On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 11:37:41 +0000, Gloria 
wrote:

>This'll put the cat among the pigeons!
>
>More farmland could be put to use for the growing of energy crops
>because of the problems affecting the livestock industry, a farming
>leader has said. 

Wonders never cease. The livestock industry waking up to the fact it
is a global liability.

>John Picken, chairman of NFU Scotland's biofuels working group, said
>the acres of oilseed rape and wheat grown could be increased with
>government backing. 
>
>Foot-and-mouth over the summer into the autumn led to restrictions on
>the movement of animals, lower prices and sheep on hill farms being
>slaughtered because they could not be sold and faced a shortage of
>grazing with the onset of winter. 
>
>Mr Picken said the difficulties facing livestock farmers could see
>grassland being ploughed up and left fallow. 
>
>However, with financial backing at UK level the land could be put to
>use for the growing of oilseed rape for the production of bio-diesel,
>or wheat for generating heat. 
>
>Mr Picken added: "The growing of cereals for malting is up to maximum
>capacity and I don't think we can produce any more because there are
>not any more maltsters or distilleries to provide for. 
>
>"So there is a bit of room so to speak for growing energy crops." 
>
>The majority of oilseed rape production is in the north east, but the
>arable farmer from St Andrews, Fife, said almost anywhere in Scotland
>was suited to the crop. 
>
>
> Biofuels are any kind of fuel made from living things, or from the
>waste they produce 
>Scots racing driver Dario Franchitti, seen above being congratulated
>by actress wife Ashley Judd, won America's Indianapolis 500 driving a
>car powered by pure ethanol made from corn 
>The Renewables Transport Fuels Obligation (RTFO) sets a UK target for
>the use of biofuels for transport at 5% by 2010 
>The Forestry Commission runs a large number of its vehicles on biofuel
>blends 
> 
>
>Highest yields could be gained in the Highlands because of the long
>hours of daylight in summer. 
>
>Mr Picken said the UK was lagging behind other countries in the
>production of biofuels. 
>
>He said: "America is leading the way with subsidies and tax breaks and
>they are going to double their usage of maze." 
>
>Mr Picken conceded there was a debate on how to balance growing for
>energy and food, but warned that the production of crops for biofuels
>was at risk of becoming a "missed opportunity" in Scotland. 
>
>He welcomed moves to open bio-diesel plants at Grangemouth, near
>Falkirk, and Rosyth, near Edinburgh. 
>
>Ineos Enterprises' proposal to build one of Europe's biggest
>bio-diesel plants in Grangemouth was given the go-ahead by Falkirk
>Council in October. 
>
>However, plans by DMF Biodiesel for a processing facility in Rosyth
>has returned to Fife Council as a live planning application following
>a legal challenge. 
>
>The local authority had previously given its approval. 
>
>The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said farmers
>growing energy crops may be eligible for a single Common Agricultural
>Policy payment and also claim EU energy aid payment to a maximum of 45
>Euros (£32) per hectare. 
>
>A spokeswoman said: "UK government see biofuels as part of the
>renewable energy mix, but wish to ensure that the biofuel supplied in
>the UK offers carbon benefits and is produced sustainably." 
>
>The Scottish Government said it was looking at the role of biofuels in
>an effort to reduce CO2 emissions. 
>
>A spokesman said it had also recently committed £10.2m of investment
>in biofuel production through Regional Selective Assistance funding
>for the plant in Grangemouth and another in Motherwell. 
>
>Story from BBC NEWS:
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/scotland/highlands_and_islands/7092350.stm
>
>Published: 2007/11/15 00:05:50 GMT
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>pam the SPAMMERS send an email to enquires@urfreesim.co.uk

Jim Webster  wrote:

> The sensible place to put them would be on the edge of urban areas,
> reducing the distance livestock would travel to and after slaughter. Not
> only that but as there will have to be some system set up for recycling
> human sewage back onto the land, as we cannot go on just tipping it in the
> sea or incinerating it, manure from the feedlots could be collected at the
> same time and sent back to the arable areas. This would actually be pretty
> much the same as used to happen before they introduced flush toilets into
> the major cities, where sewage and street sweepings (mainly horse dung)
> were sent by barge to renew the fertility of the arable lands

The problem here is that the dirty folk in cities insist on mixing toxic
pollutants with human sewage. Hence most sewage sludge is so badly
contaminated that it really should not be put onto fields. Industrial
liquid waste really needs to be handled separately from domestic sewage.

Cities have only managed to grow so large, so fast by having almost no
checks on the pollutants that they create/dump. It's ironic that it is
almost exclusively city dwellers that feel that they are qualified to
dictate to farmers how they should farm and what they should produce.

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 13:33:16 -0000, "Jim Webster"
 wrote:

>
>"Peter Duncanson"  wrote in message 
>news:rt5rj3h5s3a7a4p3et8g9603v9v8lftbh1@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>
>>>given the sheer amount of byproducts produced by the food industry and
>>>biofuel industry which can be used as livestock feed, this could do a lot
>>>towards decreasing the costs of livestock production.
>>>
>> Yes. Devoting an increased percentage of arable land to the
>> production of biofuel will reduce the percentage available for
>> the production of cereals and vegetables for human consumption,
>> while at the same time producing increased, and cheaper,
>> livestock feed.
>>
>> This could easily result in livestock being raised solely in
>> feedlots. Feedlots can be located on land which has no
>> agricultural potential.
>>
>
>The sensible place to put them would be on the edge of urban areas, reducing 
>the distance livestock would travel to and after slaughter.
>Not only that but as there will have to be some system set up for recycling 
>human sewage back onto the land, as we cannot go on just tipping it in the 
>sea or incinerating it, manure from the feedlots could be collected at the 
>same time and sent back to the arable areas.
>This would actually be pretty much the same as used to happen before they 
>introduced flush toilets into the major cities, where sewage and street 
>sweepings (mainly horse dung) were sent by barge to renew the fertility of 
>the arable lands
>
In the long term animal parts such as muscles might be grown
"hydroponically" without the need for growing complete animals.

Obviously there would be a need for a growth medium, including
nutrients, and there would be waste to be disposed of. If the
research hasn't been started already it should be.

Such meat factories could be sited below ground level, possibly
under arable land.

The slogan for this project might be: "Grow meat, not animals".

-- 
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in uk.business.agriculture)

"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:1i7oea5.sy7obznbninrN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
> Jim Webster  wrote:
>
>> The sensible place to put them would be on the edge of urban areas,
>> reducing the distance livestock would travel to and after slaughter. Not
>> only that but as there will have to be some system set up for recycling
>> human sewage back onto the land, as we cannot go on just tipping it in 
>> the
>> sea or incinerating it, manure from the feedlots could be collected at 
>> the
>> same time and sent back to the arable areas. This would actually be 
>> pretty
>> much the same as used to happen before they introduced flush toilets into
>> the major cities, where sewage and street sweepings (mainly horse dung)
>> were sent by barge to renew the fertility of the arable lands
>
> The problem here is that the dirty folk in cities insist on mixing toxic
> pollutants with human sewage. Hence most sewage sludge is so badly
> contaminated that it really should not be put onto fields. Industrial
> liquid waste really needs to be handled separately from domestic sewage.
>
> Cities have only managed to grow so large, so fast by having almost no
> checks on the pollutants that they create/dump. It's ironic that it is
> almost exclusively city dwellers that feel that they are qualified to
> dictate to farmers how they should farm and what they should produce.

We have two underlying problems. One is simple physics and biology. If you 
take a food crop off the land, you remove nutrients and these have to be 
replaced. I suppose we could go back to alternate years fallow and at at the 
very least half output, or we could go formally organic which will not 
reduce yields by that much, but the rational way of tackling it is to 
replace the nutrients, not through purchased artificial fertilizers, but 
with the sewage from the people who ate the food. This is how nature works.
So we have to get systems set up where the manure can be shipped back to the 
land.
This is where the second problem arises. As you say, cities are disgusting 
places and most sewage is seriously contaminated. This will probably mean 
very strict controls in place. Also as human sewage is, by definition, 
produced by humans, it will probably have some bacterial contamination etc. 
This may mean that the sewage ought to be composted properly before it is 
returned to the land, so large areas on the edge of cities could be reserved 
for this.
Actually it might make more sense to allow the sewers to be used purely as 
drains, and to shift the sewage separately, going back to a dry closet 
system with weekly collections. That way you could be pretty well guaranteed 
to keep the contamination down to a managable level.

Jim Webster

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 15:43:37 -0000, "Jim Webster"
 wrote:

>
>We have two underlying problems. One is simple physics and biology. If you 
>take a food crop off the land, you remove nutrients and these have to be 
>replaced. I suppose we could go back to alternate years fallow and at at the 
>very least half output, or we could go formally organic which will not 
>reduce yields by that much, but the rational way of tackling it is to 
>replace the nutrients, not through purchased artificial fertilizers, but 
>with the sewage from the people who ate the food. This is how nature works.
>So we have to get systems set up where the manure can be shipped back to the 
>land.

When food is imported the manure should therefore be returned to
the countries where the food was grown.

-- 
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in uk.business.agriculture)

"Peter Duncanson"  wrote in message 
news:h3drj3t6m7ampjg91abcbdp4hn6jk9ucv7@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 13:33:16 -0000, "Jim Webster"
>  wrote:

> Such meat factories could be sited below ground level, possibly
> under arable land.
>
> The slogan for this project might be: "Grow meat, not animals".

wasn't it in 'God Whale' or some such where they cut out the middle man 
entirely and grew tapeworms on sewage, the tapeworms were then processed 
into food for the human population that produced the sewage
These farms could then be under the cities themselves, with real 
agricultural land being reserved to providing real food for the wealthy and 
members of the upper echelons, (senior civil servants and politicians)

Jim Webster

Jim Webster

"Peter Duncanson"  wrote in message 
news:o4frj3hma7vi8aphraj36mr9hkmvpccfco@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 15:43:37 -0000, "Jim Webster"
>  wrote:
>
>>
>>We have two underlying problems. One is simple physics and biology. If you
>>take a food crop off the land, you remove nutrients and these have to be
>>replaced. I suppose we could go back to alternate years fallow and at at 
>>the
>>very least half output, or we could go formally organic which will not
>>reduce yields by that much, but the rational way of tackling it is to
>>replace the nutrients, not through purchased artificial fertilizers, but
>>with the sewage from the people who ate the food. This is how nature 
>>works.
>>So we have to get systems set up where the manure can be shipped back to 
>>the
>>land.
>
> When food is imported the manure should therefore be returned to
> the countries where the food was grown.
>

actually it would be a vital resource, we would increase our soil fertility 
at their expense.
Indeed they might be reluctant to export food to us unless they were 
promised the sewage back

Jim Webster

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 15:54:18 -0000, "Jim Webster"
 wrote:

>
>"Peter Duncanson"  wrote in message 
>news:h3drj3t6m7ampjg91abcbdp4hn6jk9ucv7@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 13:33:16 -0000, "Jim Webster"
>>  wrote:
>
>> Such meat factories could be sited below ground level, possibly
>> under arable land.
>>
>> The slogan for this project might be: "Grow meat, not animals".
>
>wasn't it in 'God Whale' or some such where they cut out the middle man 
>entirely and grew tapeworms on sewage, the tapeworms were then processed 
>into food for the human population that produced the sewage

I think I came across that idea at second hand. It was not in
any SF book that I've read.

>These farms could then be under the cities themselves, with real 
>agricultural land being reserved to providing real food for the wealthy and 
>members of the upper echelons, (senior civil servants and politicians)
>
Would they sell their own high priced excreta back to the real
farmers?
 
>Jim Webster
>
>Jim Webster 
>

-- 
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in uk.business.agriculture)

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 15:24:33 +0000, Peter Duncanson
 wrote:

>On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 13:33:16 -0000, "Jim Webster"
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Peter Duncanson"  wrote in message 
>>news:rt5rj3h5s3a7a4p3et8g9603v9v8lftbh1@4ax.com...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>given the sheer amount of byproducts produced by the food industry and
>>>>biofuel industry which can be used as livestock feed, this could do a lot
>>>>towards decreasing the costs of livestock production.
>>>>
>>> Yes. Devoting an increased percentage of arable land to the
>>> production of biofuel will reduce the percentage available for
>>> the production of cereals and vegetables for human consumption,
>>> while at the same time producing increased, and cheaper,
>>> livestock feed.
>>>
>>> This could easily result in livestock being raised solely in
>>> feedlots. Feedlots can be located on land which has no
>>> agricultural potential.
>>>
>>
>>The sensible place to put them would be on the edge of urban areas, reducing 
>>the distance livestock would travel to and after slaughter.
>>Not only that but as there will have to be some system set up for recycling 
>>human sewage back onto the land, as we cannot go on just tipping it in the 
>>sea or incinerating it, manure from the feedlots could be collected at the 
>>same time and sent back to the arable areas.
>>This would actually be pretty much the same as used to happen before they 
>>introduced flush toilets into the major cities, where sewage and street 
>>sweepings (mainly horse dung) were sent by barge to renew the fertility of 
>>the arable lands
>>
>In the long term animal parts such as muscles might be grown
>"hydroponically" without the need for growing complete animals.
>
>Obviously there would be a need for a growth medium, including
>nutrients, and there would be waste to be disposed of. If the
>research hasn't been started already it should be.
>
>Such meat factories could be sited below ground level, possibly
>under arable land.
>
>The slogan for this project might be: "Grow meat, not animals".

Crazy but probably true, and not so far away!  I mean we have the GM
monster unleashed now. China the big bear has awoken so the clocks
ticking away and we're all doomed sooner than later anyway!











pam the SPAMMERS send an email to enquires@urfreesim.co.uk

"Peter Duncanson"  wrote in message 
news:hnirj3pehtl404o968ga4ps9v30sg3806b@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 15:54:18 -0000, "Jim Webster"
>  wrote:
>
>>
>>"Peter Duncanson"  wrote in message
>>news:h3drj3t6m7ampjg91abcbdp4hn6jk9ucv7@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 13:33:16 -0000, "Jim Webster"
>>>  wrote:
>>
>>> Such meat factories could be sited below ground level, possibly
>>> under arable land.
>>>
>>> The slogan for this project might be: "Grow meat, not animals".
>>
>>wasn't it in 'God Whale' or some such where they cut out the middle man
>>entirely and grew tapeworms on sewage, the tapeworms were then processed
>>into food for the human population that produced the sewage
>
> I think I came across that idea at second hand. It was not in
> any SF book that I've read.

found a review
The God Whale by T. J. Bass
The Godwhale is way ahead of it's time in it's use of biotech, and it reads 
sort of like a Vonnegut novel, with more real science. It's a grim, satiric 
view of humanity set in a future when the earth is polluted to the point 
where the surface has been unhospitable for centuries and, the majority of 
humankind live underground and are gene engineered for specific tasks. The 
food source is processed from the scavenger worms that live on human sewage.
The Godwhale of the title is a giant plankton harvesting robotship from 
earlier times when the oceans of the earth still teemed with life. The 
Robotship has been inactive for centuries and is only now,at the time the 
novel takes place, reactivating, because the seas are starting to come alive 
again.

A unique novel by a writer who only wrote 2 novels -the other being Half 
Past Human, which takes place in the same universe. Thomas Bassler is better 
known now as a fitness doctor.

http://www.sffworld.com/book/5685.html
>
>>These farms could then be under the cities themselves, with real
>>agricultural land being reserved to providing real food for the wealthy 
>>and
>>members of the upper echelons, (senior civil servants and politicians)
>>
> Would they sell their own high priced excreta back to the real
> farmers?
>

we been getting sh*t from politicians and civil servants for years ;-((

Jim Webster

"Jim Webster"  wrote in message 
news:5q5ssuFuhujrU1@mid.individual.net...
>
 > Indeed they might be reluctant to export food to us unless they were
> promised the sewage back
>


   As in the HHG to the G,  it is vital to get a reciept every time you go 
to the toilet.

"buddenbrooks"  wrote in message 
news:fhkqt2$dvd$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> "Jim Webster"  wrote in message 
> news:5q5ssuFuhujrU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
> > Indeed they might be reluctant to export food to us unless they were
>> promised the sewage back
>>
>
>
>   As in the HHG to the G,  it is vital to get a reciept every time you go 
> to the toilet.

many a true word........ ;-))

Jim Webster

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 13:33:16 -0000, "Jim Webster"  wrote:

>
>"Peter Duncanson"  wrote in message 
>news:rt5rj3h5s3a7a4p3et8g9603v9v8lftbh1@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>
>>>given the sheer amount of byproducts produced by the food industry and
>>>biofuel industry which can be used as livestock feed, this could do a lot
>>>towards decreasing the costs of livestock production.
>>>
>> Yes. Devoting an increased percentage of arable land to the
>> production of biofuel will reduce the percentage available for
>> the production of cereals and vegetables for human consumption,
>> while at the same time producing increased, and cheaper,
>> livestock feed.
>>
>> This could easily result in livestock being raised solely in
>> feedlots. Feedlots can be located on land which has no
>> agricultural potential.
>>
>
>The sensible place to put them would be on the edge of urban areas, reducing 
>the distance livestock would travel to and after slaughter.
>Not only that but as there will have to be some system set up for recycling 
>human sewage back onto the land, as we cannot go on just tipping it in the 
>sea or incinerating it, manure from the feedlots could be collected at the 
>same time and sent back to the arable areas.

    That sure sounds like a better plan than anything the vegans 
have managed to come up with.

>This would actually be pretty much the same as used to happen before they 
>introduced flush toilets into the major cities, where sewage and street 
>sweepings (mainly horse dung) were sent by barge to renew the fertility of 
>the arable lands
>
>Jim Webster
>> -- 
>> Peter Duncanson, UK
>> (in uk.business.agriculture) 
>

"Gloria"  wrote in message news:8slrj3tuurmd7umffmhn79t7jtl5du8o8g@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 15:24:33 +0000, Peter Duncanson
>  wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 13:33:16 -0000, "Jim Webster"
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>"Peter Duncanson"  wrote in message
> >>news:rt5rj3h5s3a7a4p3et8g9603v9v8lftbh1@4ax.com...
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>given the sheer amount of byproducts produced by the food industry and
> >>>>biofuel industry which can be used as livestock feed, this could do a lot
> >>>>towards decreasing the costs of livestock production.

'Historically, soil surface cover from crop residue has been known
to reduce rainfall energy responsible for soil erosion. The primary
benefits of crop residues are reduction of soil erosion, improvement
of soil properties, and reduction of soil surface sealing effect. Crop
residue is increasingly being used as a major tool to reduce the loss
of one of our most valuable natural resources, topsoil. Conservation
practices encourage the use residue as a protective blanket from
rainfall and to enrich soil structure by increased organic matter content.
..'
http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publications.htm%3FSEQ_NO_115%3D166033

> >>> Yes. Devoting an increased percentage of arable land to the
> >>> production of biofuel will reduce the percentage available for
> >>> the production of cereals and vegetables for human consumption,
> >>> while at the same time producing increased, and cheaper,
> >>> livestock feed.

'"Cattle are the scourge of the Earth."
...............'
http://www.wasteofthewest.com/Chapter6.html

<..>
> >In the long term animal parts such as muscles might be grown
> >"hydroponically" without the need for growing complete animals.
> >
> >Obviously there would be a need for a growth medium, including
> >nutrients, and there would be waste to be disposed of. If the
> >research hasn't been started already it should be.
> >
> >Such meat factories could be sited below ground level, possibly
> >under arable land.
> >
> >The slogan for this project might be: "Grow meat, not animals".

'Fruit from the new Meat Trees, developed by British scientists using
gene-splicing technology, closely resembles ordinary grapefruit. But
when you peel the large fruit open, inside is fresh beef.
..
Meat grown on trees needs only sun, water and fertilizer and thus is
more cost-effective than raising livestock, Dr. Tartley also points out.
...'
http://tinyurl.com/2gluwx

> Crazy but probably true, and not so far away!  I mean we have the GM
> monster unleashed now. China the big bear has awoken so the clocks
> ticking away and we're all doomed sooner than later anyway!

'Consumers unaware of 'eating GM food'

LOUISE BARNETT

GENETICALLY-modified food is entering the UK by stealth via feed
given to animals reared for dairy and pork products, a campaign group
has warned.

Supermarket chains are widely stocking goods sourced from animals
fed GM soya and maize, according to the Soil Association.

GM material could find its way, in small quantities, into the milk and
animal tissue of GM-fed livestock, the group said.

The Soil Association, which is pro-organic, said consumers were
eating food produced from GM crops without their knowledge.

There is no requirement to label food produced from GM-fed animals.

Most supermarkets have not banned dairy and meat products from
GM-fed animals, despite banning GM ingredients from their own-label
products, according to the association.

Tests carried out on 35 feed samples from dairy, pig and poultry
farmers found 73 per cent contained GM soya.

Of the GM soya samples, 27 per cent had a GM soya content of more
than 70 per cent.

Supermarket and feed company sourcing policies showed that GM maize
was also widely used, with the dairy and pig sectors most likely to do so.

The Soil Association is calling on the government and the European
Commission to bring in compulsory labelling for foods produced from
GM-fed animals.

Patrick Holden, director of the association, said the findings were alarming.

"This amounts to deception on a large scale," he said. "This is not just
accidental contamination, hundreds of thousands of tonnes of GM grain
are being used to produce our food each year.

"Biotechnology companies have clearly used imported animal feed as a
'Trojan horse' to introduce GM into the UK food chain, despite the fact
that the British public have voted overwhelmingly against GM."

It says the Little Red Tractor and Freedom Foods labels do not
guarantee that products have not come from animals fed on GM food.

http://news.scotsman.com/health.cfm?id=1811362007

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 19:36:52 -0000, "pearl" 
wrote:

>"Gloria"  wrote in message news:8slrj3tuurmd7umffmhn79t7jtl5du8o8g@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 15:24:33 +0000, Peter Duncanson
>>  wrote:
>>
>> >On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 13:33:16 -0000, "Jim Webster"
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>"Peter Duncanson"  wrote in message
>> >>news:rt5rj3h5s3a7a4p3et8g9603v9v8lftbh1@4ax.com...
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>given the sheer amount of byproducts produced by the food industry and
>> >>>>biofuel industry which can be used as livestock feed, this could do a lot
>> >>>>towards decreasing the costs of livestock production.
>
>'Historically, soil surface cover from crop residue has been known
>to reduce rainfall energy responsible for soil erosion. The primary
>benefits of crop residues are reduction of soil erosion, improvement
>of soil properties, and reduction of soil surface sealing effect. Crop
>residue is increasingly being used as a major tool to reduce the loss
>of one of our most valuable natural resources, topsoil. Conservation
>practices encourage the use residue as a protective blanket from
>rainfall and to enrich soil structure by increased organic matter content.
>..'
>http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publications.htm%3FSEQ_NO_115%3D166033
>
>> >>> Yes. Devoting an increased percentage of arable land to the
>> >>> production of biofuel will reduce the percentage available for
>> >>> the production of cereals and vegetables for human consumption,
>> >>> while at the same time producing increased, and cheaper,
>> >>> livestock feed.
>
>'"Cattle are the scourge of the Earth."
>...............'
>http://www.wasteofthewest.com/Chapter6.html
>
><..>
>> >In the long term animal parts such as muscles might be grown
>> >"hydroponically" without the need for growing complete animals.
>> >
>> >Obviously there would be a need for a growth medium, including
>> >nutrients, and there would be waste to be disposed of. If the
>> >research hasn't been started already it should be.
>> >
>> >Such meat factories could be sited below ground level, possibly
>> >under arable land.
>> >
>> >The slogan for this project might be: "Grow meat, not animals".
>
>'Fruit from the new Meat Trees, developed by British scientists using
>gene-splicing technology, closely resembles ordinary grapefruit. But
>when you peel the large fruit open, inside is fresh beef.
>..
>Meat grown on trees needs only sun, water and fertilizer and thus is
>more cost-effective than raising livestock, Dr. Tartley also points out.
>...'
>http://tinyurl.com/2gluwx
>
>> Crazy but probably true, and not so far away!  I mean we have the GM
>> monster unleashed now. China the big bear has awoken so the clocks
>> ticking away and we're all doomed sooner than later anyway!
>
>'Consumers unaware of 'eating GM food'
>
>LOUISE BARNETT
>
>GENETICALLY-modified food is entering the UK by stealth via feed
>given to animals reared for dairy and pork products, a campaign group
>has warned.
>
>Supermarket chains are widely stocking goods sourced from animals
>fed GM soya and maize, according to the Soil Association.
>
>GM material could find its way, in small quantities, into the milk and
>animal tissue of GM-fed livestock, the group said.
>
>The Soil Association, which is pro-organic, said consumers were
>eating food produced from GM crops without their knowledge.
>
>There is no requirement to label food produced from GM-fed animals.
>
>Most supermarkets have not banned dairy and meat products from
>GM-fed animals, despite banning GM ingredients from their own-label
>products, according to the association.
>
>Tests carried out on 35 feed samples from dairy, pig and poultry
>farmers found 73 per cent contained GM soya.
>
>Of the GM soya samples, 27 per cent had a GM soya content of more
>than 70 per cent.
>
>Supermarket and feed company sourcing policies showed that GM maize
>was also widely used, with the dairy and pig sectors most likely to do so.
>
>The Soil Association is calling on the government and the European
>Commission to bring in compulsory labelling for foods produced from
>GM-fed animals.
>
>Patrick Holden, director of the association, said the findings were alarming.
>
>"This amounts to deception on a large scale," he said. "This is not just
>accidental contamination, hundreds of thousands of tonnes of GM grain
>are being used to produce our food each year.
>
>"Biotechnology companies have clearly used imported animal feed as a
>'Trojan horse' to introduce GM into the UK food chain, despite the fact
>that the British public have voted overwhelmingly against GM."
>
>It says the Little Red Tractor and Freedom Foods labels do not
>guarantee that products have not come from animals fed on GM food.
>
>http://news.scotsman.com/health.cfm?id=1811362007
>

The so called gaurauntees provide by these fake quality assurance
scams are not worth the paer they are written on anyway! So lies and
deceit all round.

http://tinyurl.com/2qqf7p











pam the SPAMMERS send an email to enquires@urfreesim.co.uk

"Gloria"  wrote in message 
news:5951k39o1lnr58af1jku972it6d28l2id7@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 19:36:52 -0000, "pearl" 
> wrote:
>
>snip<

>>It says the Little Red Tractor and Freedom Foods labels do not
>>guarantee that products have not come from animals fed on GM food.
>>
>>http://news.scotsman.com/health.cfm?id=1811362007
>>
>
> The so called gaurauntees provide by these fake quality assurance
> scams are not worth the paer they are written on anyway! So lies and
> deceit all round.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2qqf7p
>
Just to remind you of the word aspiration.

You have to chuckle at the naughty little uniform junkies. When
they take a break from chasing little old ladies wills and prating about on
TV, telling everyone "It is the worst case I have ever seen", they find yet
another little jolly jape to annoy everyone.

Anyway, not to worry, the last time they got caught out; their drive for
better welfare standards was merely an aspiration.


Freedom Foods is an aspiration not an indicator of high welfare. The farmer
pays this bunch to prove that he aspires to high welfare, not that he
actually has to do anything very much apart from aspire and pay up. They
have already admitted they can't effectively inspect in the UK. What chance
Holland? I didn't know it was that easy to con the Dutch!


So, their protection racket has spread to Holland. They will want it made
compulsory there. Today, Holland - tomorrow the EU - next week the World!


Recent Quotes:


Under the scheme farms which meet certain animal welfare standards are
allowed to put the Freedom Foods logo on their products and demand higher
prices.


But today the RSPCA defended the scheme and called for it be extended and
made compulsory.


Jackie Ballard, the RSPCA's director general, said: "The RSPCA cannot
monitor farms 24 hours a day and has never claimed to. Of course in rare
cases individual farms or farmers can let us down, but for every animal
shown on covertly-filmed video there are millions who have had a better
life."


Unquote


Quote


 Last night an RSPCA spokesman said the farms involved had been suspended
from the scheme and that it took the allegations very seriously.


The RSPCA's director general, Jackie Ballard, admitted in the programme:
 "There were some examples of very poor animal welfare on those farms and of
animals that were very clearly suffering and that's not good enough.


"We have the most monitoring of any of the labelling schemes that there are
 in this country. But we don't sit on a farm 24 hours a day monitoring, so
 inevitably sometime things will go wrong."


 She said the five freedoms were "aspirations" rather than guarantees: "The
 Freedom Food scheme, you know what our aspiration is? Our aspiration is
that
that becomes legal minimum standards."


Unquote


http://www.fwi.co.uk/Articles/2007/07/26/105496/anger+at+dutch+egg+fa...


Anger at Dutch egg farmer gaining RSPCA Freedom Food Approval


26/07/2007 16:51:00


Poultry World


UK egg farmers are outraged to learn that the RSPCA has approved European
flocks under its Freedom Food assurance scheme.


But a RSPCA Freedom Food spokeswoman told Poultry World that as the
assurance scheme is an EU registered trademark it is perfectly within its
rights to approve EU producers.


The spokeswoman confirmed that it approved a Dutch egg farmer in July,
adding to the three additional European farmers under its scheme, and had
approved flocks in Ireland for years.


She added that as the assurance scheme was based on welfare standards it
would look at producers from other countries, including South America and
Asia, on a case-by-case basis if they demonstrated that they reached the
RSPCA Freedom Food standards.


"From our point of view we are supportive of the UK egg market but we want
to see the end of battery cages," said the spokeswoman. She argued that if
supermarkets decided to import eggs from foreign Freedom Food producers then
it would encourage UK producers to move from cage into free-range or barn
production.


"In a way it would encourage a more level playing field," she said.


But Tony Burgess of Birchgrove Eggs and Farmers Weekly Poultry Farmer of the
Year 2006, was furious about this decision, seeing it as a "slap in the
 face" of Freedom Food registered UK producers.


He argued that UK producers would be undermined by these "accredited
 imports". "Supermarkets will use Freedom Food accreditation on these eggs
for strong marketing campaigns to perhaps sway consumers to consider imports
as acceptable.


Producers are always looking for a point of difference. If Dutch eggs are
now under the Freedom Food scheme that point of difference narrows
considerably," he said.


Mr Burgess commended the RSPCA's welfare priorities but argued that the
decision to approve foreign producers was short-sighted towards existing UK
Freedom Food producers.


"This decision undervalues UK produced eggs especially if their logo appears
on value pack imported eggs. A value pack of free-range eggs creates a
bottom line which will be used by the industry as a guideline for future
pricing structure."


Regards
Pat Gardiner
www.go-self-sufficient.com