Science and Technology news... :: View topic

Bruce Sinclair · Guest

In article <bm339p$1sk$2@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Jim Webster" <Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote:
[quote]"Bruce Sinclair" <bruce.sinclair@NOSPAMagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz> wrote in
message news:1s0hb.7326$tv1.776024@news02.tsnz.net...
In article <bm0h9v$a05$4@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Jim Webster"
Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote:
"Bruce Sinclair" <bruce.sinclair@NOSPAMagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz> wrote in
message news:d3Hgb.6994$tv1.756641@news02.tsnz.net...
In article <MmrsRtBlVlg$Ew2$@btopenworld.com>, Oz
acoohdb@btopenworld.com
I will reserve judgement ... but
am always suspicious where money is or might be involved :)

then point out to yourself that there are a lot of chemical companies for
whom GM are a major threat, as their more expensive products are being
driven off the market by cheap generic glyphosphate, often produced in
countries like India.

Um ... how is GM a threat for the chemical comapnies ? I can see how
mosanto>s
expensive glyphosate is threatened by the cheap stuff ... but I don>t get
how
that affects GM. Sure some are supposed to be glyphosate resistant ...
what am
I missing ?

it is simple, in a GM RR crop, the only spray needed is glyphosphate. This
is bad news for the chemical company that makes the specialist expensive
sprays.
There is no expensive glyphosphate left, it is a generic product produced by
many many companies all over the world.
These big companies are taking a hit already and things will only get
worse,
unless of course, GM disappears.

Might be true ... but I can>t tell as I>m not getting your point here.
Grateful if you can clarify.

It is simple.
If I were to grow a conventional crop I might have to spray with three
sprays, with GM, I just have one, cheap glyphosphate.
Suddenly an awful lot of money is not going to the chemical companies, and
this does not make them happy
[/quote]
I can certainly see how this might happen ... IFF all crops were to be GE. Do
you think this is likely to happen ? ... and on what timescale if yes ?
I admit, I don>t see a serious market for GE food yet - I simply don>t see the
benefit to me or any other consumer. Until there is one, why would anyone buy
it ?

Bruce

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to
think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone´s fault.
If it was Us, what did that make Me ? After all, I´m one of Us. I must be.
I´ve certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No-one ever thinks
of themselves as one of Them. We´re always one of Us. It´s Them that do
the bad things. <=> Terry Pratchett. Jingo.

Bruce Sinclair · Guest

In article <YyvpU8AzVRh$Ew9a@btopenworld.com>, Oz <acoohdb@btopenworld.com> wrote:
[quote]Bruce Sinclair <bruce.sinclair@NOSPAMagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz> writes
In article <lawmubALh5g$Ewwu@btopenworld.com>, Oz <acoohdb@btopenworld.com
wrote:
Bruce Sinclair <bruce.sinclair@NOSPAMagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz> writes
Oz:
Having seen a (well respected) horizon TV program that showed this (and
other) gm work, I do not believe this is the case. The 'developer' is a
university professor who was doing it entirely altruistically. Not
everyone does work just for money (although he was already salaried as a
professor).

Well history is often rewritten. What I>ve heard made sense to me ... and I
haven>t seen the documentary you talk about. I will reserve judgement ...
but
am always suspicious where money is or might be involved :)
I guess you don;t have much altruism in your background.

Au contraire blackadder. I have lots. Do I trust others to have an equal
amount (particularly where large amounts of money are or could be involved) ?
No
Why not?
[/quote]
um ... because people do really stupid things and make extraordinarily bad
choices when large amounts of money are concerned ... particularly if they are
getting some/all of it :)

[quote]Do I regard this attitude as realistic judging by many large companies'
previous actions ?
Yes :)
I>d love to be proved wrong :)
The work was done by a (swiss?) university IIRC.
[/quote]
... unfortunately, this doesn>t (in a general sense) prove me wrong.
Once could be a fluke :)

Bruce

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to
think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone´s fault.
If it was Us, what did that make Me ? After all, I´m one of Us. I must be.
I´ve certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No-one ever thinks
of themselves as one of Them. We´re always one of Us. It´s Them that do
the bad things. <=> Terry Pratchett. Jingo.

Bruce Sinclair · Guest

In article <yCIjoJBsiRh$Ewao@btopenworld.com>, Oz <acoohdb@btopenworld.com> wrote:
[quote]Bruce Sinclair <bruce.sinclair@NOSPAMagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz> writes
In article <bm0h9v$a05$4@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Jim Webster"
Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote:
then point out to yourself that there are a lot of chemical companies for
whom GM are a major threat, as their more expensive products are being
driven off the market by cheap generic glyphosphate, often produced in
countries like India.

Um ... how is GM a threat for the chemical comapnies ? I can see how mosanto>s

expensive glyphosate is threatened by the cheap stuff ... but I don>t get how
that affects GM. Sure some are supposed to be glyphosate resistant ... what am
I missing ?

The main point of GM.
Let me give you an example.
For blackgrass control on my more difficult wheat fields I would apply
the following herbicides *just for blackgrass*. Prices in UK pounds (say
$1.6 = 1 UKP).

Lexus 15/Ha
Hawk 20/Ha
Avadex 25/Ha
+possibly IPU in the spring. 15/Ha
I wouldn>t get 100% control, either.
So a total of some 60+/Ha to the chemical companies.
Now if we had RR-wheat it would cost me 5/Ha.
Probably I would have to pay 20/Ha extra for the seed (say).
And get better weed control.
So a RR-wheat would cut my herbicide usage LOTS and lots.
*To* about 10%.
In the UK herbicides probably accounts for some 50% of chemical company
turnover (maybe more), so widespread RR-crops would *seriously* damage
their profitability.
Understand now?
[/quote]
Thanks for the example. I get that for sure ... this is how it works in theory
for this particular flavour of GE. In practice, I>ve seen that at least some
farmers report using more and not less herbicide. Also doesn>t allow for the
seed companies simply putting the price up and controlling the food supply ...
does it ?
This is certainly not the only possible use of GE either ...so isn>t really a
complete explanation of what agrochemical companies have to fear from it.
In my experience, companies threatened by any technology have the option of
fighting it (and losing) or buying in and surviving.

[quote]Your .sig is broken.
[/quote]
In what way ?

[quote]-----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to
[/quote]
Bruce

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to
think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone´s fault.
If it was Us, what did that make Me ? After all, I´m one of Us. I must be.
I´ve certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No-one ever thinks
of themselves as one of Them. We´re always one of Us. It´s Them that do
the bad things. <=> Terry Pratchett. Jingo.

Jim Webster · Guest

"Bruce Sinclair" <bruce.sinclair@NOSPAMagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz> wrote in
message > >It is simple.
[quote]If I were to grow a conventional crop I might have to spray with three
sprays, with GM, I just have one, cheap glyphosphate.
Suddenly an awful lot of money is not going to the chemical companies,
and
this does not make them happy

I can certainly see how this might happen ... IFF all crops were to be GE.
Do
you think this is likely to happen ? ... and on what timescale if yes ?

obviously you don>t have much business experience. A business, any business,[/quote]
has fixed costs purely from existing. If your sales shrink, then your fixed
costs become a higher proportion of the income. A 10% fall in market share
can be enough to throw a company into permanent deficit because their fixed
costs are too high, and all you can do is to either reduce these costs
(redundancy programmes, closing factories etc) or by increasing sales. As in
the US GM soya has well over 30% of the market back in 1999 and in Argentina
this figure must be higher, then companies selling herbicides will have run
into serious problems already.

[quote]I admit, I don>t see a serious market for GE food yet - I simply don>t see
the
benefit to me or any other consumer. Until there is one, why would anyone
buy
it ?
[/quote]
Except that the market already exists and people are already eating it. It
is probable that a majority of soya traded internationally contains GM, even
if only as a contaminant.
The benefit to the consumer is simple, price.
Over the last few generations the price of basic food commodities has fallen
steadily. This is obvious when you see the amount of land and output that it
now takes for a farmer to make a living, this has been growing steadily. My
Grandfather could make a good living on 34 cows and 60 sheep, employ three
men and even in the 1950s take foreign holidays and also have a weeks
holiday in London prior to Christmas.
Now the number cows necessary to support one family in the UK is reckoned to
be about 150, and to employ three staff you are probably looking at about
300.
Each advance, such as the introduction of tractors, the introduction of
herbicides and pesticides, as merely lead to the increase in production of
food per man, and the fall in price. GM is merely the next step on that
road.
As for the benefit to the consumer, the proportion of the income of the
urban population is lower, allowing them more money to spend on other
things. The wider economy has expanded to provide you things to spend this
money on, health services, social services, all of which draw more and more
money from the economy.
I>ve seen figures quoted by the soil association that a family in the UK can
eat entirely organic, yet still spend a lower proportion of their income on
food than they would do buying conventional food in the 1950s.

Jim Webster

Jim Webster · Guest

"Bruce Sinclair" <bruce.sinclair@NOSPAMagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz> wrote in
message news:vdqib.680$ws.70033@news02.tsnz.net...
[quote]In article <bm339n$1sk$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Jim Webster"
Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote:

"Bruce Sinclair" <bruce.sinclair@NOSPAMagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz> wrote in
message .
I think "standard Theory" might be closer to the mark :)
standard practice anywhere which does not suffer soil depletion
Yep. My point exactly.
and desertification

Maybe. The reasons for this are not quite so clear from what I>ve seen.
the reasons are simple, more comes out than is put back in

To be fair, that>s a bit simplistic.
[/quote]
The laws of thermodynamics are. And there is no appeal.

Jim Webster

Oz · Guest

Bruce Sinclair <bruce.sinclair@NOSPAMagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz> writes
[quote]I can certainly see how this might happen ... IFF all crops were to be GE. Do
you think this is likely to happen ? ... and on what timescale if yes ?
I admit, I don>t see a serious market for GE food yet - I simply don>t see the
benefit to me or any other consumer. Until there is one, why would anyone buy
it ?
[/quote]
You forget that essentially all of the americas and most of asia are,
and have been, eating and growing gm crops for several years. The world
leader is china, where gm is now into vegetables and a wide range of
crops. Much cheaper for peasants to grow, and very good for the
environment.

It>s europe that is out of step with the world.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
DEMON address no longer in use.

Oz · Guest

Bruce Sinclair <bruce.sinclair@NOSPAMagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz> writes
[quote]
Thanks for the example. I get that for sure ... this is how it works in theory
for this particular flavour of GE.
[/quote]
That would be pretty typical, anything less and it>s not worth marketing
it.

[quote]In practice, I>ve seen that at least some
farmers report using more and not less herbicide.
[/quote]
That could be if they have a difficult weed problem. For example in
maize if you had an uncontrollable weed, then you might control this
with one dose of glyphosate and control the rest with atrazine as this
is more effective than two or three passes with glyphosate. The
alternative is to go to very long breaks, or stop growing maize
altogether. The other reason may be to use no-till to conserve moisture
and erosion, where weed control without inversion may not be possible.

You have to bear in mind that there is a lot more to weed control than
just use of herbicides, the whole sequence of operations and treatments
and even drilling dates are put together as an optimal pattern. It
really isn>t quite as simple as you might imagine, with lots of pros and
cons to balance out.

[quote]Also doesn>t allow for the
seed companies simply putting the price up and controlling the food supply ...
does it ?
[/quote]
They can do that now for hybrids, and have been able to for decades.
Nothing new there then, but make it too dear and it>s not worth growing,
so you don>t get to sell any seed.

[quote]This is certainly not the only possible use of GE either ...so isn>t really a
complete explanation of what agrochemical companies have to fear from it.
[/quote]
The same applies for pest control and fungal control.

For example you might be able to move the takeall resistance from oats
to wheat. That cuts out all the new lucrative takeall seed treatments.

[quote]In my experience, companies threatened by any technology have the option of
fighting it (and losing) or buying in and surviving.
[/quote]
Of course, that;s why the chemical companies now have big gm seed arm
subsidiaries. They could see the writing on the wall, too.

[quote]Your .sig is broken.

In what way ?
[/quote]
It should start with <minus><minus><space><return>, see my .sig.

Can you please cut your linelengths too?

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
DEMON address no longer in use.

Oz · Guest

Jim Webster <Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> writes

[quote]Each advance, such as the introduction of tractors, the introduction of
herbicides and pesticides, as merely lead to the increase in production of
food per man, and the fall in price. GM is merely the next step on that
road.
[/quote]
As a (good) indicator the price of UK feed wheat in (UK pounds):

the mid 70>s was about 65/T and a farmworker was paid about 20/wk (42
hrs).

in the early 2000>s was about 65/T and a farmworker was paid about
200/wk.

The point being that in fact it is the consumer who has benefited from
the advancements in farming, but the farmer has not.

Now if we could make the whole world go organic, then prices would rise
hugely (probably by at least 10x) and production drop to 1/3, but
farmers would be vastly better off. Starving people will pay anything
for food, hence the interest of all thinking governments to ensure a
secure, plentiful and cheap food supply to it>s population.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
DEMON address no longer in use.

Dean Hoffman · Guest

On 10/12/03 11:56 PM, in article _fqib.682$ws.69974@news02.tsnz.net, "Bruce
Sinclair" <bruce.sinclair@NOSPAMagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz> wrote:

[quote]I can certainly see how this might happen ... IFF all crops were to be GE. Do
you think this is likely to happen ? ... and on what timescale if yes ?
I admit, I don>t see a serious market for GE food yet - I simply don>t see the
benefit to me or any other consumer. Until there is one, why would anyone buy
it ?

Bruce

[/quote]
I don>t know current recommendations. Farmers were told not to plant a
whole field to BT corn when it was introduced. This was supposed to delay
the time when corn borer would develop a resistance to it.
I can cite an example of a nearby farmer. It>s possible to buy corn
that>s both RR and BT. He>s never had much problem with corn borer so he
won>t spend the extra money for corn that has the BT gene. Farmers make
these type of decisions all the time.
Crop rotation and chemical rotation are a couple things a farmer can do to
keep resistance to herbicides and insecticides at a minimum.
I guess some medicinal drugs aren>t as useful as they used to be. Doctors
over prescribe and people over use them. It probably isn>t a whole lot
different with sprays for bugs and weeds.
One of the early benefits to GE was supposed to be tomatoes that would
last longer on the store shelves. I don>t know if that ever worked out.

Dean

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Bruce Sinclair · Guest

In article <bmdk1f$lkq$2@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Jim Webster" <Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote:
[quote]

"Bruce Sinclair" <bruce.sinclair@NOSPAMagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz> wrote in
message news:vdqib.680$ws.70033@news02.tsnz.net...
In article <bm339n$1sk$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Jim Webster"
Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote:

"Bruce Sinclair" <bruce.sinclair@NOSPAMagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz> wrote in
message .
I think "standard Theory" might be closer to the mark :)
standard practice anywhere which does not suffer soil depletion
Yep. My point exactly.
and desertification

Maybe. The reasons for this are not quite so clear from what I>ve seen.
the reasons are simple, more comes out than is put back in

To be fair, that>s a bit simplistic.

The laws of thermodynamics are. And there is no appeal.
[/quote]
Indeed. But this was a point about dessertification, not fertiliser. The
cause/effect connection is not as clear as was being suggested. More than one
thing is operating here.

Bruce

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to
think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone´s fault.
If it was Us, what did that make Me ? After all, I´m one of Us. I must be.
I´ve certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No-one ever thinks
of themselves as one of Them. We´re always one of Us. It´s Them that do
the bad things. <=> Terry Pratchett. Jingo.

Bruce Sinclair · Guest

In article <bmdk1e$lkq$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Jim Webster" <Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote:
[quote]"Bruce Sinclair" <bruce.sinclair@NOSPAMagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz> wrote in
message > >It is simple.
If I were to grow a conventional crop I might have to spray with three
sprays, with GM, I just have one, cheap glyphosphate.
Suddenly an awful lot of money is not going to the chemical companies,
and
this does not make them happy
I can certainly see how this might happen ... IFF all crops were to be GE.
Do
you think this is likely to happen ? ... and on what timescale if yes ?

obviously you don>t have much business experience. A business, any business,
has fixed costs purely from existing. If your sales shrink, then your fixed
costs become a higher proportion of the income. A 10% fall in market share
can be enough to throw a company into permanent deficit because their fixed
costs are too high, and all you can do is to either reduce these costs
(redundancy programmes, closing factories etc) or by increasing sales. As in
the US GM soya has well over 30% of the market back in 1999 and in Argentina
this figure must be higher, then companies selling herbicides will have run
into serious problems already.
[/quote]
OK ... but how is this influenced by GEW ? ... and what you say assumes the
business concerned does nothing about it ... doesn>t it ?

[quote]I admit, I don>t see a serious market for GE food yet - I simply don>t see
the
benefit to me or any other consumer. Until there is one, why would anyone
buy
it ?

Except that the market already exists and people are already eating it. It
is probable that a majority of soya traded internationally contains GM, even
if only as a contaminant.
[/quote]
Indeed

[quote]The benefit to the consumer is simple, price.
[/quote]
I haven>t seen this benefit anywhere. Is it real ? Has the price for food
(incidentally NOT very high anyway :) ) really come down ?

[quote]Over the last few generations the price of basic food commodities has fallen
steadily.
[/quote]
This is irrelevant as to GE or not. The price of all comodities has fallen
in real terms. It was doing so before GE ... it will continue to do so in all
likelihood.

[quote]This is obvious when you see the amount of land and output that it
now takes for a farmer to make a living, this has been growing steadily. My
Grandfather could make a good living on 34 cows and 60 sheep, employ three
men and even in the 1950s take foreign holidays and also have a weeks
holiday in London prior to Christmas.
Now the number cows necessary to support one family in the UK is reckoned to
be about 150, and to employ three staff you are probably looking at about
300.
[/quote]
Because we have machines to do much of the work ... and becuase commodity
prices have fallen.

[quote]Each advance, such as the introduction of tractors, the introduction of
herbicides and pesticides, as merely lead to the increase in production of
food per man, and the fall in price. GM is merely the next step on that
road.
[/quote]
Possibly. I am yet to be convinced.

[quote]As for the benefit to the consumer, the proportion of the income of the
urban population is lower, allowing them more money to spend on other
things.
[/quote]
Proportion used on food ? I>d agree (as minor as I believe that amount is) ...
except I>ve seen nothing to suggest that the food price is in any way related
to GE.

[quote]The wider economy has expanded to provide you things to spend this
money on, health services, social services, all of which draw more and more
money from the economy.
[/quote]
I don>t spend money on these things ... OK .. I do ... indirectly :)

[quote]I>ve seen figures quoted by the soil association that a family in the UK can
eat entirely organic, yet still spend a lower proportion of their income on
food than they would do buying conventional food in the 1950s.
[/quote]
Undoubtedly ... showing again that commodity prices are decreasing.

Bruce

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to
think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone´s fault.
If it was Us, what did that make Me ? After all, I´m one of Us. I must be.
I´ve certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No-one ever thinks
of themselves as one of Them. We´re always one of Us. It´s Them that do
the bad things. <=> Terry Pratchett. Jingo.

Bruce Sinclair · Guest

In article <00iCF$JIpli$Ewg0@btopenworld.com>, Oz <acoohdb@btopenworld.com> wrote:
[quote]Jim Webster <Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> writes
Each advance, such as the introduction of tractors, the introduction of
herbicides and pesticides, as merely lead to the increase in production of
food per man, and the fall in price. GM is merely the next step on that
road.
As a (good) indicator the price of UK feed wheat in (UK pounds):
the mid 70>s was about 65/T and a farmworker was paid about 20/wk (42
hrs).
in the early 2000>s was about 65/T and a farmworker was paid about
200/wk.
The point being that in fact it is the consumer who has benefited from
the advancements in farming, but the farmer has not.
[/quote]
Agree totally. I think that the next people to "benefit" from GE advances will
be neither the consumer nor the farmer ... but the large company. Personally,
I think this is a bad idea :)

[quote]Now if we could make the whole world go organic, then prices would rise
hugely (probably by at least 10x) and production drop to 1/3, but
[/quote]
Not at all. There may be a little drop off in yeild (IIRC 10 % as a max) ...
but prices for organic food here are certainly no more than 2x ... and usually
much less. This cateras for a small market ... and if the market were larger,
prices would be correspondingly lower.

[quote]farmers would be vastly better off. Starving people will pay anything
for food, hence the interest of all thinking governments to ensure a
secure, plentiful and cheap food supply to it>s population.
[/quote]
... except where the world bank (or was it the IMF?) is involved :) :)
Anyway, we call that "protectionism" ... and it looks really good from the so
called "free trade" advocates ... like the US :)

Bruce

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to
think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone´s fault.
If it was Us, what did that make Me ? After all, I´m one of Us. I must be.
I´ve certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No-one ever thinks
of themselves as one of Them. We´re always one of Us. It´s Them that do
the bad things. <=> Terry Pratchett. Jingo.

Bruce Sinclair · Guest

In article <eUFI9mJWFli$EwmY@btopenworld.com>, Oz <acoohdb@btopenworld.com> wrote:
[quote]Bruce Sinclair <bruce.sinclair@NOSPAMagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz> writes
I can certainly see how this might happen ... IFF all crops were to be GE. Do
you think this is likely to happen ? ... and on what timescale if yes ?
I admit, I don>t see a serious market for GE food yet - I simply don>t see the

benefit to me or any other consumer. Until there is one, why would anyone buy
it ?

You forget that essentially all of the americas and most of asia are,
and have been, eating and growing gm crops for several years.
[/quote]
I don>t forget it at all. I encourage it. I want long term data on what, if
anything, happens to people. I don>t want that data collected on me :)

[quote]The world
leader is china, where gm is now into vegetables and a wide range of
crops. Much cheaper for peasants to grow, and very good for the
environment.
[/quote]
I>ll believe that when there is some data. Long term ... not just a few years
... and when we actually know a little bit about ecology :)

[quote]It>s europe that is out of step with the world.
[/quote]
You might think that ... I don>t.

Bruce

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to
think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone´s fault.
If it was Us, what did that make Me ? After all, I´m one of Us. I must be.
I´ve certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No-one ever thinks
of themselves as one of Them. We´re always one of Us. It´s Them that do
the bad things. <=> Terry Pratchett. Jingo.

Bruce Sinclair · Guest

In article <O0OMFwJ4Qli$EwGE@btopenworld.com>, Oz <acoohdb@btopenworld.com> wrote:
(snip)

[quote]You have to bear in mind that there is a lot more to weed control than
just use of herbicides, the whole sequence of operations and treatments
and even drilling dates are put together as an optimal pattern. It
really isn>t quite as simple as you might imagine, with lots of pros and
cons to balance out.
[/quote]
Boy do I know that .. anyone know anything that>ll kill agapanthus ? :)

[quote]Also doesn>t allow for the
seed companies simply putting the price up and controlling the food supply ...
does it ?
They can do that now for hybrids, and have been able to for decades.
Nothing new there then, but make it too dear and it>s not worth growing,
so you don>t get to sell any seed.
[/quote]
... not even if they add a terminator ?

[quote]Your .sig is broken.
In what way ?
It should start with <minus><minus><space><return>, see my .sig.
[/quote]
That>s certainly one standard :)

[quote]Can you please cut your linelengths too?
[/quote]
Already set at 76 IIRC. Why are they too long ?

Bruce

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to
think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone´s fault.
If it was Us, what did that make Me ? After all, I´m one of Us. I must be.
I´ve certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No-one ever thinks
of themselves as one of Them. We´re always one of Us. It´s Them that do
the bad things. <=> Terry Pratchett. Jingo.

Jim Webster · Guest

"Bruce Sinclair" <bruce.sinclair@NOSPAMagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz> wrote in
message news:4MGib.859$ws.83634@news02.tsnz.net...
[quote]In article <bmdk1f$lkq$2@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Jim Webster"
Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote:
To be fair, that>s a bit simplistic.

The laws of thermodynamics are. And there is no appeal.

Indeed. But this was a point about dessertification, not fertiliser. The
cause/effect connection is not as clear as was being suggested. More than
one
thing is operating here.
[/quote]
but there always is more than one effect, but desertification is basically
the result to too little water and too little fertiliser combined with too
much being extracted. Throughout history there are large areas that have
been fertile but have been rendered desert not by climate change but by
passing armies destroying the infrastructure, the mongols were classic
exemplars of this

Jim Webster


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Agriculture Forum	Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next
Page 4 of 6