I'm so pissed to read this article: http://bigbudsmag.com/marijuana-cannabis-maximum-yield-monsanto-sunlight-supply/ WTF? "Not that you saw the name “Monsanto†at the Maximum Yield event. Instead you saw the name of a Monsanto front company called “Novozymes.†Novozymes is an international GMO (genetically modified organism) company intimately teamed with Monsanto in a partnership called “The BioAg Alliance.†Some marijuana growers use a Novozymes microbials-based product called “Met52†that Novozymes claims is effective as a foliar spray and/or a granular root zone treatment to stop mites, thrips, aphids, whiteflies, and fungus gnats. Sunlight Supply, another major hydroponics industry profiteer that publicly denies marijuana growers are 95% of the customers for the hydroponics industry, is the official North American distributor of Met52."
I prefer to call it 'Monsatan' check out this podcast, lots of evidence explaining how Monsanto is a very corrupt company. DeepInside the RabbitHole #np on #SoundCloud http://soundcloud.com/ditrh/monsatan
Not defending Monsanto (at all!) but I do have concerns that some of those most vocal in their opposition don't really understand the cost in lives we'd have to pay to completely eliminate all modern (non-organic) agricultural practices. It's all based on the population pressure we insist on applying to the planet, which is no one's fault but our own, but we just don't have enough land to keep everyone fed without some of the "evil" modern agriculture. The question becomes, then, which is "good" and which is "bad"? In my opinion, it's not actually a question of whether a technological solution is good or bad, but rather whether it's being used sanely. Knives are bad if you're running about stabbing people. But they're good if you're a surgeon using them to perform life-saving surgery. I wouldn't trust Monsanto with a Nerf gun, but I worry that their irresponsible use of certain technologies (like GMOs) are having the effect of polarizing people against it to such a degree that we'll someday see enough of this vital research banned that we'll find it impossible to prevent large-scale starvation. And I also think that if such a thing were to come to pass, those of us who've cultivated the skills of indoor cultivation will be uniquely qualified to help restore balance.
Monsanto plans to patent genetically modified marijuana in Uruguay (news – 2014) http://www.soul-mirror.com/monsanto-plans-to-patent-genetically-modified-marijuana-in-uruguay/ Granny
I think their collaboration just began in 2013, so it's not like Monsanto set up a new front to infiltrate. Novozymes already had relationships in the industry, but I expect those relationships will mostly dissipate due to this alliance.
Agreed completely. Although it's really not so much about having enough land. There is plenty of arable land out our disposal that is currently not being used. It's more to do with the economy of scaling. GMO crops scale much better than non GMO's, for a myriad of reasons. As for your second bolded statement, again, I agree completely. But more to the point, I believe that non-soil agriculture is eventually going to be the preferred method of sustainability. Phosphorous is a non-renewable resource, and non-soil mediums are better equipped to utilize our quickly diminishing supplies. You will also be able to treat and reuse a lot of the waste water produced by non-soil agriculture. With soil there really is no efficient way to do so. And on top of that you have the major problem of soil acidification, especially in 'thirsty' crops such a corn.
These anti's remond me of those that condemened explorers trying to prove the world was round, the earth was not the center of the universe, you could protect yourself by injecting a virus into you from the diseases it causes. Embrace science and the profit it brings. better food and weed for the world, not just for the rich. Funny how we are lving longer since the advent of inorganics. Think about this. the average age was about 50 or so when we lived in the last organic only world. Give me more Monsanto and less whining.
monsanto is so new that it will take a few hundred years to catch up with and see the results of introducing man made spliced on genetics to plants for whatever reason. we are all predicting the future of that type of tech and no one knows what will happen from it but up to this point in time anything man touches turns from natural gold to dog shit in two seconds flat.
Why electing Hillary Clinton is equivalent to putting Monsanto in the White House Hillary Clinton, comes with her very own baggage also, and actually, to many, her large government encounter is seen as a limitation, not a benefit. Millions of voters view her as a card-carrying participant of the judgment “establishment”– corrupt, compromised as well as undependable, as the first (most likely) governmental candidate that is proactively under criminal investigation by the federal government. Clinton has one more adverse versus her as well: the truth that she’s a promoter of GMOs, and also that one of the companies that has her in their back pocket is Monsanto. Why electing Hillary Clinton is equivalent to putting Monsanto in the White House | Healthy Life Castle