"Tim Tyler" wrote in message ...
In uk.rec.gardening Oz wrote:
: Tim Tyler writes

:: Then you either have a very small plot, aren't trying or aren't
growing
:: the right things.
:
:Size is the main limiting factor. I estimate I have about ten square
:metres to work with.

: 3m x 3m!

More like 10m x 1m ;-)

: Then throw out most of it and stick to 5 sq m of swiss chard and 5 sq m
: in runner and climbing french beans.

That would be contrary to my stated aim of getting more diversity -
and would massively up my bean consumption (I go pretty easy on
most legumes).


Now this is where I really can't understand what you want from yourself and
others. If you genuinely believed that pesticide residues presented a
significant risk to you health, and you were rational (granted these two
things probably don't go together too well) then surely your objective
would be to replace those foodstuffs that you presently obtain from other
that present the greatest risk. Surely this would mean growing as much of
your staples first and then indulging in wealthy western extravagance once
that is in order?

Personally I prefer to rear a couple of pigs as needed so that we get to
eat decent meat as often as possible, but if you prefer not to eat meat, or
don't have the space then grow potatoes.

However I'm still far from convinced that pesticide residues are harmful to
people. The same arguments took place many decades ago over DDT. Those
who were most determined to get it banned recognised that the surest was to
get a ban was to persuade the public it was harmful to them. It was a
dangerous game to play, because it wasn't directly harmful but it was
clearly being used in such a way as to harm many ecosystems. There will
comes a time when we have to make decisions to protect the environment that
will present dangers to people, so it's about time we all started to grow
up. If a thing is bad, it isn't necessarily bad for people, and if a thing
is sometimes bad for people (wolves?) then it isn't always bad. I'm all
for reducing the use of pesticides and herbicides to protect wildlife - I'm
just not prepared to argue that such changes will also makes things better
for people, because they probably won't.



:I'm not really trying to get my calories from my garden. Indeed, I
:grow almost entirely very low calorie produce. My main aim at this
stage
:is to increase the diversity of fresh, good quality salad vegetables I
:have available to me - not to feed myself entirely from my garden.

: That can be bought cheaply in the store.

I'm /trying/ to grow things I can't easily get in store. My best source
for all my chinese salad veggies - for example - is miles away - and
their
produce is apparently imported - and freshness leaves something to be
desired.

I'm far from sure this will give you what you really want - unless this is
what you really want and the pesticide thing is just frustration resulting
from a feeling that you are trapped into eating what others decide you
should eat.


I can't buy russian kale, american cress - or indeed most of my sprouts
at all.

: You obviously didn't find the ames link, or uncle al's.

You're right there - the only "uncle al" I am familiar with is
unlikely to be the one you are referring to.

::::I suspect that eventually mechanical barriers to pests will
eventually
::::make many of today's pesticides redundant.
:::
:::: Dream on, you have no idea what you are talking about.
:::
:::Rather obviously, I'm talking about growing a greater proportion of
:::things "under glass" - or in controlled environments.
::
::: To feed the world?
::
::Yes.
::
::: speechless at the stunning level of ignorance
::
::Don't underestimate technological progress.
:
:: I don't, I do understand economics.
:: Just work out the energy cost of covering the UK arable area under
:: glass. Go on, have a go.
:
:I am not talking about glass. [....]

Not /just/ glass, anyway.

:And I am /certainly/ not suggesting do[ing] this today. See where I
:wrote "eventually". I even did it twice - to emphasize the point.

: So what DO you mean, if not under glass?

Well, it doesn't /have/ to be glass. For example, some of the operations
I know of use polytunnels instead.


A great thing to have - recommended.

The original idea of using mechanical - rather than chemical - barriers
to
pests doesn't necessarily require completely enclosing the plants at
all -
although enclosure is probably the most effective approach.

The scarecrow is a form of non-chemical pest control agent - as are
slug-moats, fences, and nets.


And indeed labour. There are still many places where a great deal of crop
protection is provided by children - it's probably good exercise for them
too, many prevent all this obesity problem.

These are all things that attempt to prevent the pests and produce
being in the same place at the same time - rather than poisoning
them once they arrive.

Dogs, hawk and guns are also good for controlling larger pests. Though
even wild owls will help control voles and rats - hence old barns have
nesting access built in; something that may come back into fashion.

Michael Saunby