Monsanto GM-corn harvest fails massively

[Doug1029]

You decide to replenish land with nutrients by planting clover cover crop (you pay for seeds, you water that area, etc). How much bread leafs you will make from that cover crops? Zero.

When clover is grown as a cover crop it is usually left in place for three or four years, during which time it can produce perhaps six to eight cuttings of clover hay, not to mention clover honey. THEN it is plowed under to fertilize the soil.

Doug

[questionmark]

When clover is grown as a cover crop it is usually left in place for three or four years, during which time it can produce perhaps six to eight cuttings of clover hay, not to mention clover honey. THEN it is plowed under to fertilize the soil.

Doug

In some places you can even use a cash crop to replenish nutrients in soils, I am thinking about peanuts and frijoles negros (Mexican black beans).

[bmk1245]

When clover is grown as a cover crop it is usually left in place for three or four years, during which time it can produce perhaps six to eight cuttings of clover hay, not to mention clover honey. THEN it is plowed under to fertilize the soil.

Doug

I heard about two years, nevertheless... Hay isn't produced from thin air - just follow every step from seed to hay (before/during/after). Physics works here quite perfectly - you can't get more than you input: more sun? - better outcome; more nutrients (green manure/fertilizers)? - better outcome; better wattering? - better yield, etc. etc.

[Doug1029]

You mean, genes from less genetically altered plants (GE), have more chances for horizontal transfer?

No. As far as I know, there is no difference in transfer rates between natural and artificial genes.

I wonder, what you think when you eat banana (have you heard a gig about banana being half human, or humans are half banana...) Case in point: we already share fair amount of genes with other species (and completely unrelated). That doesn't scares you eating bananas, pork, etc...

The metabolic machinery for oxidizing sugar is the same for me as it is for the oak tree outside my office. It takes the same genes. Same with the banana. We both need to do the same things to stay alive; it's no wonder that we share the same genetic equipment.

If that happened, as you say, then its bad. Have actual verdict?

Yes. Monsanto won the case. Nobody is allowed to grow transgenic, Roundup-resistant soy beans unless they buy the seeds from Monsanto. Even if a grain buyer bought a previous crop and the farmer paid for the beans from the dealer, he is not allowed to grow them. Personally, I'd have done it without telling Monsanto. But maybe this was supposed to be a test case or something.

"Famous" one.

The article says they were highly-inbred plants. Guess that's a risk of inbreeding. But they weren't transgenic - these were created the old-fashioned way. Nobody says Ma Nature is always perfectly safe. Ever get poison ivy?

Doug

[Bavarian Raven]

Bavarian Raven, on 25 February 2014 - 05:24 PM, said:

Just as an aside, but I think it would be cool if there was a small subsection of this forum dedicated to "sustainability" and the such.

We have a section dedicated to just "nature" and one to "disasters" - i think it would be cool to have one dedicated to "sustainability/permaculture" and the like. A place for like minded people to discuss articles and events related to the topic, and ideas, and the like. I think it could help spread the good word and ideas, and of course every bit helps.

Damnt... You stole it...

You have brilliant idea. Certainly, close to earth ideas would be worth more than woowoo corner(s) right here on UM. We just have to ask mods, and I'll be 100% for it.

I'm glad someone(s) like my idea.

How should we phrase this to the mods? Feel free to PM me. I was thinking either its own section in the science section or a sub section of Earth, disasters, and the env?

I get good idea how much input takes to grow things. Multiply by 100, and ants are starting to crawl on my back...

The thing is, once everything is in place and up and running (assuming you don't have large animals), it really doesn't take that much effort/time input except during planting/harvest times. In my garden example a ways back, I maybe spend an hour of time a week during the summer months water and pulling the odd big weed (usually while watering). But my soil is so good, only the potted plants need daily watering. The rest, is every third or so day.

Edited March 2, 2014 by Bavarian Raven

[bmk1245]

No. As far as I know, there is no difference in transfer rates between natural and artificial genes.

[...]

Where is the problem then? Do we see our crops "producing" muscarine, for example?

[...]

The metabolic machinery for oxidizing sugar is the same for me as it is for the oak tree outside my office. It takes the same genes. Same with the banana. We both need to do the same things to stay alive; it's no wonder that we share the same genetic equipment.

[...]

But when single gene is being inserted thats bad...

[...]

Yes. Monsanto won the case. Nobody is allowed to grow transgenic, Roundup-resistant soy beans unless they buy the seeds from Monsanto. Even if a grain buyer bought a previous crop and the farmer paid for the beans from the dealer, he is not allowed to grow them.

[...]

OK, thats bad, I admit.

BTW, I'm not big fan of the ways Monsanto deals with patent issues/harassment of farmers, but IMHO, this irrationality stems from ferocious anti-GMO rhetorics, or even criminal activity. Try to push, for example, the same farmers who grew "killer zucchini" hard enough ("Prove your plants are safe to eat", "It has that bad stuff that makes people sick", "Long term studies", etc etc) and you will get irrational response - broomstick up your bum, and pitchfork in your stomach.

[...]

The article says they were highly-inbred plants. Guess that's a risk of inbreeding. But they weren't transgenic - these were created the old-fashioned way. Nobody says Ma Nature is always perfectly safe. Ever get poison ivy?

Doug

See the problem? Do we have to apply same testing procedures (as required for GE, and with all "long term studies" demands from anti-GMOers) for "old-fashioned ways" as well? If not, why?

[bmk1245]

I'm glad someone(s) like my idea.

How should we phrase this to the mods? Feel free to PM me. I was thinking either its own section in the science section or a sub section of Earth, disasters, and the env?

[...]

In my opinion, it should be (as subsection) in Earth, Disasters, and the Environment section. But how many would like to participate there enough for mods to make it into separate subsection? As far as I've seen, probably few - you, QM, Mikko, (maybe few others). Guess, you have to ask mods (your idea, after all ).

[...]

The thing is, once everything is in place and up and running (assuming you don't have large animals), it really doesn't take that much effort/time input except during planting/harvest times. In my garden example a ways back, I maybe spend an hour of time a week during the summer months water and pulling the odd big weed (usually while watering). But my soil is so good, only the potted plants need daily watering. The rest, is every third or so day.

If it is (garden/"farm") small enough then yes, but when you have farm large enough to not only feed yourself, but educate your children, buy new,car, pay mortgage, etc, etc, then, I'll repeat myself, "ants on my back"...

[Doug1029]

I heard about two years, nevertheless... Hay isn't produced from thin air - just follow every step from seed to hay (before/during/after). Physics works here quite perfectly - you can't get more than you input: more sun? - better outcome; more nutrients (green manure/fertilizers)? - better outcome; better wattering? - better yield, etc. etc.

The length of time it's left in place depends on things like the soil type, slope and general condition. The greater slope or worse the condition, the longer it's left in place. Also, the farmer's need or lack thereof for clover hay, hay vs. grain markets, etc. Sometimes a clover cover crop will be left for five or six years. My father-in-law kept one for twelve years. After three or four the clover begins to drop out and has to be reseeded, so that's another consideration.

Doug

[Doug1029]

Where is the problem then? Do we see our crops "producing" muscarine, for example?

The concern is that bt resistance will be transferred to a weed, such as ragweed. Then we get all kinds of scary scenarios. The other concern is that inter-specific gene transfer will render an entire species poisonous to those with allergies. Otherwise, transgenic crops offer an opportunity to grow more food on less land. If we use our heads instead of thinking with our profit margin, we can use this tool to feed the world.

But when single gene is being inserted thats bad...

If you insert only one gene at a time, then you know what caused the problem. In most cases, you should be able to keep the problem out of production. If you insert multiple genes, you don't know where your problem is coming from. Takes a lot more research to find out.

Monsanto uses some out-and-out unethical business practices, hiding behind patent laws. The bottom line DOES NOT justify the means.

Doug

[bmk1245]

The length of time it's left in place depends on things like the soil type, slope and general condition. The greater slope or worse the condition, the longer it's left in place. Also, the farmer's need or lack thereof for clover hay, hay vs. grain markets, etc. Sometimes a clover cover crop will be left for five or six years. My father-in-law kept one for twelve years. After three or four the clover begins to drop out and has to be reseeded, so that's another consideration.

Doug

Thats OK if you have where to put/sell hay, if not - you won't cook loaf of bread from hay (of course, you may start to make hay pillows...).

The concern is that bt resistance will be transferred to a weed, such as ragweed. Then we get all kinds of scary scenarios. The other concern is that inter-specific gene transfer will render an entire species poisonous to those with allergies. Otherwise, transgenic crops offer an opportunity to grow more food on less land. If we use our heads instead of thinking with our profit margin, we can use this tool to feed the world.

[...]

But the same horizontal gene transfer can/may happen from bacterium (B.thuringiensis, B.anthracis ets, etc), is it not?

(Bolded: its not Bt resistance, btw)

[...]

If you insert only one gene at a time, then you know what caused the problem. In most cases, you should be able to keep the problem out of production. If you insert multiple genes, you don't know where your problem is coming from. Takes a lot more research to find out.

[...]

If plant does not become "poisonous" after the insertion of 2, 3 or whatevermuch genes, I do not see problem. When it does become "poison", then yes - more research, or simply abandon that particular idea.

[...]

Monsanto uses some out-and-out unethical business practices, hiding behind patent laws. The bottom line DOES NOT justify the means.

[...]

Agree. But then we have to "weed out" (somehow) greediness from human nature, and thats impossible (at least in foreseeable future).

[Doug1029]

But the same horizontal gene transfer can/may happen from bacterium (B.thuringiensis, B.anthracis ets, etc), is it not?

(Bolded: its not Bt resistance, btw)

OK. OK. But you knew what I meant.

Agree. But then we have to "weed out" (somehow) greediness from human nature, and thats impossible (at least in foreseeable future).

Maybe we can find a transgene to cure it?

Doug

[FurthurBB]

Interesting. Still, I'm not quite sold on it given that we don't seem particularly good at digesting it. Mind you, neither are the cattle that are corn fed. Can someone confirm that corn syrup is now used en mass due to a sugar shortage in the 70's?

unless you have mass massive amounts of animal fat some carbohydrate is required. Corn is a pretty good one because it is high in both types of fiber and has a couple of vitamins. I think some of the roots are better though.

[FurthurBB]

OK, fair enough.

But lets back to Mexico and corn: why the hell Mexico needs to import 1/3 of corn demands (data for import and production, year 2013), when they have so much (and many) "superior" native varieties? Why cling onto unnatural native varieties (created by human... and, yeah, find those "thousands" of varieties growing in wilderness, I dare you...), when you can't feed yourself?

Corn that has not been modified by humans is inedible.

[FurthurBB]

OK, if corn could be able to **** ragweed, you would see ragweed changing already in front of your eyes, so to speak. Any source for such occurrences? Just wondering, if mouse, in some way, will try to copulate with cactus, will he/she get hedgehog offsprings?

I already stated (in other threads), I'm not a big fan Monsanto's (ferocious/desperate) actions, but they are exploiting the same system other breeders do: you buy seeds, you want save seeds? pay for it. Either we apply same rules for all companies/breeders, either... I don't have the definite solution for the last "either". Maybe you can come up with reasonable solution to patent issues...

Eat less bananas. Who knows what your poo will turn into (you know, genetics, etc)...

Except, you will turn into tomato...

Salt resistance doesn't mean safe. Do you know all "bad" stuff (and quantities) in salt resistant tomato?

Nope, and nope, and do not intend to. I prefer local views... I'm silent environmentalist, and traveling to USA would produce more CO₂... Just joking...

Are you sure that fruit is more safe than we already have? Eating one fruit may not kill you (try amanita muscaria, I heard its delitious), but in the long term it may be harmful for your health.

And here we reached the main point: what regulation(s) should be? Propose just few, say, two scenarios on how you regulate breeding, and make all happy (farmers, consumers, companies, investors...)

I think the concern about ragweed and GM corn is that that ragweed and corn are in the same family so the possibility of crossbreeding is not nil.

[FurthurBB]

One thought about organic farming: soil tilth and fertility is built up by proper cultivation, but a lot of the nutrients are brought from other sites. There is no free lunch here: those other sites are impoverished to make the organic site produce higher yields. The high levels of fertility associated with organic farming are not sustainable for agriculture in general.

Doug

Yes, organic farming practices are often harder on the environment than people realize. They were not sustainable before, I am not sure what people think has changed. Well, slash and burn agriculture was as practiced by small villages, but that takes a specific environment.

[Guest]

Yes, organic farming practices are often harder on the environment than people realize. They were not sustainable before, I am not sure what people think has changed. Well, slash and burn agriculture was as practiced by small villages, but that takes a specific environment.

The point been made is that science has also been applied to organic farming and has produced better productivity returns than for intensive over recent decades. its not the old fashioned form of organic where land was often exploited and abandoned.

However the main point is that modern intensive farming (GMO included) is a dead end because it is so massively dependent on oil and so is unsustainable in a peak oil environment. Modern intensive farming can lead to nothing other than massive starvation in the coming decades as more people find they are unable to afford the cost. That is not an unreasonable projection given that there have been extensive food riots in the last decade in response to the spike in oil prices.

Organics win specifically in the area of reducing the inputs of oil to the food chain.

Br Cornelius

[bmk1245]

OK. OK. But you knew what I meant.

[...]

So, you basically agree that horizontal gene transfer is quite weak argument against GE?

[...]

Maybe we can find a transgene to cure it?

Doug

[bmk1245]

Corn that has not been modified by humans is inedible.

Honestly, I don't know about that.

I think the concern about ragweed and GM corn is that that ragweed and corn are in the same family so the possibility of crossbreeding is not nil.

Corn and ragweed are from different families (according to wiki at least). Maybe teosinte is called ragweed in some places, then 'yes' - crossbreeding could be problem.

[Doug1029]

So, you basically agree that horizontal gene transfer is quite weak argument against GE?

I really don't know. I know it's a concern among some geneticists, but how serious? I don't know. But it is worth looking at in more detail.

Doug

[Doug1029]

Corn and ragweed are from different families (according to wiki at least). Maybe teosinte is called ragweed in some places, then 'yes' - crossbreeding could be problem.

This time Wiki got it right. They're in different families. That means the chances of natural crossing are nil, but occasional transfer of individual genes among species does occur. Bacteria usually are the culprits. The new plant is not really a cross as only one or two chromosomes may be affected.

Doug

[bmk1245]

I really don't know. I know it's a concern among some geneticists, but how serious? I don't know. But it is worth looking at in more detail.

[...]

Me neither. If horizontal gene transfer would be rule (at pace antiGMO movement suggest), and not exception, we would be potato heads already (or tomato heads, if that matters). Are we such? No.

This time Wiki got it right. They're in different families. That means the chances of natural crossing are nil, but occasional transfer of individual genes among species does occur. Bacteria usually are the culprits. The new plant is not really a cross as only one or two chromosomes may be affected.

Doug

Again, the same thing can happen with "natural crossbreeding/horizontal gene transfer" with the help of bacteria, of say... apple family and, for example, ivy.