GMOs aren't solving world hunger

I think it stands to reason that some cross pollination must be tolerated. The question is, how much? If it's zero, that's unacceptable. It also stands to reason that some farms will use Monsanto seed without license and use the cross-pollination defense as a means to escape prosecution. And again the question is, how often is that?
 
The farmers being sued are claiming they ended up with fields of GMO crops because of cross-pollination from neighboring fields of GMO crops ... which is statistically impossible

A coalition of 300 organic farming interests, farmers seed growers and producers, have just lost a legal suit against Monsanto GM seed corporation in which they claim they might be victims of accidental GM contamination of their crops, and thus subject to Monsanto lawsuits.



If it was easy to cross-pollinate these crops, hybrid varieties would be developed, just like it is now done for corn

Now in field trials, GMO Wheat

ur right... i must be a dumbass... GMO wheat isnt even here yet...

Goertzen Seed Research
The identity-preserved hard red wheats were grown from seed germplasm developed
by Goertzen Seed Research (Haven, Kansas), which had been acquired jointly by
Cargill’s North American Flour Milling and North American Grain in 1994.
Improving endosperm quality was one of the primary goals of the Goertzen wheat-Dr. M. Boland / International Food and Agribusiness Management Review Vol 6 Iss 3 2003
11
breeding program. A flour miller wanted the maximum amount of flour extraction
per bushel, whereas a baker wanted protein quantity and quality. Cargill also
owned a Bake Lab near its Minneapolis headquarters, where various wheat samples
were analyzed for baking qualities. Cargill informed breeders of the importance of
milling and baking quality traits. Consequently, public and private wheat breeders
gradually were developing “loaf bread,” “noodle,” and “cracker” wheats.
Cargill had also long sought hard white wheats. Goertzen Seed Research developed
an early hard white wheat variety, Snow White, and contracted with producers for
its use in Cargill’s mills. However, it was not well adapted to the Great Plains.
Cargill cooperated with wheat breeders at Kansas State University in the
development of their first hard white wheat varieties in 1999 and developed one of
the first identity-preserved wheat programs in the Great Plains with the
Karl/Karl92 hard red wheat varieties which possessed excellent baking qualities in
1993. To encourage producer adoption, Cargill had developed a program that paid
producers economic incentives to grow hard white wheat. Because these wheats had
to be kept separate, North American Grain developed identity-preserved programs
near its elevators in western Kansas and eastern Colorado.
Certified Seed and Farmer-Saved Seed
The key problem with identity-preserved hard white wheat was providing sufficient
economic incentives to ensure that producers planted enough wheat to satisfy
demand for large-scale flour mills, so as to obtain the cost savings from the higher
extraction rate. However, wheat producers were unique in that much of the wheat
was grown from farmer-saved seed. Certified seed from public varieties and seed
varieties of private companies was defined as seed that had passed field inspection
and seed testing standards for varietal purity, absence of certain wheat, and other
crop seeds and certain diseases. In addition, most certified seed and private seed
were treated with a fungicide to control seedborne and seedling diseases. Typically,
certified seed also exceeded 85 percent germination.
Non-certified seed was called farmer-saved or homegrown seed. Certified seed was
more “pure” (less weeds or foreign material) because it had been cleaned, but it also
had higher costs. The overwhelming majority of producers planted certified seed the
first year and then used farmer-saved seed for one to two years until seed purity
declined, and then they purchased certified seed again. Very few producers plant
certified wheat seed on all of their acres.
Mixing red and white wheats would result in severe discounts. If white wheat and
red wheat were planted next to each other in a field, the potential existed for crosspollination. Seedcoat color was a maternal characteristic. If a red wheat plant
pollinated a white wheat plant, the wheat remained white. But if that wheat plant
were saved back as seed, then the next generation would be a red wheat plant.

lol... did you see this part? hes a power cat... ur alma mater... quibble over semantics.... its GMO... eugenics...

Associate Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics, Kansas State University, 342 Waters
Hall, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA

http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/34397/1/0603ca01.pdf

:finger:
 
Tell you what the rate is at a distance of 150ft and then tell you how fast it drops off from 12ft to 40 ft. Even at a distance of 150ft the rate is between a quarter and three quarter percent. That seems to suggest that at 12 ft it's very much higher and for adjacent plants even higher still.

yes, closer spacing, higher cross=pollination rates, corn typically planted in 30" rows, and random cross-pollination has been observed up to 1 mile away in corn, depending on wind and other varriables


FluffyMcDeath said:
That means that if a neighbour has a field and you have a field and they have Monsanto corn and you have family corn and you are a seed saver then after the first season with a 150ft separation (what a lot of wasted land) you have 1 in 400 kernels carrying Monsanto genes from the edge of your field.

correct, except no one in the US saves corn seed, its a hybrid, so new seed is purchased every year, none is saved, been that way since hybrid corn was developed in the 1930's.

the crops in which the seed is saved, the cross-pollination distances are in inches
 
ur right... i must be a dumbass...

we're in agreement then :thumbs up:

robert l. bentham said:
Non-certified seed was called farmer-saved or homegrown seed. Certified seed was more “pure” (less weeds or foreign material) because it had been cleaned. The overwhelming majority of producers planted certified seed the first year and then used farmer-saved seed for one to two years until seed purity declined, and then they purchased certified seed again. Very few producers plant certified wheat seed on all of their acres. Mixing red and white wheats would result in severe discounts. If white wheat and red wheat were planted next to each other in a field, the potential existed for crosspollination. Seedcoat color was a maternal characteristic. If a red wheat plant pollinated a white wheat plant, the wheat remained white. But if that wheat plant were saved back as seed, then the next generation would be a red wheat plant.

Wheat is typically planted in 4" rows, 5% cross-pollination at 1ft

That's all true, what your missing is that the the mixing of vanities is not from cross-pollination, but mixing of the seeds at harvest. Most wheat farmers don't own their own combines, they hire it harvested, and hire it hauled and there are always seeds in the combine, corners of the truck beds ..., from the last field harvested.

A certified producer spends a lot of time cleaning the hopper bins, thrasher, and straw walkers of the combine before harvest to insure no seed mixing with other varieties.

If the seed is not mixed with other varieties is will remain pure indefinitely, as long as fields of other varieties are kept 200 ft away
 
In the end, nature will win. Pests are already becoming resistant and need increasing management. The increased management is necessary to prevent a wholesale bloom of resistant pests that render the crop effective, but the cost of the increased management will wipe out the economic benefit gained by paying for higher priced seed - but as long as the patent lasts farmers will be stuck with the new seed because it is prohibitive to take the legal risk of growing other seed.
Pest resistance is similar to the cross pollination problem. The first resistant pest is a bit of a freak, as the first cross pollination is, but once it happens, if your vigilance was inadequate, the number of crossing or the number of pests expands geometrically. It's hard to keep a cone balanced on its point. That's just not a stable state.
 
Meanwhile, Australian non-GM breeders developed a wheat that is more salt resistant, enabling to use (some) seawater as irrigation
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/5400/world-breakthrough-salt-tolerant-wheat

"Although we have used molecular techniques to characterise and understand the salt-tolerant gene" "The salt-tolerant gene (known as TmHKT1;5-A) works by excluding sodium from the leaves. It produces a protein that removes the sodium from the cells lining the xylem, which are the 'pipes' plants use to move water from their roots to their leaves," They discovered the new salt-tolerant gene in an ancestral cousin of modern-day wheat, Triticum monococcum.
 
Willie Nelson is a singer not a scientist but he's also a human being and he's lived long enough to see what's going on. GM really isn't about making better crops, it's about monopolizing the seed supply and that means monopolizing the food supply (and that's the second next best thing to privatizing the air).

Even IF GMs were better when they were introduced they cannot keep up with evolution and when you monocrop, even with a clever engineered organism, it's still a monocrop and is still vulnerable to getting wiped out by a new pathogen or pest. The massive take over that gene patenting has enabled is great for a few guys who own those patents, but it's bad bad bad for all the people who depend on food to live.
 
Willie Nelson is a singer not a scientist but he's also a human being and he's lived long enough to see what's going on. GM really isn't about making better crops, it's about monopolizing the seed supply and that means monopolizing the food supply (and that's the second next best thing to privatizing the air).

Even IF GMs were better when they were introduced they cannot keep up with evolution and when you monocrop, even with a clever engineered organism, it's still a monocrop and is still vulnerable to getting wiped out by a new pathogen or pest. The massive take over that gene patenting has enabled is great for a few guys who own those patents, but it's bad bad bad for all the people who depend on food to live.

Willy Nelson has been an advocate for small farmers for decades. He's been very close to farmers for years through Farm Aid and other charities. The attack from Monsanto is the biggest threat yet to small farmers. BTW when I saw small farmers, I mean anyone who is not a multinational conglomerate.
 
As my contract with the university is coming to an end next month, I've been told my next "gig" may be with... Monsanto! That'll be interesting!
 
As my contract with the university is coming to an end next month, I've been told my next "gig" may be with... Monsanto! That'll be interesting!

Luckily for you, GMO is banned in Monsanto cafeteria!
 
World hunger is mostly a political problem - controlling food is, after all, a way to control people.

But it's not just that. GMOs just don't seem to be producing as advertised.

Well if GMO doesn't work out, there is a Plan B

The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement

Phasing out the human race by voluntarily ceasing to breed will allow Earth’s biosphere to return to good health. Crowded conditions and resource shortages will improve as we become less dense.

DEATH

food is not always safe. Some foods are intrinsically hazardous, such as cassava, fugu fish or sprouted potatoes. Any food can become hazardous when contaminated with pathogens (Such as E. coli, Salmonella, Listeria, etc.). Water becomes toxic if you drink 3 gallons within an hour.

I'll happly eat GMO papaya

life has risks, papaya are tasty

comming soon GMO apples, bananas, grapes

& GMO Salmon!
 
I'll happly eat GMO papaya
The biggest problem with GMOs is ownership. A Papaya you are not allowed to grow is no more nutritious than no papaya. GMOs are ALL about giving control of food to large corporations. It doesn't matter if the modification works as advertised, it only matters that you can use the patent to exercise control over the growers.
 
The biggest problem with GMOs is ownership. A Papaya you are not allowed to grow is no more nutritious than no papaya. GMOs are ALL about giving control of food to large corporations. It doesn't matter if the modification works as advertised, it only matters that you can use the patent to exercise control over the growers.
for applications filed on or after June 8, 1995, the patent term is 20 years from the filing date of the earliest U.S. application
 
Back
Top