Jordan Wilkerson is a third year graduate student in the Department of Chemistry at Harvard University. Note that a previous version of this article stated that the estimate of million pounds of increased pesticide use came directly from the USDA. This has been corrected. Glyphosate has reduced the environmental impact of crop production and GM crops are now the most sustainable form of crop production in existence.
The reference is: Smyth, S. Gusta, K. Belcher, P. Phillips and D. Weed Technology 3: Organic crops require tillage to control weeds, which is incredibly environmentally damaging. The high toxicity levels of chemicals that the organic industry are allowed to use in their crop production are multiple times higher than glyphosate which has an environmental impact quotient of Nice article Jordan.
I agree that more sophisticated levels of weed control management are required. What are these strategies? Different chemicals and crop rotation? The problems run so much deeper than switching chemicals and crops in any given year. Would it not just be easier to create and grow more stacked GE crop varieties that you can alternate sprays on?
While you present a fine case with some fine citations although some of them are not the best. Also, the vast majority of farmers still disc or chisel or both their land every year.
Farming no or low till is more common but requires specialized equipment. We can talk all we want about the environment, but round up for most farmers is convenient and easy to use and that is why they use it. They do not use it because it is better for the environment or to till their land less.
Actually, many farmers do use glyphosate to reduce tillage. They use glyphosate to control weeds, not just for the enjoyment. Are you concerned about the tillage merry go round of organic farming. There are multiple trips per year destroying the soil structure. JC , no you prefer organic corn with worse pesticides then glyphosate, neither will effect you though since its only trace amounts.
An acre is approx the size of a football field including endzones. If that is considered "bathed", I'd hate to consider your hygene habits. I actually farm 36, acres in southwest Kansas 15, acres in eastern Colorado and 12, acres in Washington state I actually quit using round up ready grains to the fact that I have noticed I have a hard time getting a good kill with round up like I used to.
Round up is an absolutely safe fantastic product for no till Applications or for borders and or corners of circles pivot points field roads etc. We had a field covered in grasshoppers one time Ariel Applied Gramoxone I went out there a week later and there was dead grasshoppers everywhere. When we handle this product on the farm we use Tyvek suits facemasks and respirators as well as rubber gloves look up the ingredients do your research!
But due to the fact that the federal government and the liberal activists have pushed most Farms across the country to go no till versus old conventional farming Because of the dust pollution now you guys have to deal with the chemical pollution we put out in the air dust settles and hits the ground. Anyways hope this helps! We can take the same data, and arrive at opposite conclusions, not because of the data itself, but what that data is indicating. For example, if less tillage was the only indicator of sustainability, then GM is the way to go.
The same is true for less herbicide use, and so on. GM crops do not have increased rates of cancer and there is no reduction in nutrient content.
Some particular GM crops specifically have higher nutrient content. It ends up in our food. If you eat food, you now are forced to consume some amount of this cancerous roundup. Even applied in the best practice and even when food is washed thoroughly before processing, inevitably the herbicide will end up being consumed to a certain degree.
David, Its not proven even to even be a probable carcinogen and your exposure is very small from food. You seem extremely worried about this so i ask you, do you live in a city and use sealed gas mask when you go outside? Do you fry food in a pan or eat chips? The science for this being carcinogenic is much stronger than glyphosphate although actual risk is not established.
You neglect the environmental damage to soil critters, bacteria and fungal mycorrhiza by glyphosate. Interruption of the mutual relationships within soil communities is a recipe for disaster:. I thought the point of organic crops and promotion of them is that the farmers are not allowed to use chemicals? Organic crops all a con?
The point of organic crops is to scare consumers into paying more for something with no additional value. Your point has noting to do with conventional vs organic. And, people can give awards to their buddies for anything.
As I state in my article, the HR crops themselves do not affect the environment any differently than conventional crops. Therefore, the assessment in the paper you cite is based on weed management practices.
It is true that herbicides such as glyphosate are more benign than older herbicides, which I do state in the article. Therefore, this weed management practice is better for the environment as you stated in your comment and as I stated in the article, actually. However, spraying these new herbicides alone strongly pressures the development of herbicide-resistant weeds. When these weeds dominate the cropland, the weed management practice described in the paper just spraying the new herbicides is no longer tenable, and the reduced environmental impact is largely lost because farmers must revert to tilling and intensifying their herbicide use, which includes the application of outdated herbicides.
To be clear, my ultimate point is not that we should eschew HR crops. Your view of weed control is over simplistic. Organic production relies heavily on tillage which increases erosion potential, requires greater amounts of fuel, causes compactions,. Thank you. That would make more sense. GM crops are typically patented.
Sustainability implies independence. And nobody has mentioned anything about the dangers of GMO products consumed by other organisms including humans.
In the caption for Figure 1, I believe you have a mistake. Roundup is an herbicide, not an insecticide. By now the health impact of using glyphosate pre-harvest on nearly all the food staples of the USA is clearly visible.
Please Youtube the lectures of Dr Stephanie Seneff. Stephanie Seneff has a PhD in computer science, not medicine, pathology, physiology, or any other biological science. She is unqualified fear-monger. She switched her focus and educated herself in their, just like we all could if we decided to. William Albrecht started off as a medical student but switched his major to AG when he decided he could do more to help more people in the world by promoting healthier farming practices and producing more nutritious food.
Look him up. He has the answer to the NPK farming frailties and super insecticides. Soil minerals are pretty cheap but provide the basics that help plants resist insects. He promoted the use of cation exchange capacity and base saturation for making fertilizer recommendation.
You should look him up and actually try to understand what he wrote. You should consider a very basic soil science class if you are going to chat about this topic.
Larry, what is your educational background focused in? Without a background in computer science, anything you post really has no validity. You make no sense. This is an error that anyone with even an extremely basics stats class would be aware of. I have a PhD in agronomy which is the topic of this article.
The United States Department of Agriculture USDA indicates that the half-life of glyphosate, the main chemical in Roundup weed killer, in soil ranges from 3 to days. This range means that it remains possible for Roundup to stay active in the soil for possibly over a year. However, other studies come to different conclusions.
How long does weed killer last? The consensus determined that Roundup stays active in the soil for at least six months. The length of time depends on the amount applied in a specific area and the environmental conditions to which Roundup remains exposed over time.
Roundup contains several chemicals, including glyphosate, which kill weeds when sprayed directly on the leaves. The leaves allow the weed or plant to absorb the herbicide, eventually killing it as the poison moves into the sap of the weed, moving it throughout the entire plant. Most farmers, gardeners, and those in the agricultural community know that Roundup does not kill weeds by pouring it into the soil, but rather from the direct application of the product to the weed itself.
Roundup will spill into the soil as those applying it spray the solution on and around weeds. The exact time that it takes for Roundup to break down in the soil remains a strong point of debate in the scientific community. Pure glyphosate is low in toxicity, but products usually contain other ingredients that help the glyphosate get into the plants.
The other ingredients in the product can make the product more toxic. Products containing glyphosate may cause eye or skin irritation. People who breathed in spray mist from products containing glyphosate felt irritation in their nose and throat. Swallowing products with glyphosate can cause increased saliva, burns in the mouth and throat, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. Fatalities have been reported in cases of intentional ingestion.
Pets may be at risk if they touch or eat plants that are still wet with spray from products containing glyphosate. Animals exposed to products with glyphosate may drool, vomit, have diarrhea, lose their appetite, or seem sleepy.
In humans, glyphosate does not easily pass through the skin. Glyphosate that is absorbed or ingested will pass through the body relatively quickly.
The vast majority of glyphosate leaves the body in urine and feces without being changed into another chemical. These agencies looked at cancer rates in humans and studies where laboratory animals were fed high doses of glyphosate.
Based on these studies, they determined that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic. However, a committee of scientists working for the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the WHO evaluated fewer studies and reported that glyphosate is probably carcinogenic. Long-term feeding studies in animals were assessed by the U. Based on these evaluations, they found there is no evidence glyphosate is toxic to the nervous or immune systems.
They also found it is not a developmental or reproductive toxin. Mow high for weed and grub control. Grub damage to lawns is being reported now in drought-stricken parts of Michigan.
Hairy bittercress: A weed to watch out for. Dead patches in lawns or golf course roughs may be from grubs. Turfgrass pests: Sod webworms, bluegrass billbugs and grubs on the horizon.
0コメント