Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

beebeereebozo t1_j3g294m wrote

Reply to comment by [deleted] 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

I see it very simply: Minimize the amount of land needed for food production, minimize the amount of land converted to ag and other commercial uses. That mean intensive ag zones and untouched native habitat, not some patchwork of the two.

1

genericHumanName1 t1_j3izbac wrote

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.

3

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.

1