So long term we're strengthening pests, bacteria and fungi while weakening plants with monoagriculture. As well as degrading soil with mass overproduction. So much food goes to waste. There's gotta be a better way.
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)
I thought biodynamic was a crazy cult practice of farming that involved stuff like burying different parts of an animal skeleton around specific parts of the field and such?
Yep, it is. Biodynamic agriculture has little to nothing to do with agricultural science. It's kinda like homeopathy and medicine. Some people believe in it, others don't, and there's rather little evidence on the effectiveness of these methods. Some of them might actually work, but plenty of them are nothing but hocus-pocus. For that reason I personally wouldn't claim biodynamic agriculture to be a viable way of food production, and it certainly can't be considered an alternative when it comes to pesticides.
I'm from Germany myself :D I also have a degree in agricultural sciences. I now focus on animal husbandry though, not on crop science. I agree that this video maybe should have mentioned the alternative methods used in organic agriculture which focus a lot more on prevention of pests and deseases than on fighting them. This way the amount of pesticides needed can be decreased quite alot. My opinion on biodynamic agriculture isn't based on it's popularity here. I simply refuse to believe in methods that can't be scientifically proven in any way. It's nonsense to believe that this could be the future of agriculture, neither here in Europe nor anywhere else in the world.
Ich schreib jetzt der Einfachheit halber mal auf Deutsch, kenn die ganzen Begrifflichkeiten in Englisch nicht. Ich hab leider ein schreckliches Gedächtnis und die meisten Klopper schon wieder vergessen, die ich auf der Homepage von Demeter mal gelesen habe. Woran ich mich aber aus den Erzählungen von jemandem erinnern kann, der eine Vorlesung über BioDyn gehört hat, ist u.a. folgendes: BioDyn-Landwirte verwenden ja oft sog. Präparate. Das ist sozusagen deren Antwort auf Pflanzenschutzmittel etc., nur eben auf der Basis natürlicher Stoffe wie Gülle oder Horn. Soweit so gut. Diese Präparate müssen aber vor der Anwendung erst "aktiviert" werden. Das läuft so ab, dass sie über einen Stein mit irgendwelchen besonderen Schnitzungen laufen müssen. Soweit ich mich erinnere ist da auch wichtig in welcher Richtung das passiert, kann mich da aber auch irren. Jedenfalls wirken diese Präparate offenbar erst nach dieser "Aktivierung". Dazu hätte ich gerne mal wissenschaftliche Studien, die mir das nachweisen können... Ach ja, so Sachen wie Gärreste aus Biogasanlagen darf man als BioDyn-Landwirt übrigens nicht ausbringen. Warum? In der Biogasanlage wir das Ich der Pflanzen zerstört, was sich dann negativ auf das Pflanzenwachstum auf dem behandelten Acker auswirken soll. Das sind eben so die Sachen, die mich dann doch schwer daran zweifeln lassen, dass BioDyn irgendetwas anderes ist als Hokus Pokus. Aber es verkauft sich halt ganz gut, das stimmt schon. Ich persönlich halte mich allerdings fern von Demeter-Produkten, den Quatsch will ich nicht mit meinem Geld unterstützen...
Polyculture is hard to automate/mechanise. Getting a harvester vehicle to work with more than one crop at once would be difficult and expensive. That's why it's more common in poorer countries with cheap labourers. Going back to small-scale familial is another way of saying a return to subsistence agriculture. Telling 80% of the developed world they'll have to quit their jobs and spend the rest of their days doing back-breaking labour for a pittance would be a rather hard sell.
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).
The problem is the EPA humors the chemophobic special interest groups, like 'Mums Across America' who proliferate the most batshit insane scare tactics and misinformation about chemicals and GMO's. These fuckwits rarely finish high school, but are incredibly vocal due to Dunning-Kruger effect. In an era where 1/3rd of the world has an insufficient dietary intake we need to turn to technology.
At least in 2007 and 2008, that was not to my knowledge impacting how we decided permissible pesticide levels. I'm a statistician who worked in the risk assessment division. Our focus was on determining what was estimated to be a very safe level of pesticide consumption, then make sure it was exceptionally rare that anyone would ever consume more than that amount. Methodology: 1) Run a study on rats. Different groups of rats get different levels of the pesticide, e.g. one group gets no pesticides, the second group gets 2 units of pesticide, third group gets 20 units of pesticide, and fourth gets 200 units. 2) At the end of the study, identify the group with the lowest amount of pesticides where there was any detectable effect. The rats organs are analyzed (if I recall correctly, they are weighed) to look for any impacts. So let's suppose that group #3 with 20 units of pesticides had a detectable effect. 3) Take the next rat group LESS pesticide consumption. This is deemed the "safe level", which in this example is 2 units of pesticide. 4) We now use safety factors: usually 10x as a precaution, and then usually 10x to 100x for cross-species differences. So let's say we use a total safety factor of 10 * 100 = 1000. Then the permissible level of pesticide consumption for a person is 2 * (1 / 1000) = 0.002 units of pesticide consumption. 5) So in this example, this is 1/10,000 the amount that was in the rat group where there was a detectable effect (0.002 / 20 = 1 / 10,000). There is also details about how we actually would estimate human consumption (which is based on actual dietary patterns of real people and actual pesticide amounts measured on crops), but I'll stop here. My job while at the EPA for 2 summers was basically to make sure a new software program they were considering for analyzing pesticide consumption was functioning properly.
As a pest control professional from a family-run business, I applaud your work, that of your boss, and the EPA. What many don't realize is time, effort, money, and experimentation that goes into the regulation of pesticides to safeguard the public and our environment.
@@DavidDiez Statistician is not biochemist. You banned DDT overall, leaving bedbugs flourish.If those smartasses would bann diffferentiallly (f.ex. agriculture only) this would means something. You gave no efficient alternative, as pyrethrins are eficient only against mosquitos, because bugs are STEADY and you nedd a steady poison. Besides, the levels of REAL toxicity are comparable equal. IS only so that DDT is easy to produce and the big-pharma cannot have monopoly!
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
I remember in elementary school they taught us about pest resistance. They didn't want to say "rapid pest evolution", so instead they taught us that some bugs have a "will to live" and will consume crops sprayed with pesticide even though it tastes bad to them.
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)
Nah, the plural noun for fungus can also be funguses (if you’re pluralizing it in the English manner, has been used for many centuries, but the safer bet is to go with fungi if you’re writing a school paper or something).
Hello, Do you have a spanish version of this video? We're a company that provides information to farmers and this video is really important for them, so If there's not an Spanish version can we collaborate to create one?
Could they make a video explaining eutrophication as a second part to this video? Many srudents have been struggling with the concept of eutrophication in school.
Hahaha -Watches an educational video -Scrolls to comment section -Gets triggered on spelling -Goes on a quest to correct all spelling -Forgets what the video was about been there, done that I feAl you bro!
Gaming Otaku808 That's like super simple stuff. A wire is made of copper strings which through a electrical current goes from the positive pole of the battery trough the wire to whatever is using that energy. and then back to negative pole. Though there are more kinds of electrical circles. Serial, parallel, mixed etc.
ehm, underwatter man. Its actually the other way arround. The flow of electricity is from the negative side to the positive (- means can give an electron , + means it can take an electron)
Some farms no longer use pesticides. It's a matter of decentralisation to make industrial agriculture obsolete. Like using the non-circulating hydroponics systems on a smaller scale that fits in your room
From watching 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.
There are smartasses which NEVER worked in agriculture (and nowhere else seriously..). NOBODY use pesticides unless an amergency occurs. Just because they..cost! Got-it?
I like this video. It acknowledged the benefit and need for them rather than just bashing them constantly. Just like green energy, we still have not found the perfect solution, but we still need to use what we have to help us get there.
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.
do you have any indication that monoculture is in any way more efficient than agroforestal or policulture? because I never seen any articles supporting this theory
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 have a garden at home that grows vegetables to eat and I never use pesticides, even ones that are supposed "natural." I just kill the bugs by hand since bugs aren't resistant to the human hand
@@jimichan7649 I’m confused by what you mean, the veggies grown sometimes do have troubles with bugs, but me & my family just kill the insects by hand rather than use pesticides, we do eat or prepare those veggies, so idk what you’re trying to say or are misunderstanding here
@@sisi7304 I meant that if the veg is sprayed with enough pesticide that a bug wouldn't eat it, I wouldn't want to eat it either. So seeing a bug on your veg is not necessarily a bad thing.
@@jimichan7649 but I don’t use pesticides, and even when used, it’s only bad for bugs in terms of taste, humans can’t really taste it, plus as the video mentioned, the bugs will just increase in resistance to the pesticides being effective, so what you’re saying is not really the case
**A Quick Tip** You can identify that does an apple contains pesticides. by the help of numbers on the apple stickers, if there is a four digit code and it starts with 4 or 3, it contains pesticides!
Hyperion I live in a tropical climate country, its an ideal environment for pests especially in the city where human waste is abundant and uncontrollable, my house is constantly attacked by different kinds of insects
There’s an obvious alternative, genetically-modified plants that are more resistant to both pests and weathers, which are going to be your best bet in the long run. Genetic modification doesn’t compromise productivity nor harm the environment. Wonder why this video doesn’t talk about it?
Gean Santos it was a what if, hence the tag science fiction, just imagine.. realistically we should be using nature to fight nature, not poisons that kill the planet, birds dragonflies praying mantis ladybugs etc., working with nature not against her and ignoring the reality that what we do now murders children or deforms them along with the future children.
Joakim D there are some research teams working on exactly that. Besides we already succeeded in using insects for pest control succesfully in greenhouses!
Teemo well a farmer could set some mites free that could eat the fungi. The real challenge is crafting a healthy ecosystem that could fight the pests and infections on their own
There is exciting frontier research to scale those methods, for example www.researchgate.net/publication/282650361_Optimizing_Crops_for_Biocontrol_of_Pests_and_Disease#feedback/295797
As someone who supports, or at least doesn't oppose, GMOs, this was a very interesting read: www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/business/gmo-promise-falls-short.html
HVallejo B. Haha. Leave the assumptions up to the trump supporters. I don't think they give a rats ass about GMO's, which makes them the equivalent of yourself on this issue.. lol. That's unfortunate you find scholarly studies to be less credible. You're a fool to think that whatever you think is credible isn't also composed of credible scholarly studies. Sorry pal
I have bad news for ya - "organic" food/farming does not mean they don't use pesticides, they just clam they don't use non-organic ones. Somehow people acquired an idea that things that are "organic" and "natural" are better and safer than manmade, and btw the most deadly poisons are 100% "organic".
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.
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”
Big Pro: GMOs have the potential to guarantee food supply for everybody forever. Big con: Research costs It's quite expensive so much in fact that to cover research costs (according to Monsanto) you have to apply very arrogant procedures + encouraging the use of brand specific pesticides which in hindsight ruined the reputation for any GMOs and potential newcomers in that field. So history suggests: GMOs are awesome if applied intelligently and with a very flexible common sense (no legal BS), since you want to work with 3°world farmers and people who already have to deal with degraded soil, droughts, pests, missing infrastructure or none at all.
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.
Oh my goodness 😆😆😆. Your absolutley correct on that front my friend. 😁 Learnt that at church they use the same protocol to help entertain children while they speak about satain😂😂🤣 funnyness
89gerardo Too expensive to build a greenhouse covering a whole farm. Plus that wouldn't be making the farmer or company any additional money, which would likely keep them from making any changes.
P lu And I have a little greenhouse. I cover everything inside and outside from floor to ceiling with heavy-duty pesticides except the plants and soil. That way no insects can thrive there, but plants are free from chemicals.
4:05 there is no thing as "demands for food production", inside Capitalism, only "demand for profits", so the solution to all these crises is still the end of Capitalism.
I think the claim at the beginning of the video 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 videos 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.
If the Irish had grown a variety of kinds of potato, they would not have lost the whole crop. If powerful people weren't exporting Irish wheat to England at a profit, the Irish could easily eat that.
Can't they like think of a way to make the crops immune against these bugs ?? This way even the human will be immune to it too I guess (just using my brain )
These pests kill bugs - who says these pests aren't harmful to humans? We might have all the food supply we need, but if it's all poisoned what's the point? :/
XpertCameraMan They aren't being used before checking all variables. They need to pass unbelievably numerous tests before they can be brought to any use that involves human contact. You're safe. At least enough to not gulp down every morsel with doubt and fear of being poisoned.
Yash Deshpande Every organism fears anything it doesn't understand, especially when humans start manipulating nature artificially - I am one of them :) Your words have logic, but they need a lot of proof to back up the remark that such, if any, food is 'safe' anymore. Scientists might know a lot - but who is sure that they know everything? All these tests have 'acceptable' limits, but what if the only limit I like is 0% pesticides? Finally who knows how pesticides would affect humans in the long run? Lots of questions that I need answers to... :/
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.
No. because you are consuming their food. Not the other way around. just because you assume plants don't grow with your care doesn't change the fact that they survives just fine without you
Except plants that survive in the wild dont look at all like the plants humans grow and also plants do die in the wild.Your lack of basic knowledge of selective breeding or even biology is quite concerning.
who ever made the animation, need a medal, so awesome!
exactly my though Ted ed's animation are top notch
Yeah...
***** oh yes, I never thought of that, hehge
Ya
yep
So long term we're strengthening pests, bacteria and fungi while weakening plants with monoagriculture. As well as degrading soil with mass overproduction. So much food goes to waste. There's gotta be a better way.
Grow a permaculture garden.
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)
I thought biodynamic was a crazy cult practice of farming that involved stuff like burying different parts of an animal skeleton around specific parts of the field and such?
Yep, it is. Biodynamic agriculture has little to nothing to do with agricultural science. It's kinda like homeopathy and medicine. Some people believe in it, others don't, and there's rather little evidence on the effectiveness of these methods. Some of them might actually work, but plenty of them are nothing but hocus-pocus. For that reason I personally wouldn't claim biodynamic agriculture to be a viable way of food production, and it certainly can't be considered an alternative when it comes to pesticides.
I'm from Germany myself :D I also have a degree in agricultural sciences. I now focus on animal husbandry though, not on crop science.
I agree that this video maybe should have mentioned the alternative methods used in organic agriculture which focus a lot more on prevention of pests and deseases than on fighting them. This way the amount of pesticides needed can be decreased quite alot.
My opinion on biodynamic agriculture isn't based on it's popularity here. I simply refuse to believe in methods that can't be scientifically proven in any way. It's nonsense to believe that this could be the future of agriculture, neither here in Europe nor anywhere else in the world.
Ich schreib jetzt der Einfachheit halber mal auf Deutsch, kenn die ganzen Begrifflichkeiten in Englisch nicht.
Ich hab leider ein schreckliches Gedächtnis und die meisten Klopper schon wieder vergessen, die ich auf der Homepage von Demeter mal gelesen habe. Woran ich mich aber aus den Erzählungen von jemandem erinnern kann, der eine Vorlesung über BioDyn gehört hat, ist u.a. folgendes: BioDyn-Landwirte verwenden ja oft sog. Präparate. Das ist sozusagen deren Antwort auf Pflanzenschutzmittel etc., nur eben auf der Basis natürlicher Stoffe wie Gülle oder Horn. Soweit so gut. Diese Präparate müssen aber vor der Anwendung erst "aktiviert" werden. Das läuft so ab, dass sie über einen Stein mit irgendwelchen besonderen Schnitzungen laufen müssen. Soweit ich mich erinnere ist da auch wichtig in welcher Richtung das passiert, kann mich da aber auch irren. Jedenfalls wirken diese Präparate offenbar erst nach dieser "Aktivierung". Dazu hätte ich gerne mal wissenschaftliche Studien, die mir das nachweisen können... Ach ja, so Sachen wie Gärreste aus Biogasanlagen darf man als BioDyn-Landwirt übrigens nicht ausbringen. Warum? In der Biogasanlage wir das Ich der Pflanzen zerstört, was sich dann negativ auf das Pflanzenwachstum auf dem behandelten Acker auswirken soll. Das sind eben so die Sachen, die mich dann doch schwer daran zweifeln lassen, dass BioDyn irgendetwas anderes ist als Hokus Pokus. Aber es verkauft sich halt ganz gut, das stimmt schon. Ich persönlich halte mich allerdings fern von Demeter-Produkten, den Quatsch will ich nicht mit meinem Geld unterstützen...
Polyculture is hard to automate/mechanise. Getting a harvester vehicle to work with more than one crop at once would be difficult and expensive. That's why it's more common in poorer countries with cheap labourers. Going back to small-scale familial is another way of saying a return to subsistence agriculture. Telling 80% of the developed world they'll have to quit their jobs and spend the rest of their days doing back-breaking labour for a pittance would be a rather hard sell.
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).
The problem is the EPA humors the chemophobic special interest groups, like 'Mums Across America' who proliferate the most batshit insane scare tactics and misinformation about chemicals and GMO's. These fuckwits rarely finish high school, but are incredibly vocal due to Dunning-Kruger effect. In an era where 1/3rd of the world has an insufficient dietary intake we need to turn to technology.
At least in 2007 and 2008, that was not to my knowledge impacting how we decided permissible pesticide levels. I'm a statistician who worked in the risk assessment division. Our focus was on determining what was estimated to be a very safe level of pesticide consumption, then make sure it was exceptionally rare that anyone would ever consume more than that amount.
Methodology:
1) Run a study on rats. Different groups of rats get different levels of the pesticide, e.g. one group gets no pesticides, the second group gets 2 units of pesticide, third group gets 20 units of pesticide, and fourth gets 200 units.
2) At the end of the study, identify the group with the lowest amount of pesticides where there was any detectable effect. The rats organs are analyzed (if I recall correctly, they are weighed) to look for any impacts. So let's suppose that group #3 with 20 units of pesticides had a detectable effect.
3) Take the next rat group LESS pesticide consumption. This is deemed the "safe level", which in this example is 2 units of pesticide.
4) We now use safety factors: usually 10x as a precaution, and then usually 10x to 100x for cross-species differences. So let's say we use a total safety factor of 10 * 100 = 1000. Then the permissible level of pesticide consumption for a person is 2 * (1 / 1000) = 0.002 units of pesticide consumption.
5) So in this example, this is 1/10,000 the amount that was in the rat group where there was a detectable effect (0.002 / 20 = 1 / 10,000).
There is also details about how we actually would estimate human consumption (which is based on actual dietary patterns of real people and actual pesticide amounts measured on crops), but I'll stop here.
My job while at the EPA for 2 summers was basically to make sure a new software program they were considering for analyzing pesticide consumption was functioning properly.
As a pest control professional from a family-run business, I applaud your work, that of your boss, and the EPA. What many don't realize is time, effort, money, and experimentation that goes into the regulation of pesticides to safeguard the public and our environment.
here comes trump
@@DavidDiez Statistician is not biochemist. You banned DDT overall, leaving bedbugs flourish.If those smartasses would bann diffferentiallly (f.ex. agriculture only) this would means something. You gave no efficient alternative, as pyrethrins are eficient only against mosquitos, because bugs are STEADY and you nedd a steady poison. Besides, the levels of REAL toxicity are comparable equal. IS only so that DDT is easy to produce and the big-pharma cannot have monopoly!
"1 million people died of famine"
*cheerful music plays in background*
lol...some people want to see the world burn
LonelyBookaneer especially arsonists
Optimism
Only on ted ed
there isnt anything playing
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
Can you feed hundreds on millions?
I remember in elementary school they taught us about pest resistance. They didn't want to say "rapid pest evolution", so instead they taught us that some bugs have a "will to live" and will consume crops sprayed with pesticide even though it tastes bad to them.
wow, the teacher was misinforming students at young age 😭
I've heard roaches can live underwater for 30 minutes, ughhh
@heyfromdave8097 I think they can survive nuclear attack too.
Do we really need comments that say they are early?
yes
The Humming Boy it wouldnt be youtube otherwise :P
Justin Baker WRONG SIR! WRONG. YOU LOSE!
GOOD DAY SIR!
Absolutely not.
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)
Clearly it is better to drop them altogether, have food prices skyrocket and millions starve.
Sarcasm intended.
@@1503nemanja oh my, but there are already millions starving in the world.
I still run into people online who defend glyphosate. It drives me crazy!
You explained it and made the video so interesting! really enjoyed this for my science class, thanks!
I agree.
0:37 Isn't it "Fungi"? Or is this an Octopi kind of situation
Nah, the plural noun for fungus can also be funguses (if you’re pluralizing it in the English manner, has been used for many centuries, but the safer bet is to go with fungi if you’re writing a school paper or something).
im octopussy
Hello, Do you have a spanish version of this video? We're a company that provides information to farmers and this video is really important for them, so If there's not an Spanish version can we collaborate to create one?
Today, I learned that the plural form of fungus is funguses.
Well, one of them is...funguses was used for many centuries before fungi became more popular and commonly used.
I was gonna say the same thing hahahahah
Fungi, or fungus
amungus
Could they make a video explaining eutrophication as a second part to this video? Many srudents have been struggling with the concept of eutrophication in school.
Same. I want know what that word means.
could you guys do a video on how electrical wires was made and how it works like charging our phones please? unless you guys already did that
Gaming Otaku808 Both of The things you ask for is pretty standard to learn in school.
*Could *were *works, *Unless
...I'm sorry
Hahaha
-Watches an educational video
-Scrolls to comment section
-Gets triggered on spelling
-Goes on a quest to correct all spelling
-Forgets what the video was about
been there, done that
I feAl you bro!
Gaming Otaku808
That's like super simple stuff. A wire is made of copper strings which through a electrical current goes from the positive pole of the battery trough the wire to whatever is using that energy. and then back to negative pole. Though there are more kinds of electrical circles. Serial, parallel, mixed etc.
ehm, underwatter man. Its actually the other way arround. The flow of electricity is from the negative side to the positive (- means can give an electron , + means it can take an electron)
I really watch their videos because of the beginning and end music ...so soothing 😌
I agree.
Some farms no longer use pesticides.
It's a matter of decentralisation to make industrial agriculture obsolete.
Like using the non-circulating hydroponics systems on a smaller scale that fits in your room
Sounds great
This really helped with my English speaking and listening exam.
Good for you
From watching 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.
When it comes to pests there is always an emergency. That is the price we pay for living on earth.
There are smartasses which NEVER worked in agriculture (and nowhere else seriously..). NOBODY use pesticides unless an amergency occurs. Just because they..cost! Got-it?
I like this video. It acknowledged the benefit and need for them rather than just bashing them constantly. Just like green energy, we still have not found the perfect solution, but we still need to use what we have to help us get there.
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.
Can you guys do a video of CRISPR technology and mosquitoes?
Go watch kurzgesaght's video
Broken Arrow I know how it works (seen that video) just would like to see a video in their style, which is often very insightful.
Adi There should indeed be more and more awareness about CRISPR.
do you have any indication that monoculture is in any way more efficient than agroforestal or policulture? because I never seen any articles supporting this theory
question : if other insect pests develop resistance, why don't other important insects, like bees do so?
I tried to find an answer, but I couldn't! My guess is that it's because the bees don't eat the crops, they just pollinate them.
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.*
my mom does her own plantation work, planting vegetables , with organic fertilisers. no pesticides, never any pests.. I wonder why.
I have a garden at home that grows vegetables to eat and I never use pesticides, even ones that are supposed "natural." I just kill the bugs by hand since bugs aren't resistant to the human hand
Why would you want to eat a vegetable that even a bug wouldn't eat?
@@jimichan7649 I’m confused by what you mean, the veggies grown sometimes do have troubles with bugs, but me & my family just kill the insects by hand rather than use pesticides, we do eat or prepare those veggies, so idk what you’re trying to say or are misunderstanding here
@@sisi7304 I meant that if the veg is sprayed with enough pesticide that a bug wouldn't eat it, I wouldn't want to eat it either. So seeing a bug on your veg is not necessarily a bad thing.
@@jimichan7649 but I don’t use pesticides, and even when used, it’s only bad for bugs in terms of taste, humans can’t really taste it, plus as the video mentioned, the bugs will just increase in resistance to the pesticides being effective, so what you’re saying is not really the case
Monocultural agriculture is a perfect pest breeding ground. mix it up a bit.
I heard the burning was for creating biochar for making potassium available for the next plants. I believe
**A Quick Tip**
You can identify that does an apple contains pesticides. by the help of numbers on the apple stickers, if there is a four digit code and it starts with 4 or 3, it contains pesticides!
Great video! I would like to see more biological pesticides being created!!!
all-natural pesticides...............maybe, if it would truly work, with NO HARM to people
I love this guy's voice!
same! sounds really soothing
indoor vertical gardens bro, you don't need pesticides if you have no pests
Hyperion I live in a tropical climate country, its an ideal environment for pests especially in the city where human waste is abundant and uncontrollable, my house is constantly attacked by different kinds of insects
Kind of a shame that they didn't cover the possibility of CRISPR/Cas9 as a possibility to target harmful insects.
How about the agribusiness companies that produce the pesticides @Ted-ed?
Good day..any idea what kind of pesticide is harmfull to animals specially goats..thank you and god bless to your channel
There’s an obvious alternative, genetically-modified plants that are more resistant to both pests and weathers, which are going to be your best bet in the long run. Genetic modification doesn’t compromise productivity nor harm the environment. Wonder why this video doesn’t talk about it?
GMOs are a completely different, albeit controversial, topic. Likely merits its very own video (if it doesn't exist, already! lol)...
DRONES equipped with lasers to kill mosquitoes etc. haha I love science fiction
He said pesticide sprays not lasers
dont ruin the dream for us Gean
Gean Santos it was a what if, hence the tag science fiction, just imagine.. realistically we should be using nature to fight nature, not poisons that kill the planet, birds dragonflies praying mantis ladybugs etc., working with nature not against her and ignoring the reality that what we do now murders children or deforms them along with the future children.
No, we only get drone-peasant uprises from that.
lonewolfnmoon Yeah. Praying mantises to scare my friends with
Hi ! can i use this video for my environmental awareness campaign presentation? please? :-) thank you in advance. Godbless!
Bringing in predators to hunt down pests is always the best option. Please see Australian history to understand the sarcasm.
What doesn't kill you makes you stronger.
😳
Or maybe just makes you sterile and gives you cancer.
What about Indoor vertical farming? it solves virtually everything.
Doesnt help kidnapping issuess
Why can't we use the method at 1:23 ?
i guess too hard for large scale. it worked on ancient times because its such a small scale
Joakim D there are some research teams working on exactly that. Besides we already succeeded in using insects for pest control succesfully in greenhouses!
Joakim D It doesn't protect from everything. A fugal infection could destroy an entire country's sorghum supply, starving billions.
Teemo well a farmer could set some mites free that could eat the fungi. The real challenge is crafting a healthy ecosystem that could fight the pests and infections on their own
There is exciting frontier research to scale those methods, for example www.researchgate.net/publication/282650361_Optimizing_Crops_for_Biocontrol_of_Pests_and_Disease#feedback/295797
At first glance I thought the title of this video was "Do We Really Need Presidents?" and I was thinking "Not THIS year we don't!"
This is why we need GMO's. But no, everyone is fearmongering about them.
TG MrNacknime gmo's are a corporate monopoly. they're specifically engineered to tolerate pesticides, not humans.
As someone who supports, or at least doesn't oppose, GMOs, this was a very interesting read: www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/business/gmo-promise-falls-short.html
HVallejo B. That's your problem then. If you had a college education you'd realize a scholarly study is more credible than a magazine
HVallejo B. or a brain for that matter -.-
HVallejo B. Haha. Leave the assumptions up to the trump supporters. I don't think they give a rats ass about GMO's, which makes them the equivalent of yourself on this issue.. lol. That's unfortunate you find scholarly studies to be less credible. You're a fool to think that whatever you think is credible isn't also composed of credible scholarly studies. Sorry pal
What about organic farming? How do they do it? Why can't everything we grow use that method?
I have bad news for ya - "organic" food/farming does not mean they don't use pesticides, they just clam they don't use non-organic ones. Somehow people acquired an idea that things that are "organic" and "natural" are better and safer than manmade, and btw the most deadly poisons are 100% "organic".
Is this a stop motion video? :O
@2:00 what is a "grander scale" !!
Best pesticide and rodenticides for the house is a mix of three things:
1. Cleanliness
2. Light
3. Movement
Weird how it doesn't mention how much food is wasted now each year, regardless of the use of pesticide.
i glanced at the title and thought it said "do we really need testicles?"
Rusty Bucket 5000 Good question
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.
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”
Can you make a pros and cons of gmo? I see the pros but no sustainable cons that have sufficient research.
Big Pro: GMOs have the potential to guarantee food supply for everybody forever.
Big con: Research costs
It's quite expensive so much in fact that to cover research costs (according to Monsanto) you have to apply very arrogant procedures + encouraging the use of brand specific pesticides which in hindsight ruined the reputation for any GMOs and potential newcomers in that field.
So history suggests:
GMOs are awesome if applied intelligently and with a very flexible common sense (no legal BS), since you want to work with 3°world farmers and people who already have to deal with degraded soil, droughts, pests, missing infrastructure or none at all.
Stephanie G potential lack of genetic diversity, but we can overcome that technically.
awesome narration good job
Oh I forgot to drink my chemical pesticides
what if you genticly modify a bug so that it is a better preditor and can do that if are curint bugs arnt good unuth
Who else cringed at his pronunciation of Müller xD
Ian Golding yerp.
is it pronounced ''Mew-luh'' ?
RikXtreme4 yep
why useless beetle get the resistance while bees don't? this is BUGging me greatly.
acap leo L
How is organic agriculture produced then ? ..
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.
Video: talks about deadly stuff
*happy music plays in the background*
Oh my goodness 😆😆😆. Your absolutley correct on that front my friend. 😁 Learnt that at church they use the same protocol to help entertain children while they speak about satain😂😂🤣 funnyness
How many people can say they bred literal ant demons to protect their crops
what if they just do it on greenhouses, in an isolated way?
89gerardo Too expensive to build a greenhouse covering a whole farm. Plus that wouldn't be making the farmer or company any additional money, which would likely keep them from making any changes.
P lu And I have a little greenhouse. I cover everything inside and outside from floor to ceiling with heavy-duty pesticides except the plants and soil. That way no insects can thrive there, but plants are free from chemicals.
can you make a video of how to peel potatoes
4:05 there is no thing as "demands for food production", inside Capitalism, only "demand for profits", so the solution to all these crises is still the end of Capitalism.
My neighbour, was the daughter of the man that invented DDT
I think the claim at the beginning of the video 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 videos 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.
Matt Potter But there wasn't even any food to export...
Thank you for saying that Matt
Nice information 🙂
but what about natural repellents?
Can I use pesticides on my enemies? They are pests..
😂😂😂😂 well said
Good information
Isn't the plural of fungus: fungi, not funguses?
"Funguses" refferes to diferrent species of Fungus.
"Fungi" is the plural for the same species.
At least I think that is the explanation.
I know this is probobally a stupid question, but couldn't we invent a scarecrow, for bugs?
Awesome 👍🏻👍🏻😎
If the Irish had grown a variety of kinds of potato, they would not have lost the whole crop. If powerful people weren't exporting Irish wheat to England at a profit, the Irish could easily eat that.
Indeed. It was planned genocide
everytime i read this title it looks like "do we really need pesticles"
I think people should put plants in a greenhouse.
Yes, it's really awesome
build huge ass greenhouses to keep insects out. Create habitable environment for only bees to stay in the greenhouse. probably doesnt make sense
Inderjit Singh is this a joke?
Teemo
and we are going to make the bugs pay for it!
The greehouse just got 10 feet bigger.
SuperAwesomeGuy But there could be some fencing.
How about trying organic food
Besides the cost, farmers can use natural pesticides, such as sulfur, nicotine and copper on organics which can contain toxins.
iv'e cleaned my christmas orange with soda and peel off,... and now i have afk throat and nose for the whole weak
Please can you make a video on musical instruments or more space ones
Can't they like think of a way to make the crops immune against these bugs ?? This way even the human will be immune to it too I guess (just using my brain )
Alcohol as pesticide?
Shrek T Haha, spare a thought for the plant too XD
It kills a lot of insects.
Most of the pesticides in which we made and will make shall have underlying health problems for humans themselves.
In the beginning, 2 million left Ireland (or so I have learned from ‘History through the eyes of a potato’ or whatever, anyway)
I live in there
I'm irish
genetic modified ants!
These pests kill bugs - who says these pests aren't harmful to humans? We might have all the food supply we need, but if it's all poisoned what's the point? :/
XpertCameraMan They aren't being used before checking all variables. They need to pass unbelievably numerous tests before they can be brought to any use that involves human contact. You're safe. At least enough to not gulp down every morsel with doubt and fear of being poisoned.
Yash Deshpande Every organism fears anything it doesn't understand, especially when humans start manipulating nature artificially - I am one of them :)
Your words have logic, but they need a lot of proof to back up the remark that such, if any, food is 'safe' anymore. Scientists might know a lot - but who is sure that they know everything? All these tests have 'acceptable' limits, but what if the only limit I like is 0% pesticides? Finally who knows how pesticides would affect humans in the long run? Lots of questions that I need answers to... :/
An alternative solution: stop popping out babies like crazy. Less population to feed equals less pesticides to be used.
THE only smart guy here... Gratulation!
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.
hydroponics..??
GMO?
Amazing how many people are terrified of GMO(with no real reason), but not pesticides:))
Corn has been genetically modified to resist roundup so they can spray the whole field and kill everything but.
So i breath in that 5 billion pounds of chemicals from the atmosphere
hi *sad music plays in the backround*
When scrolling past this video, I read the title as "The pros and cons of genocides". I feel both relieved and disappointed.
No. because you are consuming their food. Not the other way around. just because you assume plants don't grow with your care doesn't change the fact that they survives just fine without you
Except plants that survive in the wild dont look at all like the plants humans grow and also plants do die in the wild.Your lack of basic knowledge of selective breeding or even biology is quite concerning.
subtitle in french please
Evolution or adaptation?