In article , Jane Ransom
writes

Look . . . slugs and snails tend to come out at night and gobble up the
slug pellets.

This means they are dead by morning.

Birds that eat slugs and snails are not carrion eaters.

What about the carrion eaters that will eat the corpses? Is there a
possibility that they might be affected? OK, I know they aren't pretty
fluffy songbirds, but nasty creepy crawlies ;-)

They will not touch anything already dead and they don't come out at
night to eat something that may be dying.

But toads and hedgehogs do come out at night ...

We usually use a few slug pellets early in the year and we have song
thrushes, mistle thrushes and blackbirds in the same numbers (maybe even
more as we have slowly provided more habitat) as we had 11 years ago.

Whereas we have *more* mistle thrushes, song thrushes and blackbirds
than we had 11 years ago ;-)

--
Kay Easton

Edward's earthworm page:
http://www.scarboro.demon.co.uk/edward/index.htm

"............ I also understand perfectly well why some farmers do apply
expensive poisons - which are often more toxic than those available to the
general public. The molluscides are applied to increase yield and profit.
These molluscides are at least implicated, directly or indirectly, in the
decline of various bird species. ........"

No....The reason is that the "Public" wont buy veg with ant sign of Damage,
let alone with the possibility of finding a slug or caterpillar in their
lettuce, it would be straight back to the supermarket with it and probably a
complaint to environmental health.
If the public would accept these things then the use of insecticides etc
would be reduced drastically.


--
David Hill
Abacus nurseries
www.abacus-nurseries.co.uk

In article , Kay Easton
writes
Whereas we have *more* mistle thrushes, song thrushes and blackbirds
than we had 11 years ago ;-)

Hey, Kay . . . I did say a 'few' pellets 'judiciously' placed.

Do you attribute the increase solely to your non use of slug pellets or
your provision of habitat? Do your neighbours never use slug pellets
either?

And as you discovered last summer, we have managed to entice toads into
the garden and they are multiplying rapidly, as are the frogs!!!!!!!!
The only dead frog we found was one that had obviously been attacked by
some predator as it had its back split open (
--
Jane Ransom in Lancaster.
I won't respond to private emails that are on topic for urg
but if you need to email me for any other reason, put ransoms
at jandg dot demon dot co dot uk where you see

In article , Larry
Stoter writes

I also understand perfectly well why some farmers do apply expensive
poisons - which are often more toxic than those available to the general
public. The molluscides are applied to increase yield and profit. These
molluscides are at least implicated, directly or indirectly, in the
decline of various bird species.

Aye, but is that because they poison the birds directly or because they
decimate the food chain so that the birds go elsewhere? You could apply
your same reasoning to our obsession with hygiene. This obsession means
there are fewer flies around and therefore fewer birds that eat the
flies. It's not just farmers who are depriving birds of their food.

What is really worrying us is the rate at which barns are being
converted into housing as more and more farmers are pushed out of
farming (why shouldn't a farmer have a decent standard of living?)
The nesting places for swallows are disappearing rapidly.
--
Jane Ransom in Lancaster.
I won't respond to private emails that are on topic for urg
but if you need to email me for any other reason, put ransoms
at jandg dot demon dot co dot uk where you see

I've been forced to put down some snail pellets, because they've had
every
single turnip seedling except one.

You haven't been forced, you've chosen to rather than accept the
alternative of no turnips. ;-)

True! It was just a 'turn of phrase' rather than an attempted abrogation of
responsibility . . . not motivated by revenge either, I might add. It's a
bit too late for my turnips, in any case. I'm going to replace them (RIP)
with some courgette seedlings which I've got in a propagator. Hopefully the
snails will have been "pacified" (in the military sense) by then. Then
again, they may just come back with reinforcements, in which case, I will
admit defeat with the poisons and resort to sitting in wait for them in the
dead of night and "picking them off" one-by-one. In the latter case, I'll
"transfer" them to my front garden, where they can't do any harm.

I also accept responsibility for the wasps I swat in the summer. I usually
get told off for it by someone, but I just can't abide them buzzing around
the place when you're trying to eat/drink outside . . . drowning in a lake
of beer may be some people's idea of a good way to go, but I think a short,
sharp end may be slightly more merciful . . . ?

Andy

In article , Jane Ransom
writes

What is really worrying us is the rate at which barns are being
converted into housing as more and more farmers are pushed out of
farming (why shouldn't a farmer have a decent standard of living?)

Why should only a farmer have his standard of living protected? The rest
of us have no guarantee that our chosen profession will continue to
support us, not matter how many of our generations of forefathers have
followed the same profession.

By all means argue that we need to protect farmers as a means of
providing food without reliance on imports, or to maintain the landscape
in the form that we have changed it to over the last few hundred years,
but I don't think the argument that anyone should be guaranteed a good
standard of living simply because they are doing the job they have
chosen to do is particularly compelling.

--
Kay Easton

Edward's earthworm page:
http://www.scarboro.demon.co.uk/edward/index.htm

In article , Jane Ransom
writes
In article , Kay Easton
writes
Whereas we have *more* mistle thrushes, song thrushes and blackbirds
than we had 11 years ago ;-)

Hey, Kay . . . I did say a 'few' pellets 'judiciously' placed.

Do you attribute the increase solely to your non use of slug pellets or
your provision of habitat?

Provision of habitat ... which *includes* trying to make sure I have all
of the links of the food chain. Therefore I've stopped using pesticides
(including molluscicides). And I know from observation that my
populations of greenfly are greatly appreciated ;-)

I can't recall the current populations of the various birds - I think
mistle thrushes are increasing slightly, which mean merely having the
same number isn't necessarily a success. Whereas maintaining the number
of song thrushes can be regarded as a success, since their overall
numbers are still declining.

--
Kay Easton

Edward's earthworm page:
http://www.scarboro.demon.co.uk/edward/index.htm

Kay Easton9/4/04 3:49

In article , Jane Ransom
writes

What is really worrying us is the rate at which barns are being
converted into housing as more and more farmers are pushed out of
farming (why shouldn't a farmer have a decent standard of living?)

Why should only a farmer have his standard of living protected? The rest
of us have no guarantee that our chosen profession will continue to
support us, not matter how many of our generations of forefathers have
followed the same profession.

By all means argue that we need to protect farmers as a means of
providing food without reliance on imports, or to maintain the landscape
in the form that we have changed it to over the last few hundred years,
but I don't think the argument that anyone should be guaranteed a good
standard of living simply because they are doing the job they have
chosen to do is particularly compelling.


Possibly because historically, agricultural and horticultural professions
have been considered 'low paid' work, versus the more academic professions.
Being of the opinion that if push comes to shove, it's more important to eat
than have someone push a piece of paper around so that a doctor can treat my
whatever illness du jour I come up with, I'd rather support those who will
make eating possible! Now that we're at a stage when it is actually cheaper
for some farmers to pour away milk than sell it (or get rid of their herds
and sell more money) we're in a very poor situation, IMO.
We can import a LOT of food (from God alone knows what source) - we can't
import every academic or civil servant we need. Indeed, it could be argued
that this country isn't big enough to go on 'importing' people, especially
if they have to bed fed by native sources.......
So - academics are automatically protected by that fact whereas farmers
aren't is my take on Jane's remarks.
And if I'm wrong I still agree with her - a more realistic food pricing
programme and less supermarkets would go a LONG way to making sure we
understand the value of the food on our plate, in every sense.
Phew! ;-)
I think this country is going to be in big, big trouble food-wise, one of
these days.
--

Sacha
(remove the weeds to email me)

On Fri, 9 Apr 2004 14:13:41 +0100, "Andy Hunt"
wrote:


I've been forced to put down some snail pellets, because they've had
every
single turnip seedling except one.

One thing you can do is start your turnips 3 or 4 seeds per plug in
plug trays out of reach of slugs (Greenhouse, windowsill etc) Plant
them out after thorough hardening off when they are a bit tougher for
the snails - little or no space between plugs in the row, you'll lose
a few but you will get turnips and a clear conscience.

Rod

Weed my email address to reply
http://website.lineone.net/~rodcraddock/index.html

In article , Kay Easton
writes

By all means argue that we need to protect farmers as a means of
providing food without reliance on imports, or to maintain the landscape
in the form that we have changed it to over the last few hundred years,
but I don't think the argument that anyone should be guaranteed a good
standard of living simply because they are doing the job they have
chosen to do is particularly compelling.

Er . . I think anyone who produces food should have the highest standard
of living. It sickens me that the people who do the least worth while
jobs seem to make the most money (((((((((
--
Jane Ransom in Lancaster.
I won't respond to private emails that are on topic for urg
but if you need to email me for any other reason, put ransoms
at jandg dot demon dot co dot uk where you see

In article , Kay Easton
writes

Provision of habitat ... which *includes* trying to make sure I have all
of the links of the food chain. Therefore I've stopped using pesticides
(including molluscicides). And I know from observation that my
populations of greenfly are greatly appreciated ;-)

I have to admit that the only pesticide I use is a few slug pellets in
early spring. Don't seem to suffer much from greenfly as the tits eat
them and if the odd plant does become over infested, I just wash them
off with left over washing up water.
--
Jane Ransom in Lancaster.
I won't respond to private emails that are on topic for urg
but if you need to email me for any other reason, put ransoms
at jandg dot demon dot co dot uk where you see

Kay Easton wrote:

In article , Larry
Stoter writes
Gardens, even in SE Engalnd, cover a tiny fraction of the land. Farmers
have a much greater influence on anything gardeners may do. That is not
say that minmising the use of toxic chemical in gardens is not a good
idea.

There seems to be evidence that gardens are now an important habitat for
song birds, which are moving from farmland habitats into gardens. that
would suggest that what we do in our gardens *is* important.

I think it probably depends a lot on the species and I guess that in
some areas, gardens do provide a final refuge. But isn't it sad that we
have so damaged the majority of the countryside that gardens can be
important for some animals?
--
Larry Stoter

David Hill wrote:

"............ I also understand perfectly well why some farmers do apply
expensive poisons - which are often more toxic than those available to the
general public. The molluscides are applied to increase yield and profit.
These molluscides are at least implicated, directly or indirectly, in the
decline of various bird species. ........"

No....The reason is that the "Public" wont buy veg with ant sign of Damage,
let alone with the possibility of finding a slug or caterpillar in their
lettuce, it would be straight back to the supermarket with it and probably a
complaint to environmental health.
If the public would accept these things then the use of insecticides etc
would be reduced drastically.

Not to say our desire for cheap food.

I never cease to be amazed watching people in supermarkets carefully
picking over fruit and veg, looking for blemishes but never smelling
what they're buying. Although, since it has often just come out of cold
store, any smell can be difficult to detect.
--
Larry Stoter

Jane Ransom wrote:

In article , Larry
Stoter writes

I also understand perfectly well why some farmers do apply expensive
poisons - which are often more toxic than those available to the general
public. The molluscides are applied to increase yield and profit. These
molluscides are at least implicated, directly or indirectly, in the
decline of various bird species.

Aye, but is that because they poison the birds directly or because they
decimate the food chain so that the birds go elsewhere?

Probably both. Certainly also some suggestions that molluscides lead to
a reduction in fertility in certain bird species.

You could apply
your same reasoning to our obsession with hygiene. This obsession means
there are fewer flies around and therefore fewer birds that eat the
flies. It's not just farmers who are depriving birds of their food.

Indeed - but hygiene on farms. And, in many areas, monocultures of wheat
or oil seed rape. Farmland occupies most of lowland Britain and how it
is managed is critical for wildlife. I've also read (and seen) that some
farmers sow poppies along the edges of fields to improve the appearance.
But I'm really not having a go at farmers (or perhaps only a few).
Farmers are responding to what politicians and the public want. And many
farmers do have a real interest in and concern with wildlife.

What is really worrying us is the rate at which barns are being
converted into housing as more and more farmers are pushed out of
farming (why shouldn't a farmer have a decent standard of living?)
The nesting places for swallows are disappearing rapidly.
Not just swallows - Barn Owls are also critically affected. And while
some of it is barns being converted, farms are also being 'tidied' -
often to meet requirements handed down from government or supermarkets.

--
Larry Stoter

Jane Ransom wrote:

In article , Kay Easton
writes

By all means argue that we need to protect farmers as a means of
providing food without reliance on imports, or to maintain the landscape
in the form that we have changed it to over the last few hundred years,
but I don't think the argument that anyone should be guaranteed a good
standard of living simply because they are doing the job they have
chosen to do is particularly compelling.

Er . . I think anyone who produces food should have the highest standard
of living. It sickens me that the people who do the least worth while
jobs seem to make the most money (((((((((

So you think farmers should have a higher standard of living than
nurses, doctors or people who collect the dustbins and clear the drains?

And would you differentiate between, say, the small mixed farm tenant
who actually gets his hands dirty and the agribusiness barons with nice
clean green wellies and range rovers who occassionally get as close to
the soil as stopping and asking the combine driver where he going on
holiday?

I think arguments about who should or shouldn't have what standard of
living aren't ultimately very productive - most people are doing a job
which is important to somebody in one way or another (well, apart from
politicians, estate agents, lawyers, anybody with inherited wealth ....
:-))
--
Larry Stoter