PowerSwitch

I felt this belongs in this section, so I hope it hasn't been posted elsewhere.

'Drowning in money: the untold story of the crazy public spending that makes flooding inevitable'
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... mentpage=3

George, is increasingly becoming a conduit for making permaculture (common sense) mainstream, I'm unsure what he does or doesn't know, but there's a lot missing from the article, many things such as swales, dams, back-spill ponds, keyline and terracing, could/should also be implemented and utilised for freshwater aquaculture along with the planting of trees, perennials and aquatic plants, all adding to and increasing biodiversity and the integrity of the soils, all whilst mitigating against increasing flood risk.

Plenty of jobs in there too, should we actually aim to do it.
Be interesting to crunch the potential numbers of ecological jobs this could create, no reason why housing couldn't be bright into the mix either.

I feel absolutely certain that yer typical Yorkshire hill farmer would dismiss all that as namby-pamby fairy nonsense And the sheep would probably wreck them and all.

Whereas the argument in favour of planting trees is kind-of self-evident. Hill-farming means sheep. And driving sleet. Trees will help sheep survive by baffling the wind. The problem lies not with the farmers, but with how the subsistance payments are arranged: cordon-off a wet corner of a field for treeplanting and you lose your income.

I feel a letter to the Yorkshire Post coming on...

We've a 'farmer' neighbour who's rooted up most of the trees on his land. One reason he gave was that cattle shelter under them when the weather's bad and so they're not, errmm, 'working'.

He also attributed various skin conditions on cattle to them sheltering. There's no fathoming some folk.

That's loony. And far too bloody protestant for Ireland, shurely ? Also, apparently leaves have vits and/or trace elements in that cattle get by eating them, and the said cattle, somehow, know when to do this.

RenewableCandy wrote:I feel absolutely certain that yer typical Yorkshire hill farmer would dismiss all that as namby-pamby fairy nonsense And the sheep would probably wreck them and all.

Whereas the argument in favour of planting trees is kind-of self-evident. Hill-farming means sheep. And driving sleet. Trees will help sheep survive by baffling the wind. The problem lies not with the farmers, but with how the subsistance payments are arranged: cordon-off a wet corner of a field for treeplanting and you lose your income.

I feel a letter to the Yorkshire Post coming on...

I feel absolutely certain that your feelings would be correct, however.....some correctly delivered 'ching ching' via a redirection of subsidies would soon have them reevaluating the 'namby-pamby'. Given time to establish and correct design...the sheep wouldn't wreck emm and if Mr farmer is receiving income from a more diverse income then they don't need as many sheep anyhoo.

It is of course how we use our heads within the CAP.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/

emordnilap wrote:We've a 'farmer' neighbour who's rooted up most of the trees on his land. One reason he gave was that cattle shelter under them when the weather's bad and so they're not, errmm, 'working'.

He also attributed various skin conditions on cattle to them sheltering. There's no fathoming some folk.

A master of husbandry then!!

peaceful_life wrote:

emordnilap wrote:We've a 'farmer' neighbour who's rooted up most of the trees on his land. One reason he gave was that cattle shelter under them when the weather's bad and so they're not, errmm, 'working'.

He also attributed various skin conditions on cattle to them sheltering. There's no fathoming some folk.

A master of husbandry then!!

A master of subsidy.

I would think any mammal native to the British Isles is basically a forest-dweller, as that's what most of the landscape was like a few thousand years ago. Pigs are, and so are chickens. Not sure about cows though.

RenewableCandy wrote:That's loony. And far too bloody protestant for Ireland, shurely ? Also, apparently leaves have vits and/or trace elements in that cattle get by eating them, and the said cattle, somehow, know when to do this.

Trees are good at recycling nutrients that have sunk down the soil profile beyond the reach of grasses. Their deep roots bring them back up and the falling and eaten leaves return them to the top soil.

On contour swales and banks with hedgerows planted on the banks would trap water and nutrients while providing shelter. I suspect that it would take a long time to establish any tree cover in the high areas as the wind tends to blow anything over. Also it has taken years to change the EU fisheries policy on discards so changing the CAP on tree planting could be decades away.

Tarrel wrote:I would think any mammal native to the British Isles is basically a forest-dweller, as that's what most of the landscape was like a few thousand years ago. Pigs are, and so are chickens. Not sure about cows though.

While wild boar are native to all of Europe and hence the swine derived from them I believe our chickens are descendants from a wild fowl native to India. Cattle appear to have descended from the Aurochs and isolation helped diversify the different breeds such as the Gurnsey and jersey from their respective isle homes. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... uction.jpg