02-24-2014, 02:58 AM
Steve, I think that what you are missing is that "large amounts" is subjective. To the farmer it is an economic decision. The farmer will not spend more money than is necessary. If they do they risk going broke. The glyphosate is more benign then other previously favored herbicides. No farmer who wants to stay in business will spend $20,000 when $10,000 will do the job.
I don't say this as a fan of the Monsanto business model. I don't care for it. But the science of GMO is a separate issue from the business model and needs to be addressed, legislatively, separately.
My own farming experience was on an organic model on a 300 acre farm. Our family chose to not go the "no till" route. We lasted some years that way but like a lot of family small farms we eventually went under.
Also, when I use the term "benign" I refer to the affect the hericide has on other creatures besides weeds. Years ago the hericides were also toxic to the creatures of the fields - mice, rabbits, squirrels, foxes, woodchucks and birds. Glyphosate is a much gentler and targeted herbicide with fewer unintended casualties.
I don't say this as a fan of the Monsanto business model. I don't care for it. But the science of GMO is a separate issue from the business model and needs to be addressed, legislatively, separately.
My own farming experience was on an organic model on a 300 acre farm. Our family chose to not go the "no till" route. We lasted some years that way but like a lot of family small farms we eventually went under.
Also, when I use the term "benign" I refer to the affect the hericide has on other creatures besides weeds. Years ago the hericides were also toxic to the creatures of the fields - mice, rabbits, squirrels, foxes, woodchucks and birds. Glyphosate is a much gentler and targeted herbicide with fewer unintended casualties.
Assume the best and ask questions.
Punaweb moderator
Punaweb moderator