"Oz" <acoohdb@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:jLV36yCFNIW$EwQM@btopenworld.com...
Dean Ronn <?@?.?> writes

Oz,
Is there not a registration for Dupont's "Muster" in your part of
the
world. If not, I'm quite surprised??!!

Maybe, but its not in the dupont product list I have here.

Telling me the active would be more help.


The active is ethametsulfuron-methyl. Here's a link where it is used in
conjunction with a grassy spray.

On 18 Aug 2003 10:49:56 GMT, Brian Sandle
bsandle@shell.caverock.net.nz> posted:

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

"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.


Linkname: Rapport-skabelon
URL: http://www.agrsci.dk/ark/ARK-arsberetning2002_uk.shtml
size: 213 lines

[...]
Over the last couple of years maize has become increasingly popular in
the Danish silage production at the expense of grass because of a
better profitability. Therefore studies have been initiated to
investigate what consequences it has on different quality parameters
of milk to feed dairy cows maize silage instead of grass silage.

Milk from cows in an experiment with two groups of cows fed maize and
grass silage, respectively, in a cross-over experimental design for 2
x 4 weeks was subsequently analysed for:
* fatty acid composition
* content of carotenoids
* content of vitamin E

Furthermore, we have analysed sensory characteristics in fresh and
stored milk from the cows fed maize and grass silage, respectively.

The results of these investigations show, that feeding with maize
silage reduces the amount of the polyunsaturated fatty acid linolenic
acid in the milk, and at the same time the content of vitamin E and
beta-carotene is reduced with approximately 50% and 62%, respectively,
compared to milk from cows fed grass silage. Both vitamin E and
beta-carotene are important antioxidants that preserve the freshness
of milk, and therefore it should be assumed that a great reduction of
these antioxidants will reduce the shelf-life of milk as well as other
dairy products considerably.

The sensory analyses of the milk showed a significant difference
between the taste of milk from cows fed maize silage compared with the
milk from cows fed grass silage. Thus, the sensory panel described the
milk from cows fed maize silage as creamy, sweet and tasting like corn
flakes, which are all perceived as positive descriptors, whereas the
panel used descriptors about the milk from cows fed grass silage that
usually associate with negative tastes.
[...]

And other studies give grass-silage-fed cows as giving milk higher in the
cancer-protective conjugated linolenic acid, and other matters.

This is in many many foods.

I used to notice the varying tastes in milk when I used it (pasteurised).

Blindfolded?

A few years ago I noted that full cream non-homogenised bottled milk had
started to have its top milk turned to butter by the time it was
delivered. In earlier years it was possible to pour off the top milk.
Perhaps corn feeding was increasing here?

And perhaps the bottles were jiggled more in transport.
Or a different breed of cow.

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.

Hooley Dooley. Show us the scientific evidence.

On 18 Aug 2003 07:04:58 GMT, Brian Sandle
bsandle@shell.caverock.net.nz> posted:
Then how about milk differences between grass-silage and corn-silage fed
cows? Taste and keeping/nutritional qualities?

Is this relevant to GM?

Dean Ronn <@home> wrote:

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.

Do you think the total need to remove rogue plants by hand has been
overcome or just some of it?

http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/documents/part2.pdf.

Mooshie peas <almostnothing@very.little> wrote:
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?

Who would it pay to do the studies?

I note peer-reviewed journals are going to start pointing out to readers
when authors fail to declare their research-funding sources.

A lot of
biotech studies and reviewers have failed to note their funding
connections to biotech industry, against the agreed convention.

Studies on omega-6 -> arachidonic acid -> inflammation, if proved
positive, might benefit persons who were hoping to be paying less for
medical treatment.

So it looks as if any researchers interested would have
to compete for funds of the type which are not
govt-money-in-partnership-with-business.

The current approach is to
encourage partnership with business, so non-partnership research-money is
rather hard to get.

As I said to Jim the connection of omega-6 to arachidonic to inflammation
is a bit obvious, like rain to being wet. We don't do a study on it
because it is rather obvious when money is short? Or is it that business
has investment in the health system, too, and guides it away from such
studies, since it would remove a lot of profit?

On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 06:15:08 GMT, Mooshie peas
almostnothing@very.little> wrote:

On 4 Sep 2003 13:27:27 GMT, Brian Sandle
bsandle@shell.caverock.net.nz> posted:

The advertising suggests buying RR and glyphosate solves your
problem. But no, rotation &c is needed.

Could you quote this? <snip

Monsanto ad, for Roundup Ultra in RR cotton:
"The only weed control you'll need"

http://www.weeds.iastate.edu/weednews/mon-ad.GIF

Mooshie peas <almostnothing@very.little> wrote:
On 4 Sep 2003 10:21:52 GMT, Brian Sandle
bsandle@shell.caverock.net.nz> posted:
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.'


But how is GM suppressing anyone?

Jim seems to agree, though he hasn't specifically said it, that he agrees
with the way GM crops have been designed to produce dependence upon the GM
companies.

GM was introduced to USA when the farmers were not having the
best time, and they were offered a better deal from it.

That has not
eventuated but the same sales approach is still going on in Australia,
New Zealand, and in third world countries.

Under GM farmers cannot save
their seed,

a procedure which has been central to third world agriculture.

Their way of life -- livelihoods are threatened.

Keeping them poor, Jim
believes, will help to stop them taking my job.

On 4 Sep 2003 21:25:28 GMT, Brian Sandle
bsandle@shell.caverock.net.nz> posted:

Dean Ronn <@home> wrote:

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.

Do you think the total need to remove rogue plants by hand has been
overcome or just some of it?

Probably never will be, but it is certainly becoming less, in
comparable environments.

http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/documents/part2.pdf.

You should read science, not propaganda if you seek the truth.

Studies on omega-6 -> arachidonic acid -> inflammation, if proved
positive, might benefit persons who were hoping to be paying less for
medical treatment.

About 6 billion of them about, I believe

On 5 Sep 2003 05:41:12 GMT, Brian Sandle
bsandle@shell.caverock.net.nz> posted:

Mooshie peas <almostnothing@very.little> wrote:
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?

Who would it pay to do the studies?

Science, public health, health insurance organisations, rich folk....

I note peer-reviewed journals are going to start pointing out to readers
when authors fail to declare their research-funding sources.

They usually do, don't they.

A lot of
biotech studies and reviewers have failed to note their funding
connections to biotech industry, against the agreed convention.

But it's not worth trying to hide something that will come out and
cause embarrassment later.

Studies on omega-6 -> arachidonic acid -> inflammation, if proved
positive, might benefit persons who were hoping to be paying less for
medical treatment.

About 6 billion of them about, I believe :)

So it looks as if any researchers interested would have
to compete for funds of the type which are not
govt-money-in-partnership-with-business.

Huh? Isn't Mrs Clark interested in your well-being?

The current approach is to
encourage partnership with business, so non-partnership research-money is
rather hard to get.

So how come there is so much research done on all of this?

I want to know what the concensus is.

As I said to Jim the connection of omega-6 to arachidonic to inflammation
is a bit obvious, like rain to being wet. We don't do a study on it
because it is rather obvious when money is short? Or is it that business
has investment in the health system, too, and guides it away from such
studies, since it would remove a lot of profit?

You seem so full of conspiracy theory

for the trees.

arachidonic acid causes inflammation causes CHD causes premature
disease and death?

Perhaps obesity has a role in this?

On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 08:56:14 +0200, Torsten Brinch
iaotb@inet.uni2.dk> posted:

On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 06:15:08 GMT, Mooshie peas
almostnothing@very.little> wrote:

On 4 Sep 2003 13:27:27 GMT, Brian Sandle
bsandle@shell.caverock.net.nz> posted:

The advertising suggests buying RR and glyphosate solves your
problem. But no, rotation &c is needed.

Could you quote this? <snip

Monsanto ad, for Roundup Ultra in RR cotton:
"The only weed control you'll need"

http://www.weeds.iastate.edu/weednews/mon-ad.GIF

And if you read the text you see that this is claimed for second and
third flush weeds in RR cotton -- you won't need a cultivator.

Is this not the case, where this advertisement appears?

On 5 Sep 2003 10:11:09 GMT, Brian Sandle
bsandle@shell.caverock.net.nz> posted:

Mooshie peas <almostnothing@very.little> wrote:
On 4 Sep 2003 10:21:52 GMT, Brian Sandle
bsandle@shell.caverock.net.nz> posted:
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.'


But how is GM suppressing anyone?

Jim seems to agree, though he hasn't specifically said it, that he agrees
with the way GM crops have been designed to produce dependence upon the GM
companies.

Well if you buy something from a company, you are dependent on that
company as far as the contact you freely enter into binds you. Don't
buy; don't have any obligation to anyone.

GM was introduced to USA when the farmers were not having the
best time, and they were offered a better deal from it.

And being free agents, they could chose to do as they pleased.

That has not
eventuated but the same sales approach is still going on in Australia,
New Zealand, and in third world countries.

Things get advertised and sold every minute.

Under GM farmers cannot save
their seed,

Depends what contract they sign. No one forces anyone to sign
anything. Don't like it; don't buy it. Simple.

a procedure which has been central to third world agriculture.

And it still can be, no-one is forcing anyone to do anything against
their will.

Their way of life -- livelihoods are threatened.

By their choice to buy something? Well why did they buy it?

Keeping them poor, Jim
believes, will help to stop them taking my job.

They are kept poor and populace by lack of education and exploitation.
It has nothing to do with this or that particular technology.

On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 08:56:14 +0200, Torsten Brinch
iaotb@inet.uni2.dk> posted:

On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 06:15:08 GMT, Mooshie peas
almostnothing@very.little> wrote:

On 4 Sep 2003 13:27:27 GMT, Brian Sandle
bsandle@shell.caverock.net.nz> posted:

The advertising suggests buying RR and glyphosate solves your
problem. But no, rotation &c is needed.

Could you quote this? <snip

Monsanto ad, for Roundup Ultra in RR cotton:
"The only weed control you'll need"

http://www.weeds.iastate.edu/weednews/mon-ad.GIF

And if you read the text you see that this is claimed for second and
third flush weeds in RR cotton -- you won't need a cultivator.

Is this not the case, where this advertisement appears?

Dean Ronn <?@?.?> writes

Is there not a registration for Dupont's "Muster" in your part of
the
world. If not, I'm quite surprised??!!

Maybe, but its not in the dupont product list I have here.

Telling me the active would be more help.


The active is ethametsulfuron-methyl. Here's a link where it is used in
conjunction with a grassy spray.

Yup, it does seem to exist in the UK, I will follow it up.

Whether hedge mustard and bastard cabbage are susceptible doesn't seem
to be known, it's not on the label. However I will enquire on monday.

Oz <acoohdb@btopenworld.com> writes
Dean Ronn <?@?.?> writes

Is there not a registration for Dupont's "Muster" in your part
of
the
world. If not, I'm quite surprised??!!

Maybe, but its not in the dupont product list I have here.

Telling me the active would be more help.


The active is ethametsulfuron-methyl. Here's a link where it is used in
conjunction with a grassy spray.

Yup, it does seem to exist in the UK, I will follow it up.

Whether hedge mustard and bastard cabbage are susceptible doesn't seem
to be known, it's not on the label. However I will enquire on monday.

Muster is NOT approved in the UK.

Apparently the pesticide safety directorate will NOT approve sulphonyl
ureas for break crops (ie non-cereal crops) for fear of introducing
resistance.

Of course they might relent when a significant amount of UK land is
unable to grow canola, by which time it will be too late.

What timing is used for muster, noting that in the UK we grow
predominantly autumn sown canola.

I would be very grateful if you could check if sisymbrium offinale and
rapistrum rugosum are susceptible, because I have my doubts.

What are the original parents of canola?

I think torsten may know.

Many thanks.

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