Jim Webster wrote:
"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
Jim Webster wrote:
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
So many are trying to coach down the quest for organic quality.
I suggest you restrict yourself to talking about things you know about, the
price of organic milk has collapsed in the UK because of over production.
Organic is a very small niche market
A lot of farmers converted around 1999 to organic milk, and were
by 2001 able to call their milk organic and get a higher price.
Suddenly there was a lot more on the market. But they were asking
more for it than imported organic milk in the shops. The
disributors sold excess as non-organic, presumably to try to keep
organic label prices up. So really the industry was getting a margin
for organic, but not so much overall because a good proportion of
farmers were doing it.
You are starting to feel the EU competition in milk. I think you are
going to find the price for non-organic dropping, too, and organic
getting some of a premium but being easier to sell. It will be the
protecting factor for the farmers who have gone to it as subsidies
go off.
New Zealand had a guaranteed butter fat and farming in general
market in the UK until UK joined EU. Then we went through a lot of
strife, a lot of farms were sold as subsidies were removed.
For a long time we did not see organic produce in New Zealand shops,
it was all going to Japan. Now some is available.
Organic carrots here sell for over double in shops. Organic milk is
25 to 35% more. I think there will be a race to enter the market as
non-org prices will drop.
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
Measured in quantity.
I used to think that the processing was causing the trouble - that the
milk would be being agitated more in processing so that the journey in the
delivery truck would finish the churning to butter of the top milk.
Now I am thinking of the different fatty acid composition of the BF
because of feed.
given the level of your knowledge your thoughts aren't exactly worth a lot.
The feed changes constantly over the year are various feedingstuffs change
in price on the world market.
When above I spoke of the butter fat (BF) composition, I was not
speaking of the proportion of fat in the milk, your usual
measurement, but what constitutes the fat. That latter is not
usually measured. Some taste tests may be done. The butter churners
may notice a difference per batch.
In NZ matters will be different again because
of the predominance of grass in the diet and therefore, as the feed quality
of grass can change on a daily basis depending on the weather or field,
there is little consistancy in feed
I used to be a big milk drinker. I noted the turnip sort of taste of
the milk once. I think sometiems curly kale had been fed in winter.
But then there was a move to corn for times of grass shortage. Milk
probably tasted a bit better was only 50% in vitamin E & carotene I
suppose. Especially the homogenised trim milk would go off in
flavour fairly quickly as it spoiled faster. Attempts have been made
to fix that by quicker refrigeration, I think, at the farm, perhaps.
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,
Which post? My server has not had overseas groups for a few days.
Well it managed to pick up mine!
Yes because nz.general is on the newsgroups.
there has been no sudden large importation of maize
Therefore it should be possible to check.
The checks on results are constant, there is no sign of any effect
Maybe because the effect is within variation between breeds or or
other variations of cows. But set up 15 or 16 pairs of animals
and see what happens.
Again:
Linkname: GM Animal Feed
URL: http://www.btinternet.com/~clairejr/Animal/animal.html
size: 547 lines
Ohio farmer Leon Ridzon does not grow GMOs, but he deals with farmers
who do. He recounted local farmers' experience with Bt corn: "We first
had problems three years ago, when famers planted Bt corn and the cows
refused to eat it. The farmers had to camouflage it to get them to eat
it."
So waht sort of `camouflaging' was done and is it being done to maize
before export to britain?
One guy recounted (or made up) a few tall tales which are not backed by any
evidence whatsoever
Now Torsten has shown us something which does not disprove it,
rather shows a trend indicating a bigger experiment than 8 pairs
*is* justified.
Maybe these cows are just finicky? Ridzon says not - other animals
won't eat Bt grain either: "The Bt corn was left on the cob and stored
in an open bin. The rabbits would not touch it, the squirrels would
not touch it. The rats and mice didn't go near it. It killed all the
spiders in the bins."
One guy recounts a few tall tales
You always say it is only one, each time we give a different
example. Our examples have added to several.
And note the author of the one Torsten gave gets Monsanto funding.
Ridzon has become increasingly suspicious about the possible toxicity
of Bt corn. His testimony is the more remarkable for the fact that the
norm for most Ohio farmers is intensively grown and chemically treated
corn - which the animals apparently prefer to GM Bt corn.
Remarkable testimony but where is the actual evidence, where are the feeding
trials, where are the feed lots who are actively sourcing non-GM Bt? Where
is there any evidence whatsoever other that the word of Ridzon
Torsten has given some, now more has to be done.
Ridzon confirms Sprinkel's account of reduced weight gain in Bt
corn-fed cattle. He says farmers report that cattle need nine pounds
of Bt corn to make a one pound weight gain as compared with only six
of normal corn.
Then that must not be because they eat less.
And this only happens in Ohio because there have been no reports of it in
any other country in the world
I think Donkin is Indiana.
Journalist Steven Sprinkel says that a major U.S. seed dealer told him
that there is evidence that earthworms are dying as a result of the
effects of Bt corn.
And no one else has noticed, FOE or Greenpeace have not actually come up
with the evidence?
They have a lot to do.
These reports from farmers and seed dealers can easily be dismissed as
anecdotal evidence from which no conclusions can be drawn. But if we
wait for the scientists to catch up, it could be too late. Scientific
studies take years to do, and the majority are funded by industry or
governments greased with biotech dollars. Who is going to fund a study
which may find that a GM crop is toxic?
What a lot of balls. It takes three weeks to note that milk cows are
dropping in yield and switch the diet, it might take slightly longer on a
well run beef unit
What percentage do you change at? Donkins result was a 3% drop. That
means say you change feed at 5% you only have 2% more to go.
Were cows on a similar amount of maize before then?
Yes
Sure?
If
not there would be no accurate comparison. Has anything been done to it
to
improve palatability?
No
Not before it was imported?
No,
What guarantee?
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
And Ridzon?
You believe one farmer who says what you want to hear, and disbelieve one
farmer who doesn't and tells you what is really going on. That is your
problem not mine
Ridzon isn't a farmer if you read it.