[NatureNS] Public consultation re use of pesticide... GMO crops

Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2016 15:08:53 +0000 (UTC)
From: David Patriquin <davidgpatriquin@yahoo.ca>
To: "naturens@chebucto.ns.ca" <naturens@chebucto.ns.ca>
References: <1127198605.1091668.1454592925205.open-xchange@webmail.bellaliant.net>
Precedence: bulk
Return-Path: <naturens-mml-owner@chebucto.ns.ca>
Original-Recipient: rfc822;"| (cd /csuite/info/Environment/FNSN/MList; /csuite/lib/arch2html)"

next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects

           &lt;div id=3D"yui_3_16_0_1_1454588368905_4240"&gt;
------=_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_