Started By
Message

Banning Modern Agriculture and High Crop Yields?

Posted on 7/25/22 at 9:22 am
Posted by djmed
Member since Aug 2020
2608 posts
Posted on 7/25/22 at 9:22 am
Banning Modern Agriculture and High Crop Yields?



In just seven decades, America’s conventional (non-organic) farmers increased per-acre corn yields by an incredible 500% – while using steadily less water, fuel, fertilizer and pesticides – feeding millions more people. Among the many reasons for this miracle is their ability to control weeds that would otherwise steal moisture and nutrients from this vital food, animal feed and fuel (ethanol) crop.

Long-lasting herbicides don’t just control weeds. They also promote no-till farming, which helps farmers save costly tractor fuel and avoid breaking up soils – thereby reducing erosion, retaining soil moisture, safeguarding soil organisms, and locking carbon dioxide in the soil (reducing risks of “dangerous manmade climate change,” some say).

In the United States, the second most widely used herbicide after glyphosate (Roundup) is atrazine, which is critical to controlling invasive and hard-to-kill weeds impervious to other herbicides. Atrazine is used on 65 million acres of corn, sorghum and sugarcane. That’s equivalent to Colorado or Oregon, on croplands scattered across a dozen Midwestern states. It’s also used on millions of acres of golf courses, lawns and highway medians nationwide.


The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has periodically reviewed atrazine science – which now comprises more than 7,000 studies over the past 60 years. It has found the herbicide is safe for people, animals and the environment.

But that hasn’t stopped the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), Pesticide Action Network (PAN) and other groups from campaigning to have atrazine banned outright or regulated into oblivion.

Extreme environmentalists also oppose fossil fuels, genetically engineered crops, and manmade fertilizers and insecticides. But they are silent about dangerous “natural” organic pesticides, including many that are lethal to bees and fish – and about cadmium and other toxic metals that can leach out of solar panels dumped in landfills – even though all these toxic chemicals could end up in our waterways.

LINK
Posted by notsince98
KC, MO
Member since Oct 2012
17998 posts
Posted on 7/25/22 at 9:28 am to
quote:

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has periodically reviewed atrazine science – which now comprises more than 7,000 studies over the past 60 years. It has found the herbicide is safe for people, animals and the environment.


Well that is completely fricking wrong. Atrazine is a proven endocrine disruptors that fricks up people and animals.
Posted by East Coast Band
Member since Nov 2010
62794 posts
Posted on 7/25/22 at 9:29 am to
It's almoat a lose-lose situation.
Ban some chemicals may help the environment.
But, if you cut back farming efficiency, it will require more land use and water use to yield the same amount of food.
Posted by notsince98
KC, MO
Member since Oct 2012
17998 posts
Posted on 7/25/22 at 9:33 am to
quote:

It's almoat a lose-lose situation.
Ban some chemicals may help the environment.
But, if you cut back farming efficiency, it will require more land use and water use to yield the same amount of food.


There are 30+years of studies showing organic farming over time produces higher yields than "commercial." There are initial reductions when a change is made but as the soil becomes re-stabilized, yields take off.
Posted by Zap Rowsdower
MissLou, La
Member since Sep 2010
13253 posts
Posted on 7/25/22 at 9:40 am to
quote:

There are 30+years of studies showing organic farming over time produces higher yields than "commercial." There are initial reductions when a change is made but as the soil becomes re-stabilized, yields take off.


I could maybe see this in small, easily controlled test plots, maybe. But across 1000+ acre farms? (Or hell just 50 plus acres for that matter.) What of weeds and pests? Kind of hard to organically control those over thousands of acres.
This post was edited on 7/25/22 at 9:50 am
Posted by East Coast Band
Member since Nov 2010
62794 posts
Posted on 7/25/22 at 9:41 am to
quote:

There are 30+years of studies showing organic farming over time produces higher yields than "commercial."

I find that hard to believe. Why would commercial farming invest in costly pesticides, etc. only to have reduced yields?
Posted by FearlessFreep
Baja Alabama
Member since Nov 2009
17296 posts
Posted on 7/25/22 at 9:46 am to
This is an example of a thread that would he useful to those of us who are ignorant of modern agricultural techniques.

I would love to read the competing theories on organic/ natural vs chemical/artificial pest control and fertilization.

Main question being: is it possible to provide the kind of yields it would take to sustain current global population using sustainable, environmentally neutral, cost-effective methods?
This post was edited on 7/25/22 at 9:49 am
Posted by loogaroo
Welsh
Member since Dec 2005
30673 posts
Posted on 7/25/22 at 9:52 am to
quote:

There are 30+years of studies showing organic farming over time produces higher yields than "commercial." There are initial reductions when a change is made but as the soil becomes re-stabilized, yields take off.


Yeah…in a greenhouse or small plots that are easy to maintain.

Organic farming is not practical on the scale we need.

We would starve without roundup.
Posted by TigerFanatic99
South Bend, Indiana
Member since Jan 2007
27601 posts
Posted on 7/25/22 at 9:56 am to
quote:

They also promote no-till farming, which helps farmers save costly tractor fuel and avoid breaking up soils ... locking carbon dioxide in the soil (reducing risks of “dangerous manmade climate change,”


I mean for frick's sake.
Posted by Outdoorreb
Member since Oct 2019
2534 posts
Posted on 7/25/22 at 9:58 am to
If I told you that you could turn $1.00 into $5.00 or you can turn ¢.50 into $3.00 what would you do?

If it was cheaper and easier to grow “conventional varieties” then they would.
Posted by whiskey over ice
Member since Sep 2020
3263 posts
Posted on 7/25/22 at 10:00 am to
If they ban my weed & feed so help me God…
Posted by Outdoorreb
Member since Oct 2019
2534 posts
Posted on 7/25/22 at 10:01 am to
quote:

quote: They also promote no-till farming, which helps farmers save costly tractor fuel and avoid breaking up soils ... locking carbon dioxide in the soil (reducing risks of “dangerous manmade climate change,” I mean for frick's sake


What don’t you understand?
Posted by Taxing Authority
Houston
Member since Feb 2010
57264 posts
Posted on 7/25/22 at 10:03 am to
quote:

There are 30+years of studies showing organic farming over time produces higher yields than "commercial." There are initial reductions when a change is made but as the soil becomes re-stabilized, yields take off.
If true, farmers will adapt it with quickness. No regulation needed.

Telling me farmers are giving up yields because they love tractor work and fert-chem cost is going the be the opposite of convincing me.
This post was edited on 7/25/22 at 10:06 am
Posted by Taxing Authority
Houston
Member since Feb 2010
57264 posts
Posted on 7/25/22 at 10:04 am to
quote:

If they ban my weed & feed so help me God…
Get ready. Roundup will soon be off the market for retail buyers.
Posted by deltaland
Member since Mar 2011
90625 posts
Posted on 7/25/22 at 10:04 am to
quote:

It's almoat a lose-lose situation. Ban some chemicals may help the environment. But, if you cut back farming efficiency, it will require more land use and water use to yield the same amount of food


Or starve people to death.
Posted by deltaland
Member since Mar 2011
90625 posts
Posted on 7/25/22 at 10:05 am to
quote:

There are 30+years of studies showing organic farming over time produces higher yields than "commercial." There are initial reductions when a change is made but as the soil becomes re-stabilized, yields take off.


yea no
Posted by deltaland
Member since Mar 2011
90625 posts
Posted on 7/25/22 at 10:08 am to
quote:

Yeah…in a greenhouse or small plots that are easy to maintain. Organic farming is not practical on the scale we need. We would starve without roundup.


Between this bullshite and the WEF saying we don’t need to own cars or phones or computers, I swear they want to send us back to the days of no electricity, no vehicles, horse and buggy with a 1 room cabin on 40 acres and a mule.

If they pass all their bullshite, that’s where we are headed. Progressive my arse, they’re regressives.
Posted by bamadontcare
Member since Jun 2013
2765 posts
Posted on 7/25/22 at 10:17 am to
quote:

Main question being: is it possible to provide the kind of yields it would take to sustain current global population using sustainable, environmentally neutral, cost-effective methods?


No. Anyone that says it is has not farmed on a large scale.
Posted by bigfatpimp
st. gabriel
Member since Sep 2005
302 posts
Posted on 7/25/22 at 10:20 am to
Wow.
Posted by notsince98
KC, MO
Member since Oct 2012
17998 posts
Posted on 7/25/22 at 10:21 am to
quote:

I could maybe see this in small, easily controlled test plots, maybe. But across 1000+ acre farms? (Or hell just 50 plus acres for that matter.) What of weeds and pests? Kind of hard to organically control those over thousands of acres.


30+years of studies over millions of acres.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 5Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram