The NFU backs gene editing. Do you ?

ajd132

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Suffolk
I’m not against the technology. But be aware resistance happens to GM aswell, many Americans are in the same place as they were twenty years ago. It makes a lot of money for multi nationals, not farmers. Surely we can be clever than this and work out the answers ourselves rather than always buying them in?
 
I’m not against the technology. But be aware resistance happens to GM aswell, many Americans are in the same place as they were twenty years ago. It makes a lot of money for multi nationals, not farmers. Surely we can be clever than this and work out the answers ourselves rather than always buying them in?

If the model for biotech delivery becomes a hybrid seed and you are obliged to use branded aghcem on it it is possible the advantages provided by the traits involved are not really being passed to the grower. You will be, in effect, drilling a crop and being obliged to use a treatment routinely which is hardly in the spirit of integrated pest management and will surely attract opposition from a whole range of people?
 

turbo

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
lincs
I’m not against the technology. But be aware resistance happens to GM aswell, many Americans are in the same place as they were twenty years ago. It makes a lot of money for multi nationals, not farmers. Surely we can be clever than this and work out the answers ourselves rather than always buying them in?
You keep saying that about the technology in the USA but it seems to be working quite well from what I hear,the biggest problem is the ones that are growing roundup ready soybeans and maize in a dd ration in alternate years so any volunteers are not being controlled
 
You keep saying that about the technology in the USA but it seems to be working quite well from what I hear,the biggest problem is the ones that are growing roundup ready soybeans and maize in a dd ration in alternate years so any volunteers are not being controlled

There have been issues relating to Bt crops, so the companies retailing the product have been obliged to begin stacking traits to increase their potency.

Ultimately, there is resistance to roundup developing already in the wild. This demonstrates that any agronomic system relying upon this kind of technology contains an intrinsic weakness as it is relying upon the use of one particular active to function.
 

Cheesehead

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
Kent
I’m not against the technology. But be aware resistance happens to GM aswell, many Americans are in the same place as they were twenty years ago. It makes a lot of money for multi nationals, not farmers. Surely we can be clever than this and work out the answers ourselves rather than always buying them in?
Other countries have in Africa they have used their own scientists to develop a disease resistant Cassava plant where a disease is wiping a lot of it out using gm techniques. It is a crop that in a lot of cases is grown by subsistence farmers which the governments planned to hand out or distribute at the same cost as conventionally grown, it isn't a crop that is sold outside of Africa but due due to pressure from EU who was pressured by those who don't have to worry about starving to scrapping stating that they would have to reconsider buying the cash crops they do if they plant it the same has been seen with golden rice in Asia.
 

ajd132

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Suffolk
If the model for biotech delivery becomes a hybrid seed and you are obliged to use branded aghcem on it it is possible the advantages provided by the traits involved are not really being passed to the grower. You will be, in effect, drilling a crop and being obliged to use a treatment routinely which is hardly in the spirit of integrated pest management and will surely attract opposition from a whole range of people?
I basically see it as the farmer merely becomes an applicator, who takes all the risk and doesn’t need to use his brain. I was invited to a bayer conference last September in Germany, the American farmers there could literally not think of any kind of solution to any of their problems apart from buying it from bayer and basically begging them to come up with new solutions. I was shocked by how reliant upon this stuff they had become. On the contrary there was an Argentinian farmer there who did a speech, he was actually moving away from GM etc to a more regenerative system, but said he would still occasionally use GM seed if he needed to, he was beginning to make more money and find answers to problems himself (I’m not sure why they asked him to speak to be honest!). It was very eye opening. They didn’t manage brainwash me, I fact it pushed me back in the other direction.
 

ajd132

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Suffolk
You keep saying that about the technology in the USA but it seems to be working quite well from what I hear,the biggest problem is the ones that are growing roundup ready soybeans and maize in a dd ration in alternate years so any volunteers are not being controlled
BT cotton aswell. Look into it, don’t just believe what bio-tech companies publish in the farming press.
 

Cheesehead

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
Kent
There have been issues relating to Bt crops, so the companies retailing the product have been obliged to begin stacking traits to increase their potency.

Ultimately, there is resistance to roundup developing already in the wild. This demonstrates that any agronomic system relying upon this kind of technology contains an intrinsic weakness as it is relying upon the use of one particular active to function.
That has already been seen here in both arable and livestock sectors with sprays, wormers and even rat baits where just one product has been used.

I have seen problems over the years where some local farms have just grown wheat and OSR with no other crops used in rotation which has lead to increasing blackgrass problems and clubroot. In the US there are other factors at play in that in a lot of areas their buyers will only take two crops like maize and soya with any other crop they may want to grow having to be shipped 4 to 5 times as far which makes it too costly to grow even if they want to grow other crops.

It doesn't matter what you grow or raise bad practices will always come back to bite you.
 

ajd132

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Suffolk
That has already been seen here in both arable and livestock sectors with sprays, wormers and even rat baits where just one product has been used.

I have seen problems over the years where some local farms have just grown wheat and OSR with no other crops used in rotation which has lead to increasing blackgrass problems and clubroot. In the US there are other factors at play in that in a lot of areas their buyers will only take two crops like maize and soya with any other crop they may want to grow having to be shipped 4 to 5 times as far which makes it too costly to grow even if they want to grow other crops.

It doesn't matter what you grow or raise bad practices will always come back to bite you.
So why do you want to continue this with GM which pushes reductionist agriculture?
 
Location
Cheshire
I basically see it as the farmer merely becomes an applicator, who takes all the risk and doesn’t need to use his brain. I was invited to a bayer conference last September in Germany, the American farmers there could literally not think of any kind of solution to any of their problems apart from buying it from bayer and basically begging them to come up with new solutions. I was shocked by how reliant upon this stuff they had become. On the contrary there was an Argentinian farmer there who did a speech, he was actually moving away from GM etc to a more regenerative system, but said he would still occasionally use GM seed if he needed to, he was beginning to make more money and find answers to problems himself (I’m not sure why they asked him to speak to be honest!). It was very eye opening. They didn’t manage brainwash me, I fact it pushed me back in the other direction.
The Bioscience companies are not investing in conventional chemistry. The new tools will more and more involve crop genetics. Either way these companies are rewarded for producing viable tech. You choose to restrict your options, but the chemistry only options are heading for the history books.
I don’t see the attraction of developing new chemical compounds and testing them for various uses. PDM was a developed as a dye! It’s not clean and precise like genetics. How many chems have been banned due to undesirable side effects?
 

ajd132

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Suffolk
The Bioscience companies are not investing in conventional chemistry. The new tools will more and more involve crop genetics. Either way these companies are rewarded for producing viable tech. You choose to restrict your options, but the chemistry only options are heading for the history books.
I don’t see the attraction of developing new chemical compounds and testing them for various uses. PDM was a developed as a dye! It’s not clean and precise like genetics. How many chems have been banned due to undesirable side effects?
The small bioscience companies will be bought out soon enough. I’m not talking about chemicals anyway I’m talking about genetic traits. The principle is the same, buying answers.
 

Exfarmer

Member
Location
Bury St Edmunds
I would be very suspicious of claims f failure of GM crops. The amount of money pumped into the Anti groups is astonishing and frequently comes from some very unlikely sources.
At one time Gene Watch had 20 times the budget of the Monsanto advertising budget.
in the main it was funded by other chemical companies who were worried that this technology would wipe them out. I am certain it was Dupont who pushed vast sums there way. Then of course there were the usual brigade who have stood in the way of progress ever since the Romans built us roads and sewers.
I am not saying that it does not have its failings and downsides, but the technology has a huge amount to offer and in many cases enable the removal of some rather nasty products of the chemical arsenal in our spray sheds.
Even at the very beginning of the technology Monsanto were warning that to use RR technology exclusively , would dramatically shorten its life.
Bt tech has always come with the stipulation that it must not be planted on more than 80% of the acreage, to discourage pests from becoming immune. ( frequently called out by its detractors, as being to ensure a Healthy supply of pests, to create a need for the continued use of the gene.)
 
Location
Cheshire
The small bioscience companies will be bought out soon enough. I’m not talking about chemicals anyway I’m talking about genetic traits. The principle is the same, buying answers.
Genetic traits are replacing conventional chemistry. You buy answers, just old answers not new answers. The old answers will not be around forever. Stop pretending that you don’t buy answers by thinking old answers are not answers.
 

ajd132

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Suffolk
Genetic traits are replacing conventional chemistry. You buy answers, just old answers not new answers. The old answers will not be around forever. Stop pretending that you don’t buy answers by thinking old answers are not answers.
I think you are completely missing the point. I would like to move away from being completely reliant on large companies to provide answers to me like we have done for many years with chemicals. Which as you say is now failing. Why continue down the same path with genetics? The same will happen and farmers won’t be any better off.
 
Location
Cheshire
How many growers will use some preharvest glyphosate this year to deal with secondary growths. This use could have been lost to the industry if some had had their way.
Unless your soil has stopped growing weeds there is going to be a need for some assistance from time to time.
 

SFI - What % were you taking out of production?

  • 0 %

    Votes: 79 42.5%
  • Up to 25%

    Votes: 65 34.9%
  • 25-50%

    Votes: 30 16.1%
  • 50-75%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 75-100%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 100% I’ve had enough of farming!

    Votes: 6 3.2%

Red Tractor drops launch of green farming scheme amid anger from farmers

  • 1,287
  • 1
As reported in Independent


quote: “Red Tractor has confirmed it is dropping plans to launch its green farming assurance standard in April“

read the TFF thread here: https://thefarmingforum.co.uk/index.php?threads/gfc-was-to-go-ahead-now-not-going-ahead.405234/
Top