patrick.net

New Renter says

I'm sure there can be workarounds. Perhaps converting the torches (and
tractor) to run on methane. Some farms can produce their own fuel either from
wells or livestock. Maybe even using focused heat from the tractor's exhaust (do
tractors have cat converters?)

Most farmers don't even raise livestock any more, as that used to be their main source of income, that was by selling the animal/energy. Now, the primary source of energy(grains) is profitable due to ethanol mandates that it doesn't need to be converted into a secondary source source such as livestock. There are very large scale dairies, and beef, and pork farms due to economies of scale, that could and would use that technology, but it has to compete with the costs of the current technology and practices in use now, and it probably can't. plus, after a huge upgrade in equipment across the board due to the Bush tax cuts, throwing in some new technology that requires new types of equipment, that would sit idle if propane prices rise too much or supply issues surface, impedes the use of that technology.

Now for premium pricing organic produce that is grown on a small scale, the savings over labor and other technology might justify the use of burn technology. Those operations are already running tight margins, and a like increase in price/supply could sink it there too, over cheap options now like ground cover fabric.

upisdown says

ground cover fabric.

Sure - that works too.

chart data

Herbicide-tolerant (HT) crops, developed to survive application of specific herbicides that previously would have destroyed the crop along with the targeted weeds, provide farmers with a broader variety of options for effective weed control. Based on USDA survey data, HT soybeans went from 17 percent of U.S. soybean acreage in 1997 to 68 percent in 2001 and 93 percent in 2012. Plantings of HT cotton expanded from about 10 percent of U.S. acreage in 1997 to 56 percent in 2001 and 80 percent in 2012. The adoption of HT corn, which had been slower in previous years, has accelerated, reaching 73 percent of U.S. corn acreage in 2012.

Insect-resistant crops containing the gene from the soil bacterium Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) have been available for corn and cotton since 1996. These bacteria produce a protein that is toxic to specific insects, protecting the plant over its entire life. Plantings of Bt corn grew from about 8 percent of U.S. corn acreage in 1997 to 26 percent in 1999, then fell to 19 percent in 2000 and 2001, before climbing to 29 percent in 2003 and 67 percent in 2012. The increases in acreage share in recent years may be largely due to the commercial introduction in 2003/04 of a new Bt corn variety that is resistant to the corn rootworm, a pest that may be more destructive to corn yield than the European corn borer, which was previously the only pest targeted by Bt corn. Plantings of Bt cotton expanded more rapidly, from 15 percent of U.S. cotton acreage in 1997 to 37 percent in 2001 and 77 percent in 2012.

Use of Bt corn will likely continue to fluctuate over time, based on expected infestation levels of European corn borer (ECB), and the corn rootworm which are the main pests targeted by Bt corn. Similarly, adoption of Bt cotton depends on the expected infestation of Bt target pests, such as the tobacco budworm, the bollworm, and the pink bollworm. Adoption appears to have reached the low-growth phase, as adoption has already occurred on acreage where Bt protection is needed most. Insects have not posed major problems for soybeans, so insect-resistant varieties have not been developed.

These figures include adoption of "stacked" varieties of cotton and corn, which have both HT and Bt traits. Adoption of stacked varieties has accelerated in recent years. Stacked cotton reached 63 percent of cotton plantings in 2012. Plantings of stacked corn made up 52 percent of corn acres in 2012.

Adoption of all GE cotton, taking into account the acreage with either or both HT and Bt traits, reached 94 percent of cotton acreage in 2012, versus 93 percent for soybeans (soybeans have only HT varieties). Adoption of all biotech corn accounted for 88 percent of corn acreage in 2012.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/adoption-of-genetically-engineered-crops-in-the-us/recent-trends-in-ge-adoption.aspx

One big consideration that affects whether GMO crops are planted is the availability of non-GMO seed because of the widespread/popular use of GMO seed. Increases in fees and the price of Roundup have turned farmers away from it, along with premium pricing for non-GMO grain, but it will be limited.

New Renter says

Almost as good as a Gatling gun.

Vicente says

No, I thought I was explicit. Vast majority of Americans look at 2 things

How much is it?

Do I want corn?

You could put IDENTICAL corn in bins right next to each other. $0.99 (GMO), $0.99 (unlabelled) $1.00 (organic). I'd wager you'd see the 2 cheaper corn sell out equal rates, and the more expensive corn less so. *I* want the labelling but I realize I'm a minority. Nobody in my office which is 18 people could give a fuck about organic foods, and I allegedly live in Granola-head country.

Well that's awfully nice of you to decide FOR farmers that slapping confusing labels on their products isn't going to hurt sales, or result in additional costs, or lead to lawsuits. If that were actually true, then none of this would even be an issue. Of course it's not true. So far, the majority of Californians haven't succumb to this lunacy, and voted the measure down.

As for your example of regular corn selling better than "organic" corn, that might be true, but not for the reason you think. Many people don't care about "organics" because they know it's just a bunch of hype. I've read articles that say "organic" food isn't any better for you than regular food. So yes, I would buy what's cheaper. I would pay more for something I think is WORTH more, but I'm not going to pay more for nothing.

And I think the fact that you brought it up is very telling. You (and other organic proponents) say you just want to have "choices", but everything you say and do shows your belief that organic is "better", and your attempts to prosthelytize to that end. The organics industry is making huge amounts of money right now, and are very motivated to smear the competition. They have already succeeded in making "GMO" a dirty word, and now they want to slap that dirty word all over their competitors' products.

zzyzzx says

I'm pretty sure that Mao and Pol Pot were in the committee as well.

Also Professor Moriarty, Jack the Ripper, and Evil Lincoln.