GMO and Modern Farming a good thing?

We use all organic methods.  But we are not trying to feed the world.  I wonder what folk think about the balance between modern farming methods (chemical, GMO, and the like) and traditional organic methods.  A lot of folk trash the modern methods, but with the United Nations, World Bank, and other international bodies warning about an ongoing and worsening global food shortage I wonder about the large scale benefits.

I wonder if maybe the modern methods ability to feed so many people might outweigh the draw backs, of which there are many.  Maybe even some unknown ones.

Thoughts?

I don't have a wide expertise in this area, so my opinions may not have too much information backing them. However, I think that GMO foods get more bad publicity than they deserve. Humans have been genetically modifying plants for as long as we have been deliberately growing them - none of our current food supplies are the same as their ancient ancestors. I read recently in National Geographic that all the current citrus fruit are believed to have come from only three ancestors. All the crosses of peppers that we come up with are genetic modifications. GMO has great potential to provide ore people more reliable, more nutritious foods. However, there are some risks, such as spread of GMO crops as "superweeds", similar to the antibiotic resistant superbugs that have emerged recently. My biggest concern is that GMO foods will result in the end of small farmers,and the control of the world's food supply in the hands of a small number of large corporations. We have already seen this happen with seedless watermelon. Farmers growing these strains of melon need to buy seeds from companies each year, and are completely dependent on these companies for their supply of seeds.
 
However, with sufficient control and regulation, I feel that GMO has great potential - potential that definitely should be used. 
 
But with great power comes great responsibility, so we'll see how it plays out in the near future....

" Feeding the world " , is only possible if overpopulation is reduced.!
GMO food is not going to save the world.!
 
 
On GMO food, I don't think it is all bad , but it is in the wrong , money grabbing, hands. Creating Yellow coloured rice with high levels of Vitamin A to save the eyesight of starving kids in Africa cannot not be done in any other way than genetic modification.
But , once again that problem can only be solved long term with education and family planning.
 
 

Or just, you know, mass murder...

For those that thinks its ok now, what do you think it will evolve to in say 100 or 200 years. I suspect something similar to the movie Idiocracy. The grand children and great grand children will enjoy a nice balanced nutritional supper of doritos and mtn dew.

"global food shortage" "Mass starving" "Gmo will feed the world"
 
This is monsanto's slogan...don't you get it.
 
We can feed the world twice with our world's agriculture.
 
Food is overpriced,we eat ten times more than we should, and food is wasted in such large quantities that it is a atrocity.
 
Farmers are not allowed to seed save. Something farmers have done for thousands of years.
 
The chemical usage are increasing and i believe its now 15 states in america where weeds have become "superweeds" and resistant to these chemicals over the years
and now farmers are dosing more chemicals and finding other ways to get rid of these weeds.
 
It's all business to force you into buying their seed and pesticides.
 
These chemicals are killing our soils,killing bee's and other beneficials in alarming numbers.
 
In south africa our staple is all gmo,farm workers who live on the farm and eat the gmo's were reported to having health issues.
 
Animals feeding on gmo feed(corn,alfalfa etc etc) reported all over the world as having major health issues and dying.
 
One farmer here in south africa realised what was happening to his animals and switch to nom gmo and within a month the animals behaviours and health changed,
couple months later he couldn't find non gmo feed and the issues started again after having to buy gmo feed.
 
We just suffered our worst drought since our records started,over a 100 years. And what happened,we had to import 1,3m ton of gmo corn in january
because the "drought resistant" corn failed.
 
Gmo crops are not producing more
Gmo crops are not drought resistant.
I's one massive lie.
 
BT corn is a toxin that is injected into the corn,and have been widely studied as being able to carry over into us,and cause major health issues.
People having immediate allergic reactions when eating this corn,And also pests are becoming resistant to this toxin.
 
The world farmed without gmo for thousands of years and in the last 30 years gmo have completely take over in commercial sector.
 
We don't need it,it doesn't work,you can not alter natures dna by changing the dna of seed and think you have a recipe for success.
 
Nature will win every single time,you can not beat nature or the pests you simply have to work with nature like all the farmers have done for so long.
 
Have a read about the recent bayer-monsanto merger,and the implications how this will remove the small farmer,and how they plan to take over especially here in africa and south africa.
 
JM-fortier said it best "We need to replace mass agriculture by agriculture by the masses"
 
Everything starts with education,less than 1% of the public even know about gmo's and that they are consuming it on a daily basis.
 
And for the above post nr 2,natural pollination of crops is not humans genitically engeering crops. Inserting a deadly toxin into the dna of seed is  genitically engeering a seed.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Gonzo said some things I have read elsewhere, like drought resistance.  Monsanto came out with a drought resistant GMO corn.  It i drought resistant, but no more than hybrid drought resistant corns.  Ah, but Monsanto gets a patent on their GMO drought resistant corn.  So they market it well.  It is the same as some of the so called new medications.  No better than the old, but new patent mean new money.  I am sure there is a lot of this going on.  But also sure a few things do have benefits.

Lets look at round up resistant gmo.  Not the draw backs, but the benefits.  You nuke the land and then grow nuke resistant corn.  Practically no weeds.  Surely that produces more food with less labor.  More food per fertile acre?  More food per available water? 

Again, not advocating modern farming tech / chemicals / gmo for folk like us.  But for massive production, I wonder if there arent many up sides.  Why else would they do it?

 

I wholeheartedly agree with Gonzo's post. GMO's do NOT increase yield. Why else would they do it? Because AJ Drew they sterilize the seed, they monopolize the industry, they enslave the farmer and the people. An astounding number of top federal government officials came directly from former board jobs at Monsanto. It is a revolving door. They are probably the most powerful entity on the planet. Did you know you can be sued for saying anything disparaging about food companies in 13 states, Oprah (the billionaire) found out the hard way and is terrified of them... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_libel_laws
 
I just posted these links elsewhere but they are much more relevant here, these are short articles but are eye opening to be sure...
 
Raymond Siedler, PhD senior EPA scientist... http://naturalsociety.com/former-epa-scientist-speaks-out-against-gmos/
 
Thierry C. Vrain, PhD soil biologist... http://www.globalresearch.ca/former-pro-gmo-scientist-speaks-out-on-the-real-dangers-of-genetically-engineered-food/5424010
 
Jonathan R. Latham, PhD plant biologist... https://www.independentsciencenews.org/health/growing-doubt-a-scientists-experience-of-gmos/
 
Quote from Latham (above article)... "The True Purpose of GMOs - The commercial purpose of GMOs is not to feed the world or improve farming. Rather, they exist to gain intellectual property (i.e. patent rights) over seeds and plant breeding and to drive agriculture in directions that benefit agribusiness."

AJ Drew said:

Gonzo said some things I have read elsewhere, like drought resistance.  Monsanto came out with a drought resistant GMO corn.  It i drought resistant, but no more than hybrid drought resistant corns.  Ah, but Monsanto gets a patent on their GMO drought resistant corn.  So they market it well.  It is the same as some of the so called new medications.  No better than the old, but new patent mean new money.  I am sure there is a lot of this going on.  But also sure a few things do have benefits.

Lets look at round up resistant gmo.  Not the draw backs, but the benefits.  You nuke the land and then grow nuke resistant corn.  Practically no weeds.  Surely that produces more food with less labor.  More food per fertile acre?  More food per available water? 

Again, not advocating modern farming tech / chemicals / gmo for folk like us.  But for massive production, I wonder if there arent many up sides.  Why else would they do it?

 

Click to expand...

Ok let me explain in summary for you. Firstly gmo does not and have been proven by countless farmers to not have benefits,and it does not save them money to use it. They are told it will produce more and control weeds and ..."feed the world".As mentioned many weed species have become resitant turning into superweeds due to the roundup sprays.

Roundup is a glyphosate,remember monsanto was a chemical company,the same company who once said DDT is safe and the the same for PCBs,(google monsanto pcbs) and have a read.The way roundup works is that it starves the weeds/plants nutrition and kills it. It chelates the nutrients of the plants which means the gmo corn is also less nutrituos,this is well studied. And its said that roundup can come into us when eating the corn and thus chelates our immune system causing serious health implications.

You have to go and study how this all came about and how monsanto got this done. When george bush became president in the 80s he had his thing about deregulating and this was monsantos way in.

Michael taylor worked for monsanto and was offered a job in the early 90s at the FDA the people that run your food and drug safety. He was given a job as policy maker at the fda and thus creating the perfect in to get monsanto approved for comercial usage and in 1992 it was done and dusted he got the policy written just like monsanto wanted. The gmos was put on the market before any proper long term studies and the scientist working on it said they needed more time and that it was showing to not be safe but in big bussiness and politcs anything can get done.



Sent from my GT-I9190 using Tapatalk

The evidence has been out for over a decade as the toxic effect of GMO, digestive issues being the main problem in many people/animals. Many East Indians have committed suicide when the crops failed after having to use GMO grain and cant get out of their debt. One big Lie to get rich and control the food supply.
Anyone that has grown "Organic" and sees the stuff in the stores labeled "Organic" can also see somethings wrong, Ive always seen the "Organic" stuff half the size of the regular stuff, no its not the chemicals giving the extra size. I recall the veg my Mum would grow "Organic" in the garden, they would be massive. If the veg has food, it will grow, if not then it will not.

The things that rings in my head is someone/GOV owning the Gmo food patient  in control of the distribution OF and GMO not got all the nutritional values higher toxicity and and the health issue and it may very well help world hunger by decreasing population and this is a .....GOOD MURDER OPTION......... thus ..........GMO

I am not pro GMO.  I am not pro Round Up.  Yes, super weeds are becoming a thing.  But the idea that modern chemical farming does not increase yield per work / acre / water i complete bunk.  I asked, why then would people use it.  Best thing anyone can come up with is that Monsanto wants to enslave people.  Ye, I think that is true.  But why would an experienced farmer use it if normal hybrids work just as well?  Because he wants to be enslaved?

Does anyone remember the top soil scare?  I think it was the 80s.  Farm tech at that time was till, till, till to get rid of the weeds.  Result was you loose your top soil much faster.  Rain washes it away.  Now much less tilling (labor, fuel, money).  I am sure with hybrids you can get the same volume at harvest, but the amount of labor, fuel, and money is much higher than modern chemical farming.  That, and it is used in ways most folk don't get at all.

Example: Not sure if they came up with a Round Up ready alfalfa yet.  They did not at the time.  My boss had an alfalfa field go to weed.  So he leased it to someone growing round up ready corn for a couple of years.  Killed the weeds, the alfalfa, everything but the corn.  Then he replanted alfalfa.  There might have been soy between the corn and alfalfa, but not sure why.

Now tell me, without doing something like that how would he have gotten rid of the weeds?

MadDog said:

GMO's do NOT increase yield. 

Click to expand...

 
GMOs absolutely can increase yield. You are basically quoting the "union of concerned scientists" report from 2009 which argues that GMO yield gains aren't as high as seed companies claim, but they do concede that yield gains exist.  Also their study is incredibly flawed. I will refer you to Dr. Kevin Folta for a more in-depth analysis on GMO yield gains http://kfolta.blogspot.com/2016/11/some-actual-yield-data.html
 

AJ Drew said:

Yes, super weeds are becoming a thing.  

Click to expand...

 
Super weeds have always been a thing, not unique to roundup. The graph below shows 5 modes of action for herbicide resistances. ESPS synthase inhibitors are glyphosate (roundup) resistant and were not the first super-weeds, nor do they have the most species.

Gorizza, I agree very much on super weeds.  Super bugs to.  Many have been around for what seems like ever.  Remove their competition with chemicals and they flourish.  Well, they do until someone figures out the next super chemical.  It is definitely a viscous cycle.  I absolutely detest modern chemical farming.  Just pondering what the alternative is with such a demand predicted.
 
Personally, I think aquaponics could replace chemical farming.  What folk in Israel have done is amazing.  But the initial cost of setting up aquaponics on a huge scale seems daunting.  On the other hand, I read about the oceans running out of fish, the land being poisoned, super weeds, super pests and so on.  Maybe to survive we have no other choice.

With such radical changes in weather, I wonder if survival is going to mean giant high tunnels and aquaponics going on forever.  I suppose before it gets there, other methods will have to fail so that it becomes profitable.
 

AJ Drew said:

I absolutely detest modern chemical farming.  Just pondering what the alternative is with such a demand predicted.

Click to expand...

 
I know what you mean by this, especially after the things you've shared about how your body may have been affected.
 
I think its important to remember that organic farming uses "chemicals" too.  You may not personally apply very often, and I don't either on my non-organic garden, but there are still plenty of acutely toxic chemicals that are allowed on organic farms under USDA rules, and I don't think there is any reason to think they are not being applied. Here's the list of "synthetic" chemicals allowed under the US Code of Federal Regulations.
 

§205.601   Synthetic substances allowed for use in organic crop production.
In accordance with restrictions specified in this section, the following synthetic substances may be used in organic crop production: Provided, That, use of such substances do not contribute to contamination of crops, soil, or water. Substances allowed by this section, except disinfectants and sanitizers in paragraph (a) and those substances in paragraphs (c), (j), (k), and (l) of this section, may only be used when the provisions set forth in §205.206(a) through (d) prove insufficient to prevent or control the target pest.
(a) As algicide, disinfectants, and sanitizer, including irrigation system cleaning systems.
(1) Alcohols.
(i) Ethanol.
(ii) Isopropanol.
(2) Chlorine materials—For pre-harvest use, residual chlorine levels in the water in direct crop contact or as water from cleaning irrigation systems applied to soil must not exceed the maximum residual disinfectant limit under the Safe Drinking Water Act, except that chlorine products may be used in edible sprout production according to EPA label directions.
(i) Calcium hypochlorite.
(ii) Chlorine dioxide.
(iii) Sodium hypochlorite.
(3) Copper sulfate—for use as an algicide in aquatic rice systems, is limited to one application per field during any 24-month period. Application rates are limited to those which do not increase baseline soil test values for copper over a timeframe agreed upon by the producer and accredited certifying agent.
(4) Hydrogen peroxide.
(5) Ozone gas—for use as an irrigation system cleaner only.
(6) Peracetic acid—for use in disinfecting equipment, seed, and asexually propagated planting material. Also permitted in hydrogen peroxide formulations as allowed in §205.601(a) at concentration of no more than 6% as indicated on the pesticide product label.
(7) Soap-based algicide/demossers.
(8) Sodium carbonate peroxyhydrate (CAS #-15630-89-4)—Federal law restricts the use of this substance in food crop production to approved food uses identified on the product label.
(b) As herbicides, weed barriers, as applicable.
(1) Herbicides, soap-based—for use in farmstead maintenance (roadways, ditches, right of ways, building perimeters) and ornamental crops.
(2) Mulches.
(i) Newspaper or other recycled paper, without glossy or colored inks.
(ii) Plastic mulch and covers (petroleum-based other than polyvinyl chloride (PVC)).
(iii) Biodegradable biobased mulch film as defined in §205.2. Must be produced without organisms or feedstock derived from excluded methods.
(c) As compost feedstocks—Newspapers or other recycled paper, without glossy or colored inks.
(d) As animal repellents—Soaps, ammonium—for use as a large animal repellant only, no contact with soil or edible portion of crop.
(e) As insecticides (including acaricides or mite control).
(1) Ammonium carbonate—for use as bait in insect traps only, no direct contact with crop or soil.
(2) Aqueous potassium silicate (CAS #-1312-76-1)—the silica, used in the manufacture of potassium silicate, must be sourced from naturally occurring sand.
(3) Boric acid—structural pest control, no direct contact with organic food or crops.
(4) Copper sulfate—for use as tadpole shrimp control in aquatic rice production, is limited to one application per field during any 24-month period. Application rates are limited to levels which do not increase baseline soil test values for copper over a timeframe agreed upon by the producer and accredited certifying agent.
(5) Elemental sulfur.
(6) Lime sulfur—including calcium polysulfide.
(7) Oils, horticultural—narrow range oils as dormant, suffocating, and summer oils.
(8) Soaps, insecticidal.
(9) Sticky traps/barriers.
(10) Sucrose octanoate esters (CAS #s—42922-74-7; 58064-47-4)—in accordance with approved labeling.
(f) As insect management. Pheromones.
(g) As rodenticides. Vitamin D[SIZE=9.1px]3[/SIZE].
(h) As slug or snail bait. Ferric phosphate (CAS # 10045-86-0).
(i) As plant disease control.
(1) Aqueous potassium silicate (CAS #-1312-76-1)—the silica, used in the manufacture of potassium silicate, must be sourced from naturally occurring sand.
(2) Coppers, fixed—copper hydroxide, copper oxide, copper oxychloride, includes products exempted from EPA tolerance, Provided, That, copper-based materials must be used in a manner that minimizes accumulation in the soil and shall not be used as herbicides.
(3) Copper sulfate—Substance must be used in a manner that minimizes accumulation of copper in the soil.
(4) Hydrated lime.
(5) Hydrogen peroxide.
(6) Lime sulfur.
(7) Oils, horticultural, narrow range oils as dormant, suffocating, and summer oils.
(8) Peracetic acid—for use to control fire blight bacteria. Also permitted in hydrogen peroxide formulations as allowed in §205.601(i) at concentration of no more than 6% as indicated on the pesticide product label.
(9) Potassium bicarbonate.
(10) Elemental sulfur.
(j) As plant or soil amendments.
(1) Aquatic plant extracts (other than hydrolyzed)—Extraction process is limited to the use of potassium hydroxide or sodium hydroxide; solvent amount used is limited to that amount necessary for extraction.
(2) Elemental sulfur.
(3) Humic acids—naturally occurring deposits, water and alkali extracts only.
(4) Lignin sulfonate—chelating agent, dust suppressant.
(5) Magnesium sulfate—allowed with a documented soil deficiency.
(6) Micronutrients—not to be used as a defoliant, herbicide, or desiccant. Those made from nitrates or chlorides are not allowed. Soil deficiency must be documented by testing.
(i) Soluble boron products.
(ii) Sulfates, carbonates, oxides, or silicates of zinc, copper, iron, manganese, molybdenum, selenium, and cobalt.
(7) Liquid fish products—can be pH adjusted with sulfuric, citric or phosphoric acid. The amount of acid used shall not exceed the minimum needed to lower the pH to 3.5.
(8) Vitamins, B[SIZE=9.1px]1[/SIZE], C, and E.
(9) Sulfurous acid (CAS # 7782-99-2) for on-farm generation of substance utilizing 99% purity elemental sulfur per paragraph (j)(2) of this section.
(k) As plant growth regulators. Ethylene gas—for regulation of pineapple flowering.
(l) As floating agents in postharvest handling.
(1) Lignin sulfonate.
(2) Sodium silicate—for tree fruit and fiber processing.
(m) As synthetic inert ingredients as classified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), for use with nonsynthetic substances or synthetic substances listed in this section and used as an active pesticide ingredient in accordance with any limitations on the use of such substances.
(1) EPA List 4—Inerts of Minimal Concern.
(2) EPA List 3—Inerts of unknown toxicity—for use only in passive pheromone dispensers.
(n) Seed preparations. Hydrogen chloride (CAS # 7647-01-0)—for delinting cotton seed for planting.
(o) As production aids. Microcrystalline cheesewax (CAS #'s 64742-42-3, 8009-03-08, and 8002-74-2)-for use in log grown mushroom production. Must be made without either ethylene-propylene co-polymer or synthetic colors.

Gorizza, yep same principle: antibiotics, pesticides, herbicides.  Them too much and you get super bugs.

On growing organic: I think folk should realize what they are doing is TRYING to grow organically.  Water your plants with city water, seems you are giving them anti depressants and birth control hormones.  Add commercial chicken or cow manure and you have antibiotics and growth hormone.  What is in our rain these days?  I guess what I am really saying is: Wow humanity has screwed up the planet.
 
Funny to note that over the last decade or so, I have put huge effort into turning my initial two inches of top soil into quality rich and deep rows.  Thing is, I am in farm country so any advice I get is to add this chemical or that chemical.  I bring up the word organic at a farm supply and I get laughed at.  Not the farm supply aimed at the public, but the commercial ones.  Here in farm country, it is all about volume and chemicals.  Not about focusing on quality, taste, beauty, or harmony.  But ya know, it kind of has to be that way because unless you are in a niche (like peppers) its the only way to pay the mortgage.
 
BTW: List is amazing, scary, and helpful.  Thank you.

The scary thing is it only took 50 years for humans to ruin this planet, oceans totally screwed (dead zones), forests gone, wildlife being wiped out, mutations in animals all the way up to the Arctic etc, etc, etc.

Gorizza said:

 
GMOs absolutely can increase yield. You are basically quoting the "union of concerned scientists" report from 2009 which argues that GMO yield gains aren't as high as seed companies claim, but they do concede that yield gains exist.  Also their study is incredibly flawed. I will refer you to Dr. Kevin Folta for a more in-depth analysis on GMO yield gains http://kfolta.blogspot.com/2016/11/some-actual-yield-data.html
 
 
Super weeds have always been a thing, not unique to roundup. The graph below shows 5 modes of action for herbicide resistances. ESPS synthase inhibitors are glyphosate (roundup) resistant and were not the first super-weeds, nor do they have the most species.
 

Click to expand...

 
Gmo absolutely DOES NOT increase yields,have you been out to talk to farmers personally who used GMO crops? OR do you rely Mr folta blog,oh and didn't his university get donations from monsanto? Hmmm ok then.
 
The debate around gmo can go on and on,one thing is clear that in a 100 years from now, gmo and other seeds will either be controlled patented and owned by corporations or farmers will eventually wake up to the reality of gmo and see it for what it really stands for. You read about the bayer-monsanto merger?
 
Here in south africa some farmers have seen first hand that it does not work and have gone back to more conventional farming methods,and i hope more ill wake up to this
 
GMO's have completely changed agriculture for the worse,no one implements cover crops anymore,something which farming can not go without,increased the uses of toxic pesticides ten fold.
 
Cover crops creates healthy soils,and healthy soils create healthy plants. 

Gonzo said:

 
Gmo absolutely DOES NOT increase yields,have you been out to talk to farmers personally who used GMO crops? OR do you rely Mr folta blog,oh and didn't his university get donations from monsanto? Hmmm ok then.
 
The debate around gmo can go on and on,one thing is clear that in a 100 years from now, gmo and other seeds will either be controlled patented and owned by corporations or farmers will eventually wake up to the reality of gmo and see it for what it really stands for. You read about the bayer-monsanto merger?
 
Here in south africa some farmers have seen first hand that it does not work and have gone back to more conventional farming methods,and i hope more ill wake up to this
 
GMO's have completely changed agriculture for the worse,no one implements cover crops anymore,something which farming can not go without,increased the uses of toxic pesticides ten fold.
 
Cover crops creates healthy soils,and healthy soils create healthy plants. 

Click to expand...

 
Thanks for the personal attack, Gonzo. As it happens my family's farm was saved from the brink of bankruptcy in the mid 90s by Roundup-Ready Soy. It was viewed as a literal gift from God and single-handedly made the farm profitable again. Hearing about my grandparents talk about the scientists who made the seed is what made me go into the industry in the first place, and I'm really proud of the work we've accomplished for farmers everywhere
 
"increased the uses of toxic pesticides ten fold" I'm curious where you heard this falsehood? The difference in pesticide use between GM and their conventional counterparts is at most 28%, and in corn total chemical used is far less for GM. No farmer likes spraying pesticide, even if just for the reason that its an expense of fuel. The entire purpose of Bt corn and cotton, and RR crops is to reduce the need to spray... We have the same goal there.
 
You seem really hung up on cover crops. Why do you think a farmer, GM or conventional, would refuse to plant a cover crop? that's just bad agronomy. My favorite new planting system is "planting green" where you plant a crop like soy directly on top of an actively growing cover crop. Its a reallly neat idea for a crop rotation.

Gorizza said:

 
Thanks for the personal attack, Gonzo. As it happens my family's farm was saved from the brink of bankruptcy in the mid 90s by Roundup-Ready Soy. It was viewed as a literal gift from God and single-handedly made the farm profitable again. Hearing about my grandparents talk about the scientists who made the seed is what made me go into the industry in the first place, and I'm really proud of the work we've accomplished for farmers everywhere
 
"increased the uses of toxic pesticides ten fold" I'm curious where you heard this falsehood? The difference in pesticide use between GM and their conventional counterparts is at most 28%, and in corn total chemical used is far less for GM. No farmer likes spraying pesticide, even if just for the reason that its an expense of fuel. The entire purpose of Bt corn and cotton, and RR crops is to reduce the need to spray... We have the same goal there.
 
You seem really hung up on cover crops. Why do you think a farmer, GM or conventional, would refuse to plant a cover crop? that's just bad agronomy. My favorite new planting system is "planting green" where you plant a crop like soy directly on top of an actively growing cover crop. Its a reallly neat idea for a crop rotation.

Click to expand...

Personal attack lol Nothing absolutely nothing in my post was personal. It is critique towards your argument with my own argument, a mere conversation. 
 
I also have family in farming,and i have spoken to farmers.Over here in south africa all our staple is gmo,and almost every farmer is growing gmo crops now and from my consensus it was that they have heavily increased herbicides use in the last 20 years since the gmo was introduced here in 98'. You mentioned superweeds have always been a problem,no..not here over the last two decades we are now seeing increased weed resistance,resulting in increased herbicide use. This was not the case pre 98'. 
 
Also not every farmer does cover crops,lots of farmers especially gmo farmers leave their fields fallow over winters. There has been load of research gone into the benefits of cover crops,that shows less use of synthetic fertilizer,herbicides and overall it attracts less pests,there has been a big problem with fertilizers running off into waterways contaminating it. There is farmer called dave brent i believe is his name in usa that does regular seminars explaining how cover crops is a must and the way of the future.
 
The thing is like i said gmo have changed the way we farm and its not for the good, a short term problem wont solve the long term problem,what will happen when all the soils have become eroded from the herbicides/the tilling,contaminating our water supplies,killing beneficial insects such as bee's,something that is a major concern right now.
 
We can agree to disagree,i for one don't buy into the BS monsanto is spinning,thinking their seed is superior, i know there will come a day when people realise we need to start farming differently and work with nature not against it.