"Brian Sandle" <bsandle@shell.caverock.net.nz> wrote in message
news:1062651284.481707@cobalt.caverock.co.nz...

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?

No

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

What are you waffling on about? What has racial type got to door with this
discussion?

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.

And all utterly irrelevant to the discussion.

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.

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.

How often does the RR farmer have to buy those extras?

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

Not as simple as just RR.

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.

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

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

RR 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.

So what is their work now?

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?

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.

But they do in many countries, where agriculture employs more
people.

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.

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.

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


"Brian Sandle" <bsandle@shell.caverock.net.nz> wrote in message
news:1062651284.481707@cobalt.caverock.co.nz...

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?

No

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

What are you waffling on about? What has racial type got to door with
this
discussion?

Just geographical area which concerns you?


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.

And all utterly irrelevant to the discussion.

You talked about people taking your work if you help them in poor
countries.

that Jim is saying, `Yes, GM and the USA approach is right to be
suppressing poor countries so we can keep our jobs.'

Brian Sandle <bsandle@shell.caverock.net.nz> wrote:
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?

The NZ govt seem to be now indicating they do not want Monsanto food crops
in the near future. Though that is not certain. But they might approve GM
pine. And former ag scientist and now Govt member Choudhary yesterday
referred to reduced chemical use in Australian GM cotton. As a scientist
he should have acknowledged the possibility this is only an initial blip
in pest control of this new venture in Australia, same as with the old DDT
which was dropped from constant use because it lost its effectiveness
against insects.

I have cautioned before about tissue culture of pine - many genetically
identical plants could be susceptible to new diseases/pests. Now we have
new aspects of problems as Dean has indicated. Pine takes quite a few
years to grow and if something goes wrong all those years could be lost.

Besides if your trees spread as weeds the way pines do in New Zealand,
will you be liable?

Didn't I read that some GM connected Canola - rape has become
uncontrollable by chemicals and Monsanto are sending workers to remove it
by hand?

On 2 Sep 2003 12:05:00 GMT, Brian Sandle
bsandle@shell.caverock.net.nz> posted:

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.

Well yes, if the starving people can't grow their food. That's
agriculture.

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.

How often does the RR farmer have to buy those extras?

As often as needed. Nothing much has changed wrt to some weeds. Not
controlled well with glyphosate before RR crops

crops.

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

Not as simple as just RR.

Huh? For weeds that are not well controlled with glyphosate?

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.

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

In not having to make some of the other thousands of proteins plants
make?

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

RR corn?

Read what was said. RRbeans are grown to control weeds with glyphosate
that are not easy to control with the corn crop, and which get a grip
of the land without the good control the glyphosate provides, or
that's how I read it.

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?

MacDonalds, or some other service industry.

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?

Are there examples of weeds becoming rampant because something that
they were competitors with has been given a nudge?
I wouldn't have thought so, and would wonder it it matters much. A
non-crop plant is a non-crop plant is a weed.

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.

But they do in many countries, where agriculture employs more
people.

Well it's all to do with economic pragmatism.

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.

Not if managed with suitable herbicides.

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.

Only with herbicides, of course. Herbicide resistant crops make it
that much easier and actually possible in some cases.

I would love to see where you read this. Volunteer RR Canola can be sprayed
out of other crops such as flax(MCPA Ester) wheat(2,4-D Ester), peas(MCPA
Amine),and Barley(a variety of phenoxys) quite easily, and in a majority of
these fields these sprays are used whether the volunteers are there or not.

Didn't I read that some GM connected Canola - rape has become
uncontrollable by chemicals and Monsanto are sending workers to remove it
by hand?

But I thought that one of the aims of GM crops was to *reduce* the use
of herbicides and pesticides? Once you get triple-resistant canola (as
has already happened)

then you have to use *more* and stronger
herbicides...

A series of chemical and DNA tests confirm the weeds in Tony Huether's
field near Sexsmith are resistant to Roundup, Liberty and Pursuit
chemicals.

Besides if your trees spread as weeds the way pines do in New Zealand,
will you be liable?

Didn't I read that some GM connected Canola - rape has become
uncontrollable by chemicals and Monsanto are sending workers to remove it
by hand?

I would love to see where you read this. Volunteer RR Canola can be sprayed
out of other crops such as flax(MCPA Ester) wheat(2,4-D Ester), peas(MCPA
Amine),and Barley(a variety of phenoxys) quite easily, and in a majority of
these fields these sprays are used whether the volunteers are there or not.

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 18:17:31 +0200, Alf Christophersen
alf.christophersen@basalmed.uio.no> posted:

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 17:40:34 +0100, "Jim Webster"
Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote:

What about lamb and eating it at different times of year?

Lamb are mainly slaughtered at autumn over here, and thus hs rather
high omega-3 to omega-6 ratio, (or low omega-6 to omega-3 ratio)

At Iceland where sheep always, more or less, are range feed (grazing
in mountains all days during year), they have one of the lowest
mortality rates from CVD, even having genes common with Norwegians and
other Northern Scandinavians, which has amongst the highest incidents
of these diseases. (but also high intake of meat from farmed animals,
except sheep nd lambs in autumn because they are fed in mountain
during spring/summer/autumn season. Rheumatic people seldom complains
about pain after eating lamb in autumn, while eating spring
slaughtered animals give them pain and eating pork meat always give
pain.
(Pigs are mostly fed omega-6 rich diet)

Has all this conjecture (?) been subject to test with double blind
placebo controlled studies?

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 18:17:31 +0200, Alf Christophersen
alf.christophersen@basalmed.uio.no> posted:

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 17:40:34 +0100, "Jim Webster"
Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote:

What about lamb and eating it at different times of year?

Lamb are mainly slaughtered at autumn over here, and thus hs rather
high omega-3 to omega-6 ratio, (or low omega-6 to omega-3 ratio)

At Iceland where sheep always, more or less, are range feed (grazing
in mountains all days during year), they have one of the lowest
mortality rates from CVD, even having genes common with Norwegians and
other Northern Scandinavians, which has amongst the highest incidents
of these diseases. (but also high intake of meat from farmed animals,
except sheep nd lambs in autumn because they are fed in mountain
during spring/summer/autumn season. Rheumatic people seldom complains
about pain after eating lamb in autumn, while eating spring
slaughtered animals give them pain and eating pork meat always give
pain.
(Pigs are mostly fed omega-6 rich diet)

Has all this conjecture (?) been subject to test with double blind
placebo controlled studies?

"Torsten Brinch" <iaotb@inet.uni2.dk> wrote in message
news:kcjjkv07vra4pcqmcpr69fjqi67cp0vtcq@4ax.com...
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?

For field crops, it actually takes less time to introduce the triat since
there is often a have a very strong selectable marker associated with it.

Brian Sandle <bsandle@shell.caverock.net.nz> wrote:
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?

The NZ govt seem to be now indicating they do not want Monsanto food crops
in the near future. Though that is not certain. But they might approve GM
pine. And former ag scientist and now Govt member Choudhary yesterday
referred to reduced chemical use in Australian GM cotton. As a scientist
he should have acknowledged the possibility this is only an initial blip
in pest control of this new venture in Australia, same as with the old DDT
which was dropped from constant use because it lost its effectiveness
against insects.

I have cautioned before about tissue culture of pine - many genetically
identical plants could be susceptible to new diseases/pests. Now we have
new aspects of problems as Dean has indicated. Pine takes quite a few
years to grow and if something goes wrong all those years could be lost.

Besides if your trees spread as weeds the way pines do in New Zealand,
will you be liable?

Didn't I read that some GM connected Canola - rape has become
uncontrollable by chemicals and Monsanto are sending workers to remove it
by hand?

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


"Brian Sandle" <bsandle@shell.caverock.net.nz> wrote in message
news:1062651284.481707@cobalt.caverock.co.nz...

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?

No

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

What are you waffling on about? What has racial type got to door with this
discussion?

Just geographical area which concerns you?


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.

And all utterly irrelevant to the discussion.

You talked about people taking your work if you help them in poor
countries. Reading back through the thread you could take the noiton
that Jim is saying, `Yes, GM and the USA approach is right to be
suppressing poor countries so we can keep our jobs.'