ploughing up a wildflower meadow

[Dorts]

Many years ago I live near a field containing a superb marsh, a habitat now so very scarce. It was full of Orchids, and a superb list of other flowers. On its dryer slopes were many other cracking plants. it was the perfect 'un-improved meadow'.
I was in this meadow one morning when the farmer turned up to ask what I was doing. I told him how great the field was, particularly the marsh.
That afternoon I went for another look, only to find he had been in with his mower and had flattened everything, (he had never mown this field before).
Over the following months he worked all hours and drained the marsh.
No matter how I protested he eventualy ruined this wonderful habitat, not being willing to listen to anything I had to say.

Without his permission I removed a specimen of every plant possible.

I was at the time working for the National Trust and thought how great it would be if he was to leave this meadow to them. Over the following decades I ever so slowly worked on this man. Until one day, just before he died, I was told, that much to everyones suprise he had bequeathed it to the Trust.

Today, with the drainage removed, and the plants re-instated, the meadow is now almost back to its former glory.
My moral is: "never give up. It is amazing what can be achieved with dogged persistance."
Dorts.

[Miss Caretaker]

That's a lovely story Dorts. It's great to hear that sometimes things like this do come good in the end and restores a person's belief that we can save some of these places! Thankyou for sharing
Jo

[bigdave60dog]

You can flag it up with someone if you like but the truth is that whatever the protection if the owner decides to plough it up he will do so and no-one can or will do anything about it afterward.

[posie]

..Errrrm..when a person owns land, it is costing him money, the interest on the capital investment, so he probably needs and wants it to earn it's keep..

..How do you expect to grow crops to feed humans, and to feed the animals some humans eat, if you don't plough etc.

..It also may be that the pasture grass needs replacing, the first stage of this being ploughing, prior to obviously other treatments, then re-seeding with grasses. It may well be that the 'wildlife' op talks of will eventually benefit.

..It is very easy for someone to criticise the use that somebody else's property is put to..

..I suggest that the OP, (with help from other people who also think they can tell others what to do with their property) raises sufficient money to tempt the farmer to sell it to them.

..the fors and againsts on this thread will fall into two groups headed..Landowners and Non-Landowners

Just putting the other point of view....Posie..

[Jason Green]

Evening TB,

Do you know the intention as to the ploughing? A couple of years ago at the start of Autumn I saw a tractor in a field I then frequented. Fearing the worst (as you do when you find interesting invertebrates - you don't want it developed!), I stopped and enquired with the driver. He told me that it was being done for the benefit of the wildflowers, so that for the next year all the plants will have the same level playing-field. It wasn't what I expected him to say, and was better than I thought.

I don't know about your case and his intention, but it may not be as bad as you think. Just ask

Take care,

Jason

[bigdave60dog]

Yeah, That`s one point of view and a valid one at that.
Here`s another. If you own a listed building you have a duty to treat it in a particular manner to preserve it for future generations. It is a bit of a fuss to comply with all the rules and regs but when you buy a listed building you know that this is what will happen.
Old pasture has in some instances not been ploughed for a century or more and cannot be replaced EVER unlike buildings which can be rebuilt using similar materials which is developing more and more nowadays.
Ancient pasture is not just the plants. It consist of the soil with invertibrates particular to ancient pasture, then the root mat, ancient root mat also provides a particular habitat then the plants. These can be replaced but they will take many, many years to develope into ancients pasture.
I suggest that just like the owner of a listed building, owners of ancient habitats have exactly the same responsibilty.
We all have a responsibilty to each other to leave the Earth at laest as good as when we inherited it.
We hear lots about human rights these days. How about hearing abit about Huamn Responsibilities. There, I`ve had a godd ols rant now.
Dave

[Dogghound]

It is important (in most cases) that grassland is either cut grazed or ploughed. This stops succession as well as dominant species taking hold so it may do the meadow some good, if done correctly however you should never plough/cut awhole meadow in one go it should be done in cycles. Alot would depend on what the target species is/are. You would manage grassland very differently for barn owls compared to lapwings. Can you find out the land owners intentions? Is it species rich or is it just thistles etc.

[Dorts]

Dave, that was a g'ood old rant' as you say, and I fully agree with all said.

It was suggested earlier that only those who don't own land want everything left alone and don't understand the financial damands on the working landowner. Utter nonsense. I know of many, many landowners who run large, comercial operations and yet have a great affinity with the natural world around them, ready at any time to make an alowance for the vulnerable plant or bird. It's all a case of education.

Many a good landowner, with his heart in the right place has lost a valuable habitat through ingnorance rather than desire. There is now ever more help, both financial or with expertise for owners with say, an unimproved meadow, ancient wood or plovers or skylarks nesting on their land.

In my part of the world more and more farmers are being paid, in some cases very large sums of money, to remove stock from their land, to allow it to revert to a more natural habitat which is benificial to both fauna and flora and as a natural amenity.

There is no longer any excuse for ingnorance on the part of the landowner in these matters, whatever the financial constraints may be. It matters not one jot whether you own land or not to be able appreciate, and care for, our natural heritage.
Dorts.

[bigdave60dog]

Originally Posted by Dogghound

It is important (in most cases) that grassland is either cut grazed or ploughed. This stops succession as well as dominant species taking hold so it may do the meadow some good, if done correctly however you should never plough/cut awhole meadow in one go it should be done in cycles. Alot would depend on what the target species is/are. You would manage grassland very differently for barn owls compared to lapwings. Can you find out the land owners intentions? Is it species rich or is it just thistles etc.

Hi Doghound,
I am afraid that your lack of real knowledge is showing. Species rich grassland -as many habitats - evolves over a number of years.
It is that treatment over those years that creates the specific qualities that mske it so desirable. For instance a haymeadow will need to be mowed and hay taken off it -not silage- to maintain it as it is. Downland has evolved through many years of sheep grazing. etc.etc. this is basic husbandry. The only time that one would plough is to reseed i.e. get rid of what we have and start again. One would then need to cultivate to prepare a seedbed, then sow a planned seed mixture then harrow it in and roll it to consolidate.. (Seed from some old hay meadows is terribly expensive and difficult to harvest) You would then decide the management needed in order to develope the "plant" to the agreed standard.
I know of no sensible management programme that advocates ploughing then reying on the residual seedbank to produce what is required.
One would then need to almost daily walk the ground to decide on management strategies. This latter is more of an art form than a science.
Where one alreadt has this type of species rich grassland. Payment can be sought from the Rural Stewardship Scheme. This is the "Handsome Payment that the other Wabber talks about. Again showing his lack of real knowkedge.
The payment is anything but "handsome" but does compensate for the reduced income from sticking to taditional management. (There is often an increased profit as the husbandry costs are lower)
I agree that not everyone will know the difference between species rich grassland and a weedpatch but surveyors/assessors from the RSS do and they are the ones who pay the money.
As for ploughing. You may be confusing this with "Set Aside" I have been out of the business for a while but I believe that Ground needs to be arable before a farmer can apply to "Set it Aside" before it can be set aside.
Arable farming invariably involves ploughing.
It may be wise to check up on facts with these things. It is too easy to look at two and two and come up with five. We`ve all done it.

[Brocakat]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy-felt bloke

Hi everyone,
Sorry to be a stick in the mud about this but i feel that the land in this country needs to be monitored closer, please explain how you would do this, who is going to pay for it and to what end
Stories like this is just typical of who manages this sacred land and how they care about it!! I realise that we're talking about land that someone owns (a very good point) but because the environment is so special and needed for the survival of our species then more consideration should be shown. Yes, I agree more could be done to protect our environment
I speak to a lot of farm owners and their staff and hardly any care is shown for wildlife or the environment.....it's all about making more MONEY!!! Show me any other commercial industry that is not looking to make a profit. If the farmers don't intend to work the land then they should be forced to put it back to nature!!! Why, it’s their land, bought and paid for. Any abandoned farmland would benefit wildlife anyway, no need to force people
They get enough help finacially!! This is historical and much down to greedy agrichemical companies, and the EU policy after the war.
I know people that would volunteer putting it back to nature!!!! Good for you The farmers that DONT CARE OVERWHELM THE ONES THAT DO....UNFORTUNATELY.!!!Would like to see the source for that statement, has there been any scientific research.

Although I can see your view point it not what you call a balanced argument how about so references and facts to back up your argument, it does help putting ones point across.

Fuzzy-Felt Bloke

Basically, F-F B - we ( the Taxpayers) would have to pay the landowners enough money to manage it for the benefit of nature lovers/ rare/interesting species. This would still involve management - but on the whole, management which doesn't involve the purchase of expensive( and usually forereign, btw) machinery. A low input, low output kind of farming.

The knock-on effect would be soemshortages of food plus more expensive food.
(Plus balancing THAT up with the increasing trend towards trying to purchase UK sourced foods & the Carbon Debt of overseas foods ).

But the first thing to get Joe Public "going" will be to tell him his food is going up in price. For the sake of "some toads" or whatever.

And WHERE does the required food come from, instead?

All this speculation about quality of food, dangers to/increased pressure onwildlife, increased production involving undesirable-by-some Pestides and Herbicides ----- it s all down to one obvious thing. There's an unplanned increase in people, upon a limited resource - land. And the only way that can bring about proper management of it ALL - is to limit the amout of people.

Now - just do not ask me how to do that....