Przeglądaj pestycydy ze względu na podział:
rodzaj środka
toksyczność dla ludzi
toksyczność dla pszczół
toksyczność dla ryb
klasę toksyczności dla rozwielitek
klasę toksyczności dla glonów
klasę toksyczności dla organizmów wodnych
dodatkowych uwag

Ostatnie komentarze (zobacz wszystkie):

Komentowany pestycyd: AD Contact 90 SL
Hi, I just visited and wonde... [czytaj całość]
Autor: Danielle Simpson Data: 2024-04-19
Komentowany pestycyd: AD Contact 90 SL
Hi, If you are reading this message, That means... [czytaj całość]
Autor: Mike Guido Data: 2024-04-17
Komentowany pestycyd: Kontakttwin 191 EC
Odowidjwoidwo wojdwkslqmwjfbjjdwkd jkwlsqswknfbjwj... [czytaj całość]
Autor: MichaelCarly Data: 2024-04-15

Opinia nr 2742 o Cruiser OSR 322 FS - serwis internetowy prezentujący informacje na temat pestycydów. W bazie serwisu znajduje się blisko 1000 opisanych środków ochrony roślin. Zachęcamy do dodawania własnych opini na temat opisywanych środków chemicznych.

Polecamy zapoznanie się ze sklepem internetowym, na którym można kupić nasiona.

Nazwa usługodawcy: Cruiser OSR 322 FS.

Wpis numer 2742
If a sack of GM wheat is genuinely a mix of many vatreiies and sacks from the same supplier delivered across the country are completely different from each other then I agree there is no issue.Couple of points on this. First there is no GM wheat (yet)Second the scenario you portray doesn't even apply to non-GM seed for wheat or corn (or anything really). The bag of seed that a farmer purchases will always be a single variety (pretty much, there may be some exceptions I am not aware of, but this will be the case with most of production Ag). However different bags may well be different vatreiies a single farmer will likely plant multiple vatreiies at different locations on their farm high historical yield fields may warrant more expensive higher producing hybrids, whereas crappy fields may jsut get filled with bog standard vatreiies which don't have the potential to get top end yield (which doesn't matter, because the field sucks).The results of your approach would be practically disasterous for a farmer a field of corn with essentially random vatreiies is going to flower at different times per variety, mature at different rates, and have vatreiies well and ill suited to the environment in which they find themselves I assume the same applies to most crops (although with corn it is very important that your field flower at the same time for crops which are better self pollinators this may not be as big of an issue)Monoculture can mean a couple different things (in my mind at least, before a dictionary fanatic comes and beats me up) it can mean simply planting a whole bunch of a single crop (which modern agriculture is most certainly guilty of) or it can mean planting only a single variety of a single crop (which modern agriculture isn't guilty of, generally not even on a single farm although likely the case in a single field)To me that makes commercial sense as it would be easier to implement and more predictable.As I described above this certainly isn't more predictable or easy to implement it takes about $100M to get a single event through the regulatory process if each variety had to be modified that'd be $100M per variety into which the trait went in which case we wouldn't be having this discussion because there's no way GM traits would ever recoup their value. Once a trait has been discovered and shown to be useful it is introgressed widely into as many vatreiies as possible as such you have exactly the same scope for variation as you do without GMOs they're biodiversity neutral (at least at the level of the crop, at the level of the ecosystem there's an arguement to be made that both Bt and RR are biodiversity positive given that they reduce the toxic load of applied pesticides compared to conventional Ag without GM)I just noticed another glaring error in a prior post also, which I feel needs to be addressed for the sake of accuracy:-terminator technology reduces the target to the seed production areas.Imagine, if you will, that I'm smacking you in the nose with a rolled up newspaper right now. Imagine I'm looking sorely disappointed. Terminator technology is not used. At all. There are patents around it that exist sure, but it has never been deployed in a commercial product. If you see a piece espousing terminator technology as somethign that is used, and is bad, know that whoever wrote the piece has gone to absolutely no trouble whatsoever to understand the issues this doesn't necessarily mean that all their arguements ring hollow, but it does rather suggest that there will be other spots where they will be less than accurate (given that it is hard to be more inaccurate than stating that terminator technology is used in the first place)As a European I am utterly appalled (and have been for well over a decade now) at the backwards approach the EU takes on GMOs (just incase anyone reading makes the false assumption that all Europeans are as misinformed and spectacularly risk averse (it makes no sense, when wandering through a park, to be afraid of mines, one should only take precautions against stepping on a mine when there is sound reason to believe mines may be present that is sensible, to be afraid of them at all times simply because you can imagine they exist that's borderline insane)
Autor wypowiedzi: IicJSjNiuQvWoKpPjH Data: 2012-10-01 07:04:32 Komputer: 219.126.***.***
poprzedni wpis | następny wpis

definicja pestycydów | prawa autorskie | polityka prywatności | wydawca serwisu | reklama w serwisie
informacje o mundurkach szkolnych | narzędzia dla webmasterów istnieje od stycznia 2007 roku.