Shelter is good for all stock. The old timers new this and grew trees down fence lines so animals could have shelter in extremes. When driving past properties with the shelter belts stock are always using them during extremes.
Today, farmers are removing the shelter belts all in the name of efficiency because the shelter belts reduce grass growth under them and make it harder to irrigate.
But damn the animals, at least they have maximised and and can now fully capitalize.
They're also used as wind breaks. Lots of benefits to the things the old timers did that new stock just tosses out from lack of understanding and lots of over confidence that they know better.
It applies to dev work as well, with all of these new fangled fancy ways of doing things because people think they know better. Can things be improved, surely, but there's a lot of things we've "improved" just to recreate the same traps we've already been through. It is tiresome
Well, if you don't pass on knowledge this happens.
If all of your life's lessons are left in your brain instead of properly written down, and with reasoning ("we do this because this", not just "we do this because we did this") attached to it, no wonder next generation needs to re-learn that
> Well, if you don't pass on knowledge this happens.
Watching someone re-implement in technology C the same bugs I remember them fixing in their implementation in technology A tells me this isn't precisely about passing knowledge _on_.
it is also the responsibility of those that don't know to ask questions to understand before just ripping things out by the root before fully understanding why they are there. most of these tree lines are exactly that, lines. Nature abhors straight lines, so it's pretty obvious someone did it on purpose and probably for a reason. it's not hard to ask someone why they are there.
Removing the shelter belts is also making the same mistakes as they made in the 1920s that lead to the Dust Bowl in the 1930s. The lack of wind-breaks created the conditions for massive dust storms that destroyed both current crops and insane amounts of topsoil that got blown away.
But no one cares about history. And so everyone becomes the ignorant herd condemned to repeat history.
My Grandpa joked about this same thing a decade or so ago & predicted it would happen to this farmer who bought land next to him. Farmer bought land next to his & wanted a giant field of corn so he could use his very large machines for more efficient work. That farmer lost his crop & all the fences became small hills as they caught the dirt that flew around.
It can be enjoyable to watch history repeat itself so precisely as predicted in such a short time.
> Today, farmers are removing the shelter belts all in the name of efficiency because the shelter belts reduce grass growth under them and make it harder to irrigate.
Do you have a source for that? Because I googled a bit, and found nothing.
The photos I found of animals in hot weather with no tree cover are for places where trees don't grow.
> Today, farmers are removing the shelter belts all in the name of efficiency because the shelter belts reduce grass growth under them and make it harder to irrigate.
This explanation makes no sense. Why would it be harder to irrigate? And who cares about the small amount of grass under a row of trees? It's not like you have trees every 20 feet.
> But damn the animals, at least they have maximised and and can now fully capitalize.
This also makes no sense - healthier animals are more productive, even if the only motivation you acknowledge is money.
I never said they weren't healthy, you can still be uncomfortable whilst being healthy. I see the effects of animals in extreme heat and cool directly as I live amongst it. You can bet your bottom dollar stock make use it it when it's present. Pretty sure there's a reason for that.
Have you never stood under a row of 10 or 20 metre pine or macrocarpa trees? There will be a strip of a metre or so of no growth and it slowly increases in density from there out until 3 to 5 metres out.
If healthier animals are better in terms of economics why don't McDonald's source their meat from free range farms where cows feed on grass and can physically move more than three steps?
I had always thought that the farmers left the trees on the property line because they're just so dang much trouble to cut down with nothing but manual labor and they make a good property line.
Osage oranges were planted all over as hedge fences, for example in Kansas. Probably in some places the trees were left on the boundaries but I think in many places specific trees were planted because they were good at creating boundaries. thttps://dyckarboretum.org/osage-orange-a-historical-living-f...
I was just recently reading an article about the osage orange! While its most popular use was definitely as that of a hedgerow, the wood of the osage orange tree is "unusually hard, durable, and resistant to rot." Native Americans used it to make bows because the wood was durable and flexible, allowing it "to bend and absorb shock without breaking."
Before WW2 in the UK, the countryside was covered with loads and loads of ponds and lakes for livestock to drink from and to keep the water table up. Fields were typically smaller with more hedgerows for wildlife to live in.
Droughts were less of a problem back then.
It was claimed the Germans Luftwaffe could fly by night on the full moon navigating by the reflection of these bodies of water, so the British govt issued orders to fill in these ponds and lakes to make it harder to fly by night.
Consequently the water table on farmland fell causing more drought problems and after WW2 these bodies of water have never been re-established by govt orders.
The history of the wild apple is also interesting. The Soviet Union paid people to conserve these, but the breakup of the USSR meant these were no longer looked after. They also displayed a symbiotic relationship with other plants just like livestock has displayed a symbiotic relationship with the land.
"Prickly shrubs, such as eglantine and barberry exhibiting symbiotic relationships with wild apples by shielding them from predators were also cut"
If there were no wild animals, like deer that can feed on the leaves, then the bottom of trees would reach to the floor.
The main problem has been trying to feed a growing human population whilst keeping them under control, so ideas sometimes dominate which shouldn't, like we see here with solar cells providing shelter for livestock like sheep.
> It was claimed the Germans Luftwaffe could fly by night on the full moon navigating by the reflection of these bodies of water, so the British govt issued orders to fill in these ponds and lakes to make it harder to fly by night.
> Consequently the water table on farmland fell causing more drought problems and after WW2 these bodies of water have never been re-established by govt orders.
"M. R. D. Foot argues that blackouts did not impair navigation by bombers because navigators focused more on reflective bodies of water, railroad tracks, or large highways.[13]"
This is about as close as you will get to the truth.
which backs up the claim that pilots used waterbodies to navigate. When people found out, many filled them automatically just like some people knocked out street lights. There own paranoia was used against them, just like we see with migrants in hotels today, or paedophiles in the neighbourhood.
There is no evidence to support the claim that the British government ordered the filling in of ponds and lakes during World War II to prevent the German Luftwaffe from navigating by the reflection of the moon on the water.
While it is true that the full moon could provide some illumination for nighttime flights, especially with the use of specialized equipment like the Lichtenstein radar, the idea that the Luftwaffe relied solely on the reflection of water for navigation is a myth. The Luftwaffe had other means of navigation, such as radio beacons, compasses, and celestial navigation.
Additionally, there is no record of any official British government policy to fill in ponds and lakes for this purpose. It is possible that individual landowners or local authorities may have taken such action, but there is no evidence of a widespread or coordinated effort by the British government to do so.
Overall, this claim is false and lacks factual basis.
> It was claimed the Germans Luftwaffe could fly by night on the full moon navigating by the reflection of these bodies of water, so the British govt issued orders to fill in these ponds and lakes to make it harder to fly by night.
Wondering what percentage of nights in the UK have a full moon AND no cloud? And that if all the countryside was covered in small ponds, would they even be useful for navigation?
In NZ it's massively common in areas that were once only suitable for sheep. But sheep products in the current environment are not worth anything, wool especially so. However, dairy has excellent value globally, So now these farms have converted to diary, but that means they need to improve the grass growth to be suitable for cattle which means irrigation. The last 10 years has seen massive swathes of land unsuitable for cattle converted to land suitable via irrigation in my country. This has led to destructive processes and pollution of rivers and water ways though irrigation and fertilisation. It's our dirty little secret.
Yup, sigh. NZ was a big sheep based economy when I was young. Now sheep are only for land unsuitable for cows or farmers that are stubborn holdouts. It costs more to shear the sheep than the wool is worth now - I really hope that can be turned around somehow so demand for wool can replace that for synthetic materials and those stubborn holdouts get rewarded for it.
Something that's interesting is that most of our agricultural crops are bred for full sun (ie, a big flat field). I wonder if there's room for new partial-shade versions of crops, so they work better alongside solar panels. I doubt they'd be as productive in an absolute sense (less light = less total energy), but adding on solar panels value to the output of that land would likely be better than single-use of either.
There are many studies examining the potential of agrivoltaics (it even has a Wikipedia page), and they find just as you suggest: the combined output of electricity + crops is better than doing either one alone, but the electric and crop is a bit less than devoting the field to either purpose solely, as it would need to be.
Efficiency increases are often 30% or more.
Some people get really, irrationally upset about solar being put on farm fields, but it really helps both the farmer and society to do that.
Actually, given the high investment costs for dual-use of solar and crops, it is economically better to just do each separately and commit the area fully to one or the other. That was the essence at least I got from an article about agrivoltaics in Germany.
I would like to see that article, as it runs contra the messaging I've heard from other studies over the past few years.
It may depend a bit on the actual location. Germany has some of the very very worst solar conditions of anywhere in the world, worse than pretty much all of the US, and I've been primarily looking at studies with solar resources at US levels. I wouldn't be surprised if Germany has different solutions than most of the est of the world.
It wouldn’t surprise me too if some of the studies in the US were places like Arizona, where too much sun is an issue for many crops (sun spotting, burning of leaves, excess water consumption), and some shade during peak insolation is not only beneficial for crops, but if you can do something with the energy? Even better.
One really beneficial coupling in a lot of cases seems to be HVAC + solar in hot western climates.
This exists for big refrigerated warehouses. By using an appropriate liquid with the phase change tuned for the working temperature you can shift the electricity usage to times with lower cost. That can be because you have your own generation or are just buying market rates that vary.
I think it's more that there's likely better land to put it on. In the UK for example there's arable land growing corn or cows or whatever, and there's scrub moorland which is closed from the public and used to shoot grouse once a year.
If you have 100 acres of solar to put on land, better to put it on the grouse moor.
But in what sense is it better to use grouse moor? That's habitat that is not currently touched much, and is a good reservoir for natural ecology, right? There's value in that.
The grouse moor is basically a grouse farm. The moor is periodically burned to promote the right kinds of growth, 100s of grouse are released and nature like birds of prey somehow end up with a shorter lifespan.
In any case, I will cede the environmental case to local ecologists. But if it's already farming of grouse, that seems less intensive use than farming of sheep, as an outsider I would be interested in learning more as to why grouse moors are preferable to sheep land. It seems that grouse moors would be far more amenable to rewinding. But as I said, I only have my non-expert opinion!
There's a partial ban that covers some of the most sensitive areas, probably 90+% of the grouse moor burning that happened before, still happens. You can see reports at https://twitter.com/wildmoorsuk.
I agree with you and would rather not see grouse moor turned to solar farms. I'd love to see more moor rewilded, the work that Moors for the Future is doing is amazing. Grouse moors are very much touched and managed though. Gamekeepers seek to minimise foxes, stoats, raptors and trees.
Buy appropriately sized tractors. Typically farmers are upgrading these things all the time, should be pretty straightforward to swap out this single factor of production to the right sort of thing.
Our vehicles and machinery have this tendency to occupy prime mental real estate, as unchangeable monoliths around which everything must be planned. In reality, they are the most changable thing, and we must change our machinery to serve us, rather than the other way around.
There are also lots of crops that are not serviced by large tractors, but individual human hands. In fact most of the fruit and vegetables we eat are like that, and many of those crops do very well with a bit less than full Sun.
Permaculture and agroforestry touch on this a lot. In permaculture designs usually photosynthesis per acre is maximized by planting guilds of crops that work well together – in this case, larger trees with shade-loving shrubs beneath them, and beneficial ground cover beneath them as well.
Towards the more conventional end of agroforestry, rows of trees are separated with rows of crops, grains, etc. There's lots of benefits to this way of farming, though it's still 'new' to a lot of people.
I think the crop or the plants would have to change a lot. Currently it's pretty easy to see which areas get full sun and which don't when you drive by a corn field in growing season.
Ginseng needs shade(1), farmers should install solar over ginseng crops. However, I suspect they need to drive equipment through at times. I wonder if there are solar installations where the panel can go perpendicular to the ground to allow tractors through?
> While sheep are considered the gold star for solar because they don’t jump on panels, goats have long been used for utility and pipeline maintenance and perimeter maintenance (or maintaining vegetation around the borders of a site) in countries like France.
From a 2020 article on the topic. Sorry goats, you are not the "gold standard" here.
Put the wiring in PVC pipe, and make sure the panel's junction box wires are secured tightly inside the inner folds (or use products that secure them).
I lived out in the country and our neighbor down the road got several goats. Every day I would drive past and he would have 3 goats on top of his Subaru outback. He built a new barn to park the car in because he got tired of the dents.
I read something somewhere (the curse of wide reading) that it’s a myth that goats will eat anything which came as a shock to me because as a child in the 70s I learned (from adults or books or cartoons or who knows what?) that a goat would eat a tin can given the opportunity.
Goats nibble everything, but thats just like us feeling things with our hands.
they've only got teeth on the lower jaw in front; they can tear stuff up with their back teeth but they have to get it in their mouths.
They tend to have this thing about strings and string-like things, they start swallowing and do not want to stop. instinct tells them vines must have good stuff just a little further along. loose wires are bad for goats and vice versa
(I can't read the full article due to the paywall, but) another framing of this is: farmers can supplement their income by renting out their sheep to help solar farms manage the vegetation around the panels:
It's complicated. Some places in the world, livestock is grown quite sustainably and are basically neutral climate-wise. Other places, it is an unmitigated ecological disaster (clearing rain forest, for example). Because we produce so much around the world, on average, it is pretty bad.
Generally, livestock takes more land than grain crops in order to produce the same calories. However, there is more to nutrition than simple calories, so optimising for calories per hectare is probably not the right answer either. I once saw a report suggesting that you can feed more people with less total impact if you include livestock in the mix because livestock can graze on more marginal land than you can farm crops on. I am not qualified to comment on the veracity of that report.
I think, in the end, going vegan for climate change reasons is an extreme and unjustified position. On the other hand, almost everyone can stand to eat less meat than they currently do and would probably be healthier for it (myself, included). If we reduce overall meat consumption, it would definitely be a net win for climate and ecology reasons as we could concentrate on producing more sustainably on average than we currently do.
Sheep, like cows, are ruminants and ruminants burp methane, which is a greenhouse gas. Per unit of lamb or beef, about two-three times[1] as much of greenhouseunits ("CO₂ - equivalents") is produced than for pork. Chicken has an even lower carbon footprint.
I think it is evident that many in the Western world eat more meat than they need to to stay healthy. The best for your health and the environment is probably to eat an as varied diet as possible, with lots of vegetables to complement your meat/protein intake.
[1] numbers differ depending on who you ask, and on which farms were measured.
You might also change your meat choice. Chicken is far better than pork, which is far better than beef. No need to instantly go cold turkey on meat if it doesn't suit you.
Today, farmers are removing the shelter belts all in the name of efficiency because the shelter belts reduce grass growth under them and make it harder to irrigate.
But damn the animals, at least they have maximised and and can now fully capitalize.