Russian River Brewing Sucks

[Jukas]

No matter what the price is compared to your area it still jumped 30% or so and you get a smaller amount - that's lame. It's happening in most industries though - more money for less.

My problem with backing this comparison is that it's not realistic. If this happened within the last year I'd agree.. but he's comparing pricing and pour size from what it was years ago.

 

[bob1852]

On a side note I am in favor of feeding the world using less pesticides, fertilizers, and herbicides so therefore I am a proponent of GMO crops.

But does it?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-kimbrell/new-report-gmos-causing-m_b_362888.html

 

[Horseballs]

But does it?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-kimbrell/new-report-gmos-causing-m_b_362888.html

A one line post and a link to a Huffington Post article that barely refers to one or two studies is not a compelling argument. Show me peer reviewed academic research and some consensus, not some blogger/journalist type skimming over an abstract or misunderstanding what a study is saying. I am not going to make one judgment or another on this topic - but this is a case of needing legitimate sources.

 

[bob1852]

A one line post and a link to a Huffington Post article that barely refers to one or two studies is not a compelling argument. Show me peer reviewed academic research and some consensus, not some blogger/journalist type skimming over an abstract or misunderstanding what a study is saying. I am not going to make one judgment or another on this topic - but this is a case of needing legitimate sources.

USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service data:

GE crops have increased overall pesticide use by 318.4 million pounds over the first 13 years of commercial use, compared to the amount of pesticide likely to have been applied in the absence of HT and Bt seeds.

Report: http://truefoodnow.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/13years2009-fullreport-11-16-09.pdf

Do you have data to show that's not the case?

 

[BeerDoctor5]

USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service data:



Report: http://truefoodnow.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/13years2009-fullreport-11-16-09.pdf

Do you have data to show that's not the case?

Why would farmers choose to use gmo crops if they could grow non-gmo crops cheaper because they use less herbicide, fertilizer, and pesticides? Why aren't all farmers organic if they can grow just as much as non-organic and can do it cheaper?

There is a market for seeds. Monsanto doesn't force the soybean industry to grow GMO soybean. However, >90% of all soybeans grown in the US are GMO. Why? Yield? Cheaper to produce? Government/chemical company consipiracy?

 

[bob1852]

Government/chemical company consipiracy?

Some would think so. That's why I'm asking...

It was the atrazine issue several years ago that got me looking into the issue more because it doesn't make sense.

Farmers are in the industry to produce as much as they can for as little cost as they can, right?

It doesn't make sense that they'd be using GMO seeds that needed more cost to get the same yield; hence the conspiracy folks...

 

[H-ost]

There is a market for seeds. Monsanto doesn't force the soybean industry to grow GMO soybean. However, >90% of all soybeans grown in the US are GMO. Why? Yield? Cheaper to produce? Government/chemical company consipiracy?

Damn those soybeans! They are leveling vast amounts of the amazon to grow those GMO'd out F***ers

 

[TyTanium]

Damn those soybeans!

Haha, no kidding. If the gov't is gonna subsidize estrogen foods, wish they woulda picked hops instead.

 

[terrapinj]

Why would farmers choose to use gmo crops if they could grow non-gmo crops cheaper because they use less herbicide, fertilizer, and pesticides? Why aren't all farmers organic if they can grow just as much as non-organic and can do it cheaper?

There is a market for seeds. Monsanto doesn't force the soybean industry to grow GMO soybean. However, >90% of all soybeans grown in the US are GMO. Why? Yield? Cheaper to produce? Government/chemical company consipiracy?

they are certainly trying to pressure everyone to use their seeds, or sue them if neighboring farms use their seeds and by chance cross-pollinate

 

[BeerDoctor5]

Some would think so. That's why I'm asking...

It was the atrazine issue several years ago that got me looking into the issue more because it doesn't make sense.

Farmers are in the industry to produce as much as they can for as little cost as they can, right?

It doesn't make sense that they'd be using GMO seeds that needed more cost to get the same yield; hence the conspiracy folks...

Usually the simplest answer is the correct answer. Usually farmers plant what is cheapest and yields the most.

A lot of the anti-GMO people are (surprise surprise) organic agriculture proponents. The report you linked to was written by someone at The Organic Center.

Literally speaking all crops are genetically modified. Humans have been selecting for traits for thousands of years thereby modifying the genes of crops. Breeding modifies the genes.

There is no need to fear GMOs. For example a plant that produce a small protein in the leaves (example) that stops bugs from eating them doesn't affect humans when humans eat the seeds of said plant.

 

[H-ost]

they are certainly trying to pressure everyone to use their seeds, or sue them if neighboring farms use their seeds and by chance cross-pollinate

Yep, they sell seeds that grow for one season, then you must buy more for the next crop. Add the fact that they have patents on some of these seeds and the size of their pockets to defend those patents/force out anyone who tries to compete with them and you can plainly see they have a monopoly and a death grip on farmers.

 

[BeerDoctor5]

Here is a report by the USDA looking into 10 years of GMOs. USDA shouldn't have conflicts of interest. There are also a bunch of references therein that could be useful. I've only skimmed the report but I'll read it later. Got a tee time to make now!

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/eib11/eib11.pdf

 

[bob1852]

Usually the simplest answer is the correct answer. Usually farmers plant what is cheapest and yields the most.

A lot of the anti-GMO people are (surprise surprise) organic agriculture proponents. The report you linked to was written by someone at The Organic Center.

Literally speaking all crops are genetically modified. Humans have been selecting for traits for thousands of years thereby modifying the genes of crops. Breeding modifies the genes.

There is no need to fear GMOs. For example a plant that produce a small protein in the leaves (example) that stops bugs from eating them doesn't affect humans when humans eat the seeds of said plant.

Oh I completely understand. In my opinion "organic" is more of a fear than GMOs, especially when the label says "Organic: hecho en Mexico."

I tell that to my anti-GMO friends all of the time. If it wasn't for GMO, we wouldn't have corn.

 

[BeerDoctor5]

Yep, they sell seeds that grow for one season, then you must buy more for the next crop. Add the fact that they have patents on some of these seeds and the size of their pockets to defend those patents/force out anyone who tries to compete with them and you can plainly see they have a monopoly and a death grip on farmers.

I understand the concern for the farmers here but the companies did invest billions into these products and should have some right to protect their investment. If they didn't make money they wouldn't be selling them. The farmers have the option of growing non-gmo and thus growing their own seed but it's not cost effective for them to do that either.

 

[TyTanium]

If it wasn't for GMO, we wouldn't have corn.

Or ethanol diluting our gas. That drives me nuts.

 

[rhamilton]

It doesn't make sense that they'd be using GMO seeds that needed more cost to get the same yield; hence the conspiracy folks...

Depending on the land condition, with GMO seeds you can skip a spray. You save money on the herbicide + time/personnel + equipment + diesel.

Here is the breakdown for soybeans. Note these numbers DO NOT include time/personnel, equipment costs, or fuel. This is only herbicide costs:

Non-GMO (double spray) = $41-$77/acre
Roundup-Ready (single spray) = $43-$59/acre
Roundup-Ready (double spray) = $55-$75/acre
Liberty Link (single spray) = $42-$50/acre
Liberty Link (double spray) = $54-$66/acre

With good land management practices, most farmers can easily avoid having to apply the second spray. This is a HUGE cost saving and most farmers are aiming for that. I can tell you from personal experience, avoiding the 2nd spraying is the difference between successful use of GMO seed and barely breaking even with a crop.

 

[bob1852]

Here is a report by the USDA looking into 10 years of GMOs. USDA shouldn't have conflicts of interest. There are also a bunch of references therein that could provide useful. I've only skimmed the report but I'll read it later. Got a tee time to make now!

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/eib11/eib11.pdf

Thanks.

FWIW, I just wish they'd ban atrazine in the U.S. like they have in pretty much the rest of the world.

 

[bob1852]

Depending on the land condition, with GMO seeds you can skip a spray. You save money on the herbicide + time/personnel + equipment + diesel.

Here is the breakdown for soybeans. Note these numbers DO NOT include time/personnel, equipment costs, or fuel. This is only herbicide costs:

Non-GMO (double spray) = $41-$77/acre
Roundup-Ready (single spray) = $43-$59/acre
Roundup-Ready (double spray) = $55-$75/acre
Liberty Link (single spray) = $42-$50/acre
Liberty Link (double spray) = $54-$66/acre

With good land management practices, most farmers can easily avoid having to apply the second spray. This is a HUGE cost saving and most farmers are aiming for that. I can tell you from personal experience, avoiding the 2nd spraying is the difference between successful use of GMO seed and barely breaking even with a crop.

Ugh, now I'm having flashbacks to working in the soy fields after we finished detassling all of Nebraska's corn!!!!

 

[Dunerunner]

One issue I can agree with the OP on is price!!

I can remember when Vinnie first started homebrewing in San Diego, he used to give his beer away! It was Free!!!

What's up with that! Why no more free beer?


the above statement is intended to poke fun at the troll who started this thread!

 

[terrapinj]

Usually the simplest answer is the correct answer. Usually farmers plant what is cheapest and yields the most.

A lot of the anti-GMO people are (surprise surprise) organic agriculture proponents. The report you linked to was written by someone at The Organic Center.

Literally speaking all crops are genetically modified. Humans have been selecting for traits for thousands of years thereby modifying the genes of crops. Breeding modifies the genes.

There is no need to fear GMOs. For example a plant that produce a small protein in the leaves (example) that stops bugs from eating them doesn't affect humans when humans eat the seeds of said plant.

GMO is not cross breeding amongst a species to encourage the desired traits, they are splicing genes from different kingdoms

there is definitely reason to question the effects of GMO's on both mammals as well as the environment

this study documented organ damage in lab rats with different varieties of GMO corn
http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm#headingA11

 

[Jukas]

One issue I can agree with the OP on is price!!

I can remember when Vinnie first started homebrewing in San Diego, he used to give his beer away! It was Free!!!

What's up with that! Why no more free beer?


the above statement is intended to poke fun at the troll who started this thread!

I know! Last time I went to RR I parked right in front of the brewery and then ordered a 16oz R2H56 during happy hour for $3.25. When I got back to my car I realized even though I hit max amount on the parking meter, it only charged my CC $0.25 and I had a $33 parking ticket.

$37 for a pint of beer? Seriously? Who does Vinnie think he is, damn sellout.

I know I know.. I shouldn't feed the troll, but I just couldn't help it

 

[lurker18]

Some would think so. That's why I'm asking...

It was the atrazine issue several years ago that got me looking into the issue more because it doesn't make sense.

Farmers are in the industry to produce as much as they can for as little cost as they can, right?

It doesn't make sense that they'd be using GMO seeds that needed more cost to get the same yield; hence the conspiracy folks...

The farmers do get a huge advantage in this case. Roundup (for RR ready soybeans) is fairly inexpensive kill all for the crop, so your chemical usage is actually less than conventional soybeans, where you have to use different chemicals for different weeds, and possibly multiple passes over the field (more fuel expense). The lack of weed pressure on the crop will produce better yeilds, thus more cash in the pocket. It is quite a bit cheaper to grow these GMO crops in the long run when everything is put together as a whole and not compared one piece at a time to conventional crops.

 

[lurker18]

Yep, they sell seeds that grow for one season, then you must buy more for the next crop. Add the fact that they have patents on some of these seeds and the size of their pockets to defend those patents/force out anyone who tries to compete with them and you can plainly see they have a monopoly and a death grip on farmers.

I agree that the mega chem companies are doing pretty good for themselves, but it is incorrect that the terminator gene is out there. They do have it, it does work, but there are (I am 99% sure) no plants that are using this gene at the moment.

 

[BigfootCounty]

I really was unaware how many of my fellow homebrewers were proponents of gmo products

very sad to me

ORGANIC FOR LIFE *******

 

[wailingguitar]

Maybe I'm just riled up, but I would kind of like to hear the OP address the issue of alleging Cargill malt to be GMO. Clearly it isn't the case (I believe at least three posts thus far have shown this from different angles). So, OP, where did you come by this misinformation? FWIW, I am in no way connected to RR or Cargill, I just don't like unfounded accusations, especially between members of the brewing community.

 

[captgus]

Monsanto is evil!

 

[TrubHead]

No worries about the GMOs, the alcohol in beer destroys them.....it's science.

Pity the poor farmers who can't save their seed for next planting. Monsanto strong arms and litigate them into poverty if they don't buy their GMO seeds. It's been televised and nothing has changed since Monsanto makes substantial contributions ($$$) to the controlling political parties.

As far as RR raising their prices, well who is forcing anyone to buy them? Now if I could only get a bottle of that legendary enamel ripping brew.

 

[ao125]

I won't speak to the RR stuff as we don't get it here, but this word "Craft" needs to go.

Seems like you ask someone it's definition and they really can't define it accurately. I think "good" should replace "craft" when talking about beer. My.02

There's nothing wrong with the term "craft" to describe beer. If you're not mass producing it (e.g. BMC), and you're a brewer taking the time to make a good beer, that absolutely is a craft.

Craft
noun \ˈkraft\
Definition of CRAFT
1: skill in planning, making, or executing : dexterity
2 a : an occupation or trade requiring manual dexterity or artistic skill <the carpenter's craft> <the craft of writing plays> <crafts such as pottery, carpentry, and sewing> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/craft

According to Google:
craft/kraft/
Noun:
An activity involving skill in making things by hand.
Verb:
Use skill in making (something): "he crafted the chair"; "a beautifully crafted object".

Get down off your high horse before you hit your head.

 

[bob1852]

There's nothing wrong with the term "craft" to describe beer. If you're not mass producing it (e.g. BMC), and you're a brewer taking the time to make a good beer, that absolutely is a craft.

Craft
noun \&#712;kraft\
Definition of CRAFT
1: skill in planning, making, or executing : dexterity

Get down off your high horse before you hit your head.

So BMC lack skill in planning, making, and executing?

 

[SwampassJ]

Ummm...you were the first to use the term "liberal."

Had two other posters that had it but the posts have either been modified or removed.