On 11 Jan, 18:09, "Jeff Layman" wrote:
wrote:
The reason I asked the question was that I thought your original posting was
misleading (but didn't know for certain), and you have confirmed it. Quote:
"I would also check with your allotment committee and your plot neighbours
if this is allowed and if they don't mind.". Using "If this is allowed"
makes it sound official, which is isn't. You really shouldn't make your
prejudices about chemicals appear to represent official - or even
unofficial - policy.

You will find than the majority usually takes the day. In this case,
if by committee there's an agreement, it will become the rule. It's a
bit strong to think my opinions are prejudices. It's what I beleive
in. On a 10 rods plot there's no need for chemical use. Give me a good
reason for this.

I have absolutely no objection to you believing in
organic cultivation, and following those principles. And as you ask, no, the
point of having an allotment is to grow whatever the holder wants, how he or
she wants (within reason), without affecting the other allotment holders.

As Sacha's article in the time points: "There are also concerns with
what is used in growing food. Allotment gardeners tend not to use
chemicals at all and when they do, they at least can control it." And
that's what I meant indeed. It is a choice - but if I can make change
the views of those who do use chemicals, I'll do it in everyway I can
and make our allotments entirely organic, and across the country if I
can do that too!

I am afraid that an "all organic" allotment makes little sense to me. I
don't have an allotment

Well that's perhaps our misunderstanding.

, and in my garden I use as few chemicals as
possible, but I can't see the point in having whole plants destroyed and
doing nothing about it.

Organic gardening is not 'not doing nothing about it'. I suggest you
learn a bit more about it before attempting to convince me that it
doesn't work.

Actually, that's not quite true - I give up trying
to grow plants where chemicals have failed to control the pest because they
are ineffective or the pest has grown resistant (eg in this area, anything
which is edible to the lily beetle).

So you've used something stronger or have you given up eating
vegetables all together?! It's precisely why you should not use
chemicals in the first place. There's a reason why you are failing and
I would, if you give me more information about the crop you have
attempted to grow, show you that you can grow absolutely anything and
control the pests and weeds without using chemicals.

And what if they ignore the advice, and start using insecticides?

It's a shame. But like you, they'll manage to saturate their garden
where it will take a long time to re-establish the ecosystem.

You are obviously very confused about glyphosate. As soon as it hits the
ground, it becomes inactive. It is the bane of organic gardeners because
they can't find anything it does other than what it is supposed to - kill
plants it is sprayed on.

My problem with it is the instant killing of everything without any
understanding of why weeds are there in the first place. Glyphosate
takes with it habitats, without habitats you don't have insects,
without insects you don't have birds - that is my problem Jeff, not a
the fact that it is a chemical per say, but the destruction of
environments which support insects on which your, YOUR food stuff
depends on. You are in effect removing what benefits your garden the
most for the sake of easthetic and nothing else. Easthetic! Now that's
sad, don't you think? You could just pull them up, dry them and
compost them or use them as mulch.

I can only think that you are just imagining that "their front row of
flowers didn't interest much wildlife".

No, they come to admire my rows full of colours and life with
scabious, geums, nettles, aquilegias, echinaceas... as opposed to the
single huge dahlias proped up with canes and strings sandwiches
between two badly pruned rose bushes that they think is the ultimate
in flower growing! But that's a matter of taste perhaps.

If the glyphosate had hit those
plants there wouldn't have been anything around for the wildlife to take an
interest in,

Indeed. You are right. There's nothing there beside two rose bushes
and some dahlias with fancy tags on to keep them upright.

and if it hadn't those plants would have been no different from
any other.

I think allowing a range of plants to grow is a good thing for any
garden. Think about it. If you just nuke everything, you'll take out
the good with the bad. Doing things by hand, and I stress here on an
allotment plot and not acres, is a good thing. By the time you've
finished tackling persistant weeds, it would have benefited another
part of your garden by providing an habitat. That's the cycle that you
need in a garden. That's gardening.

Did you do a comparative wildlife survey with flowers in organic
allotment plots?

Not on allotments but I did one last year on 4 acres of urban land
derelict for 10 years. It was an eye opener.

Did _you_ try the leeks? What was their taste like?

Off course, I'll try anything! And I prefer the smaller ones. The big
ones were not as sweet and one leek was sufficient for one soup in my
house! A range of plants, food crops and a mix of fruit bushes is all
an allotment needs - not rows upon rows of spuds and massive leeks,
which are exactly what those plots have, with two roses and dahlias on
strings. But that the plot holder's choice. Isn't it.