Meeting others on the green road

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

D.U.M.B

I'm trying to be more green aware. Would love to plant lots of hemp for the health benefits to me and the planet

monument

Ddad wrote: »

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.

When I said it's both, I meant it was by choice and also unrealistic for most/many. By not dealing with both of these issues you are not dealing with reality.

For your information: Many apartments don't have a balcony, and most that have one just about fits a clothes line.

Ddad wrote: »

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 I am saying there is a very real risk that these amount to a green washing type distraction when change is not happening on a larger scale. This is the case even more so when unrealistic suggestions like yours are put across as a solution for the majority of people.

Ddad wrote: »

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.

As above, that's a distraction from real solutions.

Ddad wrote: »

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

It was a fact, but it was one that distracts from the main fact that the majority live in towns and cities.

Macha

monument wrote: »

As above, that's a distraction from real solutions.

Oh please do tell us what the 'real solutions' are.

monument

taconnol wrote: »

Oh please do tell us what the 'real solutions' are.

Fixing the current supply chain rather than suggestions which are unrealistic (by reasons of practicality and choice).

Once more, the OP's methods are fine for the few, but not a solution for the majority as is being suggested by people here.

Macha

monument wrote: »

Fixing the current supply chain rather than suggestions which are unrealistic (by reasons of practicality and choice).

Once more, the OP's methods are fine for the few, but not a solution for the majority as is being suggested by people here.

Well I for one am not arguing that people growing their own food is a replacement for sorting out the mess that is the current industrialised food industry. But that doesn't mean that the benefits of encouraging people to grow their own food should be ignored.

The crux of your argument seems to be that people will not want to grow their own food. But there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. Again, I'm not saying everyone will want to grow their own, but a look at the lengthy waiting lists for allotments is proof that there is definitely a demand and an interest from members of the public.

I would strongly disagree that it is impractical for the majority to grow any food at all. This is the land of the semi-d. The vast majority of Irish people have a back garden.

marizpan

I think what people are trying to say is that its not the lack of space that limits must people to grow veg/herds, but just there choice not to. For the small % of people that dont have gardens, there is window stills for herbs, or the chance for an allotment if one really wanted it. But many dont ..and thats fair enough.
Gardens are surprisingly productive, we have a half acre but only work 1/8 of an acre of it as the rest is lawn/drive/flower beds etc. Very little goes a long way

Ddad

I'll try this again.

"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."


OP best of luck with that, I think it's a great idea and I hope it works out for you.

Monument, I'm afraid I'm not willing to go on making the same points and getting the same replies. Clearly we have different views which aren't going to be changed. I'm ok with that, hopefully you are too. I've a stack of work so I'm afraid I must bow out. long live allotments!;) I hope you get the bug.

Ddad

taconnol wrote: »

Well I for one am not arguing that people growing their own food is a replacement for sorting out the mess that is the current industrialised food industry. But that doesn't mean that the benefits of encouraging people to grow their own food should be ignored.

The crux of your argument seems to be that people will not want to grow their own food. But there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. Again, I'm not saying everyone will want to grow their own, but a look at the lengthy waiting lists for allotments is proof that there is definitely a demand and an interest from members of the public.

I would strongly disagree that it is impractical for the majority to grow any food at all. This is the land of the semi-d. The vast majority of Irish people have a back garden.

Whatever you do don't engage him on the semi d thing, look what it got me;)

monument

taconnol wrote: »

Well I for one am not arguing that people growing their own food is a replacement for sorting out the mess that is the current industrialised food industry. But that doesn't mean that the benefits of encouraging people to grow their own food should be ignored.

That's fine. It's only when it's been put across as a solution for the majority that I see a problem starting.

taconnol wrote: »

The crux of your argument seems to be that people will not want to grow their own food. But there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. Again, I'm not saying everyone will want to grow their own, but a look at the lengthy waiting lists for allotments is proof that there is definitely a demand and an interest from members of the public.

But demand for allotments is still tiny on the overall larger scale of food demand.

taconnol wrote: »

I would strongly disagree that it is impractical for the majority to grow any food at all. This is the land of the semi-d. The vast majority of Irish people have a back garden.

What is important is what is practical on a scale which matters rather than just growing 'any food at all'.

If I can take it that most of you are very green people compared to the average Irish person?... then, what you are likely to miss is when others take smaller steps (not amounting to your kind of overall action) and see smaller steps being taken so they feel good and they think action is happening, then there is less will and pressure for any real action.

The common example of this in Ireland is people driving to recycling centres and feel good because they are being green.

Macha

monument wrote: »

That's fine. It's only when it's been put across as a solution for the majority that I see a problem starting.

But demand for allotments is still tiny on the overall larger scale of food demand.

Of course, but there is such a thing as latent demand. And what we're talking about here is encouraging people in order to increase demand.

monument wrote: »

What is important is what is practical on a scale which matters rather than just growing 'any food at all'.

Well, if there's anything I've learned in sustainability is that every little helps and there is no one magic bullet that will solve all our problems. I believe that urban farming, even if done by a minority, is an important part of the solution to today's food problems, as I see them. I attended a talk by a guy in Cultivate last year and he stressed how much difference it makes all along the chain, even by growing 10% of our food outside the vegetable-industrial complex (as Michael Pollan calls it ). You have less fertilisers/heavy machinery/pesticides, less transport from the farm, less lighting/heating/cooling of supermarkets, less transport from supermarket to home, less packaging. It's amazing, really. I'll try to find his presentation.

Let's not forget that at heart, many of the problems we face today are not technological but psychological. Ultimately, it will be the application of technology together with behaviour modification that will bring the best results. And encouraging people to grow their own is just one attempt at widespread behaviour modification by governments.

monument wrote: »

If I can take it that most of you are very green people compared to the average Irish person?... then, what you are likely to miss is when others take smaller steps (not amounting to your kind of overall action) and see smaller steps being taken so they feel good and they think action is happening, then there is less will and pressure for any real action.

Well that's certainly a problem - ie I'm really, really sick of hearing advice on plugging out phone chargers. Then again, I have found among my friends that small steps often lead to bigger steps. A few years ago I was the only one of my friends to cycle. Now all the girls have bikes and we regularly cycle over to each others' houses when we meet up. The other day, a friend told me she wants to start growing veg: sometimes all people need is a bit of encouragement!