On 8/24/03 9:13 AM, in article 1061734280.285111@cobalt.caverock.co.nz,
"Brian Sandle" <bsandle@shell.caverock.net.nz> 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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

It's not necessary to rogue beans anymore.

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.

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.

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.

In sci.agriculture Dean Hoffman <dh0496@ineinbrasvalkaid.com> wrote:
On 8/24/03 9:13 AM, in article 1061734280.285111@cobalt.caverock.co.nz,
"Brian Sandle" <bsandle@shell.caverock.net.nz> 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.

"Brian Sandle" <bsandle@shell.caverock.net.nz> wrote in message
news:1062505061.984954@cobalt.caverock.co.nz...
In sci.agriculture Dean Hoffman <dh0496@ineinbrasvalkaid.com> wrote:
On 8/24/03 9:13 AM, in article
1061734280.285111@cobalt.caverock.co.nz,
"Brian Sandle" <bsandle@shell.caverock.net.nz> 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.

of course not, it should be easy to screw money out of middle class tax
payers in the first world to subsidise the third world but they tend to
complain

Jim Webster

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?

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

Not as simple as just RR.

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

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

RR corn?

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?

DH: 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?

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.

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.

"Jim Webster" <Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bj2b05$ri0$4@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...

"Brian Sandle" <bsandle@shell.caverock.net.nz> wrote in message
news:1062505061.984954@cobalt.caverock.co.nz...
So it cannot be said that agriculture is the major stumbling block
in getting food to the poor.

of course not, it should be easy to screw money out of middle class tax
payers in the first world to subsidise the third world but they tend to
complain

sorry that should read to mean that of course agriculture is not the major
stumbling block

On 9/2/03 7:20 AM, in article 1062505061.984954@cobalt.caverock.co.nz,
"Brian Sandle" <bsandle@shell.caverock.net.nz> wrote:

DH: 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?

I don't know. A heavy dose of Roundup will control dogbane. The Roundup
has to be applied in doses that are over the label limit for corn. I think
the trick is to spray toward the end of the growing season to minimize the
impact on the corn crop.

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

Not as simple as just RR.

True. There are other reasons to rotate. One is soybeans will leave
behind about 45# of nitrogen per acre for the next year's corn crop.

Another is insect control. There something showing up locally that has no
treatment except rotation. I don't remember what it is. It isn't the
traditional bugs or weeds.
The seed corn companies here won't put their crop into a field that had
corn the previous year.

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

I don't know.

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

RR corn?

I think RR beans were introduced here before the RR corn. I was probaly
thinking back to that time.

DH: 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?

I don't know. Most were migrant workers. I suppose some back to Mexico,
others to other farm work. It was quite a sight, at times. Grandma and
almost down to toddler stage would be out working.

DH: 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?

Probably in some fields. I really haven't noticed a big increase overall.
I don't pay real close attention. I'm in fields working on irrigation.
Rogueing wasn't too effective for dog bane. It spreads through risones
(sp?) on the roots. Roundup can control it.

My dad had a real bad problem in one field years ago. This was before
Roundup. I think he put winter wheat in that field. He disced the field
following harvest the next summer. Then he used a heavy doses of something
like 2-4D plus something else. Whatever he did helped a lot although I don't
remember the details.

DH: 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.

It's a constant battle. Companies develop and farmers use new sprays.
Rotating chemicals from year to year helps keep each more effective longer.

DH: 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.

Sorry, I missed that post.

Jim Webster <Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote:

"Jim Webster" <Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bj2b05$ri0$4@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...

"Brian Sandle" <bsandle@shell.caverock.net.nz> wrote in message
news:1062505061.984954@cobalt.caverock.co.nz...
So it cannot be said that agriculture is the major stumbling block
in getting food to the poor.

of course not, it should be easy to screw money out of middle class tax
payers in the first world to subsidise the third world but they tend to
complain

sorry that should read to mean that of course agriculture is not the
major
stumbling block

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, and keep him dependent = a
possible meaning of your subsidies.

Teach him to fish and you make him independent of you = equal another
means of applying the subsidies.

Much third world work is agriculture. Cut that away with your subisides (=
dumping GM grain or beans) and you then can buy up their land cheap and
blind yourself to the eyesore you are creating. Get govts and aid orgs to
donate to buy the produce you produce on the gouged farms to sell the mass
subsistence market, keeping it weak enough not to challenge you.

Total waste of time. Who in their right mind is going to buy up a lot of
the agricultural land in the third world. Most of it owned by
subsistence peasants who cannot make a living for themselves. If you
want to actually help the third world, as opposed to merely feel good,
then rather than condemn them to a lifetime of back breaking graft
producing small amounts of commodity food, provide the opportunities of
education, real jobs for their children in manufacturing or services.
The problem with that is they will then compete with you and take your
job and that will never do.

Well, you could increase the world price of food.
Then it would be worthwhile for the peasants to produce a surplus.
Then they could have more kids.
Which they could afford to educate.
So they can compete with you, and take your job away.

Ooops, same result ....

Jim Webster <Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> writes
Total waste of time. Who in their right mind is going to buy up a lot of
the agricultural land in the third world. Most of it owned by
subsistence peasants who cannot make a living for themselves.

want to actually help the third world, as opposed to merely feel good,
then rather than condemn them to a lifetime of back breaking graft
producing small amounts of commodity food, provide the opportunities of
education, real jobs for their children in manufacturing or services.
The problem with that is they will then compete with you and take your
job and that will never do.

Oz <acoohdb@btopenworld.com> wrote:

Well, you could increase the world price of food.
Then it would be worthwhile for the peasants to produce a surplus.
Then they could have more kids.
Which they could afford to educate.
So they can compete with you, and take your job away.

Ooops, same result ....

Actually when the standard of living goes up people tend to have fewer
kids.

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 03:13:24 GMT, Mooshie peas
almostnothing@very.little> wrote:

On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 17:11:42 +0200, Torsten Brinch
iaotb@inet.uni2.dk> posted:

On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 13:31:25 GMT, Mooshie peas
almostnothing@very.little> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 10:30:04 +0200, Torsten Brinch
iaotb@inet.uni2.dk> posted:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 02:37:06 GMT, Mooshie peas
almostnothing@very.little> wrote:
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 11:32:40 +0200, Torsten Brinch
iaotb@inet.uni2.dk> posted:
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 09:00:11 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
gcouger@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote:

GM seeds can be develop in a short time

Myth: Genetic engineering reduces development time.

[Fact:]
The actual plant breeding work in genetically modified
varieties is the same as for conventional varieties, but
before this breeding work can start, there is the need for
extensive molecular development.

It is generally more expensive to develop genetically
modified varieties and bring them to market than
conventional varieties, because of the additional research
and development work, and additional regulatory
requirements.

But this has little to do with speed -- your original claim.

Mwuahahahaha. Additional research and development work that
does not take additional time?

Not compared with the decades and even hundreds of years of selective
breeding that you are comparing it too. Mwuahahahahah yourself!

Nyah nyah Additional research and development work that does
not take additional time _?_

Are you having a strange turn?

No-one said that additional research and development doesn't take
extra time. <snip

So you agree with Novartis, that genetically modified varieties
generally take more time to develop than conventionally bred
varieties, due to additional research and development work?

It is generally more expensive to develop genetically
modified varieties and bring them to market than
conventional varieties, because of the additional research
and development work, and additional regulatory
requirements."

Do you, or do you not think Novartis lied to the committee, when they
said they have additional research and development work with GM
varieties?

What has Novartis got to do with it?

I generally just lurk here, but cannot resist. Torsten knows, because I
sent him email, that Novartis can have nothing to do with this. The
reason is that Novartis is not, and never has been, in the agro
business. When Novartis was formed by the fusion of Sandoz and
Ciba-Geigy they spun off their agro divisions as a new firm, Syngenta.

Dean Hoffman <dh0496@ineinbrasvalkaid.com> wrote:

Another is insect control. There something showing up locally that has no
treatment except rotation. I don't remember what it is. It isn't the
traditional bugs or weeds.
The seed corn companies here won't put their crop into a field that had
corn the previous year.

So I hope the people here in NZ who are supporting the end of the GM
moratorium have got some figures on how that sort of thing affects their
whole profit scenario.

Or are they going to whimper that they could not have forseen such
problems and get a govt tax hand out for more research and or trying to
keep up standard of living of farmers who may be suffering. Otherwise how
can the govt keep on god terms with their mates in biotech?

"Brian Sandle" <bsandle@shell.caverock.net.nz> wrote in message
news:1062579035.92718@cobalt.caverock.co.nz...
Oz <acoohdb@btopenworld.com> wrote:

Well, you could increase the world price of food.
Then it would be worthwhile for the peasants to produce a surplus.
Then they could have more kids.
Which they could afford to educate.
So they can compete with you, and take your job away.

Ooops, same result ....

Actually when the standard of living goes up people tend to have fewer
kids.

doesn't matter, with education they will still undercut you and take your
job

Jim Webster <Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote:
"Brian Sandle" <bsandle@shell.caverock.net.nz> wrote in message
news:1062579035.92718@cobalt.caverock.co.nz...
Oz <acoohdb@btopenworld.com> wrote:

Well, you could increase the world price of food.
Then it would be worthwhile for the peasants to produce a surplus.
Then they could have more kids.
Which they could afford to educate.
So they can compete with you, and take your job away.

Ooops, same result ....

Actually when the standard of living goes up people tend to have fewer
kids.

doesn't matter, with education they will still undercut you and take
your
job

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?

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

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.