Could flooding wetlands, be the next big carbon capture method?

The Nywaigi people of Australia have found that by doing this, this behaviour can sequester carbon, boost biodiversity and create jobs.

It is thought that peatlands, store twice as much carbon as rainforests, so their protection and recovery is essential if we are to maintain the wonderful climate that has allowed the human race to flourish.

In this instance (not the place that the video comes from) just 1 decade ago, the area was bad. Much of it was freshwater pasture, with a load of invasive weeds that were choking both the land and the waterways. This was caused by a ‘bund’, an earth wall build 50 years ago, to block off incoming seawater, in order to transform the area into freshwater ponded pasture (to be used for cattle pasture). You can find a video on this project to restore this area, and the bottom of this article.

Continue reading “Could flooding wetlands, be the next big carbon capture method?”

If octopus are smart, should we farm them for food?

Octopus can appear extremely intelligent, as a result of their intelligence being quite specific. They are superb problem solvers (and are capable of watching other octopus and learning through this), very capable escape artists (in an aquarium, an octopus was shown leaving its tank, and entering the neighbouring tank to catch fish at night) and have a phenomenal ability to change their body colour and texture to match the background.

Their brain setup, is completely different to mammals similar to humans, as their brain is spread through their body.

It should be noted, that an octopus can grow at 5% a day, which means that they are a very efficient way to create meat. Still, I would be very hesitant to eat them regularly (and obviously, any octopus that you might consume must come from populations that are being harvested in sustainable ways).

I would argue that farming highly intelligent octopus for food may not be great, but is much better than hunting wild octopus for food.

What do you think?

Monkey species in Egypt lived on fruit 30 million years ago

It is hard to believe that habitats like this could possible have previously held rainforest which produces enough soft fruit for monkeys like this. Just 10,000 years ago crops were a new thing, in the same way that cows and other livestock farming. Before this, we had to hunt for virtually everything.

The reason that they can work out what monkeys ate, is because they have seen the teeth, and they were not chipped at all, as a result of soft diet. There are thought to have been roughly 5 species of this small monkey family living at the time (30 million years ago). This is new, as formerly it was thought that early primates ate some fruit but also harder foods – clearly they specialized in fruit earlier than we thought.

Might the solution to deforestation be education? probably not everywhere, but clearly here in Sumatra

Camp Granit – Sumatran rainforest (not the same place)

There is a variety of different causes for deforestation. However, the majority of the work is usually done by individuals – often for subsistence farming, though often the land is only fertile for a short period of time, requiring more rainforest to be cut down.

However, if people on the ground know that cutting down the rainforest will make life worse, then they will not do it.

Efron Simanjuntak (click here to see a photo in a new window) was once a successful logger (illegally) in Sumatra. In 2017 he was caught, and in 2018 he was imprisoned for 2 years. In these two years, he had a lot of time to think, and realized the damage that he was doing.

Continue reading “Might the solution to deforestation be education? probably not everywhere, but clearly here in Sumatra”

The livestock lobby is fighting against lab-grown meat this is why we must not let them win

Livestock takes up roughly 20% of the worlds land, or around 50% of the worlds agricultural land. Astoundingly, around 1.3 billion people around the world are involved in the livestock industry.

The worlds remaining land wilderness, takes up just 25% of the worlds land – should we move toa system of growing meat in labs, we could almost double the amount of space for wildlife, which would allow many of the worlds endangered species to recover.

Apart form saving so much of the worlds wilderness, and wildlife, why should we do this? Well, firstly, the fact that people want things to stay as they are, is not new. Every new invention has lead to a change in the lives of many people – before farming came into existence, all the healthy men of each village (and in places, many of the healthy women) would have spent the majority of their time hunting. Looking at the natural world, animals like lion and leopard split their time between hunting and resting, with little else (apart from reproduction) being thought of.

As electric cars started to appear, the vast majority of car companies tried to stop their progress. Indeed, many spent their time buying inventions and smaller companies, just to kill their electric car program. This was not because they were intrinsically afraid of the electric car, but because they were afraid that if adopted, they might have a smaller market share than they did with the internal combustion engine car. As tends to happen in this situation, however, many of these companies are thought likely to go out of business in the next 2 decades (and it took a start-up, Tesla to fully make electric cars work – even now, many are still trying to go back). The same can be said for the factory production line, and many many others.

The problem is that livestock farming is only second to the fossil fuel industry, in terms of its contribution to climate change, so if humanity is to survive, it needs to change dramatically.

Why should we be worried about saving the worlds wildernesses? I think that a great deal of the population feels that we should save them for their own intrinsic value, but there is more than that. Rainforests around the world are the engine that supplies much of these areas rain, and without the rainforest often the area will collapse into desert.

Some suggest that we should all go to a plant-based diet, and certainly this would do what we want (though it should be noted, that this leaves the livestock industry in the same place – indeed, the livestock industry as it currently is, must have its days numbered, as humanity cannot afford its carbon footprint or it will continue our descent into climate breakdown). The only alternative to this is to produce the dairy and meat through other means; and these means are multiplying around the world, as it is recognized that there is a lot of money available for those who solve it early.

These range from growing meat on a scaffold from cells taken from a live animal. This idea is rapidly growing in popularity, though some think that this is a dead end, and instead a lot of people are looking at brewing microbes, which can be made to have a taste and texture that will make them indistinguishable from the real thing. This would also allow the unhealthy parts like fat to be not grown. It avoids the need for a lot of land, needs no fertilizer and greatly reduces the amount of fresh water needed (some can use salt water).

Protectionism is not restricted to farmers, with many governments getting in on the act, and in the EU a new group is pushing for a continent wide ban.

I think that these things will be developed somewhere, and we will miss out, if this happens in places like China (they have a great incentive, as their population eats little real meat, but as the wealth of people are increasing, they are demanding to eat a diet more like the west. For most of us, we are going to be watching from the sidelines, in terms of what happens next, but we can write to our representatives, and make sure that livestock owners are not the only voices that they hear.

What to do, when officials at the UN farming body have their findings censored? Is the UN working for more global warming?

A large, and growing proportion of worlds methane emissions comes from the meat industry around the world. Methane is a far more powerful, if shorter lived warming gas, with 84 times the warming potential over 20 years (and still 28 times the warming potential over a century.

Continue reading “What to do, when officials at the UN farming body have their findings censored? Is the UN working for more global warming?”

UK Farms that are part of the ‘red tractor’ label scheme more likely to pollute environment

The Red Tractor Assurance Scheme aims to guarantee good food standards. Unfortunately, recent analysis has shown that they are also more likely to pollute the environment than those not in the scheme.

Although supposed to be a sign of farms doing the right thing, it might not be

Nearly half of the 100,000 farms in the UK are part of the scheme, and the voiceover promises that the red tractor scheme is a sign that the farm is “farmed with care”.

Continue reading “UK Farms that are part of the ‘red tractor’ label scheme more likely to pollute environment”

The worlds 3 most destructive industries are fossil fuels, farming and fisheries, yet all three are protected by (and subsidized) by governments

Unfortunately these 3 activities appear to be most responsible for collapse or incredible pressure on ecosystems across the globe.

Both fossil fuel extraction and farming have required huge areas to be deforested
Continue reading “The worlds 3 most destructive industries are fossil fuels, farming and fisheries, yet all three are protected by (and subsidized) by governments”

A trial of Silvopasture in Devon

I wrote about Silvopasture recently, there is now a trial going on down in Devon. A farmer is now planting huge numbers of trees sparsely across his land. Each row has trees roughly every 6m and each row is roughly 14m apart.

This will produce a patchwork of shade and sun.

Trees being planted are Oak Aspen and Alder – native British species.

Neighbours have suggested that he is mad, and concreting over his land would have the same benefit. Of course common sense would suggest that concreting over the land would leave far less grass than sparsely planted trees but there we are.

5600 trees will be planted across his 165 acre farm. He is taking part in a 12 year trail to see what benefit Silvopasture can have. The expectation is that the environment will benefit, but that there should also be increased productivity for the farmer.

If it can be shown that grazing sheep under sparse woodland increases yield, roughly 63% of agricultural land could have similar treatment. This could amount to hundreds of millions of trees across the country.

Studies elsewhere suggest benefits include reducing flooding increasing drought resilience, improving animal health and weight, as well as boosting biodiversity and sequestering vast quantities of carbon.

Silvopasture

Silvopasture is the idea of integrating food crops that grow high such as orchards and grapevines, but allowing grazers to graze underneath on grass. Is also often known as Agriforestry

In theory many farm areas would be capable of producing large quantities of grape vines (or other fruit) without reducing the amount of sheep that they feed on their land.

Open woodland such as this grows grass as fast as meadows, so produces as much grazing for cattle, yet absorbs many tonnes of carbon dioxide per year.
Continue reading “Silvopasture”
See Animals Wild

Read more news

Join as a wild member
to list your wild place & log in

Join as an ambassador supporter to
support this site, help save wildlife
and make friends & log in

Join as an Associate member
to assist as a writer, creator, lister etc & to log in

List a wild destination

List a destination in
the shadow of man

List a hide for animals more easily seen this way

Highlight some news
missed, or submit a
one-off article

Browse destinations for fun or future travel

Temporary membership
start here if in a hurry

Casual readers and watchers