Gordon Couger wrote:

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
Gordon Couger wrote:

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message Where are some other honest comparison photos?

I have never seen photos of comparing cotton that is just coming
comparing up with RR and conventional. The latest research I know
of shows RR varieties costing a few pounds of lint and BT
varieties adding about twice what RR costs. In my moisture limited
conditions in south west Oklahoma no one can see the difference.
[...]

I doubt that a set of photos on the internet exists that compares those
conditions.

Now I see why:

From `Multinational Monitor' Jan/Feb 2000

Technology Agreement
"[...]
But if the farmer chooses GM seed, such as Bt corn or Roundup Ready
soybeans, the seed dealer has the farmer sign a "Technology
Agreement" before leaving. Usually without even reading the document
-- and likely without understanding it -- the farmer signs the
contract and goes home.

[...]

The second Trouble Clause prohibits farmers from supplying seed to
any other person.


This provision does more than block third parties from acquiring
Monsanto's genetically altered seed without writing Monsanto a
check. It also prevents and punishes those who may try to do
independent research on the genetically modified crops without
Monsanto's express permission. Friendly university scientists with a
Monsanto relationship can gain access to seed for research -- but
scientists who may be critical of biotech can and likely will be
denied access.


The third Trouble Clause stipulates punitive damages for farmers who
violate Monsanto's decrees. Farmers who save the seed for replanting
must pay damages in the amount of 120 times the technology fee. This
is $3,000 in the case of corn -- far more than Monsanto would likely
be able to prove if it sought damages from farmers in court. This
part of the contract further makes farmers pay Monsanto's legal fees
and other costs of enforcement.

[...]"

And I guess comparing growth aspects would indeed be research.

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
Gordon Couger wrote:

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
Gordon Couger wrote:

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
Where are some other honest comparison photos?

I have never seen photos of comparing cotton that is just coming
comparing up with RR and conventional. The latest research I know
of shows RR varieties costing a few pounds of lint and BT
varieties adding about twice what RR costs. In my moisture limited
conditions in south west Oklahoma no one can see the difference.
[...]

I doubt that a set of photos on the internet exists that compares
those
conditions.

Now I see why:

From `Multinational Monitor' Jan/Feb 2000

Technology Agreement
"[...]
But if the farmer chooses GM seed, such as Bt corn or Roundup Ready
soybeans, the seed dealer has the farmer sign a "Technology
Agreement" before leaving. Usually without even reading the document
-- and likely without understanding it -- the farmer signs the
contract and goes home.

[...]

The second Trouble Clause prohibits farmers from supplying seed to
any other person.


This provision does more than block third parties from acquiring
Monsanto's genetically altered seed without writing Monsanto a
check. It also prevents and punishes those who may try to do
independent research on the genetically modified crops without
Monsanto's express permission. Friendly university scientists with a
Monsanto relationship can gain access to seed for research -- but
scientists who may be critical of biotech can and likely will be
denied access.


The third Trouble Clause stipulates punitive damages for farmers who
violate Monsanto's decrees. Farmers who save the seed for replanting
must pay damages in the amount of 120 times the technology fee. This
is $3,000 in the case of corn -- far more than Monsanto would likely
be able to prove if it sought damages from farmers in court. This
part of the contract further makes farmers pay Monsanto's legal fees
and other costs of enforcement.

[...]"

And I guess comparing growth aspects would indeed be research.

There is no problem getting Monsanto seed for research or a farmer doing his
own comparison. Every farmer knows what he is signing. You don't run a
business that controls millions of dollars worth of land and machinery and
not know what you are doing. You may claim that as a defense but a farmer in
the US that is still in business is not that dumb.

I farmed before breeders could protect their intellectual property and the
cotton progress was slow. As soon as the plant protection act passed there
was an immediate increase in choices private breeders had been holding back
waiting for it to pass. Cotton growers started getting the some of the
progress that hybrid corn farmer had been getting for years. Hybrid cotton
doesn't work as well as corn because you get so few seed per acre and the
hybrid vigor isn't there as it is in corn. The only reason they use it in
Asia is to protect their property.

If you don't like private breeders raise some funds for public breeders. My
state shut their cotton program down 10 years ago. Texas has one man working
on cotton. If the public sector won't do it you best be glad the private
sector does.

Gordon

Gordon Couger wrote:

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
From `Multinational Monitor' Jan/Feb 2000

Technology Agreement
"[...]
But if the farmer chooses GM seed, such as Bt corn or Roundup Ready
soybeans, the seed dealer has the farmer sign a "Technology
Agreement" before leaving. Usually without even reading the document
-- and likely without understanding it -- the farmer signs the
contract and goes home.

[...]

The second Trouble Clause prohibits farmers from supplying seed to
any other person.


This provision does more than block third parties from acquiring
Monsanto's genetically altered seed without writing Monsanto a
check. It also prevents and punishes those who may try to do
independent research on the genetically modified crops without
Monsanto's express permission. Friendly university scientists with a
Monsanto relationship can gain access to seed for research -- but
scientists who may be critical of biotech can and likely will be
denied access.


The third Trouble Clause stipulates punitive damages for farmers who
violate Monsanto's decrees. Farmers who save the seed for replanting
must pay damages in the amount of 120 times the technology fee. This
is $3,000 in the case of corn -- far more than Monsanto would likely
be able to prove if it sought damages from farmers in court. This
part of the contract further makes farmers pay Monsanto's legal fees
and other costs of enforcement.

[...]"

And I guess comparing growth aspects would indeed be research.

There is no problem getting Monsanto seed for research or a farmer doing his
own comparison. Every farmer knows what he is signing.

He is signing away his right to do research unless approved. Doing
one's own comparison is one thing but you cannot share that data with
others if you recognise a deficiency.

You don't run a
business that controls millions of dollars worth of land and machinery and
not know what you are doing. You may claim that as a defense but a farmer in
the US that is still in business is not that dumb.

I know they have to look in keeping with `trends'. They have to look a
good farmer, i.e. follow the subtle suggestion that farmers should have
tidy fields - no other plants in them at all.

I farmed before breeders could protect their intellectual property and the
cotton progress was slow. As soon as the plant protection act passed there
was an immediate increase in choices private breeders had been holding back
waiting for it to pass.

A real increase or a decrease? The choices were out there, many of them if
you went out to look for them. Then after patents I guess eveyone would
concentrate on fewer main varieties, sold by subtle pressures, too, maybe.

I read from the 1929 Encyclopaedia Brittanica about many types of cotton.
I suggest that modern spinning technology could be taking a look back at
them.

Crops were found to suit the local climate, then seasonal weather
variations would rarely diminish a crop by a quarter or third, never a
half.

Interesting the statement that the fiber takes almost nothing from the
soil.

Cotton growers started getting the some of the
progress that hybrid corn farmer had been getting for years. Hybrid cotton
doesn't work as well as corn because you get so few seed per acre and the
hybrid vigor isn't there as it is in corn. The only reason they use it in
Asia is to protect their property.

If you are talking about hybrids between new world and old world cotton
they are almost two different plants.


If you don't like private breeders raise some funds for public breeders. My
state shut their cotton program down 10 years ago. Texas has one man working
on cotton. If the public sector won't do it you best be glad the private
sector does.

I fear that too much work is going into the relatively small number of
breeds currently available.

In New Zealand there has been work to save species of birds from
extinction. There and eslewhere in the world it has been found that when a
bird population drops below about fifty then forever after the breeding is
closer to inbreeding and eggs are more likely to break. That has been
tested by deliberate inbreeding of small colonies which are not
endangered, too.

As well as diverse species of crop plants it is important to have
diversity of genetic potential within species I would say. I feel
governments, our representatives, are better able to manage such
situations if we persuade them. Private breeders will spread the currently
in vogue one or two vary widely, then what happens? And selecting from GM
experiments tends to produce much purer strains in certain respects of
lack, I would say.

In 1929 cotton breeds were always thought to have limited life.

Sakellarides, Mitafifi, Yannovitch, Kidney cotton, Pernambuco, Maranham,
Ceara, Aracaty, MaceioInnivelly, Broach, Hinganghai, Dharwar, Amraoti,
Bengal, Sin, Kumpta, Nurma or Deo, some names which might stimulate some
dreams in someone.

On 3 Aug 2003 03:58:04 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote:

Gordon Couger wrote:
I doubt that a set of photos on the internet exists that compares those
conditions.

.. Friendly university scientists with a
Monsanto relationship can gain access to seed for research -- but
scientists who may be critical of biotech can and likely will be
denied access.
..
And I guess comparing growth aspects would indeed be research.

I hope you are not suggesting Gordon is not friendly to Monsanto,
or critical of biotech in some way, or that he has no good relation
with Monsanto. Surely he could get seeds to put in some plots for some
photos.

On 1 Aug 2003 11:39:27 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

Moosh:] wrote:
On 29 Jul 2003 03:09:42 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

Gordon Couger wrote:

From: "Brian Sandle"
: 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.

http://www.couger.com/farm

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.

But is the disease resulting from the need for the plant to put more
energy into making the RR metabolizing protein?

Brian, please look at some plant biochemistry texts and see how
glyphosate resistance works and how protein expression takes
negligible energy from the plants normal processes. That's a greenie
scare tactic.

Or is the yellowness something else, too?

Lack of sunlight by comparison to the others, as he said. Plants need
sunlight to actually make chlorophyll


Linkname: Citizen's Vigil Exposes Bad Science in GM Crop Trial
URL: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/MunlochyVigil.php
size: 204 lines

[...]
"The control crop has substantial leafage and a closed canopy,
thus restricting the amount of light available for weeds to
grow," explained Anthony and Nigel. There was much more
variation among the plants in the GM crop. Many of the leaves
had turned yellow or had yellow edges. And one of the plants in
the GM field had started to flower, "probably four months
early".

In other words, the crop was showing typical signs of genetic
instability that has plagued many other GM crops (see "Scrambled
genome of RR soya" and other articles, ISIS News 9/10). This
alone would invalidate any findings from the field trials,
making the entire exercise pointless, particularly in the light
of the new European Directive governing deliberate release of GM
crops (see below).

The GM oilseed rape fiasco was reported in the local Highland
News at the beginning of December. Aventis' response was that
although the varieties used are "very similar", the GM crop was
of a "different" variety from the control, a fine example of
Orwellian `doublespeak'.

And no wonder, this particular GM oilseed rape was approved as
"substantially equivalent" (to non GM oilseed rape) by the
Scientific Committee on Plants in Europe. But that was before
the European Directive for deliberate release has been
substantially strengthened last year (see "Europe's new rules
could sink all GMOs" ISIS News 11/12 www.i-sis.org.uk). This
change of reference makes the farm-scale field trials obsolete,
because they are unlikely to pass muster for commercial approval
at the end.

According to the report by the Agriculture and Environment
Biotechnology Commission, the object of the farm-scale field
trials is not to find out if the GM crops are safe. Yield is
also not relevant measure, even though some farmer experiencing
such a drastic crop failure might well commit suicide. Both
those aspects have already been "approved by the regulatory
authorities". The farm-scale field trials are not designed to
answer all key questions about GM crops. Only "some key
indicators of biodiversity" will be monitored to see if there
are differences between the two halves of each field.

"This obviously makes a complete mockery of the science
involved." Anthony and Nigel rightly conclude. The scientists
who have approved such crops should be held to proper account.


Where are some other honest comparison photos?

Of what?

You can't deny the instabilities.

What instabilities?

This is such a crock. Are these comparisons of the same strain?

On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 11:42:00 GMT, "Moosh:]"
wrote:
On 1 Aug 2003 11:39:27 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

Moosh:] wrote:
On 29 Jul 2003 03:09:42 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

Gordon Couger wrote:

From: "Brian Sandle"
: 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.

http://www.couger.com/farm
..
Where are some other honest comparison photos?

http://www.weeds.iastate.edu/weednews/monsantoad.jpg

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
Gordon Couger wrote:

You don't run a
business that controls millions of dollars worth of land and machinery
and
not know what you are doing. You may claim that as a defense but a
farmer in
the US that is still in business is not that dumb.

I know they have to look in keeping with `trends'. They have to look a
good farmer, i.e. follow the subtle suggestion that farmers should have
tidy fields - no other plants in them at all.

rubbish, financial viability is far more important than that. No one is
respected by their neighbours for going bust


I farmed before breeders could protect their intellectual property and
the
cotton progress was slow. As soon as the plant protection act passed
there
was an immediate increase in choices private breeders had been holding
back
waiting for it to pass.

A real increase or a decrease? The choices were out there, many of them if
you went out to look for them. Then after patents I guess eveyone would
concentrate on fewer main varieties, sold by subtle pressures, too, maybe.

I read from the 1929 Encyclopaedia Brittanica about many types of cotton.
I suggest that modern spinning technology could be taking a look back at
them.

did the 1929 Encyclopaedia Brittanica mention any yield figures or disease
resistance? Spinners can want what they want but if it cannot be grown
economically they will not get it

Jim Webster

"Moosh:]" wrote in message
...
On 1 Aug 2003 11:39:27 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

Moosh:] wrote:
On 29 Jul 2003 03:09:42 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

Gordon Couger wrote:

From: "Brian Sandle"
: 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.

http://www.couger.com/farm

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.

But is the disease resulting from the need for the plant to put more
energy into making the RR metabolizing protein?

Brian, please look at some plant biochemistry texts and see how
glyphosate resistance works and how protein expression takes
negligible energy from the plants normal processes. That's a greenie
scare tactic.

Or is the yellowness something else, too?

Lack of sunlight by comparison to the others, as he said. Plants need
sunlight to actually make chlorophyll


Linkname: Citizen's Vigil Exposes Bad Science in GM Crop Trial
URL: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/MunlochyVigil.php
size: 204 lines

[...]
"The control crop has substantial leafage and a closed canopy,
thus restricting the amount of light available for weeds to
grow," explained Anthony and Nigel. There was much more
variation among the plants in the GM crop. Many of the leaves
had turned yellow or had yellow edges. And one of the plants in
the GM field had started to flower, "probably four months
early".

In other words, the crop was showing typical signs of genetic
instability that has plagued many other GM crops (see "Scrambled
genome of RR soya" and other articles, ISIS News 9/10). This
alone would invalidate any findings from the field trials,
making the entire exercise pointless, particularly in the light
of the new European Directive governing deliberate release of GM
crops (see below).

The GM oilseed rape fiasco was reported in the local Highland
News at the beginning of December. Aventis' response was that
although the varieties used are "very similar", the GM crop was
of a "different" variety from the control, a fine example of
Orwellian `doublespeak'.

And no wonder, this particular GM oilseed rape was approved as
"substantially equivalent" (to non GM oilseed rape) by the
Scientific Committee on Plants in Europe. But that was before
the European Directive for deliberate release has been
substantially strengthened last year (see "Europe's new rules
could sink all GMOs" ISIS News 11/12 www.i-sis.org.uk). This
change of reference makes the farm-scale field trials obsolete,
because they are unlikely to pass muster for commercial approval
at the end.

According to the report by the Agriculture and Environment
Biotechnology Commission, the object of the farm-scale field
trials is not to find out if the GM crops are safe. Yield is
also not relevant measure, even though some farmer experiencing
such a drastic crop failure might well commit suicide. Both
those aspects have already been "approved by the regulatory
authorities". The farm-scale field trials are not designed to
answer all key questions about GM crops. Only "some key
indicators of biodiversity" will be monitored to see if there
are differences between the two halves of each field.

"This obviously makes a complete mockery of the science
involved." Anthony and Nigel rightly conclude. The scientists
who have approved such crops should be held to proper account.


Where are some other honest comparison photos?

Of what?

You can't deny the instabilities.

What instabilities?

This is such a crock. Are these comparisons of the same strain?

No, they aren't of the same variety I explained that some time ago.

Gordon

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
Gordon Couger wrote:

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
From `Multinational Monitor' Jan/Feb 2000

Technology Agreement
"[...]
But if the farmer chooses GM seed, such as Bt corn or Roundup Ready
soybeans, the seed dealer has the farmer sign a "Technology
Agreement" before leaving. Usually without even reading the document
-- and likely without understanding it -- the farmer signs the
contract and goes home.

[...]

The second Trouble Clause prohibits farmers from supplying seed to
any other person.


This provision does more than block third parties from acquiring
Monsanto's genetically altered seed without writing Monsanto a
check. It also prevents and punishes those who may try to do
independent research on the genetically modified crops without
Monsanto's express permission. Friendly university scientists with a
Monsanto relationship can gain access to seed for research -- but
scientists who may be critical of biotech can and likely will be
denied access.


The third Trouble Clause stipulates punitive damages for farmers who
violate Monsanto's decrees. Farmers who save the seed for replanting
must pay damages in the amount of 120 times the technology fee. This
is $3,000 in the case of corn -- far more than Monsanto would likely
be able to prove if it sought damages from farmers in court. This
part of the contract further makes farmers pay Monsanto's legal fees
and other costs of enforcement.

[...]"

And I guess comparing growth aspects would indeed be research.

There is no problem getting Monsanto seed for research or a farmer doing
his
own comparison. Every farmer knows what he is signing.

He is signing away his right to do research unless approved. Doing
one's own comparison is one thing but you cannot share that data with
others if you recognise a deficiency.

You don't run a
business that controls millions of dollars worth of land and machinery
and
not know what you are doing. You may claim that as a defense but a
farmer in
the US that is still in business is not that dumb.

I know they have to look in keeping with `trends'. They have to look a
good farmer, i.e. follow the subtle suggestion that farmers should have
tidy fields - no other plants in them at all.

I farmed before breeders could protect their intellectual property and
the
cotton progress was slow. As soon as the plant protection act passed
there
was an immediate increase in choices private breeders had been holding
back
waiting for it to pass.

A real increase or a decrease? The choices were out there, many of them if
you went out to look for them. Then after patents I guess eveyone would
concentrate on fewer main varieties, sold by subtle pressures, too, maybe.

I read from the 1929 Encyclopaedia Brittanica about many types of cotton.
I suggest that modern spinning technology could be taking a look back at
them.

Crops were found to suit the local climate, then seasonal weather
variations would rarely diminish a crop by a quarter or third, never a
half.

Interesting the statement that the fiber takes almost nothing from the
soil.

Cotton growers started getting the some of the
progress that hybrid corn farmer had been getting for years. Hybrid
cotton
doesn't work as well as corn because you get so few seed per acre and
the
hybrid vigor isn't there as it is in corn. The only reason they use it
in
Asia is to protect their property.

If you are talking about hybrids between new world and old world cotton
they are almost two different plants.


If you don't like private breeders raise some funds for public breeders.
My
state shut their cotton program down 10 years ago. Texas has one man
working
on cotton. If the public sector won't do it you best be glad the
private
sector does.

I fear that too much work is going into the relatively small number of
breeds currently available.

In New Zealand there has been work to save species of birds from
extinction. There and eslewhere in the world it has been found that when a
bird population drops below about fifty then forever after the breeding is
closer to inbreeding and eggs are more likely to break. That has been
tested by deliberate inbreeding of small colonies which are not
endangered, too.

As well as diverse species of crop plants it is important to have
diversity of genetic potential within species I would say. I feel
governments, our representatives, are better able to manage such
situations if we persuade them. Private breeders will spread the currently
in vogue one or two vary widely, then what happens? And selecting from GM
experiments tends to produce much purer strains in certain respects of
lack, I would say.

In 1929 cotton breeds were always thought to have limited life.

Sakellarides, Mitafifi, Yannovitch, Kidney cotton, Pernambuco, Maranham,
Ceara, Aracaty, MaceioInnivelly, Broach, Hinganghai, Dharwar, Amraoti,
Bengal, Sin, Kumpta, Nurma or Deo, some names which might stimulate some
dreams in someone.

I am talking about varieties not breeds. Hybrid are among varieties.

Discussions with you are pointless you don't understand the language.

Gordon

On 3 Aug 2003 03:58:04 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

Gordon Couger wrote:

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
Gordon Couger wrote:

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message Where are some other honest comparison photos?

I have never seen photos of comparing cotton that is just coming
comparing up with RR and conventional. The latest research I know
of shows RR varieties costing a few pounds of lint and BT
varieties adding about twice what RR costs. In my moisture limited
conditions in south west Oklahoma no one can see the difference.
[...]

I doubt that a set of photos on the internet exists that compares those
conditions.

Now I see why:

From `Multinational Monitor' Jan/Feb 2000

Technology Agreement
"[...]
But if the farmer chooses GM seed, such as Bt corn or Roundup Ready
soybeans, the seed dealer has the farmer sign a "Technology
Agreement" before leaving. Usually without even reading the document

No excuse in law. A business man who signs something without reading
it is doomed to bankruptcy.

-- and likely without understanding it -- the farmer signs the
contract and goes home.

So? When you buy or use most software, you "sign" an agreement.
If you don't like it, don't buy it. You keep assuming that anyone is
forced to buy.

[...]

The second Trouble Clause prohibits farmers from supplying seed to
any other person.

With another person's technology. Fair enough. If you want to give
your property away, you are free to do so.

This provision does more than block third parties from acquiring
Monsanto's genetically altered seed without writing Monsanto a
check. It also prevents and punishes those who may try to do
independent research on the genetically modified crops without
Monsanto's express permission.

Fair enough. It is their property. If you want to do that, experiment
on your own property. You are not allowed to modify software you use,
either.

Friendly university scientists

Weighted emotive language noted.

with a
Monsanto relationship can gain access to seed for research

As with Ford or GM products, and technology.

-- but
scientists who may be critical of biotech can and likely will be
denied access.

They can make their own. If these "friendly" scientists make
fraudulent claims, they will be shown up by their peers.

The third Trouble Clause stipulates punitive damages for farmers who
violate Monsanto's decrees.

Of course. This is common in tort law.

Farmers who save the seed for replanting
must pay damages in the amount of 120 times the technology fee.

If the agreement they signed freely, coz they wanted the Monsanto
product, says this, then that is perfectly justified. If they don't
like it, don't buy it in the first place.

This
is $3,000 in the case of corn -- far more than Monsanto would likely
be able to prove if it sought damages from farmers in court.

This is contract law here, not tort law.

This
part of the contract further makes farmers pay Monsanto's legal fees
and other costs of enforcement.

If the contract says anything you disagreee with, don't sign it,
simple. Sheeesh!

And I guess comparing growth aspects would indeed be research.

Perhaps only if you publish, if that's what the contract says. The
contact does not have to be fair, BTW.

On 3 Aug 2003 10:18:13 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

Interesting the statement that the fiber takes almost nothing from the
soil.

Well as the fibre is almost pure cellulose (poly glucose)
What did you think it takes? Same with vegetable oils.

On 3 Aug 2003 10:18:13 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

As well as diverse species of crop plants it is important to have
diversity of genetic potential within species I would say. I feel
governments, our representatives, are better able to manage such
situations if we persuade them. Private breeders will spread the currently
in vogue one or two vary widely, then what happens? And selecting from GM
experiments tends to produce much purer strains in certain respects of
lack, I would say.

I think you imagine this.

If you want to preserve a lot of varieties, then contribute to seed
saving groups.

On 3 Aug 2003 10:18:13 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

I fear that too much work is going into the relatively small number of
breeds currently available.

Then make a collection of varietal seeds. This has nothing to do with
GM.

On 3 Aug 2003 10:18:13 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

In 1929 cotton breeds were always thought to have limited life.

They still do, don't they?

"Moosh:]" wrote in message
...
On 3 Aug 2003 10:18:13 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

Interesting the statement that the fiber takes almost nothing from the
soil.

Well as the fibre is almost pure cellulose (poly glucose)
What did you think it takes? Same with vegetable oils.

For every pound of cotton there is 1.6 pounds of seed that is 20 some
percent protein and has a high oil content. A top yielding cotton crop can
take 80 bushes of seed to the acre off as well. That's were the fertilizer
goes. It is not as high in fertilizer needs as many crops and if you get too
much nitrogen it will not make fruit at all. But it is not a free crop.

At dryland yields of 300 pounds to the acre it is difficult to get an
economic response to fertilizer.

Gordon