@@lightdark00 This disaster helped humanity to see the interconnectedness of it all. And now capitalist corporations may kill billions if we don't change course. Just one of the benefits from capitalist ravanging the planet for profit. So,this is NOT about political systems, but about interconnectedness and a healthy whole.
@@KootFloris : Hotter and hotter every year because 87% is from cattle and pigs and chicken !!! Scientific fact !!! Planes ✈️ 10%. Go vegan everybody. And 10 plants 🌾🌾🌾🌾🌾🌾🌾🌾🌾🌾, One steak 🐮💩🦠🥩😲 !!! Scientific fact !!! Dr. Sailesh Rao Author of Study Published In Journal of Ecological Society 87%: Animal Agriculture Really Is A Killer... Methene is animals 🐄💨💩🔴🦠🍖😩🤯. RUclips him !!!! Very important for everybody !!! Only got the Earth you know !!!!......
@@KootFloris ... you hurt innocent animaIs ? BIudgeoned to death ? For a 5 minute hamburger ??? CuIt foIIowing !!!! You don’t do with your cute little dog. You love your dog🤗🐶, or parrot 🤗🦜 . You can have vegan burgers and vegan chicken and vegan pizza and vegan curry and vegan burritos and vegan tacos..... without any murder !!!! RUclips delicious vegan food. ✅🤷🏼♂️
I am farmer i am growing pomogrenate fruits now using 80 percentage organic products but I did not used colour agent for that reason my pomogrenate fruits sold at less than 35 percentage costs. People's also should eat not just by looking outside they should observe inside.
Wonderful, what you are doing. I used to buy these ugly looking pomegranates in Southern India that had large colorless grains. Nobody wanted these but they were simply divine to taste. The vendor referred to them as “nati” pomegranates which is local lingo for wild. Those perfect-looking pomegranates taste like cardboard, cost twice as much and don't last long. Thank you!
u should advertise your fruits with harms that artificial coloring agent do.. And one day u ll sale your fruit with cost u want.. People ll take time to understand wt u giving them but eventually they ll realize
Hotter and hotter every year because 87% is from cattle and pigs and chicken !!! Scientific fact !!! Planes ✈️ 10%. Go vegan everybody. And 10 plants 🌾🌾🌾🌾🌾🌾🌾🌾🌾🌾, One steak 🐮💩🦠🥩😲 !!! Scientific fact !!! Dr. Sailesh Rao Author of Study Published In Journal of Ecological Society 87%: Animal Agriculture Really Is A Killer... Methene is animals 🐄💨💩🔴🦠🍖😩🤯. RUclips him !!!! Very important for everybody !!! Only got the Earth you know !!!!
@@VeganV5912 vegan is proven to be bad for health, humans need meat and it's nutrients, plants can't do that for us. Unless you want half the world to die, then going vegan is the way.
Can I just say… I’m a farm sun the UK and we have been using pesticides that target specific pests… such as flea beetle in oilseed rape. So there are alternatives out there in which makes pesticides a more sustainable way of producing food. To further support this, people should be against the governments, not the farmers. We are doing our job to produce food the way people and the government subsidises us. Therefore farming is very governmental run at the moment.
pesticides ultimately destroy microorganisms in the soil, without which the plant can´t absorb nutrients properly. The interconnection between the microoganisms and the crops, the symbiosis, must be preserved. Otherwise you´re ultimately creating more pests and more diseases. Why not try biological methods of combating pests? Like chickens and other birds, distraction crops, multiculture, rotation of crops, etc. Although probably that´s not possible under the current state of affairs. Both the govt and farming are run by huge corporations, which are in turn run by private individuals (shareholders) only looking for profit. That´s the real problem.
There are a lot information lacking in that video, as example if you search about pesticide commonly used in organic farms allowed in most contries you will find Copper or Sufur derivates, that compounds caused in many parts of Europe soil sterility, both are large spectrum "pesticide" affecting not only the target, but all microbial and insect community (when I found out I was also scared, i didn't knew that), There are some EU documents about that. . About the food loss, most of the post haversts losses is caused by fungi contamination, and without using chemical that is will be higher. The fungi toxins are more toxic compared with chemical pesticide, and even harden to remove (search for Mycotoxin and Aflatoxin). . Cows, Pigs and Chicken, besides high nutrition value (in protein and essential vitamins) produce fertilizer and if used properly complete a essential cycle of food production. In fact mines of potassium nitrate (essential fertilizer in agriculture), as a gigant site of poop from birds (search for Chile Salitre). And you can use that chicken residue as a high value fertilizer . . There are many people in the world working in alternatives for the current problem of Chemical pesticed, nowadays we have Bacillus (bacteria) that have succefully used to control fungi and some insects in field, Trichogramma galloi(Microwasp) Insects that parasites other insects. Trichoderma a fungi that compete in the field against phytopathogenic fungis.
OK, talking about how it should or could be in agriculture.....thats nice, but why dont DW mentioned the two of the biggest manufacturer of agro chemistry on the planet....Bayer and BASF? Is it a taboo for German broadcaster, or is it because of their contribution of wellfare of Germany? DW, leave the comfort zone and be more critic!
@kid man , Hotter and hotter every year because 87% is from cattle and pigs and chicken !!! Scientific fact !!! Planes ✈️ 10%. Go vegan everybody. And 10 plants 🌾🌾🌾🌾🌾🌾🌾🌾🌾🌾, One steak 🐮💩🦠🥩😲 !!! Scientific fact !!! Dr. Sailesh Rao Author of Study Published In Journal of Ecological Society 87%: Animal Agriculture Really Is A Killer... Methene is animals 🐄💨💩🔴🦠🍖😩🤯. RUclips him !!!! Very important for everybody !!! Only got the Earth you know !!!!..
@@VeganV5912 you can't do regenerative ag without animals. You just have to change how you manage your animals and suddenly they are putting as much carbon away as they produce
@@thatonedog819 ....👈.. John Wayne Gacy.. Clown 🤡🔴😵😵😵😵😵😵..... over a fricking burger !! 5 minute burger et cetera !!! You don’t do it with your cute little dog 🤗🐶 . Or cat 🤗🐈..... CuIt following !!!! 🙄🤦🏼♂️Over a fricking 5 minute hamburger et cetera🖕!!!!!
@@thatonedog819 🐷🔪⛓🙁/😵🔴🍖🐮.... 👈🤥🤥🤥. Hypooocrite !!! Big time !!!!! You don’t do with your cute little dog 🤗🐶. Or a parakeet 🤗🦜..... For a 5 minute frigging burger !! You can have vegan burgers and vegan pizza and vegan cheese and vegan ice cream and vegan curry and vegan burritos and vegan tacos and vegan sushi..............
Yess! Regenerative farming ist productive, creates more fertile soil, brings healthy food and stores carbon. We don't need carbon capture technology, we need to stop destroying our farmland with monoculture, gmo and pesticides.
We also need carbon capture technology We have already pumped way more CO2 than oceans or forest will be able to naturally consume, or at the rate that is needed to avoid irreparable ecological damage
It's cutting down 30% of all forest's on the planet replacing them with games. Watch david Attenborough on Netflix his new one tells you everything you need to know
Hotter and hotter every year because 87% is from cattle and pigs and chicken !!! Scientific fact !!! Planes ✈️ 10%. Go vegan everybody. And 10 plants 🌾🌾🌾🌾🌾🌾🌾🌾🌾🌾, One steak 🐮💩🦠🥩😲 !!! Scientific fact !!! Dr. Sailesh Rao Author of Study Published In Journal of Ecological Society 87%: Animal Agriculture Really Is A Killer... Methene is animals 🐄💨💩🔴🦠🍖😩🤯. RUclips him !!!! Very important for everybody !!! Only got the Earth you know !!!!.....
A lot of these conversations come back to consumers. What consumers purchase drives how farmers farm, how breeders breed, etc. If people understood that an apple with a small blemish on it is still edible, there would be much less food waste. The standards for producing fruit have gotten out of control and given farmers two options; either use harsher chemistries to try and create a perfect piece of fruit, or go organic, spend a fortune on inputs and hope that you have something to show for at the end of the year.
That is a little narrow in terms of an analysis. A lot of (industry paid?) experts continually talk about the nasty diseases you can get from bad/old fruit and vegetables. "When in doubt, throw it out" is how lots of people are told to behave. By experts. So why would you buy stuff that you are not sure about to start with? That most people could eat very rancid, worm infested fruit and vege with nothing more than an occasional bout of diarrhea is beside the point. One magazine article about how a kid somewhere died of a worm in "ugly" fruit is enough for most to never buy it again. Most people are completely incapable of determining the risk profile of such things, so go for what the ads/advice tell them to.
@@m.935 There are inexpensive fruit out there in most countries, they are just not getting to the people that need them. But agreed, fruit with a little pesticide residue is 99.99% better than McD's
I disagree: commercial farming is heavily subsidized by gov., so it's cheaper to consumer, therefore, they buy it. If organic farming was subsidized the situation would be reversed~
@@BLAQFiniks it most certainly is, and if the true costs of current industrial practices were included in prices to consumers, it might well be very different. The reality is that prices are often suppressed for political purposes, to ensure a pliable public and healthy campaign contributions.
I have doubts about the quality of this video. I will not explain all of them but highlight one that most people should understand. At 3:19 , the presenting journalist claims that "one intrinsic problem is the way pesticide* works" and follows Yvette Perfecto explaining the concept of "pesticide* treadmills". No critics or question from the journalists on this concept. The viewer is left to believe "pesticide* treadmills" is a thing. At 9:43, the presenting journalist asks "but do we need to get rid of all pesticides*?" and follows John Reganold explaining that we can use synthetic chemicals in a smart way. No critics or question from the journalists on this idea. The viewer is left to believe "smart use of synthetic ag-chemicals" could be a solution. Have you seen it? Only one of this concept/idea can be true. Not both. But the journalists didn't bother to find out which one is true and which is false. *synthetic
The treadmill starts witht the enormous flooding of pesticides indiscriminate on the crops, same goes for deadly bacteria in Living Stock constantly fed with anti-biotics. Of course, if you have a sick plant that can infect others, as well as a sick animal, you shall cure it or intervene on the pests, that's a WHOLE different story than flooding healthy beings with anti-things they don't have
@@garysquarepants898 Thanks for your reaction. It is interesting and is more subjective than rational. The phrase "enormous flooding of pesticides" make me conclude this. Some readers may ask "why is it subjective?". In Europe, commercial farmers work with great precision and none does flood a field with pesticides. Here is an example with glyphosate for the reader wanting more information: glyphosate is a well known herbicide. It can be used to terminate a cover crop or a pasture in order to make room for a new crop for example. A common rate of glyphosate is 1 liter per hectare. It means that on 1ha, a farmer will apply once 1l of glyphosate to kill the current plants and make place for a following crop. One hectare is equal to 10000 square meters or 2 soccer fields. Applying 1 liter to 10000 square meter is not exactly flooding. Weeding with glyphosate is precision work. Same precision applies to all pesticides used on European agricultural crops.
@@thierrystokkermans5434 It depends from the nature of the poison sir, also a few micrograms of many substances can kill you. "Flooding" is an image used to understand the nature of the event related to its consequences, not to explain the nature of the event in itself and only itself. Stop isolating concepts like they exist alone, China tried with birds, like they existed alone, and their crops were eaten by insects. Don't be so ideological and a bit communist, try to link events with each other and find the possible solutions, be a human.
The gulf dead zone is not because of pesticide runoff. It is fertilizer runoff causing algae blooms which use up all the oxygen creating areas with little oxygen content.
There is not a food shortage. This is a distribution and sharing issue. Even during the Irish Famine food was exported to England under armed guard. When Geldoff went to Ethiopia food was not being distributed due to their horrific dictator. Bovine growth hormone in the USA was not need as there was already a surplus of milk... We need to learn how to share. We don't need pesticides. Also we would be wise to look at the painful reasons within ourselves for overconsumption, greed, hoarding etc..rather than feeling abundant and share.
This is part of chemophobia. In the terminology of 'organic farming', the adjective 'organic' is not used in the sense in which the word is used in science.
you dont burn grain as a fuel. You remove starch which converts to ethanol that you burn, but the most valuable part of the grain (the proteins etc.) will be recycled into animal feed. So ethanol from corn is freeish (its not exactly), as corn contains too much starch for animal feed anyways.
@@jacewright6428 I agree that we should heavily reduce the amount of animals we breed but we should still keep some as they can convert the non-edible food waste from crops into food we can eat in the form of protein rich meat. Without animals such as cattle and sheep, there wouldn’t be a use for these bye products and lots of it would go to waste.
10:40 as a farmer i use already a lot of not so conventional agronomics pratices, but i do conventional, 3-4 crops rotations, cover crops, minimum tillage, but i still use glifosate for example, this is called integrated defense and its mandatory in europe. I have best results than ever using different methods
Mandatory herbicide? My god. The best results I´ve ever got was from mixing organic fertilizer (cow manure) plus a little bit of lime, a little bit of phosphorite flour and a little bit of superphosphate. So basically, mostly organic plus a little bit of mineral fertilizer to get the microorganism activity going.
Great not saying it doesn’t work! But at what price…. don’t you care about yourself your family and your consumers . You really believe it does no harm! Oh yes of course that lie comes from the manufacturer of the seeds and the chemicals right and the scientists and farmers they pay off to say it!
3:30 This is only showing half the truth. We already work around that by using different pesticides at once, which inhibits any kind of resistance development. It is unlikely that even a singular mutation causes a resistance against one pesticide, but it can happen. But two pesticide resistances at once, or even three? Those numbers are practically non existant. This is even working for antibiotics and bacteria, and those are WAY faster than any plant or insect. Also the reaction to humans and other animals are very different depending on the pesticide you use. Some are even completly harmless.
Not really. wild berries and veggtables wouldnt be eaten by bugs if that were the case. Not to mention the Irish potato famine those potatoes were in very healthy soil yet the fungus still diseased them. A gmo potato had to be made to stop the potatoes from being infected. But for some foods you are correct as plants can produce there own pestsides.
That's because the irish were only growing one type of potato, when you lack genetic diversity in your crops that's exactly what happens, a disease will cause devastation. That's why organic farming is the best.@@carsonbaird3904
@@carsonbaird3904The Irish Potato's demise was caused by late potato blight. However, this is a poor example of a healthy farming system. Irish Potatoes lacked genetic diversity because they were grown in monocultures. At the time it made sense to mass plant the Lumper Potato variety to feed Ireland's growing population. They didn't know any better but the lack of genetic diversity made their potatoes more susceptible to diseases. Plants grown in ideal circumstances are far more resilient to disease. That isn't controversial and the scientific literature strongly supports that the healthier an organism is the more resilient it is to disease. Wild varieties can also be insanely prolific. I have half the property I live on consumed by wild thorny blackberries.
When you talk vegan you basically give up the use of the oceans which produce massive amounts of food. Raising grain for cars is insurance , if there are massive crop failures we can just stop feeding cars. I raised cows for forty years and could go years without pesticides but I could never grow a cabbage without sprays.
The professor in the video dodged a question it asked: will organic farming require us to cut down a lot more forests (10~20x) to feed the population? How would people choose between using pesticides vs cutdown 20x forests?
@@alexanderdvanbalderen9803 this isn't a fair critique because I haven't looked at all the things you've mentioned. However, I've seen the small permaculture things mentioned in RUclips and I can't see how that can conceivably be scaled up to feed the population.
@@shawnsg smaller farms, interconnected, with a combination of growing crops and agricultural animals, strategically placed in fertile areas, with channels and reservoirs and shelterbelts built around them. Farms that use crop rotation, multiculture, cover crops, distraction crops, biological methods of combating pests. Those can feed the global population.
Coming from a farmer here, idk about 10-20x but organic on average does yield SIGNIFICANTLY less. Hence why organic goods are so much more expensive. So yeah we’d likely need to clear a whole load more land, or we’d just have a whole swath of the population starve.
Pas tout à fait. Quand chaque agriculteur aura compris qu'il est le maillon terminal d'un système qui l'asphyxie lui-même, il décidera de faire autrement. D'autres solutions existent pour co-construire la résilience alimentaire de chaque territoire. 🙏
Not quite. When each farmer understands that he is the final link in a system that suffocates himself, he will decide to do otherwise. Other solutions exist to co-build the food resilience of each territory. 🙏
There are already crops that can sinthesize natural chemicals that keeps pest and insect without the need to add synthetic pesticides, but thanks to years of fearmongering, people freaks out as soon as they hear the word “ogm” ignoring that most of our food comes from crossbreeding, like wheat, apples, bananas, corn… It is the same thing happened with nuclear energy, sometimes there are great discoveries that could solve a lot of problems, but aren’t adopted because someone convinced people that are bad.
The problem with GMOs is not so much the GMOs themselves, rather the very aggressive and harmful businesses practices of the corporations that developed GMOs.
@@criss3619 I mean Bill Gates has thrown tons of money into it. But Bayer is one of the biggest. Nobody has any clue but our varieties of foods are going extinct faster than the creatures we're wiping out of existence. Crops were specialized over many generations to be perfectly adapted to the local area they're grown: well adjusted to the peculiar weather conditions, nutrition profile, and pests & diseases. Now, seeds are bought from just a few companies making hybrids from the same stock. We've eradicated the genetic diversity of our food making it susceptible to disease and pests and it's homogeneity itself being a liability. Without diversity in our crops, we gamble everything being wiped out by the same fate and any farmer will be quick to tell you that when disaster strikes, it strikes with a vengeance.
This video contains many half-truths, misleading and biased information. It hits one side of the story, only. For example, it is assuming that all chemical pesticides are exactly the same, which is false. Like in pharmaceuticals, the technology evolves. Pesticide chemistry too. Today, you don’t take the same drug for headaches as 30 years ago, because new and better ones were discovered. Pesticides follow the same logic - nowadays they are by far less harmful to the environment and for the consumer.
When you say less harmful to the environment; what do u mean by that exactly? killing insects will lead to birds without food, and less birds means less things that depend on birds; say for seed spreading, fertilize, food and so on. So about biased information? hum.
@@NecromanSir you are confirming my assumption. Pesticides are not all the same. Did you know that most of yield loss in many crops are made by fungus? What is the effect of a Fungicide on insects? I mean don't get me wrong, mate. This topic requires less emotions and more information.
@@agrojader Do not use how aboutism with me, I hate it. You have confirmation bias yourself, I did not confirm anything. I pointed out the ecological chain and how it is broken by certain practise. Using pesticide, herbicide fungicide and chemical fertilizers is a practice not in equilibrium. Those are some information for you.
@@NecromanSir I understand your point, and I offer you a different perspective: would you say any sick human being taking a medicine against some deadly disease goes against the natural equilibrium or environmental chain?
Have a small farm, and tenants, usually they'll farm a bit. Had one use liquid fertilizer and heavily water, no one else ever did that. Everyone else planted and covered the ground in fine hey, like from a lawn mower, and only watered if needed. Never have I seen the crops so late, or tomatoes so hard, as the one time someone tried the unnatural way, it was the only real difference I can see.
You cannot without chemistry and agrochemicals. By the way, I'm talking from a farm house surrounded by regenerated fields. Regeneration done through no tillage which is not possible without glyphosate.
@@r.guerreiro140 I'm in the process of regenerating 25 acres of what used to be a new England sheep farm. We don't use glyphosate. So no you do not need herbicides.
@@TheHonestPeanut Your reality is absolutely different from what we have to endure on tropical weather Maybe you can attain a feasible soil management without deeper concerns about saving organic matter and vegetable cover to avoid desertification
First of all people really don't want the real thing coz they go by how a fruit or food looks like, so if a fruit has to look good chemicals have to be used.
My dream is to own property and turn it into an insect sanctuary by providing natural flowers and plants for them. I also hope to have enough space to grow my own food that I can eat and also donate to the community.
Short answer: definately No. Long answer: yes, but everybody should be vegetarian, don't have kids and pay 3 times the price. Even though... the complexity of the issue is not addressed.. where (in a large scale) all the nutrients will come from? Is there enough supplier of organic fertilizers? (No)... Even in an organic farm the output of nutrients by its products need to be inserted back. And the list goes on.
Organic was a step in the right direction, but Regenerative Agriculture will take us the rest of the way to clean nutrient dense & abundant food -- believe it or not?
@@inharmonywithearth9982 This sounds about ... very right. Don't forget for all to push for full switch the Regenerative Agriculture, cuz it puts itself, the growing of food, in direct relationship with forests, afforestation, reforestation & rebuilding topsoil lost since 1945 with monoculture & tilling, going way beyond mere organic into an abundance of nutrient dense foods, all for me mere picking. Tho that is work many will still want done for them, or not in the place of stable fertility.
@@inharmonywithearth9982 Great gratitude for being in harmony with the Earth. I'm trying to prax Regenerative Agriculture. I did lose some perennials in the process, but where it's successful the results are WOW! Just keep diversely feeding the soil & the soil life (worms, most visibly) come to near the surface, just where we want them & where they want to be to catch the soil exudates.
I am directly related to pesticides. I am a consultant for commercial agriculture in California. The lady is absolutely wrong, we don’t apply more than what’s regulated. We rotate chemistry’s (FRAC GROUPS) to prevent resistant biological adaptions. Pesticides help feed large populations and with large regulations in California prevent us from over using and polluting, we try our best to use natural predators, but invasive species brought over from foreign entities cause us to use alternatives to prevent crop disaster. At the end of the day we are trying our best to evolve agriculture to be cleaner. And that being said, we are feeding the world and crop disasters from pests can cause a major rift in our world supply of food. One or few pest can devastate a whole agricultural region that can cause a repeat in history of previous crop disasters that can lead to famine. I am constantly learning in agriculture that almost every single company is making a turn to greener and safer AG. Please support agriculture.
organic farming can be done far better than conventional method and it is inexpensive. that is what i teach in my farm activities in kerala, india. this gives more quantity, rich in nutrition, better size, shape and colors. finally food as medicine
Video is informative,interesting and very good. What are the pros and cons of organic farming to the farmers? How can we get rid of pest,while we are doing organic farming? Which is cost effective to the farmers organic or non-organic farming?
The pest problem of modern farming mostly stems from monocultures of a single crop. Diversify the crops grown to reduce the prevalence of pests that eat any particular crop or crop type. Although many pests can also be eaten, so you could just harvest them too with the appropriate. Also the introduction of natural pest predators can dramatically reduce the numbers of breeding adult pests. Essentially just reproduce what happens naturally in forests but in a controlled and managed manner. There is a whole bunch of free information on youtube about these kinds of setups, but it could take some work to get everything working properly on any particular body of land. Desert reclamation is even possible with these sustainable techniques. An organic food forest is far more cost effective than modern non-organic farming practices, but it takes quite a lot of time to set up properly, as well as a lot of knowledge on crop rotations, plant scheduling, etc... Non-organic farming is significantly easier, because you just need to know about a few plants, and can amend the soil according to what that plant needs, which allows the production of a single high value crop rather than only a handful of high value crops. These are the reasons we tend to grow food the way we do today, because sometimes easier significantly more desirable than profit.
@@matthewdancz9152the problem with food forests is that they aren’t scaleable. In order to run one you have to manually harvest plant, and maintain everything, due to the inability for machinery to navigate a forest and harvest multiple different crops at the same time.
I worked 28 years in the wholesale/ retail agricultural industry , the people demand perfect fruits & vegetables and that only happens with pesticides.
Wrong informations. Pesticides do not create resistant they select. We should stoping using antibiótics from her perspective ? The problem is the wrong use in both case.
im a farmer 👩🌾 i will come back when i have enough time to explain a bit from my little knowledge. i do organic and conventional farming. this is wast topic, needed more time and research to touch all the pros and cons. theory and practice doesn’t relate even 10 percent in farming tbh. the topic u chose should be appreciated.
As a organic farmer, i use wastes of conventional farming to fertilize the organic part of my farm,i cant do organic without that we need nitrogen for planta
These people don't care. I have tried to explain the knowledge I have and the fact that we aren't starving to death because of advances and chemicals in farming. We don't have constant famines, food is cheap, farmers lose their entire harvest much less often, etc. Everything that we do that would be organic if we were to have it certified is in such small scale that pumpkins, cucumbers, sweet corn, and tomatoes are really all that we sell. Its all such a pain in the rear to do that I feel the people talking about their "studies " should be forced to farm and put their house and land on the line if they fail. Either that or they can come out and set the live traps, radios, electric fence, and build and maintain greenhouses.
@@massimopecile9666 I remember watching a video about the approved fertilizers and pesticides for organic farming have caused a bunch of health problems for the farmers that use them according to European union. These ppl that demand everything organic often don't seem to realize that it doesn't mean no chemicals were ever used. Past that, all of the things that I hear them talking about conventional farming causing just seem to be exaggerated claims. We have more people on earth, less famine, better yields for farmers than a century ago, longer life expectancy, cheaper food. The only thing I'm not a huge fan of is the hormones and stuff that is used for livestock, however I don't know enough about it to say that I thinking wrong. I just try to eat meat that comes from people that we know so I know it isn't in there. However, I still eat store bought often
Non clairement pas, toutes les études sur le sujet montrent que s'il fallait retourner aux anciennes méthodes ou généraliser la permaculture, il faudrait plus de 90% de la population qui travaille dans les champs, la sécurité alimentaire en empatirait et il faudrait raser les derniers hectares de forêts qui ne le sont pas déjà sur Terre
Better question: Can we afford to continue spraying forever chemicals into our world? We have the resources (water, fertilizer, green houses) to maintain individually owned farms and garden. We wouldn't be starting from sticks and stones if we went without them.
Without - 100% organic. There is so much we can do to prevent pest infections and cut down on chemical fertilizer but there are times when they are the right tools in a farmers tool bag. Farming is at least a bachelor degree education. Or as the Germans call it - agrarwirt - Modern automation already makes farming much more productive.
If we would produce food properly and distribute it fairly noone would have to go hungry. Having cats and dogs isn't the same as poisoning the lands on an industrial level.
@@tjmarx farm bugs for protein and tech advancement will make vertical farms cheaper. Plus you can also make food distribution better so farmers no longer have to dump their crops cause they could not find a buyer
Livestock is not the enemy. They are the scavengers that make use of land that is no good for farming. They also are great at eating food waste. If you think it takes a lot of water to make beef look into what it takes to make almonds or avocados in the dessert.
You mean the Rainforest? Or more recently the forests in Ukraine? These are being cut down to grow soy for an ag. Not exactly "places where only animal foods can grow"...
Sure we can. But we’ll need half the consumers to die and the other half will need to accept lower quality produce pre-seasoned with starvation at substantially higher costs.
Farmers need to take the regenerative route of farming. Organic farming is good but it needs to be regenerative because organic farmers are still legally allowed to till. And tilling kills the soul food web which is how plants get their nutrients and build their defense systems from pest naturally. They say organic usually produces less yield but organic regenerative farmers who followed Elaine inghams soil food web studies have actually experienced 200% more yield than conventional farming. So actually we could produce more food with less land. Cows need to be grass fed and poultry needs to be pasture raised. Tilling should be illegal (unless there’s an invasive plant that’s impossible to get rid of except by tilling) plus there are more nutrients in the soil than plants know what to do with. We just need bacteria and fungi to put it in plant available form so they can absorb it. Tilling kills those organism We need to spread the word to end world hunger. The more nutrients there is in food the less we actually eat. Energy is useless if we don’t have the nutrients to go with it.
I’d love to see a source on that “organic regenerative raising 200% the yield of conventional” bit. Also the impact of tillage varies completely by area, tillage has its own set of pros and cons, just like no till or any other system, it’s about what works in each situation.
You can just feel the German influence all over this video. I’m all for a better world but to say that it’s good to be organic as it’s more profitable because farmers can charge a premium just shows where the problem lays. How do you want to sell ecologically grown, cheap and in masses? It’s not about how much farmers earn it’s about what people can afford. Sure in Germany for most no problem. What if you charge this premium all over India? Sadly heavily biased and one sided so hard to truly understand the good opinions we have. You need to lay down the entire process and how to make organic food scalable, profitable and affordable for everyone if you really want to prove a point.
I am also a farmer having 10 acre area and if we started growing crops organically we haven't any but problem is not getting best price for that hard work we done in field you people giving education on sitting chair go and ask farmers at ground level how they survive at that low prices if all farmers increases the price you guys more than half salry went in buying basic food ❤
Οrganic food is a mith. Conventional farming has more than ten times productivity than organic farming. 1. In farming either the plant produces the chemical that kille or reppel the insects or we spray on them , what do you think which one is more safe ? 2. Why the people got so much the chrmophobia? 3. You are spreading the phobia.
Wheat: I wonder if you can increase productions: by harvesting just the seed prematurely and growing the top seed portion in a smaller hydroponic pot until they become mature it may be possible to multiply the crop output and grow the majority in a high rise farm with a lot less space. Growing just the seed portion after cutting it off the top of the plant may make the plant attempt to regrow the seeds more often since it thinks it's seeds never reached maturity. It may be necessary to use root growth methods to get this to work but it would increase crop yield per acre possible multiple times larger than current yield.
finding a technology or a way to store a food for long time may be the key to reduce the food waste. then, we can reduce the demand and the price of the organic food
Dawn soap kills most small pests, the little insects. Just mix with water and spray plant leaves under and over(biodegradable to), just don't drnch the soil. Maybe we can lighten up on meat, but I don't think I'll make it on leaves.
Yes it’s possible. As long as we truly focus on bio fungicides and insecticides and get the price point lower for these products so farmers will swap to them. I own a peach orchard and use bio fungicides and insecticides with good results. I am not completely organic as I need fertilizer that has a higher nitrogen content than organic solutions provide. But other than that I do what I can to limit the use of any chemicals.
I saw something fall off the table in the video. In it just boils down to money. Rice of organic products to consumers and right price to farmers. The rest is irrelevant.
Hunger is not a lack of food, but a lack of salary. If organic farming is more expensive, less people can buy food. Another problem is the appearance of food. A tomato with a spot consumer won´t buy, so organic produce has huge food waste.
Everyone should grow their own produce. I've already started sowing seeds indoors (UK) You can easily grow most vegetables and some fruits, even grain like corn (wheat may be tricky in small gardens) Even chickens, you can grow for eggs or meat (if you are okay with it)
You think we have enough space for everyone to own their own garden? People just see solutions from their own point of view just like the perspective of this video, ignoring that a massive amount of population can’t afford the premium in price needed to make organic profitable enough and we can’t afford the extra space too. The actual solution would be less people. Any other idea is not as simple as people want it to be.
Herbolic is easy but roughly pesticides used mujhe companies ko harbolic ho toh thik sabhi jakar health ko effect karenga laboratory mein kaam karna hai for agriculture
Im a farmer and i don't live in the "global north" reg ag souns utopic here. As consumers will hate any imperfection and chemical pesticides are the only way to avoid it. GMOs are powerful tools that have been known for bad things but have potential for great benefits. Food wastage is terrible and we should follow on France footsteps (tax the food trhown away if it isn't donated to food shelters) , all governments should tax carbon footprint including transport. And all producing countries should have a co-op every 100 000- 400 000 people in which price minimums and maximum are set by the government and producer unions based on 1,15 times production cost to 2,5. (Similar to what india farmers were striking to protect) So you place a non loss option for crops but food never sores too high to endanger the plates of your population. This would hace the infrastructure to extend the life of the produce, dryers, freezers etc. Buy non perfet produce, buy local. In Spanish its "manejo integrado" im trying to reduce chemical pesticides but almost got broke due to complications over my change. Organic certifications are extremely expensive, takes two "clean years" in which you lose yield with no improvement in price. Local markets cant move enough organic produce from my farm to make it profitable close. An export permit is very expensive and will make food availability and cost worse for my country. Making a high carbon footprint produce due to transport. (Winter might have a lot of cons but its a bio reset i really would like to have) Tl;dr: It isn't easy. And consumers need to change first.
Farmers wouldn't use pesticides if we didn't need them, they are not cheap, food became cheaper and widely available with the introduction of pesticides. People want perfect looking fruit on the supermarket shelves, if they were okay with blemishes and ugly fruit/veggies then there would be less pesticide usage. Resistance is only a problem if we don't rotate our mode of actions (MOA). If you want organic produce world wide it would require more individuals growing their own produce, and probably GMOs(which has its own negative spin). Very easy to complain about problems versus fix them.
The one area that people absolutely refuse to see is, animals. Eating animals instead of all the toxic rice, wheat, corn, soy, sugar, and seeds that are grown for oils that take up such a massive amount of land when, for the most part meat and fish is only eaten once a day. That's all. People talk about eating vegan, but people who only eat vegetables, never stop eating.
Without pesticides, every farm would be organic. Organic farming involves a lot of tillage similar to farming 100 years ago. That lead to the dust bowl in the 30s.
This is exactly why YT doesn't recommend it. It exposes the truth against the big GMO players like Bayer and Cargill who scheme to eliminate subsistence farming, eliminate all natural seeds and force the world to depend on everything they produce in labs. That's what the "Green Revolution" was all about, artificializing and commercializing our most basic needs for survival
Call me conservative if u want, but the critics would be happy with famine spread all over the world and where ur food cost x3 to x5 times? some people always finding things to complain instead of been grateful. Disclaimer: not an expert in the field by any means.
It's a simple question...or we feed the polulation and we used hybrids, herbicides, pesticides, chemical fertilizers or we drive a big part of the people to death, and i mean what i said. I am European, but working as agronomist in Nigeria, the population is up to 200 million and more than half down of 18 years old...the whether conditions here allow to insects to give multiple generations every season. And yes, we use pesticides to control it, no to save the crop, but to feed the people. As European i show both sides of this issue....but you have to know that the toxicity of the modern chemicals have nothing to do with what happened before 30 years.
People say that overpopulation is not problem but it clearly is the more land using for houses and for public necessities so the land for farming is not that much anymore. So how to keep producing the food when the population is rising and if you don't use pesticides it won't grow looking good or at all because there's many insect problem. But back then isn't as problematic because the population is not as big as now. And also land is better. Idk. It sucks though, the quality of soil keep degrading and the population keep rising.
It is definitely not a simple topic. We have a video exploring on it here! 👇 "Is overpopulation really a problem for the planet?" studio.ruclips.net/user/videokUL-q7ptDW4/edit Let us know what you think after watching it. 🌱
I've got to object to the word "synthetic" in the title. The implication that a naturally derived pesticide (aka organic) would be more effective and/or less toxic to humans or the environment in general is deeply flawed. Both are simply chemicals that have an effect that we desire (assuming we want pesticides at all). Synthetic pesticides tend to be far more effective, and so much lower quantities of these compounds can be used. If we continue to work on it, we can develop more targeted pesticides that keep efficacy while decreasing environmental harm. Organic farming does not do this.
@@inharmonywithearth9982 I'm not sure where you're at in the world as different countries have different regulations for what constitutes "organic." That said, bacillus thuringiensis was not invented by anyone. It's a wild bacterium. Yes, it can be applied to crops and kill some pest species. No, it does not only kill pests. No, it is not specific to a particular species, but instead destroys the gut lining of whatever insects eat it. It's not magical. Further, at least in the US, there are dozens of chemical pesticides that are legal to use in organic farming - they only need to be derived from natural sources. Farmers pretend that that means that they are more effective and less harmful than synthetic pesticides. You apparently share their ignorance of basic chemistry, based on your "petroleum chemicals kill everything" comment.
Natural vs. synthetic tells us nothing about safety. The goal should be safe, sustainable, and low environmental impact, not if it's natural or synthetic.
@@aditisk99 Natural or synthetic has nothing to do with it. Toxicity is a dose, not a substance. Everything is toxic and everything is not toxic depending on the dose regardless of being natural or synthetic. Mercury, arsenic, cyanide,botulism, etc are natural and highly toxic.
At six minutes the claim is made that what is "certain" about organic crops is that they contain "far fewer pesticide residues and are therefore healthier". Not true. Nonsense. Crap. Pesticide residues on non-organic crops are many magnitudes below even the safe level. Countries all over the world test for these residue levels, the USDA PDP program for example. The EU does the same thing. However the pesticide residues of the pesticides used by organic farmers are NOT tested for by the organic industry.
It can be done and must be done the leaders of countries should demand it be done sooner rather than later or it won’t be worth living . Nature should not be messed around with everything man made is poisonous to us and animals .
in short, stop eating animal products which in turn make a lot of land available, which in turn compensate the low productivity of organic farming and still able to feed the world.
@@matthewdancz9152 Too much of the wrong kind of food is being grown. GMO Corn Syrup in most snack foods, these are not food. So I recommend organic and I also believe the Government should incentivize the organic farmers to level the playing field. Organically food is simply real food.
@@johnmarshall6599 Corn syrup is a leftover product of corn for animals. Since the food industry tries not to waste food, they put the syrup in anything they can get their hands on. Did you ever bake a bun at home, with a recipe that said "put in corn syrup"? Do you even have a bottle of corn syrup at home? TO is right: stop making foods for animals. And you are right too: make real food for humans. (80 billion livestock 8 billion humans. Easy win for the plants)
Organic: Healthy Food or Trendy Scam??? Organic food has been quite popular in recent years. Organic food is evolving from an alternative to a virtuous and social duty, despite its higher costs. Organic food is thought to be more natural, healthier, and ethical. Wait a minute! Please be patient! But, exactly, what do we mean when we say "organic"? Because there is no worldwide agreement, various areas have their own definitions and standards. In general, organic food is grown without the use of GMO seeds and is free of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. Organic farmers grow food in a more traditional manner, such as crop rotation, and utilize organic fertilizers such as compost and manure. While the urge to purchase organic food is undeniably praiseworthy, is it truly effective or simply another pricey trend? I'd like to debate a few points. A. Is Organic Food Healthier? No, not necessarily. One theory is that cultivating it in a more natural manner makes it healthier and more nutritious. Several studies have revealed that organic foods contain more antioxidants, vitamins, and minerals than conventional meals. The data is vague, with only little changes in nutritional value that are insignificant enough to make a substantial judgment. They are produced by plants as a type of natural insecticide. Organic plants appear to have to work a little harder, whereas regular or conventional plants receive plenty of assistance from humans. According to the current data, organic food does not make a substantial difference in terms of health or nutrition. What we do know is that eating a variety of fruits and vegetables is healthy, and most of us don't eat enough of them regardless of how we produce them. B. Is Organic Food More Natural? People often buy organic not to get more vitamins, but to avoid toxic chemicals like synthetic pesticides and fertilizers. It is obvious that organic produce contains less pesticide residue than conventional produce. Things start to get tricky here. Less pesticide does not quite imply no pesticide at all. Pesticides are not prohibited in organic agriculture. They employ what are known as organic insecticides. Natural toxins, such as vegetable oils, hot ash soap, sulfur, or copper sulfates, make up the majority of organic pesticides. What makes organic pesticides different from synthetic pesticides? Actually, not much. Organic pesticides may or may not be safer than conventional pesticides. Toxic substances are toxic regardless of whether they are manufactured or derived from nature. In the case of copper sulfate, which is frequently used in organic farming, it is actually more harmful to humans. The toxicity of any substance is determined by its concentration and your exposure to it, regardless of whether it is natural or not. C. Is Organic Food Better for the Environment? If you look into organic farming in-depth and compare it to conventional farming in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, energy usage, and land uses, you'll see a significant difference. As a consequence, no mode of manufacturing is obviously superior for the environment. Organic systems utilize less energy than conventional systems, yet emit the same amount of greenhouse gases. Organic food uses less amount of pesticides but considerably needs much more land to produce the same amount of crop. In terms of land use sustainability, the conventional system wins. Organic farming offers a definite benefit in terms of ecotoxicity. The bottom line is that organic food isn't any better than ordinary food. Organic food has a notable negative influence on a broader scale. Organic demand is increasing, and the battle to supply the market may lead to production techniques that are less sustainable in other respects. Organic vs. Conventional isn't only a matter of opinion. Organic is more than just a production technique. It's an idealogy for many, and buying organic is simply the right thing to do. Our tendency to think of organic as good and conventional as bad can stand in the way of making the best rational decision. The solution might be to stop seeing organic and conventional farming as mutually exclusive. They both have advantages and disadvantages, and the greatest approach to create nutritious food effectively would be a mix of their finest characteristics. In a nutshell, an organic label is a production notification, not a security certificate or a diet panacea. What you consume is far more important than how it is produced.
You skipped the part where the anti-sparrow campaign led to a pandemic of crop-destroying insects leading to famines
@@lightdark00 This disaster helped humanity to see the interconnectedness of it all. And now capitalist corporations may kill billions if we don't change course. Just one of the benefits from capitalist ravanging the planet for profit. So,this is NOT about political systems, but about interconnectedness and a healthy whole.
@@KootFloris : Hotter and hotter every year because 87% is from cattle and pigs and chicken !!! Scientific fact !!! Planes ✈️ 10%. Go vegan everybody. And 10 plants 🌾🌾🌾🌾🌾🌾🌾🌾🌾🌾, One steak 🐮💩🦠🥩😲 !!! Scientific fact !!!
Dr. Sailesh Rao Author of Study Published In Journal of Ecological Society 87%: Animal Agriculture Really Is A Killer... Methene is animals
🐄💨💩🔴🦠🍖😩🤯. RUclips him !!!! Very important for everybody !!! Only got the Earth you know !!!!......
@@VeganV5912 Heard of Shiva Vandana? She too has great views.
@@KootFloris ... you hurt innocent animaIs ? BIudgeoned to death ? For a 5 minute hamburger ??? CuIt foIIowing !!!! You don’t do with your cute little dog. You love your dog🤗🐶, or parrot 🤗🦜 . You can have vegan burgers and vegan chicken and vegan pizza and vegan curry and vegan burritos and vegan tacos..... without any murder !!!! RUclips delicious vegan food. ✅🤷🏼♂️
@@VeganV5912 I don't even have a dog, as that would be cruel given my life style.
I am farmer i am growing pomogrenate fruits now using 80 percentage organic products but I did not used colour agent for that reason my pomogrenate fruits sold at less than 35 percentage costs.
People's also should eat not just by looking outside they should observe inside.
Wonderful, what you are doing. I used to buy these ugly looking pomegranates in Southern India that had large colorless grains. Nobody wanted these but they were simply divine to taste. The vendor referred to them as “nati” pomegranates which is local lingo for wild. Those perfect-looking pomegranates taste like cardboard, cost twice as much and don't last long. Thank you!
u should advertise your fruits with harms that artificial coloring agent do.. And one day u ll sale your fruit with cost u want.. People ll take time to understand wt u giving them but eventually they ll realize
Promote your products, people are paying more for organic produce.
Agree. Where are you based? I'm in Wales UK. Tell me more about the colouring agent used. What does a real organic fruit look like?
Sell them to Canada!!!! I love healthy pomegranate, but the cold weather makes buying them hard.
The less healthy the environment, the more difficult it gets to go without chemicals which when used further destroy the environment…
Hotter and hotter every year because 87% is from cattle and pigs and chicken !!! Scientific fact !!! Planes ✈️ 10%. Go vegan everybody. And 10 plants 🌾🌾🌾🌾🌾🌾🌾🌾🌾🌾, One steak 🐮💩🦠🥩😲 !!! Scientific fact !!!
Dr. Sailesh Rao Author of Study Published In Journal of Ecological Society 87%: Animal Agriculture Really Is A Killer... Methene is animals 🐄💨💩🔴🦠🍖😩🤯. RUclips him !!!! Very important for everybody !!! Only got the Earth you know !!!!
@@VeganV5912 vegan is proven to be bad for health, humans need meat and it's nutrients, plants can't do that for us.
Unless you want half the world to die, then going vegan is the way.
@@ikka489 . Actually the opposite. No stink if you eat plants and fruit and nuts and berries and tubers. Scientific fact.
All matter is chemicals.
Can I just say… I’m a farm sun the UK and we have been using pesticides that target specific pests… such as flea beetle in oilseed rape. So there are alternatives out there in which makes pesticides a more sustainable way of producing food. To further support this, people should be against the governments, not the farmers. We are doing our job to produce food the way people and the government subsidises us. Therefore farming is very governmental run at the moment.
pesticides ultimately destroy microorganisms in the soil, without which the plant can´t absorb nutrients properly. The interconnection between the microoganisms and the crops, the symbiosis, must be preserved. Otherwise you´re ultimately creating more pests and more diseases. Why not try biological methods of combating pests? Like chickens and other birds, distraction crops, multiculture, rotation of crops, etc. Although probably that´s not possible under the current state of affairs. Both the govt and farming are run by huge corporations, which are in turn run by private individuals (shareholders) only looking for profit. That´s the real problem.
There are a lot information lacking in that video, as example if you search about pesticide commonly used in organic farms allowed in most contries you will find Copper or Sufur derivates, that compounds caused in many parts of Europe soil sterility, both are large spectrum "pesticide" affecting not only the target, but all microbial and insect community (when I found out I was also scared, i didn't knew that), There are some EU documents about that.
.
About the food loss, most of the post haversts losses is caused by fungi contamination, and without using chemical that is will be higher. The fungi toxins are more toxic compared with chemical pesticide, and even harden to remove (search for Mycotoxin and Aflatoxin).
.
Cows, Pigs and Chicken, besides high nutrition value (in protein and essential vitamins) produce fertilizer
and if used properly complete a essential cycle of food production. In fact mines of potassium nitrate (essential fertilizer
in agriculture), as a gigant site of poop from birds (search for Chile Salitre). And you can use that chicken residue as a high value fertilizer
.
.
There are many people in the world working in alternatives for the current problem of Chemical pesticed, nowadays we have Bacillus (bacteria) that have succefully used to control fungi and some insects in field, Trichogramma galloi(Microwasp) Insects that parasites other insects. Trichoderma a fungi that compete in the field against phytopathogenic fungis.
Good knowledge, thanks
Over specialized farming communities loose out on many cost savings.
Cows on the field - no need to buy feed and fertilizer
OK, talking about how it should or could be in agriculture.....thats nice, but why dont DW mentioned the two of the biggest manufacturer of agro chemistry on the planet....Bayer and BASF? Is it a taboo for German broadcaster, or is it because of their contribution of wellfare of Germany? DW, leave the comfort zone and be more critic!
@kid man , Hotter and hotter every year because 87% is from cattle and pigs and chicken !!! Scientific fact !!! Planes ✈️ 10%. Go vegan everybody. And 10 plants 🌾🌾🌾🌾🌾🌾🌾🌾🌾🌾, One steak 🐮💩🦠🥩😲 !!! Scientific fact !!!
Dr. Sailesh Rao Author of Study Published In Journal of Ecological Society 87%: Animal Agriculture Really Is A Killer... Methene is animals 🐄💨💩🔴🦠🍖😩🤯. RUclips him !!!! Very important for everybody !!! Only got the Earth you know !!!!..
@@VeganV5912 you can't do regenerative ag without animals. You just have to change how you manage your animals and suddenly they are putting as much carbon away as they produce
@@thatonedog819 ....👈.. John Wayne Gacy.. Clown 🤡🔴😵😵😵😵😵😵..... over a fricking burger !! 5 minute burger et cetera !!! You don’t do it with your cute little dog 🤗🐶 . Or cat 🤗🐈..... CuIt following !!!! 🙄🤦🏼♂️Over a fricking 5 minute hamburger et cetera🖕!!!!!
@@VeganV5912... What....
@@thatonedog819 🐷🔪⛓🙁/😵🔴🍖🐮.... 👈🤥🤥🤥. Hypooocrite !!! Big time !!!!!
You don’t do with your cute little dog 🤗🐶. Or a parakeet 🤗🦜.....
For a 5 minute frigging burger !! You can have vegan burgers and vegan pizza and vegan cheese and vegan ice cream and vegan curry and vegan burritos and vegan tacos and vegan sushi..............
Yess! Regenerative farming ist productive, creates more fertile soil, brings healthy food and stores carbon. We don't need carbon capture technology, we need to stop destroying our farmland with monoculture, gmo and pesticides.
We also need carbon capture technology
We have already pumped way more CO2 than oceans or forest will be able to naturally consume, or at the rate that is needed to avoid irreparable ecological damage
Its all about globalization
It's cutting down 30% of all forest's on the planet replacing them with games. Watch david Attenborough on Netflix his new one tells you everything you need to know
Hotter and hotter every year because 87% is from cattle and pigs and chicken !!! Scientific fact !!! Planes ✈️ 10%. Go vegan everybody. And 10 plants 🌾🌾🌾🌾🌾🌾🌾🌾🌾🌾, One steak 🐮💩🦠🥩😲 !!! Scientific fact !!!
Dr. Sailesh Rao Author of Study Published In Journal of Ecological Society 87%: Animal Agriculture Really Is A Killer... Methene is animals
🐄💨💩🔴🦠🍖😩🤯. RUclips him !!!! Very important for everybody !!! Only got the Earth you know !!!!.....
Gmo is fine. It's the patent that's a problem. You can do regenerative ag with gmo just fine if they were allowed to seed save.
A lot of these conversations come back to consumers. What consumers purchase drives how farmers farm, how breeders breed, etc. If people understood that an apple with a small blemish on it is still edible, there would be much less food waste. The standards for producing fruit have gotten out of control and given farmers two options; either use harsher chemistries to try and create a perfect piece of fruit, or go organic, spend a fortune on inputs and hope that you have something to show for at the end of the year.
That is a little narrow in terms of an analysis. A lot of (industry paid?) experts continually talk about the nasty diseases you can get from bad/old fruit and vegetables. "When in doubt, throw it out" is how lots of people are told to behave. By experts. So why would you buy stuff that you are not sure about to start with? That most people could eat very rancid, worm infested fruit and vege with nothing more than an occasional bout of diarrhea is beside the point. One magazine article about how a kid somewhere died of a worm in "ugly" fruit is enough for most to never buy it again. Most people are completely incapable of determining the risk profile of such things, so go for what the ads/advice tell them to.
Yeah, like most people have the money for buying fruits, let alone organic one. Poverty is the issue.
@@m.935 There are inexpensive fruit out there in most countries, they are just not getting to the people that need them. But agreed, fruit with a little pesticide residue is 99.99% better than McD's
I disagree: commercial farming is heavily subsidized by gov., so it's cheaper to consumer, therefore, they buy it. If organic farming was subsidized the situation would be reversed~
@@BLAQFiniks it most certainly is, and if the true costs of current industrial practices were included in prices to consumers, it might well be very different. The reality is that prices are often suppressed for political purposes, to ensure a pliable public and healthy campaign contributions.
I have doubts about the quality of this video.
I will not explain all of them but highlight one that most people should understand.
At 3:19 , the presenting journalist claims that "one intrinsic problem is the way pesticide* works" and follows Yvette Perfecto explaining the concept of "pesticide* treadmills". No critics or question from the journalists on this concept. The viewer is left to believe "pesticide* treadmills" is a thing.
At 9:43, the presenting journalist asks "but do we need to get rid of all pesticides*?" and follows John Reganold explaining that we can use synthetic chemicals in a smart way. No critics or question from the journalists on this idea. The viewer is left to believe "smart use of synthetic ag-chemicals" could be a solution.
Have you seen it? Only one of this concept/idea can be true. Not both. But the journalists didn't bother to find out which one is true and which is false.
*synthetic
The treadmill starts witht the enormous flooding of pesticides indiscriminate on the crops, same goes for deadly bacteria in Living Stock constantly fed with anti-biotics.
Of course, if you have a sick plant that can infect others, as well as a sick animal, you shall cure it or intervene on the pests, that's a WHOLE different story than flooding healthy beings with anti-things they don't have
@@garysquarepants898 Thanks for your reaction. It is interesting and is more subjective than rational. The phrase "enormous flooding of pesticides" make me conclude this.
Some readers may ask "why is it subjective?". In Europe, commercial farmers work with great precision and none does flood a field with pesticides.
Here is an example with glyphosate for the reader wanting more information: glyphosate is a well known herbicide. It can be used to terminate a cover crop or a pasture in order to make room for a new crop for example. A common rate of glyphosate is 1 liter per hectare. It means that on 1ha, a farmer will apply once 1l of glyphosate to kill the current plants and make place for a following crop. One hectare is equal to 10000 square meters or 2 soccer fields. Applying 1 liter to 10000 square meter is not exactly flooding. Weeding with glyphosate is precision work.
Same precision applies to all pesticides used on European agricultural crops.
@@thierrystokkermans5434 It depends from the nature of the poison sir, also a few micrograms of many substances can kill you.
"Flooding" is an image used to understand the nature of the event related to its consequences, not to explain the nature of the event in itself and only itself.
Stop isolating concepts like they exist alone, China tried with birds, like they existed alone, and their crops were eaten by insects.
Don't be so ideological and a bit communist, try to link events with each other and find the possible solutions, be a human.
The gulf dead zone is not because of pesticide runoff. It is fertilizer runoff causing algae blooms which use up all the oxygen creating areas with little oxygen content.
There is not a food shortage. This is a distribution and sharing issue. Even during the Irish Famine food was exported to England under armed guard. When Geldoff went to Ethiopia food was not being distributed due to their horrific dictator. Bovine growth hormone in the USA was not need as there was already a surplus of milk... We need to learn how to share. We don't need pesticides. Also we would be wise to look at the painful reasons within ourselves for overconsumption, greed, hoarding etc..rather than feeling abundant and share.
This is part of chemophobia. In the terminology of 'organic farming', the adjective 'organic' is not used in the sense in which the word is used in science.
right, it´s not like pesticides cause diseases and ecological catastrophies.
you dont burn grain as a fuel. You remove starch which converts to ethanol that you burn, but the most valuable part of the grain (the proteins etc.) will be recycled into animal feed. So ethanol from corn is freeish (its not exactly), as corn contains too much starch for animal feed anyways.
Interesting, I think we shouldn't be breeding animals anyway.
@@jacewright6428 I agree that we should heavily reduce the amount of animals we breed but we should still keep some as they can convert the non-edible food waste from crops into food we can eat in the form of protein rich meat. Without animals such as cattle and sheep, there wouldn’t be a use for these bye products and lots of it would go to waste.
Interesting. Can it not be composted? And anything that provides enegery when eaten (like animal feed) can be burned as fuel right?
10:40 as a farmer i use already a lot of not so conventional agronomics pratices, but i do conventional, 3-4 crops rotations, cover crops, minimum tillage, but i still use glifosate for example, this is called integrated defense and its mandatory in europe. I have best results than ever using different methods
Glyphosate 😭🐙🔪
Mandatory herbicide? My god. The best results I´ve ever got was from mixing organic fertilizer (cow manure) plus a little bit of lime, a little bit of phosphorite flour and a little bit of superphosphate. So basically, mostly organic plus a little bit of mineral fertilizer to get the microorganism activity going.
Great not saying it doesn’t work! But at what price…. don’t you care about yourself your family and your consumers . You really believe it does no harm! Oh yes of course that lie comes from the manufacturer of the seeds and the chemicals right and the scientists and farmers they pay off to say it!
Grew up in the country surrounded by farms and had childhood ashtma. We felt it was due to chemicals, but had no proof, just a suspicion.
3:30 This is only showing half the truth. We already work around that by using different pesticides at once, which inhibits any kind of resistance development.
It is unlikely that even a singular mutation causes a resistance against one pesticide, but it can happen. But two pesticide resistances at once, or even three? Those numbers are practically non existant.
This is even working for antibiotics and bacteria, and those are WAY faster than any plant or insect.
Also the reaction to humans and other animals are very different depending on the pesticide you use. Some are even completly harmless.
@Lukae Yes they develop resistances one by one, but not all at once. And thats the point.
@Lukae No its not. The point is, if you use the right technique you can prevent the development of resistances.
Good healthy soil and produce will naturally stand up to pests in many cases!
Not really. wild berries and veggtables wouldnt be eaten by bugs if that were the case. Not to mention the Irish potato famine those potatoes were in very healthy soil yet the fungus still diseased them. A gmo potato had to be made to stop the potatoes from being infected. But for some foods you are correct as plants can produce there own pestsides.
That's because the irish were only growing one type of potato, when you lack genetic diversity in your crops that's exactly what happens, a disease will cause devastation. That's why organic farming is the best.@@carsonbaird3904
@@carsonbaird3904The Irish Potato's demise was caused by late potato blight. However, this is a poor example of a healthy farming system. Irish Potatoes lacked genetic diversity because they were grown in monocultures. At the time it made sense to mass plant the Lumper Potato variety to feed Ireland's growing population. They didn't know any better but the lack of genetic diversity made their potatoes more susceptible to diseases. Plants grown in ideal circumstances are far more resilient to disease. That isn't controversial and the scientific literature strongly supports that the healthier an organism is the more resilient it is to disease. Wild varieties can also be insanely prolific. I have half the property I live on consumed by wild thorny blackberries.
When you talk vegan you basically give up the use of the oceans which produce massive amounts of food. Raising grain for cars is insurance , if there are massive crop failures we can just stop feeding cars. I raised cows for forty years and could go years without pesticides but I could never grow a cabbage without sprays.
The professor in the video dodged a question it asked: will organic farming require us to cut down a lot more forests (10~20x) to feed the population? How would people choose between using pesticides vs cutdown 20x forests?
@@alexanderdvanbalderen9803 this isn't a fair critique because I haven't looked at all the things you've mentioned. However, I've seen the small permaculture things mentioned in RUclips and I can't see how that can conceivably be scaled up to feed the population.
@@shawnsg Easy peasy lemon squeezy. Take labour, subsidies and fertile soil away from the meat industrie, and put all of it in food for humans.
why cut down forests? organic fertilizer comes from cows and other cattle. Plus a bit of minerals, like phosphorite and lime. And that´s all you need.
@@shawnsg smaller farms, interconnected, with a combination of growing crops and agricultural animals, strategically placed in fertile areas, with channels and reservoirs and shelterbelts built around them. Farms that use crop rotation, multiculture, cover crops, distraction crops, biological methods of combating pests. Those can feed the global population.
Coming from a farmer here, idk about 10-20x but organic on average does yield SIGNIFICANTLY less. Hence why organic goods are so much more expensive. So yeah we’d likely need to clear a whole load more land, or we’d just have a whole swath of the population starve.
Forgot to mention when the chinese killed all the sparrows and such their crops were DECIMATED and many more died
Looks easy, but when you farm the land you may undestand some problems. Agricolture is easy when your plow is a pencil thounsands km away from a field
Pas tout à fait. Quand chaque agriculteur aura compris qu'il est le maillon terminal d'un système qui l'asphyxie lui-même, il décidera de faire autrement. D'autres solutions existent pour co-construire la résilience alimentaire de chaque territoire. 🙏
Great answer
Not quite. When each farmer understands that he is the final link in a system that suffocates himself, he will decide to do otherwise. Other solutions exist to co-build the food resilience of each territory. 🙏
Bull.
@@Suburp212 lol its a translation of emilies comment
There are already crops that can sinthesize natural chemicals that keeps pest and insect without the need to add synthetic pesticides, but thanks to years of fearmongering, people freaks out as soon as they hear the word “ogm” ignoring that most of our food comes from crossbreeding, like wheat, apples, bananas, corn…
It is the same thing happened with nuclear energy, sometimes there are great discoveries that could solve a lot of problems, but aren’t adopted because someone convinced people that are bad.
Totally agree with this. Genetic modification of current species using CRISPR is the future, but we have a long way to go before wide adoption
@@joaco3392 best of course of action would be to continue research while minimizing how much of our current food contains GMO
The problem with GMOs is not so much the GMOs themselves, rather the very aggressive and harmful businesses practices of the corporations that developed GMOs.
@@danieldiaz5342 do you know the name of these corporations? I would like to investigate them.
@@criss3619 I mean Bill Gates has thrown tons of money into it. But Bayer is one of the biggest. Nobody has any clue but our varieties of foods are going extinct faster than the creatures we're wiping out of existence. Crops were specialized over many generations to be perfectly adapted to the local area they're grown: well adjusted to the peculiar weather conditions, nutrition profile, and pests & diseases. Now, seeds are bought from just a few companies making hybrids from the same stock. We've eradicated the genetic diversity of our food making it susceptible to disease and pests and it's homogeneity itself being a liability. Without diversity in our crops, we gamble everything being wiped out by the same fate and any farmer will be quick to tell you that when disaster strikes, it strikes with a vengeance.
I dont use pesticide... i plant herbs. Just like in lettuce i plant onions to counter caterpillars
Aditi Rajagopal is amazing :D
Gee, thanks!
Regenerating agriculture of permaculture is the future, now or later u need to come to natural way.
Same you didn't compare the carbon footprint of conventional and organic food, this point is very important...
This video contains many half-truths, misleading and biased information. It hits one side of the story, only. For example, it is assuming that all chemical pesticides are exactly the same, which is false. Like in pharmaceuticals, the technology evolves. Pesticide chemistry too. Today, you don’t take the same drug for headaches as 30 years ago, because new and better ones were discovered. Pesticides follow the same logic - nowadays they are by far less harmful to the environment and for the consumer.
When you say less harmful to the environment; what do u mean by that exactly?
killing insects will lead to birds without food, and less birds means less things that depend on birds; say for seed spreading, fertilize, food and so on. So about biased information? hum.
@@NecromanSir you are confirming my assumption. Pesticides are not all the same. Did you know that most of yield loss in many crops are made by fungus? What is the effect of a Fungicide on insects? I mean don't get me wrong, mate. This topic requires less emotions and more information.
@@agrojader Do not use how aboutism with me, I hate it.
You have confirmation bias yourself, I did not confirm anything. I pointed out the ecological chain and how it is broken by certain practise. Using pesticide, herbicide fungicide and chemical fertilizers is a practice not in equilibrium. Those are some information for you.
@@NecromanSir I understand your point, and I offer you a different perspective: would you say any sick human being taking a medicine against some deadly disease goes against the natural equilibrium or environmental chain?
@@agrojader You are welcome!
0:50 Oh man,, the slap! Too funny! 🤣🤣🤣
I have a simple rule, if a company would not give a pesticide to drink directly for a year, I do not want it on my food.
Have a small farm, and tenants, usually they'll farm a bit. Had one use liquid fertilizer and heavily water, no one else ever did that. Everyone else planted and covered the ground in fine hey, like from a lawn mower, and only watered if needed. Never have I seen the crops so late, or tomatoes so hard, as the one time someone tried the unnatural way, it was the only real difference I can see.
It's called regenerative farming. We can.
It was just called "farming" before the tractor.
You cannot without chemistry and agrochemicals.
By the way, I'm talking from a farm house surrounded by regenerated fields.
Regeneration done through no tillage which is not possible without glyphosate.
@@r.guerreiro140 it is possible without glyphosate
@@r.guerreiro140 I'm in the process of regenerating 25 acres of what used to be a new England sheep farm. We don't use glyphosate. So no you do not need herbicides.
@@TheHonestPeanut Your reality is absolutely different from what we have to endure on tropical weather
Maybe you can attain a feasible soil management without deeper concerns about saving organic matter and vegetable cover to avoid desertification
First of all people really don't want the real thing coz they go by how a fruit or food looks like, so if a fruit has to look good chemicals have to be used.
My dream is to own property and turn it into an insect sanctuary by providing natural flowers and plants for them. I also hope to have enough space to grow my own food that I can eat and also donate to the community.
Same
Not if Monsanto has anything to do with it
1:35 and then the locusts came in and ate all their crops and created a famine in which 18 million died .
Short answer: definately No.
Long answer: yes, but everybody should be vegetarian, don't have kids and pay 3 times the price.
Even though... the complexity of the issue is not addressed.. where (in a large scale) all the nutrients will come from? Is there enough supplier of organic fertilizers? (No)...
Even in an organic farm the output of nutrients by its products need to be inserted back.
And the list goes on.
Haha, who do you work for? The interests of the 'industries' are killing the planet.
If you think your “organic” fruits and vegetables at the supermarket didn’t use pesticides…
Organic was a step in the right direction, but Regenerative Agriculture will take us the rest of the way to clean nutrient dense & abundant food -- believe it or not?
@@inharmonywithearth9982 This sounds about ... very right. Don't forget for all to push for full switch the Regenerative Agriculture, cuz it puts itself, the growing of food, in direct relationship with forests, afforestation, reforestation & rebuilding topsoil lost since 1945 with monoculture & tilling, going way beyond mere organic into an abundance of nutrient dense foods, all for me mere picking. Tho that is work many will still want done for them, or not in the place of stable fertility.
@@inharmonywithearth9982 Great gratitude for being in harmony with the Earth. I'm trying to prax Regenerative Agriculture. I did lose some perennials in the process, but where it's successful the results are WOW! Just keep diversely feeding the soil & the soil life (worms, most visibly) come to near the surface, just where we want them & where they want to be to catch the soil exudates.
I am directly related to pesticides. I am a consultant for commercial agriculture in California. The lady is absolutely wrong, we don’t apply more than what’s regulated. We rotate chemistry’s (FRAC GROUPS) to prevent resistant biological adaptions. Pesticides help feed large populations and with large regulations in California prevent us from over using and polluting, we try our best to use natural predators, but invasive species brought over from foreign entities cause us to use alternatives to prevent crop disaster. At the end of the day we are trying our best to evolve agriculture to be cleaner. And that being said, we are feeding the world and crop disasters from pests can cause a major rift in our world supply of food. One or few pest can devastate a whole agricultural region that can cause a repeat in history of previous crop disasters that can lead to famine. I am constantly learning in agriculture that almost every single company is making a turn to greener and safer AG. Please support agriculture.
organic farming can be done far better than conventional method and it is inexpensive. that is what i teach in my farm activities in kerala, india. this gives more quantity, rich in nutrition, better size, shape and colors. finally food as medicine
If it gives more quantity then why are we still using chemical pesticides???
You teach lies in your farm activities class.
Video is informative,interesting and very good.
What are the pros and cons of organic farming to the farmers?
How can we get rid of pest,while we are doing organic farming?
Which is cost effective to the farmers organic or non-organic farming?
The pest problem of modern farming mostly stems from monocultures of a single crop. Diversify the crops grown to reduce the prevalence of pests that eat any particular crop or crop type. Although many pests can also be eaten, so you could just harvest them too with the appropriate. Also the introduction of natural pest predators can dramatically reduce the numbers of breeding adult pests. Essentially just reproduce what happens naturally in forests but in a controlled and managed manner. There is a whole bunch of free information on youtube about these kinds of setups, but it could take some work to get everything working properly on any particular body of land.
Desert reclamation is even possible with these sustainable techniques.
An organic food forest is far more cost effective than modern non-organic farming practices, but it takes quite a lot of time to set up properly, as well as a lot of knowledge on crop rotations, plant scheduling, etc... Non-organic farming is significantly easier, because you just need to know about a few plants, and can amend the soil according to what that plant needs, which allows the production of a single high value crop rather than only a handful of high value crops. These are the reasons we tend to grow food the way we do today, because sometimes easier significantly more desirable than profit.
Exactly, these and many more questions are answered in the video. Thanks @10J Azeem Uddin 🙏
@@matthewdancz9152the problem with food forests is that they aren’t scaleable. In order to run one you have to manually harvest plant, and maintain everything, due to the inability for machinery to navigate a forest and harvest multiple different crops at the same time.
I worked 28 years in the wholesale/ retail agricultural industry , the people demand perfect fruits & vegetables and that only happens with pesticides.
Exactly.
Wrong informations. Pesticides do not create resistant they select. We should stoping using antibiótics from her perspective ? The problem is the wrong use in both case.
im a farmer 👩🌾 i will come back when i have enough time to explain a bit from my little knowledge. i do organic and conventional farming. this is wast topic, needed more time and research to touch all the pros and cons. theory and practice doesn’t relate even 10 percent in farming tbh. the topic u chose should be appreciated.
As a organic farmer, i use wastes of conventional farming to fertilize the organic part of my farm,i cant do organic without that we need nitrogen for planta
These people don't care. I have tried to explain the knowledge I have and the fact that we aren't starving to death because of advances and chemicals in farming. We don't have constant famines, food is cheap, farmers lose their entire harvest much less often, etc. Everything that we do that would be organic if we were to have it certified is in such small scale that pumpkins, cucumbers, sweet corn, and tomatoes are really all that we sell. Its all such a pain in the rear to do that I feel the people talking about their "studies " should be forced to farm and put their house and land on the line if they fail. Either that or they can come out and set the live traps, radios, electric fence, and build and maintain greenhouses.
@@massimopecile9666 I remember watching a video about the approved fertilizers and pesticides for organic farming have caused a bunch of health problems for the farmers that use them according to European union.
These ppl that demand everything organic often don't seem to realize that it doesn't mean no chemicals were ever used. Past that, all of the things that I hear them talking about conventional farming causing just seem to be exaggerated claims. We have more people on earth, less famine, better yields for farmers than a century ago, longer life expectancy, cheaper food. The only thing I'm not a huge fan of is the hormones and stuff that is used for livestock, however I don't know enough about it to say that I thinking wrong. I just try to eat meat that comes from people that we know so I know it isn't in there. However, I still eat store bought often
Bonjour 🇷🇪 merci pour cette vidéo.
Les connaisances des anciens, la permaculture et l'agroforesterie peuvent nourrir l'humanité. 🙏
Non clairement pas, toutes les études sur le sujet montrent que s'il fallait retourner aux anciennes méthodes ou généraliser la permaculture, il faudrait plus de 90% de la population qui travaille dans les champs, la sécurité alimentaire en empatirait et il faudrait raser les derniers hectares de forêts qui ne le sont pas déjà sur Terre
Everyone: *talking about the environment*
Me, looking at the thumbnail: NAGARETEKU
Better question: Can we afford to continue spraying forever chemicals into our world? We have the resources (water, fertilizer, green houses) to maintain individually owned farms and garden. We wouldn't be starting from sticks and stones if we went without them.
Humans have strove for thousands of years to escape the bondage of subsistence agriculture, we're not going back to it.
I was taught to use pesticides as 'salt on an egg'
Without - 100% organic.
There is so much we can do to prevent pest infections and cut down on chemical fertilizer but there are times when they are the right tools in a farmers tool bag.
Farming is at least a bachelor degree education. Or as the Germans call it - agrarwirt -
Modern automation already makes farming much more productive.
100% organic would be a world wide disaster killing billions.
I’m trying to get into the field as fast as possible before the money runs out.
"what would we use besides pesti-"
the bug food circle : "oh well gee idk.. not me or anything.." *blushes*
What are you talking about?
@@puravidadew7031 maybe they are a spider
The organic side of pesticides is just as scary. You'd be surprised what is acceptable.
If we would produce food properly and distribute it fairly noone would have to go hungry. Having cats and dogs isn't the same as poisoning the lands on an industrial level.
Are we all going to ignore the fact that to explain food wastage, my man just busted an entire apple.
The hope to reversing to organic farming is in Africa
Short answer: yes
Long answer: yes, but we have to do it in a certain way
@@tjmarx hydroponics
@@tjmarx farm bugs for protein and tech advancement will make vertical farms cheaper. Plus you can also make food distribution better so farmers no longer have to dump their crops cause they could not find a buyer
Hydroponics is not organic..Soil is life giver..we r soil we go back to soil.
Livestock is not the enemy. They are the scavengers that make use of land that is no good for farming. They also are great at eating food waste. If you think it takes a lot of water to make beef look into what it takes to make almonds or avocados in the dessert.
You mean the Rainforest? Or more recently the forests in Ukraine?
These are being cut down to grow soy for an ag. Not exactly "places where only animal foods can grow"...
Sure we can. But we’ll need half the consumers to die and the other half will need to accept lower quality produce pre-seasoned with starvation at substantially higher costs.
Of cause the disadvantage is from poor country , if its out if sight its out of mind. this people from first wold country dont care.
Could you cover herbicides also?? herbicides vs pesticides? round up/glycophosphate?
Farmers need to take the regenerative route of farming. Organic farming is good but it needs to be regenerative because organic farmers are still legally allowed to till. And tilling kills the soul food web which is how plants get their nutrients and build their defense systems from pest naturally. They say organic usually produces less yield but organic regenerative farmers who followed Elaine inghams soil food web studies have actually experienced 200% more yield than conventional farming. So actually we could produce more food with less land. Cows need to be grass fed and poultry needs to be pasture raised. Tilling should be illegal (unless there’s an invasive plant that’s impossible to get rid of except by tilling) plus there are more nutrients in the soil than plants know what to do with. We just need bacteria and fungi to put it in plant available form so they can absorb it. Tilling kills those organism
We need to spread the word to end world hunger. The more nutrients there is in food the less we actually eat. Energy is useless if we don’t have the nutrients to go with it.
I’d love to see a source on that “organic regenerative raising 200% the yield of conventional” bit.
Also the impact of tillage varies completely by area, tillage has its own set of pros and cons, just like no till or any other system, it’s about what works in each situation.
Can I use Arsenic, it is organic.
I love the content! Thanks!🧡
Where the subtitel list?
You can just feel the German influence all over this video. I’m all for a better world but to say that it’s good to be organic as it’s more profitable because farmers can charge a premium just shows where the problem lays. How do you want to sell ecologically grown, cheap and in masses? It’s not about how much farmers earn it’s about what people can afford. Sure in Germany for most no problem. What if you charge this premium all over India? Sadly heavily biased and one sided so hard to truly understand the good opinions we have. You need to lay down the entire process and how to make organic food scalable, profitable and affordable for everyone if you really want to prove a point.
The problem is organic is not scalable due to substantially lower overall yield.
I am also a farmer having 10 acre area and if we started growing crops organically we haven't any but problem is not getting best price for that hard work we done in field you people giving education on sitting chair go and ask farmers at ground level how they survive at that low prices if all farmers increases the price you guys more than half salry went in buying basic food ❤
Οrganic food is a mith.
Conventional farming has more than ten times productivity than organic farming.
1. In farming either the plant produces the chemical that kille or reppel the insects or we spray on them , what do you think which one is more safe ?
2. Why the people got so much the chrmophobia?
3. You are spreading the phobia.
This is a very contentious topic
What about grass fed cattle?
Wheat: I wonder if you can increase productions:
by harvesting just the seed prematurely and growing the top seed portion in a smaller hydroponic pot until they become mature it may be possible to multiply the crop output and grow the majority in a high rise farm with a lot less space. Growing just the seed portion after cutting it off the top of the plant may make the plant attempt to regrow the seeds more often since it thinks it's seeds never reached maturity. It may be necessary to use root growth methods to get this to work but it would increase crop yield per acre possible multiple times larger than current yield.
The root growth would only be needed on the seeds you are attempting to grow without the parent plant.
Would the second batch of grains be as nutritious as the first or will it lessen over the course??
finding a technology or a way to store a food for long time may be the key to reduce the food waste. then, we can reduce the demand and the price of the organic food
We have that technology. It is called freeze drying.
Dried foods, fermentation, and preservation with correct storage methods is key
Dawn soap kills most small pests, the little insects. Just mix with water and spray plant leaves under and over(biodegradable to), just don't drnch the soil. Maybe we can lighten up on meat, but I don't think I'll make it on leaves.
Yes it’s possible. As long as we truly focus on bio fungicides and insecticides and get the price point lower for these products so farmers will swap to them. I own a peach orchard and use bio fungicides and insecticides with good results. I am not completely organic as I need fertilizer that has a higher nitrogen content than organic solutions provide. But other than that I do what I can to limit the use of any chemicals.
I saw something fall off the table in the video. In it just boils down to money. Rice of organic products to consumers and right price to farmers. The rest is irrelevant.
Hunger is not a lack of food, but a lack of salary. If organic farming is more expensive, less people can buy food. Another problem is the appearance of food. A tomato with a spot consumer won´t buy, so organic produce has huge food waste.
Everyone should grow their own produce. I've already started sowing seeds indoors (UK)
You can easily grow most vegetables and some fruits, even grain like corn (wheat may be tricky in small gardens)
Even chickens, you can grow for eggs or meat (if you are okay with it)
You think we have enough space for everyone to own their own garden? People just see solutions from their own point of view just like the perspective of this video, ignoring that a massive amount of population can’t afford the premium in price needed to make organic profitable enough and we can’t afford the extra space too. The actual solution would be less people. Any other idea is not as simple as people want it to be.
Herbolic is easy but roughly pesticides used mujhe companies ko harbolic ho toh thik sabhi jakar health ko effect karenga laboratory mein kaam karna hai for agriculture
People have grown food for thousands of years without pesticides!
Im a farmer and i don't live in the "global north" reg ag souns utopic here. As consumers will hate any imperfection and chemical pesticides are the only way to avoid it. GMOs are powerful tools that have been known for bad things but have potential for great benefits. Food wastage is terrible and we should follow on France footsteps (tax the food trhown away if it isn't donated to food shelters) , all governments should tax carbon footprint including transport. And all producing countries should have a co-op every 100 000- 400 000 people in which price minimums and maximum are set by the government and producer unions based on 1,15 times production cost to 2,5. (Similar to what india farmers were striking to protect) So you place a non loss option for crops but food never sores too high to endanger the plates of your population. This would hace the infrastructure to extend the life of the produce, dryers, freezers etc. Buy non perfet produce, buy local. In Spanish its "manejo integrado" im trying to reduce chemical pesticides but almost got broke due to complications over my change. Organic certifications are extremely expensive, takes two "clean years" in which you lose yield with no improvement in price. Local markets cant move enough organic produce from my farm to make it profitable close. An export permit is very expensive and will make food availability and cost worse for my country. Making a high carbon footprint produce due to transport. (Winter might have a lot of cons but its a bio reset i really would like to have)
Tl;dr: It isn't easy. And consumers need to change first.
Farmers wouldn't use pesticides if we didn't need them, they are not cheap, food became cheaper and widely available with the introduction of pesticides. People want perfect looking fruit on the supermarket shelves, if they were okay with blemishes and ugly fruit/veggies then there would be less pesticide usage. Resistance is only a problem if we don't rotate our mode of actions (MOA). If you want organic produce world wide it would require more individuals growing their own produce, and probably GMOs(which has its own negative spin). Very easy to complain about problems versus fix them.
The one area that people absolutely refuse to see is, animals. Eating animals instead of all the toxic rice, wheat, corn, soy, sugar, and seeds that are grown for oils that take up such a massive amount of land when, for the most part meat and fish is only eaten once a day. That's all. People talk about eating vegan, but people who only eat vegetables, never stop eating.
I have a juju berry tree in my home when we use pesticides the crop is 60% more than when we don't use pesticides.
Without pesticides, every farm would be organic. Organic farming involves a lot of tillage similar to farming 100 years ago. That lead to the dust bowl in the 30s.
This is an excellent vid, thank you
This is exactly why YT doesn't recommend it. It exposes the truth against the big GMO players like Bayer and Cargill who scheme to eliminate subsistence farming, eliminate all natural seeds and force the world to depend on everything they produce in labs. That's what the "Green Revolution" was all about, artificializing and commercializing our most basic needs for survival
Call me conservative if u want, but the critics would be happy with famine spread all over the world and where ur food cost x3 to x5 times?
some people always finding things to complain instead of been grateful.
Disclaimer: not an expert in the field by any means.
It's a simple question...or we feed the polulation and we used hybrids, herbicides, pesticides, chemical fertilizers or we drive a big part of the people to death, and i mean what i said. I am European, but working as agronomist in Nigeria, the population is up to 200 million and more than half down of 18 years old...the whether conditions here allow to insects to give multiple generations every season. And yes, we use pesticides to control it, no to save the crop, but to feed the people.
As European i show both sides of this issue....but you have to know that the toxicity of the modern chemicals have nothing to do with what happened before 30 years.
Thanks ❤
Hey there! Glad you like our video. We post videos like this one every week. We would love to see you subscribe and hear what you think ✨
People say that overpopulation is not problem but it clearly is the more land using for houses and for public necessities so the land for farming is not that much anymore. So how to keep producing the food when the population is rising and if you don't use pesticides it won't grow looking good or at all because there's many insect problem. But back then isn't as problematic because the population is not as big as now. And also land is better. Idk. It sucks though, the quality of soil keep degrading and the population keep rising.
It is definitely not a simple topic. We have a video exploring on it here! 👇
"Is overpopulation really a problem for the planet?"
studio.ruclips.net/user/videokUL-q7ptDW4/edit
Let us know what you think after watching it. 🌱
I've got to object to the word "synthetic" in the title. The implication that a naturally derived pesticide (aka organic) would be more effective and/or less toxic to humans or the environment in general is deeply flawed. Both are simply chemicals that have an effect that we desire (assuming we want pesticides at all). Synthetic pesticides tend to be far more effective, and so much lower quantities of these compounds can be used. If we continue to work on it, we can develop more targeted pesticides that keep efficacy while decreasing environmental harm. Organic farming does not do this.
@@inharmonywithearth9982 I'm not sure where you're at in the world as different countries have different regulations for what constitutes "organic." That said, bacillus thuringiensis was not invented by anyone. It's a wild bacterium. Yes, it can be applied to crops and kill some pest species. No, it does not only kill pests. No, it is not specific to a particular species, but instead destroys the gut lining of whatever insects eat it. It's not magical. Further, at least in the US, there are dozens of chemical pesticides that are legal to use in organic farming - they only need to be derived from natural sources. Farmers pretend that that means that they are more effective and less harmful than synthetic pesticides. You apparently share their ignorance of basic chemistry, based on your "petroleum chemicals kill everything" comment.
Nah, u cant change our entire diet to plant based that impossible
That's right!
It's nice and all but why that annoying music all the time in the background? It is so distracting!
NOT ONLY WE CAN … WE MUST !!! ❤️❤️❤️🙏🙏🙏🌼🌼🌼
The ending is garbage, if we went all vegan crop farming would increase exponentially
Natural vs. synthetic tells us nothing about safety. The goal should be safe, sustainable, and low environmental impact, not if it's natural or synthetic.
Well synthetic leads to bad environmental impacts.
@@aditisk99
Natural or synthetic has nothing to do with it. Toxicity is a dose, not a substance. Everything is toxic and everything is not toxic depending on the dose regardless of being natural or synthetic. Mercury, arsenic, cyanide,botulism, etc are natural and highly toxic.
Reduce yeild of grain crops and the entire worlld will starve.
At six minutes the claim is made that what is "certain" about organic crops is that they contain "far fewer pesticide residues and are therefore healthier".
Not true. Nonsense. Crap.
Pesticide residues on non-organic crops are many magnitudes below even the safe level. Countries all over the world test for these residue levels, the USDA PDP program for example. The EU does the same thing.
However the pesticide residues of the pesticides used by organic farmers are NOT tested for by the organic industry.
No I think we always gonna need them
Also it is a question of what the masses are willing to pay for food.
It can be done and must be done the leaders of countries should demand it be done sooner rather than later or it won’t be worth living . Nature should not be messed around with everything man made is poisonous to us and animals .
in short, stop eating animal products which in turn make a lot of land available, which in turn compensate the low productivity of organic farming and still able to feed the world.
Silly idea. The obesity epidemic is more than enough proof to show that there is already to much food available.
@@matthewdancz9152 obviously understands nothing of nutrition, or food production.
@@matthewdancz9152 Too much of the wrong kind of food is being grown. GMO Corn Syrup in most snack foods, these are not food. So I recommend organic and I also believe the Government should incentivize the organic farmers to level the playing field. Organically food is simply real food.
@@johnmarshall6599 Corn syrup is a leftover product of corn for animals. Since the food industry tries not to waste food, they put the syrup in anything they can get their hands on. Did you ever bake a bun at home, with a recipe that said "put in corn syrup"? Do you even have a bottle of corn syrup at home?
TO is right: stop making foods for animals. And you are right too: make real food for humans.
(80 billion livestock 8 billion humans. Easy win for the plants)
Organic: Healthy Food or Trendy Scam???
Organic food has been quite popular in recent years. Organic food is evolving from an alternative to a virtuous and social duty, despite its higher costs. Organic food is thought to be more natural, healthier, and ethical. Wait a minute! Please be patient!
But, exactly, what do we mean when we say "organic"? Because there is no worldwide agreement, various areas have their own definitions and standards.
In general, organic food is grown without the use of GMO seeds and is free of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. Organic farmers grow food in a more traditional manner, such as crop rotation, and utilize organic fertilizers such as compost and manure. While the urge to purchase organic food is undeniably praiseworthy, is it truly effective or simply another pricey trend?
I'd like to debate a few points.
A. Is Organic Food Healthier?
No, not necessarily. One theory is that cultivating it in a more natural manner makes it healthier and more nutritious. Several studies have revealed that organic foods contain more antioxidants, vitamins, and minerals than conventional meals. The data is vague, with only little changes in nutritional value that are insignificant enough to make a substantial judgment. They are produced by plants as a type of natural insecticide. Organic plants appear to have to work a little harder, whereas regular or conventional plants receive plenty of assistance from humans. According to the current data, organic food does not make a substantial difference in terms of health or nutrition. What we do know is that eating a variety of fruits and vegetables is healthy, and most of us don't eat enough of them regardless of how we produce them.
B. Is Organic Food More Natural?
People often buy organic not to get more vitamins, but to avoid toxic chemicals like synthetic pesticides and fertilizers. It is obvious that organic produce contains less pesticide residue than conventional produce. Things start to get tricky here. Less pesticide does not quite imply no pesticide at all. Pesticides are not prohibited in organic agriculture. They employ what are known as organic insecticides. Natural toxins, such as vegetable oils, hot ash soap, sulfur, or copper sulfates, make up the majority of organic pesticides. What makes organic pesticides different from synthetic pesticides? Actually, not much. Organic pesticides may or may not be safer than conventional pesticides. Toxic substances are toxic regardless of whether they are manufactured or derived from nature. In the case of copper sulfate, which is frequently used in organic farming, it is actually more harmful to humans. The toxicity of any substance is determined by its concentration and your exposure to it, regardless of whether it is natural or not.
C. Is Organic Food Better for the Environment?
If you look into organic farming in-depth and compare it to conventional farming in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, energy usage, and land uses, you'll see a significant difference. As a consequence, no mode of manufacturing is obviously superior for the environment. Organic systems utilize less energy than conventional systems, yet emit the same amount of greenhouse gases. Organic food uses less amount of pesticides but considerably needs much more land to produce the same amount of crop. In terms of land use sustainability, the conventional system wins. Organic farming offers a definite benefit in terms of ecotoxicity.
The bottom line is that organic food isn't any better than ordinary food. Organic food has a notable negative influence on a broader scale. Organic demand is increasing, and the battle to supply the market may lead to production techniques that are less sustainable in other respects. Organic vs. Conventional isn't only a matter of opinion. Organic is more than just a production technique. It's an idealogy for many, and buying organic is simply the right thing to do. Our tendency to think of organic as good and conventional as bad can stand in the way of making the best rational decision. The solution might be to stop seeing organic and conventional farming as mutually exclusive. They both have advantages and disadvantages, and the greatest approach to create nutritious food effectively would be a mix of their finest characteristics.
In a nutshell, an organic label is a production notification, not a security certificate or a diet panacea. What you consume is far more important than how it is produced.
Plz do a video on Sikkim