Pub Date : 2023-09-01DOI: 10.1177/00307270231197700
Michael Hauser
Agroecology describes a readily shared philosophy to improve the resilience of food systems. So far, the literature focuses on applying agroecology principles in stable settings. In fragile areas affected by regular disasters, the role of agroecology is less understood. This perspective article examines the contributions of agroecology principles to manage disaster risks in areas affected by fragilities, climate emergencies and conflict. Of specific interest is the extent to which agroecology principles could assist in designing interventions that build food system resilience. This article argues that all agroecology principles are relevant for disaster risk management. However, trade-offs between immediate needs and long-term perspectives could limit its use. Integrating agroecology principles with resilience programming of humanitarian aid should be subject to further research.
{"title":"Agroecology: Can it inform disaster risk management in fragile settings?","authors":"Michael Hauser","doi":"10.1177/00307270231197700","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00307270231197700","url":null,"abstract":"Agroecology describes a readily shared philosophy to improve the resilience of food systems. So far, the literature focuses on applying agroecology principles in stable settings. In fragile areas affected by regular disasters, the role of agroecology is less understood. This perspective article examines the contributions of agroecology principles to manage disaster risks in areas affected by fragilities, climate emergencies and conflict. Of specific interest is the extent to which agroecology principles could assist in designing interventions that build food system resilience. This article argues that all agroecology principles are relevant for disaster risk management. However, trade-offs between immediate needs and long-term perspectives could limit its use. Integrating agroecology principles with resilience programming of humanitarian aid should be subject to further research.","PeriodicalId":54661,"journal":{"name":"Outlook on Agriculture","volume":"123 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":"135299803","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: 10.1177/00307270231199795
Gatien N Falconnier, Rémi Cardinael, Marc Corbeels, Frédéric Baudron, Pauline Chivenge, Antoine Couëdel, Aude Ripoche, François Affholder, Krishna Naudin, Emilie Benaillon, Leonard Rusinamhodzi, Louise Leroux, Bernard Vanlauwe, Ken E Giller
Can farmers in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) boost crop yields and improve food availability without using more mineral fertilizer? This question has been at the center of lively debates among the civil society, policy-makers, and in academic editorials. Proponents of the “yes” answer have put forward the “input reduction” principle of agroecology, i.e. by relying on agrobiodiversity, recycling and better efficiency, agroecological practices such as the use of legumes and manure can increase crop productivity without the need for more mineral fertilizer. We reviewed decades of scientific literature on nutrient balances in SSA, biological nitrogen fixation of tropical legumes, manure production and use in smallholder farming systems, and the environmental impact of mineral fertilizer. Our analyses show that more mineral fertilizer is needed in SSA for five reasons: (i) the starting point in SSA is that agricultural production is “agroecological” by default, that is, very low mineral fertilizer use, widespread mixed crop-livestock systems and large crop diversity including legumes, but leading to poor soil fertility as a result of widespread soil nutrient mining, (ii) the nitrogen needs of crops cannot be adequately met solely through biological nitrogen fixation by legumes and recycling of animal manure, (iii) other nutrients like phosphorus and potassium need to be replaced continuously, (iv) mineral fertilizers, if used appropriately, cause little harm to the environment, and (v) reducing the use of mineral fertilizers would hamper productivity gains and contribute indirectly to agricultural expansion and to deforestation. Yet, the agroecological principles directly related to soil fertility—recycling, efficiency, diversity—remain key in improving soil health and nutrient-use efficiency, and are critical to sustaining crop productivity in the long run. We argue for a nuanced position that acknowledges the critical need for more mineral fertilizers in SSA, in combination with the use of agroecological practices and adequate policy support.
{"title":"The input reduction principle of agroecology is wrong when it comes to mineral fertilizer use in sub-Saharan Africa","authors":"Gatien N Falconnier, Rémi Cardinael, Marc Corbeels, Frédéric Baudron, Pauline Chivenge, Antoine Couëdel, Aude Ripoche, François Affholder, Krishna Naudin, Emilie Benaillon, Leonard Rusinamhodzi, Louise Leroux, Bernard Vanlauwe, Ken E Giller","doi":"10.1177/00307270231199795","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00307270231199795","url":null,"abstract":"Can farmers in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) boost crop yields and improve food availability without using more mineral fertilizer? This question has been at the center of lively debates among the civil society, policy-makers, and in academic editorials. Proponents of the “yes” answer have put forward the “input reduction” principle of agroecology, i.e. by relying on agrobiodiversity, recycling and better efficiency, agroecological practices such as the use of legumes and manure can increase crop productivity without the need for more mineral fertilizer. We reviewed decades of scientific literature on nutrient balances in SSA, biological nitrogen fixation of tropical legumes, manure production and use in smallholder farming systems, and the environmental impact of mineral fertilizer. Our analyses show that more mineral fertilizer is needed in SSA for five reasons: (i) the starting point in SSA is that agricultural production is “agroecological” by default, that is, very low mineral fertilizer use, widespread mixed crop-livestock systems and large crop diversity including legumes, but leading to poor soil fertility as a result of widespread soil nutrient mining, (ii) the nitrogen needs of crops cannot be adequately met solely through biological nitrogen fixation by legumes and recycling of animal manure, (iii) other nutrients like phosphorus and potassium need to be replaced continuously, (iv) mineral fertilizers, if used appropriately, cause little harm to the environment, and (v) reducing the use of mineral fertilizers would hamper productivity gains and contribute indirectly to agricultural expansion and to deforestation. Yet, the agroecological principles directly related to soil fertility—recycling, efficiency, diversity—remain key in improving soil health and nutrient-use efficiency, and are critical to sustaining crop productivity in the long run. We argue for a nuanced position that acknowledges the critical need for more mineral fertilizers in SSA, in combination with the use of agroecological practices and adequate policy support.","PeriodicalId":54661,"journal":{"name":"Outlook on Agriculture","volume":"75 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":"135298413","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 : 2023-08-30DOI: 10.1177/00307270231197825
H. Hoang, Hoa Dang Tran
This study examines smallholder farmers’ perception of digital agricultural technology and factors that shape the smallholders’ adoption of it in South Central Vietnam. A sample size of 202 smallholder farmers was randomly chosen from a total population of 407 smallholder farmers. Descriptive statistics and a binary logistic regression were used to analyse the data. The results show that the internet and connectivity/wireless, mobile applications and digital platforms are the common digital technologies used by smallholder farmers and these are also the most effective digital technologies for dealing with agricultural production and marketing issues. It can be concluded that younger smallholder farmers who had higher education levels, who interacted with scientists and possessed large farms are in a better position to adopt digital technologies of the internet and connectivity/wireless, mobile applications and digital platforms than older smallholder farmers who had lower education levels, did not interact with scientists and owned small farms. Smallholder farmers who participated in training programs, was member of community-based organisations and contacted with extension workers tend to be digital technology users of the internet and connectivity/wireless and mobile applications. Smallholder farmers who live far from local markets tend to be digital technology users of digital platforms compared to those who live close to one. The provision of training courses on the use of digital technologies in agriculture that consider demographic, socio-economic and institutional characteristics of smallholders when designing and delivering, is a proper agricultural extension strategy which can foster the smallholder farmers to adopt digital technologies for managing agricultural production and marketing systems.
{"title":"Smallholder farmers’ perception and adoption of digital agricultural technologies: An empirical evidence from Vietnam","authors":"H. Hoang, Hoa Dang Tran","doi":"10.1177/00307270231197825","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00307270231197825","url":null,"abstract":"This study examines smallholder farmers’ perception of digital agricultural technology and factors that shape the smallholders’ adoption of it in South Central Vietnam. A sample size of 202 smallholder farmers was randomly chosen from a total population of 407 smallholder farmers. Descriptive statistics and a binary logistic regression were used to analyse the data. The results show that the internet and connectivity/wireless, mobile applications and digital platforms are the common digital technologies used by smallholder farmers and these are also the most effective digital technologies for dealing with agricultural production and marketing issues. It can be concluded that younger smallholder farmers who had higher education levels, who interacted with scientists and possessed large farms are in a better position to adopt digital technologies of the internet and connectivity/wireless, mobile applications and digital platforms than older smallholder farmers who had lower education levels, did not interact with scientists and owned small farms. Smallholder farmers who participated in training programs, was member of community-based organisations and contacted with extension workers tend to be digital technology users of the internet and connectivity/wireless and mobile applications. Smallholder farmers who live far from local markets tend to be digital technology users of digital platforms compared to those who live close to one. The provision of training courses on the use of digital technologies in agriculture that consider demographic, socio-economic and institutional characteristics of smallholders when designing and delivering, is a proper agricultural extension strategy which can foster the smallholder farmers to adopt digital technologies for managing agricultural production and marketing systems.","PeriodicalId":54661,"journal":{"name":"Outlook on Agriculture","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2023-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43643217","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 : 2023-08-30DOI: 10.1177/00307270231196309
M. Geck, M. Crossland, C. Lamanna
Agricultural and food systems (AFSs) are inherently multifunctional, representing a major driver for global crises but at the same time representing a huge potential for addressing multiple challenges simultaneously and contributing systemically to the achievement of sustainable development goals. Current performance metrics for AFS often fail to take this multifunctionality into account, focusing disproportionately on productivity and profitability, thereby excluding “externalities,” that is, key environmental and social values created by AFS. Agroecology is increasingly being recognized as a promising approach for AFS sustainability, due to its holistic and transformative nature. This growing interest in and commitment to agroecology by diverse actors implies a need for harmonized approaches to determine when a practice, project, investment, or policy can be considered agroecological, as well as approaches that ensure the multiple economic, environmental, and social values created by AFS are appropriately captured, hence creating a level playing field for comparing agroecology to alternatives. In this contribution to the special issue on agroecology, we present an overview of existing tools and frameworks for defining and measuring agroecology and its performance and critically discuss their limitations. We identify several deficiencies, including a shortage of approaches that allow for measuring agroecology and its performance on landscape and food system scale, and the use of standardized indicators for measuring agroecology integration, despite its context-specificity. These insights highlight the need for assessments focused on these overlooked scales and research on how best to reconcile the need for globally comparable approaches with assessing agroecology in a locally relevant manner. Lastly, we outline ongoing initiatives on behalf of the Agroecology Transformative Partnership that aim to overcome these shortcomings and offer a promising avenue for working toward harmonization of approaches. All readers are invited to contribute to these collaborative efforts in line with the agroecology principle of participation and co-creation of knowledge.
{"title":"Measuring agroecology and its performance: An overview and critical discussion of existing tools and approaches","authors":"M. Geck, M. Crossland, C. Lamanna","doi":"10.1177/00307270231196309","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00307270231196309","url":null,"abstract":"Agricultural and food systems (AFSs) are inherently multifunctional, representing a major driver for global crises but at the same time representing a huge potential for addressing multiple challenges simultaneously and contributing systemically to the achievement of sustainable development goals. Current performance metrics for AFS often fail to take this multifunctionality into account, focusing disproportionately on productivity and profitability, thereby excluding “externalities,” that is, key environmental and social values created by AFS. Agroecology is increasingly being recognized as a promising approach for AFS sustainability, due to its holistic and transformative nature. This growing interest in and commitment to agroecology by diverse actors implies a need for harmonized approaches to determine when a practice, project, investment, or policy can be considered agroecological, as well as approaches that ensure the multiple economic, environmental, and social values created by AFS are appropriately captured, hence creating a level playing field for comparing agroecology to alternatives. In this contribution to the special issue on agroecology, we present an overview of existing tools and frameworks for defining and measuring agroecology and its performance and critically discuss their limitations. We identify several deficiencies, including a shortage of approaches that allow for measuring agroecology and its performance on landscape and food system scale, and the use of standardized indicators for measuring agroecology integration, despite its context-specificity. These insights highlight the need for assessments focused on these overlooked scales and research on how best to reconcile the need for globally comparable approaches with assessing agroecology in a locally relevant manner. Lastly, we outline ongoing initiatives on behalf of the Agroecology Transformative Partnership that aim to overcome these shortcomings and offer a promising avenue for working toward harmonization of approaches. All readers are invited to contribute to these collaborative efforts in line with the agroecology principle of participation and co-creation of knowledge.","PeriodicalId":54661,"journal":{"name":"Outlook on Agriculture","volume":"52 1","pages":"349 - 359"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2023-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45061356","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 : 2023-08-21DOI: 10.1177/00307270231194086
K. Wyckhuys, M. González-Chang, B. Lavandero, Yd Gc, Barghamadi Hadi
Diversification measures are widely recognized for their potential to enhance the resilience of agri-food production systems under global change. Nitrogen-fixing legumes commonly feature in diversification schemes, where they exert positive impacts on soil structure, nutrient retention, carbon sequestration or fertilizer reduction. Though legumes are premier tools for conservation agriculture, their impacts on (invertebrate, microbial) biological control are far less clear. As legumes secrete copious amounts of energy-rich (floral, extra-floral) nectar and provide alternative host or prey items for resident natural enemies, their deployment is expected to benefit biological control. Yet, its mechanistic basis is poorly understood and scientific underpinnings weak. In this Perspective piece, we collate data from the published literature and open-access databases on the extent to which different natural enemy guilds interact with 25 legume species that are commonly used as intercrops in the (sub)tropics. Our work unveils how natural enemies regularly forage on legumes, but the portrayal of those interaction linkages –or “biostructure” data- is profoundly incomplete and their ensuing implications for biological control are under-investigated. For instance, merely 4 (out of 167) parasitoids of the globally invasive fall armyworm Spodoptera frugiperda have been recorded in association with legumes. We hope that this Perspective piece will stimulate further thought, drive a new wave of biodiversity x ecosystem function research, and ultimately result in the design and implementation (or preservation) of more resilient, resource-frugal and pest-suppressive farming systems.
{"title":"Legume integration for biological control deserves a firmer scientific base","authors":"K. Wyckhuys, M. González-Chang, B. Lavandero, Yd Gc, Barghamadi Hadi","doi":"10.1177/00307270231194086","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00307270231194086","url":null,"abstract":"Diversification measures are widely recognized for their potential to enhance the resilience of agri-food production systems under global change. Nitrogen-fixing legumes commonly feature in diversification schemes, where they exert positive impacts on soil structure, nutrient retention, carbon sequestration or fertilizer reduction. Though legumes are premier tools for conservation agriculture, their impacts on (invertebrate, microbial) biological control are far less clear. As legumes secrete copious amounts of energy-rich (floral, extra-floral) nectar and provide alternative host or prey items for resident natural enemies, their deployment is expected to benefit biological control. Yet, its mechanistic basis is poorly understood and scientific underpinnings weak. In this Perspective piece, we collate data from the published literature and open-access databases on the extent to which different natural enemy guilds interact with 25 legume species that are commonly used as intercrops in the (sub)tropics. Our work unveils how natural enemies regularly forage on legumes, but the portrayal of those interaction linkages –or “biostructure” data- is profoundly incomplete and their ensuing implications for biological control are under-investigated. For instance, merely 4 (out of 167) parasitoids of the globally invasive fall armyworm Spodoptera frugiperda have been recorded in association with legumes. We hope that this Perspective piece will stimulate further thought, drive a new wave of biodiversity x ecosystem function research, and ultimately result in the design and implementation (or preservation) of more resilient, resource-frugal and pest-suppressive farming systems.","PeriodicalId":54661,"journal":{"name":"Outlook on Agriculture","volume":"52 1","pages":"281 - 293"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2023-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45069320","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 : 2023-08-15DOI: 10.1177/00307270231195381
Joshua R Muhumuza
Like in the rest of the world, the vision for the future of agriculture in the developing world is highly contested. At the centre of this oft-polarized debate, a growing constituency of advocates suggests a large-scale shift to agroecology as the key to transforming Africa's agriculture. Yet, this rhetoric is not only quixotic in its vision for an African agricultural revolution but also profoundly dissociated from the realities of African agriculture. If the aim is to revolutionize African agriculture, rigid philosophical fixations on an idealized farming system are not the answer. For resource-poor farmers looking to lift themselves out of poverty in Africa and the rest of the developing world, such a narrative will only protract the status quo. Most crucially, it represents a pathway that stands to drive them deeper into poverty. Agricultural transformation in the developing world requires a pragmatic outlook, one that leverages the best of agroecology and modern agricultural solutions for smallholder farmers.
{"title":"Why current agroecology rhetoric stands to protract farmer poverty in the developing world","authors":"Joshua R Muhumuza","doi":"10.1177/00307270231195381","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00307270231195381","url":null,"abstract":"Like in the rest of the world, the vision for the future of agriculture in the developing world is highly contested. At the centre of this oft-polarized debate, a growing constituency of advocates suggests a large-scale shift to agroecology as the key to transforming Africa's agriculture. Yet, this rhetoric is not only quixotic in its vision for an African agricultural revolution but also profoundly dissociated from the realities of African agriculture. If the aim is to revolutionize African agriculture, rigid philosophical fixations on an idealized farming system are not the answer. For resource-poor farmers looking to lift themselves out of poverty in Africa and the rest of the developing world, such a narrative will only protract the status quo. Most crucially, it represents a pathway that stands to drive them deeper into poverty. Agricultural transformation in the developing world requires a pragmatic outlook, one that leverages the best of agroecology and modern agricultural solutions for smallholder farmers.","PeriodicalId":54661,"journal":{"name":"Outlook on Agriculture","volume":"52 1","pages":"303 - 310"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2023-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43735010","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 : 2023-08-13DOI: 10.1177/00307270231194080
N. Matthews, B. Grové
World market prices for food and fertiliser have increased significantly, leading to concerns about the impact of high food prices on food security. Therefore, the article investigates the effect of increased nitrogen fertiliser prices on optimal fertiliser use decisions for maize under irrigation, considering the uncertainty regarding maize crop yield response to nitrogen fertiliser application in different production years. The results showed that as the fertiliser price increases from 5 to 19 ZAR/kg, the amount of fertiliser applied decreases from the maximum of 220 kg/ha to around 100 kg/ha. Increased N fertiliser prices would decrease the amount of fertiliser applied, although the response is determined by the combination of fertiliser price, soil used, fertiliser application method and risk behaviour. The expected yields estimated for the optimal nitrogen fertiliser levels showed flat yield responses to decreased fertiliser application levels. The reduction in crop yields due to reduced fertiliser use is never more than 300 kg/ha. The results suggest that the soil used for production does not greatly impact the crop response since the optimal fertiliser decision is adjusted to ensure the maximum possible expected yield. However, the decision to use a single or split application does impact the optimal fertiliser use decision with higher application levels for a split application and a slightly lower crop yield response. The main conclusion is that increased nitrogen fertiliser prices would decrease the amount of fertiliser applied; however, the effect on expected crop yield would be minimal.
{"title":"Economic evaluation of increased nitrogen fertiliser prices on risk-efficient fertiliser applications","authors":"N. Matthews, B. Grové","doi":"10.1177/00307270231194080","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00307270231194080","url":null,"abstract":"World market prices for food and fertiliser have increased significantly, leading to concerns about the impact of high food prices on food security. Therefore, the article investigates the effect of increased nitrogen fertiliser prices on optimal fertiliser use decisions for maize under irrigation, considering the uncertainty regarding maize crop yield response to nitrogen fertiliser application in different production years. The results showed that as the fertiliser price increases from 5 to 19 ZAR/kg, the amount of fertiliser applied decreases from the maximum of 220 kg/ha to around 100 kg/ha. Increased N fertiliser prices would decrease the amount of fertiliser applied, although the response is determined by the combination of fertiliser price, soil used, fertiliser application method and risk behaviour. The expected yields estimated for the optimal nitrogen fertiliser levels showed flat yield responses to decreased fertiliser application levels. The reduction in crop yields due to reduced fertiliser use is never more than 300 kg/ha. The results suggest that the soil used for production does not greatly impact the crop response since the optimal fertiliser decision is adjusted to ensure the maximum possible expected yield. However, the decision to use a single or split application does impact the optimal fertiliser use decision with higher application levels for a split application and a slightly lower crop yield response. The main conclusion is that increased nitrogen fertiliser prices would decrease the amount of fertiliser applied; however, the effect on expected crop yield would be minimal.","PeriodicalId":54661,"journal":{"name":"Outlook on Agriculture","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2023-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47890312","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 : 2023-08-10DOI: 10.1177/00307270231193049
Eileen B. Nchanji, Eric Nduwarugira, Blaise Ndabashinze, N. Ntukamazina, J. Toywa, Lutomia Cosmas
Biofortified beans are being promoted in Burundi to solve malnutrition issues among rural households. The study was conducted in Muyinga and Gasorwe communes, where biofortified bean varieties were disseminated. This study aims to understand gender roles and practices in households and farms and how these roles and practices influence participation and uptake of biofortified beans. Lastly, it looks at the role of extension in increasing the uptake of agricultural technologies like biofortified bean varieties. Data were collected using a mixed-method approach—focus group discussions, key informant interviews and questionnaires and analyzed using content analysis, descriptive statistics, and a probit model on STATA software. Descriptive results indicated increasing joint farm management and decision-making on bean production, with men taking the lead in markets and income accrued from the sale of crops. Despite the promotion of various improved bean varieties, only two biofortified bean varieties, MAC44 and RWR2245, were adopted by smallholder farmers. The probit results indicated that utilization of hired labor, the source of biofortified improved bean seed, total cultivated land area, decision-maker on land use, years after the first adoption, and the type of extension services sought were significant factors that influenced farmers’ use of biofortified beans varieties. Based on the study's findings, more effort is required to promote access to inclusive extension services, market and decision-making on income accrued from the sale of farm produce.
{"title":"Gender dynamics in the biofortified bean value chain in Burundi","authors":"Eileen B. Nchanji, Eric Nduwarugira, Blaise Ndabashinze, N. Ntukamazina, J. Toywa, Lutomia Cosmas","doi":"10.1177/00307270231193049","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00307270231193049","url":null,"abstract":"Biofortified beans are being promoted in Burundi to solve malnutrition issues among rural households. The study was conducted in Muyinga and Gasorwe communes, where biofortified bean varieties were disseminated. This study aims to understand gender roles and practices in households and farms and how these roles and practices influence participation and uptake of biofortified beans. Lastly, it looks at the role of extension in increasing the uptake of agricultural technologies like biofortified bean varieties. Data were collected using a mixed-method approach—focus group discussions, key informant interviews and questionnaires and analyzed using content analysis, descriptive statistics, and a probit model on STATA software. Descriptive results indicated increasing joint farm management and decision-making on bean production, with men taking the lead in markets and income accrued from the sale of crops. Despite the promotion of various improved bean varieties, only two biofortified bean varieties, MAC44 and RWR2245, were adopted by smallholder farmers. The probit results indicated that utilization of hired labor, the source of biofortified improved bean seed, total cultivated land area, decision-maker on land use, years after the first adoption, and the type of extension services sought were significant factors that influenced farmers’ use of biofortified beans varieties. Based on the study's findings, more effort is required to promote access to inclusive extension services, market and decision-making on income accrued from the sale of farm produce.","PeriodicalId":54661,"journal":{"name":"Outlook on Agriculture","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2023-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42547877","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 : 2023-08-07DOI: 10.1177/00307270231191809
David Wood
This paper presents a defence of ecologically based monodominance. The promotion of ‘agroecology’ has been validated by the belief that natural vegetation forms a multi-species ‘balance’ under pest pressure. Agroecologists consider monoculture crops as an artificial construct unknown in nature. To achieve this ecological balance crop fields should be re-diversified to species-diverse ‘polycultures’, as mimics of natural vegetation. This simple view of herbivorous insects forcing vegetation diversity held sway with various authors until around 1970. Post-1970 there was an increasing recognition of, and focus on, natural monodominant vegetation. The driving force behind natural plant monodominance, especially in herbaceous species, seemed to be seasonal ecological stress, including fire, flood, silt formation and soil nutrient deficiency. These abiotic stresses were capable both of winnowing out less adapted species, but also encouraging the evolution of adaptations to the stress (as seen, for example, in the distinctive features of monodominant mangroves and sea-grasses). The result was plant species with the ability to grow as monodominants, but, importantly, the evolved ability to resist any extra biotic pressure from herbivores – both features invaluable for monoculture agriculture. Agroecology never considered the possibility of adaptative evolution to biotic stress to allow monodominance (the ‘fight’ stratagem of plant species). In addition, agroecology only recognizes the ‘flight’ stratagem for short-distance escape (plant species ‘hiding’ in mixed-species vegetation). This ignores a major feature of modern agriculture, which heavily relies on long-distant crop introduction, through trans-oceanic crop introduction: the ultimate ‘flight’ mechanism to remove susceptible species from co-evolved herbivorous insects and disease by long-distant dispersal. In failing to understand the evolution of monodominance, current agroecological principles are without a solid scientific basis ecologically. There is still an opportunity to revise the current thinking to develop a more ecologically-based form of agroecology.
{"title":"Agroecology: Searching in the wrong place","authors":"David Wood","doi":"10.1177/00307270231191809","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00307270231191809","url":null,"abstract":"This paper presents a defence of ecologically based monodominance. The promotion of ‘agroecology’ has been validated by the belief that natural vegetation forms a multi-species ‘balance’ under pest pressure. Agroecologists consider monoculture crops as an artificial construct unknown in nature. To achieve this ecological balance crop fields should be re-diversified to species-diverse ‘polycultures’, as mimics of natural vegetation. This simple view of herbivorous insects forcing vegetation diversity held sway with various authors until around 1970. Post-1970 there was an increasing recognition of, and focus on, natural monodominant vegetation. The driving force behind natural plant monodominance, especially in herbaceous species, seemed to be seasonal ecological stress, including fire, flood, silt formation and soil nutrient deficiency. These abiotic stresses were capable both of winnowing out less adapted species, but also encouraging the evolution of adaptations to the stress (as seen, for example, in the distinctive features of monodominant mangroves and sea-grasses). The result was plant species with the ability to grow as monodominants, but, importantly, the evolved ability to resist any extra biotic pressure from herbivores – both features invaluable for monoculture agriculture. Agroecology never considered the possibility of adaptative evolution to biotic stress to allow monodominance (the ‘fight’ stratagem of plant species). In addition, agroecology only recognizes the ‘flight’ stratagem for short-distance escape (plant species ‘hiding’ in mixed-species vegetation). This ignores a major feature of modern agriculture, which heavily relies on long-distant crop introduction, through trans-oceanic crop introduction: the ultimate ‘flight’ mechanism to remove susceptible species from co-evolved herbivorous insects and disease by long-distant dispersal. In failing to understand the evolution of monodominance, current agroecological principles are without a solid scientific basis ecologically. There is still an opportunity to revise the current thinking to develop a more ecologically-based form of agroecology.","PeriodicalId":54661,"journal":{"name":"Outlook on Agriculture","volume":"76 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135997947","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 : 2023-08-03DOI: 10.1177/00307270231191807
D. Zaruk
Agroecology is beginning to dominate agricultural policy debates with advocates arguing from within international organisations like the United Nations’ Food and Agricultural Organization and the European Commission that its holistic approach provides the necessary solutions to the challenges facing agriculture today. This paper will analyse agroecology as a concept, a science, a series of farming practices and as a social movement relying on a recent Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy document as a theoretical benchmark. It will ask whether agroecology is a much needed global solution for our food system crisis or a political agenda being imposed on the most vulnerable farming communities. It will conclude with ten points that will argue in favour of the latter.
{"title":"Is agroecology a solution or an agenda?","authors":"D. Zaruk","doi":"10.1177/00307270231191807","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00307270231191807","url":null,"abstract":"Agroecology is beginning to dominate agricultural policy debates with advocates arguing from within international organisations like the United Nations’ Food and Agricultural Organization and the European Commission that its holistic approach provides the necessary solutions to the challenges facing agriculture today. This paper will analyse agroecology as a concept, a science, a series of farming practices and as a social movement relying on a recent Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy document as a theoretical benchmark. It will ask whether agroecology is a much needed global solution for our food system crisis or a political agenda being imposed on the most vulnerable farming communities. It will conclude with ten points that will argue in favour of the latter.","PeriodicalId":54661,"journal":{"name":"Outlook on Agriculture","volume":"52 1","pages":"247 - 253"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2023-08-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43441627","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：