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


"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...

Are you saying that the missionaries should never have gone out from
Britain a few centuries ago to start changing some of the societies
which
now worry you?

No

Some of your problem is saving the type of society in one geographical
area. Then perhaps saving one racial type?

What are you waffling on about? What has racial type got to door with
this
discussion?

Just geographical area which concerns you?


We do seek out likes. Creatures mate with likes up to a point. We need
to
protect the groups of likes.

As I mentioned before the whites in schools in New Zealand may be
having
fewer of the old role models amongst the advanced pupils as leaders.
But
can't the trade benefit all parties? I think it takes a change of
viewpoint as to life's values. Maybe we will have more whites feeling
they
are not earning enough to support a family and living a childless life.
I
think that needs a bit of atteniton where some support large families
on
welfare. Malaysia was trying to get more educated people to have more
children.

This is not easy to think or talk about.

And all utterly irrelevant to the discussion.

You talked about people taking your work if you help them in poor
countries.


not my work, only climate and soil type can let them grow grass, but YOUR
work as their level of education increases


Reading back through the thread you could take the noiton
that Jim is saying, `Yes, GM and the USA approach is right to be
suppressing poor countries so we can keep our jobs.'

YOUR job, not mine, as they get wealthier they buy more of the food we
produce, they try wheat bread, they eat exotic foriegn products like baked
beans or chili powder or chinese spices. But they get wealthier by taking
your job

JimWebster

Mooshie peas wrote:
On 2 Sep 2003 12:05:00 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

In sci.agriculture Dean Hoffman wrote:
On 8/24/03 9:13 AM, in article ,
"Brian Sandle" wrote:

Some cut.

The folks are stariving because they cannot pay the world market
prices for the food, because they do not have work. There are
surpluses of food.

The cost of the actual raw materials going into food aren't the real
problem. Transportation and packaging add more to the cost in many cases
than the actual foodstuff. The USDA used to have an online chart showing
how much money a farmer got compared to the consumer cost. I think there's
about 2¢ U.S. worth of wheat in a loaf of bread, for example. I'll try to
find it if you're interested.

So it cannot be said that agriculture is the major stumbling block
in getting food to the poor.

Well yes, if the starving people can't grow their food. That's
agriculture.

What is the US$ cost of bread? It looks like the wheat growing cost
is about 2% and you call that the major stumbling block?

The people can't grow their food because they are trying to earn
money by growing cash crops to export. They get paid very little,
then they take the notion they can earn something by growing food
for the local market. Then USA dumps the GM food which they cannot
sell, and the poor farmers go out of business. They travel to the
cities and cannot grow food there. It's not just food they need.

Whereas there was competition between various types of weeds before,
Roundup has killed ones except those which it can't and those now
have a free reign.

There were some weeds that weren't controlled very well at all before
Roundup. Common dog bane is one example. It's tough to control even with
Roundup. There are chemicals other than Roundup that can be used in most
cases.

How often does the RR farmer have to buy those extras?

As often as needed. Nothing much has changed wrt to some weeds. Not
controlled well with glyphosate before RR crops

So other herbicides were used.

and the same after RR
crops.

Now it is claimed only glyphosate is needed. A lie.

Crop and chemical rotation is accepted practice as far as I know.

Not as simple as just RR.

Huh? For weeds that are not well controlled with glyphosate?

The advertising suggests buying RR and glyphosate solves your
problem. But no, rotation &c is needed.

You admit it depends on the economics. Roundup Ready is suppoed to
make it cheaper. But it hasn't because of extra applicaitons and
other herbicides required.

I've asked farmers on occasion if RR pays. There was a slight yield drag
with RR soybeans at first but I think the drag has been eliminated.

At cost of what? The plant has to make the RR detoxifier which takes
some of its energy. So where is that made up?

In not having to make some of the other thousands of proteins plants
make?

Less of the wanted ones? We do eat corn and soy for some protein.

The
farmers would rotate RR beans into corn fields to help control the weeds
that multiply in continuous corn.

RR corn?

Read what was said. RRbeans are grown to control weeds with glyphosate
that are not easy to control with the corn crop, and which get a grip
of the land without the good control the glyphosate provides, or
that's how I read it.

Then why are seed suppliers saying you must rotate, is what I am
getting at.

Roundup ready beans have made a big change in my area, (Nebraska, USA).
Weeds used to be a real problem. Whole families of Latinos used to hand
weed the fields to get the weeds not killed by other chemicals or normal
tillage.

So what is their work now?

MacDonalds, or some other service industry.

Is general health and welfare increasing or decreasing?

It's not necessary to rogue beans anymore.

Dog bane may be escaping Roundup control. Now Roundup has killed
other weeds which used to compete with it is it not taking over
more?

Are there examples of weeds becoming rampant because something that
they were competitors with has been given a nudge?
I wouldn't have thought so, and would wonder it it matters much. A
non-crop plant is a non-crop plant is a weed.

I wrote about the nettles in Gordon's http.

What used to be their prevalence in cotton fields before RR cotton?

The technological progress of GM is aimed at, and is achieving the
goal, of increased wealth of a limited group of technology
companies.

Well, corn farmers in the U.S. do not grow their own seed.

But they do in many countries, where agriculture employs more
people.

Well it's all to do with economic pragmatism.

About which Jim and I have been writing. He adivses me that if I
stop GM economy and try to really help third world rather than keep
the dependent they way of USA that I may lose my job as they become
cleverer.

Hybrid corn
came into use decades ago. Apparently, it's a good deal for them and the
seed companies. Several farmers in my area raise seed corn for the seed
companies. It's a hassle but it pays better than commercial corn.
I spend a lot of time in corn and bean fields. The fields are much cleaner
now than in the past due to better chemicals and farming practices.

Though the resistant weeds have fewer competitors and over some
years must be more of a problem.

Not if managed with suitable herbicides.

So don't brag that you only need glyphosate with RR crops.

Some
farmers here no till their crops in. More are switching to no or minimum
till each year. Some don't cultivate at all. They just use spray to control
the weeds. That helps keep the organic matter up and the soil erosion down.

But as I posted no till has been happening here without GM, GM
being illegal still.

Only with herbicides, of course. Herbicide resistant crops make it
that much easier and actually possible in some cases.

Can use pine oil. Or perhaps mow or prune off the weeds and let them
lie.

With RR technology you apply it to the food people are going to eat.
Legal tolerance limits for it in food have been adjusted way up to
allow for the process.

On 4 Sep 2003 10:21:52 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

Jim Webster wrote:


"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...

Are you saying that the missionaries should never have gone out from
Britain a few centuries ago to start changing some of the societies which
now worry you?

No

Some of your problem is saving the type of society in one geographical
area. Then perhaps saving one racial type?

What are you waffling on about? What has racial type got to door with this
discussion?

Just geographical area which concerns you?


We do seek out likes. Creatures mate with likes up to a point. We need to
protect the groups of likes.

As I mentioned before the whites in schools in New Zealand may be having
fewer of the old role models amongst the advanced pupils as leaders. But
can't the trade benefit all parties? I think it takes a change of
viewpoint as to life's values. Maybe we will have more whites feeling they
are not earning enough to support a family and living a childless life. I
think that needs a bit of atteniton where some support large families on
welfare. Malaysia was trying to get more educated people to have more
children.

This is not easy to think or talk about.

And all utterly irrelevant to the discussion.

You talked about people taking your work if you help them in poor
countries. Reading back through the thread you could take the noiton
that Jim is saying, `Yes, GM and the USA approach is right to be
suppressing poor countries so we can keep our jobs.'


But how is GM suppressing anyone?

On 4 Sep 2003 13:27:27 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

Mooshie peas wrote:
On 2 Sep 2003 12:05:00 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

In sci.agriculture Dean Hoffman wrote:
On 8/24/03 9:13 AM, in article ,
"Brian Sandle" wrote:

Some cut.

The folks are stariving because they cannot pay the world market
prices for the food, because they do not have work. There are
surpluses of food.

The cost of the actual raw materials going into food aren't the real
problem. Transportation and packaging add more to the cost in many cases
than the actual foodstuff. The USDA used to have an online chart showing
how much money a farmer got compared to the consumer cost. I think there's
about 2¢ U.S. worth of wheat in a loaf of bread, for example. I'll try to
find it if you're interested.

So it cannot be said that agriculture is the major stumbling block
in getting food to the poor.

Well yes, if the starving people can't grow their food. That's
agriculture.

What is the US$ cost of bread? It looks like the wheat growing cost
is about 2% and you call that the major stumbling block?

No, I wasn't aware that bread was a stumbling block for Americans.

The people can't grow their food because they are trying to earn
money by growing cash crops to export. They get paid very little,
then they take the notion they can earn something by growing food
for the local market. Then USA dumps the GM food which they cannot
sell, and the poor farmers go out of business. They travel to the
cities and cannot grow food there. It's not just food they need.

But this is neocolonialism. What has this to do with GM?

Whereas there was competition between various types of weeds before,
Roundup has killed ones except those which it can't and those now
have a free reign.

There were some weeds that weren't controlled very well at all before
Roundup. Common dog bane is one example. It's tough to control even with
Roundup. There are chemicals other than Roundup that can be used in most
cases.

How often does the RR farmer have to buy those extras?

As often as needed. Nothing much has changed wrt to some weeds. Not
controlled well with glyphosate before RR crops

So other herbicides were used.

Different herbicides are surely needed at different times for
different crops and different weeds. Hasn't it been ever thus?

and the same after RR
crops.

Now it is claimed only glyphosate is needed. A lie.

Sorry? What ar you trying to say? Sometimes glyphosate will control
all the weeds and sometimes other things are needed. Geez that's why
farmers are intelligent

Crop and chemical rotation is accepted practice as far as I know.

Not as simple as just RR.

Huh? For weeds that are not well controlled with glyphosate?

The advertising suggests buying RR and glyphosate solves your
problem. But no, rotation &c is needed.

Could you quote this? What crops? What weeds? What geographic
location? You sound like the idiots who claim that golden rice is no
good because it doesn't supply ALL the carotene requirements. It's a
bloody sight better than nothing, and the technology can always
improve. Talk about looking a gift horse in the mouth.

You admit it depends on the economics. Roundup Ready is suppoed to
make it cheaper. But it hasn't because of extra applicaitons and
other herbicides required.

I've asked farmers on occasion if RR pays. There was a slight yield drag
with RR soybeans at first but I think the drag has been eliminated.

At cost of what? The plant has to make the RR detoxifier which takes
some of its energy. So where is that made up?

In not having to make some of the other thousands of proteins plants
make?

Less of the wanted ones? We do eat corn and soy for some protein.

Protein is a very impoortant constituent of both of these. It doesn't
matter which arrangement of amino acids make these up, coz it's just
the amino acids that we absorb and use.

The
farmers would rotate RR beans into corn fields to help control the weeds
that multiply in continuous corn.

RR corn?

Read what was said. RRbeans are grown to control weeds with glyphosate
that are not easy to control with the corn crop, and which get a grip
of the land without the good control the glyphosate provides, or
that's how I read it.

Then why are seed suppliers saying you must rotate, is what I am
getting at.

I imagine because the weeds that are getting away can be more easily
controlled with a different crop. What the farmer needs to be able to
do is to grow the crop that will give him the biggest profit. End of
story.

Roundup ready beans have made a big change in my area, (Nebraska, USA).
Weeds used to be a real problem. Whole families of Latinos used to hand
weed the fields to get the weeds not killed by other chemicals or normal
tillage.

So what is their work now?

MacDonalds, or some other service industry.

Is general health and welfare increasing or decreasing?

Of Western civilisations? Yes. Others vary.

It's not necessary to rogue beans anymore.

Dog bane may be escaping Roundup control. Now Roundup has killed
other weeds which used to compete with it is it not taking over
more?

Are there examples of weeds becoming rampant because something that
they were competitors with has been given a nudge?
I wouldn't have thought so, and would wonder it it matters much. A
non-crop plant is a non-crop plant is a weed.

I wrote about the nettles in Gordon's http.

What used to be their prevalence in cotton fields before RR cotton?

Depends on how well they were killed, I guess.
And the weather, and the season....

The technological progress of GM is aimed at, and is achieving the
goal, of increased wealth of a limited group of technology
companies.

Well, corn farmers in the U.S. do not grow their own seed.

But they do in many countries, where agriculture employs more
people.

Well it's all to do with economic pragmatism.

About which Jim and I have been writing. He adivses me that if I
stop GM economy

Could you define this GM economy"?

and try to really help third world rather than keep
the dependent they way of USA that I may lose my job as they become
cleverer.

As the billions of folk in the world become educated, and produce and
compete, the closer you and I will come to enjoying the world average
standard of livfing. Get used to it

Hybrid corn
came into use decades ago. Apparently, it's a good deal for them and the
seed companies. Several farmers in my area raise seed corn for the seed
companies. It's a hassle but it pays better than commercial corn.
I spend a lot of time in corn and bean fields. The fields are much cleaner
now than in the past due to better chemicals and farming practices.

Though the resistant weeds have fewer competitors and over some
years must be more of a problem.

Not if managed with suitable herbicides.

So don't brag that you only need glyphosate with RR crops.

Sorry, I've never even heard this, let allone done it myself. I
thought it was obvious that some weeds in some areas are not amenable
to glyphosate control, so it is obvious that although RR crops give
you the advantage of being able to use this useful herbicide while the
crop is growing, if another herbicide is needed for a particular weed,
then tough, them's the breaks. Just because glyphosate has not been
turned into some super herbicide with RR crops does not meant it is
not an extremely valuable technology.

Some
farmers here no till their crops in. More are switching to no or minimum
till each year. Some don't cultivate at all. They just use spray to control
the weeds. That helps keep the organic matter up and the soil erosion down.

But as I posted no till has been happening here without GM, GM
being illegal still.

Only with herbicides, of course. Herbicide resistant crops make it
that much easier and actually possible in some cases.

Can use pine oil.

Pine oil is a herbicide?

Or perhaps mow or prune off the weeds and let them
lie.

But we don't want any traffic over out fragile soils
Mowing requires constant traffic and is still nowhere near as
effective as a knock down herbicide that can be applied from the air
if necessary.

With RR technology you apply it to the food people are going to eat.

So? It's about the least toxic substance about. The dish liquid they
use in it as a wetting agent is far more toxic.

Legal tolerance limits for it in food have been adjusted way up to
allow for the process.

And you have evidence of this is causing any problems?

On 4 Sep 2003 10:21:52 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

Jim Webster wrote:


"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...

Are you saying that the missionaries should never have gone out from
Britain a few centuries ago to start changing some of the societies which
now worry you?

No

Some of your problem is saving the type of society in one geographical
area. Then perhaps saving one racial type?

What are you waffling on about? What has racial type got to door with this
discussion?

Just geographical area which concerns you?


We do seek out likes. Creatures mate with likes up to a point. We need to
protect the groups of likes.

As I mentioned before the whites in schools in New Zealand may be having
fewer of the old role models amongst the advanced pupils as leaders. But
can't the trade benefit all parties? I think it takes a change of
viewpoint as to life's values. Maybe we will have more whites feeling they
are not earning enough to support a family and living a childless life. I
think that needs a bit of atteniton where some support large families on
welfare. Malaysia was trying to get more educated people to have more
children.

This is not easy to think or talk about.

And all utterly irrelevant to the discussion.

You talked about people taking your work if you help them in poor
countries. Reading back through the thread you could take the noiton
that Jim is saying, `Yes, GM and the USA approach is right to be
suppressing poor countries so we can keep our jobs.'


But how is GM suppressing anyone?

On 4 Sep 2003 13:27:27 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

Mooshie peas wrote:
On 2 Sep 2003 12:05:00 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

In sci.agriculture Dean Hoffman wrote:
On 8/24/03 9:13 AM, in article ,
"Brian Sandle" wrote:

Some cut.

The folks are stariving because they cannot pay the world market
prices for the food, because they do not have work. There are
surpluses of food.

The cost of the actual raw materials going into food aren't the real
problem. Transportation and packaging add more to the cost in many cases
than the actual foodstuff. The USDA used to have an online chart showing
how much money a farmer got compared to the consumer cost. I think there's
about 2¢ U.S. worth of wheat in a loaf of bread, for example. I'll try to
find it if you're interested.

So it cannot be said that agriculture is the major stumbling block
in getting food to the poor.

Well yes, if the starving people can't grow their food. That's
agriculture.

What is the US$ cost of bread? It looks like the wheat growing cost
is about 2% and you call that the major stumbling block?

No, I wasn't aware that bread was a stumbling block for Americans.

The people can't grow their food because they are trying to earn
money by growing cash crops to export. They get paid very little,
then they take the notion they can earn something by growing food
for the local market. Then USA dumps the GM food which they cannot
sell, and the poor farmers go out of business. They travel to the
cities and cannot grow food there. It's not just food they need.

But this is neocolonialism. What has this to do with GM?

Whereas there was competition between various types of weeds before,
Roundup has killed ones except those which it can't and those now
have a free reign.

There were some weeds that weren't controlled very well at all before
Roundup. Common dog bane is one example. It's tough to control even with
Roundup. There are chemicals other than Roundup that can be used in most
cases.

How often does the RR farmer have to buy those extras?

As often as needed. Nothing much has changed wrt to some weeds. Not
controlled well with glyphosate before RR crops

So other herbicides were used.

Different herbicides are surely needed at different times for
different crops and different weeds. Hasn't it been ever thus?

and the same after RR
crops.

Now it is claimed only glyphosate is needed. A lie.

Sorry? What ar you trying to say? Sometimes glyphosate will control
all the weeds and sometimes other things are needed. Geez that's why
farmers are intelligent

Crop and chemical rotation is accepted practice as far as I know.

Not as simple as just RR.

Huh? For weeds that are not well controlled with glyphosate?

The advertising suggests buying RR and glyphosate solves your
problem. But no, rotation &c is needed.

Could you quote this? What crops? What weeds? What geographic
location? You sound like the idiots who claim that golden rice is no
good because it doesn't supply ALL the carotene requirements. It's a
bloody sight better than nothing, and the technology can always
improve. Talk about looking a gift horse in the mouth.

You admit it depends on the economics. Roundup Ready is suppoed to
make it cheaper. But it hasn't because of extra applicaitons and
other herbicides required.

I've asked farmers on occasion if RR pays. There was a slight yield drag
with RR soybeans at first but I think the drag has been eliminated.

At cost of what? The plant has to make the RR detoxifier which takes
some of its energy. So where is that made up?

In not having to make some of the other thousands of proteins plants
make?

Less of the wanted ones? We do eat corn and soy for some protein.

Protein is a very impoortant constituent of both of these. It doesn't
matter which arrangement of amino acids make these up, coz it's just
the amino acids that we absorb and use.

The
farmers would rotate RR beans into corn fields to help control the weeds
that multiply in continuous corn.

RR corn?

Read what was said. RRbeans are grown to control weeds with glyphosate
that are not easy to control with the corn crop, and which get a grip
of the land without the good control the glyphosate provides, or
that's how I read it.

Then why are seed suppliers saying you must rotate, is what I am
getting at.

I imagine because the weeds that are getting away can be more easily
controlled with a different crop. What the farmer needs to be able to
do is to grow the crop that will give him the biggest profit. End of
story.

Roundup ready beans have made a big change in my area, (Nebraska, USA).
Weeds used to be a real problem. Whole families of Latinos used to hand
weed the fields to get the weeds not killed by other chemicals or normal
tillage.

So what is their work now?

MacDonalds, or some other service industry.

Is general health and welfare increasing or decreasing?

Of Western civilisations? Yes. Others vary.

It's not necessary to rogue beans anymore.

Dog bane may be escaping Roundup control. Now Roundup has killed
other weeds which used to compete with it is it not taking over
more?

Are there examples of weeds becoming rampant because something that
they were competitors with has been given a nudge?
I wouldn't have thought so, and would wonder it it matters much. A
non-crop plant is a non-crop plant is a weed.

I wrote about the nettles in Gordon's http.

What used to be their prevalence in cotton fields before RR cotton?

Depends on how well they were killed, I guess.
And the weather, and the season....

The technological progress of GM is aimed at, and is achieving the
goal, of increased wealth of a limited group of technology
companies.

Well, corn farmers in the U.S. do not grow their own seed.

But they do in many countries, where agriculture employs more
people.

Well it's all to do with economic pragmatism.

About which Jim and I have been writing. He adivses me that if I
stop GM economy

Could you define this GM economy"?

and try to really help third world rather than keep
the dependent they way of USA that I may lose my job as they become
cleverer.

As the billions of folk in the world become educated, and produce and
compete, the closer you and I will come to enjoying the world average
standard of livfing. Get used to it

Hybrid corn
came into use decades ago. Apparently, it's a good deal for them and the
seed companies. Several farmers in my area raise seed corn for the seed
companies. It's a hassle but it pays better than commercial corn.
I spend a lot of time in corn and bean fields. The fields are much cleaner
now than in the past due to better chemicals and farming practices.

Though the resistant weeds have fewer competitors and over some
years must be more of a problem.

Not if managed with suitable herbicides.

So don't brag that you only need glyphosate with RR crops.

Sorry, I've never even heard this, let allone done it myself. I
thought it was obvious that some weeds in some areas are not amenable
to glyphosate control, so it is obvious that although RR crops give
you the advantage of being able to use this useful herbicide while the
crop is growing, if another herbicide is needed for a particular weed,
then tough, them's the breaks. Just because glyphosate has not been
turned into some super herbicide with RR crops does not meant it is
not an extremely valuable technology.

Some
farmers here no till their crops in. More are switching to no or minimum
till each year. Some don't cultivate at all. They just use spray to control
the weeds. That helps keep the organic matter up and the soil erosion down.

But as I posted no till has been happening here without GM, GM
being illegal still.

Only with herbicides, of course. Herbicide resistant crops make it
that much easier and actually possible in some cases.

Can use pine oil.

Pine oil is a herbicide?

Or perhaps mow or prune off the weeds and let them
lie.

But we don't want any traffic over out fragile soils
Mowing requires constant traffic and is still nowhere near as
effective as a knock down herbicide that can be applied from the air
if necessary.

With RR technology you apply it to the food people are going to eat.

So? It's about the least toxic substance about. The dish liquid they
use in it as a wetting agent is far more toxic.

Legal tolerance limits for it in food have been adjusted way up to
allow for the process.

And you have evidence of this is causing any problems?

On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 06:15:08 GMT, Mooshie peas
wrote:

On 4 Sep 2003 13:27:27 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

The advertising suggests buying RR and glyphosate solves your
problem. But no, rotation &c is needed.

Could you quote this? snip

Monsanto ad, for Roundup Ultra in RR cotton:
"The only weed control you'll need"

http://www.weeds.iastate.edu/weednews/mon-ad.GIF

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 06:15:08 GMT, Mooshie peas
wrote:

On 4 Sep 2003 13:27:27 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

The advertising suggests buying RR and glyphosate solves your
problem. But no, rotation &c is needed.

Could you quote this? snip

Monsanto ad, for Roundup Ultra in RR cotton:
"The only weed control you'll need"

http://www.weeds.iastate.edu/weednews/mon-ad.GIF

but who believes advertising anyway

Jim Webster

Mooshie peas wrote:
On 4 Sep 2003 10:21:52 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:
You talked about people taking your work if you help them in poor
countries. Reading back through the thread you could take the noiton
that Jim is saying, `Yes, GM and the USA approach is right to be
suppressing poor countries so we can keep our jobs.'


But how is GM suppressing anyone?

Jim seems to agree, though he hasn't specifically said it, that he agrees
with the way GM crops have been designed to produce dependence upon the GM
companies. GM was introduced to USA when the farmers were not having the
best time, and they were offered a better deal from it. That has not
eventuated but the same sales approach is still going on in Australia,
New Zealand, and in third world countries. Under GM farmers cannot save
their seed, a procedure which has been central to third world agriculture.
Their way of life -- livelihoods are threatened. Keeping them poor, Jim
believes, will help to stop them taking my job.

Jim Webster wrote:

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 06:15:08 GMT, Mooshie peas
wrote:

On 4 Sep 2003 13:27:27 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

The advertising suggests buying RR and glyphosate solves your
problem. But no, rotation &c is needed.

Could you quote this? snip

Monsanto ad, for Roundup Ultra in RR cotton:
"The only weed control you'll need"

http://www.weeds.iastate.edu/weednews/mon-ad.GIF


Interesting that ad is offering Roundup with a hood to use on weeds
in non-GM cotton crops, too.

I read Monsanto is to split into separate herbicide and GM
companies. It was said that Monsanto is to sell its chemical branch.
I thought that that side of the business was the more profitable.

It looks like GM may be being downplayed. Monsanto has not had
sufficient financial success, has it?

but who believes advertising anyway

If many people didn't believe it it would not produce results,
therefore why would so much money go into it?

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
Mooshie peas wrote:
On 4 Sep 2003 10:21:52 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:
You talked about people taking your work if you help them in poor
countries. Reading back through the thread you could take the noiton
that Jim is saying, `Yes, GM and the USA approach is right to be
suppressing poor countries so we can keep our jobs.'


But how is GM suppressing anyone?

Jim seems to agree, though he hasn't specifically said it, that he agrees
with the way GM crops have been designed to produce dependence upon the GM
companies.

Sorry but I never said anything of the sort.

What I said is that a lot of people in the various green organisations seem
determined to ensure that the population of the third world remain
subsistence farming peasants.
If these people get education, training and start producing industrial
goods, providing services such as call centres and software development (As
India has done, a country that went from third world basket case to regional
superpower in less than a generation) they will undercut the wages of over
protected first world employees

Jim Webster

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...

but who believes advertising anyway

If many people didn't believe it it would not produce results,
therefore why would so much money go into it?

simple, there is an advertising industry out there that has a vested
interest

do you smoke? have you been swayed by the millions spent by the tobacco
companies

what of your personal spending pattens have been determined by adverts you
have seen?

Jim Webster

On 5 Sep 2003 10:53:23 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote:

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
..
Monsanto ad, for Roundup Ultra in RR cotton:
"The only weed control you'll need"

http://www.weeds.iastate.edu/weednews/mon-ad.GIF


Interesting that ad is offering Roundup with a hood to use on weeds
in non-GM cotton crops, too.

I found it more interesting that it is offering Roundup as all-season
direct spray in RR cotton. I thought past true 4 leaf stage in cotton
there would be risk of late season herbicide damage from direct sprays
in cotton.

I read Monsanto is to split into separate herbicide and GM
companies. It was said that Monsanto is to sell its chemical branch.

Where did you read that, Brian?

(Note: Monsanto also breeds conventional seeds, it's not just GM.
They report huge improvements from marker-assisted conventional
breeding for yields, in corn, particularly, in last years annual
report.)

I thought that that side of the business was the more profitable.

It looks like GM may be being downplayed. Monsanto has not had
sufficient financial success, has it?

Threatened by extinction might be a tad strong, but Monsanto does seem
to have become rather small now, compared to what it was back in the
1990's. Share values took a beating last year when Pharmacia spun
Monsanto off, and soon after the CEO left the company. But, who knows,
Monsanto may have something big in the product pipeline, although I
can't imagine what that could be.

Gordon may know more about returns from Monsanto shares, whether
they have been satisfactory returns on investments and how they
have been developing over the years.

Torsten Brinch writes

Threatened by extinction might be a tad strong, but Monsanto does seem
to have become rather small now, compared to what it was back in the
1990's.

End of roundup patent ....

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.

Torsten Brinch wrote:
On 5 Sep 2003 10:53:23 GMT, Brian Sandle
wrote:

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
..
Monsanto ad, for Roundup Ultra in RR cotton:
"The only weed control you'll need"

http://www.weeds.iastate.edu/weednews/mon-ad.GIF


Interesting that ad is offering Roundup with a hood to use on weeds
in non-GM cotton crops, too.

I found it more interesting that it is offering Roundup as all-season
direct spray in RR cotton. I thought past true 4 leaf stage in cotton
there would be risk of late season herbicide damage from direct sprays
in cotton.

I read Monsanto is to split into separate herbicide and GM
companies. It was said that Monsanto is to sell its chemical branch.

Where did you read that, Brian?


Linkname: (6/5/1997) Monsanto Put Wrong Gene in 60,000 Bags of
Roundup-Ready Canola Seeds, Enough to Seed 600,000 to 750,000
Acres.
URL: http://eces.org/articles/static/86548680054869.shtml
size: 254 lines

Sorry it was old news.

Some of the chemical business was put into a company name Solutia, and
that took over responsibilty for some of Monsanto's pollution.


(Note: Monsanto also breeds conventional seeds, it's not just GM.
They report huge improvements from marker-assisted conventional
breeding for yields, in corn, particularly, in last years annual
report.)

I thought that that side of the business was the more profitable.

It looks like GM may be being downplayed. Monsanto has not had
sufficient financial success, has it?

Threatened by extinction might be a tad strong, but Monsanto does seem
to have become rather small now, compared to what it was back in the
1990's. Share values took a beating last year when Pharmacia spun
Monsanto off, and soon after the CEO left the company. But, who knows,
Monsanto may have something big in the product pipeline, although I
can't imagine what that could be.

Gordon may know more about returns from Monsanto shares, whether
they have been satisfactory returns on investments and how they
have been developing over the years.


Linkname: Report: Jury rules Solutia owes $3.6M to Alabama plaintiffs
- 2003-04-04 - St. Louis Business Journal
URL:
http://stlouis.bizjournals.com/stlou...1/daily89.html
size: 183 lines

LATEST NEWS
April 4, 2003

Report: Jury rules Solutia owes $3.6M to Alabama plaintiffs

[...]
More than a year ago, the jury found Solutia, then Monsanto, liable
for knowingly contaminating Alabama homes and bodies with PCBs, known
carcinogens. More than 3,500 residents of Anniston had sued both
companies.
[...]
St. Louis-based Solutia Inc. (NYSE: SOI) develops specialty chemicals,
fibers, fluids and other performance products. The company's stock has
fallen from $12.55 a share when the trial started in January 2002 and
closed Friday at $1.28 a share, down more than 5 percent.
- 2003 American City Business Journals Inc.
[...]

I don't quite understand the "more than 5%". It seems to be down nearly
90%.

Will Monsanto in future form other companies to take losses for clean-up
responsibilty, genetic type?

Though some of the chemical business went into Solutia it seems they kept
Roundup.