30 Oct 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI got if from Wikipedia, which you would know if you bothered to look at my post. It is based on a Meta analysis. Do you know what that means?
pesticides? are you talking about insecticides or herbicides because the data that I cited clearly states that in the USA as far as certain crops are concerned (soya) the use of herbicides in GM crops has increased by 28%, partly due to the emergence of herbicide resistant weeds. In the case of some crops it has led to a reduction in insecticides a ...[text shortened]... give a biased perspective? Such an approach is unscientific and dishonest, but hey, that's you.
You can find the original study here:
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0111629
and see if your questions are answered.
30 Oct 16
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieMake up your mind.
Please shut up ..... Do tell.
infact its this adherence to tradition ....
Rubbish. There is nothing whatsoever traditional about using Gama Rays to create varieties of oats - which is exactly what they did.
Please try to understand that science is no substitute for skilful farming and a dedication towards excellence and tradition.
Ha ha ha ha.
I can assure you that both the farmers and the brewers use science.
And science was used to create that variety of oats you love so much.
30 Oct 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadumm Golden promise is barley, not oats.
Make up your mind.
[b]infact its this adherence to tradition ....
Rubbish. There is nothing whatsoever traditional about using Gama Rays to create varieties of oats - which is exactly what they did.
Please try to understand that science is no substitute for skilful farming and a dedication towards excellence and tradition.
Ha ha ha ha. ...[text shortened]... the brewers use science.
And science was used to create that variety of oats you love so much.[/b]
30 Oct 16
5 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou only have to look at the statistics for yourself to see numbers of people that die from alcohol-related illnesses compared to numbers of people that die from pesticide-related illnesses to see the alcohol-related number completely dwarfs that of pesticide-related thus this isn't 'mere opinion' but fact and you don't need to be an expert to find this out. If you don't believe us, and assuming you are interested in the truth (are you?), just google it and see the numbers for yourself. The numbers clearly speak for themselves; if the numbers of deaths caused by each is your measure of how dangerous each is, and I don't see why it shouldn't be, alcohol has been proven far more dangerous to us than pesticides. And yet I see nothing like the same paranoia against alcohol than I do against pesticides. Many of the people who are paranoid against pesticides are destined to die from liver failure from their own alcohol consumption while at the same time being conned into buying only the more expensive organic meat and veg thinking that pesticides should be their main concern.
really? and you have done a comparative study? is this the science forum or the bloated opinions forum?
30 Oct 16
Originally posted by humywhat a skewered, illogical and unscientific approach.
You only have to look at the statistics for yourself to see numbers of people that die from alcohol-related illnesses compared to numbers of people that die from pesticide-related illnesses to see the alcohol-related number completely dwarfs that of pesticide-related thus this isn't 'mere opinion' but fact and you don't need to be an expert to find this out. If ...[text shortened]... y the more expensive organic meat and veg thinking that pesticides should be their main concern.
Lets reduce it to absurdity. How many people are killed by polonium 210? How many people are killed due to alchol related ilnesses? more people are killed by the abuse of alcohol therefore alcohol is more dangerous than polonium 210.
What complete and utter hogwash. Its absurd to think that because more people abuse a substance that the substance itself in relation to other substances is more dangerous. more toxic and more likely to kill you. Absolute bilge water and yes I am mocking you! Furthermore what about the millions, nay billions of persons whose social life revolves around going out for a quiet drink on occasion with family and friends and who face no more danger drinking a beer than the odds of a piano falling from the sky and squashing them.
This isn't the science forum, it must be the crazee scientist forum, or the illogical and unsubstantiated ludicrous assertion forum!
30 Oct 16
5 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou are clearly confusing toxicity with dangerous; in science, the 'toxicity' of something doesn't equate with how 'dangerous' it is as in the normal everyday English meaning of the word 'dangerous' (there is no formal definition of the word 'dangerous' in science).
what a skewered, illogical and unscientific approach.
Lets reduce it to absurdity. How many people are killed by polonium 210? How many people are killed due to alchol related ilnesses? more people are killed by the abuse of alcohol therefore alcohol is more dangerous than polonium 210.
What complete and utter hogwash. Its absurd to think ...[text shortened]... t be the crazee scientist forum, or the illogical and unsubstantiated ludicrous assertion forum!
How dangerous a substance is only partly depends on its toxicity and largely depends on how it is normally used and thus how 'dangerous' it is shouldn't be confused with its 'toxicity'. You can have two substance with one being much more toxic than the other but the less toxic one being much more likely to kill you, thus more dangerous, simply because of the way we normally use it.
Insecticide kills less people than alcohol because people generally don't use insecticide as a drink. The fact that some, not all, insecticides would be more toxic if consumed in the same amounts as the amounts of alcohol many people drink is irrelevant to how dangerous insecticide is, not to be confused with how toxic insecticide is, to people compared to alcohol because people don't normally consume anything like those same amounts but usually only absorb trace amounts so is comparatively safe because of that. Comprehend?
30 Oct 16
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI couldn't care less. I don't eat (or drink) either of them. Golden Promise, was created using Gamma Rays contrary to all your blabber about 'natural' and 'we don't need GM crops'. It is a GM crop. Live with it.
umm Golden promise is barley, not oats.
30 Oct 16
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBut unless they are drinking pints of insecticide on the sly, they are still at significantly more risk from the beer than they are from the insecticide or herbicide found in farm produce bought in the shop.
Furthermore what about the millions, nay billions of persons whose social life revolves around going out for a quiet drink on occasion with family and friends and who face no more danger drinking a beer than the odds of a piano falling from the sky and squashing them.
30 Oct 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadDude you cannot tell the difference between oats and barley, you are wired to the moon.
I couldn't care less. I don't eat (or drink) either of them. Golden Promise, was created using Gamma Rays contrary to all your blabber about 'natural' and 'we don't need GM crops'. It is a GM crop. Live with it.
30 Oct 16
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadno there is not, you could drink a beer a day and feel no adverse effects, you are slobbering again.
But unless they are drinking pints of insecticide on the sly, they are still at significantly more risk from the beer than they are from the insecticide or herbicide found in farm produce bought in the shop.
30 Oct 16
9 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadPlease read this an educate yourself.
I couldn't care less. I don't eat (or drink) either of them. Golden Promise, was created using Gamma Rays contrary to all your blabber about 'natural' and 'we don't need GM crops'. It is a GM crop. Live with it.
In the UK in the 19th century the barley grown consisted of 'land races', which had been selected to perform well in the regions in which they were grown (Fenwick, 1998). The barleys were mainly two-rowed spring sown types. Most of the barleys had weak straw such as Scotch Common, but this variety was good for malting and demonstrated low dormancy and rapid germination. Another common land race at this time was the six-rowed Bere that was grown in upland areas mainly for animal feeding. Increasingly grain was saved from the better plants and was multiplied. In this way the named variety emerged. Such a variety was Chevallier, which was selected in 1824 and dominated the English crop for many years. Eventually selecting from existing crops stops being beneficial because successive generations become genetically more uniform. More variability must be introduced by crossing promising parental lines and then selecting superior lines from the progeny (Briggs, 1998).
The general objectives of barley breeders can be summarised as (Briggs, 1998):
Improved grain yields as expressed in tonnes/hectare
Shorter and stiffer straws so the plant is resistant to 'lodging' (collapsing in the field prior to harvesting)
Ears that do not shatter so can be effectively mechanically harvested
Earlier ripening to avoid the vagaries of Autumn harvest weather
Greater disease resistance
Greater uniformity
To these general objectives can be added more specific requirements of the maltster, brewer and distiller (for a general discussion of malting to provide background to this discussion see Briggs, 1998):
Increased yield of soluble extract (the so called hot water extract) so that a greater volume of beer or spirit can be produced from a given weight of malt. This partly manifests as the propensity to yield lower nitrogen grains (hence higher levels of carbohydrate)
Sufficient dormancy to prevent preharvest sprouting of the grains in the ear, but not extreme dormancy that prevents the barley form being malted for several months after harvest
Rapid germination of the grain under malting conditions with the minimum of dry matter loss and the development of a sufficient complement of enzymes
Minimised content of substances that will give problems in subsequent brewing and distilling processes such as β-glucans (gums that can cause filtration problems) and proanthocyanins (constituents of beer hazes)
To provide all these characteristics in a variety of barley is a formidable and laborious task!
Classically, a breeder artificially crosspollinates plants using parents that have qualities that it is hoped to combine in the offspring. Selections are then made on the following, self-fertilised generations. Twelve generations are needed before a variety is ready to be released. To save time seed can be taken to an opposite hemisphere to gain two harvests in the year. Typically grain can be grown in the UK and New Zealand to achieve this purpose. At each successive generation the individual plants are more nearly genetically uniform (homozygous). Plant breeding is now a global business and breeders have tens of thousands of barley lines to use as parents in a breeding programme. Success can also be achieved by mutation breeding. Genetic changes can be induced by chemical or radiation treatments. A famous variety produced in this way (by γ rays) was Golden Promise. In the last few years genetic manipulation by introducing genes from other species has become possible. New varieties of maize have been produced in this way. For barley, genes controlling the production of say heat stable β− glucanase enzymes could be introduced to be expressed in the germinating grain. At the present time there is no public acceptability of this type of work and there are no commercially available genetically modified barley varieties used in malting. It seems likely in the foreseeable future that progress will continue to be made by classic plant breeding techniques.
In the UK in common with other developed countries the introduction of new varieties is controlled to the mutual benefit of farmers and users. The two organisations primarily involved in this are the National Institute of Agricultural Botany (NIAB) and the Home Grown Cereals Authority (HGCA). In Scotland the situation is analogous, but The Scottish Colleges of Agriculture (SCA) replace the NIAB. New varieties must be distinct, uniform and stable (so called DUS characteristics) before they can be included on National Lists and Recommended Lists (see later) available to farmers. Essentially, varieties cannot be grown unless included on the National List or under EU auspices on the European Common Catalogue. This is a safeguard to the farmer that he is buying seed, which is distinct and stable. When seed is being multiplied, therefore, strict precautions must be taken to avoid cross-pollination or admixture of other varieties. This emphasis in breeding programmes on genetic uniformity benefits the maltster, and hence the brewer and distiller, in that each grain in a batch is as uniform as possible and so responds predictably to defined processing.
http://www.breweryhistory.com/journal/archive/121/bh-121-025.htm
Please note there is no emphasis on creating greater profits for farmers and seed companies at the expense of the environment nor in creating a monopoly of basic foodstuffs for the enrichment of a few. Progress shall be made by classic plant breeding methods! Ahhhhh, so good and healthy and natural. You will also note that barley was bred to harmonise with nature, not work against her.
30 Oct 16
2 edits
Originally posted by humymore semantic jiggery pokery! dude your herbicide does not belong in my beer? capiche?
You are clearly confusing toxicity with dangerous; in science, the 'toxicity' of something doesn't equate with how 'dangerous' it is as in the normal everyday English meaning of the word 'dangerous' (there is no formal definition of the word 'dangerous' in science).
How dangerous a substance is only partly depends on its toxicity and largely depends on how it ...[text shortened]... unts but usually only absorb trace amounts so is comparatively safe because of that. Comprehend?