Monsanto's Roundup disaster

[Microbeman]

@ microbeman, unfortunately I feel that I know more about the current food production system than you do because I receive audio gold from professors who have their masters degrees in subjects like agronomy, plant breeding, and sustainable agriculture, all of whom base their curriculum around rich suburban kids who don’t know didly about agriculture. I was born neither rich or in the city, and have hippy parents that grow a backyard full of fruits veggies and ganja. I was like you years ago when I didn’t know what I know now, going to farmers markets thinking I could actually make a difference by eating “local”. Pipe dreams. And to be realistic, the “flip side” is that you have the typical outlook of someone who thinks they live sustainably, and think everyone can do the same. Neither is true because you are a human, and we are the only thing on this planet that lives beyond its capacity to do so. Oh and I buy my groceries at the farm store on my campus, where most of the produce is local, a lot more local that what all the hipsters at farmers markets think they’re getting. I can pick it. Yeah, I pay out the ass for my 6 dollar half gallons of ridiculously delicious orange juice and about 30 for a primo grass fed tri tip, but I’m fine with it because I live in a state where my tuition is covered and I’m paid to be a full time student. Who said the Man was such a bad guy and who said Cali is in debt? Imo, most people just don’t take advantage of the system in place and choose to live in the herd, while supporting the corporations that terrify them. hahah man I’m baked and ranting. No disrespect here fellas, I admire your optimism, but it is futile.

Okay you win. BTW, I've only been to a farmer's market once and was actually not visualizing hippies but the hundreds of farms occupied mostly by immigrants from China. If you wish to observe a large scale natural horticultural system, look to Cuba. (also many parts of India, Thailand, Phillipines) I'm so happy for you that you get paid to go to school and go out to all those restaurants.

 

[mean mr.mustard]

That nipple tastes like fake knowledge.

 

[Mountain]

In Arkansas they've already seen what damage Roundup can do to their crops.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-cka5s4AqE

Namaste

At least someone is trying to keep this thread on track...lol...thx.

Got a story for you...A guy set up a farm in the Caribbean on virgin land he cleared. He got fresh Ruby Red Grapefruit cuttings from Texas. Grew them out and saw symptoms of glyphosate burning. Sure enough he called the orchard he got the stock from and yes they had been using Roundup. So...Roundup had accumulated in the woody tissue...nice!

But this farmer knows better then you that organically grown fruits and vegetables are NO fucking better for you then the ones you stuff your face with from the corner market.

I'll generally agree with this. For the most part organic is about what you're not putting on (salt ferts, herbicides, pesticides, etc.). Organic does not necessarily mean more nutritious. While I think it's a nice ideal to just compost and use manures, etc. the quality of the crop will be dependent on the inputs. A friend is into working with large scale agriculture in his business and his pet peeve is that virtually all organic farmers are not going the extra mile to produce high quality, nutrient dense crops. With some simple soil testing and tissue analysis a comprehensive program can be created to kick up plant health, yields and crop quality (nutrient density). Organic growers need to bring in the science. That whole compost and manure paradigm works but is lacking IMO.

 

[mean mr.mustard]

Fruits, vegetables not as nutritious as 50 years ago

By LANCE GAY
SCRIPPS HOWARD NEWS SERVICE

In spite of what Mother taught you about the benefits of eating broccoli, data collected by the U.S. government show that the nutritional content of America's vegetables and fruits has declined during the past 50 years -- in some cases dramatically.

Donald Davis, a biochemist at the University of Texas, said that of 13 major nutrients in fruits and vegetables tracked by the Agriculture Department from 1950 to 1999, six showed noticeable declines -- protein, calcium, phosphorus, iron, riboflavin and vitamin C. The declines ranged from 6 percent for protein, 15 percent for iron, 20 percent for vitamin C, and 38 percent for riboflavin.

"It's an amazing thing," said Davis, adding that the decline in nutrient content has not been widely noticed.

He said an agriculture scientist appears to have been the first to pick up the disappearance of nutrients in 1981 in a paper comparing the data on nutrients on garden crops grown in the United States with those grown in England.

Davis, who discussed his findings at a recent meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in St. Louis, suspects the trend in agriculture toward encouraging crops that grow the fastest and biggest is a reason for the decline. The past five decades have been marked by the "Green Revolution," which has seen a marked increase in U.S. production and yields as farmers have turned to the fastest-growing and greatest-producing plants.

The tradeoff is that the faster-growing plants aren't able to acquire the nutrients that their slower-growing cousins can, either by synthesis or from the soil. He said there also are differences in the amounts of nutrients lost in differing varieties of wheat and broccoli.

Davis said he doesn't want his study to encourage people to stop eating vegetables on the grounds they lack nutrients.

"That's completely wrong," he said, contending his study shows that people need to eat more vegetables and fruits, not less. "Vegetables are extraordinarily rich in nutrients and beneficial phytochemicals. They are still there, and vegetables and fruits are our best sources for these."

Al Bushway, a food-science professor at the University of Maine and an expert with the Institute of Food Technologists, said the decline of nutrients in vegetables and fruits could be made up through other foods Americans eat.

"For vegans only using plant sources for food, this could be an issue," he said. But he said most Americans would pick up adequate quantities of calcium they need by drinking milk.

Bushway said that fruits and vegetables are still crucial to providing nutrients people need. "They are an important part of the diet -- extremely important," he said.

The Agriculture Department data that Davis used doesn't include all of the nutrients scientists today can identify in fruits and vegetables.

Progress can't be denied.

 

[Mountain]

If you wish to observe a large scale natural horticultural system, look to Cuba.

Vaguely remember some snippet about Cuba in a documentary about when, I think, Russia cut subsidies and the entire country started planting wherever they could. They did a pretty damn good job.

 

[headband 707]

At least someone is trying to keep this thread on track...lol...thx.

Got a story for you...A guy set up a farm in the Caribbean on virgin land he cleared. He got fresh Ruby Red Grapefruit cuttings from Texas. Grew them out and saw symptoms of glyphosate burning. Sure enough he called the orchard he got the stock from and yes they had been using Roundup. So...Roundup had accumulated in the woody tissue...nice!

I'll generally agree with this. For the most part organic is about what you're not putting on (salt ferts, herbicides, pesticides, etc.). Organic does not necessarily mean more nutritious. While I think it's a nice ideal to just compost and use manures, etc. the quality of the crop will be dependent on the inputs. A friend is into working with large scale agriculture in his business and his pet peeve is that virtually all organic farmers are not going the extra mile to produce high quality, nutrient dense crops. With some simple soil testing and tissue analysis a comprehensive program can be created to kick up plant health, yields and crop quality (nutrient density). Organic growers need to bring in the science. That whole compost and manure paradigm works but is lacking IMO.

Okay well this is where we are going to have to agree to disagree on the fruit isn't better if it's grown without pesticides etc. WOW this statement is so off to me I have to jump in.. What would make anyone think the pesticides are good in any way shape or form? Has anyone here worked with pesticides ? Do you guys know how bad they are not only to injest but to spread all over our soil??? Any and all pesticides are only tested for 5 years. The idea of a pesticide is at attack the central nervous system of the insect. They have NO IDEA what that will do to us in 10,15,20 years.. You think Cancer is not linked to this?? LOL Think again.... There is a reason it says poison on the bottle ..it's because it is.! If you can eat organic food by all means do so. Promote not using pesticides to save our planet..
It's true that composting properly can be a science in itself but the idea is not to get bigger better fruit. The idea should be get real fruit without pesticides. If it doesn't look perfect get over it it's not supposed to. peace out Headband707

 

[Mountain]

The tradeoff is that the faster-growing plants aren't able to acquire the nutrients that their slower-growing cousins can, either by synthesis or from the soil. He said there also are differences in the amounts of nutrients lost in differing varieties of wheat and broccoli.

I don't necessarily agree with that. For sure there will be differences between genetics but I think more has to do with soil depletion over time and vital components not being replenished. For sure if faster growing, larger yielding soil will be depleted faster. In general modern ag tries to put as little as possible on the fields to bring a crop to market.

Headband 707 - you totally missed my point. Of course the elimination of pesticides and herbicides is beneficial but I'm talking about the actual nutrient value of a crop. There's this misconception that just because it's organic means it's more nutritious. Take the pesticide/herbicide issue out of this part of the discussion.

For nutrient density it's all about the inputs whether organic or conventional. There's a company called Full Circle Compost near Reno and they have run about 1,000 soil tests in the local area mainly looking at mineral/element content. They amend their compost to account for deficiencies in their area so when gardeners and farmers use their compost it is also correcting for local deficiencies and of course people who use their compost are getting fantastic results. These guys are doing it right IMO. This is the type of thing that's important especially in organic agriculture. If something is missing in your program your crop will be lacking in some way...no way around it.

 

[elmanito]

At least someone is trying to keep this thread on track...lol...thx.

I'll generally agree with this. For the most part organic is about what you're not putting on (salt ferts, herbicides, pesticides, etc.). Organic does not necessarily mean more nutritious. While I think it's a nice ideal to just compost and use manures, etc. the quality of the crop will be dependent on the inputs. A friend is into working with large scale agriculture in his business and his pet peeve is that virtually all organic farmers are not going the extra mile to produce high quality, nutrient dense crops. With some simple soil testing and tissue analysis a comprehensive program can be created to kick up plant health, yields and crop quality (nutrient density). Organic growers need to bring in the science. That whole compost and manure paradigm works but is lacking IMO.

If you as farmer used for decades chemical fertilizer & pesticides and decide to become an organic farmer and you will get a certification after 3 years, it won't say anything about the nutricious value of the crops he is growing.

It will increase when this farmer will use basalt rock meal or better seawater extract.

Namaste

 

[headband 707]

I don't necessarily agree with that. For sure there will be differences between genetics but I think more has to do with soil depletion over time and vital components not being replenished. For sure if faster growing, larger yielding soil will be depleted faster. In general modern ag tries to put as little as possible on the fields to bring a crop to market.

Headband 707 - you totally missed my point. Of course the elimination of pesticides and herbicides is beneficial but I'm talking about the actual nutrient value of a crop. There's this misconception that just because it's organic means it's more nutritious. Take the pesticide/herbicide issue out of this part of the discussion.

For nutrient density it's all about the inputs whether organic or conventional. There's a company called Full Circle Compost near Reno and they have run about 1,000 soil tests in the local area mainly looking at mineral/element content. They amend their compost to account for deficiencies in their area so when gardeners and farmers use their compost it is also correcting for local deficiencies and of course people who use their compost are getting fantastic results. These guys are doing it right IMO. This is the type of thing that's important especially in organic agriculture. If something is missing in your program your crop will be lacking in some way...no way around it.

Me too bra I'm also talking about nutritional value lol.. The pesticides are in the fruit it penetrates the skin and then you wash and eat it ,,it's bad, bad ,bad..
It's true that not all organic farmers are that true to the craft but if they are on that road it's a better way to go. The soil from a good compost is called "black gold" because it is.. peace out Headband707

 

[Mountain]

It will increase when this farmer will use basalt rock meal or better seawater extract.

Great example right there...trace elements are key to proper enzyme function and are a piece of the puzzle. Without adequate levels of trace elements many biochemical functions are hobbled. If an organic grower is not ensuring adequate levels of trace elements in their fields crops will be subpar.

It's true that not all organic farmers are that true to the craft but if they are on that road it's a better way to go. The soil from a good compost is called "black gold" because it is

Personally I think organic is the better way to go for various reasons. I also think that most organic growers are not even close to maximizing yields or crop quality. Even with compost it's only as good as what you put in.

 

[Ciarán]

so many misconceptions, Cuba has a sustainable food system?, elimination of chemical fertilizer/pesticide/herbacide a good thing? organically grown better for health? Nothing is as it seems. OK heres some info about cuba,

"On October 28, 2000, U.S. President Bill Clinton signed the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act (TSRA) which allowed U.S. firms to sell food and agricultural products to Cuba and other countries. However, the Cuban government did not purchase any of these products until December of 2001 following the devastating damage caused by Hurricane Michelle to important agricultural areas in November of that year.

Cuban purchases from U.S. firms amounted to $4.319 million in 2001, $138.635 million in 2002, and $256.9 million in 2003. Cuba became the 35th most important food and agricultural export market for the United States in 2003, up from last (226th) in 2000. Actual purchases and pending contracts in the first-half of 2004 are at a pace to move Cuba into the top 20 most important markets of U.S. food and agricultural exports. Furthermore, because current U.S. legislation requires that all Cuban purchases from the United States must be conducted on a cash basis, the lack of credit risk associated with these sales makes Cuba one of the most attractive export markets for U.S. firms."

elimination of chemical fertilizer/pesticide/herbacide a good thing? wow goodbye modern agriculture, ever heaar of the green revolution?

organically grown better for health? not even gonna touch that one because it's already debunked, but another misconception is that organic agriculture is better for the environment, which isn't necessarily true either. Sure it can be, but when farmers are subjected to real life situations, where yeilds per acre are imperative, overuse tends to become the norm, and products like copper sulfide, pyrethrums, and worst of all, uncomposted manure are used in toxic levels.

 

[Microbeman]

Cia, please stop putting words into my mouth (e.g. 'sustainable food system') No wonder they are paying you to go to school....to learn to read.

Ya and the USA gives more charitably than any nation on earth. Want to buy a bridge?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzbmxZBTbt4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxX9u22tFr8&feature=related Ooops I thought these were the full documentary. I'll try to find it.

On topic, Monsanto is apparently promoting roundup ready alfalfa. This will be ugly.

 

[mean mr.mustard]

Personally I think organic is the better way to go for various reasons. I also think that most organic growers are not even close to maximizing yields or crop quality. Even with compost it's only as good as what you put in.

Soil depletion is certainly important and another reason for lack of nutrients in crops.

I think that living mulches, nitrogen fixing plants, compost, and natural weeding do more for soil fertility than spraying ammonium nitrate.

 

[Mountain]

Only thing I ever said about Cuba is basically they made a strong push to use land that was sitting empty and turn it into crops. The same could easily be done in the US.

elimination of chemical fertilizer/pesticide/herbacide a good thing? wow goodbye modern agriculture, ever heaar of the green revolution?

The problem with reliance on chemical fertilizers, IMO, is that it does not promote healthy plants which in turn leave them open to pests and diseases thus the heavy reliance on pesticides. Grow healthy crops and less need for pesticides cause the insects stay away. Sap sucking insects stay away from high brix plants for starters.

An organic farmer moved into the neighborhood and was growing I think alfalfa. The alfalfa field right next to him was conventional. The organic guy focused on nutrient density. Grasshoppers hit the conventional field hard and avoided the organic field. The conventional farmer stood in his field, got covered in grasshoppers then walked onto the organic field, the grasshoppers jumped off and went back to the conventional field. The farmer went back to the infested field, got covered in grasshoppers again, walked onto the organic field and the grasshoppers jumped off and went back to the conventional field...true story except not 100% it was alfalfa. Grow healthy plants and the pests and diseases will stay away for the most part.

A friend is into Sea Crop (seawater concentrate) and told me there were some orange groves in Florida dealing with citrus canker. The conventional approach is tear the infected trees out. They tried Sea Crop and their loss due to canker went from 50% to 20% in one year. Imagine that...using a natural, organic product like that gave those results for a disease condition when the conventional 'answer' is pretty much tear the trees out...lol! Yeah those conventional people have it all wired.

Citrus groves have been destroyed in attempts to eradicate the disease.

When eradication has been unsuccessful and the disease has become established, management options include replacing susceptible citrus cultivars with resistant cultivars, applying preventive sprays of copper-based bactericides and destroying infected trees and all surrounding trees within an appropriate radius.

 

[Microbeman]

Roundup ready alfalfa.....sigh

http://www.roundupreadyalfalfa.com

http://www.saskorganic.com/oapf/pdf/Round-Up-Ready-Alfalfa-and-Organic-Agriculture.doc

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/hot_issues/alfalfa/index.shtml

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/publications/biotechnology/content/printable_version/faq_alfalfa.pdf

 

[Mountain]

Roundup ready alfalfa.....sigh

Gawd...proof they are trying to take over the world of agriculture and control the food supply. I can see it now...glyphosate in the alfalfa just like soybeans, livestock eat the alfalfa...a lot of it...concentrating the glyphosate...people eat the milk and meat...yummy!

Honestly don't know if glyphosate would get metabolized to some extent in animals but my guess it will probably just pass right down the food chain.

 

[mean mr.mustard]

Will Monsanto Need to Cut Targets Again?
NEW YORK (TheStreet) -- Monsanto(MON) could be in for another rude awakening, according to one stock analyst, who downgraded shares of the controversial bio-engineered crop-seed producer Tuesday.
Charles Rentschler, an agriculture stocks analyst for Morgan Joseph who happens also to own a small farm in southeastern Indiana, showed concern that Monsanto's new SmartStax corn seed might not be living up to expectations in terms of crop yields. This planting season marks its first year on the market.

Rentschler went so far as to "beta test" SmartStax on his land, using five acres to do so. Unfortunately for Monsanto, the yields were lower than those produced by the company's legacy seeds, Rentschler wrote in a report, though he made sure to qualify the results.

"We believe we must be objective and keep this information in perspective," he said. And: "Statistically, it would be foolish to generalize from our data." Rentschler noted that SmartStax isn't meant to boost yields, per se, but simply to "preserve the potential" for higher yields with its genes modified to grow a plant that thwarts pests. He also said that near-drought conditions and high heat made for a "once-in-50-years weather situation" in southern Indiana this summer.

But then, on Monday, the St. Louis ag giant itself released an update on the progress of the 2010 SmartStax harvest. "The company seems to be confirming that it, too, is seeing problems," Rentschler wrote in his downgrade note Tuesday.

The salient quote from Monsanto's update: "To date, with less than 10 percent of the total expected Genuity SmartStax harvest completed, early indicators suggest some hybrids are delivering yields on par with YieldGard VT Triple," which is Monsanto's legacy corn seed product, "while others have shown yield variability below this YieldGard VT Triple technology."

Rentschler felt that was warning enough to cut his rating on Monsanto stock to hold from buy. His forecast for Monsanto's fiscal 2011 earnings, which stands now at $2.80 a share, is "under review," he said.

The company has indicated that it wants 15 million acres in the U.S. planted with SmartStax for the 2011 growing season, up from 3 million acres this year. Rentschler believes the added acreage would bring 20 cents a share in profit, but with the potentially disappointing SmartStax yields, those targets now appear to be in question.

Monsanto has struggled all year with its SmartStax corn seeds and RoundUpReady 2 soybean seeds, even as sales of its RoundUp herbicide continue to crater. The spray, long Monsanto's core product, came off patent some time ago and has faced increasing generic competition ever since.

This spring, Monsanto was forced to rein in its ambitious growth targets for 2012 and admit that it had overestimated how much it could charge for its new corn and soybean seeds. The company had put a premium on both products -- $75 per bag of SmartStax seeds and roughly $10 per bag of RoundUpReady seeds -- but farmers spurned those prices as well as Monsanto's sales pitch, especially given the sharp run-up generally in the cost of seeds even during the recession.

Monsanto's infamous strong-arm sales tactics also turned many of its customers the wrong way. It's widely believed that an ongoing federal antitrust investigation into the seed business is targeted at Monsanto.

Growers called into question the yield promises made by Monsanto for those two seed types. RoundUpReady performed disappointingly in 2009, something the company acknowledged. This year, seed dealers and analysts say Monsanto didn't provide much third-party data validating the claims of either RoundUpReady or SmartStax, heightening skepticism among farmers.

Amid all this, Monsanto shares performed terribly for most of this year, plunging from a year high near $90 in January to lows close to $45 in July. The stock has since rallied, however. Midday Tuesday, Monsanto stock was changing hands at $54.22, down 2.4% for the session on volume of 3.5 million shares. Average daily turnover amounts to 6.6 million shares.

Monsanto, no stranger to criticism on the Internet, became a sensation in the blogosphere last week after The Nation magazine reported that the company had once secured the services of the private-security and mercenary outfit formerly known as Blackwater (and currently known as Xe Services), thus combining two corporate names that, in the popular imagination, could hardly be less controversial. The Nation alleged that Monsanto had used a Blackwater surrogate company called Total Intelligence Solutions to become its "intel arm," spying on rival companies as well as activist groups.

Monsanto later released a statement denying that it had used Total Intelligence or Blackwater in this capacity.

"Total Intelligence Solutions provided Monsanto 's security group with reports about activities or groups that could pose a risk to the company, its personnel or its global operations," according to a statement on Monsanto's web site. The company also said that Total Intelligence used publicly available information to do its research. "We have not engaged people to infiltrate firms/activist groups and we do not condone that type of behavior."

-- Written by Scott Eden in New York

This is from agweb... I found it interesting.

 

[Ciarán]

wow grapeman I though you had a head on your shoulders, but i guess your just an asshole who criticizes people you know nothing about. but Im pathetic and a drain on society because I qualify for financial aid and California is broke because of people like me. Sorry for being born poor. I'd rather accept an great opportunity than be trapped in the slavery of the uneducated work force. Peace out guys

 

[bombadil.360]

sorry, but cuba is a shit-hole where people are under-nourished.

been there, done that...

say, you wanna plant a crop in the field next to your neighborhood in cuba? sorry, but no can do, it is illegal.

wake up and smell the coffee... oh wait, not everyone gets to drink coffee in cuba... you need a hook-up from the government to give you a ticket to trade in for coffee... most people get tickets for meat, beans and rice, if they are lucky...

 

[elmanito]

sorry, but cuba is a shit-hole where people are under-nourished.

Can tell you that the people in the west are under-nourished also.So much food in the supermarkets with no nutritious value at all.You have to eat 2 lbs vegetables & 5 different types of fruit to get your RDA.Thanks to companies like Monsanto the soil in the west is polluted with chemicals that even in the 22th century you will find them back.

Namaste