What are the advantages and disadvantages of using agricultural chemicals?

Question

What are the advantages and disadvantages of using agricultural chemicals?

Answer 1

Organics feed the soil and its microorganisms better,  yielding a better soil for the future. It takes a while to make the transition to organics and we would get a better yield per acre because , among other reasons,  the greater organic matter content would provide greater water holding capacity.But, I don't think there is enough organic matter available, mainly manure and composted human waste to fertilize all the crops in production. So,  you would have to green manure.That is, grow a cover that you plow under for nutrients, This would take land out of production. But, if the diet changed from less meat to more grains and vegetables (and it was a balanced diet) we would be a healthier people, have more money to spend on growing food the right way and need less land. It's complex, but the better way is possible.

Answer 2

all you can get from agricultural chemicals that is you can use it cheap, easily and you can control the doses do you want to use.

but, the most important thing to know is, no one chemicals are good for our healthy, and our environment. the residue were came from its usage is absorben by our body, where it'll accumulated to the untolerate point and can damage our body as well as you eat the chemicals.

so... there a lot of disadvantage more than advantage using  agricultural chemicals ^ ^

Answer 3

The advantages are:

They are easy.

Disadvantages:

They harm the environment from poor application and runoff. This is causing dead zones in many parts of the oceans around the world.

many are carcinogenic or contain ingredients that are. therefore harmful to the applicator

They depend on cheap oil/petroleum

They do nothing to build soil and thus add to the soil erosion problem

They do nothing to add nutrients to the soil and thus add to the growing problem of lower nutrients in the food we eat.

Insects and weeds develop resistance to every chemical ever developed for ag use

There is great loss to pest and disease now than there was before ag chemicals were used.

They are expensive and will more so as petroleum prices keep going up, up, up.

The comment that without the chems we cannot feed ourselves has been proven wrong by several peer reviewed papers that have come out in the past 6 months. organic/chem free farming can indeed feed the world and do it better than the system agribiz currently uses.

Answer 4

we must start analysing the issue carefully without being dogmatic about all that is chemical...

all the nature products also are organic chemicals and get broken into inorganic chemicals in the user process.. nitrates and ammonia are also produced from organics applied in the soil..

while you apply the nitrate or phosphate as salt you have to be carefull to be optimal... as excess could cause acidity or alkalinity in the soil with all the adverse reactions in nutrient uptake and soil health...

are not the meds we take for our illness, the exhausts from our vehicles and the industries we operate give out chemicals as well.. can we do without them... ? but we ought to and can indeed optimise the use levels, without losing the benefits thereof... so that there is no undue build up of the waste /toxic by products in the environs...

already govts have banned the hydro carbon pesticides like the DDT and BHC products, combi products etc..that were found to have high residual toxicity owing to poor decomposition...

scientists have found and advocated alternate measures for pest control thru bio control agents, herbal products, physical measures (light traps, colour traps, etc..).. as also bio fettilizers (comprising naturally occuring organisms like Rhizobia, azospirillum, phospho bacterium etc) so that we may use these alternate measures in conjunction with the chemical nutrients applied judiciously...

purely bio agriculture may be difficult as the production of bio manures which are bulky, have long gestation for decomposition, contain less macro-nutrients, etc.. would pose serious limitations in their production...

The production of "safe" organic products can fetch good price also... but the high yield claims from pure organic farming are not repeatable by the majority of farmers for the reasons mentioned above... (may not have sufficient green manure trees / organic wastes, space for producing and storing bulky manures, time to have them decompose under intensive farming... etc).  hence the conjunctive use of both organic and chemical inputs in a rational proportion would be the best choice..

If just the economy from production of even limited "green" produce that fetch good price is considered, then the overall demands can not be met at national levels...

we must note that increasing vegetarianism due to fear of the health impact of non veg diet also would hike the demands of agri produce greatly in the years to come...

Even in inorganic or "chemical" farming the highest yields realized by many individuals are not achieved by the great majority of the others under identical conditions due to host of divergent limitations and so claiming too much for a sudden shift to the organic farming based on the performance of the organic protagonists does not appear either logical or responsible...

For that matter one should not run to the conclusion that the protagonists of conjunctive ( chemical and organic combine) use are the agents of chemical factories... that would be unfair to the social vision projected by the latter!

Answer 5

Hi

I'm not being factitious here but the bottom line answer to your question is.

Use them and the world gets to eat

Don't use them and even more of the world starves. As simple as that.

Answer 6

Depends.  Agrochemical can be harm full if you don't work them in the proper way.  It is true that most of them damage the water tap and the atmosphere, they are necessary to be efficient.  Organic agriculture is inefficient you cant feed the world with an organic production.

Answer 7

You have two answers on here that about covers the opinions that you'll find on your subject. Funky Farmer has a hard line look at the facts answer.  He also knows what he is talking about.  His answer will not be the popular one, and probably not the one you are looking for.

Ohiorganic has given you a good heartfelt answer as well.  I have nothing against organic farming.  More power to all who farm organically, as well as people who buy organic foods.  But to think that if all farming turned organic the world could eat as usual is looking at the situation through rose colored glasses.  Production could not keep up and people would starve.

Regardless of what you may think, farmers are not the bad guys.  They have done more toward conservation of our soils, waters, and wildlife than Greenpeace, PETA and all like radical groups put together.  And they did it before any of these organizations were even some-one's idea.  Could farmers do more? Yes.  Are there some bad apples in the farming industry? Yes. But the facts are that farmers are feeding an ever increasing population, while loosing acres of ground to urban sprawl, roads, airports. sports stadiums, etc.  

If you take away all chemical fertilizers, pesticides, etc, they could not do this job.