4 ms·

After 90% of my apple harvest gone to garbage due to Apple Maggot/Railroad Worm, I'm not surprised by the extensive use of pesticide in the agriculture industry

After 90% of my apple harvest gone to garbage due to Apple Maggot/Railroad Worm, I'm not surprised by the extensive use of pesticide in the agriculture industry. Probably like half of human population would die from starvation due to failed crops if we didn't use pesticides. Could we use less toxic ways to keep our food safe? I don't know.

esel2k 3y ago
Like genetic modifications, or as they did hundreds of years ago with hybridisation. I am all for it (even though it needs to be watched and not used for any sort of chemical increase only decrease) why not?
samtho 3y ago
I am probably in the minority here, but I think GMOs are an amazing advancement. We’ve been “genetically modifying” crops for years with selective breeding, we have now just been able to speed up the process. Genetic engineering has enabled us to grow potatoes, corn, and cotton that contain some DNA from bacteria that encodes (I.e contains the recipe for) a protein, referred to as Bt Crystal Toxin, that disrupts the metabolism of some major pests. They are regarded as safe for humans because it requires both a higher pH (alkaline) and specific receptors that humans lack in order to do damage to an organism.
- pard68 3y ago
  The real issue that I see with GMO is the reason for it, namely creating crops immune to poison. I am all for GMOs that produce a better plant but the practical result of GMO is a plant that can tolerate poison.
- SenAnder 3y ago
  GMOs as technology, and the effects of GMOs on food sovereignty, are two very different things. I don't want multinational biotech companies to be the only ones able to compete. Though the technology isn't harmless either. Let's assume sufficient care is and perpetually will be taken to avoid major disasters. What remains is amoral for-profit companies that now have far more ability to engineer food for market fit. Why is this bad? Because carrots and apples will slowly turn into the equivalents of Snickers and Cheetos - those are the products we get when not constrained by nature.
  - cma 3y ago
    You may not really get carrots and apples either, those are domesticated. You might just be left with tiny labor intensive wild carrots and crab apples or something to keep it fully natural.
    - SenAnder 3y ago
      Show me where in my comment I proposed to remain "fully natural".
fnordpiglet 3y ago
Spinosad is supposed to be beneficial for apple maggot treatment and is relatively safe for the local environment.
giantg2 3y ago
You can coat red Christmas ornaments in tanglefoot and hang them on the apple trees. It seems to cut down on the number of apple maggots since the flies get stuck to them.
- myth_drannon 3y ago
  Well I did the Christmas ornament to protect from birds which helped a lot but did not protect from the fly. Next year I will buy some stick paper that is supposed to fight the fly.
  - myshpa 3y ago
    Have you seen The Biggest Little Farm? https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8969332/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8969332/ Maybe biodiversity is the solution.
    - wahnfrieden 3y ago
      Check the one straw revolution as well
    - giantg2 3y ago
      Just curious, what is the theoretical biodiversity solution to the apple maggot?
      - myshpa 3y ago
        Planting hedgerows and wildflower strips within or around orchards can provide habitats for predators of apple maggots, such as ladybugs and parasitic wasps. These predators help control the pest population. This involves providing suitable habitats and avoiding the use of broad-spectrum pesticides that harm beneficial insects. Additionally, avoiding monoculture orchards and incorporating diverse trees, such as oak, known for enhancing biodiversity, could be beneficial.
        giantg2 3y ago
mschuster91 3y ago
> Probably like half of human population would die from starvation due to failed crops if we didn't use pesticides. Half the food that is produced ends up wasted, and a serious amount of crops isn't even counted in that total figure because it's destined from the start for fucking biofuel. Get rid of that waste, get rid of fossil fuels, and you can feed the world comfortably without having to turn farms into chemical weapon dispensers against all kinds of wildlife.
- mkoubaa 3y ago
  Until you, mschuster91, figure out how to get rid of food waste and fossil fuels, id rather half the world not starve.
  - lucidguppy 3y ago
    Freeze more meat and veg. Puree or dehydrate the ugly stuff. Educate people on how to not overbuy and how to fucking cook. You can't eliminate food waste - but many well off Americans have no clue about how to properly feed themselves while minimizing waste.
    - mkoubaa 3y ago
      I'm very passionate about food waste, and I agree with your assessment. But "educating people at scale" is not a problem that humanity has solved yet.
  - mschuster91 3y ago
    Y'all could just look at Europe. The US wastes approximately 40% (!!!) of their entire production [1], Europe only around 20% [2]. The average American drives 21.000 km/a, Europeans ~15.000. If you need it spelled out what you need to do: limit portion sizes in restaurants (where a lot of the food waste happens, also contributing to the insane rat infestation issues [3]) by law since Americans seem to love extensive portions, educate people how to cook and how to plan cooking, ban ultra large food packaging that no reasonable family can use before the product goes bad, and introduce actual public transit on all levels from local over regional to interstate to reduce your dependency on fossil fuels. As for food waste in developing countries, it would be a good starter idea to invest into electrical grids and microgrids, it's hard to keep food from perishing when you don't have a stable grid to run a fridge. But that's a monumental task that needs international cooperation. [1] https://www.rts.com/resources/guides/food-waste-america/ https://www.rts.com/resources/guides/food-waste-america/ [2] https://zerowasteeurope.eu/our-work/eu-policy/waste-management/food-waste/ https://zerowasteeurope.eu/our-work/eu-policy/waste-manageme... [3] https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/11/27/165907972/for-restaurants-food-waste-is-seen-as-low-priority https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/11/27/165907972/fo...
pard68 3y ago
Apple, cherry, pear are all hard crops because of bug predation. My rudimentary understanding (I am a farmer just not a fruit farmer, so I just know what other farmers tell me) is that these non-native fruit trees have to contend with bugs it has no defense for. The native fruits are far more successful. My personal experience matches. Our apple and cherry and peach harvests are hit or miss. Our pawpaw, hickory, and passion fruit harvests ae always exceptional.
- myth_drannon 3y ago
  Yes, maybe it's the non-native tree issue. So I'm in Canada now, but I clearly remember as a child in Belarus/USSR that we had so many apples trees and never had issues with bugs. We would collect many boxes and have them stored until early spring.
- gdubs 3y ago
  There's another crucial aspect to this which is that most orchards you see are absolute monocultures. There's an enormous value in planting a diversity of companion crops and staggering species in orchards, and you see a lot less ruin in these types of orchard designs. The problem with monocultures is you have no breaks where competition from other bug species, birds, animals, etc, keeps an ecosystem in balance. So you end up creating this environment where a pest can take off without any resistance. This is usually not done out of a desire to maximize yields. Farmers don't want to take up space with trees that are 'not producing'. But the other way to look at it is that those other plants and trees are producing a ton of value, they're just not producing a crop per se. That said, many companion plants can also be valuable crops in their own right.
Ar-Curunir 3y ago
Nobody is relying on apples for the majority of our calories.
gdubs 3y ago
We have a few acres of fruit trees and the truth is, it's possible to grow sustainably without chemicals, but most people don't do it because it's a lot of work. You need to pay extra attention to pruning to allow sunlight to hit all of the fruit, and you need to thin aggressively, hang non-toxic maggot traps, etc. The reason why most people don't do that is because it's expensive. So, the reason that spraying is more conventionally popular is not because it's the only way, but because it's cheaper. And the reason it's cheaper is because – as I've mentioned elsewhere – the negative externalities are not paid by the producer, but are rather covered by society. That is to say, if food producers aren't having to pay the cost on society's health, or on the ecosystem's health, then it's the road most farms are going to take. The solution would be for society to cover the equivalent cost in not doing those practices. I.e., dramatically increasing funding for farms that take sustainable approaches.

esel2k 3y ago

Like genetic modifications, or as they did hundreds of years ago with hybridisation. I am all for it (even though it needs to be watched and not used for any sort of chemical increase only decrease) why not?

samtho 3y ago

I am probably in the minority here, but I think GMOs are an amazing advancement. We’ve been “genetically modifying” crops for years with selective breeding, we have now just been able to speed up the process. Genetic engineering has enabled us to grow potatoes, corn, and cotton that contain some DNA from bacteria that encodes (I.e contains the recipe for) a protein, referred to as Bt Crystal Toxin, that disrupts the metabolism of some major pests. They are regarded as safe for humans because it requires both a higher pH (alkaline) and specific receptors that humans lack in order to do damage to an organism.

pard68 3y ago
The real issue that I see with GMO is the reason for it, namely creating crops immune to poison. I am all for GMOs that produce a better plant but the practical result of GMO is a plant that can tolerate poison.
SenAnder 3y ago
GMOs as technology, and the effects of GMOs on food sovereignty, are two very different things. I don't want multinational biotech companies to be the only ones able to compete. Though the technology isn't harmless either. Let's assume sufficient care is and perpetually will be taken to avoid major disasters. What remains is amoral for-profit companies that now have far more ability to engineer food for market fit. Why is this bad? Because carrots and apples will slowly turn into the equivalents of Snickers and Cheetos - those are the products we get when not constrained by nature.
- cma 3y ago
  You may not really get carrots and apples either, those are domesticated. You might just be left with tiny labor intensive wild carrots and crab apples or something to keep it fully natural.
  - SenAnder 3y ago
    Show me where in my comment I proposed to remain "fully natural".

fnordpiglet 3y ago

Spinosad is supposed to be beneficial for apple maggot treatment and is relatively safe for the local environment.

giantg2 3y ago

You can coat red Christmas ornaments in tanglefoot and hang them on the apple trees. It seems to cut down on the number of apple maggots since the flies get stuck to them.

myth_drannon 3y ago
Well I did the Christmas ornament to protect from birds which helped a lot but did not protect from the fly. Next year I will buy some stick paper that is supposed to fight the fly.
- myshpa 3y ago
  Have you seen The Biggest Little Farm? https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8969332/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8969332/ Maybe biodiversity is the solution.
  - wahnfrieden 3y ago
    Check the one straw revolution as well
  - giantg2 3y ago
    Just curious, what is the theoretical biodiversity solution to the apple maggot?
    - myshpa 3y ago
      Planting hedgerows and wildflower strips within or around orchards can provide habitats for predators of apple maggots, such as ladybugs and parasitic wasps. These predators help control the pest population. This involves providing suitable habitats and avoiding the use of broad-spectrum pesticides that harm beneficial insects. Additionally, avoiding monoculture orchards and incorporating diverse trees, such as oak, known for enhancing biodiversity, could be beneficial.
      - giantg2 3y ago

mschuster91 3y ago

> Probably like half of human population would die from starvation due to failed crops if we didn't use pesticides. Half the food that is produced ends up wasted, and a serious amount of crops isn't even counted in that total figure because it's destined from the start for fucking biofuel. Get rid of that waste, get rid of fossil fuels, and you can feed the world comfortably without having to turn farms into chemical weapon dispensers against all kinds of wildlife.

mkoubaa 3y ago
Until you, mschuster91, figure out how to get rid of food waste and fossil fuels, id rather half the world not starve.
- lucidguppy 3y ago
  Freeze more meat and veg. Puree or dehydrate the ugly stuff. Educate people on how to not overbuy and how to fucking cook. You can't eliminate food waste - but many well off Americans have no clue about how to properly feed themselves while minimizing waste.
  - mkoubaa 3y ago
    I'm very passionate about food waste, and I agree with your assessment. But "educating people at scale" is not a problem that humanity has solved yet.
- mschuster91 3y ago
  Y'all could just look at Europe. The US wastes approximately 40% (!!!) of their entire production [1], Europe only around 20% [2]. The average American drives 21.000 km/a, Europeans ~15.000. If you need it spelled out what you need to do: limit portion sizes in restaurants (where a lot of the food waste happens, also contributing to the insane rat infestation issues [3]) by law since Americans seem to love extensive portions, educate people how to cook and how to plan cooking, ban ultra large food packaging that no reasonable family can use before the product goes bad, and introduce actual public transit on all levels from local over regional to interstate to reduce your dependency on fossil fuels. As for food waste in developing countries, it would be a good starter idea to invest into electrical grids and microgrids, it's hard to keep food from perishing when you don't have a stable grid to run a fridge. But that's a monumental task that needs international cooperation. [1] https://www.rts.com/resources/guides/food-waste-america/ https://www.rts.com/resources/guides/food-waste-america/ [2] https://zerowasteeurope.eu/our-work/eu-policy/waste-management/food-waste/ https://zerowasteeurope.eu/our-work/eu-policy/waste-manageme... [3] https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/11/27/165907972/for-restaurants-food-waste-is-seen-as-low-priority https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/11/27/165907972/fo...

pard68 3y ago

Apple, cherry, pear are all hard crops because of bug predation. My rudimentary understanding (I am a farmer just not a fruit farmer, so I just know what other farmers tell me) is that these non-native fruit trees have to contend with bugs it has no defense for. The native fruits are far more successful. My personal experience matches. Our apple and cherry and peach harvests are hit or miss. Our pawpaw, hickory, and passion fruit harvests ae always exceptional.

myth_drannon 3y ago
Yes, maybe it's the non-native tree issue. So I'm in Canada now, but I clearly remember as a child in Belarus/USSR that we had so many apples trees and never had issues with bugs. We would collect many boxes and have them stored until early spring.
gdubs 3y ago
There's another crucial aspect to this which is that most orchards you see are absolute monocultures. There's an enormous value in planting a diversity of companion crops and staggering species in orchards, and you see a lot less ruin in these types of orchard designs. The problem with monocultures is you have no breaks where competition from other bug species, birds, animals, etc, keeps an ecosystem in balance. So you end up creating this environment where a pest can take off without any resistance. This is usually not done out of a desire to maximize yields. Farmers don't want to take up space with trees that are 'not producing'. But the other way to look at it is that those other plants and trees are producing a ton of value, they're just not producing a crop per se. That said, many companion plants can also be valuable crops in their own right.

Ar-Curunir 3y ago

Nobody is relying on apples for the majority of our calories.

gdubs 3y ago

We have a few acres of fruit trees and the truth is, it's possible to grow sustainably without chemicals, but most people don't do it because it's a lot of work. You need to pay extra attention to pruning to allow sunlight to hit all of the fruit, and you need to thin aggressively, hang non-toxic maggot traps, etc. The reason why most people don't do that is because it's expensive. So, the reason that spraying is more conventionally popular is not because it's the only way, but because it's cheaper. And the reason it's cheaper is because – as I've mentioned elsewhere – the negative externalities are not paid by the producer, but are rather covered by society. That is to say, if food producers aren't having to pay the cost on society's health, or on the ecosystem's health, then it's the road most farms are going to take. The solution would be for society to cover the equivalent cost in not doing those practices. I.e., dramatically increasing funding for farms that take sustainable approaches.