In Romania Round Up Ready soybeans is proving much more valuable to farmers
than in the western world. With yield increases of 16 to 50%, cost
reductions averaging 28% and gross margin increases as much as 2 to 3 times
conventional methods of cultivation.
http://www.bioportfolio.com/pdf/Farm...inalreport.pdf

Romania has a very serious weed problem as a result of the lack of capital
and chaos following the Soviet break down. GM beans do a great deal better
in these weedy condition than beans raised using conventional herbicides.

Gordon

Xref: 127.0.0.1 sci.agricultu63669


On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 01:54:37 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

In Romania Round Up Ready soybeans is proving much more valuable to farmers
than in the western world.

Except that no-one in Europe will buy GM soya beans...

Romania has a very serious weed problem

Romania has another very serious problem: The "biotech" industry has
hardly been regulated at all until very recently, so Romania has been
used as an open-air lab by the industry...

I would suggest you read:

"Romania: The Dumping Ground for Genetically Engineered Crops"
http://www.anped.org/docs/GMOs/Repor...om.14May03.PDF

for the real story of GM in Romania.

regards
Marcus

wrote in message
...

On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 01:54:37 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

In Romania Round Up Ready soybeans is proving much more valuable to
farmers
than in the western world.

Except that no-one in Europe will buy GM soya beans...

two points here

Rumania is hardly a major soya exporter to this doesn't matter anyway

Secondly, where did you get the silly idea that no one in Europe will buy
GM? A lot of Argentinean and Brazilian soya comes into the UK

Jim Webster

On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 01:54:37 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

In Romania Round Up Ready soybeans is proving much more valuable to farmers
than in the western world. With yield increases of 16 to 50%, cost
reductions averaging 28% and gross margin increases as much as 2 to 3 times
conventional methods of cultivation.
http://www.bioportfolio.com/pdf/Farm...inalreport.pdf

Quote from the report:
"The reader should note that the cost analysis presented relates to
farmers that are applying the full conventional technology (ie, using
3-4 spray runs). Where farmers are not applying full conventional
technology, the cost saving potential is lower (or could represent a
cost increase)."

So for the purposes of the comparison, non-RR soybean farmer herbicide
cost is put in as the theoretical figure representing conditions under
full use of conventional herbicide technology.

While the -yield- estimates that are put in supposedly represent
the actual conditions of whatever reduced herbicide use for weed
management the non-RR farmers actually get along with. Sic.

This method is rather likely to exaggerate the calculated benefits
of RR soybeans. But why would the author want to do that?
I mean, he is not funded by Monsanto or anything, is he?

Ooops. I see the author is actually bought by Monsanto, and
apparently 100 per cent, to produce this report. And suffering
no peer review, by golly. Well, then it perhaps all makes sense.

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 01:54:37 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

In Romania Round Up Ready soybeans is proving much more valuable to
farmers
than in the western world. With yield increases of 16 to 50%, cost
reductions averaging 28% and gross margin increases as much as 2 to 3
times
conventional methods of cultivation.

http://www.bioportfolio.com/pdf/Farm...niafinalreport
..pdf

Quote from the report:
"The reader should note that the cost analysis presented relates to
farmers that are applying the full conventional technology (ie, using
3-4 spray runs). Where farmers are not applying full conventional
technology, the cost saving potential is lower (or could represent a
cost increase)."

So for the purposes of the comparison, non-RR soybean farmer herbicide
cost is put in as the theoretical figure representing conditions under
full use of conventional herbicide technology.

While the -yield- estimates that are put in supposedly represent
the actual conditions of whatever reduced herbicide use for weed
management the non-RR farmers actually get along with. Sic.

This method is rather likely to exaggerate the calculated benefits
of RR soybeans. But why would the author want to do that?
I mean, he is not funded by Monsanto or anything, is he?

Ooops. I see the author is actually bought by Monsanto, and
apparently 100 per cent, to produce this report. And suffering
no peer review, by golly. Well, then it perhaps all makes sense.

The author pointed out that the benefits were to the fields with the most
weed problems.

I don't expect that anyone in Europe would pay for the study. Simply because
a researcher contract to do a study he does not sell his soul to the
company. This is business not ecology we are discussing.

It come out of your pocket when you have to bring eastern Europe up to CAP
standards as you bring them into the EU. If you want to try to clean up the
fields organically or conventionally its your money. You seem to think that
the movement can keep paying for it all with no consequences. That cow will
eventually suck its self dry. Your every increasing regulations increase
costs at home as well as exclude competition.

I just got off the phone with a plant pathologist they just bought a new
microscope. Leica and Zeiss were not even considered because of price. Your
costs are sure helping your exports.

Gordon

On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 21:40:00 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:


"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 01:54:37 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

In Romania Round Up Ready soybeans is proving much more valuable to
farmers
than in the western world. With yield increases of 16 to 50%, cost
reductions averaging 28% and gross margin increases as much as 2 to 3
times
conventional methods of cultivation.

http://www.bioportfolio.com/pdf/Farm...niafinalreport
.pdf

Quote from the report:
"The reader should note that the cost analysis presented relates to
farmers that are applying the full conventional technology (ie, using
3-4 spray runs). Where farmers are not applying full conventional
technology, the cost saving potential is lower (or could represent a
cost increase)."

So for the purposes of the comparison, non-RR soybean farmer herbicide
cost is put in as the theoretical figure representing conditions under
full use of conventional herbicide technology.

While the -yield- estimates that are put in supposedly represent
the actual conditions of whatever reduced herbicide use for weed
management the non-RR farmers actually get along with. Sic.

This method is rather likely to exaggerate the calculated benefits
of RR soybeans.

..

The author pointed out that the benefits were to the fields with the most
weed problems. snip

Don't tell me you don't see a problem with this method :-) Effectively
it means burdening down the gross margin of non-RR farming with
herbicide costs it does not have, and does not enjoy the yield
improvements of on the plus side.

Btw ;^) Did you notice there are indication in the report that the
author may have left out at least one datapoint with no documentation
at all why he did it?

I am referring to the footnote, in which the author gives the example
of one farmer interviewed, who was having a yield of 3.8 tons/ha
using non-RR crop, increasing it to 4.2 t/ha using RR. However in his
findings (Appendix 1) the author says he found non-RR yields to fall
in the range 2.0-3.2 t/ha, and RR yields in the range 3.0-3.6.

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 21:40:00 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:


"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 01:54:37 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

In Romania Round Up Ready soybeans is proving much more valuable to
farmers
than in the western world. With yield increases of 16 to 50%, cost
reductions averaging 28% and gross margin increases as much as 2 to 3
times
conventional methods of cultivation.


http://www.bioportfolio.com/pdf/Farm...aniafinalrepor
t
.pdf

Quote from the report:
"The reader should note that the cost analysis presented relates to
farmers that are applying the full conventional technology (ie, using
3-4 spray runs). Where farmers are not applying full conventional
technology, the cost saving potential is lower (or could represent a
cost increase)."

So for the purposes of the comparison, non-RR soybean farmer herbicide
cost is put in as the theoretical figure representing conditions under
full use of conventional herbicide technology.

While the -yield- estimates that are put in supposedly represent
the actual conditions of whatever reduced herbicide use for weed
management the non-RR farmers actually get along with. Sic.

This method is rather likely to exaggerate the calculated benefits
of RR soybeans.

..

The author pointed out that the benefits were to the fields with the most
weed problems. snip

Don't tell me you don't see a problem with this method :-) Effectively
it means burdening down the gross margin of non-RR farming with
herbicide costs it does not have, and does not enjoy the yield
improvements of on the plus side.

As I read the study it is compares actual costs to actual yeilds.

Btw ;^) Did you notice there are indication in the report that the
author may have left out at least one datapoint with no documentation
at all why he did it?

I am referring to the footnote, in which the author gives the example
of one farmer interviewed, who was having a yield of 3.8 tons/ha
using non-RR crop, increasing it to 4.2 t/ha using RR. However in his
findings (Appendix 1) the author says he found non-RR yields to fall
in the range 2.0-3.2 t/ha, and RR yields in the range 3.0-3.6.


I will see if there is an more detailed information on this report.

Taking one figure in a study has little meaning in a study that covers many
farms. The ranges of savings, yield increases and margin increases were
rather wide.
If we had the whole data set it would expect find some farmers than made
more profit using conventional herbicides than some farmer using RR beans
and round up. This was a study of results of what farmers had done it was
not a controlled study with paired plots and treatments.

A farmer that keeps his beans clean with a steel hoe and cultivation using
family labor will pocket more money per ha. than either group. unfortunately
he can't raise very many hectares of beans that way.

Farming is not a chemical experiment or computer program where you give two
farmers that seem to be very close to the same the same experiment and get
exactly the same results. There are a large number of decisions a farmer
makes that can have considerable changes in the out come of his crop.

Gordon

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 01:21:55 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

http://www.bioportfolio.com/pdf/Farm...aniafinalrepor
t.pdf

Quote from the report:
"The reader should note that the cost analysis presented relates to
farmers that are applying the full conventional technology (ie, using
3-4 spray runs). Where farmers are not applying full conventional
technology, the cost saving potential is lower (or could represent a
cost increase)."

So for the purposes of the comparison, non-RR soybean farmer herbicide
cost is put in as the theoretical figure representing conditions under
full use of conventional herbicide technology.

While the -yield- estimates that are put in supposedly represent
the actual conditions of whatever reduced herbicide use for weed
management the non-RR farmers actually get along with. Sic.

This method is rather likely to exaggerate the calculated benefits
of RR soybeans.

..

The author pointed out that the benefits were to the fields with the most
weed problems. snip

Don't tell me you don't see a problem with this method :-) Effectively
it means burdening down the gross margin of non-RR farming with
herbicide costs it does not have, and does not enjoy the yield
improvements of on the plus side.

As I read the study it is compares actual costs snip

Oh,so. How come, then, that the author is apparently not in a position
to calculate true average actual costs, seeing he uses midpoints
in his cost ranges as stand-ins? (indeed without making a note of it)

.. the author gives the example
of one farmer interviewed, who was having a yield of 3.8 tons/ha
using non-RR crop, increasing it to 4.2 t/ha using RR. However in his
findings (Appendix 1) the author says he found non-RR yields to fall
in the range 2.0-3.2 t/ha, and RR yields in the range 3.0-3.6.


I will see if there is an more detailed information on this report.
Taking one figure in a study has little meaning in a study that covers many
farms. The ranges of savings, yield increases and margin increases were
rather wide.

It's such a sick excuse to say that ranges reported by the author
are rather wide, when the matter seems to be, that ranges would
have been reported even wider if he had not discarded data points.

Perhaps it's just me, but you do not seem to be particularly
concerned, if this author has discarded data that is in
disagreement with his findings. It's almost like you don't care. ;^)

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 01:21:55 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:


http://www.bioportfolio.com/pdf/Farm...maniafinalrepo
r
t.pdf

Quote from the report:
"The reader should note that the cost analysis presented relates to
farmers that are applying the full conventional technology (ie,
using
3-4 spray runs). Where farmers are not applying full conventional
technology, the cost saving potential is lower (or could represent a
cost increase)."

So for the purposes of the comparison, non-RR soybean farmer
herbicide
cost is put in as the theoretical figure representing conditions
under
full use of conventional herbicide technology.

While the -yield- estimates that are put in supposedly represent
the actual conditions of whatever reduced herbicide use for weed
management the non-RR farmers actually get along with. Sic.

This method is rather likely to exaggerate the calculated benefits
of RR soybeans.

..

The author pointed out that the benefits were to the fields with the
most
weed problems. snip

Don't tell me you don't see a problem with this method :-) Effectively
it means burdening down the gross margin of non-RR farming with
herbicide costs it does not have, and does not enjoy the yield
improvements of on the plus side.

As I read the study it is compares actual costs snip

Oh,so. How come, then, that the author is apparently not in a position
to calculate true average actual costs, seeing he uses midpoints
in his cost ranges as stand-ins? (indeed without making a note of it)

.. the author gives the example
of one farmer interviewed, who was having a yield of 3.8 tons/ha
using non-RR crop, increasing it to 4.2 t/ha using RR. However in his
findings (Appendix 1) the author says he found non-RR yields to fall
in the range 2.0-3.2 t/ha, and RR yields in the range 3.0-3.6.


I will see if there is an more detailed information on this report.
Taking one figure in a study has little meaning in a study that covers
many
farms. The ranges of savings, yield increases and margin increases were
rather wide.

It's such a sick excuse to say that ranges reported by the author
are rather wide, when the matter seems to be, that ranges would
have been reported even wider if he had not discarded data points.

Perhaps it's just me, but you do not seem to be particularly
concerned, if this author has discarded data that is in
disagreement with his findings. It's almost like you don't care. ;^)

Where do I say he discarded data points. I said if we as the whole set of
data point that the average were calculated from we would probably see wide
variations in them.

Gordon

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 20:31:54 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:
"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 01:21:55 GMT, "Gordon Couger"

As I read the study it is compares actual costs snip

Oh,so. How come, then, that the author is apparently not in a position
to calculate true average actual costs, seeing he uses midpoints
in his cost ranges as stand-ins? (indeed without making a note of it)

Gordon, I tell you the author takes the midpoints from his cost
ranges, and calls that averages. He doesn't even make a note of it.
You find that OK?

..

Where do I say he discarded data points.

Nowhere, that's the strange thing. You can see the author reports
finding his data to be in the range 3.0-3.6, and you can see
the author has had a data point at 4.2. Dog ate it?

I said if we as the whole set of data point that the average were
calculated from we would probably see wide variations in them.

The author reports average 3.1, range 3.0-3.6 -- and you
need to see the whole set of data points to know how wide variation
is in them ???

On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 21:40:00 GMT, in sci.agriculture you wrote:

I don't expect that anyone in Europe would pay for the study. Simply because
a researcher contract to do a study he does not sell his soul to the
company. This is business not ecology we are discussing.

In this case the author has very much sold his soul to the biotech
companies. Just do a Google search for the author and you'll see how
many reports he has produced praising GM crops, with no reports
critical of GM crops.

regards
Marcus

wrote in message
...

On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 21:40:00 GMT, in sci.agriculture you wrote:

I don't expect that anyone in Europe would pay for the study. Simply
because
a researcher contract to do a study he does not sell his soul to the
company. This is business not ecology we are discussing.

In this case the author has very much sold his soul to the biotech
companies. Just do a Google search for the author and you'll see how
many reports he has produced praising GM crops, with no reports
critical of GM crops.

on the grounds that we have seen you post plenty of posts critical of GM but
none at all in favour, following your categorisation should we ask who you
have sold your soul to?

Jim Webster

regards
Marcus

On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 19:03:43 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote:

on the grounds that we have seen you post plenty of posts critical of GM but
none at all in favour, following your categorisation should we ask who you
have sold your soul to?

No - because I don't receive money for my work against GM crops. Those
who speak in favour of biotech invariably receive money for doing so.

regards
Marcus

wrote in message
...

On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 19:03:43 +0100, "Jim Webster"
wrote:

on the grounds that we have seen you post plenty of posts critical of GM
but
none at all in favour, following your categorisation should we ask who
you
have sold your soul to?

No - because I don't receive money for my work against GM crops.

this you tell us, and of course being gentlemen we believe you, but how do
we know you aren't an employee of greenpeace or similar?


Those
who speak in favour of biotech invariably receive money for doing so.

funnily enough the people I see on sci.agric who ask the difficult questions
that the anti-gm brigade dislike so much tend to be ordinary farmers whose
knowledge of the real world tends to distress the antis

Jim Webster

regards
Marcus

writes
No - because I don't receive money for my work against GM crops. Those
who speak in favour of biotech invariably receive money for doing so.

Factually wrong. Both jim and I would probably be in that category and I
certainly don't, and I am confident jim doesn't, get any funding for
saying anything on usenet.

Still, just like you to make statements without evidence and which are
factually wrong.

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