3car
Active member
Tough to argue with this??
genetically alter grains
- Thread starter Miforester
- Start date
Tough to argue with this??
Really? Gas is cheap... corn is cheap... you act like it's costing you money. Also there are numerous byproducts still usable for other things. Try doing anything in your life without a product of corn or soybeans in it.
Everything is cylical in the market if corn were 7$ and a drought I would be all for lowering ethanol usage short term. As of right now we have surplus why not use it accordingly?
Crossing shot
New member
You said we had no choice but to use GMOs. That is not true.
3car
Active member
I think your taking my comment out of context cause I should have multi-quoted. I agree with crossing shots comment. I hear all the time how are we going to feed the world. I get it but I think one step would be not to fuel our cars with food. Oil does that and a lot more efficient than Ethanol does.
I agree there are benefits to Ethanol, I am directly affected positively by ethanol but can you agree there are also detriments to Ethanol?? I hope so cause your on a upland bird forum...
You have no choice if you want to feed the world
You took my statement out of context.
Also show me a study that proves non gmo or organic is better for upland habitat.
Yes farming has soaked up crp acres but in 2016 my county enrolled the most acres since 1988... it's cyclical folks.
If I told you that corn can be grown without GMO or commercial fertilizer, still yield 25% over county average at a cost of $ 1.42 per bushel would you like to know how that is done?
Miforester
Well-known member
Petrey and Haymaker I have enjoyed reading your thoughts on this topic. My original post wasn't to debated whether or not GMO's were safe for consumption by us or wildlife. It was more at what are the impacts of the trade offs when comparing non to GMO's crops. Does wildlife get the same bang for the buck with GMO's when compared to non GMO's? I don't know hence the thread. I have experience with GMO's tree seedlings and there is a trade off when comparing to non GMO's. In the end it comes down to dollars and cents, higher initial planting cost, but lower intermediate with great final product.
Ag runs the world from feeding to sheltering our population, farming and forestry are pretty much the same except for scale and rotation of the crops. Farmers clearcut their crops annually we do it 40 years or longer depending on species. Take away Ag products and their by products and we would be back in the Stone Age. A good reason why forestry and farming is governed by department of Ag.
We are no longer permitted to plant GMO's on state owned (Michigan) land even though they might return a better product for not only wood fiber but for wildlife too. It seems that we are in a point in our society where it's either way right or left when we really need a happy medium.
Habitat will always be the greatest factor in bird numbers but coupled with that is the quality of food to forage and nutrients found within the soils. Both of you have hit on these last to points very well. Nothing new to you guys but often over looked by many.
Again I appreciate your discussion/debate, wish I could add to it but I'm a forester not a farmer. Continue the good work you are doing on the land.
Ag runs the world from feeding to sheltering our population, farming and forestry are pretty much the same except for scale and rotation of the crops. Farmers clearcut their crops annually we do it 40 years or longer depending on species. Take away Ag products and their by products and we would be back in the Stone Age. A good reason why forestry and farming is governed by department of Ag.
We are no longer permitted to plant GMO's on state owned (Michigan) land even though they might return a better product for not only wood fiber but for wildlife too. It seems that we are in a point in our society where it's either way right or left when we really need a happy medium.
Habitat will always be the greatest factor in bird numbers but coupled with that is the quality of food to forage and nutrients found within the soils. Both of you have hit on these last to points very well. Nothing new to you guys but often over looked by many.
Again I appreciate your discussion/debate, wish I could add to it but I'm a forester not a farmer. Continue the good work you are doing on the land.
Last edited:
Montana Husker
Banned
Well, lets think about GMO seed, it is to be roundup resistant, correct? Roundup kills weeds, grass, which wildlife can utilize. I am not against GMO, just stating what it was engineered to do. Lots of people across the world are benefiting from it's use. As for the attacks on ethanol, corn is a renewable resource, that is a big plus. Provides a broader market to U.S. farmers....err...producers....hell, a farmer can be a producer too!
Miforester
Well-known member
Fords first car ran on ethanol, farmers are producers they fuel the world with their crops. I'm biased would rather see wood based biofuels, but mainly want a viable alternative which at this point wood isn't, in my opinion.
GMO has gone beyond being resistant to glyphosate. In corn it can kill insects such as corn borers and root worms. What does that do to beneficial insects? I do not know but I am seeing less need for such things as I work on things like soil health and holistic planning. If you turn a herd of cows that is half GMO for insects known as bt and half non bt, the cows will eat the non bt first.
3car
Active member
With how corn is produced, I disagree. I help with harvest and have helped with planting. We burn thousands of gallons of diesel fuel to produce "a renewable resource".
All for renewable resources but ethanol is easily debatable as a renewable resource.
Thanks. You have added to the conversation. There is a lot of information that has been repeated enough that people believe it. Most of my neighbors are what I call Monsanto farmers, there is no place to nest. no winter cover. GMO is not the problem for that. It is the attitude that we have to produce more of everything even if it is below the cost of production.
Miforester
Well-known member
I agree, road to road or ditch to ditch farming isn't a GMO's issue, rather an operational choice. I will never forget when I was working in Nebraska a farmer asked me to come and look at some woods he wanted cut. It was a 3 acre triangle piece of almost pure mature black walnut, big dollars. Roughly 30 acres were tillable in beans at the time. This three acres if managed for wood fiber would have been a great revenue source, just not annually. I asked the farmer what did he want to do, he wanted to slick the walnut off and plant to beans. His reasoning was the taxes he paid on that land and in his eyes he was losing money, I did my best to explain that over time if managed properly that 3 acres would produce more revenue over his lifetime then the tillable acres. Needless to say he didn't agree. I had a lot of explaining to do to my bosses as I walked away and said I couldn't help him. I was working for a state agency at the time too, this little parcel added diversity to this parcel for some wildlife and I could justify coverting to more tillable acres.
Tough to be a forester in Nebraska, took the job for the bird hunting. It was a great experience as I did a lot of work designing windbreaks for farmsteads and fields as well as for wildlife. Plus learned more about trying to balance habitat diversity with landowner objectives. Now in Michigan I find my self looking to promote or establish wildlife opening of grasses and forbs as we have very little Ag land here all forest. Haul roads, log landings we are trying to plant to wildlife mixes and use as hunter walking trails. No pheasants here but helping improve the habitat for grouse one woodcock.
One last note, trees are truly one of our only renewable resources.
Tough to be a forester in Nebraska, took the job for the bird hunting. It was a great experience as I did a lot of work designing windbreaks for farmsteads and fields as well as for wildlife. Plus learned more about trying to balance habitat diversity with landowner objectives. Now in Michigan I find my self looking to promote or establish wildlife opening of grasses and forbs as we have very little Ag land here all forest. Haul roads, log landings we are trying to plant to wildlife mixes and use as hunter walking trails. No pheasants here but helping improve the habitat for grouse one woodcock.
One last note, trees are truly one of our only renewable resources.
Everyone would but that's not how it works man...
But please so me the way that 95% of farmers are missing
I would refer you to Gabe Brown from Bismarck North Dakota. You can also watch some of the many You Tube videos about him. I am glad that you are interested and willing to take the time to look into it. Thanks.
And as I'm looking and reading his website he doesn't state where his yields truly are. But he makes sure to give you the price for him to speak at a conference....
I get it that farmers have abused the soil and there's more than one way to skin a cat. I fully support cover cropping and diversity much like Gabe. But your comment was "25% above county averages" and I still don't see it. I also don't see where Gabe says he achieved that. He did say more profitable and with the use of livestock and currently in his operation I think he could qualify as organic which is a muncher higher price to make up for the yield loss.
He's got himself a nice niche farm. He makes great money speaking I'm sure too... I don't see it as out producing GMOs or providing more food for the world. Of which has been my point.
And oil doesn't use big resources ?
Electricity doesn't use a bunch of resources to produce?
It's a renewable resource...
Go to you tube "Gabe Brown SARE National Conference" two minutes 25 seconds video.
Well that's great info... so I went to check facts.
County average soil type rating is 26.2
Just looking thru soil maps around his farm(found address on his site and you can definitely see his crop rotations from aerials) shows his soil types to be in the high 20s and low 30s... so he's starting with much better soil than county.
So then I pull tyields for county. He is right in his statement on yields which is impressive. But county t for irrigated is 126 so is he keeping more moisture in ground with his rotation and should it be compared to irrigated county? Meh I'm not saying yes just showing u facts.
And he's using fertilizers just not synthetic. Just to be clear.
Lots of farmer use hog manure to do the same thing.
My question from that side is has he had his water runoff tested ? Since he's not incorporating in soil and he gets heavy rain I would think there's chance for runoff. EPA is cracking down hard on this.