genericHumanName1 t1_j3izbac wrote
Reply to comment by beebeereebozo in Farmland bird populations bounce back when farms devote 10% of their land to nature-friendly measures. Ten-year study measured changes in the abundance of farmland birds on land managed under bird-focused schemes, as well as land no bird-friendly farming initiatives. by Wagamaga
Why not some patchwork of the two? Even if you minimize and isolate the amount of land needed, it'll still be a lot and stay connected to wildlife. It is a good idea to make the agricultural land more wildlife friendly.
beebeereebozo t1_j3koa2v wrote
It's a matter of best use. For instance, if my farm is 100% Class I soil and I have good water, devoting 10% to "nature" means 10% less production and additional cost for preserving that land applied against productive land. Then, that production needs to be made up somewhere else. What is of greater environmental benefit, a 10% patchwork that really isn't "natural", reduces efficiency, and increases cost of food, or preserving contiguous swaths of land in its natural state?
Now, if a significant portion of my land was marginal for farming and there was an incentive for maintaining it as natural habitat, that's a different matter.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments