Some of the reasons I don't spray pesticides ...

Page 4 of 4  
EV wrote:

Yes, I did look at the link, and I believe nationmaster just made up the statistic.

Yes, it does add up. But your original statistic was expressed in in kg/hectare. Home owners do not plant high-density stands of fruit trees. So using twice as much pesticide per tree does not translate to using twice as much per acre.

My point was that if the original statistic is wrong (and I think it is but I don't know (it looks ridiculous)), converting it to different units doesn't make it right.

[snip]
I will study this USGS link, and the others you posted that were in the rest of your message that I trimmed off. Thank-you.
Best regards, Bob
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
zxcvbob wrote:

On their page they give their source as being: Source: World Resource Institute, World Resources 2000-2001, Washington, DC: WRI, 2000. via ciesin.org
I checked Ciesen org. It is the Center for International Earth Science Information Network at Columbia University: http://www.ciesin.org /
Then I clicked through to here for the Environmental Sustainability Index page: http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu/indicators/ESI /
and downloaded a pdf file of their 2002 Environmental Sustainability Report--section 3, Annex 6, "Data Tables". It does confirm the statistic given by nationmaster. Here's the relevent excerpt from the section, plus the Canadian stat for the hosers.
------------ http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu/indicators/ESI/ESI2002_21MAR02c.pdf
2002 ESI: Annex 6 Variable Data Variable: PESTHA Name: Pesticide use Units: Kg/Hectare of Cropland Reference Year: 1996 Source World Resource Institute, World Resources 2000-2001, Washington, DC: WRI, 2000. [] Canada 644.00 [] United States 1599.00 [] ------------
So the stat of 1599 kg of pesticide used per hectare of ag land really does come from a report by CIESEN at Columbia University, which is, as you know, a highly reputable institution of learning.

This is a moot point, Bob, and beneath a man of your obvious intelligence.

Americans are a ridiculous people. :) But if you actually download the pdf, you'll see that the US, eventhough it uses 1599 kg of pesticide per hectare, is far from the worst pesticide polluter in the world. That's the really scary part. Because there are no borders when it comes to wind/air and water borne pesticides.

You're very welcome. I'm glad that you're interested in being informed by facts and not by conjecture. Sometimes people take a side and stick with it, even in the face of evidence to the contrary.
Best regards to you too,
EV
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
EV wrote:

What a crock of shit! No wonder liberals have a bad name.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Diane James wrote:

Thank you for your response. They say that ignorance is bliss, so I'm guessing you must be very happy. :)
Couldn't you have come up with something pithy, dear girl, rather than just a rallying cry to your cronies? Did you expect them to rush out, gang up on me, and pummel me with their words?
I'm sure the USGS (FYI that's the US Geological Survey) is pushing some liberal agenda with their survey of pesticide use too. Why don't you check out their survey of pesticide use? They have nearly 200 commonly used pesticides surveyed and mapped. To get a total of all pesticide use per you'll have to do the math. I'll make it a bit easier for you by providing the link. No need to thank me.
http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/use92/index.html
BTW Did you actually read any of my earlier post? The excerpts about the presence of pesticides in human breast milk are from the USGS, as well as a respected American college. Even pesticide pushers, who don't give a crap about other lifeforms, get concerned when it comes to their own children. Be concerned. Be very concerned.
----------------------------- http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/rep/fs09200 / Human exposure to organochlorine pesticides has been documented by studies detecting these compounds in various human tissues, including breast milk. Consumption of contaminated food (including fish and shellfish) is a major route of human exposure to organochlorine pesticides. [] Organochlorine compounds tend to be stored in high-fat tissues within the body, but can be mobilized during lactation or starvation. Levels of some organochlorine compounds in human tissues in the United States do not appear to have declined, at least through the early 1980s. Examples include DDT in breast milk and dieldrin in adipose tissue (fat). [] --------------------------------- Oraganochlorines in human breast milk: http://oregonstate.edu/instruction/bi301/pesthist.htm DDT (as DDE, a breakdown products from DDT) also appeared in the fatty tissues of seals and Eskimos, far from any area of use, indicating that, because of its persistence, it was being transported for long distances in the atmosphere and then being washed from the atmosphere by rains. It also showed up in human breast milk at remarkably high concentrations -- so high that the milk couldn't legally be sold through interstate commerce if it were cow's milk! DDE is the most widespread contaminant in human milk around the world. When you think about it, human breast fed babies are way up there on the food chain, and are thus very susceptible to the effects of biomagnification and bioconcentration. For persistent compounds like DDT (or other persistent compounds, such as dioxins or PCB's -- see "POPs," below) human milk is the most contaminated of all human foods. Typically, concentrations of organochlorines (such as DDT) in human milk are 10 - 20 times higher than in cow's milk, and prevailing levels are often greater than those allowed in commercial food stuffs. [] -----------------------------
HTH :)
EV
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Glenna Rose wrote:

And you should try a fresh Honeycrisp apple, if you're ever in the northern Midwest in September. (They also store very very well, but the supply is limitted so there's never any available by October.)
Best regards, Bob
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Hi Bob, Two steps ahead of you. Getting my first decent size crop from my Honeycrisp
this year. It is a great apple. I have some other excellent apples, like Freeburg, Ashmead Kernel, Spigold, all great apples.
Sherwin
zxcvbob wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@comcast.net writes:

You must be absolutely correct. After all, my own garden, prolific with delicious produce, probably exists only in my imagination. That is why I start getting telephone calls in March and April from friends asking if I'm planning to plant certain things this year and requesting to be put on the list, some of those garden themselves.
There are those on this group who have been to my web page from 2002 and seen what my garden is like and know from that, and their own experiences, that organic works.
As for it's being "the latest craze," it's a practice that has been in place for far longer than there have been television, radios, or even presses. But you probably aren't aware of that. You seem determined to insult it totally as if all the good it produces doesn't exist. To each his own. You use chemicals, I do not. That is the way of the world. The objection on my part is that you come across as totally against it when it has proven in a very high percentage of home gardens to be effective. That commercial farms are converting speaks for itself . . . for those who wish to hear and to listen. One thing for certain, the chemical-producing companies are not going to tout its benefits.

If I were ever ready to call someone stupid, you are getting close. Obviously you cannot read. I grew up in eastern Washington which has been stated in this thread. Not only have I eaten of the most delicious apples on the face of the planet, but I have picked some as well. My own grandparents had a variety of apple trees in their yard, in the heart of the best apple-producing area of the world. My childhood is the basis of all apple tasting, because I've had the best.
Your comment about my own apple tasting really reveals to me that you just go off un-informed and not wanting to be informed. You come across as a truly sad person, and I suspect you have many inter-personal problems with others based on your inability to listen. Your opinions seem to be the only ones that matter and everyone who thinks differently must be silenced. I'll bet you voted for our current president and plan to do so again.

I don't recall saying anything about either of those affecting blood pressure, only that oat bran will lower cholesterol, based on it absorbing it so it never gets into the bloodstream. Not only it that highly documented by credible sources, but it has been proven correct over and over in the lives of friends as they start practicing it. As I said in my last response to you, you do tend to read into writings things that are not there. This comment only serves to prove my point!
Taking with your cereal is rather deceptive and only minimally effective; make your cereal oat bran and you'll see a difference in your test results.
As for your blood pressure, I'm not at all surprised that yours is high. If you simply enjoyed life and adapted a more encompassing attitude about life around you, it would very likely become closer to what would be normal. If your doctor were to read your responses in this thread, there is no doubt in my mind that the same doctor would tell you that you, not the meds, must do the bulk of correcting the problem. Meds can help, but the patient must change their lifestyle which, in your case, might mean to not spend so much of your energy trying to be angry with everyone in the world. Just look at how much negative energy you have created and expended on this thread . . . one can only imagine what you do with the rest of your life. Instead of coming back with insulting remarks to me about this, try seriously evaluating my comments regarding this with an open mind for several days. More importantly, practice it . . . instead of just reacting to contradict someone, think about what they have said, find what there is that you agree with and concentrate on that instead of attacking ideas (and even people). You will be a much happier person, as will those around you, and your blood pressure will start coming down. Try it, you will be amazed.

Again, you have taken something said and turned it into something entirely different. What I said, and clearly written, was that doctors are too quick to reach for prescription pads and not taking advantage of natural methods and incorporating them whenever possible. When I had a physical several years ago, my cholesterol was very high on the test, repeat "on the test." They scheduled me with the specialist who spoke with me and reached for his prescription pad. I told him to take another test, that I knew it would be down 40 points from where it was several weeks ago when the blood test was taken. He didn't believe me but could clearly see that I was unwilling to take meds that were going to potentially damage my liver, cause dizziness, etc., on the basis of *ONE* blood test. You see, I knew how I ate the days before that test and, after getting the results, went back to my oat bran muffins (made with oat bran, no flours), skim milk, orange juice, and sliced banana breakfast. He ordered a second blood test . . . and, just as I said, my cholesterol was down a bit over 40 points.
My point was that many times meds are prescribed when they may not need to be, and often could be prescribed in smaller doses if they really are needed. However, you (generic you) would prefer to reach for a pill than change your (generic your) life style. It's like that with gardening, see a bug, grab the spray; don't identify the bug and see if there are natural predators for it and utilize those. It doesn't take much in the way of effort to reach for a pill bottle or a spray can. We human beings are very much on the lazy, I don't want to be bothered, side.
Glenna a lazy gardener, letting the beneficials and birds take care of the bugs, and just enjoying the garden (after supplementing the soil every fall/spring with organic material to keep the soil healthy)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Glenna Rose wrote:

To quote you on your subsequent posting: "The first fall I had this house, the apple crop was abundant (I have several trees) but the coddling moths loved the apples so it was quite a chore to have any pie or sauce and I just didn't pick from the trees to eat as I had in my childhood." I guess you forgot about the coddling moths.

It may have been around for many years, but now it's getting a lot more attention.

You obviously have not read all my postings. I use as many organic methods as practical ( sticky traps, mulch piles, etc.). I have never insulted it. Just the way certain people are telling us we MUST go over to it completely. I try and do minimal spraying to save my fruit. I don't particularly like spraying chemicals, but I have found the organic sprays do not do the complete job.

If you are talking about the Washington Red Delicious, I have to believe that your exposure to other varieties is very limited. Even the growers in Washington are finally waking up and starting other varieties like Fuji and Gala because the public is tired of the nice shinny red apples that taste like cardboard.

Maybe so, but those are not the Washington Apples we buy in the Midwest.

Here we go with the insults again.

Oh, and I suppose yours is the only truth.

Actually, I voted for Gore. Surprised?

Hey, you are in this thread, as well. I just don't like people taking anything to a fanatical extreme. Organics has a place in this world, but it is not yet the total solution. When they come out with an organic spray that kills Codling
Moths, Plum Curculio, etc., I'll stop spraying the chemicals.

Well, we are really getting off topic for a gardening forum. Let's drop this aspect.

Just like there are no magic pills for every malady, there are no effective organic cures yet for every pest. If you are willing to accept that, we can
put this thing to rest.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@comcast.net writes:

NOTE: I said "The first fall I had this house ..." Obviously, I had no control over what happened to the trees, or their care, before I owned it and took possession of it *and* the apple trees!
Did that go right past you?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
OK. Are you saying now that you are not getting any attacking pests on your apple trees? If not, what percentage of apples are attacked? Are you spraying with any organic stuff, and what is it?
Glenna Rose wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.