Kitchen Garden Forum

I agree with you Alison, but no doubt the "organic-knockers" will not. I had been thinking about the terms of the original poll. Why just have "organic" products listed with food miles? The amount of food miles clocked up by organic produce is as nothing compared with "conventional" produce.

Hi Alan,
The short answer to your posting is that conventional produce feeds the nation not a very small majority with very big mouths.
I am not hear to knock organics because I was into organics long before the majority of readers were even born. Perhaps not you Alan and a very few other exceptions.
I went to the HDRA Potato Day on Sunday and I bought my Organic Potatoes for the year. I am doing another experiment this year with Early Potatoes in a 6' x 6' raised bed 9" deep. I am planting 25 Maris Bard
at 12" equidistant and sowing at original soil level and then topping the entire lot up to 9".
They will be grown entirely organically.
Mr Potato Head try looking up Integrated Farm Management Systems and that will give you what Pragmatic Growing is all about. Of course you will not like it but it is more environmentally friendly to the land and the carbon footprint is far superior to that of organics but it does involve the use of chemicals.
To compare The SA and The Dig for Victory shows to me just how young and to a degree immature you are.
JB.

Says the man that compared them to Mussolini

As a young and immature person, I value the experience of the older generation, so I did look up IFMS...

Why wouldn't I like Integrated Farm Management Systems JB? I quote from the opening paragraph to this site...

http://www.nzte.govt.nz/section/13607/10185.aspx

The concept of Integrated Farm Management Systems (IFMS) is based around the productivity and marketing opportunities offered by the seamless integration of electronics based farm technologies. In essence, IFMS would provide a framework, based on a standardised communications platform, for the collection of all data at the farm level.

Well, actually it sounds quite sensible to me, from a quick scan of the (full) text. In fact, it seems that it has a good deal that's compatible with growing organically, so what's your point?

My point is that the concept of 'organic' growing (by the SA et al) is that it's not done for the benefit of growers, but for consumers. If I buy vegetables that are certified 'organic', that's what I get. If I buy IFMS grown vegetables, what I get is open to interpretation.

I'm not saying that one system is bad, or the other good, it's simply a case of consumer confidence in a product. If the majority don't like it, they don't have to buy it. Unlike fascism.

And I'll thank you to keep the personal comments to the private message system.

(Oh, and here's another useful link for IFMS )

Just for the sake of accuracy both Mr Potato Head and Alan questions my knowledge of historical facts, may I respectively ask for clarification? Was Benito Mussolini not elected to parliament in 1921? A simple yes or no will suffice. There are many historical references that may help you.

Regarding the ‘dig for victory’ campaign, this was indeed a pragmatic approach to gardening, was it not this campaign that recommended the use of mineral fertilisers in the form of National Growmore. A good job the SA or the other organisations were not involved, they would have insisted on the allotments first qualifying for organic status.

Kind regards

Barney

Yes, elected to parliament not leader of the country, and subsequently used his powers to dissolve the opposition. When the liberal government failed to break revolutionary actions, the King effectively made him a dictator. There's an excellent mini-biography at http://gi.grolier.com/wwii/wwii_mussolini.html if you'd like to read more.

Thanks for the confirmation Mr Potato Head, incidentally I made no reference to leading his country, I only correctly stated that even Benito Mussolini was elected and clearly that is a fact.

I have no problem with any association, elected or appointed, laying down conditions for membership of their association, that is their prerogative. And it follows that they are quite at liberty to approve products to their standards. It is the very fact that the unelected SA (and others) can legally dictate to us what is organic or not that I find rather undemocratic. What moral right have they to define a word in the English language and hold the exclusive use of it only for their members?

It gives me faith in common sense when I read Allan’s, Johnboy’s and Chris’s contributions. However being a very open minded individual I am happy to read other contributions as well.


Barney

The peaceful warrior

After following this thread I have decided to change my vote to no for the same reasons given by others i.e that food miles/carbon footprint is a seperate issue and should be described for all products (I think also that 'Embedded Energy' i.e.- that needed to produce/manufacture/process an item - could also be labelled).


BUT what I can't comprehend is why some of you get so worked up about the SA et al. They are doing what they do for laudable if misguided reasons. I don't see you raging about the real 'criminals' out there such as the Corporations who flog pesticides firstly to our farmers, then when they are proven to be harmful and banned here, to countries which don't have regulations like our own.
I think our priorities ought to be addressed a bit more ethically.


Mole


I'll prepeat this from my previous (unansweredthread) here instead as it seems to be the appropriate place!

View of Organic Growing.
PostSat Jan 27, 2007 12:29 pm

Personally, I think that the stated objectives and methods of some Organic growers are a little confused, though much is laudable.

The jury's still out on whether food has more nutrition when grown organically (personally I think it will be found to when nutrition is totally understood). BUT non organic food is proven to contain more pesticide residues, so is to be preferred for that reason alone.

IMO The pesticide issue is the most obvious advantage. For our health and the planet. It seems logical and ethical that pesticides and herbicides which are proven to be persistent and have harmful effects to the ecosystem in the long term ought not be used. Unfortunately it's too late.


In terms of soil conservation, much Organic arable farming is no better than any other - using Glyphosate and minimum-till conserves soil when compared to ploughing.

(Riverford have been culprits in the past of seriously poor soil management- not sure what they are like nowadays.)

In terms of carbon use , it's probable that 'conventional' Organic Farming uses more fossil fuel due to it's reliance on both cultivation and flame weeding for weed control.

But possibly most important factor is that
Soil exposure to the air due to ploughing and cultivation is a major contribution to carbon emmissions. This has implications for all growers worlwide

Guess this puts me in the 'Pragmatic' camp.



Mole

I love starting a thread like this.

The forum was so quiet over the last week. This is debate, heated, but debate. Points well made and backed up by fact.

Mr PH do NOT apologise to ME for going off thread, it is probably my own worst habit.

I have one foot firmly in each school of thought.

Pragmatic is a label I aspire to, and acknowledge as being open to debate.

I want the absolute minimum of pesticides and artificially manufactured fertilizers used on vegetables. But I do not want the farmer to go bust because a pest has infested his crops to the extent that they are unsaleable.
I would like the farmer to burn the minimum amount of diesel to grow the crops.

I want my meat to have been raised in a field, with appropriate shelters provided by species, fed on pragmaticaly grown plants and a t a stock density that does not bugger the field. I do not want them given proactive anti-biotic doses in every meal, but if they have an illness or infection that can be treated by same, then I want them humanely treated. Again, I do not want the farmer to go bust beacuse his animals are unfit for human conspumption or have all died from galloping lurgy.
I want the animals slaughtered at a local slaughterhouse, not trucked from Scotland to Cornwall alive and back again in a refrigerated truck as meat.
I want to see mixed agriculture, with shit from livestock used to help grow the plants, the waste from the plants used to bed or feed the stock.

Hang on I want to go back to Victorian farming techniques, with judicious use of more modern aids.

Remember all of you most of what all of us are grumbling about is done because it is easy.
It is easy to specialise.
It is easy to make economise of scale.
It is easy to use the 200hp tractor and the 38ton lorry to move stuff around the place.
It is easy to keep 200 animals in a barn.

It is difficult to do a bit of everything, principally because you'll go bust.

Of course, by the time we have explained the meaning of all the words used to describe it, our food might be invisible ...

"BUT non organic food is proven to contain more pesticide residues, so is to be preferred for that reason alone."

I take exception to that statement. It so happens that I don't need to spray with pesticides and there must be many others likewise, am I to be branded as a poisoner? Those who do use pesticides have to work to stringemnt safeguards, the statement that we are being poisoned is pure myth.

Alright Allan you know I meant overall conventionally farmed food - you are not a conventinal agribusiness. If you don't need to spray with pesticides then good for you - that's great. No need to take offense. No-one is branding you apoisoner so don't get hysterical.

BTW I didn't actually state we are being poisoned. I stated that non-organic food contains more pesticide residues. But, there are pesticide residues found in the arctic and everywhere else - fact:the whole world already has been irrevocably poisoned to a certain extent -you should wake up to reality - or bleat away as you like.

If you believe that Those who do use pesticides have to work to stringemnt safeguards[quote][/quote actually ALWAYS DO work to those standards, then you're naive.
I have worked in electronic engineering, commercial horticulture and mix with agricultural workers, and have seen with my own eyes many times that people do not always follow correct procedure anymore than everone drives under 70mph on the motorway or fastens their seatbelt. Young men can be very blase about things.

Benlate (a fungicide by dupont) was used for many years agriculturally and horticulturally, but it was found to have caused serious birth defects (no eyes) when pregnant women were overexposed to it in both the US and Cornwall. Overexposed due to operators (or usually their bosses) not following the correct procedure.

Good grief Peter - we may have to agree on this one.

Flippin' heck! Benito Mussolini and organic knockers! I'm lost!

Just answer me this, was Benito Mussolini an organic gardener or not?

Barney