It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Weeds Are Now Resisting Monsanto Weed Killer

page: 1
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 7 2010 @ 06:48 AM
link   
Well here we go.

Weeds resisting Monsanto Weedkiller


Let me start off by saying i do not dislike GM crops. I used to but then i realised that throughout history we have modified crops, now we can do it in a more precise way. However where i get worried is when companies produce chemicals like roundup in relation to a GM crop. Monsanto thought they had created a brilliant product, resistant crops that were only resistant to a weed killer they had patented. Of course they forgot about evolution, that naughty process.

We need to stop developing poisons to kill competitive species because we will just continually have to develop new ones as weeds become resistant. The funny thing is that there is a technique available that can produce massively more crops while virtually eliminating the need for pesticides and completely eliminating the need for herbicides, creating higher yields and reducing our use of water and fertilizers. The techniques are hydroponics and aeroponics. Farming will need to adapt to use these technologies. In fact farmers that now utilize them are making more profit.

Monsanto is outdated. While i agree that modifying crops can be advantageous, we also need to update our farming methods. Herbicides can be completely eliminated in a hydro or aeroponic environment! We need to embrace this technology.

Monsanto is simply poisoning the planet.

[edit on 7-5-2010 by ImaginaryReality1984]




posted on May, 7 2010 @ 06:57 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


I can't help but thinking this is along the lines of blaming MacDonalds for making your kid fat.

The simple fact is, we over-rely and over use these things.

Of course weeds will adapt and build a resistance to herbicides, it's what they need to do to survive.



[edit on 7/5/10 by Chadwickus]



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


I can't help but thinking this is along the lines of blaming MacDonalds for making your kid fat.

The simple fact is, we over-rely and over use these things.

Of course weeds will adapt and build a resistance to herbicides, it's what they need to do to survive.


Not quite the same thing. Monsantos products drastically damage the environment. They could easily produce better products that are less damaging to the environment. Why they choose the destructive route is simply becuase it is more profitable. I really am not against GM crops, just the terrible pesticides that are created and the terrible amounts of fertilizer that is washed into rivers and streams becuase of our farming methods.

The sooner we abandon traditional farming methods the better. We can almost eliminate the need for herbicides using hydro and aeroponic farming, we can drastically cut our need for fertilizers and we can reduce our water needs by up to 40% (actually 80% depending upon the crop).



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 07:21 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


I think it is the same thing, no one forced these farmers to use the same herbicide year in year out.

A bit of restraint, or changing what herbicides are used would potentially have made this less of a problem.

I pretty much agree with everything else you say though, although making Monsato the only scapegoat for all this isn't going to help the case in reducing/removing the need for herbicides.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 07:27 AM
link   
I am happy it doesn't work.

I am glad lifeforms gain resistance and adapt to our pollutive ways.

But that doesn't mean we should keep polluting.

And yes spraying chemicals on a crop that we eat, is bad.

Well, water is an ok chemical. I can accept dihydrogen monoxide contamination.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
I think it is the same thing, no one forced these farmers to use the same herbicide year in year out.


No but Monsanto markets the herbicide and crops together. In modern times utilizing such methods is required to make money. Monsanto devlop these products, they sponsor farmers to use them, those farmers report the results and if others don't use it then they end up losing money. However even if they used them sparingly then the weeds would have still developed a resistance, it would have simply taken longer and this points to a very key problem with our farming methods.

No matter what we develop, the plants will always adapt because evolution is a difficult process to beat.


Originally posted by Chadwickus
A bit of restraint, or changing what herbicides are used would potentially have made this less of a problem.


This is the same approach used by doctors with antibiotics. Rotating them does help reduce adaptation but in the end evolution cannot be beaten, simply delayed.


Originally posted by Chadwickus
I pretty much agree with everything else you say though, although making Monsato the only scapegoat for all this isn't going to help the case in reducing/removing the need for herbicides.



Oh please don't get me wrong, Monsanto isn't the only company but it is the largest. The scope of Monsantos touch is hard to comprehend and i have in the past tried to map their organisation. It goes on and on, official and in some countries unofficial. It would take a great deal of money to properly map their reach.

I am all for GM crops, this wasn't always the case however i can see the gains now. Mixing GM crops with advanced farming methods we could virtually eliminate many of Monsantos products and i think this is why such methods are not commonly used.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 07:35 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Spraying chemicals on our crops is fine, as you say, water is a chemical. Also nutrient formulas required for hydroponic and aeroponic farming are artificial. However none of it matters. This stupid idea of organic farming needs to be corrected. Plants don't care what they get, they will simply break it down and create what they need. As long as we supply them with micro nutrients along with the macro nutrients they are happy.


The biggest issues we face are mass spraying of herbicides and pesticides. Both of which could be virtually eliminated with hydro and aeroponic farming.

And yeah i'm passionate about these types of farming )



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 07:51 AM
link   
I have to seriously disagree with you about there only being the one solution of hydroponics. Sure it works. I have friends who grow organic veggies that way -- using only natural sources of feeding such as seaweed product.

You can't put all your efforts into one proverbial basket; especially one that isn't totally natural. The ONLY long term solution is to learn to work WITH nature in seeking balance and equanimity.

Mother nature has had eons to perfect her practice and nothing we mere mortals can come up with in a lab or think tank is going to ever beat her out. We instead need to learn her ways and work cooperatively within her system.

Organic farming is one of those ways.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
Let me start off by saying i do not dislike GM crops. I used to but then i realised that throughout history we have modified crops, now we can do it in a more precise way.
[edit on 7-5-2010 by ImaginaryReality1984]


I believe you are mistaken my friend. What we used to do in the past is take the best of each plant strain and cross-breed them to get the most beneficial aspects of each plant together into one plant (or animal ).
No longer. What we do now is splice genes and insert them directly into the DNA strands. Say you have a tomato, they then take a gene from a flounder (im not making this up!) that keeps it from freezing at great depths and splice that into the tomato gene sequence.
The old way was natural, we took natural selection and sped it up. Today we do nanosurgery and are creating a line of frankenfoods, part plant part animal. God NEVER intended for this to occur.
While ocassionally these new breeds produce great harvests for a few years they are all ultimately doomed to fail all the while NO ONE KNOWS WHAT THE CONSEQUENCES ARE of human consumption of said frankenfoods. Monsanto's business practices are so feudalistic anyone who uses their products becomes a permanent serf to Monsanto, unable to break away and plant the old varieties. They have driven many, many US farmers into bankruptcy and I will never consider them to be an ethical or moral business interest.

Their so called "Green Revolution" was never about agriculture, it was about MONEY.

I forgot to add that each year the world loses hundreds, perhaps thousands of varieties of heirloom plants that have taken thousands of years to perfect. They have fed us since the dawn of civilization now they are being replaced by corporate products with unknown viability in the long run. Nature favors diversity and this is a losing proposition my friend.

[edit on 7-5-2010 by Asktheanimals]



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 08:09 AM
link   
Asktheanimals is right about how we have selectively bred plants.
Also it is not the use of the herbicide that causes the weeds to evolve, it is cross-pollination between the GM crops and the existing weeds.

While I agree the hydroponics is a viable way of producing clean food, there is nothing wrong with producing food the traditional way. To me hydroponics always smacks of a time when we have destroyed all of the natural environment and the world is so overcrowded that we have to grow food in artificial conditions. Yes thats really just my imagination playing with me, but its still what I think.

-Cauch1



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by wayno
 


I'm sorry but your post regarding hydroponics is ignorant. Mother nature is bound by certain laws including the one where plants need soil. Hydroponics can be done organically you know, if need be. The major function of soil is to transfer nutrients and support plants. It acts as a buffering agent for nutrients. these are all limitations.

Hydroponics is something which simply removes the constraints imposed upon mother nature. As for organic farming, well i'm afraid if we use traditional organic farming we woudln't be able to feed the existing population. If you want loads of people to starve then please feel free to uphold your ideals and pleaase be the first to offer to starve to death.


Originally posted by Asktheanimals
I believe you are mistaken my friend. What we used to do in the past is take the best of each plant strain and cross-breed them to get the most beneficial aspects of each plant together into one plant (or animal ).
No longer. What we do now is splice genes and insert them directly into the DNA strands. Say you have a tomato, they then take a gene from a flounder (im not making this up!) that keeps it from freezing at great depths and splice that into the tomato gene sequence.


As far as i am aware (please feel free to correct me) none of these groups which use animal genes are put into the human food chain. Even so it would be easy to instigate laws to only allow plant genes to be manipulated. Still if you have evidence of what you say here, where the plants are eaten y humans i would be interested.

Of course you also fail to provide any evidence that such an experiment would hurt humans. When you eat a plant you don't ingest it's genes, your body doesn't add them to your genetic code lol. You break them down into simple components that have no resemblance to what they were.



Originally posted by Asktheanimals
Monsanto's business practices are so feudalistic anyone who uses their products becomes a permanent serf to Monsanto, unable to break away and plant the old varieties. They have driven many, many US farmers into bankruptcy and I will never consider them to be an ethical or moral business interest.


I agree with this, i haven't said otherwise. It's disgusting what Monsanto has done, they have cornered the market. We are supposed to have laws against monopolys.



Originally posted by Asktheanimals
I forgot to add that each year the world loses hundreds, perhaps thousands of varieties of heirloom plants that have taken thousands of years to perfect. They have fed us since the dawn of civilization now they are being replaced by corporate products with unknown viability in the long run. Nature favors diversity and this is a losing proposition my friend.


Without such new plants hundreds of millions would have starved to death. If you want to volenteer to starve then please do so.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cauch1
Asktheanimals is right about how we have selectively bred plants.
Also it is not the use of the herbicide that causes the weeds to evolve, it is cross-pollination between the GM crops and the existing weeds.

While I agree the hydroponics is a viable way of producing clean food, there is nothing wrong with producing food the traditional way. To me hydroponics always smacks of a time when we have destroyed all of the natural environment and the world is so overcrowded that we have to grow food in artificial conditions. Yes thats really just my imagination playing with me, but its still what I think.

-Cauch1


I don't much care how it seems to you. Hydroponics can feed the world, using minimal resources. Yeah sure we can use traditional methods, but those methods mean we have to cut down more forests, destroy more environments, use more pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers and generally do more damage to the environment.

Again i will say that nother nature doesn't use hydroponics only becuase mother nature is limited by her environment. If she had a choice she would prefer hydroponics



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 12:05 PM
link   
Hydroponics and aeroponics is the way, I learned that back in 1999 to 2001 when I was the project engineer for a hydroponics company. We were growing romaine lettuce from seedlings to about 18" diameter, 1500 every 14 days in a 10'x10'x20' enclosure. A few images...

The machine...



I designed the lighting, robotics (prototypes) and a lot of the tracking system. You can also see the HPS water cooled lights I designed for the first chamber.

The crop types...




We tested on romaine lettuce, cherry tomatoes, basil and many more.

LED Lights...

This was a nice little toy (my research into light absorption and cheezy design), reduced our growing time to harvest from 14 days to 11 days and reduced the energy requirements down to 20% of HPS lamps.

Aspirators...

I did these aspirators for zero-g testing, they worked quite well and alternated between a feed spray and a clean water spray to keep feed crystalization on the roots down to a minimum.

Anyway, I did this for about 2 years and it is the wave of the future. The crops grow accelerated, clean, you don't need anti-fungals, pesticides or herbicides, you just need to keep the temperature around 20-21 degrees centigrade and make sure the plants are fed, hence the robotics, air conditioning, closed chamber and massive lighting (29kw using water cooled HPS which I also designed).

Any questions, just ask, I own most of the technology, designs, etc. shown above for that specific project.

Cheers - Dave

[edit on 5/7.2010 by bobs_uruncle]



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 





Of course they forgot about evolution,


EVOLUTION?

Get out! Has everybody just forgotten
the real terminology for this? It is adaptation not the more unscientific
evolution. Got it? Good.

[edit on 7-5-2010 by randyvs]



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs

EVOLUTION?

Get out! Has everybody just forgotten
the real terminology for this? It is adaptation not the more unscientific
evolution. Got it? Good.

[edit on 7-5-2010 by randyvs]


Yes adaptation is Evolution. The more adaptations occur and compound we eventually see a change in species. However micro evolution as i'm sure you will call it is simply the early stages of macro evolution.

However your point has absolutely nothing to do with the thread becuase in the end this is to do with GM foods and pesticides. So please leave debate abot evolution out of it. The plants adapted, i refer to it as evolution, you can refer to it as magic sky fairies. In the end a plant changed to deal with he environmental stress and a company (Monsanto) will no doubt create something even more deadly.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by bobs_uruncle
 


I find your post fascinating however i must ask why you kept the lights so far from the plants. You obviously knew what you were doing and yet you ignored the invrese square law. With water cooled or even air cooled lights you could have lowered them far closer to the plants. This would mean you needed to use less lights and at the same time increased your yields.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
reply to post by bobs_uruncle
 


I find your post fascinating however i must ask why you kept the lights so far from the plants. You obviously knew what you were doing and yet you ignored the invrese square law. With water cooled or even air cooled lights you could have lowered them far closer to the plants. This would mean you needed to use less lights and at the same time increased your yields.


Great questions/comments!

There was so much light in the chamber that we could afford to accommodate many sized crops, including corn, tomotos, marijuana (under request by the Canadian government), we even looked at grapes. Also, a second robotic line could be added with additional lights to "stack" crop robots in a single chamber. When we started working with the LED lights everything changed, mainly because we were using specific photon "pump" frequencies, only the colours that are absorbed during photosynthesis. If you know about plants then you would know that the germination frequency is about 2800 angstroms which was used in the starting chamber plus a 665nm and 450nm. In the main chamber we evolved the lighting to include 450nm, 665nm and 710nm, which are the three specific frequencies that photosynthesis uses in the "antenna pump," you need all three for accelerated growth and efficiency.

Didn't ignore any of the physics...lol. On yields, you are right but there is a specific watt/cm rate that if you exceed it, it makes no difference and we were more inclined to provide crop adaptation in the machine. Plus we lined the entire machine with high reflectivity mylar to keep the light "bouncing." When using LED lights, you use all the same principles but yes, you do need to get the lights a lot closer to the plants to increase photon flux density but they have to be far enough away to mix the three frequencies.

I have a huge amount of research in this area. It's funny, I was selling lights for some time on ebay for both commercial and nefarious projects, and developed a system that made indoor operations invisible to thermal imaging and IR cameras.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by bobs_uruncle
 


I'm slightly confused by your staements because i thought HID lights gave a more efficient light source than LED, flourescent or CFL. I know someone who is getting into commercial tomato crops and all of the expert say the HID lights are more efficient in such circumstances. At least this is true if they are vented. As for nefarious purposes i would be grateful if you left such things outside of this thread or you will basically cause my thread to be locked when there are many important details to be dealt with here.

I would be very interested seeing your research because i could save my friend a ton of money.


I should say my own experiments have been fascinating. I have grown both hot pepper and tomatos in my own bedroom and the yields have been incredible! It's how i met my commercial farming friend, through an internet forum. I have found that aeropnoics yield slightly lower results that the bubbler systems but i'm still messing around with it all. I am hoping to develop a system which is superior to the others which i can patent


So i can't go into it to much


[edit on 7-5-2010 by ImaginaryReality1984]



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


You obviously know little of what you talk about here. Monsanto has been squeezing the US farmer for years, actually shutting them off from seeds only Monsanto sells now after they cornered the market. Forcing them to purchase their Monsanto products are NO seeds.

Don't know if you farm but try it without seeds.

[edit on 7-5-2010 by Ikema]



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Ikema
 


I must admit that while i agree with GM seeds i am disgusted by Monsantos terminator technology. Forcing people to buy a product year after year i thought was against the monoply laws.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join