Gene editing is now approved

[delilah]

inaccurate

i’m a farmer snd i’m benefiting financially

for now.
It starts off as a voluntary initiative, which you are told will add value to your produce, and in the blink of an eye it becomes compulsory, adding no value to your produce.
Ring any bells ?

 

[Clive]

for now.
It starts off as a voluntary initiative, which you are told will add value to your produce, and in the blink of an eye it becomes compulsory, adding no value to your produce.
Ring any bells ?

no - dead tractor never paid me a £ - it cost me

Carbon sequestration has already paid me

it’s a in demand product i have to sell, just like wheat , it’s as simple as that ultimately

 

[delilah]

it’s a in demand product i have to sell, just like wheat , it’s as simple as that ultimately

Ask a milk producer whether they are selling their carbon or having to hand it over as part of the deal. Milk today, your wheat tomorrow. It's corporate control. It's green washing. Anyone who doesn't see that carbon trading is the new red tractor is a prize muppet.

 

[Clive]

Ask a milk producer whether they are selling their carbon or having to hand it over as part of the deal. Milk today, your wheat tomorrow. It's corporate control. It's green washing. Anyone who doesn't see that carbon trading is the new red tractor is a prize muppet.

only if farmers don’t take control and recognise the opportunity

I have

 

[kiwi pom]

It’s still just an advancement of the same treadmill we have been on for years.
It’s still buying a short term solution to a problem, rather than addressing the cause.
GM crops in the states have many of the same issues we face with pesticides. Roundup resistance, resistance to the by cotton genes to stop the insects.
I have no problem with this technology and will probably use it but it is still part of the ‘chasing the red queen’ treadmill of agronomics.

I don't see what the difference is? You grow crops now, so need seed, fert and pesticides. As you don't own any of the companies, you have to buy from them.
What's the difference between GE and conventional?
I do think the Americans have used GM tech badly. In many cases it seems to have meant they can grow a two crop, bean, corn rotation.
That's bad practice, regardless of what seed they use. It doesn't mean GM is bad.

 

[kiwi pom]

only if farmers don’t take control and recognise the opportunity

I have

Carbon farming seems a ridiculous con but you've grabbed it with both hands.
Gene editing seems like it could actually be very useful but you don't care for it

 

[ajd132]

I don't see what the difference is? You grow crops now, so need seed, fert and pesticides. As you don't own any of the companies, you have to buy from them.
What's the difference between GE and conventional?
I do think the Americans have used GM tech badly. In many cases it seems to have meant they can grow a two crop, bean, corn rotation.
That's bad practice, regardless of what seed they use. It doesn't mean GM is bad.

There is no difference. I’m not worried about the technology or anything like that.
It still follows the old treat the symptoms rather than the cause method of agronomy. The chasing the red queen treadmill.

 

[B'o'B]

I don't see what the difference is? You grow crops now, so need seed, fert and pesticides. As you don't own any of the companies, you have to buy from them.
What's the difference between GE and conventional?
I do think the Americans have used GM tech badly. In many cases it seems to have meant they can grow a two crop, bean, corn rotation.
That's bad practice, regardless of what seed they use. It doesn't mean GM is bad.

Most seeds, fert and chemicals, I buy, and then use however I see fit for my business (within the law of the land).
GM in the States often only comes with a set agronomy package and/or commitment to only buy branded chemicals. This is the fear I have with the GE technology. It may not be handled that way in the UK, in which case I would be pleasantly surprised.