On Mar 8, 10:31*pm, Oz > wrote:
> Buxqi > writes
>
> >Yeah, but that's true of cultivatable land too. My interest in ecological
> >efficiency is based largely upon the observation that land has value to
> >animals as well as humans. Am I mistaken to believe that the vast majority
> >of cropland could support much more wildlife than the hills and moors?
>
> Yes, of course that is true. Simply on biomass production.
>
> Which is why it would be better to have 50% conventional intensive + 50%
> completely wild than 100% organic. The vastly high production of the
> former means more food AND more wildlife.

"On page 1694, agronomists report the results of the longest and most
comprehensive study to date comparing organic and conventional
farming, measuring many aspects of crops and soil over 21 years. The
bottom line: Organic farms can be nearly as productive as regular
farms for some crops, and they leave soils healthier. The study also
conclusively demonstrates that for most crops, organic plots are more
energy efficient per unit crop."
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...296/5573/1589a

>
> --
> Oz
> This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.

On Mar 8, 2:52*pm, "Jim Webster"
> wrote:
> "Jill" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > Jim Webster wrote:
> >>>>> ------- Land which is called 'marginal' is in reality essential to
> >>>>> wildlife as natural habitat - it's some kind of natural ecosystem.
> >>>>> Possibly including valuable human-edible and medicinal plants.---
>
> >>>> nonsense, you forget these landscapes were created by grazing, in
> >>>> the UK water meadows, grazing marshes and the Lakeland fells and
> >>>> uplands are all created by grazing animals
>
> >>> What was there before?
>
> >> when?
>
> > Ice would not be far off?
>
> then some scrub timber, nothing of any size,
>
>
>
> >>> "An acre of cereal produces five times more protein than an acre
>
> >> fine pearl, here is the offer, I can put at your disposal one acre,
> >> show us how it is done
>
> > hmmmm me thinks this has a familiar ring
>
> I am willing to consider making the offer to any vegan who wishes to prove
> that they can live off an acre without buying any food from elsewhere
>
> Jim Webster

In fairness they would most likely be up against economies of scale
and their inexperience.

On Mar 10, 7:46*am, "Jim Webster"
> wrote:
> "pearl" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > "Oz" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >> Which is why it would be better to have 50% conventional intensive + 50%
> >> completely wild than 100% organic. The vastly high production of the
> >> former means more food AND more wildlife.
>
> >> --
> >> Oz
> >> This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
>
> > 'Dust Bowl Writ Large?
>
> yep, the original dust bowl was caused by arable agriculture replacing
> grazing. If the Americans had just been happy to eat the meat and not insist
> on growing crops, they would have been fine.
> Ironically modern No-till systems which do reduce this erosian if you are
> forced into arable, are so much better with GM crops (indeed it is one of
> the reasons they were developmed)

Is this with current or future crops? Most of what I read suggests
that GM crops have yet to yield any real benefits. Mind you I
live in a country where the vast majority of people, including
journalists
seem somewhat prejudiced against them. It's a shame because
the technology has the potential to be highly beneficial.

> Or of course, organic agriculture, where you integrate ploughing and grazing
> to replemish the nutrients also works
> The paper you quote actually backs up everything we have been trying to tell
> you
>
> Jim Webster

"Buxqi" > wrote in message
...
On Mar 8, 2:52 pm, "Jim Webster"
>
> I am willing to consider making the offer to any vegan who wishes to prove
> that they can live off an acre without buying any food from elsewhere
>
> Jim Webster

In fairness they would most likely be up against economies of scale
and their inexperience.

---------------

in the case of some their inexperience doesn't stop them telling us how to
live ;-))
It might also force them to consider seriously the real world and the way
that real world factors interact. Nature cares nothing for ideology. Just
because you or I believe something doesn't mean that nature 'cares' ;-))

Jim Webster

"Buxqi" > wrote in message
...
On Mar 10, 7:46 am, "Jim Webster"
> wrote:
> "pearl" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > "Oz" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >> Which is why it would be better to have 50% conventional intensive +
> >> 50%
> >> completely wild than 100% organic. The vastly high production of the
> >> former means more food AND more wildlife.
>
> >> --
> >> Oz
> >> This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
>
> > 'Dust Bowl Writ Large?
>
> yep, the original dust bowl was caused by arable agriculture replacing
> grazing. If the Americans had just been happy to eat the meat and not
> insist
> on growing crops, they would have been fine.
> Ironically modern No-till systems which do reduce this erosian if you are
> forced into arable, are so much better with GM crops (indeed it is one of
> the reasons they were developmed)

Is this with current or future crops? Most of what I read suggests
that GM crops have yet to yield any real benefits. Mind you I
live in a country where the vast majority of people, including
journalists
seem somewhat prejudiced against them. It's a shame because
the technology has the potential to be highly beneficial.
-------------
Exactly, the potential is being highly beneficial which is why pretty well
everywhere outside Europe is using it.
There aren't as many benefits for Europe. Firstly because the work done has
benefited the no-till systems which are so important for moisture retention
(Pearl flagged up the no-till but I cannot remember whether she mentioned
the importance of water) and secondly, because Europe doesn't allow them, no
one produces them for European conditions

Jim Webster

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 22:18:33 -0000, "Jim Webster"
> wrote:

>
>"Buxqi" > wrote in message
...
>On Mar 8, 2:52 pm, "Jim Webster"
>>
>> I am willing to consider making the offer to any vegan who wishes to prove
>> that they can live off an acre without buying any food from elsewhere
>>
>> Jim Webster
>
>In fairness they would most likely be up against economies of scale
>and their inexperience.
>
>---------------
>
>in the case of some their inexperience doesn't stop them telling us how to
>live ;-))
>It might also force them to consider seriously the real world and the way
>that real world factors interact. Nature cares nothing for ideology. Just
>because you or I believe something doesn't mean that nature 'cares' ;-))

Your misguided delusion knows no bounds. Your duff advice must be a
real embarrassment to CLA. You cant intensify your way out of a global
crisis especially when intensification is the cause of the world
problems any way.

Your desperation to hold on to your subsidies is embarrassing and
shows why we need new blood in farming.

Throwing a few head of cattle to fend for themselves in a field and
buying in lamb produce to sell on doesn't a farmer make. No wonder you
don't have any support here.

"Buxqi" > wrote in message
...
On Mar 8, 10:31 pm, Oz > wrote:
> Buxqi > writes
>
> >Yeah, but that's true of cultivatable land too. My interest in ecological
> >efficiency is based largely upon the observation that land has value to
> >animals as well as humans. Am I mistaken to believe that the vast
> >majority
> >of cropland could support much more wildlife than the hills and moors?
>
> Yes, of course that is true. Simply on biomass production.
>
> Which is why it would be better to have 50% conventional intensive + 50%
> completely wild than 100% organic. The vastly high production of the
> former means more food AND more wildlife.

"On page 1694, agronomists report the results of the longest and most
comprehensive study to date comparing organic and conventional
farming, measuring many aspects of crops and soil over 21 years. The
bottom line: Organic farms can be nearly as productive as regular
farms for some crops,

--------------
A lot of qualifiers have crept in there, 'nearly' and 'some'
Remember the figures, we need a world wheat crop that is at least between
620 and 640 million tons. If it is under 620 the results are going to be
very bad indeed, the prices will rocket. The current estimate/hope is that
we might even be on line for 642 million tons
If the 'nearly' and 'some' mean a mere 10% loss of yield then we are down
below 580 million tonnes and people are going to go very hungry indeed.




and they leave soils healthier. The study also
conclusively demonstrates that for most crops, organic plots are more
energy efficient per unit crop."
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...296/5573/1589a

----------
The healthier might or might not be argued, it depends on the soils health,
another problem is with the 'energy efficient per unit crop'
What on earth is a unit crop?
Indeed conventional agriculture is almost certainly not optimised for energy
efficiency, it is optimised for output because we have people to feed.

Jim Webster

On Mar 10, 7:48*am, "Jim Webster"
> wrote:
> "Buxqi" > wrote in message news:59efd2f5-c0db-4189-a512-
>
> *>
>
> Look up my post on "Forest Gardening".
>
> It's an intruiging idea. Where can I buy the produce of
> forest gardening?
> Could any of the products reasonably
> become dietary staples like grain or beans?
>
> *--------------------
>
> the problem with forest gardening is the yields are too low for sustaining
> world populations

Hmm. Well the cynical part of me says that if it produced good
enough yields it would be more widespread but think about it.
When you plant out a wheat field you get one layer of crop.
In a forest garden you have canopy trees, large shrubs, shade
tolerant smaller shrubs, herbs, ground cover, climbers and
vines and root crops - that's seven layers of plants, each
producing edible food.

Apparantly the system is already commonly used in
tropical zones but a recent inovation in temperate zones,
partly because not enough light penetrates the canopy for
most of the better known species but lesser known shade
tolerant plants can be used instead.

> and it doesn't happen in any significant extent

Doesn't mean that it couldn't although in the
context of reducing one's ecological footprint
without growing one's own food if I can't locate
a commercial forest garden, it's a bit irrelevant.
Also a diet that is both vegan and forest garden
seems a bit too restrictive. One or the other,
maybe. Both is a step too far...

> Jim Webster

"Buxqi" > wrote in message
...
On Mar 10, 7:48 am, "Jim Webster"
> wrote:
> "Buxqi" > wrote in message
> news:59efd2f5-c0db-4189-a512-
>
> >
>
> Look up my post on "Forest Gardening".
>
> It's an intruiging idea. Where can I buy the produce of
> forest gardening?
> Could any of the products reasonably
> become dietary staples like grain or beans?
>
> --------------------
>
> the problem with forest gardening is the yields are too low for sustaining
> world populations

Hmm. Well the cynical part of me says that if it produced good
enough yields it would be more widespread but think about it.
When you plant out a wheat field you get one layer of crop.
In a forest garden you have canopy trees, large shrubs, shade
tolerant smaller shrubs, herbs, ground cover, climbers and
vines and root crops - that's seven layers of plants, each
producing edible food.

------------
but you only have one source of energy, the sun, and that limits output, and
also the wheat produces stem and grain, you have to compare the power to
weight ratio ( ;-)) of the forest garden for the same
It is a difficult calculation, and the other thing to remember is how well
does it work, for example, in Northern Europe, and how well do commodities
bulk up to feed city populations who produce very little food of their own


Apparantly the system is already commonly used in
tropical zones but a recent inovation in temperate zones,
partly because not enough light penetrates the canopy for
most of the better known species but lesser known shade
tolerant plants can be used instead.

> and it doesn't happen in any significant extent

Doesn't mean that it couldn't although in the
context of reducing one's ecological footprint
without growing one's own food if I can't locate
a commercial forest garden, it's a bit irrelevant.
Also a diet that is both vegan and forest garden
seems a bit too restrictive. One or the other,
maybe. Both is a step too far...
--------
It doesn't mean it cannot happen, or it cannot work, but to advocate it for
every area is as silly as advocating continuous cereal cultivation or just
putting everything down to grass and converting to pure pastoralism
Just because something works in one area doesn't mean it will work in
another

Jim Webster

Buxqi > writes
>
>Is this with current or future crops? Most of what I read suggests that GM
>crops have yet to yield any real benefits.

Oh, that's simply not so. Notill in the states has drastically reduced
erosion and improved cropping patterns resulting in yield increases
simply because high yielding crops can be sown more often. Its huge use
in south america, india and china strongly suggests (virtually proves)
that the local farmers consider GM to have significant benefits.

>Mind you I live in a country
>where the vast majority of people, including journalists seem somewhat
>prejudiced against them.

Indeed. Ignorance is bliss. However in this case the simple
unavailability of world supplies of NON-GM soya and maize has and will
cause problems. EU farmers cannot get or use such materials so
inevitably we will be buying pork and chicken from the countries that
can feed cheaper and more available maize and soya, that is south
america and asia. These areas are well known for their high levels of
animal welfare and hygiene (irony).

>It's a shame because the technology has the
>potential to be highly beneficial.

It is, its just completely passed the EU by.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.

Buxqi > writes
>
>"On page 1694, agronomists report the results of the longest and most
>comprehensive study to date comparing organic and conventional farming,
>measuring many aspects of crops and soil over 21 years.

Unfortunately the details do not seem to be online.
The trial is a swiss one, the swiss are third rank is agricultural
production. Its likely they are majoring on selected vegetables and
fruit. I (and others here) have never argued that selected vegetables
and fruit, *particularly when grown in small plots* can yield as well
organically as conventionally. They don't need weedkillers (small: can
be done by hand), they don't need pesticides (crops are resistant and
small plots are effectively disease resistant) and can easily be
fertilised using organic fertiliser (small amounts in total needed).

Unfortunately none of these transfer to the large scale. You can't hand-
hoe large areas (like 30ac fields need gangs of men and its very hard
work), you can't get enough organic fertiliser because its simply not
available and the large plots mean its much more likely for pests and
diseases to find the field and romp across it uncontrolled.

In my garden I use no pesticides (ok every few years I need to spray for
cabbage caterpillars) but experience of large scale veg production means
I **know** I can't do the same on a field scale, even using the same
varieties, the same fertiliser and grown on the same land. I know this
because I have done it.

>The bottom line:
>Organic farms can be nearly as productive as regular farms for some crops,

Indeed, never in dispute.

http://www.soil.ncsu.edu/publication...cts/AG-439-28/
Undiluted cattle slurry.
22-14-21 lbs/1000gal. = 10-6.4-10 kg/4500L = 2-1.5-2 /ton

To apply (for a cabbage crop for example) 150-100-150 'Ha
I need to apply 75T/Ha, for a 30Ha field that's 2200 T.
That's about 100 max size roadtankers for a poxy 30Ha.

This would not count as organic of course. This slurry would have to be
mixed with straw (at least 2 straw to 1 slurry and composted, losing a
lot of N and increasing the quantity to about 7000T.

Take this countrywide and you will soon realise that all the slurry from
all the livestock, barely covers the UK cabbage crop, let alone the
grassland, cereals, beans etc etc etc.

>and they leave soils healthier.

Depends on the definition of healthier and what rotation was chosen.

>The study also conclusively demonstrates
>that for most crops, organic plots are more energy efficient per unit crop."
>http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...296/5573/1589a

Probably not, but without seeing the data I can't comment.


--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.

Buxqi > writes
>
>Hmm. Well the cynical part of me says that if it produced good enough yields
>it would be more widespread but think about it. When you plant out a wheat
>field you get one layer of crop. In a forest garden you have canopy trees,
>large shrubs, shade tolerant smaller shrubs, herbs, ground cover, climbers
>and vines and root crops - that's seven layers of plants, each producing
>edible food.

Unfortunately they are all powered by sunlight and obviously a multi-
layer means they are sharing it so they grow more slowly. Worse plants
respire so the more biomass and the lower the light level the lower the
yields. True multilevel is never used to my knowledge for this reason
*ie it doesn't crop).

It IS used in some areas. For example in the sahara sparsely planted
date palms are interplanted with delicate crops and irrigated. Here the
delicate plants get the irrigation, the dates provide some shade and
cooling and any water that gets past the cropped rootzone is used by the
dates. I've seen that working. However one needs to note that the sun is
intense, water highly limiting and only the dates provide guaranteed
production.

>Apparantly the system is already commonly used in tropical zones but a
>recent inovation in temperate zones, partly because not enough light
>penetrates the canopy for most of the better known species but lesser known
>shade tolerant plants can be used instead.

Partly true. I haven't come across it in TROPICAL zones. Here I don;t
include gardens, where some apparent intercropping happens just to pack
out the plot, and its done with care to avoid excessive competition. Ie
plant density of one is reduced to favour another.

>Doesn't mean that it couldn't although in the context of reducing one's
>ecological footprint without growing one's own food if I can't locate a
>commercial forest garden, it's a bit irrelevant. Also a diet that is both
>vegan and forest garden seems a bit too restrictive. One or the other,
>maybe. Both is a step too far...

Its an illusion, plants harvest sunlight, cut the sunlight and cut the
production. Period.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 06:13:00 +0000, Oz >
wrote:

>Buxqi > writes
>>
>>"On page 1694, agronomists report the results of the longest and most
>>comprehensive study to date comparing organic and conventional farming,
>>measuring many aspects of crops and soil over 21 years.
>
>Unfortunately the details do not seem to be online.

http://orgprints.org/5514/


HTH

Torsten Brinch wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 06:13:00 +0000, Oz >
> wrote:
>
>> Buxqi > writes
>>> "On page 1694, agronomists report the results of the longest and most
>>> comprehensive study to date comparing organic and conventional farming,
>>> measuring many aspects of crops and soil over 21 years.
>> Unfortunately the details do not seem to be online.
>
> http://orgprints.org/5514/

Important finding stated at that site: "We found crop
yields to be 20% lower in the organic systems".

So...who gets the privilege of starving due to 20%
lower yields?

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 05:52:40 +0000, Oz >
wrote:

>Buxqi > writes
>>
>>Is this with current or future crops? Most of what I read suggests that GM
>>crops have yet to yield any real benefits.
>
>Oh, that's simply not so. Notill in the states has drastically reduced
>erosion and improved cropping patterns resulting in yield increases
>simply because high yielding crops can be sown more often. Its huge use
>in south america, india and china strongly suggests (virtually proves)
>that the local farmers consider GM to have significant benefits.
>
>>Mind you I live in a country
>>where the vast majority of people, including journalists seem somewhat
>>prejudiced against them.
>
>Indeed. Ignorance is bliss. However in this case the simple
>unavailability of world supplies of NON-GM soya and maize has and will
>cause problems. EU farmers cannot get or use such materials so
>inevitably we will be buying pork and chicken from the countries that
>can feed cheaper and more available maize and soya, that is south
>america and asia. These areas are well known for their high levels of
>animal welfare and hygiene (irony).

The irony is that you are too stupid to see it! How is a factory
farmed chicken from the UK any worse of than a factory farmed chicken
from any other part of the world. It's simply not possible to treat
them any worse than they already are.

It leaves a fowl taste in ones mouth to hear a pro hunt loon brought
up on farming handouts suggesting he is even in the slightest
compassionate about animal welfare. <spit>

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 00:43:50 -0700, Rudy Canoza
> wrote:

>Torsten Brinch wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 06:13:00 +0000, Oz >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Buxqi > writes
>>>> "On page 1694, agronomists report the results of the longest and most
>>>> comprehensive study to date comparing organic and conventional farming,
>>>> measuring many aspects of crops and soil over 21 years.
>>> Unfortunately the details do not seem to be online.
>>
>> http://orgprints.org/5514/
>
>Important finding stated at that site: "We found crop
>yields to be 20% lower in the organic systems".
>
>So...who gets the privilege of starving due to 20%
>lower yields?

Jonny it's out of your league don't even pretend to comprehend.

Julie wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 05:52:40 +0000, Oz >
> wrote:
>
>> Buxqi > writes
>>> Is this with current or future crops? Most of what I read suggests that GM
>>> crops have yet to yield any real benefits.
>> Oh, that's simply not so. Notill in the states has drastically reduced
>> erosion and improved cropping patterns resulting in yield increases
>> simply because high yielding crops can be sown more often. Its huge use
>> in south america, india and china strongly suggests (virtually proves)
>> that the local farmers consider GM to have significant benefits.
>>
>>> Mind you I live in a country
>>> where the vast majority of people, including journalists seem somewhat
>>> prejudiced against them.
>> Indeed. Ignorance is bliss. However in this case the simple
>> unavailability of world supplies of NON-GM soya and maize has and will
>> cause problems. EU farmers cannot get or use such materials so
>> inevitably we will be buying pork and chicken from the countries that
>> can feed cheaper and more available maize and soya, that is south
>> america and asia. These areas are well known for their high levels of
>> animal welfare and hygiene (irony).
>
> The irony is that you are too stupid to see it!

No, the irony, pete, is that you can't understand that
you don't know what the **** you're talking about.

Julie wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 00:43:50 -0700, Rudy Canoza
> > wrote:
>
>> Torsten Brinch wrote:
>>> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 06:13:00 +0000, Oz >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Buxqi > writes
>>>>> "On page 1694, agronomists report the results of the longest and most
>>>>> comprehensive study to date comparing organic and conventional farming,
>>>>> measuring many aspects of crops and soil over 21 years.
>>>> Unfortunately the details do not seem to be online.
>>> http://orgprints.org/5514/
>> Important finding stated at that site: "We found crop
>> yields to be 20% lower in the organic systems".
>>
>> So...who gets the privilege of starving due to 20%
>> lower yields?
>
> Jonny it's out of your league

Not even close, pete. With an iron bar through my head
and strung out on LSD, I'd understand better than you
on your best day. You're stupid, pete. You *try* to
be stupid. I don't get why you do that, but there's no
question that you *do* try to be stupid. Not too
surprisingly, you succeed in being stupid. You're
stupid. You'll always be stupid.

Julie wrote:
>
> How is a factory
> farmed chicken from the UK any worse of than a factory farmed chicken
> from any other part of the world. It's simply not possible to treat
> them any worse than they already are.

You once again illustrate your complete ignorance.
The conditions elsewhere in the world are significantly worse for the animal
welfare, for local, national and global biosecurity, and for the workers.
Many practises considered totally acceptable which are simply not considered
here.
Each post you make, under which ever silly psuedonym you are messing with,
shows just how little you know.
Its really sad to see someone who proports to be so passionate about
something, understand it so little, and, as a result, acheiving nothing
towards improving the situation at all.

--

regards
Jill Bowis

Pure bred utility chickens and ducks
Housing; Equipment, Books, Videos, Gifts
Herbaceous; Herb and Alpine nursery
Working Holidays in Scotland
http://www.kintaline.co.uk

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 00:59:20 -0700, Rudy Canoza
> wrote:

>Julie wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 00:43:50 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Torsten Brinch wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 06:13:00 +0000, Oz >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Buxqi > writes
>>>>>> "On page 1694, agronomists report the results of the longest and most
>>>>>> comprehensive study to date comparing organic and conventional farming,
>>>>>> measuring many aspects of crops and soil over 21 years.
>>>>> Unfortunately the details do not seem to be online.
>>>> http://orgprints.org/5514/
>>> Important finding stated at that site: "We found crop
>>> yields to be 20% lower in the organic systems".
>>>
>>> So...who gets the privilege of starving due to 20%
>>> lower yields?
>>
>> Jonny it's out of your league
>
>Not even close, pete. With an iron bar through my head
>and strung out on LSD

Ah that explains your somewhat weird and extreme behavior. Although
not why you hate women so! Perhaps you'd care to expand on that?

Stop trying to divert the thread to your own solitary group jonny.

Jill wrote:
> Julie wrote:
>> How is a factory
>> farmed chicken from the UK any worse of than a factory farmed chicken
>> from any other part of the world. It's simply not possible to treat
>> them any worse than they already are.
>
> You once again illustrate your complete ignorance.

pete the lying shitbag troll revels in ignorance.


> The conditions elsewhere in the world are significantly worse for the animal
> welfare, for local, national and global biosecurity, and for the workers.
> Many practises considered totally acceptable which are simply not considered
> here.
> Each post you make, under which ever silly psuedonym you are messing with,
> shows just how little you know.
> Its really sad to see someone who proports to be so passionate about
> something, understand it so little, and, as a result, acheiving nothing
> towards improving the situation at all.
>

Julie wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 00:59:20 -0700, Rudy Canoza
> > wrote:
>
>> Julie wrote:
>>> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 00:43:50 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Torsten Brinch wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 06:13:00 +0000, Oz >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Buxqi > writes
>>>>>>> "On page 1694, agronomists report the results of the longest and most
>>>>>>> comprehensive study to date comparing organic and conventional farming,
>>>>>>> measuring many aspects of crops and soil over 21 years.
>>>>>> Unfortunately the details do not seem to be online.
>>>>> http://orgprints.org/5514/
>>>> Important finding stated at that site: "We found crop
>>>> yields to be 20% lower in the organic systems".
>>>>
>>>> So...who gets the privilege of starving due to 20%
>>>> lower yields?
>>> Jonny it's out of your league
>> Not even close, pete. With an iron bar through my head
>> and strung out on LSD, I'd understand better than you on your best day.
>
> Ah that explains

You're stupid, pete. You work hard at being stupid,
and it's the one success in your life.

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 08:05:19 -0000, "Jill"
> wrote:

>Julie wrote:
>>
>> How is a factory
>> farmed chicken from the UK any worse of than a factory farmed chicken
>> from any other part of the world. It's simply not possible to treat
>> them any worse than they already are.
>
>You once again illustrate your complete ignorance.

You once again illustrate you are an abusive bully.

>The conditions elsewhere in the world are significantly worse for the animal
>welfare, for local, national and global biosecurity, and for the workers.

That's a blatant lie.

>Many practises considered totally acceptable which are simply not considered
>here.

Like what?

>Each post you make, under which ever silly psuedonym you are messing with,
>shows just how little you know.
>Its really sad to see someone who proports to be so passionate about
>something, understand it so little, and, as a result, acheiving nothing
>towards improving the situation at all.

You can huff and puff all you want. Until you change your filthy
habits the pressure will be on.

The irony is someone who lives off animal suffering is trying to bully
an animal rights advocate about animal suffering. Hopefully the
suffering you have instilled on your animals will rebound tenfold on
yourself. Don't expect any sympathy here bully.

Your not the first farmer of animal misery to complain about animal
misery abroad today only you appear too dumb to see the embarrassing
irony.

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 01:09:41 -0700, Rudy Canoza
> wrote:

>Jill wrote:
>> Julie wrote:
>>> How is a factory
>>> farmed chicken from the UK any worse of than a factory farmed chicken
>>> from any other part of the world. It's simply not possible to treat
>>> them any worse than they already are.
>>
>> You once again illustrate your complete ignorance.
>
>pete the lying shitbag troll revels in ignorance.

You'd and Jill would make a great couple. She's in to brutality and
suffering in a big way.

pete the lying shitbag troll lied:
> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 08:05:19 -0000, "Jill"
> > wrote:
>
>> Julie wrote:
>>> How is a factory
>>> farmed chicken from the UK any worse of than a factory farmed chicken
>>> from any other part of the world. It's simply not possible to treat
>>> them any worse than they already are.
>> You once again illustrate your complete ignorance.
>
> You once again illustrate you are an abusive bully.

"Waaaaaahhhhhhh", cries pete.

You stupid ****.

pete the lying shitbag troll lied:
> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 01:09:41 -0700, Rudy Canoza
> > wrote:
>
>> Jill wrote:
>>> Julie wrote:
>>>> How is a factory
>>>> farmed chicken from the UK any worse of than a factory farmed chicken
>>>> from any other part of the world. It's simply not possible to treat
>>>> them any worse than they already are.
>>> You once again illustrate your complete ignorance.
>> pete the lying shitbag troll revels in ignorance.
>
> You'd and

Speak English, ****.

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 01:16:26 -0700, Rudy Canoza
> wrote:

>pete the lying shitbag troll lied:
>> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 01:09:41 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Jill wrote:
>>>> Julie wrote:
>>>>> How is a factory
>>>>> farmed chicken from the UK any worse of than a factory farmed chicken
>>>>> from any other part of the world. It's simply not possible to treat
>>>>> them any worse than they already are.
>>>> You once again illustrate your complete ignorance.
>>> pete the lying shitbag troll revels in ignorance.
>>
>> You'd and
>
>Speak English, ****.

You and Jill would make a great couple. She's in to brutality and
suffering in a big way.

pete the stupid shitstain lied:
> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 01:16:26 -0700, Rudy Canoza
> > wrote:
>
>> pete the lying shitbag troll lied:
>>> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 01:09:41 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jill wrote:
>>>>> Julie wrote:
>>>>>> How is a factory
>>>>>> farmed chicken from the UK any worse of than a factory farmed chicken
>>>>>> from any other part of the world. It's simply not possible to treat
>>>>>> them any worse than they already are.
>>>>> You once again illustrate your complete ignorance.
>>>> pete the lying shitbag troll revels in ignorance.
>>> You'd and
>> Speak English, ****.
>
> You and

You're stupid, pete. You *choose* to be stupid.
You're really a ****wit, pete.

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 01:28:27 -0700, Rudy Canoza
> wrote:

>pete the stupid shitstain lied:
>> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 01:16:26 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> pete the lying shitbag troll lied:
>>>> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 01:09:41 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Jill wrote:
>>>>>> Julie wrote:
>>>>>>> How is a factory
>>>>>>> farmed chicken from the UK any worse of than a factory farmed chicken
>>>>>>> from any other part of the world. It's simply not possible to treat
>>>>>>> them any worse than they already are.
>>>>>> You once again illustrate your complete ignorance.
>>>>> pete the lying shitbag troll revels in ignorance.
>>>> You'd and
>>> Speak English, ****.
>>
>> You and
>
>You're stupid, pete. You *choose* to be stupid.
>You're really a ****wit, pete.

Keep talking jonny it helps to assess whether you are human or not. So
far you have a vocal range of around 50 words (give or take) so at
least we know for definite you're not as bright as a mynah bird yet.
You could do better, but not much I fear. You have a long, long way to
go before you reach human status.

pete the stupid shitstain lied:
> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 01:28:27 -0700, Rudy Canoza
> > wrote:
>
>> pete the stupid shitstain lied:
>>> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 01:16:26 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> pete the lying shitbag troll lied:
>>>>> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 01:09:41 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Jill wrote:
>>>>>>> Julie wrote:
>>>>>>>> How is a factory
>>>>>>>> farmed chicken from the UK any worse of than a factory farmed chicken
>>>>>>>> from any other part of the world. It's simply not possible to treat
>>>>>>>> them any worse than they already are.
>>>>>>> You once again illustrate your complete ignorance.
>>>>>> pete the lying shitbag troll revels in ignorance.
>>>>> You'd and
>>>> Speak English, ****.
>>> You and
>> You're stupid, pete. You *choose* to be stupid.
>> You're really a ****wit, pete.
>
> Keep talking

You're stupid, pete. You *choose* to be stupid, and
you work hard at it. You succeed. It's your one
success in life, pete. You're a stupid ****.

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 01:40:55 -0700, Rudy Canoza
> wrote:

>pete the stupid shitstain lied:
>> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 01:28:27 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> pete the stupid shitstain lied:
>>>> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 01:16:26 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> pete the lying shitbag troll lied:
>>>>>> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 01:09:41 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jill wrote:
>>>>>>>> Julie wrote:
>>>>>>>>> How is a factory
>>>>>>>>> farmed chicken from the UK any worse of than a factory farmed chicken
>>>>>>>>> from any other part of the world. It's simply not possible to treat
>>>>>>>>> them any worse than they already are.
>>>>>>>> You once again illustrate your complete ignorance.
>>>>>>> pete the lying shitbag troll revels in ignorance.
>>>>>> You'd and
>>>>> Speak English, ****.
>>>> You and
>>> You're stupid, pete. You *choose* to be stupid.
>>> You're really a ****wit, pete.
>>
>>Keep talking jonny it helps to assess whether you are human or not. So
>>far you have a vocal range of around 50 words (give or take) so at
>>least we know for definite you're not as bright as a mynah bird yet.
>>You could do better, but not much I fear. You have a long, long way to
>>go before you reach human status.
>
>You're stupid, pete. You *choose* to be stupid, and
>you work hard at it. You succeed. It's your one
>success in life, pete. You're a stupid ****.

Pretty Polly, pretty polly. Tickle, tickle. Sqwwwarkkkk.

pete the stupid shitstain lied:
> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 01:40:55 -0700, Rudy Canoza
> > wrote:
>
>> pete the stupid shitstain lied:
>>> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 01:28:27 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> pete the stupid shitstain lied:
>>>>> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 01:16:26 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> pete the lying shitbag troll lied:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 01:09:41 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jill wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Julie wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> How is a factory
>>>>>>>>>> farmed chicken from the UK any worse of than a factory farmed chicken
>>>>>>>>>> from any other part of the world. It's simply not possible to treat
>>>>>>>>>> them any worse than they already are.
>>>>>>>>> You once again illustrate your complete ignorance.
>>>>>>>> pete the lying shitbag troll revels in ignorance.
>>>>>>> You'd and
>>>>>> Speak English, ****.
>>>>> You and
>>>> You're stupid, pete. You *choose* to be stupid.
>>>> You're really a ****wit, pete.
>>> Keep talking jonny it helps to assess whether you are human or not. So
>>> far you have a vocal range of around 50 words (give or take) so at
>>> least we know for definite you're not as bright as a mynah bird yet.
>>> You could do better, but not much I fear. You have a long, long way to
>>> go before you reach human status.
>> You're stupid, pete. You *choose* to be stupid, and
>> you work hard at it. You succeed. It's your one
>> success in life, pete. You're a stupid ****.
>
> Pretty Polly,

You're stupid, pete. Why do you like being stupid,
stupid **** pete?

Julie wrote:
>
> The irony is someone who lives off animal suffering is trying to bully
> an animal rights advocate about animal suffering.

All our birds are free range.
I have spent years working with people to provide the best conditions for
their birds, whether its for 2 birds or 2000 birds.
I spend my days helping people select what they need to keep their birds in
the best possible way in their domestic conditions, and that includes
explaining that its not a good idea if they have not the right situation.
I spend a lot of time online helping to sort out problems that poultry
keepers have found themselves in, and this is going to become a much more
serious part of my time as the misinformation that has been bandied about
through the media is causing well meaning people to make badly illinformed
mistakes.
I also spend a deal of time learning about how things are in the rest of the
industry, from those who really know.
I have spent years working actively with animal rescue, animal welfare, and
dealing with sick, unwanted animals.
I have amassed much training and experience in animal welfare, behaviour,
ecology.
oh -- and we do not get any subsidies here

And you spout incoherent rubbish which you clearly do not understand and
have no personal knowledge or experience to back up, a lot of which directly
supports continued and increasing wholesale animal suffering in other parts
of the world .......... and you expect to be given the moral high ground.
What a joke.

Exactly what ARE your qualifications?

--

regards
Jill Bowis

Pure bred utility chickens and ducks
Housing; Equipment, Books, Videos, Gifts
Herbaceous; Herb and Alpine nursery
Working Holidays in Scotland
http://www.kintaline.co.uk

Jill > writes
>And you spout incoherent rubbish which you clearly do not understand and
>have no personal knowledge or experience to back up, a lot of which directly
>supports continued and increasing wholesale animal suffering in other parts
>of the world .......... and you expect to be given the moral high ground.
>What a joke.

Yes, you would be best to killfile pete and his armada of sock puppets.
He actually lives off anyone discussing anything with him, even insults
because its the only thing in his poor empty life.

Even this post of mine will give him succour, so don't expect any more.
I will just killfile you as well, as I have with firth, codger et al.

>Exactly what ARE your qualifications?

He has none, barely able enough to get his social security.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 11:21:32 +0000, Oz >
wrote:

>Jill > writes
>>And you spout incoherent rubbish which you clearly do not understand and
>>have no personal knowledge or experience to back up, a lot of which directly
>>supports continued and increasing wholesale animal suffering in other parts
>>of the world .......... and you expect to be given the moral high ground.
>>What a joke.
>
>Yes, you would be best to killfile

Poor old Oz reverting to type. The bully who shouts listen to me or
you go in my kill file! Well you sad tit you are hardly something
we'll miss but it would benefit us if we discovered you'd topped
yourself then we'd know you can never come crawling back because you
hate being ignored.

You ponces off the state are a waste of time. Go and get a proper job
like the rest of society.

"Oz" > wrote in message
...
> Jill > writes
>>And you spout incoherent rubbish which you clearly do not understand and
>>have no personal knowledge or experience to back up, a lot of which
>>directly
>>supports continued and increasing wholesale animal suffering in other
>>parts
>>of the world .......... and you expect to be given the moral high ground.
>>What a joke.
>
> Yes, you would be best to killfile pete and his armada of sock puppets.
> He actually lives off anyone discussing anything with him, even insults
> because its the only thing in his poor empty life.
>
> Even this post of mine will give him succour, so don't expect any more.
> I will just killfile you as well, as I have with firth, codger et al.

Clever old Oz! Notice the careful selection, but alas, Oz so will everyone
else.

The past is catching up with you. You will probably outrun it.

I would make quite sure that you join me in insisting the government tests
the pigs for MRSA.

You were the one that admitted that I was right way back in 2002 in saying
that the pigs were sick.

You even were the first to mention PMWS and pigs in the same posting in
2001.

You can't say you knew nothing of the matter or were uneducated cannon
fodder.

You know that I'm right.


--
Regards
Pat Gardiner
www.go-self-sufficient.com
>
>>Exactly what ARE your qualifications?
>
> He has none, barely able enough to get his social security.
>
> --
> Oz
> This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
>
>
>

"Buxqi" > wrote in message ...
On Mar 9, 8:53 pm, "pearl" > wrote:
> "pearl" > wrote in ...

> Look up my post on "Forest Gardening".

It's an intruiging idea. Where can I buy the produce of
forest gardening? Could any of the products reasonably
become dietary staples like grain or beans?

----
Read this: http://www.simondale.net/house/context.htm .
-----

> There are other,
> sustainable eco- and wildlife-friendly ways we can produce
> food for ourselves. It doesn't have to be this "us or them".

A given amount of land can produce a finite amount of food
and all animals, human and nonhuman need to eat.....

-----------------

'SEVEN STOREYS OF ABUNDANCE; A VISIT TO
ROBERT HART'S FOREST GARDEN

Following the Permaculture Design Course run by 'Naturewise'
in the Spring 1997, a group of graduates decided to visit what
has been described as possibly the only fully developed working
Permaculture site in the UK, Robert Hart's Forest Garden.

Situated at Wenlock Edge on the Welsh borders, Robert began
the project over thirty years ago with the intention of providing a
healthy and therapuetic environment for himself and his brother
Lacon, born with severe learning disabilities.

Starting as relatively conventional smallholders, Robert soon
discovered that maintaining large annual vegetable beds, rearing
livestock and taking care of an orchard were tasks beyond their
strength. However, he also observed that a small bed of perennial
vegetables and herbs they had planted up was looking after itself
with little or no intervention. Furthermore, these plants provided
interesting and unusual additions to the diet, as well as seeming to
promote health and vigour in both body and mind.

Noting the maxim of Hippocrates to "make food your medicine
and medicine your food", Robert adopted a vegan, 90% raw food
diet. He also began to examine the interactions and relationships
that take place between plants in natural systems, particularly in
woodland, the climax eco-system of a cool temperate region such
as the British Isles. This led him to evolve the concept of the
'Forest Garden': Based on the observation that the natural forest
can be divided into distinct layers or 'storeys', he developed an
existing small orchard of apples and pears into an edible landscape
consisting of seven dimensions;

I) A 'canopy' layer consisting of the original mature fruit trees.
2) A 'low-tree' layer of smaller nut and fruit trees on dwarfing
root stocks.
3) A 'shrub layer' of fruit bushes such as currants and berries.
4) A 'herbaceous layer' of perennial vegetables and herbs.
5) A 'ground cover' layer of edible plants that spread horizontally.
6) A 'rhizosphere' or 'underground' dimension of plants grown
for their roots and tubers.
7) A vertical 'layer' of vines and climbers.

[illustration -
The Forest Garden: A Seven Level Beneficial Guild
1. Canopy (large fruit and nut trees)
2. Low tree layer (dwarf fruit trees)
3. Shrub layer (currants and berries)
4. Herbaceous (comfreys, beets, herbs)
5. Rhizosphere (root vegetables)
6. Soil surface (ground cover, eg. strawberry, etc)
7. Vertical layer (climbers, vines) ]

Stepping into the Forest Garden is like entering another world.
All around is lushness and abundance, a sharp contrast to the
dust bowl aridity of the surrounding prairie farmed fields and
farmlands. At first the sheer profusion of growth is bewildering,
like entering a wild wood. We're not used to productive
landscapes appearing so disorderly. But it doesn't take long for
the true harmony of nature's systems to reveal themselves, and
the realisation sinks in that in fact it is the Agribiz monocultures,
with their heavy machinery, genetic manipulation, erosion, high
water inputs, pesticides and fertilisers which are in a total state of
maintained chaos. Whereas hectares of land may produce bushel
after bushel of but one crop, genetically degraded and totally
vulnerable to ever more virulent strains of pest and disease without
the dubious protection of massive chemical inputs, just an eighth
of an acre of a garden such as Robert's can output a tremendous
variety of yields. Whilst too early in the year for the apples, plums
and pears beginning to swell in the trees, we were surrounded by
gluts of black, red and whitecurrants, gooseberries, raspberries
and loganberries; as well as a profusion of saladings such as
sorrel, lovage, tree-onions, wild garlic, borage, lemon balm and
many other herbs.

Foraging a meal for the nine of us was an extremely enjoyable
task, not like work at all. Robert, a gentle and erudite man, yet
possessed of a great clarity of purpose, joined us for our
campfire feast. As we sat and chatted into the evening he
explained his motivations and hopes for the future. Of his plans
to expand the original Forest Garden, and his dream of a network
of such gardens covering not only Britain but the world, bringing
an abundance of natural food, and healing to both peoplekind
and the planet. He spoke of his philosophical inspiration by
figures as diverse as John Seymour, Ghandi, Kropotkin and
Kagawa; of the antecedents of the Forest Garden such as the
'home gardens' of Kerala, where most of the land is covered
with productive trees; and later sang us songs that he used to
share with his late brother Lacon, including those of murdered
Chilean land and human rights campaigner Victor Jara.

This was a magical evening, an illustration that perhaps the
primary forces within the Forest Garden are of spirituality and
peace. Whilst being highly productive of nuts, fruits, fresh
perennial vegetables and medicinal herbs, the most important
yield of this place is the reminder that there is much more to
how we find sustenance as human beings than what we
consume, than looking at our sources of nourishment purely
in terms of net tonnes per hectare. The forest garden is an idea
whose time has come.

"Obviously, few of us are in a position to restore the forests..
But tens of millions of us have gardens, or access to open
spaces such as industrial wastelands, where trees can be planted.
and if full advantage can be taken of the potentialities that are
available even in heavily built up areas, new 'city forests' can
arise..." (Robert A.de J.Hart)


GRAHAM BURNETT


Taken from VOHAN News International, issue 2, available
from 'Anandavan

http://www.spiralseed.co.uk/forestgarden/page2.html

"pearl" > wrote in message
...

> 'Dangers of Genetically Engineered Foods
>

How many Americans have died from eating GM in this largest food trial in
history?

Jim Webster

"Oz" > wrote in message ...
> Buxqi > writes
> >
> >Is this with current or future crops? Most of what I read suggests that GM
> >crops have yet to yield any real benefits.
>
> Oh, that's simply not so. Notill in the states has drastically reduced
> erosion and improved cropping patterns resulting in yield increases
> simply because high yielding crops can be sown more often. Its huge use
> in south america, india and china strongly suggests (virtually proves)
> that the local farmers consider GM to have significant benefits.
>
> >Mind you I live in a country
> >where the vast majority of people, including journalists seem somewhat
> >prejudiced against them.
>
> Indeed. Ignorance is bliss. However in this case the simple
> unavailability of world supplies of NON-GM soya and maize has and will
> cause problems. EU farmers cannot get or use such materials so
> inevitably we will be buying pork and chicken from the countries that
> can feed cheaper and more available maize and soya, that is south
> america and asia. These areas are well known for their high levels of
> animal welfare and hygiene (irony).
>
> >It's a shame because the technology has the
> >potential to be highly beneficial.
>
> It is, its just completely passed the EU by.
>
> --
> Oz
> This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.


'Dangers of Genetically Engineered Foods

(Footnotes refer to pages in the book Seeds of Deception
by Jeffrey M. Smith.)

The following presents some of the dangers of genetically engineered
foods and reasons why avoiding them is an important step to
safeguard our health. The footnotes refer to page references in the
book Seeds of Deception; there you can find meticulously
documented evidence that leaves no doubt that GM food should
never have been approved.

For a more in-depth look at 65 health risks of GM foods, excerpted
from Jeffrey Smith's comprehensive new book Genetic Roulette:
The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods,
click here.

For more information, see also these articles:

* Jeffrey Smith's Testimony to the EPA - June 2007
* Genetically Modified Foods Are Inherently Unsafe
* Genetically Engineered Foods Pose Higher Risk for Children
* Case Study on Industry Research: Soy Study by Monsanto
* Inhaled GM Maize Pollen May Cause Disease
* GM Food Promoter Transfers to Rat Cells
* GM Vaccines Recombine into Unpredictable Hybrid Viruses in
Human and Animal Cells
* A Deadly Epidemic and the Attempt to Hide its Link to Genetic
Engineering
* 55.6% Mortality in Rats Whose Mothers Were Fed GM Soy
* Terje Traavik, PhD, responds to criticism about his studies
* Article update linking health problems in the Philippines with Bt corn

The biotech industry claims that the FDA has thoroughly evaluated
GM foods and found them safe. This is untrue. Internal FDA
documents made public from a lawsuit, reveal that agency scientists
warned that GM foods might create toxins, allergies, nutritional problems,
and new diseases that might be difficult to identify.131-140 Although they
urged their superiors to require long-term tests on each GM variety prior
to approval, the political appointees at the agency, including a former
attorney for Monsanto, ignored the scientists. Official policy claims that
the foods are no different130 and do NOT require safety testing. A
manufacturer can introduce a GM food without even informing the
government or consumers.146 A January 2001 report from an expert
panel of the Royal Society of Canada said it was "scientifically
unjustifiable"136 to presume that GM foods are safe. Likewise, a 2002
report by the UK's Royal Society said that genetic modification "could
lead to unpredicted harmful changes in the nutritional state of foods,"
and recommended that potential health effects of GM foods be
rigorously researched before being fed to pregnant or breast-feeding
women, elderly people, those suffering from chronic disease, and
babies.263

How could the government approve dangerous foods? A close
examination reveals that industry manipulation and political collusion -
not sound science-was the driving force.

Government employees who complained were harassed, stripped of
responsibilities, or fired.77-83

Scientists were threatened. Evidence was stolen. Data was omitted or
distorted. Some regulators even claimed they were offered bribes to
approve a GM product.

There are only about two dozen published, peer-reviewed animal
feeding studies on the health effects of GM foods.

One study showed evidence of damage to the immune system and
vital organs, and a potentially pre-cancerous condition.12-13 When
the scientist tried to alert the public about these alarming discoveries,
he lost his job and was silenced with threats of a lawsuit.18-20

Two other studies also showed evidence of a potentially pre-cancerous
condition. The other seven studies, which were superficial in their design,
were not designed to identify these details.37

In an unpublished study, laboratory rats fed a GM crop developed
stomach lesions and seven of the forty died within two weeks. The crop
was approved without further tests.37, 137-140

Many industry studies appear to be rigged to find no problems. In the
case of a genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rbGH), for
example, researchers injected cows with only one forty-seventh the
normal dosage before reporting hormone residues in milk.91-92 They
heated the milk 120 times longer than standard, to report that
pasteurization destroys the hormone.93-94 They added cows to their
study that were pregnant before treatment, to claim that rbGH didn't
impede fertility.89 Cows that fell sick were dropped from studies
altogether.80-81

With soybeans, serious nutritional differences between GM and
natural soy were omitted from a published paper.35-36 Feeding
studies masked any problems by using mature animals instead of
developing ones and by diluting their GM soy 10 to 1 with non-GM
protein.34

There are no adequate tests to verify that GM food will not create
dangerous allergic reactions. While an international organization
developed testing standards to minimize the possibility of allowing
allergenic GM varieties on the market, GM corn currently sold in the
U.S. has not been subjected to those tests and would most certainly
fail them. One of these tests, for example, uses a test tube simulation
to evaluate how long a potential GM allergen can last inside the
digestive system before being broken down. Compared to the
recommended international standards, however, one biotech company
used a far stronger acid concentration and more than 1,250 times the
recommended amount of a digestive enzyme to make the claim that
their protein degrades too quickly to cause a reaction.179

The only human feeding trial ever conducted confirmed that
genetically engineered genes from soy transferred to the bacteria
inside the digestive tract. (The biotech industry had previously said
that such a transfer was impossible.) The World Health Organization,
the British and American Medical Associations, and several other
groups have expressed concern that if the "antibiotic resistant marker
genes" used in GM foods got transferred to bacteria, it could create
super-diseases that are immune to antibiotics.59-60 More worrisome
is that the "promoter" used inside GM foods could get transferred
to bacteria or internal organs. Promoters act like a light switches,
permanently turning on genes that might otherwise be switched off.
Scientists believe that this might create unpredictable health effects,
including the potentially pre-cancerous cell growth found in the
animal feeding studies mentioned above.37

The biotech industry says that millions have been eating GM foods
without ill effect.This is misleading.

About 100 people died and 5-10,000 to fell seriously ill when they
consumed the food supplement L-tryptophan. Only those who
consumed the variety that was genetically modified became ill. That
brand had minute, but deadly contaminants that would easily pass
through current regulations today. If the disease it created had not
been rare and acute, with crippling and deadly symptoms, the GM
supplement might never have been traced as the cause. Once
discovered, however, industry and government covered up facts
and diverted the blame. Even the FDA testimony before Congress
withheld vital information.107-125

For a summary of the L-tryptophan issue, click here. For an in-depth
presentation of the issue, see Toxic L-tryptophan: Shedding Light on
a Mysterious Epidemic, by William E. Crist.

Milk from rbGH-treated cows contains an increased amount of the
hormone IGF-1, which is one of the highest risk factors associated
with breast and prostate cancer, among others.94-97

Soy allergies skyrocketed by 50% in the UK, coinciding with the
introduction of GM soy imports from the U.S.160-161

According to a March 2001 report, the Center for Disease Control
says that food is responsible for twice the number of illnesses in the
U.S. compared to estimates just seven years earlier. This increase
roughly corresponds to the period when Americans have been eating
GM food. Could that be contributing to the 5,000 deaths, 325,000
hospitalizations, and 76 million illnesses related to food each year?
Might it play in role in our national epidemic of obesity or the rise in
diabetes or lymphatic cancers? We have no way of knowing if there
is a connection because no one has looked for one.

One of the most dangerous aspects of genetic engineering is the
closed thinking and consistent effort to silence those with contrary
evidence or concerns. Just before stepping down from office, former
Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman admitted the following:

"What I saw generically on the pro-biotech side was the attitude that
the technology was good, and that it was almost immoral to say that
it wasn't good, because it was going to solve the problems of the
human race and feed the hungry and clothe the naked... And there
was a lot of money that had been invested in this, and if you're against
it, you're Luddites, you're stupid. That, frankly, was the side our
government was on... You felt like you were almost an alien, disloyal,
by trying to present an open-minded view"152-153

Contrast this with the warning by the editors of Nature Biotechnology:
"The risks in biotechnology are undeniable, and they stem from the
unknowable in science and commerce. It is prudent to recognize
and address those risks, not compound them by overly optimistic or
foolhardy behavior." 137

The biotech industry and the government have been foolhardy indeed.
Blinded, perhaps by the baseless myth that GM foods are needed to
feed the world,250-251 they gamble with our health and support their
safety claims on obsolete or unproven assumptions. Accepting their
vacuous assurances by eating these dangerous foods or serving them
to your customers may likewise be overly optimistic or foolhardy.

Please read the evidence amassed in the book Seeds of Deception
by Jeffrey M. Smith. The meticulously documented facts leave no
doubt about a massive injustice. The topic is too important to put
this off until tomorrow.

http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Publ...oods/index.cfm

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 12:56:24 -0000, "Jim Webster"
> wrote:

>
>"pearl" > wrote in message
...
>
>> 'Dangers of Genetically Engineered Foods
>>
>
>How many Americans have died from eating GM in this largest food trial in
>history?

Great argument from the CLA livestock adviser. I think it's about time
we let CLA know what you are up to.

Expect something in the post quite soon Jimmy.