----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Sandle"
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition,nz.general,sci.agriculture
Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2003 7:45 PM
Subject: Paying to find non-GE wild corn?


: Gordon Couger wrote:
:
: "Brian Sandle" wrote in message
: ...
:
: shows the different in notil cotton and
: conventional till. In this case the notil is my neighbors
:
:
: What are the other plants in the no-till? Roundup-resistant?

No they haven't been sparyed yet. As I they are some kind of nettle that the
first spray of round up will knock out.
:
: And the plants look a bit more curly than yours, though it's hard to
: see.
: ============
: Those are weeds the cotton is real hard to see.
:
: Are they Roundup-resistant?
:
: The cotton is in rows, regularly spaced.
:
: One or two plants are only half as high as the others, but I think that
: that is happening on your `conventional' field, too.

Yes they are just comeing after a week of rain. Many fields were lost to
seedling disease that has nothing to to with GM cotton but is a funciton of
cold wet weater. The reason the convential till looks better is the ground
was worked up to a powder and the rain packed it down so the seed was very
close to the surface and it poped right out of the ground days eariler than
the normal conventional and no till fields around it. It was the best stand
out there and it was planted the afternoon it rained. Nomaly that cotton
never makes it up. It was the only cotton from that planting the farmer
saved. Seedling disease got the rest.
:
: As well as looking a bit less curly your non-GM plants are a darker green,
: less yellow than the GM ones. How much of that is due to moisture storage
: by the mulch, as opposed to some sort of residual effect of the Roundup
: on the RR plants, or differences in film? I presume the film was the same.

There is no differece from the RR resistance most of the differece is one is
taken faceing west and on is take facing south and the convential till has
been out of the ground a little longer and is greener from more
photosyntisis and less disease problems.

Gordon
:
: and
: conventional till is mine on an alfalfa hay meadow that is coming
: out of hay and into cotton.
:
:
: What sort of cotton? GM?
:
: No it is conventional with resistatce to another heribcide that can be
use
: all season long.
:
: Interesting. Can it be no-till, then?
:
:
:
: Goodness, tremendous expanse with no wind break. Sun nearly directly
: overhead.
: =============
: If it doesn't rain soon it the sun will cook it. It hasn't raned in 5
weeks
: and it 110f every day.
:
: That's nothing you shoud see the stuff in west Texas. Wind breaks use
: moisture and with mositure the limiting factor you can't have trees
close
: enough togeter to do any good.
:
: That depends on any hot wind. A shelter belt or two can reduce wind
: velocity right down for hundreds of meters, and so stop drying. Also their
: roots go deeper and they bring up lower water which the cotton can't, and
: they add it to the wind.
:
: Besides some of the substances trees give out help moisture to condense
: form the air, maybe even rain.
:
: The only place any one put them was where a
: neighbor let their land blow on them.
:
: We lost all the cotton there to a thunder sorm that beat 2 week old
cotton
: in the ground. We have poverty peas (soybeans) on it now.
:
: Then some trees, even if they stopped cotton growing in their immediate
: vicinity, could still have been a productive crop, some insurance.
:
:
: the other 3/4 of the farm is no till.
:
: What you are calling `no-till' is killing weeds with Roundup on
: Roundup-Ready GM crops.
:
: Half will go in to alfalfa in the fall and the weeds will be controlled
with
: round up and other chemical all summer. I don't know what he plans to do
: with the other half.
:
: Is the alfalfa RR, or just naturally resistanct to Roundup?

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 16:42:54 +0200, Torsten Brinch
wrote:

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 14:25:11 GMT, "Moosh:]"
wrote:

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 15:39:30 +0200, Torsten Brinch
wrote:

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 12:59:36 GMT, "Moosh:]"
wrote:

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 11:06:02 +0200, Torsten Brinch
wrote:

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 04:02:44 GMT, "Moosh:]"
wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 00:06:14 +0200, Torsten Brinch
wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 14:51:19 GMT, "Moosh:]"
wrote:
.. I've looked up the reference given and stand by my claim.
"Rapidly" is perhaps a misleading word.

Point is, you claim it breaks down rapidly in plants,
while referencing that information to a source which
says in some plants it remains bloody intact.

"Bloodywell intact", Torsten, try to be grammatical

Hello? There is inconsistency between your claim and
the source to which you reference it. Deal with it.

See below. Oh, and see the smiley. Are you a Fin?

John Riley, is that you?

Nope. Who's he?

Never mind who he is. He used the same smiley, and knitted
like a madwoman, much like you do.

There's someone over on one of the bike groups with that name IIRC.
Dunno about the knitting, but smilies are pretty common. I copied this
one from seeing it used by others. It's the easiest to type

It is not regarded as
persistent in significant plants. From memory, corn was
amongst these.

Well, what can one say.

That it doesn't hang about long in significant food plants. IIRC.
Even if it does, so what? Over the years I've ferretted out scores of
references and always come to a dead end as far as any harm goes.
Can you mention any harm from glyphosate?

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 16:06:14 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote:


"Moosh:]" wrote in message
Not in the UK. Typically the value of small (say 1000T) of standing
timber is approximately zero. Most places the highest value sale is for
firewood.

How about fruit, nuts?

Barely viable for specialist producers, you have to have the right climate
(which we don't except for damsons) and cheap labour for picking

Fair enough. I believe it was just a suggestion.

You could plant several types of trees, each working better in
slightly
different conditions.

Trees are not rates for moisture loss.

Best we have in Australia.

Diversity is much better against troubles.

Sometimes it is, sometimes not.

If all your crop comes in at top price, but you know about eggs in
baskets. The farmers who have survived here have been the ones who
diversify.

In jims case alternatives to grass are problematic.

Fair enough. it was just a suggestion that has probably been thought
of many times, and rejected.

You can
have the diversity within each farm, or else you use the govt to
buffer
against loss as with BSE, or both.

Govt hates to pay farmers anything.
They paid for bse primarily for public health reasons.

Don't they pay you guys for NOT growing crops, like in the US and
Europe?

I hate to think who will bear the brunt
of troubles with the huge GM reduced diversity scheme.

Que?

My comment to a tee. Que? Si!

not in the UK, planting trees is a waste of time and is not economically
viable unless you have an awful lot of land.Plant trees here and you
would
drive people off the land

Absolutely. I doubt they would grow very well given your location
anyway. If the wind didn't get them, the salt would.

Abolutely NO tree crop able to be considered?

not really,

firstly we haven't the room, only 150 acres
secondly the margin is too small on all of them, I cannot afford to sit and
wait 15- 20 years before I see any income at all.
thirdly the timber market in the UK is on the floor, fruit is imported from
countries with better weather and cheap labour

Yep, you (UK) are so close to cheap producers, I guess, where we are
so far away from anything (except the tropics

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 17:14:05 +0000, "Uncle StoatWarbler"
wrote:

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 14:49:38 +0000, Moosh:] wrote:

The moisture loss from green grass, trees and open water is similar.

Really? Not in Australia, but then we use trees for lowering water table
-- stopping salination.

Eucalypts?

Yes jarrah (E marginata) is one of the most effective, but most native
trees here will do the trick. Ideally replace what was cut down
earlier

NZ has a tree called (IIRC) kahikatea. Juveniles only grow in swamps.

Adults are only found in dried out areas which were formerly swamps. This is not coincidence.

The only problem is they take several hundred years to do the job.

Yep, for rehabilitation, the future has to be planned for.

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 19:35:15 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

Just the opposite. There are many more beneficial insets since you don't
have to spray for worms. Try reading something besides green propaganda.

But Gordon, everything else is Monsanto propaganda produced by
scientists worldwide who are in Monsanto's clutches

"Moosh:]" wrote in message
...
Yep, you (UK) are so close to cheap producers, I guess, where we are
so far away from anything (except the tropics

not only that but if I planted broadleaves, my biggest worry was some
environmental group would get tree preservation orders or similar slapped on
them and i would never be able to fell them anyway, which makes their use as
a crop pretty damned suspect

Jim Webster

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 20:20:56 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:


"Moosh:]" wrote in message
.. .
On 27 Jul 2003 05:19:55 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote:

Jim Webster wrote:

"Oz" wrote in message
...
Gordon Couger writes

"Oz" wrote in message

I suspect you may have a problem with jim's climate.

It's a rare month indeed when transpiration exceeds precipitation.

I wouldn't know what to do with that. I just want to get wells dug
that
make
enough water that I don't care if it rains.

Jim just want's field drains and ditches that can take it away
quickly..

--

yes, I have land that I will not take cattle on between October and
March,
even though I can silage it in May.
I do find it fascinating reading when everyone is discussing the
advantages
of no-till and struggling to retain soil moisture, round here ploughing
is
used to dry the land out a bit. You plough and let the sun and wind
take
away some of the moisture so you can get a tilth.

Funny old world

What are various types of trees like at extracting water from the ground?

I suppose evergreens keep the sun off the land, but they might shelter
animals from wind.

I am thinking that the surface area of roots in contact with soil is
greater than the area exposed to wind by ploughing. Then the leaves
contact the wind. Also the trees could be a crop.

You could plant several types of trees, each working better in slightly
different conditions. Diversity is much better against troubles. You can
have the diversity within each farm, or else you use the govt to buffer
against loss as with BSE, or both. I hate to think who will bear the
brunt
of troubles with the huge GM reduced diversity scheme.

The tree idea seems a good one, so long as Jim can keep his family
alive with it.

How is GM reducing biodiversity? Conventional breeding exploded
diversity early on, then refined it to those varieties that the
customer required. Where is the problem?

If anything it increases biodiversity by being able to put the desirable
traits into more crops instead of switching to the one crop that has that
trait. For example the potato that was just found with resistant to the
blight that depopulated Ireland and still costs millions today can be put in
every cultivars instead of developing one resistant strain by conventional
methods.

But don't let the facts get in the way, Gordon

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 20:16:23 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:


"Moosh:]" wrote in message
.. .
On 25 Jul 2003 09:48:22 -0700, (Hua Kul) wrote:

"Gordon Couger" wrote in message
t...
"Oz" wrote in message
...
Hua Kul writes

Another naif who seems to believe that governments and their
regulations will save us. It was a British government regulation
requiring cattle to be heavily dosed with organophosphate pesticides
which may have triggered the BSE outbreak. See Mark Purdy's
research.

Had organophosphates caused it or fairies dancing ainti clockwise on
the
dark of a blue moon BSE is still no more than a fart in a hurricane in
the
problems of world health.

Gordon

You missed my point, which was that government actions (regarding
*anything*, and no matter how well intentioned) can't be relied upon
to protect us from much of anything, as you seemed to imply by your
vague "testing" post.

Elect a proper government, and it is the only thing that will protect
you. The public are incapable of knowing the full story, the
corporations are doing their job making money for their shareholders.
An elected, effective regulator is the only thing left.

The USDA does a very good job with food safety. Not as good as the guys in
OZ they seem to have it down right. The FDA has a good record as well. Many
think that they are too careful.

I reckon they do a reasonable job considering. Although there are some
who think they are too careful, there are many who think that they are
in the pockets of Monsanto, et al.

You still haven't addressed my larger point, posted in response to
your challenge, that the pharmaceutical industries are intent upon
using elements of our food production systems not to improve the food
but to contaminate it for the purpose of increasing their profits,

Their sole job in life!

To do that job they must provide safe product.

Well yes, that generally follows. But it is not a foregone conclusion.
If shareholders returns are increased by cutting corners where
possible, guess what will, and arguably should, happen

A recall cuts deeply into
those profits and the loss of pubilc turst puts them out of business.

But that is the regulator doing its job. So many complain that the
regulator is useless, and is taking kickbacks.

I know
a substantial number of people in the food producion and seed prodution
business and every one is trying to make money by making the products that
the market wants.

That seems to be the logical way to succeed in the long haul. But
those who do otherwise should (and usually do) get clobbered by the
regulator.

They don't risk their business by tying to make a few
cents intentionaly adultring their products.

Well no, not generally, but there was a large alternative
pharmaceutical company here who let bad product through more and more
with inadequate regulation which finally shut them down and
prosecuted.

If they get caugt intentionaly
endangering the public the inspection system does not deal with them very
kindly.

Nope, and a good thing too. Both of us seem to agree that the
regulator does a reasonable job in a very tough environment. If you
are not pleasing everyone equally, you have it just about right

and
the demonstrated danger in that being the total contamination of an
entire crop globally, as is happening with Monsanto's Starlink GM
corn.

If you don't like what they do, get your regulator to change its
legislation. QED.

To me that one example is enough to totally prohibit any GM
changes, with the possibe exception of those changes that actually
improve the nutrition, safety, or yield of the crop.

What about chages that improve the crops impact on the envionement. Less
erosion and less pesticide aren't those good for society as a whole.

Absolutely. And I would hope that is take into account.

Cotton
account for 25% of the insecticde used it the the world. BT cotton can cut
that by 50 to 100% will the world not be a better place if we use 12 to 20%
less insceicide?

Yep.

Humans don't eat any protien from the cotton plant that
hasn't be run throug a cow first becuse it is natuarly toxic to simple
stomaced animal from cotton's own built in insecticide.

Yep, we are at one mind

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 11:59:28 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote:


"Moosh:]" wrote in message
.. .
Yep, you (UK) are so close to cheap producers, I guess, where we are
so far away from anything (except the tropics

not only that but if I planted broadleaves, my biggest worry was some
environmental group would get tree preservation orders or similar slapped on
them and i would never be able to fell them anyway, which makes their use as
a crop pretty damned suspect

You wonder what those buggers eat. Don't they realise that all food
comes from farmers?

"Moosh:]" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 11:59:28 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote:


"Moosh:]" wrote in message
.. .
Yep, you (UK) are so close to cheap producers, I guess, where we are
so far away from anything (except the tropics

not only that but if I planted broadleaves, my biggest worry was some
environmental group would get tree preservation orders or similar slapped
on
them and i would never be able to fell them anyway, which makes their use
as
a crop pretty damned suspect

You wonder what those buggers eat. Don't they realise that all food
comes from farmers?

surely you know by now that food comes from supermarkets!

I remember listening to the BBC radio when they had a Harvest festival and
the clergy man asked the congregation to pray for the aid agencies who fed
everyone

Jim Webster

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:10:50 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote:


"Moosh:]" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 11:59:28 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote:


"Moosh:]" wrote in message
.. .
Yep, you (UK) are so close to cheap producers, I guess, where we are
so far away from anything (except the tropics

not only that but if I planted broadleaves, my biggest worry was some
environmental group would get tree preservation orders or similar slapped
on
them and i would never be able to fell them anyway, which makes their use
as
a crop pretty damned suspect

You wonder what those buggers eat. Don't they realise that all food
comes from farmers?

surely you know by now that food comes from supermarkets!

Damn! I forgot that.

I remember listening to the BBC radio when they had a Harvest festival and
the clergy man asked the congregation to pray for the aid agencies who fed
everyone

Good one! Thing that staggers me is how little of a pint of milk or a
pound of beef you producers actually get. You lot seem to supply a
cheap raw material for every other bugger to cop a markup on.
I know you've tried to take action on this, but I suppose there is
always a farmer in the next village who is hungrier and will cave in.
You need something like a builders' union or a miners' union. Big and
powerful that can fund you for a three month strike.

"Moosh:]" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:10:50 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote:

Good one! Thing that staggers me is how little of a pint of milk or a
pound of beef you producers actually get. You lot seem to supply a
cheap raw material for every other bugger to cop a markup on.
I know you've tried to take action on this, but I suppose there is
always a farmer in the next village who is hungrier and will cave in.
You need something like a builders' union or a miners' union. Big and
powerful that can fund you for a three month strike.

in the UK supermarket chains make party donations, farmers don't.

Also a three month strike at the right time of year, even if possible would
lead to a collapse of western society because people would starve.Even if
they imported the food, there isn't all that much food on the market (see
what UK fmd outbreak did to beef prices in the first couple of weeks of the
outbreak and UK is not a big beef producer in world terms)
In the UK with a lorry drivers strike there was a panic and the supermarkets
were nearly emptied overnight. I doubt there are the stocks of food in the
country to stand a two week break in supply.

Jim Webster

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 09:32:15 GMT, "Moosh:]"
wrote:

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 16:42:54 +0200, Torsten Brinch
wrote:

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 14:25:11 GMT, "Moosh:]"
wrote:

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 15:39:30 +0200, Torsten Brinch
wrote:

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 12:59:36 GMT, "Moosh:]"
wrote:

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 11:06:02 +0200, Torsten Brinch
wrote:

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 04:02:44 GMT, "Moosh:]"
wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 00:06:14 +0200, Torsten Brinch
wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 14:51:19 GMT, "Moosh:]"
wrote:
.. I've looked up the reference given and stand by my claim.
"Rapidly" is perhaps a misleading word.

Point is, you claim it breaks down rapidly in plants,
while referencing that information to a source which
says in some plants it remains bloody intact.

"Bloodywell intact", Torsten, try to be grammatical

Hello? There is inconsistency between your claim and
the source to which you reference it. Deal with it.

See below. Oh, and see the smiley. Are you a Fin?

John Riley, is that you?

Nope. Who's he?

Never mind who he is. He used the same smiley, and knitted
like a madwoman, much like you do.

There's someone over on one of the bike groups with that name IIRC.
Dunno about the knitting,

It is a very personal thing put words together -- you know, like
a voice, fingerprints, or DNA profile. Your word-knitting
is much like that of the John Riley I refer to, or should I
say close to identical.

but smilies are pretty common. I copied this
one from seeing it used by others. It's the easiest to type

It is not regarded as
persistent in significant plants. From memory, corn was
amongst these.

Well, what can one say.

That it doesn't hang about long in significant food plants. IIRC.
Even if it does, so what? Over the years I've ferretted out scores of
references and always come to a dead end as far as any harm goes.
Can you mention any harm from glyphosate?

Torsten Brinch wrote:
That it doesn't hang about long in significant food plants. IIRC.
Even if it does, so what? Over the years I've ferretted out scores of
references and always come to a dead end as far as any harm goes.
Can you mention any harm from glyphosate?



Linkname: Glyphosate Factsheet (part 2 of 2) Caroline Cox / Journal of
Pesticide Reform v.108, n.3 Fall98 rev.Oct00
URL:

http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/R...sheet-Cox2.htm

On 28 Jul 2003 16:29:18 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote:

Torsten Brinch wrote:
That it doesn't hang about long in significant
snip

I didn't write that, Brian.