For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: Do not post public figures, these should be posted to c/El Chisme
Federated Farmers of New Zealand is a lobby and advocacy group for farmers and rural communities. ^[Wikipedia]
https://xcancel.com/FedFarmers/status/1926787639874637905
Pine trees are eating up sheep and beef land βnot because forestry is a better use of that land, but because of New Zealandβs flawed [Emissions Trading Scheme] settings π² π
I could see an argument to be made that "pine trees" shouldn't replace farmland, rather forest of native flora should. But somehow I don't think this is their intention.
this is the exact point i was about to make - there's scenarios where pine plantations for logging definitely deserve a fuckload of criticism, but there's no way that cattle graziers are making those arguments
stop saying "farmer" and other meaningless wordcel words, start saying "networth" and join the Indian-number-using-reality-understanders
factory owner? bourg. factory worker? not
starbucks owner? bourg. barista? not
farmer with 50 acres? bourg. farmer with 1/2 acre? not
I don't want to be a contrarian, but pine tree monocultures -either for lumber or for carbon credit schemes- have so little ecosystemic benefit that they might as well be a field left to fallow. Especially if pines are not native species.
I'm sure these farmers don't care about that one bit, but let's remember to be critical of cosmetic "rewilding" projects, too.
Net neutral is still better than net negative tbf
Permanent native grasslands, often maintained by traditional herding and transhumance practices, have been found to be more effective at carbon storage than planted forests. Not to mention the added benefit of increased biodiversity in local flora and fauna.
Again, it's like 99% clear that the Farmers Federation of New Zealand doesn't mean this kind of grassland of course, but my point is still that planting pines for the sake of planting them is not better than not using the land at all, or to go over it with sheep and cattle.
Why are pine trees a net negative? What's the right tree?
I am hungry for knowledge from the @[email protected].
Almost nothing can eat them, they smother growth on the forest floor, and they tend to burn in dry periods.
Disclaimer: this is independent knowledge not endorsed by @[email protected]
New Zealand still has tree ferns and shit, crazy unique flora there. They are objectively the correct choice, because they look cool as fuck. They aren't technically trees though.
Here's a super fun stitch, depending on location the answer is "pine trees" but from a totally disperate clade of gymnosperm that is almost 100% not what they're talking about in the tweet
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agathis_australis
Araucariales is such a sickass clade.
I had a hard time finding ecosystem maps in a form Iβm familiar with but this site was a good level for my familiarity with NZ, and I think in time Iβd find a plant list on here https://environment.govt.nz/publications/environment-aotearoa-2019/theme-1-our-ecosystems-and-biodiversity/
Farmers for some reason believe that all land needs to be exploited.
My manager grew up on a farm in Scotland and she's like that too, she rejects veganism because there is land that can only be exploited for grazing.
They say converted this shit was probably hastily planted monoculture.
Surely cattle < grass < pine_trees < native_flora, right?
maybe? nothing grows in these tree plantations though. if you've ever taken a walk in old forestry land that's now for public use a lot of the areas they replanted in just look and feel kinda desolate even with all the trees.
And in what, 10 years or so, these trees will be cut down for logging. Then the stumps have to be burned or ground down before replanting can happen.
Is it a pine tree monoculture scheme? Is this two of the worst people fighting?
Kinda weird they called it "sheep and beef land" instead of "sheep and cow land" or "lamb and beef land".
But, hell yeah, the Ents are marching.
To differentiate between cows raised for beef and those raised for dairy. Dairy is huge in NZ, and grew massively in the last 25 years, especially in places not naturally suited to it that require lots of irrigation. It has also completely fucked all of our waterways and the nitrate runoffs into our drinking supplies may be spiking bowel cancer rates.
Anywho, sheep and beef cows are often raised together, or at least have similar grazing land and economics so they're often referred to as one sector.
The economics are also dogshit, which is why there's so many conversions to pine plantations, which in itself is driven by forestry being an uncapped form of emissions removals in our emissions trading scheme.
Do we have a Xi planting tree / communism emoji yet?
