In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The federal government is recognizing gay marriage in six more states and extending federal benefits to those couples, Attorney General Eric Holder announced Saturday.
Gay marriage recently became legal in Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, North Carolina, West Virginia and Wyoming.
The government's announcement follows the U.S. Supreme Court's decision earlier this month to decline to hear appeals from five states that sought to keep their marriage bans in place. It brings the total number of states with federal recognition of gay marriage to 32, plus the District of Columbia.
Couples married in these states will qualify for a range of federal benefits, including Social Security and veterans' benefits.
"With each new state where same-sex marriages are legally recognized, our nation moves closer to achieving full equality for all Americans," Holder said.
The attorney general said the government is working "as quickly as possible" to make sure same-sex married couples in these states receive the "fullest array of benefits" that federal law allows.
(Reuters) - The last U.S. Marines unit and final British combat troops in Afghanistan officially ended their operations on Sunday as they packed up to leave the country and transferred a massive military base to the Afghan military.
The American and British flags were lowered and folded up for the final time at the regional headquarters of the international military, 13 years after the toppling of the Taliban’s radical Islamist regime launched America's longest war.
The timing of the troops’ withdrawal from the base in the strategic province of Helmand was not released for security reasons.
Camp Leatherneck is the largest U.S. base to be handed over to Afghan control as the coalition ends its combat mission at the end of the year, leaving most of the fight against a resilient Taliban insurgency to Afghan army and police.
British forces transferred the adjacent Camp Bastion at the same time.
Once a teeming compound of some 40,000 personnel, the coalition's Regional Command (Southwest) combined base on Sunday resembled a dust-swept, well-fortified ghost town.
Concrete blast walls and razor wire were left guarding empty sand lots and barracks. Offices were bare, and bulletin boards stripped of photo tributes of fallen American troops.
"It’s empty now – when I got here, it was still bustling, so there were a lot of services around and people around," said Marine Capt. Ryan Steenberge, whose taskforce was overseeing surveillance and security for the withdrawal and will be among the last troops out.
I'm not entirely sure why this differs so much from the results that Environmental Sciences Europe came up with, but I did take a look at their spreadsheet. Looking at tab "Sup Tab 8 9 10 HT Rates" Table 8 they seem to be assuming that average glyphosate is used on HT corn, deriving non-HT herbicide use from the HT figures using a static formula, and using the category 'Other Herbicides on HT Acres' as just a plug figure.
I'm not sure how the plug figure is justified or if there is an explanation somewhere. If you reference row 7 from the tab "Sup Tab 1 Herb Rates" the other cells do, HT and conventional herbicide use nets out to the same amount.
If I made any errors here, or missed something, do let me know.
Edit: realized I worded this wrong.
Edit 2: Their math seems to imply that farmers using conventional varieties managed to cut their use of non-glyphosate herbicide by half over the time period while maintaining an average use of glyphosate.
I don't have access to environmental's sciences europe's data since I need to send some kind of mail to aquire them (and I don't want to) but it seems they evaluated the impact of HT GM crop on herbicides use (especially round up) via a model - which mean it's a prediction of the effect of GM crops on herbicide use, and not a simple repetition of real absolute use of herbicides by HT and non HT users. From this, we can agree that your doc is less normative than mine (environmental science europe).
We could discuss to no end the stats, but even in the doc you linked (which is from 2014) there is an increase in herbicide use per acre in HT crop and a decrease in herbicide use in conventional (non GM) crop, which perfectly support my point that herbicide tolerant crop, or GM overall, does not help lowering the use of herbicide. It's actually pretty interesting because in your doc they also prove that the decrease in insecticide is not directly due to BT crop, but that there is a huge decrease in the usage of insecticides for farmers who use conventional crops, and is linked overall to a decrease in pests in the last years (so it's not directly linked to GMO, altho the use of GMO might have played a positive role in this event). So overall the final effect of GM crop on pesticides and herbicides use is pretty unsatisfying, at best null and at worst negative (push for a heavier use of herbicides - in both insecticide and herbicide use by acre, the level of use for conventional crop is now equal with the use of GM crop... very interesting).
What's interesting is that they also show that : - GM does not increase production (contrary to most belief, even mine), but decrease variance : it is more a tool for safety than that of productivity (and from my point of view, safety can be satisfied through other means than GMO, such a mutualisation of risks and government programs). - GM does not lead to an increase in net profit (it might even change in the years to come considering the evolution of the costs of GM crops who are constantly going up, and altho the document think this increase is linked to agrofirm's effort in R&D and the costs associated to that effort, I believe it's more a question of monopoly like situation, and more exactly the obligation to buy crop every years and respect a binding contract - the dependancy of farmers on GMO firms) ; - GM have non monetary advantage, mainly that it lower the time necessary to prepare the land / increase safety (less use of dangerous tools maybe ?) / help farmers get more time for other activity (more no-till farming which is a perfectly good thing for nature, one of the few good argument for GM use).
They also point out that the resistance to glyphosate has lead firms to produce HT to other herbicides, herbicides which are more dangerous to the environment than glyphosate. Those crop will soon arrive in the market, and we'll see the effect of those "innovations" in a few years.
Again, I reiterate my point : GMO is not a good or bad innovation in itself, it's an innovation which mean it can lead to progress in many possible ways, but what matter is its use. From the data we have here, it seems the end results are pretty scarce (personally I think they're negative but that's my interpretation), not necessarily positive (the effect on herbicide / pesticide use is null, effect on productivity is null, and the two positive things are a decrease in various risks and some non monetary advantage).
I'm not entirely sure why this differs so much from the results that Environmental Sciences Europe came up with, but I did take a look at their spreadsheet. Looking at tab "Sup Tab 8 9 10 HT Rates" Table 8 they seem to be assuming that average glyphosate is used on HT corn, deriving non-HT herbicide use from the HT figures using a static formula, and using the category 'Other Herbicides on HT Acres' as just a plug figure.
I'm not sure how the plug figure is justified or if there is an explanation somewhere. If you reference row 7 from the tab "Sup Tab 1 Herb Rates" the other cells do, HT and conventional herbicide use nets out to the same amount.
If I made any errors here, or missed something, do let me know.
Edit: realized I worded this wrong.
Edit 2: Their math seems to imply that farmers using conventional varieties managed to cut their use of non-glyphosate herbicide by half over the time period while maintaining an average use of glyphosate.
I don't have access to environmental's sciences europe's data since I need to send some kind of mail to aquire them (and I don't want to) but it seems they evaluated the impact of HT GM crop on herbicides use (especially round up) via a model - which mean it's a prediction of the effect of GM crops on herbicide use, and not a simple repetition of real absolute use of herbicides by HT and non HT users. From this, we can agree that your doc is less normative than mine (environmental science europe).
Their excel sheet is here: http://www.enveurope.com/content/24/1/24 and you can download it for free, no mail or anything required. I know they use a model, I just don't see how their model is justified. They don't seem to be basing the model on any real-world effects. As far as I can tell their model is just a mathematical representation of their opinion. I'm only going to spend so much time looking at this stuff though, so if you find what their justifications are, please share.
We could discuss to no end the stats, but even in the doc you linked (which is from 2014) there is an increase in herbicide use per acre in HT crop and a decrease in herbicide use in conventional (non GM) crop, which perfectly support my point that herbicide tolerant crop, or GM overall, does not help lowering the use of herbicide.
No. The doc I shared shows that HT crops use less herbicide than conventional crops, but the difference degrades with time. Whether that's because expanded HT use lead to a reversion to the mean due to differences in farmer abilities and practices or because expanded HT use lead to greater weed resistance is unlear. In either case, the use of HT crops decreased herbicide use.
It's actually pretty interesting because in your doc they also prove that the decrease in insecticide is not directly due to BT crop, but that there is a huge decrease in the usage of insecticides for farmers who use conventional crops, and is linked overall to a decrease in pests in the last years (so it's not directly linked to GMO, altho the use of GMO might have played a positive role in this event). So overall the final effect of GM crop on pesticides and herbicides use is pretty unsatisfying, at best null and at worst negative (push for a heavier use of herbicides - in both insecticide and herbicide use by acre, the level of use for conventional crop is now equal with the use of GM crop... very interesting).
Again, no. Bt crops used less insecticides than conventional until very recently. Given that the use of Bt crops is so widespread (~2/3) the conventional crops are likely either enjoying a free rider effect from better pest management, or they are mainly used in areas that do not have major pest issues to begin with (selection bias).
What's interesting is that they also show that : GM does not increase production (contrary to most belief, even mine), but decrease variance : it is more a tool for safety than that of productivity (and from my point of view, safety can be satisfied through other means than GMO, such a mutualisation of risks and government programs).
According to the USDA, GM does increase yields. What they don't do is increase potential yields, but they increase net yields via fewer losses from weeds / pests.
GM does not lead to an increase in net profit (it might even change in the years to come considering the evolution of the costs of GM crops who are constantly going up, and altho the document think this increase is linked to agrofirm's effort in R&D and the costs associated to that effort, I believe it's more a question of monopoly like situation, and more exactly the obligation to buy crop every years and respect a binding contract - the dependancy of farmers on GMO firms) ; GM have non monetary advantage, mainly that it lower the time necessary to prepare the land / increase safety (less use of dangerous tools maybe ?) / help farmers get more time for other activity (more no-till farming which is a perfectly good thing for nature, one of the few good argument for GM use)
Most farmers buy seeds even if they don't use GM, so I don't see how there is a greater dependency on suppliers due to GM use. As for farmer net profit, there's a tradeoff between a higher price for GM seeds and increased production and fewer chemicals used. It sounds like the net benefits are split between GM suppliers and consumers. Not sure why that would be a bad thing - farm income has been very strong during the past decade so farmers are not suffering.
They also point out that the resistance to glyphosate has lead firms to produce HT to other herbicides, herbicides which are more dangerous to the environment than glyphosate. Those crop will soon arrive in the market, and we'll see the effect of those "innovations" in a few years.
Red herring. The move to safer glyphosates would eventually lead to weed resistance in the absense of GMOs.
Again, I reiterate my point : GMO is not a good or bad innovation in itself, it's an innovation which mean it can lead to progress in many possible ways, but what matter is its use. From the data we have here, it seems the end results are pretty scarce (personally I think they're negative but that's my interpretation), not necessarily positive (the effect on herbicide / pesticide use is null, effect on productivity is null, and the two positive things are a decrease in various risks and some non monetary advantage).
To summarize: fewer chemicals used, greater productivity, greater farm safety, greater use of no-till farming, greater farmer free time.
yield is usually not a single gene trait while stuff like bt or glyphosate are single gene traits. all the gmo currently in commercial scale use are first gen, single gene strains, so yield is not affected relative to whatever base strain was selected for modification.
however, it is possible to modify yield with more advanced GM crops, so this whitedoge attack on the yield issue is just very silly.
I'm not entirely sure why this differs so much from the results that Environmental Sciences Europe came up with, but I did take a look at their spreadsheet. Looking at tab "Sup Tab 8 9 10 HT Rates" Table 8 they seem to be assuming that average glyphosate is used on HT corn, deriving non-HT herbicide use from the HT figures using a static formula, and using the category 'Other Herbicides on HT Acres' as just a plug figure.
I'm not sure how the plug figure is justified or if there is an explanation somewhere. If you reference row 7 from the tab "Sup Tab 1 Herb Rates" the other cells do, HT and conventional herbicide use nets out to the same amount.
If I made any errors here, or missed something, do let me know.
Edit: realized I worded this wrong.
Edit 2: Their math seems to imply that farmers using conventional varieties managed to cut their use of non-glyphosate herbicide by half over the time period while maintaining an average use of glyphosate.
I don't have access to environmental's sciences europe's data since I need to send some kind of mail to aquire them (and I don't want to) but it seems they evaluated the impact of HT GM crop on herbicides use (especially round up) via a model - which mean it's a prediction of the effect of GM crops on herbicide use, and not a simple repetition of real absolute use of herbicides by HT and non HT users. From this, we can agree that your doc is less normative than mine (environmental science europe).
Their excel sheet is here: http://www.enveurope.com/content/24/1/24 and you can download it for free, no mail or anything required. I know they use a model, I just don't see how their model is justified. They don't seem to be basing the model on any real-world effects. As far as I can tell their model is just a mathematical representation of their opinion. I'm only going to spend so much time looking at this stuff though, so if you find what their justifications are, please share.
They use a lot of data coming from previous USDA report (2008, 2009, etc.) and it's those report that I don't have access to. The model is made to predict the evolution of herbicide use in from 2011 to 2019 by using data and trend from 2000 to 2010. I don't believe Tab 8 9 10 to be anything but empirical value (except for 2011 and the few lacking years). I see no contradiction between Tab 1 and 8. Tab 1 is average, no difference between HT and non HT. Both tab are just empirical data. At best they just had overall herbicide use on HT crop and used average glyphosate use to evaluate other herbicide use, which is an imperfect evaluation but that cause no real problem to the end result.
The figure are also comparable to the graph 14a p 25 in the USDA 2014 report.
We could discuss to no end the stats, but even in the doc you linked (which is from 2014) there is an increase in herbicide use per acre in HT crop and a decrease in herbicide use in conventional (non GM) crop, which perfectly support my point that herbicide tolerant crop, or GM overall, does not help lowering the use of herbicide.
No. The doc I shared shows that HT crops use less herbicide than conventional crops, but the difference degrades with time. Whether that's because expanded HT use lead to a reversion to the mean due to differences in farmer abilities and practices or because expanded HT use lead to greater weed resistance is unlear. In either case, the use of HT crops decreased herbicide use.
Discussing with you is boring. Where did I wrote that HT crop use more herbicide than conventional crops ? I said the effect on herbicide consumption today is null : GM CROP DOES NOT LEAD TO LESS HERBICIDE USAGE in the long run. That's the same for the rest. Stop implying that I say more than what I actually wrote. And bravo actually saying it decreased the use while all the figure you have clearly shows that the use in non conventional is equal or higher than that of conventional today.
To summarize: fewer chemicals used, greater productivity, greater farm safety, greater use of no-till farming, greater farmer free time.
Increase in chemical used since 10 years - at a point that GM crop does not use less today - for almost no net benefit / production increase, that lead to an increase in weed resistance (the more you use, the more it resist). Note that the effect of no till farming is completly nullified by the heavy usage of herbicide / chemicals permitted by GM crop. Add to that the fact that nothing is said about the decrease in crop rotation that we saw happening since the increased usage of GM crop.
You say that it does not increase potential yield and increase effective yield, but in the doc it is not quantified. Meanwhile :
The effect of HT seeds on yields is mixed. The evidence on the impact of HT seeds on soybean, corn, and cotton yields is mixed (table 4). Several researchers found no significant difference between the yields of adopters and nonadopters of HT; some found that HT adopters had higher yields, while others found that adopters had lower yields. For instance, an ERS study found that a 10-percent increase in the adoption of HT cotton led to a 1.7-percent increase in cotton yields. HT soybean adoption was associated with a statistically significant, but small, increase in yields: a 10-percent increase in the probability of adopting HT soybeans was associated with a 0.3-percent increase in yields (Fernandez-Cornejo and McBride, 2002).
The only real empirical comparaison leads to unclear results.
About chemical usage they're pretty clear on the fact that any positive fact that came from GM usage has been completly offset by weed resistance. Even the result on herbicide usage is "mixed" (p. 25) which is the politically acceptable way to say empirically null. They conclude on the fact that new strain will negatively affect herbicide toxicity in future years.
yield is usually not a single gene trait while stuff like bt or glyphosate are single gene traits. all the gmo currently in commercial scale use are first gen, single gene strains, so yield is not affected relative to whatever base strain was selected for modification.
however, it is possible to modify yield with more advanced GM crops, so this whitedoge attack on the yield issue is just very silly.
OneofSanto going at it again : the future makes your critics false. Believe in your god, it's good for you.
that particular argument of yours is designed to trivialize the entire technology. just calling it like it is. you've also backed away from your more extreme positions so that's good, even if there is no acknowledgement
On October 27 2014 08:00 oneofthem wrote: that particular argument of yours is designed to trivialize the entire technology. just calling it like it is. you've also backed away from your more extreme positions so that's good, even if there is no acknowledgement
That particular argument of yours is designed to trivialize the entirety of what is a market, the weight of some firm, the specific relationship between pesticide industry and GM industry, etc.
I'm not entirely sure why this differs so much from the results that Environmental Sciences Europe came up with, but I did take a look at their spreadsheet. Looking at tab "Sup Tab 8 9 10 HT Rates" Table 8 they seem to be assuming that average glyphosate is used on HT corn, deriving non-HT herbicide use from the HT figures using a static formula, and using the category 'Other Herbicides on HT Acres' as just a plug figure.
I'm not sure how the plug figure is justified or if there is an explanation somewhere. If you reference row 7 from the tab "Sup Tab 1 Herb Rates" the other cells do, HT and conventional herbicide use nets out to the same amount.
If I made any errors here, or missed something, do let me know.
Edit: realized I worded this wrong.
Edit 2: Their math seems to imply that farmers using conventional varieties managed to cut their use of non-glyphosate herbicide by half over the time period while maintaining an average use of glyphosate.
I don't have access to environmental's sciences europe's data since I need to send some kind of mail to aquire them (and I don't want to) but it seems they evaluated the impact of HT GM crop on herbicides use (especially round up) via a model - which mean it's a prediction of the effect of GM crops on herbicide use, and not a simple repetition of real absolute use of herbicides by HT and non HT users. From this, we can agree that your doc is less normative than mine (environmental science europe).
Their excel sheet is here: http://www.enveurope.com/content/24/1/24 and you can download it for free, no mail or anything required. I know they use a model, I just don't see how their model is justified. They don't seem to be basing the model on any real-world effects. As far as I can tell their model is just a mathematical representation of their opinion. I'm only going to spend so much time looking at this stuff though, so if you find what their justifications are, please share.
They use a lot of data coming from previous USDA report (2008, 2009, etc.) and it's those report that I don't have access to. The model is made to predict the evolution of herbicide use in from 2011 to 2019 by using data and trend from 2000 to 2010. I don't believe Tab 8 9 10 to be anything but empirical value (except for 2011 and the few lacking years). I see no contradiction between Tab 1 and 8. Tab 1 is average, no difference between HT and non HT. Both tab are just empirical data. At best they just had overall herbicide use on HT crop and used average glyphosate use to evaluate other herbicide use, which is an imperfect evaluation but that cause no real problem to the end result.
Tab 8 9 10 changes the empirical data. 'Other Herbicides on HT Acres' or Other Herbicides for non-HT doesn't seem to come from any empirical data set.
Edit: and yes, this absolutely causes problems with the end result. How do you not see this??
We could discuss to no end the stats, but even in the doc you linked (which is from 2014) there is an increase in herbicide use per acre in HT crop and a decrease in herbicide use in conventional (non GM) crop, which perfectly support my point that herbicide tolerant crop, or GM overall, does not help lowering the use of herbicide.
No. The doc I shared shows that HT crops use less herbicide than conventional crops, but the difference degrades with time. Whether that's because expanded HT use lead to a reversion to the mean due to differences in farmer abilities and practices or because expanded HT use lead to greater weed resistance is unlear. In either case, the use of HT crops decreased herbicide use.
Discussing with you is boring. Where did I wrote that HT crop use more herbicide than conventional crops ? I said the effect on herbicide consumption today is null : GM CROP DOES NOT LEAD TO LESS HERBICIDE USAGE in the long run. That's the same for the rest. Stop implying that I say more than what I actually wrote. And bravo actually saying it decreased the use while all the figure you have clearly shows that the use in non conventional is equal or higher than that of conventional today.
It doesn't matter that herbicide usage doesn't fall and then stay low over the long run - that's a red herring.
The net result is that over the long run, fewer chemicals are used. The savings in chemical usage may not always be sustained, but there's no payback for what you've saved in the past. What was not used stays not used.
To summarize: fewer chemicals used, greater productivity, greater farm safety, greater use of no-till farming, greater farmer free time.
Increase in chemical used since 10 years - at a point that GM crop does not use less today - for almost no net benefit / production increase, that lead to an increase in weed resistance (the more you use, the more it resist). Note that the effect of no till farming is completly nullified by the heavy usage of herbicide / chemicals permitted by GM crop. Add to that the fact that nothing is said about the decrease in crop rotation that we saw happening since the increased usage of GM crop.
Again, it doesn't matter that chemical use increases, that's just another red herring. Chemical use increases from a lower starting point and then rises to the point it would be under conventional seed use. That's still a net reduction in chemicals used.
You've shown no increase in weed resistance. Glyphosates would be used more often even without GMOs because they're safer. "Heavy use of herbicides / chemicals" isn't because of GM crops - chemical usage goes down with GM crops.
What decrease in crop rotation? I don't think you've googled a graph of that yet.
You say that it does not increase potential yield and increase effective yield, but in the doc it is not quantified. Meanwhile :
The effect of HT seeds on yields is mixed. The evidence on the impact of HT seeds on soybean, corn, and cotton yields is mixed (table 4). Several researchers found no significant difference between the yields of adopters and nonadopters of HT; some found that HT adopters had higher yields, while others found that adopters had lower yields. For instance, an ERS study found that a 10-percent increase in the adoption of HT cotton led to a 1.7-percent increase in cotton yields. HT soybean adoption was associated with a statistically significant, but small, increase in yields: a 10-percent increase in the probability of adopting HT soybeans was associated with a 0.3-percent increase in yields (Fernandez-Cornejo and McBride, 2002).
The only real empirical comparaison leads to unclear results.
Yes, the report says that the use of HTs shows mixed results in terms of yield increases, but THE REPORT ALSO SAYS UNEQUIVICALLY THAT Bts INCREASE YIELDS.
Adoption of Bt crops increases yields by mitigating yield losses to pests. Bt crops are particularly effective at mitigating yield losses.
The report even tries to quantify it in table 5:
Just because some aspects of GMOs don't increase yields doesn't mean that there aren't other aspects of GMOs that do increase yields! Most come as packaged goods - many traits are bundled together.
About chemical usage they're pretty clear on the fact that any positive fact that came from GM usage has been completly offset by weed resistance. Even the result on herbicide usage is "mixed" (p. 25) which is the politically acceptable way to say empirically null. They conclude on the fact that new strain will negatively affect herbicide toxicity in future years.
Again and again, no. With or without GMOs farmers would be using more glyphosate, because it is safer, and weeds would be gaining resistances to the glyphosate because that's what they do. The future switch to more toxic chemicals is unfortunate, but that would occur with or without GMOs.
I'm going to re-summarize the proven facts: fewer chemicals used, safer chemicals used, greater productivity, greater farm safety, greater use of no-till farming and more free time for farmers.
Clinton doing her best Warren impersonation. She isn't half the politician Bill is. You could tell that she knew she was butchering her prepared line.
Yea. But to be fair few people are as good as Bill Clinton when it comes to speeches. He once had his teleprompter break on him and still managed to give a great speech that stayed consistent with the topic to the point where people didn't notice the prompter was broken.
I'm not entirely sure why this differs so much from the results that Environmental Sciences Europe came up with, but I did take a look at their spreadsheet. Looking at tab "Sup Tab 8 9 10 HT Rates" Table 8 they seem to be assuming that average glyphosate is used on HT corn, deriving non-HT herbicide use from the HT figures using a static formula, and using the category 'Other Herbicides on HT Acres' as just a plug figure.
I'm not sure how the plug figure is justified or if there is an explanation somewhere. If you reference row 7 from the tab "Sup Tab 1 Herb Rates" the other cells do, HT and conventional herbicide use nets out to the same amount.
If I made any errors here, or missed something, do let me know.
Edit: realized I worded this wrong.
Edit 2: Their math seems to imply that farmers using conventional varieties managed to cut their use of non-glyphosate herbicide by half over the time period while maintaining an average use of glyphosate.
I don't have access to environmental's sciences europe's data since I need to send some kind of mail to aquire them (and I don't want to) but it seems they evaluated the impact of HT GM crop on herbicides use (especially round up) via a model - which mean it's a prediction of the effect of GM crops on herbicide use, and not a simple repetition of real absolute use of herbicides by HT and non HT users. From this, we can agree that your doc is less normative than mine (environmental science europe).
Their excel sheet is here: http://www.enveurope.com/content/24/1/24 and you can download it for free, no mail or anything required. I know they use a model, I just don't see how their model is justified. They don't seem to be basing the model on any real-world effects. As far as I can tell their model is just a mathematical representation of their opinion. I'm only going to spend so much time looking at this stuff though, so if you find what their justifications are, please share.
They use a lot of data coming from previous USDA report (2008, 2009, etc.) and it's those report that I don't have access to. The model is made to predict the evolution of herbicide use in from 2011 to 2019 by using data and trend from 2000 to 2010. I don't believe Tab 8 9 10 to be anything but empirical value (except for 2011 and the few lacking years). I see no contradiction between Tab 1 and 8. Tab 1 is average, no difference between HT and non HT. Both tab are just empirical data. At best they just had overall herbicide use on HT crop and used average glyphosate use to evaluate other herbicide use, which is an imperfect evaluation but that cause no real problem to the end result.
Tab 8 9 10 changes the empirical data. 'Other Herbicides on HT Acres' or Other Herbicides for non-HT doesn't seem to come from any empirical data set.
Edit: and yes, this absolutely causes problems with the end result. How do you not see this??
Bah I'm not going to respond to no end because obviously you don't want to see the light.
If herbicide per acre overall use on HT and non HT crop comes from empirical data - which seems true - then there's no problem with the fact that they derivated glyphosate and non glyphosate use (other herbicides) on HT crop through average data. It's a minor problem that does not change the main point which is : there has been a short run positive effect, quickly resorbed and it's now a negative effect of GMO on herbicide use. You seem to believe that derivating glyphosate and other herbicide use on HT means that the data on herbicide overall use on HT crop are wrong, but there's no real argument to assert that, aside from your own belief that the data must lie.
Meanwhile, and let's reitarate thet fact that data coming from the science europe thingy are the same as the data on page 25, graph 14a. But the figure 14b, that you seem to love and link to - to your belief - point out a positive impact on herbicide, is greatly unsatisfying. If you'd read you'd know USDA have no data on 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009, which means the graph, as it is somehow centralized from years 2000 to 2010, lack data for 4/10 of its dates... So they are using their own datas from surveys in 2000, 2005 and 2010 only but somehow their data on 2010 seems to be different than the same one that europe science use in 2010 (because it point out a higher use of herbicide on HT crop than on conventional crop, as seen in the european science thingy ?), isn't that fishy ? It's also very disturbing that the data they have on herbicide use weirdly stop in 2010, while the report is from 2014 : they did not produced any new data since 2010 ? To me it's fishy (I'm pretty sure they smoothed the data in 2010) but did I tried to argue on it like you are ? No because to me it's beside the point, long term reality does not lie : even with this data, the end result is null. How do you explain that herbicide use on conventional is going down while it is going up to no end in HT crop ?
If I was better informed and more sure about myself I'd say the USDA 2014 report is a complete fraud. The kind of report you get when big Santo's $$$ matters more than health and environment.
I'm not entirely sure why this differs so much from the results that Environmental Sciences Europe came up with, but I did take a look at their spreadsheet. Looking at tab "Sup Tab 8 9 10 HT Rates" Table 8 they seem to be assuming that average glyphosate is used on HT corn, deriving non-HT herbicide use from the HT figures using a static formula, and using the category 'Other Herbicides on HT Acres' as just a plug figure.
I'm not sure how the plug figure is justified or if there is an explanation somewhere. If you reference row 7 from the tab "Sup Tab 1 Herb Rates" the other cells do, HT and conventional herbicide use nets out to the same amount.
If I made any errors here, or missed something, do let me know.
Edit: realized I worded this wrong.
Edit 2: Their math seems to imply that farmers using conventional varieties managed to cut their use of non-glyphosate herbicide by half over the time period while maintaining an average use of glyphosate.
I don't have access to environmental's sciences europe's data since I need to send some kind of mail to aquire them (and I don't want to) but it seems they evaluated the impact of HT GM crop on herbicides use (especially round up) via a model - which mean it's a prediction of the effect of GM crops on herbicide use, and not a simple repetition of real absolute use of herbicides by HT and non HT users. From this, we can agree that your doc is less normative than mine (environmental science europe).
Their excel sheet is here: http://www.enveurope.com/content/24/1/24 and you can download it for free, no mail or anything required. I know they use a model, I just don't see how their model is justified. They don't seem to be basing the model on any real-world effects. As far as I can tell their model is just a mathematical representation of their opinion. I'm only going to spend so much time looking at this stuff though, so if you find what their justifications are, please share.
They use a lot of data coming from previous USDA report (2008, 2009, etc.) and it's those report that I don't have access to. The model is made to predict the evolution of herbicide use in from 2011 to 2019 by using data and trend from 2000 to 2010. I don't believe Tab 8 9 10 to be anything but empirical value (except for 2011 and the few lacking years). I see no contradiction between Tab 1 and 8. Tab 1 is average, no difference between HT and non HT. Both tab are just empirical data. At best they just had overall herbicide use on HT crop and used average glyphosate use to evaluate other herbicide use, which is an imperfect evaluation but that cause no real problem to the end result.
Tab 8 9 10 changes the empirical data. 'Other Herbicides on HT Acres' or Other Herbicides for non-HT doesn't seem to come from any empirical data set.
Edit: and yes, this absolutely causes problems with the end result. How do you not see this??
Bah I'm not going to respond to no end because obviously you don't want to see the light.
If herbicide per acre overall use on HT and non HT crop comes from empirical data - which seems true - then there's no problem with the fact that they derivated glyphosate and non glyphosate use (other herbicides) on HT crop through average data. It's a minor problem that does not change the main point which is : there has been a short run positive effect, quickly resorbed and it's now a negative effect of GMO on herbicide use. You seem to believe that derivating glyphosate and other herbicide use on HT means that the data on herbicide overall use on HT crop are wrong, but there's no real argument to assert that, aside from your own belief that the data must lie.
Meanwhile, and let's reitarate thet fact that data coming from the science europe thingy are the same as the data on page 25, graph 14a. But the figure 14b, that you seem to love and link to - to your belief - point out a positive impact on herbicide, is greatly unsatisfying. If you'd read you'd know USDA have no data on 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009, which means the graph, as it is somehow centralized from years 2000 to 2010, lack data for 4/10 of its dates... So they are using their own datas from surveys in 2000, 2005 and 2010 only but somehow their data on 2010 seems to be different than the same one that europe science use in 2010 (because it point out a higher use of herbicide on HT crop than on conventional crop, as seen in the european science thingy ?), isn't that fishy ? It's also very disturbing that the data they have on herbicide use weirdly stop in 2010, while the report is from 2014 : they did not produced any new data since 2010 ? To me it's fishy (I'm pretty sure they smoothed the data in 2010) but did I tried to argue on it like you are ? No because to me it's beside the point, long term reality does not lie : even with this data, the end result is null. How do you explain that herbicide use on conventional is going down while it is going up to no end in HT crop ?
If I was better informed and more sure about myself I'd say the USDA 2014 report is a complete fraud. The kind of report you get when big Santo's $$$ matters more than health and environment.
This will be my last post on the topic.
Whenever the eruowhatever report / spreadsheet shows a difference in herbicide use for HT or conventional crops, it is a modeled figure. Even the historical figures are modeled. They simply don't have empirical data on herbicide usage for HT and conventional crops. And the big problem I have with this is a lack of clarity on their modeling. Their spreadsheet doesn't include the math for their model - some figures use averages of the empirical data, but others are simply entered in with no explanation.
(side note: USDA doesn't survey each year. Ex. last year they've surveyed and published for corn is 2010)
I'm not sure if the USDA is also modeling the data to get figure 14b or not. It could be that they have better access to the data. USDA is the one doing the surveys, so they have access to the primary data, whereas eurowhatever only has access to whatever the USDA publishes.
The USDA report does show that they've collected data on insecticide use in Bt and conventional crops, with Bt crops using less insecticide, so they may also have the actual data on herbicide use for HT and conventional crops. Lastly, the USDA speculates that increased herbicide use in recent years for HT crops may be due to the proliferation of no-till practices.
On October 28 2014 04:11 xDaunt wrote: Jesus Christ. This GMO/herbicide crap is actually shitting up the thread worse than the repetitive economic theory arguments.
On October 28 2014 04:11 xDaunt wrote: Jesus Christ. This GMO/herbicide crap is actually shitting up the thread worse than the repetitive economic theory arguments.
To be frank, I don't think that the sticking of any single topic should be described as "shitting" things up; that there exists such a vehement disagreement indicates, at least in my eyes, that the issue being discussed occupies an interesting and worthwhile space in political discourse. Being shown that there are motivated and well-spoken individuals backing each side of a debate is a valuable lesson in how difficult some political problems can be. Many of the foreign posters on here have a difficult time understanding how it is that some topics, usually those relating to religion, money in politics, and the liberal/conservative divide, are so contentious in the United States; I think the reasons are put on display rather nicely in the preceding 5 pages or so.
Don't get me wrong, I definitely think one side is right and one side is wrong, but that's politics for ya
EPT![[image loading]](https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/72070179/HTadoptersnonadopters.PNG)
![[image loading]](https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/72070179/BtYields.PNG)
