Per below:  I first read about the Cerrado in a Nature Conservancy article years ago where it was described as a biodiversity hotspot.  It has at least 10,000 plant species, 600 bird species, including some endemics, and 200 mammals.  The megafauna include the maned wolf, giant armadillo, jaguar, and ocelot. 
 
Below, it seems that agriculturists and environmentalists aren't talking the same language when it comes to "harm."  Converting most of the Cerrado to agriculture may be necessary (or at least inevitable), but is losing all that wild land and biodiversity really causing no harm?  And as a tallgrass prairie advocate, I hate to read any implication that only natural areas with trees really matter.
 
In recent REGISTER editorials, the Cerrado has been referred to as "barren" and "unproductive."  Meanwhile at conservation meetings I attend, the term "rowcrop desert" is used as a matter of course. 
 
How can agriculturists and environmentalists around the world bridge this huge language gap?  And how can we make progress in saving what's left of the wild world if we don't try?
 
Cindy
 
***
 
Laureates: Farming renders no harm to Brazil

This year's World Food Prize winners say the changes they helped bring about actually have helped the environment.


By JERRY PERKINS
REGISTER FARM EDITOR

October 21, 2006

 

Cindy Hildebrand
[log in to unmask]
Ames, IA  50010

"The autumns of Iowa are somewhat peculiar in their beauty and serenity. The oppressive summer heat is over by the last of August, and from that time until the middle of November, the mellow softness of the climate, the beauty and grandeur of the foliage, the dry and natural roads that cross our prairies, the balmy fragrance of the atmosphere, the serene sky, all combined, present to the eye of the traveller a picture calculated to excite emotions of wonder and delight." (John B. Newhall, 1841)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp