DOCSLIB.ORG

Biodiversity Change in the Irish Uplands – the Effects of Grazing Management

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Biodiversity Change in the Irish Uplands – the Effects of Grazing Management UCC Library and UCC researchers have made this item openly available. Please let us know how this has helped you. Thanks! Title Biodiversity change in the Irish uplands - the effects of grazing management Author(s) Anderson, Roslyn M. Publication date 2013 Original citation Anderson, R. M. 2013. Biodiversity change in the Irish uplands - the effects of grazing management. PhD Thesis, University College Cork. Type of publication Doctoral thesis Rights © 2013, Roslyn M. Anderson. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ Item downloaded http://hdl.handle.net/10468/1290 from Downloaded on 2021-10-10T21:00:39Z Biodiversity change in the Irish uplands – the effects of grazing management Roslyn M. Anderson, BSc. (Hons), MSc. This thesis is presented to the National University of Ireland, Cork, in candidature for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Supervisors: Prof. Mark C. Emmerson Prof. John O’Halloran Head of School: Prof. John O’Halloran School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University College Cork Environmental Research Institute, University College Cork April 2013 Declaration I hereby declare that the work presented in this PhD thesis is my own work and has not been previously submitted for another degree at any other university or institution. Roslyn M. Anderson For my parents, Alan and Fiona Anderson ‘What kind of growth will we find underfoot if upland farming declines even further, if sheep numbers collapse and all burning of furze and heather ceases?’ Dermot Somers, The Mountains of Iveragh: A Personal Journey, The Iveragh Peninsula A Cultural Atlas of the Ring of Kerry, 2009 i Acknowledgements This project would have been impossible without the support and guidance of many people. First and foremost, I wish to thank my supervisors, Mark Emmerson and John O’Halloran for their valuable advice, support and patience throughout this demanding journey and for having the insight to envisage the bigger picture and encourage me to step out of the detail. Huge thanks also go to Eileen O’Rourke and Nadine Kramm for fascinating discussions on socio-economics and for introducing me to interdisciplinary research, as part of the BioUp Project. I would like to thank Pàdraig Whelan and Mark Wilson for their indispensable advice on both fieldwork techniques and software tools. I am extremely grateful to Science Foundation Ireland for providing funding for this project and to the staff and students of the School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences (BEES) and the Environmental Research Institute (ERI) for their invaluable support. I would particularly like to thank Mairéad Kiely, Paul Bolger, Helen McMahon and Ger Morgan. I am indebted to the farmers and landowners who so generously allowed me access to their land and frequently provided a welcome cup of tea and a sandwich or a hot meal! Thank you all for your kindness. I would like to offer my special thanks to the NPWS Conservation Rangers based at Muckross, Co. Kerry, for their advice, access to equipment and for the provision of a warm, comfortable place to stay during the many arduous months of fieldwork. I would especially like to mention Paudie O’Leary, Tim Burkitt, Pascal O’Dower, Peter O’Tool and Allan Mee. I would like to thank Brendan Dunford and Sharon Parr (Burren Life Project) and Andy Bleasdale (NPWS) for advice in the early stages of the project and Helen Bradley (UCC) and Stuart Green (Teagasc) for their wonderful guidance in GIS. Although generally a long and lonely road, the solitude of data collection in the mountains was broken by a few resilient people. Isabelle Kozlik, Catherine Palmer, Órla McLaughlin and Richard Condon – you will never know how much your company meant on the hills, thank you. Jesús Fernández and Maike Pohlmann thank you for your persistence when confronted with the tedious task of vegetation sorting and for welcome conversation on the hills! For invaluable advice and support I would like to thank Christopher Cullen, Anne Oxborough (UCC) and Jon Yearsley (UCD) and for reading drafts of chapters, I am extremely grateful to Meg Pollock (Scottish Agricultural College). ii Acknowledgements To my wonderful friends and fellow travellers along the academic path I say thank you for your infinite support and fruitful discussions over the years – Marion Twomey, Catherine Palmer, Ute Jacob and Erin O’Rourke – you are amazing. To all my friends from Ireland, the UK and further afield, thank you for your wonderful chats. Rich, thank you for your limitless encouragement, patience, love and support. Mossy, Roy, Jen, Moonshine and Felix, thank you for your wonderful feline ability to calm. My sister, Kate and my brother, Davy, thank you for all your warm words of encouragement to spur me on! And finally, an enormous thank you to my parents for their unwavering support and belief in me and for instilling in me, a need to question everything. Their love and generosity know no bounds and without them this project would never have been accomplished. iii Table of Contents DECLARATION ....................................................................................................................................................................... i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..................................................................................................................................................... ii LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................................................ ix LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................................................ xii ABSTRACT ..........................................................................................................................................................................xiv CHAPTER 1 - GENERAL INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................................... 2 1.2 GRAZING .......................................................................................................................................................... 3 1.3 VEGETATION ..................................................................................................................................................... 5 1.4 GROUND BEETLES ............................................................................................................................................... 7 1.5 BIRDS............................................................................................................................................................... 7 1.6 SPATIAL SCALE AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES ................................................................................................................ 8 1.7 MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS ............................................................................................................................. 10 1.8 STUDY OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................................................. 11 1.9 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................................... 15 CHAPTER 2 - CHARACTERISATION OF UPLAND VEGETATION UNDER VARYING LEVELS OF GRAZING MANAGEMENT: EFFECTS ON PLANT DIVERSITY, COMPOSITION AND DRIVERS OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES ............................................................................................................................................................................. 22 2.1 ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................................................... 23 2.2 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................ 24 2.2.1 Background .......................................................................................................................................... 24 2.2.2 Grazing management .......................................................................................................................... 25 2.2.3 Measuring grazing pressure ................................................................................................................ 26 2.2.4 Effects of grazing on vegetation .......................................................................................................... 27 2.3 METHODS ....................................................................................................................................................... 28 2.3.1 Study area ............................................................................................................................................ 28 2.3.2 Grazing state classification .................................................................................................................. 28 2.3.3 Management classification .................................................................................................................. 29 2.3.4 Soil sampling .......................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • English Nature Research Report
    3.2 Grazing animals used in projects 3.2.1 Species of gradng animals Some sites utilised more than one species of grazing animals so the results in Table 5 are based on 182 records. The majority of sites used sheep and/or cattle and these species were used on an almost equal number of sites, Ponies were also widely used but horses and goats were used infrequently and pigs were used on just 2 sites. No other species of grazing livestock was recorded (a mention of rabbits was taken to refer to wild populations). Table 5. Species of livestock used for grazing Sheep Cattle Equines Goats Pigs Number of Sites 71 72 30 7 2 Percentage of Records 39 40 16 4 I 3.2.2 Breeds of Sheep The breeds and crosses of sheep used are shown in Table 6. A surprisingly large number of 46 breeds or crosses were used on the 71 sites; the majority can be considered as commercial, although hardy, native breeds or crosses including hill breeds such as Cheviot, Derbyshire Gritstone, Herdwick, Scottish Blackface, Swaledale and Welsh Mountain, grassland breeds such as Beulah Speckled Face, Clun Forest, Jacob and Lleyn and down breeds such as Dorset (it was not stated whether this was Dorset Down or Dorset Horn), Hampshire Down and Southdown. Continental breeds were represented by Benichon du Cher, Bleu du Maine and Texel. Rare breeds (i.e. those included on the Rare Breeds Survival Trust’s priority and minority lists) were well represented by Hebridean, Leicester Longwool, Manx Loghtan, Portland, Shetland, Soay, Southdown, Teeswater and Wiltshire Horn.
    [Show full text]
  • DEFRA Blanket Bog Review V021107
    Review of Blanket Bog Management and Restoration TECHNICAL REPORT TO DEFRA PROJECT No. CTE0513 H O’Brien, J C Labadz & D P Butcher Nottingham Trent University School of Animal Rural & Environmental Sciences Brackenhurst Southwell NG25 0QF [email protected] 01636 817017 April 2007 CONTENTS 1 Introduction............................................................................................ 9 1.1 Principal Aims.................................................................................. 9 1.2 Objectives....................................................................................... 9 2 Methodology ......................................................................................... 10 2.1 Published Literature ....................................................................... 10 2.2 Grey Literature .............................................................................. 10 2.3 Interviews..................................................................................... 10 3 Blanket Bog: Definition, Classification and Characteristics........................... 12 3.1 Introduction .................................................................................. 12 3.2 Definition of Blanket Bog ................................................................ 12 3.3 Classification of Blanket Bogs .......................................................... 14 3.4 Blanket Bog Formation ................................................................... 16 3.5 Hydrology of Blanket Bogs .............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • St.Kilda Soay Sheep & Mouse Projects
    ST. KILDA SOAY SHEEP & MOUSE PROJECTS: ANNUAL REPORT 2009 J.G. Pilkington 1, S.D. Albon 2, A. Bento 4, D. Beraldi 1, T. Black 1, E. Brown 6, D. Childs 6, T.H. Clutton-Brock 3, T. Coulson 4, M.J. Crawley 4, T. Ezard 4, P. Feulner 6, A. Graham 10 , J. Gratten 6, A. Hayward 1, S. Johnston 6, P. Korsten 1, L. Kruuk 1, A.F. McRae 9, B. Morgan 7, M. Morrissey 1, S. Morrissey 1, F. Pelletier 4, J.M. Pemberton 1, 6 6 8 9 10 1 M.R. Robinson , J. Slate , I.R. Stevenson , P. M. Visscher , K. Watt , A. Wilson , K. Wilson 5. 1Institute of Evolutionary Biology, University of Edinburgh. 2Macaulay Institute, Aberdeen. 3Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge. 4Department of Biological Sciences, Imperial College. 5Department of Biological Sciences, Lancaster University. 6 Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield. 7 Institute of Maths and Statistics, University of Kent at Canterbury. 8Sunadal Data Solutions, Edinburgh. 9Queensland Institute of Medical Research, Australia. 10 Institute of Immunity and Infection research, University of Edinburgh POPULATION OVERVIEW ..................................................................................................................................... 1 REPORTS ON COMPONENT STUDIES .................................................................................................................... 4 Vegetation ..................................................................................................................................................... 4 Weather during population
    [Show full text]
  • Dynamics of Innovation in Livestock Genetics in Scotland: an Agricultural Innovation Systems Perspective
    Dynamics of Innovation in Livestock Genetics in Scotland: An Agricultural Innovation Systems Perspective Md. Mofakkarul. Islam 1, Alan Renwick 2, Chrysa Lamprinopoulou-Kranis 3, Laurens Klerkx 4 1Scottish Agricultural College (SAC), UK [email protected] 2Scottish Agricultural College (SAC), UK [email protected] 3Scottish Agricultural College (SAC), UK [email protected] 4Wageningen University, Netherlands [email protected] Paper prepared for presentation at the 131st EAAE Seminar ‘Innovation for Agricultural Competitiveness and Sustainability of Rural Areas’, Prague, Czech Republic, September 18-19, 2012 Copyright 2012 by Islam, M. M., Renwick, A., Lamprinopoulou-Kranis, C., and Klerkx, L. All rights reserved. Readers may make verbatim copies of this document for non-commercial purposes by any means, provided that this copyright notice appears on all such copies. Dynamics of Innovation in Livestock Genetics in Scotland: An Agricultural Innovation Systems Perspective Md. Mofakkarul Islam, Alan Renwick, Chrysa Lamprinopoulou-Kranis, Laurens Klerkx Abstract: The application of genetic selection technologies in livestock breeding offers unique opportunities to enhance the productivity, profitability, and competitiveness of the livestock industry in Scotland. However, there is a concern that the uptake of these technologies has been slower in the sheep and beef sectors in comparison to the dairy, pig and poultry sectors. This is rather paradoxical given the fact that Scotland’s research outputs in farm animal genetics are widely perceived to be excellent. A growing body of literature, popularly known as Innovation Systems theories, suggests that technological transformations require a much broader approach that transcends formal research establishments. Accordingly, this paper reports on preliminary work exploring whether and how an agricultural innovation systems perspective could help identify the dynamics of technology uptake in the livestock sectors in Scotland.
    [Show full text]
  • Saxicola Dacotiae
    Ardeol a 57(2), 2010, 387-405 NEW DATA ON THE POPULATION, DISTRIBUTION AND HABITAT PREFERENCES OF THE CANARY ISLANDS STONECHAT SAXICOLA DACOTIAE NUEVOS DATOS SOBRE EL TAMAÑO POBLACIONAL, LA DISTRIBUCIÓN Y LAS PREFERENCIAS DE HÁBITAT DE LA TARABILLA CANARIA SAXICOLA DACOTIAE Javier SEOANE 1 *, Alexandra KOUR I1, Juan Carlos ILLER A2, 3, David PALOMIN O4, César L . A LONS O5 an d Luis M . C ARRASCA L6 SUMMARY .— New data on the population, distribution and habitat preferences of the Canary Islands stonechat Saxicola dacotiae . This paper updates estimates of population size, distribution and habitat preferences of the endemic Canary Islands stonechat Saxicola dacotiae on the basis of data gathered across their whole distribution range, the island of Fuerteventura. We surveyed 1,462 0.5-km line transects during the reproductive seasons in 2005 and 2006, distributed across the whole island. Results were used to estimate population size using two methods: stratified estimates of mean densities and sum of estimated abundances across strata, and sum of estimations of abundance in 1 km x 1 km UTM squares based on statistical models built by boosted regression trees (BRT). In both methods we accounted for the effects of bird detectability in transects. Overall, 490 mature individuals were recorded. The Canary Islands stonechat preferred high, steep terrain (particularly above 20% slope and 200 m a.s.l.) and selected negatively the lower and flatter areas comprising most of the island. These habitats were occupied, however, albeit at low density. The highest average densities sampled per habitat (up to 43 birds/km 2) were registered on steep areas (> 11%) with scrub, although the statistical models predicted densities of 66 birds/km 2 in the optimum 1 Grupo de Ecología Terrestre (TEG), Departamento de Ecología, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid .
    [Show full text]
  • First Report on the State of the World's Animal Genetic Resources"
    "First Report on the State of the World’s Animal Genetic Resources" (SoWAnGR) Country Report of the United Kingdom to the FAO Prepared by the National Consultative Committee appointed by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). Contents: Executive Summary List of NCC Members 1 Assessing the state of agricultural biodiversity in the farm animal sector in the UK 1.1. Overview of UK agriculture. 1.2. Assessing the state of conservation of farm animal biological diversity. 1.3. Assessing the state of utilisation of farm animal genetic resources. 1.4. Identifying the major features and critical areas of AnGR conservation and utilisation. 1.5. Assessment of Animal Genetic Resources in the UK’s Overseas Territories 2. Analysing the changing demands on national livestock production & their implications for future national policies, strategies & programmes related to AnGR. 2.1. Reviewing past policies, strategies, programmes and management practices (as related to AnGR). 2.2. Analysing future demands and trends. 2.3. Discussion of alternative strategies in the conservation, use and development of AnGR. 2.4. Outlining future national policy, strategy and management plans for the conservation, use and development of AnGR. 3. Reviewing the state of national capacities & assessing future capacity building requirements. 3.1. Assessment of national capacities 4. Identifying national priorities for the conservation and utilisation of AnGR. 4.1. National cross-cutting priorities 4.2. National priorities among animal species, breeds,
    [Show full text]
  • The Canary Islands
    The Canary Islands Naturetrek Tour Report 6 - 13 March 2009 Indian Red Admiral – Vanessa indica vulcania Canary Islands Cranesbill – Geranium canariense Fuerteventura Sea Daisy – Nauplius sericeus Aeonium urbicum - Tenerife Euphorbia handiensis - Fuerteventura Report compiled by Tony Clarke with images by kind courtesy of Ken Bailey Naturetrek Cheriton Mill Cheriton Alresford Hampshire SO24 0NG England T: +44 (0)1962 733051 F: +44 (0)1962 736426 E: [email protected] W: www.naturetrek.co.uk Tour Report The Canary Islands Tour Leader: Tony Clarke (tour leader and naturalist) Tour Participants: Phil Haywood Hazel Haywood Peter Barrett Charles Wade Ken Bailey Day 1 Friday 6th March The arrival time of the group meant that we had enough time to do some birding in the afternoon and so we drove up from the airport, through Vilaflor to the Zona Recreativa de Las Lajas. This is probably the most well known location on Tenerife as it is where most people see their first Blue Chaffinches and we were not to be disappointed. Also at this location we saw the only Great Spotted Woodpecker of the tour plus a few Canaries, a Tenerife Kinglet and a few African Blue Tits. After departing from Las Lajas we continued climbing and entered the Las Cañadas National Park which is a spectacular drive through volcanic scenery. On the drive we encountered quite a few endemic plants including Pinus canariensis and Spartocytisus supranubius that were common and easily recognized and Echium wildpretii, Pterocephalus lasiospermus, Descurainia bourgaeana and Argyranthemum teneriffae which were rather unimpressive as they were not yet flowering but we were compensated by the fabulous views across the ancient caldera.
    [Show full text]
  • AERC Wplist July 2015
    AERC Western Palearctic list, July 2015 About the list: 1) The limits of the Western Palearctic region follow for convenience the limits defined in the “Birds of the Western Palearctic” (BWP) series (Oxford University Press). 2) The AERC WP list follows the systematics of Voous (1973; 1977a; 1977b) modified by the changes listed in the AERC TAC systematic recommendations published online on the AERC web site. For species not in Voous (a few introduced or accidental species) the default systematics is the IOC world bird list. 3) Only species either admitted into an "official" national list (for countries with a national avifaunistic commission or national rarities committee) or whose occurrence in the WP has been published in detail (description or photo and circumstances allowing review of the evidence, usually in a journal) have been admitted on the list. Category D species have not been admitted. 4) The information in the "remarks" column is by no mean exhaustive. It is aimed at providing some supporting information for the species whose status on the WP list is less well known than average. This is obviously a subjective criterion. Citation: Crochet P.-A., Joynt G. (2015). AERC list of Western Palearctic birds. July 2015 version. Available at http://www.aerc.eu/tac.html Families Voous sequence 2015 INTERNATIONAL ENGLISH NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME remarks changes since last edition ORDER STRUTHIONIFORMES OSTRICHES Family Struthionidae Ostrich Struthio camelus ORDER ANSERIFORMES DUCKS, GEESE, SWANS Family Anatidae Fulvous Whistling Duck Dendrocygna bicolor cat. A/D in Morocco (flock of 11-12 suggesting natural vagrancy, hence accepted here) Lesser Whistling Duck Dendrocygna javanica cat.
    [Show full text]
  • ACE Appendix
    CBP and Trade Automated Interface Requirements Appendix: PGA August 13, 2021 Pub # 0875-0419 Contents Table of Changes .................................................................................................................................................... 4 PG01 – Agency Program Codes ........................................................................................................................... 18 PG01 – Government Agency Processing Codes ................................................................................................... 22 PG01 – Electronic Image Submitted Codes .......................................................................................................... 26 PG01 – Globally Unique Product Identification Code Qualifiers ........................................................................ 26 PG01 – Correction Indicators* ............................................................................................................................. 26 PG02 – Product Code Qualifiers ........................................................................................................................... 28 PG04 – Units of Measure ...................................................................................................................................... 30 PG05 – Scientific Species Code ........................................................................................................................... 31 PG05 – FWS Wildlife Description Codes ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Selected Readings on the History and Use of Old Livestock Breeds
    NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL LIBRARY ARCHIVED FILE Archived files are provided for reference purposes only. This file was current when produced, but is no longer maintained and may now be outdated. Content may not appear in full or in its original format. All links external to the document have been deactivated. For additional information, see http://pubs.nal.usda.gov. Selected Readings on the History and Use of Old Livestock Breeds United States Department of Agriculture Selected Readings on the History and Use of Old Livestock Breeds National Agricultural Library September 1991 Animal Welfare Information Center By: Jean Larson Janice Swanson D'Anna Berry Cynthia Smith Animal Welfare Information Center National Agricultural Library U.S. Department of Agriculture And American Minor Breeds Conservancy P.O. Box 477 Pittboro, NC 27312 Acknowledgement: Jennifer Carter for computer and technical support. Published by: U. S. Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Library Animal Welfare Information Center Beltsville, Maryland 20705 Contact us: http://awic.nal.usda.gov/contact-us Web site: www.nal.usda.gov/awic Published in cooperation with the Virginia-Maryland Regional College of Veterinary Medicine Policies and Links Introduction minorbreeds.htm[1/15/2015 2:16:51 PM] Selected Readings on the History and Use of Old Livestock Breeds For centuries animals have worked with and for people. Cattle, goats, sheep, pigs, poultry and other livestock have been an essential part of agriculture and our history as a nation. With the change of agriculture from a way of life to a successful industry, we are losing our agricultural roots. Although we descend from a nation of farmers, few of us can name more than a handful of livestock breeds that are important to our production of food and fiber.
    [Show full text]
  • Introgression and the Fate of Domesticated Genes in a Wild Mammal
    Adaptive Admixture in Soay Sheep 1 1 Introgression and the Fate of Domesticated Genes in a Wild Mammal This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Feulner PGD, Gratten J, Kijas JW, Visscher 2 Population PM, Pemberton JM & Slate J (2013) Introgression and the fate of domesticated genes in a wild mammal population. Molecular Ecology 22: 4210–4221, which has been published in final form at 10.1111/mec.12378. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with 3 Wiley Terms and Conditions for self-archiving. 4 Philine G.D. Feulner*1,2, Jacob Gratten*1,3, James W. Kijas4, Peter M. Visscher1,5, Josephine 5 M. Pemberton6, Jon Slate1 6 *joint first authors 7 8 1 Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, S10 2TN, UK 9 2 Evolutionary Ecology, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Biology, 24306 Ploen, 10 Germany 11 3 The University of Queensland, Queensland Brain Institute, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia 12 4 Livestock Industries, CSIRO, Brisbane, Australia 13 5 The University of Queensland Diamantina Institute, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia 14 6 Institute of Evolutionary Biology, School of Biological Sciences, University of Edinburgh, 15 Edinburgh, EH9 3JT, UK 16 17 Keywords: admixture; adaptive introgression; Soay sheep; domesticated alleles; natural 18 selection 19 20 Corresponding author: 21 Philine Feulner 22 Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Biology 23 August-Thienemann-Str. 2 24 24306 Plön 1 Adaptive Admixture in Soay Sheep 2 25 Germany 26 Tel: +49 (0) 4522 763-228 27 Fax: +49 (0) 4522 763-310 28 [email protected] 29 2 Adaptive Admixture in Soay Sheep 3 30 Abstract 31 When domesticated species are not reproductively isolated from their wild relatives, the opportunity 32 arises for artificially selected variants to be re-introduced into the wild.
    [Show full text]
  • SHEEP Blackface Sheep Breeders' Association
    SHEEP Blackface Sheep Breeders’ Association ................. 48 Tay Street, Perth, Scotland. Scottish Blackface Breeders’ Association ............... 1699 H H Hwy., Willow Springs, MO 65793 U.S.A. Bluefaced Leicester Sheep Breeders Association .. Riverside View, Warwick Rd., Carlisle, CA1 2BS Scotland Border Leicester Sheep Breeders ........................... Greenend, St. Boswells, Melrose, TD6 9ES England California Red Sheep Registry ................................ P.O. Box 468, LaPlata, NM 87418 U.S.A. British Charollais, Sheep Society ............................ Youngmans Rd., Wymondham, Norfolk NR18 0RR England Mouton Charollais, Texel & Romanov .................... U.P.R.A., 36, rue du Général Leclerc, 71120 Charolles, France American Cheviot Sheep Society, Inc ..................... R.R. 1, Box 100, Clarks Hill, IN 47930 U.S.A. Cheviot Sheep Society ............................................ 1 Bridge St., Hawick, Scotland North American Clun Forest Association ................ W 5855 Muhlum Rd., Holmen, WI 54636 U.S.A. Columbia Sheep Breeders’ Association of P.O. Box 272, Upper Sandusky, OH America 43351 U.S.A. American Corriedale Association, Inc. .................... Box 391, Clay City, IL 62824 U.S.A. Australian Corriedale Sheep Breeders’ Sydney, N.S.W., Australia. Association Corriedale Sheep Society, Inc. ............................... 154 Hereford St., Christchurch, New Zealand. American Cotswold Record Association ................. 18 Elm St., P.O. Box 59, Plympton, MA 02367 U.S.A. Cotswold Breeders Association .............................
    [Show full text]