Good thing. Now I can for sure know if my food is GMO. I look specifically for food with GMO as I like the environment. Because GMO crops use less fertilizer, and is able to be used under a no till method when other varieties cant, GMO crops are 'better' on the environment.

This post was edited by TheMasterGardener1 on Sun, Mar 10, 13 at 23:32

Yes, I saw that. It will likely turn out to have been the first little hole in the Monsanto dike.

It's a start, but there's still a ways to go. There needs to be state-level (specifically, a large state) movement in order to force major food suppliers to label their goods.

The entire wholesale market for natural foods (including Whole Foods, but it's only a large sliver in the pile) is around 1.66% of the total US food consumption (about $10b out of $600b).

...and that includes "natural" + organic products...

Walmart (and it's other stores, aka Sam's Club) sells nearly 25% of all our food, fwiw. They can force entire industries to rise/fall/change at their will...but what influence will they enact? They bumped the US organic market nearly overnight when they decided to carry organic produce. Farmers scrambled like hell to buy organic-ready land or push for certification on their existing land...existing organic farmers expanded. Walmart can make things happen as much as any state can...probably more-so than any single state.

This post was edited by nc-crn on Sun, Mar 10, 13 at 0:40

That is still some years down the pike, 2018, while Europeans enjoy that labeling now.

GMO food has the same nutrition content as any food. Dont believe me? Take a look at a 'gmo' food product nutritional info.

GMO crops take less fertilizer and fuel to produce. This is a saving of money and better on the environmnet.

It is hard to understand why anyone is against GMO.

The thread linked to below is one example of why someone could be concerned about GMOs.

http://forums2.gardenweb.com/forums/load/organic/msg021056275679.html?9

Also:

"Compared with conventional crops, safe dosage and maximum consumption of roundup ready crops were 1.59 times for soybean and 0.78 times for maize."

Authors: Shun-Xing Li , Li-Hui Chen , Feng-Ying Zheng , and Yan-Cai Li

J. Agric. Food Chem., 2013, 61 (7), pp 1579��"1584

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/jf303962a

Here is a link that might be useful: link to recent American Chemical Society article

Yes. I am not quite sure what is with this "roundup ready" gmo strains. The article is way over my head, but I am wondering how good this could be? Do they even still use gmo crops that grow with pesticides some how? Thats fine that they grow with pestisides, but how do they do it and is it as safe as just applying pestisides with good practice?

This post was edited by TheMasterGardener1 on Sun, Mar 10, 13 at 12:32

GMO herbicide trait crops tolerate herbicides.

In the case of RU-R crops the plants uptake the RU and it stays in the tissues. In the case of 2,4-D crops plants uptake the 2,4-D and convert it to inert substances (the literature is still mostly immature/corporate-held, so the timing is still publicly hazy about how long it takes for conversion).

As far as pesticide GMOs...almost all on the market are various BT insertions. Different types of BT do different things...from nematodes to caterpillars and a few other things.

Humans don't have receptors for BT. The body doesn't know what to do with the proteins. What is known is it's impact on liver/kidneys and other filtering organs is pretty much nothing.

"Products with Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) and synthetic insecticides have been widely used against important vectors of human diseases. However, few studies have addressed the application of these substances on the female reproduction apparatus during pregnancy at doses that do not cause clinical symptoms of intoxication."

"Both insecticides produced similar lesions in the kidneys, liver and lungs and reduced the fertility of rats when administered at sub-lethal doses with no clinical signs of intoxication. Thus, this study suggests that sublethal doses of both insecticides can provide chronic toxicity in humans."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22436576

Here is a link that might be useful: link for above

Interesting. So BT produces kidney lesions in rats, and other things. What are the doses here compared to regular (say, once a month) BT spraying of collards and broccoli in a home garden?

Once again Henry has dragged up some Google research.

It's a sub-lethal dose being discussed in that paper...I mean, that paper summary.

Fwiw, a sub-lethal dose of BT in a mouse would be just under 100,000,000 CFU (colony forming units)...if injected. They can inhale even more...and eat 2,000,000,000,000 CFU and it passes right through their digestive tract with no toxicity.

In humans it's so high that they haven't been able to find it.

The highest of high CFU concentrations you can get is 10,000,000,000 and that's rather rare. Most out on the market is 10,000,000 to 100,000,000 CFU. Try not to shoot up your pet mice with it.

Human tests of 3,000,000,000 CFU have shown nothing via ingestion and inhalation.

...and since Henry demands "proof" for everything even when presenting his "proof" which he occasionally doesn't fully understand or applies to a situation improperly...

Here...I wasted some time looking for a tech sheet for the pesticide. I did a quick check on my numbers and they seem to be in order. I should have said "rats" rather than "mice" though...my bad.

These are the studies that help make MSDS sheets for herbicide/pesticides...

http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/BTtech.pdf

Ya know, it's one thing to present science. It's another thing when you're so sure about your moral/political/whatever belief in something that you're willing to go out and search for things to back up your argument while ignoring all the rest of the data out there.

Here is a link that might be useful: BT technical fact sheet

This post was edited by nc-crn on Sun, Mar 10, 13 at 19:48

First the technical fact sheet states:
"This fact sheet was created in 2000; some of the information may be out-of-date. NPIC is not planning to update this fact sheet."

Second regarding concentrations used. From the complete paper:

"Group I ��" pregnant rats that received a placebo.
Group II ��" pregnant rats that received 18.5 mg of XenTari® WG (1 mg of protein toxin B. thuringiensis subsp. Aizawai)/100 g.
Group III ��" pregnant rats that received 185 mg of XenTari® WG (10 mg of protein toxin)/100 g.
Group IV ��" pregnant rats that received 370 mg of XenTari® WG (20 mg of protein toxin)/100 g."

The results start with: "3.1. Histopathology
The results indicate that both insecticides affected the fertility of the rats and histo-physiology of the kidneys, liver and lungs. The alterations were dose dependent."

H.Kuska comment: scientists look for dose dependent behavior.

"The alterations in the kidneys caused by the biological insecticide reflect the effect of toxins on the immune system through the proliferation of mesangial cells and their infiltration in the tissue. This led to either a reduction or absence of Bowman's spaces, characterizing membranous proliferative glomerulonephritis and thereby reducing the functional capacity of the nephrons. The effect of the Bt toxin on the immune system is reported by Hayakawa et al. (2007), who found that strains of the Bt bacterium stimulated the activation of lymphocytes in human kidney cell cultures. Other studies have also reported histological alterations in Bowman's capsule and the diameter of the glomeruli, leading to a reduction in kidney function in the third-generation offspring of rats fed transgenic corn and Bt toxins during pregnancy and lactation ( Séralini et al., 2007 and Kiliç and Akay, 2008)."

"Studies have also revealed that Bt toxins in mammal liver cell cultures increase the production of lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), which damages the endothelial cells of the sinusoids, leading to dilation of the sinusoidal lumen at doses of approximately 2.0 ng/ml after incubation for 24 and 48 h ( Shimada et al., 2003 and Sun et al., 2001). This may explain the slight increase in the sinusoid spaces in the present study, caused by the ingestion of sub-lethal doses of XenTari® (185 and 370 mg/100 g). Other studies have demonstrated that the insecticide Dipel® (B. thuringiensis var. kurstaki) has the ability to alter the defense behavior of liver cells, induce oxidative stress, stimulate lipid peroxidation through the formation of free radicals and damage the membranes of liver cells in rats, leading to an inflammatory reaction and activity of the Kupffer cells following the administration of the same dose used in the present study ( Shaban et al., 2003 and Ito, 2006)."

There is much more in the full paper that I feel is relative to the topic of this thread, but one can only quote parts of a full paper and stay within the copyright rules.

Here is a link that might be useful: link to full paper

Yeah, I'm not going to run around in circles with you (or rather your Google search engine results) on another thread.

You have absolutely zero interest in lethal/sub-lethal dosing for BT in humans/animals, nor how huge it is, nor what you'll find on the open market sold, nor in relevant research used to create MSDS sheets (which are pretty much gospel)...nor are you interested in any data that may go against your quest du jour.

You're dead set that BT is going to cause kidney/liver/whatever lesions/failure/whatever...no matter the conditions put on the findings. I'm pretty sure that's the only place we're going to get with this based on past threads where I've had to go to war with your Google searches.

Just a quick/hopefully-final rant about BT.

BT is a bacteria class of Bacillus...it's pretty much the most powerful tool in the organic pesticide toolbox since the 1920s. The "Bacillus" part isn't that important...unless you want to make a connection that BT is a close cousin of Anthrax...which would be true, but foolish.

The mode of action for it's pesticide use is pretty much organism specific over a single or small range...meaning, the insect/animal that comes in contact with it has to have the capability to have a negative reaction to the protein or enzymes it develops when a reaction occurs.

There's a reason that BT that works on types of nematodes do nothing to European corn borer...and vice-versa.

...and with all this...there's dosage concerns, such as addressed above...specifically near-lethal dosage.

The CFU content is important because BT is present in "spores" (endospores, precisely). 1 teaspoon of bacteria means nothing unless you know the "spore" content of the product contained in that teaspoon. It's like liquor. Is it a shot of 80 proof bourbon...or is it a shot of 180 proof grain alcohol?

Yes. What nc-crn is saying is- Dose is the ONLY characteristic that makes any compound dangerous or not.

The scientific paper that I cited concluded: ""Both insecticides produced similar lesions in the kidneys, liver and lungs and reduced the fertility of rats when administered at sub-lethal doses with no clinical signs of intoxication. Thus, this study suggests that sublethal doses of both insecticides can provide chronic toxicity in humans."

"toxicity, chronic, n a condition produced after long-term use of a toxic agent."

Please note this is different than "toxicity, acute,
n a condition produced after short-term use of a toxic agent."

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/chronic+toxicity

------------------------------------------------------------------

"It's another thing when you're so sure about your moral/political/whatever belief in something that you're willing to go out and search for things to back up your argument while ignoring all the rest of the data out there."

Well said, nc-crn.

This post was edited by TheMasterGardener1 on Mon, Mar 11, 13 at 17:53

The following was stated: "It's another thing when you're so sure about your moral/political/whatever belief in something that you're willing to go out and search for things to back up your argument while ignoring all the rest of the data out there."
-----------------------------------
H. Kuska comment: This is a forum. If anyone feels that a scientific paper that I "bring up" is not consistent with "all the rest of the data out there." , he/she is welcome to introduce whatever he/she feels is important.

Google Scholar has the very useful feature of citing what more recent papers reference each "hit" that they report.

If one is interested in just "browsing" the botany scientific literature, you may find the following site of interest:

http://www.e-journals.org/botany/

This may be a useful site to introduce your children/grandchildren to in order to interest them in a botany college major.

Here is a link that might be useful: web site for browsing

"This is a forum. If anyone feels that a scientific paper that I "bring up" is not consistent with "all the rest of the data out there." , he/she is welcome to introduce whatever he/she feels is important."

The problem lies with there being no end...no matter what's brought up there's another Google search and another "but, this!"

At the end it's up for others watching the storm rain down to pick apart what's being said and take a message home from that.

It's kind of hard when...in this thread specifically...dosage amounts for rats/human testing is given and it's casually tossed out the window when the point of contention was dosage in the report being criticized to begin with.

It's just not going to be good enough information...it's gonna get tossed aside and another report or side-subject thrown at it. Nevermind what a sub-lethal dosage is...nevermind the commercial available concentrations of BT available or present...nevermind the mode of interaction...nevermind how utterly hard it is to gain these levels through casual contact, field contact, or even intentional ingestion/inhalation...nevermind BT has been in use since the 1920s...nevermind CFU colony counts of one product vs another...nevermind that the fact that something might happens also means it might not happen, though there are things showing what will and has happened.

It's the whole "running around in circles" thing.

Ever hear of "The Art of War?"

...that know "Know your enemy" thing...

One of the best ways to fight against something is to know what you're up against. Taking away from personal issues of "running around in circles" on a message board...if a goal is to lessen the impact and use of GMOs, one of the most important aspects of fighting it would be understanding why it's used, what the people using it know, and why it keeps being used in order to plan a good attack. The whole "2,4-D is Agent Orange!" thing that was popular for a few months is a prime example of this gone wrong. Farmers know what 2,4-D is...before dumping glyphosate all over fields became mega-popular it was one of the most used herbicides in their chemical toolbox. They know it's not Agent Orange...they understand 2,4-D. It's a dead end road to those who are actually going to "2,4-D is Agent Orange!" as a fight against it. It's a dead end to regulators who know exactly what it is and it's history of use. It's as useful of an argument as wanting H2O banned because it makes up a major ingredient in fattening sodas. Bad activism rarely gets anything done in the real world.

The following was stated: "It's kind of hard when...in this thread specifically...dosage amounts for rats/human testing is given and it's casually tossed out the window when the point of contention was dosage in the report being criticized to begin with."
------------------------------------------
H. Kuska comment: Sorry, the above makes no sense to me. I presented the actual quote for the dosages used along with the quote that: "The alterations were dose dependent."

H.Kuska comment: Findings that are dose dependent greatly increases the confidence that there actually is a cause effect dependence observed.

The scientists that did the research selected the dosages used, the reviewers, and the editor approved that the research with those dosages merited the concluding statement: ""Both insecticides produced similar lesions in the kidneys, liver and lungs and reduced the fertility of rats when administered at sub-lethal doses with no clinical signs of intoxication. Thus, this study suggests that sublethal doses of both insecticides can provide chronic toxicity in humans."
----------------------------------------
Also, you locked on the term "sub-lethal dose " as if they used an exact amount that was the MAXIMUM sub-lethal dose : For example, one of your statements was: "Fwiw, a sub-lethal dose of BT in a mouse would be just under 100,000,000 CFU (colony forming units)...if injected."

Their actual statement was: "at sub-lethal doses with no clinical signs of intoxication." i.e. there can exist sub-lethal dosages that exhibit signs of intoxiation, they went to even lower doses than that range.

Another way of looking at this: The definition of sublethal dose is: "a dose of a potentially lethal substance that is not large enough to cause death. "

Please note the definition does not state "Mamimum dose", it states "a dose". So even without the qualifier, your interpretation is incorrect.

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/sublethal+dose

If that was not clear I then, as mentioned above, gave the actual range of dosages used.

Let us look at the 2000 Technical Fact Sheet presented earlier by by nc-crn 7b on Sun, Mar 10, 13 at 19:40.

To be relevant to the paper that I presented it would have to give information about the long term effects.

The paper states: "However, the LD50/LC50 does not reflect any effects from long-term exposure (i.e., cancer, birth defects, or reproductive toxicity) that may occur at levels below those that cause death."
----------------------------------------------------
Please notice the following statement (especially the length and frequency of exposure), since we are considering the possible long term effects of eating gmos. "Exposure: Effects of Bacillus thuringiensis on human health and the environment depend on how much Bacillus thuringiensis is present and the length and frequency of exposure. Effects also depend on the health of a person and/or certain environmental factors."
-----------------------------------
What do they have for possible long term health problems?

animals: "Data are not available from animal studies evaluating the reproductive or teratogenic effects of B.t."
------------------------------------
Humans: "Data are not available from occupational exposure, accidental poisonings, or epidemiological studies regarding the reproductive and developmental effects of B.t."
---------------------------------------
animals: "Data are not available from animal studies evaluating the carcinogenic effects of B.t."
-------------------------------------
Humans: "Data are not available from occupational exposures or epidemiological studies regarding the carcinogenicity of B.t."
-----------------------------------
I recommend the utilization of the Precautionary Principle when there is evidence that there may be some problems
as the paper that I presented does.

The need to use things like BT to prevent wholesale destruction of crops by insects or fungi is a clear indication of the poor state of most crop soils and the general environment (degradation of beneficial habitat).

Put that in your "hooray for modern chemicals and methods pipe" and smoke it, MG.

Any large monoculture crop is going to need pest control.

No "natural buffer" or OM/clay/good-pathogen soil content is going to protect 10-100-1000 acres of monocutlure crop from being a haven.

European corn borer comes from a flying moth. They'll find a proper host plant no matter what's going on with your soil...especially if there's a lot of it. They have no trouble finding my 4-12 tomato plants a year.

ECB is particularly pesky because almost all it's prefered crops are agriculture crops...if it's not corn, they prefer tomatoes, cotton, apples, beans...even wheat and sorghum.

It didn't even exist in the US until the 1910s and it's not going anywhere any time soon. It's a very robust pest that thrives on agriculture, organic or chemical.

This post was edited by nc-crn on Tue, Mar 12, 13 at 16:04

"Any large monoculture crop is going to need pest control."

I think you spotted the primary problem with our food-production system.

Problem or not, it's here to stay barring severe catastrophe.

I'm talking single-season/planting monoculture, btw...not the year-after-year, single crop, no-rotation use of monoculture.

We've been planting like this sometimes/often without crop rotations for many 100s of years (not counting orchards/grapes/etc where it's been going on even longer). Those that don't practice rotations are inviting more pest/disease pressure (or chemical solutions) into their fields, though.

I also interpreted the original statement as monoculture without crop rotation. With proper crop rotation each year, the European corn borer problem should be diminished.

"As you plan, remember that rotation helps prevent some pests but not others. For insects that over-winter near the crop they infested, such as Colorado potato beetle, European corn borer, or flea beetle, it helps to plant host crops as far away as possible the next year."

http://www.uvm.edu/vtvegandberry/factsheets/Crop%20Rotation.pdf

-----------------------------------------------------------
The following was stated: "The need to use things like BT to prevent wholesale destruction of crops by insects or fungi is a clear indication of the poor state of most crop soils and the general environment (degradation of beneficial habitat)."

To apply the above to the European Corn Borer subthread, the following 2 scientific research papers were published by scientists located at The Ohio Agricultural Research & Development Center, The Ohio State University, Wooster, OH 44691.

Title "Soil-fertility management and host preference by European corn borer on Zea mays L.: A comparison of organic and conventional chemical farming"

"It has long been argued by proponents of organic agriculture that crop losses to insects and diseases are reduced by this farming method, and that reduced susceptibility to pests is a reflection of differences in plant health, as mediated by soil-fertility management. These reports although widespread are mostly anecdotal and largely without experimental foundation. In this study, the effects of two parameters of soil fertility on the host-preference behavior of an insect pest were measured: (1) the immediate effect of organic vs. inorganic fertilizers and (2) the long-term effect of soil-management history. Soils were collected from three pairs of neighbouring farms, each pair matched for soil type and comprising organic and conventional chemical production systems. Each soil was potted and amended with mineral fertilizers, animal manures, or left amended. After planting the amended soils with maize (Zea mays L.) in a greenhouse, European corn borer females (ECB), Ostrinia nubilalis (Hübner), were released to determine egg-laying preferences. For each of the three farm comparisons, there was a significantly higher level of ECB oviposition on plants in conventional soil. In two comparisons, there was also a significant amendment effect; however, the specific fertilizers leading to greater egg laying were not consistent among farm comparisons. Thus, the form of the fertilizer did not have consistent effects on maize susceptibility to ECB, but soil-management history did. Moreover, there was significant variation in egg laying among fertilizer treatments within the conventionally managed soil, but for plants in the organic soils, egg laying was uniformly low. Pooling results across all three comparisons, variance in egg laying was about 18 times higher among plants in conventional soil than among plants in organic soil. It is suggested that this difference is evidence for a form of biological buffering characteristic of organically managed soils. Also significant, ECB ovipositional preference did not correlate with plant biomass. Thus, these results suggest that soil-management practices can significantly affect the susceptibility of crops to pests, and do so without adversely affecting plant productivity."
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0167880995006400
-----------------------------------
Also:
Title: "Soil-management history and host preference by Ostrinia nubilalis: Evidence for plant mineral balance mediating insect-plant interactions "
"Abstract: Organic-farming practitioners have long suggested that maximizing soil biotic activity results in crops of reduced susceptibility to pests. In the current study, we examined the ovipositional preference of Ostrinia nubilalis (Hubner), the European corn borer, on sweet corn grown in the greenhouse using soils from neighboring organic and conventional farms and fertilized with NH4NO3, cow-manure compost, or left unamended. In addition to ovipositional preference, we compared photosynthetic potential, leaf-mineral profiles, and biochemical profiles measured by near-infrared (NIR) spectroscopy. Significant variation in O. nubilalis oviposition among fertilizer treatments was measured for plants in conventional soil, but not for those in organic soil. Photosynthetic parameters, notably net photosynthesis and stomatal conductance, correlated strongly with plant biomass accumulation, but no correlations with O. nubilalis preference were detected. In contrast, a quadratic model of 3 leaf-mineral levels (Zn, Al, and N) showed a strong relationship with O. nubilalis oviposition (adjusted r(2) = 0.71); plant growth was best described by a quadratic model of N alone (adjusted r(2) = 0.69). The greatest differences in NIR spectra were caused by protein, and soil-fertilizer combinations producing the lowest protein levels were those whose plants received the greatest number of 0. nubilalis eggs. We suggest that differences in corn acceptibility to 0. nubilalis is at least in part mediated by plant mineral balance, which incorporates both absolute levels and ratios of minerals, and that an optimal balance of these minerals is more likely to occur in organically managed soil because of an inherent property of reducing variation in mineral availability in those soils."

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/esa/envent/1996/00000025/00000006/art00011
---------------------------------

Preference is neat when given a choice.

The moth larvae live/overwinter in field/feeding margins + stalk litter and lay eggs based on convenience. The ones thriving in the corn rarely get a lifespan long enough to live unless they live in the stalks or move to near-by crop residues before ear harvest.

Every system, organic or conventional will have them nearby...good soil or bad.

They're not going to fly 5 miles down the road to lay eggs on that 100 acres of corn if there's 100 acres of corn right next to them, no matter the preference. If your acreage bumps next to another farm also growing corn (hopefully the same kind or tasseling at different times to prevent pollen contamination) then one field might be preferred over another, though.

Though the major impact to the farmer is the harvestable cob, the moth laying eggs only cares about leaf material (the larvae will feed off any part of the plant, though). In warmer areas where they show up early, the earlier plant infestation can harm the development of ears, though. Management is different depending on the area in this case.

If you're in an area with little to no natural buffers, such as desert grown corn...urban areas...etc...you can play the enhanced soil health issue for an advantage (as well as rotations and surface residue management), too.

The size of your plot, the amount of buffer/litter area, your very immediate crop growing neighbors, residue management, and your location in the world plays a lot in ECB aside from soil health.

A popular point of non-GMO breeding is the development/choice of corn that produces highly husk-tight ears. The larvae tend to avoid entering them from the top (very common way of entering through the silks) and tend to feed on the stalk instead. The damage to the stalk, depending on time of year, usually isn't a disadvantage to the crop harvest, though it doesn't do much for continuous pest control over the years.

For those that don't want to use any pest control, getting the stalks out of the field is very important. But...especially in very large acreage cropping systems that don't grow winter/cover crops...leaving stalk matter in the field is part of soil maintenance. It's a tradeoff in weak infestation years to leave the stalks in ground in order to lessen soil erosion + add OM...vs stronger years where you need to get the stalks out of the fields and ground up (or moved away from your fields).

BT isn't always used in cropping systems, but it's an extremely popular choice for organic farmers growing large acreage crops. The use of pheromone traps + monitoring to signal the emergence of the moths (which only show up to lay eggs) is usually how the farmer knows it's time to apply the BT (or other chemical if not using an organic system).

This post was edited by nc-crn on Wed, Mar 13, 13 at 1:15

But, NC, where is your data?

We none of us probably know of specific cases where someone has a well-mineralized field directly abutting another one with typically degraded soil life and infested by a certain pest, and then grown a vulnerable crop and then carefully noted egg-laying patterns, etc.

Another thing is that many if not most organically-operated fields are nearly as deficient as conventional ones, even if they do generally have higher SOM. This is because of the use of manure and compost itself typically lacking some traces leads eventually to very low levels of those traces in the field. Liebig's Law comes into play, and insect vulnerability is a major indicator of that as well as a major problem.

One aspect that has been omitted in this discussion is that plants have the ability to fight off insects themselves. For example for aphids on roses, the following has been reported:
"Title: DYNAMIC ASPECTS OF THE CHEMICAL RELATION BETWEEN THE ROSE APHID MACROSIPHUM-ROSAE AND ROSE BUDS
Author: MILES P W

Author affiliation: WAITE AGRIC. RES. INST., UNIV. ADELAIDE, ADELAIDE, S. AUST.

Published in: Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, volumn 37, pages 129-136, (1985).

Abstract: "Dynamic aspects of the chemical relation between the rose aphid [Macrosiphum rosae] and rose buds.In warm weather, M. rosae (L.) walks off buds of hybrid tea roses during a critical period coinciding with the opening of the sepals. This behavior could not be related to histologically detectable barriers to feeding, nor to changes in the water content of the tissues or in their composition with respect to total soluble carbohydrate, amino nitrogen or phenolic compounds; major changes in tissue chemistry, effected by spraying the bushes with urea, did not affect the time at which the aphids left the buds. Tissue sap expressed from stems and sepals showed a significant increase in catechin content after, rather than during, the critical period. Once expressed, however, sap from buds at the critical stage showed a sharp in vitro rise in catechin content over a few hours, up to levels approximating those against which the insects discriminated in choice tests. The insects could well be sensitive to a developing capacity of tissue to accumulated catechin, possibly in response to their feeding activity."

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1570-7458.1985.tb03463.x/abstract

---------------------------------------------
For the European Corn Borer scientists have been able to find compounds that maize produces to defend itself. For example (this is just a sampling):
-----------------------------------------

"A diallel set of 11 inbreds of maize, Zea mays L., was used to study the concentration of 2,4-dihydroxy-7-methoxy- 2H-l,4-benzoxazin-3 (4H)-one (DIMBOA) in the whorl tissue and the resistance to leaf feeding by firstbrood European corn borers, Ostrinia nubilalis (Hubner). The correlation between concentration of the chemical in the plant tissues and level of resistance to leaf feeding by the first-brood borer was highly significant statistically for the inbreds (r = −0.89**) and the single crosses (r = −0.74**). Also, effects due to general and specific combining ability were highly significant for both traits, but general combining ability accounted for 84% of the variation in the resistance ratings and for 91% of the variation due to concentration of DIMBOA. These results provide further evidence that DIMBOA is a chemical factor in the resistance of maize to the European corn borer and that an objective chemical analysis for DIMBOA in the whorl portion of the maize plant can serve as an indicator of resistance to leaf feeding by the first-brood European corn borer and possibly eliminate the visual resistance ratings.

https://www.crops.org/publications/cs/abstracts/10/1/CS0100010087
------------------------
A nonpreference mechanism of resistance, as indicated by larval movement off the host plant, plays an impor tant role in the resistance of dent corn, Zea mays L., to leaf feeding by Ostrinia nubilalis (Hübner). When compared with the other inbred lines, the high level of leaffeeding resistance found in the inbred line, CI31A, can be attributcd to its increased level of non preference. Whorl concentrations of 2-hydroxy-7-methoxy-2H.1, 4-benzoxazin-3 (4H) one (HMBOA) and 2,4-dihydroxy-7- methoxy-2H-I, 4-benzoxazin-3(4H) -one (DIMBOA) were significantly different between inbred lines. The data indicate that DIMBOA is a primary chemical factor in the expression of non preference. "

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/esa/jee/1978/00000071/00000003/art00020
----------------------------------
Title: "Role of natural benzoxazinones in the survival strategy of plants"

Benzoxazinoid acetal glucosides are a unique class of natural products abundant in Gramineae, including the major agricultural crops maize, wheat, and rye. These secondary metabolites are also found in several dicotyledonous species. Benzoxazinoids serve as important factors of host plant resistance against microbial diseases and insects and as allelochemicals and endogenous ligands. Interdisciplinary investigations by biologists, biochemists, and chemists are stimulated by the intention to make agricultural use of the benzoxazinones as natural pesticides. These natural products are not only constituents of a plant defense system but also part of an active allelochemical system used in the competition with other plants. This review covers biological and chemical aspects of benzoxazinone research over the last decade with special emphasis on recent advances in the elucidation of the biosynthetic pathway."

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0074769600980082
------------------------------------------
"Maize and a variety of other plant species release volatile compounds in response to herbivore attack that serve as chemical cues to signal natural enemies of the feeding herbivore. N-(17-hydroxylinolenoyl)-l-glutamine is an elicitor component that has been isolated and chemically characterized from the regurgitant of the herbivore-pest beet armyworm. This fatty acid derivative, referred to as volicitin, triggers the synthesis and release of volatile components, including terpenoids and indole in maize. Here we report on a previously unidentified enzyme, indole-3-glycerol phosphate lyase (IGL), that catalyzes the formation of free indole and is selectively activated by volicitin. IGL's enzymatic properties are similar to BX1, a maize enzyme that serves as the entry point to the secondary defense metabolites DIBOA and DIMBOA. Gene-sequence analysis indicates that Igl and Bx1 are evolutionarily related to the tryptophan synthase alpha subunit. "
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/26/14801.short
----------------------------------

What a coincidence, this appeared today about plants defense system against insects.

Title: "Pest trade-offs in technology: reduced damage by caterpillars in Bt cotton benefits aphids"

http://phys.org/news/2013-03-indirect-side-effects-cultivation-genetically.html

Here is a link that might be useful: Pest trade-offs in technology: reduced damage by caterpillars in Bt cotton benefits aphids

Pnbrown,

Perhaps all the farmers should spread "azomite trace elements" over their fields....

This post was edited by TheMasterGardener1 on Wed, Mar 13, 13 at 13:36

"But, NC, where is your data? "

15+ years of crop science study + work.

The life cycle, mating habits, crop preferences, field margins, etc of ECB would require a few Google searches and links.

I dunno where I'd find something to link about the corn breeding of tight husk varieties, but I'm sure it's out there.

The use of BT by organic farmers for a preferred treatment of ECB larvae is probably on more than a few sites...crop litter data, too, especially about the stalks.

This is just stuff I know because it's what I do and the many many many farmers I've worked with other the years (not just GMO preferring farmers). Corn and soy in large cropping systems is my day-to-day.

The average large scale farmer out there in large cropping systems is managing 100s-1000+ acres. I'm "on the ground and in the trenches" with them.

Okay, Henry...you've gone an another Google mission and came back with some trophies.

Here's the thing, though. Go talk to some farmers...organic or conventional...especially in Northern Texas if possible...and see how many notice no (or few) ECB showing up in their fields because of natural plant protections. Not every farmer needs to use a BT protection, especially in some cooler/northern states because the plant is at/near harvestable cob by the time the moths lay eggs or it's not a heavy showing that season. A lot depends on the seasonal patterns and distribution. It can be skewed even more by how well a farmer takes care of his/her field residues, their field margins, and what their neighbors are doing if the bump up against each other with agricultural crops...and yes, evidently soil health if there's another feeding ground nearby.

If I apply SPF 10 sunscreen I'm going to have some sun protection, but that won't keep me from being sunburnt if I'm out in the sun all day.

Take roses for instance...since it ties into one of your links and people are more commonly familiar with rose gardens than 100-1000+ acre cropping systems. The "aphid resistant rose" would be in many gardens if it's natural protection was as large as the natural deterrents it's produced.

Btw, much of this research isn't done to ween people off herbicides/pesticides...it's done to identify compounds for future concentrated herbicide/pesticide products.

A GMO-tolerant herbicide crop being worked on right now (years away) is based on Callisto. Callisto was discovered because of a researcher who noticed the lack of weeds (especially broad leaf) growing under red bottle brush trees. Research identified the chemical that was leading to this natural resistance/herbicide-action and once identified it was synthesized...and now we have Callisto.

This post was edited by nc-crn on Wed, Mar 13, 13 at 15:17

"Perhaps all the farmers should spread "azomite trace elements" over their fields...."

No perhaps about it, MG. Spreading those sorts of best possible rock dusts is not only a very good idea but is about the only thing we could do at this point to salvage large-scale agriculture as well as ultimately and maybe even slow down GW.

NC, you have a lot of experience with pests and crops suffering various weaknesses. When would you have found a farmer managing 100's or 1000's of acres that are well-mineralized? You wouldn't, because there is no possible profit in it. It's only something that would benefit eaters, and the environments in question.

So, as I have said before, the solution is for eaters to be growers.

"When would you have found a farmer managing 100's or 1000's of acres that are well-mineralized?"

It depends on what you mean. Well, I imagine what you mean, but you're right...aside from crop specific needs, very few large acreage farms are going to add nutrients plants don't need for the heck of it (or residual effects that cost more vs other control methods).

"So, as I have said before, the solution is for eaters to be growers."

I also agree with this, and I grow a good amount of veggies, myself.

That said, there's a huge world (and US population) out there that has no interest in this. They're going to buy their food. If I had a dollar for every seed/seedling/plant I've given to someone who actually wants to grow some of their own food...yet checked months later only to find out the plant didn't make it via neglect/ignorance...well, I'd have a lot of dollars. ...and these are people who at least have a passing interest in growing their own food.

If places like McDonalds "grew their own" then you'd find the same large-scale agriculture taking place to feed their supply needs.

Also, even if I wanted to grow all my food...I'd have to cut out many grains (corn/wheat/etc) because I don't have the room for it. If I truly had to live off my food, I'd have to make other choices at the expense of toms/peppers/etc like adding much more potatoes/sweet potatoes to my home grown crops. I depend a lot of large scale growing operations to provide many of my current food choices...so do a lot of people.

One day I'll have a 1/2-1 acre+ backyard... I look forward to it...so does my wife.

nc-crn I look at the scientific literature to back up and extend what I mainly was introduced to in family farming discussions. My father taught agriculture at the high school level (B.S. 1921, University of Nebraska, his degree was delayed by World War 1). We owned an eastern Nebraska farm until somewhere in the 1970s shortly before his death.

One of my Uncles was Val Kuska:

http://home.roadrunner.com/~kuska/valkuska.htm

Another Uncle was Joe Kuska:

http://home.roadrunner.com/~kuska/Joe%20Kuska.htm

The other 2 uncles had also studied agriculture at the University of Nebraska. One, became a Nebraska farmer (he was the oldest and obtained a certificate), the other obtained the B.S. in agriculture and was a Nebraska agricultural agent.

My grandfather Anton Kuska came to farm eastern Nebraska in 1881, He recognized that the western european grains were not suited for the plains. Two of my uncles traveled to eastern europe to study their methods and to bring back their grains: From my grandfather's obituary: " Mr. Kuska was one of those progressive pioneers from across the sea who came West to build these plains into the vast agricultural empire that it has become. The country was new. New crops and new methods had to be adapted to the new conditions. He planted trees, shade trees and fruit trees of many varieties. The two-acre orchard painstakingly planted and cared for and watered with numberless barrels of water to supplement the scanty rainfall during the droughts of the early days was for years a sight to behold -- the stately trees, laden with fruit, in a lawn of blue grass. Until a few years ago one could see on this farm remnant plants of the first alfalfa field in the vicinity planted by him over a half century ago. The alfalfa long withstood the encroachment from an adjoining field on this farm of the now widely grown brome grass which was planted as a new crop in the community at the turn of the century. Kherson oats, Sudan grass, and Kanred wheat, among others found their pioneer home in this community on this farm. These newcomers were welcome and carefully nurtured."

I also have/had a number of cousins who are, or were before retirement or death, farmers.
---------------------------------------------
One of my main points is that Nature (in this case agriculture) is complex. We have to understand the complexity, as much as possible, in order to make decisions that will be positive for future generations.
---------------------------------------------

Interesting history, Henry. I found other references to your uncles in various publications about nebraska and kansas. I imagine your uncle Joe saw the dust bowl up close.

What do you think of the supposition that the great plains should not have been subjected to vast-scale agriculture and have now been repelling the population for the past two or three decades after the great build up during the time your grandfather came over? Soil and water conservation are good, finding and developing best-suited varieties is sensible in all cases, but if an environment is overly fragile for a particular paradigm of usage, then that environment must become hostile for the population trying to live there.

Henry, I'm not questioning your credentials or your family's credentials. I'm questioning your circle-running of Google search articles for things you want to prove...and how you use some of them. While you seem to have a mind for science, your application of certain paper's topics to what you're trying to prove can be lacking. The "discussion" about the economics of large acreage farming and farmer choice burnt me out. I'm not getting into any more of that stuff...it's a never-ending circle.

I understand nature is complex... I spend my personal and professional life studying it. I know large scale cropping systems, specialized hybridizing (CMS/etc), plant breeding, genetics, and the economics of cropping system especially...I also know soil science (another degree I hold), but I don't get to apply it that much in my profession.

Just because I know about "science" things...it doesn't make me an expert or knowledgeable about nuclear reactions in power plants or making new elements from atomic super collider reactions. The field of science is just too broad in scope. Hell, even close fields aren't the best of neighbors. Ecologists and Horticulturalists share some similar/same terms, but the final definition is going to be different depending on which one you ask. I'm not out there trying to have a discussion/argument on the best way to raise hostas...because other than micropropagating them, I know jack about them. Expects have to specialize at some point. I know what I'm an expert at and where I'm lacking. You gotta draw that line, especially when you're diving into material you don't fully grasp.

I chose a profession which puts me on the ground floor of the industry, and on the cutting edge of the technology (both GMO and non-GMO).

This industry goes on without me...it happens independent of me...farmers don't care if I exist. What's going on out there doesn't care what I think. What's going on out there is what I'm exposed to on a daily/weekly basis, though. No one's wishes can make the reality of the decisions made on the ground different. It's happening whether people want to believe it or not.

I've been in fields in almost 20 states, I've seen/gathered/crunched-numbers of pest data, I've used the pesticides/herbicides, I've grown the plants in greenhouse and field environments, I've talked so many farmers in so many different climates...

Sorry, I can't give you their phone number and I'm not going to play Google search tag (because it never ends). If you choose to dismiss the things I say, fine. Wishes and hopes don't change what's going down on the ground floor of this particular field (or many fields).

This post was edited by nc-crn on Wed, Mar 13, 13 at 20:30

I should also note that I'm here trying to share information about the industry while shielding my identity. I am not a high roller or someone who's name appears on too many studies.

While I'm not giving away trade secrets, my boss(es) wouldn't be too happy about me spreading info around about some of the things I talk about...such as the importance of activists focusing on labeling...or where the development timelines are on certain GMO projects.

I'm not sure being a specialist necessarily means the broader arena one works in won't change, maybe even very rapidly.

It doesn't mean nothing will change...that's why I (and my peers) keep up with what's going on and what's in the pipeline. I read a -lot- of research...more than I do, myself, or what's done in-house where I'm paid to work.

Agriculture is a rather interesting field of research.

When I first got into this industry, GMO didn't exist outside of the lab and research plots, though it was "on the horizon."

Many people, especially on the organic board, are probably familiar with the "miracle juice" sellers that have these secretive, magically ambiguous organic serums you spray/drench into your garden where the sellers don't tell you much about what's in it, but plenty about the awesome things it'll help happen... As an aside, I hope many people coming here are learning how to make their own "miracle" concoctions rather than paying a ton for them.

Well, the horticulture industry works side-by-side a whole lot.

Monstanto, Syngenta, Dupont, etc...they share a lot of research and technology. Granted, a lot of that is licensed technology expanding revenues at the expense of competitive advantage...but there's a lot of cross evaluation of products and research going on. That's before you get to 3rd party evaluations and industry competitions/trials. A lot of stuff...GMOs and non-GMO hybrids...are grown out in competitive nature in many regions/states in order to find a "winner" that these organizations will recommend to farmers.

It's a weird industry in some respects...as much technology is on the line, there's still a bit of "county fair" wrapped up in cutting through the PR and getting down to what really works in an area.

A line of corn/soy/cotton/etc that could be "king" one year could be an after-thought 5 years down the road...hybrid or GMO. Things move much more faster now. Legacy hybrids that farmers fall in love with for a few years get replaced/updated so much more quickly now...even the stuff totally absent from the realm of GMO.

pnbrown mentioned, " if an environment is overly fragile for a particular paradigm of usage, then that environment must become hostile for the population trying to live there."

H.Kuska: I have not heard it stated exactly like that, but I have heard suggestions that that the Kansas, Nebraska area should have restrictions on agricultural irrigation due to Ogallala Aquifer ( High Plains Aquifer) depletion.

Title: "Conserving and extending the useful life of the largest aquifer in North America: the future of the High Plains/Ogallala aquifer."

"The water-level decline of the High Plains/Ogallala aquifer is one of the largest water management concerns in the United States. The economy and livelihood of people living in that vast region depend almost exclusively on water extracted from that aquifer. A debate about its future is ongoing, and questions remain as to how best to conserve the groundwater resource. Maintaining the aquifer will require reductions in pumping and irrigated hectarage and adopting additional conservation measures. Eventually, the agricultural system will have to be based dominantly on the renewable water resources of the region. In effect, this means a limited-irrigation and/or dry-farming regime. What Kansas is currently doing to further extend the life of the aquifer is presented here together with additional measures that could be taken. A key management approach to help sustain the aquifer in western Kansas is to divide the aquifer into subunits on which to base localized management decisions. Another recently adopted measure is the establishment of local enhanced management areas, which would allow locally agreed upon specific corrective controls in those areas. History has shown that incentive and voluntary plans alone have not been successful in halting water-level declines. Thus, limits and timelines need to be set and checks must be in place to enforce strict administration of conservation measures. It is advocated that water laws be reformed and modernized so that "water rights" are constrained by the current availability of water and the preservation of the resource base for future generations."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22823563

And, who knows how severe the effects of global warming will be on the region. History has shown us the effects that climate change can have on once good agriculture areas.

Here is a link that might be useful: Conserving and extending the useful life of the largest aquifer in North America: the future of the High Plains/Ogallala aquifer.

Henry, from your paste:

"Eventually, the agricultural system will have to be based dominantly on the renewable water resources of the region. In effect, this means a limited-irrigation and/or dry-farming regime."

I could not agree more, and not only for the Great Plains region. Dry-farming is never easy, even here in a relatively damp climate. Even so, the areas turned over to croppage should always be limited. IMO, north america should cease to export food commodities and should get its internal affairs in order. The eastern half should take advantage of its precipitation to produce a lot more food, in conjuction with abundant mineral resources from the western half, which would allow the latter to reduce the pressure on it's more fragile environment.

As NC has mentioned before, the great advances in cultivar breeding of crops could be a big help in a major shift such as that.

The following was stated: "As NC has mentioned before, the great advances in cultivar breeding of crops could be a big help in a major shift such as that."

H.Kuska comment: I have no problem with that statement. The problem is in the implementation with the insertion of genes extracted from Bt into food crops. Even the reference MSDS that was presented clearly stated had Bt had not been subjected to testing for long term health problems. One can say that we are being used as "beta testers".

"Here is the present (2012) "opinion" of the The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). It is the keystone of European Union (EU) risk assessment regarding food and feed safety. In close collaboration with national authorities and in open consultation with its stakeholders, EFSA provides independent scientific advice and clear communication on existing and emerging risks.

"While addressing question two of the mandate, the EFSA GMO Panel compared the hazards associated with plants produced by cisgenesis and intragenesis with those obtained by either conventional plant breeding techniques or by transgenesis. The Panel concludes that similar hazards can be associated with cisgenic and conventionally bred plants, while novel hazards can be associated with intragenic and transgenic plants. The Panel is of the opinion that all of these breeding methods can produce variable frequencies and severities of unintended effects. The frequency of unintended changes may differ between breeding techniques and their occurrence cannot be predicted and needs to be assessed case by case. Independent of the breeding method, undesirable phenotypes are generally removed during selection and testing programmes by breeders. The risks to human and animal health and the environment will depend on exposure factors such as the extent to which the plant is cultivated and consumed."

http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/2561.htm

Here is a link that might be useful: How should food breeding be done?

nc,

Yes there is a bunch of "magic" organic products out there. It is good to learn how to make compost and good soil management.

To plants, inorganic nutrition is life....

Thats why it goes against science to say "organic" food is healthier.

This post was edited by TheMasterGardener1 on Thu, Mar 14, 13 at 15:11

Empirical evidence is "against science", MG? I think maybe you are the one who is unscientific.

The USDA's own long-ongoing testing of nutritional levels in produce shows clearly that those levels have steadily declined since the testing began many years ago. They refuse to draw any conclusions from that, because bureaucrats are not scientists.