General Discussion

NickB79

(19,654 posts)

177. If all a farmer cares about in his seedstock is germination, he's a piss-poor farmer

Sat Jun 4, 2016, 05:05 PM

Jun 2016

How were the yields per acre on those saved soy and wheat fields? I'm serious, how many bushels per acre? Because you can "farm for a living" and still be poor as dirt if you do it wrong, or you can "farm for a living" and have enough money to retire before you're completely broken (like my grandfather, dad and 7 uncles who are all good farmers). Being able to hire help is a bad indicator of success; there's always teenagers and guys down on their luck willing to work all day for $20 and a case of beer (hell, I used to be one of those kids).

If you know some farmers getting anywhere near the yields hybrid soy and wheat seed delivers with open-pollinated, saved seed, you better find the nearest university nearby with a strong ag sciences department and get them out there pronto, because you just discovered the Holy Grail of farming.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

246 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

GMOs are bad for biodiversity, bad for non-corporate farming, bad for the public's right to natural [View all] Vote2016 Jun 2016 OP

Here we go..... Coventina Jun 2016 #1

This article has about 100 links to different peer-reviewed research papers at the end. Dr Hobbitstein Jun 2016 #2

Your article is about whether GMOs are safe. I'm not saying they are safe or unsafe. I'm saying that Vote2016 Jun 2016 #8

GMOs don't promote any of that. Dr Hobbitstein Jun 2016 #18

Soy beans and wheat are raised from last years crop hankthecrank Jun 2016 #20

No farmer I know (and I know dozens) uses last year's soy or wheat for seed NickB79 Jun 2016 #71

It is not that easy to save soybean and wheat for field size production. yellowcanine Jun 2016 #92

Farmers who farmed for living did plant from last year crop hankthecrank Jun 2016 #120

The Need to Save Seeds is a Bad Sign HuckleB Jun 2016 #122

Also in your words (self fertile ) hankthecrank Jun 2016 #126

You just responded to your own post. HuckleB Jun 2016 #127

Well soybeans wheat and oats are self fertile. That is a fact. yellowcanine Jun 2016 #129

So how was Monsanto able to win court hankthecrank Jun 2016 #132

You are mixing up a couple of issues. yellowcanine Jun 2016 #148

bribes larkrake Jun 2016 #178

Now you're (mistakenly) talking about Terminator seed technology NickB79 Jun 2016 #180

Key word being "did." Not so much anymore. yellowcanine Jun 2016 #130

I still talk to the guys I worked for hankthecrank Jun 2016 #133

If all a farmer cares about in his seedstock is germination, he's a piss-poor farmer NickB79 Jun 2016 #177

the skeptical raptor - you have to be KIDDING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! womanofthehills Jun 2016 #186

I notice you left off the link to where you pulled this bullshit from. Dr Hobbitstein Jun 2016 #202

RED ALERT: Calling all corporate apologists Scientific Jun 2016 #3

RED ALERT: Calling all conspiracy theorists GaYellowDawg Jun 2016 #5

Would you be more comfortable with the label "Monsanto apologist"? It's a little more precise. Vote2016 Jun 2016 #9

Would you be comfortable with the term "circumstantial ad hominem"? GaYellowDawg Jun 2016 #11

Would you be more comfortable with "charlatan". It's a little more precise. Major Nikon Jun 2016 #21

GMO haters Corporate666 Jun 2016 #236

A switch to ecological farming will benefit health and environment – report JohnyCanuck Jun 2016 #4

Bingo. If we can't do this, all our bitching about GM/non-GM are for nothing NickB79 Jun 2016 #74

Agreed. The GMO problem is about Monsanto and others monopolizing agribusiness at the expense of Attorney in Texas Jun 2016 #6

It seems suspicious that there is so much "pro-GMO" astroturf Vote2016 Jun 2016 #17

Even more suspicious is the missing element of reality in the anti-GMO astroturf Major Nikon Jun 2016 #22

What does that even mean? Monsanto has a financial interest in creating an agribusiness monopoly and Attorney in Texas Jun 2016 #28

Good question Major Nikon Jun 2016 #36

The strawman argument. basselope Jun 2016 #83

Strawman doesn't mean what you think it means Major Nikon Jun 2016 #150

Actually, it does. basselope Jun 2016 #159

You stole my line! Major Nikon Jun 2016 #163

Thank you for proving my point. basselope Jun 2016 #165

"Because some people who believe in A, also believe in B, A has no validity." Major Nikon Jun 2016 #167

LOL. basselope Jun 2016 #169

I see where you fucked up Major Nikon Jun 2016 #172

Are you dizzy with the spin? basselope Jun 2016 #173

How is anything so full of shit able to withstand without bursting? GMO is a legal calamity visited Attorney in Texas Jun 2016 #86

You might understand the law, but you don't understand the first thing about the scientific process. HuckleB Jun 2016 #128

HuckleB's "scientific process" links always written by MONSANTO SHILLS womanofthehills Jun 2016 #135

And more fictions from the fantasy gallery. HuckleB Jun 2016 #139

He's your guy - Keith Kloor - He DEFINITELY IS NOT KOOL womanofthehills Jun 2016 #187

I'm not even convinced of that much Major Nikon Jun 2016 #153

Indeed. HuckleB Jun 2016 #155

Wannabe Monsanto shill sounds like a possible career choice womanofthehills Jun 2016 #191

Which organic industry front pays you? HuckleB Jun 2016 #203

You realize Monsanto won that case, yes? Major Nikon Jun 2016 #151

One name - Clarence Thomas womanofthehills Jun 2016 #192

Five names - Sotomayor, Ginsburg, Kennedy, Breyer, Stevens Major Nikon Jun 2016 #197

The anti-GMO community winning the public relations war womanofthehills Jun 2016 #190

Scientists promoting science. Who woulda thunkit? Major Nikon Jun 2016 #198

Monsanto and Dow are funding all the bullshit misinformation womanofthehills Jun 2016 #231

Great job of reading the question that was actually asked Major Nikon Jun 2016 #239

You mean from "skeptics" who have never seen a corporate press release worth "questioning?" villager Jun 2016 #226

What exactly has Monsanto monopolized? Major Nikon Jun 2016 #39

farming, chemical weapons- I assume what has it monopolized historically larkrake Jun 2016 #179

Monsanto doesn't farm anything, so zero market share hardly makes a monopoly Major Nikon Jun 2016 #182

They made and patented dioxin, actually and their GMO product has harmed many many farmers larkrake Jun 2016 #183

Try harder to post something relevant Major Nikon Jun 2016 #184

Easy to say from a comfy western nation... TipTok Jun 2016 #7

"The whole starvation thing" gets a whole lot worse truebluegreen Jun 2016 #10

Who suggested they were doing it for humanity? TipTok Jun 2016 #12

We have the capacity now. truebluegreen Jun 2016 #13

this ^ Vote2016 Jun 2016 #16

So much for growing it locally, according to you. HuckleB Jun 2016 #45

Did you miss my comments about the downside truebluegreen Jun 2016 #50

No, I'm not. HuckleB Jun 2016 #51

speaking of Africa - $900 to eat a GMO Bill Gates banana womanofthehills Jun 2016 #188

Woo Major Nikon Jun 2016 #23

Bt-COTTON. Tasty! Woo yourself. truebluegreen Jun 2016 #25

Not much need with all the woo freely available here Major Nikon Jun 2016 #26

Has Monsanto patented the term "woo"? lagomorph777 Jun 2016 #54

As have a lot of grandmas cultivating new rose variatles Major Nikon Jun 2016 #68

Grandma can't patent a DNA sequence unless she has a PCR machine in the basement. lagomorph777 Jun 2016 #70

Plant patent laws existed before anyone knew what DNA was Major Nikon Jun 2016 #72

Plant patent is not a DNA patent per se, for the reason you yourself admit. lagomorph777 Jun 2016 #73

Sure, we should just go back to using methods far less precice and more ambiguous Major Nikon Jun 2016 #77

If Monsanto didn't think DNA is powerful, they wouldn't spend billions on shuffling it. lagomorph777 Jun 2016 #78

You stole my line! Major Nikon Jun 2016 #80

OMG you don't think I'm that gullible right? lagomorph777 Jun 2016 #81

No, I'm sure of it Major Nikon Jun 2016 #82

Off to the ignore-bin. It's cruel to fight with an unarmed opponent and I won't do it any more. lagomorph777 Jun 2016 #87

You lost, again. HuckleB Jun 2016 #91

Oh that really hurts! Major Nikon Jun 2016 #152

I do, and you just proved it. HuckleB Jun 2016 #85

You are pushing a fiction and you know it. HuckleB Jun 2016 #46

You could make the same argument about any private monopoly. Often people need the product which a Attorney in Texas Jun 2016 #14

GMOs and monopolies are separate issues... TipTok Jun 2016 #15

GMO crop systems do not increase output GreatGazoo Jun 2016 #19

Yeah, "rapidly" over 40 years Major Nikon Jun 2016 #24

Less than that. Monsanto introduced Round-up Ready seeds in '97. truebluegreen Jun 2016 #27

What's with all the pro-GMO stuff? You'd think this was CorporateMonopolist Underground. Attorney in Texas Jun 2016 #29

Or WooUnderground Major Nikon Jun 2016 #32

It's a mystery to me. truebluegreen Jun 2016 #33

It's unbelievable - it's the troll DU Monsanto lovers - womanofthehills Jun 2016 #43

I'm sorry, why do you think science is bad? HuckleB Jun 2016 #47

Science is good but the tobacco companies misled with a false veneer of science just as you mislead Attorney in Texas Jun 2016 #88

Newsflash: It's the anti-GMOers who are practicing tobacco science. HuckleB Jun 2016 #89

You are wrong and you know you are wrong. My anti-GMO views are based on the ill effect it has on Attorney in Texas Jun 2016 #93

LOL! Not even close. HuckleB Jun 2016 #94

You keep posting arguments that GMOs are "safe." I'm not saying GMOs are unsafe. GMOs illegally Attorney in Texas Jun 2016 #97

You keep ignoring the reality that GMOs do no such thing. HuckleB Jun 2016 #98

Compare the markets that ban GMOs with the markets that ban non-GMO patented seeds. Oh, wait, there Attorney in Texas Jun 2016 #99

You're digging your hole deeper and deeper. HuckleB Jun 2016 #106

So you compare tobacco to GMO, then freely admit the issues are completely different Major Nikon Jun 2016 #156

HuckleB above link by Marc Brazeau - pro GMO shill womanofthehills Jun 2016 #232

Marc Brazeau is a life-long progressive and labor activist who cares about science. HuckleB Jun 2016 #241

All the "science" you quote is from shills womanofthehills Jun 2016 #136

Your fantasies are rather sad. HuckleB Jun 2016 #140

This is who you always quote - your beloved Keith Kloor womanofthehills Jun 2016 #143

Aww. That's cute. HuckleB Jun 2016 #147

Keith Kloor admits he is a shill - what can I say - you love the guy! womanofthehills Jun 2016 #228

Monsanto shill science womanofthehills Jun 2016 #138

One fantasy troll post wasn't enough? HuckleB Jun 2016 #141

Sometimes, there’s a fine line between the rats and the scientists. womanofthehills Jun 2016 #142

Your fictions are many. HuckleB Jun 2016 #146

Yea - I smell a lot of rats in your "science" womanofthehills Jun 2016 #189

Sure, you just promote crank magnets like Michel Chossudovsky and Mae-Wan Ho Major Nikon Jun 2016 #199

More than that Major Nikon Jun 2016 #31

I was talking about Round-up Ready crops, truebluegreen Jun 2016 #34

The post I replied to was talking about Roundup Major Nikon Jun 2016 #37

My post you replied to was talking about Round-up Ready and '97 truebluegreen Jun 2016 #40

You are correct, that post was a non sequitur Major Nikon Jun 2016 #41

bockbocbockbockBock truebluegreen Jun 2016 #42

Most of your arguments can be applied to non-GMO, hybrid seeds as well NickB79 Jun 2016 #30

^^This^^ truebluegreen Jun 2016 #35

The talking point goes something like this Major Nikon Jun 2016 #38

Ignore the evidence base, because people who go with scientific consensus are "curious." HuckleB Jun 2016 #44

The Precautionary Principle and GM crops JohnyCanuck Jun 2016 #48

Seralini Rule Major Nikon Jun 2016 #49

Actually the courts have overthrown the BS attacks on Seralini. He was right. Scientific Jun 2016 #101

Are you referring to an Italian court? HuckleB Jun 2016 #107

Bullshit Major Nikon Jun 2016 #108

Skeptico blogs - give me a break - no one even signs the articles womanofthehills Jun 2016 #229

I get that someone who believes in homeoquackery doesn't have much use for things like facts Major Nikon Jun 2016 #238

Umm. Sheesh. HuckleB Jun 2016 #52

Good luck here! lagomorph777 Jun 2016 #53

What's up with that? Vote2016 Jun 2016 #55

No one cares about Monsanto. HuckleB Jun 2016 #56

I'm not debating the science. It is an intellectual property scam, and the labelling issue is a Vote2016 Jun 2016 #64

All types of seeds are patented, not just GMOs. HuckleB Jun 2016 #65

HuckleB posting Skeptical Raptor - Internet shill - links again womanofthehills Jun 2016 #227

You love Monsanto - all your posts are from Monsanto shills womanofthehills Jun 2016 #230

All I can tell you is my experience has been stunningly negative. lagomorph777 Jun 2016 #57

The passive-aggressive shill gambit! HuckleB Jun 2016 #58

It almost seems that way, but why would anyone not being paid respond so swiftly defending Monsanto Vote2016 Jun 2016 #59

Yes, surely that must be it - a bright, shiny future. lagomorph777 Jun 2016 #60

No one is defending Monsanto. HuckleB Jun 2016 #61

Not ok with who? Your boss? Vote2016 Jun 2016 #62

Not ok with anyone who cares about honesty and ethics. HuckleB Jun 2016 #63

Cool website. It's on the internet. It does not excuse the genetic piracy from pollen drift or Vote2016 Jun 2016 #66

You don't appear to know much about pollen drift. HuckleB Jun 2016 #67

Author of your above link on organic farming - Pamela Ronald - "SCIENTIFIC" research questioned womanofthehills Jun 2016 #194

Kinda funny how they question Ronald's reputation Major Nikon Jun 2016 #200

Pamela Ronald is an honorable scientist. HuckleB Jun 2016 #242

it's the same shiny vision from Wired or the nuclear industry MisterP Jun 2016 #245

Bzzt. Wrong answer. HuckleB Jun 2016 #246

queue the anti-science pro-gmo people. basselope Jun 2016 #69

Sure, because they are the ones channeling Mike Adams, Mercola, Food Babe, ... Major Nikon Jun 2016 #75

Thanks for proving the point so well. basselope Jun 2016 #76

Sure, because pointing out other's use of pseudoscience is so anti-science Major Nikon Jun 2016 #79

Its called a false equivalence. basselope Jun 2016 #84

False equivalence doesn't mean what you think it means Major Nikon Jun 2016 #154

Don't really care what you do. basselope Jun 2016 #160

Your refusal to provide any relevant examples of your assertion is telling all on it's own Major Nikon Jun 2016 #162

I did several times. basselope Jun 2016 #164

Where? Major Nikon Jun 2016 #166

In this very thread. basselope Jun 2016 #168

Where? Major Nikon Jun 2016 #170

In this very thread. basselope Jun 2016 #171

Do I really need to be that specific, or are you just being obtuse? Major Nikon Jun 2016 #174

Thought you were "done". basselope Jun 2016 #175

I was with that leg of the thread Major Nikon Jun 2016 #176

Use your eyes. basselope Jun 2016 #181

The problem is that the focus of the anti-gmo people is very broad... Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #90

Not really. basselope Jun 2016 #96

What studies? n/t Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #102

Oh, I don't know.. pick any one of the thousands. basselope Jun 2016 #109

Can you link to any one of those studies? In addition, the WHO may end up reversing its decision... Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #111

Yes basselope Jun 2016 #113

The first link didn't attempt to separate out whether it was glyphosate... Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #114

As I suspected. basselope Jun 2016 #115

What are you babbling on about? Now you are just making shit up. Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #117

LOL. Read your post. basselope Jun 2016 #121

I said none of those things, you are just making things up, for what reason I don't know... Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #123

LOL. Wow. That's some crazy spin you got going on. basselope Jun 2016 #144

What spin? I literally pointed out a shortcoming of the first paper that was pointed out... Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #157

And then you make stuff up? basselope Jun 2016 #161

Let's not forget - glyphosate is only 40 per cent of Roundup womanofthehills Jun 2016 #233

You might want to clarify the difference between the IARC and the full WHO. HuckleB Jun 2016 #112

Good point, but it appears this poster isn't interested in honest discussion. Humanist_Activist Jun 2016 #118

I know. HuckleB Jun 2016 #119

OK. Show us some science to back up what ever you're implying. progressoid Jun 2016 #100

Posted lists too many times... basselope Jun 2016 #110

You do understand the difference between individual, cherry picked studies, and consensus, right? HuckleB Jun 2016 #116

Now you are posting articles by David Gorsky who blogged as a woman womanofthehills Jun 2016 #234

All you can do is attack people, but you can't support your claims. HuckleB Jun 2016 #243

OK. progressoid Jun 2016 #124

I love science too. basselope Jun 2016 #145

Sure, wiggle words. progressoid Jun 2016 #149

So by all means, let's keep adding them. basselope Jun 2016 #158

Show us the data where cancer rates are higher due to GMOs. progressoid Jun 2016 #193

WHO Publishes Full Probable Human Carcinogen Report on Glyphosate womanofthehills Jun 2016 #195

that basselope Jun 2016 #196

That, progressoid Jun 2016 #207

Dietary exposure to glyphosate unlikely to cause cancer, U.N. report says progressoid Jun 2016 #206

Non definitive. basselope Jun 2016 #208

It is definitive. As defined through the EPA's rating system. progressoid Jun 2016 #209

Not definitive. basselope Jun 2016 #210

Yeah, still waiting for you to do that too. progressoid Jun 2016 #211

Already did. basselope Jun 2016 #213

My mistake. progressoid Jun 2016 #218

Your apology is accepted. basselope Jun 2016 #225

I didn't apologize. progressoid Jun 2016 #237

Yes you did. And I accepted it. basselope Jun 2016 #244

Sweet Jebus, is this really the best reply you could come up with? Major Nikon Jun 2016 #212

Facts are good like that. basselope Jun 2016 #214

No, sometimes mentioning them are simply moronic Major Nikon Jun 2016 #215

Yes. Many are safe. basselope Jun 2016 #216

I asked you to name just one substance that fufills your requirement Major Nikon Jun 2016 #217

And I answered. basselope Jun 2016 #219

This shit again? Major Nikon Jun 2016 #220

Your apology is accepted. basselope Jun 2016 #222

Strange, namecalling is so unlike you Major Nikon Jun 2016 #224

Where are all these lists? HuckleB Jun 2016 #125

It's a fool's errand asking that one to prove any claim he's made. Major Nikon Jun 2016 #221

So okay then, what do we do about the other thousand or so conglomerates that run the planet? Rex Jun 2016 #95

Your view is "we've been abused by Goldman Sachs and Haliburton so why complain about Monsanto?" Vote2016 Jun 2016 #131

No my view is why does it take this long? Why no out cry decades ago? Rex Jun 2016 #134

But they make some rich people richer and that's the most important thing in the world. valerief Jun 2016 #103

It's fun to be passionate. But you need to actually be right. Bonx Jun 2016 #104

Or have at least a basic plan and ambition to change everything. Rex Jun 2016 #137

No surprise that the last link doesn't even mention how GMO's saved the papya crops in Hawaii progressoid Jun 2016 #105

GMOs suck the life out of life! Dont call me Shirley Jun 2016 #185

Did anyone notice the articles cited in OP are not science related? pediatricmedic Jun 2016 #201

This was really just a drive-by thread from another thread anyway Major Nikon Jun 2016 #204

Sociology is a 'science', but..... CanSocDem Jun 2016 #205

Sociology isn't a hard science Major Nikon Jun 2016 #223

Did anyone notice the links cited by the pro-gmo Monsanto people womanofthehills Jun 2016 #235

Crazy is the OP's linkapalooza Bonx Jun 2016 #240