As usual yes no maybe!!

Unfortunately we will never know if they keep ripping the trials up.....

It falls into the massive government/corporate conspiracy trap where once someone decides it's all an evil plan to take over the world and grow spare bodies and make mice have 3 heads there is no way to convince some people otherwise

If you drive through Herts / Beds / Bucks, the verges are infested with rape plants.
The verges are sprayed with glyphosate, but clearly the rape is the GM version that is resistant.
It's choking off the indigenous hedgerow plants, and can't be killed. It looks like it will be the knotweed of the 21st century.

So in answer to the OP, it's a massive problem.

The Green Party have been really getting on my nerves over this (claiming GM supporters have been stifling debate). I completely agree with them when it comes to political control of GM crops (e.g. Monsanto using it as a way of locking in farmers), but this is a valid and useful scientific trial, with no obvious conflicts of interest. The scientists runnign the trial have offered to meet with the protesters, but AFAIK they've been turned down.

The verges are sprayed with glyphosate, but clearly the rape is the GM version that is resistant.

Do you have evidence? I'm sure DEFRA would like to hear, since

No GM crops are being grown commercially in the UK

playing around with selective breeding in animal and plant species is as old as mankind.

but there is a large part of society that doesn't understand science or is terrified of some sort of bogeyman and seems insistent that the planet must stay in some sort of stasis and that any change is bad.

on the other hand GM crop may actually be one of the only developments that will enable the feeding of the continually expanding human population? or we can just let people starve, or look at the next series of wars as resources become so scarce we have massive population migration.

funnily enough people in developing countries who can now grow pest resistant crops or crops that can survive in harsher climates and so feed their families don't seem quite so upset about the plight of the english verge or hedge row 😀

it's never a black and white argument.

plant hybridisation/selection has been going on for thousands of year, look at a modern wheat variety and then look at the wild relatives in the middle east.

Now what is GM, often it is taking genes that could not possibly occur in that species and introducing them. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? I suppose the first question is why are we doing it, to reduce the use of pesticides, herbicides, increase yields, etc or to sell more pesticides, to lock farmers in etc.

There are questions whether the crops do have increased yields, whether the added genes are potentially harmful, whether cross breeding of the gm hybrids and native flora will result in pest resistant weeds, etc.

Nothing is ever black and white.

the big problem i see is once GM plants are in the environment they can not be recaptured, how many times have we introduced fora and flora only to regret it later.

Re road side verges they really are not likely to be sprayed with a glyphosate product It kills nearly all plants especially grasses and would leave bare soil which would very easily erode in wet weather.Glyphosate has no residual action and is broken down by soil bacteria. The bare soil it leaves can soon be taken over by vigorous plants (hybrid rape for example, which blows off lorry trailers when transported) and nettles and thistles. The central reservations seem to be sprayed to leave no living plants.

If you drive through Herts / Beds / Bucks, the verges are infested with rape plants.

Just back from a lovely run through the rape fields of Herts. Didn't notice any rape in the verges. Plenty of buttercups, dandelions and birdsfoot trefoil though.

It's also quite common to see wild brassicas in verges -
[img] [/img]

So for example the above, though superficially similar, isn't rape.
I'd be a bit concerned if someone was spraying them with glyphosates too!
Who'd be doing it?, and why?

I expect the rape in the hedges is actually Sinapis arvensis or similar, look a lot like it.

GM crops have people scared for the wrong reasons its the potential for escape of genes into wild populations that is the problem, especially as these genes are put into supress pests (known as wildlife outside farms). No amount of field trials can asses the risk. Also a lot of GM crops are just made herbicide or pesticide resistant, whats the point of that other than to make Monsanto money. Not sure what the question is but I'm fairly sure GM isnt the answer.

naturaly resistant to aphid attack.

Fish naturally breathe underwater if we made a human that could would you call it natural? it is human made obviously.

but there is a large part of society that doesn't understand science or is terrified of some sort of bogeyman and seems insistent that the planet must stay in some sort of stasis and that any change is bad.

when you add those to the law of unintended consequences what we have is us adjusting the balance of nature, knowing their will be an environmental "back lash or reaction to it whilst some multi national tell us how safe it and we are all Luddites if we object

Reality is no one knows what will happen beyond the fact that their will be an environmental /genetic response to the change in the environment as that is what nature does. Once we let the genie [ see what i did there] out the bottle we are not putting it back there

Its not anti science by all the objectors

Greenpeace tore up some trials here in Oz saying that it's 'not proven to be safe'.

Fair point. But one that becomes a little difficult when a research organisation in no way connected to Monsanto et al. has its trials attempting to research this torn up...

Also a lot of GM crops are just made herbicide or pesticide resistant, whats the point of that other than to make Monsanto money.

In many countries, no till or conservation till ag is practiced to conserve soil and reduce organic matter loss. Sadly one downside to this is that the glyphosate comes into it quite a lot to knock down the weeds as they're not ploughed in. It would be pretty useful to a farmer to be able to use glyphosate without killing what he's trying to grow...

But one that becomes a little difficult when a research organisation in no way connected to Monsanto et al. has its trials attempting to research this torn up...

Also a lot of GM crops are just made herbicide or pesticide resistant, whats the point of that other than to make Monsanto money.

I think the point is it cannot be proven safe anyway, are the potential risks worth it? Glyphosate reistant weeds would cause a few problems for no till farmers would they not?

it's 'not proven to be safe'.

We cannot introduce something new into the environment and expect no consequences nor, unfortunately, predict the consequences.

Given that very few, if anything can be proven to be safe, we are down to an individual's philosophy of risk for which there isn't really a right or wrong answer.
So both the pro gm and anti gm probably have fairly equally valid arguments.

So both the pro gm and anti gm probably have fairly equally valid arguments.

This is correct, all GM crops should be looked at on an individual basis. But I havent seen any that have potential benefits that outweigh the risks as yet.

Glyphosate reistant weeds would cause a few problems for no till farmers would they not?

They already do, actually. Being able to grow crops that aren't affected by any residual if repeated applications are needed is one of the things highest up the 'wish list' of the farmers I speak to.

I know you know this zokes but that is the problem

It is, but the bigger problem is that in a few years time, we'll have to feed 9bn people, a lot of whom are getting a taste for a more protein-rich diet (China and India being the obvious). Right now, conventional (and certainly not organic) farming won't meet this need. This will be fine for us in our nice first-world countries with enough money to buy all the food we need. But I think it's ethically very uncomfortable to leave things as they are, when the technology is nearly there to greatly increase agricultural efficiency.

I appreciate there are some risks, but the people against GM need to come up with alternative methods of increasing agricultural efficiency, especially in response to the need to reduce water and nutrient use, whilst increasing yields. Either that, or someone had better explain to the people of poorer countries that they'd better stop having children, as they'll have nothing to eat shortly.

I propose a vegan diet to solve all these issues 8)

Its not an insignificant point/problem you raise and I dont have an answer as I doubt my suggestion will be implemented.

GM will struggle to get public approval IMHO - you will get paranoia about just modifying - what do they think the cattle is they eat?- mixed with my "scientific"- we just dont know what will happen approach.

The pro GM camp are overlooking, mind you so are the anti GM camp, the forthcoming fertilizer problem. Farming is massively oil dependent in its current form, as oil becomes ever more expensive and scarce what will replace it?

I propose a vegan diet to solve all these issues

It would solve most of them, but just as China and India baulk at the idea that the west has been able to burn coal for 200 years and now why shouldn't they, it's the huge increase in demand for something more appetising than rice with a side serving of rice that will probably win if the west again preaches that actually, it would be better if you didn't ever get chance to enjoy the protein-rich diet we've become accustomed to.

GM will struggle to get public approval IMHO - you will get paranoia about just modifying - what do they think the cattle is they eat?- mixed with my "scientific"- we just dont know what will happen approach.

And to be honest, this is where the GM camp has lost. Almost noone will buy anything they know has GM in it thanks to the long running anti-GM publicity. No matter how noble the cause (and I am obviously ignoring the commercial aspect of Monsanto and Bayer owning IP to food here), if the public won't eat it, then it's not going to help.

The pro GM camp are overlooking, mind you so are the anti GM camp, the forthcoming fertilizer problem. Farming is massively oil dependent in its current form, as oil becomes ever more expensive and scarce what will replace it?

Actually, GM can potentially do quite a lot about this.

1) Water is the biggest issue, and research into better water use efficiency (WUE) is one of the main angles for GM research

2) Nitrogen isn't such a huge issue, as whilst a lot of it is fossil-based, there's been huge progress in better use of natural nitrogen fixing bacteria (be they symbionts of legumes, or free-living) to get N 'for free'. Again, a lot of research goes into increasing NUE, and one obvious line of GM research is to find ways to allow non-leguminous crops to form symbioses with N fixers.

3) The bigger one is phosphorus, which is mined. Peak P (akin to peak oil) is a very real phenomenon, and whilst you can't just 'make' it like N-fixers do nitrogen, PUE is another one of the main lines of genetic research in agricultural species. So making better use of what we have left.

So really, GM might be very beneficial indeed. The question remains whether the public will like it, or whether we can balance those benefits against the risks of escape / crossing with native species, or whether if this can be demonstrated, the public will be convinced.

Yeah didn't realise about the phosphorous problem until a neighbour (who's a nice farmer, rather than one who keeps 20ft high chickens in sheds) mentioned he'd been on R4's material world talking about. Can't remember what the price increase per a tonne had been recently, but it was pretty phenomenal. He party bypasses the problem by spreading large quantities of poo from Londoners on the fields.

He party bypasses the problem by spreading large quantities of poo from Londoners on the fields.

Yup, recycling of organic wastes has a huge part to play. It's pretty criminal that we currently burry so many otherwise useful nutrients in landfills etc. After all, the P in poo came from a crop in a field in the first place 🙂

The trouble is that whilst it will go some way towards addressing the problem in smaller countries like the UK where there are plenty of sewage treatment plants and commercial composting outfits, it's a bit more of an issue in the bread-baskets of the world. Transporting the wastes from metropolitan cities thousands of miles to the wheat belts of Oz, the US and Russia is a non-trivial undertaking, especially as it relies on oil to do so.

Right now, conventional (and certainly not organic) farming won't meet this need. This will be fine for us in our nice first-world countries with enough money to buy all the food we need. But I think it's ethically very uncomfortable to leave things as they are, when the technology is nearly there to greatly increase agricultural efficiency.

But this is plainly rubbish, irrigation and tractors for example were invented a long time ago and people in the developing world dont have them, no amount of GM crop research will solve poverty.

are you suggesting these companies are motivated by profit rather than altruism.
Poverty could be solved without GM crops.
re: food supply GM may just be putting off the inevitable and I dont really think technology will save us from that indefinitely.

are you suggesting these companies are motivated by profit rather than altruism.
Poverty could be solved without GM crops.

that is what I'm saying. All this bollocks about feeding starving people with the wonder of GM technology really pisses me off. We have enough food for everyone now we just dont share it out. Biotech cannot solve that problem.

I'd be a bit concerned if someone was spraying them with glyphosates too!
Who'd be doing it?, and why?

Highways authority.

It's worst on motorways / dual carriageways where they want devastation. That's where the rape is (no it's not flowering brassicas). Despite the legal position, I use the evidence of my own eyes as to whether it's roundup ready.

Single track roads aren't sprayed so not affected. Hence the lovely picture above.

That's where the rape is (no it's not flowering brassicas

would you know the difference, what with rape being a flowering brassica you dont inspire confidence.

So far, being bitten by GM and irradiated mice has failed to give me super-powers as advertised, so lets discard the end of the world scenario's.

Personally, I think that the prospect of being able to alter a crop so that its resistant to pests, or less needing of fertiliser and therefore allowing farmers to maintain yields without the need for liberal application of artificial chemicals is not only a move in the right direction, but a vital step in improving our environment for the better.

sure there are potential problems ahead, but there is also a huge negative environmental impact from the status quo that is in place at the moment, on all sorts of species - we have to offset that continuing damage against the risk, and I don't believe that the 'luddites' are doing that.

So far, being bitten by GM and irradiated mice has failed to give me super-powers as advertised, so lets discard the end of the world scenario's.

you start off with ignorance and carry that on with the rest of your post, well done 2/10

Flap jack The highways agency or the contractors working on their behalf are (or should be as farmers are )required to keep spray application records for three years and be available for inspection when required.

Ignorance A_A?

have you seen what a bite from a genetically modified spider can do? I saw a documentary on it at the cinema...

🙄

Now then, talking about ignorance, hows about we enter a critical analysis of your claim that GM science 'cannot be proven safe anyway'?

crop so that its resistant to pests,

Do you think the pests will adapt or will they just all be wiped out? Will only the strongest survive. Therefore we "select" the pests best able to attack said new plant who then breed etc...you cannot stop evolution with science you can only give us different problems.

the distrust exists because no one can say for certain what the implications will be in 150 years time and we will never be able to undo it once we start.

Do you think the pests will adapt or will they just all be wiped out? Will only the strongest survive. Therefore we "select" the pests best able to attack said new plant who then breed etc...you cannot stop evolution with science you can only give us different problems.

i) The same argument can be made against the huge quantities of pesticide and chemical fertilisers currently being used, and we can say with certainty that they are having serious detrimental effects on the environment here and now, so a risk analysis of GM use has to be seen in the context of the damage that we know is being caused now.

ii) What other areas of science would you like to apply this argument to? If you expand it then all scientific development would cease - look at the antibiotics and their knock on effects with 'superbugs' -should we ban their use on that basis?

the distrust exists because no one can say for certain what the implications will be in 150 years time and we will never be able to undo it once we start.

Again, which other areas of science would you like to apply this to? look at warfarin resistant rodents, look at the pill and hormone's in the water supply and their sexualising effect on fish, etc.

If we followed this line, we'd never introduce or change anything in the ecosystem, which might be desirable in some ways, but its far from realistic.

Numbers 1 and 2 cannot be undone and were done without knowledge of the threat so are piss poor examples.

3/10 could do better.

cannot be undone and were done without knowledge of the threat

Ah, A_A, you're back - according to your principles they should never have been done at all, as they were not proven to be safe.

Can you tell me a single thing we've done or are doing in science or medicine that has could not have the claim 'unproven safety' laid against it.

Your argument is as flawed and founded on hysteria as the anti MMR nutjobs.

Zule with your outlandish overstatements and half truths- I am amazed you can still get people to "debate" with you tbh

the implications of altering the genetic material within an ecosystem are largely unknown and unpredictable.
I am not sure why this means science has to stop.
I shall leave you with your crayon ,your claims of hysteria and rubbish comparisons

Er ok... I think there is plenty of evidence that genes in gm wheat will escape. We just dont know when and where or how widespread it will need to be for it to happen or what the consequences might be.

And I didnt say anything about your examples. They are your crap examples.

the implications of altering the genetic material within an ecosystem are largely unknown and unpredictable.

The implications of a million different things in science are unknown and unpredictable.

You recall that one of the theoretical possible outcomes of the Large Hadron Collider project smashing proton beams into each other was the creation of a black hole that sucked us all into it in a catastrophic disaster?

Do you also recall protesters trying to stop the experiment, because there was no proof it was safe?

What if they were right?

You recall that one of the theoretical possible outcomes of the Large Hadron Collider project smashing proton beams into each other was the creation of a black hole that sucked us all into it in a catastrophic disaster?

whilst i know nothing about hadron I presume the chances were low. With gm wheat the chances of gene transfer are fairly high and the benefits to society are not high.

Sorry A_A - your'e backtracking , you point was:

[b]the point is it cannot be proven safe anyway, are the potential risks worth it?[/b]

which applies to the LHC just as much as you were trying to apply it to GM wheat.

As for your argument on chances - in the words of one of the researchers:

Wheat is 99 per cent self-pollinating: it is a real challenge to make wheat-to-wheat hybrids, let alone cross it with something else. The only wild plant theoretically capable of crossing to wheat in the UK is couch grass, and although there have been some lab experiments that have made hybrids between wheat and couch grass, this needs human intervention and has never been seen in the wild… To be doubly sure, we have put in place strict safeguards to minimise the spread of seeds or pollen, for example by surrounding the GM plots with other wheat and barley crops as a barrier that will all be harvested and destroyed at the end of the trial.

So is cross-pollination possible? Yes, as scientists we work on the principle that anything is possible. Is it likely? No. What’s more, even if it did happen, the actual chances of this GM wheat successfully establishing itself in the wild are extremely low, since wheat is uncompetitive with other plants.

So, perhaps your argument that the chances of gene transfer are high are more reactionary hysterical scaremongering?

Remembers the futility of it all

It will happen we just dont know how bad it will be.

Run for the hills! 🙄

see - yes that is exactly what I am saying throughout this thread good point ..logic is your ally again today.

Pointless

the point is it cannot be proven safe anyway, are the potential risks worth it?

context is everything, your point was my point. Someone else said the trials might show it as safe.

99% self pollinating doesnt sound that high to me given that lots of wheat is grown. Wonder how many plants are grown per hectare?
Just because hybrid couch hasnt been seen in the wild (how would you know anyway? May point to why its not been recorded) doesnt mean it dorsnt exist. Not sure i would clock it and i worked as a botanist for a number of years.

oh, poor effort there Junky - backtracking by editing your post, but a little too late...

It will happen we just dont know how bad it will be

How many things have we heard that about?

Influenza pandemic's for example.

Quick, cease all development, we're all going to die from the flu. The sky is falling, the sky is falling!

Nuclear power

Quick, cease all development, we're all going to die from the radiationz. The sky is falling, the sky is falling!

HIV

Quick, cease all development, we're all going to die from Aids. The sky is falling, the sky is falling!

Global Warming

Quick, cease all development, we're all going to die from the heat. The sky is falling, the sky is falling!

the problem is that the anti gm position comes from a dislike of 'meddling with nature'
genes being. swapped by crossbreeding is considered fine but swapping genes in a lab is bad -
so what if the genes come from a different species, our genomes are remarkably conserved from bacteria all the way up
and horizontal gene transfer is already seen in nature
the argument about big agri business is a completely different debate but wheeled out by the antigmers regardless

Quick, cease all development, we're all going to die from Aids. The sky is falling, the sky is falling!

I'm with JY on the futility of arguing with someone who spouts such inane bollocks here, but that one deserves highlighting for just how bullshit it is. Well done Zulu.

the argument about big agri business is a completely different debate but wheeled out by the antigmers regardless

If big agri business showed itself to be half trustworthy, I'd be happy to give it a chance. But time and time again, it's shown itself not to be.

genes being swapped by crossbreeding is considered fine but swapping genes in a lab is bad

This may well be the crux of it all.

Where does a line get drawn? Is crossbreeding OK? Should people be allowed to own a labradoodle (or actually any dog if you think about it. They're all a result of cross breeding.)

Is "speeding up" the process by going to the root (gene) acceptable? As that's all it is, really.

the problem is that the anti gm position comes from a dislike of 'meddling with nature'

not from me. I'm not anti gm per sae but currently i dont think any of the things i've seen have benefits that outweigh the risks.

not backtracking hence why I then commented= again logic is your friend tonight- but just recalling the futility of reasoning with the unreasonable as you so amply demonstrate again,

How many things have we heard that about?

If we alter the evolutionary balance there will be a response and this environmental response is a definite. We cannot predict what it will be but we do kno wit will happen.

This is some way short of hysteria. Of course you cannot engage with that fact directly because it is true hence the utter utter BS you spout in order to misrepresent my view because you are incapable of attacking the actual argument.

Tiresome , you are better than this and occasionally brighter than this

tazzymtb - Member

on the other hand GM crop may actually be one of the only developments that will enable the feeding of the continually expanding human population? or we can just let people starve, or look at the next series of wars as resources become so scarce we have massive population migration.

It's not a fix for that- all we'll do is outgrow that resource too. It's understandable that we're looking for hotfixes to let us carry on regardless but it's not a solution, any more than improved fuel efficiency and improved extraction fixes oil shortages. But these things are more palatable than admitting we need less people, or we need the people we have to consume less.

this environmental response is a definite. We cannot predict what it will be but we do kno wit will happen.

So, you don't know what it is, but you do [i]know[/i] it will definitely happen?

How do you know? How can you be so "definite" about this?

Oh, and do you eat apples? They're almost all made from some sort of cross breeding. Again, does speeding up the process make it "bad", and if so, how?

If we alter the evolutionary balance there will be a response and this environmental response is a definite. We cannot predict what it will be but we do kno wit will happen.

But this is no more a reason or justification to suppress the development of GM crops, than it is a reason to prevent the development of antibiotics or any other new science with potential unknown and unpredictable side-effects (hence the examples!)

How do i know ?
I have heard of evolution, natural selection and how advantageous genes thrive in [response to] an environment 🙄

Its like you have not read the thread or something

red queen hypothesis - or evolution is running to stand still
It is never in stasis bit we should not start altering it for our own ends. If we change the balance then nature will adapt. We can see this in the onset of antibiotic resistance that may lead to us being back to where we were before anti biotics
when you add those to the law of unintended consequences what we have is us adjusting the balance of nature, knowing their will be an environmental "back lash or reaction to it whilst some multi national tell us how safe it and we are all Luddites if we object

Reality is no one knows what will happen beyond the fact that their will be an environmental /genetic response to the change in the environment as that is what nature does. Once we let the genie [ see what i did there] out the bottle we are not putting it back there

Shall i use words like allele and phenotype next post?
WOW you mentioned something else - is it because you cannot challenge the argument ?

Junky, what have you eaten of late? Anything that was a result of cross-fertilisation?

Of course you have.

This is the problem - Where did it start and where does it stop?

we should not start altering it for our own ends

Oh, and do you eat apples? They're almost all made from some sort of cross breeding. Again, does speeding up the process make it "bad", and if so, how?

because in an evolutionary context its like going to a knife fight with a few dozen cruise misiles and a couple of tanks.

So, Junky, your point is (as i said) that we should never try or do [b]anything[/b], because we cannot predict the outcome or put the genie back in the bottle?

I hope you're happy eating your purple carrots!

Zulu are you able to read?

because in an evolutionary context its like going to a knife fight with a few dozen cruise misiles and a couple of tanks.

Fight won, then?

Depends if the wrong people get their hands on the weapons. Genes get into pernicious weeds like couch and its not going to end well.

your point is (as i said) that we should never try or do anything, because we cannot predict the outcome or put the genie back in the bottle?

I hope you're happy eating your purple carrots!

That's a pity, but not entirely unexpected. It was a good thread when I went to bed, with some knowledgable people on it (I know A_A did his PhD in agricultural ecology, for example). Now it seems to be the usual STW borefest....

. But these things are more palatable than admitting we need less people, or we need the people we have to consume less.

totally agree on this.

we need the people we have to consume less.

this x 240 000 million

Some GM can be fun I like the glow in the dark onions someone grew but their are massive trust issues in its development and it is a genie that won't do back into the bottle.

A couple of years ago Friend's of the Earth bought a random selection of rice from a number of UK supermarkets only one bag did not contain GM rice (officially you can't buy GM rice in the UK)

At a time when we can more than adequately feed the worlds population from current resources fairly distributed we should be focusing on doing that and stabilising population growth. On a planet with finite resources we should not be seeking to support continuous population expansion with genetic wizardry.

Indeed.
However it's worth remembering that the scientists / companies involved in GM are not in the business of controlling population expansion.
If we are agreed that population expansion is the problem, than focusing protests against GM doesn't appear to be part of the solution.

At a time when we can more than adequately feed the worlds population from current resources fairly distributed we should be focusing on doing that and stabilising population growth. On a planet with finite resources we should not be seeking to support continuous population expansion with genetic wizardry.

but people- daily mail readers, guradianistas, greenpeace only care when its gm crops

eco-warriors are ripping up these experiments but dont bother when crossbred strains or crazy new fertilizers are tested

this protest is just a knee-jerk response to the technology

The problem with all of these things is the people who make the most noise are those ill qualified to pass judgement and simply whip up the general public into a poorly qualified froth.

At a time when we can more than adequately feed the worlds population from current resources fairly distributed we should be focusing on doing that and stabilising population growth. On a planet with finite resources we should not be seeking to support continuous population expansion with genetic wizardry.

I'd agree, though you will find that many of the alterations to plants have been to make them more produce-dense, meaning more can be grown in smaller spaces. Considering we're likely to have to move to biomass/renewable power generation at some point which takes up more room we're at least hitting two birds with one stone.

No-one wants to think we might need to do population control, it's a dirty word/phrase.

Some GM can be fun I like the glow in the dark onions someone grew but their are massive trust issues in its development and it is a genie that won't do back into the bottle.

the glow in the dark type genes are used as markers. Put in two genes together and then select the ones that glow in the dark, makes it easier to spot if its worked.

1) Modern (even pre-modern) agriculture is meddling with nature on a massively destructive scale. The European natural environment has been all but completely destroyed.

2) GM is not the same as cross-breeding

3) We might have enough food in total to feed the world now, but is it possible or feasible to actually transport it?