I can't say that any of them have done extremely good or bad things for my gardens. As for the world...I have some concerns.

Gosh, I find it hard to argue with a Big Mac, a coke, baked potatoes or Budweiser! And aspirin. But that's just me :-)) (and yes, I am aware that Bayer manufactures a whole lot of stuff other than aspirin)

As for any complaints, Scotts tops my personal list as they distribute such amazing misinformation with their advertising campaigns, not to mention that I dislike the quality of their products. But otherwise I have few issues.

I am just a bit confused how all this relates to soils or composting, however.

Only because these companies all claim to help plants, soil, and agriculture in general. The forum discussions continue to come back to soil health, weed control, and roundup.

Scotts is finally weening themselves and consumers off of the 4-step program but only because a lot of consumers became too smart to put down product 4 times a year no questions asked.

All of these companies are in the chemicals business. Simplot is the closest to some of their actual production because they are a food producer (and have an agreement to supply McD's with potatoes for eternity, as well as all the other fast food joints now).

Yep, Bayer is the number one insecticide producer and number one agrochemical producer in the world, twice that of Monsanto. Yummy!

I know this is not a popular point of view but pesticides ARE necessary in this world. As long as they are used with knowledge of their properties and with due care and adherence to label instructions and with adequate testing (at least with respect to manufactured chemical pesticides), I can live with that although I may not advocate their use personally.

Unfortunately, we have little control over their usage beyond our own garden and virtually no say at all on what is used or how it is applied outside this country. For some reason, reading and following label instructions and directions is a process the vast majority seems to ignore.

Pesticides are not necessary anywhere in the world. We mismanaged our lands and have created a dependency on chemicals that are not genetically useful or responsible. Profit is at the heart of our food production and not consumer or world heath. The biggest preventable tragedy that plays out in our world everyday.

"Pesticides are not necessary anywhere in the world"

That's a very simplistic attitude and I beg to differ. Human populations would be in serious difficulty in many parts of the globe if it weren't for pesticides used to control such diseases as malaria and dengue fever.

And closer to home, what about pesticides used to control Lyme disease or what about spraying for termites and cockroaches, fleas on our pets, or gypsy moths? Or dormant sprays used to control fungal issues on all manner of fruit crops? Slug and snail bait?

Land mismanagement plays only a very small role in this issue. Growing world populations, the ease and speed of international transport and loss of habitat for natural predators are much larger contributors.

Although the nay-sayers will poo-poo the attached as junk science or whatever justification they like to confirm their own narrow veiwpoint, pesticides DO have a benefit in our world.

Amazing how much money there is to be made off of everything you listed. Thriving ecosystems never needed our help, now we've ensured that they do. There's an argument to everything anyone could mention but big business loves folks like yourself to believe they are absolutely necessary. How's that cure for all our diseases coming along?

There are folks that love to debate these sort of things are over at Hot Topics. Not saying that you won't get discussion here, just offering an alternative :-)

http://forums.gardenweb.com/forums/hottopics/

I don't think one can solve a very complex problem with a simplistic solution. I wish we didn't use such a massive volume of chemicals myself. But we didn't get here overnight, and changing is going to be a long slow process. It will involve education and changing of practices by subsistence farmers, gardeners, consumers (everyone eats), and yes, marketing by manufacturers; food distribution issues around the world; changes in diets and nutrition in very different places and cultures; economics and politics underlie many of those topics.

If all the chemicals disappeared tomorrow, we'd be a heap of trouble. But that doesn't mean a lot of people here aren't working toward a better way. For every sign waver, there are 100 of us quietly trying to change things in our own little corners of the world.

Monsanto ... one word: Glyphosate! My go-to weed killer.

Pioneer, DeKalb and Sygenta ... all that lovely pest resistant corn and soybeans making my food and clothing more affordable. And for my farming cousins, the glyphosate resistant stuff that lets them do no-till farming and keep yields up because of lowered weed populations.

And the papayas without ringspot virus making them all bitter.

As well as the effort various ones of them put into conventional garden seed development and sales for all of us.

I love technology.

http://www.soilassociation.org/blogs/latestblog/article/1074/horse-high-bull-strong-and-pig-tight-us-organic-farmers-meet

"Supporting" any of those companies is what is destroying our world food supply. Glyphosate sales just encourage the companies at the heart of the addiction our farms now have to the active ingredient. All to control a weed by spraying it. Lazy indeed.

"Lazy indeed."

soilhugger541, How would you weed a modern farm?

With employees. Farms used to have them, in fact we used to spray chemicals right on top of them! Central IN, as in Noblesville, or Martinsville, or Nashville? :-)

Central Indiana as in Alexandria...not all Central Indiana is Fishers or Zionsville!!

"With employees."..........all with health care and good pay?

I have no personal issue or history with Monsanto's products on my own land because I (probably along with a large majority of gardeners on this particular forum) do not use any chemical toxins for weed or pest control. I buy organic foods whenever possible and encourage wildflowers/weeds around the borders of my property to help mitigate the damage that glyphosates have caused to the beneficial insect populations. Monsanto is the devil as far as I'm concerned, right up there with the fossil fuel industry.

Last night I went to McDonald's and had a Coke with my Big Mac. I don't feel sick right now and I thought I was a pretty good guy in general. Thank goodness people like soilhugger are around to point out what a bad person I am. At least my irresponsible choices will kill me in short order. I supposes that's a bit of an emotional roller coaster but in the end, it feels like a win.

The consumers in general aren't the bad guys, but supporting the bad guys doesn't help our plight. Glad you don't feel sick right now. It's not a matter of pointing out how bad or dumb we all are. I was raised on fast food in the kitchen and from drive thrus. My father-in-law takes my 3 year old son to McD's and thinks its good for him! He also thinks corn fed beef is the best beef on the planet because he doesn't know what he's talking about. The big corporations would prefer to keep the masses in the dark, otherwise society might start calling them out that they are "spiking the punch" with crap that certainly isn't food. Nice thing for the big dogs is that no matter how much you point out to the consumers that these products are indeed crap, someone is still going to eat it because it is fast, cheap and tastes good. This is supposed to be emotional because it's our world food supply and I don't want to leave it in this order for my boy to grow up the way I did!

"If all the insects were to disappear from the earth, within 50 years all life on earth would end. If all human beings disappeared from the earth, within 50 years all forms of life would flourish." -Jonas Salk

Mankind has been hard on the earth...that is not in question. what is important is the purpose of earth and mankind. I believe in Someone beyond all this who has it all under control. Yes, He has given man free will to do some bad things, BUT good will come out of it all.

I use pesticides on the farm. It would be virtually impossible to do what I do economically without glyphosate especially. Do I like it? No, not really, but I'm a realist. I follow the rules and try to use the least amount I can to get the job done.

re pesticides and world agriculture.

So, you spray the whole region at harvest? That sounds healthy. Those crops are ruined, not gonna help to spray the locusts at that point. After the flooding, the water should have been extensively drained and/or treated before they hatched. If these folks can't afford to eat anything besides rice, they sure shouldn't have cattle. The cattle are eating the rice too! And now they are convinced that they are going to spend all of the aid money on pesticides?! That aid money check might as well just be written to Dow.

Soilhugger ... Weed this!

"they sure shouldn't have cattle."

Maybe they have cattle to provide milk for their children? When I was a lad we had two milk cows to produce milk for the family.

I should have also mentioned that as a compost producer, clopyralid and that family of long lasting chemicals scare the bejeesus out of me. Lontrel is frequently used around here and getting straw that has been sprayed with that product could be catastrophic to some gardens. If one is using straw as a mulch, or compost feedstock, it would be a very good idea to ask what the crop has been sprayed with.

I sold Lontrel for 8 years and what a great herbicide. Clover and broadleaf plantain control like you've never seen on golf course turfgrass. Trouble is that as you pointed out, the label says no using the clippings for compost and also NO residential use. I saw that carfentrazone is at Wilco, i think as Horsepower or Quicksilver. Another great herbicide they've been mixing with dicamba...

Thanks for everyone's input, it is about what I expected. I agree to disagree and will work the angle in my own little world. :-)

Speedzone!

Agriculture existed long before there was glyphosate. Just sayin'... We raised a large vegetable garden that fed us through many winters with just a hoe for weed control. Neighbors with much larger gardens used rototillers. I'm sure there are mechanized versions of cultivators suitable for large agriculture.

It isn't just a matter of disagreement when runoff from these chemical toxins have travelled down the Midwestern rivers and created a dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico that will no longer support marine life. It is an environmental hazard that will cause us all to be swimming belly-up with those fishes in the Gulf if we do not stop it.

The Gulf Anoxic Zone is a real thing, but it's not caused by chemical toxins. It's caused by organic matter - from not only farm runoff but urban runoff and treated sewage effluent - and nitrogen, from all those same sources. Aquatic organisms digest all of that, using up the oxygen in the water. It's a terrible problem but it's not caused by pesticides.

Being "green" is expensive and increases the cost of food...significantly. So if you can afford that great, but there are a lot of people out there who simply can't. I struggle with the disconnect and disengeniousness of people who say they care about the plight of the poor, but don't see that their enviromental policies and energy policies harm those that can least afford it the most.

" I'm sure there are mechanized versions of cultivators suitable for large agriculture."

yes ... and then you get erosion and a dust bowl if you till frequently enough to keep weeds down.

The only reason why organic farming using sustainable methods is more expensive is because organic farmers do not receive the subsidies that are lavished on "conventional" farmers.

Yep, the failure of organic farming is all about subsidies. Let's ignore the increase in labor expenses, the increase in diesel expenses, and the decrease in productivity--like any of that would have an effect on profitability...

Don't get me wrong, I am no apologist for Monsanto but I find their detractors' complete ignorance of modern agriculture practices rampant.

Oh, and pesticides? In Shi Lanka alone the death rate from malaria had been reduced to a number approaching zero, when the WHO banned it. The following year, sans DDT, it rose to 600,000. How easy of us in our 1st world, central heat and air homes to be critical of chemical use in poor, 3rd world countries, since that's not 600,000 dead in one year OUR cities.

The WHO has the power to ban a chemical's use in a particular country? That's news to me. I didn't think it had sovereignty over anyone.

The WHO was not responsible for the ban. This is the activity of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the Global Environment Facility (GEF) under the auspices of the UN Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pesticides. Their mission is to gradually reduce the use of DDT globally so that so that its use is completely eliminated by 2020.

Excuse my generalization, I went the easy route to Wikipedia and picked up their wording. Instead, how about the World Health Organization was a driving force behind the 1st world public opinion that created the presure and political support behind the cessation of the use of DDT.

The point does not change. The use of the chemical DDT, the lives it saves and the resulting increase in deaths when its use was ceased/reduced is extremely well documented. If you'd like to spend a couple hours down the internet worm hole do a google search and you can learn about how a movement by 1st world enviormentalist had tragic, tragic results in 3rd world countries.

There is a balance to be struck in the use of chemicals worldwide and statements like "Pesticides are not necessary anywhere in the world" not only don't begin to strike that balance, but are dangerous and scary. Let's try to learn from history before getting hysterical.

Subsidies can pay for a whole lot of labor costs, diesel costs, and other farming expenses. There is no loss in productivity that is peculiar to organic farming.

Well there is certainly an *increase* in productivity in conventional farming by the use of pesticides. Less worms in your apples mean you have more apples to take to market. A conventional farmer would tell you that the fundamental reason for putting ANY chemical on a crop is to increase yield.

Federal subsidy programs are majorly focused on 5 commodities: corn, soybeans, wheat, cotton and rice. The producers of fruits and vegetables are not included. So what's the explanation for the struggle of profitability in organic vegtagble and fruit growing?

I suspect it is multi-faceted. At the same time I too am concerned about the subsidy issue. And the way the system is rigged so that big ag gets an advantage.

As for DDT, is there no safer substitute to kill mosquitoes after all this time? Is there some other reason for the increase in malaria rates, like government cutbacks that happened to coincide in time? Not to get off on a tangent but these things get complicated pretty quick.

spedigrees - You are misinformed.

http://jaysonlusk.com/blog/2012/9/11/the-organic-food-subsidy-myth

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2H60ritjag&spfreload=1

About 2:15 and then 6:25, then you can just listen to the rest for fun! Enjoy!

“Misuse of reason might yet return the world to pre-technological night; plenty of religious zealots hunger for just such a result, and are happy to use the latest technology to effect it.”
― Anthony C. Grayling

Really? I'm the least religious person you know, I promise you. Go sell "fertiliser" already!

created a dependency on chemicals...

I, myself, have to confess a dependency on chemicals. I sit here, sipping H2O, breathing N2, O2, and CO2. I'm thinking about giving them up...