Hi welcome to Taiga Bonzai, in this post we look at the points of view of others whom have various opinions on how to tackle the ever increasing problem of pests and disease. However, the course of action taken by individuals, communities and/or sovereign nations, results in stiff opposition and the threat of sanctions. Due to bureaucracy and petty mindedness.

Introduction – thus far we have highlighted the many factors responsible for the present situation, that we now face all of which are of our own making. The financial cost of it all to date has been phenomenal and will continue to rise exponentially. Meeting our own needs without compromising the ability of future generations, will be difficult; bringing us to the point of no return.

United Nations FAO – at a conference in Rome 3rd April 2019, Bukar Tijani assistant director general for the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) Consumer Protection Department stated that. “With increased trade and travel, the risks of plant pests spreading into new areas across borders is now higher than ever before. Each day we witness a shocking number of threats to the well-being of our plants and by extension to our health, environment and economy.”

The FAO estimates that annually between 20 to 40 percent of global crop production is lost to pests. Each year plant diseases cost the global economy around $220 billion and invasive insects around $70 billion. “Many farmers and governments grapple with warding off highly destructive pests and diseases that are – on top of everything else – also new to them. The International Plant Protection Convention IPPC provides them with the tools and knowledge to keep their plants healthy and prevent pests from jumping borders.” added Tijani.

New IPPC standards adopted – 1. fumigation methods, this is in response to growing concerns over fumigants that can be harmful to human health and the environment. The standard requirements for temperature, duration, fumigants and quantity have been set.

2. Diagnostics protocols that describe procedures and methods for the official diagnosis of six pests. Including the oriental fruit fly Bactrocera dorsalis and Xylella fastidiosa, ensuring a correct diagnosis is essential to catalyse rapid actions to manage the pests.

B. dorsalis has affected trees such as avocado, banana, guava and mango in at least 65 countries. In Africa, import trade bans due to oriental fruit fly infestations cause annual losses of around $2 billion. Xylella fastidiosa is a deadly bacteria that attacks economically important crops such as olive, citrus, plum trees and grapevines.

Since 2015, it’s been rapidly spreading from the Americas to Europe and Asia. Once the disease infiltrates a plant, it is there to stay, it starves the plant of water until the plant dies or becomes too weak to grow fruit.

X. fastidiosa costs $104 million per year in wine losses in California and in Italy the bacteria has led to the decline of 180,000 hectares of olive groves, destroying many centuries-old trees. A loss of €390 million over three years. X. fastidiosa constitutes a threat not only to Italy but to all the Mediterranean region’s economy.

X. fastidiosa is not known to be in the UK however, there have been outbreaks of the disease in mainland Europe in France, Italy and Spain. Portugal confirmed its first case in 2019 on lavender. Hence, the UK Government is concerned on how to prevent the disease being accidentally brought into the country on imported plants. In 2020 Lord Framlingham a Conservative peer asked the Government what the UK’s regulations are regarding X. fastidiosa.

UK regulations – measures were to strengthen the protection of plants from certain pests and diseases, including Xylella. They were made under article 52 of the EU Plant Health Regulation. Allowing the UK to take additional temporary national measures, providing they inform the European Commission and put forward a technical case to request EU measures against a specific pest. But those measures have not or will not be introduced in time to mitigate the risk concerned.

Moreover, the UK Government has argued that current EU emergency measures on Xylella do not address risks highlighted in the UK’s pest risk analysis on the disease.

In particular, it is not clear if or when the EU emergency measures will be reviewed to address these risks and ensure a greater degree of assurance of disease freedom. In relation to plants of those species being moved in the EU and introduced from third countries. As such, there remains an unacceptable level of pest risk and this instrument introduces national measures under article 52, in the absence of EU requirements.

The European Commission’s response – on 4 June 2020, the EU said that it informed the UK the new national measures. “That go beyond the existing requirements, are not supported by most recent scientific justification and are disproportionate.” It stated that the UK “should amend it’s official control regulations of 2019, by removing the amendments concerning X. fastidiosa and Ceratocystis platani which were made to those regulations by the UK in 2020.”

On 19 June 2020, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) stated that the UK disagreed with the European Commission’s conclusions and that it was disappointed. “The opportunity has not been taken to extend the UK measures across the EU, providing enhanced protections for the EU’s member states.” Defra argued “that the biosecurity threat regarding the pests had not changed and the rationale for introducing stronger requirements remained.”

The department said it continued to encourage stakeholders and industry to “employ risk management practices which maintain the robust protection and assurance that the Defra regulations provide.” 

Defra also stated that The Animal and Plant Health Agency and the devolved administrations will continue to carry out intensive inspections of imported plants. Taking account of risk factors such as origin, presence of insect vectors and suspect symptoms. “We will keep the need for any further actions under review in light of the ongoing risk situation, including developments in the EU and the results of our own surveillance.”

The Royal Horticulture Society (RHS) is also in agreement, plant health is increasingly under threat. Climate change and human activities have altered ecosystems, reducing biodiversity and creating new niches where pests and diseases can thrive. At the same time, international travel and trade has tripled in volume in the last decade. The result is that pests and diseases can quickly spread around the world causing great damage to horticulture, crops and the environment.

New statutory controls on importing plants and plant products into the UK to safeguard plant health. “Meaning that plant material entering the UK will require a phytosanitary certificate (PC); the EU plant passport is no longer valid in the UK.” 

The U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE – (USDA) state that world trade has significantly increased over the years to meet the growing demand and at this moment in time, America is the only country to import more than it exports.

USDA researchers Michael Livingston, Craig Osteen and Donna Roberts argue “That this increase in agricultural imports raise the risk of inadvertently introducing foreign pests and diseases.” which has been proven to be the case. For example, the emerald ash borer and Asian long horned beetle introduced in the 1990’s are creating serious damage to trees in the Northeast and Great Lakes States.

More recently Ralstonia solanacearum, a bacterial pathogen that damages potatoes, eggplant, tomatoes and other horticultural products was detected on greenhouse geraniums imported from Kenya and Guatemala. “The cost of foreign pests and diseases can also include the temporary loss of export markets, such as when Japan, Korea and other countries suspended imports of U.S. beef when bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) was detected in an imported cow in December 2003.”

Studies by the National Plant Board, the Government Accountability Office, the Office of Technology Assessment and others, report that foreign pests and diseases cause billions of dollars of economic losses to U.S. agriculture each year, while also adversely affecting ecosystem values and services.

These cost estimates include sizable public expenditures, including emergency funding to address new pest or disease threats and outbreaks. Today, 21 Federal agencies are responsible for some aspect of managing foreign pests and diseases in the United States.

USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has by far, the leading role accounting for about $9 out of every $10 that the Federal Government spends annually on prevention and control of foreign pests and diseases. Annual expenditures for APHIS programs ranged from $1.1 to $1.5 billion between 2003 and 2007, including emergency expenditures for programs such as increased BSE surveillance in 2004-06 and the introduction of import bans.

In evaluating such bans, economists try to measure the benefits of imports against the management production market and/or resource costs that might be associated with an outbreak of a disease or pest. Studies show that this varies on a case-by-case basis. Import bans have reduced total welfare in some cases, because the cost of disease establishment was out weighed by the consumer benefits from imports.

For example, APHIS estimated that the annual net benefits of replacing a long standing ban on imports of Mexican avocados with more targeted phytosanitary measures totalled about $70 million. Providing analysis support for USDA’s decision to grant Mexico full access to the U.S. market in 2007.

A recent study by an ERS economist, which examined options for policies to reduce the risk of entry of the Mediterranean fruit fly, (medfly) illustrates how economic analysis can inform public decision making. The medfly is a serious pest for many fruit and vegetable crops and is known to exist in 65 foreign countries. (hereafter referred to as quarantine countries)

APHIS allows imports of fresh produce from these countries only if they have been treated to eliminate medfly larvae. Currently, eight treatments are approved for the medfly. One of the most widely used is cold treatment, under which produce imported for fresh consumption must be refrigerated according to specific schedules (temperature-duration combinations) before allowed entry into U.S. markets.

In the next article we look at how other nations are dealing with the problems of pests and disease. Until next time, BW, Nik.

Hi welcome to Taiga Bonzai, in this article we discuss the bureaucracy bought into being on the use of peat and the problems it is said to create via carbon release.

Introduction – evidence indicates that the use of peat also known as turf dates back to Roman times, where it was used for domestic purposes – heating and cooking. In the 7th century peat continued to play a significant economic role in countries where trees were scarce for example, Ireland, Scotland, the Netherlands and Estonia.

From a biological viewpoint peat is the formation of plant material that has not fully decayed in acidic or anaerobic conditions. It is comprised of wetland vegetation, bog plants, mosses, sedges, and shrubs. Peat as it forms holds water, which slowly creates wetter conditions allowing the area of wetland to become more extensive.

Peat is harvested usually in blocks (briquettes) is left to dry prior to being used and in some countries it is used today on an industrial scale to generate electricity; elsewhere peat is mainly used in horticultural applications.

The hue and cry – peat is unique to natural areas referred to as mires, bogs, moors or muskegs. These which cover approximately 3% of the global land surface are highly significant to global efforts in combating climate change.

According to environment correspondent Matt McGrath “Peat is the most efficient carbon sink on the planet, because peatland plants capture carbon dioxide (CO₂) naturally released from the peat, maintaining an equilibrium.” Meaning that the carbon stays in the bog, locked away from the atmosphere, but it takes thousands of years for peatlands to develop.

In the UK there has been a huge drive by the government’s Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra) to phase out the use of peat by both amateur and professional gardeners, their argument is as follows:

“When we mine peat for gardening we unlock those reserves of stored carbon and three things then happen:

1. A peat bog is drained prior to mining. It immediately starts emitting greenhouse gases. After mining, the remaining peat continues to release carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere

2. The carbon in peat, when spread on a field or garden, quickly turns into carbon dioxide, adding to greenhouse gas levels

3. The unique biodiversity of peat bogs is lost. Rare birds, butterflies, dragonflies and plants disappear. It is much harder to restore a peat bog than to replant a forest.”

In 2011, the UK government set voluntary targets to end sales of peat-based compost for domestic use by 2020. Natural Environment Minister Richard Benyon stated that “The horticultural industry has made real progress in reducing peat use, but I want to see peat eliminated from the amateur gardener market by 2020”.

In a letter to Environment secretary George Eustace, signed by TV gardeners Alan Titchmarsh, Kate Bradbury and James Wong, “this has been an abject failure.”

Others supporting this argument are a few garden centres including B&Q and the Blue Diamond group of garden centres, who sated they were committed to phasing out peat but gave no date as to when. Asda, Lidl and others said they had targets to reduce peat sales but not yet to end them. Wyvale Garden Centres, Morrisons and Sainsbury’s have yet to respond to the survey.

Nonetheless, gardeners love peat because it delivers superb results in gardening, but some argue that peat is not the only way to get organic matter into soil. Moreover it is not even the best way; so why is it making a comeback?

Because it’s cheap, peat bogs are cheap to buy – cheaper than farmland. You drain them, dig out the peat, put it in a bag and it’s ready to sell. Nothing sustainable can compete with peat on price, so it enjoys fat profit margins. Profit margins that the above mentioned garden centres will not relinquish; does the word hypocrisy spring to mind here.

But is there an alternative to peat? – Carbon Gold was created by Craig Sams, founder of Green & Blacks Chocolate, in 2007 as an organic, peat-free planting aid for the retail sector. The company has created composts that mimic the properties of peat. Peat is a blend of black carbon and lignin the fibrous woody matter. Whereas black carbon is made by using charcoal making techniques that convert woody materials into pure horticultural carbon or ‘biochar’.

According to a Sams spokesperson, “We blend it with lignin-rich woody material such as coir from coconut husks, to reproduce the profile of peat.” “It works as well as peat in the garden and it stays there much longer, the carbon in biochar remains for centuries and is porous, so it represents a long-term investment in improved soil fertility.” The Sams spokesperson added that, “Commercial organic growers, who are looking for a high-performing peat-free alternative, are adopting it on an increasing scale.”

But carbon gold is expensive over 23€ for 20kg and this does not include the cost of delivery, much more than the price of peat – the above cost may seem trivial but much depends on the amount required.

Finland is the world’s leading manufacturer of peat supplies and according to recent reports, said Finnish government is now looking at ways to reduce its peat consumption. But at what cost and to whom? Moreover, since the recent pandemic (C19) took hold unemployment has risen, prices have sky-rocketed as products have diminished. Hence 30 million new gardeners have joined the horticulture brigade and the numbers are increasing.

Perhaps peat harvesting will eventually be phased out, but many arguments and debates on this issue both for and against remain. Taiga Bonzai’s policy is not to get involved in controversy, but to bring to our readers attention issues that concern all aspects of horticulture. In the next article we discuss why flora needs carbon, until next time, BW, Nik.