next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0362_01D15F42.C203BC40
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Paul & All, Feb 4, 2016
The topic resembles one of those rockets which are used to open a =
fireworks display; one streak of light upward (or perhaps streak of heat =
would be more appropriate) and then a starburst or sparks flying off in =
all directions.=20
To carry this analogy further note that it is not practicable to =
stuff these sparks back into rocket cylinder and drag that cylinder down =
the shaft of heat to the launching pad. Nor is it feasible to snuff out =
all of these sparks. One must study the characteristics and driving =
forces of the launching pad and act as opportunity arises.
Shortly after WWII farm help was paid $0.25 per hour, worked a 60 =
hour week and eggs were $0.75 a dozen. Farmers and family members worked =
70-80 hours a week. Even if it were possible I don't think it would be =
desirable to go back to those conditions.
Horizon to horizon monoculture is just one of many examples of =
environmantal degradation; absolutely serious but driven by economic =
forces. And the wallet is all powerful, in the arena of economic forces, =
if you care to use it. Support local small farmers and in time this =
aberation will fade away. Eat local fish etc.
Pesticides are the backbone of our economy but there is every reason =
to oppose use for frivolous reasons (lawn care, Japanese Knotweed =
control, Glossy Buckthorn control) and also reason to tweak agricultural =
use downward when the opportunity arises.
Some decades ago it became fashionable to spray lawns with broad =
spectrum insecticides. The lawns at the Kentville Research Station were =
no exception. When I asked our Director why the farm did this he assured =
me it was not happening, I assured him it was and shortly after it =
stopped happening. Not a big dent in misuse of insecticides but change =
does take place when enough people do what they can, where they are, =
with what they have.
Back in the 70s Simazine had begun to come into use in orchards here =
with the objective of total weed control along the three row. Based on =
observation, I argued against this approach and for "Partial Weed =
Control"; a temporary knock down of weeds with a low dose of Paraquat =
(drawing on memory) to reduce competition early in the year and with =
many side benefits; better snow cover (drifting snow trapped by tall =
late season weed growth), less frost penetration, less heaving of trees, =
less tree lean and less soil erosion by wind and water. This approach =
soon became widely adopted here at least as long as I was around.=20
One way to decrease use of herbicides on lawns is to not use them, =
avoid the rotary mower except for paths and leaf mulching, mow by =
exception using a hand scythe. Lead by example and in time the followers =
will begin to follow.
Yt, Dave Webster Kentville
=20
----- Original Message -----=20
From: rita.paul@ns.sympatico.ca=20
To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca=20
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 9:35 AM
Subject: Re: [NatureNS] Public consultation re use of pesticide... GMO =
crops and loss of weedy species
The reason Herbicides are so much better from a farmers point of view =
David is that herbicides kill the weeds close to the planted crop.=20
The weeds in the middle of the rows are not very harmful and are easy=20
to control by cultivation.=20
However the weeds close to the plants cause the reduction in yields.=20
They rob moisture, nutrients sunlight and harbour insects but there=20
is no way a farmer can remove them by cultivation. short of the old =
hand hoe.=20
In addition they make harvesting more difficult by not allowing the =
crop=20
to dry out in the short days of fall.=20
Farmers tell me herbicides give the best return on investment of=20
all their inputs. But maybe we would like to pay more for food!=20
Enjoy the thaw=20
Paul=20
=20
On February 4, 2016 at 8:33 AM David Patriquin =
<davidgpatriquin@yahoo.ca> wrote:=20
=20
=20
Incororating resistance to Roundup & now a couple of other =
herbicides (because weeds also becoming resistant) in GMO crops has one =
huge effect on wildlife that I don't see discussed much or at all: the =
complete obliteration of weedy species over massive areas, not seen much =
in NS 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; even 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 after the crop is taken off, =
groundcover. No more so. The farmers like the GMO crops because of the =
simplified management, but with selection of appropriate 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. =20
=20
Glyphosate is toxic to plants and bacteria, so has huge effects on =
the microbiotia also..=20
=20
Agreed, Nick: " As naturalists, impacts on natural world are our =
major responsibility."=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 in Canada: a re-evaluation
David,=20
no confusion here. Listserve focus is on nature not human safety. =
Atrazine article deals with human safety concerns not biodiversity.=20
If we want to take a stand on pesticides it would be for their =
biodiversity implications of which there are tons. Roundup is an example =
but there are many=20
showing impacts of other pesticides on native bees and other =
pollinators.=20
Nick=20
=20
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1890/04-1291/abstract=20
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40983228?seq=3D1#page_scan_tab_contents=20
=20