 |
Today in class we talked about how there is so much of a negative connotation associated with slash and burn farming, which Conklin sought to somewhat bring through his older article. Someone brought up the point that large areas of land—sometimes larger than the plots we studied in class—are burned in the United States all over. Glossed over with the name “controlled burn,” is it really any different? Science Daily defines controlled burns with farming in the title, but does not go into detail about its farming advantages. At the same time, it employs words like “conservation,” “restoration,” and “natural process” that we tend to aid along. Meanwhile, Science Daily highlights the destruction of slash and burn practices on farms.
I realize that there are probably more species affected by a tropical forest fire than a more temperate forest fire, but it still surprises me that there are such varied connotations about something that can be considered very similar. How do we react to that? I know Californians whose homes are protected thanks so controlled burns appreciate them just as much as those who depend on slash and burn fires for food. But the land still turns around at a similar rate, right? And wouldn’t the large scale controlled burns all over North America get rid of MORE timber and put MORE icky smoke into the air? While both in excess are bad, these past few days in class has made me really question my instant-condemnation of slash and burn practices. I don’t think that there should be copious amounts of burning just so that the land can be stripped of all its nutrients then miraculously expected to be able to support plant life after only a few years. And I don’t think that controlled burns are the saving grace of all of those who live in wooded areas. But I don’t think that either of them are going to be what causes the complete destruction of our Earth.
But still, where is the line? Do we say that all slash and burn is bad, or just change that to highlighting that there needs to be better practices in regards to the way the forest is turned around (aka don’t strip the land COMPLETELY of all nutrients in just two years, and provide a longer in-between time). How do we condemn one practice in a State while promoting its euphemism in another State?
It goes back to what we were talking about earlier in class, too—residents tend to know their ecosystems better than we think. Foresters can prescribe how burns can be good for forests after a period of time—especially those whose seeds are dormant until this time. At the same time, most farmers, like Conklin said, know a bit more about their homes, too. They aren’t just running out and burning down mountains.
I agree that slash and burn has been over villanized, however I think it is too easy for us to take the concept of controlled burn and equate it to slash and burn. I think there is a fundamental difference between the two in that controlled burns are specifically a conservation technique that prevent more uncontrollable wildfires from starting and spreading. A controlled burn is safer and less costly than using even greater resources to stop a raging wildfire. Plus, controlled burns do help keep forests healthy. Slash and burn is inherently an exploitative act meant to use a significant input of resources to create fertile soil which will then provide a different necessary resource in food production. That being said, we all exploit our resources to some extent in order to procure the things we need to live. With a proper rotational schedule for their fields, I don’t see how slash and burn is any worse than our current agricultural practices in America. Our practices also deplete the soil and require intense nutrient supplements through fertilizers (which then contribute to nitrogen runoff and hypoxic zones downstream, like from Midwestern farms to the Gulf of Mexico). If given the proper time for forest to regrow, slash and burn practices could perhaps put in rotation a number of fields instead of continually looking for new forested area to burn. With populations growing, some sacrifices will need to be made and agriculture will likely be an area where the environment takes a hit. I think we need to work on minimizing the negative effects of agriculture and be innovative with new techniques and technology that can ease this impact. And of course if we must give slack to agriculture in order to feed us all, we need to make up for it in other areas like energy use and changing our culture of consumption.
ReplyDelete