Continuing on with this silliness. GMO.

Some of it's kind of in legalese.

Thing must have changed since I was in agriculture school ;o).

Living legume plants (soy or otherwise) only make enough nitrogen for their own use; they don't release appreciable quantities of nitrogen into the surrounding soil while they are growing, and in fully mature annual legumes like soy the nitrogen has been concentrated in the beans, which are removed from the field along with their nitrogen (as protein), not turned in to the soil. Some legumes were (and maybe still are) cut in the "green" stage (up to flowering but before any seeds have formed) and turned in to the soil (aka "green manure"), which then causes any nitrogen the plant has accumulated to become available to the following crop.

Soy is not a spectacular nitrogen-fixer as legumes go, and the seeds/beans are too valuable on their own to waste the plant turning it into green manure. At least in the 70's and 80's, rotations between soy and corn were mostly practiced to minimize disease and pest carryover. The manure was applied prior to the corn planting because the corn needs more nitrogen.

Later I believe some rotations were carried on to minimize weeds because some of the broad-lead herbicides of the day would kill soy but had less effect on corn (different chemistry) and could be used on corn fields the season prior to planting soy.

-Rich


This message was edited Mar 29, 2013 11:40 PM

When I was growing up it was still understood that the role of the President under our Constitution is to enforce and implement the laws that Congress passed, not to cherry-pick the parts he liked. That's one of the major differences between a republic and a dictatorship. The President can *propose* laws to Congress, but he is not supposed to have much say in what gets passed. Too much power concentrated in one person's hands - what a nightmare. You have to really study history to understand what a horror that is - and it seems that's where President after President seem to be taking us. In spite of some people's "hope for change", this one isn't very different at all.

All my formal education and all the information I've ever read goes along with what CG says. Certain plants should be planted AFTER legumes to use up the N they release into the soil. Always been told to leave the roots of these in the ground. But that isn't what this thread is about.

I'm still trying to figure out why Monsanto needs protection, if they are so sure their stuff is safe. Don't understand the needless nit picking.

Rich,

I have never grown Soybeans, but have grown Alfalfa, and I believe the Nitrogen is fixed in the nodes on the roots, and remains in the soil when the plants are removed.

And I have always heard, and believed that you do not turn green manure under to increase the nitrogen, as the decomposition requires more nitrogen than the vegetation provides.

And since i was not sure after reading your post that Soybeans were a good source of Nitrogen, i googled it, and Soybeans can provide up to 250 pounds of nitrogen per acre, while Alfalfa does not produce quite that much.

But what CG says, does reflect what most Farmers seem to believe.

Lisa, I believe the first post on the first thread of this, concerned the problems or danger of Roundup building up in the soil. But for sure, we have drifted far off that path.



Ernie

Hmmm. Let's start with the soybeans. I guess I'll have to look up my old agronomy professors at the University of Georgia and tell them they were wrong :o).

Seriously, though, the nitrogen produced in the root nodules does not stay in the root nodules. It is translocated to the rest of the plant and used to make proteins and other nitrogenous compounds. A couple of things you can pretty much count on from plants: every structure evolved to serve some purpose that is useful to the species, and they are not altruistic. In the symbiotic relationship between legumes and the symbiotic Rhizobium bacteria, the bacteria gets a place to set up shop and reproduce and energy from the plant's photosynthesis, and the plants get the nitrogen they need to make amino acids. The nodules are still there when the plant dies; the nitrogen produced in the nodules mostly isn't, unless the plant is sacrificed. As the plants mature, the bulk of the nitrogen is moved into the seeds. That's why beans are such a good source of protein. By the time the seeds are fully ripe and ready to harvest, the plant has largely lost it's green color as nutrients are moved into the seeds.

Some math (not my favorite subject, but occasionally useful):

1) In the US in 2011, the average soybean yield in the US was 43.5 bushels per acre. (http://www.soystats.com/2012/page_04.htm)
2) One bushel of soybeans contains on average 21 pounds of protein.
3) The common conversion factor for estimating protein content from nitrogen analysis is 5.3. That is, for every 1 gram of nitrogen measured, there will be about 5.3 grams of protein.

So one acre of soy can produce (43.5 X 21) or 913.5 pounds of protein, which contains (913.5 / 5.3) or 172.35 pounds of nitrogen, all of which is removed when the soybeans are harvested.

4) Soybeans can cut the nitrogen requirement for later corn plantings by 30 pounds per acre. (http://extension.missouri.edu/p/WQ277)

Per acre, that's 172.35 pounds of nitrogen for us (in the form of protein) and 30 pounds of nitrogen left behind for the next crop, a total of 202.35 pounds of nitrogen produced per acre including what is harvested and removed and what is left behind. Assuming soy fixes the nitrogen it uses and is not fertilized with additional nitrogen fertilizer, only about 15% of the nitrogen produced in the root nodules is left when the soybeans are harvested. Fertilizing with nitrogen has been shown in numerous studies to suppress nitrogen production by the root nodules.

Gosh, ain't science wonderful... ;o)

BTW, isn't it a contradiction to say that green manure uses more nitrogen than it produces, when green manuring using soybean residues can reduce the nitrogen fertilizer requirement of subsequent corn crops? I don't think both can be correct.

-Rich

Rich,

I was rather tentative in my comments, relying on practices that Farmers, all the way back in history have observed, believed, and practiced. As the results i saw confirmed what others believed, i saw, and still see, no reason to doubt it.

We all are aware that you have had some higher formal education and you certainly make some impressive sounding arguments, but if you are not familiar with his work, i suggest you look up Omar Khayam's short story: "The Book Seller's Donkey."

I was not as clear in the sentence as i could have been, but i was referring to the decomposing period of the green manure, and i have seen many references, indicating the bacteria digesting the vegetable matter in large amounts require additional nitrogen during that process. I assume it does remain in the soil. Whether those other experts or you are correct, i wil leave for others to decide.

Ernie

Ernie,

What other experts are you referring to? The people I learned from were "Farmers" and people who worked closely with "Farmers".

What I took exception to were two statements you made.

The first was "the Nitrogen is fixed in the nodes on the roots, and remains in the soil when the plants are removed." The measurable, verifiable fact is that the vast bulk of nitrogen fixed in the nodules is used by the plant to make the amino acids that the plant needs to manufacture everything from structures to enzymes. Only a small percentage of the nitrogen fixed by leguminous crops remains in the soil when the plants or their seeds are harvested. Actual, provable, measurable data doesn't depend on belief.

The second was "And I have always heard, and believed that you do not turn green manure under to increase the nitrogen, as the decomposition requires more nitrogen than the vegetation provides". I see you later backpedaled on that. One of the main reasons legume green manures are grown and turned under is to increase soil nitrogen to subsequent crops. What you were talking about - the loss of available nitrogen - is a very short-term effect. The net nitrogen balance isn't adversely affected unless you have anaerobic soil conditions.

No belief is required for any of what I said, only years of accurate measurement and record keeping.

-Rich

Rich,

You are trying to pick an argument with me, and i am trying to avoid one. If you recall, the last time you did that, was because those teachers you put your faith in, let you leave school without having learned the correct definition of the word, FRUIT.

Knowledge can be taught, learned, bought and sold, but wisdom must be acquired, and perhaps your technical knowledge of the behavior of nitrogen is correct, but i also have faith in the Wisdom of the many farmers that rotate their crops believing the crop following a legume crop will benefit from the nitrogen left in the residue from the prior crop.

There seem to be many differences of opinion concerning this question among the different articles written by Professionals in the field, on the Google website, so I am sure there is material for a lot of arguments about the details, percentages, etc, but it is not an subject i care enough about to argue about.

Ernie

ERNIECOPP said:
>> Is it true what we hear about the demand for Corn to make Biofuel has doubled the price of corn, driving up the price of fed beef, along with Chickens and other uses for the corn?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130401151028.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Latest+Science+News%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher

I hope this isn't too-far off topic, but it's a good example of a technology or method being adopted for one (good) ecological reason, then possibly having a different (bad) ecological outcome.

In this case, no-till farming, autumn surface fertilization, and corn-for-biofuel may interact with more-frequent intense spring rainstorms to cause phosphate run-off and toxic algae blooms killing Lake Erie (again).

This article blames toxic algae blooms in Lake Erie (partly) on no-till farming, producing corn for biofuel (ethanol), and trends toward applying fertilizer (phosphate) in autumn. Also, they predict more of the same since they expect unusually intense spring rainstorms to be more common with rising CO2 levels keeping more heat energy in the atmosphere. atmospheric

Those lead to higher concentrations of dissolved reactive phosphorus near the surface of soil, where Intense spring rainstorms can wash it right out and into the Maumee River, then western Lake Erie.

"an algae bloom that covered about 2,000 square miles by the time it peaked in early October 2011. That's more than three times larger than any previously observed Lake Erie algae bloom,"

" composed almost entirely of toxic blue-green Microcystis algae. Concentrations of mycrocystin, a liver toxin produced by the algae, peaked at about 224 times World Health Organization guidelines, "

" ... used 12 computerized climate models ... which incorporate the anticipated effects of human-caused climate change due to the buildup of heat-trapping greenhouse gases, showed that the frequency of spring rainstorms that drop more than 1.2 inches is likely to double in this region by the end of the century."

Oh, yes, and also:

"a trend in the Midwest toward declining acreage reserved for conservation purposes, "

"A paper summarizing the team's findings is scheduled for online publication April 1 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences."

Everyone wants to save money, and that is easy to measure and motivate on a month-to-month basis.

But even if everyone wanted to "save the planet" as much as they want to save a buck, it's hard to measure (or predict, or motivate) decades ahead, and easy to simply disbelieve and deny anything that might cost money.

There were some conventional and GM plans for developing crops that would do relatively well in low-nutrient soil ... but will they be used to prevent fertilizer run-off from eutrophying Lake Erie, or will they be used to over-exploit marginal grasslands and turn them in to deserts? Stay tuned ...

>> *Section 735 "Monsanto Rider" is reported by NY Daily News to have been written in concert with Mosanto by Sen. Roy Blount (R-MO), perhaps Monsanto’s biggest Senate contribution beneficiary. ...
>> This infamous action has been widely criticized in the strongest terms, even within the Senate.

So heinous and flagrant that even the Senate criticized it. It must have been PRETTY flagrant!

The precedent of politicians doing whatever Monsanto paid them to do, is not one that makes me feel confident that long-term national decisions will be made in our children's or grand-children's best interests.

Rick,
Whether it is on topic or off, your posts from the scientific aspect are usually very informative.

Almost everything we try has unexpected consequences, but in spite of that, i think the only way we can make any progress is to take some risks.

But one thing we always need to keep in mind, no one seems to be able to completely keep their personal biases, or self interests, out of their thoughts and decisions. So, the Scientist, the Farmer, the Logger, all look at the benefits and problems from their individual aspect.

So, i would hazard a guess that the neither the rewards from anything will not be as big we hoped, and the problems will not be as bad as we feared.

And as long as the World population keeps expanding, we have to make, and accept, the changes necessary to feed and house those people.

Ernie

This message was edited May 19, 2013 7:16 AM

>> Almost everything we try has unexpected consequences, but in spite of that, i think the only way we can make any progress is to take some risks.

That's the kind of thing I men at when I said that these discussions tend to be un-debate-able. That kind of belief or value (that I agree with, around 85%) is mostly not provable or dis-provable. It's almost personal philosophy.

>> And as long as the World population keeps expanding, we have to make, and accept, the changes necessary to feed and house those people.

That might be provable! Or at least it's a valid question to ask someone who's against some paerticular practice, like fertilizer or herbicide usage: "OK, how would YOU feed the poor?"


CountryGardens said:
>> Everybody blames the farmers for pollution.
>> less chemicals are used now than ever before.
>> Fertilizers are put on only where needed, not just spread everywhere.


>> As far as Lake Erie goes, at one time it was nearly "dead". Now it is one of the best Walleye fisheries there is. This doesn't go along with your saying how polluted it is.

I don't know, myself, that's why I gave the link and the name of the paper they said would be published online. Their claim about the toxic algae bloom was specific enough that I think it could be proved or disproved. Their claims about future spring rains becoming more intense because of "many climate models" is more like speculation or prediction.

It's interesting that they claimed increases in leachable "dissolved reactive phosphorus" (DRP) near the soil surface was INCREASED by these:
- trends toward applying fertilizer (phosphate) on the surface, in the autumn
- no-till farming,
- and corn-for-biofuel

(Maybe traditional phosphate sources were LESS soluble forms, and no-till requires very soluble forms?? Pure guess, no idea.

I would have expected you to be more right about:
>> minimum tillage stops erosion & runoff.

Maybe that's SOIL runoff? Or maybe it is phopshate-runoff-in-the-SPRING that specifically encourages TOXIC algal blooms. Or maybe the authors were grinding some axe of their own, and as you suggest, were pre-inclined to bash farming practices (or biofuel).

That's why I say that no one study is likely to resolve any contentious issue. If you (and 2 other teams) had the time and funding to do studies and write paperse in reply, you might disprove half of what they say and turn their vaguer speculations into more specific claims that could then be proved or disproved. Then the SIX teams writing TWELVE other papers would start to narrow down what is really relevant to what.

But it would take even more studies to figure out what was PRACTICAL to do in response to cure the real root problems. (For example, maybe 80% of the problem is dropping soluble P on the surface in autumn now that spring rains are so hard. STOP THAT.) And politicians would probably shoot that down, too.

THAT'S science in the real world.

I'm inclined to believe that farmers don't spend any more on fertilizer and herbicides than they have to, but if spending an extra $60 on an acre is likely to increase yield by $100, they have to do it. Especially when that is not $40 more profit, but $40 less LOSS.

And home gardeners and lawn care bozos probably drench with herbicides and soluble fertilizer willy-nilly compared to experienced farmers. Then it comes down to relative acreage and concentration and total tonnages: are there more fields or more suburbs? Which one consumes more tons of phosphate?

I agree with you 100% that suburban lawns have a lot less intrinsic value than producing food ... but that's a value judgement that I can't force upon people who love having lawns that look like indoor carpets.

I've lived in this house for 7 1/2 years an have never fertilized or watered the front yard. Still the darn grass grows! If it were not for deer, something edible would be growing out front!

this link is helpful if you want to avoid buying gmo seed

http://www.seminis.com/global/us/products/Pages/Home-Garden.aspx

This message was edited May 19, 2013 7:17 AM

yes it is

That's why Pinetree Garden Seeds stopped using Seminis as a provider.

Hi R isingcreek.

Do you mean "seeds of genetically modified strains", or
"seeds sold by companhies affiliated with Monsanto"?

For example, in the link you provided, there is this:
Seminis does not offer GM vegetable seeds for the home garden market.

http://www.seminis.com/global/us/products/Pages/Home-Gardeners.aspx

Or were you saying t6hat in order to AVOID buying genetically engi8neered seeds, we SHOULD b uy from Seminis sinc e they offer that guarantee?

I wish I knew whether Johnnies Seeds was owned by Monsanto, or how much of it was owned.

I do try t o avoid buying f rom Monsanto -owned companies for philosophical reasons: they come too close to a monoply for my taste. Their policies decrease the diversity of commercially-available strains, and I want to vote against that with my tiny little checkbook.

I'm pretty sure that link lists companies affiliated with Monsanto, rather than companies that sell GMO seeds. As you point out, there are few if any GMO strains offered to the home gardener. But I vote with my pocketbook, too, so I try to avoid sources that enrich companies that are counter to my philosophical beliefs.

I'm glad to answer or debunk my own question.

Here's what Johnnies says:

"Johnny’s Selected Seeds was a sole proprietorship from January 1973 until July 1975, when the company was incorporated in Maine. Over the years, Johnny’s has grown on the good graces of its customers, and the company had never received investments from any source. This changed in July 2006, when Johnny’s Selected Seeds took investment from its employees. Johnny's became 100% employee owned in June of 2012."

Someone else says that only 40 (4%) of Johnny's offerings came from Seminis, and they are trying to find replacements for those.
http://eatclosetohome.wordpress.com/2009/12/29/monsanto-and-johnnys-seeds/

Another person said there were only 18 Seminis products listed in Johnny's in 2010:
http://littlerockurbanfarming.com/who-owns-your-seeds-disclosing-the-johnnysmonsanto-connection/

And just to be clear, none of them were genetically modified or genetically engin eered.

I see that Johnny's made the DG Watchdog Top Fiv e in two recent years.
I sure like the advice they give in thier paper catalogs!

That's the point that none of us can seem to get across to people that don't want to hear it. GMO seeds ARE NOT avaliable to the home gardener. There are permits and paperwork that need to be filled out. I don't know why people find this so hard to understand. Until you understand the basics you can't go foreword and it is spreading lies. That's not saying I'm for GMOs but I'm for the truth. Myself and Farmerdill pointed this out at the beginning of the first thread, but still the lies continue.

I haven't heard anyone saying that home garden catalogues sell GMO seeds, 1lisac. It looks to me as though people are just trying to avoid purveyors associated with GMO companies as a way of voting with their wallets and also as a way of supporting places which have taken a stand against GMOs.

t.

This message was edited May 19, 2013 7:17 AM

Zeesh, Country Gardens, of course there are. But some of us are just trying to avoid what toxins and problems we can. Why walk in the middle of a busy street when you can use a sidewalk?

Good to grow our own veggies, huh?? Then we at least know what kind of soil and fertilizers were used, and sprays, or lack thereof...

Greenhouse- RC posted that, that link "was good if you wanted to avoid buying GMOs". I don't see a way to misunderstand that statement. The problem is you can't buy them if you are a home gardener, this issue has been dicussed soooo many times.

...unless you grow them in a larger agricultural program and then grow some in your home garden for yourself or to sell. Plus, I'm not completely convinced that some don't make it into the seed supply. They certainly make it into the food supply. Interesting that my question was never answered as to who grows GMO corn, soy, etc. in an agricultural operation. There was one comment by someone who is not a larger scale (than a home gardener) farmer. There sure are several who are defending it adamately. Why? Those who care about their health and those who care about seed diversity and the health of the planet have been called fearful. They're not fearful. They're awake. They read. They learn. They don't believe everything they hear and they don't believe all the hype about how 'good' something is on television, without doing some research on their own. And they don't insult the members who are concerned and awake by calling it "silliness". How dismissive and condescending can you get? Please don't do that.

If round up ready seed did make it in to the seed supply what difference would it make unless you used a weed killer on it. That's the issue that it can be drenched with herbicide but if your not going to do that then what harm is done?

I thought your question wasn't answered bc maybe there aren't many big ag individuals on a site geared more to home gardeners.

Personally Im sorry to say this but many of the people that I think would be considered "fearful" are not willing to learn the truth either. They find sites that back their feelings. If it doesn't back their feelings it's not true. I would be happy if there was labeling so I could knowingly choose not to eat GMOs.

1lisac, you're right, that is what the link purported to do. I overlooked that since the conversation has meandered so much. But since an overwhelmingly high percentage of the corn being grown in the U.S. currently is GMO, I would hesitate to buy garden seed corn from anyone who didn't offer a safe-seed pledge because of the problem of drift and accidental contamination. Regarding the "truth," the fact is that we don't know the truth yet; that's what many of us are concerned about. The research completed on rats that's been accepted by regulatory agencies stopped at 90 days; in Séralini's study, which had a longer duration, the effects didn't appear until after that time period. We don't know what the impact of GMOs will be on those who are now infants, and on their children. And if we don't know, we shouldn't be opening up Pandora's box.

And Solace, I agree with you completely that people who insult other members by ad hominem attacks are breaching the rules of courtesy here; it also seems like the last resort of those who lack the science to back their convictions.

This message was edited May 19, 2013 7:18 AM

GG,
"If God would but, the Gifty Gie Us, To see Ourselves, as Others See Us."

You seem very sensitive to strong words from others that were simply trying to inject some logic and common sense in the discussion, but you were quick to impugn the intelligence of several that did not agree with you.

And your last sentence is a good example. Your own convictions that GMOs are bad are based on your imagination and fears, as there is absolutely no reputable science to back that up.

Ernie

It doesn't sound as though you read what I wrote above so I won't bother rephrasing it, but you might take a look at this:

http://www.gmwatch.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14635

The author of the letter quoted here is a reputable scientist.

We are back to denigrating concerns as stemming only from imagination and fears, so I'll leave you all to your discourse.

Greenhouse-I'm not talking about the GMOs in our food supply but the fact that it cannot be sold to the home gardener, that is the truth. But I do agree that I'd rather buy it from a company that has the safe seed pledge. BUT they are 2 different issues. I'm not concerned about drift bc no corn is grown around here.

This issue was discussed in the first 3 posts of the original thread. I don't understand why it keeps getting brought up again and again. I guess if it's ask enough times one sill get the answer they want, but it would be nice to move on.

I stand on what i have said before. IF there is ever damage or harm proven, Lawyers will swarm on it like locusts, as it will be a gold mine for them.

Until then, it is just conjecture.

Ernie

Interesting study:

http://gmoevidence.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/GlyModern-diseaseSamsel-Seneff-13-1.pdf

It discusses the deleterious effects of Roundup on living organisms and notes that more Roundup is being used in the U.S.than ever before due to GMO strains which are Roundup resistant.

Interesting study, indeed. It's difficult to imagine that all that extra Roundup being used would not have some harmful effects. I certainly will not choose to eat foods that were sprayed with any Roundup, not to even mention an extra heavy dose of Roundup.

If they are not labeled, how do you know if you are eating food that has been sprayed with Round-Up?

Gee, I guess you wouldn't.

Humm...Lisa they sell round up ready corn seed at my local feed store , so it is simply NOT true that GMO seed is not sold to home gardeners