Intensive vs extensive agriculture
Big idea: Intensive agriculture maximizes output from a small area using high inputs. Extensive agriculture uses large areas with low inputs. Each has different environmental trade-offs.
Comparing the two approaches
Intensive agriculture
- High yield per hectare
- High inputs: fertilizers, pesticides, irrigation, machinery
- Small land area needed
- High energy use (fossil fuels)
- Examples: factory farms, irrigated rice paddies, greenhouse horticulture
Extensive agriculture
- Low yield per hectare
- Low inputs: relies on natural rainfall, soil fertility
- Large land area needed
- Low energy use
- Examples: pastoral ranching, shifting cultivation, dryland farming
Environmental impacts comparison
Intensive impacts
- Water pollution (fertilizer/pesticide runoff)
- Soil degradation (compaction, nutrient depletion)
- High GHG emissions
- Biodiversity loss (monocultures)
- BUT: less land needed for same output
Extensive impacts
- Habitat destruction (large areas cleared)
- Overgrazing and desertification
- Lower pollution per hectare
- More biodiversity can coexist
- BUT: more land needed for same output
Key exam debate: Is it better to farm intensively on less land (land sparing) or extensively on more land (land sharing)? There is no single right answer — it depends on the context and what you value!
IB-style question — comparing two farming systems
Compare an intensive system (e.g. indoor poultry) with an extensive system (e.g. free-range sheep grazing), in terms of inputs and yield per unit area. [4]
How the marks are earned
- Intensive vs extensive — inputs
• intensive: high inputs per hectare (feed, energy, labour)
• extensive: low inputs spread over a large area - Link them for the comparison
• intensive produces more yield per hectare but uses far more inputs per hectare than extensive
• use 'more…than' or 'whereas' to make the comparison explicit
Final answer
Use linking words ('more than', 'whereas') — two separate descriptions without a link do not score comparison marks.