[NatureNS] Red Herring & Forestry

Received-SPF: pass (kirk.glinx.com: authenticated connection) receiver=kirk.glinx.com; client-ip=208.103.231.4; helo=D58WQPH1; envelope-from=dwebster@glinx.com; x-software=spfmilter 2.001 http://www.acme.com/software/spfmilter/ with libspf2-1.2.10;
From: "David & Alison Webster" <dwebster@glinx.com>
To: <naturens@chebucto.ns.ca>
References: <8639F566A7E84B5E8E6F8562C8211B93@D58WQPH1> <CAOK1_GY4EM2hPUun3PS3h4xMAn_TH4k9dORHDfCqEHnmV3EbKg@mail.gmail.com> <33AC4B0E09D64ABA90BA94579FB65E2B@D58WQPH1>,<CAOK1_GYpFzFmkK=bPekw95c6VLo1h8Z=FHPNOWowq_yBp62_RQ@mail.gmail.com> <DM2PR0301MB0909407A94D10444722C7433B3F00@DM2PR0301MB0909.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 2016 19:17:47 -0400
Precedence: bulk
Return-Path: <naturens-mml-owner@chebucto.ns.ca>
Original-Recipient: rfc822;"| (cd /csuite/info/Environment/FNSN/MList; /csuite/lib/arch2html)"

next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects

&gt; am, i took issue at being called a gnome, but moving int
Hi Steve & All,                                                        Jan 
2, 2016
    I share your low opinion of anonymous sources but it has been my 
experience that one should also have a crap detector in good working order 
even when reading a recognized authority in a widely respected scientific 
journal.
    That link was not intended to be a primary source; just more available 
than Edlin because likely few on naturens have his book and both sources are 
in essential agreement. I did however like their relatively extended 
historical coverage of charcoal although I suspect charcoal production goes 
back to the dawn of time. But I will pass on extending that latter comment 
for the time being.

    But there is need for a180o correction; contrary to your "and that 
agriculture/forest practice was benign -- not responsible for deforestation, 
something Dave W. mentioned before and apparently buys into. ": I don't at 
all agree with the above quote. These practices, by breaking land for 
purposes of cultivation, by letting livestock graze in woodland, running 
hogs for mast and mowing open woodland for hay and bedding no doubt all 
contributed to deforestation. And although perhaps not a practice I suspect 
that fire, by accident or intent, played an important role.

    But I do not subscribe to the notion that charcoal production in SE 
England for the iron industry was responsible even for deforestation in SE 
England let alone all of the country.

    To appreciate the dynamics within some historical context one must first 
attempt to travel back in time and observe. My picture of the dynamics, no 
doubt blurred and distorted somewhat, is as follows. SE England was selected 
for the large scale production of iron needed for large cannon, ship 
hardware and other demands because it still had better forest cover than 
many other areas with good ports. These large mills needed water power for 
powering bellows, stamping mills and likely rolling mills and, for practical 
transport reasons, would also have to be located near a source of iron ore, 
near a port and near a source of charcoal (i.e. a forest which could 
continue to produce charcoal on a sustained basis). With what amounts to a 
small fortune invested in one of these plants they could not afford to be 
stuck with insufficient charcoal so would have managed the nearby forest 
resource with care.

    One benchmark which helps to construct historical context is The Social 
Life of Scotland in the Eighteenth Century H.G. Graham, 1901,2nd ed. 545 pp. 
In few words life was tough. One statistic which I cobbled together from 
several passages (and my notes are in hiding) gave a value to the cost of 
transport early in the century (I think); the annual wages of a housemaid 
were not quite sufficient to cover the cost of transport by carriage from 
Edinburgh to London. A few quotes from pp 146-147 will illustrate why 
agriculture was soon to be considered important in those days. "The 
eighteenth century opened in Scotland with dark and dismal prospects. 
Starting in 1696 they experienced seven consecutive years of crop failure 
and "the poorer classes...of above a million...were in the shadow of death." 
"...the instincts of self-preservation overpowered all other feelings 
and...men and women (were) forced to prowl and fight for their food like 
beasts."
 "People in the North sold their children to slavery in the plantations for 
victuals." People at the approach of death crawled if possible to the 
kirkyard in the hope that they might be buried. "and...these very 
churchyards...were the only fertile spots in the land (and) old and young 
struggled together for the nettles, docks and grass in the spring..." 
Weather no doubt contributed to these hungry years but very poor 
agricultural practices on land held in common combined with the monopoly 
power of millers and lords, clinched it. Even in good times the farmer 
barely survived leading to the saying (p. 165); "Ane to saw, ane to gnaw and 
ane to pay the laird witha'."
    It is interesting to reflect that St. Andrews University was by then 200 
years old and Scientific Agriculture would not get underway until the 
mid-1800s.
Yt, Dave Webster, Kentville
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Stephen Shaw" <srshaw@Dal.Ca>
To: <naturens@chebucto.ns.ca>
Sent: Saturday, January 02, 2016 1:18 AM
Subject: RE: [NatureNS] Red Herring & Forestry


> Unlike others continuing this thread with contrasting opinions, I've no 
> expertise in this area and no serious dog in the race (and I don't have a 
> hangover either).  However, I took a look at Dave W's main 
> authoritative(?) web site
> http://www.ukagriculture.com/countryside/charcoal_history.cfm
> with the following impressions/ conclusions:
> • it's a pop article, supposedly for general public education about 
> agriculture, neither too long nor too short.  But can we depend on it for 
> correct information without bias?
> • it's anonymous -- there are no given authors, and therefore no author 
> affiliations.  Are the authors experts, or agricultural industry research 
> assistants with a given mission?
> • there are no citations in it and no references cited at the end, none at 
> all, so it obviously doesn't qualify as a serious article with any 
> academic or other pretensions.  Just 'take it from us'.
> • It is undated, except copyrighted 1999-2016
> • It is one of the sites produced by Living Countryside, which indicates 
> it is a Company registered as a charity in UK. As such it can presumably 
> generate tax deductions for anyone underwriting it.
> • On the Living Countryside site, I could find no reference as to who the 
> trustees are (no names): three people are named in 'About Us' as 
> writers/custodians of the web site, not the same thing.
> • I could find no mention of who funds this anonymous group that is set up 
> as a registered charity.  The site is managed, they say, by 'dedicated 
> unpaid volunteers' (unnamed). But who wrote the stuff, who paid them, and 
> who pays for site