Aquaponics Digest - Tue 03/31/98
Message 1: Re: PVC PIPE!! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!
from "Ted Ground"
Message 2: Fwd. N2 fixing bacteria
from S & S Aqua Farm
Message 3: Re: Safe plastics?
from S & S Aqua Farm
Message 4: Re: New aquaponic garden questions
from S & S Aqua Farm
Message 5: re: New aquaponic garden questions
from PeterJTheisen@eaton.com
Message 6: RE: Fwd. N2 fixing bacteria
from Alejandro Gallardo Valencia
Message 7: Re: New aquaponic garden questions
from Chris Hedemark
Message 8: RE: New aquaponic garden questions
from Alejandro Gallardo Valencia
Message 9: Re: Fwd. N2 fixing bacteria
from "H.Doelle"
Message 10: RE: Fwd. N2 fixing bacteria
from "H.Doelle"
Message 11: RE: Fwd. N2 fixing bacteria
from "Rebecca S. Reed"
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 1 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Re: PVC PIPE!! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!
From: "Ted Ground"
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 04:34:49 -0600
To all,
I agree heartily with Bill Snyders comments about the imagined dangers of
PVC "leachate".
PVC piping is being used safely and has been used in every drinking water
supply in the nation. Organic farmers use PVC pipe to supply irrigation to
their fields.
This notion that all things synthetic are bad- even immanently dangerous-
whereas all things natural are good and wholesome and always harmless is
intellectually bankrupt and just plain false.
There are so many things in our environment that are real threats that
never get discussed or addressed adequately, (such as drunk, red-neck
fraternity boys driving on the highway, or the outrageous national debt, or
teen age pregnancy, or the dumbing down of American education, or lawyers
in charge of Congress, hacking away at our freedoms) while environmental
extremists, who, almost without exception, are scientifically illiterate,
(as most of the American population seems to be) continue to bleat and cry
as if things which are common as dirt are terrifyingly dangerous, or that
things which are about as likely to occur as a meteor strike in one's
living room are most likely to take place any moment now. These
manufactured fears, or "concerns", as they refer to them, diffuse the focus
and effort, and take attention away from real problems.
By the way, the most powerful liver toxin and carcinogen I can think of is
aflatoxin, a NATURAL substance which is produced by a species of a common
mold, Aspergillis. It grows on NATURAL foods and animal feeds such as
corn, maize, and peanuts. Can be found in soy sauce and other fermented
soy products. Millions if not billions of people and their livestock
consume these products every day without jumping out of their skin from
fright or dropping dead from the ultra trace amounts generally found in
these foodstuffs. And what about the carcinogens in basil pesto? Or the
natural herb, comfrey? Best of all- how about the trillions of soft Xrays
that are bombarding the skin and eyes of people who expose themselves to
Cathode Ray Tubes (computer screens and TV sets). The more you visit the
Internet to discuss the dangers of PVC pipe, the more soft Xrays you get.
PVC pipe!!!! Run for your lives!!!!
Also, we must beware of Dihydrogen oxide!!! It is a chemical!!! And a
solvent !!! A substance that can corrode metal, and deprive your lungs of
oxygen if inhaled!!! And THEY are putting it in our drinking water!!!!
Monsanto and all the International Corporations must be behind all of
this!!! Keep me posted on this dangerous substance if you hear more!!
Ted
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 2 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Fwd. N2 fixing bacteria
From: S & S Aqua Farm
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 10:33:40 -0600
>From: "Walter Jorge Gomez Ruiz"
>To: snsaquasys@townsqr.com
>Subject: N2 fixing bacteria
>Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 06:46:22 PST
>
>Dear Tom and Paula,
>
>Just wanted you to know that I still read the digest version of the mail
>group and I want to conratulate everyne for their participation.
>
>On the subject of genetically modified n2fixing bacteria:
>
>Why risk it? If the earth is such a beautiful place, so perfectly
>adapted for all our needs is because we all are a result of millions of
>years of evolution. The genetic information included in every living
>organism is a result of that evolution. Any modification performed by
>man may and will alter the ecosystem to some degree. Although it may
>eventually appear as if nothing has happened, that is just not true. Its
>just useless to try to speculate as to what might happen. No one just
>knows it all. It is wiser to just accept our limitations and work with
>them to increase productivity repecting nature which is perfect to begin
>with.
>
>Walter Jorge Gomez
>San Luis Potosi-Mexico
>
>PS. I do not check my mail often.
-----------------------------------------------
S&S Aqua Farm, 8386 County Road 8820, West Plains, MO 65775 417-256-5124
Web page http://www.townsqr.com/snsaqua/
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 3 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Re: Safe plastics?
From: S & S Aqua Farm
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 13:27:30 -0600
At 08:41 AM 3/30/98 -0500, Bill Snyder wrote:
The responses indicated that although there is some degree of leachate from the
pvc, it is minimal, and decreases over time. Although exposure to UV light
enhances the mobilization of the vinyl chlorides, our water contact is on the
inside of the pipe, hence...no problem.
>My recommendation is, don't sweat it. Make sure that your pvc is well rinsed,
>especially if you have used any solvents or cleaners. Otherwise, I think there
>are many greater sources of toxicants we can spend our time worrying about.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>William Snyder, Aquaculture and Aquatic Sciences
>State University of New York - Morrisville
>Morrisville, New York 13408
Bill - thanks for the perspective from that study.
We use pvc piping in our system, from tanks into the irrigation system and
return. We don't use open PVC for grow space, which should eliminate the
possibility of UV breakdown.
We had been using plastic liners in our grow beds, and are slowly switching
to grow beds made by PolyTank of the same heavy-duty polyethylene material
as our tanks. The changeover is not mainly due to any concern about the
safety of the plastic liners, but primarily we've been looking for a grow
bed that will last without maintenance. The tanks we use in our system are
the size sold as fry-rearing tanks for large scale outdoor operations, and
approved for aquaculture operations.
Tom Speraneo
S&S Aqua Farm, 8386 County Road 8820, West Plains, MO 65775 417-256-5124
Web page http://www.townsqr.com/snsaqua/
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 4 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Re: New aquaponic garden questions
From: S & S Aqua Farm
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 13:58:50 -0600
At 01:28 PM 3/30/98 -0600, Jim S. wrote:
> I guess my real question should be: During the time I'm waiting to have a
>good enough feel for the tilapia to count on them supplying food for the
>plants, could I grow out a different variety of fish in the tanks (in
>addition, say to a few hundred talapia) to make up for the lower fish/ bed
>volume ratio? I could use the other tanks to grow out some crappie or bass
>for personal stocking efforts, while I wait on the first batch of talapia
>to grow up, or me learn to grow them. ;)
>I'm just not ready to jump into 5-7000# of tilapia right from the start,
>but I need those beds growing something from the start.
>
>Jim S.
>
>PS: anyone else running a Pay 'by the day' or 'by the pound' fish pond'?
> Ever thought about stocking it with big, if not quite trophy sized fish?
> We've done very well with catfish, but I want to try bass and crappie now.
Jim, we'll be interested to learn how your experiments with bass and crappie
go - it would be great to have some reading on their potential in aquaponics
systems. Some of the systems we have helped start are growing Rainbow
Trout, so I would think there is plenty of room to experiment.
In smaller systems, we sometimes suggest people use feeder or baitshop
goldfish to jump start their systems. They are fairly cheap, and if they
die off (so far) have left no diseases Tilapia are susceptible to.
Let us know how your trials go.
Tom Speraneo
S&S Aqua Farm, 8386 County Road 8820, West Plains, MO 65775 417-256-5124
Web page http://www.townsqr.com/snsaqua/
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 5 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: re: New aquaponic garden questions
From: PeterJTheisen@eaton.com
Date: 31 Mar 98 15:13:19 EST
This is a terrible answer to your question, but I think it will get you
going with a nutrient solution that is somewhat similar to what you will
have when you have all your fish in the system.
Well here goes. Why not start by significantly over feeding the fish you
have. The uneaten fish food will be converted into the nutrient solution
your plants need. You can keep track of Ammonia, nitrites and nitrates so
you don't over do it.
I know this will not provide exactly the same kind of plant nutrients that
you will have from your system when your fully up and running, but is a
possible way to get a large system up and running quickly. I know this is
a very inefficient use of fish food, but at least you are starting out in
an organic (aquaponic) manner.
Please let me know what you guys on the list think?
Pete T.
-------------
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 6 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: RE: Fwd. N2 fixing bacteria
From: Alejandro Gallardo Valencia
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 14:28:51 -0600
Dear Walter:
Although I=B4m new in this discussion group, and though i haven=B4t =
read all of the input given on the subject that you are talking (should =
i say writing?) about, i would like to say that even though you are =
right about how well adapted and beautiful place earth is, and the fact =
that genetic engeneering is a very delicate issue, I don=B4t agree in =
the fact that some people seem to think that every kind or tampering =
with nature is some kind of time bomb. All scientists have the =
responsability (granted some times neglected) of taking the right =
precautions when experimenting with anything, but we also have the huge =
responsability of knowing as much as we can about this wonderful =
universe we live in and how to improve our existence without further =
damaging the ecosistems we live in. In this proces, it is very often =
necesary to go places no one thinks it=B4s necesary to go. It=B4s =
called discovery, and it=B4s the basis of knowledge, of progress and =
(most important) responsible utilization and conservation of the =
enviroment.
Many "science" authors (and I don=B4t mean every science author), =
mostly not the original researchers but someone who read their work, are =
not only poorly informed, but also have a very apocaliptical point of =
view about most things. This is sometimes an indirect benefit, for it =
is a form of pressure to reinforce the precautions taken when doing =
research. You are right though, nobody knows it all, that is why science =
is a perpetual learning experience. =20
Every day there are more of these destructing plage called humans, and =
we have to learn how to use less space and natural resources to satisfy =
our necesities in order to survive without destroying every thing around =
us.
Genetical engeneering has improved our lives in ways that you probably =
haven=B4t even thought about (e.i. the fruits and vegetables you eat, =
the cattle from wich you get your daily milk and meat, some of the =
vaccins that have probably improved your chances of survival in this =
world, etc.). It is a very delicate science, wich needs to be specially =
ethical (are you listening, you biological weapons engineers, you =
disgraceful bunch of science hores? pardon the expression) but with it =
and other sciences, we nowadays have the chance of growing responsibly =
and help to restore some of the damage we have already done. Our =
limitations, as you say, Walter, are part of the reason we are so =
destructive, not because we=B4re bad, but because we are too many, way =
to many for the charge capacity of the natural systems we live in. We =
have created necesities that you could call innecesary, but then the =
first thing we sould get rid off are these =
plastic-metal-made-radiation-producing-time-consuming-electricity-gorging=
contraptions we are comunicating through, get rid of your car, =
microwave oven, and sinthetic fabric clothes, don=B4t take medicines and =
for crying out loud, forget about eating beef, chicken, corn, tomatoes, =
oranges or any other geneticaly inproved product!!!
Sorry if it sounds agressive, but i=B4m just triyng to point out that =
we "need" a lot of junk that is not precisely non agressive when it =
comes to the enviroment, and a lot of things that we have of good =
quality because of genetics. I have=B4t met yet one single "organic" =
that doesn=B4t need or use one single thing that goes against his =
beliefs. Of course it=B4s rare that they realize it.
Congratulations to everybody
John:
I=B4de like to read the article you refered to on the 27/03/98. Could =
you give me the reference?
Thank you
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 7 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Re: New aquaponic garden questions
From: Chris Hedemark
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 16:12:40 -0500
[lurker de-cloaking]
PeterJTheisen@eaton.com wrote:
> This is a terrible answer to your question, but I think it will get you
> going with a nutrient solution that is somewhat similar to what you will
> have when you have all your fish in the system.
> Well here goes. Why not start by significantly over feeding the fish you
> have. The uneaten fish food will be converted into the nutrient solution
> your plants need. You can keep track of Ammonia, nitrites and nitrates so
> you don't over do it.
> I know this will not provide exactly the same kind of plant nutrients that
> you will have from your system when your fully up and running, but is a
> possible way to get a large system up and running quickly. I know this is
> a very inefficient use of fish food, but at least you are starting out in
> an organic (aquaponic) manner.
> Please let me know what you guys on the list think?
Pete,
I am not even set up in aquaponics yet. I'm basing this on about 20
years of hobbyist experience as an aquarist, and I think this may hold
true for y'all as well.
My main beef with this idea is that it will create a large amount of
detritus. If you are trying to build up plant nutrients in the water
quickly, some epsom salts would probably be a good start (and less
harmful to the fish). Also, while you normally keep track of ammonia,
nitrite, and nitrate, how many of you track phosphate levels? Heavy
metals? Depending on what's in the feed, you might have to track more
than just the effect on the nitrogen cycle.
Now if you want to get your bacteria jump-started, you can do this with
some Fritz Zyme #7. I know they sell it in 1 gallon bottles and I think
also in 5 gallon buckets that would be more appropriate to this
application. Put some of this in a couple of days after introducing
your fish and it will help to jump start your bacteria.
Of course, keep my advice in perspective. I'm coming from a much
smaller scale so there may be factors on your scale that I am not
considering yet. I'll re-cloak for now and learn more. :-)
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 8 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: RE: New aquaponic garden questions
From: Alejandro Gallardo Valencia
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 14:54:49 -0600
Peter:
I think your answer to Jim=B4s question is not terrible but involves =
some risks just for trying to start too fast. If you read Tom=B4s =
answer, i can tell you that i agree in the use of alternative cheaper =
fish to jumpstart the system, and i would add the posibility of an =
alternative diet richer on protein during the jumpstart. Also, at =
least here in M=E9xico, tilapia, specialy small tilapia (not suitable =
for market) is not expensive so it could be used, considering higher =
metabolic rate on smaller fish. I would say that whatever Jim does, he =
should evaluate how much in a hurry he is, in order to determine how =
much risk and work he wants to put in starting up. Good lighting =
(possibly translucid tanks) might increase the primary production in the =
tanks, granted a small flow rate for the first few weeks in order to =
increase biomass and thus organic production.
What do you guys think?
Alejandro Gallardo
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 9 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: Re: Fwd. N2 fixing bacteria
From: "H.Doelle"
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 1998 07:50:59 +1000
Dear Walter,
I can not agree more in principle with your statement as nature has
provided us with most if not all of the tools. However, improvements may be
necessary to avoid the use of chemical fertilisers. The latter beinfg used
to get a higher yield. These higher yields can be obtained by improving our
N2 fixing bacteria. This, however, can also be done by adaptation and
mutation and does not always has to be genetic engineering.
Horst Doelle
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 10 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: RE: Fwd. N2 fixing bacteria
From: "H.Doelle"
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 1998 08:09:10 +1000
Dear reader,
What a lot of very unfortunate nonsense. As a professional microbiologist I
have again to tell our mexican friend that all genetical engineering
experiments have to be performed in PC3 specially equipped secure
laboratories that they do not escape the laborartory. WHY ? Because they
all can be timebombs.
In Europe there is a strong growing wave against genetical engineered
tomatoes and other crops. WHY ? because people are concerned and so am I.
Why is Canada, for eaxample not prepared to put a label on genetically
engineered crops if sold ? Is the Government scared of not selling ?
These are but a few examples I like to remind my Mexican colleague in
regard to the issue.
The positive cases in medicine I agree, BUT the organism is not allowed out
and has to be incinerated after producing the vaccine or medical product.
Every technology where it belongs to. If nature requires mutations and
adaptations, it will do so on its own account much better than we can. If
we develop a useful technology, it should be used for the specific purpose,
BUT PLEASE DO NOT GENERALISE THAT EVERY TECHNOLOGY IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF
MANKIND. There a lot of them which are and can be disastreous. My Mexican
friend did not mention the influence of money and the present hunt for
research money by scientists. Of course, we have been and aqre still very
conscienteous in our work, BUT ....
I am only sceptical and cautious in the case of genetical engineering, if
the engineered microbe or crop is released into the environment. I am all
in favour to produce a product with an engineered organism, whereby the
product and not the engineered organism is released into the environment.
Horst Doelle
.------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------.
| Message 11 |
'------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------'
Subject: RE: Fwd. N2 fixing bacteria
From: "Rebecca S. Reed"
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 19:02:13 -0800
On Tuesday, March 31, 1998 2:09 PM, H.Doelle=20
[SMTP:H.Doelle@mailbox.uq.edu.au] wrote:
> Dear reader,
> What a lot of very unfortunate nonsense. As a professional =
microbiologist=20
I
> have again to tell our mexican friend that all genetical engineering
> experiments have to be performed in PC3 specially equipped secure
> laboratories that they do not escape the laborartory. WHY ? Because =
they
> all can be timebombs.
> In Europe there is a strong growing wave against genetical engineered
> tomatoes and other crops. WHY ? because people are concerned and so am =
I.
> Why is Canada, for eaxample not prepared to put a label on genetically
> engineered crops if sold ? Is the Government scared of not selling ?
> These are but a few examples I like to remind my Mexican colleague in
> regard to the issue.
> The positive cases in medicine I agree, BUT the organism is not =
allowed=20
out
> and has to be incinerated after producing the vaccine or medical =
product.
> Every technology where it belongs to. If nature requires mutations and
> adaptations, it will do so on its own account much better than we can. =
If
> we develop a useful technology, it should be used for the specific=20
purpose,
> BUT PLEASE DO NOT GENERALISE THAT EVERY TECHNOLOGY IS FOR THE BENEFIT =
OF
> MANKIND. There a lot of them which are and can be disastreous. My =
Mexican
> friend did not mention the influence of money and the present hunt for
> research money by scientists. Of course, we have been and aqre still =
very
> conscienteous in our work, BUT ....
>
> I am only sceptical and cautious in the case of genetical engineering, =
if
> the engineered microbe or crop is released into the environment. I am =
all
> in favour to produce a product with an engineered organism, whereby =
the
> product and not the engineered organism is released into the =
environment.
> Horst Doelle
> At 02:28 PM 31/03/98 -0600, you wrote:
> >Dear Walter:
> >
> > Although I=B4m new in this discussion group, and though i haven=B4t =
read=20
all
> of the input given on the subject that you are talking (should i say
> writing?) about, i would like to say that even though you are right =
about
> how well adapted and beautiful place earth is, and the fact that =
genetic
> engeneering is a very delicate issue, I don=B4t agree in the fact that =
some
> people seem to think that every kind or tampering with nature is some=20
kind
> of time bomb. All scientists have the responsability (granted some =
times
> neglected) of taking the right precautions when experimenting with
> anything, but we also have the huge responsability of knowing as much =
as=20
we
> can about this wonderful universe we live in and how to improve our
> existence without further damaging the ecosistems we live in. In =
this
> proces, it is very often necesary to go places no one thinks it=B4s=20
necesary
> to go. It=B4s called discovery, and it=B4s the basis of knowledge, =
of
> progress and (most important) responsible utilization and conservation =
of
> the enviroment.
> > Many "science" authors (and I don=B4t mean every science author), =
mostly
> not the original researchers but someone who read their work, are not=20
only
> poorly informed, but also have a very apocaliptical point of view =
about
> most things. This is sometimes an indirect benefit, for it is a form =
of
> pressure to reinforce the precautions taken when doing research. You =
are
> right though, nobody knows it all, that is why science is a perpetual
> learning experience.
> > Every day there are more of these destructing plage called humans, =
and=20
we
> have to learn how to use less space and natural resources to satisfy =
our
> necesities in order to survive without destroying every thing around =
us.
> > Genetical engeneering has improved our lives in ways that you =
probably
> haven=B4t even thought about (e.i. the fruits and vegetables you eat, =
the
> cattle from wich you get your daily milk and meat, some of the vaccins =
that
> have probably improved your chances of survival in this world, etc.). =
It
> is a very delicate science, wich needs to be specially ethical (are =
you
> listening, you biological weapons engineers, you disgraceful bunch of
> science hores? pardon the expression) but with it and other sciences, =
we
> nowadays have the chance of growing responsibly and help to restore =
some=20
of
> the damage we have already done. Our limitations, as you say, Walter, =
are
> part of the reason we are so destructive, not because we=B4re bad, but
> because we are too many, way to many for the charge capacity of the=20
natural
> systems we live in. We have created necesities that you could call
> innecesary, but then the first thing we sould get rid off are these
> =
plastic-metal-made-radiation-producing-time-consuming-electricity-gorging=
> contraptions we are comunicating through, get rid of your car, =
microwave
> oven, and sinthetic fabric clothes, don=B4t take medicines and for =
crying=20
out
> loud, forget about eating beef, chicken, corn, tomatoes, oranges or =
any
> other geneticaly inproved product!!!
> > Sorry if it sounds agressive, but i=B4m just triyng to point out =
that we
> "need" a lot of junk that is not precisely non agressive when it comes =
to
> the enviroment, and a lot of things that we have of good quality =
because=20
of
> genetics. I have=B4t met yet one single "organic" that doesn=B4t need =
or use
> one single thing that goes against his beliefs. Of course it=B4s rare =
that
> they realize it.
> >
> >Congratulations to everybody
> >
> >
> >John:
> > I=B4de like to read the article you refered to on the 27/03/98. =
Could you
> give me the reference?
> > Thank you
> >
> >----------
> >De: S & S Aqua Farm[SMTP:snsaquasys@townsqr.com]
> >Enviado: Martes 31 de Marzo de 1998 10:33 AM
> >Para: aquaponics@townsqr.com
> >Asunto: Fwd. N2 fixing bacteria
> >
> >>From: "Walter Jorge Gomez Ruiz"
> >>To: snsaquasys@townsqr.com
> >>Subject: N2 fixing bacteria
> >>Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 06:46:22 PST
> >>
> >>Dear Tom and Paula,
> >>
> >>Just wanted you to know that I still read the digest version of the=20
mail
> >>group and I want to conratulate everyne for their participation.
> >>
> >>On the subject of genetically modified n2fixing bacteria:
> >>
> >>Why risk it? If the earth is such a beautiful place, so perfectly
> >>adapted for all our needs is because we all are a result of millions =
of =0D
> >>years of evolution. The genetic information included in every living
> >>organism is a result of that evolution. Any modification performed =
by
> >>man may and will alter the ecosystem to some degree. Although it may
> >>eventually appear as if nothing has happened, that is just not true. =
Its
> >>just useless to try to speculate as to what might happen. No one =
just
> >>knows it all. It is wiser to just accept our limitations and work =
with
> >>them to increase productivity repecting nature which is perfect to=20
begin
> >>with.
> >>
> >>Walter Jorge Gomez
> >>San Luis Potosi-Mexico
> >>
> >>PS. I do not check my mail often.
> >-----------------------------------------------
> >S&S Aqua Farm, 8386 County Road 8820, West Plains, MO 65775=20
417-256-5124
> >Web page http://www.townsqr.com/snsaqua/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\RE Fwd. N2 fixing bacteria"
> >
Since you are in fact a practicing microbiologist, how about a few =
examples=20
of what you have seen? What could happen? What could happen easily? =
How=20
can a gene snippet attach itself to something else? And what about =
prions=20
as weapons?
|
