5 ms·

> The way corporate farms work is different (I'd assume based on other experiences) than a private farm. I don't see it. Again, the tight margins means that an

> The way corporate farms work is different (I'd assume based on other experiences) than a private farm. I don't see it. Again, the tight margins means that any path to productivity is quickly adopted by everyone. Especially when it comes to something you can cashflow like chemicals (fixed assets can be harder to justify for smaller farms). > There are massive combine harvest schedules that start in the south and work their way north to harvest. The large corporate farms have their own equipment. These harvest crews you speak that travel across the country are more apt to service the small farmer who cannot justify their own combines. If anything, based on your suggestion, that would promote more glyphosate use in small farms than the large farms who have control over their equipment. But realistically, that harvest run is quite predictable and reliable to begin with. That seems like the least likely place for needing glyphosate on wheat. I'm further east and around here even the small farmers own their own combines due to a small window to get the crops off. You don't dare take the chance on someone else's schedule like you can in more forgiving climates. > I am not suggesting that is the reason in the first place, it's just a guess. Fair enough, but you originally said that I should do some more digging. I'm trying to see the link here, but I'm struggling to see where to go from here. Would you say the problem limited to durham wheat, or all types of wheat?

RobertRoberts 9y ago
>...tight margins means that any path to productivity But tight margins for a single family owned farm could vary dramatically to that of a corporate farm, I would estimate. (an educated guess on my part) Especially if you factor in bulk growth of crops, centralized (and likely lobbied) subsidies. And the long term desire to push out all privately owned farms. An easy comparison here is a mom and pop local hardware store vs a coporate chain store. Or a local grocery store vs the Walmart grocery store. The margins can be less for the coporate, and they will still make more money, and have lower prices. And often times will lose money to grind out the competition. You seem to think there is an equal playing field, and discussing it that way. From my experience and reading, all things large and corporate have a need for growth inherent in their systems. And the easiest lands to expand into are small farms. Unless you are an organic farmer? (high profit, low yield) >The large corporate farms have their own equipment. Are you sure about that? All of them? And even if they have their own equipment, don't they still have to start in the south and work their way north as the harvest seasons shift? Seems like a non-argument. >But realistically, that harvest run is quite predictable and reliable to begin with. That seems like the least likely place for needing glyphosate on wheat. I am educated guessing and reporting was I was told. I still want to talk to my friend (GMO worker) as to why he would tell me this. I am now a little more motivated to just give him a call, but he's a busy guy. :P _Research_ In the mean time I did some research online, it looks like glyphosates applied at the end of the harvest increase yield. () So that would explain any extra cost issues you may think is a deterrent to this practice. Google search for glyphosates cause hormesis in wheat. It looks like the amount of glyphosates being used is much less than you'd think to get this affect. Which again, would affect the costs. (ie, they'd be a lot lower yet again, because the amounts used are lower than for weed control) Also this effect (hormesis caused by small doses of weedkiller on plants) has not been researched much for health reasons, but may be a well known effect in the corporate farming industry, but not the private farms. This was interesting to look into. By the time I learn more, I am sure this post will age too far. -- One last link, even Bob's Red Mill says he can't be sure if there glyphosates in the wheat he sells. (non-organic) https://www.bobsredmill.com/blog/featured-articles/glyphosate/ https://www.bobsredmill.com/blog/featured-articles/glyphosat... edit: for clarification.
- randomdata 9y ago
  > But tight margins for a single family owned farm could vary dramatically to that of a corporate farm, I would estimate. You're right, large businesses have economic advantages, but I think you may have misunderstood me. The large farms have tight margins. The small farms have no margins. I'm not sure why a large operation would throw their profits away to applying glyphosate for, in this context, absolutely no reason. > don't they still have to start in the south and work their way north as the harvest seasons shift? Are you sure you're not still thinking of the harvest crews that provide custom harvesting services to other farmers? They absolutely start in the south and work north. These businesses generally do not manage the farms themselves, however. They serve other farmers, typically smaller ones who do not have the acreage to justify the capital expenditure for harvest equipment (the cost of new combine alone is rapidly approaching the $1,000,000 mark). Assuming we're still talking about the US (like you said, pasta does not cause the same symptoms in other countries) I have found no single grain farm that is large enough to span that large of a distance. Do you have a particular business in mind that I may have missed? > it looks like glyphosates applied at the end of the harvest increase yield. Increase yield at the end of harvest? I mean, I guess. Glyphosate has mass and adding it to the storage bin will increase the stored weight by some amount. You'd make a lot more money selling the glyphosate in its pure form though. It's value by a given mass far exceeds that of wheat. I don't think this is what you really meant. If you meant soon after planting, I found one study that suggested that a low dose in the 3rd leaf stage could stimulate growth to increase yield. The study was also dated 2016. This is the first I heard of it, and I expect most farmers are in the same boat. The study said that previously this was thought to not be possible. Of those who have tried it, we're talking, what, realistically one crop? Did your friend's problem just start recently when it was previously not an issue? I'll add that I'd need to see a ~5% yield bump just to cover the cost of application, never mind making additional money. Higher yields alone does not necessarily make it worthwhile, and I'm not convinced that even with the findings of this study that it would be worth it. There are plenty of things you can do to increase yield, but it's still a cost/benefit thing. The goal of farm business is maximizing profit, not maximizing yield. Also, you didn't answer if your friend's problem was limited to durham wheat or not. You originally suggested that might be the case, but haven't elaborated since. It's fine to look at roundup as a potential reason, but why not discuss all of the potential variables? > One last link, even Bob's Red Mill says he can't be sure if there glyphosates in the wheat he sells. (non-organic) Which is quite telling. When you deliver a load of wheat, the destination will take a small sample for further analysis. If that small sample contains glyphosate, they will know about it. The problem is that when you have grain mixed from many sources, that small sample may not be the area of the load that does contain traces of glyphosate. As such, it is quite possible for some to slip through. The fact that we're only talking small amounts slipping through and not entire loads "doused" in it, goes to show that the practice is not common, which is what I said from the start.

RobertRoberts 9y ago

>...tight margins means that any path to productivity But tight margins for a single family owned farm could vary dramatically to that of a corporate farm, I would estimate. (an educated guess on my part) Especially if you factor in bulk growth of crops, centralized (and likely lobbied) subsidies. And the long term desire to push out all privately owned farms. An easy comparison here is a mom and pop local hardware store vs a coporate chain store. Or a local grocery store vs the Walmart grocery store. The margins can be less for the coporate, and they will still make more money, and have lower prices. And often times will lose money to grind out the competition. You seem to think there is an equal playing field, and discussing it that way. From my experience and reading, all things large and corporate have a need for growth inherent in their systems. And the easiest lands to expand into are small farms. Unless you are an organic farmer? (high profit, low yield) >The large corporate farms have their own equipment. Are you sure about that? All of them? And even if they have their own equipment, don't they still have to start in the south and work their way north as the harvest seasons shift? Seems like a non-argument. >But realistically, that harvest run is quite predictable and reliable to begin with. That seems like the least likely place for needing glyphosate on wheat. I am educated guessing and reporting was I was told. I still want to talk to my friend (GMO worker) as to why he would tell me this. I am now a little more motivated to just give him a call, but he's a busy guy. :P _Research_ In the mean time I did some research online, it looks like glyphosates applied at the end of the harvest increase yield. () So that would explain any extra cost issues you may think is a deterrent to this practice. Google search for glyphosates cause hormesis in wheat. It looks like the amount of glyphosates being used is much less than you'd think to get this affect. Which again, would affect the costs. (ie, they'd be a lot lower yet again, because the amounts used are lower than for weed control) Also this effect (hormesis caused by small doses of weedkiller on plants) has not been researched much for health reasons, but may be a well known effect in the corporate farming industry, but not the private farms. This was interesting to look into. By the time I learn more, I am sure this post will age too far. -- One last link, even Bob's Red Mill says he can't be sure if there glyphosates in the wheat he sells. (non-organic) https://www.bobsredmill.com/blog/featured-articles/glyphosate/ https://www.bobsredmill.com/blog/featured-articles/glyphosat... edit: for clarification.

randomdata 9y ago
> But tight margins for a single family owned farm could vary dramatically to that of a corporate farm, I would estimate. You're right, large businesses have economic advantages, but I think you may have misunderstood me. The large farms have tight margins. The small farms have no margins. I'm not sure why a large operation would throw their profits away to applying glyphosate for, in this context, absolutely no reason. > don't they still have to start in the south and work their way north as the harvest seasons shift? Are you sure you're not still thinking of the harvest crews that provide custom harvesting services to other farmers? They absolutely start in the south and work north. These businesses generally do not manage the farms themselves, however. They serve other farmers, typically smaller ones who do not have the acreage to justify the capital expenditure for harvest equipment (the cost of new combine alone is rapidly approaching the $1,000,000 mark). Assuming we're still talking about the US (like you said, pasta does not cause the same symptoms in other countries) I have found no single grain farm that is large enough to span that large of a distance. Do you have a particular business in mind that I may have missed? > it looks like glyphosates applied at the end of the harvest increase yield. Increase yield at the end of harvest? I mean, I guess. Glyphosate has mass and adding it to the storage bin will increase the stored weight by some amount. You'd make a lot more money selling the glyphosate in its pure form though. It's value by a given mass far exceeds that of wheat. I don't think this is what you really meant. If you meant soon after planting, I found one study that suggested that a low dose in the 3rd leaf stage could stimulate growth to increase yield. The study was also dated 2016. This is the first I heard of it, and I expect most farmers are in the same boat. The study said that previously this was thought to not be possible. Of those who have tried it, we're talking, what, realistically one crop? Did your friend's problem just start recently when it was previously not an issue? I'll add that I'd need to see a ~5% yield bump just to cover the cost of application, never mind making additional money. Higher yields alone does not necessarily make it worthwhile, and I'm not convinced that even with the findings of this study that it would be worth it. There are plenty of things you can do to increase yield, but it's still a cost/benefit thing. The goal of farm business is maximizing profit, not maximizing yield. Also, you didn't answer if your friend's problem was limited to durham wheat or not. You originally suggested that might be the case, but haven't elaborated since. It's fine to look at roundup as a potential reason, but why not discuss all of the potential variables? > One last link, even Bob's Red Mill says he can't be sure if there glyphosates in the wheat he sells. (non-organic) Which is quite telling. When you deliver a load of wheat, the destination will take a small sample for further analysis. If that small sample contains glyphosate, they will know about it. The problem is that when you have grain mixed from many sources, that small sample may not be the area of the load that does contain traces of glyphosate. As such, it is quite possible for some to slip through. The fact that we're only talking small amounts slipping through and not entire loads "doused" in it, goes to show that the practice is not common, which is what I said from the start.