4 ms·

A lot of things "contribute" to cancer, including alcohol and red meat. The question is what the alternatives are, and their pros and cons. What I heard from fa

A lot of things "contribute" to cancer, including alcohol and red meat. The question is what the alternatives are, and their pros and cons. What I heard from farmers is that there is no know alternative that's safer. There's just less research done on the alternatives, so they may be better. But could be worse.

orwin 3y ago
I feel in this case, the real issue is protecting the farmers by reducing exposition. They already are way, way less exposed than gardeners used to be, but by switching cultivation technique ('Semi sous Couvert Végétal' , I do not find the English translation), you can divide the exposition by 10 to 20. As usual, the dose makes the poison, and people both anti and pro, are camped on their position it seems.
- darkclouds 3y ago
  https://fr-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Semis_direct_sous_couvert?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp https://fr-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Semis_direct_... This method requires a lot of plant knowledge to make it work, and is not suited to the current brute force method of farm machinery which is the main method of farming. It would be better suited to little robots doing the work, but in the mean time, the only competitor is more human hands on the fields which some people see as a backwards step.
- hutzlibu 3y ago
  "As usual, the dose makes the poison" Yes, but it seems there is still the credo of "much helps much" applied (together with "toughen up you pussy"). Meaning they spray way more than what is needed. And usually there are lots of regulation when you can spray, like no strong wind etc. to prevent it from going anywhere else. You think the average farmer cares? As far as I know, the regulation authorities do not care either.
  - beauzero 3y ago
    Yes the average American farmer cares because inputs are expensive. Really expensive. That's why spot spraying on a massive scale has been invented. If you want to see one in action look up Welker Farms in YouTube. There are some videos and anecdotal evidence in a single field on input savings.
    - hutzlibu 3y ago
      Ok, I think the average american farmer has way bigger field, but here in germany, there are often small patches of fields, so it might be expensive, but not soo expensive that quite some farmers would care to not spray on a windy day, as long as they can cover their fields (and their organic neibhor then cannot sell his products as organic).
darkclouds 3y ago
> including alcohol and red meat. When referring to red meat, shouldnt that nitrates or nitrites? >What I heard from farmers is that there is no know alternative that's safer. Well actually there are alternatives, but then that would be more resource intensive, unlike the current lazy method of mono crop farming that capitalism does not reward. So is Capitalism your enemy?
- deepsummer 3y ago
  Is there any economic system in which resource intensive alternatives are a good idea?

orwin 3y ago

I feel in this case, the real issue is protecting the farmers by reducing exposition. They already are way, way less exposed than gardeners used to be, but by switching cultivation technique ('Semi sous Couvert Végétal' , I do not find the English translation), you can divide the exposition by 10 to 20. As usual, the dose makes the poison, and people both anti and pro, are camped on their position it seems.

darkclouds 3y ago
https://fr-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Semis_direct_sous_couvert?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp https://fr-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Semis_direct_... This method requires a lot of plant knowledge to make it work, and is not suited to the current brute force method of farm machinery which is the main method of farming. It would be better suited to little robots doing the work, but in the mean time, the only competitor is more human hands on the fields which some people see as a backwards step.
hutzlibu 3y ago
"As usual, the dose makes the poison" Yes, but it seems there is still the credo of "much helps much" applied (together with "toughen up you pussy"). Meaning they spray way more than what is needed. And usually there are lots of regulation when you can spray, like no strong wind etc. to prevent it from going anywhere else. You think the average farmer cares? As far as I know, the regulation authorities do not care either.
- beauzero 3y ago
  Yes the average American farmer cares because inputs are expensive. Really expensive. That's why spot spraying on a massive scale has been invented. If you want to see one in action look up Welker Farms in YouTube. There are some videos and anecdotal evidence in a single field on input savings.
  - hutzlibu 3y ago
    Ok, I think the average american farmer has way bigger field, but here in germany, there are often small patches of fields, so it might be expensive, but not soo expensive that quite some farmers would care to not spray on a windy day, as long as they can cover their fields (and their organic neibhor then cannot sell his products as organic).

darkclouds 3y ago

> including alcohol and red meat. When referring to red meat, shouldnt that nitrates or nitrites? >What I heard from farmers is that there is no know alternative that's safer. Well actually there are alternatives, but then that would be more resource intensive, unlike the current lazy method of mono crop farming that capitalism does not reward. So is Capitalism your enemy?

deepsummer 3y ago
Is there any economic system in which resource intensive alternatives are a good idea?