Jim Webster wrote:
funny that
tonnes of GM maize have been imported into Europe and no one has noticed any
difference

perhaps these differences only occur when witnessed by people a long way
away?

Then to see how much discrimination there is does the beef market note any
difference between animals fed on maize silage vs grass silage?

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
Jim Webster wrote:
funny that
tonnes of GM maize have been imported into Europe and no one has noticed
any
difference

perhaps these differences only occur when witnessed by people a long way
away?

Then to see how much discrimination there is does the beef market note any
difference between animals fed on maize silage vs grass silage?

In UK maize is more likely to be fed to beef animals as gluten than silage,
maize silage is more likely to be used for high yielding dairy cows where
any problems would be noticed pretty well instantly

Jim Webster

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
Jim Webster wrote:
funny that
tonnes of GM maize have been imported into Europe and no one has noticed
any
difference

perhaps these differences only occur when witnessed by people a long way
away?

Then to see how much discrimination there is does the beef market note any
difference between animals fed on maize silage vs grass silage?

In UK maize is more likely to be fed to beef animals as gluten than silage,
maize silage is more likely to be used for high yielding dairy cows where
any problems would be noticed pretty well instantly

Jim Webster

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
Jim Webster wrote:
funny that
tonnes of GM maize have been imported into Europe and no one has noticed
any
difference

perhaps these differences only occur when witnessed by people a long way
away?

Then to see how much discrimination there is does the beef market note any
difference between animals fed on maize silage vs grass silage?

In UK maize is more likely to be fed to beef animals as gluten than silage,
maize silage is more likely to be used for high yielding dairy cows where
any problems would be noticed pretty well instantly

Jim Webster

Jim Webster wrote:

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
Jim Webster wrote:
funny that
tonnes of GM maize have been imported into Europe and no one has noticed
any
difference

perhaps these differences only occur when witnessed by people a long way
away?

Then to see how much discrimination there is does the beef market note any
difference between animals fed on maize silage vs grass silage?

In UK maize is more likely to be fed to beef animals as gluten than silage,
maize silage is more likely to be used for high yielding dairy cows where
any problems would be noticed pretty well instantly

Then how about milk differences between grass-silage and corn-silage fed
cows? Taste and keeping/nutritional qualities?

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

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
Jim Webster wrote:
funny that
tonnes of GM maize have been imported into Europe and no one has
noticed
any
difference

perhaps these differences only occur when witnessed by people a long
way
away?

Then to see how much discrimination there is does the beef market note
any
difference between animals fed on maize silage vs grass silage?

In UK maize is more likely to be fed to beef animals as gluten than
silage,
maize silage is more likely to be used for high yielding dairy cows
where
any problems would be noticed pretty well instantly

Then how about milk differences between grass-silage and corn-silage fed
cows? Taste and keeping/nutritional qualities?

by the time milk has been pasturised, homogenised, standardised, you haven't
a cat in hells chance of telling.
Bigger difference between grass and silage, spring and winter than there is
between various winter feeds. Remember that the nutrition of a high
yielding dairy cow is a serious matter and carefully monitored.

Jim Webster

Jim Webster wrote:

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message

Then how about milk differences between grass-silage and corn-silage fed
cows? Taste and keeping/nutritional qualities?

by the time milk has been pasturised, homogenised, standardised, you haven't
a cat in hells chance of telling.
Bigger difference between grass and silage, spring and winter than there is
between various winter feeds. Remember that the nutrition of a high
yielding dairy cow is a serious matter and carefully monitored.


Linkname: Rapport-skabelon
URL: http://www.agrsci.dk/ark/ARK-arsberetning2002_uk.shtml
size: 213 lines

[...]
Over the last couple of years maize has become increasingly popular in
the Danish silage production at the expense of grass because of a
better profitability. Therefore studies have been initiated to
investigate what consequences it has on different quality parameters
of milk to feed dairy cows maize silage instead of grass silage.

Milk from cows in an experiment with two groups of cows fed maize and
grass silage, respectively, in a cross-over experimental design for 2
x 4 weeks was subsequently analysed for:
* fatty acid composition
* content of carotenoids
* content of vitamin E

Furthermore, we have analysed sensory characteristics in fresh and
stored milk from the cows fed maize and grass silage, respectively.

The results of these investigations show, that feeding with maize
silage reduces the amount of the polyunsaturated fatty acid linolenic
acid in the milk, and at the same time the content of vitamin E and
beta-carotene is reduced with approximately 50% and 62%, respectively,
compared to milk from cows fed grass silage. Both vitamin E and
beta-carotene are important antioxidants that preserve the freshness
of milk, and therefore it should be assumed that a great reduction of
these antioxidants will reduce the shelf-life of milk as well as other
dairy products considerably.

The sensory analyses of the milk showed a significant difference
between the taste of milk from cows fed maize silage compared with the
milk from cows fed grass silage. Thus, the sensory panel described the
milk from cows fed maize silage as creamy, sweet and tasting like corn
flakes, which are all perceived as positive descriptors, whereas the
panel used descriptors about the milk from cows fed grass silage that
usually associate with negative tastes.
[...]

And other studies give grass-silage-fed cows as giving milk higher in the
cancer-protective conjugated linolenic acid, and other matters.

I used to notice the varying tastes in milk when I used it (pasteurised).

A few years ago I noted that full cream non-homogenised bottled milk had
started to have its top milk turned to butter by the time it was
delivered. In earlier years it was possible to pour off the top milk.
Perhaps corn feeding was increasing here?

But my point is that if you don't notice any of those differences then
perhaps your perceptivity might not be trusted as to differences between
cows reactions to GM vs non-GM feed.

Jim Webster wrote:

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message

Then how about milk differences between grass-silage and corn-silage fed
cows? Taste and keeping/nutritional qualities?

by the time milk has been pasturised, homogenised, standardised, you haven't
a cat in hells chance of telling.
Bigger difference between grass and silage, spring and winter than there is
between various winter feeds. Remember that the nutrition of a high
yielding dairy cow is a serious matter and carefully monitored.


Linkname: Rapport-skabelon
URL: http://www.agrsci.dk/ark/ARK-arsberetning2002_uk.shtml
size: 213 lines

[...]
Over the last couple of years maize has become increasingly popular in
the Danish silage production at the expense of grass because of a
better profitability. Therefore studies have been initiated to
investigate what consequences it has on different quality parameters
of milk to feed dairy cows maize silage instead of grass silage.

Milk from cows in an experiment with two groups of cows fed maize and
grass silage, respectively, in a cross-over experimental design for 2
x 4 weeks was subsequently analysed for:
* fatty acid composition
* content of carotenoids
* content of vitamin E

Furthermore, we have analysed sensory characteristics in fresh and
stored milk from the cows fed maize and grass silage, respectively.

The results of these investigations show, that feeding with maize
silage reduces the amount of the polyunsaturated fatty acid linolenic
acid in the milk, and at the same time the content of vitamin E and
beta-carotene is reduced with approximately 50% and 62%, respectively,
compared to milk from cows fed grass silage. Both vitamin E and
beta-carotene are important antioxidants that preserve the freshness
of milk, and therefore it should be assumed that a great reduction of
these antioxidants will reduce the shelf-life of milk as well as other
dairy products considerably.

The sensory analyses of the milk showed a significant difference
between the taste of milk from cows fed maize silage compared with the
milk from cows fed grass silage. Thus, the sensory panel described the
milk from cows fed maize silage as creamy, sweet and tasting like corn
flakes, which are all perceived as positive descriptors, whereas the
panel used descriptors about the milk from cows fed grass silage that
usually associate with negative tastes.
[...]

And other studies give grass-silage-fed cows as giving milk higher in the
cancer-protective conjugated linolenic acid, and other matters.

I used to notice the varying tastes in milk when I used it (pasteurised).

A few years ago I noted that full cream non-homogenised bottled milk had
started to have its top milk turned to butter by the time it was
delivered. In earlier years it was possible to pour off the top milk.
Perhaps corn feeding was increasing here?

But my point is that if you don't notice any of those differences then
perhaps your perceptivity might not be trusted as to differences between
cows reactions to GM vs non-GM feed.

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


But my point is that if you don't notice any of those differences then
perhaps your perceptivity might not be trusted as to differences between
cows reactions to GM vs non-GM feed.

stop being silly

we are not talking about arbitary perceptions but people who are monitoring
high yielding dairy cows so closely that a 5% drop in yield against
predicition is a cause for major investigation. If GM feed had any effect at
all on milk yield as opposed to the conventional feed it would have been
spotted and its effects detailed

As it is all we get is someone in the mid west winding up a reporter telling
them that racoons will not eat it

Wow

Jim Webster

Jim Webster wrote:

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


But my point is that if you don't notice any of those differences then
perhaps your perceptivity might not be trusted as to differences between
cows reactions to GM vs non-GM feed.

stop being silly

we are not talking about arbitary perceptions but people who are monitoring
high yielding dairy cows so closely that a 5% drop in yield against
predicition is a cause for major investigation.

Yield is one important thing, but some people will pay for qualities,
won't they? When the top milk is butter it can no longer be poured on the
pudding.

If GM feed had any effect at
all on milk yield as opposed to the conventional feed it would have been
spotted and its effects detailed

Though I am thinking that large scale importation of maize may have
coincided with the time it became Bt, unwanted or unallowed (Starlink) for
human consumption. Were cows on a similar amount of maize before then? If
not there would be no accurate comparison. Has anything been done to it to
improve palatability?


As it is all we get is someone in the mid west winding up a reporter telling
them that racoons will not eat it

So you ignore it and the other animals.

Wow

Wow

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

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


But my point is that if you don't notice any of those differences then
perhaps your perceptivity might not be trusted as to differences
between
cows reactions to GM vs non-GM feed.

stop being silly

we are not talking about arbitary perceptions but people who are
monitoring
high yielding dairy cows so closely that a 5% drop in yield against
predicition is a cause for major investigation.

Yield is one important thing, but some people will pay for qualities,
won't they?

not s noticable proportion of the UK population

When the top milk is butter it can no longer be poured on the
pudding.


BF, Protein and Lactose have been measured on a twice weekly basis (at
least) in UK milk for over 20 years. All these things are carefully
monitored

If GM feed had any effect at
all on milk yield as opposed to the conventional feed it would have been
spotted and its effects detailed

Though I am thinking that large scale importation of maize may have
coincided with the time it became Bt, unwanted or unallowed (Starlink) for
human consumption.

look at Torstens post, there has been no sudden large importation of maize

Were cows on a similar amount of maize before then?

Yes

If
not there would be no accurate comparison. Has anything been done to it to
improve palatability?

No



As it is all we get is someone in the mid west winding up a reporter
telling
them that racoons will not eat it

So you ignore it and the other animals.

tales told to wind up a reporter as opposed to measurable facts, yes I
ignore the racoon story

Jim Webster

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

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


But my point is that if you don't notice any of those differences then
perhaps your perceptivity might not be trusted as to differences
between
cows reactions to GM vs non-GM feed.

stop being silly

we are not talking about arbitary perceptions but people who are
monitoring
high yielding dairy cows so closely that a 5% drop in yield against
predicition is a cause for major investigation.

Yield is one important thing, but some people will pay for qualities,
won't they?

not s noticable proportion of the UK population

When the top milk is butter it can no longer be poured on the
pudding.


BF, Protein and Lactose have been measured on a twice weekly basis (at
least) in UK milk for over 20 years. All these things are carefully
monitored

If GM feed had any effect at
all on milk yield as opposed to the conventional feed it would have been
spotted and its effects detailed

Though I am thinking that large scale importation of maize may have
coincided with the time it became Bt, unwanted or unallowed (Starlink) for
human consumption.

look at Torstens post, there has been no sudden large importation of maize

Were cows on a similar amount of maize before then?

Yes

If
not there would be no accurate comparison. Has anything been done to it to
improve palatability?

No



As it is all we get is someone in the mid west winding up a reporter
telling
them that racoons will not eat it

So you ignore it and the other animals.

tales told to wind up a reporter as opposed to measurable facts, yes I
ignore the racoon story

Jim Webster

Jim Webster wrote:

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

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


But my point is that if you don't notice any of those differences then
perhaps your perceptivity might not be trusted as to differences
between
cows reactions to GM vs non-GM feed.

stop being silly

we are not talking about arbitary perceptions but people who are
monitoring
high yielding dairy cows so closely that a 5% drop in yield against
predicition is a cause for major investigation.

Yield is one important thing, but some people will pay for qualities,
won't they?

not s noticable proportion of the UK population

So many are trying to coach down the quest for organic quality.

When the top milk is butter it can no longer be poured on the
pudding.


BF, Protein and Lactose have been measured on a twice weekly basis (at
least) in UK milk for over 20 years. All these things are carefully
monitored

Measured in quantity.

I used to think that the processing was causing the trouble - that the
milk would be being agitated more in processing so that the journey in the
delivery truck would finish the churning to butter of the top milk.
Now I am thinking of the different fatty acid composition of the BF
because of feed.

If GM feed had any effect at
all on milk yield as opposed to the conventional feed it would have been
spotted and its effects detailed

Though I am thinking that large scale importation of maize may have
coincided with the time it became Bt, unwanted or unallowed (Starlink) for
human consumption.

look at Torstens post,

Which post? My server has not had overseas groups for a few days.

there has been no sudden large importation of maize

Therefore it should be possible to check.

Again:

Linkname: GM Animal Feed
URL: http://www.btinternet.com/~clairejr/Animal/animal.html
size: 547 lines

Ohio farmer Leon Ridzon does not grow GMOs, but he deals with farmers
who do. He recounted local farmers' experience with Bt corn: "We first
had problems three years ago, when famers planted Bt corn and the cows
refused to eat it. The farmers had to camouflage it to get them to eat
it."

So waht sort of `camouflaging' was done and is it being done to maize
before export to britain?

Maybe these cows are just finicky? Ridzon says not - other animals
won't eat Bt grain either: "The Bt corn was left on the cob and stored
in an open bin. The rabbits would not touch it, the squirrels would
not touch it. The rats and mice didn't go near it. It killed all the
spiders in the bins."

Ridzon has become increasingly suspicious about the possible toxicity
of Bt corn. His testimony is the more remarkable for the fact that the
norm for most Ohio farmers is intensively grown and chemically treated
corn - which the animals apparently prefer to GM Bt corn.

Ridzon confirms Sprinkel's account of reduced weight gain in Bt
corn-fed cattle. He says farmers report that cattle need nine pounds
of Bt corn to make a one pound weight gain as compared with only six
of normal corn.

Then that must not be because they eat less.

Journalist Steven Sprinkel says that a major U.S. seed dealer told him
that there is evidence that earthworms are dying as a result of the
effects of Bt corn. Sprinkel comments, "This is not an activist
promoting the notion that GMO plants have unpredicated results. It's a
midwestern big seed dealer who would have more to gain by keeping
quiet, and much to lose if he got caught in a liability cross-fire. So
my assumption is that there is a big iceberg under these rumours and
chit-chat. Reasonable people are asking reasonable questions."

Waiting for science

These reports from farmers and seed dealers can easily be dismissed as
anecdotal evidence from which no conclusions can be drawn. But if we
wait for the scientists to catch up, it could be too late. Scientific
studies take years to do, and the majority are funded by industry or
governments greased with biotech dollars. Who is going to fund a study
which may find that a GM crop is toxic?

Were cows on a similar amount of maize before then?

Yes

Sure?

If
not there would be no accurate comparison. Has anything been done to it to
improve palatability?

No

Not before it was imported?



As it is all we get is someone in the mid west winding up a reporter
telling
them that racoons will not eat it

So you ignore it and the other animals.

tales told to wind up a reporter as opposed to measurable facts, yes I
ignore the racoon story

And Ridzon?

Jim Webster wrote:

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

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


But my point is that if you don't notice any of those differences then
perhaps your perceptivity might not be trusted as to differences
between
cows reactions to GM vs non-GM feed.

stop being silly

we are not talking about arbitary perceptions but people who are
monitoring
high yielding dairy cows so closely that a 5% drop in yield against
predicition is a cause for major investigation.

Yield is one important thing, but some people will pay for qualities,
won't they?

not s noticable proportion of the UK population

So many are trying to coach down the quest for organic quality.

When the top milk is butter it can no longer be poured on the
pudding.


BF, Protein and Lactose have been measured on a twice weekly basis (at
least) in UK milk for over 20 years. All these things are carefully
monitored

Measured in quantity.

I used to think that the processing was causing the trouble - that the
milk would be being agitated more in processing so that the journey in the
delivery truck would finish the churning to butter of the top milk.
Now I am thinking of the different fatty acid composition of the BF
because of feed.

If GM feed had any effect at
all on milk yield as opposed to the conventional feed it would have been
spotted and its effects detailed

Though I am thinking that large scale importation of maize may have
coincided with the time it became Bt, unwanted or unallowed (Starlink) for
human consumption.

look at Torstens post,

Which post? My server has not had overseas groups for a few days.

there has been no sudden large importation of maize

Therefore it should be possible to check.

Again:

Linkname: GM Animal Feed
URL: http://www.btinternet.com/~clairejr/Animal/animal.html
size: 547 lines

Ohio farmer Leon Ridzon does not grow GMOs, but he deals with farmers
who do. He recounted local farmers' experience with Bt corn: "We first
had problems three years ago, when famers planted Bt corn and the cows
refused to eat it. The farmers had to camouflage it to get them to eat
it."

So waht sort of `camouflaging' was done and is it being done to maize
before export to britain?

Maybe these cows are just finicky? Ridzon says not - other animals
won't eat Bt grain either: "The Bt corn was left on the cob and stored
in an open bin. The rabbits would not touch it, the squirrels would
not touch it. The rats and mice didn't go near it. It killed all the
spiders in the bins."

Ridzon has become increasingly suspicious about the possible toxicity
of Bt corn. His testimony is the more remarkable for the fact that the
norm for most Ohio farmers is intensively grown and chemically treated
corn - which the animals apparently prefer to GM Bt corn.

Ridzon confirms Sprinkel's account of reduced weight gain in Bt
corn-fed cattle. He says farmers report that cattle need nine pounds
of Bt corn to make a one pound weight gain as compared with only six
of normal corn.

Then that must not be because they eat less.

Journalist Steven Sprinkel says that a major U.S. seed dealer told him
that there is evidence that earthworms are dying as a result of the
effects of Bt corn. Sprinkel comments, "This is not an activist
promoting the notion that GMO plants have unpredicated results. It's a
midwestern big seed dealer who would have more to gain by keeping
quiet, and much to lose if he got caught in a liability cross-fire. So
my assumption is that there is a big iceberg under these rumours and
chit-chat. Reasonable people are asking reasonable questions."

Waiting for science

These reports from farmers and seed dealers can easily be dismissed as
anecdotal evidence from which no conclusions can be drawn. But if we
wait for the scientists to catch up, it could be too late. Scientific
studies take years to do, and the majority are funded by industry or
governments greased with biotech dollars. Who is going to fund a study
which may find that a GM crop is toxic?

Were cows on a similar amount of maize before then?

Yes

Sure?

If
not there would be no accurate comparison. Has anything been done to it to
improve palatability?

No

Not before it was imported?



As it is all we get is someone in the mid west winding up a reporter
telling
them that racoons will not eat it

So you ignore it and the other animals.

tales told to wind up a reporter as opposed to measurable facts, yes I
ignore the racoon story

And Ridzon?

Jim Webster wrote:

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

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


But my point is that if you don't notice any of those differences then
perhaps your perceptivity might not be trusted as to differences
between
cows reactions to GM vs non-GM feed.

stop being silly

we are not talking about arbitary perceptions but people who are
monitoring
high yielding dairy cows so closely that a 5% drop in yield against
predicition is a cause for major investigation.

Yield is one important thing, but some people will pay for qualities,
won't they?

not s noticable proportion of the UK population

So many are trying to coach down the quest for organic quality.

When the top milk is butter it can no longer be poured on the
pudding.


BF, Protein and Lactose have been measured on a twice weekly basis (at
least) in UK milk for over 20 years. All these things are carefully
monitored

Measured in quantity.

I used to think that the processing was causing the trouble - that the
milk would be being agitated more in processing so that the journey in the
delivery truck would finish the churning to butter of the top milk.
Now I am thinking of the different fatty acid composition of the BF
because of feed.

If GM feed had any effect at
all on milk yield as opposed to the conventional feed it would have been
spotted and its effects detailed

Though I am thinking that large scale importation of maize may have
coincided with the time it became Bt, unwanted or unallowed (Starlink) for
human consumption.

look at Torstens post,

Which post? My server has not had overseas groups for a few days.

there has been no sudden large importation of maize

Therefore it should be possible to check.

Again:

Linkname: GM Animal Feed
URL: http://www.btinternet.com/~clairejr/Animal/animal.html
size: 547 lines

Ohio farmer Leon Ridzon does not grow GMOs, but he deals with farmers
who do. He recounted local farmers' experience with Bt corn: "We first
had problems three years ago, when famers planted Bt corn and the cows
refused to eat it. The farmers had to camouflage it to get them to eat
it."

So waht sort of `camouflaging' was done and is it being done to maize
before export to britain?

Maybe these cows are just finicky? Ridzon says not - other animals
won't eat Bt grain either: "The Bt corn was left on the cob and stored
in an open bin. The rabbits would not touch it, the squirrels would
not touch it. The rats and mice didn't go near it. It killed all the
spiders in the bins."

Ridzon has become increasingly suspicious about the possible toxicity
of Bt corn. His testimony is the more remarkable for the fact that the
norm for most Ohio farmers is intensively grown and chemically treated
corn - which the animals apparently prefer to GM Bt corn.

Ridzon confirms Sprinkel's account of reduced weight gain in Bt
corn-fed cattle. He says farmers report that cattle need nine pounds
of Bt corn to make a one pound weight gain as compared with only six
of normal corn.

Then that must not be because they eat less.

Journalist Steven Sprinkel says that a major U.S. seed dealer told him
that there is evidence that earthworms are dying as a result of the
effects of Bt corn. Sprinkel comments, "This is not an activist
promoting the notion that GMO plants have unpredicated results. It's a
midwestern big seed dealer who would have more to gain by keeping
quiet, and much to lose if he got caught in a liability cross-fire. So
my assumption is that there is a big iceberg under these rumours and
chit-chat. Reasonable people are asking reasonable questions."

Waiting for science

These reports from farmers and seed dealers can easily be dismissed as
anecdotal evidence from which no conclusions can be drawn. But if we
wait for the scientists to catch up, it could be too late. Scientific
studies take years to do, and the majority are funded by industry or
governments greased with biotech dollars. Who is going to fund a study
which may find that a GM crop is toxic?

Were cows on a similar amount of maize before then?

Yes

Sure?

If
not there would be no accurate comparison. Has anything been done to it to
improve palatability?

No

Not before it was imported?



As it is all we get is someone in the mid west winding up a reporter
telling
them that racoons will not eat it

So you ignore it and the other animals.

tales told to wind up a reporter as opposed to measurable facts, yes I
ignore the racoon story

And Ridzon?