|
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
"Brian Sandle" wrote in message ... 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. It works only in corn with out it and requires some a lot of persistent herbicides. 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 tillage with 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. That's the system we are replacing only we use more rotatotatins with alfalfa than most organic farmers and modern chemicals. [...] 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. For about 75 yard and the sap the moisture for 30 yards. Strip tillage is much more effective. Trees are weeds on a farm in simi arid country. 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. Just the opposite. There are many more beneficial insets since you don't have to spray for worms. Try reading something besides green propaganda. 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. Six out of ten of the top yielding cottons at the Rolling Plains Experiment Station were GM cotton. 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. I don't look at yield I look at profit. But in cotton BT increases yield. Conventional herbicides also damage roots and set crops back. 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. DDT is a mosquito replete as well and toxic to them. Houses only need to be treated twice a year. It is still effective on mosquitoes. Until South Africa went back to DDT they could not get a handle on their Malaria problems and in one year it was back under control. 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. The green revolution worked in India and China but the do gooders got it stopped before it could make it to Africa. Both India and China can feed themselves. China managed to do it with out creating slums and at double the yields of India. Even India produces more than its needs most years. If you and your kind have their way Africa will continue to face famine the civil strive caused by it. Using western methods Rhodesia was a very productive agricultural country. Going back to the old ways they can't feed them selves. I have no interest in their farms. If I was buying farm land I would look to South America where the governments are pro agriculture. There is no way I would go into Africa, India, Australia or New Zeeland and try to farm with the attitude the governments have there. Actually I am better off if they stay the way they are. India in particular is my biggest customer for cotton and BT cotton has the potential to double their cotton production to 25,000,000 US bales making our 12,000,000 bales even more of a drag on the market. You knowledge of agriculture is underwhelming. Gordon |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
"Brian Sandle" wrote in message ... 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. ============ Those are weeds the cotton is real 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? No it is conventional with resistatce to another heribcide that can be use all season long. Goodness, tremendous expanse with no wind break. Sun nearly directly overhead. ============= If it doesn't rain soon it the sun will cook it. It hasn't raned in 5 weeks and it 110f every day. That's nothing you shoud see the stuff in west Texas. Wind breaks use moisture and with mositure the limiting factor you can't have trees close enough togeter to do any good. The only place any one put them was where a neighbor let their land blow on them. We lost all the cotton there to a thunder sorm that beat 2 week old cotton in the ground. We have poverty peas (soybeans) on it now. the other 3/4 of the farm is no till. What you are calling `no-till' is killing weeds with Roundup on Roundup-Ready GM crops. Half will go in to alfalfa in the fall and the weeds will be controlled with round up and other chemical all summer. I don't know what he plans to do with the other half. Gordon |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
"Moosh:]" wrote in message ... On 25 Jul 2003 09:48:22 -0700, (Hua Kul) wrote: "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. Elect a proper government, and it is the only thing that will protect you. The public are incapable of knowing the full story, the corporations are doing their job making money for their shareholders. An elected, effective regulator is the only thing left. The USDA does a very good job with food safety. Not as good as the guys in OZ they seem to have it down right. The FDA has a good record as well. Many think that they are too careful. You still haven't addressed my larger point, posted in response to your challenge, that the pharmaceutical industries are intent upon using elements of our food production systems not to improve the food but to contaminate it for the purpose of increasing their profits, Their sole job in life! To do that job they must provide safe product. A recall cuts deeply into those profits and the loss of pubilc turst puts them out of business. I know a substantial number of people in the food producion and seed prodution business and every one is trying to make money by making the products that the market wants. They don't risk their business by tying to make a few cents intentionaly adultring their products. If they get caugt intentionaly endangering the public the inspection system does not deal with them very kindly. and the demonstrated danger in that being the total contamination of an entire crop globally, as is happening with Monsanto's Starlink GM corn. If you don't like what they do, get your regulator to change its legislation. QED. To me that one example is enough to totally prohibit any GM changes, with the possibe exception of those changes that actually improve the nutrition, safety, or yield of the crop. What about chages that improve the crops impact on the envionement. Less erosion and less pesticide aren't those good for society as a whole. Cotton account for 25% of the insecticde used it the the world. BT cotton can cut that by 50 to 100% will the world not be a better place if we use 12 to 20% less insceicide? Humans don't eat any protien from the cotton plant that hasn't be run throug a cow first becuse it is natuarly toxic to simple stomaced animal from cotton's own built in insecticide. Gordon Gordon |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
"Moosh:]" wrote in message ... On 27 Jul 2003 05:19:55 GMT, Brian Sandle wrote: Jim Webster wrote: "Oz" wrote in message ... Gordon Couger writes "Oz" wrote in message I suspect you may have a problem with jim's climate. It's a rare month indeed when transpiration exceeds precipitation. I wouldn't know what to do with that. I just want to get wells dug that make enough water that I don't care if it rains. Jim just want's field drains and ditches that can take it away quickly.. -- yes, I have land that I will not take cattle on between October and March, even though I can silage it in May. I do find it fascinating reading when everyone is discussing the advantages of no-till and struggling to retain soil moisture, round here ploughing is used to dry the land out a bit. You plough and let the sun and wind take away some of the moisture so you can get a tilth. Funny old world What are various types of trees like at extracting water from the ground? I suppose evergreens keep the sun off the land, but they might shelter animals from wind. I am thinking that the surface area of roots in contact with soil is greater than the area exposed to wind by ploughing. Then the leaves contact the wind. Also the trees could be a crop. You could plant several types of trees, each working better in slightly different conditions. Diversity is much better against troubles. You can have the diversity within each farm, or else you use the govt to buffer against loss as with BSE, or both. I hate to think who will bear the brunt of troubles with the huge GM reduced diversity scheme. The tree idea seems a good one, so long as Jim can keep his family alive with it. How is GM reducing biodiversity? Conventional breeding exploded diversity early on, then refined it to those varieties that the customer required. Where is the problem? If anything it increases biodiversity by being able to put the desirable traits into more crops instead of switching to the one crop that has that trait. For example the potato that was just found with resistant to the blight that depopulated Ireland and still costs millions today can be put in every cultivars instead of developing one resistant strain by conventional methods. Gordon |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
Gordon Couger wrote:
"Brian Sandle" wrote in message ... shows the different in notil cotton and conventional till. In this case the notil is my neighbors What are the other plants in the no-till? Roundup-resistant? And the plants look a bit more curly than yours, though it's hard to see. ============ Those are weeds the cotton is real hard to see. Are they Roundup-resistant? The cotton is in rows, regularly spaced. One or two plants are only half as high as the others, but I think that that is happening on your `conventional' field, too. As well as looking a bit less curly your non-GM plants are a darker green, less yellow than the GM ones. How much of that is due to moisture storage by the mulch, as opposed to some sort of residual effect of the Roundup on the RR plants, or differences in film? I presume the film was the same. and conventional till is mine on an alfalfa hay meadow that is coming out of hay and into cotton. What sort of cotton? GM? No it is conventional with resistatce to another heribcide that can be use all season long. Interesting. Can it be no-till, then? Goodness, tremendous expanse with no wind break. Sun nearly directly overhead. ============= If it doesn't rain soon it the sun will cook it. It hasn't raned in 5 weeks and it 110f every day. That's nothing you shoud see the stuff in west Texas. Wind breaks use moisture and with mositure the limiting factor you can't have trees close enough togeter to do any good. That depends on any hot wind. A shelter belt or two can reduce wind velocity right down for hundreds of meters, and so stop drying. Also their roots go deeper and they bring up lower water which the cotton can't, and they add it to the wind. Besides some of the substances trees give out help moisture to condense form the air, maybe even rain. The only place any one put them was where a neighbor let their land blow on them. We lost all the cotton there to a thunder sorm that beat 2 week old cotton in the ground. We have poverty peas (soybeans) on it now. Then some trees, even if they stopped cotton growing in their immediate vicinity, could still have been a productive crop, some insurance. the other 3/4 of the farm is no till. What you are calling `no-till' is killing weeds with Roundup on Roundup-Ready GM crops. Half will go in to alfalfa in the fall and the weeds will be controlled with round up and other chemical all summer. I don't know what he plans to do with the other half. Is the alfalfa RR, or just naturally resistanct to Roundup? |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Sandle" Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition,nz.general,sci.agriculture Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2003 7:45 PM Subject: Paying to find non-GE wild corn? : Gordon Couger wrote: : : "Brian Sandle" wrote in message : ... : : shows the different in notil cotton and : conventional till. In this case the notil is my neighbors : : : What are the other plants in the no-till? Roundup-resistant? No they haven't been sparyed yet. As I they are some kind of nettle that the first spray of round up will knock out. : : And the plants look a bit more curly than yours, though it's hard to : see. : ============ : Those are weeds the cotton is real hard to see. : : Are they Roundup-resistant? : : The cotton is in rows, regularly spaced. : : One or two plants are only half as high as the others, but I think that : that is happening on your `conventional' field, too. Yes they are just comeing after a week of rain. Many fields were lost to seedling disease that has nothing to to with GM cotton but is a funciton of cold wet weater. The reason the convential till looks better is the ground was worked up to a powder and the rain packed it down so the seed was very close to the surface and it poped right out of the ground days eariler than the normal conventional and no till fields around it. It was the best stand out there and it was planted the afternoon it rained. Nomaly that cotton never makes it up. It was the only cotton from that planting the farmer saved. Seedling disease got the rest. : : As well as looking a bit less curly your non-GM plants are a darker green, : less yellow than the GM ones. How much of that is due to moisture storage : by the mulch, as opposed to some sort of residual effect of the Roundup : on the RR plants, or differences in film? I presume the film was the same. There is no differece from the RR resistance most of the differece is one is taken faceing west and on is take facing south and the convential till has been out of the ground a little longer and is greener from more photosyntisis and less disease problems. Gordon : : and : conventional till is mine on an alfalfa hay meadow that is coming : out of hay and into cotton. : : : What sort of cotton? GM? : : No it is conventional with resistatce to another heribcide that can be use : all season long. : : Interesting. Can it be no-till, then? : : : : Goodness, tremendous expanse with no wind break. Sun nearly directly : overhead. : ============= : If it doesn't rain soon it the sun will cook it. It hasn't raned in 5 weeks : and it 110f every day. : : That's nothing you shoud see the stuff in west Texas. Wind breaks use : moisture and with mositure the limiting factor you can't have trees close : enough togeter to do any good. : : That depends on any hot wind. A shelter belt or two can reduce wind : velocity right down for hundreds of meters, and so stop drying. Also their : roots go deeper and they bring up lower water which the cotton can't, and : they add it to the wind. : : Besides some of the substances trees give out help moisture to condense : form the air, maybe even rain. : : The only place any one put them was where a : neighbor let their land blow on them. : : We lost all the cotton there to a thunder sorm that beat 2 week old cotton : in the ground. We have poverty peas (soybeans) on it now. : : Then some trees, even if they stopped cotton growing in their immediate : vicinity, could still have been a productive crop, some insurance. : : : the other 3/4 of the farm is no till. : : What you are calling `no-till' is killing weeds with Roundup on : Roundup-Ready GM crops. : : Half will go in to alfalfa in the fall and the weeds will be controlled with : round up and other chemical all summer. I don't know what he plans to do : with the other half. : : Is the alfalfa RR, or just naturally resistanct to Roundup? |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 16:42:54 +0200, Torsten Brinch
wrote: On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 14:25:11 GMT, "Moosh:]" wrote: On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 15:39:30 +0200, Torsten Brinch wrote: On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 12:59:36 GMT, "Moosh:]" wrote: On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 11:06:02 +0200, Torsten Brinch wrote: On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 04:02:44 GMT, "Moosh:]" wrote: On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 00:06:14 +0200, Torsten Brinch wrote: On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 14:51:19 GMT, "Moosh:]" wrote: .. I've looked up the reference given and stand by my claim. "Rapidly" is perhaps a misleading word. Point is, you claim it breaks down rapidly in plants, while referencing that information to a source which says in some plants it remains bloody intact. "Bloodywell intact", Torsten, try to be grammatical :) Hello? There is inconsistency between your claim and the source to which you reference it. Deal with it. See below. Oh, and see the smiley. Are you a Fin? :) John Riley, is that you? Nope. Who's he? Never mind who he is. He used the same smiley, and knitted like a madwoman, much like you do. There's someone over on one of the bike groups with that name IIRC. Dunno about the knitting, but smilies are pretty common. I copied this one from seeing it used by others. It's the easiest to type :) It is not regarded as persistent in significant plants. From memory, corn was amongst these. Well, what can one say. That it doesn't hang about long in significant food plants. IIRC. Even if it does, so what? Over the years I've ferretted out scores of references and always come to a dead end as far as any harm goes. Can you mention any harm from glyphosate? |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 16:06:14 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote: "Moosh:]" wrote in message Not in the UK. Typically the value of small (say 1000T) of standing timber is approximately zero. Most places the highest value sale is for firewood. How about fruit, nuts? Barely viable for specialist producers, you have to have the right climate (which we don't except for damsons) and cheap labour for picking Fair enough. I believe it was just a suggestion. You could plant several types of trees, each working better in slightly different conditions. Trees are not rates for moisture loss. Best we have in Australia. Diversity is much better against troubles. Sometimes it is, sometimes not. If all your crop comes in at top price, but you know about eggs in baskets. The farmers who have survived here have been the ones who diversify. In jims case alternatives to grass are problematic. Fair enough. it was just a suggestion that has probably been thought of many times, and rejected. You can have the diversity within each farm, or else you use the govt to buffer against loss as with BSE, or both. Govt hates to pay farmers anything. They paid for bse primarily for public health reasons. Don't they pay you guys for NOT growing crops, like in the US and Europe? I hate to think who will bear the brunt of troubles with the huge GM reduced diversity scheme. Que? My comment to a tee. Que? Si! :) not in the UK, planting trees is a waste of time and is not economically viable unless you have an awful lot of land.Plant trees here and you would drive people off the land Absolutely. I doubt they would grow very well given your location anyway. If the wind didn't get them, the salt would. Abolutely NO tree crop able to be considered? not really, firstly we haven't the room, only 150 acres secondly the margin is too small on all of them, I cannot afford to sit and wait 15- 20 years before I see any income at all. thirdly the timber market in the UK is on the floor, fruit is imported from countries with better weather and cheap labour Yep, you (UK) are so close to cheap producers, I guess, where we are so far away from anything (except the tropics :) |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 17:14:05 +0000, "Uncle StoatWarbler"
wrote: On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 14:49:38 +0000, Moosh:] wrote: The moisture loss from green grass, trees and open water is similar. Really? Not in Australia, but then we use trees for lowering water table -- stopping salination. Eucalypts? Yes jarrah (E marginata) is one of the most effective, but most native trees here will do the trick. Ideally replace what was cut down earlier :) NZ has a tree called (IIRC) kahikatea. Juveniles only grow in swamps. Adults are only found in dried out areas which were formerly swamps. This is not coincidence. The only problem is they take several hundred years to do the job. Yep, for rehabilitation, the future has to be planned for. |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 19:35:15 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote: Just the opposite. There are many more beneficial insets since you don't have to spray for worms. Try reading something besides green propaganda. But Gordon, everything else is Monsanto propaganda produced by scientists worldwide who are in Monsanto's clutches :) |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
"Moosh:]" wrote in message ... Yep, you (UK) are so close to cheap producers, I guess, where we are so far away from anything (except the tropics :) not only that but if I planted broadleaves, my biggest worry was some environmental group would get tree preservation orders or similar slapped on them and i would never be able to fell them anyway, which makes their use as a crop pretty damned suspect Jim Webster |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 20:20:56 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote: "Moosh:]" wrote in message .. . On 27 Jul 2003 05:19:55 GMT, Brian Sandle wrote: Jim Webster wrote: "Oz" wrote in message ... Gordon Couger writes "Oz" wrote in message I suspect you may have a problem with jim's climate. It's a rare month indeed when transpiration exceeds precipitation. I wouldn't know what to do with that. I just want to get wells dug that make enough water that I don't care if it rains. Jim just want's field drains and ditches that can take it away quickly.. -- yes, I have land that I will not take cattle on between October and March, even though I can silage it in May. I do find it fascinating reading when everyone is discussing the advantages of no-till and struggling to retain soil moisture, round here ploughing is used to dry the land out a bit. You plough and let the sun and wind take away some of the moisture so you can get a tilth. Funny old world What are various types of trees like at extracting water from the ground? I suppose evergreens keep the sun off the land, but they might shelter animals from wind. I am thinking that the surface area of roots in contact with soil is greater than the area exposed to wind by ploughing. Then the leaves contact the wind. Also the trees could be a crop. You could plant several types of trees, each working better in slightly different conditions. Diversity is much better against troubles. You can have the diversity within each farm, or else you use the govt to buffer against loss as with BSE, or both. I hate to think who will bear the brunt of troubles with the huge GM reduced diversity scheme. The tree idea seems a good one, so long as Jim can keep his family alive with it. How is GM reducing biodiversity? Conventional breeding exploded diversity early on, then refined it to those varieties that the customer required. Where is the problem? If anything it increases biodiversity by being able to put the desirable traits into more crops instead of switching to the one crop that has that trait. For example the potato that was just found with resistant to the blight that depopulated Ireland and still costs millions today can be put in every cultivars instead of developing one resistant strain by conventional methods. But don't let the facts get in the way, Gordon :) |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 20:16:23 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote: "Moosh:]" wrote in message .. . On 25 Jul 2003 09:48:22 -0700, (Hua Kul) wrote: "Gordon Couger" wrote in message t... "Oz" wrote in message ... Hua Kul writes Another naif who seems to believe that governments and their regulations will save us. It was a British government regulation requiring cattle to be heavily dosed with organophosphate pesticides which may have triggered the BSE outbreak. See Mark Purdy's research. Had organophosphates caused it or fairies dancing ainti clockwise on the dark of a blue moon BSE is still no more than a fart in a hurricane in the problems of world health. Gordon You missed my point, which was that government actions (regarding *anything*, and no matter how well intentioned) can't be relied upon to protect us from much of anything, as you seemed to imply by your vague "testing" post. Elect a proper government, and it is the only thing that will protect you. The public are incapable of knowing the full story, the corporations are doing their job making money for their shareholders. An elected, effective regulator is the only thing left. The USDA does a very good job with food safety. Not as good as the guys in OZ they seem to have it down right. The FDA has a good record as well. Many think that they are too careful. I reckon they do a reasonable job considering. Although there are some who think they are too careful, there are many who think that they are in the pockets of Monsanto, et al. You still haven't addressed my larger point, posted in response to your challenge, that the pharmaceutical industries are intent upon using elements of our food production systems not to improve the food but to contaminate it for the purpose of increasing their profits, Their sole job in life! To do that job they must provide safe product. Well yes, that generally follows. But it is not a foregone conclusion. If shareholders returns are increased by cutting corners where possible, guess what will, and arguably should, happen A recall cuts deeply into those profits and the loss of pubilc turst puts them out of business. But that is the regulator doing its job. So many complain that the regulator is useless, and is taking kickbacks. I know a substantial number of people in the food producion and seed prodution business and every one is trying to make money by making the products that the market wants. That seems to be the logical way to succeed in the long haul. But those who do otherwise should (and usually do) get clobbered by the regulator. They don't risk their business by tying to make a few cents intentionaly adultring their products. Well no, not generally, but there was a large alternative pharmaceutical company here who let bad product through more and more with inadequate regulation which finally shut them down and prosecuted. If they get caugt intentionaly endangering the public the inspection system does not deal with them very kindly. Nope, and a good thing too. Both of us seem to agree that the regulator does a reasonable job in a very tough environment. If you are not pleasing everyone equally, you have it just about right :) and the demonstrated danger in that being the total contamination of an entire crop globally, as is happening with Monsanto's Starlink GM corn. If you don't like what they do, get your regulator to change its legislation. QED. To me that one example is enough to totally prohibit any GM changes, with the possibe exception of those changes that actually improve the nutrition, safety, or yield of the crop. What about chages that improve the crops impact on the envionement. Less erosion and less pesticide aren't those good for society as a whole. Absolutely. And I would hope that is take into account. Cotton account for 25% of the insecticde used it the the world. BT cotton can cut that by 50 to 100% will the world not be a better place if we use 12 to 20% less insceicide? Yep. Humans don't eat any protien from the cotton plant that hasn't be run throug a cow first becuse it is natuarly toxic to simple stomaced animal from cotton's own built in insecticide. Yep, we are at one mind :) |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 11:59:28 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote: "Moosh:]" wrote in message .. . Yep, you (UK) are so close to cheap producers, I guess, where we are so far away from anything (except the tropics :) not only that but if I planted broadleaves, my biggest worry was some environmental group would get tree preservation orders or similar slapped on them and i would never be able to fell them anyway, which makes their use as a crop pretty damned suspect You wonder what those buggers eat. Don't they realise that all food comes from farmers? :) |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
"Moosh:]" wrote in message ... On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 11:59:28 +0100, "Jim Webster" wrote: "Moosh:]" wrote in message .. . Yep, you (UK) are so close to cheap producers, I guess, where we are so far away from anything (except the tropics :) not only that but if I planted broadleaves, my biggest worry was some environmental group would get tree preservation orders or similar slapped on them and i would never be able to fell them anyway, which makes their use as a crop pretty damned suspect You wonder what those buggers eat. Don't they realise that all food comes from farmers? :) surely you know by now that food comes from supermarkets! I remember listening to the BBC radio when they had a Harvest festival and the clergy man asked the congregation to pray for the aid agencies who fed everyone Jim Webster |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:10:50 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote: "Moosh:]" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 11:59:28 +0100, "Jim Webster" wrote: "Moosh:]" wrote in message .. . Yep, you (UK) are so close to cheap producers, I guess, where we are so far away from anything (except the tropics :) not only that but if I planted broadleaves, my biggest worry was some environmental group would get tree preservation orders or similar slapped on them and i would never be able to fell them anyway, which makes their use as a crop pretty damned suspect You wonder what those buggers eat. Don't they realise that all food comes from farmers? :) surely you know by now that food comes from supermarkets! Damn! I forgot that. I remember listening to the BBC radio when they had a Harvest festival and the clergy man asked the congregation to pray for the aid agencies who fed everyone Good one! Thing that staggers me is how little of a pint of milk or a pound of beef you producers actually get. You lot seem to supply a cheap raw material for every other bugger to cop a markup on. I know you've tried to take action on this, but I suppose there is always a farmer in the next village who is hungrier and will cave in. You need something like a builders' union or a miners' union. Big and powerful that can fund you for a three month strike. |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
"Moosh:]" wrote in message ... On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:10:50 +0100, "Jim Webster" wrote: Good one! Thing that staggers me is how little of a pint of milk or a pound of beef you producers actually get. You lot seem to supply a cheap raw material for every other bugger to cop a markup on. I know you've tried to take action on this, but I suppose there is always a farmer in the next village who is hungrier and will cave in. You need something like a builders' union or a miners' union. Big and powerful that can fund you for a three month strike. in the UK supermarket chains make party donations, farmers don't. Also a three month strike at the right time of year, even if possible would lead to a collapse of western society because people would starve.Even if they imported the food, there isn't all that much food on the market (see what UK fmd outbreak did to beef prices in the first couple of weeks of the outbreak and UK is not a big beef producer in world terms) In the UK with a lorry drivers strike there was a panic and the supermarkets were nearly emptied overnight. I doubt there are the stocks of food in the country to stand a two week break in supply. Jim Webster |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 09:32:15 GMT, "Moosh:]"
wrote: On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 16:42:54 +0200, Torsten Brinch wrote: On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 14:25:11 GMT, "Moosh:]" wrote: On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 15:39:30 +0200, Torsten Brinch wrote: On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 12:59:36 GMT, "Moosh:]" wrote: On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 11:06:02 +0200, Torsten Brinch wrote: On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 04:02:44 GMT, "Moosh:]" wrote: On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 00:06:14 +0200, Torsten Brinch wrote: On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 14:51:19 GMT, "Moosh:]" wrote: .. I've looked up the reference given and stand by my claim. "Rapidly" is perhaps a misleading word. Point is, you claim it breaks down rapidly in plants, while referencing that information to a source which says in some plants it remains bloody intact. "Bloodywell intact", Torsten, try to be grammatical :) Hello? There is inconsistency between your claim and the source to which you reference it. Deal with it. See below. Oh, and see the smiley. Are you a Fin? :) John Riley, is that you? Nope. Who's he? Never mind who he is. He used the same smiley, and knitted like a madwoman, much like you do. There's someone over on one of the bike groups with that name IIRC. Dunno about the knitting, It is a very personal thing put words together -- you know, like a voice, fingerprints, or DNA profile. Your word-knitting is much like that of the John Riley I refer to, or should I say close to identical. but smilies are pretty common. I copied this one from seeing it used by others. It's the easiest to type :) It is not regarded as persistent in significant plants. From memory, corn was amongst these. Well, what can one say. That it doesn't hang about long in significant food plants. IIRC. Even if it does, so what? Over the years I've ferretted out scores of references and always come to a dead end as far as any harm goes. Can you mention any harm from glyphosate? |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
Torsten Brinch wrote:
That it doesn't hang about long in significant food plants. IIRC. Even if it does, so what? Over the years I've ferretted out scores of references and always come to a dead end as far as any harm goes. Can you mention any harm from glyphosate? Linkname: Glyphosate Factsheet (part 2 of 2) Caroline Cox / Journal of Pesticide Reform v.108, n.3 Fall98 rev.Oct00 URL: http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/R...sheet-Cox2.htm |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
On 28 Jul 2003 16:29:18 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote: Torsten Brinch wrote: That it doesn't hang about long in significant snip I didn't write that, Brian. |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
"Jim Webster" wrote in message ... "Moosh:]" wrote in message ... On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:10:50 +0100, "Jim Webster" wrote: Good one! Thing that staggers me is how little of a pint of milk or a pound of beef you producers actually get. You lot seem to supply a cheap raw material for every other bugger to cop a markup on. I know you've tried to take action on this, but I suppose there is always a farmer in the next village who is hungrier and will cave in. You need something like a builders' union or a miners' union. Big and powerful that can fund you for a three month strike. in the UK supermarket chains make party donations, farmers don't. Also a three month strike at the right time of year, even if possible would lead to a collapse of western society because people would starve.Even if they imported the food, there isn't all that much food on the market (see what UK fmd outbreak did to beef prices in the first couple of weeks of the outbreak and UK is not a big beef producer in world terms) In the UK with a lorry drivers strike there was a panic and the supermarkets were nearly emptied overnight. I doubt there are the stocks of food in the country to stand a two week break in supply. Even when we were a odds with the USSR we sold them wheat. My daughter-in-law, who is from mainland China, says as long as there is food and shelter the people will put up with almost anything. Look at the unrest in Africa where there is a food shortage. And the potential for war with India and Pakistan over who is the dominate power controlling agriculture in the area as the population outstrips the areas ability to produce food. Not to mention the religious problems involved. Empty stomachs make desperate people. We have a country primarily built on emigrants that were willing to walk in to a totaly unknown situation rather than stay where they were for one reason or another. Hunger was on strong motivator. Gordon Gordon |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
"Moosh:]" wrote in message ... On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 19:35:15 GMT, "Gordon Couger" wrote: Just the opposite. There are many more beneficial insets since you don't have to spray for worms. Try reading something besides green propaganda. But Gordon, everything else is Monsanto propaganda produced by scientists worldwide who are in Monsanto's clutches :) The USDA experiment stations are not in Monsanto's clutches nor are the US farmers. We buy what works. In face most seed breeders at universities are very bitter about the loss of public funding for crop breeding and if there is a bias it would be ageist private breeders. Monsanto's main problem is they didn't have a public relation effort on the benefits of GM crops for anything but the bottom line of the farmer. They should have capitalized on the reduction of erosion, insecticide use and use of less toxic herbicides and their positive effect on the environment. The whole scientific world was caught off guard by the lies that the green lobby used to line their pockets at the expense of the environment they claim to be protecting. Gordon |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
"Jim Webster" wrote in message ... "Moosh:]" wrote in message ... On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:10:50 +0100, "Jim Webster" wrote: Good one! Thing that staggers me is how little of a pint of milk or a pound of beef you producers actually get. You lot seem to supply a cheap raw material for every other bugger to cop a markup on. I know you've tried to take action on this, but I suppose there is always a farmer in the next village who is hungrier and will cave in. You need something like a builders' union or a miners' union. Big and powerful that can fund you for a three month strike. in the UK supermarket chains make party donations, farmers don't. Also a three month strike at the right time of year, even if possible would lead to a collapse of western society because people would starve.Even if they imported the food, there isn't all that much food on the market (see what UK fmd outbreak did to beef prices in the first couple of weeks of the outbreak and UK is not a big beef producer in world terms) In the UK with a lorry drivers strike there was a panic and the supermarkets were nearly emptied overnight. I doubt there are the stocks of food in the country to stand a two week break in supply. Even when we were a odds with the USSR we sold them wheat. My daughter-in-law, who is from mainland China, says as long as there is food and shelter the people will put up with almost anything. Look at the unrest in Africa where there is a food shortage. And the potential for war with India and Pakistan over who is the dominate power controlling agriculture in the area as the population outstrips the areas ability to produce food. Not to mention the religious problems involved. Empty stomachs make desperate people. We have a country primarily built on emigrants that were willing to walk in to a totaly unknown situation rather than stay where they were for one reason or another. Hunger was on strong motivator. Gordon Gordon |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
"Moosh:]" wrote in message ... On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 19:35:15 GMT, "Gordon Couger" wrote: Just the opposite. There are many more beneficial insets since you don't have to spray for worms. Try reading something besides green propaganda. But Gordon, everything else is Monsanto propaganda produced by scientists worldwide who are in Monsanto's clutches :) The USDA experiment stations are not in Monsanto's clutches nor are the US farmers. We buy what works. In face most seed breeders at universities are very bitter about the loss of public funding for crop breeding and if there is a bias it would be ageist private breeders. Monsanto's main problem is they didn't have a public relation effort on the benefits of GM crops for anything but the bottom line of the farmer. They should have capitalized on the reduction of erosion, insecticide use and use of less toxic herbicides and their positive effect on the environment. The whole scientific world was caught off guard by the lies that the green lobby used to line their pockets at the expense of the environment they claim to be protecting. Gordon |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 21:23:37 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote: ..GM crops .. reduction of erosion Myth: Since 1996 GM crops have enabled a huge shift to conservation tillage in USA. Fact: During the period from 1996 (before GM crops) to 2002 the percentage of cropland acres in conservation tillage in USA has remained nearly constant at 36-37 %. Over the same period the percentage of cropland in intensive tillage has increased from 38,5 % to 40,5 %. USA had 2.3 million more acres in intensive tillage in 2002 than it had in 1996 -- and 700,000 less acres in conservation tillage. |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message ... On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 21:23:37 GMT, "Gordon Couger" wrote: ..GM crops .. reduction of erosion Myth: Since 1996 GM crops have enabled a huge shift to conservation tillage in USA. Fact: During the period from 1996 (before GM crops) to 2002 the percentage of cropland acres in conservation tillage in USA has remained nearly constant at 36-37 %. Over the same period the percentage of cropland in intensive tillage has increased from 38,5 % to 40,5 %. USA had 2.3 million more acres in intensive tillage in 2002 than it had in 1996 -- and 700,000 less acres in conservation tillage. The G.M.O. debate aside, I can't say the same here. http://www.agr.gc.ca/pfra/sk/seeding_e.pdf Dean Ronn |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
Torsten Brinch wrote:
On 28 Jul 2003 16:29:18 GMT, Brian Sandle wrote: Torsten Brinch wrote: That it doesn't hang about long in significant snip I didn't write that, Brian. Sorry, no you quoted like that. And here is a bit from the other half of my last ref: Linkname: Glyphosate Factsheet (part 1 of 2) Caroline Cox / Journal of Pesticide Reform v.108, n.3 Fall98 rev.Oct00 URL: http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/R...tsheet-Cox.htm size: 808 lines Glyphosate Factsheet Part 1 of 2 [ Part 1 | Part 2 ] Caroline Cox / Journal of Pesticide Reform v.108, n.3 Fall98 rev.Oct00 Caroline Cox is JPR's editor. [...] Reproductive Effects Glyphosate exposure has been linked to reproductive problems in humans. A study in Ontario, Canada, found that fathers' use of glyphosate was associated with an increase in miscarriages and premature births in farm families.87 (See Figure 5.) In addition, a case report from the University of California discussed a student athlete who suffered abnormally frequent menstruation when she competed at tracks where glyphosate had been used.88 [...] Toxicology of Glyphosate's Major Metabolite In general, studies of the breakdown of glyphosate find only one metabolite, aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA).2 Although AMPA has low acute toxicity (its LD[50] is 8,300 mg/kg of body weight in rats),16 it causes a variety of toxicological problems. In subchronic tests on rats, AMPA caused an increase in the activity of an enzyme, lactic dehydrogenase, in both sexes; a decrease in liver weights in males at all doses tested; and excessive cell division in the lining of the urinary bladder in both sexes.16 AMPA is more persistent than glyphosate; studies in eight states found that the half-life in soil (the time required for half of the original concentration of a compound to break down or dissipate) was between 119 and 958 days.2 AMPA has been found in lettuce and barley planted a year after glyphosate treatment.90a Quality of Laboratory Testing Tests done on glyphosate to meet registration requirements have been associated with fraudulent practices. Laboratory fraud first made headlines in 1983 when EPA publicly announced that a 1976 audit had discovered "serious deficiencies and improprieties" in studies conducted by Industrial Biotest Laboratories (IBT)." Problems included "countless deaths of rats and mice" and "routine falsification of data."91 IBT was one of the largest laboratories performing tests in support of pesticide registrations.91 About 30 tests on glyphosate and glyphosate-containing products were performed by IBT, including 11 of the 19 chronic toxicology studies.92 A compelling example of the poor quality of IBT data comes from an EPA toxicologist who wrote, "It is also somewhat difficult not to doubt the scientific integrity of a study when the IBT stated that it took specimens from the uteri (of male rabbits for histopathological examination."93 (Emphasis added.) In 1991, EPA alleged that Craven Laboratories, a company that performed studies for 262 pesticide companies including Monsanto, had falsified tests.94 "Tricks" employed by Craven Labs included "falsifying laboratory notebook entries" and "manually manipulating scientific equipment to produce false reports."95 Roundup residue studies on plums, potatoes, grapes, and sugarbeets were among the tests in question.96 The following year, the owner of Craven Labs and three employees were indicted on 20 felony counts.97 The owner was sentenced to five years in prison and fined $50,000; Craven Labs was fined 15.5 million dollars, and ordered to pay 3.7 million dollars in restitution.95 Although the tests of glyphosate identified as fraudulent have been replaced, this fraud casts shadows on the entire pesticide registration process. Illegal Advertising In 1996, Monsanto Co. negotiated an agreement with the New York attorney general that required Monsanto to stop making certain health and environmental claims in ads for glyphosate products and pay the attorney general $50,000 in costs." Claims that glyphosate products are "safer than table salt,"98 safe for people, pets, and the environment, and degrade "soon after application " 98 were challenged by the attorney general because they are in violation of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the national pesticide law.98 According to the attorney-general, Monsanto had engaged in "false and misleading" advertising.98 In 1998, Monsanto Co. negotiated a similar agreement with the New York attorney-general about a different advertisement. The attorney general found that the advertisement featuring a horticulturist from the San Diego Zoo also was "false and misleading" because it implied to consumers that Roundup could be used (contrary to label directions) in and around water.98a Monsanto paid $75,000 in costs.98a EPA made a similar determination about Roundup ads in 1998, finding that they contained "false and misleading"98 claims and were in violation of FIFRA. However, EPA took no action and did not even notify Monsanto Co. about the determination because two years had elapsed between the time that the ads were submitted to EPA and the time that EPA made the determination99 [...] Ecological Effects Glyphosate can impact many organisms not intended as targets of the herbicide. The next two sections describe both direct mortality and indirect effects, through destruction of food or shelter. Figure 7 Impacts or Glyphosate on Nontarget Animals on Maine Clear-cuts [Roundup-Glyphosate-Factsheet-CoxF7.GIF] Santillo, D.J., D.M. Leslie, and P.W. Brown. 1989. Responses of small mammals and habitat to glyphosate application on clearcuts. J. Wildl. Manage. 53(1):164-172. Glyphosate treatment reduced invertebrate and small mammal populations for up to 3 years. Figure 8 Effect or Glyphosate on the Growth or Earthworms [Roundup-Glyphosate-Factsheet-CoxF8.GIF] Springer, J.A. and R.A.J. Gray. 1992. Effect of repeated low doses of biocides on the earthworm Aporrectodea caliginosa in laboratory culture. Soil Biol. Biochem. 24(12):1739-1744. Repeated applications of glyphosate reduce the growth of earthworms. [ Part 1 | Part 2 ] |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
Moosh:] writes
Good one! Thing that staggers me is how little of a pint of milk or a pound of beef you producers actually get. You lot seem to supply a cheap raw material for every other bugger to cop a markup on. I know you've tried to take action on this, but I suppose there is always a farmer in the next village who is hungrier and will cave in. You need something like a builders' union or a miners' union. Big and powerful that can fund you for a three month strike. Illegal under uk law. See cartels. -- 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 writes
not only that but if I planted broadleaves, my biggest worry was some environmental group would get tree preservation orders or similar slapped on them and i would never be able to fell them anyway, which makes their use as a crop pretty damned suspect Given your location I suspect that a felling license would never be given. You would have to fell it before it got to 6" diameter (or whatever is the max allowed diameter). That's even if it didn't get a TPO, but I suspect a TPO would be inevitable. Which is why no UK farmer with a brain cell plants trees any more. -- 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?
"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message ... On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 21:23:37 GMT, "Gordon Couger" wrote: ..GM crops .. reduction of erosion Myth: Since 1996 GM crops have enabled a huge shift to conservation tillage in USA. Fact: During the period from 1996 (before GM crops) to 2002 the percentage of cropland acres in conservation tillage in USA has remained nearly constant at 36-37 %. Over the same period the percentage of cropland in intensive tillage has increased from 38,5 % to 40,5 %. USA had 2.3 million more acres in intensive tillage in 2002 than it had in 1996 -- and 700,000 less acres in conservation tillage. I don't know what your calling conservation tillage, Torsten but your misinterpreting fact you don't understand again. Gordon |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 17:02:58 -0600, "Dean Ronn" @home wrote:
"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 21:23:37 GMT, "Gordon Couger" wrote: ..GM crops .. reduction of erosion Myth: Since 1996 GM crops have enabled a huge shift to conservation tillage in USA. Fact: During the period from 1996 (before GM crops) to 2002 the percentage of cropland acres in conservation tillage in USA has remained nearly constant at 36-37 %. Over the same period the percentage of cropland in intensive tillage has increased from 38,5 % to 40,5 %. USA had 2.3 million more acres in intensive tillage in 2002 than it had in 1996 -- and 700,000 less acres in conservation tillage. The G.M.O. debate aside, I can't say the same here. http://www.agr.gc.ca/pfra/sk/seeding_e.pdf So, but what -can- you say, there? From looking that report through briefly, I certainly get the impression of a sizeable increase in CSS (conservation seeding systems, see note), most clearly depictured in figure 4 showing an increase from 18% of fields in 1997 to 40 % of fields in 2002. Now, I am not quite sure, but this would be numbers for Saskatchewan? I wonder how has the development in GM crop area been there during the same period. Canada total 45 Mha arable, of which GM crops: 1997 1.68 1998 2.75 1999 4.01 2000 3.0 2001 3.5 2002 3.5 (Note: caveat with Canada-US data comparison - conservation seeding systems in the report you refer to is defined differently from conservation tillage in the US ag statistics) |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 08:12:30 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote: "Torsten Brinch" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 21:23:37 GMT, "Gordon Couger" wrote: ..GM crops .. reduction of erosion Myth: Since 1996 GM crops have enabled a huge shift to conservation tillage in USA. Fact: During the period from 1996 (before GM crops) to 2002 the percentage of cropland acres in conservation tillage in USA has remained nearly constant at 36-37 %. Over the same period the percentage of cropland in intensive tillage has increased from 38,5 % to 40,5 %. USA had 2.3 million more acres in intensive tillage in 2002 than it had in 1996 -- and 700,000 less acres in conservation tillage. I don't know what your calling conservation tillage, You are interested in tillage system for soil conservation in USA, and do not know the definition of 'conservation tillage' in your national tillage statistics? Gross. |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
Moosh:] wrote:
On 25 Jul 2003 15:01:43 GMT, Brian Sandle wrote: 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 :) Label it and find out. 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. An dsupposed usefulness is at the cost of extra risk. 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. Copper is an essential trace element. It is part of the respiratory enzyme ceruloplasmin. 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. As we discussed with DDT, anything used for too long breeds resistant creatures. When the pesticide is interrupted then resistance to it is no longer an advantage. So the non-resistant ones grow again and oust the resistant ones. Then DDT will work again, or Bt. But if it is there all the time resistance to it remains an advantage for pests. 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? There are always a few about, from the mandatory refuges, or other crops near by. 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? They didn't invent the original stuff. They `developed' it. In other words they are in a marketing mode. As Gordon says all that is wanted is money. In that respect the farmers are at the mercy of the `developers'. When resistance develops then there are recommended packages of pesticides to go with the product. Or when the plants are expending so much energy producing Bt all throughout them that they have less for fighting the other pests. 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. More per acre, better antioxidants for nutrition, less chemical cost, the only extra cost is a little more manpower and we needs jobs anyway. 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. I am talking about poeple who are looking for someting to eat. Why do they want to eat Bt protein right throughout the plant, whereas the organic producers sprayed it on the surface of the plant only if needed and it dispersed again before eating? 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? It has important nutrients for people eating `hamburgers' &c whatever you call those meat filled bread buns for a meal. The few vegetable things in them may the only source of vitamin C. |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
Moosh:] wrote:
On 22 Jul 2003 12:45:08 GMT, Brian Sandle wrote: To my knowledge they only test people with protein that they expect the GM plant to make. The actual plant could have the engineered promoters switching on other genes, causing troubles you would not be looking for. And do they look for unintended effects from mutations and cross pollinating? Possibly not as thoroughly as they ought. But those are not being applied to such a wide sector of people as RR & Bt stuff, which goes to nearly everyone in North America. When the tryptophan from GE sources killed some people it might not have been discovered if the symptoms were similar to some other lethal but fairly common disease. But that tryptophan affair was nothing to do with GE. If the govt thought that lack of purification could cause such a terrible thing what have they done about preventing future such things? Linkname: The Thalidomide of Genetic Engineering URL: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/tryptophan.php size: 199 lines Linkname: Speech by Jeanette Fitzsimons in Urgent debate on GE decision - 30OCT2001 URL: http://www.ecoglobe.org.nz/ge-news/rcgm1o30.htm size: 258 lines The Royal Commission has been lauded by some as balanced, thorough, informed, and many other plaudits. This was the same Royal Commission which told the representative of oneorganisation, before they had even made their presentation, that the Commission had already made their decision and it would be the Great NZ compromise. The same organisation, after handing in their written submission much earlier, found there was an error and asked to correct it. They were told it didn't matter as "no-one was going to read it anyway". In fact the Commission disregarded a great deal of evidence which did not support its conclusions and made numerous errors of fact - for example in its reporting and assessment of evidence about the poisoning of thousands by GE tryptophan I can list several cases of food stuffs that case harm bred with conventional methods an you can't list a single one with GM methods. They get withdrawn if they cause trouble that is plain obvious. Just like foods from plant mutations and cross-pollinating, only these are more likely Who is doing studies comparing recent health changes in countries with GM food compared to countries with non-GM? Who is ready for what may show up in the next generation? If you are going to use arguments use ones that you don't loose at the onset with proven facts. He means the promoters switching on unexpected gene expression in some conditions. Just like is happening in the wild every day? ? |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
In sci.med.nutrition Moosh:] wrote:
On 24 Jul 2003 05:04:37 GMT, Brian Sandle wrote: So you don't read Moosh:]'s articles, I have to economize somehwe **** From: "Moosh:]" Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition,nz.general,sci.agriculture Subject: Paying to find non-GE wild corn? Message-ID: Lines: 89 Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2003 11:54:52 GMT [...] In the junk DNA there is just about everything that has been tried, if it hasn't been harmlessly corrupted over the aeons. [...] **** That doesn't mean that it is a "memory bank" Just a repository for turned off sequences. What turns them on again is a moot point. Evolution isn't using these if needed, it is being lucky enough to have a random mutation that confers a survival benefit. And when all your non-mutated peers are dying from some environmental change (antibiotics) , you will outcompete them. But what if a mutation in the past had developed an ability to access the junk DNA under stress? Would that be as complex as developing eyes ears and advanced emotions by mutation? Where is there any evidence of this. I think you are getting carried away with the classifications again. If you run out of hosts you just find more Jump species? You would have to do that before you killed every last one of the previous species. which isn't a problem, those who prey on only one species are very much a minority Lots of viruses tend to be specific to certain classes of hosts. Calici haemorrhagic disease jumped to rabbits in 1970s in China, though I don't know why. Using pig organs in humans in concert with GM is a risk that pig viruses will jump and spread through the human population. What on earth does GM have to do with this? It happens whether or not, surely. Because GM enables more horizontal gene transfer outwitting the past regulatory mechanisms. |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
"Brian Sandle" wrote in message ... In sci.med.nutrition Moosh:] wrote: On 24 Jul 2003 05:04:37 GMT, Brian Sandle wrote: So you don't read Moosh:]'s articles, I have to economize somehwe **** From: "Moosh:]" Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition,nz.general,sci.agriculture Subject: Paying to find non-GE wild corn? Message-ID: Lines: 89 Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2003 11:54:52 GMT [...] In the junk DNA there is just about everything that has been tried, if it hasn't been harmlessly corrupted over the aeons. [...] **** That doesn't mean that it is a "memory bank" Just a repository for turned off sequences. What turns them on again is a moot point. Evolution isn't using these if needed, it is being lucky enough to have a random mutation that confers a survival benefit. And when all your non-mutated peers are dying from some environmental change (antibiotics) , you will outcompete them. But what if a mutation in the past had developed an ability to access the junk DNA under stress? Would that be as complex as developing eyes ears and advanced emotions by mutation? What if some thing that are now blue turn green on August 5th, 2005 and we have a new color bleen, blue that turns to green. You stabbing in the dark about thing you have no knowledge of. Do you trust propaganda machines more than scientist that spend their lives working in a field? Gordon |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
Gordon Couger wrote:
"Brian Sandle" wrote in message ... In sci.med.nutrition Moosh:] wrote: On 24 Jul 2003 05:04:37 GMT, Brian Sandle wrote: So you don't read Moosh:]'s articles, I have to economize somehwe **** From: "Moosh:]" Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition,nz.general,sci.agriculture Subject: Paying to find non-GE wild corn? Message-ID: Lines: 89 Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2003 11:54:52 GMT [...] In the junk DNA there is just about everything that has been tried, if it hasn't been harmlessly corrupted over the aeons. [...] **** That doesn't mean that it is a "memory bank" Just a repository for turned off sequences. What turns them on again is a moot point. Evolution isn't using these if needed, it is being lucky enough to have a random mutation that confers a survival benefit. And when all your non-mutated peers are dying from some environmental change (antibiotics) , you will outcompete them. But what if a mutation in the past had developed an ability to access the junk DNA under stress? Would that be as complex as developing eyes ears and advanced emotions by mutation? What if some thing that are now blue turn green on August 5th, 2005 and we have a new color bleen, blue that turns to green. You stabbing in the dark about thing you have no knowledge of. Do you trust propaganda machines more than scientist that spend their lives working in a field? I am not stabbing in the dark, I am trying to get Moosh:] thinking. Linkname: Molecular Genetic Engineers in Junk DNA? URL: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/MGEJ.php size: 183 lines [...] Perhaps only 1% of the human genome codes for genes, and that's what the human genome map contains. The rest is mainly repetitive DNA, commonly known as `junk DNA'. However, evidence has been emerging that lurking within junk DNA are armies of transposons (mobile genetic elements) that play an indispensable role in `natural genetic engineering' the genome. They make up nearly half of the human genome, and serve as `recombination hotspots' for cutting and splicing, and hence reshuffling the genome. They are also a source of ready to use motifs for gene expression, as well as new protein-coding sequences. These important transposons are scattered throughout the genome. There are two main categories: Long Interspersed Elements (LINEs) about 6.7 kilobasepairs in length and Short Interspersed Elements (SINEs) of several hundred basepairs. The most abundant SINEs are Alu elements, of which 1.4 million copies exist, comprising 10% of the human genome, and are apparently only found in primates. [...] There is increasing evidence that physical and chemical stresses to the cell, such as heat shock, chemical poisons and viral infections, tend to activate Alu elements. The resultant gene reshuffling may be responsible for a variety of chronic diseases (see "Dynamic genomics ", this series). |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:16:30 +0200, Torsten Brinch
wrote: On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 09:32:15 GMT, "Moosh:]" wrote: On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 16:42:54 +0200, Torsten Brinch wrote: On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 14:25:11 GMT, "Moosh:]" wrote: On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 15:39:30 +0200, Torsten Brinch wrote: On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 12:59:36 GMT, "Moosh:]" wrote: On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 11:06:02 +0200, Torsten Brinch wrote: On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 04:02:44 GMT, "Moosh:]" wrote: On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 00:06:14 +0200, Torsten Brinch wrote: On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 14:51:19 GMT, "Moosh:]" wrote: .. I've looked up the reference given and stand by my claim. "Rapidly" is perhaps a misleading word. Point is, you claim it breaks down rapidly in plants, while referencing that information to a source which says in some plants it remains bloody intact. "Bloodywell intact", Torsten, try to be grammatical :) Hello? There is inconsistency between your claim and the source to which you reference it. Deal with it. See below. Oh, and see the smiley. Are you a Fin? :) John Riley, is that you? Nope. Who's he? Never mind who he is. He used the same smiley, and knitted like a madwoman, much like you do. There's someone over on one of the bike groups with that name IIRC. Dunno about the knitting, It is a very personal thing put words together -- you know, like a voice, fingerprints, or DNA profile. Your word-knitting is much like that of the John Riley I refer to, or should I say close to identical. Perhaps he is an Australian like me? I see several Australians responding to Americans on different groups, and it sometimes seems to me as though I wrote their messages. My name is Jack Lawson, if it's helpful to you :) but smilies are pretty common. I copied this one from seeing it used by others. It's the easiest to type :) It is not regarded as persistent in significant plants. From memory, corn was amongst these. Well, what can one say. That it doesn't hang about long in significant food plants. IIRC. Even if it does, so what? Over the years I've ferretted out scores of references and always come to a dead end as far as any harm goes. Can you mention any harm from glyphosate? |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 14:34:29 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote: "Moosh:]" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:10:50 +0100, "Jim Webster" wrote: Good one! Thing that staggers me is how little of a pint of milk or a pound of beef you producers actually get. You lot seem to supply a cheap raw material for every other bugger to cop a markup on. I know you've tried to take action on this, but I suppose there is always a farmer in the next village who is hungrier and will cave in. You need something like a builders' union or a miners' union. Big and powerful that can fund you for a three month strike. in the UK supermarket chains make party donations, farmers don't. I understand this, but what always amazes me is that supermarkets don't vote. Also a three month strike at the right time of year, even if possible would lead to a collapse of western society because people would starve.Even if they imported the food, there isn't all that much food on the market (see what UK fmd outbreak did to beef prices in the first couple of weeks of the outbreak and UK is not a big beef producer in world terms) In the UK with a lorry drivers strike there was a panic and the supermarkets were nearly emptied overnight. I doubt there are the stocks of food in the country to stand a two week break in supply. Yes, I believe London has only a short survival time if food imports are cut. |
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
On 28 Jul 2003 16:29:18 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote: Torsten Brinch wrote: That it doesn't hang about long in significant food plants. IIRC. Even if it does, so what? Over the years I've ferretted out scores of references and always come to a dead end as far as any harm goes. Can you mention any harm from glyphosate? Linkname: Glyphosate Factsheet (part 2 of 2) Caroline Cox / Journal of Pesticide Reform v.108, n.3 Fall98 rev.Oct00 URL: http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/R...sheet-Cox2.htm Look at the source. "Pesticide Reform". Nuff said. But then look at some of the graphs here. Most misleading. Wouldn't pass the editor of any reputable journal. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:10 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter