Lol, what a load of bull****. I've switched away from GMO crops a few years ago but even that's not good enough for these envirowhackos. Now they want everything and everyone to go organic, if everyone goes organic then it will be some other fruitcake demand in the name of environmentalism and they'll concoct another bull**** story to try to justify it. The fact is deer numbers seem to be fine in many parts of the country where these "experts" claim they are low and the few others where they appear low were due to EHD outbreaks which are naturally occurring. Wildlife populations ebb and flow and boom and decline in cycles, always have and always will, anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something...like environmentalism.
But it's the trendy thing to do. But I agree, this is kind of a reach along with all the other anti-GMO crap.
Interesting read. Will read it again tonight. I have heard that some farmers plant seed that will make turkeys sick on purpose so they will not eat it? Rural/Urban legend maybe?
Can never tell what stupid ideas some people may get. I've never heard of anyone doing that though. The only wildlife that does significant crop damage {*here}, generally speaking, is feral hogs. I had huge flocks of blackbirds strip a bunch of milo last year but I have no problems with turkey or deer to speak of. (*edited to enhance intended context) I will say I have never liked the idea of spraying roundup on beans, knowing full well deer would be browsing on them all night. My biggest problem with GMO is the restricted use of them. I have a serious problem with being forced to sign a stewardship agreement while getting shafted on high priced seed to boot. People figured out a long time ago that they could chase hybridization and screw producers into buying new seed every year at whatever price they thought felt good. I don't particularly like the idea of forced genetic manipulation either. In my mind there's a big difference between selective breeding and artificial gene insertion. I am trying to go as organic and holistic as possible but there's no doubt that on a large scale, it would make food prices skyrocket simply because yields take a hit with poor weed control. Everything in moderation is the best approach, we can do better as far as chemicals and environmental care but there are extremes in both directions...both with their serious negatives.
Slightly different where we live... this photo is all I could fit in my spotting scope, in one piece of ONE 40 acre alfalfa. The state pays ranchers (we don't have farmers) for 8 lbs of crop damage per animal per day. There are literally thousands of acres of alfalfa that look like this here. I'd call that significant crop damage. There are over 60 deer on their feet and you can't see the ones laying down. In the field, there were almost 300. 300x8 = 2400lbs of hay per day. 2400lbs/day x 120 days (June-September) = 288,000lbs or 144 tons of hay. 144 tons @ $220/ton = $31,680 of hay loss... in one field. And that's just whitetails... not the antelope you see in the background or the mule deer.
That section of my post was addressing the question about turkeys in french's post before mine and was intended to be contextually specific to me and my area. I think we all know deer are more than capable of causing significant crop damage in the right circumstances. Sure there are areas of the country that have underwhelming food sources. Those areas also artificially carry a far higher than natural population of those animals. If it weren't for those man made food sources, those areas very likely would never be able to support those kinds of numbers anyway. I'm not sure where you are but if you're far enough west, whitetails probably aren't even supposed to be there. Back to the topic of those hay crops being round up ready though, it doesn't look like it's causing a deer shortage there either.
Anyone who buys into GMO crops and glyphosphate being the cause of deer population declines in various areas needs to have their head examined. They are most like anti-vacciners as well. Here's a good read on glyphosphate and the misconceptions being spread by the anti-GMO zealots. Glyphosate ? The New Bogeyman « Science-Based Medicine
That was a good read. I have concerns about any chemicals, I had acute toxic poisoning when I was a kid from wasp spray containing Malathion and it could have ended badly. Chemicals are nothing to take lightly but when study after study shows one to be nearly harmless and it's mode of action is through means not even shared with mammals then I think we're okay. We eat chemicals every day in processed and preserved foods that are gram for gram more dangerous and many deer come into contact with and drink water contaminated from city waste every day so trying to pin a problem specifically to one ag related pesticide is a little gross. Look at Sodium Nitrite food preservative used to cure meats, a teaspoon full in a single dose can kill a person and half that can kill a 300lb pig. It's something many of us encounter in food on a daily basis yet ag chemicals and corn have become popular as catch all''s for everything from cancer to deer demise...it's laughable. I get a laugh out of people hammering agriculture for environmental tragedy while they blog from a highrise apartment in a city that is dumping everything from industrial waste and sewage to stupid amounts of yard fertilizer and salt from yards and streets, into the environment by the metric ton per day. It's become the "popular" thing for city folk, who are totally disconnected from nature and reality, to voice ignorant opinions on agricultural environmental atrocities that are largely imagined in their pot calling the kettle black utopian world of rainbows and unicorn farts. Cities are the ongoing environmental tragedies of the world in a modern day throw away society. One major metropolitan area will probably create more trash and environmental hazard in a day than every farm and agricultural operation in the nation.
The article sounded somewhat plausible to me until I read that there is glyphosate in the milk of dairy cows that eat feed that's been sprayed with it. If this was true, it would have been banned immediately. There is nothing allowed in our milk. Feed stuffs, medicines, etc are tested to insure that. Once approved, they are continually retested to be sure nothing has changed. Bottom line, if something is safe for food producing livestock, it's safe for wildlife. The only "but" that may be a factor is that there is usually a harvest delay for crops. Meaning that they can't be harvested for a certain time period after chemicals are applied. This will not apply to wild animals that graze the night after application.
Didn't read the whole thing word for word but deer decline because of GMO crops is about the dumbest thing I've read in a while. We've used RR crops as long as I can remember and have a stronger deer herd now than every before and I'm smack dab in the middle of farm country. I don't ever recall seeing any deer with 6 hooves or two heads either or whatever these people think is caused by GMOs. I don't see any science in the article at all. It's easy to pick on the major industry in the United States.
That's something that I don't like either. Proper scientific study has been conducted for animal consumption of the product directly though and they determined a fairly ridiculous amount of direct consumption per day per Kg of body weight without any side effects in mice, dogs and goats. Considering deer, in most cases, won't eat their full daily ration of 6-10 pounds per day of all RR crop because they browse on multiple food sources in a 24 hr period...I seriously doubt it very likely that any one deer is going to get over dosed on the product. I can't imagine even fifty pounds of green bean leaves are going to have more than a few grams of actual product on them and it doesn't build up in tissue according to studies so....yeah.... Considering the expanding range of whitetail, I think the theory has already been dis-proven. In those western states, I imagine that those fields of RR alfalfa are creating a higher intake of gly than any other deer in the country yet they keep expanding their range and getting thicker. Kind of speaks for itself. It's funny finding myself defending RR crops because I hate them, though for reasons apart from health concerns.
Haha yeah I laughed at that knowing you don't plant any. You're still a farmer though and any policy changes will affect you somehow.
Which is why I started with, "slightly different where we live" Just curious here, do think any area of the country would carry the same number of deer without crop fields? If not, then all numbers are "higher than natural" right? For the record... I don't buy into RR alfalfa causing the downfall of deer.. Please see previously posted photo :D
Yeah I was pretty sure what you meant, I just wanted to be clear about what I had intended with my post to everyone reading along. DO I think any area of the country would carry the same number of deer without crop fields? In general, I'd have to say no to carrying the same numbers with or without agriculture. I'd say yes that deer populations are higher than natural...but... lots of ifs involved in the question and answer though. I think it would be pretty hard to argue that in a general sense, agriculture has not raised the carrying capacity of most areas.
They are in it for the profit, no doubt (as are we all). One has to be careful though also to keep in mind that there are also people on the other side with equally as ominous agendas and they are every bit as reckless with the truth to push their agenda. There are lunatic environmentalists that would see humanity in the dark ages in a heartbeat if they had that power, all in the name of Gia. We're flooded with propaganda on a daily basis, look at everything through the filter of skepticism, read both sides and make your own decision on any issue. As far as soybeans...there's nothing wrong with conventional soybeans, I grow several hundred acres of Stoddard variety and have great results. I had several fields last year that ran a yield over 40bpa and some that ran near 70. So far they've been far more consistent for me than any RR bean I ever planted and I don't get held hostage with a stewardship agreement from Monsanto. A company "owning" a soybean you produced is absurd IMHO. The problem is I still have to use chemical to control weeds and insects and guess who makes that.
