Pesticides linked to farmer depression
 

Nothing too surprising about this . . .

http://modernfarmer.com/2014/11/land...ssion-farmers/

Well now I'm depressed, reading that.... ;)

The bT gmo crops have really helped with this, farmers don't need as many insecticides.

Those insecticides are alReady more regulated that less harmful pesticides, for what that is worth. You can buy these items on the shelf of your Walmart or Home Depot, but farmers need a licence and training before they are allowed to buy them. And it is more likely a commercial sprayer will be using these exact sprays; farmers tend to stick to the less toxic types for spraying themselves.

Statistics can be manipulated to say anything one wants to say, and the web site you point to is more about fringe suburban living, not modern farming so a person has to question the leanings of the messenger as always.....

It still is something to note and keep track of.

Again, you can go buy that stuff off the shelf, have it stored under the sink.....

Paul

Interesting about the wives also, I know my Mama suffered depression as did my Grandma, they didn't call it that back then, but wonder how much it had to do with pesticides used in the area, well heck almost right up to the house at times.

I smell another scam .Depression is no joking matter .That being said it appears to be the going thing of the times we are in . Just for fun take the healthiest person you can find give him\her a script to follow and send them to a Dr .I'll bet you two dollars to a doughnut they walk out with I know one prescription maybe more and another appointment for latter .

Dr's are after all the #1 killer in the USA :sing:

Who could ever pin point my Health Issues. I worked Orchards spraying, Mineral dust working in the Feed Mills, Flour Dust working as a Baker, chemicals Treating Seed, Sprays and Gases killing Bugs in Grains, fishing and eating fish from Lakes surrounded with Orchard and Fiberboard Plant, Dipping SKOAL, smoking Marlboro Reds. Wild Turkey, Busch Beer, Drugs too many to name.

:confused: Name it probably did it.

big rockpile

Well there's a few minutes of my life I won't get back. I really thought I was gonna learn something, but no, it's a propaganda piece.

It wasn't a "study" at all, but mining of a database they had access to. Says so right in the article. And they are assuming there was depression in a lot of cases because, again, it says right in the story, that farmers didn't seek treatment for depression in most cases. So how the heck were they able to diagnose them as having depression for this so called study?? Then it goes on to say that the neurological systems of insects are similar to our own. Well that's the clincher. Psuedo-science babble is all it is.

What is depressing is that my dad sold wheat in 1980 for more than I can sell mine in 2014. ;)

Me thinks if farmers are more depressed, they have a lot of potential triggers and stressors than the general public who do not rely on markets out of their control, weather out of their control, and so on.

I like to think of pesticides as preventive chemo therapy, get enough in your system and cancer can't survive

I must have it.The man in the photo looks like me or my dad my wife says.:facepalm: The poor fellow.

We always knew, years ago that my partner was always moody, negative, etc. in the sugar beet spraying season

Pesticides cost money...

What farmer do you know that is happy spending money?

I recall my daddy getting pretty depressed when the bugs ate up our crop.

Folks can be diagnosed with depression in a study without having sought treatment for depression. (We can be diagnosed with obesity without having sought treatment for obesity. No difference.) There are undoubtedly MANY factors that would predispose a farmer to depression. But a farmer, likewise, given his/her lifestyle and greater exposure to the beauty of nature, weather and all, may be predisposed to more contentment with life, as well. The fact remains, however, that pesticides and herbicides - like few other agents we are exposed to or consume day to day - are lethal to life forms. That's their purpose. And non-lethal or sub-lethal doses of those agents can do humans considerable harm. Our neurological systems ARE a good bit like those of insects, only considerably more sophisticated and, in many respects, more vulnerable to insult. We are decades late in identifying the harm we are doing to ourselves, the animals in our care, the land in our care and the planet that supports us all. It is not a "liberal" mindset that sees the harm in our practices - but a life-loving mindset and a RESPONSIBLE one. Sustainability is about preserving the health of this Earth for the generations to come NOT just for ourselves. At some point the damage will not be reversible. And all the lawsuits in the world won't give us or our grandchildren our health back. What IF these chemicals that snuff out the weeds and keep the bugs off our crops have ANY role in causing Alzheimer's, chronic fatigue, multiple sclerosis, ADHD, autism or cancer? We're foolish to cross our fingers and hope that they kill only bugs and weeds. These chemicals are a deceptive convenience, but they are NOT a necessity. And time will tell.

Without the chemicals, there would be less food, and it would be higher priced.

It's not like pesticides are just spread around because its fun and free to do so....

When we - myself included - have an opinion it is easy to just say one side of things, and all would have been perfect.....

But life is complicated. If we didn't suppress the weeds and insects, we would have less food, economy would be different. It is hard to simpler judge those differences.

Farmers tend to be overly optimistic, but always a bit fearful deep down in back. I think if things go badly it sets them up for depression. I can look at people or in a mirror and judge obesity fairly accurately. I don't know that such can be done even close to accurate for a mental exam one would need for evaluating bouts of depression.

In the end we are better off if we can get more for less, sometimes that applies to food, and sometimes that applies to pest control. Finding the balance is difficult.

Paul

Here's why so many farmers might suffer from depression:

They sell wholesale. They buy retail. And they pay the freight both ways.

It just really does not get any better than this. :rolleyes:

So they can't prove it, their study can't back it up, but they can't be wrong.
Pretty sad.

Clearly a scam. Heck, all the "farmers" who hang out 'round these parts drink that new finagled super safe pesticide that is so much better for the soil like coffee before breakfast. And they are swinging from the arms of their monster machines having a good 'ol time !!! Passing the hooch, smacking each other on the butts and running around the pasture. Woo Hoo ! These are some might fine times we're living in, boys !!!

How dare anyone question the hands by which they are fed ???

Pretty Paisley, you are cordially invited to visit my farm, so you can see first hand how a farm works. Let me know if you can come out, I would be happy to have you.

:D

Then what causes depression in the other 96% of the population?

geo

fD - as unbelievable as it may seem, if I were ever given the chance (when the weather was warm), I'd love to swing from your large farm machines in your pasture with you.

I wouldn't offer you a visit to my pretend homestead, though. I know you're far too busy to play. ;)

Not enough toys :sing:

Boy is that way out there in coming up with a made up article like that. But not enough big boy toys today makes the rest of the population ill. They want them all.

Modern Farming is not a magazine for farmers. It is a magazine for hobby farmers. There are a lot of reasons for depression in farmers. Their income is low, their expenses are high, the hours they work are long.

If they wanted to do an honest study, they should study the suburban and city lots that have beautiful, manicured gardens. Those are the places that have a much higher use of chemicals per acre than farm fields. But that doesn't fit with the agenda.

I never have had big machinery on my pastures, I just walk and observe... I do offer combine talks for free. This is where visitors come and ride the combine, and we chat about anything, and everything. I offer this service for free, if you can believe it, because combining is a lonely and tedious task. Much world saving chatter is done in the cab of a combine every fall!

Regarding your pretend homestead: It is not pretend to me, it is just not what my perception of a homestead is. None of us are hometeaders to me, but my definition is different from yours, and that is just fine.

My wife and I have discussed the eastern states as a winter getaway, specifically North Carolina and the area in the mountains. You never know, we may just meet someday. :drum:

Pretty Paisley, you are cordially invited out to our certified organic farm so you can see first hand how a non-toxic farm works. Your kids or grand kids can go into any barn or shed that are safe (with the exception of a gas can for tractor fuel - a devils compromise), or walk among the crops on any day without risk of being poisoned.

We'd be even more pleased to introduce you to some of our customers who have developed such extreme food sensitivities that they can eat little else but certified organic foods.

Yes, what we do is far more labor intensive, but there are still hundreds of thousands who are un or under employed - some are just too lazy to do this kind of real and necessary work. True, we aren't raising hundreds or thousands of acres of commodity crops to "feed the world", but neither are we getting any subsidies. We are essentially feeding ourselves quite well along with several other families, and doing so in a way to keep the planet worth living on for generations to come. We are doing the best we can to make sure this small bit of earth we are stewards of is more fertile, with thriving flora and fauna (and beneficial microbes), and cleaner for our being here. We'd rather live within the limits of what the soil and seasons give us, weeds and all, than with extracting a profit today at an unknowable cost to the future.

Weeds and bugs are far more a problem in monocultures, and are indicative of things being out of balance. It has to do with humans thinking and trying to enforce the illusion that they are in control, and in the long run, they aren't. Make oil too expensive to keep doing farming the way it currently works, and see what's left.

All in all, thinking about all the pesticides, herbicides, fungicides and their toxic "inert ingredients" being manufactured and applied to the tune of hundred of millions of pounds a year, with weeds and pests becoming ever more immune to them, requiring even more toxic chemicals to keep doing things the way they are is depressing to even think about. I can't do much about that but attempt to educate. Then again, seeing our land that pushes life from the ground in abundance, and seeing customers who deeply appreciate what we do because it literally doesn't make them sick, it balances to the positive much easier.

I invited her first.

No problem, Dale. I appreciate your insightful posts, and invite you too, if you'd like. :)

You sound like a reasonable person, and I would like to know what your idea is to feed the vast numbers of people that need food. Growing organically may work when you are raising your own food and a few other families or even a few hundred other families, but what about the millions of people who can't afford to buy your vegetables or the ones that are left out because production is less? Do they simply starve? If all food is grown organically the price of food is going to go up dramatically. I don't think the
"subsidies " saved and used to help pay the price would even make a dent in the costs---and matching current food production would be pretty hard if not impossible.

We don't use chemicals on our garden, and in fact I don't know any farmer that does. But it is hard to grow cash crops that way.The American farmer loves his land as much as anyone else loves theirs. In fact most farmers would have more money if they liquidated everything and put their money in other investments. They farm because they love the land and the life.

I wonder what the actual production costs are between modern "conventional" farming and the supposedly more earth friendly organic methods are? This assumes of course paying a living wage to those good folks who would be required to put out all that extra hand labor. I know a tractor and mechanical plows require fuel... but preparing a hundred acres of soil by hand would take many many hours of backbreaking shovel and rake work. Could the organic methods meet the worlds current food supply demands?

Getting off topic, but...
 

It's complicated, but here's a short answer.

Organic production is not a monolithic process anymore than conventional ag is. Most Amish (using horses) still use conventional ag chemicals to grow their corn and other field crops. Most organic farmers use large tractors, combines, and other modern labor multipliers. Organic can be just as mechanized as any other 'conventional' farm, and in some cases, even more so.

Yes, it can cost more in fuel to do mechanical cultivation 2 or more times over a the same acres vs no-till/'dead' soil, though it takes even bigger tractors (more fuel) to chisel plow and/or no-till drill than with conventionally cultivation. I believe there were studies done that say conventional (chemical) farming on large farms uses less fuel/acre overall. A small farm using draft animals would use far less fuel per acre, but would be severely limited by the manpower to field teams to to the work.

So is it possible to feed the world with organic? With the same ag tools available to conventional farming, yes. The bigger question is "is it possible to meet the worlds increasing food needs without cheap and abundant oil?" That answer is "no", not without a massive paradigm shift of the value of food, the value of physical work, and of the necessity of more people intensely involved in it's production with far less fossil fuel input.

> A small farm using draft animals would use far less fuel per acre, but would be severely limited by the manpower to field teams to to the work.

Horses need to be fed 365 days a year.

They are far more costly to farm with than a tractor.

Farm production went up dramatically when horses were replaced and that hay land could be used for crops or to feed beef.

Like you say it is complicated, and perhaps not the only question to ask. But, a return to horses is not the answer to that question!

Myself, one of the best things to happen to this farm was to not be cultivating row crops. Those cultivations would come just as the heavy rain season typically comes here, and each cultivation would wash the loose 2 inches of soil down the rows to the bottom of the slopes here. Fall heavy tillage like plowing does not set up the same sorts of mini river beds with loose soil in them, very little erosion from fall tillage in my dirt. But that cultivating, oh that hurt the soil. I would not want to return to that on my farm, way too much damage.

Many farmers are interested in, and doing rye and radish and clover cover crops these days. I'm too far north for it to be done easily, we often finish harvest on frozen ground, but mid Iowa and south there are many acres being covered with winter seeding to hold, build, and revitalize the soil.

A lot changes, it is difficult to keep a handle on it all.

Paul

I think part of the problem is that many "organic" farmers do not understand the mass production it takes to feed people. Most large farmers do understand "organic farming". However, most professional farmers do understand "organic" farming.Our friend could not grow 2400 acres of wheat as well as other crops "organically". It is not just not going to work. He does use as little chemical as he can, as do most farmers because among other things, it comes right out of the bottom line.
Even if the unemployed were willing to take farm jobs, they won't do it for minimum wage, and even that would make food so expensive it would kill the economy. I don't believe you can get the production on a large "organic" farm, you can get on a large, professional farm. You certainly can't using horses. All you have to do is compare the yields from 100years ago and now to see that. Millions of people would starve, you could feed your own family, but could you keep the food?

I'm on a forum of 'big' farmers, a lot of them grow specialty crops - the special corn or eatable beans used most commonly in human food. They tend to not be gmo.

Several of the farmers are organic, and might have over 1000 acres, big machinery and all. Many run 20 or 80 acres of organic - if one has a market nearby the extra paid for the organic crop makes up for the lower yields and bigger risks of marketing organic crops. Very few are 'all in' because of the risks, a bad year or the smaller market is a bigger risk with organic.

It is interesting how we pigeon hole each other, when we have more similarities than differences, really. The big differences are marketing really.

Paul

Still OT, but a valid question
 

Fallacy #1: organic production is less / acre than conventional ag. Properly managed, it can equal or exceed average conventional, just as well managed conventional farms can exceed production of averagely managed ones.

Does orgainc cost more? Yes, but a portion of that is in maintaining Certifying agencies, farm and facility inspections, detailed record keeping, i.e.: the paper trail to verify the sources of all inputs, production conditions, and the resulting products. Hence it's ironic that the organic industry producing "clean food" bears the cost of that record keeping and labeling, but the conventional/chemical/gmo industry that relies on poisons (and passes the eventual cost of 'clean-up' to future generations) balks at "costs" to having informed consumers. They know that given a choice, more consumer would avoid "conventional" products, whether well justified or not. The "safety" of conventional ag foods may be settled "beyond the shadow of a doubt" (for now) among acceptable/reputable scientists, but there are still a lot of "canaries in the coal mine" of the supermarkets that are suffering horribly from what conventional food is doing to their bodies; diseases that were virtually unheard of just a few decades ago. Often, those problems correct or improve when they go to a Certified Organic diet. Science may say conventional foods and the chemicals used to produce them are "safe", but anecdotally I can see in people's documented physiological problems and the things that alleviate those issues, that there is something wrong with today's conventional food.

The cost is another issue. Conventional farmers have been able to 'leverage efficiency' via chemical inputs and larger swathes of mono-cultures to make a "cheaper" product, not necessarily a better or more nutritious or environmentally sound product. Monocultures are bound to fail eventually, and at current levels and practices, such a failure will be beyond catastrophic.

Then there is inflation. Figuring the real decline in the value of a dollar, many farmers are working harder for less pay than they did 100 years ago. Food should cost far more than it does, but most people value their I-phone, flatscreen, dish or cable subscription, SUV, etc., far more than they value 'good food'. Food is expected to be cheap, and by keeping it cheap (at any cost), it allows a larger percentage of household income to flow through the (taxed) consumer economy, and far fewer people raising food. Win-win, right? For whom? (hint; it isn't the farmer, or the consumer).

So Molly, perhaps you can tell me what you think is 'reasonable' for the long term. I think a lot of people are gonna starve because they think food just appears: they shouldn't have to work hard for it, someone else can make it, and should be cheap.

What are the long term costs of modern ag? Cancers, other health problems, killing/poisoning of the soil and water ways etc.

We always talk this/that is cheaper but at what costs. What about the future for our kids health

You might be able to grow as much/more organically in small amounts but if you start commercial production it isn't going to last. How are you going to keep weeds at bay, fertilize, and keep insects from carrying off all the profits? On thousands of acres? There is a reason farms were generally small and families were large when there were no farm chemicals. And millions of people will not be able to afford food-but there won't be much to buy anyway.

Thanks Pack Rat. :)

Welcome, and you've officially been introduced to a couple of steadfast HT members who are non-fans of organic farming. Save your breath with them, but there are plenty others here who appreciate what you do. :)

Could you be more specific to help us understand you on these points?

What is causing the cancer, what is killing the soil, etc.