Doc’s Blog

Accidental GMOs ?

A couple of scientists -- one from Rutgers here in the U.S. and one from the Max Plank Institute in Germany -- have extensively studied plant grafting.  They found that some grafted plants could exchange chloroplasts, organelles that carry out photosynthesis and also mitochondria,  energy-generating organelles – across the grafts.


They point out that farmers have been altering plants for thousands of years by grafting branches that bear delicious fruit into disease-resistant roots. They conclude that, since graåfting has been widely used for millennia, it is an unintentional form of genetic engineering and we have accidentally been eating GMO’s for centuries.

I think this is really a thinly-veiled attempt to legitimize the flawed “science’ of genetic modification.  Grafting fruiting branches of an apple tree to resistant roots is a far cry from irresponsibly mixing genetics from vastly different species.

I don’t know what these guys are ‘smokin’ but they are now trying to use grafting to create new species, such as a tomato-chilli mix - which would undoubtedly be a great boon for mankind by making it easier to make salsa. 

Who pays for this stuff?

For all the sordid details go to:

NOTE:  The first one of my children or grand-children who lets me know that they have read this blog post will receive one troy ounce of pure silver. Offer expires 28 March 2016.   <VBG>


            Ring - Ring

            The receptionist answers the phone,  "XYZ Enterprises."

            Caller: "Hi, this is Sam Hill".

            "Good morning, Mr. Hill.  How can I help you today?

            "I bought some of your BAC-X product a while ago.  I feed it to a
            lot of poultry and I was wondering if you could take out the BAC
            and sell me just the premix?” 

            "Mr. Hill, we can't do that.  The BAC is the active ingredient in

            "I know, but it isn't working like I thought is should and it's very

            "Mr. Hill, are you feeding it according to directions?  Looking at
             your order history, I see you should be out of the product by now.
             Do you need to    reorder?”

            "No.  I still have plenty left. We only use it when we have a

The edited dialogue above typifies a general misunderstanding that many folks have about holistic products for livestock nutrition.

The BAC-X product mentioned above is actually a biologically active product designed to support a healthy digestive tract in poultry, ruminants, horses and swine.  While it does help in problem cases, its most economical use is to stabilize and support a healthy gut on a continuous basis.

It is obvious that Mr. Hill does not understand organic principles and does not realize that prevention costs less than treatment.  He was using the product to solve a problem rather than to enhance health.

Mr. Hill also seems unaware that changing a tried-and-true feed formula is seldom warranted and may result in increased expense in the cost of tags, labels, registration, and inventory. 

Expensive is a relative term.  It is better to think in terms of “cost-effectiveness”.  A product can be expensive if it doesn't cost much but fails to do the job.     Conversely, a product could cost a lot of money but its beneficial effects could return greater production and profit.   There are two ways to evaluate cost: what does it cost to use a product and what does it cost if you don’t use it.

Bottom Line.   Select a good product from a good company and use it as directed,