Posts: 2,484
Threads: 10
Joined: Feb 2008
Going on 5 years ago I became interested in American
Chestnut trees. They were hugely important and prolific on the mainland until around 1900 when a blight was imported that nearly wiped them out. Various groups are trying to develop blight resistant crosses with the asian chestnut that is resistant such that the cross retains the desirable characteristics of the american variety and the resistance of the asian variety. My point is that with each generation they intentionally expose the crosses to the blight. As you might expect, almost all of them die. That is depressing but necessary.
It is unclear to me what it is that makes Hawaii a good place to breed bees for export. It can't be that our bees are resistant to anything. They are probably some of the most genetically vulnerable bees as far as resistance to mites is concerned, because they have not had to resist them until now. In fact, I have read that there is a strain of russian bees that have been exposed to mites for 150 years and those bees do exhibit substantial resistance to mites, obtained only because of their exposure.
I honestly don't know what if anything makes our bees special. It may only be that we have a year round growing season. If our bees are healthy in the absence of any mites, viruses, or other parasites then that is just a disaster waiting to happen. If they are healthy despite having pests, I could understand nobody wanting to receive those pests in the mail but on the other hand truly resistant bees would be worth their weight in gold, as would truly resistant chestnuts, bananas, or any other species of agricultural or aesthetic value.
Just addressing a general undercurrent of "Now Hawaii is screwed". We may have been screwed anyway and now Hawaii has received the final shove into the pool that everyone else is already in.
Posts: 46
Threads: 3
Joined: Nov 2011
Genetically modified bee's, Are coming.
Posts: 1,100
Threads: 6
Joined: Nov 2010
quote:
Originally posted by MarkP
It is unclear to me what it is that makes Hawaii a good place to breed bees for export....I honestly don't know what if anything makes our bees special. It may only be that we have a year round growing season. If our bees are healthy in the absence of any mites, viruses, or other parasites then that is just a disaster waiting to happen.
Yep, those are the big reasons. We do not have the tracheal mite and until a few years ago, did not have the varroa mite. Many of the viral and fungal diseases that are widespread on the mainland are also rare or absent here, so that means bees start out healthier. My understanding is that until recently about 1/4 of the commercially produced queens in the US came from Hawaii. Since the varroa mite has now arrived, we're at less of an advantage.
Posts: 1,100
Threads: 6
Joined: Nov 2010
quote:
Originally posted by pahoated
A lot of the rap against Monsanto started in the 80's with genetically modified crops that didn't produce seed. The tin hat crowd picked this up as a "controlling the food supply" conspiracy. They said, start hoarding seeds because the day was coming when only Monsanto would have seeds for new crops.
Moreover, this was initially done at the insistence of people opposed to GMOs who were worried about them spreading into the wild environment. Not an irrational concern, and indeed it's one of the biggest genuine problems with GMOs (especially with things like oilseed rape, which has wild relatives that are field weeds and hybridization can lead to Roundup-resistant weeds). Yet it ended up being overriden by hysterical fears.
Posts: 603
Threads: 60
Joined: Mar 2008
"Have you considered the possibility that, as MarkP suggested, Beeologics is actually working on a theory that would exonerate Monsanto and that's why they want to help them as much as they can? That makes much more sense than the idea of some Evil Corproration buying up companies to silence them.
By the way YurtGirl, Monsanto's income and assets are measured in the billions, not trillions. Try to contain the hysteria (yes, I know what it used to mean). Do you still really think Monsanto "uses radiation, splicing fish genes into watermelon seeds", as you stated earlier?"
If Monsanto wanted to SUPPORT the work, then they would have supported the work, very simply. They could have donated funds or given information freely. But they didn't. They BOUGHT out the company, which, if you look at their track record, is their first line of defense against ANYTHING that tries to question or slow them down. They offer to buy the opposition, and if that doesn't work, they sue them until they can't afford to buck them.
My statement about splicing fish genes into watermelon seeds was a theoretical example of a very real practice. GMOs often use genetics from other species, including fish, to try to make their plants and products stronger, more resilient. The fish splicing was to prevent certain foods from frost. It is very different from a hybrid scenario where you selectively breed. People have been selectively breeding since human history began. Genetic Modification has far more sinister reasons (MONEY, controlling food and seed supply) and far reaching ill effects (monocultures, health effects, ecosystem effects). And when focusing on the security of our planet's food supply, I would rather err on the side of 'hysteria' than apathy. Any day.
Melissa Fletcher
___________________________
"Make yurts, not war" Bill Coperthwaite, 1973
Melissa Fletcher
___________________________
"Make yurts, not war" Bill Coperthwaite, 1973
Posts: 370
Threads: 37
Joined: Aug 2011
Responsible is not hysteria. No responsible person would ever entertain the idea of letting the genie out of the bottle without knowing how to reverse the process. The idea of just wait and see how long and how much damage a man made chemical can poison the soil and water table, kill and maim life is not just irresponsible, it's dangerous.
"An idea whose time has come cannot be stopped" Dr. Ron Paul 2012
Posts: 5,640
Threads: 101
Joined: Dec 2008
Yurtgirl, please give me some examples of Monsanto buying another company for nefarious means,
I can't find any. If they wanted to support this research then the most thorough way of doing
it would be to buy the company. It looks better on the balance sheet to be allocating funds
to a subsidiary instead of giving it away.
"My statement about splicing fish genes into watermelon seeds was a theoretical example of a very real practice"
What about you saying they use radiation to do this, was that "theoretical" as well?
"Genetic Modification has far more sinister reasons" - here comes the hysteria again.
"And when focusing on the security of our planet's food supply, I would rather err on the side
of 'hysteria' than apathy. Any day"
Isn't it ironic that the people who claim to be concerned about the security of our food supply
are in fact the ones fighting to decrease food security? The whole point of GM is to produce
more food at less cost and to safeguard us against crop diseases. The potato famine wouldn't be
possible now. Are you against GM saving the papaya industry in Hawaii? Better safe than sorry!
liskir: "No responsible person would ever entertain the idea of letting the genie out of the bottle"
Spoken like a true Luddite!
Posts: 603
Threads: 60
Joined: Mar 2008
PaulW, No one else is going to change your staunch mind. Start doing your own research instead of trying to get me and others to jump through hoops for your own education. If you come at this topic from a completely objective point of view, you stand to learn a lot. That's where I started, a bit skeptical but believing it important to learn about. I began reading, looking up and checking up facts about big claims, and I've reached my opinions through my own sweat and research. Trying to invalidate my stances by saying I'm part of the stereotype, or hysterical, or all the other backdoor ways you try to disempower a point of view, is not helping you or anyone else.
You are debating an opposing side to my statements by trying to ridicule and put down my statements, but you aren't bringing ANY of your own real arguments, research or facts to the table.
Re: Monsanto buying companies for nefarious means; You must not be looking very hard, or AT ALL for that matter. Which means you're just wasting people's time. Either that or you're limiting your search to only what Monsanto says. Let's just start by looking at the seed companies they have bought, companies who no longer sell heirloom seeds.
http://www.greenpeace.de/fileadmin/gpd/u...to_eng.pdf
If you don't think the potato blight could happen again, I don't know how to help your understanding. The potato blight happened because Ireland forewent their previous biodiversity to all start growing the same kind of potatoes, hence MONOdiversity, so when the blight hit, it devastated the entire MONOCULTURE. Just because GMOs are touting that they are resistant against one thing, does not mean they are invincible, and the moment something comes along that a monocrop is defenseless against, we'll see devastation in that particular crop across America because most of the big, Monsanto backed farms are growing the same things, same varieties. Monsanto is systematically trying to stamp out other farms and seed distribution companies that aren't growing their products.
Isn't it ironic that the people who claim to be only for science and logic can't seem to use either efficiently in their arguments? Food security DOES NOT equal genetic engineering. Food security DOES NOT equal incorporating terminator genes in major food crops. Genetic modification IS NOT needed to feed this planet.
Melissa Fletcher
___________________________
"Make yurts, not war" Bill Coperthwaite, 1973
Melissa Fletcher
___________________________
"Make yurts, not war" Bill Coperthwaite, 1973
Posts: 4,919
Threads: 83
Joined: Feb 2009
Yurt Girl,
The potato blight is actually called late blight.
Diversity is no help,in 2009 it struck in the eastern US.It destroyed most of the tomato crop.I believe it also occurred last year.Home gardeners were the main reason it spread so fast !!
It killed every variety of tomato.
Just so you don't think I am picking on you,here is a link to an organic site that will back up my claim !
http://www.rodale.com/late-blight-tomatoes
Posts: 1,930
Threads: 71
Joined: Jun 2012
quote:
Originally posted by YurtGirl
Just because GMOs are touting that they are resistant against one thing, does not mean they are invincible, and the moment something comes along that a monocrop is defenseless against,
That was the point until you lost it. We are moving into an era when parasites, viruses, and bacteria are evolving faster than we, and our food crops, can naturally adapt to their attacks (more like host depletion). GMO or Genetically Modified Organism is initially being done because our pesticides are either rapidly ineffective or toxic to us as well the organisms they target. Gene modification allows more protection for the organism, hopefully without too many side effects. Your example ignores the fact as soon as a monocrop is defenseless, a new monocrop can be engineered and grown next season. While the parasites, viruses, and bacteria are still going through thousands of generations of evolution to naturally adapt to the next defense, GMO can be designing the next shield in the laboratory.
*Japanese tourist on bus through Pahoa, "Is this still America?*
|
