Not when those I have come across in sci.ag and elsewhere are
considered. Do you know how many farmers there are in the US?

who bribe officials
to have laws written as they want them,

I suspect this is highly unlikely.

Untrue, and it's 1500C for burning, so specialist burners with emission
control are required.

You know, I've seen this sort of claim quite often, but I still don't
understand how it could be so. After all, 1000 F is well up in the
red heat of iron, and anything organic that lands on my stove
hotplate just burns away, even when you can't see the plate is red in
normal room lighting (i.e. probably less than 900 F). So how can a
prion protein survive anywhere near that sort of temperature?

The USDA says this:
-------------------------------------------------------------
: Number 1,000 Acres Acres
:
1992 : 2,107,840 978,503 464
1993 : 2,201,590 968,845 440
1994 : 2,197,690 965,935 440
1995 : 2,196,400 962,515 438
1996 : 2,190,500 958,675 438
1997 : 2,190,510 956,010 436
1998 : 2,191,360 953,500 435
1999 : 2,192,070 947,440 432
2000 : 2,172,280 943,090 434
2001 : 2,155,680 941,310 437
2002 : 2,158,090 941,480 436

I've heard is that consolidation has been happening,

i.e. small farms being bought up by farming corporations.
I don't know if that would be reflected in these numbers,
since the farms could be franchises.

The USDA says this:
-------------------------------------------------------------
: Number 1,000 Acres Acres
:
1992 : 2,107,840 978,503 464
1993 : 2,201,590 968,845 440
1994 : 2,197,690 965,935 440
1995 : 2,196,400 962,515 438
1996 : 2,190,500 958,675 438
1997 : 2,190,510 956,010 436
1998 : 2,191,360 953,500 435
1999 : 2,192,070 947,440 432
2000 : 2,172,280 943,090 434
2001 : 2,155,680 941,310 437
2002 : 2,158,090 941,480 436

I've heard is that consolidation has been happening,
i.e. small farms being bought up by farming corporations.
I don't know if that would be reflected in these numbers,
since the farms could be franchises.

Phred <ppnerkDELETETHIS@yahoo.com> writes

You know, I've seen this sort of claim quite often, but I still don't
understand how it could be so. After all, 1000 F is well up in the
red heat of iron, and anything organic that lands on my stove
hotplate just burns away, even when you can't see the plate is red in
normal room lighting (i.e. probably less than 900 F). So how can a
prion protein survive anywhere near that sort of temperature?

For that you would have to look at the original trial work.
There will be a temp-time curve (or at least some points on it), the
particle sizes and so on.

Unfortunately I don't have a reference for this although it might be on
the UK govt BSE website.

I normally consider red heat as 800C, rather than 800F.

Prions are surprisingly resistant to several forms of degradation, its a
very stable structure. It's also worth remembering that timber beams can
(and often do) withstand astonishing temperatures for considerable
periods as the surface carbonisation is refractory and an insulator.

Basically you can destroy prions thermally, but you do need a carefully
designed burner able to supply a high enough temperature for an
adequately long time.

Not when those I have come across in sci.ag and elsewhere are
considered. Do you know how many farmers there are in the US?

The USDA says this:
-------------------------------------------------------------
: Number 1,000 Acres Acres
:
1992 : 2,107,840 978,503 464
1993 : 2,201,590 968,845 440
1994 : 2,197,690 965,935 440
1995 : 2,196,400 962,515 438
1996 : 2,190,500 958,675 438
1997 : 2,190,510 956,010 436
1998 : 2,191,360 953,500 435
1999 : 2,192,070 947,440 432
2000 : 2,172,280 943,090 434
2001 : 2,155,680 941,310 437
2002 : 2,158,090 941,480 436

I've heard is that consolidation has been happening,
i.e. small farms being bought up by farming corporations.
I don't know if that would be reflected in these numbers,
since the farms could be franchises.
[...]

In article <lNadncSJaI2GhGWiRVn-iw@comcast.com>,
Flarf <Flarf@hotetetemail.com> wrote in response to another:

The logic of penalising a farmer following US govt approved feeding
strategy (or buying in ready made feed) is about as sensible as
penalising someone who catches measles.

Farming here in the USA is run by big corporations who bribe officials
to have laws written as they want them, so actually, penalizing farmers
for doing the wrong thing makes some sense since the rules are skewed,
but really it's the politicians who should be penalized (won't happen)
and I would guess it's the small farmers who are actually targetted
anyway. The best solution for consumers is, buy from your local farmers
and know exactly what they are doing. That, and become a vegetarian.

1) Disposal by burning is environmentally, ecologically and financially
wasteful and should only be done in extremis.

The prion proteins in question don't go away below 1000 degree F.

You know, I've seen this sort of claim quite often, but I still don't
understand how it could be so. After all, 1000 F is well up in the
red heat of iron, and anything organic that lands on my stove
hotplate just burns away, even when you can't see the plate is red in
normal room lighting (i.e. probably less than 900 F). So how can a
prion protein survive anywhere near that sort of temperature?

Ref: <http://shopswarf.orcon.net.nz/tempcol.html> for tabulated colour
temperatures.

[ Incidentally, that whole Shopswarf site is very interesting. As the
introductory page at <http://shopswarf.orcon.net.nz/> says:
"A Miscellany of Machine Shop Information For Those Who Prefer Chips
That Rust, Together With An Archive of Old Machine Tools.... "
You can find data on everything from Bolt Head Identification, through
Tonnage Required for Punching Holes, to a chart of comparative
standards for Wire Gauges.]

Burning is vital. Remember the reason why these prions are dangerous
is that they don't easily break down and they collect in the brain,
forming the sponge structure.

2) Since poultry and pigs are immune (orally) it can be safely fed to
them, as has been the case for decades if not centuries. This allows
recycling and a sensible use of a valuable source or energy, proteins
and minerals.

Reuse of prion proteins is a very bad idea.

Cheers, Phred.

You know, I've seen this sort of claim quite often, but I still don't
understand how it could be so. After all, 1000 F is well up in the
red heat of iron, and anything organic that lands on my stove
hotplate just burns away, even when you can't see the plate is red in
normal room lighting (i.e. probably less than 900 F). So how can a
prion protein survive anywhere near that sort of temperature?





Prions become a chrystal structure when misfolded.

ppnerkDELETETHIS@yahoo.com (Phred) wrote in message news:<bt99m9$3s2ch$1@ID-151056.news.uni-berlin.de>...
In article <lNadncSJaI2GhGWiRVn-iw@comcast.com>,
The prion proteins in question don't go away below 1000 degree F.

You know, I've seen this sort of claim quite often, but I still don't
understand how it could be so. After all, 1000 F is well up in the
red heat of iron, and anything organic that lands on my stove
hotplate just burns away, even when you can't see the plate is red in
normal room lighting (i.e. probably less than 900 F). So how can a
prion protein survive anywhere near that sort of temperature?

Prions become a chrystal structure when misfolded.

If I remember correctly, there has been a study which on the face of it
showed samples completely ashed at 600C after 5-15 minutes heat
treatment still being able to transmit disease in test animals after
intracranial injection.

However, when a study appears to show something like this, we must
question the study, its methodology, the interpretation of results, the
prion hypothesis etc. etc.

In article <2PKdnZBowOSizGWiRVn-hA@comcast.com>,
Narf <Narf@hooomail.com> wrote:

Not when those I have come across in sci.ag and elsewhere are
considered. Do you know how many farmers there are in the US?

The USDA says this:
-------------------------------------------------------------
: Number 1,000 Acres Acres
:
1992 : 2,107,840 978,503 464
1993 : 2,201,590 968,845 440
1994 : 2,197,690 965,935 440
1995 : 2,196,400 962,515 438
1996 : 2,190,500 958,675 438
1997 : 2,190,510 956,010 436
1998 : 2,191,360 953,500 435
1999 : 2,192,070 947,440 432
2000 : 2,172,280 943,090 434
2001 : 2,155,680 941,310 437
2002 : 2,158,090 941,480 436

I've heard is that consolidation has been happening,
i.e. small farms being bought up by farming corporations.
I don't know if that would be reflected in these numbers,
since the farms could be franchises.
[...]

Is there a misprint in the above, or just a change in the way things
are defined? It seems strange that there could be an *increase* of
over 90,000 farmers in the year 1992/93, then a gradual decrease of
about 40,000 over the next nine years. Maybe that 1992 figure should
be 2,207,840?

Also, where did that 37 million acres of farmland go? "Rural
residential" development?


Cheers, Phred.

On 1/5/04 8:56 AM, in article btbtuf$5brrh$3@ID-151056.news.uni-berlin.de,
"Phred" <ppnerkDELETETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <2PKdnZBowOSizGWiRVn-hA@comcast.com>,
Narf <Narf@hooomail.com> wrote:

Not when those I have come across in sci.ag and elsewhere are
considered. Do you know how many farmers there are in the US?

The USDA says this:
-------------------------------------------------------------
: Number 1,000 Acres Acres
:
1992 : 2,107,840 978,503 464
1993 : 2,201,590 968,845 440
1994 : 2,197,690 965,935 440
1995 : 2,196,400 962,515 438
1996 : 2,190,500 958,675 438
1997 : 2,190,510 956,010 436
1998 : 2,191,360 953,500 435
1999 : 2,192,070 947,440 432
2000 : 2,172,280 943,090 434
2001 : 2,155,680 941,310 437
2002 : 2,158,090 941,480 436

I've heard is that consolidation has been happening,
i.e. small farms being bought up by farming corporations.
I don't know if that would be reflected in these numbers,
since the farms could be franchises.
[...]

Is there a misprint in the above, or just a change in the way things
are defined? It seems strange that there could be an *increase* of
over 90,000 farmers in the year 1992/93, then a gradual decrease of
about 40,000 over the next nine years. Maybe that 1992 figure should
be 2,207,840?

Also, where did that 37 million acres of farmland go? "Rural
residential" development?

I think the USDA considers anyone who sells over $1000 worth of ag
products a year a farmer. That has been consistent over the years as far as
I know.
One thing I've wondered about is the difference between a farm and a ranch.
I don't know if the USDA considers them separately.
North central Nebraska had a lot of grassland that was torn up and
converted to farm ground in the late 1970s. Corn prices were really high so
ranches were at least partially converted to farm ground. That area is
known as the Sandhills and isn't a good place to farm for a number of
reasons. Crop prices dropped and farming stopped in that area. I'm
guessing that applied to a lot of areas in the U.S. The Nebraska Sandhills
is, I guess, a unique geological region if anyone is interested.
The math for 1992 seems to work out OK. There must be some explanation
besides a misprint.

There is more information here:

http://meltingpot.fortunecity.com/minnesota/491/usfacts.html

Look at the section Change by Sales Class at the link below:

http://www.usda.gov/factbook/chapter3.htm

The average farm size in my area of Nebraska is 500 acres. If one farmer
quits, his farm is absorbed into neighboring operations. Farmers are like
royalty around here. You have to be born one or marry one to be one. Yep,
there's no difference between a king sitting on his throne and a farmer
sitting on his.

In article <BC1F6196.48D0C%dh0496@ineINbrasVALkaID.com>,
Dean Hoffman <dh0496@ineINbrasVALkaID.com> wrote:
On 1/5/04 8:56 AM, in article btbtuf$5brrh$3@ID-151056.news.uni-berlin.de,
"Phred" <ppnerkDELETETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <2PKdnZBowOSizGWiRVn-hA@comcast.com>,
Narf <Narf@hooomail.com> wrote:

Not when those I have come across in sci.ag and elsewhere are
considered. Do you know how many farmers there are in the US?

The USDA says this:
-------------------------------------------------------------
: Number 1,000 Acres Acres
:
1992 : 2,107,840 978,503 464
1993 : 2,201,590 968,845 440
1994 : 2,197,690 965,935 440
1995 : 2,196,400 962,515 438
1996 : 2,190,500 958,675 438
1997 : 2,190,510 956,010 436
1998 : 2,191,360 953,500 435
1999 : 2,192,070 947,440 432
2000 : 2,172,280 943,090 434
2001 : 2,155,680 941,310 437
2002 : 2,158,090 941,480 436

I've heard is that consolidation has been happening,
i.e. small farms being bought up by farming corporations.
I don't know if that would be reflected in these numbers,
since the farms could be franchises.
[...]

Is there a misprint in the above, or just a change in the way things
are defined? It seems strange that there could be an *increase* of
over 90,000 farmers in the year 1992/93, then a gradual decrease of
about 40,000 over the next nine years. Maybe that 1992 figure should
be 2,207,840?

Also, where did that 37 million acres of farmland go? "Rural
residential" development?
..
The math for 1992 seems to work out OK. There must be some explanation
besides a misprint.
..
FWIW, following up on this, I "corrected" the number of farmers to my
suggested value of 2,207,804, which is much more consistent with the
rest of the series. The "Acres" [per farmer] then become 443, which
is also more consistent with the rest of the series. I suspect my
hypothesis of a misprint is wrong, as you pointed out, and the truth
is there is a typo in the original data file.

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 14:28:17 GMT, ppnerkDELETETHIS@yahoo.com (Phred)
wrote:
In article <BC1F6196.48D0C%dh0496@ineINbrasVALkaID.com>,
Dean Hoffman <dh0496@ineINbrasVALkaID.com> wrote:
On 1/5/04 8:56 AM, in article btbtuf$5brrh$3@ID-151056.news.uni-berlin.de,
"Phred" <ppnerkDELETETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <2PKdnZBowOSizGWiRVn-hA@comcast.com>,
Narf <Narf@hooomail.com> wrote:

Not when those I have come across in sci.ag and elsewhere are
considered. Do you know how many farmers there are in the US?

The USDA says this:
-------------------------------------------------------------
: Number 1,000 Acres Acres
:
1992 : 2,107,840 978,503 464
1993 : 2,201,590 968,845 440
1994 : 2,197,690 965,935 440
1995 : 2,196,400 962,515 438
1996 : 2,190,500 958,675 438
1997 : 2,190,510 956,010 436
1998 : 2,191,360 953,500 435
1999 : 2,192,070 947,440 432
2000 : 2,172,280 943,090 434
2001 : 2,155,680 941,310 437
2002 : 2,158,090 941,480 436

I've heard is that consolidation has been happening,
i.e. small farms being bought up by farming corporations.
I don't know if that would be reflected in these numbers,
since the farms could be franchises.
[...]

Is there a misprint in the above, or just a change in the way things
are defined? It seems strange that there could be an *increase* of
over 90,000 farmers in the year 1992/93, then a gradual decrease of
about 40,000 over the next nine years. Maybe that 1992 figure should
be 2,207,840?

Also, where did that 37 million acres of farmland go? "Rural
residential" development?
..
The math for 1992 seems to work out OK. There must be some explanation
besides a misprint.
..
FWIW, following up on this, I "corrected" the number of farmers to my
suggested value of 2,207,804, which is much more consistent with the
rest of the series. The "Acres" [per farmer] then become 443, which
is also more consistent with the rest of the series. I suspect my
hypothesis of a misprint is wrong, as you pointed out, and the truth
is there is a typo in the original data file. ;-)

Don't suspect, TEST! Your hypothesis would predict that 1990
and 1991 number of farms in the USDA dataset would be >2,200,000.

Lookup USDA dataset:

1990: 2,145,820
1991: 2,116,760

Ooops.

And, should anyone be interested in trivia ( -surely- not Phred ,
the definition of a farm in the USDA statistics was changed in 1995 --
and data for 1994 and 1993 (but not earlier years) retrospectively
adjusted to reflect the changed definition -- thus producing an abrupt
level difference from 1992 to 1993.

(The definition of a 'farms' was originally 'operations with at least
$1000 agricultural sales'. With the change, additionally 'operations
having 5 or more horses or ponies and no other agricultural sales'
were included in statistics as 'horse farms'.)

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 18:11:01 +0100, Torsten Brinch <iaotb@inet.uni2.dk
wrote:

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 14:28:17 GMT, ppnerkDELETETHIS@yahoo.com (Phred)
wrote:
In article <BC1F6196.48D0C%dh0496@ineINbrasVALkaID.com>,
Dean Hoffman <dh0496@ineINbrasVALkaID.com> wrote:
On 1/5/04 8:56 AM, in article btbtuf$5brrh$3@ID-151056.news.uni-berlin.de,
"Phred" <ppnerkDELETETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <2PKdnZBowOSizGWiRVn-hA@comcast.com>,
Narf <Narf@hooomail.com> wrote:

Not when those I have come across in sci.ag and elsewhere are
considered. Do you know how many farmers there are in the US?

The USDA says this:
-------------------------------------------------------------
: Number 1,000 Acres Acres
:
1992 : 2,107,840 978,503 464
1993 : 2,201,590 968,845 440
1994 : 2,197,690 965,935 440
1995 : 2,196,400 962,515 438
1996 : 2,190,500 958,675 438
1997 : 2,190,510 956,010 436
1998 : 2,191,360 953,500 435
1999 : 2,192,070 947,440 432
2000 : 2,172,280 943,090 434
2001 : 2,155,680 941,310 437
2002 : 2,158,090 941,480 436

I've heard is that consolidation has been happening,
i.e. small farms being bought up by farming corporations.
I don't know if that would be reflected in these numbers,
since the farms could be franchises.
[...]

Is there a misprint in the above, or just a change in the way things
are defined? It seems strange that there could be an *increase* of
over 90,000 farmers in the year 1992/93, then a gradual decrease of
about 40,000 over the next nine years. Maybe that 1992 figure should
be 2,207,840?

Also, where did that 37 million acres of farmland go? "Rural
residential" development?
..
The math for 1992 seems to work out OK. There must be some explanation
besides a misprint.
..
FWIW, following up on this, I "corrected" the number of farmers to my
suggested value of 2,207,804, which is much more consistent with the
rest of the series. The "Acres" [per farmer] then become 443, which
is also more consistent with the rest of the series. I suspect my
hypothesis of a misprint is wrong, as you pointed out, and the truth
is there is a typo in the original data file. ;-)

Don't suspect, TEST! Your hypothesis would predict that 1990
and 1991 number of farms in the USDA dataset would be >2,200,000.

Lookup USDA dataset:

1990: 2,145,820
1991: 2,116,760

Ooops.