Is the Maya Forest Garden the key to sustainable agriculture?

[@alexandrealferan7144]

Thank you always respect the ancient Maya for their approach to agriculture we need it now more than ever

[@kernwildlife]

I totally agree. We can learn a lot from them.

[@QueAquatics]

So fascinating, thank you.new sub here because I want to learn more

[@kernwildlife]

Awesome, thank you!

[@helio2k]

Is there more content from these farmers or the milpa system?

[@michaelbailey1578]

Did the milpa cycle provide enough food for a large urban population? Perhaps as the population grew they took more and more forest to keep up.

[@kernwildlife]

It really depended on how large the city state was. I think you’re right. Large cities like Tikal probably deforested much more of the jungle and required more land for agriculture

[@RAJAT6555]

Exactly my view too. Probably they overshot the carrying capacity of their local ecosystems. Also, note how important corn was for the Maya, like fossil fuels are for us.

[@josega6338]

Some cultures in Old American civilizations had contamination with human sewage waters from the situation of sewage systems and agriculture fields. This is very dangerous approach, increasing risk of infectious diseases. Lenin proposed same, using human poo as fertilizer, in his book 'Materialism and empiriocriticism', against the followers of Ernst Mach in Russia. During the Mao 'Cultural revolution', the young red guardians actually implemented the insane practice of fertilization with human dejections.

[@QuiChiYang2]

They (Maya) are a gr8 agricultural people. The terra preta alone is precious ancient knowledge.

[@ginabrown22280]

I have a farm and I'm interested to switching to Mayan Farming. What are the best resources to utilize?

[@emiliocarver2061]

Research, talk to traditional or even modern Mexican/Native American farmers. We’ve done milpas for as long as I can remember, we don’t use forestry though. We till the soil too. But we do preserve some traditional agricultural practices

[@RAJAT6555]

You could try electroculture too, it's sustainable.

[@k2wi]

Gina, do you live in Central America? If not, look at the concept of permaculture as a framework wherever you live.

[@blesskangels]

watching in 2021

[@josega6338]

The practice of burning crop rests to have micro-elements back to soil is widespread in the World, but: Would just the burial of remains with plow be better? It looks not difficult to test in a comparative trial. For sure, fire is bad for animals that parasitize crops. Blessings +

[@alcinas.489]

I don’t think plowing is good. Any soil structure disruption causes erosion. The soil is alive with insects, invertebrates, fungi, moulds and mosses all dependent on one another and dependent on their own particular 3D position in the soil. The roots of plants are left behind to further stabilize this living hive. In a warm and humid climate any plant matter on the surface will decay very quickly and be carried deep into the soil by all of the living organisms within. Fire is a natural occurrence. Have you ever been in a forest that has not had a burn in many decades? It is thick with dead and decaying undergrowth and as large trees emerge they shade and “strangle” most other plants. Fire is necessary to “clean up” and revitalize biodiversity. Many plant seeds are such that they cannot germinate without the heat and sweet charcoal that a fire produces. This is a system that continually regenerates and actually improves soil quality. Look at the forest and then look at a piece of plowed land. Which is richer in ecological health and vibrancy? Which must we emulate?

[@joseveintegenario-nisu1928]

Fire is part of reproductive tactics of pines, but is not an universal approach. Bush among trees eases fires, but is a help to retain heavy rainfall, avoid sudden floods; a way to control too much growth of bush is having cattle, sheep, eating the bush and grass among trees. Your comments look sound, but I'd like remarking my proposal was having parts of a similar terrain handled in different ways for some years, and compare outcomes, end results: with or without plowing; with or without burning t'he crop remains; with or without Nitrogen fertilizers, and with different amounts of fertilizers added... You know agriculture productivity did not improve from that in Middle age until WW II concluded. In a new, different environment, traditions are not necessarily the best approach. For farm animals, I'd choose having it inside fences, bringing it water and pastures. About farm dejections, technology exists to depurate everything, you could have a look at Patents by Ros-Roca, a company in Lleida, Catalunya. But I'd prefer growing fish rather than animals, meat has dangers, poultry in a lesser grade, fish are tasty and healthy, if you have enough water to grow it, do it The dangers of products used from Clenbuterol to estrogens, to finish meat, to increase productivity, are many. In Danemark, they obtained evidence that withdrawing antibiotics in animal food induced no increased losses, and this use is a noticeable source of resistent bacteria that harm humans. The use of 'clinical trial' to solve efficacy doubts is not restricted to Medicine. Blessings +

[@alcinas.489]

@@joseveintegenario-nisu1928 I agree with quite a bit that you stated there. Regarding agricultural output increases after WW2; the heavy and increasing use of not only industrial fertilizers, but also herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, rooting and growth hormones, irrigation, and clearing of marginal crop land is enormously problematic. The use of artificial lighting on equipment meant farmers worked not only sun up to sun down, but far into the night. Doing more, producing more, and consuming more is a bit of a curse. Industrial farming methods are incredibly destructive and result in ecological desertification of vast tracts of land. I know these things first hand. For much of my early life and into young adulthood I was convinced those “advances” were necessary. With age comes wisdom (sometimes) and I now realize, from my own trials of both methods in the same land, that the modern approach increases output in the short term only. As the land is exhausted, more and more needs to be cleared while the depleted land is still forced into ever decreasing production. There is precious little regeneration allowed. Any regenerative farmer outproduces non-regenerative farmers ~10:1 over time. I’m talking many decades of time. Not only is the regenerative farm production more consistent over time, it is far less destructive to the environments in which it is practised. Farm output depends far more on the health of the surrounding environment than is generally acknowledged. Human survival depends far more on the health of the surrounding environment than many are comfortable thinking about. The tactics that have brought us to this tipping point have done so incredibly quickly, and with ever increasing rapidity. We’re in a bind now, as a species, because rebuilding what we have damaged, and damaged with the best of intentions, is far more difficult and more time consuming than I think anyone realised. We already produce far more of everything than the world population needs to sustain life and make that life enjoyable. I think the root cause that is rarely acknowledged is greed, in the broadest possible terms. Greed for monetary wealth, food, material possessions, power, physical comfort, and even unlimited human reproduction looks like it may well be our undoing. I hope it will not also be the undoing of all life on Earth. At least, not until our sun inevitably burns out and, in the process, swallows this planet whole. I hope you’re well and enjoying life! Peace to all☺️

[@hgdon-homeiswheretreesare-9239]

They created havens before they left 😊