After two years of La Nina and plenty of rain we haven't had significant
rain in three months. But clever people still want to burn their pasture
.... sigh. Let's have a big round of applause for the (all volunteer) Rural
Fire Service who have to deal with such nonsense on the ground.

As well as bushfires there are some local wildlife and garden shots here
too.

http://s1086.beta.photobucket.com/us...%20of%20Spring

Comments welcome.


David

David Hare-Scott wrote:

After two years of La Nina and plenty of rain we haven't had significant
rain in three months. But clever people still want to burn their pasture
... sigh.

we get knuckleheads like that around here too.
they'll pick the windiest days to burn ditches
or leaves or trash...

i'll even believe a fire started by lightning
here or there too, but some are started by cigarettes
tossed out windows of cars in passing and that's
someone being just plain brainless during a drought.


Let's have a big round of applause for the (all volunteer) Rural
Fire Service who have to deal with such nonsense on the ground.

do they let some of the fires burn freely if
they don't threaten houses or are all fires
suppressed?


As well as bushfires there are some local wildlife and garden shots here
too.

http://s1086.beta.photobucket.com/us...%20of%20Spring

Comments welcome.

it looks like you are surrounded by nice
green pastures.


songbird

songbird wrote:
David Hare-Scott wrote:

After two years of La Nina and plenty of rain we haven't had
significant rain in three months. But clever people still want to
burn their pasture ... sigh.

we get knuckleheads like that around here too.
they'll pick the windiest days to burn ditches
or leaves or trash...

i'll even believe a fire started by lightning
here or there too, but some are started by cigarettes
tossed out windows of cars in passing and that's
someone being just plain brainless during a drought.


Let's have a big round of applause for the (all volunteer) Rural
Fire Service who have to deal with such nonsense on the ground.

do they let some of the fires burn freely if
they don't threaten houses or are all fires
suppressed?



Their activity is pretty well proportional to the risk of damage to property
or loss of life. In some cases the terrain is so difficult there is no
access so they cannot do anything on the ground anyway. Such areas do not
have much in the way of property or people but if (say) a wind comes up and
threatens to blow the fire towards a town they will water-bomb the forest to
try to save the town. These people are not only unpaid but they can be away
from work for days losing pay. An employer who didn't let them go would
probably be lynched.

D

On 11/24/2012 10:42 PM, David Hare-Scott wrote:
After two years of La Nina and plenty of rain we haven't had significant
rain in three months. But clever people still want to burn their
pasture ... sigh. Let's have a big round of applause for the (all
volunteer) Rural Fire Service who have to deal with such nonsense on the
ground.

As well as bushfires there are some local wildlife and garden shots here
too.

http://s1086.beta.photobucket.com/us...%20of%20Spring


Comments welcome.


David


Fires can occur naturally and US West has apparently gotten in trouble
by suppressing them and then dealing with fires that are difficult to
control.

Nice pictures.

Frank

"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
...
After two years of La Nina and plenty of rain we haven't had significant
rain in three months. But clever people still want to burn their pasture

????? Is that how it started or was it a farm burnoff? The only people who
I've heard of seen who still burn stubble are the odd wheat farmers out
west.

... sigh. Let's have a big round of applause for the (all volunteer)
Rural Fire Service who have to deal with such nonsense on the ground.

But then we've all heard of ******* who join the RFS so they can put out
fires they start..... such ******* should be shot by their fellow Firies.

As well as bushfires there are some local wildlife and garden shots here
too.

http://s1086.beta.photobucket.com/us...%20of%20Spring

Comments welcome.

Nice photos as usual David. Have you done your fire survival plan yet?

"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
...
songbird wrote:
David Hare-Scott wrote:

After two years of La Nina and plenty of rain we haven't had
significant rain in three months. But clever people still want to
burn their pasture ... sigh.

we get knuckleheads like that around here too.
they'll pick the windiest days to burn ditches
or leaves or trash...

i'll even believe a fire started by lightning
here or there too, but some are started by cigarettes
tossed out windows of cars in passing and that's
someone being just plain brainless during a drought.


Let's have a big round of applause for the (all volunteer) Rural
Fire Service who have to deal with such nonsense on the ground.

do they let some of the fires burn freely if
they don't threaten houses or are all fires
suppressed?



Their activity is pretty well proportional to the risk of damage to
property or loss of life.

Supposedly. But look what happened as a result of that policy when 500
houses burned in Canberra.

In some cases the terrain is so difficult there is no
access so they cannot do anything on the ground anyway. Such areas do not
have much in the way of property or people but if (say) a wind comes up
and threatens to blow the fire towards a town they will water-bomb the
forest to try to save the town.

I notice the qualifier added in there.

These people are not only unpaid but they can be away
from work for days losing pay. An employer who didn't let them go would
probably be lynched.

Yup.

Farm1 wrote:
"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
...
After two years of La Nina and plenty of rain we haven't had
significant rain in three months. But clever people still want to
burn their pasture

????? Is that how it started or was it a farm burnoff? The only
people who I've heard of seen who still burn stubble are the odd
wheat farmers out west.


I am in a beef cattle area where there are many landholders who still do
things the way that Grandpa did. Every Spring just before the expiry of the
burn-without-permit season they burn their paddocks. They overstock and use
set stocking in big paddocks and don't mind if their bulls cover their own
offspring. It's a time warp.

... sigh. Let's have a big round of applause for the (all
volunteer) Rural Fire Service who have to deal with such nonsense on
the ground.

But then we've all heard of ******* who join the RFS so they can put
out fires they start..... such ******* should be shot by their
fellow Firies.

True. They join up because they loooove fire. Its like the priests and
Brothers who teach because they loooove little kids. The same penalty
should apply but Cardinal Pell will keep it behind the seal of the
confessional instead.


As well as bushfires there are some local wildlife and garden shots
here too.

http://s1086.beta.photobucket.com/us...%20of%20Spring

Comments welcome.

Nice photos as usual David. Have you done your fire survival plan
yet?

Yep. I put the house in the centre of a 5 ha paddock with no forest nearer
than 150m and no tree nearer than 60m and I paid for steel/hardieplank
instead of wood and I mow all round. During this episode, which was mainly
on a neighbour's place, I was taking pictures not waving a hose and
worrying. Should freak conditions arise where fire might cross the gap I'm
staying to defend. I have enough water to soak everything for days.

David

"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
Farm1 wrote:
"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
...
After two years of La Nina and plenty of rain we haven't had
significant rain in three months. But clever people still want to
burn their pasture

????? Is that how it started or was it a farm burnoff? The only
people who I've heard of seen who still burn stubble are the odd
wheat farmers out west.


I am in a beef cattle area where there are many landholders who still do
things the way that Grandpa did. Every Spring just before the expiry of
the burn-without-permit season they burn their paddocks. They overstock
and use set stocking in big paddocks and don't mind if their bulls cover
their own offspring. It's a time warp.

LOL. It sounds like it. We know one grazier who has a closed herd and his
cattle are pathetic, but he's the only one. His ancestor was one of the
more famous conservative Colonial parsons so I've always thought that might
be his excuse for such dim behaviour.

... sigh. Let's have a big round of applause for the (all
volunteer) Rural Fire Service who have to deal with such nonsense on
the ground.

But then we've all heard of ******* who join the RFS so they can put
out fires they start..... such ******* should be shot by their
fellow Firies.

True. They join up because they loooove fire. Its like the priests and
Brothers who teach because they loooove little kids. The same penalty
should apply but Cardinal Pell will keep it behind the seal of the
confessional instead.

Yeah. ******* priests and also those who went into politics after thinking
the priesthood might be an option.

As well as bushfires there are some local wildlife and garden shots
here too.

http://s1086.beta.photobucket.com/us...%20of%20Spring

Comments welcome.

Nice photos as usual David. Have you done your fire survival plan
yet?

Yep. I put the house in the centre of a 5 ha paddock with no forest
nearer than 150m and no tree nearer than 60m and I paid for
steel/hardieplank instead of wood and I mow all round. During this
episode, which was mainly on a neighbour's place, I was taking pictures
not waving a hose and worrying. Should freak conditions arise where fire
might cross the gap I'm staying to defend. I have enough water to soak
everything for days.

Well done. I'm still planning to do a plan. But I have sent Himself off to
the tip today with 2 trailer loads of tree trimmings and he's changing the
oil in the tractor because he's been slashing. Once things hay off, I'm
going ot kmake sure all tanks are filled frequently and all hoses are laid
out. I might even get him to move a tank that is on a hill and doing
nothing useful into a better, closer position where it can be gravity fed in
case of danger.

David Hare-Scott wrote:
Farm1 wrote:
David Hare-Scott wrote:
After two years of La Nina and plenty of rain we haven't had
significant rain in three months. But clever people still want to
burn their pasture

????? Is that how it started or was it a farm burnoff? The only
people who I've heard of seen who still burn stubble are the odd
wheat farmers out west.


I am in a beef cattle area where there are many landholders who still do
things the way that Grandpa did. Every Spring just before the expiry of the
burn-without-permit season they burn their paddocks. They overstock and use
set stocking in big paddocks and don't mind if their bulls cover their own
offspring. It's a time warp.

if the genes are weak then the inbreeding will make
it obvious.

i don't understand the burning thing though, as it
puts nutrients into the air instead of into the cow.
perhaps they breathe it in like people who smoke
herbal cigarrettes for their health...


....
As well as bushfires there are some local wildlife and garden shots
here too.

http://s1086.beta.photobucket.com/us...%20of%20Spring

Comments welcome.

Nice photos as usual David. Have you done your fire survival plan
yet?

Yep. I put the house in the centre of a 5 ha paddock with no forest nearer
than 150m and no tree nearer than 60m and I paid for steel/hardieplank
instead of wood and I mow all round. During this episode, which was mainly
on a neighbour's place, I was taking pictures not waving a hose and
worrying. Should freak conditions arise where fire might cross the gap I'm
staying to defend. I have enough water to soak everything for days.

sounds sensible in a brushfire area. congrats.


songbird

"songbird" wrote in message
David Hare-Scott wrote:
Farm1 wrote:
David Hare-Scott wrote:
After two years of La Nina and plenty of rain we haven't had
significant rain in three months. But clever people still want to
burn their pasture

????? Is that how it started or was it a farm burnoff? The only
people who I've heard of seen who still burn stubble are the odd
wheat farmers out west.


I am in a beef cattle area where there are many landholders who still do
things the way that Grandpa did. Every Spring just before the expiry of
the
burn-without-permit season they burn their paddocks. They overstock and
use
set stocking in big paddocks and don't mind if their bulls cover their
own
offspring. It's a time warp.

if the genes are weak then the inbreeding will make
it obvious.

i don't understand the burning thing though, as it
puts nutrients into the air instead of into the cow.

Actually burning is quite beneficial to the soil because it adds (if I
recall correctly) phoshorus to the soil (although it may be another, or even
a number of other nutrients). Australian Aboriginals and many other native
peoples did it as a 'farming' technique as after the burning, grass grew
strongly and brought in grazing animals that they then killed for food.
It's not a good technique though in fire prone areas and quite antisocial
these days because of pollution.

songbird wrote:
David Hare-Scott wrote:
Farm1 wrote:
David Hare-Scott wrote:
After two years of La Nina and plenty of rain we haven't had
significant rain in three months. But clever people still want to
burn their pasture

????? Is that how it started or was it a farm burnoff? The only
people who I've heard of seen who still burn stubble are the odd
wheat farmers out west.


I am in a beef cattle area where there are many landholders who
still do things the way that Grandpa did. Every Spring just before
the expiry of the burn-without-permit season they burn their
paddocks. They overstock and use set stocking in big paddocks and
don't mind if their bulls cover their own offspring. It's a time
warp.

if the genes are weak then the inbreeding will make
it obvious.


It's just slackness, there are plenty of reasons not to inbreed to that
degree they just cannot be bothered managing their herd properly.

i don't understand the burning thing though, as it
puts nutrients into the air instead of into the cow.
perhaps they breathe it in like people who smoke
herbal cigarrettes for their health...



This is also slackness, burning is cheaper than slashing or many other
pasture management practices. Yes it reduces the nutrients (especially N
whose compounds are often volatile) but it also reduces soil organic content
which reduces the capacity of the soil to hold both nutrients and water. It
also favours rank grasses and some weeds which are better adapted to fire
than more nutritious grasses.

...
As well as bushfires there are some local wildlife and garden shots
here too.

http://s1086.beta.photobucket.com/us...%20of%20Spring

Comments welcome.

Nice photos as usual David. Have you done your fire survival plan
yet?

Yep. I put the house in the centre of a 5 ha paddock with no forest
nearer than 150m and no tree nearer than 60m and I paid for
steel/hardieplank instead of wood and I mow all round. During this
episode, which was mainly on a neighbour's place, I was taking
pictures not waving a hose and worrying. Should freak conditions
arise where fire might cross the gap I'm staying to defend. I have
enough water to soak everything for days.

sounds sensible in a brushfire area. congrats.


I have friends who built in a eucalyptus forest because they like the
trees......

D

Farm1 wrote:
"songbird" wrote in message
David Hare-Scott wrote:
Farm1 wrote:
David Hare-Scott wrote:
After two years of La Nina and plenty of rain we haven't had
significant rain in three months. But clever people still want to
burn their pasture

????? Is that how it started or was it a farm burnoff? The only
people who I've heard of seen who still burn stubble are the odd
wheat farmers out west.


I am in a beef cattle area where there are many landholders who
still do things the way that Grandpa did. Every Spring just before
the expiry of the
burn-without-permit season they burn their paddocks. They
overstock and use
set stocking in big paddocks and don't mind if their bulls cover
their own
offspring. It's a time warp.

if the genes are weak then the inbreeding will make
it obvious.

i don't understand the burning thing though, as it
puts nutrients into the air instead of into the cow.

Actually burning is quite beneficial to the soil because it adds (if I
recall correctly) phoshorus to the soil (although it may be another,
or even a number of other nutrients). Australian Aboriginals and
many other native peoples did it as a 'farming' technique as after
the burning, grass grew strongly and brought in grazing animals that
they then killed for food. It's not a good technique though in fire
prone areas and quite antisocial these days because of pollution.

Burning only adds phosphorus to the soil if it is present in what you burn.
This is the basis of slash and burn agriculture where the nutrients in trees
are released allowing a crop to grow in the ashes. In Oz which tends to
have phosphorus impoverished soil the P is held mainly in the trees, burning
the forest releases this. So our white forebears used fire to clear forest
and increase fertility at the same time but then found that the great crops
they got in the first year or two couldn't be sustained. S&B only works if
you have plenty of forest to move on to when the current patch becomes
exhausted, which was fine for the aboriginals who lived at a low population
density and were ready to move as required.

Burning pasture doesn't achieve anything like that, you are much better
slashing with a mulcher which retains nutrients and carbon in the soil. The
perpetrators are seduced by the apparent reduction of weeds and the nice
flush of new growth you can get if there is rain afterwards but in the long
run it's a loser as volatile nitrogen compounds are lost and so is soil
carbon. But as one neighbour put it "its fun".

D

"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
...
Farm1 wrote:
"songbird" wrote in message
David Hare-Scott wrote:
Farm1 wrote:
David Hare-Scott wrote:
After two years of La Nina and plenty of rain we haven't had
significant rain in three months. But clever people still want to
burn their pasture

????? Is that how it started or was it a farm burnoff? The only
people who I've heard of seen who still burn stubble are the odd
wheat farmers out west.


I am in a beef cattle area where there are many landholders who
still do things the way that Grandpa did. Every Spring just before
the expiry of the
burn-without-permit season they burn their paddocks. They
overstock and use
set stocking in big paddocks and don't mind if their bulls cover
their own
offspring. It's a time warp.

if the genes are weak then the inbreeding will make
it obvious.

i don't understand the burning thing though, as it
puts nutrients into the air instead of into the cow.

Actually burning is quite beneficial to the soil because it adds (if I
recall correctly) phoshorus to the soil (although it may be another,
or even a number of other nutrients). Australian Aboriginals and
many other native peoples did it as a 'farming' technique as after
the burning, grass grew strongly and brought in grazing animals that
they then killed for food. It's not a good technique though in fire
prone areas and quite antisocial these days because of pollution.

Burning only adds phosphorus to the soil if it is present in what you
burn.

Well as I mentioned, I don't recall what it sis that is added so perhaps it
wasn't phosphorus.

This is the basis of slash and burn agriculture where the nutrients in
trees are released allowing a crop to grow in the ashes. In Oz which
tends to have phosphorus impoverished soil the P is held mainly in the
trees, burning the forest releases this. So our white forebears used fire
to clear forest and increase fertility at the same time but then found
that the great crops they got in the first year or two couldn't be
sustained. S&B only works if you have plenty of forest to move on to when
the current patch becomes exhausted, which was fine for the aboriginals
who lived at a low population density and were ready to move as required.

But you mentioned your grazier neighbours who were burning pasture. That is
not slash and burn agriculture.

Burning pasture doesn't achieve anything like that, you are much better
slashing with a mulcher which retains nutrients and carbon in the soil.
The perpetrators are seduced by the apparent reduction of weeds and the
nice flush of new growth you can get if there is rain afterwards but in
the long run it's a loser as volatile nitrogen compounds are lost and so
is soil carbon.

Of course it's a loser in the long run, but as I said, it does add
nutrients. Anyone who does it annually is a total nong and anyone who does
do it, but doesn't ensure they do a low heat burn
is also a nong.

David Hare-Scott wrote:
Farm1 wrote:
songbird wrote:
David Hare-Scott wrote:
Farm1 wrote:
David Hare-Scott wrote:
After two years of La Nina and plenty of rain we haven't had
significant rain in three months. But clever people still want to
burn their pasture

????? Is that how it started or was it a farm burnoff? The only
people who I've heard of seen who still burn stubble are the odd
wheat farmers out west.


I am in a beef cattle area where there are many landholders who
still do things the way that Grandpa did. Every Spring just before
the expiry of the
burn-without-permit season they burn their paddocks. They
overstock and use
set stocking in big paddocks and don't mind if their bulls cover
their own
offspring. It's a time warp.

if the genes are weak then the inbreeding will make
it obvious.

i don't understand the burning thing though, as it
puts nutrients into the air instead of into the cow.

Actually burning is quite beneficial to the soil because it adds (if I
recall correctly) phoshorus to the soil (although it may be another,
or even a number of other nutrients). Australian Aboriginals and
many other native peoples did it as a 'farming' technique as after
the burning, grass grew strongly and brought in grazing animals that
they then killed for food. It's not a good technique though in fire
prone areas and quite antisocial these days because of pollution.

Burning only adds phosphorus to the soil if it is present in what you burn.
This is the basis of slash and burn agriculture where the nutrients in trees
are released allowing a crop to grow in the ashes. In Oz which tends to
have phosphorus impoverished soil the P is held mainly in the trees, burning
the forest releases this. So our white forebears used fire to clear forest
and increase fertility at the same time but then found that the great crops
they got in the first year or two couldn't be sustained. S&B only works if
you have plenty of forest to move on to when the current patch becomes
exhausted, which was fine for the aboriginals who lived at a low population
density and were ready to move as required.

Burning pasture doesn't achieve anything like that, you are much better
slashing with a mulcher which retains nutrients and carbon in the soil. The
perpetrators are seduced by the apparent reduction of weeds and the nice
flush of new growth you can get if there is rain afterwards but in the long
run it's a loser as volatile nitrogen compounds are lost and so is soil
carbon. But as one neighbour put it "its fun".

*grr!*

right, slash and burn agriculture is a completely
different thing than pasturage as also would be the
burning of wild areas for encouraging native
species and those who must have fire for completing
their life cycle.

the point of "adding" anything to the soil by
burning is more like the changing the accessibility
of the nutrient, but like you say that only works
if there is rain shortly afterwards. the greater
the gap between burn and rain the more likely
there is a breeze to take the ashes away. a heavy
rain means runoff which puts a lot of those freed
up nutrients into the streams. there really isn't
a whole lot of good about slash and burn compared to
other things that can be done. even taking the
brush and burying it will at least keep the carbon
and nutrients nearer the place where they were
formed instead of exporting them into the air or
into the streams.

but to get to pasturage, burning during a drought
exposes more of the soil surface to drying winds
and the heat of the sun. plus removing any of the
dry stalks that can soak up some of the extra
water if a heavy rain comes along, protecting the
soil from the rain drop impacts (reducing compaction),
erosion protection... it's just so completely
and boneheadedly wrong.


songbird

David Hare-Scott wrote:
songbird wrote:
....
sounds sensible in a brushfire area. congrats.


I have friends who built in a eucalyptus forest because they like the
trees......

oops.


songbird