The dangerousness of organic pesticides pointed out

Organize and arrange your garden and vegetable garden: ornamental, landscape, wild garden, materials, fruits and vegetables, vegetable garden, natural fertilizers, shelters, pools or natural swimming pool. lifetime plants and crops in your garden.
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: The dangerousness of organic pesticides pointed the finger




by Janic » 07/02/18, 14:38

which has become the preferred food for dairy cows.
corn is not the "normal" feed for cows and these products are only given to promote milk and meat yields.

Once again, the subject of fusarium wilt and mycotoxins shows the extreme complexity of the relationships between the different amplifying and moderating factors. If the TCS and a fortiori the direct sowing, often pointed out, are part of the aggravating factors, it is very likely, as in other fields, rather they are indicative of more fundamental agronomic imbalances. Everything is here!
http://agribio.pagesperso-orange.fr/myco.html
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
Benjamin69
I learn econologic
I learn econologic
posts: 32
Registration: 15/06/18, 05:04

Re: The dangerousness of organic pesticides pointed the finger




by Benjamin69 » 15/06/18, 05:29

izentrop wrote:
Organic farmers can only use certain categories of pesticides derived from natural sources and without in-depth treatment, while in conventional farming synthetic substances are allowed.

This rule stems from the belief that natural derivatives have less impact on the environment, and leave fewer residues in food. But many substances extracted from natural sources, such as copper, ammonia, arsenic or plutonium, would be extremely toxic.

However, some research suggests that copper derivatives accumulate in soils and are the most commonly found residues in organic food. https://www.euractiv.fr/section/agricul ... certainty/


In the series : When organic carrots contain more pesticides than those called "classic"


C'est evident
0 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: The dangerousness of organic pesticides pointed the finger




by Janic » 15/06/18, 08:18

izentrop wrote:
Organic farmers can only use certain categories of pesticides derived from natural sources and without in-depth treatment, while in conventional farming synthetic substances are allowed.

This rule stems from the belief that natural derivatives have less impact on the environment, and leave less residue in food. But many substances extracted from natural sources, such as copper, ammonia, arsenic or plutonium, are in fact extremely toxic
.


Many years ago, now before the official AB, there was conflict over the notions of "natural" as above and agrochemicals which argued, rightly, that even chemicals were natural since derived from the Earth.
In order to decide between organic (which means nothing there too since everything that is organic is not necessarily safe like digitalis or toxic mushrooms) and chemical intervened the concept of synthetic, that is to say say artificially reconstructed, with “natural” products too.
So rather than using the term organic, some like in Germany and Switzerland, I believe, preferred to use the organic term, which automatically eliminated copper, ammonia, arsenic, etc ... except that these organic products themselves "naturally" contain these same compounds but in very small quantities, almost homeopathic, and therefore non-toxic or persistent.
Unfortunately, the State got involved in deciding the question on the subject and therefore authorizing what should have been automatically prohibited, as the organic pioneers wanted. What Did calls more than organic!

In the series: When organic carrots contain more pesticides than those called "classic"


The European Commission and the Member States have re-authorized the use of copper sulphate, a controversial pesticide authorized in organic farming.
The formula is bad! In fact it should be turned this way: a controversial pesticide in organic farming, authorized. Because the controversy comes from AB (more than organic!) Themselves
From where:
It is especially possible to use them in organic agriculture, and particularly for the production of potatoes, grapes, tomatoes and apples.
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
User avatar
Did67
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 20362
Registration: 20/01/08, 16:34
Location: Alsace
x 8685

Re: The dangerousness of organic pesticides pointed the finger




by Did67 » 15/06/18, 08:45

Benjamin69 wrote:
However, some research suggests that copper derivatives accumulate in soils



You don't need a lot of research to "prove" the very high toxicity of copper! But it is singularly reductive to reduce the debate on the toxic effects of pesticides (natural or synthetic) to the sole question of toxicity for humans. There is the whole ecosystem that must be considered (the vegetable garden, the fields ... and their neighborhoods).

Just look on some roofs. Mine for example. House built in 1995, with copper tinsmithing (notably a chimney cladding). I took these photos a few days ago for the need of an article that I wrote to educate gardeners about the dramatically toxic side of copper for the kitchen garden first :

DSC_0150 copper headband and traces.jpg
DSC_0150 copper headband and traces.jpg (354.2 KIO) Accessed 2829 times


DSC_0152 tile net.jpg


DSC_0151 traces .jpg


Look at where the water passes, very very lightly charged with "copper ions Cu++ no lichen, no moss, no algae "tarnish" the tiles, which remain as new. This is to say if it is an effective "poison".

Almost 30 years after construction, these copper sheets show no sign of corrosion ... It is therefore very weak masses of copper which have left, after surface oxidation and "washing" by the rain. To compare with the considerable masses which are balanced year after year by the treatments (today limited to 6 kg / ha / year in "organic", but formerly "free").

Note that humans, like plants and other mammals, need a tiny bit of copper! For the vine, I found the figures: it is around a few hundred g / ha per year.

It goes without saying that copper does not and will never pass through the door of the "Potager du Laesseux", since I want to rely on soil organisms to do the job for me. No question of poisoning them. While the authorization to use copper, which expires at the end of 2018, will probably be renewed, with some cosmetic measures (reduction of the quantity to 4 or 5 kg / ha smoothed over 5 years), at the request of agriculture " bio "(in particular).
0 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: The dangerousness of organic pesticides pointed the finger




by Janic » 15/06/18, 12:54

Look at where the water passes, very very lightly charged with "copper ions Cu ++ no lichen, no moss, no algae" tarnish "the tiles, which remain as new. This is to say if it is a" poison. "effective.
a similar and even probably better result is obtained with zinc. I advised it to a neighbor who has his slate roof and for ten years (or more) no foam on his roof. There too there is no wear, visible in any case, which should not be compared with the quantities used in agriculture (it would be interesting to place elements in zinc to replace copper. I do not know if this has already been experienced.?)

at the request of "organic" agriculture (in particular).
official "organic" which is only a substitute for the initial organic!
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
User avatar
Did67
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 20362
Registration: 20/01/08, 16:34
Location: Alsace
x 8685

Re: The dangerousness of organic pesticides pointed the finger




by Did67 » 15/06/18, 12:59

Yes, but on copper, the "initial bio" is not more advanced, as far as I know! Or I'm wrong ?

Do you know of a questioning of the use of copper on the grounds that it is toxic to living organisms in the soil (including earthworms, from 250 ppm in the soil; it borders on or reaches, in the vineyard, from 500 ppm)? [apart from biodynamics, which is a rather particular "branch" of "organic" and which can be considered, in Germany / Switzerland, as being one of the "initial branches"]
0 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: The dangerousness of organic pesticides pointed the finger




by Janic » 15/06/18, 13:40

Yes, but on copper, the "initial bio" is not more advanced, as far as I know! Or I'm wrong ?
To understand a phenomenon, we must go back to its origins, which are less ecological than health, linked to the explosion of agrochemicals. It is therefore by reaction that AB will find its “modern” origin (a bit like alternative medicine is in reaction with chemical medicine too.)
It is therefore first of all an awareness, obviously, and philosophical too. However, as all these farmers come from agrochemistry (less developed than at present), who are concerned with this awareness, but at the same time anxious not to put themselves in danger in terms of their future crops which ensure their own subsistence) and therefore they are trapped between the hammer and the anvil; between not using it and losing their harvest or using it and risking the intoxication of consumers of which they are also a part.
you have to know all that, but not systematically all the gardeners who want to do more than organic for their health and avoid all legal products or not.
So DES (and not LES) new organic are turning to this type of agriculture, but not by health approach or particular philosophy, but because it is the profitable exit door (where they hope) that it pays better, compared to current agrochemicals, for small farmers.
We understand them moreover, but at the same time, the less individuals and systems are demanding, for themselves, and the more all the drifts are possible.
Are you aware of any questioning of the use of copper on the grounds that it is toxic for living organisms in the soil (including earthworms, from 250 ppm in the soil; the vineyard, 500 ppm)?

I'm not an organic farmer (and even a bad gardener, that's not my thing) But this toxicity precisely divided organic according to the philosophy that everyone shared. For example Nature et Progrès which I followed closely (literally) was opposed to the use of copper in systematic use with a few rare exceptions, mainly for land in conversion polluted by the remnants of previous crops. Everyone was groping for the right method with the Lemaire Boucher, Rusch with his fundamental work on "soil fertility (close to your method), Steiner with diodynamics, etc ... The ecology everyone is talking about now There was obviously a backdrop.
[apart from biodynamics, which is a rather particular "branch" of "organic" and which can be considered, in Germany / Switzerland, as being one of the "initial branches"]
absolutely ! It was a branch of this agriculture philosophically turned towards the priority to bring to human health as to that of soil and plants, the whole being in symbiosis. Hence the energized preparations of plants and others, in a homeopathic way, and whose effects have been verified on their crops and therefore the reduction, even disappearance of parasites and cryptogamic diseases.
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
User avatar
Did67
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 20362
Registration: 20/01/08, 16:34
Location: Alsace
x 8685

Re: The dangerousness of organic pesticides pointed the finger




by Did67 » 15/06/18, 14:24

In short, you agree that copper is not only defended by "modern commercial organic", but also by the supporters of "initial organic".

I never said or wrote anything else.

Afterwards, the argument is an argument. The proponents of synthetic products do nothing more than argue that without it is not possible. Most "bios" that without copper, this is not possible ...

The health argument (which is not nothing) is extremely simplistic. It's not just our poor little existence. We are a small part (even if we have taken the melon; even if, by divine vocation or by simple egoism, we believe ourselves above the rest) of a living system.

Small clarification: I always remember that I only address myself to amateur gardeners. I know that a commercial system (in the sense intended for sale and supposed to support the producers) has other constraints. Unfortunately, the same "bios" train amateur gardeners, who can free themselves from these constraints, and make them believe that since it is "organic", an "idealized organic" as being "all white", we can go there. I'm doing the reverse crusade. It is a poison for the ground (or here, the roof) much more than for the man [at the level of residues, it comes within the doses which the man strictly needs].
0 x
perseus
Éconologue good!
Éconologue good!
posts: 283
Registration: 06/12/16, 11:11
x 73

Re: The dangerousness of organic pesticides pointed the finger




by perseus » 15/06/18, 15:51

Hello,

Indeed, I share the fact that it is advisable not to take only the toxicity (proven or not) human to approach this kind of subject. Moreover when we look at the "mouth" of a copper jam basin before and after cooking, we say to ourselves that we are swallowing copper and much more than eating an "organic" tomato treated with pulverized of Bordeaux mixture and rinsed before cooking. : Mrgreen:

The main concern remains the question of accumulation (the dose makes the poison as almost always). At the professional level, the Bio, who are most concerned by the question of whether or not to ban Cu, are not the most active in its "defense". This is partly due to the fact that part of the general public believe that organic products do not process, and it must be recognized that the sector benefits a little from this ambiguity.
0 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: The dangerousness of organic pesticides pointed the finger




by Janic » 15/06/18, 16:17

In short, you agree that copper is not only defended by "modern commercial organic", but also by the supporters of "initial organic".
I never said or wrote anything else.
Nor should you make me say what I did not say. In initial bio: no! In organic conversion, like everything in conversion, it depends on the age of the plot, the cultivated products, their variety, etc ... and in this case, wanting to be dogmatic is worse! While teaching to do differently, step by step, is more constructive and effective. it's like getting someone overweight on a diet or physical exercise, too suddenly it goes or it breaks!
Afterwards, the argument is an argument. The proponents of synthetic products do nothing more than argue that without it is not possible. Most "bios" that without copper, this is not possible ...
I don't know if it's most or some! They alone have the answer.
The health argument (which is not nothing) is extremely simplistic. It's not just our poor little existence. We are a small part (even if we have taken the melon; even if, by divine vocation or by simple egoism, we believe ourselves above the rest) of a living system.
You're right from the gardener's point of view that if he doesn't harvest anything, he can always get his supplies from the organic market or not. Not the farmer with his back against the wall. I am anti chemicals as much as possible, but I also understand that doctors and pharmacists, without these chemicals, can put the key under the mat, so it is the same for farmers dependent on these same products which are also dangerous for the living. But this is the system we wanted!
Small clarification: I always remember that I only address myself to amateur gardeners. I know that a commercial system (in the sense intended for sale and supposed to support the producers) has other constraints. Unfortunately, the same "bios" train amateur gardeners, who can free themselves from these constraints, and make them believe that since it is "organic", an "idealized organic" as being "all white", we can go there. I'm doing the reverse crusade.
and I fully share your work of "reform"!
It is a poison for the ground (or here, the roof) much more than for humans
Okay!
[at the level of residues, this fits into the doses that humans strictly need].
Disagree, but disagree at all! The mineralization of the organism of mineral origin is confused with the vegetable. Only the latter can be assimilated and stored and its surpluses eliminated. The direct mineral contributions are not assimilable and especially not storable, they are at the level of the body like this toxic and dangerous copper, but not inactive.
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré

Back to "Garden: landscaping, plants, garden, ponds and pools"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 118 guests