3 ms·

Did they control for crop loss and farmer knowledge? There is a chance that the causal links go like this: * lack of knowledge -> spray at wrong time * spr

by keenerd 12y ago

Did they control for crop loss and farmer knowledge? There is a chance that the causal links go like this: * lack of knowledge -> spray at wrong time * spray at wrong time -> no pests killed * no pests killed -> crop loss * crop loss -> income lost -> depression * crop loss + lack of knowlege -> spray even more at the wrong times Thus creating a destructive feedback loop with depression as an accidental side effect of the process. I can say with a high degree of certainty that each single link appears to be true. We'll say 90% confidence factor for each of the five steps, 60% total confidence factor across the whole causal loop. Knowledge is a huge factor for farming. I can say that from watching my family farm over the past 20 years, that as my family has figured out what to spray and (more importantly) when to spray our pesticide use has dropped and our yields have gone up.

dingdingdang 12y ago
This question should really be answered (props for bringing it up), without that being the case the value of the research is severely compromised!
- keenerd 12y ago
  It looks like one of the factors was "cumulative days use of any pesticide". However this did not take plot size into account - a farmer with a large plot and an appropriate use of pesticides is in the same category as a farmer with a small plot and an overuse of pesticides. "Farm size" was mentioned in the previously identified confounding factors, but not one that was corrected for in the study after seeing it made no difference? Education was a confounding factor that was accounted for. "Cumulative days use per acre" would be an interesting factor to test, but varies greatly between various crops and climates. "Crop loss despite pesticide application" would be the real one to measure but that requires a certain degree of god-like knowledge. Days-use-per-acre over time and yields-per-acre over time is probably the best that could be managed, where "time" is at least 5-10 years. One term in the paper went over my head and I can't find a definition or sufficient context. Does "ever-use" mean a small amount or a large amount? (once-ever or for-ever)

by keenerd 12y ago

dingdingdang 12y ago

This question should really be answered (props for bringing it up), without that being the case the value of the research is severely compromised!

keenerd 12y ago
It looks like one of the factors was "cumulative days use of any pesticide". However this did not take plot size into account - a farmer with a large plot and an appropriate use of pesticides is in the same category as a farmer with a small plot and an overuse of pesticides. "Farm size" was mentioned in the previously identified confounding factors, but not one that was corrected for in the study after seeing it made no difference? Education was a confounding factor that was accounted for. "Cumulative days use per acre" would be an interesting factor to test, but varies greatly between various crops and climates. "Crop loss despite pesticide application" would be the real one to measure but that requires a certain degree of god-like knowledge. Days-use-per-acre over time and yields-per-acre over time is probably the best that could be managed, where "time" is at least 5-10 years. One term in the paper went over my head and I can't find a definition or sufficient context. Does "ever-use" mean a small amount or a large amount? (once-ever or for-ever)