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.

"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

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.

"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

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?

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

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.

"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

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.

"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.

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.

"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

"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

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.

"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