Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Farmers doing test plots generally report their yield only to the company that produced the seed. The results are then known only to the company, and Monsanto (among others) has not been fully forthcoming with honest public release of those yield statistics. Some farmers might also report their yield to somebody locally, such as the county agent, but a few isolated yield reports like that, even if you took the trouble to try to find them, would not give a statistically valid picture.
It is true that yields are up considerably since a century ago, and a great deal of that is due to chemicals created by companies like Monsanto. But there has been an invironmental cost that is not necessarkly commensurat with that share of the gain.
American agriculture through that period of increase has been little short of catastrophic in terms of everything but yield. It is said that for every bushel of corn that came out of Iowa, five bushels of topsoil went into the Gulf of Mexico. That is expensive corn, regardless of yield. In some parts of Iowa, plows are now hitting bedrock..
Farmers doing test plots generally report their yield only to the company that produced the seed. The results are then known only to the company, and Monsanto (among others) has not been fully forthcoming with honest public release of those yield statistics. Some farmers might also report their yield to somebody locally, such as the county agent, but a few isolated yield reports like that, even if you took the trouble to try to find them, would not give a statistically valid picture.
It is true that yields are up considerably since a century ago, and a great deal of that is due to chemicals created by companies like Monsanto. But there has been an invironmental cost that is not necessarkly commensurat with that share of the gain.
American agriculture through that period of increase has been little short of catastrophic in terms of everything but yield. It is said that for every bushel of corn that came out of Iowa, five bushels of topsoil went into the Gulf of Mexico. That is expensive corn, regardless of yield. In some parts of Iowa, plows are now hitting bedrock..
You need to find better sources of information. And while you're at it, you might want to actually go visit a farm some day.
Farmers who do test plots don't only report the findings to the company that produced the seed. That is 100% incorrect. Your being unaware of where you find that information simply means you don't know what you're talking about.
And the whole thing about "for every bushel of corn that came out of Iowa, five bushels of topsoil went into the Gulf of Mexico" is absurd. Do you realize that, on my father's farm for instance, that would mean a quarter million bushels of topsoil per year ended up in the Gulf of Mexico. Were that even remotely true, he would have run out of topsoil about 40 years ago. Strangely enough though, his topsoil is in better condition than it, perhaps, has ever before been.
Honestly jtur88, you just need to drop this one. You're out of your league here.
I have been reading some info on GM seeds and other farm/food issues regarding bio-tech driven agriculture. After trying to sort out the truth by reading these reports both for and against GM crops, I'd have to say it's like reading the work of medical researchers in that we as non-ag laymen are not informed enough to dispute much of anything that has been written.
I have been following the posts within this thread and can readily see that the arguing has little to do with any facts that support one sides feelings from the others, some have posted a great deal, based on their personal knowledge of farming, others have posted using info gathered from the web and various studies that have been published. The end result is to see the polarization of of the US population regarding our food, I would think the question is really one of trust, and who are we supposed to trust? Most people know the motivation of corporate decision making is most always driven by the desire to maximize the bottom line.
It is this overiding drive for dollars that has a lot of folk's worried, not just worried about their food, but worried about the cosequence of having such a lopsided notion of priorities, this really is at the heart of the argument that anything coming from the corporate structure is suspect. Just as the current economic debacle is seen by many to be proof of the weakness in our system of unrestained business practices.
In the meantime we all will eat what comes to the stores and hope that someday the profit paradigm is balanced with a real concern for our health. I can recall the many times our food chain has been compromised in order to create a better bottom line, they are well known and don't need to be repeated here. To call each other fools and morons, is stooping to the lower rungs of debate etiquette that has become a norm in the shoutings of bluster radio types, personally, I will try to refrain from making anyone angry enough to jump in my face over what we all know is just a conversation.
I have been reading some info on GM seeds and other farm/food issues regarding bio-tech driven agriculture. After trying to sort out the truth by reading these reports both for and against GM crops, I'd have to say it's like reading the work of medical researchers in that we as non-ag laymen are not informed enough to dispute much of anything that has been written.
I have been following the posts within this thread and can readily see that the arguing has little to do with any facts that support one sides feelings from the others, some have posted a great deal, based on their personal knowledge of farming, others have posted using info gathered from the web and various studies that have been published. The end result is to see the polarization of of the US population regarding our food, I would think the question is really one of trust, and who are we supposed to trust? Most people know the motivation of corporate decision making is most always driven by the desire to maximize the bottom line.
It is this overiding drive for dollars that has a lot of folk's worried, not just worried about their food, but worried about the cosequence of having such a lopsided notion of priorities, this really is at the heart of the argument that anything coming from the corporate structure is suspect. Just as the current economic debacle is seen by many to be proof of the weakness in our system of unrestained business practices.
In the meantime we all will eat what comes to the stores and hope that someday the profit paradigm is balanced with a real concern for our health. I can recall the many times our food chain has been compromised in order to create a better bottom line, they are well known and don't need to be repeated here. To call each other fools and morons, is stooping to the lower rungs of debate etiquette that has become a norm in the shoutings of bluster radio types, personally, I will try to refrain from making anyone angry enough to jump in my face over what we all know is just a conversation.
Meantime my garden -filled with GM hybrid seeds, as all gardens are - is up and growing nicely. We'll have close to a full year's worth of vegetables before the summer is over.
American agriculture through that period of increase has been little short of catastrophic in terms of everything but yield. It is said that for every bushel of corn that came out of Iowa, five bushels of topsoil went into the Gulf of Mexico. That is expensive corn, regardless of yield. In some parts of Iowa, plows are now hitting bedrock..
I will file this, along with most of your other comments under "Making stuff up"
Pesticide use is greatly decreased due to spot application (using GPS) which also saves money. Ditto for fertilizers.
Then there is the whole "no till" movement.
Farmers aren't dumb, especially the ones still around farming today.
Feel free to document a great source.
Oh yeah, I assume you blame Monsanto for the erosion too?
1. NOBODY is required to buy RoundUp Ready Seed. Absolutely nobody. But if you do, you have to sign a contract first, guaranteeing that you won't save back seed for next year. Get your facts straight.
2. ALL food is genetically modified (GM) food. EVERY seed you plant in your garden is GM. EVERY seed that is planted in virtually every field across the United States is GM. They have been for decades. Most people just aren't smart enough to know that GM is another phrase for the word "hybrid".
3. The GREENPEACE LIE about Monsanto trying to patent the pig has already been proven to be a bold-faced lie. No reason to launch into hyperbole here.
"The GREENPEACE LIE about Monsanto trying to patent the pig"
When I google that, the only link that comes up about it is YOU here on CD...
Every bushel also costs about 2,000 gallons of water and almost a half a gallon of gasoline.
No, I didn't blame Monsanto for soil erosion. I blamed Monsanto and other corporate giants collectively for the general catastrophe of a century of modern agriculture in the American cornbelt.
Today, the soil in Iowa is an inert material that has no other function than to keep crop roots in contact with applied chemicals. If you plant a corn seed in Iowa and just water it, it will likely not grow more than 6 inches tall. I've done it. I planted a tomato setting in a former ag field behind my office in Kansas, and it did not grow an inch in over a week, until I doused with Miracle-Gro.
every bushel also costs about 2,000 gallons of water and almost a half a gallon of gasooline.
No, I didn't blame Monsanto for soil erosion. I blamed Monsanto and other corporate giants collectively for the general catastrophe of a century of modern agriculture in Iowa.
Ummmm... Excuse me. You linked a worksheet for Junior High kids.
Every bushel also costs about 2,000 gallons of water and almost a half a gallon of gasoline.
No, I didn't blame Monsanto for soil erosion. I blamed Monsanto and other corporate giants collectively for the general catastrophe of a century of modern agriculture in the American cornbelt.
Today, the soil in Iowa is an inert material that has no other function than to keep crop roots in contact with applied chemicals. If you plant a corn seed in Iowa and just water it, it will likely not grow more than 6 inches tall. I've done it. I planted a tomato setting in a former ag field behind my office in Kansas, and it did not grow an inch in over a week, until I doused with Miracle-Gro.
1) You linked to a google search. The links in that search don't support the stuff you are making up.
2) BS on inert material lol....pass any bean fields lately with 5ft tall volunteer corn stalks sprouting up? lol.
3) Erosion is a natural process, there is always SOME erosion to wind and rain. A scientific approach would be to determine what the baseline is.
I see nothing to support that if the crops weren't harvested that the erosion would be more or less.
4) 2000 gallons of water? Gasp! Oh wait, most of the crops in the midwest are watered by oh....rain. How wasteful!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
