Quote:
Originally Posted by valo403
Actually, this discussion is centered around the entire universe of GMO crops, and I found the insights of someone who works with crops and fertilizers on a daily basis to be particularly interesting and helpful to the conversation. He's not presenting conclusions, he's presenting day to day observations of what people are actually doing.
|
And that's fine and I'm happy that you find his observations interesting and helpful.
It's just that in the context of responding to a post that presents a paper on increased herbicide use and superweeds in the US by talking about seeding and fallow patterns in Saskatchewan could be considered a tad irrelevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by valo403
It makes complete sense if you're not being intentionally dense. They just do it because the "economic thresholds we often use to justify spraying for weeds have reduced enormously." That's directly from his post.
The margins used to be such that you questioned whether it was worth it, now you just go ahead and do it, because even if it turns out you didn't need to you still hit your goals.
|
It makes zero sense to "just do it" when evidence suggests this type of flippant sustained use is an invitation for a superweed invasion.
That is unless you feel that you can give a negative response to either or both of my two questions on post # 216 with evidence to back your response.