Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Insect 'apocalypse' in U.S. driven by 50x increase in toxic pesticides: study

nationalgeographic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 342 posts

Re: Insect 'apocalypse' in U.S. driven by 50x increase in toxic pesticides: study

#311

Post by SmellyGeekBoy »

choeger wrote: post #8
ben_w wrote: post #4

I have always been surprised that anyone is surprised that an insecticide is responsible for the widespread deaths of insects. I assume there is some reason (not immediately obvious to an outsider like me) why it should be surprising, but all these stories feel like “REVEALED: wet pavements caused by spraying WATER on them!”

Well, I would have assumed that the usage of insecticides decreased in the last decades. At least I never had the impression that it increased massively.

Was the lack of insects not a clue?

Re: Insect 'apocalypse' in U.S. driven by 50x increase in toxic pesticides: study

#312

Post by ourlordcaffeine »

jlangenauer wrote: post #2

If I ever get rich enough to do so, I'm going to buy some land somewhere - perhaps old farming land that's no longer profitable, and just let it return to nature. Let the trees and bushes grow, let the insects, birds and whatever else breed there. I'm beginning to think that's one of the best things one could do for the planet right now.

The (startup) company I work for is planning to do this actually. We won't be able to rewild a huge swathe of land but it is a start.

Re: Insect 'apocalypse' in U.S. driven by 50x increase in toxic pesticides: study

#313

Post by ptah »

SmellyGeekBoy wrote: post #310
ptah wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

afaik neonicotinoids are banned in EU and the US is trying to force them to unban it

I can see the UK bowing to this pressure after Brexit. (I'm a beekeeper btw).

i saw a documentary about manuka honey recently. apparently it can be done in UK too?

Re: Insect 'apocalypse' in U.S. driven by 50x increase in toxic pesticides: study

#314

Post by Dylanfm »

carapace wrote: post #229

Slightly tangential, but I want to point out that there's a way forward without pesticides and without economic disaster: We can switch to a "horticultural" mode of civilization. The idea is that we use applied ecology to create curated ecosystems that have a high proportion of plants that are agriculturally productive. (Not to be mysterious, I'm talking about Permaculture et. al. but that term seems to upset a few p…

So glad to see something from Toby Hemenway recommended on here. He has some other interesting presentations, such as:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_lJf46i9pI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0nzIMJGuEY

https://soundcloud.com/permaculturevoices/pvp125-tobyhemenwa...

Re: Insect 'apocalypse' in U.S. driven by 50x increase in toxic pesticides: study

#315

Post by pvaldes »

rayiner wrote: post #256
whenanother wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the agriculture shills keep pushing this notion that their way of growing with chemicals is the the most productive way when I've yet to see a study that indicates that any of what they've done has increased crop yields.

Modern science has increased yield for corn by a factor of 8: https://images.app.goo.gl/QfcFrk4nvu7uw6M67 . I’m only 35 and it’s doubled in my lifetime.

Take in mind that marketing techniques apply also to agriculture and that who claims such statistics taken in perfect conditions of culture is often the seller. Optimum conditions of culture aren't always scalable or economically viable

I bet that we could find good old forgotten varieties put in a vault for decades and then renamed, trademarketed, and rebranded as super new varieties much more productive for example. Only the best of the old varieties survived to out times. Much of the new super-varieties will not perdure when the layers of marketing will wear off.

There is an improvement of course, but not necessarily sustainable in time, or so high as expected.

Re: Insect 'apocalypse' in U.S. driven by 50x increase in toxic pesticides: study

#316

Post by ShlomoS »

windexh8er wrote: post #258
rayiner wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Modern science has increased yield for corn by a factor of 8: https://images.app.goo.gl/QfcFrk4nvu7uw6M67 . I’m only 35 and it’s doubled in my lifetime.

Except you're not accounting for the nutritional density [0] per yield being reduced and also the fact that the majority of cash crop goes to feeding livestock. [0] https://rodaleinstitute.org/why-organic/issues-and-prioritie...

>and also the fact that the majority of cash crop goes to feeding livestock.

Only about 1/3rd of corn grown is fed to livestock. Even less than that for other cash crops.

Re: Insect 'apocalypse' in U.S. driven by 50x increase in toxic pesticides: study

#317

Post by ShlomoS »

TylerE wrote: post #273
whenanother wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the agriculture shills keep pushing this notion that their way of growing with chemicals is the the most productive way when I've yet to see a study that indicates that any of what they've done has increased crop yields.

What are you talking about? Agricultural productivity has increased IMMENSELY. In 1870, over 50% of the US workforce worked in agriculture. Today, despite exporting much of what we grow, that number is well under 2%.

That has nothing to do with chemicals and everything to do with machinery. Modern tractors and air drills can easily plant well over 1000 acres a day. A modern combine will harvest 300+ acres a day. In 1870 it took a man with a scythe and a woman following bundling sheafs to harvest an acre a day. That's a 600x increase in LABOR productivity due to machinery. None of this has anything to do with chemicals or land productivity.

Re: Insect 'apocalypse' in U.S. driven by 50x increase in toxic pesticides: study

#318

Post by blablabla123 »

LargeWu wrote: post #138
blablabla123 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If there is some invisible but safe-for-us chemical that increases yield In fact increased yield is also kind of good for the environment because this way agriculture needs less space. (Speaking of deforestation because of agriculture...) But still, insecticides, fungicides etc. have been used far too carelessly in the past and of course it takes years or sometimes decades to see the effects...

There's certainly a trade-off. However, grocery stores in the US discard massive amounts of produce, and then still more is wasted when consumers bring it home and don't use it. It feels like we would have plenty of room to reduce yields, ship less food around, and still get everybody fed. (that's a hypothesis, not a conclusion)

I'm too lazy to get the reference but at least for Germany or EU both numbers you mention (consumer throwaway rate + supermarket throwaway rate) were double digit. So yeah, your conclusion is pretty much justified ;)

Re: Insect 'apocalypse' in U.S. driven by 50x increase in toxic pesticides: study

#319

Post by mkl »

ptah wrote: post #313
SmellyGeekBoy wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can see the UK bowing to this pressure after Brexit. (I'm a beekeeper btw).

i saw a documentary about manuka honey recently. apparently it can be done in UK too?

Manuka is a tree native to New Zealand and Australia, so that seems unlikely. Do you mean similar beekeeping techniques with different flowering plants?

I just did a search for [manuka honey uk], and found there's an awful lot of woo-woo around what to me in NZ is fairly ordinary honey!

Re: Insect 'apocalypse' in U.S. driven by 50x increase in toxic pesticides: study

#320

Post by RugnirViking »

radmarshallb wrote: post #148
corey_moncure wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The big issue for consumers (me inc) is shelflife. I want them to last more than 3 days in the fridge. Are you married and if so, do both of you work full time jobs? My hunch is that this is directly related to two-income households

Shelflife has always been a big hurdle to cooking for me, and I’m a bachelor.

I suppose there are certain tricks to it, but one of the big things I do to make this much less of a problem is to make meals using only one or two at most short-life items.

The rest of the meal comes from things that will happily sit for weeks on end in the cupboard without going off. Things like: Pasta, onions, tomato pureé, garlic, stock cubes, kidney beans, lentils, rice, bacon, etc.

This does mean that often the one fresh thing I use is the meat in any given dish.

This is analogous to how people used to cook as well, keeping a large store of long-life ingredients and merely supplimenting them with whatever was fresh.

Post reply on HN