Cheryl…thank you for a balanced look at a difficult issue. Control of weeds is such a huge issue in all of agriculture. Sometimes it seems that non-farmers cannot comprehend that non-chemical weed control takes a tremendous amount of labor and that ag labor is in extremely short supply. I was just recalling the 1970’s and 1980’s with a classmate. We ran rotary hoes once over the row crops, then two or three trips with the cultivator…not to mention all the pre-plant tillage: plow or chisel, disk, field conditioners/harrows. Far more fuel and labor per acre than no-till methods. These trade-offs aren’t well understood.
Of course we all need more and safer alternatives. But we do not see a huge influx of people running into non-chemical farming for a reason: scale and profitability.
Politicians may simplify these issues but they are not at all simple on the farm level.
Your history of writing, walking beans, riding the bean-bar and our EPA and MAHA is such an incredible story. "Rounding-up" all of your research and knowledge of lobbist, label precautios, wearing protective cloting, and our Iowa deptendece on herbicides to lsupport our most precious commity THE LAND- gives us food for thought.
Thank you, James! You state it in a more tactful way, but I have been around for awhile! My life experiences and work opportunities do dovetail sometimes to provide a perspective on specific issues.. I hope it's helpful!
Another important point is that without herbicide, cover crop termination would be nearly impossible for most operators in Iowa. Cover crops are one of our main conservation tools on row-crop acres in Iowa.
Lee, I find it interesting that the industry calls that "burning" which conservationists, and their investors, in my opinion, take to mean fire. When I clarify that, they're always amazed. But there are winter-kill cover crops and roller crimper methods. Perhaps more research would help increase those options instead of going to defending Bayer.
SCOTUS did not pre-empt candidates from articulating what policies they'd pursue to work around this. All legislative, gubernatorial (IGOV), and Ag candidates can describe how Iowa can support programs to reduce reliance on ag chemicals (Chris Jones is leading the way), or sustainable ag in general. Look at the Leopold Center, funded by increased fees on those very same chemicals. For the Governor, even if the legislature vetoes ideas, there are regulatory and financial options—like resurrecting an independent Leopold Center in spite of the direction of ISU. The courtroom path is blocked, but policy options remain wide open. The easy way out is for our gubernatorial candidates to say they oppose the court case; follow-up questions such ideas like above, are necessary.
Yes, Ralph. So far our state and federal legislative options still are independent and open to creating new policies. Reviving the Leopold Center would be a great step forward. Thanks for your insights!
I well remember your article about wearing protective gear. It certainly encouraged many folks using glyphosate to wearing gear, especially gloves which were made specifically for such chemicals. Thanks for the thoughtful perspective and a recap of this ongoing issue.
Two points I find interesting, Cheryl - one is that landscapers are one major demographic getting nailed by these cancers. They tend to be low-wage, nonunion Black and Brown workers with no PPE because, well, that would cut into company profits, wouldn't it? Second is how you dismiss organic as not feasible for some operations. I wonder if 1. conventional farmers could look beyond year, 2. transition a certain percentage of acres per year and 3. the incentives were turned upside down from what they are now, it would suddenly become feasible.
You make excellent points. Our enforcement of the laws protecting employees is woefully weak. I could have written several more paragraphs on the "feasibility" comment, of course. I didn't intend for it to seem dismissive. Better incentives and markets, as well as more efforts to change mindsets would be key. Thank you, Suzan.
So many questions to consider. Thank you! When it comes to the health and quality of Iife for Iowans, the state and federal governments need to support more scientific research. Cancer is not the only disease to consider regarding herbicides and pesticides.
If Iowa soil needs to rely on large amounts of herbicide to support corn and soybeans, maybe it’s time for incentives to plant more diverse plant types in rotations. Cover crops are also helping more and more farms retain, and even renew, soil health. These fields can retain more moisture. Soil, water, and air health equals our health.
I appreciate your investigation of these issues over time, Cheryl! Keep going!
Stupid is as stupid does. Only 3 are intelligent!
Cheryl…thank you for a balanced look at a difficult issue. Control of weeds is such a huge issue in all of agriculture. Sometimes it seems that non-farmers cannot comprehend that non-chemical weed control takes a tremendous amount of labor and that ag labor is in extremely short supply. I was just recalling the 1970’s and 1980’s with a classmate. We ran rotary hoes once over the row crops, then two or three trips with the cultivator…not to mention all the pre-plant tillage: plow or chisel, disk, field conditioners/harrows. Far more fuel and labor per acre than no-till methods. These trade-offs aren’t well understood.
Of course we all need more and safer alternatives. But we do not see a huge influx of people running into non-chemical farming for a reason: scale and profitability.
Politicians may simplify these issues but they are not at all simple on the farm level.
Absolutely, Josiah! Thank you for making these real-world observations.
Your history of writing, walking beans, riding the bean-bar and our EPA and MAHA is such an incredible story. "Rounding-up" all of your research and knowledge of lobbist, label precautios, wearing protective cloting, and our Iowa deptendece on herbicides to lsupport our most precious commity THE LAND- gives us food for thought.
Thank you, James! You state it in a more tactful way, but I have been around for awhile! My life experiences and work opportunities do dovetail sometimes to provide a perspective on specific issues.. I hope it's helpful!
Another important point is that without herbicide, cover crop termination would be nearly impossible for most operators in Iowa. Cover crops are one of our main conservation tools on row-crop acres in Iowa.
Les, yes, you make a good point! Thank you.
Lee, I find it interesting that the industry calls that "burning" which conservationists, and their investors, in my opinion, take to mean fire. When I clarify that, they're always amazed. But there are winter-kill cover crops and roller crimper methods. Perhaps more research would help increase those options instead of going to defending Bayer.
Thanks, Suzan!
SCOTUS did not pre-empt candidates from articulating what policies they'd pursue to work around this. All legislative, gubernatorial (IGOV), and Ag candidates can describe how Iowa can support programs to reduce reliance on ag chemicals (Chris Jones is leading the way), or sustainable ag in general. Look at the Leopold Center, funded by increased fees on those very same chemicals. For the Governor, even if the legislature vetoes ideas, there are regulatory and financial options—like resurrecting an independent Leopold Center in spite of the direction of ISU. The courtroom path is blocked, but policy options remain wide open. The easy way out is for our gubernatorial candidates to say they oppose the court case; follow-up questions such ideas like above, are necessary.
Yes, Ralph. So far our state and federal legislative options still are independent and open to creating new policies. Reviving the Leopold Center would be a great step forward. Thanks for your insights!
THE coherent explanation of where science and politics sit on this "local" issue.
Thanks, Bob! I appreciate your perspective.
I well remember your article about wearing protective gear. It certainly encouraged many folks using glyphosate to wearing gear, especially gloves which were made specifically for such chemicals. Thanks for the thoughtful perspective and a recap of this ongoing issue.
Hi, Paul! You have a great memory. Thanks for the encouragement!
Two points I find interesting, Cheryl - one is that landscapers are one major demographic getting nailed by these cancers. They tend to be low-wage, nonunion Black and Brown workers with no PPE because, well, that would cut into company profits, wouldn't it? Second is how you dismiss organic as not feasible for some operations. I wonder if 1. conventional farmers could look beyond year, 2. transition a certain percentage of acres per year and 3. the incentives were turned upside down from what they are now, it would suddenly become feasible.
You make excellent points. Our enforcement of the laws protecting employees is woefully weak. I could have written several more paragraphs on the "feasibility" comment, of course. I didn't intend for it to seem dismissive. Better incentives and markets, as well as more efforts to change mindsets would be key. Thank you, Suzan.
So many questions to consider. Thank you! When it comes to the health and quality of Iife for Iowans, the state and federal governments need to support more scientific research. Cancer is not the only disease to consider regarding herbicides and pesticides.
If Iowa soil needs to rely on large amounts of herbicide to support corn and soybeans, maybe it’s time for incentives to plant more diverse plant types in rotations. Cover crops are also helping more and more farms retain, and even renew, soil health. These fields can retain more moisture. Soil, water, and air health equals our health.
I appreciate your investigation of these issues over time, Cheryl! Keep going!
Thanks, Sarah, for adding your perspectives. No doubt we can do better! Developing new markets for these diverse crops is a key component.
I agree.
Jim, here: Well said, Thanks, Cheryl.
Thanks, Jim!