Talk:Shifting cultivation/Archive 1

Archive 1

Hello — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.218.180 (talk) 10:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Untitled

RPB (April 08) This is an important issue and should stay: with clear cross-links to/from "slash & burn" (done) which is surely the means by which SC is brought about. The fact remains that many cultures still rely on this form of agriculture - but it is undeniably harmful to tropical forests, etc. - what is "neutral"? —Preceding comment added by Roy Bateman (talk)

OMG THIS THING IS TOO LONG!!!!!!!!please shorten it—Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.21.154.113 (talk • contribs)

Shouldn't this be merged with slash and burn? The only question in my mind is whether the article should be here or there. Guettarda 13:13, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

as of may 25, 2006 the community has voted clearly to oppose this merger. merger tags to come off by June 2 pending any extraordinary flurry of activity Covalent 12:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to make the discussion more complex, in addition to the term "slash and burn" there is "swidden." Many people working among Asian highlanders prefer swidden over slash and burn because the latter is seen as having pejorative connotations (slashing and burning up the forest) which justify land theft in the name of forest management. Robert McNetting, in his his work (I think taking off from the work of others) categorizes shifting cultivation as extensive, long-fallow agriculture, which he further categorizes as "forest fallow" and "bush fallow." Bush fallow I think is seen as occurring in areas in which the forest is unable to recover due to insufficient rest period due to growing population pressure. McNetting works off of Boserup, and discussion of his work should follow the discussion of Boserup's as he brings to bear his own ethnographic research and fits the different kinds of shifting cultivation into a discussion of the process of transformation from extensive to intensive forms of agriculture, which he also shows can be reversed with changing population variables. The anthropologist John Bodley also uses the word "forest fallow" in discussion of the Amazon rainforest adaptations. Although these alternative terms have not perhaps gone mainstream, it is important to understand why different terms are used and what implications that they have.Singing Coyote (talk) 01:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality

I have a concern with the neutrality of this article. In its present form, it seems inclined in the favour of shifting cultivation. However, recent studies have indicated that with the recent increase in demographic pressures, this form of agriculture is no longer sustainable. It has been identified by neutral researchers as the primary cause of defforestation in the North-Eastern states of India - otherwise blessed with richest forest cover.

Though I am no expert on shifting cultivation and certainly have no personal bias either way, I do believe that the neutrality of this article needs to be looked at. Syiem 06:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

also it seems to be a personal investigation rather than an encyclopedia article wich should be a synthesis of knowledge and opinions about a particular subject and its relationship with other subjects

In its current state, this article is not neutral, and sounds more like an opinion essay than an encyclopedic piece. As such, I'm tagging it with POV. Ultiam 02:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

merging

i think that the 2 topics should not be merged, but hyper-linked to each other via 'related issues'

They cover substantially the same material. Can youi explain how one would write separate encyclopaedic articles about both topics which did not overlap heavily? The terms are used synonymously. Guettarda 10:59, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

strongly oppose merger....these are separate objects. as far as political correctness, the natives who do this im madagascar call it "slash and burn". shifting agriculture has a purposeful succession while "slash and burn" often leads to totally sterile lands (see madagascar highlands) Covalent 04:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

commercial/local

The terms shifting cultivation and slash and burn agriculture do mean the exact same thing. Sections for different effects of this practice in different places would certainly help the article be better, with examples of tribes or farmers and the social and physical impact in the different examples. 160.94.27.139 18:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

should be merged...

Hi, I work on the archaeology of agriculture (see Jeulmun Pottery Period, Rice, Millet, Mumun Pottery Period, Yayoi, etc.). I think shifting agriculture and slash-and-burn should be merged, and distinctions between the two terms should be explained and highlighted prominently in the new article. best, Mumun 19:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

removed "subsistence" section

I removed the first section of the article entitled "subsistence" because it implied that shifting cultivation was a new and inherently destructive practice, caused by authoritarian oppression of subsistence farmers. This is inconsistent with the rest of the article and the actuality of the issue. Shifting cultivation emerged towards the beginning of agriculture, it is nothing new. Additionally, it is primarily population pressure that has caused it to become unsustainable in certain areas of the world. This article is in desperate need of a clean-up, in addition to a merger with slash and burn / swidden agriculture. Justin 01:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Rather you not merge Slash-Burn article

I respectfully offer several arguments for leaving the Slash-Burn article:

1. If you link to the term “slash-burn”, it is useful to get an article that actually describes what the term “slash-burn” traditionally means & not an article that begins by advising you that shifting cultivation is “In some cases wrongly as bush fallowing or slash and burn” without even explaining why slash-burn is an incorrect term.
2. There are two views of a Wikipedia. One is traditional-length articles on a limited number of topics, similar to a traditional encyclopedia. Another view is that the Wikipedia should contain a number of useful short articles which are directly relevant to the topic. Those who favor the latter believe that in the Wikipedia, short articles frequently become absorbed by poorly structured, rambling larger articles. As a result they lose their usefulness as a link since the reader is now required to sort through unrelated material to gain the insight they seek.
3. And avoiding the use of slash-burn, I feel, may be a form of political correctness (i.e., real or perceived attempts to impose limits on language, terms, and viewpoints in public discussion in order to avoid potentially offensive terminology). Slash-burn may be viewed by some as primitive and possibly sounding pejorative. It is, however, a term that has been used for years and is found in many publications. It has a more limited meaning than shifting cultivation. It is a historically useful term and should not be discarded so casually.

I recognize my views are not shared by all, and will respect the actual majority position. But I would request that if the decision is to proceed, someone post an interim copy of slash-burn while it is being integrated so others can confirm those elements some of us value are carried into the integrated article. Williamborg 01:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

References

The issue here isn't one of political correctness, it's a matter of duplication. Shifting cultivation is used synonymously with slash and burn agriculture. The term swidden-fallow agriculture is also used for this. The question for those opposed to the merge is why we should have two articles about the same topic. Guettarda 02:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I apologize that my main point was unclear. Irrespective of the name selected for the articles, a degree of duplication is useful because:

• There is merit having a number of shorter articles on specific persons, places, things & ideas— all written in a short & easily accessible style. The current “Slash Burn” article falls mostly in this category.
• There is also merit to having thoughtful, scholarly articles that address the more subtle & obscure issues which may interest a more academically inclined reader. The current “Shifting cultivation” article falls mostly in this category.
• The dichotomy resulting from an encyclopedia’s objective to serve both audiences is not new. Encyclopædia Britannica attempted to address this issue by introducing the Micropedia (short accessible articles) in the first eight volumes and Macropedia (longer scholarly articles referenced from the short accessible articles) in the next 17 volumes. Although the timing was poor since internet sources (including the Wikipedia) have virtually destroyed hard-copy encyclopedia sales, the concept was recognition of a longstanding need and still has value.
• Wikipedia often solves this by cleaning up longer articles, summarizing some of the more academic sections, and spinning off the detailed academics topics as linked sub-topics. And yes, this is duplication.

I’m relatively indifferent to the title of the topic involved here (both are on my watchlist since slash burn arises frequently in historical discussions). But I do care strongly about accessible articles being swallowed by less-readable, scholarly articles—Wikipedia fails to serve a core user group when we do this. I’d happily support a merger after a thoughtful cleanup with referenced subordinate topics. But short of someone putting in a bit of careful detailed work; we’re better off the where we are.

Williamborg 19:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the short-long article issue, that's what the introduction is supposed to be - in fact, it's been compared to the micropaedia/macropaedia idea before. It makes sense to have an introduction that the average reader can get into, and then a more detailed version for those more interested. As for the average reader/technical issue - I don't think that (as things stand today) we should ahve anything that's too technical - within reason, all articles should be accessible to a rasonably well-read individual. That's my understanding of Wikipedia policy and the goals of the project, picked up in a number of different places - I can't point to any one place to support those statements. Guettarda 00:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Williamborg. 'Slash-and-burn' is a highly descriptive term for what traditional subsistance-farming people do, and that article covers the method and its caveats neatly. This article, in contrast, has a sort of 'noble savage' tone to it, in that it makes claims about untutored scientific sophistication that I doubt would be supported by investigation. If we look at traditional subsistance cultivators in, say, the Cumberland Gap area of Appalachia, we see farmers such as the late Dee Hicks (an unschooled and illiterate man who was a regionally important conservator of traditional culture) who would use slash-and-burn methods because they were convenient and obvious. He had no deeper understanding or motivation. I doubt US subsistance farmers such as the late Mr Hicks are less intelligent or sophisticated than their counterparts elsewhere. Katzenjammer 18:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I have never heard the term [shifting cultivation] before. Sounds like one is changing from one form to another. Thus its [denotation] is wider than [slash-and-burn]? When was the term [swidden] abandonded and replaced with the other two? Both [slash-and-burn] and [shifting cultication] seem to assume that the burned field soon is abandonded. Isn´t that severe limitation? but then [swidden] seem to suffer from the same shortsightedness. The negative ring of [slash-and-burn] so comes from the inaptness of the farmers to keep up the productivity of the soil after the slashing and burning, or shifting or swidden rather than the clearing act itself. At some stage the very fist farmly had to that anyway to transform "wild" lands into productive cultured lands. Arent there any articles on the history and archeology of agriculture? Make links to them.

What do one do when three terms mean exactly the same thing?

I suggest keeping the split but make sure that all articles have links to each other under "See also". And in all cases make a concise introduction with a succinct definition. And also why there are three different English words for the same thing.

Sources?

Can anyone who voted in favour of keeping the articles split please supply some evidence to support the idea that they are different terms? I have never seen anything to suggest that they are different. Any reliable evidence to support the assertion that they are distinct would be much appreciated. Guettarda 18:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

see for example the new reference posted in the intro section of shifting cultivation. the reference article gives good description of shifting cultivation in the Belgian Congo which does not rely exclusively on slash and burn technique (in fact doesnt seem to use much at all in context of the whole region and the crop life cycle. Covalent 20:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Really? That isn't what the linked article says at all. In fact, it says

• Obstruction is so great that it is impossible to start cultivation until this mass of debris has been burned.
• Burning is necessary for several reasons.
• As long as the rapid sterilization of the soil can be counteracted only by forest fallow, shifting cultivation will remain an inescapable necessity for the production of annual food and industrial crops.

Apart from that, it's a fifty-year-old paper. It talks about the Belgian Congo, for God's sake. It most clearly does not say anything about shifting cultivation in the absense of "slash and burn". It also makes recommendations that would accelerate soil degradation (as has been realised in the last 50 years). Guettarda 14:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

second source added for Indonesian experience in shifting cultivation, indicating clearly that slash and burn is simply a functional part of some shifting cultivation systems. the slash and burn element varies as a percentage of the shifting cultivation cycle as explained in the Indonesia writeup there. the windup of the cropping part of the shifting cultivation cycle also varies with crop type, leading to different repeat intervals (or no repeat, or fallow plus repeat slash and burn). so you see the slash and burn element within shifting cultivation is just that: a piece of the process. note also that in some farming systems (e g parts of the eastern Madagascar rainforests) there may be only the slash and burn process with no follow on cropping. and in extreme cases (eg Madagascar high plateau) there is no repeat cycle, since slash and burn processes there have made the soil sterile and erosive---nothing is growing back. not a value judgement...just a fact. happy reading. cheers Covalent 05:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

No. The terms are synonymous. "Slash and burn agriculture" is used to describe the entire process, not just the cutting and burning. In fact, the term "slash and burn agriculture" is not used to describe many cultivation systems that actually involve cutting the forest and burnign the slash - for example, taungaya or the way that evergreen plantation forests are managed in North America and Europe. Guettarda 14:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

i guess we disagree on who uses which terms. you havent explained why many instances of shifting cultivation involve neither slashing or burning. most importantly you fail to explain why you arent relying on the very dictionary definition you supplied which states slash and burn is a method and shifting cultivation is an "entire" (my word supplied for emphasis) agricultural system. by the way on the Belgian Congo ref, quoting from the reference itself: "the Bantus are the main ethnic group to which belong the peoples of the Belgian Congo, particularly those of the Equatorial Basin." please either read more history or at least read the reference being quoted before deleting a reference source. Covalent 21:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It isn't a matter of "agreement" or "disagreement" - you can't write an encyclopaedia based on your "beliefs" - it's the facts that matter. You chose to misrepresent the facts to further your POV. The Belgian Congo hasn't existed for 46 years, in case you didn't realise. Racist/imperialistic terminology from the 1950s just isn't acceptable in an encyclopaedia. Where does the reference say anything about a system of shifting cultivation which did not rely on "slash and burn"?

Funny how you continue to twist the facts to support your beliefs: "please either read more history or at least read the reference being quoted before deleting a reference source". You're the one who seems to know nothing about history (you inserted a reference about the "Belgian Congo", apparently unaware that the state has not existed for 46 years and you asserted that the reference said things that it doesn't say. Please stop projecting - you need to learn something about history (like what has happened in the world since 1960) and you need to stop claiming that references say things that they don't, in order to support your POV. Guettarda 21:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

i suppose the reason the article's author used the old country name is that the new name didnt exist at that time he published. by the way about 50 wikipedia articles use the term Belgian Congo and many of them make no note of the current country name. i guess that means a lot of work for you to track down and scold 50 new racists. if you would spend as much energy on writing new articles as you do enforcing political correctness on others, your life would be very productive. i consider this dialog over. Covalent 04:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Sources II

These terms actually are used synonymously. For example

OECD Glossary of Statistical Terms

• Slash and burn: Slash-and—burn agriculture is a method of cultivation whereby areas of the forest are burnt and cleared for planting. When soil fertility declines, cultivation shifts to a new plot. [1]

• Shifting agriculture: Shifting agriculture is a system of cultivation in which a plot of land is cleared and cultivated for a short period of time, then abandoned and allowed to revert to producing its normal vegetation while the cultivator moves on to another plot. [2]

---

From The Peregrine Fund [3] Shifting cultivation--also known as swidden agriculture or slash-and-burn farming, and in México and Central America, as "milpa" agriculture--is the predominant style of farming in many portions of the globe's humid tropics, supporting millions of families worldwide

---

Towards a Practical Classification of Slash-and-Burn Agricultural Systems - Sam Fujisaka and German Escobar (UK Overseas Development Institute 1997)

Since 1992 the International Centre for Research on Agroforestry (ICRAF) has coordinated a global project seeking to develop technical and policy ‘Alternatives to Slash-and-Burn’ (ASB), where slash-and-burn is taken to include shifting cultivation and swidden agriculture.

---

Holscher D.; Ludwig B.; Moller R.F.; Folster H. 1997. Dynamic of soil chemical parameters in shifting agriculture in the Eastern Amazon. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, Volume 66, Number 2, 1 December 1997, pp. 153-163 [4]

From the abstract: In Northeast Para, Brazil, shifting agriculture by land settlers has been practiced for around 100 years. After a common cropping period of 2 years the fields are left fallow for 4 to 8 years. Changes in extractable cations and C, N, and P of soils were studied on six fields which were under different phases of the rotational cycle. The chemical composition of soil solutions was also monitored for a period of 19 months. In topsoils, the differences in C and N contents and extractable Ca and Al could be related to the landuse history expressed as time elapsed since last burn. Repeated sampling on two ' slash and burn ' plots, showed significant increases in pH, CEC, extractable K, Ca and Mg, but decreases in extractable Na and Al, C and N content in the plots from 7-year old fallow to the first-year cropping field.

But this does not show that shifting cultivation only encompasses slash-and-burn agriculture.

---

Bowman DMJS, Woinarski JCZ, Sands DPA, Wells A, McShane, VJ. 1990. Slash-and-burn agriculture in the wet coastal lowlands of Paua New Guinea: reponses of birds, butterflies and reptiles. Journal of Biogrography 17:227-239

From the article (second paragraph): With the notbale exception of Australia, slash-and-burn or swidden agriculture is a major land-use impact upon tropical forest ecosystems. In Papua New Guinea, swidden agriculutre has occurred for at least 5000 years... Powell (1976) provides a description of shifting cultivation in the lowlands of PNG.

---

Toky OP, Ramakrishnan PS. 1983. Secondary succession following slash and burn agriculutre in north-eastern India. I. Biomass, litterfall and productivity. Journal of Ecology 71(735-745)

From the article (first paragraph): Over large areas of north-eastern India, slash and burn agriculture (known as 'Jhum') is practised and secondary succession on abandoned farms rehabilitate the land for renewed cropping. (second paragraph): The agricultural system involves cutting the vegetation, burning the debris and cropping for a year or more before abandoning the site. The farmer then moves to other sites. The interval before returning o to the same site used to be about 20-30 years but has been reduced to 4-5 years owing to an increase in human population density (Ramakrishnan & Toky 1978, Ramakrishnan et al. 1981). This recent shortening in the shifting agriculture cycle...

Again this does not show that shifting cultivation comprises of only slash-and-burn agriculture.

---

So, again - would someone please provide a reference which actually says that the two terms are different? Because everything I can find says that they are the same. Guettarda 14:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

i guess we disagree on who uses which terms. you havent explained why many instances of shifting cultivation involve neither slashing or burning. most importantly you fail to explain why you arent relying on the very dictionary definition you supplied which states slash and burn is a method and shifting cultivation is an "entire" (my word supplied for emphasis) agricultural system. just because the articles above talk about slash and burn and shifting cultivation within the same article doesnt make these terms equivalent Covalent 21:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Most of the sources supplied only shows that slash-and-burn agriculture is a type of shifting cultivation, which specifically involves burning areas of the forests. As such, slash-and-burn agriculture should be included into the article, but only as a section, which could be linked to the more detailed article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.74.106.134 (talk) 12:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

harvest wood from cleared land?

"This system often involves clearing of a piece of land followed by several years of wood harvesting" Does that make sense? Should it be "after" instead of "followed by"? KAM 12:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Section "Simple societies, shifting cultivation and environmental change" needs linking and references

This section is pretty clearly copied from someone's uni essay - it lacks all hyperlinks and the references cited are not given in the list of sources at the bottom. Could someone (preferably the person who put it in) fix this please?

The current version of the article or section is written like an essay.

This article is obviously a contribution from an essay by the anonymous author in the following revision, with minor editing afterwards: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shifting_cultivation&oldid=19683044

It contains information on three different topics: shifting agriculture, deforestation, and soil fertility. Information relating to each individual topic needs to be consolidated in the appropriate articles. A more accurate name for this page would be Shifting Agriculture, as the agricultural practice can include livestock herding or ranching in addition to plant cultivation.

If there are no objections, I will attempt to organize these articles (specifically, Shifting Agriculture and the stub for Soil Fertility) in a few week's time.

Good Enough

I am doing a project on this type of agriculture and I beleive that the simplicity of the language in which this article has been written is easy to read and very understandable. Maybe if you are working on something more advanced then you might want to find another article but I think that this is that it is fine. It may need a little bit of work, but do not switch the language entirely into these big scientific terms that you have to research every time you come across one. The article is a little long but to me, it is very informative and it answers the questions I had about this agriculture. Thank you for not completely changing it and I hope whoever has written this article, they will keep it the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.81.143 (talk • contribs)

Caption for Picture Wrong

The caption for the picture is not only misleading, it is wrong. It says "... Above is a satellite image of Sumatra and Borneo showing shift cultivation fires from October 2006." What is currently happening in Sumatra and Borneo on a wide scale is industrial-scale burning of forest to put in palm oil plantations and doing whatever else is being done for using the forest areas for export production. Plantations or other plantings are permanent and there is no shifting and leaving the forest to regenerate itself between cultivation cycles. It would be better to have a picture of actual shifting cultivation farmers doing a burn, I would think.Singing Coyote (talk) 04:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Overlooked Sources

Key Pioneering works not just on Swidden but in agricultural anthropology and agroecology:

Audre Richards (1939) Land, Labor and Diet in Northern Rhodesia. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. - Described how citamene swidden practices of African Bemba. Utilizes tree litter compost in agriculture of scrub woodlands of central Africa. Stood in stark contrast to derogatory perceptions of native agriculture at the time.

Conklin 1956 Hananoo Agriculture. Rome: FAO. -- ecological complexity of shifting cultivation patterns as well as diversity of types of shifting cultivation & importance of multi-cropping, rotation cropping and agroforestry systems w/in shifting cultivation.

Also Denevan et al. 1984 Indigenous Agroforestry in the Peruvian Amazon: Bora Indian Management of Swidden Fallows. Intersciencia 96: 346-357 Available at: <http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNAAT727.pdf> Singing Coyote (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

What does this mean?

Shifting cultivation is a form of agriculture in which the cultivated or a cultivation system, at any particular point in time a minority of 'fields' are in cultivation and a majority are in various stages of natural re-growth.

What does this mean? How is a Wikipedia reader to understand this?Fconaway (talk) 02:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Sustainable?!

The sentence "Slash-and-burn is a very sustainable technique" is an absolutely outrageous POV statement, standing as it does unsupported and undiscussed. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Critics

As I must conclude from the Wikipedia warnings heading this article, this text is very private. Wikipedia seems not to like this. That is OK. But when they want not to be discriminating, they should allow this kind of texts, with the explicit order that the writer heads his text with the acknowledgement that it is very (perhaps totally) private. The reader in this way knows somehow "where he/she is @".

145.129.136.48 (talk) 14:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean by "private"? Clarinetguy097 (talk) 05:02, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

IP answered me on my talk page. Since Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, the text here can't be the responsibility of only one person. If anyone could add their own opinions, articles could become really unwieldly, and it would be hard to find real information. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 22:08, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

You are right. But perhaps Wikipedia should offer an "User guide" to show their readers the limits and dangers of its content. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.129.136.48 (talk) 16:02, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't know about danger, but WP:NPOV and WP:V should have what you want. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 03:57, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. Obliged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.129.136.48 (talk) 01:15, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Archive 1