Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
animals have been the subject of many myths (including claims that they are direct
descendants of Auroches [wild oxen], or that they were used by Romans and Druids
in religious ceremonies), yet their distinctive presence in the landscape reflects much
about people's historic links with livestock and landscape (see Alderson 1998 for a
full account of this breed).
Today, livestock changes have become more rapid and widespread based on
technological advances. These account for the dominance of Friesians, which, with
their exceptional milk yield, supply 90 per cent of milk in the United Kingdom.
The impact of such distinctive black and white cattle on the landscape has been
similarly influential, and there has been concern that the widespread proliferation of
this breed has eroded local landscape distinctiveness (Evans and Yarwood 1995).
At a time when there is political willingness to conserve the appearance of local
landscapes (Evans and Morris 1997), livestock remain surprisingly neglected in
study and policy. Greater attention to them would be beneficial because, as Small
(1995) notes, some breeds can contribute actively towards preserving sensitive
landscapes because they graze differently to modern animals. For example,
Hebridean Sheep exhibit a marked preference for grazing tough species of upland
grass, encouraging the regeneration of heather. Longhorn Cattle have been
employed on pastures in the Derbyshire Dales overrun by tough plant species which
are inedible to softer-mouthed modern cattle. Small (1995) advocates that grazing
with local breeds is the best way of preserving local habitats and points to the
successful use in the Cotswolds of Gloucester Cattle on Minchinhampton Common
and Cotswold Sheep on Cranham Common.
To date, this use of livestock in creating or diluting landscapes has only been
pursued by agents such as the National Trust or members of the RBST on an
ad
hoc
basis. National conservation schemes, such as Countryside Stewardship, do not, as
yet, offer incentives to use local rare breeds to preserve landscape distinctiveness
(Evans and Yarwood 1995). Such policies would not only aid local ecology and the
preservation of breeds, but would also help in the (re-)creation of local identity.
Ironically, there is provision in the European Union for member-states to encourage
the conservation of rare breeds under the agri-environmental 'accompanying
measures' Regulation 2078/92. However, the UK (along with Denmark) has
decided not to fund rare breeds through this mechanism. The 'official' reason is that
no one area in the UK is entirely dependent on a specific rare breed for the
maintenance of its landscape or habitat. Given the lack of attention that has been paid
to such relationships, a more convincing explanation is that the Ministry of
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) does not wish to fund a process of rare
breed conservation which is already occurring through the charitable actions of the
RBST. Further investigations of these assertions are necessary.
By contrast, lay agencies and people have recognised the importance of livestock
in the creation of place identity and local culture, as Clifford and King (1995:14)
recognise in the 'Common Ground' campaign:
