Has anyone else noticed that the Monarch butterflies are drifting through Central Texas today? I've been noticing a few isolated butterflies here and there for a week or so, but today they are finally showing up in significant quantities. Apparently they're running a little late this year, on their incredible trip to Mexico.
They were a refreshing sight when I got home, and they promptly gave my spirits a boost, after I was discharged from the ER about mid-afternoon.
Tex
Incidentally . . .
Moderators: Rosie, Stanz, Jean, CAMary, moremuscle, JFR, Dee, xet, Peggy, Matthew, Gabes-Apg, grannyh, Gloria, Mars, starfire, Polly, Joefnh
Incidentally . . .
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
I'm just glad they are still flying and doing what they are supposed to do, albeit late. I read an article a couple of years ago about the path of the butterflies being stopped by EMF fields in New Jersey. Apparently the EMF of cellphone towers etc. makes them lose their way… scary.
1987 Mononucleosis (EBV)
2004 Hypomyopathic Dermatomyositis
2009 Lymphocytic Colitis
2010 GF/DF/SF Diet
2014 Low Dose Naltrexone
2004 Hypomyopathic Dermatomyositis
2009 Lymphocytic Colitis
2010 GF/DF/SF Diet
2014 Low Dose Naltrexone
Hiya Tex and All,
Not to change the subject, but I am very concerned about the genetically-modified corn that was just approved by the EPA.......those eerie-looking blue seeds that make corn more resistant to Agent Orange and Roundup (if I understand this properly). Of course, I am always concerned about GM foods, given the limited number of foods I can eat. But I also read that this new corn will adversely affect Monarch butterflies because those chemicals are harmful to milkweed, their main food. I believe it is also harmful to bats (or is it bees) - both already in trouble.
Tex, I have been meaning to ask your opinion on this. As a corn farmer, I'm sure you have a learned one! And one more question - why do you think the main food corps. in this country (Coke, Pepsico, Kraft, etc.) are spending millions to defeat labeling laws in states that are voting on this? I can understand why Monsanto is spending millions to defeat labeling laws, but do they all "know something" we don't? Oh, and a final question - is the reason we "need" these new ways of growing corn because of the way (less than ideal?) we have farmed it in the past?
Thanks for your thoughts.
Love,
Polly
P.S. I found out that I can tolerate corn on the cob now (after 14 years of avoiding it!). I enjoyed it occasionally over summer, and now I am wondering how I can know how it was raised when I purchase it in the future? I guess, without labeling laws, I will have to buy it directly from a farmer I can trust?
Not to change the subject, but I am very concerned about the genetically-modified corn that was just approved by the EPA.......those eerie-looking blue seeds that make corn more resistant to Agent Orange and Roundup (if I understand this properly). Of course, I am always concerned about GM foods, given the limited number of foods I can eat. But I also read that this new corn will adversely affect Monarch butterflies because those chemicals are harmful to milkweed, their main food. I believe it is also harmful to bats (or is it bees) - both already in trouble.
Tex, I have been meaning to ask your opinion on this. As a corn farmer, I'm sure you have a learned one! And one more question - why do you think the main food corps. in this country (Coke, Pepsico, Kraft, etc.) are spending millions to defeat labeling laws in states that are voting on this? I can understand why Monsanto is spending millions to defeat labeling laws, but do they all "know something" we don't? Oh, and a final question - is the reason we "need" these new ways of growing corn because of the way (less than ideal?) we have farmed it in the past?
Thanks for your thoughts.
Love,
Polly
P.S. I found out that I can tolerate corn on the cob now (after 14 years of avoiding it!). I enjoyed it occasionally over summer, and now I am wondering how I can know how it was raised when I purchase it in the future? I guess, without labeling laws, I will have to buy it directly from a farmer I can trust?
Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves, for they shall never cease to be amused.
Polly,
I'm afraid that you have me at a disadvantage, because I'm not familiar with any recently approved variety of corn that meets that description. The blue color that you are referring to is probably due to the seed treatment used on a lot of corn seed these days. The seed treatment is tinted blue, so that handlers will be able to recognize its presence, and take appropriate safety precautions. The seed treatment prevents grubs, ants, and other soil insects from destroying the young plant before and after it emerges, and it also controls corn root worms, which are a major threat to corn production.
Agent orange is made by combining 2,4,5-T (2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid) and 2,4-D (2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid), along with kerosene and diesel fuel. As far as I'm aware, agent orange was developed specifically to destroy forestation in Viet Nam, and it has never been used for domestic crop production or for any other purpose in this country (despite what some activists claim), nor is it ever likely to be.
Prior to 1970, it apparently was legal to use 2,4,5-T in crops, but I was growing corn back in those days, and even though corn has always been tolerant of 2-4-5-T, I'm not aware of anyone who actually used it, because it was far too expensive to use for crop production purposes. USDA discontinued that label for crop use back in 1970, but it was still legal to use it on rice until 1985, when the EPA forbid its use for any and all purposes in this country. So it has been totally gone for almost 30 years now. I really don't know if it was widely used for rice production while it was legal for that purpose, but rice is a crop with enough profitability that its use could have been justified, so it certainly might have been used in some fields. The lion's share of 2-4-5-T production was used to control brush in pastures.
I'm guessing that you have been reading convoluted interpretations (or rather misinterpretations) of a combination of 2-4-D and glyphosate that was recently authorized by the EPA, known as Enlist Duo. Those 2 chemicals have been approved for individual use in most countries in the developed world for many decades, and they are the most widely-used chemicals in the world. All this did was to allow them to be sold premixed. Many farmers were already using them as a legal tank mix on the farm (since they were both legally registered, with no prohibition against mixing them). Most countries approved the use of the combination before the U. S. got around to it. This registration has nothing to do with agent orange. You can read the EPA's views on this registration at the following link. They address the pollinators and bees issue there, also (though I will admit that the phrase "practically non-toxic to bees" doesn't sound overly comforting
):
Registration of Enlist Duo
As I mentioned above, I'm not aware of a new GMO corn seed issue, and I'm pretty sure that this chemical combination registration is the target of whatever articles you have been reading. Corn has always been tolerant of 2-4-D, and of course Monsanto's GMO seed changes a couple of decades ago have made most corn tolerant of glyphosate, as well.
Milkweeds have never been allowed to grow in crops, because they have always been very easy to control. I can remember spraying milkweeds in pastures many decades ago, using 2-4-D or dicamba, whenever the populations became thick enough to seriously affect forage production. But the main reason we sprayed it in pastures was because it is notorious for spreading and perpetuating pinkeye in cattle, whenever it grows thick enough to become an ever-present problem. We never worried about scattered plants though, because they were not a problem. So I doubt that this new registration will significantly affect the Monarch Butterfly, despite scare stories to the contrary. Why would it? These are not new chemicals.
Personally, I don't believe that the big food manufacturers have any dire motives in mind (other than to take as big a share as they can possibly grab out of everyone's food dollar), when they spend so much money to fight label changes. From their point of view, it's just good business, because anytime they can prevent or reduce mandatory labeling requirements, they can prevent many headaches (both foreseen and unforeseen) somewhere down the road, and that's as good as money in the bank. Anyone who has ever tried to successfully run a business knows that increased regulation requirements are never good news.
But put yourself in their position for a moment. This issue has some unique characteristics that make it a mine field for food manufacturers. They can't win in this issue, because if they begin to list GMO ingredients, many, many consumers will shun their products. But the problem is that if everyone tries to source only GMO-free ingredients, the cost of those products will soar to ridiculous levels, because GMO-free ingredients simply are not available in significant quantities, especially legitimate certified GMO-free ingredients. Those days are long-gone. Either way, their products will suddenly become uncompetitive.
Currently, like everyone else in the business, most GMO-free manufacturers buy ingredients that meet their specifications, from the cheapest sources available. They have to, to remain competitive. A lot of the ingredients currently being claimed to be GMO-free, originate in distant lands where suppliers either don't know what GMO actually means, or don't care. Suppliers can change very frequently, so basically the manufacturers have to take the word of the supplier that any ingredient is actually non-GMO. But are they? If enforcement of certified GMO status of ingredients were to become a reality, I have a hunch that the world supply of authentic non-GMO ingredients would shrink dramatically, and prices would become prohibitive for most of us. GMO traits can be transferred during pollination, and pollen can drift for miles in the prevailing winds. Because of that, I'll bet a GF cookie that you couldn't find more than a handful of genuine non-GMO corn anywhere in this country, no matter how hard you tried. Like pure bison DNA, pure non-GMO status was probably (unintentionally) cross-bred out of corn in this country, several years ago.
The main reason why agricultural "innovations" are developed and approved is because like any industry, financial survival depends on continual improvement in efficiency and reductions in the costs of production. Government cheap food policies that were promoted in this country over the last half-century or so have effectively exterminated the family farms of my childhood, and replaced them with megafarms that are now operated much like any other industry. Compared with the equipment that we farmed with 50 or 60 years ago, modern farm equipment is almost unbelievable. When my father and uncles started farming, about the time of WWII, a tractor and all the equipment needed (planter, cultivator, plows,etc.) cost less than $2,000. The price of corn was roughly one-third of what it's worth now. Today, a tractor costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. A planter costs $50,000– $75,000. A combine (for harvesting the crop) typically costs half a million dollars, and that doesn't even include a header attachment specific to the crop that needs to be harvested, which can cost an additional $20,000 or $30,000 (or more), for each type of crop. And input costs for seed and fertilizer have increased pretty much in step with ag equipment, over those decades.
And yet while ag equipment has increased in cost by roughly 100 times, the commodities produced are only bringing roughly 3 times as much as they did 60 or 70 years ago. Compared with the early 1950s, it takes more than 4 times as much corn to supply our needs today. That's why agriculture is changing faster than any other industry, and it's why efficiency has to be continually improved. If commodities were priced proportional to the increases in equipment costs, we would be spending almost all of our income on food, and still feeling hunger pangs. Thanks to continual gains in agricultural productivity, food remains a relatively minor part of our budget in this country. That wouldn't be the case, if innovation had been suppressed, rather than rapidly adopted.
That's definitely good news that you can now tolerate corn, but other than buying it from a farmer who is farming in an isolated area (at least roughly 5 miles from another corn field), and who plants only non-GMO seeds, it's extremely difficult to ensure purity. Unless/until cheap consumer-level GMO test kits become available, guaranteeing purity is iffy at best,IMO. It's a crying shame that it has come to this, because early on, purity was still an option, and if labeling had been mandated back then, the situation now would be drastically different. I'm afraid that window may be closed by now, except possibly for a few isolated instances.
Love,
Tex
I'm afraid that you have me at a disadvantage, because I'm not familiar with any recently approved variety of corn that meets that description. The blue color that you are referring to is probably due to the seed treatment used on a lot of corn seed these days. The seed treatment is tinted blue, so that handlers will be able to recognize its presence, and take appropriate safety precautions. The seed treatment prevents grubs, ants, and other soil insects from destroying the young plant before and after it emerges, and it also controls corn root worms, which are a major threat to corn production.
Agent orange is made by combining 2,4,5-T (2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid) and 2,4-D (2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid), along with kerosene and diesel fuel. As far as I'm aware, agent orange was developed specifically to destroy forestation in Viet Nam, and it has never been used for domestic crop production or for any other purpose in this country (despite what some activists claim), nor is it ever likely to be.
Prior to 1970, it apparently was legal to use 2,4,5-T in crops, but I was growing corn back in those days, and even though corn has always been tolerant of 2-4-5-T, I'm not aware of anyone who actually used it, because it was far too expensive to use for crop production purposes. USDA discontinued that label for crop use back in 1970, but it was still legal to use it on rice until 1985, when the EPA forbid its use for any and all purposes in this country. So it has been totally gone for almost 30 years now. I really don't know if it was widely used for rice production while it was legal for that purpose, but rice is a crop with enough profitability that its use could have been justified, so it certainly might have been used in some fields. The lion's share of 2-4-5-T production was used to control brush in pastures.
I'm guessing that you have been reading convoluted interpretations (or rather misinterpretations) of a combination of 2-4-D and glyphosate that was recently authorized by the EPA, known as Enlist Duo. Those 2 chemicals have been approved for individual use in most countries in the developed world for many decades, and they are the most widely-used chemicals in the world. All this did was to allow them to be sold premixed. Many farmers were already using them as a legal tank mix on the farm (since they were both legally registered, with no prohibition against mixing them). Most countries approved the use of the combination before the U. S. got around to it. This registration has nothing to do with agent orange. You can read the EPA's views on this registration at the following link. They address the pollinators and bees issue there, also (though I will admit that the phrase "practically non-toxic to bees" doesn't sound overly comforting
):Registration of Enlist Duo
As I mentioned above, I'm not aware of a new GMO corn seed issue, and I'm pretty sure that this chemical combination registration is the target of whatever articles you have been reading. Corn has always been tolerant of 2-4-D, and of course Monsanto's GMO seed changes a couple of decades ago have made most corn tolerant of glyphosate, as well.
Milkweeds have never been allowed to grow in crops, because they have always been very easy to control. I can remember spraying milkweeds in pastures many decades ago, using 2-4-D or dicamba, whenever the populations became thick enough to seriously affect forage production. But the main reason we sprayed it in pastures was because it is notorious for spreading and perpetuating pinkeye in cattle, whenever it grows thick enough to become an ever-present problem. We never worried about scattered plants though, because they were not a problem. So I doubt that this new registration will significantly affect the Monarch Butterfly, despite scare stories to the contrary. Why would it? These are not new chemicals.
Personally, I don't believe that the big food manufacturers have any dire motives in mind (other than to take as big a share as they can possibly grab out of everyone's food dollar), when they spend so much money to fight label changes. From their point of view, it's just good business, because anytime they can prevent or reduce mandatory labeling requirements, they can prevent many headaches (both foreseen and unforeseen) somewhere down the road, and that's as good as money in the bank. Anyone who has ever tried to successfully run a business knows that increased regulation requirements are never good news.
But put yourself in their position for a moment. This issue has some unique characteristics that make it a mine field for food manufacturers. They can't win in this issue, because if they begin to list GMO ingredients, many, many consumers will shun their products. But the problem is that if everyone tries to source only GMO-free ingredients, the cost of those products will soar to ridiculous levels, because GMO-free ingredients simply are not available in significant quantities, especially legitimate certified GMO-free ingredients. Those days are long-gone. Either way, their products will suddenly become uncompetitive.
Currently, like everyone else in the business, most GMO-free manufacturers buy ingredients that meet their specifications, from the cheapest sources available. They have to, to remain competitive. A lot of the ingredients currently being claimed to be GMO-free, originate in distant lands where suppliers either don't know what GMO actually means, or don't care. Suppliers can change very frequently, so basically the manufacturers have to take the word of the supplier that any ingredient is actually non-GMO. But are they? If enforcement of certified GMO status of ingredients were to become a reality, I have a hunch that the world supply of authentic non-GMO ingredients would shrink dramatically, and prices would become prohibitive for most of us. GMO traits can be transferred during pollination, and pollen can drift for miles in the prevailing winds. Because of that, I'll bet a GF cookie that you couldn't find more than a handful of genuine non-GMO corn anywhere in this country, no matter how hard you tried. Like pure bison DNA, pure non-GMO status was probably (unintentionally) cross-bred out of corn in this country, several years ago.
The main reason why agricultural "innovations" are developed and approved is because like any industry, financial survival depends on continual improvement in efficiency and reductions in the costs of production. Government cheap food policies that were promoted in this country over the last half-century or so have effectively exterminated the family farms of my childhood, and replaced them with megafarms that are now operated much like any other industry. Compared with the equipment that we farmed with 50 or 60 years ago, modern farm equipment is almost unbelievable. When my father and uncles started farming, about the time of WWII, a tractor and all the equipment needed (planter, cultivator, plows,etc.) cost less than $2,000. The price of corn was roughly one-third of what it's worth now. Today, a tractor costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. A planter costs $50,000– $75,000. A combine (for harvesting the crop) typically costs half a million dollars, and that doesn't even include a header attachment specific to the crop that needs to be harvested, which can cost an additional $20,000 or $30,000 (or more), for each type of crop. And input costs for seed and fertilizer have increased pretty much in step with ag equipment, over those decades.
And yet while ag equipment has increased in cost by roughly 100 times, the commodities produced are only bringing roughly 3 times as much as they did 60 or 70 years ago. Compared with the early 1950s, it takes more than 4 times as much corn to supply our needs today. That's why agriculture is changing faster than any other industry, and it's why efficiency has to be continually improved. If commodities were priced proportional to the increases in equipment costs, we would be spending almost all of our income on food, and still feeling hunger pangs. Thanks to continual gains in agricultural productivity, food remains a relatively minor part of our budget in this country. That wouldn't be the case, if innovation had been suppressed, rather than rapidly adopted.
That's definitely good news that you can now tolerate corn, but other than buying it from a farmer who is farming in an isolated area (at least roughly 5 miles from another corn field), and who plants only non-GMO seeds, it's extremely difficult to ensure purity. Unless/until cheap consumer-level GMO test kits become available, guaranteeing purity is iffy at best,IMO. It's a crying shame that it has come to this, because early on, purity was still an option, and if labeling had been mandated back then, the situation now would be drastically different. I'm afraid that window may be closed by now, except possibly for a few isolated instances.
Love,
Tex
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
Thanks, as always for your info, Tex.Wow, Tex!
Thanks so much for your usual thoughtful and informative discussion. I knew I could count on you! I learned a lot, of course. And, as you might expect, I have a few more comments and questions. LOL!
After doing some more research, my understanding is that the primary approval needed from the EPA was for the brand new genetically-altered corn and soybeans that have been created to be able to tolerate spraying with the Enlist Duo herbicide. These new seeds, along with the Enlist Duo herbicide, are being sold together as a "Weed Control System". (BTW, Dow expects to make one billion from the sales! - are we surprised???). I can't help but wonder what percent of that the farmers get - sigh.
It seems to me that this new "system" had to be created in order to address a problem that we created ourselves by using Roundup. I read that use of Roundup (chief ingredient glyphosate) triggered an explosion of herbicide-resistant "super weeds" - difficult for farmers to fight and capable of choking off crop yields. It is estimated that 70 million U.S. acres are now infested with these super weeds.
Apparently EPA had over 400,000 comments from concerned citizens and is concerned enough to put some minimal restrictions in place - I'm sure you would find them laughable. Things like starting in 6 states only for a few months, lengthening the trial period, not allowing these seeds to be planted closer than 30 feet from other crops, keeping a closer watch to determine if resistance is also developing to the new "system", etc.
But, as you so astutely pointed out, the horse appears to have already left this gate. It is scary to me. It blows my mind that a main consideration in our food supply has to be a "Weed Control System" using GM seeds. I believe I (and every other American) have the absolute right to know what we are putting into our bodies. Especially folks like us who are sensitive to so many foods. It reinforces my determination to support family farms, in addition to supporting GM labeling laws. Is anyone working on a GMO test kit for consumers? I'll be the first in line!
Love,
Polly
P.S. Thanks again for educating me!
Thanks so much for your usual thoughtful and informative discussion. I knew I could count on you! I learned a lot, of course. And, as you might expect, I have a few more comments and questions. LOL!
After doing some more research, my understanding is that the primary approval needed from the EPA was for the brand new genetically-altered corn and soybeans that have been created to be able to tolerate spraying with the Enlist Duo herbicide. These new seeds, along with the Enlist Duo herbicide, are being sold together as a "Weed Control System". (BTW, Dow expects to make one billion from the sales! - are we surprised???). I can't help but wonder what percent of that the farmers get - sigh.
It seems to me that this new "system" had to be created in order to address a problem that we created ourselves by using Roundup. I read that use of Roundup (chief ingredient glyphosate) triggered an explosion of herbicide-resistant "super weeds" - difficult for farmers to fight and capable of choking off crop yields. It is estimated that 70 million U.S. acres are now infested with these super weeds.
Apparently EPA had over 400,000 comments from concerned citizens and is concerned enough to put some minimal restrictions in place - I'm sure you would find them laughable. Things like starting in 6 states only for a few months, lengthening the trial period, not allowing these seeds to be planted closer than 30 feet from other crops, keeping a closer watch to determine if resistance is also developing to the new "system", etc.
But, as you so astutely pointed out, the horse appears to have already left this gate. It is scary to me. It blows my mind that a main consideration in our food supply has to be a "Weed Control System" using GM seeds. I believe I (and every other American) have the absolute right to know what we are putting into our bodies. Especially folks like us who are sensitive to so many foods. It reinforces my determination to support family farms, in addition to supporting GM labeling laws. Is anyone working on a GMO test kit for consumers? I'll be the first in line!
Love,
Polly
P.S. Thanks again for educating me!
Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves, for they shall never cease to be amused.
.jpg){kind=avatar}
Here in Vermont we're right in the middle of this consumer right to know battle. You can read about it here:
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/stor ... /13800873/
Here's a paragraph about the lawsuit from the article:
"The lawsuit, filed in June, argues that the law is misguided, exceeds the state's authority and confuses consumers by suggesting that GMOs are unsafe with no evidence to support that. The lawsuit alleges the law violates food manufacturers' First Amendment rights by forcing them to label a product in a way they find unnecessary and misleading while also prohibiting them from using the word "natural" on genetically modified foods."
Family farms and single ingredient foods is the way to go.
Jean
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/stor ... /13800873/
Here's a paragraph about the lawsuit from the article:
"The lawsuit, filed in June, argues that the law is misguided, exceeds the state's authority and confuses consumers by suggesting that GMOs are unsafe with no evidence to support that. The lawsuit alleges the law violates food manufacturers' First Amendment rights by forcing them to label a product in a way they find unnecessary and misleading while also prohibiting them from using the word "natural" on genetically modified foods."
Family farms and single ingredient foods is the way to go.
Jean
Hi Jean,
Interesting! Thanks for sharing.
Here are my musings:
The lawsuit alleges that the manufacturers' first amendment rights are being violated. Why in this country did we start allowing the amendment rights of corporations to trump the rights of individual citizens/consumers? I doubt that the founding fathers had corporations in mind when they created their documents.
The manufacturers claim that adding labels will cost too much. Obviously, there is no limit of available money, given the millions they have already spent to defeat labeling laws in just a few states. GM labeling is up for a vote in Oregon right now, and so far, here are some amounts that manufacturers have contributed to defeat it: Monsanto - $4 million, Pepsico - $1.4 million, Kraft - $870,000, Gen'l Mills - $695,000, Coke - $702,000. And other manufacturers are contributing too. That's a lot of money for just one state.
Hope you are fully enjoying your new home.
Love,
Polly
Interesting! Thanks for sharing.
Here are my musings:
The lawsuit alleges that the manufacturers' first amendment rights are being violated. Why in this country did we start allowing the amendment rights of corporations to trump the rights of individual citizens/consumers? I doubt that the founding fathers had corporations in mind when they created their documents.
The manufacturers claim that adding labels will cost too much. Obviously, there is no limit of available money, given the millions they have already spent to defeat labeling laws in just a few states. GM labeling is up for a vote in Oregon right now, and so far, here are some amounts that manufacturers have contributed to defeat it: Monsanto - $4 million, Pepsico - $1.4 million, Kraft - $870,000, Gen'l Mills - $695,000, Coke - $702,000. And other manufacturers are contributing too. That's a lot of money for just one state.
Hope you are fully enjoying your new home.
Love,
Polly
Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves, for they shall never cease to be amused.
The free speech argument makes no sense to me. Not only is there a big difference between for profit corporations and individual citizens but labeling laws already exist. Why is this any different? And then there is the absurd argument that labeling will confuse the consumer by suggesting that gmo's are not safe without any evidence. Makes me think of statistics 101 and learning about type 1 and type 2 error. Which is worse, saying something is true when it is really false, or saying something is false when its really true? Seems to me that saying gmo foods are safe when they are really not is potentially much more harmful then suggesting that they may be dangerous if it turns out they are not. I guess the question would be dangerous to whom, consumers or the corporation. I vote for protecting consumers from potential harm to their health over protecting corporations from an erosion of their profit margins.
Jean
Jean
Hi Polly,
"Dow" is the key word here. I can only guess (because obviously there is no way that I can access Dow's data), but I'm pretty sure that Dow's advertising claims about that seed are nothing more than hype, because the truth is that any and all corn varieties are tolerant of 2-4-D (including legacy varieties), except during the pollination phase of development (and one should never apply any hormone-based chemicals during pollination, because that would obviously be asking for trouble). And any corn varieties that are glyphosate-tolerant (because of GMO attributes) can certainly tolerate both Roundup and 2-4-D. So Dow's implications that this seed is somehow better than Monsanto's GMO varieties because it is custom-tailored to tolerate Enlist Duo is just sales hype. That's very similar to claims made by automotive manufacturers and many others that if a customer uses a third party manufactured part, it voids their warranty because it won't work properly, etc., etc. Obviously I can only guess at this point, but I would be very surprised of there is actually any significant difference in this corn variety, when compared with varieties already on the market.
And yes, to a significant extent farmers have brought the "weed resistance" issue upon themselves by relying too heavily on the use of Roundup for most of their weed control, rather than using 2-4-D or other chemicals to control broadleaf weeds. But there are very valid reasons why they have made this long-term mistake. For 1 thing Roundup is by far the most economical choice for most jobs. If you had to spray 2,000 acres of corn for weeds, and you could save $10 per acre by using Roundup instead of using a combination of chemicals, which would you choose?
For another thing, Roundup is perceived as the safest choice (therefore it carries the lowest liability risk). Yes, farmers have to worry about liability risks every time they crank up a spray rig, and they can't afford to take that risk lightly. 2-4-D is very effective on broadleaf weeds, and it's very economical, because it's an old chemical, but it has the annoying habit of volatilizing each morning when the sun reheats the ambient air, and drifting away with the wind to settle on surrounding fields (or gardens, or whatever) up to 5 or 6 miles away, depending on wind speed. Obviously this is a serious liability risk, and state regulatory agencies tend to investigate any and all complaints, and enforce the laws (by revoking spray applicator licenses plus heavy fines, depending on the severity of the violation).
There are 2-4-D substitutes (amines, such as dicamba) that pose a greatly-reduced volatility risk, but they are more expensive, and they only reduce the drift risk, rather than to eliminate it. So these are the primary reasons why farmers have not been using 2-4-D all along, to prevent the development of so-called herbicide-resistant "super weeds". Incidentally, the concept of herbicide-resistant "super weeds" is a slight exaggeration of reality, because these weeds are not actually super weeds at all. They are simply tolerant of Roundup. Any other chemical that previously killed them (such as 2-4-D) will still kill them as dead as a doornail. They have simply developed a tolerance for glyphosate.
So here is why the Enlist Duo combo was developed: The form of the 2-4-D used in Enlist Duo is a type that has very low volatility, in order to minimize the drift risk that exists with older versions of 2-4-D. This will allow farmers to more safely use these old chemicals.
As far as concerned citizen protests to the EPA are concerned, consider this quote from an old manuscript that I tentatively plan to use in another book:
I wholeheartedly agree that we should absolutely have the right to know what is in our food, and where it was produced. Restricting label content smacks of the old "what we don't know won't hurt us" BS. We shouldn't be obligated to allow someone else to make our food ingredient decisions for us, not in a supposedly-free country.
Tex
"Dow" is the key word here. I can only guess (because obviously there is no way that I can access Dow's data), but I'm pretty sure that Dow's advertising claims about that seed are nothing more than hype, because the truth is that any and all corn varieties are tolerant of 2-4-D (including legacy varieties), except during the pollination phase of development (and one should never apply any hormone-based chemicals during pollination, because that would obviously be asking for trouble). And any corn varieties that are glyphosate-tolerant (because of GMO attributes) can certainly tolerate both Roundup and 2-4-D. So Dow's implications that this seed is somehow better than Monsanto's GMO varieties because it is custom-tailored to tolerate Enlist Duo is just sales hype. That's very similar to claims made by automotive manufacturers and many others that if a customer uses a third party manufactured part, it voids their warranty because it won't work properly, etc., etc. Obviously I can only guess at this point, but I would be very surprised of there is actually any significant difference in this corn variety, when compared with varieties already on the market.
And yes, to a significant extent farmers have brought the "weed resistance" issue upon themselves by relying too heavily on the use of Roundup for most of their weed control, rather than using 2-4-D or other chemicals to control broadleaf weeds. But there are very valid reasons why they have made this long-term mistake. For 1 thing Roundup is by far the most economical choice for most jobs. If you had to spray 2,000 acres of corn for weeds, and you could save $10 per acre by using Roundup instead of using a combination of chemicals, which would you choose?
For another thing, Roundup is perceived as the safest choice (therefore it carries the lowest liability risk). Yes, farmers have to worry about liability risks every time they crank up a spray rig, and they can't afford to take that risk lightly. 2-4-D is very effective on broadleaf weeds, and it's very economical, because it's an old chemical, but it has the annoying habit of volatilizing each morning when the sun reheats the ambient air, and drifting away with the wind to settle on surrounding fields (or gardens, or whatever) up to 5 or 6 miles away, depending on wind speed. Obviously this is a serious liability risk, and state regulatory agencies tend to investigate any and all complaints, and enforce the laws (by revoking spray applicator licenses plus heavy fines, depending on the severity of the violation).
There are 2-4-D substitutes (amines, such as dicamba) that pose a greatly-reduced volatility risk, but they are more expensive, and they only reduce the drift risk, rather than to eliminate it. So these are the primary reasons why farmers have not been using 2-4-D all along, to prevent the development of so-called herbicide-resistant "super weeds". Incidentally, the concept of herbicide-resistant "super weeds" is a slight exaggeration of reality, because these weeds are not actually super weeds at all. They are simply tolerant of Roundup. Any other chemical that previously killed them (such as 2-4-D) will still kill them as dead as a doornail. They have simply developed a tolerance for glyphosate.
So here is why the Enlist Duo combo was developed: The form of the 2-4-D used in Enlist Duo is a type that has very low volatility, in order to minimize the drift risk that exists with older versions of 2-4-D. This will allow farmers to more safely use these old chemicals.
As far as concerned citizen protests to the EPA are concerned, consider this quote from an old manuscript that I tentatively plan to use in another book:
IOW, it's traditional to fear advances in agricultural production methods, because after all, we might appear to be modern and sophisticated, but our genes are still the genes of hunter-gatherers, and we still retain certain primitive instincts (whether we like it or not).In 1701 AD the Berkshire farmer Jethro Tull devised a simple seed drill based on organ pipes, which resulted in eight times as many grains harvested for every grain sown. Like most agricultural innovators since, he was vilified. A century later the threshing machine was greeted by riots.
I wholeheartedly agree that we should absolutely have the right to know what is in our food, and where it was produced. Restricting label content smacks of the old "what we don't know won't hurt us" BS. We shouldn't be obligated to allow someone else to make our food ingredient decisions for us, not in a supposedly-free country.
Tex
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
Hi Linda,
Got it. Thanks. That's a beautiful photo.
To add a photo to a post, if you are starting a new topic, click on the link that says, "Add image to post", located right below the message-composing window (at the left side), and follow the directions that will appear. Basically, in the popup window that opens, click in the narrow "Browse" window, and the system will open an "explorer" window to the files on your computer, and all you have to do is to browse to the image file that you want to upload, and click on it to select it, and then select whether the image contains adult material, or is family safe, and then click on the "Upload it!" button. The system will automatically place the proper code into your message, so that everyone's browser will properly display a thumbnail image. To see the full-size image when reading a post, just click on the thumbnail to see the image.
The "quick reply" message box doesn't display that image upload button below it, so if you are replying to a thread (rather than starting a new thread), just click on the "postreply" button under the last post, and the system will open a message-composing window that displays the image upload link below it.
Maybe the delayed scheduling is why I still haven't seen very many Monarchs come through here so far. It seems to be a long, drawn-out migration.
Tex
Got it. Thanks. That's a beautiful photo.
To add a photo to a post, if you are starting a new topic, click on the link that says, "Add image to post", located right below the message-composing window (at the left side), and follow the directions that will appear. Basically, in the popup window that opens, click in the narrow "Browse" window, and the system will open an "explorer" window to the files on your computer, and all you have to do is to browse to the image file that you want to upload, and click on it to select it, and then select whether the image contains adult material, or is family safe, and then click on the "Upload it!" button. The system will automatically place the proper code into your message, so that everyone's browser will properly display a thumbnail image. To see the full-size image when reading a post, just click on the thumbnail to see the image.
The "quick reply" message box doesn't display that image upload button below it, so if you are replying to a thread (rather than starting a new thread), just click on the "postreply" button under the last post, and the system will open a message-composing window that displays the image upload link below it.
Maybe the delayed scheduling is why I still haven't seen very many Monarchs come through here so far. It seems to be a long, drawn-out migration.
Tex
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
