FOR ALL THE WORLD TO KNOW The winter barley is growing strongly. (Richard has been busy during my holiday). Even the slugs seem to have gone south, hope they do not returm. The sun is shining on the barley and on possibly 2000 plovers and lapwings wheeling around, surrounded by many seagulls of sifferent sorts. I see them often enough, being so close to the sea, but do not know the types. Even the robins and all the other little birds in the garden are friends this morning. When you consider how fortunate we are in comparison say to someone in Israel who may have his land taken or his children blown up in a bus on the way to school, or he may be hungry in some African country with those around him dying of AIDS, we must all thank God for being in a democratic country with all its climatic advantages. THANK YOU LORD, Jack Caley

Dear Jack It gives me great pleasure to say that for once you have written something with which I heartily agree. (I suspect the slugs may have been poisoned rather than "gone South" but we will leave that for now.) But I think you know me well enough by now to realise I feel uncomfortable about some of your farming practices, in particular the GM crops you are so enthusiastic about and I guess you have another field of GM oilseed rape growing now. When that is in flower next spring beekeepers will have to move their hives 6 miles from the site denying themselves over 100 sq miles at the most productive time of year for the sake of this "important scientific work". Even without those bees that crop will pollinate beyond the boundaries of the site both with neighbours rape crops and also with the native flora. English Nature list 18 species which hybridise with oilseed rape and cause gene stacking, that is these are not just herbicide resistant weeds but also capable of spreading and repollinating food crops. Which is why, again, I will be appealing to farmers not to save seed from rape grown within 2 miles of the site and, again, you might see people wandering around with bin bags collecting all the oilseed rape and related plants from the roadsides and grass verges in your part of the world as elsewhere in the country that these crops are growing hopefully for the last time.

Tom. You have replied to Jack's pleasant observation with the typical put down of the self-righteous Luddite, ''my opinion is more important, and I’m going to keep on talking until I’ve brainwashed everyone''. At least you have the choice of free speech that enables you to express your opinions, and the freedom to try and change the way people in your country think. In too many countries around the world, such ranting may not be tolerated, and indeed could be your last if they went against the thoughts of the ruling party/despot/tyrant. We may think we have problems in this country, but we are lucky enough to be able to shout and stamp our feet in disagreement at the way we are treated, and still sleep in relative safety at night. Although I would tend to disagree with Jack’s comment about the climatic advantages. Best regards, Manwell.

Dear Tom, Whilst we are on the subject of farming practices you do not seem to have had time to reply to my concerrn on the precautionary principle and warning the public off the danger of organic food being contaminated by e-coli, campylobacter etc. I have a telephone call from the general public who said they had been told that organic farmers spread animal faeces on their land and crops. I know I used to do that for my father 50 years ago but if it is still the case it must be very worrying to an uninformed public and might even spread fear. Do you not think that we ought to ban organic food until sufficient research is done into this matter? Or is it not of sufficient importance in view of the quantities sold? An economist on Countryfile said that this country spent more on catfood than organic so it may be not so important. Pity about all this controversy, the world was a beautiful placwe this morning. Jack

Beautifully written, Jack. K

Well said.

Excellent, nice to read such an eloquent and precise reply to Toms woolly minded attack on progressive farming practices, which practices will inevitably improve the welfare of the human race. Nice one Sir.

Good grief! Give it a rest, chaps. Tom is entitled to his opinion, and so is Jack. I wholeheartedly agree with Jack (sorry Jack, we really must stop doing this!)when he says that, for all the problems that UK farming is experiencing, we are indeed comparatively blessed - a half-way decent climate, nobody in an APC physically stealing your land [the Israelis are actually removing topsoil from Palestinian land...], no war... no AIDS pandemic decimating the working farm population... no plague of locusts, serious drought or flood... The Four Horses of the Apocalypse are presently running riot over much of Africa and you blokes are squabbling! We suffer from policy failure - the CAP, EU enlargement, and the grotesque arm-wrestling between Brussels and the US over farm subsidies. Let's concentrate on that, shall we, and leave out the vitriol?

Manwell I am aware that the views I have, and the way I choose to express them, often makes me look a right pratt but thanks for pointing it out anyway. Jack and I actually agree on far more things than we disagree, I believe in justice, peace and the integrity of creation while he believes equally passionately in justice, peace and improving on creation. We both, especially at this time of year, remember with gratitude those who gave their lives to safeguard the freedoms we richly enjoy and Jack and I both enjoy them to the full. We share the same faith that God so loved the world that he gave his own beloved when the need arose. Politically we are not that different either. The only thing I think we do disagree about is the future of farming in this country. These days are what the NFU call "the countdown to co-existence" with the introduction of GM crops into this country. The consultation on liability (available on www.nfunet.org.uk contributions by Friday) offers the scenario of organic farmers suing those growing GM crops for their loss of certification with counter claims by those growing GM crops that they have been polluted by organic ones. The EU report makes it clear that in the long term GM and organic are mutually incompatible, quite simply the country is not big enough for the both of us, either Jack or I will have to change our aspirations which is why we squabble the way we do. It may not be pretty to watch but no-one is getting hurt here. I think I have known Jack long enough to know that he enjoys a good argument and looking at the replies so far it looks like he is winning this one. To be honest I worry about his health far more on days when he is not being argumentative (but don't tell him that lest he'll think I am going soft).

Tom..Question for you! You seem to say agricultural improvements have now gone far enough, GM is a step too far, what i wonder is do you think any of the current common practice was a step too far? eg using semi dwarf varieties, or applying lime. You may say GM is much more radicle but when hedges were planted 200+ years ago there were riots in the streets, ok different problem but same senario. Should hedges have been planted against the peoples wishes?

Dear Jack I have not been avoiding this question, just trying to find a way of answering it without getting sued. I guess what you are referring to here, though craftily does not specify, is the allegation made in a TV documentary that the cluster of E Coli 0147 cases may be linked to the spreading of slaughterhouse waste on the land mostly done by a company that unfortunately has the word "organics" in its title. Without wishing to prejudge any inquiry that may or may not be going on (I have lost sight of the story but I hope it is being thoroughly investigated) I want to make it clear that slaughterhouse waste is not permitted in organic farming, nor sewage sludge nor slurry from non-organic holdings. Farmyard manure is allowed but much more regulated than elsewhere. In general organic farmers use less/acre because their stocking rates are lower and there are strict limits on how much may be applied, before I was organic our potatoes used to get 50t/a but now they are only allowed 10t/a so we make sure it is well composted to get full value. The rules do allow permission to be granted to bring in manure in certain circumstances but in practice it just means small amounts of stable muck which has to be composted for six months, restrictions on what bedding may be used and of course a declaration that all the horse feed was non-GM. Of course the precautionary principle should apply to all we do in food production but I think most of the techniques used in organic farming have been tried and tested through the centuries and I am reasonably confident we are doing no-one any harm. I am less confident about GM. It seems to me that taking strands of DNA from E Coli and putting them into Sugar Beet (beggers belief doesn't it?) may cause problems in the future. I certainly think that the legislation is deficient in only requiring two years of field trials and no statutory feed trials. Jack, I feel I may owe you an apology. If this thread was intended as a celibration of the wonders of Nature pure and simple I will withdraw and discuss the GM issue elsewhere. At first I thought it was and wanted to be the first to congratulate you. Then I started to wonder if a wily old campaigner was not just getting us all to watch the birdies while one of the most profound changes in agriculture in our lifetime slips through largely unnoticed. The trouble is every time I put Caley into my computer the spellchecker keeps changing it to Cagey. This is the danger of modern technology

Dear Tom, Since I knew nothing of the slaughterhouse waste you refer to my input was as usual transperent and factual, heaven forbid I should be crafty. However we do seem to have established the fact that organic farmers do in fact spread animal faeces on their land and crops. Now you and I know full well the implications of that, but does an uniformed public? Would that uniformed public also understand the misleading information put out about GM? You say that you are less confident about feeding GM. People have been eating GM the other side of the pond for years, to a lesser extent so have we in this country with no bad effect, apart from me personally. The two heads I have grown as a result of eating GM corn on the cob have been joined by yet another so I am now a three headed monster. Please do not release that to the public on your GM news column or we might spread a little more fear. Jack

Richard I don't hark back to any golden age, rather look forward to improvements yet to come. I would like to see agriculture to become more energy efficient by using less N and less dependent on agrochemicals and antibiotics. Since we last discussed these issues I think a little progress has been made at DEFRA with a recognition of the social and environmental benefits of organic farming and hopefully a more progressive approach to the control of foot and mouth, but there is much more to do, I support the proposed farm bill at www.farm.org.uk As regards technology I take a personal interest in research in biodynamics, homeopathy and paramagnetism but I do not expect all farmers to follow this route, the strength of UK farming is in its diversity. GM is different in that it affects us all whether we grow these crops or not. I think you recognise the importance of the decisions that will be taken in the next few weeks when you compare it to the enclosure act but there have been other watersheds since then; the coming of tractors, entering the common market, abolishion of the marketing boards. The first was good for farming, the last was not and I am still undecided about the middle one. In general I would say the changes made by farmers have been better than the changes made for them. The push for GM comes from outside farming and across the Atlantic (ask Elliot Morley) the main opposition comes from consumers (ask the supermarkets). Farmers are divided with something of an East/West split, large arable farmers favouring them, small livestock farmers against (though with dozens of notable exceptions on both sides) the NFU being dominated by arable farmers. I would encourage all farmers whatever their views to get involved in the decision making process, as I wrote on John Nicholson's thread, to ensure that if GM crops are grown here the mistakes of the US and Canada are not repeated here and British farmers do not get Schmeised. If anything does go wrong with the GM experiment it is important to make sure that liability rests with the biotech companies and the government. My main preoccupation in all this, some might say obsession, is to try to prevent the spread of GM genes prior to full consultation and a final decision being made. In the meantime I do not think it unreasonable to ask farmers near the trial sites not to save seed. On a different thread I explained why using a quote from "when choice becomes just a memory" and I have found a link for that. www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4207654,00.html Richard, when you get time can you show Martin how to add a picture to a thread, they certainly brighten up these forums.

Dear Tom and Richard, Be advised do not ask Elliot Morley anything important. He went to the same school I did. Only thing was he went after an extreme socialist council in Hull changed the school from a very good grammar school to a very third rate comprehensive of the worst kind. It taught him enough to advise some pig farmer friends of mine that their solution was to go organic and lose money for three years when they had already lost most of their money! Might have learnt politics at school but he did not learn arithmetic. Jack

As a conventional arable farmer with a deep interest in birds, I struggle with the arguments of the organic lobby. Even though I have a brother with organic ground - and I support his activites 100%. There seem to be serious questions over the environmental credentials of organic farming, and nobody has answers. 1. In Western developed agriculture, where labour is short and machinery use predominates, is there any reduction in fossil fuel use ? Weeding takes so much energy that this appears to be dubious. This is compounded by point 2b. 2. Yields are lower, so a) much more ground is required. Is environmental damage worse because so much more land is affected ? b) shouldn't measures be made per tonne of usable product, rather than per hectare ? 3. Does weeding knock hell out of ground nesting birds ? I think that Organic farming is trying to ride the environmental bandwagon. The objectives of Organic farming are not primarily environmental, but economic. I strongly believe that no system consistently meets objectives unless those are explicitly stated and audited against. In the current set up, I would not expect Organic farming to be particularly environmentally friendly. As a spin off, I think Organic farming may have benefits. These arise from the fact that Organic "arable" farming forces a more diverse rotation, and can afford to sustain it. Other systems are not excluded from using rotations, so we could find other ways to achieve those benefits, along with many others. For environmental benefit I think the best way forward would be to gain greater returns for systems which set specific objectives and audit against them. It sounds to me like LEAF might meet some of my criteria. GMOs ? I have argued about these before. Tom talks about pressure from the US for, pressure from EU consumers against. I don't think that is quite right. I think the pressure for is from big business, which is multi-national, but happens to "own" the US government. Pressure against is from pressure groups, who successfully manage to generate an image of widespread resistance which they may or may not have succeeded in generating. I don't know whether this distinction from Tom's analysis would be important, if I am correct. As usual in such debates I believe that most of the "evidence" presented by both sides is tosh. How are we supposed to work out the best position when we cannot obtain reliable evidence ? My take on GMOs is that I believe they offer real benefits, but that the ones I have heard being grown are, perhaps without exception, taking a risk unnecessarily. What is wrong ? The problem goes back to governments' total abdication of their responsibilities - to serve ordinary people. they have passed those responsibilities on to big business, who (quite rightly) serve their shareholders. GMOs have been developed in that climate. High costs of development mean that only those which have a large potential market are of interest. If they are going to be widely marketed, the pressure on the environment is potentially large, giving a high risk of problems. On the other hand, benefits should ultimately be measured from the ordinary person's perspective. What are they ? Umm, well ... GMOs should be being used to solve real problems for the common people (minf what I said about setting objectives ?). The problems that remain in the west tend to be the exact opposite of what the current GMOs attack. This is hardly surprising, there is a specific class of problems which give a return on investment. The others will have to wait. Problems which GMOs _should_ be considered for are those which are too small to be economic to attack conventionally. A good example would be beta-interferon for MS. Small market, exorbitabtly expensive drug. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence has tied itself in knots before recommending this treatment because the cost, potentially, could be disastrous for the NHS. I strongly believe the government should fund research into cheaper production methods, I would put GMOs at the top of the list of possibilities. The environmental impact assessment would almost certainly show vanishingly small risk because the active ingredient is specific to a rare human condition, and the quantities required would be small, so GM crops would not be widespread, and length of time grown in any area could be severely restricted. We need to clear away the emotive invective, think clearly about objectives (allowing for cost and benefit) and processes and funding to get there. Our present management of this country is laughable. Yes, I am simplifying an incredibly complex situation. But I have said enough :-)

Mike, As ever, I find your organic comments to be spot on. If we want to fund the environment lets support the specific practices that help it – and most of these are applicable under conventional agriculture. I’ll remain on the fence about GMOs, but you are not quite correct about gamma interferon being specific to a rare human condition. Surely it is an important component part of our immune response to a range of conditions and as yet we simply don’t know how much influence it has on our every day immunocompetence. The anti-GMO lobby would have a field day with headline stuff about release of non-specific immunostimulants into the food chain and other such misinformation. Actually, I don’t see production of small quantities of niche GM products being economical on a farm-scale. Surely the likes of gamma interferon are more likely to be vat produced by GM bacteria or yeasts under highly controlled lab manufacturing conditions.

Mike / Worms Thanks, you are right that these are complex issues and sometimes we have to simplify the argument to make a point. There may well be a role for GMOs in medicine but it is important that we first face up to the dangers and get more serious about segregation and containment lest someone's MS drug may end up in someone else's corn flakes. The cavalier attitude taken by many farmers growing GM trials worries me. Jack may joke about eating cobs of maize (not allowed) and not growing two heads (I guess) a sales line used by every drug pusher in the country, but elsewhere there have been far more serious infringements than that. I have some photographs that I was going to post on these forums so we could all play spot the buffer zone but I don't want to see any farmer ending up in court. I certainly would not want anyone snooping around my farm with a camera on the day my heifers got out and trashed a neighbours garden as an example of environmentally friendly farming. The organic vs. conventional debate is equally complex but having farmed both ways I am convinced of the environmental case. With some trepidation I will paste below notes I prepared for a talk to local farmers on my ten personal reasons why. Sorry it is a bit long but when reading it please remember it is intended to provoke debate rather than be the last word on the subject. [b] Ten reasons why Organic farming is better for the environment[/b] (in the order that you will notice them). The first thing you will notice on the day you sign up is that you are making a [b]positive commitment to the environment and animal welfare[/b]. Before we got our certificate we had to build a new shed to improve the cows accommodation for the winter, to put in a new slurry tank to prevent the possibility of pollution and to commit ourselves to do some hedge planting. It is not that organic farmers care about the environment and the welfare of their livestock and nobody else does, it is that they are written into the rules. I don’t care more about these things than I ever did, I always did plant hedges and clean ponds, but these were things that I did because I wanted to, when I could afford the time and expense, now they are things I have to do before the inspector comes if I want to get my licence renewed for another year. The next thing that you will notice is that the agrochemical companies really don’t like you. Companies that I used to spend thousands of pounds with every year don’t come and see me anymore. Instead you find yourself on the mailing list of dozens of companies I never knew existed, companies that exist to serve the needs of organic farming. Farming is still the basis of most rural communities. It is estimated that the average farmer supports 40 businesses that depend on his custom, vets, feed merchants and the like, and when you change the way you run your business it affects an awful lot of people. I still use the same vet but he has had to learn different ways of doing things. I now use a different feed company that specialises in organics buying different feeds from around the world. The repercussions of what we do are felt right around the world. The development charities are really very enthusiastic about organic because it now means we are now trading with countries in a way that does not damage their environment even though we have to pay a little more. It’s [b]good for the green economy[/b]. Not getting my fertilizer order isn’t going to bring ICI to its knees but it is in a small helping shift the balance of power away from the large industrial complexes to the smaller gentler technologies. Instead of buying my drugs from Smith-Kline-Beecham I now buy homeopathic remedies from a little place set up on a farm that does a few dogs and horses but would not exist but for organic dairy farming. It’s [b]good for rural employment[/b]. And organic farming is more labour intensive. I employ two lads that I wouldn’t if I wasn’t organic. [b] Less fertilizer = less energy[/b]. It takes a lot of energy to make one bag of ammonium nitrate. It is the last of the smokestack industries. In its heyday ICI’s Nitram plant at Billingham was taking 10% of the North sea gas piped ashore. Hopefully too it should mean less nitrates getting into the groundwater. I have bought a little kit to measure the nitrate level in my drains but I have not had it long enough to get any meaningful results. [b] Less pesticides = better for wildlife.[/b] Probably. All I will say is that conventional farmers can get Countryside Stewardship money for leaving sprays off a strip a few yards wide for a few month on the grounds that it’s good for wildlife. If you are organic and don’t spray anything ever anywhere it must help a bit. [b]People friendly[/b]. One thing I can say for certain is that I don’t live using them. I don’t think they are good for my health or my family. My neighbours don’t like them much either. It has been estimated that under ideal conditions about 75% stays with the crop. The rest either evaporates or end up in the groundwater. For every gallon you put on maybe two pints goes wafting on the breeze. There is no evidence to show that this is doing anybody any harm but I would be surprised if it is doing anybody any good. And it does get in the way of people enjoying the countryside. One old man I know tells anyone who will listen that he didn’t spend five years in a khaki uniform so that some so-and-so in a land rover that this was his factory floor. [b]Healthier soil[/b]. The first thing you will notice on the ground is fewer cowpats. Where do they all go? The answer is really quite complicated. There are all sorts of weird and wonderful creatures in the soil whose job it is to recycle nutrients round the system. If you keep showering them with soluble nitrogen they get fed up. “Manage without me, see if I care.” The trouble is that they might not be there when you need them. I once went to see some ADAS trial plots and on had not had fertiliser for comparison. “This is our organic plot,” said our guide mockingly (a respected government scientist) as he pointed at the pathetic looking crop. That is not a representation of organic agriculture, anything but, it is a sign of how chemically dependent that land had become. Most chemicals are bad for the soil. Wormers like Ivomectin or Dectomax are death to dung beetles and you do need them on your side. [b]Healthier plants[/b]. Once you have the soil in better heart crops have a better disease resistance. There might be a number of reasons for this. If they are growing slower maybe the cell structure is stronger, an oak tree is stronger than a poplar. There is probably less nitrogen in the leaf; funguses feed on nitrogen. Other reasons are to do with the way a plant feeds. The plant takes energy from sunlight by photosynthesis. In its natural state it only uses half of this energy for top growth. The other half it uses to make what Dr Eileen Ingham calls cake. (It is a mix of starch, protein and sugar and if you did the same thing in a kitchen you would be making a cake.) This goes to the tip of the roots to attract microbes in the soil. The plant would not be doing this if it had nothing to gain and it does, these microbes bring with them nutrients that the plant needs. “Fetch me some nitrogen and I will give you a cake.” Plants nutritional needs are complex. There is no way of getting B vitamins, for example, that are not water soluble into a plant by feeding it hydroponically. And these microbes have other uses. They are the first line of defence against soilbourne disease. Dr Ingham reckons that it takes about a dozen types of microbe to protect against one disease and at any time a plant is probably under attack from a dozen different diseases. There is a great website where you can see pictures of all these things; www.soilfoodweb.com. [b]Healthier animals[/b]. If there is anything in all this organics you would expect to notice it in the health of you livestock and you do, your vet bills plummet. I must not get complacent here because you still do get troubles but they do seem to clear up quicker. It is hard to say how much is due to the diet, how much to the antibiotics working better because they don’t get them as often and how much is due to the cowman feeling so much more positive about the job, it’s nice to feel you have a future. [b]Healthier food[/b]. People buy organic for all sorts of reasons, some for the flavour, some cancer patients believe it helps with their recovery. Studies have shown that people who eat organically produced food do enjoy better health. Of course many of these people may be making lifestyle choices that contribute to this. To prove scientifically beyond any doubt that it is the food that is making a difference you would have to lock them up for a very long time. However I think we can say food produced to organic standards is different in a number of ways. Studies have shown it to be higher in vitamins. It has no pesticide residues. It has lower levels of nitro amides. It is closer to the sort of food that our grandparents grandparents were eating, it has been tried and tested. No BSE has ever been found in organically reared cattle. And, to my mind far more importantly than all this, it is [b]GM free[/b]

Tom Only had time for a quick scan over..but the nitrates bit "shouted " at me. A few weeks ago i got half a rainforest of paper about new nitrates regulations starting 19/12/02. It hardly mentions chem fert..its all about MANURE applications, so please dont tell me that the Gov thinks my granular urea appications are a problem, they are convinced its you organic chaps ploughing muck in during november and planting spuds in april...THAT IS NOW BANNED!

Tom you present an interesting and well thought out piece above. The trouble is I find most of it some rather misleading. [b]Positive commitment to the environment[/b] Well we’ve planted about 3 km. Of hedges, and we’re not organic – they’re doing really well too, because the first couple of years I sprayed round the bottom with glyphosate! Slurry tank: no one is getting away with slurry tanks that leak into streams, barring some catastrophic failure of the structure. The average farmer supports around 40 other businesses: is that a [i]bad[/i] thing? [b]More rural employment[/b] Well, if you can [i]get[/i] people to come and pull chickweed by hand I suppose that’s almost true.. [b]less energy[/b] Until recently much of the North Sea gas was being burnt off on the rigs. [b]People don’t like them[/b] Because they’re fed a constant diet of propaganda from various ‘green’ groups who’ve got bags of cash for advertising campaigns. [b] Healthier soil[/b] Regularly trotted out, but is this entirely proven? Are their more/less bugs, or just different ones? I think that things will balance out over time, can’t really believe that conventional farmed soils are practically sterile… [b] Healthier plants[/b] I’ve seen some pretty sick plants on organic plots. It’s all very well an Oak tree growing slower than a Poplar, but this analogy doesn’t seem to transfer very well to wheat. [b] Healthy Animals[/b] This is such a poor point, Tom countered it himself. I don’t think there’s really much difference in either system. You will occasionally get bouts of pneumonia or scours etc. in both full stop. [b] Healthy food[/b] I thought that after extensive testing, the FSA found there was no detectable difference between conventional and organic? It must depend who’s paying to have the tests done methinks. But of course it’s OBVIOUS that organic produce can not only cure cancer, but has less nitro amides. It’s miraculous those of us who deliberately avoid paying inflated prices for inferior produce are still here at all!

Richard Point taken. Farming in one of the few areas not in a NVZ (urban fringe) I am not up to date with the rules but they do look similar to what organic farmers have had to do for a long time, we need a documented waste management plan and are limited to 170kgN/ha. Claiming less N in the groundwater was not one of the ten points, the test kit is because when I plough in clover I want to time it so that the maximum is available for the next crop, too soon it leaches, too late and it is not available, I am still learning. Before you do a hatchet job on the rest of it please read it in the spirit it is written. Imagine that carrying on farming the way you do is no longer possible and assuming that the economics are right (organic selling price + government support = cost of production + living wage) write a sensible conversion plan for your own farm and compare the environmental impact with the ten points given. If there are not more pluses than minuses then you need help with the conversion plan. For some of us this is no academic exercise, organic is our only option. If we seek public money for environmental reasons do not take it as an attack on the rest of you. If every farmer keeps on increasing output there will be a lot less farmers (the Rickard scenario). If we all farmed organically many more could stay in business. The future will be part way between the two but the more of us that farm organically, the more farmers there will be. GM = FFF (far fewer farmers) QED Since Prince Charles is too busy to answer questions on organic farming at present (and so am I) I will leave you with a link to a quote I gave earlier. http://www.fwi.co.uk/external.asp?redirect=http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/&from=relatedLink and click speeches, agriculture, 50th anniversary of SA

Jack Sorry if I overestimated you. There are no health hazard associated with using well composted manure other than those with growing food in 'dirt' and I would sooner take my chance on vegetables grown in good organic soil than anything grown without it.

Tom, Sorry I don't have time for a detailed response to each point. In general though : I agree organic farming forces higher labour use, and that the higher prices can support this, and ... that this is beneficial. That was not part of the argument I presented on the environment. On all your other points except pollution of watercourses : there is very limited or no supporting evidence. Certainly not enough to convict conventional farming on an objective basis. On all your points including pollution of watercourses : solutions are available within a conventional context, they are not the exclusive preserve of organic farming. Yes, organic farming may force solutions on a sledge hammer to crack a nut basis. There is no evidence that that sledge hammer brings any more benefit than would a nut-cracker - i.e. specific targeted solutions applied in a conventional system could be equally beneficial to organic farming without incurring all the penalties. The advantages that organic farming has are twofold : 1. a positive image in the market place that permits higher returns to fund good farming practice (and a lot else); 2. it forces use of certain beneficial practices such as rotation which I spoke about. This can only continue while the organic market is under supplied to protect the premium. It is a niche, and a very fragile one totally dependent on the whim of the big retailers. I seriously considered partial conversion in the late 80s. The sector I was interested in collapsed just before I started. Could that happen again ? By the way, I think your take and the Organic approach on fertility / nitrate leaching are dangerous / laughable / baloney. To the plant, what the hell does it matter where a nitrate / phosphate / whatever ion comes from. Your fertiliser practices : 1. promote the chances of nitrate (in particular) leaching; 2. make it extraordinarily difficult to preserve potash balance in long term arable. Are you not raping the soil ? Sustainable ? pull the other one. Reading rules on set-aside, NVZs etc I am always appaled at how many exemptions are granted to Organic farmers only. Why should 'best farming practice' not apply to the system which sets itself up as the gold standard. Riding for a fall ? Dependence on politicians is a dangerous path :-) All the tactics suggested to overcome this last one are a sham. The Organic movement depends on importing nutrients to make up the balance, transferring the deficit out of their system - hiding it. It is impossible to sell food out of a system without creating a mineral imbalance unless the waste products (biosolids and presumably dead bodies) all come back. The organic movement in Britain successfully lobbied to have this banned from organic farming several decades ago. More recently, on the back of Freinds of the Earth coming out strongly in favour of recycling biosolids to farmland, is it true that the organic movement were lobbying to have that ban lifted ? I heard this was dropped when industry pressure groups here in Scotland spiked the recycling of biosolids to farm land. Oh dear. This looks like invective against organic farming. It's not supposed to be. We can all learn a lot from organic farming. It is often re-learning skills which our grandfathers would have laughed at us for lacking. As a scientist I get sick of being bull-shitted with ... I hesitate to call it lies, but there isn't enough supportable truth in the organic message, and there is too much which can only be called lies. Conventional farming needs to improve too. The "worst" thing is - conventional farming knows it, and is acting. Organic farming has its head in proverbial, with no sense of smell. So, perhaps a big thank you to organic farming for helping conventional farming see it's faults.

Dear Mike, There seem to far too mahy words flying about for me, I would like to keep it simple and factual. We do seem to have established one important fact with Tom. He does agree that organic farmers spread animal faeces on the land and crops. In fairness to the precautionary principle and the danger to the public we should keep that practice under review. Not only do we have something to learn from organic farmers we can also learn from their campaigning methods: lies, damned lies and statistics. Regards, Jack