As an organic gardener I should be pleased to hear that trials of a biological control for Japanese knotweed are about to start in the UK. The conventional way of getting rid of this troublesome weed has been glyphosate and digging out the roots.
Now I am always pleased to hear about ways to reduce pesticides but there are lots of cases where introducing an alien species to control a pest have gone very wrong. We can never be sure just what will happen and thinking that we can use a bug that will only eat know weed and have no effect on anything else is a best naïve and at worst just storing up trouble for the future.
Take the Cane Toad problem in Australia. Australia did not have any native toads but it did have French’s Cane Beetle and the Greyback Cane Beetle both of which caused problems for sugar cane growers as the larvae eat the roots. Enter the solution, the cane toad.
The plan backfired completely and absolutely. As it turns out, cane toads cannot jump very high, only about two feet actually, so they did not eat the beetles that for the most part lived in the upper stalks of cane plants. Instead of going after the beetles, as growers had planned, the cane toads began going after everything else in sight–insects, bird’s eggs and even native frogs. And because the toads are poisonous, they began to kill would-be predators. The toll on native species has been immense. [See whole article]
So why the rush to import alien bugs that eat knot weed? The answer is simple; in 2003 the estimate for clearing knot weed manually was £1.5bn. Now that is a lot of money and in these finally stringent times anything that appears to be cheaper is bound to get the thumbs up from government.
We will not know how this bug works, what it does when it has eaten all the knot weed or what else is affected by its release until its too late. Trials are about to begin at secret locations and time will tell whether this is an inspired idea or another environmental mistake.
A few weeks back I said that the way the US raises cattle on massive feedlots would not happen in the UK. I was wrong. There are plans for housing 8000+ dairy cattle on a US style feedlot in Lincolnshire. The cows would be fed on maize and Lucerne and produce half a million litres of milk a day.
Anybody who has seen Food Inc should be very alarmed by this news. The site of cows on gigantic feedlots is enough to make even the most hardened meat eater flinch. Cows are designed to eat grass; their digestive system does a good job of processing the green stuff in order to make the white stuff. They are NOT designed to eat corn, or maize in the UK, yet that is the major food for feedlot cows.
The problem with feeding cows unnatural food is that their guts cannot process it. In the US there has been a huge increase in cases of salmonella and Food Inc does a good job of making the link between feedlot cows and food poisoning. They say that cows fed on corn have more salmonella in their guts and that the conditions in which cows are kept makes it inevitable that it gets transferred to the food chain. (See the film for more information.)
The second main objection is animal welfare. Feedlots are concentration camps of cows. They live a miserable life and are treated like, well what they walk around in every day! (Cow pats for the sensitive.)
Another objection is that industrialising and concentrating food production like this is dangerous. Massive intensive animal factories require equally large interventions to keep disease down which means more antibiotics and more veterinary interventions.
Then there is the effect on the dairy industry which is already struggling. Cows grazing in fields have been part of the British countryside for hundreds of year. I know there is no room for sentimentality but do we really want to see an empty landscape where animals have gone and farms lie derelict?
For me the big issue is food security and there are lots of very powerful arguments for diversifying production into to smaller, geographically spread farms that are, by their very nature, more resilient. What would happen if a feedlot had a case of foot and mouth or TB? How would ‘the supply chain’ react to losing its supply in an instant?
This whole idea smacks of supermarkets trying to mop up and establish total domination over food production and distribution. Again that is not a good way to establish a more robust food system in this country.
I would urge everybody to see Food Inc and then ask do we really want to do what the Americans have done to their food supply. Then protest long and hard about this proposal. It is too late to object to the planning application but I am sure that there will be objections at the hearing!
There has been much debate on TV and elsewhere as to the ‘official’ start of spring. Some say its March 1st while others argue its March 21st. It’s all a bit academic as the soil here is too cold for sowing seed and there are still sharp frosts at night.
Gardeners should know their own gardens and be able to tell when it’s time to start sowing seeds or planting out. A useful guide is the soil temperature and this chart gives an indication of the minimum temp for germination of common veg seeds.
What often irritates me at this time of the year is the advice from gardening experts who say things like its time to plant your potatoes in the middle of February. That would have been impossible here as the garden was under several inches of snow.
There are all sorts of myths about the correct time to sow but the only real indication is the soil temp, the weather and the state of the soil. Rushing to get going on the first warm day will most likely result is failure. Wait until conditions are right and your plants will grow strongly and give a good yield.
Nobody represents the fight against the everyday use of agricultural pesticides more than Georgina Downs. It is more that 10 years since she became ill from pesticide exposure from living next to a farm in West Sussex which regularly sprays fields right up to the boundary of her parent’s home.
Georgina has battled to prove that pesticide exposure made here ill but it is now proven that the sprays were responsible. She has also lobbied long and hard to change the law about the way pesticides are applied to fields.
At first government ignored her case and argued that there was not a problem but this is one determined woman who would not give up. In 2008 she won a high court victory when a judge ruled that she had produced “solid evidence” that rural dwellers facing repeated exposure had suffered harm.” But then the chemical lobby overturned the original ruling when other judges decided that enough was being done to protect the rural population!
There is no doubt that constant exposure to pesticides is not healthy after all they are designed to kill and are not something that we should be ingesting on a regular basis. But there is very powerful lobbying at work both within agriculture and certainly from the agro chemical industry.
The message is clear; the picture postcard image of the countryside masks the realities of modern intensive farming practices. I am sure that if pollution on this scale was happening in an inner city area there would have been uproar many years ago.
Georgina Downs will not be alone there will be other people suffering from a variety of health problems from the regular use of poisons on farm land. Ii is time we stopped relying on pesticides and removed them from the food chain.
One of the main concerns about food production in the US at the moment is safety. With outbreaks of salmonella and ecoli becoming more common there have been some drastic ideas to improve food quality.
A few months back came the news that all weeds and wildlife needed to be eliminated from fields growing food to create a sterile site. Then the film Food Inc was released which suggested that the problem comes from within. Huge feedlots raising cattle in conditions that would shock most consumers were cited as one major sources of pollution of the food chain. What this all leads too is the notion that growing in soil, or dirt as the Americans call it, is no longer healthy.
There have been a string of wacky ideas for vertical farms, integrated fish and vegetable farms (where fish poo is used to feed the veg) and now theres is an assertion that the only way to go is large scale aeroponics – a hydroponic system where nutrient rich water is sprayed on the bare roots of plants.
There is no doubt that ‘aero’ works and produces spectacular growth and can it be much more sterile that soil but that misses some crucial issues. As I have said many times hydroponic systems can never be sustainable because they totally rely on artificial fertilisers. Add into that the energy required to manufacture the growing systems, build the buildings and generally run the systems and there is no way that these can be sustainable food systems.
So what is driving this insistent rush to even more industrial, factory farming? It is certainly a reaction to the dire problems faced by the US food industry (they are not alone as similar problems exist in many other ‘developed’ countries) it is also fuelled by a growing sense of unease about how we are going to feed ever expanding populations.
The main beneficiaries of a move to hydroponics have to the equipment manufacturers and, most of all, our old friends the agrochemical companies who would supply the vast amounts of fertilisers and pesticides that hydro systems would need.
Maybe the best course of action is to literally clean up US farming and get back to basics. We desperately need to start farming and growing in ways that best use the soil we have. That has to recognise that soil is, without doubt, our biggest asset and one that we ignore or degrade at our peril. And the best way to manage soil is by growing organically. It really is that simple.
There was another episode of “Jimmy’s supermarket secrets” on TV last night It was an hour long programme called “crop to shop” and involved Jimmy darting around looking at how we manage to import fresh food from half way round the world.
I can’t decide what irritates me most about this guy, whether it is his sense of naïve wonder or just his uncritical childlike enthusiasm. Both of those were very evident last night especially as he travelled across the Egyptian dessert wondering how crops could be grown in such a dry and barren place.
Jimmy got his answer when he met up with a potato grower who explained that they needed to drill for water and could only find it by going down 350m. The fact that it takes 500ltrs of water to produce 1kg of potatoes and that Egypt exported 2.6m tonnes in 2007 did not register on the Jimmy radar. I would like to have asked how long the water will last. Then there was the question of fertiliser as sand is, well, sand. The answer was that it is added to the water. Simple.
The real killer was when Jimmy learned that the seed potatoes came from Scotland and the peat used for packing was imported to Egypt from Ireland. He did eventually ask whether all this transport was really necessary just to provide us with ‘fresh’ potatoes in the middle of winter.
Then on to Kenya to see how beans are grown and harvested. Once again the childlike wonder showed through when the grower explained that only straight beans were allowed to be sent to the UK because that is what the buyers (supermarkets) wanted. Jimmy was slightly shocked that bent beans were trashed.
The final visit was to a pineapple farm in another part of Africa. The focus here was the processing plant that packed pineapple pieces and air freighted them to the UK. But Jimmy said it was all OK because regular passenger flights were used.
The whole programme was a cross between a broadcast for schools and a PR piece from supermarkets. It felt like the aim was to provide a whole heap of justification for the sheer lunacy that is the food supply chain. Why we need to airfreight tiny bits of pineapple in neat little plastic trays or have fresh potatoes in January is beyond me. Is it just because the technology is there to make it possible? Or is it because exploiting people in poorer countries is so easy? Or, dare I say it; is it to turn a profit regardless of the environmental consequences?
To be fair Jimmy did say that 40% of lorry movements were associated with food but I guess that was secondary to the awe and wonder of such clever farming and technology. It was a shame he did not spell out more of the consequences of what he saw as he could have educated us to the real costs of cheap food i.e. the Earth.
Patrick Holden, director of the Soil Association, has caused a stir by saying that we should spend more money on food than on holidays, according to The Telegraph. That is bound to be a headline grabber and bound to get a strong reaction but is he right?
Some years ago there was a statistic floating around which said that in the UK we spend 9% of income on food whereas in France it was nearer 19%. That says a lot about how food is valued. Some would argue that cheap food is almost a right but I would counter that by saying nutritious food is a right and not the useless pap that many companies sell as ‘food’.
How much we are willing to pay for meal also says a lot about what food means to us and generally we don’t value it all. In supermarkets food is sold on price and price alone, the cheapest being seen as the best. Low prices have to come from somewhere and it is the continual screwing down of farm gate prices which keeps the shop price artificially low. That benefits nobody in the long term as it leads to a precarious supply situation which easily creaks and breaks at the slightest problem.
Then there is organic food. For a long time organic has been branded by the opposition as a niche market and as high priced food for tuffs. The perception is that, at best organic is much more expensive and at worst a con which is no different to the chemical soaked alternative. Organisations like the NFU have vigorously defended conventionally produced food and have been quick to reinforce the niche market claims. What this has done if to create confusion and an air of suspicion in the minds of consumers.
The recent debates about food security have also jumped on the organic knocking bandwagon and made wild claims about links to starvation and organic farming. The argument is that we need even more intensive chemical farming combined with unproven technologies like GM. Government has joined that camp because it gives them an easy way out of a difficult and frightening problem.
What we really need is to increase food production in the UK and diversify the way food is grown. That does not mean super farms in the East of England supplying 98% of English carrots, cabbage or anything else. That is not resilient agriculture it is sheer lunacy. The prolonged drought in the East Anglia last year and the recent disruption to supplies during the cold spell have shown just how precarious our food supply really is.
Farmers need to be seen as a crucial part of society and valued for the work they do and not constantly knocked or seen as scapegoats for the bad practices of the retail sector. Agriculture and horticulture need to be sold to young people as worthwhile and engaging careers. There should be incentives for young people take on small holdings of land to grow food sustainably without chemicals. Land should be seen for what it is, an absolutely crucial part of keeping us alive and not as an investment opportunity.
What about organics? A large scale move to organic agriculture is not just desirable it is essential to produce a sustainable production system that is not totally reliant on oil. It is no use tinkering with the existing system in way that increase or perpetuates reliance on fossil fuels all that will do is delay the inevitable crisis. We must begin to move to a post oil agricultural system with more local production and distribution.
The days of cheap food have gone. We will have to pay more for food and I sincerely hope that we recover our respect for what we eat. A more nutritious diet could make a huge difference to public health of this country. The best thing is that people might even begin to enjoy good food again instead of scoffing plastic meals out of plastic trays while walking around our cities.
In the end it is not about whether organic food is just for rich toffs it is about the facing the realities of declining oil supplies, climate change and population growth. Food production has to become sustainable and just has to be less dependent on oil.
Shrimps are the most popular seafood in the US, and heavily consumered in Europe but shrimp farms have a huge environmental impact. The never ending appetite for shrimps might make it the number one in the US but most Americans do not know how their favourite is produced and neither do they have any idea of the quality of imports.
According to a report from OCA, Organic Consumers Association, shrimps imported from India are produced using an array of chemicals and when inspected were found to be contaminated with bacteria:
The shrimp pond preparation begins with urea, superphosphate, and diesel, then progresses to the use of piscicides (fish-killing chemicals like chlorine and rotenone), pesticides and antibiotics (including some that are banned in the U.S.), and ends by treating the shrimp with sodium tripolyphosphate (a suspected neurotoxicant), Borax, and occasionally caustic soda.
Upon arrival in the U.S., few if any, are inspected by the FDA, and when researchers have examined imported ready-to-eat shrimp, they found 162 separate species of bacteria with resistance to 10 different antibiotics…
This startling information comes from the book “Bottomfeeder: How to Eat Ethically in a World of Vanishing Seafood” by Taras Grescoeby.
Apart from the obvious public health concerns there is the environmental impact of shrimp farming.
…shrimp farming is credited with destroying 38 percent of the world’s mangroves, some of the most diverse and productive ecosystems on earth. Mangroves sequester vast amounts of carbon and serve as valuable buffers against hurricanes and tsunamis.
This is yet another example of the problems caused by factory farming used to satisfy the demand for a single product. That such destructive practices are exported to developing countries serves to hide the worst effects and keeps consumers in the dark.
A recent article in The Observer covered the latest food scare involves a drug used to castrate pigs.
Meat from pigs that have been “chemically castrated” could soon be on sale in Britain, with no label to warn shoppers that it contains a controversial drug.
Evidently meat from mature male pigs becomes tainted which it is said in unpallaetable for consumers. Previously pigs were manually castrated but it is time consuing operation which many UK farmers stopped doing. Then along came a drug.
Pharmaceutical giant Pfizer developed the drug, Improvac, to allow farmers to grow pigs bigger before slaughter but without them releasing the hormones that cause boar taint, a taste many consumers dislike. In much of Europe, young males are physically castrated, but in the UK the practice is rarely carried out.
The drug has been reject by the Assured Food Standards (AFS) agency for its Red Tractor symbol which is used 90% of British pig producers but the RSPCA jave said it farmers could use the drug if they convinced them it reduced agression bewteen boars. Of course the drug company says everything is fine:
Pfizer says the treatment was approved only after “rigorous” testing to ensure it could not affect consumers through the pig meat or the environment.
And some farmers are not convinced:
Tim Waygood, whose farm in Stevenage, Hertfordshire, advertises “high-welfare, ecological” food, said he objected to pigs being injected so their “balls shrivel up”, and wanted more reassurance about safety for
Another chemical quick fix for the food industry which will not be labelled so consumers have no chance to make their own decision. Of course the agro chemical companies will make money and, it seems, that is what really matters.
Cuba has long been seen as an inspiration for anybody interested in changing the way we grow and distribute food. This film shows Monty Don (ex BBC gardening presenter) getting very enthusiastic about what he finds on a visit to some organic growers. Who wouldn’t be inspired!
He is right; we could do the same here. I know we don’t have the weather or the same urgent need to grow food to avoid strvation but please let some of Monty’s enthusiasm rub off on you. Great music!
