Conservation agriculture

Agriculture and soil. Pollution control, soil remediation, humus and new agricultural techniques.
Gébé
Éconologue good!
Éconologue good!
posts: 361
Registration: 08/08/09, 20:02
x 65

Re: Conservation agriculture




by Gébé » 22/02/20, 05:42

The most important thing for a company is its result, not its turnover. For Bayer, it is 1,7 billion and it is surely not due to the sale of glyphosate.
For all companies of this type, what matters is to file new patents, not to exploit those which have fallen into the public domain.
An intervention with glyphosate today is 5 to 10 € / ha, it is shabby compared to other molecules where it is often 10 times more.
Lobbying for glyphosate in France is not done by Bayer, it is the farmers who know what it will cost if it disappears.
Conservation agriculture (that's the subject) is not possible without this product. It is the virtuous and most sustainable mode of production that we have, compared to organic.
1 x
User avatar
Did67
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 20362
Registration: 20/01/08, 16:34
Location: Alsace
x 8685

Re: Conservation agriculture




by Did67 » 22/02/20, 09:00

Gébé wrote:
Conservation agriculture (that's the subject) is not possible without this product.



It is possible, but it is much more complicated! So not to use it would be a brake. It's clear.

For the rest, 100% agree. In particular the fact that glyphosate is in the public domain, produced at very low prices in India, that Bayer (ex-Monsanto) I do not even know if they still produce it, in any case it is with GMO seeds - whose glyphosate resistant they make money ...
0 x
Gébé
Éconologue good!
Éconologue good!
posts: 361
Registration: 08/08/09, 20:02
x 65

Re: Conservation agriculture




by Gébé » 22/02/20, 09:30

Did67 wrote:
Gébé wrote:
Conservation agriculture (that's the subject) is not possible without this product.



It is possible, but it is much more complicated! So not to use it would be a brake. It's clear.

A distinction must also be made between fodder crops and cereal crops. In fodder culture it is not very serious if there are weeds, in any case it is intended for animal feed. In cereals intended for human consumption, I believe that without glyphosate, conservation agriculture is not possible. At least, all the farmers I know who practiced cereal production, had planned to buy plows. It will not be the case and that's good.
1 x
User avatar
Did67
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 20362
Registration: 20/01/08, 16:34
Location: Alsace
x 8685

Re: Conservation agriculture




by Did67 » 22/02/20, 09:54

You give the "answer": "who practiced cereal agriculture".

When I say that it is possible, but more complicated, it is to change the model. Yes, in particular, more complex rotations will be needed - and not the ultra-simplification that is "cereal farming", "strip-tilling" etc ... I said: it is possible but more complicated. The majority of farmers switch to conservation agriculture without changing their "model". So indeed, they are likely to want to turn around. "Chemical" cereal farming is all the same the simplest thing about agriculture! It's tempting. Too bad it is not "green" !!!
0 x
Gébé
Éconologue good!
Éconologue good!
posts: 361
Registration: 08/08/09, 20:02
x 65

Re: Conservation agriculture




by Gébé » 22/02/20, 10:05

I misspoke, I should have reread myself : Oops: It is not that he practiced but who practice it; for some for almost 15 years and on large surfaces.
I'm interested to have some data on the "glypho free" for this type of crops
Last edited by Gébé the 22 / 02 / 20, 10: 07, 1 edited once.
0 x
Moindreffor
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5830
Registration: 27/05/17, 22:20
Location: boundary between North and Aisne
x 957

Re: Conservation agriculture




by Moindreffor » 22/02/20, 10:07

Did67 wrote:You give the "answer": "who practiced cereal agriculture".

When I say that it is possible, but more complicated, it is to change the model. Yes, in particular, more complex rotations will be needed - and not the ultra-simplification that is "cereal farming", "strip-tilling" etc ... I said: it is possible but more complicated. The majority of farmers switch to conservation agriculture without changing their "model". So indeed, they are likely to want to turn around. "Chemical" cereal farming is all the same the simplest thing about agriculture! It's tempting. Too bad it is not "green" !!!

opening up a possibility of a new path, that's already it, we can clearly see that the transition to organic is difficult and that it is not to produce organic the first motivation but the attraction of increases in income, so if we can do a little not "easily" in a better sense it's always good to take

otherwise yes as soon as a product goes into the public domain, it no longer has much interest, the drug labs put the princeps at the price of the generic and produce a generic, by cons we see arriving new formulations of the old princeps with a little something extra, and therefore a nice price increase : Mrgreen:
0 x
"Those with the biggest ears are not the ones who hear the best"
(of me)
Gébé
Éconologue good!
Éconologue good!
posts: 361
Registration: 08/08/09, 20:02
x 65

Re: Conservation agriculture




by Gébé » 22/02/20, 10:15

Moindreffor wrote:sees well that the transition to organic pain and that it is not producing organic the first motivation but the attraction of increases in income,

I also know a lot of organic farmers, most of them practicing for direct economic interest.
Conversely, farmers who start conservation farming generally do so because they know that the conventional model is not sustainable, due to the use of too much diesel, 'Soil erosion, degradation of their structure, lower organic matter rates and the negative impact on earthworms.
0 x
Moindreffor
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5830
Registration: 27/05/17, 22:20
Location: boundary between North and Aisne
x 957

Re: Conservation agriculture




by Moindreffor » 22/02/20, 10:40

Gébé wrote:
Moindreffor wrote:sees well that the transition to organic pain and that it is not producing organic the first motivation but the attraction of increases in income,

I also know a lot of organic farmers, most of them practicing for direct economic interest.
Conversely, farmers who start conservation farming generally do so because they know that the conventional model is not sustainable, due to the use of too much diesel, 'Soil erosion, degradation of their structure, lower organic matter rates and the negative impact on earthworms.

here we are right on the subject, but the defenders of the bio cannot hear it, they defend a bio with a vision which dates from 70 years and which did not know how to evolve, when the neorurals left the city with a rejection of the consumer society, of chemistry, and of urbanization and therefore of culture on small farms in community, but besides that technology has progressed and their ideals have hardly changed hence the current gap , we have a new return to the land (it's cyclical) but when 70 years ago we went to the convenience store, today these are the big shopping centers
in addition to this, more open, greener farmers who have indeed found a different voice in conservation agriculture, it is much less publicized, but it is also evolving
0 x
"Those with the biggest ears are not the ones who hear the best"
(of me)
Gébé
Éconologue good!
Éconologue good!
posts: 361
Registration: 08/08/09, 20:02
x 65

Re: Conservation agriculture




by Gébé » 22/02/20, 10:45

So there, I do not agree AT ALL, it's not 70 years it's 50 : Lol: : Lol: : Lol:
0 x
Moindreffor
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5830
Registration: 27/05/17, 22:20
Location: boundary between North and Aisne
x 957

Re: Conservation agriculture




by Moindreffor » 22/02/20, 10:49

Gébé wrote:So there, I do not agree AT ALL, it's not 70 years it's 50 : Lol: : Lol: : Lol:

well, the organic specialist says 70 years ... and he keeps telling me that I don't know anything about it, so ..., but like you I would rather say 50 : Mrgreen:

and I would even tend to believe that at the beginning organic was not imposed as a refusal of chemical treatments but as the pretext for a financial impossibility to use them, like that of agricultural machinery already which they often occupied unexploited land, because of the rural exodus, but it will be said that I am a bad language

after the fact we always tend to romanticize ... : Mrgreen:
0 x
"Those with the biggest ears are not the ones who hear the best"
(of me)

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "Agriculture: problems and pollution, new techniques and solutions"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 361 guests