GMO Feeds

[Cindy in PA]

So i went to Tractor supply i got a 50lb bag of Nutrena normal price $15.99 on sale for $13.99 ,had a $2 off coupon so it was $11.99.
Manna Pro organic was $11.99 for a 10 lb bag,It is the only size they have, $11.99 x 5 = $59.95 for 50 Lbs.
Now if i drove 90 miles round trip to Family Farm and Home i could have got Graham's Organic 50lb for $29.99 plus $12 for gas = $41.99 plus the carbon foot print to get there and back.
https://shop.familyfarmandhome.com/products/graham-s-organic-layer|221000.html
http://www.tractorsupply.com/en/sto...s-50-lb?cm_re=DP-_-TP-_-LI+Price+Cut+20141027
http://www.tractorsupply.com/en/store/manna-proreg;-organic-layer-pellets-10-lb

Tractor Supply is definitely off the wall with organic. Don't know who would buy Nature's Best Organic for $18.99/10lbs. when they can drive up the road & get 50 lbs. for $35. They cater to the craze of backyarders who diaper their chickens.

 

[Cindy in PA]

Sorry, you jumped into a thread where people have been going back and forth on GMO vs Organic.
You asked a for "rank" of feeds.
Everybody will have a difference of opinion of their rank.

If we only had 3 choices.........GMO, non GMO or organic.

 

[Areolyn]

Not sure what science you are talking about. There's science & there's paid for science & then there's science that hasn't been proven yet. GMO is all of the above at this point. History?? Bet you are a food science major..........yum!

Actually, I am not. Major of environmental science with a concentration of water resources....Don't like it? Too bad!

Science doesn't work that way. Don't know why you would think that just because someone gets a salary, means that it's not true. Can I just say....not true?

Science is science, there is no if and's or but's....I can't change it, and neither can you. Some of it I absolutely hate. And some of it I don't. But regardless of my opinion or anyone else's opinion, it is it what it is.

Pardon my rudeness, but...get off your high horse and get over it.

 

[Cindy in PA]

Actually, I am not. Major of environmental science with a concentration of water resources....Don't like it? Too bad!

Science doesn't work that way. Don't know why you would think that just because someone gets a salary, means that it's not true. Can I just say....not true?

Science is science, there is no if and's or but's....I can't change it, and neither can you. Some of it I absolutely hate. And some of it I don't. But regardless of my opinion or anyone else's opinion, it is it what it is.

Pardon my rudeness, but...get off your high horse and get over it.

Not a problem getting a salary. Big problem with studies being funded by those that benefit from the study in dollars. Great major. Good luck with it.

 

[Areolyn]

Not a problem getting a salary. Big problem with studies being funded by those that benefit from the study in dollars. Great major. Good luck with it.

In other words someone gets a salary and is paid to analyze information and research.

Thank you, I quite like being an advocate for water quality. Maybe someday there will be a ban on microbeads in various soaps.

 

[Cindy in PA]

I have a son that feels the same. He protects the water by protecting the forests! Water is by far the most important thing on this earth!

 

[CrazyTalk]

Not a problem getting a salary. Big problem with studies being funded by those that benefit from the study in dollars. Great major. Good luck with it.

This isn't how science works.


When a study comes out that is done poorly, or that is slanted because of corporate influence, it very quickly gets torn apart by independent scientists. Peer review is a vital part of science, and it prevents funding sources from having undue influence. If your study has bias, or outright misinformation, it gets destroyed - People can't reproduce your results, people get different results, people point out that your results don't support your conclusions, etc.


Where this doesn't hold true is with the fringe nuts - who are still quoting studies from the 60s that have been very clearly refuted, and proven to have issues. (like the Wakefield vaccine studies - for which he has been in jail)

 

[The Colonel]

This isn't how science works.



When a study comes out that is done poorly, or that is slanted because of corporate influence, it very quickly gets torn apart by independent scientists. Peer review is a vital part of science, and it prevents funding sources from having undue influence. If your study has bias, or outright misinformation, it gets destroyed - People can't reproduce your results, people get different results, people point out that your results don't support your conclusions, etc. 



Where this doesn't hold true is with the fringe nuts - who are still quoting studies from the 60s that have been very clearly refuted, and proven to have issues. (like the Wakefield vaccine studies - for which he has been in jail) 

So you're agreeing that the studies of GMO v. Non is completely biased? Extensive independent studies have proven that the industrial studies have huge inclusions through major parts of the studies and the information given from the evidence involved.

 

[CrazyTalk]

So you're agreeing that the studies of GMO v. Non is completely biased? Extensive independent studies have proven that the industrial studies have huge inclusions through major parts of the studies and the information given from the evidence involved.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.


Every single GMO crop that goes to market goes through extensive testing. They are tested for potential allergens. They are tested to see if their protein/amino acid profiles match the original plant. At this point, there is no evidence of harm from any GMO crop. No weird allergies, no people or animals getting sick - nothing. We've been using these things for decades now, and they're fine.

There are tens of thousands of thorough independent studies, and no evidence of harm - just a whole lot of conflation and misinformation from the giant marketing machine that is organic foods.


This is an article on the single most comprehensive feeding study ever done (probably on anything) on GMOs - it deals with HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of animals - and there is no evidence of harm, at all:

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/19-years-of-feeding-animals-gmo-shows-no-harm/


The problem here is that people generally create a story in their minds, and then go and try to find evidence to support that story, instead of looking at the evidence and deciding what the story is. When you've got cranks like the Foodbabe and "Dr." Oz out there, it's all people need to affirm their story, and then they stop looking. The scientific evidence here is prolific and clear - and there wouldn't be any arguments if people would stop trying to get their science from people who don't understand science at all.

 

[hen madame]

I love me some science! It is my "religion" (yes, I'm a heathen). Yeah science!