UK's Meadows - 98% Now Gone - We Have Run Out of Time

[AsleepInYorkshire]

Meadows – 98% gone? Really?

The book “Bad Science” by Ben Goldacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Scien ... dacre_book) brilliantly shows how many “facts” repeated by the media (and of course also in social media) are just simply wrong, but widely held to be true because they are repeated so often. Is the statistic of 98% of meadows lost since WW2 one of these misleading factoids?

The answer is: no, it isn’t. Unfortunately, it’s completely true. It comes from this research paper: “The changing extent and conservation interest of lowland grasslands in England and Wales: A review of grassland surveys 1930–1984”, by R.A. Fuller, published in “Biological Conservation” in 1987 (Vol 40, no. 4, pp 281-300).

As Rome burned Nero fiddled

AiY(D)

[88V8]

Is the statistic of 98% of meadows lost since WW2 one of these misleading factoids?
The answer is: no, it isn’t. Unfortunately, it’s completely true.
As Rome burned Nero fiddled

And yet here we have a report of Miriam Cates, a Tory MP, calling for an increase in our already excessive population.
It's not only the US that seems to elect nutters.

V8

[Dod101]

The first question to ask is 'What is the definition of a Meadow?'

If people have got nothing positive to say, why do they not just say nothing?

Dod

[Lootman]

The first question to ask is 'What is the definition of a Meadow?'

Low-lying flat land, typically grassy, prone to flooding, of not much utility other than grazing if not waterlogged, but it can look nice?

[Dod101]

The first question to ask is 'What is the definition of a Meadow?'

Low-lying flat land, typically grassy, prone to flooding, of not much utility other than grazing if not waterlogged, but it can look nice?

So 98% lost? Really? Lost to what?

Dod

[Urbandreamer]

Meadows – 98% gone? Really?
...
As Rome burned Nero fiddled

AiY(D)

Funny. And of course the rolling grouse moors have always been there. For those who don't know Europe was deforested by the Romans for their central heating and bath houses. Later further deforestation to provide grazing for sheep. The grouse moors deforested by later land owners. The salt marches drained by others.

Hay meadows had a purpose, when if you didn't want to drag the plough by hand you used an animal that needed hay. It was the traction engine and later tractor that provided the death knell for meadows.

Should we lament the existence of the moors in Yorkshire and restore them to forest? I ask as someone currently looking out at such a moor.

[Lootman]

Low-lying flat land, typically grassy, prone to flooding, of not much utility other than grazing if not waterlogged, but it can look nice?

So 98% lost? Really? Lost to what?

Drained for farmland or housing, I would imagine.

[ReformedCharacter]

The first question to ask is 'What is the definition of a Meadow?'

If people have got nothing positive to say, why do they not just say nothing?

Dod

My understanding is that a meadow, in the sense that it is being used here, is 'unimproved grassland'. That is grassland that has never been treated with fertilisers or agro-chemicals. Grassland that has been grazed but left otherwise alone. Such grasslands will not have been ploughed-up or reseeded. To answer the question 'lost to what?' the answer is the plough and what came after it. Typically, such grasslands are (or were) populated by a wide variety of grass types, I think we have c. 110 different species in the UK. Other non-grass plants will be present in diversity as will the insects, birds etc that such grassland supports. Much was lost after the introduction of 'artificial manures' as modern fertilisers were often called when they came into use about eighty years ago. I can recommend a book called 'The Worm Forgives the Plough' by John Stewart Collis who left an academic life to volunteer for farm work during WW2, it gives a wonderful snapshot in time that encompasses many of the changes to farming and land management that came to eventually destroy the permanent pasture that some of us think of as a great loss to the British countryside.

RC

[AsleepInYorkshire]

Meadows – 98% gone? Really?
...
As Rome burned Nero fiddled

AiY(D)

Funny. And of course the rolling grouse moors have always been there. For those who don't know Europe was deforested by the Romans for their central heating and bath houses. Later further deforestation to provide grazing for sheep. The grouse moors deforested by later land owners. The salt marches drained by others.

Hay meadows had a purpose, when if you didn't want to drag the plough by hand you used an animal that needed hay. It was the traction engine and later tractor that provided the death knell for meadows.

Should we lament the existence of the moors in Yorkshire and restore them to forest? I ask as someone currently looking out at such a moor.

Source


The home and feeding grounds of insects, bees, butterflies and birds.

AiY(D)

[Urbandreamer]

The home and feeding grounds of insects, bees, butterflies and birds.

AiY(D)

Nice spread that you have there. I confess that I like what you did with the parterre.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parterre

Now all we need is as many houses like that as we had hay meadows and we are back to what was.

Seriously hay meadows were part of agriculture. It is from that that they have disappeared. Which in turn has caused them to become garden features.

The simple fact is that land has to be "productive", in whatever sense you desire. If we desire hay meadows, then we must replace something else with the hay meadow. Possibly we could make parks and charge admission.

We would also have to accept that NOT cutting the grasses will lead to more grass pollen. Possibly that might discourage such visitors.

[AsleepInYorkshire]

The home and feeding grounds of insects, bees, butterflies and birds.

AiY(D)

Nice spread that you have there. I confess that I like what you did with the parterre.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parterre

Now all we need is as many houses like that as we had hay meadows and we are back to what was.

Seriously hay meadows were part of agriculture. It is from that that they have disappeared. Which in turn has caused them to become garden features.

The simple fact is that land has to be "productive", in whatever sense you desire. If we desire hay meadows, then we must replace something else with the hay meadow. Possibly we could make parks and charge admission.

We would also have to accept that NOT cutting the grasses will lead to more grass pollen. Possibly that might discourage such visitors.

The Kings Meadow

Flowers show where we will be establishing flower-rich grasslands across England, restoring those that have been lost, and enhancing those that already exist. From Stonehenge on Salisbury Plain to the Jewel Tower right in the heart of Westminster, over the next decade, we will be creating a natural legacy across England.



HISTORY OF MEADOWS
Meadows have been a part of the English farming landscape for over a thousand years. Today they are recognised as valuable habitats for rare wildflowers and important pollinators such as butterflies, moths and bees.

AiY(D)

[AsleepInYorkshire]

What is A Meadow
A meadow is an area of grassland which is left to grow long through the spring and summer months. In late summer, the grass is cut for hay to feed animals in the winter, and the area is then grazed until the ground becomes too wet. This makes it different from pasture which is grazed all year round.

Meadows can look very different, depending on what is growing in them, but the key feature is that the vegetation is left during the growing and flowering season, and then cut. This system provides an ideal habitat for many wildflowers as it gives them time to flower and set seed before the grass is removed.

AiY(D)

[AsleepInYorkshire]

Meadows – 98% gone? Really?
...
As Rome burned Nero fiddled

AiY(D)

Funny. And of course the rolling grouse moors have always been there. For those who don't know Europe was deforested by the Romans for their central heating and bath houses. Later further deforestation to provide grazing for sheep. The grouse moors deforested by later land owners. The salt marches drained by others.

Hay meadows had a purpose, when if you didn't want to drag the plough by hand you used an animal that needed hay. It was the traction engine and later tractor that provided the death knell for meadows.

Should we lament the existence of the moors in Yorkshire and restore them to forest? I ask as someone currently looking out at such a moor.

Just to note that the Yorkshire Moors weren't deforested by the Romans.

North York Moors

Bronze Age

Around 2000 BC, the early Bronze Age Beaker People inhabited the Moors. During a 1,400 year period, these people inhabited all areas of the Moors and finally destroyed much of the original forest. The climate was relatively warmer and drier at this time so it was possible to live on the high moors throughout the year. When a piece of land was exhausted of nutrients, these people moved on, leaving behind land that was incapable of supporting anything but a heathland vegetation. There are about 3,000 Bronze Age burial mounds on the moors.

AiY(D)

[Lootman]

The simple fact is that land has to be "productive", in whatever sense you desire. If we desire hay meadows, then we must replace something else with the hay meadow. Possibly we could make parks and charge admission.

Yes, the simple fact is that meadows are not really productive. Or lack utility as I put it earlier. They are a luxury.

The irony is that even national parks in the UK are not preserving wilderness, as in various other countries. But rather they are are productive land areas with homes, farms, businesses. What we are protecting with national parks is what replaced our original wilderness.

In a small crowded island like ours, every acre has to pull its weight and pay its freight.

[ReformedCharacter]

Yes, the simple fact is that meadows are not really productive. Or lack utility as I put it earlier. They are a luxury.

Depends on your definition of 'luxury' or 'productive'.

We have pollinators to thank for every third mouthful we eat. Not only do they pollinate our food crops, but they’re also vital for the survival of other wild plants that support so much of our wildlife.

Most of us tend to think of bees in relation to pollination, yet insect pollinators are an incredibly diverse group. Honeybees are mostly kept in managed hives, and are likely responsible for pollinating between 5-15% of the UK's insect-pollinated crops. That leaves 85-95% of the UK’s insect-pollinated crops relying on wild pollinators. Many species of bee, moth, butterfly, hoverfly, fly and beetle provide an essential service in the UK (and globally) pollinating £690 million worth of crops annually.

https://www.wildlifetrusts.org/savingbees

The field visible from my window was re-seeded with rye grass this spring. It looks nice and green but supports almost no pollinating insects, nor the birds and bats that feed on them, but perhaps birds, bats etc. are just luxuries that we can do without.

RC

[mc2fool]

Source


The home and feeding grounds of insects, bees, butterflies and birds.

AiY(D)

Yeah, big deal, we spread quarter of a kilo of seeds over an otherwise unused area too.

https://www.bostonseeds.com/products/wildflowers-seed/wildflower-seed-mixtures-100/bs9p-100-cornfield-annuals-wildflower-seeds.html

Don't have quite the same pad in the background though....

[Dod101]

Yes, the simple fact is that meadows are not really productive. Or lack utility as I put it earlier. They are a luxury.

Depends on your definition of 'luxury' or 'productive'.

We have pollinators to thank for every third mouthful we eat. Not only do they pollinate our food crops, but they’re also vital for the survival of other wild plants that support so much of our wildlife.

Most of us tend to think of bees in relation to pollination, yet insect pollinators are an incredibly diverse group. Honeybees are mostly kept in managed hives, and are likely responsible for pollinating between 5-15% of the UK's insect-pollinated crops. That leaves 85-95% of the UK’s insect-pollinated crops relying on wild pollinators. Many species of bee, moth, butterfly, hoverfly, fly and beetle provide an essential service in the UK (and globally) pollinating £690 million worth of crops annually.

https://www.wildlifetrusts.org/savingbees

The field visible from my window was re-seeded with rye grass this spring. It looks nice and green but supports almost no pollinating insects, nor the birds and bats that feed on them, but perhaps birds, bats etc. are just luxuries that we can do without.

RC

In my garden which backs on to a grazing field I have a very large number of birds, mostly of course smaller ones but including a woodpecker and two pairs of thrushes which make a most delightful sound well into the gloaming ie. usually after 10 pm at this time of year. They will stop singing in about 2/3 weeks. I also have a lot of insects, mostly midges, moths, flies and some butterflies as far as I can see. but also bees and wasps.

Dod

[Dod101]

Actually I could add that my garden is surrounded by a hedge which must be 9 feet high. When I used to cut it myself it took me more than a week to do but I now pay a guy to do it and he and his assistant can do the lot in a day (in January) with the right tools. I also have a number of trees. We can all do our bit. My neighbour cut down his hedge and put up a fence across two of his boundaries. My late wife who was not shy about giving her opinions, said to my neighbour at the time 'You know John, birds don't nest in fences'. He was not best pleased.

Dod

[Lootman]

Yes, the simple fact is that meadows are not really productive. Or lack utility as I put it earlier. They are a luxury.

Depends on your definition of 'luxury' or 'productive'.

Sure but then that renders the entire debate subjective and moot anyway.

The question is this: In a land that is massively over-crowded, can we afford to have fallow land of little economic value that is not tended?

Even national parks have to produce economic value.

[ReformedCharacter]

Depends on your definition of 'luxury' or 'productive'.

Sure but then that renders the entire debate subjective and moot anyway.

The question is this: In a land that is massively over-crowded, can we afford to have fallow land of little economic value that is not tended?

Even national parks have to produce economic value.

Subjective? I don't think there's much debate about the economic value of pollinators but it is true that some people value wildlife (nature) more than others. I don't know how much pleasure and health benefits people get from bird-watching, for example, but it's probably significant. It's difficult to equate that to 'economic value'. Keeping land fallow (which is not what meadow land is) can have a place in a less intensive food production system, although I doubt if much land is farmed that way these days. But that rather leads to a discussion about how we undertake food production in the UK. I don't have current stats but a few years ago the Brits spent less of their disposable income on food than any other country in Europe. We like it cheap and we like it unhealthy. I firmly believe that we can both manage the countryside and farm appropriately but we'll always import a substantial amount from elsewhere where it can be produced more efficiently. But this rather leads to a discussion about how our land is farmed and that would be getting rather off-topic.

RC