The Accidental Smallholder Forum
Smallholding => Land Management => Topic started by: juliem on November 01, 2021, 08:14:49 pm
-
Just been listening to the conference via u tube.Very depressing.I have 12 acres of pasture...lots of trees and hedges.But is is grazed lightly by sheep.( not mine...just rent it out to keep pasture tidy)
What would be the zero carbon option to managing this land?
Already decided to go vegetarian.
I am aware that New Zealand with its intensive sheep farming is under scrutiny?
-
Zero carbon is presumably just to leave it as it is and not graze it. However, I'm far from convinced because even if you planted trees on it, they only store carbon as long as they're alive and growing. When they reach the end of their lives and either rot or are burned, that carbon goes back into the atmosphere.
The question is, what do you want the land to DO for either you or the planet? Personally I think keeping land unproductive is the real crime.
Could you plant an orchard, perhaps?
-
We're off to COP26 on Friday with a trailer full of sheep :hugsheep: It's in support of rural repopulation, worldwide 'mobile' pasturalists (nomads, transhumancers) and to show people what a wonderful, sustainable fibre we have in wool.
Stop and think - how do you measure the gaseous emissions from a cow or sheep as it grazes in a field, eating lush, herby grass and surrounded by trees and shrubs? The answer, which the research scientists admit, is that you can't :thinking: :idea: So how did they measure them then? In a sealed chamber, on a concrete floor, eating grain based feed - something their gut fauna don't really like and struggle to cope with, thus producing more gases.
In the UK, throughout Europe and in fact in most of the world, the whole point of keeping grazing animals, ruminants, is that they eat grass and browse, often in areas where it is difficult to plough and cultivate more demanding crops. They are not housed except in the most severe part of winter, and then the dung and bedding are composted and returned to the land. In some countries, such as America, in some areas of that country, cattle at least, I'm not sure about sheep, are fattened in huge feed lots, with no grass or soil to sequester the GHGs, let alone trees, they are fed those grain based diets and their effluent is collected in giant open settling lagoons, with the gases floating off into the atmosphere, along with their burps and farts. I am unaware of New Zealand having an intensive sheep husbandry system - from what I've seen it's extensive, as in Australia.
Farmers are at last realising that we must challenge the figures obtained in laboratory conditions, because our animals don't live like that; they live in open fields with soil and grass and trees to absorb and sequester any emissions, thus recycling them into the ground and the plants, then back into the animals - a normal cycle.
Before you turn to vegetarianism (I was one for many years) stop and think again. It is thought that humans developed from their Great Ape relatives by growing bigger brains, fueled by eating cooked, easily digested meat on a large scale. Life is full of unintended consequences, and as far as I'm aware no real research has been done into the long term effect on human intelligence of everybody giving up meat eating altogether. Just as measuring ruminant emissions has so far proved impractical, so a world wide experiment into the effect of a no meat diet on human intelligence is likewise impractical.
I think the true carbon neutral way of managing land would be to rewild it. However, there are more than 7.5 billion people (more have been born as I type) to feed on this Earth, so we need to balance producing food against maintaining our biodiversity. A good start is to grow enough food without chemicals to feed you and your family, with enough excess to sell to your neighbours. Be positive - we need action, but find out for yourself what the situation truly is; politicians don't always speak the truth, they are often only concerned with the short term agenda of staying in power for their term of service.
One thing I have learned is that there's no point in hoping someone else will sort our problems, and it's unfair to leave it up to our children, WE have to act now, WE have to make the sacrifices for the benefit of everyone else to come, or our race has no future.
-
If you are only grazing lightly then chances are you are pretty much carbon neutal ..... emmisions from beasts being far outweighed by keeping a permanent pasture. However carbon emmissions is only one part of the problem ..... biodiversity is a huge problem too (no point neutalising carbon if there are no bees!) ....... put part of your aceage down to a wild flower meadow .... sheep can graze early and late in year ..... allow to grow naturally from April to August then cut hay to 'tidy it up' before sheep go back in.
-
what backinwellies said.
Or you could give up the income from the sheep and rewild it as a little local nature reserve and refuge for whatever local plants and wildlife are left there.
-
what backinwellies said.
Or you could give up the income from the sheep and rewild it as a little local nature reserve and refuge for whatever local plants and wildlife are left there.
I agree. I've just had a small piece of my land cleared of unsightly weeds and brambles, no trees; intention is to put in wildflowers and ground cover plants to attract bees and other pollinators, and perhaps some fruit bushes. Can't be used for animals as it's small (100square metres) close to the road and unfenced.
The worst thing you can do is nothing
-
what backinwellies said.
Or you could give up the income from the sheep and rewild it as a little local nature reserve and refuge for whatever local plants and wildlife are left there.
The worst thing you can do is nothing
Or perhaps the best thing you can do is nothing and see what nature does with it.
But as I said earlier, anyone who has a decent sized piece of land, and the strength to do so, should use at least some part of it to grow food to support themselves - fruit, veggies, herbs, eggs, nuts, perhaps milk. It's an easy way to avoid all the Green House Gas emissions involved in commercial scale production, transport, maintaining a shop and so on. Simples :D Not everyone has the opportunity and space to grow their own food, so those of us who do should take advantage to ease the pressure on our small blue planet. Wild flowers don't have to be restricted to a dedicated flower meadow, where often the seeds have come out of a generic packet and are not specific to the local site. Flowers for the bees, butterflies, moths, insects and birds can be grown in amongst crops to excellent effect
-
https://www.plantlife.org.uk/uk/blog/why-species-rich-grasslands-matter-in-the-fight-against-climate-change (https://www.plantlife.org.uk/uk/blog/why-species-rich-grasslands-matter-in-the-fight-against-climate-change)
Hope this link works to an article on grassland and its role/importance in carbon storeage by an organisation called Plantlife.
I wasn't really too aware of this until a visit from our local wildlife trust as part of a community Green Connections project. I thought that our fields and a small field that we rent from our chapel were pretty poor in terms of biodiversity/flowering/broadleaved plants and wondered if we should plant trees etc. They found a Ballerina Wax Cap and told us to look out for more wax caps and associated fungi as the autumn progressed and explained the importance of these WaxCap grasslands. Felt a bit guilty that I'd never spotted these autumn jewels before. These grasslands are being lost due to modern farming methods and it can take a century or more for some of these fungi to re-establish if conditions once again become favourable. They are little studied and their importance not fully understood though there is apparently evidence that they maybe important for wildflower growth for example.
It does say that these ancient grasslands which need to be grazed or mowed for hay are better at carbon storeage than woodlands. I haven't researched much about this as yet but it has made me think differently about some of the well grazed upland fields around here. And I have a new fungi spotting hobby!
Just a thought.
-
Two books, both by Dave Goulson: Silent Earth and Gardening for Bumblebees. The first one very depressing, the second one really useful.
As to the COP 26 stuff, I have started to turn the radion off for the time being....
-
So by going vegetarian do you think that’s more carbon neutral than eating a diet with locally reared meat ? I think not. Look at the carbon footprint of an avocado for start. The carbon footprint of soya can’t be great either. Do something productive with your land rather than just leaving it grow into an unmanaged mess. Letting sheep graze it won’t hurt the environment. Carbon emissions went down during the covid lockdowns… there were still the same amount of farmed livestock. Yet everyone stopped travelling… :thinking:
-
Interesting ideas...thankyou everyone.I was gifted my fields and intend to gift them again to my children.I don't think they have ever been ploughed unlike the large fields around us.I'm quite laid back about the drainage now and realize getting a big digger to clear out all my ditches (done in the 18th C )every few years s just a waste of time.The soil is very acid and because I've got 12 acres I manage to get a set aside grant which helps pay for a few nice trees every year.I'm wondering would the carbon neutral option include not cutting the hedges?
I do sometimes have the odd field cut for hay...using chaps with quite old equipment...bailers etc.I imagine these older tractors are quite heavy on the petrol.(like lawnmowers)
I'm not really interested in the livestock..I see the sheep as only way to keep my fields tidy.
Did have to burn some wool this year...(did anyone manage to sell it ?) which was not happy about as it caused a lot of black smoke.Less socially acceptable now to light bonfires which is only right.My son now coppiced some of the trees and puts all the wood in piles for wild life.
Planting more oak/holly/alder trees is the way to go .I won't have to worry about the maintainance in my remaining years.
Growing vegetables..orchards seem more of a commercial operation and involve chemicals.
I can understand the frustration of livestock enthusiasts as I am not actually farming the land.
-
what backinwellies said.
Or you could give up the income from the sheep and rewild it as a little local nature reserve and refuge for whatever local plants and wildlife are left there.
I agree. I've just had a small piece of my land cleared of unsightly weeds and brambles, no trees; intention is to put in wildflowers and ground cover plants to attract bees and other pollinators, and perhaps some fruit bushes. Can't be used for animals as it's small (100square metres) close to the road and unfenced.
The worst thing you can do is nothing
doganjo, your bit of scrub was rewilding. I think we need a step change in our thinking; Angus Council sprays roundup around bases of trees and fences. “So what if there’s some grass going to seed, thistles and dandelions..?” I asked. Apparently people complain because it looks untidy. We should shift our view of tidy.
New Zealand has converted lots of rough uplands into pasture in recent years. Drains, fertiliser and reseeded. It’s extensive compared to here but intensive compared to 20 years ago.
Juliem, There are many things you could do with your bit of land. I don’t think grass fed animals are a problem. I know that commercially produced vegetables are a big problem in this country. No one seems bothered by the unsustainable methods of farming potatoes, carrots, etc., I think the best thing we can do is grow as much of our food ourselves, invite others to help and learn and share in what we can produce instead of going to a shop. But if you wanted to move to trees there’s lots of books on Forest Gardening. Where all your trees, shrubs and plants provide food and harvestable materials for the future. Depending on the lay of your land, soil, interest time and commitment, you could probably create tree-walled gardens with micro climates for growing veg in the future. Or how about setting up a tree nursery?
-
Just read your most recent post.
I’d stop cutting the hedges and let them fill out. They may become less stock proof further down but that’s what I would do.
Orchards can be grown organically, but it’s not entirely plain sailing; quite a bit of maintenance and care.
If yours is the only bit not ploughed I think you should probably keep it in grass with light grazing as you have been. Perhaps you could try to identify the species in the sward as I bet you have exciting diversity. Your fields will likely already be a reserve for wildlife reserve. It’d be a shame/loss to change this to woodland.
Planting some trees is always good :-) I’d go for maximum diversity as we live in uncertain times in terms of plant health and disease.
-
Interesting ideas...thankyou everyone.I was gifted my fields and intend to gift them again to my children.I don't think they have ever been ploughed unlike the large fields around us.I'm quite laid back about the drainage now and realize getting a big digger to clear out all my ditches (done in the 18th C )every few years s just a waste of time.The soil is very acid and because I've got 12 acres I manage to get a set aside grant which helps pay for a few nice trees every year.I'm wondering would the carbon neutral option include not cutting the hedges?
I do sometimes have the odd field cut for hay...using chaps with quite old equipment...bailers etc.I imagine these older tractors are quite heavy on the petrol.(like lawnmowers)
I'm not really interested in the livestock..I see the sheep as only way to keep my fields tidy.
Did have to burn some wool this year...(did anyone manage to sell it ?) which was not happy about as it caused a lot of black smoke.Less socially acceptable now to light bonfires which is only right.My son now coppiced some of the trees and puts all the wood in piles for wild life.
Planting more oak/holly/alder trees is the way to go .I won't have to worry about the maintainance in my remaining years.
Growing vegetables..orchards seem more of a commercial operation and involve chemicals.
I can understand the frustration of livestock enthusiasts as I am not actually farming the land.
If your land has never been ploughed then you have something very special there, with its own established ecosystem. You need to get some advice - I'm sure others in this conversation can point you in the right direction. Then your land can be assessed by someone who knows what's what and can give you a sustainable plan to maintain the biodiversity of what you have. I don't mean an agricultural advisor, totally the wrong person, but someone who understands ecology and the environment.
I go back on my previous comments - don't plough it up for anything - that will be the worst thing you can do.
By the by, vegetables absolutely do not need chemicals to grow, definitely not. I have never used chemicals in the garden in my life. I hadn't meant for you to use the whole 12 acres for veggies, just enough to feed you and your family, but if that is something you know nothing about then it's not an option.
Just a few years ago it was announced that ploughing up permanent pasture was to be no longer allowed, after the following year. That announcement was responsible for the destruction of a large number of old pastures, so farmers could plough before they had to seek permission, in case they wanted to do so further down the line. More unintended consequences ::)
-
https://www.plantlife.org.uk/uk/blog/why-species-rich-grasslands-matter-in-the-fight-against-climate-change (https://www.plantlife.org.uk/uk/blog/why-species-rich-grasslands-matter-in-the-fight-against-climate-change)
Hope this link works to an article on grassland and its role/importance in carbon storeage by an organisation called Plantlife.
I wasn't really too aware of this until a visit from our local wildlife trust as part of a community Green Connections project. I thought that our fields and a small field that we rent from our chapel were pretty poor in terms of biodiversity/flowering/broadleaved plants and wondered if we should plant trees etc. They found a Ballerina Wax Cap and told us to look out for more wax caps and associated fungi as the autumn progressed and explained the importance of these WaxCap grasslands. Felt a bit guilty that I'd never spotted these autumn jewels before. These grasslands are being lost due to modern farming methods and it can take a century or more for some of these fungi to re-establish if conditions once again become favourable. They are little studied and their importance not fully understood though there is apparently evidence that they maybe important for wildflower growth for example.
It does say that these ancient grasslands which need to be grazed or mowed for hay are better at carbon storeage than woodlands. I haven't researched much about this as yet but it has made me think differently about some of the well grazed upland fields around here. And I have a new fungi spotting hobby!
Just a thought.
[member=24384]in the hills[/member] this is exciting for me. We have noticed this autumn many patches of small yellow fungi toadstool type things growing throughout our pastures. You inspired me to look them up to identify them and they are indeed Golden Waxcaps. I haven't had time to read much about them, except that they are found in underused pastures (we have had very few sheep in some of our fields for the past couple of years, and others are in the process of being used for growing trees whilst keeping their grasses undisturbed. Oddly I haven't seen much variety in fungi this year, a few horse mushrooms and some little colourless jobs, but I shall pay more attention now ;D
-
That's great Fleecewife.
We've never even noticed them in the 12 years we've been here. I think that's mostly because when we walk the fields we are watching our dogs, birds and so forth and not staring at the ground.
So far we have Ballerina, Snowy, Scarlet, Butter and Parrot and some of the associated grassland fungi. Some wax caps are more tolerant to pesticides and fertilizers than others. The more sensitive Ballerina and Scarlet fungi are in the chapel field that we rent. The field was used to graze the Minister's horse ....... as he travelled by horse between chapels. The chapel is 150 years old so I'm guessing that it has changed little during that time.
Keep a look out for more wax caps, Fleecewife, they tend to come up in fits and starts. They actually like short, sheep grazed sward. Some of their habitat is lost as people try to establish wild flower meadows or plant trees.
Hence my point that stock grazed pasture isn't necessarily a bad thing.
And it seems that old pasture is good at storing carbon too.
-
doganjo, your bit of scrub was rewilding.
No it wasn't - it was covered in real weeds like couch grass, ground elder and the like, AND it was bloody ugly!!! :innocent:
-
Have a look at Almeria in Spain. 64.000 acres oj plastic covered greenhouses growing nothing but fruit an veg. My brother lives near this and he says it is terrible. Workers living in horrible conditions. Plants are hydroponicallydrip fed water laced with chemical fertillizers in grow bags of imported soil. the beaches are strewn with spent pesticide containers and tons of plastic sheeting that has been discatded. If that is what is needed to go Vegan it is not for me.
-
We had home grown chicken for dinner last night, with roasted tomatoes (ours), and roasted peppers and aubergine (probably from Almeria). Just because I'm not vegan, doesn't mean I'm not part of the problem!
If that is what is needed to go Vegan it is not for me.
No, that's not what's needed to go vegan. It's just what's needed to go vegan in Scotland unless you're happy to eat nothing but porridge and tumshies between November and April ;) .
-
I grow our own veg and fruit much of which I freeze so we have over the winter. I do not eat out off season veg or fruit as it has air miles. I was brought up in the early 50's when all we had was Scottish produce and myself and my brothers grew up fine. Mum made lots of soups and stews, chicken was something we only saw at Christmas and things like jam was home made from fruit we picked. Fruit was bottled in large jars. Cakes and biscuits were home made. Things like bacon, pork sausages, beef were all local as were lambs too. There was no need to export these kinds of food but today so many farmers and their land are gone. Mothers have to work full time, cooking from scratch takes up too much time and off course todays diet is far from good. We are all part of the problem and things will not change as the little people don't matter only money does. The powers that be can tell us all that we want to hear but in the end if it cost too uch it will never happen.
-
We had home grown chicken for dinner last night, with roasted tomatoes (ours), and roasted peppers and aubergine (probably from Almeria). Just because I'm not vegan, doesn't mean I'm not part of the problem!
If that is what is needed to go Vegan it is not for me.
No, that's not what's needed to go vegan. It's just what's needed to go vegan in Scotland unless you're happy to eat nothing but porridge and tumshies between November and April ;) .
You have a point [member=2128]Womble[/member] not every country is suitable for a vegetarian or vegan diet and others are not suitable for meat eating. This may be to do with climate, latitude, terrain, religion, rainfall, whatever. Having to rely on imports cannot be sustainable. It puzzles me how some vegans don't seem to care where their veggies come from, or the fact that their plastic shoes are made from petro-chemicals. I don't want to bash vegans - each to their own - but we do need to become much more self sufficient in food and fuel in the UK as a whole.
I'm quite shocked [member=467]sabrina[/member] to hear about the growing conditions in Spain. I'm like you, grew up after the war, local or home grown produce, all meals prepared from scratch, if we had any sweets we made them ourselves (fudge was my favourite but now I can't eat sugar at all!)
Sustainability includes the need for good working conditions. If the growing place is in such a bad state and the workers' living conditions are so bad, then there can be no attention to personal hygiene. I don't fancy eating raw food handled under those circumstance :o. I'm so glad I have the room to grow my own :garden:
-
Last year a fungi expert asked if he could look at our fields for waxcaps, was very pleased with what he saw, so came back earlier this year, said if they found 25 different fungi it was classed as really good, on our fields they found 36, he's talking about it being of international importance, and if he can get us grants to leave it untouched, just sheep grazing.
Quite exciting really :)
-
Wow! That's great Pennine hillbilly.
Would love to know what type of grants might be available as something like that could help secure the future of our chapel field.
If you hear more could you let me know please?
There is a Waxcap app that you can download and use to survey your land. You don't need to be an expert to use it. Guessing that your expert might have used it or similar but it might be interesting for you to have a go at it you have a few spare minutes.
-
The chap approached me through a friend, he now works for the national trust surveying fungi round the area.
He's got good eyesight! They see tiny bits in the grass, he says it's easy when you are zoned in to them, apparently something quite special and rare down there, he did say it's name,
Found his email, this is what they found last year, seemed quite excited about it ;D
Clubs and Corals
Biege Coral (Clavulinopsis umbrinella)
Meadow Coral (Clavulinopsis corniculata)
Yellow Club (Clavulinopsis helvola)
WaxcapsButter Waxcap (Hygrocybe ceracea)
Golden Waxcap (Hygrocybe chlorophana)
Heath Waxcap (Hygrocybe laeta)
Honey Waxcap (Hygrocybe reidii)
Meadow Waxcap (Hygrocybe pratensis)
Parrot Waxcap (Hygrocybe psittacina)
Pink Waxcap (Hygrocybe calyptriformis)
Slimy Waxcap (Hygrocybe irrigata)Pink gillsUnidentified
EarthtonguesGlutinous Earthtongue
I copied and pasted, text came up tiny, hopefully enlarged now. :fc:
-
[member=22672]Penninehillbilly[/member] you have to engage that pink and blue square top right so we can see the link you sent.
It sounds as if your pasture is amaaazing! Between you and in the hills your ground is special. I'm now embarrassed I mentioned my measly Golden Waxcaps :roflanim: After tomorrow I'll go and have a good search around. The oldest of our pastures were put to grass only about 30 years ago so I don't expect to see much.
-
FW, I never knew they were there, really pleased, only problem is, it's a tenant that uses that land, and he's had a load of humanure tipped, I have to stop him from spreading it on the lower areas.
Are you ready for tomorrow?
-
New Shakesperian insults:
"You slimy waxcap. You Hygrocybe irrigata.
Thou glutinous earthtongue!
Away from me, fungus-faced beige coral!"
-
Ha ...... I like it!
You know your wax caps, Womble?
-
FW, I never knew they were there, really pleased, only problem is, it's a tenant that uses that land, and he's had a load of humanure tipped, I have to stop him from spreading it on the lower areas.
Are you ready for tomorrow?
That's us just back home. The organisation that went into taking 8 sheep to Govan docks for a single day of COP26 was amazing. I'll try and post some pics when they come through. It was a small event, some people having been stuck while trying to register at COP26 so they never arrived. I met people from Spain, Germany, Ireland, England (many from London with not a clue about the countryside, sheep, anything), Mongolia (comfortably warm in cashmere), Uganda (wearing every layer of wool he owned) and a sheep farmer from Lancaster who had walked up to Glasgow :relief:
I spent yesterday making a giant stew from a couple of hogget rolled shoulders and veg and herbs from our veg plot - that went down an absolute treat, although I only had a teaspoonful so I don't really know what it tasted like. My hands were so sore from all the chopping that I couldn't demonstrate spinning.
The publicity for the sheep and pastoralism was amazing. Several people commented that it's less the negotiations going on in the formal talks and more the small conversations taking place in the queues, which are forming links worldwide. Conversations I overheard all involved the exchange of contact details. We were south of the river and too far away to see any of the action, just the police chopper watching the demos. The rain held off and I think everyone really enjoyed themselves.
-
New Shakesperian insults:
"You slimy waxcap. You Hygrocybe irrigata.
Thou glutinous earthtongue!
Away from me, fungus-faced beige coral!"
:roflanim:
-
Good to hear all went well for you FW. Not knowing where it's all happening and the layout, I was thinking you were going to be just outside the buildings, part of the demonstrations, I was quite worried for you and your sheep. LOL.
-
Good to hear all went well for you FW. Not knowing where it's all happening and the layout, I was thinking you were going to be just outside the buildings, part of the demonstrations, I was quite worried for you and your sheep. LOL.
Events seemed to have been happening all over Glasgow so it's a bit desperate for people to move around. They seem to have bought up a fleet of bicycles to help people get around. We would never have got permission to take sheep in amongst the huge crowds and it wasn't a protest, just a support thing for international indigenous pastoralists, who met Prince Charles amongst other people.
APHA were extremely helpful in making sure we could get there legally, had to go to the top of Scottish Gov. :thumbsup:.
We were in a bit of the old docks at Govan, which is almost opposite the conference centre, between BBC Scotland and the QE hospital. There's a community effort to establish a wetland in the old dock area which will eventually be nice, including veg beds amongst the wild plants for the use of those round about. It will make a good hub for local people in what is not the most salubrious area of the city :D. There were many comments from local people of "sheep in Govan? Well that's a first!" but everyone loved them, especially shepherds from overseas who could get a little sheep fix.
I'm knackered today but so glad we did it.
We were expecting a very long journey there and back following all the warnings of travel disruption but it wasn't much worse than 'normal' Glasgow traffic.
-
Jolly well done for making the effort, as long as you took back the same number of sheep that you arrived with.
Its probably the first time some of the "weegies" have seen sheep.
-
Jolly well done for making the effort, as long as you took back the same number of sheep that you arrived with.
Its probably the first time some of the "weegies" have seen sheep.
You DO know that 'weegies' is a derogatory term don't you? :innocent: And I think you might be surprised at how many of us know about all sorts of animals ;D We're not all stupid toonsers :excited:
-
I'm so sorry you feel offended, in My part of Scotland its no considered derogatory, however I offer My unreserved apology.
Rupert the Bear, not a Scottish native !
-
Jolly well done for making the effort, as long as you took back the same number of sheep that you arrived with.
Its probably the first time some of the "weegies" have seen sheep.
You DO know that 'weegies' is a derogatory term don't you? :innocent: And I think you might be surprised at how many of us know about all sorts of animals ;D We're not all stupid toonsers :excited:
Well, I had to Google it, first meaning was someone born n bred in Glasgow. 2nd meaning not a pleasant person, so both right? :)
-
You DO know that 'weegies' is a derogatory term don't you?
Is it? ??? I'm not quite from Glasgow, but pretty close and I've never thought of it as any more derogatory than Scouser, Geordie, etc etc. My favourite term is Wiglie - Work in Glasgow, Live in Edinburgh. I used to get the train with a few hundred of them every morning ;D .
-
Years ago we had a couple of allotments in 'Embra' (that's Edinburgh, not offensive, just as 'weegieland' isn't, they're both nicknames, pet names, shortenings - sorry Annie). Anyway, we had huge floods there one year, many allotments washed away completely, the rest drowned, crops ruined. The family who had the plot next to ours arrived and one of the children said "oh look our allotment's like a paddy field" - whack - waa - whaat?? "We never use that word, it's not nice". Yes the family was Irish and thought the child was being offensive, which he was not, he meant it was like a rice paddy. It's easy to take offense nowadays and easy to take offense at something which isn't offensive.
And there was me enjoying speaking about my day out in Glasgow at such a big important event ::)
Several people from far and wide made a point of coming to me to tell me how lovely and friendly the people of Glasgow had been to them. To think these ordinary people had taken the time, given up their holidays, spent their money, taken a big risk of travelling halfway around the world during a pandemic, to demonstrate their concern about the state of our planet and the probable fate of the human race.
[member=136323]Rupert the bear[/member] I loved meeting such amazing people so it wasn't an effort at all, just the least we could do for such lovely people visiting our country :thumbsup: They had their big march today; you may have seen some of the indigenous people and the marchers for food sustainability and justice on the TV news. About 100,000 people were there to show what they feel - Brilliant :yippee:
-
I've never thought of Weegee as a derogatory term at all. In fact, I don't think many folk do. https://www.refuweegee.co.uk/
I'd see it as a term of affection.
-
You DO know that 'weegies' is a derogatory term don't you?
Is it? ??? I'm not quite from Glasgow, but pretty close and I've never thought of it as any more derogatory than Scouser, Geordie, etc etc. My favourite term is Wiglie - Work in Glasgow, Live in Edinburgh. I used to get the train with a few hundred of them every morning ;D .
So did I.... many moons ago now... (and I hated it), and always wondered why probabyl the same number of people went the opposite way every day...
-
Oh, you mean the Ligwies? I was one of those for a few years too! {Alright, I'll stop now - back to climate change}.
So, genuine question - how bad for the planet are our sheep? You know, the farting, belching balls of wool and mutton we have running around our fields. Should we be re-evaluating our lifestyle choices here?
I worked for a biotech startup in the alternative food sector for a couple of years and all their stats would make you believe it's terrible. However, when I looked into it myself I was far from convinced. For example, one oft-quoted stat about water use for farming was calculated by dividing the annual rainfall on a field by the kg of meat it produced in a year. Is that really fair? If so, car parks are even worse since they use the same amount of water but produce no food at all.
So whilst there is time for a moral debate later once we have evidence, right now I want to know how bad I'm really being with what we grow, buy and ultimately eat, and if there is a way to get better. Does anybody have some well-researched stats?
-
Well [member=2128]Womble[/member] that's the trouble, the only available stats are not well researched. As I've mentioned before endlessly it's just not possible to measure an animals 'emissions' in a field setting. The conditions in a laboratory require the cow, sheep, goat whatever to be in an airtight 'room' with inputs and outputs measured, so they can't be eating grass which is their normal diet. I can't quote stats but I understand that being fed grain upsets the microflora/fauna of the rumen etc, so their output of products of digestion differ from those found in animals eating their normal natural diet.
Actually I've only ever seen research results for cattle so I can't say if the published figures have simply been extrapolated or if actual measurements have taken place for other ruminant species.
I have trawled through as much of the scientific papers as I can find online until my head was spinning and one thing stood out. Scientists themselves are questioning the accuracy of the published results. I saw quoted that one particular set of stats was found to be minus 62% to plus 300% representative of the actual rounded up result quoted - can't remember what for. Science acknowledges that it is indeed impossible to measure ruminants emissions in the field accurately, or even at all, and it seems no-one has tried!
The stats quoted don't take into account the sequestration of GHG's such as Methane, Nitrous Oxide and CO2 into sward, soil and trees/shrubs. Some of these are in the form of gaseous emissions but also as dung which decomposes directly on the ground and in a healthy system is taken back into the soil, to feed the next crop of grass, which is of course eaten by livestock again - all very circular and neat. In a lab, the dung is cleared away into a dung heap - do they measure the gases given off and include those in the calculations? Given that the UK does not include GHGs produced in international travel to and from the UK and for goods transport, nor the emissions generated by other countries in manufacturing and producing goods for our consumption, including wood for wood chip boilers from virgin forests, nor the GHGs produced by our rubbish exported to other countries for disposal, as part of our own GHG emissions, then probably not. Drax power station is judged to be carbon neutral or nearly so because the wood it uses comes from overseas and we merrily ignore the destruction of non-coppiced source forests and the vast transport costs to bring it here. So green.
I think the only activity the official stats support, is for those lucky ruminants chosen to be shut in a lab box to have their emissions measured! A worldwide rural industry, that of raising meat to feed our population of 7.5 billion and growing, is under threat, with a perhaps unintended consequence of mass starvation when the big bods discover that you truly cannot grow veggies on a mountain ::)
So what damage are we doing to our environment by growing food on our land? I feel that it's no more than we do by simply being alive and living. Listening to people chatting on TAS I think most of us don't pour on the chemicals, we don't overstock, we don't keep caged birds and feed-lot cattle, our sheep live extensively as do our cattle and goats, and our buffalo. If humans were not here, there would still be animals on the land producing some emissions, which would be sequestrated into the ground and the vegetation and recycled into that ecosystem. As smallholders we try to emulate that way. Some of us produce a bit of excess and we sell that on - I'm not sure where that fits in the equation.
Having met people in other areas of the world who keep livestock, I see that their methods are similar too. They keep animals on land which is suitable for them and without humans would have a similar type and density of animal occupation.
The damage to the environment is caused by cutting down our forests and draining our wetlands to feed our greed for enormous and frequent portions of cattle meat. A pound of steak at a sitting? That is greed pure and simply totally unnecessary.
I can't quote figures for you - I have seen a selection enough to suggest to me that a whole load of pertinent and well executed scientifically accurate research still needs to be done, before we destroy our earth systems even more in our efforts to improve.
I would be delighted to see any results you can find womble.
-
Wow FW, quite a lot to take in there, all interesting and ive been reading bits out to hubs., didn't know Drax imported wood, he says they take it in in trainloads, how can that be sustainable? Absolutely ridiculous. Ì know they have farmers growing short term coppice, they seem to keep quiet about the rest of it. Ì believe some are using miscanthus, all very well to be converting fields to feeding the power stations, but what about feeding humans?
But FW, they aren't going to grow veg on the mountains, they are going to take all our animals and turn them loose up there (so say the naive 'know it alls', who just repeat what they've read). Then I suppose when the animals starve to death it will be us that caused it, or when they come down and break into fields what will happen then? (Bit tongue in cheek there :) )
But can someone explain what was on the radio recently, the phrase, interestingly, was '
'methane, the most damaging GHG, after CO2' (interesting way of putting it, CO2 almost an afterthought). However, they said as methane breaks down quicker, they are concentrating on reducing methane emmisions to get to the 2030 target. So, surely they would be better getting the CO2 down, rather than it building up long term for the future generations.
Or, me being cynical, is it because money power is behind the CO2 emissions?
-
Between feeding power stations and feeding our vehicles, you do wonder how much land will be left for producing food. It's as if those who make the really important decisions can't see beyond whether or not the populace will accept what they pronounce. That seems to be the principle behind how we as a country have dealt with the pandemic - not lockdown because it's essential, but half measures because people won't still vote for us if we order a full lockdown response. 'Playing with people's lives' is a cheesy idiom, but in this case it is literally true.
I have heard of this daft idea of just letting out all the domestic livestock, even pets, to fend for themselves. What evil carnage that would cause, and mass starvation - for humans as well as animals. My opinion of much of humanity is not very high some days, but that one just takes the biscuit.
As for everyone having to become vegan, I have been assured many times, especially on one particular online University course, that there is enough land in the world to feed every single human being with a vegan diet. This when we can't feed everyone yet fairly, with a small majority overstuffing themselves at the expense of others with absolutely nothing. Almost all the students taking that course were already vegan so my little voice was drowned out. That was horrible ::)
This article https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/015009?gclid=Cj0KCQiAsqOMBhDFARIsAFBTN3ddVxF2iDswjy3JcVlz3Nxw1nBpbVBxl97QrEqAFZW09DJbSJyof9gaAuIPEALw_wcB (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/015009?gclid=Cj0KCQiAsqOMBhDFARIsAFBTN3ddVxF2iDswjy3JcVlz3Nxw1nBpbVBxl97QrEqAFZW09DJbSJyof9gaAuIPEALw_wcB) shows how little up to date data we have on world agricultural outputs of GHGs
https://carboncopy.eco/local-climate-action (https://carboncopy.eco/local-climate-action)
South Ayrshire emergency climate plan: 'Emergency not yet declared'. Apologies for picking out South Ayrshire - there are plenty more which haven't noticed there's a climate emergency yet. If anyone else watched the 2nd Worzel Gummidge film the other night, perhaps like the council there, the members hold their meetings in the pub. Before I get hounded again by someone threatening legal action that was a small piece of humour...
I'm partway through this article which looks promising on how agriculture can mitigate it's GHG impact:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0269749107003016 (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0269749107003016)
My favourite of the many acronyms the UN in particular has set up to sort climate change is the UNFCCC - the United Nations Framework Undertaking on Climate Change - the UNFUCC (it is of course a 'convention' not an 'undertaking' but it rolls off the tongue so much more satisfactorily :eyelashes: )
https://unstats.un.org/unsd/environment/envpdf/unsd_EAC_Workshop/Session%208b_Anand%20Climate%20change%20and%20GHGs.pdf (https://unstats.un.org/unsd/environment/envpdf/unsd_EAC_Workshop/Session%208b_Anand%20Climate%20change%20and%20GHGs.pdf) This article is very long but goes into extreme detail whilst trying to simplify things. You might find the answer to your question in part 2 (scroll down a long way) [member=22672]Penninehillbilly[/member] but I have just frazzled my brain temporarily :tired:
-
If nothing else, the last link I posted above shows just how impossibly complex is the whole job of the UN re climate change, and how difficult it is to abstract the most important and relevant data.
The potentially most useful of the links for us, the one on agricultural opportunities to mitigate GHG emissions, is unfortunately in the form of a PDF which can only be opened via one's University of whatever, or has to be bought. I am trying to access it by going through the current course I'm doing which is with Edinburgh Uni. Has anyone else got access? This is a wall I hit so frequently when trying to access data.
Elitism in information access :o
-
Well FW, you are certainly testing my brain cells, I read a bit, have to look things up (all these gas names), end up following another link, all very interesting, but all the while knowing I should be finishing off over in the barn :) .
Learning lots of new things here.
-
Well FW, you are certainly testing my brain cells, I read a bit, have to look things up (all these gas names), end up following another link, all very interesting, but all the while knowing I should be finishing off over in the barn :) .
Learning lots of new things here.
Apologies - I've given you too much homework ;D
We haven't got our tups in with the ewes yet with all this malarkey!
-
I've give up on all the information about the rest of the world. I'm just going to do the # best I can with the resources I have. No point in worrying about things I can't change, it'll only kill me
-
I'm thinking along the same lines as you [member=26320]doganjo[/member] . I can't change anything as we have always been doing our best- driven by a shortage of money of course. Here we suffer from 'secret deforestation', where 90% of the oak trees have been removed from the forests for burning, leaving only the outside and a few straight and tall trees inside. Still looks like a forest, but isn't. In the last 4 years all the local forests have been plundered. So given that oil burners are being phased out (can't be replaced only repaired), our electricity supply is limited to 6KW so we can't use a heat pump and there is hardly any wood left, how do we heat our place? Fortunately it's only small. Our friends down the road were burning 20m3 of oak every year, just to heat downstairs, which is a lot of trees!
We were looking at a pellet burner, but that's wood as well. I don't know where there wood comes from but I bet it isn't sustainable. We haven't enough land to grow our own either. Looks like closing the house down and living in one room (as I said in another thread) wearing as many clothes as we can get on is the way to go? I hear all these agreements but have no idea how they can be achieved?
-
[member=23925]chrismahon[/member] It's interesting to hear a little about what's going on in France. My brother moved there recently but is still at the stage of thinking everything's perfect ::)
I have always thought of France as being a well forested country, so much more so than the UK. How very sad to hear of the demise of the beautiful oak trees, such a major part of those forests - just to be burned as firewood for domestic heating :rant: There is a big difference between clear felling mature trees and coppicing them, when they have the chance to regrow on the same big root system. I don't think oaks coppice well, so they would have to be replanted, which will mean it's many years before they are large enough to have a helpful effect on sequestering carbon, so suddenly we go from a carbon storing situation to a carbon loss-to-the-atmosphere situation. If you can source firewood from a coppiced woodland, that is so much better and at least the lesser of two evils.
From what I have heard, air source heat pumps are less than a solution.
To my mind, as smallholders we each have our own little circular system. Our animals graze our land, eat our leftover vegetable debris, return fertility to the ground and in the case of sheep, supply us with lovely warm wool to keep us warm plus a little food. If we don't keep livestock but just grow vegetables, again if we have a compost heap then everything we take from the system is returned to it (drawing the line, for me, at human excrement!)
We pondered the same problem as yours for a while, contemplating a wind turbine or photovoltaic cells, but in the end we plumped for insulating our house better. We live in an old stonebuilt house which was in poor condition, full of draughts from every possible source. We got the house repointed, putting on a new roof, building a stone porch on the front and a stone scullery at the back to act as air locks, getting double glazed windows and doors. We already had a wonky oil-fired central heating system and a wood burning stove - no point in changing them. We spent a lot of money, but actually less than we could have spent on a turbine (and looking at those around us, they seem to stand idle most of the time because they break so easily) or on solar energy - but we don't get much sun round here :sunshine:
We have always worn plenty of clothes - woollen clothes - against the cold and don't use the central heating much - if you're cold, put on a jumper, move around and have a cup of soup. That works for all except the coldest weather, and we do get quite a lot of that in winter.
I don't say our system is perfect, in fact there's a lot wrong with it, but we don't eat vast quantities of steak (in fact we eat NO steak ::) ), we don't travel much, with any longer journeys by low consumption motorbike, we never fly anywhere, we wear our clothes until they are done and we keep our consumerism to a minimum. In other words we do our best in our own circumstances. I don't think anyone can do better than that.
Compared to the huge consumers and polluters of the world, the average smallholder's contribution to GHGs is minimal.
I think a big contribution we can make is to learn as much about the causes and solutions of climate change as we can fit in our heads and share that knowledge as far as we can, in support of those who have to make the decisions.
-
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases (https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases)
This article gives a more readily understandable explanation of GHGs, where they come from and how we can help get rid of them, but it's from the US so does not exactly match the UK.
It does however give proportions of the main GHGs, as seen from the ground, how long they stay in the atmosphere, sources of each main gas mentioned and some of the ways we can stop producing so much.
-
One topic we haven't touched on here is rewilding. This is the current big idea, and David Attenborough has concluded after much thought that rewilding is the way forward. After meeting with Indigenous pastoralists at COP26 I have come to realise that rewilding has to include humans too. For millennia the system on the vast grassy plains of the world has been for indigenous peoples to graze their herds and flocks amongst wild animals, moving with them to the best grazing grounds. The system has been balanced - if they have too many animals then they die off as food is unavailable, if they live within the ecosystem then they thrive.
Now, those vast grasslands suffer from the encroachment of cities and roads, enclosure of the common lands, division and blocking of the ancient migration routes, desertification, overgrazing and severe drought. Rewilding should involve the old system of human living being incorporated into plans for the return of wildlife. Of course that can't be done until we get our climate sorted, with some rain at the expected times to grow the grasses, so it has to be a long term plan.
-
If rewilding means bringing in animals that haven't been in an area for hundreds of years, even some that are dangerous; and leaving land to grow back green, albeit different shades, rather than lots of colours; then I'm against it.
I don't want wolves and bears back in Scotland and I don't want ground elder and couch grass instead of yellow rattle, meadow sweet and campion
-
If rewilding means bringing in animals that haven't been in an area for hundreds of years, even some that are dangerous; and leaving land to grow back green, albeit different shades, rather than lots of colours; then I'm against it.
I don't want wolves and bears back in Scotland and I don't want ground elder and couch grass instead of yellow rattle, meadow sweet and campion
But that isn't quite the kind of rewilding David Attenborough is thinking about Doganjo.
I am in fact with you about the dangers of reintroducing wolves, bears and lynx into what is now an area largely occupied by humans, Scotland. That fact means that there isn't room for the old animals that lived there before, and the very nature of the way they lived was to have vast areas to roam freely. But then the total human population was tiny compared to today's 7.5 billion.
10,000 BC - 1-15 million
4,000 BC - 800,000
3,000 BC - 3 - 4 million
500 BC - 150 million
1 AD - 300 million
1000 AD - 310 million
Britain was first populated this time around in about 8,000 BC, when wild animals included Giant Elk, Aurochs, Wild Pig, Bears and Wolves. It wasn't until 4,000 years later that deforestation began to enable settled farming, and the battle between humans and wildlife commenced. Things have changed a tad since then, so no-one is suggesting we reintroduce Giant Elk but truly I see no success were we to reintroduce the predators without also reintroducing their traditional prey. That would set us up for humans and our livestock to become the only prey available. That in turn would lead to us killing all the carefully reintroduced species, as we did before, and that is simply unfair on the predators. I don't think Scotland, or England is in the right state to reintroduce former wild species - it would be nice romantically, but practically it's not going to happen.
I appreciate that you have already said that you are not interested in the rest of the world, but when it comes to Climate Change, we can't be parochial, we have to see things from a world perspective, as it's the whole world which has been tipped into chaos. The Earth is one giant interconnected ecosystem and if you unbalance one area, then that will percolate through to all the other systems until the whole lot runs away.
As I commented in my previous post, rewilding must include humans in the equation. I believe the vision David Attenborough has does involve rewilding the whole world, by restoring grasslands, wetlands, grass prairies, wild mountains, lowland meadows, woods and whole forests, but in a sensitive way which allows entire ecosystems to function without too much encroachment of insensitive human constructs into wildlife territory and avoiding the situation where wild animals end up in conflict with humans.
I have to point out Doganjo that yellow rattle, meadow sweet and campion are all flowers of meadows and man-worked land (or mostly woman!) but so are couch and ground elder, nettles and thistles - without one you won't have too much of the other. In a rewilded environment those plants and flowers will pop up perhaps where a tree has fallen, or where wild animals have congregated, but they will not be there to excess. In fact seeing some plants, and birds and animals, as desirable, whereas others are undesirable and to be removed, is a small illustration of how the whole of Earth's ecology has slowly gone to pot. Each part of an ecosystem is interconnected to and inter dependant on the others - remove one, and the others cannot function.
-
I never said I wasn't interested in the rest of the world at all
However, I AM interested in each country doing what it can to impr0ve its own emission
-
The news coming out of COP26 tonight seems quite a let down. They're still talking about the goals set in Paris in 2015, which have been unfulfilled, so no big steps forward that I can see. The best thing possibly is that Biden came along and is taking the whole thing seriously, in contrast to the Trumper who did so much damage. On the other hand, Biden's visit caused sooo much pollution with his giant planes, monster armoured car and helicopters carried inside one, huge plumes of exhaust gases showing at Preswick, and then he only stayed for a couple of days.
There should be a calculation coming soon of the extra pollution and emissions caused by COP26, mostly by the planes flying in and out. Clearly not a single country has got hold of the clear messages of Climate Change, and the leaders who came here are supposed to be the ones taking action. I'm sad and disappointed.
-
Yes, thats what weve been saying about all these meetings, same at Cornwall earlier in the year.
All this whizzing backwards and forwards to/from Europe.
What happened to all the talk of internet allowing people 'face to face' meetings, cutting down on travel, or do politicians like to be seen to be doing things, and just enjoy the VIP receptions they are given?
-
Mrs Womble and I decided to share a bath to save water. The problem was that we couldn't agree on how quickly to fill it. She wanted to keep both taps on full bore, whereas I wanted to be more cautious. I was right of course - she turned on the taps and water splashed everywhere! To avert a crisis, I insisted we turn the taps down by half. However, she turned them back to about three quarters and told me the water company had said that was more than enough. We argued for a while about this, and in the end settled for something in the middle.
However, neither of us were all that happy about that arrangement, so we went for a long walk to take our minds off the argument. It was only after an hour or so that we remembered the bath was still filling.
-
They said this morning that CO2 emissions in France were really not as much of a problem (our electricity is Nuclear) as Methane released by farm animals and even worse (surprise this, as I have never heard of it) N20 released as a by-product of Nitrogen fertiliser on crops. Di-Nitrogen Oxide is 300 times worse as a greenhouse gas than Carbon Dioxide. So stopping eating meat might not do much?
-
Further to Doganjo's comment. I think it's about balance ......a mosaic of habitats.
The wildflower meadows are indeed beautiful. They are valuable and have their place.
But the elder, thistles, nettles, scruffy grasses and then the arrival naturally of hawthorn and so forth ......this is rewilding too.( It's not just about reintroducing the big predators that are no longer there). This would I suppose be classed as 'scrub' and these areas are of real importance and can be great for biodiversity. They don't always look 'pretty' like a wildflower meadow but probably just as valuable and they are scarce now.
-
They said this morning that CO2 emissions in France were really not as much of a problem (our electricity is Nuclear) as Methane released by farm animals and even worse (surprise this, as I have never heard of it) N20 released as a by-product of Nitrogen fertiliser on crops. Di-Nitrogen Oxide is 300 times worse as a greenhouse gas than Carbon Dioxide. So stopping eating meat might not do much?
Yes, Nitrous Oxide is the third of the agricultural bad boys, with carbon dioxide and methane. Nitrous oxide is given off by artificial fertilisers, but also to a lesser extent by dung. In the case of dung, it tends to be washed into the soil on grasslands and reused within that local ecosystem, whereas nitrous oxide is washed into river systems causing a whole load of other problems. Both give different amounts of nitrous oxide into the atmosphere as well.
There are several other gases which are damaging to the atmosphere, such as the fluro carbons. The early awareness of damage to our world climate came with the release of fluro carbons, as used in fridges and other applications as a coolant, causing a giant hole in the ozone layer. That caused a whole lot of derision from those who knew nothing but thought they knew it all, and set the scene for 'climate change deniers'.
Incidentally I am horrified to discover that although we all dutifully send our old fridges and freezers to be recycled, and the gases removed and reused, that is not in fact always happening. There are pictures of huge piles of dumped fridges and freezers with no recycling and reclamation, because councils simply don't know how to deal with them.
-
Further to Doganjo's comment. I think it's about balance ......a mosaic of habitats.
They don't always look 'pretty' like a wildflower meadow but probably just as valuable and they are scarce now.
They're certainly not scarce round here, and they look dreadful Sorry if I offend but I'll keep my pretty meadow flowers :roflanim:
-
[member=13]Rosemary[/member] I love your cartoon on facebook:
"The gas comin' out of our cows
ain't near as dangerous
as the bullshit comin' out
of our politicians"
:roflanim: :roflanim: :roflanim:
-
This article appeared on the Beeb news today:
Climate change: Do I need to stop eating meat? - BBC News (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-59232599)
It's the first thing I've read which mentions that different rearing methods lead to different carbon and GHG footprints.
There is also a good table comparing emissions from various meats and veggies, also chocolate. Amazingly, the footprint of the highest impact chocolate is about the same as that for intensively reared lamb! (The categories are subdivided into low impact, average and high impact.)
One noticeable point is that pork and chicken come lower down the list than you might expect, but this is because they are fed imported grain, which isn't included in the equation ??? ??? Is this not Global Climate Change we are trying to deal with?
-
Whit!?! ???
The other thing we need to bear in mind with grain feeding is whether it's grain that a) we could otherwise eat or not, and b) if it's already been used for something else. I've been working at an Islay distillery recently, and the local farmers collect all the spent grain to feed to their cattle. That seems pretty sustainable to me, as what would you do with it otherwise?