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

dpack

Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 46235
Location: yes

Posted: Sat Aug 29, 15 12:40 pm Post subject:
do i correctly remember a study in the usa a while back that tested human milk for pesticide residues and much of it failed to meet the standards required for cow milk? india in this one but it was a similar picture in the states iirc

Rob R

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York

Posted: Sat Aug 29, 15 2:17 pm Post subject:

Tavascarow wrote:

Rob R wrote:

And at the end of the day, you can tell lies but the birds and the bees are pretty hard to fake!

Be honest. Within twenty miles of you how many other farmers are using no pesticides? minimal fertilizer?

Honestly? I have absolutely no idea, what I do know is that, 20 years ago when I started, other local farmers thought I was crackers not to be using fert & not to use a sprayer. These days it is a lot more accepted and they are looking to cut down a lot more than they once were, especially as they're losing efficacy & costing more.

I'm not sure what you're suggesting by asking me that, though? It reads like you're saying that wildlife in this area is somehow bucking the trend of severe decline (as you have in your area) despite the excessive use of pesticides.

Personally I think it's more likely that we have the ings & heathland close by which are protected, and the agri environment scheme help to create wildlife corridors - I certainly don't think it's all down to my efforts, but the demand for my animals to graze these habitats is a clear sign that my methods are valued by farmers and land managers. We also have a lot of shoots nearby who maintain game cover and woodlands.

Tavascarow wrote:

As you say 'the birds & the bees don't lie' they just die.
The state of the nations farmland is proof enough that what we have doesn't work.
If you want the last word then fine.

It's not about having the last word, I'm just perplexed as to why you are so, not critical, but certainly hostile towards someone who is doing exactly as you seem to want.

Tavascarow wrote:

But IMHO the consumer doesn't have time to drive to yours to check you are what you say & buy their meat, then drive god knows how far to another farm with equal environmental credentials to buy their dairy & again somewhere else for their fruit & veg.
They don't have the option & of those few that do, only a fraction will have heard of Rob & his fantastic beef.

Why do they need to drive to me? I can deliver to most places in the country, including work places, all at the click of a few buttons. Logistics make it possible for supermarkets to move food over thousands of miles, so why should they make it impossible for small producers?

Tavascarow wrote:

But they have all heard of Tesco, Asda, Morrisons, Aldi, Lidl, M&S, Waitrose, CoOp. (Have I missed any?).
You are a drop in the ocean & your naivety that big business doesn't pull the strings in these matters & its all the shoppers fault leaves me wondering sometimes.

Well thank you for your condescending tone, I'd be offended if you weren't completely wrong. I know exactly what my scale is and how big business influence things and I've never said that it's "all the shoppers fault". I do, however, maintain that shoppers have the power to change it, if they wish. If either of us is under the spell of big business I would say that it is you - you seem determined to crush the opposition, rather than work together. I sign the petitions, I talk to my MP, I talk to the NFU, I engage in the political side of things; that doesn't detract from my stance in any way, shape or form - you seem determined to suggest that it does.

Tavascarow wrote:

Maybe if we could develop the farmers market so it was there 24/7 like Tesco.
But when Mr & Mrs consumer finishes work the farmers market has closed & it's only in town once a week/fortnight/month.
& all a farmers market is is local produce, there's little there that's not damaging the environment in the same way as the produce in the supermarket.
Labelling of food with it's environmental credentials & promoting why is a way forward for all consumers, not just those that have the time.

www. - I bet more people today spend more time on the internet than they do inspecting labels in the shops.

Tavascarow wrote:

The only people doing that at the moment are the organic & biodynamic movements.
The mainstream despite what you say, are still trying to discredit them. (as you are, even though you admit to considering joining).
With campaigns & media coverage like the one a few years ago saying organic food is no more healthy than non organic.

Bollocks. I am honest about what is & isn't happening. I don't try to pretend that everyone who isn't organic is evil & everyone who is is a saint. Show me where I'm 'trying to discredit' organics.

Tavascarow wrote:

Conveniently ignoring the damage it does to the environment. & what pesticide residues might be doing to human health.
From where I'm standing the NFU appear to be speaking more for the agrochem industry than the tens of thousands of small farms they should be looking after.

The NFU is an organisation run by farmers and funded by farmers subscriptions based upon their acreage. Of course they represent the majority view of their members, but you seem to be suggesting that they should represent non-members too, which I would love, but I don't expect them to any more than I expect the Soil Assocation to do the same. In my ideal world the small farmers would be more prosperous and have more time for organisations such as the NFU. That said. the NFU currently has in the region of 2000 organic members, 53% of the organic farmers in the UK. With 55,000 members in total, that represents about 36% of the current number of full time farmers in the UK (35% if you deduct the organic farmers from the totals), so there are more organic farmers in the NFU than out of it and a greater proportion of them than non-organic farmers.

Tavascarow wrote:

The only way around this, that I can see is major taxation of damaging systems & grant aid for those like yourself that aren't damaging but encouraging biodiversity.
Add to that food labelling that states pesticides in the same way it states E numbers currently, & I'll be a happy bunny.
A major pipe dream.

Well lets stop being divisive and work towards the common goal.

There's no two ways about it, listing the ingredients means greater segregation within the supply chain. I would say that the only way to do this practically is to make supply chains shorter.

Tavascarow

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

Posted: Sat Aug 29, 15 2:41 pm Post subject:

Shoppers can only change things if they are given the facts.
If you go to the supermarket all you get is a tractor logo to say its British.
There's nothing saying how many pesticides have been used bar an organic logo.
I can't help but equate what I'm trying to get through to you to the battle that's ongoing in the States with GMO labelling.
If you don't know, how can you differentiate?
I know people don't have to come to your door to buy from you, but they do to check the validity of your system. & I'm not saying you're dishonest.
I've known you long enough to know your integrity & knowledge on the subject, but most prospective customers haven't.
But it's easy to set up a website with some fine words & pictures.
& there are plenty of farmers out there not as honest, & TBH the whole industry has been pulling the wool over most peoples eyes for a long time anyway.
By whole I mean retail sector as well as producers.
Pretty pictures of farmers wives feeding the chickens in the yard when they come from caged birds springs to mind.
Bacon & pork labelled 'Outdoor reared' that are only outdoor for the first few weeks of their lives then fattened as intensively as the value range in meat factories.
Consumers are being conned all over the place & we need honesty & integrity throughout the agricultural & food retail industry.
I'm not saying 'Organic' is the answer but we need something similar so consumers have the choice.
At the moment the only choice if you care about the environment & a part of the 99.9% who can't visit the farm is an organic label.
I know that's open to abuse as well but it's less likely.

Rob R

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York

Posted: Sat Aug 29, 15 3:10 pm Post subject:

Tavascarow wrote:

Well we do have an organic label in the supermarkets.

However, you haven't said where I have discredited organics.

Tavascarow wrote:

I know people don't have to come to your door to buy from you, but they do to check the validity of your system. & I'm not saying you're dishonest.
I've known you long enough to know your integrity & knowledge on the subject, but most prospective customers haven't.
But it's easy to set up a website with some fine words & pictures.
& there are plenty of farmers out there not as honest, & TBH the whole industry has been pulling the wool over most peoples eyes for a long time anyway.
By whole I mean retail sector as well as producers.
Pretty pictures of farmers wives feeding the chickens in the yard when they come from caged birds springs to mind.
Bacon & pork labelled 'Outdoor reared' that are only outdoor for the first few weeks of their lives then fattened as intensively as the value range in meat factories.
Consumers are being conned all over the place & we need honesty & integrity throughout the agricultural & food retail industry.
I'm not saying 'Organic' is the answer but we need something similar so consumers have the choice.
At the moment the only choice if you care about the environment & a part of the 99.9% who can't visit the farm is an organic label.
I know that's open to abuse as well but it's less likely.

1. 99.9% of people can visit the farm, if they want to. The trouble is that they don't.

2. Outdoor reared means they spend about half their lives outdoor. What you described is outdoor bred. There are a range of systems and it's not difficult to google a phrase such as 'outdoor reared' and find out exactly what it means, from any supermarket aisle.

3. I wish it were as simple as just being honest, it really isn't. Marketing, even of organic produce is nothing to do with honesty, it's about reinforcing an image. eg the organic label doesn't point out that animals may have to travel further to slaughter.

Mistress Rose

Joined: 21 Jul 2011
Posts: 15985

Posted: Sun Aug 30, 15 7:14 am Post subject:

Tavascarow, I am perhaps more hostile to the organic label than Rob. For instance, it is not really possible to get an organic label for British honey, so most comes from other countries where there standards of everything else, including labelling, may not be as high as ours. FSC is another good example which is along the same lines. British timber is rigorously controlled by the Forestry Commission, so even if very few small producers can use this or the British equivalent, there is no destruction of forest to produce the timber. It can look pretty devastated when a plantation is either heavily thinned or felled, but unless the ground is being returned to a more valuable habitat such as lowland heath for ecological reasons, replanting or natural regeneration is required to ensure the continuation of the woodland.

Yes, in an ideal world we would be told what pesticides etc. were used in the production of the food, but as we are still battling for proper source labelling, I can't see it happening soon. Do most people read the labels anyway? Do they just dump organic asparagus in their trolley now without realising that it must come from a long distance with lots of polluting air miles as the British asparagus is over?

Tavascarow

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

Posted: Sun Aug 30, 15 9:52 am Post subject:

dpack wrote:

do i correctly remember a study in the usa a while back that tested human milk for pesticide residues and much of it failed to meet the standards required for cow milk?

india in this one but it was a similar picture in the states iirc

I've heard of a study in New York city that found glyphosate in urine samples. & I've also read that glyphosate is being found in rain water precipitation so I wouldn't be surprised.
Are you roundup ready?

As someone said on facebook only yesterday, & in a few words summed up what I've been trying to say over many pages.
(I paraphrase from memory)

Quote:

'I want my organic carrots to be just carrots & the other carrots to be called chemical carrots'.

We need a whole lot more transparency & the polluters to pay for the damage done. Not the non polluters paying for damage they don't do, as at present. With modern technology there is no real reason every chemical used on a product can't be traced back to source & added on labelling just like E numbers.
Then product from farmers like Rob would command a justifiable premium & environmentally concious consumers could differentiate.

Ty Gwyn

Joined: 22 Sep 2010
Posts: 4613
Location: Lampeter

Posted: Sun Aug 30, 15 10:31 am Post subject:

Your looking for utopia Tav,

If all these chemicals were banned tomorrow and all veg production went organic,like it was in our Father`s day,all farms planting veg for the War Effort ,we`d have to import a lot more than we do now to feed the population that cannot afford organic prices,let alone the vast increase in population from then bye gone years.

I also have never used chemicals,on a 4 acre field that only had a few docks ,which i control on the farm by pulling and burning,i ploughed and planted stubble turnips for the Tir Gofal scheme i was in,the following year after the turnips were eaten,i had a forest of docks and Scottish thistles which i dug out with a fork,i filled a 3ton tipping trailer heaped,and 2 transport boxes with the livestock cage full,and burned the lot when dried,as you see,i`m a gluton for punishment,lol.
After that i bought a can of round-up in case the buggers came back as i could`nt put weight on my right foot for weeks from all that banging the fork into the ground,i still have the can,and do not intend ploughing that field again,lol.

Rob R

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York

Posted: Sun Aug 30, 15 10:31 am Post subject:
I agree, that would be the ideal (and we should continue with pressure in that direction), just as everyone cutting out intensively farmed meat and moving over to pasture-based/by-product only meat would be ideal, but in the meantime we have to deal with the situation we've got.

Tavascarow

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

Posted: Sun Aug 30, 15 1:42 pm Post subject:

Ty Gwyn wrote:

I've done a bit of dock digging over the years but never had to fill a three ton trailer.
I empathise.

Is it a Utopian daydream to want to live in a safe environment?
I would think that should be a basic human right.
I don't think banning anything works anymore.
We have just had a two year EU neonic ban & all that's happened is the agrochem industry have just released a new pesticide, similar to neonics, that from what I've read even has effects on mammalian life.
It's been approved for use by the EU.
All I ask for is transparency so those of us that do care can avoid the damaging & encourage the nurturing.

Something I have thought of that never occurred to me before is by buying registered 'organic' produce I'm also making a statement that will get noticed.
Despite all the industry induced anti organic propaganda in the press in recent years sales keep rising.
Because big food retail monitors the pound we spend they know how much is spent in which sectors.
& they publish those figures.
Rob has admitted he doesn't know how many of his near neighbours are as environmentally conscious as him. But a post code & a quick google will tell me how many organic registered farmers & growers there are in any area.

Mistress Rose wrote:

I know nothing about commercial forestry so have removed those parts of your post.
A lot of beekeepers, especially 'natural' ones & myself included have made the same conclusions.
But a bee is a free flying organism so unless you know all the land it forages over is organic there is no way of calling the honey organic, regardless of what practices the beekeeper follows.
My environment is fairly bee friendly but as I've said in this thread I have a neighbour who uses selective herbicide & as I haven't said another who grows forage maize which no doubt has seed treatments & copious fertilizer added.
There are very few places in the UK where it's possible to keep bees in an environment free from those effects.
On the other hand there are parts of the world like the forests of Queensland & Tasmania where there wont be anything but natural nectar bearing forest for thousands of square miles.
IMHO it's not the fault of the organic movement if the environment is contaminated.

Rob R

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York

Posted: Sun Aug 30, 15 1:48 pm Post subject:
We have a field that suffers with a few docks - turned the sheep in there last week and they devoured them first. Kerry's might be pain to keep in, but they're fantastic grazings animals.

Rob R

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York

Posted: Sun Aug 30, 15 1:52 pm Post subject:

Tavascarow wrote:

Rob has admitted he doesn't know how many of his near neighbours are as environmentally conscious as him. But a post code & a quick google will tell me how many organic registered farmers & growers there are in any area.

That's why I wanted to register the land as organic, as I knew I wouldn't be able to sell the produce as organic without the added transport, so I was just hoping to do it to make that distinction. It's such a shame that it's an all-or-nothing system and there's nothing covering pesticides in their own right. United we could send a much stronger message.

Rob R

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York

Posted: Sun Aug 30, 15 2:41 pm Post subject:
That said, getting back to the subject of the birds and the bees - the association with organic registered farms is all implied, I'd much rather we judge farms on what they actually have, in terms of biodiversity.

Tavascarow

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

Posted: Sun Aug 30, 15 5:36 pm Post subject:

Rob R wrote:

That said, getting back to the subject of the birds and the bees - the association with organic registered farms is all implied, I'd much rather we judge farms on what they actually *have*, in terms of biodiversity.

I agree to a certain extent.
We want small mixed 'organic' farms not large 'organic' monocultures & livestock ranches.
By their very nature rotation of crops & fallow is essential to maintain fertility which increases biodiversity. Likewise not using pesticides & encouraging beneficial organisms to help combat pests & diseases also. But at the moment organic tends to be either intensive small scale horticulture or big specialized farmers/landowners converting, & not a lot in between.
It would be nice to see a way smaller units could register & still compete economically.
But IMHO it's also important standards aren't lowered any more than they already have been.

Rob R

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York

Posted: Mon Aug 31, 15 8:47 am Post subject:
Small to medium sized farms often have complex structures that the certification odies don't seem to favour. It's not so much a watering down of standards as recognition of real life limitations. Farms being self-contained units in a ring fence are a thing of the past, unless you have significant capital. Organic needs to be traditional, but at the same time is in need of some modernisation.

Tavascarow

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

Posted: Mon Aug 31, 15 11:01 am Post subject:

It's difficult.
& I fully appreciate your situation.
& you are right the standards are skewed towards landowners & tenants with very long leases.
Have you spoken to any of the organic registration bodies face to face.
I'm wondering if they can make exceptions for land that's obviously been marginal & environmentally sensitive.
I'm sure I've read that they can reduce the conversion period for obviously unspoiled, untreated land. Maybe they should extend that further for SSSI areas that require grazing.
Is any of the land you graze owned or managed by your local wildlife trust?
Wondering if that organisation could help apply some pressure.
I'm just brainstorming but if the wildlife trusts being charities could get a much reduced rate for conversion of their grazing & you & your home farm paid the conventional amount.
Like I said I'm only brainstorming & have no contacts that might be able to help.
My association with organic registration is as a consumer.
I did consider registration many years ago for my smallholding but the fees where prohibitive for such a small acreage.

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

View Latest Posts