Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Bt pesticide resistance
On 27 Aug 2003 06:08:42 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted: In sci.med.nutrition Mooshie peas wrote: On 24 Aug 2003 03:23:31 GMT, Brian Sandle posted: Mooshie peas wrote: On 20 Aug 2003 06:11:20 GMT, Brian Sandle posted: In sci.agriculture Mooshie peas wrote: On 17 Aug 2003 12:53:23 GMT, Brian Sandle posted: Why do you think the NZ Royal Commission recommended education about refuges before releasing GM crops? The NZ RC has a bad taste in it's mouth after that lady professor lied to them with phony evidence. No she didn't. Yes she did. She worked in the subject, and understands it. And lied about results she claimed to a Royal Commission. Both you and Gordon are claiming that and not backing it up. It was in all the newspapers. I suspect you are confusing it with another incident. I wonder why someone who was so understanding of the subject needed to do this. As you showed on sci.med.nutrition you even thought fish oil capsules are mainly peanut oil. No, I suggsted that the balance of oils in an oil capsule would be the cheapst available, and peanut oil is a very common pharmaceutical vehicle. The poster was asking what the balance would be from the labelled ingredients. I still don't know that it is all fish oil, as if it makes any difference. What has this to do with lying about scientific evidence to a Royal Commission? It has to do with how confused you are and so how you might be confused in other ways. Confused in what way? I suggested a cheap oil for the balance of an oil capsule. The questioner asked what the balance might be. Again, what does this have to do with lying about scientific evidence to a Royal Commission? And the refuges are mandatory in the US. But the seed companies may not be insistant that they are applied since it means they only sell half the GM seed. Aren't the refuges for pest predators? Why would you want refuges for the pests? So there is a refuge of non-resistant pests to breed with resistant ones to reduce overall resistance. With organic Bt spray it is applied in years when the pests are a problem. In the intervening time when Bt is not being applied having Bt resistant genes is not an advantage, so the non-resistant ones increase and the next application of Bt when needed will cut them well back again. So what if intervening years have heavy pest predation too? You continue with the up and down levels of pesticide? The organic folk spray it all the time, It is an important spray for them when significant pests are present, it is not used all the time. No, when the pests are doing damage. (IPM) And the BT expressed is not causing resistance if no pests are present. The Bt gradually reduces strength as the plant ages. Just like happens after EVERY application of the pesticide. How many times is it applied? Pests are still there. Organophosphate sprays have to be used to protect the cotton late stage. Or even applied BT? So what? So you have both pests and low strength Bt, ideal conditions for resistance to be selected. Like happens after EVER application of BT. they haven't anything else. Organic farming is going big commercial so some very good practices such as companion planting Doesn't work, sorry. It may not produce totally unblemished crop, but where you can planting pyrethrum will dsicourage some pests &c. Pests on the pyrethrum plant, perhaps, but show us any valid evidence that companion planting works. Of course, the companion plant that expresses the pesticide continually will result in pesticide resistance, according to you, but it will also reduce yield from the land in which it is grown. and using other plants to discourage pests are not getting propoer attention. What evidence have you got for this claim. Last I heard there was nothing in it. Wishful thinking. Don't tell them that it is GM That is a bit of a worry. Why? Its a very useful manufacturing technique. Do we have GM yeasts in our bread? No idea. What is the relevance? Quite a few microbiological productive processes are using GM bacteria. Note what happened with the tryptophan produced by GM. Nothing out of the ususal, except the factory took a short cut on quality control, and let a toxic byproduct through and poisoned some people with a well known poison. We don't know that till the company releases its data. And they have and we do. I think such purifiaction as it was getting has always been sufficient with the non-GM approach. Are you claiming there has never been any similar failures of quality control with bacterial production processes? What maiming and deaths have been made public? You're telling the story. Whenever there is a factory accident resulting in harm, the press are all over it like a rash, IME. However in New Zealand the public were assured the moth spray does not have GM. What does that mean? Does protein "A", produced by naturally occurring bacteria, and protein "A" produced by GM bacteria have any differences? I suppose it depends to some extent on purification. No, the protein expresed? This is a pure substance. If other proteins are expressed, this is irrelevant to this "thought" question. It's no use claming something is 99% pure when it has a poison which has effects at 0.01%. What protein expression expresses this "impure protein"? If a process produces (not expresses) a toxin, it must be removed by the manufacturing process. Nothing to do with the question I posed. I presume that is the Btk as well as the soy and corn medium it grows in when sprayed. What? Has NO connection with any GM process? |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
PROMISING OUTLOOK FOR FUSARIUM WILT RESISTANCE IN PEAS | sci.agriculture | |||
Farmers likely to shy away from Bt cotton - Unhappy over low bollworm resistance | sci.agriculture | |||
Farmers likely to shy away from Bt cotton — Unhappy over low bollworm resistance | sci.agriculture | |||
[Fwd: Widely Used Crop Herbicide Is Losing Weed Resistance] | sci.agriculture | |||
Farmers likely to shy away from Bt cotton — Unhappy over low bollworm resistance | sci.agriculture |