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.
That said, it is truly stupid for any farmer to save back any seed to plant the next year. If you plant new seed corn, you're apt to get nearly 200 bushels per acre yield. If you plant corn out of the bin, you're apt to get 40-50 bushels per acre yield. So really, it's a no-brainer.
It's a no-brainer from a financial and business perspective, I agree, but not from a human and environmental health perspective. Realizing your background now, though, it makes sense why you would have such strong feelings about the issue, and that's OK.
Epidemic leaf blight hit throughout the corn-producing areas of the eastern United States in the summer of 1970. February of the same year, the southern corn leaf blight, caused by Bipolaris maydis, was found in hybrids that have exhibited previous resistance. This was alarming since 85% of the total corn planted acreage the US were planted with this hybrid.
Hypersusceptibility to Bipolaris maydis by the hybrids was attributed to the use of the Texas cytoplasmic male sterility technique in producing the hybrids. The hypersusceptibility of Tcms hybrid was first discovered in the Philippines by Mercado and Lantican in 1961. In 1969, Race T, a new race, of B. Maydis invaded the Corn Belt. Race T was highly virulent on corn with Tcms but mild on corns with normal cytoplasm.
By May 1970, Southern Corn Leaf Blight has invaded the southern United States and was moving northward due to weather conditions by June. Since 85% of the corn planted was susceptible, losses ranged from 10-30% resulting to 15% of the U.S. corn crop or about 20 million metric tons of corn (about $1 billion) was lost.
I like eating hybrid corn as well as the next guy, but there is still a national interest in maintaining the old, open-pollinated varieties. Yes, they won't get the farmer his 200 bushels per acre yield, but it is important to keep those genes around for the next set of diseases to pop up.
We're not talking about replacing the hybrids with the open-pollinated varieties, but keeping a large gene pool. It is from this gene pool that the company scientists/plant breeders will find the genes to use in developing the new hybrids.
*In a 1976 paper entitled "An Evaluation of Special Grant Research on Southern Corn Leaf Blight," the USDA also acknowledged the genetic uniformity in the nation's corn crop as one of the primary causes of the 1970 Corn Leaf Blight. "In the [1960s], it became clear that relatively few corn breeding parents were being used to produce the bulk of American hybrid corn varieties," said the report. "This narrowness of germplasm set the stage for potential vulnerability to diseases, insects and other stresses. In early 1970, environmental conditions in Southern and Northcentral corn producing regions were favorable for easy disease establishment and spread among vast plantings of highly uniform varieties. The [Southern Corn Leaf Blight] epidemic became of national and international significance."
Looking beyond corn, the Academy also warned that most other crops were "impressively uniform genetically and impressively vulnerable." Moreover, the study added, "this uniformity derives from powerful economic and legislative forces," such as food company preferences for one kind of crop and government marketing orders requiring specific kinds of fruits and vegetables. But despite these warnings, not much has changed since 1972. Corn is less vulnerable, but 43 percent of the nation's corn acreage is planted to varieties derived from 6 inbred lines. Other crops are even more vulnerable. And cytoplasmic breeding systems are still being used in a number of crops, including corn.
---------------
There are farmers out there who are aware of these issues and take steps to maintain a diverse gene pool.
Last edited by Teak; 08-06-2009 at 02:28 AM..
Reason: removed html code
Epidemic leaf blight hit throughout the corn-producing areas of the eastern United States in the summer of 1970. February of the same year, the southern corn leaf blight, caused by Bipolaris maydis, was found in hybrids that have exhibited previous resistance. This was alarming since 85% of the total corn planted acreage the US were planted with this hybrid.
Hypersusceptibility to Bipolaris maydis by the hybrids was attributed to the use of the Texas cytoplasmic male sterility technique in producing the hybrids. The hypersusceptibility of Tcms hybrid was first discovered in the Philippines by Mercado and Lantican in 1961. In 1969, Race T, a new race, of B. Maydis invaded the Corn Belt. Race T was highly virulent on corn with Tcms but mild on corns with normal cytoplasm.
By May 1970, Southern Corn Leaf Blight has invaded the southern United States and was moving northward due to weather conditions by June. Since 85% of the corn planted was susceptible, losses ranged from 10-30% resulting to 15% of the U.S. corn crop or about 20 million metric tons of corn (about $1 billion) was lost.
I like eating hybrid corn as well as the next guy, but there is still a national interest in maintaining the old, open-pollinated varieties. Yes, they won't get the farmer his 200 bushels per acre yield, but it is important to keep those genes around for the next set of diseases to pop up.
We're not talking about replacing the hybrids with the open-pollinated varieties, but keeping a large gene pool. It is from this gene pool that the company scientists/plant breeders will find the genes to use in developing the new hybrids.
That's absolutely right.
They call them Heirloom Seeds, among other things.
The Heirloom Seeds, as well as all manner of varying hybrids, keep us from having "all our eggs in one basket." Blights, diseases and all forms of pests come and go. They always have and I presume they always will. And while they may wipe out one hybrid, they won't bother another. Or if they wipe out the Heirloom produce in a certain area, they won't bother the hybrids.
It's also important to know that a lot of those hybrids are "blight resistant" and/or "drought resistant." Some of the current corn hybrids have real thick, hearty stalks that don't break off like the old non-hybrid lines.
Well if that is considered "thin ice" then there have been plenty breaking right through. Inferring someone is a pedophile is okay, but wondering why it is being allowed is not? And, pray tell me, how is that considered on topic?
Maybe it's time this thread is closed.
They are just showing their ignorance and lack of any form of respect.
Now, regarding the OP, it doesn't matter to a plant whether a N atom comes from "organic" fertilizer or from "inorganic" fertilizer. Both types of fertilizers break down into NO3-N, NH4-N, K20 and PO4 in the soil and these nutrients are uptaken by plant roots. Thus, one should not expect any differences in health benefits between, say, organic lettuce and inorganic lettuce. (What is inorganic lettuce?)
The benefit of so-called organic fertilizers (animal manures and "green" manures) is that they contain organic matter (OM) -roughage so to speak- that greatly improves and maintains soil structure.
Farmers have used organic fertilizers for centuries. I took a photo this past summer of my father standing next to two used manure spreaders on sale at a farm implement lot. Animal manure is great fertilizer for it contains both carbonaceous material, that breaks down slowly and improves soil structure, and nitrogenous material for plant growth.
I used to use meat meal as an "organic" fertilizer in my home garden. We had a lot of dog mushers where I used to live, so the local feed company used meat meal in preparing dog food. Meat meal was good for N and K, but I had to supplement it with wood ashes for the P. (And the neighborhood dogs would dig up the garden the night after having spread and forked it into the soil!)
It has really only been since corporations have taken over family farms that the heavy use of chemical fertilizers has predominated. I don't have time to look for studies online right now, but I am sure that there is evidence out there that soil structure is being destroyed by over-tilling and the fact that chemical fertilizers do not have the roughage that manures do.
Many farmers in the upper midwest have taken to no-tillage, or low-tillage, farming which means they do not invert the soil year after year, but rather drill seed directly through last year's crop wastes, which are allowed to break down in place and add OM back into the soil. But even this is problematic, I understand, since pests and diseases can remain in crop wastes. Crop rotation can eliminate some of these problems.
Organic versus inorganic is really a nonsense argument in my opinion as for discussing plant food. I would rather frame the argument as building the soil versus not building the soil. That is the crucial issue. Additionally, it could be framed as locally available fertilizer versus fertilizer that requires a lot of fossil fuel input, both as a raw material and for transport.
Last edited by Teak; 08-06-2009 at 08:02 PM..
Reason: added words
Now, regarding the OP, it doesn't matter to a plant whether a N atom comes from "organic" fertilizer or from "inorganic" fertilizer. Both types of fertilizers break down into NO3-N, NH4-N, K20 and PO4 in the soil and these nutrients are uptaken by plant roots. Thus, one should not expect any differences in health benefits between, say, organic lettuce and inorganic lettuce. (What is inorganic lettuce?)
The benefit of so-called organic fertilizers (animal manures and "green" manures) is that they contain organic matter (OM) -roughage so to speak- that greatly improves and maintains soil structure.
Farmers have used organic fertilizers for centuries. I took a photo this past summer of my father standing next to two used manure spreaders on sale at a farm implement lot. Animal manure is great fertilizer for it contains both carbonaceous material, that breaks down slowly and improves soil structure, and nitrogenous material for plant growth.
I used to use meat meal as an "organic" fertilizer in my home garden. We had a lot of dog mushers where I used to live, so the local feed company used meat meal in preparing dog food. Meat meal was good for N and K, but I had to supplement it with wood ashes for the P. (And the neighborhood dogs would dig up the garden the night after having spread and forked it into the soil!)
It has really only been since corporations have taken over family farms that the heavy use of chemical fertilizers has predominated. I don't have time to look for studies online right now, but I am sure that there is evidence out there that soil structure is being destroyed by over-tilling and the fact that chemical fertilizers do not have the roughage that manures do.
Many farmers in the upper midwest have taken to no-tillage, or low-tillage, farming which means they do not invert the soil year after year, but rather drill seed directly through last year's crop wastes, which are allowed to break down in place and add OM back into the soil. But even this is problematic, I understand, since pests and diseases can remain in crop wastes. Crop rotation can eliminate some of these problems.
Organic versus inorganic is really a nonsense argument in my opinion as for discussing plant food. I would rather frame the argument as building the soil versus not building the soil. That is the crucial issue. Additionally, it could be framed as locally available fertilizer versus fertilizer that requires a lot of fossil fuel input, both as a raw material and for transport.
You make some excellent points.
I'd add though, that many farmers have actually built up the soil to where it's now better and healthier than ever before. My dad would be one of them.
Let me give you some examples:
- He has several major hog producers nearby. For the past 15 years, they have been spreading massive amounts of manure on dad's land. As you noted, manure is fantastic fertilizer partly because it adds to the compost in the soil. Nobody in that area irrigates. Ever. In addition, dad spreads virtually no commercial fertilizer of any kind. Even so, he is regularly getting 200+ bushel per acre yields from his corn.
- He has always done crop rotation, planting corn on last year's bean ground.
- He uses minimal amounts of herbicides. Since he plants primarily RoundUp Ready Seed, one or two quick passes with a minimal amount of RoundUp Spray does that heavy pre-emergence herbicides and 2 cultivations used to do. This means that the soil is not disturbed by a cultivator, and it actually holds moisture better.
- Most of your modern hybrids of corn actually have massive stalks, and huge amounts of leaves. This means there is far more topsoil residue than was present even 10 years ago. That residue catches and holds snow, rain and even airborne dirt. It actually is building the topsoil.
Modern American farmers are actually more "land friendly" than any farmers have ever before been, or currently are in any other part of the world. When it costs $5,000 per acre to buy land, you tend to take pretty darned good care of it!
I'd add though, that many farmers have actually built up the soil to where it's now better and healthier than ever before. My dad would be one of them.
Let me give you some examples:
- He has several major hog producers nearby. For the past 15 years, they have been spreading massive amounts of manure on dad's land. As you noted, manure is fantastic fertilizer partly because it adds to the compost in the soil. Nobody in that area irrigates. Ever. In addition, dad spreads virtually no commercial fertilizer of any kind. Even so, he is regularly getting 200+ bushel per acre yields from his corn.
- He has always done crop rotation, planting corn on last year's bean ground.
- He uses minimal amounts of herbicides. Since he plants primarily RoundUp Ready Seed, one or two quick passes with a minimal amount of RoundUp Spray does that heavy pre-emergence herbicides and 2 cultivations used to do. This means that the soil is not disturbed by a cultivator, and it actually holds moisture better.
- Most of your modern hybrids of corn actually have massive stalks, and huge amounts of leaves. This means there is far more topsoil residue than was present even 10 years ago. That residue catches and holds snow, rain and even airborne dirt. It actually is building the topsoil.
Modern American farmers are actually more "land friendly" than any farmers have ever before been, or currently are in any other part of the world. When it costs $5,000 per acre to buy land, you tend to take pretty darned good care of it!
I read about a cattle feedlot up near Thief River Falls, Minnesota, that was being fined for stinking up the air. If I farmed nearby, I would certainly look into taking that manure off of their hands cheaply.
I think that the organic versus inorganic argument has been framed wrongly and in typical sound-bite fashion. If we were to go back to the farming style of 100 years ago, food would become very high-priced and American standards of living would drop as we spent more on food, and more people had to become farmers again. Although it sounds like a romantic lifestyle, small farms tend to be food-rich but cash-poor. My father's family survived the Depression quite okay on their family farm, but they couldn't afford new shoes every year.
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.
