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!