10 ms·

Though forests burn, trees retake farmland globally as agroforestry advances

193 points by ToFab123 6y ago

acd 6y ago
We need to have trees mixed with diverse crops. Trees will provide nutrients for the crops through a network of micro fungus which are living in biodiversity with the trees roots. Trees will naturally also cool the close surroundings so that it does not get too warm needed due to global warming. Already a lot of fields in Europe are not active due too over production of crops. We should probably mix trees and farmland and open up some of those closed fields. Trees will take some capacity of the land but that can be replaced by opening up closed areas. “ Roots take in water, and nutrients, from the soil. Without help from fungus for better uptake of nutrients, trees would be small or would die. Most trees have a favorite species of fungus that they associate with for this purpose.” Source: https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree Now say that you mix crops and trees then you probably can find trees and crops which mix well together. The crop will side load get a boost of nutrients from the trees fungus.
- genericone 6y ago
  The key is crop diversity because brassica plants (cabbage, broccoli, brussel sprouts, etc) are not helped by mycorhizal fungi at all, and in abundance it might even be detrimental to them. Some mycorhizal fungi types will destroy some species of plants in order to benefit their species of choice, going so far as to tap directly into other plant roots to use them as nutrition.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago
  One issues with trees is that they block sunlight. Thus if the type of crop you are growing needs a lot of sunlight, you are going to have problems. Furthermore, since the amount of photosynthesis is dependent on the amount of sunlight, it is likely that your staple crops would be the ones that required a lot of sunlight, since those are usually calorie dense.
  - quixoticelixer- 6y ago
    It depends on the crop, but many crops don't suffer much, some even do better from the additional shade and shelter.
    - AlotOfReading 6y ago
      That doesn't seem like a particularly compelling answer. By varying the crop, you can grow things virtually anywhere. In practice though, people want to grow the things they're familiar with. Shade presents a problem with at least three of most important crop families: grasses, pulses, and nightshades. Their wild ancestors preferred sunny, warm environments without a lot of shade.
      - quixoticelixer- 6y ago
        And some of those will do fine in mild shade, this is far from full canopy cover.
        AlotOfReading 6y ago
        I'm imagining something along the order of wide-spaced modern orchards, which have tree spacing of ~20-40ft. I wouldn't exactly call those "mild shade". I just don't see any benefits beyond companion planting with a groundcover crop like cucurbits, which would be far easier to mechanize.
  - jillesvangurp 6y ago
    This article is about countries bordering on the Sahara using trees to help nurture back desert no good for growing anything back to healthy farm land. There's a notion there of too much sun light preventing growth because it dries out the land and kills off what remains of the soil turning all of it into desert unable to retain any water; UV radiation is not great for microbial life. Using trees to restore water balance and regulate temperatures, seems like it works. We have similar processes going on in industrial farming in North America and Europe where we have been slowly depleting and giving up on what used to be healthy farm land. E.g. large parts of Spain are very arid but that wasn't always the case. Likewise parts of Italy and France are drying out because of intensive farming. It's less of an issue in more Northern parts of Europe but even there, decades of monoculture have created problems. The message here is simple: it's a revertible process and it's a relatively quick process that doesn't necessarily involve much more than a bit of pruning, nurturing, and being mindful of the way nature works locally. It seems most of the complexity and cost is related to creating the right incentives, removing bureaucratic obstacles, and educating people a bit. Scaling this up seems like it's worthwhile. In most places where this could work, people have very little left to lose and a lot to gain. If Africans in the middle of nowhere, far away from modern infrastructure can pull this off in some of the harshest environments in the world with little or no means, others can do that too. E.g. the Mid west and Texas come to mind in the US. Or the plains of Spain, which used to have forest and now looks more like the Sahara.
- quixoticelixer- 6y ago
  Trees don't provide nutrients to crops through fungus, if anything it is the opposite.
  - captainredbeard 6y ago
    They encourage mycorrhizae growth, which is probably what they mean by “fungus”.
    - quixoticelixer- 6y ago
      Yes but the mycorrhizae from trees usually can't infect crops
- donw 6y ago
  This is actually an area I plan to invest time in after moving back to the US next year. Specifically, on automation-enhanced sustainable microfarming. Crop diversity is a pretty key part of that, as is appropriate fungal and insect management. Avoiding chemical pesticides is hard by the way -- in my current (tiny) garden, it's been the only way I was able to keep the aphids and mites from absolutely destroying my jalapeños. Ladybugs would be preferable, but are incredibly hard to come by here. Home and/or municipal composting adds another level to this, and it'd be great to get to the point where a large percentage of packaging was directly compostable. That'll be tricky -- you don't want the packaging to break down until after the lifetime of the food inside it -- but likely doable as manufacturing advances.
  - ehnto 6y ago
    > Home and/or municipal composting adds another level to this, and it'd be great to get to the point where a large percentage of packaging was directly compostable. That'll be tricky -- you don't want the packaging to break down until after the lifetime of the food inside it -- but likely doable as manufacturing advances. I think we should change our expectations for food shopping/packaging and shelf life. If we move away from an expectation for year-round availability, and crazy long shelf life, we can do away with all of the shipping, warehousing and packaging that is derived from that demand. In regards to carbon, packaging is non-trivial, but I think it is second to the shipping involved.
    - donw 6y ago
      > If we move away from an expectation for year-round availability So, here's a question: do you think you could convince people to give up smartphones? Because I think it'd be about the same level of difficulty. People really, really, really don't like to surrender convenience or comfort. I realize you aren't advocating this -- you have great intentions -- but crazy long shelf lives keep a lot of people from starving. I'm interested in the micro-farming idea primarily because (a) I like the idea of adding more redundancy into the food supply; (b) because fresh food tastes amazing; and (c) because it's an interesting problem to solve. But I'd rather see that we roll the clock forward, and develop better technology to enable both year-round availability and healthy ultra-long-life foods, while at the same time deploying indefinitely sustainable agricultural practices.
- jsperson 6y ago
  Citation please. In my fields the worst yield is near the trees. Why? Because the trees suck up all the water and nutrients. This is for corn, soybeans, wheat, and milo.
  - tfehring 6y ago
    https://www.iaea.org/publications/8181/management-of-agroforestry-systems-for-enhancing-resource-use-efficiency-and-crop-productivity https://www.iaea.org/publications/8181/management-of-agrofor... The abstract seems to validate both the parent comment's claims and your experience: > The studies show that the integration of trees and crops can increase resource use efficiency, but careful management and a system design tailored to local climatic and soil conditions are required if competition and consequent reduction in crop yields are to be avoided.
bstanfield15 6y ago
If you live in the UK, you might be interested in helping crowdfund this new regenerative agroforestry project in Scotland: https://projectwren.com/projects/regenerative-agroforestry https://projectwren.com/projects/regenerative-agroforestry
- bmsleight_ 6y ago
  For profit company, but asking for crowd funding with little in return. I love to support - but ultimately I am volunteering my money for their profit margin.
hikerclimb 6y ago
I don’t think this will work... as usually we just destroy everything...
sigmaprimus 6y ago
I have been planting and tending to trees in a forest that I purchased a few years ago. On top of that I have been actively building organic soil in my fields by top dressing with compost and organic cover crops. That being said, recently I have been feeling that all my efforts are for not, sure I might be making the world a better place in my own small way but for what purpose? Every day I watch as the people around me exploit the environment to enrich themselves while I get left behind. So lately the little voice in my head has been whispering "You own this land, why not clear cut the trees, make a couple hundred grand off the raw logs, buy a tractor to disc the land that's left and grow out a few years of annual grains then sell off the spent pesticide laiden land and live the rest of my life in a condo with a big bank account." I know this sound selfish but why should I just scrape by working my fingers to the bone, whilst the rest of my community sells out? I feel like someone shit in the pool and I'm going to be the last one to get out. I guess my point is every inch of soil I build and every tree I protect is like money in the bank, I can cash in at any time I want. The truth is every day I get more tired and feel the pull to cash it all in for my own selfish gains.
- ip26 6y ago
  You could start a rotation of timber harvesting. Then you're collecting interest on that money in the bank, without clearcutting your capital. In the big picture you'll get more value out of your asset that way.
  - sigmaprimus 6y ago
    Thats a good idea, unfortunately most of the trees worth harvesting are 60+ years old, im not sure I have enough years to do that. Truth is I was having a weak moment when I wrote that comment, I dont think there is a homesteader that hasn't share my thoughts at some point. Sorry for the whining rant!! Chin up!
    - ip26 6y ago
      Once you establish a track record with a clear path forward to perpetual annual yield, whenever you want to sell the property it can be valued based on the projected ongoing yield, even if you don't personally harvest any trees you yourself have planted. Just trying to provide a middle pathway that compromises between "cash it all out" and "leave it pristine & don't touch anything" :)
alltakendamned 6y ago
One nuance to make is that having trees doesn't necessarily equal a forest. Lots of agroforestry ends up being a monoculture with very limited biodiversity.
- quixoticelixer- 6y ago
  I mean it literally can not be a monoculture, for it to be agroforestry there has to be at least two species
  - OJFord 6y ago
    I don't know anything about this, but that seems pedantic? Is a duoculture significantly better than a monoculture?
    - Sawamara 6y ago
      Yes. Many invasive species/pathogens are not as likely to devastate the whole area when they do not have a single clear pathway to infect.
    - dr_dshiv 6y ago
      Two species are at least twice as good as 1, right?
    - bobthepanda 6y ago
      Not really, you still have a lack of biodiversity. Japan had a government policy of only reforesting with two types of trees for economic purposes, in some cases replacing natural forest, and as a result there's a lack of biodiversity and Japan now has allergy seasons that are estimated to cost $2B a year: https://ensia.com/features/japan-reforestation-deforestation-lessons-indonesia-china/ https://ensia.com/features/japan-reforestation-deforestation... To add insult to injury, the economic rationale for planting lots of fast-growing wood never really panned out, because it turned out with even Japanese oversupply of timber that it was cheaper to import it from SEA.
davedx 6y ago
Time to give another plug to https://projectwren.com https://projectwren.com -- one of their biggest CO2 compensation projects is tree planting in Kenya: https://projectwren.com/update/2/may-2020 https://projectwren.com/update/2/may-2020 Support it!
AngryData 6y ago
Well, there is the problem that the reduction in farmland utilization is reliant upon cheap artificial fertilizer, which is currently produced using natural gas as an energy/chemical source, which causes pollution.
- dr_dshiv 6y ago
  This life cycle analysis paper shows that 90% of co2 output from fertilizer is offset by increased biomass production. This is important nuance. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479718311186 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030147971...
  - henearkr 6y ago
    So it's a net non-zero CO2 footprint? That would rather be against fertilizer then.
    - dr_dshiv 6y ago
      Oh yeah, growing food is definitely one of the biggest sources of emissions! 26%. But many things besides fertilizer. Reviewed here. Poore, J., & Nemecek, T. (2018). Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science, 360(6392), 987-992.
      - henearkr 6y ago
        Thanks a lot for the reference! We are an animal species literally growing on fossil fuels.
        dr_dshiv 6y ago
        Yes, that is correct. Really important to get the transition right. Then we just have to deal with creating a post scarcity political economy :)
    - Nasrudith 6y ago
soniman 6y ago
As a tree-lover this is a heartwarming story but it has to be put in context: the population of Niger will double by 2050. The country will be growing by almost a million people per year. How will it support all those people who will be living on the edge of starvation? And how many of those desperate people will be tempted to cut down the trees?
- rimliu 6y ago
  https://xkcd.com/605/ https://xkcd.com/605/
  - soniman 6y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_momentum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_momentum
dr_dshiv 6y ago
This article is based on assumptions of global and local ecosystem health. Quantifying ecosystem health is fascinating, important and very difficult. Etymologically, health is based on wholeness. In classical Greek philosophy, health is harmony, which can be defined as integrated diversity. Can we therefore measure the diversity and integrity of ecosystems? Bio-Diversity measures in ecosystems seem easy, but are actually quite complicated (two species of pine the same as pine and oak, or pine and rare moss?) — and measures of ecosystem integrity are even harder. But not hard as in impossible, hard as in more scientists should be working on it. Here's one recent paper. Vieweger, A., & Döring, T. F. (2015). Assessing health in agriculture–towards a common research framework for soils, plants, animals, humans and ecosystems. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 95(3), 438-446.
GuB-42 6y ago
> Agroforestry is an ancient agricultural technique being rediscovered all over the world as limitations of the globe’s highly industrialized agriculture become obvious. What are the "obvious limitations"? There are many problems with today's industrialized agriculture, but I wouldn't call the limitations obvious. The article says it doesn't work well in Africa for instance, and I believe it, but isn't it just because we don't have the proper GMOs/fertilizers/pesticides for this kind of soil due to a lack of interest? Is there some "obvious limitation" that makes it impossible. I am not criticizing agroforestry. It is not like I want pesticides, artificial fertilizers and lifeless fields. But they cite 1920 as the starting year for the beginning of modern agriculture. During that time, the world population went from 2 to 7 billion. If we want do bring back ancient techniques, we have to do it in that context. I often see the forest treated as an example of an efficient for of agriculture, and sure, forests are really dense with life. However, they are like closed systems, everything that is produced by the forest is used by the forest. Now, what we want is a patch of land from which we can pull as much as possible in order to feed our cities. There may be trees, but it won't be like a natural forest. To make things clear again, I don't view agroforestry as a bad thing. If it allows good yields on previously unexploited land and does it so while preserving biodiversity, what's not to love. I am just skeptical when considered as a substitute for modern industrial agriculture.
- hutzlibu 6y ago
  "However, they are like closed systems, everything that is produced by the forest is used by the forest." No, they are not. It depends on the type of forest of course, but in general forests produces excess. We get oxygen out of them. Wood. Meat. Mushrooms. Berries. Herbs .. and recreation. Also forests grow with the right conditions and they can even create the right conditions to grow, if not bulldozed down, or dried up, or set on fire. But I agree very much with the point, that it is a very annoying idea, to suddenly be able to feed all the people of the earth with ancient methods, that were not at all able to feed so much people. (my bet is on highly automated intensive greenhouses, btw.)
  - rimliu 6y ago
    we get little oxygen from the mature forests.
foxhop 6y ago
It's not just for farmland folks. You can have you own mini food forest in your backyard in the span of 5 years. You just have to start. Check out my YouTube channel [1] if you find yourself wanting to learn more. I'm trying to get 1,000 subs to unlock mobile streaming so I can go live during weekends while tending to an establishing food forest. [1] https://www.youtube.com/c/RussellBallestrini https://www.youtube.com/c/RussellBallestrini
- mason55 6y ago
  Do you know of any resources for places on water restriction? We’re moving out of the city in a few weeks to an area that allows for zero outdoor water usage other than roof catchment. I’ve got some native wildflower areas planned out but haven’t been able to find much on drought tolerant fruits and vegetable. The couple suggestions I found pointed me towards varieties that didn’t turn out to be drought tolerant once I researched further. We’ll be in an area that gets a fair amount of precip (typical afternoon t storms) but could go a week or two with rain.
  - foxhop 6y ago
    Water catchment for rain is important. Currently I use hugelkultur [1] (might not work in your context), swales of various widths/lengths/depths to hold extra rains from running off. I've modified my driveway to pull water off the road and into my system. I also use grey water; I have a sink in the garden where I wash produce and it drains into a mini-swale to feed strawberries, onions, and a couple plum trees. I'm also considering rigging up an outside shower for the same reason to water another area. My goal is to eventually get some IBC totes to hold roof runoff. I'm also considering purchasing a small pump since I have access to a fast flowing 15 foot deep stream. One other thing to note, you'd be surprised just how resilient trees, srubs, and plants are to water stresses, if you use enough mulch. The soil life will thank you as well. Additionally, once you establish a system it tends toward self-renewal, planting perennial trees, shrubs, vines, and ground cover resolves water issues in most contexts. The biomass (both alive and dead) will accumulate and help with water retention. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%BCgelkultur https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%BCgelkultur
v77 6y ago
Our North American aquifiers are drying up and topsoil is being blown away? I live in a major farming province of Canada and none of this is true. There's a massive worldwide glut of wheat this year because there are so many good crop-producing areas around the world and this has been true for decades.

193 points by ToFab123 6y ago

acd 6y ago

We need to have trees mixed with diverse crops. Trees will provide nutrients for the crops through a network of micro fungus which are living in biodiversity with the trees roots. Trees will naturally also cool the close surroundings so that it does not get too warm needed due to global warming. Already a lot of fields in Europe are not active due too over production of crops. We should probably mix trees and farmland and open up some of those closed fields. Trees will take some capacity of the land but that can be replaced by opening up closed areas. “ Roots take in water, and nutrients, from the soil. Without help from fungus for better uptake of nutrients, trees would be small or would die. Most trees have a favorite species of fungus that they associate with for this purpose.” Source: https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree Now say that you mix crops and trees then you probably can find trees and crops which mix well together. The crop will side load get a boost of nutrients from the trees fungus.

genericone 6y ago
The key is crop diversity because brassica plants (cabbage, broccoli, brussel sprouts, etc) are not helped by mycorhizal fungi at all, and in abundance it might even be detrimental to them. Some mycorhizal fungi types will destroy some species of plants in order to benefit their species of choice, going so far as to tap directly into other plant roots to use them as nutrition.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago
One issues with trees is that they block sunlight. Thus if the type of crop you are growing needs a lot of sunlight, you are going to have problems. Furthermore, since the amount of photosynthesis is dependent on the amount of sunlight, it is likely that your staple crops would be the ones that required a lot of sunlight, since those are usually calorie dense.
- quixoticelixer- 6y ago
  It depends on the crop, but many crops don't suffer much, some even do better from the additional shade and shelter.
  - AlotOfReading 6y ago
    That doesn't seem like a particularly compelling answer. By varying the crop, you can grow things virtually anywhere. In practice though, people want to grow the things they're familiar with. Shade presents a problem with at least three of most important crop families: grasses, pulses, and nightshades. Their wild ancestors preferred sunny, warm environments without a lot of shade.
    - quixoticelixer- 6y ago
      And some of those will do fine in mild shade, this is far from full canopy cover.
      - AlotOfReading 6y ago
        I'm imagining something along the order of wide-spaced modern orchards, which have tree spacing of ~20-40ft. I wouldn't exactly call those "mild shade". I just don't see any benefits beyond companion planting with a groundcover crop like cucurbits, which would be far easier to mechanize.
- jillesvangurp 6y ago
  This article is about countries bordering on the Sahara using trees to help nurture back desert no good for growing anything back to healthy farm land. There's a notion there of too much sun light preventing growth because it dries out the land and kills off what remains of the soil turning all of it into desert unable to retain any water; UV radiation is not great for microbial life. Using trees to restore water balance and regulate temperatures, seems like it works. We have similar processes going on in industrial farming in North America and Europe where we have been slowly depleting and giving up on what used to be healthy farm land. E.g. large parts of Spain are very arid but that wasn't always the case. Likewise parts of Italy and France are drying out because of intensive farming. It's less of an issue in more Northern parts of Europe but even there, decades of monoculture have created problems. The message here is simple: it's a revertible process and it's a relatively quick process that doesn't necessarily involve much more than a bit of pruning, nurturing, and being mindful of the way nature works locally. It seems most of the complexity and cost is related to creating the right incentives, removing bureaucratic obstacles, and educating people a bit. Scaling this up seems like it's worthwhile. In most places where this could work, people have very little left to lose and a lot to gain. If Africans in the middle of nowhere, far away from modern infrastructure can pull this off in some of the harshest environments in the world with little or no means, others can do that too. E.g. the Mid west and Texas come to mind in the US. Or the plains of Spain, which used to have forest and now looks more like the Sahara.
quixoticelixer- 6y ago
Trees don't provide nutrients to crops through fungus, if anything it is the opposite.
- captainredbeard 6y ago
  They encourage mycorrhizae growth, which is probably what they mean by “fungus”.
  - quixoticelixer- 6y ago
    Yes but the mycorrhizae from trees usually can't infect crops
donw 6y ago
This is actually an area I plan to invest time in after moving back to the US next year. Specifically, on automation-enhanced sustainable microfarming. Crop diversity is a pretty key part of that, as is appropriate fungal and insect management. Avoiding chemical pesticides is hard by the way -- in my current (tiny) garden, it's been the only way I was able to keep the aphids and mites from absolutely destroying my jalapeños. Ladybugs would be preferable, but are incredibly hard to come by here. Home and/or municipal composting adds another level to this, and it'd be great to get to the point where a large percentage of packaging was directly compostable. That'll be tricky -- you don't want the packaging to break down until after the lifetime of the food inside it -- but likely doable as manufacturing advances.
- ehnto 6y ago
  > Home and/or municipal composting adds another level to this, and it'd be great to get to the point where a large percentage of packaging was directly compostable. That'll be tricky -- you don't want the packaging to break down until after the lifetime of the food inside it -- but likely doable as manufacturing advances. I think we should change our expectations for food shopping/packaging and shelf life. If we move away from an expectation for year-round availability, and crazy long shelf life, we can do away with all of the shipping, warehousing and packaging that is derived from that demand. In regards to carbon, packaging is non-trivial, but I think it is second to the shipping involved.
  - donw 6y ago
    > If we move away from an expectation for year-round availability So, here's a question: do you think you could convince people to give up smartphones? Because I think it'd be about the same level of difficulty. People really, really, really don't like to surrender convenience or comfort. I realize you aren't advocating this -- you have great intentions -- but crazy long shelf lives keep a lot of people from starving. I'm interested in the micro-farming idea primarily because (a) I like the idea of adding more redundancy into the food supply; (b) because fresh food tastes amazing; and (c) because it's an interesting problem to solve. But I'd rather see that we roll the clock forward, and develop better technology to enable both year-round availability and healthy ultra-long-life foods, while at the same time deploying indefinitely sustainable agricultural practices.
jsperson 6y ago
Citation please. In my fields the worst yield is near the trees. Why? Because the trees suck up all the water and nutrients. This is for corn, soybeans, wheat, and milo.
- tfehring 6y ago
  https://www.iaea.org/publications/8181/management-of-agroforestry-systems-for-enhancing-resource-use-efficiency-and-crop-productivity https://www.iaea.org/publications/8181/management-of-agrofor... The abstract seems to validate both the parent comment's claims and your experience: > The studies show that the integration of trees and crops can increase resource use efficiency, but careful management and a system design tailored to local climatic and soil conditions are required if competition and consequent reduction in crop yields are to be avoided.

bstanfield15 6y ago

If you live in the UK, you might be interested in helping crowdfund this new regenerative agroforestry project in Scotland: https://projectwren.com/projects/regenerative-agroforestry https://projectwren.com/projects/regenerative-agroforestry

bmsleight_ 6y ago
For profit company, but asking for crowd funding with little in return. I love to support - but ultimately I am volunteering my money for their profit margin.

hikerclimb 6y ago

I don’t think this will work... as usually we just destroy everything...

sigmaprimus 6y ago

I have been planting and tending to trees in a forest that I purchased a few years ago. On top of that I have been actively building organic soil in my fields by top dressing with compost and organic cover crops. That being said, recently I have been feeling that all my efforts are for not, sure I might be making the world a better place in my own small way but for what purpose? Every day I watch as the people around me exploit the environment to enrich themselves while I get left behind. So lately the little voice in my head has been whispering "You own this land, why not clear cut the trees, make a couple hundred grand off the raw logs, buy a tractor to disc the land that's left and grow out a few years of annual grains then sell off the spent pesticide laiden land and live the rest of my life in a condo with a big bank account." I know this sound selfish but why should I just scrape by working my fingers to the bone, whilst the rest of my community sells out? I feel like someone shit in the pool and I'm going to be the last one to get out. I guess my point is every inch of soil I build and every tree I protect is like money in the bank, I can cash in at any time I want. The truth is every day I get more tired and feel the pull to cash it all in for my own selfish gains.

ip26 6y ago
You could start a rotation of timber harvesting. Then you're collecting interest on that money in the bank, without clearcutting your capital. In the big picture you'll get more value out of your asset that way.
- sigmaprimus 6y ago
  Thats a good idea, unfortunately most of the trees worth harvesting are 60+ years old, im not sure I have enough years to do that. Truth is I was having a weak moment when I wrote that comment, I dont think there is a homesteader that hasn't share my thoughts at some point. Sorry for the whining rant!! Chin up!
  - ip26 6y ago
    Once you establish a track record with a clear path forward to perpetual annual yield, whenever you want to sell the property it can be valued based on the projected ongoing yield, even if you don't personally harvest any trees you yourself have planted. Just trying to provide a middle pathway that compromises between "cash it all out" and "leave it pristine & don't touch anything" :)

alltakendamned 6y ago

One nuance to make is that having trees doesn't necessarily equal a forest. Lots of agroforestry ends up being a monoculture with very limited biodiversity.

quixoticelixer- 6y ago
I mean it literally can not be a monoculture, for it to be agroforestry there has to be at least two species
- OJFord 6y ago
  I don't know anything about this, but that seems pedantic? Is a duoculture significantly better than a monoculture?
  - Sawamara 6y ago
    Yes. Many invasive species/pathogens are not as likely to devastate the whole area when they do not have a single clear pathway to infect.
  - dr_dshiv 6y ago
    Two species are at least twice as good as 1, right?
  - bobthepanda 6y ago
    Not really, you still have a lack of biodiversity. Japan had a government policy of only reforesting with two types of trees for economic purposes, in some cases replacing natural forest, and as a result there's a lack of biodiversity and Japan now has allergy seasons that are estimated to cost $2B a year: https://ensia.com/features/japan-reforestation-deforestation-lessons-indonesia-china/ https://ensia.com/features/japan-reforestation-deforestation... To add insult to injury, the economic rationale for planting lots of fast-growing wood never really panned out, because it turned out with even Japanese oversupply of timber that it was cheaper to import it from SEA.

davedx 6y ago

Time to give another plug to https://projectwren.com https://projectwren.com -- one of their biggest CO2 compensation projects is tree planting in Kenya: https://projectwren.com/update/2/may-2020 https://projectwren.com/update/2/may-2020 Support it!

AngryData 6y ago

Well, there is the problem that the reduction in farmland utilization is reliant upon cheap artificial fertilizer, which is currently produced using natural gas as an energy/chemical source, which causes pollution.

dr_dshiv 6y ago
This life cycle analysis paper shows that 90% of co2 output from fertilizer is offset by increased biomass production. This is important nuance. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479718311186 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030147971...
- henearkr 6y ago
  So it's a net non-zero CO2 footprint? That would rather be against fertilizer then.
  - dr_dshiv 6y ago
    Oh yeah, growing food is definitely one of the biggest sources of emissions! 26%. But many things besides fertilizer. Reviewed here. Poore, J., & Nemecek, T. (2018). Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science, 360(6392), 987-992.
    - henearkr 6y ago
      Thanks a lot for the reference! We are an animal species literally growing on fossil fuels.
      - dr_dshiv 6y ago
        Yes, that is correct. Really important to get the transition right. Then we just have to deal with creating a post scarcity political economy :)
  - Nasrudith 6y ago

soniman 6y ago

As a tree-lover this is a heartwarming story but it has to be put in context: the population of Niger will double by 2050. The country will be growing by almost a million people per year. How will it support all those people who will be living on the edge of starvation? And how many of those desperate people will be tempted to cut down the trees?

rimliu 6y ago
https://xkcd.com/605/ https://xkcd.com/605/
- soniman 6y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_momentum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_momentum

dr_dshiv 6y ago

This article is based on assumptions of global and local ecosystem health. Quantifying ecosystem health is fascinating, important and very difficult. Etymologically, health is based on wholeness. In classical Greek philosophy, health is harmony, which can be defined as integrated diversity. Can we therefore measure the diversity and integrity of ecosystems? Bio-Diversity measures in ecosystems seem easy, but are actually quite complicated (two species of pine the same as pine and oak, or pine and rare moss?) — and measures of ecosystem integrity are even harder. But not hard as in impossible, hard as in more scientists should be working on it. Here's one recent paper. Vieweger, A., & Döring, T. F. (2015). Assessing health in agriculture–towards a common research framework for soils, plants, animals, humans and ecosystems. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 95(3), 438-446.

GuB-42 6y ago

> Agroforestry is an ancient agricultural technique being rediscovered all over the world as limitations of the globe’s highly industrialized agriculture become obvious. What are the "obvious limitations"? There are many problems with today's industrialized agriculture, but I wouldn't call the limitations obvious. The article says it doesn't work well in Africa for instance, and I believe it, but isn't it just because we don't have the proper GMOs/fertilizers/pesticides for this kind of soil due to a lack of interest? Is there some "obvious limitation" that makes it impossible. I am not criticizing agroforestry. It is not like I want pesticides, artificial fertilizers and lifeless fields. But they cite 1920 as the starting year for the beginning of modern agriculture. During that time, the world population went from 2 to 7 billion. If we want do bring back ancient techniques, we have to do it in that context. I often see the forest treated as an example of an efficient for of agriculture, and sure, forests are really dense with life. However, they are like closed systems, everything that is produced by the forest is used by the forest. Now, what we want is a patch of land from which we can pull as much as possible in order to feed our cities. There may be trees, but it won't be like a natural forest. To make things clear again, I don't view agroforestry as a bad thing. If it allows good yields on previously unexploited land and does it so while preserving biodiversity, what's not to love. I am just skeptical when considered as a substitute for modern industrial agriculture.

hutzlibu 6y ago
"However, they are like closed systems, everything that is produced by the forest is used by the forest." No, they are not. It depends on the type of forest of course, but in general forests produces excess. We get oxygen out of them. Wood. Meat. Mushrooms. Berries. Herbs .. and recreation. Also forests grow with the right conditions and they can even create the right conditions to grow, if not bulldozed down, or dried up, or set on fire. But I agree very much with the point, that it is a very annoying idea, to suddenly be able to feed all the people of the earth with ancient methods, that were not at all able to feed so much people. (my bet is on highly automated intensive greenhouses, btw.)
- rimliu 6y ago
  we get little oxygen from the mature forests.

foxhop 6y ago

It's not just for farmland folks. You can have you own mini food forest in your backyard in the span of 5 years. You just have to start. Check out my YouTube channel [1] if you find yourself wanting to learn more. I'm trying to get 1,000 subs to unlock mobile streaming so I can go live during weekends while tending to an establishing food forest. [1] https://www.youtube.com/c/RussellBallestrini https://www.youtube.com/c/RussellBallestrini

mason55 6y ago
Do you know of any resources for places on water restriction? We’re moving out of the city in a few weeks to an area that allows for zero outdoor water usage other than roof catchment. I’ve got some native wildflower areas planned out but haven’t been able to find much on drought tolerant fruits and vegetable. The couple suggestions I found pointed me towards varieties that didn’t turn out to be drought tolerant once I researched further. We’ll be in an area that gets a fair amount of precip (typical afternoon t storms) but could go a week or two with rain.
- foxhop 6y ago
  Water catchment for rain is important. Currently I use hugelkultur [1] (might not work in your context), swales of various widths/lengths/depths to hold extra rains from running off. I've modified my driveway to pull water off the road and into my system. I also use grey water; I have a sink in the garden where I wash produce and it drains into a mini-swale to feed strawberries, onions, and a couple plum trees. I'm also considering rigging up an outside shower for the same reason to water another area. My goal is to eventually get some IBC totes to hold roof runoff. I'm also considering purchasing a small pump since I have access to a fast flowing 15 foot deep stream. One other thing to note, you'd be surprised just how resilient trees, srubs, and plants are to water stresses, if you use enough mulch. The soil life will thank you as well. Additionally, once you establish a system it tends toward self-renewal, planting perennial trees, shrubs, vines, and ground cover resolves water issues in most contexts. The biomass (both alive and dead) will accumulate and help with water retention. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%BCgelkultur https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%BCgelkultur

v77 6y ago

Our North American aquifiers are drying up and topsoil is being blown away? I live in a major farming province of Canada and none of this is true. There's a massive worldwide glut of wheat this year because there are so many good crop-producing areas around the world and this has been true for decades.