Trudeau 2030

[seldomseen]

Nature takes over very quickly here. If you stop farming a piece of land trees would be starting back in a couple years and after 50 years you would mature forest.
Most of the land around here has tree lines surrounding most fields that is tall mature trees. When this land was settled those lines were the first cleared and fences were built. As long as there was cattle the lines stayed clear but when the cows left the trees came back very quickly and young people don't even realize those tree lines were once cleared.
Urban people want to live in a developed world and so do I.

[seldomseen]

We own the land that once had the Two rivers Bible School on it. Built starting in 1934 and closed in 1957 because of flooding. At the time of closing 185 students and teachers all lived there with all the infrastructure that went with that.
Walk through there today and you would never know it was there. Nature has completely erased all signs of the once busy school and it only takes about 60 years!

[Blaithin]

Blaithin, you likely know but the Rough Fescue you talk about is more likely better known by farmers as Prairie Wool.

I do agree that there is very little native land left. I have 90 acres that has never been broke, and never will as long as I'm around. I do use it for pasture but I kinda feel the beauty and diversity is worth something to me. Wild flowers of crocus, woodland lilies, lady slippers and many more endangered plants is pretty cool to have just outside my door. Having said that I also have some very high producing crop land that I would argue also supports nature from earthworms to birds and critters that all call it home. Nature is constantly changing, evolving and adapting. Biggest threat to nature is not farmers because we can work togeather, its urban sprawl that is the biggest problem.

Yes, I grew up with it as Prairie Wool. It wasn’t until I moved away from the farm that I learned it was a fescue.

Urban sprawl is terrible of course. But I don’t think the fact that something is more damaging should prevent farmers from working to improve methods. The last few decades have seen huge changes that benefit the environment, there’s no reason it can’t keep happening. The hard part is making the changes beneficial economically as well. As soon as something makes economic sense a farmer is more likely to try it. If it only makes sense environmentally then it’s less likely. Can’t blame them for that, just need to figure out a way to get environment to translate to economic.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

This conversation about improving land has to start from the premise that it is a zero sum game. Any acre I reclaim from Bush or Slough is an acre that doesn't need to be taken from a rain forest, or irrigated with unsustainable water supplies, or 3 or more acres of arid dryland prone to erosion.

[Oliver88]

There is a quarter near here which was taken out of production 25 or more years agoby a conservation group to protect the sensitive springs within. It was very productive farmland, great deep black mellow soil. After all these years it is still mostly thistles, and a few random trees that they have been planting.

I wonder what this conservation group was trying to accomplish by allowing the land to be taken over by thistle? Sound almost as competent as DU.

Why didn’t conservation groups buy more land in the southern prairies for Prairie Wool habitats when Land was cheap? Now after the rise in land costs this will be quite a challenge but for the right price I’m sure many 60-90 year old ranchers without children interested in agriculture will be interested in selling.