GeorgeDawson writes

On a split unit, who can tell
where each input ended up.

A check
against that is farmers do tend to know who is organic, and might start
asking questions is they spot a sprayer where one shouldn't be .

I have no idea which fields of my neighbours is organic and which
aren't, he does swap them about quite a bit. Outdoor pigs being a 'good
entry' to organic.

Sometimes one suspect the pretty red fields full of poppy are probably
organic.

No, opium poppies are purple ....

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.

"Oz" wrote in message
...
Jim Webster writes

"Oz" wrote in message

I do not think UK organic growers cheat either.

However there are now some very large commercial organic growers with
associated conventional farms alongside. I have two next to me for
example. One day, if margins get tight and 50ac of highly valuable
produce is destined for ploughing under at a huge loss, I would be less
than certain.

good of you to help control their pest problems then isn't it :-)

I perhaps didn't quite say it right.

"However there are now some very large commercial organic growers with
their conventional farm in the same ownership alongside."

They don't need me to do it, they have their own sprayman, sprayer and
store.

just being down wind would be cheaper

also having weeds properly controlled by your neighbours always eases the
burden on your own land

Jim Webster


--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.

"Oz" wrote in message
...
GeorgeDawson writes

On a split unit, who can tell
where each input ended up.

A check
against that is farmers do tend to know who is organic, and might start
asking questions is they spot a sprayer where one shouldn't be .

I have no idea which fields of my neighbours is organic and which
aren't, he does swap them about quite a bit. Outdoor pigs being a 'good
entry' to organic.

Sometimes one suspect the pretty red fields full of poppy are probably
organic.

No, opium poppies are purple ....

does organic get a premium in that market?

Jim Webster


--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.

"Oz" wrote in message
...
Jim Webster writes

I must confess that the animal welfare thing is the main axe I have to
grind
with the Soil Association, (SA is such an appropriate acronym). Refusal
to
allow vaccines (other than for fmd which they enthusiastically
advocated)
has struck me as just plain cruel. Disease does not give a stuff about
the
arbitrary whims of a certifying body.

I most heartily agree with you.

Particularly as it's easy to get to use antibiotics, the vet just has to
say it's needed. Which is no different to conventional.

So effectively in many cases they are causing antibiotic use by refusal
to allow vaccines. Insane.


And made far worse by their support for homeopathic treatments. If folks
wish to practice witch doctory or themselves then fair enough, but it
shouldn't be legal for livestock and pets.

Michael Saunby

Jim Webster writes

also having weeds properly controlled by your neighbours always eases the
burden on your own land

Given they farm nearly 5000 contiguous acres,
they are their own neighbour.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.

Jim Webster writes

Oz:
No, opium poppies are purple ....

does organic get a premium in that market?

No.

I guess they might in some, but they would then be illegal.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.

Tim Tyler writes
http://www.pesticides.gov.uk/citizen...r_residues.htm

Spanish spinach.

Buy british - you know it's safer.

The Pesticide Residue Committee (PRC) concluded that levels of the
pesticide methomyl found in Asda spinach meant that the "safety margins
would be significantly eroded". Levels were 150% of the safety level for
adults and 240% of the safety level for toddlers. The PRC said that it
was possible that "symptoms such as increased salivation, an upset
stomach or a mild headache could occur, but these effects would be
expected to be short-lived (lasting not longer than 6 hours)". Methomyl
is a carbamate pesticide which affects the nervous system.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.

"Oz" wrote in message
...
Jim Webster writes

also having weeds properly controlled by your neighbours always eases the
burden on your own land

Given they farm nearly 5000 contiguous acres,
they are their own neighbour.

they would need a neighbour crop spraying by plane before they could hope
for a bit of useful drift :-((

Jim Webster

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.

Jim Webster writes
"Oz" wrote in message
...
Jim Webster writes

also having weeds properly controlled by your neighbours always eases the
burden on your own land

Given they farm nearly 5000 contiguous acres,
they are their own neighbour.

they would need a neighbour crop spraying by plane before they could hope
for a bit of useful drift :-((

I'm not getting it across, am I?

They farm both conventional and organic on the same farm and one field
might be organic and the adjacent one conventional. What's more with 3
yr breaks for outdoor pigs they can swap them about quite easily, and
do.

Hmm, must be very confusing for the sprayman ....

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.

"Oz" wrote in message
...
Jim Webster writes
"Oz" wrote in message
...
Jim Webster writes

also having weeds properly controlled by your neighbours always eases
the
burden on your own land

Given they farm nearly 5000 contiguous acres,
they are their own neighbour.

they would need a neighbour crop spraying by plane before they could hope
for a bit of useful drift :-((

I'm not getting it across, am I?

They farm both conventional and organic on the same farm and one field
might be organic and the adjacent one conventional. What's more with 3
yr breaks for outdoor pigs they can swap them about quite easily, and
do.

I wonder if you could use sheep as a similar break crop to bring in the
organic? Probably could on semi hill


Hmm, must be very confusing for the sprayman ....

bit of a begger if you have to bring the pigs back in three years early

Jim Webster


--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.

In uk.rec.gardening Oz wrote:
writes
In uk.rec.gardening Oz wrote:
A toxin is something toxic which poisons us. If it doesn't poison us
(i.e. is successfully managed by our digestion) then it's not a toxin.

That's something else. That is 'detoxifies'.

No, you're just avoiding the issue. If it doesn't poison us it
*isn't* a toxin.

Wrong.

Many, almost certainly all, toxins have a no effect level despite being
toxins. If they have no effect, they aren't poisoning us.

So things that don't poison us at some dose can still be toxins, and
often are.

But you've already said that *everything* will kill us at some level
so on that basis *everything* is a toxin so it's not a terribly useful
word is it!

Mind you - don't forget the dose.
Very few things are completely non-toxic - not even water.

Quite, but that's not a very helpful way to go is it,

That may be, but that's how it's defined.
Doubtless confuses lots more people than just you.

if your argument
is that *everything* is a toxin then trying to produce weedkillers (or
whatever) that aren't toxic is going to be a bit difficult.

Precisely. That's why you find more useful definitions like approved
dose, effective dose, noel, adi and LD50, which include an effect (or
lack of it) and a dose, used by people who know enough and want to
discuss it sensibly.

Yes, I quite agree, my original complaint was about the use of the word
'toxic' and its imprecision, it's meaningless (as you say) without any
indication of *how* toxic.

--
Chris Green )

"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

Michael Saunby writes

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.

Unlikely, all approval schemes require effective control of rodents.
Without food, owls will perish.
With rodents, farms cannot sell their produce easily, if at all.

This is supposed to improve human health, although I have never seen any
recorded problem in recent decades in the UK associated with farm
rodents and *consumer* health.

Tough on owls and raptors, then.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.

In article ,
"Michael Saunby" wrote:

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.

Well said. You may be interested to know that in New Zealand the
Department of Conservation (affectionatly known as Doc) is a great and
avid user of roundup. They use it to clear persistent plant invaders so
that native plants and animals can get a fair crack of the whip.

Speaking of things toxic they have just announced that they have
rendered Campbell Island (Sth of NZ, sub antarctic), free of rats for
the first time in 200 years by dropping rat poison from helicopters.
this is very good news for the nesting seabirds and should see the
return of some species who had to be removed to predator free islands
for their own survival. toxins can be our friends too.

Peter

--
Peter Ashby
School of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Scotland
To assume that I speak for the University of Dundee is to be deluded.
Reverse the Spam and remove to email me.

"Oz" wrote in message
...
Michael Saunby writes

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.

Unlikely, all approval schemes require effective control of rodents.
Without food, owls will perish.
With rodents, farms cannot sell their produce easily, if at all.

This is supposed to improve human health, although I have never seen any
recorded problem in recent decades in the UK associated with farm
rodents and *consumer* health.

Tough on owls and raptors, then.


Ah, but there ain't no money in farming. Far better to have a wildlife
reserve that produces some surplus for sale to the public.

Or perhaps even a museum. There's a pilchard factory in Cornwall that was
told it couldn't produce salted pilchards because the method no longer
conformed with current food standards. However the method is so ancient
(and presents no risk) so the factory is now classed as a museum and life
continues pretty much as normal. See
http://www.chycor.co.uk/tourism/cata...hard-works.htm

Of course this approach might require you to wear a smock while sitting at
your PC, and you might have to give up that new fangled metric system too
:-)

Michael Saunby