Last Saturday I was glad to see two letters published in the Independent newspaper. Both were replying to an original letter by Guy Smith, a well-known and vocal farmer from Essex.
Mr Smith's letter was basically saying that although some species of birds have declined on farmland (I think he does accept that they have) others have increased significantly - particularly crows, magpies and raptors.
One of the replies was from another farmer, a Mr Harrison from Northumberland. Mr Smith's letter didn't please Mr Harrison at all and he wrote as follows: 'I cringe with embarrassment at the terrifyingly crass response to this vital issue by my "fellow" farmer, Guy Smith...' and his letter ends thus : 'It is sad that some farmers are defensive of their tragic modern role as a downtrodden link in a chain of huge chemical corporations, ruthless "food" manufacturers, and giant retailers.'.
The second letter was from a Mr Palmer from Nottinghamshire who may or may not be a farmer but is clearly a land owner who knows his birds. Mr Palmer suggests that better care of hedgerows should be required of farmers and that this would replace some of the invertebrate life that has all too often been lost from farmland.
Now you must make your own mind up about the rights and wrongs of the issues discussed. In fact, although I have had many a good-humoured difference of opinion with Guy Smith the point he makes in his letter is not completely off the mark even if it isn't completely on target either. But what I did enjoy was seeing a farmer speaking out so strongly and clearly for nature as Mr Harrison did. If the RSPB had written his letter then we would have been called anti-farmer whereas that is not a criticism that can be levelled at 'fellow' farmers.
Guy Smith is an NFU Communication Spokesman, and I see he was talking at the Suffolk NFU Annual meeting last week on 'Better communication for the NFU and farming.'. I wonder how much Guy Smith had to do with the NFU's response to the consultation on the Natural Environment White Paper.
The NFU's line, unless I have misinterpreted it (so do read it yourself), is that the environment is fine and that the big issue now is food production. I don't expect much environmental sense from the NFU and I don't find much compassion or understanding of wildlife issues in this response. I wonder what Mr Palmer and Mr Harrison would think of it. I wonder what Sooty thinks of it? I wonder what other readers of this blog think of it. I wonder what the average NFU member thinks of it. And I wonder what the public - who pays for the Single Farm Payment and agri-environment payments - might think of it.
The NFU line certainly flies against the Defra line of biodiversity being a top priority and 'getting more from less' so I also wonder what Defra Ministers might make of it.
When the NFU starts from the position that there isn't a problem then there is little common ground with conservationists. Little wonder that our best moments with farmers are working with those farmers who realise that there is a problem and are keen to put biodiversity back into our countryside. They are the farmers who are true farming leaders.
A love of the natural world demonstrates that a person is a cultured inhabitant of planet Earth.
Carduus we obviously agree to differ but i do agree there would be more food for birds if trimming was less often hence the compromise in schemes to do it every two years.One big problem with a hedge that is laid is that unless kept trimmed you have a problem in a few years time that it is extremely difficult to lay again perhaps almost impossible.
MatthewNaylor,
I am not against flailing per se as a tool for hedge management, but I am against hedges being heavily cut back every year with the result that they end up in extremely poor condition. This is especially the case in hedges which are not required to be stockproof, such as those between arable fields or where there is an accompanying fence. I also suspect that continual trimming along the top of the hedge at the same height leads to it becoming less dense, because the trunks of the bushes become thicker and there is very little regeneration of shoots from the base, just regrowth from the top and sides.
With regard to berries, annual cutting at any time of year prevents these on hawthorn whether done before or after winter - hence the recommendation for a minimum 2-year frequency.
Sooty,
As I said, I am not suggesting that all hedges should be done manually. I was merely pointing out that if we were to go back, say 100 or 200 years (or more), then most hedges would not have been trimmed annually because of the enormous amount of labour required. Annual trimming is a modern development enabled by powered machinery.
When I get round to it, I will take some photos of the kind of hedges I am talking about to illustrate my point.
Carduus no to go back to hand work you know is ridiculous,what i meant was,you stated your belief was that one of the main reasons farmers trim back hedges so heavily and so often is because with modern machinery it is very easy to do so.Which is not the reason at all and you are totally ignoring the fact it is still a costly operation.Without doubt from 40 years of experience of hand trimming,hedge laying and flail trimming the best hedge as far as farming is concerned is to trim each year which nowadays means the flail trimmer,as a compromise for wildlife which as i understand it wildlife societys are happy with many,many farmers enter schemes and then cut hedges every alternate years but from experience the hedge is not as thick in the bottom as trimming every year.People pay for the RSPB and lots of other groups to do things in certain ways and if the general public want to dictate to farmers what to do with hedges they will have to do the same and fund it some way.
Actually Carduus I believe that flail mowers have some merits for small nesting birds; it's a question of timing. Obviously it is absurd to destroy berries before the winter or to flail two sides of a hedge in one year. I maintain that a well-maintained hedge with a tight canopy provides small birds with much more protection from predation.
Are you really disputing my basic assertion that to trim, say, 1 km of hedge with a flail trimmer is substantially quicker than doing the job using hand tools? Really?
My main point is that hedges kept 'neat and tidy' by annual flail trimming have an extremely low value for wildlife. Do you dispute this as well?