# Organic farmers unite



## PrairieClover (Jun 19, 2015)

We still don't believe in Round-Up. And we really wish you guys wouldn't get into our threads and argue and debate and throw around inaccurate claims put out by a company who wants you to believe it is safe. 
Of course they are not going to say it is dangerous. Then you would stop using it.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...oric-decision-pervasive-glyphosate-weedkiller


----------



## CajunSunshine (Apr 24, 2007)

PrairieClover said:


> We still don't believe in Round-Up. And we really wish you guys wouldn't get into our threads and argue and debate ...


*^ This + 100%* because no one is going to change an organic farmer/gardener/consumer's mind about Roundup and similar products. We are staunch proponents of organic methods rather than take the easy chemical road. Roundup fans, please stay on your side of the road and we'll stay on ours. How hard can it be to agree to disagree?


.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

I have an interest in organic gardening. My interest has led me to do quite a bi of study on both organic methods and chemical methods. I don't think I could change anyone's mind one way or the other. No more than I could expect to change a person's religion.
Religion relies on faith, often blind faith. There is no proving anything. With organic or non-organic, there is a degree of faith, but there are also facts based on solid science. There are also just plain myths or misunderstandings or misleading statements.
I try to interject information that permits a person to maintain their belief, but understand the facts better.
If you select milk labeled "not from cows given bGH", I respect your choice, but will want you to know that dairy farmers gave up on bGH, decades ago and it is no longer used and all milk is from cows not given bGH.
If you select beef labeled, "pasture raised", I want you to know that all beef cattle in the US are raised on pasture.
If you select garden seeds marked "Non-GMO", I want you to know there are no green beans, peas, cabbage, carrots, tomatoes or Indian corn that are GMO. The list of plants that just are not available in any GMO format is long.
A GMO potato that is meant for the potato chip industry is not going to be offered to gardeners.
I won't interfere with your hate of modern farming, but if you are going to hate something, at least get the facts straight.


----------



## PrairieClover (Jun 19, 2015)

CajunSunshine: I prefer to stay on the organic side of the road. 
I also prefer to not eat beef and I don't use most dairy products or eggs. Healthier for me.


----------



## Miles Amos (Nov 21, 2017)

I don’t mean to play both sides of the fence here, but I am against roundup in my own garden, but I don’t see any real problem with gmo’s. The only problem I have with Monsanto is them holding the terminator gene in their back pocket. I’d like to be able to reuse my seeds and one day never have to buy them again.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Miles Amos said:


> I don’t mean to play both sides of the fence here, but I am against roundup in my own garden, but I don’t see any real problem with gmo’s. The only problem I have with Monsanto is them holding the terminator gene in their back pocket. I’d like to be able to reuse my seeds and one day never have to buy them again.


Again with the education . Decades ago, Monsanto, and probably other plant science companies toyed with the idea of seeds that produced a crop that wouldn't reproduce, hence the term terminator. Patented seeds were new and they needed a way to protect their patent. Now days, they simply require anyone that buys their patented products to sign a contract to not reproduce their patented seeds.
I think the most common GMO crop is corn. Generally, seed corn is the result of specific crossed lines. This is often a four-way cross, hybrid. Saving crop from hybrid seeds for planting will result in reduced yield, inconstant characteristics. So, long before GMO, less than 1% of acreage was from saved seed and the rest relied on hybrids. So, a contract with Monsanto wasn't a big deal for corn farmers that have not been saving corn seed for 50 or 60 years.
If I buy a named variety of oats, I cannot sell my crop by name as seed without paying a royalty to who ever holds the rights to that variety.


----------



## Miles Amos (Nov 21, 2017)

haypoint said:


> Again with the education . Decades ago, Monsanto, and probably other plant science companies toyed with the idea of seeds that produced a crop that wouldn't reproduce, hence the term terminator. Patented seeds were new and they needed a way to protect their patent. Now days, they simply require anyone that buys their patented products to sign a contract to not reproduce their patented seeds.
> I think the most common GMO crop is corn. Generally, seed corn is the result of specific crossed lines. This is often a four-way cross, hybrid. Saving crop from hybrid seeds for planting will result in reduced yield, inconstant characteristics. So, long before GMO, less than 1% of acreage was from saved seed and the rest relied on hybrids. So, a contract with Monsanto wasn't a big deal for corn farmers that have not been saving corn seed for 50 or 60 years.
> If I buy a named variety of oats, I cannot sell my crop by name as seed without paying a royalty to who ever holds the rights to that variety.


 right but they still have the gene to do I with. They just ‘promised’ not to use it. As far as the contract, if that’s how you make your living that’s fine and I understand that. As for me it’s simply that I want to always have seeds from my harvest. (One less thing to buy right?) I realize they aren’t using it, but I disrespect the fact that they had the idea in the first place.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Miles Amos said:


> right but they still have the gene to do I with. They just ‘promised’ not to use it. As far as the contract, if that’s how you make your living that’s fine and I understand that. As for me it’s simply that I want to always have seeds from my harvest. (One less thing to buy right?) I realize they aren’t using it, but I disrespect the fact that they had the idea in the first place.


But do you understand the need to have that protection for their product? When GMO Canola first came out, the second year a seed dealer/farmer got caught with tons and tons of planted GMO canola from saved seed. He tried every excuse you could ever imagine, went on tours telling about evil Monsanto. Monsanto won in court. IMHO been easier to have a terminator gene.
There is so much that goes into hybrid seeds, without even considering GMO, that the average back yard grower cannot duplicate. I saved garden seeds for awhile. But after the acorn squash cross pollenated with the Zucchini that I thought was far enough away, I stick with purchased hybrids.
In an earlier post you mentioned that you didn't use Roundup on your garden. Me neither. I can't think of a reason to. Maybe if I'd neglected the garden for a month and was afraid the weeds would go to seed and I didn't mind killing my whole garden.


----------



## Miles Amos (Nov 21, 2017)

Yeah I see the reason behind protecting their product, but I see the terminator gene as a way to force people to buy year after year. And I don’t have too much respect for that


----------



## M5farm (Jan 14, 2014)

Miles Amos said:


> Yeah I see the reason behind protecting their product, but I see the terminator gene as a way to force people to buy year after year. And I don’t have too much respect for that


a normal person cant expect a company that produces a superior product to just give it away. there are plenty of seeds that will reproduce year after year. Use that variety or pay for the technology . its pretty simple.


----------



## Miles Amos (Nov 21, 2017)

M5farm said:


> a normal person cant expect a company that produces a superior product to just give it away. there are plenty of seeds that will reproduce year after year. Use that variety or pay for the technology . its pretty simple.


As I understood it the technology isn’t being utilized. I was just stating that I didn’t have respect for that practice. No one expects them to give it away, but if they sell a good product people buy it without the technology.


----------



## M5farm (Jan 14, 2014)

Miles Amos said:


> As I understood it the technology isn’t being utilized. I was just stating that I didn’t have respect for that practice. No one expects them to give it away, but if they sell a good product people buy it without the technology.


scientist have utilized technology more in the last 20 years than ever before to produce superior plants , and MAN has been altering the genes of plants since the beginning of time and the first garden thru cross pollination. some would argue not a single plant is the same today as it was 100 years ago as nature genetically modifies own its own.


----------



## Miles Amos (Nov 21, 2017)

M5farm said:


> scientist have utilized technology more in the last 20 years than ever before to produce superior plants , and MAN has been altering the genes of plants since the beginning of time and the first garden thru cross pollination. some would argue not a single plant is the same today as it was 100 years ago as nature genetically modifies own its own.


I’m not talking about gmo in general, just the suicide seed. I understand the reasoning behind gmo


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Would it bother you less if it was just called the impotent seed? Terminator, suicide, wow, such drama.
Stay away from the theater, they sell exploding corn there!
A good product without all the technology would have us all still driving a Model T.
Robots doing brain surgery sounds scary, but far safer.
A corn crop that doesn't require insecticide, doesn't need the soil destroying cultivation, scary.
I do understand that you don't like anyone to posses the ability to produce seeds that produces a crop with impotent seeds. Sort of like why you wouldn't buy seedless watermelon or seedless grapes.


----------



## M5farm (Jan 14, 2014)

haypoint said:


> Would it bother you less if it was just called the impotent seed? Terminator, suicide, wow, such drama.
> Stay away from the theater, they sell exploding corn there!
> A good product without all the technology would have us all still driving a Model T.
> Robots doing brain surgery sounds scary, but far safer.
> ...


come on haypoint , how else can we find utopia unless we take all the profit from big corps and distribute the wealth, I will be glad when the make tin foil less shiny.


----------



## Miles Amos (Nov 21, 2017)

M5farm said:


> come on haypoint , how else can we find utopia unless we take all the profit from big corps and distribute the wealth, I will be glad when the make tin foil less shiny.


Never said anything about distributing the wealth. I just don’t like the idea. Now go ahead, and say something else so you can have the last word.


----------



## M5farm (Jan 14, 2014)

Miles Amos said:


> Never said anything about distributing the wealth. I just don’t like the idea. Now go ahead, and say something else so you can have the last word.


have a blessed day.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

PrairieClover said:


> We still don't believe in Round-Up. And we really wish you guys wouldn't get into our threads and argue and debate and throw around inaccurate claims put out by a company who wants you to believe it is safe.


Then why start a thread *about* Round Up, and use obviously biased information?

Why not just talk about organic topics if you don't want rebuttal?


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

I've been gardening all my life. I've saved seeds for years, and gotten seeds from others(Martin, in particular) who saved seeds and gave them away.

I look at all the catalogs, and go online and spend hours looking, seeing if I can find something new.

In my 50 some years of gardening, I've not once seen any genetically modified seeds for sale. It's just not something gardeners need to fret about.


----------



## Miles Amos (Nov 21, 2017)

Clem said:


> I've been gardening all my life. I've saved seeds for years, and gotten seeds from others(Martin, in particular) who saved seeds and gave them away.
> 
> I look at all the catalogs, and go online and spend hours looking, seeing if I can find something new.
> 
> In my 50 some years of gardening, I've not once seen any genetically modified seeds for sale. It's just not something gardeners need to fret about.


No one is fretting over the idea brother. I just said I didn’t agree with it(how many times have I had o say that?) GMOs are fine. But since someone is trying to sterilize seed, I’d like to have my voice heard. Seems like they are actively pushing for it, members here even. But in Genesis God gives me the right to all seed bearing plants. And it’s been in the works since the 90’s. So give it time.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Miles Amos said:


> No one is fretting over the idea brother. I just said I didn’t agree with it(how many times have I had o say that?) GMOs are fine. But since someone is trying to sterilize seed, I’d like to have my voice heard. Seems like they are actively pushing for it, members here even. But in Genesis God gives me the right to all seed bearing plants. And it’s been in the works since the 90’s. So give it time.


Maybe I wasn't clear. I'm not "pushing" development of infertile seeds. I doubt Monsanto is, either. I do find it to be an interesting topic for the Anti-Monsanto folks.
Most of the ferrets sold in the US come from a huge breeding operation in upstate New York. Every one is spade or neutered prior to shipment to a pet shop. Should I be upset since God gave me dominion over the land animals?
God gave the Indians maze. It had a couple kernels on each cob. Indians altered corn through selection of the plants that naturally mutated to have more kernels. I think that if I wanted to, I could buy the four "grandparents" strain of corn and cross each and after a two season project come up with a hybrid seed corn similar to what the seed companies sell.
If enough people wanted plaid colored pickup trucks, you would be able to buy one. Same for open pollenated corn. You'll be able to buy whatever seeds you want.
A European research lab grafted an ear on a mouse. It might not be fair to say that people have been pushing it since the 1990s. Give it all the time you want. 
My big Ag neighbor rotates corn, soybean, wheat. He uses Roundup Ready Soybeans. There is no Roundup Ready wheat. He does not use any Roundup Ready corn. If he did, the volunteer corn that grows the following year, from seeds the combine missed, would grow in the soybeans and would not be killed when he sprayed Roundup to get rid of the weeds. An ear of corn is hard on a combine that is set with clearances for a soybean, besides he doesn't want the bean crop to be contaminated with corn kernels. So, by not using RR corn, he can clean the volunteer corn out of his RR soybeans.
I'm not intending to argue or change your mind. Just trying to explain how it works.


----------



## CajunSunshine (Apr 24, 2007)

GMOs may (or may not) be perfectly safe, but...

...maybe I have gotten too old, crusty, and cynical but I am not the trusting fool that I used to be. 

I respect organic gardening methods because it works for me 100%. (Evidentally, it also works for many commercial growers as well.) Plus I have no worries that somewhere down the road agricultural science will surprise me with another "oops we were wrong." Peace of mind is a wonderful thing. 

But different strokes for different folks...to each his own. 

.


----------



## PlayingInDirt (Aug 2, 2017)

My hubby won't allow me to feed our kids cheerios because of roundup. 

We don't use it. Only organic, pesticide free. I buy organic feed for my chickens also, it hurts the wallet but that was the whole point of raising our own food.


----------



## M5farm (Jan 14, 2014)

It hilarious to see people think that because a package says non-gmo or organic they think its true and pay twice whats its worth at the store. I've Got BREAKING NEWS! Everyone is still gonna die one day and nothing can guarantee you that you will live one day beyond your allotted time. Im sure the stress of trying to be "organic" or finding the "non-GMO" product takes away the benefit of not eating these things.


----------



## CajunSunshine (Apr 24, 2007)

There is absolutely no stress involved in sourcing organics/non-GMO, unless one is committed to eating out of cans, boxes and packages. I avoid that kind of insanity by preparing delicious and wholesome foods from scratch (bulk foods from my co-op / garden / hunting / foraging ). The only processed food in my kitchen is processed by me, not Proctor & Gamble, lol.

I would not trade this good food for all of the artificial crap sold in stores. Bonus: I am an old woman who has not darkened the doors of a doctor's office in many, many years. So yeah, I'm gonna die but I will die happy, healthy and content...hopefully with my boots on, lol.




.


----------



## PlayingInDirt (Aug 2, 2017)

I've seen firsthand the results of an unhealthy diet. No thanks. Paying more for non GMO and organic makes me feel better about what I put in my body. Because, unlike the majority of the population, I care about my health.


----------



## M5farm (Jan 14, 2014)

PlayingInDirt said:


> I've seen firsthand the results of an unhealthy diet. No thanks. Paying more for non GMO and organic makes me feel better about what I put in my body. Because, unlike the majority of the population, I care about my health.


to each his own and that's your prerogative. I eat a balanced diet and healthy and only go to the DR. once a year for my physical for health insurance . but Im not so gullible that I allow propaganda to dictate how I spend my hard earned money.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

PlayingInDirt said:


> My hubby won't allow me to feed our kids cheerios because of roundup.


Nearly no one uses Round Up on Oats, and there are no "GMO" oats on the commercial market.


----------



## M5farm (Jan 14, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Nearly no one uses Round Up on Oats, and there are no "GMO" oats on the commercial market.


It boggles the mind, don't it??


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

PlayingInDirt said:


> My hubby won't allow me to feed our kids cheerios because of roundup.
> 
> We don't use it. Only organic, pesticide free. I buy organic feed for my chickens also, it hurts the wallet but that was the whole point of raising our own food.


I do not want to change your mind. I don't want to turn this into a debate. My single interest is truth.
If I wrote that my wife didn't let our children drink cow's milk because of all the pig manure in it, would you just let me keep right on believing there is pig manure in milk?
OK. First, let me explain oat production. Oats are a short season grain, often planted as a cover crop for hay grasses and clovers. It isn't GMO. There is no advantage or reason to put Roundup on oats. Roundup kills oats, hay grasses and clovers. Of all the crops that I can think of, oats are among the crops least likely to be sprayed with Roundup.
Second, Roundup doesn't exist for long out in the environment. If a farmer sprayed oats before it made grain, no crop, no Roundup Cheerios. If a farmer sprayed oats after it made grain, the plant is drying down, dying on its own, Roundup would serve no purpose. But if ha was an evil farmer and did it anyway, the plant's flow is away from the grain, known as ripening. The oats natural husk would protect it from any Roundup, too.
Third, Roundup breaks down fast, one of the reasons that it is considered so safe. 

Does your husband let the kids eat oatmeal? Comes from the same oats as Cheerios.

Round up is a broad spectrum herbicide, with a short life. While it can be used to kill weeds in the driveway or along fence lines, mostly it is a component in the no till process. Prior to the widespread adoption of no till, a combination of toxic chemicals and soil destroying cultivation was used in the battle against nutrient robbing weeds. Planting a crop not effected by Roundup allows the weeds to be killed without toxic chemicals and soil destroying cultivation. Plus, instead of plowing the plant matter underground, it can stay on top and help stabilize the soil. The crops not effected by Roundup are RR Corn, RR Soybeans, RR Canola, RR Sugar Beets, maybe RR cotton and rarely RR summer squash. 

I don't want you to change what you feel you are doing.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

PlayingInDirt said:


> I've seen firsthand the results of an unhealthy diet. No thanks. Paying more for non GMO and organic makes me feel better about what I put in my body. Because, unlike the majority of the population, I care about my health.


You nailed there! I believe you do feel better. Some people feel better when they pray. Some feel better when they wear a copper bracelet. Some feel better when they sleep facing the East. If you feel better, then it is money well spent. Please continue.
We have all seen first hand the results of an unhealthy diet. For the most part, you and I agree on what a healthy diet is. But after that, we split. You think GMO is harmful and you think chemical residue is in non-organic. I know that Whole Foods has had the greatest number of contaminated food recalls of any major chain. But, that's OK, we can agree to disagree.


----------



## CajunSunshine (Apr 24, 2007)

haypoint said:


> Second, Roundup doesn't exist for long out in the environment.... >snip<
> Third, Roundup breaks down fast, one of the reasons that it is considered so safe.
> 
> >snip<
> ...


It's not such a "short life" when it continues on elsewhere...especially in the human body.

Loud and clear, The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), along with mainstream media such as Time magazine, and others are revealing the fact that Roundup is showing up in our bodies. (You OK with that? _Really?_)

http://time.com/4993877/weed-killer-roundup-levels-humans/

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2658306


.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

CajunSunshine said:


> GMOs may (or may not) be perfectly safe, but...
> 
> ...maybe I have gotten too old, crusty, and cynical but I am not the trusting fool that I used to be.
> 
> ...


Yes, Monsanto produced Agent Orange, as did two other companies. The folks that make your aspirins conducted medical experiments on Jews, that lead to death or life long illnesses. You hate them, too? Dow Chemical made lots of Agent Orange. you boycott Corning ware and foam insulation board? These companies created Agent Orange for the military. Unknown to anyone at that time, a dangerous byproduct, dioxin was produced in the mix. The two components of Agent Orange are 2,4,5T and 2,4D. Both are in widespread use today and proven harmless to humans. Golf Courses use a lot of 2,4D. 
I understand your wait and see approach to GMO. After all, over two decades and billions of meals consumed, without a single complaint, is too early to tell. I think there is a medication for diabetics that is GM. Would you forgo medical treatment in your boycott of GMO?
I don't intend on disrupting your peace of mind.


----------



## CajunSunshine (Apr 24, 2007)

No worries about disrupting my peace of mind, Haypoint. It is not fueled by Koolaid so I'm good. 


.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

CajunSunshine said:


> It's not such a "short life" when it continues on elsewhere...especially in the human body.
> 
> The Journal of the American Medical Association, mainstream media such as Time magazine, and others are revealing the fact that Roundup is showing up in our bodies. (You OK with that? _Really?_)
> /
> ...


I can get anything published. Look at the nonsense Murcola writes. But to get it pier reviewed is different.

Not too long ago, some mostly unknown company alleged that Roundup could cause cancer. The worthless United Nations jumped on that as true. But it is getting sorted out. May take a while, but I'm OK with getting the truth out.

Sometimes, I wish Roundup lasted longer. Plants need to be growing for Roundup to work. If I spray and the weather turns cloudy and cool, it isn't as effective. In a few days, it is mostly gone. Just adding a hand full of dirt to a tank of Roundup mix breaks down the chemicals. So, any Roundup that gets on the soil, breaks up to harmless compounds.

I don't expect you to embrace Roundup. I don't want to debate it. Just want to add a bit of understanding.


----------



## CajunSunshine (Apr 24, 2007)

haypoint said:


> Look at the nonsense Murcola writes. But to get it pier reviewed is different.


Mercola is just another snake-oil salesman with an agenda to sell more product. So, no I won't look at his nonsense. 

I think I can understand some commercial farmers and hay people wanting to believe that Roundup is fine and dandy. After all, it affects the bottom dollar and that is what takes priority, apparently. And it's so easy to use! Not a thing wrong with that. I just don't want it in my life. Not my circus. Not my monkeys.


.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

CajunSunshine said:


> Mercola is just another snake-oil salesman with an agenda to sell more product. So, no I won't look at his nonsense.
> 
> I think I can understand some commercial farmers and hay people wanting to believe that Roundup is fine and dandy. After all, it affects the bottom dollar and that is what takes priority, apparently. And it's so easy to use! Not a thing wrong with that. I just don't want it in my life. Not my circus. Not my monkeys.
> 
> ...


Now you are just being nasty. How awful to insinuate that farmers don't care about the land. When someone believes something, it is different than when they know something, researched it and it is known as fact. Any farmer that stares at the bottom line too long won't farm long.

I don't want you to use Roundup. Just try to understand that without it, there would be millions of tons of topsoil lost, as was the case prior to widespread use of No-Till farming. Know that No-Till farming reduces fuel consumption, over traditional methods. Know that prior to Roundup, toxic weed killers were widely used. Prior to GMO BT corn, tons of insecticides were applied on US farm fields.
Perhaps with the resulting higher efficiency, better utilization of soil nutrients, the record setting yields has reduced food costs, stimulated the economy and insured you the disposable income to buy the high priced organic foods. You are welcome.


----------



## M5farm (Jan 14, 2014)

I love Roundup , saves me time, keeps my farm clean increases my hay yields. Allows me to save fossil fuels , so in essence I'm saving the planet by using Roundup.


----------



## CajunSunshine (Apr 24, 2007)

My bad, I should have said something along these lines: Some farmers prioritize dollars, and others who truly care about things besides the Almighty Dollar believe research that has an agenda to sell more product. (Right or wrong research matters little to me if I just stay out of the way until it all comes out in the wash.)

It is also plain to see that in some cases, big business, governments, and certain researchers are global bed partners. Thank goodness we all have a choice which bed to sleep in and who to sleep with.



.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

All those people who "didn't" want to hear about Round Up seem determined to argue about it instead of talking about "organics".


----------



## CajunSunshine (Apr 24, 2007)

Sometimes train wrecks are hard to ignore, especially if they come crashing through the fence into the yard, lol.


.


----------



## Bellyman (Jul 6, 2013)

Not that it will matter a hoot to anyone else, but I had noticed quite some time ago that when I eat commercially grown oats, I always end up with a headache shortly after eating them. I never understood quite why. And then I got some organic oats to try. No more headaches after eating them. 

Oats may not be a GMO crop but Monsanto does encourage the use of RoundUp just before harvest, as a desiccate. A figure I've seen suggested is that 100,000 pounds of RoundUp is used on the US oat crop each year for just that purpose. True or not, I don't have the time or energy to dig through. But it is worth it to me to not have a headache after eating oats. 

No doubt, others will consider the above total hogwash. That's fine. But if something makes me ill, I'll adjust my buying habits to get things that do not make me ill. In my case, organic seems to mean something, at least with oats.


----------



## geo in mi (Nov 14, 2008)

PrairieClover said:


> We still don't believe in Round-Up. And we really wish you guys wouldn't get into our threads and argue and debate and throw around inaccurate claims put out by a company who wants you to believe it is safe.
> Of course they are not going to say it is dangerous. Then you would stop using it.


I hear you, PrairieClover. Though I am not certified USDA ORGANIC, in my garden, glyphosate (Roundup) is a poor substitute for a hoe, good cultivation, crop rotation, soil building with legumes, and mulching--and more on-farm, not purchased inputs. I want to be able, on the piece of Earth that I have been given the responsibility of maintaining, to do without it--dangerous or not. This forum could have really interesting discussions on the use of organic methodology as it applies to our own situations, except for a few people who seem to want to engage in a never ending debate on the pros and cons of Roundup. 

Once again, the camel has stuck his nose under the tent and whomever moderates this forum is sleeping--or ignoring.

geo


----------



## PrairieClover (Jun 19, 2015)

The title of the thread is Organic Farmers Unite, meaning, let's back each other up. Let's not get into a debate or argument with those who disagree. Why would those who do use Roundup think it so necessary to chime in on this thread? Why? Self-inflated importance. Ego. I don't know. 
Organic farming will include discussion of what not to use and why. You don't have authority to tell the rest of us what we can and cannot include.
You guys are being internet bullies. Go start your own thread about why Roundup is so great and how many people it didn't cause cancer in. Include your own biased links.
If you are using Roundup, you are not an organic farmer. 

I like the ignore option.


----------



## M5farm (Jan 14, 2014)

PrairieClover said:


> The title of the thread is Organic Farmers Unite, meaning, let's back each other up. Let's not get into a debate or argument with those who disagree. Why would those who do use Roundup think it so necessary to chime in on this thread? Why? Self-inflated importance. Ego. I don't know.
> Organic farming will include discussion of what not to use and why. You don't have authority to tell the rest of us what we can and cannot include.
> You guys are being internet bullies. Go start your own thread about why Roundup is so great and how many people it didn't cause cancer in. Include your own biased links.
> If you are using Roundup, you are not an organic farmer.
> ...


you want an exclusive club that restricts a different point of view ??? The facts that's some claim are not really facts its an opinion and when misinformation is used it deserves to be corrected because some people believe anything and everything they read on the internet. I am not an organic farmer I do however practice using techniques of sustainable farming practices and using natural fertilizer in certain situations like a garden . I do embrace the available technology in chemical applications for my pastures and fields because its not a economically feasible for me. If a person wants to hang an organic sign out front and take advantage of a misinformed population and profit off of that . I applaud them for their ingenuity. I choose not to but that does not mean i'm not open to learning something form this forum.


----------



## PlayingInDirt (Aug 2, 2017)

Truly, you never know what's in your food unless you produce it yourself. 

I don't trust that any company produces food the way they say they do. We can't afford to buy organic, so I just do the best I can. But we don't use any chemicals on anything we grow ourselves.

The cheerios I bought I'm gonna have to sneak to my son because I'm not wasting a big box of cereal!


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

M5farm said:


> you want an exclusive club that restricts a different point of view ??? .......................



Oddly enough, I can't seem to find where you've gone into the goat forum, arguing that chickens are better... Since this particular forum is subtitled "This forum is for all Organic Farming." why not leave it alone? The other guy clearly can't help himself, some people are just that way. You have the choice to act grown-up though. Why not take it?


----------



## M5farm (Jan 14, 2014)

Clem said:


> Oddly enough, I can't seem to find where you've gone into the goat forum, arguing that chickens are better... Since this particular forum is subtitled "This forum is for all Organic Farming." why not leave it alone? The other guy clearly can't help himself, some people are just that way. You have the choice to act grown-up though. Why not take it?


Grown ups look at each perspective and debate the merits. Like I said I look in this sub forum for information for gardening and if I find a loophole in what people deem "organic" and I can separate some city slicker from his cash because it makes him feel warm and fuzzy I will. Its also very entertaining to see how some people are all in because the internet said something was bad and they buy it hook line and sinker.


----------



## PrairieClover (Jun 19, 2015)

M5farm said:


> Grown ups look at each perspective and debate the merits. Like I said I look in this sub forum for information for gardening and if I find a loophole in what people deem "organic" and I can separate some city slicker from his cash because it makes him feel warm and fuzzy I will. Its also very entertaining to see how some people are all in because the internet said something was bad and they buy it hook line and sinker.


It is not for you to decide how much information I have, where I got it from and if it was true or false. I am not accountable to you to provide that information to validate my point.
I asked for organic farmers to chime in, not those who are not. So why are you in this thread?
You're not entertained except in your feeling of superiority, you think you are completely correct, infallible and therefore have the upper hand. 
You are not being kind and trying to convince organic farmers of anything. You are just debating to debate. You are arguing to argue. You enjoy insulting and taking the lowest form of so-called debate which also puts you in that tank.


----------



## M5farm (Jan 14, 2014)

PrairieClover said:


> It is not for you to decide how much information I have, where I got it from and if it was true or false. I am not accountable to you to provide that information to validate my point.
> I asked for organic farmers to chime in, not those who are not. So why are you in this thread?
> You're not entertained except in your feeling of superiority, you think you are completely correct, infallible and therefore have the upper hand.
> You are not being kind and trying to convince organic farmers of anything. You are just debating to debate. You are arguing to argue. You enjoy insulting and taking the lowest form of so-called debate which also puts you in that tank.


do you own this board ?? You are the one that is being high and mighty by not "wanting" anyone here but true organic farmers. anyone on this forum can chime in on anything they want in any sub forum. I Have not been ugly or rude to anyone even tho it would be so easy to so. So what if I think your wrong or you think Im wrong. Im not trying to convince you or any other person that has made up their mind on it , but there are people that come to a PUBLIC forum looking for information and if all they see is one biased side without the opportunity to see the other side its a disservice to their intelligence. a prime example is people thinking that farmers grow round up oats.


----------



## PrairieClover (Jun 19, 2015)

I have not mentioned oats in any of my posts. 
Maybe you own the board. High and mighty? Wanting? I just didn't want any arguments and that's about all I've gotten. Why is there an organic forum on this website? Is it for the non-organic farmers to come and bash the organic farmers? APPARENTLY.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Bellyman said:


> Oats may not be a GMO crop but Monsanto does encourage the use of RoundUp just before harvest, as a desiccate. A figure I've seen suggested is that 100,000 pounds of RoundUp is used on the US oat crop each year for just that purpose.
> *
> True or not, I don't have the time or energy to dig through*.
> 
> But it is worth it to me to not have a headache after eating oats.


Yeah, who cares if it's true?
Let's just repeat it as if it is.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

PrairieClover said:


> Why would those who do use Roundup think it so necessary to chime in on this thread?


To counter the misinformation would be one good reason.


----------



## CajunSunshine (Apr 24, 2007)

OK, now that is just silly and obnoxious. I would probably agree with your (in the plural sense of the word) mission if our "misinformation" was harming others outside our families. We are not big businesses inflicting ourselves on anyone; we only seek to live a lifestyle that we enjoy, which hurts no one, ever.

In this light, y'all just need to either back off, or agree to disagree.


.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

geo in mi said:


> I hear you, PrairieClover. Though I am not certified USDA ORGANIC, in my garden, glyphosate (Roundup) is a poor substitute for a hoe, good cultivation, crop rotation, soil building with legumes, and mulching--and more on-farm, not purchased inputs. I want to be able, on the piece of Earth that I have been given the responsibility of maintaining, to do without it--dangerous or not. This forum could have really interesting discussions on the use of organic methodology as it applies to our own situations, except for a few people who seem to want to engage in a never ending debate on the pros and cons of Roundup.
> 
> Once again, the camel has stuck his nose under the tent and whomever moderates this forum is sleeping--or ignoring.
> 
> geo


Are you advocating silencing the pro while discussing the con of Roundup? I've tried to play the part of a Roundup salesman, but there is so much misinformation, misunderstanding and falsehoods. But remember, I didn't start the Roundup discussion.
You are right, a garden is a poor place for glyphosate.
I, too, would like to read about some successful models for organic gardening, without the Monsanto bashing


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

CajunSunshine said:


> In this light, *y'all just need to either back off*, or agree to disagree.


Why not just post the truth?
Isn't that what people want?:

http://www.health.com/nutrition/pesticides-in-oatmeal

*"It’s true* *that an FDA chemist found small amounts of glyphosate in several types of oat cereals. *

In his presentation at the North American Chemical Residue Workshop in July, Narong Chamkasem highlighted the amounts found in samples of instant oatmeal (maple brown sugar, cinnamon spice, peach and cream), non-instant steel cut oats, and infant oat cereal (plain, banana, and banana strawberry). 

*These quantities ranged from 0.3 to 1.67 parts per million. *

The *tolerable limit* for glyphosate in the United States, set by the Environmental Protection Agency, is* 30 ppm*. 
The quantities found in the research presented in July, then, were well below that limit. (They were below *Europe’s stricter limit of 20 ppm*, as well.)"

Isn't the truth better than all the hype?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

CajunSunshine said:


> OK, now that is just silly and obnoxious. I would probably agree with your (in the plural sense of the word) mission if our "misinformation" was harming others outside our families. We are not big businesses inflicting ourselves on anyone; we only seek to live a lifestyle that we enjoy, which hurts no one, ever.
> 
> In this light, y'all just need to either back off, or agree to disagree.
> 
> ...


I think you'd (in the singular sense of the word) flip your top if I said such mean things about you. But this thread isn't about you. Consider that about 500 people have read parts of this discussion, so far. Those folks need/deserve to know the truth. I doubt a Homesteadingtoday segment that masquerades as organic gardening information but actually spreads myths and misinformation, is helpful to anyone. I do not want or expect to change your mind, much less your mind.
I have an idea that might get these party poopers off your favorite site: stick to organic gardening, stick to the truth and avoid bashing stuff you know nothing about. Fair enough?


----------



## M5farm (Jan 14, 2014)

My take on it is the ones that are trying to be all organic are doing it on a scale that actually practical. When you get into acres of some type of production things change. You have to be able to do this full time , have hired help or large family to accomplish it. If you work 50 hrs a week and then come home and work nearly 40 more you have to prioritize what is most efficient and I thank the good Lord we have products that work to maximize production. Heck I can plant a tomato plant , pick the worms, spray it with acv , fertilize it with fish I caught and eat an organic tomato. If that's all I tended too . And fwiw I don't browse forums I do new post and what ever topic is active I particpate in it if I want. I don't say much in the single forum cause I ain't got a problem with being single.


----------



## Terri (May 10, 2002)

I heard of one organic farmer who wore out the tines on his tiller because he was using it to weed. And an acreage takes a lot of weeding but he did it. I once ran the figures and I came up with 5 miles of walking per acre per weeding.

Never assume what a dedicated person can and cannot do.


----------



## M5farm (Jan 14, 2014)

Terri said:


> I heard of one organic farmer who wore out the tines on his tiller because he was using it to weed. And an acreage takes a lot of weeding but he did it. I once ran the figures and I came up with 5 miles of walking per acre per weeding.
> 
> Never assume what a dedicated person can and cannot do.


I have no doubt that in certain situations it can be done. I grew pulling weeds and hoeing 100s of acres of beans peanuts. Also running a field cultivator and wearing the sweeps down pencil thin. While we were not organic we couldn't afford chemicals at that time. As time progressed we were able to use technology to save time and farm more ground.


----------



## PlayingInDirt (Aug 2, 2017)

M5farm said:


> My take on it is the ones that are trying to be all organic are doing it on a scale that actually practical. When you get into acres of some type of production things change.


I'm sure some crops are easier than others. Course, I'm a gardener, not really a farmer, but our methods aren't difficult to implement and they're effective. Black plastic and irrigation. Culling sick plants.

I suspect grains are a whole other beast.


----------



## Terri (May 10, 2002)

100s of acres of peanuts probably have a lower profit margin than 5 acres of vegetables. As I recall, this guy was supplying restaurants with organic veggies. He bought a tractor just as soon as he could afford it, but when he was first starting out he could not afford it.


----------



## M5farm (Jan 14, 2014)

PlayingInDirt said:


> I'm sure some crops are easier than others. Course, I'm a gardener, not really a farmer, but our methods aren't difficult to implement and they're effective. Black plastic and irrigation. Culling sick plants.
> 
> I suspect grains are a whole other beast.


I completely agree it's same principal . I haven't row cropped in quite a few years, I farm grass and cows. I am small time. There are not enough hours in a day to do more than I do now. However I raise a quality hay and very high yields , I could not produce what I do on limited acres without commercial fertilizer and herbicides to control undesirable grass and weeds. I have people wanting to buy my hay. I only sell excess that I don't feed.


----------



## M5farm (Jan 14, 2014)

Terri said:


> 100s of acres of peanuts probably have a lower profit margin than 5 acres of vegetables. As I recall, this guy was supplying restaurants with organic veggies. He bought a tractor just as soon as he could afford it, but when he was first starting out he could not afford it.


There are some very profitable veggie farms that are situated in areas to take advantage of , I'm 15 miles closest grocery store and 50 miles from and type of quality restaurant that would use organic products. And I can count them on one hand .


----------



## CajunSunshine (Apr 24, 2007)

Folks like Haypoint and Bearfootfarm, etc. will relentlessly hammer their points over and over until...when? Until everyone agrees? That is not going to ever happen in the meatworld, or on the internet. Repeating the same points again and again, to the point it is tiresome, accomplishes nothing useful.

It is fine and good to express an opinion, but to force-feed it over and over is obnoxious.

Is it really _that_ hard to agree to disagree? Or are some of you so immature that you think that you need to keep it up until everyone agrees with you? If so, I will leave you to play among yourselves, I am done feeding this pointless fire.

Have an easy evening, people.


.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

CajunSunshine said:


> Folks like Haypoint and Bearfootfarm, etc. will relentlessly hammer their points over and over until...when? Until everyone agrees?


I don't care whether or not anyone "agrees".
I don't care if you use Round Up or not.
I care about presenting the facts instead of the hype.

When you see the actual amounts of Glyphosate residue found in oats you find it's as much as 100 times lower than the acceptable limits.

I haven't accused anyone of "drinking the kool aid" and I haven't posted any silly pictures.
I haven't called anyone "obnoxious" or "bullies"
I posted actual facts about Glyphosate amounts that can be verified.
If facts bother you, put me on ignore and you won't have to see them as often.


----------



## CajunSunshine (Apr 24, 2007)

Nah, I won't put you or Haypoint on ignore because for the most part, I have enjoyed both of your posts on many other topics. (And some of the other posts I have seen in the past, ah well, the best I can say is, at least the popcorn was pretty good.) I will just stay out of the Roundup spraying zone because I am tired of shaking my head, thinking "why isn't this old dead horse not horseburger yet?"

(Btw, dunno who it was, but it wasn't me that called you or anyone a bully.)


.


----------



## KandCfamilyfarm (Nov 4, 2017)

*NOT HERE TO START TROUBLE!!!
*
I just want get others perspective on what is or is not""ORGANIC"". Please try to keep it short!


----------



## M5farm (Jan 14, 2014)

KandCfamilyfarm said:


> *NOT HERE TO START TROUBLE!!!
> *
> I just want get others perspective on what is or is not""ORGANIC"". Please try to keep it short!


relating to or derived from living matter.
"organic soils"
synonyms: living, live, animate, biological, biotic
"organic matter". Every living thing is organic no matter what


----------



## geo in mi (Nov 14, 2008)

KandCfamilyfarm said:


> *NOT HERE TO START TROUBLE!!!
> *
> I just want get others perspective on what is or is not""ORGANIC"". Please try to keep it short!


The United States defined organic in 1990. Refer to :
https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrie...b02eebea6c&mc=true&n=pt7.3.205&r=PART&ty=HTML

I try to always refer to """organic""" as USDA ORGANIC, and use the same rules as the National Organic Program whenever carrying on a discussion in this particular forum. In other words I would mention some organic method as it is used in the Program and apply it here. That way, the person using the information could have a common standard that's published and already agreed upon.

The person or farmer going organic will work out his/her farm plan with a certifying agent in advance of the growing season. The plan will specify that all the methods used are in accordance with the NOP and therefore, the crop/product can be legally sold under the USDA ORGANIC label.
A person can sell up to $5,000 worth of products without the label and call them organic, but has to be able to prove the NOP rules were followed....In the United States, anyone calling their agricultural products organic, without following the rules of the NOP can be prosecuted.

By this definition, glyphosate is a synthetic substance, not allowed by the NOP. As this forum was established about a year ago to discuss organic growing, that should have been the end of the discussion--in my respectful opinion.

geo


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

"Dairy Doo", a bagged, composted fertilizer, widely marketed in Michigan, comes from commercial dairy cows. Apparently, there isn't much regulation on organic fertilizers. Seems to allow composted manure from cattle fed GMO.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

KandCfamilyfarm said:


> *NOT HERE TO START TROUBLE!!!
> *
> I just want get others perspective on what is or is not""ORGANIC"". Please try to keep it short!


I posted this a few months ago, perhaps you missed it. Does sort of explain why you couldn't get any straight answers from USDA.

Organic Trade Association sues USDA over failure to advance organic livestock standards
Organic Trade Assoc. Press Release
September 13, 2017


Washington , DC -- Taking action to defend the organic seal and organic standards, the Organic Trade Association on Wednesday is filing a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture over its failure to put into effect new organic livestock standards.

"We are standing up on behalf of the entire organic sector to protect organic integrity, advance animal welfare, and demand the government keep up with the industry and the consumer in setting organic standards," said Laura Batcha, Executive Director and CEO of the Organic Trade Association.

The suit alleges the U.S. Department of Agriculture violated the Organic Foods Production Act, and unlawfully delayed the effective date of the final livestock standards that were developed by industry and in accordance with the processes established by Congress, and with abusing the agency's discretion by ignoring the overwhelming public record established in support of these organic standards. The trade association further contends that the Trump Administration's Regulatory freeze order issued to federal agencies on Jan. 20, 2017, should not apply to organic standards because they are voluntary and are required only of those farms and businesses that opt in to be certified organic.

PR1.png?r=1505265947858Supporting the Organic Trade Association in the suit, as groups harmed by this protracted government inaction, are organizations representing organic livestock farmers, organic certification agencies, and organic retailers and consumers.


Full text:
https://www.ota.com/news/press-releases/19820
Here is a related report
http://www.meatpoultry.com/articles/news_home/Business/2017/05/Applegate_disappointed_in_USDA.aspx?ID={6ED81F51-B4E4-4B43-BE9D-DD2B0F3B1845}


----------



## KandCfamilyfarm (Nov 4, 2017)

haypoint said:


> I posted this a few months ago, perhaps you missed it. Does sort of explain why you couldn't get any straight answers from USDA.
> 
> Organic Trade Association sues USDA over failure to advance organic livestock standards
> Organic Trade Assoc. Press Release
> ...



politics fubar live again.


----------



## geo in mi (Nov 14, 2008)

https://www.homesteadingtoday.com/threads/what-are-the-requirements-for-organic-manure.556173/

geo


----------



## bobp (Mar 4, 2014)

Wow...Lol what a thread
To each their own I suppose.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

bobp said:


> Wow...Lol what a thread
> To each their own I suppose.


Liberals have their Play Do and "Safe Spaces", while a few Organic Gardeners require their own thread free from opposing information. Whatever.


----------



## Terri (May 10, 2002)

haypoint said:


> Liberals have their Play Do and "Safe Spaces", while a few Organic Gardeners require their own thread free from opposing information. Whatever.


Yes. Just as we have a forum for guns and a forum for livestock, we have a forum for how to farm organically. That way the organic farmers and those interested in it can discuss methods that will not cost them their certification, or simply because they believe in it and do not wish to handle chemicals.

You are ignoring them telling you to farm organically and the organic farmers are ignoring you telling them not to. Whatever. There are consumers who want to pay more for organic product and there are farmers who are happy to provide that product. I don't really understand why that bugs you.

And Play doh does not enter into it. Neither does who you voted for last election.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Terri said:


> Yes. Just as we have a forum for guns and a forum for livestock, we have a forum for how to farm organically. That way the organic farmers and those interested in it can discuss methods that will not cost them their certification, or simply because they believe in it and do not wish to handle chemicals.
> 
> You are ignoring them telling you to farm organically and the organic farmers are ignoring you telling them not to. Whatever. There are consumers who want to pay more for organic product and there are farmers who are happy to provide that product. I don't really understand why that bugs you.
> 
> And Play doh does not enter into it. Neither does who you voted for last election.


That people use any method to market their products at a premium, does not bother me. I have posted several items that encourage organics and current info on organic certification.

Numerous times I have stated my intent is not to change anyone's mind about organics. But when there are postings that run counter to facts, I want the record set straight. I never thought truth was a bad thing.

If a person states that they struggle with insects in their organic garden due to the surrounding Roundup Ready crops, it is just wrong. That isn't how Roundup Ready crops work.

If a person avoids Cheerios due to Roundup, I want them to know that it isn't likely that Roundup is in their cereal and that Natural Oatmeal has been found with traces of Roundup.

We can disagree on using or not using chemicals, everyone should be aware that organic gardening allows the use of dozens of toxic chemicals. Many that are more toxic than Roundup.

I'm likely to comment on the Gun site or the Livestock site if I seen a factual error. This site in general and this thread in particular cannot accept in formation that is different than their belief.


----------



## Terri (May 10, 2002)

Lies have been spread about the chemicals in Roundup since I was a girl in the late 60's. Heck we were told that it was safe to use it with our bare hands and that we could eat it in safety if we chose to! Then we started hearing reports of birth defects......

There are still a lot of lies being told about the chemicals in roundup, and after so many decades of lies it is hard to know where the truth is. But, it is not allowed in organic farming, and regardless of toxicity that apparently *IS* a fact.

I use the term apparently, because I have not memorized the list of requirements for organic farming, and my memory might be in error. How much does it matter that other chemicals are more toxic, if roundup cannot be used in organic farming?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Terri said:


> Lies have been spread about the chemicals in Roundup since I was a girl in the late 60's. Heck we were told that it was safe to use it with our bare hands and that we could eat it in safety if we chose to! Then we started hearing reports of birth defects......
> 
> There are still a lot of lies being told about the chemicals in roundup, and after so many decades of lies it is hard to know where the truth is. But, it is not allowed in organic farming, and regardless of toxicity that apparently *IS* a fact.
> 
> I use the term apparently, because I have not memorized the list of requirements for organic farming, and my memory might be in error. How much does it matter that other chemicals are more toxic, if roundup cannot be used in organic farming?


Easy to confuse me for a pro-Roundup guy. In reality, I'm a truth guy. If someone posted that you could brush your teeth on Roundup. I'd post the Material Data Safety Sheet. Because it isn't true. Conversely, if you imply that Roundup causes birth defects, I'll challenge that myth, too. You are correct, Roundup isn't allowed in organic gardening. But, organic doesn't mean no chemicals. It doesn't mean no toxic chemicals either. What is wrong with knowing more about the world we live in? Knowledge is power. I've tried to be clear that I'm not anti-organic. I'm not interested in changing anyone's mind, either.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Terri said:


> How much does it matter that other chemicals are more toxic, if roundup cannot be used in organic farming?


It doesn't if the discussion is only about organic farming.

It matters when the discussion is about the "evils and dangers of Round Up" because people tend to forget it replaced chemicals that *really* were highly toxic and long lasting and often required higher volumes to be effective.


----------



## cacheman (Dec 8, 2017)

haypoint said:


> I have an interest in organic gardening. My interest has led me to do quite a bi of study on both organic methods and chemical methods. I don't think I could change anyone's mind one way or the other. No more than I could expect to change a person's religion.
> Religion relies on faith, often blind faith. There is no proving anything. With organic or non-organic, there is a degree of faith, but there are also facts based on solid science. There are also just plain myths or misunderstandings or misleading statements.
> I try to interject information that permits a person to maintain their belief, but understand the facts better.
> If you select milk labeled "not from cows given bGH", I respect your choice, but will want you to know that dairy farmers gave up on bGH, decades ago and it is no longer used and all milk is from cows not given bGH.
> ...


Speaking of myths, misleading statements, and misunderstandings, let me make some corrections. 
1. bGH is still used in the US dairy industry. You appeared to acknowledge that in a previous thread where you were corrected....yet, you're still saying otherwise. 
2. All beef cattle in the US are not pasture raised, although it's typical for beef cattle to spend 9 mos on pasture and then 6 mos at the feedlot.


----------



## cacheman (Dec 8, 2017)

haypoint said:


> Again with the education . Decades ago, Monsanto, and probably other plant science companies toyed with the idea of seeds that produced a crop that wouldn't reproduce, hence the term terminator. Patented seeds were new and they needed a way to protect their patent. Now days, they simply require anyone that buys their patented products to sign a contract to not reproduce their patented seeds.
> I think the most common GMO crop is corn. Generally, seed corn is the result of specific crossed lines. This is often a four-way cross, hybrid. Saving crop from hybrid seeds for planting will result in reduced yield, inconstant characteristics. So, long before GMO, less than 1% of acreage was from saved seed and the rest relied on hybrids. So, a contract with Monsanto wasn't a big deal for corn farmers that have not been saving corn seed for 50 or 60 years.
> If I buy a named variety of oats, I cannot sell my crop by name as seed without paying a royalty to who ever holds the rights to that variety.


1. CFR on the less than 1% of corn seed saving prior to the rise of transgenic crops. I know the percentage was low, but I'm curious to see where you got that number. 
2. Focusing on corn seed saving obscures the overall picture. For example, as late as 1982 (the latest data I could find), approximately 50% of soy and cotton was grown using seeds saved by the farmers.


----------



## cacheman (Dec 8, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Nearly no one uses Round Up on Oats, and there are no "GMO" oats on the commercial market.


Roundup is commonly used in oat production prior to harvest.


----------



## cacheman (Dec 8, 2017)

haypoint said:


> I do not want to change your mind. I don't want to turn this into a debate. My single interest is truth.
> If I wrote that my wife didn't let our children drink cow's milk because of all the pig manure in it, would you just let me keep right on believing there is pig manure in milk?
> OK. First, let me explain oat production. Oats are a short season grain, often planted as a cover crop for hay grasses and clovers. It isn't GMO. There is no advantage or reason to put Roundup on oats. Roundup kills oats, hay grasses and clovers. Of all the crops that I can think of, oats are among the crops least likely to be sprayed with Roundup.
> Second, Roundup doesn't exist for long out in the environment. If a farmer sprayed oats before it made grain, no crop, no Roundup Cheerios. If a farmer sprayed oats after it made grain, the plant is drying down, dying on its own, Roundup would serve no purpose. But if ha was an evil farmer and did it anyway, the plant's flow is away from the grain, known as ripening. The oats natural husk would protect it from any Roundup, too.
> ...


You say there is no advantage to spreading oats with roundup. You might want to let monsanto know. They seem to approve of using it for dessication prior to harvest.

No till farming is a great thing. It's unfortunate that were seeing more and more no till farmers going back to tillage, but they have to deal with the roundup resistant weeds somehow. Clearly. There was no way that monsanto could foresee the increase in roundup resistant weeds, despite the longstanding common knowledge that is necessary to use pesticides with different modes of action to prevent resistance buildup.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

cacheman said:


> Speaking of myths, misleading statements, and misunderstandings, let me make some corrections.
> 1. bGH is still used in the US dairy industry. You appeared to acknowledge that in a previous thread where you were corrected....yet, you're still saying otherwise.
> 2. All beef cattle in the US are not pasture raised, although it's typical for beef cattle to spend 9 mos on pasture and then 6 mos at the feedlot.


You are correct. In this huge world, there are few absolutes.
1. In Michigan, the state where I live, I have had discussions with dozens of Veterinarians and even more dairy farmers. No one is using bGH. They haven't heard of anyone that has used it for at least a decade. I have heard of two headed calves, but not heard of anyone using bGH. Is someone using it? Perhaps.
2. In Michigan, typically, beef calves are born in early Spring. They are sold in the Fall as feeders. They are on hay through the winter. They may be at a feed lot when they get their winter's hay. The feed lot puts the cattle on grain for finishing, normally the last 6 or 8 weeks. Beef cattle, including dairy steers, are raised on pasture grass and then hay (grass processed and stored) until finishing. It is possible to raise cattle on grain, but I've never heard of it. I think you are bunching together being at a feed lot to being on a grain diet. Never heard of feeding grain for 6 months. Virtually all beef cattle are raised on pasture and since pasture is seasonal, hay, then finished on grain. Some cattle are raised on beer, some raised on potato waste, some on grain. But each are very uncommon.


----------



## cacheman (Dec 8, 2017)

haypoint said:


> "Dairy Doo", a bagged, composted fertilizer, widely marketed in Michigan, comes from commercial dairy cows. Apparently, there isn't much regulation on organic fertilizers. Seems to allow composted manure from cattle fed GMO.


Dairy Doo is not marketed as organic. It's not OMRI approved.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

cacheman said:


> Roundup is commonly used in oat production prior to harvest.


Oh, do tell. I live in a state where lots of oats are grown. I have visited Canadian providences where oats are a main crop. Never seen anyone spray Roundup on oats. Prior to planting, perhaps. After harvest to kill weeds, perhaps. But never in a short season crop like oats.
Always interested in learning, please tell me where on earth is Roundup sprayed on mature oats.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

cacheman said:


> Dairy Doo is not marketed as organic. It's not OMRI approved.


http://www.dairydoo.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/ProVeg301FRONT.png
All natural for organic gardening. It's on the label.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

cacheman said:


> You say there is no advantage to spreading oats with roundup. You might want to let monsanto know. They seem to approve of using it for dessication prior to harvest.
> 
> No till farming is a great thing. It's unfortunate that were seeing more and more no till farmers going back to tillage, but they have to deal with the roundup resistant weeds somehow. Clearly. There was no way that monsanto could foresee the increase in roundup resistant weeds, despite the longstanding common knowledge that is necessary to use pesticides with different modes of action to prevent resistance buildup.


Oh, contraire. Monsanto, and anyone else employing soil scientists, expected eventual resistance to Roundup. You are correct. Switch to a different weed killer. Interesting that those that oppose GMO because it is "un-natural", now have plants, in nature, resistant to Roundup. And no, these weeds have not adopted DNA from GMO crops, this is a natural mutation. Nature is full of mutations.
It is exactly for this reason that farmers are required to grow non-BT corn borders to reduce the chances for a BT resistant corn borer.
I don't understand how you can say no-Till is good, acknowledge the soil protection it provides, yet oppose Roundup. Weed control is always a key component in crop production.


----------



## cacheman (Dec 8, 2017)

haypoint said:


> Oh, do tell. I live in a state where lots of oats are grown. I have visited Canadian providences where oats are a main crop. Never seen anyone spray Roundup on oats. Prior to planting, perhaps. After harvest to kill weeds, perhaps. But never in a short season crop like oats.
> Always interested in learning, please tell me where on earth is Roundup sprayed on mature oats.





haypoint said:


> Oh, do tell. I live in a state where lots of oats are grown. I have visited Canadian providences where oats are a main crop. Never seen anyone spray Roundup on oats. Prior to planting, perhaps. After harvest to kill weeds, perhaps. But never in a short season crop like oats.
> Always interested in learning, please tell me where on earth is Roundup sprayed on mature oats.


It used to be more common, but is still used to some extent. A couple of years ago, some millers starting refusing glyphosate dessicated oats due to the fact that it lowered the mulling quality of the grain.


----------



## cacheman (Dec 8, 2017)

haypoint said:


> http://www.dairydoo.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/ProVeg301FRONT.png
> All natural for organic gardening. It's on the label.


It looks like I was wrong about the marketing. I didn't see that on their website.


----------



## cacheman (Dec 8, 2017)

haypoint said:


> Oh, contraire. Monsanto, and anyone else employing soil scientists, expected eventual resistance to Roundup. You are correct. Switch to a different weed killer. Interesting that those that oppose GMO because it is "un-natural", now have plants, in nature, resistant to Roundup. And no, these weeds have not adopted DNA from GMO crops, this is a natural mutation. Nature is full of mutations.
> It is exactly for this reason that farmers are required to grow non-BT corn borders to reduce the chances for a BT resistant corn borer.
> I don't understand how you can say no-Till is good, acknowledge the soil protection it provides, yet oppose Roundup. Weed control is always a key component in crop production.


I have not said anything about opposing roundup. 

Monsanto specifically published material stating that solely using roundup at the recommended rates would not lead to resistance. But i agree with you that they expected resistance to develop, despite what they told farmers.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

cacheman said:


> It used to be more common, but is still used to some extent. A couple of years ago, some millers starting refusing glyphosate dessicated oats due to the fact that it lowered the mulling quality of the grain.


Not wanting to debate your experiences, just wonder where? Odd that as glyphosate use is increasing, you say it is getting less common in oats. I wonder why it changed the milling quality. I'd suspect killing the plant with undeveloped seed, would produce immature seeds, but that would also reduce yield. Is there any on line info about glyphosate damaged oats with reduced milling qualities? If millers were refusing glyphosate desiccated oats, how were they making that determination? Samples sent to Labs? Interesting topic.


----------



## cacheman (Dec 8, 2017)

haypoint said:


> Interesting that those that oppose GMO because it is "un-natural", now have plants, in nature, resistant to Roundup. And no, these weeds have not adopted DNA from GMO crops, this is a natural mutation. Nature is full of mutations.


A natural mutation in response to artificial selection pressure? It's true that glyphosate resistance isn't solely due to transgenic cropping, but I'm unaware of any plant species over the last century that have acquired glyphosate resistance in the absence of glyphosate applications. I'd be interested for you to educate me on that.


----------



## cacheman (Dec 8, 2017)

haypoint said:


> Not wanting to debate your experiences, just wonder where? Odd that as glyphosate use is increasing, you say it is getting less common in oats. I wonder why it changed the milling quality. I'd suspect killing the plant with undeveloped seed, would produce immature seeds, but that would also reduce yield. Is there any on line info about glyphosate damaged oats with reduced milling qualities? If millers were refusing glyphosate desiccated oats, how were they making that determination? Samples sent to Labs? Interesting topic.


Most of the info I'm seeing is from Canada and Australia. Monsanto still has a glyphosate dessication guide which includes oats....is also common practice in wheat. In the last couple of years, the Canadian government had discouraged the practice. 

When used, it's done at the hard dough stage, so you might be correct that it interferes with late stage maturation of the seed. Technically, glyphosate is not a dessicant.....the dessication is simply due to plant death. 

I'm not sure how the grain millers make that determination.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

cacheman said:


> Roundup is *commonly used* in oat production prior to harvest.


Not really.
It's only used in limited areas where the growing seasons are too short to allow for natural drying.
The same rumor was spread by the anti-Monsanto crowd about Wheat. Farmers don't spend a single penny they don't have to.

Residual amounts of Glyphosate in Oats are often as much as *100 times lower* than the acceptable EPA levels.

http://www.health.com/nutrition/pesticides-in-oatmeal


> It’s true that an FDA chemist found small amounts of glyphosate in several types of oat cereals. In his presentation at the North American Chemical Residue Workshop in July, Narong Chamkasem highlighted the amounts found in samples of instant oatmeal (maple brown sugar, cinnamon spice, peach and cream), non-instant steel cut oats, and infant oat cereal (plain, banana, and banana strawberry). *These quantities ranged from 0.3 to 1.67 parts per million.*
> 
> The *tolerable limit for glyphosate* in the United States, set by the Environmental Protection Agency, is *30 ppm*. The quantities found in the research presented in July, then, were well below that limit. (They were *below Europe’s stricter limit of 20 ppm*, as well.)





cacheman said:


> Most of the info I'm seeing is from Canada and Australia. Monsanto still has a glyphosate dessication guide which includes oats....is *also common practice in wheat*. In the last couple of years, the Canadian government had discouraged the practice.


The fact you can find a "guide" online doesn't mean it's a "common practice".

http://www.bakingbusiness.com/artic...15/07/NAWG_counters_wheat_glyphosate.aspx?ID={E617FA48-9E0A-402E-9D46-6FC51DB9D8F2}&cck=1



> A third approved use (the one attacked by Ms. Pope) of glyphosate is “Pre-harvest applications made seven days or more prior to harvest as a harvest aid to dry green weeds and even the maturity of a wheat crop so that it may be harvested before end of season frosts occur. This is highly uncommon treatment *used in less than 2% of wheat acres*; however, it can be used to enable a harvest that would otherwise not be possible.”


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

cacheman said:


> A natural mutation in response to artificial selection pressure? It's true that glyphosate resistance isn't solely due to transgenic cropping, but I'm unaware of any plant species over the last century that have acquired glyphosate resistance in the absence of glyphosate applications. I'd be interested for you to educate me on that.


Why does Glyphosate resistance matter to someone who doesn't use it?


----------



## M5farm (Jan 14, 2014)

We have grown untold bushels of oats and not once in my my life have I seen any crop killed chemically . Oats a life span when they die you harvest. I have personally grown rr corn. I have also grown corn that I saved seed on. Yeilds are not even close. It's far more expensive to save corn have it cleaned , treated then spend cost to run a cultivator over it 3 times after you have already made at least 4 trips over field getting it planted. Folks that are spreading rumors think they are qualified because they have a garden out back of the shed.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

cacheman said:


> A natural mutation in response to artificial selection pressure? It's true that glyphosate resistance isn't solely due to transgenic cropping, but I'm unaware of any plant species over the last century that have acquired glyphosate resistance in the absence of glyphosate applications. I'd be interested for you to educate me on that.


That is sort of funny. How would we know if a plant acquired glyphosate resistance without having glyphosate to test it on? Plants and animals mutate all the time. When those mutations result in improved survival, either resistance to drought, resistance to a fungus, etc. the trait spreads. When the Dutch Elm disease swept through the country, a few Elm trees survived. They were the resistant to Dutch Elm disease mutations. If not for the Dutch Elm disease, we would have had no way to determine which trees were resistant to that disease. This mutation process makes flu vaccination difficult. Glyphosate isn't special, any widely used herbicide will result in resistance. Simply switch to another herbicide, resolve the resistance and return to the fuel saving, soil conserving, no-till.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

So we know that spraying Roundup on oats and wheat is very rare. We know that when Roundup shows up on oat products, it is such a tiny amount to be nearer zero than anything. We don't know of any millers that refuse oats for Roundup use.
I was right that Natural composted manure, suitable on organic gardens can come from dairy cows fed GMO corn and GMO soybeans and cotton seed meal from GMO cotton. Also, they can use chicken manure from caged commercial hens fed GMO corn and GMO soybeans.
We know that the broad term "feed lot" does not mean a diet of corn and cattle generally are raised on hay and pasture, finished, 6 to 8 weeks, on grain.
If bGH is still being used, I can't find who is buying it, Check this out:

Costco has no overall rBST policy, but sells brands such as Kirkland with labels pledging that no rBST was used in milk production.[77]

Wal-Mart announced in March 2008 that its private-label Great Value milk will be "sourced exclusively from cows that have not been treated with artificial growth hormones like recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST)"[78]

Kroger announced in April 2007, "it will complete the transition of milk it processes and sells in its stores to a certified rBST-free supply by February 2008."[79]

Dean Foods has no overall rBST policy, but has brands, such as Oak Farms, with labels pledging that no rBST was used in milk production.[80]

Winder Farms, a home delivery dairy and grocer in Utah and Nevada, sells milk from rBST-free cows.[81]

Guernsey Farms, a dairy farm and distributor located in Northville, Michigan, sells and distributes rBST-free dairy products in southeastern Michigan. Its milk has been labeled rBST-free for a number of years.[82]

Safeway in the northwestern United States stopped buying from dairy farmers who use rBST in January 2007.[11] The two Safeway plants produce milk for all Safeway stores in Oregon, southwest Washington, and parts of northern California. Safeway's plant in San Leandro, California, has been rBST-free since 2005.[12]

Chipotle Mexican Grill announced in June 2012 that it will serve rBST-free sour cream at its restaurants.[83]

Publix supermarket chain states on its website: "Publix milk is rBST-free. (No added artificial hormones.) However, the FDA has stated that no significant difference has been shown between milk derived from rbST-treated and non-rbST-treated cows."[84]

Braum's, a dairy and ice cream retailer in the midwest with a private herd, says on its website that it does not administer rBST to its cows.[85]

Starbucks's website, as of August 2012, has no statement about use of milk from cows treated with rBST. For example, its animal welfare policy is silent on the issue.[86] It announced in January 2008 that it would no longer sell milk from cows treated with rBST in its stores in the U.S.[87] The Organic Consumers Association, an advocacy group, claimed that Starbucks' change was due to their advocacy work.[88]

Oakhurst Dairy stopped using rBST in 2003 but still uses natural BST

Tillamook County Creamery Association, a co-operative made up of 110 dairy farms, say its farmers pledge that their cows are not treated with hormones.[89]

Yoplait, in 2009, General Mills announced it would stop using milk from cows treated with rBST, and stated, "While the safety of milk from cows treated with rBST is not at issue, our consumers were expressing a preference for milk from cows not treated with rBST, and we responded."[90]

Upstate Niagara Cooperative's entire milk supply is rBST-free.[91]

Byrne Dairy requests that its farmers pledge not to use rBST; its entire fluid milk, cream, ice cream, and butter manufacture is sourced exclusively from such pledging farmers.[92]

Trader Joe’s states, "Trader Joe’s brand products contain NO ... dairy ingredients from rBST sources


----------



## geo in mi (Nov 14, 2008)

M5farm said:


> Folks that are spreading rumors think they are qualified because they have a garden out back of the shed.


I think you are insulting most of the readers of this organic forum, but it's okay, because everybody but you and a couple others quit reading it.

geo


----------



## M5farm (Jan 14, 2014)

geo in mi said:


> I think you are insulting most of the readers of this organic forum, but it's okay, because everybody but you and a couple others quit reading it.
> 
> geo


I have stitched up cuts several times in my life but that does not make me a doctor . if a person is insulted by my comment they have bigger problems


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

geo in mi said:


> I think you are insulting most of the readers of this organic forum, but it's okay, because everybody but you and a couple others quit reading it.
> 
> geo


My presence on this thread is not to argue or debate, just trying to bring truth when I see a lie/myth/mischaracterization of fact. With that in mind, since you say everyone quit reading it, how does this thread rank third out of the latest top twenty, in terms of number read? We are into page 6 and over a hundred comments. Seems both interesting and/or educational to lots of folks.
When you don't call out any person that accuses most farmers of putting their profits ahead of health of the land, just as insulting to them as saying folks that spread fictional info are backyard gardeners. Hopefully, my comments are taken as attempts to be helpful and haven't abraded that exposed nerve of yours. Good day.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> geo in mi said: ↑
> I think you are insulting most of the readers of this organic forum, but it's okay, because everybody but you and a couple others quit reading it.
> 
> geo


It could only be taken as an "insult" by those who spread rumors instead of relying on facts:



> M5farm said: ↑
> *Folks that are spreading rumors* think they are qualified because they have a garden out back of the shed.


It wasn't addressed to everyone.


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

> Lies have been spread about the chemicals in Roundup since I was a girl in the late 60's.


You are pretty special if you knew about glyphosate in the 60's since it wasn't invented yet.
Roundup does not cause birth defects. And although IARC has deemed it probably carcinogentic, there has been much talk about the way it went about that ruling and the fact that a plethora of studies including their own showed the opposite to be true..
As of late the EPA has found no link between glyphosate and cancer https://junkscience.com/wp-content/...aper_evaluation_of_carcinogenic_potential.pdf


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

sammyd said:


> You are pretty special if you knew about glyphosate in the 60's since it *wasn't invented yet*.


It's best to check facts first and post second: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate


> Glyphosate was first synthesized in *1950 *by Swiss chemist Henry Martin, who worked for the Swiss company Cilag. The work was never published.[18]:1 Stauffer Chemical patented the agent as a chemical chelator in *1964* as it binds and removes minerals such as calcium, magnesium, manganese, copper, and zinc.[19]


It wasn't widely used until later, but it had been invented.


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

I stand corrected, but it wasn't used as an herbicide till the 70's.


----------

