Which vegetables are better: organic from abroad (Italy, Spain, …) or conventional from Germany (max. 100 km away)?

I've heard that with Hungary I don't know if it's true in some regions.

Yes I am mainly concerned with sustainable conventional agriculture, especially in the direction of minimal floor processing, which I hact for right or best garnet ground movement. You just have to let a few points of the eco-producers flow in, eg It is also important to have an intensive interfamily cultivation and to green the area all year round for soil life and, of course, also humus construction.

I think it is quite possible in conventional agriculture to dispense with insecticides and fungicides precisely these agents are those which are still residues in eating herbicidal hardly and I think weed control should take place as biologically as possible by suppression if there is no chemical but mechanical I am not a fan of. Despite mulch sowing with intermediate fruits on our fields partly erosion in lanes eg I don't want to imagine how this looks at a chopped field I am also not a fan of the plow.

Oh, sorry I'm 100% of her opinion I wanted the answer to write about you the mean bio would always be better. Still thank you 😅 I'm sorry.

I also think they have good approaches but it will be wrongly implemented so the higher erosion risk is mekner think a big topic. And as they say with the fluke consumption. We should use our yielding areas and use them efficiently if one thinks that the yield of wheat in Hungary is at 2 tons in good years and is bad at a ton. There is an enormous increase in land consumption due to organic, which may lead to increased rainforest deforestation, and I doubt that a organic field balances the ecological value of a rainforest. The problems will only be pushed where different we make our landword before location inefficient it has to be intensified elsewhere.

LG

I'm glad they got over the clinic.

I strongly believe that all depends on our soil and therefore healthy soil -> healthy plants (-> healthy animals) -> healthy food

-> healthy people.

The direct seed system that I prefer is based on which you look a lot from nature and the nature has done everything that it is great so you just need to look at how it goes down in nature and the best soils are either the pastures with ruminants or light foliage forests. at both, many different plants stand on the field all year round so that the soil is never bald and always grows. About half of the sugar comes from the photosynthesis on the roots to feed the soil life, which serves as an immune system of the plants. If no plan this the soil life.

In nature no soil is moved except minimally by mole or wild boar eg

In the case of direct seed, therefore, an intermediate fruit is sown with at least 10 different plants and then glyphosate is sprayed on it and immediately after that, the seeding machine can germinate the grain and the soil is grown almost 365 days. The intermediate fruit dies and then serves, for example, the rainworms as a feed which then produce fertilizers for free. due to the dead plants which lie on top of the soil hardly dries out and thus one is optimally prepared for climate change and the plant residues also prevent the weeds growing, thus almost no weed control is required after sowing. Then in the voids of the dead plants insects can settle and in nature come in a cut to 1 harmful 1000-2000 beneficials if one does not need to destroy any insects anymore and thus the soil has an intact soil life/immune system the plants are almost never ill so you only need to eat approx. a liter of glyphosate per hectare (and then still minimal (about a third) chemical weed control and that was.

are allowed in DE max. 3liter glyphosate per hectare per year in USA they spray 24 liters because I do not think that is still safe but this is a liter with such a good soil life within 2 weeks and then are still over 30 weeks eg in winter wheat

Nowadays, for example, rapeseeds have to be sprayed 7 times or sugar beet. Unfortunately, the Ministry of the Environment does not ensure that the new spray agent is approved and new means are usually much more environmentally friendly and more effective so that much less is needed, etc.

Our beets had been germinated as they are already pierced in the leaves of the aphid because there is no neonicidal anymore, on the one hand there is a good stupid thing because the leaf area becomes smaller and therefore less photosynthesis and sugar is now decisive in the sugar beet.

Without glyphosate, direct seed will probably not be possible, but I and many other farmers still want to go in that direction.

Always think about it: We farmers have the task to feed you and we have no interest in poisoning you;)

LG

https://youtu.be/L5BT54JCYOE look in here just the beginning has come out interesting today. Having seen as good as any video of him is very interesting also for example Hartwig Callsen on Youtube tells that he has more insects in his field as in the nature reserve. He also has vine chickens, etc.

most provocative video title. "more biodiversity despite glyphosate"

can be that they are interested in

Yeah, so they're supposed to make us all organic? Keep them from notill nothing I find my half nitrate washout and 800% more insects I find very cool.

There are also areas where bio does not work. For example, our vineyard is quite steep with stone walls and everything in handwork and logically grows between the rows something and because we have to run there we need to remove this and because of these walls we can not mow this with the lawn mower and with the tractor not to think about motordense would go but then lies everywhere plastic of the cord and long it also takes years to spray We have used this year in some areas where not so much is something less or sometimes even none but I think if Glyphosate is gone sees our landscape quite differently with us each slope full of weeping up to 100% standing that will then be over. In agriculture we do not need glyphosate.

Through the use of glyphosate it is also possible to dispense with mechanical use or to save it and any soil processing ensures that the soil is leaked out and precisely in the harshness of climate change I therefore find it important the water which we do not have to evaporate unnecessarily.

We are not even as far apart as they may think I am also for environmental protection etc. I simply do not find mechanical weed control sustainable and there they have nothing to say. I just don't like it when I see the organic farmers and also some conventional plows.

By plowing you have a very erosion-prone area and if we start out that it rains 3 times a year then it floats at every rain when you plant 1mm soil from the field so in the year 3mm. And the fertile layer in the field is 30cm so if someone has planted it roughly 100 years then it does not grow anymore and that is not sustainable. But plowing is the alternative to glyphosate, otherwise there is nothing else except to ignite the field or bruise under electricity, that is all even more harmful to the environment and to the insects.

I personally am very interested in notill (no soil processing) davei the bottom is only placed in a slotted seed and the slot is pressed back.

According to several studies, the nitrate scrubbing is only half as high as in the case of plumed fields because the floor has a structure. In Australia Brazil and the Usa, the system is already widespread and the yields increase although less fertilized and the "pestecide" is reduced by 90%. Also the humus content rises which is good for the climate and you need fewer machines and this and there is no erosion. I think that's the most sustainable. But you need glyphosate that keeps many to switch to this system instead many want to start plowing after all work around a third of the conventional completely without plow when glyphosate is probably just a ninth.

It should be clear that the glyphosate is never sprayed on plants which we later eat the medium kills every plant and is therefore only sprayed before the sowing or after the harvesting, so that all weeds die and then some new seed can be sawed without weed growth.

The problem of this notill is that it is not politically desired who profits from it if you need less tractors, diesel, machines, pesticides and less fertilizer? Only the farmer and all the others have an economic disadvantage. The eco-agricultural economy, on the other hand, needs much more diesel machines, tractors, buildings etc. This promotes the German industry

But now again to her topic clearly diversity is important and 10 maisäcker in series are ned well just as little 10 weizenäcker it needs diversity and therefore we should all expand the fencing order, which is now also promoted by the state with us you now see again a lot of spelled and in front of all soy.

Neonics are forbidden! But what do we have? Before that, the seeds were stained with neonics so that the plant has taken up the insectic poison and the animals that were then eaten on the plant died and were eaten no leaves! Because they have now been banned an old highly toxic medium has been re-approved and we farmers have no other choice than to use this is not taken up by the plant but is a film on the sheet and when it rains collects water in the sheet and in the water is then the medium in it and when a bee comes to drink then it dies.

Where's the point now? Something nasty forbid what's going on is it getting worse? It's the same as glyphsate. The medium is not that great I know but there is NO alternative that damages the environment less.

Where's the point?

They just pick one argument out. We farmers are just sorry that feels just we are doing something. That's like in school at the group work of one doing something and the others relax and then say hurry up.

Even if it is not veil, simply all the stone gardens should be banned and everyone must be shaved only so often without mowing robots and to 10 percent of the garden you must not mow but flower sowing. There's probably no one left for it if it were all. We farmers also have to supply us and get over the rounds!

We sow every year on all our fields intermediate fruit approx. 40 hectares and additionally about 5 hectares of flower meadow and have another approx. 5 hectares of sprouts and all our meadows will only be mowed from June 15th so that all flowers can flower. It's not that we don't do anything.

But if you see this at the corn harvest over the harvesting machine all the time birds flying the insects eat in the corn then you doubt something about that the corn is so bad. And already a day is the whole meisfeöd full of spin weaves and where spin are logically also insects.

But I still think that we need to continue to operate insecticide protection and that means that we are moving less ground in front of all, but in ecoland construction the opposite happens.

So they mean agriculture is solely responsible for it and completely dispense with the mobile radio network and light protection?

In some studies one sees a rapid decline of the insectic population as the 4G net came and the millions of lanterns which nightly insures of exhaustion or because they bruise on the pear!

Let's ask why is it better to build eco-land? Here the floor is moved more often, leading to huge wind and water erosion, which is our biggest problem in agriculture. In addition, habitats are destroyed by insects, eg the holes of the wild bees in the floor are always buried, etc.

And bunnies and co do not feel well when weeding off the weed is comparable to when you comb the hair there can be no spine a net weaving let alone any hate or whatever life.

I find no system super we need in the future an environmentally friendly mixture of both systems that combines the advantages.

Little soil move weeds chemically kill but do not use insecticides and fungicides.

But what I think is also a lot of things are the straw fruits. These natives of many insects and collecting apples were practically directly around the village they disappeared when the villages were built.

I'm afraid it's uneconomical.

LG

Oh, and a biobuilder does that better? Organic farmers only fertilize with manure and crap as thought. The farmer has nothing to overfertilize his field thereby losing much field for expensive fertilizers and the plants are overnourished and tilt around eg barley is there sensitive. But too little fertilization is also not good because then the plants are sub-nourished and then they become sick like humans and need more "pesticides" again because we make them healthy like a human as well as medicine. The plant protection products are very expensive they are sprayed only if they are absolutely necessary. The organic farmer has to be difficult to buy instead of his strong harvesting losses and must hack his weed with the machine the hot much more diesel consumption and much more machine use and the hate and insect does not like that even if every few weeks the chalk is combed through there can not even settle a spin.

We need chemical agents to remove insects I think the use of insecticides we can reduce in the future