5 ms·

> 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 e

> 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
>I'm not sure why a large operation would throw their profits away to applying glyphosate for, in this context, absolutely no reason. It's not for no reason, it appears that it can increase yield. >Do you have a particular business in mind that I may have missed? Nope, I am doing educated guessing, as I have mentioned a number of times. >Increase yield at the end of harvest? Go do some research, the answer is "yes". Extra wheat berries/bulbs/seeds (?) are grown at the end of the season. >Did your friend's problem just start recently when it was previously not an issue? She's had issues for a while, but not her whole life. I'd have to ask. But people who are weaker in general would be affected by lower doses of poison than stronger people. I'd consider her a canary for the rest of us. >Higher yields alone does not necessarily make it worthwhile... I am not an accountant, so I can't argue for or against this. But if there is no financial incentive, why would this _ever_ be done? Yet, we know it is being done, it's not a "maybe", it's an absolute. All we are arguing over is how common this practice is. Which is a fact, something you can't debate, we just need the data. >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? I don't know which specific foods (or which specific wheat types) affect her. I will have to ask her. >As such, it is quite possible for some to slip through. The post from Bob's Red Mill was clear, some of his suppliers use it. So nothing is "slipping through". Also, the yield improvements from hermosis were based on a far smaller amounts than I thought possible. But how much added poison is just fine with anyone?
- randomdata 9y ago
  > It's not for no reason, it appears that it can increase yield. Based on a study that is so recent, not to mention something that has not proven to pencil out in the first place, that there is no reason to believe it is used widely in practice. Especially for crops before the current one given that the science was completely unknown before that. If your friend's problem just started in the last few months, maybe you're on to something. But also, I will point out that 3rd leaf stage is quite early in the plant's development. What mechanism allows the glyphosate to remain in the system until harvest? At least with desiccation it is understandable that some glyphosate will come in contact with the actual consumable product. The consumable part doesn't exist in third leaf. > Go do some research, the answer is "yes". Extra wheat berries/bulbs/seeds (?) are grown Okay, how? At the end of harvest the crop is out of the field and stored away/already consumed. That's what harvest means, after all. Remember, you literally wrote: "it looks like glyphosates applied at the end of the harvest increase yield." How are the berries that are already in the bin, which could be stored thousands of miles away by that point, maybe even already eaten, going to multiply by you spraying a barren field with roundup? This is the strangest agricultural claim I have ever heard – and being a farmer, I hear a lot of strange claims about agriculture from 'city folk' who have never been outside of a city. > But if there is no financial incentive, why would this _ever_ be done? Yet, we know it is being done We already established it is done for desiccation in certain climates. Your links say so, my links say so. My direct experience with agriculture as a farmer says it is a practice that is done with crops, but not so common in wheat. Your own link even confirmed this. There's really not much more to say about this. > I don't know which specific foods (or which specific wheat types) affect her. I will have to ask her. How, exactly, have you come up with the theory of glyphosate being the link when it appears that you know almost nothing about her condition? I am starting to get the impression you have an axe to grind rather than an interest in finding out what the source of the problem is, be it glyphosate or something else. > The post from Bob's Red Mill was clear, some of his suppliers use it. So nothing is "slipping through". Yes, the post is quite clear. The post explicitly states that some of their suppliers that collect from multiple sources may take in loads that have had glyphosate applied. When you mix those loads in with all of the loads the supplier has collected from many farmers, you're going to have pockets of grain delivered to the mill that cannot be reliably detected for the presence of glyphosate due to the reasons I outlined before. This is what slipping through means in my mind. If the product commonly contained traces of glyphosate, analysis would quickly detect it every time.

RobertRoberts 9y ago

>I'm not sure why a large operation would throw their profits away to applying glyphosate for, in this context, absolutely no reason. It's not for no reason, it appears that it can increase yield. >Do you have a particular business in mind that I may have missed? Nope, I am doing educated guessing, as I have mentioned a number of times. >Increase yield at the end of harvest? Go do some research, the answer is "yes". Extra wheat berries/bulbs/seeds (?) are grown at the end of the season. >Did your friend's problem just start recently when it was previously not an issue? She's had issues for a while, but not her whole life. I'd have to ask. But people who are weaker in general would be affected by lower doses of poison than stronger people. I'd consider her a canary for the rest of us. >Higher yields alone does not necessarily make it worthwhile... I am not an accountant, so I can't argue for or against this. But if there is no financial incentive, why would this _ever_ be done? Yet, we know it is being done, it's not a "maybe", it's an absolute. All we are arguing over is how common this practice is. Which is a fact, something you can't debate, we just need the data. >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? I don't know which specific foods (or which specific wheat types) affect her. I will have to ask her. >As such, it is quite possible for some to slip through. The post from Bob's Red Mill was clear, some of his suppliers use it. So nothing is "slipping through". Also, the yield improvements from hermosis were based on a far smaller amounts than I thought possible. But how much added poison is just fine with anyone?

randomdata 9y ago
> It's not for no reason, it appears that it can increase yield. Based on a study that is so recent, not to mention something that has not proven to pencil out in the first place, that there is no reason to believe it is used widely in practice. Especially for crops before the current one given that the science was completely unknown before that. If your friend's problem just started in the last few months, maybe you're on to something. But also, I will point out that 3rd leaf stage is quite early in the plant's development. What mechanism allows the glyphosate to remain in the system until harvest? At least with desiccation it is understandable that some glyphosate will come in contact with the actual consumable product. The consumable part doesn't exist in third leaf. > Go do some research, the answer is "yes". Extra wheat berries/bulbs/seeds (?) are grown Okay, how? At the end of harvest the crop is out of the field and stored away/already consumed. That's what harvest means, after all. Remember, you literally wrote: "it looks like glyphosates applied at the end of the harvest increase yield." How are the berries that are already in the bin, which could be stored thousands of miles away by that point, maybe even already eaten, going to multiply by you spraying a barren field with roundup? This is the strangest agricultural claim I have ever heard – and being a farmer, I hear a lot of strange claims about agriculture from 'city folk' who have never been outside of a city. > But if there is no financial incentive, why would this _ever_ be done? Yet, we know it is being done We already established it is done for desiccation in certain climates. Your links say so, my links say so. My direct experience with agriculture as a farmer says it is a practice that is done with crops, but not so common in wheat. Your own link even confirmed this. There's really not much more to say about this. > I don't know which specific foods (or which specific wheat types) affect her. I will have to ask her. How, exactly, have you come up with the theory of glyphosate being the link when it appears that you know almost nothing about her condition? I am starting to get the impression you have an axe to grind rather than an interest in finding out what the source of the problem is, be it glyphosate or something else. > The post from Bob's Red Mill was clear, some of his suppliers use it. So nothing is "slipping through". Yes, the post is quite clear. The post explicitly states that some of their suppliers that collect from multiple sources may take in loads that have had glyphosate applied. When you mix those loads in with all of the loads the supplier has collected from many farmers, you're going to have pockets of grain delivered to the mill that cannot be reliably detected for the presence of glyphosate due to the reasons I outlined before. This is what slipping through means in my mind. If the product commonly contained traces of glyphosate, analysis would quickly detect it every time.