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