|
|
Discussion Forum
Started by mike.mcdowall at 07 Nov 2011 8:12 AM. Topic has 2 replies.
  
|
|
Sort Posts:
|
|
|
|
 07 Nov 2011, 8:12 AM
|
mike.mcdowall
Joined on 03 Mar 2010
E.Lothian
Posts 29
|
|
|
Ian Gould brought up the need to maximize profitable production where we can. I tend to agree with this, but do find problems with species which are particularly reliant on the cropped environment. In particular I am causing problems for skylark. I hasten to point out that skylark are only one obvious species that are very visible (audible), and that many other species will be involved and affected.
I used to have lots of skylark, at least one singing bird per hectare on the good side of the farm (away from woodland). When the V&FA volunteer and I counted we had eight birds in one wee segment and so many birds overall that the analysts cut them in half because "they are so easy to double count". We were both furious because we had taken such care to make sure that our count erred on the conservative side, allowing for possible double counting.
That same part of the farm now struggles to produce one singing bird per field (average 11ha) despite having skylark plots in the winter wheat part of the rotation. I'm sure I know why. I'm sure it's my fault.
We used to plough everything. These fields have stiff clay subsoil. On the hillocks the good topsoil is thin where there has been erosion. Getting a seedbed aftger ploughing was always difficult, either ending up with wet lumps or golf-balls. Winter crops were most affected, with large sparse areas which also contained scattered knotgrass, fumitory, chickweed etc, re-establishing after our spring herbicide programme. Ideal skylark habitat.
We now try to avoid ploughing except for barley, with most fields having a barley (winter or spring), rape and two wheats rotation. On some spring barley replaces the second wheat.
The result is that we usually establish winter crops into excellent conditions, even on the most difficult parts of the fields. Establishment is excellent, and the ideal skylark habitat has gone.
To cap it off our herbicide programme is now autumn based, and we struggle to get good skylark patches. They are either bare, or rape keeps coming back forming a forest (are skylark forest birds ?). Not good for the combine either :-(
Skylark do well in some parts of the farm - those areas which are kept out of crop and managed with plenty bare soil mixed with tussocky vegetation. In total we probably have less than one fifth of the number we used to support.
Nature has had a hand. In the severe weather of the last two winters we have had deep, persistent snow. After a time all the skylark have left. Few seem to return. However, that is only the last two winters, problems started well before that, and we had reduced the number to the point where such events have had much more serious effects.
I wish I could undersand the reasons behind our declining yellowhammer too. We used to have one singing male per 400m of hedge in July. We got it up to one per 100m, now numbers have declined dramatically and we hardly had any this summer (despite more caught last winter in our regular ringing programme). Yellowhammer start to breed relatively late, and it may be they are too late as we seem to be getting dry springs turning into wet summers. No idea what to do about that.
Mike
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
18 Nov 2011, 12:02 PM
|
Ian Gould
Joined on 20 Dec 2005
Huntingdon
Posts 68
|
Re: Productivity vs. Skylark
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mike
You certainly help to set things in a real life context and your examples help to illustrate my point. As you have used new methods to increase the productivity of your land, whilst doing what is best for the soil and probably working in a way that uses less Diesel / Ha you have found that the improved crop (in one sense at least) is no longer providing the right habitat for Skylark. This creates an interesting dillema, and it is not an easy one to reconcile.
The simplistic individual might say "What do Skylarks do for us, we need more food in the world!" and they have a point. But many farmland species are indicators of the holistic health of the area, the balance of "industrial" farming and the natural environment. I reiterate that my belief is that we cannot rely upon inefficiencies in the farming system to ensure the balance is maintained, we must make a positive effort in this regard. Politicians are inevitably involved in deciding how much an issue is worth investing in, so we need to refine what "value" really means in terms farmland environment and species therin. Having species there because we like to see them is fine, but it isn't a science based, quantifiable benefit that can be given a value in economic terms. Water quality is a far simpler issue to deal with in this regard, so elements of environmental policy that deal with this can probably justify the investment from the public purse in a clearer way.
I don't have the answers on this one, it is an extremely difficult issue to get consensus upon. With 7 Billion people on this small planet, technology will have a vital role to play in feeding us all and efficiency will become ever more important. Hunger and lack of clean water is something that we have little experience of in the UK, but it is a cause of civil unrest and wars in countries not very far away. Productivity is vital for the success of UK Agri-business, but must never forget that there is often an environmental cost in achieving these marginal gains.
Ian Gould
www.oakbankgc.co.uk
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
23 Nov 2011, 12:58 PM
|
mike.mcdowall
Joined on 03 Mar 2010
E.Lothian
Posts 29
|
Re: Productivity vs. Skylark
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Ian,
I am a bit worried where the push for productivity is going to take us.
This country probably has the best researched ecology in the world, but it is clear we don't understand the vast majority of interactions going on. Indeed, after a life's work a researcher commonly gets a pretty thorough understanding of only a handful of species, so how could we hope to get a handle on the whole lot, let alone all their interactions ? So, we haven't a hope of quantifying what value the ecosystem has for us.
So, where does that lead us ? If we go on intensifying, eroding the environment, weakening the web of interactions within our ecosystem, we could cause catastrophic collapse. That could affect all those organisms which are absolutely vital to food production. There has been a lot of muttering about the effect on pollinating insects, but there seems to be a bit of a "so-what" attitude in some circles "most of our food derives from self-pollinators". Hmm, what if soil microbes collapsed ? Would our yields drop 80% or would it be 90% ? They are absolutely vital for most crop nutrition, plants simply cannot extract nutrients effectively from the soil directly. A collapse of that order would leave even the richest countries hungry.
Dare we risk such a catastrophe ?
The simple truth is food production is dependent on the ecosystem, and we don't know how far we can push the ecosystem without risking collapse in food production.
I reckon we should not just be looking at maximizing food productivity within our farmed area, but also maximizing environmental benefit. In some cases, mainly those areas where a very high proportion of ground is excellent for agriculture, we may be wise to forego some possible food production to ensure a healthy ecosystem. In every case where land is being used to provide environmental benefit, we should be aiming to get the best out of it, just as we do with food production areas.
At the moment some "authorities" are predicting that we need a 40% increase in food production over the next few decades. That is being widely interpreted as producing 40% more agricultural produce. I would be extremely concerned that would lead to overloading of the environment and collapse in production. I think we also need to examine how extra food can be provided to the needy without extra pressure on the environment. I think lots of wasy can be found to do that. these immediately spring to mind : reducing waste; reducing over-consumption; reducing alcohol consumption.
It's easy to think we are in a privileged part of the world and bad things won't happen here. I wouldn't bet on it.
Seven percent of land as an insurance policy against complete disaster ? Doesn't seem too stupid to me.
Mike.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
|