- you can't get loans from the bank because its not a proven method (applies to food forests or other types of agroforestry, not to organic farming anymore) - you need some time investment to get the operation profitable, can be as much as ten years for a food forest - regulations may prevent you from acquiring land, simply because the method isn't known - you may not get subsidy and / or tax cuts because you have a different system or produce different crops - the crops you produce may not always get the best prize on the market - you simply aren't profiting from externalized costs, hence you are less competitive
An example of the last point: to support our meat and dairy industry, the Netherlands imports cheap soy from Brazil, which is produced by destroying millions of hectares of rainforest. This is a bit like fossil fuels (also used a lot in agriculture): it isn't sustainable and it is taking advantage of cheap labor and destroying natural resources elsewhere. If you want to produce meat or dairy in a sustainable way in the Netherlands without taking a toll on the Amazonian Rainforest, you will need a lot of land which is very expensive, and therefore you aren't competitive anymore.
Additionally, it probably requires more labor initially, although that decreases as the soil improves.
https://www.echocommunity.org/resources/ae1d762e-d561-4a7e-8...
The promises of syntropic farming are many: large yields; multiple income streams; optimal use of land; no need for external inputs; improved soil quality; minimal weeding; plant resilience due to biodiversity; and better water management, both in extreme wet and dry times. Gietzen tells the story of Götsch’s cacao farm, showing that an established syntropic system can sustain high productivity with a level of labor that is comparable to that needed to manage a conventional farm. However, syntropic farming can be complicated to understand and apply. It requires in-depth knowledge of biological processes, access to many different kinds of seeds, and careful management.
https://news.mongabay.com/2020/07/in-syntropic-agriculture-f...
He refused to use artificial fertilizers and pesticides. He let most of the land grow naturally, and on 12 hectares (30 acres) he planted bananas and cocoa, cutting back the surrounding trees regularly. Today, he harvests an average 920 kgs (2,000 lb) of cocoa beans per hectare, more than three times the average across Brazil of 300 kg (660 lb) per hectare. And because he doesn’t spend money on fertilizers and pesticides, unlike the farmers around him, Götsch enjoys higher profits.
...
Then a drought hit the region. But not on Götsch’s farm. The dense vegetation of the 120 hectares locally created a lot of evaporation and the rain continued to fall. His success as a “rainmaker” finally earned Götsch the respect of his neighbors. They started to imitate him. Today, the forested area in the surroundings spans 1,000 hectares (2,500 acres). “When you fly over my finca now, you can’t see it anymore, because it is covered by clouds all year round,” Götsch says proudly.
https://agendagotsch.com/en/large-scale-syntropic-farming-re...
Once a neighbor starts growing a food forest, that idea can rapidly spread. It does take years, though...
I don’t know if they’d be viable vs non-subsidized farms either but in the US it is really hard to have a conversation about farm profitability without looking at how the government puts their finger on the scales.
At one time there were a lot more subsidies, but not anymore.
https://www.cftc.gov/Agriculture
Not fitting into the norm in this case costs more than it would for other innovations.
Where food forests win, is where people don't want mono-culture food products, and prefer to grow - and eat - locally.
Of course, if you've never stepped off the grid, you can't look at it, critically. If you have, you may wonder why you ever lived on it, in the first place.
We'd all be much, much healthier if we could eat locally, and grow our own foods - in whatever manner is feasible - instead of burning oil to do it.
If doing farming differently would certainly net more, they would do it. So I take there is some component that is forgotten. Be it scaling, labour input or available market for higher priced products.
https://agendagotsch.com/en/large-scale-syntropic-farming-re...
World's most important sources of calories: https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/most-important-staple-fo...
Maintaining ones own - or community - garden is a fantastic way to just improve the quality of your own life, and the life of others around you.
That's a different kind of profit.
They probably don't see farming as being like capitalism because farming is, with some exceptions, mostly socialist in nature – the workers own the means of production.
> They will aim to make as much profit with resources they have available.
That is certainly true, although not a feature of capitalism. Wanting something in return for offering something to another transcends capital ownership structures.