One Farmers point of view

[Delaney]

What you should take from that Artie, is to listen more to those who actually understand the science, and less to none of those who pen articles in the daily mail or facebook and have no understanding of the science.

The ‘current science’ pushed by some scisntists’.

When did it become a religion?

 

[TRITON]

Ah yes, the good old argument from authority.

Next you'll be saying "Follow the science"

Deja vu

What surprises me more than anything Artie, is that you fall for this type of rubbish.

This explains exactly what i've said, in terms you might find it easier to follow.

The ‘current science’ pushed by some scientists’.

Can you tell me whom these 'scientists' are Delaney on this subject of animal feed, . Or are you just as per blowing smoke out your bum.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

Should we take from that, that you are in favor of giving this additive to cows to suppress methane production?

I can interpret what he wrote, if it wasn't clear enough!

Paraphrase:

"I probably have significantly more quals that the OP, but even then, I'm still not qualified to pass comment, so I won't. Other than to comment with conviction that you ought not rely on any newspaper (and in particular, the muck printed in the Daily Mail FFS.) for expert analysis"

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

No offence TRITON I’m sure you’re wonderful butcher but this is exactly the type of thing I was talking about.
Your appeal to authority is the problem and the main reason why and how, massive corporations with bad actors (scientists), can create a product that will make them a fortune, under the guise of ‘saving the environment’.

I think we can all agree that adding nothing is safer. Adding something will have some sort of effect and as such, we are experimenting on the poor and their food chain.

Bwahahahahahaha

This and your previous post are just laughable! Particularly the Sweeping Generalisation (Logical Fallacy) that all scientists are greedy money grabbers with no moral compass and no ethical imperative. It's an absurd allegation.


So, please tell us your thoughts on chlorinated chicken from USA or hormone injected beef from Australia/New Zealand, etc, etc... (now that we're "free of EU legislation). Or whether it is safer to not treat ("adding nothing", in your words) food-chain livestock with antibiotics where it might be prudent, but not 'necessary'?

 

[artie]

What surprises me more than anything Artie, is that you fall for this type of rubbish.

This explains exactly what i've said, in terms you might find it easier to follow.

That didn't help me to understand your viewpoint at all.

I don't read the daily mail, or any other newspaper now that they don't have appealing mammary glands in them. As that was the only appealing part.

Don't watch tv news either.

AFAIK cows have been eating, farting and producing milk for thousands of years. no problem.

Take their dung and apply it to veg or flowers and they flourish.

To think that they are a problem to be tackled instead of the real problem, by adding something to modify their digestive system, is beyond belief.
Nobody can categorically state that it is harmless, and since it is a solution to a non existing problem, should not be used.

 

[artie]

I can interpret what he wrote, if it wasn't clear enough!

Paraphrase:

"I probably have significantly more quals that the OP, but even then, I'm still not qualified to pass comment, so I won't. Other than to comment with conviction that you ought not rely on any newspaper (and in particular, the muck printed in the Daily Mail FFS.) for expert analysis"

So nothing really?

 

[Vulcan]

This is an interesting site. It seems that methane from Oil and Gas extraction is much worse than many thought.

https://www.methanesat.org/

I would think tighter control on the Oil and Gas industry would be better than trying to stop cows burping.
Of course, this wouldn’t help dsm-firmenich’s investors would it? How much money have they spent developing Bovaer 10, and what was the issue with versions one to nine?

 

[Inspector]

Sounds like some of you wouldn't have a problem with another shaker on the table to be used with gusto so you stop burping, farting and your &&&& won't stink. Bet plumbers would get behind it. If not why would you want to eat food that was from animals using it?

Pete

 

[John Brown]

Sounds like some of you wouldn't have a problem with another shaker on the table to be used with gusto so you stop burping, farting and your &&&& won't stink. Bet plumbers would get behind it. If not why would you want to eat food that was from animals using it?

Pete

Don't ruminants currently do the bulk of the burping and farting, so that we don't have to?
I do like a Brussels sprouts, though..

 

[Inspector]

Beans.

Pete

 

[TRITON]

Nobody can categorically state that it is harmless

It has already been categorically stated to be harmless, theres even a section in the daily mail story.

" It has been declared a safe additive by both European and UK regulators as it doesn't transfer into milk.
Experts have also told MailOnline that customers do not have anything to worry about and that concerns about cancer risks are unfounded. DEFRA stated that it considers methane suppressing feed products 'an essential tool to de-carbonise the agricultural sector "

This shows that you didnt watch the vid,and havent even got past the DM headline. Though you have stated you dont agree with it so you have at least taken note of the story, or do these things just magically pop into your head.
It's either that or you dont actually have a point, or an opinion other than deny deny deny.


So lets hear your evidence then. And if you cant actually provide any, so as far as this story goes, you're just a troll. And youre basing the negatives of this story from what a bunch of uninformed clowns have stated on tiktok and facebook. So much for your 'other Scientists'

 

[paulrbarnard]

It has already been categorically stated to be harmless, theres even a section in the daily mail story.

" It has been declared a safe additive by both European and UK regulators as it doesn't transfer into milk.
Experts have also told MailOnline that customers do not have anything to worry about and that concerns about cancer risks are unfounded. DEFRA stated that it considers methane suppressing feed products 'an essential tool to de-carbonise the agricultural sector "

This shows that you didnt watch the vid,and havent even got past the DM headline. Though you have stated you dont agree with it so you have at least taken note of the story, or do these things just magically pop into your head.
It's either that or you dont actually have a point, or an opinion other than deny deny deny.


So lets hear your evidence then. And if you cant actually provide any, so as far as this story goes, you're just a troll. And youre basing the negatives of this story from what a bunch of uninformed clowns have stated on tiktok and facebook. So much for your 'other Scientists'

They said that about thalidomide…

 

[DrPhill]

It has already been categorically stated to be harmless, theres even a section in the daily mail story.

" It has been declared a safe additive by both European and UK regulators as it doesn't transfer into milk.
Experts have also told MailOnline that customers do not have anything to worry about and that concerns about cancer risks are unfounded. DEFRA stated that it considers methane suppressing feed products 'an essential tool to de-carbonise the agricultural sector "

This shows that you didnt watch the vid,and havent even got past the DM headline. Though you have stated you dont agree with it so you have at least taken note of the story, or do these things just magically pop into your head.
It's either that or you dont actually have a point, or an opinion other than deny deny deny.


So let’s hear your evidence then. And if you cant actually provide any, so as far as this story goes, you're just a troll. And youre basing the negatives of this story from what a bunch of uninformed clowns have stated on tiktok and facebook. So much for your 'other Scientists'

There may be no evidence that a particular additive is dangerous. But this lack of evidence can have many reasons. It may be that no one has done the right experiments yet. Or it might be that the right experiments have been done but the results are not yet available. Or it might be that there really is no danger.

Many times we have found out too late that there was indeed a problem that hadn’t been foreseen. I am more in favour of a precautionary approach these days. Asking’do we really need this risk?’ Rather than assuming safety until proven otherwise.

A much safer solution in this case would be yo reduce the number of cows.

 

[TRITON]

They said that about thalidomide…

A drug from the 1950's ? some 70+ years ago.
I think its all moved on since then. So not really a comparison.

 

[Delaney]

What surprises me more than anything Artie, is that you fall for this type of rubbish.

This explains exactly what i've said, in terms you might find it easier to follow.




Can you tell me whom these 'scientists' are Delaney on this subject of animal feed, . Or are you just as per blowing smoke out your bum.

If you don’t understand the ‘appeal to authority’ argument, which you clearly don’t, you shouldn’t accuse others of being a fool.

Bwahahahahahaha

This and your previous post are just laughable! Particularly the Sweeping Generalisation (Logical Fallacy) that all scientists are greedy money grabbers with no moral compass and no ethical imperative. It's an absurd allegation.


So, please tell us your thoughts on chlorinated chicken from USA or hormone injected beef from Australia/New Zealand, etc, etc... (now that we're "free of EU legislation). Or whether it is safer to not treat ("adding nothing", in your words) food-chain livestock with antibiotics where it might be prudent, but not 'necessary'

1) I never claimed “all” scientists are bad or concerned with money. I made a point that it would be incredibly naive to consider them all as saints, given the historical evidence of past examples of extremely bad behaviour and given scientists are not immune from human nature.

2) If you don't like chlorinated chicken, then don’t eat it. Given that I only eat organic food unless caught out, I would strongly suggest no one else does either.
How can you understand that hormone injected beef, chlorinated chicken is bad, yet this contamination of the food cycle, that fundamentally alters a cows digestion, in anyway a good idea?

Unless as I suggested, this debate divides perfectly along political lines? A point you seem to be proving so far.

 

[Delaney]

There may be no evidence that a particular additive is dangerous. But this lack of evidence can have many reasons. It may be that no one has done the right experiments yet. Or it might be that the right experiments have been done but the results are not yet available. Or it might be that there really is no danger.

Many times we have found out too late that there was indeed a problem that hadn’t been foreseen. I am more in favour of a precautionary approach these days. Asking’do we really need this risk?’ Rather than assuming safety until proven otherwise.

A much safer solution in this case would be yo reduce the number of cows.

The BBC has spoken.
No need for further debate.
Go back to your wage cage and drink the milk.
Just to prove how safe it is, we’ll mandate it in your child's school.
We know best, not mother nature.

 

[Delaney]

A drug from the 1950's ? some 70+ years ago.
I think its all moved on since then. So not really a comparison.

Don’t you think they thought that in the 50’s from the dumb stuff they did in the 1910’s?

I’m losing hope here lol

 

[artie]

They said that about thalidomide…

you beat me to it.

 

[Inspector]

They said that about thalidomide…

Tobacco was safe too.

 

[artie]

It has already been categorically stated to be harmless, theres even a section in the daily mail story.

" It has been declared a safe additive by both European and UK regulators as it doesn't transfer into milk.
Experts have also told MailOnline that customers do not have anything to worry about and that concerns about cancer risks are unfounded. DEFRA stated that it considers methane suppressing feed products 'an essential tool to de-carbonise the agricultural sector "

This shows that you didnt watch the vid,and havent even got past the DM headline. Though you have stated you dont agree with it so you have at least taken note of the story, or do these things just magically pop into your head.
It's either that or you dont actually have a point, or an opinion other than deny deny deny.


So lets hear your evidence then. And if you cant actually provide any, so as far as this story goes, you're just a troll. And youre basing the negatives of this story from what a bunch of uninformed clowns have stated on tiktok and facebook. So much for your 'other Scientists'

Now you're just rambling.

I watched the entire video, did you.

You want evidence that it's not safe. Where's the evidence that it is safe? BTW the word of some knob head who managed to get a degree is not evidence.

Did you even comprehend the reason I stated I was against it. And it wasn't based on what some paid shill said.

But look at it another way I can see no benefit and won't knowingly ingest any. If I'm wrong no problem.

If on the other hand you think it's a great idea and ingest copious amounts and it turns out to be the latest Thalidomide or vaccine damage scandal....