In reply to volvoclearinghouse :
There are only 10 (ten) GMO crops approved for use in the US. Of those 10 only 6 are used for typical direct human consumption, of those 6 only 2 are bred for herbicide resistance. The herbicides most of them are resistant to are Glyphosate and/or Libertylink both of which have an LD50 10-20X higher than aspirin.
If you want to avoid them fine, you do you. Just understand there is zero evidence of GMOs or the products they're designed to be used with being bad for you. Everything being fine, and working like it should doesn't make headlines, and get clicks on pages.
Don't think I'm a Monsanto, Bayer, Dow, BSAF, etc. fanboi, I appreciate the research, and technology that's come from it, but there's ample legitimate reasons to be annoyed by them, killing us off with GMOs and Roundup just isn't one of them.
bigdaddylee82 said:
In reply to volvoclearinghouse :
There are only 10 (ten) GMO crops approved for use in the US. Of those 10 only 6 are used for typical direct human consumption, of those 6 only 2 are bred for herbicide resistance. The herbicides most of them are resistant to are Glyphosate and/or Libertylink both of which have an LD50 10-20X higher than aspirin.
If you want to avoid them fine, you do you. Just understand there is zero evidence of GMOs or the products they're designed to be used with being bad for you. Everything being fine, and working like it should doesn't make headlines, and get clicks on pages.
Don't think I'm a Monsanto, Bare, BSAF, etc. fanboi, I appreciate the research, and technology thats come from it, but there's ample legitimate reasons to be annoyed by them, killing us off with GMOs and Roundup just isn't one of them.
Huh? Not to totally derail this, but for Glyphosate- that is turning out to be bad for you. Lots of info coming out of this controversy these days, and not much of it looks good for glyphosate.
In reply to alfadriver :
Exactly what I was going to post.
I know this is a biased source, but the information they quote appears to be based on legitimate studies.
https://www.ewg.org/childrenshealth/glyphosateincereal/#.W3RovBpKjBL
In reply to infinitenexus :
Hemp research is really ramping up again. We've got growers getting Plant Board exemptions to grow it, mostly for CBD production. We've got Agronomy Specialists and a a few county Extension Agents getting training on hemp production. One of our Horticulture Specialists did some research recently on sun hemp, hoping we could introduce it as a cover crop, unfortunately it's invasive, and it did manage to survive our winter, so that's a no go from the Plant Board.
In reply to alfadriver :
Civil suits, ambulance chasers, and click bait, not actual research.
bigdaddylee82 said:
In reply to alfadriver :
Civil suits, ambulance chasers, and click bait, not actual research.
Curious that you put it that way- as if a chemical poison is not bad for humans. And it's just hype for people who think that way. Personally, I'm quite suspicious of anything that is designed to kill something would not be considered dangerous to humans.
That EWG "article" that VCH posted went viral, and made national news a few months back.
Environmental Working Group is a for profit activist group, their dog and pony show consists of spewing specious claims as "research," to engage and fear mongering to sell clicks.
In reply to alfadriver :
If you want to eat organic, non-GMO, by all means do so. I've got farmers that want you to, they can make more money being certified non-GMO, and sell to those that are willing to pay for it.
It's not poisoning people though, that's the rub.
There are plenty of chemicals used in ag production that are WAY worse for you than the roundup that makes headlines. The amount of inputs that go into cotton production would astound most lay folks. There are chemicals that we do pay attention to their application, because we don't want to be in the field doing research for days after their application.
alfadriver said:
bigdaddylee82 said:
In reply to alfadriver :
Civil suits, ambulance chasers, and click bait, not actual research.
Curious that you put it that way- as if a chemical poison is not bad for humans. And it's just hype for people who think that way. Personally, I'm quite suspicious of anything that is designed to kill something would not be considered dangerous to humans.
There is enough money behind the products that getting a unbiased research study would be difficult at best and impossible at worst. The universities that would be best suited to do the research get large grants from the very companies that produce the products so their bias is pretty much guaranteed. I won't even get into the support they provide politicians and lobbyists.
It used to be we could depend on the news media to dig into subjects like this but even they are bias in their reporting and the articles they will publish.
As with most things in this world. Follow the money. It's a trillion dollar industry and there is a lot of cash to spread around. If you assume everyone is telling the truth, you're pretty much wrong.
In reply to Toyman01 :
I can't speak for everyone, but take a look into the recent Dicamba drift in Arkansas news articles, over the past couple of years. We 100% went against Monsanto, and backed our scientists who's actual research showed Monsanto's claims were erroneous.
alfadriver said:
bigdaddylee82 said:
In reply to alfadriver :
Civil suits, ambulance chasers, and click bait, not actual research.
Curious that you put it that way- as if a chemical poison is not bad for humans. And it's just hype for people who think that way. Personally, I'm quite suspicious of anything that is designed to kill something would not be considered dangerous to humans.
Depends on what you mean by 'poison'- anything is at a specific dose. Caffine evolved to kill insects, after all, and nicotine has been used against vermin.
It's not often I get on a soap box, sorry for derailing the diesel thread.
Agriculture is my passion, if you couldn't tell. Farm kid, 4-H, FFA, Undergrad in Ag Systems & Technology, Grad School for Environmental Science, and work in applied research for Ag Water Quality for our land grant university system.
I'm not trying to ruffle feathers, just educate.
Likely for mine, and everyone's, benefit I've got to go back to doing real work now. I might check back again this evening.
Knurled. said:
In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :
Hey now, soybeans are food for humans too.
There's a stupid stigma against soy for some reason. Probably because aggressive vegetarians use it to make faux meats. If you use it for what it is, instead of doctoring it to make it pretend to be what it isn't, it's pretty good.
I'm not a "vegetarian" but I appreciate a lot of meatless cuisine.
Sorry if I came off that way; I don't know tons about agri, but I do know what local farmers and old family friends complain about- and to answer a later point from Bigdaddylee82:
Do we have a double standard that "The Orange One," here and "Cheeto Bandito" I've seen in other threads gets a pass?
They shouldn't, I do agree with that- but family of mine now know farmers whom lost everything because of the Trade War and the other weather issues also spoken of. Sadly, they have joined hundreds of other farmers in committing suicide. New Republic does have a bias but it's getting bad. Here's is also an older link to the National Farmers Union that speaks a little about it.
Personally, it's good to hear things like this. This is passionate discussion about how back-asswards it all is, and we aren't mad at each other- we're doing what good people do, seeing an injustice and talking about it.Personally, nothing good ever happened by someone saying "I think this is screwed up, but I can't talk openly about it!".
In reply to bigdaddylee82 :
The 'worst' thing that you're doing lee, is providing a good other viewpoint supported by a reasonable argument. I'm not a farmer and neither were my parents- but all my friends were, and so is an entire side of my family. The worse thing that's happened here is that we have to post multiple times to respond to so many people 
BUT BACK TO OUR SMOKEY BOIS
One idea I had is dual-fuel setups; they've ran it in diesels in the past with some success (mostly propane I think), and I wonder if now that people are used to DEF we could reasonably replace it with a second fuel to also help reduce NOx? Or is DEF just so good it would be hard to replace?
bigdaddylee82 said:
In reply to Toyman01 :
I can't speak for everyone, but take a look into the recent Dicamba drift in Arkansas news articles, over the past couple of years. We 100% went against Monsanto, and backed our scientists who's actual research showed Monsanto's claims were erroneous.
Oh but look! It's still a approved product and the company that make it will happily sell you a Dicamba resistant soybean plant. So what are the farmers going to do, other than buy the resistant plant...from the company that makes the poison. Never you mind all the other plants that are killed off in the process. Anyone like peaches, tomato gardens, or cypress trees?
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/07/19/742836972/rogue-weedkiller-vapors-are-threatening-soybean-science
You will also notice that when BASF bought Monsanto, they killed the name. The name that did occasionally get the bad press.
I don't have a problem with industrial scale farming. It is going to be a bigger and bigger necessity to feed all the people on this planet. I also know how frequently the big dog (Industrial Agriculture) uses their big stick to beat the small farmers into submission. I also understand what their driving force is. It's not feeding people. It's making money.
Call it a trust but verify relationship, but it's hard to verify when they own many of the voices that we hear from.
In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :
If you are going to take that direction, water should be banned, too. It can be used to kill pest animals, if done right.
WRT caffeine, I do doubt it's harm to people, as well.
I'm not sure why you are calling out someone who doubts the research that tells me that a chemical that is there to kill something is not good for me? Is it so bad to have doubt? It sometimes seems that, depending on who you follow, you are supposed to suspend doubt on what they say.... That makes zero sense to me.
WRT Hemp, I just heard last week that Michigan is going to have it's first harvest of it. One that does satisfy the THC requirements to be fully legal. At least, in theory. We will see if they get it.
Toyman01 said:
In reply to alfadriver :
Unfortunately it's not a scientific discussion because the science isn't considered, just the money and where it ends up. We may have to depend on other countries to develop those fuels.
The problem with allowing someone to do the work for you, is fhey also usually reap the benefits for you too.
Knurled. said:
Toyman01 said:
In reply to alfadriver :
Unfortunately it's not a scientific discussion because the science isn't considered, just the money and where it ends up. We may have to depend on other countries to develop those fuels.
The problem with allowing someone to do the work for you, is fhey also usually reap the benefits for you too.
You aren't wrong. But it won't matter because we will probably still be burning fossil fuels long after everyone else because of Big Oil and the money they spend to protect it.
Wow. Phew. I started this thread, then went on vacation and started a new job. I’m speechless about all the twists and turns. Amazing!
Carl, thank you for your post. So is it safe to say that bio diesel IS cleaner than regular diesel? I think that’s what you’re saying.
CyberEric said:
Wow. Phew. I started this thread, then went on vacation and started a new job. I’m speechless about all the twists and turns. Amazing!
Carl, thank you for your post. So is it safe to say that bio diesel IS cleaner than regular diesel? I think that’s what you’re saying.
Other that CO2 ballance, no, it's the same NOx, CO, and HC. Or at least close enough.
Re: agriculture.
Does anyone know of any plants that use up co2 at a higher rate than others? I think I asked this question recently but I'm thinking a lot about it lately.
I have areas of "land" I don't want to mow, so using only sunlight and rainwater and converting some airborne co2 to o2 sounds like a good use of the space to me.
In reply to Robbie :
IIRC, 70% of the oxygen generation in the world is micro plant life in the oceans. Could that be extrapolated to CO2 usage?
Which is why ocean health is a huge important thing. Amazon rainforest ain't got nothin' on the ocean.
In reteospect, this makes sense... most of the planet's surface is ocean, in about that ratio.
In reply to Robbie :
I searched "best plants to absorb CO2" into google- and I'll suggest NASA knows more than I do.
I will say a REALLY good way to suppress CO2 is to grow your own food. That takes the transportation of the food out, in addition to CO2 absorption. Even better, if you compost the remains, that also will get turned into the soil.
