From: Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Pesticides and Reproduction
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 1996 09:06:26 +0100

In article <071396171334Rnf0.78@zephyr.manawatu.planet.co.nz>, Stuart
Brown <stuart@zephyr.manawatu.planet.co.nz> writes

>Yes. I investigated introducing a psyllid predator (psyllids being an 
>aphid-like pest on a forestry tree - Acacia melanoxylon) to New Zealand 
>but discovered that there were masses of native psyllids here already 
>and landcare in there wisdom had recently introduced another one to 
>control broom. So any application to introduce a general psyllid predator
>would be opposed. These types of trade-offs are an unfortunate part of 
>general biological control. Spceific biological control agents are much 
>more difficult to develop.
>
>Spraying at critical times and with low toxicity chemicals is much more 
>targeted than developing a bio-control agent that can affect a whole 
>country. Not that I'm against them at all, just that critics of spraying 
>need to be aware of some of the problems.

You have made a most interesting comment. For some reason it is assumed
by those not involved in agriculture that:

1) Farmers prefer chemicals: Definitely UNtrue.
2) They have never bothered with biological control: Definitely UNtrue.
3) They use expensive farm inputs wastefully: Definitely UNtrue.

This way anti-farming groups can have a simple answer to everything and
cannot understand why farmers don't take their ideas up immediately. 

They find it hard to realise they already do as much of it as possible.
Using biological control methods is not so easy as it sounds in
practice. Resistant strains of farm produce are produced all the time by
plant breeders, only for them to succumb to a strain of pathogen that
evades the resistance after a few years. Agrochemical timings are
typically designed to hit the pest hard and have the lowest possible
effect on predators; for example early aphid control (before predators
have moved in) allows time for predator numbers to increase in field
margins etc so that pest and predator are better matched thus dispensing
with any later sprays. Lower pesticide rates can be used then also.

Farm input costs are one of (in some cases are) the largest cost a
farmer bears. Every $ saved is a $ he can spend directly on his family.
For this reason in many (most even) cases input spend is below optimum
already.

------------------------------- 
'Oz     "When I knew little, all was certain. The more I learnt,
        the less sure I was. Is this the uncertainty principle?"

From: Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture
Subject: Re: Pesticides and Reproduction
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 1996 10:59:38 +0100

In article <4s73rh$fn@pegasus.odyssee.net>, Grimm Albert
<abigri@odyssee.net> writes
>Where does all the information about the age of pesticides in this
>discussion come from ? I do not believe that there are a lot of 90's
>pesticides released yet. Most of what is used by farmers at this time
>was developed long before 1990.
>
>In canadian horticulture we have these insecticides currently
>registered ( among others developed around the same time ):
>dichlorvos (1955), sulfotep (1960's still a favourite) ,parathion
>(1947), naled (1960), dienochlor (1960) , lindane (1945), dicofol
>(1957), endosulfan (1956), chinomethionat (1960), oxydemeton-methyl
>(1960), fenbutatin-oxide (1974), pyrazophos (1970), permethrin (1974),
>deltamethrin (1975), diazinon (1953 another favourite), dimethoate
>(1956), methamidophos (1967), chlorpyrifos (1966), kinoprene (1975) ,
>methomyl (1967), malathion (1950 another favourite), acephate (1972),
>pirimicarb (1969), carbaryl (1956) , bendiocarb (1971), and b.t.
>(1961)  Five of the insecticides in this list are organochlorines.
>Only this year  we had avermectin released,which was developed in
>1980. Imidacloprid, released last year, is to my knowledge the most
>recently developed insecticide from 1989.
>The list for the US would look somewhat similar.

Actually, I said in the last 15 years, not the last 5. However I was
referring to it's date of delivery to the (UK) market, and not when
patents were taken out. For the UK, for example, registration often
takes close to 10 years from the patent being granted. Since this time
is mostly filled by toxicology studies, I think this is a fair
timeperiod. It has to be said that most products are available in
Europe, and presumably in the US, some years before the UK because of
our draconian registration authorities. Some say inexpert, naiive,
obstructionist and unreasonable registration authorities, but there you
go.

>But even if new products become available, the older pesticides will
>continue to be used. The new products may be safer, but they do not
>always come without problems for the farmers. 

Perceived safety is a big problem. If you attempted to register an OP
with mindblowingly low toxicity and safe degradation products it would
still be considered dangerous because it was an OP. Facts are often
ignored in this situation, which is a shame.

>What I need to see, is not just the release of new pesticides that are
>hailed as miracle cures (safe or not) until they fail for the first
>time, but rather much more cooperation between scientists and farmers
>in an effort to develop IPM techniques that work. And for that matter,
>scientists working on the subject, should occasionally also listen to
>the practical problems of farmers, and not only refer to their
>research data. As long as this does not happen we will not be able to
>reduce the use of problem pesticides and the impact they might have on
>environment and people.

True. Unfortunately this exposes all the difficulties. 


------------------------------- 
'Oz     "When I knew little, all was certain. The more I learnt,
        the less sure I was. Is this the uncertainty principle?"

From: Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture
Subject: Re: Destruction of Rural Lifestyles ( was The value of Farming )
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 18:50:40 +0100

In article <31e7221f.19090117@news.avana.net>, Vandy Terre
<vandy@avana.net> writes
>On Fri, 12 Jul 1996 17:22:36 GMT, in sci.agriculture you wrote:
>
>>Farming as a way of life in the US is not dying off, its being
>>deliberatly, and systematically killed off by special interest groups.
>
>Which special interest groups do you think responsible?  The
>mega-farms trying to wipe out the small competitors/ the vegetarian
>movement/ the green movement- tree huggers/ real estate companies
>seeking cheap land to sell?  Who?  How can we fight them?  Is it just
>a question of developing our own aggressive, positive public
>relations?

Well in the UK the main problem has been supermarket buyers. Not only do
they screw the medium sized farmers but the big ones too. The little
ones are simply ignored to fade away. Indeed one supermarket chain, who
shall remain nameless, is reported to have screwed so many farmers that
those left will not readily deal with it, for UK readers just note how
much UK produce is on the shelves.

One hears apochryphal stories (ie third hand) of fruit producers who
find it better business to send their apples to Holland to be sold in
auction (and often bought by UK supermarkets), than to deal direct.

Actually I had personal evidence for this in my first job. We supplied a
significant percentage of one supermarket chain's sprouts by contract.
My first autumn was a difficult one (days of hand picking) and the
market price of sprouts was sky high and the picking costs were too. We
supplied to our contract at well below the market price as agreed. After
christmas there was a glut of sprouts and the supermarket unilaterally
broke the contract and said it wouldn't pay more than the market price.
My boss told them to stuff it and managed to sell them through our sales
vans (but of course very cheaply compared to the contract price).
However the supermarket had to come back because it needed the sprouts
bagged in 2lb labelled nets and we had the (very expensive) equipment
which was rare in those days. They agreed to return to the contract
price, but then took six months credit, again unilaterally and against
the contract. A smaller and less well organised farm would probably have
gone bankrupt.

I have heard a lot of stories along those lines over the years.

Given the price pressure imposed by the supermarkets I find it hard to
see how less intensive systems can make anybody a living. It's not for
nothing that most imported 'organic' produce comes from well regulated
countries like Spain, Italy, Kenya ........ Hey, after 15 years Italy
still hasn't managed to organise it's legally binding milk quotas, so
organic 'regulations' are likely to be .......  Which nicely stuffs the
true UK organic producers of course.

------------------------------- 
'Oz     "When I knew little, all was certain. The more I learnt,
        the less sure I was. Is this the uncertainty principle?"

From: Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture
Subject: Re: Destruction of Rural Lifestyles ( was The value of Farming )
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 12:12:11 +0100

In article <875@cornwick.win-uk.net>, Bryan <bryan@cornwick.win-uk.net>
writes
> 
>In article <tjs+9KAwTo6xEwKX@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>, Oz (Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk) 
>writes:
>>In article <31e7221f.19090117@news.avana.net>, Vandy Terre
>><vandy@avana.net> writes
>
>>Well in the UK the main problem has been supermarket buyers. Not only do
>>they screw the medium sized farmers but the big ones too. The little
>>ones are simply ignored to fade away. Indeed one supermarket chain, who
>>shall remain nameless, is reported to have screwed so many farmers that
>>those left will not readily deal with it, for UK readers just note how
>>much UK produce is on the shelves.
>
>So very little that I make a point of asking for home
>grown/produced good each time I go in.  I live in a market
>gardening area and yet there is lettuce from France and Spain,
>cucumber from Italy and Holland etc. etc.  

I have had it on hearsay that at least some of the produce that appears
to come from one country may merely be repackaged there. In one case I
actually saw a box of what appeared to Spanish produce, in a spanish
box, but in small letters it said something like "Packed for San
Fernandez (or whatever) by J.Bloggs of Kings Lynne (ditto). Produce of
UK". 

>We too have had dealing with supermarkets.  We farm organically and
>grow 8 acres of organic vegetables as part of our enterprise.  We
>had acontract with one of the Supermarkets to supply root
>vegetables.  We had the same problems as Oz describes below and
>their markups were huge - eg bunched carrots for which they paid
>18p were on sale at 72p.  

And, to really rub it in, they often make the grower put the price
labels on!!! Then they pay 60 days, and reject on spurious reasons when
they are overstocked.

>I believe that they do this because they do not really want to deal
>with minority produce.  They like everything in huge amounts all
>the same shape and size, therefor they price it out of the market.

Nope, I think they are equally rapacious with all growers.  :-(

>When at the end of the contract we said we would not renew with
>them they were incredulous.  They wrote three times and then
>sent a negotiator.  We still did not renew.  They keep coming back
>to us - but we can sell all we produce locally which is a good job
>because we cannot sell any beef which is our other enterprise.

I am doing my best to help out.  :-)

Top quality 5% fat mince is very good value these days and makes superbe
home made beefburgers. (My bit for the forequarters). Steaks are also
good value, particularly if purchased from a butcher who hangs them
well. (My bit for the hindquarters).



>>I have heard a lot of stories along those lines over the years.
>>
>>Given the price pressure imposed by the supermarkets I find it hard to
>>see how less intensive systems can make anybody a living. It's not for
>>nothing that most imported 'organic' produce comes from well regulated
>>countries like Spain, Italy, Kenya ........ Hey, after 15 years Italy
>>still hasn't managed to organise it's legally binding milk quotas, so
>>organic 'regulations' are likely to be .......  Which nicely stuffs the
>>true UK organic producers of course.

Doesn't it? Or am I being my usual excessively cynical self?


------------------------------- 
'Oz     "When I knew little, all was certain. The more I learnt,
        the less sure I was. Is this the uncertainty principle?"