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

Tavascarow

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

Posted: Tue Aug 18, 15 10:07 am Post subject:

Mistress Rose wrote:

Am I wrong in thinking that what both of you are saying is that we should be growing on each farm what it will produce best without added input in terms of fertiliser and bought in feed?

The ideal in a mixed farm is to use the animal dung as the only fertiliser and to feed the excess grain/oil seed to the animals. Not always possible, but can be with some pooling of resources between farms. I know the farm I buy my meat from doesn't use his own feed in the winter, but he grows grain and sometimes flax, so overall, I wouldn't think he is a net taker of feed.

The cows round here miss the old brewery. The used to get the spent hops, and rumour had it that they queued up for them.

The ideal for me is a sustainable system less reliant on man made inputs & poisons with a carbon footprint that is declining not increasing.
I'm talking as the industry as a whole when I say that.
Using edible waste from a neighbours brewing is far preferable to importing grain from America & yes local farms pooling resources & machinery is good for the planet & the farmers margins (if not for the machinery manufacturer & the finance company).

Rob R wrote:

You seem to be using a lot of adjectives to avoid facing the figures. I don't think we will address this if you can't do that. For the model you proposed to work, the figures need to show that it is viable.

We had fertiliser applied to the farm in 2002, before we moved here, and we had to pay for it. We worked out that the added bulk barely covered the fert bill and the crop was poorer as a result of challenging weather conditions. So yes, I do agree that farmers need to stop producing more than we need and force some prices up by restricting supply but you said that we were consuming too much - if consumption also drops then the price will fall further.

Small farms are productive places, as the UN agrees, and can produce a lot of food, but that food is only useful to the equation if people will eat it. Constantly encouraging them not to consume the food we can produce sustainably is damaging the environment as well as the viability of sustainable farming.

Rob I notice you haven't said anything about my comment regarding organic registration?
I think it's a valid point. As I said earlier on the surface & certainly from a more ignorant consumers point of view your system & my neighbours aren't very different. Raising beef in a suckler herd on grass & conserved silage/hay is one thing, but his use of excess fertilizer & pesticides is very different & we as consumers, & you as an ethical producer need a recognised method to easily know the difference.
& in that report the UN said small, mixed organic farms are the answer IIRC.

I think the industry as a whole (not just the farmers) has for sometime been very good at promoting itself without telling the whole truth about the actual cost of production & damage to the environment.
I think farmers are struggling, but at the same time not adapting, but expecting the consumers to buy regardless.
Add to that a retail system that drives costs & profit margins down so only the largest most intensive systems survive because on such low profit margins mass production is the only answer.
I have sympathy but at the same time I wont support a system any more than I have to that's playing a large part in the destruction of the nature I hold very dear.
There aren't any figures there but thems the facts as I see them.

Rob R

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York

Posted: Tue Aug 18, 15 11:05 am Post subject:

Tavascarow wrote:

Rob R wrote:

You specifically stated the following;

Quote:

I would prefer your meat to be a luxury item, & command a similar price. So we don't have to over consume to keep you in business & you & those like you don't overproduce.

I am just trying to establish what it is that you mean by that, and what sort of prices and production figures we are talking about?

As regards organic registration, I don't think that is what the UN mean when they say 'small, mixed organic farms', as organic registration only comes into it's own in to the long supply chains that we have in the west. If we are also supplying our local community, as is also the crux of the UN report, registration becomes superfluous.

I asked about organic registration again a couple of weeks ago, as it would be a lot easier to have that label for what we do in any case but the problem with that it that, although I can graze non-organic cattle on organic land for 120 days per year, I can't graze organic cattle on non-organic land, therefore every area of grazing would have to go through organic conversion for the three-year period, even if it were SSSI land that has been continually managed organically. Organics is perfect for the larger farms that own or FBT all their land in a ring fence, but is impossible for new start-ups such as mine that don't have a single large land asset. I could convert our 37 acres here no problem, but, even with organics, I couldn't charge enough of a premium to make it viable on that scale.

The clincher, for my own ethics, however, is animal welfare. To be an organic farm we would have to use an organic abattoir. Our nearest organic abattoir that does cattle is 13 miles away, but doesn't do private kills. The nearest that does, and also does pigs, cattle and sheep, is 56 miles away. So, my animals would be travelling an extra 56 miles to slaughter, 112 round trip, which would need to be done at least twice, three times if they have an overnight lairage (which I also prefer for welfare & meat quality reasons), so that's 336 extra miles.

For that to work, both from an environmental or cost point of view, I would need to take my yearly output all at once. Aside from the labour requirements, and the fact that I'd need a huge chiller that runs once a year, people simply don't shop like that - small and local works a lot better than organic, particularly if customers are informed and can visit the farm to see for themselves.

I think you are totally wrong about farmers struggling & expecting consumers to buy regardless. Certainly there are some like that, particularly as the farming population ages, but there are also plenty out there who are looking to be more environmentally and cost aware.

The problem for us all is that the demand from the public simply isn't there, in sufficient quantity, to justify it. If farmers are going more environmentally friendly they are doing it off their own backs, or to be more cost effective, not because of a public crying out for their produce.

ETA - In fact there is too much competition in the ethical market with more producers than consumers, which is partly why I think that we need to be eating more, not less, of this produce if we are to have a hope of encouraging more farmers to change.

Tavascarow

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

Posted: Tue Aug 18, 15 1:47 pm Post subject:

I appreciate your situation as a tenant farmer with regards to organic registration.
I imagine if your landlord registered his land, he would want the premium so it wouldn't benefit you in any way, no doubt he would charge you more in rent.
Maybe the taxation system should be more environmentally skewed so he gets tax breaks if his land is registered & you pocket the premium.
Also taxation of environmentally damaging systems should be a given IMHO now we know how much damage they actually do.
I don't know how we get people to eat less & farmers to produce less.
As you have said demand & prices are high & as long as that's the case farmers will continue to produce.
If we could encourage them into alternative crops so less meat was produced, & by ethical farmers like yourself on environmentally sensitive lands that require grazing.
But it's all hypothesis.
If I had my way I would tax the pesticide companies out of business to the same extent as tobacco is, & force TV to show people exactly how their food is produced & how much damage it causes, instead of the halcyon rose tinted version the NFU like to paint.

Rob R

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York

Posted: Tue Aug 18, 15 2:16 pm Post subject:

If it was a case of 'a' landlord, there wouldn't be as much of a problem, as things would be simpler, but the registration bodies aren't keen on registering short term lets and many different landlords. It also isn't in the interests of the landowners to register land if they don't have the security - I could be out of business by next year.

However, none of that addresses the fact that the abattoir is 56 miles away. I guess I could persuade the local abattoir to register as organic, but again it relies upon more people eating the produce, as they're not going to go to the expense & hassle of registering for my handful of animals a year.

Rob R

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York

Posted: Tue Aug 18, 15 3:19 pm Post subject:
As I always say, soundbites offering a simple solution to a complex problem are doing more harm than good.

Rob R

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York

Posted: Tue Aug 18, 15 8:44 pm Post subject:

Mistress Rose wrote:

Am I wrong in thinking that what both of you are saying is that we should be growing on each farm what it will produce best without added input in terms of fertiliser and bought in feed?

That's certainly my aim, with the addition of no pesticides. Providing it is also practical to do so, of course. There seems to be an idea going round that you can have a small, diversified farm, but as those who have tried it will testify, it is incredibly labour intensive so, in reality, the ends don't justify the means.

Specialisation happened for good reason. We could go back to the ways of the past, providing we could find the labour force, but it would mean going back to paying a greater proportion of our incomes on food, and having less choice, just like it used to be. And of course the paying public would have to actively support it to make it happen.

Tavascarow

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

Posted: Tue Aug 18, 15 11:01 pm Post subject:

Rob R wrote:

Specialisation happened for good reason. We could go back to the ways of the past, providing we could find the labour force, but it would mean going back to paying a greater proportion of our incomes on food, and having less choice, just like it used to be. And of course the paying public would have to actively support it to make it happen.

There we agree but I don't have the answers any more than you do. The proportion of income that was once spent on food is now being paid in interest to banks & building societies.
Our society has been hijacked by the finance industry.
(I would like it known that that statement was typed with little correction after seven pints of the best Cornish (ah Cornwall i love you) bitter). Specialisation doesn't have to happen for good reason. It can happen for bad as well.

Rob R

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York

Posted: Tue Aug 18, 15 11:59 pm Post subject:

Tavascarow wrote:

Rob R wrote:

There we agree but I don't have the answers any more than you do.

No, but we have the figures, which show that meat & dairy combined, as a proportion of overall world diet, is the same whereas fruit & veg has risen by 4% (or if you look at the UK, -9% & +8% respectively), yet you seem happy to lay the blame for poor health on even the 'healthy' meat (that I suspect, but the figures don't show, has decreased as a proportion of the total).

Tavascarow wrote:

The proportion of income that was once spent on food is now being paid in interest to banks & building societies.
Our society has been hijacked by the finance industry.
(I would like it known that that statement was typed with little correction after seven pints of the best Cornish (ah Cornwall i love you) bitter). Specialisation doesn't have to happen for good reason. It can happen for bad as well.

Perhaps I should therefore conclude that the finance industry is having a positive effect, and the binge drinking culture, a negative one.

Mistress Rose

Joined: 21 Jul 2011
Posts: 15656

Posted: Wed Aug 19, 15 6:30 am Post subject:

I don't really think too much of schemes like the organic ones, and others that make you jump through lots of hoops at great expense, and pay them a fee to register. You are probably a lot better off doing what you are doing Rob, and your animals are better off too. What on earth is the difference between an 'organic' and 'non-organic' abattoir'. They are killing the animals not feeding them for a long time.

Tavascarow, are you advocating eating less meat, or less food of any sort? I know we tend to eat perhaps a few more calories than a strictly necessary, but we do need food. Housing and utility costs have replaced food as the main expenditure for most people, and if both partners are working, leaves less time to cook and eat decent food.

Rob R

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York

Posted: Sat Aug 22, 15 11:41 pm Post subject:

Mistress Rose wrote:

Here is what the Soil Association have to say on the matter;

Quote:

Concern for the welfare of animals is central to our organic principles. This applies throughout the animal's life including slaughter. Our standards require that animals are taken to an abattoir that holds an organic license. Slaughter systems must be designed and managed to ensure livestock are not caused unnecessary distress. They must operate in a way that avoids contamination of organic and non organic meat.

Our licensees are inspected annually to ensure that they are complying with our standards. They are also subject to spot inspections without advanced warning. If the abattoir is also killing non organic animals, we require that a Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) inspector or other nominated authority checks animal welfare and correct identification.

I wouldn't use an abattoir if I wasn't confident of all the above soI guess, once again, it is more about the paper trail than the actual process.

Mistress Rose

Joined: 21 Jul 2011
Posts: 15656

Posted: Sun Aug 23, 15 8:32 am Post subject:

I am sure a lot of farmers are the same Rob. Being happy yourself about the abattoir is more important than bits of paper. This is why I am not keen on a lot of 'schemes' like that of the Soil Association, worthy as they might be, that involve the holder of the certificate paying out money. Others who don't want the hassle or can't or don't want to pay out the certificate may be just as good, if not better.

Tavascarow

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

Posted: Sun Aug 23, 15 8:36 am Post subject:

Unfortunately yes.
Accountability is very important. Any farmer can say his food is wholesome & environmentally friendly. (a lot do).
That accountability costs money to administer.
& the organic sector receives very little money from the state.
So the producer has to foot the bill.
I was reading an article a few days ago that claimed the Duchy of Cornwall, & Dukes of Bedfordshire & Westminster receive between them over two million pounds in agricultural subsidies.
That is (I guess) a lot less than the soil association spend on administration of its organic standards.
I'm not attacking the landed gentry, there are plenty of untitled farmers receiving vast subsidies as well who can afford to do without them.
If we are serious about protecting the environment then we need to divert funds from destructive forms of agriculture to those that aren't.

Mistress Rose

Joined: 21 Jul 2011
Posts: 15656

Posted: Sun Aug 23, 15 8:55 am Post subject:

I would agree we need to move to non-destructive agriculture Tavascarow, but we as a company in the related forestry sector could pay out lots of money to various schemes to 'prove' that we were doing our work correctly. Some of them might be worth while, but others are really just a way of an organisation limiting us while wasting valuable materials and getting money out of us. I am thinking of a scheme that at one time insisted that all firewood was from straight wood (no forks, defects etc.), had to be within 10% of the stated length (+or -) and we had to say what percentage of each timber we were using, then pay a fixed amount plus so much a tonne delivered.

The way we do it is to cut all the timber we have available that will make suitable logs for burning, minimum 4" diameter, split as necessary, with a maximum length as stated by the customer. We tell them what the majority timbers are and what others they may find in there. If they ask for no birch for instance, or more oak, we try to accommodate this, but we don't give a separate paper with all the percentages on. Over length may mean that the log won't fit in the fire, but underlength doesn't matter two hoots.

We try to give a personal service to our customers. Occasionally we fail, and some go round to different firewood producers each year, but we have some very long term customers, so we must be doing something right.

Tavascarow

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

Posted: Sun Aug 23, 15 9:04 am Post subject:

Rob R wrote:

Where have those figures come from? & over what timescale?

Here's another UN paper that disputes that.

Quote:

Livestock, a major factor in the growth of world agriculture. The world food economy is being increasingly driven by the shift of diets and food consumption patterns towards livestock products. Some use the term«food revolution» to refer to these trends (Delgado et al., 1999). In the developing countries, where almost all world population increases take place, consumption of meat has been growing at 5-6 percent p.a. and that of milk and dairy products at 3.4-3.8 percent p.a. in the last few decades. Aggregate agricultural output is being affected by these trends, not only through the growth of livestock production proper, but also through the linkages of livestock production to the crop sector which supplies the feeding stuffs (mainly cereals and oilseeds), and benefits from the important crop-livestock synergies prevailing in mixed farming systems (de Haan et al., 1998).

Ty Gwyn

Joined: 22 Sep 2010
Posts: 4567
Location: Lampeter

Posted: Sun Aug 23, 15 9:36 am Post subject:
In the developing countries, where almost all world population increases take place, consumption of meat has been growing at 5-6 percent p.a. and that of milk and dairy products at 3.4-3.8 percent p.a. in the last few decades. What has that got to do with UK consumption of meat and dairy?

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

View Latest Posts