Over 50 years of research has shown that nitrogen-fertilized crops can cause more plant damage and more leaf-chewing insects or mites, while fewer than 50 studies have found negative environmental implications. Excessive use of fertilizers and pesticides to improve crop production has negative environmental impacts, including soil degradation, enhanced greenhouse gas emissions, and soil acidification. The disproportionate use of fertilizers can cause chemical burns to crops and lead to imperfectly synthesized protein in leaves.
Cultural methods such as crop fertilization can affect a plant’s susceptibility to insect pests by altering plant tissue nutrient levels. Synthetic fertilizers have been widely used in agriculture to increase crop yields and improve food security, but their use also has significant impacts on the environment and health. Over-fertilizing crops can worsen pest problems, as increasing soluble nitrogen levels in plants can decrease their resistance to pests and increase disease.
Research has shown that high nitrogen levels in plant tissue can decrease resistance and increase susceptibility to pest attacks. Spraying a flowering plant with synthetic fertilizers makes it less attractive to bumblebees. Regular application of chemical fertilizers can alter soil pH, increase pest resistance, and acidify the soil crust, resulting in decreased organic matter.
Furthermore, synthetic fertilizers have a short payoff time but come with risks such as leaching, increased soil nitrate levels, or burning plants. Vegetables and fruits grown on inorganically over-fertilized soil are prone to pests and diseases. Synthetic fertilizers are usually cheaper and act faster but may harm soil biology or cause overfertilization if not used properly.
| Article | Description | Site |
|---|---|---|
| Impacts of Fertilizers on Insect Pests – SARE | Researchers have demonstrated that high nitrogen levels in plant tissue can decrease resistance and increase susceptibility to pest attacks. | sare.org |
| Synthetic Fertilizers and Pesticides Make Plants Less … | Spraying a flowering plant with synthetic fertilizers makes it less attractive to bumblebees, according to research published this month in PNAS Nexus. | beyondpesticides.org |
| Harmful Impact of Synthetic Fertilizers on Growing … | Regular application of chemical fertilizers can alter soil pH, increase resistance in pests, acidification of soil crust resulting in decreased organic matter … | juniperpublishers.com |
📹 Do we really need pesticides? – Fernan Pérez-Gálvez
Annually, we shower over 5 billion pounds of pesticides across the Earth to control insects, unwanted weeds, funguses, rodents, …
What Are The Three Disadvantages Of Using Chemical Fertilizers?
The excessive use of chemical fertilizers presents several disadvantages. Firstly, they harm naturally occurring microorganisms in the soil, which are essential for maintaining soil fertility. This over-reliance on chemical fertilizers contributes to nutrient imbalances, resulting in soil degradation and a reduction in organic matter and humus content. High concentrations of mineral salts in manufactured fertilizers can dry out plants, leading to issues such as soil acidification and macronutrient saturation.
Additionally, chemical fertilizers pose risks of water contamination through runoff, potentially polluting groundwater, rivers, and lakes. Their long-term use can alter soil pH, creating conditions that either become too acidic or too alkaline, negatively impacting soil health and its ecosystem. Excessive application can also lead to accelerated plant growth that may be unsustainable over time, a phenomenon often termed as exaggerated growth, and may even result in salt burns on plants.
Moreover, chemical fertilizers are typically more expensive than organic alternatives and may contain harmful ingredients that could affect human health. Overall, while chemical fertilizers can promote rapid plant growth, their widespread use brings significant environmental and economic drawbacks that merit careful consideration.
What Are The Negative Effects Of Synthetic Fertilizer?
Synthetic fertilizers, unlike natural ones, often lead to environmental contamination through runoff and volatilization, affecting soil, water, and air quality. Their long-term application can disrupt soil pH, making it inhospitable for beneficial organisms. The UN-backed Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity highlights the negative impact of nutrient runoff from farms using synthetic fertilizers on ecosystems. Such fertilizers not only harm soil health but can also pose risks to human health.
They can eliminate beneficial microorganisms vital for converting organic matter into nutrients and often lack essential trace nutrients found in organic alternatives. Over-reliance on synthetic fertilizers can degrade soil quality, create nutrient imbalances, and lead to hazardous environmental conditions. The pollution from these fertilizers extends beyond agricultural lands, contaminating water bodies and impacting surrounding communities. Furthermore, the energy-intensive production of synthetic fertilizers contributes to broader environmental degradation.
One significant challenge is nitrogen pollution, which can severely diminish aquatic biodiversity due to toxic algal blooms. Excessive fertilizer usage can also result in soil hardening and depletion of mineral nutrients, leading to poorer crop yields and health issues. To mitigate these adverse effects, adopting organic fertilizers and sustainable agricultural practices is essential. Emphasizing the use of meso- and micronutrients can improve soil health and reduce dependence on harmful chemical inputs, thus preserving environmental integrity.
What Are 3 Disadvantages Of Using Synthetic Pesticides?
L'utilisation généralisée des pesticides présente des inconvénients significatifs, tels que la contamination et la mort d'animaux domestiques, la perte de prédateurs naturels des ravageurs, la résistance aux pesticides, le déclin des abeilles et de la pollinisation, la baisse des rendements dans les cultures adjacentes, ainsi que des pertes dans la pêche et les oiseaux, et la contamination des eaux souterraines.
Malgré cela, les pesticides offrent également certains avantages, notamment la garantie de récoltes abondantes, leur disponibilité, leur efficacité rapide et leur coût souvent inférieur par rapport aux solutions biologiques.
Néanmoins, les effets néfastes des pesticides sur la santé humaine sont préoccupants, des problèmes de santé allant des cancers aux troubles neurologiques étant liés à leur utilisation. En agriculture commerciale et industrielle, l'utilisation de pesticides et d'engrais comporte des avantages et des inconvénients. En plus d'augmenter la qualité et le rendement des cultures, les résidus chimiques toxiques peuvent poser de graves préoccupations sanitaires.
Les pesticides peuvent également avoir des impacts environnementaux durables ; ils contaminent le sol, l'eau et la végétation, tout en entraînant une résistance accrue des ravageurs. Les pesticides synthétiques, en particulier, suscitent des préoccupations environnementales en raison de leur persistance et de leur faible solubilité dans l'eau. Il devient crucial d'évaluer soigneusement les bénéfices par rapport aux risques associés à leur utilisation.
Are Synthetic Fertilizers Affecting Soil Biodiversity?
Excessive and unjustified use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides has led to significant soil pollution, negatively impacting soil biodiversity. Synthetic fertilizers suppress nitrogen-fixing bacteria while promoting organisms that feed on nitrogen, accelerating the decomposition of organic matter and humus. Continuous application of these chemicals alters soil pH, increases pest populations, causes acidification, and forms soil crusts. These changes result in reduced organic and humus content, loss of beneficial organisms, stunted plant growth, and overall soil infertility.
While the effects of fertilization on plant growth are well-documented, the impact of chemical fertilizers on the soil's chemical and microbiological properties, especially in woody plants, remains less understood. Agricultural intensification through synthetic nitrogen fertilization adversely affects arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, further disrupting soil ecosystems. Improper agricultural practices and chemical use lead to soil degradation, nutrient depletion, and altered pH levels, compromising soil fertility and crop yields.
Economic and environmental concerns associated with artificial fertilizers include price volatility and long-term detrimental effects on soil health, air quality, water quality, and biodiversity. Although some studies suggest that responsible fertilizer use does not necessarily degrade soil diversity, continuous and excessive application creates nutrient imbalances, resulting in infertile soils and diminished agricultural productivity.
In contrast, composting enhances soil fertility and health, boosting agricultural productivity, improving biodiversity, and reducing ecological risks. Healthier soils are more fertile and resilient to climate-related hazards, leading to higher crop yields with better nutritional value. Sustainable fertilizer practices are essential to maintain soil biodiversity and ensure long-term agricultural success.
How Long Does Synthetic Fertilizer Last In Soil?
Organic fertilizers take longer to break down into minerals and micronutrients that plants can absorb, with slow-release options requiring at least two weeks for effective nutrient availability. In contrast, synthetic liquid fertilizers offer nutrients that are immediately available for plant uptake, generally lasting in the soil for just one to two weeks. Granular synthetic fertilizers, on the other hand, can endure for four to 36 weeks, depending on their type.
For potted plants, granular fertilizers typically last between 60 and 150 days. The longevity of any fertilizer in soil is influenced by various factors including fertilizer type, application rate, environmental conditions, and soil type. Organic fertilizers often have a longer lifespan compared to synthetic ones, particularly in sandy soils, while fertilizers applied to clay soils might decompose more quickly.
Liquid synthetic fertilizers can have a shelf life of 1 to 10 years under proper storage conditions, whereas granules may last indefinitely if stored correctly. This efficiency of synthetic fertilizers offers plants quick growth benefits; however, they provide minimal advantages to soil health and texture over time. Organic fertilizers, while slower to activate, enhance soil quality as they decompose. Overall, understanding the specific properties and expected duration of various fertilizers aids in optimizing plant growth and soil health.
Do Pesticides And Synthetic Fertilizers Affect Soil Physiology?
As organic matter diminishes, the physical characteristics of soil undergo changes that can alter various soil physiological processes. Conflicting reports exist regarding the adverse effects of pesticides and synthetic fertilizers. Organic farming emerges as a sustainable agricultural practice that prioritizes both food safety and environmental health. Sir Albert Howard, known as the Father of Organic Farming, emphasized that maintaining soil fertility is essential for a lasting agricultural system. The excessive use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides has led to significant soil pollution, negatively impacting soil biodiversity.
Organic farming avoids these synthetic chemicals, thus protecting soil biota and enhancing underground ecosystems. The inclusion of organic matter in such systems improves soil health and reduces the need for chemical inputs. However, heavy pesticide treatment can decrease populations of beneficial soil microorganisms. Soil scientist Dr. Elaine Ingham warns that the loss of bacteria and fungi leads to soil degradation, akin to the adverse effects of antibiotic overuse in humans.
This chapter aims to explore the interactions between pesticides, fertilizers, and soil health. It discusses the impacts of these chemicals on soil structure, composition, and general environment while reviewing current management practices, legislation, and transformative policies to mitigate their environmental and health hazards. Continuous application of chemical fertilizers can alter soil pH and increase pest resistance, leading to increased soil acidification and decreased organic matter. The chapter underscores the need for field studies to further understand the long-term consequences of these practices on soil chemistry and microbiology.
Does Fertilizer Attract Pests?
Research indicates a complex relationship between crop nutrition and pest populations, with studies showing that increased nitrogen fertilizer often correlates with higher numbers of aphids and mites. The nutrient composition of crops can impact plant defenses against these pests. A comprehensive review of 50 years of research revealed 135 relevant studies, highlighting that nitrogen fertilization, in particular, significantly boosts sucking insect populations, such as aphids.
Practices like no-till farming are recommended to preserve soil biodiversity and support native pollinators critical for ecosystem balance. Organic fertilizers can attract beneficial insects that manage pest populations, promoting a healthy garden ecosystem.
Conversely, excessive use of synthetic fertilizers may disrupt the nutritional balance within plants and decrease their resistance to insect pests. This phenomenon has led to a rise in both pest populations and the need for pesticide applications. Studies have found that high nitrogen levels make plants more appealing to pests due to increased tissue succulence. While some advocates of organic fertilizers argue that they provide better pest resistance than chemical fertilizers, evidence is mixed, with some suggesting that inorganic options can similarly decrease plant defenses against insects.
Ultimately, the choice of fertilizer and application rate plays a crucial role in influencing pest dynamics, and a well-balanced soil and crop management strategy is essential for minimizing pest-related issues while supporting plant health. Thus, it's vital to consider the implications of fertilization on pest management and crop resilience.
How Does Fertilizer Affect Insect Pests?
The use of fertilizers, particularly nitrogen, has significant impacts on insect pests through modifications in the nutrient composition of crops, affecting plant defenses. A comprehensive review of 50 years of research revealed 135 studies indicating increased plant damage and higher populations of leaf-chewing insects or mites in nitrogen-fertilized crops, while fewer than 50 studies reported reduced pest damage. Nitrogen fertilization alters the nutritional quality and defenses of plants, influencing herbivorous insects' ability to differentiate between crops treated with different fertilizer types.
Laboratory studies demonstrated that nitrogen input can significantly affect the ecological fitness parameters of non-target pests, such as the brown planthopper, Nilaparvata lugens. Excessive use of conventional synthetic fertilizers can disrupt the balance of nutritional elements in plants, inadvertently increasing susceptibility to pests. Additionally, the nutrient composition changes induced by fertilization can also affect insect preference and their life cycles.
Research indicates that high nitrogen levels can decrease plant resistance, leading to more severe pest infestations. For instance, studies showed higher flea beetle densities on chemically fertilized plants compared to those receiving equivalent nutrients from manure. As plant tissues become more succulent due to increased fertilizer application, they become more palatable to insects, which facilitates pest proliferation. Fertilizers and pesticides serve dual purposes in pest control; however, cultural practices like crop fertilization also influence plant susceptibility to pests.
This highlights that the intensity of nitrogen fertilizer use has cascading effects on crop-insect pest interactions, promoting bottom-up effects that can enhance pest populations, particularly among sucking insects. Overall, understanding the link between fertilizer use and pest dynamics is crucial for sustainable agricultural practices.
📹 Reducing Synthetic Chemical Use to Optimize Pest Management and Crop Production: Onion Thrips
Learn about onion thrips and the viability of reducing synthetic fertilizer and insecticide inputs without compromising onion bulb …
While we keep growing monoculture crops, which are used more for feeding animals than to our consumption, we still going to need those substances. There are some strategies already been used, like agroforestry and biodynamic agriculture which are viable, but not interesting for the people who make big money. We have enough lands in the world to switch the production to small scales, priorizing familiar agriculture which are compatible with that alternative ways and are already our primary source of food, but we still need to finish with land concentration. (Sorry for grammatical mistakes, but I’m still learning english and using this text as practice)
When I worked at the EPA in 2007 and 2008, I worked at the office regulating pesticides, which at least then was the biggest section of the EPA. I’m grateful for the folks who are still there regulating chemical companies to ensure we all stay healthy. I remember my boss there regularly worked 60 hour weeks (with no overtime pay).
As a young farmer who practices natural farming, I can say you can make your own safe pesticide from herbs and other plant without need to add some synthetic chemical. For example you can use greater galangal which contain some anti-fungi effect and “Dioscorea hispida” to beat off planthopper. There is so much alternatives than using corporation-made pesticides
The claims that modern chemical are safer and the damage is in the past is highly reminiscent of exactly the same claims in the past about the value of arsenic or mercury for STDs or DDT. I’m glad the narrator put my mind to rest knowing that now smarter and we know better and can control the dangers (sarcasm intended)
From perusal this it seems the most logical option would be to ban pesticides unless an emergency is about to occur. For instance if a plague is going to kill a major crop than use the pesticides but otherwise leave it alone. Doing this would stop the evolved immunities and thus make what is used more effective.
00:07 💡 Pesticides became essential after Ireland’s potato famine, helping control pests threatening food supply. 01:56 🌱 Chemical pesticides evolved from toxic substances to DDT, but faced resistance and environmental damage. 02:52 🦟 Pesticides lead to super bugs and harm beneficial insects, impacting ecosystems and agriculture. 03:19 🌍 Despite risks, current pesticides are crucial for preventing agricultural disasters and diseases. 04:42 🔬 Scientists seek alternatives to pesticides, exploring nature-inspired and high-tech solutions for sustainable pest control.
I don’t know who went to a library for this one, but it looks like they didn’t find their way to all the relevant departments. At the time all the journalists involved attributed the lethality of the Irish Famine specifically to exporting the rest of the food to England. Especially English Journalists.
Dr. Bruce Ames published a paper entitled “Dietary pesticides (99.99 percent all natural)”. In it, he and his coauthors outline that we eat an estimated 1.5 grams of natural pesticides a day, “which is about 10,000 times more” than the amount of synthetic pesticide residues we consume. The concentrations of these pesticides are in parts per thousand or parts per million, whereas the amount of synthetic pesticides we find on our food are in the parts per billion range. Of all the chemicals tested for chronic cancer tests in animals, only 5 percent have been natural pesticides and half of these were carcinogenic. Think about that for a moment. While there’s an uproar about parts per billion amounts of synthetic pesticide residues on our food, there are more concentrated compounds in fruits and veggies actually known to cause cancer. In addition, some of the more commonly used pesticides in agriculture have mechanisms of action that are specific to the pests their targeting, making them far safer than many natural pesticides”
I think the claim at the beginning of the article about the Irish Potato Famine is wrong. People starved or had to emigrate not because there wasn’t enough food, but that because the food that was being produced was being exported due to greedy capitalist principles. I’m English, but have some Irish ancestry and if you read the reports of the time Ireland actually exported more food during the times of the famine than it did before it started, sometimes under armed protection by the British military forces. The problem was that the staple diet of the poor had become dependent on one variety of potato to support the diet of poor, working class. Up to this point the potato was only a supplementary item, grain, butter, and milk products were the main parts of the diet. I wish people would fact check before making articles like this. Sure there was a disease attacking the potato crop, but it didn’t cause the famine and mass emigration, humans did. I expected better than this from TED-Ed.
Yes we do need pesticides a few yeas ago tuta absoluta destroyed tomato crops in Africa and a later is some European countries, I have personally seen what this does it’s no joke, if you have doubts I will personally take you to the farmers and the people fighting such destructive pests and you tell them you don’t need pesticides.
The problem with chemical pesticides is that they don’t discriminate between species, so a pesticide that targets neurotransmitters in a pest could do the same in an off-target species. Genetics-based pesticides could be a more sustainable solution as it is much more specific to a pest species and much less harmful to anything else.
Try permaculture methods and reading Masanobu Fukuoka, who grew large quantities of rice and other crops using permacultural principles, instead of promoting unsustainable usage of pests, which in the long run, no matter the amount used, harm humans, water, soil, and ecosystems. There should be more practices that use principles from nature. Everything in nature is already perfectly organised and planned, no need for us to invent new things.
Ezekiel 24 In the ninth year, in the tenth month on the tenth day, the word of the LORD came to me: “Son of man, record this date, this very date, because the king of Babylon has laid siege to Jerusalem this very day. Tell this defiant people a parable and say to them: ‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says: ” ‘Put on the cooking pot; put it on and pour water into it. Put into it the pieces of meat, all the choice pieces—the leg and the shoulder. Fill it with the best of these bones; take the pick of the flock. Pile wood beneath it for the bones; bring it to a boil and cook the bones in it. ” ‘For this is what the Sovereign LORD says: ” ‘Woe to the city of bloodshed, to the pot now encrusted, whose deposit will not go away! Take the meat out piece by piece in whatever order it comes. ” ‘For the blood she shed is in her midst: She poured it on the bare rock; she did not pour it on the ground, where the dust would cover it. To stir up wrath and take revenge I put her blood on the bare rock, so that it would not be covered. ” ‘Therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says: ” ‘Woe to the city of bloodshed! I, too, will pile the wood high. So heap on the wood and kindle the fire. Cook the meat well, mixing in the spices; and let the bones be charred. Then set the empty pot on the coals till it becomes hot and its copper glows, so that its impurities may be melted and its deposit burned away. It has frustrated all efforts; its heavy deposit has not been removed, not even by fire. ” ‘Now your impurity is lewdness.
If pesticides are promoting global warming, famine, homelessness, social degradation (as people fight to eat, drink, and find new homes), and farmers themselves are constantly being taught to till soil – which releases carbon and water into the air, so the soil dries out, we get run-off the raw soil on top, and we get cancer from the pesticides themselves. Where’s the ‘pro’ side to this? The Nazis used the same chemicals to kill the Jews in WWII. Now they’re being used by normal people to kill the world. That argument to have localised pesticide spray holds as much water as the argument “I’m going to smoke 365 cigarettes a year, every year, to prevent cancer.”
We are still perpetuating exaggerated claims against DDT? Come on guys, a cursory glance shows otherwise. I think there is great promise in alternative pest control strategies, but you would be hard pressed to find someone who saved as many lives as Müller. Literally millions of lives saved, and millions lost by ddt’s subsequent ban. A high cost to pay for developing extra public awareness on the hazards of pesticides and polluting and destroying nature. I am thankful we are more “earth friendly” today and that we are even developing serious market pressure towards alternative energies and other operations. Yes ddt is a hazardous chemical and research has gone on to shed light on chemical pathways we didn’t understand during its heavy use, but there was even flat out fraudulent science about some of its detrimental effects. “Bitman and coworkers demonstrated eggshell thinning with DDT by reducing calcium levels to 0.56 percent from the normal 2.5 percent. After this work was exposed as anti-DDT propaganda, Bitman continued his work for another year. Instead of the calcium-deficient diets, however, he fed the quail 2.7 percent calcium in their food. The shells they produced were not thinned at all by the DDT. Unfortunately, the editor of Science refused to publish the results of that later research. Editor Philip Abelson had already told Dr. Thomas Jukes of the University of California in Berkeley that Science would never publish anything that was not antagonistic toward DDT (T.
Pesticides get a bad rep in agriculture industry and maybe for a good reason. But there are a number benefits of using pesticides. Pesticide testing is a great way to ensure the safety of human health as well as our most vital agricultural resources. This article explains this well : torrentlab.com/the-importance-of-pesticide-testing-in-the-agriculture-industry/
Chemophobia is a huge and serious issue in the consumer market these days. This kind of misinformation causes even more paranoia. We DO need pesticides. We are currently in a global food deficit. Many people are planting cash crops in countries where they are starving and turn out one ‘organic’ fruit or vegetable instead of a ton of essential grains for fat slothenly western markets of uppity ass chemophobic idiots who somehow think ‘organic’ means squat. The stark lack of scientific education in the anti-GMO and anti-chemical lobby is scary. Playing into their lunacy is pointless, they should just be ignored given their complete ubiquitous lack of understanding of even basic chemistry.
“…they still have the POTENTIAL to pollute soil water impact wildlife and even harm us.” They posion us. Pesticides continue to be overused long after they’re found to be dangerous. They are no longer sprayed for the benefit of food supply and health but for the profits of the manufacturers. Peer-reviewed and approved research that demonstrates their damaging effects on humans and ecosystems is beaten down by the companies and discredited. Our food isn’t safe and the people in charge know.
All pesticides must be banned! We must reduce the human population through strict worldwide birth control, otherwise we will continue poisoning ourselves and the entire planet. Accoding to the World Health Organization in a few years from now, 50% of all population will suffer cancer at one point of our lives. Glyphosate (a herbicide) is particularly nocive and it is allowed to be used because of profit, government agencies are corrupt and do not do their job.
DDT caused long term health problems in humans? Please support this claim. DDT drastically reduced Malaria (and other mosquito borne diseases) around the world from the 1940s until it was banned in 1972 in the US. We were on the road to complete eradication, but some shoddy science reversed that and led to the deaths of tens of millions in poor, underdeveloped countries. There is also a shallow amount of evidence supporting the “poising of water sources” or “decline in bird populations”. The Endangered Species Act wasn’t even enacted until 1973, a year after DDT was banned in the US, meaning unregulated or loosely enforcing hunting laws were likely a major factor in certain bird populations declining. Regardless, the banning of DDT brought about an unprecedented amount of suffering, primarily for those living in the most impoverished countries. We seriously need to evaluate how flawed science managed to capture the media and masses, leading to such an enormous tragedy.
That’s how it should be … but far from reality, thanks to the US with its “politicians for sale on the open market” model. And similar to how the pentagon is owned by the military industrial complex, the EPA is in the hands of pesticide producers . (youtu.be/CQtAel92Jrw) Just today I seen in the news that the US now threatens Thailand with new import taxes on thai goods, cause they decided to ban a harmful pesticide that happens to be exported by a US company.