Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Bees in danger - it's not just one chemical


Mikko-kun

Recommended Posts

Again: Are you saying organic farmer will rather see his all crops being decimated by pests than overuse allowed substances, and then put different amount (number) on the paper? Nevertheless, pesticides (and some more harmful than synthetic) are being used in organic farming - thats a FACT.

Another thing: I have sneaking suspicion (though have no proof, but tried to find some studies), that organic farmers are benefiting from pesticides used on surrounding conventional fields, i.e. pests don't spread across large areas. If we would have only farming without use of modern pesticides and fertilizers, or overuse of less potent "organic" pesticides, I'm almost 100% sure - inside your fridge would be desert.

Again, organic farmers (but a few black sheep) are in for conviction. And no organic farmer (I know, and they are quite a few that are in the same boat I am) is stupid enough to plant any crops his industrial farming neighbors are producing in large scale because you know that it is doomed to failure... unless of course in a country you can sue the hell out of said neighbors for the chemical damages.

And last but not least there are inspections by the EU and by the Organic Farmers Association, while the first is not so bad, lacking the certification of the second and stricter inspection is by far the greater loss, as you cannot even sell your crop as swine fodder after failing that. People are paying a premium for Bio products and it is fair that their expectations are met.

No matter how you want to drag crap out of the **** barrel: It is constructed.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think another problem with all the chemicals that we use is our general obsession with perfect looking produce.

For example, rust on apples- it's usually a more cosmetic problem, but commercial orchards often use chemicals and spray the trees for it. Because people won't buy a blemished apple. Some leafy greens might get a little snacked on by bugs, leaving holes or jagged edges- the bugs are easy to remove, but people won't buy greens with holes or jagged edges. Tomatoes- people pass over ones with cracks- not that it makes any difference in eating, but people don't like unpretty tomatoes. So we spray and fertilize, often using chemical solutions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think another problem with all the chemicals that we use is our general obsession with perfect looking produce.

For example, rust on apples- it's usually a more cosmetic problem, but commercial orchards often use chemicals and spray the trees for it. Because people won't buy a blemished apple. Some leafy greens might get a little snacked on by bugs, leaving holes or jagged edges- the bugs are easy to remove, but people won't buy greens with holes or jagged edges. Tomatoes- people pass over ones with cracks- not that it makes any difference in eating, but people don't like unpretty tomatoes. So we spray and fertilize, often using chemical solutions.

Quite so, in fact much of the produce now sold is bred just for that purpose: To last very long on the shelves and to have no irregularities. At the expense of taste and wholesomeness. The dirty fact is that nature is neither lasting nor perfect but only aimed at one purpose: retain the once acquired properties through the passing on of DNA.

To all who want to know what a real tomato tastes like may I suggest the farmer's market and to get some of the primitive varieties?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, organic farmers (but a few black sheep) are in for conviction. [...]

Why then their produce is more expensive? They don't use super duper expensive GM plant seeds, nor super duper expensive fertilizers, nor super duper expensive synthetic pesticides, and use almost none (only in rare cases, as you are implying) of allowed "organic pesticides", plus less energy consumption... Of course, when they see that their products start deteriorate, they drop their prices, nevertheless...

[...] And no organic farmer (I know, and they are quite a few that are in the same boat I am) is stupid enough to plant any crops his industrial farming neighbors are producing in large scale because you know that it is doomed to failure... [...]

Ok, organic farms are somewhere in very very deep woods, thousands miles away from conventional farms...

Look, organic farms are like islands in the ocean (conventional farming); lets say one island suffers from disease, and inhabitants start to flee on their primitive boats elsewhere, majority of them drowning on the way. More distant island, less chances disease carrier will reach them. I know, this analogy is weak, but you get my point.

[...]

And last but not least there are inspections by the EU and by the Organic Farmers Association, while the first is not so bad, lacking the certification of the second and stricter inspection is by far the greater loss, as you cannot even sell your crop as swine fodder after failing that.[...]

Do they inspect fields on Saturdays/Sundays?

[...] People are paying a premium for Bio products and it is fair that their expectations are met.[...]

Did you meant for conviction?

[...] No matter how you want to drag crap out of the **** barrel: It is constructed.

Ok, fair enough. Do we have numbers how much (kg/ha) pesticides (harmful for bees, in particular) are/were being used in organic farming (in last few years)?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why then their produce is more expensive? They don't use super duper expensive GM plant seeds, nor super duper expensive fertilizers, nor super duper expensive synthetic pesticides, and use almost none (only in rare cases, as you are implying) of allowed "organic pesticides", plus less energy consumption... Of course, when they see that their products start deteriorate, they drop their prices, nevertheless...

Ok, organic farms are somewhere in very very deep woods, thousands miles away from conventional farms...

Look, organic farms are like islands in the ocean (conventional farming); lets say one island suffers from disease, and inhabitants start to flee on their primitive boats elsewhere, majority of them drowning on the way. More distant island, less chances disease carrier will reach them. I know, this analogy is weak, but you get my point.

Do they inspect fields on Saturdays/Sundays?

Did you meant for conviction?

Ok, fair enough. Do we have numbers how much (kg/ha) pesticides (harmful for bees, in particular) are/were being used in organic farming (in last few years)?

Because your kind is poisoning bees, selling rotten meat, selling milk of cows that have been fed with dried sludge (of water treatment plants) and lately even mislabeled horse meat besides growing Frankenfood. That is why Bio agriculture has a premium. We tend not to do any of the above. But keep on: with every new scandal our premium grows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quite so, in fact much of the produce now sold is bred just for that purpose: To last very long on the shelves and to have no irregularities. At the expense of taste and wholesomeness. The dirty fact is that nature is neither lasting nor perfect but only aimed at one purpose: retain the once acquired properties through the passing on of DNA.

To all who want to know what a real tomato tastes like may I suggest the farmer's market and to get some of the primitive varieties?

Take same variety grown in conventional farm and in organic. In blind test you will not tell the difference.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Take same variety grown in conventional farm and in organic. In blind test you will not tell the difference.

A chemistry lab will... and mostly point out some little cancer causing differences that according to your gang are "completely harmless"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because your kind is poisoning bees, selling rotten meat, selling milk of cows that have been fed with dried sludge (of water treatment plants) and lately even mislabeled horse meat besides growing Frankenfood. [...]

Whats wrong with horse meat? Frankenfood? You mean GM? Ah, familiar rhetorics...

BTW, no numbers? Thats a shame...

[...] But keep on: with every new scandal our premium grows.

So much for conviction... Pure $$$ in the eyes...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whats wrong with horse meat? Frankenfood? You mean GM? Ah, familiar rhetorics...

BTW, no numbers? Thats a shame...

So much for conviction... Pure $$$ in the eyes...

Oh, you are promoting Montsanto for free?

We have to live from something, if you guys help us to live better we should be grateful... just I am not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A chemistry lab will... and mostly point out some little cancer causing differences that according to your gang are "completely harmless"

Heh, and killer zucchini was completely harmless... Ah, wait, hospitalization was just vacations, right?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

has anyone said Monsanto yet????

No need, we know who they are. Some things are better left unmentioned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, you are promoting Montsanto for free?

[...]

You brought it, with Frankenfood. Say you meant something else.

[...]

We have to live from something, if you guys help us to live better we should be grateful... just I am not.

With basically no expenditures, who have more profits then, huh?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heh, and killer zucchini was completely harmless... Ah, wait, hospitalization was just vacations, right?

are you confusing Hollywood with reality lately? Interesting, did not know that Frankenfood also has some hallucinatory properties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No need, we know who they are. Some things are better left unmentioned.

Amen to that. I'm still cooling off for my storm into one thread, with more details and insults...

BTW, still no numbers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You brought it, with Frankenfood. Say you meant something else.

With basically no expenditures, who have more profits then, huh?

I am living from my farming, given the amount of work that I put in it, better than anybody hooked on Monsanto. So no, nothing to complain about. But to the contrary of others I don't do anything I don't stand behind for a few dollars more. No matter how much you want to bicker to the contrary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

are you confusing Hollywood with reality lately? Interesting, did not know that Frankenfood also has some hallucinatory properties.

Hollywood you say...
A year ago in New Zealand, there was an outbreak of food poisoning from a "killer zucchini" that hospitalized a number of people.
(link1, link2)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am living from my farming, given the amount of work that I put in it, better than anybody hooked on Monsanto. [...].

Ah, you are putting amount of work... Funny, someone (was it Mikko?) said it takes less work...

BTW and still, I don't see numbers, just proclamations.

Edit to add: conventional farmers (in EU, for example, where no GM crops) are living from their farming, too, yet they "charge" less.

Edited by bmk1245
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would try to eat Amanita phalloides, but someone in my head says it would happen just once.

Ok, may I suggest experiment:

1) for starters - drop seeds in your warmhouse in random order - using shovel/pitchfork - VERBOTEN! (have you ever tried someone shoveling, or poking you with pitchfork?);

2) put only as much organic fertilizer as you eat (1kg of your waste (ok you can substitute it with the same amount of manure) for 1kg of, say, tomatoes; no dispersing), or only what falls on the ground naturally - leaves (here you can rake as much leaves from outside area which is equal to area of your warmhouse);

3) no weeding out (picking out weeds in nature does not exists) - VERBOTEN!

4) next year you aren't allowed to seed deliberately (only what falls from the plants, or grows from tubers left in the ground, or from your back end) - throwing seeds on the ground - VERBOTEN!

5) continue this experiment for, say, five years;

6) tell the whole world about your amazing success.

You would eat a white fly mushroom... why am I not surprised... and you purposefully miss the point behind my post so even though you portray yourself as an agriculture professional here. Great... keep going man.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should read your own links, as you will find that it says nowhere that any of those nettle teas are more toxic, it says that they are not as effective. But that is something we all knew. We are not discussing effectiveness, we are discussing ecological impact. Or in plain English: That for the short term gain we are incurring in the long term destruction of the soils and through the residue in the produce the medium term endangering of human and animal health.

Why are you hung up on these nettle teas? What I'm talking about is the whole of organic/natural agriculture. And, again, with 6 billion plus hungry people on the planet, why do you want to turn back agricultural innovation 100+ years. We should be doubling down on genetically modified crop development and synthetic pesticides and fungicides to continue to increase crop yield - not going the other direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are you hung up on these nettle teas? What I'm talking about is the whole of organic/natural agriculture. And, again, with 6 billion plus hungry people on the planet, why do you want to turn back agricultural innovation 100+ years. We should be doubling down on genetically modified crop development and synthetic pesticides and fungicides to continue to increase crop yield - not going the other direction.

Can't say that Montsanto has increased the yields with their crops. All they did so far is reduce one operation in growing them: The mechanical removal of weeds. So your increased crop yield is the biggest straw man around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You would eat a white fly mushroom... why am I not surprised... and you purposefully miss the point behind my post so even though you portray yourself as an agriculture professional here. Great... keep going man.

Thats it? Your main point was beyond ridiculous: when you plow you wreck their natural resistance, and then have you ever tried someone plowing over you? Dragging that heavy metal blunt blade over your body? WTF?!

And I'm not portraying myself as professional, I do read, a lot (real info, not half baked la la landerisms), I seek knowledge, and this knowledge [here]* comes, apparently, from even less knowledgeable [idealists/fantasy dwellers]* (or having monetary interests in peddling halftruths). Hence my frustration.

Edit to add [...]*,

Edited by bmk1245
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't say that Montsanto has increased the yields with their crops. All they did so far is reduce one operation in growing them: The mechanical removal of weeds. So your increased crop yield is the biggest straw man around.

Who are using more Bt pesticides? The ones with Bt crops, or those with conventional (non-GM)/organic? Can we see again cotton production rates in India since Bt-cotton was introduced?

BTW, you can stress pests with your "organic" pesticides and they will develop resistance.

Edit to add: when India became selfsustainable? Before, or after green revolution?

Edited by bmk1245
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who are using more Bt pesticides? The ones with Bt crops, or those with conventional (non-GM)/organic? Can we see again cotton production rates in India since Bt-cotton was introduced?

BTW, you can stress pests with your "organic" pesticides and they will develop resistance.

No big trick, if you increase the area in detriment of the food production and livelihood of the small farmer (taken out of business by the practices of Monsanto) you will have more cotton, but that is surely not what you wanted to point out, was it?

Edit: And BTW, the Indians are smarter than some of their European and most American counterparts:

Maharashtra State Revokes Monsanto’s Cotton Seed License

NEW DELHI, India, August 9, 2012 (ENS) – This was a difficult day for the proponents of genetically modified crops in India. In Parliament, the Agriculture Committee tabled a report seeking a ban on genetically modified food crops and a halt to all field trials. And the state of Maharashtra cancelled Mahyco Monsanto Biotech’s license to sell its genetically modified Bt cotton seeds.

Mahyco Monsanto Biotech is a 50:50 joint venture between Mahyco and Monsanto Holdings Pvt. Ltd. The company has sub-licensed the Bollgard II and Bollgard technologies to 28 Indian seed companies, each of which has introduced the Bollgard technology into their own germplasm.

But now, all trade activities of Mahyco Monsanto Biotech are illegal in Maharashtra.

Read more

Edited by questionmark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No big trick, if you increase the area in detriment of the food production and livelihood of the small farmer (taken out of business by the practices of Monsanto) you will have more cotton, but that is surely not what you wanted to point out, was it?

Taken by the practices of Monsanto, or taken by local crooks selling unofficial seeds, even sham seeds?

As for area increase: yes it increased, but yield increased as well (almost two fold since Bt introduction).

Edit to add: but hey, let them ban Bt-cotton, and see what will happen next... More small farmers, more "free labour" to make, i.e. make more kids ([cynicism on]males preferably, kill damn worthless females[/cynicism off]), and India will prosper... Down to bright future...

Edited by bmk1245
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.