|
Mofabio posted:They will be unable to eliminate milkweed on their lands, but they will try. Milkweed survives standard means of weed elimination, like tilling. This is wrong, it's absolutely not impossible to eliminate milkweed just because your crop isn't "HT". You have done absolutely no research on this. Roundup Ready simply makes it easier to use less herbicide.
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 23:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 17:18 |
|
|
^^^ The reason I'm not responding to you is because, through the computer screen, you appear hydrocephalic and not worth my time.Absurd Alhazred posted:People have been using herbicides to eliminate milkweed before HT came about. Are you suggesting that even that did not remove milkweed from their crops? They have been using herbicides to eliminate milkweed - Roundup in particular. But it wasn't very effective. The advent of HT GMOs, by the estimates of Pleasants, reduced milkweed density in cropland by almost 80%. It would be fine stopping glyphosate period, but like others have pointed out, Roundup-ready crops aren't the only HT GMOs on the market. If we banned glyphosate, another HT GMO+herbicide combination would probably take its place. Are you going to do the calculation on milkweed sanctuary land required to support a monarch population of 300 million? Like I said, it's not a trick: I'd really like to see that number. Mofabio fucked around with this message at 00:03 on Sep 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 23:54
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:And then the monarchs will die again. If there were an herbicide that targeted milkweed and not soy/maize/cotton, it would have the same effect as the HT GMOs now. Precisely the point. Farmers want milkweed gone. That is the problem that you seem unable to acknowledge. They will pay through the nose for anything that kills it. If you want to save monarchs, you're going to have to do it with milkweed plants that aren't on farmland. That is the only solution.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 23:55
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Precisely the point. Farmers want milkweed gone. That is the problem that you seem unable to acknowledge. They will pay through the nose for anything that kills it. It's the only solution if you're incapable of admitting that a class of GMO is bad. What again are the physical reasons the farm practices of 1996 will not work in 2016? So far I've heard "farms have gotten larger", which is both true and irrelevant. I've also heard "the cat's out of the bag", which implies that GMOs are unable to be regulated, which is false: they're regulated elsewhere.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:^^^ The reason I'm not responding to you is because, through the computer screen, you appear hydrocephalic and not worth my time. The reason you are not responding is because you recognize your argument is bogus but can't figure out how to backpedal. Mofabio posted:What again are the physical reasons the farm practices of 1996 will not work in 2016? So far I've heard "farms have gotten larger", which is both true and irrelevant. I've also heard "the cat's out of the bag", which implies that GMOs are unable to be regulated, which is false: they're regulated elsewhere. The milkweed isn't going to magically spawn from midair.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 00:04
|
|
|
I must say I don't think I've ever seen "hydrocephalic" used as an insult before.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 00:05
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:It's the only solution if you're incapable of admitting that a class of GMO is bad. Because farmers will continue to hate milkweed due to its negative impact on their yields and profits, and will continue to seek a way to eradicate it. You're not solving the problem, just moving it by banning glyphosates and related GMOs. If your actual interest was in saving butterflies, you would want to find a way to protect milkweed plants that is also helpful to farmers, rather than forcing them to be the Monarch's enemies.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 00:11
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:^^^ The reason I'm not responding to you is because, through the computer screen, you appear hydrocephalic and not worth my time. You're not in a position where you have an embarrassment of people wishing to engage with you honestly, and I would recommend not reducing that amount further. quote:They have been using herbicides to eliminate milkweed - Roundup in particular. But it wasn't very effective. The advent of HT GMOs, by the estimates of Pleasants, reduced milkweed density in cropland by almost 80%. I didn't say you needed to eliminate glyphosate, I said you could probably mandate that farmers use less until milkweed density is sufficient, assuming that it is agricultural milkweed density rather than total milkweed amount in the Midwest that is relevant (assuming we're talking about the same paper). quote:Are you going to do the calculation on milkweed sanctuary land required to support a monarch population of 300 million? Like I said, it's not a trick: I'd really like to see that number. Am I going to do an interdisciplinary PhD including ecology, entomology, and botany right now? No, I am not. I'm a theoretical physicist, I have neither the expertise nor the time. That doesn't matter, though, because I don't care what the specific solution is, the point is that you are the one stating that eliminating HT is a solution and is the only one, you have established neither. If the actual problem is a dearth of milkweed there are two ways in which that can be recaptured, you have yet to show that removing HT is fundamental. There are also other environmental effects to eliminating HT and pushing farmers to use the old mix of herbicides, some of which have worse environmental consequences than glyphosate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:^^^ The reason I'm not responding to you is because, through the computer screen, you appear hydrocephalic and not worth my time. quote:In a comprehensive review of pollinator habitats, Hopwood (2013) noted roadsides in the U.S. exceed 10 million acres; therefore, managing them with mowing regimes that favor native forbs, including milkweeds, could increase valuable habitat. The following calculations are informative. There are 3.2 million miles of roads in the 37 states east of the Rocky Mountains (https://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s1089.pdf). If one assumes 25 ft on each side of a road could support the growth of milkweeds (some roads would be unsuitable, but median strips would add habitat), then roadsides could contribute 6 acres of habitat per mile or, for the eastern U.S., 19 million acres of potential roadside habitat, i.e., about 3% of the 640 million acres that comprise the eastern North American breeding range (Brower, 1999). If two monarchs were produced per acre of roadside habitat, then roadsides in a managed mowing regime could support nearly 40 million monarchs. http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1674/amid-173-02-229-240.1 Changing the mowing times on the road sides can support an additional 40 million.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:It's entirely possible to go back to the regime we had in 1996, without HT GMOs, and without massive losses of monarchs since introduction of HT GMOs. The surest way to make glysophate usage fall is to ban the glysophate-resistant GMO. Going based on http://www.agbioforum.org/v15n3/v15n3a01-fernandez-cornejo.htm Table 2 there are a couple of things to point out as to why that might be. Crops being resistant certainly helps a great deal, but the toxicity of glyphosate is apparently substantially less. In fact, in 1996 a total of 8.66 Lbs Ai / Crop Acre of of herbicide were used, in 2006 4.47 Lbs Ai/ Crop Acre were used. Yes, glyphosate use did increase, but the use of the most toxic herbicides in that list were also dramatically cut. As pointed out earlier, your data doesn't show anything about Monarch butterfly populations prior to 1994, and from some searching it appears that is the start in general. In fact, if one takes out the bumper years at the early point of those figures, the decrease in population since 1994 hasn't been nearly as dramatic as claimed and is easily explained simply by habitat loss in general. Data prior to 1994 could help in showing other things perhaps. But of course, you still acknowledge that you wish to ban the symptom and not the cause. And I still am not understanding why that is. If overuse of glyphosate specifically is the problem, then that should be addressed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 00:15
|
|
|
Raldikuk posted:But of course, you still acknowledge that you wish to ban the symptom and not the cause. And I still am not understanding why that is. If overuse of glyphosate specifically is the problem, then that should be addressed. He's basically said he wants to ban them because of Monarchs and "I worked in a Chemical factory maaaaaaaaan. I've seen poo poo." 
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 00:40
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:I didn't say you needed to eliminate glyphosate, I said you could probably mandate that farmers use less until milkweed density is sufficient, assuming that it is agricultural milkweed density rather than total milkweed amount in the Midwest that is relevant (assuming we're talking about the same paper). This is a Fermi problem. Just order of magnitude estimate is fine. It really shouldn't take more than an evening. Remember to de-rate to account for the fact Monarchs prefer milkweed on farmland (see Pleasants). I'd love it if butterfly sanctuaries could support a population of 300 million butterflies. I don't think there's enough land area in the midwest for them, though. And what do you mean? There are plenty - too many - people here who want to argue with me. The thread rating's even increased since I jumped in. ... I'm stating that going back to pre-HT GMO agricultural practices would bring the monarchs back. In 1996 the population was fine. Now, it isn't. So far I've heard that that's impossible due to hysteresis like "farms are bigger now" and "HT GMOs can't be regulated". I've also heard "regulate glysophate", which will work until the next HT GMO/herbicide combination spreads. edit: CommieGIR posted:He's basically said he wants to ban them because of Monarchs and "I worked in a Chemical factory maaaaaaaaan. I've seen poo poo." Reading you talk about chemical process safety was like hearing a clock chime 13 times. So wrong, you wonder if it's ever been right.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 01:08
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:Reading you talk about chemical process safety was like hearing a clock chime 13 times. So wrong, you wonder if it's ever been right. Man, its almost as if you haven't been called out multiple times by multiple people and have nearly no one who agrees with your premise. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 01:10
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:I'm stating that going back to pre-HT GMO agricultural practices would bring the monarchs back. In 1996 the population was fine. Now, it isn't. So far I've heard that that's impossible due to hysteresis like "farms are bigger now" and "HT GMOs can't be regulated". I've also heard "regulate glysophate", which will work until the next HT GMO/herbicide combination spreads. Oh okay you're just a Luddite. Glad that we have established that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 01:12
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Man, its almost as if you haven't been called out multiple times by multiple people and have nearly no one who agrees with your premise. No one. There is no one here who agrees with him. I thought there was a valid complaint (regarding incentives toward expanded farmland usage, not GMO-specific) in the butterfly material when it was first raised weeks ago, but I was corrected. He's just getting high off himself at this point. vvvv 
Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 01:25 on Sep 3, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 01:12
|
|
|
IAMNOTADOCTOR posted:http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1674/amid-173-02-229-240.1 Thanks! The only thing I'm curious about is the 2 monarchs per acre figure. There's a 4x reduction in monarch eggs on roadside/disturbed land as there is in agricultural milkweed. The fact that roadsides represent a potential 3% of the normal monarch range makes me think it could be an overestimate. Absurd Alhazred, do you want to expand on this research?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 01:23
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:It's the only solution if you're incapable of admitting that a class of GMO is bad. It's not bad though - it's doing what it's designed to do and it's doing it very, very well. We use it because it's a more efficient and cheaper way of killing weeds. Turns out that being very good at killing weeds have secondary effects. If those effects are sufficiently adverse it may be reasonable to mitigate them. It's not different from treating people with antibiotics and then it turns out bugs develop resistance and that can pose a serious problem. Banning antibiotics would obviously solve the problem but instead we prefer to manage and regulate the problem based on various societal effects. We look at the cost to farmers if they kill less milkweed, what that will do to food prices and what people can afford to pay for food and then weigh that up against whatever monarch population we deem desirable and make a decision. It's not obvious that banning any technology that's good at killing a particular weed is the best solution or even doable long term. The solution should be to allow the amount of milkweed we want to grow - not whatever happens to grow if farmers don't have a particular tool available and then resort to whatever other tools that have come around since '96 or will come around in the future.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 01:26
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:Thanks! The only thing I'm curious about is the 2 monarchs per acre figure. There's a 4x reduction in monarch eggs on roadside/disturbed land as there is in agricultural milkweed. The fact that roadsides represent a potential 3% of the normal monarch range makes me think it could be an overestimate. So, here's the thing: If the decline is this bad, and its all the fault of GMOs (its not) and Glyophosphate (Partially), just how bad would it be if we didn't have GMOs and used MORE pesticides that were MUCH more potent than Glyophosphate. Which is one of the least toxic of all the herbicides we've ever used. Think about it, negative Nancy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 01:30
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:So, here's the thing: If the decline is this bad, and its all the fault of GMOs (its not) and Glyophosphate (Partially), just how bad would it be if we didn't have GMOs and used MORE pesticides that were MUCH more potent than Glyophosphate. Which is one of the least toxic of all the herbicides we've ever used. I'm actually curious what you think the monarch decline is caused by. Is this your first time trying to spell glyphosate? We know what the herbicide profile would be if HT GMOs didn't exist. It would look like 1996 (see Table 2). We'd also know what the monarch butterfly population would look like. It'd look like 1996. 1996 wasn't the year that glysophate was introduce; it was introduced in the 1970s. HT GMOs were introduced around 1996. Additionally, there's a mechanism to explain the connection between introduction of HT GMO crops and monarch butterfly loss: the decline of milkweed. Anosmoman: I actually agree with everything you say? I feel like the only difference between me and the rest of this thread is that I'm actually willing to entertain the option of banning one certain class of GMOs. Nobody else here is - it's apostasy. Mofabio fucked around with this message at 01:45 on Sep 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 01:40
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:I'm actually curious what you think the monarch decline is caused by. Every article posted so far has been very clear on this. Farmers killing milkweed. We also know the solution! More milkweed. The argument isn't over the cause or the solution, it's over the method. Mofabio posted:Anosmoman: I actually agree with everything you say? I feel like the only difference between me and the rest of this thread is that I'm actually willing to entertain the option of banning one certain class of GMOs. Nobody else here is - it's apostasy. Several people here have demonstrated a willingness to entertain that option. I entertain a willingness to entertain that option, and when I began reading your arguments I did in fact entertain that option! But then your arguments were thoroughly destroyed by superior counter-arguments, and I decided that in this case banning a GMO is not a solution. The problem is not in the people reading your arguments - it's in the person making them. And I guess it's the fault of other posters who made better ones, but I can see why you'd be disinclined to complain about other people making more sense than you. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 01:48 on Sep 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 01:45
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Every article posted so far has been very clear on this: Farmers killing more milkweed. Why did they start killing more milkweed in 1996? See figure 1.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 01:46
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:Why did they start killing more milkweed in 1996? See figure 1. Where are the pre 1994 numbers to show that 1) 1996 wasn't the outlier year it appears to be 2) that the decline started then and not earlier?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 01:48
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:I'm actually curious what you think the monarch decline is caused by. Is this your first time trying to spell glyphosate?  Because farmers are....farming. Wow! Good job!The solution is not to force farmers not to spray their craps. And considering the pesticides they used before, you should probably look for other solutions other than 'Makes farmers not farm'
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 01:49
|
|
|
Raldikuk posted:Where are the pre 1994 numbers to show that 1) 1996 wasn't the outlier year it appears to be 2) that the decline started then and not earlier? I don't know. If you find pre-1996 numbers, let me know. Why was there a decline in milkweed from 1996 to present?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 01:51
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:This is a Fermi problem. Just order of magnitude estimate is fine. It really shouldn't take more than an evening. Remember to de-rate to account for the fact Monarchs prefer milkweed on farmland (see Pleasants). Mofabio posted:Absurd Alhazred, do you want to expand on this research? Reread this: Absurd Alhazred posted:I didn't say you needed to eliminate glyphosate, I said you could probably mandate that farmers use less until milkweed density is sufficient, assuming that it is agricultural milkweed density rather than total milkweed amount in the Midwest that is relevant (assuming we're talking about the same paper). And then this: quote:That doesn't matter, though, because I don't care what the specific solution is, the point is that you are the one stating that eliminating HT is a solution and is the only one, you have established neither. If the actual problem is a dearth of milkweed there are two ways in which that can be recaptured, you have yet to show that removing HT is fundamental. There are also other environmental effects to eliminating HT and pushing farmers to use the old mix of herbicides, some of which have worse environmental consequences than glyphosate. Address the latter, pay me to do this research (even for Fermi analysis I will expect $40 an hour at least), or stop wasting my time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 01:55
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:Why did they start killing more milkweed in 1996? See figure 1. :yawn: It's irrelevant. The question at hand is "what is the best way to ensure an increase in milkweed numbers", and this constant harping on irrelevant details is a pretty big part of why you've been getting so thoroughly trounced. Whenever you start arguing over things in a way completely disconnected from that central purpose, your arguments look dumb.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 01:55
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Address the latter, pay me to do this research (even for Fermi analysis I will expect $40 an hour at least), or stop wasting my time. Are you not able to make the calculation? I'll get it started for you: (monarchs supported per acre of wild milkweed) * (non-crop non-urban available acres in the Midwest) You can't do that calculation? And you're a PhD physicist?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 02:04
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:I don't know. If you find pre-1996 numbers, let me know. The decline in milkweed from 96 onward is likely due to continuous development. It is impossible to say if this is a trend that started in the mid 90s or continues through the mid 90s onward. I would suspect the latter. Your entire thesis depends on this trend actually beginning at this point though rather than it being a continuation. If it is in fact a continuation of a trend that was already occurring, then the paper's conclusion is even more salient: "Thus, this study finds that the adoption of herbicide-tolerant crops benefits the environment directly by reducing quality-adjusted herbicide use and indirectly by increasing conservation tillage." So exactly what reason do we have to believe the trend of milkweed decimation began in 1996? And why shouldn't we use HT GMOs so that we can reduce overall herbicide usage and also increase conservation tillage practices which help prevent soil erosion and also reduce farms carbon footprint?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 02:05
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:You can't do that calculation? And you're a PhD physicist? I'm in a physics program. Your graph doesn't show anything other than continuing increasing land use for corn.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 02:08
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted::yawn: It's irrelevant. It's irrelevant why milkweed started dying in 1996? Here's another paper that agrees with the central thesis that HT GMOs led to ubiquitous use of glyphosate, and decline of milkweed. Here's a book that also details the monarch decline as caused by HT GMOs, which caused overuse of glyphosate. Quick check: so far nobody has posted a paper supporting an alternative interpretation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 02:09
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:It's irrelevant why milkweed started dying in 1996? You have no evidence that it only started in 1996.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 02:11
|
|
|
Nope, all GMOs are evil things made by bad people *ignores GMOs that have improved environments and others that could save lives*
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 02:11
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:Quick check: so far nobody has posted a paper supporting an alternative interpretation. You're right. Lets go burn all the GMO fields, because that'll solve the problem. How dense are you? Name a solution. We're not denying that spraying herbicide is part of the decline. But a LARGER part of the decline is because....we turned it into farmland. And your solution to that farmland is....? CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 02:18 on Sep 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 02:13
|
|
|
If we assume that the ideal milkweed density in farmland is in the range x-y%, there are two ways to get there: Either illegalize HT and hope that somehow farmers will choose a mythical ideal mix of a variety of herbicides that will magically transport us back to 1996, where we assume also that the density was in that range; Or, you keep HT but mandate that farmers reduce glyphosate herbicide use so that milkweed density in farmland rises to the range x-y%. Why is the former better than the latter? The latter has another advantage: if we currently do not know x and y, you can adapt the amount of milkweed year-by-year and see the effects on Monarch colonies, thus allowing you to ultimately measure x and y, or simply not bother being ideal but get to a certain goal of sufficient Monarch population. Conclusion: keeping HT and regulating amount of milkweed is better than removing HT and hoping and praying real hard.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 02:17
|
|
|
Raldikuk posted:Where are the pre 1994 numbers to show that 1) 1996 wasn't the outlier year it appears to be 2) that the decline started then and not earlier? Unfortunately, we only began monitoring monarch butterflies in a systematic way in 1993. However, the population level in 1996 marked a banner year for monarchs based on anecdotal data and limited surveys we do have. We just have no way of knowing what population numbers were in a more natural (i.e. pre-European contact) state. It is likely that monarch butterfly numbers soared after Europeans changed the land - milkweed thrives in disturbed habitat, and Europeans disturbed the poo poo out of the US from 1800-1950 especially(and currently, of course). I don't know whether the level we have now is more in line with pre-European numbers or if it represents a significant downturn - no one really does. All I and other researchers can say for sure is that monarch butterfly populations have declined in the 20 years since they were studied systematically. But are they near extinction due to habitat loss? Well, maybe. Again, the landscape they lived in for hundreds of thousands of years was significantly different than the highly cultivated one we have now, and for most of their history there was not a significant amount of agricultural milkweed since agriculture was more limited in North America and it was a different form than our industrialized kind. Point is, we're being pretty myopic when we insist that monarch populations are radically different than they were in the past. Using 1996 as a baseline is just as stupid as using 2013 as a baseline, so please stop. From my point of view, it's essential that we increase prairie habitat that includes milkweed for the ecological good of a whole suite of species. I agree that herbicide usage decreases milkweed in agricultural fields, and that use of glyphosate is the main culprit since it's the most commonly used herbicide in most crops. I just don't think that agricultural milkweed is the hill to die on. Also, even if we banned all HT/HR soybeans and other crops, it is highly unlikely that agricultural milkweed will make a comeback. Since 1996 (since you're obsessed with that year), Flexstar (fomesafen) has been introduced as a non-glyphosate herbicide that also kills milkweed. Why wouldn't farmers switch over to this herbicide in place of glyphosate? Buggalo fucked around with this message at 02:24 on Sep 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 02:18
|
|
|
^^ a lot of papers use 1996 as a baseline  And they probably would, unless it was also banned?Hahaha ohhh man this is rich. - We have a decline in milkweed from 1996 to present - we have a decline in monarch butterfly population from 1996 to present - we know that the only food source for monarch butterflies is milkweed - we know that glyphosate is the most effective killer of milkweed - we know that glyphosate use increased from 1/6 of the herbicide market in 1996 to 4/5 at present - we know that this happened at the same time that HT GMO crops came on the market No seriously, anybody can chime in at any time with a better story. Mofabio fucked around with this message at 02:21 on Sep 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 02:18
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:Hahaha ohhh man this is rich. No, no, you are dense as lead. We're not denying that decline in milkweed due to herbicide use is NOT the problem, the problem is you not seeing the bigger picture: The land where that milkweed would be is now farmland. What is your solution to that, genius? Glyphosphate use has not increased, GMOs have helped decrease the use, but its still being used to spray crops which took the land where the milkweed would grow. So propose some sort of solution other than bitching about something you can't fix.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 02:21
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:^^ a lot of papers use 1996 as a baseline - We have no real idea of Monarch populations before 1993-1994, making the assumption that 1996 was the turning point super-loving-suspect.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 02:26
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:No, no, you are dense as lead. "The land where the milkweed would be is now farmland". No. Read the title. "Glyphosphate use has not increased" No. Table 2. "GMOs have helped decrease the use" No. See above. "crops which took the land where the milkweed would grow" No. See first paper. "So propose some sort of solution other than bitching about something you can't fix." I have. Ban HT GMOs. You have no idea what you're talking about, and you're now in Nintendo Kid's category.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 02:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 17:18 |
|
|
Mofabio posted:^^ a lot of papers use 1996 as a baseline Again, none of this is relevant. What's relevant is proving that banning HT will lead to the desired increase in Monarch numbers (and others have pointed out why you've failed to do this) AND, simultaneously, explaining why banning HT is better than Absurd Alhazred posted:keep HT but mandate that farmers reduce glyphosate herbicide use so that milkweed density in farmland rises to the range x-y%
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 02:29
|
|