Pub Date : 2012-10-01DOI: 10.1080/10440046.2012.716979
Molly Anderson, Marco Antonio Almaraz Girón, A. Olaizola
Molly Anderson, Food and Sustainable Agriculture Systems, College of the Atlantic, Bar Harbor, ME Dave Archer, Agricultural Economics, Northern Great Plains Research Lab, USDA, ARS, Mandan, ND Marta Astier, Centro de Investigaciones en Geografía Ambiental, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Morelia, MEXICO Eunice Bacelar, Biological and Environmental Engineering, Center for Technological, Environmental, and Life Studies, Vila Real, PORTUGAL Marcus Buchanan, Consulting Agroecologist, Buchanan Associates, Jacksonville, OR Irene Cardoso, Soils Department, Universidade do Viçosa, BRAZIL Oscar Carpintero, Department of Applied Economics, Universidad de Valladolid, SPAIN Harun Cicek, Organic Cropping Systems, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, CANADA Christopher Clark, Department of Plant Pathology and Crop Physiology, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA Angel Calle Collado, Instituto de Sociología y Estudios Campesinos, Universidad de Córdoba, Córdoba, SPAIN Xavier Cusso, Facultad de Economía, Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, SPAIN Goretty Dias, Environment, Enterprise, and Development, University of Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA Bernard Freyer, Department of Sustainable Agricultural Studies, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna, AUSTRIA Thomas Gaiser, Institute of Crop Science and Resource Conservation, University of Bonn, Bonn, GERMANY Alex Gershenson, Environmental Studies, San Jose State University, San Jose, CA Karamjit Singh Gill, Human Centred Systems, University of Brighton, UK Marco Antonio Giron Tejada, Imecol SA Colombia, Cali, COLOMBIA Stuart Hill, School of Education, University of Western Sydney, Penrith, New South Wales, AUSTRALIA Eric Holt-Gimenez, Food First, Oakland, CA Randall Ireson, Rural Development Solutions, Salem, OR
Molly Anderson，食品和可持续农业系统，大西洋学院，Bar Harbor, ME Dave Archer，农业经济学，北部大平原研究实验室，USDA, ARS, Mandan, ND Marta Astier，环境调查中心Geografía环境研究中心，墨西哥国立大学Autónoma de m xico，莫雷利亚，葡萄牙维拉雷亚尔，生物和环境工程，技术，环境和生命研究中心，Marcus Buchanan，农业生态学家咨询，巴西维帕拉索萨大学土壤系Irene Cardoso西班牙巴利亚多利德大学应用经济系Harun Cicek加拿大马尼托巴大学有机种植系统路易斯安那州立大学巴Baton Rouge LA Angel Calle Collado研究所Sociología y Estudios Campesinos大学Córdoba Córdoba西班牙Xavier Cusso，西班牙巴塞罗那大学Autónoma学院Economía Goretty Dias，环境、企业与发展，加拿大安大略省滑铁卢大学Bernard Freyer，奥地利维也纳自然资源与生命科学大学可持续农业研究系Thomas Gaiser，德国波恩大学作物科学与资源保护研究所Alex Gershenson，圣何塞州立大学环境研究中心Marco Antonio Giron Tejada, Imecol SA哥伦比亚，Cali，哥伦比亚Stuart Hill，西悉尼大学教育学院，Penrith，新南威尔士州，澳大利亚。Eric Holt-Gimenez, Food First, Oakland, CA Randall Ireson, Rural Development Solutions, Salem, OR
{"title":"List of Reviewers for Volumes 35 and 36 (2011 and 2012)","authors":"Molly Anderson, Marco Antonio Almaraz Girón, A. Olaizola","doi":"10.1080/10440046.2012.716979","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10440046.2012.716979","url":null,"abstract":"Molly Anderson, Food and Sustainable Agriculture Systems, College of the Atlantic, Bar Harbor, ME Dave Archer, Agricultural Economics, Northern Great Plains Research Lab, USDA, ARS, Mandan, ND Marta Astier, Centro de Investigaciones en Geografía Ambiental, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Morelia, MEXICO Eunice Bacelar, Biological and Environmental Engineering, Center for Technological, Environmental, and Life Studies, Vila Real, PORTUGAL Marcus Buchanan, Consulting Agroecologist, Buchanan Associates, Jacksonville, OR Irene Cardoso, Soils Department, Universidade do Viçosa, BRAZIL Oscar Carpintero, Department of Applied Economics, Universidad de Valladolid, SPAIN Harun Cicek, Organic Cropping Systems, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, CANADA Christopher Clark, Department of Plant Pathology and Crop Physiology, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA Angel Calle Collado, Instituto de Sociología y Estudios Campesinos, Universidad de Córdoba, Córdoba, SPAIN Xavier Cusso, Facultad de Economía, Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, SPAIN Goretty Dias, Environment, Enterprise, and Development, University of Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA Bernard Freyer, Department of Sustainable Agricultural Studies, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna, AUSTRIA Thomas Gaiser, Institute of Crop Science and Resource Conservation, University of Bonn, Bonn, GERMANY Alex Gershenson, Environmental Studies, San Jose State University, San Jose, CA Karamjit Singh Gill, Human Centred Systems, University of Brighton, UK Marco Antonio Giron Tejada, Imecol SA Colombia, Cali, COLOMBIA Stuart Hill, School of Education, University of Western Sydney, Penrith, New South Wales, AUSTRALIA Eric Holt-Gimenez, Food First, Oakland, CA Randall Ireson, Rural Development Solutions, Salem, OR","PeriodicalId":50032,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Sustainable Agriculture","volume":"36 1","pages":"930 - 932"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10440046.2012.716979","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59669899","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2012-10-01DOI: 10.1080/10440046.2012.712090
H. Berg, Charlotte Berg, T. Nguyen
A comparison of agricultural practices, with a specific focus on pesticide use, between rice and rice-fish farmers in the Cần Thơ and Tiền Giang provinces of the Mekong Delta in 2007, shows that integrated rice-fish farming can provide a competitive alternative to intensive rice mono-cropping, if the farmer restricts the use of pesticides and takes full advantage of the ecosystem services provided by the rice-field ecosystem. In Cần Thơ, rice-fish farmers had significantly higher income (43.6 million dong ha−1 year−1) than other farmer groups, while this was not seen among rice-fish famers in Tiền Giang (32.4 million dong ha−1 year−1), which partly could be due to a high use of insecticides (0.9 kg active ingredient ha−1 crop−1) and comparatively low fish yield among these farmers. The study emphasizes the need to rethink current agricultural systems and to provide opportunities for more diverse systems that maintain and enhance a range of ecosystem services and protect human health. Future production systems should not be optimized to only provide a single ecosystem service, such as rice, but designed to deliver a variety of interlinked ecosystem service such as rice, fish, pest control, and nutrient recycling.
{"title":"Integrated Rice-Fish Farming: Safeguarding Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services for Sustainable Food Production in the Mekong Delta","authors":"H. Berg, Charlotte Berg, T. Nguyen","doi":"10.1080/10440046.2012.712090","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10440046.2012.712090","url":null,"abstract":"A comparison of agricultural practices, with a specific focus on pesticide use, between rice and rice-fish farmers in the Cần Thơ and Tiền Giang provinces of the Mekong Delta in 2007, shows that integrated rice-fish farming can provide a competitive alternative to intensive rice mono-cropping, if the farmer restricts the use of pesticides and takes full advantage of the ecosystem services provided by the rice-field ecosystem. In Cần Thơ, rice-fish farmers had significantly higher income (43.6 million dong ha−1 year−1) than other farmer groups, while this was not seen among rice-fish famers in Tiền Giang (32.4 million dong ha−1 year−1), which partly could be due to a high use of insecticides (0.9 kg active ingredient ha−1 crop−1) and comparatively low fish yield among these farmers. The study emphasizes the need to rethink current agricultural systems and to provide opportunities for more diverse systems that maintain and enhance a range of ecosystem services and protect human health. Future production systems should not be optimized to only provide a single ecosystem service, such as rice, but designed to deliver a variety of interlinked ecosystem service such as rice, fish, pest control, and nutrient recycling.","PeriodicalId":50032,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Sustainable Agriculture","volume":"36 1","pages":"859 - 872"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10440046.2012.712090","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59670161","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2012-08-15DOI: 10.1080/10440046.2012.705811
A. Verdú, M. Teresa Mas
A two-year study of the margins of five stone fruit orchards located close to Barcelona (Spain) was performed to examine the effect of different mowing treatments on plant biodiversity and cover. Each margin was split into five plots randomly arranged to test five mowing treatments: no mowing; one mowing in spring; one mowing in autumn; two mowings in spring and autumn; and three mowings in spring, summer and autumn. Biodiversities and plant covers, which were obtained three times per year, were compared using a mixed analysis of variance followed by means comparison tests. Partial canonical correspondence analysis was performed to evaluate the contribution of environmental variables in species composition. We would recommend one mowing in autumn because neither mean richness nor mean total cover differed from the highest obtained.
{"title":"Management of Vegetation in Orchard Boundaries by Mowing: Effect on Cover, Richness, and Community Composition","authors":"A. Verdú, M. Teresa Mas","doi":"10.1080/10440046.2012.705811","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10440046.2012.705811","url":null,"abstract":"A two-year study of the margins of five stone fruit orchards located close to Barcelona (Spain) was performed to examine the effect of different mowing treatments on plant biodiversity and cover. Each margin was split into five plots randomly arranged to test five mowing treatments: no mowing; one mowing in spring; one mowing in autumn; two mowings in spring and autumn; and three mowings in spring, summer and autumn. Biodiversities and plant covers, which were obtained three times per year, were compared using a mixed analysis of variance followed by means comparison tests. Partial canonical correspondence analysis was performed to evaluate the contribution of environmental variables in species composition. We would recommend one mowing in autumn because neither mean richness nor mean total cover differed from the highest obtained.","PeriodicalId":50032,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Sustainable Agriculture","volume":"36 1","pages":"810 - 823"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10440046.2012.705811","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59670018","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2012-08-15DOI: 10.1080/10440046.2012.709923
S. Gliessman
With the increasing pressure on farmers to produce more food, feed, and fiber, their impacts on the multifunctionality of agricultural landscapes also increase. One of the most important aspects of this multifunctionality is the conservation of diversity, be it of wild or cultivated species. This issue shows the complexities in the linking of conservation and production. From grazing systems to intensive crop systems, multiple ways of redesigning agroecosystems with the goals of achieving diversity conservation are presented. By considering crop plants and livestock as integrated components of a multifunctional landscape, the redesign process can enable our food systems to achieve sustainability goals that allow us to go beyond the primary need of feeding people. Nature and natural ecosystem processes need to be nurtured as well.
{"title":"Linking Conservation and Production in Agricultural Landscapes","authors":"S. Gliessman","doi":"10.1080/10440046.2012.709923","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10440046.2012.709923","url":null,"abstract":"With the increasing pressure on farmers to produce more food, feed, and fiber, their impacts on the multifunctionality of agricultural landscapes also increase. One of the most important aspects of this multifunctionality is the conservation of diversity, be it of wild or cultivated species. This issue shows the complexities in the linking of conservation and production. From grazing systems to intensive crop systems, multiple ways of redesigning agroecosystems with the goals of achieving diversity conservation are presented. By considering crop plants and livestock as integrated components of a multifunctional landscape, the redesign process can enable our food systems to achieve sustainability goals that allow us to go beyond the primary need of feeding people. Nature and natural ecosystem processes need to be nurtured as well.","PeriodicalId":50032,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Sustainable Agriculture","volume":"36 1","pages":"743 - 743"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10440046.2012.709923","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59670102","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2012-08-15DOI: 10.1080/10440046.2012.705813
J. Björklund, H. Araya, S. Edwards, A. Gonçalves, K. Höök, Jakob Lundberg, C. Medina
This study analyzed examples of sustainable ecosystem-based agriculture where management methods supported livelihoods of smallholders while at the same time local ecosystem services were enhanced in Ethiopia, Brazil, and the Philippines. Participation by farmers and collective actions were found to be a crucial driving force, as local specific knowledge and “learning by doing” were main components of the development. Social cohesion, particularly through associations and cooperatives, and improved marketing opportunities were also important drivers. Furthermore, recognition by authorities at all levels was perceived as crucial. Effects of climate change, insecure property rights, and political instability were potential threats. The possibilities of such systems to be scaled up beyond self-sufficiency raised further questions.
{"title":"Ecosystem-Based Agriculture Combining Production and Conservation—A Viable Way to Feed the World in the Long Term?","authors":"J. Björklund, H. Araya, S. Edwards, A. Gonçalves, K. Höök, Jakob Lundberg, C. Medina","doi":"10.1080/10440046.2012.705813","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10440046.2012.705813","url":null,"abstract":"This study analyzed examples of sustainable ecosystem-based agriculture where management methods supported livelihoods of smallholders while at the same time local ecosystem services were enhanced in Ethiopia, Brazil, and the Philippines. Participation by farmers and collective actions were found to be a crucial driving force, as local specific knowledge and “learning by doing” were main components of the development. Social cohesion, particularly through associations and cooperatives, and improved marketing opportunities were also important drivers. Furthermore, recognition by authorities at all levels was perceived as crucial. Effects of climate change, insecure property rights, and political instability were potential threats. The possibilities of such systems to be scaled up beyond self-sufficiency raised further questions.","PeriodicalId":50032,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Sustainable Agriculture","volume":"36 1","pages":"824 - 855"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10440046.2012.705813","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59670041","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2012-08-15DOI: 10.1080/10440046.2011.627992
L. A. Bermejo Asensio, W. Lauenroth
The relationship between agricultural practices and biodiversity has become an important topic in European and American research and policies. Although most of the research has been on row-crop agriculture, grazing has recently received attention. We consider bird population responses to grazing intensity as an example of the potential of conservation grazing. We use North American Great Plains bird populations as an example and explore research and management possibilities of conservation grazing for the Canary Islands as they are a hot spot of biodiversity in Europe and have an important and growing goat population.
{"title":"Conservation Grazing Management: A Novel Approach to Livestock Management and Biodiversity Conservation on the Canary Islands","authors":"L. A. Bermejo Asensio, W. Lauenroth","doi":"10.1080/10440046.2011.627992","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10440046.2011.627992","url":null,"abstract":"The relationship between agricultural practices and biodiversity has become an important topic in European and American research and policies. Although most of the research has been on row-crop agriculture, grazing has recently received attention. We consider bird population responses to grazing intensity as an example of the potential of conservation grazing. We use North American Great Plains bird populations as an example and explore research and management possibilities of conservation grazing for the Canary Islands as they are a hot spot of biodiversity in Europe and have an important and growing goat population.","PeriodicalId":50032,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Sustainable Agriculture","volume":"36 1","pages":"744 - 758"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10440046.2011.627992","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59669531","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2012-07-01DOI: 10.1080/10440046.2011.646351
G. Campanelli, S. Canali
Monsampolo Organic VEgetable (MOVE) long-term field experiment produced a comparison between organic and a conventionally managed agroecosystem for vegetable production in Central Italy. The study was based on a four-year crop rotation involving six main crops: tomato, melon, fennel, lettuce, cauliflower, and bean. The experiment started in 2001. The agronomic performance and environmental sustainability of the two different management systems were assessed over a three-year period (2007–2010), comparing a) the yield and produce quality; b) cultivar adaptability to organic farming conditions; c) soil quality; and d) potential risk of soil nitrogen leaching. The organic and conventional four-years rotation systems yielded similarly and most of the crops showed no significant differences in produce quality. The study also indicates that comparisons among cultivars to be used in organic farming should be carried out on such experimental field sites where organic farming management had been in place for the long term. Our study demonstrated that soil organic C and total N increased, respectively, of 37% and 22% in the organically managed vegetable production system as compared to the conventional one. The risks of soil nitrate leaching were higher in autumn/winter conventionally managed crops as compared to the organic ones.
{"title":"Crop Production and Environmental Effects in Conventional and Organic Vegetable Farming Systems: The Case of a Long-Term Experiment in Mediterranean Conditions (Central Italy)","authors":"G. Campanelli, S. Canali","doi":"10.1080/10440046.2011.646351","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10440046.2011.646351","url":null,"abstract":"Monsampolo Organic VEgetable (MOVE) long-term field experiment produced a comparison between organic and a conventionally managed agroecosystem for vegetable production in Central Italy. The study was based on a four-year crop rotation involving six main crops: tomato, melon, fennel, lettuce, cauliflower, and bean. The experiment started in 2001. The agronomic performance and environmental sustainability of the two different management systems were assessed over a three-year period (2007–2010), comparing a) the yield and produce quality; b) cultivar adaptability to organic farming conditions; c) soil quality; and d) potential risk of soil nitrogen leaching. The organic and conventional four-years rotation systems yielded similarly and most of the crops showed no significant differences in produce quality. The study also indicates that comparisons among cultivars to be used in organic farming should be carried out on such experimental field sites where organic farming management had been in place for the long term. Our study demonstrated that soil organic C and total N increased, respectively, of 37% and 22% in the organically managed vegetable production system as compared to the conventional one. The risks of soil nitrate leaching were higher in autumn/winter conventionally managed crops as compared to the organic ones.","PeriodicalId":50032,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Sustainable Agriculture","volume":"36 1","pages":"599 - 619"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10440046.2011.646351","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59669672","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2012-07-01DOI: 10.1080/10440046.2012.695331
E. Holt-gimenez, Annie Shattuck, M. Altieri, H. Herren, S. Gliessman
A new a study from McGill University and the University of Minnesota published in the journal Nature compared organic and conventional yields from 66 studies and 316 trials (Seufert et al. 2012). Researchers found that organic systems on average yielded 25% less than conventional, chemical-intensive systems—although this was highly variable and context specific. Embracing the current conventional wisdom, authors argue for a combination of conventional and organic farming to meet “the twin challenge of feeding a growing population, with rising demand for meat and high-calorie diets, while simultaneously minimizing its global environmental impacts” (Seufert et al. 2012, 3). Unfortunately, neither the study nor the conventional wisdom addresses the real cause of hunger. Hunger is caused by poverty and inequality, not scarcity. For the past two decades, the rate of global food production has increased faster than the rate of global population growth. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2009a, 2009b) the world produces more than 1 /2 times enough food to feed everyone on the planet. That’s already enough to feed 10 billion people, the world’s 2050 projected population peak. But the people making less than $2 a day—most of whom are resource-poor farmers cultivating un-viably small plots of land—cannot afford to buy this food. In reality, the bulk of industrially produced grain crops (most yield reduction in the study was found in grains) goes to biofuels and confined animal feedlots rather than food for the one billion hungry. The call to double food production by 2050 only applies if we continue to prioritize the growing population of livestock and automobiles over hungry people. Actually, what this new study does tell us is how much smaller the yield gap is between organic and conventional farming than what critics of organic agriculture have assumed. Smil’s (2001) claim that organic farming requires twice the land base has become a conventional mantra. In fact, when we unpack the data from the Nature study, we find that for many crops and in many instances, the reported yield gap is minimal. With new advances in seed breeding for organic systems, and with the transition of commercial
麦吉尔大学和明尼苏达大学发表在《自然》杂志上的一项新研究比较了66项研究和316项试验的有机和传统产量(Seufert et al. 2012)。研究人员发现，有机系统的平均产量比传统的化学密集型系统低25%，尽管这是高度可变的和具体的环境。接受当前的传统智慧，作者主张将传统农业和有机农业结合起来，以满足“养活不断增长的人口的双重挑战，对肉类和高热量饮食的需求不断增加，同时最大限度地减少其对全球环境的影响”(Seufert et al. 2012, 3)。不幸的是，这项研究和传统智慧都没有解决饥饿的真正原因。饥饿是由贫穷和不平等造成的，而不是由匮乏造成的。在过去的二十年里，全球粮食产量的增长速度超过了全球人口的增长速度。根据联合国粮食和农业组织(2009a, 2009b)，世界生产的粮食是地球上每个人的1 /2多倍。这已经足够养活100亿人了，这是2050年预计的世界人口峰值。但是，那些每天收入低于2美元的人——其中大多数是资源贫乏的农民，耕种着不适合生存的小块土地——买不起这种食物。实际上，大部分工业化生产的粮食作物(研究中发现减产的主要是谷物)被用于生物燃料和封闭的动物饲养场，而不是为10亿饥饿人口提供食物。到2050年粮食产量翻一番的呼吁只有在我们继续优先考虑不断增长的牲畜和汽车人口而不是饥饿人口的情况下才适用。实际上，这项新研究告诉我们的是，有机农业和传统农业之间的产量差距比有机农业的批评者所假设的要小得多。Smil(2001)声称有机农业需要两倍的土地基础，这已经成为一个传统的口头禅。事实上，当我们打开《自然》杂志研究的数据时，我们发现，对于许多作物，在许多情况下，报告的产量差距是很小的。随着有机系统种子育种的新进展，以及商业化的过渡
{"title":"We Already Grow Enough Food for 10 Billion People … and Still Can't End Hunger","authors":"E. Holt-gimenez, Annie Shattuck, M. Altieri, H. Herren, S. Gliessman","doi":"10.1080/10440046.2012.695331","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10440046.2012.695331","url":null,"abstract":"A new a study from McGill University and the University of Minnesota published in the journal Nature compared organic and conventional yields from 66 studies and 316 trials (Seufert et al. 2012). Researchers found that organic systems on average yielded 25% less than conventional, chemical-intensive systems—although this was highly variable and context specific. Embracing the current conventional wisdom, authors argue for a combination of conventional and organic farming to meet “the twin challenge of feeding a growing population, with rising demand for meat and high-calorie diets, while simultaneously minimizing its global environmental impacts” (Seufert et al. 2012, 3). Unfortunately, neither the study nor the conventional wisdom addresses the real cause of hunger. Hunger is caused by poverty and inequality, not scarcity. For the past two decades, the rate of global food production has increased faster than the rate of global population growth. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2009a, 2009b) the world produces more than 1 /2 times enough food to feed everyone on the planet. That’s already enough to feed 10 billion people, the world’s 2050 projected population peak. But the people making less than $2 a day—most of whom are resource-poor farmers cultivating un-viably small plots of land—cannot afford to buy this food. In reality, the bulk of industrially produced grain crops (most yield reduction in the study was found in grains) goes to biofuels and confined animal feedlots rather than food for the one billion hungry. The call to double food production by 2050 only applies if we continue to prioritize the growing population of livestock and automobiles over hungry people. Actually, what this new study does tell us is how much smaller the yield gap is between organic and conventional farming than what critics of organic agriculture have assumed. Smil’s (2001) claim that organic farming requires twice the land base has become a conventional mantra. In fact, when we unpack the data from the Nature study, we find that for many crops and in many instances, the reported yield gap is minimal. With new advances in seed breeding for organic systems, and with the transition of commercial","PeriodicalId":50032,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Sustainable Agriculture","volume":"36 1","pages":"595 - 598"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10440046.2012.695331","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59669991","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2012-06-22DOI: 10.1080/10440046.2012.695327
M. Blom-Zandstra, B. Gremmen, Reginald Boersma, Douwe de Goede, P. Haperen
Conventional Dutch farming systems are constantly improving their technology to withstand disruptive external influences, while organic farming tends to focus on methods that stress conservation of natural and nonrenewable resources. We hypothesize that management styles to withstand disruptive external influences clearly differ in both systems. Conventional farming aims to protect crops and livestock with hands-on solutions, whereas organic farming aims at reducing the consequences of disruptions. To study these two extremes, we compared a conventional horticultural system with an organic dairy system and interviewed the entrepreneurs about their decision-making strategies, dilemmas, and tradeoffs when dealing with undesirable events. To our surprise, all entrepreneurs used a similar set of interventions aimed at maximizing income and minimizing costs. We also discovered that all entrepreneurs tended to aim at both homogeneity and heterogeneity dependent on the level: all aimed for a uniform output of their whole system, while utilizing the genetically defined diversity between individual plants or animals. Based on previous experiences, farmers rely on natural compensation for losses within their system: heterogeneity within their system provides flexibility to accept uncertainty within a certain range. Therefore, we conclude that the societal discrimination between management styles does not represent well-defined differences between conventional and organic farming.
{"title":"Comparison of Management Styles in Organic and Conventional Farming with Respect to Disruptive External Influences. The Case of Organic Dairy Farming and Conventional Horticulture in the Netherlands","authors":"M. Blom-Zandstra, B. Gremmen, Reginald Boersma, Douwe de Goede, P. Haperen","doi":"10.1080/10440046.2012.695327","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10440046.2012.695327","url":null,"abstract":"Conventional Dutch farming systems are constantly improving their technology to withstand disruptive external influences, while organic farming tends to focus on methods that stress conservation of natural and nonrenewable resources. We hypothesize that management styles to withstand disruptive external influences clearly differ in both systems. Conventional farming aims to protect crops and livestock with hands-on solutions, whereas organic farming aims at reducing the consequences of disruptions. To study these two extremes, we compared a conventional horticultural system with an organic dairy system and interviewed the entrepreneurs about their decision-making strategies, dilemmas, and tradeoffs when dealing with undesirable events. To our surprise, all entrepreneurs used a similar set of interventions aimed at maximizing income and minimizing costs. We also discovered that all entrepreneurs tended to aim at both homogeneity and heterogeneity dependent on the level: all aimed for a uniform output of their whole system, while utilizing the genetically defined diversity between individual plants or animals. Based on previous experiences, farmers rely on natural compensation for losses within their system: heterogeneity within their system provides flexibility to accept uncertainty within a certain range. Therefore, we conclude that the societal discrimination between management styles does not represent well-defined differences between conventional and organic farming.","PeriodicalId":50032,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Sustainable Agriculture","volume":"36 1","pages":"893 - 907"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10440046.2012.695327","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59669272","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：