next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
The reason Herbicide
This is a multipart message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_006E_01D15F45.96122A10
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I remember hearing a rice farmer in Northeast Thailand make a similar comme=
nt about inorganic fertilizer.
Literal translation:
=E2=80=9CChemical fertilizer is like heroin. When you start, you cannot st=
op and have to use more and more.=E2=80=9D
This is an area with horrendously lousy soil, including super--horrendously=
low organic content.
From: naturens-owner@chebucto.ns.ca [mailto:naturens-owner@chebucto.ns.ca] =
On Behalf Of David Patriquin
Sent: February 4, 2016 11:09 AM
To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca
Subject: Re: [NatureNS] Public consultation re use of pesticide... GMO crop=
s and loss of weedy species
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.
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.
_____
From: "rita.paul@ns.sympatico.ca" <rita.paul@ns.sympatico.ca>
To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca
Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2016 9:35 AM
Subject: Re: [NatureNS] Public consultation re use of pesticide... GMO crop=
s 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.
The weeds in the middle of the rows are not very harmful and are easy
to control by cultivation.
However the weeds close to the plants cause the reduction in yields.
They rob moisture, nutrients sunlight and harbour insects but there
is no way a farmer can remove them by cultivation. short of the old hand ho=
e.
In addition they make harvesting more difficult by not allowing the crop
to dry out in the short days of fall.
Farmers tell me 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
On February 4, 2016 at 8:33 AM David Patriquin <davidgpatriquin@yahoo.ca> w=
rote:
Incororating resistance to Roundup & now a couple of other herbicides (beca=
use weeds also becoming resistant) in GMO crops has one huge effect on wild=
life that I don't see discussed much or at all: the complete obliteration o=
f weedy species over massive areas, not seen much in NS but go to Que and O=
nt where field after large field of GMO soybean, maize and cannola are grow=
n, and they are virtually dead except for the crops; even after the crops a=
re taken off they remain free of weedy species. Under traditional managemen=
t, 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 providi=
ng food for pollinators, seeds for wildlife.. and after the crop is taken o=
ff, groundcover. No more so. The farmers like the GMO crops because of the =
simplified management, but with selection of appropriate cultivars, some me=
chanical management, reducing some types of tillage...weeds can be controll=
ed without eliminating them and our farm fields can be more supportive of w=
ildlife.
Glyphosate is toxic to plants and bacteria, so has huge effects on the micr=
obiotia also..
Agreed, Nick: " As naturalists, impacts on natural world are our major resp=
onsibility."
_____
From: Nicholas Hill <fernhillns@gmail.com>
To: "naturens@chebucto.ns.ca" <naturens@chebucto.ns.ca>
Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2016 7:32 AM
Subject: Re: [NatureNS] Public consultation re use of pesticide Atrazine in=
Canada: a re-evaluation
David,
no confusion here. Listserve focus is on nature not human safety. Atrazine =
article deals with human safety concerns not biodiversity.
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
showing impacts of other pesticides on native bees and other pollinators.
Nick
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1890/04-1291/abstract
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40983228?seq=3D1#page_scan_tab_contents
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 9:02 PM, David & Alison Webster <dwebster@glinx.com>=
wrote:
Hi Nick,
The item dealt with Atrazine not Roundup. Best not to confuse matters. =
Dave W
----- Original Message -----
From: Nicholas Hill <mailto:fernhillns@gmail.com>
To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca
Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2016 8:12 PM
Subject: Re: [NatureNS] Public consultation re use of pesticide Atrazine in=
Canada: a re-evaluation
Gyphosate (roundup) going under radar despite the lethal impacts of amphibi=
an larvae (ca 98% kill) from the surfactant used to get the pesticide acros=
s the plant's cuticle.
Not supposed to be used near water courses but amphibians are in swampy woo=
ds.
As naturalists, impacts on natural world are our major responsibility. Phys=
icians (royal...Ontario. .forget the association) did take a stand against=
recreational and household usage of pesticide on the basis of human health=
risk. We can stand up for nature.
Nick
On Feb 3, 2016 5:59 PM, "N Robinson" < nrobbyn@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello everyone,
A member of the Quebec branch of the Sierra Club just sent me an email reg=
arding Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency doing a re-evaluation of =
the pesticide Atrazine (announced December 15 2015).
Some of you, more knowledgeable than I, might want to send them some feedba=
ck.
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pest/part/consultations/_rev2015-11/rev201=
5-11-eng.php
Re-evaluation Note REV2015-11, Special Review of Atrazine: Proposed Decisio=
n for Consultation
Nancy
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/>
Version: 2016.0.7441 / Virus Database: 4522/11542 - Release Date: 02/02/16 =
---