Try telling that to Rat Lady, who thinks everyone has the same environment as her Washington home. I believe Apple Maggots, for one, are predominantly found East of the Rocky Mountains.
Did you use an effective spray like Imidan? That one really works on apple maggots, but it is not available to the home orchardist anymore. If you can locate a supply of it (farmers can still get it), give it a try.
My experience is that by waiting too long between spraying, say over one month, problems develop. Most years I average about every three weeks. I missed one apple tree( Cox's Orange Pippen) on one of my three week cycles, and the tree is now showing signs of attack. The leaves are turning prematurely yellow with brown spots, and the fruit is being attacked. It may be a coincidence, but I suspect the pests found a window of opportunity.
So we're not supposed to take care of what we can, and eliminate toxic chemicals from our soils and foods? No, small market farmers can right now take care of it, and they are. The organic gardener/farmers are making money now, whereas the same can't be said for conventional/chemical using farmers. Plus their produce is higher quality; they aren't catering to the mass-shipping market, but tend to either direct sell or sell locally so they can grow produce that's actually bred to taste good, rather than withstand shipping. And finally, the produce is coming down in price, as more and more farmers enter the market. I welcome and celebrate it, and know that people who think like you are becoming fewer and fewer (thankfully).
I used a mixture of malathion EC and methoxyclor WP (I'll add captan or maneb in the spring next year). If I had seen actual signs of apple maggots, I would have sprayed diazanon in July and then switched back to malathion in August, and stop spraying in mid-August. I have a quart of diazanon 50 EC.
No, I didn't say that. It's putting organic farming way up there as the way to save the world. The concept is good, but the fanaticism is not called for.
Organic grown produce may have reduced traces of chemicals (that's why I wash all my purchases), but there is nothing about organics that makes the fruit taste any better, or hold up better in shipment. The organic stuff will spoil as quickly as the chemically grown stuff. However, you can change the genetics of a fruit, for example, to hold up better in shipping, like the Red Delicious Apple. Unfortunately, that can reduce the taste of the fruit. Properties like taste and holding ability for shipment are in the genes of the fruit. Organics does not change those! As I mentioned in earlier postings, organics growers are almost forced to select varieties which are inherently disease resistant, to get any results with the lower powered organic preventatives. Unfortunately, these fruits are not the very best tasting varieties. If you pick a particular apple, for example, and grow it organically and also chemically, I cannot see there being any difference in taste or long term storage abilities. I grow a William's Pride Apple which is disease resistant to fungicides, but I still have to spray it with insecticides. It is not a bad tasting apple, but doesn't compare to my other apples, like Honeycrisp or Ashmead Kernel. I will stick with the chemical sprays to grow my excellent tasting apples, until the organic people come up with a spray that can protect all varieties.
I still see double prices for organic grown produce at my local Jewel Food Store.
Yes, but these people have never tasted a really good apple.
Oh yes, we backyard gardeners love to dress up in all that protective clothing and sweat on the hot days, spend our valuable time spraying, cleaning up, mixing chemicals, etc. It's all a lot of fun, and we love to do it.
Should I believe the organic propaganda as being anymore truthful and less "in". If anything, organic has become the latest buzz word, as it promises everyone longer life, health, and happiness.
There is nothing kool about spraying chemicals. I think the organic thing is the latest craze, and it's promising things it cannot do.
Wrong, we have a larger world population, and thus more people starving.
Years ago, people were dying from the plague,etc., until science found a way to cure them and innoculate them with those man made antigens.
Thats because you are satisfied with mediocre tasting fruit and probably have never tasted a really excellent apple. Those are the apples that organic farmers don't grow because they are not inherantly disease resistant.
Is this your way of saying that people who spray chemicals are war mongers? Give me a break.
No, we live in the USA which has the best protection for consumers of any country in the world. Yes, the system is not perfect, but that's why you have a brain ( I hope) to make the proper decisions.
Again, these medications, for better or worse, are keeping millions of people alive.
I take Oat and Wheat bran with my cereal every morning, but it still does not keep my blood pressure down. Yes, I exercise, but if not for my medication, I would probably have had a stroke, by now.
OK., so you go out and tell everyone to throw their medication is the garbage can.
Excuse me. It was Rat Lady who started with the bad language and insults. You are not much better than her.
You go back and CAREFULLY read this thread and see who started with the insults. I held back for a while, until it got to be very irritating.
It was possibly a good apple Stark's first grew it. Now it has been contorted into a tasteless, shinny, good looking apple, that stores well for shipping. You can still buy the original Red Delicious from Starks, which I have not tasted, but expect it to be a much better apple.
I belong to two fruit growers clubs. One with over 100 members. The other with many more than that. We exchange ideas about apples that we grow and know about. The general opinion about Washington Red Delicious coincides with mine. Even the growers in Washington are recognizing this, as they are starting to grow Fuji and other varieties to appeal to a new market of people looking for tasty apples.
You better widen your tasting experience.
The problem is not freshness, but it's the genes that have been bred into that apple.
I actually grew a Red Delicious Apple when I first got into fruit growing and didn't know any better.
Agreed. I grow Brandywine also.
That was before they discovered Fuji.
Really, I thought Red Delicious was a good keeper, at least for shipping.
There is nothing financially astute about buying organic produce. It is far overpriced for my budget, plus they don't grow the varieties I like.
Yes, people who don't wash their produce properly. However, there is usually a much reduced amount of chemicals on fruit, since the sun burns most of it off.
These web sites talk about chemicals as well as organic methods.
Yes, but previous contributors to the thread opened up this aspect that these chemicals affect the whole world.
I can show you my friend's organic farm near me, where there are loads of spoiled fruit on the trees.
If you'll look back, you'll see that Paghat was the main one hurling insults, and the one who started the mudslinging, and the one who kept escalating it. (She is entertaining though...)
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.)
Organic certification can be a long arduous process. The requirements are stringent (at least here in Canada).
Are you sure about that? Then how come they keep finding it in fruit ... among other things?
------------- POPs found in all foods: wvlc.uwaterloo.ca/biology447/modules/ module5/Jepidemilologyarticle/pesticidesinfoodpdf.pdf [] Based on data from the US Food and Drug Administration, this article provides a brief overview of POPs residues in common foods in the United States food supply. The analysis focuses on 12 chemical compounds now targeted for an international phase out under the Stockholm Convention on POPs. The available information indicates that POPs residues are present in virtually all categories of foods, including baked goods, fruit, vegetables, meat, poultry, and dairy products. Residues of five or more persistent toxic chemicals in a single food item are not unusual, with the most commonly found POPs being the pesticides DDT (and its metabolites, such as DDE) and dieldrin. Estimated daily doses of dieldrin alone exceed US Environmental Protection Agency and US Agency for Toxic Substances Disease Control reference dose for children. Given the widespread occurrence of POPs in the food supply and the serious health risks associated with even extremely small levels of exposure, prevention of further food contamination must be a national health policy priority in every country. []
--------------------------------
In actual fact, they do. Here's why.
If someone in India dumped DDT into the ocean, how long do you think it would take to get to the Gulf of St. Lawrence? Would you believe less than 2 weeks? It's called The Grasshopper Effect
formatting link
and it's just one of the ways that toxics travel around the world. This is why DDT, which has been banned in NA since the 70's, is still found in the belugas of the St. Lawrence. This is why they constantly need to replenish the Peregrine Falcons in the wild release programs. Pesticides (and/or their breakdown products) that were used from the
40's to the 70's are still out there in the food chain.
Pesticides permeate every body of water on the planet and are highly detrimental to aquatic life:
formatting link
levels of DDT are between 1 and 10 ng/l in estuaries and coastal areas, and between 0.1 and 1 ng/l in the open sea (Kennish, 1994). While DDT concentrations in surface waters are largely controlled by the concentration of DDT in the atmosphere, the ocean serves as a sink for DDT (Iwata et al., 1993). [] In the Arctic, the highest concentrations of DDT in surface waters are reported near the Indigirka River in the East Siberian Sea (2.5 ng/l) and in the vicinity of the Ob' River in the Kara Sea (2 ng/l, Melnikov and Vlasov 1992). DDT in belugas generally ranges from 1 to 5 ug/g in the Alaskan and Canadian Arctic (Muir et al., 1990; Careau et al., 1992; Schantz et al., 1993). Note that these values are about 1 million times higher than DDT levels in seawater. An average of 58 ug/g was measured in belugas from the St. Lawrence estuary, a high value indicative of past heavy use of DDT as a pesticide in eastern Canada (Muir et al., 1990). New data indicate that the White Sea is similar to the St. Lawrence estuary, with a value of 64 ug/g (Muir and Norstrom, 1994). [] Once ingested, DDT and its metabolites accumulate in the fatty tissues of organisms. Today, birds and mammals continue to retain both DDD and DDE, in part from retention in fat, and in part from uptake of residual contamination. An important concern with DDT is that it becomes concentrated as it is transferred up the food chain. In an aquatic environment, DDT at a concentration of 0.001 to
0.01 ppb (- or m? check), results in a 0.1 ppm concentration in aquatic invertebrates, 0.2 to 2 ppm in fish, and 10 ppm in birds (Edwards, 1973). Because pesticide residues can be transferred to offspring through excretion in the egg, progeny may begin life with an elevated body burden of DDT. []
--------------------------------------- More about Belugas and pesticides:
formatting link
in the 1rst half of the century was the probable cause for this population to dwindle from several thousand animals to the current estimate of 500. The failure of the population to recover might be due to contamination by organochlorine compounds, which are known to lead to reproductive failure and immunosuppression in domestic and laboratory animals and seals. [snip] Overall, St. Lawrence belugas might well represent the risk associated with long-term exposure to pollutants present in their environment and might be a good model to predict health problems that could emerge in highly exposed human populations over time.
-- Environ Health Perspect 103(Suppl 4):00-00 (1995)
---------------------------------- Organochlorine levels in whales tissue samples from Trent University:
formatting link
Pesticide Release Database from Environment Canada:
formatting link
Organochlorines, which are stable and vapour-forming, can be carried by air currents for long distances. Eventually they condense and are deposited on land and water, particularly in cold climatic regions. Oganochlorine residues have been detected in air, water, soil, sediment, fish, and birds global wide. They have also been found in remote areas, such as open oceans and polar regions. If they contaminate the food supply of animals, organochlorines become more concentrated as they move up through the food chain. For this reason, the highest levels of organochlorines are found in species at the top of the food chain: human beings, fish-eating birds, and marine mammals. []
-----------------------------
POP's such as aldrine, dieldrine, endrine, chlordane, DDT, heptachlore, hexaclorobenzene, mirex, chlordecone, lindane, and toxaphene, build up in tissues.
---------------- wvlc.uwaterloo.ca/biology447/modules/ module5/Jepidemilologyarticle/pesticidesinfoodpdf.pdf All living organisms on Earth now carry measurable levels of POPs in their tissues. POPs have been found in sea mammals at levels high enough to qualify their bodies as hazardous waste under US law, and evidence of POPs contamination in human blood and breast milk has been documented worldwide. There is strong evidence that exposure to even miniscule amounts of POPs at critical periods of development? particularly in utero?can cause irreversible damage. The effects of such exposures may take years to develop, sometimes appearing first in the offspring of exposed parents. []
-----------------
As we are at the top of the food chain, humans get the most concentrated doses of contaminants. Among whales, the females are less toxic than the males. Studies revealed that the reason for this is that females release the toxins from their fatty tissues into their milk.
formatting link
It's the same for humans. There are also indications that, due to their interactions inside the body, pesticide cocktails can be more toxic than the same amount of a single pesticide.
---------------------------------- Oraganochlorines in human breast milk:
formatting link
(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.
[]
-----------------------------
formatting link
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). []
---------------------------------
Body stores of pesticide are also associated with breast cancer:
formatting link
why is there that much pesticide in the environment? Who's using it all?
Trends in Pesticide Use: "One major environmental science text book asserts that the average US homeowner uses 2 - 6 times more pesticide per acre than do farmers."
formatting link
will focus on farms, because farmers consume (that is, use) about 77% of all pesticides in the US. However, it is important to realize that the problem isn't all related to farm uses. It is estimated that about 10% of the land area in the US (including forests, lawns, etc.) is treated annually with pesticides. Home gardeners are often some of the most extravagant ? and sloppy ? users!) (One major environmental science text book asserts that the average US homeowner uses
2 - 6 times more pesticide per acre than do farmers.) In the US, the total pounds of pesticide active ingredients applied on farms increased 170% between 1964 and 1982 (the increase was 33 fold between 1945 and
1990). These figures related only to the agricultural sector. In evaluating these increases, it is important to remember the increased toxicity of pesticides; one pound of active ingredient for current products is many times greater than one pound for earlier generations of pesticides in terms of toxicity. One might think that this trend was driven by increasing agricultural acreage over this time? Recall, during this time, total acres under cultivation basically decreased , so the increase in pesticide use wasn't driven by increased agricultural acreage. []
------------------------------
So, obviously, more is less.
formatting link
the US, an average of 1599 kg of pesticide are used for each hectare of cropland, that's 3525 lb per hectare. 1 hectare= approx. 2.5 acres, so that makes it about 1,410 lbs of pesticide per acre.
So if home gardeners are using just twice that amount, it comes to 2,820 lbs of pesticide per acre. If they all stopped using pesticides, it would be a significant amount not going into the environment.
No amount of pesticide will control the locust infestation plaguing parts of Africa today. And ... That good irrigation is what gets pesticides into the water table:
Pesticides in Ground Water:
formatting link
found in all the bodies of water on the planet.
formatting link
ANALYZED IN NAWQA SAMPLES: Use, Chemical Analyses, and Water-Quality Criteria
formatting link
The evidence suggests that they ARE being misused. And the more they're misused, the less effective they'll be.
Probably because the pesticides are acting in your yard as well. They're easily airborne.
That is irrefutably true. :-)
For people who persist in spraying, IPM is the better way. Spraying can be cut in half using IPM methods. Better for the environment, the pocket book, and the back.
An entomologist, who works at the big research station near here developing IPM protocols for peaches, told me that the main reason for IPM is that bugs adapt too readily to pesticides. Pesticides work really well for a few years and then start to be less effective as the bugs adapt. The big worry is soon there won't be any pesticides that work. IPM strives to keep pesticide use to a minimum, so that when it is used, it works. The added bonus for growers is lower cost, and better yield.
IPM borrows from successful organic principles, such as predatory control, and the proper timing of applications. Now that the life cycles of pest insects are better understood, controls (natural or otherwise) can be tailored to be more effective.
That's why I try to learn about every single new bug, or problem, that I find. For instance, I found out the plum curculios like the cool, dampness and lack of sun in the middle of the tree. I checked my tree, and the plums on the outside, that get sunshine through most of the day are the healthiest. I think I need to prune my tree to get more light into the middle ... now all I have to do is learn more about proper plum tree pruning.
But they don't use twice as much per acre. Home gardeners might use twice as much pesticide per fruit tree, but they don't have that many trees. They don't grow crops like soybeans and corn and cotton. They also use way too much chemicals on their lawns, but I doubt that even
*that* comes to 1/100 of the amount you are saying. Being able to scale a dubious statistic and convert to different units or measure doesn't magically give it credibility.
I have found that non-chemical controls are better at reducing the insect levels to the point where they might be tolerable. Then when you have a major infestation, the chemicals are more effective because they bugs aren't used to them. I'm trying to figure out how this principle relates to apple production in the Upper Midwest.
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)
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
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!
'much snipping of stuff, to allow for a short response posting...
I must agree with the point of Paggers posting, since I have left my garden to the "critters" I have noticed that it is much happier, less bug damage and no issues with me getting stung, since I keep my attitude towards my friends in that mindset, and so the yellowjackets that are constantly in my garden gobbling up those bugs that I don't want, don't even notice me other than to stay out from under my feet ;^)
I really do feel that we spend way too much time trying to stop what our EarthMother has given to us from doing us good, and instead seem to want to destroy it, sigh...
FWIW Paghat try a more positive/encouraging reply to others postings, and you may find them more willing to listen to you...
That isn't going to fly here, Bob. It's a non-argument.
Please don't be coy. Twice as much per tree is still twice as much, whether it's on an acre or not. It all adds up.
Pardon me for saying so, but that's a silly comment. I converted the units because I know that Americans are not familiar with kilograms, and acres are more meaningful to most people than hectares. Whichever units it's described in, the numbers add up to the same amount. I wasn't hiding anything.
I was looking for an overall statistic of pesticide use. Since that doesn't satisfy you, you can go the USGS site where they list close to 200 pesticides and their estimated rate of application, complete with useage maps:
formatting link
've gone to the individual pesticide useage pages on the USGS site and just added up some of the totals (broken down by crop). I chose the ones that sounded familiar to me. I don't know which are, or aren't, the most heavily used.
These figures represent the total estimated amounts, in lbs, used on all crops (for agricultural use) in a year (1992) in the US. Since not all counties reported, and it is now 12 years later, I expect that the numbers are much higher now. The maps show the distribution of the application if you're interested.
Atrazine: 63,947,512 lbs per year
formatting link
25,647,683 lbs per year
formatting link
3,774,667 lbs per year
formatting link
1,066,220 lbs per year
formatting link
2,689,831 lbs per year
formatting link
2,808,304 lbs per year
formatting link
904,832 lbs per year
formatting link
's just 7 of almost 200 pesticides listed by the USGS as being used for ag purposes. Together these pesticides alone come to 97,064,382 lbs of pesticide per year ... almost a BILLION pounds from just 7 pesticides.
Home growers were not surveyed. Also not factored in are the pesticides that people apply to their lawns or for insect control in and around the home. Now, if home gardeners use 2 to 6 times as much pesticide as commercial growers ... even if they constitute a fraction, in acres, of commercial production, it's still a significant amount.
I, too, thought that the figure of 1,410 lbs pesticide per acre sounded high. But when you look at the total use of just 7 or hundreds of pesticides, it doesn't really seem all that implausible.
That's the basic idea behind IPM. So if home growers feel compelled to use pesticides, that's the way to go.
various resources:
formatting link
Midwest Tree Fruit Pest Management Handbook ... Integrated pest management (IPM) disease management guidelines for organic apple production in Ohio. ... Integrated pest management for apples and pears. ...
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.
formatting link
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.
-----------------------------
formatting link
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:
formatting link
(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. []
HomeOwnersHub website 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.