Kitchen Garden Forum

Hi Alan,
What a short memory Peter Melchet has!
The Welsh Assembly followed the Westminster Parliament on two occasions, I believe, in making literally 100's of millions of pounds available in order to try to get British farmers to become organic.
The money was in the form of grant aid to tide the farmers over the intervention period twixt conventional and organic. Sadly due to mainly the attitude to British farmers used by the organic accreditation schemes, but the Soil Association mainly, most of those who took the grant decided that organics was not for them and as soon as they didn't have to return any grant money they reverted to conventional growing.
Those millions were simply wasted!
I think that Countryfile gave far too much time to Peter Melchet standing in his field of seed wheat that took him three years to grow. The first two years down to Clover and only on the third year does the wheat get sown. To give credit where credit is due that wheat crop did Peter Melchet proud.
As regards showing footage of Peter Melchet, the crop trasher, till his arrest, was an attempt by Country File to sway people that what Peter Melchet did was a wonderful act.
Tom Heap the presenter of the GM section is very clearly against GM so all in all it was an attempt to down GM again in the eyes of the public.
The rest of the programme was quite interesting especially the young lady with the sample of 'Sheep's Poo.'
I suspect with the Spruce trees, where they are are growing, to further damage that marvellous habitat if they are to be clear felled. I would be inclined to kill them off where they are and let them mould back into nature. Ring barking may do the job because chemicals in that situation would certainly not be the right course of action.
JB.

Hi JB - the problem with the BBC is this fantasy they have of balance. It usually means that they give equal time to opposing views even if one of them represents a tiny minority and therefore is anything but balanced. Not that I am suggesting that Peter Melchett is in a tiny minority.

I know and occasionally work with the young lady - Dr. Natasha de Vere - you referred to. Very capable, very dedicated person doing great work.

Hi Colin,
I think the the contribution that Dr Natasha de Vere is making to agriculture is absolutely wonderful. To find out exactly which grasses and herbs an animal is obviously thriving on is a very great aid to farmers.
I wonder how long it will be before we see her findings are strategically used and wonder how grazing land could change drastically.
To me that is a thrilling advancement because if you pause a while and think about the possibilities they are almost endless.
Being as young as she is she will have contributed masses of information before she retires. A very important young lady.
You are very lucky to be able to work with her.
JB.

Back to the Rothamsted wheat programme, an interesting debate here -

http://www.thelandmagazine.org.uk/artic ... -gm-debate

Interesting Alan? I could find other words to describe it. Difficult to see how one can have a really rational argument with people like The Land.

Colin

I think you know what I mean whenever I say "interesting"

Blinkers firmly on there I think, how they could equate Rothampstead with Monsanto.is beyond me.

Couldn't have put it better Peter.

This is an interesting read, in the strict sense of the word, never mind the inevitably disparaging comments that have popped in. At least with a Q&A format like this, you begin to get a feel for the overlapping ground where two sets of ideas interact.

I don't see any 'equating' of Rothamstead with Monsanto. The Land is actually quoting a Soil Association comment about how the SA considered that the Rothamstead trials were being distanced from global agribusinesses such as Monsanto, to avoid a public backlash (which sounds entirely plausible).

We all have blinkers of some sort or another.

Hi John W,

I don't see any 'equating' of Rothamstead with Monsanto. The Land is actually quoting a Soil Association comment about how the SA considered that the Rothamstead trials were being distanced from global agribusinesses such as Monsanto, to avoid a public backlash (which sounds entirely plausible).

I feel that The Land simply had to include the word Monsanto somewhere. This is where any sensible dialogue begins to break down.
In the past I have asked people to look at the possibilities that can be gained from GM as a science and there begins a diatribe about Monsanto.
Sod Monsanto we must look at the science of GM. Science is the revelation of the truth not the truth according to Monsanto!
JB.

When the Land starts off by saying

We do not see GM as "one possible tool in the box" but as an aggressive techno-fix promoted both by corporations and open source or pirate producers, that can come to dominate agricultural systems extremely fast, thanks to short term monocultural benefits that have every prospect of reducing long-term resilience. Rather than "sparing" land elsewhere for conservation, organic pest management relies on high levels of biodiversity, or "sharing" land with nature. Research that led to increased organic yields might allow us to both "share" and "spare" a bit more.

It doesn't suggest that they are open to any sort of real discussion, or are likely to change their minds, or even properly listen. It is important to try at least to remove ones blinkers and preconceived notions and look at the facts when looking at contentious issues. Difficult but necessary.

Colin

Pretty much the same attitude as the Take the Flour Back offer of a debate with Rothamsted. Roughly summarised: "If you don't accept our view we'll destroy the trial anyway". They were prevented, of course.

Like all campaigns, religions both mainstream and fringe, political credos etcetera, the anti-GM movement is based on a core of central "beliefs", mostly unprovable, which are simply non-negotiable. Debate is impossible with those whose minds are closed by blind adherence to "faith" and the repetition of dubious "facts".

Hi Alan,
I think the word you are describing, unintentionally maybe, is DOGMA!
JB.

Johnboy wrote:Hi Alan,
I think the word you are describing, unintentionally maybe, is DOGMA!
JB.

Hi Johnboy

Certainly not unintentionally.

For information, here is another Soil Association response to the Bill Gates donation -

http://www.soilassociation.org/blogs/la ... n-altruism

I refrain from appending my reaction, as I would probably be banned from the internet, let alone the KG forum, if I did. And I might wreck my keyboard!

Re Soil Association and Bill Gates - Alan wrote

I refrain from appending my reaction, as I would probably be banned from the internet, let alone the KG forum, if I did. And I might wreck my keyboard!

Likewise. I suppose they think that ridicule is the best answer, but that only works if you get the facts right.