Groundswell 2017

[SilliamWhale]

Smoking doesn't cause cancer...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mike-pence-said-smoking-doesnt-kill_us_58121434e4b064e1b4b0bf93

@SilliamWhale Will, you accuse Graeme Sait of benefiting financially from his claims. Fair enough, but if you follow the money in the debate, I think you'll find Monsanto and many other vested interests (including every farmer in the world running a no-till / min-till system) will be pumping all their propaganda and scientific research in the opposite direction. Same as happened in the tobacco industry not too long ago. Talk about vested interests!

In this post-truth / post-facts age, where you don't appear to even be able to trust the scientific community to tell us how it is, who can we really trust?

For myself, I wouldn't trust a multinational chemical juggernaut to do anything other than pursue profit at any cost.

Its not a case of trusting the multinational juggernaut or not. I am usually healthily sceptical when a promoter of something claims to know the problem and is able to supply the answer in one swoop - at a price of course which benefits them both ways. I'm very very sceptical of the nutrition industry fullstop anyway and I'm not sure how regulated the claims they make are for their own products - certainly not bound by any amount of obligations that pharmaceuticals are.

Are Monsanto hiding anything? - We know how litigious the USA is so if they are they would be in deep trouble but admittedly like VW they're too big to fail but I would expect something to come out. Would I want RR GM crops in the UK? No way but not because roundup is bad per se but because I want to protect a useful, cheap and relatively harmless chemical and use it less frequently for its own sake.

The problem with a lot of this sort of debate is that its saying "roundup is bad/it must be banned" and its just so simplistic. Its like when rabid Corbynista's argue if your not with us, then ergo you must be against us and you must therefore be a nazi apologist who hate poor people and that was why Grenfell tower burnt down, sort of....

 

[SilliamWhale]

Grame Sait has 312 page book out which is a free download. I'll have a read through it and see if I change my mind. I am fearing lots of stuff on soil balancing ratios which I don't think are necessary for most broadacre agriculture. Maybe he will have references to the studies which make roundup so dangerous or maybe he decided not to publish them.

Anyway I don't want to pollute the Groundswell thread with this, sorry @martian.

 

[martian]

Anyway I don't want to pollute the Groundswell thread with this, sorry @martian.

Go for it...the show is over and part of the point of it was to get people talking and questioning what they're doing...

I think @Breakthru is right to suggest a moratorium on pre-harvest roundup to give us some breathing space with it's relatively benign stubble clearing action. I used to believe that it (glyphosate) was less innocuous than table salt, based on the LD50 readings, but having listened to various lectures about it I'm now not so sure. The fact that it is an antibiotic at levels of 1ppb is interesting enough, especially when you find out that practically the only bacteria it doesn't kill are salmonella and clostridia, which is going to really mess with your gut. In fact it is more likely to mess with the guts of pigs and chickens who are fed GM corn/soya which has been sprayed multiple times with glyphosate and who then need other antibiotics to kill the salmonella etc etc

I want to believe it's harmless as it is so useful, but just in case...let's stop using it pre-harvest

 

[Dead Rabbits]

@martian Who will be at Groundswell 2018? You know Ray Archuleta retired this June, so he can speak/travel with no restrictions. Talk about a guy that will get discussions going.....

 

[martian]

@martian Who will be at Groundswell 2018? You know Ray Archuleta retired this June, so he can speak/travel with no restrictions. Talk about a guy that will get discussions going.....

Blimey, bit son to be planning next year...or is it? We are mulling over some of the suggestions we've had in the feedback forms, there are some great ideas in there. I'd love to get Ray over, now he's retired he may have more time. He does talk as though he's addressing a kindergarten, which a European audience may find a bit off-putting, but there's no-one like him for getting a message across.

 

[SilliamWhale]

Kevin Folta?
Doug Edmeades?
Kris Nichols?
Rolf Derpsch?
Carlos Crovetto?
Steve Groff?

 

[Dead Rabbits]

Blimey, bit son to be planning next year...or is it? We are mulling over some of the suggestions we've had in the feedback forms, there are some great ideas in there. I'd love to get Ray over, now he's retired he may have more time. He does talk as though he's addressing a kindergarten, which a European audience may find a bit off-putting, but there's no-one like him for getting a message across.

Looks like you had a hell of an event. Even had a guy from my home state, who I have never heard of. I'd have gone if it was in my neck of the woods.

What kind of suggestions are you getting? I would assume farmers asking to see more farmers who have put into practice some of the ideas mentioned?

Ray is a badass, he works a room of farmers better than anyone I have ever seen. I like being talked to like a kindergartener, I need to hear things repeated often and be engaged by an energetic teacher.

 

[The_Swede]

A voluntary rejection of pre-harvest use is very noble but in my view risky - it adds needless weight to a ban campaign that as yet has produced no tangible data as far as I am aware.

EFSA et al have big enough teeth to quickly place such restrictions on products when appropriate scientific evidence (or perhaps the political will) exists. I really don't think a voluntary gesture of this type from farmers will carry any weight in the event of either of these factors manifesting themselves. It could in fact add new momentum to a campaign that seems to have gone quiet of late...

Farmers effectively calling into question the processes and recommendations of institutions as cautious in their approvals as EFSA is potentially a very slippery slope indeed in my opinion.

That should be it from me on this issue... back to next years planning!

 

[SilliamWhale]

Go for it...the show is over and part of the point of it was to get people talking and questioning what they're doing...

I think @Breakthru is right to suggest a moratorium on pre-harvest roundup to give us some breathing space with it's relatively benign stubble clearing action. I used to believe that it (glyphosate) was less innocuous than table salt, based on the LD50 readings, but having listened to various lectures about it I'm now not so sure. The fact that it is an antibiotic at levels of 1ppb is interesting enough, especially when you find out that practically the only bacteria it doesn't kill are salmonella and clostridia, which is going to really mess with your gut. In fact it is more likely to mess with the guts of pigs and chickens who are fed GM corn/soya which has been sprayed multiple times with glyphosate and who then need other antibiotics to kill the salmonella etc etc

I want to believe it's harmless as it is so useful, but just in case...let's stop using it pre-harvest

Well I will keep reading stuff and keep an open mind. But as I always say - we put Mocap and Vydate into the soil near a seed potato and I don't hear much said about the need to ban them from protestors.

But on GM RR I'm not a fan particularly and never really was but its undeniable that you can use more chemicals with less toxicty (roundup) than those which were definitely more toxic (triazine). We'd probably agree that good stewardship of glyphosate is important (my own practice is not to use it more than twice in 12 months if I can but sometimes I use it twice in 6 months and then once in 18 months) and maybe pre harvest stopping is the way to go. But I don't see how banning it is going to be a positive step at the moment.

 

[SilliamWhale]

A voluntary rejection of pre-harvest use is very noble but in my view risky - it adds needless weight to a ban campaign that as yet has produced no tangible data as far as I am aware.

EFSA et al have big enough teeth to quickly place such restrictions on products when appropriate scientific evidence (or perhaps the political will) exists. I really don't think a voluntary gesture of this type from farmers will carry any weight in the event of either of these factors manifesting themselves. It could in fact add new momentum to a campaign that seems to have gone quiet of late...

Farmers effectively calling into question the processes and recommendations of institutions as cautious in their approvals as EFSA is potentially a very slippery slope indeed in my opinion.

That should be it from me on this issue... back to next years planning!

I sometimes wonder if pre harvest roundup is a negative especially for the blackgrass boys because it may allow selection of that rouge surviving late germinating blackgrass plant which may become roundup resistant?

I also have an issue with the anti roundup campaign because a lot of it is driven by anti GM campaigners. I seriously wonder if a lot of them understand farming. My local man called Brian John is a virulent anti GM campaigner (GM free cymru etc.) and I respect his position on that although I'm not sure I would totally close my eyes to GM potential. But he's always banging the anti glyphosate drum but seemingly through the prism of keeping GM out. I've invited him down to the farm a few times to see how I use glyphosate but he won't come.

 

[The_Swede]

I agree, pre harvest use is of course generally wholly justifiable with say OSR, Linseed etc, or those further north who simply cannot harvest reasonably without it in many years.... but routinely using it because you have grass weeds is surely asking for trouble in the long run.

I applaud your attempts at engaging with zealots of his type (although I also share the GM concerns)... how does it go... never argue with a fool, you risk becoming one yourself! Very poor show on his part to not come out for a look around and an open discussion though.

 

[Breakthru]

A voluntary rejection of pre-harvest use is very noble but in my view risky - it adds needless weight to a ban campaign that as yet has produced no tangible data as far as I am aware.

EFSA et al have big enough teeth to quickly place such restrictions on products when appropriate scientific evidence (or perhaps the political will) exists. I really don't think a voluntary gesture of this type from farmers will carry any weight in the event of either of these factors manifesting themselves. It could in fact add new momentum to a campaign that seems to have gone quiet of late...

Farmers effectively calling into question the processes and recommendations of institutions as cautious in their approvals as EFSA is potentially a very slippery slope indeed in my opinion.

That should be it from me on this issue... back to next years planning!

I am not advocating surrender, only preparation for a possible strategic withdrawal to prolong the lifespan of what to the industry is a very useful tool.
So far as an industry we have dug our heels in and not agreed to move an inch, possibly correctly, however "IF" G Sait is correct that they have worked out how it is affecting humans which it isn't meant to then we may be faced with an outright ban, which nobody wants.
In any negotiation it is better to offer a compromise at the eleventh hour than go down in flames.
What I am advocating will effect the North more than the South so it is a bit of turkeys and xmas.
What I originally suggested was making sure that our negotiators are quite clear that if facing armaggedon there is an alternative compromise/sacrificial lamb to offer up to preserve at least part of the status quo.
@silliam whale when you hear the audio and plough through the book then I will be most interested to hear your views, as I am not necessarily a disciple but what he said over those two days on a variety of subjects either confirmed some of my views or filled in "some" missing spaces in the jigsaw.
As @martian I totally agree that this is where these views contentious or otherwise should be aired openly in our industry.
For too long we have suffered from CS Humphreys' deciding our future without any proper industry wide consultation and that is not only in agriculture. We need to control the Establishment not the other way round and that is where social media such as TFF is so useful.

 

[The_Swede]

I understand your angle.

My point is that until EFSA, CRD or any other relevant, 'independant' and critically publicly funded regulator are advocating G Sait's (but insert any others) theories, then we as an industry are potentially self flagellating by voluntarily accepting them.

 

[SorenIlsoe]

maybe, if the organisers are bold enough, they should invite Prof. Don Huber next year for Groundswell? For the animal side it
s Prof.. Dr. Monika Krueger of the Vet. Uni. Leipzig which does work on botulism & Glyphosate on animals. She has some very nice pictures of the gut system.
Don Huber is very knowledgeable on the topic of Pesticides & effects on plants.
last week I was in Estonia. Never have seen so many negative effects of chemical usage. Need only compare the plants in the fields, like near power posts, which didn't get a dosage & the rest of the field. It pays to do "zero plots" controls.
Maybe this people are also a good invite for BASE annual meeting.
Did organise a day seminar with both of them years ago. It changed the usage of pesticides in all operations which attended. Since then I'm not liked by german Min Till association any more. Tehy will even not shake hands with me at their annual meeting.
York-Th.
p.s. sorry, off topic

Who is paying all his travels around the world? Is the pension from USDA so high that he can do that? Ron Huber is totally unreliable and according to him is Glyphosate the reason for all diseases and disasters in the world. Maybe even the climate changes......
https://www.biofortified.org/2013/11/dr-huber-turns-down-my-generous-offer/#more-13121

 

[SilliamWhale]

Who is paying all his travels around the world? Is the pension from USDA so high that he can do that? Ron Huber is totally unreliable and according to him is Glyphosate the reason for all diseases and disasters in the world. Maybe even the climate changes......
https://www.biofortified.org/2013/11/dr-huber-turns-down-my-generous-offer/#more-13121

Agreed. If he makes some claims thats fine, he needs to be able to back them up. Otherwise what is the basis of the claim in the first place? Besides which is Huber saying no glyphosate ever, or is he saying reduce usage or is he saying get rid of GM crops?

 

[York]

Who is paying all his travels around the world? Is the pension from USDA so high that he can do that? Ron Huber is totally unreliable and according to him is Glyphosate the reason for all diseases and disasters in the world. Maybe even the climate changes......
https://www.biofortified.org/2013/11/dr-huber-turns-down-my-generous-offer/#more-13121

Sorry Soeren, your barking against the wrong bush or peaing against the wrong tree. I have spend more time together with Don Huber than most of the people writing this, on numberous ocasions, & I have never heard such a thing out of his mouth. He can make a differance between a region with GMO & Glyphosate & the EU and he is well balanced.
Please look at the agenda of the person which wrote that up, Dr. Kevin Folta.
I think, & for sure will get an answer, about this "Mystic" pathogen.
Did you know that any research done on a patented chemical & / or GMO trait without 1stly getting an approval of the patent holder is violating patent law & illegal? At least in the US. If you want I can send you the PDF with a PHD thesis writing about such topics, recently released.
I have got enough good valuable information of Prof. Don Huber which is helping my daily work, which is not related to Glyphosate & GMO's.
After my latest visit of fields in GB & EST, observing the differences of no chemicals & chemical application I'm just comparing. Do your own comparison on your on field.
We saw on one field, just <5 m apart a wheat ear with 12 rows, much larger flag leaf compared to the main field which was much smaller.
Why not take the chance to meet Don in your heck of the woods when he is speaking at an international conference. He isn't inviting himself, he is asked to come. So some in the international science community value his work higher than avoiding him.
York-Th.
p.s. you have missed rely 2 importend days. You point at Huber, but Jones & Said had also a strong point on Glyphosate. Did they have to back up all their claims?

 

[SorenIlsoe]

Sorry York, you can not catch me in this endless discussion as long as it is concerning people who have seen or observed something terrible about glyphosate.
Here in Denmark we farmers have for centuries been used to have reliable and INDEPENDANT trials and reserch behnd everything we do n the fields.
That means we dont rely on advices from the companies, we have our own farmer owned research organsation with thousands of trials every year (www.seges.dk).
We listen to chemical companies, but we only act from these independant trials and research results.
This is why we use low doses and typically 1/3 of the pesticides that is used in Germany.
So this is why you wont get me on that wagon with this missionary USA guy that has a lot of snake oil stories and telling things that he has seen or somebody has heard.
Come with the results from independant trials and not some single socialist "scientist" here and there, that just hates Monsanto.
Come on: we have used glyphosate for 30 years. If it was so terrible as they claim, there should be no worms or insects in our soils and no crops growing.
I can send you a report from INRA in Franche with 14 years of research showing that Conservation Agriculture (with glyphosate) has more biodiversity than organig farming.

 

[SilliamWhale]

Sorry York, you can not catch me in this endless discussion as long as it is concerning people who have seen or observed something terrible about glyphosate.
Here in Denmark we farmers have for centuries been used to have reliable and INDEPENDANT trials and reserch behnd everything we do n the fields.
That means we dont rely on advices from the companies, we have our own farmer owned research organsation with thousands of trials every year (www.seges.dk).
We listen to chemical companies, but we only act from these independant trials and research results.
This is why we use low doses and typically 1/3 of the pesticides that is used in Germany.
So this is why you wont get me on that wagon with this missionary USA guy that has a lot of snake oil stories and telling things that he has seen or somebody has heard.
Come with the results from independant trials and not some single socialist "scientist" here and there, that just hates Monsanto.
Come on: we have used glyphosate for 30 years. If it was so terrible as they claim, there should be no worms or insects in our soils and no crops growing.
I can send you a report from INRA in Franche with 14 years of research showing that Conservation Agriculture (with glyphosate) has more biodiversity than organig farming.

Soren can you expand on how you use less chemicals please? Do you use lower rates or just less frequency?

 

[SorenIlsoe]

Soren can you expand on how you use less chemicals please? Do you use lower rates or just less frequency?

It is mainly low rates compared to the trials and trying to hit the best ECONOMIC bottom line result. We have had political pressure on the pesticide use for more than 20 years and also taxes on all products, and that has led to finding solutions.
For instance we have online web-solutions where you can enter information about crop stage, temperature, weeds size and numbers etc. The system returns solutions for the problem.
For instance is Ally SX normal dose is 15 gr/ha. To kill Chamomile with 3-4 leaves and 11-40 plants/m2 at max. 14. deg.C then 2,03 Gr/ha is enough. It also works on problems including several weeds and the output can be mixes of products.
I can mention trials with different input levels in winter wheat. In the average of 7 trials in 2015 the highest yield was 13,3 t/ha (then every farmer will be happy and tell about it on the pub!), but the best ECONOMIC result was 11,3 t/ha. The high yield plots had 4.517 Dkr/ha in pesticide costs but the other was 870 Dkr/ha. The cost for nitrogen was 3400/1420 Dkr/ha. Economic results after costs was 10.160 Dkr/ha in the low yield plot and only 6.690 Dkr/ha in the high yield plot. Only the suppliers of inputs was happy in the 13,3 t/ha situation (and the farmer without a calculator!), they earned 3.400 Dkr/ha (app. 405 £/ha) more from the yield fascinated farmer.
Every year there is produced app.1000 trials all over the country by the farmers own organization.

 

[SimonD]

Do you have any pictures from the Cross Slot trial plots? Interested to see how the cover crops are post crimper & would be good to compare against the others which didn't have a crimper pass.