 |
Some wildlife conservation interest depends on low chemical input - low output farming methods. This used to be the case many years ago and therefore commercial farming was supporting wildlife much of the time. Arable weeds and birds nesting on ploughed fields were commonplace a hundred years ago. Mixed farming often provides for wildlife interest. Farms carrying out this type of farming have reduced in number with many that remain having larger fields. There has been an expansion of winter grown crops at the expense of pasture and meadow grassland and spring sown crops. Spring grown crops can provide nesting conditions for ground nesting birds such as the Lapwing. Winter stubbles provide food for other birds. Since the advent of new and larger machinery, artificial (inorganic) fertilisers, and the increased use of pesticides and herbicides, there has been a reduction in the wildlife value of the Downs. Even today there are annual payments to farmers to grow crops which are far greater than those payments available to conserve or recreate rich wildlife habitats. This is an on-going debate that needs to be resolved. |
|
Unimproved (agriculturally) chalk grassland is one of the most important habitats on the Downs. However, much that occurred in the 1940s has been ploughed up or "improved" in other ways. This was largely encouraged by government grants in order to produce more food. In the early part of the nineteenth century about 50% of the Downs was wildlife-rich, chalk downland grass, this is now down to below 10% What remains needs to be managed by grazing to keep the valuable downland turf open and rich in wildflowers. When grazing is not continued, coarse grasses, scrub and trees often invade naturally and the grassland diversity is reduced and eventually lost. This factor is an important cause of loss of chalk grassland (but often recoverable) over the last 30 years or so. There are grants that encourage farmers to graze existing chalk grassland, to turn areas of arable land back to grass and to manage wildlife margins on arable land. In effect these grants aim to compensate farmers for loss of yields / income. This has started to help protect and enhance the Downs habitats and general landscape but will need to be expanded to make wholesale changes to the landscape. A marketing scheme devised by the Sussex Downs Conservation Board to support the expansion of sheep farming may help. Expansion of beef farming will also help with conserving the Downs. |
|
A recent trend has seen some farms becoming golf courses which provides a greater financial return than farming but may (without good design) reduce wildlife diversity and certainly can impact badly on the landscape. |
|
Herbicide and pesticide spray drift from arable fields does occasionally affect nearby chalk grassland habitats, reducing wildlife diversity. This is usually avoided by choosing the ideal weather conditions, spray nozzles to avoid certain areas and buffer zones between the two areas. |
|
Recent changes in the system of annual payments to farmers on arable land may lead to a loss in headland habitats which may affect ground-nesting birds and rare arable flowers such as Pheasants eye. This shows the necessity to develop joined up thinking between agricultural policies and conservation policies. |
|
A recent Government Bill to discuss access to open countryside may have some effect on the practice of farmers and landowners. It remains to be seen if this will result in loss of wildlife and landscape quality. |
|
www.ukagriculture.com |
