Tag: Farming

Farmers are not the problem: I am, and you might be too

The recent State of Nature report paints a bleak picture of modern Britain. One in which wildlife populations tumble and wild spaces are hemmed in, degraded and destroyed. Unfortunately, most of us will recognise this as the norm and at a relatively youthful 26-years old, it worries me that this is all I have ever known.

I do not remember the halcyon days of old when verdant meadows buzzed with insect life; nor when the haunting cry of the Curlew was commonplace over farmland and hedgerows chimed with the song of countless farmland birds. These things are alien to me: a factor of life before my time. Truly, I wish I could recall such sights and sounds but the reality is that I have grown-up in a landscape denuded of its wildlife. A countryside in crisis, altered beyond recognition.

A whopping 72% of land in the UK is managed for agriculture, and changing agricultural practice is regarded as having the ‘single biggest impact upon nature in recent decades’. Changes which have seen meadows ripped up, root and stem, invertebrates annihilated with odious pesticides and larger fauna left bereft of habitat or adequate food supply. The blame for the demise of Britain’s natural heritage often falling squarely on farmers – those who alter the land, plant, plough and, if you listen to some commentators, continue to pillage what remains of our ‘wild’ land until this day.

It is very easy to blame farmers for the woes afflicting our countryside. To many, those of us dwelling contently in towns and cities, they are an alien race: found in the far-flung reaches of our land, seldom encountered yet responsible for providing the food we demand.  They are easily stereotyped and, as the hands that tend the land, are easy to label public enemy number one in times of crisis. They are, after all, those whom do the dirty, so to speak, and transform the landscape. Often to the detriment of wildlife.

Scouring social media in the wake of the aforementioned report, I noted a large number of people openly criticising the farming community. Not everyone, of course – and it was nice to observe some positive examples of cooperation between conservation bodies and farmers – but a fair few. I was tempted to join in, I confess; although upon further thought, I have come to realise that the issue is not so black and white.

The reality for farmers is that they are slaves to demand. They run businesses, large and small, which must compete and yield a profit in order to survive. When we demand cheap food in large volumes, farmers must comply or risk someone else filling the void. Our supermarkets play a sizeable role too, with rival brands competing to launch the latest ‘hot deal’ as a way to entice thrifty consumers. A cycle with knock-on effects for farmers who must then produce intensively to meet demand and ultimately, stay afloat.

It is wholly appropriate to say that it is our own shopping choices that have lead to the intensification of agriculture in the UK, and by default, our demand that directly drives the use of pesticides, the removal of hedgerows and replacement of wildlife-friendly meadows with miles upon miles of sterile crops. Looking inward, it is clear that I, as an irresponsible consumer, have played a part in the ecological crisis facing this country. And doubtless, some of you will have too.

Like a great many people I suspect, I am guilty of treating food as an afterthought. I buy what I can with what I have left, my weekly budget determined by the amount of spare money left over from the purchase of a whole manner of trivial goods – things I could likely go without. I buy as much as I can with what I have, which often means buying cheap and in bulk: meat, vegetables, fruit and grain-products all included.

clouds-194840

Part of me would like to claim that my stingy shopping habitats are born of necessity and that I simply cannot afford to pay extra for quality or ethics. It would be all-too-easy to use a modest wage in defence of my choices, as I suspect many others would too. Whether that line would hold up under scrutiny, however, is another story entirely.

Whilst I possess only a modest sum of money each month on which to ‘get by’ it is what I spend it on that really counts. Like many people my age, I splash out on leisure – nights out, restaurants, cinema trips and ridiculous, frothy coffee – and, without doubt, spend way too much on odds and ends I could really go without. Books and homeware, jeans and magazine subscriptions, even takeaways, god forbid. Whilst I make little, if I were to cut down on these expenditures, it is clear that I would have a surprising sum leftover.

The average Briton spends a relatively small portion of their income on food, at least compared to their combined spend on culture, recreation and ‘treat’ items. A trend which simply does match up with our oft-stated desire to protect and conserve nature. It would be disingenuous, farcical even, for me to sit at a computer screen, tucking into the cheap ham and cheaper bread of my favourite sandwich, while lambasting those working the far off fields.

It is clear that farming practices (and some farmers) need to change in this country, and that change they must before what little biodiversity we have left is pushed further towards the brink. Equally, however, it is apparent that for this to happen we, the thrifty consumers of this country, must change too. We must place a growing emphasis on our food and in doing so, incentivise the change we wish to see from sellers and producers alike.

Will I change? It will be difficult, but I will try. For a part of me is ashamed of the role I have played in looming [some may say ongoing] environmental catastrophe. If forsaking the odd bottle of wine, trip abroad, hotel stay or concert is the price I must pay to contribute to the preservation of nature in this country, I am ready and willing. I may not be willing to go vegan, or even vegetarian in pursuit of a clean conscience just yet, but this represents a way for me to make a small yet real difference. It may not be much but regardless, it counts.

The State of Nature report has taught me that whilst it is easy for an economical Millenial content to snatch a three for £10.00 offer on cheap meat in Asda, to condemn those producing my food for the wrecking of nature, doing so would be dishonest. In reality, I should be looking inwards. And others should too.

Buzzards, Badgers and Buffoons

Yes, the title of this blog post was directly influenced by former Daily Telegraph columnist Robin Page, who, true to character, recently launched a preposterous attack on “self-delusional” conservationists and what looks like every predatory species living in the UK. Check it out, it can be found here: “Buzzards and Badgers and Bigots“

I do not make a habit of launching personal attacks, no matter how much I disagree with a person’s point of view, thus will not aim to slander Mr Page here. It is clear that his views lie poles apart from my own, and that it fine by me. It is, after all, rather healthy to possess different opinions. On the contrary, it is not, however, healthy to broadcast misinformation. Nor to produce a misguided rallying cry for the predator-hating wildlife criminals in the UK, or attempt to justify their illicit actions under the guise of conservation. Which is exactly what I think Robin has done here, whether intentional or not. Condemning species such as Red Kites, Buzzards and Badgers for their “widespread” ecological damage, yet, somewhat mysteriously producing no evidence to back it up. Oh wait, moles in the conservation sector, right?

 First thing first, do predators impact upon prey populations? Yes of course they do. But only in localised areas, where a host of other factors have already reduced prey numbers. Factors that usually can be attributed to humans, whether they be farmers, gamekeepers, developers or any other group. It would make no sense, in evolutionary terms, for any predator to decimate stocks of its own food source. And, as a rule, predators only flourish where prey stocks remain healthy, targeting species based on abundance. An argument I have had with anglers, on a number of occasions, who had claimed that otters purposely target large salmonids, while in truth they prey on the most numerous species within the ecosystem. Amphibians during spawning, or ducks during the breeding season and so forth. Something I am sure also applies to badgers and raptors too.

As for predators such as sparrowhawks, badgers and kites wiping our declining species such as Skylarks, there is a wealth of evidence out there that shows that this is not the case. With a particular study, by the impartial BTO no less, springing to mind immediately. Concluding that “for the majority of the songbird species examined there is no evidence that increases in common avian predators or Grey Squirrels are associated with large-scale population declines”. While for more information on the topic you can check out Thomson et al whom similarly conclude that spreading corvids are not driving songbird declines, and a quick google search will turn up a wealth of similar evidence, all of which serves to dismiss this misguided view.

As I said, predators can have a localised impact on scarce species, hence why genuine conservation bodies, like the RSPB, do occasionally implement control measures. Sometimes such measures are justified and I, personally, agree with these. I do not, however, think it is just, nor reasonable, to blame predators for nationwide declines. Or to propose preposterous acts of “control” based on myths. Take a look at Skylarks, a species Mr Page has mentioned quite a lot in recent blog posts. They have declined horribly in recent years, as a direct result of poor habitat management and habitat loss, not predation. I really would be interested if anyone could produce a scientific paper suggesting otherwise? The same applies to Lapwings – I had thought that Lapwing declines had been driven through farming and the all out destruction of traditional breeding sites?

The next snippet that irked me in Robin’s latest outpouring was the bit about Buzzard and Badger diet. And his apparent belief that their diets are seemingly painted in an untrue light, with conservationists claiming that both species are heavily reliant on Earthworms, while in truth they are actually feasting on fledgeling birds. Well, yes, they undoubtedly do predate birds (and nests – as seen on Springwatch when a Badger at Minsmere unceremoniously destroyed an Avocet colony in a single night). Is this, and the horror stories produced by a vocal minority, reason enough to condone a change to the protected status of these species? No, not in my opinion.

Both Buzzards and Badgers are generalistic, opportunistic predators. They will eat whatever they find, when they find it. No one can dispute that. They do however rely predominately on common and widespread species. Such as Lagomorphs and, contrary to Robin’s assertions, Earthworms. No, they do note rely solely on these species, no one has ever claimed that to the best of my knowledge, but the facts point towards such items making up a large proportion of their diet, in keeping with their widespread status and the theory of abundance based prey selection. Do songbirds feature? Yes, they do crop up in dietary assessments from time to time, but in not in substantial levels. And certainly not to such an enormous extent to suggest that predators are eradicating passerine populations. It is no coincidence that many in the rural community have noticed vast increases in predator numbers at a time when prey populations have declined. This is, however, most likely due to the fact that such carnivorous species would likely, and wrongly, have been killed on sight in the not too distant past. Not the result of a conspiracy by conservationists, content to bury their heads in the sand.

Another point in this blog that stands out, is the blame cast towards the Badger for Hedgehog declines. Well, this one may be justified, to some extent. Badgers do have a negative impact on ‘hog populations where alternate factors such as road traffic and habitat fragmentation have taken effect. Again, is this reason enough to justify removing the Badger from the protected list? No – if conservationists are worried about the local impact of badgers they should apply for a license to control them. If it is deemed vital, I am sure they will be granted. To me it makes more sense to pursue the root causes of declines before jumping to radical extremes. And the same can be applied to wading birds, ground-nesting passerines too. Would it not be better to tackle the main causes – overgrazing in our woodlands, a lack of hedgerows, intensive farming, traffic, shoddy gardening etc – before resorting to such  shortsighted barbarity?

On, and as for the “designer conservationists with little understanding of the countryside” argument – that is a debate for another day. Though, like I have said before, attacks of this kind on scientists, interested townies and well-known TV presenters are nothing more than an attempt to “gag the opposition” and serve only to widen the divide between the two sides. In some cases, such designer conservationists have the best interests of our countryside at heart, whereas, in a number of cases, rural know-it-alls do not. (Many other rural folk are also excellent and certainly do have the best interests of the countryside at heart).

Robin Page does occasionally make a good point, I am unashamed to admit that, but calling for the widespread control of iconic predators based on sketchy evidence and high profile, yet sparse, instances of recorded predation is wrong.

Rant over, I promise to go back to pictures of fluffy animals and more positive accounts next time.