29 Oct 16
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadUnsubstantiated opinion masquerading as fact. Both Golden promise and Marris Otter are grown specifically for the brewing industry because of their flavour. You would know this if you were a brewer but you are nothing more than an ignorant and bloated windbag that panders his opinions as if they are fact. You are in short sir, a muppet, please shut up, you don't know what you are talking about.
Utter and complete hogwash. It is grown to maximise profits of those who grow it. Nothing more nothing less.
If taste is what sells, that is what they will grow. If the climate requires early ripening that is what they will grow. But farmers are in it for the money, not the taste, make no mistake.
29 Oct 16
1 edit
We only use Golden Promise in our beers, a barley normally reserved for the production of malt whiskies. In combination with our Knowle Spring water, Golden Promise makes our beers clean and crisp and gives them a fullness and roundness of flavour. It has to be grown to our own exacting specification, it is a difficult, low-yield crop, which takes a skilled farmer and expert maltster, making it the most expensive barley you can use for brewing beer.
http://www.timothytaylor.co.uk/our-brewery/natural-ingredients/
Ouch. Imagine the horror if they used that GMO stuff they Americans put in Budweiser, the horror doesn't bear thinking about.
29 Oct 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieExactly. For profit.
Unsubstantiated opinion masquerading as fact. Both Golden promise and Marris Otter are grown specifically for the brewing industry because of their flavour.
You would know this if you were a brewer but you are nothing more than an ignorant and bloated windbag ...
Sorry, but the 'ignorant' insult doesn't work when coming from you.
You are in short sir, a muppet, please shut up, you don't know what you are talking about.
But I thought you didn't even read my posts anyway.
I do know what I am talking about. Farmers are in it for the money. That is a fact.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI note that you have utterly failed to absorb anything you have been told in this thread.
Ouch. Imagine the horror if they used that GMO stuff they Americans put in Budweiser, the horror doesn't bear thinking about.
It would be perfectly possible to take those exact same varieties you use today, and GM them to be insect resistant, which would mean that they would need fewer insecticides and they would be even more 'natural' than the ones you use currently.
And since you apparently don't know this, the Golden Promise variety of barley you are praising to the skies is a mutant variety created with Gama Rays.
29 Oct 16
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobie-just like the way you cherry pick the single parameter of herbicide and ignore fungicide. You completely miss the point.
yes but the irony of the matter is that where GMO's have been introduced insecticides have been reduced but the use of herbicides has increased dramatically, therefore your attempt to cherry pick and use a single parameter ....
On the contrary I remain capable of rational thought.
please demonstrate this capability.
29 Oct 16
1 edit
Originally posted by humyI have demonstrated it by providing reason and citation where necessary. The point seems to be on the tip of your hat.
-just like the way you cherry pick the single parameter of herbicide and ignore fungicide. You completely miss the point.On the contrary I remain capable of rational thought.
please demonstrate this capability.
29 Oct 16
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadOn the contrary as I have stated there is no necessity here to introduce GMO's, We produce awesome crops as it is. The tastiest that can be found.
Scottish ministers make it clear that the anit-GMO sentiment is purely political brand management.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/aug/09/scotland-to-issue-formal-ban-on-genetically-modified-crops
30 Oct 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieFrom Wikipedia:
On the contrary as I have stated there is no necessity here to introduce GMO's, We produce awesome crops as it is. The tastiest that can be found.
A 2014 meta-analysis concluded that GM technology adoption had reduced chemical pesticide use by 37%, increased crop yields by 22%, and increased farmer profits by 68%.
Scottish farmers almost certainly want GMOs. GMOs can be created from your very tasty crops to make them even better.
The ministers don't want GMOs because they are pandering to the breweries and other industries that are taking advantage of the ignorant public. Marketing their products as 'all natural' is a good way to increase sales and profits even though the reality is that there is nothing 'natural' about them.
After all, your favourite tasty crop was created via genetic modification using gamma rays - the same method used to create Incredible Hulk. The only difference is that method is far less controlled than modern methods.
30 Oct 16
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadpesticides? 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 and in others there is little difference between GM crops and non GM crops. Why are you now citing this generic reference that fails to differentiate between certain types of chemicals and their use on certain types of crops in compassion to others? why does it fail to take into consideration the environmental impact and instead seeks to cherry pick data to give a biased perspective? Such an approach is unscientific and dishonest, but hey, that's you.
From Wikipedia:A 2014 meta-analysis concluded that GM technology adoption had reduced chemical pesticide use by 37%, increased crop yields by 22%, and increased farmer profits by 68%.
Scottish farmers almost certainly want GMOs. GMOs can be created from your very tasty crops to make them even better.
The ministers don't want GMOs becau ...[text shortened]... Incredible Hulk. The only difference is that method is far less controlled than modern methods.
30 Oct 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadPlease shut up you are slobbering copious amounts of slobbery drool. We don't need GMO's, we already grow the tastiest barley around. How are you going to genetically modify our barley to make it tastier? Do tell. The only ignorance that seems apparent is yours if I am honest for you fail to realise that the public (the consumers of beer and whisky), the brewers (those who make beer and whisky) don't want or need GM crops, infact its this adherence to tradition which gives their products an edge over others. Please try to understand that science is no substitute for skilful farming and a dedication towards excellence and tradition.
From Wikipedia:A 2014 meta-analysis concluded that GM technology adoption had reduced chemical pesticide use by 37%, increased crop yields by 22%, and increased farmer profits by 68%.
Scottish farmers almost certainly want GMOs. GMOs can be created from your very tasty crops to make them even better.
The ministers don't want GMOs becau ...[text shortened]... Incredible Hulk. The only difference is that method is far less controlled than modern methods.
30 Oct 16
7 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWe also don't 'need' many things that would benefit us i.e. humanity, such as more energy efficient lamps etc. Yes, we don't 'need' any of the potential (and often huge) benefits from GMO's because we can survive just fine without any such benefits just as we don't 'need' anything such things as higher yielding disease resistant crops, that would directly/indirectly make all our lives better because humanity will go on surviving just fine if we all moronically rejected such beneficial things for absolutely no logical reason whatsoever; but that isn't a rational reason to reject it or not have it because, 'need' or 'no need', the fact remains we would benefit from it. Thus your stated 'reason' here to reject GMO's is invalid.
We don't need GMO's
Please try to understand that science is no substitute for skilful farming
Why not have BOTH?
They are not mutually exclusive.
Nobody CLAIMS/implies/thinks here that we should "substitute" science for " skillful farming".
You can BOTH accept scientific fact as fact, such as a GM crop being perfectly safe, AND do skillful farming; no problem.
Where is the contradiction in skillful farming of GM crops? Is there a need to think like a complete moron and reject science while at the same time growing crops 'skillfully'? Does thinking rationally somehow 'get in the way' of farming skillfully?