Meeting others on the green road

marizpan

Hi,
I would really like to hear from others in a similar boat as us. As it seems the road is getting lonely.
Im in my late twenties and married with 2 boys. We try and be very self sufficent and produce our own veg, rear our own pigs,chickens, geese and ducks and have a dairy goat. Must people ie. family keep telling us why bother because its cheaper to just buy it in the shop. But it not about money, more about removing the need for so much money. It a nice way to live, especially with small children.
We only have a half acre of garden but rent a large field at the rear of our house also. It doesnt take much effort 30mins morning and evening and i dont understand why more people dont do it? i guess because they have never tried it yet, because if they did they would love it.
I stay at home with the children but would prefer to go to work, but with current conditions, i dont think that will happen any time soon. My husband has been working fulltime and has just finished up due to serious illness. We have a crazy mortgage and are busy saving to be rent free in 5yrs time with a downsized mini farm, depending on what we can afford.
Is there anybody else young out there doing this also ???

Thanks:)

Birdnuts

Good stuff, more Irish people need to wake up to this benefits of this kind of lifestyle especially when we now see were a purile Celtic Tiger consumer culture has got us - we've got a great climate and loads of land after all for growing good food. Your lifestyle is actually common place over many rural(and not so rural) parts of Europe and has proven to be a great succes and a basis for strong healthy communities. Sadly though, as is the case when it comes to so many environmental/sustainablity issues, the Irish always seem to be the last to cop on

djpbarry

marizpan wrote: »

We only have a half acre of garden but rent a large field at the rear of our house also. It doesnt take much effort 30mins morning and evening and i dont understand why more people dont do it? i guess because they have never tried it yet...

...and they probably can't try it because they don't have the land, or at least most people don't. Great that it works for you, but it's rarely practical for people to grow their own vegetables, never mind rear their own livestock.

djpbarry

Birdnuts wrote: »

...we've got a great climate and loads of land after all for growing good food.

Indeed we do, so let's leave it to the professionals (i.e. farmers) to take advantage.

Macha

djpbarry wrote: »

Indeed we do, so let's leave it to the professionals (i.e. farmers) to take advantage.

Why? What's wrong with growing what you can, even if all you have is a windowsill?

Edit: And why isn't it practical for most people to grow some vegetables, if they have the space?

Judgement Day

I ask again Mod - are you sure you modding the right forum? Do you, in fact, support anything green?

Triangle

JD,
There's green and then there's just living in a fictitional world.

If the entirity of land was taken up with people on small plots doing their own thing then we would have mass starvation across the planet.

i'm not saying what the OP is doing is wrong - i applaud them - i would love to do something similar. But i would do this for selfish reasons (i.e. me and my family would be self sufficient and to hell with everyone else)

basically the point i'm making is that DJP has a point - farmers should be able to make more food greener than alot of smaller 'dabblers' but this does not take away from people that want to do better for the world.

Trig

Macha

Triangle wrote: »

If the entirity of land was taken up with people on small plots doing their own thing then we would have mass starvation across the planet.

Can you back up that assertion with stats?

Triangle wrote: »

basically the point i'm making is that DJP has a point - farmers should be able to make more food greener than alot of smaller 'dabblers' but this does not take away from people that want to do better for the world.

How is large-scale farming inherently 'greener' (please specify what you mena here) than smaller 'dabblers'. What exactly is it about growing food that means it should be the preserve of a special section of society?

If nothing else, it is an important life skill, like cooking, and by the looks of it, there needs to be some serious demystifying about how hard it is - because it isn't difficult at all to grow a few veg in your back garden, if you can be bothered.

djpbarry

taconnol wrote: »

Why? What's wrong with growing what you can, even if all you have is a windowsill?

Nothing at all – I’d be growing some vegetables if I had a garden. However, my statement was made in the context of the OP, who made reference to self-sufficiency. Now, I’m going to apologise in advance in case I am misrepresenting what they are saying, but they seem to be suggesting that they would like to see more people getting their own plots of land and trying to become self-sufficient. Personally, I think that’s a terrible idea, mainly for reasons of practicality (most people don’t have the necessary land) and efficiency - it’s generally more efficient to have food grown by professional farmers on relatively large farms than to have it grown by relative novices on small plots of land. Let me put it like this – I would not like my well-being to be dependent on my ability to extract nutrients from my garden.

djpbarry

Judgement Day wrote: »

I ask again Mod - are you sure you modding the right forum?

If you’ve got an issue with my moderation of this forum, then take it to the help desk.

Macha

djpbarry wrote: »

Nothing at all – I’d be growing some vegetables if I had a garden. However, my statement was made in the context of the OP, who made reference to self-sufficiency. Now, I’m going to apologise in advance in case I am misrepresenting what they are saying, but they seem to be suggesting that they would like to see more people getting their own plots of land and trying to become self-sufficient. Personally, I think that’s a terrible idea, mainly for reasons of practicality (most people don’t have the necessary land) and efficiency - it’s generally more efficient to have food grown by professional farmers on relatively large farms than to have it grown by relative novices on small plots of land. Let me put it like this – I would not like my well-being to be dependent on my ability to extract nutrients from my garden.

It is not a binary choice between total dependence and self-sufficiency, as you suggest. Rather, there is a sliding scale from total self-sufficiency (quite difficult, as you say) and total dependence. As usual, what's best, in my opinion, is somewhere in the middle.

Your point about most people being relative novices is an interesting one. Firstly, you're right - most people don't know how to grow food. Is this something that should be accepted, or perhaps a situation that needs to be resolved? Secondly, I would point out that there are many different types of agriculture and a lot of modern 'farmers' depend so heavily on imported fertility, heavy machinery and chemicals that they wouldn't be much better than your average gardener if they had to grow food crops without them. So this idea that there are only two groups in society (a) professional farmers and (b) novice non-farmers is also false.

As has been discussed in another thread, there can be significant inefficiencies in larger farms and this does not include other factors, such as transportation that makes up a significant amount of industrialised agriculture's energy usage & transport emissions. Add in the transportation of customers home and this increases further. Also add in the production, transportation, application and disposal of packaging and this adds even further costs/inefficiencies (in the wider sense of the word).

In short, there are significant advantages to encouraging small-scale farming among the general 'novice' public (I can think of plenty more than the ones mentioned above).

Birdnuts

djpbarry wrote: »

Indeed we do, so let's leave it to the professionals (i.e. farmers) to take advantage.

They don't seem to be getting on too well ATM being mere slaves of supermarkets and big agri business:(

Birdnuts

djpbarry wrote: »

Personally, I think that’s a terrible idea, mainly for reasons of practicality (most people don’t have the necessary land) and efficiency - it’s generally more efficient to have food grown by professional farmers on relatively large farms than to have it grown by relative novices on small plots of land. Let me put it like this – I would not like my well-being to be dependent on my ability to extract nutrients from my garden.

Works perfectly well in many part of Europe - most of France being a case in point were nearly everyone(at every scale from small back garden to larger holdings) in rural and not so rural areas produce much of what they need and are not slaves of the big multiples. Its what makes much of rural France such a great place to be - enjoyed it first hand last year in the stunning Dordorgne region, the highlight being tucking into free range pork fattened on wild acorns and garnished with salads and herbs produced in the gardens of the particular estaiblishment we were staying. Travelling from Bordeaux through rural France was a real eye-opener with nearly every house in the countryside having its own vegetable plot, free-range poutry and fruit trees - great stuff and highlighted how backward and unimaginative we are in this country when it comes to these things!!

freedom of info

djpbarry wrote: »

...and they probably can't try it because they don't have the land, or at least most people don't. Great that it works for you, but it's rarely practical for people to grow their own vegetables, never mind rear their own livestock.

an average sized back garden can produce enough veg for a family for 8-9 months of the year, a glass house is a bonus.

CJhaughey

You have to start somewhere, granted your first attempt at growing your own food might end up unsuccessfully, but with time and experience and a willingness to learn anyone can become a small scale food producer.
Our garden has gone from strength to strength but we usually produce a reasonable amount of veg each year.

I don't buy the argument that we should "leave it to the professionals".
Producing your own food means you have control over the product, you can choose to use chemical sprays or not, organic methods or not.
You are not beholden to some faceless farmer in Spain to produce your tomato's or peppers, professional though they might be.

We kept pigs for the last few years, and they provide us with a large amount of high quality pork throughout the year, and also dispose of most veg waste that we produce and also fertilize the soil where they are kept.
Should I stop producing these fantastic animals and just buy tesco value pork because it is cheaper and produced by a Professional?
Chickens are another very good way to get started with livestock most gardens could support a pair of chickens even urban gardens, historically these would have been kept by any family that had a bit of ground that they could scratch on.
We kept both broilers (eating) and layers this season and eating your own chicken is a fantastic reminder how tasty real chicken is.

Unfortunately many people have never had the opportunity to produce their own food due to many factors but I think a resurgence is under way, the seed companies have reported massive sales increases and there is a general feeling that the production of ones own food is starting to increase.
Look at the likes of TV, Corrigan growing veg and pigs etc etc.
Once you start and develop it into a skill you will probably wonder why you didn't do it before now.:)

djpbarry

taconnol wrote: »

As has been discussed in another thread, there can be significant inefficiencies in larger farms...

I’m sure there can be, but I would have thought that, in maximising efficiency, there is an ‘optimum’ farm size, which I would have imagined is significantly larger than the typical back garden.

taconnol wrote: »

In short, there are significant advantages to encouraging small-scale farming among the general 'novice' public (I can think of plenty more than the ones mentioned above).

I’m sure there are and as I said already, I’d give it a go if I could. But, like many people living in cities, I don’t have a garden! Somebody else has to grow my food for me!

You mentioned cooking in an earlier post and I think that’s a useful analogy; many people, for whatever reason, are terrible cooks and they always will be, for whatever reason (I’m sure we all know at least one). But fortunately, their terrible cooking is (usually) confined within the walls of their house. However, suppose you have two people living next door to each other, both of whom are attempting to grow their own vegetables; one has become quite adept, the other is making a pretty half-assed attempt at it. Is there not a chance that the good gardener’s work will be undone in some way by the poor attempts on the neighbouring plot of land? Further, would it not make more sense for the good gardener to be responsible for the management of both plots, therefore increasing efficiency and possibly producing sufficient excess to sell to a city-dweller ?

djpbarry

CJhaughey wrote: »

I don't buy the argument that we should "leave it to the professionals".
...
We kept pigs for the last few years, and they provide us with a large amount of high quality pork throughout the year, and also dispose of most veg waste that we produce and also fertilize the soil where they are kept.

For better or worse, some of us have to leave it to farmers to produce our food – we don’t have an alternative. It’s great that you are in a position to raise your own pigs, but that’s simply not an option for, say, people living in flats – they have to buy their meat from somewhere.

But let’s suppose for a second that I did have a large garden suitable for rearing pigs. Let’s also suppose that there’s a butcher nearby selling locally-sourced pork (let’s say it’s organic, for argument’s sake). The butcher is selling his pork for €x per kilo, whereas I have worked out that if I were to raise my own pigs, the net cost to me (including labour) per kilo of pork produced would actually be greater than the price offered by the butcher. In that case, wouldn’t it make sense for me to just buy the pork from the butcher (looking at it purely from the perspective of efficiency)?

CJhaughey

djpbarry wrote: »

For better or worse, some of us have to leave it to farmers to produce our food – we don’t have an alternative. It’s great that you are in a position to raise your own pigs, but that’s simply not an option for, say, people living in flats – they have to buy their meat from somewhere.

Indeed I am not saying an apartment dweller should raise any livestock, but there is nothing stopping them from growing herbs on their windowsill of patio? Thats a start and then when a recipe calls for a handful of parsley it is right there at hand. Is that not efficient? Or should it be left to the big scale herb grower.

You can also apply for an allotment.

djpbarry wrote: »

But let’s suppose for a second that I did have a large garden suitable for rearing pigs. Let’s also suppose that there’s a butcher nearby selling locally-sourced pork (let’s say it’s organic, for argument’s sake). The butcher is selling his pork for €x per kilo, whereas I have worked out that if I were to raise my own pigs, the net cost to me (including labour) per kilo of pork produced would actually be greater than the price offered by the butcher. In that case, wouldn’t it make sense for me to just buy the pork from the butcher (looking at it purely from the perspective of efficiency)?

Do the maths on Organic pork, and you will find that you cannot buy it cheaper than you can produce it, if you have some land.
But by raising your own pigs you will certainly find out how to handle rear and deal with pigs, after a few years of this you will have developed more efficient ways of feeding and you have a new skill.
If you have no desire to know how food gets from farm to fork then you are at liberty to buy the stuff from a supermarket/market stall/farmer.
But by developing the knowledge to produce your own food you have bettered yourself and taken a step towards being able to feed yourself.

Then there is the knowledge that your pig lived a healthy, happy life free to roam and root, the last bit is not looked at as an economic equation but is more a moral question.
There is more than just economics involved.

freedom of info

CJhaughey wrote: »

Indeed I am not saying an apartment dweller should raise any livestock, but there is nothing stopping them from growing herbs on their windowsill of patio? Thats a start and then when a recipe calls for a handful of parsley it is right there at hand. Is that not efficient? Or should it be left to the big scale herb grower.

You can also apply for an allotment.



Do the maths on Organic pork, and you will find that you cannot buy it cheaper than you can produce it, if you have some land.
But by raising your own pigs you will certainly find out how to handle rear and deal with pigs, after a few years of this you will have developed more efficient ways of feeding and you have a new skill.
If you have no desire to know how food gets from farm to fork then you are at liberty to buy the stuff from a supermarket/market stall/farmer.
But by developing the knowledge to produce your own food you have bettered yourself and taken a step towards being able to feed yourself.

Then there is the knowledge that your pig lived a healthy, happy life free to roam and root, the last bit is not looked at as an economic equation but is more a moral question.
There is more than just economics involved.

currently allotments are in short supply, however dublin city council have 19 acres of land near blessington, that maybe turned over for horticultural use,

djpbarry

CJhaughey wrote: »

Do the maths on Organic pork, and you will find that you cannot buy it cheaper than you can produce it...

Including the cost of your own labour?

johnathan woss

Triangle wrote: »

If the entirity of land was taken up with people on small plots doing their own thing then we would have mass starvation across the planet.

Absolute nonsense.

Large-scale farming only works with large inputs of fossil fuels.
Long-distance transport of food only works with large inputs of fossil fuels.

Fossil fuels are finite .... draw your own conclusions.

johnathan woss

Also;

The mod of the green issues forum should NOT be discouraging the local production of food and extolling the virtues of industrial farming. This is ridiculous.

CJhaughey

djpbarry wrote: »

Including the cost of your own labour?

At what point do you value your own labour to grow things? Gardening for most people is a hobby, something they enjoy.
Same with small scale animal husbandry.
How do you value the environmental damage caused by intensive pig farming and overuse of chemical fertilizers for grass production? Who pays for that?
When your local river is choked with algae from fertilizer runoff how do value that?

Small scale horticulture and agriculture is by its nature sustainable.

djpbarry

The next person to discuss moderation will be banned. No exceptions.

gillo_100

Triangle wrote: »

JD,
If the entirity of land was taken up with people on small plots doing their own thing then we would have mass starvation across the planet.

Fair enough I might concede that were you to take a farm and split it up among say 20 individuals tho total production of that may be less than what a single farmer could produce.

However that is not point, the land is already there in peolple back gardens not producing anything, it is just being used as patio, lawn or flowerbed. So by changing this into producing land how are you reducing the overall output.

Fair enough not many people would have enough land to raise livestock but even a 1m square plot can produce a decent ammount of veg.

marizpan

OP here
djpbarry, i think you have misunderstod my post. We have 1/2 acre back garden that would go to no other use than lawn as must peoples do. I am not discussing city v's country etc gardens. I only discussed my personal situation and am only interested in hearing positive feedback from people in similiar positions. I have not taken a productive piece of land from any farmer. We rent a field for our horses only,which was idle prior to our lease, our garden produces all our veg, egg and meat requirments. Although my dad does give us a fatten lamb every year. i do come from a farming backround and actually studied this in colleague for 2 yrs before going to do another degree. We only have to buy in bread, cereals & utilitys.ie. washing up liquid, washing powder, toilet roll.
People from farming backrounds would understand that large scale farming is very ineffective and as already stated, heavily reliant on oil and oil byproducts.
I agree, its not about being totally self sufficient. That is an impossibilty and not desirable.

Macha

djpbarry wrote: »

I’m sure there can be, but I would have thought that, in maximising efficiency, there is an ‘optimum’ farm size, which I would have imagined is significantly larger than the typical back garden.

Most definitely if we're talking about producing surplus for sale to markets, etc, and I wouldn't claim to be expert enough to know what that is.

But two points:
a) if you have a patch of land, then growing any food is more efficient than growing none, even if you never produce a surplus :pac:
b)there are plenty of 'novice' farmers in the country that sell what surplus they have to local markets/restaurants who are only too happy to have some local, seasonal, fresh, good value produce.

djpbarry wrote: »

I’m sure there are and as I said already, I’d give it a go if I could. But, like many people living in cities, I don’t have a garden! Somebody else has to grow my food for me!

Sure fine, but do you have a windowsill? A balcony? Then you can grow something. You may choose not to - but that is different from proclaiming that you cannot. Then, there is always the option of putting down your name for an allotment or get involved with a community garden.

The issue of urban gardening is fascinating and something I'd love to see the local authorities get involved with. For example, one element of permaculture is to make the landscape edible. So when the council is planting trees in a park, they could make them apple trees - doesn't that make sense??

djpbarry wrote: »

You mentioned cooking in an earlier post and I think that’s a useful analogy; many people, for whatever reason, are terrible cooks and they always will be, for whatever reason (I’m sure we all know at least one).

Perhaps so but to be honest, those people are really in a minority. Cooking is not that hard - I just gave a friend a cooking lesson over the weekend and the best thing about it was the demystification (ahem, is that a word?) of the whole process! There are very few people who can't even throw together a plate of pasta with some sauce.

Let's look at the cooking/food growing analogy a bit more. If a person doesn't know how to cook, there are quite a few drawbacks:
1) ultimately it is more expensive for them because they rely on others (supermarkets/restaurants/takeaways) to do their cooking for them
2) they create more packaging through their ready meals
3) their meals use more energy in transportation, pre-cooking etc than home-made meals.
4) They have significantly reduced control over what goes into their meals, as ready meals are often laden with fat/sugar/salt, etc.

Similarly, not growing your own food can have similar drawbacks:
1) it's more expensive to buy in a supermarket than grow your own
2) more packaging of food
3) more transportation
4) far less control/knowledge of production methods, again relying on labelling.

djpbarry wrote: »

Is there not a chance that the good gardener’s work will be undone in some way by the poor attempts on the neighbouring plot of land?

?? djpbarry it is not like you to make such weird arguments!

djpbarry wrote: »

Further, would it not make more sense for the good gardener to be responsible for the management of both plots, therefore increasing efficiency and possibly producing sufficient excess to sell to a city-dweller ?

Hmm, sure. I mean I suppose the way I look at it is, there are a lot of benefits to growing your own food and it isn't as hard as it looks. It's better for the environment, you learn a new skill, you can get the whole family involved, save some money, get some exercise....or you can just give into the big agri-business conglomerates and buy your food (which externalises many, many costs to the rest of society and the taxpayer) from Tesco. It's a no-brainer for me.

djpbarry

CJhaughey wrote: »

At what point do you value your own labour to grow things? Gardening for most people is a hobby, something they enjoy.
Same with small scale animal husbandry.

That’s a pretty big assumption you’re making their – most people enjoy gardening? I wouldn’t be so sure about that. Perhaps a more accurate statement would be most people who garden enjoy gardening. But anyway, animal husbandry is not the same as gardening – there’s a reasonable amount of work involved (an hour a day minimum in my experience, depending on the number of animals). Even keeping a pet dog requires a bit of effort. I suppose the extent to which you value your own labour depends on the constraints that said labour puts on your time.

CJhaughey wrote: »

How do you value the environmental damage caused by intensive pig farming and overuse of chemical fertilizers for grass production? Who pays for that?
When your local river is choked with algae from fertilizer runoff how do value that?

So I can either rear my own pigs or support irresponsible farmers? That looks to me like a false dichotomy.

djpbarry

taconnol wrote: »

Similarly, not growing your own food can have similar drawbacks:
1) it's more expensive to buy in a supermarket than grow your own
2) more packaging of food
3) more transportation
4) far less control/knowledge of production methods, again relying on labelling.

Why do I have to buy all my food pre-packaged in a supermarket?

taconnol wrote: »

It's better for the environment, you learn a new skill, you can get the whole family involved, save some money, get some exercise....or you can just give into the big agri-business conglomerates and buy your food (which externalises many, many costs to the rest of society and the taxpayer) from Tesco.

Or the local green-grocer. Or a farmers’ market. Or how about your favourite supplier?

What was that you were saying earlier about a “binary choice”?

marizpan

djpbarry wrote: »

Why do I have to buy all my food pre-packaged in a supermarket?
Or the local green-grocer. Or a farmers’ market. Or how about your favourite supplier?

What was that you were saying earlier about a “binary choice”?

Because the large'professionals' supply the supermarkets, the farmers markets are run by novice 'hobby' farmers.

Ddad

Hi OP, Nice one, I think your fighting the good fight. Not only are you reducing your impact on the environment but you are teaching your children the value of food and the importance of the origins of food. I have a relatively small garden but we still manage to get at least one meal a week out of it on average.

The children all get to eat plants that they planted and value that. My friend who has a small suburban garden keeps three hens and two ducks so I get eggs from him and he gets fruit/veg from me when I have a surplus.

i'm buying a house with an acre in the next few months and moving into producing some pork and lamb for the freezer and enough veg for us without having to buy any in.

I would like to address some of djpbarrys points though. 50% of the houses in Kerry built in the last 10 years were built in non-urban areas. Planning guidelines stipulate that most of these housese are built on at least a half acre. Now a planning debate is for another forum so let's leave that. However what those dwellings represent is a massive movement of land from agricultural use to residential use. In most cases this land has been lost to food production. Kerry is the poster boy for bad planning but it is no way unique in Ireland, so we're looking at a hell of a lot of land lost to food production.

The majority of dwellings in ireland are more than adequate for some small scale food production; are we not the land of three and four bed semi d's? If more of this land was turned over to small scale horticultural activity not only does it produce health benefits but it also increases the knowledge of those consumers about the importance of providence in the food chain. Better educated consumers make sustainable and more ethical purchasing choices.

To look at the world through the warped panes of economic efficiencies seldom delivers good results for the environment on which we all rely. Up until 30-40 years ago we were a low carbon economy, it is not coincidence that 30-40 years ago many of us raised our own food. It is also not coincidence that we now eat one of the poorest diets in the world and we are among the most car reliant societies in the world.

As a nation we have lost our way; it appears to me that the OP is finding her way back.

Macha

djpbarry wrote: »

Why do I have to buy all my food pre-packaged in a supermarket?

Or the local green-grocer. Or a farmers’ market. Or how about your favourite supplier?

What was that you were saying earlier about a “binary choice”?

No you're absolutely right. But growing your own will still have the least transportation and packaging of all sources of food

To be honest, I would be overjoyed if people went back to box suppliers (be it the one I prefer or not!), green grocers, etc especially given that approximately 70% of food is purchased through supermarkets in the UK (and it's probably higher here).

I also think there are other benefits to growing your own, such as educating your kids, as ddad mentioned, and having an appreciation of where your food comes from and the time/effort it takes to make it, and therefore you are less likely to waste it (my theory, anway).

djpbarry

marizpan wrote: »

Because the large'professionals' supply the supermarkets, the farmers markets are run by novice 'hobby' farmers.

Well, yes, if you define “novice” and ”professional” in a way that suits your own argument.

Ddad wrote: »

The majority of dwellings in ireland are more than adequate for some small scale food production; are we not the land of three and four bed semi d's?

Indeed, but as you say yourself, that is as a result of bad planning and I don’t think large suburban developments are what we want to see in this country going forward. Now unless we’re going to move everyone in the country into a house with a decent sized bit of land (which would be a terrible idea), then farming is going to have to continue in some shape or form.

Ddad wrote: »

To look at the world through the warped panes of economic efficiencies seldom delivers good results for the environment on which we all rely.

I disagree. Maximising efficiency is all about minimising waste and getting as much output as possible for as little input as possible. Minimising waste surely has to be good for the environment?

Ddad wrote: »

Up until 30-40 years ago we were a low carbon economy...

...with a very low standard of living, relative to the present.

Ddad

farming will continue while we continue.

Economic efficiency and efficiency are very different beasts. Allow me to explain. In the world of agriculture increased drives towards efficiency are driven on by the search for lower cost inputs. To this end we've seen a mass migration away from mixed farming to monoculture farming i.e. 10,000 hectare monocultre plantations of cotton, corn, soy etc. At the moment ireland is following this path as more and more small farms are amalgamating to form larger land holdings which are economically viable. Their environmental viability is questionable.

The problem lies with monoculture as a form of food production. It requires massive inputs of fuel and fertiliser to sustain the fertility of the crops. Pests become a major issue requiring peticides and herbicides. None of which is sustainable as has been stated previously because of the over reliance on fossil fuels. in addition these crops have to travel large distances to find their markets e.g. mangetout.

In the name of farmland efficiency many farms in europe and the states amalgamated their holdings into larger and larger fields in the post war years. As a result many of the hedgegrows in these countries were decimated. Now, agriculturally wasted land was elimanated but in freeing this land for cultivation biodiversity got a kicking and the farmers became more reliant on chemicals as all of the natural biological controls for their fields had been wiped out with the hedgegrows. In Ireland our hedgegrows when added together have more trees than all of our forest combined. It's not an argument in itself but rather an illustration of how drives for efficiency are often self defeating.

Getting people to use their own land to produce their own food won't damage local agriculture, we import 90% of our fruit and veg anyway. It will reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. As was pointed out the ultimate model of efficiency is walking outside your back garden picking some food, peparing it and eating it. No food miles and maximum goodness. in addition when people produce their own food they are far less likely to waste it as the labour involved imbues it with a value. We waste 40% of the food we buy in this country, their lie the efficiencies; reducing that.

30-40 years ago we did indeed have a lower standard of living. We also had much lower levels of diabetes, heart disease and nutritionally related complaints. I am not against good living standards, in nutritional terms our standards have slipped badly. We don't have to trade one for the other.

I just think it's a better idea to switch off the 52 inch plasma screen and get a bit of exercise converting some of the half acre soutfork lawns in this country into great food. The lawns add nothing to us, but the food and exercise will.

djpbarry

Ddad wrote: »

In the name of farmland efficiency many farms in europe and the states amalgamated their holdings into larger and larger fields in the post war years. As a result many of the hedgegrows in these countries were decimated. Now, agriculturally wasted land was elimanated but in freeing this land for cultivation biodiversity got a kicking and the farmers became more reliant on chemicals as all of the natural biological controls for their fields had been wiped out with the hedgegrows.

So in other words, in the pursuit of greater short-term efficiency, long-term efficiency was sacrificed. Or perhaps the long-term effects of these measures were not envisaged? Either way, the net result was (apparently) greater inefficiency.

Ddad wrote: »

Getting people to use their own land to produce their own food won't damage local agriculture...

I’m not saying it will (I certainly hope nobody thinks I am lobbying on behalf of Irish farmers). What I am saying is that, as you say, farming will be necessary for the foreseeable future, but there’s no reason why our agricultural sector cannot be operated sustainably; no need to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Ddad wrote: »

I just think it's a better idea to switch off the 52 inch plasma screen and get a bit of exercise converting some of the half acre soutfork lawns in this country into great food.

It’s a nice idea, but I honestly don’t see the majority of people in this country being interested in that sort of lifestyle. Maybe we could start by encouraging people to prepare their own meals first and then maybe some time down the line, they might be encouraged to prepare their own ingredients.

Macha

djpbarry wrote: »

It’s a nice idea, but I honestly don’t see the majority of people in this country being interested in that sort of lifestyle. Maybe we could start by encouraging people to prepare their own meals first and then maybe some time down the line, they might be encouraged to prepare their own ingredients.

I don't see what's so crazy about it.

There are already a big initiatives in schools called 'Incredible Edibles' that gets children to grow some vegetables on the school grounds. It also aims to increase their understanding of agriculture in general:

http://www.agriaware.ie/index.php?page=incredible_edibles

Then there are resources aimed at the general public:

http://www.getgrowing.ie/

As I said earlier, there has recently been an increase in the sales of vegetable and fruit seeds. Undoubtedly a lot of it is due to the recession but the increase started before the financial troubles, suggesting there are other factors involved.

marizpan

Thanks Ddad,
I agree its great doing it with your children as it teaches them so much. Makes them more aware of what they eat and where it comes from and also make them feel more independent about having learned the skills to produce some of there own foods.As well as been great bonding time that i hope they will cherish in yrs to come.
Sustainable farming is very very labour intensive and therefore usually smallscale. It is permaculture not mono, as the soil needs but rotation of veg and animal on it to balance soil fertilty. Therefore the assumption is that large mono farms that produce just the one produce.ie.grain or dairy are unsustainable and cant be farmed without oil byproducts.
Will that mean that in 50-70yrs that produce will be more local, expensive and higher quality yet sustainable? Maybe

monument

marizpan wrote: »

Must people ie. family keep telling us why bother because its cheaper to just buy it in the shop. But it not about money, more about removing the need for so much money.

If it is cheaper to get it in the shop, then it is about money, and, if it is cheaper to get it into the shop, how exactly do you remove the need for such money if your way costs more?

marizpan wrote: »

We only have a half acre of garden but rent a large field at the rear of our house also. It doesnt take much effort 30mins morning and evening and i dont understand why more people dont do it? i guess because they have never tried it yet, because if they did they would love it.

Given that the vast, vast majority of people live in towns and cities, how many people have a half acre gardens and/or fields they can rent near their house? And if the land is not near their house, then doesn't the time needed goes up and up?

And how many people can afford to rent fields? How many farmers are willing to rent such in part or full?

johnathan woss wrote: »

Absolute nonsense.

Large-scale farming only works with large inputs of fossil fuels.
Long-distance transport of food only works with large inputs of fossil fuels.

Fossil fuels are finite .... draw your own conclusions.

That is -- in your words -- absolute nonsense.

Both transport and farming can be a green. Both may not be very green currently, but it is more realistic to change them than for many people to live like the OP. It's lovely that it works for the OP, but it's not realistic as per the questions I ask above.

marizpan wrote: »

People from farming backrounds would understand that large scale farming is very ineffective and as already stated, heavily reliant on oil and oil byproducts.

I'm not from a farming background, but I know [1] reliance on oil and oil by-products can be over come, and [2] your idea and methods at any large scale (ie many people doing what you are) is ineffective because it is unrealistic -- most people simply can't do what you are doing (again, as per the questions I ask above).

And there's other questions too... if there are more and more people doing this does it not make it harder for farmers trying to sell greener products to make a living? Does it not drive down market demand for such products? And maybe you are not taking up useful farmland, if more and more people were to follow you would they start to? Could this lead to farmers renting to people like you rather than produce them selves, and could this in turn leave less local goods on the market so more and more needs to be transported from other countries?

Ddad wrote: »

The majority of dwellings in ireland are more than adequate for some small scale food production

Could you please back that up?

Given that the vast majority of people live in towns and cities (in houses with small gardens and in apartments), I think your claim would be hard to back up.

Ddad wrote: »

To look at the world through the warped panes of economic efficiencies seldom delivers good results for the environment on which we all rely.

To look at the world in warped panes of limited environmentalism will never change anything on any scale that matters.

What I mean by 'limited environmentalism' is that which can get some peoples' carbon use down, but is not realistic on a large scale and will not bring about real change.

taconnol wrote: »

I don't see what's so crazy about it.

He did not say it was crazy, he said it was unrealistic and that: "It’s a nice idea, but I honestly don’t see the majority of people in this country being interested in that sort of lifestyle. Maybe we could start by encouraging people to prepare their own meals first and then maybe some time down the line, they might be encouraged to prepare their own ingredients."

Thus your reply has little connection with his post, you are not dealing with his points.

taconnol wrote: »

There are already a big initiatives in schools called 'Incredible Edibles' that gets children to grow some vegetables on the school grounds. It also aims to increase their understanding of agriculture in general:

http://www.agriaware.ie/index.php?page=incredible_edibles

Then there are resources aimed at the general public:

http://www.getgrowing.ie/

These initiatives could be a distraction from promoting ideas such as djpbarry's suggestion of getting more people to prepare their own meals, or better source their food. Time, effort, and money is put into these initiatives when long-term results are not proven, while you have to ask questions such as -- Would this time, effort, and money get better and more widespread results by aiming for more realistic targets such as getting people to prepare their own meals?

marizpan wrote: »

Sustainable farming is very very labour intensive and therefore usually smallscale. It is permaculture not mono, as the soil needs but rotation of veg and animal on it to balance soil fertilty. Therefore the assumption is that large mono farms that produce just the one produce.ie.grain or dairy are unsustainable and cant be farmed without oil byproducts.

Again, no offence, but your way of doing things is not a realistic approach for the major of the population. And, thus, while it works for you, is not a solution to the large problem.

It could even be a distraction from the larger problem, and, thus, possibly counter-productive, as what you are offering as the solution is not realistic and dismissed. The real danger is where unrealistic green solutions are presented, they damage the promotion of all green ideas and that lessens the chances of any substantial change on levels needed.

Macha

monument wrote: »

He did not say it was crazy, he said it was unrealistic and that: "It’s a nice idea, but I honestly don’t see the majority of people in this country being interested in that sort of lifestyle. Maybe we could start by encouraging people to prepare their own meals first and then maybe some time down the line, they might be encouraged to prepare their own ingredients."

Thus your reply has little connection with his post, you are not dealing with his points.

Um, yes I am dealing with his points....I'll stick with my choice of adjective, thanks.

monument wrote: »

These initiatives could be a distraction from promoting ideas such as djpbarry's suggestion of getting more people to prepare their own meals, or better source their food. Time, effort, and money is put into these initiatives when long-term results are not proven, while you have to ask questions such as -- Would this time, effort, and money get better and more widespread results by aiming for more realistic targets such as getting people to prepare their own meals?.

I don't see why we can't do both. There are already plenty of Irish people who cook regularly and don't need to be encouraged to cook. And there is the subject of Home Ec that is widespread across schools, where kids are taught how to cook.

Can you provide evidence that these initiatives are not working, or is it just that is suits your argument to say so? The annual reports and surveys of teachers suggest otherwise.

marizpan

Lighten up, its a hobby!!! Not a method of putting farmers out of business or any other

Ddad

I'm tempted not to, but I will reply.

If it is cheaper to get it in the shop, then it is about money, and, if it is cheaper to get it into the shop, how exactly do you remove the need for such money if your way costs more

Striving for cheaper and cheaper goods is a race to the bottom. It results in corners cut, pollution, human rights abuses, questionable additives in food. "The price of everything and the value of nothing" etc etc. Read the posts and avoid cherry picking, it's already been stated that for many the home production of some of their food is a powerful educational tool for their children and important to them as individuals. You can't buy it.

Given that the vast, vast majority of people live in towns and cities, how many people have a half acre gardens and/or fields they can rent near their house? And if the land is not near their house, then doesn't the time needed goes up and up?

And how many people can afford to rent fields? How many farmers are willing to rent such in part or full?


No, the vast, vast majority of people in Ireland do not live in towns and cities.

http://beyond2020.cso.ie/Census/TableViewer/tableView.aspx?ReportId=1134
http://www.cso.ie/census/documents/Amended%20census2006_%20Volume%201%20Pop%20Classified%20by%20Area.pdf

You might check the stats available. Leinster is primarily urban, munster is 50/50 and the level of urban dwellers is less again for Connacht and Ulster.

As I stated previously due to planning stipulations most new homes in rural areas have to have at least half and acre of land for percolation purposes unless they are attached to mains sewerage. As I also stated previously half of the dwellings built in Kerry in the last ten years were single rural dwellings. Thats a fair chunk of lawn and it isn't unique in Ireland.

If you inspect www.osi.ie you can inspect any suburban and rural areas and see the ammount of land avaialble for small scale food production. True enough, not everyone has access to half acre plots, I don't. I do have access to a typical 100sq ft suburban garden and I can raise enough food for two to three meals per week. You don't need a half acre.

Given that the vast, vast majority of people live in towns and cities, how many people have a half acre gardens and/or fields they can rent near their house? And if the land is not near their house, then doesn't the time needed goes up and up?

And how many people can afford to rent fields? How many farmers are willing to rent such in part or full?

Fields aka allotments can be rented of many local authorities starting at €50 up to €200 per annum depending on size location etc. In my area five farmers are willing to rent them and they have an average of 50 cutomers each. If it makes economic sense they'll do it.

That is -- in your words -- absolute nonsense.

Both transport and farming can be a green. Both may not be very green currently, but it is more realistic to change them than for many people to live like the OP. It's lovely that it works for the OP, but it's not realistic as per the questions I ask above.


Both farming and transport are the two biggest contributors to global greenhouse gas emmisions. They are not at all green, they are the opposite of green and they require vast ammounts of external energy to function in their present format. As for them becoming more green, organics make up a tiny ammount of farming and at it's current rate of expansion we are at best looking at decades before they become the majority of farms. Organic by the way doesn't necessarily mean sustainable, take aquaculture as an example; it still takes 5-10 kilos of wild caught fish to generate one kilo of farmed organic or not.

As for the argument that more people cannot live like the OP, for many it's choice not means. I know a great many farmers with access to land aplenty and they don't grow a carrot or a spud. Choice again. If your an urban dweller you can put your name down for an allotment, choice. if you can't get one put pressure of your local reps, choice again, it worked for me, I'm setting up a new scheme next year on vacant council land.

We import 90% of our fruit and veg despite the fact we have a climate very suitable for their production. So the argument doesn't stand that we'll erode domestic agriculture , we will erode the need for expensive imports laden with food miles. Most people, as you say youself are not in the position to cultivate on the scale of the OP but they are capable of cultivating on the allotment scale. A scale that fed many families in the past, including urban families from relatively modest landholdings.

As for most dwellings in Ireland being suitable for some from of small scale food production. Flats and apartments accounted for 148,000 dwellings as of 2006 of a total housing stock of 1.77 million units (CSO again). So less than 10% of the housing stock. Even allowing for a large additional percentage of the remaining housing stock being unavailable due to lack of gardens that still leaves a significant majority of the housing stock available for some small scale domestic production. A small garden is relative , whats small?

The world is changed in small increments, switching lightbulbs, turning down thermostats, insulating, walking, buying local, not voting, ignoring waste, not recycling. People get born one by one, they die one by one they're all small increments but it got us to 8 billion from four billion in less than 40 years.

Now, you've pretty much dismissed any merits of any of the arguments put forwards up until this point but have offered very little in return. Yes, it's a great idea to teach people how to cook but you might also bear in mind that the post war generations were the first ones where the majority of people moved from rural to urban centres and as a consequence lost the knowledge to grow their own food. Since that point we have accelerated with abandon towards a point where our activities will destroy the planet. Even excluding global warming, pollution and overexploitation will get us there. The OP is trying; I'd hold off on the misinformed critiques and perhaps offer some solutions of your own.

No one problem got us here, no one solution will get us out of here. You might start by suggesting one solution, that the OPs lifestyle choice is damaging.

djpbarry

Ddad wrote: »

No, the vast, vast majority of people in Ireland do not live in towns and cities.

Based on the two links you provided, I have no idea how you've arrived at that conclusion.

gillo_100

monument wrote: »

"Originally Posted by Ddad
The majority of dwellings in ireland are more than adequate for some small scale food production

"

Could you please back that up?

Given that the vast majority of people live in towns and cities (in houses with small gardens and in apartments), I think your claim would be hard to back up.

Small scale production. Just because OP is talking about using half an acre, doesn't mean this is the minimum ammount required for some production.

Even a window box with herbs can be considered as small scale production.
And most urban houses could easily dedicate 1 or 2 square metres to growing veg. There is nothing lost by doing this, no expense to government or society, it takes minimal ammount of effort, so I am baffled as to how you can be so negative about something which has no negative effect on you, and only positive on the person doing it and on the environment.

Ddad

I''ll simplify it, in the 2006 census 6 in 10 people lived in aggregate town areas. 4 in 10 lived in rural areas. Hardly the vast vast majority, a majority yes, a vast majority no.

When you uncouple Dublin from the figures you move to 50/50. Our urban population outside of leinster lower again. Now, I'm not suggesting that excluding Dublin is an argument but I think it does illustrate the urban rural divide that exists in much of the country outside of the pale. The reason I raise this as a point is that the majority of urban dwellers outside of the Dublin commuter belt reside in small towns which, with the spread out development of Irish towns and cities have ready physical access to the coutryside.

I'm not arguing that they have access to farm it at the moment. I will argue that proximity to land is not a barrier to small scale agriculture for the majority of people in this country.

Húrin

Hey OP, why not see if there are any Transition initiatives around where you live (which sounds like a rural area)?

marizpan wrote: »

Im in my late twenties and married with 2 boys. We try and be very self sufficent and produce our own veg, rear our own pigs,chickens, geese and ducks and have a dairy goat. Must people ie. family keep telling us why bother because its cheaper to just buy it in the shop. But it not about money, more about removing the need for so much money. It a nice way to live, especially with small children.

It is about money, really. Those people have naively assumed that they will always have enough disposable income to buy all the food they want without making a dent in their finances. You have wisely planned so that this will not be a problem for you.

taconnol wrote: »

How is large-scale farming inherently 'greener' (please specify what you mena here) than smaller 'dabblers'. What exactly is it about growing food that means it should be the preserve of a special section of society?

The whole purpose of civilisation is that some people specialise in different tasks. Some grow food so that others can make tools for instance.

If nothing else, it is an important life skill, like cooking, and by the looks of it, there needs to be some serious demystifying about how hard it is - because it isn't difficult at all to grow a few veg in your back garden, if you can be bothered.

I agree, but it's not much more than a money-saving measure. I don't like these pretences of self-sufficiency. The number of hobby vegetable growers who supply any more than 10% of their own food needs is tiny.

Birdnuts wrote: »

Works perfectly well in many part of Europe - most of France being a case in point were nearly everyone(at every scale from small back garden to larger holdings) in rural and not so rural areas produce much of what they need and are not slaves of the big multiples.

Carrefour, L'Eclerc, etc.

CJhaughey wrote: »

We kept pigs for the last few years, and they provide us with a large amount of high quality pork throughout the year, and also dispose of most veg waste that we produce and also fertilize the soil where they are kept.
Should I stop producing these fantastic animals and just buy tesco value pork because it is cheaper and produced by a Professional?

I doubt DJP is saying that. I think he's just trying to answer why more people don't do as the OP does. No doubt your pigs give you far superior pork to anything available in Tesco, which would come from an exploited farmer anyway.

Húrin

CJhaughey wrote: »

Indeed I am not saying an apartment dweller should raise any livestock, but there is nothing stopping them from growing herbs on their windowsill of patio? Thats a start and then when a recipe calls for a handful of parsley it is right there at hand. Is that not efficient? Or should it be left to the big scale herb grower.

I agree. It's silly not to grow your own herbs when they are relatively expensive. But growing parsely has nothing to do with self-sufficiency. It is a peripheral part of a diet.

monument

taconnol wrote: »

Um, yes I am dealing with his points....I'll stick with my choice of adjective, thanks.

No, I don't think you are. He is dealing in reality of what most people will do, you are dealing with abstract aspirations.

taconnol wrote: »

I don't see why we can't do both. There are already plenty of Irish people who cook regularly and don't need to be encouraged to cook. And there is the subject of Home Ec that is widespread across schools, where kids are taught how to cook.

Can you provide evidence that these initiatives are not working, or is it just that is suits your argument to say so? The annual reports and surveys of teachers suggest otherwise.

I was asking a question rather than making a statement. The surveys of teachers would not be a real sign of success, on these type of projects success is if students are still continuing after they finish.

marizpan wrote: »

Lighten up, its a hobby!!! Not a method of putting farmers out of business or any other

That's fine.

As I've already said, what you're doing is great for you. But others here seem to be suggesting a large amount of the country could be doing this too.

Ddad wrote: »

Striving for cheaper and cheaper goods is a race to the bottom. It results in corners cut, pollution, human rights abuses, questionable additives in food. "The price of everything and the value of nothing" etc etc. Read the posts and avoid cherry picking, it's already been stated that for many the home production of some of their food is a powerful educational tool for their children and important to them as individuals. You can't buy it.

My point you replied to was not a general one, but questioning an apparent contradiction in the opening post about cost and removing cost (ie "how exactly do you remove the need for such money if your way costs more?").

Ddad wrote: »

No, the vast, vast majority of people in Ireland do not live in towns and cities.

http://beyond2020.cso.ie/Census/TableViewer/tableView.aspx?ReportId=1134
http://www.cso.ie/census/documents/Amended%20census2006_%20Volume%201%20Pop%20Classified%20by%20Area.pdf ....

The map on page 9 seems point other wise.

On the stats make note of how many people live in the Greater Dublin Area plus other towns and cities, and compare that to the rest. You will find that the vast majority of peoplein Ireland do live in towns and cities.

Ddad wrote: »

As I stated previously due to planning stipulations most new homes in rural areas have to have at least half and acre of land for percolation purposes unless they are attached to mains sewerage. As I also stated previously half of the dwellings built in Kerry in the last ten years were single rural dwellings. Thats a fair chunk of lawn and it isn't unique in Ireland.

Not in the stats, you'll find that many houses were built before such stipulations, and many, many more were built in area counted outside the urban are but connected to mains sewerage as single houses or in estates. The amount of estates built around towns, but outside what is counted as the urban area is amazing.

If you inspect www.osi.ie you can inspect any suburban and rural areas and see the ammount of land avaialble for small scale food production.

Available?

Ddad wrote: »

As for the argument that more people cannot live like the OP, for many it's choice not means.

But for most it is both. And that's the reality that needs to be dealt with.

Ddad wrote: »

We import 90% of our fruit and veg despite the fact we have a climate very suitable for their production. So the argument doesn't stand that we'll erode domestic agriculture , we will erode the need for expensive imports laden with food miles. Most people, as you say youself are not in the position to cultivate on the scale of the OP but they are capable of cultivating on the allotment scale. A scale that fed many families in the past, including urban families from relatively modest landholdings.

I think that's an argument from reform at a large scale, where such will have a real effect.

Ddad wrote: »

As for most dwellings in Ireland being suitable for some from of small scale food production. Flats and apartments accounted for 148,000 dwellings as of 2006 of a total housing stock of 1.77 million units (CSO again). So less than 10% of the housing stock. Even allowing for a large additional percentage of the remaining housing stock being unavailable due to lack of gardens that still leaves a significant majority of the housing stock available for some small scale domestic production. A small garden is relative , whats small?

Look at detailed maps of towns and cities you'll see that many houses don't have gardens or very, very small ones. That'll make up much more than 10% of housing stock.

Ddad wrote: »

The world is changed in small increments, switching lightbulbs, turning down thermostats, insulating, walking, buying local, not voting, ignoring waste, not recycling. People get born one by one, they die one by one they're all small increments but it got us to 8 billion from four billion in less than 40 years.

I'm not saying these things don't matter, but you're missing the bigger picture of what can be done -- for example, with "not recycling", I would agree, because large scale reducing and reusing also has to be done. I'd go as far as saying recycling is a green washing distraction when reducing and reusing is not also been done (as is the case in Ireland).

And, effective reducing and reusing which covers most of the population (rather than just the few doing it) is not really small increments stuff -- it's large scale at a high level.

Ddad wrote: »

The OP is trying; I'd hold off on the misinformed critiques and perhaps offer some solutions of your own.

Again, my problem is not with the OP or what she is doing, it's that what she is doing is not realistic or desirable for the majority -- and that's the reality some other posts here are refusing to accept.

Ddad wrote: »

When you uncouple Dublin from the figures you move to 50/50. ....

Again, that's not dealing with reality.

Ddad

]





That's fine.

As I've already said, what you're doing is great for you. But others here seem to be suggesting a large amount of the country could be doing this too.

I think you'll find that others, who I assume to include me, think it's a great idea to produce some of your own food and applaud the OP. I don't have the resources to copy the OP but I can make a contribution to my own nutrition and to my childrens education. I haven't argued that everyone does what the OP does; I've argued that the option exists for the majority of use to produce some of our own food with limited resources and very little time or monetary input.



My point you replied to was not a general one, but questioning an apparent contradiction in the opening post about cost and removing cost (ie "how exactly do you remove the need for such money if your way costs more?").

It doesn't have to cost more if it's done right, you can save money if done right.

The map on page 9 seems point other wise.

On the stats make note of how many people live in the Greater Dublin Area plus other towns and cities, and compare that to the rest. You will find that the vast majority of peoplein Ireland do live in towns and cities.

I addressed this a couple of posts back


Not in the stats, you'll find that many houses were built before such stipulations, and many, many more were built in area counted outside the urban are but connected to mains sewerage as single houses or in estates. The amount of estates built around towns, but outside what is counted as the urban area is amazing.

Agreed on what is counted in the Urban area. It still doesn't discount the size of the average garden in a house in Ireland. Before 2000 land was cheap and most houses accomodation units came with a garden and after 2000 most houses came with a garden. Most houses have gardens.



Available?

Yep, way better than google earth.



But for most it is both. And that's the reality that needs to be dealt with.

No, it isn't. For the majority it is choice. Access to 2 sq meters is all you need. You can grow a barrel of potatoes, all of the herbs you'll need and some fruit on the bacony of an apartment.


I think that's an argument from reform at a large scale, where such will have a real effect.



Look at detailed maps of towns and cities you'll see that many houses don't have gardens or very, very small ones. That'll make up much more than 10% of housing stock.

I disagree, once again try the OSI website.



I'm not saying these things don't matter, but you're missing the bigger picture of what can be done -- for example, with "not recycling", I would agree, because large scale reducing and reusing also has to be done. I'd go as far as saying recycling is a green washing distraction when reducing and reusing is not also been done (as is the case in Ireland).

I'm not missing the bigger picture at all. I'm not saying small cale agriculture is a panacea, definitely not, nor is recycling. What they are are parts of a multifaceted solution. Each one in isolation achieves little, all should be encouraged.

And, effective reducing and reusing which covers most of the population (rather than just the few doing it) is not really small increments stuff -- it's large scale at a high level.

I never said it wasn't large scale, in the global picture though it's a small increment.

Again, my problem is not with the OP or what she is doing, it's that what she is doing is not realistic or desirable for the majority -- and that's the reality some other posts here are refusing to accept.

I don't accept that other posters are even taking that stance. In my case I applauded the OP and made the argument that most people can take part in some form of food production for themselves. Nor did I say that most people should sally forth into the coutryside and raise goats and children. I made the point that food production is not an exclusive enclave for the farmer and that we waste a sinful ammount of land in Ireland on useless lawn and a sinful ammount of money on bad food.



Again, that's not dealing with reality.

It was a statement of fact. What about the rest of the post.

monument

Ddad wrote: »

It was a statement of fact. What about the rest of the post.

It is not clear what you are referring to as you have just quoted all of my post.

Macha

Húrin wrote: »

The whole purpose of civilisation is that some people specialise in different tasks. Some grow food so that others can make tools for instance.

And here was me thinking it was about peace and harmony :pac:

No, I appreciate the division of labour but what sort of extreme will we take it to? I'm not advocating we all go back to growing all our own food but I don't think you can deny the benefits (to environment and an individual's health and wallet) by growing food, even if its a box of herbs. Using your logic, where exactly does the outsourcing stop?

Just because we can do something, doesn't necessarily mean we should, or that it doesn't have unforeseen negative consequences. Also, there is the law of diminishing returns to consider.

Húrin wrote: »

I agree, but it's not much more than a money-saving measure. I don't like these pretences of self-sufficiency. The number of hobby vegetable growers who supply any more than 10% of their own food needs is tiny.

Er...it isn't a pretence, it's a case of "anything is better than nothing". What exactly is your problem with someone giving it a go? I only had herbs for a while until I mustered up the courage to plant a few vegetables. And can I ask for a source for your last stat there?

monument wrote: »

No, I don't think you are. He is dealing in reality of what most people will do, you are dealing with abstract aspirations.

Well, I'll let djpbarry came back to me on that one, ok? What you consider reality and 'abstract aspirations' might be different from other people's opinions, or indeed, their reality.

monument wrote: »

I was asking a question rather than making a statement. The surveys of teachers would not be a real sign of success, on these type of projects success is if students are still continuing after they finish.

Well seeing as you're deciding what the parameters of success are, why don't you back up your position that the schemes don't work with some stats/reports. Until such time, I'll stick with the positive measured feedback in the report, thanks.

Ddad

monument wrote: »

It is not clear what you are referring to as you have just quoted all of my post.

Apologies, mines in italics