Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

8y study "Sustainable Farming Proven to Increase Yield at Zero Cost"88 percent less chemicals

page: 1
5

log in

join

posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 01:16 AM
link   
i think everybody supporting GMOs and the pesticide companies that own them,

should take note,

88% REDUCTION IN CHEMICAL FERTILIZERS.

SAME YEILD NO POISONOUS CHEMICALS


The longer rotations produced better yields of both corn and soy, reduced the need for nitrogen fertilizer and herbicides by up to 88 percent, reduced the amounts of toxins in groundwater 200-fold and didn’t reduce profits by a single cent.


anyone saying we need GMOs with the massive use of pesticides that go with them is fatally incorrect,
and here is the proof.


The Marsden Farm study, conducted by a team of government and university researchers, is a large-scale, long-term experiment that took place over the course of nine years (2003-2011) on land owned by Iowa State University. On 22 acres, researchers planted three parallel plots: one replicating the conventional Midwestern farming cycle alternating corn and soybeans each year with a routine mix of chemicals; in the second, planting a three-year cycle that included oats and a red clover cover crop; the third was planted on a 4-year rotation that added alfalfa (a key livestock feed). The two longer rotations also integrated the use of manure, or livestock fertilizer.


www.commondreams.org...

so buy refusing to buy GMOs you can reduce the use of toxic GMO strength fertilizers and pesticides,
and increase the quality of streams and ground water by 200 FOLD!!!!!!!!!!!!

this method is more labour intensive, but with the reduction in expensive chemical costs,
of up to 88%, you can simply employ labourers instead of polluting the world and killing bees.

wake up to the truth,
GMOs force you into a cycle of destruction of soil ecology, water and health

this study proves THE LIES ABOUT YEILDS AND SAFETY ARE SIMPLY MARKETING PLOYS TO SELL MORE PESTICIDES.

please if you have any question read the article OR FEEL FREE TO ASK ME
REMEMBER,
Adam Davis, an author of the study who works for the U.S.D.A.


Funding: Funding for the study was provided by the US Department of Agriculture National Research Initiative (Projects 2002-35320-12175 and 2006-35320-16548), the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture (Projects 2004-E06, 2007-E09, and 2010-E02), the Iowa Soybean Association, and the Organic Center. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.


www.plosone.org...

xploder
edit on 23-10-2012 by XPLodER because: (no reason given)
edit on 23-10-2012 by XPLodER because: (no reason given)
edit on 23-10-2012 by XPLodER because: (no reason given)
edit on 23-10-2012 by XPLodER because: SPELLING ADD MORE ADD LINK




posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 01:40 AM
link   
Peter Rosset wrote an article called "The Greening of Cuba" which looked at the innovative approach Cuba took to sustainable agriculture after they lost all fuel imports when the USSR collapsed. They use natural elements for pest control (yams were being attacked so they used predatory ants that built their homes in the base of the plants and would protect them) and by using a system of "green" manure and stringent crop rotation they prevent not only leeching the nutrients completely out of soils but dramatically reduce the risk of salinization.



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 02:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by XPLodER
should take note,


A few things wrong with your simplistic observation...




Originally posted by XPLodER
i think everybody supporting GMOs and the pesticide companies


It seems to be that people on ATS are tunnel visioned when it comes to GMO, lumping them all in the one basket and focussing only on pesticides and herbicides. While this may be trendy, the unfortunately more complicated fact is that will have GMOs of a wider range of ideas, such as longevity of storage, nutrition, higher yields, lower water needs, weather hardiness, and so forth.
An "anti pesticide" whine isnt what is needed to kill the idea of GMO's.




Originally posted by XPLodER
SAME YEILD NO POISONOUS CHEMICALS


Same yield? Well thats not much use against a GMO that has a higher yield.

GMO is a complex topic, and simply yelling "NO CHEMICALS" is a waste of your breath.



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 02:45 AM
link   
reply to post by alfa1
 


ok how about the idea that the recent "discovery" of the fact that
"junk DNA is not acually JUNK"

and we now know that this previously "unstudied junk" is acually funtional DNA?

monsato and others are simply playing god without knowing WHAT these extra gene expressions are for
and the current crops are designed before THIS WAS KNOWN,

FEEL BETTER NOW?

XPLODER



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 02:54 AM
link   
Here is a picture of the farm from the sky.

4mb .tif file.

Looks nice.

Study looks good.

Results sound good.

No qualms or complaints.

Probably the first time I saw something in organic farming that I liked.



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 03:19 AM
link   
Anything to get away from and eventually outright ban GMO food crops or ANY crops is just fine with me and a day too late.

This is another of those areas, I don't have to know that every single, individual claim made about GMO crops being bad is 100% studied out to be fact. There is ONE fact no one can dispute because it IS fact. I chose St Louis to join Occupy to protest for a reason. I chose St Louis because Occupy there was protesting the World Headquarters of Monsanto Corp, among other things. Evil has a name, in my personal opinion, and greed is it's fuel. THIS is it's tool.


In 1998, scientists in the U.S. developed a new type of technique to develop GMO’s called the ‘Genetic use restriction technology (GURT)’. Basically, scientists engineered plants to produce seeds that are sterile so they could not reproduce. GURT is most commonly referred to as “terminator technology” because the plant’s ability to reproduce has been ‘terminated’ at the genetic level (i.e. the plant produces a crop but the seeds of the crop will fail to germinate in the subsequent generation).


Oh this part is priceless... Who cares about the little claims. I mean read this and tell me, what could possibly go wrong??



One of the major limitations of terminator technology, as in engineering any living systems, is in its inability to withstand undesired changes. Terminator technology uses genes from bacteria, viruses and plants. These genes are incorporated in the “terminator seeds” for several reasons. One of the reasons is to tightly control the genes that make seeds sterile upon specific external “triggers”. Sometimes, this tight control of the gene is lost, leading to the gene product that causes sterility to be produced. This can cause the seeds to loose its ability to germinate rendering the seeds completely useless.


Oh.... yeah.... Doh! THIS is what can go wrong......


Agro-biodiversity refers to the variety of plants and animals that are used in the agricultural systems worldwide. The world’s agro-biodiversity depends heavily on seed saving, selecting and re-planting. This practice has resulted in crop varieties that are adapted to the local environment, soil and local pests. This technique has also resulted in creating new crop varieties that fetch more money in the market, for example, Basmati rice of India and Pakistan. Introducing “terminator seeds” will replace the age-old practice of seed saving and can lead to the loss of traditional seed varieties.
Source

So basically, if all goes well and nothing in nature throws a wrench into matters.....Western world farmers get soaked on paying for seeds every season and 3rd -5th world farmers range from hurt badly to simply out of farming entirely. Thats best case... What happens if that well oiled machine of exploiting ...or basically extorting is what this amounts to, our food crops breaks down and for whatever reason the seeds or stocks that Ag-Business has stockpiled become junk? (The answer is the Seed Bank in the FAR north, of course... TPTB see this possibility too....but what about the rest of us??)

That Potato famine was fun eh? Everyone ready for Round #2 someday with multiple crops world wide, at once?
edit on 23-10-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 03:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
Here is a picture of the farm from the sky.

4mb .tif file.

Looks nice.

Study looks good.

Results sound good.

No qualms or complaints.

Probably the first time I saw something in organic farming that I liked.


just goes to show,
that alternatives exist, and rather than spraying the earth with synthetic toxins,
we can save that money, (88% less fertiliser cost)
and pay for the extra labour costs.

i remember reading about an american indian who knew how to plant crops "together" in the same plot so that the crops protected each other from pests.

there was a spacing scheme and a 'husbandry" between plants that co operated to lower pest damage

wish i could find the article

xploder



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 03:22 AM
link   
alfalfa is key to the success i think..it is very good for the soil gets alot of microbial action going on..thats a good thing..i wonder if they also treated their au naturale test field with azimite and or glacial silt..combination of both containing pretty much every trace and micronutrient, which is part of having a healthy living soil..crops grow this way will have higher protien and mineral content..much healthier..chemical fertilizers are not gonna be great for building healthy soil..junk food/steroids for plants, in turn making us unhealthy really..the grain nowdays is crap..low protein high gluten..higher than our bodies like..i think alot of people suffer from gluten problems..and everybody needing supplements as their food has little value
..but the chem fertilizer industry is huge
edit on 23-10-2012 by vonclod because: added info



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 03:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by XPLodER
ok how about the idea that the recent "discovery" of the fact that
"junk DNA is not acually JUNK"


Again, a simplistic answer, for which the real one is more complex.
You're probably referring to the recent publications of the results of the ENCODE project, in which they found a large amount of non coding areas of the genome do "something" when put to the test.
The "something" is very wide ranging, anything from a binding site to a regulatory region, but what isnt at all studied yet is whether the results are even important to human biology. I recall reading a few weeks ago an analogy of a circus with elephants and clowns next to a road. The circus could be said to "regulate" traffic on the road as some people slowed down to watch, but nobody would describe it as important or a required necessity.



Originally posted by XPLodER
and we now know that this previously "unstudied junk" is acually funtional DNA?


No, not anywhere near all of it, nor (as explained above) has it been shown during those ENCODE experiments to be actually needed by humans.



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 03:57 AM
link   
reply to post by alfa1
 


that we dont know what it does should be a red flag,

it "could" do almost any thing,
it may share a gene expression with humans,
it could effect almost anything in our DNA,

and how does that make this any less a guess and hope

do i cross my fingers now? is that saftey for the consumer?
its ok we have no idea what could be effected so its safe?

xploder



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 04:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by XPLodER
it "could" do almost any thing,
it may share a gene expression with humans,
it could effect almost anything in our DNA,
and how does that make this any less a guess and hope



While your statement may be true, remember that we're talking about natural DNA variations here and your scary thoughts apply equally to traditional cross breeding and fertilisation methods.



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 05:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by XPLodER
it "could" do almost any thing,
it may share a gene expression with humans,
it could effect almost anything in our DNA,
and how does that make this any less a guess and hope



While your statement may be true, remember that we're talking about natural DNA variations here and your scary thoughts apply equally to traditional cross breeding and fertilisation methods.




EXCEPT,
we have had hundreds of years to "become accustom" to "natural" adaptations,
cross breading vegetables is alot different to "inserting" bacteria gene expressions into plants,

this wont happen in nature over the time frame of a single generation

please dont try to confuse hybids and gene splicing
they are simply to different to use as a reliable comparison

xploder





new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join