Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
GM crop farms filled with weeds
"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 |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
GM crop farms filled with weeds
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. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
GM crop farms filled with weeds
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? |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
GM crop farms filled with weeds
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? |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
GM crop farms filled with weeds
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? |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
GM crop farms filled with weeds
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? |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
GM crop farms filled with weeds
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 |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
GM crop farms filled with weeds
"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 |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
GM crop farms filled with weeds
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. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
GM crop farms filled with weeds
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? |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
GM crop farms filled with weeds
"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 |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
GM crop farms filled with weeds
"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 |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
GM crop farms filled with weeds
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. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
GM crop farms filled with weeds
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. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
GM crop farms filled with weeds
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. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
New problems with GM corn? (Was: GM crop farms filled with weeds) | sci.agriculture | |||
GM crop farms filled with weeds (Was: Animals avoid GM food) | sci.agriculture | |||
GM crop farms filled with weeds (Was: Paying to find non-GE wild corn?) | sci.agriculture | |||
BOYCOTT Fieldale Farms (Springer Mountain Farms & Redding) They're ANTI-ORGANIC! (And call | sci.agriculture | |||
BOYCOTT Fieldale Farms (Springer Mountain Farms & Redding) They're ANTI-ORGANIC! (And call your | sci.agriculture |