It seems that the battles go on in other places!
*****
http://www.independent.co.uk/environmen ... 18585.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/environmen ... 22763.html
*****
Two very interesting articles. I would be interested to know how contributors think. My thoughts are probably predictable you might think. Lets find out!
JB.
Two Interesting Articles
Moderators: KG Steve, Chantal, Tigger, peter, Chief Spud
-
alan refail
- KG Regular
- Posts: 7254
- Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 7:00 am
- Location: Chwilog Gogledd Orllewin Cymru Northwest Wales
- Been thanked: 7 times
Johnboy
Thanks for the links.
However, since both articles contain little more than unsubstantiated statements, I prefer to let them battle it out.
I'm sure if we did have access to all the research on one side or another, we'd be none the wiser - just a lot older
Alan
Thanks for the links.
However, since both articles contain little more than unsubstantiated statements, I prefer to let them battle it out.
I'm sure if we did have access to all the research on one side or another, we'd be none the wiser - just a lot older
Alan
Hi Alan,
I am sure that you are right. Very intriguing nevertheless.
Johnston seems very sure of his facts and figures but I feel that you would need to be a scientist to make any valid response.
Beats me!
JB.
I am sure that you are right. Very intriguing nevertheless.
Johnston seems very sure of his facts and figures but I feel that you would need to be a scientist to make any valid response.
Beats me!
JB.
you dont need to be a scientist,
you cannot use a comparison of an outdoor african crop of tomatoes with a heated green house crop to claim that the higher energy use is because the greenhouse crop is organic.
i dont see how ploughing a field to plant organic spuds uses more energy for the ploughing than ploughing a field for a conventional crop.
claiming that organic production is now 1% wheras 60 years ago it was 100% therefore organic production is now decreasing is plain rubbish.
sorry i think the mans an idiot, im sure someone else will dissagree
you cannot use a comparison of an outdoor african crop of tomatoes with a heated green house crop to claim that the higher energy use is because the greenhouse crop is organic.
i dont see how ploughing a field to plant organic spuds uses more energy for the ploughing than ploughing a field for a conventional crop.
claiming that organic production is now 1% wheras 60 years ago it was 100% therefore organic production is now decreasing is plain rubbish.
sorry i think the mans an idiot, im sure someone else will dissagree
Hi Richard,
The only snag with your comments is that you were not about 60 years ago but I was. The assumption that everything was organic 60 years ago is totally incorrect. Before you reply Richard just think why the soil association was active at that time. Because they thought that too many chemicals were being used even then. The only snag is that a great lot of what Johnston says is very very true. But you need to be exceedingly well qualified to understand the implications of what is said.
JB.
The only snag with your comments is that you were not about 60 years ago but I was. The assumption that everything was organic 60 years ago is totally incorrect. Before you reply Richard just think why the soil association was active at that time. Because they thought that too many chemicals were being used even then. The only snag is that a great lot of what Johnston says is very very true. But you need to be exceedingly well qualified to understand the implications of what is said.
JB.
Exactly Richard,
There are errors in the Johnston article but remember he is a Doctor and a Scientist and many of the points he makes are very very true. You are picking him up on just one minute part of what he has said. If you read the comments that follow the article they are not really much of a defence of Organic Methodology.
On the other hand Peter Melchett tries hard to defend his own and the organic position. The reason given was that all the research went into Chemicals and GM is really no defence at all because the gap twixt chemical research and GM research is at least 40 years. Since the day that the SA were given the power of accreditation, and power is really what all this is about, they have wasted a fortune on lobbying which could well have gone into research into Organic Methods then Melchett complains about it.
As Johnston says there are basically a trading company. Scares are good for organic sales and that is why there have been so many needless scares.
Not mentioned by either side is the emotional blackmail and emotive tactics used to launch the Modern SA.
Johnston say only 1% of sales are organic and Melchett even argues with the facts and figures from the company who produce the SA statistics.
£1.93Bn to £1.5BN or just £1Bn the figures are a very small percentage of sales and certainly not enough to give the SA the say they have in every thing. It is true more farmers are returning to conventional farming than are joining or going into intervention. Whoever is right what is apparent is that for all the shouting organic sales are pathetically low.
I cannot say that either side is 100% right but the SA have used some pretty awful tactics to gather interest to themselves. Which includes telly some downright porkies.
If you read what is said about potatoes again and note the areas covered for the organic and then note the size of the conventional crop you will understand what Johnston means. 2.5 the organic means
for every ton of organic potatoes produced two and one half tons are produced conventionally. This is the classic argument when Johnston says we cannot afford the luxury of Organics. Conventional growing addresses the problems of feeding nations while organics would serve to feed but a fraction of a nation and that is how starvation occurs.
So if all you can argue is about Tomatoes then I feel that Johnston has won stage one and Melchett lives to fight another day.
For home growers there is no reason for them to be as organic as they possibly can be by using protection methods and the odd handful of man made substances. We now have organically accreditated slug pellets which should be a great help to those wishing to be organic but I have yet to hear what the SA have to say about them. They prefer to talk about the old type because they have traded on the non use of slug pellets for so many years.
JB.
There are errors in the Johnston article but remember he is a Doctor and a Scientist and many of the points he makes are very very true. You are picking him up on just one minute part of what he has said. If you read the comments that follow the article they are not really much of a defence of Organic Methodology.
On the other hand Peter Melchett tries hard to defend his own and the organic position. The reason given was that all the research went into Chemicals and GM is really no defence at all because the gap twixt chemical research and GM research is at least 40 years. Since the day that the SA were given the power of accreditation, and power is really what all this is about, they have wasted a fortune on lobbying which could well have gone into research into Organic Methods then Melchett complains about it.
As Johnston says there are basically a trading company. Scares are good for organic sales and that is why there have been so many needless scares.
Not mentioned by either side is the emotional blackmail and emotive tactics used to launch the Modern SA.
Johnston say only 1% of sales are organic and Melchett even argues with the facts and figures from the company who produce the SA statistics.
£1.93Bn to £1.5BN or just £1Bn the figures are a very small percentage of sales and certainly not enough to give the SA the say they have in every thing. It is true more farmers are returning to conventional farming than are joining or going into intervention. Whoever is right what is apparent is that for all the shouting organic sales are pathetically low.
I cannot say that either side is 100% right but the SA have used some pretty awful tactics to gather interest to themselves. Which includes telly some downright porkies.
If you read what is said about potatoes again and note the areas covered for the organic and then note the size of the conventional crop you will understand what Johnston means. 2.5 the organic means
for every ton of organic potatoes produced two and one half tons are produced conventionally. This is the classic argument when Johnston says we cannot afford the luxury of Organics. Conventional growing addresses the problems of feeding nations while organics would serve to feed but a fraction of a nation and that is how starvation occurs.
So if all you can argue is about Tomatoes then I feel that Johnston has won stage one and Melchett lives to fight another day.
For home growers there is no reason for them to be as organic as they possibly can be by using protection methods and the odd handful of man made substances. We now have organically accreditated slug pellets which should be a great help to those wishing to be organic but I have yet to hear what the SA have to say about them. They prefer to talk about the old type because they have traded on the non use of slug pellets for so many years.
JB.
the point i was trying to make is that there are a number of obvious errors or dubious arguments in the origional article , which makes me suspicious of the rest of it, im afraid im not going to waste my time researching to find out how much of it is accurate when parts blatently arnt. sorry but to be taken seriousy newspaper articles have got to be higher quality than this.
-
The Grock in the Frock
- KG Regular
- Posts: 928
- Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 5:27 pm
- Location: Liverpool
what a fine day for sticking a cucumber through your friends letter box and shouting "the ailiens have landed!" 
does that change the subject?
does that change the subject?Love you lots like Jelly Tots
Hi Compo,
This forum is known for free speech.
You do not have to read it and you certainly do not have to comment.
It is not a rant. It is a point of view. Whether you agree with the point of view I have put forward is neither hear nor there.
The trouble with you Compo is that you always try to stifle debate.
How about reading the two articles and joining in.
You can always complain but never participate so either join in or butt out!
JB.
This forum is known for free speech.
You do not have to read it and you certainly do not have to comment.
It is not a rant. It is a point of view. Whether you agree with the point of view I have put forward is neither hear nor there.
The trouble with you Compo is that you always try to stifle debate.
How about reading the two articles and joining in.
You can always complain but never participate so either join in or butt out!
JB.
Hi Richard,
Try rereading part three of Melchett's article and then read the very last sentence of part seven of his article.
If you can justify the statements made in both I would be most interested to hear it.
JB
Try rereading part three of Melchett's article and then read the very last sentence of part seven of his article.
If you can justify the statements made in both I would be most interested to hear it.
JB
last sentance of part 7
"But solar-powered, animal and wildlife friendly, pesticide- and additive-free farming and food, is where we're heading. "
i read that as a statement of what he thinks the SA is aiming at, ive no problem with him beleiving that , whats yours?
part 3 is a response to the claim made in the first article that organic farmers use no pesticides, it outlines what pesticides the SA approve and gives some idea of how much is used, again a prfectly reasonable thing for an SA spokesman to do in response to the ill researched claims in the first article.
hi compo and others , i know this thread is going nowhere , but without a response it would end up as a string of posts giving the impression to any casual reader that the contributors to this forum agree with the op's extreem anti SA and anti Organic views , which i am sure is not the case.
"But solar-powered, animal and wildlife friendly, pesticide- and additive-free farming and food, is where we're heading. "
i read that as a statement of what he thinks the SA is aiming at, ive no problem with him beleiving that , whats yours?
part 3 is a response to the claim made in the first article that organic farmers use no pesticides, it outlines what pesticides the SA approve and gives some idea of how much is used, again a prfectly reasonable thing for an SA spokesman to do in response to the ill researched claims in the first article.
hi compo and others , i know this thread is going nowhere , but without a response it would end up as a string of posts giving the impression to any casual reader that the contributors to this forum agree with the op's extreem anti SA and anti Organic views , which i am sure is not the case.
-
PLUMPUDDING
- KG Regular
- Posts: 3269
- Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2008 10:14 pm
- Location: Stocksbridge, S. Yorks
- Been thanked: 1 time
I read both articles when they were in the paper and could find fault with both as with most journalistic efforts trying to prove a point.
It seems pretty obvious to me that we grow our own food because we have total control of what we use to grow our fruit and veg. Some people may like to spray chemicals on what they eat, but the majority want to eat untainted naturally grown produce.
I chose to grow my own veg when my children were babies as I didn't like the idea of feeding them anything that may contain chemical residues (however small). That was nearly 40 years ago, so I wasn't influenced by all this green and organic blurb. It just seemed common sense to eat untainted food and it still does.
I know organic growers can use certain permitted chemicals, but if I can't grow it myself, I would choose organically grown stuff from the shop over non-organic.
I was born just after the war when the use of chemicals was just taking off, and my father used all sorts of nasties, which were wonder chemicals at the time, but have almost all been banned now. But he gradually came to the conclusion that you could grow just as good plants using compost and manure and being vigilant for pests without spending loads of money on bought stuff (Yorkshire frugality). By the time he died aged 87 he had been gardening "organically" for years - apart from slug pellets!!!.
It seems pretty obvious to me that we grow our own food because we have total control of what we use to grow our fruit and veg. Some people may like to spray chemicals on what they eat, but the majority want to eat untainted naturally grown produce.
I chose to grow my own veg when my children were babies as I didn't like the idea of feeding them anything that may contain chemical residues (however small). That was nearly 40 years ago, so I wasn't influenced by all this green and organic blurb. It just seemed common sense to eat untainted food and it still does.
I know organic growers can use certain permitted chemicals, but if I can't grow it myself, I would choose organically grown stuff from the shop over non-organic.
I was born just after the war when the use of chemicals was just taking off, and my father used all sorts of nasties, which were wonder chemicals at the time, but have almost all been banned now. But he gradually came to the conclusion that you could grow just as good plants using compost and manure and being vigilant for pests without spending loads of money on bought stuff (Yorkshire frugality). By the time he died aged 87 he had been gardening "organically" for years - apart from slug pellets!!!.