This story in the New Scientist highlights how intensive farming and trees go hand in hand. Despite the scepticism in the comments, a large number of species, including trees is necessary for successful, sustainable, intensive farming.
In many parts of the world the traditional agriculture is very intensive, what we in the west would now call Permaculture. Forest gardens are a good example. In these situations there is a diverse number of species, all providing different foods, useful products and maintaining the system.
Our conventional monocultures, are different in that they produce alot of very few crops – but are actually less intensive, in that the total output is less.
We often fail to recognise very intensive agriculture, such as that practiced in pre-colombian Amazon, because of its sheer diversity.
New Scientist 25th August Intensive farming good for forests.
Intensive farming good for forests
– August 27, 2009Posted in: Permaculture
Hi Katherine … reading your Eco-living pages with interest.
With all due respect, I am wondering (as an environmental scientist) whether you have your definitions of various forms of agriculture slightly confused? My understanding of intensive farming (agriculture) is of a system that is characterised by high inputs of energy, capital, labour, synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, extensive use of heavy machinery and so on. A wholly unsustainable and ecologically damaging process in the long term. You equate intensive farming with Permaculture.
My understanding of permaculture is of a holistic system based on core ethics of:
Earthcare – recognising that Earth is the source of all life, that Earth is our valuable home, and that we are a part of Earth, not apart from it.
Peoplecare – supporting and helping each other to change to ways of living that do not harm ourselves or the planet, and to develop healthy societies.
Fairshare (or placing limits on consumption) – ensuring that Earth’s limited resources are used in ways that are equitable and wise.
I am unable to understand how intensive farming is in any way similar to Permaculture. As regards the article in the New Scientist … out of curiosity I read the original paper, which does not say quite the same thing as the New Scientist article. What it does say is that the study does not make any analysis of the quality or appropriateness of the crown cover (which is what was measured by landsat) and gives no indication of the biomass contained in these trees. Much of the crown cover recorded in the tropics for example, will include the ecological disaster that is palm oil plantations. In this case very intensive farming and trees do go hand in hand … millions of acres of ancient rain forest that has sequestered millions of tonnes of carbon from the atmosphere has been destroyed to make way for millions of oil palm trees that are all the same species, intensively farmed, and have destroyed biodiversity in great swathes. Just because you have crown cover, doesn’t mean it is sustainable, and certainly doesn’t mean it is ecologically diverse or sound.
Original post was a strem of consiousness so will revist and explore a bit more.
Permaculture founder Bill Mollison included “Small-scale intensive systems; including plant stacking and time stacking.” as one of the principles of Permaculture.
Definition of intensive – there are multiple including:
Thorough
To be successful the design process has to be thorough.
Demanding, requiring a great amount.
Where as industrial agriculture is energy intensive – using fossil fuels, and pre-industrial western agriculture was labour intensive, permaculture is design and information intensive.
Highly concentrated.
As opposed to extensive. Permaculture is definitley intensive in that you get a well designed system you get a high yield in a small amount of space.
Good point about the palm oil.
A few references:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permaculture
http://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/perma.html
http://www.permaculture.org.uk/knowledge-base/principles