- Location
- Lincolnshire.
Free trade it is then.
You suggested Organic be subsidised so it's the same price as "conventional". I'm saying don't bother with Organic, let's do something that's better than that, measured using the metrics I've mentioned.Free trade it is then.
Yeah but do it unsupported. You say conventional farming is broken, no doubt FOE would agree with you. But where is the evidence for that assertion? Plenty of conventional farmers are doing OK. Organic farming can't really happen, wide scale, without support.You suggested Organic be subsidised so it's the same price as "conventional". I'm saying don't bother with Organic, let's do something that's better than that, measured using the metrics I've mentioned.
Hmm let's see...declining yields in real terms, increasing weed, pest and disease pressure and the pesticides used to control them, increase in fertiliser requirements, declining nutritional quality of food produced in conventional systems, reducing SOM levels across the board, increased soil erosion and sedimentation in rivers. Apart from that, I suppose it's fine.Yeah but do it unsupported. You say conventional farming is broken, no doubt FOE would agree with you. But where is the evidence for that assertion? Plenty of conventional farmers are doing OK. Organic farming can't really happen, wide scale, without support.
Not all the dire problems you detail apply to everyone though do they? Organic farming gives the benefits you outline plus,plus,plus, and is an easier concept to sell to the electorate, but cannot really exist without gov giving it the right conditions to thrive. I'm pretty lazy but my part time farming activity isn't under threat from the removal of SPF as you suggest.Hmm let's see...declining yields in real terms, increasing weed, pest and disease pressure and the pesticides used to control them, increase in fertiliser requirements, declining nutritional quality of food produced in conventional systems, reducing SOM levels across the board, increased soil erosion and sedimentation in rivers. Apart from that, I suppose it's fine.
We do "OK" as conventional farmers because we get a cheque from RPA each year (or twice a year as we did in 2016). Subsidies make for lazy farmers, why bother changing when you're doing "OK"? That's the problem in a nutshell.
OK, everything's fine, I get it. Let's not bother to try and make stuff better.Not all the dire problems you detail apply to everyone though do they? Organic farming gives the benefits you outline plus,plus,plus, and is an easier concept to sell to the electorate, but cannot really exist without gov giving it the right conditions to thrive. I'm pretty lazy but my part time farming activity isn't under threat from the removal of SPF as you suggest.
I've already said what my definition of "better" is - more nutritious food, improving the environment, and sequestering carbon. If you want to argue about whether those things are indeed "better" or not then feel free, just don't do it with me.What I don't get is your definition of "better". It is just a value judgement. All the problems you outline could be relatively easily solved. For us I can see low organic matter could become a problem in certain fields but I know what to do about it. As for insecticide whats the problem with adhering to already defined thresholds. Fertiliser rates will be governed by economic response and limited by law anyway. Does any of that warrant government support?
Pesticide regulation is an unknown and on going headache. I do note that from Sandra Bell's post that FOE foresee a time when all pesticides will be withdraw, how realistic that is I don't know.
My hunch is that when the trade deals are done and dusted "better" won't matter. We'll do or die.
You can improve OM by putting down a five year ley. Whether I get a return on that is a moot point.I've already said what my definition of "better" is - more nutritious food, improving the environment, and sequestering carbon. If you want to argue about whether those things are indeed "better" or not then feel free, just don't do it with me.
I'm glad you think all of farmings problems can be solved relatively easily, when you're done with those in the first few days why not tackle world peace and a cure for cancer as an encore?
For us I can see low organic matter could become a problem in certain fields but I know what to do about it
Please, enlighten me how to easily improve this?
As for insecticide whats the problem with adhering to already defined thresholds
Because I would prefer to use none at all, for both economic and environmental reasons.
Fertiliser rates will be governed by economic response and limited by law anyway
You've missed the point - the economic response changes as soils degrade, so more and more is needed for the same result. Mind you, since it's trivial to increase SOM I suppose this is a moot point as we won't need any fertiliser at all after a while?
Hold on, where did I say what I was doing was better than normal? All I said was that I was trying to improve, and that government support should be directed towards making farming as good as it can be. If there are better ways to improve food nutrition, improve the environment and sequester carbon (and I'm 100% sure there are), then let's do it! What I am doing now is completely irrelevant. Is that really such a difficult concept?You can improve OM by putting down a five year ley. Whether I get a return on that is a moot point.
You prefer not to use insecticide. I spend a minute amount on insecticide what's the difference?
We agree fert rates are pre ordained by soil conditions and the price of fert.
You say you are on the road to producing more nutritious food than me, but where is the evidence for that.
I can't see that what you are doing is anymore worthy of government support than my efforts. It is far easier to demonstrate the benefits of organic farming that the small differences between individual conventional producers. Is there a case for the status quo post Brexit?
As far as world peace is concerned I am not well regarded in the area of diplomacy. TBH I'm surprised you didn't know that.
Just to clarify Friends of the Earth are not predicting the withdrawal of all pesticides but its clear from our research that on wheat options are reducing e.g. there are already limited options for controlling aphids and therefore BYDV - we think that its right to withdraw products where the evidence of harm to bees or other wildlife is clear - but we also recognise that there will be challenges for farmers and so we want to explore non-chemical solutions that are less damaging to biodiversity but also more resilient in the long term. IPM allows for use of pesticides as a last resort and we are not opposed to this but as seed treatments are applied ahead of the assessment of pest threat for that year they can't really be part of an IPM approach - this is echoed by one of the farmers in our report who says "The decision to buy treated seeds has to be taken well before the growing season, when the farmer can have very little idea of what the pest pressure is going to be. In many years pest thresholds are not reached, meaning that money spent on a neonicotinoid seed dressing was wasted."What I don't get is your definition of "better". It is just a value judgement. All the problems you outline could be relatively easily solved. For us I can see low organic matter could become a problem in certain fields but I know what to do about it. As for insecticide whats the problem with adhering to already defined thresholds. Fertiliser rates will be governed by economic response and limited by law anyway. Does any of that warrant government support?
Pesticide regulation is an unknown and on going headache. I do note that from Sandra Bell's post that FOE foresee a time when all pesticides will be withdraw, how realistic that is I don't know.
My hunch is that when the trade deals are done and dusted "better" won't matter. We'll do or die.
I'm starting to to feel a bit like I'm banging my head against the wall.Since when has the nutrient value of commodity products been reflected in their market value(other than milling or malting N specs/ OSR oils/milk solids)? Commodities are just that-traded, lowest common denominator 'stuff'.
20 years ago different wheat vars were evaluated for use in monogastrics-at the time they found Buster the best variety for feed conversion. Would not pay any more, so nobody took them up on their kind offer!
There is a deal of work in boosting 'human nutrition' values in wheat/rice/maize(usually developing/third world areas) through biostims/trace elements. Very noble & a benefit for human nutrition in areas of challenged dietary quality.
Are they going to separate your fab wheat over my commodity wheat in a boat?
I accept the need to minimise pesticide use on economic grounds if nothing else.Just to clarify Friends of the Earth are not predicting the withdrawal of all pesticides but its clear from our research that on wheat options are reducing e.g. there are already limited options for controlling aphids and therefore BYDV - we think that its right to withdraw products where the evidence of harm to bees or other wildlife is clear - but we also recognise that there will be challenges for farmers and so we want to explore non-chemical solutions that are less damaging to biodiversity but also more resilient in the long term. IPM allows for use of pesticides as a last resort and we are not opposed to this but as seed treatments are applied ahead of the assessment of pest threat for that year they can't really be part of an IPM approach - this is echoed by one of the farmers in our report who says "The decision to buy treated seeds has to be taken well before the growing season, when the farmer can have very little idea of what the pest pressure is going to be. In many years pest thresholds are not reached, meaning that money spent on a neonicotinoid seed dressing was wasted."
great question!I accept the need to minimise pesticide use on economic grounds if nothing else.
FOE see them as a last resort. Do FOE have a list of pesticides they would be happy to see retained for use as a "last resort" of course.
Just to clarify Friends of the Earth are not predicting the withdrawal of all pesticides but its clear from our research that on wheat options are reducing e.g. there are already limited options for controlling aphids and therefore BYDV - we think that its right to withdraw products where the evidence of harm to bees or other wildlife is clear - but we also recognise that there will be challenges for farmers and so we want to explore non-chemical solutions that are less damaging to biodiversity but also more resilient in the long term. IPM allows for use of pesticides as a last resort and we are not opposed to this but as seed treatments are applied ahead of the assessment of pest threat for that year they can't really be part of an IPM approach - this is echoed by one of the farmers in our report who says "The decision to buy treated seeds has to be taken well before the growing season, when the farmer can have very little idea of what the pest pressure is going to be. In many years pest thresholds are not reached, meaning that money spent on a neonicotinoid seed dressing was wasted."
Just to clarify Friends of the Earth are not predicting the withdrawal of all pesticides but its clear from our research that on wheat options are reducing e.g. there are already limited options for controlling aphids and therefore BYDV - we think that its right to withdraw products where the evidence of harm to bees or other wildlife is clear - but we also recognise that there will be challenges for farmers and so we want to explore non-chemical solutions that are less damaging to biodiversity but also more resilient in the long term. IPM allows for use of pesticides as a last resort and we are not opposed to this but as seed treatments are applied ahead of the assessment of pest threat for that year they can't really be part of an IPM approach - this is echoed by one of the farmers in our report who says "The decision to buy treated seeds has to be taken well before the growing season, when the farmer can have very little idea of what the pest pressure is going to be. In many years pest thresholds are not reached, meaning that money spent on a neonicotinoid seed dressing was wasted."
I'll play Devil's advocate here. A seed dressing IS Integrated Pest Management. In the event of no active ingredient escape/collateral damage* then non target species will not be affected. Only those attacking the treated plants will get a dose of the chemical. This is an alternative to reactive broad spectrum boom application of pyrethroid insecticides that kill many more insects other than the BYDVirus carrying aphids.
The likelihood of virus carrying aphids infecting a late September sown wheat crop in the South West of England is 80-95%. On those odds it is not uncommon for growers to choose an insecticide seed treatment to prevent infection. Crop losses from BYDV can vary from 10% to 100%. In the mild autumn of 2015 I saw hundreds of hectares of crops written off that were not treated. I have 11km of beetle banks in my fields - whilst these are handy for summer aphid control the movement of winged aphids during the autumn means that this has no effect on aphid numbers from September - November. In addition to this, kdr (knock down resistance) to pyrethroids has now been found in grain aphids. This also points grower decisions towards Deter seed dressing.
If anyone can suggest an alternative to foliar spraying I would of course be very interested. Leaving crops untreated is not going to preserve my farm's income as infection is guaranteed, though I won't know how badly until it is too late.
As I move away from cultivation to strip tillage then eventually no till I am using cover crops which only serve to act as a bigger reservoir and "green bridge" for virus carrying aphids. I'd like to stop using insecticides to increase natural predators but we don't get the cure without the problem to begin with. Whilst the predator numbers are lower, the pest moves in, infects the crop then the predator numbers increase until the pest population crashes, then the cycle begins again.
View attachment 454140
* I'm sure you'll see this and have a suitable reply
Wouldn't it be great if there was a treatment (besides picking the aphids off by hand) that had no collateral damage?! Unfortunately this may be the Achilles' heel of your argument. Or it may not be - that's for "science" to decide.In the event of no active ingredient escape/collateral damage* then non target species will not be affected.
This discussion started when fudge suggested that Organic should be subsidised because it's better for the environment (and maybe produces better quality food in some circumstances), but I think that's silly. If the government wants all these good things, then tying yourself to Organic rules is not going to be the most effective way of doing it. Keep flexible, and use best practice regardless of whether Peter Melchett approves or not.
Bored now.