What's new
  • Please note members who been with us for more than 10 years have been upgraded to "Veteran" status and will receive exclusive benefits. If you wish to find out more about this or support IcMag and get same benefits, check this thread here.
  • Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!

Monsanto's Roundup disaster

grapeman

Active member
Veteran
man, i disagree hwith u. how can u tell that aobut grapes and wine? i do wine,

I am talking about table grapes. I have no opinion about wine grapes except one.
Growing wine grapes is not in the same league of difficulty as growing table grapes. Sorta like little league compared to pros.

Also the comment above about crop load having a negative impact on quality (taste & appearance), dropping crop is the easy way out of the dilemma. Figuring out how to carrying more fruit while keeping quality high is the holy grail.

We test soil 2 times a year and petioles several time during the growing season. We do our best to feed the soil, but we also feed the plants. It's an evolving process. This year's nutrient du-jour is Calcium.
 
Last edited:

Microbeman

The Logical Gardener
ICMag Donor
Veteran
This is probably the wrong thread but since it has been mentioned; I believe that the whole yield argument concerning organic vs synthetic is somewhat dependent on the crop grown. In our fields where the organic matter was high the hay/alfalfa yields were astronomical and especially in dry years the chemical neighbors came no where near our yield. The same can be said for two other farms in the area which applied organic matter (one organic like us, the other some synthetics mixed).

I'm pretty sure that all grains/grasses would yield the same or greater in a simple natural growing system. There is no need for it to be more expensive nor nutrient intense. This part of the organic hypothesis presented by some, I do not understand. Natural farming to be successful should be more along the lines of 'The One Straw Revolution'

Consider accounts by the European explorers upon viewing the great plains and the stands of grasses unlike anything they had seen. [even being trampled and devoured by all those buffalo]

I have no foundation but hypothesize that one day we will discover profound tissue differences between naturally and synthetically nurtured plants.

[It is funny, this is a ranching community I lived in and most of the farmers would not touch beef or chicken which had been raised with antiotic/hormone feed.]
 
M

Mountain

I just spent a few minutes looking into wine and table grape fertilization out of curiosity. The organic vs conventional debate and personal bias aside have always had a certain respect for the work you do in the fields Grapeman...practical application...making a living off agriculture (low margin). You're not just some couch jockey. If I agreed with you in total I'd be eating your grapes but choose to support organics, for various reasons, when feasible and that's where my spending is focused. Still learning and always open to solid information regardless of the source. Organic does not necessarily mean better as nutrient density is very important. Still have chosen to eat organic mostly since '84.

I know of one season when the conventional growers had much more trouble with powdery mildew than the organic grower
That's not surprising.

This thread has run it's course for me.
 

grapeman

Active member
Veteran
Grapeman, Do you grow several varieties? Sorry if I've missed that.

Flame Seedless, Thompson Seedless, Sugarone, Perlettes, Autumn Royal, Summer Royal, Autumn King, Princess, Scarlet Royal, Sweet Scarlet, Red Globe and Vintage Red.

There are a few new ones coming out next year that we have ordered.

Anyway, the market is changing. Exports account for about 40% of our business ATM, up from 20% 5 years ago. We are doing our patriotic best to balance the US trade deficit, even though our POS government does nothing but put barriers in our way.
 
Last edited:

rafghani

New member
Tha USA was practicing eugenics way before the germans, they ended up copying that system & actually congratulated our government for the practice.. they want less people not more,, drinking water running out, not enough food, global warming,, but if you look at our planet from space it looks pretty freakin big to me compared to the size of a human being, its all about control because they already got money
 

grapeman

Active member
Veteran
Tha USA was practicing eugenics way before the germans, they ended up copying that system & actually congratulated our government for the practice.. they want less people not more,, drinking water running out, not enough food, global warming,, but if you look at our planet from space it looks pretty freakin big to me compared to the size of a human being, its all about control because they already got money

Then why is food so cheap? Why is water so cheap?
 

mriko

Green Mujaheed
Veteran
Then why is food so cheap? Why is water so cheap?

Because you're born in the right country. It's not about cheapness, in many countries lots of people simply don't have access to drinking water.

Irie !
 

grapeman

Active member
Veteran
Because you're born in the right country. It's not about cheapness, in many countries lots of people simply don't have access to drinking water.

Irie !

I think the "LACK" of education has a bit to do with this. You know we've all seen photos of people shitting and pissing in the same river they drink from.

And what does that have to do with the comment about the USA practicing eugenics while food and water are running scarce?
 
M

Mountain

Well a friend sent me a newsletter and figured I'd pass along the info...
Glyphosate causes malformations in frog and chicken embryos at doses lower than those used in agriculture spraying and well below maximum residue levels in products presently approved in the European Union. The findings were recently published in Chemical Research in Toxicology. The research was led by Professor Andres Carrasco, director of the Laboratory of Molecular Embryology at the University of Buenos Aires Medical School and member of Argentina's National Council of Scientific and Technical Research.

"The findings in the lab are compatible with malformations observed in humans exposed to glyphosate during pregnancy"

Reporting of such problems started in 2002, two years after large scale introduction of RR soybeans in Argentina. The experimental animals share similar developmental mechanisms with humans.

The authors concluded that the results raise "concerns about the clinical findings from human offspring in populations exposed to Roundup in agriculture fields." Carrasco added, 'I suspect the toxicity classification of glyphosate is too low. In some cases this can be a powerful poison."

The maximum residue level (MRL) allowed for glyphosate in soy in the EU is 20 mg/kg. The level was increased 200-fold from .1 mg/kg in 1997 after GM RR soy was commercialized in Europe. Carrasco found malformations in embryos injected with 2.03 mg/kg glyphosate. Soybeans can contain glyphosate residues of up to 17 mg/kg.
 
M

Mountain

Also in that newsletter...
DNA fragments from genetically modified plants are increasingly found in animal tissue such as milk, inner organs and muscles. Most recently, in April 2010, scientists from Italy reported DNA sequences stemming from genetically engineered soy in milk from goats.

For years now, it has been known that in general, DNA from plants is not completely degraded in the gut, and can be found in inner organs, the blood stream and even in the offspring of mice.

"Recent publications could lend support to those stakeholders in favor of labeling products such as meat, milk and eggs derived from animals fed with genetically engineered plants," says Christoph Then from Testbiotech
 
Last edited:

grapeman

Active member
Veteran
They aren't. :dunno:

:/

Man has progressed. Just a few thousand years ago, man used ALL their free time hunting/gathering.
That sounds pretty expensive to me.

Now everywhere I look I see (in America anyway) even the poor are not starving and some are fatter then hell.

It doesn't take a genius to determine that calories are cheaper today then ever before in the history of man.

But turn a blind eye on the facts if you want. Liberals usually do.
 

mean mr.mustard

I Pass Satellites
Veteran
What you call progress I call perversion.

If calories are all that counts I sincerely urge you to live off of McDonald's dollar menu the rest of your life. :yes:

I know that shite is not what we should be striving for. If price is the bottom line I'll buy that... conservatives usually do.

Fat and stupid has nothing on informed and active. Work only kills you these days if you live in a cubicle :D

Native Americans worked a total of two to four hours a day apiece... they didn't strive for cellphones, cable, Walmart, or any other unnecessary masturbations.

Why do you work so much?
 

grapeman

Active member
Veteran
What you call progress I call perversion.

If calories are all that counts I sincerely urge you to live off of McDonald's dollar menu the rest of your life. :yes:

I know that shite is not what we should be striving for. If price is the bottom line I'll buy that... conservatives usually do.

Fat and stupid has nothing on informed and active. Work only kills you these days if you live in a cubicle :D

Native Americans worked a total of two to four hours a day apiece... they didn't strive for cellphones, cable, Walmart, or any other unnecessary masturbations.

Why do you work so much?

A Calorie is the accepted unit of energy from food. It does not matter much where your calories come from as long as you do not over consume them. In any market in any modern country in the world, you have a selection of food calories that is the most varied, nutritious and inexpensive in the history of mankind.

Also, take a look at the average life expectancy of a native indian vs. even a poor person today.

Could we make it better and cheaper? Yes. But I don't buy that it used to be better or cheaper.
 

mean mr.mustard

I Pass Satellites
Veteran
If we made it better it wouldn't be cheaper.

It matters where your food comes from... whether or not you know it.

Cheaper is better to many. That's why Walmart stomped all over little towns across the country.

Reasoning, or lack thereof, and our decisions are up to us.
 

headband 707

Plant whisperer
Veteran
If we made it better it wouldn't be cheaper.

It matters where your food comes from... whether or not you know it.

Cheaper is better to many. That's why Walmart stomped all over little towns across the country.

Reasoning, or lack thereof, and our decisions are up to us.


"Cheaper is better " LOL.. somtimes you get what you pay for.. peace out Headband707
 

mriko

Green Mujaheed
Veteran
all the floods of 2010 and 2011 which have destroyed so many crops all around the world is going to make a tough 2011 food-wise. Wheat is already selling for double from last year's rates. Grow your own, people !

Irie !
 

Microbeman

The Logical Gardener
ICMag Donor
Veteran
Also, take a look at the average life expectancy of a native indian vs. even a poor person today.

Hey Grapeman, just thought I better interject that (although strict statistcs are not existent) the life expectancy of North American Indians has gone down radically since Europeans (Americans/Canadians) came to the continent. If you do a little research you can confirm this. Especially coastal natives had very easy lives with all the fish and berries they wanted.
 

headband 707

Plant whisperer
Veteran
all the floods of 2010 and 2011 which have destroyed so many crops all around the world is going to make a tough 2011 food-wise. Wheat is already selling for double from last year's rates. Grow your own, people !

Irie !

I agree with this .. I collect all seeds from all plants lol.. time consuming YES but it's a great thing to give to the poor or anyone who wants to try and grow their own peace out Headband707:tiphat:
 

Latest posts

Latest posts

Top