Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old 06-08-2007, 02:41 PM posted to rec.gardens,austin.gardening
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 301
Default Food Miles and eating locally...

Hmm, not so simple a choice as it seems... sigh

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/06/op...html?th&emc=th
Food That Travels Well

By JAMES E. McWILLIAMS
Published: August 6, 2007
Austin, Tex.

THE term “food miles” — how far food has traveled before you buy it — has
entered the enlightened lexicon. Environmental groups, especially in Europe,
are pushing for labels that show how far food has traveled to get to the
market, and books like Barbara Kingsolver’s “Animal, Vegetable, Miracle: A
Year of Food Life” contemplate the damage wrought by trucking, shipping and
flying food from distant parts of the globe.

There are many good reasons for eating local — freshness, purity, taste,
community cohesion and preserving open space — but none of these benefits
compares to the much-touted claim that eating local reduces fossil fuel
consumption. In this respect eating local joins recycling, biking to work
and driving a hybrid as a realistic way that we can, as individuals, shrink
our carbon footprint and be good stewards of the environment.

On its face, the connection between lowering food miles and decreasing
greenhouse gas emissions is a no-brainer. In Iowa, the typical carrot has
traveled 1,600 miles from California, a potato 1,200 miles from Idaho and a
chuck roast 600 miles from Colorado. Seventy-five percent of the apples sold
in New York City come from the West Coast or overseas, the writer Bill
McKibben says, even though the state produces far more apples than city
residents consume. These examples just scratch the surface of the problem.
In light of this market redundancy, the only reasonable reaction, it seems,
is to count food miles the way a dieter counts calories.

But is reducing food miles necessarily good for the environment? Researchers
at Lincoln University in New Zealand, no doubt responding to Europe’s push
for “food miles labeling,” recently published a study challenging the
premise that more food miles automatically mean greater fossil fuel
consumption. Other scientific studies have undertaken similar
investigations. According to this peer-reviewed research, compelling
evidence suggests that there is more — or less — to food miles than meets
the eye.

It all depends on how you wield the carbon calculator. Instead of measuring
a product’s carbon footprint through food miles alone, the Lincoln
University scientists expanded their equations to include other
energy-consuming aspects of production — what economists call “factor inputs
and externalities” — like water use, harvesting techniques, fertilizer
outlays, renewable energy applications, means of transportation (and the
kind of fuel used), the amount of carbon dioxide absorbed during
photosynthesis, disposal of packaging, storage procedures and dozens of
other cultivation inputs.

Incorporating these measurements into their assessments, scientists reached
surprising conclusions. Most notably, they found that lamb raised on New
Zealand’s clover-choked pastures and shipped 11,000 miles by boat to Britain
produced 1,520 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions per ton while British lamb
produced 6,280 pounds of carbon dioxide per ton, in part because poorer
British pastures force farmers to use feed. In other words, it is four times
more energy-efficient for Londoners to buy lamb imported from the other side
of the world than to buy it from a producer in their backyard. Similar
figures were found for dairy products and fruit.

These life-cycle measurements are causing environmentalists worldwide to
rethink the logic of food miles. New Zealand’s most prominent environmental
research organization, Landcare Research-Manaaki Whenua, explains that
localism “is not always the most environmentally sound solution if more
emissions are generated at other stages of the product life cycle than
during transport.” The British government’s 2006 Food Industry
Sustainability Strategy similarly seeks to consider the environmental costs
“across the life cycle of the produce,” not just in transportation.

“Eat local” advocates — a passionate cohort of which I am one — are bound to
interpret these findings as a threat. We shouldn’t. Not only do life cycle
analyses offer genuine opportunities for environmentally efficient food
production, but they also address several problems inherent in the eat-local
philosophy.

Consider the most conspicuous ones: it is impossible for most of the world
to feed itself a diverse and healthy diet through exclusively local food
production — food will always have to travel; asking people to move to more
fertile regions is sensible but alienating and unrealistic; consumers living
in developed nations will, for better or worse, always demand choices beyond
what the season has to offer.

Given these problems, wouldn’t it make more sense to stop obsessing over
food miles and work to strengthen comparative geographical advantages? And
what if we did this while streamlining transportation services according to
fuel-efficient standards? Shouldn’t we create development incentives for
regional nodes of food production that can provide sustainable produce for
the less sustainable parts of the nation and the world as a whole? Might it
be more logical to conceptualize a hub-and-spoke system of food production
and distribution, with the hubs in a food system’s naturally fertile hot
spots and the spokes, which travel through the arid zones, connecting them
while using hybrid engines and alternative sources of energy?

As concerned consumers and environmentalists, we must be prepared to
seriously entertain these questions. We must also be prepared to accept that
buying local is not necessarily beneficial for the environment. As much as
this claim violates one of our most sacred assumptions, life cycle
assessments offer far more valuable measurements to gauge the environmental
impact of eating. While there will always be good reasons to encourage the
growth of sustainable local food systems, we must also allow them to develop
in tandem with what could be their equally sustainable global counterparts.
We must accept the fact, in short, that distance is not the enemy of
awareness.

James E. McWilliams is the author of “A Revolution in Eating: How the Quest
for Food Shaped America” and a contributing writer for The Texas Observer.



  #2   Report Post  
Old 06-08-2007, 07:49 PM posted to rec.gardens,austin.gardening
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Jun 2007
Posts: 951
Default Food Miles and eating locally...

In article ,
"cat daddy" wrote:

Hmm, not so simple a choice as it seems... sigh

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/06/op...html?th&emc=th
Food That Travels Well

By JAMES E. McWILLIAMS
Published: August 6, 2007
Austin, Tex.

THE term “food miles” — how far food has traveled before you buy it — has
entered the enlightened lexicon. Environmental groups, especially in Europe,
are pushing for labels that show how far food has traveled to get to the
market, and books like Barbara Kingsolver’s “Animal, Vegetable, Miracle: A
Year of Food Life” contemplate the damage wrought by trucking, shipping and
flying food from distant parts of the globe.

There are many good reasons for eating local — freshness, purity, taste,
community cohesion and preserving open space — but none of these benefits
compares to the much-touted claim that eating local reduces fossil fuel
consumption. In this respect eating local joins recycling, biking to work
and driving a hybrid as a realistic way that we can, as individuals, shrink
our carbon footprint and be good stewards of the environment.

On its face, the connection between lowering food miles and decreasing
greenhouse gas emissions is a no-brainer. In Iowa, the typical carrot has
traveled 1,600 miles from California, a potato 1,200 miles from Idaho and a
chuck roast 600 miles from Colorado. Seventy-five percent of the apples sold
in New York City come from the West Coast or overseas, the writer Bill
McKibben says, even though the state produces far more apples than city
residents consume. These examples just scratch the surface of the problem.
In light of this market redundancy, the only reasonable reaction, it seems,
is to count food miles the way a dieter counts calories.

But is reducing food miles necessarily good for the environment? Researchers
at Lincoln University in New Zealand, no doubt responding to Europe’s push
for “food miles labeling,” recently published a study challenging the
premise that more food miles automatically mean greater fossil fuel
consumption. Other scientific studies have undertaken similar
investigations. According to this peer-reviewed research, compelling
evidence suggests that there is more — or less — to food miles than meets
the eye.

It all depends on how you wield the carbon calculator. Instead of measuring
a product’s carbon footprint through food miles alone, the Lincoln
University scientists expanded their equations to include other
energy-consuming aspects of production — what economists call “factor inputs
and externalities” — like water use, harvesting techniques, fertilizer
outlays, renewable energy applications, means of transportation (and the
kind of fuel used), the amount of carbon dioxide absorbed during
photosynthesis, disposal of packaging, storage procedures and dozens of
other cultivation inputs.

Incorporating these measurements into their assessments, scientists reached
surprising conclusions. Most notably, they found that lamb raised on New
Zealand’s clover-choked pastures and shipped 11,000 miles by boat to Britain
produced 1,520 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions per ton while British lamb
produced 6,280 pounds of carbon dioxide per ton, in part because poorer
British pastures force farmers to use feed. In other words, it is four times
more energy-efficient for Londoners to buy lamb imported from the other side
of the world than to buy it from a producer in their backyard. Similar
figures were found for dairy products and fruit.

These life-cycle measurements are causing environmentalists worldwide to
rethink the logic of food miles. New Zealand’s most prominent environmental
research organization, Landcare Research-Manaaki Whenua, explains that
localism “is not always the most environmentally sound solution if more
emissions are generated at other stages of the product life cycle than
during transport.” The British government’s 2006 Food Industry
Sustainability Strategy similarly seeks to consider the environmental costs
“across the life cycle of the produce,” not just in transportation.

“Eat local” advocates — a passionate cohort of which I am one — are bound to
interpret these findings as a threat. We shouldn’t. Not only do life cycle
analyses offer genuine opportunities for environmentally efficient food
production, but they also address several problems inherent in the eat-local
philosophy.

Consider the most conspicuous ones: it is impossible for most of the world
to feed itself a diverse and healthy diet through exclusively local food
production — food will always have to travel; asking people to move to more
fertile regions is sensible but alienating and unrealistic; consumers living
in developed nations will, for better or worse, always demand choices beyond
what the season has to offer.

Given these problems, wouldn’t it make more sense to stop obsessing over
food miles and work to strengthen comparative geographical advantages? And
what if we did this while streamlining transportation services according to
fuel-efficient standards? Shouldn’t we create development incentives for
regional nodes of food production that can provide sustainable produce for
the less sustainable parts of the nation and the world as a whole? Might it
be more logical to conceptualize a hub-and-spoke system of food production
and distribution, with the hubs in a food system’s naturally fertile hot
spots and the spokes, which travel through the arid zones, connecting them
while using hybrid engines and alternative sources of energy?

As concerned consumers and environmentalists, we must be prepared to
seriously entertain these questions. We must also be prepared to accept that
buying local is not necessarily beneficial for the environment. As much as
this claim violates one of our most sacred assumptions, life cycle
assessments offer far more valuable measurements to gauge the environmental
impact of eating. While there will always be good reasons to encourage the
growth of sustainable local food systems, we must also allow them to develop
in tandem with what could be their equally sustainable global counterparts.
We must accept the fact, in short, that distance is not the enemy of
awareness.

James E. McWilliams is the author of “A Revolution in Eating: How the Quest
for Food Shaped America” and a contributing writer for The Texas Observer.


Thanks, these are the kind of discussions that, as good citizens, we
need to pay attention to because of cost, both financial and
environmental.

I think this is a good argument for some products, such as meat, which,
when shipped as sides, may benefit from the additional time. But
otherwise we end up talking about shelf life. Obviously, the longer a
fruit or vegetable has been harvested, the less fresh flavor it will
have. If I buy corn in a local store, the corn will probably be a week
old. If I buy at a farmers market, it may be a day old with it's
accompanying loss of flavor.

To have the best flavored produce and bakery goods, you want the
freshest. The freshest is what is produced locally.
--
FB - FFF

Billy
http://angryarab.blogspot.com/
  #3   Report Post  
Old 07-08-2007, 04:02 AM posted to rec.gardens,austin.gardening
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 301
Default Food Miles and eating locally...


"Billy Rose" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"cat daddy" wrote:

Hmm, not so simple a choice as it seems... sigh

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/06/op...html?th&emc=th
Food That Travels Well

By JAMES E. McWILLIAMS
Published: August 6, 2007
Austin, Tex.

THE term “food miles” — how far food has traveled before you buy it —

has
entered the enlightened lexicon. Environmental groups, especially in

Europe,
are pushing for labels that show how far food has traveled to get to the
market, and books like Barbara Kingsolver’s “Animal, Vegetable, Miracle:

A
Year of Food Life” contemplate the damage wrought by trucking, shipping

and
flying food from distant parts of the globe.

There are many good reasons for eating local — freshness, purity, taste,
community cohesion and preserving open space —



Thanks, these are the kind of discussions that, as good citizens, we
need to pay attention to because of cost, both financial and
environmental.


Yes, if the total cost of producing anything were actually considered,
then it would be easier to make the right choices. Environmental degradation
or cleanup being one cost that's hidden or subsidized. Or social impact,
where if say, Afghan farmers could get a good price for cotton, maybe they
wouldn't raise poppies.

I think this is a good argument for some products, such as meat, which,
when shipped as sides, may benefit from the additional time. But
otherwise we end up talking about shelf life. Obviously, the longer a
fruit or vegetable has been harvested, the less fresh flavor it will
have. If I buy corn in a local store, the corn will probably be a week
old. If I buy at a farmers market, it may be a day old with it's
accompanying loss of flavor.


I never knew what a real apple tasted like until I lived in Seattle,
where it was picked that morning. Of course, they had no idea what real
citrus or a watermelon tasted like.

To have the best flavored produce and bakery goods, you want the
freshest. The freshest is what is produced locally.


Fresher and more variety. Corporate food is grown for shelf-life and
appearance and is rarely the better tasting.
We also lose our food knowledge. A little old grandma from Mexico was
walking her grandkids by my house a few days ago. The kids called to me and
asked if they could have the seeds and pointed to my Mimosa tree. With my
poor Spanish, she told me the green, immature pods made great seasoning for
pork. You won't find that recipe on the Internet....


  #4   Report Post  
Old 07-08-2007, 10:28 AM posted to rec.gardens,austin.gardening
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 805
Default Food Miles and eating locally...


"cat daddy" wrote in message
...
Hmm, not so simple a choice as it seems... sigh

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/06/op...html?th&emc=th
Food That Travels Well

By JAMES E. McWILLIAMS
Published: August 6, 2007
Austin, Tex.

THE term "food miles" - how far food has traveled before you buy it - has
entered the enlightened lexicon. Environmental groups, especially in

Europe,
are pushing for labels that show how far food has traveled to get to the
market, and books like Barbara Kingsolver's "Animal, Vegetable, Miracle: A
Year of Food Life" contemplate the damage wrought by trucking, shipping

and
flying food from distant parts of the globe.

There are many good reasons for eating local - freshness, purity, taste,
community cohesion


which includes keeping money circulating in local economies, one advantage

and preserving open space - but none of these benefits
compares to the much-touted claim that eating local reduces fossil fuel
consumption. In this respect eating local joins recycling, biking to work
and driving a hybrid as a realistic way that we can, as individuals,

shrink
our carbon footprint and be good stewards of the environment.

On its face, the connection between lowering food miles and decreasing
greenhouse gas emissions is a no-brainer. In Iowa, the typical carrot has
traveled 1,600 miles from California, a potato 1,200 miles from Idaho and

a
chuck roast 600 miles from Colorado. Seventy-five percent of the apples

sold
in New York City come from the West Coast or overseas, the writer Bill
McKibben says, even though the state produces far more apples than city
residents consume. These examples just scratch the surface of the problem.
In light of this market redundancy, the only reasonable reaction, it

seems,
is to count food miles the way a dieter counts calories.

But is reducing food miles necessarily good for the environment?

Researchers
at Lincoln University in New Zealand, no doubt responding to Europe's push
for "food miles labeling," recently published a study challenging the
premise that more food miles automatically mean greater fossil fuel
consumption. Other scientific studies have undertaken similar
investigations. According to this peer-reviewed research, compelling
evidence suggests that there is more - or less - to food miles than meets
the eye.

It all depends on how you wield the carbon calculator. Instead of

measuring
a product's carbon footprint through food miles alone, the Lincoln
University scientists expanded their equations to include other
energy-consuming aspects of production - what economists call "factor

inputs
and externalities" - like water use, harvesting techniques, fertilizer
outlays, renewable energy applications, means of transportation


which is mainly based on shipping produce as opposed to air freight, at
least for our produce. Kenyan apples, as an example, may have a much lower
footprint than NZ beef so they may still come out ahead of European or US
apples. NZ meat comes out ahead if it is shipped versus maybe UK meat
trucked around. Air freighting produce throws the whole equation up in the
air.

rob


  #5   Report Post  
Old 07-08-2007, 10:30 AM posted to rec.gardens,austin.gardening
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 805
Default Food Miles and eating locally...


"Billy Rose" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"cat daddy" wrote:

Hmm, not so simple a choice as it seems... sigh

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/06/op...html?th&emc=th
Food That Travels Well

By JAMES E. McWILLIAMS
Published: August 6, 2007
Austin, Tex.

THE term "food miles" - how far food has traveled before you buy it -

has
entered the enlightened lexicon. Environmental groups, especially in

Europe,
are pushing for labels that show how far food has traveled to get to the
market, and books like Barbara Kingsolver's "Animal, Vegetable, Miracle:

A
Year of Food Life" contemplate the damage wrought by trucking, shipping

and
flying food from distant parts of the globe.

There are many good reasons for eating local - freshness, purity, taste,
community cohesion and preserving open space - but none of these

benefits
compares to the much-touted claim that eating local reduces fossil fuel
consumption. In this respect eating local joins recycling, biking to

work
and driving a hybrid as a realistic way that we can, as individuals,

shrink
our carbon footprint and be good stewards of the environment.

On its face, the connection between lowering food miles and decreasing
greenhouse gas emissions is a no-brainer. In Iowa, the typical carrot

has
traveled 1,600 miles from California, a potato 1,200 miles from Idaho

and a
chuck roast 600 miles from Colorado. Seventy-five percent of the apples

sold
in New York City come from the West Coast or overseas, the writer Bill
McKibben says, even though the state produces far more apples than city
residents consume. These examples just scratch the surface of the

problem.
In light of this market redundancy, the only reasonable reaction, it

seems,
is to count food miles the way a dieter counts calories.

But is reducing food miles necessarily good for the environment?

Researchers
at Lincoln University in New Zealand, no doubt responding to Europe's

push
for "food miles labeling," recently published a study challenging the
premise that more food miles automatically mean greater fossil fuel
consumption. Other scientific studies have undertaken similar
investigations. According to this peer-reviewed research, compelling
evidence suggests that there is more - or less - to food miles than

meets
the eye.

It all depends on how you wield the carbon calculator. Instead of

measuring
a product's carbon footprint through food miles alone, the Lincoln
University scientists expanded their equations to include other
energy-consuming aspects of production - what economists call "factor

inputs
and externalities" - like water use, harvesting techniques, fertilizer
outlays, renewable energy applications, means of transportation (and the
kind of fuel used), the amount of carbon dioxide absorbed during
photosynthesis, disposal of packaging, storage procedures and dozens of
other cultivation inputs.

Incorporating these measurements into their assessments, scientists

reached
surprising conclusions. Most notably, they found that lamb raised on New
Zealand's clover-choked pastures and shipped 11,000 miles by boat to

Britain
produced 1,520 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions per ton while British

lamb
produced 6,280 pounds of carbon dioxide per ton, in part because poorer
British pastures force farmers to use feed. In other words, it is four

times
more energy-efficient for Londoners to buy lamb imported from the other

side
of the world than to buy it from a producer in their backyard. Similar
figures were found for dairy products and fruit.

These life-cycle measurements are causing environmentalists worldwide to
rethink the logic of food miles. New Zealand's most prominent

environmental
research organization, Landcare Research-Manaaki Whenua, explains that
localism "is not always the most environmentally sound solution if more
emissions are generated at other stages of the product life cycle than
during transport." The British government's 2006 Food Industry
Sustainability Strategy similarly seeks to consider the environmental

costs
"across the life cycle of the produce," not just in transportation.

"Eat local" advocates - a passionate cohort of which I am one - are

bound to
interpret these findings as a threat. We shouldn't. Not only do life

cycle
analyses offer genuine opportunities for environmentally efficient food
production, but they also address several problems inherent in the

eat-local
philosophy.

Consider the most conspicuous ones: it is impossible for most of the

world
to feed itself a diverse and healthy diet through exclusively local food
production - food will always have to travel; asking people to move to

more
fertile regions is sensible but alienating and unrealistic; consumers

living
in developed nations will, for better or worse, always demand choices

beyond
what the season has to offer.

Given these problems, wouldn't it make more sense to stop obsessing over
food miles and work to strengthen comparative geographical advantages?

And
what if we did this while streamlining transportation services according

to
fuel-efficient standards? Shouldn't we create development incentives for
regional nodes of food production that can provide sustainable produce

for
the less sustainable parts of the nation and the world as a whole? Might

it
be more logical to conceptualize a hub-and-spoke system of food

production
and distribution, with the hubs in a food system's naturally fertile hot
spots and the spokes, which travel through the arid zones, connecting

them
while using hybrid engines and alternative sources of energy?

As concerned consumers and environmentalists, we must be prepared to
seriously entertain these questions. We must also be prepared to accept

that
buying local is not necessarily beneficial for the environment. As much

as
this claim violates one of our most sacred assumptions, life cycle
assessments offer far more valuable measurements to gauge the

environmental
impact of eating. While there will always be good reasons to encourage

the
growth of sustainable local food systems, we must also allow them to

develop
in tandem with what could be their equally sustainable global

counterparts.
We must accept the fact, in short, that distance is not the enemy of
awareness.

James E. McWilliams is the author of "A Revolution in Eating: How the

Quest
for Food Shaped America" and a contributing writer for The Texas

Observer.

Thanks, these are the kind of discussions that, as good citizens, we
need to pay attention to because of cost, both financial and
environmental.

I think this is a good argument for some products, such as meat, which,
when shipped as sides, may benefit from the additional time. But
otherwise we end up talking about shelf life. Obviously, the longer a
fruit or vegetable has been harvested, the less fresh flavor it will
have.


as well as eating locally, eating seasonally makes a contribution. In autumn
I can get local apples & pears from an orchard I drive by for work. I winter
I can get mandarins from the store at the end of the road on my way home
from work. Mandarins are in season whereas apples & pears have finished.

rob




  #6   Report Post  
Old 07-08-2007, 04:00 PM posted to rec.gardens,austin.gardening
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Jun 2007
Posts: 951
Default Food Miles and eating locally...

In article ,
"cat daddy" wrote:

Yes, if the total cost of producing anything were actually considered,
then it would be easier to make the right choices. Environmental degradation
or cleanup being one cost that's hidden or subsidized. Or social impact,
where if say, Afghan farmers could get a good price for cotton, maybe they
wouldn't raise poppies.


It's not easy to break a contract with the CIA and can't compete with
subsidized American cotton. What's a mujahidin supposed to do? Oh yeah.
Now I remember.
--
FB - FFF

Billy
http://angryarab.blogspot.com/
  #7   Report Post  
Old 08-08-2007, 12:42 AM posted to rec.gardens,austin.gardening
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Jul 2007
Posts: 217
Default Food Miles and eating locally...

George.com wrote:


as well as eating locally, eating seasonally makes a contribution. In autumn
I can get local apples & pears from an orchard I drive by for work. I winter
I can get mandarins from the store at the end of the road on my way home
from work. Mandarins are in season whereas apples & pears have finished.

rob


We used to stop at a local produce stand on the way back from the beach.
One day we bought a bag of garlic, got home and looked at it - you
guessed it - "Product of China".
  #8   Report Post  
Old 08-08-2007, 11:30 AM posted to rec.gardens,austin.gardening
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 364
Default Food Miles and eating locally...

On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 18:42:40 -0400, Frank
frankdotlogullo@comcastperiodnet wrote:

George.com wrote:


as well as eating locally, eating seasonally makes a contribution. In autumn
I can get local apples & pears from an orchard I drive by for work. I winter
I can get mandarins from the store at the end of the road on my way home
from work. Mandarins are in season whereas apples & pears have finished.

rob


We used to stop at a local produce stand on the way back from the beach.
One day we bought a bag of garlic, got home and looked at it - you
guessed it - "Product of China".


yeah, when i first saw chinese garlic in supermarket, i was
incredulous - is it really cheaper to ship it all that way rather than
grow locally!!!!

now, with the bad rap things chinese. esp edibles, are getting, will
buy my garlic at farmer's market.

[excuse l/c - one arm in sling...]

persephone
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
OT - Tornado went 2 miles from our house Phyllis and Jim Ponds (moderated) 2 25-04-2011 11:19 PM
I'm 200 miles north of Bob Mary Fisher Garden Photos 1 06-04-2008 05:48 PM
Food Miles and eating locally... cat daddy Gardening 8 08-08-2007 11:30 AM
Food miles & Kenyan growers George.com United Kingdom 22 19-07-2007 04:32 PM
"Green miles of horticulture heaven" [email protected] Gardening 0 19-04-2006 03:53 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:28 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 GardenBanter.co.uk.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Gardening"

 

Copyright © 2017