True for many simple domestic species, but exotic gardening of foreign trees until they reach the point where they are bearing fruit takes a lot of knowledge on top of sourcing the seeds. How much water? What's the pollination process? Soil chemistry? Fertilization and nutrients? Diseases and pests to manage?

There are a lot of failed gardens out there.

My family owns and operates a farm, wheat and corn, in Kansas. We use Roundup herbicides sometimes.

Specifically, there is a GMO variant of field corn called "Roundup Ready" where the corn is genetically resistant to the herbicide. Plant a field of that corn, then after it emerges but well before harvesting (obviously) spray it with Roundup, diluted to an appropriate level. All of the pest plants in the field die. The corn looks a little wilted / harried for a few days after spraying, but bounces back and grows out just fine.

We use that specific kind (Roundup Ready) about 1 year out of every 4 or 5, only when pest plants are starting to become an issue. They'd love to sell it to farmers every year, but most only rotate it in when necessary, just like us, and use a small amount of normal seed (not GMO, just some of the normal corn we harvest) held in reserve from previous year(s) in the other years.

Before Roundup (and other major herbicides and pesticides), pest plants could be a major problem. From what my family says, corn can cross-pollinate or do some kind of hybridization with other crops like milo or sorghum or something, which results in a sterile cane-stalk plant like corn that produces no actual grain. Back 20+ years ago, that was a fairly major problem ... but it is very easily controlled nowadays with herbicides, and Roundup in particular.

Pure, concentrated Roundup is pretty nasty stuff. Then again, farmers still use or have used a lot of much nastier stuff during normal farm operations, like Malathion being sprinkled into grain bins to kill off insects and other small pests. I wouldn't want to chug down a glass full of any of that crap, BUT on the other hand I think we're way better as the human race off WITH all these things being used to control what can be or have been significantly damaging pests than how things would be WITHOUT them. Not to mention that all of these things are used in very very trace amounts compared to the actual amount of food produced itself, and usually a *really* long time before it becomes food. I think you'd be pretty hard pressed to detect any of them in the parts-per-multi-multi-billion scale by them time we eat them.


...That being said, the dude walked right in to this one. If his message was "this stuff is 100% safe and beneficial if used properly", I'd actually 100% agree with him. But when he's trying to oversell it by saying that it is perfectly safe to drink a glass of it ... of course somebody is going to call his bluff. Duh.

From my investigation, that's incorrect.
The places in China where hand pollination is used still have bees. The reason they do hand pollination is they switched to a very few varieties of apples and pears...and apple and pear trees need a DIFFERENT apple or pear tree to pollinate, so if you only have one apple variety (the norm there) it won't self pollinate, no matter how many bees there are. Also, climate change is putting the bee cycles and the tree cycles out of synch, making natural pollination even more difficult or impossible. By hand pollinating, they are able to have less than 10% 'pollination' trees to 90% 'fruiting' trees, and pollinate on the tree's cycle. THAT'S why production was better with hand pollination, not because people could do it better, but humans could target which pollen to use on which flower/tree. Also, commercial beekeepers won't 'lend' (rent) their hives out, or require high payments for them pricing most farmers out, because farmers there still use pesticides that kill bees through the pollination seasons.

Other areas that used to do hand pollination have stopped thanks to education. Now they plant more variety (so the bees/insects/birds CAN pollinate for them) and use less pesticides (that they actually didn't realize would kill bees) and are getting better yields for less money than the Chinese.

EDIT: These 'studies' always seem to ignore the incalculable cost of removing all the natural food pollinated by bees, and the collapse of many food webs caused by the loss of that food base. If people are spending cash to do the pollination work, you can be certain they'll go to great lengths to NOT share that produce with any wildlife.

Also, human hand pollination doesn't work for crops like certain grains and smaller vegetables and nuts, main human food sources. It only works for foods where a single pollinated flower will produce something worth the cost of pollination...grains simply don't, and neither do most vegetables, fruits, or nuts. Only large fruits or vegetables could use this economically. So while you're correct, it CAN be done, doing it across the board would probably quadruple the cost of average foods, if not worse.

WIKI-" If humans were to replace bees as pollinators in the United States, the annual cost would be estimated to be $90,000,000,000.[4]"

http://www.wired.com/2014/05/will-we-still-have-fruit-if-bees-die-off/

So there is a place in China where the Bee's just left/died out. But there was still the need for something to pollinate Chinese apples/fruits. So without bee's humans turned to...humans. Human pollination turned out to be way better than bee pollination, and production increased 30-40%. So despite what this video said, human's can live, and still have those products that "need" bee pollination. However, hand pollination in the U.S. or in the future will be way more expensive than in China. In fact, in China they're already beginning to experience what might happen when hand pollination gets too expensive.

That all being said, if people really want something, people will figure out a way to get it!

http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2013/12/04/248795791/how-important-is-a-bee

Oh wow. That's awesome.
I gave up on bees after my last hive collapsed, I got foulbrood. That means burning all your hive(s) so you don't re-infect other bees. My bad back means it was getting harder and harder to split the hives and harvest, they're heavy when full of honey and bees so I didn't replace them. This way I could leave them together, never lift anything, and still get honey!
They aren't cheap though. I put my old hives together for about $100 each, $600 is quite a jump for convenience.
I harvested mine with a hot butter knife (no expensive heated electric knife) a cookie sheet, and gravity, so I never had the $4-600 expense of a centrifuge or other harvesting equipment, and never missed a drop. Still, just turning a tap sounds so simple and easy. I still have my suit and smoker, it would be nice to use them and have pollinators for my orchard, but the $.... Decisions decisions.

The December shipping is just right IMO. That gives you time to paint and set them up before spring, the only time of year you can buy bees.

I suppose its a waste of good food, but buying honey is not hurting the honeybee cause, it creates demand for more honey, which means hopefully more people will start beekeeping, which will result in more bees overall. Remember, the problem isnt the lack of honey, but the lack of pollinators, ie: bees.

On a related note, I just ordered a Flow Hive cube(https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/flow-hive-honey-on-tap-directly-from-your-beehive), and cant wait to start my own beekeeping-project

Some *quality flying at 3:50.
Odd to me that they include birds, bees, bats, moths, and butterflies, but leave out flies (unless he mentioned them in the talk, I admit I skipped right to the good stuff). Maybe not as pretty, but flies pollinate many flowers.

@bcglorf
ok.
i guess i could go through all my bookmarks.
correlate all the pertinent information in regards to abuse of sovereign legal systems in order to intimidate local farmers set upon by monsanto.
link watch groups web sites that follow monsanto (and others) in order to illuminate some of their more...egregious abuses.

but that would be based on the presumption i wish to change your mind or convince you of anything.which i am really not interested in at all.

though i was unaware that percy was found guilty of intentionally cross-pollinating.first time i heard that.thats pretty interesting.

Look, I provided a link to a peer-reviewed journal publication showing that Golden Rice is an extremely good source of vitamin A, with one cup providing 50% of the recommended daily amount. I can also provide other citations supporting this claim if you'd like. So, if you have references to actual peer-reviewed scientific research (rather than unfounded claims by anti-GM activists) refuting the efficacy of Golden Rice, let's see them.

As for your claim that the initially free distribution will be rescinded, that seems unlikely. The licenses under which Golden Rice is being distributed explicitly allow farmers to freely save, replant and sell the seeds from their crop for as long as their annual income remains under $10,000. Also, most of the patents relevant to the production of Golden Rice are not internationally valid, so they cannot be used to sue people in third world countries. And all the patents that are internationally valid have been explicitly waived by the patent holders. Is there still some remote possibility that poor farmers will end up getting screwed? I guess. But it seems bizarre to me to just hold up potentially life-saving technology because its possible (though highly unlikely) that it will be used to exploit farmers. Also, I should note that Monstanto does not own Golden Rice. They merely own one of the patents for a process involved in the creation of Golden Rice.

On your third point, Rachel explicitly says "You know that GMO’s actually don’t have higher yields either." It's in the video, at 5:45. Watch it again. So she is claiming quite clearly that they do not produce higher yield, which is false. And it is simply not true that all the research showing higher yield comes from corporations. For instance, see this paper published in Science. The authors do not claim affiliation with any major GM corporation. That's just the tip of the iceberg. There has been volumes of independent research on GMOs.

On your last claim, about monocultures, you are again mistaken. Golden Rice is not a single variety. The International Rice Research Institute (a non-profit, not owned by any major corporation) has created "Golden" versions of hundreds of different rice varieties, so potentially Golden Rice can be as diverse as regular rice. Also, if rice plants are separated by a few feet, then cross-pollination becomes extremely unlikely. Rice is typically self-pollinating. So as long as a small separation is maintained, GM and non-GM crops can be grown in the same location without any significant gene flow between them.

Anyway, gene flow is only a danger if the GM plant has a clear adaptive advantage in its environment (if its pest resistant, e.g.), but that is not the case with Golden Rice, so even with gene flow Golden Rice won't end up dominating non-GM rice evolutionarily.

AWESOME.. nature makes the best tools... we still use bees glued to sticks to pollinate plants in a lab experiment. i was just thinking about removing this type to probe and using it in medicines...

@bcglorf
thanks man.
that was a most excellent reply.

then we are in a fundamental disagreement on the practices of monsanto.
i was under the understanding that percy had been targeted by monsanto because of cross pollination coming from his neighbors farm.which then found its way into his crop.

monsanto claimed the genetic markers gave them property rights and that percy was liable.

maybe i misunderstood.

and most documentaries are trying to make a point and by its very nature will be biased.so i agree with your point there but i cannot agree that monsanto is somehow some benevolent multi-national corporation who has not enacted and used with extreme prejudice an army of lawyers to silence and intimidate those who would speak out against them.

they make scientology look like a bunch of bed wetters.

i guess my main problem,politics and corruption aside,is that we are talking about a basic necessity:food.

you cannot patent life.
if you change the fundamental nature of that life there should be open and transparent study and discussion.
in both of these cases the public is left in the dark and any questions or dissent is met with legal papers.

i mean.who besides a corporation would develop a "suicide gene"?

i am not saying this is a simple issue but the situation does deserve some serious scrutiny.

anyways.thanks for the great response my friend.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

What about specifically creating seeds that are "RoundUp Ready®" which then lets farmers use huge quantities of said herbicide RoundUp™ on their crops with only the RoundUp Ready® seeds surviving. What about those said RoundUp Ready® seeds blowing in the wind and pollinating adjacent farmers' plots. What about Monsanto then suing those adjacent farmers for "patent infringement" and putting them out of business.

GMO may not be bad in itself, but its propagators are fucking evi.

Also, that whole thing at the end about if you explain things too much it become transparent and invisible is complete bull. Just because you can understand something completely doesn't make it invisible or less notable. Just because you know what a flower is made of, how it grows and how it pollinates, doesn't make it any less beautiful.

To be honest, I'm not sure I associate any US regional accents with any particular sophistication. Accents in general tend to be associated with lower classes and fewer opportunities. The educated and well spoken people from any region tend to shed their regional accents. They just tend to cross pollinate more I think. However there are always counter examples to stereotypes, and certainly intelligence (perhaps in contrast to sophistication?) comes in many forms. I do think it's kind of a dumb question though.

>> ^VoodooV:

>> ^spoco2:
@VoodooV ok, you go on believing that you do not hold any prejudices against anyone, and I'll continue trying to remove one I know I have.

Don't strawman. I never claimed to never hold a stereotype or prejudice.
I'm just calling the sift out on their prejudices.

6 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.