|
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
"Gordon Couger" wrote in message ...
"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. 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, and the demonstrated danger in that being the total contamination of an entire crop globally, as is happening with Monsanto's Starlink GM corn. 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. --Hua Kul |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
"Brian Sandle" wrote in message ... In sci.med.nutrition Jim Webster wrote: utterly irrelevent he was too weak to take any antibiotic That vomiting is one of the listed side effects of linezolid, a drug now used against MRSA. You don't have to be feeble to be taken off it. Did he use to be able to tolerate the `...cillin' drugs? Read what I said, he was too was to take any antibiotic So they switched to the antiseptic wash Which they probably use anyway, linezolid or not? I suppose they will claim linezolid is no worse than any other, but it is better to have more in the arsenal isn't it? Then say do genetic testing and do not prescribe by trial and error. Try not to eliminate your choices by feeding everybody with GM antibiotic resistance genes, especially when we know that DNA is not fully deactivated by digestion, and is also getting to the unborn. what total twaddle. As bacteria have far more antibiotic resistant genes than GM crops, They bacteria may have a few more types, if they have been selected by anitbiotics, but the crop has it in every cell, so far more altogether, and constantly present. no, start thinking carefully all food has bacteria so you eat it with every meal. Varying amounts, healthy food stops bacteria growing in itself. Have you any actual evidence for this bizarre statement! And even if it does, you inhale and swallow bacteria with every mouthful of food. There might be some on the surface. But GM food has it all the way through, in every cell. So what, it is one know GM, as opposed to millions upon millions of different, possibly unique bacteria Each meal with contain bacteria resistant to antibiotics we haven't even developed yet but are used in nature, bacteria resistant to antibiotics that are so old that they are no longer used It is not the age which stops them being used. It is when they don't work or are too toxic. Rubbish again. We have seen on our own farm old drugs come back into usefulness because there were no longer bacteria about which were resistant to them. and bacteria more resistant than their fellows to heavy metals, UV, and for all I know tedium. Yes, as I posted from Heinemann they learn learn, is this a night school course, or a full university course? Please stop using anthropomorphic phrases which don't actually mean anything under antibiotic selection to do stress adaptation. If the antibiotic resistance genes are present they will make use of them. With GM, firstly not every meal contains GM DNA, Except if you eat corn most meals. Exactly, as I said, with GM not every meal contains GM DNA Snip you have two choices. pay enough to make growing conventional worth while or eat GM choice is entirely yours Or persuade people they are being ripped off, made into serfs, having their tax used to subsidise research into such activities. If you hadn't been ripping them off over conventional crops they wouldn't have had to turn to GM in the first place! Jim Webster |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
"Oz" wrote in message ... Jim Webster writes round here you can wait weeks for the afternoon sun. Haven't seen it since Monday IT'S RAINING HERE!!!!! Maybe 3mm (1/10") since yesterday! Yippppeeee!!!! If it stops by monday, that will be nice. I seem to remember you reporting no sight of the sun for three months once, although you did report the odd rainless day. we can get months like that, certainly the back end of 2000/2001 was grim, we didn't have two consecutive days without rain Jim Webster -- Oz This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious. Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted. |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
"Jim Webster" wrote in message ... "Oz" wrote in message ... Jim Webster writes round here you can wait weeks for the afternoon sun. Haven't seen it since Monday IT'S RAINING HERE!!!!! Maybe 3mm (1/10") since yesterday! Yippppeeee!!!! If it stops by monday, that will be nice. I seem to remember you reporting no sight of the sun for three months once, although you did report the odd rainless day. we can get months like that, certainly the back end of 2000/2001 was grim, we didn't have two consecutive days without rain I don't have to mow the grass anymore because it quit growing. I am watering the foundation around the house to keep it from cracking and the trees less than 5 years old to keep then from dying. Gordon |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
Gordon Couger writes
I don't have to mow the grass anymore because it quit growing. I am watering the foundation around the house to keep it from cracking and the trees less than 5 years old to keep then from dying. I suspect you may have a problem with jim's climate. Probably never gets hotter than 25C or colder than 0C (OK, maybe transiently), and rains most days, sun seen occasionally. Sun probably sets 11.00PM around midsummer and 3.00PM around midwinter. Grass grows like sugarcane in summer. Even grows quite a bit in winter. It's a rare month indeed when transpiration exceeds precipitation. -- Oz This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious. Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted. |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
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.. -- Oz This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious. Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted. |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
"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.. There is no shortage of rain just a destitution problem. Gordon |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
"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 Jim Webster |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
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. |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
"Brian Sandle" wrote in message ... 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. 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 Jim Webster |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
Jim Webster writes
Some moron: I am thinking that the surface area of roots in contact with soil is greater than the area exposed to wind by ploughing. Moron. How do you grow a crop when the land is covered by trees? The moisture loss from green grass, trees and open water is similar. The aim is to get a top layer dry enough to work/drill. Then the leaves contact the wind. Also the trees could be a crop. 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. You could plant several types of trees, each working better in slightly different conditions. Trees are not rates for moisture loss. Diversity is much better against troubles. Sometimes it is, sometimes not. In jims case alternatives to grass are problematic. 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. I hate to think who will bear the brunt of troubles with the huge GM reduced diversity scheme. Que? 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. -- Oz This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious. Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted. |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
In sci.med.nutrition Moosh:] wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 13:36:39 +0100, "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. Course it does, Jim. It is the mainstay of slapstick comedy :) Indeed! Linkname: UC Research: The life and times of the undead URL: http://www.canterbury.ac.nz/publish/research/97/A12.htm Last Mod: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 19:48:29 GMT size: 108 lines The life and times of the undead [...] How can our genes reproduce faster than us? When subsets of genes can be 'swapped' between neighbouring organisms ('horizontal' reproduction), rather than just passed to offspring ('vertical' reproduction), they can reproduce faster than the gene sets passed vertically. Microbes are host to an unsuspectedly enormous flux of genes through swapping and probably so are we. That most reproduction in the world might be horizontal rather than vertical was not anticipated by observing reproduction of plants and animals. This difference in reproductive styles is more than esoteric, because by imposing an anthropomorphic bias on evolutionary mechanisms ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ humans have made an enormous medical blunder. The medical association of disease-causing and antibiotic resistance traits of microbes with their reproductive success, a reflection of our own biology, has been counterproductive to attempts to cure disease. If the associations were accurate, then making certain microbes extinct should simultaneously remove disease and the source of resistance genes. The spread and success of the genetic creatures despite our use of antibiotics is evidence for a reproductive strategy that reveals ours (vertical) as only the exception to the rule. [...] |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
In sci.med.nutrition Oz wrote:
Jim Webster writes Some moron: I am thinking that the surface area of roots in contact with soil is greater than the area exposed to wind by ploughing. Moron. How do you grow a crop when the land is covered by trees? The moisture loss from green grass, trees and open water is similar. The aim is to get a top layer dry enough to work/drill. If the soil is too fine - a clay - then water will not drain through it. If the soil is such that the water will drain through it, it may still be stopped by excess water at lower levels. Tree roots go a bit deeper and pump out the lower water, and lower nutrients. Then the leaves contact the wind. Also the trees could be a crop. 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. You don't sell all the `crops' you plant. Some are like lupin to nitrogenate the soil. What I am talking about is `agroforestry'. On a small dairy farm you would not have a huge tonnage of trees, they would be widely spaced, and where they pumped out water it would make space for adjoining water to move. You could plant several types of trees, each working better in slightly different conditions. Trees are not rates for moisture loss. Diversity is much better against troubles. Sometimes it is, sometimes not. In jims case alternatives to grass are problematic. If you are gearing a farm up to sell having some specialist timber on it might help to sell the farm. How about some spruce, pine or maple for violin making? I don't know but maybe the growing rates would favour the type of density of timber? I may be way off. But if you are far enough from population can you burn your own timber for hot water &C? 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. Because the govt paid out the taxpayers should have say in how farming is done. I hate to think who will bear the brunt of troubles with the huge GM reduced diversity scheme. Que? The GM genes are being put in a few more strains of crops, but the genetic diversity is still low. These crops expend energy making the GM protein, therefore have less viability. 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. In New Zealand we grow macrocarpa near the sea. That is a useful timber. The roots can be long and not too deep. A shelter belt of a few rows produces many single stemmed trees. If they are standing alone you might need to prune them. |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
"Brian Sandle" wrote in message ... 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. Trees in crop and pasture land are weeds. blocking sun and using water that grass or crops can use. GM crops increase the biodiversity by increasing the invertebrates, microbes, birds and other animals that are not disturbed by repeated tillage and toxic sprays. In my case they reduced my costs for cotton production as a land lord 50% and the farmers 15%, reduced the chance of wind and water erosion and let the soil build organic matter at the rate of 1% a year. www.couger.com/farm shows the different in notil cotton and conventional till. In this case the notil is my neighbors and conventional till is mine on an alfalfa hay meadow that is coming out of hay and into cotton. the other 3/4 of the farm is no till. Like most of the detractors of modern framing you have no practical experience faming. I have been at this 46 years and watch crops lost to blowing sand when there was noting that could be done about it, seen the ditches run a mile with and florescent yellow with preplant herbicide that was striped from the fields along with 2 or 3 inches of soil in 6 inches of rain that came in and hour. I have seen a rise come down Red River killing every fish in the river from one of those same driving rains falling on freshly sprayed irrigated cotton files and washing the insecticide into the river and killing fish for 20 miles. I had a neighbor that was never quite well again after spraying Toxiphene and berating too much of it. I know the real risks of the way you want us to farm and the much safer and more environmentally friendly way I can farm with GM crops. I am spending hard money and lots of on irrigation and my part of the tech fee on the seed. It is some of the best money I ever spent. Go make a living farming with your method and come back and I will give your views some credit. But all you do is spout the same tired dogma of the ludilits that are starving people to death in India and Africa. Dream about them tonight. I have done every thing I can to provide food for the world while ass holes like you try to protect what every you think you are protecting and condemn the third world to death and disease by things like not buying produce from countries the use DDT in spite of the fact that its use in homes will go a long way to controlling malaria out breaks. May the ghosts of the millions that have died and will die haunt you for your disregard of the world situation that has cause the break down in the fight against disease in the third world and now you want to deny them the benefits of modern agriculture as well. Gordon |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
"Brian Sandle" wrote in message ... In sci.med.nutrition Oz wrote: Jim Webster writes Some moron: I am thinking that the surface area of roots in contact with soil is greater than the area exposed to wind by ploughing. Moron. How do you grow a crop when the land is covered by trees? The moisture loss from green grass, trees and open water is similar. The aim is to get a top layer dry enough to work/drill. If the soil is too fine - a clay - then water will not drain through it. That is why we have field drains, some of them over a thousand years old. If the soil is such that the water will drain through it, it may still be stopped by excess water at lower levels. Tree roots go a bit deeper and pump out the lower water, and lower nutrients. Then the leaves contact the wind. Also the trees could be a crop. 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. You don't sell all the `crops' you plant. Some are like lupin to nitrogenate the soil. What I am talking about is `agroforestry'. On a small dairy farm you would not have a huge tonnage of trees, they would be widely spaced, and where they pumped out water it would make space for adjoining water to move. Except that the trees are pretty well worthless in the UK. You could plant several types of trees, each working better in slightly different conditions. Trees are not rates for moisture loss. Diversity is much better against troubles. Sometimes it is, sometimes not. In jims case alternatives to grass are problematic. If you are gearing a farm up to sell having some specialist timber on it might help to sell the farm. How about some spruce, pine or maple for violin making? I don't know but maybe the growing rates would favour the type of density of timber? I may be way off. But if you are far enough from population can you burn your own timber for hot water &C? total waste of time in UK, none of those trees will pay for the grass lost in the area they stand. Absolutely. I doubt they would grow very well given your location anyway. If the wind didn't get them, the salt would. In New Zealand we grow macrocarpa near the sea. That is a useful timber. The roots can be long and not too deep. A shelter belt of a few rows produces many single stemmed trees. If they are standing alone you might need to prune them. And this is relevant to lowland Cumbria exactly how? We have a crop that is pretty well worthless in the UK and you expect me to prune it! Jim Webster |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
Jim Webster wrote:
"Brian Sandle" wrote in message ... If the soil is too fine - a clay - then water will not drain through it. That is why we have field drains, some of them over a thousand years old. Goodness. Must have still been a few forests in Britain back then. If it is too fine a clay the water will just pool on the surface. If the soil is such that the water will drain through it, it may still be stopped by excess water at lower levels. Tree roots go a bit deeper and pump out the lower water, and lower nutrients. You don't sell all the `crops' you plant. Some are like lupin to nitrogenate the soil. What I am talking about is `agroforestry'. On a small dairy farm you would not have a huge tonnage of trees, they would be widely spaced, and where they pumped out water it would make space for adjoining water to move. Except that the trees are pretty well worthless in the UK. Only on the economic system which subsidises cattle and requires quick pay-back. If you are gearing a farm up to sell having some specialist timber on it might help to sell the farm. How about some spruce, pine or maple for violin making? I don't know but maybe the growing rates would favour the type of density of timber? I may be way off. But if you are far enough from population can you burn your own timber for hot water &C? total waste of time in UK, none of those trees will pay for the grass lost in the area they stand. Yes, the coniferous trees kill grass. Here we have a herbicide made from pine oil. I suppose the need for sun-shade is not great in Britain. But there must be a need for wind shelter. A couple of belts of macrocarpas spaced 100 yards or so will reduce prevaling wind velocity by a large percentage for several hundred more yards. Absolutely. I doubt they would grow very well given your location anyway. If the wind didn't get them, the salt would. In New Zealand we grow macrocarpa near the sea. That is a useful timber. The roots can be long and not too deep. A shelter belt of a few rows produces many single stemmed trees. If they are standing alone you might need to prune them. And this is relevant to lowland Cumbria exactly how? We have a crop that is pretty well worthless in the UK and you expect me to prune it! I think we need some evidence that macrocarpa is worthless. It is good firewood, but also good for boat building and furniture. |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
Gordon Couger wrote:
"Brian Sandle" wrote in message ... 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. Trees in crop and pasture land are weeds. blocking sun and using water that grass or crops can use. Jim has too much water. Yes, they will block sun, and that can be useful for animals. Choose trees whose roots go down a bit and they will bring up water which your `crops' cannot use, as well as trace elements. Then the sun block for a period of the day can reduce the need of your other crop for water. Or in Britain where there is not much sunburn of animals eating toxic substances from umbelliferae, they will be wind shelter. GM crops increase the biodiversity by increasing the invertebrates, microbes, birds and other animals that are not disturbed by repeated tillage and toxic sprays. `No-till' is not only GM. In my case they reduced my costs for cotton production as a land lord 50% and the farmers 15%, reduced the chance of wind and water erosion and let the soil build organic matter at the rate of 1% a year. www.couger.com/farm Temporarily Down (for how long?) shows the different in notil cotton and conventional till. In this case the notil is my neighbors and conventional till is mine on an alfalfa hay meadow that is coming out of hay and into cotton. 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. But URL: http://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/organiccrop/tools5.html size: 142 lines [...] Conservation Tillage & Organic Farming Organic agriculture is often characterized as addicted to maximum tillagewith growers using every opportunity to lay the land bare with shovel, plow, or rototiller. This image has been magnified through the popularity of small-scale organic systems like the French Intensive and Biointensive Mini Farming models that espouse double and triple-digging to create deep rooting beds for highly intensive crop culture. While appropriate to such intensive circumstances, this degree of cultivation is not characteristic of organic agriculture in general. It may surprise some to learn that a large number of organic producers are not only interested in conservation tillage, but have adopted it. They will be surprised because it is widely believed that conservation tillage always requires herbicides. The interest in conservation tillage among organic producers in the Cornbelt was well documented in the mid-1970s by Washington University researchers. They noted that the vast majority of organic farmers participating in their studies had abandoned the moldboard plow for chisel plows. Plowing with a chisel implement is a form of mulch tillage, in which residues are mixed in the upper layers of the soil and a significant percentage remains on the soil surface to reduce erosion. Furthermore, a notable number of organic farmers had gone further to adopt ridge-tillagea system with even greater potential to reduce erosion (3). It was especially interesting to note that the use of these conservation technologies was almost nil among neighboring conventional farms at this time. Organic growers were actually pioneers of conservation tillage in their communities. Among the more well-known of these pioneers were Dick and Sharon Thompson of Boone, Iowa. Their experiences with ridge-tillage and sustainable agriculture became the focus of a series of publications titled Nature's Ag School. These were published by the Regenerative Agriculture Associationthe forerunner to the Rodale Institute. They are now, unfortunately, out of print. Research continues to open up new possibilities in conservation tillage for organic farms. New strategies for mechanically killing winter cover crops and planting or transplanting into the residue without tillage are being explored by a number of USDA, land-grant, and farmer researchers. Notable among these is the work being done by Abdul-Baki and Teasdale at the USDA in Beltsville, Marylandtransplanting tomato and broccoli crops into mechanically killed hairy vetch and forage soybeans (27, 28). There are also the well-publicized efforts of Pennsylvania farmer Steve Groff, whose no-till system centers on the use of a rolling stalk chopper to kill cover crops prior to planting (29). Systems like Groff's and Abdul-Baki's are of particular interest because close to 100% of crop residue remains on the soil surfaceproviding all the soil conservation and cultural benefits of a thick organic mulch. [...] Like most of the detractors of modern framing you have no practical experience faming. I have been at this 46 years and watch crops lost to blowing sand when there was noting that could be done about it, Trees would have been an insurace policy ereducing wind velocity. seen the ditches run a mile with and florescent yellow with preplant herbicide that was striped from the fields along with 2 or 3 inches of soil in 6 inches of rain that came in and hour. I have seen a rise come down Red River killing every fish in the river from one of those same driving rains falling on freshly sprayed irrigated cotton files and washing the insecticide into the river and killing fish for 20 miles. I had a neighbor that was never quite well again after spraying Toxiphene and berating too much of it. And insects have been increasing since GM crops have been here, I think. Maybe the required refuges against resistance development are producing more. More pesticides will be required. I know the real risks of the way you want us to farm and the much safer and more environmentally friendly way I can farm with GM crops. I am spending hard money and lots of on irrigation and my part of the tech fee on the seed. It is some of the best money I ever spent. Your yield will be lower, except maybe for large farms growing Bt cotton, in years when the susceptible insects are infesting. Go make a living farming with your method and come back and I will give your views some credit. Very hard in North America now, since you have to pay the Monsanto tech fee also, since their GM has polluted everything. But all you do is spout the same tired dogma of the ludilits that are starving people to death in India and Africa. GM has a lower yield for food crops. The energy of the plant goes to producing the RR protein. Dream about them tonight. I have done every thing I can to provide food for the world It only takes 1% of us to feed the world these days. That is a problem with dumping of food into Africa, taking away the income they used to have selling food, and causing starvation. while ass holes like you try to protect what every you think you are protecting and condemn the third world to death and disease by things like not buying produce from countries the use DDT in spite of the fact that its use in homes will go a long way to controlling malaria out breaks. DDT was used so much, as we have already read on this thread. It became non-effective. Yes it can be used for some outbreaks, but that is all. May the ghosts of the millions that have died and will die haunt you for your disregard of the world situation that has cause the break down in the fight against disease in the third world and now you want to deny them the benefits of modern agriculture as well. They have already been introduced to modern agriculture with the cash crops. Then when wwe paid them too little some of them went to producing food for their own communities. We quickly jumped on this with dumping, They lost their farms and livelihoods and went to the city slums to beg abd scavenge the trash heaps. I know your lot want to buy their farms up cheap. |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
"Brian Sandle" wrote in message ... Jim Webster wrote: "Brian Sandle" wrote in message ... If the soil is too fine - a clay - then water will not drain through it. That is why we have field drains, some of them over a thousand years old. Goodness. Must have still been a few forests in Britain back then. Not especially, remember much of Britain was cleared about 3000 years ago, was naturally reforested, and was cleared again. You can find ard marks under ancient forest. If it is too fine a clay the water will just pool on the surface. Which is one reason why we plough to dry the land out. If the soil is such that the water will drain through it, it may still be stopped by excess water at lower levels. Tree roots go a bit deeper and pump out the lower water, and lower nutrients. You don't sell all the `crops' you plant. Some are like lupin to nitrogenate the soil. What I am talking about is `agroforestry'. On a small dairy farm you would not have a huge tonnage of trees, they would be widely spaced, and where they pumped out water it would make space for adjoining water to move. Except that the trees are pretty well worthless in the UK. Only on the economic system which subsidises cattle and requires quick pay-back. No, on an economic system which expects me to feed my family for the 25 years while we wait to fell the trees. If expecting to be paid in less than a generation is wanting quick payback, then I plead guilty. If you are gearing a farm up to sell having some specialist timber on it might help to sell the farm. How about some spruce, pine or maple for violin making? I don't know but maybe the growing rates would favour the type of density of timber? I may be way off. But if you are far enough from population can you burn your own timber for hot water &C? total waste of time in UK, none of those trees will pay for the grass lost in the area they stand. Yes, the coniferous trees kill grass. Here we have a herbicide made from pine oil. I'm talking about the area the trunk takes up, never mind any further losses I suppose the need for sun-shade is not great in Britain. But there must be a need for wind shelter. A couple of belts of macrocarpas spaced 100 yards or so will reduce prevaling wind velocity by a large percentage for several hundred more yards. We have hedges and undulating ground. Also we have grassland. In the NW of England most shelterbelts are planted for hill sheep to shelter in, especially over winter. Absolutely. I doubt they would grow very well given your location anyway. If the wind didn't get them, the salt would. In New Zealand we grow macrocarpa near the sea. That is a useful timber. The roots can be long and not too deep. A shelter belt of a few rows produces many single stemmed trees. If they are standing alone you might need to prune them. And this is relevant to lowland Cumbria exactly how? We have a crop that is pretty well worthless in the UK and you expect me to prune it! I think we need some evidence that macrocarpa is worthless. You are perhaps an expert in the UK timber market? It is good firewood, but also good for boat building and furniture. Except that round here firewood is uneconomic due to a combination of smokeless zones, and cheap waste timber from softwood plantations. Planting for other uses is uneconomic unless you have hundreds of acres to go at and can budget over 60 to 120 years. Jim Webster |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
Jim Webster writes
Planting for other uses is uneconomic unless you have hundreds of acres to go at and can budget over 60 to 120 years. I was chatting to a casual worker who worked for Blenheim Park sawmills, yes THAT blenheim park (Churchill etc) with a thousand+ ac of woodland. He was made redundant because they couldn't compete with imported timber and now use imported timber for their sawmill. Much of the woodland was beech, the rest pines. So if they can't compete, with their own sawmill, how do you think farmers elsewhere can compete? -- Oz This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious. Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted. |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
Oz wrote:
Jim Webster writes Planting for other uses is uneconomic unless you have hundreds of acres to go at and can budget over 60 to 120 years. I was chatting to a casual worker who worked for Blenheim Park sawmills, yes THAT blenheim park (Churchill etc) with a thousand+ ac of woodland. He was made redundant because they couldn't compete with imported timber and now use imported timber for their sawmill. Rather like dumping food in Africa. All sorts of cheap products have been sold in New Zealand - putting our locals out of work. Car plants have closed down, and now workers do not have the money to buy houses which are getting bought by overseas people. We have some cheap imported goods, but food is dearer in the main, and now both Mum and Dad have to work to support the family, so there is less time for fun. Don't suck up to that system. Much of the woodland was beech, the rest pines. So if they can't compete, with their own sawmill, how do you think farmers elsewhere can compete? Only by getting some research into what specialty timbers can be grown in the climate, and collect a good price. Violins need fairly slow growing timber, fine grain and I don't know what the extra water about would do. The economics of violin making is quite interesting. Timber had to be seasoned in a dark room for 25 years my music teacher, who also had learnt violin making in Czeckoslovakia, told me. So you would have to be getting enough ready for your successor. As Jim has explained `modern' economics has trouble with such a concept. I haven't been on a tramp in the New Zealand bush walks since the 60s. But then you would tramp for half a day or more from one little hut to the next. You would arrive tired and wet maybe at the unattended little hut, and start a fire with the dry wood collected by the previous visitors. Then before leaving you would collect wood for the next trampers. You did not have to pay to use the huts. I don't know if people can co-operate like that these days, but in many areas they can't can they? Now I fear that the plant stock and agriculture we have inherited is not being replenished by us for the next comers. They will be cursing trying to collect the equivalent in the analogy of wet wood to light their fire. OK farms where Jim is have hedges. Tell me, do they soak up a bit of water and stop the fast run-off somehwat? Lots of places in the world have flooding problems and erosion following removal of trees higher up in the catchment. Gordon Cougar please take note. |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 06:19:11 +0100, Oz
wrote: Moosh:] writes On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 16:12:10 +0100, Oz wrote: Moosh:] writes How could you dry out a crop by applying an aqueous solution? Oh, I see, they killed a crop with the herbicide making it look dry? That's illegal, for use on a food crop. Actually no. Dessicants are not that unusual in european agriculture (and probably american as well). It's quite often used for EU canola, and sometimes other crops, particularly where weed control has been, er, less than perfect. This has been going on for decades. Yes, I follow, but would you use Roundup for this? Absolutely, the product of choice due to it's safety. What chemicals are used for dessicants? Curious. Diquat pre roundup, and still preferred if a fast kill is required. The approvals tend to be crop specific. Thanks. I was expecting "dessicants" rather than herbicides, but I see what is meant. |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 22:48:48 -0600, "Dean Ronn" @home wrote:
"Moosh:]" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 16:12:10 +0100, Oz wrote: Moosh:] writes How could you dry out a crop by applying an aqueous solution? Oh, I see, they killed a crop with the herbicide making it look dry? That's illegal, for use on a food crop. Actually no. Dessicants are not that unusual in european agriculture (and probably american as well). It's quite often used for EU canola, and sometimes other crops, particularly where weed control has been, er, less than perfect. This has been going on for decades. Yes, I follow, but would you use Roundup for this? What chemicals are used for dessicants? Curious. Reglone, for one. Round-Up has a duel use here in the fall. It can be used as a slower acting dessicant, but usually is used in a pre-harvest treatment to control such weeds as Canada thistle and dandelion. By the way, where did you get the information that this practice was illegal??????????? I just assumed that there was a witholding period for food crops. I know glyphosate is next to harmless, but guessed the regulator would have erred on the side of caution, and disallowed appliction just before harvest. Apparently I was wrong, sorry. |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
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? :) 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? |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
Brian Sandle wrote:
Gordon Couger wrote: In my case they reduced my costs for cotton production as a land lord 50% and the farmers 15%, reduced the chance of wind and water erosion and let the soil build organic matter at the rate of 1% a year. www.couger.com/farm Temporarily Down (for how long?) Oh sorry, I did wrong spelling. 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? And the plants look a bit more curly than yours, though it's hard to see. and conventional till is mine on an alfalfa hay meadow that is coming out of hay and into cotton. What sort of cotton? GM? Goodness, tremendous expanse with no wind break. Sun nearly directly overhead. 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. |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
On 25 Jul 2003 11:48:19 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote: In sci.med.nutrition Moosh:] wrote: On 24 Jul 2003 22:54:10 GMT, Brian Sandle wrote: I don't think randomity explains what goes on. Well it can, so why look for fairies at the bottom of the garden? Think of Ockham's razor. You are behind, as I explained last article. No, I'm not behind the fairy stories :) |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
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? 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? |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
"Brian Sandle" wrote in message ... Oz wrote: Jim Webster writes Planting for other uses is uneconomic unless you have hundreds of acres to go at and can budget over 60 to 120 years. I was chatting to a casual worker who worked for Blenheim Park sawmills, yes THAT blenheim park (Churchill etc) with a thousand+ ac of woodland. He was made redundant because they couldn't compete with imported timber and now use imported timber for their sawmill. Rather like dumping food in Africa. No, not at all like dumping food on agriculture. It is just cheaper to produce timber in certain places. All sorts of cheap products have been sold in New Zealand - putting our locals out of work. Car plants have closed down, and now workers do not have the money to buy houses which are getting bought by overseas people. We have some cheap imported goods, but food is dearer in the main, and now both Mum and Dad have to work to support the family, so there is less time for fun. Don't suck up to that system. Much of the woodland was beech, the rest pines. So if they can't compete, with their own sawmill, how do you think farmers elsewhere can compete? Only by getting some research into what specialty timbers can be grown in the climate, and collect a good price. Oh goodie, let us wait 300 years for oak to mature Violins need fairly slow growing timber, fine grain and I don't know what the extra water about would do. The economics of violin making is quite interesting. Timber had to be seasoned in a dark room for 25 years my music teacher, who also had learnt violin making in Czeckoslovakia, told me. So you would have to be getting enough ready for your successor. Great, and what do I eat today? As Jim has explained `modern' economics has trouble with such a concept. All economics has a problem with buy now, pay in 150 years time. OK farms where Jim is have hedges. Tell me, do they soak up a bit of water and stop the fast run-off somehwat? Not especially, but in the UK we have few problems with soil erosion compared to other parts of the world. Main use of hedges is barriers for livestock Lots of places in the world have flooding problems and erosion following removal of trees higher up in the catchment. Gordon Cougar please take note. I hardly think this is a problem in the Mid west. I suggest you stop using pat answers which might be relevant in the Himalayas in plains areas Jim Webster |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
On 25 Jul 2003 15:01:43 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote: In sci.med.nutrition Moosh:] wrote: On 22 Jul 2003 07:08:06 GMT, Brian Sandle wrote: [...] It always amazes me how Organic folk can accept a GE "chemical" as OK for their needs. Bt is a natural soil bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis, which happens to be toxic to butterfly and moth larvae. It is not a GE "chemical", though the genes producing the Bt toxins have been engineered into GE crops. I suggest you bring yourself up to date. BT is the freeze dried protein (chemical) that is produced by the bacterium you mentioned. It is a stomach poison to caterpillars and some other insects. Some strains of it are produced by genetic engineering. Yes, I suppose it would be extracted from GM crops. No, GM bacteria, I believe. Or is it produced by some GM bacterium? Yes. The Organic folk would not accept it if it were properly labelled as GM. I suspect they are so desperate for permitted pesticides, that they don't want to know :) They would use the non-GM sort. Then they may be restricted from the various BTs that target different insects. Not sure which are GM, but there are BT chemicals for mosquitoes and so on. All you have to be amazed about is the labelling issue. No, the hypocrisy of Organic growers trying to bend their rather silly rules to accept what they need. Ferinstance, there are many safe fungicides, but organic folk only permit the toxic and very persistant heavy metal, mined, copper salts. Go figure. Desperation? Anyways, Bt has been so overused that it only has a limited useful life. Now that it is present perpetually, whether really needed or not, you are right. Well it is that by use of the protein powder by agriculture and the home gardener. No, because when GE'd into a crop it is present all the time, though gradually fading in strenght as the crop matures. But it is present whenever the caterpillars are present in the garden or crop. When there is no plant predatiojn, there is no resistance occurring. When home gardners use it, or non-GM soy farmers &c, it is only present as needed, then disappears. And why does it matter if it's there or not, if the pests aren't predating the crop? New specific pesticides will be developed. Which we do not know the problems with. Same problems as with BT. Have you heard of testing? Happens all the time. So the Bt crop suppliers, who are ruining it, should be paying for the research for something new organic. They are, all the time. They developed BT, so why shouldn't they use it, and develop further selective pesticides. BTW, who says they are ruining anything? And the produce will probably not sell as well as when the organic Bt stuff was used occasionally. Only because the public has been hoodwinked into believing that Organic is somehow better. It is. No evidence that it is. Why buy corn with Bt protein in it? To get a pest free crop, without having to spray, thus saving much fossil fuel needed in applying the sprays a number of times. Why buy paste made from tomato which keeps longer, but with no guarantee about the nutritional qualities lasting in proportion? Huh? Tomato past is hardly a staple. It's a flavouring or a spice IME. Does it matter if a bit of any nutrient in it disappears? |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
|
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
On 27 Jul 2003 12:32:49 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote: Oz wrote: Jim Webster writes Planting for other uses is uneconomic unless you have hundreds of acres to go at and can budget over 60 to 120 years. I was chatting to a casual worker who worked for Blenheim Park sawmills, yes THAT blenheim park (Churchill etc) with a thousand+ ac of woodland. He was made redundant because they couldn't compete with imported timber and now use imported timber for their sawmill. Rather like dumping food in Africa. All sorts of cheap products have been sold in New Zealand - putting our locals out of work. Car plants have closed down, and now workers do not have the money to buy houses which are getting bought by overseas people. We have some cheap imported goods, but food is dearer in the main, and now both Mum and Dad have to work to support the family, so there is less time for fun. Don't suck up to that system. Much of the woodland was beech, the rest pines. So if they can't compete, with their own sawmill, how do you think farmers elsewhere can compete? Only by getting some research into what specialty timbers can be grown in the climate, and collect a good price. Violins need fairly slow growing timber, fine grain and I don't know what the extra water about would do. The economics of violin making is quite interesting. Timber had to be seasoned in a dark room for 25 years my music teacher, who also had learnt violin making in Czeckoslovakia, told me. So you would have to be getting enough ready for your successor. As Jim has explained `modern' economics has trouble with such a concept. I haven't been on a tramp in the New Zealand bush walks since the 60s. But then you would tramp for half a day or more from one little hut to the next. You would arrive tired and wet maybe at the unattended little hut, and start a fire with the dry wood collected by the previous visitors. Then before leaving you would collect wood for the next trampers. You did not have to pay to use the huts. I don't know if people can co-operate like that these days, but in many areas they can't can they? Now I fear that the plant stock and agriculture we have inherited is not being replenished by us for the next comers. They will be cursing trying to collect the equivalent in the analogy of wet wood to light their fire. OK farms where Jim is have hedges. Tell me, do they soak up a bit of water and stop the fast run-off somehwat? Lots of places in the world have flooding problems and erosion following removal of trees higher up in the catchment. Gordon Cougar please take note. One of the problems is that trees (hedges) don't suck up much water when the Sun doesn't shine for weeks, it is cold as charity, and the humidity is 99%. |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
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? 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? |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
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. 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? |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
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? |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 08:51:07 +0100, Oz
wrote: Jim Webster writes Some moron: I am thinking that the surface area of roots in contact with soil is greater than the area exposed to wind by ploughing. Moron. How do you grow a crop when the land is covered by trees? Tree crop? 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. The aim is to get a top layer dry enough to work/drill. Well yes, on bare land, but not if you have a tree crop. Then the leaves contact the wind. Also the trees could be a crop. 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? 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? |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
On 27 Jul 2003 08:29:07 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote: In sci.med.nutrition Oz wrote: Jim Webster writes Some moron: I am thinking that the surface area of roots in contact with soil is greater than the area exposed to wind by ploughing. Moron. How do you grow a crop when the land is covered by trees? The moisture loss from green grass, trees and open water is similar. The aim is to get a top layer dry enough to work/drill. If the soil is too fine - a clay - then water will not drain through it. If the soil is such that the water will drain through it, it may still be stopped by excess water at lower levels. Tree roots go a bit deeper and pump out the lower water, and lower nutrients. Then the leaves contact the wind. Also the trees could be a crop. 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. You don't sell all the `crops' you plant. Some are like lupin to nitrogenate the soil. Only if that is a cost effective way to do it. It might be better to grow a paying crop and fertilise your soil another way. What I am talking about is `agroforestry'. On a small dairy farm you would not have a huge tonnage of trees, they would be widely spaced, and where they pumped out water it would make space for adjoining water to move. You could plant several types of trees, each working better in slightly different conditions. Trees are not rates for moisture loss. Diversity is much better against troubles. Sometimes it is, sometimes not. In jims case alternatives to grass are problematic. If you are gearing a farm up to sell having some specialist timber on it might help to sell the farm. How about some spruce, pine or maple for violin making? I don't know but maybe the growing rates would favour the type of density of timber? I may be way off. But if you are far enough from population can you burn your own timber for hot water &C? 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. Because the govt paid out the taxpayers should have say in how farming is done. I hate to think who will bear the brunt of troubles with the huge GM reduced diversity scheme. Que? The GM genes are being put in a few more strains of crops, but the genetic diversity is still low. These crops expend energy making the GM protein, therefore have less viability. Que? |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 14:20:22 +0000, Moosh:] wrote:
On 27 Jul 2003 12:32:49 GMT, Brian Sandle wrote: All sorts of cheap products have been sold in New Zealand - putting our locals out of work. Adapt or die. Car plants have closed down, and now workers do not have the money to buy houses which are getting bought by overseas people. Cars is a big red herring. The only reason local product was cheaper was massive taxation on imported completely built up vehicles. It _may_ have been economic to export cars to Australia, but as soon as this got proven the australians would have set up their own plants. We have some cheap imported goods, but food is dearer in the main, and now both Mum and Dad have to work to support the family, so there is less time for fun. This is happening everywhere, not just in NZ. Remember the lesson of the buggy whip makers. |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
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? 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. |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
"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 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 Jim Webster |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
"Uncle StoatWarbler" wrote in message .. . On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 14:20:22 +0000, Moosh:] wrote: Remember the lesson of the buggy whip makers. we cannot all diversify into sex toys :-) Jim Webster |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
"Brian Sandle" wrote in message ... Oz wrote: Jim Webster writes Planting for other uses is uneconomic unless you have hundreds of acres to go at and can budget over 60 to 120 years. I was chatting to a casual worker who worked for Blenheim Park sawmills, yes THAT blenheim park (Churchill etc) with a thousand+ ac of woodland. He was made redundant because they couldn't compete with imported timber and now use imported timber for their sawmill. Rather like dumping food in Africa. All sorts of cheap products have been sold in New Zealand - putting our locals out of work. Car plants have closed down, and now workers do not have the money to buy houses which are getting bought by overseas people. We have some cheap imported goods, but food is dearer in the main, and now both Mum and Dad have to work to support the family, so there is less time for fun. Don't suck up to that system. Much of the woodland was beech, the rest pines. So if they can't compete, with their own sawmill, how do you think farmers elsewhere can compete? Only by getting some research into what specialty timbers can be grown in the climate, and collect a good price. Violins need fairly slow growing timber, fine grain and I don't know what the extra water about would do. The economics of violin making is quite interesting. Timber had to be seasoned in a dark room for 25 years my music teacher, who also had learnt violin making in Czeckoslovakia, told me. So you would have to be getting enough ready for your successor. As Jim has explained `modern' economics has trouble with such a concept. I haven't been on a tramp in the New Zealand bush walks since the 60s. But then you would tramp for half a day or more from one little hut to the next. You would arrive tired and wet maybe at the unattended little hut, and start a fire with the dry wood collected by the previous visitors. Then before leaving you would collect wood for the next trampers. You did not have to pay to use the huts. I don't know if people can co-operate like that these days, but in many areas they can't can they? Now I fear that the plant stock and agriculture we have inherited is not being replenished by us for the next comers. They will be cursing trying to collect the equivalent in the analogy of wet wood to light their fire. OK farms where Jim is have hedges. Tell me, do they soak up a bit of water and stop the fast run-off somehwat? Lots of places in the world have flooding problems and erosion following removal of trees higher up in the catchment. Gordon Cougar please take note. The name is CougEr. Where I come from trees are an introduced weed. One hundred fifty years ago when my great grandmother came to this country only place there were trees was along creeks and rivers. The periodic grass fires and tall grasses kept then shaded out and burned out. Stopping erosion on conventional farm land relies on structures that keep the water from falling over 2 feet in 100 feet. Maintaining a unbroken network of roots and the shielding action of stubble and trash on the surface greatly reduces the erodabilty of the soil. In place like the UK and much of the rest of the high rainfall areas of the world were 2 inches of rain an hour is a heavy rain erosion it not he concern that it is in the arid and simi arid areas of the world where rain fall can reach 20 inches per hour in short bursts. Trees only protect the spot they are in. In one case I saw a fence row that normally slows down water dig a hole 8 feet deep in a field when it created a hydraulic jump one night it rained 7 inches in an hour. In that same rain trees start gullies by channeling more water to the end of the tree row. We did plant trees in the 30's to prevent wind erosion but a better mix of crops and bigger machinery made those obsolete in the 60's when we stopped having dust storms because we used better practices and could get across land faster. The tree rows have almost all be taken out because the sap water for 30 yard out in the field. As for trees preventing erosion when high creek banks are eroding in sandy soil one of the things you do to stop it is cut down the trees that act a levers to break away the saturated banks. What works in your part of the world does not work every where and you don't understand what works in your part of the world very well. Gordon |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:38 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter