Home » Posts tagged 'Patrick Holden'

Tag Archives: Patrick Holden

Olduvai
Click on image to purchase

Olduvai III: Catacylsm
Click on image to purchase

Post categories

Post Archives by Category

Feeding Britain one farm at a time

October 13, 2021

Feeding Britain one farm at a time

On Farming Today this morning, in a conversation about food security and climate change, it was suggested that two fifths of the people on planet earth would not be alive today were it not for the use of mineral fertilisers – an interesting assertion and one with which Malthus might well have agreed, were he still alive.

The issue is important, not least because of the impact of chemical fertilisers on climate change. I read in last weeks’ Farmers Weekly about a farmer who had recently undertaken a carbon audit which concluded that 80% of his emission footprint came from the use of nitrogen fertiliser. Whether or not that is accurate, what is beyond question is that agriculture’s umbilical dependence on nitrogen fertiliser is now being questioned as never before.

After I finished milking and was moving the electric fence for our cows’ daily parcel of mob grazed herbal ley, I was quietly marvelling at the extraordinarily productive capacity of their 12 and a 1/2 acre field. This field has not only produced three excellent cuts of silage but over the last week has fed 80 cows who have produced around 7,000 litres of milk which will convert into around 3/4 of a ton of cheese! All this from the field which has now been around our seven year rotation four times and is more productive than ever.

Marvelling at this productivity, which has been achieved with few external inputs, just crop rotation, herbal leys and recycling of animal manures, I realised that I am in an unusual and  interesting position, having been farming without any nitrogen mineral fertiliser for nearly 50 years and observing the impact of my farming practices on yield outcomes. Not many farmers in the developed world can claim to be part of this cohort, since the overwhelming majority of food producers have been nitrogen fertiliser dependent since the post-war period.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Citizen power: A force for change

March 10, 2021

Citizen power: A force for change

During the run up to the COP 26 meeting which will take place in Glasgow this November, the discussion about food related policies and practices is livelier than ever.

Currently, there are several government consultations taking place – gene editing, bovine TB, the Welsh Agriculture Bill, food trade and more, some of which the SFT has responded to and all of which are evoking strong emotions and responses. Some of these discussions relate to regulation – for instance, should the government outlaw various pesticides or designate the whole of Wales as a nitrate vulnerable zone? Should it permit gene editing which is likely to set a precedent for allowing the production of GMO crops and a further narrowing of the gene pool?

But alongside regulation, there are a range of other ways in which damaging practices can be discouraged and the right kind of farming practices encouraged, including government policy incentives, food company sourcing criteria and food labelling, certification schemes and support from the investment community.

Whatever the government decides about gene editing, the use of glyphosate or other inputs and practices which are causing damage to the environment or public health, change is coming anyway.

I say that because there is a third force at work here which will drive change in more ways than we have yet imagined – and rapidly too! The source of this third force is the growing awareness amongst millions of citizens that the consequences of continuing to farm intensively in the way that we have for the last century are unacceptable: potentially irreversible climate change, pollution, biodiversity loss and massive negative impacts on public health.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

 

New research challenges scientific orthodoxy on the role of grazing livestock in relation to emission reduction targets

February 7, 2021

New research challenges scientific orthodoxy on the role of grazing livestock in relation to emission reduction targets

 

This week we are highlighting the announcement of what we think is one of the world’s first soil carbon sequestration offsetting partnerships, between Microsoft Corporation and the Australian Wilmot Cattle Co. The reason we are drawing this news to wider attention is not because of potential for offsetting, but rather the impact of the research – which highlights the fact that regenerative farming can deliver significantly in terms of carbon sequestration.

What I found particularly interesting is that the scheme involved cattle ranches and the very significant soil carbon gains made by them: 0.8% per year of organic matter; in other words double the 4 per 1000 target set by the French Minister Stéphane Le Foll at the COP21 Paris summit where he announced his ‘quatre per mille’ scheme.

If this level of soil organic matter gain can be verified through ongoing research and monitoring using evolving and ever more sophisticated techniques for measuring soil organic matter, this represents a very significant breakthrough. In combination with the new information from Professor Myles Allen of Oxford University on the reduced impact of methane on climate change, there is a compelling argument for the scientific community to reassess the role of holistic grazing systems involving ruminant livestock – which could make a very significant contribution towards reducing climate change impacts.

This potential is highlighted in the press release from Wilmot Farms, who have calculated that were these soil carbon gains to be replicated across all the cattle farming grasslands in Australia, it would have the potential to sequester just under one quarter of Australia’s total greenhouse gas emissions. It should also be emphasised that this is a net calculation which includes the counter benefit of the methane emissions from grazing animals, which makes it even more significant.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

 

 

Are glyphosate-based herbicides poisoning us and the environment?

February 7, 2021

Are glyphosate-based herbicides poisoning us and the environment?

A new study, published on 27th January in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, conducted by an international team of scientists led by Dr Michael Antoniou of Kings College London, found that exposure to glyphosate and its commercial Roundup formulation, can disrupt the function of gut microbiome (bacteria and fungi) and internal body systems with potentially serious effects on human health.

In controlled laboratory animal experiments, glyphosate was found to alter the composition and more importantly the biochemical function of the gut microbiome by the same mechanism through which the chemical acts to kill weeds (inhibition of the shikimate biochemical pathway), even at doses claimed to be safe by the regulators. Roundup was also shown to be more toxic than glyphosate alone, underpinning existing evidence that the additional substances present in commercial products, collectively known as “adjuvants”, are not “inert” as claimed by its manufacturers and regulators but highly toxic in their own right.

In-depth biochemical analysis of both the gut and the blood of the test animals showed that they were put under “oxidative stress”, a highly damaging process, by glyphosate and to a greater degree by Roundup.

From my reading, this research appears to go a long way towards vindicating the conclusions of the many organisations and individuals throughout the world who were convinced from the very beginning that it would be unlikely in the extreme that this herbicide, an agricultural poison which has the capacity to kill all green plant material except that which has been genetically modified to be tolerant to it, would not have adverse effects on the human health.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

 

Why the Climate Change Committee have got it wrong on land, food and farming

December 22, 2020

Why the Climate Change Committee have got it wrong on land, food and farming

Last week I spent what I must admit to have been two rather depressing sessions participating in a zoom conference convened by the Climate Change Committee (CCC) in order to share their vision and strategy for reaching net zero emissions by 2050, with a particular focus on the role of land use and agriculture.

Outside of food and farming, much of what the CCC are proposing seems eminently reasonable. It’s the kind of thing one would imagine – a massive and rapid move towards renewable energy generation, moving away from internal combustion engines, improving building insulation to reduce energy loss, reduction in car travel and slowing of demand for flights. But when it comes to land use, farming and food, in my opinion they’ve got it completely wrong.

A rather crude summary of what they’re envisaging includes the following – a very significant increase in agricultural biofuel production; 10% of the farmed area planted with trees; an increase in afforestation rates to at least 30,000 hectares per year across the U.K. by 2025 and an average of 40,000 hectares per year in the 2030s, plus a “land sparing” agenda including dramatic increase in yields from arable crops, a significant reduction in livestock including ruminants, and no presumption of any increase in soil carbon.

To add insult to injury, on the diet side, they propose a significant switch towards plant-based diets without making any differentiation between livestock which are part of the problem (intensive chickens, pig and dairy units) and those which are absolutely a necessary part of the solution (grass fed and mainly grass-fed beef, lamb and dairy cows).

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

‘Food for Thought’: Reflections on an organic life

December 19, 2020

‘Food for Thought’: Reflections on an organic life

Phil Haughton is old friend of mine, best known as the founder of three Bristol food shops flying under the banner of The Better Food Company. I wanted to say a few words about his book, Food for Thought, which ‘celebrat[es] the joy of eating well and living better’.

I much admire the man and all his achievements, particularly in Bristol, where he virtually pioneered the concept of a wholly organic food shop, but also because I knew that amongst his formative influences was a period when he lived in a commune in southwest Scotland.

The Haughton family are something of a Bristol dynasty and it has been my very good fortune to make the better acquaintance of two or three of them, notably Barny, MBE (services to Bristol) who established the Square Food Foundation and before that ran several amazing restaurants. I also know his sister Liz and his brother Luke, who made a beautiful kitchen for the Sustainable Food Trust’s base in Totterdown, which is still giving good service some 28 years later!

‘Food for Thought’ is a delightful combination of short essays and interviews, which include stories about his past and thoughts about many of the key food and farming challenges of our time, illuminated with evocative pictures and recipes. It is an easy read, and one which doesn’t disappoint, resuscitating memories, which I share with Phil, of living in communes in the early 1970s.

His version, Lothlorien, was a smallholding in Dumfries and Galloway. The descriptions of the times shared together during a few golden years, which he admits were punctuated with the stresses and strains which inevitably accompanied communal living, are absolutely enchanting, particularly the pictures! There is something about pictures of those back to the land experiments in the 1970s which convey an atmosphere which, for anyone who shared those experiences would testify was truly life enhancing!

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

A light at the end of the Covid tunnel?

May 1, 2020

A light at the end of the Covid tunnel?

In farming and food systems, as in every other avenue of public life, context is everything, as I said during a discussion on Al Jazeera’s ‘Inside Story’, this past Thursday.

On the programme, which asked how coronavirus is threatening food security, I pointed out that all the stories making international headlines in relation to the impact of the pandemic on food – milk being poured down the drain, plane loads of eastern European vegetable pickers licensed to travel to the UK to harvest salad crops, the hoarding, the scarcities –are reflective of the food system that exists, namely intensive, industrialised, globalised, damaging to the environment and public health and, above all, insecure and lacking resilience.

So, although the current food system seems so apparently successful, even to the extent that we have ‘coped magnificently’ with maintaining supplies of key staple foods to the consuming public during the COVID-19 emergency, we need to realise that this is actually a dangerous delusion.

In truth, this model of a highly intensive centralised production, packing and distribution system, for most of the foods that are sold in supermarkets, will continue to have devastating negative consequences on the planet and its people.

It is a system that has been progressively developed over the last few decades, driven mainly by its simplicity and accompanying economies of scale. However, this isn’t the full picture, since the process results in the loss of thousands of jobs, a huge negative impact on local economies, damage to climate change, biodiversity, public health and, as we can now see, food insecurity in the event of any sudden external shocks.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Six steps back to the land

October 1, 2016

Six steps back to the land

I am a great fan of Colin Tudge, not least because he is an original thinker, as amply demonstrated in his latest book, Six Steps Back to the Land. I also have direct experience in relation to his theme, since I literally got ‘back to the land’ in the 1970s. So when the editor of Resurgence & Ecologist asked me to review the book, I decided to compare my experience with Colin’s recommendations.

Before giving some hard advice for would-be sustainable food producers, Colin sets the stage for an agrarian renaissance, setting out the case and the need for fundamental changes to our food and farming systems. I am certain that he is right about the urgent need for a complete transformation of our approach to producing food. I am also of the opinion that the external conditions are better aligned for this change than at any point in my 30 years of engagement with matters of food and farming, largely because of the growth of interest amongst so-called millennials.

Colin then takes us on a journey of the issues facing our food system – why we need change, and how we can achieve it. Beginning with The road to enlightened agriculture, he looks at the challenges, including the need for “an economy fit for farming”, ideally a circular economy. He explains the principles of agro-ecology, with an emphasis on small-scale mixed farms. Finally, he explores the ways in which people can get back to the land, all illustrated with excellent case studies.

Our current neoliberal capitalist economic system is far from perfect for sustainable food production, with the economic climate favouring intensive methods and making the back-to-the-land journey unprofitable. Colin is an advocate of reform to put things right, and so am I.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Olduvai IV: Courage
Click on image to read excerpts

Olduvai II: Exodus
Click on image to purchase

Click on image to purchase @ FriesenPress