Pesticides are Reducing Crop Yields by ONE-THIRD

[nosmokes]

original-organiccenter

Scientists Estimate That Pesticides are Reducing Crop Yields by ONE-THIRD Through Impaired Nitrogen Fixation

Over the last forty years nitrogen fertilizer use has increased seven-fold and nearly every acre of intensively farmed, conventional cropland is treated with pesticides. A team of scientists explored the impact of pesticides and other environmental toxicants on symbiotic nitrogen fixation (SNF) brought about by Rhizobium bacteria (Fox et al., 2007). Their findings were published June 12, 2007 in the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
~snip~
.
.
.



complete article (just a bit more) here

[Trillo]

1. So what else is new?

Industry makes (synthetic) fertilizer, industry makes pesticides. The more that is sold, the better.

Better for who?

[kestrel91316]

2. There goes that pesky Law of Unintended Consequences again......

That said, my soil microbiology background (I worked in a soil micro lab on campus three years as an undergrad) tells me that we DO NOT want to go killing off soil microbes. If we do so, we sign our own death warrants.

[piedmont]

3. I wonder how long the effect lasts after last pesticide application.

If N-fixation is depressed for years afterward, then we're in trouble when we have to make the jump to organic agriculture.

[robcon]

4. Gee, to read this, one would think that yields have decreased over the last 40 years.

When just the opposite has happened.

Farmers are among the smartest businessmen: if it doesn't work, they won't use it.

[nosmokes]

5. but the yield of what? vegetables that are losing nutrients? that have no

flavor? food that poisons us because it's all been tinkered with by Monsanto or some other biotech firm so they can make a bundle o money? And if yield is up which in *some cases it may be, profit for the farmer is down, I'll guarantee you that. These days yield and profit have almost no direct correlation. And while the yield may be up, it comes at the price of destroying the farmer's most precious asset, his soil, by polluting it with petrochemical additives that deny it the ability to be a true nourishing mother.

[fed-up]

12. are you talking feed corn, food corn or ethanol corn??? nt

[Buzz Clik]

6. Is this article stating that crops yields have declined by one-third because of pesticide use?

Is that what's truly being said? If so, that's horrible!

[robcon]

7. It would be horrible. But it's untrue.

"...When NAAJ founded 50 years ago, the average corn yield in the United States was 40.7 bushels per acre. Last year, even after a severe drought in many states, hybrid corn helped U.S. farmers harvest an average of 130 bushels an acre, Looker said.

"Hybridization accounts for about half of that huge increase in yields as well as corn's improved ability to withstand drought," he said.

http://agnews.tamu.edu/dailynews/stories/AGPR/Apr0303a.htm

IMO, you can't get farmers to pay for pesticides unless they work - that is, make more money for them through higher yields.

[Buzz Clik]

10. I know, I know. I was hoping to elicit an honest reponse from the author of this thread.

Thanks for your follow-up on the yields. I also followed up with a summary of the article.

[bvar22]

32. You CAN get them to pay for higher yields THIS year

without mentioning the long term damage to the soil and ecosystem.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

33. Um, according the the article in the OP...

the "damage" is short term and disappears after a few weeks.

:shrug:

[nosmokes]

13. No, in point of fact the article does not state that yields have declined.

It does however state and is backed up by by articles I've posted in the last couple/three days citing other studies that the yields would have been higher if organic cultivation methods had been used instead of synthetic inputs. I do hope that's an honest enough response for you Buzz.

[Buzz Clik]

16. Nope, your interpretation is dead wrong. It's the impression given in the OP, but wrong.

[robcon]

8. For a summary of the enormous increases in yields over the last 40 years

See the following...

http://historylink101.com/lessons/farm-city/yeild.htm

[Buzz Clik]

9. Let's make this REAL CLEAR about the article quoted in the OP:

1. The experiments described were NOT conducted in farmers' fields or in a greenhouse, they were conducted in a lab in jars. The picture below comes from their article:
   
   
   It's not a horrid way to begin testing a theory, but it is so far from reality, that extrapolation is impossible.
   
   
2. The 1/3 drop in productivity was measured on the plants pictured.
   
   
3. The impact of the pesticides was determined by soaking the seeds with pentachlorphenol, DDT, and a plasticizer -- chemicals that are NOT used on crops in the US.

So, before we go all hysterical, let's see how these experiments develop when they are taken to the next level; that is, something that resembles reality.

[robcon]

11. There's a lot of fraudulent "science" out there.

There's a market for the wackiest theories - among those who WANT the results these wackos achieve.

Thanks for checking on the research. Science will win in the end - I hope.

[nosmokes]

14. If you wannna be*REAL CLEAR* about it then why doncha post a link

as well because when I go searching for the article I don't find any photos.you know. before we get all, or even part hysterical? I mean because there was that little bit about misreading the original article in the first place...

[Buzz Clik]

15. I pulled it out of our online library -- subscription only. A link would be worthless.

You didn't seem too excited about getting a link from the article in your original post when the story being told was what you wanted to hear. Why do you suppose that is?

Later today, however -- and just for you -- I'll drop the pdf file in an on-line host.

[Buzz Clik]

17. Here's your link

http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/7/13/1262234/10282.pdf

Ok, now what? The retraction? The apology?

You'll understand if I don't hold my breath...

[nosmokes]

19. Thanks for the link. That wasn't so hard now, was it?

Buzz,I do apologize for saying I didn't see any picture when I searched for the study. It was there, but I was on my laptop and it's a teent pic and way at the bottom of the page.That's no excuse, that's just what happened. I apologize.


Robcon, you can go fuck yourself. I posted an article and the link back back to the original website where I got it. As for misreading the article, It's in plain English.And these are the authors of the study. Nice *wacky little group*, eh? get bent.


Jennifer E. Fox*,{dagger}, Jay Gulledge{ddagger}, Erika Engelhaupt§, Matthew E. Burow{dagger},¶, and John A. McLachlan{dagger},||

*Center for Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Oregon, 335 Pacific Hall, Eugene, OR 97403; {dagger}Center for Bioenvironmental Research, Environmental Endocrinology Laboratory, Tulane University, 1430 Tulane Avenue, New Orleans, LA 70112-2699; {ddagger}Department of Biology, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY 40292; §University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309; and ¶Department of Medicine and Surgery, Hematology and Medical Oncology Section, Tulane University Medical School, 1430 Tulane Avenue, New Orleans, LA 70112-2699

[robcon]

22. So, nosmokes, are you standing behind your headline claim?

Do you believe that farm yields are off by one-third due to pesticides?
or
Do you believe yields are up substantially all over the world because of pesticides?

Which is it, fraudman... er nosmokes?

[robcon]

18. The intentional misreading was yours, nosmokes

Here's your headline: Pesticides are Reducing Crop Yields by ONE-THIRD

What's your evidence? A wacky group called, apparently, "original-organiccenter" comes up with some counter-factual conclusions about yields on farms over the country (world?) based on a few jars of soil.

You're a complete fraud, nosmokes.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

20. Wait a minute...

did they expose the plants in the jars to pests?

[Buzz Clik]

24. I think I know where you're going with your question, but it's more complicated than that.

The entire point of the article was to look at the impact of pesticides on the symbiotic nitrogen fixing bacteria (SNF) -- more specifically, the way that the SNF and the plant roots of legumes interact. Only the seeds were exposed to the chemicals, and the plants were grown in the jars. Although there was a consistent suppression in yield, it was speculated to be the result of diminished ability of the SNF to fix nitrogen and deliver it to the plant, although that has not been proven yet.

So, even if the plants had been exposed to pests, the pesticides were absent and could not have had an impact.

The experiment suggests that potentially diminished nitrogen fixation by the SMF will result in lower yields and/or the need to add fertilizer nitrogen to compensate. The carryover effect will also be diminished and has the possibility of increased production costs. So, the title of the article linked in the OP is not as illustrative as it could be, and is potentially misleading. The title should be, "Pesticides Reduce the Efficacy of Nitrogen Fixation and Could Diminish Crop Profits". One really can't go any farther than that at this time.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

27. Wow, that is really dishonest.

Par for the course though.

[Buzz Clik]

28. Really. Care to provide specifics?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

30. You misunderstand.

I'm saying argument that pesticides are bad for crops because of this is really dishonest.

[Buzz Clik]

31. Oh. That's different. Nevermind.

[truedelphi]

35. Thank you for that information.

As A pesticide hater, I like to hear a discussion of the validity of the experiments.

If for no other reason than that it is comforting to know people are still using critical thinking skills.

My favorite all time "experiment" was the one conducted by Noetic Sciences about prayer and how prayer affected people. The people that were prayed for by groups of people did well while the people who were not prayed for did not.

But the whole experiment depends on the researcher admitting to themselves (or at least considering) that there is a spiritual world out there.

So if there is a spiritual world - how could you know who is praying for whom? A lonely old 100 year old person ill in the hospital might have a plethora of dead relatives praying for them. How can we even attempt an experiment like that?

[AngryAmish]

21. After reading the article I think your post is very misleading

You should take it down or disown it.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

23. Wooohooooo!!!!! I Love These Wacky Non-Scientific Studies Of Yours. Always Good For Such A Laugh!

They're always so entertaining to read, in how they pretend to actually be legitimate and stuff.

[Buzz Clik]

25. Actually, nosmokes was mislead by the article from The Organic Center.

In the summary he linked, they were very insistent and unambiguous in their claims. Unfortunately, their claims were not supported at all by the article in the PNAS (the one I linked).

The science in the study in PNAS is okay -- not fraudalent -- but it worth noting that none of the authors have any real direct link to agriculture. So, they did a nice little experiment in their lab, but it remains to be seen if these results would be transferable to the field.

[NashVegas]

37. "Works In the Lab, But ..."

Flawed, yes, but not fraud. But then someone has to be the anti-Hudson Institute, I suppose.

[NashVegas]

26. About The Organic Center

FYI, TOC is, for the most part, the equivalent of a corporate advocacy group for organic produce, and most of it's board members are affiliated with corps (some of which (Aurora, a subdivision of Dean) are involved in factory farming) and consultants.

Anthony Zolezzi, Board Chair, Zolezzi Consulting Inc.
Katherine DiMatteo, Board Secretary, DiMatteo Consulting
Michelle P. Goolsby, Governance Committee Chair, General Counsel and Corp. Secretary, Dean Foods, Inc.
Mark Retzloff, Board Treasurer, Aurora Organic Dairy
Theresa Marquez, Communications and Education Committee Chair, Organic Valley/CROPP Coop Inc.
Alan Greene , M.D., Chair, STAC, Pediatrician, www.drgreene.com
Sheryl Lamb, Organic Advocate
Kathleen Merrigan, Ph.D., Tufts University
David Pimentel, Ph.D., Cornell University
Walter Robb, Co-President, and COO Whole Foods Market Inc.
Andrew Weil, M.D., Weil Lifestyle, LLC and University of Arizona
James D. White, Senior Vice President, Consumer Brands, Safeway, Inc.
Caren Wilcox, Executive Director, Organic Trade Association


There is something seriously wrong about the fact that the Organic Consumers Association, an activist group dedicated to educating consumers about what's going on in the field and in legislation, is listed nowhere on that website


ETA: I don't have too much to say about the article itself.

[mzmolly]

29. Gee, I wonder if we'll stop using them now?

:(

[nosmokes]

34. For the record, I stand behind the article and I take great umbrage at

being called a fraud. But to borrow a phrase I won't be holding my breath waiting for apologies or retractions.

I do believe my stance and that of the article and the study is, as I stated in one of the posts also backed up by thisOrganic agriculture and the global food supply which I posted here in the past few days as well as No Shortcuts in Checking Soil Health an abbreviated version of which I also posted in the last few days under a title close to the title of the article where I found it, Organic farming more profitable and beats no-till.[/u>

Sorry I had to run off and couldn't play but the al-paca terror cell that rent out the barn were having a hard time today and needed attention and their owners are setting up for a festival this weekend.

[robcon]

36. So the facts don't penetrate, nosmokes.

You stand behind the study, and you think farmers and scientists are mistaken. You think farmers will pay for pesticides that reduce their yields, and you think all the hundreds of field studies that show the effectiveness of pesticides are mistaken, and your couple of jars of soil trumps them.

If you truly believe that (I suspect you don't) you're not a fraud, you're a fool.

[KittyWampus]

38. The Freaking WORLD BANK endorses Organic Farming. They are hardly wack-jobs.

Pesticides increase yields but degrade the environment and make us all sick.

Corporate monoculture and chemical dependant farming simply shifts costs away from the producers and onto society.

And while the included article focuses on developing countries and small farmers the larger, salient point being that pesticides make farmers, consumers and our environment sick.

They make farmers dependant on corporations unnecesarily.


Organic Agriculture: A Way Out of Poverty for Small Farmers, According to New Research


Press Release No:2005/349/ESSD

WASHINGTON, February 23, 2005 – Farmers in developing countries who switch to organic agriculture achieve higher earnings and a better standard of living, according to a series of studies conducted in China, India and six Latin American countries by the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). The findings were presented today during a workshop held at the World Bank’s headquarters in Washington, DC.

The research, partially financed by the Italian Government, concluded that organic food production could provide a way out of poverty for many small farmers in developing countries and recommended ways of integrating organic agriculture into development programs.

Increased incomes are one key incentive for small farmers to start producing organic products. In Costa Rica, for example, organic cacao producers received 150 percent more for their product than conventional producers in 2001.

But better prices are not the only reason for changing production methods. According to the research conducted by IFAD, organic farming reduces the health risks posed by costly chemical pesticides and fertilizers, and benefits the environment with improved soil management.

Organic farming also offers more employment opportunities precisely because it is more labor intensive. In Karnataka, India, for example, the demand for female labor for crops such as tea and spices has increased by percent. In 2003, India’s organic exports stood at US$15.5 million and had about 2.5 million hectares under organic farming. Creating more jobs in areas with high un- employment can increase revenues in rural areas and reduce migration. The value of Chinese exports grew from less than US$1 million in the mid-1990s to about US$142 million in 2003, with more than 1,000 companies and farms certified organic.

“Marginal and small farmers in China, India, Latin America and most probably in other developing countries, have a comparative advantage in shifting to organic agriculture, as the technologies they use are often very close to organic practices” said Paolo Silveri, Evaluation Officer, Office of Evaluation, IFAD. “Still, many will face a number of obstacles to becoming certified organic producers, including lack of technical knowledge, inadequate market information, limited storage and processing facilities and complex certification processes. This is where IFAD, the World Bank and other donors can step in to help.”

Shifting to organic production has been relatively easy for many small farmers in developing countries because they tend to already use few or no chemical inputs and frequently grow crops in areas where plants naturally mix with other species. In poverty-stricken Hubei province (China), where 9 percent of the land is arable, small farmers have traditionally cultivated tea, mushroom, medicinal and aromatic plants.

“Diversification and value addition of agricultural products are part of the poverty reduction agenda,” said Ejia Pehu, Rural Development Adviser, World Bank. “Organic agriculture is one of the options to increase rural incomes, improve natural resource management and generate rural employment.” However, she added, “studies show, it is important to provide access to technical and market information on organic production and strengthen producer organizations.”

The presentation of the new research findings brought together representatives from the World Bank, US Agency for International Development (USAID), US Department of Agriculture (USDA), Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), organic trade associations, certification agencies and business community.

[nosmokes]

39. Robcon (and how fitting it is that con is part of your handle) since it's

glaringly obvious that your practical experience is somewhere between a skosh and none, I suggest you read Michael Pollan's excellent book An Omnivore's Dilemma. As for being a fool, I'll hafta say you may have me there, exhibit #1 being my still trying to reason w/ you... But I do have enough sense to know that you can't grow healthy plants in sick soil and you can't have healthy soil by contaminating it season after season w/ tons of petrochemicals. I also got enough brights that I don't contribute any of my money to the profits of criminal corporations like Monsanto, ADM, DOW and the rest when I can avoid it and I sure don't put crap on my plate that has been doused with their poisonous or genetically modified products.

You got that much smart too, doncha, Rob?