By the way, I appreciate Charlie, how you and I can vigorously discuss issues without being snarky with each other.

AS do I,  If my post to Pete seemed Snarky,  it wasn't when I typed it!  Meaning sometimes it doesn’t read as well as I like!



It is an interesting thought procees you and Jim elude to with the advent of "super weeds" or  Continual needs for new Chems.  

What is the option?  Are we to assume dropping chems in favor of some other form with lower yields is a better option than using stuff than may have a short life?  Of course if we never used roundup,  we wouldn't have restiant weeds,  but what would we have?  Higher prices?  More tilled acres?  Other treateatments?  More erosion? Some altyernative I can't think of??


Its quite interesting we can sit here and discuss at some level of starving a country  IE Africa or Venazula,  and still think we need to cut back.   I don't elude to have answers,  population and food supply vs nature is a huge debate and discussion,  It does seem to all be done here in the US on a full stomach though!



Charles

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html