The notion of poison escapes the izygoto of service and which therefore should carry out a necessary semantic recycling.
Glyphosate is an unsettled subject: using it is bad, not using it is bad, and very smart is he who knows which is worse!
To the extent that no one wants to bother doing gardening by hand, in any case too little to feed the millions of idle people stuck in the city...
the worst is not measured in the present moment, but over the long term as for RNA and its isolated spikeGlyphosate is an unsettled subject: using it is bad, not using it is bad, and very smart is he who knows which is worse!
false idea! Indeed, the AB (for decades) has been doing without these "cides" of all kinds without deep plowing.To the extent that no one wants to bother doing gardening by hand, in any case too little to feed the millions of idle people stuck in the city...
But Monsanto and Bayer think above all about the turnover of their business well before the health of farmers and the general population.
Organic farming has its virtues, but it requires more labor for yields approximately 50% to 75% of those of conventional mechanized agriculture with phytosanitary products.
one article among others: https://www.lafranceagricole.fr/agricul ... biologique
This is the usual discourse of agrochemistry which wants to make us believe in this discourse that has long been outdated.my idea is not at all wrong, it is factual. We have millions of idlers in sterile urban environments fed by a few rural “supermen”; They are supermen thanks to their 150 HP tractors and all the chemistry that drives yields up.
eh yes! Its virtue is to place the health of its “members” above all things, unlike agrochemistry whose “virtue” is to make weight, not intrinsic quality. In fact, the quality of a product is measured by the quantity of dry matter first (not bloated with fleet and fertilizer) and then that this product does not contain synthetic chemical residues.Organic farming has its virtues,
a) it actually employs more labor.but it mobilizes more labor for yields approximately 50% to 75% of those of conventional mechanized agriculture with phytosanitary products.
b) its yields by weight are not the main criterion, but it is its real nutritional value for the consumer, which will influence their health.
Remundo wrote:my idea is not at all wrong, it is factual. We have millions of idlers in sterile urban environments fed by a few rural “supermen”; They are supermen thanks to their 150 HP tractors and all the chemistry that drives yields up.
if it pulls yields upwards, I find it strange that so many farmers find themselves pulled downwards, suspended at the end of a rope
on they are too humble and can't stand the superhero life
or maybe the super tractor credit
maybe they sniff the glypho!!
I call them "supermen" in the sense that they represent about 1% of the total population and manage to feed themselves and the other 99%.
Without machines and agrochemicals, this would be impossible.
very overrated! in fact for millennia, farmers primarily fed themselves in a predominantly rural society and only sold their surpluses in nearby towns.I call them "supermen" in the sense that they represent about 1% of the total population and manage to feed themselves and the other 99%.
still so inaccurate! Machines have certainly replaced animal traction, but not for feeding their population, but to make exports by impoverishing our soils, like in the USA, and it is not the “small” farmers who benefit.Without machines and agrochemicals, this would be impossible.
The return to organic and local peasant agriculture goes against the profits of agrochemical manufacturers and their processors.
France has plenty to feed its population without all these toxic inputs for plants and consumers alike and, icing on the cake, by providing better health to humans, farmed and wild animals and flora.... without vaccines (for simpletons!)
At some point there is a return to reality... These are 2 totally opposed food production systems which each have their flaws and their strengths.
quite the epinal image spread by big agrochemistry to make people believe that without them the world would be in famine.excuse me for contradicting you, but without machines and agrochemistry, we return to the Middle Ages, where 90% of the population lived in the fields with arduous tasks, very exhausted beasts of burden, for food of sometimes mediocre quality and quantity, even famines.
certainly the work in the fields was hard, but not exhausting because their bodies were robust and muscular to cope with it and without the need for current yields just to export.
Beasts of burden were not used to do deep work as with moldboard plows, but farmers "clawed" the soil to break the surface winter crust, these animals themselves being selected for their robustness and endurance.
As for poor quality food, it is only since the industrialization of agriculture that this mediocrity has become the rule and here again we need to know what we qualify as quality.
As for famines, in our regions, they are due there as elsewhere to the weather (as currently with climate change) and to incessant wars and pillaging.
Once again it was not the countryside that suffered but the cities with concentrated populations. In my department's prefecture, most homes are close together but have a garden behind them. the only thing they could not do was large field crops such as cereals and grasses and moreover, their inhabitants raised chickens and rabbits to eventually feed themselves.
precisely, for that we must get away from all these false ideas propagated by Big agrochemistry and return to History, the real one.At some point there is a return to reality...
It is true that after the Second World War they became opposed to the use of soluble fertilizers without asking the real question of how long these means could be used before total exhaustion of the soil. However, the post-war period only lasted a few years and yet we have continued this mode of false abundance for 80 years despite the lack of food necessity.These are 2 completely opposite food production systems which each have their flaws and their strengths.
However, to make this method profitable, the hedges were cut down, thus removing the natural predators of the soil "parasitic" insects, which had to be replaced by insecticides poisoning the birds still feeding on these insects, etc. the biological toll has become catastrophic and a number of farmers, who hid their faces by wanting to believe in the miracles of technology, are gradually waking up from their illusion by realizing that for this destructive madness, they are paying the price for their health and their lives. plummeting income.
Fortunately, there remains a faint hope of a return to a mode more respectful of life and the health of living things in general, but manufacturers have been doing everything to prevent this for almost a century and are, apparently, only giving ground. to come back strong.
- Similar topics
- Last message
- 43 Replies
- 15215 views
Last message by GuyGadebois
View the latest post
A subject posted in the forum : Health and prevention. Pollution, causes and effects of environmental hazards
Who is online ?
Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 84 guests