3 ms·

I got quite deep into the article, but couldn't get through the morass of PR to understand the basic idea of their agroforestry initiative. At one point, they a

I got quite deep into the article, but couldn't get through the morass of PR to understand the basic idea of their agroforestry initiative. At one point, they actually write that a lightbulb went off... but what is the new idea? Is there anyone familiar with this field who tell a clear story of what their idea is, and how planting trees in existing farms will work in practice to accomplish all the results they predict? I'm sure it's an interesting story.

cagenut 6y ago
I just so happened to watch this youtube this week that answers that (at a high level): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEZvF68sytc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEZvF68sytc Part of the reason its so difficult to summarize is because its about taking a systems approach to the farming/biology and therefore it is infinitely varied in practice.
freeqaz 6y ago
I think there are a few benefits that they're (poorly) trying to articulate in the article, so I'll fill in with my own (biased) thoughts. :) - Growing trees in rows alongside feed crops (like hay) is more profitable for farmers because they gain additional income from fruit trees + lumber sales. - More trees that get to grow pulls CO2 from the atmosphere and is good for the environment. - There is a symbiotic relationship with the soil and trees that is beneficial for the health of other plants. This also helps with soil blowing away due to wind barriers + roots holding it down. Less erosion. - Pests can't travel as easily between "segmented" fields of crops because they are obstructed by trees. This helps mitigate risk for farmers. - Higher income per acre when you intermix trees in the fields where livestock graze. You can go harvest the fruit trees while the grass grows for the cows to graze on. The problem is that these changes require time to make. Trees don't sprout up overnight and that's a problem for farmers, but there is a big environmental incentive for it. Maybe the government should step in to incubate these kinds of projects? They may be the only institution with the long-term economic incentive to do so.
- mikeg8 6y ago
  This is a great answer, thank you for articulating. My only disagreement would be in regards to government being the only institution with the economic incentive to do invest here, long-term. From my understanding of the federal governments involvement in agriculture subsidies, the government seems to be much more in support of the entrenched, large-scale industrial farming systems. I hope for a future where our department of agriculture comes around to support these holistic farming practices.
  - danans 6y ago
    > My only disagreement would be in regards to government being the only institution with the economic incentive to do invest here, long-term. If not government what other sort of institution do you think has the ability to make such civilization scale investments, with the associated short-term risks? Corporations won't do it, nor will venture capital, private equity, investment banks, retail investors. What's left? > From my understanding of the federal governments involvement in agriculture subsidies, the government seems to be much more in support of the entrenched, large-scale industrial farming systems. Which kind of demonstrates that it's capable of supporting a long-term investment in agriculture, but that it is perhaps putting that support behind the wrong approach considering the threat of climate change.

cagenut 6y ago

I just so happened to watch this youtube this week that answers that (at a high level): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEZvF68sytc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEZvF68sytc Part of the reason its so difficult to summarize is because its about taking a systems approach to the farming/biology and therefore it is infinitely varied in practice.

freeqaz 6y ago

I think there are a few benefits that they're (poorly) trying to articulate in the article, so I'll fill in with my own (biased) thoughts. :) - Growing trees in rows alongside feed crops (like hay) is more profitable for farmers because they gain additional income from fruit trees + lumber sales. - More trees that get to grow pulls CO2 from the atmosphere and is good for the environment. - There is a symbiotic relationship with the soil and trees that is beneficial for the health of other plants. This also helps with soil blowing away due to wind barriers + roots holding it down. Less erosion. - Pests can't travel as easily between "segmented" fields of crops because they are obstructed by trees. This helps mitigate risk for farmers. - Higher income per acre when you intermix trees in the fields where livestock graze. You can go harvest the fruit trees while the grass grows for the cows to graze on. The problem is that these changes require time to make. Trees don't sprout up overnight and that's a problem for farmers, but there is a big environmental incentive for it. Maybe the government should step in to incubate these kinds of projects? They may be the only institution with the long-term economic incentive to do so.

mikeg8 6y ago
This is a great answer, thank you for articulating. My only disagreement would be in regards to government being the only institution with the economic incentive to do invest here, long-term. From my understanding of the federal governments involvement in agriculture subsidies, the government seems to be much more in support of the entrenched, large-scale industrial farming systems. I hope for a future where our department of agriculture comes around to support these holistic farming practices.
- danans 6y ago
  > My only disagreement would be in regards to government being the only institution with the economic incentive to do invest here, long-term. If not government what other sort of institution do you think has the ability to make such civilization scale investments, with the associated short-term risks? Corporations won't do it, nor will venture capital, private equity, investment banks, retail investors. What's left? > From my understanding of the federal governments involvement in agriculture subsidies, the government seems to be much more in support of the entrenched, large-scale industrial farming systems. Which kind of demonstrates that it's capable of supporting a long-term investment in agriculture, but that it is perhaps putting that support behind the wrong approach considering the threat of climate change.