What you **NEED** to know about grain fed beef (paper, best, weather)
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.
I wonder if intercropping would help with the weeds invading the corn. I know when I planted corn, beans and squash together that the soil was much healthier, the plants grew better than they did alone, they didn't need water as much, and didn't have that much of a weed problem. Granted, that was garden-scale and not production-scale; but it would be interesting if something like that worked on a larger scale.
Here is a funny story about innercropping.
Every 5-10 years our fields get rotated from hay ground to corn ground and then back, all to prevent compaction of the high magnesium soil we have. Anyway the FSA requires cover crops on certain fields 3 years prior to crop rotation which here is generally winter rye on these fields IF they help pay for rotational costs.I admit that cover crops work well in some locations of this country, but they do not work well here. Anyway we are obligated to do as they ask, because if you take government money you are obligated to do as they say to get that money.
Last year intercropping did not work too well on some fields we were in the process of rotating. The hard winter stemmed the growth of the winter rye all winter long, but in the spring, that winter rye came up and anniliated the corn crop. The yield was like 25% of what it should have been. Now we were in a pickle...should we claim the crop as a loss under the crop insurance program, or just eat the loss? I mean it was an activity WE did so it was not mother nature at fault. Still we were obligated to do as the regulators ask and 80 acres of corn equates to 1600 tons of feed. A true damned if you do, damned if you don't kind of thing.
In the end we did not claim the loss though we ended up tilling the entire field under. We just did not feel it was ethical to take a loss for a farming management mistake, even if we did not agree with using cover crops. Sometimes I wish we had more controlover what we do on our farms, but when you take the Kings shilling, you do the Kings bidding...
OOOh, BrokenTap, that isn't funny at all! Arrrgh. That would drive me over the edge! Yeah, rotational farming and cover crops ARE a great idea - in some places, in some situations. Too many people read a book once and think that they know everything, and that some situations are applicable to ALL. Right now we have a problem with leafy spurge - oughtta be called leafy SCOURGE. But folks are digging it up and burnng it while I am looking for another crop to suffocate it that is potentially edible. I have a few patches of the scourge that I am going to try to get rid of with a cover crop that might work - but I'm using my own money and only expermenting with a small control patch. We don't have a whole lot of rules out here; mostly for cattle but not for growing things. When you live in a flyover state you are more ignored - especially if you don't ship anything out of the county or State. Since my property is considered tiny by most standards here (but humongous back east! LOL) and I am not a quantity-Angus rancher, I have some latitude.
But I know what you mean about taking the gov's $$ and having to do what they say no matter how stupid it is - a lot of my rancher friends have to do this if they want to market their goods. That's why I may be opposed to GM seeds, but I understand why some folks HAVE to do it to survive and not sell out to the big conglomerates. Whole Foods folks - nice idea, but as the prices go up, less people will be buying, more people will buy the cheap foods, and I fear organic farming will become just another rich-man's craze. Few people REALLY think about what they put in their bodies, and look at the PRICE of what they buy, not the quality. It's why there are so many imported foods on the shelves - imports that have NO governmental controls on how much or if herbicides, fungicides, and fertilizers, much less GM seeds, are used. But people scarf them up as if they are gold - because they are cheap. Whine all you want, it is the consumer who dictates what sells. If the consumers are idiots, it's no one's fault if the farmer does his d___edest to make a little money!
Wow BrokenTap, I've never heard anything about George Washington Carver genetically modifying crops. I know that he did do research on alternative crops to cotton and corn, and experimented with controlled/selective breeding of some peanut & sweet potato crops. If you have sources siting GW Carver doing any modifications other than breeding new cultivars, I would sure like to read them. As far as I can find, the first genetically modified foods, where they went in and fiddled directly with an organism's genetic code and then sold it as food was the FlavrSavr tomato in the early 1990s.
I don't base my decisions from fear either. I just happen to think that if a particular trait was a good thing, that the organism would have already evolved it through natural selection. Cross-breeding species isn't very common in nature, and when it does happen there are usually deleterius effects like mules, the offspring of horses and donkeys, being infertile. I think it is presumptuous of humans to believe that they can do better than nature and are messing with things for our own convenience and traits we desire, not necessarily the betterment of the species we're altering.
Edited to add that I specifically mean Genectically Modified organisms where they splice in a gene of a completely unrelated organism into the genetic code, not Selective Breeding (although SB, taken to extremes, can result in some pretty non-viable organisms at times too -- like big breasted chickens who can't walk because their legs can't support them, etc).
Wow BrokenTap, I've never heard anything about George Washington Carver genetically modifying crops. I know that he did do research on alternative crops to cotton and corn, and experimented with controlled/selective breeding of some peanut & sweet potato crops. If you have sources siting GW Carver doing any modifications other than breeding new cultivars, I would sure like to read them. As far as I can find, the first genetically modified foods, where they went in and fiddled directly with an organism's genetic code and then sold it as food was the FlavrSavr tomato in the early 1990s.
I don't base my decisions from fear either. I just happen to think that if a particular trait was a good thing, that the organism would have already evolved it through natural selection. Cross-breeding species isn't very common in nature, and when it does happen there are usually deleterius effects like mules, the offspring of horses and donkeys, being infertile. I think it is presumptuous of humans to believe that they can do better than nature and are messing with things for our own convenience and traits we desire, not necessarily the betterment of the species we're altering.
Edited to add that I specifically mean Genectically Modified organisms where they splice in a gene of a completely unrelated organism into the genetic code, not Selective Breeding (although SB, taken to extremes, can result in some pretty non-viable organisms at times too -- like big breasted chickens who can't walk because their legs can't support them, etc).
Your attitude seem to fly in the face of the entire history of human existence. Even the proposition that evolution has produced all the benefits one could expect is way out there. In the areas we are talking about look at the improvement in agriculture from cross breeding. Corn 300 years ago was a very different crop than today. Man did that, not Mother Nature. I'd also assert that whether you modify an organism through selective breeding or direct genetic manipulation, you are genetically modifying the organism. It's just a different tool.
As an engineer this argument against genetic engineering seems like someone saying we should go back to living in caves, because houses aren't natural.
There is a big difference between cross breeding and genetic modification. Genetic modification is NOT what humans have been doing forever. As an engineer, you like to tinker with things, but that's not necessarily the appropriate response to every situation. (Hmmm. I have a hammer. Everything must be a nail, and hammering on everything addresses every problem.)
It's really rather simple. If it is something that can happen in nature (cross breeding - mules, some kinds of plants that are related, etc.), fine, as long as culling is practiced. (And that requires paying close attention to the results and the results of the results.) If it's something that can ONLY happen in a laboratory, not something that should be treated casually as "progress" (more evil has been done in the name of progress than almost anything else I can think of except maybe religion).
There is a big difference between cross breeding and genetic modification. Genetic modification is NOT what humans have been doing forever. As an engineer, you like to tinker with things, but that's not necessarily the appropriate response to every situation. (Hmmm. I have a hammer. Everything must be a nail, and hammering on everything addresses every problem.)
It's really rather simple. If it is something that can happen in nature (cross breeding - mules, some kinds of plants that are related, etc.), fine, as long as culling is practiced. (And that requires paying close attention to the results and the results of the results.) If it's something that can ONLY happen in a laboratory, not something that should be treated casually as "progress" (more evil has been done in the name of progress than almost anything else I can think of except maybe religion).
It seem an arbitrary and capricious standard to assert only those genetic modifications that can be induced through hybridization are acceptable. We control engineering with licensing and standards.
To forgo GM is to give up a world of benefits. The papaya would have died out in Hawaii without being genetically modified. The banana may well die out without a genetically modified version. Golden rice can address chronic vitamin shortage in a large part of the world.
We need to regulate and control genetic modifications, but we already do that on the drug side. It's well within our ability to manage this technology appropriately.
Well, yes, I would say that my attitude does somewhat fly in the face of human history... because most of human history is entirely Anthropocentric. My attitudes and beliefs are not anthropocentric, but more biospheric... humans are only one part of the natural cycle, not the End-All-Be-All, and just because we have big ol' brains doesn't give us license to do whatever we please to the rest of the planet. I realize this is a very unpopular attitude and I get labeled a posey-sniffing, leaf-licking, tree-huging misanthrope a lot... mostly by people who don't understand that I'm not discounting humans, but merely knocking them down off the superiority-pedestal. I'm not some eco-nazi, uberGreen fanatic who is on a holy mission without any scientific information or rational basis either. I realize humans are going to fiddle with things, it's the nature of that big ol' brain, but I think our meddling behavior should work with nature and not against it. But, hey, it's just beliefs and I'm not trying to force them on anyone, just share them and discuss them. If you want to use GM crops, I'm not going to argue with you, but I'm not eating your produce either.
I have to agree with TexasHorseLady - selective breeding is an entirely different aspect than gene-splicing. Yes, you are, technically, modifying the genetics of the given organism... but one can happen naturally and the other requires unnatural labatory intervention. And, I did mention, that some of the SB practices aren't exactly cool either and should be culled (like the chickens who are crippled/deformed just so we can have more meat faster). Nature isn't always perfect or speedy, but the process of Natural Selection has been pretty darned effective for the millions of years prior to our arrival... its just arrogant to believe that we can "do better".
Yes, corn is an entirely different organism now than when it was essentially just a mutant grass... selectice breeding made it a better crop for humans. The corn today has an entirely symbiotic relationship with humans and cannot survive without our intervention because we have made it less resistant to disease, other plants and pests through our selective breeding and cultivation practices. Gene-splicing the corn at this point is just further compounding a problem we created. It's that short-term gain vs. long-term loss thing at work again.
We need to regulate and control genetic modifications, but we already do that on the drug side. It's well within our ability to manage this technology appropriately.
That's a particularly bad example/argument. Consider the amount of "accidental" and "unintended" health and safety risks that have occured with pharmaceuticals and other chemicals... even though they are "regulated" and "managed". SCGranny just mentioned the Thalidomide example and all the dangerous side effects of "FDA approved medications". Don't forget Fen-Phen, NSAIDS, and the host of other meds that have either been recalled or must carry blatant health warnings.
Well, yes, I would say that my attitude does somewhat fly in the face of human history... because most of human history is entirely Anthropocentric. My attitudes and beliefs are not anthropocentric, but more biospheric... humans are only one part of the natural cycle, not the End-All-Be-All, and just because we have big ol' brains doesn't give us license to do whatever we please to the rest of the planet. I realize this is a very unpopular attitude and I get labeled a posey-sniffing, leaf-licking, tree-huging misanthrope a lot... mostly by people who don't understand that I'm not discounting humans, but merely knocking them down off the superiority-pedestal. I'm not some eco-nazi, uberGreen fanatic who is on a holy mission without any scientific information or rational basis either. I realize humans are going to fiddle with things, it's the nature of that big ol' brain, but I think our meddling behavior should work with nature and not against it. But, hey, it's just beliefs and I'm not trying to force them on anyone, just share them and discuss them. If you want to use GM crops, I'm not going to argue with you, but I'm not eating your produce either.
I'd suggest that you already eat gm food and don't realize it. Virtually all Soybeans are genetically modified.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissingAll4Seasons
I have to agree with TexasHorseLady - selective breeding is an entirely different aspect than gene-splicing. Yes, you are, technically, modifying the genetics of the given organism... but one can happen naturally and the other requires unnatural labatory intervention. And, I did mention, that some of the SB practices aren't exactly cool either and should be culled (like the chickens who are crippled/deformed just so we can have more meat faster). Nature isn't always perfect or speedy, but the process of Natural Selection has been pretty darned effective for the millions of years prior to our arrival... its just arrogant to believe that we can "do better".
If you look to the end results, hybrid crops and animals have a different genetic structure than their predecessors. It's only the mechanism that's different.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissingAll4Seasons
Yes, corn is an entirely different organism now than when it was essentially just a mutant grass... selectice breeding made it a better crop for humans. The corn today has an entirely symbiotic relationship with humans and cannot survive without our intervention because we have made it less resistant to disease, other plants and pests through our selective breeding and cultivation practices. Gene-splicing the corn at this point is just further compounding a problem we created. It's that short-term gain vs. long-term loss thing at work again.
I'm not sure what the long term loss is with hybrid corn. We need to be more concerned with sustainable agriculture than we have in the past, but drought and disease resitant hybrids are moving in the right direction. Nitrogen fixing corn would be a tremendous breakthrough.
Again, you're an engineer, of the frame of mind that all tinkering and tampering is good.
Sustainable agriculture does NOT mean that we turn to the laboratory and put ourselves at its mercy in future generations. It means, in fact, just the opposite. Sustainable agriculture is that that can be sustained using the means provided to us by nature, that will grow in its natural environment. Does this mean eating locally, and eating those things, in season, that naturally grow in our area. Well, yeah, it does. Which means a lot of us might go into chocolate withdrawal.
I can remember when tangerines were a treasure to be put in a Christmas stocking, because you could only get them for a very brief period of weeks right around then. I remember when green grapes were equally a treasure - you could get them seasonally, and one of the most brilliant of my high school boyfriends took me on one of the few dates that still sticks in my memory. He bought me a pound of green grapes, took me to a local park overlooking a beautiful lake, and let me sit on the grass and eat all of them. (Now, THAT's a romantic!)
If you must engineer, engineer equipment to make farming easier. Leave the plants to those who see them for what they are - living beings, just like we are.
It is no false distinction between what occurs naturally, and what occurs, and can occur, only in a laboratory. The latter is NOT sustainable.
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.
