Generally speaking, one acre of monoculture is worse than 4 acres of
mixed planting even if the mixture is other agricultural species. Shade
coffee is usually planted with several other species. Some species for
fruit or nuts others for specialty hardwoods. At any rate the cost/benefit
is not a simple 4to1 ratio as the tabulation of acreage would imply.

And the coffee isn't as good either...


>
>
>If I remember correctly (I've tossed the paper) the article said 4 times
>as much coffee could be grown in sun (coffee plants only) compared to
>shade (a mix of coffee and orchard trees like avocados). Which made me
>wonder, which is worse: One acre devoted exclusively to coffee or 4 acres
>(presumably carved out of forest that supports a different suite of bird
>fauna) devoted to orchards and coffee?
>
>It's the same dilemma, with different details, that surrounds numerous
>farming methods. Leave half a farm fallow and thus use less fertilizer
>and irrigation water, but keep twice as much land under cultivation as
>you would without leaving a field fallow? Etc.
>
>REAL conservationists wouldn't worry about whether their coffee was grown
>in the shade. They'd eat only beans, rice, cabbage, and their useless,
>resource-consuming pets. And they'd drink only water, and none of that
>imported stuff, either!
>
>Kelly Cassidy
> (and, no, my dog will not be on the menu any time soon)
>
>
>
>
>
>

--
*********************************** I got the blues so bad one time
* Mike Patterson, Astoria, OR * it put my face in a permanent frown
* mpatters at orednet.org * but I am feelin' so much better
*http://www.pacifier.com/~mpatters* I could cake-walk into town