songbird wrote:
Fran Farmer wrote:
Derald wrote:

Does anyone in the NG actually believe
the citation to have anything to do with science or research?

FFS! The place produces pigs!!! It's not some airy, fairy green
space for drugged up hippies.

it just seemed to me that Derald wanted to
rant.


ANY producer of animals who hopes to make a living from producing
animals keeps records. In fact in most cases the keeping of animal
production records is mandatory in order to be accountable to the Tax
regime in any country.

yep. among other things also being the natural
self interest in knowing how things are going.


The figures he gives about the numbers of piglets born, the number of
piglets weaned, the number suckled and the reduction of medication,.
the incidence of defects are all as much facts as are the
information on trial results presented by Monsanto.

it also says that he's paying attention to
details.


The only change (according to him) is in the food. You could quibble
that he may well be telling a lie about changing that but then the
same applies to what Monsanto says.

He's claiming to have done his figures over a sample of 30,000.
That is a big sample size. Monsanto would probably be pushed to
produce any equivalency for their trials that supposed provide
similar proof of safety.


...
Any animal producer who sees claims of increased production, less
birth defects, less disease and less medication knows that all of
those things are desirable outcomes.

not having to deal with a pig with the runs
would rank pretty high up there on my list if
i were a pig producer...


...
The pig producer gets increased returns form a change of feed. More
live births, less birth defects, less medication, and although he
didn't say it, more live pigs at the marketing stage therefore means
more money in his pocket. They are all "facts" that any
agricultural producer understands.

He's a pig producer. He's paying for the amount of work he has
already done and that amount of work is quite considerable. He's
not a university research scientist who may or may not be getting
money from Monsanto to do research in order to support Monsanto's
claims of the safety of Glyphosate. Hé salso not Monsanto who has
very deep pockets.

agreed, the producer may have a bias against GMO
but i would say that the bias became an educated one
once his foreman picked up on it almost right away
(another observant fellow) and then he himself saw
those results continue.


songbird

But his is only "empirical evidence" , not "scientific evidence" - do
these idiots not realize that empirical evidence shows the need for
controlled and unbiased experimentation ? I've seen enough evidence to be
convinced that glyphosate is NOT as safe as they'd have us believe . Further
, I believe that in the end it will be implicated in CCD colony collapse
disorder in honeybees .

--
Snag