Pesticides. The birds & the bees.

Latest Articles

Pesticides. The birds & the bees.
Page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next

Downsizer Forum Index -> Conservation and Environment

Author

Message

Rob R

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York

Posted: Fri Aug 14, 15 11:11 am Post subject:

The thing with veganism is that it is a personal choice based upon whether you choose not to consume products made directly from animals. I can't object to that because it is a personal choice that everyone has to take and everyone is welcome to make that choice.

However, everything else used to justify the diet is just flannel, such as the bull calf issue. There is dairy, and plenty of it, where the calves aren't shot. It's the equivalent of saying you won't go outside because you'll get run over.

My personal ethics dictate that it is no worse to take the life of a flying insect than it is a cow, but veganism seems to exist based upon an 'out of sight, out of mind' philosophy. They object to animals travelling to a slughterhourse to be killed, but will not object to a field being cultivated, even if the numbers of animals killed in the field is far more. It's fluffy bunny syndrome in the vast majority of cases.

Ty Gwyn

Joined: 22 Sep 2010
Posts: 4613
Location: Lampeter

Posted: Fri Aug 14, 15 11:25 am Post subject:

The local fortnightly calf sale here in Tregaron that i frequent,Pure Holstein bull calves are fetching anything up to �50,the average is around the 20 to 30 mark,
Last couple of sales i picked up a few calves like your Fathers,an Angus x Friesian heifer and a British Friesian bull calf,80 and 120 respectively,Hereford x Holstein heifers are starting at 250,Lim,Charolais,Belgian Blues whatever sex are starting at 300,the better quality if out of British Friesian are topping the 400 mark,
A few months back in Carmarthen a pair of Charolais bull calves made 510 apiece from a local farm near here.

I agree ,the British Friesian has longlevity ,the Holsteins milk themselves to death

Tavascarow

Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 8407
Location: South Cornwall

Posted: Fri Aug 14, 15 11:46 am Post subject:

I personally think farmers would make more money if they de intensified, reduced inputs & kept longer lived livestock breeds. How much does it cost to rear a holstein heifer to two years before she even starts producing?
It seems a major investment for something you are going to kill three years later.
As I said earlier I feel modern agriculture has as much to do with keeping agrichem, machinery & finance profit over the farmers.
This is going a bit off thread because this was originally about how modern agriculture is affecting wildlife, particularly birds & bees but it's all related.
My fathers mixed farm was very wildlife rich in the 1960s.
Studying the on farm wildlife as a child is where my love of nature started.
I would love to see an agricultural system like that return nationwide not just in environmentally sensitive areas like Robs farm.

Rob R

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York

Posted: Fri Aug 14, 15 12:20 pm Post subject:

Tavascarow wrote:

Not when the cull value covers much of the cost. The thing is, and the reason why I perhaps sound like I'm defending them, that farmers are doing these things. When I first started, 20 years ago, I was a right odd ball not to be using fert and never spraying, only feeding grass but gradually over the years more & more people are beginning to see the value in it.

This may sound good, but the buying public are not keeping up in their demand for more ethically produced food. This means that my USP is being continually erroded, not always honestly, but never the less, the market is becoming more difficult because so many people are doing it now. We need a lot more people eating a lot more meat of this type (rather than either exporting it or not producing it) to ensure that it continues to grow from the supply side.

Tavascarow

Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 8407
Location: South Cornwall

Posted: Fri Aug 14, 15 3:54 pm Post subject:

We both want the same thing but we are coming at it from different directions.
I would prefer your meat to be a luxury item, & command a similar price. So we don't have to over consume to keep you in business & you & those like you don't overproduce.
Livestock farming does contribute about 10 to 15% of greenhouse gas emissions, & there is no reason why we shouldn't be trying to reduce that, in the same way we are supposed to be elsewhere.
We consume far more meat now per person than we did in the 1960s, increasing consumption to a higher level wont help the planet or you.
I personally think in time these kind of events will level the playing field & allow sustainable agriculture to come to the fore.
I just wish people would wise up in the interim period for the sake of the species that haven't got a voice.

Rob R

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York

Posted: Fri Aug 14, 15 11:33 pm Post subject:

My perspective is that I have to live in the real world. It's no good to me that people will one day be clamouring for sustainably, reliably produced food in 2060, especially if those few people who do, today, care about such issues have cut back and production has not been viable. I also don't want healthy, nutritious food to be a high-priced luxury - we all deserve access to quality food and it shouldn't be something that only the rich can afford.

Beef & lamb are expensive foods and probably don't need to change that much in price. The world population eats the same amount of beef today as they did in the 60s, in the UK it has dropped significantly. Meanwhile chicken, what was once a treat, has sky rocketed (up almost 4 times across the board).

If livestock farming does create 15% GHG emissions, and uses the resources capable of feeding an extra 30% of people, even if we got rid of it completely, there would still be an 11% rise in emissions, as 85% are unrelated to livestock. In fact it would be more than that, as that doesn't include the emissions of whatever replaces livestock products.

At the moment I am far from in danger of over producing. We have over 1100 acres of nnr meadows here, and we graze less than 10% of that, with about another 800 under SSSI in private ownership (some of which we also manage). Without enough animals to cover the whole ground in one season, 30 acres of our allocation goes ungrazed, 25 is grazed properly, but not really quicly enough, and a further 25 is partially grazed, depending upon the water levels. Meanwhile I have several other people offering me grazing, some of which I can't cover. The potential is massive. It's not just grazing, either, there are several farms that have arable land, in farmer ownership, looking like a rewilding project. If we farmed land to it's potential, even allowing for sensitive management, we could easily produce so much more.

Mistress Rose

Joined: 21 Jul 2011
Posts: 15985

Posted: Sat Aug 15, 15 5:47 am Post subject:

One major problem does seem to be supermarkets and other large buyers of farm produce claiming there is a 'global market' and that they can get cheaper in other countries. Of course that was how the horsemeat scandal started. It might be possible to buy things like milk and meat cheaper from other countries, but that doesn't mean that the British public would buy Chinese milk while British farmers are fighting to be paid a reasonable price, which I think is something the supermarkets forget. They might well be using foreign milk in other factory produced goods, but they couldn't get away with the fresh stuff. Similarly with meat; most people will buy British, possibly New Zealand, but will not knowingly buy from other places.

Rob, our chicken consumption has more than gone up 4 fold since I was a child, as we only had chicken at Christmas as it was so expensive in the 1950s. I always liked it too. We buy local grown beef, lamb and pork. The cattle are supplementary fed in the winter in barns, but graze the grass as much as possible. I see them and the pigs in the fields. The sheep almost certainly do, and I may see them in the fields, but at a distance as they on the farm next door, which is on the hill I assume.

Poor management ranging from 'factory' type to complete lack of management is occurring in all aspects of land management. This isn't helped by farming/forestry land being regarded as of marginal use financially, and in this area ripe for development so therefore generally marginal/waste. You are at least lucky that most of your grazing land cannot be built on except as a lake village.

Tavascarow

Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 8407
Location: South Cornwall

Posted: Sat Aug 15, 15 8:17 am Post subject:

Rob I don't deny that for the sakes of local environments & wildlife populations what you are doing is correct. But for the planet & climate change I can't agree with your statement that we should be eating more meat, when we are already over consuming & over producing.
Farming as a whole is contributing hugely to habitat & species destruction, much more than its contribution to climate change. & without serious changes that will continue.
I agree that all people should have access to healthy food but overconsumption of healthy meat is almost as damaging to health as over consuming unhealthy.
As I've said before for the environments sake (as a whole) we need to eat less red meat but better quality & more sustainably reared. All I've read that counters that argument has come from you & you have a vested interest.
Where we do agree is we all need to eat a whole lot less of factory farmed pork & poultry.

Rob R

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York

Posted: Sat Aug 15, 15 10:17 am Post subject:

Tavascarow wrote:

The world is made up of many local environments and wildlife populations. If each of us in our respective local environments continue to do the same as I am doing and managing them according to the needs of the local environment. If more farmers can be encouraged to do the same then the effect will be multiplied.

Tavascarow wrote:

I agree that all people should have access to healthy food but overconsumption of healthy meat is almost as damaging to health as over consuming unhealthy.

Over consumption of anything is damaging to health, equally so is underconsumption, I'm not suggesting that we consume only meat, but the evidence regarding both meat consumption and vegetarianism is that you need a *balanced* diet and healthy lifestyle (including exercise) to be healthy.

Tavascarow wrote:

As I've said before for the environments sake (as a whole) we need to eat less red meat but better quality & more sustainably reared. All I've read that counters that argument has come from you & you have a vested interest.

Then I suggest you read more widely, including reading what I have said. All my conclusions are citing the same evidence that you are quoting, 'facts' and figures reported by the UN. You haven't addressed any of these conclusions. The UN report even said that we should be [paraphrasing] producing more local food for local people and listening to the needs of the rural poor, whereas you are dismissing my views as being vested - of course we have a vested interest in the healthy and quality of our own health, local environment and economy.

Tavascarow wrote:

Where we do agree is we all need to eat a whole lot less of factory farmed pork & poultry.

Yep, and if we could simultaneously reduce the amount of vegetable oils consumed we stand a chance of reducing oilseed crop cultivation, which is causing all sorts of damage across the board, unless you're going to feed it to the elephant.

Rob R

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York

Posted: Sat Aug 15, 15 10:49 am Post subject:

Mistress Rose wrote:

Poor management ranging from 'factory' type to complete lack of management is occurring in all aspects of land management. This isn't helped by farming/forestry land being regarded as of marginal use financially, and in this area ripe for development so therefore generally marginal/waste. You are at least lucky that most of your grazing land cannot be built on except as a lake village.

It's funny you should mention that, as I was recently looking at the farm that was my dad's childhood home - 200 acres of land alongside the River Hull. Their main access was by boat and it regularly flooded. The house and buildings were built on the floodbank so that it was an extreme event that flooded the house. Fast forward 50 years and the entirity of the farm (along with the neighbouring 'Ings' farm) is a mixture of retail and housing.

We are lucky in that we have various designations under national and international conventions but that doesn't stop the most insidious damaged caused by under utilisation. There's no way to force people to use the land in a way that maintains it and all these grossly over simplified popular messages are only making the situation worse.

Thankfully there are a small group of people who can see through the poorly reported science and are actually eating more. Without these people it wouldn't be viable. These people are not obese, unhealthy people either, despite their diet. We have a lot to thank them for in ensuring that we still have the birds and the bees.

Ty Gwyn

Joined: 22 Sep 2010
Posts: 4613
Location: Lampeter

Posted: Sat Aug 15, 15 11:51 am Post subject:

Reading your above post Rob,and this is from someone who has not visited your area,but gleaned a picture from viewing photo`s you have posted here and other info of the area over the year`s including mentioning the flooding has got worse over the year`s,
Seem`s to have got worse partly due to this housing and retail building on your Father`s old farm rather than if an extra 500 cattle producing methane had upped the balance of the planet.

Rob R

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York

Posted: Sat Aug 15, 15 12:34 pm Post subject:

Ty Gwyn wrote:

We're in a different river catchment, so there won't be a direct link but certainly the flooding in Hull has got worse for that reason. I do think that more drainage in the upper reaches of the Derwent has contributed to the the flooding down here in the lower end.

We can even see it in more local maps, such as this parish one from 1616. East Moor & West Moor are both now arable rather than grazing, and for scale purposes Eller Carr is ~50 acres.

Last edited by Rob R on Sat Aug 15, 15 4:56 pm; edited 1 time in total

dpack

Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 46235
Location: yes

Posted: Sat Aug 15, 15 4:23 pm Post subject:
this or this

Rob R

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York

Posted: Sat Aug 15, 15 4:56 pm Post subject:

dpack wrote:

this

or this

Bah...

Mistress Rose

Joined: 21 Jul 2011
Posts: 15985

Posted: Sun Aug 16, 15 6:33 am Post subject:

The carrs would almost certainly be wet woodland, probably alder too. That would have helped to absorb any flooding into areas that could cope with it.

In the New Forest, they originally canalised some of the streams to drain the mires so they could plant trees. This has caused downstream flooding in some of the towns, so over the last 10 years they have been building up the stream beds again so that they flood into the neighbouring grassland and wet woodland, and they are encouraging wood snags to form dams rather than getting rid of them as soon as they are seen. The mires are redeveloping and there is less flooding downstream.

Building on floodplains is never a good idea, and when we have serious floods, the government prohibits building for a year or so, then it quietly gets forgotten. The rivers always win in the end though, so we get flooding.

	Downsizer Forum Index -> Conservation and Environment	All times are GMT Page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next
Page 3 of 10

View Latest Posts