Beesource Beekeeping Forums banner

Minus agriculltural chems. / Increase in food price question

8K views 67 replies 19 participants last post by  SuiGeneris 
#1 ·
Anyone want to speculate what percentage rate increase there would be in food prices if the commonly maligned pesticides, herbicides and fungicides had to be abandoned? I am curious about whether it would be an amount that the consumer would buy into without coercion. Would their removal be a game changer. Could our domestic producers compete on the world market? Would it require subsidization, like perhaps higher taxes on fuel such as is imposed in European countries?

Without the polarizing hype, what kind of a proposition would it really be?
 
#2 ·
well lets see, My wife stopped eating sweet corn the first time she found a corn borer on the corn. I had it down to a science that I only had to spray my apples 3 times to get pretty good looking apples, my neighbors went down to the orchard that sprayed every 7 days and bought them there even though mine were free. I could grow a very large garden organically using only bt and pyrethium, and I could grow enough for my house and maybe two others. Now with all the robots taking over the good jobs, could you get the current generation to go back on the farm? My best guess is unless this coronavirus wipes out 30-40% of the people, you couldn't raise enough food for the consumers to buy but at that point I bet they would love my apples. so in a nut shell not going to work, until they rewire the fruits and vegetables to not need chemicals.
 
#3 ·
This is what Bayer, a primary stakeholder, had to say about neonics bans and canola (rape) in the EU as of 2017:

IMPACT

In oilseed rape, the three impacts the neonic ban can be translated into economic and environmental costs. The costs for the European oilseed rape industry related to the neonicotinoid ban amount to almost € 900 million:

Almost € 350 million market revenue losses
More than € 50 million revenue losses due to lower quality
Close to € 120 million additional production costs
Well above € 360 million in upstream and downstream industries.

The ban also has significant environmental impacts, both within the EU and on a global scale:

Globally, shifting oilseed rape production outside the EU causes 80.2 million tons of CO2 emissions, 1,300 million m3 additional water consumption, and biodiversity losses equalling the slashing and burning of 333,000 hectares of Indonesian rainforest.
In the EU, additional foliar insecticide applications add Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions of estimated 0.03 million tons CO2 equivalents and 1.4 million m3 of additional water use annually
 
#4 ·
I live in a very poor rural area of a very poor county in a very poor state. Most people here do not have market choices. The elite will decide. The poor will suffer the consequences. As it has always been.
 
#5 ·
I just received my order of Hubam Clover and Mustard seed yesterday from a co. called GreenCoverSeeds. They have a lot of informative articles on their website addressing these very concerns. They seem to take an unemotional approach to ways to reduce herbicide and insecticide use. They also talk a lot about rebuilding and conserving soil through the use of cover crops. There are some experimental farms that showcase the possibilities.
I believe they have people on staff that could answer Crofter's questions.
They have Hubam in stock as well as other nectar producers with reasonable prices. I ordered 50lbs of Hubam, 50lbs of Mustard and 2lbs of Phacelia on Monday morning and received them Wednesday before lunch.

Alex
Here is a link; https://www.greencoverseed.com/
 
#7 ·
crofter, Hasn't there been a partial ban on neonics (Imidacloprid, Thiamethoxam, Clothianidin) in effect in Ontario for a couple of years now? Any data available from Ontario farmers and local Ontario production yields, costs, local supply, etc?

I have only followed from afar.
 
#68 ·
I'm super-late to this thread, but I don't think you got a reply to this question as yet. Most neonics have been phased out in Ontario for select uses, but some are still used (and they may be walking back the regs). Goal was an 80% reduction in use by 2017, and I think we hit close to that goal a year late. Regardless, the effect on bee losses has been minimal - the winter of 2018 was one of the worst on record, and while official government numbers are not out yet for 2019, according to the Ontario Beekeepers Association, 2019 was about the same as 2018. There isn't really any trend in either direction following the ban (which started phasing out neonics in 2014), with losses falling more along weather lines than anything else: http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/food/inspection/bees/2018winterloss.htm

You do need to take those numbers with a bit of a grain of salt though; 2017/2018 was a particularly cold/harsh winter, while 2018/2019 was a mild but very prolonged winter. My losses were zilch last winter (small operation though, so again, grains of salt), but I have a few friends who lost hives at a time in early spring when hives are usually beginning to grow.

B
 
#8 ·
Hi crofter,

This is burning in me for nearly as long as I farm. Interesting that nobody has relay answered the question behind your question, but I will try to dig deeper.

It took me seven years of ag school to get me highest degree of certification as a practical farmer, but in thus seven years, not one minute was spend on marketing, but all revolved around producing more per unit (acre, cow, pig etc.). As we have increased production, prices have declined or best case scenario stayed leveled, but with inflation considered into the equation still declined. The only thing that made farmers survive was to cover more units (acre, cows, pigs etc.). This all would have been impossible without the technical revolution.

Now, I still farm, but more as a research farmer then needing to make money, I export to the countries that have the $, best US$. This takes special product, special care and special attention and it is a niche market.

Now lets get to your question. Assuming the world (all nation united in doing the same) outlaw all chemical inputs by farmers to produce crops (acres, cows, pigs etc.) and I mean any and everything, herbicides,insecticides, fungicides, this-cides and that-cides, fertilizer, gmo seeds and whatever more our predecessors 200 years ago dreamed of to make starvation a thing of the past and farm production not as back-breaking as it use to be.

In fact, you would convert all agriculture to organic:thumbsup:, but then farming would not be sustainable any-longer, because we have nothing in amounts to refill the soil deficits this production scheme would remove from the soil. Their is simply not enough manure in the proper composition to replace the NPKCa and micros that are removed.

Calculations have projected that the production on the presently arable land would decline by 33-50% if farmers go to 100% organic. Quality and timely delivery would at most be luck and any overproduction would be gone and it would be putting world agricultural raw supplies of food to a level that could sustain 3-4 billion people. Here come now the social gut-kick: only the once with money, guns or power would be able to feed themselves (and farmers). Prices would skyrocket and people, particularly in large urban areas would have to wait until the food trucks come to get something to eat, perhaps drink too.

This would be the most unsocial decision mankind could make and I would not know the outcome of it.

Our lifestyle is sustained because of people we don't see that produce products cheap, lousy cheap, farmers, workers in China, India, Bangladesh, etc. but we complain that thus farmers are evil and thus nations have us by the neck and we are at their mercy.

We, they superior race on this planet have messed this all up pretty good and I don't know the way out anymore.

Finally: be careful what you ask for, because you might not be able to but the genie back in the bottle.

JoergK.
 
#9 ·
Anyone want to speculate what percentage rate increase there would be in food prices if the commonly maligned pesticides, herbicides and fungicides had to be abandoned?
You dont have to guess, pretty much every major grocery store has a large organic section these days. Just pretend the rest of the store doesn't exist, take a stroll thru the organic section and note the prices, then you will have an answer.

But as has been pointed out, using the current pricing in the organic section only applies as long as there is enough supply to feed the entire population. If there isn't enough food being produced, well then food prices will become a case of 'how much do you have to spend?'.
 
#17 ·
GregV, do you farm? Because your climatic conditions are the ideal conditions for diseases, that is why we (Alberta) get by with one fungicide application and Central Europe, the US Corn Belt etc. need two or three applications.

Just a question.

Cheers, JoergK.
 
#18 · (Edited)
I homestead for the family use only - no chems - fruits/berries/vegetables (bees, of course).

We don't care for superficial pest damage and minor loss, if any.
By growing our own food chem-free - we know to not trust "pretty looking organic produce" - chem-free produce will always have some superficial damage.
If the produce is chem-free, there will always be some blemish.
To have the perfect presentation - one needs to use chems, which is shame since generally people don't know what the honest produce looks like.

Outside of voles, Japanese beetles, and tomato rots (all are controllable by just management) - no significant issues.

On the topic, observing the spoiled rotten people around me, I am all FOR food price rising.
I don't know how else to educate people of the real costs of the modern consumerism.
 
#19 ·
The great potato famine in Ireland caused the starvation of millions and the migration of millions more. That kind of thing nowadays is kept at bay by common fungicide treatment.

Marie Antoinette was supposed to have said about the poor having no bread to eat "Then let them eat cake". That did not play out well in France. The Arab Springs rebellions in the recent past was driven in part by the witholding of subsidies for the price of bread and cooking fuel.

That kind of disruption and privation is not educational! Pretty hard on infrastructure. Once things start to devolve into chaos they snowball. Imagine how things might play out in the face of something like the present virus in China were to occur where public discipline had gone totally for a crap.

The veneer of civilization is very thin over the animal beneath. Lofty ideas are best enjoyed by those with full stomachs. The long range effect of our dependence on petro chemical food production certainly has environmental implications but there are also other factors that can upset our apple carts. Greatly increased food prices might take some getting used to. Things might get interesting until our sense of entitlement abated!
 
#20 ·
Lofty ideas are best enjoyed by those with full stomachs.
What empty stomachs?
40% of food is wasted as-is.

My bee landlord wrote this good entry on the subject (look at the picture with bananas in the compost):
https://www.oneseedfarm.com/single-post/2019/01/11/Adventures-of-Garbage-Man

Raising price 10-20% will not make people go hungry but rather cleaning up their plates better.
That is a myth and just a "red scare".

In fact, in many European countries (take Russia), food is already 30-50% more expensive compared to the US (in the context of the real compensations).
By your logic, they should be busting the stores just about now.
Not the case - obviously.
They waste less.
US sanctions did a lot of short-term damage (but yet long-term benefit called self-sufficiency).
 
#21 ·
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:rolleyes:

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.
 
#26 ·
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.
 
#27 ·
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!
 
#28 ·
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.
 
#29 ·
>" 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.
 
#30 ·
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
 
#35 ·
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.
 
#31 ·
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.
 
#38 ·
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
 
#32 ·
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.
 
#33 · (Edited)
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.
 
#41 ·
I think there is a fundamental problem with borrowing from the future to pay for unsustainable growth. Fossil fuel and fertilizer is not a renewable resource. It is not cheap energy. We have been using it like it is though. Depending on future developments to bail us out for present bad decisions does not make a credible plan going forward.

I think we can live with the very slight mortality that may be induced by petro chemical food production: actually our fecundity and longevity has a high chance of being the worst endangerment of our existence! I really dont think we are moving toward more sapience. We are getting more clever though at ways of stealing the lunch from other life forms on the planet.
 
#46 ·
I'll bite on another side of the bagged apple(!). Suppose chems were banned and suppose that made yields per unit fall and therefore prices increase. Any dissent so far? Many suburban lawns would become "ugly" with weeds. Then the price shock would set in and they would become beautiful with vegetable gardens. This would reduce transportation costs. And we would stop burning corn in our gas. And (shudder) there would be a lot less cheap (cheep?) meat (chicken haha) on the market. People gardening and working to produce their own food would increase health and decrease obesity (which I believe is mostly caused by bad diet....). So Frank, I predict an increase in quality of life and a decrease in health problems! For moderate populations in temperate climates with excess aerable land and water. I'm not sure this would be such a sunny picture in overpopulated desert regions....
 
#50 ·
Many suburban lawns would become "ugly" with weeds. Then the price shock would set in and they would become beautiful with vegetable gardens.
Utopian dream, but somewhat removed from reality. Enter in the reality part. The bulk of the population lives in the city, and the bulk of the city population lives in multi story complexes. They have no ground to work with, so no gardens there.

Now move out into the burbs, and you'll find the size of the average lot after you take out the house and the driveway, doesn't leave enough space to grow any substantial amount of vegetables. Yes, get a few token meals out of the garden, pat yourself on the back on how good it was, but, there isn't a year supply of potatoes, carrots, peas and beans in that small garden.

Now the issue of transportation, saving there is actually a false economy. While it's true a few meals worth of veggies dont get trucked in, but, sacks of fertilizer for that garden will replace those veggies on the trucks. You may get a year, maybe even two out of a converted lawn, but after that, if you want stuff to grow you are going to need to amend the soil considerably year over year. If you want economy in shipping, ship in the finished product, vegetables, not raw materials required to make that produce, fertilizer in this case. Location and climate also make a huge difference. If you live somewhere that has water metered at residential rates, that veggie garden is going to get very expensive, very fast.

We live on 2 acres, have substantially more space than average city lot for growing stuff. Use the tomato patch as an example, wife tries to grow enough tomatoes to last us 2 years. In the fall she will be canning and making tomato sauce, lots of it. And it's a good thing she goes for a 2 year supply, twice out of the last 5 years we have had fall rains arrive before the fruit is ripe so it all rotted on the vine, we got no useable harvest. Take your tiny little postage stamp garden in the burbs, factor in an occaisional crop failure, and you start to see how insignificant it really is.

We do a large veggie plot every year, we have more than enough space. But your average city lot is not going to produce enough veggies to keep a family of 4 fed for a year, not by a long shot.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top