What happens if the rest of the world wont buy our crops

[charliep]

Hopperbin,

You hit on the fact there are two
issues. The first about using genetic
engineering in plant (other techniques
are given a free ride). The other is the
use of herbicides in conventional
farming bthe two are not same as some
here would comment. As an example, I
don't think RR wheat would increase
glyphosate use although it might change
timing. Will let others post the
evidence on the other side but new
products have to be approved by
regulatory agencies as safe for humans,
animals and the environment. This is
the same for all countries including
Europe. This includes customers as well
with most having a not allowed chemical
list, minimum residual tolerances and
inspection requirements this is a part
of normal business practice.

[charliep]

Kaiser

So your argument is with conventional
farming practices. Would you have
farmers go back to conventional tillage
as well?

How would you have the industry deal
with diseases like club root/blackleg in
canola and fusarium in wheat? What
about sometime on the horizon like Ug99
rust in wheat?

[wd9]

Just like the 'idle no more' and the 'occupy movement', kaiser you have
no message. Only statements with no fact, ignoring the science that is
actually done. Quoting 'studies' yet having no reference as they do not
exist.

Its an internet enabled trend far more destructive then any chemical,
gene, or farming technique.

You speak of Dr Huber. Lets look at that.

Retired Purdue University professor Don Huber proclaims discovery of a
plant pathogen “...that appears to significantly impact the health of
plants, animals, and probably human beings.” He also alleges this
pathogen is more prevalent on herbicide-tolerant genetically modified
(GM) crops.

No data was provided nor cited, and no collaborators were identified.

The allegation that some mysterious pathogen is damaging U.S. corn and
soybean production is contrary to extensive data documenting improved
yield and economic performance for GM crops.

Purdue university response (His own university):
http://www.btny.purdue.edu/weedscience/2011/GlyphosatesImpact11.pdf

Iowa State university response and studies:
http://www.extension.iastate.edu/CropNews/2011/0225hartzler.htm

Ohio state university:
http://corn.osu.edu/newsletters/2011/2011-05/#1

Now its your turn Kaiser. Show me independent research supporting Dr Don
that glyphosate increases occurence of disease, or, as your superfluous
use of acronyms would say, STFU LOL! If not, think about the first 2
paragraphs of this post.

[wmoebis]

Charlie you got me thinking (again).

I wonder if there is stats on the number of tonnes that were degraded for things like Fus, midge and ergot before the onset of zero till compared to that of today.

My dad (conventional) farmed for 50 years and I don't ever remember him getting down graded for the above. I even remember the first time he was degraded for non vitreous and his reaction to modern verities.

Not saying one way or the other just wondering about the correlation.

[rkaiser]

Show you?... LOL ... you got a mouse and a key pad wd9... look it up yourself. The same thing that you like to use may become your own downfall. LOL Damn internet supplying people with far to much information...LOL

As for farming other ways Charlie. Once again, you figure it out. since we are over producing food off all of the cultivated land we have cleared on our planet these days, maybe you could grow some grass, or hemp (that should get a few of you blamers calling me some more names LOL)or even do some of that damn summer fallow stuff that did work well before the chem days. Strip farming was visible all over southern Alberta and Saskabush not that many years ago and the little bit of soil that was lost is nothing compared to the major impact that sprays have had on insects that actually make soil fertile and soft. Oh shit --- no data to back that belief up. Maybe you guys should chat with the admin people and get me kicked off this site for not supplying the facts that you need...wink

[oneoff]

Well actually kaiser has provided some of what he believes to be true.. He won't admit things like the actual nutrient content of non-GMO corn....let alone reasonable chemical analysis of any GMO corn done in any accredited lab... because that would destroy his belief that GMO crops just have to have all the nutrition drained from them...

Read on as far as you can stand; because kaiser et al have previously gone through their beliefs; and would welcome this soap box to spread suspicions without any credible truth whatsoever.. These quotes come from a recent thread on the BEEF SECTION of this Forum



oneoff posted Apr 21, 2013 8:17
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roundup GM corn is widely grown and you tell me how many complaints from livestock feeders or feedmill have encountered nutritional problems with any corn supplies (mycotoxins etc. excluded).

Some people's ideas would fit in perfectly with Stone Age knowledge. And most likely they they are yearning for those Ages to return. And when todays society gets disrupted sufficiently; their view of the world will indeed be appropriate.
IP: Logged
Edit?

oneoff posted Apr 21, 2013 8:23
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Look at the "literature" ranges of nutrient analysis for all varieties of corn (GMO or not but must be from accredited labs that have a real name and standard test equipment) and come back with some analysis reports.

Till the you are attempting to spread lies and personal beliefs based entirely on your warped reasoning.
IP: Logged
Edit?

oneoff posted Apr 21, 2013 8:43
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looks to me like ProfitPro (who is being given credit for the report) will sell you commercial fertilizers and Monsanto related additives. Need orgaic supplies and they are No sense limiting your market; and who said sales had to stick to firmly held beliefs and principle's. They appear to meet all needs.

Now the seed supplier might not be as big a prostitute. At least they only appear to serve the non-GMO market.


But which lab in the world did the analysis tests. Is their reputation so poor that it can not be published? We need to know that detail.
IP: Logged
Edit?

oneoff posted Apr 21, 2013 8:54
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If I were to guess; I'd say their was no real lab test at all; and it was a case of "the interim feed tests looked really bad"

But no other evidence except firmly held beliefs and opinions one dare not challenge.
IP: Logged
Edit?

oneoff posted Apr 21, 2013 9:03
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And if the anti GO side ever is forced to go on the defensive side; the arrgument will shift from Round-UP ready varieties supposed in question here.

And just like conventional canola varieties someone will be able to rightly claim that an entire fatty acid has all but disappeared from the old reliable seedstock.

And few ever understood the initial difference was between ****seed and canola. And I doubt if there have been any additional persons (in the general public) who have come to understand that difference since the initial plant breeding breaktrough.
IP: Logged
Edit?

oneoff posted Apr 21, 2013 9:15
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And if the anti GO side ever is forced to go on the defensive side; the arrgument will shift from Round-UP ready varieties supposed in question here.

And just like conventional canola varieties someone will be able to rightly claim that an entire fatty acid has all but disappeared from the old reliable seedstock.

And few ever understood the initial difference was between ****seed and canola. And I doubt if there have been any additional persons (in the general public) who have come to understand that difference since the initial plant breeding breaktrough.
IP: Logged
Edit?

rkaiser posted Apr 21, 2013 11:11
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
wow---- this oneoff creature is an interesting one.

Stone age thinking? VS what kind one off?

Scientific? Is this your alma mater

Do you even know what science is?

Does your science only defend the various ways that man kind has thought its way into making money?

There is science behind the stone age thinkers who think about the health of soil, plants and animals, and consider money in the equation as well.

Obviously lots of thinking going on in that little head of yours oneoff. Same stuff that goes on in all of our little heads.

A couple simple scientific facts for you oneoff. Thoughts become things. And if you, or any human decides to remove some thought for a moment or two and allow universal thought to enter that little brain of yours, you would understand that universal thought puts the soil, the plants and all of us animals, before money and profit. Just kind of a natural order.
IP: Logged
Edit?

rkaiser posted Apr 21, 2013 11:17
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A new peer-reviewed scientific review paper has been released in the US stating that glyphosate-based herbicides such as Roundup are contributing to gastrointestinal disorders, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, depression, autism, infertility, cancer and Alzheimer’s disease.

The review paper states that “glyphosate enhances the damaging effects of …food borne chemical residues and environmental toxins. Negative impact on the body is insidious and manifests slowly over time as inflammation damages cellular systems throughout the body. Here, we show how interference with CYP enzymes acts synergistically with disruption of the biosynthesis of aromatic amino acids by gut bacteria, as well as impairment in serum sulfate transport. Consequences are most of the diseases and conditions associated with a Western diet, which include gastrointestinal disorders, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, depression, autism, infertility, cancer and Alzheimer’s disease.”

For the full study click here .

“The paper gives good arguments why it’s vital to oppose the recent capitulation by UK supermarkets to accepting products from animals raised on GM feed,” GM Watch stated.

Glyphosate (N-phosphonomethylglycine), the active ingredient in the herbicide Roundup®, is the main herbicide in use today in the United States, and increasingly throughout the World, in agriculture and in lawn maintenance, especially now that the patent has expired. 80% of genetically modified crops, particularly corn, soy, canola, cotton, sugar beets and most recently alfalfa, are specifically targeted towards the introduction of genes resistant to glyphosate, the so-called “Roundup Ready® feature”. In humans, only small amounts (~2%) of ingested glyphosate are metabolized to aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA), and the rest enters the blood stream and is eventually eliminated through the urine.

Studies have shown sharp increases in glyphosate contamination in streams in the Midwestern United States following the mid 1990s, pointing to its increasing role as the herbicide of choice in agriculture. A now common practice of crop desiccation through herbicide administration shortly before the harvest assures an increased glyphosate presence in food sources as well . The industry asserts that glyphosate is nearly nontoxic to mammals, and therefore it is not a problem if glyphosate is ingested in food sources. Acutely, it is claimed to be less toxic than aspirin. As a consequence, measurement of its presence in food is practically nonexistent.

A vocal minority of experts believes that glyphosate may instead be much more toxic than is claimed, although the effects are only apparent after a considerable time lapse. Thus, while short-term studies in rodents have shown no apparent toxicity, studies involving life-long exposure in rodents have demonstrated liver and kidney dysfunction and a greatly increased risk of cancer, with shortened lifespan
IP: Logged
Edit?

oneoff posted Apr 21, 2013 12:32
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With or without "universal thought" (whatever belief that represents); we would not enjoy the benefits that modern science has provided.

I vote to take away your cell phone and internet; and so deprive society of your drivel and false beliefs.

Nothing will be lost in that process.
IP: Logged
Edit?

oneoff posted Apr 21, 2013 12:45
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's another fellowsargument.....


This current study should underscore the point that a non-industry study is no more or less credible than an industry study. In fact, if you know how the government works, industry studies that are used as part of the GM approval process undergo far more scrutiny than non-industry studies. This French study is proof of the classic adage: garbage in, garbage out. Scientists with no skin in this game–none of the ones I quoted have industry ties–found it literally a piece of cra- . We have literally millions if not billions of data points–the consumption of GM foods over decades in the US and the consumption of GM grains by animals around the world for an equal period of time. There is ZERO evidence of any harm to humans or animals. That’s as controlled a long term experiment as you could hope to have. Drop the hysteria…please. Scientists are not evil people. Empirical data can be manipulated–we see that clearly in this current corrupted study–but scientists are not dumb–scientists can spot these kinds of transparent manipulations.
IP: Logged
Edit?

oneoff posted Apr 21, 2013 16:35
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We'll see whether this turns out to be a falsiied soil test report of some sort. I predict this nonsense won't stand on its own merits


Here's some more comments to consider before additional people confirm what they think they already know for sure

Quote
The table, cited by bloggers and various anti-GM publications, has a number of problems. Without seeing the full report, neither we nor anyone can make claims about what it says or doesn’t say. But the table by itself suggests that – at a minimum – this is not the kind of study nutritionists and other scientists are familiar with, or the way they would report such a study themselves. Here are a few of the things that just don’t make sense:

The table shows no starch, protein, amino acid, oil or fiber analyses – and they are the main nutritional components of corn.
The values reported for GM corn are not even close to what is in the literature or in laboratory databases for last year’s corn crop.
The percent organic matter listed is an error. There is simply no way corn could have 1.2% or 2% organic matter as reported in the table. The number should be closer to 95%.
The table lists measurements for “Brix,” which is a measurement of sugar content and is used for products like molasses where one expects high amounts of sugar. Corn (GM and non-GM) typically has low amounts of sugar because most of the sugar has been converted to starch.
Nowhere in the world are energy requirements for animals measured in “ergs,” as the table says.
In most standard nutrition analyses, major minerals (like calcium, magnesium, potassium and phosphorus) are reported in units of percentages rather than parts per million, while minor minerals are reported in ppm. It’s not standard to see both reported in ppm.
The table being published by itself raises several questions, which – as a scientist looking at a study – I automatically ask. How many samples were taken? How were the samples collected? What are the genetic backgrounds of the corn samples used? Were the fields from which they were taken the same, adjacent, or different? Were they fertilized the same? The table also doesn’t indicate what the samples actually were – corn grain, the whole plant, corn silage, and so on.

The kind of table one would typically expect to see in a nutrition comparison is this one, published as supplementary information for a paper published by Nature. (In the supplementary information, scroll down to chart 20, page 50, of the pdf document.) Yes, the study was done by Monsanto, but it met the standard requirements for nutritional analyses and the results are reported in units that all nutritionists would recognize.

#4


Fortisimo
Dick In Training




Join Date: Apr 2012
Age: 23
Posts: 1,544
Rep Power: 34
04-18-2013 05:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CounterPoint
The data presented is flawed, GMO's are going to solve world food shortages.

http://monsantoblog.com/2013/04/16/n...ike-the-other/

Damn and here I was getting excited for the new GMO corn diet; all the flavor, .03% of the calories.of regular.corn! Also, lmao @ergs... The only place I ever see those units is in really old physics textbooks
IP: Logged
Edit?

oneoff posted Apr 21, 2013 17:18
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This might be getting close to zooming in on the truth. Here's an intteresting thought to examinemore closely

James Gary 20.04.2013 22:31
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! it amazes me how gullible people can be.

Thats a soil analysis, you morons. Hopefully the author of this study will explain how a living organism contains more zinc and magnesium than carbon LOL
IP: Logged
Edit?

oneoff posted Apr 21, 2013 17:33
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I detect the "believers" losing traction.

Here are some comments

Anonymous says:
April 19, 2013 at 6:25 am
Responding to previous pro-gmo supporters, if it is so good why should it not be labeled. Should we not have a choice?

Reply Anonymous says:
April 19, 2013 at 5:33 am
This is the scam of the year. Tell me more about a corn containing 6000-ish ppm calcium, 44 ppm phosphorus, 113 ppm potassium, 0.2 ppm sodium, etc, ?

In other words, even the data for the non-gmo corn doesn’t remotly match whit the nutrient profile of actual corn.

http: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maize#Comparison_to_other_staple_foods

But agrobusiness mass poisoners are very pleased with anti-gmo people going full retards.

Reply Anonymous says:
April 19, 2013 at 5:32 am
This is the scam of the year. Tell me more about a corn containing 6000-ish ppm calcium, 44 ppm phosphorus, 113 ppm potassium, 0.2 ppm sodium ?

In other words, even the data for the non-gmo corn doesn’t remotly match whit the nutrient profile of actual corn.

http: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maize#Comparison_to_other_staple_foods

But agrobusiness mass poisoners are very pleased with anti-gmo people going full retards.

Reply Anonymous says:
April 18, 2013 at 5:41 pm
It’s a hoax.

The “report” from Profit Pro is actually an advertisement to sell fertilizer, and a pitiful scientific fraud. The data is from a soil report, and has nothing to do with nutrition. The data is also *clearly* (poorly) falsified. For example, numbers that should add up to 100%, do not. There are quantities for which there exists no scientific method to measure, like “Anaerobic Biology” in parts per million.

Read my detailed analysis here: http : //thephysicspolice.blogspot.com/2013/04/dont-eat-soil.html

Reply ajkmsteph says:
April 17, 2013 at 10:08 pm
BTW the countries that ban the growth of GM corn actually import the grain and eat it. This includes the EU and Kenyan. Its nuts – they wouldn’t allow their farmers to benefit but allow their people to eat it. That’s because it is safe.

Reply Anonymous says:
April 18, 2013 at 7:57 am
What benefits?
Maybe you get benefits from Monsanto.
If it’s so safe to eat GMO why does the Monsanto cafe use organic only?
GMO = BAD

Reply Anonymous says:
April 18, 2013 at 4:15 pm
I’d say you drank the kool-aid but lets term it, ..you ate the corn.
lol

Reply ajkmsteph says:
April 17, 2013 at 10:06 pm
This is of course a fraud. These analyses are done as part of the regulatory package that is submitted fro gov approval usually in US, Japan, S Korea and Europe and has been approved as equivalent to non-GM corn. You have to take many samples the Gm and non-Gm plants grown in the same field and with the same genetics for both except for the GM trait. There are significant differences between identical corn grown in different fields and even different parts of the same field. The only WAR here is against the truth. Stop printing made up stories – I can get that in the movies

Reply Anonymous says:
April 17, 2013 at 6:42 pm
This article is a FAKE. Infowars…come on…do your homework! Stop making those of us who care about GMO’s look like idiots! I posted this article today only to have (thankfully) a friend point out it’s a fraud…made me look like a real asshole, and an idiot for supporting you and backing you guys up.

Reply Anonymous says:
April 17, 2013 at 1:18 pm
where’s the name of the company/entity who made this chart? or was this just made up out of thin air? c’mon, you guys are usually good with your sources!

Reply welovetheUSA says:
April 17, 2013 at 10:35 am
We know from other countries who were forced to use this type of corn seeds have banned Monsanto from their countries, it could take 15 years for their destroyed soil to recover. I will not eat this corn period, everything this company has done to get this in our land, is disgusting. People who eat fast food, packaged food will have the burdens of this product, this generation and the last will live 20 years less than their parents as it stands now.

Reply Anonymous says:
April 17, 2013 at 5:32 am
No references on this article to a single reputable source, in fact no references at all. point made, full of shit. A very good friend of mine who is a MSc in microbiology tells me he would rather his food glowed green than have shed loads of carcinogenic bacteria growing on it.

Reply Anonymous says:
April 17, 2013 at 1:14 am
Wrong on this one infowars, that study is s*** though I’m sure GM food cannot compare to good old fashioned natural food; natural food just isn’t as economically viable.

Reply Anonymous says:
April 17, 2013 at 4:01 pm
so save a buck and buy quick grow and cheap gm..then spend that saved buck on ways and means to rebalance your health..

Reply Francis Marion says:
April 17, 2013 at 1:02 am
So GMO corn is tantamount to plastic fake food which has not only
extremely low to no food value but is POISONOUS to humans and
animals alike.

PERFECT STARVATION VEHICLE to fulfill the Globalist dream of
6.5 BILLION DEAD OF PESTILENCE & DISEASE.

Reply Anonymous says:
April 16, 2013 at 9:43 pm
Human experimentation continues… anyone going to shoot the zombie lord in the head?

Reply Anonymous says:
April 16, 2013 at 7:55 pm
Corny article!

Reply Anonymous says:
April 16, 2013 at 8:50 pm
Is there even a kernel of truth in this story?

Reply
IP: Logged
Edit?

oneoff posted Apr 21, 2013 17:58
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STAPLE: Maize / Corn[A] Rice[B] Wheat[C] Potato[D] Cassava[E] Soybean (Green)[F] Sweet potato[G] Sorghum[H] Yam[Y] Plantain[Z]
Component (per 100g portion) Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount
Water (g) 76 12 11 79 60 68 77 9 70 65
Energy (kJ) 360 1528 1419 322 670 615 360 1419 494 511
Protein (g) 3.2 7.1 13.7 2.0 1.4 13.0 1.6 11.3 1.5 1.3
Fat (g) 1.18 0.66 2.47 0.09 0.28 6.8 0.05 3.3 0.17 0.37
Carbohydrates (g) 19 80 71 17 38 11 20 75 28 32
Fiber (g) 2.7 1.3 10.7 2.2 1.8 4.2 3 6.3 4.1 2.3
Sugar (g) 3.22 0.12 0 0.78 1.7 0 4.18 0 0.5 15
Calcium (mg) 2 28 34 12 16 197 30 28 17 3
Iron (mg) 0.52 4.31 3.52 0.78 0.27 3.55 0.61 4.4 0.54 0.6
Magnesium (mg) 37 25 144 23 21 65 25 0 21 37
Phosphorus (mg) 89 115 508 57 27 194 47 287 55 34
Potassium (mg) 270 115 431 421 271 620 337 350 816 499
Sodium (mg) 15 5 2 6 14 15 55 6 9 4
Zinc (mg) 0.45 1.09 4.16 0.29 0.34 0.99 0.3 0 0.24 0.14
Copper (mg) 0.05 0.22 0.55 0.11 0.10 0.13 0.15 - 0.18 0.08
Manganese (mg) 0.16 1.09 3.01 0.15 0.38 0.55 0.26 - 0.40 -
Selenium (mcg) 0.6 15.1 89.4 0.3 0.7 1.5 0.6 0 0.7 1.5
Vitamin C (mg) 6.8 0 0 19.7 20.6 29 2.4 0 17.1 18.4
Thiamin (mg) 0.20 0.58 0.42 0.08 0.09 0.44 0.08 0.24 0.11 0.05
Riboflavin (mg) 0.06 0.05 0.12 0.03 0.05 0.18 0.06 0.14 0.03 0.05
Niacin (mg) 1.70 4.19 6.74 1.05 0.85 1.65 0.56 2.93 0.55 0.69
Pantothenic acid (mg) 0.76 1.01 0.94 0.30 0.11 0.15 0.80 - 0.31 0.26
Vitamin B6 (mg) 0.06 0.16 0.42 0.30 0.09 0.07 0.21 - 0.29 0.30
Folate Total (mcg) 46 231 43 16 27 165 11 0 23 22
Vitamin A (IU) 208 0 0 2 13 180 14187 0 138 1127
Vitamin E, alpha-tocopherol (mg) 0.07 0.11 0 0.01 0.19 0 0.26 0 0.39 0.14
Vitamin K (mcg) 0.3 0.1 0 1.9 1.9 0 1.8 0 2.6 0.7
Beta-carotene (mcg) 52 0 0 1 8 0 8509 0 83 457
Lutein zeazanthin (mcg) 764 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 30
Saturated fatty acids (g) 0.18 0.18 0.45 0.03 0.07 0.79 0.02 0.46 0.04 0.14
Monounsaturated fatty acids (g) 0.35 0.21 0.34 0.00 0.08 1.28 0.00 0.99 0.01 0.03
Polyunsaturated fatty acids (g) 0.56 0.18 0.98 0.04 0.05 3.20 0.01 1.37 0.08 0.07
A corn, sweet, yellow, raw B rice, white, long-grain, regular, raw
C wheat, durum D potato, flesh and skin, raw
E cassava, raw F soybeans, green, raw
G sweet potato, raw, unprepared H sorghum, raw
Y yam, raw Z plantains, raw


TAPLE: Maize / Corn[A] Rice[B] Wheat[C] Potato[D] Cassava[E] Soybean (Green)[F] Sweet potato[G] Sorghum[H] Yam[Y] Plantain[Z]
Component (per 100g portion) Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount
Water (g) 76 12 11 79 60 68 77 9 70 65
Energy (kJ) 360 1528 1419 322 670 615 360 1419 494 511
Protein (g) 3.2 7.1 13.7 2.0 1.4 13.0 1.6 11.3 1.5 1.3
Fat (g) 1.18 0.66 2.47 0.09 0.28 6.8 0.05 3.3 0.17 0.37
Carbohydrates (g) 19 80 71 17 38 11 20 75 28 32
Fiber (g) 2.7 1.3 10.7 2.2 1.8 4.2 3 6.3 4.1 2.3
Sugar (g) 3.22 0.12 0 0.78 1.7 0 4.18 0 0.5 15
Calcium (mg) 2 28 34 12 16 197 30 28 17 3
Iron (mg) 0.52 4.31 3.52 0.78 0.27 3.55 0.61 4.4 0.54 0.6
Magnesium (mg) 37 25 144 23 21 65 25 0 21 37
Phosphorus (mg) 89 115 508 57 27 194 47 287 55 34
Potassium (mg) 270 115 431 421 271 620 337 350 816 499
Sodium (mg) 15 5 2 6 14 15 55 6 9 4
Zinc (mg) 0.45 1.09 4.16 0.29 0.34 0.99 0.3 0 0.24 0.14
Copper (mg) 0.05 0.22 0.55 0.11 0.10 0.13 0.15 - 0.18 0.08
Manganese (mg) 0.16 1.09 3.01 0.15 0.38 0.55 0.26 - 0.40 -
Selenium (mcg) 0.6 15.1 89.4 0.3 0.7 1.5 0.6 0 0.7 1.5
Vitamin C (mg) 6.8 0 0 19.7 20.6 29 2.4 0 17.1 18.4
Thiamin (mg) 0.20 0.58 0.42 0.08 0.09 0.44 0.08 0.24 0.11 0.05
Riboflavin (mg) 0.06 0.05 0.12 0.03 0.05 0.18 0.06 0.14 0.03 0.05
Niacin (mg) 1.70 4.19 6.74 1.05 0.85 1.65 0.56 2.93 0.55 0.69
Pantothenic acid (mg) 0.76 1.01 0.94 0.30 0.11 0.15 0.80 - 0.31 0.26
Vitamin B6 (mg) 0.06 0.16 0.42 0.30 0.09 0.07 0.21 - 0.29 0.30
Folate Total (mcg) 46 231 43 16 27 165 11 0 23 22
Vitamin A (IU) 208 0 0 2 13 180 14187 0 138 1127
Vitamin E, alpha-tocopherol (mg) 0.07 0.11 0 0.01 0.19 0 0.26 0 0.39 0.14
Vitamin K (mcg) 0.3 0.1 0 1.9 1.9 0 1.8 0 2.6 0.7
Beta-carotene (mcg) 52 0 0 1 8 0 8509 0 83 457
Lutein zeazanthin (mcg) 764 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 30
Saturated fatty acids (g) 0.18 0.18 0.45 0.03 0.07 0.79 0.02 0.46 0.04 0.14
Monounsaturated fatty acids (g) 0.35 0.21 0.34 0.00 0.08 1.28 0.00 0.99 0.01 0.03
Polyunsaturated fatty acids (g) 0.56 0.18 0.98 0.04 0.05 3.20 0.01 1.37 0.08 0.07
A corn, sweet, yellow, raw B rice, white, long-grain, regular, raw
C wheat, durum D potato, flesh and skin, raw
E cassava, raw F soybeans, green, raw
G sweet potato, raw, unprepared H sorghum, raw
Y yam, raw Z plantains, raw
IP: Logged
Edit?

oneoff posted Apr 21, 2013 18:10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corn/Maize nutritional contents are shown as the first number in each row in the chart in the last post

Does anyone have any reason to distrust this information from a Wikipedia source?

Does the reported non-GMO corn Calcium level even remotely fall near 2mg/100gm.?

If not; then what is wrong with the data posted all over as "gospel truth".

Are those responsible even remotely interested in the truth?
Will they ever apologize for the deception that has been caused? Or s it a matter of a blind agenda at any cost?
IP: Logged
Edit?

grassfarmer posted Apr 21, 2013 19:09
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh yeah, if it was on Wikipedia it's got to be true, lol.
I'm sure Monsanto has people whose full time job it is
to monitor and change information on Wikipedia as it
appears.

Here is another theory for you to investigate -
whether consumption of too much GMO material
causes you to spout voluminous bull-crap promoting
said GMOs.?
IP: Logged
Edit?

oneoff posted Apr 21, 2013 20:24
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just once in your life; why not point exactly what the facts that support your conclusion. And when it doesn't make any sense; then be prepared for reasoned challenges.

People such as you pick and choose bull shit beliefs; but without not one shred of evidence to back it up; you attempt to convert and promote the nonsense...You need to be exposed for what you are.
And when this story is proven conclusively; I will do everthing to serve your nonsense right back to the perpetrators; supporters; apologists and enablers.
IP: Logged
Edit?

rkaiser posted Apr 21, 2013 23:56
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hay Jack. Whacha mean you want to take my cell phone and internet away. Sounds like the kind of censorship supported by those who witch(wink)their way to the top political positions from Monsanto and the likes... LOL

You gonna report me to yer cuzin in the FDA?

Tell you what buddy. I am too old to invite you to the parking lot since you like the drugs so much, you might look like that incredible hulk guy by now. Do you use Ralgro yerself.

But I don't mind toying with you her on Agriville.

Since you think it is senseless dribble to invite you to stand behind the counter of a store and explain to people how the drugs and GMO's will never hurt em, I challenge you to a life test. I am 52 and healthy as an ox. I say - you guarantee me that you will eat nothing but the finest GMO and pesticide sprayed fruits and veggies from Walmart and order up your beef and other protein from no where but M and M meat shop, and I will meet you in that said parking lot in 48 years...

Censor me....LMAO
IP: Logged
Edit?

oneoff posted Apr 22, 2013 8:10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And you'd defend passing off a doctored soil test as a supposedly valid confirmation of food that you would have everyone believe has the nutrient value of cardboard.

What has your world come to?
IP: Logged
Edit?

oneoff posted Apr 22, 2013 8:16
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And just where are the rest of you "enablers".

Does it matter if lying is accepable; and "discretion" determines how similar circumstances are dealt with completely differently in areas such as municipal politics.

Bad precidences?????
IP: Logged
Edit?

Kathy posted May 5, 2013 14:34
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Randy, I just figured out who oneoff must be,
maybe Will Verboven. I posted the article and
am delighted to see the discussion. Trying to find
the source of info is time consuming, the more
working on the task the better.

Sadly, we can't go to our government for
independent testing, they just trust Monsanto's
results.
IP: Logged
Edit?

wilagro posted May 6, 2013 16:57
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kathy: Infowars is a terrible site. The truth is NOT something found there IMHO.

Sensationalism is their forte.
IP: Logged
Edit?

rkaiser posted May 7, 2013 10:21
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Might be extreme wilagro, but worth paying attention to to learn the truth which is always in between the extremes.
IP: Logged
Edit?

Kathy posted May 7, 2013 12:08
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Infowars is definitely not for the faint of heart or
those unwilling to examine untold evidence that
never sees the light of day in mainstream telly. I
don't spend to much time there because it is
disturbing; however, they do bring to light
information that is the truth, just because we can't
handle it doesn't make it false. And yes,
sometimes the truth is horrible.

Two other suspects in the same clothing were
reported at Newtown, one was caught by police in
the woods behind the school and put in the front
seat of a police car (on news video and in front of
parents/witnesses) - who was this person, why
was he wearing exactly the same clothes as the
dead shooter in the school? Never heard about
him again, after that day!

In 1993, the NY twin towers were bombed. The
actual live bomb was provided to the FBI
informant, and allowed to be detonated - by the
FBI - six people were killed. The informant/mole
taped his conversations with his FBI handlers.

Once you spend time to investigate matters
deeper than what Llpyd Robertson and Sandy
Renaldo tell you, pandora's box is opened - you
can't shut it after that. So don't look if you don't
want to learn these horrible things. And as with
all news media ... Look at multiple sources.

False flags are more common than you would
imagine. The more people just trust the talking
heads on the evening news, the more deceit the
governments get away with. Where do you think
the billions of missing dollars have gone (eg.
Canadian DOD cannot account for something like
3 billion dollars). There are truly evil people who
will stop at nothing to get their way, because only
their way is correct (in their minds). Put these
people in positions of power (right Happytrails),
and they will destroy other people's lives for their
altruistic ideals.
IP: Logged
Edit?

rkaiser posted May 8, 2013 14:26
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My challenge Kathi is my deep belief that everything is perfect --- always.

That is why I look at both sides to form my own personal opinion --- which is all facts truly are. Some one or groups opinion.

The thing about Monsanto (One Saint) and the bamksters who run them is that they truly believe that they are helping mankind in general and collateral damage is necessary.

Sometimes our quest to offer people the choice of a healthier life with natural foods and such; has to be just that - a choice. Should we fight the other side, we in turn become judgmental like Alex Jones and the gang --- who by the way -- do offer a lot of truth.

This leads to further discussion about choice and how every human ultimately chooses their own demise. Whether it be cigarettes, refined sugar or simply choosing to eat GMO products because they are cheaper.

A lot of people get so sick of making conscious positive choices, that in a world full of negative media etc. they just give up and even want death.

Offering a choice is my personal ultimate goal and yes I come across as supporting the side of natural, GMO free, or anti multinational all of the time. My choice. But I do understand the other side and it's screwed up compassion for man kind. Even though it is all about accepting collateral damage, it is based on a weird sense of hope.
IP: Logged
Edit?

Kathy posted May 9, 2013 13:56
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I found this interview with Howard Vlieger, which
discusses the above mentioned non gm corn,
versus gm corn. There is also information which
greatly disturbs me in regards to allowable levels
of glyphosate on various crops.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9E-Xd1xW59I

According to Mr. Vlieger
Allowable EPA levels of glyphosate are:
Corn 13 ppm
Sweet corn 3.5 ppm
Corn silage 100 ppm
Soybeans 20 ppm
Roundup ready Alfalfa 400 ppm - (holy sh$$)

As of 2011, Monsanto requested and had the
levels for corn increased from 6 ppm to the
present 13 ppm.

Very interesting interview which I hope everyone
will watch.
Mr. Vlieger explains how the corn analysis was
done which is the topic of this thread, and much

[wd9]

Waste of time as usual.

[Choice2U]

wmoesis...hard to compare dad's results to ours given that under higher yields/plant growth, other problems are going to show up such as disease because of a more dense crop. Also, when fertility using macro fertilizers is pushed then some other micronutrient may eventually become the limiting factor such as copper and maybe that is why we MIGHT have an increase in ergot.

I'd love to comment on Kaiser's issues but a scientific approach is a waste of time according to him so I won't bother.

[ado089]

Seed, feed and equipment is far more
mobile theses days too. It not unusual
for seed from manitoba to be sold in
Alberta, or someone farm 250 miles from
one end to the other. With mobility like
that unwelcome hitchhikers are bound to
tag along.

[cottonpicken]

Wow,if only one of you pit bulls could grasp the fact
the fact carbohydrate and insulin is the main culprit
of disease in western society then i could engage this
fight,everything else is a side show.....but who cares
about insulin the pancreas and how the body
works....pennies in front of a bulldozer is what you
are worried about.