Destruction of biodiversity for the sake of cleanliness

[VetusLignum]

It theorizes (or blablate, to choose) a lot here, I find ..... You are a farmer, or gardener of the Sunday?

This is a subject that is important to me, so as a return I would have hoped for something other than irony.

[sicetaitsimple]

It theorizes (or blablate, to choose) a lot here, I find ..... You are a farmer, or gardener of the Sunday?

This is a subject that is important to me, so as a return I would have hoped for something other than irony.

That it is close to your heart is quite honorable, now hit those "nags" of farmers for whom controlling everything (and in particular controlling weeds and pests) is seen as a vital priority. ". Well yes, it is a vital priority for the one who lives it .... even though there may be different ways to do it.

So, farmer or gardener on Sunday?

PS: and there was no irony in my message, just real annoyance.

[VetusLignum]

It theorizes (or blablate, to choose) a lot here, I find ..... You are a farmer, or gardener of the Sunday?

This is a subject that is important to me, so as a return I would have hoped for something other than irony.

That it is close to your heart is quite honorable, now hit those "nags" of farmers for whom controlling everything (and in particular controlling weeds and pests) is seen as a vital priority. ". Well yes, it is a vital priority for the one who lives it .... even though there may be different ways to do it.

So, farmer or gardener on Sunday?

PS: and there was no irony in my message, just real annoyance.

There was no contempt for farmers in my remarks, and I am sorry you interpreted it that way.

[izentrop]

Farmers do not like wild grasses for a variety of reasons, the main ones being the fear that this vegetation causes them more weeds in their fields, the perception that it's not clean, or the idea that it increases the risk of accidents on the road. In the study, the only one who really sees biodiversity as an asset is an organic farmer.
In fact, I think that leaving vegetation out of control can create anxiety and insecurity among farmers for whom controlling everything (and in particular controlling weeds and pests) is seen as a vital priority.

It theorizes (or blablate, to choose) a lot here, I find ..... You are a farmer, or gardener of the Sunday?

Found around my home. The conservation farmer rather than the organic who does not have the right to herbicides and therefore has to intervene mechanically more often.

It must be said that a single thistle produces thousands of seeds, but it is not the most serious, it reserves in its rhizome, multiplies like quackgrass or raspberry and even more by fractionation. That's how a thistle gives a round of thistles the following year, if you have not torn it by hand https://www.defis-ruraux.fr/images/stor ... ntices.pdf

[Janic]

Found around my home. The conservation farmer rather than the organic farmer who does not have the right to herbicides and therefore has to intervene mechanically more often

. In conclusion, it must be recognized that it is thanks to glyphosate that farmers and pioneering technicians are developing efficient, effective and innovative agro-ecological systems based on living soils. And the more we develop and validate alternative solutions, the less it will become necessary.

In order to pursue the development of conservation agriculture, without taking too much risk, the strategy is to find new levers of action, even if it means restricting the use of the product without prohibiting it. Glyphosate was the mainstay of no-till, and has become the safety net of conservation agriculture.
https://agriculture-de-conservation.com ... ILIER.html

A popular expression says that " Everyone sees noon at his door The chemist sees the effectiveness of a product, not its possible damage that may appear only a very long time after it is put on the market. The farmer, who is not a chemist, sees only the practical side of the product and the additional returns that this can cause. The biologist is not involved in the yields or effectiveness of a product, but in its possible dangerousness for the living. But it is difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile the three since speaking in totally different sectors where each chapel defends his meadow.
Our old, very old, did not have this kind of problem since the food crop was not expressed in terms of yield, not more plant health where there was no chemistry to compensate for cultural errors in an ecosystem where everything harmonized.
So between chemistry or plowing some choose one, others the other, since everyone sees noon at his door.
This is why the real bio, not the official one, reconciles no plowing and non synthetic products .... and it works!

[VetusLignum]

Found around my home. The conservation farmer rather than the organic farmer who does not have the right to herbicides and therefore has to intervene mechanically more often

. In conclusion, it must be recognized that it is thanks to glyphosate that farmers and pioneering technicians are developing efficient, effective and innovative agro-ecological systems based on living soils. And the more we develop and validate alternative solutions, the less it will become necessary.

In order to pursue the development of conservation agriculture, without taking too much risk, the strategy is to find new levers of action, even if it means restricting the use of the product without prohibiting it. Glyphosate was the mainstay of no-till, and has become the safety net of conservation agriculture.
https://agriculture-de-conservation.com ... ILIER.html

A popular expression says that " Everyone sees noon at his door The chemist sees the effectiveness of a product, not its possible damage that may appear only a very long time after it is put on the market. The farmer, who is not a chemist, sees only the practical side of the product and the additional returns that this can cause. The biologist is not involved in the yields or effectiveness of a product, but in its possible dangerousness for the living. But it is difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile the three since speaking in totally different sectors where each chapel defends his meadow.
Our old, very old, did not have this kind of problem since the food crop was not expressed in terms of yield, not more plant health where there was no chemistry to compensate for cultural errors in an ecosystem where everything harmonized.
So between chemistry or plowing some choose one, others the other, since everyone sees noon at his door.
This is why the real bio, not the official one, reconciles no plowing and non synthetic products .... and it works!

On the one hand, when we talk about chemistry, we should not only see the herbicide, we must see all, including pesticides and fungicides. And conservation agriculture, after a few years, reduces or even eliminates the use of fungicides and pesticides. Even the herbicide can be reduced, once the farmer manages to destroy his cutlery through a mechanical tool, and use the cover residue to contain the weeds.

Organic farming (or even “more than organic”) without tillage, is the “ne plus ultra” of agriculture; and to reach it, the right way is to start by reducing the tillage and using the plant cover, in order to increase the fertility of the soil, then in a second step, to remove all chemicals (including fertilizer). If we want to go there by starting with the elimination of chemicals while maintaining, even amplifying, the work of the soil, we are going into the wall, because the earth is eroding and getting poorer from year to year.

On the other hand, I'm not going to explain that, but when you say that the elders did not have a problem, you're idealizing a lot.

Note that there are already several sons on conservation agriculture; here, we talk about the destruction of biodiversity.

[VetusLignum]

Found around my home. The conservation farmer rather than the organic who does not have the right to herbicides and therefore has to intervene mechanically more often.

Could you detail?

It must be said that a single thistle produces thousands of seeds, but it is not the most serious, it reserves in its rhizome, multiplies like quackgrass or raspberry and even more by fractionation. That's how a thistle gives a round of thistles the following year, if you have not torn it by hand https://www.defis-ruraux.fr/images/stor ... ntices.pdf

I think that once the thistles are there, it is necessary to mow them before they make seeds. A relatively high mowing can do the trick, and to preserve biodiversity, grinding is avoided.
This can involve 2 mows: a beginning of July, and another beginning of September.

Afterwards, on the roadsides, I think we need to think about strategies so that it does not develop.
We already know that alfalfa can suffocate it, we should see for fescue, nettles, and other plants.
it should also clearly identify the types of soil that suit it, and see if it is possible to put in place strategies generating ecological dynamics that are unfavorable to it.

For the rest, in urban or suburban areas where there are no farmers, I do not see the value of fighting the thistle, given its considerable contribution to biodiversity.

[Janic]

On the one hand, when we talk about chemistry, we should not only see the herbicide, we must see all, including pesticides and fungicides. And conservation agriculture, after a few years, reduces or even eliminates the use of fungicides and pesticides. Even the herbicide can be reduced, once the farmer manages to destroy his cutlery through a mechanical tool, and use the cover residue to contain the weeds.

Vouaouhhh! A complete answer is likely to be consistent and so I will be brief.
This point of view is not wrong, far from it (this is what the cited article says), but also sins by its particular orientation. Let me explain: if you are sick with various pathologies that seem to have nothing in common like an exema, digestive difficulties, mental exhaustion, etc ... you can (what will do rather your doctor) take each phenomenon and treat it for itself and, with 5 or 6 different pathologies, find yourself with a mountain of drugs to take, or stain to solve these phenomena one after the other with a priority given to what seems most important. Here bare soils with a cover of it, that is to say without "therapeutic" intervention since recovering this natural state existing before plowing. At the same time, indeed, less need of weed killer, for example. Clearly we must take the problem by one end, whatever it is. Plowing being one too, but removing a problem here to produce another elsewhere.

Organic farming (or even “more than organic”) without tillage, is the “ne plus ultra” of agriculture; and to reach it, the right way is to start by reducing the tillage and using the plant cover, in order to increase the fertility of the soil, then in a second step, to remove all chemicals (including fertilizer). If we want to go there by starting with the elimination of chemicals while maintaining, even amplifying, the work of the soil, we are going into the wall, because the earth is eroding and getting poorer from year to year.

Same thing ! This vision of AB is a distorted and distorted vision since the criteria taken into account between conservation agriculture and AB (the real one) is that AB is first and foremost before any other consideration an awareness that the health (the true) of the populations depends on the final product obtained by the farmer and that it passes by the stop, priority, synthetic chemical inputs of all kinds: herbicides, fungicides, pesticides, all possible cides. This requires a fundamental change in cropping patterns that can go through natural "care" of the plant without becoming harmful to the farmer, his family and future consumers.
Do you understand the nuance in the process? The ultimate goal must be the same, but the priorities are different.

On the other hand, I'm not going to explain that, but when you say that the elders did not have a problem, you're idealizing a lot.

Yes and no ! Conditions have changed since the industrialization of "modern" agriculture. Our elders were conservators of soil fertility that they had to pass on to their children from generation to generation and intensive productivity was not part of their peasant criteria.
A more "scientific" knowledge, ie using hyper-sophisticated machines, made it possible to realize that their peasant good sense, passed on from generation to generation (without "scientific" knowledge), proved to be consistent with what today we call the ecosystem.
But we start talking about problems at the beginning of the industrial era when we manage to condition these farmers with promises of more yield and therefore more income by tilling the soil with lots of products that the farmer did not know. did not understand, nothing and that seemed, actually, to do more and better than before. Except that this generated the need to face all these new diseases caused by these means in question and the finger caught in the gear, it is the whole peasant body that was crushed by the machine to make profit (for the sellers of these products, of course!)
The process initiated by the BIO has therefore extended to this conservation agriculture (sic) chemical that continues to poison and poison consumers time for a return to true bio (excluding state system)

[VetusLignum]

On the one hand, when we talk about chemistry, we should not only see the herbicide, we must see all, including pesticides and fungicides. And conservation agriculture, after a few years, reduces or even eliminates the use of fungicides and pesticides. Even the herbicide can be reduced, once the farmer manages to destroy his cutlery through a mechanical tool, and use the cover residue to contain the weeds.

Vouaouhhh! A complete answer is likely to be consistent and so I will be brief.

To respect the subject, I answer you here: farming / agriculture l-de-conservation-t15919 170.html # p361573

[Christophe]

The subject on "islands of biodiversity"