Agroforestry

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/22/science/quiet-push-for-agroforestry-in-us.html?_r=1&ref=science

As someone really interested in sustainable agriculture this article immediately attracted my interest. I had never heard of “agroforestry” before and the article made it seem pretty great. The only thing was that the author presented the technique as a universal solution to our food crisis when it isn’t at all practical for places where you cannot grow trees. Sure, the family in tree-filled Montana thought it was great, but it isn’t the way to farm in an environmentally friendly and effective way everywhere. The author could have pointed out that it is one of many developing techniques that works only in specific climates. Also at the end of the article there was a brief description of all the downsides which, surprisingly, were typical of any farming situation. The farm-owner in Montana mentioned problems with her bees and animals eating the crops. If these common problems result from agroforestry too it isn’t exactly finding the much-needed balance between high food production and minimal environmental damage.

All the pros of agroforestry seemed really week. For example, "Some research also shows that cattle farmers can improve their income by introducing trees, both by selling timber and by cooling cows in the shade." Maybe I'm just stupid but I'd really like an explanation of how cooled-down cows effect a farmer's income. And then there was an odd emphasis on how meticulous you must be when panting trees. I think the vagueness and weird statements results from a poor choice of subject. The author wanted his article to carry weight and importance so he chose to present agroforestry as a complete, effective, wonderful solution even though it really doesn't seem like a fully developed strategy. By presenting his subject as something more than it was he ran into the problem of not really having the evidence to back it up, because the subject, as he presented it, didn't really exist.

The best points the author made were about the role of trees in preventing erosion and chemical run-off but ironically those were the points less agriculturally oriented. When I finished reading I felt like I had been told what I already knew: trees are good, we got rid of them, we should re-plant some. Yeah. No shit.