"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
Jim Webster wrote:

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
Jim Webster wrote:


But my point is that if you don't notice any of those differences then
perhaps your perceptivity might not be trusted as to differences
between
cows reactions to GM vs non-GM feed.

stop being silly

we are not talking about arbitary perceptions but people who are
monitoring
high yielding dairy cows so closely that a 5% drop in yield against
predicition is a cause for major investigation.

Yield is one important thing, but some people will pay for qualities,
won't they?

not s noticable proportion of the UK population

When the top milk is butter it can no longer be poured on the
pudding.


BF, Protein and Lactose have been measured on a twice weekly basis (at
least) in UK milk for over 20 years. All these things are carefully
monitored

If GM feed had any effect at
all on milk yield as opposed to the conventional feed it would have been
spotted and its effects detailed

Though I am thinking that large scale importation of maize may have
coincided with the time it became Bt, unwanted or unallowed (Starlink) for
human consumption.

look at Torstens post, there has been no sudden large importation of maize

Were cows on a similar amount of maize before then?

Yes

If
not there would be no accurate comparison. Has anything been done to it to
improve palatability?

No



As it is all we get is someone in the mid west winding up a reporter
telling
them that racoons will not eat it

So you ignore it and the other animals.

tales told to wind up a reporter as opposed to measurable facts, yes I
ignore the racoon story

Jim Webster