Science and Technology news... :: View topic

Jim Webster · Guest

"Bruce Sinclair" <bruce.sinclair@NOSPAMagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz> wrote in
message news:pRGib.863$ws.83457@news02.tsnz.net...
[quote]In article <bmdk1e$lkq$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Jim Webster"
Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote:
"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.

OK ... but how is this influenced by GEW ? ... and what you say assumes
the
business concerned does nothing about it ... doesn>t it ?
[/quote]
but businesses can do something about it, the easiest way is to ensure that
GE does not take off, and fund the opponents

[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.

Indeed

The benefit to the consumer is simple, price.

I haven>t seen this benefit anywhere. Is it real ? Has the price for food
(incidentally NOT very high anyway :) ) really come down ?
[/quote]
the reason it is not very high anyway is that it has come down. The
proportion of income spent on food is lower than it used to be

[quote]
Over the last few generations the price of basic food commodities has
fallen
steadily.

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]
exactly, as I said, GE is just the next method of keeping up the process, it
follows tractors, artificial fertilisers and herbicides

[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.

Because we have machines to do much of the work ... and becuase commodity
prices have fallen.
[/quote]
Which is what I said,

ach advance, such as the introduction of tractors, the introduction of
[quote]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.

Possibly. I am yet to be convinced.
[/quote]
So what, do your own research, look at prices of food over the last century,
compare them to average earnings, you have the internet, use it.

[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.

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]
as I said, GE is merely the next step

[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.

I don>t spend money on these things ... OK .. I do ... indirectly :)

[/quote]
so your grandparents had the leisure to sit discussing things with people
all round the world? Just look at the amount of money spent on leisure etc
in ways that your parents never even new existed. Most of the old methods of
amusing oneself remain, but the new ones, computer games, DVDs, videos etc
have come in as well. Where has this money come from? A lot of money people
have now is because they spend a lower proportion of their incomes on food.

[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.

Undoubtedly ... showing again that commodity prices are decreasing.
[/quote]
Which is what I have been saying, commodity prices have been falling, why?

Jim Webster

Oz · Guest

Bruce Sinclair <bruce.sinclair@NOSPAMagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz> writes
[quote]In article <00iCF$JIpli$Ewg0@btopenworld.com>, Oz <acoohdb@btopenworld.com
wrote:
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.

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.
[/quote]
What case do you offer? I have shown that the agchem companies are also
the seedhouses, so the loss on the agchem side will (they hope) be
balanced by the gain on the seed. Obviously it>s cheaper to replicate
seed (which you have to do anyway) than manufacture agchems, so the net
result is much cheaper. Personally I think its substantially better for
the field environment, too.

[quote]Personally,
I think this is a bad idea :)
[/quote]
Everything you buy (pretty much) comes from 'large companies'.
They are the only organisations able to manufacture cheaply, or even at
all in many cases. If you don>t like this, then try living in an indian
village, growing your own food. I think this will rapidly pall.

Ie, don>t be a hypocrite.

[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

Not at all. There may be a little drop off in yeild (IIRC 10 % as a max) ...
[/quote]
==============
Source: Crops magazine (Reed business pub) 6 Nov 1999 P10

This article discusses a 'unique' ten year experiment comparing large-
scale organic, integrated crop management and conventional side by side.

I can>t type out the whole article but the following points are made.
[NB View tables in a monopitched font]

Yield wheat T/Ha

Year 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99
Con 8.7 7 7.8 9 7 7.25 9.25
Org 5.2 5.2 5 5.8 4.9 4.5 4.85
ICM 7.8 7.9 8.3 8.3

Gross Margin UK pounds per 5Ha

Year 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99
Con 1250 1950 1100 1200 1000 1550 1750 937 715 1965
Org 50 -250 50 990 530 1100 2000 1254 1920 2070
ICM 2600 1400 1131 962

OCG 1125 675 250 100 100
OCG = Current organic conversion grant to be added

ROTATIONS etc

Organic:
Organic approved pesticides and fertiliser.
Two year clover-grass conversion ley. Then
a) Spring wheat/winter oats/winter beans/winter or spring wheat
b) 18mth red clover
c) spring wheat.
[This isn>t very clear but I *think* they mean combinable crop (winter
or spring), 18mth red clover followed by spring wheat and then
cycling:Oz]

Conventional:
Allows bag fertiliser and approved pesticides. Was deep ploughed.
Rotation includes wheat, winter beans and winter rape.

ICM
Using reduced doses of approved pesticides (harrocomb where possible)
and minimal cultivation.
Rotation includes wheat, winter beans and rape.

[NB
1) The implication is that spring cropping was sometimes used unless
specifically stated.
2) A 'typical' UK farm is part way between 'conventional' and ICM.
: Oz.]
===================================

Extract: NIAB organic trials
Yields of control varieties:

Organic Conventional
Crop yield T/Ha T/Ha
Winter wheat 3.63 9.8
Spring wheat 4.12 6.57
Winter barley 6.25 7.99
Spring Barley 3.96 6.73
Winter oats 5.49 7.38
Spring oats 3.47 6.40
W. triticale 4.06 5.90

1 Ha = 2.5ac
==========================

see 'organic trial results', sci.agriculture.

I have been given permission to publish results from ARC organic trials
done in 2000.

Dutchy Farms Glos

Best (exsept) 5.17 T/Ha,
worst (savannah) 2.41 T/Ha,
ave 3.62 T/Ha.

Maris Widgeon (1960>s milling wheat) 4.00 T/Ha

Great Carlton (under conversion) following peas.

Best (aardvark) 3.93 T/Ha,
worst Widgeon 2.54 T/Ha (probably lodged)
ave 3.33 T/Ha.

We have conventional results from Great Carlton
(but obviously a different field) first wheats:

Best 9.63 T/Ha
Worst 7.63 T/Ha
Ave 8.88 T/Ha

==========================

[quote]
but prices for organic food here are certainly no more than 2x ... and usually
much less.
[/quote]
That>s because organic farmers are being screwed, or it>s imported,
combines with a differential supermarket markup.

[quote]This cateras for a small market ... and if the market were larger,
prices would be correspondingly lower.
[/quote]
Not so. The costs of growing organic INCREASE as the proportion of
organic increases. Remember the more-or-less organic farmers in the 50>s
and 60>s knew very well what they were doing.

[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.

.. 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 :)
[/quote]
Very few countries allow free trade in foodstuffs.

--
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]I haven>t seen this benefit anywhere. Is it real ? Has the price for food
(incidentally NOT very high anyway :) ) really come down ?
[/quote]
Take a look at farmgate prices in the EU and US.
The statistics should be easily found via google.

[quote]Over the last few generations the price of basic food commodities has fallen
steadily.

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]
No with farmers worldwide all losing money (which they are) it won>t.
At the end of the day it can only be cheaper if its produced cheaper.

[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.

Because we have machines to do much of the work ...
[/quote]
Yup, a combine harvester at 350k UKP.
This has to be paid for, you know.

[quote]and becuase commodity
prices have fallen.
[/quote]
Because they can be produced more cheaply.

[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.

Possibly. I am yet to be convinced.
[/quote]
The look the stats up for yourself.

[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.

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]
Take a look at world grains/soya prices.

--
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]In article <eUFI9mJWFli$EwmY@btopenworld.com>, Oz <acoohdb@btopenworld.com
wrote:
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.

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]
How many years do you need?
And what are you fearing?
Or is it fear out of ignorance?

[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.

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]
We know a lot about ecology.

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

You might think that ... I don>t.
[/quote]
Ok, stay in denial.

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

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.

Boy do I know that .. anyone know anything that>ll kill agapanthus ? :)
[/quote]
Roundup should work fine.

[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.

.. not even if they add a terminator ?
[/quote]
I suspect you haven>t understood what I said, above.

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

That>s certainly one standard :)
[/quote]
It is the usegroup standard.

[quote]
Can you please cut your linelengths too?

Already set at 76 IIRC. Why are they too long ?
[/quote]
The standard is 70 or 72.
So (allowing for multiple quotes) it stays below 80.
Less is often better.

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

Dean Hoffman · Guest

On 10/13/03 6:58 PM, in article 0%Gib.868$ws.83791@news02.tsnz.net, "Bruce
Sinclair" <bruce.sinclair@NOSPAMagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz> wrote:

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

Bruce asked:
[quote].. not even if they add a terminator ?
[/quote]

DH:

I think hybrid seed corn came into use sometime in the 1930s. Farmers
have been buying fresh hybrid seed each year since then. The yield of corn
raised from the offspring of the hybrid seed stinks.
A farmer friend of mine used homegrown seed although he knew better. He
ran out or hybrid seed just before he finished planting. He didn>t want to
spend the $100 U.S. or so for a bag of seed since he wouldn>t use all of it.
A bin full of last year>s crop was right there so he used some of his home
grown stuff. The home grown seed didn>t yield for crap compared to the
fresh hybrid seed. The yield difference encourages farmers to buy fresh
seed each year. A terminator gene in corn won>t change much.

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 <bmg8bm$r6j$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Jim Webster" <Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote:
[quote]
"Bruce Sinclair" <bruce.sinclair@NOSPAMagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz> wrote in
message news:4MGib.859$ws.83634@news02.tsnz.net...
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.

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.
[/quote]
Articles I have read say that your point of view is wrong.

[quote]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
[/quote]
Again ... this might indeed have happened ... but it also happens without any
help from peolpe. Other factors are also operating.

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 <la7meJDvV5i$Ewg+@btopenworld.com>, Oz <acoohdb@btopenworld.com> wrote:
[quote]Bruce Sinclair <bruce.sinclair@NOSPAMagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz> writes

I haven>t seen this benefit anywhere. Is it real ? Has the price for food
(incidentally NOT very high anyway :) ) really come down ?

Take a look at farmgate prices in the EU and US.
The statistics should be easily found via google.
[/quote]
I>d suggest farmgate price would be exactly the wrong data to look at. We have
already agreed that commodity prices are falling. My question is ... have the
food prices to the consumer fallen ? .. is this directly related to GE ?

[quote]Over the last few generations the price of basic food commodities has fallen
steadily.
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.
No with farmers worldwide all losing money (which they are) it won>t.
At the end of the day it can only be cheaper if its produced cheaper.
[/quote]
... and if the increasing number of middlemen don>t boost their take ... which
has often been the case.

[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.
Because we have machines to do much of the work ...
Yup, a combine harvester at 350k UKP.
This has to be paid for, you know.
[/quote]
Indeed ... but it costs less than people.

[quote]and becuase commodity
prices have fallen.
Because they can be produced more cheaply.
[/quote]
Nope ... because more and more the buying is in the hands of a very few. IIRC
we have 2 major supermarket chains in NZ.
I>m not sure how much of NZ>s food they handle .. but I>d be prepared to guess
it>s be 80 % ? They buy cheap because they can ... and they are the only (ish)
game in town. Again .. this is not related to GE.

[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.
Possibly. I am yet to be convinced.
The look the stats up for yourself.
[/quote]
I have ... as I say ... I am yet to be convinced :)
Remember this is stats :)

[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.
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.

Take a look at world grains/soya prices.
[/quote]
In NZ (at least) soy price is mostly irrelevant to food. We don>t eat much
I>m informed that most grain goes for animal feed (particularly in the US).

Any concrete ge link to price ... or indeed to any benefit ?

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 <g6knmWDRX5i$EwiN@btopenworld.com>, Oz <acoohdb@btopenworld.com> wrote:
[quote]Bruce Sinclair <bruce.sinclair@NOSPAMagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz> writes
In article <eUFI9mJWFli$EwmY@btopenworld.com>, Oz <acoohdb@btopenworld.com
wrote:
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.
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 :)

How many years do you need?
[/quote]
Hmmm ... how about 50 as a start ?

[quote]And what are you fearing?
[/quote]
I "fear" only our lack of knowledge ... and our amazing ability to ignore how
ignorant we are.

[quote]Or is it fear out of ignorance?
[/quote]
Nope :)

[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.
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 :)
We know a lot about ecology.
[/quote]
Put the "lot" against the amount we don>t know, it is insignificant.

[quote]It>s europe that is out of step with the world.
You might think that ... I don>t.
Ok, stay in denial.
[/quote]
Have you considered the amazingly small possibility that this acurately
describes your position ? ... YMMV as they say :)

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 <mKJm6hDmc5i$EwAz@btopenworld.com>, Oz <acoohdb@btopenworld.com> wrote:
[quote]Bruce Sinclair <bruce.sinclair@NOSPAMagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz> writes
In article <O0OMFwJ4Qli$EwGE@btopenworld.com>, Oz <acoohdb@btopenworld.com
wrote:
(snip)
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.
Boy do I know that .. anyone know anything that>ll kill agapanthus ? :)
Roundup should work fine.
[/quote]
Nope :)

[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.
.. not even if they add a terminator ?
I suspect you haven>t understood what I said, above.
[/quote]
I understood it fine ... but it appears as though your trust in the
multinationals is large ... while mine is not :)

[quote]Your .sig is broken.
In what way ?
It should start with <minus><minus><space><return>, see my .sig.
That>s certainly one standard :)
It is the usegroup standard.
[/quote]
It is a guideline ... not a "rule".

[quote]Can you please cut your linelengths too?
Already set at 76 IIRC. Why are they too long ?
The standard is 70 or 72.
[/quote]
Again ... a guideline.
[quote]So (allowing for multiple quotes) it stays below 80.
I admit I>m not usually around for that many followups ... most threads seem[/quote]
to degenerate quickly into slaging and abuse :)

[quote]Less is often better.
[/quote]
That said, short line lengths can be a pain too.

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 <BBB1E2D4.40B7E%dh0496@ineINbrasVALkaID.com>, Dean Hoffman <dh0496@ineINbrasVALkaID.com> wrote:
[quote]On 10/13/03 6:58 PM, in article 0%Gib.868$ws.83791@news02.tsnz.net, "Bruce
Sinclair" <bruce.sinclair@NOSPAMagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz> wrote:

In article <O0OMFwJ4Qli$EwGE@btopenworld.com>, Oz <acoohdb@btopenworld.com
wrote:
(snip)
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.
Bruce asked:
.. not even if they add a terminator ?

I think hybrid seed corn came into use sometime in the 1930s. Farmers
have been buying fresh hybrid seed each year since then. The yield of corn
raised from the offspring of the hybrid seed stinks.
A farmer friend of mine used homegrown seed although he knew better. He
ran out or hybrid seed just before he finished planting. He didn>t want to
spend the $100 U.S. or so for a bag of seed since he wouldn>t use all of it.
A bin full of last year>s crop was right there so he used some of his home
grown stuff. The home grown seed didn>t yield for crap compared to the
fresh hybrid seed. The yield difference encourages farmers to buy fresh
seed each year. A terminator gene in corn won>t change much.
[/quote]
Theoretically true. In practice ?
I guess it>s the amount of trust you are prepared to put in large
corporations. My number is small ... yours may be larger :)

.... and of course we are also ignoring the possibilty that a disease destroys
the hybrids (or even the GE stuff). The effect of this would be large if our
dependence was high.

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:c0njb.1251$ws.120421@news02.tsnz.net...
[quote]In article <bmg8bm$r6j$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Jim Webster"
Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote:

"Bruce Sinclair" <bruce.sinclair@NOSPAMagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz> wrote in
message news:4MGib.859$ws.83634@news02.tsnz.net...
In article <bmdk1f$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.

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.

Articles I have read say that your point of view is wrong.

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

Again ... this might indeed have happened ... but it also happens without
any
help from peolpe. Other factors are also operating.

[/quote]
sure the climate is constantly changing, we do not maintain a constant
distance from the sun, the solar system moves through interstellar dust
belts of varying density as it rotates around the galactic core, many things
happen

Jim Webster
[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.[/quote]

Oz · Guest

Bruce Sinclair <bruce.sinclair@NOSPAMagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz> writes
[quote]In article <la7meJDvV5i$Ewg+@btopenworld.com>, Oz <acoohdb@btopenworld.com
wrote:
Bruce Sinclair <bruce.sinclair@NOSPAMagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz> writes

I haven>t seen this benefit anywhere. Is it real ? Has the price for food
(incidentally NOT very high anyway :) ) really come down ?

Take a look at farmgate prices in the EU and US.
The statistics should be easily found via google.

I>d suggest farmgate price would be exactly the wrong data to look at. We have
already agreed that commodity prices are falling. My question is ... have the
food prices to the consumer fallen ? .. is this directly related to GE ?
[/quote]
Food prices to the consumer have indeed fallen in real terms.
The fact that the supermarkets tend to take most of the saving doesn>t
mean that shelf prices wouldn>t be even higher without the farmgate
fall.

Please note that direct GE imports to the EU are muted.

[quote]Over the last few generations the price of basic food commodities has fallen
steadily.
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.
No with farmers worldwide all losing money (which they are) it won>t.
At the end of the day it can only be cheaper if its produced cheaper.

.. and if the increasing number of middlemen don>t boost their take ... which
has often been the case.
[/quote]
Indeed, but they would have increased their take to the max anyway.
Just look at milk pricing for that.

[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.
Because we have machines to do much of the work ...
Yup, a combine harvester at 350k UKP.
This has to be paid for, you know.

Indeed ... but it costs less than people.
[/quote]
Not quite sure about that, what is so is that in the UK farm
mechanisation has more been powered by shortage of people willing to do
the job at any money. That was certainly the case with herbicide use in
veg (and sugarbeet) in the UK. Farmers turned to herbicides because
hoegangs simply were not obtainable at any price. Come to that, that
also powered the move to mechanical milking.

[quote]and becuase commodity
prices have fallen.
Because they can be produced more cheaply.

Nope ... because more and more the buying is in the hands of a very few. IIRC
we have 2 major supermarket chains in NZ.
I>m not sure how much of NZ>s food they handle .. but I>d be prepared to guess
it>s be 80 % ? They buy cheap because they can ... and they are the only (ish)
game in town. Again .. this is not related to GE.
[/quote]
It>s more related to world prices, which is.

[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.
Possibly. I am yet to be convinced.
The look the stats up for yourself.

I have ... as I say ... I am yet to be convinced :)
Remember this is stats :)
[/quote]
Look them up for yourself, it doesn>t take long on google, since you
clearly prefer to disbelieve things that contradict your religion.

[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.
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.

Take a look at world grains/soya prices.

In NZ (at least) soy price is mostly irrelevant to food. We don>t eat much
[/quote]
<sigh> That controls world meat prices.

[quote]I>m informed that most grain goes for animal feed (particularly in the US).
[/quote]
yes, but that controls milling wheat premiums.

[quote]Any concrete ge link to price ... or indeed to any benefit ?
[/quote]
I>m not sure if you are simply ignorant of basic food economics, or just
have your ears closed.

--
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]In article <g6knmWDRX5i$EwiN@btopenworld.com>, Oz <acoohdb@btopenworld.com
wrote:
Bruce Sinclair <bruce.sinclair@NOSPAMagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz> writes
In article <eUFI9mJWFli$EwmY@btopenworld.com>, Oz <acoohdb@btopenworld.com
wrote:
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.
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 :)

How many years do you need?

Hmmm ... how about 50 as a start ?
[/quote]
Better stop eating kiwi fruit, much less than 50 years of mass usage.
Macademia nuts, too.

[quote]And what are you fearing?

I "fear" only our lack of knowledge ... and our amazing ability to ignore how
ignorant we are.

Or is it fear out of ignorance?

Nope :)
[/quote]
I think it>s clear from your posts you neither know, nor wish to know.

[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.
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 :)
We know a lot about ecology.

Put the "lot" against the amount we don>t know, it is insignificant.
[/quote]
I suspect this applies to your level of knowledge.
Note that the current UK GM review findings were *precisely* as I
predicted some many years ago, and that>s with my rather basic
knowledge.

[quote]It>s europe that is out of step with the world.
You might think that ... I don>t.
Ok, stay in denial.

Have you considered the amazingly small possibility that this acurately
describes your position ? ... YMMV as they say :)
[/quote]
Hardly, you have offered precisely no information in this entire thread.

You just say "I don>t know, so I am fearful".

Note I was also correct on BSE.

--
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]In article <mKJm6hDmc5i$EwAz@btopenworld.com>, Oz <acoohdb@btopenworld.com
wrote:
Bruce Sinclair <bruce.sinclair@NOSPAMagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz> writes

Boy do I know that .. anyone know anything that>ll kill agapanthus ? :)
Roundup should work fine.

Nope :)
[/quote]
I have one in my garden, but I>m not trying it out for you.
What did you use, at what rate, timing and what additives if any.

[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.
.. not even if they add a terminator ?
I suspect you haven>t understood what I said, above.

I understood it fine ...
[/quote]
Please explain what you thought I said.

[quote]but it appears as though your trust in the
multinationals is large ... while mine is not :)
[/quote]
I have no direct trust for multinationals, nor for you.
However, I have been trading with some for many decades and so I know
how they behave. In practice, in a marketplace they don;t 100% control,
quite well. Few, possibly none, have 100% control; not even hoover in
vacuum cleaners.

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


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 5 of 6