Minus agriculltural chems. / Increase in food price question - Page 2
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 68
  1. #21
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Algoma District Northern Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    5,239

    Default Re: Minus agriculltural chems. / Increase in food price question

    Yes bananas and fresh produce are famously wasteful. The bulk of food calorie and protein crops that the marginal masses exist on and the world turns on, is a different issue. I see fresh strawberries air freighted from Brasil occasionally on the shelves. I think that is shameful.

    Our mass marketing advertisement regime is predatory. Home economics is no longer taught in schools. Much of that goes out the window when both partners have to work minimum wage jobs though to make ends meet. Some slack could be taken up but the grain, soybean and corn growers are not going to be able to ziplock bag their products

    I think it would be interesting for a politician to put forth the idea that a 20% increase in food prices would be good for them. Probably be looking for another line of work in short order.
    Frank

  2. Remove Advertisements
    BeeSource.com
    Advertisements
     

  3. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    Northern Il, USA
    Posts
    510

    Default Re: Minus agriculltural chems. / Increase in food price question

    Quote Originally Posted by crofter View Post
    Some slack could be taken up but the grain, soybean and corn growers are not going to be able to ziplock bag their products

    .
    I used to put plastic pop bottles over my corn ears. The only way to keep the crows off! Might be a bit inefficient in a farm field...!

  4. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Dane County, WI, USA
    Posts
    3,520

    Default Re: Minus agriculltural chems. / Increase in food price question

    Quote Originally Posted by crofter View Post
    ....Some slack could be taken up but the grain, soybean and corn growers are not going to be able to ziplock bag their products

    I think it would be interesting for a politician to put forth the idea that a 20% increase in food prices would be good for them. Probably be looking for another line of work in short order.
    No need to "ziplock" wheat, etc - obviously.
    The main chem load on the staple grains comes from 1)weed control and 2)uniform crop maturation (read - round-up).

    Time to review/reassess the traditional tilling methods (simple mechanical weed control) vs. the modern no-till methods that fully depend on the herbicides.
    The idea that the tilling is absolutely bad - is a wrong idea and needs are review from the modern technology point.
    Yes - this will increase the cost monetarily and in the soil exploitation (subject to the better tilling technology and a good challenge, but not a NASA level challenge) - this will remove one source of chem intake.

    Another point - the uniform crop maturation achieved by use of the round-up on the crops needs a roll-back (as a source of round-up in the basic staple foods) - that is where the cost will increase.

    No need to public calls for 20% increase - again, obviously.
    Simply banning of the most screaming toxic method (read - use of round-up for the uniform crop maturation) will just naturally increase the price - becomes more costly to the producer.
    I don't know who is against removing the round-up from the basic food generation process.

    So - as far as the politicians go - they need have the guts to ban some obvious chem intakes (NOT directly increase the prices).
    Former "smoker boy". Classic, square 12 frame Dadants >> Long hive/Short frame/chemical-free experimentations.

  5. #24
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Algoma District Northern Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    5,239

    Default Re: Minus agriculltural chems. / Increase in food price question

    Quote Originally Posted by GregV View Post
    No need to "ziplock" wheat, etc - obviously.
    The main chem load on the staple grains comes from 1)weed control and 2)uniform crop maturation (read - round-up).

    Time to review/reassess the traditional tilling methods (simple mechanical weed control) vs. the modern no-till methods that fully depend on the herbicides.
    The idea that the tilling is absolutely bad - is a wrong idea and needs are review from the modern technology point.
    Yes - this will increase the cost monetarily and in the soil exploitation (subject to the better tilling technology and a good challenge, but not a NASA level challenge) - this will remove one source of chem intake.

    Another point - the uniform crop maturation achieved by use of the round-up on the crops needs a roll-back (as a source of round-up in the basic staple foods) - that is where the cost will increase.

    No need to public calls for 20% increase - again, obviously.
    Simply banning of the most screaming toxic method (read - use of round-up for the uniform crop maturation) will just naturally increase the price - becomes more costly to the producer.
    I don't know who is against removing the round-up from the basic food generation process.


    So - as far as the politicians go - they need have the guts to ban some obvious chem intakes (NOT directly increase the prices).
    The political aspect! Yes the devil is in the details! The politicians are subject to the (manipulated) will of the people and often opposed by the pressures from interests other than the common good. Term limitations of elected positions dictate that efforts pay off in the short term.

    It makes for a very complicated problem where simplistic solutions are highly questionable at the best. Exceeding environmental carrying capacity by any organism creates environmental pushback; holds true whether it is cows, humans, bees, plant monocultures etc. Workarounds always have unintended consequences. Not the time for knee jerk reaction.
    Frank

  6. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Campbell River, BC, CA
    Posts
    1,798

    Default Re: Minus agriculltural chems. / Increase in food price question

    Quote Originally Posted by GregV View Post
    Simply banning of the most screaming toxic method (read - use of round-up for the uniform crop maturation) will just naturally increase the price
    In the meantime, your plastic bag does a thousand times more damage to the environment than the amount of spray that would be attributed to the apple it is protecting.

  7. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Butler Co, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    471

    Default Re: Minus agriculltural chems. / Increase in food price question

    Perhaps I live in a bubble here on my family farm, what is this roundup for crop maturization? I have raised soft red winter wheat or been around it for 40 years and have never seen anything resembling this in wheat. I have seen this written many times on this forum and others. Does it really happen, if so where? Or is it simply a myth that keeps getting repeated?

    The closest thing that might resemble this is it is common practice to spray sodium chlorate (salt) on rice to desiccate the flag leaf to assist in separation so that harvest efficiency is increased. Salt, not roundup. Do people see the yellow plane flying and assume its using roundup?

    Ps. I remember constant cultivation of crops for weed control. We trimmed a lot of roots, limiting yields. Here it required a driver for about every 200 acres. With new wider equipment, you could maybe push that to 300 per driver. That labor force is simply not here anymore. We routinely have 1000 ac/person today. I could not maintain that crew today at 40k/yr here. People would rather make 25k in a cubicle or in a factory where they knew the hours and pay are always the same.
    Hindsight is 20/10, not 20/20...
    After the fact, I always know what didn't work.

  8. #27
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Vauxhall, Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    354

    Default Re: Minus agriculltural chems. / Increase in food price question

    Bdfarmer555, you speak right out of my heard and
    Or is it simply a myth that keeps getting repeated?
    yes, it is a myth by people that are clueless about agriculture. All grain co's will request certification that no glyphosate was added to the crop of grain and none to RR (Roundup Ready) crops beyond the label recommendation.

    Cultivation & agriculture: the spring & fall dust clouds over the Prairies (& probably the US plains) have disappeared only because of zero, minimal and reduced tillage simply because we where able to leave the stubble, apply one rate of glyphosate for burn-off and directly seed, saving 2-3" of moisture to give the crop that needed water to start. I am certain the chem-co's will find (and have already found) glyphosate replacements, but it gets harder and harder to register anything and cost of production goes up again.

    Keep enjoying farming, it is still the most rewarding (don't tell anyone, so) and humbling occupation!
    Summ Summ Bienchen summ herum

  9. #28
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Gaithersburg, MD
    Posts
    405

    Default Re: Minus agriculltural chems. / Increase in food price question

    I, too, was wondering where this crop maturation stuff was coming from. No surprise Roundup is the target from all the media hype ever since the WHO IARC classified it as a group 2A potential carcinogen. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that if you are spraying this stuff w/out proper PPE and getting it on your skin, it may not be good for you. If the label is followed properly then the risk is minimal. Probably need an equivalent to the "stupid motorist" laws some areas have. If you don't follow the label you can't try to sue for a cancer that very well may have been caused by your other bad habits anyway.

    Really surprised nobody has mentioned dicamba. You'd think this would be the target given it has been on the verge of de-listing for a few years now due to drifting issues.

  10. #29
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Suffolk Co, NY, USA
    Posts
    3,706

    Default Re: Minus agriculltural chems. / Increase in food price question

    >" the uniform crop maturation achieved by use of the round-up"

    >"Simply banning of the most screaming toxic method (read - use of round-up for the uniform crop maturation)"


    Obviously, A result of education by internet. Immediate, all encompassing, authoritative, mostly free and unless one uses critical thinking skills
    and some cognition when sifting through the results of the searches, mostly inaccurate and misleading.

  11. #30
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Northern Lower Michigan, USA
    Posts
    895

    Default Re: Minus agriculltural chems. / Increase in food price question

    Come on guys if you want to use the term "thinking skills" for folks who do not want round up used and "normality" for the folks that use it.
    Kindly explain the fact that, there was a huge lawsuit against Monsanto and they lost, that monsanto held back its knowledge that Glyphosate causes cancer.
    AND that they are many places in europe that have banned its use. Clearly if something is banned in some places and Monsanto pays settlements in the US there are issues. At some point spraying millions of gallons/pounds of Chems on land used for food growing is going to have an impact. And I agree that not using Chems can have an impact on production. As a country we some how with horses, managed to feed a lot of people, pre spraying, less obesity as well. Organics are out there so it is possible. At some point I would think, enough people survive and become "resistant" to the chems to have humanity exist on slightly polluted food, we know the mite can evolve to resist chems, so why not humans. OR we back off on chems to allow enough people to survive. OR we end up killing our species off. in 300 years the answer will be obvious, no use arguing about it today....
    I know a couple "farmers" getting money from Monsanto, big bucks actually. If it weren't for them needing their feet cut off and wheelchair bound , not a bad retirement. If the person spraying my food dies from the spray, I may need a little more convincing that, " It's fine don't worry its good for you/ok to eat."

    And I agree Frank, flying berries from Brazil in a refrigerator plane does seem a little out there. Same people buying them are winning about global warming, odd behavior for adults, but I digress. My "Lineage" canned berries for winter use. I do as well,, have several jars of blueberries left. (wild ones not the sprayed blueberries we have today)
    We all make choices, Choose wisely
    GG

  12. #31
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Covington County, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    1,629

    Default Re: Minus agriculltural chems. / Increase in food price question

    I have been an attorney for almost 30 years. Please do not make the mistake of interpreting the scamming of large companies with deep pockets by plaintiff attorneys by invented imaginary and unproven causations for cancer, or any number of ailments, for science.

    It is what we do.

  13. #32
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Algoma District Northern Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    5,239

    Default Re: Minus agriculltural chems. / Increase in food price question

    GG; If only choosing wisely could easily be done! I think the complexity of our human condition is beyond the grasp of any one person. I think it would take a devastating turn of events to back the clock up a couple of hundred years. Lot of pain and suffering involved to re establish a balance with the carrying capacity of our environment.

    Humans appear to have the long term vision of yeast cells. Exponential growth in a finite environment is an impossibility, yet that is the commonly proposed solution; greater gross domestic product. In basic terms that equates to use up the fossil fuels quicker. Seems like a fatal flaw in our basic premises but how do you put that right?

    I dont have any suggestions that would have a hope of acceptance. No messiah complex here.
    Frank

  14. #33
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Location
    Wakefield, Rhode Island, USA
    Posts
    285

    Default Re: Minus agriculltural chems. / Increase in food price question

    I think the idea has an awful lot of unknowns. If the change is gradual then free market / capitalism would have a chance to react to supply and demand. Example: reduce the amount of global pesticides annually by xx percent with a minimum tonnage reduction to get to zero. Mechanical bug sappers would become useful.

    If supply was predicted to drop significantly I would react by buying seed, a wind tunnel, a green house to use on my 3.5 acres - I'm lucky. I currently grow with zero pesticides. Different years get different results - fruit is near impossible to grow except blueberries and blackberries. I would also bet I would lose weight. The age of "being skinny" would become more popular. Food was very expensive in the 1950s. Oh - I would raise pigs, chickens and sheep too as well as a couple of hunting rifles. My 8-10 hives is about right for me and I could trade honey for ????.

    I guess I am saying we would react to change requirements. Given elapsed time with critical thinking, new ideas, trial and error there are likely other avenues that can be just as productive. Even the concept of "non-harmful" treatments like removal of contaminates should make prices reasonable. The availability of cheap energy it likely to be a prime driver. Food will be affordable in many ways.
    Last edited by Robert Holcombe; 02-13-2020 at 08:50 AM.

  15. #34
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Aylett, Virginia
    Posts
    4,568

    Default Re: Minus agriculltural chems. / Increase in food price question

    Frank, I love the yeast cell analogy. Consume your resources until they are depleted and the by-product of your consumption kills you.
    Thankfully, the bees are smarter than I am. They are doing well, in spite of my efforts to help them.

  16. #35
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Campbell River, BC, CA
    Posts
    1,798

    Default Re: Minus agriculltural chems. / Increase in food price question

    Quote Originally Posted by Gray Goose View Post
    As a country we some how with horses, managed to feed a lot of people, pre spraying, less obesity as well.
    Population in 1900, the age of horses, was 76 million in the USA. Today it's well north of 300 million. Agriculture today can feed that increased population at an affordable price because it's become more efficient, both in terms of labor costs and in terms of crop yields. Go back to horses and remove sprays will leave a lot of folks with no food on the plate. It will be partly because the land is less productive, and partly because a lot of land will be diverted to growing fodder for the horses.

  17. #36
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    syracuse n.y.
    Posts
    5,356

    Default Re: Minus agriculltural chems. / Increase in food price question

    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Holcombe View Post
    I would raise pigs, chickens and sheep too
    pray tell and where would you get the food to feed them? can't raise enough on 3.5 acres
    mike syracuse ny
    Whatever you subsidize you get more of. Ronald Reagan

  18. #37
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    syracuse n.y.
    Posts
    5,356

    Default Re: Minus agriculltural chems. / Increase in food price question

    Quote Originally Posted by grozzie2 View Post
    remove sprays will leave a lot of folks with no food on the plate.
    just look to africa with the current locust invasion, they are running around trying to kill them with brooms, they are now asking the world for food to make it until next year.
    mike syracuse ny
    Whatever you subsidize you get more of. Ronald Reagan

  19. #38
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Northern Lower Michigan, USA
    Posts
    895

    Default Re: Minus agriculltural chems. / Increase in food price question

    Quote Originally Posted by psm1212 View Post
    I have been an attorney for almost 30 years. Please do not make the mistake of interpreting the scamming of large companies with deep pockets by plaintiff attorneys by invented imaginary and unproven causations for cancer, or any number of ailments, for science.

    It is what we do.
    Ok lets say Monsanto "chose" to offer millions as a cheaper option, what about the EU banning Roundup? My dad taught me an important thing that I have come to see as good wisdom. "where there is smoke , there is fire"

    Understood I also have some contacts in the Law community.
    GG

  20. #39
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Gaithersburg, MD
    Posts
    405

    Default Re: Minus agriculltural chems. / Increase in food price question

    Quote Originally Posted by Gray Goose View Post
    Come on guys if you want to use the term "thinking skills" for folks who do not want round up used and "normality" for the folks that use it.
    GG
    Come on, now. The thinking statement had nothing to do w/ the hazards of round-up but referred to the fact that some seem to think it is used everywhere for the " uniform maturation of the crop" statement. This shows the poster has no idea what the chemical is used for or the mode of action. Round Up is one among a whole suite of herbicides.

    Being a part of the DoD pest management community for the last 20 yrs, I know for a fact that round up does not cause feet amputations. No disrespect to the Monsanto jury, but they have no scientific background on the chemical in question, only the emotional pleas of a prosecutor who is making the case. Would be willing to bet plenty of Juries gave verdicts of witchcraft back in the day.

    And don't get me started on the lack of scientific rigor involved in EU/WHO processes. It has been shown that the IARC cherry picked data to label glyphosate (the AI in round up) a potential carcinogen. That being said, Monsanto has also been accused of data shenanigans in attempts to renew registration in the EU.

    All this being said, I personally, am for a return to small farm economics and currently pay a lot more for my food to support local producers who utilize sustainable methods. However, this is not a viable answer unless you can get everybody to pay a lot more. And this is the crux of the problem--everybody wants high quality but at the dirt cheap cost. Farmers can't make a living that way. Most I know need a second job just to keep the farm (the mountains of PA are not amenable to competitive commodity cropping of vast acreage).

    I have my own 100 acres to retire to here in a few years and plan to produce most of what I need for myself. And for the chicken/sheep/pig feed comment, i'm planning to grow/raise/milk food for them too.

  21. #40
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Covington County, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    1,629

    Default Re: Minus agriculltural chems. / Increase in food price question

    Quote Originally Posted by Gray Goose View Post
    Ok lets say Monsanto "chose" to offer millions as a cheaper option, what about the EU banning Roundup? My dad taught me an important thing that I have come to see as good wisdom. "where there is smoke , there is fire"

    Understood I also have some contacts in the Law community.
    GG
    Governments are political bodies and the ban was most certainly a political manifestation -- not a scientific one.

    Want proof? There has been a ban on neonic use on pollinator-attracting crops in the EU since 2013. That is 7 years ago. A total ban went into place in 2018, after the EU report ADMITTED an inconclusive causal connection, but moved forward with the complete ban anyway.

    Shouldn't 7 years of data reflect vastly improved colony health in the EU if neonics were a primary cause of colony collapse? Do you not believe the politicians would be crowing from every mountain top over there if the data actually showed ANY improvement as a result of this 7 year ban?

    Nothing. We are not hearing anything. Because the "belief" was not founded in the facts.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •