GM crop farms filled with weeds
In sci.agriculture Jim Webster wrote:
"Brian Sandle" wrote in message ... You have a related problem - another unnatural agricultural procedure that was warned about: feeding meat to cattle, causing spread of BSE. and that affects wheat prices exactly how? BSE did impinge on beef prices And there were fewer cattle to feed, and less money to buy grain feed? What proportion of UK wheat is bought buy farmers? Then the available storage silos would be getting full sooner, so the wheat would have to go to market without waiting for a better price. |
GM crop farms filled with weeds
"Brian Sandle" wrote in message ... In sci.agriculture Jim Webster wrote: "Brian Sandle" wrote in message ... You have a related problem - another unnatural agricultural procedure that was warned about: feeding meat to cattle, causing spread of BSE. and that affects wheat prices exactly how? BSE did impinge on beef prices And there were fewer cattle to feed, no, because beef animals are predominantly a by-product of the dairy industry. The number of beef cattle has been falling very slowly over the years as the number of dairy and beef cows has slowly fallen. The biggest cause in the fall in beef numbers is milk quota which, when combined with steadily increasing dairy genetic merit and milk yields has meant there are less milk cows producing the same about of milk and less money to buy grain feed? Ruminants are not big users of wheat, pigs and poultry and the largest users What proportion of UK wheat is bought buy farmers? Then the available storage silos would be getting full sooner, so the wheat would have to go to market without waiting for a better price. Not a problem, the beef industry is not a major user of wheat Jim Webster |
GM crop farms filled with weeds
In sci.agriculture Jim Webster wrote:
"Brian Sandle" wrote in message ... In sci.agriculture Jim Webster wrote: "Brian Sandle" wrote in message ... You have a related problem - another unnatural agricultural procedure that was warned about: feeding meat to cattle, causing spread of BSE. and that affects wheat prices exactly how? BSE did impinge on beef prices And there were fewer cattle to feed, no, because beef animals are predominantly a by-product of the dairy industry. I see, dairy cattle not eating animal byproducts, therefore not getting BSE, therefore not being slaughtered and reduced in numbers owing to BSE? The number of beef cattle has been falling very slowly over the years as the number of dairy and beef cows has slowly fallen. The biggest cause in the fall in beef numbers is milk quota which, when combined with steadily increasing dairy genetic merit and milk yields has meant there are less milk cows producing the same about of milk and less money to buy grain feed? Ruminants are not big users of wheat, pigs and poultry and the largest users What proportion of UK wheat is bought buy farmers? Then the available storage silos would be getting full sooner, so the wheat would have to go to market without waiting for a better price. Not a problem, the beef industry is not a major user of wheat I see 1/3 of UK wheat goes to animal feed. And a few days ago you wrote: : In the long term, maize has been displaced by wheat in UK diets : purely on price, the last round of CAP reforms cut the market price : of EU produced feed wheat which made maize comparatively expensive : for feed compounders using 'least cost' formulations. When I was a : kid cattle feed was basical ly a mixture of maize and soya, which : is something the UK industry hasn't be en able to afford for over : thirty years. Looks like you were relating of cattle feed. |
GM crop farms filled with weeds
"Brian Sandle" wrote in message ... In sci.agriculture Jim Webster wrote: "Brian Sandle" wrote in message ... In sci.agriculture Jim Webster wrote: "Brian Sandle" wrote in message ... You have a related problem - another unnatural agricultural procedure that was warned about: feeding meat to cattle, causing spread of BSE. and that affects wheat prices exactly how? BSE did impinge on beef prices And there were fewer cattle to feed, no, because beef animals are predominantly a by-product of the dairy industry. I see, dairy cattle not eating animal byproducts, therefore not getting BSE, therefore not being slaughtered and reduced in numbers owing to BSE? Total and utter rubbish, you have missed the point by so much it is hardly worth the effort of correcting you. The number of beef cattle has been falling very slowly over the years as the number of dairy and beef cows has slowly fallen. The biggest cause in the fall in beef numbers is milk quota which, when combined with steadily increasing dairy genetic merit and milk yields has meant there are less milk cows producing the same about of milk and less money to buy grain feed? Ruminants are not big users of wheat, pigs and poultry and the largest users What proportion of UK wheat is bought buy farmers? Then the available storage silos would be getting full sooner, so the wheat would have to go to market without waiting for a better price. Not a problem, the beef industry is not a major user of wheat I see 1/3 of UK wheat goes to animal feed. And a few days ago you wrote: : In the long term, maize has been displaced by wheat in UK diets : purely on price, the last round of CAP reforms cut the market price : of EU produced feed wheat which made maize comparatively expensive : for feed compounders using 'least cost' formulations. When I was a : kid cattle feed was basical ly a mixture of maize and soya, which : is something the UK industry hasn't be en able to afford for over : thirty years. Looks like you were relating of cattle feed. That was why I used the words Cattle feed, because I was relating it to cattle. Indeed the largest consumers of cattle feeds are dairy cows anyway, which is why I said the beef industry is not a major user of wheat. It is remarkably easy to understand if you actually read the words Jim Webster |
GM crop farms filled with weeds
In sci.med.nutrition Jim Webster wrote:
"Brian Sandle" wrote in message ... I was trying to inquire into the drop in wheat prices, so look for the drop in consumption of wheat. In sci.agriculture Jim Webster wrote: "Brian Sandle" wrote in message ... In sci.agriculture Jim Webster wrote: "Brian Sandle" wrote in message ... You have a related problem - another unnatural agricultural procedure that was warned about: feeding meat to cattle, causing spread of BSE. and that affects wheat prices exactly how? BSE did impinge on beef prices And there were fewer cattle to feed, no, because beef animals are predominantly a by-product of the dairy industry. I see, dairy cattle not eating animal byproducts, therefore not getting BSE, therefore not being slaughtered and reduced in numbers owing to BSE? Total and utter rubbish, you have missed the point by so much it is hardly worth the effort of correcting you. So instead dairy getting supplementary feed till they become too old, then go onto grass as beef animals? Now where was BSE and culling in that? The number of beef cattle has been falling very slowly over the years as the number of dairy and beef cows has slowly fallen. The biggest cause in the fall in beef numbers is milk quota which, when combined with steadily increasing dairy genetic merit and milk yields has meant there are less milk cows producing the same about of milk and less money to buy grain feed? Ruminants are not big users of wheat, pigs and poultry and the largest users What proportion of UK wheat is bought buy farmers? Then the available storage silos would be getting full sooner, so the wheat would have to go to market without waiting for a better price. Not a problem, the beef industry is not a major user of wheat I see 1/3 of UK wheat goes to animal feed. And a few days ago you wrote: : In the long term, maize has been displaced by wheat in UK diets : purely on price, the last round of CAP reforms cut the market price : of EU produced feed wheat which made maize comparatively expensive : for feed compounders using 'least cost' formulations. When I was a : kid cattle feed was basical ly a mixture of maize and soya, which : is something the UK industry hasn't be en able to afford for over : thirty years. Looks like you were relating of cattle feed. That was why I used the words Cattle feed, because I was relating it to cattle. Indeed the largest consumers of cattle feeds are dairy cows anyway, which is why I said the beef industry is not a major user of wheat. It is remarkably easy to understand if you actually read the words So animals eat 1/3 of UK wheat, pigs and poultry eat the better part of this, but it is also an important supplementary feed for dairy. Did or did not BSE culling cause a reduction of some percent in demand for UK wheat? Did that follow on to a some percent sooner filling of silos and wheat going straight on to market, triggering lower prices? Note: Linkname: From BSE to GMOs - What Have We Learned? URL: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/bse.php ***** [...] The aim of this booklet is to inform the public about some of the major failings in the government's handling of the BSE crises, and to demonstrate that a similar scenario is now being repeated with GMOs. Dr Narang combines his experience with BSE, with his concerns over food GM foods, to convey an important message to all members of the public. [...] The authorities in Ireland adopted the approach of slaughtering the whole herd in which any clinical case of BSE was detected. Breeding from affected animals was also stopped so that the infectious agent did not pass from one generation to the next. These practices succeeded in keeping the total number of BSE cases in Ireland to below 100. Advice to adopt the same approach was also available in Britain to the relevant authority, the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food (MAFF), but it was ignored, and breeding from affected animals continued in Britain. Out of the170, 000 animals confirmed with BSE in Britain, 40, 000 of them were born after the feed ban was introduced in 1988. [...] Dr Narang has published all his findings in peer reviewed scientific journals on the nature of the infectious agent of BSE. The infectious agent is a slow acting virus that consists of a single stranded (ss) DNA genome which is associated with the prion protein. Furthermore, the agent is transmitted maternally from cow to calf via the ssDNA. Without the implementation of a diagnostic test, maternal transmission has gone unchecked. This means that the infectious agent may still be widespread within British livestock while thousands of perfectly healthy cattle may have been destroyed unnecessarily. Dr Narang has also suggested the need to develop a vaccine against BSE and new variant CJD. In 1997, the Medical Research Council (MRC) agreed to evaluate Dr Narang's diagnostic test (western blotting/ELISA equipment) and set up a special CJD urine test-committee to oversee his work. The National CJD Surveillance Unit at Edinburgh was asked to provide Dr Narang with 20 blind samples of urine, 10 samples from CJD cases and 10 from non-CJD cases, so as to evaluate the test. However, the National CJD Surveillance Unit failed to provide the urine samples in the form requested. The test therefore has not been evaluated by the MRC and no CJD diagnostic test is in use to this day, making it impossible to monitor the actual number of CJD cases. Dr Narang has found it increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to get funding for scientific research in this country. He has been forced to pursue his endeavours abroad. [...] ****** A tonsil test was recently used in New Zealand to prove a young person did not have vCJD. So apparently some of Narang's work is getting through, now. I am trying to figure the economic forces in it all. Who made the most money on the great cull? Or was it nobody and just stupid? |
GM crop farms filled with weeds
I see, dairy cattle not eating animal byproducts, therefore not getting BSE, therefore not being slaughtered and reduced in numbers owing to BSE? Total and utter rubbish, you have missed the point by so much it is hardly worth the effort of correcting you. So instead dairy getting supplementary feed till they become too old, then go onto grass as beef animals? You have totally misunderstood, the dairy herd is a major source of beef animals because of the calves they produce. In the UK, as an approximation, 60% of beef came from the reared calves of dairy cows. snipped So animals eat 1/3 of UK wheat, pigs and poultry eat the better part of this, but it is also an important supplementary feed for dairy. Wheat is rarely fed as straight wheat to dairy cows. If is included ground and mixed in a balanced compound Its inclusion in compounds is determined by cost, all compounders use least cost software to produce a compound of the designated feed quality for the lowest price. So if wheat is cheap the inclusion will increase, this happened last year. This year with wheat being dear, the proportion is falling. But for dairy cows, too much wheat can cause nutritional problems and so tends to be avoided. With poultry inclusion rates can be as high as 65%, with pigs 60%, I would be wary about buying a dairy cake with more than 25% wheat inclusion Did or did not BSE culling cause a reduction of some percent in demand for UK wheat? No, because the number of dairy cows did not change noticeably, and the number of their offspring didn't chance much. Remember that due to weather the UK grain harvest can vary between 11 and 16 million tonnes anyway, so a change in usage of a few thousand tonnes is not going to have any meaningful effect on price. Did that follow on to a some percent sooner filling of silos and wheat going straight on to market, triggering lower prices? Note: Linkname: From BSE to GMOs - What Have We Learned? URL: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/bse.php ***** [...] The aim of this booklet is to inform the public about some of the major failings in the government's handling of the BSE crises, and to demonstrate that a similar scenario is now being repeated with GMOs. Dr Narang combines his experience with BSE, with his concerns over food GM foods, to convey an important message to all members of the public. [...] The authorities in Ireland adopted the approach of slaughtering the whole herd in which any clinical case of BSE was detected. Breeding from affected animals was also stopped so that the infectious agent did not pass from one generation to the next. These practices succeeded in keeping the total number of BSE cases in Ireland to below 100. Advice to adopt the same approach was also available in Britain to the relevant authority, the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food (MAFF), but it was ignored, and breeding from affected animals continued in Britain. Out of the170, 000 animals confirmed with BSE in Britain, 40, 000 of them were born after the feed ban was introduced in 1988. [...] Dr Narang has published all his findings in peer reviewed scientific journals on the nature of the infectious agent of BSE. The infectious agent is a slow acting virus that consists of a single stranded (ss) DNA genome which is associated with the prion protein. Furthermore, the agent is transmitted maternally from cow to calf via the ssDNA. Without the implementation of a diagnostic test, maternal transmission has gone unchecked. This means that the infectious agent may still be widespread within British livestock while thousands of perfectly healthy cattle may have been destroyed unnecessarily. Dr Narang has also suggested the need to develop a vaccine against BSE and new variant CJD. In 1997, the Medical Research Council (MRC) agreed to evaluate Dr Narang's diagnostic test (western blotting/ELISA equipment) and set up a special CJD urine test-committee to oversee his work. The National CJD Surveillance Unit at Edinburgh was asked to provide Dr Narang with 20 blind samples of urine, 10 samples from CJD cases and 10 from non-CJD cases, so as to evaluate the test. However, the National CJD Surveillance Unit failed to provide the urine samples in the form requested. The test therefore has not been evaluated by the MRC and no CJD diagnostic test is in use to this day, making it impossible to monitor the actual number of CJD cases. Dr Narang has found it increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to get funding for scientific research in this country. He has been forced to pursue his endeavours abroad. [...] ****** A tonsil test was recently used in New Zealand to prove a young person did not have vCJD. So apparently some of Narang's work is getting through, now. I am trying to figure the economic forces in it all. Who made the most money on the great cull? Or was it nobody and just stupid? Only money made was by people who suddenly got big research grants. Shroud waving rules. We spent £4 billion a year and yet current predictions are that there will be less than a couple of hundred dead. If we had spent this money on kidney treatment or even maternity, we would have saved tens of thousands of lives. Jim Webster |
GM crop farms filled with weeds
Jim Webster wrote:
Did or did not BSE culling cause a reduction of some percent in demand for UK wheat? No, because the number of dairy cows did not change noticeably, and the number of their offspring didn't chance much. Remember that due to weather the UK grain harvest can vary between 11 and 16 million tonnes anyway, so a change in usage of a few thousand tonnes is not going to have any meaningful effect on price. So what percentage of the lower returns for UK farmers is explained by BSE? Then there is the high UK pound, if you are looking at exports. There are possibly follow on effects from deregulation is it? Has the weather done a big cycle or os greenhous turbulence causing trouble? Now how much of that sort of thing has been happening in USA to form the loss picture for farmers there? And how much can be put down to GM troubles - extra seed costs and extra herbicide, also needed when the weeds which Roundup is not so strong on start to advance? [...] Only money made was by people who suddenly got big research grants. Shroud waving rules. What about corporates hoping to buy struggling farms cheaply? We spent £4 billion a year and yet current predictions are that there will be less than a couple of hundred dead. If we had spent this money on kidney treatment or even maternity, we would have saved tens of thousands of lives. Yes, though I suppose that was a known quantity. The BSE money was like insurance, rather expensive over the years, and some never claim, and could have replaced their belongings with the amount they pay over 50 years. |
GM crop farms filled with weeds
"Brian Sandle" wrote in message ... Jim Webster wrote: Did or did not BSE culling cause a reduction of some percent in demand for UK wheat? No, because the number of dairy cows did not change noticeably, and the number of their offspring didn't chance much. Remember that due to weather the UK grain harvest can vary between 11 and 16 million tonnes anyway, so a change in usage of a few thousand tonnes is not going to have any meaningful effect on price. So what percentage of the lower returns for UK farmers is explained by BSE? We are talking about a 30 year process remember. BSE had an effect on a small sector of the industry in the last decade of a 30 year period Then there is the high UK pound, if you are looking at exports. Over a 30 year period we have had strong and weak currency There are possibly follow on effects from deregulation is it? Has the weather done a big cycle or os greenhous turbulence causing trouble? Over thirty years, we have had a couple of droughts, years of almost constant rain, the weather has been pretty much average Now how much of that sort of thing has been happening in USA to form the loss picture for farmers there? And how much can be put down to GM troubles - extra seed costs and extra herbicide, also needed when the weeds which Roundup is not so strong on start to advance? over a thirty year period, damn all [...] Only money made was by people who suddenly got big research grants. Shroud waving rules. What about corporates hoping to buy struggling farms cheaply? No evidence of that whatsoever. I suspect that if you look at the figures you will find less UK farm land in the hands of insurance companies and similar than there was thirty years ago We spent £4 billion a year and yet current predictions are that there will be less than a couple of hundred dead. If we had spent this money on kidney treatment or even maternity, we would have saved tens of thousands of lives. Yes, though I suppose that was a known quantity. The BSE money was like insurance, rather expensive over the years, and some never claim, and could have replaced their belongings with the amount they pay over 50 years. Or perhaps like a protection racket where a bunch of people siphon money out of an area for their own personal use Jim Webster |
GM crop farms filled with weeds
In sci.med.nutrition Jim Webster wrote:
"Brian Sandle" wrote in message ... Jim Webster wrote: Did or did not BSE culling cause a reduction of some percent in demand for UK wheat? No, because the number of dairy cows did not change noticeably, and the number of their offspring didn't chance much. Remember that due to weather the UK grain harvest can vary between 11 and 16 million tonnes anyway, so a change in usage of a few thousand tonnes is not going to have any meaningful effect on price. So what percentage of the lower returns for UK farmers is explained by BSE? We are talking about a 30 year process remember. BSE had an effect on a small sector of the industry in the last decade of a 30 year period Then there is the high UK pound, if you are looking at exports. Over a 30 year period we have had strong and weak currency There are possibly follow on effects from deregulation is it? Has the weather done a big cycle or os greenhous turbulence causing trouble? Over thirty years, we have had a couple of droughts, years of almost constant rain, the weather has been pretty much average Now how much of that sort of thing has been happening in USA to form the loss picture for farmers there? And how much can be put down to GM troubles - extra seed costs and extra herbicide, also needed when the weeds which Roundup is not so strong on start to advance? over a thirty year period, damn all So what do you think has affected ups and downs of USA and UK farming incomes in the various segments of the thirty year period? [...] Only money made was by people who suddenly got big research grants. Shroud waving rules. What about corporates hoping to buy struggling farms cheaply? No evidence of that whatsoever. I suspect that if you look at the figures you will find less UK farm land in the hands of insurance companies and similar than there was thirty years ago Because they set up farming corporates to do the job. We spent £4 billion a year and yet current predictions are that there will be less than a couple of hundred dead. If we had spent this money on kidney treatment or even maternity, we would have saved tens of thousands of lives. Yes, though I suppose that was a known quantity. The BSE money was like insurance, rather expensive over the years, and some never claim, and could have replaced their belongings with the amount they pay over 50 years. Or perhaps like a protection racket where a bunch of people siphon money out of an area for their own personal use And we had Narang (i-sis member) fired from the scheme, though forwarding good ideas, it seems. |
GM crop farms filled with weeds
"Brian Sandle" wrote in message ... over a thirty year period, damn all So what do you think has affected ups and downs of USA and UK farming incomes in the various segments of the thirty year period? Simple, concentration of buying power in a handful of major retailers, fragmentation of producers, a political determination to keep food prices low, replacing the market with subsidy which has the advantage of ensuing that we do not have hunger among the poor in the first world [...] Only money made was by people who suddenly got big research grants. Shroud waving rules. What about corporates hoping to buy struggling farms cheaply? No evidence of that whatsoever. I suspect that if you look at the figures you will find less UK farm land in the hands of insurance companies and similar than there was thirty years ago Because they set up farming corporates to do the job. And you have UK evidence for this somewhat strange statement? Jim Webster. |
GM crop farms filled with weeds
In sci.med.nutrition Mooshie peas wrote:
On 21 Aug 2003 03:41:31 GMT, Brian Sandle posted: You have a related problem - another unnatural agricultural procedure that was warned about: feeding meat to cattle, causing spread of BSE. Feeding meat to cattle is NOT "unnatuaral". And "unnaturalness" has nothing to do with BSE. Cattle have several stomachs to digest cellulose. The food is supposed to be well digested by the time it reaches the intestines. Feeding even grain causes an increase in E.coli. When have cows eaten meat, except perhaps their own placenta? Scrapie infected sheep byproducts were fed to cattle. There was a jump of the problem to cattle as BSE. Then it spread fast through cattle. Isn't that it? the article is so grossly simplistic as to be fatuous Such statements as we often see from the agbiotech sector, that we have to get up production to feed the world are rather stupid. There are surpluses aren't there? Not where the folks are starving, and that's what counts. 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. Work is what is needed, and the chance to learn about nature. It is a very tough way of having farmers learn about nature by having them coping with giving their allegiance to herbicide tolerant crops for more profit but finding that they have to spend a whole lot more since the weeds have become tolerant. Where has this happened? Other than the natural level of weeds becoming tolerant of different circumstances 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. If new herbicides are developed the same thing will happen again and the farmers will go under further. Go under what? Are you saying that weed control is a useless activity? 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. The FAO is pushing non-GM for the developing countries. URL so we can read why? Actually not just non-GM, rather pushing organic. http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/005/Y4137E/y4137e05.htm#P6_90 That is quite long. They are even quoting such as: "once agriculture comes to be regarded as a health service the only consideration in any matter concerning the production of food would be: is it necessary for the health of the people? That of ordinary economics would take a quite secondary place" Now I see some farmers in UK are working like third world farmers for very low hourly rates. Are you confusing deregulation/globalisation with technological progress? The technological progress of GM is aimed at, and is achieving the goal, of increased wealth of a limited group of technology companies. If poor famers get the notion of selling to their folks about them that is quashed pretty quickly by dumping. |
GM crop farms filled with weeds
"Brian Sandle" wrote in message ... In sci.med.nutrition Mooshie peas wrote: On 21 Aug 2003 03:41:31 GMT, Brian Sandle posted: You have a related problem - another unnatural agricultural procedure that was warned about: feeding meat to cattle, causing spread of BSE. Feeding meat to cattle is NOT "unnatuaral". And "unnaturalness" has nothing to do with BSE. Cattle have several stomachs to digest cellulose. no, bacteria digest cellulose, they do it in the rumen. The food is supposed to be well digested by the time it reaches the intestines. Feeding even grain causes an increase in E.coli. and your evidence for this? When have cows eaten meat, except perhaps their own placenta? Hill cows in Cumbria are known to chew on sheep carcasses, they have aways chewed bones Scrapie infected sheep byproducts were fed to cattle. There was a jump of the problem to cattle as BSE. Then it spread fast through cattle. Isn't that it? except that when it is put back into sheep it isn't scrapie, it is BSE, so it probably wasn't scrapie in the first place. the article is so grossly simplistic as to be fatuous Such statements as we often see from the agbiotech sector, that we have to get up production to feed the world are rather stupid. There are surpluses aren't there? Not where the folks are starving, and that's what counts. 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. you do know that world wheat stocks and output have fallen for the last three years do you? Jim Webster |
GM crop farms filled with weeds
"Brian Sandle" wrote in message ... In sci.med.nutrition Mooshie peas wrote: On 21 Aug 2003 03:41:31 GMT, Brian Sandle posted: You have a related problem - another unnatural agricultural procedure that was warned about: feeding meat to cattle, causing spread of BSE. Feeding meat to cattle is NOT "unnatuaral". And "unnaturalness" has nothing to do with BSE. Cattle have several stomachs to digest cellulose. The food is supposed to be well digested by the time it reaches the intestines. Feeding even grain causes an increase in E.coli. When have cows eaten meat, except perhaps their own placenta? Scrapie infected sheep byproducts were fed to cattle. There was a jump of the problem to cattle as BSE. Then it spread fast through cattle. Isn't that it? the article is so grossly simplistic as to be fatuous Such statements as we often see from the agbiotech sector, that we have to get up production to feed the world are rather stupid. There are surpluses aren't there? Not where the folks are starving, and that's what counts. 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. Work is what is needed, and the chance to learn about nature. It is a very tough way of having farmers learn about nature by having them coping with giving their allegiance to herbicide tolerant crops for more profit but finding that they have to spend a whole lot more since the weeds have become tolerant. Where has this happened? Other than the natural level of weeds becoming tolerant of different circumstances 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. If new herbicides are developed the same thing will happen again and the farmers will go under further. Go under what? Are you saying that weed control is a useless activity? 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. It makes raising cotton about 8% cheaper over here. Gordon |
GM crop farms filled with weeds
In sci.med.nutrition Gordon Couger wrote:
"Brian Sandle" wrote in message ... Go under what? Are you saying that weed control is a useless activity? 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. It makes raising cotton about 8% cheaper over here. Then what does Bt plus RR cotton do to cost? Of course it depends on whether there is much infestation of boll worm that year. Some farmers sow it for insurance. But if there were few bollworms that season it has been cost for no gain that season. Same with RR cotton. It is only going to be cost effective till the weeds grow which are not killed by a minimal dose of Roundup. Is 8% the average or the best? If not 8% what is the best? Then if 8% is the average what is the worst? And remember there is a bit less market resistance to GM cotton since it is not a food crop. But I have never before had lung trouble with cotton underwear that I am getting now. |
GM crop farms filled with weeds
"Brian Sandle" wrote in message ... In sci.med.nutrition Gordon Couger wrote: "Brian Sandle" wrote in message ... Go under what? Are you saying that weed control is a useless activity? 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. It makes raising cotton about 8% cheaper over here. Then what does Bt plus RR cotton do to cost? Of course it depends on whether there is much infestation of boll worm that year. Some farmers sow it for insurance. But if there were few bollworms that season it has been cost for no gain that season. Same with RR cotton. It is only going to be cost effective till the weeds grow which are not killed by a minimal dose of Roundup. Is 8% the average or the best? If not 8% what is the best? Then if 8% is the average what is the worst? And remember there is a bit less market resistance to GM cotton since it is not a food crop. But I have never before had lung trouble with cotton underwear that I am getting now. I just know on cost what the guys farming for me tell me. In Oklahoma last year BT cotton increased the yield over the same verities with out BT about 5 to 7% at the experiment stations that did the test acceding to the author of the paper. The paper is not published yet so I don't know which stations and how much was irrigated and how much was dryland. Last year should have been a light year for worms. It was hot and dry. But it would depend on which stations they used. If corn was raised around the cotton it increases the worm pressure since the corn ear worm and boll worm are the same worm. The corn gives the worm a head start since the corn silks as much as a month or six weeks before the cotton blooms. Corn is raised near 3 or 4 of the experiment stations. Gordon |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:41 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter