A community-supported agriculture share of vegetables.

This article's lead section may not adequately summarize its contents. Please consider expanding the lead to provide an accessible overview of the article's key points. (December 2010)

Agroecology is the application of ecological principles to the production of food, fuel, fiber, and pharmaceuticals and the management of agroecosystems. The term encompasses a broad range of approaches, and may be considered as "a science, a movement, [or] a practice."^[1]

The prefix agro- refers to agriculture.

Ecological strategy[link]

Agroecologists study a variety of agroecosystems, and the field of agroecology is not associated with any one particular method of farming, whether it be organic, integrated, or conventional; intensive or extensive. Furthermore, it is not defined by certain management practices, such as the use of natural enemies in place of insecticides, or polyculture in place of monoculture.

Additionally, agroecologists do not unanimously oppose technology or inputs in agriculture but instead assess how, when, and if technology can be used in conjunction with natural, social and human assets.^[2] Agroecology proposes a context- or site-specific manner of studying agroecosystems, and as such, it recognizes that there is no universal formula or recipe for the success and maximum well-being of an agroecosystem.

Instead, agroecologists may study questions related to the four system properties of agroecosystems: productivity, stability, sustainability and equitability.^[3] As opposed to disciplines that are concerned with only one or some of these properties, agroecologists see all four properties as interconnected and integral to the success of an agroecosystem. Recognizing that these properties are found on varying spatial scales, agroecologists do not limit themselves to the study of agroecosystems at any one scale: gene-organism-population-community-ecosystem-landscape-biome, field-farm-community-region-state-country-continent-global.

Agroecologists study these four properties through an interdisciplinary lens, using natural sciences to understand elements of agroecosystems such as soil properties and plant-insect interactions, as well as using social sciences to understand the effects of farming practices on rural communities, economic constraints to developing new production methods, or cultural factors determining farming practices.

Various approaches[link]

Agroecologists do not always agree about what agroecology is or should be in the long-term. Different definitions of the term agroecology can be distinguished largely by the specificity with which one defines the term “ecology,” as well as the term’s potential political connotations. Definitions of agroecology, therefore, may be first grouped according to the specific contexts within which they situate agriculture. Agroecology is defined by the OECD as “the study of the relation of agricultural crops and environment.”^[4] This definition refers to the "-ecology" part of "agroecology" narrowly as the natural environment. Following this definition, an agroecologist would study agriculture's various relationships with soil health, water quality, air quality, meso- and micro-fauna, surrounding flora, environmental toxins, and other envirnomental contexts.

A more common definition of the word can be taken from Dalgaard et al., who refer to agroecology as the study of the interactions between plants, animals, humans and the environment within agricultural systems. Consequently, agroecology is inherently multidisciplinary, including factors from agronomy, ecology, sociology, economics and related disciplines.^[5] In this case, the “-ecology” portion of "agroecology is defined broadly to include social, cultural, and economic contexts as well.

Agroecology is also defined differently according to geographic location. In the global south, the term often carries overtly political connotations. Such political definitions of the term usually ascribe to it the goals of social and economic justice; special attention, in this case, is often paid to the traditional farming knowledge of indigenous populations.^[6] North American and European uses of the term sometimes avoid the inclusion of such overtly political goals. In these cases, agroecology is seen more strictly as a scientific discipline with less specific social goals.

Fred Buttel^[7] makes a more academic distinction of the various approaches within the field, separating it into five broad categories:

Ecosystems agroecology[link]

This approach is driven by the ecosystems biology of Eugene Odum. This approach is based in the hypotheses that the natural systems, with its stability and resilience, provide the best model to mimic if sustainability is the goal. Normally, ecosystems agroecology is not actively involved in social science; however, this school is essentially based on the belief that large-scale agriculture is inappropriate. The work of Steve Gliessman is prototypical of this approach.

Agronomic ecology[link]

The basic approach in this branch is derived mostly from agronomy,^{[citation needed]} including the traditional agricultural production sciences. This approach also does not actively involve social sciences in the agroecological analysis, but uses social sciences to understand the processes by which agriculture became unsustainable. Chuck Francis, Richard Hardwood, Ricardo Salvador, and Matt Liebman are exemplars of this approach.

Ecological political economy[link]

The driving force behind this form of agroecology is a political-economical critique of modern agriculture. The school believes that only radical changes in political economy and the moral economy of research will reduce the negative costs of modern agriculture. The works of Miguel Altieri (ecosystem biologist), John Vandermeer (population ecologist), Richard Lewontin, and Richard Levins provide examples of this politically charged and socially-oriented version of agroecology.

Agro-population ecology[link]

This approach is derived from the science of ecology primarily based on population ecology, which over the past three decades has been displacing the ecosystems biology of Odum. Buttel explains the main difference between the two categories, saying that “the application of population ecology to agroecology involves the primacy not only of analyzing agroecosystems from the perspective of the population dynamics of their constituent species, and their relationships to climate and biogeochemistry, but also there is a major emphasis placed on the role of genetics.”^[7] David Andow and Alison Power are cited as examples of professionals espousing this view.

Integrated assessment of multifunctional agricultural systems[link]

This approach focuses on the multifunctionality of the landscape, instead of focusing solely on the agricultural enterprise. Agriculture and the food system are considered parts of an institutional complex that relates to and integrates with other social institutions. Scholars adopting this highly integrated approach, mostly Europeans, do not consider any one discipline the leader of agroecology.

Holon agroecology[link]

First introduced in 2007 by the soil scientist William L. Bland and the environmental sociologist Michael M. Bell of the University of Wisconsin–Madison,^[8] holon agroecology draws on Koestler's notion of a "holon" which is both part and whole and develops it with ideas of narrative, intentionality, and incompleteness or unfinalizability, within an ever-changing "ecology of contexts". In contrast to systems thinking, holon agroecology stresses seeing the agricultural endeavor as an unfinished accomplishment that is constantly adjusting itself to its many contexts and their conflicts and incommensurabilities. The farm holon represents a kind of "holding together" in order to persist through change, but a holding together that is never fully unified and worked out.

History[link]

Pre-WWII[link]

The notions and ideas relating to crop ecology have been around since at least 1911 when F.H. King released Farmers of Forty Centuries. King was one of the pioneers as a proponent of more quantitative methods for characterization of water relations and physical properties of soils.^[9] In the late 1920s the attempt to merge agronomy and ecology was born with the development of the field of crop ecology. Crop ecology’s main concern was where crops would be best grown.^[10] Actually, it was only in 1928 that agronomy and ecology were formally linked by Klages.^[9][11]

The first mention of the term agroecology was in 1928, with the publication of the term by Bensin in 1928.^[12] The book of Tischler (1965), was probably the first to be actually titled ‘agroecology'.^[13] He analysed the different components (plants, animals, soils and climate) and their interactions within an agroecosystem as well as the impact of human agricultural management on these components. Other books dealing with agroecology, but without using the term explicitly were published by the German zoologist Friederichs (1930) with his book on agricultural zoology and related ecological/environmental factors for plant protection^[14] and by American crop physiologist Hansen in 1939^[15] when both used the word as a synonym for the application of ecology within agriculture.^[5]

Post-WWII[link]

Gliessman mentions that post-WWII, groups of scientists with ecologists gave more focus to experiments in the natural environment, while agronomists dedicated their attention to the cultivated systems in agriculture.^[10] According to Gliessman,^[10] the two groups kept their research and interest apart until books and articles using the concept of agroecosystems and the word agroecology started to appear in 1970.^[12] Dalgaard^[5] explains the different points of view in ecology schools, and the fundamental differences, which set the basis for the development of agroecology. The early ecology school of Henry Gleason investigated plant populations focusing in the hierarchical levels of the organism under study.

Friederich Clement’s ecology school, however included the organism in question as well as the higher hierarchical levels in its investigations, a "landscape perspective". However, the ecological schools where the roots of agroecology lie are even broader in nature. The ecology school of Tansley, whose view included both the biotic organism and their environment, is the one from which the concept of agroecosystems emerged in 1974 with Harper.^[5][16]

In the 1960s and 70’s the increasing awareness of how humans manage the landscape and its consequences set the stage for the necessary cross between agronomy and ecology. Even though, in many ways the environmental movement in the US was a product of the times, the Green Decade spread an environmental awareness of the unintended consequences of changing ecological processes. Works such as Silent Spring, and The Limits to Growth, and changes in legislation such as the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act caused the public to be aware of societal growth patterns, agricultural production, and the overall capacity of the system.^[5]

Fusion with ecology[link]

After the 1970s, when agronomists saw the value of ecology and ecologists began to use the agricultural systems as study plots, studies in agroecology grew more rapidly.^[10] Gliessman describes that the innovative work of Prof. Efraim Hernandez X., who developed research based on indigenous systems of knowledge in Mexico, led to education programs in agroecology.^[17] In 1977 Prof. Efraim Hernandez X. explained that modern agricultural systems had lost their ecological foundation when socio-economic factors became the only driving force in the food system.^[9] The acknowledgement that the socio-economic interactions are indeed one of the fundamental components of any agroecosystems came to light in 1982, with the article Agroecologia del Tropico Americano by Montaldo. The author argues that the socio-economic context cannot be separated from the agricultural systems when designing agricultural practices.^[9]

In 1995 Edens et al. in Sustainable Agriculture and Integrated Farming Systems solidified this idea proving his point by devoting special sections to economics of the systems, ecological impacts, and ethics and values in agriculture.^[9] Actually, 1985 ended up being a fertile and creative year for the new discipline. For instance in the same year, Miguel Altieri integrated how consolidation of the farms, and cropping systems impact pest populations. In addition, Gliessman highlighted that socio-economic, technological, and ecological components give rise to producer choices of food production systems.^[9] These pioneering agroecologists have helped to frame the foundation of what we today consider the interdisciplinary field of agroecology.

Publications[link]

^[18]

Applications[link]

To emit a point of view about a particular way of farming, an agroecologist would first seek to understand the contexts in which the farm(s) is(are) involved. Each farm may be inserted in a unique combination of factors or contexts. Each farmer may have their own premises about the meanings of an agricultural endeavor, and these meanings might be different than those of agroecologists. Generally, farmers seek a configuration that is viable in multiple contexts, such as family, financial, technical, political, logistical, market, environmental, spiritual. Agroecologists want to understand the behavior of those who seek livelihoods from plant and animal increase, acknowledging the organization and planning that is required to run a farm.

Views on organic and non-organic milk production[link]

Because organic agriculture proclaims to sustain the health of soils, ecosystems, and people,^[19] it has much in common with Agroecology;^{[citation needed]} this does not mean that Agroecology is synonymous with organic agriculture, nor that Agroecology views organic farming as the 'right' way of farming.^{[citation needed]} Also, it is important to point out that there are large differences in organic standards among countries and certifying agencies.

Three of the main areas that agroecologists would look at in farms, would be: the environmental impacts, animal welfare issues, and the social aspects.

Environmental impacts caused by organic and non-organic milk production can vary significantly. For both cases, there are positive and negative environmental consequences.

Compared to conventional milk production, organic milk production tends to have lower eutrophication potential per ton of milk or per hectare of farmland, because it potentially reduces leaching of nitrates (NO₃⁻) and phosphates (PO₄⁻) due to lower fertilizer application rates. Because organic milk production reduces pesticides utilization, it increases land use per ton of milk due to decreased crop yields per hectare. Mainly due to the lower level of concentrates given to cows in organic herds, organic dairy farms generally produce less milk per cow than conventional dairy farms. Because of the increased use of roughage and the, on-average, lower milk production level per cow, some research has connected organic milk production with increases in the emission of methane.^[20]

Animal welfare issues vary among dairy farms and are not necessarily related to the way of producing milk (organically or conventionally).

A key component of animal welfare is freedom to perform their innate (natural) behavior, and this is stated in one of the basic principles of organic agriculture. Also, there are other aspects of animal welfare to be considered - such as freedom from hunger, thirst, discomfort, injury, fear, distress, disease and pain. Because organic standards require loose housing systems, adequate bedding, restrictions on the area of slatted floors, a minimum forage proportion in the ruminant diets, and tend to limit stocking densities both on pasture and in housing for dairy cows, they potentially promote good foot and hoof health. Some studies show lower incidence of placenta retention, milk fever, abomasums displacement and other diseases in organic than in conventional dairy herds.^[21] However, the level of infections by parasites in organically managed herds is generally higher than in conventional herds.^[22]

Social aspects of dairy enterprises include life quality of farmers, of farm labor, of rural and urban communities, and also includes public health.

Both organic and non-organic farms can have good and bad implications for the life quality of all the different people involved in that food chain. Issues like labor conditions, labor hours and labor rights, for instance, do not depend on the organic/non-organic characteristic of the farm; they can be more related to the socio-economical and cultural situations in which the farm is inserted, instead.

As for the public health or food safety concern, organic foods are intended to be healthy, free of contaminations and free from agents that could cause human diseases. Organic milk is meant to have no chemical residues to consumers, and the restrictions on the use of antibiotics and chemicals in organic food production has the purpose to accomplish this goal. But dairy cows in organic farms, as in conventional farms, indeed do get exposed to virus, parasites and bacteria that can contaminate milk and hence humans, so the risks of transmitting diseases are not eliminated just because the production is organic.

In an organic dairy farm, an agroecologist could evaluate the following:

1. Can the farm minimize environmental impacts and increase its level of sustainability, for instance by efficiently increasing the productivity of the animals to minimize waste of feed and of land use?

2. Are there ways to improve the health status of the herd (in the case of organics, by using biological controls, for instance)?

3. Does this way of farming sustain good quality of life for the farmers, their families, rural labor and communities involved?

Views on no-till farming[link]

No-tillage is one of the components of conservation agriculture practices and is considered more environmental friendly than complete tillage.^[23][24] Due to this belief, it could be expected that agroecologists would not recommend the use of complete tillage and would rather recommend no-till farming, but this is not always the case. In fact, there is a general consensus that no-till can increase soils capacity of acting as a carbon sink, especially when combined with cover crops.^[23][25]

No-till can contribute to higher soil organic matter and organic carbon content in soils,^[26][27] though reports of no-effects of no-tillage in organic matter and organic carbon soil contents also exist, depending on environmental and crop conditions.^[28] In addition, no-till can indirectly reduce CO₂ emissions by decreasing the use of fossil fuels.^[26][29]

Most crops can benefit from the practice of no-till, but not all crops are suitable for complete no-till agriculture.^[30][31] Crops that do not perform well when competing with other plants that grow in untilled soil in their early stages can be best grown by using other conservation tillage practices, like a combination of strip-till with no-till areas.^[31] Also, crops which harvestable portion grows underground can have better results with strip-tillage,^{[citation needed]} mainly in soils which are hard for plant roots to penetrate into deeper layers to access water and nutrients.

The benefits provided by no-tillage to predators may lead to larger predator populations,^[32] which is a good way to control pests (biological control), but also can facilitate predation of the crop itself. In corn crops, for instance, predation by caterpillars can be higher in no-till than in conventional tillage fields.^[33]

In places with rigorous winter, untilled soil can take longer to warm and dry in spring, which may delay planting to less ideal dates.^[34][35] Another factor to be considered is that organic residue from the prior year's crops laying on the surface of untilled fields can provide a favorable environment to pathogens, helping to increase the risk of transmitting diseases to the future crop. And because no-till farming provides good environment for pathogens, insects and weeds, it can lead farmers to a more intensive use of chemicals for pest control.^{[citation needed]} Other disadvantages of no-till include underground rot, low soil temperatures and high moisture.^{[citation needed]}

Based on the balance of these factors, and because each farm has different problems, agroecologists will not atest that only no-till or complete tillage is the right way of farming.^{[citation needed]} Yet, these are not the only possible choices regarding soil preparation, since there are intermediate practices such as strip-till, mulch-till and ridge-till, all of them - just as no-till - categorized as conservation tillage. Agroecologists, then, will evaluate the need of different practices for the contexts in which each farm is inserted.

In a no-till system, an agroecologist could ask the following:

1. Can the farm minimize environmental impacts and increase its level of sustainability; for instance by efficiently increasing the productivity of the crops to minimize land use?

2. Does this way of farming sustain good quality of life for the farmers, their families, rural labor and rural communities involved?

By region[link]

The principles of agroecology are expressed differently depending on local ecological and social contexts.

Latin America[link]

Latin America's experiences with North American Green Revolution agricultural techniques have opened space for agroecologists. Traditional or indigenous knowledge represents a wealth of possibility for agroecologists, including "exchange of wisdoms." See Miguel Alteiri's Enhancing the Productivity of Latin American Traditional Peasant Farming Systems Through an Agroecological Approach for information on agroecology in Latin America.

Madagascar[link]

Most of the historical farming in Madagascar has been conducted by indigenous peoples. The French colonial period disturbed a very small percentage of land area, and even included some useful experiments in sustainable forestry. Slash-and-burn techniques, a component of some shifting cultivation systems have been practised by natives in Madagascar for centuries. As of 2006 some of the major agricultural products from slash-and-burn methods are wood, charcoal and grass for Zebu grazing. These practices have taken perhaps the greatest toll on land fertility since the end of French rule, mainly due to overpopulation pressures.

See also[link]

Agriculture | Agriculture in Concert with the Environment | Agroecological restoration | Agroecosystem | Agroecosystem analysis | Agronomy | Agrophysics |applied ecology | biodynamics | biological pest control | Community-supported agriculture | Conventional agriculture | dynamic equilibrium | Ecology | Ecology of contexts | Edaphology | Environmental economics | Environmental impact assessment | Extensive farming | Farmer Field School (FFS) | forest gardening | food desert | Food sovereignty | food security | Food systems | Genetic Erosion | Homeodynamic agriculture | Intercropping | industrial agriculture | Integrated Pest Management | intensive farming | Landscape Ecology | Life cycle analysis | Malnutrition | Managed intensive grazing | Masanobu Fukuoka | Permaculture | pollinator decline | Polyculture | Monoculture | organic agriculture | Rural Sociology | secondary succession | Shifting cultivation | Sociology | Soil Science | Traditional Knowledge | Urban Agriculture

Agropedia portal

References[link]

Further reading[link]

• Altieri, M.A. 1987. Agroecology: the scientific basis of alternative agriculture. Boulder: Westview Press.
• Altieri, M.A. 1992. Agroecological foundations of alternative agriculture in California. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 39: 23-53.
• Buttel, F.H. and M.E. Gertler 1982. Agricultural structure, agricultural policy and environmental quality. Agriculture and Environment 7: 101-119.
• Carrol, C. R., J.H. Vandermeer and P.M. Rosset. 1990. Agroecology. McGraw Hill Publishing Company, New York.
• Paoletti, M.G., B.R. Stinner, and G.G. Lorenzoni, ed. Agricultural Ecology and Environment. New York: Elsevier Science Publisher B.V., 1989.
• Robertson, Philip, and Scott M Swinton. "Reconciling agricultural productivity and environmental integrity: a grand challenge for agriculture." Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 3.1 (2005): 38-46.
• Savory, Allan; Jody Butterfield (1998-12-01) [1988]. Holistic Management: A New Framework for Decision Making (2nd ed. ed.). Washington, D.C.: Island Press. ISBN 1-55963-487-1. 
• The Power of Community: How Cuba Survived Peak Oil. Yellow Springs,Ohio 45387: The Community Solution. 
• Vandermeer, J. 1995. The ecological basis of alternative agriculture. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 26: 201-224
• Wojtkowski, P.A. 2002. Agroecological perspectives in agronomy, forestry and agroforestry. Science Publishers Inc., Enfield, New Hampshire.

Advances in Agroecology Book Series

• Soil Organic Matter in Sustainable Agriculture (Advances in Agroecology) by Fred Magdoff and Ray R. Weil (Hardcover - May 27, 2004)
• Agroforestry in Sustainable Agricultural Systems (Advances in Agroecology) by Louise E. Buck, James P. Lassoie, and Erick C.M. Fernandes (Hardcover - Oct 1, 1998)
• Agroecosystem Sustainability: Developing Practical Strategies (Advances in Agroecology) by Stephen R. Gliessman (Hardcover - Sep 25, 2000)
• Interactions Between Agroecosystems and Rural Communities (Advances in Agroecology) by Cornelia Flora (Hardcover - Feb 5, 2001)
• Landscape Ecology in Agroecosystems Management (Advances in Agroecology) by Lech Ryszkowski (Hardcover - Dec 27, 2001)
• Integrated Assessment of Health and Sustainability of Agroecosystems (Advances in Agroecology) by Thomas Gitau, Margaret W. Gitau, David Waltner-ToewsClive A. Edwards June 2008 | Hardback: 978-1-4200-7277-8 (CRC Press)
• Multi-Scale Integrated Analysis of Agroecosystems (Advances in Agroecology) by Mario Giampietro 2003 | Hardback: 978-0-8493-1067-6 (CRC Press)
• Soil Tillage in Agroecosystems (Advances in Agroecology) edited by Adel El Titi 2002 | Hardback: 978-0-8493-1228-1 (CRC Press)
• Tropical Agroecosystems (Advances in Agroecology) edited by John H. Vandermeer 2002 | Hardback: 978-0-8493-1581-7 (CRC Press)
• Structure and Function in Agroecosystem Design and Management (Advances in Agroecology) edited by Masae Shiyomi, Hiroshi Koizumi 2001 | Hardback: 978-0-8493-0904-5 (CRC Press)
• Biodiversity in Agroecosystems (Advances in Agroecology) edited by Wanda W. Collins, Calvin O. Qualset 1998 | Hardback: 978-1-56670-290-4 (CRC Press)
• Sustainable Agroecosystem Management: Integrating Ecology, Economics and Society. (Advances in Agroecology) edited by Patrick J. Bohlen and Gar House 2009 | Hardback: 978-1-4200-5214-5 (CRC Press)

External links[link]

• University of Wisconsin–Madison Agroecology Graduate Program
• The Center for Integrated Agricultural Systems
• Agroecology in action
• agroecology
• Agroecoloy seminars in Montpellier, France
• Agroecology/Sustainable Agriculture Program at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
• Agroecology at Iowa State University
• Agroecology Program at Penn State
• European Master Agroecology
• Agroecology Program at The University of British Columbia
• UC Santa Cruz Center for Agroecology & Sustainable Food Systems
• Facilitating Mechanism of the Global Plan of Action for the Conservation and Sustainable Utilization of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture
• http://www.agroeco.org/index.html
• Agroecology in Brazil
• Agroecology in Spain

Miguel Altieri is a Professor of Agroecology at the University of California, Berkeley in the Department of Environmental Science, Policy and Management. He received a BS in Agronomy from the University of Chile and holds a Ph.D. in Entomology from the University of Florida.

He teaches courses in agroecology, agroforestry and urban agriculture. He is an advocate of sustainable agriculture and is highly critical of large agribusiness corporations such as Cargill, Monsanto, and ADM. He conducts most of his research in California and Chile working closely with farmers and workers to implement principles of integrated pest management, biological control and other sustainable practices. He is set to retire within the next few years.

According to Agroecology in Action, Miguel Altieri's personal site, Altieri served as a Scientific Advisor to the Latin American Consortium on Agroecology and Development (CLADES) Chile an NGO network promoting agroecology as a strategy for small farm sustainable development in the region. He also served for 4 years as the General Coordinator for the United Nations Development Programme’s Sustainable Agriculture Networking and Extension Programme which aimed at capacity building on agroecology among NGOs and the scaling-up of successful local sustainable agricultural initiatives in Africa, Latin America and Asia. In addition he was the chairman of the NGO committee of the Consultative Group on International Agriculture Research whose mission was to make sure that the research agenda of the 15 International Agricultural Research Centers benefited the poor farmers. He also was Director of the US-Brasil Consortium on Agroecology and Sustainable Rural Development (CASRD) an academic-research exchange program involving students and faculty of UC Berkeley, University of Nebraska, UNICAMP and Universidad Federal de Santa Catarina. Currently he is advisor to the FAO-GIAHS program (Globally Ingenious Agricultural Heritage Systems) a program devoted at identifying and dynamically conserving traditional farming systems in the developing world. He is also the President of the Latin American Scientific Society of Agroecology.^[1]

Altieri is the author of more than 200 publications, and numerous books including Agroecology: The Science of Sustainable Agriculture and Biodiversity, Pest Management in Agroecosystems and Agroecology and the Search for a Truly Sustainable Agriculture.^[1]

External links[link]

1. ^ ^{a b} "Biography". Agroecology in Action. http://agroeco.org/miguel-altieri/. Retrieved 24 Jun. 

• "Miguel Altieri on industrial agriculture and agroecology". Global Public Media. http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/miguel_altieri_on_industrial_agriculture_and_agroecology. Retrieved 2009-11-05. 
• Schoch, Russel. "A Conversation with Miguel Altieri". Mindfully.org. http://www.mindfully.org/GE/GE2/Miguel-Altieri-Agroecology.htm. Retrieved 2009-11-05. 
• "Miguel Altieri". Global Alternatives. http://globalalternatives.org/taxonomy/term/12. Retrieved 2009-11-05. 
• http://agroecology.berkeley.edu/
• http://ecnr.berkeley.edu/facPage/dispFP.php?I=490
• http://www.un.org/ga/president/63/interactive/globalfoodcrisis/MiguelAltieri.pdf
• Personal Site

This Chilean biographical article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. v t e

This biography of a South American academic is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. v t e

Olivier De Schutter

Olivier De Schutter is a legal academic and human rights expert. A Harvard graduate now resident in Belgium, he was appointed UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food by the Human Rights Council in March 2008 and assumed his functions on 1 May 2008.^[1] He still teaches international human rights law, European Union law and legal theory at the Université catholique de Louvain in Belgium, as well as at the College of Europe. He is also a visiting professor at Columbia University. Additionally, he is a visiting scholar (2010-2012)at American University Washington College of Law's Academy on Human Rights and Humanitarian Law.

Background[link]

The son of a diplomat, his primary and high school education took place in Bombay (now Mumbai), India; Jeddah, Saudi Arabia; and Kigali, Rwanda. He studied law at the Université catholique de Louvain and at Harvard University, before obtaining a Ph.D. from Louvain-la-Neuve. His doctoral thesis was published in French as Fonction de juger et droits fondamentaux. Transformation du contrôle juridictionnel dans les ordres juridiques américain et européens, Bruxelles, Bruylant, 1999, 1164 pp. His subsequent publications are in the areas of governance and human rights, with a particular focus on the issue of globalization and human rights and economic and social rights more generally, and on the protection of fundamental rights in the European Union. Among his books on human rights are International Human Rights Law. Cases, Materials, Commentary, published by Cambridge University Press in 2010. In his work, he seeks to link the human rights principles of participation, accountability, and non-discrimination, with the idea of learning-based public policies, that are permanently tested and revised in the light of their impact on the poorest and most vulnerable.

International Federation for Human Rights[link]

Before being appointed the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food, De Schutter was the General Secretary of the International Federation for Human Rights, and international human rights non-governmental organisation based in Paris focused on the issue of globalization and human rights (2004–2008). Between 2002 and 2007, he chaired the EU Network of Independent Experts on Fundamental Rights, a high level group of experts set up at the request of the European Parliament providing the European institutions with independent expertise on fundamental rights issues and reporting on the situation of fundamental rights in the EU.

Family life[link]

Olivier De Schutter is married to Anne Carlier, with whom he has three children.

References[link]

Masanobu Fukuoka, originator of the natural farming method

Natural farming is an ecological farming approach established by Masanobu Fukuoka (1913–2008), a Japanese farmer and philosopher who described his agricultural philosophy as shizen nōhō (自然農法^?) in Japanese.^[1] It is also referred to as "the Fukuoka Method", "the natural way of farming" or "do-nothing farming". The title refers not to lack of labor, but to the avoidance of manufactured inputs and equipment. Natural farming can also be described as ecological farming and is related to organic farming, sustainable agriculture, agroforestry, ecoagriculture and permaculture but should be distinguished from biodynamic agriculture.

The system exploits the complexity of living organisms that shape each particular ecosystem. Fukuoka saw farming not just as a means of producing food but as an aesthetic or spiritual approach to life,^[2] the ultimate goal of which was, "the cultivation and perfection of human beings".^[3] He suggested that farmers could benefit from closely observing local conditions.^[4] Natural farming is a closed system, one that demands no inputs and mimics nature.^[5]

Fukuoka's ideas challenged conventions that are core to modern agro-industries, instead promoting an environmental approach.^[6] Natural farming also differs from conventional organic farming^[7], which Fukuoka considered to be another modern technique that disturbs nature.^[8]

Fukuoka claimed that his approach prevents water pollution, biodiversity loss and soil erosion while still providing ample amounts of food.^[9]

Principles[link]

Fukuoka distilled natural farming into five principles:^[10]

1. No tillage
2. No fertilizer
3. No pesticides (or herbicides)
4. No weeding
5. No pruning

Though many of his plant varieties and practices relate specifically to Japan, and even to local conditions in subtropical western Shikoku, his philosophy and the governing principles of his farming systems have been applied from Africa to the temperate northern hemisphere. In India, natural farming is often referred to as "Rishi Kheti".^[11][12]

Principally, natural farming minimises human labour and adopts, as closely as practical, nature's production of foods such as rice, barley, daikon or citrus in biodiverse agricultural ecosystems. Without plowing, seeds germinate well on the surface if site conditions meet the needs of the seeds planted there. Fukuoka used the presence of spiders in his fields as a key performance indicator of sustainability.^{[citation needed]}}

The ground always remains covered by weeds, white clover, alfalfa, herbaceous legumes, and sometimes deliberately sown herbaceous plants. Ground cover is present along with grain, vegetable crops and orchards. Chickens run free in orchards and ducks and carp populate rice fields.^[13]

Periodically ground layer plants including weeds may be cut and left on the surface, returning their nutrients to the soil, while suppressing weed growth. This also facilitates the sowing of more seeds in the same area.^[why?]

For summer rice and winter barley grain crops, ground cover enhances nitrogen fixation. Straw from the previous crop mulches the topsoil. Each grain crop is sown before the previous one is harvested by broadcasting the seed among the standing crop. The result is a denser crop of smaller but highly productive and stronger plants.

Fukuoka's practice and philosophy emphasised small scale operation and challenged the need for mechanised farming techniques for high productivity, efficiency and economies of scale. While his family's farm was larger than the Japanese average, he used one field of grain crops as a small-scale example of his system.

Climax ecosystems[link]

Ladybirds consume aphids and are considered beneficial by natural farmers that apply biological control.

In ecology, climax ecosystems are mature ecosystems that have reached a high degree of stability, productivity and diversity (see old-growth forest). Natural farmers attempt to mimic those virtues, thus creating a comparable ecosystem, and employ such advanced techniques as intercropping, companion planting and integrated pest management.^{[citation needed]}

No-till[link]

This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (February 2012)

Natural farming recognizes soils as a fundamental natural asset. Ancient soils possess physical and chemical attributes which render them capable of generating and supporting life abundance. It can be argued that tilling actually degrades the delicate balance of a climax soil in the following ways:

1. Tilling may destroy crucial physical characteristics of a soil such as water suction, its ability to send moisture upwards, even during dry spells. The effect is due to pressure differences between soil areas. For more on this subject see water potential. Furthermore, tilling most certainly destroys soil horizons and hence disrupts the established flow of nutrients.

2. Tilling over-pumps oxygen to local soil residents, such as bacteria and fungi. As a result, the chemistry of the soil changes. Biological decomposition accelerates and the microbiota mass increases at the expense of other organic matter, adversely affecting most plants, including trees and vegetables. It is well-known to gardeners and farmers that for plants to thrive, a certain quantity of organic matter (around 5%) must be present in the soil.

3. Tilling uproots all the plants in the area, turning their roots into food for bacteria and fungi. This damages their ability to aerate the soil. Living roots drill millions of tiny holes in the soil and thus provide oxygen. They also create room for beneficial insects and annelids (the phylum of worms). Some types of roots contribute directly to soil fertility by funding a mutualistic relationship with certain kinds of bacteria (most famously the rhizobium) that can fix nitrogen.

Nature farming[link]

Another Japanese farmer and philosopher Mokichi Okada, conceived of a "no fertilizer" farming system in the 1930s which predated Fukuoka. Okada used the same Japanese characters,^[14] which are generally translated in English as "nature farming". Agriculture researcher Hu-lian Xu claiming that "nature farming" is the correct literal translation of the Japanese term.^[14]

See also[link]

	Sustainable development portal
	Systems science portal
	Ecology portal

References[link]

Mark Hertsgaard is an American journalist. His best-known work is On Bended Knee: The Press and the Reagan Presidency (1988), which described the way the Reagan White House "deployed raw power and conventional wisdom to intimidate Washington's television newsrooms".^[1]

In the 1990s, Hertsgaard's attention turned to the ecology of the Earth. He embarked upon a seven-year global tour to investigate the issue of environmental degradation. The journey spanned four continents, 19 countries and hundreds of interviews.^[1] This resulted in the book called Earth Odyssey: Around the World in Search of Our Environmental Future (1999) ISBN 978-0-7679-0059-1, which was reviewed in the New York Times Book Review and Time magazine.^[2]

Hertsgaard's newest book is about climate change adaptation, published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, titled Hot: Living Through the Next Fifty Years on Earth (2011) ISBN 978-0-618-82612-4.^[3][4]

References[link]

1. ^ ^{a b} A Dirty Shame
2. ^ Putting a Human Face on Environmental Problems
3. ^ Hertsgaard's website
4. ^ Hertsgaard's author bio on The Nation