Agroecology: The
Ecology of Food Systems
Abstract:
We present a
compelling rationale for defining agroecology
as the ecology of food systems. Our purpose is to provide a framework that will
guide research, education, and action in the multiple and interacting facets of
an increasingly complex global agriculture and food system. To accomplish such
goals, it is essential to build bridges and connections among and beyond our
disciplines in production agriculture, as well as beyond the farm gate into the
rural landscape and community. Fields of sociology, anthropology, environmental
sciences, ethics, and economics are crucial to the mix. They provide additional
vantage points from which we can view the food system anew, as well as insights
on how to establish valuation criteria beyond neoclassical economics. Examples
from Mexico, California, and the Nordic Region are used to illustrate the
successful implementation of this educational strategy in universities. Design of individual farms using principles
of ecology is expanded to the levels of landscape, community, and bioregion,
with emphasis on uniqueness of place and the people and other species that
inhabit that place. We conclude that defining agroecology as the ecology of food systems will foster the
development of broader interdisciplinary research teams and attractive
systems-based courses for tomorrow’s best students. In contrast to the narrow
focus on crop-soil interactions, this definition will help us raise
higher-level research questions whose solutions will advance the development of
a sustainable agriculture and food system.
Key words: agricultural systems, holistic research, action learning,
interdisciplinary studies
Introduction
We define
agroecology as the integrative study of the ecology of the entire food system,
encompassing ecological, economic and social dimensions. This definition will
lead to a practical approach that encourages researcher, educator, and student
to embrace the wholeness and connectivity of systems, and will stimulate a
focus on uniqueness of each place, and solutions appropriate to its resources
and constraints. The definition expands our thinking beyond production
practices and immediate environmental impacts at the field and farm level.
Agroecology has
been variously defined as the ecology of agriculture, the study of ecological
functions in farming, and the marriage of agriculture and ecology. More
specifically, “Agroecology is defined as the application of ecological concepts
and principles to the design and management of sustainable agroecosystems”
(Gliessman, 1998). This concept has
captured the imaginations of farmers and academics who are searching for
innovative ways to increase productivity and sustainability of agriculture
while maintaining an environment that must endure as well as provide quality of
life. Short of dealing with the complexity of improving today’s food systems,
most research projects and university courses – even in agroecology -- focus on
the narrow components of agricultural production and their immediate
environmental impacts. Such focus does not reflect our expanding vision of how
ecology can inform the design and management of the total food system, nor does
it build on the ecological foundation that has been used in several educational
programs to support the development of sustainable agroecosystems. Study of the
ecology of food systems can provide insight on how to deal with questions at
the systems level and contribute to development of sustainable societies.
Natural ecological
systems have evolved over centuries to take efficient advantage of natural
resources. Interacting plant and animal species survive well together in each
given environment, including its climate and soils. They provide a model of
survival and relative stability on which we can model modern agroecosystems.
Natural systems are essentially local, and they are most often biologically
diverse. Clues gleaned from natural systems can be blended with attentive human
innovations to design future food systems.
Many instructive
production practices are found in traditional agroecosystems that represent a
co-evolution of culture and nature. The intricacies and potential value of
indigenous systems were studied extensively by the Mexican ethnobotanist Efraim
Hernandez X., who defined agroecosystems as the interaction among ecological,
technological, and socio-economic factors. He explained why modern agricultural
systems have lost their ecological foundation, as socio-economic factors became
the dominant driving forces in the food system (described in Hernandez X.,
1977). The maize/bean/squash system of Mexico and Central America is an example
of biological efficiency as well as contribution to family diet.
In what ways can
we recapture the knowledge developed over centuries of traditional agricultural
production experience, and link these with the efficiencies of natural systems
and with new technologies? Gliessman (1998) suggested that, “The greater the
structural and functional similarity of an agroecosystem to the natural
ecosystems in its biogeographic region, the greater the likelihood that the
agroecosystem will be sustainable.” One of our challenges in research is to
discover how the principles, the design, and the functions of natural systems
can be used as benchmarks or guides to development of productive, future
systems (Gliessman, 1990, 2001). The Land Institute in Kansas provides one
example of a research scenario based on the prairie as a model ecosystem (Jackson,
1980; Soule and Piper, 1992). Their national network of 125 scientists is
exploring how an understanding of natural systems can be used to inform our
search for productive future perennial-based agroecosystems that operate in
harmony with the environment and natural resources.
When we focus only
on the production sector in agriculture, the analysis of current systems and
design of future alternatives is severely constrained. Such focus ignores the
large investment in energy and materials that are integral to the processing,
transportation, and marketing steps in the food chain. In the industrial food
system, it is a practical impossibility to reincorporate many of the waste
products in this chain back into the production cycle due to distance, cost, and
logistical complications. A global system may bring us bananas every day of the
year, if we can afford them, but it obscures the principal of seasonality in
food production in each place and the cycles that are both inherent and
efficient in natural systems. Building on principles of ecology and uniqueness
of place, agroecology and analysis of agroecosystems can provide methods for
broadening the focus to analyzing all components of the food system and how
they interact.
People
in Agroecosystems:
Our societies are
open systems that result from human actions and are based on demands, wishes,
and vision. It is essential that we integrate human behavior as an important
driving force in the system. Our current
system separates most people from their sources of food and from the production
environment. In current urban culture, food may be the only remaining
connection to nature. This separation and lack of awareness of how and where
food is produced and processed contribute to people’s decisions to consume fast
food while discounting the importance of health as well as other human and
environmental impacts (Nestle, 2002; Schlosser, 2001). In addition, the global
food system does not currently provide adequate food to the tables of the
majority of people on the planet. We must consider global equity in terms of
nutrition, health, and food security. A broader, interdisciplinary focus in
agroecology as the study of food systems will help us identify the real human
costs and benefits of the current system and help account for what are often
considered externalities, both in the short and long terms. These issues are
already being addressed through the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) of the
European Union, where emphasis is placed on multifunctional landscapes including
cultural values in each location.
With increasing
global human population, there is growing awareness of the need to increase
food production while protecting biodiversity and the natural environment.
Humans have the opportunity and responsibility to evaluate food systems in new
ways, to recognize the need to balance the system with available resources, and
to accept a moral obligation to manage outputs from the system in an equitable
manner. When people are viewed as an integral part of the ecosystem, subject to
all the natural laws and consequences of system success, there is a compelling
reason to make agroecosystems as sustainable as possible for the long term.
Beyond our current disruptive power in the ecosystem, we are capable of
designing systems that close nutrient cycles, depend more on renewable energy,
reduce inefficiencies in production, and promote environmental health. We can
meet our goals by using some system design principles and properties that
resemble those of natural ecosystems.
In this context,
agroecology has appeal because it helps us focus on structure and processes at
each relevant systems level. Careful study can lead to better analyses of the
sustainability or potential negative long-term environmental impacts of current
agricultural practices and systems. There are growing concerns by the public,
often expressed through regulations, that lead to requirements for agricultural
practices that will reduce the loss of soil and nutrients from fields and
minimize the entry of pesticides and their residues into surface and
groundwater. Learning more about the cycling processes and designs of natural
systems can help us improve managed agroecosystems. Up to the present, the
focus in agricultural science has been primarily on components of the
production process, and maximizing net returns of single products per unit of
land or labor. All other resource use and environmental effects have been
considered “externalities,” and have been excluded from system design. The
production focus is also reflected in design of most current agroecology
courses.
The agricultural
system is an open system, interacting with nature and with society, and the
development of a sustainable food system will require more attention to the
efficiency of the entire process of converting natural resources to what
reaches consumers’ tables. This includes analysis of food production,
processing, marketing, and consumption. When agroecology is defined as the
ecology of food systems, we are obligated to look at more than the efficiencies
of resource use in production, the short-term environmental impacts of
practices, and annual enterprise economics. Most of the energy (perhaps
>75%) in the food system involves steps after the field production process
(Johansson et al., 2000). We need to consider the energy used and waste
generated at each step in the food chain, the potentials for cycling materials
back into primary production, and the emergent properties of a complex system
that is basic to human survival. We need to employ such tools as materials life
cycle analysis (Audsley et al., 1997), emergy analysis (Odum, 1996),
environmental footprint calculations (Wackernagel et al., 1999), and
alternative economic and other valuation schemes (for review see Doherty and
Rydberg, 2002). Beyond looking at only the energy and materials flows, we must
consider other driving forces in the system such as economics at the farm,
national, and global levels, the environmental consequences of systems on all
plant and animal species, and the social and health impacts of systems on
people. An interdisciplinary, integrated approach is essential to adequately
address the complexities of interactions in the total food system (Allen et
al., 1991).
Evolution
of the Agroecology Concept
Gliessman (1998)
traced the history of agroecology to the early part of the past century when
people in ecology and agronomy found common interests. The area of crop ecology
included scientists exploring where crops were grown and climatic conditions
where each was best adapted. Some proposed using the term agroecology. Both early and recent publications using this term and
related concepts are shown in Table 1 (based on Gliessman, 1998).
These publications
date back to the linking of the terms ecology and agronomy in Klages’ 1928
article “Crop Ecology and Ecological Crop Geography in the Agronomic
Curriculum.” Gliessman describes how groups of scientists diverged after World
War II, with the ecologists giving more focus to experiments in the natural
environment and agronomists dedicating their attention to cultivated systems in
agriculture. This separation of interests endured until the 1970s when books
and articles began to appear using the term agroecology and the concept of the
agroecosystem.
There were many
indications from this new generation of authors that agroecology would evolve
to include more than the biogeochemical environment and the crops grown there.
Gliessman (1990) described the pioneering work of Prof. Efraim Hernandez X. and
his students in Mexico who developed research based on indigenous systems and
knowledge, and how this led to education programs in agroecology (Hernandez X.,
1977; Gliessman, 1978). In Agroecología
del Trópico Americano, Montaldo (1982) suggested that biological problems
in designing agricultural practices are inseparable from the socioeconomic
context in which agricultural systems are used.
In Sustainable Agriculture and Integrated
Farming Systems (Edens et al., 1985), there were sections devoted to
economics of systems, ecological impacts, and ethics and values in agriculture.
These supplemented the expected papers on crop/animal integration, levels of
input use, and marketing alternatives that dominated the proceedings. Altieri
(1985) discussed pest management in the context of a changing structure of
agriculture, including consolidation of farms, planting of monocultures, and
how these impact pest populations. Gliessman (1985) added that “Socio-economic,
technological, and ecological components constantly interact, creating a complex
feedback mechanism that through time has selected for the types of food
production systems that we observe today.” These agroecologists laid the
foundation for what has become in some programs a comprehensive study of the
food system. Parallel to this development was the emerging literature on
agricultural systems (e.g. Spedding, 1979, 1996).
The terms and
concepts in Table 1 are limited to use of the term agroecology, and only touch
on the closely related publications and strong growth in education and research
in sustainable agriculture during this same time frame. An overview of the
modern historical development of sustainable agriculture by Harwood (1990)
described how an evolving resource base, social values, and market structure
were causing us to move from the current industrial model to something both
qualitatively and quantitatively different. This included a stable number of
people in production agriculture, a growing number in food services, a shift
from specialization toward enterprise integration, a change toward more
biological processes, and a quantum increase in social and environmental
considerations that influence public investment in the food system.
Conway (1985)
articulated the importance of basing agroecosystem analysis on interdisciplinary
study, using real farm cases in a workshop setting. The process leads to “a set
of agreed key questions for future research or alternatively a set of tentative
guidelines for development.” Bawden (1991) pointed out that appropriate natural
science approaches such as farming systems research and agroecosystems analysis
can be enriched by social science methods that explore the cognitive issues in
farmer decision making.
There are close
links to economics, to structure of agriculture, and to ethical issues in food
systems in the subsequent literature on sustainable agriculture. For example,
Coscia (1993) described the ethical or moral obligation of each generation to
preserve natural resources not used by their ancestors and to provide at least
the same opportunities for their children and for succeeding generations. A
practical series of field guides for farmers and students began with Michigan Field Crop Ecology (Cavigelli
et al., 1998), a set that will soon include a volume on social/political linkages
and the social contract. Interactions
between Agroecosystems and Rural Communities (Flora, 2001) illustrates the rise in awareness of
connections to the human community and human capital. Integrative thinking is central to the current writings in sustainable
agriculture, and those involved in teaching agroecology should be aware of new
research and education programs in this related arena.
The importance of
interdisciplinary approaches and incorporation of social systems methodology
into research and education is summarized by Dalgaard et al. (2002). In their
paper, a compelling case is made for broadening the application of ecological
principles using a hierarchy of scale to understand complexity in the
production system. This approach is similar to that used by Gliessman (1998).
Agroecology is suggested as the logical discipline to integrate across
disciplines and different levels of scale. Natural science methods can be used
to describe the decision-support tools that will inform design of ecologically sound
agriculture, while social science methods can be used to integrate human
dimensions and help us better understand the total system.
Texts and Resource Materials
The text Agroecologia del Trópico Americano (Montaldo, 1982) was published
by the Interamerican Institute for Agricultural Cooperation (IICA) and made
widely available through their offices throughout the western hemisphere.
Courses in Italy, especially in the University of Tuscia in Viterbo, have used
the text by Fabio Caporali (1991), Ecologia
per L’Agricoltura: Teoria e Pratica, for the past decade. They primarily
deal with the production process and blending agriculture with ecology.
Writings of Miguel
Altieri during the past two decades (e.g. Altieri, 1983, 1987; Altieri and
Hecht, 1990) reflect a strong concern about the equity issues in agriculture.
In his research, teaching, and graduate advising, Altieri has integrated the
social concerns of farm scale, agricultural labor, and equity of benefits into
the technical studies of IPM and integrated farming systems. The text by
Gliessman (1998) is probably the most widely used in the U.S. at this time, and
his edited reference volume is widely cited in the literature (Gliessman,
1990). He has also published a field and laboratory manual for teaching
agroecology (Gliessman, 2000). The book series edited by Clive Edwards and
published by CRC Press provides additional background and insight on many
dimensions of agroecology (for example Buck et al., 1999; Collins and Qualset,
1998; Flora, 2001; Gliessman, 2001).
Courses
and Curricula in Agroecology
Agroecology has
its foundation in both ecology and in production agriculture, as well as a
number of other specific disciplines. Therefore the development of educational
programs depends in large part on the components that are already well known
and included in many courses in the conventional curriculum. Agroecology, the
ecology of food systems, provides a platform for the integration of numerous
and complex elements of the system with the objectives of understanding the
structures and functions of systems, how to improve their design for more
sustainable, long-term production, and integrating goals for security and
equity in food for the future. Education must shift emphasis from teaching how
to maximize production of a single crop in a decontextualized environment with
unlimited access to fossil fuels, toward a food systems level where the natural
environment and society are recognized in all their complexity. We find it
increasingly important to link methods from natural and social sciences in
designing education to meet these goals.
Programs
in Mexico:
The importance of the ecological foundation of
agriculture has long been the emphasis of educational programs for several
undergraduate and graduate programs in Mexico. At the beginning of the 1970s
pioneering studies at the National School of Agriculture in Chapingo (UACh)
focused on the traditional agriculture of Mexican campesinos (peasant farmers). Graduate courses in ethnobotany
developed the ideas that led to a national meeting “Agroecosistemas de Mexico”
in 1976 (Hernandez X., 1977), and a subsequent call for courses in agronomic
institutions country-wide that addressed the ecological, economic, and social
issues facing Mexican agroecosystems and farmers. This approach was reviewed in
a series of collected publications (Hernandez X., 1985, 1987).
The Ecology
Department of the Colegio Superior de Agricultura Tropical (CSAT) in Tabasco
offered courses in ecology, agroecology, and tropical agroecosystems,
emphasizing the values of traditional agroecosystems (Gliessman, 1978).
Classroom and laboratory learning were applied through a semester of full-time
residence in a local farming community, showing students how an agroecological
approach could link the ecology of food systems with the socio-economic reality
being experienced by farmers. Agroecology in a cultural context was provided by
the Graduate Program in Anthropology at the Universidad Iberoamericana in
Mexico City (Gonzalez Jacome and Del Amo, 1999).
After an intensive
short course in tropical agroecology in 1989 at the Colegio de Postgraduados in
Tabasco (the former CSAT) and an international symposium on agroecology in 1990
(Ferrera-Cerrato and Quintero L., 1993), a Department of Agroecology was formed
and a full curriculum inaugurated in 1991. Emphasis is on ecologically-based
production processes and practices, with additional required courses in
economic, social, and cultural components of sustainable agriculture. In ten
years, 130 students have graduated and become the catalysts of agroecology
programs and curricula throughout Mexico.
Program
at University of California Santa Cruz (UCSC):
The first course
devoted specifically to Agroecology at UCSC was offered in 1981 as part of the
Environmental Studies Program, and shortly thereafter the Agroecology Program
(now Center for Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems) was initiated. A
primary goal of the course has been development and monitoring of indicators of
agricultural sustainability. A concern for incorporating economic and social
dimensions of agricultural production systems is reflected in the last chapter
of Agroecology, titled “From
Sustainable Agriculture to Sustainable Food Systems” (Gliessman, 1998).
Students are
encouraged to venture beyond the conventional economic bottom line to consider
impacts of agriculture on the broader environment, the influence of
agricultural policy, and the complications of how short-term thinking and
decisions influence long-term system performance. Food system sustainability is
viewed as more than reduced pesticides and chemical fertilizers, but rather as
involving equity of outputs and benefits and how alternative systems affect
diet and health.
The Agroecology
and Sustainable Agriculture emphasis in Environmental Studies at UCSC has
expanded and flourished. Courses have been added that promote
ecologically-based methods of pest and disease control, as well as
resource-conserving approaches to the design of production systems. Other
courses promote awareness and incorporation of the economic, social, and
cultural aspects of agroecosystem sustainability. Field internship experiences
in agricultural communities are offered as part of the program.
We speculate that
introducing agroecology into agricultural curricula is a large challenge to
many conventional, discipline-oriented, reductionist scientists and educators.
Agricultural specialists are more
comfortable dealing with components of systems, simple cause-effect
relationships, and questions that can be answered by standard experimental
designs (Francis et al., 2001). Agroecology must involve interdisciplinary
approaches, and these threaten the autonomy and budgets of our disciplinary
departments. It is intriguing to observe the development of agroecology at UCSC
in a non-landgrant, liberal arts university.
Nordic Model for Agroecology:
A broad definition of agroecology is used to define courses in NOVA University
(Francis et al., 2001; Lieblein, 1997; Lieblein et al., 1999, 2000). The
courses “challenge the conventional metaphor of the food chain with its
one-dimensional, linear linking across the components. In contrast a local
program emphasizes the whole network of
ecological (energetic and material), economic, and socio-cultural (roles
of actors, information, communication) linkages ‘vertically’ from production to
processing, to markets, and to communities consuming the goods, and their
interdependence” (Francis et al., 2001).
The NOVA regional
working group in ecological agriculture sponsored a series of courses titled
“From Farming Systems to Food Systems” (Lieblein, 1997) that centered learning
on student activities in the field, exploring and describing natural resources,
production practices and potentials, processing, marketing, and consumer
concerns in the Hedmark region of south-central Norway. A description of these
modular courses is found in Lieblein et al. (1999). In these courses, we have
applied principles of action learning as summarized by Schubert (1995). The
NOVA working group is presently directing a regional research and education
project, “Improving the Nordic Region Education in Agroecology.” The goal is to
develop an agroecological didactic for the region (Lieblein and Østergaard,
2001).
The current NOVA
University MSc program in agroecology is designed as a two-year curriculum
including a practical thesis project. Study includes courses in Agroecology and Farming Sysems and Agroecology and Food Systems in Norway,
and Adaptive Management in Sweden. In
general, these courses 1) establish their focus at a systems level on farms and
in the wider landscape, 2) look on systems in an interdisciplinary way –
integrating natural and social sciences, 3) handle the system as open and
interacting, and 4) use experiential learning as a pedagogical base for
understanding complex systems and action learning as the starting point in the
field. Using ecological agriculture and food systems as an alternative to the
current system, they develop visions for a future, sustainable food system and action
plans for how to get there. The courses use ecological agriculture as a case
study approach because of its growing importance in Europe and elsewhere.
Integration into the U.S. Mainstream:
Altieri and
Francis (1992) explored how agroecology could be integrated into the mainstream
agricultural curriculum in our landgrant system, urging educators to include
topics linking production systems to economic, cultural, and political systems,
and to study how policy can strongly influence practices and impacts of
agriculture.
Today courses in
agroecology are most often found in departments of agronomy or biological
sciences and emphasize ecology of production. They focus on the ecology
dimensions if taught by an ecologist, or on production details if taught by an
agronomist. They not only reflect the backgrounds and disciplines of those
doing the teaching, but also their departments and the students who are
attracted to the courses. Several examples are listed in a compendium of
educational materials (King and Francis, 1994).
At University of
Nebraska, Agroecology is a capstone
course in the Department of Agronomy and Horticulture. Its emphasis on the
grassland ecosystem of the Great Plains features structure and function of the
prairie, climate and weather, and comparisons of natural and managed
ecosystems. Food processing and alternative local marketing systems are
compared to the global food system. Agricultural
Ecology at University of Maine uses rapid rural appraisal within the broad
social context of systems. Use of indigenous ideas, biodiversity, pest
management, and cover crops are specific topics, while industrialization,
policy, and human ethics and values make this one of the most diverse courses
now available.
Iowa State
University (ISU), University of Minnesota, and University of Nebraska offer Agroecosystems Analysis as a summer
travel course that uses farm visits to provide a basis for analysis of
production, economics, environmental and landscape impacts, and social
viability of alternative practices and systems (Wiedenhoeft et al., 2002). ISU
also initiated new MS and PhD programs in sustainable agriculture in Fall 2001.
Agroecology is a new course at North
Carolina State University that will be part of a proposed interdisciplinary
minor. In the eight-week residential course Experiential
Learning in Sustainable Agriculture lectures are supplemented by hands-on
experience in production, marketing, extension, and research in the field. This
course includes a week that focuses on integrating societal dimensions of
sustainable agriculture.
These courses are
heavily directed toward the ecological processes in specific cropping patterns
and the comparisons of conventional and alternative agriculture. They include
economic and ecological impacts of systems as well as attention to the social
impacts of systems on families. In only one course is agricultural policy
featured as a major topic in the schedule. The courses illustrate current
offerings in agroecology in U.S. universities, and they include limited treatment
of the complex steps of processing, marketing, and consumption of food that
lead to inefficiencies and costs of the global food chain. Likewise, there is
uneven attention devoted to the multiple and complex issues of biological
production, economics at different levels of geographic scale, and driving
forces such as new biotechnologies, capital mobility and global markets, and
eventual pressures due to inequities in distribution of benefits. Defining agroecology as the ecology of food
systems will help to broaden the educational perspective in future courses.
Closing the Loop: Educating the Consumer:
Agroecology needs
to involve all parties, from scientist to producer to processor to marketer to
consumer, if the goal is to base our food system on scientific foundations that
can handle complexity and change. Although much of the groundwork for programs
has been laid, a direct consumer involvement is most often missing. Only by
closing such a loop by including the consumer will the agroecological cycle be
completed. In particular, we need to get the attention of both urban and
suburban consumers. Those of us with experience teaching undergraduates observe
that students are under- or uninformed about the food system, especially from
an environmental and health perspective. This is equally apparent with most
community groups. Modern societies are organized around fossil fuels as the
driving force. As impacts of current systems begin to threaten the life support
base, interest will increase in less dense, natural and contemporary energy
resources. This will increase public interest in rural areas and agricultural
landscapes, and make the message more palatable to urban audiences and
students.
More consumers
need to understand the connections among agriculture, their food, their health,
and their environment. To reach them we need to emphasize the personal health
and environmental benefits for them and their families that are offered through
better understanding of the food system. Students and the general public do
connect with health issues such as benefits of fiber from vegetables and
fruits, or relationship between pesticides and cancer. Once informed, they are
receptive to information about local food systems including community gardens,
farm stands, compost, organic products and community supported agriculture, as
well as more complex ecosystem functions and services such as wetlands for
clean water, windbreaks for clean air, intact soils that don’t erode, and
oxygen from green plants. Consumers will want to learn more about their food
supply and the rural landscape, and ultimately will want information and
choices from the system that an agroecological approach can supply.
Organic food
producers and processors have already been successful in getting information to
the public about the certified labels that identify their products in the
market, as well as making direct connections for sale from the farm. Just as
commodity groups have promoted their specific crop or animal product, organic
growers and processors have pursued public education campaigns using grower
fees and contributions. One result is that growers benefit from the premium
price that organic products will bring in the marketplace, thus increasing
incomes by advancing their labeled products. Organic food sales have increased
by about 20% per year for more than a decade in U.S. and Europe (Lampkin,
1999).
Emphasis on
consumer education should include explanations of how ecological approaches
used by sustainable farmers can produce food without pesticides and with
alternatives to chemical fertilizers, while protecting the ecosystem and
producing healthy, safe food for consumers. The farmer can be portrayed as an
environmental steward who is also concerned about consumer health, an ally of
the consumer who has made changes in farming practices to achieve these
multiple goals. Customers can be affirmed when they make the choices to
purchase food produced in this manner. Further education about how food is
produced, where, by whom, and under what conditions will reinforce their
decisions. Surveys in Norway have shown that consumers who regularly purchase
ecological food are also concerned about overall pesticide and fertilizer use,
about animal welfare, and about the conditions of farmers and families where
food is produced (Torjusen et al., 2001).
When agroecology studies the entire food system, these issues of
consumer opinion and choice are part of the equation.
Conclusions:
We have defined
agroecology as the study of the whole food system, embracing both natural and
social sciences, and emphasizing systems thinking and ecological principles.
Based on our collective experience in teaching and research, we find it
impossible to deal effectively with the complexity of resource use and design
of future systems if we only focus on the production aspects, short-term
economics, and environmental impacts in the immediate vicinity of farm fields.
It is logical to suggest that agroecology should deal with all actors in food
systems as well as the total flow of energy and materials from their sources
through production and other steps to the consumer, and the potential to return
nutrients to the field. It is essential to carefully analyze the current global
food system and explore local alternatives, as well as unique options such as
organic farming. Concepts in agroecology can be also be applied to improving
conventional farming systems.
Richard Harwood
(personal communication, 2001) outlines the forces that are shaping the
dynamics of development and the emerging global food situation in this new
century. He lists the driving forces
as new technologies, mobility of capital and people, global markets, and an
infrastructure increasingly dominated by multinational corporations. In
agriculture, some of the supplemental
forces shaping the future include collection and manipulation of germplasm,
new information on genomics, and dynamic breeding programs for our major staple
crops. Corrective forces are those
invoked by governments and include global, regional, and national policies as
well as international oversight for trade, management of monopolies, and
legislation that protects the environment. Harwood lists sustaining forces as research in production ecology, effective
protection of natural resources, appropriate technologies and local food
systems, and strong action by the civil sector. Narrow focus on specific
technologies to increase food production or solve local environmental problems
can help some farmers, but will provide little meaningful direction on how to
design effective and sustainable systems for the future. A new definition of
agroecology provides a rationale and brings intellectual resources to focus on
some of the most difficult and complex issues that challenge our ability to
provide a stable food supply for the indefinite future.
Most educators
involved in agroecology and sustainable agriculture feel that a thoughtful
analysis of the economic implications and long-term impacts of alternative
systems will help us sort out the complexities of resource use and
environmental impacts that result from alternative agricultural and food
processing systems. A broad evaluation of productivity, economic return,
environmental impact, and social equity that quantifies the multiple
consequences of alternative food systems can help students and researchers ask
the relevant questions, interpret the results, and apply this information to
design of productive and sustainable agroecosystems. Moreover, it will be
impossible to make substantial progress unless we also recognize the importance
of literature, philosophy, ethics, and other reflections of culture that help
explain the uniqueness of place, including people and resources. To introduce
this concept to a broader student audience, we urge continued dialog on both
the definition of agroecology and the development of innovative approaches to
resource use and food systems for the future in our agricultural colleges and
universities world wide.
References
Allen, P., D.V.
Dusen, J. Lundy, and S.R. Gliessman. 1991. Integrating social environmental,
and economic issues in sustainable agriculture. American Journal of Alternative
Agriculture 6:34-39.
Altieri, M.A. 1983. Agroecology. University of
California Press, Berkeley, California.
Altieri, M.A. 1985. Diversification of
agricultural landscapes—a vital element for pest control in sustainable
agriculture. In: Sustainable Agriculture
& Integrated Farming Systems, T.C. Edens, C. Fridgen, and S.L.
Battenfield, editors. Michigan State University Press, East Lansing, Michigan.
p. 166-184.
Altieri, M.A.
1987. Agroecology: The Scientific Basis
of Alternative Agriculture. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.
Altieri, M.A., and
C.A. Francis. 1992. Incorporating agroecology into the conventional agricultual
surriculum. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 7:89-93.
Altieri, M.A., and
S.B. Hecht, editors. 1990. Agroecology
and Small Farm Development. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.
Audsley, E. (ed),
Alber, S., Clift, R., Cowell, S., Gaillard, G., Hausheer, J., Jolliett, O., Kleijn,
R., Mortensen, B., Pearce, D., Roger, E., Teulon, H., Weidema, B. and van
Zeits, H. 1997. Harminisation of environmental life cycle assessment for
agriculture. Final report. European commission concerted action AIR3-CT94-2028.
Silsoe Research Institute. Bedford, UK.
Bawden, R. J. 1991. Systems thinking
and practice in agriculture. Journal of. Dairy Science 74:2362-2373.
Buck, L.E., J.P.
Lassoie, and E.C.M. Fernandes, editors. 1999. Agroforestry in sustainable
agricultural systems. CRC
Press, Boca Raton, Florida.
Caporali, F. 1991. Ecologia per
L’Agricultura: Teroia e Pratica. UTET Libreria,
Torino, Italy.
Carroll, C.R.,
J.H. Vandermeer, and P. Rosset, editors. 1990. Agroecology. McGraw-Hill Publications, New York.
Cavigelli, M.A.,
S.R. Deming, L.K. Probyn, and R.R. Harwood (editors). 1998. Michigan Field Crop Ecology: Managing
Biological Processes for Productivity and Environmental Quality. Michigan
State University Extension Bulletin E-2646. 92 p.
Collins, W.W., and
C.O. Qualset, editors. 1998. Biodiversity in agroecosystems. CRC Press, Boca
Raton, Florida.
Conway, G.R. 1985.
Agroecosystems analysis. Agricultural Administraton 20:31-55.
Coscia, A.A. 1993. Agricultura
Sostenible. Editorial Hemisfero Sur S.A., Buenos Aires.
Dalgaard, T., J.R.
Porter, and N. Hutchings. 2002. Agroecology, scaling, and interdisciplinarity.
European Journal of Agronomy (in review)
Doherty, S. and
Rydberg, T. (ed), Ekblad, G., Grönlund, E., Ingamarsson, F., Karlsson, L.,
Nolsson, S. and Strid Eriksson, I. 2002. Ecosystem Properties and Principles of
living Systems as Foundation for Sustainable Agriculture – Critical Reviews of
environmental assessment tools, key findings and questions from a course
process. Report Ekologiskt lantbruk, No 32. Center for Ecological Agriculture,
SLU. Uppsala, Sweden.
Edens, T.C., C.
Fridgen, and S.L. Battenfield, editors. 1985. Sustainable Agriculture & Integrated Farming Systems. Michigan
State University Press, East Lansing, Michigan.
Ferrera-Cerrato,
R., and R. Quintero Lizaola, editors. 1993. Agroecologia, Sostenibilidad y
Educacion. Colegio de Postgraduados, Montecillo, Mexico.
Flora, C.B.,
editor. 2001. Interactions between
Agroecosystems and rural Communities. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.
Francis, C.A., G.
Lieblein, J. Helenius, L. Salomonsson, H. Olsen, and J. Porter. 2001.
Challenges in designing agriculture education: a Nordic perspective on change.
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 16(2):89-95.
Gliessman, S.R.,
editor. 1978. Agroecosistemas con enfasis en el estudio de tecnologia agricola
tradicional. Colegio Superior de Agricultural
Tropical, Cardenas, Mexico.
Gliessman, S.R. 1985. Economic and ecological
factors in designing and managing sustainable agroecosystems. In: Sustainable Agriculture & Integrated
Farming Systems, T.C. Edens, C. Fridgen, and S.L. Battenfield, editors.
Michigan State University Press, East Lansing, Michigan. p. 56-63.
Gliessman, S.R.,
editor. 1990. Agroecology: Researching
the Ecological Basis for Sustainable Agriculture. Springer-Verlag, New
York.
Gliessman, S.R.
1998. Agroecology: Ecological Processes
in Sustainable Agriculture. Ann Arbor Press, Chelsea, Michigan.
Gliessman, S.R.
2000. Field and Laboratory Investigations
in Agroecology. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida.
Gliessman, S.R.,
editor. 2001. Agroecosystem
Sustainability: Developing Practical Strategies. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.
Gonzalez Jacome, A., and S. Del Amo Rodriguez, editors. 1999. Agricultura y Sociedad en Mexico: Diversidad, Enfoques, Estudios de
Caso. Plaza y Valdes Editores, Mexico,
D.F. Mexico.
Harwood, R.R. 1990. History of sustainable
agriculture: U.S. and international perspective. Ch. 1 in: Sustainable Agricultural Systems, C.A. Edwards, R. Lal, P. Madden,
R.H. Miller, and G. House, editors. Soil & Water Conservation Society,
Ankeney, Iowa. p. 3-19.
Hernandez
Xolocotzi, E., editor. 1977. Agroecosistemas de Mexico: Contribuciones a la
Ensenanza, Investigacion, y Divulgacion Agricola. Colegio de Postgraduados, Chapingo, Mexico.
Hernandez Xolocotzi, E. 1985. Xolocotzia:
Obras de Efraim Hernandez Xolocotzi. Tomo I. Revista de Geografia Agricola,
Universidad Autonoma de Chapingo, Texcoco, Mexico.
Hernandez Xolocotzi, E. 1987. Xolocotzia:
Obras de Efraim Hernandez Xolocotzi. Tomo II. Revista de Geografia
Agricola, Universidad Autonoma de Chapingo, Texcoco, Mexico.
Jackson, W. 1980. New Roots for Agriculture. University of
Nebraska Press, Lincoln, Nebraska.
Johansson,
S., Doherty S. & Rydberg, T. 2000. Sweden Food System Analysis. Proceedings to the First Biennial Emergy Research Conference: Energy Quality and
Transformities, September 2-4, 1999, University of Florida, Gainesville
King, J.W., and
C.A. Francis, editors. 1994. Extension
and education materials for sustainable agriculture, Vol. 2. North Central
Region Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program, Univ. Nebraska,
Lincoln, NE. p. 239-338.
Klages, K.H.W.
1928. Crop ecology and ecological crop geography in the agronomic curriculum.
J. Amer. Soc. Agron. 20:336-353.
Lampkin, N. H. 1999. Organic farming in
the European Union: overview, policies and perspectives. Invited keynote paper
in: Organic Farming in the European Union – Perspectives for the 21st Century.
Proceedings of EU Commission/Austrian Government conference, Baden/Vienna, May
1999. EuroTech Management, Vienna, pp. 23-30.
Lieblein, G.,
editor. 1997. From Farming Systems to
Food Systems: Third Nordic Postgraduate Course in Organic Farming. Dept.
Horticulture & Crop Science, Agric. Univ. Norway (NLH), P.O. Box 5022,
N-1432 Aas, Norway.
Lieblein, G., C. Francis,
and J. King. 2000. Conceptual framework for structuring future agricultural
colleges and universities. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension
6(4):213-222.
Lieblein, G., C.A.
Francis, L. Salomonsson, and N. Sriskandarajah. 1999. Ecological agriculture
research: Increasing competence through Ph.D. courses. Journal of Agricultural
Education and Extension 6(1):31-46.
Lieblein, G., and
E. Ǿstergaard. 2001. Shifting focus: experiences from the NOVA MSc in
agroecology. Course evaluation document, Agricultural University of Norway
(NLH), Aas, Norway. 17 p.
Montaldo, P. 1982.
Agroecologia del Trópico Americano.
IICA, San Jose, Costa Rica.
Nestle, M. 2002.
Food politics: How the Food
Industry Influences Nutrition and Health (California Studies in Food and
Culture). Univ. California Press, Berkeley, California.
Odum, H.T. 1996. Environmental
Accounting - Emergy and Environmental Decision Making. John Wiley & Sons,
Inc. New York.
Schlosser, E.
2001. Fast Food Nation: The Dark Side of
the All-American Meal. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.
Schubert, W.H. 1995.
Students as action researchers: historical precedent and contradiction.
Curriculum & Teaching 10(2):3-14.
Soule, J.D., and
J.K. Piper. 1992. Farming in Nature’s
Image: an Ecological Approach to Agriculture. Island Press, Washington, DC.
Spedding, C.R.W.
1979. An introduction to agricultural systems, First edition. Elsevier Publ.,
London, U.K.
Spedding, C.R.W.
1996. Agriculture and the citizen. Chapman and Hall Publ., London, U.K.
Torjusen, H., G. Lieblein,
M. Wandel, and C.A. Francis. 2001. Food system orientation and quality
perception among consumers and producers of organic food in Hedmark County,
Norway. Food Quality and Preference 12:207-216.
Wackernagel, M.,
Onisto, L., Bello, P., Callejas Linares, A., López Falfán, I. S., Méndez
Garcia, J., Suárez Guerrero, A. I. And Suaréz Guerrero, M. G. 1999. National
natural capital accounting with the ecological footprint concept. Ecol. Econ.
29:375-390.
Wiedenhoeft, M.,
S. Simmons, R. Salvador, G. McAndrews, C. Francis, J. King, and D. Hole. 2002.
Agroecosystems from the inside-out: a multidimensional experiential learning
course. Journal of Natural Resources & Life Sciences Education. (in review)
Table 1. Landmark publications using the term or the concept of
agroecology (modified from Gliessman, 1998; not all publications are cited in
Reference section).
Year
|
Author(s)
|
Title
|
1928
|
Klages
|
Crop ecology and
ecological crop geography in the agronomic curriculum
|
1939
|
Hanson
|
Ecology in
agriculture
|
1956
|
Azzi
|
Agricultural
ecology
|
1965
|
Tischler
|
Agrarökologie
|
1973
|
Janzen
|
Tropical
agroecosystems
|
1974
|
Harper
|
The need for a
focus on agro-ecosystems
|
1976
|
Loucks
|
Emergence of
research on agroecosystems
|
1977
|
Hernanez
Xolocotzi
|
Agroecosistemas
de Mexico
|
1978
|
Gliessman
|
Agroecosistemas y tecnologia agricola tradicional
|
1979
|
Hart
|
Agroecosistemas:
conceptos básicos
|
1979
|
Cox & Atkins
|
Agricultural
ecology: an analysis of world food production systems
|
1980
|
Hart
|
Agroecosistemas
|
1981
|
Gliessman,
Garcia & Amador
|
The ecological
basis for the application of traditional agricultural technology in the
management of tropical agroecosystems
|
1982
|
Montaldo
|
Agroecologia del
trópico americano
|
1983
|
Altieri
|
Agroecology
|
1984
|
Lowrance,
Stinner & House
|
Agricultural
ecosystems: unifying concepts
|
1985
|
Conway
|
Agroecosystems
analysis
|
1987
|
Altieri
|
Agroecology: the
scientific basis of alternative agriculture
|
1990
|
Allen, Dusen, Lundy, & Gliessman
|
Integrating
social, environmental, and economic issues in sustainable agriculture
|
1990
|
Gliessman
|
Agroecology:
researching the ecological basis for sustainable agriculture
|
1990
|
Carroll,
Vandermeer & Rosset
|
Agroecology
|
1990
|
Altieri &
Hecht
|
Agroecology and
small farm development
|
1991
|
Caporali
|
Ecologia per
l’agricultura
|
1991
|
Bawden
|
Systems thinking
in agriculture
|
1993
|
Coscia
|
Agricultura
sostenible
|
1998
|
Gliessman
|
Agroecology:
ecological processes in sustainable agriculture
|
2001
|
Flora
|
Interactions
between agroecosystems and rural communities
|
2001
|
Gliessman
|
Agroecosystem
sustainability
|
2002
|
Dalgaard, Porter
& Hutchings
|
Agroecology,
scaling, and interdisciplinarity
|
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق