Pub Date : 2023-11-09DOI: 10.1177/00307270231213659
James Sumberg, Ken E Giller, Dominic Glover
The notion of principles, and the sense that they are different from but closely linked to practices, is deeply rooted in the agronomy literature. However, these terms are currently used by different authors to mean very different things. This paper explores these various uses and meanings. We argue that an understanding of the use of apparently innocuous, everyday words like principles and practices provides a valuable insight into on-going debates, contestation and politics about the future of agriculture and food. In the case of principles, it is important to understand the forms they take, by whom they are proclaimed and for what purpose(s). We find that while most alternative agricultures define themselves through a set of principles, these do not challenge or undermine the scientific principles that underpin mainstream agronomy. Further, we argue that to articulate and proclaim principles is to seek to exercise discursive power. Specifically, proclaiming principles or defining a favoured approach to agriculture by articulating a specific set of principles, is to exert authority, bolster legitimacy and claim a place in a crowded and contested marketplace.
{"title":"Evolving meanings of ‘principles’ in agronomic discourse","authors":"James Sumberg, Ken E Giller, Dominic Glover","doi":"10.1177/00307270231213659","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00307270231213659","url":null,"abstract":"The notion of principles, and the sense that they are different from but closely linked to practices, is deeply rooted in the agronomy literature. However, these terms are currently used by different authors to mean very different things. This paper explores these various uses and meanings. We argue that an understanding of the use of apparently innocuous, everyday words like principles and practices provides a valuable insight into on-going debates, contestation and politics about the future of agriculture and food. In the case of principles, it is important to understand the forms they take, by whom they are proclaimed and for what purpose(s). We find that while most alternative agricultures define themselves through a set of principles, these do not challenge or undermine the scientific principles that underpin mainstream agronomy. Further, we argue that to articulate and proclaim principles is to seek to exercise discursive power. Specifically, proclaiming principles or defining a favoured approach to agriculture by articulating a specific set of principles, is to exert authority, bolster legitimacy and claim a place in a crowded and contested marketplace.","PeriodicalId":54661,"journal":{"name":"Outlook on Agriculture","volume":" 8","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135291835","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-11-03DOI: 10.1177/00307270231210589
Md Sohel Rana, Asif R Anik, Md R Islam, Mashrat Jahan
Bangladesh experienced widespread wheat blast infections for the first time in 2016. The outbreak of the disease has significantly affected wheat acreage and production. This study uses an ‘action theory’ framework to identify the determinants that affected wheat growers to adopt certain production practices to deal with the situation. We followed a multistage sampling procedure and interviewed 150 wheat growers from two severely blast-affected districts, Meherpur and Kustia. According to 91.3% of farmers, the most remarkable adoption strategies were ‘improved intercultural practices,’ ‘shifting variety,’ ‘shifting crops’, and ‘undertaking off-farm activities,’ of which farmers mostly followed the former. We also used multivariate probit model analysis to identify factors that shape farmers’ adaptation choices in wheat blast-affected areas. The adaptation strategies are influenced mainly by farmers’ education, primary occupation, family size, government incentives, extension services, access to Information and Communications Technology (ICT), and annual income. According to the notable similarities between the four adoption strategies, an adoption study should consider all potential factors influencing farmers’ adoption decisions. Policy implications include strengthening extension services, developing tailored adaptation strategies, and conducting relevant research.
{"title":"Sustainable wheat production strategies in blast-affected areas of Bangladesh","authors":"Md Sohel Rana, Asif R Anik, Md R Islam, Mashrat Jahan","doi":"10.1177/00307270231210589","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00307270231210589","url":null,"abstract":"Bangladesh experienced widespread wheat blast infections for the first time in 2016. The outbreak of the disease has significantly affected wheat acreage and production. This study uses an ‘action theory’ framework to identify the determinants that affected wheat growers to adopt certain production practices to deal with the situation. We followed a multistage sampling procedure and interviewed 150 wheat growers from two severely blast-affected districts, Meherpur and Kustia. According to 91.3% of farmers, the most remarkable adoption strategies were ‘improved intercultural practices,’ ‘shifting variety,’ ‘shifting crops’, and ‘undertaking off-farm activities,’ of which farmers mostly followed the former. We also used multivariate probit model analysis to identify factors that shape farmers’ adaptation choices in wheat blast-affected areas. The adaptation strategies are influenced mainly by farmers’ education, primary occupation, family size, government incentives, extension services, access to Information and Communications Technology (ICT), and annual income. According to the notable similarities between the four adoption strategies, an adoption study should consider all potential factors influencing farmers’ adoption decisions. Policy implications include strengthening extension services, developing tailored adaptation strategies, and conducting relevant research.","PeriodicalId":54661,"journal":{"name":"Outlook on Agriculture","volume":"38 11","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135868749","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-10-12DOI: 10.1177/00307270231201871
Charles Conteh
This paper seeks to advance understanding of the barriers that constrain and the drivers that promote the adoption of automation and robotics in agriculture. The paper focuses on Ontario, Canada, as the case study. The choice of the province is informed by the fact that it is generally considered one of Canada's leading agriculture powerhouses. The paper employed a mixed-methods approach consisting of survey questionnaires and in-depth focus group discussions. The article sheds light on the complex and context-specific factors determining farmers’ adoption of automation and robotics technology. Principally, adopters and non-adopters of automation robotics technology agree that government has a critical role in accelerating the adoption of automation and robotics technology. More importantly, the paper spells out the various facets of that role and the contexts within which they can be most effective and impactful. The discussion explores the significance of the results in relation to the relevant extant literature and highlights the key implications of our findings for future policy and practice. It also offers some solutions in the form of policy recommendations and suggested action steps for removing barriers and exploiting opportunities associated with adopting technology. While empirically focusing on Ontario, the findings and analysis have implications for all of Canada and other industrialized countries .
{"title":"Addressing the challenges and leveraging the opportunities of automation and robotics technologies adoption in agriculture: The case of Ontario, Canada","authors":"Charles Conteh","doi":"10.1177/00307270231201871","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00307270231201871","url":null,"abstract":"This paper seeks to advance understanding of the barriers that constrain and the drivers that promote the adoption of automation and robotics in agriculture. The paper focuses on Ontario, Canada, as the case study. The choice of the province is informed by the fact that it is generally considered one of Canada's leading agriculture powerhouses. The paper employed a mixed-methods approach consisting of survey questionnaires and in-depth focus group discussions. The article sheds light on the complex and context-specific factors determining farmers’ adoption of automation and robotics technology. Principally, adopters and non-adopters of automation robotics technology agree that government has a critical role in accelerating the adoption of automation and robotics technology. More importantly, the paper spells out the various facets of that role and the contexts within which they can be most effective and impactful. The discussion explores the significance of the results in relation to the relevant extant literature and highlights the key implications of our findings for future policy and practice. It also offers some solutions in the form of policy recommendations and suggested action steps for removing barriers and exploiting opportunities associated with adopting technology. While empirically focusing on Ontario, the findings and analysis have implications for all of Canada and other industrialized countries .","PeriodicalId":54661,"journal":{"name":"Outlook on Agriculture","volume":"41 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135968954","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The global agricultural paradigm is witnessing a transformative shift with the advent of precision agriculture. While large-scale agricultural enterprises have been swift in their embrace of this innovation, its uptake among small-scale farmers remains nuanced and complex. This study elucidates the multi-faceted determinants that influence the adoption of precision agriculture within the small-scale farming sector. The study adopts a systematic literature review approach, meticulously selecting and analysing 29 relevant papers. Drawing upon an exhaustive literature review and empirical analyses, the research presents a composite framework weaving economic, technological, social, and environmental factors. Among these, the social dynamics emerge as the most significant factor, shaped by awareness levels, knowledge dissemination pathways, and entrenched cultural norms. These social elements often intertwine with ingrained traditional practices and perceptions, forming the most intricate layer shaping adoption attitudes. Notably, although economic factors like substantial initial investments and the calculus of Return on Investment are present, they are overshadowed by social considerations. The technological landscape is characterised by the challenges of digital literacy, infrastructural readiness, and technological interoperability. Lastly, environmental imperatives, underscored by resource scarcity, climate change resilience, and ecosystem services, offer both challenges and motivations. Together, these factors delineate the intricate roadmap guiding small-scale farmers in their journey toward precision agriculture adoption. This comprehensive exploration provides stakeholders with actionable insights, fostering informed decision-making and strategic interventions to augment precision agriculture's integration within the small-scale farming tapestry.
{"title":"A systematic review on the factors governing precision agriculture adoption among small-scale farmers","authors":"Dah John, Norhayati Hussin, Mohd Sazili Shahibi, Masitah Ahmad, Hasnah Hashim, Divine Senanu Ametefe","doi":"10.1177/00307270231205640","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00307270231205640","url":null,"abstract":"The global agricultural paradigm is witnessing a transformative shift with the advent of precision agriculture. While large-scale agricultural enterprises have been swift in their embrace of this innovation, its uptake among small-scale farmers remains nuanced and complex. This study elucidates the multi-faceted determinants that influence the adoption of precision agriculture within the small-scale farming sector. The study adopts a systematic literature review approach, meticulously selecting and analysing 29 relevant papers. Drawing upon an exhaustive literature review and empirical analyses, the research presents a composite framework weaving economic, technological, social, and environmental factors. Among these, the social dynamics emerge as the most significant factor, shaped by awareness levels, knowledge dissemination pathways, and entrenched cultural norms. These social elements often intertwine with ingrained traditional practices and perceptions, forming the most intricate layer shaping adoption attitudes. Notably, although economic factors like substantial initial investments and the calculus of Return on Investment are present, they are overshadowed by social considerations. The technological landscape is characterised by the challenges of digital literacy, infrastructural readiness, and technological interoperability. Lastly, environmental imperatives, underscored by resource scarcity, climate change resilience, and ecosystem services, offer both challenges and motivations. Together, these factors delineate the intricate roadmap guiding small-scale farmers in their journey toward precision agriculture adoption. This comprehensive exploration provides stakeholders with actionable insights, fostering informed decision-making and strategic interventions to augment precision agriculture's integration within the small-scale farming tapestry.","PeriodicalId":54661,"journal":{"name":"Outlook on Agriculture","volume":"84 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136063867","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-10-09DOI: 10.1177/00307270231205924
Margo Degieter, Xavier Gellynck, Shashank Goyal, Matis Mattelin, Jana De Wulf, Denise Ott, Hans De Steur
To achieve a more sustainable food system, it is necessary to shift toward more plant-based protein sources. Europe currently imports huge amounts of protein crops each year, mainly soy, which has adverse environmental and socioeconomic impacts. Therefore, there is a need to increase local production. Despite the numerous advantages associated with the cultivation of protein crops, the farmer adoption rate in Europe remains very low. This study aims to investigate farmers’ willingness to grow protein crops and the determinants of the willingness to adopt protein crops, using a standardized survey. In addition, selected protein crop farmers are interviewed to gain a deeper understanding of their motivations to grow these crops. Results indicate that risk aversion has a negative and environmental farming goals have a positive significant impact on the intention to adopt protein crops for food. Additionally, farmers with a larger farm size are more likely to adopt protein crops. The importance of these factors is also supported by the interviewed farmers. However, the latter further highlighted the importance of knowledge, profitability, consumer perceptions, and supportive policies. This study is one of the first studies exploring farmers’ perspectives on protein crop cultivation in Europe and can therefore serve as a foundation for future research and policy recommendations.
{"title":"A mixed-methods approach to examine farmers’ willingness to adopt protein crops","authors":"Margo Degieter, Xavier Gellynck, Shashank Goyal, Matis Mattelin, Jana De Wulf, Denise Ott, Hans De Steur","doi":"10.1177/00307270231205924","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00307270231205924","url":null,"abstract":"To achieve a more sustainable food system, it is necessary to shift toward more plant-based protein sources. Europe currently imports huge amounts of protein crops each year, mainly soy, which has adverse environmental and socioeconomic impacts. Therefore, there is a need to increase local production. Despite the numerous advantages associated with the cultivation of protein crops, the farmer adoption rate in Europe remains very low. This study aims to investigate farmers’ willingness to grow protein crops and the determinants of the willingness to adopt protein crops, using a standardized survey. In addition, selected protein crop farmers are interviewed to gain a deeper understanding of their motivations to grow these crops. Results indicate that risk aversion has a negative and environmental farming goals have a positive significant impact on the intention to adopt protein crops for food. Additionally, farmers with a larger farm size are more likely to adopt protein crops. The importance of these factors is also supported by the interviewed farmers. However, the latter further highlighted the importance of knowledge, profitability, consumer perceptions, and supportive policies. This study is one of the first studies exploring farmers’ perspectives on protein crop cultivation in Europe and can therefore serve as a foundation for future research and policy recommendations.","PeriodicalId":54661,"journal":{"name":"Outlook on Agriculture","volume":"81 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135095004","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-09-01DOI: 10.1177/00307270231199796
Jillian Lenné
Modern agriculture, especially monocultures, is increasingly blamed by proponents of agroecology for loss of biodiversity in agroecosystems through loss of natural vegetation and crop genetic diversity. However, loss of natural vegetation to agriculture has slowed in recent years, and the claim for 75% loss of crop genetic diversity due to the widespread use of improved crop varieties lacks evidence. The main objective of this perspective paper is to identify and analyze the kinds of diversity already developed by agricultural research in the context of their function, need and relevance to particular agroecological elements and principles related to biodiversity. The paper shows that biodiversity is already incorporated into agroecosystems in a multitude of ways such as improved crop varieties with functional traits; crop mixtures and dual-purpose crops in monocultures; inter-crops, strip crops or relay crops; cover crops; crop rotations; field margins; landscape diversification; crop-livestock systems; and agroforestry. Emphasis is also given to crop-associated biodiversity above ground and soil biodiversity. The paper highlights that more research is needed to (a) breed crops for multi-cropping systems; (b) improve understanding of how components of diversity interact within or across systems and scales; (c) understand the role of soil biodiversity in soil function; and (d) successfully use crop-associated biodiversity to manage pests and beneficial organisms. In the future, the promotion of agroecological principles should incorporate inputs from crop breeders, agronomists, ecologists and crop protectionists for the benefit of farmers, or such principles will remain aspirational.
{"title":"Current agricultural diversification strategies are already agroecological","authors":"Jillian Lenné","doi":"10.1177/00307270231199796","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00307270231199796","url":null,"abstract":"Modern agriculture, especially monocultures, is increasingly blamed by proponents of agroecology for loss of biodiversity in agroecosystems through loss of natural vegetation and crop genetic diversity. However, loss of natural vegetation to agriculture has slowed in recent years, and the claim for 75% loss of crop genetic diversity due to the widespread use of improved crop varieties lacks evidence. The main objective of this perspective paper is to identify and analyze the kinds of diversity already developed by agricultural research in the context of their function, need and relevance to particular agroecological elements and principles related to biodiversity. The paper shows that biodiversity is already incorporated into agroecosystems in a multitude of ways such as improved crop varieties with functional traits; crop mixtures and dual-purpose crops in monocultures; inter-crops, strip crops or relay crops; cover crops; crop rotations; field margins; landscape diversification; crop-livestock systems; and agroforestry. Emphasis is also given to crop-associated biodiversity above ground and soil biodiversity. The paper highlights that more research is needed to (a) breed crops for multi-cropping systems; (b) improve understanding of how components of diversity interact within or across systems and scales; (c) understand the role of soil biodiversity in soil function; and (d) successfully use crop-associated biodiversity to manage pests and beneficial organisms. In the future, the promotion of agroecological principles should incorporate inputs from crop breeders, agronomists, ecologists and crop protectionists for the benefit of farmers, or such principles will remain aspirational.","PeriodicalId":54661,"journal":{"name":"Outlook on Agriculture","volume":"52 1","pages":"273 - 280"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47176153","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-09-01Epub Date: 2023-07-10DOI: 10.1017/BrImp.2023.11
Natasha Layton, Chris Le Cerf
Acquired Brain Injury (ABI) can lead to the need to plan for housing, assistive technology and support to meet a person's goals. Recent Australian policy reforms have brought about opportunities for person-centred approaches to assistive technology (AT) product selection, and the opportunity for users of supports such as assistive technology and environmental adaptations to describe and measure their own outcomes. My AT Outcomes Framework (MyATOF) is an Australian tool designed for use by AT users and their support networks to articulate supports, outcomes, costs, and service delivery experiences. This article aims (i) report on use of MyATOF in a case study of ABI and AT-enabled housing and (ii) critically evaluate MyATOF tools and administration for this use case from the perspectives of the MyATOF author, an occupational therapist, and a lived experience expert with an ABI. An iterative development and test design was used to adapt the MyATOF administration procedures and conduct a case report evaluation. Results support the relevance of MyATOF conceptual domains, and detailed data about outcomes made possible by an AT-enabled home was captured. Recommendations are made to further refine the questions for ease of use by persons with ABI including simplifying the costing tool and enabling staggered administration. This case report suggests MyATOF can 'measure what matters' for ABI and AT-enabled housing and is worthy of further evaluation.
{"title":"Measuring what matters: a descriptive participatory case evaluation of a tool for measuring outcomes of assistive technology after acquired brain injury.","authors":"Natasha Layton, Chris Le Cerf","doi":"10.1017/BrImp.2023.11","DOIUrl":"10.1017/BrImp.2023.11","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Acquired Brain Injury (ABI) can lead to the need to plan for housing, assistive technology and support to meet a person's goals. Recent Australian policy reforms have brought about opportunities for person-centred approaches to assistive technology (AT) product selection, and the opportunity for users of supports such as assistive technology and environmental adaptations to describe and measure their own outcomes. My AT Outcomes Framework (MyATOF) is an Australian tool designed for use by AT users and their support networks to articulate supports, outcomes, costs, and service delivery experiences. This article aims (i) report on use of MyATOF in a case study of ABI and AT-enabled housing and (ii) critically evaluate MyATOF tools and administration for this use case from the perspectives of the MyATOF author, an occupational therapist, and a lived experience expert with an ABI. An iterative development and test design was used to adapt the MyATOF administration procedures and conduct a case report evaluation. Results support the relevance of MyATOF conceptual domains, and detailed data about outcomes made possible by an AT-enabled home was captured. Recommendations are made to further refine the questions for ease of use by persons with ABI including simplifying the costing tool and enabling staggered administration. This case report suggests MyATOF can 'measure what matters' for ABI and AT-enabled housing and is worthy of further evaluation.</p>","PeriodicalId":54661,"journal":{"name":"Outlook on Agriculture","volume":"5 1","pages":"137-147"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87090214","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-09-01DOI: 10.1177/00307270231195641
Diego Rubiales
Legume-based cropping systems are regaining interest due to the environmental services and the variety of food and feed uses they provide, this having special interest in agroecological systems. There are many legume crops that can be adopted but focused breeding is needed to better meet the specific requirements of each system, especially in the situation of changing climate and often stressful environments. Standard breeding methods remain valid, from classical selection, to genomic assisted-breeding, profiting from the modern biotechnological and genomic approaches which are rapidly developing for most legume crops. Rather than focusing on the tools, emphasis is needed on the breeding targets, which might be different from those of high input agriculture such as improved response to symbiosis, nutrient and water use efficiency and tolerance to biotic and abiotic stresses becoming priorities. Breeding for these traits requires the infusion of genetic diversity from landraces or wild relatives by pre-breeding. Prospects and constraints are discussed.
{"title":"Plant breeding is needed to meet agroecological requirements: Legume crops as case study","authors":"Diego Rubiales","doi":"10.1177/00307270231195641","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00307270231195641","url":null,"abstract":"Legume-based cropping systems are regaining interest due to the environmental services and the variety of food and feed uses they provide, this having special interest in agroecological systems. There are many legume crops that can be adopted but focused breeding is needed to better meet the specific requirements of each system, especially in the situation of changing climate and often stressful environments. Standard breeding methods remain valid, from classical selection, to genomic assisted-breeding, profiting from the modern biotechnological and genomic approaches which are rapidly developing for most legume crops. Rather than focusing on the tools, emphasis is needed on the breeding targets, which might be different from those of high input agriculture such as improved response to symbiosis, nutrient and water use efficiency and tolerance to biotic and abiotic stresses becoming priorities. Breeding for these traits requires the infusion of genetic diversity from landraces or wild relatives by pre-breeding. Prospects and constraints are discussed.","PeriodicalId":54661,"journal":{"name":"Outlook on Agriculture","volume":"61 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135889570","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-09-01DOI: 10.1177/00307270231200299
Jillian Lenné
During the past 10–15 years, agroecology has grown in prominence in global agricultural discourse based on a belief that it can dramatically transform agrifood systems (Anderson et al., 2021). The concern of proponents of agroecology – that modern agriculture, often referred to as conventional or industrial, has been principally responsible for agroecosystem degradation – has led to calls for agroecology to replace conventional agriculture. As Sumberg and Giller (2022) have observed, the term conventional agriculture has been weaponised. No doubt, overuse of agrochemicals and mono-cropping has led to environmental problems such as pollution, soil erosion and in some circumstances, loss of wild biodiversity. These problems need to be addressed. Yet, paradoxically, the main focus of agroecology promotion is smallholder farmers in less-developed countries where conventional or industrial agriculture is not a common form of farming. Furthermore, this discourse mainly pursues a questionable binary agenda: agroecology versus conventional agriculture. It ignores the fact that hundreds of millions of farmers already deploy a range of good agricultural practices considered to be agroecological. These include crop rotation, intercropping, mixed crop-livestock systems, manure recycling, and integrated pest management, among others, together with conventional technologies such as improved crop varieties, judicious use of agrochemicals and functional biodiversity. For example, mixed crop-livestock systems, considered agroecological even when many deploy conventional technologies, produce around 50% of the world’s food (Herrero et al., 2010). In the past 60 years, food production systems have realized impressive achievements based on sound science, technology and innovations (Evans, 1998; OECD, 2021). As world population more than doubled, global food production has almost quadrupled whilst using only 10%– 15% more agricultural land. This has been achieved through large production increases per unit area of land. Much of global farming responsible for adequately feeding over 7 billion people is based on improved crop varieties and appropriate use of agrochemicals integrated with agroecological approaches. Crucially, the promotion of agroecology should not only be based on environmental and equity issues but also on its ability to continue to ensure food and nutritional security and provide livelihoods for farmers. Although the term agroecology first appeared around a century ago, its meaning has evolved and broadened in the interim period. Wezel and Soldat (2009) provide a useful historical account of the evolution of the term. From the 1930s to the 1960s, agroecology was firmly anchored in the science of crop production and protection. However, from the 1960s onwards, environmental activists motivated agroecological movements and agroecology evolved into a broad mixture of science, practices and movements with different groups and nations placing varying emph
{"title":"Editorial: Why agroecology?","authors":"Jillian Lenné","doi":"10.1177/00307270231200299","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00307270231200299","url":null,"abstract":"During the past 10–15 years, agroecology has grown in prominence in global agricultural discourse based on a belief that it can dramatically transform agrifood systems (Anderson et al., 2021). The concern of proponents of agroecology – that modern agriculture, often referred to as conventional or industrial, has been principally responsible for agroecosystem degradation – has led to calls for agroecology to replace conventional agriculture. As Sumberg and Giller (2022) have observed, the term conventional agriculture has been weaponised. No doubt, overuse of agrochemicals and mono-cropping has led to environmental problems such as pollution, soil erosion and in some circumstances, loss of wild biodiversity. These problems need to be addressed. Yet, paradoxically, the main focus of agroecology promotion is smallholder farmers in less-developed countries where conventional or industrial agriculture is not a common form of farming. Furthermore, this discourse mainly pursues a questionable binary agenda: agroecology versus conventional agriculture. It ignores the fact that hundreds of millions of farmers already deploy a range of good agricultural practices considered to be agroecological. These include crop rotation, intercropping, mixed crop-livestock systems, manure recycling, and integrated pest management, among others, together with conventional technologies such as improved crop varieties, judicious use of agrochemicals and functional biodiversity. For example, mixed crop-livestock systems, considered agroecological even when many deploy conventional technologies, produce around 50% of the world’s food (Herrero et al., 2010). In the past 60 years, food production systems have realized impressive achievements based on sound science, technology and innovations (Evans, 1998; OECD, 2021). As world population more than doubled, global food production has almost quadrupled whilst using only 10%– 15% more agricultural land. This has been achieved through large production increases per unit area of land. Much of global farming responsible for adequately feeding over 7 billion people is based on improved crop varieties and appropriate use of agrochemicals integrated with agroecological approaches. Crucially, the promotion of agroecology should not only be based on environmental and equity issues but also on its ability to continue to ensure food and nutritional security and provide livelihoods for farmers. Although the term agroecology first appeared around a century ago, its meaning has evolved and broadened in the interim period. Wezel and Soldat (2009) provide a useful historical account of the evolution of the term. From the 1930s to the 1960s, agroecology was firmly anchored in the science of crop production and protection. However, from the 1960s onwards, environmental activists motivated agroecological movements and agroecology evolved into a broad mixture of science, practices and movements with different groups and nations placing varying emph","PeriodicalId":54661,"journal":{"name":"Outlook on Agriculture","volume":" 7","pages":"243 - 246"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41252717","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-09-01DOI: 10.1177/00307270231199116
Alan J. Duncan, Augustine A. Ayantunde, Michael Blummel, Tunde Amole, Varijakshapanicker Padmakumar, Dominic Moran
In the context of sustainable agricultural development, much has been made of the need to apply agroecology or regenerative principles to improve rural livelihoods and to align the sector with critical planetary health boundaries. This movement is a reaction to the perceived private and social costs arising from both production and consumption associated with industrialised agriculture, mostly in upper-income countries, with several default assumptions being apparent about applicability elsewhere. The notion of circularity, or the circular economy, is frequently conflated with agro ecological rhetoric, often overlooking a longer tradition of circular resource use efficiency in traditional mixed crop–livestock farming in low-income settings. This paper examines the concept and origins of circularity and reviews some examples of historic circular economy research within the international agricultural research system as applied to smallholder agriculture. These include (i) studies focusing on the impact of crop residue retention, (ii) work on residue incorporation and/or mulching and their effects on crop yields and soil fertility, (iii) research on the effects of manure use on crop yields and soil fertility and (iv) work on the feeding of crop residues to livestock. We consider some promising innovations or practices adhering to circular economy principles. Candidate innovations focus on the improvement of livestock feeding practices including the breeding of dual-purpose crops to enhance livestock nutrition, conversion of cereal straw residues to high-quality feed, use of cassava waste as livestock feed and use of insects as livestock feed. We conclude by considering how circular bio-economy principles might be maintained in the future evolution of food systems in Sub-Saharan Africa.
{"title":"Applying circular economy principles to intensification of livestock production in Sub-Saharan Africa","authors":"Alan J. Duncan, Augustine A. Ayantunde, Michael Blummel, Tunde Amole, Varijakshapanicker Padmakumar, Dominic Moran","doi":"10.1177/00307270231199116","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00307270231199116","url":null,"abstract":"In the context of sustainable agricultural development, much has been made of the need to apply agroecology or regenerative principles to improve rural livelihoods and to align the sector with critical planetary health boundaries. This movement is a reaction to the perceived private and social costs arising from both production and consumption associated with industrialised agriculture, mostly in upper-income countries, with several default assumptions being apparent about applicability elsewhere. The notion of circularity, or the circular economy, is frequently conflated with agro ecological rhetoric, often overlooking a longer tradition of circular resource use efficiency in traditional mixed crop–livestock farming in low-income settings. This paper examines the concept and origins of circularity and reviews some examples of historic circular economy research within the international agricultural research system as applied to smallholder agriculture. These include (i) studies focusing on the impact of crop residue retention, (ii) work on residue incorporation and/or mulching and their effects on crop yields and soil fertility, (iii) research on the effects of manure use on crop yields and soil fertility and (iv) work on the feeding of crop residues to livestock. We consider some promising innovations or practices adhering to circular economy principles. Candidate innovations focus on the improvement of livestock feeding practices including the breeding of dual-purpose crops to enhance livestock nutrition, conversion of cereal straw residues to high-quality feed, use of cassava waste as livestock feed and use of insects as livestock feed. We conclude by considering how circular bio-economy principles might be maintained in the future evolution of food systems in Sub-Saharan Africa.","PeriodicalId":54661,"journal":{"name":"Outlook on Agriculture","volume":"52 1","pages":"327 - 338"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48225234","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","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：