Pesticides. The birds & the bees.

Latest Articles

Pesticides. The birds & the bees.
Page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next

Downsizer Forum Index -> Conservation and Environment

Author

Message

Rob R

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York

Posted: Mon Aug 24, 15 10:21 am Post subject:

dpack wrote:

fertilisers and pesticides are deeply connected to the production of products such as corn oil/syrup ,feeds to produce industrial meat ,dairy and eggs etc etc .

And veg oil; which is also driving industrial meat production. Targetting meat production when this stuff is still being churned out, is rather missing the point if we're looking to avoid pesticides and help the wildlife. When the bath is overflowing it's better to turn the tap off before pulling the plug out.

dpack

Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 46235
Location: yes

Posted: Mon Aug 24, 15 10:46 am Post subject:

something i have noticed is that things grown in monoculture are often troubled by pests,if there is a biodiverse environment the pests are controlled by predation.

my brambles are a good example ,there are "weeds" at the base,the aphids are controlled by the sparrow chicks,ladybirds and wasps etc etc and the many types of bees do pollination.a few years ago when the system was establishing the aphids were quite a problem and debilitated the brambles considerably but now there is a multi insect system the yield has gone up from some to lots.
if i had gone for the "no hiding place"pesticide route pollination would probably be an issue although there would be little aphid degradation.

working with nature works best,i spose it is a bit like the difference between a wooden sail boat that needs some wind ,sticks and fibres and or a metal steam boat that is nowt but scrap without a constant supply of coal and metal .the latter might be a bit faster but you cant grow a new rudder or "engine"for a steamer,long term humans need to supply themselves sustainably or the four horsemen will reduce demand until they can.

industrialisation has been about profit not about best practice and although some industrial methods are the best option they are not often the ones adopted due to the short term profit motives of a few.

Rob R

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York

Posted: Mon Aug 24, 15 11:20 am Post subject:
I'm inclined to say that we should take the focus entirely off what we are producing and instead focus on how we are producing it - square pegs and round holes spring to mind, in many cases.

dpack

Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 46235
Location: yes

Posted: Mon Aug 24, 15 11:53 am Post subject:

spot on ,tis the means that is the problem rather than the product or even the volume

i see no reason that the amount produced would reduce if sustainable means was normal,perhaps yields would actually rise with sensible methods and it is possible costs may also reduce,

it might require some adjustments to breeds ,selective breeding etc as well as some changes of land use but the best of traditional with the best of modern practice could be very sensible.

i think the basic equation of sustainable is

sunlight+environment>good methods>environment +food
where good methods maintain the environment in a productive condition

Tavascarow

Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 8407
Location: South Cornwall

Posted: Mon Aug 24, 15 2:44 pm Post subject:

Rob R wrote:

I'm inclined to say that we should take the focus entirely off what we are producing and instead focus on how we are producing it - square pegs and round holes spring to mind, in many cases.

But how?
My personal choice would be heavy taxation on all forms of environmental destruction, in all industries.
But our world is heading in completely the opposite direction.
TTIP will allow American multinationals & their subsidiaries to sue governments that get in their way.
That includes environmental protection legislation.
Our current government have already put a for sale sign up before that trade agreement is signed.
As far as I can see nowhere in Britain is safe.

Rob R

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York

Posted: Mon Aug 24, 15 4:48 pm Post subject:

Tavascarow wrote:

Rob R wrote:

I'm inclined to say that we should take the focus entirely off what we are producing and instead focus on how we are producing it - square pegs and round holes spring to mind, in many cases.

It's a difficult one, because it's not just governments that need convincing, so many NGOs are hung up on the idea that simply ditching the meat will make everything alright.

There's plenty of talk of positive feedback for organics & small scale, sustainable farming but I think a lot of that is pulling the wool over everyone's eyes to make it sound better. I think the biggest changes for more sustainable production is coming largely from within the industry with regards to pesticides and fertilisers. Plenty of farmers are cutting back for both financial reasons & plenty more are interested in conservation, but finding a way to reward that is difficult unless they go full blown organic.

Ultimately though financial incentives are the only way to go, whilst maintaining the pressure politically. People need and want to make money so if 'good' is lucrative then it's all good.

The main issue is that the public as a whole find conservation as dull as ditchwater, you can see that from our facebook interactions. Those that do engage with our wildlife posts, largely, eat very little or no meat at all - the more health concious people are the ones that eat a lot of our produce. There are plenty of people trying to think of a way to tackle this issue (the non-financial benefits of farming) even in the NFU, who I was talking to about such things this morning, but it's a tough one.

Many people in conservation see Tories and the NFU as 'enemies', and I don't think that helps either - pushing your opponents out onto the fringes only makes them more opposite. This is a problem for us all, no matter who we are, and we need more inclusive dialogue.

dpack

Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 46235
Location: yes

Posted: Mon Aug 24, 15 8:51 pm Post subject:

do i remember a recent news article about the "new dust bowl" and gm pest/herbicide use in the corn and wheat lands of the usa and that the economic survivors were returning to low artificial fertiliser,low pesticides had actually increased yields as well as profits a couple of years after conversion?
the high input /gm with dedicated chems way was becoming less and less effective so they are now doing it like grandad did.(perhaps with bigger machines than grandad)

Rob R

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York

Posted: Mon Aug 24, 15 11:19 pm Post subject:

dpack wrote:

I don't think this is the one you meant, but it's interesting none-the-less, and they're not falling for the old 'just blame it on the cow'.

dpack

Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 46235
Location: yes

Posted: Tue Aug 25, 15 12:22 am Post subject:
roughly the same area,same drought and soil degradation but arable specific.i will have a look for it ,iirc it was a abandoning monsanto gm themed article but it was the going back to granpappy's ways of managing the soil and the crop will look after itself aspect that caught my attention.

Mistress Rose

Joined: 21 Jul 2011
Posts: 15985

Posted: Tue Aug 25, 15 7:04 am Post subject:

An interesting article. There was a programme I saw on TV that was about moving cattle from one enclosure to another that made the best use of the grass too. I think that was from a fairly dry region, but not as dry as that. They were able to keep the grass cover because the cows were moved after only a short period on the land, which gave the grass the chance to recover and not be worn or grazed out.

Rob R

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York

Posted: Tue Aug 25, 15 10:55 am Post subject:

Mistress Rose wrote:

Yes, it works equally well in wetlands too and is exactly what we do here.

Mistress Rose

Joined: 21 Jul 2011
Posts: 15985

Posted: Wed Aug 26, 15 6:18 am Post subject:

From your pictures of your grazed land it looks as if it works well Rob. Round here we have quite a lot of downland grass on the top of the hills and land suitable for arable in the valleys. Traditionally this was sheep country with the crops in the valleys. We still have some lynchets, some of which are being ploughed out slowly, but although the soil is light, it seems to produce reasonable crops.

dpack

Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 46235
Location: yes

Posted: Fri Aug 28, 15 12:03 am Post subject:

on the subject of grazing wetlands cliftons ings got a decent "haircut"rather than "plough with a mower" this year and has had about 50 head loose grazing 70 acres since july.

it looks better already and although it will take a while for full diversity and the floral balance to recover it seems my rather robust advice has landed on fertile ground

next job is to persuade em to strip graze it to further improve floral diversity and give the small critters a chance.

Rob R

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York

Posted: Fri Aug 28, 15 12:17 am Post subject:
With suckler cow numbers now at their lowest levels since the 1980's, it's little wonder that we're struggling to get the land grazed - my experince seems to mirror the national state of affairs.

Tavascarow

Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 8407
Location: South Cornwall

Posted: Fri Aug 28, 15 9:00 am Post subject:

But increasing suckler herds wont address the issue without limiting pesticide use & as I pointed out earlier although pastural systems might not use as many pesticides they still use enough (+ fertilizer) to make much of the pasture in the land environmental deserts.
We need a system that allows (& encourages) the consumer to see the difference.
We need support for those that do farm 'naturally'.
& we need to make non environmentally friendly methods of farming less cost effective.
Saying we need more suckler beef is just painting over the cracks.

	Downsizer Forum Index -> Conservation and Environment	All times are GMT Page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next
Page 7 of 10

View Latest Posts