GENET European NGO Network on Genetic Engineering Hartmut MEYER (Mr) Kleine Wiese 6 D - 38116 Braunschweig Germany phone: +49-531-5168746 fax: +49-531-5168747 mobile: +49-162-1054755 email: genetnl(at)xs4all.be |
RR Wheat - but who wants it? (was GM German Wheat Trials...)
Monsanto GMO wheat far from winning market okay
KANSAS CITY, Mo - A genetically modified wheat strain under development by Monsanto Co. (MON.N) remains a significant threat to the worldwide grain industry, and appears to be gaining little acceptance in the market, U.S. industry players said. On Tuesday Canada dealt a blow to Monsanto's progress toward commercializing the product, when the Canadian Wheat Board asked the company to withdraw its application for regulatory approval to prevent "significant and predictable economic harm." In the United States, biotech wheat could cripple wheat sales. Foreign buyers have said they would be reluctant to buy from the United States if so-called GMO wheat is grown here. Environmental and consumer groups have recently increased their level of opposition to GMO foods, raising consumer awareness. "The marketing issues have not been sufficiently addressed. Prior to commercialization of biotech wheat they need to be defined and acted upon," North American Export Grain Association president Gary Martin told Reuters. Recently, U.S.-based food companies have begun spreading the same message, telling farm groups they will not allow the wheat to enter their grain elevators, flour mills or bakeries. Betsy Faga, president of the North American Millers' Association, a trade group, said that "Greenpeace and other activists out there on this issue...could change consumer attitudes on a dime." To soothe market fears, St. Louis-based Monsanto has pledged it will not release biotech wheat until it identifies willing buyers. Still, some say they do not fully trust the company and have yet to see any aggressive moves by Monsanto to develop customer approval. "Knowing what determines acceptance is the biggest problem," said the Millers' Association's Faga. "This is one of the most difficult issues to get our hands around." Monsanto's herbicide-resistant wheat, grown in test plots in North Dakota, Montana and elsewhere, has been modified to tolerate glyphosate-based Roundup Ready weed killer, also made by Monsanto. It is designed to improve efficiencies for farmers, yielding a more profitable crop. But farmers have not clamored for the technology. U.S. Wheat Associates, which markets U.S. wheat overseas, has repeatedly warned U.S. farmers that sales will be lost if the wheat is released into the commercial market. Parts of Asia, Europe and elsewhere have already said they would abandon U.S. wheat if the GMO product comes to market. Wheat is the No. 1 exported grain in the world. "I think at this point Monsanto is saying they want to have the scientific review take place, which they hope will convince consumers and customers there aren't any health problems," U.S. Wheat vice president Nelson Denlinger said. |
RR Wheat - but who wants it? (was GM German Wheat Trials...)
Monsanto GMO wheat far from winning market okay
KANSAS CITY, Mo - A genetically modified wheat strain under development by Monsanto Co. (MON.N) remains a significant threat to the worldwide grain industry, and appears to be gaining little acceptance in the market, U.S. industry players said. On Tuesday Canada dealt a blow to Monsanto's progress toward commercializing the product, when the Canadian Wheat Board asked the company to withdraw its application for regulatory approval to prevent "significant and predictable economic harm." In the United States, biotech wheat could cripple wheat sales. Foreign buyers have said they would be reluctant to buy from the United States if so-called GMO wheat is grown here. Environmental and consumer groups have recently increased their level of opposition to GMO foods, raising consumer awareness. "The marketing issues have not been sufficiently addressed. Prior to commercialization of biotech wheat they need to be defined and acted upon," North American Export Grain Association president Gary Martin told Reuters. Recently, U.S.-based food companies have begun spreading the same message, telling farm groups they will not allow the wheat to enter their grain elevators, flour mills or bakeries. Betsy Faga, president of the North American Millers' Association, a trade group, said that "Greenpeace and other activists out there on this issue...could change consumer attitudes on a dime." To soothe market fears, St. Louis-based Monsanto has pledged it will not release biotech wheat until it identifies willing buyers. Still, some say they do not fully trust the company and have yet to see any aggressive moves by Monsanto to develop customer approval. "Knowing what determines acceptance is the biggest problem," said the Millers' Association's Faga. "This is one of the most difficult issues to get our hands around." Monsanto's herbicide-resistant wheat, grown in test plots in North Dakota, Montana and elsewhere, has been modified to tolerate glyphosate-based Roundup Ready weed killer, also made by Monsanto. It is designed to improve efficiencies for farmers, yielding a more profitable crop. But farmers have not clamored for the technology. U.S. Wheat Associates, which markets U.S. wheat overseas, has repeatedly warned U.S. farmers that sales will be lost if the wheat is released into the commercial market. Parts of Asia, Europe and elsewhere have already said they would abandon U.S. wheat if the GMO product comes to market. Wheat is the No. 1 exported grain in the world. "I think at this point Monsanto is saying they want to have the scientific review take place, which they hope will convince consumers and customers there aren't any health problems," U.S. Wheat vice president Nelson Denlinger said. |
RR Wheat - but who wants it? (was GM German Wheat Trials...)
GM wheat in Canada not an option, says Canadian Wheat Board
-------------- WINNIPEG - Adrian Measner, president and chief executive of the Canadian Wheat Board, was cited as telling Reuters yesterday that the group may consider legal action to stop Monsanto Co. from growing genetically modified wheat in Canada outside limited government-run trials, adding, "We've given strong assurances to our customers that we will make sure this situation is resolved in Canada and we intend to take whatever action necessary to do that." The story says it is the strongest statement the board has made to date on how far it will go to prevent GM wheat from being grown in the near future in Canada -- and one Mr. Measner plans to repeat to world wheat traders at an International Grains Council meeting in London next week. Mr. Measner was further quoted as saying, "Having it grown in Canada, it's not an option. The costs are just too horrendous and it needs to be addressed." The CWB asked Monsanto to agree by tomorrow to withdraw its application. It has not yet formally responded, he said. Monsanto has promised it will not commercialize the wheat until at least some customers accept it and until it can be dealt with separately within the bulk grain handling system. |
RR Wheat - but who wants it? (was GM German Wheat Trials...)
Even if Monsanto does manage to get a registration on this wheat, there's
no danger of any producers wanting to grow this stuff. I retail farm supplies here in Saskatchewan, and also buy grain, as I manage a grain elevator. 96% of the canola seed that I sell is R.R. Absolutely none of my customers are interested in R.R. wheat. The primary reason for this is because we have sufficient in crop pesticides to handle the weed spectrum in a wheat crop. That, and having some great Red Spring Wheat varieties has put the kaybosh to this technology before it has gotten off of the ground. Dean "Torsten Brinch" wrote in message ... GM wheat in Canada not an option, says Canadian Wheat Board -------------- WINNIPEG - Adrian Measner, president and chief executive of the Canadian Wheat Board, was cited as telling Reuters yesterday that the group may consider legal action to stop Monsanto Co. from growing genetically modified wheat in Canada outside limited government-run trials, adding, "We've given strong assurances to our customers that we will make sure this situation is resolved in Canada and we intend to take whatever action necessary to do that." The story says it is the strongest statement the board has made to date on how far it will go to prevent GM wheat from being grown in the near future in Canada -- and one Mr. Measner plans to repeat to world wheat traders at an International Grains Council meeting in London next week. Mr. Measner was further quoted as saying, "Having it grown in Canada, it's not an option. The costs are just too horrendous and it needs to be addressed." The CWB asked Monsanto to agree by tomorrow to withdraw its application. It has not yet formally responded, he said. Monsanto has promised it will not commercialize the wheat until at least some customers accept it and until it can be dealt with separately within the bulk grain handling system. |
RR Wheat - but who wants it? (was GM German Wheat Trials...)
After a perfect year for wild oats in western Oklahoma Round Up Ready wheat
would find a place if it could be sold. Depending on custom cutter and bigger combines have scattered wild oats every where and normal cultural practices in wheat won't control them. It takes a long time in a summer crop to get rid of the seed and only a year or two to get it back from the ditches, combines and birds. Combines being the worst vector. In my farming it isn't a problem as land is only in wheat as cover or transition between crops for the most part. Neither wheat or cattle are worth enough to make it interesting. Gordon "Dean Ronn" @home wrote in message ... Even if Monsanto does manage to get a registration on this wheat, there's no danger of any producers wanting to grow this stuff. I retail farm supplies here in Saskatchewan, and also buy grain, as I manage a grain elevator. 96% of the canola seed that I sell is R.R. Absolutely none of my customers are interested in R.R. wheat. The primary reason for this is because we have sufficient in crop pesticides to handle the weed spectrum in a wheat crop. That, and having some great Red Spring Wheat varieties has put the kaybosh to this technology before it has gotten off of the ground. Dean "Torsten Brinch" wrote in message ... GM wheat in Canada not an option, says Canadian Wheat Board -------------- WINNIPEG - Adrian Measner, president and chief executive of the Canadian Wheat Board, was cited as telling Reuters yesterday that the group may consider legal action to stop Monsanto Co. from growing genetically modified wheat in Canada outside limited government-run trials, adding, "We've given strong assurances to our customers that we will make sure this situation is resolved in Canada and we intend to take whatever action necessary to do that." The story says it is the strongest statement the board has made to date on how far it will go to prevent GM wheat from being grown in the near future in Canada -- and one Mr. Measner plans to repeat to world wheat traders at an International Grains Council meeting in London next week. Mr. Measner was further quoted as saying, "Having it grown in Canada, it's not an option. The costs are just too horrendous and it needs to be addressed." The CWB asked Monsanto to agree by tomorrow to withdraw its application. It has not yet formally responded, he said. Monsanto has promised it will not commercialize the wheat until at least some customers accept it and until it can be dealt with separately within the bulk grain handling system. |
RR Wheat - but who wants it? (was GM German Wheat Trials...)
On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 03:15:09 -0500, "Gordon Couger"
wrote: After a perfect year for wild oats in western Oklahoma Round Up Ready wheat would find a place if it could be sold. Depending on custom cutter and bigger combines have scattered wild oats every where and normal cultural practices in wheat won't control them. But you have Puma available to deal with wild oats in the growing crop, haven't you? It takes a long time in a summer crop to get rid of the seed and only a year or two to get it back from the ditches, combines and birds. Combines being the worst vector. In my farming it isn't a problem as land is only in wheat as cover or transition between crops for the most part. Neither wheat or cattle are worth enough to make it interesting. Gordon "Dean Ronn" @home wrote in message ... Even if Monsanto does manage to get a registration on this wheat, there's no danger of any producers wanting to grow this stuff. I retail farm supplies here in Saskatchewan, and also buy grain, as I manage a grain elevator. 96% of the canola seed that I sell is R.R. Absolutely none of my customers are interested in R.R. wheat. The primary reason for this is because we have sufficient in crop pesticides to handle the weed spectrum in a wheat crop. That, and having some great Red Spring Wheat varieties has put the kaybosh to this technology before it has gotten off of the ground. Dean "Torsten Brinch" wrote in message ... GM wheat in Canada not an option, says Canadian Wheat Board -------------- WINNIPEG - Adrian Measner, president and chief executive of the Canadian Wheat Board, was cited as telling Reuters yesterday that the group may consider legal action to stop Monsanto Co. from growing genetically modified wheat in Canada outside limited government-run trials, adding, "We've given strong assurances to our customers that we will make sure this situation is resolved in Canada and we intend to take whatever action necessary to do that." The story says it is the strongest statement the board has made to date on how far it will go to prevent GM wheat from being grown in the near future in Canada -- and one Mr. Measner plans to repeat to world wheat traders at an International Grains Council meeting in London next week. Mr. Measner was further quoted as saying, "Having it grown in Canada, it's not an option. The costs are just too horrendous and it needs to be addressed." The CWB asked Monsanto to agree by tomorrow to withdraw its application. It has not yet formally responded, he said. Monsanto has promised it will not commercialize the wheat until at least some customers accept it and until it can be dealt with separately within the bulk grain handling system. |
RR Wheat - but who wants it? (was GM German Wheat Trials...)
It doesn't have the quaintly that we like.
Gordon "Torsten Brinch" wrote in message ... On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 03:15:09 -0500, "Gordon Couger" wrote: After a perfect year for wild oats in western Oklahoma Round Up Ready wheat would find a place if it could be sold. Depending on custom cutter and bigger combines have scattered wild oats every where and normal cultural practices in wheat won't control them. But you have Puma available to deal with wild oats in the growing crop, haven't you? It takes a long time in a summer crop to get rid of the seed and only a year or two to get it back from the ditches, combines and birds. Combines being the worst vector. In my farming it isn't a problem as land is only in wheat as cover or transition between crops for the most part. Neither wheat or cattle are worth enough to make it interesting. Gordon "Dean Ronn" @home wrote in message ... Even if Monsanto does manage to get a registration on this wheat, there's no danger of any producers wanting to grow this stuff. I retail farm supplies here in Saskatchewan, and also buy grain, as I manage a grain elevator. 96% of the canola seed that I sell is R.R. Absolutely none of my customers are interested in R.R. wheat. The primary reason for this is because we have sufficient in crop pesticides to handle the weed spectrum in a wheat crop. That, and having some great Red Spring Wheat varieties has put the kaybosh to this technology before it has gotten off of the ground. Dean "Torsten Brinch" wrote in message ... GM wheat in Canada not an option, says Canadian Wheat Board -------------- WINNIPEG - Adrian Measner, president and chief executive of the Canadian Wheat Board, was cited as telling Reuters yesterday that the group may consider legal action to stop Monsanto Co. from growing genetically modified wheat in Canada outside limited government-run trials, adding, "We've given strong assurances to our customers that we will make sure this situation is resolved in Canada and we intend to take whatever action necessary to do that." The story says it is the strongest statement the board has made to date on how far it will go to prevent GM wheat from being grown in the near future in Canada -- and one Mr. Measner plans to repeat to world wheat traders at an International Grains Council meeting in London next week. Mr. Measner was further quoted as saying, "Having it grown in Canada, it's not an option. The costs are just too horrendous and it needs to be addressed." The CWB asked Monsanto to agree by tomorrow to withdraw its application. It has not yet formally responded, he said. Monsanto has promised it will not commercialize the wheat until at least some customers accept it and until it can be dealt with separately within the bulk grain handling system. |
RR Wheat - but who wants it? (was GM German Wheat Trials...)
On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 08:50:05 -0500, "Gordon Couger" wrote: It doesn't have the quaintly that we like. Gordon What, you mean the crop has not been genetically engineered to be tolerant to Puma, so you don't like that herbicide? "Torsten Brinch" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 03:15:09 -0500, "Gordon Couger" wrote: After a perfect year for wild oats in western Oklahoma Round Up Ready wheat would find a place if it could be sold. Depending on custom cutter and bigger combines have scattered wild oats every where and normal cultural practices in wheat won't control them. But you have Puma available to deal with wild oats in the growing crop, haven't you? |
RR Wheat - but who wants it? (was GM German Wheat Trials...)
"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message ... On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 08:50:05 -0500, "Gordon Couger" wrote: It doesn't have the quaintly that we like. Gordon What, you mean the crop has not been genetically engineered to be tolerant to Puma, so you don't like that herbicide? I cannot believe torsten doesn't understand the concept of grain quality Jim Webster |
RR Wheat - but who wants it? (was GM German Wheat Trials...)
Puma doesn't produce the milling qualities, protein and color that are
expected of wheat from our area. We had some wheat test 15% protein this year. The area raises some of the best hard red winter wheat in the world and we don't bring in varieties that don't measure up. The merchants simply won't buy it. You have to take it to the feed lot or dairy and take what they will give you for it. Some people raise soft wheat for pasture and feed but not many. Wheat makes poor feed for cattle and we don't have any chicken or hog operations around. Since you raise wheat I thought you would have some idea what I meant by quality. Gordon "Torsten Brinch" wrote in message ... On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 08:50:05 -0500, "Gordon Couger" wrote: It doesn't have the quaintly that we like. Gordon What, you mean the crop has not been genetically engineered to be tolerant to Puma, so you don't like that herbicide? "Torsten Brinch" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 03:15:09 -0500, "Gordon Couger" wrote: After a perfect year for wild oats in western Oklahoma Round Up Ready wheat would find a place if it could be sold. Depending on custom cutter and bigger combines have scattered wild oats every where and normal cultural practices in wheat won't control them. But you have Puma available to deal with wild oats in the growing crop, haven't you? |
RR Wheat - but who wants it? (was GM German Wheat Trials...)
On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 14:47:35 -0500, "Gordon Couger"
wrote: Puma doesn't produce the milling qualities, protein and color that are expected of wheat from our area. We had some wheat test 15% protein this year. Bwahahaha Puma is a herbicide, you dumb, dumb American. On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 03:15:09 -0500, "Gordon Couger" wrote: After a perfect year for wild oats in western Oklahoma Round Up Ready wheat would find a place if it could be sold. Depending on custom cutter and bigger combines have scattered wild oats every where and normal cultural practices in wheat won't control them. But you have Puma available to deal with wild oats in the growing crop, haven't you? |
RR Wheat - but who wants it? (was GM German Wheat Trials...)
On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 19:51:23 GMT, Larry Caldwell
wrote: (Jim Webster) writes: What, you mean the crop has not been genetically engineered to be tolerant to Puma, so you don't like that herbicide? I cannot believe torsten doesn't understand the concept of grain quality He understands quite well. He would just rather eat grains that have been treated with paraquat and Hoelon than Roundup. Bwahahahaha. A dumb American who thinks grains are 'treated' with herbicide. He also feels that progressive applications of herbicides during the growing season add a piquant flavor to his bread. It's a gourmet thing. ROFL. He bloody also thinks there is herbicide in bread so one can taste it. |
RR Wheat - but who wants it? (was GM German Wheat Trials...)
"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message ... On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 19:51:23 GMT, Larry Caldwell wrote: (Jim Webster) writes: What, you mean the crop has not been genetically engineered to be tolerant to Puma, so you don't like that herbicide? I cannot believe torsten doesn't understand the concept of grain quality He understands quite well. He would just rather eat grains that have been treated with paraquat and Hoelon than Roundup. Bwahahahaha. A dumb American who thinks grains are 'treated' with herbicide. at least he has realised that sci.agriculture isn't an iraqi newsgroup Jim Webster |
RR Wheat - but who wants it? (was GM German Wheat Trials...)
Jim Webster wrote:
Bwahahahaha. A dumb American who thinks grains are 'treated' with herbicide. at least he has realised that sci.agriculture isn't an iraqi newsgroup Jim Webster Did Jim put his foot in his big mouth again? ________ http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/us_ag/ content/pub/fmnews/pdf/1903.pdf .... Recently we have been answering many questions about Roundup UltraMAX® for preharvest applications in wheat. This is no surprise given the patches of healthy, green weeds surrounded by brown wheat. Cutting green plant material with the combine is not only difficult and time consuming, but could potentially result in dockage at the elevator. Dry conditions in many parts of the state have resulted in a short wheat crop with an open canopy. Without vigorous competition from the crop, weeds may begin to occupy fields. Preharvest or postharvest glyphosate applications make sense for some growers as either a harvest aid or to help setup their fields for the 2003 season. The key advantages of preharvest treatments include a faster, earlier harvest with weeds killed earlier and less weed seed production. A cost-saving alternative to Roundup UltraMAX is RT Master, a premix of glyphosate and 2,4-D labeled for control of annual and perennial weeds throughout North and South Dakota. For preharvest application, apply RT Master after the hard dough stage of grain fill. This is the point of development when the crop is considered to be physiologically mature. Flow of nutrients to the grain has stopped. The kernels have no green color left and are firm enough so that the contents cannot be squeezed out. Grain moisture will be approximately 30%. Up to one quart of RT Master per acre can be applied prior to harvest. (Continued on back) Jim Webster wrote: "Torsten Brinch" wrote in message ... On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 19:51:23 GMT, Larry Caldwell wrote: (Jim Webster) writes: What, you mean the crop has not been genetically engineered to be tolerant to Puma, so you don't like that herbicide? I cannot believe torsten doesn't understand the concept of grain quality He understands quite well. He would just rather eat grains that have been treated with paraquat and Hoelon than Roundup. Bwahahahaha. A dumb American who thinks grains are 'treated' with herbicide. at least he has realised that sci.agriculture isn't an iraqi newsgroup Jim Webster |
RR Wheat - but who wants it? (was GM German Wheat Trials...)
Torsten Brinch wrote: On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 19:51:23 GMT, Larry Caldwell wrote: (Jim Webster) writes: What, you mean the crop has not been genetically engineered to be tolerant to Puma, so you don't like that herbicide? I cannot believe torsten doesn't understand the concept of grain quality He understands quite well. He would just rather eat grains that have been treated with paraquat and Hoelon than Roundup. Bwahahahaha. A dumb American who thinks grains are 'treated' with herbicide. He also feels that progressive applications of herbicides during the growing season add a piquant flavor to his bread. It's a gourmet thing. ROFL. He bloody also thinks there is herbicide in bread so one can taste it. not only with herbicides preharvest but also with insecticides and rodenticides post harvest. www.cdc.gov/niosh/pdfs/99-126.pdf Agricultural workers are poisoned regularly handling grains. |
RR Wheat - but who wants it? (was GM German Wheat Trials...)
wrote in message ... Jim Webster wrote: Bwahahahaha. A dumb American who thinks grains are 'treated' with herbicide. at least he has realised that sci.agriculture isn't an iraqi newsgroup Jim Webster Did Jim put his foot in his big mouth again? I'm not the one who has posted 11 messages on iraq to 3 on GM Jim Webster |
RR Wheat - but who wants it? (was GM German Wheat Trials...)
On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 00:40:23 -0700, wrote:
Torsten Brinch wrote: On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 19:51:23 GMT, Larry Caldwell wrote: (Jim Webster) writes: I cannot believe torsten doesn't understand the concept of grain quality He understands quite well. He would just rather eat grains that have been treated with paraquat and Hoelon than Roundup. Bwahahahaha. A dumb American who thinks grains are 'treated' with herbicide. He also feels that progressive applications of herbicides during the growing season add a piquant flavor to his bread. It's a gourmet thing. ROFL. He bloody also thinks there is herbicide in bread so one can taste it. not only with herbicides preharvest but also with insecticides and rodenticides post harvest. www.cdc.gov/niosh/pdfs/99-126.pdf Agricultural workers are poisoned regularly handling grains. Surely, Cor, there are preharvest applications for herbicides in grain-fields, and surely grains for food may be postharvest treated with insecticides for storage. But interesting topics as they are, isn't that a digression in the present context, seeing we were coming from control of wild oats with herbicides? As we saw earlier, Gordon Couger has apparently fallen so much in love with RR wheat that he has lost sight of knowledge that chemical control of wild oats in the crop is already possible e.g. with Puma herbicide, before any intervention of RR wheat. And here, Larry Caldwell appears to have fallen in love with RR wheat so much that he'd like to suggest there are significant gains in the safety of eating and perceptible changes in the flavor of bread by using roundup in RR wheat vs using weed control in wheat as it is done currently. |
RR Wheat - but who wants it? (was GM German Wheat Trials...)
"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message ... On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 14:47:35 -0500, "Gordon Couger" wrote: Puma doesn't produce the milling qualities, protein and color that are expected of wheat from our area. We had some wheat test 15% protein this year. Bwahahaha Puma is a herbicide, you dumb, dumb American. Torsten, You are starting to sound like a spoiled child who isn't getting his way and who resorts to name calling and pouting when no one listens to him/her - kind of like Chive in the sci.environment newsgroup. I am sad to see you resort to such actions. In the past I always enjoyed reading your posts even though I didn't necessarily agree with all of your comments. Why are you so upset as of late? I would appreciate your opinion as to why Puma is a better "wheat" herbicide than Roundup. Thanks. Dave On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 03:15:09 -0500, "Gordon Couger" wrote: After a perfect year for wild oats in western Oklahoma Round Up Ready wheat would find a place if it could be sold. Depending on custom cutter and bigger combines have scattered wild oats every where and normal cultural practices in wheat won't control them. But you have Puma available to deal with wild oats in the growing crop, haven't you? |
RR Wheat - but who wants it? (was GM German Wheat Trials...)
(Torsten Brinch) writes:
And here, Larry Caldwell appears to have fallen in love with RR wheat so much that he'd like to suggest there are significant gains in the safety of eating and perceptible changes in the flavor of bread by using roundup in RR wheat vs using weed control in wheat as it is done currently. There are certainly environmental gains to be made through RR wheat. Not only does it allow no-till control of erosion, it cuts the herbicide application to a fraction of conventional use. Wild oat is not the only invasive grass in wheat that it is difficult to control, and the required herbicides are highly toxic. Here in the PNW, we have to deal with wild oat, yellow foxtail, green foxtail, italian ryegrass, downy brome, persian darnel, black grass and wind grass. Getting a clean field can require applications at many different stages of growth, and getting rid of a jointed goat grass infestation in a wheat field is virtually impossible without taking the field out of production. RR wheat is the answer to the both the farmers' and the environmentalists' prayers. -- http://home.teleport.com/~larryc |
RR Wheat - but who wants it? (was GM German Wheat Trials...)
On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 17:04:13 GMT, "David Kendra"
wrote: I would appreciate your opinion as to why Puma is a better "wheat" herbicide than Roundup. Thanks. Huh? If you want a herbicide to kill wheat, Roundup would be the better of the two. Roundup just ****ing kills wheat, while Puma is well tolerated up to a point. |
RR Wheat - but who wants it? (was GM German Wheat Trials...)
On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 17:36:17 GMT, Larry Caldwell
wrote: (Torsten Brinch) writes: And here, Larry Caldwell appears to have fallen in love with RR wheat so much that he'd like to suggest there are significant gains in the safety of eating and perceptible changes in the flavor of bread by using roundup in RR wheat vs using weed control in wheat as it is done currently. There are certainly environmental gains to be made through RR wheat. Not only does it allow no-till control of erosion, it cuts the herbicide application to a fraction of conventional use. Wild oat is not the only invasive grass in wheat that it is difficult to control, and the required herbicides are highly toxic. Here in the PNW, we have to deal with wild oat, yellow foxtail, green foxtail, italian ryegrass, downy brome, persian darnel, black grass and wind grass. Getting a clean field can require applications at many different stages of growth, and getting rid of a jointed goat grass infestation in a wheat field is virtually impossible without taking the field out of production. RR wheat is the answer to the both the farmers' and the environmentalists' prayers. Nah, Larry, first you'd need to explain the gourmet thing. What the **** was that for? |
RR Wheat - but who wants it? (was GM German Wheat Trials...)
But not if the wheat is engineered to resist the roundup. And you don't
have to worry about that nasty "up to a point" concept anymore ;-) Bummer about the cursing. Only frustrated folks need to curse and then it makes others not want to listen to what you are saying. In fact IMO it weakens your case. Dave "Torsten Brinch" wrote in message ... On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 17:04:13 GMT, "David Kendra" wrote: I would appreciate your opinion as to why Puma is a better "wheat" herbicide than Roundup. Thanks. Huh? If you want a herbicide to kill wheat, Roundup would be the better of the two. Roundup just ****ing kills wheat, while Puma is well tolerated up to a point. |
RR Wheat - but who wants it? (was GM German Wheat Trials...)
David, I've had a lot of opportunity to agree to disagree with Torsten through a few thoughts on this newsgroup, but this is one topic that I agree with him whole heartedly. In a true no-till system, like Larry had mentioned earlier, it's good practice to do a pre-seed "burnoff" before seeding wheat with glyphosate to control some winter annuals, then control pretty much any other weeds that come in crop with a product such as Puma(fenoxaprop-p-ethyl), or Discover(in U.S.A.) clodinafop propargyl, in conjuction with a broadleaf killing product. (ex. Refine Extra- Thifensulfuron methyl + Tribenuran methyl). There really is no need for Round-Up ready wheat. Like I had stated earlier in this thread, with a crop such as canola, there are so many limitations to weed control, and that is why it has really taken off here in Saskatchewan(Canada). IMO, if it's not broken, and you can't improve it, why do it???? "David Kendra" wrote in message ... "Torsten Brinch" wrote in message ... On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 14:47:35 -0500, "Gordon Couger" wrote: Puma doesn't produce the milling qualities, protein and color that are expected of wheat from our area. We had some wheat test 15% protein this year. Bwahahaha Puma is a herbicide, you dumb, dumb American. Torsten, You are starting to sound like a spoiled child who isn't getting his way and who resorts to name calling and pouting when no one listens to him/her - kind of like Chive in the sci.environment newsgroup. I am sad to see you resort to such actions. In the past I always enjoyed reading your posts even though I didn't necessarily agree with all of your comments. Why are you so upset as of late? I would appreciate your opinion as to why Puma is a better "wheat" herbicide than Roundup. Thanks. Dave On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 03:15:09 -0500, "Gordon Couger" wrote: After a perfect year for wild oats in western Oklahoma Round Up Ready wheat would find a place if it could be sold. Depending on custom cutter and bigger combines have scattered wild oats every where and normal cultural practices in wheat won't control them. But you have Puma available to deal with wild oats in the growing crop, haven't you? |
RR Wheat - but who wants it? (was GM German Wheat Trials...)
On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 22:47:54 GMT, "David Kendra"
wrote: But not if the wheat is engineered to resist the roundup. And you don't have to worry about that nasty "up to a point" concept anymore ;-) Bah, if you mean control you need to get at the grass weeds early in any case. Bummer about the cursing. Only frustrated folks need to curse and then it makes others not want to listen to what you are saying. In fact IMO it weakens your case. Bwhahaha. An American offended by one of the ****ing most commonly used word in ****ing common American. "Torsten Brinch" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 17:04:13 GMT, "David Kendra" wrote: I would appreciate your opinion as to why Puma is a better "wheat" herbicide than Roundup. Thanks. Huh? If you want a herbicide to kill wheat, Roundup would be the better of the two. Roundup just ****ing kills wheat, while Puma is well tolerated up to a point. |
RR Wheat - but who wants it? (was GM German Wheat Trials...)
On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 22:47:54 GMT, "David Kendra"
wrote: But not if the wheat is engineered to resist the roundup. And you don't have to worry about that nasty "up to a point" concept anymore ;-) Bah, if you mean control you need to get at the grass weeds early in any case. Bummer about the cursing. Only frustrated folks need to curse and then it makes others not want to listen to what you are saying. In fact IMO it weakens your case. Bwhahaha. An American offended by one of the ****ing most commonly used word in ****ing common American. "Torsten Brinch" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 17:04:13 GMT, "David Kendra" wrote: I would appreciate your opinion as to why Puma is a better "wheat" herbicide than Roundup. Thanks. Huh? If you want a herbicide to kill wheat, Roundup would be the better of the two. Roundup just ****ing kills wheat, while Puma is well tolerated up to a point. |
RR Wheat - but who wants it? (was GM German Wheat Trials...)
Dean Ronn ?@?.? writes
I've had a lot of opportunity to agree to disagree with Torsten through a few thoughts on this newsgroup, but this is one topic that I agree with him whole heartedly. In a true no-till system, like Larry had mentioned earlier, it's good practice to do a pre-seed "burnoff" before seeding wheat with glyphosate to control some winter annuals, then control pretty much any other weeds that come in crop with a product such as Puma(fenoxaprop-p-ethyl), or Discover(in U.S.A.) clodinafop propargyl, in conjuction with a broadleaf killing product. (ex. Refine Extra- Thifensulfuron methyl + Tribenuran methyl). There really is no need for Round-Up ready wheat. Like I had stated earlier in this thread, with a crop such as canola, there are so many limitations to weed control, and that is why it has really taken off here in Saskatchewan(Canada). IMO, if it's not broken, and you can't improve it, why do it???? Interesting. In the UK in arable areas canola is the easy one. A spray of dimfop to control cereals and some trifluralin to dampen down blw is all I use for nearly all fields (some sometimes need some dow shield for thistles). But cereals are a big problem, primarily due to resistant and tolerant blackgrass but increasingly to dimfop resistant wild oats. This is particularly acute in high organic fields (say 10%+). RR wheat would be quite nice were it not for the fact that I would expect the rapid emergence of RR-resistant blackgrass. -- Oz This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious. Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted. |
RR Wheat - but who wants it? (was GM German Wheat Trials...)
|
RR Wheat - but who wants it? (was GM German Wheat Trials...)
On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 00:25:08 GMT, Larry Caldwell
wrote: (Torsten Brinch) writes: Nah, Larry, first you'd need to explain the gourmet thing. What the **** was that for? I figured you for a picky eater. The truth, Larry, out with it. You'll feel much better afterwards. |
RR Wheat - but who wants it? (was GM German Wheat Trials...)
"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message ... On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 22:47:54 GMT, "David Kendra" wrote: But not if the wheat is engineered to resist the roundup. And you don't have to worry about that nasty "up to a point" concept anymore ;-) Bah, if you mean control you need to get at the grass weeds early in any case. LMAO...keep trying Torsten. How much wheat do you actually grow? Dave Bummer about the cursing. Only frustrated folks need to curse and then it makes others not want to listen to what you are saying. In fact IMO it weakens your case. Bwhahaha. An American offended by one of the ****ing most commonly used word in ****ing common American. "Torsten Brinch" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 17:04:13 GMT, "David Kendra" wrote: I would appreciate your opinion as to why Puma is a better "wheat" herbicide than Roundup. Thanks. Huh? If you want a herbicide to kill wheat, Roundup would be the better of the two. Roundup just ****ing kills wheat, while Puma is well tolerated up to a point. |
RR Wheat - but who wants it? (was GM German Wheat Trials...)
(Torsten Brinch) writes:
On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 00:25:08 GMT, Larry Caldwell wrote: (Torsten Brinch) writes: Nah, Larry, first you'd need to explain the gourmet thing. What the **** was that for? I figured you for a picky eater. The truth, Larry, out with it. You'll feel much better afterwards. OK. I think you are an idiot who is opposed to GM crops for religious reasons. -- http://home.teleport.com/~larryc |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:39 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter