Jim Webster <Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote:
funny that
tonnes of GM maize have been imported into Europe and no one has noticed
any
difference

perhaps these differences only occur when witnessed by people a long way
away?

Then to see how much discrimination there is does the beef market note any
difference between animals fed on maize silage vs grass silage?

On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 10:52:12 +0100, "Jim Webster"
Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote:

tonnes of GM maize have been imported into Europe and no one has noticed
any
difference

How many tonnes?

Why are US farmers complaining that they have lost $200-$300 million
per annum in corn exports to Europe because of GMOs?

"Brian Sandle" <bsandle@shell.caverock.net.nz> wrote in message
news:1061157097.983600@cobalt.caverock.co.nz...
Jim Webster <Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote:
funny that
tonnes of GM maize have been imported into Europe and no one has noticed
any
difference

perhaps these differences only occur when witnessed by people a long way
away?

Then to see how much discrimination there is does the beef market note any
difference between animals fed on maize silage vs grass silage?

In UK maize is more likely to be fed to beef animals as gluten than silage,
maize silage is more likely to be used for high yielding dairy cows where
any problems would be noticed pretty well instantly

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

"Brian Sandle" <bsandle@shell.caverock.net.nz> wrote in message
news:1061157097.983600@cobalt.caverock.co.nz...
Jim Webster <Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote:
funny that
tonnes of GM maize have been imported into Europe and no one has
noticed
any
difference

perhaps these differences only occur when witnessed by people a long
way
away?

Then to see how much discrimination there is does the beef market note
any
difference between animals fed on maize silage vs grass silage?

In UK maize is more likely to be fed to beef animals as gluten than
silage,
maize silage is more likely to be used for high yielding dairy cows
where
any problems would be noticed pretty well instantly

Then how about milk differences between grass-silage and corn-silage fed
cows? Taste and keeping/nutritional qualities?

"Brian Sandle" <bsandle@shell.caverock.net.nz> wrote in message

Then how about milk differences between grass-silage and corn-silage fed
cows? Taste and keeping/nutritional qualities?

by the time milk has been pasturised, homogenised, standardised, you haven't
a cat in hells chance of telling.
Bigger difference between grass and silage, spring and winter than there is
between various winter feeds. Remember that the nutrition of a high
yielding dairy cow is a serious matter and carefully monitored.

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


But my point is that if you don't notice any of those differences then
perhaps your perceptivity might not be trusted as to differences between
cows reactions to GM vs non-GM feed.

"Brian Sandle" <bsandle@shell.caverock.net.nz> wrote in message
news:1061204440.642576@cobalt.caverock.co.nz...
Jim Webster <Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote:


But my point is that if you don't notice any of those differences then
perhaps your perceptivity might not be trusted as to differences between
cows reactions to GM vs non-GM feed.

stop being silly

we are not talking about arbitary perceptions but people who are monitoring
high yielding dairy cows so closely that a 5% drop in yield against
predicition is a cause for major investigation.

all on milk yield as opposed to the conventional feed it would have been
spotted and its effects detailed

As it is all we get is someone in the mid west winding up a reporter telling
them that racoons will not eat it

Wow

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

"Brian Sandle" <bsandle@shell.caverock.net.nz> wrote in message
news:1061204440.642576@cobalt.caverock.co.nz...
Jim Webster <Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote:


But my point is that if you don't notice any of those differences then
perhaps your perceptivity might not be trusted as to differences
between
cows reactions to GM vs non-GM feed.

stop being silly

we are not talking about arbitary perceptions but people who are
monitoring
high yielding dairy cows so closely that a 5% drop in yield against
predicition is a cause for major investigation.

Yield is one important thing, but some people will pay for qualities,
won't they?

pudding.

If GM feed had any effect at
all on milk yield as opposed to the conventional feed it would have been
spotted and its effects detailed

Though I am thinking that large scale importation of maize may have
coincided with the time it became Bt, unwanted or unallowed (Starlink) for
human consumption.

not there would be no accurate comparison. Has anything been done to it to
improve palatability?

As it is all we get is someone in the mid west winding up a reporter
telling
them that racoons will not eat it

So you ignore it and the other animals.

"Brian Sandle" <bsandle@shell.caverock.net.nz> wrote in message
news:1061211761.344990@cobalt.caverock.co.nz...
Jim Webster <Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote:

"Brian Sandle" <bsandle@shell.caverock.net.nz> wrote in message
news:1061204440.642576@cobalt.caverock.co.nz...
Jim Webster <Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote:


But my point is that if you don't notice any of those differences then
perhaps your perceptivity might not be trusted as to differences
between
cows reactions to GM vs non-GM feed.

stop being silly

we are not talking about arbitary perceptions but people who are
monitoring
high yielding dairy cows so closely that a 5% drop in yield against
predicition is a cause for major investigation.

Yield is one important thing, but some people will pay for qualities,
won't they?

not s noticable proportion of the UK population

When the top milk is butter it can no longer be poured on the
pudding.


BF, Protein and Lactose have been measured on a twice weekly basis (at
least) in UK milk for over 20 years. All these things are carefully
monitored

If GM feed had any effect at
all on milk yield as opposed to the conventional feed it would have been
spotted and its effects detailed

Though I am thinking that large scale importation of maize may have
coincided with the time it became Bt, unwanted or unallowed (Starlink) for
human consumption.

look at Torstens post,

there has been no sudden large importation of maize

Were cows on a similar amount of maize before then?

Yes

If
not there would be no accurate comparison. Has anything been done to it to
improve palatability?

No

As it is all we get is someone in the mid west winding up a reporter
telling
them that racoons will not eat it

So you ignore it and the other animals.

tales told to wind up a reporter as opposed to measurable facts, yes I
ignore the racoon story

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

we are not talking about arbitary perceptions but people who are
monitoring
high yielding dairy cows so closely that a 5% drop in yield against
predicition is a cause for major investigation.

Yield is one important thing, but some people will pay for qualities,
won't they?

not s noticable proportion of the UK population

So many are trying to coach down the quest for organic quality.

When the top milk is butter it can no longer be poured on the
pudding.


BF, Protein and Lactose have been measured on a twice weekly basis (at
least) in UK milk for over 20 years. All these things are carefully
monitored

Measured in quantity.

I used to think that the processing was causing the trouble - that the
milk would be being agitated more in processing so that the journey in the
delivery truck would finish the churning to butter of the top milk.
Now I am thinking of the different fatty acid composition of the BF
because of feed.
given the level of your knowledge your thoughts aren't exactly worth a lot.

If GM feed had any effect at
all on milk yield as opposed to the conventional feed it would have
been
spotted and its effects detailed

Though I am thinking that large scale importation of maize may have
coincided with the time it became Bt, unwanted or unallowed (Starlink)
for
human consumption.

look at Torstens post,

Which post? My server has not had overseas groups for a few days.

there has been no sudden large importation of maize

Therefore it should be possible to check.

Again:

Linkname: GM Animal Feed
URL: http://www.btinternet.com/~clairejr/Animal/animal.html
size: 547 lines

Ohio farmer Leon Ridzon does not grow GMOs, but he deals with farmers
who do. He recounted local farmers' experience with Bt corn: "We first
had problems three years ago, when famers planted Bt corn and the cows
refused to eat it. The farmers had to camouflage it to get them to eat
it."

So waht sort of `camouflaging' was done and is it being done to maize
before export to britain?

Maybe these cows are just finicky? Ridzon says not - other animals
won't eat Bt grain either: "The Bt corn was left on the cob and stored
in an open bin. The rabbits would not touch it, the squirrels would
not touch it. The rats and mice didn't go near it. It killed all the
spiders in the bins."

Ridzon has become increasingly suspicious about the possible toxicity
of Bt corn. His testimony is the more remarkable for the fact that the
norm for most Ohio farmers is intensively grown and chemically treated
corn - which the animals apparently prefer to GM Bt corn.

Ridzon confirms Sprinkel's account of reduced weight gain in Bt
corn-fed cattle. He says farmers report that cattle need nine pounds
of Bt corn to make a one pound weight gain as compared with only six
of normal corn.

Then that must not be because they eat less.

Journalist Steven Sprinkel says that a major U.S. seed dealer told him
that there is evidence that earthworms are dying as a result of the
effects of Bt corn.

These reports from farmers and seed dealers can easily be dismissed as
anecdotal evidence from which no conclusions can be drawn. But if we
wait for the scientists to catch up, it could be too late. Scientific
studies take years to do, and the majority are funded by industry or
governments greased with biotech dollars. Who is going to fund a study
which may find that a GM crop is toxic?

Were cows on a similar amount of maize before then?

Yes

Sure?

If
not there would be no accurate comparison. Has anything been done to it
to
improve palatability?

No

Not before it was imported?

As it is all we get is someone in the mid west winding up a reporter
telling
them that racoons will not eat it

So you ignore it and the other animals.

tales told to wind up a reporter as opposed to measurable facts, yes I
ignore the racoon story

And Ridzon?

[quoting:]
These reports from farmers and seed dealers can easily be dismissed as
anecdotal evidence from which no conclusions can be drawn.

On 18 Aug 2003 22:44:13 GMT, Brian Sandle
bsandle@shell.caverock.net.nz> wrote:
[quoting:]
These reports from farmers and seed dealers can easily be dismissed as
anecdotal evidence from which no conclusions can be drawn.

Indeed. And that will remain the case unless anecdotes are followed up
by scientific studies of the matter.

E.g. Shawn S. Donkin, Ph.D. Animal Sciences Department, Purdue
University, fed corn/cornsilage to 16 dairy cows. 8 cows were fed
from Bt corn, and 8 from a near isogenic line of non Bt corn.

Average dry matter intake was 52.7 and 55.9 lb/d, for Bt and non-Bt
respectivley (SE=1.12, p=0.06), average milk yield was 84.2 and 86.9
lb/d, (SE=1.20, p=0.15). Curiously the author concludes that his
results show no differences.

http://www.agry.purdue.edu/ext/forages/rotational/past/Perf_dairy_fed_spec.htm

Torsten Brinch <iaotb@inet.uni2.dk> wrote:
On 18 Aug 2003 22:44:13 GMT, Brian Sandle
bsandle@shell.caverock.net.nz> wrote:
[quoting:]
These reports from farmers and seed dealers can easily be dismissed as
anecdotal evidence from which no conclusions can be drawn.

Indeed. And that will remain the case unless anecdotes are followed up
by scientific studies of the matter.

E.g. Shawn S. Donkin, Ph.D. Animal Sciences Department, Purdue
University, fed corn/cornsilage to 16 dairy cows. 8 cows were fed
from Bt corn, and 8 from a near isogenic line of non Bt corn.

Average dry matter intake was 52.7 and 55.9 lb/d, for Bt and non-Bt
respectivley (SE=1.12, p=0.06), average milk yield was 84.2 and 86.9
lb/d, (SE=1.20, p=0.15). Curiously the author concludes that his
results show no differences.

http://www.agry.purdue.edu/ext/forages/rotational/past/Perf_dairy_fed_spec.htm

p=0.15 means that there is 15% chance that the result is spurious.

This is really a non-experiment on purpose I would say. The number
of subjects has been kept down to 8 pairs so it is really impossible
to get the p=0.05 needed to conventionally say you have
significance.

Once you have set up the experiment I think that would
be the major cost and going to 16 pairs would have allowed the
required significance and not cost much more.

"Brian Sandle" <bsandle@shell.caverock.net.nz> wrote in message
news:1061247291.561637@cobalt.caverock.co.nz...
Jim Webster <Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote:

we are not talking about arbitary perceptions but people who are
monitoring
high yielding dairy cows so closely that a 5% drop in yield against
predicition is a cause for major investigation.

Yield is one important thing, but some people will pay for qualities,
won't they?

not s noticable proportion of the UK population

So many are trying to coach down the quest for organic quality.

I suggest you restrict yourself to talking about things you know about, the
price of organic milk has collapsed in the UK because of over production.
Organic is a very small niche market

When the top milk is butter it can no longer be poured on the
pudding.


BF, Protein and Lactose have been measured on a twice weekly basis (at
least) in UK milk for over 20 years. All these things are carefully
monitored

Measured in quantity.

I used to think that the processing was causing the trouble - that the
milk would be being agitated more in processing so that the journey in the
delivery truck would finish the churning to butter of the top milk.
Now I am thinking of the different fatty acid composition of the BF
because of feed.
given the level of your knowledge your thoughts aren't exactly worth a lot.
The feed changes constantly over the year are various feedingstuffs change
in price on the world market.

of the predominance of grass in the diet and therefore, as the feed quality
of grass can change on a daily basis depending on the weather or field,
there is little consistancy in feed

If GM feed had any effect at
all on milk yield as opposed to the conventional feed it would have
been
spotted and its effects detailed

Though I am thinking that large scale importation of maize may have
coincided with the time it became Bt, unwanted or unallowed (Starlink)
for
human consumption.

look at Torstens post,

Which post? My server has not had overseas groups for a few days.

Well it managed to pick up mine!

there has been no sudden large importation of maize

Therefore it should be possible to check.

The checks on results are constant, there is no sign of any effect

Again:

Linkname: GM Animal Feed
URL: http://www.btinternet.com/~clairejr/Animal/animal.html
size: 547 lines

Ohio farmer Leon Ridzon does not grow GMOs, but he deals with farmers
who do. He recounted local farmers' experience with Bt corn: "We first
had problems three years ago, when famers planted Bt corn and the cows
refused to eat it. The farmers had to camouflage it to get them to eat
it."

So waht sort of `camouflaging' was done and is it being done to maize
before export to britain?

One guy recounted (or made up) a few tall tales which are not backed by any
evidence whatsoever

Maybe these cows are just finicky? Ridzon says not - other animals
won't eat Bt grain either: "The Bt corn was left on the cob and stored
in an open bin. The rabbits would not touch it, the squirrels would
not touch it. The rats and mice didn't go near it. It killed all the
spiders in the bins."

One guy recounts a few tall tales

Ridzon has become increasingly suspicious about the possible toxicity
of Bt corn. His testimony is the more remarkable for the fact that the
norm for most Ohio farmers is intensively grown and chemically treated
corn - which the animals apparently prefer to GM Bt corn.

Remarkable testimony but where is the actual evidence, where are the feeding
trials, where are the feed lots who are actively sourcing non-GM Bt? Where
is there any evidence whatsoever other that the word of Ridzon

Ridzon confirms Sprinkel's account of reduced weight gain in Bt
corn-fed cattle. He says farmers report that cattle need nine pounds
of Bt corn to make a one pound weight gain as compared with only six
of normal corn.

Then that must not be because they eat less.

And this only happens in Ohio because there have been no reports of it in
any other country in the world

Journalist Steven Sprinkel says that a major U.S. seed dealer told him
that there is evidence that earthworms are dying as a result of the
effects of Bt corn.

And no one else has noticed, FOE or Greenpeace have not actually come up
with the evidence?

These reports from farmers and seed dealers can easily be dismissed as
anecdotal evidence from which no conclusions can be drawn. But if we
wait for the scientists to catch up, it could be too late. Scientific
studies take years to do, and the majority are funded by industry or
governments greased with biotech dollars. Who is going to fund a study
which may find that a GM crop is toxic?

What a lot of balls. It takes three weeks to note that milk cows are
dropping in yield and switch the diet, it might take slightly longer on a
well run beef unit

Were cows on a similar amount of maize before then?

Yes

Sure?

If
not there would be no accurate comparison. Has anything been done to it
to
improve palatability?

No

Not before it was imported?

No,

As it is all we get is someone in the mid west winding up a reporter
telling
them that racoons will not eat it

So you ignore it and the other animals.

tales told to wind up a reporter as opposed to measurable facts, yes I
ignore the racoon story

And Ridzon?

You believe one farmer who says what you want to hear, and disbelieve one
farmer who doesn't and tells you what is really going on. That is your
problem not mine

Jim Webster <Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote:
is a very small niche market

A lot of farmers converted around 1999 to organic milk, and were
by 2001 able to call their milk organic and get a higher price.
Suddenly there was a lot more on the market. But they were asking
more for it than imported organic milk in the shops. The
disributors sold excess as non-organic, presumably to try to keep
organic label prices up.

for organic, but not so much overall because a good proportion of
farmers were doing it.

You are starting to feel the EU competition in milk. I think you are
going to find the price for non-organic dropping, too, and organic
getting some of a premium but being easier to sell. It will be the
protecting factor for the farmers who have gone to it as subsidies
go off.

New Zealand had a guaranteed butter fat and farming in general
market in the UK until UK joined EU. Then we went through a lot of
strife, a lot of farms were sold as subsidies were removed.

For a long time we did not see organic produce in New Zealand shops,
it was all going to Japan. Now some is available.

Organic carrots here sell for over double in shops. Organic milk is
25 to 35% more. I think there will be a race to enter the market as
non-org prices will drop.

When the top milk is butter it can no longer be poured on the
pudding.


BF, Protein and Lactose have been measured on a twice weekly basis
(at
least) in UK milk for over 20 years. All these things are carefully
monitored

Measured in quantity.

I used to think that the processing was causing the trouble - that the
milk would be being agitated more in processing so that the journey in
the
delivery truck would finish the churning to butter of the top milk.
Now I am thinking of the different fatty acid composition of the BF
because of feed.
given the level of your knowledge your thoughts aren't exactly worth a
lot.
The feed changes constantly over the year are various feedingstuffs
change
in price on the world market.

When above I spoke of the butter fat (BF) composition, I was not
speaking of the proportion of fat in the milk, your usual
measurement, but what constitutes the fat. That latter is not
usually measured. Some taste tests may be done. The butter churners
may notice a difference per batch.

look at Torstens post,

Which post? My server has not had overseas groups for a few days.


Well it managed to pick up mine!

Yes because nz.general is on the newsgroups.

there has been no sudden large importation of maize

Therefore it should be possible to check.

The checks on results are constant, there is no sign of any effect

Maybe because the effect is within variation between breeds or or
other variations of cows. But set up 15 or 16 pairs of animals
and see what happens.

Again:

Linkname: GM Animal Feed
URL: http://www.btinternet.com/~clairejr/Animal/animal.html
size: 547 lines

Ohio farmer Leon Ridzon does not grow GMOs, but he deals with
farmers
who do. He recounted local farmers' experience with Bt corn: "We
first
had problems three years ago, when famers planted Bt corn and the
cows
refused to eat it. The farmers had to camouflage it to get them to
eat
it."

So waht sort of `camouflaging' was done and is it being done to maize
before export to britain?

One guy recounted (or made up) a few tall tales which are not backed by
any
evidence whatsoever

Now Torsten has shown us something which does not disprove it,
rather shows a trend indicating a bigger experiment than 8 pairs
*is* justified.

Maybe these cows are just finicky? Ridzon says not - other animals
won't eat Bt grain either: "The Bt corn was left on the cob and
stored
in an open bin. The rabbits would not touch it, the squirrels would
not touch it. The rats and mice didn't go near it. It killed all the
spiders in the bins."

One guy recounts a few tall tales

You always say it is only one, each time we give a different
example. Our examples have added to several.

And note the author of the one Torsten gave gets Monsanto funding.

Ridzon has become increasingly suspicious about the possible
toxicity
of Bt corn. His testimony is the more remarkable for the fact that
the
norm for most Ohio farmers is intensively grown and chemically
treated
corn - which the animals apparently prefer to GM Bt corn.

Remarkable testimony but where is the actual evidence, where are the
feeding
trials, where are the feed lots who are actively sourcing non-GM Bt?
Where
is there any evidence whatsoever other that the word of Ridzon

Torsten has given some, now more has to be done.


Ridzon confirms Sprinkel's account of reduced weight gain in Bt
corn-fed cattle. He says farmers report that cattle need nine pounds
of Bt corn to make a one pound weight gain as compared with only six
of normal corn.

Then that must not be because they eat less.

And this only happens in Ohio because there have been no reports of it
in
any other country in the world

I think Donkin is Indiana.


Journalist Steven Sprinkel says that a major U.S. seed dealer told
him
that there is evidence that earthworms are dying as a result of the
effects of Bt corn.

And no one else has noticed, FOE or Greenpeace have not actually come up
with the evidence?

They have a lot to do.

These reports from farmers and seed dealers can easily be dismissed
as
anecdotal evidence from which no conclusions can be drawn. But if we
wait for the scientists to catch up, it could be too late.
Scientific
studies take years to do, and the majority are funded by industry or
governments greased with biotech dollars. Who is going to fund a
study
which may find that a GM crop is toxic?

What a lot of balls. It takes three weeks to note that milk cows are
dropping in yield and switch the diet, it might take slightly longer on
a
well run beef unit

What percentage do you change at? Donkins result was a 3% drop. That
means say you change feed at 5% you only have 2% more to go.

If
not there would be no accurate comparison. Has anything been done to
it
to
improve palatability?

No

Not before it was imported?

No,

What guarantee?