search results matching tag: pests

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (88)     Sift Talk (0)     Blogs (0)     Comments (111)   

surfingyt (Member Profile)

newtboy says...

There are no Republicans left. MAGA RINOs ate the party, no true Republican would still call themselves one.
My mother voted 100% Republican her entire lifetime, but started being disillusioned by Bush jr (she campaigned for Sr) and more so by Palin. She, like many others, says she didn’t leave the party, it left her.

I agree Russia is going to lose here…already has by many measures. I just hope American soldiers don’t end up doing the fighting or things will get out of control FAST. We are not well known for our restraint or de escalation and don’t want to be in direct conflict with a nuclear power. Fighting them by proxy is the pest possible fight for us, we should be pouring ammo into Ukraine as fast as they can shoot it or we will end up spending way more. Ukraine is the first step in Putin’s Soviet restoration plans, not the last.

surfingyt said:

"republican" lol. their party has become so corrupt and lost its way. cant believe im hearing a republican encourage russia to attack our allies. did they learn nothing from the cold war? we kicked the crap out of russia. we will do it again.

Policeman scared of mouse

Liberal Redneck: NRA thinks more guns solve everything

harlequinn says...

Sigh. What a sad day to have to read the likes of you.

I didn't know there was a strict definition. I asked a question and pondered some answers. Oh no! There world is ending. Why do you have to be a continual callow fool about such things? You'll note I didn't jump to google (like others do) to quickly look up a definition (I chose not to). I don't like using google as a false extension of my knowledge like others do. I like to have a good discussion using only the knowledge I have at that instant. But instead we all have to suffer people like you who jump in keyboard blazing "you're wrong on a thing and therefore you're an inferior fucktard who doesn't deserve to be here" instead of going "Actually, there is a strict definition of assault rifle. It's defined as...". Do you see the difference? I hate to be the one to tell you, but you need to learn to control your emotions. As an adult you should have learned this by now. You may believe you are communicating effectively but you are not. You are abrasive and abusive to anyone and everyone on far to regular a basis. You should be ashamed of yourself but I doubt you have the introspection to see your flaws.

The most irritating thing about having to point this out is that, now with strict definition in hand (provided by you), I can point out that instead of you telling Digitalfiend there is a strict definition and that "assault rifles" are already heavily restricted (as you should have pointed out), that I have to point it out to him instead.

And yes, I was already familiar with the studies I quoted previously - I have previously researched the topic of gun control in Australia.

"Why must you feign being so obtuse and naive as a pretext to sesquipedalian and pedantic argument of your own creation?"

Please stop making things up. The second you see what you consider a mistake you jump in with bullshit like this thinking you are going in for the kill. You're laughable and you're making life hard for yourself.

Shotguns aren't rifles? No shit Sherlock. It was an example of where semi-automatic is better. Semi-automatics are better than pump guns. You're dreaming if you think they're even in the same league. Duck hunting is better with a semi-automatic.

The only person who said anything about "Indiscriminately pumping animals, even nuisance animals full of lead" is you. I don't know where you learned to hunt but I learned one shot one kill. And a semi-automatic makes this more efficient (and if you do need a backup shot it comes very quickly). Most pest animals are left to rot. It's too much trouble picking up the carcasses (and often legislated that you must leave them where they drop). If you don't know how to hunt then leave it to the people who do, please (it's so easy to turn your words around).

Trapping, baiting, etc. are others methods that work well in varying circumstances.

Choosing a pump gun over a semi-auto is a beginners mistake. The spread of buckshot or home defense rounds at close quarters is fairly low and you must always aim your firearm properly. In a home defense situation, anyone who is relying on the spread of shotgun pellets to hit their target is a terrible marksman and should consider getting some lessons. You get the same loading sound from a semi-automatic when you let the bolt go forward. I don't know of any data to support the notion that the loading sound scares people away. It has some merit though.

Now, as usual for me I'll be busy for the next 4 months (back at work this morning - I shouldn't even be replying to this but I thought - "hey, I've gotta throw a dog a bone"). I may or may not get to reply to the expected vehemence to come. Have fun howling at the wind. Don't worry, you're views are the immutable truth and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, and you're insults are totally the best (snigger).

newtboy said:

as·sault ri·fle. : noun-a rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use.
Obviously it's not any gun used to fight. You act on one hand like you're a near expert, and on the other like you know nothing about the subject. Why must you feign being so obtuse and naive as a pretext to sesquipedalian and pedantic argument of your own creation?

Shotguns aren't rifles, and pump action isn't semi auto. No need for semi auto to hunt ducks.

Indiscriminately pumping animals, even nuisance animals full of lead isn't acceptable, even when you're just eradicating them and intentionally wasting the meat. That's why professionals trap them for humane disposal. You get more that way too. If you can't hunt humanely, leave it to those who can, please.

Home defense, I think short barrel pump action shotguns are the best choice...easier to wield in close quarters, and much easier to hit your target with. Also, the unmistakable sound of chambering a round is usually all it takes.

Charlie the Unicorn Goes To The Moon

Mordhaus says...

I am a millipede I am amazing, I command you to gaze upon my FACE
You'll never find someone charming as I am, I'm the swankiest bug out in space
I'm a star, I'm a God, I'm a thing to behold, there is none as resplendent as I
With my sleek little legs and my three hundred eggs, my majesty none can deny
Because I am a millipede I am mysterious, when I vanish I never leave a trace
You will not find a bug with such illusions, I'm the creature of fathomless grace
{Break}
I am a millipede I am a champion, no one else in the universe keeps pace
You'll never find someone quite as enchanting, while I'm here there's just no second place I'm an idol, a king, an object of awe, there's none such as gleaming as I
I've got glamour to spare, right when you stare
I'm the who what when where and they why
JOIN ME!
I am a millipede I am astounding, wisdom flows from my personas like lace
You'll never find someone darling as I am
I'm the swankiest, tutelary pest, certainly the best bug out in space!

wildlifexteam1 (Member Profile)

Kurzgesagt: Are GMOs Good or Bad?

MilkmanDan says...

**EDIT**
I'm finding other sources that say that sterile "terminator seeds" are a patented technique, but that Monsanto has promised not to use it. Straight from the horse's mouth:
http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/terminator-seeds.aspx

So it appears that my info below is wrong. I will try to talk with my family and get the full story. That being said, I'll leave my original comment and the followup below unaltered.
*********


My firsthand knowledge of this stuff was from more than 10 years ago, and also when I was pretty young (early 20's). So I did some web searching to try to get updated since your question is a very interesting one:

http://web.mit.edu/demoscience/Monsanto/about.html

According to that, Monsanto is the company behind "Roundup Ready", and their corn (and other crops in the line) do use sterile "terminator seeds". It also mentions that farmers "must purchase the most recent strain of seed from Monsanto" each year.

I was never in the decision-making structure of my family farm, but I did remember that we couldn't just buy the Roundup Ready seed *once* and then hold a small amount back as seed for the next year and continue to get the benefits.

I'm not 100% sure exactly how the modification for sterility works -- I don't know if the plant will sprout if you plant the sterile seeds and just fail to produce any ears / fruit, or if it just won't germinate at all. I do remember that we had to be quite careful to fully clean out the corn grown from the GM seeds from our storage bins, and better yet to store our non-GM corn to be used for future seed in entirely different bins. That was done to make sure that we didn't end up planting any of the sterile stuff.

I'm sure that the seed dealers that sell the GM stuff really push farmers to buy and plant it every year, as hinted to in that link. But you certainly don't *have* to. On the other hand, if you go back to non-GM seed for a year or two or more, you can't use a strong herbicide like Roundup if you have an unexpected outbreak of weeds or other pest plants -- the Roundup would kill the non-GM crop along with everything else.

Basically, I don't specifically begrudge companies like Monsanto for their practices concerning these GM crops. The "terminator seeds" are controversial, but don't seem like a big deal to me. If you could buy GM seeds once and then just hold back some of your harvest for next season's seed, they'd only get your money once AND we'd probably lose the original strains. So I see that as kinda win-win, especially if you don't 100% buy into their sales department urging you to use GM seed every single year.

I don't want to sound like a shill for Monsanto -- some of their other practices are pretty shady, particularly political lobbying. But from the perspective of my family farm, the GM corn that we use was/is a real beneficial thing. Significantly less pesticide/herbicide use over time, and it allows for expanded low/no till farming. Before herbicides, tilling was one of the only ways to kill off pest plants. But, it also makes the fields lose some moisture and nutrients. Expanded farming and ubiquitous tilling was largely the cause of the "dust bowl" dirty 30's. Anyway, I'd say that a lot of good has come out of modernized techniques and technology like GM crops.

Hastur said:

I think many people don't realize how GMOs have made farmers' lives so much easier.

I'm surprised to read what you said about your family's GM seeds being modified to be sterile though; the video states that terminator seeds were never commercialized. Since you're talking about corn, maybe it was just hybrid?

Kurzgesagt: Are GMOs Good or Bad?

MilkmanDan says...

Some additional notes based on growing up in a wheat / corn farming family:

My family uses GMO herbicide/pesticide-resistant corn seed (Roundup Ready). It's a tradeoff, because:

1) Roundup Ready seed is somewhat expensive, especially compared to just holding on to a small amount of your own harvested crop as next year's seed.

2) Like the video mentioned, the GM seeds we used have been modified to be sterile, so the grain they produce can't be replanted. Part of the justification for that is not wanting the GM version to intermingle with unmodified strains. But, most is pure profit motivation -- they want you to be forced to buy that GM seed. I don't really see that as nefarious, just business -- but opinions differ.

3) My family discovered that for corn, we could us the GM Roundup Ready seed roughly once every 5 years while still benefiting from drastically reduced insect / plant pests. If corn is within pollination range of another less known crop plant called milo, the plants can hybridize and produce a plant called shattercane. Shattercane is essentially worthless as a food crop, but is very hardy, and can spread and in many cases outcompete the corn or milo that you really want.

Getting rid of it was a very difficult and intensive process -- until the GM seed came along. Now if we see shattercane starting to make incursions, we can plant the GM seeds the next year and then hit the field with a herbicide that kills the shattercane. It works so well that the field remains clear of the pest plants / insects for several years after that without having to use much if any herbicides / pesticides.

4) In our situation, we found that we used way less herbicide / pesticide per year on average once we started rotating in the GM seeds once every several years. That would be close to a wash, but still likely a net savings even if we used the GM seeds every year (seed companies will try to sell it to you every year). Factor in increased crop yields because of the reduced/eliminated pests, and it is a clear win.

5) I'm sort of worried about the potential for a "superbug" effect, similar to overusing / misusing antibiotics. If farmers buy into the GM seed thing 100% and use it every year, I think it will increase the chances / rate of the pests becoming resistant to the pesticides / herbicides used. That's a long-term concern, and in my opinion doesn't even come close to outweighing the "pro" side of the GM argument (at least from the perspective of my family's farm), but it is something to think about.

How the Gun Industry Sells Self-Defense | The New Yorker

MilkmanDan says...

To me, that seems like a very rational stance on concealed carry.

A clear, logical list of rules that must be followed, which are (it sounds) fairly and universally applied (at least in Texas).

I'm enough of a "gun nut" (even though I don't actually own any guns or currently reside in the US) that I wouldn't want to see ALL of those rules applied to ownership of rifles and shotguns that are used for hunting or pest control / other utility on a farm.

Taking a class, test, and range test are good requirements. Not having felony convictions is another goodrequirement. But beyond that, for hunting/farm owners, it seems like many more requirements could just be misapplied to deny ownership to whoever the state deems "undesirable".

I tend to think that the NRA stance that any control or limits whatsoever are unconstitutional is very counterproductive for legitimate owners of hunting / farm firearms, as well as CCW people like yourself.

Mordhaus said:

One other thing, just so people don't think I am an NRA gun nut supporter, I personally wouldn't care if they made anyone who wanted to even own a gun go through the above steps to be allowed to do it. The Texas ones anyway, the may carry states allow the government or police to just say "screw you" and that isn't fair gun control.

5 of the Worst Computer Viruses Ever

Sekrin says...

Takes me back to the first time I had to deal with a virus infection... not on my machine, thankfully, but much every Acorn machine (and every floppy disk) in my secondary school was infected with the "ICON" virus. Didn't do any harm (besides taking up space), but it was really annoying to get rid of as it would re-infect stuff almost as quickly as you were cleaning them.

The ironic thing was that it took me months to rid of that pest and then a week later I got a computer mag with a free anti-virus on the cover disk that would disinfect a computer in minutes instead of hours....

Introducing FarmBot Genesis

newtboy says...

As a person who actually grows much of my own produce, I can say definitively that many of their numbers are WAY off. They require one to pay one's self $100 per month for produce shopping to come up with their $1400 per year 'savings', but claim 5 minutes a day for 'harvest time'...good luck with that if you're not living on just lettuce and cauliflower...peas and beans will take 3 times that. They claim $6 for seeds, but the seeds I buy are over $3 per packet, so that's only 2 vegetables at a time...not much variety. I also note they have no cost for soil, the bed, fertilizers, pest control methods/time, disease control, etc. They also arbitrarily put the maintenance time at :30 min per month...that doesn't seem really realistic for an outdoor robot. Keep in mind that a single break down can mean the loss of an entire crop, depending on how it malfunctions. They also don't give an expected lifespan...or guarantee/warranty, so there's little way to know yet if it will last a single season, much less the 4-5 they say it takes to pay off.

It would have made much more sense to me if they had compared it to growing a home garden by hand, as that's what it's replacing, not the grocery store.

Don't get me wrong, I love this idea and would take one in a second if someone offered, I just don't see it as cost effective at $3-4K. Once the bugs are worked out so it lasts 10 years and the DIY cost is down to $1K(+-), then I'll think they have something pretty good that could also save people money. Being totally open source, I have hope that it will evolve quickly and be clearly viable in the near future. The time is coming when I won't be able to do the home farming I do today...it would be great to have a metallic yard slave to take over for me when that time comes.

eoe said:

@newtboy: Seems they thought of this argument. They put quite a bit of effort in refuting this.

3:48 am, "Hydraulic Press"

artician says...

I thought the exact same thing the first time I saw a House Centipede (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scutigera_coleoptrata).
Even worse (for them) when scared they stand up halfway and run really-fucking-fast, holding their forelegs out like the wickedest looking alien you would never want to see running across your floor.
Unfortunately (for them) they only look scary. They're about as harmless as your average 'daddy-longleg' spider, and are good to have in the home as they eat other insects that humans consider more pest-like.

Monsanto, America's Monster

bcglorf says...

Thinking further, the use of chemicals and fertilizers in orchards is more different than I'd first thought too.

If you take an apple orchard, every plant is priceless compared to a grain crop. Killing off insects, keeping exactly the right fertilizer amounts and irrigation are all absolutely required. In grain farming, pests like weeds or insects are measured and the cost/benefit is weighed to see if it's worth the cost of spraying. I'd imagine with a fruit crop, the benefit is almost always keeping your plants as healthy as humanly possible. With grains though guys will often estimate a 5% loss from whatever best is there and decide to leave well enough alone.

A bit of a side note, but the kinds of chemicals guys on the grain side use has changed a lot too. Plenty of chemicals used for killing insects when I was a kid where being replaced then. Farmers here universally remember a laundry list of different pesticides they remember as just nasty and downright scary stuff. The ones available today are far more selective, and for weeds round-up ready has allowed guys to abandon pretty much all other weed killers, and most of those were much more expensive and lingering than round-up.

newtboy said:

OK, yes. That's correct. I have no personal experience in grain farming (except corn, but grown to eat on the cob, so that's also different).
I still say the same applies to OVER use of chemical fertilizers and the environment, but perhaps that's much less of an issue with grain crops.

As I said above, I admit that new crop genes paired with new chemicals could produce greater yields on more damaged land. Roundup/roundup ready crops are a prime example of this, as they artificially eliminate competition for the remaining nutrients and root space, leaving it all for the crop. That doesn't eliminate the damage though, it only hides it from the farmer. When they stop working (and they will eventually), we'll have serious trouble.

Monsanto, America's Monster

bcglorf says...

@newtboy,
Some, (very few) still grow grain using old school methods, some even using old school grains (thank goodness, we will have them to thank for still having grains when/if the Monsanto grains fail). It's not even 99%, but it is 'most'.

If you count your numbers by production it's probably more than 99% fall under your idea of 'industrial'. If you want to count old school methods as no chemicals for pest control and harvesting by hand then you need 20 some old school farms to match the quantity of food produced on one thousand acre family farm.

Clearly, natural farming takes more effort, and costs the consumer more, but does not require major ecological mitigation, so if you count ALL costs involved, it's not that much more expensive.
Can you explain the ecological mitigation costs you imagine are associated with farming a thousand acres of grain by hand versus using modern equipment and some round-up? The round-up breaks down within days of application and the equipment doesn't impact the land any more than having 20 some people marching through on foot. For bonus points include the ecological foot print of everybody required to work the land in both scenarios. Including that makes it glaringly obvious that the efficiency of what you class 'industrial' farming techniques is on the whole much better on the planet. Of course, it shouldn't be a surprise producing double and triple the amount of food from the same land with a fraction of the manpower means less overall demand on the environment.

As for the propaganda in the vid, you claimed I misrepresented the Manhattan presentation, I quoted the video verbatim. I'm not interested in doing the same for every point they ran. The video is propaganda of the purest form and I stand by that.

Could we, should we annihilate Zika mosquitoes?

nanrod says...

There are a number of other techniques for suppression or elimination of particlular pest species around the world. Check out the Sterile Insect Technique being used against the screwworm fly which has already 100% eliminated that particular nasty from the US and Mexico. There is also the Daughterless Carp Project in Australia aimed at eliminating an invasive carp species from the Darling River system. It involves releasing genetically modified male carp that are incapable of producing female offspring. Unlike 20 or 30 years ago I think the possible consequences of these various techniques are now being considered.

newtboy said:

Whenever there's a mosquito vectored disease, people talk about eradicating mosquitos, but never consider their role in the food chain, and it is not a small role.
They also never consider the effects of the eradication methods, which are often poison sprayed into the air or onto ponds. Decades ago, a 12 year old boy designed and made a device for eradicating mosquitos in water using sound waves for a science project, and it worked. He tuned his device to resonate at the same frequency as the gas bladder in mosquito larva, popping it and killing the mosquitos without effecting anything else, and leaving no residue. For some reason, I never hear about that method being used, but instead often see people dosing small ponds with poison, oil, or bacteria, all of which harm other organisms.
Targeting single strains of mosquito with genetics may be a good way to deal with disease issues, but will certainly also have unexpected unpredictable consequences. I hope they remember the fiasco caused by creating killer bees and study the issue from all sides thoroughly before releasing them into the wild.

Vicious, Terrifying Guard Dog Protects Owner From Attack

Retroboy says...

Runner here (at least before my knees decided enough's enough).

My road route took me past a house where a toy some-such-or-other breed routinely chased me and came close to nipping at my heels. One day my knees weren't the only thing that decided enough was enough. Stopped, turned around, looked at the pesky atom, and ROARED. I'd like to think I'm a kind guy, but in all honesty, the other option of trying to score a field goal on imaginary 40-yard uprights was a very very close second. Runners will understand.

Anyways, I didn't, but it was very satisfying to see that little pest leave a vapour trail on its way back to its old-lady owner, who tried to comfort it against the big bad normally harmless passerby.

Do NOT train your dog to do what these people did. Might look cute, but is not.

Xaielao said:

Funny but teaching him dangerous habits. He'll grow up to be one of those dogs who bites the moment anyone approaches her, who chases people around nipping at their heals. I freaking little dogs like that.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon