Get Real –cruel is willfully or knowingly causing pain or distress to others - distress is something occurring when an individual cannot adapt to stress. Many of us want to reduce the amount of stress the hens suffer and are trying to get persons like yourself interested in pushing for studies on what factors are causing hen stress –that is not being cruel . You still can’t take on board the information showing that hens must be stressed or not stressed by things differently to us. You mention studies showing factors causing hens to suffer - please give us a reference to those studies
Get Real , you clearly need to get real. Most people like me want to reduce the amount of stress the egg layers suffer. Apparently you don't care about the birds , being only interested in the features of the systems that stress you . Shame ! We now know that range birds have similar stress to the barn and the caged birds . We need to stop squabbling about density which seems irrelevant to the hen's stress and turn our attention to getting studies done on the stress factors in all systems of management.
Surely CHOICE can do better than waste its resources on stocking density values. Perhaps they could do something to promote research into the factors that cause stress in egg layers . At present they are assuming that in terms of stress birds see things the same away as humans do. The available data indicate that this is not so -- stress
in layers has been shown to be ,on average , the same for cage, barn or free range birds - this is not the way we see it.. For the bird's well being please study the stress causes and remedy them
Sadly John does not understand how scientists use computer modelling nowadays particularly in the context of disciplines like climate science. He refers to the 1934 quote without realisation that those particular circumstances were very different from those about which he writes. Perhaps he could take on board the quotation attributed to Omar Khayam, a 13th century philosopher
" he who knows not and knows not he knows not is a fool - shun him " .
john from tamworth, your think that thousands of thermometers cannot collectively give an average value that has an error less than that applying to a single value from one thermometer. Sadly you could not be more wrong.
nmgDribble - I cannot usefully reply to your contribution . It is pointless trying to have rational discourse with someone who pushes a conspiracy theory.
Why mix politics with science when the issue is scientific not political . Why quote Kevin Rudd who is not a scientist but a politician-. Seems to me - no more green dribble- that your political interest overrides the science.
Bill Pounder - you still don't get it
The Coalition direction action plan must involve more bureaucrats. !!
Every business proposition to improve energy efficiency will have to be examined and approved by bureaucrats before it gets government money (taxpayers money ) . There will be tens and tens of thousands of these proposals and the present DOCC staff would be well qualified to do the appraisals - so they will be re-employed and more staff will be recruited . It will be an employment growth area !
Bill Pounder - just get real
The Coalition direction action plan must involve more bureaucrats. The existing ones will just be put in a new department relating to climate change and they will do the interviewing and selection of applicants for the numerous new positions that will be available.
It is important to appreciate that Dennis Jensen is not a climate scientist - his area is materials engineering .
Bob Phelps - your ridiculous zero GM tolerance scenario does not exist elsewhere in the world and by the size of the anti-GM meeting has little support here. Just face it - there is always going to be the odd situation when traces (< 1%) of GM could occur in a product and there is no reason that such traces would harm our health. The use of GM canola is wide spread with about half of our canola growers using it . Any farmer who wants this ridiculous zero tolerance should take out his own insurance against accidental GM traces in his product - your Farmer Protection Fund is inappropriate
Bob Phelps - your proposal of a levy on GM seed to compensate for accidental incursion of GM material into an organic enterprise is just plain absurd . If your organic farmers are at risk from the accidental introduction of traces of GM they should do what other farmers do to handle risk . That is take out insurance to cover the situation - like insuring against hail damage . It is a bit rich to set up a world unique zero GM tolerance scenario for organic and then demand that other farmers be tied to it .
Hi Fred Haskins : I did not make an unqualified comment that glyphosate was harmless - most chemicals can cause harm and even death if taken in access. This of course applies to the chemicals used in organic farming such as pyrethrum .
Hebe : there is no evidence indicating that glyphosate at levels seen in foods has any deleterious effects on health . The UK story you refer to was presented by an anti-GMO group in a magazine, not a science journal . It is just fear-mongering . Only traces of glyphosate were found in those foods - levels of 0.1 - 0.8 ppm , on average about one-fortieth of the industry limit (20ppm).
leonyreva - you need to bear in mind that the American Lamb Council does not comprise unenlightened people . They would know that the meat from farm animals given diets c. GM contains no GM residues - many US studies show this to be so and there is no reason to expect otherwise. Again, that Council would already know that for some years some of our lambs may have eaten GM canola stubble or GM cottonseed meal. Accordingly your concerns about the promotion of our lamb by your US based company are just unrealistic. In addition our lamb production is not strictly 'natural' as you claim.
for kids sake , you and the kids are also force-fed non-GM bred plants which unlike the GM, have NOT even been subjected to any safety checks. Again any GM traces are natural chemicals just like the traces from non-GM . If you think to the contrary list here the names of some of your so-called contaminants. NOTE 1) no harm to health shown from GM studies , 2) farm animals, pets, people in the US fed GM for c.20yr without harm and 3) > 6 million Californians (a majority ) voted against labels for GM food. Time for you to wake up and escape the influence of the organic brigade
for kids sake --- no matter how much you wish that GM plants would contain contaminants, it won't alter the fact that they don't - the chemicals in GM are as natural as the chemicals in plants produced by other breeding methods. Re GM cotton, the oil has no GM residues and we don't eat the oil free meal. You would want GM cotton use to be replaced by non-GM cotton use even though the latter uses five times the amount of spray chemicals (and worse ones at that).
For kids sake, contrary to what you write medical cancer specialists do not consider organic food superior to non-organic in cancer treatment. Rather they would recommend patients be careful with organics produced using manure. The manures can be a source of nasty micro-organisms including Campylobacter, E.Coli, Salmonella. Cryptosporidium, Giardia. Unfortunately the manure composting is not 100pc effective in removing these bugs particularly so with Campylobacter the most common bacterial gastro . Foods grown with manure need thorough washing etc. and should perhaps have labels.
Bagheera- you mislead people about GM labelling . Aust. foods must be labelled if they have 1% or more GM material. Given that no harm to health has been shown in well conducted and repeated studies ( short & long -term) of GM with lab. animals or with farm animals now fed GM for >15yr and thru' many generations why should we have to pay the costs of labelling foods with just a trace of GM. You labelling activists are a minority- if a majority was concerned about GM safety the food suppliers would be producing GM-free food lines of everything - but they aren't are they !
iHi David – you are incorrect in implying that there is a difference between GM and non-GM genotypes re. the application of patents . What applies to GM is no different to what applies to non-GM ; you can legally retain either type when the patent expires.
Re.hybrids – the system for GM hybrids is identical to that for non-GM hybrids. Thus non-GM corn has been around for >50 yr.- farmers buy it at its higher price if they stand to benefit financially. I think you need to accept that there are still available out of patent , non-GM varieties of corn and other plants
Graingrower , the is little chance that in the long term a few large companies will control the seed market and charge farmers exorbitant prices for seeds. Farmers can grow their own seed and enterprising small agricultural businesses could move into the field. Further, governments could act to ensure that competition is available in the seeds market.
cs redneck -I haven't copies of computer models basic to AGW theory Nor do I have full access to the science journals.Again,I haven’t the time and in some areas the expertise to assess the use of the published science in the model . Hence I have to rely on various appropriate sources .Like yourself I have a free thinking human brain but that fails to help me here. Perhaps I fall into philosopher Omar Kayam’s category “he who knows not and knows he knows not is willing , teach him”. O K had another
category , redneck , “he who knows not and knows not he knows not is a fool,shun him".
c.s. redneck I am sure that no CSIRO climate scientist would spend her/his time debating AGM theory matters with you unless you can show that you are familiar with all of the relevant info. and have the capability of assessing it . Many of us would doubt that you can meet such requirements . Perhaps you could tell us why you consider yourself to be so well equipped to tackle this problem. Do you have a science degree or what is your experience with research ? Finally, there is no attempt to stifle discussion - all scientific concepts are available for view in the science journals
s c redneck , why are you assuming that Nico , Bushie Bill ,Elizibeth , Cow Cocky , Humphrey , and The Lorax claim to be experts in the field of climate science.and hence the people who should take on Evans about his climate science? Perhaps unlike yourself , most of these people are realists knowing that the science is too complex etc. for them to be sure about and they rely on those with appropriate science literacy etc. to help them form an opinion . To ask them to debate Evans is inappropriate and ridiculous and is like asking you to debate a CSIRO climate scientist
hi Torledo - this is my last post re. publication in scientific journals of papers inconsistent with AGW theory. Those journals DO ! DO ! DO publish papers falling into that category . Again , I am not aware of authors other than Gray claiming to have such publication difficulties . Gray would know that all he has to do is see which journals have published anti- AGM leaning papers and submit his papers there. Why does he not do this ?
Finally , and unlike yourself , I remain convinced that any significant anti -AGM research data will appear in a reputable journal - bye
Torledo - you still fail to provide any evidence that editors of reputable climate science journals won't publish papers that present material contrary to mainstream AGW thought and this is what I referred to earlier. You mention the polar bear group , climategate and de Freitas . The first two of these have no relevance at all to what the journals have or do publish. The de Freitas matter is too complex to provide anything useful in this context . And you must take on board that there are papers being published in the journals that are inconsistent with AGW theory !!!
Hi Bill P, what I wrote about the temp between about 1950 and 1970 is absolutely right - the relation is linear with a slope of c. zero . In your reference period (1950-70) the relation is probably also linear with a slight negative slope . You assume that because temp did not change in those periods while CO2 went up , CO2 cannot be influencing temp. However, you haven't provided any info to show that this was the case - other factors could have changed . Please explain to us why you are so certain that CO2 does not contribute to global warming . Please try for worriers like me
Hi JFT, I can understand how, in reading my comment, you thought I said you used the word "cult" when actually that was not the case. I sometimes make this sort of mistake when I read in a hurry. Re. the mathematics we will have to agree to disagree - I expect you won't find people to agree with your stand on the matter but you could try. Back to your (and others) certainty that although CO2 is a GH gas it is playing no role in global warming. Please explain to us why you people are certain of that and so convince us that we don't have to worry about what we leave for future kids.
J from T, as I wrote before,there is no single linear relation between temp rise and time. Further, that relation is not a curve as you claim. Three separate linear relations at different times cover most of the post-1900 period. And DOR you use the term "cult" without knowing what it means. There is little doubt that C02 is a GHG yet DOR , J from T and others here consider it to have no role in global warming. Is it asking too much of them to explain to us why they are certain of that? If they can convince us we will not have to worry about what we leave for future children.
J from T, you must try to get yourself more informed on the climate science. There has never been a linear trend in global temps. There was a period of some 20 yr starting about 1950 when no temp increase occurred! The climate scientists take this into account.
The AGW theory is not bust . If you want to learn about the slowing of temp rise lately, google "Has global warming ground to a halt?"