Leila's blog

Mon, Jun 23, 2008

Rolling in clover

I am currently wondering how an intelligent person can come to the conclusion that low carbon food is anything other than local and organic. Th comment that we needed to move to a low carbon food chain was made on today's You and Yours on Radio 4. To anyone with even the slightest grasp of food and farming it is self evident that the lowest carbon option is food that needs the least transportation (i.e. local) and the least carbon inputs (i.e. organic). Organic food uses very little carbon in its production compared to industrial farming - no high carbon based fertilisers and pesticides, higher biodiversity on farm means a greater uptake of carbon by the land, healthier soil keeps in carbon and stores it away. I could go on. It may be more extensive so you get less food per acre, but that doesn't increase it's carbon use. Surely, given that we throw away between 1/3rd and 1/2 of all food bought in the UK we don't need to produce more but landfill less.

Today I also launch my Clover Events website. I recently moved into event organising on a paid basis after many years of doing so as a volunteer. If you are interested you can check out our website here.

Comments and questions

will wrote at 16:44, on 21/07/2008

Actually you are not necessarily correct that organic is always lower carbon. Some organic crops are grown using a lot of fuel for soil tillage and to keep the crop free of weeds. Whilst personally I cannot envisage a better system for animals using grass/ clover leys a small and judicious use of pesticides for growing crops such as cereals and vegetables can be very sensible.

Leila wrote at 19:52, on 01/08/2008

I am not a farmer or agricultural expert, however, every non-organic pesticide and fertilizer (even judiciously used) requires a carbon input to produce them. A shift away from the large scale grazing and raising of animals in areas suitable for arable and vegetable growing would be a sensible move. This isn't an argument in favour of monocultures - mixed farms are a good idea but over consumption of animal products, especially from intensively reared animals, has been conclusively linked to climate change.

Mark wrote at 21:28, on 05/08/2008

There is a big difference between sustainable farming and industrial organic.

Leila wrote at 18:15, on 06/08/2008

I agree Mark - but this touches on not just matters of how farming is carried out but land ownership - no matter how well an individual or business works (or leaves) their land is it ever a good idea for relatively few to have ownership over a resource essential for everyone? I am not happy about privatised water, I wouldn't bee keen on privatised air, but somehow we all accept private ownership of land. Bizarre considering that much of this 'ownership' is based on historical injustices and land grabs sanctioned by unelected elites.

I am not an organic purist but I think there still is a case for asking how much carbon each form of farming contributes - organic may require extra tilling but fertilisers and pesticides also need to be spread.

Mark wrote at 23:58, on 07/08/2008

Interesting point on land ownership but I think that's a separate issue to sustainable farming practices - well it is in the UK anyway.

Regarding farming there is an excellent book by Michael Pollan, "The Omnivors Dilemma" basically he compares industrial farms and what he calls grass farming. Industrial farms derive their energy largely from oil, be it to run the machinery, to deliver raw materials or to manufacture fertilizers. Grass farms get their evergy from the sun and aside from grass seed do not really need any other net inputs to function. By a mixture of rotation and other sustainable practices they can survive without destroying the land. I don't know if anyone is following this practice in the UK or in Wales.

One of the problems with many "organic" farms is that they can still fudge the question of sustainability. Take compost for example - it is called organic even when it is heated during manufacture, which might require oil, gas or nuclear energy.

Perhaps there is a place for a brand mark for sustainably produced produce as distinct from the "organic" label which I fear has been exploited by the large supermarket chains to the extent that it has lost much of its meaning, at least in the mainstream

will wrote at 21:15, on 11/08/2008

on land ownership i still think a business interest is important in order to keep food production going. If food supplies suffer we really struggle so i don't personally buy into the altruistic idea of everybody sharing land, i don't think it works. there may be a massive middle ground however.

Def. a case for looking at the carbon contribution of land - its a hell of a rocky road though, which may ask more questions than it solves. Lots of organic fertilisers and pesticides need carbon to produce as well.

Organic is great but lets not lose the wood for the trees. There is room for a range of sustainable agricultures and greens would do themselves the greatest of credit to recognise this.

Leila wrote at 18:37, on 14/08/2008

Hi Will - I don't deny that there is a role for most types of agriculture that have some element of respect for their community and the environment incorporated within them. I would argue that there is still a place for a far greater use of organic. Regarding the land issue I certainly wouldn't advocate some retro communist type redistribution of land. Farming needs to be done by dedicated and knowledgeable people. However, there is an argument for looking at grossly disproportionate ownership of land, increasing the number of farms, supporting better the small family / community farms, and giving many tenant farmers the right to buy at reduced prices farms they have been on for many years. I am not a believer in any Utopian vision just there are so many better ways of doing things and organising ourselves than at present, where profit is King.

Will wrote at 18:22, on 15/08/2008

yeah prob. will be more organic in the future especially as the cost of fertiliser rises - but organic has long relied on a premium so i hope those who convert still have willing purchasers. personally I love loads of aspects of organics but to use the odd pesticide or a bit of fertiliser here and there means you'd get thrown out of the organic philosophy but physically and practically your farming practices wuld be just as high quality.

On land ownership I'm in more agreement with you.