- Re: Interesting stuff Archived Message
Posted by dereklane
on November 16, 2019, 10:57 am, in reply to "Interesting stuff"
|
Thanks. I guess. I grew up on farms, work on various places still now. I know firsthand the problems, but also that the demonisation of farming in general doesnt quite match the realities. Where I grew up there were two types of farmers; small croppers and beef cattle farmers (the dairies were all dying in the area by the time I was about 15), through unrealistic demands from the main buyers, which were both detrimental environmentally and to the health and well being of the herd. Most small dairies just packed it in as a result and we were left with big companies that grew animals which yielded ridiculous amounts from the poor overstretched holsteins, calves taken away at birth and feed milk substitutes, etc. Not pretty nor fair on the animals, and environmentally became pretty damaging overnight. As for the crop farmers, the best land was on the flood plains, and every few years suffered from massive erosion, washing top soil and all the remnants of npk fertilisers down river along with their crops. In between times, they aerial sprayed for bugs, pumped artesian water from massive irrigators sometimes up to 8 hrs a day, and of course filled the dying soil with chemical fertlisers that were imported from far away big scar mines in some of the world's most sensitive environments. In contrast, the beef cattle drank the water that landed in ponds and the river (till the river was dammed further up to provide further irrigation resources), and ate the grass that grew on the land. I know which method of farming was best for that land, and it wasnt the cropping. Similiar things go on here. Lincolnshire used to be a vast swamp, now its a vast expanse of empty ploughed fields, and all the sustenance is imported to feed the essentially dead soil. up in the hills (where you can still grow veg, but you have to do it in small patches and pay attention to details to get decent crops), some of it might be classed as arable but most of it is grazed. As a result there are a lot more patches of wooded area than in the industrially cultivated fields east. There are more meadows and wild edges, and as a result more wildlife. There are also practises I disagree with, but theres a reason why the environmental consultants work so heavily in this area with farmers; its not a lost cause to try to convince these hill farmers to change their worst practises for the longevity of their land, because in such ecosystems there is room for both farming and the natural environment. There just isnt in modern cultivation methods. The method there is kill everything and start again. Every year. Obviously there are better approaches, both in stock management and in cultivation practise, and both benefit the farmers, because the land stays viable if you do it right. The problem is the certainty that people without the experience have that what is wrong with farming is related solely to the meat industry. The problem is as always, with big business, no matter which side of the fence you sit its the same issue at its core. Sustainable agriculture and big industry don't work together. One is thinking about the long term ticking over of complex ecosystems and ensuring you don't take more than the land can replenish, the other is about profit at any cost. If I was to get on a bandwagon on these issues, it would definitely be with the crop related industry first (which does affect the meat/dairy industry now, but didnt used to, because the crops are imported to supplement feed for the animals and they are causing issues but somewhere else). If we can fix how we grow vegetables, I think we would be on the right track. |