"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
Jim Webster wrote:
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.
No, they sold it as conventional because no one was willing to pay organic
price for it, not enough people actually want the damned stuff
So really the industry was getting a margin
for organic, but not so much overall because a good proportion of
farmers were doing it.
Rubbish, the proportion of UK output that is organic is very small indeed
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.
Total rubbish. People are actively costing out quitting organic production
and going back to conventional dairy production because the costs of organic
are so much higher. The only thing that stops them is that they will have to
pay back the organic conversion grant if they give up within a certain
period. Organic is not easier to sell
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.
And immediately the organic price will drop and it will become uneconomic.
It is a niche market and very sensitive to overproduction. In the EU we saw
it first in Denmark, then we saw it in the UK,
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.
As I said, this changes on a daily or weekly basis on cattle that eat grass
alone
Snip
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.
Except that I post of sci agric the same as Torsten, I don't post on nz
general.
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.
Or even better watch what happens to a herd of a thousand or more dairy cows
as different loads of maize gluten arrive every week. If there is any
difference between them and the proportion of GM/NonGM you will know within
a couple of days.
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.
Why waste time on an experiment when you have thousand cow herds out there
in the real world feeding the damn stuff?
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 none of them more than cosy anecdotes, none of them condescend to
provide any hard evidence. Doubtless Gordon could dig out a score of beef
fatteners who will provide pleasant anecdotes about how well beef fattens
off GM maize. Somehow I doubt you will find these at all acceptable
And note the author of the one Torsten gave gets Monsanto funding.
So what
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.
If there was any mileage in the story they would have been in there pushing
it for all it is worth
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.
The result wasn't valid note. Also a beef unit finishing several thousand
head would pick up trends faster
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?
don't be silly, to improve palatability would increase cost and would leave
the product different. They would have to charge for it and declare it.
Anyway, how would they improve palatability at no cost, pray tell, the feed
industry has been looking for this magic solution for generations
Jim Webster