posted 10 years ago
"Barren land" is a bit vague. My understanding of "barren land" would normally be land with minimal life upon it. That is a pretty extreme situation and not one I would want to be starting from. Even if you intended something more along the lines of recently monocultured farmland, I think I would still be opting for the established forest.
Several reasons, not the least of which is Time. If there is a forest with mature trees in place, I am decades ahead of where I would be planting my trees in open land. If there is a mature forest, I can thin it out while acquiring building materials for very low cost. this saves me money along with time.
Sure, the existing forest may push me in certain directions with my development of the property. Absence of forest would also push in certain, but different, directions, so that is a wash imo.
Existing forest likely lends itself to immediate use for appropriate livestock, while "barren land" may require time before you even have capacity for grazing. Again, time, availability of yield.
Turning an existing forest into a food forest and sylvo pasture system could be done in less time than developing one from "barren land" or just open land. You already have in place nurse trees. You almost certainly would have some trees that you would be intending to grow in your system that were already there, whether they were nitrogen fixers that you might plan on taking out or fruit/nut trees that you would be harvesting some years down the road, or fuel, or building materials.
With an extant forest you get to do some subtractive development, extracting a yield as you prepare it for your development path.
I think it generally puts you years ahead of starting from barren/open land. And of course this could vary depending upon all sorts of details of climate, location, etc.
I am quite sure that for the cool temperate regions I have in mind for developing my permaculture dreams, an extant forest would be a great benefit.