GM crop farms filled with weeds
 

On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 08:56:14 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:

On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 06:15:08 GMT, Mooshie peas
wrote:

On 4 Sep 2003 13:27:27 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

The advertising suggests buying RR and glyphosate solves your
problem. But no, rotation &c is needed.

Could you quote this? snip

Monsanto ad, for Roundup Ultra in RR cotton:
"The only weed control you'll need"

http://www.weeds.iastate.edu/weednews/mon-ad.GIF

And if you read the text you see that this is claimed for second and
third flush weeds in RR cotton -- you won't need a cultivator.

Is this not the case, where this advertisement appears?

GM crop farms filled with weeds
 

On 5 Sep 2003 10:11:09 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

Mooshie peas wrote:
On 4 Sep 2003 10:21:52 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:
You talked about people taking your work if you help them in poor
countries. Reading back through the thread you could take the noiton
that Jim is saying, `Yes, GM and the USA approach is right to be
suppressing poor countries so we can keep our jobs.'


But how is GM suppressing anyone?

Jim seems to agree, though he hasn't specifically said it, that he agrees
with the way GM crops have been designed to produce dependence upon the GM
companies.

Well if you buy something from a company, you are dependent on that
company as far as the contact you freely enter into binds you. Don't
buy; don't have any obligation to anyone.

GM was introduced to USA when the farmers were not having the
best time, and they were offered a better deal from it.

And being free agents, they could chose to do as they pleased.

That has not
eventuated but the same sales approach is still going on in Australia,
New Zealand, and in third world countries.

Things get advertised and sold every minute.

Under GM farmers cannot save
their seed,

Depends what contract they sign. No one forces anyone to sign
anything. Don't like it; don't buy it. Simple.

a procedure which has been central to third world agriculture.

And it still can be, no-one is forcing anyone to do anything against
their will.

Their way of life -- livelihoods are threatened.

By their choice to buy something? Well why did they buy it?

Keeping them poor, Jim
believes, will help to stop them taking my job.

They are kept poor and populace by lack of education and exploitation.
It has nothing to do with this or that particular technology.

GM crop farms filled with weeds
 

Mooshie peas wrote:
On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 08:56:14 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:

On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 06:15:08 GMT, Mooshie peas
wrote:

On 4 Sep 2003 13:27:27 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

The advertising suggests buying RR and glyphosate solves your
problem. But no, rotation &c is needed.

Could you quote this? snip

Monsanto ad, for Roundup Ultra in RR cotton:
"The only weed control you'll need"

http://www.weeds.iastate.edu/weednews/mon-ad.GIF

And if you read the text you see that this is claimed for second and
third flush weeds in RR cotton -- you won't need a cultivator.

It does not say RR cotton, just cotton. The ad has tricked you into
thinking it means only RR.

Is this not the case, where this advertisement appears?

Where?

GM crop farms filled with weeds
 

Mooshie peas wrote:
On 5 Sep 2003 10:11:09 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

Mooshie peas wrote:
On 4 Sep 2003 10:21:52 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:
You talked about people taking your work if you help them in poor
countries. Reading back through the thread you could take the noiton
that Jim is saying, `Yes, GM and the USA approach is right to be
suppressing poor countries so we can keep our jobs.'


But how is GM suppressing anyone?

Jim seems to agree, though he hasn't specifically said it, that he agrees
with the way GM crops have been designed to produce dependence upon the GM
companies.

Well if you buy something from a company, you are dependent on that
company as far as the contact you freely enter into binds you. Don't
buy; don't have any obligation to anyone.

GM was introduced to USA when the farmers were not having the
best time, and they were offered a better deal from it.

And being free agents, they could chose to do as they pleased.

They were led to believe GM would maximise profit for them.

That has not
eventuated but the same sales approach is still going on in Australia,
New Zealand, and in third world countries.

Things get advertised and sold every minute.

And some regret buying.

Further, in this arena, the toy affects not only the purchaser.

Under GM farmers cannot save
their seed,

Depends what contract they sign. No one forces anyone to sign
anything. Don't like it; don't buy it. Simple.

And that is being discussed a lot.

a procedure which has been central to third world agriculture.

And it still can be, no-one is forcing anyone to do anything against
their will.

I think it is a bit like the old days when a woman in Australia
would get her teeth out before getting married as a wedding present
to her husband, so he would not have to pay for fillings. Somehow it
took off in Australia, but not UK.

Their way of life -- livelihoods are threatened.

By their choice to buy something? Well why did they buy it?

Misled.

Keeping them poor, Jim
believes, will help to stop them taking my job.

They are kept poor and populace by lack of education and exploitation.
It has nothing to do with this or that particular technology.

People have to have a spring board to build their lives. Kick it
away and only a few can jump. The average result is a big eyesore.

GM crop farms filled with weeds
 

On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 13:43:56 GMT, Mooshie peas
wrote:

On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 08:56:14 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:

On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 06:15:08 GMT, Mooshie peas
wrote:

On 4 Sep 2003 13:27:27 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

The advertising suggests buying RR and glyphosate solves your
problem. But no, rotation &c is needed.

Could you quote this? snip

Monsanto ad, for Roundup Ultra in RR cotton:
"The only weed control you'll need"

http://www.weeds.iastate.edu/weednews/mon-ad.GIF

And if you read the text you see that this is claimed for second and
third flush weeds in RR cotton -- you won't need a cultivator.

Is this not the case, where this advertisement appears?

:-) As I understand the situation, it would be like this:
You have sprayed your RR cotton over the top with Roundup Ultra
early, as per label. But, later in the season, since Roundup has
poor residual effect you may get a second flush of weeds, which
you somehow need to tackle.

Now, that could be to cultivate in some way, and that could be to
use a post-directed spray as suggested by the ad. And for the latter,
Roundup Ultra could of course be an option, as -- um -- strongly
suggested by the ad.

However,

-- and that's why this ad richly deserves its place
in the agrochemical advertisment Hall of Shame --

perhaps not to be touted as such a fine option, considering the
agronomic benefits of cycling of different herbicide chemistries
when you can, considering the possibility that a spray with some
residual action could be used to avoid a third run, considering the
general principle of not relying on just one method of weed control.