Do we really want to go there?

[checking]

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2713638120100127?type=marketsNews

[parsley]

If your strategy is to "feed 9 billion people" with basement-price wheat, with China as the prime buyer, go for it.

If your strategy is to feed G'8 and look for a price premium, then is "going there" gonna getcha where ya wanna go? Pars

[bucket]

The segregation and testing costs are too high (as shown in flax) to chase the gm wheat market until there is acceptance of the product. Currently the idea of running out of grain is a myth. Just look at stocks and prices. So the questions becomes - do we need gm wheat? Not now.

But how long does it take to develop, and is that development and approval required moving in the same time frame?

Chances are approvals will come easier and quicker when more people are starving. Unfortunately, it may be too late.

[burnt]

Producers and consumers do not need GM wheat now, nor will they need it in the future.

The only ones who need it is Monsanto and that is based on their insatiable appetite for profit rather than any humanitarian concerns. They see all those acres of wheat grown in the world and lament the fact that they are not making a few buck on every acre committed to wheat.

They would rather see the market for wheat destroyed rather than escaping their rapacious grasp.

If the world needs more wheat, it will appear almost as if by magic when the price justifies it.

Monsanto is the ultimate pimp trying to turn farmers and grain growers into *****s that run to do their bidding for a crust of bread in return.

[Fransisco]

We heard all of the same nonsense when biotech canola was just around the corner. And here we are ten years later growing more and more of the stuff all the time because at the end of the day it makes us more money than the old conventional varieties. The same is true when it comes to corn and soybeans.

[checking]

Either way this won't be the ruination of this farm, but I believe the stoneboat mechanic is correct. Did I say that? - yeah - that will make her whistle to her horse!!

What is the logic of hauling twice as many loads of anything to market to receive a little bit more than if we didn't GM wheat or durum?

[Fransisco]

I don't see as how it is that we actually have a choice. If we don't increase our production someone else will, then we get to try and make a go of it with lower yields and lower prices. Yippee!

Again look at canola, the Aussies stayed conventional, we went biotech. We get more bushels and they get the same price we do. Who do you think comes out ahead.

[burnt]

Lemme guess . . .Monsanto?


Because you still have to keep increasing your production to make the same amount of money . . .

[Fransisco]

We're making more money per acre than the Aussies when it comes to canola.

[Fransisco]

And yes, it's such a terrible burden hauling that extra 20% to the elevator and getting paid for it.

[Fransisco]

BTW- Why is it that you expect everyone else to just give their work away?

[liberty]

Posters like burnt seem to have a pretty sour view of life. They don't really like the idea that life itself is a constant parade of changes and challenges. Succeeding in life requires that you progressively improve the way you do things; you can't expect to excel by doing things the same way as you always did. Philosophically, that's the attitude that's behind the anti-gmo movement.

It never ceases to amaze me how many people still feel entitled to something for nothing, and get incensed when anyone challenges that proposition.