09-20-2017, 08:09 AM
In spring I commented that controlling rat lungworm would be a bit more difficult on organic farms. This is because rat populations have the potential to be higher on these farms for several reasons, including their lesser use of chemicals to control insect pests, which rats eat. The greater use of mulch on organic farms also serves as rat habitat.
HOTPE objected.
As a response on April 25 I posted the following:
Honolulu Star Advertiser April 24 Editorial: Fight rat lungworm with best practices:
(Excerpts; sorry no link; I only had a hard copy. Newspaper requires an account for online access.)
“(The news reports) have dealt a blow to local farmers, who again must counter consumer fears about buying their produce. As a result the industry is working to confront the problem at the point of origin, by following best practices for crop processing and distribution...Vector control--especially against rats, in this instance--is of crucial importance. This becomes challenging for organic farmers, who can’t use the chemical pesticides relied on in conventional agriculture, but it’s still doable.”
I then commented: Inexplicably, the other rat lungworm forum had a protracted debate on whether organic farms are more susceptible to rat lungworm vectors.
Yesterday in the helicopter debate, a pro-copter poster quipped: “Let's just ban all tourists and be done with it.” Obviously a facetious comment. I quipped back “what profound thinking.”
HOTPE's response to my quip:
“Yes.
Almost like taking a discussion about rat lungworm into the weeds, by claiming organic farming methods encourage rat habitats, that the statement is supported by a reference in an unsubstantiated opinion piece (without scientific or statistical documentation), because it can be considered "common sense" and it was in a newspaper (of public record?), although, again, not in the news section but on the editorial page. Like that?”
A link should not be necessary to convince. But below is one. Though it relates to Montana, it is applicable to Hawaii. Part of opening paragraph:
“Most farmers have challenges related to crop damage due to wildlife pests. Organic farmers have additional challenges because they cannot use chemical controls which are sometimes the most effective and efficient options...”
And just to clarify, lest there be confusion, in contrast to the issue in Montana, where rodent damage to crops is the primary issue, the dominant rodent issue on farms on Hawaii island is the animals’ role in spreading rat lungworm.
There is obviously a lot of quibbling and irreverent comment on Punatalk. Let’s try to keep this language (and our disagreements) off important scientific topics. There is no place on the rat lungworm issue for a denial of basic science.
http://animalrange.montana.edu/documents...ARMERS.pdf
HOTPE objected.
As a response on April 25 I posted the following:
Honolulu Star Advertiser April 24 Editorial: Fight rat lungworm with best practices:
(Excerpts; sorry no link; I only had a hard copy. Newspaper requires an account for online access.)
“(The news reports) have dealt a blow to local farmers, who again must counter consumer fears about buying their produce. As a result the industry is working to confront the problem at the point of origin, by following best practices for crop processing and distribution...Vector control--especially against rats, in this instance--is of crucial importance. This becomes challenging for organic farmers, who can’t use the chemical pesticides relied on in conventional agriculture, but it’s still doable.”
I then commented: Inexplicably, the other rat lungworm forum had a protracted debate on whether organic farms are more susceptible to rat lungworm vectors.
Yesterday in the helicopter debate, a pro-copter poster quipped: “Let's just ban all tourists and be done with it.” Obviously a facetious comment. I quipped back “what profound thinking.”
HOTPE's response to my quip:
“Yes.
Almost like taking a discussion about rat lungworm into the weeds, by claiming organic farming methods encourage rat habitats, that the statement is supported by a reference in an unsubstantiated opinion piece (without scientific or statistical documentation), because it can be considered "common sense" and it was in a newspaper (of public record?), although, again, not in the news section but on the editorial page. Like that?”
A link should not be necessary to convince. But below is one. Though it relates to Montana, it is applicable to Hawaii. Part of opening paragraph:
“Most farmers have challenges related to crop damage due to wildlife pests. Organic farmers have additional challenges because they cannot use chemical controls which are sometimes the most effective and efficient options...”
And just to clarify, lest there be confusion, in contrast to the issue in Montana, where rodent damage to crops is the primary issue, the dominant rodent issue on farms on Hawaii island is the animals’ role in spreading rat lungworm.
There is obviously a lot of quibbling and irreverent comment on Punatalk. Let’s try to keep this language (and our disagreements) off important scientific topics. There is no place on the rat lungworm issue for a denial of basic science.
http://animalrange.montana.edu/documents...ARMERS.pdf
