When Meat is not Murder

[occidentalis]

this was my first ever double post

i hope you enjoyed it.

[ 18. August 2005, 12:18: Message edited by: creach ]

[occidentalis]

and this was my first ever triple post

hope you enjoyed this one too!

[ 18. August 2005, 12:19: Message edited by: creach ]

[Rev]

Re: DNA as a universal language

lets say we have two books in the same language - on very different topics.

One could very well argue that the 2 books are almost identical because they share the same language and that they even share 99% of the same words.

however you would see the flaw if you used that logic to start taking paragraphs from one and juxtaposing into another. The way the book would read would be quite unpredictable

DNA IS shared by most organisms. In fact you could say that life spent the majority of existence just figuring out how to build a single successful eukaryotic cell

and that all thats happenned since are a few rearrangemnts in gene order, stimuli for expression and regualtory tags and instructions on how cells comminicate with each other. that being what make you different from say a whale

are you all familiar with the embryonic development where we all pass through primitive stages and diverge off at certain points. that illustrates it nicely.

anyway i just want to point out the gaping hole in the shared genes argument

 

quote:

---

you are correct that GM plants are produced by "unnatural" methods. However, this doesn't necessarily mean that they are bad - the intent might be, but I'm talking about the technology itself, not Monsanto's world-domination plans.

---

i agree on part of that. Im not against GM cos its an unnatural technology. in fact so far as unaturalness goes i think broadscale agriculture or chicken nuggets are much worse.

Im sure many of us have had LSD, MDMA or Meth and found its worth and yet it is semi-synthetic, derived from a natural thing but altered by hmans in the lab. Just like DNA.

But i dont think we can separate Gene technology from those who desire to and do use it and for what motives. Its all in together.

Like nuclear fission and bombs or burnt out reactors.

Monsanto is inseparable from the debate because it is an example of what has been allowed to happen.

Bayer i believe do exactly the same thing but without monsantos publicity attracting no-seed saving caveats.

im not againt genetic research and experimentation but it needs strict regulation.

and definitely not in the foodchain.

most transgenics are probably safe but to blanket approve it is hasty. Ive done some low level genetic modifications on bacteria - its dead easy - comes in kit form even

but seeing how easy it is its a worry that it might be thought of as soft science when in fact you yiled the most dangerous hardware in the world. even an atomic bomb cannot self replicate, and in 20 minutes like E coli can.

yet DNA can encode for enzymes that turn harmelss bacteria into flesh eaters or to have the genes to encode for a toxin so deadly a teaspoon of it coud kill an entire nation.

or a virus that causes cancer, or expression of prion susceptible proteins that enter the food chain.

These things can be done on purpose but more concerningly by complete accident.

wih regard to the initial proposal. we are investing huge sums in cattle tagging in australia so we can track herds should any outbreak of BSE occur. If a single prion got into the vat meat supply system think of how pervasive it would be in the food chain as the cells are redistributed through countless burgers, mcnuggets or whatever else they put it, or its byproducts in.

if genes were not patentable there wouldnt be such a rush anyway or such secrecy!! and therefore danger

Id like to say also that grazing is the most appropraite land use in many ecosystems. Cropping destroys soil structure much more than grazing pasture does. And chickens oft touted as more green than ruminnats are not when u consider that the diet of a chicken in feedlots is water,cereals and soy that is grown elsewhere and carted to them - and then the manure is taken elsewhere - whereas ruminants utilise water of leser quality, grasses and herbage that chickens and humans cannot eat.

that is chooks get the grain while cows get hay and stubble.

Feedlots are a different matter but if u buy organic beef in australia it wont be feedlotted (by definition of 'organic'). Even if not organic its isnt hard to find grassfed from any butcher.

also dont be misled by figure that say that all that soy going to cows could go to humans. I know from direct involvemnt that the soybeans are graded and only the whole nice non mouldy beans are packed for human use, all the splits and tainted beans get munche up and turned into meal and pellets for animals.

of these the chickens get the better grade and the cows get whats left.

what goes to animals are the scraps. If we didnt eat meat then i dont know what we'd do with the large volumes of substandard beans and grain????

[apothecary]

I for one, am glad that Rev's genes expressed themselves in such an eloquent, articulate and impressive manner.

Thanks for being with us Rev

[Hagakure]

apoth - just remember with arguments along the lines of "these crops will devestate the paddocks so nothing will grow there"

that crops such as these would not be sold as it is pissing money down the drain.

if you sell seeds that devestate the land then you will not have seeds purchased off of you again.

there may be cases where this has happened but that is what trials are for. i wouldnt mind having a look at further infromation on the matter if you have some readily available apoth.

if the consumer has a better product at the end of the day - healthier, tastier, more environmentally friendly they will be more inclined to buy from the grower of that product. growers will but from big companies introducing sucessfull strains.

big business is in for the long run - big mistakes etc will cost them money.

yeah interesting post there rev on the cattle industry. we definately wont being seeing vat meat for years yet.

but remember that australia doesnt really need this technology - we have all this grazing land we need and export a lot of meat. other countries would prefer alternatives to importing i am sure.

with fishstocks etc being rapidly used up in places like japan - meat factories (and im not talking about places like the exchange - S.A. joke) and other technologies might be the future if we want to really save our environment.

[ 19. August 2005, 08:33: Message edited by: Hagakure ]

[occidentalis]

Rev:

however you would see the flaw if you used that logic to start taking paragraphs from one and juxtaposing into another. The way the book would read would be quite unpredictable

---

It wouldn't be unpredictable - it would say exactly what you put in there.  And if you didn't like what it said, you wouldn't read it, and you wouldn't make any more like that.  If you did like what it said, you would copy it so all your friends could read it.  Natural selection    .

 

quote:

---

also dont be misled by figure that say that all that soy going to cows could go to humans.  

Good point, but all that soy didn't come from nowhere - it had to get grown using land, water, fertiliser, pesticides, and human effort, and these could have all been used for something more productive than being turned back into CO2 and urea by animals so we can eat them.

[ 19. August 2005, 08:52: Message edited by: creach ]

[Rev]

 

quote:

---

if the consumer has a better product at the end of the day - healthier, tastier, more environmentally friendly they will be more inclined to buy from the grower of that product. growers will but from big companies introducing sucessfull strains.

---

case to disprove that occurs in our crazy world

Mcdonalds and russet burbank potatoes

u can look into it if you like and you wll find hat the RB potato is not the best yieleder nor even the best chip potato

but it is the ONLY variety maccas puts through their chip machines

so u eiether grow it or you can t sell to maccas and this these days represent a massive portion of potato sales.

Creach

i know what u are getting at but what im saying is that when you grow a food product you get gradings

and it all costs money to grow so it all has to be used.

Where i am they grow and process organic soybeans

the biggest nicest beans get expotrted overseas

the second grade smaller beans go to domestic organic producers of soy and tempeh etc.

these beans and even smaller ones also go to soymilk manufacture eg VITASOY

its all grown using composted chook shit, local sawdust, coffee husk, macadamia husk and hay (plus fossil fuels!!)

no pesticide or herbicides needed

but theres still at least 30% left over thats crap. split beans and slightly mouldy beans come in from all over.

theres also the stubble and the weed grasses etc

like i said seriously i dont know what would happen if we didnt have meat as a product. The system would not work - for a start wed have to use more fossil fuel to collect or plow in stubble instead of having it digested and reapplied as manure by animals, and wed have a lot more waste products wed have to compost - and compost uses truly phenomenal ampounts of water! and gives off 30 to 50% of its bulk as CO2 with nothing to show for at the end excpet shrinkage

wed also have a fir risk of standing dead grasses , but intead they take waste meal and molasses and use that to make them edible.

the weaklink in this chain is the same as for non organic agriculture - the fossil fuels

this is why i think certified 'organic' is nothing but a marketing ploy. Its just as unsustainable as non organic and is just filling a niche role susbidised by consumer willingness to fork out for the extra costs

it appears to me that we use as much if not MORE fuel in our operations carting and processing bulky materials.

[Anodyne]

 

quote:

---

A minor point, but worth clearing up - the reason that transgenics is possible is not because organisms share any particular DNA sequences, but because they share the mechanisms for transcription and translation of DNA.

---

That's actually what I meant, though I realise I didn't say it too clearly.

 

quote:

---

however you would see the flaw if you used that logic to start taking paragraphs from one and juxtaposing into another. The way the book would read would be quite unpredictable

---

A book made that way would be, but an organism made by random swapping would also be prone to self-destructing! Hence the idea of studying gene function before playing with them - so you can have some idea what they do; in your analogy, reading the book before swapping words.

[occidentalis]

Rev:

like i said seriously i dont know what would happen if we didnt have meat as a product.  

There will always be some poor quality plant product in any agricultural situation, and that is where meat production comes in - to turn inedible stuff into edible stuff. That is sustainable. However, the argument that is commonly made about this is that a large amount of good quality edible grain gets fed to animals, not just the crap stuff. One figure I've heard is 90% of world soy production goes to feed animals. If this is accurate, then what you are talking about is the exception rather than the rule.

[Rev]

Its true

what goes on in the americas, europe and asia will be very different to here

the arguments made by political activists in these places are probably backed up by facts there

prob to do with brazilian beef and soy and the american and european feedlots

so Australia may be the exception to the rule, probably because we arent subsidised to the same degree to be so wasteful. I hope it stays that way.

[waterdragon]

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hagakure:

 

it is possible for the technology to be abused but that is why we have regulatory bodies etc in place aswell as pressure fromt the public.

 

[/QB]

---

are these the same type of regulatory bodies that allow toxic medicines to be fed to the masses and then claim 'oopsie' and slink off when it all goes pear shaped?. regulatory bodies tend to be bought and paid for, there is little distinction between politician and corporation. we can't even get honest labelling in this country, people must learn to rely on themselves as nobody else 'regulatory' has YOUR interests at heart.

i'll not be lining up for more GM than what they already sneak past me. properly utilised, real live cattle can very beneficial to a farm. ideally the best food to consume is free range, wild or organic with no added McFranken.

[Tryptameanie]

 

quote:

---

the reason that transgenics is possible is not because organisms share any particular DNA sequences, but because they share the mechanisms for transcription and translation of DNA.

---

And the proteins which carry out these proccesess are coded for where?

In the genome.

The vast majority of coding genes are shared (at least as close homologues) by the majority of organisms from humans to bacteria.

At the biochemical level the common features of organisms vastly outweigh the differences.

Arguments about GM need to be based on the ecological and socioeconomic impact of individual applications.

More from me later...

[occidentalis]

Tryptameanie:

 

quote:

---

the reason that transgenics is possible is not because organisms share any particular DNA sequences, but because they share the mechanisms for transcription and translation of DNA.  

---

And the proteins which carry out these proccesess are coded for where?

In the genome.

The vast majority of coding genes are shared (at least as close homologues) by the majority of organisms from humans to bacteria.

I realise this, which was why I said that hypothetically different organisms could share 1% of their DNA (the regions coding for transcription and translation) and would still be compatible for transgenic modification. However I just made up that figure of 1%. Do you know roughly what percentage of the genome these genes actually amount to?