Why are Monarchs Still Abundant on GM Farmland?

[Paul Cherubini]

Here's a possible explanation why monarchs are still abundant on GM farmland in the upper Midwest as evidenced by all the recent Journey North Fall Roost reports that have come from upper Midwestern farmland.

I visited south-central Minnesota in mid-August in the heart of the GM corn and soybean growing region. The margins of the GM crops are not sprayed with herbicides so milkweed and wildflowers are rather plentiful although in variable stages of development due to occasional mowing.

At first glance these crop margins look industrialized and not promising for monarchs:
Landscape view:
http://i636.photobucket.com/albums/uu87/4ALC/260tha.jpg

But as you look more closely you can see there is milkweed and wildflowers and if you walk through the milkweed between 9:30-11:30 am in the morning, you will occasionally encounter a newly emerged monarch that has soft wings and can barely fly if disturbed like this one:
http://i636.photobucket.com/albums/uu87/4ALC/260thb.jpg

Here's another landscape view further down this same farm road that at first glance didn't look like it could ever be good breeding or nectaring habitat for monarchs:
http://i636.photobucket.com/albums/uu87/4ALC/260thc.jpg

But once again upon closer inspection, another newly emerged monarch popped up into flight and landed on a flower growing next to a sign that said "Roundup Ready" soybeans:
http://i636.photobucket.com/albums/uu87/4ALC/260thd.jpg

Here's another Minnesota road with a similar situation:
Landscape view:
http://i636.photobucket.com/albums/uu87/4ALC/cty8a.jpg
Then upon inspecting the milkweed growing next to the GM soybeans a newly emerged monarch once again popped up into flight and landed on a blade of grass growing next to a sign that said "Roundup Ready" soybeans: http://i636.photobucket.com/albums/uu87/4ALC/cty8b.jpg

So hypothetically, if the average square mile worth of crop margin produced, say 20 newly emerged fall migrant monarchs per day, it could produce 600 fall migrant monarchs in a month (period between Aug. 15 - Sept. 15).

And then if you multiply 600 monarchs in a month times 50,000 square miles worth or corn and soybeans, you could account for the production (in theory) of 30,000,000 fall migrant monarchs from a GM crop growing state like Minnesota.

[Mona Miller]

Come on Paul (Zapp). We know that pesticides and herbicides kill. We know that millions upon millions of acres of milkweed in that farmland has been destroyed. How many Monarchs would there be if those crops weren't being planted? How much healthier would this world be without all those chemicals? Random adobe photoshopped pictures don't tell the whole story.

[Paul Cherubini]

We know that millions upon millions of acres of milkweed in that farmland has been destroyed. How many Monarchs would there be if those crops weren't being planted?

I’ve been visiting the Midwest almost every summer or fall for 20 years and taking pictures each time. I also made a trip in 34 years ago and took picture that year too. Most corn and soybean fields did not have much milkweed in them 20 year ago so it doesn’t surprise me that there was not a clearly noticable drop in the Midwestern monarch population after GM crops became widely adopted in 2002 & 2003. Their might have been a slight drop, but it's hard to tell because of the immense overwintering butterfly mortality that occurred in Jan-Feb 2002 and 2004 and the negative impact of those losses on the size of the summer breeding populations.

Over the past 20 years the corn plants have been planted increasingly closer and closer together and they are also taller nowadays as well. So milkweed abundance within the midwestern crops would have likely declined anyway due to excessive crowding and shading by the corn plants even if herbicide tolerant GM crops had never been introduced. And the closer spacing of the corn plants in recent years makes it near impossible for female monarchs to gain access to any milkweeds the might be growing underneath the canopy of the corn plants in July & August. So the overall negative impact of the herbicide tolerant GM crops on the population of monarchs in the Midwest has been minor in my judgement and not substantial enough to ruin the Midwest's ruputation as the area of the USA that has the highest density of monarchs

[Mona Miller]

Baloney. Milkweed grows in shaded areas.

[Paul Cherubini]

Judge for yourself: http://i636.photobucket.com/albums/uu87 ... ndense.jpg

[Mona Miller]

Mucho baloney. It is the roundup killing the milkweed. Kill the milkweed, kill the Monarchs.

[Paul Cherubini]

2010 is turning out to be a good year for monarchs on the GM Farmland of the upper Midwest. Here is a report I received today from Angella Moorehouse, who oversees butterfly counts in western Illinois:

"My general impression is that Monarch numbers are good this year. 
For the June 19, 2010 count at Revis (Mason County, IL) we had an 11-year record high count for Monarchs (50); the average for that count is 16. 

June 24, the Beardstown County reported 57 which was the 2nd highest in 13 years, the average for that count is 19. 

On Saturday, we got 12 Monarchs near Macomb just above the 25-year average of 11.24.  The high count for McDonough County (Macomb) was 34 on July 24, 2003. 

I'm currently seeing a lot of Monarch eggs and caterpillars so around here I'd say we are between broods and this is typical for this area.  That's the story for here anyway.”

Angella
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Then on July 18 on the IOWA-INSECTS@list.uiowa.edu forum, Chris Edwards <credwards@AOL.COM> of Solon, Iowa, reported seeing 73 monarchs were seen in one 8 hour day of searching on July 17.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Then on July 15 on the dplex-l, Lynn Rudeen of Bird Island, Minnesota wrote:

“I see 4 or 5 Monarchs a day, but have not seen any cats yet.  Lots of hummingbirds this year too.  Too much rain for the crops, but the flowers and butterflies (& mosquitoes) are having a great summer her in MN.”

Lynn lives in a farm house that’s surrounded by thousands of square miles of GM corn and soybeans:
http://i636.photobucket.com/albums/uu87 ... udeena.jpg

[Mona Miller]

"I've been seeing a lot of butterflies, in several different species, this year than in years past.
I see 4 or 5 Monarchs a day, but have not seen any cats yet. Though I admit I have not been searching for them either as my milkweed patch has gone crazy with all the rain we have been getting. My coneflowers, bee balm and hostas etc. are all flowering better than ever.
Lots of humming birds this year too. Too much rain for the crops, but the flowers and butterflies (& mosquitoes) are having a great summer her in MN.
Lynn"

Lynn has a milkweed patch that is separate from her husband's corn crops.

Lynn wrote: "The deal I have made with my husband is that I can have as much milkweed as
I want, as long as I don't let it go to seed. It reproduces just fine (have to pull it out of my lawn all the time) without going to seed."

LynnRudeen to dplex-l Feb 21
"Please keep in mind that milkweed has always been kept out of corn and soybean fields. Even before Round up ready seed. There has been a trade off here, less herbicide sprayed.
If the farmer is growing corn and soybeans for seed, milkweed and nightshade cannot be present or the crop can not be sold as seed.
As for BT corn, don't forget that farmers are required to keep 20% of each field in non-BT corn. Usually this 20% surrounds the entire field which helps to keep down BT pollen drift. Don't assume farmers are anti-monarch. They try to coexist with nature and still make enough to stay in business. I am married to a farmer. I have a LARGE milkweed patch in my yard and grove. I have thousands of Monarchs stop at my house every year and have not seen a dramatic drop in population. In fact I had more monarchs emerge this year than ever before! L. Rudeen"

Leaving out parts of the message leads people to believe that GMO Crops are actually okay.

[Paul Cherubini]

Mona, this thread is about documenting the fact that monarchs continue to be abundant on GM farmland despite all the GM crops and associated pesticide use. Lynn Rudeen's observations of abundant monarchs in and around her farm house in July and thousands in her farm trees in late August substantiates that fact.

As I said in my previous post, Lynn's farmhouse is surrounded by thousands of square miles GM crops and millions of monarchs breed successfully along the margins of those crops despite the pesticide use. Here are satellite photos from Mapquest that document the GM crop monoculture landcape in and around Lynn's farmhouse:

Close aerial view of Lynn's farm house and cluster trees:
http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae78 ... udeenb.jpg

More distant view:
http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae78 ... udeenc.jpg

More distant view:
http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae78 ... udeend.jpg

Most distant view:
http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae78 ... udeene.jpg

[Mona Miller]

What did Chip Taylor (February 21)from Monarch Watch say about GMO crops?

"Has there been an impact of GM corn and soybeans - you bet!
We've lost the milkweed in at least 100 million acres of corn and soybean fields since the adoption of Roundup Ready soybeans and corn. Most of this acreage has been lost in the corn belt - the heart of the monarch breeding area. The loss of this habitat has certainly had an impact on monarch numbers - showing that such an impact has occurred - as apart from temperature and other factors - is not possible at this time - allowing GMO advocates to claim that - since we can't "prove" that there is an impact - there must not be one."

August is migration time. Why do you keep leaving out information? Pesticides and herbicides kill.

[Paul Cherubini]

On May 13, 2010 Chip essentially said he wasn't certain that GM crops had reduced monarch reproduction in the corn belt growing region:
See: http://monarchwatch.org/blog/
Two-way Monarch Migration Map
13 May 2010 | Author: Chip Taylor
"Clearly, there is less milkweed/monarch habitat available in the corn belt than there was in the past but has this reduced monarch reproduction in these areas or have monarchs simply shifted their reproduction to common milkweed at other disturbed sites?"

In any case, no one doubts that GM crops have enabled farmers to better control weeds growing within their crops. The point of this thread is to let the public know that monarchs continue to be abundant on GM farmland and milkweed continues to be abundant along the crop margins and it's not sprayed.

[Mona Miller]

Just keep picking sentences out of paragraphs and maybe people won't take the time to go actually read the whole thing. Shame on you.

"Similarly, you will notice that the corn belt is roughly outlined on the map. Historically the corn belt has been an area of high monarch reproduction, a point emphasized by the isotope study conducted in 1996 (1) that showed roughly 50% of the monarchs that reached the Mexican overwintering sites originated in the corn belt and the subsequent finding published in 2000 (2) showing that corn and soybean fields were the most productive breeding habitat for monarchs in the Midwest. Subsequent to these studies (but beginning in 1997) Roundup Ready soybean varieties, typically used in rotation with corn, were introduced to the American farmer as a cost and energy effective means of weed control. Unfortunately, the widespread planting of these genetically modified seeds has eliminated milkweed from at least 100 million acres of row crops. Clearly, there is less milkweed/monarch habitat available in the corn belt than there was in the past but has this reduced monarch reproduction in these areas or have monarchs simply shifted their reproduction to common milkweed at other disturbed sites? Habitats for monarchs are becoming increasingly fragmented and there are more and more areas where monarchs are unable to reproduce due to the lack of milkweed and nectar sources. We need to know how monarchs respond to these changes to mitigate habitat losses.... (Mona Note: There's more above and more below. Please read all of that blog.)

http://monarchwatch.org/blog/2010/05/tw ... ation-map/

[Mona Miller]

2010 is turning out to be a good year for monarchs on the GM Farmland of the upper Midwest. Here is a report I received today from Angella Moorehouse, who oversees butterfly counts in western Illinois:
"My general impression is that Monarch numbers are good this year. 
For the June 19, 2010 count at Revis (Mason County, IL) we had an 11-year record high count for Monarchs (50); the average for that count is 16. 
June 24, the Beardstown County reported 57 which was the 2nd highest in 13 years, the average for that count is 19. 
On Saturday, we got 12 Monarchs near Macomb just above the 25-year average of 11.24.  The high count for McDonough County (Macomb) was 34 on July 24, 2003. 
I'm currently seeing a lot of Monarch eggs and caterpillars so around here I'd say we are between broods and this is typical for this area.  That's the story for here anyway.”
Angella

I emailed Angella to ask her where she does her counts:
"Hi Mona;
I'm not sure what GMO stands for. Genetically Modified X ?
The majority of my count areas (not including counting along roadside while traveling from site to site) are done on land protected by the state, either DNR-owned or privately owned sites that are managed by the state and legally protected as conservation easements. There are a few exceptions, but most these include a couple of privately owned sites that are either managed by the owner in a manner similar to the way the DNR manages protected sites or are unmanaged (former sand quarry where rural town dumps yard wastes). We focus on these sites for several reasons: 1) we want to establish long-term count data on permanently protected sites, 2) sites where there is a greatest chance of rare habitat restricted species, 3) sites were we have permission to count, 4) sites which attract long numbers of butterflies - esp. large patches of common milkweed.
Angella"

[Gwynne]

Wow, I cant believe that anyone would not realize how damaging pesticides are. I recently moved into my own condo and was very excited that I would be able to start planting native plants and attracting more butterflies.

What I didnt realize is that the association sprays a lot of pesticides. I talked to them and they were very good about not spraying my property. However, just the water runoff from my neighbors' properties was contaminiating my host plants. I could not understand why my black swallowtail caterpillars were getting sick and dying when I brought the host plants inside when spraying was done. After talking with a few people, I realized that the culprit was water runoff.

I have not seen any monarchs yet in my area. I had grown tropical milkweed for them, but I dare not use any of it now that I see what the pesticide is doing.

I believe that the increase in pesticide is leading to a descrease in the butterfly population.

[Mona Miller]

2010 is turning out to be a good year for monarchs on the GM Farmland of the upper Midwest. Here is a report I received today from Angella Moorehouse, who oversees butterfly counts in western Illinois:

I received another message from Angella:

"Mona;
I don't know of Paul Cherubini. There is a lot of farmland in the surrounding landscape and there is a high use of Round-up Ready crops out there. However, one of our biggest concerns has been the use of aerial spraying adjacent to Revis Hill Prairie in Mason County where the numbers of grassland skippers have declined drastically over the past 2 decades. Angella"

[Paul Cherubini]

Wow, I cant believe that anyone would not realize how damaging pesticides are.
I believe that the increase in pesticide is leading to a descrease in the butterfly population.

Here is how abundant monarchs and painted lady butterflies are on the GM crop growing areas of the upper Midwest were pesticide usage is high:
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y189/m ... h/trua.jpg
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y189/m ... /evena.jpg
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y189/m ... /evenb.jpg
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y189/m ... h/gilc.jpg
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y189/m ... /monod.jpg
2010 is shaping up to be another spectacular year for monarchs in these same GM crop growing areas of Minnesota, Nebraska, Iowa and Kansas.

[Mona Miller]

More adobe photoshopped pictures.... I think everyone on this forum knows what your agenda is.

[Paul Cherubini]

More adobe photoshopped pictures.... I think everyone on this forum knows what your agenda is.

What specifically do you mean by "adobe photoshopped pictures" ? Those are all unaltered photos (save for an increase in the color saturation of this photo http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y189/m ... h/gilc.jpg to help make the painted ladies more visible) and they show how massively abundant monarchs and painted lady butterflies are in the GM crop growing areas despite the high pesticide use.

[Gwynne]

Wow, I cant believe that anyone would not realize how damaging pesticides are.
I believe that the increase in pesticide is leading to a descrease in the butterfly population.

Here is how abundant monarchs and painted lady butterflies are on the GM crop growing areas of the upper Midwest were pesticide usage is high:
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y189/m ... h/trua.jpg
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y189/m ... /evena.jpg
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y189/m ... /evenb.jpg
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y189/m ... h/gilc.jpg
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y189/m ... /monod.jpg
2010 is shaping up to be another spectacular year for monarchs in these same GM crop growing areas of Minnesota, Nebraska, Iowa and Kansas.

Wow, that IS good news. I guess I can continue to feed my caterpillars pesticide ridden food. I will let you know how that works out for me.

[Paul Cherubini]

The reports keep pouring in about the abundance of monarchs and other butterflies in Iowa and surrounding States this year even though 69% of Iowa's entire landscape is covered with genetically modified, pesticide treated corn and soybeans:

Subject: Re: [IOWA-INSECTS] Butterflies!
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 11:37:48 -0400
From: Jeff Moore <jmo.jeffmoore@GMAIL.COM>
To: IOWA-INSECTS@list.uiowa.edu

I'm just back from a trip to NW Iowa and I thoroughly enjoyed all the butterflies! So many orange sulphurs (I guess - not so sure on my IDs of things. clouded sulphur?) that when I pointed them out along the roadside as we drove (these were mostly on red clover) my wife said she had thought they were yellow flowers there were so many of them. Lots of monarchs and painted ladies. Made my morning walks extra enjoyable.

Jeff
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: [IOWA-INSECTS] Butterflies!
Date: 31 July 2010 07:43:44 -0500
From: Lloyd Crim <lcrim@SIGNATUREBLUE.COM>
To: IOWA-INSECTS@list.uiowa.edu

Does anyone else have the abundance of butterflies this year that I seem to notice? When I drove down my lane last night, I had to drive slowly to avoid plastering the radiator with sulfur butterflies. There were quite a few painted ladies in the clouds of butterflies there also. I also am seeing a lot of butterflies around the house and yard, or is it I am just noticing them more this year?
------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: [IOWA-INSECTS] Iowa City Butterfly Count Results
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 20:12:15 -0500
From: Chris Edwards <credwards@AOL.COM>
IOWA-INSECTS@list.uiowa.edu

Yesterday we held our 12th annual Iowa City Butterfly Count.

Black Swallowtail 13
Giant Swallowtail 1
Eastern Tiger Swallowtail 29 (record high count)
Cabbage White 48
Clouded Sulphur 969
Orange Sulphur 232
Little Yellow 119 (record high count)
Bronze Copper 3
Gray Hairstreak 3 (record high count)
Eastern Tailed-Blue 63
Summer Azure 23
American Snout 12 (record high count)
Variegated Fritillary 3 (new count species)
Great Spangled Fritillary 32
Meadow Fritillary 12
Pearl Crescent 39 (record high count)
Question Mark 8
Eastern Comma 7 (record high count)
Gray Comma 3 (record high count)
American Lady 6 (record high count)
Painted Lady 6
Red Admiral 44
Common Buckeye 38 (record high count)
Red-spotted Purple 8
Viceroy 12
Hackberry Emperor 10 (record high count)
Northern Pearly-eye 2
Common Wood-Nymph 10
Monarch 76
Silver-spotted Skipper 12
Common Checkered-Skipper 1
Common Sootywing 5
Least Skipper 51 (record high count)
Fiery Skipper 7 (record high count)
Peck's Skipper 3
Tawny-edged Skipper 12 (record high count)
Dun Skipper 4

[Paul Cherubini]

As usual, the first big fall roosts occur in small Minnesota farm towns that are surrounded by genetically modified crops:
http://www.learner.org/cgi-bin/jnorth/j ... 1281595604
"Our monarchs are just starting to arrive. We have approx. 200 so far but soon we will have our tree branches bending from the weight of all that will arrive on their way south."

Waubun, MN

To see an aerial view of Waubun, MN, visit www.mapquest.com

[Mona Miller]

Can you tell me why you don't talk so much about genetically modified crops on the Western Monarch list serve? Could it be that they'd be shocked, if you behaved that way on their list?

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/western_monarchs/
Here's the website for the Western Monarch List Serve.

[Paul Cherubini]

I'm not the only person who is claiming monarchs and other butterflies are still spectacularly abundant along the margins of the GM crops in Iowa and other upper Midwestern States:

http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/news/lo ... 847be.html

"SIOUX CITY [Iowa]-- Anyone who has driven along Siouxland's rural roads and highways lately has seen the millions of powder-yellow butterflies fluttering low above the ditch weeds and in nearby [herbicide treated] bean fields and grasslands, seemingly as far as the eye can see."

[Mona Miller]

http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/news/lo ... 847be.html

"They hatch from eggs as wormy green caterpillars and have likely been eating the roadside vegetation for about 30 days before we see them fluttering above it."

Give up Paul, there was absolutely nothing in that report about GMO crops.

[Paul Cherubini]

Mona, 69% of Iowa's land mass is covered by GM corn and soybeans. The orange sulfur and other butterflies are super abundant along the roadside margins of those crops and in the alfalfa fields that are surrounded by those GM crops. Like this:
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y189/m ... h/gila.jpg
http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae78 ... ulfura.jpg

[Mona Miller]

Same article:
"They can damage alfalfa, which is not a major crop in Iowa, Heyborne said."

Here you are on the Western List serve complaining that the highway department spread weed killer on the highways.

http://www.butterflydigest.com/s/digest ... e;id=72604

Then, on the Monarch Watch Forum you are lauding the fact that butterflies are supposedly abundant along the roadsides of GMO farm fields. There is a huge irony here.

[Paul Cherubini]

Here you are on the Western List serve complaining that the highway department spread weed killer on the highways. http://www.butterflydigest.com/s/digest ... e;id=72604
Then, on the Monarch Watch Forum you are lauding the fact that butterflies are supposedly abundant along the roadsides of GMO farm fields. There is a huge irony here.

I don't see any contradiction or irony. I've previously explained that in the Midwest the roadsides are not sprayed and that even though large amounts of herbicide and some insecticides and fungicides are used WITHIN the GM crops, they don't do enough harm to prevent large numbers of butterflies from building up along the crop margins and roadsides. In California and other western States, fairly extensive use of herbicides along the roadsides and railway lines as compared to 10-15 years years ago has done alot of damage to the milkweed and monarch population.

[Mona Miller]

Note my new avatar. It is from the toxic misinformation that you have been posting.

[blazing star]

Haven't read this whole thread yet...just the first few posts. My initial thought for Paul is: what are we going to do about herbicide resistant GM crops that are escaping farms and entering wild areas? For all other invasives, we have to resort to judicious, responsible herbicide applications. How do you propose we get rid of the invasives that cannot be killed?!

http://news.discovery.com/earth/gm-plan ... -wild.html

And, don't you think that as the GM crops enter our wild they will outcompete milkweed? As Mona said, no milkweeds, no monarchs.

[Mona Miller]

No Milkweed, No Monarchs! Absolutely right!

[Paul Cherubini]

what are we going to do about herbicide resistant GM crops that are escaping farms and entering wild areas? http://news.discovery.com/earth/gm-plan ... -wild.html.

The results of that study are neither surprising nor alarming according to Monsanto.

Monsanto's side of the story:
http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto_today/ ... survey.asp
Roadside Canola Survey Aug.5, 2010

"Those familiar with canola know that these plants are readily found on roadsides and in areas near farmers fields. This was true prior to the introduction of GM canola, and a common source is seed that has scattered during harvest and fallen off a truck during transport said Tom Nickson, Environmental
Policy Lead at Monsanto. Because about 90 percent of the U.S. and Canadian canola crop is biotech, it is reasonable to expect a survey of roadside canola to show similar levels of biotech plants.

Indeed, in their evaluation of Roundup Ready canola in the early to mid 1990s, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) recognized that, like traditional canola, biotech canola would volunteer, and depending on where it was found, might require management, Nickson said.

While much roadside canola is managed simply through mowing, Monsanto provides farmers and other professionals who use our products information on managing plants like volunteer canola. he said."

See also: http://www.monsantoblog.com/2010/08/06/ ... la-survey/
Aug. 6, 2010 GM Canola on the Loose? Some Points to Consider

Excerpts:

1) All types of canola, GM or not, can be found growing along roadsides or other areas near farm fields.

2) A collection of roadside canola, unsurprisingly, is expected to reflect the makeup of nearby farmers canola crops.

3) There is no reason to believe that glyphosate-tolerant canola exhibits any increased weediness relative to traditional varieties. Gene flow from GT73 to relatives is indeed possible, but would not result in increased weediness or invasiveness of these relatives.

[Mona Miller]

Paul,

What are you talking about? Time is so precious, why do you waste our time.

This isn't about Canola, but it is about Genetically Modified Crops (GMO):

http://monarchwatch.org/blog/2010/05/tw ... ation-map/
"Similarly, you will notice that the corn belt is roughly outlined on the map. Historically the corn belt has been an area of high monarch reproduction, a point emphasized by the isotope study conducted in 1996 (1) that showed roughly 50% of the monarchs that reached the Mexican overwintering sites originated in the corn belt and the subsequent finding published in 2000 (2) showing that corn and soybean fields were the most productive breeding habitat for monarchs in the Midwest. Subsequent to these studies (but beginning in 1997) Roundup Ready soybean varieties, typically used in rotation with corn, were introduced to the American farmer as a cost and energy effective means of weed control. Unfortunately, the widespread planting of these genetically modified seeds has eliminated milkweed from at least 100 million acres of row crops. Clearly, there is less milkweed/monarch habitat available in the corn belt than there was in the past but has this reduced monarch reproduction in these areas or have monarchs simply shifted their reproduction to common milkweed at other disturbed sites? Habitats for monarchs are becoming increasingly fragmented and there are more and more areas where monarchs are unable to reproduce due to the lack of milkweed and nectar sources. We need to know how monarchs respond to these changes to mitigate habitat losses."

No Milkweed, No Monarchs!

[blazing star]

Ha ha. I read more. This Paul is really a character. Paul, you go ahead and eat your food spliced with herbicide resistant genes or BT that kills munching critters and let us know how you fare. I will continue to vote with my dollar and oppose Monsanto and all the ills that they subject on this planet. Do you know that if you send them a poison pen letter they don't even reply?! They don't even have a PR department to try to calm the opposition voice because the could give a crap about people's health or their image. This suggests to me that they are way too large and powerful. They lobby to weaken organic standards so that they can poison everyone with their franken foods. I think you're talking with the wrong audience on this forum, Paul.

All Paul's photos show is how poorly farmers take care of their land. There are invasives throughout all those pictures. Now I know who to thank as I battle the invasive plants taking over my land.

[blazing star]

So let me get this straight. You are purporting that I review Monsanto's comments about their GM crop when I make an opinion as to whether or not I will continue to oppose their practices. Um, haven't you ever sourced your info? If you did you'd know to find an unbiased source on which to base your opinions, not take data on face value from a profiting source. You, sir, have an agenda.

[Paul Cherubini]

Paul, What are you talking about? This isn't about Canola, but it is about Genetically Modified Crops (GMO

Mona, blazingstar cited this article about GM Canola: http://news.discovery.com/earth/gm-plan ... -wild.html so that's why I provided Monsanto's rebuttal to the article.
The four main GM crops grown in the US are GM corn, soybeans, cotton and canola.

If Monsanto was actually creating serious "superweed" problems for farmers (i.e. creating frankenweeds that no herbicide could control) they would be very mad at Monsanto right? But if you visit the websites of the various trade associations for the corn, soybean, cotton and canola farmers (e.g. National Corn Growers Association, American Soybean Growers Association, etc., you won't find any articles claiming farmers are mad at Monsanto or creating big problems for them.

Now it's true there have been some isolated cases of weeds in cotton that are becoming resistant to Roundup and Monsanto's response to that is to provide the affected farmers with money so they can buy herbicides that will work against the Roundup resistant weeds.

[Mona Miller]

Here you go wasting our time again. Roundup resistant weeds are not isolated.

Here you have a Genetically Modified Crop that withstands roundup. Milkweed does not. Then, there are weeds that become resistant to the roundup. So what does the farmer do, they use stronger herbicides. Or more herbicides. You are definitely preaching to the wrong choir.

http://monarchwatch.org/blog/2008/01/ro ... ant-weeds/
Roundup-Ready Crops and Resistant Weeds

NO MILKWEED, NO MONARCHS!

[blazing star]

So now Paul thinks that farmers are not mad at Monsanto. Farmers may not be mad at Monsanto if they subscribe to their seed practices but talk to a farmer who believes in heirloom production without the use of their seed and you get a different view point. Monsanto will put them down at any cost. It's the only time in the judicial system where the person getting sued (the small farmer trying to do right by the people and grow a crop not spliced with toxins) has to prove a negative that they didn't plant the toxic seed and has to prove it blew into their field. Monsanto has more money than any small farmers combined so let me inquire as to whom you believe will end up on the winning side of this type of lawsuit.

[blazing star]

No milkweed, no monarchs!

Oh boy, I can see we have our work cut out for us on this thread.

[blazing star]

Paul,

Maybe this can help us all cut to the chase.....what do you do for a living and who pays your salary? Just curious.

[Paul Cherubini]

http://monarchwatch.org/blog/2008/01/ro ... ndup-Ready Crops and Resistant Weeds NO MILKWEED, NO MONARCHS!

That link did not claim monarchs are no longer abundant on GM Farmland which is the subject of this thread. In Aug. 2009 I provided photos showing monarchs are still abundant:
viewtopic.php?f=40&t=1952

In a week or two I'll be visiting those GM crop areas again and this time I will likely be able to capture photos of clusters containing 500 - 5,000 monarchs right next to the GM crops or in small farm towns that are surrounded by the crops since the migratory population is substantially larger this year. The human population in the rural farm areas of the upper Midwest has been declining for about 20 years so there is no problem of urban sprawl consuming milkweed & monarch breeding habitat, hence the habitats continue to reliably produce large numbers of monarchs year after year in spite of the herbicide/pesticide use on the GM crops.

[blazing star]

From a little research, it appears Paul sells pesticides.

[Mona Miller]

I think that's pretty obvious by how he promotes the use of those products.

[Paul Cherubini]

GM technology has substantial environmental benefits. The American Soybean Association gets into some specifics in it's brochure on "Ten Reasons US Soybeans Are Sustainable"
http://www.ussoyexports.org/resources/U ... bility.pdf

Examples from the brochure:

a) Herbicide tolerant [GMO] soybeans enable farmers to practice no-till production.
b) The no-till production method enables farms to reduce deep plowing and multiple soil cultivation operations with heavy equipment.
c) The reduction in deep plowing reduces the loss of soil and moisture.
d) No-till allows the residue from the previous crop to be left in the field which eventually degrades and thus increases the amount of topsoil in the fields.
e) Narrow row planting enables soybeans to grow so closely together they crowd out competing weeds and reduce soil moisture loss.
f) Reduced need for heavy soil cultivation equipment reduces fossil fuel use and emissions and reduces soil compaction which in turn is good for earthworm populations, soil moisture retention and reduced water runoff into waterways.

GM technology enables farmers to greatly increase yields without a corresponding increase in the amount of water and fertilizer needed.

Example: according to the National Corn Growers Association: "Farmers today produce 70 percent more corn per pound of fertilizer than in the 1970s." http://ncga.com/files/pdf/worldofcorn2010.pdf

USDA fertilizer use statistics http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/FertilizerUse/ show US consumption of fertlizer for corn, cotton, wheat and soybeans has been generally stable since the mid-1970's whereas the yields per acre have risen dramatically:
http://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Map ... /index.asp

Specific examples of yield increases since 1979:

Corn: Up about 63% http://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Map ... ornyld.asp
Cotton Up about 52% http://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Map ... otnyld.asp
Soybeans Up about 53% http://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Map ... soyyld.asp
Winter Wheat Up about 26% http://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Map ... /wwyld.asp

Monsanto explains in general terms on it's website: "how we can use breeding, biotechnology and better agronomy to help double yields." http://tinyurl.com/2ag8zl

Excerpt: "With the genome sequencer, Monsanto researchers are able to learn in 10 days what it used to take them 10 years of research to discover - that's why it's playing an integral role in the company's commitment to double yields by 2030."

[Mona Miller]

Monsanto only cares about its bottom line.

[blazing star]

Here we have a "scientist" who uses data from the manufacturer to prove a point about why their product is safe instead of an unbiased source that has done unbiased controlled testing. Then he pastes links to prove data on GM soybeans whose information isn't at all related to GM products and then he does the same thing for corn. Could this be why that one website states that other scientists discount your opinion now?

Paul, based on the above, I think you've proven yourself to have solely a self promoting agenda. Anyone trying to learn info or become informed on matters should not consider anything you have to say at this point. This is where the internet can be dangerous . People could actually look at your silly pictures and misconstrue data. I guess that's the point, isn't it?

I wish someone could close this thread so Mona and I can go back to something fun like raising our cute monarchs and combating evil pesticides.

[Mona Miller]

Actually, I have to go feed about 50 Mourning Cloaks. Thank you for a bit of fresh air!

[blazing star]

I planted a Hackberry for them but they won't come. Sounds like your raising enough to make up for me! I am a lightweight but next year I am going to expand operations and try to raise the numbers I raise. I think I would be embarrassed to post my production here with you guys.

[Paul Cherubini]

For an independent review of the track record of the biotech and industrialized ag industry in the USA see the 2009 report by The Keystone Alliance for Sustainable Agriculture http://tinyurl.com/26su7y2 that looked at yields vs. land use, irrigation water use, energy use, soil loss, and climate impact for the Corn, Cotton, Soybeans and Wheat grown in the USA during the 20 year period from 1987-2007. They Keystone Alliance is represented by several conservation groups such as the Nature Conservancy and World Wildlife Fund.

With regard to Yield Per Irrigated Acre vs. Irrigation Water Applied Per Acre during the period 1987-2007 the Keystone Alliance report authors found:

1) Corn Yields Per Irrigated Acre increased about 24% while Irrigation Water Applied Per Acre decreased about 11% http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae78/18R-C/corn.jpg

2) Cotton Yields Per Irrigated Acre increased about 69% while Irrigation Water Applied Per Acre decreased about 30% http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae78 ... cotton.jpg

3) Soybean Yields Per Irrigated Acre increased about 23% while Irrigation Water Applied Per Acre decreased about 4% http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae78 ... oybean.jpg

4) Wheat Yields Per Irrigated Acre increased about 11% while Irrigation Water Applied Per Acre increased about 10% http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae78/18R-C/wheat.jpg

Thus with the exception of wheat, these data show the biotech and industrialized ag industry has an excellent track record of substantially increasing the yields of irrigated crops while at the same time substantially decreasing water usage.  The failure in wheat could be due to the fact that industry has not come out with much GM wheat to date.

[Mona Miller]

Remember, I've been doing this for 18 years. My friend Harry Pavulaan is actually doing DNA studies on Mourning Cloaks. These are from MA. He gave me a bunch of them to raise and is raising them, too.

Then, I raise Monarchs. Tomorrow, I have to try to get up early and go check out the gas pipeline area before they mow. Last year, they mowed early Sept. I did call and email them to see if they could delay mowing. They are mowing down caterpillars that would probably make the journey to Mexico.

Also, raising Red Admirals, Pipevine and Spicebush Swallowtails for conservation--grow and release.

It's not how many you raise, because every one does count. There are many people out there helping the Monarchs.

This year I'll be lucky if I raise about 100. I got started so late because they just weren't here.

[Mona Miller]

Blazing Star,

I love your attitude.

Paul,

Get a life.