Ecological value of carcasses

[Stayangry]

The Shooting Times 07 Aug 2024 refers to this study, which argues that the removal of culled deer carcasses means significant removal of nutrients from the local eco-system.

https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/2688-8319.12356

I am sure that this is true. But then again, the "lost" nutrients create economic value for estates and food businesses. And there is no case for leaving bodies to rot in a country where millions of people are struggling to feed themselves.

Also, there is no reason why bones, organs, blood and so on could not be returned to the field - if regulations and policy permit.

 

[Tim.243]

The Shooting Times 07 Aug 2024 refers to this study, which argues that the removal of culled deer carcasses means significant removal of nutrients from the local eco-system.

https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/2688-8319.12356

I am sure that this is true. But then again, the "lost" nutrients create economic value for estates and food businesses. And there is no case for leaving bodies to rot in a country where millions of people are struggling to feed themselves.

Also, there is no reason why bones, organs, blood and so on could not be returned to the field - if regulations and policy permit.

When a herd of Fallow camp out in a rape field that has been sprayed off then the lost of nutrients is like this.

The rape which has endured flee beetle, pigeons and now when it is ready to harvest the Fallow knock the black seed on the ground only to feed the pigeons

So they are talking bollicks

 

[David Barker]

If we have to many deer then we will have to many carcases rotting on the hills. Numbers can be played anyway you like and this will be an excuse to cull and leave because there is no real value commercially for most carcases.

 

[VSS]

When a herd of Fallow camp out in a rape field that has been sprayed off then the lost of nutrients is like this.

The rape which has endured flee beetle, pigeons and now when it is ready to harvest the Fallow knock the black seed on the ground only to feed the pigeons

So they are talking bollicks

In your example, if the seed feeds the pigeons then the nutrients aren't lost to the local ecosystem (unless you shoot all the pigeons and remove them). However, if the crop is harvested then the nutrients are carried away and lost to the local ecosystem. That is why they have to be replaced in the form of fertiliser or manure before the next crop can be grown.

Repeatedly removing animals (or crops) from a habitat will exhaust the natural resources. In the case of livestock, for example, you're losing phosphates and other essential nutrients each time they're sold off the farm.
This is why a self-contained organic system is pretty much impossible to maintain without outside inputs to replace what's sold off. To come anywhere near balancing an organic system you'd need composting toilets in the homes of all the people feeding off the output of the farm, so that as many of the nutrients can be returned as possible. That's not very practical on a commercial scale, so instead nutrients are bought in in the form of artificial fertiliser. In the past, products such as guano, bone meal and basic slag would have been used in addition to organic manures.
I farmed at one time on a small offshore island, and there was a clause in the tenancy that limited what crops could be sold off the island, to minimise nutrient loss over time.

Probably agro-forestry or silvipasture are the nearest thing to self-contained agricultural systems that we have these days, and they closely replicate natural ecosystems, but whether the economics stack up on a commercial scale is a moot point.

So, the report does have its basis in sound facts, but takes a rather simplistic view of the complexity of ecosystem sustainability.

 

[Firefly]

The whole planet is an ecosystem. You can’t destroy matter. Every atom within the deer and us has existed in many forms for infinity.

 

[VSS]

The whole planet is an ecosystem. You can’t destroy matter.

No, but you can move it from one place to another, leaving some areas seriously depleted.

 

[JockStalk]

I suggest depleting the deer forest a wee bit and completing your fridge and freezer stocks a wee bit.

If nature calls whilst out, consider it a gracious gift of nutrients back to the landscape.

That’s a fine ecological balance.

 

[Tim.243]

In your example, if the seed feeds the pigeons then the nutrients aren't lost to the local ecosystem (unless you shoot all the pigeons and remove them). However, if the crop is harvested then the nutrients are carried away and lost to the local ecosystem. That is why they have to be replaced in the form of fertiliser or manure before the next crop can be grown.

Repeatedly removing animals (or crops) from a habitat will exhaust the natural resources. In the case of livestock, for example, you're losing phosphates and other essential nutrients each time they're sold off the farm.
This is why a self-contained organic system is pretty much impossible to maintain without outside inputs to replace what's sold off. To come anywhere near balancing an organic system you'd need composting toilets in the homes of all the people feeding off the output of the farm, so that as many of the nutrients can be returned as possible. That's not very practical on a commercial scale, so instead nutrients are bought in in the form of artificial fertiliser. In the past, products such as guano, bone meal and basic slag would have been used in addition to organic manures.
I farmed at one time on a small offshore island, and there was a clause in the tenancy that limited what crops could be sold off the island, to minimise nutrient loss over time.

Probably agro-forestry or silvipasture are the nearest thing to self-contained agricultural systems that we have these days, and they closely replicate natural ecosystems, but whether the economics stack up on a commercial scale is a moot point.

So, the report does have its basis in sound facts, but takes a rather simplistic view of the complexity of ecosystem sustainability.

You can't go picking it up off the floor, so the whole growing cycle is broken we shoot the pigeons as they will in March pick out the heads
@ £500.00 a ton the people who invest in growing it are not happy.
Peter saves the day...
Just posted.

Fallow Crop Damage

I put the drone up over a barley field where I took a fallow pricket from last Sunday evening (in far from ideal conditions) to see the crop damage a small group of 6 fallow bucks had caused in what was I suspect only a week or so, having seen them previously elsewhere in other corn crops on...

www.thestalkingdirectory.co.uk

This farm puts turkey and cow muck on the land so a natural way of putting back, However when these camp out..."Tim come Shoot them"
Farms grow for profit and don't want damaged crops
Just like what you said about head shooting your deer you
"don't want them running into a fence" so not to damage the crop.

 

[VSS]

You can't go picking it up off the floor, so the whole growing cycle is broken we shoot the pigeons as they will in March pick out the heads
@ £500.00 a ton the people who invest in growing it are not happy.
This farm puts turkey and cow muck on the land so a natural way of putting back, However when these camp out..."Tim come Shoot them"
Farms grow for profit and don't want damaged crops
Just like what you said about head shooting your deer you
"don't want them running into a fence" so not to damage the crop.

Yes, you're absolutely right.
But what we're talking about here is removing nutrients from an ecosystem, which is what happens when you harvest a crop.
If the crop isn't harvested, the grower loses money but the nutrients in the ecosystem aren't depleted (ie, narural capital remains).
If the crop is harvested the grower makes money, but has to spend some of that in returning nutrients to the soil in one form or another, otherwise subsequent crops will become poorer (and therefore less profitable) year on year.
In your example, the field had rape growing on it, not turkeys or cattle, therefore by bringing turkey and cattle waste onto the land he's bringing in fertility from elsewhere to replace what the crop removed.

Repeatedly removing large numbers of deer from an ecosystem is the same as repeatedly cropping a field. Your farmer replaces lost nutrients after harvesting his crop, but we do nothing to replace lost nutrients after "harvesting" wild deer from an ecosystem.

 

[Stayangry]

We also need to consider the ecological impact of removing carcases versus the impact of, say, soil loss due to erosion caused by hikers.

 

[Tim.243]

Yes, you're absolutely right.
But what we're talking about here is removing nutrients from an ecosystem, which is what happens when you harvest a crop.
If the crop isn't harvested, the grower loses money but the nutrients in the ecosystem aren't depleted (ie, narural capital remains).
If the crop is harvested the grower makes money, but has to spend some of that in returning nutrients to the soil in one form or another, otherwise subsequent crops will become poorer (and therefore less profitable) year on year.
In your example, the field had rape growing on it, not turkeys or cattle, therefore by bringing turkey and cattle waste onto the land he's bringing in fertility from elsewhere to replace what the crop removed.

Repeatedly removing large numbers of deer from an ecosystem is the same as repeatedly cropping a field. Your farmer replaces lost nutrients after harvesting his crop, but we do nothing to replace lost nutrients after "harvesting" wild deer from an ecosystem.

What you quoted some time back lol

Getting ready for after harvest..

This mod to a big set of rolls was a bit of a test that went very well, (for the people who might not understand) the big tractors can compress the ground year in year out so the middle set of tines go in about 4" and take out the wheel marks, then the rolls do there part. So before the madness...

www.thestalkingdirectory.co.uk

 

[Tim.243]

We also need to consider the ecological impact of removing carcases versus the impact of, say, soil loss due to erosion caused by hikers.

We need to stop planting land for bird feed and go back to growing crops...
Don't worry about the hikers they get out the way when the CAT comes along.

 

[VSS]

What you quoted some time back lol

Getting ready for after harvest..

This mod to a big set of rolls was a bit of a test that went very well, (for the people who might not understand) the big tractors can compress the ground year in year out so the middle set of tines go in about 4" and take out the wheel marks, then the rolls do there part. So before the madness...

www.thestalkingdirectory.co.uk

Sure.
We're talking about basic nutrient balancing here, not the intricacies of arable farming and the machinery used. The principles are exactly the same whether its livestock or arable being produced.

(Plus, contrary to popular opinion, I'm not completely thick!).

 

[willie_gunn]

And there is no case for leaving bodies to rot in a country where millions of people are struggling to feed themselves.

There certainly is a case, at least insofar as we already appear to have an excess supply of venison compared to the demand for it. There would be little point removing carcasses if they then end up being dumped in landfill because people are not willing to eat the venison that is produced. We already struggle to dispose of animals being culled, particularly as supermarkets and the like prefer the predictability of farmed venison over wild.

It would also be interesting to see a study that compares the benefit to the environment of leaving carcasses to rot with the environmental cost of carcass extraction, processing and disposal.

For those interested, there were additional studies undertaken into the environmental impact of carcasses left to rot after the mass die-off of reindeer in Norway in 2016 and the starvation of horses, deer and cattle in Oostvaardersplassen in the Netherlands.

 

[Tim.243]

Sure.
We're talking about basic nutrient balancing here, not the intricacies of arable farming and the machinery used. The principles are exactly the same whether its livestock or arable being produced.

(Plus, contrary to popular opinion, I'm not completely thick!).

So how do balance out the basic nutrients on you grass land...guess your farmed deer waste goes in the commercial waste bin or do you re-use it?

 

[Freeforester]

Point of potential interest: the oft-mentioned excess deer numbers are not on the open hill where DMG’s are ‘encouraged’ by naturescot to manage their number ‘sustainably‘ , ergo they’re in the Scottish Ministers’-owned and FLS ‘managed’ National Forest Estate and elsewhere, more
often than not under the cover of non-native, quasi-commercial softwood plantations, the latter being a far, far greater stripper of nutrients from the land than any ruminant/herbivore.

Accordingly, shooting all the remaining deer on the hill will neither prevent nutrient loss nor reduce the number of deer substantially, only more thoughtful silviculture and forest design is likely to help in this regard.

It's an odd paradox too, that as more and more deer are taken by contractors, the numbers seem to be increasing substantially - maybe the ‘managers’ should try something different, the present prescription does not appear to work too well, and the souring of the ground continues meantime.

 

[LuckyEddie]

I’ve said before I grew up in Angus.

The majority of farms (if not all) when I was young were a mixture of arable and livestock.
As each of the arable crops were lifted the cattle were let out to graze any grass or weeds.
After the tatties were lifted the field was harrowed and the cattle put in to mop up any missed spuds.
Crops were rotated and fields left to be grazed and the dung to replenish lost nutrients. That together with the manure, from the bedding for the wintered cattle, being spread was in my view the better way to keep the nutrients in the soil.

Now there are hardly any cattle or sheep.
The fields are prepped as soon as one crop is lifted with no break.
Fertilisers are man made and although they may increase crop yield they do not replenish the microbes from cow dung.
Fields are also sterilised with herbicides and insecticides.

Is there any wonder this has happened and now the “Uni” people say carcasses should be left.
Fine I’ll start leaving fox carcasses where they drop.

 

[VSS]

So how do balance out the basic nutrients on you grass land...guess your farmed deer waste goes in the commercial waste bin or do you re-use it?

Mowing land gets manure after mucking out the sheds that housed the animals that ate the crop (sheep & cattle) which returns up to 50% of the nitrogen removed, plus a considerable proportion of the phosphates etc. The deficit is made up by applying purchased fertiliser.
Similar concept on grazing land, except that a certain amount of nutrient recycling takes place on the field, so fewer additional inputs are required.
Rotational land use enables land to recover between periods of intensive use, with certain plant species fixing nutrients from the atmosphere.

The deer park is a bit different, as stocking levels are much less so I'm not taking so much off. I rest about 1/3 of the deer's available area for extended periods to build up a natural forage bank, and the deer also eat silage during the winter that was cut elsewhere on the farm, so that carries a considerable amount of nutrients into the deer park each winter to help offset what I take off in venison.
One interesting aspect is the cast antlers. Naturally, these are often consumed by the deer (and other wildlife) which recycles the nutrients within the ecosystem. However, I collect the cast antlers in the park, partly for my own interest and partly because they have value as a saleable product. If I keep on doing this indefinitely then antler size and quality will decline each year, and skeletal structure would suffer too. To help balance this, I spread crushed limestone on the fields.

 

[jall55]

We need to stop planting land for bird feed and go back to growing crops...
Don't worry about the hikers they get out the way when the CAT comes along.

No problem with growing feed for wild birds / other wildlife
The issue is the amount of food we as humans waste

 

[Tim.243]

I’ve said before I grew up in Angus.

The majority of farms (if not all) when I was young were a mixture of arable and livestock.
As each of the arable crops were lifted the cattle were let out to graze any grass or weeds.
After the tatties were lifted the field was harrowed and the cattle put in to mop up any missed spuds.
Crops were rotated and fields left to be grazed and the dung to replenish lost nutrients. That together with the manure, from the bedding for the wintered cattle, being spread was in my view the better way to keep the nutrients in the soil.

Now there are hardly any cattle or sheep.
The fields are prepped as soon as one crop is lifted with no break.
Fertilisers are man made and although they may increase crop yield they do not replenish the microbes from cow dung.
Fields are also sterilised with herbicides and insecticides.

Is there any wonder this has happened and now the “Uni” people say carcasses should be left.
Fine I’ll start leaving fox carcasses where they drop.

As I said earlier one farm spreads turkey/cattle muck a second has the black stuff put on after harvest (3 heaps) of it waiting. One thing against the organic muck is it is very hard to meter so often on some of the flax type crops it will get too much and go over.