[Andy Carson]

Good job Erika!
I’ll do my best to think of a down side, nothing seems obvious right now…

[Andy Carson]

Wow, you’re not kidding about the weight Tim. I have been looking at the weight required to keep coulters in the ground for no-till drills, and am getting figures in the range of 400 lbs per disc. In light of this, I think I’m going to use a coulter for only the front shank. Hopefully that is enough to cut and clear the trash, but I’ll have to see. I plan on removing the corn stalks from my field of corn to use for bedding and feed, so hopefully the residue won’t be as much of an issue in the future as it was this least year. I’ll take some pics as the tool is coming together to share. Not sure what to call it… Maybe a mini-Chisel? 🙂

[Andy Carson]

I have used incandescent bulbs in simple flashlights on a stoneboat at night before. They produced enough light for my purposes, but I am sure LEDs would be better. I have used an LED headlight on my bicycle quite a bit and am very happy with it. Interestingly, it has a strobe function that I really like. The road is just as visible with a fast strobe as it is with the light constantly on, and it cuts down on battery drain dramatically (maybe 50%). It also makes the bike more visible, which might be a useful feature for your sled too. I am not sure how one would set up a system for strobing your lights, but I thought I would throw the idea out there none-the-less.

[Andy Carson]

@near horse 22608 wrote:

You make some large assumptions that truly inflate the man-hrs calculation. Planting, growing and harvesting corn is not and never was an 8hr/day 365day/yr job but regardless, what is the relevance of man-hrs spent throughout history required to create and maintain corn to genetically engineered corn except to demonstrate how much we have to lose?

Yes, lots of assumptions, but I still my estimate is on the low side, not on the high side. I bet more than 1% of the population farmed, I bet it was harder than a 40hour/week “modern job,” and this estimate doesn’t even take into account the whole of south America. It’s an enormous amount of work no matter what numbers you plug in.

Regardless of the details of the analysis, the point is that our modern crops are man-made, not natural, and the argument that GE crops are different because they are not natural doesn’t hold water.

While bioengineering is obviously not responsible for the Irish potato famine, it is disingenuous to then draw the conclusion that it has no effect on reducing biodiversity. Even if using RR engineered crops only reduces the number of varieties of corn/soybean/beets/canola being planted, by that very act it has reduced biodiversity.

Biodiversity is being reduced by the farmers who chose this seed over other options. I don’t really think that this is a better option, but many clearly do. Any seed of variety that was clearly viewed as “better” would similarly dominate to market no matter how it was produced. Are we to make sure that no one improves anything so that it won’t come to dominate the market??? That seems silly…

Extinction is a natural occurring event when it is in response to natural changes in the environment. Heck, the precursor to the modern horse Eohippus spp became extinct not by the hand of man. I don’t know that the Auroch became extinct because of human selection and breeding – but perhaps. I’ll admit that human history is ripe with species and environments that we’ve wiped out or ruined. But it it seems that you’re admitting that genetically engineered crops/animals DO pose an environmental threat but justify it by saying we’ve destroyed the environment and irreparably altered ecosystems in the past without using genetic engineering so it’s okay. I hope that we’re grown more enlightened than that and can see past who’s signing our paycheck.

First off, I do not perform any genetic engineering of crops, nor do I plan to in the future. I have had friends that do this (banana example), but none write my paycheck. The point here is that the growing of conventional crops has altered ecosystems in the past. By pointing this out, I do not mean to say that all ecological damage is OK, just that it is not unique to GE crops. Every crops and practice really ought to be analyzed on it’s own merits for potential to cause damage. It’s not “black and white” situation where conventional = “no damage” and GE = “damage.” I see not reason why GE crops could not be grown in ways that cause no damage. Heck, it’s even possible that with the right genes, GE crops might be more “green” than conventional crops. It’s a case-by-case analysis.

I think you are debating something here that wasn’t even brought up and hope you’re not thinking I believe vaccination programs are a bad thing. In fact, I don’t recall mentioning vaccines except in response to the “banana-vaccine combo” and said that it was unwise to risk foodstuffs to provide a vaccine. I certainly didn’t question the efficacy of vaccines which, as you say, are effective in most cases. The failures I spoke of were related to the safety measures/guarantees provided to the public with regard to released GMO crops.

OK, that is actually what I thought you were thinking (about the vaccines)… These are good examples of things where man can and has “fiddled” with nature and got good results.

That’s the point! We don’t need nor want the “intended results” which could not have been achieved without the technique.

That is exactly my point too!!! I (and I really emphasize the word “I”) don’t want these either. But I do have other goals with crops, and if genetic engineering could meet these, I would be open to considering planitng these crops.

The point is that while farmers may “want” to use heirloom seeds, their availability is becoming more limited with many only saved in small numbers in seed banks. And, more importantly, those heirloom varieties, when planted in the environment, now run the risk of being contaminated with pollen from GE strains. I’m not feeling the freedom you speak of protecting.

If I were to plant an hierloom variety of corn next to my neighbors non-GE corn, there would be cross pollination as well. About the seeds, I find it hard to believe that a farmer who really wants to grow an heirloom variety of some thing can’t find any seed. Maybe not variety X,Y, or Z, but to find at least one heirloom variety is not hard. I certainly haven’t had a hard time finding seed, although I only need enough to plant a acre at a time… IF the seeds don’t sell, can you blame seed companies for not trying to sell them??? Again, are these companies supposed to ensure that each seed they produce is inferier to heirloom varieties so that farmers would pick the heirloom varieties??? Pretty silly.

Andy –

“Me thinks though dost protesteth too much” You have laid much of the blame for GE crop issues on “the people/company” not “the technique” but I have trouble separating the two. The technique(s) were/are developed to answer questions that are coming from the industry folks who you are blaming for how they use the technique. I think their motives, while something I find loathsome, are certainly no secret.

Geoff, here I have to differ with you dramatically. These techniques were developed by ACADEMIC SCIENTISTS (not Monsanto, etc) in the early 80’s. They were ABSOLUTELY NOT created by industry for industry. Big corporations have highjacked this technology and have used it (as big corporations do) to increase their profit margins by focusing on whatever makes the largest profit with the least effort. Genetic engineering is simply another tool, and I place the blame of GE failures on the operator(s), not the tool.

[Andy Carson]

I have a number on thoughts on this issue and this snowy day is a good opportunity to jot them down… I truly appreciate everyones thoughts on this. I do not believe that we are going to really reach a consensus opinion, nor do I see to create one. I simply think that with such a minority of the US population involved in agriculture, I think it is important to understand both sides of these types of issues and try to find common ground between “big ag” and “small ag” when possible. I started thinking about this with the food safety bill, were it seemed the “big ag” wanted to regulate “small ag” and “small ag” wanted to regulate “big ag.” It would have been a more powerful lobby if both big and small ag said “we don’t need regulated” but I digress…

Here’s some fun with math that relates to the “natural” versus “man-made” nature of just one crop (corn):

Using North American natives as a model, it is interesting to figure out just how many man-hours have been dedicated to the creation and maintenance of corn. Before Europeans arrives in North American, there were roughly 50 million native Americans here already, many of whom had grown corn for 10,000 years already (give or take). The number of these people involved in farming varies greatly from tribe to tribe and also greatly over history, but for many, corn was the staple of their diet. Given the important of corn in many of these cultures, I would say that at least 1% of the total population would be dedicated to growing it. Really, I wouldn’t be surprised if the true number was 20 times higher than this, but this info seems hard to get a hold of… So, if 500,000 people have been growing and maintaining corn for 10,000 years, that’s over 10 TRILLION man-hours!!! This number assumes that prehistoric Indians work at similar hours per year as modern man, but again, the true number is lost in time. 10 trillion is a hard number to relate to… Some estimate that it took about 4 billion man-hours to build one Egyptian pyramid. So, the amount work done to create and maintain corn to the modern day is roughly equivalent to the work needed to build about 2500 great pyramids!!! Maybe people ought to alter what is commonly considered to be “monuments” to man.

Biodiversity:
Tim brings up an excellent point concerning the lack of biodiversity that results from growing only one variety of crop. This is definitely a problem, but I would argue that this is not a problem that is unique to genetically engineered crops. Probably the best example of a lack of genetic variation leading to crop failure is the Irish Potato famine where the vast majority of the potatoes grown were of the “lumper” variety and were uniformly devastated by a blight. This was over a hundred years before genetic engineering…

Ecological damage:
Erika brings up the possibility of ecological damage that may result from genetically engineered foods. This is also and good point, but I also don’t think this is a problem unique to genetically engineered crops or even animals. Ancestral cattle (the Auroch) is extinct, as are all four ancestral strains of horse/pony used to create modern horses. The transformation of prairie and forest to grow heirloom crops has occurs for centuries and resulted in great ecological devastation and extinctions through simple habitat destruction. I would argue that this is the fault of the people doing this, not the crops they grow.

Seeming failures of genetic manipulations:
Geoff brings up a good point about the seeming failures of genetic interventions to achieve their intended consequences. Vaccines are a good example. I think a lot of people seem to focus on the examples of vaccines NOT being effective and forget about the times when they are. Nature has a great ability to mutate and adapt, but humans do too. The success of vaccines for a particular disease is intimately linked to this ability. A large complex organism can only evolve slowly, which is why vaccines again large, complex viruses such as smallpox and vaccinia are effective. And they are unquestionable effective, causing the virtual extinction of smallpox off the globe. How much more effective can something be??? Vaccines against viruses that mutate quickly (such as HIV) or are highly stealthy (such as HSV) are less effective. But the failures of HIV vaccines are what people often hear about and give the impression that vaccines don’t work. I would say they do work, just not all this time…

I think that genetic manipulations of crops have actually been quite successful at achieving their intended results. Having over 90% of the sugar beets grown in the county being round-up ready is, I’m sure, considered a commercial success. Here again, genetic manipulations achieved the intended result. If the intent was not right here (and I don’t think it was) I blame to person/company, not the technique.

Dependency:
I agree with Carl that the widespread use of genetically engineered crops can lead to dependency of farmers on the seed sources. I also don’t like this, and still have to think about this more, but to some extent, each farmer has a choice to be dependant (use GE seed) or not (use heirloom seed). I definitely choose the independent, traditional and organic path, and I am glad I have the freedom to do so. When in doubt, I prefer to protect the freedom of others to choose a different path.

[Andy Carson]

Carl, I think you make some excellent points, and I think I agree with every one. It has always seemed to me that the whole idea of patenting a gene or an organism is somehow wrong and I think we can agree on that. I can certainly “get behind” the idea of not allowing these types of patents. In that kind of world, selective breeding (and possibly genetic engineering) might be done only by those interested in truly improving thier plants or animals and have as much of a commercial bias. It is likely though, that those type of manipulations simply wouldn’t be done unless there is a really pressing need… Perhaps these are the only times when it’s appropriate anyway… I’ll have to think on this…

[Andy Carson]

Thanks Tim. If I use C shanks designed for a field cultivator (about 2 inches wide) and 4 inch wide sweeps running at 4 inches deep, than that would shatter a path of about 8 inches with the more conservative 30 degree spread. These might have a little higher drafts than what you reported, so i would think i would only run 3 shanks. Still 3 shanks at 8 inches each is a span of 24 inches (the evivalent of 2-3 passes with a single horse plow) and I am pretty happy with that! I would put them in a staggered triangular pattern so trash couldn’t hit two at the same time. Maybe some plow style rolling coultiers ahead of the shanks would help with the plugging as well. Heck, they might even reduce the draft a little?

[Andy Carson]

I would argue that almost none of the crops any of us raise or even the animals we work with are truly natural anyway. Natural to me means “produced by nature” and not “manmade.” Was corn (just as one example) truly produced by nature or made by man??? There are many theories out there as to the origin of corn involving either the domestication of the Mexican annual Teosinte and susequent hybridization with related species or the domestication and hybridization of of Zea diploperennis by Tripsacum dactyloides. None of these hybrids would be viable in nature without artificial selection by man. So, modern corn (even hierloom varieties) are the product of thousands of years of human selection and indirect genetic manipulation. From the point of view of the man-hours involved, I can think of few things that are more “man-made” than agricultural crops… And as far as wether this is an improvement over nature, maybe the best people to ask would be Mexican corn farmers who conciser TeosinteI (ancestral corn) a noxious weed that infests their corn fields… From a production point of view, it is hard to compare the few small seeds produced by TeosinteI to the ear produced by modern corn…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maize
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teosinte

I am likewise not very interested in working with the wild pony sized horses that existed before man got a hold of them, creating the large muscular and tractable beasts we know and love.

Sometimes we (as a species) can do it right!!!

[Andy Carson]

Darn, I was hoping you didn’t want it… You gotta be quick!

[Andy Carson]

It is exactly the type of info I was looking for, thanks Jonathan

[Andy Carson]

🙂 That’s funny Mitch!

[Andy Carson]

I was sad to see the bill passed too, even with the concessions made for small farms. I would have much prefered nothing… After the passing of this bill, I am left wondering if we (as a constituency) have made ourselves heard in the best way possible. Are there organizations and/or political groups that might help amplify our voices? How can we do better next time?

[Andy Carson]

I have been doing some reading about the work that Don Schrider and the ALBC (American Livestock Breeds Conservancy) has done with the Buckeye chicken. It’s pretty impressive what can be accomplished with selective breeding alone. It really made me reevaluate the utility of the hybrid cross. I am still sure that hybrids would be a good idea, but only if I have a source of good quality birds to cross (as Erika points out). If these strains do not exist in the way I would prefer them and I must carry and maintain them myself, the whole thing turns into a bigger project than I had wanted it to be. I have read before that it is probably best to simply pick a breed that you like and stick with it. Perhaps this is the best advice… Just thought I would share my thoughts. If anyone is interested, it’s pretty easy to google up some of Schrider’s and the ALBC’s criteria for evaluating meat birds and breeding recommendations. For the buckeye, these criteria were able to reduce the butchering age from 19-20 weeks down to 16 weeks and increase the live weight by a full pound! Pretty interesting stuff! http://www.backyardpoultrymag.com/issues/4/4-2/alternatives_to_the_cornish_cross.html

[Andy Carson]

I think this is an important thing to think about, even though I think it is very unlikely that these “untimely deposits” will cause disease… I say unlikely because I think the odds that many sizable pieces of manure will end up on a veggie (instead of between the rows) seems small. Further, it seems likely that the manure would be noticed by the farmer and even more likely that the comsumer would also not notice it, and the same comsumer would not wash thier food. Also, it’s probably unlikely that that particular small piece of manure is going to cause disease anyway (either because of particulary pathogenic bacteria or because of a particularly compromised host). I am not aware that this manure issue was a big problem historically when nearly all food was grown with animals (although many cases of food poisoning went unreported then). Still, there is some risk, and if there are simple things that can be done to mitigate the risk, than it would be good. This topic does seem to be on the mind of at least some people. I heard a couple questions/comments about this at the cultivation workshop at NEAPFD. I plan to be able to either justify why the manure issue is not important for the particular crops I am growing (crops not laying on the ground, are encased in a protective cover/shell which is removed, and/or are cooked). For crops that might be riskier, it might be a nice thing to be able to say that “the last cultivation is done X days before harvest” or “all cultivations done after x date are done with a manure bag to prevent contamination” or something else like that. I think I would want to be able to explain that I am aware of the risks and have taken the steps that can be taken to minimize then taking into account “the nature of the beast.” By the way, do they make manure bags for oxen? Cleaning that bag would not be my favorite chore…

Some might say that the food could have fecal contamination too small too see, and while this is theoretically true, that’s not how my horse does it! You have a big chunk (very noticable) or you have nothing as all. I think this whole “too small too see” issue becomes important when there is some sort of liquid manure or other mechanism that could mix manure and crop together…

[Andy Carson]

Good point Carl, I can totally see how these adjustable bits would be really well suited to “feathering” bit pressure so that it is appropriate for horses of different temperments working in a team. Perhaps if and when I use a team I will be revisiting this issue…

[Author]

Posts