"phorbin" wrote in message
In article , times says...


As a farmer, I know what RoundUp does. I have sprayed quack grass with
it
and it works well at the recommended rate. Not bad on Canadian
thistle when applied when they are in the rosette stage in August or
early September. When used for its intended purposes it is a great
product. Other activities of Monsanto with breeding of RR resistant
varieties, I question.

The application, by farmers, of Roundup to weeds is not the same thing as
a
'lifetime feeding study'.

Though a lifetime feeding study should the study be replicable will
probably (after Monsanto has pretended that the studies are flawed,
hammered it with PR droppings and dragged its feet for a decade) affect
the application by farmers of Roundup.

Indeed. But then that would be the whole point behind the conduct of such a
study.

Farm1 wrote:
"phorbin" wrote in message
In article , times says...


As a farmer, I know what RoundUp does. I have sprayed quack grass
with it
and it works well at the recommended rate. Not bad on Canadian
thistle when applied when they are in the rosette stage in August
or early September. When used for its intended purposes it is a
great product. Other activities of Monsanto with breeding of RR
resistant varieties, I question.

The application, by farmers, of Roundup to weeds is not the same
thing as a
'lifetime feeding study'.

Though a lifetime feeding study should the study be replicable will
probably (after Monsanto has pretended that the studies are flawed,
hammered it with PR droppings and dragged its feet for a decade)
affect the application by farmers of Roundup.

Indeed. But then that would be the whole point behind the conduct of
such a study.

If you want to read some really scary stuff about the politicising and abuse
of science and studies have a look at "The republican war on science" or
better still, because it is wider in scope and not directed so much at one
party "The merchants of doubt". My old mate Fred Singer appears in a
star-studded lineup. These are both USA-centred but especially in the
latter the authors show how this kind of corruption has consequences that go
around the world.

We have seen some attempts to import some of this bilge (as if we don't have
enough home grown idiots) where Brendan Nelson incautiously started sucking
on the teat of Intelligent Design (AKA Creationism).

D

In article , times says...
"phorbin" wrote in message
In article , times says...


As a farmer, I know what RoundUp does. I have sprayed quack grass with
it
and it works well at the recommended rate. Not bad on Canadian
thistle when applied when they are in the rosette stage in August or
early September. When used for its intended purposes it is a great
product. Other activities of Monsanto with breeding of RR resistant
varieties, I question.

The application, by farmers, of Roundup to weeds is not the same thing as
a
'lifetime feeding study'.

Though a lifetime feeding study should the study be replicable will
probably (after Monsanto has pretended that the studies are flawed,
hammered it with PR droppings and dragged its feet for a decade) affect
the application by farmers of Roundup.

Indeed. But then that would be the whole point behind the conduct of such a
study.

Hi Farm1,

How's the weather in upside-down land?

Given the trend and sensibility of my Canadian countryman's comments,
the thought I presented seemed a logical enough addition to the thread.

phorbin wrote:
In article , times says...
"phorbin" wrote in message
In article , times
says...


As a farmer, I know what RoundUp does. I have sprayed quack grass
with it
and it works well at the recommended rate. Not bad on Canadian
thistle when applied when they are in the rosette stage in August
or early September. When used for its intended purposes it is a
great product. Other activities of Monsanto with breeding of RR
resistant varieties, I question.

The application, by farmers, of Roundup to weeds is not the same
thing as a
'lifetime feeding study'.

Though a lifetime feeding study should the study be replicable will
probably (after Monsanto has pretended that the studies are flawed,
hammered it with PR droppings and dragged its feet for a decade)
affect the application by farmers of Roundup.

Indeed. But then that would be the whole point behind the conduct
of such a study.

Hi Farm1,

How's the weather in upside-down land?

Trending dry all over the east but not yet a serious problem, some of North
NSW and south QLD are declared "marginal" though the models are predicting
wetter than median in those areas next quarter. The BOM is equivocating
whether we will have an El Nino summer. I have had one good shower of rain
in 9 weeks, due to the wonders of the Big Subterranean Sponge the pasture
has spring growth but if there is no rain soon that will brown off pretty
soon.

David

"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
...
Farm1 wrote:
"phorbin" wrote in message
In article , times says...


As a farmer, I know what RoundUp does. I have sprayed quack grass
with it
and it works well at the recommended rate. Not bad on Canadian
thistle when applied when they are in the rosette stage in August
or early September. When used for its intended purposes it is a
great product. Other activities of Monsanto with breeding of RR
resistant varieties, I question.

The application, by farmers, of Roundup to weeds is not the same
thing as a
'lifetime feeding study'.

Though a lifetime feeding study should the study be replicable will
probably (after Monsanto has pretended that the studies are flawed,
hammered it with PR droppings and dragged its feet for a decade)
affect the application by farmers of Roundup.

Indeed. But then that would be the whole point behind the conduct of
such a study.

If you want to read some really scary stuff about the politicising and
abuse of science and studies have a look at "The republican war on
science" or better still, because it is wider in scope and not directed so
much at one party "The merchants of doubt". My old mate Fred Singer
appears in a star-studded lineup. These are both USA-centred but
especially in the latter the authors show how this kind of corruption has
consequences that go around the world.

Thanks David, I will, but no doubt will end up totally depressed at the end
of my reaidng.

We have seen some attempts to import some of this bilge (as if we don't
have enough home grown idiots) where Brendan Nelson incautiously started
sucking on the teat of Intelligent Design (AKA Creationism).

I'd forgotten about that! Yes, very disturbing. Mind you, I find Abbott
even far more disturbing than a whole boat load and any number of other
conservative politicans put together.

"phorbin" wrote in message
...
In article , times says...
"phorbin" wrote in message
In article , times says...


As a farmer, I know what RoundUp does. I have sprayed quack grass
with
it
and it works well at the recommended rate. Not bad on Canadian
thistle when applied when they are in the rosette stage in August or
early September. When used for its intended purposes it is a great
product. Other activities of Monsanto with breeding of RR resistant
varieties, I question.

The application, by farmers, of Roundup to weeds is not the same thing
as
a
'lifetime feeding study'.

Though a lifetime feeding study should the study be replicable will
probably (after Monsanto has pretended that the studies are flawed,
hammered it with PR droppings and dragged its feet for a decade) affect
the application by farmers of Roundup.

Indeed. But then that would be the whole point behind the conduct of
such a
study.

Hi Farm1,

How's the weather in upside-down land?

You're not familiar with McArthurs Universal Corrective Map of the World?

Given the trend and sensibility of my Canadian countryman's comments,
the thought I presented seemed a logical enough addition to the thread.

It was indeed logical, which is why I agreed with you.

"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
...
phorbin wrote:
In article , times says...
"phorbin" wrote in message
In article , times
says...


As a farmer, I know what RoundUp does. I have sprayed quack grass
with it
and it works well at the recommended rate. Not bad on Canadian
thistle when applied when they are in the rosette stage in August
or early September. When used for its intended purposes it is a
great product. Other activities of Monsanto with breeding of RR
resistant varieties, I question.

The application, by farmers, of Roundup to weeds is not the same
thing as a
'lifetime feeding study'.

Though a lifetime feeding study should the study be replicable will
probably (after Monsanto has pretended that the studies are flawed,
hammered it with PR droppings and dragged its feet for a decade)
affect the application by farmers of Roundup.

Indeed. But then that would be the whole point behind the conduct
of such a study.

Hi Farm1,

How's the weather in upside-down land?

Trending dry all over the east but not yet a serious problem, some of
North NSW and south QLD are declared "marginal" though the models are
predicting wetter than median in those areas next quarter. The BOM is
equivocating whether we will have an El Nino summer. I have had one good
shower of rain in 9 weeks, due to the wonders of the Big Subterranean
Sponge the pasture has spring growth but if there is no rain soon that
will brown off pretty soon.

I had to put a sprinkler on yesterday because one of my veggie beds was
gagging for a drink.

Billy wrote:
Roy wrote:
....
You shouldn't through words like "ignorance" around so carelessly.

*hahahaha*


When you say things like, "If small amounts increase the chance of
cancer in rats then DON'T FEED IT TO RATS...problem solved.", you can
expect to be consigned to a playpen.

Ignorance can be cured, stupidity, can't.

and the fact that reality doesn't care if you
are stupid and/or ignorant, if in the end you
poison your environment enough that it can no
longer sustain life then you and/or your children
are history.



As a farmer, I know what RoundUp does. I have sprayed quack grass with it and
it works well at the recommended rate. Not bad on Canadian
thistle when applied when they are in the rosette stage in August or
early September. When used for its intended purposes it is a great
product. Other activities of Monsanto with breeding of RR resistant
varieties, I question.

The occasional application to an isolated problem, may have merit,

if it is either occasional or isolated it could be dealt
with in another manner. growing taller perennial cover
crops, not mowing too short, hand weeding, targeted grazing
by goats, ...


but
in wholesale use for weeding crops, you are damaging the topsoil, which
in the long run we will need top grow post industrial crops.

besides the fact that monoculture farming
wastes a lot of productivity because the land
is left bare for long periods of time along
with erosion of the topsoil.


Presently,
it takes more than a calorie of fossil fuel energy to produce a calorie
of food; before the advent of chemical fertilizer a farm produced more
than two calories of food energy for every calorie of energy invested.

this equation begins to shift with the introduction
of solar and wind energy into the mix. that at least
is a small improvement, but i still agree that the
adding of chemical fertilizers without improving the
soil overall is going to still be a problem. it burns
the organic matter out of the soil very quickly.


Interplanting will grow more food than monocultures. For this more labor
intensive agriculture, you need the ecology of topsoil.

i think the problem is much more than damage
to the soil, i think there is a lack in studies
which track the effects of the gene fragments
inserted into food plants. how those fragments
are digested, if they can start an allergic
or other autoimmune response in people before
they reach the stomach and intestines, if they
affect the digestive tract microbes, etc.

one mention in recent news that made me think of
the law of unintended side effects -- about how
GMO crops have tougher stalks which requires machines
to get new/harder/different tires more often (some
farmers have their tires baked to harden them) that
chopping blades wear out faster, etc.


songbird

On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 7:46:26 AM UTC-6, songbird wrote:
Billy wrote:

Roy wrote:

...

You shouldn't through words like "ignorance" around so carelessly.



*hahahaha*





When you say things like, "If small amounts increase the chance of

cancer in rats then DON'T FEED IT TO RATS...problem solved.", you can

expect to be consigned to a playpen.



Ignorance can be cured, stupidity, can't.



and the fact that reality doesn't care if you

are stupid and/or ignorant, if in the end you

poison your environment enough that it can no

longer sustain life then you and/or your children

are history.







As a farmer, I know what RoundUp does. I have sprayed quack grass with it and

it works well at the recommended rate. Not bad on Canadian

thistle when applied when they are in the rosette stage in August or

early September. When used for its intended purposes it is a great

product. Other activities of Monsanto with breeding of RR resistant

varieties, I question.



The occasional application to an isolated problem, may have merit,



if it is either occasional or isolated it could be dealt

with in another manner. growing taller perennial cover

crops, not mowing too short, hand weeding, targeted grazing

by goats, ...





but

in wholesale use for weeding crops, you are damaging the topsoil, which

in the long run we will need top grow post industrial crops.



besides the fact that monoculture farming

wastes a lot of productivity because the land

is left bare for long periods of time along

with erosion of the topsoil.





Presently,

it takes more than a calorie of fossil fuel energy to produce a calorie

of food; before the advent of chemical fertilizer a farm produced more

than two calories of food energy for every calorie of energy invested.



this equation begins to shift with the introduction

of solar and wind energy into the mix. that at least

is a small improvement, but i still agree that the

adding of chemical fertilizers without improving the

soil overall is going to still be a problem. it burns

the organic matter out of the soil very quickly.





Interplanting will grow more food than monocultures. For this more labor

intensive agriculture, you need the ecology of topsoil.



i think the problem is much more than damage

to the soil, i think there is a lack in studies

which track the effects of the gene fragments

inserted into food plants. how those fragments

are digested, if they can start an allergic

or other autoimmune response in people before

they reach the stomach and intestines, if they

affect the digestive tract microbes, etc.



one mention in recent news that made me think of

the law of unintended side effects -- about how

GMO crops have tougher stalks which requires machines

to get new/harder/different tires more often (some

farmers have their tires baked to harden them) that

chopping blades wear out faster, etc.

songbird

"
this equation begins to shift with the introduction
of solar and wind energy into the mix. that at least
is a small improvement, but i still agree that the
adding of chemical fertilizers without improving the
soil overall is going to still be a problem. it burns
the organic matter out of the soil very quickly. "

The added chemical fertilizer does not "burn" organic matter out of the soil. Obviously you have never farmed.
Excessive amounts of chemical fertilizers especially anhydrous ammonia may have a deleterious effect on the micro-organisms naturally present in the soil. These micro-organisms are very important to how organic matter breaks down to free up nutrients that plants require.

Farmers who allow oil drilling companies to spread waste drilling mud on their fields are totally unaware of the damage that these muds do to the micro-organisms present in the soil. Nothing grows without these micro-organisms.

In article , times says...

Though a lifetime feeding study should the study be replicable will
probably (after Monsanto has pretended that the studies are flawed,
hammered it with PR droppings and dragged its feet for a decade) affect
the application by farmers of Roundup.

Indeed. But then that would be the whole point behind the conduct of
such a
study.

Hi Farm1,

How's the weather in upside-down land?

You're not familiar with McArthurs Universal Corrective Map of the World?

I'm not... but I am now.

I guess that puts me in Topsy Turvy Land.



Given the trend and sensibility of my Canadian countryman's comments,
the thought I presented seemed a logical enough addition to the thread.

It was indeed logical, which is why I agreed with you.

In article ,
Roy wrote:

On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 7:46:26 AM UTC-6, songbird wrote:
Billy wrote:

Roy wrote:

...

You shouldn't through words like "ignorance" around so carelessly.



*hahahaha*





When you say things like, "If small amounts increase the chance of

cancer in rats then DON'T FEED IT TO RATS...problem solved.", you can

expect to be consigned to a playpen.



Ignorance can be cured, stupidity, can't.



and the fact that reality doesn't care if you

are stupid and/or ignorant, if in the end you

poison your environment enough that it can no

longer sustain life then you and/or your children

are history.







As a farmer, I know what RoundUp does. I have sprayed quack grass with
it and

it works well at the recommended rate. Not bad on Canadian

thistle when applied when they are in the rosette stage in August or

early September. When used for its intended purposes it is a great

product. Other activities of Monsanto with breeding of RR resistant

varieties, I question.



The occasional application to an isolated problem, may have merit,



if it is either occasional or isolated it could be dealt

with in another manner. growing taller perennial cover

crops, not mowing too short, hand weeding, targeted grazing

by goats, ...





but

in wholesale use for weeding crops, you are damaging the topsoil, which

in the long run we will need top grow post industrial crops.



besides the fact that monoculture farming

wastes a lot of productivity because the land

is left bare for long periods of time along

with erosion of the topsoil.





Presently,

it takes more than a calorie of fossil fuel energy to produce a calorie

of food; before the advent of chemical fertilizer a farm produced more

than two calories of food energy for every calorie of energy invested.



this equation begins to shift with the introduction

of solar and wind energy into the mix. that at least

is a small improvement, but i still agree that the

adding of chemical fertilizers without improving the

soil overall is going to still be a problem. it burns

the organic matter out of the soil very quickly.





Interplanting will grow more food than monocultures. For this more labor

intensive agriculture, you need the ecology of topsoil.



i think the problem is much more than damage

to the soil, i think there is a lack in studies

which track the effects of the gene fragments

inserted into food plants. how those fragments

are digested, if they can start an allergic

or other autoimmune response in people before

they reach the stomach and intestines, if they

affect the digestive tract microbes, etc.



one mention in recent news that made me think of

the law of unintended side effects -- about how

GMO crops have tougher stalks which requires machines

to get new/harder/different tires more often (some

farmers have their tires baked to harden them) that

chopping blades wear out faster, etc.

songbird

"
this equation begins to shift with the introduction
of solar and wind energy into the mix. that at least
is a small improvement, but i still agree that the
adding of chemical fertilizers without improving the
soil overall is going to still be a problem. it burns
the organic matter out of the soil very quickly. "

The added chemical fertilizer does not "burn" organic matter out of the soil.
Obviously you have never farmed.
Excessive amounts of chemical fertilizers especially anhydrous ammonia may
have a deleterious effect on the micro-organisms naturally present in the
soil. These micro-organisms are very important to how organic matter breaks
down to free up nutrients that plants require.

Farmers who allow oil drilling companies to spread waste drilling mud on
their fields are totally unaware of the damage that these muds do to the
micro-organisms present in the soil. Nothing grows without these
micro-organisms.

And obviously you have never farmed, or you are being overly critical of
the word "burned".

In fields, or in compost, a 25/1 ratio is needed for carbon to nitrogen
to maintain a healthy environment for soil micro-organisms. Injection of
anhydrous ammonia into the soil will encourage bacteria to consume what
organic material as there is. Think of it as "carbs verses protein".
Organic material helps hold water in the soil. Without a carbon/
nitrogen balance of 25/1, bacteria die, leaving less bacterial exudate
to hold the soil together in the face of wind, which leads to erosion.

What kind of farmer are you?

--
Welcome to the New America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA736oK9FPg
or
E Pluribus Unum
Green Party Nominee Jill Stein & Running Mate, Cheri Honkala
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/7/13/green_party_nominee_jill_stein_running

On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 11:49:01 PM UTC-6, Billy wrote:
In article ,

Roy wrote:



On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 7:46:26 AM UTC-6, songbird wrote:

Billy wrote:



Roy wrote:



...



You shouldn't through words like "ignorance" around so carelessly.







*hahahaha*











When you say things like, "If small amounts increase the chance of



cancer in rats then DON'T FEED IT TO RATS...problem solved.", you can



expect to be consigned to a playpen.







Ignorance can be cured, stupidity, can't.







and the fact that reality doesn't care if you



are stupid and/or ignorant, if in the end you



poison your environment enough that it can no



longer sustain life then you and/or your children



are history.















As a farmer, I know what RoundUp does. I have sprayed quack grass with

it and



it works well at the recommended rate. Not bad on Canadian



thistle when applied when they are in the rosette stage in August or



early September. When used for its intended purposes it is a great



product. Other activities of Monsanto with breeding of RR resistant



varieties, I question.







The occasional application to an isolated problem, may have merit,







if it is either occasional or isolated it could be dealt



with in another manner. growing taller perennial cover



crops, not mowing too short, hand weeding, targeted grazing



by goats, ...











but



in wholesale use for weeding crops, you are damaging the topsoil, which



in the long run we will need top grow post industrial crops.







besides the fact that monoculture farming



wastes a lot of productivity because the land



is left bare for long periods of time along



with erosion of the topsoil.











Presently,



it takes more than a calorie of fossil fuel energy to produce a calorie



of food; before the advent of chemical fertilizer a farm produced more



than two calories of food energy for every calorie of energy invested.







this equation begins to shift with the introduction



of solar and wind energy into the mix. that at least



is a small improvement, but i still agree that the



adding of chemical fertilizers without improving the



soil overall is going to still be a problem. it burns



the organic matter out of the soil very quickly.











Interplanting will grow more food than monocultures. For this more labor



intensive agriculture, you need the ecology of topsoil.







i think the problem is much more than damage



to the soil, i think there is a lack in studies



which track the effects of the gene fragments



inserted into food plants. how those fragments



are digested, if they can start an allergic



or other autoimmune response in people before



they reach the stomach and intestines, if they



affect the digestive tract microbes, etc.







one mention in recent news that made me think of



the law of unintended side effects -- about how



GMO crops have tougher stalks which requires machines



to get new/harder/different tires more often (some



farmers have their tires baked to harden them) that



chopping blades wear out faster, etc.



songbird



"

this equation begins to shift with the introduction

of solar and wind energy into the mix. that at least

is a small improvement, but i still agree that the

adding of chemical fertilizers without improving the

soil overall is going to still be a problem. it burns

the organic matter out of the soil very quickly. "



The added chemical fertilizer does not "burn" organic matter out of the soil.

Obviously you have never farmed.

Excessive amounts of chemical fertilizers especially anhydrous ammonia may

have a deleterious effect on the micro-organisms naturally present in the

soil. These micro-organisms are very important to how organic matter breaks

down to free up nutrients that plants require.



Farmers who allow oil drilling companies to spread waste drilling mud on

their fields are totally unaware of the damage that these muds do to the

micro-organisms present in the soil. Nothing grows without these

micro-organisms.



And obviously you have never farmed, or you are being overly critical of

the word "burned".



In fields, or in compost, a 25/1 ratio is needed for carbon to nitrogen

to maintain a healthy environment for soil micro-organisms. Injection of

anhydrous ammonia into the soil will encourage bacteria to consume what

organic material as there is. Think of it as "carbs verses protein".

Organic material helps hold water in the soil. Without a carbon/

nitrogen balance of 25/1, bacteria die, leaving less bacterial exudate

to hold the soil together in the face of wind, which leads to erosion.



What kind of farmer are you?



--

Welcome to the New America.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA736oK9FPg

or

E Pluribus Unum

Green Party Nominee Jill Stein & Running Mate, Cheri Honkala

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/7/13/green_party_nominee_jill_stein_running

I was brought up on a mixed farm. We grew most grains and raised cattle, hogs, chickens, turkeys and horses. I only grow grain crops now. I graduated from an accredited agricultural college many moons ago but still keep up-to-date as much as possible and use the Internet extensively and read a good many magazines devoted to agriculture.

I have read quite a bit regarding Monsanto et al. I believe that they are doing more harm in the world than good but others differ.

Roy wrote:
....
I graduated from an accredited agricultural college
many moons ago but still keep up-to-date as much as
possible and use the Internet extensively and read a
good many magazines devoted to agriculture.

some time crack a recent soil science (college
level) text on the matter.


songbird

On Saturday, September 29, 2012 6:53:56 PM UTC-6, songbird wrote:
Roy wrote:

...

I graduated from an accredited agricultural college

many moons ago but still keep up-to-date as much as

possible and use the Internet extensively and read a

good many magazines devoted to agriculture.



some time crack a recent soil science (college

level) text on the matter.


songbird

No problem with glyphosate...read this:

What happens to glyphosate when it enters the body
In humans, glyphosate does not easily pass through the skin. Glyphosate taken in through the skin or by mouth goes through the body in less than one day. Glyphosate leaves the body in urine and feces without being changed into another chemical.
Studies with rats showed that about one-third of a dose of glyphosate was absorbed by the rats’ intestines. Half of the dose was found in the rats’ stomachs and intestines 6 hours later, and all traces were gone within one week.

Courtesy: NIPC

In article ,
Roy wrote:

On Saturday, September 29, 2012 6:53:56 PM UTC-6, songbird wrote:
Roy wrote:

...

I graduated from an accredited agricultural college

many moons ago but still keep up-to-date as much as

possible and use the Internet extensively and read a

good many magazines devoted to agriculture.



some time crack a recent soil science (college

level) text on the matter.


songbird

No problem with glyphosate...read this:

What happens to glyphosate when it enters the body
In humans, glyphosate does not easily pass through the skin. Glyphosate taken
in through the skin or by mouth goes through the body in less than one day.
Glyphosate leaves the body in urine and feces without being changed into
another chemical.
Studies with rats showed that about one-third of a dose of glyphosate was
absorbed by the rats¹ intestines. Half of the dose was found in the rats¹
stomachs and intestines 6 hours later, and all traces were gone within one
week.

Courtesy: NIPC

You got to know, Roy, that this is a very crappy post. You don't
identify the study, and your source could be the Nigerian Investment
Promotion Commission.

It is widely known that Monsanto is spending money for good reviews, or
diversionary reviews. Next time, tell us who did the study, and you
might look to see who funded it.

Good luck with your studies.

--
Welcome to the New America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA736oK9FPg
or
E Pluribus Unum
Green Party Nominee Jill Stein & Running Mate, Cheri Honkala
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/7/13/green_party_nominee_jill_stein_running