The Half Ashed Cigar Forum

kurtdesign1 wrote:Without reading the article I'll say this (please forgive the heresy) haven't we been "genetically modifying" tobacco for decades? Passive modification has eradicated blue mold and black shank for this entire century. The hygronomers (How is that spelled?) in Cuba went away from Corojo & Criollo in 1995 through the first GMO tobacco implementation that I know of. They didn't just switch to another foreign varietal, they made their own. As I discussed on a show or two ago, they typically change this up every 2 or 3 years now. One would imagine that specifying a varietal with higher yield, larger leaves, shorter maturity, lower/higher nicotine would all be desirable traits. Breeding those traits in or out is a form of modification, is it not?

In the true sense yes, similar to corn we have been splicing and grafting to make different hybrids and modifying the plants to produce a more desirable crops for years. GMO really means that they are artificially inserting genes to make something that cannot be made in nature such as corn that has roundup inserted into the gene to make it insect resistant. That is something that is not possible in nature but can be made in a lab. But in short it is fun to say GMO tobacco mmmmmmmmm (Homer Simpson voice).

Kip wrote:It drives me up a friggin wall when people say "hydrometer" instead of hyGrometer. A hygrometer goes in your humidor and measures humidity. A hydrometer measures the density of a liquid (by brew masters and the like). I'm not generally a linguistic nazi, but that's a deep seated pet peeve of mine.

Sent via smoke signal from the tropics....

e.g. Masonry or "masonary".
I will kick you in the testicles if I ever hear you say this in person, FYI.

jledou wrote:

kurtdesign1 wrote:Without reading the article I'll say this (please forgive the heresy) haven't we been "genetically modifying" tobacco for decades? Passive modification has eradicated blue mold and black shank for this entire century. The hygronomers (How is that spelled?) in Cuba went away from Corojo & Criollo in 1995 through the first GMO tobacco implementation that I know of. They didn't just switch to another foreign varietal, they made their own. As I discussed on a show or two ago, they typically change this up every 2 or 3 years now. One would imagine that specifying a varietal with higher yield, larger leaves, shorter maturity, lower/higher nicotine would all be desirable traits. Breeding those traits in or out is a form of modification, is it not?

In the true sense yes, similar to corn we have been splicing and grafting to make different hybrids and modifying the plants to produce a more desirable crops for years. GMO really means that they are artificially inserting genes to make something that cannot be made in nature such as corn that has roundup inserted into the gene to make it insect resistant. That is something that is not possible in nature but can be made in a lab. But in short it is fun to say GMO tobacco mmmmmmmmm (Homer Simpson voice).

My intention here is to keep this a conversation and NOT a debate. I'm interested in learning and am willing to concede at any time that I may be wrong.

I thought the "round up" modification was to engineer crops to be round up resistant. Round up is a herbicide. It will kill anything conducting photosynthesis; typically. The round-up resistant crops allow the herbicide to be applied liberally, ensuring that other crops do not populate amongst the desirable. An insecticide is an entirely different product, though I'm sure some crops have been modified per your statements. I wouldn't doubt that at all.

I'm not casting a wide net at all over GMO products in my life. I feel there are beneficial scientific outcomes to be had. I also feel that there can be terrible misuse of such technology, LIKE MOST TECHNOLOGY. Studies have not proved the harmful nature of ALL gmos, despite some casting a pale light upon certain potential. Tobacco that is a GMO has a lot of potential upside. A LOT. Resistant crops that do not require herbicides or insecticides to be applied are undoubtedly (or perhaps just logically) healthier for the consumers. Taste is paramount but health should be just below it on the list. Well, at least my list.

I'm pretty pro-GMO in most cases. Wow, wasn't that a hedged statement? we're gonna need its advances to feed the world's growing population, but it DEFINITELY needs to be well monitored to avoid catastrophe.

IWinchester wrote:I'm pretty pro-GMO in most cases. Wow, wasn't that a hedged statement? we're gonna need its advances to feed the world's growing population, but it DEFINITELY needs to be well monitored to avoid catastrophe.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk