Jim Webster wrote:

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...

Perhaps Jim might comment on pendulous udders in developing calves
produced from cows on estrogenic pasture.

If I had ever heard of this effect before I would. Certainly never come
across it, have you any evidence for it?

Sorry I was mixing two sections, but estrogenic compounds seem to cause
mammary problems:

********************
This is the html version of the file
http://animsci.agrenv.mcgill.ca/cour...450_notes.pdf.
G o o g l e automatically generates html versions of documents
as we crawl the web.
To link to or bookmark this page, use the following url:
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache...animsci.agrenv
.mcgill.ca/courses/450/450_notes.pdf+cows+estrogenic+%22less+mil
k%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

5.

Udder abnormalities

a.

blind or light quarters - causes:

-poor management / injuries

-mastitis
__________________________________________________ _________

Page 8

-3-

-inherited

-blood / nerve supply

-metabolic disturbances during embryonic development

-congenital gland malformations

* malformed nipples

* deficient glandular tissue

*structural

Example: estrogenic compounds can affect mammary

rudiment in embryonic development of the glands

b.

pendulous udders

- Difficult to milk

- Easily injured

- Generally results from:

*

weak medial and/or lateral suspensory ligaments, and/or weak

rear attachments

************************

I posted a long time ago how red clover pasture can cause abnormalities of
the external genitalia in sheep.

Snip

I have been in a hospital ward which had MRSA. When I went back to
hospital 4 years later I had a red medicalert sticker on my
bracelet. It turned out to be an MRSA warning. Several tests were
done and some weeks before it was removed.

my father has had it several times but clears up with nursing care (he is
too weak for antibiotics) and natural resistance.

Yes we are going back to the old days.

I did not actually get it myself, though I had had a knee operation. They
were just taking care that I hadn't picked it up and was harbouring it.

In sci.med.nutrition Jim Webster wrote:

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...

Organims including humans have learned to coexist.

Now we have to learn new lessons very fast.

Lettuce can take up E coli from soil and have it reside in the
edible portion. That E coli can have multiple drug resistance,
because of current practices.

Bacteria can exchange DNA within human cells, protected from
antibiotics, too.

so what

what has this got to do with the childish anthropomorphism of nature. It
makes as much sense as saying that Gravity has a sense of humour.


Not anthropomorphism, ecology of genes. The chief of the University of
Canterbury Plant and Microbial Sciences Department runs the New Zealand
Gene Ecology organisation. (Jack Heinemann) (do google search in
www.canterbury.ac.nz)

Because bacteria can exchange genes to their advantage in the protected
environment of a human cell it is necessary to take more care with drug
resistance genes. We should not be feeding drug resistance genes to people
en masse, not checking up with control groups if it is triggering
anything.

On 20 Jul 2003 03:05:01 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote:

In sci.med.nutrition Jim Webster wrote:

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...

Organims including humans have learned to coexist.

Now we have to learn new lessons very fast.

Lettuce can take up E coli from soil and have it reside in the
edible portion. That E coli can have multiple drug resistance,
because of current practices.

Bacteria can exchange DNA within human cells, protected from
antibiotics, too.

so what

what has this got to do with the childish anthropomorphism of nature. It
makes as much sense as saying that Gravity has a sense of humour.


Not anthropomorphism, ecology of genes. The chief of the University of
Canterbury Plant and Microbial Sciences Department runs the New Zealand
Gene Ecology organisation. (Jack Heinemann) (do google search in
www.canterbury.ac.nz)

Because bacteria can exchange genes to their advantage in the protected
environment of a human cell

Can you give us an example of this? Bacteria living within a cell?

it is necessary to take more care with drug
resistance genes.

Is not sufficient care already being taken?

We should not be feeding drug resistance genes to people
en masse, not checking up with control groups if it is triggering
anything.

What evidence have you that this has not been thoroughly investigated?

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
Moosh:] wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 08:59:34 -0700, Dzogvi Gzboli
wrote:

Where can I find a list of the persons/cases in which diagnosable
injury resulted from ingesting GE corn? Or medical journal reports?

You are joking? Doesn't the inability to find such say something?

Not really.

Farmers are judging that cows fed on GM corn give less milk.


Come back with some peer reviewed results that show any damage from GM crops
and we will listen.

Dairy production per cow has increase about 10% since the induction of GM
crops. http://www.usda.gov/nass/aggraphs/milkprod.htm BT corn has up to 10
times less natural toxins from fungi that grow on insect damaged grain.
These toxins are real bad actors on milk production, reproductive
performance and live if the concentration get very high. It also has less
insecticide residue and natural plant chemical to fight insects that are not
listed in anyone's toxic assays of grains.

Gordon

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
In sci.med.nutrition Moosh:] wrote: On 19 Jul
2003 04:05:43 GMT, Brian Sandle wrote:


And if you don't want to catch an illness, keep away from the
source,if
you know what it is.

How far away is labelling of GM ingredientsin corn chips, herrings in
tomato sauce, chocolate &c &c?

Logically, as far away as labelling that a random mutation happened in
the corn field.

No because the sorts of mutations which nature has learnt to allow to
multiply are ones beneficial to itself. The `junk' genes which can later
help the plant relate to stress are tested over the thousands of years.
Nature has learnt to keep a strict order in the genome. The GM process
defeats that. Many people are saying that drug resistance markers should
have ceased being used, or never started.

With all the random mutations we caused by intentional radiation and
chemical mutigens that I can still buy across the counter that are in
virtually every variety of every crop out there you worry about one or two
genes that were carefully studied and then checked buy the breeders, USDA
and in some cases the EPA.

In the past and it is sill the practice for crops treated with mutigens
there is no testing or oversight on a process that you have no idea what you
have changed you just take what looks good and breed it back dragging along
who knows what kind of hidden mutation along with it.

Gordon

"Moosh:]" wrote in message
...
On 19 Jul 2003 11:07:15 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote:

Jim Webster wrote:

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
In sci.med.nutrition Moosh:] wrote: On 19 Jul
2003 04:05:43 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote:


And if you don't want to catch an illness, keep away from the
source,if
you know what it is.

How far away is labelling of GM ingredientsin corn chips, herrings
in
tomato sauce, chocolate &c &c?

Logically, as far away as labelling that a random mutation happened
in
the corn field.

No because the sorts of mutations which nature has learnt to allow to
multiply are ones beneficial to itself. The `junk' genes which can
later
help the plant relate to stress are tested over the thousands of
years.
Nature has learnt to keep a strict order in the genome.

what total rubbish

where to you apply to 'nature' for a licence, where does 'nature' test
and
'allow' these genes.

Nature is not a person for christsake!

Jim Webster

Organims including humans have learned to coexist.

Humans have difficulty coexisting with humans.

Most other creatures eat each other in one form or other.

Now we have to learn new lessons very fast.

What would they be?

Lettuce can take up E coli from soil and have it reside in the
edible portion. That E coli can have multiple drug resistance,
because of current practices.

So? Tell us something new. Every animal's gut is swarming with E coli.
It is everywhere. Only a few strains are pathogenic, and to actually
infect us, a huge number of organisms must be ingested.

E. coli:0157 is only pathogenic to those raised in isolation from it. When
people visiting farms stated catching it they started wondering why the farm
families didn't get it and had never had it. Seem if you are raised around
it as almost all people were 100 years ago you are immune. It is only when
you no longer have horses in the streets nor cattle near where your live
that catch the disease.

Gordon

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
In sci.med.nutrition Jim Webster wrote:

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...

Organims including humans have learned to coexist.

Now we have to learn new lessons very fast.

Lettuce can take up E coli from soil and have it reside in the
edible portion. That E coli can have multiple drug resistance,
because of current practices.

Bacteria can exchange DNA within human cells, protected from
antibiotics, too.

so what

what has this got to do with the childish anthropomorphism of nature. It
makes as much sense as saying that Gravity has a sense of humour.


Not anthropomorphism, ecology of genes. The chief of the University of
Canterbury Plant and Microbial Sciences Department runs the New Zealand
Gene Ecology organisation. (Jack Heinemann) (do google search in
www.canterbury.ac.nz)

Because bacteria can exchange genes to their advantage in the protected
environment of a human cell it is necessary to take more care with drug
resistance genes. We should not be feeding drug resistance genes to people
en masse, not checking up with control groups if it is triggering
anything.

As bacteria make better bacteria we have to make better drugs. The same is
true with insects on the farm. 75 years ago simple natural pesticides work
for my father. In the 50's and 60's the first generation of insecticides
work very very well. We have had to keep making better insecticides and at
the same time more specific ones. We also learned how to extend their
usefulness but refuges and IPM.

If you want to blame some one for antibiotic resistant bacteria the water
out of the sewer plant has several orders of magnitude more effect that
crops possibly could because they are mixed with the pathogens at the sewer
and in the environment and give them a chance to build resistance.

Gordon

On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 13:36:39 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote:


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

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
In sci.med.nutrition Moosh:] wrote: On 19 Jul
2003 04:05:43 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote:


And if you don't want to catch an illness, keep away from the
source,if
you know what it is.

How far away is labelling of GM ingredientsin corn chips, herrings in
tomato sauce, chocolate &c &c?

Logically, as far away as labelling that a random mutation happened
in
the corn field.

No because the sorts of mutations which nature has learnt to allow to
multiply are ones beneficial to itself. The `junk' genes which can
later
help the plant relate to stress are tested over the thousands of years.
Nature has learnt to keep a strict order in the genome.

what total rubbish

where to you apply to 'nature' for a licence, where does 'nature' test
and
'allow' these genes.

Nature is not a person for christsake!

Jim Webster

Organims including humans have learned to coexist.

Now we have to learn new lessons very fast.

Lettuce can take up E coli from soil and have it reside in the
edible portion. That E coli can have multiple drug resistance,
because of current practices.

Bacteria can exchange DNA within human cells, protected from
antibiotics, too.

so what

what has this got to do with the childish anthropomorphism of nature. It
makes as much sense as saying that Gravity has a sense of humour.

Course it does, Jim.
It is the mainstay of slapstick comedy

On 19 Jul 2003 12:04:27 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote:

Moosh:] wrote:
On 19 Jul 2003 04:24:23 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote:

Moosh:] wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 08:59:34 -0700, Dzogvi Gzboli
wrote:

Where can I find a list of the persons/cases in which diagnosable
injury resulted from ingesting GE corn? Or medical journal reports?

You are joking? Doesn't the inability to find such say something?

Not really.

Farmers are judging that cows fed on GM corn give less milk.

Which farmers? Which cows? Which corn? Where?

I shall have to search it out.

But you might expect it. It does not take much to affect milk
production, cows even have music preferences.

If you say so I've heard tomatoes do too.

As I reported before rats given the choice of GM and non-GM feed
had a preference for the latter. So that could affect the cows.

The rats play different music?

How did the rats tell the difference? Its extremely difficult for
science to differentiate.

Before Roundup Ready times strict withholding periods for herbicides
had to be adhered to.

Which herbicides? They are all different.
With holding times still apply.

Roundup has been promoted as safe so is
applied more.

Look, glyphosate ( a very safe plant enzyme inhibitor) can be applied
to RR crops during growth. Whereas with conventional crops it is
applied heavily before sowing, and then other more toxic and expensive
selective herbicides are applied during growth. It migh not be ideal,
but it is a big improvement on the conventional regime.

And you have to buy it with the Monsanto seed.

No you don't. You can not buy anything you like.

So there will be more Roundup in the corn crop now.

It breaks down rapidly in plants see EXTOXNET:
http://ace.orst.edu/info/extoxnet/pips/ghindex.html

And anyway, it is quite harmless.

It will be more
estrogenic.

Like many many molecules in the environment. But that is assuming it
has survived the breakdown in the plant.

Estrogenic pasture is generally a reproductive problem.
as I have posted.

That would be some clovers?

Perhaps Jim might comment on pendulous udders in developing calves
produced from cows on estrogenic pasture. They will be harder to
milk. Maybe an estrogenic mycotxin is causing it, or red clover, or
Roundup? Needs research, I would say.

And it hasn't been researched? I'm sure I've come across lots over the
years.

It takes a while for troubles to show up in humans. If a few percent more
women have to bottle supplement their babies that may reduce a nations
great IQ test as the DHA in human milk helps eye - possibly brain
development.

A long bow to draw?

The business world is always trying to avoid taking long time spans
into account.

That's the job of the regulator, and I believe yours has taken all
this into account.

The extra Roundup in human diets of Roundup Ready crops provides extra
xeno-estrogen in the diet.

What "more Roundup"? The glyphosate, or the surfactant wetting agent?

I think it is proprietary information.

What is? Glyphosate and surfactant (dish liquid or shampoo)?

More xeno-oestrogen than what?

Than before the advent of Roundup Ready.

I very much doubt that. Have you seen the list of hormone disruptors?
Reads like the Merck Index.

You may not see results till the developing
eggs in the ovaries of todays foetuses are being fertilised 30 years away.
Farmers who would have gone organic are getting caught with polluting
Monsanto genes in their crops and rather than fighting are finding it
easier to pay up and go totally Roundup Ready, rather than lose the farm.

Roundup Ready has huge advantages if a farmer can afford it.

Saves on use of far more toxic and expensive herbicides.

Roundup also can save much soil erosion from mechanical pre-seeding
weed control.

Some farmers have `succeeded' with Roundup Ready, but the technology
fee is still a loss leader.

Well don't buy it. Simple.
Monsanto don't expect folks to buy their product if it provides them
with no advantage.

Then it is very hard to track an origin of a disease which jumps species
in one individual then spreads rapidly through the new species. The GM
technology is designed to get genes to cross barriers they otherwise would
not. The probability of a jump in one individual is very low, but in the
population of China you have to multiply by a billion.

I think you are confusing two entirely separate phenomena.

Why do you?

Well you are talking about the possible spread of gene sequences
expressing proteins providing antibiotic resistance to organisms, and
then about new diseases. I can't see the connection.

The drug resistance marker in the GM crops has been warned against by
many.

But nothing has come of it? What problems has this ever caused?

The experminent going on is uncontrolled. Therefore although
infectious disease is increasing world wide it cannot be pinned on
the GM technology.

What infectious diseases are increasing world wide and of which the
cause is not known?

All bacteria have always swopped their genes,

Just like humans and all beings which reproduce sexually.

But bacteria can swap quite a percentage in a day.

Their generation span is 20 minutes in ideal situations.

they really have a
common gene bank,

Like all species-like groups

No really rather different. You are behind with your reading.

In what way different, then. No point saying I'm behind in this and
that and outdated. What is intrinsically different from sexual
reproductive gene mixing and the way bacteria do it. They don't do it
sexually of course.

and what you do to one gets around and is made use of by
the others.

Yep, happens in all sexually reproducing gene pools.
All surviving mutations will spread into the gene pool.

You are behind. Mid 1990s the question was whether horizontal gene
transfer occurs. Now it totally accpeted. Bacteria probably pass on
more of their survival characteristics through it than through
vertical transfer.

What is the vertical transfer? Cloning? Again, what is intrinsically
different in mixing genetic material one way or another?
Nothing is new, however. Bacteria have been doing what they do for
millions of years.

Then you get indirect harm from GM when the drugs we have can
no longer treat the illnesses.

Examples?

I have been in a hospital ward which had MRSA. When I went back to
hospital 4 years later I had a red medicalert sticker on my
bracelet. It turned out to be an MRSA warning. Several tests were
done and some weeks before it was removed.

Was MRSA caused by GM? I thought it was bacteria doing what bacteria
do. Evolving to resist environmental attack.

Resistance can develop from animals fed antibiotics, but what about
when humans are fed antibiotic resistance genes en masse?

They are denatured and digested, along with all the other food we eat.
The antibiotics we take lightly are another matter.

Funding of research these days is based on partnerships with profit
driven companies. So risk analysis which might take away the
quick-profit-and-get-out-of-it is a poor relation.

Well if you haven't got a strong regulator....
But don't confuse this with "science".

On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 07:25:07 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

E. coli:0157 is only pathogenic to those raised in isolation from it. When
people visiting farms stated catching it they started wondering why the farm
families didn't get it and had never had it. Seem if you are raised around
it as almost all people were 100 years ago you are immune. It is only when
you no longer have horses in the streets nor cattle near where your live
that catch the disease.

Gordon

Thanks Gordon, good point.
Not thet there's much more we can do about it than what we are doing.

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
In sci.med.nutrition Jim Webster wrote:

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...

Organims including humans have learned to coexist.

Now we have to learn new lessons very fast.

Lettuce can take up E coli from soil and have it reside in the
edible portion. That E coli can have multiple drug resistance,
because of current practices.

Bacteria can exchange DNA within human cells, protected from
antibiotics, too.

so what

what has this got to do with the childish anthropomorphism of nature. It
makes as much sense as saying that Gravity has a sense of humour.


Not anthropomorphism, ecology of genes. The chief of the University of
Canterbury Plant and Microbial Sciences Department runs the New Zealand
Gene Ecology organisation. (Jack Heinemann) (do google search in
www.canterbury.ac.nz)


no, what has it got to do with your anthropomorphic statement


No because the sorts of mutations which nature has learnt to allow to
multiply are ones beneficial to itself. The `junk' genes which can later
help the plant relate to stress are tested over the thousands of years.
Nature has learnt to keep a strict order in the genome




Because bacteria can exchange genes to their advantage in the protected
environment of a human cell it is necessary to take more care with drug
resistance genes. We should not be feeding drug resistance genes to people
en masse, not checking up with control groups if it is triggering
anything.

Do bacteria have a special licence from Nature so they can do their own
thing and not need to obey Natures instructions about strict order in the
genome?
Where do you apply for this licence?

Jim Webster

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

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...

Perhaps Jim might comment on pendulous udders in developing calves
produced from cows on estrogenic pasture.

If I had ever heard of this effect before I would. Certainly never come
across it, have you any evidence for it?

Sorry I was mixing two sections, but estrogenic compounds seem to cause
mammary problems:

********************
This is the html version of the file
http://animsci.agrenv.mcgill.ca/cour...450_notes.pdf.
G o o g l e automatically generates html versions of documents
as we crawl the web.
To link to or bookmark this page, use the following url:
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache...animsci.agrenv
.mcgill.ca/courses/450/450_notes.pdf+cows+estrogenic+%22less+mil
k%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8



I think you better download the pdf and actually read it, it is the course
notes for a complete dairy course and no where does it mention estrogenic
pasture.

The only mention of estrogenic is

Example: estrogenic compounds can affect mammary
rudiment in embryonic development of the glands

which is absolutely true but has nothing to do with pasture.

Jim Webster

Gordon Couger writes
E. coli:0157 is only pathogenic to those raised in isolation from it. When
people visiting farms stated catching it they started wondering why the farm
families didn't get it and had never had it. Seem if you are raised around
it as almost all people were 100 years ago you are immune. It is only when
you no longer have horses in the streets nor cattle near where your live
that catch the disease.

see also polio....

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.

In sci.med.nutrition Jim Webster wrote:

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

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...

Perhaps Jim might comment on pendulous udders in developing calves
produced from cows on estrogenic pasture.

If I had ever heard of this effect before I would. Certainly never come
across it, have you any evidence for it?

Sorry I was mixing two sections, but estrogenic compounds seem to cause
mammary problems:

********************
This is the html version of the file
http://animsci.agrenv.mcgill.ca/cour...450_notes.pdf.
G o o g l e automatically generates html versions of documents
as we crawl the web.
To link to or bookmark this page, use the following url:
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache...animsci.agrenv
.mcgill.ca/courses/450/450_notes.pdf+cows+estrogenic+%22less+mil
k%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8



I think you better download the pdf and actually read it, it is the course
notes for a complete dairy course and no where does it mention estrogenic
pasture.

The only mention of estrogenic is

Example: estrogenic compounds can affect mammary
rudiment in embryonic development of the glands

which is absolutely true but has nothing to do with pasture.

Why would estrogenic compounds have nothing to do with estrogenic pasture?

As I said I posted how estrogenic pasture affects sheep, their genitalia,
and reduces their fertility, maybe permanently. (Spelling: oestrogenic)

Who is going to fund a study about what the more estrogenic Roundup Ready
corn does to cattle in the second generation?

Linkname: Google Search: sandle sheep clover genitalia
URL:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=sa...o.nz&rnu m=31

NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.25.252.55
X-Trace: newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk 1058769158 16023 62.25.252.55 (21 Jul 2003 06:32:38 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: 21 Jul 2003 06:32:38 GMT
X-Complaints-To:
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
Path: text-east!propagator-sterling!In.nntp.be!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjse rv.net!colt.net!diablo.theplanet.net!news.theplane t.net!not-for-mail
Xref: 127.0.0.1 sci.med.nutrition:168268 nz.general:582169 sci.agricultu62894


"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
In sci.med.nutrition Jim Webster wrote:

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

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...

Perhaps Jim might comment on pendulous udders in developing calves
produced from cows on estrogenic pasture.

If I had ever heard of this effect before I would. Certainly never
come
across it, have you any evidence for it?

Sorry I was mixing two sections, but estrogenic compounds seem to cause
mammary problems:

********************
This is the html version of the file
http://animsci.agrenv.mcgill.ca/cour...450_notes.pdf.
G o o g l e automatically generates html versions of documents
as we crawl the web.
To link to or bookmark this page, use the following url:
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache...animsci.agrenv
.mcgill.ca/courses/450/450_notes.pdf+cows+estrogenic+%22less+mil
k%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8



I think you better download the pdf and actually read it, it is the
course
notes for a complete dairy course and no where does it mention
estrogenic
pasture.

The only mention of estrogenic is

Example: estrogenic compounds can affect mammary
rudiment in embryonic development of the glands

which is absolutely true but has nothing to do with pasture.

Why would estrogenic compounds have nothing to do with estrogenic pasture?


you asked about the effects of estrogenic pasture on cattle, you have shown
no evidence that there is such an effect

Jim Webster