Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: txhurl
I really don't know why there weren't a lot of trees on the prairie, but there weren't — at least not in the numbers out east. It could be rainfall and the soil conditions just don't promote forests that are a prime source of building materials. There were trees on the prairie and some scraggly forests. However, they were not extensive so that all-wood frame houses could be built in large numbers. As the railroads moved west, they brought building materials from the east to to the prairies. As soon as more and better materials were available, the sod huts and houses went away.
25 posted on 11/25/2011 11:55:56 AM PST by MasterGunner01 (To err is human; to forgive is not our policy. -- SEAL Team SIX)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]


To: MasterGunner01

I’ve just always puzzled over if Centex can grow nearly 100% forest of cedar, oak and elm over NO dirt - just limestone - and hardly any water why the Plains can’t figure out a way.


28 posted on 11/25/2011 12:30:31 PM PST by txhurl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]

To: MasterGunner01; txhurl

I believe it was because of the prevalence of prairie fires. Killed the trees, but the grasses loved it.

My home state, Nebraska, was originally pretty much devoid of trees, except along the river bottoms. But they have planted millions of them over the last century and a half. They do fine without the naturally-occurring prairie fires to take them out.


36 posted on 11/25/2011 1:25:58 PM PST by EternalVigilance (Newt Gingrich: The go to guy when you're down to the bottom of the bottom of the barrel...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson