next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
<div id=3D"yui_3_16_0_1_1454588368905_4240"> ------=_Part_1869577_682038399.1454598534003 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The weeds close to the crop are only problematical if you dont start with a= clean seedbed and/or heavily fertilize the seedbed before planting the cro= p, which favours the weeds. Start with a clean seedbed and postpone fertili= zation, and ...OK it's a treadmill. You start using herbicides and then you breed crops that = are not competitive with weeds.. so yes those crops are very difficult to c= ontrol mechanically although it can be done. Mechanical tillage can be very= sophisticated. As well, we separate crops and livestock so we dont want st= raw, so shorter cereals are OK. Separated livestock and crops results in ma= ssive aquatic pollution-- we pay for that indirectly. Real cost accounting = would not rate GMO crops more cost efficient today and their costs have gon= e up as more resistance develops.=C2=A0 We have created an industrial production system that is part of our social = fabric... it's not easy to re-evaluate.. and pursue a new tack but we need = to start looking at it. Those gigantic fields of GMO maize, soy and cannola= may give us "cheaper food" but we are paying for it in many other ways. =C2=A0 =20 From: "rita.paul@ns.sympatico.ca" <rita.paul@ns.sympatico.ca> To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca=20 Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2016 9:35 AM Subject: Re: [NatureNS] Public consultation re use of pesticide... GMO cro= ps and loss of weedy species =20 The reason Herbicides=C2=A0 are so much better from a farmers point of vi= ew David is that herbicides kill the weeds close to the planted crop. T= he weeds in the middle of the rows are not very harmful and are easy to c= ontrol by cultivation. However the weeds close to the plants cause the re= duction in yields. They rob moisture, nutrients sunlight and harbour inse= cts but there is no way a farmer can remove them by cultivation. short of= the old hand hoe. In addition they make harvesting more difficult by not= allowing the crop to dry out in the short days of fall. Farmers tell m= e herbicides give the best return on investment of all their inputs. But = maybe we would like to pay more for food! Enjoy the thaw Paul =C2=A0 = =20 On February 4, 2016 at 8:33 AM David Patriquin <davidgpatriquin@yahoo.ca> = wrote:=20 =20 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Incororating resistance to Roundup & now a couple of o= ther herbicides (because weeds also becoming resistant) in GMO crops has on= e huge effect on wildlife that I don't see discussed much or at all: the co= mplete obliteration of weedy species over massive areas, not seen much in N= S but go to Que and Ont where field after large field of GMO soybean, maize= and cannola are grown, and they are virtually dead except for the crops; e= ven after the crops are taken off they remain free of weedy species. Under = traditional management, weeds were set back by tillage to allow crop to get= established, then a diversity of weedy species grow up in the understory, = flowering and providing food for pollinators, seeds for wildlife.. and afte= r the crop is taken off, groundcover. No more so. The farmers like the GMO = crops because of the simplified management, but with selection of appropria= te cultivars, some mechanical management, reducing some types of tillage...= weeds can be controlled without eliminating them and our farm fields can be= more supportive of wildlife.=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Glyphosate is toxic to plant= s and bacteria, so has huge effects on the microbiotia also.. =C2=A0 Ag= reed, Nick: " As naturalists, impacts on natural world are our major respon= sibility." =20 =20 =20 From: Nicholas Hill <fernhillns@gmail.com> To: "naturens@chebucto.ns.ca" <naturens@chebucto.ns.ca>=20 Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2016 7:32 AM Subject: Re: [NatureNS] Public consultation re use of pesticide Atrazine i= n Canada: a re-evaluation =20 David, no confusion here. Listserve focus is on nature not human safet= y. Atrazine article deals with human safety concerns not biodiversity. If= we want to take a stand on pesticides it would be for their biodiversity i= mplications of which there are tons. Roundup is an example but there are ma= ny showing impacts of other pesticides on native bees and other pollinato= rs. Nick =C2=A0 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1890/04-1291/ab= stract=20 http://www.jstor.org/stable/40983228?seq=3D1#page_scan_tab_contents=20 =C2=A0 =20 On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 9:02 PM, David & Alison Webster <dwebster@glinx.co= m> wrote:=20 =20 Hi Nick, =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 The item dealt with=C2=A0Atrazine not Rou= ndup. Best not to confuse matters.=C2=A0 Dave W=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 =C2= =A0 ----- Original Message ----- =20 From: Nicholas Hill To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca Sent: Wednesday, Febr= uary 03, 2016 8:12 PM Subject: Re: [NatureNS] Public consultation re use = of pesticide Atrazine in Canada: a re-evaluation =C2=A0 Gyphosate (ro= undup) going under radar despite the lethal impacts of amphibian larvae (ca= 98% kill) from the surfactant used to get the pesticide across the plant's= cuticle.=20 Not supposed to be used near water courses but amphibians are in swampy woo= ds.=20 As naturalists, impacts on natural world are our major responsibility. Phys= icians (royal...Ontario. .forget the association)=C2=A0 did take a stand ag= ainst recreational and household usage of pesticide on the basis of human h= ealth risk. We can stand up for nature. Nick On Feb 3, 2016 5:59 PM, "N= Robinson" < nrobbyn@gmail.com> wrote:=20 =20 Hello everyone,=20 =20 =C2=A0A member of the Quebec branch of the Sierra Club just sent me an em= ail regarding Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency doing a re-evaluat= ion of the pesticide Atrazine (announced December 15 2015).=20 =20 Some of you, more knowledgeable than I, might want to send them some feed= back.=20 =20 =C2=A0 http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pest/part/consultations/_rev2015-11/r= ev2015-11-eng.php=20 =20 Re-evaluation Note REV2015-11, Special Review of Atrazine: Proposed Decisio= n for Consultation Nancy =20 No virus found in this message.=20 Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7441 / Virus Database: 4522/11542 - Release Date: 02/02/16 = =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =C2=A0 =20 ------=_Part_1869577_682038399.1454598534003 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <html><head></head><body><div style=3D"color:#000; background-color:#fff; f= ont-family:HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, = sans-serif;font-size:13px"><div dir=3D"ltr" id=3D"yui_3_16_0_1_145459678575= 8_