One Man Holds a PATENT That Could Crush MONSANTO and Change The World

a reply to: purplemer

I like your posts Purp, they have a lot of respect for the earth and its intelligence and I do think Stamets is the man. But yet again we see a "oooo, shiny" response from so many in this thread because, I don't know, it's something that was invented and so it must be awesome. Humans in this era (mainly the west) see every problem as only solvable through technology. I suppose there is an assumption that we must have tried everything natural on our path to giant metropolis' and computers so anything that didn't work was discarded along the way. Well, we haven't tried everything and new technology isn't needed for the end-result most in this thread are salivating over.

Monoculture systems are going to continue to show problems that we will be fighting forever and ever until we understand how nature works. FyreByrd has it figured out...

originally posted by: FyreByrd
Don't we need insects - to - like - polinate plants for us and other good things.

I'm not terribly knowledgeable on this subject but know in my own 'organic' garden I loose a small amount to pests but it's well worth the trade off and easy to learn to control with other insects, chickens, bats, and then there is companion planting as well. Granted on an 'industrial scale' that could be challenging but then probably necessary if we are to restore the soil and save the planet.

And Echtelion from page 2 has it figured out...

originally posted by: Echtelion

If you want real good ways to get rid of pests, do it using plants that repel them, or even better, predator insects that will hunt and kill them. That is the more natural way of doing it.

Nature is holisitic, and we need holistic food systems. These insects we're spraying, or contemplating fungasing, have their niche and one day I know we'll stop tinkering and start growing polycultured, lifestock-integrated, nutrient-rich food that has already been proven to be an ironclad strategy to ensure balance and abundance. Monocultured food will attract a monoculture of insects and we'll keep swimming against the current of nature until we understand this.

a reply to: Springer

My three top fav bugs, besides fuzzy black spiders, that is.
Dung beetles being my favorite! They clean up after my dogs and mule most of the year. Gotta be careful worming the critters, though. Thankfully, Comfortis has eliminated the need for any sort of spraying, which always hit them hard. I keep the mule in a contained area for a few days, and poop promptly picked up to prevent my beetles dying off.

a reply to: SlickMcFavorite

Thanks for your reply.. I am going to be trying polycutlure in my grow beds this year for the first time. I think it will help aleviate problems with the soil and insect pests. Looking at it, it does appear to be a more natural and robust way of doing things. I am suprises I havnt tried it before..

kind regards

purp..

a reply to: Grimpachi

thank you for your reply..


I have requested inforamtion on how this is done and although i dont understand the paten in its entririty peeps i am asking are saying its not gmo. They explain the method by which the mycellium is choosen. I will get further clarificaiton when i can

' Prepare an agar dish with spores. When the mycelium spreads, it will sporulate (the conidial stage). Take the farthest edge of mycelium which hasn't sporulated, transfer it to another agar culture. Repeat three or four times and you have a non-sporulating strain (preconidial).'

a reply to: RickyD

Hello thank you for your replies..

I have checked in other mushroom places and the reference to GM is not the physcial tincturing of genes. It is simply breeding. Here is a explanation..


'A non-sporulating strain is classified GM because it can only be produced in a lab. The lab procedure is as described above. The entomopathogenic (bug killing) fungus Stamets uses is only effective before the reproductive phase (the spore phase or sporulating phase or conidial phase), so you must modify the genetics of the mushrooms until, genetically, it won't reach sexual maturation.

This isn't some mad science; in just a few generations the mushroom will no longer have sexual maturation encoded in its genes. This GM fungus is part of a larger patent that involves more targeted delivery systems. So what I was saying above is that GM means many things; here it simply means the kind of genetic tinkering that happens with, say, anima husbandry, (dogs are GMOs!). This is easy to foster in mushrooms.'

kind regards

purp..

Well that was a very much appreciated explanation. Now my only concern is that claim 30. I pointed out. Claim 30. is about the methods used to emulsify or spray the product. The bait block or separated from the crop methods seem just fine to me but I'm not so sure I want to eat something sprayed with this stuff. Thanks for taking the time to bring us the explanation to the GM claim.

Sounds amazing but also like how the zombie apocalypse might start...

a reply to: purplemer

More Franken-Science.

I never thought I'd say this, but I think I'd feel much safer with Monsanto for the time being.

I'd rather be poisoned by chemicals than be eaten from the inside out and turned into Fungus...

Natures very nature is to evolve. Anything mankind creates is no exception to the rule and I can see something like this evolving beyond our ability to control.

a reply to: BobaFettish

You should actually read the thread before passing judgment. Having the facts...especially when we've sat here and hashed them out of the article, patent, and other sources.

a reply to: RickyD

thank you for your help in the thread much appreciated..

purp..

If Monsanto is threatened by a pest, fungi or people, they will invent a pesticide to control it.

On the other hand, I garden and know that vegetables repel pests when they are healthy, all by themselves.

Overall this depends on soil preparation prior to planting, organic composting and water. Lots of water.

originally posted by: intrptr
If Monsanto is threatened by a pest, fungi or people, they will invent a pesticide to control it.

Who would bother using such a hypothetical pesticide? Contrary to conspiratorial opinion, Monsanto don't force farmers to use their products. They don't even have the largest market share for seeds.

a reply to: GetHyped

Who would bother using such a hypothetical pesticide? Contrary to conspiratorial opinion, Monsanto don't force farmers to use their products. They don't even have the largest market share for seeds.

Thanks for that. I must have got it wrong.

Did you hear everyone? Monsanto doesn't force people to do anything.


pffft…

a reply to: intrptr

What have Monsanto forced anyone to buy? It's a free market, they don't even have the largest market share:

a reply to: GetHyped

Monsanto owns patents on their seed that isn't reproductive so farmers have to buy new seed every year.

They also sue anyone they can prove has Monsato DNA in their fields, even from cross pollination.

Convenient that.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: GetHyped

Monsanto owns patents on their seed that isn't reproductive so farmers have to buy new seed every year.

WHo's being forced to buy Monsanto's seeds? Again, they don't even have the largest market share for seeds.

They also sue anyone they can prove has Monsato DNA in their fields, even from cross pollination.

Convenient that.

This is a myth. They have never sued for accidental cross-pollination. Case in point:

Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser [2004] 1 S.C.R. 902, 2004 SCC 34 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada case on patent rights for biotechnology, between a Canadian canola farmer, Percy Schmeiser, and the agricultural biotechnology company Monsanto. The court heard the question of whether Schmeiser's intentionally growing genetically modified plants constituted "use" of Monsanto's patented genetically modified plant cells. By a 5-4 majority, the court ruled that it did.[1] The case drew worldwide attention and is widely misunderstood to concern what happens when farmers' fields are accidentally contaminated with patented seed. However by the time the case went to trial, all claims had been dropped that related to patented seed in the field that was contaminated in 1997; the court only considered the GM canola in Schmeiser's 1998 fields, which Schmeiser had intentionally concentrated and planted from his 1997 harvest. Regarding his 1998 crop, Schmeiser did not put forward any defence of accidental contamination.[2]

en.wikipedia.org...

Buying seeds is voluntary. When you do so, you enter a contract. Don't like the contract? Buy your seeds from somewhere else.

If you have to distort the truth to further your agenda, that's propaganda.

So again: What have Monsanto forced anyone to buy?

a reply to: GetHyped

Buying seeds is voluntary. When you do so, you enter a contract. Don't like the contract? Buy your seeds from somewhere else.

You can't. Monsanto owns the patents.

Google rabbit hole

a reply to: intrptr

Question: who has the largest market share in this diagram?

Next question: how many seed manufacturers are there?

a reply to: GetHyped

Sorry, I don't do 'tests'.

Corporations all go one way together.

a reply to: intrptr

I'm sorry my evidence stumped you. Maybe next time.