CARRYING CAPACITY

AND AGRICULTURAL INTENSIFICATION

(PTI4208) Pertanian Berlanjut

Dr. Uma Khumairoh, SP., M.Sc.

OUTLINE
 DEFINITION
of carrying capacity.

 THEORY
of human carrying capacity and food supply.

 AGRICULTURAL INTENSIFICATION
to enhance carrying capacity.

 CONVENTIONAL INTENSIFICATION
and its impacts.

 SUSTAINABLE, ECOLOGICAL AND AGROECOLOGICAL

intensification.

 CARRYING CAPACITY
of different types of agricultural intensification.
THE CONCEPTS OF
CARRYING CAPACITY
World population dynamics
THE CONCEPTS OF
CARRYING CAPACITY
• Can agriculture feed the world of more than 9 billion human population by 2050?
• How many people can the earth even hold?

• Carrying capacity is the maximum number of individuals of a given species that an area's
resources can sustain, quantitatively and qualitatively.
CARRYING CAPACITY
Malthus vs. Boserup
The questions arise:
• Will the use of resources faster than they
can produce lower earth carrying
capacity?
• Will we continue to increase
both carrying capacity and population?
Or, stabilize population either by
increasing deaths or decreasing births,
either voluntarily or through forces
beyond our control?
• Or, overshoot our carrying capacity,
Thomas Robert Malthus causing our environment to collapse and,
In the Malthusian view, when food is not with it, our extinction?
sufficient for everyone, the excess population will
die. He could not have foreseen the ability of
 technologies to lift carrying capacity.
CARRYING CAPACITY
Malthusian Theory
- Human population would grow exponentially, food supply only linearly
- Agricultural methods determine population via limits on food supply.

Carrying capacity

Food
Human population
CARRYING CAPACITY
Malthus vs. Boserup
• Her position countered the
Malthusian theory.
• The greatest resource is knowledge and
technology.
• When the need arises, someone will find a
solution.
• Increases in population will stimulate
change in agricultural techniques.
• Boserup's theory is known for
Ester Borgensen Boserup her theory of agricultural intensification,
posits that population change drives the
In the Boserup theory, at the pressure of intensity of agricultural production.
human population growth, people will find
ways to increase the production of food by
agricultural intensification.
CARRYING CAPACITY
Boserup Theory

People invent new ways to make food always available.

Carrying capacity

Food

Human population
AGRICULTURAL
INTENSIFICATION

Conventional Intensification
• In the 1960s, agricultural production systems changed from traditional into a new
revolution called as Green Revolution.
• This arises a concept of agricultural intensification.
• Conventionally, is defined as the increase of yields per hectare by intensifying the
number of cropping cycle per year and inputs per unit of land (Pretty, 2014).
• Or, the increased use of the same resources for agricultural production, as a result of a
switch from intermittent to continuous cultivation of the same area of land (Giller et al,
1997)
AGRICULTURAL
INTENSIFICATION

R value: the number of years of annual food crop cultivation expressed as a proportion of
the length of the cycle of land utilisation (Ruthenberg, 1980).

R = (number of years of cultivation X 100)/length of cycle of land utilisation

The greater the ‘R’ value the more intense the land use practice

The length of the cycle of land utilisation = the sum of the number of years of arable
farming + number of fallow years.

Example: for 2 years of food crops, followed by 10 years of fallow,

R = (2 x 100)/(2 + 10)i.e. 16.7
AGRICULTURAL
INTENSIFICATION

I=LxNxPxExW
I = Intensifikasi
L = Intensitas penggunaan lahan seperti yang didiskripsikan oleh Ruthenberg (1980)
N = Ketersediaan nutrisi (0=bila 100% internal recycling), 1 = bila 100% tergantung pada external
input)
P = Pengendalian hama (0= tidak ada intervensi, 1= mekanik penuh/100 tergantung bahan kimia
sintetis)
E = Input energi per ha (per tenaga kerja atau penggunaan bahan bakar minyak)
W = Pengelolaan air (0=tidak ada intervensi, 1=100% tergantung irigasi atau drainasi)
(Giller et al, 1997)
AGRICULTURAL
INTENSIFICATION

Agricultural techniques have controlled food production, for examples by:

- draining marshland & reclaiming land from the sea
- developing high yielding varieties
- GMO’s
- terracing
- improved irrigation
- agrochemicals
- hormones and antibiotics
 IMPACT OF THE
CONVENTIONAL AGRICULTURAL
Human Agriculture
nutritional Biophysical
requirement Human
population impacts
Intensification (Green
Calories Nutrients Revolution)

Undernut Malnutri
rition tion

Monoculture Irrigation Agrochemicals GMO’s

Erosion Salinisation Resistance, Biodiversity

bioaccumulation
, run-off

intensificationhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGf04jPEaT0
IMPACT OF THE
CONVENTIONAL AGRICULTURAL INTENSIFICATION

• May not be the best solution to feed the world’s and achieve sustainable land
use.
• Conventional intensification fails to provide benefits for both human well-
being and ecosystems.
• Counterproductive for people reliant on ecosystem services, for example in
Bolivia, shifting towards intensive onion production trigger plant diseases
IMPACT OF THE
CONVENTIONAL AGRICULTURAL INTENSIFICATION

Well-being impacts often favour wealthier individuals at the expense of poorer ones,
for example:
• In Bangladesh, saltwater shrimp provides higher profits for investor and land-
owners, while poorer rice farmers must deal with the soil salinisation caused by this
production.
• In Ethiopia, coffee production driven by state enterprises & investors negatively
impact the well-being of the local minority groups.
• In Indonesia, crisis monetary in the late 1990’s reduced purchasing power of
smallholder who rely on chemicals, declining national rice production.
• In India, more than 300,000 farmer-suicide due to monopolization of GM seeds,
centering on patent control, application of terminator technology, marketing strategy,
and increased production costs.
IMPACT OF THE
CONVENTIONAL AGRICULTURAL INTENSIFICATION

• Improved production with this conventional agricultural intensification

has been attained at the great expense of the environmental degradation.
• There is just not enough evidence to back up the expectation of blanket
success for agricultural intensification without addressing social
inequalities
SUSTAINABLE, ECOLOGICAL
AND AGRO-ECOLOGICAL
INTENSIFICATION

• Intensification is important for more productive agricultural land.

• But unfortunately conventional agricultural intensification had a negative
side effect on environment.
• Therefore, only intensification that environmentally sound can satisfy
human needs whilst limiting environmental consequences.
• Therefore, further intensification development is evolved, including
sustainable, ecological and agro-ecological intensification.
• Sustainable, ecological and agro-ecological intensification often used
interchangeably but have nuances that differentiate them.
SUSTAINABLE
INTENSIFICATION

• “Sustainable” is a good word that many people want.

• Last for a long time and good for environment.
• If the two terms are put together as “sustainable intensification” this can satisfy the nutritional
needs, increase the efficiencies and technology use whilst limit environmental consequences.
• Sustainable intensification (SI) is defined as a process or system where agricultural yields are
increased without adverse environmental impact and without the conversion of additional non-
agricultural land (Pretty & Bharucha, 2014).
• Produce more, but in away that is sustainable; produce more from the same piece of land.
• Critique: sustainable intensification is generally loosely defined, so that almost any model or
technology can be labeled under it.
SUSTAINABLE
INTENSIFICATION

• 1986 : First used by Egger to describe soil fertility improvement

and maintenance while integrating crops, livestock with forestry
(silvo-pasture).
• 1999 : Cassman & Pinggali with the goal to improve productivity
while meeting acceptable standards of environmental quality.
• 2014 : Tittonell defined EI as the increasing food production
(quantity and diversity of food) by capitalising on ecological
processes and ecosystem services from plot to landscape scale.
AGRO-ECOLOGICAL
INTENSIFICATION

• Improving the performance of agriculture through integration of ecological

principles, traditional knowledge as well as modern ecological knowledge into
farm and system management.
• Improved performance may mean; improved efficiency, increased productivity,
food sovereignty and better diets, enhanced use of local resources, improved
livelihoods, and increased equity with associated increases in resilience and
environmental service provision from farmed landscapes.
• Agroecological intensification (AEI) practices relying on on-farm diversity tend
to close nutrient cycles and reduce dependency on external inputs in
agricultural systems.
• The goal of agroecological intensification has a stronger focus on the
integration of social and cultural perspectives.
 EXAMPLES OF
SUSTAINABLE, ECOLOGICAL, AND AGRO-
ECOLOGICAL INTENSIFICATION
INTEGRATED PEST
MANAGEMENT
(IPM)
is an ecosystem approach to crop production and protection that combines different management
strategies and practices to grow healthy crops and minimize the use of pesticides

Monitoring Natural enemy Botanical/ organic pesticide

• IPM is a pilar of sustainable intensification (FAO 2020).

• Pesticides are not completely banned from IPM, it limits application of pesticides through very
careful monitoring.
THE SYSTEM OF
RICE INTENSIFICATION (SRI)

• To reduce plant
competition, increase
oxygen supply to boost
root mass and nutrient
uptake.
• SRI encourages the
reduction of agrochemicals
but not completely
prohibits them, making
SRI is categorised into
sustainable intensification.
AGROFORESTRY

 Is the land use systems in which trees

are grown in combination with
agriculture on the same land.

 Can be categorized as sustainable

ecological or agroecological
intensification, depending on
involvement of artificial inputs and
social-cultural.
CONSERVATION
AGRICULTURE (CA)

Is an approach to managing agroecosystems for improved and

sustained productivity while preserving the resource base and the
environment. Three principles of CA:
 The use of crop rotation
 Continuous minimum soil disturbance
 Permanent organic soil cover
 In practice mostly are categorized as
ecological intensification
STOCKLESS
FARMING
• Stockless farming is farming without animals and
animal products.
• Totally stockless systems do not import livestock
manures but some utilize green wastes.
• The challenges of stockless organic systems are:
conversion planning, rotation design, maintaining
soil nutrient status, weed control, pest control, &
economic return.
• Without the use of conventional/ artificial inputs,
this can be categorised as ecological intensification
NATURAL FARMING
(DO NOTHING FARMING)

• By Masanobu Fukuoka (1975) with the

five principles: no tillage, no fertiliser,
no pesticides and herbicides, no
weeding, no pruning.
• Is categorised as ecological
intensification.
PERMACULTURE
PERMANENT AGRICULTURE

• Is a method to (re) design farms based

on human systems and natural
principles.
• Permaculture integrates land,
resources, people and the
environment through mutually
beneficial synergies – imitating the no
waste, closed loop systems seen in
diverse natural systems.
• Categorised as agro-ecological
intensification.

https://highlyuncivilized.com/2016/02/02/permaculture-biodynamic-and-agroecology/
BIODYNAMIC
• Is a comprehensive agricultural system on mixed farms, which
should always involve crops and livestock to be a closed
system farming while respecting the spiritual dimension.
• Everything is interconnected with the lunar calendar.
• Farmers should create diversified and balanced farm
ecosystems, revitalizing the soils and the general biodiversity of
the farm.
• The closed system and socio-cultural aspect integration make
biodynamic is categorised as agro-ecological intensification.

http://www.andrewlorand.com/biodynamics/biodynamic-viticulture/
COMPLEX
AGRO-ECOSYSTEMS (COCOLTURE)

• Complex agro-ecosystems are the diversity of farm

components, including plants, animals and
knowledge which synergistically interact to augment
ecological processes, closing nutrient cycles and
reducing external inputs to improve farm
performances.
• The selection and integration of components are
made based on observations and indigenous and
current knowledge.
• Farmers and other stakeholders are involved in
science, practices, creation and movement.
• They are then categorized as agroecological
intensification.
HUMAN CARRYING CAPACITY
OF DIFFERENT AGRICULTURAL INTENSIFICATION

Human carrying capacity (quantity and quality) of a specific

agricultural system will depend on the amount of :
• The harvested food on the system.
• Required nutrition per person.
• The harvested diverse nutrient of the system.
Example between conventional monoculture rice system (CON) and
organic complex rice systems (CRS).
EXAMPLE:
HOW MANY PEOPLE CAN BE FED FROM RICE
MONOCULTURE VS. CRSs

• Two rice systems, monoculture and complex rice system(CRS) grew rice 2,5 times a
year, and each cycle produces:
• The yields in both conventional and monoculture are of 7,5 tons per ha per cycle
• Consumable rice is 60% of the whole rice grain.
• CRS: rice with the yield of 7,5 tons, fish 1 ton, duck meat 400 kg, string bean on the rice
bunds 1 ton.
• Nutritional requirements per day per person is in Table 1
• How many people can be fed from both systems based on the basic nutrient
requirement(calorie) per hectare per year?
• How many people can satisfy their protein requirement produced by both systems per
hectare per year?
EXAMPLE:
HOW MANY PEOPLE CAN BE FED FROM RICE
MONOCULTURE VS. CRSs
TABEL 1 TABEL 2
Daily Nutritional Amount   Yield (kg) Calorie Protein
Requirement
Con.monoculture
Total calorie
nutrientS 2000
Hulled grain (kg) (7500*60%)*2,5 130*((11250*1000)/100) 2,7*(11250*1000)/100
Protein (g) 50
Carbohydrate (g) 130 11250 14625000 303750
Fat (g) 30
Carrying capacity 14625000/ (2000*365) 303750/(50*365)
Calcium (mg) 1300
Iron (mg) 11 20 persons/ha/y 16 persons /ha/y
Magnesium (mg) 410
CRS      
Phosphorus (mg) 1250
Potassium (mg) 4700 Hulled grain (kg) 11250 14625000 303750
Sodium (mg) 2300
Zinc (mg) 11 Fish meat 1000 1290000 260000
Selenium (mcg) 55 Duck meat 400 1348000 76000
Vitamin A, mcg E 900
Vitamin E, mg  15 Longyard bean 1000 310000 18000
Vitamin D, IU 600 Total 17573000 657750
Vitamin C, mg 75
Vitamin K, mcg 75 Carrying capacity 24 persons 60 persons /ha/y
CONCLUSION
• People have the capacity to think on how to improve food supply
as Boserup said. However,
• If conventional intensification is maintained, it will lead to
further environmental degradation, global warming and
desertification.
• Hence, with the population growth, eventually Earth will reach
the carrying capacity that Malthus proposed.
• Agroecological intensification approaches are not only retard
environmental degradation but also have greater carrying
capacity than conventional intensification.
WORKING
GROUP

• Make a small group of 5-6 students

• Choose on what crop or farming systems your group want to work on
• Design your own system applying sustainable or ecological or agroecological intensification to be compared with
conventional monoculture later
• Divide the work into:
a) Describing the systems chosen by your group and what make them different from the conventional one.
b) Searching information of the product yields in your systems (mean yield of each product must be based on at least 4
references)
c) collecting information from USDA or other websites on nutrient contents of your products
d) Calculating how many people can be fed from both systems based on the basic nutrient requirement(calorie) per hectare
per year.
e) Calculating how many people can satisfy their minimum three types of nutrient requirement (Table 1) produced by both
systems per hectare per year.
f) Making conclusion and recommendation how to improve your system.
REFERENCES
• Rasmussen LV, Coolsaet B, Martin A. et al. (2018). Social-ecological
outcomes of agricultural intensification. Nat Sustain 1, 275–282 (.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0070-8.
• Wezel A, Soboksa G, McClelland, S, Delespesse F & Boissau A. (2015).
The blurred boundaries of ecological, sustainable, and agroecological
intensification: a review. Agron. Sustain. Dev, 35:1283–1295 DOI
10.1007/s13593-015-0333-y.
• Pretty J & Bharucha ZP. (2014). Sustainable intensification in agricultural
systems. Annals of botany, 114(8), 1571–1596.
https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcu205.
• Taji, Acram & Reganold, John. (2006). Organic Agriculture: A Global
Perspective. 10.1071/9780643094604.
THANK YOU
GOOD BYE