# Minus agriculltural chems. / Increase in food price question



## wildbranch2007 (Dec 3, 2008)

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.


----------



## psm1212 (Feb 9, 2016)

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


----------



## psm1212 (Feb 9, 2016)

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.


----------



## AHudd (Mar 5, 2015)

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/


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

wildbranch2007 said:


> I only had to spray my apples 3 times to get pretty good looking apples,.


With your small scale you can do zero spraying.
I have been doing apples with zero spraying for 10 years.

Absolutely no need to spray.
Bag them.
One-time job in spring.
A bonus - the apples keep great directly in the zip-lock begs.


----------



## clyderoad (Jun 10, 2012)

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.


----------



## Biermann (May 31, 2015)

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.


----------



## grozzie2 (Jun 3, 2011)

crofter said:


> 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?'.


----------



## AR1 (Feb 5, 2017)

https://mercaris.com/posts/organic-and-non-gmo-corn-prices

Organic corn is roughly 3 times the cost of non-organic. I grow a lot of organic veggies, corn, melons etc. Just yesterday my wife complained that my melons sometimes have bugs in them.


----------



## wildbranch2007 (Dec 3, 2008)

the only way to go.

https://www.facebook.com/SecretSeedCartel/photos/a.594253537373667/1820736518058690/?type=3&theater


----------



## JClark (Apr 29, 2012)

GregV said:


> With your small scale you can do zero spraying.
> I have been doing apples with zero spraying for 10 years.
> 
> Absolutely no need to spray.
> ...


Thanks for this! When do you bag? Right after petal drop when the ovary (fruit) starts to swell? Any fungal issues?


----------



## wildbranch2007 (Dec 3, 2008)

JClark said:


> Thanks for this! When do you bag? Right after petal drop when the ovary (fruit) starts to swell? Any fungal issues?


that's the problem I found with bagging in NE/NY, much of the damage from bugs is at pink bud and during bloom. Not sure of new varieties, but I used Liberty and Freedom and didn't have to spray fungicides.


----------



## Outdoor N8 (Aug 7, 2015)

" Without the polarizing hype, what kind of a proposition would it really be? "
If you have ever sat in a grain truck at the COOP and had your load rejected.... you would understand exactly.

Biermann, I truly appreciate your length and though of response.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

JClark said:


> Thanks for this! When do you bag? Right after petal drop when the ovary (fruit) starts to swell? Any fungal issues?


My answers are here:
https://www.beesource.com/forums/sh...ay-to-keep-(have-)-bees&p=1779373#post1779373


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

wildbranch2007 said:


> that's the problem I found with bagging in NE/NY, much of the damage from bugs is at pink bud and during bloom. Not sure of new varieties, but I used Liberty and Freedom and didn't have to spray fungicides.


No fungal issues in Southern WI.
We do have hot and humid summer - does not matter.

Since you bag the grape-size fruit (while you also thin them) - you very simply bag the very best fruit and discard any damaged/suspect fruit at that time.


----------



## Biermann (May 31, 2015)

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.


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

Biermann said:


> 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.


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.


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

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!


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

crofter said:


> 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).


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

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.


----------



## AR1 (Feb 5, 2017)

crofter said:


> 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...!


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

crofter said:


> ....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).


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

GregV said:


> 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 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.


----------



## grozzie2 (Jun 3, 2011)

GregV said:


> 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.


----------



## Bdfarmer555 (Oct 7, 2015)

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.


----------



## Biermann (May 31, 2015)

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!


----------



## JClark (Apr 29, 2012)

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.


----------



## clyderoad (Jun 10, 2012)

>" 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.


----------



## Gray Goose (Sep 4, 2018)

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


----------



## psm1212 (Feb 9, 2016)

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.


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

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.


----------



## Robert Holcombe (Oct 10, 2019)

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.


----------



## JWPalmer (May 1, 2017)

Frank, I love the yeast cell analogy. Consume your resources until they are depleted and the by-product of your consumption kills you.


----------



## grozzie2 (Jun 3, 2011)

Gray Goose said:


> 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.


----------



## wildbranch2007 (Dec 3, 2008)

Robert Holcombe said:


> 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


----------



## wildbranch2007 (Dec 3, 2008)

grozzie2 said:


> 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.


----------



## Gray Goose (Sep 4, 2018)

psm1212 said:


> 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


----------



## JClark (Apr 29, 2012)

Gray Goose said:


> 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.


----------



## psm1212 (Feb 9, 2016)

Gray Goose said:


> 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.


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

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.


----------



## Gray Goose (Sep 4, 2018)

psm1212 said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


Political Manifestation, now that is an interesting idea. Makes me consider the other potential Political Manifestations, like Global xxxxx

Shouldn't 7 years of data reflect vastly improved colony health Ok I'll bite, was all comb with potential Neonics removed the year it was banned? was it removed from the soil? Was any genetic alterations unwound? What was it replaced with? Does that also affect bees? Ban one chem is not going to cause Vastly Improved any thing. Most of the Chems used in the US come from wal mart or tractor supply and are dumped on Lawns/gardens by non-pesticide trained home owners, so it is some what the combined effect of many things, some used properly some not.. 

IMO Politicians will only Crow if they can induce fear, because only fear will allow more control to be exerted over the "people" or pockets emptied by the ones blamed.

Lively conversation  I am not for or against Chems BTW, I would be, I guess,, Pro "think before you act, take responsibility for your actions".

BYW what is proof? what we are shown by the pro or against side. Is it ever tainted?? Look at the public show trial of Trump on no proof, Hey make it up if you need it,, right.
We are in a time where emotion trumps data. 
look at the internet, can we believe every thing we see on the net.

Here is another one I'll help you all with, As I can. We now have the technology (I help install it) to take a video of a "Speech" for example, and with AI Artificial Intelligence)change it , synthesize parts not there and smoothly take away parts. We will as a country soon see something on TV that looks true but is fabricated. Like a combination of altered photographs, and spliced Audio tape. We make movies of animals talking, right. in 2020 this will happen, so be careful of what you think you see is all i am saying. proof now can be created. I do not necessarily Like where we are as a society but it is what it is. Thru it we should all strive to be Civil.
Have a great V day
GG


----------



## Gray Goose (Sep 4, 2018)

JClark said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


good comment JClark
best of wishes on the future farming, it is a good way to wile away some retirement time.


----------



## clyderoad (Jun 10, 2012)

> Here is another one I'll help you all with............


Thanks but we have already been made aware of this..
"Believe none of what you hear and half of what you see"- Benjamin Franklin


----------



## Gray Goose (Sep 4, 2018)

clyderoad said:


> Thanks but we have already been made aware of this..
> "Believe none of what you hear and half of what you see"- Benjamin Franklin


Yikes, I'm late to the Party . Good ole Ben what a guy
GG


----------



## Amibusiness (Oct 3, 2016)

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....


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

I agree that much of our human activity could be redirected if properly motivated. Hunger is a good motivator. Problem is to achieve the motivation without creating other destructive behavior. That is what I fear. If people grow up into conditions requiring most of their time producing their own food, it is the norm. Trying to get them back there after experiencing the leisure that "free" fossil fuel has supplied, may be another thing.

I was inoculated by the philosophy of Masanoba Fukoaka's "One Straw Revolution" but the reality of actually living that kind of life is a lot more work than humans will willlingly put out. I think it would take a unified cultural shift that would not be easily achieved in our fragmented society. We have been strongly conditioned to acting as individuals and that to work communally and "tame the self" is somehow not admirable. Some things do not scale up well. 

I dont think we are ready for it yet! Just think of all the wasteful things we could eliminate or repurpose; golf courses, professional sports (those guys and gals sure have a lot of energy that could be redirected into agriculture). Just a figure to kick around about the energy slaves we are living off of and what it would take to wean ourselves: It takes one hundred and sixty hours of human labor to replace the energy contained in one gallon of oil 

We have become dependent, (addicted) to our present path but at the same time there are credible predictions that it is not sustainable when projected very far into the future.

I agree with the thoughts about food viability of moderate populations on temperate climates vs the viability in less hospitable areas where the majority of the population lives. Here is what is going on in Kenya at the moment.
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappen...-of-locusts-devour-crops-in-seconds-1.5462979 

Would they use the pesticides? Tough questions!


----------



## clyderoad (Jun 10, 2012)

Now consider that---

For the US:
>>>50% of US population lives on 20% of the land mass (excluding Alaska)
>>>52% of the population lives in coastal counties (excluding Alaska)
>>>319 average population density/square mile in coastal counties (excluding Alaska)
>>>61 average population density/sq mile inland counties (excluding Alaska)

Then there are cities and a aging population and a enormous disconnect from basic agriculture and hard work.

Sure looks like something will give with banning ag chems. 

Maybe going forward the front yard garden greenhouse assemblyman, pine box maker or industrial oven technician will be attractive careers.

https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2018/08/coastal-county-population-rises.html
https://www.livescience.com/18997-population-coastal-areas-infographic.html
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/population.html
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_04/


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

"Then there are cities and a aging population and a enormous disconnect from basic agriculture and hard work."

Yes, and if the food supply into the city falters for even a few days This on top of the acquired sense of entitlement would be a dicey state of affairs. In Cuba after the collapse of the USSR, city people were trucked out into the fields to hoe, however they were not generations removed from that as a reality and being a dictatorship took care of a lot of minor details.

Yes statistics support that health improved and obesity disappeared!

Hopefully we can come up with alternatives to these dark visions but they won't come with simplistic solutions.


----------



## grozzie2 (Jun 3, 2011)

Amibusiness said:


> 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.


----------



## Bdfarmer555 (Oct 7, 2015)

You just can't please a crowd that decides to dictate complex things for which they have little knowledge or experience. Besides the dwindling population that would work in an exterior environment, one of the primary factors in the switch to a "Chem based production model" in agriculture, was the concern about erosion, both wind and rain. So much concern, that to participate in any govt programs, it was mandated that much farmland had to maintain acceptable organic matter surface levels, thereby eliminating most tillage. So much of the current "chem culture" is a direct product of the environmental movement. 

We can debate the worth of the govt programs, and as a recipient of said payments, I can say that I despise them, but as any govt program, they are designed in such a way as to provide control, and resistance will make you uncompetitive and put you out of business, while your neighbors that continue to receive line up to purchase your bankrupt operation. There are a few great programs, but they are overshadowed by many that are unnecessary, or do more long term damage to the industry in an attempt to correct a short term issue. 

Without the programs, farming could/would be just as productive, as farmers would raise what was best suited to raise balanced with what was needed geographically. But the urban centers with their wonderful environmental examples(smog, concentrated excrement and garbage, acres upon acres of concrete, etc) would not be able to prevent rural America from "ruining" the global environment.


----------



## Bdfarmer555 (Oct 7, 2015)

I also like how, just like this thread, we only hear of the "ag chems". We let the people in their home gardens illegally cover everything with stuff like Sevin dust without ppe, without preharvest intervals correctly followed, etc, but because it's not applied by a large, calibrated, industrial-looking machine, it has to be safe. And correct me if I'm wrong, but I read somewhere that the largest use of the dreaded neonics was for termite treatments. How does that affect those flowers that get planted in the beds beside the house? Is there a study that shows neonic exposure to pollinators due to flower beds alongside structures? 

It's always seemed better to solve a problem by passing a law to make somebody else change, then pat yourself on the back and go enjoy your tee time feeling like you've saved the world.


----------



## Amibusiness (Oct 3, 2016)

I couldn't let that slide grozzie. Just because you don't know or won't believe does not stop people in the real world from developing innovative organic systems. Targeting developing countries where food shortage is an issue, a friend of mine grew all his food for a year (for 2 people) from 1/4 acre. Including all the green manure to keep it sustainable. (part of their plan was not to use animals as they take more resource and space per person fed.) So no trucking of anything and yes it does take water. He was one of many experimenting with small scale intensive gardening to "export" the ideas into less spoiled parts of the world. And the water would be more available because less poluted. (and I agree, ag chems are only a small part, esp with GPS aplicators; certainly homeowners and industrial chems cause a lot of problems... and for something as dumb as a lawn!) Most suburban lots have 1/4 acre available. Obviously, the northern lots would need to be bigger as the season is shorter. So if suburbia became food independent then the farms would produce food for the cities. I agree, not all parts of the world are ideal for this. The biggest part of this that is utopian is getting the people to believe that it is podsible, it works, and it is better. We have become very spoiled, esp in the US, because of cheap energy and our ability and willingness to exploit others into abject poverty. And no, I am no better: I am sitting in a warm house without a care in the world, knowing that when I need more of something the grocery store is open 24/7. And we raise meat because we like having the animals more than the vegetables....


----------



## grozzie2 (Jun 3, 2011)

Amibusiness said:


> a friend of mine grew all his food for a year (for 2 people) from 1/4 acre.


All food for a year from 1/4 acre. Are you telling me that they never once went to the store for milk, eggs, meat, a loaf of bread, sugar, salt, pepper, coffee, tea. How about a beer or bottle of wine ?

I know it's very possible to do so without ever going to a grocery store, just requires a lot of meals in restaurants....


----------



## Amibusiness (Oct 3, 2016)

Correct. There are a few details I never asked about. Such as non native spices. I don't know if he drank black tea. I know they did not drink coffee or alcohol. They did have herbs for tea and things like oregano and garlic. I have not yet heard of people growing salt in their gardens. He was not keeping bees at that time and I don't remember anything about sweeteners. I know we did not have any in our tea. I know they went to his parents house for thanksgiving, though they were vegetarians.... They may well have gone to some restaurants and they did come to potlucks, with food, and had people over to their dinners as well. They are normal people leading a normal life.
I can understand that many of us would need some significant retraining, especially in our thinking. As I said before, the utopic part is convincing all the nay-sayers it is possible.


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

It certainly would be easier to do at a community level just for variety. I followed some of the trials and tribulations of the group that founded a back to the land movement in Tennessee "The Farm". It was not easy even with approaching 1400 people. Getting them to play well together takes ongoing effort.

Yes a few people can do demonstrations but to put together the mechanism necessary to scale it up and keep it running chem free seems like quite a project. Some of my ancestors were quite good at growing potatoes and making hootch but the potato blight was a game changer.


----------



## little_john (Aug 4, 2014)

I used to be big into 'Self Sufficiency' (on a bit more than 1/4 acre !) until I woke up one morning with the sudden realisation that what I was engaged in was the ultimate in selfishness - because I wasn't interacting with the rest of the world at all (except when it suited me, and only then on my terms). But I still expected the doctor and dentist, and the ambulance service and so on, to be provided for whenever I might need them. I still expected there to be diesel on tap, and for nuts & bolts and clothing to be available, and all the other things even a self-sufficient smallholder has need of from time to time.
I now see that lifestyle as being a form of protest against the dehumanising industrialisation of so many aspects of life within a first-world country. Heavens, there are so many parts of the under-developed world where people don't 'play' at living off the land - they're forced to exist like that as there is no other choice for them, and many of whom would gladly swap their back-breaking impoverished lifestyle for that of the developed West. Perhaps we're all much luckier than we realise ?
LJ


----------



## AHudd (Mar 5, 2015)

There are about 450 million acres of arable land in the USA.
Lets say about 300 million people. 3 people per family leaves us with 100 million families living on 4.5 acres each.
Each family needs a water supply and waste disposal at a minimum. Cooperation must ensue. Here we go again, the new beginning of the same old thing. If it were somehow possible to place everyone on their own plot of land on the same day, the need for community would be apparent on the first day. It doesn't take much imagination to see how things would get confusing and messy very quickly.
There is nothing new under the sun.

Alex


----------



## Amibusiness (Oct 3, 2016)

I agree with the need for community. The human is after all a social creature. And there is more than plenty aerable land in the US to feed everyone here, and more. We just need to learn to waste less And otherwise be more efficient. And in this sense meat is wasteful, though we have enough land to support meat for a while still. (and I have not checked out the numbers for the entire world....) And plenty of environmentalist ideas are silly: I had a friend in California running a small 40 acre csa. He wanted to use biodiesel, then he wanted to produce his own and be "sustainable," then he found out it would take a bit more than 40 acres to meet his energy needs....!
Back to crofters original question, I think that if we paid the real cost for food in the grocery store (no subsidies, good wages for the workers, any environmental clean up necessary....) the cost would go up significantly. (Last I checked in NY, which was 2008, the average cost to produce 100# milk was $21. The average price per cwt? $13.) Then if ag chems were banned, the whole industrial ag system would implode. Then reeducation and decentralised farming would have to take it's place. Things like carbon sequestering would replace herbicides (and fertilizers). And the cost tri the consumer would be much the same -- in the hypothetical, already rebalance food market. I am not suggesting that everyone should go back to the land and ban ag chems. This is all theoretical, which I think was crofters question. But I can't imagine that anyone would look at our ag system and claim it is a free market where the informed consumer drives production. We are asleep with our heads up our *** and the wool pulled over our eyes.... with subsidies for everything, from land, to seed, to chems, to transportation/fuel. And with all the misleading advertising.... We do not have to pay for what we get, until we get diabetes etc and have to pay in other ways....


----------



## AHudd (Mar 5, 2015)

crofter said:


> Yes a few people can do demonstrations but to put together the mechanism necessary to scale it up and keep it running chem free seems like quite a project. Some of my ancestors were quite good at growing potatoes and making hootch but the potato blight was a game changer.


This is what GreenCoverSeeds is trying to demonstrate, that sustainable farming can be done on a large scale and be profitable as well.
I stumbled upon them searching for Hubam Clover seeds.
Although I am not a farmer, I found their approach interesting and educational.

Alex


----------



## Tim KS (May 9, 2014)

AHudd said:


> This is what GreenCoverSeeds is trying to demonstrate,


I've been there. I bought seed from them several years ago, and drove up to southcentral NE to pick it up myself. Not only are they discovering & demonstrating a new way to farm, but they (management, employees, everyone I met there) are the nicest, most helpful folks I have ever met anywhere. They were/are a joy to deal with.


----------



## JClark (Apr 29, 2012)

Ahh, the old "meat is wasteful" argument. 

The utilization of animals and meat is what has allowed--and continues to allow--our capability to produce in areas w/out the possibility for crop production--such as arid, steep and limited soil habitats. Meat animals are adept at taking a non-resource (herbaceous and scrub growth) and turning it into a food resource (meat, milk, eggs). Without the utilization of animals much less of the earth's surface would be capable of human food production. A fact not truly appreciated until you spend substantial time in these areas of the world. Note: this is not a defense of our current production systems, only a statement as to why meat has been, and will be, an integral tool in our food production systems. Not to mention the manure, which is a much better resource for increasing soil fertility and tilth than cover crops alone. Much better to feed the cover crops to animals that drop the manure as they feed, than to use cover crops alone.

I currently have a suburban backyard (the farm property is ~2hrs away in PA). We produce all our own tomatoes and eggs and that's about it. Get a little of everything else during the summer season (to include grapes, blueberries and a few apples). Often don't have the time to can all the tomatoes so we just throw them in the chest freezers and take out when needed--warm, remove skin, and cook. We have one chest freezer just for tomatoes. We still buy eggs in the winter because we don't use artificial light. They would probably support the wife and I but not w/ the physically active teenage kids.

The real problem w/ this ideal of gardens replacing lawns in Suburbia is that people are inherently lazy if they can be. Most can't even cut their own lawns anymore.


----------



## grozzie2 (Jun 3, 2011)

JClark said:


> We produce all our own tomatoes and eggs and that's about it.


Do you buy feed for the chickens at the feed store ?


----------



## Amibusiness (Oct 3, 2016)

I agree that animals can be beneficial. When buffalo roamed the praries they fed countless humans and the praries were healthier for it. Goats "grazing" on the cliffs prduces meat where nothing else could sustain a human. That's not going to work for a large population.... I believe the amount of resource that it takes to raise beef could feed 7x the number of vegetarians. (You will no doubt recognize that most American grown beef comes from areas that could be tilled and planted if there were not farms in the way; and all their fields comes from land that could be used for human consumption. (Not to mention ethanol!)) I wonder if someone has more current numbers on that?
Now, I am not a vegetarian and don't plan to be. We found that by managing our pastures intensively we could double the stocking rate each year until we reached our limit; I think the pastures could still produce more, but they have clearly become more fertile. And, though I do agree that animal fertilizer is the best, the green manures are more efficient, acre for acre. Especially in terms of food energy the farm can produce. What made our pastures better was a little manure from the sheep and a lot of root action from the grass being grazed. I don't have % but there is not a lot of poop from those animals. We only run them on a couple acres of what could be good row crop land. Enough land to be an organic farm requiring 1 full time laborer and feeding 40-50 people (if we could bring in manure!) or 16 people if we had to produce our own fertility. We get about 600# of meat and we bring in all the chicken feed (for 400# meat) and all the hay (for 200# meat). So enough meat to feed about 1 person (carnivore) for the year with a lot of outside input in the space that could feed 16 with little outside input if we managed it intensively and replaced the barn with a green house....


----------



## wildbranch2007 (Dec 3, 2008)

all for the want of some good chemicals and a few planes to spray

https://news.yahoo.com/locusts-could-next-plague-hits-103425865.html


----------



## Amibusiness (Oct 3, 2016)

Yep. Nuc em! It worked in ww2! My goodness, when things are in balance pests are not an economic issue any more....


----------



## JClark (Apr 29, 2012)

National emergencies are being declared in Somalia and Kenya. USAF Aerial Spray Unit is on stand by should DoS request DoD support. Last unit in the Air Force. Army and Navy still have some aerial spray equipment on the books but no longer have the capability. Collected sand flies in some of those areas in Kenya (and found previously unknown visceral leishmaniasis vectors). Big agricultural area. 

First worked with the USAF folks during hurricane Katrina for filth fly control. Great folks really good at what they do. Team lead is now also president of the American Mosquito Control Association.

I, personally, am organic methods preferred, but there is a time and place for everything. The real issue is proper use, application, and timing.


----------



## SuiGeneris (Feb 13, 2018)

clyderoad said:


> 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.


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


----------

