Pamela Ronald (UC Davis) Part 1: Sustainable agriculture
Вставка
- Опубліковано 21 лип 2024
- www.ibiology.org/plant-biolog...
In Part 1 of her lecture, Ronald emphasizes the importance of developing sustainable agricultural practices that will allow the world's population to be fed without destroying the Earth. Ronald demonstrates that modern genetics approaches have facilitated development of new crop varieties that can increase crop yields while reducing insecticide use. She proposes that the judicious incorporation of two important strands of agriculture-agricultural biotechnology and agroecological practices-is key to helping feed the growing population and she provides compelling examples to support her stand.
Muchas gracias, gran presentación de los problemas y las ideas sobre agricultura orgánica
nice vid. thanks!
the data shows that there is adverse affects with GMO. soil is important...
no expense has been spared on production value
🗽
22:17 yields were dramatically increased due to farmers not using recommended pesticides prior to Bt cotton.
22:29 massive reduction in insecticide use.
If they weren't using the pesticides before Bt cotton, then is it correct to say they massively reduced pesticide use due to Bt cotton?
The only way this makes sense is if there are two different scenarios. One is that of industrial cotton growers that could afford the pesticides. The other would be small scale growers that couldn't afford the pesticides. Also, I would like to hear what % of 41% reduction of pesticides constitutes Bt sprays, in which case should be removed from the 41% figure.
It's not cool to make it look like everyone got a 135$/ha profit gain, and everyone reduced insecticide use.
If they didn't have the money to buy the insecticides in the first place and are now seeing increased yield because they don't need the pesticides, it's not cool to say they reduced insecticide use by 41%.
The way forward has to be making use of all that is good in agriculture, those wanting to go back to what they see as a traditional approach generally have no experience in food production. We need to make use of new techniques and if that means GM then so be it. We do not have the luxury of time on our side. Of course all this extra food production is only buying us time until and even bigger crunch occurs. The world must address the problem of over population, if this is not dealt with then we are doomed to failure.
please visit; india's century old traditional agriculture in youtube
Is the following summary accurate?:
1.) Criticism on GE/GMO (Genetical Engineering / Genetically Modified Organism) mainly and primarily targets its predominant current form, not the content (technology) itself. For instance, if biotek-inventions were more open (open systems approach) AND societally accessible they couldn't be misused resp. abused (patent-trolling, terminator-seeds, domination via ownership, restrictive corporate-policies etc.).
2.) If biotek-inventions in the predominant current form were not inherently [technologically] and, quite evidently, purposefully [economically] intertwined/linked with the sales of particular biocides of all kinds (herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, bactericides ...), and didn't subsequently produce dependencies from these chemical substances, this would increase the trust in GMO and the image of GE in the human population.
3.) If it wasn't for the scientifically proofen record of all sorts of damages these particular biocides perform on the environment (e.g. neonicotinoids) this would leverage the publicly perceived sincerity of the overall biotechnological line of business.
4.) A holistic agricultural approach or concept would mean to integrate the fact that organisms are able to adapt by mutation (Darwin): even faster so when exposed to certain chemical molecules/agents (the more regular and intense the exposure the faster!) -- whether they be sprayed on the organisms from outside (conventional application of biocides) or be part of a GMO already. At the end, we have to expect superbugs, multiresistant, even omniresistant creatures as an outcome of a non-holistic approach. Correct? We all do very well know this Darwinian factum.
As a matter of fact, it's not just antibiotics which cause resistancies -- such an oppinion is just some kind of convenient folklore.
5.) Why, btw, does so-called modern farming remind an empathic human being more on war (genocide, biocide ...) than on anything else? How come that there is such a lot of destruction? Is this the way the human species, to a huge extent, deals with a challenge: burn it, bomb it, erase it, eliminate it, poison it.
Well, the vocabulary undeniably seems to indicate this, hence the trial to euphemise these war-terms (analogically to: concentration camp instead of extermination camp). Like that, a herbicide suddenly becomes a protective agent or so.
6.) As the video proposes, a synthesis of organic farming and GE would yield best overall results. This sounds plausible to me! However, in such a case GE would need to change its current form in order to meet the requirements of organic farming, right? Evidently, it couldn't be the other way round -- where would the organic component be in this new mix otherwise?
7.) Cambrian Genomics (USA) seems to propagate the usage of biotek decentrally in every household, so to speak. Basically, next to a 3D printer there would be a DNA printer in the near future -- for everyone. Is this a feasable approach to solve the issues of openness and accessability mentioned in my first bullet point?
Please be sincere, honest and unbiased in your feedback!
Great topic but boring presenter.
She so obviously doesn't believe in what she's saying.
QUANTITY over QUALITY ...Low-Quality individuals...These in my opinion are Monsters & Warlocks > Who in the last 10.000 yrs. or so EVER spliced ANIMALS or INSECTS w/ PLANTS.
SHE has NO CONSCIENCE.