I lived in Thailand for several years, and then spent time in Micronesia -- I saw the difference between a grain-based agriculture and a tree-based agriculture (breadfruit), even though the island economy isn't subsistence level anymore and most people didn't actually depend on breadfruit. Then years later I read Morton's book and became interested in the pejibaye; and a couple years after that read 1491, which described how the Spanish didn't fully recognize Amazonian and equatorial agriculture, because it was mostly fruit-based.
For some time I've been wondering if there might be horticultural combinations of Old and New World trees that could equal the value of rice farming. The great virtue of rice is that it stores so well, and can be productive on a small parcel of land; its drawbacks are the labour and the dependence on water control. In Thailand the people who make money from rice are middlemen and exporters, never the farmers themselves; and there is no fruit crop that earns more money than rice per acre (at least according to the farmers). So my question is really just if there could be a combination of trees that could provide a subsistence diet superior to rice? Is it worth it for rice farmers to work so hard for a few hundred bucks (and sometimes nothing)?
Thinking about this in the most superficial way, I've come up with three trees that might work well in combination:
- breadfruit (productive carbohydrates, can have extensive fruiting seasons)
- pejibaye (less productive, but contains more fat and protein and other nutrients)
- avocado (dietary fat)
Thoughts?
P.S. -- here's a ref on the pejibaye, I love the FAOs 'neglected crops' series.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0646E/T0646E0l.htm