Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
New problems with GM corn? (Was: GM crop farms filled with weeds) | sci.agriculture | |||
GM crop farms filled with weeds (Was: Animals avoid GM food) | sci.agriculture | |||
GM crop farms filled with weeds (Was: Paying to find non-GE wild corn?) | sci.agriculture | |||
BOYCOTT Fieldale Farms (Springer Mountain Farms & Redding) They're ANTI-ORGANIC! (And call | sci.agriculture | |||
BOYCOTT Fieldale Farms (Springer Mountain Farms & Redding) They're ANTI-ORGANIC! (And call your | sci.agriculture |