The NFU backs gene editing. Do you ?

[delilah]

This is great:
In the interest of balance I thought I would find a pro-GM link. Found the below fb page.
Scroll down the posts for the last month.
They are just putting the same half dozen posts up, over and over again, on repeat.
A case of 'say it often enough and they will believe you' ?

https://www.facebook.com/GmoAnswers

 

[neilo]

my point is has fertiliser, varieties etc (ie “progressive technology “ made us better off ?

or did previous generations who farmed without such product make more in relative terms ?

in my grandfather’s generation entire farms were bought off the back of single good years farming ..... imagine that today !

progress ..... ? for our suppliers yes but not for farm profit

I’m pleased that you think it would be ok to reduce your asset value in that way. Reducing land value back to the point where a good harvest could pay for it is very charitable of you.?
You might need to start by banning rollover and IHT relief to begin with.

 

[Clive]

I’m pleased that you think it would be ok to reduce your asset value in that way. Reducing land value back to the point where a good harvest could pay for it is very charitable of you.?
You might need to start by banning rollover and IHT relief to begin with.

we all know that production values no longer have anything to do with uk land values

land value is all about tax and “safe” investment potential

im not suggesting that rises in land values are wrong but i am saying that tech “advances” have shifted the bulk of the uk nett farm income away from farmers and in to other sectors of the industry

That’s basically what the graph I posted shows

 

[ajd132]

So perhaps Robot tech should be banned so you cant own it and charge all the other farmers for it?
What if Gene editing comes up with crops that don't need fert or sprays? We wouldn't need robot sprayers then.



It might not make you better off (you don't seem to be doing too bad off it though) but fertiliser and sprays have meant we can feed the population. It would seem some on here would prefer for everyone to go hungry so they could charge more, which is a fair one but taken too far I think it would end badly.
Governments have to think about the big picture not just farmers.

Actually more people in the world are fed by subsistence farming. Modern agriculture has made the western population fat, lazy and unhealthy putting more and more strain on health services. All the ‘feed the world’ stuff is just utter bulls**t fed to farmers and the population by the ludicrously powerful chemical, seed and fertiliser industries. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/3-big-myths-about-modern-agriculture1/

 

[Global ovine]

Actually more people in the world are fed by subsistence farming. Modern agriculture has made the western population fat, lazy and unhealthy putting more and more strain on health services. All the ‘feed the world’ stuff is just utter bullpoo fed to farmers and the population by the ludicrously powerful chemical, seed and fertiliser industries. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/3-big-myths-about-modern-agriculture1/

Where subsistence farming exists, so does starvation and low incomes traps exist. Societies reliant upon broad acre cropping and larger scale livestock farming both feed their populations and trade more successfully. Feeding the world is a bullpoo myth accepted by the gullible. Supply and demand drives economies, although subsidies blur the playing field.
As for regenerative agriculture, it only works if soils are degraded, which is not the state of all arable regions. Mismanagement of soils is a relative term dependent upon the unique properties of each soil type and the systems of production.

 

[egbert]

Actually more people in the world are fed by subsistence farming. Modern agriculture has made the western population fat, lazy and unhealthy putting more and more strain on health services. All the ‘feed the world’ stuff is just utter bullpoo fed to farmers and the population by the ludicrously powerful chemical, seed and fertiliser industries. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/3-big-myths-about-modern-agriculture1/

at risk of straying from topic...

humans like living in cities..the bigger the better, and they're ever-growing.
The % being fed by subsistence farming must therefore be shrinking.

I think you'll find the queues of people trying to get into countries where subsistence farming is NOT the norm, are coming from countries where it is.

I'm all for exploring better plant breeding by whatever means, although I'd presume pests/bugs/whatever will evolve just as quickly, and/or some unintended consequence we never thought of will pop up.
I'm with NeilO though...the goal must be perennial starch food plants.
Imagine cereals with the tenacity of nettles!
That'd end the discussion about min-till/DD!

Mind... I know stuff all about pant breeding tech, being a dog and stick livestock farmer with more faith in feral bloodlines than those we've d**ked about with.

 

[delilah]

Where subsistence farming exists, so does starvation

My understanding is that starvation is linked to the political system, not the farming practice, that is in place. Countries with a subsistence agriculture may also have a non-democratic/corrupt political system, it is important to separate out the cause of the starvation.

 

[ajd132]

I'm all for exploring better plant breeding by whatever means, although I'd presume pests/bugs/whatever will evolve just as quickly, and/or some unintended consequence we never thought of will pop up.

That’s what’s been happening for the last 60-70 years in farming anyway, so it’s basically just carrying on the endless treadmill.

 

[ajd132]

My understanding is that starvation is linked to the political system, not the farming practice, that is in place. Countries with a subsistence agriculture may also have a non-democratic/corrupt political system, it is important to separate out the cause of the starvation.

American agribusiness and agri policy causes more famin than weather, plagues of locusts or corrupt governments.

 

[kiwi pom]

Actually more people in the world are fed by subsistence farming. Modern agriculture has made the western population fat, lazy and unhealthy putting more and more s
train on health services. All the ‘feed the world’ stuff is just utter bullpoo fed to farmers and the population by the ludicrously powerful chemical, seed and fertiliser industries. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/3-big-myths-about-modern-agriculture1/

Again you're getting the science mixed up with the way its used, If you've degraded your soils and become too reliant on chemicals or fertiliser that's your mistake as a farmer.
Scientists developing the tech are doing it too try and help solve a problem, in the case of gene editing in agriculture they're trying to help come up with solutions to feed a growing population. How that is then used on farm is up to the farmer not the scientist.
The people involved with Roundup ready corn are not to blame for farmers misusing round up or continuously cropping it in the same paddock every year instead of in a sustainable rotation.

 

[ajd132]

Again you're getting the science mixed up with the way its used, If you've degraded your soils and become too reliant on chemicals or fertiliser that's your mistake as a farmer.
Scientists developing the tech are doing it too try and help solve a problem, in the case of gene editing in agriculture they're trying to help come up with solutions to feed a growing population. How that is then used on farm is up to the farmer not the scientist.
The people involved with Roundup ready corn are not to blame for farmers misusing round up or continuously cropping it in the same paddock every year instead of in a sustainable rotation.

I’m not getting anything mixed up. Why people think scientists are only in it for the greater good is kind of laughable, they are bought just as easy as anyone else. Read ‘altered genes, twister truths’ by Steven druker and ‘chasing the red queen’ by Andy dyer.
the people involved with roundup ready corn new exactly what farmers would do with it and have a business model set up to keep supplying new answers as the old ones fail. Great business model.

 

[shakerator]

That’s what’s been happening for the last 60-70 years in farming anyway, so it’s basically just carrying on the endless treadmill.

do you think life has got worse in that last 60-70 years for most western people ?

 

[ajd132]

do you think life has got worse in that last 60-70 years for most western people ?

Not at all, but it is wildly unsustainable if we carry on the current path

 

[delilah]

https://www.facebook.com/LandWorkersAlliance/posts/3019857058107964

 

[Exfarmer]

You'd think they'd be all for it wouldn't you. The organic groups, soil association etc. But no, not hard to see why, if a plant could be developed that needed no nitrogen or sprays it would finish the industry overnight, no more premium prices for organic. Organic has never really been about saving the planet though, its a multi billion dollar industry that uses clever (often dishonest) marketing.

When the first GM plants came out partly a British invention, the Soil Association were rapturous as it was obvious that a vast amount of chemical inputs would be scrapped.
But then came along some very vociferous organic producers, funded by very wealthy backers, who had realised that placing food on the supermarket shelves which had been grown in the absence of 95% of all those nasties would rapidly destroy the organic producers market.
These backers which included Dupont could see a mutual advantage as there own market would rapidly disappear in facour of Monsanto’s glyphosate. Dupont in particular were worried as they believed at the time, that they had a new chemical family Just coming to market in the Sulphonyl Ureas, which appeared to have the capacity to be able to give a near clear field For nearly all crops just as much as GM tolerant crops could achieve.

 

[Exfarmer]

Gene editing- it's genetic modification however you want to dress it up. Let's not beat around the bush with this.

No it is not adding genes from completely different species. It is about splicing a gene from a wild beta plant into commercial sugar beet to give it instant virus resistance. It could be achieved by breeding perhaps over 20- 30 generations, but this takes a long time editing could mean we see a new variety next year.
strangely in the EU we still allow the irradiation of crop seeds a technology which was in term labelled Frankenstein Mutatating when it was revealed 40 years ago. It had by then been in use for 30+ years and most, if not all barley has it somewhere in its ancestry

 

[Exfarmer]

We should be wary of the claims regarding gene patenting, currently in the UK it is not possible for inventions to be tied up for than 15 years ( I think ) As it obviously takes time for the development to come to the marketplace in reality a manufacturer has 10 years Maximum to make his money before anyone else can wade in .
This may of course change as the US has very different views on this and it is certainly one of the sticking points in negotiations , as US drug manufacturers believe it should be far far longer , in the states it is possibleto extend patent laws protection for 40 years.
There are also other complications for GM crop producers, under UK law the patent will only last until the crop is bred again and a future breeder can take advantage of the last ones advance. Again counter to US law.
Provided we do not adapt our law to give US style protection , anyone in the UK selling a crop with a major advance will have to sell it on its genetic merits and price accordingly and not rely on licence revenue for many years after from other breeders.
Nobody would be forced to buy a spliced SB variety , he will have to cost the danger of virus yellows and its protection cost against the possible damage from a bad outbreak. Just as when you buy the latest wheat variety and look at yield, quality, disease etc.

 

[delilah]

@Exfarmer , you've clearly got a great deal of knowledge on this subject. As I have said earlier in this thread I am undecided.
A question: With gene editing, is there any way in which a farmer using the technology can impact on their neighbour ? It seems to be without question that GM has led to problems beyond the field boundary, herbicide resistance for one. Is there any way in which gene editing can impact on others in the same way ?

 

[Exfarmer]

@Exfarmer , you've clearly got a great deal of knowledge on this subject. As I have said earlier in this thread I am undecided.
A question: With gene editing, is there any way in which a farmer using the technology can impact on their neighbour ? It seems to be without question that GM has led to problems beyond the field boundary, herbicide resistance for one. Is there any way in which gene editing can impact on others in the same way ?

I am no real expert, when the first GM came out , I was very excited at the prospects, growing sugar beet then involved a lot of old technology involving quite nasty sprays and control could be very difficult for some weeds. The possibility of having one spray , roundup far less nasty than products such as Goltix was very attractive.
I did look very closely at this tech and the prospects for the future looked very bright indicating a range of different crops where huge benefits were possible.
we were growing at the time a wide range of crops including apecialist herbs where we were using a lot of hand weeding.
the results in sugar beet were stunning , with very strangely a benefit to both the crop and the wnvironment. In those days we used to hoe regularly and they are very bad news for many reasons, not least the ground nesting birds.
sugar beet and most of the higher value crops we were growing were non flowering plants, so the risk of cross polination was of minimal importance.
I appreciate that crops such as oil seed rape are a different matter at the time there was no question of cereal crops.
we do though have to Be wary about Some of the claims of cross pollination there were suggestions maize had migrated miles which is crazy.
All gene technology should be looked at on its own merits, the case for transferring virus resistance into beet is impossible to argue against, there is no chance this resistance which is already in the environment can escape from the commercial crop, which does not produce seed, however you can be certain that many people will purely on ideological grounds. Whether it will be ok to introduce this hybrid into the line breeding used in crop production.
I have always wondered where the blight resistance in the Sarpo potatoes came from, it is known that the institute was working on GM before the end of the communist era.
Potato blight is of course the number one area which would massively benefit from Gene tchnology

GM has never been responsible for herbicide resistance in weed plants, this has come about by natural selectivity. As soon asfarmers were aware they could control weeds by one spray of Roundup there was economic pressure to reduce rates to minimum. Remember while Roundup was was cheap as chips here, American law forced American growers to pay for Monsanto Roundup at full price, something like 4 times the price of generic glyphosate here.
I seem to remeber there was talk of grower reducing rates to less than 1 litre / ha equevalent
Some weeds which were of no importance in thepast which were resistant to low rates suddenly became far more important and had selected to require even stronger rates.
i was aware as a grower of evening primrose that it has a very high natural tolerance to roundup I suspect there are many other weeds which if only exposed to a litre of glyphosate every year would quickly get out of hand

 

[ollie989898]

No it is not adding genes from completely different species. It is about splicing a gene from a wild beta plant into commercial sugar beet to give it instant virus resistance. It could be achieved by breeding perhaps over 20- 30 generations, but this takes a long time editing could mean we see a new variety next year.
strangely in the EU we still allow the irradiation of crop seeds a technology which was in term labelled Frankenstein Mutatating when it was revealed 40 years ago. It had by then been in use for 30+ years and most, if not all barley has it somewhere in its ancestry

It is genetic modification however you want to dress it up.