• Tuesday, May 29, 2012

Previous

Next

Y Gwyndwn, the Unplowed Land

November 16, 2010, 10:23 am

Doug Caulkins

Doug Caulkins looks over recreated prairie on the farm he named Y Gwyndwn.

Grinnell, Iowa — Two deer broke the November stillness, materializing out of the tall, dry grass 20 yards in front of us and leaping across the prairie toward the treeline. Doug Caulkins stared after them. He had been telling me that the tall prairie grasses and flowers among which we stood have such deep roots—six, eight, 10 feet—that they have no trouble surviving the fires on which the prairie depends for regeneration.

Prairie fires were originally set by lightning—and later by Native Americans hoping to attract buffalo for hunting by creating areas of tender new grass growth. Now the fires are set by Mr. Caulkins, an emeritus professor of anthropology at Grinnell College, as part of his effort to return more than half of this 240-acre farm to prairie.

It’s a difficult, long-term undertaking, he said. He began by buying seed from a farmer who burns sections of prairie he owns every spring and runs a combine through it every fall. The farmer sells bags that contain seeds from more than 100 varieties of prairie plants.

Early one winter, Mr. Caulkins spread the seed across the fields he wanted to restore to prairie, then he let the fields grow up. He kept after them from year to year, setting fires that killed whatever wasn’t a prairie plant. “After eight years, some areas are looking more like they should,” he told me as he drove me around the place in his green Ford Ranger pickup. There are other fields he hasn’t gotten to yet.

Doug CaulkinBurning isn’t his only prairie-tending job, either. During the decades when the whole property was farmed, the absence of fires permitted competing trees to grow up around the fire-resistant oaks that originally lived among the prairie grasses. The new trees shaded the oaks’ lower branches, killing many of them, so Mr. Caulkins has been cutting down the interlopers. In other areas, he’s been planting oaks where none have grown lately. And in one space, he’s recreating a wetland.

Why go to so much trouble? For one thing, he said, “Iowa has just become a giant storm sewer.” Because rain falls at times and in amounts that are inconvenient for farmers trying to get tractors into their fields, the farmers create tile drainage systems that carry water to streams and rivers as soon as it falls, contributing to flooding. Prairie plants, on the other hand, retain water beautifully. “Iowa is the most human-modified state in the nation,” he added.

For another thing, modern agriculture has made Iowa a near-monoculture, at least in plant terms, where there was once—before the prairie was plowed up—a “perennial polyculture.” Mr. Caulkins said it would be ridiculous to expect to return the whole state to prairie (although cattle can be grazed on prairie and then sold). But it isn’t ridiculous to turn land that doesn’t work well for large-scale farming back into the kind of landscape that was here before the the 19th century? “We need islands, and preferably corridors, of prairie,” he said.

Mr. Caulkins practices what he preaches. He and his wife have owned this farm a few miles south of Grinnell for about 10 years, naming it Y Gwyndwn (pronounced ah-gwin-doon). The name is Welsh for “the unplowed land,” and is meant to honor the Caulkins’ intent and their Welsh heritage as well as the Welsh immigrants who moved to this part of Iowa. There’s no house on the farm any more, although there are several sheds and what Mr. Caulkins calls a “cabin-ette” on skids (the skids make the structures “temporary,” and therefore not taxable).

About 130 acres—the land that’s being returned to prairie—are enrolled in the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Conservation Reserve Program. The rest, which is not eligible for the reserve program because it’s good farmland, is leased to nearby farmers. The Caulkins are also among 10 Grinnell families who together own a 629-acre spread elsewhere—much of that farm, too, is also being returned to prairie.

“This is one of those all-too-rare things in which you get rewarded for doing good,” Mr. Caulkins said. Besides the rent he receives from leasing part of the land, the reserve program pays him about $10,000 a year for the acreage enrolled in it. That money goes toward paying off the mortgage, and there are tax advantages to boot.

He’s been laboring here long enough to see some results. “Everything works better the more it’s like it was in 1840,” he said. A sedge meadow helps filter runoff from a neighboring farmer’s field before it reaches a stream on the farm, for instance, and a beekeeper keeps hives along the the old farm lane because bees like the many prairie flowers.

“What we get from the prairie is a sense of marvel at diversity,” he told me as we drove slowly back down the old farm lane toward the gravel road. “We have to develop an aesthetic that says diversity is beautiful.”

Prairie

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

  • Print
  • Comment (9)

9 Responses to Y Gwyndwn, the Unplowed Land

jffoster - November 16, 2010 at 11:38 pm

A Feistriad Bienmiller a Chaulkins,

Diolch yn fawr!
‘Thank you greatly’.

osholes - November 17, 2010 at 7:31 am

Prairie restoration is not new, but it is also not easy and all who do it should be applauded. Perhaps the most important point in the whole piece is the nearly total transformation of America’s prairie into cropland. Prof. Caulkins is absolutely correct that the native vegetation of Iowa is almost all gone, yet hardly anyone seems to care. I’m glad he does.

dthornton9 - November 17, 2010 at 9:24 am

Isn’t this just wonderful!? All of Iowa should be prairie again. I’m so glad my tax dollars are going to support this kind of thing. Not.

Oops! Guess he and his buddies forgot about needing to feed most of the world, in an efficient and productive way. Sorry, all you folks who are expecting Iowa farmers to feed you, you’ll just have to fend for yourself.

About what we expect coming out of Grinnell.

22228715 - November 17, 2010 at 9:56 am

If dthornton9 is concerned that this project is putting a significant hole in the breadbasket, I would have to suspect that he/she has never driven I-80 from Ohio to Denver. (Especially the last 8 hours or so.)

mmcknight - November 17, 2010 at 10:52 am

dthornton9–if by “all you folks” you mean all you pigs and cows, then yes, you’re right, several fewer will be able to eat Iowa corn and soybeans. But ruining topsoil to feed under-digestible grains to animals who will then provide far fewer calories to humans than the plants that could’ve grown in that topsoil–it’s not, as you suggest, an efficient or productive way to feed the world. Nor is feeding the world corn syrup, which is the other main commodity produced from Iowa cropland.

-an Iowan

packard - November 17, 2010 at 12:02 pm

As a restorationist working in Wisconsin (and Grinnell alumnus), I have given a good deal of thought to the issue of taking farmland out of production for the purpose of ecological restoration. I encourage anyone interested in the subject to read my article in the January 2010 issue of the Faville Grove Sanctuary newsletter titled, “Why a hungry planet needs more prairie.” (http://www.madisonaudubon.org/audubon/sanctuaries/favillegrove/newsletter.asp)

-Roger Packard

dziuk - November 18, 2010 at 10:21 am

The world’s food reserve would last less than 40 days if all food production were stopped today. Predictions of need for food in the coming decades require maximum use and efficiency of available land.To quote Mark Twain, “The Lord makes more people but doesn’t make more land, buy land” Reverting crop land back to nonedible prairie doesn’t make long term sense. It may be “nice” to have the luxury of grass and flowers but pragmatically and realistically it is not good planning for the future.Philip Dziuk

citizenship - November 19, 2010 at 7:17 pm

Here’s a link to some restoration work being down out west: http://www.southsoundprairies.org/ . For you who may enjoy a bit of irony, look at what is being done thanks to the preservation efforts at Fort Lewis.

dougcaulkins - November 24, 2010 at 9:23 am

dthornton9 seems to have missed these sentences in the story: “Mr. Caulkins said it would be ridiculous to expect to return the whole state to prairie… But it isn’t ridiculous to turn land that doesn’t work well for large-scale farming back into the kind of landscape that was here before the 19th century.” When I bought the farm, the land was cheap because the corporation that owned it couldn’t make money raising corn and beans on an industrial scale.
In contrast, we have raised crops only on the 23 acres of the farm that has a high corn suitability rating (CSR) and is not highly erodible. The rest of the land is exhausted, badly eroded, almost devoid of topsoil, has a low CSR, and has steep C and D slopes. Taking this land out of production and rebuilding the soil with 50 to 100 years of continuous prairie growth, contrary to Philip Dziuk’s notion, IS good planning for the future since it will create new top soil, rich with organic content, that might be needed for future agriculture, when the rising cost of chemical inputs will have made contemporary agricultural practices uneconomical. Iowa has lost over half of the rich topsoil that so excited my farming ancestors in the 19th century. Rebuilding the soil that is not needed for current production is a rational strategy.
Yes, dthornton9, thinking seriously about sustainability and the future is what you would expect of Grinnell. The college recently held a conference on the future of corn in Iowa. Many changes in our current commodity agricultural practices are underway. In the meantime my small conservation area is allowing the soil to recover and providing habitat for native fauna, such as wild turkey. Have a great Thanksgiving everyone! Doug Caulkins