neonics - science collapse disorder

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

Thats just it ITD, we live in an imperfect world (and that applies to many aspects).

Solutions, workable, practical solutions are needed and this anyways isn't something (imo) we can just leap off the edge on. See the GEA as an example. Few I think will argue the problems with coal/hydro/nuke…(Neonics its looking like). Doesn't mean we should rush into wind and create more/bigger problems.

Just for example, at its very simplest, while all this talk of helping farmers is great.

Anyone looked around at the economic/financial realities of today?
Im sure Ms Wynne won't mind taxing everyone another 1% or 2% so that a) she doesn't have find savings elsewhere to pay peter or B) promote her versions of idealism and provide funding, or subsidies or protections against losses…..

On a small scale I don't think, can't envision why farmers might not be able to( your definition of large scale is not mine :) ), but we aren't talking small scales here in NA, especially on "these" crops.

If we want to get sarcastic (aka realize this is tongue in cheek sarcasm). Next thing we know, we run into problems with corn crops and shortage, or the price goes through the roof as a result, and the green idealist start griping about the lack of corn for their bio fuel cars and we need to jump off the deep end for something else.

---

I thought you'd already jumped off the deep end Jben:)

I did.
But I looked first ;) Can you say the same of Ms Wynne and Liberals or the people of Toronto who vote for them?

Not exactly farmer friendly are they?
http://tvo.org/video/211702/big-wind

Add soaring Hydro, the land being raped (and aren't you normally a huge proponent of farmers?) and now this?

Don't get me wrong, I do think Neonics need to be dealt with. Like you, Im not really getting into that debate. I try to see the whole picture and give thought to ripple effects, and more. Something this govt and frankly the Green Champions and urban residents rarely do.

So does anyone have "workable, practical solutions" in lieu of neonics? Given come July 1st and 2017….

/dons tinfoil hat and removes sarcasm filter
one wonders if they are intentionally driving rural ontario to their knees so they sell those farms to make more room for eyes sores and more $ in their pockets.

Now be honest, have you set aside an hour of your time, looked around Rural Ont?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by intothedeep

Agreed, I'm sure it's not easy, anyone can play armchair farmer... But I sure bet Monsanto and Bayer and so forth don't want people finding out those techniques.

---

That is why Big Chemical Co.'s fund research which is all "PROFIT Based" it is all about the MIGHTY DOLLAR .
You do not /will not see any research results that are negative published or announced to the user/public. All the results that are published by those large companies are always very positive so they can sell more chemicals , [The Almighty Dollar again].

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentin...o-rethink-ban/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trappermatt

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentin...o-rethink-ban/

---

A couple of key paragraphs from trappermatt's link:

The US Agriculture Department and the EPA convened a working group two years ago to address that very question. Their report, issued last May, put activists back on their heels. It concluded that neonics, while a contributor, were way down the list of possible causes. They cited as the primary drivers colony management, viruses, bacteria, poor nutrition, genetics and habitat loss. By far the biggest culprit—the report called it “the single most detrimental pest of honeybees”—was identified as the parasitic mite varroa destructor—the likely cause of the 2004 die-off.

The federal report echoed findings published last year by the United Kingdom’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), which evaluated the cause of bee deaths as the European Union was debating whether to institute a ban. DEFRA noted that the bees used in many of these lab experiments were exposed to doses hundreds of times higher than what they encounter in the wild, and they were often administered by injections.

Yep, funny that Werner. And oddly, those that are in the scientific community (more than just these...can anyone say Global Warming??) and even here on the forum that are suggesting.

"Slow down, lets not jump off the deep end, with knee jerk reactions...." or..."Lets weigh the entire picture and not just in a black and white vacuum (Bees vs Neonics) be it ripple effects or other dynamics (Hydro, wind farms and those issues for Ontario farmers) or lack of alternatives, or....

Don't get measured and thoughtful responses but rather the same old same old. Not unlike anyone who is "against" the sex ed changes, is a homophobe. Nope instead its
Just corporate greed, or "your impossible" or more rhetoric and party lines.

Rather than possible solutions and balanced. Im sure Ms Wynne, Dr Bug and more won't say boo about those studies and findings.

While everyone out there seems to recognize the "conflict of interest" position that big business is in (big oil in the global warming debate, Monsanto and others in the neonics debate), few seem to realize that those arguing the other side of these arguments are also in a similar "conflict of interest" position. David Suzuki made millions off global warming, as have other researchers. Sierra club is pulling in big bucks off the neonics debate, as are many researchers. Find a (perceived) problem and become the expert, the publicize the heck out of it and you will be a rich man.

Likely the best example of this is the guy - I don't even recall his name - a non technical sales guy, that started the Y2K scare and became the Y2K planning expert commanding fees of 5K+ per 1/2 day to speak to corporate execs about how to plan for y2k preparedness. One of the biggest, costliest scams of the 20th century.

Or if you want a current example of people getting very rich. Those pushing Wind, (and their experts) and those building the turbines, because they sold an agenda and science masquerading as a solution to a problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by intothedeep

Without weighing into the seed coating pesticide debate, I simply don't know the answer there, I just posted a link on page three of this thread of a farmer who is farming on an extremely large scale, 2000 acres in production, multiple cash crops and grasses and vegetables, and free range beef, pork, chicken. With no chemical fertilizer, pesticide, fungicide and only a small amount of roundup... Took him 5 years to get off the pesticide, 15 the fertilizer, but he's doing it! Of course billion dollar agri chemical makers want you spraying and spreading as much as possible, it's simple business.

He's beggining to get well known... If you spend the 1 hour and 15 minutes watching it, you'll get it... He is not an anti and makes more money per acre than conventional farmers. Again I'm sure it's not that easy to do, but it is being done... I realize talk is cheap, but here it is;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yPjoh9YJMk

---

Mr brown seems like a very interesting fellow and looks like he has built a very successful enterprise , I'm not going to type for hours on this ITD , you do realize many of the same practices are used here in our province currently , no -till , cover crops , sequestered grazing for the guys still pasture raiseing beef and so on , many of the pics he shows with lots of worms and healthy organic matter I could go for a drive with a shovel and reproduce in less then an hour , fact is I can step right off my property line into the field behind and do it for that matter . So many try to take a very complex industry and point at simple blanket solutions so many things need to be looked at , it says he doesn't have any tile drainage , here without drainage thousands of acres would not be in production , another would be the costs of land , land where he is at is top end $3500 an acre , land here 2km from my house just sold at $22,500 an acre , like it or not the quest for cheap food has made the agriculture industry what it is , he talks about 20 buck a pound steak or 5 dollar a pound broiler chickens , plain and simple most people I know can't afford food costs like those and I'd be willing to bet not many on this site eat 20 dollar a pound steak very regular.