Volunteers rehome 1,500 BBC Gardeners' World plants in Leicester
Bailey, who was appointed director of the botanic garden in May 2024, said he saw the opportunity to use his resources and combine his roles to improve the area for visitors."The BBC asked me to create the headline show garden for Gardeners' World Live," he said."Usually at the end of a show garden process there is a lot to dispose of."Bailey and the team of volunteers helped remove the weeds and soil from the area, before planting around the water garden area of the site in soaring temperatures."It's been challenging and it's the hottest week that we've had all year," he said."The good thing about show gardens is that all the plants are planted in their pots, after the show they can be transported straight here."What's great about the garden now is that there are so many different species, which are superb for different pollinators so it celebrates the biodiversity of the garden as well."
One of the volunteers was Dr Katherine Clark, a senior lecturer of biological sciences at the university."I'm a keen gardener and constantly looking to learn more about plants and to have somebody like Nick Bailey here to direct us is brilliant and what this garden needs," the 53-year-old said. "It's suddenly turned from bare soil into this beautiful garden again."
Fellow volunteer and computer science student, Vatsal Chaudhari, said it was "pretty satisfying" watching the garden change."It's been hard but we've had fresh hands helping every day, we were getting through 500 plants a day at around 50 plants per person," the 23-year-old said."The other volunteers have done an amazing job, I'd love to see more students get involved in keeping the garden looking like this, hopefully this will encourage more to join in next time we're planting."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
3 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Civilization collapse now 'inevitable' after chilling patterns in past empires are uncovered
The collapse of human civilization is now seen as inevitable, according to a research who said 5,000 years of history have exposed clear and alarming patterns. Dr Luke Kemp of the University of Cambridge found inequality, environmental damage, reckless leaders and fragile systems lead to ancient collapse, and every warning sign is currently flashing. ' We can't put a date on Doomsday, but by looking at the 5,000 years of [civilization], we can understand the trajectories we face today, and self-termination is most likely,' he told the Guardian. Kemp's new book, Goliath's Curse, details the rise and fall of ancient powers, including imperial China, Rome and the Classical Lowland Maya. While those collapses were often regional and survivable, Kemp said the next one will be global, and devastating. His research found that every fallen empire shared the same fatal traits, including top-heavy regimes dominated by elites, fueled by inequality and held together by violence. He referred to these societies as 'Goliaths,' vast, brittle power structures built on hoarded grain, monopolized weapons and populations trapped in place with nowhere to run. 'History is best told as a story of organized crime,' Kemp said. 'It is one group creating a monopoly on resources through the use of violence over a certain territory and population.' A research analyzed the rise and fall of more than 400 empires throughout history, uncovering alarming patterns that he said are visible today Kemp analyzed the rise and fall of more than 400 societies, coming to the theory that inequality kills civilizations. As elites extract wealth from the masses and destroy the environment, societies become hollow shells, vulnerable to war, disease and collapse. And it's not simple greed driving the fall, he said, but a small number of individuals exhibiting the 'dark triad' of narcissism, psychopathy and Machiavellianism. These toxic traits, found in past ruling classes, are now surfacing in global leadership, The Guardian reported. Kemp named Donald Trump as the narcissist, Vladimir Putin as the psychopath, and Xi Jinping as the Machiavellian, claiming the most powerful leaders on Earth now embody the very traits that historically trigger collapse. One of the most consistent red flags Kemp found through hundreds of collapsed societies was extreme inequality. In ancient empires, wealth and power became concentrated among a small elite while the majority were left impoverished and burdened. Kemp said today's widening wealth gap and corporate monopolies mirror that pattern, eroding social cohesion and weakening resilience. Another alarming parallel was humanity's total dependence on complex, global systems. In the past, people could return to hunting or farming when governments fell. Now, most humans rely on fragile global supply chains, if they collapse, everything collapses, Kemp warned. Environmental destruction was also following the same trajectory. Historical collapses were often preceded by regional climate shifts of just 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit. Scientists now project a global rise of 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit or more, along with massive deforestation and resource depletion. Kemp also warned the next collapse could be far more violent as in the past, power struggles were fought with swords or muskets. That is because the the modern world has more than 10,000 nuclear weapons, and far more destructive technology. Kemp outlined three reasons why the next collapse could be far more devastating than anything humanity has faced before. First is elite violence. In the past, power struggles were fought with swords or muskets. Today, world leaders have access to more than 10,000 nuclear weapons. Second is our dependence on complex systems. Ancient populations could return to farming or hunting to survive. But modern societies rely heavily on fragile global supply chains, if they fail, we fall with them, he shared. Third is the scale of the threats themselves. Historical climate shifts typically involved a one-degree change. While past collapses sometimes led to better conditions, healthier, taller, and freer populations after empire fell, Kemp warns that today's single, globalized system leaves nowhere to hide.
The Independent
4 hours ago
- The Independent
Eating fewer ultra-processed foods could boost weight loss, trial suggests
Eating minimally processed foods and avoiding ultra processed foods (UPFs) could help people lose twice as much weight, a new trial has found. Sticking to meals cooked from scratch could also help curb food cravings, researchers suggest. UPFs include the likes of processed meals, ice cream, crisps, some breakfast cereals, biscuits and fizzy drinks. They tend to have high levels of saturated fat, salt and sugar, as well as additives and ingredients that are not used when people cook from scratch, like preservatives, emulsifiers and artificial colours and flavours. The trial, led by experts at University College London (UCL) and University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (UCLH), involved 55 people split into two groups. Half were given an eight-week diet plan comprising minimally processed foods, such as overnight oats and spaghetti bolognese, while the other half were given foods like breakfast oat bars or lasagne ready meals. After completing one diet, the groups then switched. Researchers matched the two diets nutritionally on levels of fat, saturated fat, protein, carbohydrates, salt and fibre using the Eatwell Guide, which outlines recommendations on how to eat a healthy, balanced diet. Dr Samuel Dicken, of the UCL Centre for Obesity Research and UCL department of behavioural science and health, said: 'Previous research has linked ultra-processed foods with poor health outcomes. 'But not all ultra-processed foods are inherently unhealthy based on their nutritional profile.' He said the main aim of the study was to explore the role of food processing and how it impacts weight, blood pressure, body composition and food cravings. Some 50 people completed the trial, with both groups losing weight. However, those on the minimally processed diet lost more weight (2.06%) compared to the UPF diet (1.05% loss). The UPF diet also did not result in significant fat loss, researchers said. Dr Dicken said: 'Though a 2% reduction may not seem very big, that is only over eight weeks and without people trying to actively reduce their intake. 'If we scaled these results up over the course of a year, we'd expect to see a 13% weight reduction in men and a 9% reduction in women on the minimally processed diet, but only a 4% weight reduction in men and 5% in women after the ultra-processed diet. 'Over time this would start to become a big difference.' Those on the trial were also asked to complete questionnaires on food cravings before and after starting the diets. Those eating minimally processed foods had less cravings and were able to resist them better, the study suggests. However, researchers also measured others markers like blood pressure, heart rate, liver function, glucose levels and cholesterol and found no significant negative impacts of the UPF diet. Professor Chris van Tulleken, of the UCL division of infection and immunity and UCLH, said: 'The global food system at the moment drives diet-related poor health and obesity, particularly because of the wide availability of cheap, unhealthy food. 'This study highlights the importance of ultra-processing in driving health outcomes in addition to the role of nutrients like fat, salt and sugar.' The Eatwell Guide recommends the average woman should consume around 2,000 calories a day, while an average man should consume 2,500. Both diet groups had a calorie deficit, meaning people were eating fewer calories than what they were burning, which helps with weight loss. However, the deficit was higher from minimally processed foods at around 230 calories a day, compared with 120 calories per day from UPFs. Professor Rachel Batterham, senior author of the study from the UCL centre for obesity research, said: 'Despite being widely promoted, less than 1% of the UK population follows all of the recommendations in the Eatwell Guide, and most people stick to fewer than half. 'The normal diets of the trial participants tended to be outside national nutritional guidelines and included an above average proportion of UPF, which may help to explain why switching to a trial diet consisting entirely of UPF, but that was nutritionally balanced, resulted in neutral or slightly favourable changes to some secondary health markers. 'The best advice to people would be to stick as closely to nutritional guidelines as they can by moderating overall energy intake, limiting intake of salt, sugar and saturated fat, and prioritising high-fibre foods such as fruits, vegetables, pulses and nuts. 'Choosing less processed options such as whole foods and cooking from scratch, rather than ultra-processed, packaged foods or ready meals, is likely to offer additional benefits in terms of body weight, body composition and overall health.' Commenting on the study, Tracy Parker, nutrition lead at the British Heart Foundation, said: 'These findings support what we have long suspected – that the way food is made might affect our health, not just the nutrients it contains. 'The way this study was designed means it is more reflective of real-world conditions than previous research on ultra-processed foods. 'Unlike earlier observational studies, this was a randomised controlled trial where participants were provided with all their meals, and the diets were carefully matched to meet the Eatwell Guide – this allowed researchers to isolate the effect of food processing itself, making it more likely that the differences seen after eight weeks were due to how the food in their diets was processed, not just what was in it. 'Completely cutting UPFs out of our diets isn't realistic for most of us, but including more minimally processed foods – like fresh or home cooked meals – alongside a balanced diet could offer added benefits too. 'Mediterranean-style diets, which include plenty of minimally or unprocessed foods such as fruit, vegetables, fish, nuts and seeds, beans, lentils and wholegrains, have consistently been shown to reduce our risk of heart attacks and strokes.'
Daily Mail
6 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Study: Avoiding ultra-processed foods while dieting can double weight loss
By Consuming a diet low in ultra-processed foods could help supercharge weight loss , promising research suggested today. Additive-laden foods such as crisps and sweets have been vilified for decades over their supposed risks, with dozens of studies linking them to type 2 diabetes , heart disease and cancer . Experts have even called for UPFs—typically anything edible that has more artificial ingredients than natural ones—to be slashed from diets. Now, British scientists who tracked dozens of adults have discovered those who ate a diet rich in minimally processed foods and avoided UPFs, lost twice as much weight as those who often consumed UPFs. Sticking to meals cooked from scratch could also help curb food cravings, they also found. However, diets high in UPFs had little impact on blood pressure, heart rate, liver function and cholesterol. 'But not all ultra-processed foods are inherently unhealthy based on their nutritional profile.' In the study, the researchers tracked 50 people who were already consuming diets packed with UPFs and split them into two groups. Half were given an eight-week diet plan comprising minimally processed foods, such as overnight oats and spaghetti bolognese, while the other half were given foods like breakfast oat bars or lasagne ready meals. After completing one diet, the groups then switched. Researchers matched the two diets nutritionally on levels of fat, saturated fat, protein, carbohydrates, salt and fibre using the Eatwell Guide, which outlines recommendations on how to eat a healthy, balanced diet. They found those on the minimally processed diet lost more weight (2.06 per cent) compared to the UPF diet (1.05 per cent loss). The UPF diet also did not result in significant fat loss, the researchers said. Dr Dicken added: 'Though a 2 per cent reduction may not seem very big, that is only over eight weeks and without people trying to actively reduce their intake. 'If we scaled these results up over the course of a year, we'd expect to see a 13 per cent weight reduction in men and a 9 per cent reduction in women on the minimally processed diet, but only a 4 per cent weight reduction in men and 5 per cent in women after the ultra-processed diet. 'Over time this would start to become a big difference.' Those on the trial were also asked to complete questionnaires on food cravings before and after starting the diets. Those eating minimally processed foods had less cravings and were able to resist them better, the study suggests. However, researchers also measured others markers like blood pressure, heart rate, liver function, glucose levels and cholesterol and found no significant negative impacts of the UPF diet. The Eatwell Guide recommends the average woman should consume around 2,000 calories a day, while an average man should consume 2,500. Both diet groups had a calorie deficit, meaning people were eating fewer calories than what they were burning, which helps with weight loss. However, the deficit was higher from minimally processed foods at around 230 calories a day, compared with 120 calories per day from UPFs. Professor Rachel Batterham, senior author of the study from the UCL centre for obesity research, said: 'Despite being widely promoted, less than 1 per cent of the UK population follows all of the recommendations in the Eatwell Guide, and most people stick to fewer than half. 'The best advice to people would be to stick as closely to nutritional guidelines as they can by moderating overall energy intake, limiting intake of salt, sugar and saturated fat, and prioritizing high-fibre foods such as fruits, vegetables, pulses and nuts. Tracy Parker, nutrition lead at the British Heart Foundation, also said: 'The way this study was designed means it is more reflective of real-world conditions than previous research on UPFs. 'The small size of the study is a limitation, and the fact that most participants were women limits how much we can generalize the findings to the general population. 'We also can't be certain how closely the diets were followed, as participants self-reported what they ate during the study. 'Larger, longer-term studies will be needed to see if the greater weight loss on the minimally processed diets seen here translates into bigger improvements in risk factors, including blood pressure and cholesterol and blood sugar levels, and a reduced risk of developing heart and circulatory diseases.
